We wrote about the update to EN1912 in November 2019 and November 2022. Standards do take a while to go through the whole revision and review process, but the timetable was also delayed by the pandemic. Things did not stand still though and there were several new visual grading assignments approved by CEN TC124 WG2 TG1 in the meantime.
Comments are now in from the recent CEN Enquiry. These will be considered by CEN TC124 WG2 meetings on 26 April and 16-17 May 2023. For now, it is worth considering a couple of questions:
- “Why aren’t species listed as I expected, and why not simply refer to EN13556 since this is the standard that deals with these things?”
- “Why does the growth area sometimes include places where the named species doesn’t grow?”
On “species”: For EN1912 our concept of “species” is not the same as the botanical one. We are not concerned about the genetics or the morphology of the tree, but rather the properties of the wood, the factors that affect the grading, and the aspects of the trade. When we talk about “species” in this standard it is because we lack a better word for our meaning. This is why we might refer to Handroanthus (a genus in taxonomy) and Pinus nigra subsp. nigra (a subspecies level distinction) both as a “species”, and Larix decidua, Larix kaempferi and Larix × marschlinsii as a “species group” (even through the hybridisation of Japanese and European larch is something of a spectrum).
We might even include some other aspect into our concept of species that is to do with the growth conditions. Machine grading gives us one example in having a distinction between Pinus pinaster and Pinus pinaster trees at least 40 years old (Xyloclass F machine settings Table 21-2). Less obviously growth conditions maybe the reason we need to make some subspecies level distinctions, such as for the various types of Pinus nigra. That example also gives one more apparently odd thing, which is the description of Pinus nigra and Pinus nigra subsp. laricio each as a “species”, and a mixture of Pinus nigra subsp. laricio and Pinus nigra subsp. nigra as a “species group”. It is certainly confusing but it helps to remember that the biological definition of species is not of use to us. In fact, even proper biological taxonomy has some inconsistencies, with no single central authority and several key commercial species with more than one scientific name in use. So, in addition to the many different common names and trade names we have examples like Larix eurolepsis and Larix × marschlinsii referring to the same thing, and Chlorocardium rodiei and Ocotea rodiaei also meaning the same thing, because even the genus name can change. We also have Abies nordmanniana which has “subspecies” (subsp. equi-trojani and subsp. bornmuelleriana) that are also considered species in their own right by some authorities, and it may be most useful for timber grading to treat them as such: Abies equi-trojani and Abies bornmuelleriana. Across all the commercial species, there are lots of synonyms, but for our purposes it is only worth paying attention to the synonyms that appear in the trade and standards. EN1912 is not supposed to be a reference for botanical nomenclature – but it does need to work for people searching for the names they know things by.
So why don’t we just refer to EN13556? This is, after all, a standard that exists to list the names of species as far as the timber trade is concerned. Well, there are three problems. The first two can (and probably should) be fixed, but the third one is the main reason EN1912 cannot rely entirely on EN13556:
- EN13556 does not include all the species that appear in EN1912. Some that do appear are defined too broadly and some are defined too narrowly.
- EN13556 needs updating to fix some errors and changes in names.
- EN13556 is the responsibility of a different standards committee and has a wider use than strength grading – if EN1912 referred to that for the species definitions, future changes made by that committee might inadvertently lead to unsafe grading assignments.
A list of the issues with EN13556 is provided at the bottom of this page.
At the moment, we do not have any species combinations that mix softwoods and hardwoods, but such things are technically possible, although they would need to be under the “softwood” type of strength class. It has been a number of years since hardwoods could be assigned to “softwood” C strength classes – something initially possible for poplar, but now with several other examples of the less dense hardwoods.
It is worth noting here than EN1912 does not consider the legality of the timber (species, source or place used) – that’s not what it is for and this is governed by other regulations, standards and certification schemes.
On growth areas, the restriction really should be about whether the timber from that growth area grades the same way as the timber that was the basis of the grading assignment. That is quite a difficult thing to pin down as many assignments are old and the timber trade changes over time. Countries change too, so its not even the case that a tree grew only in one country. This revision of EN1912 attempts to clarify some ambiguous descriptions of growth areas “such as Central, Eastern and Northern Europe” by naming countries but mention of a country doesn’t necessarily mean the species in question grows there now, or indeed ever did. Should we exclude Luxemburg when all countries around it are mentioned – if we think Luxemburg does not have particular species? If so, why would we do that, and not treat regions within a country the same? Should we have a growth area of UK but exclude all the big cities? Finding an adequate and fair description is not easy. It is better to spend time worrying about questions like: might a timber resource grade differently if it comes from plantations rather than the old growth mixed forests it once did? Does tree improvement work and change in seed provenance have an effect on the grading? Species and place is not enough – time is another dimension we need to consider. This is part of the reason that the draft new version of EN1912 includes “basis” information with some dates (although the dates refer to report publications, not the when the timber was sampled).
