Hardwood not hard, softwood not soft! (necessarily)

Poplar is a hardwood too.

That would get my vote. The stuff is not only so hard it is difficult to work, but it is also incredibly tough. Makes good bows. If you shape the bow so there is sapwood on the outside and heartwood on the inside, it will give you a natural compound bow.

Say you, but the original article also included deciduous in the definition. The above are not deciduous.

Again, the original article included evergreen in it's definition of softwood, yet there are gymnosperms that are deciduous.

An ambiguous definition isn't one.

In an angiosperm the seeds are enclosed. In conifers the seeds are exposed.

But, being angiosperms, they're hardwoods.

Being gymnosperms, they're softwoods, whether they're deciduous or not.

The terms "hardwood" and "softwood" are exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively.

The overwhelming majority of gymnosperms are evergreen, and the overwhelming majority of temperate-zone angiosperms are deciduous.

I. SOME FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS ON WOOD:

Q: A Softwood is a soft wood and a Hardwood is a hard wood. Right? A: False. A softwood is the wood of a conifer (or a Ginkgo), a hardwood is the wood of a dicot tree. The hardest hardwood is some three times as hard as the hardest softwood, but the hardest softwood is some four times as hard as the softest hardwood. The softest woods in the world are hardwoods.

Q: A Conifer, that is the same thing as a Gymnosperm. Right? A: Not quite: there are four groups of Gymnosperms, of which the Conifers (with some six hundred species) are the biggest and most important. Ginkgo (one species) is another such group. The remaining two groups don't yield anything that could be regarded as timber.

Q: A wood with "cedar" in the name will surely be a softwood. Right? A: False: "cedar" is a word that does not mean anything except a wood with a certain type of fragrance (if that). Going only by frequency, "cedar" in the US most often will be "Western Redcedar" (Thuja plicata), followed at some distance by "Eastern Redcedar" (Juniperus virginiana) also marketed as "Aromatic Cedar" [these are both softwoods]. A "cedar" from Central America will usually be a Cedrela species; from SE Asia usually a Toona species [these are both hardwoods]. Etc, etc [list goes on at considerable length].

Q: Slow-grown wood is harder than fast-grown wood. Right? A: By and large, this is true. It will depend on the wood concerned. The age-old canon is "A slow-grown softwood is harder than a fast-grown softwood, while a fast-grown hardwood is harder than a slow-grown hardwood." Curiously, this is also true, up to a point. It will not be true in the tropics, but will in most of the US and Europe. The point is that throughout most of the US and Europe the most used hardwoods will be ring-porous (such as Ash, Elm, Hickory, Oak). A ring-porous tree will start every year by forming a ring of very big pores (easily visible to the naked eye) and only make mechanical tissue (for support) later in the year. This means that in a short season the tree will not have time to make a full growth ring, but stops after making only very little of this mechanical tissue: slow-grown wood exists mostly of the rings of big pores. As pores are big air-filled spaces slow-grown ring-porous hardwood is quite soft. In a long season the tree will have the time to make a full growth ring with a great deal of mechanical tissue. As the latter is hard, a fast-grown ring-porous hardwood will be hard and strong. For softwoods and diffuse-porous (non-ring-porous) hardwoods a slow-grown wood will be harder (and more decorative) than a fast-grown wood.

Q: "Cherry" is the wood from the Cherry tree. Right? A: Not really. The tree that cherries grow on does yield a classic wood, called cherry, but this has always been fairly rare (these days cherry trees are planted in a stunted form for pickability of the fruit). There is a US timber tree ("Black Cherry", more or less closely related) that yields a look-alike wood almost as good, and certainly a lot more available. This is called cherry for convenience.

Q: "Brazilian Cherry "is a kind of cherry. Right? A: False. The nearest wellknown relatives of "Brazilian Cherry" (Hymenaea), more properly known as "Red Locust" or "Jatoba", will be Purpleheart (Peltogyne) and Bubinga (Guibourtia). The closest relatives in the US will be "Honey Locust" (Gleditsia) and the "Kentucky Coffetree" (Gymnocladus). A (much) more distant relative is "Black Locust" (Robinia).

