Is the Worm What Makes the Oud? A Correction of a Common Idea

Among the lovers of oud an old idea recurs, to the effect that a worm or an insect is what "makes" the oud inside the tree. And it is an idea of an understandable origin; for whoever saw a pierced, injured tree that carried oud, linked the two matters an intuitive linking. But scientific honesty requires a gentle correction: the insect does not make the oud. The one that makes the resin is the tree itself, through a defensive response to a harm that struck it; and the insect — when it has a role — may be one of the stimulants of that harm, not a maker of the oud. In this article from the guide to the science of oud formation we take apart this common idea in an honest language that distinguishes between the stimulant and the maker, and between what we know and what is still a subject of research.

1. From where did the common belief come

The idea of "the worm that makes the oud" did not arise from nothing, nor is it a mere naive illusion that deserves mockery. Rather it is in its essence a real observation that people arrived at through generations of dealing with the trees. For whoever grew accustomed to looking at the oud trees noticed a recurring matter: many of the trees that carry a dark aromatic oud are pierced or injured or carry the traces of insects that bored into their wood. The linking between the existence of the insect and the existence of the oud is an intuitive linking that rests on a truthful observation.

And from here the conclusion was born: as long as the oud is seen where the insect is seen, then the insect must be what "makes it" — as though it secretes it or weaves it as some creatures weave their homes. And what entrenched this conception is that the oud sometimes appears in tracks and channels inside the wood that resemble the boring tunnels, so it seemed to the observer that the boring creature "filled" those tunnels with oud.

And what reinforced the idea is that some of those who deal with the wood noticed that the trees that were not struck by anything remain without an oud worth mentioning, while the injured ones carry oud; so it seemed that the "injury" is a condition for the oud, then the injury was abridged in the minds of many to the creature that inflicts it. And thus the explanation moved from "the harm precedes the oud" — which is correct in its essence — to "the creature makes the oud" — which is the confusion that we are correcting.

This observation deserves respect, not derision; for it is a truthful attempt to explain a real phenomenon with the tools of direct observation. But it — as we will see — confused between two matters that are associated in appearance and different in essence: the existence of the insect and the making of the oud. And the difference between them is the core of this article.

2. What actually happens inside the tree

Let us return to what the current knowledge indicates about oud formation. The wood in the healthy oud tree is light, of little weight, almost odorless; there is no oud in it. And it is believed that the oud does not arise except when the tree is exposed to a harm — a wound or a break or an injury — so it begins a series of defensive reactions resulting in the deposition of a dark aromatic resinous material in the tissues of the wood around the site of the harm. This wood saturated with resin is what we call oud. And we detailed the mechanism of this defense in how the oud tree defends itself.

The key here is that the resin is of the making of the tree, not of the making of any other creature. For the tree, like the living beings, possesses mechanisms to protect itself; and when a wound is opened in its wood, it isolates the injured area and secretes around it defensive materials, among them the resinous compounds. The insect does not carry the oud, nor secrete it, nor deposit it in the wood; the utmost that it may do — if it has a role — is that it inflicts the wound that awakens the defense of the tree.

And the hole of the insect is only one form of the possible forms of the wound. For the wound that triggers the response may come from the break of a branch in a storm, or a split in the bark, or an environmental damage, or a hole an insect boring makes. All of them share that they penetrate the external defense of the tree and open a door to the internal harm. And this is what we addressed in detail in the role of the wounds in the formation of the resin; for the boring of the insect, from this perspective, is only a kind of the wound among many kinds.

Then the wound alone — whether an insect inflicted it or another — is often not enough. For many trees are wounded without forming an oud worth mentioning. It is believed that the wound prepares the way, but what follows it of the entry of other factors and the interaction of the tree with them across years is what transforms the initial response into a real resinous accumulation. For if the insect were a maker of the oud, it would make it wherever it bored; and the reality is that it does not.

3. The stimulant versus the maker

Here lies the essence of the whole correction: the distinction between the stimulant and the maker. The stimulant is what triggers the process or opens its door; and the maker is what actually produces the thing. In the case of oud, the wound — including the hole of the insect — may be a stimulant; as for the maker, it is the tree with its defensive response across time. The confusion between the two is what makes the truthful observation end in an imprecise conclusion.

