172 On the Meteors of 1 2th November, 1833. 



agree with our observations, as far as they have gone, with the excep- 

 tion of that of Jan. 28th to Feb. 3d. From the diagram we perceive 

 that the comet would be to the westward of the sun, whereas we saw it 





after the evening twilight. This discrepancy indicates either that we 

 have not yet learned the true periodical time, or that the comet has 

 so great dimensions that, when on the side next to the earth, it may 

 extend on both sides of the sun. This latter condition, indeed, may 

 be fulfilled by a comet of a comparatively small size, as will be evi- 

 dent on substituting for the mere point at 70, or at 80, a small figure 

 of a comet with its tail opposite to the sun, and inclined as usual to- 

 wards its path. 



From our theory we should farther anticipate, that the comet will 

 disappear by or before the first of May, being too near the sun to be 

 visible ; and that after the month of May, if seen at all, it will appear 

 on the western side of the sun and rise before him, until the month of 

 August, when it may possibly reappear for a little while in the eve- 

 ning sky. 



Should future observations conspire with those already made, to 

 establish such a period to this remarkable light, it will probably be 

 regarded as a cometary body, and as the source of the meteors of 

 Nov. 13th. But it will be remarked, that the several arguments al- 

 leged to prove the connexion of that phenomenon with a comet, are 

 entirely independent of this light. 



From all the foregoing considerations, I feel authorized finally to 

 conclude, That the Meteors of Nov. 13th, consisted of portions of the 

 extreme parts of a nebulous body, which revolves around the sun in an 

 orbit interior to that of the earth, but little inclined to the plane of the 

 ecliptic, having its aphelion near to the earth's path, and having a pe- 

 riodic time of 182 days, nearly. 



I have supposed that a nebulous body, revolving about the sun in 

 an eccentric orbit, might properly be called a comet ; but should any 

 one think that the analogy is not strong enough to authorise us to rank 

 it among bodies of that class, he can apply any other name which 

 seems more appropriate. Changing the name will not affect the va- 

 lidity of the theory. As the light spoken of in the preceding para- 

 graphs, has many things in common with what is called the Zodiacal 

 Light, it may appear to some to have been proper to denominate it 

 thus ; but would not such an identify imply that the Zodiacal Light 

 itself, is owing to a nebulous body, bearing to the solar system the re- 

 lations whieh have just been developed ? Such is my present belief, 



