Jan. 31, 1884] 



NA TURE 



jur. 



t ) reach a certain point, and each of the party in turn (including 

 nn Esquimaux) took the lead, but all failed to keep the correct 

 course beyond a minute or two. so that the cons-tant stoppages 

 necessary to comult the compafs were tryin/ to the hands; in 

 fact one of the native dogs, protected by a thick fnr, faiily suc- 

 cumbed to the C"ld, and the poor thing had to be abandoned to 

 its fate. 



We at last thought of placing an Esquimaux boy of about 

 fourteen as leader, and he managed to keep a straight course 

 with wonderful accuracy, although he walked crab-fathion, side- 

 ways, so as to protect his face from ibe bitter blast. 



Is Mr. Larden's theory correct, namely, ''that those in whom the 

 left leg is strongest would circle to the right ?" I think not, be- 

 cause accniding to my idea it is the leg /icw which one steps, and 

 not the leg that lakis Ihe step or that is placed in advance that im- 

 part> the impetus ; so that a strong left leg would cause the step 

 with the right foot to be longest, and tlie person would circle to 

 the left. ° John Kae 



4, Addison Gardens, January 26 



With reference to the letters by Messrs. Darwin and Hawksley 

 in the current number of Nature (p. 2S6), I may say that I am 

 very strongly " left- legged " (also strongly rii^ht-handed), but so 

 far as I am aware there is not the .-lightest difference in the Itii^lhs 

 of the two limbs. I became aware of the peculiarity "hen a 

 child, by noticing thai on a slide the other boys used to go right 

 foot first, and I left foot. Subsequent attempts to break myself 

 of the habit only resulted in my coming iguiiminiou-Iy to grief, 

 and if I tried now >o leap a ditch right foot first 1 would tumble 

 headling into it instead of clearing it. The next time 1 find 

 occasion to kick 1 will try to remember which foot whs used. 

 It is right to state, how ever, that in my case I think there has 

 probably e.sisted from infancy a very slight natural weakness of 

 the right ankle. Attempts with me to walk a straight line with 

 the eyes shut seem invariably to result in my swerving to the 

 lefl, which appears to be contrary to Mr. 1 arv\in's experience. 

 Lewisham, January 25 K. McLachlan 



Might n^t the longer step taken by 01, e leg be explained as 

 follows : — 



Most people when standing at ease habitually throw their 

 weight on one leg ; but, « hichever it be, its movement is more 

 likely to disturb the balance of the body. It would therefore 

 be more quickly replaced on the ground, and a shorter ctep 

 would result. 



The unequal steps would not necessarily eftec'. a circular 

 course, as may be easily shown by experiment. A divergence, 

 say, to the right would be caused by the left leg swinging in its 

 step towards the right, and such would be its natural movement 

 if the body inclined to the right. Now a person who constantly 

 .stands more on the right leg than the left would have that 

 inclinatioir in his walk, in spite of the alternate removal of 

 the burden from each leg. Thi, tendency to lean towards the 

 right would be still further e couraged by the ancestral or indi- 

 vidual use of the walking-stick in the right hand. 



The suggestion o' Mr. G. H. Darwin (January 24, p. 286) 

 that lh2 mounting a horse on the left side may be accounle 1 for 

 by the sword is strengthened by the freedom of the sword-arm 

 requuing that Ihe left hand be u-ed to grasp the reins, which is 

 the first act in m .unting. There would be a mo.nentary want of 

 control over the horse if, under the-e circumstances, it were 

 mounted from the right side. K. M. Camphkll 



Rose Hill, Hoddesdon, January 28 



In a letter to you about ai.other subject Mr. G. H. Darwin 

 suggested last week that the British rule of the road for riding 

 was justified by the advantage of having your sword hand towards 

 a stranger, but why then should the rule of the road in walking 

 be, what I understand it to be, the rever,£ of the rule in riding? 



I would suggest that perhaps the rule in riding is adopted from 

 the rule in driving, and that the la'ter results from the fact that 

 a driver may be assumed to carry his whip in his right hand and 

 therefore to sit to the right if there be Iw on the driving seat, 

 and that when he is so seated he can see better how he is passing 

 another vehicle if our rule is adopted. 



This, like Mr. Darwin's suggestion, would leave us without 

 explanation why most nations have adopted a rule the reverse 

 of ours. 



It would perhaps be hardly scientific to say it isibecau.<e.' 

 Englishmen are always right and foreignei's always wrong,' nor 

 would it be much more so to say that it is because English drivers" 

 like to make a close shave and foreigners as a rule givejflii' 

 obstacle a wide berth, for the latter fact, if it be an observed- 

 fact, maybe the effect, not the caue, of the rule of the road.' 

