THE American Meteorological Journal for August contains:—Synoptical sketch of the progress of Meteorology in the United States, by W. A. Glassford, and reprinted from the annual report of the chief signal officer for 1891. From this summary it appears that Isaac Greenwood, a professor of mathematics in Harvard College, prepared a form for observations at sea in 1728, thus anticipating the efforts of Lieut. Maury by more than a century. Observations of temperature and rainfall were begun in Charleston in 1738, and were soon followed by several other series. In 1817, J. Meigs, Commissioner of the General Land Office, proposed to Congress the establishment of meteorological stations at each of the land offices, and as this proposal was not adopted, he started a voluntary system among his subordinates, and supplied registers for the purpose. This system lasted until his death in 1822. The next service was established by the Surgeon-General of the Army, in 1819, and was maintained, with modifications, until 1854, when the records were handed over to the Smithsonian Institution, and in due time were transferred to the Signal Service. The Patent Office, of which agriculture formed a division, and the Coast Survey also manifested great interest in the science. The article contains a good review of the labours of the principal American meteorologists.—Note on winter thunderstorms; by Prof. W. M. Davis. He asks whether the convectional origin of thunderstorms in summer implies a like origin for thunderstorms in winter, even though they occur then at night, and he explains the reasons which seem to favour this supposition.—Objections to Faye's theory of cyclones; by W. C. Moore. The writer attempts to show why the generally accepted theories seem to him preferable to those brought forward by M. Faye. The discussion is to be continued in a future number.—Artificial rain; by E. Powers. The writer is the author of a work entitled “War and the Weather,” and he supports the view that rain can be artificially produced, and endeavours to refute the objections urged by Prof. W. M. Davis and others.