286 REPORT—1874, 
Greenwich in this case with all its features, except those of verified positions, 
sufficiently resembling the descriptions of a meteor elsewhere doubly mapped 
and calculated to have led it without this certain difference to have been 
treated as identical with it, and hence (if the distinction were not observed) 
to have been coupled with it in an average result. 
(6) The path of this meteor was well mapped at Greenwich, and it is in 
excellent agreement with the apparent course as seen at Birmingham. The 
original observation of its track by Mr. Crumplen in London is marked “ im- 
perfect view ;” and lying as it does transversely as well as at a considerable 
distance from the course shown at Greenwich (very near to London), it may 
be assumed that the apparent path mapped at Greenwich is more reliable, 
and that the above calculations of the real heights, length of path, and 
velocity from the Greenwich and Birmingham observations, are more nearly 
accurate than those obtained by comparison of London and Birmingham in 
the older list. Mr. Waller’s and Prof. Herschel’s calculated paths differ 
greatly in the Table, the cause of which is not improbably an uncorrected 
printer’s error, 8°+56° instead of 8°+86°, accidentally inserted in the 
catalogue of the last Report as the meteor’s point of first observation by Mr. 
Wood at Birmingham, the existence of which was only noticed when Mr. 
Waller’s calculations had already been completed. 
(7) Doubtful conditions of the recorded paths appear in this instance to 
lead to very uncertain determinations of the real course. 
(8) Probably a ‘ Cygnid,” from its apparently foreshortened paths near 
that constellation; but found by Mr. Waller’s determination of the real 
from the described apparent positions of its course to have had a nearly 
horizontal motion. The original observations are evidently unable to afford, 
without notable concessions, a radiant-point near enough to the observed paths 
to be regarded as a proper explanation of their curtailed and apparently 
foreshortened lengths. This Greenwich meteor at 11” 35" 45° p.w., Hawk- 
hurst 11” 34" p.m., is quite distinct from the true Perseid simultaneously 
observed at 11° 36™ p.m. at Hawkhurst and London (recorded in the earlier 
list), the times at Hawkhurst and London having all been between 1™ and 2™ 
slow on Greenwich time throughout the watch. 
(8a) The Greenwich observation of this meteor (if they are really identifi- 
able) is so much at variance with the Hawkhurst observation as scarcely to 
permit of the height determination that Mr. Waller has endeavoured to obtain 
from them. The London and Hawkhurst observations (of the old list) agree 
well together, and Mr. Waller’s recalculation of them (as will be seen in the 
Table) leads very nearly to the heights &c. already found. The view of 
the meteor at Greenwich was probably imperfect ; but errors may also have 
been made at Hawkhurst and in London; and in such cases it would be very 
desirable to share the errors as far as possible equally among the different 
observers. 
(9) A meteor simultaneously observed at about this time (11> 53-54") at 
Hawkhurst and London (in the old list) was a “ Polarid;” and although 
appearing in nearly the same quarter of the sky with the ‘“‘Perseid ” mapped 
at Birmingham and at the Royal Observatory, Greenwich, it is found by pro- 
jection of the apparent paths to be irreconcilable with and quite distinct from 
it, these two duplicate observations having thus been obtained (like the two 
last described) independently of each other in a brief interval of scarcely 
more than a minute’s watch. 
(10) The hour at Hawkhurst (0" 29™ a.m.) is scarcely half a minute 
