( 31 ) 



Fit?. 2. 



25 

 50 



40 

 20 



in 







65 



25.70 



25.75 



25.80 



25.85 



23.90 



25.95 



60 

 50 

 40 

 30 

 20 

 10 

 





It appears then that, in fact, secondarv maxima and minima occur 

 a]id, at least as regards the first minima, in- tlie riglit phices, hut 

 that the secondary ma.xima, instead of lieing' small as compared 

 with the [)rincipal maximum, as might have been expected, are of 

 about equal intensity- and, most so on the left side, not at all 

 agreeing with the theoretical lengths of period. 



This result may be inter[)reted in three ways: 



a. We may assume that everj one of the three periods 25.80, 

 25.70 and 25.87 is ilue to a purely accidental distribution of the 

 rpiantities under consideration. 



b. We may concede that at least for tiic period 25.80 there is some 

 indication, but that the two adventitious periods are the consecpience 

 of the uue(|ual distribution of the ,<;roii|)-;uu|tlitudes so that they will 

 disa[>peai* wheii the arrangement is conliiiiicd (»\ei- a longer series 

 of observations. 



