PART II.

In Table II. the unit of columnais the earth's mean distance from the sun, or ninety-three million miles. On this scale the breadth of the zone is 1.8196. Or, if we estimate the breadth from the perihelion of Æthra (1.612) to the aphelion of Andromache (4.726), it is 3.114,—more than three times the radius of the earth's orbit. A very remarkable characteristic of the group is the interlacing or intertwining of orbits. "One fact," says D'Arrest, "seems above all to confirm the idea of an intimate relation between all the minor planets; it is, that if their orbits are figured under the form of material rings, these rings will be found so entangled that it would be possible, by means of one among them taken at hazard, to lift up all the rest."[6]Our present knowledge of this wide and complicated cluster is the result of a vast amount, not only of observations, but also of mathematical labor. In view, however, of the perturbations of these bodies by the larger planets, and especially by Jupiter, it is easy to see that the discussionof their motions must present a field of investigation practically boundless.

While the known minor planets were but few in number thetheory of Olbers in regard to their origin seemed highly probable; it has, however, been completely disproved by more recent discoveries. The breadth of the zone being now greater than the distance of Mars from the sun, it is no more probable that the asteroids were produced by the disruption of a single planet than that Mercury, Venus, the earth, and Mars originated in a similar manner.

In taking a general view of the solar system we cannot fail to be struck by the remarkable fact that Jupiter, whose mass is much greater than that of all other planets united, should be immediately succeeded by a region so nearly destitute of matter as the zone of asteroids. Leverrier inferred from the motion of Mars's perihelion that the mass of Jupiter is at least twelve hundred times greater than that of all the planets in the asteroid ring. The fact is suggestive of Jupiter's dominating energy in the evolution of the asteroid system. We find also something analogous among the satellites of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus. Jupiter's third satellite, the largest of the number, is nearly four times greater than the second. Immediately within the orbit of Titan, the largest satellite of Saturn, occurs a wide hiatus, and the volume of the next interior satellite is to that of Titan in the ratio of one to twenty-one. In the Uranian system the widest interval between adjacent orbits is just within the orbit of the bright satellite, Titania.

The foregoing facts suggest the inquiry, What effect would be produced by a large planet on interior masses abandoned by a central spheroid? As the phenomena in all instances would be of the same nature, we will consider a single case,—that of Jupiter and the asteroids.

The powerful mass of the exterior body would produce great perturbations of the neighboring small planets abandoned at the solar equator. The disturbed orbits, in some cases, would thus attain considerable eccentricity, so that the matter moving in them would, in perihelion, be brought in contact with the equatorial parts of the central body, and thus become reunited with it.[7]The extreme rarity of the zone between Mars and Jupiter, regarded as a single ring, is thus accounted for in accordance with known dynamical laws.

It is sufficiently obvious that whenever the perihelion distance of a planet or comet is less than the sun's radius, a collision must occur as the moving body approaches the focus of its path. The great comet of 1843 passed so near the sun as almost to graze its surface. With a perihelion distance but very slightly less, it would have been precipitated into the sun and incorporated with its mass. In former epochs, when the dimensions of the sun were much greater than at present, this falling of comets into the central orb of the system must have been a comparatively frequent occurrence. Again, if Mercury's orbit had its present eccentricity when the radiusof the solar spheroid was twenty-nine million miles, the planet at its nearest approach to the centre of its motion must have passed through the outer strata of the central body. In such case a lessening of the planet's mean distance would be a necessary consequence. We thus see that in the formation of the solar system the eccentricity of an asteroidal orbit could not increase beyond a moderate limit without the planet's return to the solar mass. The bearing of these views on the arrangement of the minor planets will appear in what follows.

One of the most interesting discoveries of the eighteenth century was Lagrange's law securing the stability of the solar system. This celebrated theorem, however, is not to be understood in an absolute or unlimited sense. It makes no provision against the effect of a resisting medium, or against the entrance of cosmic matter from without. It does not secure the stability of all periodic comets nor of the meteor streams revolving about the sun. In the early stages of the system's development the matter moving in unstable orbits may have been, and probably was, much more abundant than at present. But even now, are we justified in concluding that all known asteroids have stable orbits? For the major planets the secular variations of eccentricity have been calculated, but for the orbits between Mars and Jupiter these limits are unknown. With an eccentricity of 0.252 (less than that of many asteroids), the distance of Hilda's aphelion would be greater than that of Jupiter's perihelion. It seems possible, therefore, that certainminor planets may have their orbits much changed by Jupiter's disturbing influence.[8]