Q: What wood to use for a cutting board? A: Maple, or something similar (any lightcolored hardwood, with a high density and a fine structure, e.g. beech, birch, etc). Not to be recommended are exotic hardwoods: their high degree of durability is because they contain significant concentrations of exotic substances lethal to lots of organisms. These substances are best avoided in food. The issue is especially relevant when cooking for guests or children.

Q: A Live Oak is an oak that has not been cut down yet. Right? A: False. A Live Oak is another name for an evergreen oak (OK, sometimes a "subevergreen" oak). Evergreen oaks occur where the temperature allows, in a belt all round the world. Going by the wood, there are three categories of genuine Oak (Quercus), found all over the Northern Hemisphere: White Oaks, Red Oaks and Live Oaks. The woods of these three are not closely comparable in any respect. Characters that are shared by all three woods are prominent rays and a dendritic arrangement of pores. All in all there are some

Q: "Phillipine Mahogany" is mahogany from the Philippines. Right? A: False. It may or may not be from the Philippines (probably not), but it won't be Mahogany, ever.

Q: "Honduras Mahogany" is mahogany from Honduras. Right? A: Depends. It could be, but usually is not (from Honduras, that is).

Q: "African Mahogany" is mahogany from Africa. Right? A: Just about. The wood of Khaya is from tropical Africa and is usually assumed to be a Mahogany.

Q: "Rhodesian Teak" is teak from Rhodesia. Right? A: False. Baikiaea plurijuga is not teak, but a member of the Pea family. It grows in several countries, one of which used to be called Rhodesia.

Q: "Nigerian Teak" is teak from Nigeria. Right? A: Right. Plantation grown. Not that anybody would want to use it.

Q: "Java Teak" is teak from Java. Right? A: Right. Plantation-grown, from the days the Dutch were there. High quality.

Q: Teak is a really hard wood. Right? A: Depends. Teak (Tectona grandis, family Labiatae) varies from soft as butter and pale yellow to fairly hard and dark brown. Depends on provenance.

Q: Steel is stronger than wood. Right? A: Depends. A piece of steel of a certain size will almost always be stronger as a piece of wood the same size. A steel rod of a particular length and mass as compared to a similarly sized rod of wood ...

• * *

II. SOME USEFUL SITES:

FPL:

- intro-page of the Forest Products Laboratory:

- technical properties of wood

- the FPL "Wood Handbook. Wood as an engineering material" (downloadable):

- common and scientific names of wood (best database around, with a fairly low level of error):

- silvics of US trees

- "The American Woods":

- lots of pictures (fun), but short on accuracy and real information full version (slow):

- even more pictures, with even less information (lots of typo's)

• * *

III. BOOKS: Good entry-level books on wood are "Wood for woodturners" by Mark Baker (a bright book) "Good Wood Handbook" by Albert Jackson & David Day (cheapest and best, but out of print. Still available in the (British) original which is called "Collins good wood guide") "Woodworker's Guide to Wood" by Rick Peters ('passing grades')

An interesting book on a different way to obtain wood: "Harvesting Urban Timber" by Sam Sherrill

An artsy book on American Wood with some really great pictures: "The Woodbook" by Leistikow (ed.?) Not cheap.

Adult books on wood are "Understanding Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley "Identifying Wood" by R. Bruce Hoadley

For those not shying away from a thick book: "Holzatlas" by Rudi Wagenfuhr

Not exactly correct. One of those remaining groups is (or should be) podocarp. (Almost) endemic to New Zealand with some members in Australia and Fiji.

Podocarp includes the NZ Kauri tree which is one of the nicest softwoods to work with, ever - straight grained, knot free, easily cut in any direction ... in the 19th century most of Sydney and San Francisco houses were built with Kauri framing. Many sailing ships had masts made from young Kauri trees. Sadly, because of the rampant exploitation _new_ Kauri is as rare as hen's teeth these days. A lot of Kauri is recycled from demolished houses these days. The wood has a beautiful inner golden glow that gives the impression you can look into it when polished. Generally quite soft.

