ART 
a. The difference between the strongly and the slightly obscured 
regions is not noticeable at all with the bright D. M. stars up to 
6,5, and it is hardly noticeable with those up to the 8 magnitude; 
it is only with those up to the 9" that G and H differ considerably 
from the others. By the accidental uncertainty of the numbers the 
difference between the more or less obscured regions A— F’ is not 
clearly evident. 
b. The defect for the stars up to 15.9 is about as great as that 
for the stars up to 9.4, This corresponds to the results obtained by 
Dyson and Merorrr. 
c The Paris results for the fields Z and F' point to the fact that 
the logarithmic defect for the limiting magnitudes between 10 and 
15 is greater. 
If we take first the fields H and #, where the data are most 
complete, we see that their averages (— 0,28, — 0,35, — 0,34 
— 0,59, — 0.40 for the 5 magnitudes), represented on our figure by 
open circles, concur pretty well with a curve (dotted in the figure) 
answering to 6, —=5,5, e=1,5. The values of 9, between 4 and 6 
with an absorption «< 2 give a maximum for the logarithmic defect 
for m 12 a 13, so that in this case we shall find, that the defect in 
stars for the magnitudes between the 9 and the 15 does not 
fluctuate very much. 
This, however, is contradicted by the results of the ‘Selected 
Areas”. These could not be united with the former, because they 
comprise separate, smaller regions. The counts give the following results: 
b = —21° b= —12° 
Area 41 surf, = 3600/ Area 48 surf. — 1600’ 
Number| log N’ | log N'/y |Number| log MN | log NN 
| 
Oty 23.5) Ie, 36 —0.32 19 1.63 —0.15 
> 13.0 208 | vb —0.58 37 1.92 —0.25 
> 14.0 44 | 1.64 —0.73 72 221 | —031 
> 15.0 10 1.85 — 0.83 84 2.62 — 0.22 
| 
> 16.0 178 225 —0.75 | | 
From the first field, falling within the region A of strong absorp- 
tion, we find: 
d. In the Selected Area 47 a regular, strong increase of the defect 
from the 12th to the 15'® or 16 magnitude is shown. 