Whoever looks at a table of asteroids arranged in their order of discovery will find only a perplexing mass of figures. Whether we regard their distances, their inclinations, or the forms of their orbits, the elements of the members are without any obvious connection. Nor is the confusion lessened when the orbits are drawn and presented to the eye. In fact, the crossing and recrossing of so many ellipses of various forms merely increase the entanglement. But can no order be traced in all this complexity? Are there no breaks or vacant spaces within the zone's extreme limits? Has Jupiter's influence been effective in fixing the position and arrangement of the cluster? Such are some of the questions demanding our attention. If "the universe is a book written for man's reading," patient study may resolve the problem contained in these mysterious leaves.

Simultaneously with the discovery of new members in the cluster of minor planets, near the middle of the century, occurred the resolution of the great nebula in Orion. This startling achievement by Lord Rosse's telescope was the signal for the abandonment of the nebular hypothesis by many of its former advocates. To the present writer, however, the partial resolution of a single nebula seemed hardly a sufficient reason for its summary rejection. The question then arose whether any probable test of Laplace's theory could be found inthe solar system itself. The train of thought was somewhat as follows: Several new members have been found in the zone of asteroids; its dimensions have been greatly extended, so that we can now assign no definite limits either to the ring itself or to the number of its planets; if the nebular hypothesis be true, the sun, after Jupiter's separation, extended successively to the various decreasing distances of the several asteroids; the eccentricities of these bodies are generally greater than those of the old planets; this difference is probably due to the disturbing force of Jupiter; the zone includes several distances at which the periods of asteroids would be commensurable with that of Jupiter; in such case the conjunctions of the minor with the major planet would occur in the same parts of its path, the disturbing effects would accumulate, and the eccentricity would become very marked; such bodies in perihelion would return to the sun, and hence blanks or chasms would be formed in particular parts of the zone. On the other hand, if the nebular hypothesis was not true, the occurrence of these gaps was not to be expected. Having thus pointed out a prospective test of the theory, it was announced with some hesitation thatthose parts of the asteroid zone in which a simple relation of commensurability would obtain between the period of a minor planet and that of Jupiter are distinguished as gaps or chasms similar to the interval in Saturn's ring.

The existence of these blanks was thus predicted in theory before it was established as a fact of observation. When the law was first publicly stated in 1866, but ten asteroids had been found with distances greater than three times that of the earth. The number of such now known is sixty-five. For more than a score ofyears the progress of discovery has been watched with lively interest, and the one hundred and eighty new members of the group have been found moving in harmony with this law of distribution.[9]

When we say that an asteroid's period is commensurable with that of Jupiter, we mean that a certain whole number of the former is equal to another whole number of the latter. For instance, if a minor planet completes two revolutions to Jupiter's one, or five to Jupiter's two, the periods are commensurable. It must be remarked, however, that Jupiter's effectiveness in disturbing the motion of a minor planet depends on theorderof commensurability. Thus, if the ratio of the less to the greater period is expressed by the fraction1⁄2, where the difference between the numerator and the denominator is one, the commensurability is of the first order;1⁄3is of the second;2⁄5, of the third, etc. The difference between the terms of the ratio indicates the frequency of conjunctions while Jupiter is completing the number of revolutions expressed by the numerator. The distance 3.277, corresponding to the ratio1⁄2, is the only case of the first order in the entire ring; those of the second order, answering to1⁄3and3⁄5, are 2.50 and 3.70. These orders of commensurability may be thus arranged in a tabular form, the radius of the earth's orbit being the unit of distance:

Do these parts of the ring present discontinuities? and, if so, can they be ascribed to a chance distribution? Let us consider them in order.

At this distance an asteroid's conjunctions with Jupiter would all occur at the same place, and its perturbations would be there repeated at intervals equal to Jupiter's period (11.86 y.). Now, when the asteroids are arranged in the order of their mean distances (as in Table II.) this part of the zone presents a wide chasm. The space between 3.218 and 3.376 remains, hitherto a perfect blank, while the adjacent portions of equal breadth, interior and exterior, contain fifty-four minor planets. The probability that this distribution is not the result of chance is more than three hundred billions to one.

The breadth of this chasm is one-twentieth part of its distance from the sun, or one-eleventh part of the breadth of the entire zone.

