IDENTIFICATION OF MAHOGANY 155 



would agree that any definition of mahogany should be as broad as to 

 include red gum and a host of other woods which are decidedly 

 inferior to mahogany when used in the manufacture of many articles. 

 If the word "mahogany" is to have a meaning of any value it must be 

 restricted in its use to a definite article, and any substitution of other 

 woods under that name, even if they happen to have a similar color, 

 and interlocked grain, should be considered a misrepresentation. If 

 the name of a well-known wood with exceptional qualities is to be 

 used for a number of inferior species, why not do the same with 

 other articles of commerce? Why not call horseflesh "beef," oleo 

 "butter," and mercerized cotton "silk?" 



Somewhere else (p. 433) in the article the author temporarily takes 

 a more conservative attitude, for example : "Such dififerences in the 

 different woods classed as mahogany might be multiplied, and it might 

 seem that either the name mahogany ought to be abandoned altogether 

 and distinct names given to the different timbers now classed under it, 

 or it should be restricted, as Mell suggests, in its use to the wood to 

 which it was originally applied ; that is, to the timber derived from 

 Szvietenia mahogani and possibly also from S. macro phylla." How- 

 ever, he says that either of these alternatives is practical. As objec- 

 tion to the second possibility he states the following, "and its restric- 

 tion to the timber of the tree from which mahogany was first obtained 

 is also not feasible, for according to Stone, it is even uncertain if any 

 of the timbers now on the market come from Szvietcnia maJiagoni L., 

 and certainly most of them do not." This should not, however, be 

 sufficient reason for rejecting Mell's suggestion. Stone evidently was 

 uncertain in his identification of mahogany. He states in Timbers of 

 Commerce (p. 32), "The various species of mahogany and so-called 

 cedar, are so confusing that I confess to the inability to make any pre- 

 cise statements either as regards their structure or origin." Quite 

 contrary is the statement by Rev. James Aiken, of British Guiana, in 

 "Timchri," "In specimens of local grown timber I have examined I 

 find that the S. mahagoni grown here corresponds absolutely in these 

 characters with Stone's description and the specimen he sent me. It 

 is well to emphasize this point that the identity of wood from 

 S. mahagoni tree is, judging by specimens of various age I have pro- 

 cured, never in doubt for a moment." The odor of the Cedrelas alone 

 is sufficient to distinguish them from true mahogany. 



Dixon's key is based largely on microscopic characteristics. In the 

 descriptions of the woods he first cites the origin of his specimens, next 



