255 



although those of the Western Australian Karri {E. diversicolor) are very large. Most 

 of the literature has gathered around the Gippsland trees, and \vill be found quoted 

 below by ilr. Hardy and myself. 



A discussion on the height of Gippsland trees (Mr. Howitt's paper, in Trans. 

 Roy. Soc. Vict., ii (1890), in which Baron von Mueller and Mr. A. W. Howitt joined, 

 will be found in Journ. Roy. Soc. Vict., iii (new series), 124 (1890). Mr. Howitt had 

 measured a tree of 350 feet, and Mueller stated that trees 400 feet high had existed. 

 The discussion is well worth referring to. 



In my "' Forest Flora of New South Wales,'^ Vol. II. pp. 161-165 (1905), I gave 



such evidence as was available to me in regard to " The giant trees of AustraUa, I 



wrote at p. 163 in the following words: — 



Professor Sargont is an eminent authority on the subject of which he treats, and in view of the actual 

 measurements that he presents, viz., 340 feet in height for a Redwood {Sequoia sempervirens), and a girth 

 round the trunk of 107 feet for its congener, the " Big Tree " (S. WeUingtoiiia), I am of opinion that, so 

 far as our knowledge goes at present, California is the home both of the tallest and of the broadest trees 

 in the world. 



In the Federal Handbook published for the visit of the British Association in 



1914, I wrote :— 



The official size of the tallest Gippsland tree is given as — height, 326 ft. 1 in. ; girth, 25 ft. 7 in., 

 measured 6 feet from the ground; locaUtv, spur of Mount Baw Baw, 91 miles from Melbourne. This is 

 enormous, but different from the alleged heights of from 400 to 52-5 feet foisted on Mueller, and which 

 will probably not be eradicated from the newspapers for another generation. 



As regards the Californian trees brought into comparison . . . the difierence (under 14 feet) 

 against the Gippsland tree is not large, and it would not be surprising if additional investigations should 

 cause this friendly competition between Australia and the United States to end differently. 



Presently I will show that New Zealand is in this competition. 



'■' A short accoimt of the big trees of CaHfornia,'' Bull. Xo. 28, United States 

 Department of Agriculture, Division of Forestry (1900), gives a later account than 

 that of C. S. Sargent. 



In the ■■' summary of facts "" it is stated that "" the dimensions of the Big Tree 

 are miequaUed." A number of dimensions of trees, Uving and dead, are quoted, but 

 comparatively few with full particulars. Thus the height is given of many, the diameter 

 at the ground of some, and at 6 feet above the ground of others. Many partictilars 

 are given in regard to them in the Bulletin, which is not easy of brief abstraction. 



For particidars as to tall trees of Brazil, see Bates' " NaturaUst on the Amazons " 

 (Murray's Pop. Ed., 1910, pp. 29, 30). 



In a paper •• On the Ascent of Water ia Trees " [Phil. Trans. B., Vol. 199, 1905) 

 Professor A. J. Ewart (of the University of Melbourne), has some remarks in regard 

 to the reputed heights of the Gippsland trees, after referring to certain reputed 

 measurements which have been repeated over again by authors copying one another, 

 as " greatly exaggerated " and '" considerably exaggerated," he concludes, " The 

 tallest AustraUan tree, therefore, hitherto accurately measured, barely exceeds 300 feet, 

 and it is possible that some of the records fi-om other countries, notably America, may 

 sufEer a similar diminution when acciu'ately tested." 



