I presume that technically you are correct DarkSoul. That sounds like a reasonable explanation so far as my scientific knowledge takes me. I speak about these various things not typically from a scientific perspective, but from a bow making perspective. I contend that, all definitions aside, some Osage has a porouse crumbly "earlywood like" structure within the annual rings at higher levels as a percentage of the whole than others. I believe this to be true based on my experience. It is nothing more than my opinion that this stave may have that particular structure. I have used lots of it and won't turn it down as a result of this. I believe it works differently under a draw knife than rings with clearly defined late wood/earlywood rings and in a perfect world I would custom order staves without the high percentages of this crumbly stuff.
As a side note, it also seems reasonable to me that this crumbly stuff is in fact earlywood as it appears to be layed down monthly, within the annual rings in a manner not unlike the the true annual rings, just in much smaller intervals. Don't know if scientifically this holds water. But practically it does.
Slimbob
I knew exactly what you were saying
and while many of the terms we use are misnomers any way, as long as we understand one another we can still communicate well so no big deal!
early wood , late wood, are two of those examples and anytime there is a wet season or more moisture available the density of the wood being grown will change so yes we get a difference of appearance and some mixing of what has been termed early growth, late growth.
And yes it is differant to work and usally it takes a larger volume of it to make the same poundage bow as a tree that does not have this growth from the extra wet seasons !
have fun