Botanical Nomenclature as Applied to Mahogany

(Continued from Page 84) the inherent properties of woods essentially determine whether it deserves to be classified among the commercial mahoganies, and when once generally accepted as such, as is the case with the Philippine or African mahoganies, there can be no question raised as to their proper commercial classification. principles are properly applied, they may lend simplicity, consistency, and stability to trade designations; if they are follovi'ed inconsistently, they will ultimately create a complex and difficult situation. Revision must be made along scientific lines. The botanical generic group (genus) must be accepted as a unit, and all its species must bear essentially the same trade generic name. Confusion will result, if the trade generic name of one genus is applied to the woods of other genera. It would be basically unfair to permit woods of two or more genera in the same plant family, or in two or more different families, to bear the same trade generic name. The present commercial designations which are based on similitude, are undisputed by the lumber fraternity; if they are based on botanical nomenclature and are inconsistently applied, they cannot be accepted by the trade.

Finally, it must be remembered that the name mahogany has always been used as a generic or comprehensive trade name to include a number of different kinds of woods having certain properties in common. In botanical parlance, no distinction is made between the hard and heavy grade obtained from Swietenia mahagoni, which is the standard type of mahogany, and that of the soft and spongy kind known as baywood; as already explained, botanically the latter is a mahogany, but the trade has not accepted it as such. Botanists apply the name mahogany indiscriminately to any and all grades of wood produced by the difierent species of Swietenia- Commercially, however, there is a clear distinction made between mahogany and baywood, notwithstanding the fact that both are obtained from species of this same generic group. The tendency to rely on botanical genus as being the same is prone to give rise to incorrect nomenclature and deception. As pointed out above, baywood cannot consistently be classified commercially as mahogany, and the trade cannot accept it as such; according to botanical nomenclature, it is a mahogany, but, if it is sold as such, the purchaser is deceived. It is manifestly a difficult matter, therefore, to adhere strictly to the botanical classification in selecting trade designations to be applied to plants and their products. In the case of lumber products the tendency has always been to rely on physical properties and to classify the rvoods in accordance with the principles of similitude. There are no scientific definitions for any of the wood groups, such as the oaks, walnuts, and mahoganies, etc., except those which are afforded by the botanical descriptions of the tree groups, i.e., Quercus, Juglans, Swietenia, etc. While these constitute a guide, they give no clue as to the quality and character of the woods these groups produce. Thus, it is apparent that so long as the trade agrees upon the name of awood product, there can be no deception or fraud. The commercial classification is quite sound and cannot lead to deceitful practices; on the other hand, the botanical classification is fraught with all kinds of irregularities, even if the strictest adherence to the principles of botanical nomenclature and synonomy were maintained.

The promulgation of the Federal Trade Commission's ruling, as set forth in its stipulation No. 324 (April 8, lgD), supports.the botanical nomenclature as the basis for revising plant names. The Commission ordered, in the case of the mahogairies, that the woods of the several species of the genus Swietenia alone may be classified as mahogany. Insofar as the factors of the trade and the general public are concerned all the trade names affected by this order were wholly tenable and in no wise false nor misleading and did not deceive the public, particularly in view of the fact that the Commission had failed to provide the trade beforehand with a code or set of principles governing the selection and rejection of plant names. However, the Commission's'order, as it now stands, permits the use of the name mahogany for the baywood type which the consumer will not accept as a mahogany. This extension in the use of the name brings about a far greater confusion than that which is claimed by the Commission to have existed before its ruling was made.

The foregoing naturally leads to the consideration of the present status of the commercial mahoganies. The lumber trade now enjoys sales aggregating to about 45 million feet of Philippine mahogany, and approximately 3O million of African mahogany, as against 25 million feet of genuine mahogany from tropical America. The moment the Commission's ruling becomes effective there will be available in the American markets about 25 million feet of mahogany and the balance of the 100 million feet ordinarilv consumed as such will be sold under wholly difierent nanies, and the public will probably be obliged to pay 100 per cent more for their true mahogany products.

There can be no other serious consequences as a result of the Commission's ruling; but to enforce dealers and users of these particular woods to stop using the name African mahogany or Philippine mahogany as applied to the woods in question will be a formidable task, and it is reasonably safe to say that it cannot be done. And, if it could be done, no real or even imaginary benefit could possibly accrue to anyone. On the contrary, there would be no end to difficulties and annoyances to everyone concerned. These are the viervs held by every practical and intelligent man in the lumber and rvood-using industries.

There is no possib-le way open for permitting the African woods to be called African mahogany, if the botanical nomenclature is to govern. It is authoritatively known that no species of the genus Swietenia grow naturally in Africa. Moreover, while it is believed that several species of the genus Khaya produce some of the woods now known as African mahogany, there are no authorities in the United States who can show that all the so-called African mahoganies are produced by the species of the genus Khaya. Theie are sources of supposedly reliable published information indicating that the original shipments of African mahogany logs from Senegal were obtained from a tree botaniially denominated Khaya senegalensis, but it is now believed that only a very Small percentage of the logs entered here are obtained from trees of this species. In bther words, it is-seriously questioned whether the species of the genus Khaya really afford the bulk of the wood now ofiered and sold as African mahogany. The only definite information extant is that the African woods now masquerading in the American markets as genuine mahogany aie not pioduced by the species of the genus Swietenia,-and, thereiore. are not true mahogany as defined by the Federal Trade Commission's Stipulation No. 324.

Among those interested in the status of the so-called African mahoganies the question naturally arises as to what relationship the genus Khaya bears to that of Swietenia. A

The botanical nomenclature has been suggested as a basis for revising trade names of lumber products. If the basic (Continued on Page 88)