Appendix, 79 
ing itself in an especial manner upon my attention, in connection with the 
Uranometry. What constellations to retain, and what to disregard among 
the various suggestions of various astronomers, has been a less difficult ques- 
tion than the assignment of boundaries or the — ed a definite and con- 
sistent notation from out the chaos which rules in sundry portions of the 
These matters, comparatively ‘iespuaiieset in many ree 
acquire a supreme importance when questions of nomenclature become pro 
in t k now in hand er i 
of Argo Navis, where the practical and effective ore adopted by Baily, 
in the three catalogues of the British na ttapaa of dividing this huge and 
unwieldy — into four smaller ones correspon ndi ing to the parts of the 
, 88 indicated by Lacaille, is more than counterbalanced by the other re- 
commendation, likewise aidopeo d by Baily, that so far as the Greek alphabet 
stellations has its own special n r e two series of letters of the 
Latin alphabet. Nor are the three catalogues didited by Baily for the British 
Association altogether accordant as regards either the constellation-bounda- 
nes, or the notation of the stars, notwithstanding his efforts to furnish some 
relief for the existing confusion. ‘The same Greek letter occurs twice in the 
Same constellation in m more than one Siataned in these catalogues, while other 
et ; 
€ give you an illustration of the confusion encountered in a study of 
prominent Southern stars. Take the constellation Telescopium, one which has 
every i ° 
"Ya, Scorpius, and o is in Corona Australis. 
Austrinus and follow the erat ps Here Br cba’ e is Baily’ 
r hee ve tongue was English, and who 
Lp arran ib to be assigned 
os gement is n oa ht matter, when every visible star is gned 
; Bane definite io ait This implies the establishment of boundar 
