Why Do Errors Occur in the Naming of Oud Species?

If you browse the markets of oud and its products, you notice that the name of the botanical species — when it is mentioned at all — is often uncertain, and it may even differ between one seller and another for a piece from the same source. And some readers may hasten to explain that with a general ill intent, and the truth is more complex and more fair than that. For the errors of naming in oud stem from combined causes: a real scientific difficulty in determining the species, a history of botanical reclassification, unstandardized commercial names, and long chains of intermediation in which the appellations shift. And among these causes falls a wide spectrum: from the honest error whose maker intends no harm, to negligence, and sometimes — not always — the deliberate deception. In this article — from the axes of the botanical guide to the species of oud trees — we present these causes a fair presentation at Oud Treasure, not to accuse anyone, but so that you understand why the name of the species remains a cautious piece of information, and how you protect yourself when you buy.

1. Why we talk about the errors of naming

The talk about "the errors of naming" may seem as though it were an accusation of the market, and it is not so. The aim is that we put your expectations in their correct place: that the name of the botanical species stuck onto a piece of oud is not always a confirmed piece of information, but rather it is often an approximate attribution or one inherited by custom. And when you realize that, you cease to treat the name of the species as a guarantee, and you begin to evaluate the piece by its real criteria.

And the fairness here is a principle, not an embellishment. For the oud passes from the tree to your hand through many stages, treatments, and hands, and in every stage a small alteration may enter the name: a word is translated, an attribution is approximated, a title is added. The accumulation of these small alterations — before we assume any ill intent — is enough to explain much of the ambiguity. Therefore we address the structural causes first, before we turn to the matter of the intent in a later section.

And we define the scope of the article precisely: here we speak specifically about the errors of naming the botanical species (to which species of oud trees the piece belongs), not about the claims of the geographical origin nor about the comparison of the registers of names to one another; for those are subjects to which we devoted their independent articles and to which we refer in their places. Our focus is fixed on the question: why is it difficult to get the name of the species right, and why does even the honest diligent one err at times?

2. The difficulty of determination itself

The first and deepest cause is that determining the species of the oud tree is difficult in itself, not because of anyone. For in botany, the species is usually determined by relying on the distinctive parts of the tree: the leaves, the flowers, the fruits, and the details of their fine structure. But what reaches the market of the oud is the resinous wood only — pieces cut far from their mother tree, devoid of the leaves and the flowers on which the botanical classifier relies.

And this means that the most important diagnostic evidences are absent precisely at the moment in which we want to name the piece. For the wood alone — even if it is beautiful in scent and high in quality — does not carry anatomical features that distinguish one species from another with certainty, especially between the species that are close in the single genus. And we laid out how the species is determined scientifically and the limits of that in how is the species of the oud tree determined?, which is the basis on which this section stands.

Added to that is that many of the oud species are similar in appearance even in their complete state, and the decisive distinction between them needs tools of examination that go beyond the look and the smell. So when these tools are not available — and it is the prevailing case in the daily circulation — the attribution of the piece to a particular species becomes a diligence exposed to error, not a decisive verdict. And this alone explains why the name of the species remains an estimate in most cases.

3. The scientific reclassification

The second cause is that the botanical classification itself is not fixed across time as may be supposed. For science revises its understanding of the species whenever new evidence appears, and species may be moved between the genera or within them, or names may be merged or separated, based on updated studies. And with every revision of this kind, the old name remains circulated in the market and the references for long years after its change scientifically.

And this natural lag between the scientific revision and the settling of the usage creates a real ambiguity: for you may find the same source named by two different names in two references, one of them following the old naming and the other the modern, without either of them being "false" necessarily. And this ambiguity doubles in the two main genera of oud — Aquilaria and Gyrinops — which a close kinship binds and a history of the rearrangement of the species between them, as we detailed in the difference between Aquilaria and Gyrinops.

And the conclusion is that a part of the "error" is not an error in the precise sense, but rather an effect of the change of the scientific map itself under the feet of those who circulate it. So whoever uses a name that has become old may be completely honest, but he relies on a knowledge that science has surpassed. And for this we are always reserved when we see a botanical name mentioned with a decisive confidence, since it may have been correct yesterday, or correct in one reference and not another.

4. The unstandardized commercial names

The third cause is that most of what the market circulates are not names of botanical species in the first place, but rather commercial names: names of regions (Kalimantani, Sumatran, Papuan), terms of grades (Super, Double Super), and descriptors of styles. And these names are not governed by a single standard body, so their significance differs between one market and another and between one trader and another. And we detailed the difference between these two registers — the fixed scientific and the variable commercial — in the difference between the scientific name and the commercial name.

