View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0001236 | SkyChart | 2-Catalog data | public | 13-11-25 11:05 | 17-01-12 18:21 |
Reporter | Patrick Chevalley | Assigned To | Patrick Chevalley | ||
Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
Status | resolved | Resolution | fixed | ||
Platform | All | OS | All | OS Version | All |
Product Version | 3.9 SVN | ||||
Target Version | 4.0 | Fixed in Version | 3.11 SVN | ||
Summary | 0001236: Update catalog data with new version | ||||
Description | New version of WDS and GCVS. Replace NGC2000 by Wolfgang Steinicke NGC/IC using Catgen. Replace PGC by latest Hyperleda using Catgen to solve the problem with the new length of the "name" field. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
related to | 0001598 | assigned | Patrick Chevalley | Add capability to read observing notes for an object |
|
"Replace NGC2000 by Wolfgang Steinicke NGC/IC using Catgen." Is it possible to do it in version 3.10 as an optional catalog like UCAC4? |
|
|
|
I upload here my first try to make this catalog. You can test it with the current program version. There is at least one problem for me with the way the objects without magnitude are handled, you need to zoom a lot to see them even if they are large. This is the main reason I report the change for version 3.12. I also want to try to merge the original Dreyer description from the historic file. |
|
ngcnotes.txt (947,570 bytes)
<object><oname>NGC1</oname> See NGC7839. </object> <object><oname>NGC2</oname> See NGC7839. </object> <object><oname>NGC3</oname> See NGC4. </object> <object><oname>NGC4</oname> This really is the very faint galaxy about an arcminute south of Marth's position. He was observing with a 48-inch reflector, the second largest telescope in the world at the time, so he really could see very faint galaxies like this. LEDA took NPM1G +07.0004 as NGC4. This is brighter, yes, but it is nearly 21 arcmin away from Marth's position, and by funny numbers in both RA and Dec (52 seconds of time, and 16.5 arcmin). Also, Marth's relative position from NGC3 pins this down. He found both on the same night in November of 1864, so the telescope was zeroed the same for both galaxies. Marth's offset from NGC3 to NGC4 is just 10 seconds in RA and 5 arcmin in Dec. The offsets from modern positions are 7.6 seconds in RA and 4 arcmin 20 arcsec in Dec. This is well within the errors of Marth's usual accuracy, so the identification is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC6</oname><oname>NGC20</oname>. On the night of 20 September 1885, Lewis Swift found six objects. Four of these (NGC19, NGC21, NGC7831, and NGC7836; see the notes for these, too) have mean offsets in their positions as published by Swift, from the correct positions, of -1m 10s in RA and -8m 08s in Dec. A fifth found later in the night, NGC801, has offsets of +19s and +0.9m; Swift clearly "re-zeroed" his telescope in the interim. The sixth object, NGC6, shares the right ascension offsets of the first four, but its declination is about 45 arcmin too large. It's identity with NGC20 is secured by Swift's note "... one of 5 sts which point to it is pretty near." The unmistakeable line of five stars stretches about 2 arcmin to the east; Swift's "pretty near" star is about 15 arcsec east of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC8</oname>is a double star about 3 arcmin northwest of NGC9. Both objects were found by Otto Sturve in September 1865, NGC9 on the 27th, and NGC8 on the 29th. Struve's relative positions for the two are good, though his absolute positions are -12 sec and -2 arcmin off. His measurement of the 10th mag star about 6 arcmin east-southeast of NGC9, however, clearly identifies the two objects he saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC9</oname>is a peculiar spiral with a bright blue knot on its southern arm, found by Otto Struve. Though Struve's position is about 3 arcmin off, his measurement of the star 6 arcmin east of the galaxy insures the identification. See NGC8 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC14</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC17</oname><oname>NGC34</oname>. This galaxy is clearly identified by its discovers' (Muller and Swift) descriptions of nearby stars, in particular the double star two arcmin west-northwest. Along with many other of the Leander McCormick nebulae, its approximate position is about 2 minutes of time too far east. Herbert Howe was the first to suggest the identity, again based on the clear descriptions of the double star, which he observed just where Muller and Swift claimed it to be. </object> <object><oname>NGC18</oname>is a double star 4 arcmin east of NGC16. It was found by Herman Schultz whose micrometric position, measured on two nights, is within 3 arcsec of the GSC position. Dreyer notes that N18 was not seen by either d'Arrest or by Lord Rosse. </object> <object><oname>NGC19</oname> As with NGC6 (which see), NGC19 is unambiguously identified by Swift's note about the surrounding star field: "... in center of 3 very faint stars forming an equilateral triangle, two of them double." The double stars are northwest and southwest of the galaxy, with the third star being east- southeast. Swift's position for the galaxy also shares the systematic offset of NGC21, NGC7831, and NGC7836 from the true position. Concidentally, Swift's position for NGC21 (which see) is near NGC19 which has led some to mistakenly call the latter galaxy NGC21. </object> <object><oname>NGC20</oname>is also = NGC6 (which see). NGC20's original NGC position is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC21</oname><oname>NGC29</oname>. Though Swift makes no comment about the surrounding star field, the identity of his object with Herschel's is clinched by the offset of his (Swift's) position from the true position: NGC19, 7831, and 7836 share the same offset (see NGC6 for more information). The NGC position for NGC29 is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC28</oname>and NGC31. Found by John Herschel during his stay at Cape Town in the mid-1830's, the identifications of these two galaxies are unequivocal. This has not prevented PGC from equivocating: it claims that the SGC identifications are wrong. Balderdash and bull feathers! Unfortunately, ESO missed the galaxies (and NGC37 as well), so that N28 is not even in ESO. ESO 149-G020 is NGC31, and ESO 149-G022 is NGC37. All this is probably why the PGC folks were misled. The PGC error also crept over into RC3; the galaxy identified there as NGC28 is actually NGC31. </object> <object><oname>NGC29</oname> See NGC21. </object> <object><oname>NGC30</oname>is a double star. This was recorded only once by Marth in late 1864 as a "nebulous star 13th magnitude." There are no galaxies within 10 arcmin of Marth's position, but the double star is within an arcmin. On a night of less than perfect seeing, it would probably appear as Marth described it. </object> <object><oname>NGC31</oname> See NGC28. </object> <object><oname>NGC32</oname>is apparently the northeastern of a pair of stars separated by about 30 arcsec. It was found by Julius Schmidt on 10 Oct 1861, probably from Athens (where Schmidt had become director of the observatory 3 years earlier) with a 6.2-inch Ploessl refractor. He made a micrometric measurement of it, and provided a generic description, "A faint nebula." Auwers lists this as the first object in his appendix of nebulae discovered since the Herschels. Schmidt's position is within 3 arcsec of the star, so it is almost certainly the object he saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC33</oname>is a double star. The comment for NGC30 fits this perfectly, too. The only difference is Marth's description: "eF, vS; or nebulous star." </object> <object><oname>NGC34</oname><oname>NGC17</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC37</oname> See NGC28. </object> <object><oname>NGC44</oname>is a double star found by John Herschel. He describes it as "eF, vS; not to be seen but in the clearest night." There is a very faint galaxy 8.4 arcmin south of Herschel's position, but the double is within 15 arcsec and fits his description. </object> <object><oname>NGC46</oname>is a single star. Included as a nebula in the Markree Catalogue, it was reobserved twice in its catalogued place by Auwers who notes it as "... a completely sharp nebulous star 11th magnitude (9 arcmin north and 1 min 29 sec preceding a star 7.8 mag)." The 7.8 mag star is SAO 109091 which is exactly where Auwers says it is with respect to NGC46. This positively identifies N46 as the star, as does the Markree position which is within 4 arcsec of the GSC position. </object> <object><oname>NGC47</oname><oname>NGC58</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC50</oname> See NGC58. </object> <object><oname>NGC54</oname> See NGC58. </object> <object><oname>NGC55</oname> See IC1537. </object> <object><oname>NGC56</oname>does not exist. John Herschel recorded it only once very early in his observing career (Sweep 14 in 1825), saying, "About this place a considerable space seems affected with nebulosity." There is a possibility that he saw a reflection of the bright star 2 degrees north, but there is no other reasonable explanation for the observation. The other objects that he recorded in Sweep 14 (including M15) are all in the same area of the sky, so there is no gross error in the position. </object> <object><oname>NGC58</oname><oname>NGC47</oname>. The brightest (N50) of the three nebulae (N47 and N54 are the others) in this group was found in 1866 by Brother Ferrari. It is one of only two in his short list, published in a note in AN 1571 by Father Secchi, which has a fairly accurate position. See NGC7667 for more information about Father Secchi's note. Sometime later, Tempel went over the field and found Ferrari's nebula as well as a second nearby, N47. Though Dreyer credits Tempel with observing both objects, there is no record of either in any of Tempel's 10 published notes. So, he must have "announced" them in a letter to Dreyer. His position for N47 is good. Finally, on 21 October 1886, Lewis Swift saw all three nebulae. Since Father Secchi's position for the brightest is not exactly on the galaxy, and having no way to know of Tempel's observation, Swift included the three as new in his sixth list. Curiously, Dreyer credits only Secchi for N50, though he lists Swift as having observed the other two. Though Swift calls N58 the "3rd of 3," it is actually west of the other two. Swift's RA is in error by about 1 minute of time. This was noticed first by Herbert Howe who could not find N58, and suggested that Tempel's object, N47, is also the object seen by Swift. This, of course, makes it the "1st of 3," and suggests that Swift added the comments based on the positions in his list, rather than on his actual observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC61</oname>is the brighter, southern component of a double galaxy found by WH. His description, "irregular figure," suggests that he might have glimpsed the fainter component to the north, too. The MCG position (copied into RNGC) is incorrect, ESGC (in RC3) is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC67</oname>is the westernmost and faintest of at least seven nebulae found by LdR in what we now call the NGC68 group. His fine sketch, published in his 1861 monograph, clearly shows that the object that most of us have been calling NGC67A is, in fact, the object LdR sketched as one of the nebulae. The object we've been calling NGC67 is shown on LdR's sketch as a star. So, I've reassigned NGC67 to the correct galaxy to properly reflect the history. The other NGC objects in the group (N68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 74) are brighter and have been correctly identified in the major catalogues. </object> <object><oname>NGC68</oname>is the brightest galaxy in a compact group. WH listed one of his fifth class ("large") nebulae here, so I think it likely that he saw the merged light of at least NGC68, 70, and 71, the three brightest in the group. Several of the stars in the vicinity probably also added to the "object" that WH catalogued. LdR picked out seven of the nebulae here, and suspected at least two others. His sketch shows the seven, along with several stars, two of which turn out to be galaxies. See NGC67, IC1538, and IC1539 for more on this group. </object> <object><oname>NGC69</oname> See NGC67. </object> <object><oname>NGC70</oname><oname>IC1539</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC67 and 68. </object> <object><oname>NGC71</oname> See NGC67 and NGC68. </object> <object><oname>NGC72</oname> See NGC67. </object> <object><oname>NGC74</oname> See NGC67. </object> <object><oname>NGC81</oname> Even though Bigourdan mistook the star northwest of the galaxy as NGC81, Copeland's offsets from NGC83 are very good and point unambiguously at the galaxy as the correct object. </object> <object><oname>NGC82</oname> Bigourdan's offsets just as unambiguously point to a star in this case as in his mistaken observation of a star for NGC81. </object> <object><oname>NGC83</oname> See NGC81. </object> <object><oname>NGC84</oname> As with Bigourdan's measurements of NGC81 and 82, this, too, is a star, nailed exactly by those measurements. </object> <object><oname>NGC85</oname> I admit to caving in to the inevitable on this one. There is no problem with the NGC identification -- Copeland's offsets from NGC83 are accurate, and just as accurately pin down the galaxy he measured. Similarly, Javelle's offsets from SAO 073902 are good and pin down IC1546. The "A" and "B" suffixes for NGC85 come from MCG, and confuse the simplicity of the history. I was tempted to ignore the suffixes altogether, but they have already been copied into the literature. So, I have to note that "N85B" is the same as IC1546. </object> <object><oname>NGC90</oname> 91, and NGC93. Dreyer has confused the observations of these objects. Lord Rosse's observations make it clear that he and his assistants saw only two nebulous objects here, so one of the "Ld R"'s has to be striken from the "Other Observers" column of the NGC. The offsets make it clear that the Irish observers saw what we now call NGC90 and NGC93. What do the observations of Schultz and d'Arrest have to say? Schultz's positions for all three objects -- not just one as the NGC credits -- precessed from the published equinox of 1865.0, agree to within two or three arcsec in all three cases with modern data from GSC. These pin down the three objects and show that NGC91 is a star (Bigourdan also called the same star NGC91 in his Observations). D'Arrest's positions are not quite as good, but fall within 20 arcsec of the galaxies. His descriptions of the locations and magnitudes of the nearby stars are also good, and confirm the identifications. So, NGC90 should be credited to Lord Rosse, Schultz, and d'Arrest (rather than just Lord Rosse and Schultz), NGC91 to Schultz alone (Lord Rosse and d'Arrest never commented on this star), and NGC93 again to all three observers. To the description for NGC90 should be added "* 13 sp." There are several other identification problems in the NGC80/83 Group, too. See NGC81, 82, and 84, as well as IC1547. </object> <object><oname>NGC91</oname> See NGC90. </object> <object><oname>NGC93</oname> See NGC90. </object> <object><oname>NGC110</oname> Is this a true cluster, or just a part of the northern Milky Way that is randomly richer? JH found the grouping in late October 1831, and described it as "A very loose, pretty rich cluster; stars 9th to 12th magnitude; 9th magnitude star in the middle taken." Assuming that JH's position is correctly reduced and printed, the 9th magnitude star is GSC 4303-1643 at 00 24 29.38, +71 06 51.1 (I've adopted this position -- rounded off -- as the position of the cluster). Looking at the object on the POSS1 does not show much beyond a group of 50-60 stars scattered over an area about 20 arcmin across. Had this not been included in the Alter-Ruprecht catalogue, I suspect that it would have been one of the RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. There is the possibility of a mistake in JH's single position, but I don't see any other grouping in the area that would fit his description as well. I think this is a candidate for visual observation. Note added in October 2003. Bob Erdmann and I examined the cluster a couple of weeks ago under good skies in Prescott, AZ with 8-inch and 16-inch telescopes. JH's description from the eyepiece is more appropriate than mine from the POSS. The "cluster" is just a bit more than a random scattering of 15-20 stars from the 9th to the 12th magnitudes in an area about 20 arcmin across. It doesn't stand out very well from the field, but we can still see why JH recorded it. </object> <object><oname>NGC111</oname> I cannot see anything within 5 degrees of Leavenworth's position that agrees with his description of a "vF, vS, R, lbM; * 8.5 p 36 sec, n 2 arcmin. RA doubtful." There is a very faint, peculiar pair of galaxies (MCG -01-02-013) at the approximate offsets he gives -- but the star is 10th or 11th magnitude, and his description of the galaxy does not match the relatively low surface brightness twisted streamers that contribute most of the light of the pair. There is no sketch included in Stone's papers at the University of Virginia. The galaxy may not be irretrieveably lost, however. Since the declinations in the first two Leander McCormick lists are generally (though not always!) reliable to within a couple of arcminutes, it may be possible to scan around the sky at Leavenworth's declination to find the object (see e.g. NGC331). I haven't tried yet, however. </object> <object><oname>NGC116</oname>is the last of fourteen new nebulae found by Brother Ferrari at the College Romain during the winter of 1865-1866. They were announced by Father Secchi, and Dreyer incorrectly credits him with their discovery. See NGC7667 for more information about Father Secchi, Brother Ferrari, and their nebulae. This particular nebula is unusual in the list in having a candidate galaxy nearby (about 15 arcmin north of the nominal position), MCG -01-02-017. There is another galaxy about eight arcmin southeast (MCG -01-02-018), closer to the nominal position, but fainter. Most of us take the brighter, northwestern galaxy, but given the poor position, even that is unsure. </object> <object><oname>NGC120</oname>is correctly described as being about 10 arcmin north of the comparison star in Tempel's original paper. However, as noted first by Bigourdan, the NGC position is about 5 arcmin off. This is apparently one of the positions that Tempel sent to Dreyer as a private communication since only the description is published. See NGC122 and NGC123 for a bit more. </object> <object><oname>NGC122</oname>and NGC123 are probably stars. Tempel published only the sparce descriptions; the NGC positions are apparently among those that he sent directly to Dreyer. There is certainly nothing at these positions except a faint star in the case of NGC122 (which Bigourdan measured). Ironically, I think that this star may be the northeast of Tempel's "nebulae," so that it would be NGC123 and not NGC122. NGC122 may be the equally faint star about an arcminute southwest of Bigourdan's star. See NGC123 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC123</oname>is probably one of two 15th magnitude stars, both in GSC, near Tempel's positions (see NGC122 for more on this) in roughly the correct relative positions. Since there are no nebulae anywhere in the area, I've tentatively identified these two stars with the objects he described. A brighter galaxy, NGC120 (which see) is further on to the northwest, again in the correct relative position which Tempel described in his paper. Bigourdan measured this star, but gave it the number NGC122; there is nothing at all at his one measured place for NGC123. </object> <object><oname>NGC135</oname><oname>IC26</oname>. There is no doubt about the identity of IC26 -- Javelle's position agrees to within 2 arcsec of that measured on the DSS. The problem comes from Leavenworth's position for NGC135. Like many of the positions in the two lists of new nebulae from Leander McCormick Observatory, that one is over a minute of time off in RA, though much closer in declination (less than 2 arcmin off). Herbert Howe went after the object around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) and said simply, "The position is 00h 26m 43s, -13d 53.3m [1900.0]." This agrees exactly with the position for IC26. Leavenworth has left us a sketch that verifies Howe's object, so the identity is secure. It's interesting to note, too, that the cover sheet for the sketch has the RA given to a tenth of a minute (00h 24.8m), while the RA in the published paper is rounded off to 00h 25m. I won't even speculate on why this was done. </object> <object><oname>NGC151</oname><oname>NGC153</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC153</oname><oname>NGC151</oname>. Swift found four nebulae on the night of 9 August 1886 (N163, N217, and N7774 as well as N153) -- all have RA's in his list that are 10 - 15 seconds of time too large, though his declinations are pretty good. As it happens, all but N7774 had been previously seen. Dreyer caught the identities for two of the nebulae (N163 and N217), but not for N153. So, the galaxy now has two NGC numbers. N153 is sometimes taken to be the star just northeast of the galaxy. But this can't be because Swift mentions that star in his description of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC156</oname>is probably the northern of the pair of stars, northwest of NGC157, that Wolfgang and I have pointed to in the past. Tempel has mistaken several other single stars near galaxies as nebulous (see e.g. NGC4315, NGC4322, NGC 4768/9), and this is probably another. We can't tell for sure, though, as he has not measured this micrometrically, and his description is scanty: "Very small". The NGC tells us all that Tempel did in his brief note. </object> <object><oname>NGC157</oname> See NGC7667 where this galaxy -- N157 -- figures in the Father Secchi mysteries. </object> <object><oname>NGC158</oname> Though this is 4 arcmin from the NGC position, this close double star is probably Tempel's object. It is northeast of NGC157, and could probably be seen on a night of less-than-perfect seeing as nebulous. I'm a bit more confident of this one than I am of NGC156, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC160</oname>is not NGC162, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC162</oname>is a star about 75 arcsec northeast of NGC160. It was initially found and measured by Schultz at Uppsala (he calls it "G.C. 80" in his tables and notes), though Lord Rosse also noted it at least twice. In addition, the star was thought to be nebulous on Heidelberg and Lick plates, though the Mt. Wilson astronomers -- not finding a nebula at the place -- hypothesized that N162 = N160. The small galaxy 2.7 arcminutes southeast of N160 has also been mistaken for NGC162, once by yrs trly. Live and learn. Also see Dreyer's NGC note for N160. He had this all figured out in 1888. </object> <object><oname>NGC163</oname> See NGC153. </object> <object><oname>NGC171</oname><oname>NGC175</oname>. Dreyer (1912, WH's collected papers) tells us that CH made a 1 degree error while reducing the position of III 223. There is certainly nothing in the place given in NGC, though the identity with III 223 carries two question marks. Auwers has the correct declination in his published reduction of WH's observations. The spare number comes from GC. Unfortunately, JH has no note there telling us why he put the number in. However, in CGH, he notes the 1 degree difference in the polar distances between III 223 and h2334 (N175) while again putting a question mark on the number from his father's catalogue. Enough doubt apparently remained in his mind about the identity that he put two entries into GC, both of which Dreyer copied into the NGC. Dreyer checked back into WH's manuscripts while working on the Collected Papers, and found CH's error. </object> <object><oname>NGC175</oname><oname>NGC171</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC178</oname><oname>IC39</oname>. The IC identity is not in doubt. Javelle's micrometric measurement reduces to within a few arcsec of the modern position. The NGC number, though, comes from one of Ormond Stone's Leander McCormick discoveries with its typically bad RA. Stone's declination is fortunately close, and his description "F, S, mE 0 deg, bM, faint wing sp" fits the galaxy perfectly. The "faint wing" is, in fact, one of the arms of this object. I wonder if this is a superposition of two galaxies, or an interacting system. Stone has left a sketch of his nebula -- my rather poor copy of it shows the "wing" faintly. Unfortunately, the sketch shows only the galaxy; no nearby stars are included, so the identity is not quite pinned down. At least the galaxy itself is oriented along the north-south axis of the sketch with the "wing" apparently stretching off towards the southwest. Herbert Howe found the galaxy 1min 37sec following Stone's position, so the corrected position made it into the IC2 Notes. Unfortunately, Dreyer did not notice that the object is the same as IC39, so the identity of the two numbers was not published until one of the Helwan observers noticed it. </object> <object><oname>NGC203</oname><oname>NGC211</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC211</oname><oname>NGC203</oname>. Stephan misidentified his comparison star as BD +2 92; his star is actually GSC 0014-1250, not in BD. Within his mean errors, Stephan's offsets, applied to the correct star, point exactly to NGC203. This was later picked up by Copeland with LdR's 72-inch, and was correctly positioned by him. A star that I had earlier pegged as the possible object that Stephan saw is about 0.5 arcmin south-southeast of Stephan's incorrect position used in NGC. Though I've not reduced Bigourdan's two measurements of "NGC211," I suspect they refer to this same star. </object> <object><oname>NGC213</oname> See IC1572. </object> <object><oname>NGC217</oname> See NGC153. </object> <object><oname>NGC219</oname> See IC44. </object> <object><oname>NGC223</oname><oname>IC44</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC250</oname> Swift's position is over 4 arcmin to the east of the galaxy. But his description of the galaxy, "eF, vS, R; in center of 3 sts in form of a right triangle" is exact and points us to the correct object. </object> <object><oname>NGC252</oname> NGC258, and NGC260. Lord Rosse described this field differently on different nights. On 22 Dec 1848, the three objects appeared to be in a line; on 23 Oct 1856, they formed a triangle. He has two sketches, one showing the line, the second the triangle. Since the second has no field stars shown, it's difficult to determine the orientation. My guess, however, is that the third "nebula" shown there is a faint star about 2 arcmin south of the NGC position of N258. On the sky, the three objects are in a line. This is the orientation that Dreyer adopted, and the NGC positions are relatively accurate. </object> <object><oname>NGC258</oname> See NGC252. </object> <object><oname>NGC260</oname> See NGC252. </object> <object><oname>NGC276</oname><oname>IC1591</oname>. There is no doubt about which galaxy the IC number belongs to -- Stewart has it well-placed and perfectly described from a Harvard plate. N276, however, is one of the Leander-McCormick nebulae first found by Muller, and published with a very poor position. Muller's description, however, is as detailed and as accurate as Stewart's. Herbert Howe found the galaxy 1 minute 13 seconds following Muller's position with the bright star north-northeast just as Muller had it. Unfortunately, Dreyer did not catch the connection to IC1591 when he wrote the IC2 note, so the object now has two numbers. </object> <object><oname>NGC281</oname><oname>IC11</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC1590. </object> <object><oname>NGC295</oname>is lost. This object was found by Copeland with LdR's 72-inch reflector while he was examining what he thought was NGC296. His description of the field is precise: "[NGC296] F, R, *10m (yellow) Pos 29.6 deg, Dist 123.1 arcsec. Nova [NGC295], S, R, and with a * or another neb 10 arcsec n. Pos from [296] 242.0 deg, Dist 314.6 arcsec or 21.6 seconds p, 147.6 arcsec s." Unfortunately, this configuration of objects is nowhere to be found near NGC296 (which see for more). I've searched the POSS1 +30 deg 00h 52m field, but could find no galaxies with neighboring stars as Copeland describes. Perhaps a search of the adjacent fields would turn up something. </object> <object><oname>NGC296</oname> WH's position is about 20 seconds too large and an arcmin too far north. That alone would not have caused people to miss the identification with the brightest galaxy in a group of five. What caused the problem was NGC295 (which see). Copeland misidentified the field with N296, found a second object near it, and Dreyer put that into NGC as N295. Unfortunately, with WH's position being off, the nominal position of N295 is very close to the actual position for N296. Hence, the confusion. The description in NGC is an "average" of WH's and Copeland's for the galaxy he thought was N296. WH's original description "F, E, preceding