524 Chronicles of Science. [Oct., 



appeared to be some foundation for Schwabe's theory, but as there 

 occurred a minimum, of spot? in 1844 and another in 1855, we can 

 understand that Messrs. De la Eue, Stewart, and Loewy should not 

 regard Schwabe's views with favour. They record that on Feb- 

 ruary 12th, 1844, and from June to August, 1855, the sun was 

 without spots or faculse. 



Professor Brayley points out the importance of the spectro- 

 scopical examination of the vicinity of the sun when totally eclipsed, 

 for the determination of the nature and extent of its luminous 

 atmosphere. He considers that this atmosphere is partially iden- 

 tical with the Zodiacal Light, and he suggests that an attempt 

 should be made to determine the true nature of the Zodiacal Lisdit 



o 



by means of spectrum analysis. 



Professor Brayley adds that he has arrived at the conclusion 

 that in all probability the bright-line or monochromatic spectra, 

 from which Mr. Huggins has inferred the gaseous constitution of 

 certain nebula?, are in reality due to the luminous atmospheres of 

 their constituent stars or suns. AVe believe that Mir. Huggins has 

 already considered this view, and shown it to be inconsistent with 

 known laws. 



Mr. Stoney supplies a paper " On the Connection between Comets 

 and Meteors." In January last M. Leverrier pointed out that the 

 streams of meteors which produce star-showers must have been in 

 compact clusters when they underwent the great perturbations 

 which brought them into permanent connection with the solar 

 system. And Mr. Graham has shown that the meteoric iron which 

 reaches the earth must have been at some previous time red-hot ; 

 and that when last red-hot it was acted on by hydrogen under 

 considerable pressure — a pressure of perhaps six or more atmo- 

 spheres. Mr. Stoney makes use of these inferences in the endeavour 

 to trace what the physical connection between comets and meteors 

 has been. "We niusv point out one important point in which his 

 argument fails. He lays great stress on the difference between the 

 assumed period of the November shooting-star system and the 

 period of Tempel's comet ; the former 33*25 years and the latter 

 3348 years. In fact, his argument seems to require that some 

 such difference should exist. But in the first place it is well 

 known that the period of 33J- years assigned to the meteors by 

 Adams and Leverrier was never meant for more than a first 

 approximation, and that a period of 33-18 years would account 

 quite as well for all the phenomena yet observed. In the second 

 place, we have no assurance that 33*18 years is the exact period of 

 Tempel's comet. This is Dr. Oppolzer's determination, but other 

 calculators obtained different results. TVe have assuredly no 

 evidence that the difference of *07 years between the periods of the 

 meteor-stream and comet is one that can be insisted upon. 



