19 
stant of aberration for this star, although it by no means follows, 
that the values given by the three equations are considerably 
erroneous. 
The three equations are 
l. 395e + 58,432—7,77p—50,83=0 
2, 58,43¢ + 64,99252 + 18,9386p—92,7675 =0 
3. -7,7'7e+18,9386x + 40,9277p—8 1 6417 =0 
And 
p= +1/,5544 
r= +0,9588 
e= +0,0175 
If we suppose «=O or the constant of aberration = 20”,25 as 
to this star, as was done in the computation of the observations 
in the 12th Volume of the Transactions of the Academy, the 
equations are reduced to 
895e—7,77p—50,83=0 
~7,771e+40,9277p—8 1,6417=0 
and p=2’,03 or 2p=4" 
This value of pshews, that the results of the new series of ob- 
servations do not appear to differ materially from those in the 12th 
Volume above cited, when it is considered that many of those ob- 
servations were made when the Coefficients of p were very small 
(in this star it never exceeds, 52). This coincidence between the 
present results and the former result seems to imply a constant cause 
for the discordance, such as that of parallax ; or perhaps that 
which is thought to be an irregularity of refraction, may follow 
some law hereafter to be discovered. 
Notwithstanding the numerous observations of this star that 
have been made here, it is obvious a much greater number 
D2 
