166 
EASTMAN. 
was less than 0T05, and, in order to make the data from the 
two lists more nearly homogeneous, all the stars from Brad¬ 
ley’s list, from the first to the fifth magnitude, inclusive, 
whose proper motions were less than 0T05, were excluded 
from the second investigation.- By this process, one hundred 
and two stars used in the first paper, were rejected in the 
second. The remaining five hundred and fifty stars of the 
two lists were arranged, as in the first investigation, in nine 
groups, according to magnitude. In the first group were 
placed all stars wdiose magnitudes were greater than 1.5; 
in the second group all magnitudes between 1.6 and 2.5, in¬ 
clusive, and, by a similar method, each group was arranged 
until the ninth , which contained all stars fainter than the 
8.5 magnitude. 
Taking the means of the different quantities, as in the 
first discussion, there are found the results which are ar¬ 
ranged in the following table: 
Table III. 
Group. 
Number of 
stars. 
Mean magni¬ 
tude. 
Mean proper 
motion. 
1 
14 
1.13 
// 
0.668 
2 
28 
2.15 
0:237 
3 
42 
3.08 
0.272 
4 
70 
4.02 
0.187 
5 
61 
4.89 
0.243 
6 
64 
6.12 
0.293 
7 
128 
7.04 
0.422 
8 
114 
8.08 
0.460 
9 
29 
8.78 
0.678 
In this table we have results similar to those derived from 
the first investigation, but all tending to disprove the ordi¬ 
nary theories in regard to the relations of magnitudes and 
proper motions. 
