Thread: Timber ID

Gumtree

What’s this ? Lol

Originally Posted by Ironwood

Gumtree

Nope, Brad. "Gum tree" usually implies one of the smooth-barked species (though that's far from consistent, I'll admit!).

The only useful characteristic I can see in those pics is the bark - it's clearly one of the stringybarks. That might be as close as you get to an identification. If it's native to the locality & not something that was planted there by someone, you should be able to narrow it down to a few possibilities. Only leaves, flowers & fruits really pin eucalypts down to species, any id made on the wood itself has to be taken cautiously due to the great variability of colour & grain patterns within most species.

My view is you have a hard, durable wood that seems free of defects. It will likely take quite a good finish, but even though it appears to be from a fairly young tree, the narrow sapwood indicates slow growth so it will probably be a bit dense & difficult to work for fine furniture, but nothing's impossible, see the recent post in "Woodwork general" on making a pie -crust table from hard, brittle, red gum!


Cheers

Originally Posted by Njmpm1969

What’s this ? Lol

It’s the confused emoticon, because I made a guess and wasn’t really sure.
You got a more calculated diagnosis from Ian. As he eluded to, the best time to ID a Timber is at the time of felling the tree, when all the clues are present, bark , leaves, possibly flowers or fruit.
Also, if you take some clear closeup photos of some freshly planed face and end grain , it can make it easier for someone to make an educated guess. Some timbers have a distinct smell which if described well, can help to give an ID as well.

plus Angophora, Corymbia, & Eucalyptus are also known to hybridize in some locations.

EUCLID Home is a very useful tool for Euc ID - if you have access to the living tree.

Using EUCLID with the search features of

Region - QLD Moreton
Bark Persistence - Wholly Rough
Rough Bark Type - Stringy or fibrous
Rough Bark Colour - Brown

narrows the tree ID down to 24 species

IF you say the bark is reddish / pinkish that list narrows to 12 species all of which are included in the "brown" list.

So without further ID information about leaves, flowers, tree habit etc that's about a close as you will get and also IF it is a native to the region and not an "import" like say Cadaghi in SEQ.

Without the attached bark the list is some 70 possible natives to the area.

My guess is Eucalyptus baileyana (Bailey's stringybark) & that is without checking any wood database.

Eucalyptus baileyana

Morris Lake's "Australian Forest Woods" lists it on page 83, wood colour seems consistent.

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

My guess is Eucalyptus baileyana (Bailey's stringybark) & that is without checking any wood database. Eucalyptus baileyana

CSIRO say that there are 934 species of "gumtrees" without counting the hybrids, MT. Still a lot of room for error if it is not from a local tree.

Nick, if you can go back to the site where your timber was felled, may I suggest that you follow Mobyturns advice and run down the EUCLID check list. If your tree is not a local and was planted by someone, it will be much more difficult process.

Wow! There's some pretty serious investigative powers being demonstrated there. My go to ID in situations like this is 'Beenatree'.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

CSIRO say that there are 934 species of "gumtrees" without counting the hybrids, MT. Still a lot of room for error if it is not from a local tree.

Nick, if you can go back to the site where your timber was felled, may I suggest that you follow Mobyturns advice and run down the EUCLID check list. If your tree is not a local and was planted by someone, it will be much more difficult process.

I did say guess !!!!!

We are also making a huge assumption that it is a Euc i.e. stingybark.

Not so about ID'ing a planted Euc! It is no more difficult to ID than a species endemic to the area. Hybrids are the headache.

Even if the tree was a planted eucalypt the EUCLID identification tool still will greatly narrow the species by following the dichotomus key process - select the most distinctive feature then narrow down by following the leads.

MT, agreed, following a good key is the most sensible method of id-ing anything. My reason for making the distinction between a species native to the area or an import is it often narrows the field considerably from the get-go.

But it can take a bit of practice & care to use a key correctly! One wrong choice, particularly early in the sequence & you may end up a looong way from the right destination - damhik!

Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

MT, agreed, following a good key is the most sensible method of id-ing anything. My reason for making the distinction between a species native to the area or an import is it often narrows the field considerably from the get-go.

But it can take a bit of practice & care to use a key correctly! One wrong choice, particularly early in the sequence & you may end up a looong way from the right destination - damhik!

Cheers,

Definitely!

Powderpost & I have been attempting to ID a "bloodwood" on his property at Mareeba. We haven't been successful & believe it is a hybrid. Jim has confirmed that possibility with an eminent botanist he knows.

My assumptions above certainly have potential to make an ass out of me.

One can only work with the limited information available.

Not sure if woodies are aware of Occam's razor (also spelled Ockham's razor or Ocham's razor) a problem-solving principle that recommends searching for explanations constructed with the smallest possible set of elements.

or more simply put - with the most likely / probable evidence - so local, a Euc, a stringybark etc. When that doesn't fit look at less likely solutions i.e. not local, possibly a hybrid, not a Euc, ..... etc.

Wow, what amazing responses.
Unfortunately for me I moved from there to Port Douglas so not going to drive back there anytime soon.
I’m happy with the most probable being a stringy bark and fit for the purpose of making the bath candy thing for my wife.
really appreciate the amount of knowledgeable people in this forum and your willingness to help.
many thanks,
Nick

Originally Posted by Mobyturns

.....Powderpost & I have been attempting to ID a "bloodwood" on his property at Mareeba. We haven't been successful & believe it is a hybrid. Jim has confirmed that possibility with an eminent botanist he knows.....

Yes, easy hybridising is yet another aspect of plants that makes life difficult for botanists - plants can be very indiscriminate in their sexual habits! Not only are they less fussy about who they mate with, they think nothing of doubling or even quadrupling their chromosome number. It can get very complicated.

Luckily for us woodies, exact id of a piece of wood is rarely vital - near enough is usually good enough for most purposes. It's nice to know what species you are looking for if you want to match an existing piece for repair or making more of the same, but in my experience of doing that, it sometimes only helps a little. While some species are helpfully consistent from tree to tree, even district to district, some can be hugely variable. It can be bad enough even with straight, boring grain when colour patterns & the width of any growth rings vary widely from tree to tree (or position in the tree), but if it's highly figured as well then you are really in trouble!

I suppose it's how you look at it - wood variation can be annoying and frustrating, or one of the joys of the craft (& often enough, both at once!)...


Cheers,

Originally Posted by IanW

Yes, easy hybridising is yet another aspect of plants that makes life difficult for botanists - plants can be very indiscriminate in their sexual habits! Not only are they less fussy about who they mate with, they think nothing of doubling or even quadrupling their chromosome number. It can get very complicated.

Luckily for us woodies, exact id of a piece of wood is rarely vital - near enough is usually good enough for most purposes. It's nice to know what species you are looking for if you want to match an existing piece for repair or making more of the same, but in my experience of doing that, it sometimes only helps a little. While some species are helpfully consistent from tree to tree, even district to district, some can be hugely variable. It can be bad enough even with straight, boring grain when colour patterns & the width of any growth rings vary widely from tree to tree (or position in the tree), but if it's highly figured as well then you are really in trouble!

I suppose it's how you look at it - wood variation can be annoying and frustrating, or one of the joys of the craft (& often enough, both at once!)...


Cheers,

Tell me about it!

With the inlay banding I make for pen blank making etc I studiously keep every cut in sequence if possible as it makes a significant difference in the final appearance of the banding.

Any variation in colour & grain transitions nicely along the banding rather than being random light / dark etc. I even set aside rips etc from the same board for the face cheeks I add to the banding to construct the blanks.

Everything I want to be a single species for colour etc is cut from the same stock, and generally a small board at that. However when assembled I often wonder if I stuffed up and mixed up the cuts from another board.

That's why we love working with wood.