March 1, 1887. ] 



♦ KNOAA^LEDGE ♦ 



115 



all other atlases, on the projections which were employed 

 two centuries ago, which served very well at a time when 

 men had very vague ideas of the true outlines of continents 

 and countries. Spain, as it appears in the map of Africa, 

 is quite another Spain from Spain in the map of Europe. 

 And so with many other ca.ses. But probably in three or 

 four centuries more truthful projections will come into use. 



By Eichaed A. Proctor. 



Professor Newton, of Yale College, has advanced a 

 theory of the origin of meteors, which Professor Young, 

 of Princeton College, has endorsed, apparently giving up 

 Schiaparelli's. According to this theory, meteors are the 

 fragments broken off (when or how the deponent sayeth 

 not) from comets. The theory labours under the slight 

 objection of explaining none of the characteristics either 

 of comets or of meteors. In fact, most of the theories of 

 comets and meteors which are at present chiefly in vogue — 

 I mean in legard to numerical acceptance — are like the 

 Hindoo theory of the earth's stability, according to which 

 the earth stands on an elephant, the elephant on a tortoise, 

 that on something else, and so on ad hijiniium. Thus 

 Schiaparelli taught that meteors travel in the tracks of 

 comets, that comets were meteor streams gathered out of 

 the star depths, and meteor streams got into the star depths 

 out of somewhei'o else, leaving us there in infinite uncer- 

 tainty. Profe-ssor Newton interpolates a link, which still 

 leaves the perplexity at the farther end of the chain 

 undiminished — meteors, it seems, follow in the tracks of 

 comets because they were chipped from comets. Were we 

 not better ofl"with Schiaparelli's theory pure and simple? 

 * * * 

 The Times' record of " Science in 1880 " is manifestly from 

 the versatile and discriminating pen of Mr. .J. N. Lockyei'. 

 The progress of astronomy, in which I naturally take chief 

 interest, is full of promise. It appears to be included in two 

 statements. First, a solar eclijise occurred in August, "to 

 observe which a party was sent from England under the 

 direction of Mr. Lockyer ; " and secondly, " the laboratory for 

 solar physics at South Kensington, under the superintendence 

 of Mr. Lockyer," is still " groping for a solution of the gi-eat 

 problem in solar physics which ]Mr. Lockyer is understood " 

 (it is really Clarke's, of Cincinnati) " to have started." The 

 " fascinating theory," as Mr. Lockyer calls it, will soon, he 

 is convinced, be e.-tabli.shed : this theory being that " It 

 only requires heat enough to convert everything into 

 glowing hydrogen." One recalls just here the theory of the 

 fascinating next-door gentleman, on the garden wall, in 

 '• Nicholas Nickleby," who promised that, under certain con- 

 ditions, all should be '■ gas and gaiters." Gaiters do not 

 appear in ]\Ir. Lockyer 's theory, but there may be reference 

 to them in the remark (not apparently justified by the recog- 

 nition of hydrogen as the element which is in and through 

 all things) that the solar physics work at South Kensington 

 is evidently " very excellent," and " pregnant with practical 

 issues for humanity." It is to be hoped so, for a goodly 

 sum is paid each year for the work ; and some men of 

 science have been unkind enough to say that nothing worth 

 the paper on which it has been recorded has been done by 

 the solar phy.sics folk. But their superintendent ought to 

 know ; and since be says their " very excellent work is 

 pregnant with practical issues for humanity," we must 

 possess our souls in patience and wait to see what this singu- 

 larly mixed metaphorical promise may imply in the way of 

 performance. 



A FEW days ago my partner at whist had a hand with no 

 card above an eight. Within two days I was told by a 

 whist-player, at one of the places where I was lecturing, 

 that he had had such a hand, and was asked if I hud ever 

 heard of a hand so poor. The coincidence was strange 

 enough, but hands even poorer are on record. " Pembiidge" 

 mentions a hand with nothing in it above a five, and only 

 one five. I think he mentions Surbiton as the place wheie 

 the hand was dealt — if that matters. If the chance of a 

 hand with nothing above an eight is required, we get it by 

 noting that, while the number of possible hands is 



52 . 51 . 50 . -49 . 48 , 47 . 46 . 45 . 44 . 43 . 42 . 41 . 40 



(which call A), divided by the prod\ict of the first thirteen 

 numbers, the number of hands with no card above an 

 eight is 

 28 . 27 . 2G . 25 . 24 . 2.3 . 22 . 21 . 20 . I'J . 18 .17.16 



(which call B) divided by the same product. Hence the 

 chance of a hand with nothing above an eight is represented 

 by Bh-A. This I find to be 1 in 16959|iJ- ; .so that the 

 odds are 16958}-^',^ to 1 against such a hand being dealt to 

 a given player at any given deal. 



* * * 



A correspondent sends a singularly evolutionary attick 

 on evolution from the Christian World. Mr. S. It. Patti- 

 son, under pretence (at least, so I suppose) of attacking 

 evolution, tries to show that " there has been an unfolding 

 of the Divine plan throughout the ages, by steps, not by an 

 inclined plane, every step being a separate creation." This, 

 of cour.se, is evolution pure and simple, despite the word 

 " creation." A man's son diflers in finite degree from the 

 man, and is in that sense a separate creation ; and no evo- 

 lutionist believes in an inclined-plane process of develop- 

 ment which would involve an infinite number of generations. 

 Mr. Pattison adds that metaphysics knows nothing of evo- 

 lution in the nature of a force from without. Neither does 

 science, evolution being in its very essence a process working 

 from within. 



I ii.WE sometime-i wondered that no one seems to have 

 recognised as the main theme of the synoptic gospels — 

 coming again and again into prominence — the absurd im- 

 pertinencies of humbugs and hypocrites, and the quaintly 

 humorous but crushing way in which they were dealt with. 



* * * 



Mr. E. L. Garbett, with whom I have had some slight 

 " passages " in past times, having studied the prison-cell 

 puzzle and the Josephus puzzle as presented at p. 43 

 (Knowledge for December), writes as follows : 



These two puzzles are marvellously parallel. Of the 30-cell 

 puzzle, Mr. Proctor "believes" there is a solution. Well; just 

 colour the cells chessboard-fashion, and you see that every move 

 must change your colour. You are to visit all the cells, therefore to 

 make 35 moves. An odd number of moves must (like a single 

 move) change your colour. But A and B arc of the same colour 1 

 Yet Mr. Proctor " believes " there is a solution — that is, that you 

 can get from A to B by 35 moves ! That is about equivalent to 

 believing that such a book as Josephus's " Antiquities," under 

 patronage of and circulated by command of an imperial Cajsar, 

 could have forgeries interpolated. A man who can believe either 

 of these must be about the most credulous of miracle-swallowers 

 alive. 



* * * 



!Mr. Garbett's style is a trifle crisp. One is reminded of 

 the schoolboy manner, " Well, you imi^t be a tliundering 

 fool to believe that." An odd thing, too, is that I had not 

 myself thought it necessary to point out to the readers of 

 Knowledge, not wishing to insult them, what Mr. Garbett 

 so kindly points out to me. It seemed too obvious. It 



