| Pinus
strobus forma maximus |
Colby Rucker |
| Jul
26, 2003 04:38 PDT |
[ENTS: Another thought-provoking gem from great friend Colby
Rucker, who approaches
the credibility of the big tree reports from an entirely
different perspective.
Any thoughts, comments?...Bob]
Bob,
Your morning comments on the historic dimensions of white pine
are entirely
logical. Despite my title for this epistle, I don't think there
were
genetically superior trees in historic times. However, as you
outlined a month
or so ago, the matter of habitat is definitely correlated to
tree height.
Forest profiles show this, as in my Chase Creek study, and the
presence of
indicator plants is so valuable that I discovered exceptional
trees at Belt
Woods by watching the herbaceous layer, and then studying the
overhead canopy
more carefully.
I suppose that many accounts from the past have been skewed
somewhat innocently,
as by transposition, diameter for circumference, yards for feet,
3.14 x the
longest diameter, counting logs in a multi-stemmed tree,
measurement at grade,
or simply rumor repeated too many times.
I gather that liars were as despised long ago as today, but a
talent for telling
tall tales well was looked upon favorably. The same went for
photographs, as in
the case of humorous post cards showing a giant ear of corn on a
heavy ox-cart.
When less obvious, such exaggeration has caused problems, as in
the case of the
Lead Mine oak.
Of course, there was always a strong incentive to exaggerate the
productivity of
the soil, with farmers, land speculators, small towns, railroads
and even states
carrying things to great extremes, hoping to attract settlers,
investment
capital and more profitable land sales. Some of this stuff was
completely
untruthful, and some was simply clever, like the American
chestnut photograph.
So, what about cants six feet on a side? There's no truth to it,
for several
reasons. Mills are built to handle logs of average size for the
area. Larger
mills cost more, require more power, are harder to maintain, and
don't cut as
accurately. Oversized logs are a headache for everyone.
Occasionally some
showoff may transport an oversized log, but it's hard on the
animals and
equipment, bottoms out in the stream, and may damage the
carriage. Without a
big bandsaw, there are several approaches to sawing such a log,
but none are
very satisfactory. Having a huge cant six feet square on the
carriage is not an
option.
So, the big cant never existed. Let's be charitable, and say the
cant was 2
feet on a side, and someone changed that to yards. That makes
for good sized
second and third logs. What about the first log? It may have
been unsound, and
was left in the woods, or was split with black powder to fit a
typical mill.
Undoubtedly a big tree, but not off the chart, or incompatible
with some
standing today.
Even if perfectly round, the size tree required to produce a six
foot square
cant simply didn't exist in the east. The closest thing was, if
I remember
correctly, a six foot cube of yellow poplar that West Virginia
exhibited at the
World's fair of 1907. As a yardstick, that's a measure of
exceptional big
trees, even in that era of exploitation.
We might guess the tree was notched and felled above the cube,
which was then
cut at grade, wedged up, shaped by hand and transported. Cutting
very low was
done at times, as in the case of a local black walnut, where the
saw passed
through both nine feet of wood and a core of numerous oyster
shells.
Bottom line: Pinus strobus forma maximus never existed.
Colby
|
|