Burnham: Measures of Proper Motion Stars 
Meridian positions give: 
Porter 
o'.' 8 ii 
in 
2i6?9 
Paris 
0.814 
in 
213.2 
Kustner 
0.807 
in 
217.0 
Boss 
0.808 
in 
214.7 
Lalande 
R. A. S” 6 m 
1907.791 
.810 
.964 
15976 (7.5.. .9.0) 
32* Decl. + 57 0 28' 
A and B 
i 6 i ?28 13 i "83 
161.86 132.21 
161.88 132.37 
1907-85 
161.67 
132.14 
B and C (11.0) 
1907.810 
i52?6i 
ioo"39 
7.964 
152.62 
100.12 
8.769 
152.60 
100.64 
8.785 
I53-58 
100.40 
1908.33 
152.85 
100.39 
It is not probable that B has any sensible proper motion. 
For greater certainty hereafter, I have connected a third faint 
star. The measures of AB are: 
1893.25 
i 64?37 
I34"28 
2n 
Eng 
1907.85 
161.67 
132.14 
3 n 
P 
Combining these positions with that in A. G. Hels. for 1871, 
to give a longer time interval, we have for the proper motion 
of the large star: 
o"432 in 230?4 
Some of the meridian values are : 
Stumpe 
o" 4 o8 
in 
230? 1 
Porter 
0-394 
in 
232.3 
Paris 
0-359 
in 
227.6 
Bradley 1169 (7.3...9.2) 
R. A. 8 h 7 m 2 s Decl.+ 59 0 31' 
A and B 
1909.071 8?8o 96"32 
.091 8.97 95.88 
.093 9.25 96.16 
1909.08 
9.01 
96.12 
A and C (8.6) 
1909.071 
3oS?20 
223"96 
.091 
308.23 
223.78 
.093 
308.42 
223.54 
1909.08 
308.28 
223.76 
A and D (9.2) 
1909.071 
63? 30 
236"74 
.091 
63.50 
236.63 
• 093 
63.18 
236.33 
1909.08 
63 33 
236.57 
/ r e have the following earlier measures 
of B 
and C: 
AB 1851.27 
8?50 
95 ”02 
in 
02 
1879.81 
8.75 
95-68 
in 
Doub. 
AC 1851.27 
308.37 
222.41 
in 
02 
1879.81 
308.25 
223.00 
in 
Doub. 
These measures give for the annual movement of the prin¬ 
cipal star: 
AB R. A. — o"oi7 Decl. — o"oi5 
AC 0.020 0.013 
0.018 0.014 
The value derived from meridian positions seems to be too 
large: 
Measures 
o"o23 
in 
232? 1 
Auwers 
0.045 
in 
228.5 
Boss 
0.038 
in 
165.0 
The distances in the early measures of AD are inconsistent 
with each other, and with the later results. Unfortunately the 
Pulkowa positions depend upon a single night, and therefore 
may have some accidental error. The meridian positions are 
still more uncertain. The several values of the relation of 
these stars are as follows: 
A and D 
1842. 
62? 3 
236': 5 
0. Arg. N. 
1851.27 
62.81 
234.98 in 
02 
1873. 
63.1 
238.0 
A. G. Hels. 
1879.81 
63.00 
234.88 in 
Doub. 
1908.08 
63-33 
236.57 3 n 
P 
It is evident that no 
use can be made c 
>f these positions for 
getting the 
relative motion. They are 
too inconsistent to 
warrant the selection of one or more of them at this time, and 
the rejection of the others. It may be that the small star has 
some proper 
motion of its own. Measures in the future will 
settle this question. 
With this in view I have connected it with two small stars: 
D and E (9.7) 
1909.109 
I 07?90 
156"02 
.112 
108.27 
155-75 
.128 
108.03 
I55.64 
1909.11 
108.07 
i55.8o 
D and F (11.2) 
1909.112 
i 66?47 
I73"23 
.128 
166.20 
172.88 
1909.12 
166.33 
173-05 
The three comparison stars B, C, and D are respectively DM 
(59°) 1153, 1152, and 1155. The magnitudes given are those 
of the DM. 
Oxford (Z 26°) 24255 (9.6) 
R. A. 8 h i6 m 24?7i Decl. + 26° 57' I 2"8 
From the Oxford Astrographic Catalogue; plate taken 
1908.19. Place for 1900. From this and an earlier exposure, 
the proper motion is given: 
0"164 in I92?7 
This is identical with the 8.8 m star, DM (27 0 ) 1598. 
32 
