March i, 1900] 



NATURE 



413 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond ■with the writers of rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any other part <?/ Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications.'] 



Effects of Lightning upon Electric Lamps. 



In the last number of Nature, Prof. Wood calls in question 

 the reality of the remarkable phenomenon revealed by Mr. 

 Webb's photographs, attributing the results obtained to a motion 

 of the camera during exposure ; laying special stress on the 

 alleged fact that '* a lamp close to the camera, and a distant 

 lamp, show the trails on the same scale." 



To this I reply that the fact is just the reverse, as is well 

 shown in Fig. 4, which exhibits nine lamps which are situated 

 in order of sequence along a strongly curved shore, the pictures 

 of four lying to the left and of five to the right of that of the near 

 lamp. It will be seen that there is a regular diminution of scale 

 in these pictures as we pass from left to right, corresponding to 

 the increase of length of the chords of the bay. I would remind 

 the reader that at the conclusion of his letter (p. 343), Mr. Webb 

 expressly slates that on a subsequent occasion he actually saw a 

 stream of electricity descending from an arc lamp towards the 

 earth. This was a momentary appearance, obtained by so 

 placing himself as to be protected in a measure from the glare of 

 the lightning. 



From my communications with Mr. Webb, and from the 

 photographs themselves, I am satisfied that the camera was 

 lying at rest, except perhaps as regards the fifth flash of the 

 picture Fig. 6, which may possibly have struck while Mr. Webb 

 was in the act of removing the camera ; a point about which I 

 have written to make inquiry. Should such prove to be the 

 fact, I would withdraw iny " digression " (p. 344) relative to 

 the flash in the middle of Fig. 6. G, G. Stokes. 



Cambridge, February 24. 



Stockholm International Conference on the Exploration 

 of the Sea. 



Under this title there appeared in Nature, during November 

 and December last year, several letters from some eminent 

 British biologists containing criticisms of the resolutions of the 

 Stockholm Conference. The principal objections to the con- 

 clusions at which the Conference arrived are : — 



(l) That the Conference has not elaborated any definite 

 programme of biological work. 



I fully agree with Prof. Herdman that the' biological part of 

 the programme needs further development before it can be put 

 into execution. The Conference has only drawn up the outlines of 

 that part of the programme which regards fishery experiments, 

 marking of fishes, &c. , so far as they can be considered applic- 

 able to all parts of the area concerned. It is evident that, 

 while the instruction for hydrographic work, deep-sounding, &c., 

 will hold as well for the shallow depths of the southern parts of the 

 North Sea as for the 2000-3000 metres depths of the Norwegian 

 Sea, the character of the biological research and the fishery ex- 

 periments will be somewhat different in the eastern and western 

 parts of the North Sea, in the Barents Sea, and in the Baltic. 

 It must be left to the specialists and the fishery authorities of 

 each country to propose detailed rules for the experimental and 

 statistical work as regards the most appropriate manner of 

 investigation of the adjacent areas. It will be for the Govern- 

 ments to take care that the initiative thus taken is duly 

 considered and made useful in the organisation of the co- 

 operation, either by instituting the Central Bureau and Council at 

 once, or— as an introductory step to this — by assembling the 

 Commission mentioned under the head H of the Resolution. 

 The most urgent thing at present is to ascertain if the different 

 Governments agree in principle to the idea of co-operation or 

 not. The Swedish Government some months ago com- 

 municated to the Governments of the North Sea powers and 

 Russia, that it accepted the programme of the Stockholm 

 Conference, and is resolved, in case of agreement on the part of 

 the other Governments interested, to ask from the Riksdag the 

 funds necessary to carry it out. On the same occasion, the 

 Swedish Government requested the Hydrographic Commission 

 to work out a detailed programme for the Swedish part of the 

 investigation, and to calculate the costs. An abstract of this plan 

 will shortly be published in the Scottish Geographical Magazine. 

