1868.] Proceedings of the Asiatic Society. 71 



similar injury being done to the Anemometer in future, it may be 

 placed (after repairs) on the roof of the stair case, which is pucca. 



I have, &c. 



GoPEENATHA SeN, 



In charge of the Observatory. 



Surveyor GeneraVs Office, Calcutta^ Zrd December, 1867. 

 No. 46. 

 From Balm Gopeenatha Sen, in charge of the Observatory. 

 To Col. H. L. Thuillier, Surveyor General of India. 

 Sir, — With reference to your official memo, dated 26th November, 

 1867, calling upon me to explain certain anomalies, alleged by Mr. 

 Blanford, the Meteorological Reporter, in his letter to your address, 

 No. 280, dated 25th idem, to have occurred in the Barometric and 

 rainfall records of the observatory of this office of the morning of the 

 2nd November last, I have the honor to submit the following remarks 

 for your consideration. 



2. Mr. Blanford states that the ten minute observations after 

 Oh. 20 m. on the 2nd November, ceased at this office, while those of M. 

 Lafontwere continued throughout the height of the storm at compara- 

 tively short intervals. The fact is, that the Barometer in our office 

 is placed in an open shed for the purpose of admitting free action of 

 wind. The observer on duty was exposed to the full brunt of the 

 storm and rain, and it is not to be wondered at, that after a continued 

 struggle till midnight, amid the furious strife of the elements, to do his 

 work, he failed thereafter to take ten minutes' observations, though 

 he did not omit to note the hourly observation. I suppose M. Lafont 

 was not exposed to these serious drawbacks in taking his observations. 



3. With regard to the difference in the readings of the three 

 Barometers, I beg to observe that our Barometer being a standard 

 one and consequently more sensitive than ordinary barometers, (as 

 admitted by Mr. Blanford in his report on the cyclone of October 

 1864) the difference pointed out by him, in his letter under notice, 

 may well be accounted for, partly by the difference of the instruments 

 and partly by the irregular oscillations of the mercury during a 

 storm. 



In advertence to the discrepancy pointed out between my statement 



