78 



NATURE 



a 



[November 23, 1899 



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR. 



[ The Editor does not hold himself responsible for opinions ex- 

 pressed by his correspondents. Neither can he undertake 

 to return, or to correspond with the writers of, rejected 

 manuscripts intended for this or any.other part <?/ Nature. 

 No notice is taken of anonymous communications."] 



Stockholm International Conference on the Explora- 

 tion of the Sea. 



The publication of a portion of the report of the Stockholm 

 Conference in Nature of November 9 (p 34) shows, I suppose, 

 that the matter is now open for discussion by scientific men ; 

 and it is certainly desirable in that case that marine biologists 

 and others interested in Fisheries investigation should express 

 their opinions on the resolutions, and especially the recom- 

 mendation, of the delegates. I feel sure that those gentlemen 

 who attended the Conference and took part in drawing up the 

 report will not consider such discussion ungracious, or that we 

 who criticise are in any way wanting in appreciation of their 

 labours. It is because we recognise the great importance which 

 this report, with its series of resolutions, ought to have that 

 we think it worth while to urge that some parts of it should 

 receive careful re-consideration. 



Although one may cordially approve of many of the resolu- 

 tions passed by the delegates, still the report is certainly in 

 some respects a disappointing document ; and there is internal 

 evidence to show that this is the result of compromises which 

 were perhaps inevitable, but which have probably led to the 

 omission of what might have been a valuable programme of 

 work. 



Last summer, when the arrangements for the Conference were 

 announced, hopes ran high, and it was very naturally and con- 

 fidently anticipated that the report, when issued, would contain 

 strong recommendations to the Governments concerned involv- 

 ing the use of sufficient boats and men to carry out a definite 

 scheme of biological investigation during a definite period. For 

 surely what we need most at the present time in the interests of 

 more exact fisheries knowledge is the nearest possible approxi- 

 mation to a census of our seas — beginning with the territorial 

 waters. Most fisheries disputes and differences of opinion are 

 due to the absence of such exact knowledge. 



If anything approaching a census or a record of trustworthy 

 fisheries statistics had been taken fifty years ago, it would now 

 be invaluable to fisheries inspectors, superintendents and local 

 authorities, as well as to biologists. Our successors will justly 

 reproach us if with our increased knowledge and opportunity 

 we let the twentieth century commence without inaugurating a 

 scheme of practical work which will give us the desired 

 statistics. 



The Stockholm report unfortunately says nothing to the point 

 in regard to all this. In place of asking for boats and men, it 

 urges — in the only recommendation of the Conference ( " Reso- 

 lutions textuelles," p. 12, C)— the establishment of a "central 

 bureau," in which the work will apparently in large part be that 

 of a physico-chemical laboratory. 



I hope I shall not be misunderstood in this. I do not under- 

 value the importance of hydrographic work in its connection 

 with the fisheries (and I am only considering it in that connec- 

 tion at present) as carried on of late years, chiefly by the Scandi- 

 navians ; but it is curious how in this report the obvious, 

 primary, biological investigations are passed lightly over and the 

 secondary physico-chemical work in the central bureau is strongly 

 recommended. Part of the report is called a programme of 

 work, but it contains no definite programme of biological work. 

 I suppose it may be said, all that will be arranged in time at the 

 central bureau, but in the meantime an opportunity is lost. If 

 nothing but an International Committee and a central bureau is 

 asked for, probably that (at most) is all that will be obtained, 

 and it is not all that is necessary. In my opinion, what we want 

 at the present time is not conferences, or committees, or a central 

 bureau, so much as boats and men, and work at sea. 



W. A. Herdman. 



Croxteth Lodge, Liverpool, November 16. 



P.S. — I see Mr. Allen's letter in to-day's Nature, On the 

 •whole he seems to regard the report with more favour than I do ; 

 but on most points we are in agreement. It is certainly curious 

 to omit the English Channel and the Irish Sea from an investiga- 

 tion in the interests of the British fisheries. 