a B star", is closer, but the GC description (apparently taken from one of his father's observing logs by JH) is even better: "F, E, a B* f, vnr." Just about everyone has the wrong identification for this, but the correct one is not in doubt. Malcolm found this one, too. Good catch! </object> <object><oname>NGC297</oname>is an extremely faint companion to NGC298. Both were found by Albert Marth with Lassell's 48-inch reflector during one of their Malta stays. When I first went over the field for ESGC, I found it hard to believe that such a faint galaxy could be seen visually. However, more experience in looking at some of the other objects Marth found has convinced me that he could indeed have picked this one up, especially since the brighter galaxy would have already caught his attention. In earlier versions of the position table, I suggested that N297 might be the double star at 00 52 29.6, -07 37 50 (B1950; HCo), but that is unlikely as the relative position of the two galaxies as given by Marth is very good. The double is almost straight south of N298, putting it about an arcmin off Marth's relative offset from N298. </object> <object><oname>NGC298</oname> See NGC297. </object> <object><oname>NGC301</oname> See NGC302. </object> <object><oname>NGC302</oname>is a probably the star 1.8 arcmin east-northeast of NGC301. The pair was found by Frank Muller, and has a typically poor RA in the first list of nebulae from Leander McCormick. The declinations, though, seem to be close. Though there is no sketch, the objects can be tentatively identified by Muller's comment "* 8 p 30 seconds" in the description of NGC301. There are, in fact, two stars of about 8th magnitude roughly 30 seconds preceding the galaxy. The northern star is slightly closer than 30 seconds, the southern is slightly further. It's possible that neither is the correct star, but this is the only configuration in the area that fits Muller's note. In any event, there is no object at his given offset from the galaxy (his note reads "Neb? f ([No.] 18 [in the first list = N301]), P 75 deg, dist 1.0 [arcmin]." The actual distance is 1.8 arcmin, though the position angle is about right. Unfortunately, 20th century versions of my position lists pointed to the wrong object as N302 (the faint star or compact galaxy 0.3 southeast of N301). The first 21st century version finally got the right star -- assuming, of course, that it is the object Muller saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC305</oname>is a small asterism of six or eight stars at JH's discovery position; his description, "A small cluster of p closely scattered stars" confirms the identification. RNGC incorrectly placed the NGC number on a nearby CGCG galaxy. Unfortunately, PGC followed RNGC, so this number crept into RC3 as well. Sigh. The position depends a bit on exactly which stars are taken as members of the asterism. Tom DeMary includes a few more than caught my eye at first, so his position is about an arcminute different. But the identification as an asterism is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC307</oname> See NGC308. </object> <object><oname>NGC308</oname>and NGC310 are both stars. [All this is from a letter to Malcolm Thomson; it's all a bit wordy, but I've saved it like this since it has a few details in it about my pre-DSS working methods.] Since Lord Rosse measured the positions of NGC308 and 310 in relation to NGC307, I decided to do the same. Using a comparator with a millimeter scale and an "angle fan" scale, I measured the distances and position angles of objects surrounding NGC307 on the Palomar Sky Survey print. Since the scale of the paper prints is different in the x and y directions by about 0.9%, the measurements are liable to be a bit off from what would be measured on a glass plate. Estimating the center of NGC307 was also a problem, and the resulting errors probably swamped the print scale problem. Nevertheless, the measurements are adequate to unambiguously identify the objects in question. So, here is a table of the objects identified and measured by Lord Rosse and myself. I've also included [Malcolm Thomson's] measurement of the galaxy that the RNGC calls NGC310. Object Observer PA Dist Date Notes (deg) (arcsec) GC 5126 Ld. R. 147 60 31 Dec 1866 Measure obviously approximate = N308 Ld. R. 149.7 52 23 Oct 1876 Mean of two measures = star HC 150+- 52 14 Jul 1989 PA approx GC 5128 Ld. R. 81 225 31 Dec 1866 "Another neb. susp. near." = N310 Ld. R. 84.8 239 23 Oct 1876 One measure only = star HC 84 231 14 Jul 1989 --- HC -- --- 25 Oct 1983 "Both novae are stars." eF nova Ld. R. ssf 3-4 min 8 Nov 1866 Estimated position Stars HC (same) (same) 14 Jul 1989 "Only stars here" Star Ld. R. 199 225 31 Dec 1866 Ld. R. 201.6 240.1 23 Oct 1876 "* 11m. sp [GC] 172" HC 201 235 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Star Ld. R. 0+- 3.25min 23 Oct 1876 "* 11.12m, 3.25min exactly north of [GC] 172." HC 357 170 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Gal B HC 91 303 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch MT 90+- 4min Jun 1989? Gal C HC 215 185 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Gal "D" HC 338 92 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch, unlabeled That's all the observations there are, aside from the modern work on NGC307 (photometry, spectroscopy, etc.). Dreyer's NGC positions (and the offsets from NGC307) are derived from Lord Rosse's measurements, so don't give us any new data. As you can see, my measurements agree (within the errors, a few arc seconds, and about 2 deg in PA) exactly with Lord Rosse's, and pinpoint the two stars as the "nebulae" that he found. Adding to my conviction that this must be correct is the fact that the galaxies C and D are approximately the same brightness as B, yet Lord Rosse mentions neither, in spite of the fact that he noticed the star further to the north of D and NGC307. I also suspect that [Thomson] is correct that the "...2st., 13.14 m. sf" Lord Rosse's "...similar object, more stellar" seen during the 1876 observation are probably the two that [Thomson] mentioned, but that he (LdR) again missed the real nebula (B). There is a faint possibility that Lord Rosse actually saw the nucleus of B and just one of the sf stars, but this would need confirmation. I think he also may have glimpsed the faint star very close sff NGC307 on 8 Nov 1866: "...on the p side is either a * close or some other appearance different to the f. side." However, since there is no star on the western side that I can see on the print, it is only the "some other appearance to the f. side" that offers evidence of this, so I wouldn't want to push this. In sum, I have no choice but to stand by my original conclusion that both NGC 308 and 310 are stars mistaken for nebulae. The agreement in the distances and position angles from NGC307 allows no other conclusion. </object> <object><oname>NGC310</oname> See NGC308. </object> <object><oname>NGC311</oname> See NGC313. </object> <object><oname>NGC313</oname>is a triple star (the third star is very close to the northern of the brighter two) about an arcminute north west of NGC315. Lord Rosse observed the group (NGC311 and NGC318 are the other two bona fide galaxies in it) on six different nights, and saw the triple as nebulous on all but one night when he noted it as a double star (his sketch was apparently made on that night as it shows N313 as a double star). His micrometric offsets from N315 on three nights point exactly to the triple. The southern star is just bright enough that it was picked up in GSC. The position I've adopted is midway between this and the image of the northern two stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC315</oname> See NGC313, NGC316, and NGC318. </object> <object><oname>NGC316</oname>is a single star 45 arcsec east of NGC315. Lord Rosse has four micrometric measurements of it, all refered to N315, so there is no confusion as to which object he was looking at. </object> <object><oname>NGC318</oname> Even though Lord Rosse saw this on just one of the six nights on which he observed the group around NGC315, it is nevertheless correctly placed in his diagram, and is correctly described by him. The NGC position is pretty good. </object> <object><oname>NGC321</oname> The mess with this number is partly my fault. While working on RC2, I noticed that there is nothing at the (incorrect) RC1 position of "A0055." However, MCG -01-03-041 is just one degree south and 0.1 minute east of the RC1 position. I immediately jumped at this, and followed MCG in misidentifying the galaxy as N321. Early versions of ESGC perpetuate the error. However, the real NGC321 is actually MCG -01-03-043 (which MCG calls N325, but that is MCG -01-03-45; are we confused yet?!). It was found by Marth in August or September of 1864, and is the first -- and faintest -- of four. The others are NGC325 = MCG -01-03-045, N327 = MCG -01-03-047, and N329 = MCG -01-03-048. Marth's positions are very good, and his brief descriptions are appropriate. Even so, MCG managed to misidentify the first two of the four. By the way: the galaxy called "A0055" in RC1 is MCG -01-03-041 (I got the correct object, but put the wrong name on it). This object is the parent galaxy of SN 1939D, discovered by Zwicky (see Harvard Announcement Card #518), and included in his sample in ApJ 96, 28, 1942. He gives a relatively coarse position (00h 54m, -05d 20m; labeled "1938.0" in the ApJ paper, but "1939.0" in the HAC) which is nevertheless good enough to pinpoint MCG -01-03-041 as the correct galaxy. He notes the type as "Sb" in ApJ; he classified it on the 18-inch Schmidt film on which the supernova was found. ESGC calls it "SB(r)c pec" from a glass copy of the 48-inch POSS1 plate, in pretty good agreement. Zwicky also says in the HAC, "The spiral in which [the supernova] appears belongs to a small group of nebulae including N321, N325, N327, [and] N329 at the estimated distance of 7 million parsecs." Thus, the galaxy cannot be N321, so we can take his position as correct and pointing at MCG -01-03-041. (MCG -01-03-042 = Mark 966 is 4.0 arcmin on to the northeast, and is compact and overexposed on the POSS1, showing little trace of spiral structure; it would have been nearly stellar on the 18-inch films.) </object> <object><oname>NGC324</oname> John Herschel's observation reads: "F; S; Stellar; the bad definition of a south-easter prevents certainty, but I think it is not a star." His position (precessed to 1950.0): 00 54 55 -40 43.2. There is nothing here, but just 30 arcmin south at 00 54 56 -41 13.8 is a galaxy that agrees with Herschel's description, and was taken by ESO and RC3 as N324. I1609 (chosen by RNGC) at 00 57 28 -40 36.1 is also a possibility, but there is no easy digit error in the position that could account for Herschel's position. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that there is simply a 30 arcmin error in Herschel's position. </object> <object><oname>NGC325</oname>is MCG -01-03-045, not MCG -01-03-043. See NGC321 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC327</oname> See NGC321. </object> <object><oname>NGC329</oname> See NGC321. </object> <object><oname>NGC331</oname>may be MCG -01-03-012 which is 11m 30s west of the very rough position given by Leavenworth, who notes the RA as "doubtful." If we make a -10 minute correction to the RA, that places Leavenworth's nebula 1m 30s east of the MCG object. This is within the errors of being at the +2 minute systematic offset that many of the Leander McCormick nebulae show in their RAs. The declinations are usually within an arcminute, and there is a star (somewhat fainter than Leavenworth's rough estimate of 12th mag) three arcmin northeast of the galaxy. Since there is no other reasonable candidate object in the area, I've tentatively adopted the identification. There is apparently no extant sketch. Another suggested identification for N331 is MCG -01-03-039. But this has a very bright star just 5 arcmin west-northwest. Leavenworth would almost certainly have mentioned this, but does not. So, I think that is a less likely candidate than MCG -01-03-012, even though it is closer to the nominal position. </object> <object><oname>NGC333</oname> See IC1604. </object> <object><oname>NGC336</oname>is not, as I supposed earlier, a double star. Thanks to the efforts of Doug Wereb, Bob Bunge, and Brent Archinal, I have a notebook full of copies of the discovery sketches of about a third of the nebulae found at Leander McCormick. These are apparently all the sketches that still exist, and may be all there ever were. In any event, NGC336 is included among these sketches. It is shown as a small, faint, circular nebula in a field including 3 stars. Fairly close to the (very inaccurate) L-M position is ESO 541-IG002, a faint, peculiar galaxy, perhaps a colliding pair, with the three stars shown in the correct relative positions. The objects suggested as NGC336 by ESO and RNGC do not have stars nearby matching those in the sketch. Thus, they cannot be NGC336. </object> <object><oname>NGC339</oname>is a globular (or rich open) cluster in the SMC. Its core is a bit eccentric, being displaced about 10 arcsec to the northwest from the center of the outer isophotes. Thus, the positions do not agree as well as might be expected from the cluster's relatively small apparent size. This is a feature shared by many clusters, nebulae, and galaxies. In general, the positions I've adopted for the NGC and IC objects are meant to be representative of the object as seen by the discoverer. Where the "feature" becomes a problem, I've explicitely named the part of the object to which the position applies. Thus, N339 has positions for its "core" as well as the "entire cluster." Finally, I have classified the SMC and LMC clusters purely on morphological grounds. Thus, N339 is a "globular" cluster because of its richness, compactness, and relative symmetry. An H-R diagram might tell a different story. Folks interested in the astrophysics of these things will do well to consult the literature to be sure about the classification of any given object. </object> <object><oname>NGC343</oname>and NGC344 are a pair of faint galaxies superimposed on the western outskirts of a poor cluster of galaxies. Muller's position is about 4 minutes of time too far west -- the same direction, though about twice as far, as many other Leander McCormick objects are from their true positions -- but his declination is good, and his descriptions are appropriate. The galaxy and star taken as this pair in ESO are too far apart to match Muller's relative positions, the star is too bright, and the galaxy has too low a surface brightness and too faint a nucleus to warrant Muller's notation "sbMN." RNGC also incorrectly picked this galaxy as NGC344, and ESO may have been following their lead. </object> <object><oname>NGC344</oname> See NGC343. </object> <object><oname>NGC347</oname> This is one of a group of six nebulae found by Albert Marth. There are other fainter nebulae in the area, but Marth has picked out the six brightest. In particular, RNGC got a somewhat larger, but fainter, galaxy about 4 arcmin to the south. This is a spiral with low surface brightness arms, but with a bright nucleus. It is not large enough to have made it into ESGC. I would guess that only the nucleus would be visible at the eyepiece, and the proximity to the 7th magnitude SAO 129088 would make it even harder to spot. The real NGC347, which I picked up for ESGC, looks like a pair of interacting ellipticals close to Marth's position (however, it could well be simply a peculiar S0 with a dust lane, so I've retained just the single entry in ESGC). The total magnitude is about the same as the RNGC object, but since this has a much higher average surface brightness, it is more likely to be seen visually. A couple of additional comments: Marth's positions are so good here actually surprised me a bit. His positions have not impressed me in other areas of the sky (e.g. NGC1474 and the other galaxies found that same night -- five out of the ten are more than 5 arcmin off the true positions). But in this area, the positions do seem to be pretty good, so I followed them for the identifications. Bigourdan's observation of NGC347 may also be relevant. He observed it only once (on 21 Nov 1889), but did not measure its position. His description points clearly to the correct object, however: "I suspect an exceedingly faint object which could be nebulous, and which is situated toward [PA =] 3 deg , d = 4 arcmin, with respect to BD -7 159." This is just where Marth's position places NGC347, another indication that this really is the object which Marth saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC370</oname> Is this NGC372 (which see)? D'Arrest's description reads (translated from the Latin by me using a Latin-English dictionary -- keep in mind that I can't even read my own PhD diploma!), "Faint and diffuse, nucleus not condensed, * 13mag 15 arcsec s." There is nothing at his position (accurately transcribed into the NGC), but just 9 seconds of time east, and about 1 arcmin north is NGC372 (which see), a triple star. On a night of bad seeing, I suspect that N372 might indeed match d'Arrest's description, though the 13th magnitude star -- which is 10.1 arcsec from the other two in the triplet -- is east-northeast, not south. Thus, it could well be that d'A's object is really just the western two stars of the triplet, rather than all three. d'A's position is also well off; other nebulae in the group that he measured the same night (7 Oct 1861) are close to his positions. So, I remain skeptical, and there are question marks on this number in the table. </object> <object><oname>NGC372</oname> This is a triple star west of the NGC383 galaxy group. It was found the night of 12 Dec 1876 by Lord Rosse or his observing assistant at the time (Dreyer). The measured PA and distance from a star near the middle of the galaxy group unambiguously identifies the object, as does the note in its description about another 12th magnitude star at PA 166.5 deg with a distance of 74.0 arcsec. The description itself is telling: "The last nova looks at first sight like a hazy *, the higher power seems to resolve it, at all events sev. luminous points were seen." The south-western two of the stars may also be d'Arrest's object (NGC370, which see); if so, he's been rather careless about it. </object> <object><oname>NGC377</oname>is positively identified as MCG -04-03-053 by Leavenworth's sketch and description. His position is well off the mark, of course, so both ESO and SGC missed the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC383</oname> See NGC372. </object> <object><oname>NGC390</oname>is a star. Bigourdan's offsets point exactly to a star at 01 05 08.6 +32 09 58 (B1950.0, reduced using the GSC coordinates for Bigourdan's comparison star), and his description "vF, stellar" is that which he gives to almost all of the stars which he mistook for nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC396</oname> RNGC places this object more than a degree away from Marth's position. Yet just 5 seconds of time east of the original position is a faint galaxy that Marth could well have seen with the 48-inch reflector. Unfortunately, Marth rarely mentions stars near his nebulae; had he done so in this case, the identity would have been clinched as there is a star just 10 or 12 arcsec northeast of the nucleus of the galaxy. Other than that, however, I see no reason not to identify this galaxy as N396. The GSC position is likely a blend of the galaxy and the star, and thus a few arcsec northeast of the true place. However, my own measurement puts the position a few arcsec north of the GSC position, so perhaps the GSC is OK. There is also a faint double star at 01 05 20 +04 15.7. I doubt that this is the object that Marth saw, but it could be. Still, I'll stick with the faint galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC399</oname> See NGC400. </object> <object><oname>NGC400</oname> 401, and 402 are stars at Lord Rosse's measured offsets from NGC403 and from a nearby star (his distance of N401 from N403 is an estimate, slightly too large). His fourth nova, NGC399, is a galaxy, also at his measured offset. He also has a sketch showing N403, five nearby stars, and N400 and N401, all in their correct relative positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC401</oname>is a star. See NGC400 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC402</oname>is a star. See NGC400 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC403</oname> See NGC400. </object> <object><oname>NGC404</oname> See NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC405</oname>is a double star. It was found by John Herschel and is h2380 in his Cape Observations. He has this to say about it: `[RA] 01 00 45.1: [NPD] 137 35 13 (1830.0). A star 7m? After a long and obstinate examination with all powers and apertures, I cannot bring it to a sharp disc and leave it, in doubt whether it be a star or not. The star B 137 immediately preceding offered no such difficulty, giving a good disc with 320. [JH's italics:] No doubt a "Stellar Nebula."' I noted earlier, "JH's object is clearly a double star on the Southern Sky Survey (was it closer together in JH's time?), and I put it in the SGC Notes as such." However, on the DSS image, the two stars are not resolved. SIMBAD has the separation as 1.2 arcsec at 191 degrees (measured in 1954), and has another fainter star (component "C") at 47.5 arcsec and 81 degrees in 1913. That fainter star is partially covered by the diffraction spike on the Schmidt plate. In any event, we now know why JH could not bring the star to a "sharp disk". </object> <object><oname>NGC407</oname> See NGC408. </object> <object><oname>NGC408</oname> Schultz's "Nova III," is a star at his carefully measured position. It is just 8 seconds west of NGC410 = H II 220, which Schultz also measured. Note that he has reversed the names of "Nova III" and H II 219 = NGC407 in his 1875 MN paper. Dreyer has sorted them out for the NGC, however. Schultz's other discovery ("Nova IV" = NGC414) in the area, is a peculiar interacting galaxy. His position for it is excellent, as are those for NGC 407 and NGC410. </object> <object><oname>NGC410</oname> See NGC408. </object> <object><oname>NGC412</oname> Leavenworth has left us a sketch of this nebula, as well as the usual poor position and brief description. Unfortunately, his sketch shows only one star in the field, about 5 arcmin southwest of the nebula, so the field will not be easy to recognize. The sketch is one of the few to have the orientation marked, so that is not a problem here as it is with some of the LM nebulae. In fact, I can't find Leavenworth's object anywhere near his position. Nor are there any other nebula/star pairs within several degrees of that position that match the sketch, either. The galaxy chosen by ESO, 3.8 minutes preceding and 19 arcmin south of Leavenworth's position does not match the sketch, so that cannot be the object, either. Leavenworth added a note "Neb?" to his description, so it is possible that the object is simply a star. However, I could not even find two stars in the correct relative orientation in the area that would match the sketch. The sketch is dated 15 Oct 1885. Leavenworth made at least four other sketches that same night. They are of N377, N540, N635, and N842 (all of which see). Of these, N540's identification is unsure, and N635 is three degrees south of its nominal position. Assuming all four identities, though, the average offset of Leavenworth's positions in RA is +25.3 seconds of time with a mean error of +-32.2 seconds, and a standard deviation in one observation of +-64.5 seconds (all are at roughly the same declination, so the conversion to arcseconds can be ignored given the size of these numbers). In Dec, the equivalent numbers are -5.3 arcmin, +-4.2 arcmin, and +-8.4 arcmin. Given offsets and errors of this size, and the three-degree accidental error for N635, NGC412 could be ANYwhere within several degrees of Leavenworth's nominal position. But I still can't find it. So, unless other folks want to spend more time on the field, NGC412 is probably irretrieveably lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC414</oname> See NGC408. </object> <object><oname>NGC420</oname> See NGC421. </object> <object><oname>NGC421</oname>may be one of the several faint stars or wide double stars west of NGC 420. WH found the objects on 12 Sept 1784, describing them as "Two. Both eF, vS. The following is the largest." The field was examined again by JH, LdR, d'Arrest, and Bigourdan, none of whom found NGC421, but all of whom placed NGC420 within 5 seconds of time of WH's position for the pair. Dreyer has a curious statement in his note in the Scientific Papers (1912). Citing the observers above as having "... seen only one nebula," he goes on with "no doubt the following one." Yet all the observers have assigned the preceding number (H III 154 = N420) to the object. Dreyer himself followed JH's lead in this, giving the earlier number to the object that JH, d'A, and LdR all saw. In any case, there is no nebula in the area that might be N421. Since assigning the number to one of the stellar objects mentioned above is pure speculation, I'm not going to do it. Thus, N421 is "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC443</oname><oname>IC1653</oname>. D'Arrest has a single observation of the galaxy from the night of 8 October 1861. He published it in AN 1500, and again in his big monograph. The declination is 0.5 arcmin greater in the monograph, but it is still nine arcmin too small. I suspect a digit error in the arcminute 10's place. With that, the position would be within an arcmin or so of the true position. D'A's note about the 15th magnitude star 8.3 seconds of time preceding the galaxy is correct -- the actual distance is 7.9 seconds. Javelle rediscovered the galaxy over 40 years later in 1903. His micrometric observation, re-reduced with respect to a modern position for his comparison star, is within a couple of arcseconds of the modern positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC444</oname><oname>IC1658</oname>. Lord Rosse discovered NGC444, observing it on four separate nights. He placed it roughly five arcmin west of NGC452, but did not make any micrometric measurements of it. The NGC position is probably from Dreyer himself, and is about 30 seconds west of the actual position. The identity is secure, however -- the galaxy and surrounding star field are exactly described by LdR and his observers. Javelle's position for IC1658 is within a few arcsec of the GSC position, so the identity of this object is also secure. Javelle's comparison star, BD +30 192, is, not coincidentally (it is the brightest star in the area), mentioned by Lord Rosse who notes that NGC444 is about twice as far from NGC 452 as the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC446</oname><oname>IC89</oname>. Found by Marth in 1864, this is one of his objects that he "verified" -- that is, reobserved. Nevertheless, his RA (and therefore, the NGC's) is just one minute of time off the true position. This is probably a transcription or typographical error. The declination is within an arcminute of being correct, however. IC89 has a good micrometrically measured position in IC1 from Javelle's first list. RNGC has suggested that UGC 794 is NGC446. That galaxy, though, is considerably fainter than the real N446, and its position is off by odd amounts from Marth's: 13 seconds of time, and 7 arcminutes. That identity is therefore unlikely. </object> <object><oname>NGC447</oname><oname>IC1656</oname>. This is misnamed "NGC449" in CGCG, and that has unfortunately carried over into several other catalogues. The galaxy was found by d'Arrest who observed it on four different nights, each time measuring its position with a micrometer. His position is good, as is his description, especially concerning an 11th magnitude star 9.2 seconds of time east and 110 arcseconds north of the nebula -- the star is there, so the identification is secure. IC1656 was found about 40 years later by Barnard. Since this is one of the nebulae which he "published" in a private communication to Dreyer, we have only the position and description in the second IC to guide us. His RA is good, but the declination is about 1.4 arcmin north of the galaxy. His description is similarly confused, "Neb, S * close sf, *9 sf 3 arcmin." The "S * close sf" is indeed superposed on the southeastern edge side of the galaxy (the GSC position is a blend of this and the galaxy), but the "* 9 sf 3 arcmin" is actually northwest by three minutes. It is the same star that d'Arrest called 11th magnitude. Still, the are no other galaxies in the area with quite that arrangement of stars around them, so Barnard's object is certainly the same one that d'Arrest had seen earlier. See NGC451 = IC1661 for more about Barnard's observations in the area. </object> <object><oname>NGC449</oname> Mislabeled "NGC447" in CGCG, this galaxy (Markarian 1) has had its incorrect name unfortunately carried over into several other catalogues. There is, however, no doubt as to the correct number as the NGC position (from a micrometric measurement by Stephan) is within a few arcsec of the GSC position. This is the first of three new "nebulae" in the area that Stephan found late in 1881 using the large refractor at Marseille. The other two are NGC451 and NGC453, both of which see for more information. </object> <object><oname>NGC451</oname><oname>IC1661</oname>, and is another of Barnard's IC discoveries sent directly to Dreyer (Stephan discovered the object, and his observation led to the NGC entry). It is also the second of two nebulae which Barnard found in the area. Like the first (NGC447, which see), there is possible confusion about its identification. In this case, Barnard's description is sparce, "eF, S, R" and his position has the RA of NGC451, but is closer in declination to NGC 449. Two things convince me that Barnard reobserved NGC451 (which is just where Stephan measured it to be): 1) this galaxy is brighter than N449 by at least a magnitude, and it is larger, too. 2) Barnard's declination is about 1.2 arcmin north of the true place of NGC451, just as his declination of N447 is about 1.4 arcmin north of that galaxy. If he observed both objects on the same night, as seems likely, then the offset will be systematic. Since we know the identification of N447 = I1656 is solid, it follows that N451 must be I1661. </object> <object><oname>NGC452</oname> See NGC444. </object> <object><oname>NGC453</oname>is a linear triple star found by Stephan. The stars are exactly where Stephan measured them to be, and his description mentions "one or two" vF stars involved. On a night of less than perfect seeing, the three stars must indeed resemble a faint nebula laced with even fainter stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC464</oname>is actually a triple star, though I noted it earlier as a double. The northwestern component is a blended double on the DSS image. Here is the historical note. Though credited to Tempel (in his fifth list of observations of nebulae), it was actually found by the BD observers as they swept the field. Tempel has only this to say about it: "Im Atlas vom Argelander einen kleinen neuen Nebel verzeichnet in: 01 11 25, +34 12" [In Argelander's Atlas, there is a small, new nebula plotted at ...]