> Okay...so it's NOT a “cedar” stake at all, but some unknown variety (species) of juniper that is locally “known as” (misidentified as) “cedar.”
No, it is definitely a cedar stake. The fact that there is anything at all left of the stake pretty much guarantees that. I suppose that if you want to call the tree it was cut from by whatever names the various tribes of Texas Indians used, you might be closer to the "true" name of the plant. The Spanish and Mexicans called it "cedro" and the settlers from the United States called it "cedar".
I see... it's cedar because ignorant layman call it cedar! Oky Doky
Kinda like calling Bison... Buffalo, and Pronghorn...Antelope, even though they don't even look like the real thing (anymore than juniper looks like cedar).
Actually I was just having some fun with you Kent, I AGREE that “local usage” in such things as descriptive language can be important in maintaining a linear pedigree in the history of a given monument/corner.
🙂
Loyal
P.S. I think I'll get my T-2 out tonight, and take some pictures (with it)!
> I see... it's cedar because ignorant layman call it cedar!
Names originate from usage. As I mentioned, the tree the cedar stake was cut from is most likely known by the scientific name of Juniperus ashei and has been virtually universally called by the common name of Cedar since the 1830's. If you'd like to invent a new name for it in Utah, you're welcome to do so. How about Olson's Lager tree? In Texas, though, it will still be a Cedar. :>
Suit yourself Kent
Nobody who has ever seen a "true" Cedar would ever mistake a juniper (or any other indigenous New World Tree/scrub) for a Cedar (except maybe a Larch at first glance).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedrus
I guess we'll have to file this one under "technical minutia."
P.S. I was out in the field yesterday looking for an old USGS Bench Mark, and the landowner came by to see what we were doing (there were four of us with probes and shovels). When I told him we were looking for an "Bench Mark," he pointed to the 1946 GLO Township Corner (Brass Cap) about 25 feet away! I guess that makes the GLO Brass cap, a 1915 USGS Bench Mark! [Or at least it would in Texas]
🙂
Loyal
Suit yourself Kent
> Nobody who has ever seen a "true" Cedar would ever mistake a juniper (or any other indigenous New World Tree/scrub) for a Cedar
Well, the problem with such Kooperesque pedantry is that it really doesn't identify the tree to call it by other than its common name unless you use its scientific name. I would assume that to be consistent, for example, you would also want to insist that what is universally commonly called a Bald cypress and that has the scientific name of Taxodium distichum has to be called something other than a cypress because it isn't a member of the genus Cupressus.
Following your scheme of nomeclature, you'll end up with Olson's Lager Bush eventually. :>
Suit yourself Kent
you guys are a crack-up 🙂
> As I continue to unravel this one, I'll have a better idea of how well Mr. Campbell ran his lines and his chainmen measured.
Well, after another afternoon in the field, I've got a couple more old corners that I think are from the 1877 subdivision. There was a question about the quality of the work done by the 1877 surveyor's chainmen. Here is one preliminary report.
The distance from the SW corner of the W.P. Corbin Survey to the SW corner of the 121.6 acre Lot No. 22 as reported by the 1877 surveyor was 2315 varas. I find the distance between the SW corner of the Corbin Survey and the remains of a stone mound that I think to be the 1877 surveyor's mark on the South line of the Corbin Survey at the SW corner of Lot 22 to be 2311.730 varas.
So: 2315 vrs. (1877 record) vs. 2311.73 vrs. (actual)
N.B.: 36 Texas Varas = 100 US Survey Feet
Suit yourself Kent
You can't buy this kind of entertainment, can you Dave.
Thanks Kent, Loyal, Kooper, et. al.;-)
Dugger
