Aussie timbers

[little possum]

I still dont know the answer

But sure is pretty wood

 

[BobL]

OK - It's number 22 - It's found in North America and has been discussed many times on this site.

 

[little possum]

Oh, skipped right over that one Bob.

Thanks for sharing

 

[imagineero]

Hey Bob,
Nice pics! I'm wondering how to go about getting more knowledge of aus native trees, especially the ones in my local area. While it's easy enough to pick a stringy bark from a gum, I really don't know much beyond that. Couldnt identify blue gum, red gum, spotted etc etc... are there any good sites or have you got knowledge you can share?

Thanks,
Shaun

 

[BobL]

Hey Bob,
Nice pics! I'm wondering how to go about getting more knowledge of aus native trees, especially the ones in my local area. While it's easy enough to pick a stringy bark from a gum, I really don't know much beyond that. Couldnt identify blue gum, red gum, spotted etc etc... are there any good sites or have you got knowledge you can share?

Thanks,
Shaun

Hi Shaun,

Short answer is "no", and I don't know that much either. The reason I know something about (mainly western) australian trees is that I grew up in WA timber country and spent a lot of time following my tree falling dad around the WA bush. But now that I am here in Canada for a while I realize I know practically nothing about trees.

The fact that many Aussie trees look very similar on the outside means that it is very difficult to discriminate between many of them by just looking at one or two features. The same tree growing in a different environment, and different aged trees can also look quite different.

If you want to get a basic idea from on-line resources then wikipedia is a start, but even there a lot of the descriptions are too brief and some are too technical and often sound like the descriptions of many other trees.

Here's the Wikipedia entry for the description Tassi Bluegum,

Eucalyptus Globulus, is an evergreen tree, one of the most widely cultivated trees native to Australia. They typically grow from 30 to 55 m (98 to 180 ft) tall. The bark shreds often, peeling in large strips. The broad juvenile leaves are borne in opposite pairs on square stems. They are about 6 to 15 cm long and covered with a blue-grey, waxy bloom, which is the origin of the common name "blue gum". The mature leaves are narrow, sickle-shaped and dark shining green. They are arranged alternately on rounded stems and range from 15 to 35 cm in length. The buds are top-shaped, ribbed and warty and have a flattened operculum (cap on the flower bud) bearing a central knob. The cream-colored flowers are borne singly in the leaf axils and produce copious nectar that yields a strongly flavored honey. The fruits are woody and range from 1.5 to 2.5 cm in diameter. Numerous small seeds are shed through valves (numbering between 3 and 6 per fruit) which open on the top of the fruit. They do not form taproots.

While it provides a basic idea it doesn't help that much does it? If the tree is not flowering and you cannot see the roots then it can be quite tricky. The other problem with any resource is it does not work well or at all in reverse. For example, I saw a 6 m high tree with brown grey fibrous bark and bottle green narrow leaves. How the heck can Wiki be used to identify this tree? - the reality is it can't. The images provided in Wikipedia are also generally not that helpful and there are simply not enough of them.

My guess is that you don't want to be an expert, just to learn to identify a few trees, but learning even a little bit of something complicated from scratch is not easy, and some extra supporting knowledge is needed. Serious arborists will undertake a technical college short tree identification course where they also learn some basic botany so they can then at least read the technical descriptions.

There are some really good books around, like "Forest trees of Australia" but it is not cheap (~$140). To give you and idea of this book it has more than 750 pages to describe just 300 trees, so each tree gets an average description of more than two pages ! The quality and size of the images are very good - there is also a DVD version, but once again some additional knowledge is needed to understand the technical terms. There is nothing like this available for free but chances are you local library will have it or can get a copy in for you to read.

 

[smokinj]

I've been meaning to do this for a while but only recently got around to doing it.

All of these timbers (except one) are native aussie timbers milled by yours truly. Can you guess which one is not. I have already posted most of these pics before so if you have nothing better to do, you can trawl pack through my 4000+ posts and work it out this way - or you can guess.

Wow very well done and some awesome wood!

 

[imagineero]

Hi Shaun,

Short answer is "no", and I don't know that much either. The reason I know something about (mainly western) australian trees is that I grew up in WA timber country and spent a lot of time following my tree falling dad around the WA bush. But now that I am here in Canada for a while I realize I know practically nothing about trees.

