IAWAGasson Journal, — Vol. anatomical 32 (2), 2011: identification 137–154 137

HOW PRECISE CAN WOOD IDENTIFICATION BE? WOOD ANATOMY’S ROLE IN SUPPORT OF THE LEGAL TIMBER TRADE, ESPECIALLY CITES

Peter Gasson Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey, TW9 3AB, United Kingdom [E-mail: [email protected]]

SUMMARY Traditional wood identification techniques using light microscopy are usually sufficient to identify a wood sample to the level. In some cases CITES legislation requires identification to level, which is difficult or impossible using traditional light microscopy. This paper concentrates mainly on the identification challenges posed by CITES, particularly with ramin ( spp.), Brazilian (Dal- bergia nigra) and Agarwood (Aquilaria and Gyrinops species). All the other CITES listed timbers and some other taxa that are traded or confused with protected species and might in the future be protected by legis- lation are also discussed. There are several new non-anatomical tech- niques being tried to make more accurate identifications and these are mentioned where appropriate. There is a mismatch between legislation and the natural world, and the limitations of the identification process need to be better appreciated by enquirers, especially in relation to CITES enquiries, since species and genus concepts vary among biologists, and can be ambiguous. Key words: CITES, phytochemistry, Gonystylus, nigra, Aquilaria, Gyrinops.

INTRODUCTION

The precision with which a wood sample can be identified depends on how much sup- porting information is linked to it, how accurate that information is, and the identity of the sample (some taxa have a much narrower geographical range than others so as- sumptions can be made regarding identity). Wood identification queries can be broken down into the following questions: what is it, where is it from (this may be known), what are its properties (or more often what can it be used for), is it from a sustainable source, and is it endangered and/or protected? In the Jodrell Laboratory at Kew we receive wood samples for identification from a wide range of inquirers including the police, Customs/Border Agency, medical practitioners and veterinarians, food manufacturers, archaeologists, palaeontologists, antique dealers, restorers, and the general public. Inquirers are usually satisfied with an identification to the genus level, which is what most wood anatomists would aspire to. In some parts of the world, such as Britain, this is often sufficient to narrow

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 138 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011 down the possibilities to only one or very few species in an archaeological inquiry or where the wood is known to be native (in the U.K. we have only one native species of Alnus, one Fraxinus, one Fagus, two Quercus etc.). The supplementary question of where a wood sample is from can be much more difficult or impossible to answer. Several examples will suffice. The white (Quercus sp.) used to make a piece of furniture could come from Europe, Asia or North America. An antique dealer may be particularly interested in where the piece was made because it could greatly affect its value, and often the style of the object helps. This question of provenance is now even more difficult to answer with modern furniture, where oak and ash grown in Russia can be exported to China, made into furniture, and then exported worldwide. International trade in timber and introductions of species for plantation forestry have also contrib- uted to the problem of ascertaining geographical origin. The true (Swietenia species) which originated in South and Central America is now grown in plantations elsewhere (e.g. in SE Asia, see PROSEA 5(1)), (Hevea sp.) would have had to come from until the 1860s but is now grown across the tropics and is increasingly being used for furniture from , and ( grandis), which originated in SE Asia now grows in other parts of the tropics e.g. Africa and Latin America. , originating in Australia is now grown virtually world- wide, having displaced many natural ecosystems. Whereas anatomical techniques cannot always ascertain origin, the use of stable isotopes may provide the answer. Kagawa et al. (2010) and Kagawa & Leavitt (2010) have shown that this is possible with pinyon (Pinus edulis and P. monophylla) in the southwest USA and teak (Tectona grandis) in southeast Asia. For some inquirers the identity of the wood is the first stage in finding out its proper- ties, and more pertinently for most, what it can be used for. The properties of a piece of wood can of course be assessed without knowing what it is or where it is from. Den- sity can be broadly assessed in the hand, and microscopic examination can the presence of, for example silica bodies that affect working properties. This supplementary question will not be considered further. Whether timber supply is sustainable is contentious. We have all seen adverts stating that for every chopped down three more are planted, which doesn’t necessarily mean that even one of them will reach the size, maturity and quality of the one removed. It also avoids the question of whether the plantation involved is on land where native was cleared first. Forestry in temperate regions using native species has in my opinion a greater chance of approaching sustainability than in the tropics. There are fewer species, several of which can be grown in monocultures, and seems to be less severe, or at least less obvious. With time, peoples’ perceptions of what is natural can change, for example the New Forest in Hampshire, England is a mosaic of conifers (introduced except ), broadleaves (many planted) and heathland, and all of it has seen the hand of man over centuries. Tropical are nearly all rich in species with relatively few individuals of a given species in a particular area. Removing the diversity and growing monocultures can encourage pests and diseases, especially if the plantation tree is native to the region or a pest has been brought with it. Hevea (pers. obs.) and (Ebanyenle, pers comm.) are two examples of species grown in

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 139 plantations that often do not meet yield expectations. Introducing a species can also be problematic if it becomes invasive (various legumes, and see mentioned later) or replaces a diverse ecosystem with a monoculture (e.g. Eucalyptus, Pinus radiata).

The final question on whether a species is endangered or protected has been the focus of much effort in recent decades with a realisation that some species are being driven towards extinction by over-exploitation. This is a particular problem in the tropics where there may be high species diversity but relatively few individuals of a valuable tree species. Removing these not only reduces the size of the population, but there is much collateral damage to the surrounding trees and habitat. Many animals and including timber trees now have IUCN red data assessments (see www.iucnredlist.org), which attempt to quantify their rarity. Relatively few of these species have the pro- tection that CITES listing and legislation is intended to provide. There are three levels of CITES protection which are summarised in Appendix 1 from the CITES website (www..org). The choice of taxa on CITES is subjective. Although specialists are consulted about the practicality of listing a taxon, the final choice is politically motivated, and in many cases causes problems for the people charged with policing the legislation. The initial burden falls on Customs officers at a port of entry, and for timbers this is usually a sea port. They have little trouble recognising tiger, leopard and crocodile skins, but a large shipment of reddish brown wood could be the true mahogany Swietenia sp. (CITES Appendix 2) or a less well protected species that looks very similar such as Khaya or from Africa or a dipterocarp from SE Asia. With large container ports, policing timber imports is a daunting task, and clues such as the port of origin and irregularities in paperwork are often an indication that timber may be being illegally imported. Some customs officers are proficient at accurate identification of some timbers, but they nearly always need to consult an “expert” to be certain that their suspicions are correct. They often only want to know whether a wood sample is a particular taxon, and not what it is if it’s not that taxon. There are several resources that support customs officers charged with enforcing CITES. The CITES Identifica- tion Guide – Tropical (Miller & Wiedenhoeft 2002) allows the recognition of CITES listed timbers using a handlens, and includes some of the pitfall taxa that are not covered. The software programme CITESwoodID version 2.0 (Richter et al. 2008; Koch et al. 2011) does a similar job. In the UK we have produced three posters for display in Customs staff rooms highlighting timber imports of Gonystylus, and Swietenia (Groves 2003; White et al. 2003a, b).