. Since the BD was made with a 78-mm refractor, Argelander's observer could not have seen the faint galaxy fingered by RNGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC468</oname><oname>IC92</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC469</oname> See NGC475. </object> <object><oname>NGC471</oname> See NGC475. </object> <object><oname>NGC475</oname><oname>IC97</oname>. Marth discovered three galaxies here (NGC469, 471, and 475), and his positions are pretty good. Two of his positions got changed for the NGC, however -- for the worse. Dreyer credits Peters for N475 as well as Marth, and it is apparently Peters's position which throws off the NGC. Marth's original position is within a minute of Bigourdan's measured place for IC97, so the identity is certain. The object which Bigourdan calls N475 is a star near the incorrect NGC position. </object> <object><oname>NGC480</oname> The identification is not sure since there is no sketch of the object and its field. Nevertheless, the faint galaxy I've assigned the number to is not too far from Leavenworth's position, and matches his description. </object> <object><oname>NGC483</oname> See NGC499. </object> <object><oname>NGC486</oname> about 5 arcmin north-northwest of NGC488, is a compact galaxy with a faint star superposed on its eastern side. LdR's sketch is accurate, as are his offsets. </object> <object><oname>NGC488</oname> See NGC486. </object> <object><oname>NGC490</oname> See NGC492. </object> <object><oname>NGC492</oname>has a somewhat fainter companion about an arcmin southwest. LdR does not mention two objects here, and his micrometric offset of N492 from N490 is exactly on the brighter object, so there is no possible confusion of identities here. </object> <object><oname>NGC498</oname>is the object labeled "D" in the first two of LdR's diagrams of the group around NGC499. Though he has no measured offsets for it, he clearly saw it the second night: "vvF, but certain" and the diagrams leave no doubt as to the correct object. </object> <object><oname>NGC499</oname><oname>IC1686</oname> is the brightest of a moderately compact group of galaxies in a cluster of which NGC507 is the dominant member. It, with six others in the cluster, was found by WH. JH reobserved five of the six, but mislabeled a "nova" (NGC483) as the first of his father's objects (d'Arrest makes the same mistake). Lord Rosse has observations on 8 different nights, and -- with the exception of NGC483 in the first observation -- got the identifications correct. Schultz also got the correct objects, and Dreyer sorted the field out well for the NGC. Javelle swept over the field late in 1899, finding and measuring a dozen objects in the area that he took to be previously uncatalogued. However, his accurate position and exact description of one of those "novae" points directly at NGC499 -- in spite of the fact that he has a footnote on the object saying that "NGC499 was also measured." He has clearly misidentified the object in the crowded field. Since he unfortunately does not publish his measurements of the NGC objects, we cannot now be sure just which galaxy he mistook for NGC499. Dreyer did not catch Javelle's error (Javelle's absolute declination is about 1.7 arcmin off since he used the BD position, also 1.7 arcmin off, for his comparison star), so the galaxy now carries the IC, as well as the NGC, number. </object> <object><oname>NGC506</oname>is a star just over an arcmin southwest of NGC507. It was seen and its offsets measured on one night by LdR. The offsets are good and the identity is sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC507</oname>is the brightest of a relatively poor, though nearby cluster of galaxies. There are several notes about the area; see e.g. NGC499 = IC1686, and NGC506. </object> <object><oname>NGC510</oname>is a double star found by Schultz. His micrometrically measured position is within a couple of arcseconds of being correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC513</oname> This is one of the galaxies that WH found the night of 13 Sept 1784. This, along all but one of the others, have poor positions in NGC. RC3 managed to get the correct position, however. See NGC537 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC515</oname> See NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC517</oname> See NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC520</oname>is apparently an interacting galaxy. Classified as an I0 by de Vaucouleurs, the distorted dust lane and unresolved bulge with plumes may be the result of a collision. Vorontsov-Velyaminov marks three components in his Atlas of Interacting Galaxies; I've provided positions for them in the table. However, in the near-infrared, the structure is simpler with a bright peak at the center connected by a bridge to a somewhat fainter knot to the northwest (this fainter knot has no optical counterpart). The central peak breaks up into at least three hot spots in the 2MASS J-band. The J2000.0 positions are Central peak, K-band: 01 24 34.89 +03 47 30.1 Central peak, H-band: 01 24 34.86 +03 47 29.9 Central peak, J-band: 01 24 34.86 +03 47 28.3 southeast spot Central peak, J-band: 01 24 34.65 +03 47 35.0 northwest spot Central peak, J-band: 01 24 35.04 +03 47 33.1 northeast spot Northwestern knot: 01 24 33.33 +03 48 02.8 The southern of the three optical components (VV 231b) corresponds most closely to the position of the infrared/radio nucleus. </object> <object><oname>NGC523</oname><oname>NGC537</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC529</oname> See NGC531 and NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC530</oname><oname>IC106</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC1696 which is a different galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC531</oname>and NGC542 are positively identified by LdR's sketch and offsets from NGC536. However, Dreyer, apparently thinking that NGC529 was the bright object reobserved by LdR, used an incorrect position for the reference object. So, the positions he gives in LdR's 1880 paper, and in the NGC, are off by about 40 arcsec. </object> <object><oname>NGC534</oname> See NGC549. </object> <object><oname>NGC536</oname> See NGC531 and NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC537</oname><oname>NGC523</oname>, and the surroundings. The night of 13 September 1784 was not a good one for WH's clock readings. With one exception (H II 224 = NGC 404), all eight objects for which he used Beta Andromedae as a comparison star are off in RA, and -- as it has turned out -- by different amounts. In addition, his descriptions are scanty, so identifying his nebulae has proved difficult over the years. Here is the story, roughly in chronological order. WH's seven questionable objects (III 167 through III 173; NGC515, 517, 513, 523, 536, 552, and 553, respectively -- yes, NGC513 is out of order) all appeared in his sweep within 3 minutes of each other. Given the rush, he determined the positions for only five of them, lumping four together into two pairs, and treating the remaining three individually. In addition, Dreyer noted that WH recorded three transits -- III 167/8, 170, and 171 -- to only a full minute of time. Finally, WH himself noted the final two as "a little doubtful." JH has only five nebulae here. He claimed one (h120) to be the same as his father's III 171, and the western of that pair (h118) to be a nova. Auwers, and later d'Arrest, agreed with JH in making H III 171 = h 120, but noted the difficulties in Herschel's RAs for some of the nebulae. d'Arrest in particular pointed out discrepancies of about 40 seconds of time between his own RA's and WH's in several cases, and found what he thought was a new double nebula in the field (NGC523). However, while assembling the GC, JH reinterpreted the field and chose to regard the nebulae that his father discovered as separate objects from his own. Dreyer, too, was aware of the problem when he compiled the NGC, and attempted to sort things out based primarily on d'A's observations. It's clear, however, that he was a bit uncertain about the state of the field as he wrote NGC notes for some of the objects, and commented again on all of them in his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. How can we make sense out of the two Herschels' observations? Let's start by assuming that WH's nebulae are properly ordered by RA, and that their polar distances (Declinations) are also relatively correct. Doing this, and looking at JH's and d'A's later observations, we can make some tentative identifications for NGC513, 515, 517, and 536. Plotting the difference in RA (WH minus "true") for these, we see that as the time went on, WH's RA's got worse. Plotting a straight line through the data points, and putting a mark at WH's RA for III 170 = NGC537 suggests an RA correction of about 0.9 minutes of time for it. This moves the RA back to within 0.2 arcmin of NGC 523, and confirms Dreyer's suspicion in the NGC Notes that WH's number belongs on this NGC number. Adding this point to the plot actually suggests that the slope might be even steeper. But what about N536 = III 171? Did WH really see that, or did he perhaps see its brighter, higher surface brightness companion, N529, which precedes it by about 40 seconds? (N536's two fainter companions found by Lord Rosse, N531 and N542, have problems of their own; they have a seperate note here under N531). Assuming WH in fact did see the western of the two objects, we can then draw a new line through the points on the plot (this steeper relationship suggests that WH's clock was running at about half speed!) in a desperate attempt to recover his final two objects, N552 and N553. If we correct WH's RA accordingly, the position of these two objects falls close to CGCG 502-084 and an equally bright 15th magnitude star just west of it. Finally, I note that -- with the exception of NGC513, the first object in the series -- all of WH's declinations here are 3-4 arcmin too large. This lends a bit of support to the hypothesis I've sketched out. In the end, then, I'm suggesting these identifications for the nebulae in the area (the CGCG names added for verification): RA (1950.0) Dec NGC WH JH d'A CGCG III WH JH 01 21 37.32 +33 32 21.0 513 169 111 --- --- 521-020 01 21 49.18 +33 12 45.9 515 167 113 167 113 502-077 01 21 54.47 +33 10 10.6 517 168 114 168 114 502-079 01 22 31.01 +33 45 54.7 523=537 170 --- (Nova) 521-022 01 22 50.01 +34 27 11.6 529 171 118 --- 118 521-023 01 23 31.25 +34 26 38.7 536 --- 120 171 120 521-025 01 23 20.45 +33 08 46.8 552 172 --- --- --- --- = * 01 23 22.94 +33 08 44.7 553 173 --- --- --- 502-084 The careful reader will have already seen that the RA's for N552 and N553 are smaller than that for N536. This adds more weight to the idea that Herschel saw N529 rather than N536. A postscript: both Auwers and d'Arrest comment about WH's insecure RA's for these objects. However, d'A apparently goes on to suggest that some of JH's RA's are off, too. But they aren't, so I clearly need to take the time to translate the comments. </object> <object><oname>NGC539</oname><oname>NGC563</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC540</oname>is one of the 170 or so nebulae found at Leander McCormick in the mid-1880s to have a sketch. Unfortunately, the sketch shows only one star in addition to the nebula. However, that field is fairly well matched by ESO 542- G012 1 minute and 50 seconds east and about 5 arcmin south. I've taken that as a tentative identification for N540. See NGC412 for another LM nebula with a sketch that did not work out so well. </object> <object><oname>NGC542</oname> See NGC531. </object> <object><oname>NGC544</oname> See NGC549. </object> <object><oname>NGC546</oname> See NGC549. </object> <object><oname>NGC549</oname> Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the SGC identification of this galaxy is incorrect. He is almost certainly right, in spite of the poor right ascension from John Herschel (18 seconds of time off); Herschel's declination is correct, though. The SGC galaxy is 15 arcminutes south and 4 seconds of time east of Herschel's position. Though this is brighter, it does not match Herschel's description ("eeeF, S, R, vgbM. The 4th of a group of 4."). Instead, this matches very closely what I'd expect him to see based on his descriptions of the other three galaxies in the group (NGC534, 544, and 546, all "eeF, S, R, vgbM"). Accepting Steve's identification, the only error is in Herschel's RA. For each of the other three galaxies, Herschel has two observations, but only lists one for N549. There are no significant zero point offsets in the differences between the raw positions for the other three galaxies. This means that we have no reasonable way to "correct" the original position of N549 as given by Herschel. This in turn means that we are left with only the description to help us identify the galaxy. And that points directly to the object which Steve (and the original ESO list 5 in A&A Sup) chose as NGC549. </object> <object><oname>NGC551</oname> See IC1707. </object> <object><oname>NGC552</oname> See NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC553</oname> See NGC537. </object> <object><oname>NGC557</oname><oname>IC1703</oname>. NGC557 comes from Swift's 6th list, sent in pieces to Dreyer before it was published. The final published description reads: "eF, S; B * f 15 seconds and is n of it." This differs a bit from the NGC description: "eF, S, R, * 10 nf," but not in any significant way. The star is actually south-following, but the galaxy is still almost uniquely identified by that star. Swift's RA is nearly 50 seconds of time out, and I wonder if he made a 1 minute error in reading his circles -- a 10 or 12 second error is somewhat closer to his usual accuracy. Bigourdan did not find N557 when he looked for it at the NGC place, but he did run across it a few minutes later. Thinking it was a "nova," he listed it as new and it ended up in the IC2 at its actual position. </object> <object><oname>NGC563</oname><oname>NGC539</oname>. Leavenworth's description for NGC563, particularly his comments "little extended 0 deg" (which applies to the bar) and "several faint stars following, in line north and south" exactly describes another discovery of his, NGC539 (which he sketched; the star field around the galaxy matches the POSS1 star field). The position for NGC563 is two minutes too far east, a common error in the Leander McCormick lists. Unfortunately, there is another galaxy about half a degree south of the poor position in NGC that has been taken by all the modern cataloguers (including me in SGC and the early versions of ESGC) as N563. However, the description just does not fit the object, and declination errors are far more unusual in the LM lists than RA errors. The identity with N539 is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC568</oname><oname>IC1709</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC575</oname><oname>IC1710</oname>. The 2 degree error in declination is one of the few errors that can be traced to Dreyer himself. Entering this object in his 1878 GC Supplement, he miscopied the correct "69" (degrees of NPD) as "67" (It is also possible that the typesetter made a typographical error. If so, Dreyer did not catch it during proofreading.) He later transferred this exactly to the NGC, so it too has the incorrect degree of NPD. When the correction is made, the galaxy turns out to be the same as IC1710, found and measured by Javelle. Had the NGC the correct position, Javelle no doubt would have not included the galaxy as a discovery of his own. Dreyer, of course, transcribed the position correctly the second time around. The equality was first noticed by Reinmuth, and mentioned by him in "Die Herschel Nebel" of 1926. </object> <object><oname>NGC577</oname><oname>NGC580</oname>. Tempel claims to have found two nebulae 2m 50s following NGC560 and 564, a pair found by WH. There is only one here, and it was also picked up by Swift in 1886 (more below) and, even earlier in 1867, by A. N. Skinner at Dearborn Observatory (see IC1528 for that story). Tempel's position for it, apparently from a letter to Dreyer -- the position in his first paper on nebulae is about two arcmin off the NGC position -- is not bad. In particular, the NGC RA is less than two seconds of time off. Curiously, Dreyer also credits Tempel's second paper for this first nebula. I find no mention of it there, so suspect that Dreyer simply noted the wrong paper number. I'll check the rest of Tempel's papers to see if it is in fact mentioned in any of them. The second of Tempel's nebulae is probably one of the stars in the area, but since he gives the position with a precision of only 10 seconds of time and 10 arcminutes, we have little hope of recovering his object (Dreyer adopted Swift's position for this object). There are two stars northeast of the galaxy, though, that are similar in brightness to others that Tempel mistook for nebulae (see e.g. NGC4315 and NGC4322). One is at 01 28 12.05, -02 13 01.0; and a second somewhat brighter star is at 01 28 19.78, -02 12 20.3 (both positions are for equinox B1950.0). As I mentioned above, Swift also picked up the galaxy, on the night of 20 November 1886. Since he made his RA 23 seconds larger than Tempel's, Dreyer believed that this was the second of Tempel's nebulae. So, he adopted Swift's position. Howe corrected the RA in an observation in 1898, but neither he nor Dreyer, who published the correction as an IC2 Note, noticed that that made Swift's object, NGC580, identical to NGC577. Some observers might want to put one of these numbers onto one of the stars I've noted. But that number would be the following of Tempel's two, the one with the imprecise position -- and that is the one that Dreyer used for Swift's object. And we do not know for sure which star, if either, is the one seen by Tempel. So the easiest, and still a truthful, solution is to simply say that Tempel's one real nebula is identical to Swift's. </object> <object><oname>NGC580</oname><oname>NGC577</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC584</oname><oname>IC1712</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC586</oname> See IC1712. </object> <object><oname>NGC587</oname>is not IC1713, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC603</oname>is a triple star found by Lord Rosse. It's position was unfortunately not well-determined, so there has been some puzzle over its identity. Dreyer, in the Notes to IC1, claimed that he could only see a faint star in the place of NGC603. (I've been unable to identify this star with any certainty. One candidate is at 01 31 30.4, +29 55 58, B1950.0, while Bigourdan has two observations of another at 01 31 44.7, +29 56 42.) However, Lord Rosse's description makes the identification certain, even without a good position: "A small nebula or cluster with 3 stars in it. It is about 8 arcmin south-southpreceding a double star whose components are of the 11th magnitude." This is very close to the actual distance of the double from the triple star -- but there is no nebulosity or cluster associated with the triple. I suspect that the discovery was made on a night of relatively poor seeing, leading to the impression of accompanying nebulosity. The B1950.0 positions of the three stars, all from GSC, are *1 01 31 54.54 +29 58 37.1 = GSC 02293-00972 *2 01 31 54.85 +29 58 45.4 = GSC 02293-00966 *3 01 31 55.37 +29 58 31.6 = GSC 02293-00998. I've adopted the mean value for the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC607</oname>is a double star. (Is it possibly triple? The northern of two images on the POSS1 looks elongated, as if it were a close double. The DSS image, from the UK Schmidt, looks like a single star). D'Arrest's position is exact, and his description appropriate, particularly regarding the 9th magnitude star 29.7 seconds east and 2 arcmin north. </object> <object><oname>NGC608</oname> See NGC618 and NGC627. </object> <object><oname>NGC610</oname>and 611. This pair of objects is probably irretrieveably lost, thanks to Muller's poor discovery positions. I searched the sky for several degrees in all directions from the nominal positions, but turned up nothing that matches Muller's description. In particular, there are no galaxies in the area with a 10th magnitude star at position angle = 280 degrees, distance 2.4 arcmin. Muller also gives an "accurate" offset of N611 from N610: "Following previous at PA 60 degrees, dist = 0.5 arcmin," but then adds, "vF *?" This would be a striking configuration -- even if the second object is a star -- but it's nowhere in the area that I can see. There is no sketch, but even if there were, it could only confirm Muller's clear descriptions. Wolfgang Steinicke again drew my attention to this missing pair in July 1998. I made a further search at "reasonable" digit errors (e.g. 1hr in RA, 10deg in Dec), but found nothing matching Muller's description anywhere near any of the resulting positions. It may be worthwhile for other interested investigators to cover the areas, too -- they may have more luck than I. </object> <object><oname>NGC611</oname> See NGC610. </object> <object><oname>NGC614</oname><oname>NGC627</oname>, which see. <ignore /> It may also be NGC618. See that, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC616</oname>is a double star. As with NGC607, d'A's position is very good, and his description fits the object. In addition, his offsets -- 14.2 seconds west and 4 arcmin north -- to an 8th magnitude star are correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC618</oname>may be NGC614 (which is also NGC627, which see) -- or it may be NGC 608. JH's position points at nothing, and there is no star 2 min 51 sec east of that position as his description claims. NGC614 fits his description ("pB, pL, bM") but the fairly bright star follows by only 55 sec. Is there perhaps a combination of transcription errors and/or typos in JH's offset to the star? I'm thinking perhaps that the superscript "m" on the 2 in his description stands for "magnitude" rather than "minute." The star, of course, is not 2nd magnitude -- this is where the error would have to occur. Whatever the case, there is certainly an error in JH's position for the galaxy. Is his object NGC608? This is not quite as likely; N608 is the fainter of the two galaxies in the area. Also, N618 was found during a different sweep (102) than NGC608 and NGC614 (both sweep 106), and different again from N627 (sweep 100), the other "missing" object in the area. I'm tempted to simply equate N618 with N608, and N627 with N614. But the relative magnitudes, and the fact that N618 and N627 were found during different sweeps argues in favor of JH having seen only the brightest object during each sweep. So, I note the possibility of the identity of N618 with N614 or with N608, but would not bet my Pentium on it! </object> <object><oname>NGC627</oname><oname>NGC614</oname> (which may also be NGC618, which see). JH's description reads "vF, R; another precedes which must be III. 174. The RA conjectural, and PD liable to some error." As noted in the discussion of NGC618, JH has three sweeps over this area. During the first sweep (100), he picked up the two objects noted in his description that I've just given, during the second sweep (102) he found just one object (N618, which see), and during the third (106), he found another (N614). Since there are just two galaxies here, it is reasonable to suppose that JH picked them both up once, and noticed only the brightest on the other two sweeps. But, as I noted above, JH's positions and descriptions do not rule out other interpretations, so this is simply conjecture. </object> <object><oname>NGC629</oname>is a short line of five stars six or seven arcmin west-southwest of Struve's position. I've pulled the data for this from Auwers's list of novae attached to his catalogue of WH's nebulae and clusters. There he notes "Not seen in the Heliometer." However, Struve's description ("Irregular nebula with 3 stars") with his 9-inch Fraunhofer refractor certainly fits the asterism well enough. It reminds me of NGC7150 (which see), another -- though somewhat smaller and fainter -- asterism also found with a refractor (the 16-inch at Harvard) by an experienced observer (G.P. Bond). </object> <object><oname>NGC635</oname>is probably MCG -04-05-002 just 3 degrees south of Leavenworth's nominal position. His sketch matches the galaxy and surrounding star field very well, so I'm willing to accept that he made a simple mistake in recording the declination. </object> <object><oname>NGC643</oname> This is a star cluster in the SMC. The RC3 galaxy with this designation is actually the one that de Vaucouleurs called NGC643B. </object> <object><oname>NGC648</oname><oname>IC146</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC652</oname>has a +13 second error in its RA. It shares this with three other nebulae which Swift discovered the same night. See those (NGC1450, N1509 = IC2026, and N1594 = I2075) for more. Also see N1677 = N1659 for other notes about that night of 22 October 1886. </object> <object><oname>NGC657</oname>looks like a poor cluster of relatively bright stars against the crowded backdrop of the Milky Way. JH has it as "A ** (h2070), the chief of a p rich loose cl; sts 12." His position is for the double, SAO 22555, but the apparent center -- a rough circle of 5 stars -- of the cluster is about 4 arcmin southwest of the double. </object> <object><oname>NGC674</oname><oname>NGC697</oname>. The right ascensions are just 2 minutes different, so it seems likely that N674 is another observation of N697. This strikes me as the only reasonable interpretation of d'A's observations, in spite of the fact that he claims to have found N674 on a night when he also observed N697. Is the night number, 4, perhaps in error? d'A also observed N697 on nights 5 and 93, but saw N674 only once. In any case, the descriptions are virtually identical, down to the 14th magnitude star 8 or 9 seconds east, and there are no other objects in the area that d'A would have described as "pB, vmE." </object> <object><oname>NGC684</oname><oname>IC165</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC687</oname>is not IC1737, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC696</oname> See NGC729. </object> <object><oname>NGC697</oname><oname>NGC674</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC698</oname> See NGC729. </object> <object><oname>NGC700</oname>is CGCG 522-030, not the larger but fainter CGCG 522-027. LdR has the object 8 arcmin southwest of the center of the NGC705 group; CGCG 522-030 is 8.1 arcmin southwest, while -027 is 6.5 arcmin west-southwest. Since its surface brightness is higher than -027's, it is the more likely to have been seen. This is indeed Steve Gottlieb's experience. He notes that while he could pick out -027 in his 17.5-inch reflector, only the nucleus was visible as a nearly stellar object, while -030 was clearly the more nebulous of the two. </object> <object><oname>NGC705</oname> See NGC700. </object> <object><oname>NGC716</oname><oname>IC1743</oname>. Swift's RA for the NGC object is good, but his declination is almost exactly 40 arcmin too far south. His description -- including the bright star near east -- is appropriate, so the identity (first suggested by Dreyer in the IC2 notes) is