PATTERSON v. M'CAUSLAND.—3 BLAND. 75

* From what has been said, it appears, then, that some
mere annual roots, and the roots of all trees, as well as the 91
wood of most of our forest trees, exhibit the appearance, in a trans-
verse section, of having been formed by a succession of concen-
trical layers; that the wood of a variety of trees which are only
the growth of the torrid zone, are obviously formed in the same
way: and therefore, that such concentrical layers cannot with
certainty be pronounced to be the result of a succession of summer
growths; or any one of them to be the growth of only one year,
or of any other given space of time. It also appears, that the
wood of some trees, of the growth of the temperate as well as of the
torrid zone, does not, in a transverse section of it, exhibit the least
appearance whatever of any concentrical layers; and that in the
wood of those trees, which is so constructed, the formation of such
layers is said to be checked by accident, to be much affected by
soil and situation, and even by the peculiarities of the successive
seasons; and moreover, that they always become thinner and more
* indistinct as the tree grows older, and that the fibers of
the wood of some are very singularly disposed, appearing 92

August, contained water. A chestnut tree, six feet in diameter, standing on
the top of the wall, serves to mark its antiquity. Counting and measuring
the annual layers of wood, where an axeman had cut into the trunk, I found
them at nearly two hundred to the foot, which would give to this tree six
hundred years. How much longer the wall had been standing, I saw no
means of determining. A poplar, seven feet in diameter, standing in the
ditch, allowing the thickness to the layers which I have found in like pop-
lars, one hundred and seventy to the foot, would give nearly the same result,
six hundred and seven years.'"—The Globe newspaper. 21st Sept. 1838.

'There have," says Goldsmith, ''been two methods devised for determin-
ing the age of fishes, which are more ingenious than certain: the one is the
circles of the scales, the other by the transverse section of the backbone.
The first method is this. When the fish's scale is examined, through a
microscope, it will be found to consist of a number of circles, one circle
within another, in some measure resembling those which appear upon the
transverse section of a tree, and supposed to offer the same information.
For, as in trees we can tell their age by the number of their circles, so in
fishes we can tell theirs by the number of circles in every scale, reckoning
one ring for every year of the animal's existence. By this method, M.
Buffon found a carp, whose scales he examined, to be not less than a, hun-
dred years old; a thing almost incredible, had we not several accounts in
other authors which tend to confirm the discovery. Gesner brings us an
instance of one of the same age; and Albertus of one more than double that
period. The age of the skate and ray, that want scales, may be known by
the other method: which is by separating the joints of the backbone, and
then minutely observing the number of rings which the surface where it
was joined exhibits. By this the fish"s age is said to be known: and per-
haps with as much certainty as in the former instance. But how unsatisfac-
tory soever these marks may be, we have no reason to doubt the great age of
some fishes. Those that have ponds often know the oldest by their superior
size."—Goldsmith's Animated Nature, Hist. Fishes^ chap. 1.