There having been no time for the discussion at the Sacramento Meeting, I do not think very many who heard the report got much of an idea of what it was all about. In spite of the fact that I signed it, I do not think it presents a very strong case for the adoption of median in place of average. It seemed, therefore, in order to prepare this brief appendix to the recommendations of the Committee.It seems to me that we should have included a definition of median although perhaps everybody concerned knows what the term means. Taking up the points made in the Committee's report:Under disadvantages of the median(1) The report says, “For certain purposes the arithmetical average is more useful.” The resolution specifies the use of the median only for the “expression of normals of precipitation in future hydraulic studies.” (4) It is not at all necessary to rearrange the data in order to determine the median. The method I use is to assume a trial value and then count the number of items which exceed this value; then if that is greater or less than one‐half the total number of items, adopt another trial value and repeat the operation. It will not take very many trials to determine the median and I think in all cases where a large number of data are involved the time consumed would be less than that required to rearrange the items in the order of magnitude. (6) I was at first under the impression that there was seldom, if ever, a case where there were a number of zeros in the series of numbers. However, if one were attempting to determine the normal precipitation for July or August in the Central Sierra Region over a long period of years, there would doubtless be quite a number of zeros enter into the series since we usually have very little precipitation in those months. Probably in that case the arithmetical mean would