442 



NA TURE 



{March u, 1880 



nature, full of information on the habits of a multitude 

 of North American insects, good, bad, and indifferent, 

 as to the characters borne by them. There are also 

 several excellent woodcuts ; yet we fancy some of these are 

 old friends. In future numbers we hope to see more 

 originality in this respect, because the constant reproduc- 

 tion of the same illustrations in different works, engenders 

 a suspicion, with those uncharitably inclined, that the 

 text may be sometimes written up to the illustrations, and 

 the latter not made subservient to the former, as ought to 

 be the case. We shall watch the progress of this journal 

 with appreciative interest. The list of names of those who 

 have promised occasional contributions includes most of 

 the leading American entomologists. 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR 

 [The Editor docs not hold himself responsible for opinions expressed 

 by his correspondt tits. Neither can he undertake to return, or 

 to correspond with the writers of, rejected manuscripts. No 

 notice is taken of anonymous communications. 

 [The Editor urgently requests correspondents to hep their letters as 

 short as possible. The pi essure on his space is so great that it 

 is impossible otherwise to ensure the appearance even of com- 

 munications containing interesting and novel facts. .] 



A Museum Conference 



You did me the honour, about two years ago, of inserting an 

 unsigned communication pointing out the extreme desirability of 

 a conference of officials connected with museums and galleries 

 of art throughout the country. At the time the subject received 

 a good deal of attention from various quarters, and the numerous 

 advantages which might be derived from such a meeting com- 

 mended the suggestion to all who wrote on the subject. No 

 one, however, ventured to make a practical move in the matter 

 at the time, and the subject consequently dropped. 



Further consideration and growing experience have deepened 

 my conviction of the utility of the conference scheme ; and as I 

 have reason to believe I am not singular in that experience, I 

 desire now to see some effort made to bring the question to a 

 practical issue. With this view I shall be glad to co-operate 

 with other museum officials who feel inclined to take part in the 

 preliminary work of organising a conference of those intere-ted 

 in museums and art galleries. As to where, when, and how the 

 conference should be held, I do not wish to offer a single sugges- 

 tion which might anticipate future consideration. Neither do I 

 •consider it necessary to occupy your space with any statement as 

 to the great and manifold advantages which ought to accrue to 

 our scattered exhibitional institutions by a union such as might 

 be formed. These are surely too manifest to every individual 

 who has to do with any museum, especially in the provinces. 



I hope this question will now be taken up heartily and ener- 

 getically by all interested ; and while I would beg that yon may 

 give space for the suggestions which others may wish to make 

 through the medium of Nature, I shall be glad to enter into 

 correspondence with those who may address me privately. 



Kelvingrove Museum, Glasgow Jas. Paton 



The Himalayan Ranges 



I had not intended to notice Mr. Trelawney Saunders's remarks 

 on Mr. Medlicott and myself as the authors of the "Indian 

 Geological Manual " (Nature, vol. xxi. p. 96). As, however, 

 Mr. Medlicott's reply (ante, p. 301) has been misinterpreted by 

 Mr. Saunders, and as the latter has, in his rejoinder (ante, p. 

 347), brought a specific charge of omission which can, I think, 

 be shown to be unfounded, against a portion of the "Manual" 

 written by myself, I am obliged to take part in the discussion. 



In Mr. T. Saunders's original paper {I.e., p. 96) read before 

 the British Association, two objections were raised to the views 

 on physical geography adopted by the authors of the "Manual." 

 The second of these objections referred to the limits of the 

 Himalayan range, which we did not represent as extending 

 west of the Indus. Mr. Saunders must have read very little of 

 the "Manual," or he would have seen that this limit was not 

 absolutely defined; on the contrary, at p. SlS, it is expressly 

 termed provisional. As Mr. Medlicott has shown, there is a 

 good geological reason for the limit adopted ; but another cause, 

 of perhaps even more importance, is that this limit coincides 



with the boundaries of the area described in the work. I cannot 

 enter into the question here, but the fact is there are just as 

 good reasons for making the Himalayan range terminate at the 

 Jhelum, if not even farther east, as for prolonging it beyond the 

 Indus. 



The first objection was couched in much stronger language. 

