Thread: Timber/Tree books

Paul, I guess I share your passion for wood & have accumulated a small library too. I also share your enthusiasm for Bootle - it was the first book for lay people that I'd come across, with an emphasis on our own species rather than northern hemisphere woods and a good summary of the properties of species covered. It was first published at a time when it was still costly to print colour pictures for a small-run book, and species identification isn't its main thrust, so the 'deficits' in that area are understandable.

Identifying a species from a sample of wood is a fraught business (& I'm addressing this to the general readership given the range of guesses on some pics posted in this section). There are a few that have unique features that make them instantly recognisable, but they are a very small minority of the thousands of species that yield usable lumber. The only way to identify a tree with great certainty is to key it out from its botanical features and if you've ever tried to do this you'll know you need a good level of botanical knowledge to do it accurately. My best mate is a botanist & he admits to getting it wrong often enough (and he's light-years ahead of me!). As I repeat ad nauseum, the reason so many woods have the same common name is because so many look alike. If you know your local woods well, you can be reasonably sure you've got the right suspect if you name a piece by what it looks like to you, but wood gets carted all over the world and exotic species get planted all over the place, so the "looks like" method of identification often falls over.

I first encountered the concept of identifying woods by the end-grain patterns in Hoadley's book ("Understanding Wood", published by Taunton press) and that appealed to me given my profession & daily use of microscopes, but I quickly discovered that like looking at animal tissues, it's a highly specialised business that needs a lot of training & practice before you become proficient at it.

To me, identifying a piece of wood is like making any diagnosis, you start by obtaining all the clues you can get (locality & features of the tree if known, physical properties, etc.) then do some pattern-matching of the library of woods & stored information in your head to come up with a list of possibilities. You then work systematically through these to eliminate the least likely & arrive at a shortlist - hopefully a very short list. But if you have limited additional information, that list may be long. The more (& more accurate) information you start with, the more likely you are to get the right answer.

Wood is a useful, beautiful, fascinating, frustrating material that we can enjoy in so many ways, from collectors to cabinetmakers to carvers and all the other myriad ways we use it. There is so much to know about the stuff & one thing I know for certain is that the more I learn, the more I realise how much there is I don't know.

So I look forward to your coming suggestions, Paul - maybe a good Christmas present for myself coming up...?

Cheers,

The second book is "Forest Trees Of Australia" and in a completely different way is, I believe, just as important as Keith Bootle's book. It is written by a number of authors: Eight in fact! (messers Boland, Brooker, Chippendale, Hall, Hyland, Johnston, Kleinig and Turner.

7CA9CB35-BB16-43FE-A51D-74EDD14BB347_1_201_a.jpeg

After a brief introduction and information on the descriptions and how to interpret the information we are treated to a large number of Australian trees and their descriptions. Each specimen has two pages devoted as a minimum and some much more if theyu are a significant tree. This is probably the best reference I have for identifying trees as almost every aspect of a tree is described. The general appearance, the leaves (juvenile and adult), buds, flowers, bark and seedlings are all depicted pictorially together with sizing of these features.

The geographical distribution for each tree is identified on a map of Australia together with a description of conditions for where the trees prefer to grow. The descriptions include other trees that tend to be found in close proximity. If you wish to stand a chance of identifying a tree, this is likely the book for you. However, nothing is guaranteed. The preface mentions that in the later editions ( it was first published in 1957 with the last reprint mentioned in my edition as 1999) 137 eucalypts and 86 non-eucalypts are described.

A useful chapter at the end of the book describes the types of leaves and buds so that even those of us budding (sorry about that one - it slipped out) botanists, who were asleep during the biology classes at school can identify the botanical terms. If you have ever wondered what exactly a lanceolate leaf or a hemispherical-apiculate floral bud look , like then worry no more. It is all there.

If I had a criticism it is that nearly all the pix are in black and white. There is a small colour section comprising ten pages in the middle of the book, which depicts bark types, forest types and a few flowers.

Now this book was expensive. In 1999 it cost $90. However, I rate it as value for money as it is an incredibly rich source of information.

Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by IanW

So I look forward to your coming suggestions, Paul - maybe a good Christmas present for myself coming up...?

Cheers,

Ian

I suspect you either already have my suggested reading or are already familiar with the publications and are not interested. Sorry about that. Christmas is looking a little bleak.



Regards
Paul

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Ian

I suspect you either already have my suggested reading or are already familiar with the publications and are not interested. Sorry about that. Christmas is looking a little bleak.



Regards
Paul

Hmm full of good cheer & encouragement, aintcha Paul!

Well, at least your next choice is also one of my top pics. You're right, it isn't a cheap book, I bought my copy soon after it came out (1st edition) and it was much the same price then, so relatively, even more costly at the time! But text-books are like that - one of the standard reference books in my business currently costs $478.02 (why the extra 2c?!), and you were expected to keep up with the latest editions, issued every 5-8 years.

