298 Dr. Herschel’s Third Catalogue of the 
71, is described “ in constellation e Aquarii trianguli in capite 
“ preecedens et borealis Here we see that the double inser- 
tion in the catalogue is owing to the star’s having been called 
by different names in the observations. See also Mr. Wol- 
laston's catalogue, zone 88°. 
27 Is the same with 11 Pegasi. There are three observa- 
tions : the first places the star in the constellation of Pegasus, 
the two latter in that of Aquarius. See also Mr. Wollaston's 
catalogue for this star, and others of the same kind. 
65 Has not been observed by Flamsteed ; notwithstanding 
which we find it inserted in my first catalogue, where its rela- 
tive brightness is given. It should be considered that, in the 
first place, several stars of which there are no observations in 
the second volume of Flamsteed's works, and which are, ne- 
vertheless, inserted in the British catalogue, such for instance 
as 0 and 1 Draconis, are well known to exist in the heavens. 
Now whether they were put into the catalogue from observa- 
tions that are not in the second volume, or taken from other 
catalogues, it so happens that observations of them cannot be 
found. Therefore the want of a former observation by Flam- 
steed, is not sufficient to prove that a star does not exist. In 
the next place it should be recollected, that the method used 
to ascertain the stars in estimating their brightness, is not so 
accurate, as to point out with great precision the absolute 
situation of a star; and that, consequently, another star which 
happens to be not far from the place where the catalogue points 
out the star we look for, may be taken for it ; especially when 
there are no neighbouring stars of the British catalogue that 
may induce us to exert uncommon attention in ascertaining 
the identity of such a star. Mayer, however, has an obser- 
