REPORT ON THE COMPOSITION OF OCEAN-WATER. 
207 
the respective sample, the fourth names the Station, and the fifth gives further geographical 
notes. “ B ” in Column II. means that the sample came from the bottom. 
I. 
| No. 
II. 
Depth if not B. 
III. 
Alkalinity per 100 
of Solids. 
IV. 
Station. 
V. 
586 
B. 
0T707 
191a 
All these waters came from 
that archipelago north 
596 
B. 
0-1693 
193 
of Australia, and the 
Stations lie within the 
616 
50 fathoms 
0-2079 
198 
latitudes 5° S. and 18° 
N., and the longitudes 
656 
B. 
0-1701 
206 
J 
117° E. and 135° E. 
205 
B. 
0-1617 
97 
< 
Atlantic, 11° N., 5° west of 
coast of Africa. 
Southern Indian Ocean, 
378 
B. 
0-1731 
152 
< latitude 61° S., longi- 
( tude of Madras, 
j North Pacific, latitude 35° 
N., 11° east of Yeddo, 
I J apan. 
878 
300 fathoms. 
0-1888 
210 
The very alkaline water No. 616 came from a point close to Celebes, in the Molucca 
Passage. Of the few anomalous alkalinities which were excluded from the general 
discussion, those in which the abnormal results could be accounted for by an abnormal 
condition of the samples (generally the presence in the bottle of mud or other kind of 
ocean-deposit) may well be passed over. If we do so there remain only two cases, which 
however are very interesting ; I refer to the two following samples : No. 5, a surface 
water from Station 2, North Atlantic, near the Canary Islands; and No. 31, a surface 
water from Station 12, about the middle of the ship’s track from the Canaries to the 
West Indies. The latter is one of the waters which had been completely analysed for 
chlorine, sulphuric acid, lime, magnesia, potash, and soda, long before the alkalinity was 
determined. Both samples had deposited in their respective bottles large quantities 
of crystalline matter, which exhibited the reactions of a mixture of carbonates of lime and 
magnesia, and may have included sulphate of lime ; but I unfortunately neglected to test 
for sulphuric acid. 
In No. 5 the alkalinity per 100 of salts amounted to only Q'0756; but adding in 
that corresponding to the lime and magnesia in the deposit, on the supposition of its 
being all carbonate, I calculated that the original alkalinity must have had the high 
value 0'291, and the original lime must have amounted to 3'300 per 100 of chlorine instead 
of the 3 ‘026 brought out as a general mean by the 77 analyses which have been so 
frequently referred to. 
No. 31. There was not. enough of this water left for a satisfactory determination of 
the alkalinity by Torn0e’s method, and the calculation of the alkalinity from the complete 
