Article

Gutta-percha

From Munshipedia, the MBRAS digital historical encyclopedia

Gutta-percha

Gutta-percha, a hard, inelastic latex obtained from the bark of certain forest trees, was one of the most commercially significant natural products of the Malay Peninsula and Borneo in the late nineteenth century, prized particularly for its use in telegraph cable manufacture. The material was collected by indigenous communities across the region and traded through colonial entrepôts such as Labuan and Singapore, where it was exported in substantial quantities to European markets. The botanical identity of the trees producing the various commercial grades remained a subject of considerable confusion throughout the 1870s and 1880s, prompting sustained investigation by colonial botanists and administrators who recognised that the reckless destruction of source trees threatened the long-term viability of the trade. [1, pp. 52–53]

Botanical Identity and Taxonomic Confusion

The principal source of what was commercially termed “gutta-percha proper” in North-West Borneo was a large forest tree known to the Kadayan people as Gniato Merah and to the Murut as Parah Masiah, identified by Sir W. Hooker as Isonandra Gutta. This species, a member of the family Sapotaceae, attained heights of 100 to 150 feet with trunks ranging from one to three feet in diameter, and a single large trunk could yield as much as one picul of prepared product. [1, p. 53] Burbidge, a botanist who had recently travelled in North-West Borneo, documented several additional species of Isonandra that produced gutta of varying quality and quantity. Among these, Gniato Bulu (Kadayan) or Para Bulu (Murut) was the most prolific, with trunks reaching three to four feet in diameter and yielding between 20 and 30 catties of gutta per tree. [1, p. 54] The gutta hunters of the region readily distinguished these species from one another, yet their produce was collected indiscriminately, mixed together, and sold under the common name Gniato Merah. [1, p. 54]

The confusion was not confined to the tree species. A persistent and consequential error in the literature concerned the identity of the Bornean rubber-yielding climbers, which had been identified by Collins and others as Urceola Elastica. Professor Dyer at the Royal Gardens, Kew, examined specimens sent by Burbidge and concluded that this identification was incorrect. [1, p. 52] Professor Oliver subsequently identified a Serapit specimen as belonging to the genus Chilocarpus, while the Perak “Gutta Singgarip” was determined to be identical with Wallich’s Willughbeia martabanica. [1, p. 60] Murton further noted that the flowers of Urceola were borne in terminal panicles or cymes, whereas those of the Serapit climbers were axillary, providing a clear morphological distinction. [1, p. 56]

In Perak, the situation was somewhat different. Wray, a scientific assistant in the Perak State Service, documented gutta-producing trees belonging primarily to the genera Dichopsis (or Isonandra), Payena, and Bassia, noting that the trees were slow-growing and that the central parts of the Peninsula, with their light sandy soils over metamorphic rocks, did not support them at all, while the clayey loams over granite near the coasts and mountain ranges were their true domain. [2, p. 209]

Collection Methods and Commercial Practice

The traditional method of collecting gutta from the Isonandra species involved felling the tree and incising or “ringing” the bark of the felled bole at intervals of two to three feet, from which the raw sap or milk was extracted. The sap was then prepared by boiling and stirring. [1, p. 53] In Perak, Wray found that a Dichopsis Gutta tree two feet in diameter and over one hundred years old yielded only 2 lb 5 oz of gutta by this scoring method, valued at 7s. 6d. [2, p. 212] His subsequent experiments, conducted in May and August 1883, demonstrated that the bark stripped from felled trees and left to rot in the jungle contained a substantial reserve of gutta that could be recovered by pounding or rasping the bark and boiling it in water, or by solvent extraction with chloroform. His calculations showed that wet bark contained 5.3 to 5.7 per cent of its weight in gutta, rising to 11.4 per cent when dried, and that for every pound of gutta collected by the traditional method, approximately 37 pounds were wasted in the discarded bark. [2, pp. 218–219]

The rubber or caoutchouc-yielding climbers of Borneo were collected by a different method. The milky sap was obtained from the stems of the climbers and prepared by the addition of Nipah salt and stirring, after which it was sold in the form of black, greasy-looking balls of about half a catty weight each, threaded on strips of rattan for transport. [1, p. 55] The commercial value of these products at Labuan varied considerably: Isonandra Elong commanded $35 to $40 per picul, I. Maresah $28 to $30, the mixed inferior species $5 to $20, and rubber (caoutchouc) $20 to $30 per picul. [1, p. 57]

A notable feature of the trade was the deliberate adulteration of the product. Burbidge reported that the collectors stated there was no such natural product as “Gutta Merah” or red gutta; the colour was due to the admixture of bark filings in the proportion of one-third filings to two-thirds natural gutta. The Chinese traders, unaware of the adulteration, preferred the red or adulterated variety to the natural product. [1, p. 57]

Economic Depletion and Conservation Concerns

The commercial exploitation of gutta-percha raised urgent questions of sustainability. Sir J. D. Hooker, in his 1877 Report of Kew Gardens, warned that the collection of such products for commercial purposes “lead inevitably to the destruction of the trees producing them, since these are recklessly destroyed and never replaced,” and that botanical investigation was “the first step in securing the perpetuation of the supply.” [1, pp. 52–53] By 1880, the depletion of mature gutta trees in Perak had reached a critical point, and Hugh Low, the British Resident of Perak, advised the state government to forbid export altogether as the only means of preventing the annihilation of the species. [2]

