OF THE ECLIPTIC. ggg 



With Major IvA^;e- (56 ObsWvdfions wrtMhS°of th^&enHfcviih 8fO£pifc.tJJNtttfl [5s8$ 

 ton's Zenith. Rector!. (20 Observation;* of d^,, very near. £he 2emf|, in .JS©7 ? '\ 1,3 jLj%§& 



._„ , . ' „ ' 6 (Latitude by 500 observations of 52 Stars'; Within 8' of/ ' t * aii 



With' the Z. Sector,) ■ ' ' C 13 4 IS. ] 7 



/: ylinBtgnoy £ the ■.Zehitk, !f .w....i^: w .. &>tir ^ J . -JP |,-.... i .,... it .) q — ^ — 



',_., ■ ,/■ • .... | Difference, ..„.,...........„,.,»„■.., ...„„.„....._... , r 7.4a 



■ ' ■- ■ -' ■ ■ - ' • •'--.■ 1. J » TrUv r t 21B7<i 9QJ ii.. i , .' •::■• [ 



'2i ; . ' Mr. Le ; Ge : ntil', who' observed foe obliquity" of^ the ecliptic : at 



Pond/cherry , iir the year i'76&" remarks, that his observations ! df " 'the* pofe v 



sW/g'ave the latitude riy J "43 less - than the sun, which he considers^!? 



proof- of the' correctness of 'the elements lie : has used r in- the reductio&^f* 



.his observations. ' With' due deference to the ingenuity- of so J e'miheht au 



astrpnprnerj I beg' toobserVe that the nole star, which is so little elevated 



under the parallel of Pondicherry, was not a fit object; of comparison, on 



.account of the great refraction due to it at 10 and 13, altitude.* . I shall 



propose R'jgulus in preference, which is on the sun's path, and being only 



•9 14 north of the zenith of the observatory, is not subject to any sensible 



W '< ■'..■ ■ ' m -A\ k ?Asii Sv"'«i teta 



error of refraction. 



- • ■ V ■'. ■ : - , . sw « , 



22. Now it will appear by table t, of my paper above quoted, that 



o 1 11 



"Regulus gave 13 4 .. .13.434 for the latitude of the observatory, and by 



1 1 



* I have taken 14 altitudes at the superior transit of the pole star, with Gary's circle, the 

 limits of which are 8.6; that is the extremes 4.3 from the mean. The mean superior al- 

 I titude was observed 14°' 51 36.826, which, by using Bradley's refraction (3 32.274) gives 

 the latitude 13 4 7.33. ' This result is perfectly consistent with the present observations. 

 1 But as I had no observation of the inferior altitude, and as I did not refer'at that period to 

 an horizontal mark, I omit for the present giving the particulars relating to it, though I be- 

 lieve the results cannot be far removed from the truth. 



C 3 



