On the Origin of Shooting Stars. ^6^ 



Art. XIV. — On the Origin of Shooting Stars. 



1. Letter from Kev. W. A. Clarke, addressed to the Editor. 



Stanley Green, near Poole, Dorsetshire, Eng. Jan. G, 1836. 



Sir — I OBSERVE in your Journal for October last, (Vol. XXIX, 

 p. 168,) that Prof. Olmsted has done me the honor of quoting from 

 the Magazine of Natural History for December, 1834, some obser- 

 vations of mine relative to a few meteors seen at this place by me 

 on the morning of November 13th, 1834. As Prof, Olmsted quo- 

 ted my notice in testimony of his supposed comet, I think it only 

 due to myself and such of your numerous readers in England and 

 America, as do not see the Magazine of Natural History, and who 

 dissent from Prof. Olmsted's views, to state distinctly, that so far 

 from thinking the occurrence of meteors here, at the time alluded 

 to, any evidence in favor of the supposed comet, I have in the Mag- 

 azine of Natural History, for March, 1835, (Vol. VIII, p. 140, in 

 No. 6, of a series of essays " On certain recent meteoric phenome- 

 na, vicissitudes in the seasons, prevalent disorders, &ic. contempora- 

 neous, and in supposed connection with volcanic emanations") — - 

 shown, that the difference in time (6^. 47m. 285.) of the first ap- 

 pearance of meteors at Poole and Nisw Haven, makes the supposed 

 comet move westwardly, which contradicts Mr. Olmsted's hypothe- 

 sis — and I have added to my calculation : " If, then, thes? meteors 

 betoken the presence of a coraetic body, it moves loestardly ; and 

 the position of Professor Olmsted is untenable. This is a fatal ar- 

 gument for the hypothesis ; and we are driven to conclude, that 

 the idea of the meteors being altogether electrical, arising from a 

 certain state of the atmosphere, in certain years, at a certain period 

 of the year, is sufficient to explain their occurrence. The subse- 

 quent agitations of the atmosphere in 1834, as well as in 1833, the 

 gales that occurred, and the volcanic phenomena that preceded, all 

 lead to the same conclusion. Till, therefore, these difficulties shall 

 have been reconciled, I shall adhere to my own supposition, (p. 141.) 

 In the course of this and my other essays, I have advanced evidence 

 to support my conclusions, and have canvassed nearly every argu- 

 ment advanced by Prof. Olmsted, his friends, and opponents, and I 

 cannot but confess, that however ingenious may be his theory, and 

 however great his skill in astronomical calculation, and whatever 

 may be the fate of my own hypothesis respecting the cause of these 



Vol. XXX.— No. 2. 47 



