dd 
sparkspectrum (the arc-spectrum of Tin they have observed no 
further than A 2267): 2219941 “1 unscharf” and 4 2199.68 “1 
unscharf”’. So the two lines very clearly appear here very closely 
side by side. 
Ay 2091.7 occurs with 2; 2092.30 in I], and with 2; 2091.23 in 
V,. This line has not been observed by Exner and Hascuex. 
In Kayser and Runge’) we find “3 umgekehrt (?)”. So they doubt 
whether or no they have to do with a reversal here. So the surmise 
is justified that we have to do here with two separate lines, which 
surmise is supported if the course of the intensity in II is examined 
according to the observations of Kayser and Runeg. Starting from 
‘g==2 this is namely 5, 3, 1, 3, 3. The increased intensity 3 for 
vd is again accounted for by the assumption of two lines close 
together. In the same way the increased intensity of the line 2063.8, 
which as w=6 occurs in the same series, may be accounted for 
by our finding 4,—= 2064,12 in IV,, which is given there also with 
Aw = 2063.8. It is a line which has been given by Kayser and 
Runce ®) with a limit of errors 0.50, so which could be observed 
less accurately. 
After this extensive discussion of the spectrum of Tin, a few in- 
dications will suffice for that of Antimony. 
,2719.00 we find in XIV, and XV,. The intensity in XIV is 
3.3.1, so somewhat too high for «= 2. This line is found in KAYser 
and Runex reversed, but not in Exner and Hascuek *). This is also 
the case for 4 2692.85, which occurs in X, and XVI[,, and with 
A 2652.70 in XX, and XVII,. 
4 2614.74 we find as Xl, and XXI,. It occurs in both observers 
as a single line. Noteworthy, however, is the difference in intensity. 
In Kayser and Runce*) this line is one of the strongest lines (inten- 
sity 5, while 6 is the greatest intensity that occurs), whereas in 
Exner and HascrekK *) it is one of the weakest (intensity 1, highest 
intensity 30). 4 2098.47 has not been observed by Exner and Hascuex. 
We find it given in XXI, and XXIII. In connection with the A, 
which I found for XXI,, namely 2097.76 I still want to remark that 
this value lies between that found by Kayser and Runes, and that 
of Hartiey and Aperey, who give for it: 4 2096.4. 
I should further like to make another remark. When the list on 
1) 1. c. Vol. HL 
7) 1. ce 
ay) VG. 
108 Per 