Most of this paper will be concerned with discussing the ease or difficulty of identifying the and taxa on the CITES appendices (annexes in the European Union). These are listed here under the three appendices and discussed later in their taxonomic groups. A separate microscopic atlas of all CITES-listed hardwood and softwood trees is included in this issue (Gasson et al. 2011).

Appendix 1 : (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae), Balmea stormae (Rubiaceae).

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 140 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

Appendix 2 hardwoods: pterocarpa (), rosaeodora (), Caesalpinia echinata (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae), , Platymiscium pleiostachyum and santalinus (Leguminosae, Papilionoi- deae), Swietenia humilis, macrophylla and mahagoni (), africana (Rosaceae), Aquilaria, Gyrinops and Gonystylus (), Bulnesia sarmientoi and Guiaiacum (Zygophyllaceae).

Appendix 3 hardwoods: Dalbergia retusa and stevensonii, Dipteryx panamensis (Leguminosae, Papilionoideae), Magnolia liliifera var. obovata (Magnoliaceae), Ce- drela odorata (Meliaceae) and Tetracentron sinensis (Trochodendraceae).

Appendix 1 : Araucaria araucana (Araucariaceae), Fitzroya cupressoides and Pilgerodendron uviferum (Cupressaceae), Abies guatemalensis (Pinaceae), and Podocarpus parlatorei (Podocarpaceae).

Appendix 2 softwoods: Taxus chinensis, cuspidata, fuana, sumatrana, and wallichi- ana but not baccata (Taxaceae).

Appendix 3 softwoods: Podocarpus neriifolius (Podocarpaceae).

Most of the CITES enquiries that we have received in the Jodrell Laboratory since the early 2000s have been to verify whether wood samples are ramin (Gonystylus spp.), Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra) or Agarwood (Aquilaria and Gyrinops spp.). The identification challenges are different for these three taxa, and are discussed in greater detail than the others. Even though the true identity of these samples may be of little interest to customs, they are of interest to us, so in most cases we do try to identify the samples. Ramin enquiries have included Pterygota (Malvaceae, previously Ster- culiaceae), Eucalyptus (Myrtaceae), Hevea (Euphorbiaceae), Alstonia (Apocynaceae), Dyera (Apocynaceae), (Malvaceae, previously Tiliaceae), Anthocephalus (Ru- biaceae), Liquidambar (Hamamelidaceae), Triplochiton (Malvaceae, previously Ster- culiaceae or Triplochitonaceae), Litchi (Sapindaceae), Sandoricum (Meliaceae), Erisma (Vochysiaceae), and Sapotaceae unidentified to genus, all of which are light coloured woods and could be confused with ramin. The other timber producing CITES species are discussed more briefly with my opinion on how accurately they can be identified, and whether this meets the requirements of CITES regulations. The timber species on CITES are relatively few. There are many more endangered and overexploited timbers which may eventually appear on the CITES appendices. Some of these taxa, including dipterocarps and Afzelia/Intsia are also briefly discussed.

In the discussions below, taxonomic and distributional information has largely been taken from Mabberley (2008) with some reference to Legumes of the World (Lewis et al. 2005) and PROSEA 5 (1 & 2). The InsideWood database which uses the descriptors in the IAWA hardwood list (IAWA Committee 1989) is frequently referred to (2004- onwards http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search). Softwoods are not so well-served on the internet, but the characters used to describe their wood are described in the IAWA

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 141 softwood list (IAWA Committee 2004) and an identification programme on CD is included with the conifer wood identification book by Esteban et al. (2002). Where facts are widely known, they are not always qualified by a reference, and references to the wood anatomical literature are those that I refer to most often and do not pretend to be comprehensive for each taxon discussed.

RAMIN, ROSEWOOD AND AGARWOOD

Gonystylus species: Ramin The entire genus Gonystylus is on Appendix 2 and all c. 25 species are from Indo- malesia and the Pacific region. This is the wood we most frequently encounter in Customs enquiries, and is quite straightforward to identify using a handlens followed by light microscopy. The wood is light in colour and weight. Through a hand lens the winged aliform parenchyma is usually well-defined on the transverse surface, and for non-botanists can be described as like looking at a commercial airliner head on, with the vessel being the fuselage and the parenchyma the wings. Under the microscope this feature is often not quite so clear because the fibre walls inGonystylus are thin and only slightly thicker than the adjacent axial parenchyma walls. The winged aliform parenchyma character (TS), in addition to uniseriate rays (TLS, occasionally biseri- ate in some samples), fine, vestured, intervessel pitting (TLS & RLS) and the usual presence of small crystals of various shapes in the ray cells (RLS) combine to give a high likelihood that a wood sample is Gonystylus. From an enforcement point of view, Gonystylus is the ideal taxon. All the species are protected, and a sample can be reliably named to genus level. Samples of Gonystylus are present in many wood collections, and information on the genus is readily available. Seven species are in InsideWood (G. bancanus and macrophyllus have descriptions and photos, G. spectabilis has a description only, and and G. confusus, forbesii, punctatus and warburgianus have pic- tures only). Careful comparison of the character states for these species in InsideWood suggests that caution would be needed when coding an unknown. The four characters I use do vary somewhat, and straightforward coding of winged-aliform (82), rays uni- seriate (96), minute pitting (24 &/or 25) and crystals in ray cells (138 & 154) takes you to . However, unless you allow mismatches, even one character that is not in a species description will eliminate it. A detailed account of the genus Gonystylus is in PROSEA 5(1), and international trade and identification are discussed in Garrettet al. (2010). This is one of the genera where some progress has been made with DNA technology. Asif and Cannon (2005) have extracted “high quality” DNA from G. bancanus (chloroplast DNA using atpbE, rbcL, trnF, trnE, and mitochondrial DNA using cox3 primers). They concluded that genomic DNA can be extracted from wood and herbarium samples and used to create DNA fingerprint databases to help verify timber certification. There is, however an enormous effort needed to sequence DNA from the species and genera with which ramin and other need to be compared. Wood collections (xylaria, see Lynch & Gasson 2010) have been, and in some countries e.g. continue to be built up for at least a century, but often lack the appropriate taxa with enough repli-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 142 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011 cates to sample. We do not have a century to perfect DNA databases based on adequate reference material. Magel et al. (2010) have demonstrated the utility of DNA from the ITS region in separating macroscopically similar species including Gonystylus from Pterygota and Terminalia. Despite these successes, there is a long way to go before there are adequate reference databases of DNA sequences from timber species, and currently anatomical identification is perfectly adequate for ramin.

