COLLECTION OF SECTIONS. 49 
No. 4 proved to have fairly large rings with 3 to 4 single ones missing 
and some hard to find, but the identification was easy and entirely 
satisfactory. No. 1, which was by this time recognized as the most 
difficult of the group, was reexamined in detail by comparison with 
No. 5, which proved difficult, with No. 2, which was somewhat better, 
but especially with No. 4, which proved to have the closest similarity, 
and all apparent errors were removed. It was very apt to drop out 
completely rings which were a little below the average. No. 5 seemed 
to have no tendency to subdue or drop rings. This, with its disclosures 
of the ring for 1915, showed the necessity of including younger trees in 
any new group to avoid mistakes in the outer slow-growing parts of the 
older trees. A comparison of the last 70 years’ growth of sections 1 to 
5 is given in figure 12. An illustration of “gross’’ rings is seen in the 
upper curve. 
When the second subgroup was compared with the first, two com- 
plete omissions from No. 2 and the others of that first subgroup were 
discovered. This necessitated the complete renumbering of the first 
five sections. 
The sections were measured at this stage of the dating process. The 
final renumbering was made after the 1919 trip, the purpose of which 
was settling the identity of a doubtful ring occasionally found between 
1580 and 1581. The existence of this ring was established and the 
necessary corrections on the sections and in the tabular matter in this 
book have been made. All subsequent comparisons have verified this 
identification. 
THE SEQUOIA JOURNEY OF 1918. 
The visit to the Big Trees in 1918 was for the purpose of procuring 
material so that the tree-record from the 2,200 years already secured 
could be extended to 3,000 years. It was expected to do this without 
great difficulty, for Huntington had enumerated 3 trees over 3,000 
years of age, and he had placed numbers on the tops of stumps so that 
these could be readily identified. Nevertheless, in consequence of the 
occasional absence of a number on the top of a large stump which had 
been counted by him, a little more care proved to be necessary than 
was anticipated. 
After procuring an outfit in San Francisco, I selected Hume as a 
base and immediately went out on the log road to Camp 6, the old 
location of the groups obtained in 1915. All the stumps from which 
samples had been taken (including Nos. 1 to 15) were visited and each 
was marked with its respective number preceded by the letter D. This 
marking was done by a chisel, and the figures were usually about 4 
inches in height. Placing the capital D before each number made it 
certain that no number would be accidentally read upside-down. 
Naturally the stumps from which samples have been taken show the 
large cut from center to outside, and there is no doubt about their 
