Ain’t got no pony in this race, but here is a little on the Smoke/Chittam discussion.
American smoketree (Cotinus obovatus)
- Thread starter Big Ry
- Start date
I cut some Osage yesterday. The sawdust is brown today. Off course I can dull a chain in a few min with Osage
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #44
I don't use any AI. I find AI to be generally inaccurate across a multitude of topics. Its great for writing product reviews or for doing simple coding, but its not very good at accurately researching topics and detecting nuance. It needs much more work before it can be relied upon as a primary resource.
For wood ID, my first stop is typically Hobbit House. But I also use Wood Database a lot too. If I am looking for a particularly rare or obscure species, I'll search NC State's Inside Wood database. Its probably the most comprehensive database on wood species, but it's geared towards researchers, so its difficult to use at times and the images are mostly only microscopic. I also sometimes use PROTA4U (https://prota.prota4u.org/) and/or ITTO (http://www.tropicaltimber.info/) when its a species uncommon to the US.
There is one other online resource that does not have a ton of species, but occasionally has some really obscure ones. Its called Delta INTKEY, and its a collection of numerous databases - mostly plants but also other living things. It is a bit confusing to use initially, but the Wood data set is all you really need to look at. It sometimes has rare or unusual species with photos provided.
Wood Data Set: https://www.delta-intkey.com/wood/en/index.htm
List of Data Sets: https://www.delta-intkey.com/www/data.htm
Just yesterday I was introduced to an app that functions like a database and has example wood photos that I have never seen used elsewhere. The app is called CITESwoodID on the Android app store. It is NOT affiliated with CITES. Its a third party app. I also haven't verified its accuracy yet, but it seems promising.
I often consult textbooks for IDing wood. I have probably a dozen now, though most are meh. There's a lot of overlap and covering of popular species. Textbooks can sometimes be good as an archaeological record of sorts for species naming. On more than one occasion I have discovered that a certain species has changes either common name and/or botanical name over the years, but this info is not readily apparent through online resources. But since some of my textbooks were written in the 30s, 50s, or 70s, they sometimes use the old naming. Of all the books I have, these two below are probably my favorite.
1. Atlas of Hardwood Identification
(There are 2 versions - full and shortened. The latter is missing about 1/3 species and has poorer image quality, but prices for both are pretty steep. This is a great resource for rare premium species such as those in high demand in China. It has good micro images, but macro images are useless)
2. The Woodbook
(no microscopic shots and only a brief text description of each species, but the images are excellent quality and the book covers like 750 species)
I also rely on Wood ID groups on Facebook. There's really just one that I am confident in using. Its called "Wood Identification Group", and a now-friend Steve Earis is an Admin of the group. Steve along with a handful of other guys in that group are very knowledgeable about IDing wood. The other Facebook groups are just a bunch of random guessers, so you don't often get reliable responses.
Lastly, Paul Hinds put together a list of resources linked below. Many of the resources above are covered in Paul's list.
If all else, fails, bug Mark
Last edited:
Outstanding summary of wood identification resources!!!I don't use any AI. I find AI to be generally inaccurate across a multitude of topics. Its great for writing product reviews or for doing simple coding, but its not very good at accurately researching topics and detecting nuance. It needs much more work before it can be relied upon as a primary resource.
For wood ID, my first stop is typically Hobbit House. But I also use Wood Database a lot too. If I am looking for a particularly rare or obscure species, I'll search NC State's Inside Wood database. Its probably the most comprehensive database on wood species, but it's geared towards researchers, so its difficult to use at times and the images are mostly only microscopic. I also sometimes use PROTA4U (https://prota.prota4u.org/) and/or ITTO (http://www.tropicaltimber.info/) when its a species uncommon to the US.
There is one other online resource that does not have a ton of species, but occasionally has some really obscure ones. Its called Delta INTKEY, and its a collection of numerous databases - mostly plants but also other living things. It is a bit confusing to use initially, but the Wood data set is all you really need to look at. It sometimes has rare or unusual species with photos provided.
