# This wood's got me stumped



## barry richardson

I posted a few days ago in another thread about finding some Texas Ebony. After taking a close look at it, comparing it with a small piece of Texas Ebony I have, and looking at the bark of some live standing Texas Ebony, I now have my doubts, the bark doesn't match, and I don't think the endgrain matches the pics on Paul's site. The best match I could find for bark is Black Locust. Supposedly it can grow around here, but the wood doesn't look much like yours Paul. No leaves available.





 I
what the finished wood looks like;


 


I found this on the web, maker says it's black locust, looks a lot like my stuff, so maybe it is black locust after all





any thoughts, anone? It has been dead for a long time, bark falls off, wood is dry. hard, heavy, and bugs appear to love it.... end grain piece is 1x4"

Reactions: Like 2 | EyeCandy! 5


----------



## Nature Man

Looks rather like Black Locust to me. Chuck

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## Tom Smart

The bark looks like locust we have around here. The wood here is not quite as dark.

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## DKMD

Looks like locust to me, but the color seems odd in the finished pieces.

Reactions: Thank You! 1 | Agree 3


----------



## Eric Rorabaugh

The bark and end grain looks like the locust we have here.


----------



## phinds

I agree w/ David ... looks like black locust (end grain definitely, and definitely is not Texas ebony) but the chocolate brown on the finished pieces seems wrong for black locust. That last finished piece DOES look like black locust. Are you sure those brown finished pieces are the same wood? Even that extra swirly grain in them looks wrong for BL.


----------



## rocky1

Before I ever got to the conclusion of that I was saying that first picture looks exactly like the Black Locust I got on the shelf!

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## barry richardson

phinds said:


> I agree w/ David ... looks like black locust (end grain definitely, and definitely is not Texas ebony) but the chocolate brown on the finished pieces seems wrong for black locust. That last finished piece DOES look like black locust. Are you sure those brown finished pieces are the same wood? Even that extra swirly grain in them looks wrong for BL.


Quite sure they are all the same wood, and the colors are pretty accurate. the end grain has no finish, or the color would be darker like the rest. The color is what threw me off as well, which is why I'm stumped......... Maybe it darkens some with age? who knows how long this tree was standing dead, since the wood is very rot resistant.


----------



## phinds

Mulberry maybe? That would explain the greenish color of the last turned piece and the brown of the other turned pieces and the end grain is similar to what you show. If you can send me a piece I can compare the end grain.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## barry richardson

Was hoping you would say that, I will get a sample cut for you....

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mike1950

I agree color is wrong for black locust.here, bugs do not like it.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## gman2431

From your end grain pic to seeing the pieces being finished I have no clue. They look totally different.


----------



## phinds

Barry, I just got the piece. Nice job on cleaning up that end grain. You've pretty much done my work for me. BUT ... I'm still not convinced of the ID so will have to dig further. 

The appearance of the confluent parenchyma in the latewood, the size of the pores in the earlywood, and the general appearance of the rows of earlywood pores all point to black locust over mulberry, but I'm not yet fully convinced of that and of course the color is still a problem for BL.

I'm going to have to dig into my sample boxes and compare face grains.

As for the little burl piece, fortunately there is a fairly decent "normal" end grain area and it looks familiar but doesn't ring any bells just yet.

As Arnold says, I'll be back ...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## phinds

Just did the density. It's about 67lbs/cuft which is WAY too heavy for mulberry but also too heavy for BL, so I remain stumped.


----------



## phinds

@barry richardson do you know for sure that this is long dead wood? Or, what I really want to know, do you know for sure that it is seasoned? If it's dry, that density of 67lbs/cuft is a real stumper. Do you know for sure that this is a domestic? Did you harvest it?


----------



## barry richardson

Thanks for taking a look at it so quick Paul, I found it cut up on the ground at the wood dump I go to. Quite sure it was a dead tree; bark was mostly gone, very dusty when turning it, as dry wood is, and I metered a piece and it didn't register on my meter that goes down to 6%. I will do a couple more checks for moisture on a couple of random pieces just to make sure... The bark I found with it looks very much like BL, and nothing like any mulberry bark I've ever seen....


----------



## bamafatboy

I too believe it is Black Locust. If it is, it turns nice and finishes well.