 Can it be that the foreign rule was adopted where it wascus-' 

 tor»;ary for the driver to sit alone on his stat and could thcreftrc" 

 see equally well on both sides, and at the same lime wished tn| 

 have freedom to use his whip. Stephen A. MARSHAtL' ■' 



J/olJ .,1/1 



Diffusion of Scientific Memoirs ,,-j/a (/oil 



When, in reviewing Prof. Stokes' Reprint, I spoke bf "the" 

 almost inaccessible volumes of the Cambridge PhilosopHicdl'' 

 TriiiisactioNs," I was referring cj-^/f.f/)' to Ihe lyansacliims Oiil'jf^' 

 and to the period 1845-54. 1 hat there are tio7ii 120 " centres'" ilt' 

 which " '1 ran: actions ox ProccaiiiigSy or both" are accessible; isiir 

 interesting and important fact, but wholly beside the questiofi' 

 raised by my remark. [I leave out of account copies sent 't'6' 

 Honorary Fellows ; for these are not more accessible than! thbste" 

 obtained by Ordinary Fellows.] ' '■ ', ' 



The question at isue between the Secretary of the SoeietV' 

 and myself is : — What was the state of matters in 1854? Mr. 

 Glazebrook gives me data for the present time, and for l86g;n 

 only. From these it is rot pos-ible to obtain more than 'an" 

 approximate answer to the question. But, in default of furtber 

 data, I assume that (in accordance with the published statistics 

 of similar Societies) the number of Hon. Fellows of the C.P.S.'' 

 has not charged since 1854; and that the increase of "centres"' 

 from 1854 to 1869 was nearly the same as from 1S69 tothe 

 present lime. It follows from Mr. Glazebrook's data that the 

 number of "centres" in 1854 must have been about 40 only. 



But I referred to Transactions sXont, not to " Tramnciion'" 

 or Proceedings, or both." To obtain a rough idea of the correc- 

 tion to be made on this account, I take the numbers for the ' 

 Royal Society of Edinburgh [\'i\\\\ \sV\<^ I am best acquainted,' 

 and which are at least as large as those for the Royal Society). 

 In Mr. Glazebi-ook's form of statement, these numbers are at 

 present 



Hon. Fell .ws 56 



Total number distributed 343 



Deduct the fii'st number, and there remains 287. But of 

 these "centres" 96 (one-third, say) receive Proceedings oxAy. 



Hence it would appear that, in 1854 and previous years, to 

 which alone I referred, the Cambridge P/iilosophical Tran^<f.c:. 

 tions were to be found at some 27 " centres " only ; say, ijP al.^ 

 hon.e and 17 abroad. Surely this would much more than jtt^tify 

 the term "almost inaccessible" ! , , , . : 



I cannot recollect having made any application for the,, 

 C.P.S. 's publications, though I have often asked Cai)al);;idg<?,; 

 friends why I did not get them regularly. But, according,, tc/; 

 Mr. Glazebrook's view, I should either have received all, 

 or none. 



The state of matters, in the three Edinburgh "centres" to 

 which Mr. Glazebrook alludes, is at present as follows :— , ,,^ 



All three " centres " have the Z/'ir/Mar/w/u complete ;_exc^pf,, 

 the University Library, which w'ants vol. xiii. parts i an4 2;.,, 



The Advocates' Library has not the Proceedings; thelipy^L 

 ."■'ociety wants vols. i. and ii., all but a few pages; an?} ,t!i?, 

 University Library wants vol. iv. parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Thus. one, 

 "centre" has no ProceeUpgs, another has almost half, aiid .tji^j 

 third three-fiurtbs. ^ .,.•;/:,.. 



I ir.ujt, in concludingliepeat my hope that Nature maj,dcp(, 

 a new and great service to science by collecting full statistics a^- 

 to the "centres" at which the publications of the various 

 scientific Societies are accessible. P. G. Tait , 



College, Edinburgh, January 26 



Water in Australia 



REl--£KRlNr, to my letters in Nature of May 12, 1S81, and 

 March 30, 1882, on the underground water supply of Au.stralia, 

 it is interesting to observe that the search for it is being actively 

 carried on by some energetic colonists, and that their efforts are' 

 successful. The following extract from The Queenslander'b{' 

 May 26, 1 883, shows what can be done : — ' • 



"The subterranean waterflow now proved to exi.st beneath the' 

 vast arid plains of the west has been lapped at yet another- 