At the former of these distances an asteroid's period would be one-third of Jupiter's, and at the latter, three-fifths. That part of the zone included between the distances 2.30 and 2.70 contains one hundred and ten intervals, exclusive of the maximum at the critical distance 2.50. This gap—between Thetis and Hestia—is not only much greater than any other of this number, but is more than sixteen times greater than their average. The distance 3.70 falls in the wide hiatus interior to the orbit of Ismene.

As the order of commensurability becomes less simple, the corresponding breaks in the zone are less distinctly marked. In the present case conjunctions with Jupiter would occur at angular intervals of 120°. The gaps, however, are still easily perceptible. Between the distances 2.765 and 2.808 we find twenty minor planets. In the next exterior space of equal breadth, containing the distance 2.82, there is but one. This is No. 188, Menippe, whose elements are still somewhat uncertain. The space between 2.851 and 2.894—that is, the part of equal extent immediately beyond the gap—contains thirteen asteroids. The distances 3.58 and 3.80 are in the chasm between Andromache and Ismene.

The first of these distances is in the interval between Psyche and Clytemnestra; the second and third, in that exterior to Andromache.

The nine cases considered are the only ones in which the conjunctions with Jupiter would occur at less than five points of an asteroid's orbit. Higher orders of commensurability may perhaps be neglected. It will be seen, however, that the distances 2.25, 2.70, 3.03, and 3.23, corresponding to the ratios of the fifth order,2⁄7,3⁄8,4⁄9, and 6/11, still afford traces of Jupiter's influence. The first is in the interval between Augusta and Feronia; the last falls in the same gap with 3.277; and the second and third are in breaks less distinctly marked. It may also be worthy of notice that the rather wide interval between Prymno and Victoria is where ten periods of a minor planet would be equal to three of Jupiter. The distance of Medusa is somewhat uncertain.

TheFACTof the existence of well-defined gaps in the designated parts of the ring has been clearly established. But the theory of probability applied in a single instance gives, as we have seen, but one chance in 300,000,000,000 that the distribution is accidental. This improbability is increased many millions of times when we include all the gaps corresponding to simple cases of commensurability. We conclude, therefore, that those discontinuities cannot be referred to a chance arrangement.What, then, was their physical cause? and what has become of the eliminated asteroids?

What was said in regard to the limits of perihelion distance may suggest a possible answer to these interesting questions. The doctrine of the sun's gradual contraction is now accepted by a majority of astronomers. According to this theory the solar radius at an epoch not relatively remote was twice what it is at present. At anterior stages it was 0.4, 1.0, 2.0,[11]etc. At the first mentioned the comets of 1843 and 1668, as well as several others, could not have been moving in their present orbits, since in perihelion they must have plunged into the sun. At the second, Encke's comet and all others with perihelia within Mercury's orbit would have shared a similar fate. At the last named all asteroids with perihelion distances less than two would have been re-incorporated with the central mass. As the least distance of Æthra is but 1.587, its orbit could not have had its present form and dimensions when the radius of the solar nebula was equal to the aphelion distance of Mars (1.665).

It is easy to see, therefore, that in those parts of the ring where Jupiter would produce extraordinary disturbance the formation of chasms would be very highly probable.

The distances, periods, inclinations, and eccentricities of Hilda and Ismene, the outermost pair of the group, are very nearly identical. It is a remarkable fact, however, that the longitudes of their perihelia differ by almost exactly 180°. Did they separate at nearly thesame time from opposite sides of the solar nebula? Other adjacent pairs having a striking similarity between their orbital elements are Sirona and Ceres, Fides and Maia, Fortuna and Eurynome, and perhaps a few others. Such coincidences can hardly be accidental. Original asteroids, soon after their detachment from the central body, may have been separated by the sun's unequal attraction on their parts. Such divisions have occurred in the world of comets, why not also in the cluster of minor planets?

The least eccentric orbit in the group is that of Philomela (196); the most eccentric that of Æthra (132). Comparing these with the orbit of the second comet of 1867 we have

The orbit of Æthra, it is seen, more nearly resembles the last than the first. It might perhaps be called the connecting-link between planetary and cometary orbits.

The average eccentricity of the two hundred and sixty-eight asteroids whose orbits have been calculated is 0.1569. As with the orbits of the old planets, the eccentricities vary within moderate limits, some increasing, others diminishing. The average, however, will probably remain very nearly the same. An inspection of the table shows that while but one orbit is less eccentric than the earth's, sixty-nine depart more fromthe circular form than the orbit of Mercury. These eccentricities seem to indicate that the forms of the asteroidal orbits were influenced by special causes. It may be worthy of remark that the eccentricity does not appear to vary with the distance from the sun, being nearly the same for the interior members of the zone as for the exterior.

