( 274 3 
Obs. | Obs, | Obs “Si Sawa Ober | Obs, TOU 
Temp. | — —_ — | Temp. — — — 
ET EEN Ps TAM (OE PETN KE 
1902 | 1902 
May 2% [440,4 | — 10 | — 18 | — 9] | July 34 [447.4 | — 52 | — 63 | — 55 
| | | 
>» | 49.7 | A26 | 4-42 | — 431) Aug. 5 | 16.8 | — 54 | — 68) — 64 
Tune 44.45.9487 | E32) 446 MD oe 41) 46-9 | — 0 Lob 
SRT de bl Ba AB 4g IN » 5-1 A60 SSA STO em 
RENEE Ash A3 99 Sak Ps 904° 46.59) A DEN ND 
peu 26a) 16.84) | Ont 28 » 9 | 16.8 | — 49 | — 55 | — 66 
July 5 | 18.4} 4+ 44/448] Off Sept. 3| 47.1 | — 16 | — 19 | — 36 
» 421 17.9 = 80 | Sd ber AB SPR Dee Ae CE 
> 45 | 17.4) — H | — 38 | ON TE? De A | To) 06 eee 
pee et HT | 96) |) 2432 Phe TD on OAN eo Ie 
| | 
From these differences we derive the following mean errors of a 
rate computed by means of the three formulae: 
| ; : : 
| Form. fa. Form. Ila, Form. IIb. 
| 
1899 May—1900 April...... 08.0343 TE 0s.0345 + 0s 0424 
4900 May—1901 April... . OAD | O87 AAT 
1901 May—1902 Sept...... 21 266 274 
1899 May—1902 April...... + 0.0314 + 0.0327 TF 0.0385 
1899 May—1902 Sept...... | T 0.0344 zE 0.0832 F 0.0382 
First let us compare the mean errors of the three formulae inter 
se and with the corresponding values formerly obtained for the for- 
mulae I and IT with the uncorrected barometer coefficient. 
Then it appears in the first place from the values for the period 
1899 May—1902 April that the correction of the barometer coeffi- 
cient has markedly improved the agreement with the observations. *) 
Secondly it would appear that the quadratic formula now represents 
the observations a little better than the linear formula, and thirdly 
we find that the supposition of a lagging behind of the influence of 
the temperature markedly impairs the agreement. 
') Each of the three years separately also leads to the same result. 