 Mr. Trelawney Saunders had represented the Himalayas as con- 

 sisting of two chains ; we were accused of having adopted au 

 "antiquated theory." No reference was given, but from the 

 context it was evident that this "antiquated theory " consisted 

 in representing the range on a skeleton map by a single line 

 along the water-shed or water-parting (I will employ the latter 

 term to prevent any risk of misconception). Mr. T. Saunders 

 says (I.e., p. 96) that they (;' e., Mr. Medlicott and myself) "do 

 not condescend to any reason for this conclusion." This is not 

 quite correct. If Mr. Saunders had "condescended" to read 

 the two and a half pages in the introduction of the " Manual " 

 relating to the physical geography of the Himalayas, he wculd 

 have found a reason on p. x. 



Mr. Medlicott very justly pointed out that the reason for 

 omitting the representation of a second chain was due to the 

 irrelevancy of the question whether there are one or two chains 

 to the matter in hand, that is, to the physical geography of 

 India as related to the geology. Mr. Saunders has quite mis- 

 interpreted Mr. Medlicott's meaning when he says (p. 34S) : 

 "Mr. Medlicott contends that the omission was due to the 

 irrelevancy of the great range to the matter in hand." Of course 

 Mr. Medlicott means nothing of the kind. 



In his letter just referred to, Mr. Saunders writes thus : — 



" But my complaint was based, not on my delineation, but on 

 a trigonometrical survey, and it was caused by a description, not 

 of the geology, but of the physical geography of India, in con- 

 nection with a map of its hill-ranges, that has nothing geological 

 about it. It is in this expressly geographical part of the 'Manual' 

 that I find the greatest range of snowy peaks in the world omitted 

 from a geographical notice and delineation of the Himalaya." 



The italics are mine. Again no reference is given, but the 

 remarks quoted can only apply to the description of the physical 

 geography, accompanied by a skeleton map, in the Introduction 

 to the "Manual." In this description the "geographical notice" 

 of the Himalayas occupies barely two and a half pages. One 

 would have thought that before writing the sentence I have 

 quoted the w Titer would at least have read this small amount of 

 letterpress. Yet I scarcely think Mr. Trelawney Saunders can 

 have done so, or he could scarcely have overlooked the following 

 passage at the bottom of p. ix. and upper part of p. x. 



" Many geographers distinguish two parallel ranges from the 

 neighbourhood of Simla to the eastward : the snowy range 

 proper, formed of the highest peaks ; and a more northern ridge, 

 forming the watershed between the Tibetan plain and the rivers 

 running to the plains of India." 



To save space I quote no more, but I am convinced that any 

 one who will refer to the two and a half pages headed " Hima- 

 laya," in the Introduction to the "Manual," will see that Mr. 

 Saunders is quite in error in saying that the main range is 

 ignored. 



As Mr. Trelawney Saunders has not understood Mr. Medlicott, 

 I can only hope that the following explanation may be 

 clearer : — 



In his original paper and in that in the Geographical Magazine 

 for 1877, pp. 175, 176, Mr. Saunders contends that the Hima- 

 laya siuth of the Sanpu and upper Indus consists of two 

 " chains " (these are alternately called chains and ranges). The 

 southern chain is formed by the line of great peaks, the northern 

 by the water-parting between the drainage areas of the Upper 

 Indus, Upper Sutlej, and Sanpu on the northern side, and 

 various rivers running to the plains of India on the southern. 



Now it is manifest that this division of the Himalayas into two 

 chains is due to the fact that two different, -and to some extent 

 irreconcileable, definitions are adopted for the term "chain" in 

 the two instances. Mr. Saunders's southern chain is a line of 

 great peaks, but is not a continuous water-parting ; his northern 

 chain is a continuous, or almost continuous, water-parting, but is 

 not a line of great peaks. It has never been shown that the two 

 are distinct axes or lines of elevation; on the contrary, alfthe 

 evidence we possess tends to show that both are due to one great 

 fold of the earth's surface, and until these northern and southern 

 chains are shown to be of diverse origin, it is perfectly reason- 

 able to decline to accept the two distinct acceptations of 

 the term "chain," and it is consequently perfectly correct 



