The naming game....

  • Posted by Roderick Wiles in on 20th July 2010

    While in Australia last week, I was struck by the loose attitude taken towards the naming of wood species. Two of Australia’s most widely available native hardwoods are traded as Tasmanian oak or mountain ash and Victorian ash, while neither of which is even remotely related to its namesake and both are eucalypts.  It is understandable why these pseudonyms have developed, as, in both cases, the appearance of the wood has some resemblance to its adopted name and it is easier to prescribe a known name to something than to create an entirely new one. Less understandable, however, is the mislabelling of American tulipwood mouldings in a well-known Australian hardware store as “white oak”. There is some irony here, as in an ABC News article posted on 13th July 2010, the Western Australian (WA) timber industry warned consumers to be wary of a South American hardwood being falsely sold as a type of jarrah by a Queensland based company.  Jarrah is a West Australian word, a West Australian timber and it is not found anywhere but in Western Australia.
    This issue is not unique to Australia and there are many instances of misnaming of hardwood species all over the world. Some of these names have stuck and are commonly accepted, while some attempts at re-branding have stretched the imagination a little too far. One such case was the emergence of “Malaysian oak” a decade or so ago, which was to become the new marketing name for rubberwood. A more successful example of an adopted marketing name is South American cherry, which is actually a Nothofagus or Antarctic beech species, commonly known as lenga.
    Perhaps there is no real harm in prescribing new names to hardwood species as a means of bolstering their marketability and perhaps we should all make sure we are aware of the Latin names as a means of ascertaining true identity. However, at a time when the world’s timber industry is being heavily scrutinised, wouldn’t it make a little more sense to be transparent?