192 Dr. Herschel's Method of observing the 
the notes annexed to the constellations. They are pretty nu- 
merous, and with many stars so considerable, that we have 
great reason to suspect changes in their lustre since Flam- 
steed's time. It is to be noticed, that in collating my ob- 
servations of brightness with Flamsteed's magnitudes, I have 
not only taken those which are in the British catalogue, but 
also those that are to be found in the Observationes Fixarum. 
The very extraordinary disagreement between the former and 
the latter ought not to pass unnoticed. Were it not for what 
Flamsteed says in his Prolegomena , when he mentions the 
arrangement of the catalogue, “ Undecima columna indicat 
“ cujus magnitudinis stellam esse arbitratus sum quando earn 
“ observatam habui," I should entirely reject the magnitudes 
of the catalogue as being without authority to support them. 
Nor can I conceive how such a remarkable disagreement could 
escape the author's notice, or remain un perceived by astrono- 
mers till this time, if the lustre of the stars in general had not 
been looked upon as a thing of no material consequence. 
To shew what the difference is to which I allude, let us cast 
an eye upon the 9 constellations which are contained in the 
following catalogue of brightness. 
In Aquarius there are 108 stars. To 49 of these no mag- 
nitudes can be found in Flamsteed's observations; of 38 the 
magnitudes annexed to them agree with those of the cata- 
logue ; and of 21 they disagree with them. 
In Aquila there are 71 stars. 39 are not observed ; 18 agree ; 
16 disagree. 
In Capricornus are 51 stars. 22 not observed ; 37 agree; 
12 disagree. 
