^-••:«^»";»n'"^V'''»^' 



OcColx-r lu. lui:. 



Records of Large Hardwood Trees f 



The Amoricnn Genetic Society's recent offer of one ImnilrcJ dolliirs 

 na It |iri(t' for n description of tbo liirgost living hardwood tree of the 

 United hitateK, liroiiKht together much interesting information on tiie 

 9ul>jo<-t. Tho prize wont to a gycAmoro of Indiana, growing nour 

 Worthington, in tho White river valley. This is tho tree which was 

 featured by IIakowooi* Record as a cover picture for its issuo of 

 July 10, 1915. 



In offering this prize, it was explicitly stated that softwoods were 

 ozcludi'il from tho contest. That was done because it is well known 

 that sequoias of California, commonly known ns tho "big trees," 

 greatly surpass all others in size, and it would bo a foregone conclu- 

 sion that one of them would win the prize. Tho hardwoods, as here 

 consiilorcd, are the broad-leaf trees, as distinguished from tho needle- 

 leaf trees of the pine family. 



Living trees only irere considered, and records of former trees now 

 gone were not eligible to the prize. It was necessary to draw the line 

 somewhere, and a convenient place was between the living and the 

 dead. 



The Record Trees 



Of the five trees which topped the record, Indiana has one, Cali- 

 fornia one, Virginia one, and North Carolina two. Tho species and 

 their circumferences follow: 



Species Stjite CircumfiMoni'e 



Sycamore Indiana 42 feet 3 inches 



Valley oak California 37 feet 6 inches 



Yellow poplar North Carolina 34 feet 6 inches 



Chestnut North Carolina 33 feet 4 inches 



Black walnut Virginia 31 feet 2 inches 



Much information concerning other large trees was brought together 

 by the Genetic Society. Pennsylvania has a sassafras 15 feet, 10 

 inches in circumference; Louisiana a pecan 19 feet, 6 inches; Arkan- 

 sas a catalpa 15 feet, and a persimmon tree seven feet in girth. 

 According to the well-known rule of arithmetic the diameter of a tree 

 is obtained by dividing the circumference by 3.1416, or if an ap- 

 proximation will suffice, the division may be by 3. 



Figures showing a tree's circumference are not necessarily a sure 

 guide to its actual size. The real measure should bo tho trunk's 

 solid contents; but since that involves much more measuring and 

 figuring than the ordinary observer is willing to put on it, there are 

 few records of the solid contents of very large trees. 



The height at which the circumference measurements are taken 

 has much to do with the showing made. Nearly all trees decrease 

 very rapidly in size for the first few feet from the ground upward. 

 The circumference at the ground may be twice what it is a few 

 feet above; but this holds true of some kinds much more than of 

 others. The United States Forest Service has adopted a rule that 

 all circumference measurements must be taken four and a half feet 

 above the level of the ground, unless otherwise stated. That furnishes 

 a filed rule which gives general uniformity in all measurements. To 

 state that a tree has such a circumference measurement, without 

 information as to the point measured, does not mean much. 



Other Large Trees 



The diaries of early travelers through American forests, and other 

 frontier accounts, have left records of many large trees. Some of 

 these measurements are vague and dubious, while others appear to be 

 reliable. Some of these are given below, either with or without their 

 authors. 



Robert Ridgeway, the ornithologist and a reliable writer, has left 

 record of a sycamore log in Illinois that was 66 feet in circumference. 

 The tree had fallen before he saw it. It is said that the stump of a 

 sycamore in Indiana was to be seen in 1860 that was 67 feet in 

 circumference. 



William Cobbett, an English author of good standing who wrote 

 about ninety years ago, left an account of a black walnut tree on 

 —22— 



Long Island that was 37 feet, G inches in circumference. It wna cut 

 and a section of tho trunk was hewed hollow, taken to New York 

 where it served as a freak place of entertainment, first as u parlor, 

 and later as a restaurant, grocery, ami a barber shop. It was finally 

 destroyed by fire. The height of that tree is not st«t<>d, but a con- 

 temporary estimate gave tho contents at 50,000 board feet ; but it ia 

 doubtful if that much lumber could havo been cut from any hardwood 

 tree ever recorded in this country. It must have been a thcoroticnl 

 estimate which allowed nothing for waHte. 



