150 
G. Thibaut —Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. [No. 4, 
one only, called ad-dalwu. 1 He further maintains the twelfth station— as- 
Sarfah — ((S Leonis) — to have been a later insertion, chiefly for the rea¬ 
son that also the corresponding Indian Station, viz., TJttara Phalguni 
appears, to jndge from its name, to have originally formed one station 
with the preceding one, viz., Purva Phalguni. He next suggests that 
No. 17 — al-iklil (fi d 7r Scorpionis) was not originally separated from the 
preceding station — az-Zubdnay —, for the reason that the name of the 
corresponding Indian Station, viz., Anurddhd, indicates that station to 
have once been one with the preceding station, which, in addition to its 
ordinary name, vigdlchd is sometimes called radhd. And he finally throws 
a doubt on the originality of the 21st station al-Baldali, with reference 
to the fact that the corresponding Indian Station may, on account of its 
name, TJttardshddhds, be suspected to have originally constituted one 
station with the one immediately preceding ( Purvashadhas ). 
The lunar zodiac of the Arabs is thus reduced to a series comprising 
twenty-four stations. And as the four rejected stations are rejected 
for reasons derived from the nomenclature of the corresponding Hindu 
Nakshatras, it. of course, follows that those four Nakshatras also must 
be viewed as later additions to an original Hindu series of twenty-four 
members only. Professor Hommel makes some remarks tending to 
show that also some of the Chinese Sieu are later insertions in an 
original less extended series, he does not, however, attempt to prove that 
just four members of the Chinese zodiac were not original. This, how¬ 
ever, is a point of no great importance. 
Professor Hommel, thus, has established two series of asterisms — a 
Babylonian one and an Arab one—each of which comprises twenty- 
four members, and next proceeds to enquire how far the constituent 
members of the two series are identical. In the comparative statement 
of the two lists, however, given by him on page 613, he exhibits, not 
the reduced Arabic list, but the ordinary list of twenty-eight stations. 
We may follow him therein (since, in a comparison of the individual 
stars of the two lists, it does not make much difference whether we 
arrange them in twenty-eight or twenty-four stations ), and, therefore, 
here re-produce the list as drawn up by Professor Hommel in extenso. 
Babylonian Series. Arabian Series 
1. timinnu, y Tauri ... ... at-turaiya, y Tauri. 
2. pidnu, a Tauri ... ... al-debaran, a Tauri. 
1 To this we mnstadd—following aline of reasoning adopted by Professor Hom¬ 
mel in three other cases — that also the names of the corresponding Nakshatras 
( Purva-Bhadrcvpadds and TJttar a-Bhadrapadds) point to the fact of there having 
originally been one station, which, later on, was divided into two. 
