was only 278. After dry weather Bombay also shows, like Lahore, "monsoon cholera."
Cholera in India, as is well known, has likewise a remarkable relation in time to the years of drought in India. If rain once fail, or be very small in amount, a famine necessarily follows. Distress is then felt both in Lower Bengal and in the Punjaub, but the cholera only appears more severely in Lower Bengal and avoids altogether the Punjaub. The dependence of epidemics of cholera on the time of the year (i. e., on the moisture of the soil) comes out well in countries outside India, as, for example, in Germany. In the kingdom of Prussia from 1848 to 1860 cholera was prevalent every year, though its incidence varied in intensity and in different provinces. During this period cholera was as much at home in Prussia as in India. Brauser has collated the cases of death from cholera week by week for the thirteen years, 1848 to 1860. The numbers for the different months are as follows: April, 112; May, 446; June, 4,392; July, 8,480; August, 33,640; September, 56,561; October, 35,271; November, 17,530; December, 7,254; January, 2,317; February, 842; March, 214. The numbers are founded on statistics, and it is proper to investigate the possibility of errors therein. No objection can be made to the Prussian statistics, for the numbers are too great to be vitiated by casual error. In India the statistics may not be so trustworthy, because registration is sometimes defective. Some cases of death from cholera may not appear as such, and perhaps some deaths may be falsely registered as due to cholera. The Indian-statistics have, therefore, only been given for large cities, where more attention is paid to correct registration. The errors which may occur extend over all the months of the year, and are scattered, so there is less liability to perversion of the truth. And there is no need to prove absolute numbers, for relative statistics are sufficient. Further, in the garrisons and prisons of India, where physicians abound, the statistics are nearly as good as in Germany, since cholera is a disease so easily recognized. That a large series of numbers is able to eliminate to the vanishing-point the unavoidable errors of statistics is shown by an instructive example of the statistics of typhoid fever in Munich. Buhl, in studying the relations between the occurrence of typhoid fever and the state of the subsoil-water, made use only of figures obtained from the general hospital during the years 1856 to 1864, where every diagnosis was confirmed or overthrown by post-mortem examination. [Pettenkofer here devotes considerable space to the discussion of the question, dealing chiefly with the possible inconsistencies in the certificated causes of death, lie seems to prove that the difference between the numbers gained by actual observation and those obtained by calculation is so small that it may be disregarded.] It is considered that since the rate of death from typhoid fever in the general hospital is on the above showing a fair representative of the death-rate in the
