<;«H«Meail&ga3x«o»:/i;:jK/2vv^y5<«y:m!<^^ 



Some Fallacies of the Forest 



ARTItLi; ONE 



I au a man (iiid his way tlirougli a forest by noting the moss on 

 trees and the roughness of the barkf 



Some men may do it sometimes, but no man can all the time. 

 It is widely believed that this art is one of the first things the 

 woodsman must learn, and that until he learns it he must be regarded 

 as only an amateur in woodcraft, a sort of novice who has no busi- 

 ness out of sight of blazed trails. Books that tell about pioneers on 

 the wooded frontiers, and hunters in the pathless wilderness, are. 

 filled with allusions to finding courses by observing the rough sides 

 of tree trunks, the moss, and the length of branches on one side of a 

 tree, compared with the other side. This alleged forest lore has 

 been repeated and ground in so long that by a sort of common con- 

 sent people accept it as true. 



There is just enough thread of truth in it to tie a little argument 

 on the affirmative side of the question. A good many people are 

 firmly convinced that travelers who know how can take their course 

 any direction they please through the woods by following the signs 

 of the trees. Generally this is not possible, but in restricted locali- 

 ties and under peculiar conditions it may be done. 



The theory that the trunks of trees indicate the points of the 

 compass is based on the supposed (not real) fact that the bark is 

 always roughest on the north side of a standing tree, that there is 

 always more moss on that side, and that limbs which grow toward 

 the south are longer and larger than those on the north side. If 

 this were true, a little skill and experience in interpreting the signs 

 would be all that would be needed to enable one to travel in any 

 desired direction through unbroken forest. 



This cannot be done. The best woodsman, caught in a fog in a 

 strange region where the features of the landscape afford no hint of 

 directions, is liable to lose his bearings utterly. This often happens on 

 a cloudy day when there is no fog. The experience of almost every 

 woodsman whose acquaintance has covered extensive regions, will 

 verify this. The rough sides of tree trunks have often failed in the 

 time of need, and the moss and the long limbs were either not to be 

 seen or appeared on too many sides of the same tree. 



First, consider the rough bark. There is no question that bark is 

 often rougher on one side than on the other, and the roughness 

 appears to be due, in part at least, to a diminution of light on that 

 side. The tree's side facing north receives less light than the south 

 side, if other things are equal, and this has led to the assumption 

 that the north side of a tree is roughest. The observation of a 

 few instances where it proves to be so is apt to be accepted as 

 settling the whole matter in the affirmative beyond the peradventure 

 of doubt. 



It was stated in the preceding paragraph that the rvile will hold 

 ' ' if other things are equal. ' ' Eight there is the key to the whole 

 situation — the weak place in the theory. Conditions vary within 

 the widest limits. Take for example a forest in the eastern hard- 

 wood region, where the woods occupy a flat or nearly flat area, and 

 the forest is mature, the trees old. Here the tree canopy is even. 

 the light comes in regiJarly from the south, and falls on all trunks 

 nearly alike. Such is an ideal situation, and a woodsman in that 

 forest would probably be able to foUow any desired course by 

 noting the rougher northern sides of the trees. To that extent the 

 theory might work. 



Take a forest spread up and down the steep sides of mountains, 

 deep in ravines, on the brinks of cliffs and ledges, and on level 

 tracts. The roughest bark is found on any side of a tree, wherever 

 shade is deepest. It may be on the south side, if a ledge or clump 

 of trees cuts off the light, and an open space on the other reflects 

 surrounding light in. This often happens, as any woodsman has 

 noticed many a time if he has used his eyes. A tree in the edge of 

 a thicket may get most of its light on the east, or west, or even on 

 its north side, and the roughest bark would be on the most shaded 

 side. The trunk that leans sharply nearly always has its roughest 



bark on its under side, no matter whether that is east, west, north, 

 or south. 



Trees of a whole tract often lean sharply in one direction, due 

 to the prevailing direction of the strongest winds. This is most fre- 

 quent in regions exposed to sea winds, but it occurs also on moun- 

 tains. Trees thus thrown out of plumb by prevailing winds develop 

 rough bark on the sides opposite the wind, though that might be 

 west or east as well as north or south. It is apparent that a woods 

 man who should try to use the roughness of bark under these cir 

 cumstances as a compass to shape his course, would box many a 

 compass before he would reach his destination. 



These are not all of the troubles likely to be met in attempting 

 to maintain the theory that the rough side of the tree can lead any 

 sure or particular way. Forests are not always dense. They are often 

 so open that light falls on the ground abundantly. Try to put 

 the theory into practice there, and note the result. Try it among the 

 mesquite, ebony, ratama, and cat's claw along the Eio Grande in 

 southern Texas. Search as you may, not one particle of difference 

 in the appearance of bark can be detected on the north, south, or 

 any other side of those sun-baked trees, unless a chance instance 

 where some unusual condition prevails. The reason is (probably) 

 that the whitish, semi-naked soil reflects so much light that the 

 twisted and deformed trunks in the Kio Grande forest receive about 

 as much light on one side as on another. It would, of course, be 

 impossible to apply the theory there. 



Test it at another point on the United States map. In southern 

 Florida, in the same latitude as the Eio Grande forests, there are 

 dense stands of hardwoods called ' ' hammock lands. ' ' Instead of an 

 open growth like that of Texas, it is so close that few trunks are 

 ever touched by the sunshine. They grow in perpetual shade. The 

 result is the bark is the same on all sides. There are no rough and 

 no smooth sides, and plainly no woodsman could shape his course 

 by any such charaeteristcs. 



Examples might be multiplied. The dense forests of the northern 

 Pacific coast have no more roughness on one side than on another. 

 High mountain trees, where the exposure is great, are apparently 

 not influenced in the least by southern exposure, though sometimes 

 the bark on one side is much rougher than on the other, due, in 

 many instances, to beating hail in time of storms. Trees on some 

 of the exposed crests of the Sierra Xevadas and the Eocky Moun- 

 tains have little or no bark on the sides where the prevailing winds 

 have full sweep and drive hail almost with the velocity of bullets. 



It is apparent, therefore, that no dependence can be placed in the 

 condition of bark on trees to indicate any particular direction. Lo- 

 cal conditions govern. No general law will apply. Some hunter, 

 whose whole experience was circimiscribed within a few miles, 

 might have found out how to shape his course by the bark of trees in 

 that particular locality, and woodsmen within bounds little larger 

 might do it; but it is not possible that such limited experiences 

 can be expanded into a general law applicable to the forests of a 

 continent, or even to a single state without numerous exceptions. 



The moss and the long southern limbs of the trees have not been 

 discussed. Both are unreliable guides in striking a course through the 

 woods. A good deal of what is called moss on tree trunks is not 

 moss at all, but it is not necessary to stumble over trifles. 



In some forests it is possible that a north and south course might 

 be laid by noting the presence of moss on one side of the trunk and 

 its absence on the other; but such an experience would be rare. The 

 same laws govern it that control the roughness of the bark on a 

 certain side of a trimk; but usually an additional factor must be 

 considered — dampness. Moss will grow where moisture is right, with- 

 out much regard to the difference between sunlight and shade. 

 This makes moss even less reliable than bark as a guide. In a par- 

 ticular region where the habits of the prevailing moss is well known, 

 it might be some help in laying a course, but outside of that district 

 it would be useless. 



—21— 



