i88a.] 
303 
CORRESPONDENCE. 
%* The Editor does not hold himself responsible for statements of fa5ts or 
opinions expressed in Correspondence, or in Articles bearing the signature 
of their respective authors. 
THE SUN-SPOTS. 
To the Editor of the Journal of Science. 
Sir, — One cannot help being struck with the insufficiency of the 
theories of the sun-spots enumerated by M. Louis Figuier, in 
Chapter VIII. of his “ Day after Death ” (edition 1881). They 
only explain accidental spots ; but if I understand rightly these 
spots are periodically exaCt, and located, i. e., every eleven (?) 
years they pass through a full set of phases, which are again 
repeated. This cannot be the result of the “ scoria ” of the 
“ German Physicist,” or the “ clouds ” of M. Kirchhoff, nor pro- 
bably the “ascending and descending vapours” of M. Faye, 
because it is utterly impossible for any such accidental causes as 
these to repeat themselves regularly. They are evidently regu- 
lated, then, by an immutable law. Comparatively speaking, it is 
reasonable to suppose that these must indicate a thin gaseous 
photosphere upon a solid globe. That the photosphere is gasified 
metals, &c., seems thoroughly established by the spectroscope. 
There would, then, seem to be some tidal influence at work on 
the sun’s surface, and the spots would be so many unflooded 
spots. That there is some dark substratum Nasmyth’s groups 
seem to show decisively enough, for there can hardly be a shadow 
where all is light. Suppose the photosphere only revolves round 
the fixed globe — an orb at war with itself? — I am, &c., 
D. Y. C. 
Leeds. 
