CORRESrON DENCE. 
RAINFALL. 
Dear Str—Without being able to positively assert that the statement on p. 
308 of Natural Science (October) that 351 inches of rain fall in N. England and 
Scotland, and that London has ten times the rainfall of Paris, is completely 
wrong, I believe it to be incorrect. At the Stye, near Seathwaite, Cumberland, 
the average is 177 inches (‘‘ Bartholomew’s Physical Atlas,” vol. iii. Meteorology, 
p. 20); at Ben Nevis 151 inches. In De Lapparent’s Lecons de Géographic 
Physique on p. 65, map Repartition des Pluies en France, Paris occupies an 
area with 500 to 600 mm. rainfall=20 to 24 inches, and in the atlas above 
mentioned (p. 22), Paris is said to have 20°7 inches of rainfall, that of London 
(p. 24), being 20 inches at Crossness, E.—Yours truly, | Bernarp Hopson. 
OWENS CoLLEGE, MANCHESTER, 
Oct. 10, 1899. 
CAPE FISHERIES. 
Dear Str—Owing to absence from home my attention has only just been 
called to the letter by Dr. Gilchrist in your issue of September and to your 
editorial note below it. 
I desire to say that I have not in any way either misunderstood Dr. 
Gilchrist or misinterpreted him, and must entirely dissociate myself from your 
note. I think that had the facts been placed fully before you the latter would 
not have been written. 
Let us briefly recall the facts under discussion. In Natural Science for 
June (p. 431) I wrote :—‘ Dr. Gilchrist, the Government Marine Biologist, 
states in evidence that ‘we know absolutely nothing about the spawn of the 
fish.’ This statement seems to require some explanation, considering that the 
author of it has been over three years in Cape waters, and that an annual 
expenditure of ‘between £3000 and £4000’ has been placed at his disposal.” 
My justification for these remarks is to be found in the “Minutes of 
Evidence taken before the Select Committee on the Fishing Industry,” con- 
tained in the Report under review. 
Dr. Gilchrist in reply to Q. 658 by Mr. Maasdorp, after referring to the 
condition of affairs in British waters, says:—‘‘The question here is very 
different. The evidence has shown that we know absolutely nothing about the 
spawn of the fish, or very little; we do not know whether it floats on the 
surface of the sea or whether it lies on the bottom. Some spawn has been seen, 
but it has not been identified to what fish it belongs” (p. 61). 
The ordinary intellect would suppose that the meaning of those remarks is 
to the effect that Dr. Gilchrist agreed with “the evidence” and endorsed it. 
He cites the evidence himself and follows it up by remarks of his own agreeing 
371 
