260 Mr. RedfieWs Second Reply to Dr. Hare. 



stood at a minimum," ..." extended from southwest to north- 

 east more than two thousand miles." Now, in all storms which 

 I have noticed in this part of America, the course and progress 

 of the barometric minimum appears coincident with that of the 

 body or axis of the storm ; and as the length of the track thus 

 passed over, is quite a distinct thing from the length of the storm 

 itself, or from the " area" of the barometric minimum at any 

 given moment of time, it appears to follow from Dr. Hare's own 

 statement, that the course of the proper body or axis of the gale 

 was northeasterly ; coinciding with the course of other storms. 

 Moreover, I have not yet seen any evidence which shows that 

 even one storm of magnitude in the United States has proceeded 

 in a southeasterly course ; although such a conclusion has been 

 suddenly adopted, ere now,* apparently with the hope of escap- 

 ing from a dilemma in which some favorite hypothesis had be- 

 come involved. 



I am aware that in his elaborate account of this storm and its 

 attendant phenomena, which I greatly value, although dissent- 

 ing from some of his conclusions, Professor Loomis alleges that 

 " in this case there was no whirlwind." I will only remark, that 

 to me the characteristics of this storm appear to be those of a 

 diffused overland gale of the whirlwind character ; the only ob- 

 servations obtained being on the right hand of the path of its 

 axis. I understand, also, that other inquirers have been led by 

 the evidence to the same result. 



The manner in which Dr. Hare has described this case, shows 

 very strongly the importance of the inquiry. What are storms 1 

 For, was it the area of the minimum depression of the barome- 

 ter — or the area of violent winds — or the area of the rain — 

 or the area passed over by the wave of barometric oscillation — 

 or the area of extraordinary changes of temperature — which con- 

 stituted the proper limits or identity of this storm ?t 



* Not, however, by Prof. Loomis. 



t So far as definitions only are concerned, and these are important in science, 

 it may be proper to adduce the following from Webster, our lexicographer. 



" STORM, n. A violent wind ; a tempest. Thus a storm of wind, is correct 

 language, as the proper sense of the word is rushing, violence. It has primarily 

 no reference to a fall of rain or snow. But as a violent wind is often attended 

 with rain or snow, the word storm has come to be used, most improperly, for a 

 fall of rain or snow without wind." 



