On the Origin of Meteoric Stones, 337 



the method is liable, it appears surprising that no one should ever 

 have distinctly stated the maxims or rules to be observed m its 

 application to the explanation of natural phoenon.ena. Had this 

 been done, and the rules proper to be observed been generally 

 acknowledged, bv restraining the wilder flights of the imagination 

 of the visionary, 'and by repressing the impertinent intrusions of 

 the vain or the" ignorant upon public attention,- it would probably 

 have greatly lessened the number of those chimerical or absu-^.(j 

 hypotheses,' which have such a tendency to bring disgrace up ^^ ^ 

 useful instrument of investigation, and which are a grievrj^jg ^^y^ 

 upon the time and patience of the reader. 



The more immediate cause of these observations is the vague 

 and inconclusive mode of reasoning adopted by many, when at- 

 tempting to discover the origin and to account for the phaeno- 

 niena attending the fall of meteoric stones ; and in this respect, 

 few, if any, of their predecessors have exceeded some of your late 

 correspondents on this subject. Curious as it undoubtedly is, and 

 therefore interesting as the subject must be to many, it does not 

 however appear to be a matter of any very great importance to 

 mankind in general, whether these bodies are supposed to be oc- 

 casional visitants from celestial regions, or are imagined to be 

 *' children of the air," or whether we ascribe to them a still more 

 humble birth, and acknowledge them to be of terrestrial origin j 

 but it is always of great consequence to society to preserve any 

 useful mode of investigation from such gross abuses as would bring 

 it into disrepute, and the frequent repetition of which must have 

 a strong tendency to introduce a vague and sophistical manner 

 of reasoning. It is on this account that I am induced to offer a 

 few remarks on a letter from Mr. J. Murray, on Aerolites, pub- 

 lished in the Phil. Mag. for July last, in which that gentleman 

 tells us, that he ^' read with some degree of astonishment Mr. 

 Brande's opinion on the origin of meteoric stones," because he 

 *' believed their supposed lunar origin had been generally aban- 

 doned, and that the opinion which confined them to our atmo- 

 sphere had ceased to be problematical." Now from this, one 

 would naturally expect that Mr. Murray had some mode of ac- 

 counting for the formation of meteoric stones, which was, at least, 

 plausiljle ; — how far this is the case I shall take the liberty of in- 

 quiring. 



His first assumption is, thathvdrogcn and oxygen gases are 

 capable of dissolving or combining with all the ten diffcient sub- 

 stances which are occasionally found in meteoric stones. And 

 the reasoning, if such it may be called, by which he supports 

 this assutnplion, is as follows: " Hydrogen dissolves iron and sul- 

 phur. It may perhaps be capable of dissolving other two, viz. 

 silica and nickel, although it has never vet been found to have 



Vol.54.No. 259. iVw. IS19. 'Y such 



