414 TRANSACTIONS AND PROCEEDINGS 



and the photographs of the ruined tree in 1893. And in 

 presence of these pictures, which cover only a period of 

 120 years, the question may be asked, Does the age of the 

 Cowthorpe Oak appear to be 400, 500, or 600 years ? If 

 we allow 400 years, then the tree was 280 years old at the 

 time of Dr. Hunter's print, and since then it has been 120 

 years in coming to the present stage. If we allow 600 

 years, the tree was 480 years old at the date of Dr. Hunter's 

 print. If 500 years be allowed (and it seems to us the 

 utmost that can reasonably be assigned as the age of the 

 Cowthorpe Oak), this would allow 120 years for the decay, 

 and 380 years for growth and the partial declension which 

 shows itself in Dr. Hunter's print. 



Dr. Hunter's print is a faithful portrait of the tree in 

 1776, as is shown by another print, which depicts the tree 

 about the same time, although it appears in the " Gentle- 

 man's Magazine " for 1831. Another picture of the old 

 tree was sent to us by Mr. Carruthers, of the British 

 Museum. It was published in 1806. In all the three 

 engravings (Dr. Hunter's included) there is no sign of a 

 cavity in the trunk; but in 1822, when J. G. Strutt was 

 sketching the tree, the cavity was not only apparent, but 

 could be entered in two places. Loudon, in 1829, says 

 the floor of the cavity measures 9 ft. 10 in. across. 

 Empson's picture, dated 1842, shows the opening to the 

 hollow or cavity, and in his dimensions he states that at 

 the base it measured 11 ft. across. In 1893 our measure- 

 ment was 13 ft. This dimension and the photograph will 

 show that the trunk was merely a shell. 



Notwithstanding the careful and prolonged study of the 

 Cowthorpe Oak, and the many efforts we have made to 

 correct error respecting it, we have little hope that writers 

 for popular papers will be influenced by them. Only six 

 months since, a writer for a leading periodical who had 

 had access to the results of our research, declared the tree 

 to be sixteen hundred years old, and the print (date we 

 believe is 1872) shows what an illustrated paper will do 

 in exaggerating things, when it is compared with an actual 

 photograph. 



