other astronomers before any rumour of Schiaparelli's work had come abroad, and as Mars came under observation again and again at successive oppositions, the number of those who were able to verify Schiaparelli's discoveries increased. It has now long been known that the great Italian astronomer was not the victim of a mere optical illusion; there were actual markings on the planet Mars where he had represented them; markings which, when seen under like conditions and with equal instrumental equipment, did present the appearance of straight, narrow lines. The "canals of Mars" are not mere figments of the imagination, but have a real objective basis. As this controversy has passed away, another and a very different one has arisen out of an unfortunate mistranslation of the term chosen by Schiaparelli to indicate these linear streaks. In conformity with the type of nomenclature adopted by previous areographers who had divided Mars into "seas," "continents," "islands," "isthmuses," "straits" and the like, Schiaparelli had called the narrow lines he detected "_canali_", that is to say "channels," but without intending to convey the idea of artificial construction. Indeed, he himself was careful to point out that these designations "were not intended to prejudge the nature of the spot, and were nothing but an artifice for helping the memory and for shortening descriptions." And he added, "We speak in the same way of the lunar seas, although we well know that there are no true seas on the Moon." But "_canali_" was unhappily rendered in English as "canals," instead of "channels." "Channel" would have left the nature of the marking an open question, but, in English, "canal" means an artificial waterway. Here then the question as to whether or no Mars is inhabited comes definitely before us. Have we sufficient grounds for believing that the "canals" are artificial constructions, or may they be merely natural formations?