162 
G. Thibaut— Babylonian Origin of the Lunar Zodiac. [No. 4, 
not think that anybody who carefully examines these agreements will 
consider them sufficiently strong, especially when remembering the ab¬ 
sence of agreement in all truly characteristic cases, in what, in fact, may 
be called test cases of the hypothesis of original connexion. I rather 
think it probable that any one following, in a Stellar Map, the track of 
the Babylonian normal stars and of the Arabian menazil will be in- 
cliued to include in the list of inevitable coincidences several cases not 
thus classed by me above. At the same time, there are minor discre¬ 
pancies which might be urged. It was, e.g ., as good as inevitable that 
a series of stars, bound not to wander too far from the Ecliptic, should 
contain some of the more conspicuous stars of Aries. Accordingly, (3 
Arietis appears both in the Babylonian and the Arab Series; but while 
the Babylonians add the brilliant star a Arietis, the Arabs omit a and 
join /3 and y, as Sharatfin. In Gemini y and /x, a pair of stars of the third 
magnitude, lying quite close to the Ecliptic, could hardly be omitted. 
Nor could 8 and y Cancri, or at least the former of these two stars, be 
absent from an Ecliptic Series. 
The same remark applies to /3 rj y, Virgiuis. It is, on the other hand, 
surprising that neither k nor A, Virginia — which appear in the station 
aUghufr —are included in the Babylonian Series. For Scorpio 8 and (3 , 
two stars lying close to the south and north of the Ecliptic could hardly 
be overlooked. In the region where a and (3 Capricorni are situated, 
there are absolutely no other stars but these two, which could be in¬ 
cluded in an Ecliptic Seines. A choice, on the other hand, was possi¬ 
ble a little further on; and there we meet again with a noteworthy 
discrepancy, the Babylonian Series taking the stars closest to the Ecliptic, 
viz ., y and 8 Capricorni, while the corresponding manzil — as-siiud — com¬ 
prises /3 and £ Aquarii, which are situated more to the north. Where 
finally the Babylonian list has 77 , Piscium, not very far from the Ecliptic, 
the Arab manzil goes as far north as (3 Andromeda?. 
With regard to some of the discrepancies here noted, Professor 
Hommel directs attention to the circumstance that the stars comprised 
in the Babylonian Series, on the one hand, and the Arab Series on the 
other hand, have, at any rate, nearly the same longitude ; and seems to 
consider this as a sign of the original identity of the two series. But 
this circumstance really proves nothing. That the groups of stars 
actually chosen occasionally have almost the same longitude, naturally 
follows from the conditions of the task the Babylonians as w r ell as the 
Arabs had set themselves, viz., of dividing the Ecliptic by stars, or star 
groups, into 28 or, let us say, 30-36 parts. 
The various considerations set forth in what precedes, render it 
in my opinion, altogether impossible to look on the normal stars of the 
