September 25, 1917 



' v »ro5<^i^ma^;itMi>ia^m!!M^v>^w^w^^ '■j>}«t»!, f w' 



Editor's Note 



The article nhieh fipllows ile;ils with a subject on -ivbicli there is much poijulai- opinion, and perhaps preju- 

 dice, and comparatively little scientific information : namely, what is the cause and the extent of the influence 

 of soil, climate, and -situation on the properties of wood? That this influence is real in some instances there can 

 be no doubt, but it is diffirult to draw the line between facts and opinions, and this article does not attempt to 

 do so. 



There is nothing better known tlian that one wood may differ widely 

 from anotlier in several particulars, such as weight, strength, stiffness, 

 durability, and color. Hickory and white pine are so far apart in 

 most of the properties common to wood that they can scarcely be com- 

 pared; and it is the same when many other woods are compared with 

 one another. 



It is not quite so generally known that wide differences often exist 

 between samples of the same kind of wood, as between two white 

 pines, two cottonwoods, or two white oaks. Nature separates the trees 

 of the forests into species or kinds. Those of one species, as red gum, 

 or white ash, have many characters in common, but they also differ in 

 many ways. Leaving out of account the leaves, flowers, fruit, and 

 bark, where many differences may be noted, there are differences in 

 the characters of the wood of the same species of trees. A piece from 

 one white ash, for example, may be three times as strong as a piece 

 of the same size from another white ash ; or a block of wood from 

 one tree may be much heavier than a block of the same size from an- 

 other tree of the same species. These differences are not changed when 

 the different samples are reduced to the same degree of dryness, and 

 are otherwise conditioned as much alike as can be done by artificial 

 means. 



Reasons Not Clear 



These differences are so common and are frequently so apparent tliat 

 it is difficult to account for them. Climate and other surrounding 

 conditions are often supposed to account for differences in wood of 

 the same species but from different trees. That conclusion is doubt- 

 less partly correct, but it does not account for all the differences ; for 

 two frees of the same species may stand side by side, and the wood 

 of one may be heavier, stiffer, and stronger than that of the oftier. 

 It is not apparent why this is true. Conditions of growth seem to 

 be the same. 



It is not so difficult to understand tliat trees of one species grow- 

 ing in different climates, and far apart, should vary in the character 

 of their wood, but even the reason for that has to be accepted by faith 

 rather than upon a clear explanation of the reasons underlying the 

 differences. 



A number of trees vary so much in external appearances, though 

 they are of the same species, that the popular verdict is that they are 

 not the same kind of trees at all. Even botanists have been fooled by 

 appearances. Note the case of the western yellow pine. The trees 

 growing on the Pacific Coast were called bull jiine, and those in the 

 Rocky Mountain region were known as rock pine. Botanists made the 

 same mistake as the laymen, and called the free on the Pacific Coast 

 Pinus ponderosa, and that in the Rocky Mountain region Finns 

 ponderosa scopulorum. The differences have been thrashed out, and 

 it is now known that both are the same kind of tree. 



The deception went even further with lodgepole pine. One kind 

 was called shore pine and the other lodgepole pine, and botanists 

 provided two names also for what they took to be two distinct species, 

 but it is now admitted that they are the same though they present 

 different appearances. Tliese differences are attributed to the differ- 

 ences in climate of the regions where they grow. 



The Case of Yellow PoPL.-iR 

 Differences of climate cannot be assigned as the cause of differences 

 in the appearance of yellow poplar, which have led many to believe 

 there are two kind's — the yellow poplar and the "white," "blue." or 

 "hickory" poplar. It does not appear that botanists were ever foolr-d 

 on this tree, but people who were not botanists have believed, for 

 three hundred years, that there are two kinds of poplar, one with the 

 yellow heart-wood and comparatively thin sap-wood, the other with 

 thick, tough white sapwood, and bluish heart. All through the poplar 



region to this day there are people who will not hear to it that it is 

 all the same tree. 



These variations are generally attributed to differences in soil — 

 the "white" poplar growing in poor soil, the other in rich ground. 

 That may have something to do with it, but it is not easy to explain 

 why in most cases a tree that is a " white ' ' poplar when little becomes 

 a yellow poplar when big. The soil does not change, and it can hardly 

 be claimed, even by the advocates of ' ' special creation, ' ' that a tree 

 changes its species between youth and age. It is simply one of the 

 things regarding wood which are hard to explain. The fact is admitted 

 but cannot be wholly accounted for. 



Other Instances 



The red cedar which grows in Tennessee and surrounding states is 

 remarkable for its soft and brittle wood. These qualities have made 

 it the best in the world for lead pencils. It was largely planted in 

 Austria by the pencil makers of that country many years ago; but 

 the wood there is very different from that produced by the same cedar 

 in the southern states of this country. 



The Circassian walnut was transplanted to Europe two thousand 

 years ago, but the wood has never equalled that grown in the tree's 

 native home. That grown in Europe is known as English, French or 

 Italian walnut. 



In Texas the mesquite is a runty tree, all branches and no trunk 

 worth mentioning. The same tree was transplanted to the Hawaiian 

 Islands and there it develops a shapely, long trunk. There seems to 

 be no report by which to judge whether the wood retains the same 

 character as the Texas mesquite. 



The bur oak and the yellow oak each varies greatly in the size of 

 the tree and the character of the wood. It is the bur oak that clothes 

 the desolate ' ' barrens ' ' in some of the northern states, where a trunk 

 fit for a sawlog is hard to find. The same tree, when it grows on the 

 fertile soil of northern Illinois produces shapely trunks and excellent 

 wood. The yellow oak growing in the Yazoo Delta in Mississippi 

 yields lumber as fine as that of northern red oak, but on thin land, 

 where this oak is generally found, the wood is fit for fuel only. 



An old tank maker at Corpus Christi, Tex., who had made tanks 

 of cypress for half a century, declared that if you would let him 

 whittle a cypress stick he could tell whether the tree grew in a fresh 

 water swamp or in a region invaded occasionally by salt tides. 



When table mountain jiine grows in deep fissures of rocks along 

 the summit of the Allegheny mountain, its branches may be cut with a 

 pocket knife, the same as other pines ; but if the tree stands on a high 

 pinnacle (where it delights to establish itself) the garland branches 

 take on the hardness of buckhorn, and will turn the edge of a knife 

 blade, unless of the best steel. The distance of fifty feet, between a 

 sheltered cleft and an exposed crag, may produce the difference in the 

 soft and the hard wood in the branches of this pine. 

 Figures Showing Differences 



General statements seldom prove as much as exact facts. The table 

 which follows was compiled from government figures. They show how 

 greatly a wood may vary in strength. From three or four to twenty 

 or thirty tests were, made of each species. Wood was selected from 

 different regions and from different kinds of soil. For instance, the 

 white oak in the table below came from nine states and there were 

 thirty-two samples tested for strength and weight. The weakest of 

 these samples had only thirty-eight per cent of the strength of the 

 strongest, and the lightest had sixty-nine per cent of the weight of 

 the heaviest ; yet they were all white oak, and all were reduced to the 

 same degree of dryness. The following table contains twenty-three 

 common woods, fifteen hard and eight soft. The variations in strength 

 and in weight is given for each. 



— 21 — 



