"The general height of the great stratus cloud which covers a storm, in those parts of the United States which are near the Atlantic, can not differ greatly from one mile; and perhaps is oftener below than above this elevation. This estimate, which is founded on much observation and comparison, appears to comprise, at the least, the limit or thickness of the proper storm-wind, which constitutes the revolving gale. "It is not supposed, however, that this disk-like stratum of revolving wind is of equal height or thickness throughout its extent, nor that it always reaches near to the main canopy of stratus cloud. It is probably higher in the more central portions of the gale than near its borders, in the low latitudes, than in the higher, and may thin out entirely at the extremes, except in those directions where it coincides with an ordinary current. Moreover, in large portions of its area, there may be, and often is, more than one storm-wind overlying another, and severally pertaining to contiguous storms. In the present case, we see, from the observations of Professor Snell and Mr. Herrick, at Amherst, Massachusetts, and at Hamden, Maine (115 and 135 b.), that the true storm wind, at those places, was super-imposed on another wind; and various facts and observations may be adduced to show that brisk winds, of great horizontal extent, are often limited, vertically to a very thin sheet or stratum." Much of the foregoing is graphically described, and unquestionably true. But it may well be asked how he, or others, distinguish which of two or more currents (for there are frequently three, and sometimes four visible), are the true currents of the storm, and which interlopers from another storm? Is the true one always the upper one, and why? If the upper one, why is the interloper at the surface noted and quoted to prove what a storm is? How does he know what proportions of the winds he has recorded to show the revolving motion of gales, were the true storm winds of the particular storm? or, that every one of them was not an interloping wind on which the true storm wind was superimposed? These inquiries are pertinent, for obviously, unless some rule for distinguishing between the currents is given, and there be evidence of direct observation to show that the surface wind, whose direction is noted, is the true wind of the storm, and that the _latter_ is not _superimposed_, no reliance can be placed upon logs, or newspaper accounts, or registers. There is another element besides direction, viz.: superimposition, a determination of which _is_ essential to _truth_. It will be difficult for Mr. Redfield to say that a determination of that element has been made, with certainty, in a single storm he has investigated; and in relation to the convergence of storms, and blending, and superimposition of their winds, I think he is mistaken.