You 'moderns' whining about B&W pics! At least the habitat shots & tree photos are sharp, free of confusing background clutter & give a reasonably good indication of what the tree looks like. The line-drawings of seedlings, fruits and other important features used for botanical identification are a little on the small side, but clearly show the features they are meant to show. Until recently, at least, such drawings were still the preferred method of illustrating botanical details. Unlike the blurry, cluttered & often undecipherable (colour) pics in Lake's book, they are actually helpful in identifying a specimen.

Mumble mumble....

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

The second book is "Forest Trees Of Australia" and in a completely different way is, I believe, just as important as Keith Bootle's book. It is written by a number of authors: Eight in fact! (messers Boland, Brooker, Chippendale, Hall, Hyland, Johnston, Kleinig and Turner.
l

Hi Paul - I have the 5th and latest edition of that book. It has one more author and is dated 2006. It has 178 eucs and 121 other species.
No colour plates but still very useful.

'Australian Rainforest Trees' by WD Francis
This is my Bible in terms of reference
Outdated to a degree but...
Absolutely wonderful black and white pics
And nearly all trees photographed are mature specimens
Tremendous text imo
Log Dog

The Hardwoods of Australia and their Economics.
R T Baker.
Old but the best.
1919 with 73 full colour plates.
He did a few others also. Cabinet timbers of Australia 1913.
Berkilow rare books has a copy of Hardwoods for $600 atm.
Uni library stacks usually have it, sometimes even on the shelf in departmental libraries.
H.

Thanks Log Dog and Clearout. I will have to keep my eyes peeled for those books as they sound good.

Regards
Paul

Still three books to go, but time is a bit short of late. One thing I should have mentioned is that none of these books are comprehensive in that they do not cover all species. For example, there are over seven hundred eucalypts and about a hundred Corymbias.

Regards
Paul

This third book is "An Introduction to Trees For South-Eastern Australia." by KJ Simpfendorfer and first published in 1975.

E3848E55-400B-47D5-8C00-08CCC2666B22_1_201_a.jpeg

The book is specifically for growing trees and is limited to SE Australia as the title suggests. However it covers 680 species including 440 natives. Each description is accompanied by a colour pic of the tree and a drawing of the tree's basic shape. The emphasis is on growing conditions more than the timber qualities, but includes descriptions of the leaves flowers and buds. The pics give a good impression of shape but are not close enough to see leaf shape, for example.

At the rear of the book are two comparison charts. One is for growing conditions, while the other is for uses. The uses are as a tree and do not extend to the timber. They include suitability for windbreaks, erosion control, street scapes, honey etc.. The growing conditions include height, rainfall requirements and soil types.

As such a large number of trees are covered it is more extensive than the two previous books I have mentioned and includes large numbers of Acacias and Casuarinas, for example.

As with the previous books there is a section devoted to theory of trees and growing at the start of the book. it is quite comprehensive and extends to over one hundred and twenty pages. My copy was listed at $43.

Regards
Paul

The last two books are "Australian Rainforest Woods" and "Australian Forest Woods", which I will deal with together as they are both written by Morris Lake and follow an identical format. The former was published in 2015 and the latter in 2019 so much more recent compared to my other books. It may be worth hunting around on price for these publications as I have seen them for just under $50, although I paid more than that direct through the CSIRO.

7395D770-050A-46F6-B5E9-C06F4A7EF0A9_1_201_a.jpeg 8379FE7B-083D-4496-9664-701A73B2AD2F_1_201_a.jpeg

The Rainforest book identifies 140 specimens while the later book identifies 130 specimens. I have not checked exactly, but from a brief glance there is no overlap of specimens covered. Generally the format is the same including a pic of the tree, one or two pix of the leaves and one or two pix of the timber itself: Sometimes there is an object made in the timber as well. At least one page is devoted to each species and sometimes two pages. Included is a description of growing area, distribution and the format of the tree (leaves, bark, fruit etc..) It has a brief mention of densities, drying requirement with shrinkage rates and typical uses.

These books are a larger format at roughly A4 size (297mm x 210mm from memory). I have to say I really like these books as they are beautifully produced with full colour pix all the way through. However, this probably comes from some prejudice in a former life based around publishing, and is not necessarily shared by everyone.

One interesting pic in the second book is of the author's wood specimen cabinet made from Acacia aneura. That's Mulga to you and I . Allegedly, it holds 1800 specimens. (I will take a pic tomorrow and add it in as I have left my camera out in the shed).

Can we identify a wood from these pix? Maybe, maybe not. Often, as before, you cannot be certain as the variability of timber is such that this a is a fraught task.

