82 MEMOIRS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES. 



for the solutiou. For the difference ffCoronce — aCoronm for the epoch of 1690 is indeed /ia= — 

 !■" 10» aud Jc?=+4°39'. 



Baily found in the original MS. entry the statement that "Mr. Clowes alone made the obser- 

 vation." In the short interval of 1" 11= between the transits of the two stars, Mr. Clowes had 

 scarcely the time, with writing and noting the clock, to make both the readings. Probably he 

 contented himself with the striw cochlece reading, but in the haste made a mistake of 100 units. 

 Modeled from the wrong figure. .532.06, arose afterwards, it seems, the strange zenit distance in 

 the column j^er tineas diagonales. 



19) B. Fl. 2335 (5"). 



In the Catalogus Britanuicus, in the third volume of the Historia Ccelestis, on page 53, the 55th 

 star of Hercules is united with the 54th by a circumflex, with a figure for the magnitude common 

 to both. This, together with what Baily (in the note to No. 2335) says of the MSS., shows that 

 Flamsteed considered them as one aud the same star. The single observation, of the zeuit 

 distance only, on April 8, 1703, is probably nothing but a repeated measure of the preceding 

 zenit distance, which is of 54 Herculis. The number 55 Herculis, therefore, must be stricken out 

 in the catalogue; it cannot be counted in the class of "observed and disappeared" stars. 



20). B. Fl. 2441 (6"). 



The star, that in the British Catalogue passes under the name of 65 Ophiuchi. could not be 

 found by Piazzi; and Airy, who, at Baily's request, looked out for it, had no better success. In 

 the observation of 1691, May 6. probably a mistake was made in both the co-ordinates. If we 

 correct the clock time by +1'" (perhaps better still by +1'" 10^) aud the zenit distance by — 50', 

 i. e., if Historia Coelestis, II, page 112, for 14'' lO"' 58% we read 14" 11"' 58^ (or perhaps 14'' 12'" 8=) 

 aud for 69° 24' 30" . . . . 68° 34' 30", the place is in perfect harmony with G Sagittarii. 

 Indeed, by determining the constants from 15 other stars observed on that day, I find when 

 applying the proposed corrections, 



the observed place, reduced to 1690.0: 17" 43'" 14= (or 24');— 17° 5' 52", while 6 Sagittarii, as 

 derived from Miidler's Bradley, is for the same epoch: 17'' 43"" 24«; —17° 5' 58". 



The only difliculty remaining is to find an explanation for the figures of the column per strias 

 cochlea, which would have to be altered into 1554.62 about. But the agreement resulting from the 

 very simple and unstrained changes projjosed is so close, and on the whole the siuirious place 

 so near to the corrected one, that about the identity with 6 Sagittarii there can scarcely be a 

 doubt. The number 65 Ophiuchi, therefore, must be erased from the Catalogue. 



21) B. Fl. 3150 (T-"). 



Flamsteed's star 80 Aquarii has often been observed in more recent times. In the catalogues 

 it is : LL. 45022, Pi. 22''.279, W. 22''.1133, E. 10795, Lam. 4695, Glasgow 6039. All these indi- 

 cate no pronounced proper motion, aud give 



the position for 1690.0: 22" 45"' 27^8; —6° 21' 58" 

 No. 3150 of the Brit. Cat. is : 22" 44"' 30«; —6° 22' 35" 

 so that it is clear the star exists, but Flamsteed's time of transit was 1"' in error, and the Cat- 

 alogue right ascension must be increased by +15'. 



The name 80 Aquarii should be reinstated in modern catalogues, lor ex. to Heis. No. 99. I 

 do not find that the star has been reobserved at Greenwich sintje Flauisteed's time. 



22) B. Fl. 3213 (6"). 



There is no trace of actual observations for the position of 3 Cassiopew, which seems to have 

 originated, as we understand from Baily's examination of tlie MSS., in Flamsteed's computations 

 of No. 3224. Hence we have no reason to suspect here a " disappeared" star. 



