5

My local hardwood retailer has a ton of purpleheart for sale. It's gorgeous and I'd love to play with it.

(Ha.)

But, I've been told, and online research semi-confirms, that this stuff comes from rapidly disappearing rainforests. I don't want to contribute to that.

Are there other, sustainable sources for purpleheart? Is it not, in fact, endangered? Is there any way to verify that what I'm buying didn't involve the destruction of 10,000 different species of Things that can Move?

(TL;DR: How to responsibly buy hardwood without trashing the rest of the world.)

3Dave
  • 798
  • 9
  • 24
  • part of the problem is retailers call lots of different woods the same name. While a wood worker might think that they are buying a specific 'Purple heart', retailers find other woods that looks 'similar' and call that 'Purple heart' as well. Same with other rare woods, like Ebony. So, you really need the scientific name of the wood to know what you are buying. – bowlturner Dec 13 '21 at 13:26

2 Answers2

4

Purpleheart is not listed in the CITES Appendices or on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. So it would not be generally considered "endangered".

My understanding is that in the environments where it is found naturally it grows very quickly, so while there is a limited supply it is also easily renewable.

SaSSafraS1232
  • 5,510
  • 9
  • 21
3

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) itself is greatly at fault. Plug in "Purple Heart" (or similar search terms) and you get no answer at all! It looks like you must use the full binomial botanical name.

The US Lacey Act requires all woods to be fully and correctly named and identified as to origin. This, at least, would apply to woodworkers in the US.

Peltogyne paniculata is the name of Purple Heart used by some, perhaps most, woodworkers. Currently, IUCN does not even list that species. There are a half dozen Peltogyne species listed, with several EN (endangered) and one VU (vulnerable).

Woodworkers need to do everything they can to prevent mindless or intentional plundering of endangered and threatened species -- and to comply with the Lacey Act (where possible). Press IUCN for more classification, more and better listings, and to include both the common and scientific names.

I'll mention that IUCN finally did what I called for in my public critique. Many or most Rosewoods (Dalbergia) are now finally classified.

Bradford Whitman
  • 31
  • 1
  • 2
    You are using the words "all" and "some" to refer to a single Answer. Please [edit] your Question so that you stick to the facts: that one of the references provided in the only other answer might be misleading because online databases will forever be incomplete. Let's assume the author of that Answer did not know this. Just stick to the facts, with minimal editorializing. Make sure you take the [tour] if you already haven't to see how SE sites are not threaded forums. –  Dec 09 '21 at 19:57
  • 1
    While I fully share your concern for overharvesting & outright plunder of woods such as this, please bear in mind you're writing this from the perspective of 2021. The prior responses to the Question are from 2018 when they may have been entirely accurate; q.v. a 2017 article where a company replaced their use of bubinga with purpleheart precisely because the latter was neither in CITES Appendix I nor in the Red List at the time. Please reword this as though you were the first to Answer, with as much current info as you wish to include. And add links to external sources, SE values citations. – Graphus Dec 09 '21 at 23:35
  • Please edit to complete words and sentences. – gnicko Dec 10 '21 at 14:05
  • I gave the date of my research 12/21 and my source IUCN. Whether the answer would have been different 4 years ago was not part of my research or my concern. I want public sites to be accurate when they are on the Internet so people can comply today. – Bradford Whitman Dec 10 '21 at 23:46
  • 2
    @BradfordWhitman we're asking you to provide this information as if you were the first person to answer, and refrain from responding to other answers as if this was a threaded forum where everyone has to tell everyone how wrong they are. This is the StackExchange way. It's pointless to provide the date in the body because your answer already has a date when it was created. I see someone has already edited your answer for brevity, and to keep to the facts. This was what people were asking for. –  Dec 11 '21 at 14:49
  • @jdv it’s actually not unusual on SE sites to point to other answers and explain why they’re wrong, especially if those answers are accepted or have a lot of votes. there was only one other answer here, though, so I edited that part out here. This is a pretty strong answer IMO and deserves more votes. – Caleb Dec 11 '21 at 17:27
  • 1
    @Caleb, you're correct of course about cross-referential Answers, but from those I've seen usually they come across better that this did (IF they call out incorrect info in others, which is not always the reason for being referenced). It's not just that it was posted by a first-time poster, although that wouldn't sit well in most online communities, "All of these response..." when there was just one previous Answer and a sole Comment underneath did not strike a good opening note. Your edit greatly improved the tenor and I meant to say so. Anywho, now I agree this is well worthy of upvoting. – Graphus Dec 11 '21 at 19:09