Downloaded from Brill.Com09/24/2021 07:42:43AM Via Free Access 4 IAWA Journal, Vol
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
IAWA Journal, Vol. 15 (1), 1994: 3-45 SURVEY OF ENGLISH MACROSCOPIC BARK TERMINOLOGY by Leo Junikka 1 Department of Botany, P.O. Box 7 (Unioninkatu 44), 00014 University of Helsinki, Finland Summary Tenns of outer and inner bark characteris field characters of valuable timber trees with tics are critically surveyed. Different macro notes on barks. They were followed by Beard scopical tenns with their synonyms are listed (1944; Tobago), De Rosayro (1960; Ceylon), for a comparison of bark features. Sugges and Den Outer (1972; Ivory Coast). tions are given for a standardised usage of Whitmore (1962a, b, c), in his notable stud the tenns to stimulate a practice of pertinent ies on Dipterocarpaceae, described seven dis field notes and facilitate understanding of de tinct bark types and demonstrated that the scriptions. Preferred tenns are printed in bold bark may provide valuable taxonomic infor face and preferred definitions in italics. mation, and may shed light on a number of Key words: Bark morphology, tenninology. important taxonomic problems. Voorhoeve (1965) produced a comprehensive study of Introduction some Liberian high forest trees with a great Notes on the appearance of the bark or the deal of infonnation on bark characters. Roth fonn of a trunk are often wanting or inade (1981) summarised studies on tropical barks quate in most tropical floras. Only a minority in Venezuelan Guyana with some characters of plant collectors include various field char and definitions worthwhile to comment. In acters on the labels of herbarium sheets. How recent years good examples of tree floras ever, careful descriptions of mature barks using different bark features are Tailfer's and other vegetative parts, especially in rain (1989) work on tropical Africa and Polak's forest trees, may provide a valuable tool for (1992) work on Guyana. Thus good data are reliable and quick plant identification. Plant available, but only from a few areas and, vir collectors often cannot reach the crown can tually, only from a few plant groups such as opy of the rain forest emergents, or if they the genus Eucalyptus (Francis 1951) or the obtain a branch sample, there may be no family Dipterocarpaceae (Whitmore 1962c). flowers or fruits. Furthermore, the tedious In contrast to the strong standardisation in process of naming plants belonging to certain wood anatomical terms by the lAWA (1957, families or other taxonomic units which are 1964, 1989), bark anatomical terms were re notoriously difficult to identify in the herbar viewed to a certain extent by few authors ium might be greatly speeded up if good bark only, e.g. Esau (1969) and Martin & Crist characters were available. This, in turn, could (1970). Later a thorough discussion of vari prevent undue delay in publishing, for in ous tenns with references to relevant litera stance, the results of inventories of tropical ture and proposal of a list of bark anatomical forests. terms to be used was published by Trocken There have been several attempts to con brodt (1990). struct keys based on bark characters. Presum The present paper concentrates on bark ably, Lely (1925) from Northern Nigeria and morphology. As the anatomical composition Foxworthy (1927) from the Malay Peninsula of the bark highly contributes to the outer as were the first who carefully listed different pect and other characters of the bark, terms 1) Temporary: Herbarium, Department of Plant Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands. Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 07:42:43AM via free access 4 IAWA Journal, Vol. 15 (1),1994 used in bark anatomy and those used in bark This paper is intended as a proposal to morphology overlap to a certain degree, par ward a consistent bark morphological termi ticularly those concerning bark tissues. nology. I have quoted 'representative' defi The first efforts to compile a descriptive nitions from the anatomical literature, from morphological terminology of barks were some field floras of different geographical made by Wood (1952), De Rosayro (1953), areas, and from common botanical textbooks and Wyatt-Smith (1954). These papers were written for tropical areas. Some well-known mainly concerned with bark features based terms have been omitted, although some syn on the authors' own experience from South onyms are accepted. I have restricted the east Asia. Also some terminological defini scope of this study to the English literature, tions of bark features are included in the but some common terms (e. g. rhytidome, glossaries of tree floras, such as Corner's phloeme) from French publications are in book 'Wayside trees of Malaya' (1940; 3rd cluded. ed. 1988). Various terminological notes can This tentative list of terms certainly does be found in textbooks of tropical botany. A not pretend to cover all the terms used in bot good example is Letouzey's (1986) book any and forestry. Hopefully, though, it will 'Manual of forest botany' in two