172 On the Meteors of 13th November, 1833. 
agree with our observations, as far as they have gone, with the excep- 
tion of that of Jan. 28th to Feb. 3d. From the diagram we perceive 
that the comet would be to the westward of the sun, whereas we saw it 
after the evening twilight. This discrepancy indicates either that we 
have not yet learned the true periodical time, or that the comet has 
so great dimensions that, when on the side next to the earth, it may 
extend on both sides of the sun.’ This latter condition, indeed, may 
be fulfilled by a comet of a comparatively small size, as will be evi- 
dent on substituting for the mere point at 70, or at 80, a small figure 
of a comet with its tail opposite to the sun, and inclined as usual to- 
wards its path. 
From our theory we should farther anticipate, that the comet will 
disappear by or before the first of May, being too near the sun to be 
visible ; and that after the month of May, if seen at all, it will appear 
on the western side of the sun and rise before him, until the month of 
August, when it may possibly reappear for a little while in the eve- 
ning sky. 
Should future observations conspire with those already made, to 
establish such a period to this remarkable light, it will probably be 
regarded as a cometary body, and as the source of the meteors of 
Nov. 13th. - Bat it will be remarked, that the several arguments al- 
leged to prove the connexion of that phenomenon with a comet, are 
entirely independent of this light. 
From all the foregoing considerations, I feel authorized girly to 
conclude, That the Metcors of Nov. 13th, consisted of portions of the 
extreme parts of a nebulous body, which revolves around the sun in an 
orbit interior to that of the earth, but little inclined to the plane of the 
ecliptic, having its aphelion near to the earth’s path, and having a pe- 
riodic tume of 182 days, nearly. 
I have supposed that a nebulous body, revolving about the sun in 
an eccentric orbit, might properly be called a comet; but should any 
one think that the analogy is not strong enough to aiithorike us to rank 
it among bodies of that class, he can apply any other name which 
seems more appropriate. Changing the name will not affect the va- 
lidity of the theory. As the light spoken of in the preceding para- 
graphs, has many things in common with what is called the Zodzacal 
Tight, it may appear to some to have been proper to denominate it 
thus; but would not such an identity imply that the Zodiacal Light 
itself, is owing toa nebulous body, bearing to the solar system the re- 
lations which have just been developed? Such is my present belief, 