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> Thanks for taking a look at it so quick Paul, I found it cut up on the ground at the wood dump I go to. Quite sure it was a dead tree; bark was mostly gone, very dusty when turning it, as dry wood is, and I metered a piece and it didn't register on my meter that goes down to 6%. I will do a couple more checks for moisture on a couple of random pieces just to make sure... The bark I found with it looks very much like BL, and nothing like any mulberry bark I've ever seen....


OK, thanks.

The swirliness of the turned objects, I can accept, since they could just come from particularly swirly wood. It happens, although BL is not known for it.

The dark color I can accept, although it's odd/rare for BL to get that dark. The USDA "fact sheet" says "The sapwood of Black Locust is a creamy white, while the heartwood varies from a greenish yellow to dark brown. It turns a reddish brown when exposed to the air." I've seen it get pretty dark, but not quite the color in your turned objects

BUT ... the weight of 67lbs/cuft for dry BL is way outside my experience or anything I can find in the literature. @Mr. Peet do you find that believable for BL?

Flynn and Holder have it at 52 and other sources quote slightly lower. For example, Eric has it at 48 and an old WOW article (Wood of the Month) has it as "Weight ranges from 34 to 54 pounds per cubic foot with an average weight of 45 pounds per cubic foot." The USDA fact sheet doesn't show a weight.

I'm finding 67lbs/cuft hard to believe.

I re-measured and re-weighed and re-computed and I still get 67lbs/cuft to 69lbs/cuft

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eric Rorabaugh




----------



## phinds

I've taken another look at the end grain and I think we can definitely rule out mulberry. Now I'm looking at osage orange. The end grains are quite similar, the color of your piece is easily believable for OO, and the weight is quite high but still believable for OO which has a typical range of 50 to 60 lbs/cuft

Also, the swirliness of the turned pieces is more likely for OO.


----------



## phinds

Well, crap. I mean, just crap dammit !

I looked carefully at the end grain of the mystery wood along w/ mulberry, black locust, and osage orange, and became convinced that if it was one of the three, it had to be osage orange. Then I took one more close look at the face grain and found evidence that it's black locust, not osage orange. I'm going to give up on this for a day or two before my head explodes. 

Here are some pics showing some of what I've observed



 


These two are mulberry. Notice the very thick row of earlywood pores and the relatively small area of very thin confluent parenchyma at the end of the latewood 




 


These two are black locust. Notice the narrower set of rows of earlywood pores and that they are noticeably larger than the earlywood pores in mulberry. The latewood parenchyma is more pronounced (thicker) than in mulberry. Also notice that the pores in the latewood are also noticeably larger than in mulberry.




 


These two are the mystery wood. Notice that the earlywood pores look very similar to black locust in both size and distribution and the latewood confulent parenchyma is, like black locust, thicker than in mulberry. The latewood pores are sort of half way between black locust and mulberry. Also notice that the confluent parenchyma, on the left sample in particular, starts earlier than in the black locust.

All of the above convinces me that between black locust and mulberry, the mystery wood has to be black locust. Also, the very high weight is closer to the black locust range than to the mulberry range (but still, way too high)




 


These two are Osage orange. The earlywood pores are the same as black locust and the mystery wood. The latewood, however, favors the mystery wood more than black locust does because of the way the confluent parenchyma starts very early in the latewood. Also, the weight is closer to the range of Osage orange than it is to that of black locust. Further, osage orange turns dark brown with time whereas black locust seems considerably less prone to this.

So at this point, I was pretty well convinced that the mystery wood is osage orange. Then I took a closer at the face grain and found this: when viewed up really close, both black locust and the mystery wood show little tiny ray flakes of the kind that are easy to see on beech but smaller and much more numerous. Osage orange doesn't show this. Here are some examples:

OOPS ... too many images. I'll continue in a follow-on post

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## phinds

So at this point, I was pretty well convinced that the mystery wood is osage orange. Then I took a closer at the face grain and found this: when viewed up really close, both black locust and the mystery wood show little tiny ray flakes of the kind that are easy to see on beech but smaller and much more numerous. Osage orange doesn't show this. Here are some examples:

These pics are pretty poor but the best I could do at the moment. The features are MUCH better defined when you look directly at the wood through a 10X loupe





The mystery wood. In the upper right of this pic you can see pretty clearly that there are multitudinous little dark elongated dots. These are little bitty ray flakes. The longer, light streaks are the poress




This is black locust and although the elongated dots are light colored they are none-the-less the same construct as seen in the mystery wood and in fact in this pic you can see how the rays, seen in the lower right of the pic, angle up into the face and cause the dots. Clearly the dots are much more numerous that the pores, so there is no confusing the two. On the face, the pores show up as long streaks. The thick row of earlywood pores show up as light colored bands running the length of the face.




