| Time. | Latitude. ° ′ | Longitude. ° ′ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| March | 3 | 1873 | 79 | 13 | 69 | 32 |
| ” | 9 | ” | 79 | 19 | 68 | 28 |
| ” | 14 | ” | 79 | 20 | 68 | 28 |
| ” | 20 | ” | 79 | 33 | 68 | 52 |
| ” | 25 | ” | 79 | 23 | 67 | 17 |
| ” | 27 | ” | 79 | 15 | 67 | 29 |
| ” | 29 | ” | 79 | 14 | 67 | 35 |
| April | 2 | ” | 79 | 5 | 66 | 49 |
| ” | 3 | ” | 79 | 5 | 66 | 42 |
| ” | 7 | ” | 79 | 4 | — | |
| ” | 10 | ” | 79 | 12 | 68 | 1 |
| ” | 12 | ” | 79 | 19 | 67 | 43 |
| ” | 13 | ” | 79 | 20 | 67 | 40 |
| ” | 15 | ” | 79 | 14 | 67 | 0 |
| ” | 19 | ” | 79 | 18 | 65 | 51 |
| ” | 20 | ” | 79 | 19 | 65 | 37 |
| ” | 27 | ” | 79 | 13·5 | 64 | 37·0 |
| ” | 28 | ” | 79 | 12·2 | 64 | 41·8 |
| May | 1 | ” | 79 | 15·8 | 64 | 58·8 |
| ” | 2 | ” | 79 | 17·1 | 65 | 3·9 |
| ” | 6 | ” | 79 | 16·0 | 65 | 0·5 |
| ” | 10 | ” | 79 | 20·4 | 65 | 41·9 |
| ” | 11 | ” | 79 | 20·2 | 65 | 32·4 |
| ” | 13 | ” | 79 | 19·7 | 65 | 15·8 |
| ” | 14 | ” | 79 | 19·8 | 64 | 45·6 |
| ” | 16 | ” | 79 | 15·5 | 63 | 39·0 |
| ” | 17 | ” | 79 | 13·1 | 63 | 21·7 |
| ” | 22 | ” | 79 | 9·2 | 62 | 3·5 |
| ” | 29 | ” | 79 | 2·4 | 62 | 55·5 |
| ” | 30 | ” | 79 | 2·5 | 62 | 54·2 |
| ” | 31 | ” | 79 | 2·5 | 62 | 53·9 |
| June | 1 | ” | 79 | 2·4 | 62 | 43·2 |
| ” | 3 | ” | 79 | 0·4 | 62 | 29·7 |
| ” | 5 | ” | 79 | 1·3 | 62 | 24·8 |
| ” | 6 | ” | 79 | 1·1 | 62 | 20·2 |
| ” | 9 | ” | 79 | 5·4 | 61 | 31·4 |
| ” | 10 | ” | 79 | 5·3 | 61 | 23·6 |
| ” | 11 | ” | 79 | 4·3 | 61 | 21·3 |
| ” | 18 | ” | 79 | 6·6 | 61 | 5·2 |
| ” | 20 | ” | 79 | 8·6 | 61 | 2·8 |
| ” | 22 | ” | 79 | 9·2 | 60 | 54·9 |
| ” | 24 | ” | 79 | 8·4 | 60 | 31·8 |
| ” | 25 | ” | 79 | 11·2 | 60 | 14·6 |
| ” | 26 | ” | 79 | 13·3 | 59 | 55·3 |
| ” | 27 | ” | 79 | 13·7 | 59 | 46·0 |
| ” | 28 | ” | 79 | 15·5 | 59 | 35·4 |
| July | 3 | ” | 79 | 15·2 | 59 | 14·8 |
| ” | 4 | ” | 79 | 14·8 | 59 | 13·3 |
| ” | 8 | ” | 79 | 15·2 | 59 | 5·8 |
| ” | 10 | ” | 79 | 13·2 | 59 | 9·0 |
| ” | 15 | ” | 79 | 9·8 | 59 | 52·6 |
| ” | 18 | ” | 79 | 7·3 | 59 | 50·4 |
| ” | 19 | ” | 79 | 7·6 | 59 | 35·1 |
| ” | 20 | ” | 79 | 8·7 | 59 | 33·6 |
| ” | 21 | ” | 79 | 9·2 | 59 | 33·1 |
| ” | 22 | ” | 79 | 9·0 | 59 | 34·1 |
| ” | 23 | ” | 79 | 6·6 | 59 | 34·2 |
| ” | 24 | ” | 79 | 7·1 | 59 | 29·5 |
| ” | 25 | ” | 79 | 6·6 | 59 | 27·3 |
| ” | 31 | ” | 78 | 58·5 | 60 | 25·5 |
| August | 1 | ” | 78 | 56·9 | 60 | 40·6 |
| ” | 4 | ” | 79 | 0·4 | 61 | 6·2 |
| ” | 13 | ” | 79 | 25·4 | 61 | 6·6 |
| ” | 14 | ” | 79 | 24·5 | 61 | 16·3 |
| ” | 16 | ” | 79 | 27·8 | 61 | 7·6 |
| ” | 19 | ” | 79 | 29·1 | 61 | 31·0 |
| ” | 21 | ” | 79 | 31·3 | 61 | 44·8 |
| ” | 30 | ” | 79 | 43·0 | 60 | 23·7 |
| ” | 31 | ” | 79 | 42·5 | 60 | 5·6 |
| Sept. | 2 | ” | 79 | 40·2 | 60 | 32·9 |
| ” | 5 | ” | 79 | 41·3 | 60 | 12·5 |
| ” | 8 | ” | 79 | 34·2 | 59 | 47·3 |
| ” | 9 | ” | 79 | 33·6 | 59 | 45·9 |
| ” | 10 | ” | 79 | 32·2 | 59 | 53·1 |
| ” | 16 | ” | 79 | 45·6 | 61 | 30·5 |
| ” | 23 | ” | 79 | 49·6 | 61 | 58·1 |
| ” | 30 | ” | 79 | 58·3 | 60 | 41·1 |
| Oct. | 16 | ” | 79 | 54·6 | 60 | 34·7 |
| ” | 19 | ” | 79 | 53·9 | 60 | 40·6 |
| ” | 23 | ” | 79 | 44·5 | 60 | 7·9 |
| ” | 26 | ” | 79 | 44·3 | 59 | 17·1 |
| ” | 27 | ” | 79 | 44·0 | 59 | 14·1 |
| ” | 28 | ” | 79 | 43·8 | 59 | 6·6 |
| ” | 29 | ” | 79 | 44·8 | 59 | 9·8 |
| ” | 30 | ” | 79 | 49·0 | 58 | 59·9 |
| ” | 31 | ” | 79 | 50·6 | 58 | 53·7 |
| Ship in Land ice | 79 | 51·1 | 58 | 56·0 | ||
9. The meteorological observations of the expedition, and the course of the Tegetthoff have been ably analysed by Vice-Admiral Baron von Wüllersdorf-Urbair in the Mittheilungen of the Imperial Academy of Sciences of Vienna, and while I refer the curious reader to these reports for a fuller discussion of these questions, I subjoin the most important paragraphs of the Admiral’s report which concern the course of the Tegetthoff:—
