112 
dry weather. Since 1884 the country from whence it derives its waters has been ringbarked. Observant, 
practical men asserted several years since that the spring would not go dry, as the basin of the creek in 
which the creek is situated is ringbarked. Their prediction has proved true.* 
In this case it may have been that the absorption and transpiration of the 
water by the trees is greater than by the grass, which increased in the ringbarked 
country. It seems like an argument in favour of cutting down forest trees to 
improve the moisture conditions of the country. Or it may have been that the rain 
ran off this particular area of country as a forest, or scattered forest, more rapidly 
than when the surface was covered with grass. The question of conservation of 
moisture is many sided, and must be considered in all its bearings in order to form 
just conclusions. 
To say that the regular and permanent flow of the streams is owing to the 
felling of trees is easy, but to explain the causes is difficult. I have already stated 
that the natural forest growth retards the flow of the water, and hence tempers 
floods. The continued cutting of trees may cause the flow to be regular under 
normal (i.e., non-flood) conditions. What is the cause ? Is it transpiration ? I 
think there is still much room for research on the subject, for some of the statements 
appear to be absolutely contradictory at first sight. 
We have very few data of practical value not only in regard to transpiration 
but also in regard to absorption. We have many laboratory results, but these 
inductively applied to a congeries of roots, or a congeries of leaves forming a forest, 
produce in many cases absurd results. For example, we have results when worked 
out which show that a gum-tree absorbs and transpires incredible quantities of 
moisture, figures which literally make one's mouth water in this thirsty land. 
Professor Fernow gives a remarkable illustration of the difficulties that 
surround attempts at quantitative determinations of hydrographic investigations of a 
watershed. For example, the amount of annual discharge of the River Rhone 
corresponds to a rainfall of 44 inches over the watershed, while the rainfall records 
themselves for a certain period give a precipitation of only 27 '6 inches. Truly 
meteorological and kindred data require to be interpreted by experts. Professor 
Fernow makes the suggestive statement : 
The water capital of the earth consists of two parts, the fixed capital and the circulating capital. 
The first is represented not only in the waters of the earth, but also in the amount of water which remains 
suspended in the atmosphere, being part of the original atmospheric water masses which, after the rest 
had fallen to the cooled earth, remained suspended and is never precipitated. The circulating water 
capital is that part which is evaporated from water surfaces, from the soil, from vegetation, and which, 
after being temporarily held by the atmosphere in quantities locally varying according to the variations in 
temperature, is returned again to the earth by precipitation in rain, snow, and dew. There it is evaporated 
again either immediately or after having percolated through the soil and been retained for a shorter or 
longer time before being returned to the surface, or, without such percolation, it runs through open 
channels to the rivers and seas, continually returning in part into the atmosphere by evaporation. 
Practically, then, the total amount of water capital remains constant ; only one part of it the circulating 
capital changes in varying quantities its location, and is of interest to us more with reference to its local 
distribution and the channels by which it becomes available for human use and vegetation than with 
reference to its practically unchanged total quantity. 
Mr. James Anderson in Sydney Morning Herald, 10th January, 1889. 
