( 415 ) 



^•yr= + l".Ucos[29r/P> 4- ir:sr>it- 187G.0)] 

 — r'.30 cos [317°.l -f 19°.35 {t — 187G.0)] 

 = -J- 0".46 .sm [328° + 19° 35 (t — 187G.0)] 



while, acforvliug to theory, this ought to he: 



k/r = 4- 0".45 shi [357° + 19°.35 {t — 1876.0)1 



which, c'oiisidei'iug the greïit luieei-taiiity in the dillerenee l)el\veen 

 the two empirical lerins, is a satisfactory ai;reement ^). 



Ill the second i>hice we sJiall ti-y to tind whether the diiierences 

 betAveen the observed h and /• and those derixed from the formnlae 

 in the l''^ paper, p. 382 reveal the intluence of the terms I and 

 III. Therefore I sliall give here those diiierences, which former) v 

 were omitted. They are found in the following table (p. 41 6) under 

 the headings Obs. — Comp. I. The contents of the columns Obs.— 

 Comp. II will be explained later. 



The differences Obs. — Comp. I will serve in the first place to tind 

 what the observations teach us about the term I. I have therefore 

 arranged them according to the values of the argument '2 rt-f-*^ ^" — ^^ E, 

 and i)v mutually combining the results of the 3 series, of which 

 the means had first been reduced to zero, with the weights 1, 3 

 and 2, we obtained the following 10 normal values for £xh and Lk. 



1) The results of p. 3S2 of the fir.^t paper would seem to point to a greater 

 diflerence between the coellicienls of the variable parts of h and /.• ; this would 

 improve the agreement between the empirical and the theoretical argument of A*yr. 



