To Thomas Wilson   11 February 1889

South-Yarra,

11 febr. 1889

T. R. Wilson Esqr,

Undersecretary.

 

Sir.

I have the honor to draw your attention to a Statement in the Argus of the 8th inst.,1 that I "saw a tree at Neerim on the Gippsland-Railway-line, 525 feet high." As from some very pardonable error this information must have arisen, and as the Department of Water Supply to which is referred, can also not afford a clue, how this statement arose, I beg of you, that the highly respected Journal be informed, that this information is quite new to me, that I never visited the close vicinity of Neerim, and that any Eucalypts, measured by myself, did not exceed 400 feet. I may be allowed to add, that whenever in printings, emanating from my Department, I gave the height of exceptionally lofty trees, I gave also the names of the observers, for whose accuracy however I can not be held responsible, they perhaps in some instances trusting to faulty memory from twenty years ago, when our back-ranges were in many places not yet penetrated, and when we could hope of meeting higher trees, than those subsequently found, I received even from a professional surveyor a note on the approximate height of Eucalypts towards Mt Baw Baw with some incredulence. I may however mention, on so reliable authority, as that of Mr A. W. Howitt, that at a sawmill in Gippsland the length of a giant Eucalypt was ascertained to have been 410 feet.

I should not expect the highest Eucalypts to occur in the Plenty-Ranges, as such rather should be sought in the Beech-country. It may also be noted yet, that a hurried traveller will find it not easy for clinometric observations, to clear a sufficient length for a base-line, and that the measuring is often further rendered difficult by our Eucalypts terminating, unlike most Pines, in stragling branches. But the latter, altho' appearing insignificant and arising perhaps singly, may much add to the height of the tree, and giant-trees may often also be underestimated, when much of their stems is quite concealed in narrow gorges. Mr Hodgkinson's publicly expressed view, that real Giant-trees of ours should be protected, and paths be formed to them, I have shared since many years.2

I have the honor to be,

Sir, your obed. servant

Ferd. von Mueller

 

Eucalyptus

1
The article to which M refers (Argus, 8 February 1889, p, 6) notes that there had been some 'interesting correspondence' in the Argus 'recently in reference to the giant trees of Victoria', in which some writers had claimed to have seen trees more than 500ft tall. The article refers to officers of the Melbourne Water Supply department and to very tall trees in the Plenty Ranges, which M refers to later in his letter, of which they said they had not found any taller than 340ft or, in recent measurements made at the Minister’s instruction, 330 ft. At this point the comment to which M refers is made: 'Amongst the statements made respecting giant trees is one by Baron von Mueller, to the effect that he saw a tree at Neerim, on the Gippsland railway line, of 525ft.' After another example of a very high estimate, the article ends by stating that engineers at the Public Works department felt it was difficult to contradict the statements made but were 'inclined to regard them with some doubt, as they have themselves never set eyes upon any giant of the forest which could boast of a height of 350ft.' The item was reprinted in a number of newspapers, including in some (for example, the McIvor times and Rodney advertiser, 8 March 1889, p. 4) after M’s denial was published (see note 2).
2
On 14 February the Chief Secretary, A. Deakin, annotated the letter: ‘?For Press’. The letter was summarized in the Argus , 15 February 1889, p. 4, and in several other metropolitan and regional newspapers in February and March.

Please cite as “FVM-89-02-11,” in Correspondence of Ferdinand von Mueller, edited by R.W. Home, Thomas A. Darragh, A.M. Lucas, Sara Maroske, D.M. Sinkora†, J.H. Voigt† and Monika Wells accessed on 28 April 2024, https://epsilon.ac.uk/view/vonmueller/letters/89-02-11