alarm is already sounded that in the no distant future an appalling
catastrophe may threaten her in the failure of her water supply. In a
special despatch to the "New York Herald," Mr. Bently, president of
the Royal Meteorological Society, is quoted as saying at its Annual
Meeting, "So enormous now is the drain upon the country's available
supplies, so much have the growth of cities, the disappearance of
forested areas, the extent of street surface impervious to moisture,
and the diversion of the rivers, lakes, and other natural fresh water
reservoirs from their natural function of irrigators and distributors
of the all essential moisture to the land interfered in England with
nature's arrangements, that English engineers and meteorologists at no
distant date may find a task of almost insuperable difficulty awaiting
their endeavors."
Dr. Mill, a rainfall expert, on being consulted by a "Daily Mail"
correspondent regarding this alarming statement, was of the opinion
that the question would require early consideration. We quote his words
as follows: "Legislation is needed in the immediate future for the
regulation of the rivers. The great question is how to store the water
which at present runs to waste on the coasts."
"The planting of trees on the high water-sheds is one of the first
solutions of the problem. The chief difficulty lies in the scarcity
of suitable land available for building large reservoirs, and at some
future date the services of engineers will be required to reform the
present arrangement of reservoirs."
"In Austria the government issues an annual report on the condition
of the Danube and detailed statistics of the rainfall, with a view
to storing all the available water supplies. The work done by the
Austrian government I am doing in regard to the British Isles on my own
responsibility, but the rainfall and the river conditions are only a
portion of a much larger problem."
The above quotations indicate that even now an alarm is felt in
countries of fair rainfall regarding the possible failure of the water
supply in the near future and is perhaps a premonition as to what may
be absorbing our energies in centuries to come. Such possibilities as
here suggested may offer an additional clew to an interpretation of the
Martian markings.
The unnatural straightness of these interlacing lines on Mars,
many of them following the arcs of great circles, their uniform
width throughout, their always starting from definite areas,
their convergence to common centres, and their varying visibility
synchronizing with the Martian seasons finds no parallel in natural
phenomena.
If in the mind's eye we were to survey the Earth from Mars the only
feature we should find at all paralleling the lines in Mars would be
found in the level regions of the West, where, for thousands of miles,
the land extends in vast level stretches. In these regions would be
found lines of railroads running in straight courses, starting from
definite places, converging to common centres, their sides, in certain
seasons, conspicuous with ripening grain fields, or again the work of
the United States Reclamation Bureau running its irrigating canals in
various directions through that great region. Both these kinds of lines
would be artificial and both designed for purposes of conveyance--in
the one case, merchandise and passengers, in the other case, water.
If the Martian lines are not artificial some other theories must be
offered than those thus far advanced to explain their origin and
purpose.
The phenomenon of the extraordinary doubling of the canals when first
announced was immediately disbelieved; when, however, other observers
confirmed Schiaparelli's discoveries, and it became evident that these
double lines had a veritable existence, the phenomenon was regarded as
an evidence that profound physical changes were going on in the planet.
Thus in 1887 Mr. Stanislaus Maunier, in "La Nature,"[6] in alluding to
the remarkable discovery of the doubling of the canals, says: "Mars at
this moment is the theatre of phenomena of stupendous grandeur which
will be adequate in a few years to impress profound changes in its
aspect." This was written in 1887, and continuous observations of the
planet since that time have shown no profound changes, or changes of
any kind beyond those which periodically occur with the seasons. Since
Mars is a much older planet than the Earth, it seems reasonable to
believe that it is more stable, that volcanoes and earthquakes have
long ceased to manifest their activities, that erosive action by water
is no longer in evidence, subsidence and elevation of continental areas
no longer occur. From this condition of the planet it is impossible to
believe that the curious phenomenon of the doubling or gemination of
the canals can be due to any physical changes now taking place.
