76 
\) | reject a single angle, noted by Dawes: “very bad”. 
2) DoouTTLE gives: 3 nights. MAEDLER gives: 2 nights in “Untersuchungen über 
die Fixstern-systeme”, but in the Dorpat Observations there is but a single 
position-angle. 
3) DOOLITTLE gives a measure by BARCLAY. This is probably an error, for a 
correction of precisely 2 years in the time and of 10° in the angle makes it 
identical with TALMAGE’s measure, which is given in “Leyton Observations”, but 
noted BARCLAY there (DAWES’ measures are called “Bishop”). 
4) Not in Doo.itTtLe’s list. 
5) Called “Seabroke” by DOOLITTLE. 
6) Given by Lewis in Mem. R.A.S. LVI; 1 could not find them, neither in the 
Monthly Notices, nor in the Greenwich Observations. 
7) My separate results are 
1921-341 92°5 0’35 (tax) splendid definition. 
‘379 92°1 040 (tax.) definition good. 
8) These measures have been communicated to me by Mr. Jackson; they were 
received after the computation had been finished, but they are very well represented. 
The separate angles for 1921 are 93°3, 100°0 and 101°3, fairly.indicating the degree 
of uncertainty adhering to the measures even now. 
My search for other recent measures has unfortunately been in 
vain. Up to 1893 the measures are well represented. Only in 1914 
21834 
270 
the observations become reliable again. Even in 1911 Arrken's 
measures on two nights differ by 7°4 in angle, and the observations 
by Bryant and Bowyer at the same time differ by about 20° from 
AITKEN’s. It is probable, that a large part of the measures between 
1893 and 1914 are merely optical illusions. In the diagram the 
measures used in the computation are given by dots, the others by 
white circles, and every measure is joined with the computed place 
by a thin line. 