Wood Data Set: https://www.delta-intkey.com/wood/en/index.htm
List of Data Sets: https://www.delta-intkey.com/www/data.htm
Just yesterday I was introduced to an app that functions like a database and has example wood photos that I have never seen used elsewhere. The app is called CITESwoodID on the Android app store. It is NOT affiliated with CITES. Its a third party app. I also haven't verified its accuracy yet, but it seems promising.
I often consult textbooks for IDing wood. I have probably a dozen now, though most are meh. There's a lot of overlap and covering of popular species. Textbooks can sometimes be good as an archaeological record of sorts for species naming. On more than one occasion I have discovered that a certain species has changes either common name and/or botanical name over the years, but this info is not readily apparent through online resources. But since some of my textbooks were written in the 30s, 50s, or 70s, they sometimes use the old naming. Of all the books I have, these two below are probably my favorite.
1. Atlas of Hardwood Identification
(There are 2 versions - full and shortened. The latter is missing about 1/3 species and has poorer image quality, but prices for both are pretty steep. This is a great resource for rare premium species such as those in high demand in China. It has good micro images, but macro images are useless)
2. The Woodbook
(no microscopic shots and only a brief text description of each species, but the images are excellent quality and the book covers like 750 species)
I also rely on Wood ID groups on Facebook. There's really just one that I am confident in using. Its called "Wood Identification Group", and a now-friend Steve Earis is an Admin of the group. Steve along with a handful of other guys in that group are very knowledgeable about IDing wood. The other Facebook groups are just a bunch of random guessers, so you don't often get reliable responses.
Lastly, Paul Hinds put together a list of resources linked below. Many of the resources above are covered in Paul's list.
If all else, fails, bug Mark
Nope. No idea of botanical name. Though maybe I linked Paul's site, thinking I had found the right wood on the site by comparing to pictures. (So maybe I'm confusing things now and the ID was wrong, lol.) Guy who cut it down told me it was smoketree, and that's all I know about it. Was cut just outside of Kewaunee, WI.
So maybe it is the same wood as the burl, just some variations? I've had a bit of chittum burl pass through my hands, still have a piece or two, and the little bits of straight grain on them, and the coloration, weren't quite right for comparison, from what I remember. But I don't have any of what I sent you left to compare anymore.
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #49
Ignoring common names for now, since that is clearly a point of confusion, Cotinus obovatus can live in Hardiness Zones 4-8, and Sideroxylon lanuginosum (common name: Chittamwood, Chittum) can live in Hardiness Zones 6-10. Obviously those are very specific species, but after digging around it seems Zones 4-8 & 6-10 are pretty consistent with most other species in the Cotinus and Sideroxylon genus, respectively. Based on that alone, I would conclude that your wood is Cotinus and not Sideroxylon .
But when you compare end grain difference between the two, its clear as day that your Smoketree is not Sideroxylon . Presumably it is Cotinus. As to whether its Cotinus obovatus vs. another Cotinus species, I am not sure. From everything I've heard, the wood from all Cotinus looks pretty similar.
And based on the above, I also am certain that the wood I am trying to purchase is not Sideroxylon. The end grain of Sideroxylon is distinct enough that I can tell from rough cut photos that this wood isn't Sideroxylon. Is it Cotinus? Seems so based on the photos of the leaves. It does not appear to be Maclura, and it certainly isn't Rhus. So unless someone has a better suggest, Cotinus seems to be a fair bet.
Whether or not Cotinus gets called "Chittum" is completely irrelevant to me. My only point was to draw a distinction between the Cotinus genus and Sideroxylon genus.
But when you compare end grain difference between the two, its clear as day that your Smoketree is not Sideroxylon . Presumably it is Cotinus. As to whether its Cotinus obovatus vs. another Cotinus species, I am not sure. From everything I've heard, the wood from all Cotinus looks pretty similar.
And based on the above, I also am certain that the wood I am trying to purchase is not Sideroxylon. The end grain of Sideroxylon is distinct enough that I can tell from rough cut photos that this wood isn't Sideroxylon. Is it Cotinus? Seems so based on the photos of the leaves. It does not appear to be Maclura, and it certainly isn't Rhus. So unless someone has a better suggest, Cotinus seems to be a fair bet.
Whether or not Cotinus gets called "Chittum" is completely irrelevant to me. My only point was to draw a distinction between the Cotinus genus and Sideroxylon genus.