This is Osage orange. The little elongated dots are not present. The rays show up as much longer thin streaks (along with the slightly thicker streaks that are the pores). The thick row of earlywood pores show up as light colored bands running the length of the face.

SO ... black locust? Maybe. Osage orange? Maybe

Enough for now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## barry richardson

Thanks for all your efforts Paul, I see that BL and Osage have very similar bark, but I have never seen Osage this dark. I helped my dad pull up some Osage fence post that were in the ground for 50+ years. He cut them up for firewood and the centers were still yellow. The weight and color threw me off too, which is why I jumped to the conclusion that it was Texas ebony, which it certainly is not. Btw I took some more moisture readings and the highest I got was 10 per cent


----------



## Mr. Peet

S


phinds said:


> I've taken another look at the end grain and I think we can definitely rule out mulberry. Now I'm looking at osage orange. The end grains are quite similar, the color of your piece is easily believable for OO, and the weight is quite high but still believable for OO which has a typical range of 50 to 60 lbs/cuft
> 
> Also, the swirliness of the turned pieces is more likely for OO.



Sorry, just saw this one. Barry had said Black locust, my first feeling was Osage, but trusted Barry's call. Now that he has doubt, get the blacklight out.

Never mind, just found you had another page of posts and have nearly got it....


----------



## phinds

*YEA MARK --- YOU DA MAN ! ( & I DA IDIOT)* @Mr. Peet 

No way in hell this is anything but black locust, regardless of the weight. For some reason, I just don't think about fluorescence even though I did a long serious study on it some time back including a 10-minute video discussing aspects of UV wood ID and my results with 5 different black light bulbs [the video was never published since I didn't like it and only Mark has ever seen it]

The florescent signature of black locust is just unmistakable and although I've never [including this time] been able to capture it adequately with a camera, take my word for it that there is no possibility that this is any other wood. I could have saved myself a LOT of effort if I had just reached across my desk and plugged in my UV light. Thanks Mark.

Reactions: Like 3 | Way Cool 1


----------



## JR Parks

Loved every minute of this one. Thanks Paul and Mark

Reactions: Agree 2


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> ... I have never seen Osage this dark ...


From my OO page:






This is considerably darker than your mystery wood.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## phinds

JR Parks said:


> Loved every minute of this one.


Wish I had

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## barry richardson

Thanks Gents!


----------



## Woodworking Vet

I have a lot of black locust and while most is not that dark some is, and some is even darker. I'm not sure why that is.


----------



## DKMD

Very cool. I’ve never seen black locust that color, and that’s why I love these ID threads... if I can only figure out how to retain what I read!


----------



## phinds

DKMD said:


> Very cool. I’ve never seen black locust that color, and that’s why I love these ID threads... if I can only figure out how to retain what I read!


I've not only never seen it that color, I never seen it or even imagined it with that WEIGHT. The color I can believe but the weight is just plain weird.


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> I've not only never seen it that color, I never seen it or even imagined it with that WEIGHT. The color I can believe but the weight is just plain weird.



Paul, you limited the field. I think he has *Robinia neomexicana, *which is not our common black locust but New Mexico black locust. By the way, I lack having a piece in my collection....


----------



## barry richardson

I'm wondering if growing in the desert climate or the soil had something to do with it. I will have to take a chunk and see if it sinks in water, it should given your weight calculations.... the wood has chatoyance that's pretty amazing too


----------



## barry richardson

Mr. Peet said:


> Paul, you limited the field. I think he has *, *which is not our common black locust but New Mexico black locust. By the way, I lack having a piece in my collection....


I considered that Mark, but according to the info I found, it is a shrubby tree that grows at higher evevations, this tree was about 18" at the base, but hey anything is possible I guess. I certainly have plenty for samples, is there a way to tell if it is indeed *Robinia neomexicana?*


----------



## phinds

Mr. Peet said:


> Paul, you limited the field. I think he has *Robinia neomexicana, *which is not our common black locust but New Mexico black locust. By the way, I lack having a piece in my collection....


