All of these explanations proceed upon the assumption that Eros cannot have a simple globular figure like that of a typical planet, a figure which is prescribed by the law of gravitation, but that its shape is what may be called accidental; in a word, it is a _fragment,_ for it seems impossible to believe that a body formed in interplanetary space, either through nebular condensation or through the aggregation of particles drawn together by their mutual attractions, should not be practically spherical in shape. Nor is Eros the only asteroid that gives evidence by variations of brilliancy that there is something abnormal in its constitution; several others present the same phenomenon in varying degrees. Even Vesta was regarded by Olbers as sufficiently variable in its light to warrant the conclusion that it was an angular mass instead of a globe. Some of the smaller ones show very notable variations, and all in short periods, of three or four hours, suggesting that in turning about one of their axes they present a surface of variable extent toward the sun and the earth. The theory which some have preferred—that the variability of light is due to the differences of reflective power on different parts of the surface—would, if accepted, be hardly less suggestive of the origin of these little bodies by the breaking up of a larger one, because the most natural explanation of such differences would seem to be that they arose from variations in the roughness or smoothness of the reflecting surface, which would be characteristic of fragmentary bodies. In the case of a large planet alternating expanses of land and water, or of vegetation and desert, would produce a notable variation in the amount of reflection, but on bodies of the size of the asteroids neither water nor vegetation could exist, and an atmosphere would be equally impossible.