8.   Timber Nomenclature

This section has been contributed by Dr John Brazier. As he points out, before the second world war the CFA was a major contributor of names of tropical woods to the British Standards Institution and until 1974 the Handbook  contained the text of the British Standard nomenclature.  For copyright reasons this is no longer possible  The editors are most grateful for this clarification of the current position and draw readers' attention also to the section on "PROSPECT" the database on tropical timbers in section 11.

Timber is commonly traded using national or vernacular names.   Botanists and other scientists have a single scientific name, in latin, for a tree and its timber and neither geography nor language is a barrier to an understanding of what is meant.   This is not so with trade names, beech is hêtre in France and Buche in Germany, though by the time hêtre is traded in Britain it has become French beech.   But this does not always happen.   Thus obeche from Nigeria, wawa from Ghana, samba from the Ivory Coast and ayous from the Cameroon are familiar trade names for the same timber and each continues to be used, because of a perceived and, by implication, a preferred difference in the product of one country.   Such practice confuses the user;  another common practice misleads him.   This is the use of familiar names for unrelated and sometimes technically quite different woods:  Tasmanian oak, African walnut, Philippine mahogany, Parana pine and Oregon pine might be cited.   None of these timbers is what it purports to be though some such names have been in such long use and become so well established that they are now accepted.   This is not to condone the practice;  today applying familiar names to unrelated timbers is deprecated and can result in litigation.

Clearly there is a need for guidance to those supplying, specifying and using timbers.   This became evident in the 1920s and 30s when, with trade expanding the variety of timbers available from what was then the Empire and an increasing demand for certainty of performance, strength, durability, etc when using timber, assurance was needed on what was being supplied.   A standard nomenclature for traded timbers would aid this and in 1935 British Standard 589:1935, Nomenclature of Softwoods was issued followed in 1939 by British Standard 881:1939, Nomenclature of Hardwoods.   These standards gave a standard name for each commercial timber, its botanical species and other trade names by which it was known.  The standards also recognised the problem of ‘misleading’ names, deprecated the use of many but where they had become firmly established proposed they should be cited in parentheses, e.g. ‘African walnut’, ‘Parana pine’.   It is of interest that in the Foreward to BS 881:1939 it states, ‘The (British Standards) Institution is indebted to the Empire Forestry Association for placing at its disposal the list of trade names of Empire timbers prepared by the Empire Forestry Conference, which has been incorporated almost without change’.   Two hundred and forty one hardwoods and 70 softwoods were listed. 

In 1946, the two standards were combined in a single publication and issued as British Standard 881 & 589:1946, Nomenclature of Commercial Timbers.   This standard was revised in 1955 and 1974 but continued in use until 1991 when it was replaced by  British Standard 7359:1991, Nomenclature of Commercial timbers including sources of supply.   This is the standard in use today.   Timbers are listed under botanical names with an appropriate standard name (a change in order which occurred with a revision of BS 881 & 589), other trade and local names, sources of supply and the average density of the timber.  Four hundred and seven hardwoods and 72 softwoods are listed, with the great increase in the number of hardwoods compared with that in the 1939 standard almost entirely due to a doubling in the number of tropical woods and reflecting the changing pattern of trade in the intervening years.

Of course, Britain was not alone in providing a standard nomenclature for timbers.  In the Commonwealth so did Australia  and, in Europe, standard timber names were proposed for Germany by Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. (DIN), for France by l’Association Française de Normalisation (AFNOR) and for Italy by Ente Nazionale Italiano di  Unificazione (UNI).   In 1982, L’Association Technique International des Bois Tropicaux (ATIBT), with representatives from western European countries, produced an international standard for tropical woods (Nomenclature gènérale des bois tropicaux), listing these under a ‘nom-pilote’.

However, with the creation of the European Union and an expansion and liberalisation of trade, harmonisation of national standards was put in hand by CEN (European Committee for Standardization) to aid cross-border marketing.   This applies to all materials and products;  for timber and timber products some 200 or more harmonised standards have been accepted or are being introduced.   An example of the latter is a standard for timber nomenclature.   This is in draft (pr EN 13556:  Round and sawn timber - Nomenclature of timbers used in Europe) and has been distributed for public comment.   It does not give a single standard name for a timber but cites the standard names in English, French and German and thus provides a ready comparison for when a timber is traded in Europe.   When it will be formally issued is a matter for conjecture though this might reasonably be expected to be in 2001 or perhaps 2002.   It will not give all the information given in BS 7359:1991 and it is to be hoped that this standard will continue to be available.   For now, it is the required standard for timber names in the United Kingdom and, in the absence of more appropriate national standard lists can be recommended for all countries.

J. D. Brazier