almost certain. There is no question of the identity of IC1743. It was found by Bigourdan, and his four micrometric offsets point exactly at the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC718</oname>is probably not also NGC728, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC719</oname><oname>IC1744</oname>. D'Arrest's RA is 13 seconds of time off. This is close enough that either Dreyer or Javelle might have had some questions about the identity, especially given that the descriptions are so close. Well, that didn't happen, so the galaxy has two numbers now. </object> <object><oname>NGC723</oname><oname>NGC724</oname>. JH missed this one when he was putting his GC together. In his 1833 PT catalogue he notes for h167 (N724): "It is barely possible [those two words in JH's italics] that this may be III.460 [N723] with a mistake in reading the PD. When he swept this up at the Cape a few years later, he specifically noted "No other neb within 15' all around." When he published his Cape Observations, he added in parentheses, "(N.B. This remark shows that the nebula No. 167 of my former Catalogue is really identical (as there suspected) with III.460.)" Nevertheless, his two objects are entered separately in GC without a note, so it was left to Dreyer to add a query in the NGC description: "[? = h166]". JH and Dreyer were both right -- the two numbers do indeed refer to the same galaxy. RNGC, ESO, and SGC all carried along the equality. </object> <object><oname>NGC727</oname><oname>NGC729</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC728</oname>is probably the triple star about 1.5 arcmin north-northwest of JH's position. JH has only one observation of this object which he describes as "A suspected nebula." D'Arrest could not find this object, though he only looked for it once. On a night of relatively poor seeing, the three stars (with a maximum separation of about 20 arcsec, might appear nebulous. A glance at the Sky Survey suggests that N728 might be a reobservation of NGC 718, about 2 minutes west of JH's place (the declinations are the same to within the errors). However, JH first observed N718 in the same sweep (No. 95) in which he found N728. So, the two are unlikely to be the same. </object> <object><oname>NGC729</oname><oname>NGC727</oname>. JH describes N729 = h2446 as "eeeF, S, R. RA only rudely taken by a star, being out of the field." He recorded it only once in Sweep 803. Much earlier, however, in Sweep 486, he found another nebula in the area, N727 = h 2445. His description of that reads "F, S, R, bM, 15 arcsec." He then adds (in italics enclosed by square brackets, flagging a note added during the preparation of the Cape Observations for publication), "It is barely possible that this and the next nebula [h2446 = N729] may be identical with Nos. 2440 [= N696] and 2441 [= N698] by a mistaken degree in PD." The relative positions -- the later object in each pair is northeast of the earlier -- as well as the descriptions [N696: "F, S, R, 15 arcsec;" N698: "vvF, S"] support the idea. I suspect that JH also had his note about the "rudely taken" RA in mind when he added his comment several years later. However, the N696/8 pair was found in Sweep 802, and its RA is 4 min 15 sec off the N727/9 pair. This means 1 degree errors in both coordinates, rather than just in Dec as JH points out. Since the position of N729, "rudely taken" as it is, is close to that of N727, and since the two were seen on different nights, it seems more plausible to me that the observations refer to the same object. We can't dismiss JH's comment out of hand, though having both coordinates off by a degree would be unusual in his southern data. ESO's suggestion that N729 is a double star at 01 52 01, -36 03.0 (it is ESO 354-**011) seems less probable to me. JH made many hurried observations of "new" nebulae which have turned out to be identical to objects that he has securely observed during other sweeps. </object> <object><oname>NGC730</oname>is a star -- or perhaps two different stars. Bigourdan has observations of this on three nights. The discovery observation on 7 Nov 1885, is only an estimate: +11 seconds and -4 arcmin from BD +5 328; there is nothing at that position, though three stars in a line are south and west. On 4 Dec of the same year, he has a single micrometric measurement that falls between the two eastern stars, though slightly closer to the eastern most. Finally, on 30 Nov 1891, his two measurements point exactly at this eastern most -- and brightest -- star of the three. In any event, Bigourdan described the object on the three different nights as 1) having a "Doubtful aspect," 2) being "Strongly stellar; could be a star 13.4 accompanied by nebulosity," and 3) as "Pretty strongly stellar. Could be a small nebula or a nebulous star; however, I'm not certain that there is any nebulosity there." Since even he sounds pretty convinced that his object is stellar, I'm not about to disagree! </object> <object><oname>NGC731</oname><oname>NGC757</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC733</oname>is most likely a star. Lord Rosse found a group of five nebulae in the area of NGC736 (the brightest) on 11 October 1850. His sketch is reasonably accurate, though it is distorted in that it exaggerates the north-south separations between the objects. His micrometric offsets from N736 also point quite accurately to the surrounding objects, including the star which I've taken as N733. The sketch confirms the relative distances in the table between N733, N736, and N740 (the distance between N733 and N736 is about half that between N736 and N740). However, at the same position angle as the star, and just 100 arcsec further from the star which I take as N733, is a faint galaxy. Not otherwise catalogued, this is possibly the object which Lord Rosse meant to measure and sketch. Since the evidence from the sketch and the measurements point directly at the star, though, I'm currently retaining it, and not the galaxy, as N733. But I've nevertheless listed the galaxy, too, with the requisite question marks. </object> <object><oname>NGC736</oname>is the brightest of a group of five. See NGC733 and NGC737 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC737</oname>is a line of three stars in the corona of NGC736. This object was variously seen as a single star and as a nebula by the early observers. Lord Rosse seems to be the first to list it as possibly nebulous, so Dreyer included it in the NGC. Reinmuth found only the three stars at the place of Lord Rosse's nebula (shown in his sketch of the group around N736, and measured micrometrically by him in October 1850), and that is all that I see there on the POSS, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC739</oname> Ralph Copeland found this object near NGC750 and N751 on 9 January 1874 using Lord Rosse's 72-inch telescope. He measured the distance and position angle from NGC750; these point exactly at the galaxy he saw. His measures of three stars around N739 are also exact, giving further confirmation to the identification. In his description of the object, however, he mistakenly has N739 "south-preceding" N750, rather than "north-preceding." When Dreyer reduced a position for the object during preparation of Lord Rosse's observations for publication in 1880, he too made a mistake, placing the position of N739 too far south by 2 arcmin. Thus, the identity with the galaxy has been missed by most of the modern catalogues. </object> <object><oname>NGC740</oname> See NGC733. </object> <object><oname>NGC741</oname><oname>IC1751</oname>. This, along with NGC742, was discovered by William Herschel, reobserved by John Herschel, and by Lord Rosse. N741 itself is the brightest in a group of galaxies, and the positions in NGC from the Herschels are good. Furthermore, their descriptions make it clear that all saw the same two galaxies. They did not pick up any of the other objects in the area. This leads to the puzzle of why the brighter of the two was also included in IC. True, it reappeared in Swift's 11th list of "new" nebulae (with one of his typically inaccurate positions), and was reobserved by Herbert Howe at Chamberlin Observatory in Denver. Howe provided a very good micrometric position for it which was adopted by Dreyer for the IC. I suspect that as Dreyer had come to trust Howe's positions and identifications (most of Howe's observations are of known objects), he (Dreyer) didn't bother to check the NGC to see if the galaxy had been seen previously. More recently, the IC number has been attached in CGCG (and in other subsequent lists) to the galaxy (CGCG 413-006) just over an arcminute northwest of N741. This object is indeed brighter than many that Swift found, but his description of a 9th magnitude star "north-preceding" rather than simply "preceding" pretty well establishes the identity. It is further pinned down by Howe's measurement of the distance and direction to the star (actually a double, or perhaps a single star superposed on a galaxy) which points exactly to N741 as the object that he measured. </object> <object><oname>NGC742</oname> See NGC741 = IC1751. </object> <object><oname>NGC749</oname>is not IC1740, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC750</oname>is the western of a well-known pair of interacting ellipticals (NGC 751 is the other). See NGC739 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC751</oname>is the eastern galaxy in an interacting double (NGC750 is the other). See NGC739. </object> <object><oname>NGC755</oname><oname>NGC763</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC757</oname><oname>NGC731</oname>. Both N757 and N763 (which see) were found by Ormond Stone with the Leander McCormick 26-inch, presumeably on the same night, though he doesn't give us the dates in the discovery paper. He has, however, left us a sketch of N763 labeled "Drawn Jany 11.0 1886, sketched Jany 4.5 1885" where the "1885" pretty clearly should be 1886 (there are a couple of other sketches from early 1886 where the dates are given correctly). In any event, this is the western of two relatively bright galaxies in the area, found by WH early in 1785 (the other, as I noted, is NGC755 = NGC763). Taking Stone's poor positions into account, the true position difference of the two galaxies pretty well matches the difference in Stone's positions for his two nebulae. In addition, his descriptions match the galaxies very well, particularly his estimated magnitudes and diameters (N757: m = 11.0, D = 0.4 arcmin, gbMN; N763: m = 13.0, D = 1.6 x 0.4 arcmin, PA = 65 deg, gbMN). Even though WH's relative positions are good (though his declinations are about 4 arcmin too far north), JH had trouble with these two objects. Though he claims his Slough observation is for one of his father's objects, and his Cape observation is for the other, neither of his positions is very good. I suspect that both observations refer to the brighter western galaxy, N731. Peters got things sorted out when he micrometrically remeasured the galaxies' positions (see his second Copernicus article and his discussion in AN 2365). Dreyer adopted Peters's good positions for the NGC. Finally, my identification of both N757 and N763 with NGC755 in the early versions of ESGC is wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC760</oname>is a double star found by Copeland with Lord Rosse's 72-inch. His offset for it from NGC761 is accurately measured, and his position for N761 is in turn well-measured from one of Lalande's stars. Thus, the NGC position is good, and the identification not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC761</oname> See NGC760. </object> <object><oname>NGC763</oname><oname>NGC755</oname>. This is the southeastern of two pretty bright nebulae, originally found by WH. Fortunately, Stone has left us a sketch of the object which clearly shows it to be N755. Assuming that he found both nebulae the same night, the northwestern (N757) is almost certainly identical to NGC 731. See the discussion of NGC757 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC764</oname>may be the double star at 01 54 38.9, -16 18 22. There are no other candidates for it nearby, and Stone has left no sketch. His description is appropriate for the stars ("eF, vS, iR, gbM") but given his poor positions in the two Leander McCormick lists, its identity as N764 is nothing more than a guess. Curiously, the next object in Stone's list (No. 46) is not in NGC at all. It is described by Stone as "m = 14.0, D = 0.2, R, gbMN" and may simply be a star. But I do not see why Dreyer left it out of the NGC. Other of Stone's objects with similar descriptions are included, so the omission of this one is puzzling. In any event, there is nothing at all in the area that can be clearly identified with this list entry, so perhaps Dreyer had reason to suspect it that he has not told us. </object> <object><oname>NGC771</oname>= 50 Cassiopeiae is a star. During one sweep, JH said, "I suspect this star to be nebulous." No one since, including JH himself, has been able to see the suspected nebulosity. JH wrote in GC, and Dreyer quoted in NGC, "Retained in the catalogue for future occasional observation. Nothing can be more difficult than to verify or disprove the nebulosity of a considerable star under ordinary atmospheric conditions." A quick look (via SIMBAD) at the astrophysical literature on 50 Cas turned up no observed spectral peculiarities associated with it -- it is a normal A1 V main sequence star. Similarly, a look at the POSS1 reveals no trace of even faint nebulosity around the star. JH may have been misled by a moment of particularly poor seeing. </object> <object><oname>NGC783</oname><oname>IC1765</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC785</oname><oname>IC1766</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC789</oname> See NGC793. </object> <object><oname>NGC793</oname> This is one of the few nebulae found by J.G. Lohse, an English amateur astronomer, working at the observatory of another amateur, Mr. Wigglesworth. Unfortunately, the observations never seem to have been published outside the NGC, so Lohse's approximate position and description as recorded in the NGC is all the information that we have. For this particular object, Lohse says only, "Very very faint, between two stars; south-following NGC789." The only object in the area that fits the description is the faint double about two arcmin southeast of Lohse's place. It is quite a faint object (it is not in GSC), so Mr. Wigglesworth must have had a considerable telescope if Lohse was to have seen it. Some digging in the literature is clearly called for to find the details we need to know about the observatory and its instruments. Without that, my possible identification, while fitting Lohse's description, can only be tentative. </object> <object><oname>NGC794</oname><oname>IC191</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC797</oname> See NGC801. </object> <object><oname>NGC801</oname> Four other galaxies (NGC19, 21, 7831, and 7836; see these and NGC6 for more discussion) discovered earlier in the evening of 20 September 1885 by Lewis Swift share a common offset in Swift's positions from the true positions of +1m 10s in RA and +8m 8s in Dec. If we accept the identity of NGC801 as given by most catalogues (it is a large edgewise spiral on the northeast edge of Abell 262), then Swift's position for this object is about -19 sec and -0.9 arcmin off, more in line with Swift's usual precision (or lack of it). Swift mentions a "double star close following" which may be the faint double near the southeast end of the spindle. However, both stars are roughly at 17th magnitude on the POSS1; could Swift have seen them? Well, there is no other candidate galaxy near aside from NGC797, and there are no doubles anywhere near it. So, while the identity of NGC801 is somewhat uncertain, I will stick with it for now. Incidentally, this galaxy almost got an IC number as well. Searching for NGC 801, Bigourdan rediscovered this object -- it is number 473 in his fifth list of new nebulae. The first four lists were published in time for them to be included in the NGC or the IC's. The fifth list was not. Consequently, it has received almost no attention in the subsequent literature. </object> <object><oname>NGC804</oname><oname>IC1773</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC810</oname> Stephan's position, given in both MNRAS and AN, is correct, but the NGC position is 10 seconds west. This is one of the few transcription errors that Dreyer made in his catalogues. The galaxy itself appears to be triple: a close dumbbell is oriented south- west-northeast, and a much fainter companion (or jet?) is just east of the southwestern component. Stephan noted only one object here, and the dumbbell is just barely noticeable on POSS1. </object> <object><oname>NGC811</oname> The nominal RA, from a single observation by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick, is about 50 seconds too far east. This is not as bad as many of the Leander McCormick nebulae, but is still off enough that I did not recover this for ESGC. The identity is solidified by the star just an arcminute to the south -- Leavenworth mentions it in his description. </object> <object><oname>NGC814</oname>and 815. These two objects, found by Ormond Stone at Leander McCormick in 1886, have been misidentified or given up as lost by nearly everyone who has tried to find them. However, Stone's sketch, made a few days after their discovery, points to the correct objects a full eight minutes of time east of the recorded (and published) positions. The star field is unmistakeable, and the objects match Stone's descriptions. </object> <object><oname>NGC815</oname> See NGC814. </object> <object><oname>NGC823</oname><oname>IC1782</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC832</oname>may be a double star. D'Arrest has only one observation of the nova, noting a star 9-10 about 5 arcmin southwest. There is such a star about four arcmin southeast of his position (copied correctly into NGC), but there is nothing at his position nor is there another bright star southwest of it. However, about 4 arcmin northeast of the star is a faint double star. It is 24 seconds east of d'A's position, and just 0.2 arcmin north. It is the sort of object that he could have seen as a "F, S" nebula on even a good night. Lacking any other candidate, this is a possible choice for his nova. </object> <object><oname>NGC834</oname> This was discovered by WH, who remained its sole observer at the time the NGC was compiled. See NGC841 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC841</oname>is the brightest of three galaxies forming a small group (the others are NGC834 and 845). Though credited to Stephan (who has a note that it is clearly distinct from the other two, indicating that he saw all three), it was actually found by WH, and observed by d'Arrest. Interestingly, JH saw only the faintest of the three. Though his position is virtually exact for it, he was enough convinced that his object and his father's were the same that he equated them. So, in GC he noted a 1 minute of time difference in the RA's and adopted his own. For N834, he used his father's position since he did not come across it during his own sweeps. Thus, when Stephan observed the trio, he found two GC objects at their correct positions, and a "new" nebula which he measured and included in his list of "novae". Like WH, d'A also saw only the brightest of the three, but made the RA about 13 seconds too large (17 seconds larger than WH's). He, too, assumed that all the observations refered to the same object, so that is how Dreyer put them into NGC. There, Dreyer adopted d'A's RA for NGC845. The credits for H III 604 and d'A need to be moved from NGC845 to NGC841. Aside from that and the adjustment needed for the RA of N845, the NGC is pretty close to being correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC842</oname>is one of the few Leander McCormick nebulae that is absolutely, positively identified. Not only did Leavenworth observe it three times, he made two sketches of the field. Even so, the nominal RA is 46 seconds of time off the true RA, a good indication of the quality of the LM positions. See NGC412 for an LM nebula, found and sketched the same night as one of N842's, not so fortunate in its observation. </object> <object><oname>NGC843</oname>is a triple star very close to d'A's position. He describes the triple as a faint, small, round globular cluster. On a night of less than perfect seeing, that is how the triple must appear. </object> <object><oname>NGC845</oname> This is the faintest of three galaxies, and the only one seen by JH. Move the WH number (III 604) and the other observer credit to d'A to NGC841 (which see). That is the brightest of the three. </object> <object><oname>NGC856</oname> See NGC863. </object> <object><oname>NGC859</oname> See NGC863. </object> <object><oname>NGC863</oname>and company. The problem here is what to do with the five observations reported by Lewis Swift in his fifth "catalogue" of nebulae, published in Astronomische Nachrichten No. 2763 (Vol. 116, page 33, 1886). All five received NGC numbers: 856, 859, 866, 868, and 885. So, in addition to NGC863, found by William Herschel (H III 260), there are six numbers in the area and but only three fairly bright galaxies. NGC863 itself is no problem. The NGC position, from JH's observations, is very good (there is a 30 second error in WH's RA; see Dreyer's note in his edition of WH's Scientific Papers). It obviously pins down the brightest of the galaxies in the area (which, by the way, is Markarian 590). Another of the galaxies is very nearly as bright (Mark 590 and this second galaxy are listed at m_p = 14.0 and 14.4, respectively, in the CGCG), and I'm a bit surprised that the Herschels did not see it. These two are obviously the two brightest that Swift found on the night of 3 October 1886 (N859 and N866, numbers 23 and 24, respectively, in his AN list). The relative positions that he gives them are correct -- "np of 2" and "sf of 2." The declinations are not too bad, but the RA's are out. The third object that he found that night is NGC868; the position is not too bad, and the description (what there is of it: "eF, pS, R") is appropriate. Swift returned to the area on 31 October of the same year, finding two more objects. The first of these, NGC856 (the 22nd object in Swift's list), has a good position, and the description ("eF, S, lE, F * close") is again appropriate. The star was measured by both Bigourdan and Howe, and is about a minute of arc east and slightly north of the galaxy. The second object, NGC885 (number 27), has -- if my conjecture is correct -- the largest positional error of any of Swift's five objects here: five minutes of time in RA. Swift's declination is good. What I believe happened on this night is that Swift simply rediscovered the two brightest galaxies. So, NGC859 = NGC856 and NGC885 = NGC863. His descriptions of the brightnesses of the two objects, though, is systematically fainter -- "eF" vs. "pF" for the fainter of the two, and "vF" vs. "pF" for the brighter -- than on his earlier night's observations. This suggests to me that the sky was not as good on this second night as on the first, or that Swift was then simply noting nebulae as fainter. The right ascension problem for NGC885 is, I believe, one of Swift's large random errors that are littered throughout his lists. For example, in the same list, NGC1689 (found 22 October 1886) is also five minutes out, being = NGC1667. Another example: NGC1037, also in the same list, has as a part of its description "[GC] 581 in field." This means that GC 581 = NGC1032 must be within 16 arcminutes of Swift's object (Swift was using an eyepiece that had a field diameter of 32 arcmin), but his declination for NGC1037 is 2 deg 49.7 arcmin different from NGC1032's declination! In summary, then, I think that my original assignments of the NGC numbers are probably correct, though we do not have the evidence to be absolutely sure. The observations reported by Herbert Howe in M.N. 68, 356, 1898, and 69, 29, 1900, support my position: he could not find NGC859, NGC866, and NGC885, though he reports observing NGC856, NGC863, and NGC868. Bigourdan also has observations of only three objects here, though he assigns a different number to the faintest: NGC859 rather than NGC868. I've yet to sort out his data completely, however. </object> <object><oname>NGC866</oname> See NGC863. </object> <object><oname>NGC868</oname> See NGC863. </object> <object><oname>NGC874</oname> Though Muller's position is off, his description is exact, including the position angle of the galaxy and the position angle and distance of the neighboring star. The RC3 is correct in this case. </object> <object><oname>NGC885</oname> See NGC863. </object> <object><oname>NGC886</oname> Thanks to a typo ("6" for "5"), this appeared in an earlier unpublished errata list of mine as being equal to NGC863. It's not, of course. It is actually a scattered cluster of about 20-30 stars centered near JH's position. It's obvious on the POSS; nevertheless, RNGC chose to call it "non-existent." See Brent's Monograph on the "non-existent" clusters for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC896</oname> Though WH noted the polar distance as uncertain, his position is only 4 arcmin south of the nebula, a bright knot in a huge HII ring (or possibly a supernova remnant). </object> <object><oname>NGC900</oname> See NGC901. </object> <object><oname>NGC901</oname>is just 2.8 arcmin nnf NGC900, and the NGC position (from Marth, who found the pair) is very close to the true position. Nevertheless, this has not prevented MCG and RNGC from getting the identification wrong. MCG calls N900 "N901," and RNGC claims N901 to be non-existent (though it does get N900 right). In spite of this, the identifications of the two objects are clear. </object> <object><oname>NGC917</oname> JH's position is exactly 20 arcmin too far north in declination. His description, "vF, S, R; forms a semicircle with four stars" from a single observation in Sweep 106 is a prefect match for UGC 1890 and four nearby field stars. Lord Rosse looked at the area of JH's published position, but saw only several very faint stars. There are two double stars about an arcminute south of JH's place. These are very faint; while they might have been visible in the 72-inch, it's very unlikely that JH could have seen them with the 20-foot reflector. In any case, UGC 1890 is almost certainly the object he saw. The galaxy and the nearby stars match his description exactly. </object> <object><oname>NGC930</oname>is lost. Copeland found it just an arcminute northwest of NGC932 with Lord Rosse's 72-inch. He saw it only one night, and made a micrometric measurement of it with respect to the nucleus of NGC932. Two stars that he also measured (on three other nights as well) are just where he places them. But there is no trace of his nebula. There is a faint knot (or superposed companion) in the corona of N932, but it is only about 35 arcsec northeast of the nucleus. While Copeland might have been able to see this, there is no way to make his measurement fit. There are no other likely galaxies nearby that he might have seen, either -- aside from NGC938 about 10 arcmin east-southeast which he, in fact, did see. So, NGC930 is a mystery. The modern catalogues, by the way, are wrong in adopting that number for the galaxy that is here. Dreyer clearly meant NGC932 to apply to WH's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC932</oname>is the correct number to apply to WH's nebula, not NGC930 (which is lost; see its note for more) as most modern catalogues do. </object> <object><oname>NGC952</oname> Stephan has misidentified his comparison star. My first suspicion was that he switched the comparison stars for this and for NGC983 (which see; briefly, when 15 Triangulum is used as the comparsion star for N983, Stephan's position exactly matches that for NGC1002). The position he lists for the N983 star, however -- "786 B.A.C." = 15 Tri -- has no bright star near it (that position is RA = 02h 24m 11.23s, NPD = 58d 59m 27.6s, for 1870). Furthermore, he lists different NPD's for the nebula in the two papers in which he published his third list: in MN, the NPD is given as 59 49 52.1; while in AN, the NPD is 55 49 52.1. There is nothing in either position. The next thing to try is to look for galaxies in the area that are at the offset inferred from Stephan's published positions. These are -4m 25.61s in RA, and +2m 58.0s in Dec. A cursory scan of the relevant areas didn't turn up any reasonable candidates, but I suspect that a careful inspection of the fields northwest of the stars between 5 and 9 in Triangulum would eventually reveal Stephan's object. Until then, however, N952 is unfortunately "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC961</oname><oname>NGC1051</oname><oname>IC249</oname>. Stone's description matches Stephan's in every respect, but his (Stone's) RA is just 10 minutes of time off, an obvious digit error. See IC249 for more on that story. </object> <object><oname>NGC963</oname><oname>IC1808</oname>. Leavenworth's position, like many of his, is too far east by over a minute of time. But his declination and description, like many of his, are about right. Since he left us no sketch of the field, we have to