Re: dry rot

[Kathleen Kiefer <kkiefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Nice answer Irene.  Thanks for taking the time to articulate this.  
-Kathleen

-----Original Message-----
From: Irene Karsten [mailto:ifkars10@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, February 27, 2004 1:45 PM
To: TEXCONS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: dry rot

The Book Arts discussion list recently had an interesting discussion
regarding the term "dry rot" (see the archives at CoOL).  See Tom
Conroy, 14 January 2004 for his description.

Dry rot does have a technical meaning in that it refers to a
particular kind of wood degradation by a particular fungus, Serpula
lacrymans.  A quick browse of the web suggests that some textile
people have generalized this term to include any degradation due to
fungi/mildew on cellulosic textiles.  I saw less evidence of people
using dry rot to refer to any kind of general degradation of dry
textile materials but am not surprised to hear that it is happening.
After all, the word "rot" is not a technical term; neither is the
adjective "dry". Dry rot is, however, defined in my dictionary as a
form of timber decay. You don't even need to go to the technical
literature to prove your case.

Words, nevertheless, constantly acquire new meanings, sometimes more
general, sometimes more precise (i.e. jargon). Consider "red rot",
which has very precise technical meaning when applied to leather but
also refers to degradation of certain wood due to a certain fungus.
The technical leather term probably started out as a simple
descriptive phrase, since the degrading leather is red. But red rot
on leather is not due to the actions of a fungus but to chemical
deterioration.  "Dry rot" itself possibly had a more general meaning
before it took on the technical one of timber decay (in 1795
according to my dictionary).

Although understandable, the generalization of the term "dry rot" to
refer to any kind of general deterioration that takes place in the
dry state does not have to be condoned.  If people are looking for a
catch all phrase for the broad range of "dry" forms of deterioration,
the trend will continue until someone comes up with a better one.  If
the use of "dry rot" is leading to incorrect interpretations that
have serious implications for the preservation of the textiles
involved, then the issue is more serious and should be clarified.
The problem with catch all terms is that they tend to lead to catch
all solutions.  If catch all solutions are benign, however, and the
phrase is used knowingly as a general descriptor without implying
cause, this trend simply illustrates something humans do well: using
words to describe and communicate.

To conclude, you would be correct to correct those people who are
using the term "dry rot" to refer to textiles.  If you don't have a
simple alternative for them to use, however, some of them may not
care.

Irene Karsten
NSERC Postdoctoral Fellow
Canadian Conservation Institute
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

---- Begin Original Message ----

From: Joan Kiplinger <jkip@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 19:17:57 -0500
To: TEXCONS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: dry rot


        Perhaps the chemists here can help me.
        The term dry rot is creeping into the textile lexicon -- some
dealers use the words to describe fabric which is shedding or
disintegrating from minerals, exposure and bad storage, etc..
        Some of us believe that dry rot is a fungus which attacks
timber
and vegetables, but not cloth.
        Can someone set the record straight so the next time we hear
dry
rot in connection with textiles we can either  counter with a correct
reply or keep quiet.


---- End Original Message ----



Sign up today for your Free E-mail at: http://www.canoe.ca/CanoeMail