The inclinations in Table II. are thus distributed:

One hundred and fifty-four, considerably more than half, have inclinations between 3° and 11°, and the mean of the whole number is about 8°,—slightly greater than the inclination of Mercury, or that of the plane of the sun's equator. The smallest inclination, that of Massalia, is 0° 41´, and the largest, that of Pallas, is about 35°. Sixteen minor planets, or six per cent. of the whole number, have inclinations exceeding 20°. Does any relation obtain between high inclinations and great eccentricities? These elements in the cases named above are as follows:

This comparison shows the most inclined orbits to be also very eccentric; Bertha and Eunice being the only exceptions in the foregoing list. On the other hand, however, we find over fifty asteroids with eccentricities exceeding 0.20 whose inclinations are not extraordinary. The dependence of the phenomena on a common cause can, therefore, hardly be admitted. At least, the forces which produced the great eccentricity failed in a majority of cases to cause high inclinations.

The perihelia of the asteroidal orbits are very unequally distributed; one hundred and thirty-six—a majority of the whole number determined—being within the 120° from longitude 290° 50´ to 59° 50´. The maximum occurs between 30° and 60°, where thirty-five perihelia are found in 30° of longitude.

An inspection of the column containing the longitudes of the ascending nodes, in Table II., indicates two well-marked maxima, each extending about sixty degrees, in opposite parts of the heavens.

A uniform distribution would give 89. An arc of 84°—from 46° to 130°—contains the ascending nodes of all the old planets. This arc, it will be noticed, is not coincident with either of the maxima found for the asteroids.

Since, according to Kepler's third law, the periods of planets depend upon their mean distances, the clustering tendency found in the latter must obtain also in the former. This marked irregularity in the order of periods is seen below.

The period of Hilda (153) is more than two and a half times that of Medusa (149). This is greater than the ratio of Saturn's period to that of Jupiter. The maximum observed between 2000 and 2100 days corresponds to the space immediately interior to chasm I. on a previous page, that between 1300 and 1400 to the space interior to the second, and that between 1500 and 1700 to the part of the zone within the fourth gap. The table presents quite numerous instances of approximate equality; in forty-three cases the periods differing less than twenty-four hours. It is impossible to say, however, whether any two of these periods areexactlyequal. In cases of a very close approach two asteroids, notwithstanding their small mass, may exert upon each other quite sensible perturbations.

But four minor planets had been discovered when Laplace issued his last edition of the "Système du Monde." The author, in his celebrated seventh note in the second volume of that work, explained the origin of these bodies by assuming that the primitive ring from which they were formed, instead of collecting into a single sphere, as in the case of the major planets, broke up into four distinct masses. But the form and extent of the cluster as now known, as well as the observed facts bearing on the constitution of Saturn's ring, seem to require a modification of Laplace's theory. Throughout the greater part of the interval between Mars and Jupiter an almost continuous succession of small planetary masses—not nebulous rings—appears to have been abandoned at the solar equator. The entire cluster,distributed throughout a space whose outer radius exceeds the inner by more than two hundred millions of miles, could not have originated, as supposed by Laplace, in a single nebulous zone the different parts of which revolved with the same angular velocity. The following considerations may furnish a suggestion in regard to the mode in which these bodies were separated from the equator of the solar nebula.

(a) The perihelion distance of Jupiter is 4.950, while the aphelion distance of Hilda is 4.623. If, therefore, the sun once extended to the latter, the central attraction of its mass on an equatorial particle was but five times greater than Jupiter's perihelion influence on the same. It is easy to see, then, that this "giant planet" would produce enormous tidal elevations in the solar mass.

(b) The centrifugal force would be greatest at the crest of this tidal wave.

(c) Three periods of solar revolution were then about equal to two periods of Jupiter. The disturbing influence of the planet would therefore be increased at each conjunction with this protuberance. The ultimate separation (not of a ring but) of a planetary mass would be the probable result of these combined and accumulating forces.

