comparative Brightness of the Stars. 305 
south. This will be No. 139 in Miss Herschel’s manuscript 
catalogue, and it is probably the real intended 50 of Flamsteed. 
The expression of its brightness 41,50 of my catalogue will do 
very well for it. 
70 and 71 By Flamsteed's observations should be called tF, 
and 7I- 1 . Tycho and Hevelius also call 71 tt. 
72 and 73 Have been inserted by a mistake in 64 and 65. 
See Mr. Bode's Jahr-Buch for 1788, page 175. 
7 6 F lamsteed has no observation of this star. It is, however, 
Mayer's No. 310. 
80 Is not 7 r, but according to Flamsteed's observation 
quce sequitur ?r; and has no letter. 
Leo. 
10 Is the same with 1 Sextantis. 
25 This star does not exist in the place where the British 
catalogue gives it; but if we admit that it has been inserted 
by a mistake in the calculation of 10 Sextantis, it may be 
taken into the constellation of Leo, as a star inserted in two 
constellations ; and it will then be “ 25 is the same with 10 
“ Sextantis." 
2 6 In Flamsteed’s observations, page 299, th estrias cochlea 
give 2 6' less than the lineas diagonales. The former are 
right ; therefore the British catalogue must be corrected 
PD - 2 6 '. 
28 Flamsteed has no observation of this star. It was pro- 
bably inserted by a mistake in calculating an imperfect obser- 
vation of 1 1 Sextantis. If this be allowed, we then must say 
“ 28 is the same with 11 Sextantis." 
66 Flamsteed has no observation of this star. There is 