And from this confusion the errors of naming the species specifically arise: for when a regional commercial name is presented as though it were the name of a botanical species, or a market title is translated into a scientific attribution, the confusion occurs. The name of the region may contain more than one botanical species, and the term of the grade has no relation to the species from the foundation; and nevertheless these names are sometimes paired with the names of particular species a pairing that the knowledge does not support. And we monitored the colloquial names in the Arab market and their origins in the names of Indonesian oud in the Arab market.

And the matter increases in complexity because these commercial names are fluid and variable: they arise from custom, and they change with the fashion, and they move between the markets with varying meanings. So when the name has no fixed reference, it easily slips from one significance to another, then it is reinterpreted later as the name of a botanical species that no one intended. This gradual shift in the meaning — not a single lie — is what makes much of the common errors.

5. The chain of intermediation

The fourth cause is structural in the trade of oud: that it passes from the extractors of oud in the forest to the hand of the final buyer through a chain that may be long of intermediaries — a local collector, then a regional trader, then an exporter, then an importer, then a retail seller. And in every link of this chain, the piece may be re-described or renamed according to what each party is accustomed to and its language and its local market.

And with every transition, the name moves a step away from its first source. For the local collector may describe the oud by a local name, then the trader translates it into a wider regional name, then the exporter adds a marketing title, until it reaches you by a name upon which more than one alteration may have accumulated. And it is not a condition in this that anyone be lying; for every link may transmit what it thinks correct in good faith, but the outcome of the successive transmission may distance the final name from the reality of the botanical piece.

And the longer the chain and the more obscure it is, the more difficult the verification of the name becomes, ascending to its source. And for this the oud that comes through a short, transparent chain, whose links are known, is closer to a naming that can be held accountable than the oud that comes through a long, unknown chain. And this is one of the reasons for our constant emphasis on the clarity of the source of the supply, not on the name alone.

6. An honest error or a deception?

After reviewing the structural causes, the question of the intent remains, and here we adhere to complete fairness. For the errors of naming fall on a spectrum, not in a single category. At one of its ends is the honest error: a seller who transmits in good faith a name he inherited from his supplier, or uses a common naming that has become scientifically imprecise without knowing. This one is not blamed morally even if his name is not accurate.

And in the middle of the spectrum is negligence: that a name is applied without sufficient verification, not out of an intent of deception but out of a laxity in the scrutiny. And at the far end — and it exists but is not the rule — is the deliberate deception: that the name of a species or a luxurious origin is stuck onto a piece that is known not to be such, seeking a higher price. And the fairness is that we differentiate between these degrees, so we do not throw every error with deception, nor do we turn a blind eye to the deception when it occurs.

And because the honest error and the deception may appear to the buyer with the same appearance — an inaccurate name on a product — the remedy is one in the two cases: that the decision not be built on the name alone. And this matter parallels exactly the claims of the geographical origin, where the name of the region does not necessarily mean that the oud came from it; and we examined that in does the oud attributed to a region actually come from it?, and it is a direct counterpart to the errors of naming the species. The wisdom in the two cases is that you evaluate the piece, not the label.

7. How the buyer protects himself

As long as the name of the species is exposed to error for many reasons, the first rule is: do not make the name of the botanical species the axis of your decision. Treat it as a useful background piece of information, not a guarantee nor a certificate of quality. For even if the name is correct, it does not tell you the quality of the piece in your hands; and the quality is tested in the piece itself, not in its name.

And the second rule is that you verify four tangible things instead of the name: the origin, the grade, the scent, and the sample. Ask for an origin that a clear supply chain that can be held accountable discloses, a declared grade whose criteria are understood, and smell the oud and test it yourself, and start with a small sample before committing to a quantity. These practical criteria we laid out in how to choose an authentic Indonesian oud, and they are complemented by the criteria of sorting and examination that we follow on the page on how oud is sorted and examined.

And the third rule is that you prefer the transparent supplier over the supplier who dazzles you with a shiny name. For the seller who discloses his origin and his grade, and distinguishes what he knows with certainty from what he weighs, and admits the limits of his knowledge of the name of the species, is more worthy of trust than whoever is decisive to you about a botanical species that he does not possess the proof of. And about our sources and how we trace them you find the detail on our oud sources page.

And our position at Oud Treasure is consistent with all of this: we declare the origin and the grade clearly, and we do not exaggerate in the attribution of a piece to a particular botanical species unless the available knowledge supports it. We prefer to say "this is what we know" truthfully, rather than to grant you a false certainty in a name that we do not possess the proof of. And because the direct testing is better than every label, we invite you to start with a sample that your sense judges. And for the more comprehensive picture about the species of oud trees, return to the botanical guide to the species of oud trees, and for the scientific tool behind the determination review how is the species of the oud tree determined?.