comparative Brightness of the Stars. 299 
vation of 65 Aquarii in his zodiacal catalogue, No. 932, which 
puts the existence of the star out of doubt. 
72 As the star neither was observed by F lamsteed, nor does 
exist, we cannot admit the remark which Mr. Wollaston in 
his catalogue, zone 95 0 , has upon Mayer’s 939 star; where he 
supposes an error in declination of 3 degrees to have been 
committed, on a supposition of its being Flamsteed’s 72. 
80 Requires -f 2' in time in RA, and therefore is not the 
star I have given, which requires — 1' 35". 
104 Which is without RA in the British catalogue, has three 
complete observations, page 8, 70, and 331. 
Aquila. 
29 Is without RA. There is but one observation of F lam- 
steed, page 53, which has no time. The RA is given by 
M. de la Lande, in Mr. B ode’s Jahr-Buch for 1796’, 
page 163. 
33 and 34 Which do not exist, were probably inserted by a 
mistake of one hour in the time of one of the observations on 
the two stars 68 and 69. In the zenith-distance, page 71 of 
Flamsteed’s observation of 69 Aquilas, for 53 0 read 55 0 . 
40 and 43 Which do not exist, were probably also inserted 
by the same mistake of one hour in the RA of 70 and 71. 
Capricornus. 
1 and 2 Should be J Flamsteed calls them so in his 
observations, and Mayer has also adopted the same letters in 
his catalogue, No. 82 1 and 822. 
mdccxcvil 
Rr 
