Larry Caldwell writes:

In article ,
(Bill) says...

"Softwood trees are conifers (evergreens), have needles or scale-like
foliage and are not deciduous. Softwoods are gymnosperms, meaning they do
not have flowers and use cones for seed reproduction. Examples of softwoods
include pines, spruces, firs and hemlocks."

I have my doubts about this article. One of my favorite flowers is the
sugar pine blossom, which is a great big flower about 5" in diameter
that blossoms in the early spring. Incense cedar is blossoming now, and
the scent of cedar blossoms is filling the air. The dawn redwood is
deciduous in cool climates, while madrone (arbutus menziesi) is a broad
leaf, flowering evergreen with deciduous bark.

Anyway, conifers definitely have blossoms. In some cases they are even
showy. The cone is just a seed case that appears after the blossom
fades.

In an angiosperm the seeds are enclosed.
In conifers the seeds are exposed.

http://www.msnucleus.org/membership/...2/lcp2_5a.html

I suspect there are borderline cases left over from when
one evolved from the other but I don't know that for a fact.

Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh

Houston wrote:
Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh

I 'think' I have seen one but not sure. My understanding is that they
are deciduous and thus by definition are softwood.

Harry K

In article . com, "Harry K" wrote:

Houston wrote:
Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh

I 'think' I have seen one but not sure. My understanding is that they
are deciduous and thus by definition are softwood.

Nearly all deciduous trees are hardwood. And, as noted repeatedly in this
thread, that's *not* what defines the difference between hardwoods and
softwoods anyway.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Houston wrote:
Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh

OOPS! By definition they are HARDWOOD.

Harry K

Harry K wrote:
Houston wrote:

Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh


OOPS! By definition they are HARDWOOD.

Harry K


And I though you were agreeing that angiosperm
means hardwood. Now you think deciduous means
hardwood, or deciduous means angiosperm? Hint:
neither are true, so what do you really think?

Houston wrote:
Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh


Uhh, density equates pretty much to hardness. And
hard or soft is not a botanical classification.

In article , "George E. Cawthon" wrote:
Houston wrote:
Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers
here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight
make them properly named. Hugh

Uhh, density equates pretty much to hardness.

No, it doesn't. Examples: lead is quite a bit denser than steel; liquid water
is denser than frozen water. If you think about it a little bit, I'm sure you
can come up with more on your own. Maybe even enough to convice a dedicated
pedant that there isn't really any relationship between density and hardness.

And hard or soft is not a botanical classification.

Technically, no, it's not, but the hard-vs-soft classification is exactly
interchangeable with a specific botanical classification and is therefore
functionally identical with it.



--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

I. SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON WOOD:

Q: A Softwood is a soft wood and a Hardwood is a hard wood. Right?
A: False. A softwood is the wood of a conifer (or a Ginkgo), a
hardwood is
the wood of a dicot tree. The hardest hardwood is some three times as
hard
as the hardest softwood, but the hardest softwood is some four times
as hard
as the softest hardwood. The softest woods in the world are hardwoods.

Q: A Conifer, that is the same thing as a Gymnosperm. Right?
A: Not quite: there are four groups of Gymnosperms, of which the
Conifers
(with some six hundred species) are the biggest and most important.
Ginkgo
(one species) is another such group. The remaining two groups don't
yield
anything that could be regarded as timber.

Q: A wood with "cedar" in the name will surely be a softwood. Right?
A: False: "cedar" is a word that does not mean anything except a wood
with a
certain type of fragrance (if that). Going only by frequency, "cedar"
in the
US most often will be "Western Redcedar" (Thuja plicata), followed at
some
distance by "Eastern Redcedar" (Juniperus virginiana) also marketed as
"Aromatic Cedar" [these are both softwoods]. A "cedar" from Central
America
will usually be a Cedrela species; from SE Asia usually a Toona
species
[these are both hardwoods]. Etc, etc[list goes on at considerable
length].

