Thread: WOOD Naming conventions

PAH1

Perhaps my tongue in the cheek stopped me from saying all I truly meant. I accept your proposition that Banks did as good a job as any colonialist could in that day and age. Aboriginals and for that matter TSI's had thousands of years using the natural resources in this country even trading them up through the "East Indies". We colonials (excluding obvious exceptions) have destroyed that knowledge and heritage on the premise that they were primatives because we were too proud to come here and learn/listen - we just wanted to shoot and get them out of the way.

Now I know that I'm likely to get a whole lot of criticism on this opinion but if I get one person to read "Why warriors lay down and die" then I will have achieved another voice in a very one sided argument

We've destroyed a whole dynasty's worth of knowledge & culture and then a well educated person like yourself comes in to criticise our lack of comprehension of our natural heritage.

This is not directed at you personally but at a society who seems to think, and was taught, Australia was delivered from nowhere in 1770. It saddens me that we have not had the time to make reparation and that 90% of the opportunity has been lost.

If you don't believe me - take the time to talk to them some time - you might be surprised what they can tell you if you listen and they haven't had the knowledge bred out of them.

OK, OK I'm off the soapbox again

Jamie

Seems like things are getting a bit off track here. Into the personal areas.

Banks was the botanist on the Endeavour mission and named a lot of the plants.

I agree with Barnsey that much has been lost of indigeanous information and the 'white ghost' thats arrive din 1770 is not the beginning of information on these issues.

AS PAH1 mentioned it was the actual colonists and prisoners who used the common names but i dont think that is really the root of the problem.

Our currnet problems come from the past 50 years of commercial production and documentation, which has still not fully define the differing scientific and common naming conventions along with varied attempts at coherent taxonomy
that will never encompass common usage.

So in summing up it seems that most people feel the same way I do, in that the issue is common, confusing and at it's worst can cause some problems in specices identification and a lot of 'false' claims of specific species which may result i commercial gain. IT probably alos results in a lot of trees being cleared and burnt that may have good value.

I find this an intersting issue and hope to keep learning and continuing dialogue with you all.

AS for a solution, well, a legitimate project that collates all the species, names ( both local and commercial ) and usage and is updated yearly might help but as some of the responents pointed out, it's the conflict between scientific names that are specific but not commonly used, and common names which are often innacuarate but popular and various locales and the vested interests of business that designate that no real uniformity will ever be posisble.

I would however think that a more accurate guide could be drawn up and published that gives ALL possible names for any given species with up to date examples and usage would be beneficial. This could be based around commonly used woods not just existing woods.

keep the posts coming..

regards
john

Originally Posted by reeves

I would however think that a more accurate guide could be drawn up and published that gives ALL possible names for any given species with up to date examples and usage would be beneficial. This could be based around commonly used woods not just existing woods.regards john

John - that would be a noble undertaking, but a HUGE job for any one person!
If you look at the VWA web page, they give links to a few sources that go part way to providing such information, but there are none that I know of that give you much on working qualities and useage. Here, you run once more into that bedevilment called subjectivity - one man's treasure is another's trash, etc. Another problem is that the necessary restriction on space usually means the information is so brief as to be trite.
For me, one of the attractions of playing about with woods is the process of discovery - both of the woods' qualities, and what the tree looks like, where they grow, etc., but it's made a lot easier for me because I work in an environment where I have access to information a bit more readily than the average.
Perhaps we could make a contribution to our fellow xylophiles by posting a few short essays on some of our personal favourite, non-commercial species with observatuions on working qualities, uses for which we have found it particularly suitable, and any other possibly useful information such as availability and sustainability. Chuck in a few pikkies of tree/wood/products and we could soon have a source of info useful to folk country-wide?
Whaddaya reckon - if it did take on, I'm sure we could pursuade the doughty to allocate a folder for it, at least until it outgrows a reasonable allocation of disc space? Something similar already exists in the folder the Aust. W'Worker puts out, but I find it doesn't have much in the way of 'personal experience' info that we could bring to the project.
There goes my lunch-break...
Cheers,

Few people are going to be concerned enough to use the botanical names of species. Generally speaking, people know what you mean when you say 'Tassie Oak' for instance - even though there are other regional names for the same species and some people will even mistakenly or intentionally use the name for a look-alike.

The problem is not limited to botany. There is an interesting project being undertaken by the Macquarie Library and the ABC to create a 'word map' of Australia, showing how different words are used to describe the same objects in different parts of the country. For instance, what we call devon in New South Wales may be called Belgium sausage in Tasmania, Empire sausage in Newcastle, fritz in South Australia, polony in Western Australia, Windsor sausage in Queensland and German sausage or Strasburg in Victoria (according to their web site).