Dalbergia nigra: Brazilian Rosewood Brazilian Rosewood (Dalbergia nigra) has full protection under CITES Appen- dix 1, and recently D. stevensonii from Costa Rica and Nicaragua and D. retusa from Guatemala have been added to Appendix 3. There is now growing concern over the future of some Dalbergia species from Madagascar (Barrett et al. 2010). Dalbergia is pantropical in distribution, comprising c. 250 species of trees, shrubs and lianas, with at least 20 species in the timber trade, especially from Latin America. The heartwood is dark brown to blackish, and is similar in appearance macroscopically to a number of other commercial timbers. The wood of Dalbergia and some other closely related genera in the dalbergioid legumes (see Richter et al. 1996; Lavin et al. 2001) is readily recognised microscopically by the short storied, mainly biseriate rays and associated storied axial parenchyma. However, this is where the problems begin. Whereas all species of Gonystylus have equal legal protection, only one species of Dalbergia is on CITES Appendix 1 and two more, from specific countries are on Appendix 3. Most wood anatomists who practice identifications are confident to identify a wood sample to the genus level, but are very diffident or unprepared to do this to species or species group level except in certain genera such as Pinus or Quercus. This means that unambiguous anatomical identification of Dalbergia nigra, eliminating all other Dalbergia species is almost impossible, especially when from a legal point of view no room for doubt is allowed. Considerable effort has been put to enhancing anatomical and chemical methods to address this problem. Miller and Wiemann (2006) compared the wood of D. nigra and D. spruceana and used the different fluorescence of water extracts and wood density to separate the two (as one customs officer remarked to me, throw a piece of D. spruceana into a swimming pool and it will sink, whereas D. nigra will – which is fine so long as you are sure you have one species or the other, but what about the other 248?). Gasson et al. (2010) pursued quantitative anatomical characters using PCA and naïve Bayes comparisons, and managed to identify all D. nigra samples to that species, but also a few non nigras as nigra, so this is not foolproof. However, pursuing the possibility that there are chemical differences in the heartwood between these two and other species, Kite et al. (2010) do appear to have found a flavonoid that is unique to D. nigra, at least in the 15 American, African and Asian species compared, which another 235 to be tested! No Madagascan Dalbergia species were examined, but there are 43, 42 of which are endemic, and many of these are likely to appear on the market having been exported to China for furniture manufacture and then re-exported elsewhere (see Barrett et al. 2010). Pigozzo et al. (2010) have suggested that another method of distinguishing Dalbergia species, especially D. nigra and D. spruceana, is by using near infrared spectroscopy. Identification of Dalbergia wood is also impor-

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 143 tant because some species are used to make bracelets and are known to cause contact dermatitis (Athavale et al. 2003). The best way of controlling Dalbergia trade would be to list the entire genus, but the prospect of this happening is slim, since unlike Gonystylus which has a relatively limited distribution and occurs in only a few countries, Dalbergia grows in many American, African and Asian countries, and agreement from them all would be needed for proper control.

Aquilaria and Gyrinops species (Thymelaeaceae): Agarwood Aquilaria (17 species from Indomalesia) and its close relative Gyrinops (9 species from Sri Lanka, Laos and Eastern Malesia) are relatively straightforward to identify anatomically. Currently they cannot be separated anatomically, but this does not matter since both are protected by CITES Appendix 2. Perhaps the major problem for people purchasing agarwood is that having a high value it is often adulterated or substitutes are used. Fortunately, with a combination of diffuse porous wood, narrow 1–2-seriate rays, and most importantly tangentially elongated islands of phloem, identification is not difficult. If you put three characters into InsideWood (diffuse porous, simple perforations, island-type included phloem), you narrow a search to 81 taxa including Aquilaria (Gyrinops is not there), many of which can be ruled out by additional ray and parenchyma features. With 5,867 descriptions in InsideWood, this combination of features is found in only 1.4 %, which gives a rough indication of how rare the com- bination is!

OTHER HARDWOODS: LEGUMES

The Leguminosae is one of the largest families of flowering plants with many timber producing species, and several taxa are on the CITES appendices. Dalbergia has already been discussed above. Intsia (merbau), although not currently on CITES, has been the subject of DNA extraction and sequencing, and a timber tracking system from Papua is being developed by Lowe et al. (2010). Their abstract does not mention that the closely related Afzelia can be confused with Intsia, and some species have been moved from one genus to the other. There is a vast literature on the wood anatomy of legumes, and it is very likely that other taxa will be added to CITES in the future.

Caesalpinia echinata: Brazilwood, Pernambuco etc. (Appendix 2) (Leguminosae – Caesalpinioideae) There are c.135 species of Caesalpinia s.l., but Caesalpinia s.s. comprises c. 40 species, mainly from Africa and the Caribbean. The Asian species should perhaps be excluded and C. echinata should probably be placed in the genus Poincianella (c. 35 species from tropical America). Brazilwood (C. echinata) has a very high value, and is the wood of choice for violin bows. It is quite widely distributed in eastern Brazil and has been the subject of several anatomical investigations both for identification and to elucidate the acoustic properties. The wood is quite variable anatomically, especially with regard to the degree of ray storeying. Some relevant references are Richter (1988), Bueno (2002), De Lima et al. (2002), Angyalossy et al. (2005), Amano (2007), Gasson et al.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 144 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

(2009) and there are photos and a description in InsideWood. The acoustic properties have been investigated by Schimleck et al. (2010).