Hey, I just said "black locust". YOU'RE the one cussing in Latin

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> I considered that Mark, but according to the info I found, it is a shrubby tree that grows at higher evevations, this tree was about 18" at the base, but hey anything is possible I guess. I certainly have plenty for samples, is there a way to tell if it is indeed *Robinia neomexicana?*



Common 'Black Locust' runs around 45 - 48 pounds per cubic foot. However the density charts have it as 0.40-0.75, the very same as New Mexico locust. So density might not help. It goes back to the plant. Black locust has white flowers, N. M. locust pink to purple. The seed pod of Black locust is smooth or with some fine bristle hairs. N. M. locust pods have lots of hairs. How about their hybrid, _Robinia_ × _holdtii_ (_R. neomexicana_ × _R. pseudoacacia_), no clue as little web literature is out there. I would have to assume an intermediate plant. Inside Wood lists both parents as commercial, so I have to assume that N. M. locust grows well enough to be at least useful in the fencing industry.

I just searched 20 web sites, likely the same as others, 3 sites have it as a shrub, only, four as a shrub that can rarely develop into a tree and 13 sites that have it as shrubby that can attain small tree status to 10 meters (rarely 15 meters).

So Barry, back to your memory of what the living plant was...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## barry richardson

This wood was long beyond DOA when I got it. Any foliage was long gone. I wondered about some sort of hybrid too. The nurseries around here hybridize lots of trees to make them better for yards etc. I came across this example several times, http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/st572 ... a black locust with red flowers, maybe a cross with New Mexican Locust? BTW, I tested it and this wood definitely sinks in water so Pauls calculations are indeed correct..... (not that I doubted them)

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## phinds

Yeah, I'm still having problems w/ that weight even thought, or because, I KNOW it's black locust. And Barry, if you have any more of it, I know Mark would like a sample. I'm keeping this one for my own sample box.


----------



## Digginestdog

I concur, it looks like Locust. I'll try to find a pic of a live tree with deep bark fissures. In the meantime here is a pic of a Locust cookie, and I'm fine with the color too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Digginestdog

Definitely not Osage orange... no question there. Okay, here's a Locust tree trunk. New Hamshire. This is the Grandaddy of Locust trees, with bark fissures probably 3 inches easy. I'll try to get this rotated in the upright position.


----------



## phinds

@Digginestdog did you not understand or not believe my post #25? There was/is no further confirmation needed that it is not osage orange and that it IS black locust.


----------



## Digginestdog

"and bugs appear to love it...."

Right there tells you it ain't Osage orange. I've got >100 year old Osage fence posts still solid. But, then again, Black locust is suppose to have great rot resistance. Anyway, most likely some species of Locust.


phinds said:


> @Digginestdog did you not understand or not believe my post #25? There was/is no further confirmation needed that it is not osage orange and that it IS black locust.





phinds said:


> @Digginestdog did you not understand or not believe my post #25? There was/is no further confirmation needed that it is not osage orange and that it IS black locust.


Oh, sorry Paul, I didn't read that post. And, really, I didn't mean to post the comment above, because, even though Osage will last for long time, there are certain bug that will get in it.


----------



## barry richardson

Digginestdog said:


> "and bugs appear to love it...."
> 
> Right there tells you it ain't Osage orange. I've got >100 year old Osage fence posts still solid. But, then again, Black locust is suppose to have great rot resistance. Anyway, most likely some species of Locust.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry Paul, I didn't read that post. And, really, I didn't mean to post the comment above, because, even though Osage will last for long time, there are certain bug that will get in it.


Thanks Gerald, good to have another wood enthusiast around. I have however encountered lots of grubs in Osage, usually when it's been cut recently and on the ground, maybe they dont like the dry stuff though....


----------



## phinds

phinds said:


> As for the little burl piece, fortunately there is a fairly decent "normal" end grain area and it looks familiar but doesn't ring any bells just yet.


 @barry richardson I just processed the little burl piece and I now know why it looked familiar, but sadly it isn't what I thought it was. The pore size and distribution and the rays all point to tamarisk BUT ... your wood has confluent parenchyma everywhere and tamarisk doesn't. Here's a shot of the end grain. This is only done to 400 grit, not my usual 1200. I'll keep poking around. @Mr. Peet this ring any bells with you?

Reactions: Like 1 | Thank You! 1


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> @barry richardson I just processed the little burl piece and I now know why it looked familiar, but sadly it isn't what I thought it was. The pore size and distribution and the rays all point to tamarisk BUT ... your wood has confluent parenchyma everywhere and tamarisk doesn't. Here's a shot of the end grain. This is only done to 400 grit, not my usual 1200. I'll keep poking around. @Mr. Peet this ring any bells with you?
> View attachment 141375


@barry richardson 

Did the burl piece also come from the wood dump?


