The Aquilaria microcarpa Tree: A Less Famous Oud Species

Not all species of oud trees are equal in fame and documentation; for while a name such as Aquilaria malaccensis recurs in every reference, other species such as Aquilaria microcarpa remain less mentioned and scarcer in documentation, even if it is a species standing on its own within the genus Aquilaria. So what is this species? And where is its association mentioned? And what is its standing in the market compared to its most famous relatives? And how do we deal with the difficulty of distinguishing it in the first place? In this article from Oud Treasure we introduce Aquilaria microcarpa a faithful introduction: we mention what the sources support with reservation, and we are frank when the documentation is scarce, and we do not invent a precise geographical range nor dimensions for the tree nor a scent fingerprint nor a superiority in quality. This is an article from the axes of the botanical guide to the species of oud trees.

1. An overview of Aquilaria microcarpa

Aquilaria microcarpa is one of the species of the genus Aquilaria, the most widely mentioned among the genera of oud trees, belonging — as the botanical references mention — to the family Thymelaeaceae; and they are tropical evergreen trees that grow in the rainforests. And for whoever wants the expanded introduction to the genus itself before entering into this species, we refer him to what is the Aquilaria tree.

And the binomial scientific name (Aquilaria microcarpa) is composed of the name of the genus Aquilaria and the specific epithet microcarpa, and we take care to write it correctly because the error in it is common. And like all oud trees, the wood is in its origin pale, light, and of little scent, and oud does not form in it except in response to a wound or a fungal infection that stimulates the tree to secrete the dark aromatic resin that we call oud.

And we pursue here an important frankness: Aquilaria microcarpa is a species less famous and less documented worldwide than its counterpart Aquilaria malaccensis, and what appears about it in the sources is scarcer and less detailed. Therefore we avoid mentioning decisive numbers for the height of the tree or the diameter of its trunk or precise botanical features; for such measurements vary and need a documentation that is not always available. What we say with confidence is that Aquilaria microcarpa is a botanical species standing on its own within the genus, among the trees associated with the production of oud.

2. The distribution and the habitat

In terms of the habitat, the association of Aquilaria microcarpa is mentioned with a region that includes the island of Borneo — of which is the Indonesian part known as Kalimantan — and the island of Sumatra and the neighboring parts of the western Malay archipelago. And this is a general direction we gain from the reviews, not a decisive geographical boundary; for the distribution of the species overlaps, and it is difficult to draw precise separating lines, so we formulate it with the expression "it is mentioned," not with the expression of decisiveness.

And because Kalimantan is among the habitats with which the association of this species is mentioned, it is useful to link it to what we know about Kalimantan oud in general — its origins and its character as they are circulated — in the Kalimantan oud guide. As for the wider map of the habitats of all the oud trees, and where they grow and why in those regions specifically, we detail it in where oud grows.

And we repeat the note of a fundamental distinction: that the association of the species with a region in the sources does not mean that every oud from that region is Aquilaria microcarpa, nor that this species is confined to it. For the geographical origin is one thing, and the botanical species is another thing, and linking them a decisive linking is a going beyond what the available knowledge supports — and it is a more dangerous going beyond with a species of scarce documentation like this. Therefore we speak of "an association that is mentioned," not of "an exclusive habitat."

And among the reasons for this reservation is that the range that is mentioned for this species is a range in which several species of the same genus overlap in the western archipelago, so it is difficult to say that its presence in a region is decisive evidence of the attribution of its oud to it. The honesty here is that we describe what the references mention of a general association, and we leave the precise determination to whoever possesses the tools of laboratory examination.

3. Its standing in the oud trade

Unlike the species Aquilaria malaccensis whose name recurs as a famous classic source of oud, Aquilaria microcarpa is less present in the commercial literature and less circulated by name in the market. And we say this frankly: we do not have what supports that this species enjoys a prominent market standing by its independent name, and often its oud — if found — dissolves within an oud attributed to its geographical origin, not to its botanical species.

And for this we completely avoid describing the scent of Aquilaria microcarpa with a specific fingerprint or comparing its quality to others; for such descriptions need evidence that is not available by the attribution of a piece to a botanical species, so how about a species of scarce documentation in the first place. And the quality in oud is not settled by the botanical species alone, but by the origin, the infection, the density of the resin, and the grade, and it varies within the single species a great variation.

