( 105 ) 



June 5 3i'. 1 M.T. 



Honwi Hewitt 



Correction to M.T. N'Kutu + 50 m 28 s .54 + 51 m 17 s .54 



„ „ Chiloango + 48 31 .45 + 49 18 .30 



Difference of longitude — 1 57 .09 1 59 .24 



while the result of Dec. 1903 was --l m 59 8 .32. From this it would 



appear that on June 3 a perturbation occurred in Hohwü and 



not in Hewitt and that the jump in the former amounts to about 



2 sees., which agrees sufficiently with the observed abrupt variation 

 in the difference between the two. 



For a more accurate investigation of the perturbation I have tried 

 to avail myself of the time determination of June 2 at Mayili, after 

 having reduced it to Chiloango by means of the difference of longitude 

 determined in 1902, but this has not thrown more light on the 

 subject. Everything considered I have finally accepted as the effect 

 of the perturbation : a jump of 2 seconds in Hohwü. 



As to the longitude of N'Kutu itself, it will be best to use for it 

 only the determination of Dec. 1903, although the new determination 

 by Hewitt perfectly agrees with it. 



Buku-Zan. My observations were made in the factory of the firm 

 Hatton and Cookson. For a time determination I could obtain only 



3 pointings at the sun's limbs on June 14. To their results I have 

 added the corrections to M. T. Chiloango according to the adopted 

 computation (i. e. with a jump in Hohwü and a variable rate of 

 Hewitt) and also the difference of longitude derived from them. 



June 14 4 h M.T. 



Hohwü Hewitt 



Correction to M.T. Buku-Zan + 50 m 13 s 43 -f 50 m 57 s 93 

 „ „ Chiloango -f 48 38.12 + 49 21.22 

 Difference of longitude — 1 35.31 1 36.71 



Mean — l m 36«01 

 Computed with constant rates and without an assumed jump the 

 results would have been — l m 34 B 51 and — l m 38 s 02, hence in less 

 good harmony. 



Chimbete. Also here (factory of Hatton and Cookson) I could 

 observe only the sun for a time determination, but I secured at least 

 a complete set of 4 observations of both limbs in both positions ; 

 the two pairs computed separately differ by 0. s 83. 



The results were the following ; to these I have added the cor- 

 rections to M. T. Chiloango according to the adopted computations, 

 and the difference of longitude derived by means of them. 



