Quote:
Originally Posted by Enchilada
Thanks. I now see the origin of the problem here. Mr. Bryant has made this very same error before. Again he has not gone into the detailed research, as the role of Royer has been perpetuated since Englishman Basil Brown in 1932 ("Astronomical Atlases, Maps and Charts. Pub. Search Publishing (London)" boldly claimed the origin of Crux (actually Crux Australis) was Royer.
|
I've recently read Greg's article in question appearing in the current issue of AS&T. Considering the single page article, I would honestly now concede his comment was reasonable in its context. If any slight criticism were to be made, then the words "probably" or "likely" would have been preferable rather than speaking in absolute terms.
The true origin of the constellation of Crux is certainly an interesting one, and its debate will likely continue into the future. At least here, southern hemisphere knowledge is important to spread the word. Greg Bryant, overall, does a pretty good job in AS&T doing this kind of general education. I'd encourage him to do more...
