1867.] 



Astronomy. 



225 



We miss accordingly a class of observations, which, had the shower 

 been more confidently expected, would certainly have been sug- 

 gested, — we refer to prearranged comparison-observations. If 

 observers separated by suitable distances, had assigned themselves 

 the task of recording the phenomena presented by the first charac- 

 teristic meteor appearing after certain definite epochs, we could not 

 have failed to have satisfactory evidence respecting the average 

 height and velocity of the shooting stars which composed the 

 shower. The display loses half its significance for the want of this 

 sort of evidence. Professor Challis justly remarks on the improba- 

 bility that (without some such arrangement as we have suggested) 

 single meteors could be observed " in different localities ; " he adds, 

 with apparent regret that so favourable an opportunity was allowed 

 to pass unused, — " it now appears to me that this class of observa- 

 tions is of great importance with respect to the theory of the 

 phenomenon." 



The determination of the " radiant point " of the shower was 

 effected, however, in a most complete and satisfactory manner. It 

 will be remembered that in Humboldt's ' Cosmos,' some doubt is 

 expressed as to Leo being the true constellation-radiant of the 

 November shower. The accompanying Figure will show that 



doubt can no longer exist on this point. It represents " the sickle " 

 in Leo, within which group it had been announced that the radiant 

 point might be looked for The evidence for the determination of this 

 point was of a twofold character: — First, in the immediate neighbour- 



VOL. IV. Q 



