128 



NA TURE 



\Dec. lo, il 



on November 27, 1S72, offers a strong contrast to the compara- 

 tively prolonged duration observed at its recent return. 



Bristol. December 6 W. F. Denning 



While watching the meteor shower of the 27th ult. I 

 observed what closely resembled the appearance of an aurora. 

 There was seen extending along the horizon from about south to 

 about west-north-west — perhaps further towards the north, for 

 my view was there obstructed — and upwards for about 20° from 

 the horizon, a faint reddish-pink luminous haze, vai-ying fitfully 

 in colour, becoming sometimes nearly white, and in intensity 

 both as I'egards time and position. The greatest brightness 

 noticed by me was nearly due south. Stars were clearly visible 

 through it. 



On referring to the letters in Nature upon the shower of 

 November 27, 1S72 — to refresh my memory upon other points 

 — I found that appearances of an aurora on that evening are 

 recorded by " several correspondents." [Mr. Denning's letter 

 in Nature, December 5, by Father Denza in Piedmont 

 (Nature, December 19), by Mr. Baber at Liverpool (same 

 number), and the Hon. Mr. Newton and Mr. Bruce at Mauritius 

 ("a pulsating coruscation, similar to the appearance of the 

 aurora australis "), Nature, January 23, 1873]. Nature 

 for Januai-y 16, 1873, contains a letter recording a " pale auroral 

 light " seen at the same time as a shower on December 7, 183S, 

 and Mr. Denning (April 24, 1S73), records that the April 

 shower was accompanied by " bright displays of aurora." 



Mr. Newton and Mr. Bruce add that " the instruments at the 

 Observatory gave no indication of a magnetic disturbance." 



Some of your readers may be able to say whether any magnetic 

 disturbance was observed on the evening of the 27th ult. 1 

 saw the auroral appearance about 7. 15 p.m. 



Rugby, December 7 J. B. Haslam 



P. S. — In a note received to-day in answer to my inquiry, the 

 Superintendent of the Kew Observatory kindly informs me that 

 at Kew the " magnetic curves for horizontal intensity, vertical 

 intensity, and declination were remarkably steady throughout 

 the whole of the 27th and 28th ult., being almost straight 

 lines at the time of the meteoric shower." He adds that no 

 auroral effects were seen at Kew. — J- B. H. (Dec. 8.) 



In case England has been clouded on the 27th, it may be well 

 to state that the meteors were brilliantly seen in the Adriatic. 

 A few were visible on the night of the 26th ; on the 27th, at 

 i6h 30m. G.M.T., they averaged thirty per minute; at I7h. 

 they had much increased, and were counted, at l8h. lOm., at 

 seventy per minute, while at 2oh. 40m. they had decreased to 

 thirty per minute again ; on the 28th very few were seen. 