Dipteryx oleifera (syn. D. panamensis): Almendro (Leguminosae – Papilionoideae) There are c. 12 species of Dipteryx from South to Central America, but only one, D. oleifera (as D. panamensis) is on CITES Appendix 3. A paper on Dipterygeae wood anatomy including the other two genera Pterodon and Taralea was published by Gasson (1999), but although D. panamensis was included, it was not distinguished anatomically from the other Dipteryx species. There are photos in InsideWood, but no descriptions, under the species D. oleifera following ILDIS (www.ildis.org). A recent commercial inquiry from SE Asia concerned some timber stated to be Dipteryx, but we identified it asPericopsis (see below for some details on this genus).

Pericopsis elata: Afrormosia, African Teak (Leguminosae – Papilionoideae) The genus Pericopsis comprises four species, three from tropical Africa and one from Sri Lanka to Micronesia. A description and photos are in InsideWood, and the genus is briefly described by Gasson (1994) in a survey of Sophoreae wood anatomy. Only P. elata, from west and central Africa is on Appendix 2. A detailed comparative study would be needed to elucidate whether there are any consistent differences between the four species.

Platymiscium pleiostachyum: Cristobal (Spanish) ( Appendix 2) (Leguminosae – Papilionoideae) There are 19 species of Platymiscium in tropical America. There are no descriptions of P. pleiostachyum in InsideWood, but there are both descriptions and photos of P. dimorphandrum, pinnatum, trinitatis, and ulei. The genus is a dalbergioid legume and is quite closely related to Dalbergia and Pterocarpus (see Lavin et al. 2001). With- out a comprehensive anatomical study of the genus it is not known whether P. pleio- stachyum can be separated from the other species. Platymiscium pleiostachyum was included in P. parviflorum Benth. by Klitgaard (2005) in her monograph of the genus.

Pterocarpus santalinus: Red Sandalwood, Zitan (Appendix 2) (Leguminosae – Papilionoideae) There are c. 35 species of Pterocarpus, mostly from Africa but P. santalinus is Asian (see Pearson & Brown 1932; MacLachlan & Gasson 2010). There is a description but no pictures in InsideWood. The wood is anatomically similar to other Pterocarpus spe- cies with which it shares short storied uniseriate rays, but its greater density is probably enough for accurate identification. As a dalbergioid legume the anatomy is similar to Dalbergia, especially in TLS.

OTHER HARDWOODS: MELIACEAE The are among the most highly valued and traded timbers. The reddish- brown wood is characteristic of several genera of Meliaceae (including Swietenia, Khaya and Entandrophragma) and also genera from unrelated families (see White & Gasson 2008). Two genera have CITES listed representatives. Whereas the wood (and

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 145 charcoal) of these two genera can be readily separated anatomically, it appears that Cedrela and Swietenia charcoal can be quite reliably distinguished using near infrared spectroscopy (Braga et al. 2011).

Cedrela odorata: Spanish Cedar The monograph on Cedrela by Pennington and Muellner (2010) describes 17 species, an advance on the eight acknowledged by Mabberley (2008). Cedrela odorata (CITES Appendix 3, Meliaceae) is a well known timber. There are many publications with wood descriptions and pictures, including InsideWood (6 species), PROTA Timbers 1 (2008) and White & Gasson (2008), and Cedrela is not difficult to identify to genus, but probably impossible to identify more precisely. Although native to South America, Cedrela odorata (or perhaps it is several species) is widely grown in Africa where it has the potential to become an invasive weed, an interesting property for a protected species! A CITES press release (14 October 2010) has just announced that C. fissilis and C. lilloi will be added to Appendix 3 at the request of Bolivia.

Swietenia: Mahogany Swietenia ranges from tropical America north to Florida. All three species (Swietenia humilis – Mexican Mahogany, S. macrophylla – Big- Mahogany and S. mahagoni – American Mahogany, note the spelling) are on CITES Appendix 2. This means that despite any variation in the wood (for example septate fibres vary in abundance, the marginal parenchyma bands vary in definition and ray storeying varies) the entire genus is covered, making life much easier for the wood anatomist. There are descriptions and pictures of S. mahagoni and S. macrophylla, but not S. humilis on InsideWood, and PROSEA 5(1) describes S. macrophylla in detail, although it is introduced in the region. Colour macrophotos and photomicrographs of the wood can be found in White & Gasson (2008), where comparison can be made with similar Meliaceae woods.

OTHER HARDWOODS: ZYGOPHYLLACEAE Bulnesia sarmientoi & Guaiacum: Lignum-vitae, Holywood Both these taxa are on Appendix 2. Bulnesia comprises c. 8 species in South America and Guaiacum 6 species from the warm Americas. Among other names, both are known as . Guaiacum is distinctive in having solitary thick-walled ves- sels and short storied rays, as shown on InsideWood. Bulnesia sarmientoi has vessels in a dendritic arrangement, and the InsideWood description (no pictures), following Tortorelli (1956) describes the rays as irregularly storied, whereas in our single slide they are just as regular as they are in Guaiacum. From the limited information in the literature and our reference microscope slides, these two taxa appear to be relatively straightforward to identify.

OTHER HARDWOODS: THE REST The following taxa are discussed more briefly, not because they are of less conserva- tion concern, but because we have encountered them rarely if ever in identification inquiries.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 146 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

Oreomunnea pterocarpa: Gavilan (Spanish) (Juglandaceae) There are two species of Oreomunnea which is from central America; O. pterocarpa (a synonym is Engelhardia pterocarpa) is on Appendix 2. On InsideWood there is a description and photos of O. pterocarpa and photos of O. mexicana. The major refer- ence for the wood anatomy of Juglandaceae is Heimsch & Wetmore (1939).

Aniba rosaeodora: Bois de rose or Pau Rosa (Lauraceae) There are 41 species of Aniba, and only one, A. rosiodora (as spelled in Mabberley 2008) is on CITES Appendix 2, and is unhelpfully called Brazilian Rosewood! The genus ranges across the Andes from to Bolivia. In view of the difficulties experienced identifying Lauraceae woods even to the genus level, and the fact that we have no reference woods or slides, we cannot identify this species. There are some pictures but no description in InsideWood. According to Richter (1981) A. rosaeodora is one species whose wood can be readily identified “by its characteristic turpentine- like scent caused by the high content of essential oils of the “linalool”-type”. His paper cites wood samples from INPAw and RBw.