Same family yields Rimu, which is still available - hard, ornery, poisonous (wear respirator and protect eyes when working) with a grain that can be as attractive and vivid as the very best of them (walnut, tupip wood). Heart rimu is so hard you can't nail it. Many old houses in New Zealand were built from rimu framing because borer does not like it. Still in use for veneers for interior doors, cabinetmaking ...

Totara - a reddish pink wood with white sap. Also contains a natural perservative, more or less immune to fungii and bacterial rot. Looks very pretty and is nice to work with but 'blooms' under just about any varnish so it's not used much in cabinet making and such. (I've heard that it will not bloom when French Polish is used). Farmers used to use it for fenceposts that would last up to 70 years in the ground without any chemical treatment whatsoever. Works well, similar to Kauri.

Kahikatea - early settlers used to call it 'yellow pine' and it tends to be buttery yellow in colour when freshly planed. Good to work with, doesn't shatter like Rimu, has a lot of spring. Sadly does not hold up to weather at all, even when treated. Makes nice timber for shelves etc though. NZ butter used to be shipped in boxes made from Kahikatea because it is flavour neutral. Hard to obtain these days, but not for lack of trees.

there are a few more members of the family ...

-Peter

Not really. Hardwood and softwood are not botanical classifications.

Same problem, has nothing to do with botanical classifications.

The confusion is caused by people mixing two different classifications. There are botanical (scientific) classifications as well as commercial and other classifications. The situation is similar to tree names where you need to know the scientific name to be sure of what another person is talking about because, trees also have common names, commercial names, etc.

Most importantly, there is no taxonomic division or classification of hardwoods and softwoods. Those terms are primarily commercial, logging, and building trades terms based on the hardness of the wood. To further complicate, sources try to simplify the definition by equating hardwood and softwoods to some botanical classification. But, they don't fit any botanical classification very well and that is the source of the confusion.

Picky, picky, picky. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are lumber industry terms that are exactly synonymous with the botanical terms "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. Happy now?

Same answer. Were you born this pedantic, or did you train?

Not correct.

That is simply false. Longleaf pine, for example, is considerably harder than yellow poplar; however, the former is classified as a softwood by the lumber industry, and the latter as a hardwood.

The lumber industry distinction between hardwood and softwood is based

The confusion is entirely on your part, sir. "Hardwood" and "softwood" are exactly synonymous with "angiosperm" and "gymnosperm" respectively. If you disagree, it's up to you to provide counterexamples.

Anybody heard of IronWood trees? They grow along streams and rivers here in N.C. Hard or soft, botanically? I know their density and weight make them properly named. Hugh

Exactly. That is the way I was taught back in a HS science class.

Harry K

I 'think' I have seen one but not sure. My understanding is that they are deciduous and thus by definition are softwood.

Harry K

OOPS! By definition they are HARDWOOD.

Harry K

All you need to know is that hardwoods are better to burn in your woodstove. I don't burn softwoods at all, just let them rot when they fall...

James "Cubby" Culberts>>>And hardwoods are definitely harder than softwoods. Just cut any >>>hardwood

Take some botany classes or just take one--taxonomy.

Well at least you agree it is an industry classification. If it isn't generally based on the hardness of the wood, I wonder why the two categories are "softwood" and "hardwood."

You are right, it is loose, so loose than the wheel fell off.

I'm confused? I know exactly what the terms angiosperm and gymnosperm mean. And if I didn't, I could go to any botany book and find the definition.

If the industry equates angiosperm and gymnosperm to hardwood and softwood, why don't they just say angiosperm and gymnosperm and be correct? You already gave examples of gymnosperms that are harder than angiosperms.

My point is that defining hardwood/softwood that way is useless, senseless, irresponsible, and confusing. The fact that this thread is so long confirms that.

Uhh, density equates pretty much to hardness. And hard or soft is not a botanical classification.

Then you had a lousy science teacher! No decent biologist or botanist would say that, and the physics and chemistry teachers probably wouldn't know or care.