( 114 ) 



of the GVa*^ magnitude, both on 2 October, were recorded as uncertain 

 and besides the results were too discordant. Full moon had occurred 

 on 25 September; so these disappearances took place at the bright 

 limb of the moon, and it is well-known how uncertain their observation 

 is then. In this case a sudden disappearance can only be observed 

 with stars of the 1^' or 2"^^ magnitude. 



N". 19, disappearance of B. A C. 5800 on 15 October, also yielded 

 a large negative correction of the eastern longitude ( — 13%14), but 

 there w^as no reason for rejectmg it ; the disappearance took place 

 at the dark limb, the star was of the G^/^'^' magnitude, hence very 

 bright in the telescope, and in tiie journal of obse)'\'ation uncertainty 

 is not mentioned. 



N". 21, disappearance of A. Z. 223 N». 48, observed by iMr. 

 È. F. VAN DE Sande Bakhuyzen on 16 October, yielded -f-33%70; 

 N°. 26 disappearance of a star of which the j)lace was 2{)''5'"16'' 

 — 25''10'46", gave — :120%6. Both had therefore to be rejected. 



Nor was I more fortunate with N". 33. The star as determined at 

 Leyden gave an unsatisfactory result {-\- 21 "'38'*) and I could not 

 find in the catalogues another star which fultills the requirements. 



I succeeded better with X'. 38. X". 38 had been noted by 

 Mr. Bakhuyzen as disappearance of ? Piscium on 28 October; it 

 appears however that this star was not occulted and that the occulted 

 star could be no other than 24 Piscium; assuming this, 1 ai-rivcd 

 at a satisfactory conclusion. 



In the case of N°. 39, disappearance of 59 Geminorum at the 

 dark limb on 26 November, we could only oi)tain a result, that 

 was not wholly inadmissible, by assuming a combination of eri'ors. 

 Although each of these was in itself not quite improbable, it was 

 thought necessaiy to reject also this observation. 



About N". 27 I remark that on [). 607 I noted as obser\'ers S.B. 

 i. e. that both Mr. Soeters and Mr. Bakhuyzen obser\'ed the occulta- 

 tion (disappearance at the dark limb) ; as the time recorded by 

 Mr. Bakhuyzen was 4 seconds later than that noted by Mr. Soeters, I 

 accepted the result of the former as the more probable one, the more 

 so as it agreed better with the other results. 



Generally, the endeavours to rectify the occultations, which at 

 first seemed to have failed, have cost more work than those where 

 nothing was wrong. 



Finally I must remark that Mr. Soeters himself had corrected a 

 small error of computation in his reduction of the observations, made 

 to determine the relative position of our different observing places, 

 but had neglected to enter the corrected value in the final table of 