volumes on bring more clarity in a rather confusing bark tropical Africa (translation from the original terminology, and thus contribute to a badly French, 1972). Among plant anatomical text needed standardization. books, Eames & MacDaniels (1947), Esau (1960, 1965, 1969, 1979), and Fahn (1990) have referred to macroscopical characteristics Structure, symbols, and abbreviations of barks. used in the list Rollet (1980, 1982) published a review about the variability of characters used in ma Structure croscopic bark analysis. Based on his survey This paper is divided into three main chap of field floras that contain notes on bark fea ters: 1) a list of accepted terms, 2) a survey of tures, and his own experience from the trop the terminology with the accepted definitions, ics, he described the potentiality of using synonyms and comments on relevant bark features, giving numerous examples. literature, and 3) a list of rejected terms with As Trockenbrodt (1990) has pointed out, many cross references. The accepted terms the large number of terms with partially or are printed in bold face, and the accepted def wholly overlapping meaning "reveals the lack initions in italics. The survey of the terminol of a concise and widely applicable terminol ogy (and the preceding list of accepted terms) ogy of bark structure." Not only are different is subdivided into five parts, dealing with: morphological terms applied to the same struc I bark and its component tissues ture but also, in some cases, a term is obscure II bark texture ly defined, thus allowing different meanings. III bark patterns The main difficulty with regard to bark mor a. bark patterns in tangential and cross phological descriptions is that features which sections are pure responses to the environment have b. fissuring to be distinguished from those which are in c. exfoliation herent to a particular species. One has to d. external markings know the variability of barks: between indi N exudation viduals of the same species variation is often V bark cutting considerable, and even in different parts of the same individual. Only efficient collecting Entries are printed in alphabetical order and of data from a large number of mature trees the attributes within an entry are arranged using accepted and standardised descriptive according to its meaning. Numbers between terms will enlarge the knowledge of bark parentheses, (1), (2), etc., indicate two or variation. A simple and well-defined termi more meanings of a particular term. The defi nology is, therefore, a prerequisite. nition of a term by its original author has been Downloaded from Brill.com09/24/2021 07:42:43AM via free access Junikka - Macroscopic bark terminology 5 maintained, as far as possible. Sometimes an Ed Edlin (1976) author did not define a term explicitly, so that EM Eames & MacDaniels (1947) its meaning had to be deduced from the origi- Esl Esau (1960) nal context. Often the original definitions had Es2 Esau (1965) to be abridged to save space. For practical Es3 Esau (1969) reasons some definitions are placed under en- Es4 Esau (1979) tries in the chapter on rejected terms, but they Fh Fahn (1990) are commented upon in the list of accepted Fo Ford-Robertson (1971) terms. Fs Francis (1951) GE G6mez-Vazquez & Engleman (1984) Symbols GJ Ghouse & Jamal (1978) Hi Hightshoe (1989) is placed after a reference showing a * HJC Hall et al. (1970) direct quotation from the source. Ho Howard (1971) ~ refers to the term under which an ex- IAWA lAWA, Committee on Nomenclature planation is given, and which is usually (1964) preferred. Ir Irvine (1952) an alternative term which is also accept- Ja Jackson (1928) Ji ed. Jimenez-Saa (1973) Kr KrUssmann (1984) the cited author has explicitly used the Ku Kunkel (1965) synonym in the sense given here. Le Letouzey (1986) Cf. confer = compare with. MC Martin & Crist (1970) Me Metcalfe (1979) Inc!. the term is included in the definition MET Macdonald Encyclopedia of Trees proposed for this entry. (1982) See an explanation is given under the indi- MW Meijer & Wood (1964) cated entry, which is not synonymous. Nu Nultsch (1971) Oul Outer, den (1967) Syn. rejected synonym(s). 0u2 Outer, den (1972) Po Polak (1992) PW Penford & Willis (1961) Abbreviations PZ Panshin & De Zeeuw (1980) AHDE American Heritage Dictionary of RDMB Radford et al. (1974) English language (1980) REC Raven et al. (1976) Ba Bena (1960) Ro Rollet (1980, 1982) BCFTl British Commonwealth forest termi- Rt Roth (1981) nology 1 (1953) Ry Rosayro, de (1953) BCFT2 British Commonwealth forest termi- Sa Srivastava (1964) nology 2 (1957) SAF Society of American Foresters, Be Beard (1944) Committee on Forestry Terminology BKI Brooker & Kleinig (1990a) (1950) BK2 Brooker & Kleinig (1990b) Ss Storrs (1979) BM Bi.isgen & Mi.inch (1929) Th Thrower (1988) Bo Bor (1953) Ti Timberlake (1980) Br Brown (1971) Vo Voorhoeve (1965) Cg Chang (1954) Whl Whitmore (1962a) Cha Chattaway (1953) Wh2 Whitmore (1972) Ck Craddock (1932) Wo Wood (1952) Co Comer (1988) WS Wyatt-Smith (1954) Dr Dirr (1977) Wy Wyk, van (1985) Ed Edlin (1976) YYI Yunus et al.