(ame ° 
~ a ld 
ipa 
414 
EG eR ale te 2 Yas 
NATURE 
- : oe A Si oa 
(CO ee a NY AE ws 
‘range of my Io-inch reflector before about 2h. 3om. a.m. 
Apart from this, the moonlight was very troublesome. 
Adjusting the telescope I immediately saw the small stars 
of the preceding night, but the nebulous object had dis- 
appeared though it was found directly afterwards ina place 
about half a degree east of its position on the previous 
morning. The true character of the object thus became 
unmistakeable. It was a telescopic comet with an ap- 
parent motion towards the sun, though really the distance 
between the two bodies was daily becoming greater, 
owing to the fact that the sun’s apparent motion east- 
wards along the ecliptic was about twice as great as 
that of the comet. , 
Information of the discovery was telegraphed to Green- 
wich and Dun Echt, and subsequently the Astronomer- 
Royal sent notification to some of the chief foreign 
observatories. Coggia at Marseilles, the discoverer of 
the great comet of 1874, picked up the new comet on the 
night (October 5) following the receipt of the telegram, 
and on October 9 it was observed by Messrs. Lohse and 
Copeland at Dun Echt. But at Harvard College Obser- 
vatory (U.S.) it was looked for in vain, for the comet 
managed to elude detection until a special message had 
been dispatched from Lord Crawford’s observatory, giving 
its accurate place, when it was ultimately found by Mr. 
Wendell. It was observed at the latter station on the 
nights of October ro and 11, and the positions obtained 
then, in combination with a Dun Echt place of October 
g, enabled Mr. Chandler to compute approximate ele- 
ments, from which it appeared that the comet was re- 
ceding both from the earth and the sun, and the orbit 
presented some resemblance to that of the comets of 1819 
IV. and 1771 I. Parabolic elements were subsequently 
computed by Messrs. Copeland and Lohse, by Dr. Oppen- 
heim at Vienna, J. Palisa at Wien, and by Mr. J. R. Hind 
at London. It soon became evident however that an 
elliptical orbit would best satisfy the later observations, 
and M. L. Schulhof at Paris was the first to compute 
them, using the Marseilles position of October 5, Dun 
Echt October 9, and Paris October 18. He gave the 
period as 7} years, though admitted that a considerable 
amount of uncertainty was attached to this result. Elliptic 
elements were also computed by Prof. Winnecke at 
Strassburg, by Mr. S. C. Chandler at Boston (U.S.), and 
by Herr Block at Odessa, the resulting periods being 
8-407 years, 8°343 years, and 9'106 years respectively. 
Schulhof also reconstructed the orbit on the basis of many 
later positions, and deduced the period as 8:45 years, 
which is in very close agreement with the results of 
Prof. Winnecke and Mr. Chandler. The following are 
the elements as computed by Messrs. Schulhof and 
Winnecke respectively :— 
Perihelion Passage, Sept. 13°25866 Berlin mean time, 
Longitude of perihelion =312 21 o4 
Longitude of node = 65.57 50°70 
Inclination =O gh Ore 
p = 55 37 258 
log. 7 = 9g'860192 
log. e = 9°916637 
log.@ ... = 0°618020 
Period .. spel Liss beeas ano A Say eaiee 
Perihelion Passage, Sept. 13°1697 Berlin mean time, 
Longitude of perihelion = 312 11 22 
Longitude of node = "66> 4eee 
ROGLINAtION EF...) a.° ss ects) POR DERE 
1 le = 5 San es 
log. 7 = 9859955 
log. a sis jluee, veel Gistee ==" OLOT Ona 
i} el a ae a) oie y= O'4O72iyears, 
Herr Block finds the period 9'106 years, and remarks 
(Science Observer Circular, No. 21) that “ the orbit of the 
comet is similar to the orbits of comets 1743 I. and 1819 IV., 
x. p. 363), but, in this cace, the time of revolution should 
be nearly 7’7 years. 
of the comet of 1585, excepting that the perihelion dis- 
tance is very different. Supposing that there were 17 
revolutions between 1585 and 1743, and 15 revolutions 
between 1743 and 1881, the time of revolution would be 
9'252 and 9°253 years. The comet of 539 also accords 
with the period of 9°25 years.” 
M. Schulhof says that the period may possibly be 
larger than that assigned in his elements, as there are 
deviations in the middle places of the orbit seeming to 
suggest such a conclusion. It is explained in Scrence 
Observer, No. 35, Pp. 94, that this comet approaches nearer 
to the earth than any other, except that of Biela, of whose 
continued existence we are becoming very sceptical. It 
is singular that the new comet evaded discovery so long, 
for it must have been a conspicuous object in the southern 
hemisphere in August, for on the 18th of that month it 
was “ within 11,000,000 miles of the earth, and its brilliancy 
equal to forty or fifty times that at discovery, and in fact 
easily visible to the naked eye.” 
The last observation of this new periodical comet was 
made, I believe, by Prof. Winnecke on November 19- 
with the 20-inch refractor at Strassburg Observatory, when 
the position was a = toh. 4om. 32’92s., 8 = 14° 49’ 30”°7 
N. at 16h. 46m. 38s. Strassburg mean time. 
As this comet approaches somewhat near to the earth, 
the idea occurred to me that it might very possibly be 
associated with one of the numerous meteor streams 
which I had observed during the few preceding years, but 
the theoretical radiant point of the comet is a southerly 
one, and is so near the sun that the chances of its obser- 
vation are very meagre. Prof. Herschel computes that 
the earth passes the comet’s ascending node on November 
28, when the radiant point of any meteors following the 
orbit of the comet would be at R.A. 272°, Dec. 37° S., 
which is near e Sagittarii, and 29° south—following the 
sun’s place. The meteor speed would be = 14 miles per 
second, but the shower could only be observed in the 
early evening, inasmuch as the radiant sets about half an 
hour after the sun. On December 14 the cometary orbit 
passes + ‘033 N. of the earth’s orbit, and the radiant point 
is at a 277°, 834° S., but in this case also a shower of 
meteors proceeding from the comet would be invisible, 
because the radiant sets with the sun. 
A good deal has been said with reference to the sup- 
posed resemblance of orbit between this comet and Blan- 
pain's (1819 IV.), but if they are identical the orbit and 
period have undergone remarkable changes since 1819, 
and the question cannot be definitely settled until the 
perturbations arising from the action of Jupiter have been 
investigated. It must be admitted that some comets, as 
for example Lexell’s, have been drawn into new orbits by 
planetary influence, and it is possible that the cumulative 
effects of this may have brought about a lengthening of 
the period in the present case, for the period of Blanpain’s 
comet, as computed by Encke, was only 4°81 years, which 
is not considerably more than one-half that of the new 
periodical comet. Whether the latter will return at its 
predicted epoch in 1890 is open to some conjecture, but 
a careful investigation of the orbit and of the perturba- 
tions which must affect it in the interval, will to a great 
extent remove the difficulties. The comet is evidently a 
bright one, and in certain positions will be presented as 
a conspicuous object, so that it may have been frequently 
observed during former returns to perihelion, though the 
great variations in its orbit originated by perturbation, 
make it difficult to reconcile the orbital elements at dif- 
ferent returns. The comet may also have often escaped 
discovery at its re-appearances similarly to the perodical 
comets of Encke and others, which must manifestly in- 
crease the difficulty of fixing with any degree of certainty 
the epochs of its former apparitions. It is, however, satis- 
which Prof. Clausen supposed to be identical (As¢. ach. | factory that the comet at its recent return was fairly well 
| March 2, 1882 
The orbit is also similar to the orbit , ~ 
