Nov. 1802.] BOTANICAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH, 



4G5 



The table illustrates the difficulty of arriving at the 

 truth as to the size of old trees. No one who has seen 

 this tree can believe that by any process of loss its girth 

 at the ground can have diminished between 1776 and 

 1889 by 24 feet, or even by 3 feet at 3 feet above 

 ground. But Mr. Dent's measurements were taken 

 expressly for me with every care, and I have no doubt 

 are substantially correct. It is possible, indeed, that in 

 measuring such an irregular surface, where the slightest 

 shifting of the tape makes a great difference, he may have 

 missed the narrowest point, and unless we suppose growth 

 to have taken place in the decaying tree since Mr. 

 Marsham's measurements, the date of which is uncertain, 

 this must be the case. My recollection is that I got one 

 measurement as low as 34 feet. 



In further illustration of the unreliability of earlier 

 statements, Strutt, speaking of this very tree, remarks, 

 " In girth, indeed, it is inferior to the magnificent remains 

 of the oak in Salcey Forest." But, on turning to his 

 account of it, we find the dimensions, as taken in 1794, 

 to be 46 feet 10 inches at the bottom, and 24 feet 7 

 inches at 3 feet up. Now Strutt accepts Hunter's 78 

 feet and 48 feet at the corresponding positions in the 

 Cowthorpe oak as correct, and yet calls it inferior to the 

 Salcey Forest tree ! 