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> @barry richardson I just processed the little burl piece and I now know why it looked familiar, but sadly it isn't what I thought it was. The pore size and distribution and the rays all point to tamarisk BUT ... your wood has confluent parenchyma everywhere and tamarisk doesn't. Here's a shot of the end grain. This is only done to 400 grit, not my usual 1200. I'll keep poking around. @Mr. Peet this ring any bells with you?
> View attachment 141375



Paul, what is the bigger picture? Is it ring porous? Like the oaks...


----------



## phinds

Mr. Peet said:


> Paul, what is the bigger picture? Is it ring porous? Like the oaks...


No, as I said "The pore size and distribution and the rays all point to tamarisk BUT ... your wood has confluent parenchyma everywhere and tamarisk doesn't." Tamarisk is semi diffuse porous and so is this wood.


----------



## barry richardson

Mr. Peet said:


> @barry richardson
> 
> Did the burl piece also come from the wood dump?


Yes it came from the dump so no leaves....


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> No, as I said "The pore size and distribution and the rays all point to tamarisk BUT ... your wood has confluent parenchyma everywhere and tamarisk doesn't." Tamarisk is semi diffuse porous and so is this wood.



Just looked over a list of trees for AZ, and they had Pond apple, _Annona glabra_, on the list. This is similar, but I don't know it to grow in AZ.

One of the soapberries and one sapodilla (Bully) looked as a possibility. Have not looked into non-natives...


----------



## phinds

The sapodillas seem unlikely since they all (the Manilkara's anyway) seem to have obvious radial pore multiples which this wood does not have. The others you mention, I'm not familiar with.


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> The sapodillas seem unlikely since they all (the Manilkara's anyway) seem to have obvious radial pore multiples which this wood does not have. The others you mention, I'm not familiar with.



Common name conflict, Sapodilla, Mexican term for some of the _Sideroxylon_ genus....


----------



## phinds

Mr. Peet said:


> Common name conflict, Sapodilla, Mexican term for some of the _Sideroxylon_ genus....


Odd. I don't have that in my database. That is, I have no sapodilla names that show up as Sideroxylon.


----------



## barry richardson

It may or may not be native, many of the yard trees planted here are non native imports


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> Odd. I don't have that in my database. That is, I have no sapodilla names that show up as Sideroxylon.


I'm sure the issue is both are in the Sapotaceae genus. Somewhere someone just grouped the names and it made it to print when it should not have. My repeating it was a poor choice. Vanquish it from your memory. None of the Sideroxylon look possible any way.


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> It may or may not be native, many of the yard trees planted here are non native imports



I looked over the http://www.treesforme.com/arizona.html website, and of all the trees they listed, both native and non-native, the Pond apple was the only one that looks possible. I do not have any. I have a close relative from the Yucatan, _Annona primigenia_, but it is clearly not a match. How big was the piece, and could it have come from under ground? It reminds me of a white oak, but Paul said it was semi diffuse porous. Oak roots can sometimes lack growth rings and appear diffuse porous. But as for oak root burls, even more foreign for me.


----------



## barry richardson

Mr. Peet said:


> I looked over the http://www.treesforme.com/arizona.html website, and of all the trees they listed, both native and non-native, the Pond apple was the only one that looks possible. I do not have any. I have a close relative from the Yucatan, _Annona primigenia_, but it is clearly not a match. How big was the piece, and could it have come from under ground? It reminds me of a white oak, but Paul said it was semi diffuse porous. Oak roots can sometimes lack growth rings and appear diffuse porous. But as for oak root burls, even more foreign for me.


The burled trunk section I got the sample from was around 16" diameter, from near the base, but not from underground. Never seen, or heard of Pond Apple around here, probably not likely. Definitely not oak...


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> The burled trunk section I got the sample from was around 16" diameter, from near the base, but not from underground. Never seen, or heard of Pond Apple around here, probably not likely. Definitely not oak...



Thanks Barry,

What are the chances you could grab the rest of that 16" diameter piece? Was there any bark on it? If there was a normal grained larger section, it could be more useful. The closer you get to burled material, the more normal grain and growth regularities are lacking.

I need to re-read this post from the start...


----------



## Mr. Peet

Woodworking Vet said:


> I have a lot of black locust and while most is not that dark some is, and some is even darker. I'm not sure why that is.



