Tecumseh Pine  Bob Leverett
  Sept 29, 2007

 

ENTS,
 
     Today I remodeled the huge Tecumseh pine in MTSF. The tree cubes out to an impressive 689.1. Because I have trouble seeing very far into the crown, I'm a little shaky on the volume above 120 feet. I'll be back at the refinement at least a couple of times before the final word is in.
 
     Tecumseh has gained some altitude. It is now 163.1 feet. Its CBH is 11.7 feet and its CRH is 13.3 feet. Tecumseh is about as impressive as a white pine gets in Massachusetts. With luck, it will join the 50 meter club next year, and if not next year, almost certainly the year after that. Tecumseh's volume is 678 cubes on the formula that I have been describing. So, the match is pretty good.
 
     With the death of Big Bertha, Tecumseh is probably the largest volume pine in Mohawk, although the Hiawatha Tree is probably very close and may surpass Tecumseh a little, but it is hard to model because it has 3 trunks. Tecumseh is the more impressive tree.
 
Bob


Bob,
 
Excellent job.  I look forward to your continued modeling up in MASS.
 
Ed Frank

 


Bob,   

Awesome pine! I should get some good heights in Wisconsin in
late October. My friend there has some big Spruce, Basswood, Fir, Oak
and Birch on his land. Near Superior at a park, there are some
impressive White Pines.            

Larry Tucei


Ed and Larry:
 
      Lee Frelich and Paul Jost are bullish on the possibility of finding a cache of significantly large and tall pines in parts of Wisconsin. Huge pines appear to have been in Wisconsin historically and the pines being managed on the Menominee Reservation lend credibility to this historical perspective. New England reportedly had some whoppers also, but the old reports of 260-ft white pines in New Hampshire I think are wild exaggerations. There supposedly was a 240-ft pine growing on the Dartmouth College campus. I can tell you that the pines growing in the Dartmouth College area now show little promise of getting much above 140. I have measured 5 trees that are in that class. They are all old trees. Three break 150. But 200 feet is out of the question, and 260 pure fantasy.
 
      We'll never know the heights and girths of the pines that once grew in New Hampshire, Wisconsin, or elsewhere. But, what we can do via ENTS is to leave an accurate record for posterity of what is here now. And this is a job that cannot be entrusted to any other group.
 
Bob  Leverett

 


Bob-
Remind me of the historical accounts of tall masted ships, and how tall the trees were back then...are there any verifiable accounts?
Where I'm going with this, is, with the historic records of NE weather proclivities for 'wind events', would it have been likely to have ever had 260' trees in NE?
-DonB


Don,
 
At the present time we have patches or individual trees that predate the historical timbering operations. Overall these are few in number, but there is little reason to think that historical trees were that much taller.  If you plot the heights of these tress on a graph they for a very nice curve.  Any exceptionally tall trees would be plot well off the ordered graph.  The same can be seen if you plot the heights of trees from the south northward.  These also for a fairly regular graph.  The maximum heights reached decrease northward in a regular pattern.  This suggests that the high points on the graph represent the  normal height progression for the species with latitude and suggest these are naturally occurring boundary conditions for maximum height for the species. it is possible that there were some outliers, but they would have been extremely rare, and even then unlikely to approach those numbers.  I have only seen rough plots of heights, so a detailed data analysis might show something different, but I doubt it.
 
Ed Frank  

 


I just find it strange that the heights of trees that were cut down
for timber - especially ship masts, where height really matters - were
mismeasured so badly. The difference between 200-feet or less and
claims of 260-feet are quite substantial.

I wonder if there was some sort of incentive to misrepresent the
heights of the trees so badly back then? Prestige is one thing, but
maybe if one colony claimed to have taller trees, they would get more
money and support from England, perhaps? And such claims would be
difficult to refute with the technology and knowledge of the time
until the trees were cut down.

Matthew Hannum


Matthew,

I think that might be exactly the case.  Those places with the biggest trees
got the most business.  The same thing can be seen in the commercial cave
game in the 1800's - Every cave claimed to have the biggest this or that and
the longest cave.

Here is a list of Tall Ships at the LA Tall Ships event in 2005:
http://www.tallshipsla.com/ships.htm These are typical of the sizes of many
of the historical sailing ships.  The biggest by far is the:  CUAUHTEMOC

"Also known as the "Ambassador and Gentleman of The Seas," the Cuauhtemoc
has logged over 400,000 miles and participated in numerous important
regattas and maritime events around the globe. Operated as a training vessel
by the Mexican Navy, she was built in 1982 in Spain. With a typical crew of
255 sailors and officers, Cuauhtemoc is a sister ship of the Guayas which
appeared at the 2002 Los Angeles Festival of Sail.

Length: 297 feet
Class: A
Type: Barque
Home port: Acapulco, Mexico
Draft: 17'8"
Tonnage: 1,800
Rig Height: 168 feet"

Most of the rig heights are around 100 feet, so the masts would be doable
from almost anywhere.

Ed Frank


duskdruid,
 
     You may be on to something. We also need to bear in mind that the inch and foot had not been standardized in the 1600s and 1700s as they are today. Lee Frelich has good information on that topic. Furthermore, today's presumed reliable sources, on big tree data, such as the National Register of Big Trees, are shot through with tree height errors, some in the tens of feet. Within eastern organizations, so far as I am aware, ENTS stands alone in constantly pushing accuracy.
 
Bob