was almost full. As it did so, the values for the diameter steadily increased, even after irradiation was allowed for, although this against the brilliant background of the noonday sky must have been exceeding small, and tended in part to be diminished as the planet attained the full, because of its consequent nearing of the Sun. The measures thus explained themselves and vouched for their own accuracy.[1]
Then came a curious bit of unexpected proof to corroborate them. In his "Astronomical Constants,"[2] published but a short time before, Newcomb had detected a systematic error in the right ascensions of Mercury which he was not able to explain. By diligent mousing that eminent computer had discovered that Mercury was registered by observers too far from the Sun on whichever side of him it happened to be, and in proportion roughly not to its distance off but to the phase the planet exhibited. When the disk was a crescent the discrepancy between observation and theory was large, and thence decreased as the planet passed to the full. He suspected the cause, and would have found it had he not considered the diametral measures of the planet too well assured to permit of doubt. As it was, he neglected a factor which has
