E. Loomis on Solar Spots, Magnetic Declination, ete. 155 
The relative numbers from 1787 to 1793 depend almost en- 
tirely upon the observations of Staudacher. On p. 283, vol. 2, 
olf, by comparing the average number of <i on each day 
of observation, deduces the following number 
1787. 1788. 1789. 1790. 1791, 1792. 1793. 
464 453 394 = 376 223 «8 Blt 17-0 
The relative numbers which he gives for 1787 and 1788 are 
obtained by doubling the corresponding numbers here given 
for those years; and applying the same rule to 1793 we obtain 
34 as the relative number for that year. If we combine with 
Staudacher’s observations, the six observations made by Huber, 
Hahn, and Bode we shall obtain almost exactly the same result 
I, therefore adopt 84 as the most probable relative number 
The relative number for 1794 depends chiefly upon the ob- 
* servations of Flaugergues, and I will compare his observations 
for 1794 with those for 1816, for which year Wolf considers 
the relative number as well det ermined ; and I will also include 
15 days (Sept. 12 to 27, 1794) as being without spots. The 
following is a summary ‘of the results: 
verage daily No. of 
roups. Spots. Days. Grouse. Spots. Relative No. 
1794, i — 148 35 bi 4:23 159 
1816, 62 112 51 1:22 2°20 14-4 
The relative number which Wolf adopts for 1816 is 45°. 
The above result for 1794, reduced to the same scale, becomes 
5. for 
1804, Dr. Wolf estimates at 7 0; but this number is ctibaeties: 
conjectural, since observations are reported for only two days of 
that year. The observations of the etic declination indi- 
cate that this number is too great, and d i have accordingly re- 
duced it to 50, and have reduced the numbers for the thites 
preceding and following years in the same ratio. The entire 
follows. An asterisk (*) denotes a result considered Asam 
trustworthy ; an interrogation point (?) denotes a result consi 
y- 
ered specially untrustworth 
