( 405 ) 
rected for the personal error; applying for this the value found ; 
previously, we obtain as final results : 
May 7 1893 — 7° 50' 14 
#8 ” 49 59.1 
„ 9 7 49 58.9 
Be Ag a 49 56.2 
June 2 u 49 55.8 
May 10 1894 50 9.6 
„14 w 49 51.7 
Mean — 7° 49'59”0 
As it is difficult to form an opinion about the relative precision 
of the observation of @ Crucis and those of the sun, the same weight 
is given to all of them. The mean error of an observation is then 
found to be + 5".6, that of the mean + 2".1. 
The results from the 3 series now must be combined. Although for 
the last series a smaller mean error was found, it did not seem advis- 
able to assign to it a greater weight than to the others. For it is 
possible that for this kind of solar observations the personal error 
differs perceptibly from that in the determination of circum- 
meridian altitudes. 
So we have : 
Series I — 7° 49' 58"0 
„AE 63.6 
w III 59.0 
Mean — 7° 50! 02 
The three series agree fairly well inter se, and as final result 
for the latitude of the place of observation we may take: 
Te OF 
which value will probably be exact within a few seconds. 
The reduction of the latitude to that of the harbour light amounts, 
according to the map of “Port Ambriz” on the English Admiralty 
chart: “Cape-Lopez-bay to St. Paul de Loanda’, to + 12” + 2” (the 
map is not graduated), and so the latitude of the harbour light is 
found to be: 
— 7° 49' 48" 
The value given on the Admiralty chart is: — 7° 52'9" anc 
en ‘ 
accordingly 2'21" too much south. 