In the current (2012) version of EN1912, the growth areas that are defined without reference to country names are:
- For grading under British standards (and to become EN16737 for the tropical timber)
- “Africa” for iroko
- “Caribbean” for Caribbean pitch pine
- “Central west Africa” for sapele
- “Central, Northern and Eastern Europe (CNE)” for Norway spruce, Scots pine/redwood and whitewood
- “South East Asia” for balau/bangkirai, kapur, kempas, keruing, merbau and teak
- “West Africa” for opepe/bilinga
- For grading under Austrian, Czech, Slovak and German standards
- “Central, Northern and Eastern Europe (CNE)” for larch, Norway spruce, Scots pine/redwood and silver fir
- For grading under the Nordic Standards
- “Northern and North Eastern Europe (NNE)” for larch, Norway spruce and Scots pine/redwood and Silver fir
- For grading under Dutch (Netherlands) standards
- “Northern and North Eastern Europe (NNE)” for larch, Norway spruce and Scots pine/redwood and Silver fir
- “West Africa” for ekki/azobé
- For grading under the French standards
- “South America” for ipé/ebene verte
The growth area “Northern and Central Europe (NC)” is mentioned in the text but it has no assignments.
With the exception of “Northern and North Eastern Europe (NNE)”, which was clarified with regard to the timber trade, the replacement of these vague descriptions with a list of countries is mostly an interpretation of what that vague description implies from a geographical/political understanding – simply because there was no better information provided when CEN TC124 WG2 asked the mirror committees of the National Standards Bodies. Although the very broad description of “Africa” for iroko was at least replaced with “Tropical Africa” to recognise where the trees could grow. Reference to literature about the native range of different species is of limited help – and of course Europe has many examples of commercial forestry with species that are not native or in sufficient quantity to be mentioned in national forest inventories. However, if knowledge of the historical and current timber trade can be provided, the growth area descriptions can surely be improved – and most usefully done on a species by species basis. Expect some changes.
The draft of EN1912 that went to Enquiry tried to resolve the growth areas as follows:
(Edit 25/10/2023 to include links to Kew’s Plants of the Word database so you can compare maps)
Caribbean (Bahamas, Belize, Colombia (Northern part), Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico (South eastern part), Nicaragua, Panamá) – for Caribbean pitch pine (Pinus caribaea).
Tropical Africa (Angola, Benin, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic), Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mozambique, Nigeria, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe) – for iroko (Milicia excelsa and M. regia).
West Africa (Benin, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo) – for ekki (Lophira alata) and opepe (Nauclea diderrichii).
West and Central Africa (replaces Central West Africa) (Benin, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo (Democratic Republic), Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Niger, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Togo, Uganda) – for sapele (Entandrophragma cylindricum).
South East Asia (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Vietnam) – for kapur (Dryobalanops), kempas (Koompassia malaccensis), balau (Shorea glauca and S. maxwelliana), keruing (Dipterocarpus), merbau (Intsia bijuga and I. palembanica) and teak (Tectona grandis).
Northern Europe (replaces NNE) (Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden) – for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), European larch (Larix decidua), Norway spruce (Picea abies) and silver fir (Abies alba).
Central, Northern and Eastern Europe (CNE)
(Central: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France (Alsace region), Germany, Hungary, Italy (Northern part), Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Switzerland
Northern: Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway, Sweden
Eastern: Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Romania, Russia (European part: Northwest Russia, Volga, South Russia, North Caucasus), Ukraine)
for Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), European larch (Larix decidua), Norway spruce (Picea abies) and silver fir (Abies alba).
And yes, suddenly switching there to using common/trade names rather than the botanical names – but that’s because the botanical names are rather difficult – and best used to clarify the common/trade names rather than replace them. Back on that topic…
This diagram shows the taxonomy of structural timber species in Europe, including everything with an EN1912 visual grading entry, a machine control settings AGR/ITT or mention in EN14081-1. It was made with the help of https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/taxonomy and https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-021-04304-3.