In volume 5, page 180 of the West Virginia Geological Survey 

 is an account of a yellow poplar over 37 feet in circumference. 



On page 159, bulletin 11 of the Pennsylvania Department of 

 Forestry, Professor Henry Guyot is i)uoted, with apparent approval, 

 as authority for tho statement that a yellow poplar in Francis Cove, 

 western North Carolina, stands 100 feet to the first limb, and the 

 trunk is 50 feet in circumference. That size is remarkable, and the 

 writer of this article scarcheil the voluminous writings of Professor 

 Guyot for the purpose of examining his statement at first hand ; but, 

 unfortunately, was not able to find it. Such a tree would produce 

 not less than 75,000 feet of lumber. 



A swamp white oak which formerly stood near Geneseo, New 

 York, was approximately 28 feet in circumference. It is not now 

 standing, as it was jirocipitated into the river some years ago by the 

 undermining of the bank where it stood. 



A Cottonwood formerly stood near W^ilmette, III., which, according 

 to figures preserved by the Evanston Historical Society, was 47 feet 

 in circumference three feet above the ground level. However, the 

 tree's base was abnormally enlarged, and a measurement within three 

 feet of the ground would scarcely be a fair figure by which to judge 

 the trunk as a whole. 



A willow at Wood's Hole, Mass., has a circumference of 22 feet, 

 six feet from the ground, and Missouri has a record of one that 

 exceeded 25 feet in circumference. Missouri claims a record of the 

 largest dogwood in the United States, with a circumference of over 

 six feet; but there are doubtless larger dogwoods than that on the 

 northern Pacific coast, but they are not of the same species as the 

 Missouri tree. 



The Genetic Society has not thus far published any figures giving 

 sizes of elms, but says the largest specimen reported grew near Mor- 

 gantown, W. Va., though now dead from excessive trimming. Last 

 year in Cass county, Michigan, an elm was cut which made seven 

 sawlogs and scaled 7,000 feet. There is little doubt that the largest 

 elms of the country are to be found in the eastern part of Massa- 

 chusetts, some of them being trees planted by early settlers. Most 

 of them have grown on ground comparatively open, for which reason 

 their heights are not proportionate to the size of the trunks at the 

 bases. An elm in Missouri attained a trunk circumference of 21 

 feet, 8 inches; a white oak in the same state had a circumference of 

 27 feet, and a persimmon tree a girth of 9 feet and 3 inches. 

 An English Author's Testimony 



Hakdwood Record is in receipt of a letter concerning big trees. 

 It was written by the author of a voluminous and highly valuable 

 work on the trees of the British Isles. The letter follows: 



Colcshorne, England. .Tuly, 1915. 



Sir: Your illustration and description in the Hardwood Record of 

 .Tnly 10 of the big sycamore in Green county, Indiana, is interesting to 

 mc, as It raises the question of what Is the larspst hardwood in the 

 United States. In our work I gave many records of bis trees collected 

 from various sources, and in Vol. Ill, p. (ii;7. I said that the Platanus 

 occidentali.1 or sycamore is the most massive if not the tallest deciduous 

 tree recorded in North .\merica. The younger Michaux in his "Travels in 

 the -VlleKhanies." 180."), p. 86, states that his father measured In the 

 Muskingum valley "a palm tree or Platanus ocriilcntalis" forty feet four 

 inches In girth at five feet. I have always taken girths at five feet, un- 

 less, as in the case of the tree you figure, there is a distinct waist below 

 the fork, which in this case there seems to be at about seven feet ; and 

 where a tree stands on a hillside so that the ground Is much lower on 

 one side than on the other, I try to get as near a coinproinise as possible. 

 Michaux stated that the same tree had been measured l»y Washington 



