LONGITUDE AND TIME-RECKONING. 149 
Two communications on the subject have lately appeared in the ‘‘ Bulletin 
de la Société Geographie, Paris, 6th Series, Vol. 9.” 
The first, originally submitted to the Imperial Geographical Society of Russia 
by M. Otto Struve, Director of the Pulkova Observatory, was subsequently read 
before the Geographical Society, Paris, by M. le Comte Guidoboni Visconte. 
The second, was communicated to the same society by M. A. Germain, Ingé- 
nieur Hydrographie. 
The recommendation of M. Germain is that the meridian of Paris should be 
maintained. He takes an essentially national and non-cosmopolitan view of 
the subject. The line of argument adopted by him does not call for refutation, 
even if controversy in this instance fell within the province of the writer. 
M. Germain seems to think, for his opinions are not positively expressed, 
that if England would adopt the metrical measurement of France, it would be 
a gracious act for France to accept the prime meridian of England. 
The communication of M. Otto Struve is of a different character. He argues 
for the necessity of a common first meridian, in the general interests of navi- 
gation, of geography and of astronomy. He points out that national vanity 
seems to have been the sole cause that up to the present time, to the great 
detriment of scientific advancement, different first meridians are in use. He 
very correctly writes: ‘‘ La question de l’unification des méridiens ne dépend 
d@aucune considération d’économie politique, elle intéresse uniquement le 
monde savant. Sa réalisation n ’exige pas certains sacrifices de la part du 
public; elle demande seulement quelques concessions d’habitudes et de 
préjugés nationaux, et cela, de la part de ceux-la mémes qui, aprés une courte 
période de transition, en tireront les plus grands profits. Cela est exclusive- 
ment l’affaire du monde scientifique, et nous espérons qu ’aucun de ses membres 
ne refusera de faire les insignifiantes concessions dont nous parlions pour par- 
venir 4 cette entente d’une utilité générale.” 
M. Struve’s paper will well repay perusal. His remarks are totally free 
from national bias; he favours the adoption of the Greenwich meridign in 
preference to any other, mainly on account of the fact that the exac, and 
the most useful ephemerides published, known under the name of the ‘‘Na utical 
Almanac,” are calculated to correspond with it. He admits, however, that it 
is impossible to disregard the influence of national jealousies, and he points 
out how much they stand in the way of obtaining a general recognition of any 
first meridian established on national grounds. 
The conclusions to be drawn from the valuable paper of M. Otto Struve are, | 
that although he gives the preference to Greenwich as a common first meridian, 
that a meridian passing through the ocean, away from every country, and an 
exact multiple of 15° from Greenwich, would be a simple and desirable 
alternative. 
The Pacific meridian advocated in the present paper meets these conditions, 
and in itself offers many positive advantages. It passes through the ocean 
without meeting any continent, except uninhabited land on the Arctic circle. 
The Nautical Almanac, recognized by M. Struve, and by the leading astrono- 
mers of the world, to be the most complete work of the kind published, and 
in consequence the most generally used, would apply to it without interpolation. 
And as no national jealousy would be awakened, all national objections to the 
initial meridian proposed wonld entirely disappear, and its general acceptance 
be considered a ready and harmonious solution to an embarrassing difficulty in 
a matter of the greatest scientific importance. 
