It wouldn't be the first time that a reporter misinterpreted the information that was given to them!! I bet he was given all but the last sentence and added the error, or was told what the total length of all the logs was and then assumed that meant the length of the tree, too....
PJ ----- Original Message ----- From: Edward Frank To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:53 AM Subject: Re: [ENTS] A Large Tree article in 1849 Paul, The problem isn't with the number of logs taken out of the tree, The article says: A Large Tree. --- Mr. D. E. Hawks, of Charlemont, cut a Pine tree a short time since, of the following dimensions. It was 7 feet through 10 feet from the stump, and 5 feet through 50 feet from the stump. Twenty-two logs were taken from the tree, the average length of which were 12 feet. Fourteen feet of the tree were spoiled in falling. The extreme length of the tree from the stump to the top twigs was 300 feet! ---- Greenfield Gazette. Ed -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected] -- Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org Send email to [email protected] Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
