When is a wood a wood and a forest a forest?

[Kentish Man]

Not a joke, but what are the "technical" differences between the two definitions? I feel somehow that a forest is a lot larger than a wood, but at what acreage does a forest become so? I suppose tree density must also come into it somewhere. Is there an official FC description of the differences anywhere? I ask only out of interest, but it must have implications on grants and land labelling for example...

Thanks.

[RichardKing]

Most forests are not wooded.

"forest" is simply a Norman French term meaning a type of hunting area subject to certain laws.

Look at the OS map & you will see such examples a "Dartmoor Forest"

Also remember that mounted medieval hunters would have preferred a rather more open landscape such as is preserved in The New Forest.

[wood troll]

Welcome David,

I just looked up the definition of forest in the 1913 edition of the Webster's dictionary and it sayeth thus:

"(Eng. Law) A large extent or precinct of country, generally waste and woody, belonging to the sovereign, set apart for the keeping of game for his use, not inclosed, but distinguished by certain limits, and protected by certain laws, courts, and officers of its own."

It does not go into any legal definitions of what a wood is... but a wood does have to have trees in it, but a forest does not need any trees.

wood troll

[RichardKing]

I would not regard Websters American dictionary as any kind of authoritative work and the definition is ambiguous & meaningless.

Under Norman law ALL land was owned by the sovereign wheras people"held" land (as "life tenants" as we do today).

I think I that most "forests" were "held" by persons other than the sovereign.

[James M]

Is the meaning not more cultural? I think of conifer forests and broadleaved woodlands.

[jillybean]

Well, as we are NOT under Norman law, there is no modern practical difference between the word Wood and Forest, although woods tend to be smaller and forests larger. wood troll is right, and so is Websters. I dont know what dictonary Richard king uses, but the Oxford english says "forest is large area covered cheifly with trees" ( amongst other things) and a wood :"Growing trees densley occupying a tract of land."

[RichardKing]

yawn

[tracy]

Why am I suddenly tempted to ask for a definition of 'tree'!

It is a good question and apparently fraught with emotion ;-) Our words do have an enormous history on what they meant 'way back' but culturally do change.

Although I know that what RK says is correct from history point of view - I think (just think mind you) that we do tend to use the word forest for huge coniferous areas these days.

I doubt the name would make any difference for grants etc and anything SWOG people own is very likely to be woodland. I guess the biggest clue would be in the original name of the land. Like RK says Dartmoor forest. We own a bit of Millwood - others own copses..... I think you get the idea ;-)

[MartinD]

In common parlance, a forest is a large area where woodland is a significant feature of the landscape - see http://www.nationalforest.org/forest/

Although the key element in calling this a forest is the trees, two thirds of the 'national forest' will not be wooded.

In modern usage trees define the meaning of the word : The Forestry Commission looks after large tracts of woodland; the caledonian forest and the boreal forest are other examples of modern usage.

[tracy]

Perhaps they should change their name to the 'Woodland Commission' lol!