Ifi 



TIMUKK PINES OK THE SOUTKKRN UNITED STATES. 



That these statements refer only ti» the (-lear portions of each hjg, and are variably aflected 

 at eacli whorl of knots (every 10 to 30 inches) according to thfir size, and also by the variable 

 amounts of rosin (u|) to 20 per cent of the dry weiglit), must be self-evident. 



Sapwood is not necessarily weaker than heart wood, only usually tlie sapwood of the large- 

 sized trees we are now using is represented by the narrow-ringed outer i)art, wiiicii was foi incd 

 during the old-age period of growth, when naturally lighter and weaker wood is made; but the 

 wood formed during the more thrifty diameter growth of the first eighty to one hundred years — 

 sapwood at the time, changed into heartwood later — was eveu as 8ai>wood the heaviest and 

 strongest. 



RANGE OF VALUES FOE WEKinT AND STKKNGTH. 



Although the range of values for the individual tree of any given species varies from butt to 

 top, and from center to i)eriphery by 15 to -'5 per cent, and occasionally more, the deviation from 

 average values from one individual to aiKJther is not usually as great as has been believed; thus, 

 of 56 trees of Lougleaf Pine, 42 trees varied in their average strength by less than 10 per cent 

 from the average of all 50. 



The following t;il)le of weight (which is a direct and fair indication of strength), rei)re8enting 

 all the wood of the stem and excluding knots and other defects, gives a more perfect idea of the 

 range of these \alues : 



Kaniji of spieijic iveighl uilli iKjr (hiln-ilrh'd wood). 

 [To avoid fractions tbe valuer are multiplied by 2U0.] 



Though occa? onally some very exceptional trees occur, especially in Loblolly and Shortleaf, the 

 range on the whole is generally within remarkably narrow limits, as a])i)ears from the following 



table : 



Kange of specific weiyht in IreiH of the same aye approximaUhj ; averayca for wAo/e trieo. 



[Specific gravity multiplied by 100 to avoid fractions.] 



Xarae. 



Cuban Pine... 



Loncleaf Pine. 

 Loblolly Piuo. 

 Sbortleaf Pine 



Number 

 of trees. 



Age, 

 years. 



Single trees. 



4 150-200 



5 50-100 

 13 100-150 

 10 I 125-150 

 12 100-150 



50 68 62 

 60 58 60 

 59 66 57 



51 I 51 53 

 45 47 53 



67 . 

 66 

 55 

 50 



SB 59 

 53 54 

 51 55 



66 I 59 62 



52 



51 ' 50 53 



67 



Average. 



62.5 

 60.9 

 60.5 

 52.8 

 50.8 



From this table it would appear that single individuals of one species would approximate 

 single individuals of another species so closely that the weight distinction seems to fail, but in 

 large numbers, for instance carloads of material, the averages above giveu will prevail. 



INFLUENCE OF LOCALITY. 



In both the Cuban ami Longleaf I'iiie the locality where grown appears to have but little 

 influence on weiglit or strength, and there is no reason to believe that the Longleaf Pine from one 

 State is better than that from any other, since such variations as are claimed can be found on any 

 40-acre lot of timber in any State. P.ut with Loblolly, and still moie with Shortleaf, this seems not 

 to be the case. Being widely distril)Uted over many localities difVerent in .soil and climate, the 

 growth of the Shortleaf Pine seems materially influenced by location. The wood from the Southern 

 Coast and Gulf region and even Arkansas is generally heavier than the wood from localities farther 

 north. Very light and line grained wood is seldom met near the southern limit of the lange, while 

 it is almost the rule in Mis.souri, where forms resembling the Norway Pine are by no means rare. 

 The Loblolly, occupying both wet and dry soils, varies accordingly. 



