r at any rate
whether the object supposed to have been seen by Cassini and other old
observers were a satellite, must be considered as decided in the
negative. That Cassini should have seen an object which Dawes and Webb
have failed to see must be considered utterly improbable.

Leaving the inferior planets, we come to a series of important and
interesting objects.

First we have the planet Mars, nearly the last in the scale of planetary
magnitude, but far from being the least interesting of the planets. It
is in fact quite certain that we obtain a better view of Mars than of
any object in the heavens, save the Moon alone. He may present a less
distinguished appearance than Jupiter or Saturn, but we see his surface
on a larger scale than that of either of those giant orbs, even if we
assume that we ever obtain a fair view of their real surface.

Nor need the moderately armed observer despair of obtaining interesting
views of Mars. The telescope with which Beer and Maedler made their
celebrated series of views was only a 4-inch one, so that with a 3-inch
or even a 2-inch aperture the attentive observer may expect interesting
views. In fact, more depends on the observer than on the instrument. A
patient and attentive scrutiny will reveal features which at the first
view wholly escape notice.

In Plate 6 I have given a series of views of Mars much more distinct
than an observer may expect to obtain with moderate powers. I add a
chart of Mars, a miniature of one I have prepared from a charming
series of tracings supplied me by Mr. Dawes. The views taken by this
celebrated observer in 1852, 1856, 1860, 1862, and 1864, are far better
than any others I have seen. The views by Beer and Maedler are good, as
are some of Secchi's (though they appear badly drawn), Nasmyth's and
Phillips'; Delarue's two views are also admirable; and Lockyer has given
a better set of views than any of the others. But there is an amount of
detail in Mr. Dawes' views which renders them superior to any yet taken.
I must confess I failed at a first view to see the full value of Mr.
Dawes' tracings. Faint marks appeared, which I supposed to be merely
intended to represent shadings scarcely seen. A more careful study
shewed me that every mark is to be taken as the representative of what
Mr. Dawes actually saw. The consistency of the views is perfectly
wonderful, when compared with the vagueness and inconsistency observable
in nearly all other views. An