Schiaparelli said that many of the ingenious suppositions advanced to
account for this doubling of the canals would not have been proposed
had their authors been able to examine the gemination with their own
eyes; he further says: "It is far easier to explain the gemination if
we are willing to introduce the forces pertaining to organic nature;
here the field of plausible supposition is immense," and in this field
of suppositions he suggests "changes of vegetation over vast areas."
Let any intelligent mind soberly consider this rational suggestion
of Schiaparelli's and compare it with other theories that have been
advanced, and he will be compelled to admit that vegetation alone gives
us at least a clew to the extraordinary behavior of these parallel
lines. To understand the symmetry, the suddenness, and the vast extent
of this phenomenon, the further explanation of vegetation superinduced
by artificial methods will alone complete the answer.
Sir Robert Ball cannot conceive how Mars, a much older planet, should
develop synchronously with the Earth creatures of intelligence, an
event which he insists should have occurred ages earlier in its
history. In this supposition he is quite right, for if there are
creatures of intelligence in Mars these should have appeared much
earlier, and that is probably what has happened. The problem is one
parallel to that urged by Sir Boyd Dawkins in regard to the evidences
of man in the Tertiary rocks. Dawkins argued that since the mammals in
the Tertiary had changed so profoundly, many types becoming extinct,
if man had lived at that time he also should have been affected by
the same influences, and should have changed accordingly. It has been
clearly pointed out by Cope and others that the moment intelligence
became a factor in natural selection it was seized upon to the relative
exclusion of physical characteristics, hence but little change,
otherwise than an intellectual one, has taken place in man since his
progenitors took to the trees and made up by agility, cunning, and
alertness what they lacked in physical strength. In the same way,
if, in the past history of Mars, an intelligent creature appeared he
must have survived under precisely similar conditions, and long after
favorable environments had passed that were implicated in making him
what he was.
Admitting that there is an intelligent creature of some kind in Mars,
is it reasonably conceivable that he should have caused such changes
in the surface features of that planet as to be visible from the
Earth? Professor Newcomb concludes, in a recent article in "Harper's
Magazine," that "we cannot expect to see any signs of the works of
inhabitants in Mars, if such exist." Let us, however, reverse the
proposition and ask ourselves if man has been implicated in any changes
in the surface appearance of the Earth that would be visible from
Mars? And I think the question can be answered in only one way. The
vast cities such as Pekin, Tokio, London, and New York, with their
great expanse of tiled and slated roofs, and sterile streets, would
certainly have a different albedo from the grass and trees in the
immediate outskirts of such places. The tracts of land reclaimed from
the sea, and still more the enormous areas which have been rendered
green by irrigation, must, of all contrasts, be markedly conspicuous.
To realize the extent of this work, it is only necessary to state that
in Egypt 6,000,000 acres depend upon irrigation, and this area to be
vastly increased in a short time; the Western states of America with
10,000,000 acres, and this area being rapidly augmented by the work
of the United States Reclamation Bureau; in India 25,000,000 acres
under irrigation, and this being continually added to; above all,
however, the vast extent of territory from which the dark forests have
been removed in this country, and more particularly in China, must
make a visible landmark. If one can recall the appearance of forests
in the southern and middle part of Maine, say from Bethel or Bangor,
fifty years ago, he will remember that from the top of any hill a
stretch of dark blue forest was to be seen as far as the eye could
reach, and now from the same elevations one can see only an occasional
clump of blue forest, while the remaining surface is, according to
the season, either bright green, yellow with ripening vegetation, or
white with snow, out of which the dark clumps of forest growth are most
conspicuous. Considering the contrasting colors in one year covering
hundreds of thousands of square miles in various portions of the
country, the question naturally arises which of these contrasts would
be most conspicuous,--the colors just mentioned of solid land surfaces
of vegetation, snow, and desert, or diaphanous clouds with their gray
shadows. We are told that Jupiter, with the mean distance at opposition
of nearly 400,000,000 miles, shows its clouds, its red spot, and the
shadow transits of its satellites. Surely if these conditions are seen
from the Earth, the changes in the Earth's appearance above described
might be seen from Mars, which at its nearest opposition is only
35,000,000 miles away, and, conversely, any change of similar character
in Mars would certainly be visible from the Earth.
