9 S 
NATURE NOTES 
phrase to denote the action of a lightning discharge between a cloud and the 
earth. 
Certain stones and fossils have been called thunderbolts ; and prehistoric stone 
implements have been so regarded by natives of the district, who, unable to 
account otherwise for their origin, have imagined them to have come from the 
skies. More rational is the notion of the Sioux Indians, who connect certain 
flintstones with lightning because they give a flash of light when struck. 
Haverstock Hiil, April 7, 1903. Francis H. Baker. 
The Fall of Stones from the Sky. — I am sorry you have not inserted 
in your Magazine my short answer to Mr. Baker, as his letter deserved a reply. 
I should not consider the long letter of a person who calls himself an “ Observer 
of Nature ” worthy of notice, were it not that there may be some people in the 
world who are foolish enough to believe it. This letter is a tissue of misstate- 
ments. There is scarcely a word of truth in it from beginning to end. 
This false Observer of Nature says that “ Comets’ tails have been observed 
which were directed towards the sun.” This is absolutely untrue, and there is 
not the slightest foundation for the statement. This is misstatement No. 1. 
O. O. N. says that “ meteors are pretty often seen in full sunshine.” O. O. N. 
knows perfectly well that I distinctly referred to shooting stars, which are broken- 
up comets. These can never be seen by day, that is, between sunrise and sunset. 
I made no reference to the large coloured meteors, which may possibly be seen 
sometimes by day. This is misstatement No 2. 
O. O. N. says that showers of shooting stars were seen in the years 1798 and 
1S32. No one denied it. He gives no date in those years, but some of the 
swarm of Leonids were seen about that time. I stated that no swarm of shooting 
stars was seen travelling in the orbit of Biela’s comet previous to the year 1872. 
This is O. O. N.’s misrepresentation No. 3. 
O. O. N. says that “three men were about twenty yards distant and saw the 
Crumlin stone fall to the earth.” This is untrue. There was only one man near 
it, and he saw nothing fall. All he saw was a cloud of dust rising from the place 
in the field where the stone was afterwards found. One man only, who was a 
long distance off, and was attracted by the explosion, thought that he saw some- 
thing fall, but he could not describe what it was like. The dust which rose up 
must have fallen again. This man’s evidence is of no value in opposition to that 
of the man who was only twenty yards distant and saw nothing fall. If O. O. N. 
had taken the trouble to read the particulars that were posted in the Natural 
History Museum he might have saved himself from misstatement No. 4. 
It is necessary to point out that the “soil was thrown up a considerable 
distance into the air.” This would not have been the case if the stone had fallen 
from the sky. The stone was lying embedded in the earth when the explosion 
took place. That was the reason why the soil and dust were thrown upwards. 
O. O. N. says with reference to the Crumlin stone, “ As though the whole 
neighbourhood had not been explored for other traces of fallen fragments.” For 
weakness of argument it would be very hard to beat this. It is evident from 
the above that O. O. N. does not know whether the neighbourhood was explored 
or not. If the whole neighbourhood was completely explored, how was it that 
no other fragments of the stone were found. There is only one fragment of a 
stone at the Natural History Museum. Where is the rest of the stone ? It must 
be somewhere. It is O. O. N.’s argument that is weak, not mine. 
O. O. N. says that I am unacquainted with the rudiments of meteoric and 
cometary astronomy. He has evidently crammed his head with book learning 
and other people’s ideas on the subject of modern speculative astronomy, and 
therefore he considers himself very wise. He is incapable of distinguishing 
between the speculative astronomy of the present day and the real science of the 
time of Newton. He assumes an anonymous signature for the purpose of 
indulging in his craving for vulgar abuse. If he had given his name he would 
not have dared to revel in such reckless misstatements as he has made. 
Hampstead , Feter Hastie. 
March II, 1903. 
\_Tantane animis ccclestibns ira't This correspondence must now cease. 
“An Observer of Nature” is a well-known astronomer who is admitted by all 
students to be a master of the subject. — E d. N.Nl\ 