 NO. 1583, VOL. 61] 



. The meteorological work is not mentioned in this plan, other- 

 wise than by reference to the detailed instruction contained in 

 section A of the Resolution. The plan of the biological work 

 and fishery experiments is illustrated by two maps. The 

 annual costs are calculated at 3170/., or with deduction for ships, 

 coal, &c., 1000/. It must be well borne in mind that this plan 

 is liable to alteration, and does not represent what we are to do, 

 but what we propose to do, in case the co-operation is realised. 

 To the note of the Swedish Government concerning the co- 

 operation proposed by the Stockholm Conference, favourable 

 replies have been received from the Norwegian and the German 

 Governments. 



(2) That the Conference has not recommended to the Govern- 

 ments concerned the use of sea-going, well-equipped steamers for 

 investigations of this kind. 



The necessity of having sea-going ships for such purposes will 

 scarcely need recommendation. Several of the Governments 

 in question, as Russia, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, have 

 already procured, or made arrangements for procuring, steamers 

 excellently fitted for the co-operative work. But the number 

 and size of such ships must be left to the decision of each 

 Government. 



(3) That the area to be investigated ought to have been 

 extended to some part of the Atlantic proper. 



This seems to me to be the most serious objection hitherto 

 raised. It seems, in fact, indispensable to keep some account 

 of the state of the Atlantic W. of the Channel, and S. of the 

 Wyville Thomson and Faroe Iceland ridge. 1 On the other 

 hand, it must be agreed that, if a certain limit must be fixed, 

 the Strait of Dover and the two ridges above-mentioned con- 

 stitute the only natural boundary for a co-operation of the 

 North Sea powers. 



(4) That the Central Bureau and laboratory proposed by 

 the Conference is imnecessary, and might be substituted by some 

 more elastic organisation. 



When listening to the proceedings of the Seventh Inter- 

 national Geographic Congress at Berlin last year, I noticed that 

 international co-operation was recommended almost in every 

 case as the best method of attacking geographical problems. 

 Resolutions j were passed to such purpose regarding seis- 

 mological, hydrographical, meteorological problems, antarctic 

 explorations and others. It struck me that nobody seemed to- 

 take into account the difficulties combined with the starting and 

 conducting of such co-operative work. I know that there are 

 such difficulties, and I consider that in the present case the 

 difficulties already existing are irrelevant if compared with those 

 which will arise in future, when the organisation shall commence 

 its work. If we only want as much as possible of scientific 

 work of various kind to be done, the elastic (collegial) organis- 

 ation which Mr. Allen recommends will do ; but if we desire 

 unity of work and practical results, we certainly must have a 

 central institution at the head of the co-operation. It is a 

 characteristic fact that this proposal emanated from delegates 

 of most of the countries represented at the Conference. With- 

 out entering upon the state of things in other countries, of 

 which I am no judge, I am sure that the prevailing circum- 

 stances with regard to fishery matters in my own country are 

 such that we ought gratefully to accept the proposals of the 

 Conference with regard to a central organisation. 



(5) That the Central Bureau, dT'c, will interfere with the 

 freedom of the specialists and impede the originality of the scien- 

 tific work at the biological stations. 



It seems not unlikely that the manifold labour of calculating 

 and statistical work incumbent on the Central Bureau will 

 occupy the time of the officials of that Bureau to such an extent 

 that little time will be left for original scientific research on 

 their part ; but I cannot realise the possibility that such will 

 be the case with the specialists belonging to the biological 

 stations now existing. The co-ordination of the international 

 research with their scientific work will, ot course, be based 

 upon free mutual agreement, wherein all advantages will be on 

 the side of the biologists. Suppose that Mr, A., director of 

 the marine station of X, studies the biology of the halibut, and 

 that Mr. B., of the station Y, is specialist upon the cod or the 

 plaice. Both communicate their wish to get scientific material 

 from the North Sea and Norwegian Sea to the Central Bureau, 

 which requests Messrs. A. and B. to elaborate each a detailed 



1 The position of the British and Danish lines (see the map of the Confer- 

 ence protocols, of which a reproduction has appeared in the Geogr. Journal,. 

 December 1899) is chosen so as to fulfil^this purpose to a certain degree. 



