W. Btibt Tht Coinft of 1 I 7 1. 
175 
0— c 
A a 
A<5 
April 6.5 
+ 6'-9 
+ 3-7 
14.5 
— 3-2 
4. 0'2 
30.5 
-22*6 
4-3T7 
May 8.5 
— 1 "5 
-34-1 
16.5 
-f-43'1 
4-12-4 
24-5 
+21-7 
— 0-8 
June 1.5 
-f45-8 
4- 3-3 
9.5 
-f-34-8 
+ 8-2 
25.5 
4-24-5 
4-33-1 
July 11.5 
— 4-3 
- 7-8 
The most probable parabola computed as before, gives the following 
results : 
T Apr. 19.146741 Paris m. t. 
£ 1* 
log q 9-9551889 
i 11 15 9*70 • 
) ecliptic and 
(G) Q 27 48 39-06 j 
- mean equinox 
7T 104 1 11-22 ' 
) 1771-0 
0— C 
A a 
A 6 
April 6.5 
-f 3'-5 
-f 3*6 
14.5 
— 15-2 
4- 10-5 
30.5 
— 32-1 
4- 5-4 
May 8.5 
- o-i 
4- 8-0 
16.5 
4- 48*7 
4-1' 3-1 
24.5 
4- 29-0 
4- 59-0 
June 1.5 
+ 50-4 
4- 1 12-2 
9*5 
4- 24-6 
4- 1 32-4 
25"5 
-2' 12-6 
4- 2 19-8 
July 11.5 
+ 3S-4 
4- 2 18-6 
The residuals here are no 
more favorable 
than those computed 
from orbit (E) and point to the conclusion that the perturbations do 
not render a parabolic orbit more probable. 
m. 
The attempt to discuss the 
orbit independently of the Marseilles 
observations, thus avoiding the effect of their large probable errors, 
fails; because the normal places exclusive of the Marseilles observa- 
tions are too indeterminate to be trustworthy, owing to the smallness 
of the variations of the differential coefficients 
For instance, if we 