Wray’s calculations, accepting the Kew Report’s 1875 estimate of 10 million pounds of gutta exported from the Straits Settlements, estimated that 300 million pounds—worth £37,500,000 at 2s. 6d. per pound—were destroyed in that single year alone as a consequence of the wasteful collection method. [2, pp. 219–220] His proposed solution was the recovery of gutta from the discarded bark, which he argued could sustain the same commercial supply with a tiny proportion of the current annual destruction of trees. [2]

Burbidge, writing from North-West Borneo, observed that nothing seemed to be done either to replace trees or search out new gutta-yielding plants, and that as difficulties in collecting increased by the supply being yearly further removed from the markets, prices would rise. [1, p. 59] He suggested that species of Ficus, many of which were common in Bornean forests and known to yield gutta in Java, India, and Australia, might be investigated as potential new sources, as might the Bornean representatives of the breadfruit family (Artocarpeae). [1, p. 59] Murton, in his postscript, confirmed that the natives of Perak had tried all indigenous species of Ficus, but with the exception of F. elastica, which produced “gutta rambong,” none had been found to yield a marketable gutta. [1, p. 61]

Wray identified Payena Leerii (Getah Sundik) as the most promising candidate for plantation cultivation on coastal swamp lands, noting that it fruited freely, grew fast, and produced hard, close-grained timber as a secondary product. [2, p. 221]

Quality, Preparation, and Market Value

A significant factor in the market value of Malayan rubber was the method of preparation. Murton observed that the South American rubbers, which were the best in the London markets, were prepared in a very different manner to what he described as the “slovenly, indolent mode” carried out by Malays. He stated without hesitation that if the Malayan rubbers were prepared in the same way as the South American, a larger demand would arise and materially higher prices be obtained. [1, p. 61] As a demonstration, a sample collected in Singapore, which had been allowed simply to coagulate without the addition of salt or other foreign substance, was submitted by Professor Dyer to competent judges in London, who reported that its marketable value was about 1s. 3d. per lb., exceeding the 1s. per lb. paid for the best commercially prepared brands. [1, p. 61]

The rubber-yielding climbers of Borneo were found in the lofty forests beside most of the rivers in North, North-East, and South-West Borneo, at altitudes ranging from very near sea level up to 3,000 feet. [1, p. 54] The stems varied in length from 50 to 150 feet and in thickness from 2 to 8 inches, and the different kinds were distinguished by the collectors according to the colour and corrugations of the stem or bark. [1, p. 54] The fruits of all three principal kinds were edible, of a clear orange-yellow colour, and ranged from 2 to 4 inches in diameter. [1, pp. 54–55]

Research and Documentation

The Society’s literature on gutta-percha reflects a progression from initial taxonomic confusion to increasingly rigorous botanical and economic investigation. The earliest substantial treatment, Burbidge’s 1879 notes, was prompted by the recognition that the commercial varieties had been misidentified and that proper taxonomic clarification was essential to securing the long-term supply of these products. [1, p. 52] The article drew on field observations from the Lawas, Limbang, and other rivers of North-West Borneo, with botanical identifications made at the Royal Gardens, Kew, and the Singapore Botanic Garden, illustrating the network of imperial scientific institutions that underpinned colonial natural history in this period. [1, pp. 52]

Murton’s 1878 note, published in the inaugural issue of the journal, provided a concise overview of gutta and caoutchouc production in the Malay Peninsula, establishing the baseline from which subsequent investigations proceeded. [3] The 1883 article by Wray marked a significant shift in emphasis from pure taxonomy to applied resource management, driven by the visible depletion of mature gutta trees in Perak and the administrative decision to consider an export ban. [2] Wray’s work was submitted to the Society through Sir Frederick A. Weld at the request of Hugh Low, reflecting the colonial administrative practice of commissioning scientific surveys to support resource management decisions. [2, p. 207] His specimens were dispatched to the Royal Gardens at Kew, Calcutta, and Ceylon for botanical identification, further demonstrating the collaborative nature of the imperial scientific enterprise. [2, pp. 208]

The key debate that emerged across these publications concerned the relationship between commercial exploitation and ecological sustainability. Hooker’s 1877 warning, reproduced in Burbidge’s article, framed the issue in terms of the “perpetuation of the supply,” [1, p. 53] while Wray’s quantitative analysis provided the empirical basis for arguing that the prevailing method of collection was catastrophically wasteful. [2, pp. 219–220] The resolution of the taxonomic confusion—particularly the rejection of Urceola Elastica as the identity of the Bornean rubber climbers—was a prerequisite for any rational conservation strategy, as it was only through accurate identification that the source trees could be recognised, protected, and potentially cultivated. [1, pp. 52] By the time of Wray’s publication, hundreds of young plants of at least five rubber-producing climbers had been established in the Singapore Botanic Garden, offering the prospect of resolving the remaining nomenclatural difficulties. [1, pp. 60–61]

MBRAS Sources

References

  1. F.W. Burbidge (1879). Notes on gutta-percha and caoutchouc-yielding trees. {With a post script H.J. Murton JSBRAS 3: 52–61.
  2. L. Wray (1883). Gutta-producing trees JSBRAS 12: 207–221. Read on JSTOR
  3. H.J. Murton (1878). Notes on gutta and caoutchouc in the Malay Peninsula JSBRAS 1: 106–107. Read on JSTOR