Q: Slow-grown wood is harder than fast-grown wood. Right?
A: By and large, this is true. It will depend on the wood concerned.
The
age-old canon is "A slow-grown softwood is harder than a fast-grown
softwood, while a fast-grown hardwood is harder than a slow-grown
hardwood."
Curiously, this is also true, up to a point. It will not be true in
the
tropics, but will in most of the US and Europe.
The point is that throughout most of the US and Europe the most
used
hardwoods will be ring-porous (such as Ash, Elm, Hickory, Oak). A
ring-porous tree will start every year by forming a ring of very big
pores
(easily visible to the naked eye) and only make mechanical tissue (for
support) later in the year. This means that in a short season the tree
will
not have time to make a full growth ring, but stops after making only
very
little of this mechanical tissue: slow-grown wood exists mostly of the
rings
of big pores. As pores are big air-filled spaces slow-grown
ring-porous
hardwood is quite soft. In a long season the tree will have the time
to make
a full growth ring with a great deal of mechanical tissue. As the
latter is
hard, a fast-grown ring-porous hardwood will be hard and strong.
For softwoods and diffuse-porous (non-ring-porous) hardwoods a
slow-grown wood will be harder (and more decorative) than a fast-grown
wood.

Q: "Cherry" is the wood from the Cherry tree. Right?
A: Not really. The tree that cherries grow on does yield a classic
wood,
called cherry, but this has always been fairly rare (these days cherry
trees
are planted in a stunted form for pickability of the fruit). There is
a US
timber tree ("Black Cherry", more or less closely related) that yields
a
look-alike wood almost as good, and certainly a lot more available.
This is
called cherry for convenience.

Q: "Brazilian Cherry "is a kind of cherry. Right?
A: False. The nearest wellknown relatives of "Brazilian Cherry"
(Hymenaea),
more properly known as "Red Locust" or "Jatoba", will be Purpleheart
(Peltogyne) and Bubinga (Guibourtia). The closest relatives in the US
will
be "Honey Locust" (Gleditsia) and the "Kentucky Coffetree"
(Gymnocladus). A
(much) more distant relative is "Black Locust" (Robinia).

Q: What wood to use for a cutting board?
A: Maple, or something similar (any lightcolored hardwood, with a high
density and a fine structure, e.g. beech, birch, etc). Not to be
recommended
are exotic hardwoods: their high degree of durability is because they
contain significant concentrations of exotic substances lethal to lots
of
organisms. These substances are best avoided in food. The issue is
especially relevant when cooking for guests or children.

Q: A Live Oak is an oak that has not been cut down yet. Right?
A: False. A Live Oak is another name for an evergreen oak (OK,
sometimes a
"subevergreen" oak). Evergreen oaks occur where the temperature
allows, in a
belt all round the world. Going by the wood, there are three
categories of
genuine Oak (Quercus), found all over the Northern Hemisphe White
Oaks,
Red Oaks and Live Oaks. The woods of these three are not closely
comparable
in any respect. Characters that are shared by all three woods are
prominent
rays and a dendritic arrangement of pores. All in all there are some
400
species of genuine Oak. In addition there are any number of woods
called
Oak, for whatever reason strikes the fancy of a wood trader.

Q: "Phillipine Mahogany" is mahogany from the Philippines. Right?
A: False. It may or may not be from the Philippines (probably not),
but it
won't be Mahogany, ever.

Q: "Honduras Mahogany" is mahogany from Honduras. Right?
A: Depends. It could be, but usually is not (from Honduras, that is).

Q: "African Mahogany" is mahogany from Africa. Right?
A: Just about. The wood of Khaya is from tropical Africa and is
usually
assumed to be a Mahogany.

Q: "Rhodesian Teak" is teak from Rhodesia. Right?
A: False. Baikiaea plurijuga is not teak, but a member of the Pea
family. It
grows in several countries, one of which used to be called Rhodesia.

Q: "Nigerian Teak" is teak from Nigeria. Right?
A: Right. Plantation grown. Not that anybody would want to use it.

Q: "Java Teak" is teak from Java. Right?
A: Right. Plantation-grown, from the days the Dutch were there. High
quality.

Q: Teak is a really hard wood. Right?
A: Depends. Teak (Tectona grandis, family Labiatae) varies from soft
as
butter and pale yellow to fairly hard and dark brown. Depends on
provenance.