“Under ordinary circumstances a ship drifts on with the floe; is imprisoned, and necessarily obeys the force of the wind and the sea-currents. Its course, consequently, corresponds to the combined effect of these forces. But, inasmuch as the Tegetthoff was not in the free sea, but was driven along for the greater part of the time in close pack-ice, the ship not only obeyed the general movement of the ice, which was dependent on the direction of the winds and currents of the sea, but was also influenced by its vicinity to coasts and by the greater or lesser accumulation of ice.
“In so far as the Tegetthoff with her hull and masts presented a greater surface to the wind, the floe, on which it was imprisoned, would necessarily receive an excess of movement in the direction of the wind. If this excess formed an angle with the direction of the movement of the ice, the ship’s floe would deviate to the side of the least resistance, and drift according to the resultant between wind and resistance. Thus it might be that the ship’s course deviated from the wind, even in a direction opposed to it. But these anomalies certainly were not great, and could not well be estimated, because the deviations which thus arose depended on the direction of the wind, on the density and mass of the ice, on causes, in fact, which could not be exhibited under numerical relations.
“If we compare the statements, as given in the Meteorological Journal,[21] concerning the ice-drift and ice-pressures, it is seen that the maximum of both occurred in those parts of the sea in which the ship was within the action of the ice coming from the Sea of Kara, and that the greatest deviations in the ship’s course necessarily happened there.
“With respect to another abnormal deviation in the ship’s course, it cannot be doubted that this depended on the vicinity of Franz-Josef Land, towards which the masses of ice drifted under the action of continuous south-west winds; and were again driven back, thus forming a circle in their movement. It would seem natural to assume the existence of a sea-current in order to explain this peculiarity; but the configuration of that land and its coasts, or the greater or lesser amount of immovable ice, or, lastly, the prevailing winds in those regions, may have influenced the direction of the movement of the ice, and consequently of the ship’s course.
“If we consider the prevalence of winds, as furnished by Weyprecht’s observations for more than two years, we find south-west winds prevailing in the southern part of the seas that were navigated, and north-east winds in the northern part of those seas.
“If the sea to the east of Franz-Josef Land should not be broken by larger groups of islands, or by masses of land, but be a vast range of ocean, the winds would be free from the influence of land, and blow in a north-easterly direction, and exhibit, so to speak, the phenomenon of a Polar north-east trade wind. If it should be the case that north-east winds prevail to the north of the 78th or 79th degree of north latitude, and, at the same time, south-west winds to the south of that same degree, the notion of a sea-current must be dismissed, and a revolving movement in the ice assumed, in the opposite direction to the hands of a clock. The observations of Weyprecht on these winds establish their circulatory character. The curve of deviation in the course of the Tegetthoff seems to be in harmony with this assumption. But these suppositions cannot be accepted, until observations be made on the winds to the south of 79° N. L. at the same season of the year with those which were so successfully made by Weyprecht to the north of this degree.
“The following arguments, however, would seem to favour the supposition of the existence of a sea-current. The curve at the commencement of its deviation corresponds pretty nearly with the direction which the Gulf Stream would take after passing round Norway, and in its further course with that current, which comes out of the Sea of Kara between Novaya Zemlya and Cape Taimyr, and which undoubtedly exists, though its course has to be more accurately determined.