• ^ «tKiMgaBai3i(!/t^ityiCimiJ^t.-^!;i>!a!«^^ 



ISfames of Woods Hard to Change 



It is iiiucli i';[>iiT III iiaiiL.- u tvvr rh:iii to c-liaugc the iianii' alter 

 it liiis been iieeeiited by iiersuiis well aeiiuaiiitecl with it. One of 

 the best examples of this is yellow poplar. Botanists have tried 

 long anil hard to prevail on lumbermen to call this "tulip-tree." 

 That is a good, descriptive name, from the botanists' standpoint. 

 It is the only tree in this eountry that bears a flower whieh 

 resembles a tulip, and for that reason the name would define the 

 tree without any probability of confusion. The I'nitcd States 

 Forest Service threw the great weight of its influence on the side 

 of the botanists fifteen years ago. When Sudworth 's Checli List 

 was published in 1898, it sanctioned the use of the name tulip-tree 

 as official. 



The change of name never beeanio popular with Uinihermen and 

 users of wood. They refused to eall it by the new name. In fact, 

 few lumbermen to this day understand what tree is meant when 

 the name is used. The term yellow poplar is so firmly fixed that 

 change to anything else is improbable. In some regions, however, 

 it is called whitewood. This is particularly true in New England. 

 The same name, however, is often applied to basswood in the same 

 regions, and confusion is quite probable; but yellow poplar means 

 one tree and no other. 



Trees which lumbermen name are nearly always named because 

 of some prominent characteristic of the wood. Names bestowed by 

 botanists usually describe some feature of the leaf, fruit, flower, 

 or bark. The wood is the only thing with which the user is con- 

 cerned. It matters little to him what its shape or size of the leaf 

 or flower may be. On the other hand, the botanist seldom looks 

 at the wood, but gives all of his attention to foliage and other 

 external features. 



If these facts are borne in mind, many of the double or numerous 

 names of the same tree can be accounted for. For example, Sud- 

 worth 's Check List, already referred to, contains approximately 

 500 trees which grow in the United States, and these trees have 

 2,414 English names, besides several names in Latin without any 

 English equivalents. This amounts to about five names for every 

 tree, on an average. If a person will go over these names, one by 

 one, he can usually pick out the names bestowed by users and those 

 given by botanists. For example, white pine is a lumberman's 

 name, but white bark pine is a botanist's; net leaf oak is a name 

 devised bj' a botanist, but post oak is a woodsman's term; lance- 

 leaf alder is plainly a name bestowed by a man who was looking 

 at the foliage, but red alder's name was given by users of the 

 wood. 



As a general thing, trees which are of small commercial use 

 carry names given by botanists; but those of importance in lumber 

 transactions bear woodsmen's names. Attempts to change names 

 in common use are not usually successful. The failure of the effort 

 to induce users to call yellow poplar by the name tulip-tree is an 

 example. Another that has been equally unsuccessful is seen in 

 the case of soft maple. Botanists want that tree called silver 

 maple on account of the color of the leaves and bark. Nursery- 

 men have made the change. When they sell soft maples for shade 

 trees in yards and along streets, they sell "silver maple"; but 

 when a lumberman buys or cuts the same tree growing wild, he 

 calls it "soft maple." The name silver maple is probably never 

 found written on the records of a sawmill or other wood-working 

 factory. From the standpoint of exact definitions, the botanist's 

 name is preferable, because there are several species and varieties 

 of soft maples, all considered as one by lumbermen, but botanists 

 insist on a separate name for each. 



Rock elm is another case to the point. There is no question that 

 more than one elm sometimes passes by that name in lumber yards, 

 but the tree commonly considered as rock elm is the Ulmus race- 

 mosa of the botanists, which is most abundant in Michigan and 

 Wisconsin. Botanists insist that the tree should be called cork 

 elm, and it is so named in Sudworth 's list of trees. That name 

 naturally suggests itself to one who examines the living tree, 



—52— 



because the luni|i~ (it li.nk mi tin- limbs are easily seen and suggest 

 knobs of cork; liut the hiuibernian who handles logs or lumber sees 

 no cork, and the name means nothing to him. 



The hardness of the wood, however, does mean something to the 

 man who uses it, and in recognition of its hardness he calls it 

 rock elm. Attempts by non-users to have the name changed to 

 cork elm have met with no success. The name is practically 

 unknown among the users of the wood. 



A similar situation exists in the case of "rock oak." Botanists 

 do not recognize that as the proper name of any tree, yet at least 

 three oaks are occasionally so called by lumbermen. That to which 

 the name is usually applied is the Querciui prinus of botanists 

 (chestnut oak). Its leaves resemble those of the chestnut, hence 

 the name; but the user of the wood cares nothing about the leaves. 

 Hardness and strength are what appeal to him, and he prefers to 

 call the wood rock oak, occasionally designating it "iron oak," by 

 which term he translates his idea into words. 



Tupelo is another instance of lack of success attending the 

 efforts of botanists to change the name of a tree to which lumber- 

 men had already given a name. If one observes the crown of a 

 tupelo tree in spring when leaves are young, the whole top looks 

 as if it were sprinkled with cotton. It is the hairs on the young 

 leaves. It is a conspicuous feature and one which might reason- 

 ably be considered in naming the tree. It would be supposed that 

 the botanist who gave the species its technical name {Nyssa 

 aquatica) would have thought of the cotton and devised a term 

 which would have recognized that conspicuous feature, but he did 

 not, for some reason. The Latin name which he bestowed on this, 

 the largest and least graceful of the gums, might be liberally 

 translated "water nymph." What suggested such an incon- 

 gruous name is not now known. 



L'sers of the wood, from the days when its chief place was as 

 "back-logs" in southern cabins, called it tupelo, a name bestowed 

 by some forgotten, untutored, wild Indian "botanist" who had his 

 eye on the fruit. The name, when once adopted, stuck to the tree, 

 and it is popularly called tupelo to this day. 



Modern botanists recognized that the original name giver had 

 missed an opportunity when he forgot about the cotton on the 

 leaves; and they appealed to lumbermen to correct the oversight 

 as far as possible, by changing the commercial name from tupelo 

 to cotton gum. 



Lumbermen have not acted on the suggestion. Statistical reports 

 compiled by mills and factories seldom use the term cotton gum, 

 and there is no reason to suppose that they will do so. Tupelo 

 seems to be a -fixture in lumber nomenclature. 



Back to Old Days 



A clipping from the Boston Post regarding the construction 

 of the "Defiance," a yacht to be built at Bath, Me., for a syndi- 

 cate of New York, Philadelphia and Bo.ston yachtmen as a candi- 

 date for the defense of the America 's cup, has the above caption, 

 the meaning being that instead of using a finish of bronze plates, 

 the designers of this vessel will utilize a thin skin of mahogany 

 to cover the hull of the vessel, inasmuch as it is deemed that 

 .n. smoother finish can be obtained and there will be less likelihood 

 of buckling from the rivets. 



While the news item suggests that this idea is logical and that 

 polished mahogany ought to prove less resistant to the water 

 than any sort of metal and to be less affected by salt water, 

 the most pertinent part of the item is the statement that "what- 

 ever the results may be in its use, the sentimental value of a 

 partial return of the old daj's of wooden construction is consider- 

 able." This simply illustrates the fact that granting that two 

 types of construction are similar, there is a real apparent public 

 sentiment in favor of wood which has stood the tests for cen- 

 turies, and which is capable of standing almost any test for 

 centuries to come in face of all opposition. 



