Mr. Pickering's Suggestion.
The best clue to a natural interpretation of the strange features of the surface of Mars is that suggested by the American astronomer Mr. W.H. Pickering in Popular Astronomy (1904). Briefly it is, that both the 'canals' of Mars and the rifts as well as the luminous streaks on the moon are cracks in the volcanic crust, caused by internal stresses due to the action of the heated interior. These cracks he considers to be symmetrically arranged with regard to small 'craterlets' (Mr. Lowell's 'oases') because they have originated from them, just as the white streaks on the moon radiate from the larger craters as centres. He further supposes that water and carbon-dioxide issue from the interior into these fissures, and, in conjunction with sunlight, promote the growth of vegetation. Owing to the very rare atmosphere, the vapours, he thinks, would not ascend but would roll down the outsides of the craterlets and along the borders of the canals, thus irrigating the immediate vicinity and serving to promote the growth of some form of vegetation which renders the canals and oases visible.[13]
[Footnote 13: Nature, vol. 70, p. 536.]
This opinion is especially important because, next to Mr. Lowell, Mr. Pickering is perhaps the astronomer who has given most attention to Mars during the last fifteen years. He was for some time at Flagstaff with Mr. Lowell, and it was he who discovered the oases or craterlets, and who originated the idea that we did not see the 'canals' themselves but only the vegetable growth on their borders. He also observed Mars in the Southern Hemisphere at Arequipa; and he has since made an elaborate study of the moon by means of a specially constructed telescope of 135 feet focal length, which produced a direct image on photographic plates nearly 16 inches in diameter.[14]
[Footnote 14: Nature, vol. 70, May 5, p.xi, supplement.]
It is clear therefore that Mr. Lowell's views as to the artificial nature of the 'canals' of Mars are not accepted by an astronomer of equal knowledge and still wider experience. Yet Professor Pickering's alternative view is more a suggestion than an explanation, because there is no attempt to account for the enormous length and perfect straightness of the lines on Mars, so different from anything that is found either on our earth or on the moon. There must evidently be some great peculiarity of structure or of conditions on Mars to account for these features, and I shall now attempt to point out what this peculiarity is and how it may have arisen.
The Meteoritic Hypothesis.
During the last quarter of a century a considerable change has come over the opinions of astronomers as regards the probable origin of the Solar System. The large amount of knowledge of the stellar universe, and especially of nebulae, of comets and of meteor-streams which we now possess, together with many other phenomena, such as the constitution of Saturn's rings, the great number and extent of the minor planets, and generally of the vast amount of matter in the form of meteor-rings and meteoric dust in and around our system, have all pointed to a different origin for the planets and their satellites than that formulated by Laplace as the Nebular hypothesis.
It is now seen more clearly than at any earlier period, that most of the planets possess special characteristics which distinguish them from one another, and that such an origin as Laplace suggested—the slow cooling and contraction of one vast sun-mist or nebula, besides presenting inherent difficulties—many think them impossibilities—in itself does not afford an adequate explanation of these peculiarities. Hence has arisen what is termed the Meteoritic theory, which has been ably advocated for many years by Sir Norman Lockyer, and with some unimportant modifications is now becoming widely accepted. Briefly, this theory is, that the planets have been formed by the slow aggregation of solid particles around centres of greatest condensation; but as many of my readers may be altogether unacquainted with it, I will here give a very clear statement of what it is, from Professor J.W. Gregory's presidential address to the Geological Section of the British Association of the present year. He began by saying that these modern views were of far more practical use to men of science than that of Laplace, and that they give us a history of the world consistent with the actual records of geology. He then continues:
"According to Sir Norman Lockyer's Meteoritic Hypothesis, nebulae, comets, and many so-called stars consist of swarms of meteorites which, though normally cold and dark, are heated by repeated collisions, and so become luminous. They may even be volatilised into glowing meteoric vapour; but in time this heat is dissipated, and the force of gravity condenses a meteoritic swarm into a single globe. 'Some of the swarms are,' says Lockyer, 'truly members of the solar system,' and some of these travel round the sun in nearly circular orbits, like planets. They may be regarded as infinitesimal planets, and so Chamberlain calls them 'planetismals.'