April 



1909] 



NA rURE 



229 



As showing the enormous difference between the 

 aphelion and perihelion velocities, Mr. Crommelin points 

 out that nearly half the period, from December, 1S56, to 

 April, 1889, was spent on the small arc of the path which 

 lies beyond the orbit of Neptune. At perihelion the similar 

 arc will be traversed in two years. On the assumption 

 that perihelion will occur on April 16, 1910, the comet 

 should appear at its brightest for a few days after May 17, 

 its distance from the earth being then only about 12,000,000 

 miles. 



Pkessure in the Sun's Atmosphere. — Apropos of the 

 discussion as to the pressure obtaining in sun-spots, the 

 results published by ^IM. Fabry and Buisson in No. 11 

 of the Camples rcndiis of the Paris Academy of Sciences 

 are of special interest. Using their interference method, 

 they have investigated a number of the displacements of 

 solar lines which may be due to pressure. They find that 

 all the lines do not behave alike ; some are displaced in 

 one direction by different amounts, whilst others are dis- 

 placed in the opposite direction. Such displacements may 

 not be attributed wholly to pressure, but are allied to the 

 asymmetrical broadening of lines in the arc investigated 

 by" Dr. Duffield. 



For the solar work MM. Fabry and Buisson selected fine 

 lines such as are symmetrically broadened, and for twenty 

 lines between W 4000 and 4500 they find a displacement 

 corresponding to a pressure of four or five atmospheres 

 above atmospheric pressure. Twelve lines between W 5100 

 and 5500 gave a similar result, and it therefore appears 

 that a pressure of 5 or 6 atmospheres obtains where the 

 iron absorption takes place in the sun's atmosphere. 



The Spectra of NEBLX.iE. — In these columns on 

 March 11 (Nature, No. 2053, p. 19) we briefly summarised 

 some results, dealing with the spectra of nebulse, recently 

 published by Prof. Wolf. Some interesting comments on 

 tliise results are now published by Dr. Eberhard in 

 No. 4318 of the Astrononiischc Nachrichtcn. 



First he directs attention to the enumeration of the 

 nebular lines adopted by Prof. Wolf ; this is not in accord- 

 ance with the conventionally accepted enumeration, and 

 seems likely to lead to confusion. Prof. Wolf found that 

 the central star of the Ring nebula in Lyra is apparently 

 less active, actinically, than the ring itself ; Dr. Eberhard 

 points out that this is a matter of the relative aperture 

 of the instrument used, and the result was to be expected 

 from the instrument employed by Prof. Wolf. He also re- 

 minds us that the unknown line at \ 345, suspected by 

 Frof. Wolf in the spectrum of N.G.C. 2023, was certainly 

 observed by Palmer in Nova Persei and in N.G.C. 6886. 



.According to Prof. Wolf's observations, H7 was found 

 to be double in N.G.C, 6210, but Dr. Eberhard suspects 

 that, as the dispersion employed was small, this was not 

 an actual doubling, but the incidence of two separate lines, 

 X 4341 and \ 4363 ; he also questions some of the identi- 

 fications given. 



The Orhits of Spectroscopic Binaries. — In recent 

 numbers of the Publications of the .Allegheny Observatory 

 the orbits of several spectroscopic binaries are discussed. 

 In No. 10 (vol. i.) Mr. R. H. Baker discusses the orbit 

 of the spectroscopic components of a Virginis, and derives 

 final elements, which give the period as 401416 days, 

 the eccentricity as o-io, and the apparent semi-major axis 

 as 6,030,000 km. 



In No. II the same observer discusses the results 

 obtained for the spectroscopic components of u Herculis, 

 whilst in No. 12 the orbit of o Coronse Borealis is 

 derived, by Mr. F. C. Jordan, from measures of 136 plates 

 taken during 1907 and 190S with the Mellon single-prism • 

 spectrograph attached to the 30-inch reflector. The final 

 elements give the period as 1736 days, the eccentricity 

 as 0387, and the apparent semi-major axis as 

 7,671,000 km. 



