but private distribution. Should he even send one to a learned society, whose library is private, it would still not be publication. The work would not be accessible to the public.

My genus was openly and fairly published, on the 29th Dec., 1871, in a scientific journal of good standing, and at all times. obtainable by purchase.

Prof. Hall's pamphlet was not published, but only privately distributed to a very few parties.

Although the law (that publication in the true sense of the term is the only test of priority,) should, in general, be rigidly enforced, yet in peculiar cases it admits of a considerable amount of flexibility. It should not always be carried out with a strong hand. Circumstances may render it necessary, in order to do justice, that it should be very strictly adhered to as against one of the parties, and more leniently as regards the other. When one of the disputants has proceeded in an irregular manner; has not published his paper in the ordinary way, in a scientific journal or book obtainable by purchase; and when, in consequence of such irregularity, the difficulty to be settled has arisen, he is to blame, and the law should be strictly enforced. If Prof. Hall had brought out his descriptions of Rhynobolus and Dinobolus, in any of the scientific journals of this continent, in March, 1871, I would almost certainly have seen it before the month of December, and would not have published my genus. This unfortunate

collision would not then have occurred. But instead of following the regular mode of publication he resorted to private distribution, on a most limited scale; not in America but in England. In consequence of this I knew nothing of his genera, until I was informed of them by Mr. Davidson, in a letter which only reached. me on the 17th of Jan., 1872, three weeks after my paper was published. It is not, therefore, my fault but his, that a controversy has arisen. Then as regards the Canadian specimen of O. Galtensis, he should, before he instituted a genus upon it, have given Mr. Selwyn notice; but instead of this, although he was informed that I was working at the group of fossils to which it belongs, he said nothing about it. It is not my fault that he concealed this from us. If the species occurred in New-York, as well as in Canada, he would not have been under any obligation to give notice, but as it does not occur in that State the case is quite different. It is said that shortly after his paper was printed a part of the edition was destroyed by fire. That is his mis

fortune, not mine. He should have had it immediately reprinted. I am informed that it could have been done in less than half a day, and at an expense of only four dollars. Surely the rich State of New York could have afforded that amount. A great deal more might be said upon this subject, but the above is quite sufficient to show that it is not my fault that this difficulty has

arisen.

In this case I do not desire that the law of publication should be harshly administered, but I insist that the circumstances are such that it should be strictly carried out. Prof. Hall's pamphlet was not regularly published, according to the strict meaning of the law, and as it is altogether his fault, and not mine, the consequences should fall upon him and not upon me. In the common law, when a loss has accrued, which must be sustained by one out of two individuals, it falls upon the one by whose misconduct or neglect of duty it has been occasioned. The same rule holds good in scientific matters, as well as in the ordinary affairs of every-day life. I bestowed a great deal of investigation on my genus, and no doubt Prof. Hall did the same upon his. As matters have turned out, either his work or mine must be lost. On whom must the loss fall? On the party who is to blame, or or on the party who is not to blame? I do not ask to have the law stretched or executed leniently in my favor. I require no such extension in order to obtain justice. I only desire that it should be strictly adhered to, and not distorted in order to favour the party who has been the cause of all this difficulty.

METEOROLOGICAL

RESULTS FOR MONTREAL

FOR THE YEAR 1871.

BY CHARLES SMALLWOOD, M.D., LL.D., D.C.L.,

Professor of Meteorology in the University McGill College, Montreal.

The following obscrvations extend over the past year, 1871, and are reduced from the records of the Montreal Observatory, Lat. 450 36m 17.41s Long. 4h 54m 17s west of Greenwich. The cisterns of the Barometer are 182 feet above mean sea level. The whole of the readings are corrected for any instrumental errors, and the observations of the Barometer are corrected and reduced to 32° F.

Atmospheric pressure.-The highest reading of the Barometer occurred at 10h 30m p.m., on the 25th day of January, and indicated 30,985 inches; the lowest reading was at 2h 25m p.m., on the 18th day of February, and was 29,050 inches, giving a range during the year of 1.935 inches.

The following table has been compiled to show the highest and lowest readings, also the monthly mean and monthly range in inches and decimals of an inch:

Temperature of the Air F-The highest reading of the Thermometer during the year was on the 13th July and was 95°. The lowest was on the 5th February and was 28° (below zero), giving a yearly range or climatic difference of 123°. The mean temperature for the year was 44.53, which is 2.23 degrees higher than the Isothem for Montreal deduced from observations extending over a long series of years.

The first frost of autumn occurred on the 8th September.

The warmest month during the year was the month of July, and the coldest February. The mean temperature of the warmest day was 81.70 on the 13th July, and the mean temperature of the coldest day was 13.73 (below zero) on the 5th February.

The following table shows the monthly mean temperature for 1871, with the amount of rain and snow; the snow in this case is not reduced by melting into water, but is the observed depth in inches on the surface:

The following table shows the quarterly mean temperature, also the amount of rain and snow in inches for each quarter:

There were three cold terms during the year, one in January, the second in February, and the third in December.

The first was somewhat remarkable for its duration and severity. The temperature was 101 and 20 below zero, and it attained a minimum of 26°8, and the Barometer attained a maximum of 30.985 inches.

The following table will show the variations in temperature and its duration: