Now I would in the first place point out that it would have been well if the actual number or percentage had been indicated for each year of the cycle, instead of for periods of four years, four years, and three years. Two eleven-year cycles give in any case but meagre evidence, and it would have been well if the evidence had been given as fully as possible. If we had a hundred eleven-yearly cycles, and took the averages of wrecks for the four years of minimum solar maculation, the four intermediate years, and the three years of maximum maculation, we might rely with considerable confidence on the result, because accidental peculiarities one way or the other could be eliminated. But in two cycles only, such peculiarities may entirely mask any cyclic relation really existing, and appear to indicate a relation which has no real existence. If the percentages had been given for each year, the effect of such peculiarities would doubtless still remain, and the final result would not be more trustworthy than before; but we should have a chance of deciding whether such peculiarities really exist or not, and also of determining what their nature may be. As an instance in point, let me cite a case where, having only the results of a single cycle, we can so arrange them as to appear to indicate a cyclic association between sun-spots and rainfall, while, when we give them year by year, such an association is discredited, to say the least. The total rainfall at Port Louis, between the years 1855 and 1868 inclusive, is as follows:— In _Rainfall._ _Condition of Sun._ 1855 42·665 inches Sun-spot minimum. 1856 46·230 „ 1857 43·445 „ 1858 35·506 „ 1859 56·875 „ 1860 45·166 „ Sun-spot maximum. 1861 68·733 „ 1862 28·397 „ 1863 33·420 „ 1864 24·147 „ 1865 44·730 „ 1866 20·571 „ Sun-spot minimum. 1867 35·970 „ 1868 64·180 „ [Illustration] I think no one, looking at these numbers as they stand, can recognize any evidence of a cyclic tendency. If we represent the rainfall by ordinates we get the accompanying figure, which shows the rainfall for eighteen years, and again I think it may be said that a very lively imagination is required to recognize anything resembling that wave-like undulation which the fundamental law of statistics requires where a cycle is to be made out from a single oscillation. Certainly the agreement between the broken curve of rainfall and the sun-spot curve indicated by the waved dotted line is not glaringly obvious. But when we strike an average for the rainfall, in the way adopted by Mr. Jeula for shipwrecks, how pleasantly is the theory of sun-spot influence illustrated by the Port Louis rainfall! Here is the result, as quoted by the high-priest of the new order of diviners, from the papers by Mr. Meldrum:—