X
COMMENTS AND CRITICISM
_Nothing is more difficult and requires more caution than
philosophical deduction, nor is there anything more adverse
to its accuracy than fixity of opinion._
FARADAY.
It will be of interest to examine the writings of certain astronomers,
and writers on astronomy, to appreciate the unreasonable conservatism,
not to say narrow-mindedness, which color their opinions. It ill
becomes students of science to ridicule the honest and persistent
labors of such men as Schiaparelli, Lowell, Perrotin, and others,
unless they can show an equal devotion to the work. They do not recall
the deluge of essays, reviews, and sober treatises which followed
Darwin's great work, viewing the evidences of Darwin not thoughtfully,
nor based upon any knowledge of the subject, but with contempt, and,
in many instances, with vituperation. So rapid, however, was the
recognition of Darwin's interpretation of Nature's facts that most
of these writers lived long enough to see their protests entirely
discredited, or to become enthusiastic advocates of the theory.
In their own domain of astronomy these writers are equally forgetful of
the earnest and even bitter controversies regarding the demonstration
by Chandler of the oscillation of the poles, and consequent variation
of latitude, and the final establishment of Chandler's views, in the
teeth of opposition, by the greatest astronomers.
The character of this irrelevant and adverse criticism may be
appreciated by subjoining a few examples. The most amazing of all these
expressions is to be found in the report of the British Astronomical
Association, for 1892. It seems that a committee had been appointed by
the Association to report on the surface features of Mars. E. Walter
Maunder was made Director of the Committee. Twenty-six observers,
of whom twenty-one were inhabitants of Great Britain, sent in the
result of their work accompanied by drawings. A summary of this work
was published in the form of memoranda accompanied by a Mercator
projection map of Mars, individual planisphere drawings, as well as
colored plates; these together represented twenty-eight single canals,
five double canals, nine oases, as well as the dark regions so long
familiar to astronomers. This was a somewhat remarkable contribution
considering the complaints from the different observers in regard to
the weather, and the prejudiced, and negligent part played by the man
at the helm. That I am not unjust in these statements may be understood
by quoting from the report showing the conditions under which the
English observers labored, the delinquent part which Mr. Maunder,
the Director, played in the matter, and the conclusions which Mr.
Maunder arrived at after this unsatisfactory performance. He says:
"The opposition of 1892 proved on the whole a very disappointing one.
Although Mars at opposition was almost at its nearest approach to the
Earth, it was far from being well placed for observation by European
astronomers owing to its great southerly declination, and consequent
low altitude.[7] The weather during the autumn of 1892 was for the most
part very unfavorable for observation of so difficult an object, and
several members who joined the section at the beginning were unable to
contribute either drawings or report."
Now I beg the reader to carefully note the part the Director played
in this important work. Here are his words; there is no need of
italicizing them. "None of the few evenings which the Director was able
to give to the examination of the planet was really suitable for the
purpose, and as the pressure of other duties rendered it impossible
for him to supply any detailed help to the members, the section was
at a very serious disadvantage." He certainly is frank enough to
state the disadvantages the section was under with such a man at the
head. Realizing the conditions of seeing in the fog and soot-begrimed
atmosphere of England, the low altitude of Mars, and the loss to
the committee of the assistance which a Director might have given
to the work had he been able to approach the subject in a broad and
unprejudiced manner, one is naturally led to ask what this committee
would have accomplished if each member in turn had had an opportunity
of observing Mars at a high altitude with a twenty-four inch refractor
of remarkable definition, at an elevation of 7,000 feet above the
sea-level, in an atmosphere so clear and steady that stars of the third
and fourth magnitude may be seen to set at the horizon line.