Magnolia liliifera var. obovata: Magnolia (Magnoliaceae) With 219 species in this genus ranging from the Himalayas to Japan & western Malesia, eastern north America to tropical America, it is very unlikely that traditional wood anatomy would be able to distinguish this variety which is on CITES Appendix 3. We have never knowingly encountered it. There is an InsideWood description and pic- tures of Magnolia obovata, but this is not the same taxon. Magnolia liliifera var. obovata is from Nepal and has several synonyms: Talauma hodgsonii Hook.f. & Thomson, M. candollei var. obovata (Korth.) Noot. and M. hodgsonii (Hook.f. & Thomson) H. Keng. The main reference for the wood anatomy of Magnoliaceae is by Canright (1955).

Prunus africana: African Cherry (Appendix 2) There are more than 200 temperate species of Prunus, and some species occur on tropical mountains. Prunus africana bark provides the largest volume of any African medicinal , being a treatment for prostitis. The timber is used for wagons. There is a description and photos in InsideWood. Currently, we have not encountered this species in a CITES inquiry.

Balmea stormae: Ayugue (Rubiaceae) The single species in this genus is on CITES Appendix 1. We have one slide in our reference collection, but there is no description on InsideWood. The family Rubiaceae comprises c. 563 genera, so to be certain Balmea is distinct from other genera would be a large task. We have not received any enquiries about this species.

Tetracentron sinensis (Trochodendraceae or Tetracentraceae) This monospecific genus from Nepal, southwest and central China and northern Burma is on Appendix 3. It is an unusual hardwood (i.e. woody dicotyledon) because it lacks vessels and its wood is largely composed of tracheids (and wide rays). There are very few vesselless woody angiosperms: Tetracentron, Trochodendron, Winteraceae

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 147 and Amborella. Although we have not encountered this species in CITES enquiries, identification should be straightforward since we have reference slides and the wood is very distinctive. This taxon is not on InsideWood.

SOFTWOODS

Softwoods are much more uniform in their anatomy than hardwoods, and present many more problems of accurate identification. We have received very few CITES related softwood inquiries. The only one I can recall is of a shipment of Fitzroya cupressoides before 2000. Farjon (2001, 2010) provides a checklist and detailed account of all the currently recognised conifer species, and the IAWA Softwood List (IAWA Commit- tee 2004) describes and illustrates the anatomical characters most used for softwood identification.

Araucaria araucana Monkey Puzzle (Araucariaceae) There are three genera of Araucariaceae and 18 species of Araucaria. The genus is distributed across the south-west Pacific, southern Brazil to Chile andA. araucana (the only species on CITES Appendix 1) is native to south-central Chile and west central Argentina, although it is widely cultivated in temperate regions including the U.K. The wood of the three genera in the Araucariaceae (, Araucaria, Wollemia) is quite distinct from that of other softwoods in that the bordered pits in the axial tracheids are polygonal and often in two or three alternate rows (see Phillips 1948; Greguss 1955; Esteban et al. 2002; IAWA Committee 2004). Although there are descriptions of A. araucana in Greguss (1955) and Esteban et al. (2002), there appears not to have been any detailed critical assessment of whether this species is anatomically distinct from other Araucaria or Agathis species. Heady et al. (2002), in a very detailed account of the genus Wollemia, which was not discovered until 1994, were unable to find any consistent difference between the anatomy of this genus and Araucaria and Agathis, so on the evidence currently available it is very unlikely that A. araucana can be reliably separated from other Araucariaceae.

Fitzroya cupressoides: Alerce (Cupressaceae) This monospecific genus (CITES Appendix 1) is from southern Chile and southern Argentina. Trees can live for up to 3266 years (Mabberley 2008). There is a good account in Record & Hess (1943), and a colour photo and description of the wood in Rendle (1969), who describes the heartwood as reddish brown and similar to California Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), but its very narrow growth rings, a result of slow growth, and lack of knots can help to recognise it. However, beware that there are decades old Sequoia plantations in Chile and Argentina (Wiedenhoeft, pers comm.). The anatomy is described in Phillips (1948), Greguss (1955) and Esteban et al. (2002).

Pilgerodendron uviferum: Cipres (French) (Cupressaceae) This monospecific genus (CITES Appendix 1) is from southern South America extend- ing to 40° South. There are descriptions of the wood in Greguss (1955) and Esteban et al. (2002), who state that there are 1–2, occasionally up to 4 cupressoid pits per

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 148 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011 crossfield. Record and Hess (1943) also provide a short account, describing the heart- wood as brownish and very durable, and consequently much exploited for construction and furniture.

Abies guatemalensis (Pinaceae) This species is on CITES Appendix 1. Unfortunately there appear to be very few authenticated wood samples of this species available. There are 46–48 species of Abies (north temperate to Vietnam, central America). Esteban et al.’s (2009) paper on the wood anatomy of 33 species of Abies concludes that there are no diagnostic interspecific differences between species. However, Esteban et al. (2002, p. 310) do state one dif- ference in crossfield pitting betweenA. guatemalensis with 1–2 piceoid crossfield pits and A. guatemalensis var. jaliscana with 2–3 taxodioid crossfield pits. In the absence of adequate reference material and better distinguishing characters, identifying this species beyond Abies is probably not achievable on anatomical grounds.

Podocarpus (Podocarpaceae) The genus comprises 94 species in the southern hemisphere through tropical high- lands to the West Indies and Japan. Two species are CITES listed, P. neriifolius (Appen- dix 3) and P. parlatorei (Appendix 1). Neither of these species is covered by Phillips (1948), and as they are from entirely different geographical regions they are treated separately below. A comprehensive study of Podocarpus would be needed to ensure accurate identification of these species on anatomical grounds.

Podocarpus neriifolius This species has a wide distribution from eastern Nepal through Indochina and Malesia to the Solomon and Fiji islands. There is an account of Podocarpus including this species in PROSEA 5(2), and descriptions of the wood anatomy in both Greguss (1955) and Esteban et al. (2002), who state that there are 1–2 cupressoid pits per cross- field. The rays are generally ten or fewer cells high and there is abundant axial paren- chyma.

