From this fence corner that the evidence indicates perpetuates the position of a rock mound built in 1891 to mark a corner of a certain 1000-acre tract, the boundary of the roughly 3000-acre tract I'm dealing with runs northerly to a waterway.
In the 1902 deed by which the tract was conveyed, the line is described as running in the opposite direction, i.e. from the waterway to the corner of the 1000 acres, as follows:
[from] a Cypress 12 inches in diameter, marked X on the West bank of the river from which a Live Oak 30 inches in diameter bears S5-1/4°E, 205-1/2 varas,
Thence S5°E, at 113-1/5 varas cross branch, at 806-1/2 varas to North corner of said 1000 acre tract, a Rock Mound from which [reciting same bearing trees as in 1891 deed to 1000 acres at corner]
It is pretty much a certainty that the surveyor did not run from the marked Cypress to the corner of the 1000 acres, but simply ran a line from the 1000-acre corner to intersect the Cypress-lined bank of the waterway where by good fortune the line struck the Cypress that he then marked for a corner. The grantor of the 1902 deed owned the land on both sides of the line, so its location was not constrained by previous grants. The most likely reconstruction of that same line is one that runs to a 23 in. dia. Cypress (with an old mostly overgrown blaze) I found on the bank of the waterway, at 666.02 varas passing the center of a 40 in. Live Oak 0.200 varas Right of line, at 700.5 varas crossing a branch, in all a distance of 818.50 varas (vs. 806.5 varas record) to the 23 in. Cypress.
The overall chaining discrepancy (806.5 vrs. Record vs. 818.50 vrs. Actual) is significant, and the distance from the Cypress to the 40 in. Live Oak that I think has to be the bearing tree mentioned (205.5 vrs. Record vs. 152.48 vrs Actual) is grossly discrepant. The size of the Live Oak is pretty much right on the money for what I'd expect a Live Oak that was 30 inches in 1902 to be 112 years later. However, the discrepancy in distance to the Live Oak raises a question.
The grid bearing of the line from the corner of the 1000 acres to the 23 in. Cypress is N5°57'35"W, which differs in azimuth by about 0°58' from the record bearing. This difference is inconsistent with the differences between grid and record on the line of the tract following it as described in the 1902 deed which differs in azimuth by about -1°40' from record. Given the large chaining discrepancies, the obvious question is whether the Cypress and Live Oak were actually not the same trees described by the 1902 surveyor.
One thing that is interesting about the boundary of that roughly 3000 acre tract is that from the metes and bounds description used in the conveyance by which the land was originally split out of a larger tract, one would conclude that it had been surveyed in August of 1902 by the then County Surveyor.
However, after examining the records of surveys that the County Surveyor made in the area, it appears that the metes and bounds description was actually compiled from several surveys he made between 1889 and 1902, all evidently run with a compass. Of the multiple courses around the boundary, it looks as if only a few were from work done in 1902. The first three listed below are quite definitely the same lines described by the County Surveyor and appear from the surrounding circumstances to have been his work in 1902. He described them as following a rock fence that is still in place in quite good condition. So the lines can be identified on the ground with reasonably good certainty.
The fourth line is one that the County Surveyor ran in 1889 and is likewise identifiable with more than reasonable certainty.
[pre]
Record Grid Grid Az
- Rec Az
N34-1/2°E N33°35'07"E -0°55'
600 vrs. 598.90 vrs.
N31-1/2°E N31°44'49"E +0°15'
125 vrs. 123.775 vrs.
N23-1/2°E N23°05'37"E -0°24'
200 vrs. 200.45 vrs.
N45°E N44°04'24"E -0°56'
2283 vrs. 2293.79 vrs
S5°E S5°57'35"E -0°58'
806.5 vrs. 818.50 vrs.
[/pre]
The fifth line listed above is the line in question. In other words, the bearing of the line to the Cypress on the bank is actually in good agreement with other work run by the 1902 surveyor, both in 1902 and in 1889. The anomolous bearing differences of the 1902 surveyor's calls along the lines of the 1000 acres he had surveyed in 1891 are probably best explained by his having used a different variation in his compass and having not taken that fact into account when reusing the calls of the 1891 survey when in 1902 he compiled the metes and bounds description of the roughly 3000 acres adjoining it.
I'm still working on a good explanation for the large discrepancy in distance from the Cypress to the 40 in. Live Oak and suspect that it originates in an arithmetic error made when the field book passing calls along a line run Northerly were recalculated for a line run Southerly as recited in the 1902 deed.
You seem pretty convinced the cypress tree is one and the same as is mentioned in the notes. IF it is indeed the same tree, the only logical explanation would be an arithmetical error.
Proving that could be difficult, but if all the other circumstantial evidence fits and nothing to the contrary is indicated; I guess you'd be pressed to run with it.
> You seem pretty convinced the cypress tree is one and the same as is mentioned in the notes. IF it is indeed the same tree, the only logical explanation would be an arithmetical error.
>
> Proving that could be difficult, but if all the other circumstantial evidence fits and nothing to the contrary is indicated; I guess you'd be pressed to run with it.