Mr. Maunder in speaking of the nomenclature used in his report says,
"The term 'canal' has also been retained, though 'canals' in the sense
of being artificial productions, the markings of Mars which bear that
name, are certainly not. It is difficult, indeed, to understand how
so preposterous an idea obtained currency for a moment even by the
most ignorant." It is impossible to repress one's amazement at these
expressions after the confessions he makes as to his official functions
on the committee, and I appeal to any honest and unprejudiced mind if
a more incompetent person of the class to which he belongs could have
been found in England for the Directorship of such a body. In this
connection we cannot refrain from giving a few paragraphs from a paper
entitled "Can Organic Life Exist in the Planetary System?" by C. A.
Stetefeldt. The author says: "We must, however, acknowledge that if
other suns in the universe have planets--and there is no reason why
they should not--many of them may present physical conditions identical
with, or similar to, those existing on the Earth, and that therefore
their organic life may be similar to our own. Further, I am far from
denying that, under favorable circumstances, creatures may be evolved
upon planets which revolve around other suns, whose mental capacity is
as much superior to man's as that of the latter is to the lowest form
of vertebrates." Having made these liberal admissions in regard to the
universe at large he attempts to show that none of the planets outside
the Earth could sustain life, and finally closes in this extraordinary
manner: "In concluding this investigation we cannot help admiring the
inductive acumen of the theologians who considered the Earth the most
important of the planets, and the centre of creation. Although their
opinions were not based upon scientific facts, they _arrived at the
truth nevertheless_." (Italics ours.) Familiar as every one is with
the attitude of theologians for the last several centuries concerning
astronomical discovery I think it may be safely said that this is
the first instance on record where they have been credited with an
induction not based on observed facts worth quoting in an astronomical
paper. And this contribution also appeared in the publications of the
"Astronomical Society of the Pacific," Volume VI, No. 25, without a
word of comment! How different was the behavior of the "Journal" when
a report of Percival Lowell's lecture on Mars, written by Dr. Edward
Everett Hale, was reproduced in its pages. The following comments were
made by Edward S. Holden, then Director of the Lick Observatory:
"Something is seen, no doubt, but I may add that nothing has been
observed at the Lick Observatory during the years 1888-1895, so far
as I know, which goes to confirm the very striking conclusions here
described." It may be added that during the years 1888-1892 nothing was
seen of the fifth moon of Jupiter. The discovery of this satellite with
the Lick telescope was not due to any special efforts on the part of
the Director.
The Rev. E. Ledger, "Nineteenth Century Magazine," Volume LIII, 1903,
p. 773, in an article entitled "The Canals of Mars--Are they Real?"
presents an excellent account of the successive observers of Mars,
and the results of their work, and the objections of those who could
not see the canals, or saw them imperfectly. He recalls Maunder's
childish experiments, and is greatly impressed by them. He then
says: "Astronomers are no doubt very well acquainted with the laws
of optics as applied to the eye. They have made, and may yet make,
many experiments connected with their action. They are accustomed to
allow for individual peculiarities in observation, as, for instance,
when what is termed personal equation affects the rapidity with which
different observers touch a key to record what they see. They may
therefore skilfully judge of the effect produced in observations of
Mars by such processes of the eye, or of the brain, or nervous system
as I have referred to." He strongly thinks it would be well "if some
skilful nerve specialist and oculist could work in conjunction with
some of these practised observers who have seen the canals. They might
both assist in observing, and at the same time carry out careful
researches into the optical delusions which brain or eye may experience
in connection with telescopic observation." This is certainly a happy
thought of the reverend author, only it would seem in this case that a
larger and more diversified corps of specialists, including alienists,
is needed to attend to that class of astronomers who are suffering with
mental strabismus. It might be advisable to call in the services of
a bacteriologist to make cultures of new forms of microbes which may
be involved in rendering a man incapable of estimating the value of
evidence.