depend on just the declination and description, but I have little doubt that they refer to IC1808. Javelle rediscovered the galaxy about a decade after Leavenworth saw it; the position he measured at Nice -- and therefore the IC2 position -- is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC964</oname><oname>IC1814</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC970</oname> See NGC971. </object> <object><oname>NGC971</oname>is a star. Lord Rosse's diagram and micrometric measurements with respect to NGC970 point exactly to the star. Thus, though some have taken the faint companion of NGC970 as NGC971, this is incorrect. </object> <object><oname>NGC980</oname>and NGC982. William Herschel found these two nebulae, but did not measure individual positions; his position is "between them." Thus, it is John Herschel's positions that are used in the GC and NGC. Unfortunately, JH did not carry over into the GC his uncertainty in the position of H III 572 = h 235; this is noted in his 1833 catalogue (RA and NPD): "02 24 40.5:, 49 55 25:". The other nebula, H III 573 = h 235 carries no such uncertainty symbols: "02 24 44.8, 49 52 39." If this latter position is precessed to 1950, it agrees closely with those measured by Bigourdan and by Dressel and Condon for "NGC980." Dressel and Condon, of course, simply copied the designation from UGC. Bigourdan gives no reason for his identifications, simply noting that "NGC982" is fainter than "NGC980." The MCG, however, calls this southeastern object "NGC982," apparently preferring to believe that the NGC declination is incorrect rather than the right ascension. Who's right? Let's look back at John Herschel's observations since that is where the incorrect position comes from. If we precess his uncertain position for the western object, we find that the RA but not the declination agrees with that from the modern observations. So, the two galaxies are oriented northwest- southeast on the sky, but the NGC positions (from Sir John) say southwest- northeast. Indeed, the GC and NGC descriptions state this orientation explicitly. However, Dreyer has a note in the NGC repeating part of Sir John's original description for h 235: "Dist. 3 arcmin; pos from the next one = 337.0 deg," and adding, "Is the p one perhaps the most northern? H says nothing about their relative position; not observed by d'A." John Herschel's note about the position angle between the two being 337 deg is the vital clue here, since it suggests that the nw/se orientation is correct. Let's now take the position of h 236 as correct -- as indeed it is within the known statistical errors of Sir John's observations (about 2 arcmin). Now, assume that Sir John measured the position of h 235 with respect to h 236, perhaps by measuring the distance and position angle that he quotes. This would then imply that he made an error in calculating the offset in declination. If this is true, then changing the sign of the declination offset (2 arcmin 46 arcsec) would put the declination exactly on the true declination: +40 42.5 for 1950 (NPD = 49 49 53 for 1830). So, here is another case where the position for a nebula was measured with respect to another nearby nebula, which in turn was referred to the "fundamental" reference system (see the note on NGC2424 and 2427 for another instance of this). So, I think that the declination of NGC980 is out by 5.5 arcmin, that the UGC identifications are switched, and that the MCG got them right. Another minor mystery: in the GC, JH has the distance as "210 arcsec" rather than "3 arcmin". This makes his observation closer to the true distance on the sky. I suspect that it comes from his original observing records -- but why didn't he use it in his 1833 list? </object> <object><oname>NGC982</oname> See NGC980. </object> <object><oname>NGC983</oname><oname>NGC1002</oname>. Stephan misidentified his comparison star, a mistake caught by the editor of the Monthly Notices and given a footnote in Stephan's third list (the editor, too, made a mistake: for "... R.A. 02h 17m 52.66s ..." read "... R.A. 02h 27m 52.66s ..."). When the right star, 15 Triangulum, is used, Stephan's micrometrically measured position falls exactly on NGC1002. The error is also mentioned in Esmiol's 1916 re-reduction of Stephan's observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC996</oname> See IC240. ===== NGC1002 = NGC983, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1027</oname>is probably also = IC1824, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1032</oname> See NGC1037. </object> <object><oname>NGC1036</oname><oname>IC1828</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1037</oname> Swift found this on the night of 29 Sept 1886, and gives an 1885.0 position of 02 34 08 -02 13 47, describing it as "eeeF; vS; vE; eee diff; [GC] 581 [NGC1032] in field" in his 5th list of new nebulae. Something is obviously wrong since NGC1032 is at 02 33 29 +00 35.9 (1885) and probably has no other galaxies bright enough for Swift to have seen within 16 arcmin of it (he used an eyepiece that gave a field of 32 arcmin, so if N1032 is "in field," it must have been within 16 arcmin, assuming that N1037 was centered). In addition, Swift's quoted declination is 2 deg 49.7 min south of NGC1032. I don't see any obvious typos, so I've had to conclude "not found" for N1037. After I wrote the preceding paragraph, I learned that Wolfgang Steinicke (and others) have suggested that NGC1037 is actually UGC 2119, two minutes of time preceding Swift's position, and 6.7 arcmin south. This is certainly possible as there are several other larger RA errors in Swift's 5th list. However, this still leaves the problem of NGC1032 being nearly 3 degrees to the north. Looking at the field, two other possibilities suggest themselves. First, Swift may have picked up UGC 2106 which is in the same field as UGC 2119. This would suggest that he somehow thought that U2119 was NGC1032. Secondly, if he had NGC1032 correctly identified, then it is just barely possible that he might have also seen the very faint galaxy about 4 arcmin northwest. This is quite flattened, and might be visible in a 16-inch under very good skies. However, there are brighter stars near it -- in particular, a star is less than an arcminute to the northeast. Why didn't Swift mention any of these? This hypothesis also requires a large error in position (50 seconds in RA and 2 deg 53 min in Dec). All in all, I'm not convinced by any of these hypotheses, so shall stick with "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC1040</oname><oname>NGC1053</oname>. Here is a peculiar case where Lewis Swift's position is closer to the galaxy than Edouard Stephan's! However, if Stephan's position is made exactly one minute of time larger, then it agrees with the GSC position to within 5 arcsec. Stephan apparently made a simple error in subtracting the RA offset of the galaxy from the comparison star as the position he lists for the star is correctly precessed from the BD. However -- another error -- he recorded the star's BD number as +40 677 in both publications of his third list: the correct number is +40 577. We all have bad days. The identity with NGC1053, by the way, was suggested by Reinmuth, and Swift's position and description are good. </object> <object><oname>NGC1051</oname><oname>NGC961</oname><oname>IC249</oname>. See NGC961 and IC249 for the stories. </object> <object><oname>NGC1053</oname><oname>NGC1040</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1057</oname>is noted as double in the NGC. It was seen this way several times by Lord Rosse and his observers. It is actually an S0^+ galaxy with a double star superposed just northwest. The position in the GSC for N1057 does not include the double star. </object> <object><oname>NGC1059</oname>may be the double star about an arcmin east of JH's position. He recorded the object only once, and then described it as "eF; hardly sure." Dreyer noted that this object was found neither by d'Arrest nor by Burnham. The suggestion that N1059 is the double comes from Reinmuth. </object> <object><oname>NGC1061</oname> See NGC1062. </object> <object><oname>NGC1062</oname>is a star found by Copeland in the NGC1061 group (actually in the core of an extended cluster of galaxies) with Lord Rosse's 72-inch "Leviathan." The offsets from NGC1061 measured by him fall precisely on a faint star, so the identity is certain. The RNGC and PGC identification of NGC1062 with a low surface brightness spindle near NGC1066 and 1067 is incorrect. Dreyer reduced positions for the objects in this group from the 72-inch micrometer measurements assuming a position for the nearby comparison star. It was these positions that he used in the NGC. Comparison with positions in the GSC show that Dreyer's position for the star is off by about 1.8 seconds in RA and 21 arcsec in declination. Taking these offsets into account, Copeland's measured position for NGC1062 becomes 02 40 23.6, +32 15 00 (1950.0). </object> <object><oname>NGC1066</oname> See NGC1062. </object> <object><oname>NGC1067</oname> See NGC1062. </object> <object><oname>NGC1072</oname><oname>IC1837</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1105</oname><oname>IC1840</oname> = MCG -03-08-004. My previous decision to list two galaxies under the number "NGC1105" was misguided. After reviewing the evidence, I've decided to go with historical precedent and let Leavenworth's sketch -- which clearly shows that N1105 = I1840 -- provide the final word. However, for those still interested, here is the full story. The NGC galaxy was found in 1885 by Leavenworth with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick Observatory. As with most of the faint nebulae discovered visually with this telescope, the discovery position is crude, especially in RA. Fortunately, Leavenworth has left us a sketch that shows conclusively that his object is identical to IC1840. The four stars to the west of the galaxy -- looking like the top four stars in the cross of Cygnus -- are all shown in the sketch along with the galaxy. The second candidate comes from Herbert Howe. Working with the 20-inch refractor at Chamberlain Observatory just outside of Denver, he could not find anything at the position given by Leavenworth. However, "... four minutes following was a very small nebula, about equal in brightness to a star of magnitude 13. As Leavenworth observed his nebula only once, and took its place roughly, the two may be identical." Dreyer took Howe's "may be identical" as "indeed are identical" and put Howe's RA in the IC2 Notes with only the qualification, "... (nothing in the place given by L.)." So, we have two galaxies for one NGC number (where is Solomon when we need him?!). My previous solution added "e" and "w" suffixes to the NGC number for the two different galaxies. Not very satisfactory for the purist, I'm afraid, but it did give some credit to each of the observers, and attempted to deal with Dreyer's Note in IC2. As I've said, however, my current sensibilities are offended by this Solomaic decision, so I've reverted to using historical precedent and ignoring Dreyer's Note. For what it's worth, the galaxy that Howe found is now called MCG -03-08-036. </object> <object><oname>NGC1109</oname>(= IC1846?), 1111, 1112, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1117, and 1127. Of these eight nebulae, all found on a single night in 1863 by Albert Marth with William Lassell's 48-inch reflector, only three -- N1115, 16, and 27 -- can be readily identified. All but one of the others can be force-fit to galaxies in area, but only by changing RA offsets from galaxy to galaxy. The declinations are pretty good, assuming that the RA offsets noted below are in fact leading us to the correct objects. All we have here to help decypher the field are Marth's positions -- five of them clearly wrong -- and descriptions -- all of them sparce. Here are my tentative conclusions, with Marth's data on the first line (my comments follow in parentheses), and the modern positions (for B1950.0) on the second: NGC RA (1950.0) Dec Description and comments 1109 02 46 55 +13 02.7 vF (Marth's RA 2.0 min off?) 02 44 59.45 +13 02 50.0 = IC1846 = UGC 02265 = CGCG 440-008 1111 02 46 59 +13 01.6 F, vS, stell (Marth's RA 1.0 min off?) 02 45 55.0 +13 03 07 = IC1850. Faint comp 0.4 arcmin s. 1112 02 47 16 +13 00.6 F, pS (Marth's RA 1.0 min off?) 02 46 16.20 +13 00 59.6 = IC1852 = UGC 02293 = CGCG 440-015 1113 02 47 24 +13 05.6 vF (Marth's position on * 10). 02 47 20.76 +13 07 16.0 = * 15. 1115 02 47 41 +13 02.6 vF 02 47 41.11 +13 03 36.5 = CGCG 440-020 1116 02 47 51 +13 07.6 vF 02 47 51.40 +13 07 44.3 = UGC 02326 = CGCG 440-021 1117 02 47 59 +12 57.6 Close to a small * (RA 30 sec off? Is the comp 0.4 arcmin n the "small *"?) 02 48 28.88 +12 58 48.1 = CGCG 440-022s = UGC 02337s 1127 02 50 07 +13 02.4 vF 02 50 07.5 +13 03 10 = CGCG 440-024 = UGC 02356 The RA offsets strike me as rather ad hoc, so these are tentative conclusions. </object> <object><oname>NGC1111</oname>may be IC1850. See NGC1109 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC1112</oname>may be IC1852. See NGC1109 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC1113</oname> See NGC1109. </object> <object><oname>NGC1115</oname> See NGC1109. </object> <object><oname>NGC1116</oname> See NGC1109. </object> <object><oname>NGC1117</oname> See NGC1109. </object> <object><oname>NGC1127</oname> See NGC1109. </object> <object><oname>NGC1128</oname>is the dumbbell galaxy in the center of Abell 400. Swift's RA is five minutes too small, but his comment about two pretty faint stars close west is accurate. Several objects found by Swift in October of 1886 have the same 5 minute problem. I wonder if the printed RA of a star that he commonly used then to calibrate his setting circles had a typographical error. </object> <object><oname>NGC1129</oname> See NGC1130. </object> <object><oname>NGC1130</oname>and 1131. Both of these were discovered by Lord Rosse (or by his observer) while he was examining NGC1129. The Parsonstown observers looked at NGC1129 three times, noting the superposed object to the southwest all three times (it was finally taken as a star or a double star, so did not receive an NGC number. It is VV85, and may be a line of three galaxies, or two galaxies plus a star). Two other "knots," seen only during the final observation, did receive NGC numbers. While Lord Rosse did not yet have a micrometer to measure accurate offsets, the estimates he gives (2 minutes north for the first, and 2 minutes east and "a little south" for the second) are just good enough to tentatively identify the objects. Dreyer calculated the NGC positions from the offsets and the position for NGC1129. Neither identity is certain. While there is a brighter CGCG galaxy a four or five arcmin on further southeast of N1131, Lord Rosse would have had to make a mistake of five arcmin in his estimated offset; this is unlikely. The situation for N1130 is even less sure. There is no object directly north of N1129. Of the two possiblities, CGCG 540-004 1.5 arcmin northwest is the more likely identification. Not only is the galaxy brighter than the one about two arcmin northeast, there is a star superposed just southwest that would probably have enhanced the visibility of the CGCG object. Assuming these identifications, CGCG and UGC got the correct objects, but MCG did not (not even N1129!). The accurate position measured at Bologna for CGCG 540-007 = NGC1131 is also for the wrong object; they got a faint spiral that may be in the background of the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC1131</oname> See NGC1130. </object> <object><oname>NGC1136</oname> RC3 and ESO give the correct position. RC2 and RNGC are wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC1141</oname><oname>NGC1143</oname>, and NGC1142 = NGC1144. This is a well-known interacting pair of galaxies, perhaps a collision. Marth's description for N1141 and N1142 fits, and his positions are just 30 arcminutes off. He apparently was having an off night when he found this pair: of the ten objects that he discovered on that night in early October 1864, five have large position errors, and another is a star. The discussion of NGC1474 has more details. </object> <object><oname>NGC1142</oname><oname>NGC1144</oname>. See NGC1141. </object> <object><oname>NGC1143</oname><oname>NGC1141</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1144</oname><oname>NGC1142</oname>. See NGC1141. </object> <object><oname>NGC1147</oname>is probably lost. There is no object within five degrees of the nominal position that matches Muller's description (m = 15.0, Dxd = 0.4x0.2, extended 180 deg; star 9.5 mag following 25 sec, north 1 arcmin). I had the thought during preparation of ESGC that it might be identical with NGC1157, a few degrees south, but there is no bright star in the right direction from that galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC1157</oname>is probably not NGC1147, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1170</oname>may have been the tail of a comet. It was found by C.S. Pierce at Harvard on the last day of 1869, and was verified by Joseph Winlock. The description in Harvard Annals, Vol. 13, Part 1, reads, "J.W. and C.S.P. independently think the sky generally bright f and a little n of the comet for 14' or more (several fields according to C.S.P.). [The approximate place in Table VIII results from comparison with the comet.]" The comment in square brackets is from the author of the paper, probably J.W. In Table VIII, the only information is the position 02 54 10, +26 31 (1860), and the Remark, "Comet 1869 III p neb 2m 31s, a little s." I haven't yet done the library work to know if the comet's tail stretched off to the northeast from the head. But the description makes it possible that this is the correct explanation for this NGC entry. </object> <object><oname>NGC1171</oname> See NGC1197. </object> <object><oname>NGC1173</oname> This is one of four objects (the others are NGC1176, 78, and 83; N1176 has the story) that Bigourdan found scattered around NGC1175 in December of 1884. Bigourdan's published north polar distances for the four are all one degree too large. The other three are stars, but this one is a mystery at the moment. I suspect that Bigourdan has misidentified his comparison star, but will have to look around the field some more for another that he might have used instead of the one he claims to have used. Whatever the case, there is nothing in Bigourdan's position, which comes from two accordant measurements on 17 December. About 40 arcsec to the southwest is a faint double star that he probably could not have seen (based on the fact that he had difficulty with NGC1177). He adds a curious note to his description: "At the end of the measurements, I could see the object very well: the sky, very clear at just that moment, had been a little unsettled." This is what leads me to believe that he has misidentified his star field. </object> <object><oname>NGC1174</oname><oname>NGC1186</oname>. Swift's position for N1174 is just 1 minute of time off. Otherwise, his description is a good match for NGC1186, including the bright double star about 5 arcmin northwest: it does indeed point to the galaxy. Dreyer corrects the relative position of the double star and the galaxy in a note in IC1 where he also repeats Spitaler's suggestion that N1174 and N1186 are identical -- but for a different reason. See N1186 for that story. Coincidentally, Swift's incorrect position for N1174 lies near IC1872, a group of 3-4 stars exactly at Bidschof's micrometric position (it was also independently found by Bigourdan, but his observation was published too late to be included in the second IC). Somehow, these two numbers have avoided being equated over the years. Even RNGC simply called N1174 "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC1175</oname> See NGC1176 and NGC1177. </object> <object><oname>NGC1176</oname> 1178, and 1183 are all stars in the vicinity of NGC1175. Bigourdan's published north polar distances are all 1 deg too large, but he has correctly identified his comparison stars. Re-reducing his positions puts them directly on top of faint stars in the field. Another object found at the same time (N1173, which see) is apparently lost, or is the victim of a misidentified comparison star. Also, Bigourdan had trouble seeing N1175's one real companion galaxy, NGC1177 = IC281. Even though his measurements of N1175 itself are good, this was obviously not a well-seen field for him. </object> <object><oname>NGC1177</oname><oname>IC281</oname>. N1177 was found by Lord Rosse, and clearly measured by him with respect to N1175. The NGC position is good, and LdR also mentions the brighter star 32 arcsec northeast of N1177. However, this has not prevented Swift from claiming the galaxy as one of his discoveries, so it has an IC number as well as its original NGC number. Bigourdan claimed to have found four "novae" in the field (N1173, 76, 78, and 83; see N1173 and N1176 for more), but three are clearly stars (the fourth, N1173, may be too, but I wonder if Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star for it; see N1173 for more). In spite of his four "discoveries," Bigourdan had trouble seeing N1177. He observed N1175 on two nights, could not find N1177 on the first of those, and saw it only vaguely on the second, commenting that the light of the brighter star mentioned by LdR prevented him from measuring it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1178</oname>is a star. See NGC1176 for the discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC1183</oname>is a star. See NGC1176 for the discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC1186</oname><oname>NGC1174</oname> (which see for more). In the NGC, Dreyer notes that both Lord Rosse and d'Arrest looked for N1186 in vain. However, it was seen and consistently described by both WH and JH at much the same position. Until Spitaler's observation appeared (in AN 3030, which I've not seen), Dreyer must have been puzzled by this as both LdR and d'A were fine observers. The galaxy has a pretty low surface brightness, and with at least two 14th mag stars superposed, it would have been rather difficult to see, especially in long-focus telescopes. However, there is no doubt that both Herschels saw it, and the identity is not in question. Swift's RA for N1174 is just 1 minute off, and his description of the double star 5 arcmin northwest clinches that identification, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC1197</oname> Well, I can't find this one, either. There is nothing at Swift's position, and his description -- "pF, cE, pS; sev vF sts nr" -- could fit any of a dozen galaxies within a few degrees in any direction. He apparently found only one other galaxy on the same night (NGC1171), and that is close to his nominal position. So, searching for a systematic offset won't help. A search of the surrounding POSS1 fields turns up no digit errors in the ten's places of RA and Dec that would nail an appropriate object. So, this object may well be lost. Wolfgang's identification, by the way, is a star about an arcminute west of Swift's position. Swift's description pretty well rules out this ID. </object> <object><oname>NGC1198</oname><oname>IC282</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1202</oname>is positively identified by the wide double star at PA = 45 deg, d = 4 arcmin, mentioned in Stone's description. The galaxy is not, by the way, identical to IC286 (which see) -- Bigourdan "observed" them on the same night in December of 1890. </object> <object><oname>NGC1212</oname><oname>IC1883</oname>. As with NGC1213, Swift found this galaxy in October of 1884, and made an error in estimating its RA. Thus Barnard thought it a nova when he found it sometime later. Barnard's observation, like many others of his in IC2, is unpublished -- he apparently sent it directly to Dreyer. In this case, this object is the first of a group of five near Algol that appear in IC2 (the others are I1884 = I290, and I1887 = I292, I1888 = I293, and I1889 = I294; see IC290 for notes on them). Swift explicitly notes the proximity to Algol in his notes for several of the galaxies. As I mentioned, his positions are not good, so misled Barnard into believing that all five galaxies were "novae" when all, in fact, are included in NGC or IC1. Thus, all have IC2 numbers, too. In this case, Algol is west-northwest by several arcmin. Swift's galaxy can be identified by his note "Right angled with 2 sts." The figure actually looks more like an equilateral triangle, but is close enough to provide strong support for this object as being the one that Swift saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC1213</oname><oname>IC1881</oname>. Swift found NGC1213 in October of 1884, soon after he began observing with the 16-inch refractor at Warner Observatory in Rochester, New York. As was to be his practice for the next 14-15 years, he "measured" the position of his "nova" by centering it in the eyepiece of his telescope, then reading the setting circles. This led to many mistakes in his positions. Swift's RA of this object is far enough off that Bigourdan thought it was probably also a "nova" when he rediscovered it in January of 1891 (the object that Bigourdan labels "NGC1213" is a star). Though Bigourdan's observations of the galaxy are especially poor because of its low surface brightness, it is almost certainly the same object that Swift saw. Both of their descriptions are apt (including Swift's "F * close n"), and Bigourdan suggests in his that the galaxy might be NGC1213. </object> <object><oname>NGC1233</oname> Is NGC1235 (which see) possibly equal to this? </object> <object><oname>NGC1235</oname> Is this perhaps = NGC1233? Found by Swift on one of his more productive nights, N1235 is one of 13 nebulae observed on 21 Oct 1886. Aside from NGC58 (which see) which has a 1 minute error in RA, the other 12 objects have no significant systematic offsets in their true positions from Swift's discovery positions. If N1235 is indeed N1233, then it would be the lone exception with a 23.6 arcmin error in Dec. So, though the description (what there is of it) fits, I'm not comfortable with this identity, and consider it provisional at best. </object> <object><oname>NGC1237</oname>is most likely the double star about 30 seconds west, and a minute south, of Muller's position. It fits his description, including the position angle, and Muller himself notes "**?" </object> <object><oname>NGC1240</oname>is probably the double star 34 sec east and 3.7 arcmin south of WH's position. His description, from one observation on 12 Sept 1784 ("Suspected, 240 left a doubt; eF and vS, most probably 2 close stars; between 2 stars," quoted by Dreyer in the 1912 Papers collection) fits perfectly, and there is nothing else in the area that matches. The position difference is not unexpectedly large for WH's early observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC1241</oname> See NGC1243. </object> <object><oname>NGC1242</oname> See NGC1243. </object> <object><oname>NGC1243</oname>is a double star first seen by JH. There are two nebulae here, N1241 and N1242, both discovered by WH (though nearly two years apart). JH saw the brighter (N1241), but thought his father's description of the fainter's position ("... about 1 arcmin north-following II 286 [N1241]") wrong -- it isn't, but JH never saw the fainter (N1242). Curiously, neither did d'A who picked up the same two objects as JH, N1241 and the double star. The first observation at Birr turned up both of WH's nebulae, but not JH's double star, so the sketch made that night shows only the two nebulae and some field stars. JH thought that the orientation of the sketch must be wrong since it did not agree with his own observation. He made a comment to that effect in the note in GC, which certainly confused the situation. It was not until Dreyer looked at the field in November 1877 with the 72-inch that all three objects were observed together for the first time. Dreyer's measurements pinpoint all three, but he still describes N1243 as a nebula, making it the second brightest of the three. His description and sketch from that night is an accurate repesentation of the field -- except that he still believes N1243 to be nebulous. </object> <object><oname>NGC1251</oname>is a double star. It is so close to Coolidge's position that Reinmuth had no trouble identifying it as the NGC object. This is one of many asterisms in the list of "nebulae" found visually at Harvard in the late 1850s. </object> <object><oname>NGC1252</oname>is a sparce cluster (or random scattering of stars) 20 arcmin north of JH's position. His description (Star 8m, the chief of a cluster of 18 or 20 stars) fits perfectly, and his NPD for the star is very close to exactly 20 arcmin too large. This suggests a simple digit error in his NPD. </object> <object><oname>NGC1257</oname>is a double star. Bigourdan saw this object on two nights, but only estimated its position once. Since the BD position of his comparison star is also an estimate (and is actually closer to a slightly fainter star about 1.7 arcmin east-southeast), the NGC position is off. Consequently, the number N1257 has been mistakenly assigned to CGCG 540-073 in RNGC, PGC, and RC3. Bigourdan's estimated position, however, falls within an arcminute of the double, and he notes the two neighboring