(You can download a pdf version of this diagram – see also at the bottom of the page)
Some notes on EN13556 (2003) and the current (2012) version of EN1912:
- Beilschmiedia spp. Nees, 1831 is misspelled in EN13556
- Chlorocardium rodiei (R.H. Schomb.) Rohwer, H.G.Richt. & van der Werff, appears in EN1912 as Ocotea rodiaei even though EN13556 lists Chlorocardium.
- Dicorynia paraensis Benth. maybe should be included with Dicorynia guianensis Amshoff (or the meaning of basralocus/angelique clarified in EN1912)
- Fraxinus americana L., is included with F. nigra and F. pennsylvanica in EN13556 and perhaps should also be for EN1912
- Gambeya spp., is now more accepted as Chrysophyllum spp. L.
- Larix decidua Mill. is misspelled in EN1912
- Larix × eurolepis A. Henry is now more accepted as Larix × marschlinsii Coaz. Note also that EN1912 & EN14081-1 misspell this as eurolepsis)
- Manilkara bidentata (A.DC.) A.Chev. is misspelled in EN1912
- Newtonia suaveolens Brenan, is now more accepted as Pseudopiptadenia suaveolens (Miq.) J.W.Grimes
- Pseudopiptadenia psilostachya (DC.) G.P.Lewis & M.P.Lima. should also perhaps be included in Alimiao
- Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. is misspelled in EN1912
- Pinus nigra J.F.Arnold needs to be more specific in EN1912 assignments and EN13556 is currently inadequate
- Pinus nigra subsp. nigra
- Pinus nigra subsp. laricio Maire
- Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco 1943
- Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe
- Populus × euramericana, is now more accepted as Populus × canadensis Moench, 1785
- Ruizterania spp. Marc.-Berti is not included with Qualea spp. in the EN13556 listing for mandio/gronfolo
- Tabebuia spp. is now more accepted as Handroanthus spp. Mattos, 1970
- Quercus alba L. is listed in EN13556 less specifically (under American white oak), and possibly EN1912 should also be less specific
- Quercus rubra L. is listed in EN13556 less specifically (under American red oak), and possibly EN1912 should also be less specific
- Shorea glauca King and Shorea maxwelliana (King) Symington, 1938, are listed in EN13556 less specifically, and possibly EN1912 should also be less specific (or EN13556 more specific)
There are also several species that are not currently listed in EN13556 but are used for visual grading assignments, have machine grading settings or appear in EN14081-1 species combinations:
- Abies cilicica (Antoine & Kotschy) Carriere
- Abies concolor (Gordon & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr., 1861 (is in hem-fir WABA)
- Abies magnifica A.Murray bis (is in hem-fir WABA)
- Abies nordmanniana (Steven) Spach which has “subspecies” that are also considered species in their own right
- Abies equi-trojani (Asch. & Sint. ex Boiss.) Mattf., 1925
- Abies bornmuelleriana Mattf., 1925
- Desbordesia glaucescens Van Tiegh. (alep/banga/omang)
- Eucalyptus nitens (H. Deane & Maiden) Maiden
- Klainedoxa gabonensis Pierre (eveuss/eves/kuma-kuma/ngon)
- Manilkara mabokeensis Aubrev. (monghinza/adzacon-aboga)
- Picea mariana (Mill.) Britton, Sterns & Poggenb. (appears in S-P-F WPCE)
- Picea rubens Sarg. (appears in S-P-F WPCE)
- Pinus brutia Ten.
- Pinus nigra subsp. salzmannii (Dunal) Franco 1943 (Salzmann pine)
- Pinus nigra subsp. pallasiana (Lamb.) Holmboe
- Populus spp. L. (as a genus for a general listing)
- Pteleopsis hylodendron Mildbr. (osanga/koframiré)
- Ruizterania spp. Marc.-Berti (mandio/gronfolo) (only Qualea spp. is listed)
- Scyphocephalium mannii Warb. (ossoko/sorro)
- Tsuga mertensiana (Bong.) Carriere (appears in western white woods WABB)
Edit 15/05/2023: recent grading work has added some more: - Cedrus libani A.Rich. is listed in EN13556 only in a general group of cedar (C. atlantica, C. deodara C. libani)
- Picea orientalis (L.) Peterm.
- A specific machine grading listing for Pinus pinaster subsp. atlantica H.del Villar
Additionally, EN13356 lists Larix gmelinii (Rupr.) Kuzen. as Siberian larch, and this isn’t the same species as Larix sibirica Ledeb. which is also commonly called Siberian larch (although the two larches do naturally hybridise where the meet.)
If you have comments about any of this that you want CEN TC124 WG2 to be aware of, you can email d.ridleyellis@napier.ac.uk