Table 4 shows a peculiar feature in the fact that the correlations of Section A between tree growth and the rainfall of Jerusalem are decidedly higher than those between the rainfall in the two regions. Only at Sacramento and Boca are the rainfall coefficients high enough to be conclusive. This, however, is not surprising, for even between Sacramento and San Bernardino, only 400 miles apart, the correlation coefficient for the rainfall by three-year periods is only 10.7 times the probable error, as appears in Section C of Table 4, while between San Bernardino and Winnemucca 500 miles away, the corresponding figure drops to 2.8. It must be remembered that in some respects the growth of the sequoias is a much better record of rainfall than are the records kept by man. The human record is based on the amount of water caught by a little gauge a few inches in diameter. Every gust of wind detracts from the accuracy of the record; a mile away the rainfall may be double what it is at the gauge. Each sequoia, on the other hand, draws its moisture from an area thousands of times as large as a rain gauge. Moreover, the trees on which Figs. 4 and 5 are based were scattered over an area fifty miles long and several hundred square miles in extent. Hence they represent the summation of the rainfall over an area millions of times as large as that of a rain gauge. This fact and the large correlation coefficients between sequoia growth and Jerusalem rainfall should be considered in connection with the fact that all the coefficients between the rainfall of California and Nevada and that of Jerusalem are positive. If full records of the complete rainfall of California and Nevada on the one hand and of the eastern Mediterranean region on the other were available for a long period, they would probably agree closely.