stars in his description. The identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC1264</oname>is UGC 2643. Bigourdan's position is within 5 arcsec of the GSC position, so there is no doubt about the identification. RNGC has mistakenly put the number N1264 on CGCG 540-085, which is about 5 arcmin southwest of the real NGC1264. </object> <object><oname>NGC1272</oname> See NGC1279. </object> <object><oname>NGC1275</oname>is the brightest galaxy in the Perseus Cluster and a strong radio source, as well as a fascinating object in other wavelengths. See NGC1279. </object> <object><oname>NGC1278</oname><oname>IC1907</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1279</oname>is accurately located by Lord Rosse's micrometric offsets from his reference star which is directly between NGC1272 and NGC1275. It is certainly not the fainter galaxy superposed on the corona of NGC1275 as suggested by LEDA. </object> <object><oname>NGC1289</oname><oname>IC314</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1312</oname> The RC3 is wrong in equating this with UGC 2711. This is actually a double star, as are many of the first "nebulae" found at Harvard by Bond and his colleagues. The positions of these are generally very good, and their descriptions and those of the surrounding fields make clear just what the early observers were seeing. </object> <object><oname>NGC1327</oname> This is L.M. 105, found by Ormond Stone with the 26-inch refractor at the Leander McCormick Observatory in Virginia. He describes it simply as "vS, neb?" and assigns a magnitude of 16.3. His position is typically uncertain with nothing resembling his description nearby. There is a faint galaxy (MCG -04-09-008) 0.6 minutes of time east of his RA and at the correct declination. Since the early Leander McCormick positions, not just Stone's, tend to be too far west, this object is a logical candidate. However, Delisle Stewart examined a Bruce reflector plate taken at Harvard's Arequipa station in Peru, and noticed a faint triple star near Stone's place. ESO has suggested that the wide triple about 2.5 arcmin north of Stone's place is Stewart's object. Since the stars in the triple are 13th and 14th magnitude, and since they are spread out along a line nearly an arcminute long, I doubt that they would appear as a "vS" nebula of the 16th magnitude in the 26-inch, even on a night of spectacularly bad seeing. Stewart created some additional confusion by simply precessing Stone's crude position to equinox 1900. This, together with his comment in Harvard Annals 60, "3 vF sts, close together, no neb," summarized by Dreyer in the IC2 Notes, would lead us to believe that the triple is at Stone's position. All of this makes me unhappy with Stewart's hypothesis, but I've nevertheless retained the triple in the main table as a possibility for N1327. </object> <object><oname>NGC1330</oname>is a group of five or six stars -- probably with several more fainter involved -- exactly located by Stephan's micrometric position. Efforts to identify it with galaxies in the area are futile. </object> <object><oname>NGC1331</oname><oname>IC324</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1333</oname> Though there is no question about the identity of this nebula, its early observations with small telescopes were contradictory enough to lead to suggestions that it might be variable. The note in Auwers's 1862 appendix to WH's catalogue makes it clear that Tuttle's observation of 1859 has the directions of the field inverted. This probably contributed to the perception of variability. Interestingly, part of the object seems to be a collapsing protostar (see Sky and Telescope, January 1997, pages 15 and 16 for the story). Is it thus possible that N1333 really is variable? Depending on the density, position, and orientation of dust clouds around the protostar, and the possibly changing intensity of the star itself, variability from our point of view is not out of the question. This is apparently the cause of the variability of the nebulae around T Tauri (NGC1554 and NGC1555, which see), and perhaps also explains the variability of NGC2261 (also which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC1334</oname> See IC323. </object> <object><oname>NGC1378</oname>is a double star found by Julius Schmidt with a 6-foot (focal length) refractor during his survey of the Fornax Cluster area from Athens in the early 1870s. His position is off in RA by about 3 seconds of time, but the double is the only object in the area that he might have picked up. His "description" reads "F. new" (in the original German, "S. neu") so it is not much help. The Mt. Wilson and Helwan observers came to the same conclusion, so RNGC has the same identity. For SGC, I consulted Schmidt's paper in AN 2097, and saw no reason to differ with the earlier concensus. </object> <object><oname>NGC1384</oname> There is a faint double star very close to Marth's position, though the brightest galaxy in a scattered cluster about 2 arcmin south fits Marth's description ("Nebulous star 13m") very well -- it has a star superposed about 5 arcsec southwest of the nucleus. The galaxy/star pair are also considerably brighter than the double star, and are within Marth's usual error circle. So, while it's possible that the double is Marth's object, it is much more likely to be the galaxy with the superposed star. </object> <object><oname>NGC1392</oname>was found by Swift on 13 February 1887 about 5 arcmin north of a brighter "nebula" which Swift took to be Comet 1887-I three degrees south of its predicted position. There is nothing in either of the places given by Swift in his sixth list for either object. Nor is there anything three degrees north where the comet was supposed to have appeared that night. However, the center of the Fornax cluster is one and a half degrees north. I think it's likely that Swift saw two of the galaxies there, but choosing two out of the 15-20 that he could have seen would be pure guesswork. Similarly, Lauberts's guess in ESO (ESO 358-G040) is based on a reliance on the 1 degree difference in declination more than it is on the likelihood that Swift actually saw the object: ESO 358-G040 has a total visual magnitude around 16.2, likely putting it beyond Swift's limit, especially given the far southern declination. A third possibility is raised by Kreutz in a note following Swift's list in AN. Kreutz notes that the offset of Swift's position from that predicted for the comet by Finlay is 38 minutes east, and 4 degrees 1 arcminute south. However, searching at Finlay's place for a double nebula turned up nothing, either. Other objects found by Swift on the same night include NGC1797 and NGC1799, both very near Swift's positions for them; and NGC2589, like NGC1392, not found at Swift's position (see Herbert Howe's note in MN 61, 29, 1900, copied into the IC2 Notes). In the end, NGC1392 is another of Swift's nebulae "not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC1396</oname> The galaxy chosen by me for SGC is the only reasonably match to the original position by Schmidt in his short paper on the Fornax Cluster. Unfortunately, Schmidt's table in that paper has several errors, some perhaps typos, some perhaps observational. In any event, given the size of his telescope, and the problems in his table, the SGC galaxy is as good a match to Schmidt's observation as I can make. </object> <object><oname>NGC1408</oname>is another of the new "nebulae" found by Schmidt during his survey of the Fornax Cluster area. There is nothing at his position, but during my sweep across the area for SGC, I noted two double stars nearby. The fainter and wider double is northwest of Schmidt's position, and the brighter but closer pair is southeast. Though I've listed both in the main table, with question marks, neither seems particularly likely to me to be mistaken for a nebula. This should be checked at the eyepiece, though. In any event, N1408 is currently unidentified. See NGC1378 and NGC1396 for more on Schmidt's Fornax Cluster work. </object> <object><oname>NGC1411</oname>may also be IC1943, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1412</oname><oname>IC1981</oname>. This is the only galaxy near Herschel's position that he could have seen. As with NGC324, Herschel's RA is correct, though his declination is off. </object> <object><oname>NGC1415</oname><oname>IC1983</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1416</oname>has suffered a bit in the literature. It was discovered by Frank Muller at Leander-McCormick before he and his fellow observers there were measuring good positions for the nebulae they were finding, so it has an NGC declination that is about 3.5 arcmin off. In addition, the two bright stars just south are described as "* 8.7, nr; * 8.6, n 2'". The actual place of the "* 8.6" is south by 3.5 arcmin, while the "* 8.7" is 1.5 arcmin south. This apparently confused Herbert Howe, too. He wrote in his second MN paper, "Muller gave this nebula as 2' north [sic] of a star of mag. 8.6. It is really south [sic] of the star. There is another star of equal mag. about 5' south of the star mentioned. The position of the nebula is 03 36 41, -23 02.4 [1900.0]." What Howe should have said is "Muller gave this nebula as 2' south of a star of mag. 8.6. It is really north of the star. ..." Still, he did get the galaxy's position right, assuming that this really is the one that Muller saw. Dreyer copied Howe's corrected declination into a note for IC2. Carlson had this to say in 1940 about the object: "NGC correct, W" where the "W" is the source of the note, a Mt. Wilson photograph. She has a footnote on the object that reads "Howe's correction (D III) to NGC not confirmed" ("D III" refers to Dreyer's Notes in IC2). Unfortunately, she is wrong as the NGC declination lands between the two bright stars; Howe is right. So, nobody has got it completely right. This leads me to question Howe's identification, which is the usual one adopted by every catalogue since that includes the galaxy. However, there is no other galaxy in the area that has two bright stars close to it. So, this is most likely Muller's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC1420</oname>is a triple star at d'Arrest's position. The identity is nailed down by d'A's mention of the "* 13 10.5 seconds preceding [at about the same] declination." That star is there. </object> <object><oname>NGC1424</oname> See NGC1429. </object> <object><oname>NGC1425</oname>may also be IC1988, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1426</oname> See IC1983 = NGC1415. </object> <object><oname>NGC1429</oname>is lost. Leavenworth describes it as "15.5, 0.3 x 0.2, E 180 deg, gbMN; 2nd of 2." The first of two is NGC1424 which carries this description in the Leander McCormick list: "15.2, 0.2, R, gbM; 1st of 2, one of which is GC 763 [N1424]; * 10 p 15 sec." The description of Leavenworth's "2nd of 2" matches the one galaxy in the area. But that is it. The star 15 sec west of the galaxy is 13th magnitude, and there is an 11th magnitude star half that distance northwest. Why did Leavenworth not mention that? I think that Leavenworth has misidentified the known galaxy so that his description applies to a different pair altogether. But which pair? I don't see any other in the area that matches the descriptions. So, NGC1429 is another lost NGC object until someone with sharper eyes than me has a go at the problem. </object> <object><oname>NGC1432</oname>is the reflection nebula around Maia in the Pleiades. Though the brightest part of the nebula is to the north-northwest of the star (see e.g. Barnard's description in AN 3018), I have simply adopted the position of Maia itself. See NGC1435 for more on the Pleiades nebulosity. </object> <object><oname>NGC1434</oname>may be the galaxy I chose for ESGC at 03 43.8, -09 50. This has a star of about the right brightness 20 seconds east and 3 arcminutes south that might match the star in Muller's description. He put the 8.5 mag star at 25 seconds east and 3 arcmin north. If he made a mistake in his direction, the ESGC galaxy would fit his description. NGC1445 (which see), suggested as a possible identity for N1434, also fits Muller's description, but it has no star anywhere near that could be Muller's. I think this identification is less likely. </object> <object><oname>NGC1435</oname>is the part of the reflection nebula around Merope extending almost directly south by 10 to 15 arcmin from the star. For some time, I had thought that it and IC349 (which see) are identical. However, reading Barnard's careful observations of the Pleiades in AN 3018 (where he announces the discovery of IC349), it became clear that the IC object is actually a brighter knot in the larger Merope nebula, and very close to the star itself. Under normal conditions, Merope's light swamps the knot, so it is not surprising that it was not found until the keen-eyed Barnard turned the Lick 36-inch refractor on it (though Pritchard claims an earlier image on a plate taken at Cambridge in the late 1880's; see Herbig's article in AJ 111, 1241, 1996 for a complete history of IC349). NGC1435, however, is fairly easily seen on good nights with much smaller telescopes. I've picked it out with a six-inch, and I suspect that any good scope of four inches or more would give a view of it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1441</oname> See NGC1443 and NGC1446. </object> <object><oname>NGC1443</oname>is a star. Tempel found it while observing NGC1441, 1449, 1451, and 1453. His description says that his nova forms a trapezium with N1441, N1449, and N1451 -- indeed it does. Tempel probably has another star here, NGC1446, that also made it into the catalogue. See it for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC1445</oname>is clearly identified by Muller's 9th magnitude star, 2 arcmin away in position angle 330 degrees. Some of the Leander McCormick positions and descriptions are sufficient for pretty solid identifications of the objects. This galaxy has also been suggested as a possible identification for NGC1434 (which see), but I think that is unlikely -- there is no 8.5 mag star 25 seconds east, 3 arcmin north (or south for that matter). </object> <object><oname>NGC1446</oname> This is probably a star roughly 2 arcmin south of Tempel's position. He says of it, "... follows N1441 by 16 seconds [and is] +3/4 arcmin" (a crude translation of "... und folgt 16 seconds auf [GC] 772 +3/4'.") If the plus sign is switched to a minus sign, the star I've included in the table is Tempel's object. He has another nova here that is certainly a star. See NGC1443 for details. </object> <object><oname>NGC1448</oname><oname>NGC1457</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1449</oname> See NGC1443. </object> <object><oname>NGC1450</oname> Howe corrected Swift's RA which is 16 seconds too large, an error this object shares with three others that Swift found the same night (NGC652, N1509 = IC2026, and N1594 = IC2075). See NGC1677 = NGC1659 for more about this night of Swift's observing. </object> <object><oname>NGC1451</oname> See NGC1443. </object> <object><oname>NGC1452</oname><oname>NGC1455</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1453</oname> See NGC1443. </object> <object><oname>NGC1454</oname>is probably the star that Steve Gottlieb and I have independently fingered. It matches the description given by Muller, and -- in particular -- there is a considerably brighter star just where Muller notes it: "* 9.5, P 240 deg, distance 3.2 arcmin." My thanks to Steve for bringing this back to my attention; I had lost the identity in my hand-written notes (how many others are there, I wonder?!). </object> <object><oname>NGC1455</oname>is probably identical to NGC1452. The position, by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick, is pretty poor, but the description exactly fits the nucleus and inner bar of NGC1452. In particular, the position angle mentioned by Leavenworth (30 deg) is just that of the bar. The RNGC galaxy is certainly the wrong choice -- it has too low a surface brightness to be seen even with a 26-inch refractor. </object> <object><oname>NGC1456</oname>is a double star. One component looked nebulous to Lohse; other than that, his description -- "D * 10-12, comp. nebulous (130 deg, 9 arcsec)" -- is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC1457</oname><oname>NGC1448</oname>. JH has only one observation of NGC1448; its RA is exactly 50 seconds in error. He has three accordant observations of NGC1457 at the correct position, yet modern observers -- following Shapley-Ames -- have used the number 1448 for the galaxy. Strange people, astronomers. The identity was first suggested by DeLisle Stewart in the big list of new nebulae which he found on Harvard plates in the 1890's and early 1900's. There, he noted that N1448 was "Not seen, error for 1457 which is identified." In spite of this correction coming from a paper which they must have known, Shapley and Ames chose to use the number 1448 rather than 1457. Cataloguers are strange people ... </object> <object><oname>NGC1474</oname>is probably the same as IC2002 at 03 51 45.9, +10 33 37 (B1950.0 from GSC). In addition to the problem with the original position, RNGC got the dec sign wrong, and that incorrect sign was copied into NGC2000.0. NGC1474 was discovered in early in October 1864 by Albert Marth using William Lassell's 48-inch reflector at Malta, and was only observed once. The position is rough, as are many of Marth's. Of the other nine objects that he found that same night, two (N1141/2) have declination errors of 30 arcmin, another (N7575) has a 1 degree dec error, and two others (N7519 and N7593) have RA errors of 30 seconds of time. IC2002 was found 21 Dec 1903 by Javelle with the large refractor at Nice. He measured the position micrometrically, so the IC position is pretty good. This galaxy is UGC 2898 = MCG +02-10-003, and also occurs in CGCG. While Marth's description ("very faint, small, round") does not match Javelle's very well, especially in ellipticity ("... elongated along the meridian ..."), there is no other galaxy in the area that Marth is likely to have seen. Nevertheless, the N1474 identification with I2002 must be an uncertain one. Perhaps N1474 is really another star. </object> <object><oname>NGC1475</oname> The galaxy about four arcmin west of the NGC position is most likely the object that Leavenworth found. He mentions a 14th magnitude star four arcmin northwest of the nebula; there is no such star there. However, four arcmin southwest of is just such a star. Given the otherwise good description of the object, the incorrect direction is probably a simple transcription mistake. I missed the object when scanning for ESGC, so it is not included in the early editions of that catalogue. </object> <object><oname>NGC1479</oname>and NGC1480 are a lost pair of nebulae seen only by Frank Muller at Leander McCormick. He made careful notes of the field for each nebula (N1479: "1st of 2; nebulous **, PA 170 deg"; N1480: "2nd of 2; * 10 f 30 sec."), but these don't help to identify the objects. There is just no pattern of nebulae and stars in the area of his positions that could match the descriptions. </object> <object><oname>NGC1480</oname> See NGC1479. </object> <object><oname>NGC1488</oname>is a double star. Listed as a "Star 12 involved in nebulosity" in the Markree Catalogue, it was picked up by Auwers for his 1862 list of new nebulae appended to his reduction of WH's positions. Auwers adds a note which reads, "Place from the Markree Catalogue. I've not looked for it myself." The Markree position (03 57 12, +18 25.8; B1950.0) is very good and points exactly at the double. The object (CGCG 466-003) suggested as N1488 in several modern catalogues is far too faint to have been picked up by the Markree observers. The position for the double in the main table is a mean of the GSC positions for the individual stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC1491</oname>is a diffuse nebula found by WH. His description is very good, as is his position. Dreyer nevertheless used the micrometric position measured by Engelhardt. This is refers to a star about 1.5 arcmin east of the brightest part of the nebulosity; WH mentions the star explicitly: "... a pL star in it towards the following side, but unconnected." The position I've adopted follows WH, and applies to the center of the nebula. </object> <object><oname>NGC1498</oname>is probably the triangle of three stars centered about 2 arcmin west of the NGC position. Curiously, WH's original observation reduces to a position 34 seconds of time on further west (there is nothing in that field but a few 18th magnitude galaxies). The NGC position comes from GC; did CH make an error in her reduction of her brother's observations or did JH somehow miscopy his aunt's MS? Or did they have access to other information in the sweep that led them to change the position? GC has no notes on the object, and Dreyer's 1912 note to WH's observation, "There is no very pronounced cluster near the place," is not very informative even if it is accurate. The only other historical evidence comes from Auwers's reduction: he gets the same answer I do, 34 seconds west of the NGC position. Assuming that the asterism is indeed the object that WH saw, we now find it about 40 arcsec across, and matching WH's description pretty well. Could he have glimpsed some of the much fainter stars in the field as well? They might add a "depth" to the asterism that would make it appear to stand out even more from the surrounding field and take on the appearance of a richer cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC1499</oname>is the brightest part of the very extensive California Nebula, so called since its outline more or less resembles the outline of the state. Barnard's position -- apparently sent to Dreyer in a letter, since it is not in any of his published notes -- is just off the nebula to its east. The position I've adopted is more or less the center of the brightest portion of the nebulosity on its northeastern edge. </object> <object><oname>NGC1509</oname><oname>IC2026</oname>. NGC1509 was found independently by Swift and by Muller (who claimed two observations; he left us no sketch). Dreyer adopted Swift's position (which is 12 seconds of time too large) and description, though Muller's descriptive data certainly match what Swift recorded. (See NGC1677 = NGC1659 for more on other nebulae which Swift discovered on this night of 22 October 1886.) Bigourdan tried to find the galaxy a few years later in December of 1890, but could not see anything at the NGC position ("Searched with care, but in vain"). His second observation seven years later was only slightly more successful: when his measurements are reduced, they point to a star east of the galaxy. However, he also saw the galaxy on that second night, and measured it, too. Supposing it to be new -- it is not at the NGC position, of course -- he listed it among his novae, so it received the IC number. There is a fainter galaxy just to the west of NGC1509 that is often taken as IC2026. I'm not surprised that Bigourdan and Swift missed it; its magnitude is around V = 15, and it does not have a bright nucleus. However, Muller, working with the 26-inch at Leander McCormick, has picked up fainter galaxies. Perhaps he observed on poor nights, or perhaps he could only see high surface brightness objects with the long-focus refractor. He makes NGC1509 only 0.1 arcmin in diameter, which means that he saw only its core. Finally, the 1893 list of micrometrically measured nebulae from Leander McCormick includes a nebula claimed to be NGC1509. Unfortunately, only the declination was measured, so the object cannot be unambiguously identified. However, even the measured declination does not agree with the accurate value from Bigourdan and the modern sources. This measurement probably refers to a star (the description given in the 1893 paper bears this out). </object> <object><oname>NGC1523</oname>is only a group of 5-6 stars. JH's position is good, but his description from a single night is sparce. Delisle Stewart first saw the object as a group of stars on a Bruce plate from Arequipa, then Andris and I picked it up during our surveys of the southern sky in the 1970's. At first glance there are only four stars here. However, at least two of them appear to be blends of fainter stars, so there are probably at least six stars altogether in the asterism. </object> <object><oname>NGC1538</oname>=? IC2045, and IC2047. N1538 is perhaps the brightest galaxy in a small cluster. Stone's sketch (at least my copy of the sketch), however, seems to point to IC2047, the second brightest. Unfortunately, his position, as poor as usual, falls near yet another galaxy in the cluster. It was this object that has been taken to be N1538 by Howe in 1901 and Reinmuth in 1928. So, the NGC identification is not at all certain. Observing logic suggests IC2045, the sketch suggests IC2047, and Stone's crude position has led to the third galaxy. All three are in the table of positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC1539</oname>may be CGCG 488-001, which is about 1 minute east and 4-5 arcmin north of the NGC position, correctly copied from Marth's table. Marth has only one observation of the object, and there is nothing near his position that would match his description. The CGCG galaxy is bright enough that Marth could have seen it, and the 1 minute/5 arcmin offset puts his position within his usual accuracy of the galaxy, so I've retained it as a possible identification for the NGC entry. </object> <object><oname>NGC1540</oname>is probably the southern galaxy of the interacting pair. It is somewhat brighter and more concentrated than the northern. </object> <object><oname>NGC1550</oname><oname>NGC1551</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1551</oname><oname>NGC1550</oname>. WH made a recording or transcription error of exactly one degree in the NPD of II 464, placing it on the parallel with his comparison star (44 Eridani). D'Arrest could not find the object and was the first to suggest that it might be the same as N1550, just one degree north of WH's place. Dreyer added a note to this effect in NGC, and later adopted it as a "definitive" answer to the problem, as indeed, it seems to be. JH has a comment in GC about the object, noting a 5 arcmin difference between CH's reduction and Auwers's. He attributes this to CH using an incorrect NPD for the comparison star. He says nothing about the larger one degree error. Finally, while I'm splitting hairs, WH's description in Dreyer's 1912 edition of the Complete Papers reads, "F, vS, r," while GC and NGC both have "F, S, R". Since JH had access to WH's records, it may be that he corrected another mistake. Or it may be that Dreyer or his typesetter made one. A check of the original paper in Philosophical Transactions could eliminate at least one of these possibilities. A look at the Herschel Archives at the RAS (or at any library which has the microfilm version) would be needed to check the other. </object> <object><oname>NGC1554</oname>and NGC1555 are both involved with the young variable star T Tauri. They are among the most notorious of the nebulae found during the 19th century as they are the only nebulae certainly known to vary in brightness -- even to the point of disappearing, as NGC1554 has done. They are most likely reflection nebulae, created as thick dust clouds near the star move about, mostly casting shadows, but occasionally letting "shafts of sunlight" out to illuminate the surrounding dense interstellar gas and dust. Nebulae were first noticed around the star by Hind in the 1850's, and were later observed by d'Arrest, Struve, and Dreyer among others. Dreyer has brief synopses of the observations in the NGC and IC Notes, and points (in the IC2 Notes) to a paper by Barnard in Monthly Notices which details most of the history of the T Tauri nebulae up to about 1900. For all the fuss that these nebulae created in the 19th century, they are all quite small and very faint at the present time. As I noted above, NGC1554 is not visible on the Palomar Sky Survey plates (taken in the early 1950's). Also not visible is a nebula seen only by Bigourdan (B. 144; mislabeled as B. 143 by him in his big table). He makes its position 04 19 09.5, +19 21 51 (B1950.0) from a single observation on 12 Dec 1890. This is about 4 arcmin southeast of T Tauri in a blank patch of sky. Still, observers might find it fascinating to monitor the area for changes. </object> <object><oname>NGC1557</oname>is a clump of 10-15 stars that cover an area of 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin a few degrees northwest of the LMC. JH's position applies to SAO 256073, but the clump is centered about 5 arcmin south. That is the position that I've adopted. ESO, Wolfgang Steinicke, and Tom DeMary put the declination closer to the star, but that misses JH's "loose and straggling" cluster. The few stars marked "N1557" in the Hodge-Wright Atlas are northwest of JH's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC1560</oname>is not IC2062 as I supposed in RC2. I2062 (which see) is a star. </object> <object><oname>NGC1586</oname> See IC371. </object> <object><oname>NGC1590</oname> See IC2074. </object> <object><oname>NGC1593</oname><oname>NGC1608</oname><oname>IC2077</oname>. Neither of the NGC observers did very well by this galaxy. Marth has the RA 1 minute too small, and LdR has it 30 seconds too large along with a declination that is 8.5 arcmin off. In addition, LdR notes the nearby star as "south" of the galaxy rather than north (an error that Dreyer caught before he prepared the NGC). Javelle, however, has one observation that is within 10 arcsec of the galaxy -- he got it right. Reinmuth first suggested the identity of NGC1608 with IC2077, but I think that the identity with NGC1593 had to wait until I ran across it doing ESGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC1594</oname><oname>IC2075</oname>, which see. <ignore />for the story. Briefly, Swift's RA is off by 17 seconds of time (see also NGC1677 = NGC1659 for other interesting tidbits about the nebulae Swift found this night of 22 October 1886). This misled Bigourdan into thinking he had found a new nebula. Howe had corrected the RA for Swift's object, and Dreyer put the correction into an IC2 Note. However, Dreyer did not catch the identity with IC2075 even though its position is only 30 arcsec off Howe's corrected place for N1594. This also had an impact on IC2080 (which see) which shares the same RA error as NGC1594. </object> <object><oname>NGC1599</oname>may also be NGC1610, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1600</oname> See NGC1610. </object> <object><oname>NGC1608</oname><oname>NGC1593</oname><oname>IC2077</oname>. See NGC1593. </object> <object><oname>NGC1610</oname>is probably one of the faint nebulae in the NGC1600 group -- but which one? There is nothing at Leavenworth's position, and his description (m = 15.5, D = 0.2 arcmin; R, bMN) could match any of the several fainter members of the group. Among the more likely candidates are NGC1599, and RNGC1610. N1599 is at the same declination and is just over a minute of time west of the nominal place of N1610. However, it has a bright star just 1.1 arcmin east-northeast which Leavenworth would almost certainly have mentioned had he seen this galaxy. The RNGC identification is also possible, but is 7 arcmin south and 1.4 minutes of time east of Leavenworth's place. Neither of these options is particularly compelling, but are still worth noting. </object> <object><oname>NGC1619</oname> like N1610, is probably one of the faint members of the NGC 1600 group. It was found by Lewis Swift on 22 December 1886 along with N1621, N1627, N1628, and N1699. Unlike those other four, however, there is nothing at all near Swift's place. Again, as with N1610, there are two candidates for N1619 that seem more likely to me. RNGC1610 is two minutes of time west and 8 arcminutes north, while the 51st object in Reinmuth's 1932 list of nebulae is 1 minute 20 seconds west and 28 arcmin north. I'm not convinced that either of these is Swift's lost nebula, but I note them in any event. </object> <object><oname>NGC1621</oname> See NGC1619. </object> <object><oname>NGC1627</oname> See NGC1619. </object> <object><oname>NGC1628</oname> See NGC1619. </object> <object><oname>NGC1632</oname>is probably = IC386 (which see), but could possibly be IC382. </object> <object><oname>NGC1641</oname>may be the clump of stars centered about 4 arcmin northwest of JH's position. He describes his object as a "pL, p rich, irreg R cluster; p m comp M; 5'; stars 11...16." There are only about 15 stars scattered across a 9 arcmin by 6 arcmin area. If this is JH's object, it must look better at the eyepiece than it does on the Sky Survey films. The object labeled "N1641" in the Hodge-Wright Atlas is a pair of faint interacting galaxies (ESO 084-IG025) that JH could not have seen. The galaxies were further misclassified as an open cluster, and appeared as number 6 in the Shapley-Lindsay list. </object> <object><oname>NGC1649</oname><oname>NGC1652</oname>. JH has only one observation of NGC1649 in Sweep 523 that puts it about 9 arcmin south and 6 seconds preceding NGC1652 (his original data for N1649 are 04 38 43.3, -69 08 37 for 1830). This is only a few arcsec from the star SAO 249073, but JH makes no mention of a nearby bright star in his observation. NGC1652 is an LMC cluster which JH observed on three nights (Sweeps 508, 653, and 759) with fairly accordant positions (the unweighted mean is 04 38 49.2, -68 59 56). He did not record N1652 in the sweep in which he found N1649; he has it only in the three other sweeps of the area. Also interesting are his descriptions: they are virtually identical in sweeps 523 and 759. He writes `F, R, gbM, 30",' and `F, R, gbM, 35",' respectively. The descriptions in sweeps 508 and 653 make the cluster `vF, S, R, gbM, 12" ' and `vF, S, R'. Since the difference in declination is close to 10 arcmin (a digit error that JH and others made several times), and the RA's are not very much different -- many other CGH observations also show RA differences of six seconds or more of time, especially as far south as the LMC -- I think that the two NGC numbers refer to the same object. Hodge and Wright came to the same conclusion in the LMC Atlas, but are rather cautious and say, "Possibly NGC1652. Declination off by 9'." However, just eight arcmin south of NGC1652 is a faint LMC cluster (ESO 055-SC031 = KMHK 022) that Lauberts, in ESO-B, suggested might be NGC1649, though with two question marks and a note commenting on the declination difference. He also has N1649 = N1652 with one less question mark. KMHK (Konzitas et al, A&AS 84, 527, 1990) do not use the NGC number on the cluster, and apparently did not notice the ESO-B entry. Bica et al (AJ 117, 238, 1999), however, use N1649 for the cluster, and also note the ESO entry. Jenni Kay has also picked up the faint cluster with her large reflector, so it is not impossible that JH saw it while sweeping. In an email to Jenni and to Mati Morel (who alerted me to Jenni's observation) I wondered, though, if the star might hinder JH's ability to see the very faint cluster. It certainly did not get in Jenni's way! In response, Mati listed eight cases where JH found objects near bright stars (V < 9.5) in the LMC. JH mentions the star (or stars) in only four of his descriptions, so the presence of the star alone would probably not be an obstacle to his having seen the cluster, assuming that it (the cluster) is bright and large enough to have attracted his notice during a sweep. So, I do have a bit of doubt about the identity of NGC1649 -- but not much. </object> <object><oname>NGC1652</oname>is probably also NGC1649, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1655</oname> This is one of 20 new nebulae found by J. G. Lohse with a telescope at "Mr. Wigglesworth's observatory," and sent directly to Dreyer in the form of a private communication. Thus, the only readily available information we have on them comes from the NGC itself. In this case, that includes the position and the description, "pB, R, gbM, * 10 s." There is a star of about 10th magnitude 2.5 arcmin south of Lohse's position for N1655, but there is nothing at all at that position. Delisle Stewart searched for N1655 on a Harvard plate, and could not find it either. He has an intriguing note attached, however: "... a hazy star p 1 minute, same Dec." I don't even see that "hazy star" on the POSS1 prints; is it a defect on the Harvard plate? So, N1655, too, is presumeably lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC1659</oname><oname>NGC1677</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC1663</oname>is probably the poor, scattered cluster about 45 seconds of time following WH's single position. This is one of his earlier objects (10 Feb 1784), so the position problem -- if it is one -- may be understandable as part of his learning curve. His description "A cluster of large and small scattered stars, not rich" certainly fits. There are about two dozen stars scattered over an area 12 arcmin by 10 arcmin with a 4 arcmin by 4 arcmin core containing half the stars. WH's position itself sits in a void surrounded by a weak annulus half a degree across of scattered stars, strongest on the following side (where the cluster noted in the previous paragraph sits). Is this the object that WH actually saw? If so, I suspect that he would have noted the annular structure. My best guess is the cluster following his position. Visual verification would not go amiss. </object> <object><oname>NGC1665</oname> See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>NGC1667</oname><oname>NGC1689</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC394 and NGC1677 = NGC1659. </object> <object><oname>NGC1671</oname>may refer to the same galaxy as IC395. Swift's description ("pF, pS, R, pB * nr sp") matches I395 (a later discovery also by Swift) pretty well, but the position is over a degree off in declination, and 43 seconds of time off. None of the other objects found by Swift on the same night (2 October 1886) have position errors anywhere nearly that large, and there is no suggestion of systematic offsets in either coordinate among the other objects. So, this is probably another lost object, though the I395 connection is not totally outrageous. </object> <object><oname>NGC1674</oname>and NGC1675 are "Two faint nebulae in the same field" found by J. G. Lohse at "Mr. Wigglesworth's observatory." Lohse did not publish any data for these, but sent them directly to Dreyer who included them in the NGC. As with NGC1655 (which see), which Lohse found in the same part of the sky, there is no trace of these at Lohse's given position. Three arcmin south is a group of six faint stars about an arcmin across, but we would need visual observations to tell if these could be mistaken for two nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC1677</oname><oname>NGC1659</oname> with a 5 minute error in its RA. It is not IC2099 as I had supposed when I went over the field for ESGC. Here is the story. Swift found 14 nebulae on the night of 22 October 1886. In general, his positions are pretty good, being on average out by +5 seconds in RA and just +17 arcsec in declination. However, these numbers exclude two objects, NGC 1689 and NGC1677. Both have RA's in Swift's fifth list (and in the NGC) which are 5 minutes of time too large. (In addition, another group of four objects from this night, NGC652, N1450, N1509 = IC2026, and N1594 = I2075, have a mean RA offset of +15 seconds of time). The identifications are secured by Swift's declinations (which are within 20 arcsec in both cases), and by his descriptions which are accordant with the Herschel's (for N1659) and with Stephan's (for N1667). In addition, these are among the brightest three or four objects that Swift found this night, and thus are the least likely to have been overlooked by other observers. </object> <object><oname>NGC1689</oname><oname>NGC1667</oname> is five minutes of time off its true position. See NGC 1677 = NGC1659 for more on the nebulae that Swift found this night of 22 October 1886. </object> <object><oname>NGC1692</oname>is another of the Leander McCormick nebulae which was sketched. The sketch confirms the SGC and NGC2000.0 identification with the galaxy called "A0453-20" in RC2. </object> <object><oname>NGC1699</oname> See NGC1619. </object> <object><oname>NGC1707</oname><oname>IC2107</oname> (which see for more) is an asterism of four stars with a fifth (considerably fainter) just north. JH's RA is 30 seconds of time too large; this misled Bigourdan into rediscovering the object. Reinmuth was apparently the first to notice that the two numbers apply to the same object. </object> <object><oname>NGC1708</oname>is a large cluster of stars of magnitudes 10 to 14, about 20 arcmin by 12 arcmin in size, and elongated north to south. It is centered about 7 arcmin southeast of JH's position, but nevertheless is unmistakeable. This is one of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. Personally, I don't see how they could have missed it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1709</oname> Is this = NGC1717 (which see)? </object> <object><oname>NGC1710</oname><oname>IC2108</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Once again, a poor position from the early lists out of Leander McCormick led to enough confusion for Bigourdan that the galaxy received two numbers in Dreyer's catalogues. However, Bigourdan eventually caught his mistake (after seeing the list of micrometrically measured nebulae from Leander McCormick), and made the identity himself in his own big table of micrometric measurements. The object which he initially measured as N1710 is nothing more than a faint star. </object> <object><oname>NGC1713</oname> See NGC1717. </object> <object><oname>NGC1717</oname> Dreyer gives 04 56 36, -00 19.2 (B1950.0) as the position of this object. There is nothing at all in that place, not even a faint star. So, the identity of this NGC entry is not known with certainty. However, we do know that it is either a star, or it is NGC1709. Here is the story. Reading through Lord Rosse's descriptions of N1719 (bear with me here), it looks as if the "3 vF neb" seen on 15 Jan 1845 are NGC1709, 1713, and 1719. This assumes that Dreyer's comment "The two upper (sic) ones are probably h339 (N1713) and h340 (N1719)" is meaningful and correct. This would probably point to N1709 as the third nebula -- but what does Dreyer mean by "upper"? The northern-most or (assume an inverted field) the southern-most? LdR goes on to say that d'Arrest, in his observation of N1719, has a star 13-14 4.7s p, and 80" north (as, indeed d'A does, along with a detailed description in Latin that I must translate one of these days). This must be the object that Dreyer is refering to in NGC when he says "(? F *)." There are two other stars, one perhaps double, in the same area. So, it is possible that one of these was mistaken by LdR as a faint nebula (many other of the stars to receive NGC numbers are also from LdR's observations). LdR looked again at NGC1719 on two other nights, and could find no trace of a nebula northwest of it. So, it may be possible that he mistook NGC1713 for NGC1719 on that first night. Since there is a galaxy northwest of N1713 -- NGC1709 -- this hypothesis would then make NGC1717 = NGC1709, as I suggested above. Since there were no other observations of the area published before the NGC appeared, we are left with four candidates for N1717. All but NGC1709 are stars northwest of NGC1719. Two of those stars are bright enough to be in GSC. Here are the positions (B1950.0) of all three stars: 04 56 52.2 -00 19 16 HCo Slightly elongated image -- perhaps double? 04 56 45.91 -00 18 11.2 GSC 04 56 56.55 -00 18 42.9 GSC Brightest of the three -- most likely candidate star. So, we are left with a puzzle. There may be other relevant observations in the post-NGC literature, but it's unlikely that they will help sort out this particular problem. </object> <object><oname>NGC1719</oname> See NGC1717. </object> <object><oname>NGC1730</oname> Comparison stars for this figure in the uncertain identifications for IC400, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1736</oname> JH's position is toward the middle of the western "lobe" of the nebula. This is where the brightest stars are located, including the "chief of which in the anterior part of the neb [was] taken." In the one sweep when he estimated the size of the nebula, though, he made it four arcmin long and 2.5 arcmin across, almost exactly what we seen on the short exposure DSS V-band plate. The position I've adopted is more toward the intersection of the "lobes" and is more representative of the entire nebula. One last note on this: it is not identical to either IC2115 or 2116, in spite of what ESO claims. See I2115 for more on this. </object> <object><oname>NGC1737</oname>is part of the NGC1743 star-forming complex in the LMC. See NGC 1745 and IC2114 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC1743</oname> See NGC1745 and IC2114. </object> <object><oname>NGC1745</oname>is a diffuse nebula -- probably an emission nebula -- in the NGC1743 complex in the LMC. John Herschel's position was an estimate based on his measured positions for NGC1743 and N1748, but it is close enough to the correct position to identify the nebula without question. N1745 is called a star cluster in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue, but this is wrong. Furthermore, there is no cluster at the ESO position, but just a group of faint stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC1746</oname> This is a curious case, found by d'A while searching for NGC1750 (which see) = H VIII 43. He describes it as a poor cluster, and places it about 10 arcmin north of WH's place -- but nevertheless calls it H VIII 43. Dreyer apparently thought it a separate object since he gave it a new GC number in the GC supplement. There is a group of about a dozen faint stars at d'A's place, and a much more extensive group at WH's place (see the note for N1750 for a description). While I'm doubtful that d'A's object is worth numbering, I'm going to follow Dreyer as closely as possible and retain both objects at something like their original positions. I must note, however, that Galadi-Enriquez et al (A&AS 131, 239, 1998) have shown that this group of stars is neither astrometrically nor photometrically a real cluster. It is no more than a random clump in the rich Milky Way field in Taurus. </object> <object><oname>NGC1748</oname><oname>IC2114</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC1745. </object> <object><oname>NGC1750</oname>may be the same object as NGC1746 (which see). If so, there is a 10 minute error in the declination for N1746. The group of stars I see on the POSS1 close to WH's place consists of about 20 9th to 12th magnitude stars scattered over an area 25 arcmin by 12 arcmin, with the long axis at PA roughly = 125 degrees. I put the cluster center about 3 arcmin east of WH's RA. Reinmuth claims this to be the central group in a very large cluster also containing N1746 and N1758. Galadi-Enriquez et al (A&AS 131, 239, 1998) have confirmed the reality of this cluster as well as NGC1758. They have also shown, however, that the clump of stars I call NGC1746 (which see) near d'A's position is not a true cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC1758</oname> See NGC1746 and NGC1750. </object> <object><oname>NGC1763</oname>is a bi-lobed complex of HII regions and star clusters in the LMC. JH's descriptions and positions from five different sweeps are appropriate, though he was not happy with one of his RA's. It's possible that the numbers IC2115 and 2116 refer to parts of N1763. See them for that story. </object> <object><oname>NGC1770</oname> See IC2117. </object> <object><oname>NGC1785</oname>is an asterism of about 5 stars superposed on the LMC. It was found by JH in Zone 9 of his special sweeps of the Large Cloud with "an equatorially mounted telescope of five inches aperture, and seven feet focal length, by Tulley, which had served me for the measurement of double stars in England ..." The position is good, and it is accurately plotted on JH's wonderful map of the LMC. ESO suggested two different objects as candidates for N1785. One was a chain of 5-10 stars (of which JH's object is the south-western end); the other was Shapley-Lindsay 150, a faint LMC open cluster about 20 arcmin south-east of JH's astersim. This latter is much too faint to have been seen during sweeps with a five-inch refractor, and the position is well off JH's. </object> <object><oname>NGC1787</oname>is a large (20 arcmin by 15 arcmin) cloud of stars in the LMC. This number has been applied to SL 178, but that is a faint, small cluster that JH did not see. On the Hodge-Wright Atlas, I put the center about five arcmin northwest of JH's, but either will serve to identify his cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC1790</oname>is a group of about a dozen stars of 10th to 12th magnitude scattered around JH's position. It probably looks better at the eyepiece than it does on the Sky Survey prints; JH calls it "A pretty object," while RNGC puts it into the "nonexistent" category. JH's position is about 3 arcminutes east of the apparent center on the POSS1 blue plate. </object> <object><oname>NGC1797</oname> See NGC1392. </object> <object><oname>NGC1799</oname> See NGC1392. </object> <object><oname>NGC1874</oname> NGC1876, and NGC1877 are three emission nebulae in a large complex star-forming region in the LMC. ESO did not provide separate positions for them, so those adopted here come from GSC or from offsets to GSC stars. JH's positions are excellent for the first two, adequate for the third -- but that comes from a sketch drawn on 17 Jan 1838, not from one of the sweeps, so I'd expect lesser accuracy for it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1876</oname> See NGC1874. </object> <object><oname>NGC1877</oname> See NGC1874. </object> <object><oname>NGC1882</oname>is probably not NGC1884, which see for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC1884</oname> During my early work on the LMC Atlas, I identified this with NGC 1882. But that is unlikely as JH found both objects during the same sweep. There is nothing obvious at JH's position matching his description ("eF, 2' diam."), and I entered it simply as "Not found" going through the NGC a few years ago. For now, that is how I'll leave it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1891</oname>is the scattering of stars somewhat following JH's position. That position is for the brightest star (SAO 195771), a double on the western side of the cluster. There are about 20 stars covering an area 19 arcmin by 14 arcmin. They may be a dispersed open cluster, but could just as well be a random collection of field stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC1896</oname> A nine degree error in declination was introduced in the GC, and copied intact into the NGC. The Herschels' original positions are good, and point to a scattering of about 20 9th to 12th magnitude stars. This may not be a real cluster, but that determination will depend on detailed studies of proper motions and photometry of the stars. This group, by the way, is not OCL 450 (in the Prague catalogue). That is a much more distant, much fainter cluster about half a degree north-west of NGC 1896. </object> <object><oname>NGC1901</oname>is a scattered grouping of Milky Way stars superposed on the Large Magellanic Cloud. The position I list in the table is for the eccentric core a few arcminutes northeast of the center of the entire group. JH's position applies to the seventh magnitude star on the southern edge of the group. Coincidentally, there is a much fainter LMC cluster just a couple of arcmin from JH's position. ESO took this to be the NGC cluster, but it is not. </object> <object><oname>NGC1908</oname> WH has only one observation of this on 1 Feb 1786 where he says, "Diffused extremely faint nebulosity. The means of verifying this phenomenon are difficult." JH and Dreyer took this to mean that the nebula was only suspected, so that is how it is entered in the GC and NGC. WH places the nebulosity 1 min, 26 sec east, and 7 arcmin south of Eta Ori. There is nothing here on either of the POSS1 plates, nor on the SERC EJ plate. However, 7 arcmin north of Eta Ori there is a very faint, very diffuse sheen of nebulosity (I make the approximate position 05 23.0, -02 20). But could WH have seen this? I very much doubt it. So, I've tentatively labeled this "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC1909</oname> WH has one observation of this "Strongly suspected nebulosity of very great extent." He makes its size "Not less than 2 deg 11 arcmin of PD and 26 sec of RA in time." These numbers come from his offsets from Rigel: 11m 09s east to 11m 35s east, and 1 deg 19 arcmin north to 52 arcmin south. While this whole area is covered with a very diffused, very low surface brightness nebulosity, I do not see anything that WH could have seen easily. In particular, there is no nebula stretched out north to south as WH describes. However, at about the right distance WEST of Rigel, there is such a nebula, IC2118. It is bright enough that WH might have seen it during his sweeps, and it more or less matches his description. So, I am going to suggest, pending visual confirmation, that IC2118 is the object WH found, and that he wrote "east" rather than "west" in his log book. </object> <object><oname>NGC1911</oname>may be NGC1920. JH has N1920 in seven different sweeps, but not in the one sweep when he found N1911 -- that is Sweep 522. The declinations are within an arcminute, but the RA is different by 1m 20s. The extra 20 seconds bothers me, so I've put a colon on the identity. JH's eight different descriptions are pretty well accordant, though he does have the size of the nebula range between 20 arcsec and 2 arcmin (he puts N1911 at 30 arcsec). I also checked the possibility of a systematic position offset among the other 37 objects that JH recorded in that very productive sweep through the northern part of the LMC -- there isn't any. One curious thing turned up, however: N1911 is the ONLY object in the sweep that was not seen in any other sweep. A final note: JH suggests that this and N1915 may be the same. I don't think so; see N1915 for more on this. </object> <object><oname>NGC1915</oname> JH has this in only one sweep (760 on 2 Jan 1837), and calls it only "eF, pL." However, he adds, "(Possibly the same with No. 2826 [NGC 1911], but the nebulae are so crowded that they may with equal probablility be different ones.)" I don't think it is the same as N1911 (which see). The descriptions are too different, and N1911 is probably the same object as N1920. So, what is N1915? JH's position is about an arcminute northwest of the center of a stellar association 3 arcmin by 2 arcmin across (coincidentally, there is a faint cluster on the northeastern edge of the association). The object shows up clearly on the Southern Sky Survey IIIa-J film, somewhat less clearly on the 2nd generation DSS image, and not at all on the quick V plate used for the DSS distributed on CD-ROM. The association is, admittedly, pretty faint to have been picked up visually. Still, JH was careful, had keen eyesight, and didn't miss much in the LMC that he could have seen. Another possibility is that N1915 is a second observation (in the following sweep on the next night, 3 Jan 1837) of NGC1919 which JH also describes as "eF, L ...". He goes on to add, however, "... irreg R, 4' diam. Resolved into small stars with nebulous light." That is a perfect description of NGC 1919, a cluster immersed in a reflection nebula. Is it possible that JH missed the stars the first time around? </object> <object><oname>NGC1919</oname>may also be NGC1915, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC1920</oname> See NGC1911. </object> <object><oname>NGC1927</oname> JH has one observation that reads "All about this place (05 26 20, -08 24.9; B1950.0), there exists diffused nebulosity." In fact, there is none. Dreyer comments in a Note to the NGC, "Looked for three times at Birr Castle; twice the sky was fancied to have a milky appearance." There is certainly no nebulosity on the POSS1 plates, nor on the SERC EJ plate. Also, JH originally made this an observation of his father's V 38: that identity is shown in his 1833 catalogue. However, his position differed enough from WH's that he made them separate objects for GC; Dreyer followed suit for NGC. There, H V 38 = NGC1909 (which see). In short, NGC1927 is "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC1932</oname>and NGC1933. JH found a faint nebula -- actually a compact star cluster in the LMC -- here, and observed it four times. His mean position is just a few arcsec from the center of the cluster, which ended up with 1933 as its NGC number. On the last night JH observed N1933, he also noticed a very faint, very small nebulous object 80 arcsec west of his brighter object. When reducing his observations, he noted it "curious" that he picked up this fainter object only once. The object turns out to be a 13th magnitude star, though other fainter stars in the area may contribute to its nebulous appearance. Lauberts, of course, found only one non-stellar object in the area, so assumed that N1932 = N1933. This incorrect equality is noted in ESO. </object> <object><oname>NGC1933</oname> See NGC1932. </object> <object><oname>NGC1935</oname>is also IC2126, which see. It is a small HII region in the LMC, found by JH, who measured it in four sweeps. He noted it as part of a group of nebulae and clusters. </object> <object><oname>NGC1936</oname><oname>IC2127</oname>, which see. <ignore /> is another of the HII regions in this part of the LMC found by JH. He has it in six different sweeps, and his position is very good. </object> <object><oname>NGC1938</oname>is an open cluster in the LMC situated just 0.7 arcmin northwest of NGC1939, a globular cluster. ESO did not give separate coordinates so I've adopted that for NGC1939 from GSC and have measured the offset to N1938 from the brighter cluster. JH's position and descriptions are good, though he did not resolve either cluster. In particular, his micrometric measurement of the offset of N1938 from N1939 (distance = 50 arcsec, PA = 339.1 degrees) is very good. </object> <object><oname>NGC1939</oname> See NGC1938. </object> <object><oname>NGC1952</oname>= M 1 = The Crab Nebula. This is the prototypical supernova remnant (from SN 1054), and is now a large, bright nebula. I have adopted the position of the pulsar