1885.] F. Cliambers — Bephj to Criticism. 9. 9 



region to the westward of Kurracliee. Other instances are mentioned 

 of disturbances having originated in western Rajputana in January? 

 February and March 1881, but the dates are not given and I am unable 

 to identify them. With regard to those disturbances which are sup- 

 posed to have originated in other parts of India, I must point out that 

 the case given as having occurred on the 10th to 13th January 1878, 

 which is said to have just appeared on the western half of the Deccan 

 plateau, really appeared first at Bhuj and Raykot on the 9th January, 

 and afterwards moved eastwards in accordance with the usual rule,, 

 Similarly, the case of the 10th February 1879, which is supposed to have 

 originated in the heart of India, was really preceded on the 9th February 

 by a minimum of pressure in western India, and followed on the 11th 

 and 12th by a minimum in Bengal. It must therefore have originated 

 farther to the westward than the position assigned to it. 



Again, in the case of the 15th to 18th February 1880, which is said 

 to have been just established in the Central Provinces, there is decided 

 evidence, in the chart for the 14th February 1880, published in the 

 Report on the Meteorology of India for that year, to prove that the 

 disturbance really entered India from the Bombay Coast. I maintain, 

 therefore, that Mr. Blanford has not brought forward a single undoubted 

 instance of the origin of a winter cyclonic disturbance in India. In every 

 case there is evidence to show that the disturbance entered India from 

 the westward. What then becomes of the theory devised to explain 

 their origin in India ? 



The further question now arises, did these disturbances originate on 

 the western borders of India, or did they come from regions farther to 

 the west ? As I said in my note, this is a matter which cannot be finally 

 decided without observations from those regions, but having traced the 

 barometic depressions from the western confines of India into the inte- 

 rior, the latter alternative seems to me by far the more probable of the 

 two. 



I cannot on this occasion follow Mr. Blanford into the long discus- 

 sion, in which he endeavours to show that one of the Indian storm tracks 

 published at Washington is unworthy of confidence. I grant that every 

 well ascertained case of a breach of continuity in the path of a storm 

 affords an argument against the application of the principle of continuity 

 to connect storm centres which are far apart ; but, on the other hand, every 

 well-observed case of a long and continuous storm path — and there are 

 hundreds, perhaps thousands, of such cases on record — aifords an argu- 

 ment in favour of the application of the principle. The contention 

 amounts then to this, that even if the two cases of supposed discontinu- 

 ity, to which Mr. Blanford refers, bo accepted as snch, the fact still 