 During the rapid shower they were not equally distributed ; for 

 six or eight seconds only one or two were to be seen, and then, 

 in a couple of seconds, perhaps eight would be counted, mostly 

 seen simultaneously. The radiant-point was estimated at about 

 15° S. of the following end of Cassiopeia at i6h. 30m., and at 

 about 3° S. of the preceding end at 2oh. 40m. The trails 

 were more persistent and brilliant in the latter part of the even- 

 ing. One was distinctly seen by two observers to sharply bend 

 its apparent course about 20°, possibly a case of perturbation 

 by a non-luminous meteor, or else of splitting. A large number 

 were as bright as first-magnitude stars, and many equal to 

 Venus. Wm. F. Petri e 



s.s. Tan/ore, November 2$ 



From the accounts in Nature and in the Times, it is 

 evident that the display of meteors was much finer in the east of 

 Switzerland than any of those mentioned by your correspon- 

 dents. My attention was first directed to the shooting-stars 

 shortly after 6 o'clock (local time here being about thirty-eight 

 minutes in advance of Greenwich time). For half an hour after 

 that time the fall was continuous, several meteors appearing 

 together. In fact, so many were falling, that it seemed to me 

 hopeless to attempt to count them, but I should think that they 

 must have fallen, on a moderate computation at that time, at 

 the rate of at least 200 a minute. Many of them were especially 

 brilliant, and those falling near the mountains, which completely 

 encircle this village, produced, I presume by irradiation, the 

 curious appearance of passing between the spectator and the 

 mountains. The richest period of the display when, looking 

 from a window, four or five were seen together in one part of 

 the heavens did not last for more than an hour, but the phe- 



nomenon continued with less effect until 9 o'clock, when the 

 sky which, until that time had been perfectly clear, became 

 overcast. The height of the high-lying plateau of the Canton 

 Grisons, more especially in the Engadine, and the remarkable 

 absence of aqueous vapour, causes many more stars to be visible 

 here than in the denser air of England, .and this, no doubt, in 

 large measure, accounts for the superior brilliancy of the display 

 as witnessed here. This strangely affected the imagination of 

 some of the peasants of this village, one young woman in 

 particular spent the evening in tears and lamentations, momen- 

 tarily expecting the end of all things. J. F. Main 

 Wiesen, Canton Grisons, Switzerland 



"Evolution without Natural Selection " 

 Two or three points in Mr. Romanes's letter in your issue of 

 December 3 (p. 100), leave me no other alternative than to again 

 ask you to insert the following few remarks. I beg to inform 

 Mr. Romanes that with Darwinism my book has very little 

 to do. It neither attempts to refute nor confirm the Dar- 

 winian hypothesis of Natural Selection. Neither is it an 

 "emendation of Darwinism" ; but the facts it contains seem to 

 be an all-necessary supplement to the great naturalist's hypo- 

 thesis. It is to be regretted that at the present time so many 

 naturalists accept the theoiy of natural selection as an exclusive 

 explanation of the evolution of existing species. They uncon- 

 sciously blind themselves to the existence of any other agent in 

 the work of evolution. To them there can be, nor is, no other. 

 No greater error could be made ; and it is my firm conviction 

 that as time goes on the theory of natural selection will gi-adually 

 lose much of its present presumed universality. What is be- 

 coming more evident every day is that existing species do not 

 owe near so much to natural selection for their evolution as 

 extreme Darwinians would have us believe. What the remote 

 ancestors of these species derived from its influence is another 

 matter. How far its influence has been exerted on living forms 

 is not for me even to conjecture ; but certainly, so far as birds 

 are concerned, the evidence of its influence is astoundingly slight 

 in comparison with the number of species. 



I am very pleased to see that Mr. Romanes has changed his 

 opinion concerning "trivial specific characters," and now admits 

 that they are both numerous and important. But they cannot 

 even be regarded as " insignificant " as compared with the great 

 " organising work of natural selection." For, according to the 

 Darwinian theoiy, they should owe their veiy presence to its 

 influence, but, unfortunately for the hypothesis, they do not. 

 Once more I must strongly protest against Mr. Romanes saying 

 that my book attempted to explain the cat(se of variation. It 

 does nothing of the kind. Nor do I consider it fair for Mr. 

 Romanes to infer that isolation, &c., do not explain the cause of 

 variation, and therefore that they fail as evolutionistic agents. It 

 would be just as fair and logical to say that the Darwinian hypo- 

 thesis is a failure because it does not explain the cause of varia- 

 tion. Darwin must have a variation to begin with for natural 

 selection to work upon ; so must isolation. The cause of varia- 

 tion is one of the greatest secrets which Nature still retains in 

 her keeping ; but doubtless it will soon be wrested from her. 

 London, December 6 Charles Dixon 



I have not changed any of my views ; but Mr. Dixon 

 appears to change his within the limits of two consecutive sen- 

 tences. For, immediately after his strong protest against my 

 statement that he has attempted to explain the causes of varia- 

 tion, he complains of my want of fairness in not acknowledging 

 the adequacy of the " evolutionistic agents " which he has sug- 

 gested as "the causes of variation." With this specimen of Mr. 

 Dixon's inethod of discussion before them, your readers may be 

 able to sympathise with the failure which seems to have attended 

 my efforts at expounding his essay. 



The analogy between isolation and natural selection does not 

 hold. For is it not obvious that while natural selection can be 

 understood to operate in an explicable manner on the variations 

 supplied to it, there is no analogous explanation to be given^ of 

 the manner in which isolation can so operate — i.e. why isolation 

 per se should preserve some of the variations and not others ? 

 That isolation is a favourable condition to the occurrence of 

 trivial or non-adaptive specific change, I have not denied ; but, 

 on the contraiy, expressly affirmed : I have only denied that it 

 can be regarded as the cmisc of such change — and least of all in 

 any way similar to that in which natural selection may be re- 