David,

If you have some 'Black locust' that is truly darker than Barry's, and you know 100% that it is _Robinia pseudoacacia_, I would like to buy a piece large enough for making a sample or 3, and to see if there is a correlation between the darkness of the wood and the density. Or you could send it to Paul in case he wants likewise for his website.
@phinds


----------



## phinds

@barry richardson and @Mr. Peet I finally got around to taking pics of ALL of the burl piece, not just the end grain. Rather than post here, I've put it up on my mystery wood page with full enlargements. It's #208 at the very bottom of the page:

http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/mystery.htm

Barry, are you sure this is a burl as opposed to a crotch area?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DKMD

Just a WAG... Palo verde?


----------



## phinds

Palo verde =

cercidium floridum
cercidium microphyllum
cercidium praecox
cercidium texanum
parkinsonia aculeata
vauquelinia californica
vauquelinia corymbosa

Any idea which one you mean? Whichever one it is, it's not on my site but I can research it, just don't want to have to dig through all of that list.


----------



## DKMD

phinds said:


> Palo verde =
> 
> cercidium floridum
> cercidium microphyllum
> cercidium praecox
> cercidium texanum
> parkinsonia aculeata
> vauquelinia californica
> vauquelinia corymbosa
> 
> Any idea which one you mean? Whichever one it is, it's not on my site but I can research it, just don't want to have to dig through all of that list.



No clue. I looked at your site first and noticed that I didn’t see any. I read that the cercidiun genus had been changed to Parkinsonia. It’s the state tree of Arizona which is why I suggested it.


----------



## phinds

DKMD said:


> No clue. I looked at your site first and noticed that I didn’t see any. I read that the cercidiun genus had been changed to Parkinsonia. It’s the state tree of Arizona which is why I suggested it.


Parkinsonia florida (a synonym of Cercidium floridum) as it turns out and that's actually quite a good call since that wood sometimes has very dark areas which are as nearly as I can tell, not actually heartwood but rather are areas created by ingrown branches. I could be wrong about this since I'm not familiar w/ this wood. Here's an end grain showing what I mean:




Unfortunately I can't find a decent end grain shot with enough resolution for comparison but from what I CAN see, palo verde doesn't work.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## phinds

DKMD said:


> I read that the cercidiun genus had been changed to Parkinsonia.


According to The Plant List, which is the authority I go by, you have that backwards, BUT ... this would not be the first time where I've found that the GRIN database (another very authoritative database) has things listed backwards from The Plant List. It's one of the joys of botanical names. 

LATER: Just for grins (pun intended) I checked and sure enough this IS another one of those cases where they have the opposite of which is the accepted name and which is the synonym.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Mr. Peet

I was thinking Strangler fig, but that was not it either. I'll ask Larry.


----------



## barry richardson

phinds said:


> @barry richardson and @Mr. Peet I finally got around to taking pics of ALL of the burl piece, not just the end grain. Rather than post here, I've put it up on my mystery wood page with full enlargements. It's #208 at the very bottom of the page:
> 
> http://www.hobbithouseinc.com/personal/woodpics/mystery.htm
> 
> Barry, are you sure this is a burl as opposed to a crotch area?


It was a trunk section with burl all around it, no crotch, I sent you a less burly piece since I thought it would be easier to identify....


----------



## barry richardson

Mr. Peet said:


> I was thinking Strangler fig, but that was not it either. I'll ask Larry.


Maybe a ficus


Mr. Peet said:


> I was thinking Strangler fig, but that was not it either. I'll ask Larry.


You just gave me a thought Mark; ficus nitida A common yard tree here, and has very soft/pale and bland wood normally, like the wood in question. I had one in my front yard for a while, till frost killed it. Do you have any access to end shots of that species Paul? didn't see any on your site.....


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> It was a trunk section with burl all around it, no crotch, I sent you a less burly piece since I thought it would be easier to identify....


Ah, good. That makes sense. Thanks. I've changed the note on the mystery wood page to reflect this.


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> Maybe a ficus
> 
> You just gave me a thought Mark; ficus nitida A common yard tree here, and has very soft/pale and bland wood normally, like the wood in question. I had one in my front yard for a while, till frost killed it. Do you have any access to end shots of that species Paul? didn't see any on your site.....


It's very unfortunate that I've not yet figured out a way to make my end grain shots as accessible as they should be.

