256 



Mr. K. T. Patton {Proc. Roy. Soc. Vict., xxxi, 396, 1919) has some notes on the 

 height of E. regnans. He gives 326 feet as the " greatest height recorded," and the 

 two highest measurements as made by himself as 249 and 261 feet. 



In Trans. N.Z. Inst., xlvi, p. 9 (published 1914), is a paper by T. F. Cheeseman 

 on '■' The Age and Growth of the Kauri (Agathis australis)," in which he refers to the 

 sizes of other large trees. He says : " Seeing that the age and size of large forest trees 

 have been regularly overestimated in other countries, it could hardly be expected that 

 New Zealand would escape similar exaggeration." He has just been quoting Professor 

 A. J. Ewart's cautious remarks on Gippsland trees at some length. 



Incidentally, it may be mentioned that in the American " Journal of Forestry," 

 xvii, 890 (November, 1919), there is a note on Kauris and Californian Big Trees as 

 follows : — 



The New Zealand Department of Lands has published a small book by D. E. Hutchins on the 

 ' Waipoua Kauri Forest," in which occurs the statement . — " There were two gigantic Kauri in the Tutamoe 

 State Forest, each having a diameter of 22 feet, and the best one having a clean bole of 100 feet. This was 

 estimated to contain 295,788 board feet, which is twice the size of the largest California big tree, one of 

 the Calaveras Grove, containing 141,000 board feet." 



The commentator says : — " It is strange that at the present day the claims of California for large 

 sized trees should be contested by New Zealand. The following data show that even though New Zealand 

 has some immense trees, as those just described appear to be, still they cannot equal the giant Sequoias, 

 of which we are justly proud. 



" A Sequoia tree cut in 1854, called ' the Mother of the Forest,' had a diameter of 30 feet and a 

 height of 321 feet, and contained 537,000 board feet, which is twice that given for these famous Kauri trees 

 of New Zealand. In addition, this tree was 137 feet to the first limb. Another tree, called ' The Father 

 of the Forest,' measured a number of years ago 36 feet in diameter, 400 feet in height, and 200 feet to the 

 first limb." (These seem round numbers. J.H.M.) 



Mr. D. E. Hutchins, " A Discussion of Australian Forestry," pp. 315-17 (1916), 



says : — 



I am sure that every patriotic Australian will agree that an attempt should be made by the Forest 

 Departments in Victoria and Western Australia to find out the actually biggest trees, measure them, and 

 place them under special protection. 



I quite agree with this, and he is unconsciously repeating a very old suggestion 

 of mine, but Mr. Hutchins says : " (Mr. Maiden) perhaps goes to the other extreme, 

 and throws doubt on quite good evidence." If my readers will take the trouble to 

 turn to what I have said, and also to what Mr. Hutchins has said, they can judge for 

 themselves. If I have tried to avoid anything, it is to be " extreme," and my article 

 was an honest attempt to weigh the evidence on scientific {i.e., truthful) lines. The 

 genial forester, when he has opportunity to consult the literature of the subject, will 

 see that I am by no means the severest critic of reputed measurements of big Australian 

 and American trees. [I wrote the above some years ago, before our friend had received 

 the well-deserved honour of Knighthood, to be followed, alas too soon, by his death 

 in January, 1920.] 