And perhaps the closest honest analogy: when the skin is scratched and a scar forms around it that heals, we do not say that the thorn that scratched the skin is the one that "made" the scar; the thorn is a stimulant of the harm, and the body is the one that builds the scar in response. Likewise the oud: the insect may scratch the tree, and the tree is the one that builds the resin. The analogy does not match the phenomenon in all of its details — for oud formation is far more complex — but it clarifies the principle: the one who opens the door is other than the one who builds the house.

And an important result follows from this distinction: because the maker is the tree, the oud can form without any insect at all, as long as there is a wound from another source and a response from the tree. The insect is not a necessary condition, but rather it is one of several ways by which the wound may occur. And for this it is not correct to attribute the making of the oud to a particular creature, nor to say that a specific kind of insects is the "source" of the oud.

4. Where the fungus stands in this

A legitimate question remains: if the wound opens the door, then what enters through it? Here the fungi and the microorganisms enter the picture. For it is circulated that the entry of fungi and microorganisms into the wounded wood is believed to stimulate the defensive response of the tree and contribute to the deposition of the resin. And the hole of the insect, when it occurs, may be one of the outlets through which these organisms enter — so the role of the wound and the role of the infection combine in a single track.

But we must be precise as we were with the insect: the details of the role of the fungi are still a subject of research and discussion, and it is not correct to be decisive that a particular fungus is the decisive "cause" of the formation, exactly as it is not correct to be decisive that a particular insect is the "maker." It is more accurate to say that the wound, the infection, the response of the tree, the time, and the environment combine in a complex system whose elements the scientists are still studying how they interact. And we devoted to this aspect the role of the fungi in oud formation in which we clarify what is known and what is not known.

And the conclusion is that neither the insect nor the fungus "makes" the oud by itself. Both of them — if each has a role — are a factor within a chain, and the tree remains the one that actually produces the resin. Whoever simplifies the phenomenon into "a single creature makes the oud" — whether he names it a worm or a fungus — reduces what is far more complex than that.

5. Why the idea spread

The spread of this idea deserves a fair pause. For it did not spread because people are naive, but rather because it rests on a real and repeated visual coupling: the oud is seen often where the traces of the boring and the injury are seen. And when the coupling of two matters recurs before the eye time after time, the mind tends by its nature to link them with the link of the cause and the result. This is a general human tendency, not specific to whoever deals with oud.

Added to that is that the real process — a slow defensive response that extends over years, by the interaction of a wound, an infection, and time — is invisible; the observer does not see it and cannot trace it by the eye. As for the insect and its trace, they are visible and tangible. And it is natural that the mind hangs the explanation on what it sees rather than on what is hidden from it. So the visible (the insect) became in the view of many the "agent," while the real agent (the hidden response of the tree) was absent from the sense.

Then the generations transmitted this idea as an inherited knowledge, so it was entrenched with its repetition. And thus a truthful field observation transformed into a common explanation that confuses the stimulant with the maker. And there is not in correcting that any disparagement of whoever believed it; for science corrects the observation with the observation, and it builds on what the predecessors observed, not against it.

6. What does this mean for the buyer

This discussion may seem theoretical, but it has a practical effect on the buyer. For some sellers may employ the stories of the formation — among them the story of the "worm" — in the marketing, such as it being said that this oud was "made by a rare insect" or the like, to lend a shine to the commodity. And the truth is that the value of oud is not measured by its imagined story of formation, but by its tangible qualities: its origin, its grade, the density of its resin, and its scent upon heating.

Therefore we advise that the buyer not build his decision on the folklore of the formation. It does not matter much that it be said that a particular insect "made" the oud; what matters is what you smell and see and test yourself. And we devoted to the practical criteria the guide to how to choose an authentic Indonesian oud that clarifies what deserves that the decision be built upon it: the origin, the grade, the scent, and the truthful disclosure about the nature of the oud.

And at Oud Treasure we adhere to describing the oud as it is: from where it came, and what its grade is, and how its scent gradates — without clothing it in stories about creatures that make it. For the natural oud is rich enough without a need for legends around its formation. And we see that the most truthful thing we offer the buyer is not an exciting story about how the oud arose, but a truthful oud in its qualities and an honest presentation of what we know and what we still do not know about its formation. And for whoever wants to place all of this in its complete scientific context, before him is the guide to the science of oud formation from which this article branches.