The town where I live has had the spelling of it's name changed no fewer than 3 times in the last hundred years - Panboola, the original pronunciation as recorded by the first white settlers meaning place of one waterhole - to Panbula and finally to Pambula. The part of it in which I live was referred to once as Jiguma but that name has long since disappeared.

I don't see why common tree names would be any different. The thing is that people will call things by the names that they were taught. Sometimes this will be based on fallacies that are perpetuated down the line but you cannot change that. They've made various attempts to rationalise the common names of things - for example fish and crustaceans - so that people know what they are buying (or perhaps so that they don't). Even so, an Ibacus peronii will always be a Balmain Bug to me.

G'day All.

You will find that people that work in the industry will use the botanical name to differenciate between the species grouped to a common name.
eg: spotted gum...E maculata, E citriadora, Etc etc etc


Hooroo.
Regards, Trevor
Grafton
P.S.
E maculata (Bruce C) is very anul regarding hardwood names and wood properties. This is really his domain that we are talking about.

Originally Posted by IanW

John - that would be a noble undertaking, but a HUGE job for any one person!
If you look at the VWA web page, they give links to a few sources that go part way to providing such information, but there are none that I know of that give you much on working qualities and useage. Here, you run once more into that bedevilment called subjectivity - one man's treasure is another's trash, etc. Another problem is that the necessary restriction on space usually means the information is so brief as to be trite.

Yes thats true but a little setup, strategy and consistency would probably get there. I have check the VWA page and others and there is a lot of really good info available on this issue but most of it seem to come into 3 categories...

actual - real data based on real issues
experiential - based on user experiences
virtual - personal views and opinions...

I would like to see something like the offical guide to australian timbers ( timber buyers guide), but in an online site with lots of othe rinfo such as history, search pictures, ancedotal info, that publishes a print book yearly but contain a wider representation of timber info for users.

cheeeeeers

Originally Posted by reeves

actual - real data based on real issues
exeriential - base don user experiences
virtual - personal views and opinions...

I would like to see something like the offical buy to australian timbers ( timber buyers guide), but in an online site with lots of othe rinfo such as history, search pictures, ancedotal info, that publishes a print book yearly but contain a wider representation of timber info for users.

Not to put you off, but that is a really big undertaking, however it would be invaluable to the whole woodworking community. You may think twice once you get the quotes for small run publishing, the 400 run conference proceedings we did a couple of years ago cost about $20 each and it was only that cheap because we did all the editing/formatting ourselves, add in a retail margin and you are looking at $60-80 a book.

I think that there is a real need for accessible information on the technical properties of our native and naturalised woods ie workability, glueing nailing etc as well as the other info you mentioned. A real life suppliers guide would also be good.

I think that much of the trouble in collecting information is that once you get outside of the commercial species into those that are harvested in small operations the information available becomes very much more opinionated and less factual.

One example of the above would be my experience with Cardwellia sublimis. Others have stated that this is a very stable timber, I have found that it walks around something shocking and I am hesitant to use it again despite loving the grain/colour. This may be because I am using small thin sections, rather than thick ones, but I do not have any other reference point.

Originally Posted by PAH1

Not to put you off, but that is a really big undertaking, however it would be invaluable to the whole woodworking community. You may think twice once you get the quotes for small run publishing, the 400 run conference proceedings we did a couple of years ago cost about $20 each and it was only that cheap because we did all the editing/formatting ourselves, add in a retail margin and you are looking at $60-80 a book.

Thanks IanW and PAH1, i have worked in media of varying types for 20 years, i undertand the costs and time innvolved. The reality is a s u have pointed out, it would be quite an undertaking.

From my perspective this is an exercise in theory, working out whats missing and how to implement something that would move towards solving the problem.

Whilst it would be a worthwhile project it would indeed be time consuming and need TO be done well enough to be workable and useful for people so at the present time I consider it more of a discussion and idea session than anything that may become real.

I think a DEET style project with connection to this forum as well as various NFP woodworking groups and support form the government enviroment dept costing about 250-300 k for the first year then under 200 k thereafter would probably fund it ok. It may reply on some volunteer work and draw on consultants as needed.

thanks again for all yr posts

regards
JOhn

I would like to ask you all what kinds of realtime problems are being caused by this issue ?

I have noted some from minor to quite serious.

• General innaccuracies in terminology
• potential fraud ( wood is not what it is meant be )
• misrepresentation of species
• false use of timber ( not right for job)
• false economy in purchase
• general confusion among users
• mis advertising
• any others ?

2 recent examples are that i saw some 'red Cedar ' that was pretty pale, for sale locally and upon further investigation in turned out to be an indonesian timber called suriman or somthing similar.

MY 2nd example was that i found some scrap at the local dump and it turned out to make quite good drum sticks when turned.

