Another ID

[daltontrees]

1 hour ago, kev7937 said:

Is it not Sophora japonica or whatever they call it now? The pagoda tree.

I reckon you're in with a shout there, although the bark isn't quite right .

 

The tree formerly known as Sophora is now Styphnolobium (japonicum). The bark looks like one of the straight Sophoras.

 

I'm going to struggle to remember that name. Stiff - no - low - bee - ....um.

 

I just noticed that the Collins Tree Guide spells this wrong, it has Stryphnolobium.

 

" While there may be a case for naming the Pagoda Tree Styphnolobium japonicum, there is still no general acceptance of the generic name, probably because of its clumsiness."

[daltontrees]

Yeah, the bark is more like Maackia amurense. Could be that.

[nepia]

Kev, I think you may be right; it could explain the mystery around the grain of the wood.

Julian, good shout but Maackia isn't a tree I know. The only references I can find are for chinensis; same thing?

 

Keithie - not walnut.  Thanks anyway.

 

It looks like the definitive answer may only come from Steve the devil if he can ID the grain at some stage in the future from his database.

 

At this stage I think we'll name it 'uncertain'.  I'll come back to the thread if I ever get confirmation.

 

Thanks for the replies one and all.

 

I thought it was Laburnum.

 

 

Jon

[Mick Dempsey]

My money is now on sophora, good spot.

[se7enthdevil]

that's interesting guys, i considered the pagoda tree when jon first offered it to my but like some of you i had discounted it because of the bark. can you be absolutely sure that that is what it is???

[Mick Dempsey]

I've only seen a couple out here, and (embarrassingly) misidentified it as acacia based on its bark.

[nepia]

25 minutes ago, se7enthdevil said:

that's interesting guys, i considered the pagoda tree when jon first offered it to my but like some of you i had discounted it because of the bark. can you be absolutely sure that that is what it is???

Steve, the only way we're ever going to be entirely sure is when you put your microscope to the grain and look it up in that database you use.

At the mo Sophora looks the likeliest, based on the samples available and a little on the fact that it came from a back garden in Purley, not an arboretum.  That to me makes Maackia unlikely, though not impossible of course.

[Gary Prentice]

 Can you get a pic of the leaf scar and buds

[se7enthdevil]

5 hours ago, nepia said:

Steve, the only way we're ever going to be entirely sure is when you put your microscope to the grain and look it up in that database you use.

At the mo Sophora looks the likeliest, based on the samples available and a little on the fact that it came from a back garden in Purley, not an arboretum.  That to me makes Maackia unlikely, though not impossible of course.

rather annoyingly that species has been removed from the database as it was too obscure apparently but i'll ask him if he can share the photos he has of the timber so i can compare.

[nepia]

The guy can have some new samples then!