188 3 
of the phenomenon could be deduced from the results d 
an inquiry in which HonwsrEw's method was applied to ir 
different years. w 
In the results given here however, undeniable proof is gie 
of the existence of a periodical variation but the agreem қ 
between the results of the controlling groups is much less фи 
for the daily means. 
In each of the controlling groups a maximum value oceusi 
in the vicinity of this maximum the differences of two sule 
quent arguments are almost exactly equal to their theo ын 
values and here, as before, the arguments, corresponding | 
the same values of 2, agree, though not so closely as in te 
case of the daily means. We find for p = 1 respectively! 
С-- 58°58'' 30522 350% : 
The fact therefore of the existence of a periodical influen 
on the daily range of the barometric height may be consider! 
to be beyond the possibility of doubt, but, in comparing № 
values for R, deduced from these data, with those obtainel 
from the daily means, a smaller weight has to be assigned 
the former than to the latter. 
In examining the results deduced from the daily means d 
the temperature the air, we see that in the head-group, * 
well as in both controlling groups, a maximum value of 
quantity m is observable, but the arguments of the even dé 
uneven numbered groups being, for p — 1: 
45059 and 929055 : 
the results of the groups contradict each other in this resp 
and the existence if the phenomenon might be subjected ~ 
some doubt, if the argument of the even group, where t 
differences too agree well with their theoretical value, did u 
show such a close concordance with the corresponding go | 
ment for the daily range of the barometric pressure, that E 
would be difficult to ascribe this agreement to chance 0 | 
In consequence of these considerations the results den” : 
from the even numbered groups have to be considered 48 