So i decided to try and find out 'exactly' what it was. So i could buy some more.

Seems to be some kind of 'weranti' a heavy Indonesian timber tho it could be DAR, another indonesian timber.

Some of the timbers i was shown at local suppliers looked similar, some were not.

I need something very similar to replicate the qualities of the drum sticks, lighhtness, toughness and springiness. I will keep trying.

The indonesian timber info i found was..

With over 4000 species of timber trees in Indonesia, it is inevitable that different vernacular names are used for the same species in different parts of the country.

Even more than i Australia.

Does anyone here have any similar examples ?


regards
John

Originally Posted by IanW

Perhaps we could make a contribution to our fellow xylophiles by posting a few short essays on some of our personal favourite, non-commercial species with observatuions on working qualities, uses for which we have found it particularly suitable, and any other possibly useful information such as availability and sustainability. Chuck in a few pikkies of tree/wood/products and we could soon have a source of info useful to folk country-wide?
Whaddaya reckon - if it did take on, I'm sure we could pursuade the doughty to allocate a folder for it, at least until it outgrows a reasonable allocation of disc space?

I think this would be a very useful suggestion and I for one would be happy to see it gain some legs.

It would give a solid active base from which to develop.

I could help with disc space if needed...

I guess we just start another thread and allow people to post within the paramters of discussion.

Cheers

[QUOTE=reeves]I would like to ask you all what kinds of realtime problems are being caused by this issue ?

I have noted some from minor to quite serious.

[list][*]General innaccuracies in terminology[*]potential fraud ( wood is not what it is meant be )[*]misrepresentation of species[*]false use of timber ( not right for job)[*]false economy in purchase[*]general confusion among users[*]mis advertising

1-Not in the timber industry where there isn't as big a problem we do tend to use the same names, however in the wider community everything gets butchered ie; Geez you're a "dag".... now did I insult u or not?

2-there are acts of parliament already in place "timber marketing acts" are some that spring to mind, some even have provisions for a " 6x9 and a new 130kg boyfriend named "Bubba" :eek: this is for extreme instances obviously

3-See answer for *2

4-Australian standards some that spring to mind AS-2082-2000 Timber hardwood Visually stress graded for structural purposes, AS-2796-1999Timber hardwood sawn & milled products ,AS 3818-1998-Timber Heavy structural products VSG AS 2858-2001 and I can keep going guys.

5-Can I add the information IS out there, the standard for the terms that should be used in relation to timber is contained in AS/NZS 4491:1997 Timber-Glossary of terms in timber related standards.

What I'm attempting to communicate is guys the information is there, the standards have already been set, what more can we do? therefore whom are at fault for not researching them and not using them when they already exist?

As Glock(Trevor)alluded to already, those who do this as a way of live/livelihood try to keep some modicum of consistency, unfortunately there is those who are too plain lazy to find out or have vested interest in keeping the consumers in the dark, for crikeys sake, how much are apprentice chippies actually taught about timber & wood properties, yet they are in the firing line if structural failure occurs.

I could keep going on about this for hours but will now shut up and leave it be.

BTW PAH1- How big is Aus scientific community? I wonder would u know a "hugo" in timber R&D or am I doing a "Oh you're Gay....do u know Mike from San fransisco, he's gay too?"

Okay - I understand the lack of interest in learning from history - a sad indictment of our society.

I agree that the classification to date is confusing at best for the novice and gets more so as we all learn more - perhaps with the exception of those with a penchant for the botanical names.

It is not uncommon to see well seasoned timber to be described as some thing other than what it is and the inverse is not uncommon either. It would be an enormous task yet one I too would be pleased to participate in but I believe a panel which were to oversee and approve such classifications would need to be very broad and culturally diverse as there are significant numbers of flora that have been introduced both naturally and artificially, each acquiring attributes that are different given the climatic differences.

I'm inclined to believe it is beyond the bounds of a single person and bureaucracy will limit the ability of a diverse enough panel to achieve anything - still one can only hope and help where possible.

Jamie

Great post E Maculata, thanks.

I agree iwth yr view about standrds and industry viewpoints, however as barnsey and other skeep pointing out, there is greater timber awareness and uage than just the industry people, which may be partly contributive of the issue.

I have no idea what we can about people misusing or misundertanidng information, i guess its the same as anything else but I do respect that people 'in the industry' try and keep abreat of standards and be consistent.

I have checked up on some of the info u mention, the standards guide is avilable here..

http://www.standards.com.au/catalogu...=stds000016641

a glossary with lots of usage terms is here

http://oak.arch.utas.edu.au/glossary/glossary.pdf

a UK wood guid eis here..

http://www.forestsforever.org.uk/realwoodguide7.html

Thanks
JOhn