March 23, 1882 | 
tions, the force of the wind may become as great as that 
impressed upon the structure by the action of gravity. 
The recent account, in this paper, of the proposed new 
Forth Bridge, was a good example of the provision made 
for wind pressure, not only on the completed structure, 
but also during its construction. Notwithstanding this, 
the report of the recent Commission on Wind Pressure 
substantiates the statements already alluded to. This 
distribution of wind pressure over any surface appears to 
be very little understood, though the matter is being care- 
fully investigated by more than one experimenter, and 
some results have recently been published. It seems, 
however, hardly credible that the maximum pressure to 
which a structure may be exposed is almost as great a 
matter of uncertainty ; yet such is the case. The papers 
on wind pressure, above referred to, in spite of the exis- 
tence of so many anemometers, endeavour to ascertain 
from a variety of sources, such as previous accidents, and 
reports of the effect of wind in storms, what the probable 
maximum pressure has been, both, however, assuming 
values for purposes of calculation far less than are actually 
‘reported. In the same manner, the Commission decided 
upon a limiting value only a little more than 62 per cent. 
of a pressure recorded by an anemometer, and believed 
‘by them to have actually taken effect in this country. 
The fact is, that the motion of the air is, beyond all 
expression, most complicated. Were it not for this, there 
would be no necessity for obtaining both the velocity and 
pressure of the wind, for there is, by a first principle of 
dynamics, a fixed relation between these two elements ; 
and if one were known, the other could be, at any 
rate, approximately deduced. In reality, any attempt to 
treat the wind as having steady motion for more than a 
very small distance in space, is certain to involve serious 
error, and the complications which are introduced, from 
even slight disturbing causes, seen quite beyond the 
powers of investigation. The engineer is concerned both 
with prejudicial effect of the wind upon structures, and its 
useful effect upon wind-motors. In both these cases the 
conditions are such as to greatly interfere with the 
steady motion of the wind, and the effect due to locality 
must be estimated and allowed for. The meteorologist 
needs observations of the wind at all elevations, and as 
pointed out by Mr. Laughton in his address, particularly 
at higher ones, where, judzing from the experience of 
aéronauts, the motion of the wind is nearly as complex as 
below. Until the motion of the wind is better under- 
stood, weather forecasts must be more or less unreliable, 
and what has been said with reference to the mechanical 
excellence of the present anemometers and the regular 
tabulation of results, must not lead to the idea that there 
is no room for improvement. On the contrary, there is 
yet much to be done in directions which can here be only 
briefly indicated. 
First, there is great necessity for improvement in the 
lubrication of the instruments, especially of that portion 
recording direction, so that in viewing a weather chart of 
the 777es it may be certain that in light winds the arrows 
really show the direction and not directly the opposite 
one. Such an error as this, perhaps from some distant 
station, causes whole columns of the bulky hourly records 
to be worse than useless. 
Secondly, the reductions for the relative velocity of the 
wind and cups, if made at all, ought not to be made, as is 
at present the case, by a factor now well known as the 
result of much costly investigation, to be erroneous. 
Lastly, the locality of anemometers should be more 
carefully selected, or at least taken more closely into 
account, in discussing the effect of wind in storms. 
The importance of some reform in the matter of wind 
measurement is obvious, since it is only by continued 
observations, under improved conditions, that a more 
reliable and satisfactory knowledge can be obtained of the 
aérial ocean in which we live. Joly tS, Jala Sh 
NATURE 
487 
THE ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY AND “FUMBO” 
At the General Meeting of the Fellows of the Zoological 
Society on Thursday last, Prof. Flower made the 
following remarks with reference to the subject of the 
elephant, ‘‘ Jumbo” :— 
Before the Meeting separates I wish to make a 
few observations upon the subjects which have just 
been under discussion. It has been said that there 
should be power in the Bye-laws to call Special Meetings 
of the Fellows of the Society ; and the subject is certainly 
deserving of the consideration of the Council. The pro- 
bable explanation why there is no such power already, 
lies in the fact that there are regular Monthly General 
Meetings at which all Fellows are able to be present, to 
ask any questions or to make any observations they think 
fit upon the management of the affairs of the Society 
and, upon notice having been given, to propose any 
resolutions. 
With reference to the action of the Council in the par- 
ticular case under consideration, their legal powers to part 
with any of the animals under their care have now been 
fully affirmed by Mr. Justice Chitty’s judgment, and the 
expediency of their being able to exercise these powers at 
their discretion in all ordinary cases does not seem to be 
doubted by any sensible person. It has, however, been 
asserted that there was something exceptional in the case 
of the elephant in question. I would ask when, and by 
what means, can the line be drawn between an ordinary 
and exceptional animal? Two elephants have been sold 
within my recollection (one in 1854, the other in 1873), 
and no one ever disputed the power or discretion of the 
Council in parting with either. Certainly neither of them 
was called “ Jumbo,” a name which has clearly done much 
to foster the present agitation. If our “ Jumbo” had 
been called by some name as unpronounceable as that of 
the two Indian elephants now in the Society's possession 
we should have heard much less of his virtues. 
To speak of this animal as is done by Sir George 
Bowyer in the Z7mes of to-day, as in any way comparable 
to the Codex Alexandrinus, is only equalled in absurdity 
by the statement lately made in a letterto the same paper 
by another Fellow of the Society, that if a certain Chancery 
suit were successful the animal would remain as a “ per- 
manent” inhabitant of the Gardens. How immortality 
was to be conferred on “ Jumbo” I do not know. Our 
animals are only temporary possessions. All experience 
tells us that even elephints die, and, moreover, that what- 
ever may be the case in their native land (a subject on 
which strangely exaggerated notions prevail), in this 
country they are never long-lived animals. Whatever 
means were tried to preserve “ Jumbo,” whether lawsuits, 
chains, or stone walls, it is absolutely certain that a few 
years would have seen his end in one way or another. 
Then as to “Jumbo” being “unique,” as is constantly 
said, 1 am not quite certain what is meant by this, as 
there are many African elephants at present in Europe, 
and one other in our own Gardens. As an elephant he 
is by no means perfect, wanting the most characteristic 
ornament of his race—the tusks. He is certainly large, 
but probably not larger than many other male elephants 
of his species would grow, if kept fora sufficient length of 
time. ‘This very size, however, while in one sense adding 
to his value, is in another a serious detriment. It was, in 
fact, the principal cause of the desire to part with him. 
Then it is said that he was exceptional on account of his 
great money-value ; but of what that value was no one 
could form any idea: in the general market it was 
literally nothing. I doubt whether, at all events a 
month ago, any one but the actual purchasers would 
have taken him off our hands at any price. I know, for 
my own part, so great has been my anxiety about him 
for several years past—so sure did I feel that he would 
one day or other bring us into trouble (although I can 