Well, it's mostly a process of logical inference and estimation of probability of different patterns of evidence.
1. Certain lines almost certainly run in 1902 by 1902 Surveyor (no prior record or evident reason for having done so).
2. Certain lines likely not rerun by him, but used data from his previous work (common practice in 19th and early 20th century).
3. Not plausible that line was run from river to corner of 1000 acres (would have required trial line, correction, and rerunning of line).
4. Bearing of line from corner of 1000 acres to Cypress agrees with expectation from all other work done by 1902 surveyor aside from 1891 survey (narrows search strip to less than about 8 ft. to either side of line).
5. 23 in. Cypress shows artificial-appearing scars on side that would have been marked and no other Cypress within 100 ft. does.
6. Distance from Cypress to branch in adequate agreement.
7. 40 in. Live Oak was definitely in place in 1902 and probably about 30 inches, given average growth rates of Live Oaks in area.
8. 30 in. Live Oak would have blocked view of more distant bearing tree behind it.
Most plausible conclusion: 40 in. Live Oak is same tree described as 30 in. Live Oak in 1902, was plussed in on line run to river, and distance to it calculated from passing call.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
By the way, in case anyone is interested, here is a photo of the 23 in. Cypress (Taxodium distichum) with the overgrown blaze that almost certainly was the same 12 in. Cypress marked "X" in 1902.
The Cypress grows along the bank of a river that flows seasonally.
I had another look at the 40 in. Live Oak (seen in the background of the photo below) that I've also concluded is almost certainly the Live Oak that in 1902 was described as 30 in, dia. and at a bearing and distance from the Cypress that worked out to be an offset of less than a vara from the tract boundary as originally surveyed in 1902.
The 1902 surveyor did not call for any mark on the Live Oak and I found no scar of one.
However, on line running Southerly from the Live Oak, I did find a fairly clear old hack scar on a small, dead Live Oak.
The labial scar in the detail of the above photo is a typical line mark for Central Texas in 19th and early 20th century surveying. Were the tree alive and growing, it would be too small to have been around in 1902. However, it is standing dead and appears to have been partly stunted by the girdling effect of the hack and partly by the shade of the dominant canopy under which it was trying to grow. It could actually have been around in 1902.
The 40 in. Live Oak did have a guard lizard attached to it, but test results were inconclusive.
Kent, the grass
looks way too green. The fact you are calling for cypress trees says water, but away from the waterways in July, things should be brown. Jeez, did y'all get some rain?
Kent, the grass
> Jeez, did y'all get some rain?
Things are in fact unusually green for August.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
Wish I knew more about blazes.
The mark on the cypress seems surprisingly low on the tree, not more than 3 feet from the ground(?) although I can't tell exactly. Wasn't it more common to blaze at chest height?
If it was cut as an X shouldn't the scar show something other than an oval shape? If they cut the X through the bark and sap layer? Or did they cut away a blaze and then cut deeper for an X ?
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
> Wish I knew more about blazes.
>
> The mark on the cypress seems surprisingly low on the tree, not more than 3 feet from the ground(?) although I can't tell exactly. Wasn't it more common to blaze at chest height?
>
> If it was cut as an X shouldn't the scar show something other than an oval shape? If they cut the X through the bark and sap layer? Or did they cut away a blaze and then cut deeper for an X ?
The ordinary height of marks cut in trees by 19th and early 20th century surveyors in Central Texas would be about 33 inches. The blaze scar is closer to the ground than that, but it looks as if there has been at least a couple feet of sediment deposition on the bank judging by the depth of the roots seen in the photo taken from the river side of the tree.
From the marked Cypresses I've examined over the years, none have held cut marks particularly well at all. In this example, I'd guess that a mark was cut into the tree after blazing to leave it visible longer.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
So there has been a negligible amount of bank erosion at the Cypress in 114 yrs?
I guess that is my question.
It looks like there has been some erosion at the Cypress tree.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
> So there has been a negligible amount of bank erosion at the Cypress in 114 yrs?
> I guess that is my question.
>
> It looks like there has been some erosion at the Cypress tree.
I'd say that the cypress roots are what is keeping that bank in place. The tree was described in 1902 as being on the bank, and it's still on the bank. The sediment deposition is in the overbank where I'd expect that velocities would be less than in the clean channel. Grasses and other vegetation on the bank keep the sediment in place once deposited.
That pattern of the Cypresses growing right at the edge of the water-washed stream bed is what one commonly sees in Central Texas. Knowing that a 23 inch Cypress is growing where it is tells me that the bank has been in that position for pretty much as long as it has taken for the Cypress to grow.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
Well, the cypress here have very strong roots systems also. I remember our boy as a toddler encountering a Cypress knee that was his height. It was kind of comical when it got his curiosity. A definite missed out Kodak moment.
What genus of Cypress is that?
I know that you parenthesized it in one of the posts but can't find it now. I have been wanting to plant a bald cypress seedling in our yard for awhile now.
Following the 1902 Surveyor Today (Photos)
> What genus of Cypress is that?
That is a Taxodium distichum.