[ *3 ] 
From all thefe obfervations, may we not fafely 
conclude, that every fpot confiding of a nucleus and 
furrounding umbra,, as defined by scheiner and 
hevelius, is of the fame kind with thofe above de- 
ferred r But as, in refearches of this fort, we can ne- 
ver be too cautious in making a general conclufion, 
fo I would humbly recommend thefe obfervations to 
every lover of the fubjed, to thofe efpecially who 
are provided with large and good telefcopes; for, 
without this advantage, I have found by repeated 
trials, that I could not difcern the minute changes 
of the fmall fpots. 
In the courfe of the foregoing obfervations, X 
had occalion to remark, five different times, another 
extraordinary circumflance of the fpots, which I 
have not feen mentioned, by any one who has 
written upon the fubjeft. It confifls of changes, 
which feem to arife from a difturbing force, when 
one fpot breaks out in the neighbourhood of ano- 
ther. The firft cafe of this fort which I met with,., 
was on Nov. 9th, 1770, when the umbra of the fpot 
?n, fig. 1. [Tab. IV.] although a great way from the 
limb, was deficient .awards the right hand, at 
which fide, and very near it, there lay another fpot 
much fmailer. In like manner, the two fpots n and 
o y fig. 2. [Tab. IV,] which lay very near one another,.. 
had each of them that fide of its umbra, which., 
faced the other,, taken aWdy.But it was remarkable,, 
that, three clays after, the fpotc had nearly vanifihed,. 
when the fide of the umbra of the fpot a, which 
faced it, began now to dilate. In fig. 3, the fpot 7V 
had its umbra flattened upon oppofite fides, by 
three fmall fpots on one hand, and one upon the 
2 other. 
