The emission lines observed in stellar spectra differ more widely among themselves than do the absorption lines, and theory has so far been less successful in suggesting the physical conditions under which they may arise.[117] The appearance of the bright-line flash spectrum of the sun, from a region that gives no appreciable continuous spectrum, is of interest in comparing emission and absorption lines. It is fairly obvious that if the source of the flash spectrum had the photosphere behind it, the bright line would appear as absorption lines—which is indeed the case when the sun is ordinarily observed. Russell assigns both the Fraunhofer lines and part of the flash spectrum to the same region, namely the upper reversing layer. The high-level flash is, of course, assigned to the lower chromosphere. The difference between absorption and narrow emission is, as was pointed out in an earlier paragraph, purely a matter of contrast. There has, however, been no satisfactory explanation of how the phenomenon displayed by an ordinary emission line can be produced—an atom that re-emits in some wave-length more light than it receives in that wave-length. Some form of “fluorescent” emission would seem to be involved, and the question is evidently an important one for spectrum theory. The chief types of emission are found in (a) the long period variables at maximum, (b) the emission stars, (c) the stars, including the Wolf-Rayet stars. All these stars are apparently very luminous.[118] Emission is also found in some late dwarfs—for example the and lines are reversed in the spectrum of [Pg 54] 61 Cygni,[119] and doubly reversed in the solar spectrum. Furthermore the spectra of gaseous nebulae are almost entirely composed of emission lines; and completely abnormal types of stars, with spectra partly or wholly composed of emission lines, might also be mentioned, notably the novae,[120] Carinae,[121] Merrill’s “iron star,”[122] Z Andromedae,[123] and[124] B. D.+11°4673. The conditions under which bright lines appear vary so widely that a single theory is manifestly inadequate to account for the phenomenon in every case. FOOTNOTES: [92] Ap. J., 59, 197, 1924. [93] Ibid. [94] H. H. Plaskett, Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 2, 258, 1923. [95] C. G. Abbot, Ap. J., 60, 87, 1924. [96] Baillaud, C. R., 178, 1604, 1923. [97] The Sun, 1911. [98] Potsdam Pub., 66, 1913. [99] Lindblad, Upps. Univ. Arsskr., 1, 1920. [100] Milne, Phil. Trans., 223A, 201, 1922. [101] Milne, M. N. R. A. S., 81, 362 and 381, 1921. [102] H. H. Plaskett, Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 2, 213, 1923. [103] Observatory, 47, 160, 1924. [104] H. C. 263, 1924. [105] Hubble, Mt. W. Contr. 241, 1922. [106] Milne, M. N. R. A. S., 84, 354, 1924. [107] Chapter III, p. 38. [108] Sitz. d. Pr. Ak. d. Wiss., 47, 1183, 1914. [109] A. N., 195, 117, 1913. [110] The Sun, 251, 1911. [111] Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 1, 325, 1922. [112] Pub. Dom. Ap. Obs., 2, 213, 1923. [113] A. N., 220, 326, 1924.