On the main page, there is an option for how to view the page:




If you choose one of the "species/common names" methods, you then have the option of searching for any genus or species

DAMN! For some reason the Ficus species are not showing up in the right-most column which is where they are linked to the anatomy pages, where they DO exist. I'll look into this




Anyway, here are the ficus shots. In general, I think the pore distribution is significantly different than M208 (as I'm now calling it) BUT, the fact that this is a burl section could be the reason, so a Ficus seems like at least a possiblity.

Reactions: Thank You! 1


----------



## phinds

Mark Peet just reminded me that I should have calculated the density. I just did and it is very roughly 60lbs/cuft which would be very heavy for a Ficus. I first mistakenly calculated it as 60lbs/cuft but that was incorrect. It's 44 lbs/cuft


----------



## barry richardson

phinds said:


> Mark Peet just reminded me that I should have calculated the density. I just did and it is very roughly 60lbs/cuft which would be very heavy for a Ficus.


I don't have an accurate scale for small stuff, but the wood seems quite light and soft to me. That weight doesn't make sense. Maybe you grabbed a different piece of wood.?.....


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> I don't have an accurate scale for small stuff, but the wood seems quite light and soft to me. That weight doesn't make sense. Maybe you grabbed a different piece of wood.?.....


No, I got the right piece but maybe my calcs were wrong. It didn't seem that heavy to me either now you mention it. I'll double check

EDIT: OK, I had one of the dimensions wrong. It's 44lbs/cuft


----------



## barry richardson

Was turning some of the wood that we're discussing that had sat around for a while wet, and it spalted very similar to california buckeye, I looked at the end grain shots you have, but I have an untrained eye, your thoughts? Pic is of a small sphere I turned from it, about 2.5" dia...


----------



## phinds

OK, I'm confused. Is that turning from the wood shown in post #45 (M208) ? That's a whitish wood and the turning is ... well, it's not white. What am I missing?


----------



## Mr. Peet

phinds said:


> OK, I'm confused. Is that turning from the wood shown in post #45 (M208) ? That's a whitish wood and the turning is ... well, it's not white. What am I missing?



Dumb question, did I ask if it had any black-light interaction? And Barry did say it was spalted, thus the darkness. I'm surprised we didn't see any of the rays on the side. Maybe Barry will post a few more pictures of different views of the sphere above.


----------



## barry richardson

Yes this piece is the same, just spalted, I wanted to show how similar it looks to spalted buckeye now......BTW, in answer to Mark's question, the wood does not fluoresce. I went out and got a blacklight flashlight after you pointed out that black locust fluoresces. Fun to make it light up in the dark. BTW I also discovered that African Sumac fluoresces, you probably already know that though....


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> Yes this piece is the same, just spalted, I wanted to show how similar it looks to spalted buckeye now......BTW, in answer to Mark's question, the wood does not fluoresce. I went out and got a blacklight flashlight after you pointed out that black locust fluoresces. Fun to make it light up in the dark. BTW I also discovered that African Sumac fluoresces, you probably already know that though....



Very many of the _Annacardiaceae_ genus show reaction. Just another way to show contrast in segmented turnings and character in other crafts...

Barry, could you post a picture or 2 of the sphere showing the other "sides"?


----------



## barry richardson

Mr. Peet said:


> Very many of the _Annacardiaceae_ genus show reaction. Just another way to show contrast in segmented turnings and character in other crafts...
> 
> Barry, could you post a picture or 2 of the sphere showing the other "sides"?


Here is a pic of the other side, and another piece of the same wood....


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> Here is a pic of the other side, and another piece of the same wood....
> View attachment 141916 View attachment 141917



Thanks Barry,

I see it is a thin bark tree. I tried clicking on it to enlarge the image and it didn't work. I was hoping to see what the rays looked like on a curved surface.


----------



## phinds

Mr. Peet said:


> Thanks Barry,
> 
> I see it is a thin bark tree. I tried clicking on it to enlarge the image and it didn't work. I was hoping to see what the rays looked like on a curved surface.


Yeah, I agree w/ Mark. It would be good if you could get some closeups


----------



## barry richardson

phinds said:


> Yeah, I agree w/ Mark. It would be good if you could get some closeups


What is it you're trying to see? you have a piece of the wood in hand....


----------



## phinds

Different grain areas


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> What is it you're trying to see? you have a piece of the wood in hand....



Paul's pictures are 2 dimensional, your sphere is 3 dimensional. It give a different perspective. I wanted it for a beauty based reason, and if it helps with ID, icing on the cake. Not at all meant to be busy work or a pain in the ripjack.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## phinds

Mr. Peet said:


> Not at all meant to be busy work or a pain in the ripjack.