The fact that many Aussie trees look very similar on the outside means that it is very difficult to discriminate between many of them by just looking at one or two features. The same tree growing in a different environment, and different aged trees can also look quite different.

If you want to get a basic idea from on-line resources then wikipedia is a start, but even there a lot of the descriptions are too brief and some are too technical and often sound like the descriptions of many other trees.

While it provides a basic idea it doesn't help that much does it? If the tree is not flowering and you cannot see the roots then it can be quite tricky. The other problem with any resource is it does not work well or at all in reverse. For example, I saw a 6 m high tree with brown grey fibrous bark and bottle green narrow leaves. How the heck can Wiki be used to identify this tree? - the reality is it can't. The images provided in Wikipedia are also generally not that helpful and there are simply not enough of them.

My guess is that you don't want to be an expert, just to learn to identify a few trees, but learning even a little bit of something complicated from scratch is not easy, and some extra supporting knowledge is needed. Serious arborists will undertake a technical college short tree identification course where they also learn some basic botany so they can then at least read the technical descriptions.

There are some really good books around, like "Forest trees of Australia" but it is not cheap (~$140). To give you and idea of this book it has more than 750 pages to describe just 300 trees, so each tree gets an average description of more than two pages ! The quality and size of the images are very good - there is also a DVD version, but once again some additional knowledge is needed to understand the technical terms. There is nothing like this available for free but chances are you local library will have it or can get a copy in for you to read.

Thanks for a very detailed reply Bob!

You are right, I was hoping for something that i suspected didnt really exist. I've searched around, and read through most of the entries in wikipedia on native Australian trees. Its pretty thin.

I do have trouble distinguishing between trees up here because so many are similar looking. It gets even harder after they've been on the ground for a season or two - all the leaves now gone, maybe some of the branches too. That only gives bark and the look of the timber once cut to go on.

I think an afternoon spent walking through the woods with a local person who is knowledgeable would probably be all I'd need. Hard to find people like that though! I'll keep looking

Shaun

 

[BobL]

I think an afternoon spent walking through the woods with a local person who is knowledgeable would probably be all I'd need. Hard to find people like that though! I'll keep looking

Ask around at your local tree nurseries, technical college or community centre to see if they know of anyone running a tree identification short course. There was a one day course offered here in the South West of WA last year that I would have attended if I was available. It was basically an hour or so of basic intro to trees and then a walk through the bush look in at trees, they do it when the trees are flowering which helps with ID.

 

[pastryguyhawaii]

Great thread Bob! That's some beautiful wood. We have a lot of eucalyptus here in Hawaii that is nice but I have been able to dry any without it just splitting everywhere.

 

[BobL]

Great thread Bob! That's some beautiful wood. We have a lot of eucalyptus here in Hawaii that is nice but I have been able to dry any without it just splitting everywhere.

Do you know what the species are? Some do better if you let the log dry off for a few months or even a year first. It becomes as hard as nails but you sure learn how to sharpen properly.

 

[Daninvan]

OK - It's number 22 - It's found in North America and has been discussed many times on this site.

Still watching with interest to see what it is. Something "discussed many times on this site", found in NA as well as in Western Australia. But not necessarily native to NA I am guessing.

Perhaps its a fruitwood like apricot. Otherwise something that grows in the southern US or Mexico? Mesquite? Acacia?

 

[Sawmill_Bill]

Guess #22

Is it Osage Orange?

 

[BobL]

I'll put you all out of your misery - it's black locust.

 

[Daninvan]

Well, can I claim partial victory? Acacia was one of my guesses, and black locust is Robinia pseudoacacia, so at least it has the word 'acacia' in it (granted, preceded by psuedo).

Seriously, the colours in that piece would not lead me to locust. Very well disguised. Oh, I've slabbed up some locust, I'm thinking now it was honey locust, one of the HARDEST woods I've ever slabbed!

Cheers! :yourock:

 

[BobL]

Well, can I claim partial victory? Acacia was one of my guesses, and black locust is Robinia pseudoacacia, so at least it has the word 'acacia' in it (granted, preceded by psuedo).

Seriously, the colours in that piece would not lead me to locust. Very well disguised. Oh, I've slabbed up some locust, I'm thinking now it was honey locust, one of the HARDEST woods I've ever slabbed!

Cheers! :yourock:

Yep Robinia PA, that was it. Funny I didn't think it was that hard.