[ 25 1 
vanifh from his body r And do not the particulars 
mentioned in the 9th 10th and nth articles feem 
agreeable to what is now fa id-? 
Both sc hein e r and kevelius leem to think, 
that fpots fometimes alter their place upon the difc, 
not only by the fun’s rotation round his axis, but 
alfo by a motion, which they impute to the fpots 
themfelves. This 1 could never obferve. It is 
very true, that when a number of fmall fpots lye 
near one another, there may be from time to time 
a change of their relative fituation, but it is plain, 
that this may proceed entirely from fome of them 
cncreafing and others diminishing irregularly. But 
what would further contribute towards forming a 
judgment of this kind is, the apparent alteration 
of the relative place, which mull arife from the 
motion acrofs the difc on a fpherical furface ; a 
circumftance which I am uncertain if it has been 
fufficiently attended to. 
What has been advanced, in the courfe of the 
foregoing queries, may perhaps be rendered ftill 
more probable, by considering the obfervations re- 
lated in the firft part of this paper, concerning the 
changes which are made upon the figure of a fpot, 
when another breaks out in its neighbourhood ; 
and which feem to arife from a difturbing force. 
For, from the cafes there laid down, would it not 
appear, that when a fpot is breaking out, the lu- 
minous matter is then forced, in all directions, from 
the nucleus, and is affeCted much in the fame 
manner, as it would be, were it a fluid matter en- 
compalfing the fun’s dark body ? 
Vol. LXIV. E 
As 
