diffuse porous page


NOTE: unless otherwise specifically stated, all of the images shown on this
page are of 1/4" square end grain cross sections shown at 12X with the top
of the image towards the bark and the bottom towards the pith so that
earlywood is towards the bottom of the growth rings and latewood is towards the top

This page includes all of the genus Eucalyptus species for which I have end grain. A few of these grow domestically (although I'm not aware of any of them being native to North America) and a few are as readily designated semi diffuse porous as just diffuse porous but I have kept all the Eucalypts on this page in any case.

General characteristics of Eucalypts end grain

NOTE: this page started out more or less ordered alphabetically
by species name but even that has not been kept up
I'll get it better organized someday.
Probably. Maybe.
Or not.






These two pics are of the same sample and taken about 1" apart. The first one is typical of the piece. The second one shows an area of unusually sparse pores and is not at all typical of the species, but since it did occur I have included it.

  • prickly stringybark / Eucalyptus consideniana
  • white gum / Eucalyptus dalrympleana
  • alpine ash / Eucalyptus delegatensis





    Florida eucalyptus --- more like semi diffuse porous than diffuse porous but I've kept them here with the other Eucalypts



    all three of these are from areas on the end grain of the same 3" wide piece







    These two are clearly VERY different than other eucalypts. They are two of about 100 Eucalyptus spp. what were broken off into their own new genus of Corymbia because of botanical differences (tree differences) but which apparently also have significantly different fine grain characteristics as well). The designation of Corymbia is contentious, apparently, with some botanists not agreeing with the split so I have listed them here as genus Eucalyptus. There is a lot of obvious confluent parenchyma in these that is not in any of the other eucalypts so it seems likely to me that their being split from the genus Eucalyptus will be seen as correct in the long run. On the other hand, I'm looking at the WOOD and botanists (who do the naming) don't care about the wood characteristics, just the tree characteristics.