It is the exception rather than the rule in astronomical science that
one finds such unfounded and prejudiced utterances as those above
commented upon. The glamour of astrology still lingers, in the public
eye in its respect and awe for the astronomer's work. Every eclipse
seems in the nature of a prophecy. The public contributes liberally
for the support of eclipse expeditions, observatories, and the like,
and these contributions would be still more liberal if the public
could realize the profound significance of the researches now being
carried on by Director Pickering at Harvard, Director Campbell at Lick,
Director Hale at the Solar Observatory, Mount Wilson, and many others.
Their observations are received without question. The thoughtful
man would only ask that like credence should be given to the work
of every earnest student unless disproved, even though the field of
investigation covers regions hitherto but little explored, and yet of
the very greatest interest to the human race.
XI
ATMOSPHERE AND MOISTURE
_If in any planet we could detect the traces of vegetable
life it would at once be a strong argument for the
existence of animals there and vice versa._
HENRY DRAPER.
Schiaparelli points out that "the polar snows of Mars prove in an
incontrovertible manner that the planet, like the Earth, is surrounded
by an atmosphere capable of transporting vapor from one place to
another." Mr. E. E. Barnard, in the "Astrophysical Journal," Volume
XVII, No. 4, in speaking of the polar caps, says: "There seems no
definite proof that they are not as much ice and snow as that which we
have to deal with in our own terrestrial winters. So much is at least
suggested by the great seasonal changes they undergo from winter to
summer. There seems to be a general belief now that Mars certainly has
an atmosphere. This atmosphere seems to be very much less than our own,
and yet it is of sufficient density to produce the phenomena of the
polar caps by condensation and evaporation and also to produce, though
rarely, some form of clouds."
Among those who have claimed to have established the existence of water
vapor in Mars by the spectroscope are Rutherford, Secchi, Huggins,
Janssen, and Vogel; and these declare the existence of a Martian
atmosphere similar to our own in composition. Mr. Campbell can find no
spectroscopic indication of an atmosphere charged with water vapor.
Lewis E. Jewell says: "The spectroscopic proof of the presence of a
fair amount of water in the atmosphere of Mars must be regarded as
unattainable." Professor Lowell, despite the aid the admission of
water vapor in Mars would give to his position, also doubts whether
the spectroscope is able to detect the evidence through our own
moisture-laden atmosphere.
After a minute and exhaustive study of the polar snow caps by the
combined observations of Lowell, Douglass and W. H. Pickering, Mr.
Lowell says: "It is interesting that the cap should so simply tell us
of these three important things: the presence of air, the presence of
water, and the presence of a temperature, not incomparable with that of
the Earth."
Seasonal changes on Mars have long been recognized and admitted
by astronomers, and these changes are on so vast a scale as to be
distinctly visible from the earth. Without an atmosphere the surface
of Mars would be inert. Schiaparelli was the first to notice that at
successive oppositions the same regions showed different degrees of
darkness and accounted for these variations by seasonal change. Mr.
Denning believes that certain changes in the appearance of the markings
to be due to vaporous condensations. Sir Norman Lockyer believed he
saw the obscuration of a large region by clouds, this obscuration
continuing for some hours. A bright spot on the terminator of Mars,
discovered by Douglass at the Lowell Observatory, and which led to the
newspaper excitement that signals were being made, was seen to move
and finally disappear and its appearance, drift and disappearance is
interpreted by Lowell as a cloud illuminated by the Sun and carried
along by the wind. The presence of clouds, judging from my own brief
experience, was certainly suggested at times by the peculiar way in
which a large region known as Syrtis Major disappeared and flashed
out again. This behavior might be expected of the tenuous lines as a
result of refraction and other disturbances in our own atmosphere;
when, however, a large, dark region at one time stands out firm,
clear and sharp-cut as the stroke of a Japanese brush, then gradually
fades out and remains obscure for some time we are inclined to believe
that Sir Norman Lockyer's interpretation is true and that in such a
case drifting clouds or sudden vaporous condensation produced the
obscuration.