94 



PKOCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY 



Professor Gray read the following communication on the 

 age of a large California Coniferous tree. 



"The age attained by the largest known trees is a matter of consid- 

 erable interest ; but it is seldom that an opportunity occurs of testing 

 it by an actual counting of the annual layers of the trunk. This is 

 said to have been done in the case of the gigantic tree recently felled 

 near the head of the Stanislaus River, on the Sierra Nevada, Cali- 

 fornia, a section of the trunk of which, at twenty-five feet from the 

 ground and hollowed out to a shell, is now on exhibition at Philadel- 

 phia. The trunk of this tree ' was sound from the sap-wood to the 

 centre ' ; and its annual layers are very distinct to the naked eye in 

 pieces of the wood in my possession. The size of this tree is such 

 as to give it a presumptive claim to rank among the oldest of the 

 present inhabitants of the earth ; its length being 322 feet ; the diam- 

 eter of the trunk, at 5 feet from the ground, 29 feet 2 inches, 

 at 18 " " 14 " 6 " 



at 200 " " 5 " 5 " 



including the bark. These measurements are copied from Mr. Lobb's 

 account of the tree, published in England, except the height (by Lobb 

 said to be about three hundred feet), which I have given on the au- 

 thority of the proprietor of the section now at Philadelphia. This section 

 was taken at the height of twenty-five feet from the ground, and, ac- 

 cording to the measurement of my friend, Thomas P. James, Esq. of 

 Philadelphia, it is about twelve feet and a half in diameter, including 

 the bark. Mr. James, at my request, has taken careful measurements 

 of the wood itself, excluding the bark. The three diameters taken 

 by him respectively measure 9 feet 6 inches, 10 feet 4 inches, and 

 10 feet 10| inches : the average diameter of the trunk at the height 

 of twenty-five feet from the ground is a little over 10 feet 3 inches. 

 From the statements which have appeared, it would seem as if the 

 layers had actually been counted, and ascertained to be 3,000 in num- 

 ber. This surely ought to have been done ; but an examination of 

 the statements does not prove that it was. Mr. Lobb's statement, as 

 definite and reliable as any, is, that ' the trunk of the tree in question 

 was perfectly solid, from the sap-wood to the centre ; and, judgiiig 

 from the number of concentric rings, its age has been estimated at 

 3,000 years.' 



" The number of layers, therefore, has only been estimated ; and 

 we are not in possession of the exact data on which the estimate was 



