It should be noted, though, that the position of Bharani at the opposite side of Apodis here is the result of a simple extrapolation from the beginning of the text on side a. By instead using my normal method of counting 183 (= 366 / 2) right ascension days for the position of a nakshatra star in relation to its heliacal star the result should be *223 - *183 = *40 (and not *41).

The preceding star was not named 40 Arietis but 39 Arietis as if to indicate this complication. "March 20 was day 79 counted from the beginning of the year but day *365 counted from 0h. Counted from the last day of the previous solar year it was day 80.

The problem of coordinating calendar dates with right ascension days was due to the normal Julian year being counted as 365 (= 365¼ - ¼) days. Therefore the Roman date 'February 24 was doubled every 4th year:

... The leap day was introduced as part of the Julian reform. The day following the Terminalia (February 23) was doubled, forming the 'bis sextum - literally 'double sixth', since February 24 was 'the sixth day before the Kalends of March' using Roman inclusive counting (March 1 was the 'first day'). Although exceptions exist, the first day of the bis sextum (February 24) was usually regarded as the intercalated or 'bissextile' day since the third century. February 29 came to be regarded as the leap day when the Roman system of numbering days was replaced by sequential numbering in the late Middle Ages ...

Bayer could have thought it appropriate to assign the name 39 Arietis at right ascension day *365, suggesting day *366 could be leaped over. Except every 4th year if it was not a centurial year not divisible by 4:

... Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; [but] the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 are still leap years. For example, the year 1900 is not a leap year; the year 2000 is a leap year ...