Not._, vol. xix., pp. 11, 25.]
[Footnote 801: _Ibid._, vol. xxxviii., p. 398.]
[Footnote 802: _Am. Jour. of Sc._, vol. xvi., p. 124.]
[Footnote 803: _Wash. Obs._ for 1876, Part ii., p. 34.]
[Footnote 804: _Pop. Astr._, vol. ii., p. 168; _Astr. Jour._, No. 335.]
[Footnote 805: _Astr. and Astrophysics_, vol. xiii., p. 866.]
[Footnote 806: _Ibid._, p. 867.]
[Footnote 807: _Month. Not._, vol. xxiv., p. 18.]
[Footnote 808: _Ibid._, vol. xxiii., p. 234 (Challis).]
[Footnote 809: _Untersuchungen ueber die Spectra der Planeten_, p. 9.]
[Footnote 810: _Sirius_, vol. vii., p. 131.]
[Footnote 811: _Potsdam Publ._, No. 30; _Astr. Nach._, No. 3,171; Frost,
_Astr. and Astrophysics_, vol. xii., p. 619.]
[Footnote 812: Zoellner and Winnecke made it=O.13, _Astr. Nach._, No.
2,245.]
[Footnote 813: _Neueste Beytraege_, Bd. iii., p. 50.]
[Footnote 814: _Astr. Jahrbuch_, 1804, pp. 97-102.]
[Footnote 815: Webb, _Celestial Objects_, p. 46 (4th ed.).]
[Footnote 816: _L'Astronomie_, t. ii., p. 141.]
[Footnote 817: _Observations sur les Planetes Venus et Mercure_, p. 87.]
[Footnote 818: _Observatory_, vol. vi., p. 40.]
[Footnote 819: _Atti dell' Accad. dei Lincei_, t. v. ii., p. 283, 1889;
_Astr. Nach._, No. 2,944.]
[Footnote 820: _Astr. Nach._ No. 2,479.]
[Footnote 821: _Memoirs Amer. Acad._, vol. xii., No. 4, p. 464.]
[Footnote 822: _Hist. de l'Astr._, p. 682.]
[Footnote 823: _Comptes Rendus_, t. xlix., p. 379.]
[Footnote 824: _Comptes Rendus_, t. l., p. 40.]
[Footnote 825: _Ibid._, p. 46.]
[Footnote 826: _Astr. Nach._, Nos. 1,248 and 1,281.]
[Footnote 827: _Comptes Rendus_, t. lxxxiii., pp. 510, 561.]
[Footnote 828: _Handbuch der Mathematik_, Bd. ii., p. 327.]
[Footnote 829: _Comptes Rendus_, t. lxxxiii., p. 721.]
[Footnote 830: _Nature_, vol. xviii., pp. 461, 495, 539.]
[Footnote 831: Oppolzer, _Astr. Nach._, No. 2,239.]
[Footnote 832: _Ibid._, Nos. 2,253-4 (C. H. F. Peters).]
[Footnote 833: _Ibid._, Nos. 2,263 and 2,277. See also Tisserand in
_Ann. Bur. des Long._, 1882, p. 729.]
[Footnote 834: See J. Bauschinger's _Untersuchungen_ (1884), summarised
in _Bull. Astr._, t. i., p. 506, and _Astr. Nach._, No. 2,594. Newcomb
finds the anomalous motion of the perihelion to be even larger (43"
instead of 38") than Leverrier made it. _Month. Not._, February, 1884,
p. 187. Harzer's attempt to account for it in _Astr. Nach._, No. 3,030,
is more ingenious than successful.]
[
|