ON THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE STARS. 39 



I have alluded here to the correction of Flamsteed's catalogue only, not 

 however as being the only one (or even the most discordant) that requires 

 reform, since similar anomalies, and equal in amount, are to be found in the 

 catalogues of Hevelius, Piazzi, Taylor, and perhaps some others ; but because 

 it is the only one in these latter days (if we except Hevelius's, which is not 

 very frequently referred to) in which the stars are quoted and known by the 

 numerical order and position in which they stand in the respective constella- 

 tions ; those of other astronomers being always designated by the order of 

 their right ascension. And as all our map- and globe-makers fill up the 

 boundaries of the constellations with Flamsteed's numbers as they find them 

 in his catalogue, whether properly located or not, it is requisite in the first 

 instance to place those stars in their proper positions. The method which I 

 propose for carrying this object into execution, and for reforming the boun- 

 dary lines, is the foUoM'ing : viz. 



1°. That Ptolemy's constellations be preserved, and form the basis of the 

 construction and arrangement of the constellations in the northern hemisphere. 



2°. That nine of the constellations, adopted by Hevelius, be retained; but 

 that no others be introduced in the northern hemisphere. These nine con- 

 stellations are Camelopardus, Canes Venatici, Coma Berenices, Lacerta, Leo 

 Minor, Lynx, Monoceros, Sextant, and Vulpecula; which, having been 

 adopted also by Flamsteed, are still referred to at the present day, and con- 

 sequently should be retained. But the rest, as Avell as all the other constella- 

 tions introduced by Bartsch, Bode, Hell, Kirch, Lalande, Lemonnier, and 

 Poczubut, having fallen into general disuse, need not be revived or continued. 

 Even those which are retained as above mentioned might be diminished with 

 much benefit to the practical branch of astronomy: for this modern pro- 

 pensity to multiply the number of constellations has led to great confusion 

 and annoyance (especially where they interlace with each other) without 

 being attended with a single advantage. 



3°. That Ptolemy's figures be attended to, so that the drawings (if any) 

 should embrace all the stars mentioned by him, and within their true outlines. 

 Libra perhaps may be an exception to this rule, as this constellation has been 

 introduced instead of the claws of Scorpio adopted by Ptolemy. There are 

 also four stars in Ptolemy's catalogue that are common to two adjoining con- 

 stellations : namely Flamsteed's 52 Bootis, which is common to Hercules ; 

 112 Tauri, which is common to Auriga; 79 Aquarii, which is common to 

 Piscis Australis; and 21 Andromedce, which is common to Pegasus. 



4°. That if Bayer or Flamsteed has introduced any star from another con- 

 stellation that would distort the correct drawing, it must be named, in the 

 catalogue, after the constellation to which it correctly belongs, and its pseu- 

 donym must be discontinued. In other words, the catalogue must be cor- 

 rected, but not the boundaries of the constellations distorted. Thus, Flam- 

 steed has, after the example of Ptolemy, correctly placed 51 and 54 Andro- 

 medce in the right foot of that figure : but Bayer, inattentive to Ptolemy's 

 description, erroneously makes these two stars form part of the sword of 

 Perseus ; and his mode of lettering those constellations is consequently inac- 

 curate. Again, Ptolemy's 13 Arietis, which is distinctly described by him as 

 being "in the extremity of the hind foot," is erroneously placed by Flam- 

 steed in Cetus and is 87 Ceti in his catalogue ; although it appears that both 

 he and Halley, at one time, maintained the contrary * ; and that Halley in- 

 deed inserted it in Aries, in his catalogue (1712). The proper mode of cor- 

 recting such errors is to return to the original authority ; a method which I 

 have here adopted. 



* See my Account of the Rev. John Flamsteed, page 287. 