There is a section at the back of each book that shows pix of end grain under a microscope. There are two pix of each species: one at x 15 magnification and the second at x 90 magnification. I don't have a microscope and I am unable to use these depictions. i have tried looking at the timbers using a jewellers loupe (x 30 magnification), but it did not seem to work so this facility is a little lost on me. Potentially it should be the most certain way of identifying a species: Providing you have the right laboratory equipment. Since writing this I have looked again in the book at the macro description. I will have to try again with a hand held lens and good light.

Overall I like these books and although they are clearly coffee table quality, I find them much more useful than that. They also seem to cover a range of species not covered in some of the other books and are at least partially aimed at the woodworker.

Regards
Paul

PS: I think Forum member Euge briefly mentioned the first book in a thread when it was published in 2015.

Paul, I have already had a moan about Lake's first book. I'm probably just too critical & had too high expectations, so you can write my opinions off as the grumblings of a GOM as you see fit. However, I bought my copy on the basis of a favourable review & it was such a disappointment I haven't even bothered to look at Vol II, so I feel I should justify my attitude a little.

I seriously doubt said reviewer read the text - I have, all of it, and I found very little information wrt wood properties that is not available elsewhere - in fact the descriptions of wood properties are often so similar to those in "Forest trees of Australia" or Bootle it's borderline plagiarism. To be fair, I suppose one is likely to describe the same sorts of things in the same words, but the closeness in some instances is rather striking. He does wax lyrical on the couple of woods with which he's had a fair bit of personal experience, like Qld. Walnut & Red Cedar, which does give an avid woodworker a bit of good insight into their working properties'

The text is full of grammatical & spelling errors and even some technical errors, which any decent editor should have picked up.

Even if it's not so useful to a wood-warrior, at least the botanical information is interesting enough, but it could be so much better! So many of the pictures seem to be out of focus (it may just be the size & quality of reproduction) but to me they're just blurry green mixed with black shadow & I wouldn't be able to make even a semi-confident diagnosis from them. No scale is included with leaves & fruits, measurements are given in the text, which is not as convenient. The verbal descriptions of distribution aren't always easy to follow if you are not familiar with the names of creeks & rivers & various localities along the east-coast of our rather large island. A small distribution map could have conveyed the information with sufficient accuracy & far more quickly.

And as I said (& Paul has tacitly admitted), the end-grain macro & micro-graphs are of no use whatever to the average lay reader. It's not just the lack of optical gear, the differences between many woods are subtle & I cannot imagine anyone making a reliable identification without a lot of practice & some good coaching. I struggled with the ones I tried & I've spent a working lifetime looking at tissues with microscopes. Yet ironically, I think these are actually the best part of the book and would have made much sense if published separately as a technical monograph, either reducing the cost of the main book or at least freeing up space for some larger & better quality botanical pictures.

OK, I'll take my meds now & go back in the shed....

Ian

Thanks for your comments, which I was already aware of. The irony is that I bought the books the opposite way around in that I purchased them separately with the "Australian Forest Woods" first, which was of course his second book. i could have saved myself the postage if I had bought them together.

The laws of plagiarism are complex and I have little idea of where that begins and ends. I should say that both books have about one and a half pages of bibliography and the likes of Bootle's book are referenced. I would suggest that densities and shrinkage rates during drying are all sourced from "Wood in Australia." As to the way that is phrased and the number involved, there must be only limited ways you can state a timber has an ADD of 1150Kg/m3. I don't think any researcher would seriously suggest altering numbers to avoid breach of copyright.

I use these books as a reference and certainly have not read them cover to cover so I have not done the sub editor thing to pick up grammatical errors. As it happens, I did go looking for Spotted Gum as this is an old favourite of mine (not of yours, I know ) and was surprised when I couldn't find Corymbia maculata. So Then I looked up Spotted Gum and found it, but linked to Corymbia citriodora, which I know as Lemon Scented Gum. While they are extremely similar trees both in appearance and timber my understanding is that they are two species. Lake seems to think otherwise.

However, in general I like the books and the quality of pix I found fine. there again, I am an awful photographer and everything looks good to me. I suppose that if we all had the same opinion life would be very boring. Incidentally, SWMBO thinks I am a founder member of the GOM brigade. Maybe I just channel my displeasures in other directions.

Regards
Paul

PS: Over the next day or two I will take some shots from inside all five books so the format is more readily obvious and add them to the relevant posts providing the edit facility is still available. If "edit "has run out I will post them separately.

Originally Posted by Bushmiller

Still three books to go, but time is a bit short of late. One thing I should have mentioned is that none of these books are comprehensive in that they do not cover all species. For example, there are over seven hundred eucalypts and about a hundred Corymbias.

I think that's 700 "known" species of eucalypts. There have been estimates of 700 eucalypts in WA alone. The majority of species that form large trees are known but many are small shrubs that look very similar.