December 21, 1899] 



NATURE 



171 



reason. As the consumption of wheat per head in 

 ■different wheat-eating populations varies a good deal, 

 much may turn upon the nature of the increase, whether 

 it is largest among the communities consuming wheat 

 largely, or among the communities who consume little. 

 To comprehend, in fact, the real growth of wheat-con- 

 suming power, we must have an average which allows 

 for the different rates of consumption among the wheat- 

 bating peoples, with references to the authorities for 

 the statements as to each people. To set out this was 

 of the essence of the problem Sir William Crookes had 

 before him, and he has omitted it altogether. The 

 nature of the increased consumption in each country 

 should also have been investigated. It is asserted among 

 farmers, for instance, that a considerable quantity of 

 wheat, more than used to be the case, has of late years 

 been taken in England for other purposes than the food 

 of man, the wheat being given to cattle. Every one 

 knows, again, that flour itself in domestic economy is 

 more and more being applied as an element in cooking 

 articles of luxury, and that it is not really used to a large 

 extent as a principal food at all. All this adds to the 

 interest of the problem as to any approaching shortage 

 of wheat, and the means of making it good, because so 

 much may at need be diverted back from other purposes 

 to the primary use as food ; and it shows also that the 

 question of wheat consumption is not one that can be 

 studied, for any such purpose as that contemplated by 

 Sir William Crookes, without an infinity of detail. In 

 any case, it was a matter of scientific good faith that he 

 should have given the details and the references for the 

 important statement we have quoted, which he has not 

 ■done. 



I am not making a mere formal objection. It is, of course, 

 difficult to criticise without having before us the details 

 which Sir William Crookes has not given, but I have not 

 the smallest doubt that the largest increase of bread- 

 eaters, which his details would show, is among the 

 peoples consuming little per head, and not mainly among 

 the peoples consuming much. One of the countries 

 where wheat consumption per head is largest is France, 

 and France is stationary in population. 



Having made these general observations on the 

 method followed in the essay, I do not feel called upon to 

 go into detail respecting the actual acreage, and possible 

 acreage, of wheat, in different countries, on which Sir 

 William Crookes has so much to say. There is no 

 question really more difficult. The capacity of a given 

 population for agriculture is here just as much in 

 question as the capacity of the soil, and I quite agree in 

 principle with Sir William Crookes, that although ad- 

 ditional soil might be available indefinitely for wheat in 

 proper hands, yet as a matter of fact the soil practically 

 available may be strictly limited. But what he fails to 

 take sufficient note of, I believe, is the question of price. 

 Land that would not be available for wheat with the 

 price at 20s. to 2^s. per quarter, might become available 

 in indefinite quantities with the price at \os. to 50J., and 

 •even 6ar., which are by no means famine prices. But 

 5ir William Crookes has little to say on this factor of 

 prce. Altogether, I may suggest, he relies too much 

 on American statisticians, without having himself verified 

 their methods. Mr. Davis for his purpose is not a 

 NO. 1573, VOL. 61] 



quotable authority. He should have gone behind Mr. 

 Davis and verified everything for himself. 



The point on which the reference is made is rather a 

 side one, but the danger of putting forth a sweeping 

 statistical statement without adequate support is so well 

 illustrated by it, that it may be useful to quote it. Sir 

 William Crookes states, p. 35 : 



"Taking the cost of producing a given quantity of 

 wheat in the United Kingdom at looj., the cost for the 

 same amount in the United States is 67J., m India 66j., 

 and in Russia 54J." 



Surely it is altogether erroneous statistically to put for- 

 ward a statement like this without references. How 

 does Sir William Crookes know that England and the 

 United States and the other countries mentioned differ 

 so much as he states ? The cost of production he refers 

 to is either a maximum or a minimum, or a mean of two 

 extremes, or an average ; but which is it ? As he makes 

 the statement it is really unintelligible. If he means an 

 average, as I presume must have been intended, how 

 does he get the average ? The statement is not one to 

 be made in a scientific study without references and 

 authorities, and full explanations of what is really meant. 



In conclusion, I may express the hope that in some 

 future essay Sir William Crookes will revise his present 

 work, and not only look into his statistics, but inquire 

 into the question of the play among different articles of 

 food in agricultural production and in human con- 

 sumption, instead of dealing with one article only. As 

 to his suggested remedy for too little wheat, the fixing 

 of the nitrogen of the atmosphere, it is one which may 

 well be disconnected from the paper itself Whatever 

 may happen to wheat, the problem is one which should 

 be attractive to the chemist on its own merits. It is, 

 perhaps, unfortunate that the suggestion should have 

 been appended to an alarmist statistical paper, instead 

 of being made from the chemical side only, as the statis- 

 tics seem to give little support to the suggestion. 



R. GiFFEN. 



THE PHYSICAL ATLAS. 

 Atlas of Meteorology. A series of over four hundred 

 Maps prepared by J. G. Bartholomew, F.R.S.E., and 

 A. J. Herbertson, Ph.D. ; and edited by Alexander 

 Buchan, LL.D., F.R.S. (Westminster: Archibald 

 Constable and Co., 1899.) 

 /^F the making of meteorological observations there is 

 ^-^ no end, and some, who have only a partial acquamt- 

 ance with the subject, might be tempted to add, no result. 

 But such a criticism, however smart, is eminently unjust, 

 and as a protest against such an uncharitable opinion it 

 was a wise and happy thought to endeavour to combine 

 the outcome of the labours of many observers into a 

 monumental form, which could appeal to the eye of 

 many untrained in scientific methods, and convince them 

 that time and thought and money had not been lavished 

 in vain on mere childish records, but that earnest en- 

 deavour had harvested an abundance of facts, which only 

 needed orderly arrangement and skilful grouping to make 

 them available for instruction and edification. To the 

 scientific mind well versed in such matters this compila- 

 tion can appeal more strongly and more worthily, for it 