Podocarpus parlatorei: Parlatore’s Podocarp This species is from Argentina, Bolivia and and is on CITES Appendix 1. There is a description of the wood but no pictures in Tortorelli (1956), but no information in Greguss (1955) or Esteban et al. (2002).

Taxus chinensis, cuspidata, fuana, sumatrana, and wallichiana (Taxaceae) Taxus comprises nine or ten species from north temperate regions to central Malesia and Mexico. The five species listed above are on CITES Appendix 2. Anatomical iden-tification to genus level is straightforward, the most obvious characteristics being the absence of resin canals and the presence of helical thickenings in the tracheids. Greguss (1955) describes seven species (T. baccata, brevifolia, canadensis, chinensis, cuspidata, speciosa, wallichiana) and Esteban et al. (2002) six species (T. baccata, brevifolia, chinensis, cuspidata, floridana, wallichiana). Apart from T. canadensis where the crossfield pits are larger, these species look much alike anatomically.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 149

GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS Each of the taxa discussed above presents its own identification challenges. In many cases there is just not enough authenticated reference material in the world’s xylaria for the wood anatomist to be certain whether unequivocal identification is possible (see Lynch & Gasson 2010 for details on xylaria worldwide and Wheeler & Baas 1998 for a comprehensive review of the challenges of wood identification). Whereas most enquirers are satisfied with an identification to genus level, which is usually achiev- able by traditional light microscopy, when more precise identification is sought sup- plementary techniques need to be explored. From the perspective of light microscopic wood identification, the ideal taxonomic level to list a taxon on CITES is the genus. Assuming that a genus has been properly circumscribed, its wood anatomy is usually reasonably conservative and recognisable. The genera currently on CITES that seem the most straightforward to identify are Gonystylus, Aquilaria (and Gyrinops), and Swiet- enia. Where only one or a few species in a genus are covered most wood anatomists would be much more diffident with an identification. Considerable efforts have been made with Dalbergia using both anatomical and phytochemical criteria, but the only (almost) foolproof way of protecting would be to list them all. Taxonomic developments can also create problems. With the description of several new species of Cedrela, recognising the wood of C. odorata with certainty has become more prob- lematic, although so far we have not been asked to do so. There are of course many timbers in trade that could in the future be subject to trade restrictions. One family where this has so far been avoided is the Dipterocarpaceae, which provides a high pro- portion of commercial timber from southeast Asia. Several genera are traded including Parashorea, , Dipterocarpus and Dryobalanops (see PROSEA 5(1)). Listing any species in any of these and related genera would create enormous problems with trade enforcement. Abe et al. (2011) have attempted species level identification using DNA, but have found that drying veneers at 180 °C reduces the quality and quantity of extractable DNA. Deguilloux et al. (2002) have managed to extract short recognisable sequences of oak DNA, but are cautious with their results. So currently, DNA technol- ogy is not sufficiently advanced to fully address the identification challenge. One more factor so far not considered is that many species distributions traverse country borders. Wood anatomy is unlikely to be precise enough to help here, but dendroprovenancing, including rings and stable isotopes might. Many of the problems discussed above could be ameliorated or even circumvented if there were internationally agreed schemes in place to trace timber from its origin through any movement and production process to the final product and its destination. Poynton (2010) has described the role of the Forest Trust in providing chain of custody systems to track timber from its source to the final product, and Brown et al. (2008) explore the evolution of policy on , for- est verification and governance and provides some case studies from British Columbia, Costa Rica, Honduras, Nicaragua, Brazil, , Cameroon, Ghana, Cambodia, the , Indonesia and Malaysia. Dykstra et al. (2002) described the technology available for tracking timber, and Johnson and Laestadius (2011) eloquently encourage wood scientists to develop further the required wood identification to ensure that illegal logging is combated effectively. There are clearly many challenges ahead.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 150 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

Finally, it needs to be said that species and genus concepts vary among biologists and are often ambiguous. There is currently a mismatch between the expectations of legisla- tion and the natural world, and the limitations of the identification process need to be better appreciated by enquirers, especially in relation to CITES enquiries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have helped deliberately or inadvertently in shaping my knowledge and views on wood identification. I would particularly like to thank Noel McGough, Madeleine Groves, Guy Clarke and Lance Cruse regarding CITES matters. Without Elisabeth Wheeler’s herculean efforts there would not be an InsideWood database, which I refer to on an almost daily basis. Other wood anatomists whose expertise I have greatly benefited from include Pieter Baas, Pierre Détienne, Jorgo Richter, Jugo Ilic and Regis Miller.

REFERENCES Abe, H., U. Watanabe, K. Yoshida, K. Kuroda & C. Zhang. 2011. Changes in organelle and DNA quality, quantity, and distribution in the wood of Cryptomeria japonica over long-term stor- age. IAWA J. 32 [this issue]: 263–272. Amano, E. 2007. Pau-Brasil, madeira e casca: formação, desenvolvimento e estructura. PhD the- sis, Universidade de São Paulo. 101 pp. Angyalossy, V., E. Amano & E.S. Alves. 2005. Madeiras utilizadas na fabricação de arcos para instrumentos de corda: aspectos anatômicos. Acta Botânica Brasileira 19(4): 819–834. Asif, M.J. & C.H. Cannon. 2005. DNA extraction from processed wood: a case study for the identification of an endangered timber species (Gonystylus bancanus). Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 23: 185–192. Athavale, P.N., K.W. Shum, P. Gasson & D.J. Gawkrodger. 2003. Occupational hand dermatitis in a wood turner due to rosewood (Dalbergia latifolia). Contact Dermatitis 48: 345–456. Barrett, M.A., J.L. Brown, M.K. Morikawa, J-N. Labat & A.D. Yoder. 2010. CITES designa- tion for endangered rosewood in Madagascar. Science 328: 1109–1110. www.sciencemag. org/cgi/content/full/328/5982/1109/DC1 Braga, J.W.B., T.C.M. Pastore, V.T.R. Coradin, J.A.A. Camargos & A.R. Silva. 2011. The use of near infrared spectroscopy to identify solid wood specimens of (Cites Appendix II). IAWA J. 32 [this issue]: 285–297. Brown, D., K. Schreckenberg, N. Bird, P. Cerutti, F. Del Gatto, C. Diaw, T. Fomété, C. Luttrell, G. Navarro, R. Oberndorf, H. Thiel & A. Wells. 2008. Legal timber: Verification and govern- ance in the forest sector. Overseas Development Institute, London. 331 pp. Bueno, E. (ed.). 2002. Pau-Brasil. Axis Mundi Editora, São Paulo, Brasil. Canright, J.E. 1955. The comparative morphology and relationships of the Magnoliaceae. IV. Wood and nodal anatomy. J. Arnold Arbor. 36: 119–149. CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora). www.cites.org De Lima, H., G.P. Lewis & E. Bueno. 2002. Pau-Brasil: uma biografia. In: E. Bueno (ed.), Pau- Brasil. Axis Mundi Editora, São Paulo, Brasil. Deguilloux, M. F., M. H. Pemonge & R. J. Petit. 2002. Novel perspectives in wood certification and forensics: dry wood as a source of DNA. Proc R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B-Biol. Sci. 269: 1039– 1046. Dykstra, D.P., G. Kuru, R. Taylor, R. Nussbaum, W.B. Magrath & J. Story. 2002. Technologies for wood tracking: verifying and monitoring the chain of custody and legal compliance in the timber industry. World Bank, Washington D.C. http://www.proforest.net/objects/publica- tions/technologiesforwoodtracking2002.pdf

