So, a couple of weeks ago I was looking for a line run in 1838, mostly in the Texas prairie, but partly through woodland. One of the prairie corners had an unusual call for a bearing tree, a pair of Blackjack Oaks 960 varas (2667 ft.) distant, on a bearing 30 minutes off the land grant line, one marked "M".
A 1907 deed reported this line as running in a position along which a wire fence is now in place, sort of. When I say "sort of", I mean that the fence doesn't even run straight between the two points supposed by the 1907 scrivener of the deed description to lie upon the land grant line. However, I found the original evidence of where the land grant line had actually been run in 1838 about 500 ft. East of that fence.
Here is a shot of one of the two Blackjack Oaks, the one marked "M" in 1838. As you can see, the scar of the old cut letter is still fairly plainly visible in the pattern of thinner bark on the overgrowth over the scar.
and if you can't see, I've traced the "M" on the photo so you can:
Note how the proportions of the scar of the "M" have stretched as the oak has grown since 1838.
Naturally, there was other evidence of the original line, but that BT 960 varas away from the corner was the cutest. Here's is the question though:
Q: What questions should I have asked to try to move the position where the line was originally run to fit the irregular wire fence?
Also:
Q: Why would I (or any competent surveyor) want to do that?
I guess pictures on the net don't do justice, if not for your highlight, I don't see an M anywhere.
> I guess pictures on the net don't do justice, if not for your highlight, I don't see an M anywhere.
As old scars overgrow on some species of oaks, such as Live Oaks and Blackjack Oaks, the scar is seen on the bark in the pattern of thinner bark. But it's a pattern that has stretched horizontally. So a cut in the bark that was perhaps 1-1/2" wide when it was made stretches horizontally over time as the tree grows. I guess I've seen more than enough very old marks like this because the "M" jumped out at me. On the right down leg of the "M" there is a section of vertical labial scar that is the earlier stage before it all gets covered with new bark. That bit of scarring is more clearly visible in person.
For example, here's a Live Oak BT marked in 1853:
and with the old mark highlighted:
interesting.
1st survey boss in the Ozarks told me that Black oaks make the best witness trees.
I asked why and he gave me his reasons. One, being easily IDed.
I have questions but it is too late and I out of the house early tomorrow.
Is this the oldest witness tree that you evr found? I would think so.
> Is this the oldest witness tree that you evr found? I would think so.
No, the oldest BT I've found in Texas to date was marked in 1835 during the Mexican colonial period. It was also a Blackjack Oak.
Interesting! 174 year old evidence. Kent, was this a “bark blaze” instead of the sapwood being blazed? I’m thinking that the area encircled below is where you’re talking about the thinner bark reflecting the M (?):
All my work with blazed trees has been with conifers, which overgrow damage and leave an increasingly smaller vertical slash (referred to as being…ummm… pudendum-like by the more vulgar practitioners of our profession) as the sapwood and bark incase the blaze. I’m not well versed in deciduous tree evidence. Do you try to confirm the tree’s age with an increment boring or is it obvious that this species is extremely old if a certain size? In these parts the western junipers heal very slowly so we can usually carve some of the bark off and see firsthand the ax marks and/or scribing in the original blaze.
Dontcha know, you should be looking up about 10' too.... as the tree grows! (sorry, I just had to!) Kent, your survey evidence looks sound! My point is that those who don't believe the evidence exists, don't have to look for it, and those who don't have to look for it, don't have to take the time. And, those who don't take the time, can do it faster and cheaper. If they can do it for long enough, well, the evidence just disappears.
Good Job, Even if you are possibly 4 MM off!
Nate
> Interesting! 174 year old evidence. Kent, was this a “bark blaze” instead of the sapwood being blazed? I’m thinking that the area encircled below is where you’re talking about the thinner bark reflecting the M (?):
Typically, marks appear to have been cut in oaks through the bark and the cambium layer. Oaks are not a highly rot-resistant species and cuts heal relatively slowly, so the idea seems to have been to make a narrow cut on the face of the tree that would still be visible on the bark for years after the cut scarred over. Some of the cut edges of the "M" can still be discerned where the bark thickness changes.
The commonest mark in Central Texas is probably an "X" (with and without hacks above and/or below). Letters are somewhat less common.
As for doing an increment boring to test the age, I was satisfied that the tree diameter was generally consistent with that of other BT's in the area. If the question is contested in court, it will be time to make a scientific examination of growth rates, but I'd hate to kill that particular blackjack since it pretty obviously is the BT and should otherwise be around for perhaps another hundred years or more.
Here is a photo of another type of cut mark that survives quite a long time as a visible scar pattern on the bark of Live Oaks. This is a hack cut into a line tree, most likely also from the 1838 survey.
