182 PHILOSOPHICAL TRANSACTIONS. [ANNO 17Q7. 



duced this star should be corrected + 1 hour. This makes it 37 Cassiopeae Hevelii. 



52 and 53, By Flamsteed's observation page 208, should be the reverse in pd of 

 what they are. 



Cetus. — 14: If we correct the British catalogue -f- 3° in pd, it will become a 

 star observed by Flamsteed, which is N° 312 in Miss Herschel's manuscript cata- 

 logue. — 26: Flamsteed has no observation of this star; but we find it in de la 

 Caille's zodiacal catalogue, N° 10. — 51 Is the same with 106 Piscium. Flamsteed 

 has 23 observations of the star, and has always called it v, except once on page 

 482, where it is without a letter, and where the constellation is marked Aquarii: 

 now, as there was immediately following an observation of 54 Ceti, and Aquarius 

 was evidently wrong, the star has been put in Cetus. — 58 : By Flamsteed's observa- 

 tion, page 358, the ra in the British catalogue requires a correction of — 3 m in 

 time. — 74 : Flamsteed has no observation of this star, nor can I find it in any other 

 catalogue. The place of it is so distant from other stars of the British catalogue, 

 that my estimation of brightness may belong to some star not far from the situa- 

 tion assigned, and that the star of the British catalogue may not exist. — 88 Is the 

 same with 38 Arietis. See Bode's Jahr-Buch for 1793, page 200. 



Eridanus. — 44, In the British catalogue, is marked : :. The single observation of 

 Flamsteed, page 153, is perfect, all but a difference of 5' between the zenith-distance 

 by the diagonal lines and by the screw. — 45, Marked : :, has a complete observa- 

 tion, page 153. — 68, Marked::, has a complete observation, page 146. 



Gemini. — 50: There is no observation on this star. The star I have given is at 

 a considerable distance from the place assigned by the British catalogue, so that in 

 fact the star of the catalogue does not exist. It has been inserted in the British 

 catalogue by a mistake in the calculation of a star which is about 1°4C)' more south. 

 This will be N° 139 m Miss Herschel's manuscript catalogue, and it is probably the 

 real intended 50 of Flamsteed. The expression of its brightness 41,50 of my ca- 

 talogue will do very well for it. — 70 and 71, By Flamsteed's observations should be 

 called tt 1 and tt' 2 . Tycho and Hevelius also call 7 1 «. — 72 and 73 have been in- 

 serted by a mistake in 64 and 65. See Bode's Jahr-Buch for 1788, page J 75. — 

 76: Flamsteed has no observation of this star. It is however Mayer's N° 310. — 

 80 Is not tt, but according to Flamsteed's observation quae sequitur ?r; and has no 

 letter. 



Leo. — 10 Is the same with 1 Sextantis. — 25 does not exist in the place where 

 the British catalogue gives it; but if we admit that it has been inserted by a mistake 

 in the calculation of 10 Sextantis, it may be taken into the constellation of Leo, 

 as a star inserted in 2 constellations; and it will then be " 25 is the same with 10 

 Sextantis." — 26. In Flamsteed's observations, page 299, the strias cochleae give 

 1& less than the lineas diagonales. The former are right; therefore the British 

 catalogue must be corrected pd — 26'. — 28: Flamsteed has no observation of this 

 star. It was probably inserted by a mistake in calculating an imperfect observation 

 of 11 Sextantis. If this be allowed, we then must say " 28 is the same with 11 



