![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
thanateSo, I'm reading this book on ancient woodland practices, and in the chapter about what sources are available to the modern (well, previous to 1980) researcher there's a longish segment about how oaks are vastly overrepresented both in terms of what physical evidence still exists (being an enthusiastic pollenator and a much-prized hardwood) and in terms of historical record (being the quintessential rich man's tree, with all the documentation and care that implies) and literary reference.
And then the next section goes on to talk about precision in historical terminology, and in mentioning again the distinction between timber and wood, lets slip that the Latin for timber is quercus.
(For those of you who haven't studied plants, Quercus is the genus-name for oaks. Speaking of overrepresentation.)
Experimentally cross-posty from dreamwidth. Comments encouraged in either location.
And then the next section goes on to talk about precision in historical terminology, and in mentioning again the distinction between timber and wood, lets slip that the Latin for timber is quercus.
(For those of you who haven't studied plants, Quercus is the genus-name for oaks. Speaking of overrepresentation.)
Experimentally cross-posty from dreamwidth. Comments encouraged in either location.