M.' 



AY, 190; 



KNOWLEDGE & SCIENTIFIC NEWS. 



The ** Canals" of Mars. 



A Reply to Mr. Story. 



Hv K. Walter Mainiiek, I'.K.A.S. 



Several correspondents having expressed a strong wish 

 that I should give some reply to Mr. Story's letter on 

 this subject, I will endeavour to do so ; not without 

 reluctance, as the line which Mr. Story took seemed, in 

 my opinion, hardly likely to advance our knowledge. 



If I may briefly summarise Mr. Story's objections 

 to the paper communicated by Mr. Evans and myself 

 to the Royal Astronomical Society last June, they 

 come under three heads. He objects to me as the 

 author, to the methods employed, and to the deductions 

 drawn. 



The first objection is of course a somewhat delicate one 

 for me to handle. It deals rather with the personal than 

 with the scientific, and I have no inclination to fill the 

 columns of Knowledge with detailed evidence of my 

 claim to be considered an " expert " on the subject of 

 Mars. Let it suffice that as long ago as 1877, I had 

 made a thorough study of the planet, using the fine 

 12^-inch Merz refractor of Greenwich Observatory. In 

 1892 and 1S94 I also used the 2S-inch Grubb refractor — 

 certainly one of the most perfect objectives in existence. 

 I give two or three examples of my earlier drawings, from 



Fig. I. 



-Drawings of .Mars made witli the I2,=incii Refractor of 

 tile Royal Observatory, (ireenwicii. 



H, M. 



I. 1877 September 29th 10 10 

 3. 1879 November 5th.. 13 5 



It. M. 



J877 September 241I1 11 43 

 lf5Sj January yth 12 2 



which it will be seen that I had recorded some of the 

 markings now familiar to us as " canals " and " oases," 

 even before Schiaparelli had published his results, and 

 quite a number before they had been generally recognised 

 by observers. 



So much for the person, next for the methods. Mr. 

 Lowell and Mr. Story both appear to object to the 



employment of terrestrial experiments to elucidate plane- 

 tary appearances. Mr. Lowell's opinion to tiiis effect 

 may be found in his letter published in the " Observa- 

 tory " for January, 11)04, p. .[g : '• Permit mc, in con- 

 clusion, to point out to you . . . that the only evidence 

 germane to the matter is to be got from astronomical 

 observations directed to that end." But as Mr. Story 

 points out, Mr. Lowell himself has set on foot terrestrial 

 experiments for the express purpose of drawing infer- 

 ences with respect to his observations of Mars, and Mr. 

 Story approves of his so doing. Kliminating what is 

 common to the two cases, the one of which meets with 

 Mr. Story's approval, and the other with his disapproval, 

 the only residuals are Mr. Lowell on the one hand and 

 myself on the other, and the statement is reduced to the 

 simple proposition that he approves of Mr. Lowell and 

 disapproves of me, irrespective of our actions. In other 

 words, his second objection is but a more diffuse way of 

 restating his first. 



But to take the matter seriously, let us see prt;cisely 

 what is the point where Mr. Lowell's \'iews and my own 

 diverge. It is not in the chief markings of Mars. Mr. 

 Lowell sees and draws these substantially as I saw and 

 drewtheni in 1X77, and as Beer and Miidler drew them in 

 1830. It IS not in respect to the appearance of the 

 " canals " ; 1 observed and drew " canals " as far back as 

 1S77, and though of course Mr. Lowell has seen and 

 drawn far nion; " canals " than I have, those that I saw 

 were substantially of the same character as his ; and in 

 the discussion of this cpiestion 1 have been most careful, 

 both in writing and speaking, always to point out that 1 

 was not throwing doubt eithtrr on the fidelity or the skill 

 of any of the observers of Mars. Mr. Evans and myself 

 wrote : •' It would not be in the least correct to say that 

 the numerous observers who have drawn 'canals' on 

 Mars during the last twenty-five years, have drawn what 

 they did not see. On the contrary, they have drawn, 

 and drawn truthfully, that which they saw." (" Monthly 

 Notices" \'ol. LXIIL, p. 499.) Nor have I ever 

 asserted or assumed " that the canals are seen as very 

 faint lines, so faint that their existence is doubtful even 

 to experienced observers." 1 know the reverse by actual 

 experience. 



We agree on a third point. Mr. Lowell is absolutely 

 convinced, and in this 1 am quite at one with him, that it 

 is not possible that an actual network so geometrical 

 as that which he represents can be the result nf 

 purely physical causes. Mr. Story has no doubt seen 

 the very fascinating book which Mr. Lowell published 

 on "Mars" in November, 1895, and has read the pages 

 148-154. 



After this we differ. Mr. Lov/ell attributes this con- 

 fessedly utterly unnatural network to the handiwork 

 of intelligent beings who have woven over their 

 planet these "grotesijue polygons" to use Schiaparelli's 

 expression. 



This, be it nijted, is inference, not observation ; and an 

 inference which demands the assumption that, were i\Iars 

 brought much nearer to us, or our power of seeing greatly 

 improved, these grotesque polygons would still persist, 

 and would never resolve themselves under better seeing 

 into markings which we could reasonably ascribed to the 

 unaided processes of Nature. 



My inference is different; the unnaturalness may be 

 due to the imperfection of our seeing. I rely on well- 

 known facts respecting the theory of vision and the 

 structure of the eye, and the eye is our necessary instru- 

 ment for observation. We have no right to resort to the 

 unknown and the artificial, before we have exhausted 



