66 Chronicles of Science. [Jan., 
that a shower was seen in Canada or the United States, where it 
was supposed there was a more favourable prospect of a noteworthy 
display being observed. It is just possible that we may still hear of the 
shower having been seen in the eastern parts of Asia. But we must 
remember that the presence of the full moon was sufficient in any 
case to have prevented a large number of shooting-stars from being 
seen. or it was noticeable in the display of November 14, 1866, 
that most of the shooting-stars were not brighter than stars of the 
third magnitude, and as fixed stars of this magnitude can scarcely 
be seen on a hazy moonlit night, such as that of November 13-14, 
it seems probable that all the smaller shooting-stars would escape 
notice altogether. It is to be considered also that Jupiter has now 
been for several months in a position which brings his attraction to 
bear very efficiently on that part of the shooting-star system tra- 
versed by the earth in November. And as his influence acts now 
to sway the system outwards, it is far from being unlikely that the 
earth may have passed inside the ring of meteors, instead of through 
it as she did last year. 
The opinion we have seen expressed, that the absence of a great 
display ought to throw doubts on the general conclusions of astro- 
nomers respecting the November shooting-star system, is wholly 
erroneous. Even if it were absolutely certain that there had been 
no shower of falling-stars, all that could be learned from this would 
be what astronomers have long since inferred, that the band of small 
bodies forming the system is not continuous. 
A careful examination of the observations made upon Jupiter 
on August 21, when he was (apparently) without satellites, reveals 
some noteworthy results. The best observers differ as to the 
relative dimensions of the shadows of the third and fourth satellites. 
But it is remarkable that those who used refractors considered that 
the shadow of the fourth looked larger than that of the third satellite, 
or, where no comparison is directly instituted between the shadows, 
that the shadow of the fourth satellite seemed noticeably larger than 
the satellite itself. On the other hand, the best observers with 
reflectors, considered that the shadow of the third satellite was 
larger than that of the fourth. As it is readily demonstrable that 
the real shadow of the fourth was much smaller than that of the 
third, and the penumbra much larger, it seems to result that reflectors 
are less efficient than refractors in exhibiting faint shadows and 
half-lights. Even refractors, however, did not exhibit the distinction 
of tint between the penumbra and the true shadow. 
The dimness of the fourth satellite was a very noteworthy 
feature. It looked as dark, says Mr. Dawes, as its shadow, but 
smaller. One observer suggested even that the fourth satellite 
suffered eclipse by the third, during a part of the transit, but this 
certainly did not happen. At the time mentioned by this observer, 
