364 Mr. John Aitken on Dew, 



remarks is antagonistic to my work, as he candidly admits 

 at the end of his paper, where he says, " As regards his new 

 theory of Dew I think he has gone astray," it is therefore 

 necessary that I reply to his criticisms. 



I sincerely trust Mr. Tomlinson does not think that I accuse 

 him of intentionally raising a false contention by entitling his 

 first paper " Remarks on a New Theory of Dew." The title, 

 however, indicated the attitude of the writer's mind towards 

 my conclusions, and it could not be left unchallenged, as it 

 struck at the very root of the matter. Mr. Tomlinson thinks 

 it curious that I should in my last letter have so frequently 

 repeated, in different forms, the statement that my results are 

 not contrary to the teaching of Dr. Wells. If he will refer 

 to his " Remarks " he will find that these repeated statements 

 are all replies to the contents of different paragraphs in his 

 own letter. 



Mr. Tomlinson attempts to justify the title of his paper by 

 saying that the author of an article on the same subject in 

 1 Chambers's Journal ' used the same words. That we are 

 right because we think with the majority is an argument 

 which is generally supposed to be a monopoly of the political 

 mind ; to the scientific mind, I venture to say, it carries no 

 weight. Besides, in an article in a popular journal like 

 ' Chambers ; the writer may be pardoned for selecting a 

 catching title, and we do not expect from him the scientific 

 accuracy of language we do from a writer in the ' Philoso- 

 phical Magazine.' Though the writer in ' Chambers's Journal ' 

 gives a misleading title, yet he very fairly states the position. 

 For instance, he says : — 



" The essential difference between the old and the new 

 theories is as to the source of the moisture which forms the 

 dew. Instead of being condensed from the air above by the 

 cooled vegetation, Mr. Aitken maintains that it comes from 

 the ground. The author of the original theory admitted that 

 some of the dew might come from below, but affirmed that it 

 must be an exceedingly smal] proportion. Mr. Aitken' s ex- 

 periments, on the contrary, seem to prove that most, if not 

 the whole, comes from the ground." 



From the above it will be seen that, as I have so frequently 

 stated, my results do not touch on the teaching of Dr. Wells. 

 As every one knows, he concerned himself principally with 

 the condensation of the vapour after it is in the air, and but 

 little with its source, as he distinctly states in his Essay that 

 he had no means of investigating this latter point. 



At page 271 Mr. Tomlinson says: — "Again the Chambers's 

 article, referring to Wells, says: — 'The points of the grass, 