Q: Steel is stronger than wood. Right?
A: Depends. A piece of steel of a certain size will almost always be
stronger as a piece of wood the same size. A steel rod of a particular
length and mass as compared to a similarly sized rod of wood ...

* * *

II. SOME USEFUL SITES:

FPL:
- intro-page of the Forest Products Laboratory:
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/

- technical properties of wood
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/TechSheets/techmenu.html
including two downloadable books on US-Woods

- the FPL "Wood Handbook. Wood as an engineering material"
(downloadable):
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fp.../fplgtr113.htm
(Hardcopy at Lee Valley, Canadian version, i.e. paginated)

- common and scientific names of wood
(best database around, with a fairly low level of error):
http://www2.fpl.fs.fed.us/CommNames2000.html

- silvics of US trees
http://www.na.fs.fed.us/spfo/pubs/si...f_contents.htm

or
http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/tmu/publications.htm

OTHER SOURCES:
- "The American Woods":
http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/specialcolle...forestry/hough
(pictures only; a similar set is now in print as "the Woodbook")

- lots of pictures (fun), but short on accuracy and real information
full version (slow):
http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/person...indextotal.htm
small version (faster):
http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/person...pics/index.htm

- even more pictures, with even less information (lots of typo's)
http://www.rarewoodsandveneers.com/p...rarewood01.htm

Some more pictures (very little information; not free of typo's)
http://www.woodworking.org/WC/woodsampler.html

a preliminary page on purpleheart
(the wood of the genus Peltogyne, family Leguminosae):
http://www.organicsculpture.com/Purpleheart.html

a bird-eye's view of dangers:
http://www.city-net.com/albertfp/toxic.htm
http://www.ubeaut.com.au/badwood.htm

for a more extensive link-page see:
http://www.nehosoc.nl/paginalinks.htm

under reconstruction:
http://www.woodcollectors.org/

availability of wood (US)
http://www.woodfinder.com/

* * *

III. BOOKS:
Good entry-level books on wood are
"Wood for woodturners" by Mark Baker
(a bright book)
"Good Wood Handbook" by Albert Jackson & David Day
(cheapest and best, but out of print. Still available in the
(British)
original
which is called "Collins good wood guide")
"Woodworker's Guide to Wood" by Rick Peters ('passing grades')

An interesting book on a different way to obtain wood:
"Harvesting Urban Timber" by Sam Sherrill

An artsy book on American Wood with some really great pictures:
"The Woodbook" by Leistikow (ed.?) Not cheap.

Adult books on wood are
"Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley
"Identifying Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley

For those not shying away from a thick book:
"Holzatlas" by Rudi Wagenfuhr

In article ,
says...

Q: A Conifer, that is the same thing as a Gymnosperm. Right?
A: Not quite: there are four groups of Gymnosperms, of which the
Conifers
(with some six hundred species) are the biggest and most important.
Ginkgo
(one species) is another such group. The remaining two groups don't
yield
anything that could be regarded as timber.


Not exactly correct. One of those remaining groups is (or should be)
podocarp. (Almost) endemic to New Zealand with some members in Australia
and Fiji.

Podocarp includes the NZ Kauri tree which is one of the nicest softwoods
to work with, ever - straight grained, knot free, easily cut in any
direction ... in the 19th century most of Sydney and San Francisco
houses were built with Kauri framing. Many sailing ships had masts made
from young Kauri trees. Sadly, because of the rampant exploitation _new_
Kauri is as rare as hen's teeth these days.
A lot of Kauri is recycled from demolished houses these days. The wood
has a beautiful inner golden glow that gives the impression you can look
into it when polished. Generally quite soft.

Same family yields Rimu, which is still available - hard, ornery,
poisonous (wear respirator and protect eyes when working) with a grain
that can be as attractive and vivid as the very best of them (walnut,
tupip wood). Heart rimu is so hard you can't nail it. Many old houses in
New Zealand were built from rimu framing because borer does not like it.
Still in use for veneers for interior doors, cabinetmaking ...