So what we say with confidence is that Aquilaria microcarpa is a botanical species associated with the production of oud, but it is not a firmly established commercial name like its most famous relatives. And the honesty of the market requires that we not grant this name a premium or a shine that no documentation supports. Whoever wants the comparison with the most famous species as a reference, let him return to the malaccensis article mentioned above; so that the difference becomes clear between a species that became a landmark in the literature, and a species that remains in the background.

4. Aquilaria microcarpa and CITES

Despite the scarcity of its fame, Aquilaria microcarpa is subject to the same framework of international protection that includes the whole genus. For according to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), all the species of the genus Aquilaria — of which is this species — were included in Appendix II of the convention since the year 2004. We attribute this fact to the convention as its source.

And the most famous species Aquilaria malaccensis had been included before that on its own in the year 1995, then the expansion of 2004 came — as the convention mentions — to include the rest of the species of the genus and the entire genus Gyrinops. That is, Aquilaria microcarpa entered the system of protection within this comprehensive expansion, not by an individual inclusion by its name. And Appendix II — according to the framework of the convention — regulates the international trade in the species to ensure their survival, it does not prevent it entirely.

And the story of the inclusion of oud in CITES and its motives — from the pressure of demand on the wild stock to the efforts to regulate the trade — we addressed in the history of the CITES convention and oud. And the practical benefit is that the trade of the oud of this species across the borders is subject to documentation and regulatory compliance like the rest of the species of the genus, and that the serious source commits to that regardless of the fame of the species or its obscurity.

5. Distinguishing and confusion

If distinguishing the famous species is difficult, then distinguishing Aquilaria microcarpa is more difficult. For the honest truth is that determining the species of the oud tree by the look or the smell alone is not possible with precision; since the species of Aquilaria are close in shape (a clear morphological overlap), and often the oud reaches the market cut and treated far from the mother tree, so the botanical clues that are relied upon in the classification are lost. And what increases the difficulty here is the scarcity of the reference documentation about this species specifically.

And for this it is often confused between Aquilaria microcarpa and other species of the same genus that share the habitat with it, and an oud is attributed to it — or it is attributed to others — without verification. And the precise distinction needs scientific methods that go beyond the senses: morphological, chemical, and genetic, and all of them are laboratory tools, not market ones. And because the two genera Aquilaria and Gyrinops are siblings difficult to separate as well, we refer whoever wants the comparison between them to the difference between Aquilaria and Gyrinops.

And we devote to the methods of determining the species scientifically — and why the precise determination remains a real challenge — independent axes in this guide, among them an axis on how the species of the oud tree is determined and another on the sibling species close in the same habitats. For the matter is deeper than to be abridged in a line, and its honesty is that it be said in it that the botanical certainty needs a laboratory, not an impression. And therefore we warn against every seller who is decisive to you that a particular piece is Aquilaria microcarpa without an analysis — and the claim here is easier because the scarcity of fame tempts toward the lack of scrutiny.

6. What does this mean for the buyer

After this introduction, a practical question remains: does one buy oud by the name Aquilaria microcarpa? The honest answer: the species is a background, not a buying criterion — and this is the truest it can be with a species of little documentation like this. For the oud that you acquire is judged by its origin, its grade, and its scent, not by a scientific name that is difficult to verify in the first place, and may not be mentioned in the circulation from the outset.

And the more worthwhile thing is that you rely on what can be verified: from which origin the oud came, and which grade it is, and how you smell it yourself. And this is what we guide you to in how to choose an authentic Indonesian oud. And because the scent is an experience that no scientific name describes, the best thing to start with is a sample by which you test the origin, the grade, and the character directly; we provide for this the samples service.

So make the name Aquilaria microcarpa a knowledge that illuminates your path, not a premium that you pay without support. For whoever asks you for a higher price — or markets to you a shine — merely for the attribution of a piece to this species without a laboratory analysis nor a documented origin, goes beyond what can be proven. As for what deserves that you pay in exchange for it, it is an origin that a clear supply chain discloses, an examined grade, and a scent you have tested yourself. And for the more comprehensive picture among the oud trees and their species, return to the botanical guide to the species of oud trees.