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 151

Esteban, L.G., P. de Palacios, F.G. Fernández & R. Moreno. 2009. Wood anatomy of the genus Abies: a review. IAWA J. 30: 231–245. Esteban, L.G., P. de Palacios de Palacios, A. Guindeo Casasus, I. Lazaro Duran, L. Gonza- lez Fernández, Y. Rodríguez Labrador, F. Garcia Fernández, I. Bobadilla Maldonado & A. Camacho Atalaya. 2002. Anatomía e identificación de maderas de coniferas a nivel de especie /Anatomy and identification of conifer wood as a species. Fundacion Conde del Valle de Salazar, Ed. Mundi-Prensa, Madrid. Farjon, A. 2001. World checklist and bibliography of conifers. Ed. 2. Roy. Bot. Gardens, Kew. Farjon, A. 2010. Handbook of the world’s conifers. Brill Academic Publishers. Garrett, L., H.N. McGough, M. Groves & G. Clarke. 2010. CITES & Timber: Ramin. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Gasson, P. 1994. Wood anatomy of the tribe Sophoreae and related Caesalpinioideae and Papil- ionoideae. In: I.K. Ferguson & S. Tucker (eds), Advances in Legume Systematics Part 6: 165–201. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Gasson, P. 1999. Wood anatomy of the tribe Dipterygeae with comments on related Papilionoid and Caesalpinioid Leguminosae. IAWA J. n.s. 20: 361–375. Gasson, P., P. Baas & E.A. Wheeler. 2011. Wood anatomy of CITES-listed tree species. IAWA J. 32 [this issue]: 155–197. Gasson, P., R. Miller, D. Stekel, F. Whinder & K. Zieminska. 2010. Wood identification ofDal - bergia nigra (Cites Appendix I) using quantitative wood anatomy, Principal Components Analysis and Naïve Bayes Classification. Ann. Bot. 105: 45–56. doi:10.1093/aob/mcp270 at www.aob.oxfordjournals.org Gasson, P., K. Warner & G.P. Lewis. 2009. Wood anatomy of Caesalpinia s.l.: Caesalpinia s.s., Coulteria, Erythrostemon, Guilandina, Libidibia, Mezoneuron, Poincianella and Tara (Leguminosae, Caesalpinioideae, Caesalpinieae). IAWA J. 30: 247–276. Greguss, P. 1955. Identification of living gymnosperms on the basis of xylotomy. Akademiai Kiado, Budapest. Groves, M. 2003. Ramin … is it in the frame? Poster for use by UK Customs & Excise. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Heady, R.D., J.D. Banks & P.D. Evans. 2002. Wood anatomy of Wollemi (Wollemia nobilis, Araucariaceae). IAWA J. 21: 293–319. Heimsch, C. & R.H. Wetmore. 1939. The significance of wood anatomy in the of the Juglandaceae. Amer. J. Bot. 26: 651–660. IAWA Committee. 1989. IAWA list of microscopic features for hardwood identification. (E.A. Wheeler, P. Baas & P.E. Gasson, eds). IAWA Bull. n.s. 10: 219–332. IAWA Committee. 2004. IAWA list of microscopic features for softwood identification. (H.G. Richter, D. Grosser, I. Heinz & P.E. Gasson, eds). IAWA J. 25: 1–70. ILDIS (International Legume Database & Information Service). www.ildis.org InsideWood. 2004-onwards. Published on the Internet. http://insidewood.lib.ncsu.edu/search Johnson, A. & L. Laestadius. 2011. New laws, new needs: The role of wood science in global policy efforts to reduce illegal logging and associated trade. IAWA J. 32 [this issue]: 125– 136. Kagawa A. & S.W. Leavitt. 2010. Stable carbon isotopes of tree rings as a to pinpoint the geographical origin of timber. J. Wood Sci. 56 (3): 175–183. Kagawa, A., S.W. Leavitt & T. Fujiwara. 2010. Stable isotopes of tree rings as a tool to pin- point the geographic origin of timber. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/IUFRO Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. Kite, G.C., P.W.C. Green, N.C. Veitch, M.C. Groves, P.E. Gasson & M.S.J. Simmonds. 2010. Dalnigrin, a neoflavonoid marker for the identification of Brazilian rosewood (Dalbergia nigra) in CITES enforcement. Phytochemistry 71: 1122–1131. doi: 10.1016/j.phyto- chem.2010.04.011.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 152 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

