BY. A. B. BIGGS. 39 



affected by tlie position of the earth in its orbit or the 

 direction of the earth's motion ; that is, the orbits of both 

 Comets are practically from about the same view-point. A 

 rough heliocentric projection of the paths of each of these 

 Comets, which I have attempted from the very indefinite data 

 which alone we possess, appears to me to indicate orbits very 

 closely approximate. 



"We have here, then, two cometary apparitions strongly 

 resembling each other in their peculiar headless character — in 

 general appearance — length of tail, and in their apparent paths. 

 So far as all this goes there would appear to be strong 

 indications of identity. 



The headless character of these Comets involves, I think, 

 some interesting questions. The nucleus of a Comet, and it 

 alone as pertaining to the Comet, obeys the laws of gravitation 

 and projectile velocity. The tail holds no allegiance to such 

 laws, it is governed only by the head, as being an appendage to 

 it, swinging" itself round on the outside of the curve as the 

 Comet pursues its path round the sun. But, what governs 

 the motion of a tail without a head ? If these Comets were 

 really headless (of which invisibility must of course not be 

 taken as absolute proof) I cannot conceive of their pursuing 

 any rational path in space. Their apparent orbital motion 

 would indicate that they must be pondeiable matter, which the 

 tail of a Comet pretty certainly is not. 



I cannot help thinking that, under the conditions, it is not 

 an unreasonable supposition with regard to both of these bodies, 

 that they might be the main body of a stream of meteoric 

 matter whose orbit intersects the ecliptu, not very far from the 

 position of the earth at the time of appearance (January and 

 February), such stream being rendered visible by its com- 

 pactness, illuminated by sunlight, and by its nearness to the 

 earth at the time of passing. In this case, however, the " wisp " 

 should coincide with the actual orbit of the stream. The great 

 inclination of the former from the ecliptic, (not far from a right 

 angle) can only be reconciled with that of the orbit by supposing 

 the body to have been at the time not far from the earth, that 

 is, much nearer to the earth than to the sun. This I think was 

 the case, judging from the very meagre data available. Such 

 a supposition however implies an orbit differing considerably 

 from that of the Great Comet of 1S82-3, with which the orbit 

 of that of 1880 was supposed to correspond. 



