130 LAST OF THE POLLOK WYCH ELMS. 
When this tree was taken down it was found that the root 
system was very far gone. The main roots, however, were sound 
upwards of five or six feet from the base of the stem, but there 
was an almost entire absence of young fibrous roots. A striking 
feature was the entire absence of tap-roots, large or small, so that 
when the tree fell it was as bare on the under-side of the ball as if 
it had been growing on a flagstone. On cross-cutting the tree it 
was found almost solid, being but slightly decayed on one side of 
the heart. The timber, however, was of very little value, as it was 
both ring and star-shaken. 
Through the fall the whole top and limbs were literally broken 
into firewood, very few pieces being larger than one man could 
remove, thus making it impossible to measure the entire contents, 
and only the trunk was measured, with the following results :— 
The clear bole was over thirty feet, but there was a quite 
decided bole of more than double that length, although it was 
broken across at about fifty feet where it was twenty inches in 
diameter. The girth was taken at three points, at 12 feet 6 inches, 
34 feet, and 47 feet, and measured 1o feet 5 inches, 8 feet 
5 inches, and 6 feet respectively, containing, according to 
commercial measurement, about two hundred and sixty cubic feet, 
and about three hundred and thirty cubic feet actual contents, 
and would weigh close upon twelve tons. 
In reckoning the age by the concentric layers of wood, the 
process was comparatively easy until about the two hundredth 
year. After that, however, the rings became so fine that there 
was great difficulty in defining them; towards the outside they 
were uncertain, and when tried with a good lens the structure 
assumed the appearance of cane rather than wood, there being an 
entire absence of fibre. Several attempts all resulted about the 
same, making it from two hundred and ninety-six to two 
hundred and ninety-eight years old; but I believe it was ten or 
twelve years older, the difference being due to the fact that for the 
last twelve years or more it had failed to lay on wood to any 
appreciable extent, which was proved by comparing certain 
features of growth in both trees, which will be referred to later on. 
The other tree which, in 1892, at 3 feet 1134 inches measured 
12 feet % inch in circumference, was much more vigorous than 
its neighbour. Measured again at the same place in 1899 and 