Well, I don't know about that. I'm willing to rip his jack any old time.


----------



## barry richardson

Alright, I will take some more pictures, going to an Art Show to try n sell some stuff today and tomorrow, so it might be a couple of days, in the mean time, does the end grain of the mystery wood #208 look like it could be buckeye Paul?


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> Alright, I will take some more pictures, going to an Art Show to try n sell some stuff today and tomorrow, so it might be a couple of days, in the mean time, does the end grain of the mystery wood #208 look like it could be buckeye Paul?



It doesn't not match any of the Buckeye species on the Inside Wood websites. So his answer will be his own of course...I'm going to reach out to a friend at the UDSA and see if he will take an electronic look or if he wants the sample in hand.


----------



## phinds

barry richardson said:


> Alright, I will take some more pictures, going to an Art Show to try n sell some stuff today and tomorrow, so it might be a couple of days, in the mean time, does the end grain of the mystery wood #208 look like it could be buckeye Paul?


Sorry, I should have noted after you mentioned buckeye that, no, it doesn't look anything like it, as Mark said. Here's some buckeye end grains. Diffuse porous with tiny pores, no thick confluent parenchyma


----------



## barry richardson

@Mr. Peet here are some more pics of the ball; 2 1/2" diameter color is off on the last pic for some reason...


----------



## phinds

Barry, I hope Mark can get somewhere with this. I'm useless with burls.

EDIT: he's down in Florida right now at an IWCS conference and doesn't have access to a computer so it may be a couple of days before we hear from him.


----------



## Mr. Peet

barry richardson said:


> @Mr. Peet here are some more pics of the ball; 2 1/2" diameter color is off on the last pic for some reason...
> View attachment 142194 View attachment 142195 View attachment 142198 View attachment 142197
> 
> View attachment 142196



Thanks Barry,

That sphere looks great from all angles. I was wondering what the rays would look like. It did not give me any answers but reinforced the feeling that it is not any of the oak group. The rays would have flared out wide, I did not see it.


----------



## phinds

@barry richardson and @Mr. Peet just for the sake of completeness, I want to mention that a knowledgeable correspondent of mine suggested that this wood might be pistachio. Pistachio fluoresces in exactly the same way as black locust and it has a higher average density.

I disagree w/ him based on end grain. Here are the end grain comparisons that I sent him. He feels that these make it MORE likely that it's pistachio, whereas I feel that it makes it unlikely.








(Eric is Eric Meier of The Wood Database)


----------



## barry richardson

phinds said:


> @barry richardson and @Mr. Peet just for the sake of completeness, I want to mention that a knowledgeable correspondent of mine suggested that this wood might be pistachio. Pistachio fluoresces in exactly the same way as black locust and it has a higher average density.
> 
> I disagree w/ him based on end grain. Here are the end grain comparisons that I sent him. He feels that these make it MORE likely that it's pistachio, whereas I feel that it makes it unlikely.
> 
> View attachment 220469
> 
> View attachment 220470
> (Eric is Eric Meier of The Wood Database)


Thanks for your diligence Paul, I guess Chinese pistach is a possibility, however the bark on this wood was a dead ringer for black locust...., Don't think it resembled pistach.....

Reactions: Agree 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Mr. Peet

Ya, the bark picture disqualifies any 'Chinese Pistachio' I have seen. But I do not have much exposure to the pistachios based on geographics...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## phinds

Thanks guys. The correspondent didn't see bark pics so was going just on the wood.


----------



## 2feathers Creative Making

Has the sphere been identified? It reminded me just a bit of box elder. The box elder that I collected in the spring had burls around the base of the trunk. I thought I picked up a hint of pink.


----------



## El Guapo

I thoroughly enjoyed this thread… I am amazed at the depth of knowledge of some of you guys on here.


----------



## phinds

El Guapo said:


> I thoroughly enjoyed this thread… I am amazed at the depth of knowledge of some of you guys on here.


I KNOW. It IS amazing the way we just make s*&^ up in such a convincing way !

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## barry richardson

2feathers Creative Making said:


> Has the sphere been identified? It reminded me just a bit of box elder. The box elder that I collected in the spring had burls around the base of the trunk. I thought I picked up a hint of pink.


No, still a mystery, might be box elder, but I don't think there is much of it here in the arizona desert.....


----------