Observations of some minor planets have indicated a variation of their apparent magnitudes. Frigga, discovered by Dr. Peters in 1862, was observed at the next opposition in 1864; but after this it could not befound till 1868, when it was picked up by Professor Tietjen. From the latter date its light seems again to have diminished, as all efforts to re-observe it were unsuccessful till 1879. According to Dr. Peters, the change in brightness during the period of observation in that year was greater than that due to its varying distance. No explanation of such changes has yet been offered. It has been justly remarked, however, that "the length of the period of the fluctuation does not allow of our connecting it with the rotation of the planet."

At the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 1884, Professor Mark W. Harrington, of Ann Arbor, Michigan, presented a paper in which the elements of the asteroid system were considered on the principle of averages. Two hundred and thirty orbits, all that had then been determined, were employed in the discussion. Professor Harrington supposes two planes to intersect the ecliptic at right angles; one passing through the equinoxes and the other through the solstices. These planes will intersect the asteroidal orbits, each in four points, and "the mean intersection at each solstice and equinox may be considered a point in the average orbit."

In 1883 the Royal Academy of Denmark offered its gold medal for a statistical examination of the orbits of the small planets considered as parts of a ring around the sun. The prize was awarded in 1885 to M. Svedstrup, of Copenhagen. The results obtained by these astronomers severally are as follows:

These elements, with the exception of the first, are in reasonable harmony.

Did comets originate within the solar system, or do they enter it from without? Laplace assigned them an extraneous origin, and his view is adopted by many eminent astronomers. With all due respect to the authority of great names, the present writer has not wholly abandoned the theory that some comets of short period are specially related to the minor planets. According to M. Lehmann-Filhès, the eccentricity of the third comet of 1884, before its last close approach to Jupiter, was only 0.2787.[12]This is exceeded by that of twelve known minor planets. Its mean distance before this great perturbation was about 4.61, and six of its periods were nearly equal to five of Jupiter's,—a commensurability of the first order. According to Hind and Krueger, the great transformation of its orbit by Jupiter's influence occurred in May, 1875. It had previouslybeen an asteroid too remote to be seen even in perihelion. This body was discovered by M. Wolf, at Heidelberg, September 17, 1884. Its present period is about six and one-half years.

The perihelion distance of the comet 1867 II. at its return in 1885 was 2.073; its aphelion is 4.897; so that its entire path, like those of the asteroids, is included between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. Its eccentricity, as we have seen, is little greater than that of Æthra, and its period, inclination, and longitude of the ascending node are approximately the same with those of Sylvia, the eighty-seventh minor planet. In short, this comet may be regarded as an asteroid whose elements have been considerably modified by perturbation.

It has been stated that the gap at the distance 3.277 is the only one corresponding to the first order of commensurability. The distance 3.9683, where an asteroid's period would be two-thirds of Jupiter's, is immediately beyond the outer limit of the cluster as at present known; the mean distance of Hilda being 3.9523. The discovery of new members beyond this limit is by no means improbable. Should a minor planet at the mean distance 3.9683 attain an eccentricity of 0.3—and this is less than that of eleven now known—its aphelion would be more remote than the perihelion of Jupiter. Such an orbit might not be stable. Its form and extent might be greatly changed after the manner of Lexell's comet. Two well-known comets, Faye's and Denning's, have periods approximately equal to two-thirds of Jupiter's. In like manner the periods of D'Arrest's and Biela's comets correspond to the hiatus at 3.51, and that of 1867 II. to that at 3.277.

Of the thirteen telescopic comets whose periods correspond to mean distances within the asteroid zone, all have direct motion; all have inclinations similar to those of the minor planets; and their eccentricities are generally less than those of other known comets. Have these facts any significance in regard to their origin?

If Jupiter's influence was a factor in the separation of planetules at the sun's equator, may not similar clusters exist in other parts of our system? The hypothesis is certainly by no means improbable. For anything we know to the contrary a group may circulate between Jupiter and Saturn; such bodies, however, could not be discovered—at least not by ordinary telescopes—on account of their distance. The Zodiacal Light, it has been suggested, may be produced by a cloud of indefinitely small particles related to the planets between the sun and Mars. The rings of Saturn are merely a dense asteroidal cluster; and, finally, the phenomena of luminous meteors indicate the existence of small masses of matter moving with different velocities in interstellar space.

The general theory of cosmical rings and of their arrangement in sections or clusters with intervening chasms may be briefly stated in the following propositions:

Whenever the separating force of a primary body on a secondary or satellite is greater than the central attraction of the latter on its superficial stratum, the satellite, if either gaseous or liquid, will be transformed into a ring.

