( 113 ) 



I shall briefly record the modifications of my previous account '). 



The following- are (he numbers originally belonging to the obser- 

 vations mentioned there: 1, 3, 4, 7, 9, JO, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 

 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37. 



Hence were rejected the numbers : 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 15, 17, 19,21, 

 26, 33, 38, 39. 



N". 2, disappearance of Arg. Z. 233, N". 77, observed by me on 

 the ground of the harbour office on 19 Sept., yielded — 21^.31 for 

 the correction of the eastern longitude. It appeared that this large 

 value was for the greater part due to the large correction ( — 4"3) 

 applied to the moon's declination as derived from the meridian 

 observations. The corrected corrections of Newcomb were — 0^45 

 and -|- 0".3 (that of the declination even with another sign), and 

 the correction of the eastern longitude became — 6^85, not larger 

 than several others. 



Nos. 5 and 6, disappearances of Arg. Z. 3 LI, N"s . 72 and 75 

 observed by me on the ground of the harbour office on 21 Sept. 

 It appeared that in reducing these two observations the correction 

 of the chronometer had been taken from the journal with a wrong- 

 sign. After rectification of this error the results were satisfactory. 



N". 8, disappearance of a 9"^'' magnitude star, observed by me on 

 the ground of the harbour office on 22 Sept. at 7''38"i25%07, hence 

 34"i9s after that of 33 Capricorni. I have not succeeded in rectifying 

 this observation. Judging from the map which by means of Argelander's 

 Zonae had been constructed preliminary to the observations, it seemed 

 that the star could be no other than N". 18 of A. Z. 255, but then 

 the correction of the eastern longitude would have been -\- 58^24. 

 Supposing that an error might have occurred in noting down the 

 minute of the time of observation, I repeated the calculation adopting 

 the time to be 1 minute later, but now I got : Corr. of the E. longitude 

 -}- 20^07. The time of observation ought therefore to be taken another 

 half minute later, but I did not hold myself justified to do so. 



There still followed two occultations, which were missed through 

 clouds, probably one of these two has been A. Z. 255 N". 18, and 

 the star observed by me does not occur in A. Z. Neither Schönfeld's 

 southern atlas, nor Gill's catalogue could help me to arrive at a 

 conclusion. 



N". 13, disappearance of 73 Piscium on 26 September, N". 15, 

 disappearance of 53 Geminoruin and N". 17, disa])pearance of a star 



1) In the 3rd column on p. 607 a few clerical or printing errors have cre|)t in : 

 for Cordoba lit 1589 read Cordoba XVIII 1589 and for Cordoba XVlll VIA read 

 Cordoba XVIII 1612. 



