From the Table IX., and an examination of it, we learn that out of the 9 nebulæ into which we divided the original one, in the analysis of the nebular hypothesis, we have five--four of which are consecutive--which may have been almost of the same construction, and not far from the same proportions; that the original nebula cannot, for reasons assigned, be looked upon as either similar, or the reverse, to the five just classed; that one, the Uranian, is practically similar to the five, and might be exactly similar could the anomaly in the position of Neptune be explained; and that the remaining two, the Earth and Venus nebulæ, seem to show that they have been abandoned in a manner different from the others. Perhaps we may be able, later on, and in a different way, to give a reasonable explanation of the anomalies in the positions occupied by Neptune, the Earth, and Venus, and also of the peculiarities of their dimensions. So far, we believe we are justified in concluding that out of the 9 nebulæ, 6 may really be considered as supporting our theory, and the remaining 3 as, in all probability, capable of being shown to be, at least, not opposed to it. To this we may add that on several occasions we have stated our opinion, that the divisions between the nebulæ we have established, could not have taken place at the half-distance between the orbits of any two planets, but much nearer to the outer one. It is evident, then, that if we had made the divisions at any distance farther out, say at three-fourths of that distance from the inner orbit, the extreme diameter of each one of the nebulæ would have been just so much greater, the region of greatest density farther out from the centre of the sun, and even that of Neptune would have been beyond his orbit. All this could be done, yet but it would serve no good purpose, as will be seen presently; and we might be accused of cooking our data in order to produce a result favourable to our theory.