The Meteors of Biela's Comet. 



With your permission I should like to call attention to the 

 possibility of a return of the Andromedes meteors on or about 

 November 23. A consideration of the period of the shower,, 

 as deduced from all its known returns, had some lime back ledl 

 me to the conclusion that this year was more likely to be 

 favoured with it than last. The fact that it was not seen last 

 year is, as far as it goes, in support of my contention. But, 

 of course, the stream may take less than a year to pass the 

 point of the intersection of the orbits, in which case the earth 

 may very possibly not pass through it at this return of the 

 meteors. E. C. Willis. 



South Radwello, Norwich Lodge, Ipswich. 



Mr. Willis's inference that some Bielan meteors may be 

 visible this year seems quite in accordance with the historical 

 facts of the stream. The parent comet was observed between 

 1772 and 1852, and its mean period from twelve revolutions 

 was 671 years. If this also represents its mean orbital lime 

 since 1852, perihelion would occur in September 1899. Bui 

 the last four observed returns from 1826 to 1852 averaged 6'62 

 years, which would indicate perihelion at the end of January 

 1899. On the whole it seems highly probable that when the 

 earth crossed the comet's orbit in November 1898 it was too 

 far in advance of the cometary nucleus for any meteoric shower 

 to result. It also appears likely that at the meeting, now 

 imminent, of the earth and cometary orbit, the former will en- 

 counter a section of the stream too far in the wake of the 

 comet for it to be very thickly strewn with its material. How- 

 ever, this remains to be seen. The apparition of a fine shower 

 of these meteors on November 23, 1892, sufficiently proves that 

 the period of thirteen years intervening between the rich dis- 

 plays of 1872 and 1885 did not exactly represent two returns 

 of the same part of the meteoric group. In 1872 the earth 

 passed through a section of the stream following the comet, 

 while in 1885 it encountered a part preceding the comet. In- 

 tervals of twenty years (equivalent to about three periodical 

 revolutions of the comet) seem favourable to recurrences of the 

 meteoric shower as it was observed in 1798 and 1838 (including 

 two periods of twenty years) and in 1872 and 1892. I think 

 the next brilliant return of the meteors will certainly occur in 

 1905, and that a minor display is very likely to be visible in 

 1899. If so, the meteors will appear in the early evening of 

 November 24 next, the longitude of the node being 242°"2. 



According to the investigations of Schulhof and Abelmann, 

 the planet Jupiter will greatly disturb this meteoritic stream in 

 about March 1901 and cause a minus displacement of the node 

 to the extent of 6°"2. This means that in 1905 the shower willi 

 make its apparition on about November 18. 



November 15. W, F. Denning. 



NO. J 569, A'OL. 61] 



RECENT DEVELOPMENTS OF WIRELESS 



TELEGRAPHY. 



'T^HE efificiency of the system of wireless telegraphy 



-*• developed by Mr. Marconi has recently been put to 

 some striking tests, with results which are in every re- 

 spect satisfactory. During the yacht races for the 

 America Cup, descriptive reports of progress were sent 

 by wireless telegraphy from the Grande Duchesse, on 

 which Mr. Marconi had his apparatus installed ; and as 

 many as four thousand words were transmitted by this 

 means over distances up to thirty miles in the course of a 

 single afternoon. 



TThe method of sending the reports of the yacht races 

 is described by the Scientific American to have been as 

 follows : — " The foremast of the Grande Duchesse carried 

 an auxiliary mast of sufificient length to give the desired 

 vertical height of 120 feet to a wire, which reached from 

 a short yard on the mast to the table of the operating 

 room below, on which the sending and receiving apparatus 

 was placed. A similar wire was suspended from the 

 foremast of the Bennett-Mackay cable steamer, which was 

 anchored near the Sandy Hook lightship, the starting 

 and finishing point of the races, and also from a mast at 

 the Navesink Highlands. The cable ship and the High- 

 lands had temporary cable connections with New York. 



