"معاملات الجمعية الجغرافية في بومباي. من يناير ١٨٦٣ حتى ديسمبر ١٨٦٤. (تحرير السكرتير.) المجلد XVII." [‎٩‎٨] (٥٢٤/١٢٧)

xcviii proceedings of the
thing we can tell. It is truly a pity that for nearly 18 years no serious
attempt has been made to test the value of the materials offered in these
large and costly volumes.
Again, in relation to meteorology,—with the changes of which
magnetic phenomena appear to be immediately connected—“located as
it is within the tropics on a coast where the SW\ monsoon blows
directly home, and which otherwise is so well situated in reference to
the configuration of the neighbouring coasts, Bombay affords as good
a point as could easily be fixed upon for studying the meteorological
laws of this portion of the tropical zone ; and as these laws will probably
be found better defined and less complicated than those of higher lati
tudes—when sufficient observations shall have been collected and fully
collated—they may not only throw valuable light on the atmospheric
conditions of the middle regions, but also materially help to guide us
in disentangling the more complicated relations of the meteorology
of the temperate zones.
These remarks may be sufficient to indicate the character of the
position the present observatory occupies, and it is hoped they may
help to increase the interest of this Society in its work.
Before closing, another remark seems called for by the volume now
presented, and it is to be regretted that it should be necessary to make
it, and even to apply a similar one to several of its predecessors. A
cursory glance at this and some of the other volumes has revealed
instances of misprints and other errors, which detract not a little
from our confidence in the whole. In a volume of between 600 and
700 pages of figures, it would not be at all remarkable or blameworthy
if one or two typographical errors were detected by a searching
scrutiny; but it tends greatly to raise our suspicions of the value of
many of the numbers offered us, when evident mistakes and impro
bable values turn up to the superficial glance. Thus, at the bottom of
page 123 of this volume, we are told that the dip, as obtained from
observation on the 30th December, was 19 deg. 26*9 min., but on page
126 it is entered again as only 19 deg. 24*7min., one of these numbers
must evidently be wrong. And then looking at the other values of this
element for December, it appears that on this date and on the 19th,
the observed inclinations entered are nearly a whole quarter of a degree
above the average of the other values, Can this be correct ? On refer-