I suppose the question whether Venus has a satellite, or 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.  And this consistency is not shown by mere resemblance, which might have been an effect rather of memory (unconsciously exerted) than observation.  The same feature changes so much in figure, as it appears on different parts of the disc, that it was sometimes only on a careful projection of different views that I could determine what certain features near the limb represented.  But when this had been done, and the distortion through the effect of foreshortening corrected, the feature was found to be as true in shape as if it had been seen in the centre of the planet’s disc.