On the Meteors of the 13th November, 1833. 173 
but not having had leisure to examine all the facts recorded of 
that phenomenon, I would not venture to assert, positively, that this 
is the true explanation of that mystery. ‘The explanation of the cause 
of the meteors of November 13th, may include that of the Zodiacal 
light, although it is not responsible for it. In March, the appearance 
becomes identified with that of the Zodiacal Light; but in Nov. and 
Dec. the Zodiacal Light was identified with that; and it may prove 
to be a fact that both appearances are dependent on the same cause. 
Having now, as we suppose, arrived at a knowledge of the cause 
of the “ Meteoric Shower,” we may, as in other cases, go back and 
apply our theory to the correction of inferences made from indepen- 
dent sources of evidence. In fact, all the conclusions drawn in the 
former part of this article, as far as to the last head of inquiry, were 
wholly independent of the theory now developed, and without refer- 
ence to any hypothesis whatever. Although I had early received 
the impression, that a nebulous body, or comet, had some connexion 
with the meteors, and intimated such an idea to the Connecticut Acad- 
emy, at their session on the 24th Dec., yet I had formed no consist- 
ent views of the nature of this connexion, until nearly the whole of the 
preceding article was in print. Having come to the conclusion that 
the material of which the meteors were composed, was analogous to 
that which forms the tails of comets, I began to reflect on the connex- 
ion which such a body might have with the phenomenon observed, 
and was led successively to the several conclusions now submitted, 
nearly in the order in which they are here presented. Nothing buta 
strong conviction of their truth, would induce me to offer them to 
the public in so imperfect a state. ‘The candid reader will appre- 
ciate the difficulty of maturing points of such intricacy, and establish- 
ing them by refined and elaborate calculations, while the press is 
waiting. 
On comparing the theory with the propositions previously made 
out, the agreement appears to be, generally, good. Probably the ori- 
gin of the meteors, was farther from the earth than the distance as- 
signed in the second proposition ; but it was necessary to form some 
estimate of the distance as a starting point, and that result was the 
best I was able to obtain from data so imperfect and discordant. 
But should the origin appear to have been at a much greater distance 
than was there assigned, the subsequent conclusions, built upon the 
supposition that the meteors fell towards the earth from a great dis- 
tance, will be true for a stronger reason. 