Totara - a reddish pink wood with white sap. Also contains a natural
perservative, more or less immune to fungii and bacterial rot. Looks
very pretty and is nice to work with but 'blooms' under just about any
varnish so it's not used much in cabinet making and such. (I've heard
that it will not bloom when French Polish is used). Farmers used to use
it for fenceposts that would last up to 70 years in the ground without
any chemical treatment whatsoever. Works well, similar to Kauri.

Kahikatea - early settlers used to call it 'yellow pine' and it tends to
be buttery yellow in colour when freshly planed. Good to work with,
doesn't shatter like Rimu, has a lot of spring. Sadly does not hold up
to weather at all, even when treated. Makes nice timber for shelves etc
though. NZ butter used to be shipped in boxes made from Kahikatea
because it is flavour neutral. Hard to obtain these days, but not for
lack of trees.

there are a few more members of the family ...

-Peter


--
=========================================
firstname dot lastname at gmail fullstop com

In article ,
ess (Peter Huebner) says...

Not exactly correct. One of those remaining groups is (or should be)
podocarp. (Almost) endemic to New Zealand with some members in Australia
and Fiji.

Great article, Peter. Could I ask you to please repost it to
alt.forestry? The guys there are always interested in information like
that. I read it through twice (a rarity on usenet) and will go back and
read it again.

In fact, I may try to obtain some podocarp seedlings, since the climate
at my place is very similar to parts of New Zealand. This area is
already using NZ radiata pine for plantations. I have a small
plantation going. It unfortunately seems to fall prey to the same tree
pests that have almost wiped out sugar pine in this area.

Just as a side note, I would like to point out that wood hardness and
wood strength are not the same thing. An example is Douglas Fir
(actually a larch - pseudotsuga menziesi), which is softer than red oak,
but structurally stronger in horizontal supporting member applications.
A Douglas Fir 2x12 floor joist will support more weight than a red oak
2x12. The oak is a much harder wood, but not stronger.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

Larry Caldwell wrote:
In article ,
ess (Peter Huebner) says...


Not exactly correct. One of those remaining groups is (or should be)
podocarp. (Almost) endemic to New Zealand with some members in Australia
and Fiji.


Great article, Peter. Could I ask you to please repost it to
alt.forestry? The guys there are always interested in information like
that. I read it through twice (a rarity on usenet) and will go back and
read it again.

In fact, I may try to obtain some podocarp seedlings, since the climate
at my place is very similar to parts of New Zealand. This area is
already using NZ radiata pine for plantations. I have a small
plantation going. It unfortunately seems to fall prey to the same tree
pests that have almost wiped out sugar pine in this area.

Just as a side note, I would like to point out that wood hardness and
wood strength are not the same thing. An example is Douglas Fir
(actually a larch - pseudotsuga menziesi), which is softer than red oak,
but structurally stronger in horizontal supporting member applications.
A Douglas Fir 2x12 floor joist will support more weight than a red oak
2x12. The oak is a much harder wood, but not stronger.


You must be thinking of something else, as Douglas
fir is not a larch. The common name "larch" (also
called tamarack) is usually applied on to the
genus Larix. Douglas fir trees are nothing like
larch trees.

Here in Tennessee we have a lot of both hardwood and softwood. But if
your half drunk and try to drive on our winding roads at 60 MPH you
will nine times out of ten find that both are pretty hard when they
pry you and your vehicle from around their trunks. Happens all the
time. Some just never understand that those softwoods are hardwoods
too..
Jack

A Douglas Fir 2x12 floor joist will support more weight than a red oak
2x12. The oak is a much harder wood, but not stronger.

You must be thinking of something else, as Douglas fir is not a larch.
The common name "larch" (also called tamarack) is usually applied on to
the genus Larix. Douglas fir trees are nothing like larch trees.

Ummm, not sure I could agree with your wood skills there Larry. In "Design
Values for Wood Construction" (supplement to the National Design
Specification for Wood Construction, which is the backbone of structural
wood design & a referenced standard in the IBC & IRC) Douglas-Fir is listed
as "Douglas-Fir-Larch" (American), "Douglas-Fir-Larch (north)" [Canadian]
and "Douglas-Fir (south)" [American].

Douglas-Fir-Larch is the strongest of the Doug Firs.

Dennis