Examples.—Saturn's ring, and the meteoric rings of April 20, August 10, November 14, and November 27.

See Payne'sSidereal Messenger, April, 1885.

When a cosmical body is surrounded by a ring of considerable breadth, and has also exterior satellites at such distances that a simple relation of commensurability would obtain between the periods of these satellites and those of certain particles of the ring, the disturbing influence of the former will produce gaps or intervals in the ring so disturbed.

See "Meteoric Astronomy," Chapter XII.; also theProceedings of the American Philosophical Society, October 6, 1871; and theSidereal Messengerfor February, 1884; where the papers referred to assign a physical cause for the gaps in Saturn's ring.

FOOTNOTES:[1]The discoverer, Piazzi, was not, as has been so often affirmed, one of the astronomers to whom the search had been especially committed.[2]Massalia was discovered by De Gasparis, at Naples, Sept. 19, 1852, and independently, the next night, by Chacornac, at Marseilles. The name was given by the latter.[3]Astr. Nach., No. 932.[4]Monthly Notices, vol. xxvii.[5]Annals of the Obs. of Harv. Coll., 1879.[6]This ingenious idea may be readily extended. The least distance of Æthra is less than the present aphelion distance of Mars; and the maximum aphelion distance of the latter exceeds the perihelion distance of several known asteroids. Moreover, if we represent the orbits of the major planets, and also those of the comets of known periods, by material rings, it is easy to see that the major as well as the minor planets are all linked together in the manner suggested by D'Arrest.[7]The effects of Jupiter's disturbing influence will again be resumed.[8]Not only nebulæ are probably unstable, but also many of the sidereal systems. The Milky Way itself was so regarded by Sir William Herschel.[9]Menippe, No. 188, is placed in one of the gaps by its calculated elements; but the fact that it has not been seen since the year of its discovery, 1878, indicates a probable error in its elements.[10]The minor planet Andromache, immediately interior to the critical distance 3.51, has elements somewhat remarkable. With two exceptions, Æthra (132) and Istria (183), it has the greatest eccentricity (0.3571),—nearly equal to that of the comet 1867 II. at its last return. Its perihelion distance is 2.2880, its aphelion 4.7262; hence the distance from the perihelion to the aphelion of its orbit is greater than its least distance from the sun, and it crosses the orbits of all members of the group so far as known; its least distance from the sun being considerably less than the aphelion of Medusa, and its greatest exceeding the aphelion of Hilda.[11]The unit being the sun's distance from the earth.[12]Annuaire, 1886.

[1]The discoverer, Piazzi, was not, as has been so often affirmed, one of the astronomers to whom the search had been especially committed.

[2]Massalia was discovered by De Gasparis, at Naples, Sept. 19, 1852, and independently, the next night, by Chacornac, at Marseilles. The name was given by the latter.

[3]Astr. Nach., No. 932.

[4]Monthly Notices, vol. xxvii.

[5]Annals of the Obs. of Harv. Coll., 1879.

[6]This ingenious idea may be readily extended. The least distance of Æthra is less than the present aphelion distance of Mars; and the maximum aphelion distance of the latter exceeds the perihelion distance of several known asteroids. Moreover, if we represent the orbits of the major planets, and also those of the comets of known periods, by material rings, it is easy to see that the major as well as the minor planets are all linked together in the manner suggested by D'Arrest.

[7]The effects of Jupiter's disturbing influence will again be resumed.

[8]Not only nebulæ are probably unstable, but also many of the sidereal systems. The Milky Way itself was so regarded by Sir William Herschel.

[9]Menippe, No. 188, is placed in one of the gaps by its calculated elements; but the fact that it has not been seen since the year of its discovery, 1878, indicates a probable error in its elements.

[10]The minor planet Andromache, immediately interior to the critical distance 3.51, has elements somewhat remarkable. With two exceptions, Æthra (132) and Istria (183), it has the greatest eccentricity (0.3571),—nearly equal to that of the comet 1867 II. at its last return. Its perihelion distance is 2.2880, its aphelion 4.7262; hence the distance from the perihelion to the aphelion of its orbit is greater than its least distance from the sun, and it crosses the orbits of all members of the group so far as known; its least distance from the sun being considerably less than the aphelion of Medusa, and its greatest exceeding the aphelion of Hilda.

[11]The unit being the sun's distance from the earth.

[12]Annuaire, 1886.

Back to Index Next