comparative Brightness of the Stars. 303 
30 Flamsteed has no observation of this star. It is ^ 21 
Cassiopeae Hevelii. 
33 Flamsteed observed no RA of this star. It is 9 23 Cas- 
siopeae Hevelii. 
34 Is wrong in the catalogue. By two observations of 
Flamsteed, page 144, and 521, it requires a mean correc- 
tion of — 9' of time in RA. In this case my double star III. 
23 will no longer be <p 34 Cassiopeae, but a star 9' of time 
preceding <p ; for it exists in the place where 34 is put in Atlas, 
according to the erroneous catalogue, and is rather larger 
than Flamsteed’s star <p. 
35 The RA is marked : : The single observation, page 207, 
has the time marked circiter y being probably set down to the 
nearest minute only; and by the same observation the PD 
requires -j- 20'. 
47 Is also marked : : but has one complete observation, 
page 149. 
31 The observation of Flamsteed which produced this star 
should be corrected -f- 1 hour. This makes it 37 Cassiopeae 
Hevelii. 
32 and 53 By Flamsteed’s observation page 208, should be 
the reverse in PD of what they are. 
Cetus. 
14 If we correct the British catalogue -f- 3 0 in PD, it will 
become a star observed by Flamsteed, which is No. 312 in 
Miss Herschel’s manuscript catalogue. 
2 6 Flamsteed has no observation of this star; but we find 
it in de la Caille’s zodiacal catalogue, No. 10. 
51 Is the same with 106 Piscium. Flamsteed has 23 ob- 
