tained no more than 1,255 annual rings. Later on a full-sized tree was felled in Fresno County which had a girth of 62 ft. at 8 ft. from the ground, and was 300 ft. in height. Two sections of its trunk were secured, one of which is set up in the Central Hall of the British Museum. Its annual rings have been carefully counted, and proved to be 1,335. It is not now considered probable that any of the existing or recently existing sequoias had a greater age than fifteen hundred years. Similarly the height of the giant gum-trees of Australia was for many years persistently overestimated. In this respect I may appropriately quote some remarks by Dr. A. J. Ewart, given in his memoir “On the Ascent of Water in Trees” (Philosophical Transactions, vol. 199b). At page 367, speaking of the height of the tallest tree in Australia (called by him Eucalyptus amygdalina, but now more generally referred to Mueller's E. regnans), he states that the height of the trees has been greatly exaggerated. “Mueller in his Eucalyptographia gives the heights as observed by Walter (Cape Otway), Robinson (Mount Baw Baw), Howitt (Gippsland), D. Boyle (in the Dandenong Ranges), which are 415 ft., 471 ft., 410 ft., and 420ft. respectively. None of the erect trees appears to have been properly measured, and Boyle's measurement was stated to have been made on a fallen tree from which the top was wanting. The accuracy of the last-named observer is sufficiently indicated by the fact that the height of a tree was first given by him as 525 ft., subsequently reduced to 466 ft., and proved on accurate measurement by Mr. Fuller in May, 1889, to be 220ft. high, and 48 ft. in girth. Various statements as to the existence of specially tall trees of over 350 ft. in height have all proved on proper measurement to be considerably exaggerated when the supposed giant was found. Many fallen giants with heights given as from 450 ft. to 500 ft. evaporated into thin air on the approach of accurate instruments and unbiased observers. The tallest trees are usually found in thick groves or in valleys. The trees of greatest girth are found in the open, but are of less height. The tallest trees measured by Perrin, Davidson, and Fuller were 271 ft., 294 ft., 296 ft., 297 ft., and 303 ft. respectively. The tallest Australian tree, therefore, hitherto accurately measured barely exceeds 300 ft.; and it is possible that some of the records from other countries, notably America, may suffer a similar diminution when accurately tested.” Seeing that the age and size of large forest-trees have been regularly overestimated in other countries, it could hardly be expected that New Zealand would escape similar exaggeration. The kauri pine, the largest of New Zealand trees, has a smaller average diameter than the “big trees” (Sequoia gigantea) of California. But the estimates which have been published of its age are almost as high, and careful writers, such as Mr. T. Kirk and Mr. W. N. Blair, have not hesitated to assign an age of “considerably over four thousand years” (Kirk) or three thousand six hundred years (Blair) to the largest example known; although neither of these gentlemen appears to have counted the annual rings of growth in even a single complete section. As specimens examined by myself many years ago were in direct conflict with these statements, I have been led to examine the question with some care, and have measured and counted the rings of growth in complete sections in various portions of the country The deductions drawn from these measurements, and the general conclusions arrived at, I propose to present to the Institute in this memoir. Before proceeding to give particulars of my own investigations it will be well to briefly state the opinions arrived at by other observers. The