The Circularity of Planetary Orbits. — From Prof. 

 T. J. J. See we have received an abstract from the 

 Astroiiomische Nachrichtcn in which he discusses the 

 origin of the planetary system, and the reason for the 

 circularity of the orljits of the planets and satellites. 

 Rejecting Laplace's hypothesis of a central rotating 

 nucleus, casting off successive portions which became 



NO. 2060, VOL. 80] 



planets. Prof. See suggests that the planets are bodies 

 which came from outside into such a nebulous mass as 

 Laplace's original " solar nebula." The circularity of 

 the orbits then becomes the natural consequence of the 

 revolution of such bodies, around the central nucleus, 

 through the resisting medium of the nebulous matter. 



THE NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM. 

 T^HE subjoined letter appeared in the Times of Monday, 

 April 19. 



It will be generally admitted that the Natural History 

 Museum is one of the greatest scientific institutions in this 

 country. It receives a grant of more than 6o,oooi. a year 

 of public money, and is the national centre for the cultiva- 

 tion and organisation of the natural-history sciences. It 

 is therefore a matter of concern, not only to naturalists, 

 but to the public generally, that this great national institu 

 tion should be administered in the best possible way. 

 Unfortunately, in the opinion of all independent naturalists 

 now living and of all the leading naturalists of the last 

 forty-five years, the system of administration of the natural 

 history departments of the British Museum is so defective 

 that the accomplishment of the great objects for which 

 the museum exists is seriously hampered. Rumours of 

 this have already reached the public ear. It is not, how- 

 ever, our design, for the present, to refer to these rumours 

 beyond stating that there is a strong a priori probability 

 of their truth, for they indicate a state of affairs which 

 could hardly be avoided under the present system of 

 administration. The defects in this system to which we 

 now desire to direct attention are as follows : — 



(i) The government of the Natural History Museum is 

 nominally, and in the eyes of the public, in the hands of 

 the trustees of the British Museum, a large body of dis- 

 tinguished men, forty-nine in number, of high rank and 

 great importance in the State. ' This number is so large 

 that the trustees cannot act effectively as a single body. 

 The result is that the executive is restricted to a small 

 section of them, known as the standing committee, an 

 entirely irresponsible body, subject to no control or criticism 

 except of a purely formal kind, though spending annually 

 large sums of public money. 



(2) While the actual government of the museum is in 

 the hands of the standing committee, the appointment of 

 all ofiiccrs and servants is in the hands of the principal 

 trustees — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chan- 

 cellor, and the Speaker of the House of Commons. This 

 arrangement, by which the control after appointment is 

 in different hands from those which make the appoint- 

 ment, is highly unsatisfactory. For, should the principal 

 trustees appoint a director not acceptable to the other 

 trustees, as has happened, it is clear that a very difficult 

 position must necessarily be created, alike for trustees and 

 director. Moreover, it is, in our opinion, inimical to the 

 proper conduct of the museum that the appointment to 

 the subordinate offices should be made by the principal 

 trustees. This point has already been touched upon in the 

 fourth report of the Royal Commission of 1874. The 

 commissioners state that : — 



" It is held to be singularly inappropriate that the three 

 important personages who are the principal Trustees, 

 occupied as they are in the discharge of the highest func- 

 tions in Church and State, should be burdened with the 

 duty of making appointments to offices of every grade in 

 the British Museum." 



(3) The standing committee of the trustees control, not 

 only the Natural History Museum at South Kensington, 

 but also the Library and the Museum of Art and Archaeo- 

 logy at Bloomsbury. This arrangement cannot be re- 

 garded as satisfactory, because with the rapid growth of 

 archa;ology and natural science in the last fifty years the 

 interests represented by the two museums have become so 

 vast, complex, and divergent that it is beyond the power 

 of a single body of men, even of the knowledge of affairs 

 and distinction of the trustees, to fully understand the 

 interests involved. The subdivision of the subjects was 

 recognised when the natural science part of the museum 

 was removed to South fscnsinglon, and it is obvious that 

 two institutions situated so far apart, and dealing with 



