550 NATURE 
[JULY P5301 Gig 

THE DAYLIGHT FIREBALL OF JULY 5. 
ERY large meteors apparently exhibit a preference 
for the early evening hours. The fireball of 
March 28 last came at 7.48 p.m., and a great number 
of corroborative instances might be cited. The 
majority of these bodies travel with comparatively 
slow motion over extensive arcs, and are directed 
from radiant points in the western region of the 
heavens. 
On Monday evening, July 5, at Sh. 30m., a few 
minutes after sunset, a splendid fireball passed from 
west to east in a long and nearly horizontal flight 
across the southern sky. The weather was generally 
clear over the south of England at the time, and 
thousands of observers were fortunate in catching a 
sight of the meteor as its nucleus disintegrated into a 
series of glistening balls strung on a fiery cord. 
The spectacle was viewed by persons who sent in 
reports from Gloucestershire, Dorset, Hants, Essex, 
Somerset and Surrey, but the descriptions are rather 
indefinite owing to the conditions prevailing at the 
time. No stars were visible to which the path of the 
object might be referred. Yet, though daylight was 
so strong, the meteor brightly illumined the sky and 
attracted people to look upwards to ascertain the cause. 
Mr. W. G. Wallace, of Broadstone, Dorset, writes 
that his sister saw the meteor in a S.S.E. direction, 
altitude about 30°. It disappeared over E. by S., alti- 
tude 20°. The object presented a brilliant mass of 
greenish-yellow light, moving slowly, and near the 
end of its flight it divided into two portions. 
Mr. A. G. Pile, of Old Sodbury, Gloucestershire, 
observed the meteor moving from S.W. towards E. in 
from four to five seconds. It emitted a bluish-yellow 
flame, and looked like a large sky-rocket. 
Mr. Dick, of Purley, Surrey, states that it quite lit 
up the sky, and travelled from S.W. to E. by S., about 
20° high. It split into two large fragments early 
in its flight. What specially struck him was the 
horizontal course, duration about 13 seconds. 
Mr. W. J. Allen, of Thornbury, Glos., saw the 
bright light of the meteor traversing the sky in a 
horizontal direction from S.W. to E. When first 
noticed it apparently consisted of three electric balls, 
but at the end only two could be discerned. 
Mrs. L. E. Butter, of Bishops Waltham, Hants, 
reports that her son, when sitting in the garden, 
called her to see a bright, comet-like appearance travel- 
ling from S.W. to eastward. There was a secondary 
head merging into the tail. The object finally burst 
like a rocket. 
Mrs. H. I. W. May, of Chadwell Heath, Essex, 
relates that her daughters saw a brilliant star in the 
south going from west to east. While watching it 
the head divided into three stars and then disappeared. 
At Bristol the meteor passed from W. of S. to 
E.S.E.; the angle of descent was slight, motion rather 
slow, and the nucleus consisted of two balls of fire, the 
leader being the largest. There was a profuse emission 
of sparks as the object sailed along, and the duration 
for the section of the flight which came under observa- 
tion was six seconds. 
Mr. E. W. Barlow writes that at Bournemouth the 
phenomenon was remarked by various people who 
could not, however, give exact particulars of the event. 
When passing due S. the altitude was 40° to 45°, and 
the motion horizontal. The direction was from west 
to east. 
I have been in correspondence with the various 
observers and elicited much further information, 
which has enabled me to derive the real path of the 
meteor. But the result may possibly require revision 
on the basis of additional records :— 
NO. 2385, VOL. 95| 



Fireball of July 5, 8h. 30m. 
Radiant point ... 503 oi 152°-6° 
Height at beginning os . 57 miles 
Height at end ... bale oe Be 2On0 es 
Length of luminous path Bo sae 2000 = 
Velocity per second ... ae ont 2OMnis 
Position over English Channel from... S. of Plymouth 
af pa y to ... Boulogne, France 
Number of descriptions on 505 12 
The radiant was near the W. by S. horizon, and 
its position must have been deflected several degrees 
towards the N.E. by the effect of zenithal attraction. 
There is a special reason why so many fine meteors 
overtake the earth in nearly horizontal courses, and 
appear in the earlier hours of the night. 
W. F. DENNING. 

THE MATERIAL BASIS OF EVOLUTION. 
HE “Origin of Single Characters as Observed 
in Fossil and Living Animals” forms the sub- 
ject of an illuminating essay in the American 
Naturalist for April, by Prof. H. F. Osborn. Since 
it contains some trenchant criticisms on recent attacks 
on the evolution theory, and on Darwin’s work, it is 
likely to be much discussed in the immediate future. 
The main purpose of his address is to insist on the 
importance of single characters, or ‘‘ least characters,”’ 
as indices of the trend of evolution rather than on 
the sum of the indefinite number of single characters 
which make up the individual. ‘‘In a sense,” he 
remarks, ‘‘the species, subspecies, and variety, and 
even the individual, is not a zoological unit, whereas 
the ‘ character,’ when narrowed down to the last point . 
of divisibility, seems to be a unit... and a very 
stable one, with certain distinctive powers, properties, 
and qualities of its own.’’ This conception of the 
individual as a complex of separable and independently 
variable units represents a view which has been gain- 
ing ground for some time past. 
But Prof. Osborn attempts to systematise this newer 
conception of the factors to be reckoned with in study- 
ing the elusive and complex phenomena associated 
with the transformation of animals. He distinguishes 
two aspects of this process—the study of the birth and 
development of proportional, and of numerical char- 
acters. Those of the first category he defines as 
universal and abundant; they are such as distinguish 
species and subspecies one from another, and may be 
germinal and therefore heritable, or merely somatic, 
due to environmental influences; while numerical 
characters, on the other hand, are solely germinal. 
As numerical characters he cites the number of the 
teeth and of their cusps, the number of toes and of 
vertebra, and so on, such being relatively stable 
characters which may be shared in common between a 
large number of species and genera. 
That no hard and fast line can be drawn between 
“proportional ’’ and ‘‘numerical’ characters Prof. 
Osborn himself realises, for he uses as an illustration 
the reduction of the digits, as in the case of the 
evolution of the horse’s foot. Hence it seems difficult 
to accept his dictum that proportional and numerical 
characters are due to a different series of direct causes. 
Rather they seem to be merely measures of degree— 
quantitative and qualitative. 
Towards the latter part of his essay he aims a blow 
at the Mendelians, and remarks that ‘‘If the student 
of genetics abandons the natural and the normal for 
the unnatural and the abnormal and sticks solely to 
his seed pan and his incubator, he is in danger of 
observing modes of origin and behaviour of char- 
acters which never have, and never will, occur in 