Klitgaard, B.B. 2005. Platymiscium (Leguminosae: ): biogeography, systematics, morphology, taxonomy and uses. Kew Bull. 60: 321–400. Koch, G., H.-G. Richter & U. Schmitt. 2011. Design and application of citeswoodid – Com- puter-aided identification and description ofcites -protected timbers. IAWA J. 32 [this issue]: 213–220. Lavin, M., R.T. Pennington, B.B. Klitgaard, J.I. Sprent, H. Cavalcante de Lima & P.E. Gasson. 2001. The Dalbergioid legumes (): delimitation of a pantropical monophyletic clade. Amer. J. Bot. 88 (3): 503–533. Lewis, G.P., B. Schrire, B. Mackinder & M. Lock (eds). 2005. Legumes of the world. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Lowe, A., D. Thomas & S. Iyerh. 2010. Developing a DNA timber tracking protocol for mer- bau. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/IUFRO Conference, University of Wiscon- sin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. Lynch, A.H. & P.E. Gasson. 2010. Index Xylariorum - Edition 4. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. Published on the internet. www.kew.org/collections/wood-index/Index_Xylariorum4.htm Mabberley, D.J. 2008. Mabberley’s Plant Book. Ed. 3. Cambridge Uiversity Press. MacLachlan, I.R. & P. Gasson. 2010. PCA of CITES listed Pterocarpus santalinus (Legumino- sae) wood. IAWA J. 31: 121–138. Magel, E., U. Moreth, O. Vay, M.M. Voss & N. Wischnewski. 2010. Use of DNA-markers for rapid identification of CITES-listed timber species. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/ IUFRO Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. Miller, R. & A. Wiedenhoeft. 2002. CITES Identification Guide – Tropical Woods: Guide to the identification of tropical woods controlled under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. An initiative of Environment Canada. Miller, R.B. & M.C. Wiemann. 2006. Separation of Dalbergia nigra from Dalbergia spruceana. Research Paper FPL-RP-632. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Prod- ucts Laboratory, Madison, WI. 5 pp. http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplrp/fpl_rp632.pdf (27 April 2009) Pearson, R.S. & H.P. Brown. 1932. Commercial timbers of India: their distribution, supplies, anatomical structure, physical and mechanical properties and uses. Government of India, Calcutta. Pennington, T.D. & A.N. Muellner. 2010. A monograph of Cedrela (Meliaceae). DH Books England. Phillips, E.W.J. 1948. Identification of softwoods by their microscopic structure. Forest Products Research Bull. No. 22. HMSO Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Pigozzo, R.J.B., R.D. Humphreys & G.C.T. Ceccantini. 2010. Use of near infrared spectroscopy (NIR) to identify Dalbergia nigra. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/IUFRO Con- ference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. Poynton, S. 2010. Real-world insights from forest certification programs and opportunities for science to bolster forest governance. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/IUFRO Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. PROSEA 5 (1) Timber trees: Major commercial timbers. 1993. Eds I. Soerianegara & R.H.M.J. Lemmens. Pudoc Scientific Publishers, Wageningen. PROSEA 5 (2) Timber trees: Minor commercial timbers. 1995. Eds R.H.M.J. Lemmens, I. Soerianegara & W.C. Wong. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden. PROTA Timbers 1. 2008. Plant Resources of Tropical Africa 7 (1). Eds D. Louppe, A.A. Oteng- Amoako & M. Brink. PROTA Foundation, Backhuys Publishers, Wageningen. Record, S.J. & R.W. Hess. 1943. Timbers of the New World. Yale University Press. Rendle, B.J. 1969. World Timbers 2. North and South America (including Central America and the West Indies). Ernest Benn Ltd, London, University of Toronto Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access Gasson — Wood anatomical identification 153

Richter, H.G. 1981. Wood and bark anatomy of Lauraceae. 1. Aniba Aublet. IAWA Bull. n.s. 2: 79–87. Richter, H.G. 1988. Holz als Rohstoff für den Musikinstrumentenbau. Edition Moeck Nr 4043. Moeck Verlag, Celle, Germany. Richter, H.G., K. Gembruch & G. Koch. 2008-onwards. CITESwoodID: Software program: Descriptions, illustrations, identification, and information retrieval. Version October 2008. Berlin: BFH German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation. Richter, H.G., U.J. Krause & C. Muche. 1996. Dalbergia congestiflora Standl.: wood structure and physico-chemical properties compared with other Central American species of Dalber- gia. IAWA J. 17: 327–341. Schimleck, L.R., C. Espey, C.R. Mora, R. Evans, A. Taylor & G. Muniz. 2010. Estimation of the wood properties of pernambuco using NIR spectroscopy. Abstract in Final program, IAWS/IAWA/IUFRO Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, USA, June 2010. Tortorelli, L.A. 1956. Maderas y bosques argentinoes. Editorial Acare, Buenos Aires. 910 pp. Wheeler, E.A. & P. Baas. 1998. Wood identification – a review. IAWA J. 19: 241–264. White, L., A. Fraser, M. Mustard, M. Groves, P. Gasson & N. McGough. 2003a. Out of Africa … Pericopsis elata. Poster for use by UK Customs & Excise. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew. White, L. & P. Gasson. 2008. Mahogany. Kew Publishing. 100 pp. White, L., M. Mustard, M. Groves, P. Gasson & N. McGough. 2003b. Coming to a port near you … Swietenia macrophylla. Poster for use by UK Customs & Excise. Royal Botanic Gardens Kew.

APPENDIX A summary of the criteria for the three CITES appendices. See www.cites.org for more details. Appendix I lists species that are the most endangered among CITES-listed animals and plants (see Article II, paragraph 1 of the Convention). They are threatened with extinction and CITES prohibits international trade in specimens of these species ex- cept when the purpose of the import is not commercial (see Article III), for instance for scientific research. In these exceptional cases, trade may take place provided it is authorized by the granting of both an import permit and an export permit (or re-export certificate). Article VII of the Convention provides for a number of exemptions to this general prohibition. Appendix II lists species that are not necessarily now threatened with extinction but that may become so unless trade is closely controlled. It also includes so-called “look- alike species”, i.e. species of which the specimens in trade look like those of species listed for conservation reasons (see Article II, paragraph 2 of the Convention). Inter- national trade in specimens of Appendix-II species may be authorized by the granting of an export permit or re-export certificate. No import permit is necessary for these species under CITES (although a permit is needed in some countries that have taken stricter measures than CITES requires). Permits or certificates should only be granted if the relevant authorities are satisfied that certain conditions are met, above all that trade will not be detrimental to the survival of the species in the wild. (See Article IV of the Convention.)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access 154 IAWA Journal, Vol. 32 (2), 2011

Appendix III is a list of species included at the request of a Party (i.e. country) that already regulates trade in the species and that needs the cooperation of other countries to prevent unsustainable or illegal exploitation (see Article II, paragraph 3, of the Convention). International trade in specimens of species listed in this Appendix is allowed only on presentation of the appropriate permits or certificates. (See Article V of the Convention.)

Downloaded from Brill.com09/26/2021 11:42:02PM via free access