near its center as the nebula's position as well. The pulsar, by the way, is the southern of the two stars of similar brightness near the nebula's center. There is evidence, however, that in this case at least, the star has a large proper motion -- it is no longer at the center of the nebulosity implied by the measured expansion of the knots and filaments, but is several arcsec to the northwest. This is taken as evidence for an asymmetric supernova explosion which gave the star a powerful kick and set it off at high velocity. In spite of all this, I'm sticking with the position of the pulsar as the center of the nebula for the time being. Perhaps I'll change my mind in a few thousand years when the star is well away from the center of the expanding gas cloud that Messier placed first in his famous list. </object> <object><oname>NGC1963</oname>is an apparent cluster of about 20 stars, roughly arranged in the shape of the number 3 (JH describes it that way, and it still appears that way on the southern sky survey -- and on the southern sky for that matter). PGC and RC3 are clearly wrong in using the number for the bright spindle galaxy which is really IC2135 = IC2136. ESO, however, got it right. See IC2136 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC1976</oname>= M 42. I have adopted the position of the Trapezium as the position of M42. This helps us avoid the problem of trying to decide on a geometric center for the nebula. See also NGC1982 = M 43 and IC429 for other notes about the Orion Nebula and the large, complex region of star formation around it. </object> <object><oname>NGC1982</oname>= M 43. For this, and many other emission or reflection nebulae with clearly identified embedded stars, I have adopted the position of the star as that for the entire nebula. This follows the precedent set by the visual discovers who noticed that many of the nebulae are usually (though not always) brightest in the vicinity of the stars. There is a curiosity in the NGC listing for M 43. WH's first "Very Faint" nebula is in the vicinity, so GC and NGC suggest that it might be equivalent. This probably bothered Dreyer a bit, as he added a note to WH's observation when he edited the Complete Papers: "III 1 is an appendage to the north of M43." WH's own observation seems to support this, and it is well-known, too, that he tried to not include any of Messier's nebulae or clusters in his own lists (though several did creep in, including M8, M20, and M82). </object> <object><oname>NGC1985</oname>has been called a planetary nebula in the past, but is now generally accepted as a reflection nebula. There are several other such nebulae nearby, including UGC 03327 = MCG +05-14-001. In spite of its inclusion in two galaxy catalogues, that object is almost certainly a nebula within the Milky Way Galaxy. One or the other of these two, N1985 or U3327, is included in van den Bergh's 1966 catalogue of Galactic reflection nebulae. I've not checked yet, so it may be possible that that entry refers to both objects as well as to the other fainter reflection nebulae in the field. </object> <object><oname>NGC1988</oname> Suspected of variability by its discoverer (Chacornac, in 1855), this has never been seen by any other observer. Dreyer has a brief history in the NGC Notes. The NGC position comes from GC where JH gives a source as "Les Mondes, No. 9." This was apparently a short-lived journal or newsletter; there is no trace of it in the indexes of major astronomical libraries in the US, nor in the library of the Paris Observatory. Fortunately, Chacornac also published his position in Comptes Rendus 56, 637, 1863, a publication which is still very much with us. The only things in the area on the POSS1 are two or three stars. Chacornac's accurate position corresponds to the western-most of the the stars, a 10th magnitude object with two much fainter companions just a few arcsec east. My guess is that the "object" was perhaps a reflection or flare from zeta Tauri which is only 5 arcmin to the southeast, possibly enhanced by the faint stars around the 10th magnitude "primary." </object> <object><oname>NGC1990</oname> In spite of this nebulosity having been "seen" by WH, JH, and Dreyer, as well as by several amateurs in recent years, there is no trace of it on any photograph of the area. JH suggested that the nebulosity extends at least 12 arcmin north and south of Epsilon Orionis, while Dreyer makes it more extensive to the south. (On the POSS1 red plate, the star is apparently close to the center of an extended, striated nebulosity. This, however, is not visible on any other photo, including several color photos that would certainly show a red nebulosity if it existed. This striation is a defect on the red plate, apparently caused by imperfections or reflections in the red Plexiglass filter.) It is just possible that this may be another case like IC349 (which see) which is so close to Merope as to be not easily imaged. Until Eps Ori is imaged in such a way that the star can be removed to show the nebulosity that the Herschels and Dreyer claimed to have seen, I have no choice but to call NGC1990 an illusion. Also see NGC7088 for another well-known case of an illusory nebula "seen" by many experienced observers. </object> <object><oname>NGC1995</oname>is a double star, seen only once by JH. It is about two arcmin west-northwest of NGC1998; JH's position is within 25 arcsec of the GSC position of the brighter of the stars, so the identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC1996</oname> Another of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters, this is clearly apparent on the POSS1, and is centered just an arcminute east of the NGC position. The 30 or so stars are scattered over an area of about 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin (the long axis is at PA = about 20 degrees). But is it a real cluster? To answer that, of course, will take a study of the area, with proper motions and photometry for the suspect stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC1998</oname> See NGC1995. ===== NGC2039 (= h 366) was described by JH as "A large tract of stars filling many fields. It extends much further in RA." He has a second concordant observation: "A large ill-defined tract of loose stars, neither rich nor condensed," though for this one, he made an estimate of only the NPD. Just such a configuration, roughly 30 arcmin across in RA and 10 arcmin in Dec, is centered two or three arcmin north-northwest of JH's single position. It is a well-scattered group of about 30 stars ranging in magnitude from 8 to 13. I doubt very much that it is a true cluster. However, JH called this H VIII 2 in both observations in his 1833 catalogue. That this is probably not the case was realized by JH himself as H VIII 2 (NGC 2063, which see) and h 366 were given separate GC numbers. WH described his object as "A small cluster of very small scattered stars" and gave it a position (from two observations) nearly 3 minutes of time following and 8 arcmin north of JH's later position for h 366. Dreyer followed GC, but neither he nor JH mention the initial confusion of the two objects. </object> <object><oname>NGC2045</oname>= Lalande 10842 = SAO 094827. JH has this simply as "A star 8-9 mag with faint nebulosity." It is barely possible that there is indeed a bit of faint nebulosity around the star, but it is very difficult to see on the POSS1. </object> <object><oname>NGC2054</oname>is a group of 6 faint stars found by George P. Bond, then director of Harvard College Observatory. In his small "Comet-seeker," the grouping appeared nebulous, and he gave it only an approximate position. Dreyer himself saw the nebula and commented, "... at times, I thought it was a very small cluster, but it is doubtful." Nevertheless, he gave an accurate micrometric measurement of a star, 9-10th magnitude, in position angle 0.5 degrees and distance 404.0 arcsec. The star is indeed there, and was later seen by Howe (MN 58, 515, 1898) who misattributed it to Bond, but saw only "three small stars" in the place. Bigourdan provided a corrected position for the asterism, quoted by Dreyer in IC2. </object> <object><oname>NGC2063</oname>may be the small grouping of 7-8 faint stars at WH's place, though there is another larger clump with brighter stars about 8 arcmin to the south-southeast. Neither is likely to be a true cluster, and I am not sure that either one is the correct object. Taking WH at his word, though, I've tentatively assigned the NGC number to the stars at his place. JH did not see this clump, but mistakenly asigned the number H VIII 2 to h 366 (= NGC2039, which see) in his 1833 catalogue. He separated the two objects for the GC, and Dreyer followed his lead. </object> <object><oname>NGC2064</oname> See NGC2067. </object> <object><oname>NGC2067</oname>is a part of the large complex of nebulae around M78 = N2068. Found by Tempel, neither the position nor the description makes it really clear which part of the nebula he saw. The first position I give in the main table is for a large patch of pretty low surface brightness nebulosity about 5 arcmin northwest of M78. But this is not the brightest nebulosity in the area. That is a knot about 3 arcmin southwest, the brightest part of a long faint streamer pointed toward NGC2064. This, however, is much more east than north of M78, while Tempel says that M78 is to the south. So, a bit of a mystery here -- which part of the nebulosity was Tempel refering to? I've stuck with the larger more northerly end of the nebula, but could well be wrong, so have also put the southern knot in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC2068</oname>= M 78. See NGC2067. </object> <object><oname>NGC2132</oname>may be a cluster centered a few arcmin following JH's position. That position applies to the "Chief * of a cluster of 8th class of about a dozen bright and some smaller stars." This is just what we see on the sky today. The stars are scattered over an area of 17 arcmin by 11 arcmin. They stand out enough from the field that I'm a bit surprised that Lauberts did not pick them up for the ESO list. JH's "chief star", by the way, is SAO 234207 which is within a few arcsec of his position for it. </object> <object><oname>NGC2139</oname><oname>IC2154</oname>. Dreyer has a note in his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers on this object. Taken from WH's note in the sweep, it reads "The A.R. cannot be above 10 or 15 s out; the roller went off the apparatus which occasions the uncertainty." The RA is actually 24 seconds out, and the dec, due to another unspecified error, is 8.5 arcmin off. Dreyer was further able to identify a star in the sweep that was closer to the galaxy than WH's "official" reference star, delta Canis Majoris. Comparison with this star led to the correct position. However, he had not yet done this when Howe and Bigourdan tried to find the NGC object near WH's place -- not surprisingly, neither succeeded. What is surprising is that when Lewis Swift came across the galaxy over a century after WH, he did not make as nearly as large an error in its position as WH. Swift's positions from his last nights in 1897 and 1898 at Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain are nortoriously bad. But for this object, he actually came within 14 seconds in RA and 1 arcmin in Dec. Herbert Howe pinned the galaxy down with a micrometric observation and it was that position that Dreyer adopted for IC2154. Dreyer himself discovered the identity when he fixed WH's position for the NGC object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2142</oname>= 3 Moncerotis = SAO 151037. JH says, "I am sure this star has a faint nebulous atmosphere 2 or 3 arcmin in diameter. Eye-glass examined, not dewed." This brightest part of the nebulosity is lost in the glare of the star on the POSS1, but a very faintly extended cloud can just be seen on the red plate. It would be nice to have independent confirmation of this. </object> <object><oname>NGC2143</oname> This is a cluster of pretty bright (V ~ 9 - 13) stars covering an area about 12 arcmin by 10 arcmin across. While JH puts the center close to the brightest star (SAO 113401), I make it (on the POSS1 print) about three arcmin to the west. Brian Skiff puts the center (using the DSS) seven arcmin to the north, nearly on the edge of the cluster. This must be a typo of some sort. A curiosity: JH's original description contained the note, "... place of a * 10m in M." Somehow, this metamorphosed into "stars 10" in GC and NGC. This may have led in part to RNGC's failure to find the cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC2163</oname> The NGC NPD is incorrect, being one of Dreyer's very few transcription errors. He corrects the mistake in the IC2 Notes. The object is a striking example of a bi-polar nebula with fans of nebulosity extending north and south from the central star. Stephan's position is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC2167</oname>is probably SAO 132848; it is certainly not H IV 44. This error comes from JH who equated his own h378 with his father's "planetary" more than 10 arcmin south-following his (JH's) position. Dreyer followed JH in NGC, but when he prepared WH's papers for their re-publication in 1912, he realized that WH's description as well as position did not agree with JH's. Dreyer gives some additional information in his note in WH's Scientific Papers, and also suggests there that WH actually observed a nebulous star about 70 seconds of time following JH's position. This suggestion was the source of my own comment in the preliminary version of ESGC that the RA of N2167 is 1 minute of time too small. I think now that Dreyer and I were wrong. The description of IV 44 fits IV 19 = NGC2170 very nicely, and the RA's are the same. The Dec's are about 8 arcmin different, and IV 19 was not seen in the sweep in which IV 44 was found. Therefore, it is likely that the only error in NGC is calling N2167 "IV 44." Is there, however, a problem with JH's observation? The star at his position has almost no trace of nebulosity around it. Yet JH does not mark the position as uncertain, and that position is within 20 arcsec of the true position of the star. And JH calls it a "star 7 m;" its V magnitude is 6.9. By contrast, the star in NGC2170 is 9th magnitude, and the star that Dreyer suggested as IV 44 is 11th magnitude. Perhaps there is a trace of nebulosity hiding in the overexposed image of the bright star. A close visual examination is needed. </object> <object><oname>NGC2170</oname> See NGC2167. </object> <object><oname>NGC2171</oname>is lost. JH describes it as "eeF, vL, R, glbM, 4'" in a single observation. Wolfgang gives the nominal position and says "Not found." The object marked in the Hodge-Wright Atlas is a faint star about 2 arcmin south of JH's; ESO apparently adopted this identification, too. The only possibility that I can see is that JH made a 10 or 20 minute error in his RA, and that his observation applies to one of the star clouds in the eastern end of the LMC's bar. However, this is such a stretch that I'm not going to list any of these star clouds in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC2174</oname>is one of the knots in NGC2175, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC2175</oname>is a very large roughly circular emission nebula which also includes NGC2174 and IC2159 (both of which see), and a star cluster which has inherited the NGC number, though there is no mention of it in the discovery notes. The nebula is centered on SAO 078049, though the brightest knot (which Bigourdan took for N2175; hence, the "corrected" RA in the IC2 Notes) is about three arcmin to the west-northwest. Auwers's note makes it clear that NGC2175 is much more than just the knot: he gives dimensions of 25 arcmin by 8 arcmin, and specifically adopts the position of Lalande 11668 = SAO 078049 as that for the object. I have followed his lead. </object> <object><oname>NGC2189</oname>is described by J.H. Safford as "Two clusters, seen 1863 March 19 near two stars of the 10-11th magnitude" with the "Great Refractor" at Harvard College Observatory. (The NGC description confuses the stars with two others in Safford's description of another cluster NGC2198, which see). Curiously, he gives positions of the two stars, but not of the clusters. So, we can identify the stars with certainty (Safford's positions, precessed to B1950.0, are 06 09 15, +01 07.7 and 06 10 17, +01 09.0), but not the clusters -- there is nothing in the area aside from random clumpings of field stars. However, two of the clumpings -- listed in the main table as possibly being the correct objects -- may be the one's Safford noted. Both are extended roughly north-south, with the first having a diameter of about 6 x 3 arcmin and including only a dozen stars, and the second 3 x 2 arcmin, again with only a dozen stars, fainter than those in the first group. Neither is likely to be a real cluster. Are these the right objects? We need observations, and a look at Safford's original observing records, to be sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC2195</oname>is a double star; there are two fainter stars near to the north that may have added to the illusion of nebulosity. The object was found by J. G. Lohse who also noted the 10th magnitude star 31 arcsec north. It is this star that clinches the identification since Lohse's RA is about 3 arcmin too far west. RNGC picked the wrong object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2198</oname> Described as "A cluster, seen 1863 March 19 by J.H. Safford, between two stars ... With the Great Refractor" at Harvard, the NGC position actually corresponds to a field with fewer than the average numbers of stars. As with NGC2189 (which see) Safford measured the two stars (one is 10-11 magnitude at 06 10 57, +01 00.1; the other is 9-10 magnitude at 06 11 42, +00 59.3, both for B1950.0), but not the cluster. I see nothing in the field on the POSS1 prints that looks like a cluster. Perhaps a visual observation can turn up something. </object> <object><oname>NGC2218</oname>is only an asterism of four stars. It is one of the "nebulae" recorded in the Markree Catalogue, pulled out by Auwers in his 1862 compilation of the nebulae found by others than the Herschels. Auwers looked for it, but had to note "Invisible in the Heliometer." The original position is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC2224</oname>is perhaps the elongated gathering of stars centered about three arcmin southwest of the NGC position. It looks to me like a random fluctuation in the Milky Way, though it is overlain by an extremely diffuse band of nebulosity. This area should be examined telescopically -- the POSS is crowded with faint stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC2225</oname>and NGC2226 have sometimes been considered to be the same object. In fact, the latter number refers to the compact core of the cluster, apparently unresolved in the 5- or 6-inch refractor with which Barnard found it. He described it as "Small, very difficult, with a star 10 close south" (the star is there). This is apparently from a letter to Dreyer as the observation does not appear in the Sidereal Messenger where Barnard published other of his early nebular discoveries. </object> <object><oname>NGC2226</oname> See NGC2225. </object> <object><oname>NGC2234</oname>is described by both WH and JH as a very large cluster, at least half a degree across. I find three concentrations of stars in the area, the first at 06 25.4 +16 42, the second at 06 26.5 +16 45, and the third at 06 27.4 +16 30. Perhaps the Herschels' observations refer to all three. As with so many of the poor, scattered "clusters" found by them, telescopic observations will be needed for conformation. </object> <object><oname>NGC2237</oname> 2238, and 2246 are all parts of the large annular HII region often called the Rosette. Embedded in the middle of the nebula is a bright cluster of young stars, NGC2239 = NGC2244 (which see) discovered by WH, and observed again by JH. Albert Marth is apparently the first to see any part of the nebulosity (NGC 2238, which see), though Lewis Swift was the first to call attention to its great size. Barnard ran across the nebula independently in 1883 while sweeping for comets, and his observations inspired Swift to finally publish a note about it in 1884. Scanning the area again in 1886, Swift found part of the eastern side of the nebula (NGC2246, which see), but it was not until Barnard began his photographic work at Lick in the early 1890s that the full extent of the nebula became known. The position for NGC2237 given by Swift in his second list of nebulae actually comes from Barnard, though it is about 45 seconds of time west of the center of gravity of the western part of the Rosette to which it refers. Barnard's description is accurate, however, and there is no question as to which part of the nebulosity he saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC2238</oname>is a small patch of somewhat brighter nebulosity in the much larger Rosette Nebula. It was found by Marth in 1864 with Lasalle's 48-inch reflector, which probably accounts for Marth's ability to see the faint star embedded in the knot. See NGC2237 and NGC2239 for more on the Rosette. </object> <object><oname>NGC2239</oname><oname>NGC2244</oname>, the bright young cluster in the center of the HII region called the Rosette (see the discussion under NGC2237), was found by WH. JH recovered it 30 years later during his northern sweeps from Slough, though he made an error of 1 minute of time in the position. Neither noticed the nebulosity around the cluster; that remained for Marth, Swift, and Barnard to bring to our attention. </object> <object><oname>NGC2242</oname> See IC2170. </object> <object><oname>NGC2244</oname><oname>NGC2239</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC2246</oname>is a brighter patch of nebulosity in the eastern side of the Rosette first seen by Swift in 1886; see NGC2237 and NGC2239 for more on the discovery of this remarkable object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2248</oname> This asterism of nine stars was recorded in the Markree Catalogue where it remained essentially unnoticed until Auwers reobserved it in the late 1850s. He included it in his 1862 list of nebulae and clusters found by observers other than the Herschels, and JH picked it up there for the GC. The original position is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC2250</oname>is placed 1 minute of time too far west in RNGC and in the Alter and Ruprecht star cluster catalogue. JH recorded as the position that of the 8th magnitude star we now call SAO 133414, though that is on the eastern side of the cluster. The approximate center is about three arcminutes west-southwest of that star. </object> <object><oname>NGC2253</oname>can't be found. There is nothing at W. Herschel's position (06 36.8 +66 53, 1950), nor is there much to suggest a systematic error in the positions of the other objects found that night (NGC2347 = III 746, though see this for some confusion; and NGC2403 = V 44). Herschel's description -- "A vF patch or S cl of eS st(ars)" -- as well as the fact that he included this object in his class VII (number 54) suggests that we should be looking for a small, tight group of faint stars. There is a scattered group of (10 or 15 stars of magnitudes 14 to 16) at 06 37.4 +66 22 (1950), but it is not a "patch" by any stretch of the definition of that word. Herschel's description might just as well fit UGC 3511 (06 38 45.8 +65 15 22, 1950), a rather patchy late-type spiral galaxy, but the position is off by random amounts in both coordinates. Similarly, the CGCG object at 06 38.2 +65 43 (1950) is probably not WH's object. Since there are no reasonable solutions that we can easily see, we'll just have to let NGC2253 be "Not found" for the time being. </object> <object><oname>NGC2254</oname> The NGC RA for this cluster is 10 seconds of time too far west. While that may be an error in reduction of WH's or JH's observations, it could also simply be a statistical fluke. </object> <object><oname>NGC2261</oname>is often called "Hubble's Variable Nebula" as its variability was indeed first noticed by Hubble during his years at Yerkes Observatory. The nebula was discovered, though, by WH in 1783, and is the second of his new class of "planetary" nebulae. We know now that the nebulosity is actually enveloping a very young double star system, R Monocerotis. The star's variability was first noted by Schmidt (AN 55, 91, 1861). The variability of the nebula is probably the result of circumstellar clouds close to the stars casting shadows on the surrounding nebulosity. NGC1554/5 (which see) around T Tauri is another example. </object> <object><oname>NGC2265</oname>appears to be no more than a random grouping of stars. On the POSS, it is an elongated group of 12th to 14th magnitude stars about 10 x 5 arcmin in size, centered about three arcmin southwest of JH's position. </object> <object><oname>NGC2270</oname> Found by WH who called it "A cluster of very scattered stars, considerably rich and of very great extent," this appears on the POSS as an irregularly scattered grouping of about 50 stars centered about 2 arcmin north of the NGC position. About 12 arcmin north and 4 arcmin west is another similar group of stars. Could this second group be the reason WH noted the "very great extent" of the object? </object> <object><oname>NGC2274</oname>and NGC2275. The UGC and MCG identifications of this close pair are opposite one another. This has happened in at least two other cases: NGC980 and 982 where there is indeed an error in the NGC declination for one object, and NGC5216 and 5218 where there is only a small error in John Herschel's 1833 list and the reversal of the identifications in MCG. The NGC, however, is correct in this second case (see the discussions of these objects for the details). In the case of N2274 and N2275, there is indeed an error in the NGC, but it is such a trivial one that I doubt that it led to the MCG reversal (it is indeed MCG that is incorrect here): the numbers from William Herschel's catalogue are reversed. JH got them right in his 1833 catalogue (and the GC) when he listed them under h406 = H II 614 and h407 = H II 615. Dreyer, too, got them right when he republished William's Scientific Papers in 1912, but did not mention the earlier mistake in his errata list of that year. In the end, it is clear that NGC2274 is the southern and very slightly preceding of the two. The MCG identifications should be switched. </object> <object><oname>NGC2275</oname> See NGC2274. </object> <object><oname>NGC2277</oname>is an asterism of five faint stars. It was found by d'A as he reobserved the interesting area containing NGC2274, 2275, and the NGC2290 group. Apparently observing on a poor night, or anxious to increase the number of nebulae in the area, he also found three other asterisms here (NGC 2278, 2284, and 2285, which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC2278</oname>is a double star found by d'A. Bigourdan reobserved it, and found a companion asterism nearby, NGC2279 (which see). See also NGC2277. </object> <object><oname>NGC2279</oname>is a triple star found by Bigourdan while he was measuring the previously discovered nebulae and asterisms in the area. See NGC2277 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2283</oname>may also be IC2171, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC2284</oname>is an asterism, probably comprised of the four stars noted in the table, but perhaps the triple 2 arcmin southeast. It was found by d'A in the area between the NGC2274 group and the NGC2290 group. See also N2277 and N2285. </object> <object><oname>NGC2285</oname>is a double star. See NGC2277 and NGC2285. </object> <object><oname>NGC2290</oname>is the brightest of a group of galaxies. There are several asterisms in the area, too (see e.g. NGC2277, 2278, 2284, and 2285). </object> <object><oname>NGC2296</oname><oname>IC452</oname>, which see. <ignore /> This, by the way, is a Galactic diffuse nebula, not a galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC2299</oname>is probably the same cluster as NGC2302. JH saw the cluster we now call N2299 only once, and noted its position as uncertain in both coordinates. his description reads, "A coarse cluster, not very rich; 30 or 40 stars; probably only an outlying portion of VIII 39"; this could easily match N2302. His three accordant observations of N2302 are all in other sweeps. Had the two clusters been seen on the same night, I would not have entertained thoughts about equating the objects. As is, however, I think it's likely that the two numbers refer to the same object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2302</oname>probably = NGC2299, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC2306</oname>is probably a rich portion of the Milky Way. Neither WH nor JH seemed mightily impressed with it. JH in particular thought it simply a concentration of stars rather than a true cluster. Examining the POSS1, I thought it might be identical to NGC2309 which is 1.5 minutes of time to the east. However, JH saw both objects in the same three sweeps: his concurrent observations rule out an equality. The "object" I've chosen as N2306 appears on the POSS1 as an elongated cloud of stars, magnitudes 10-13, roughly 20 arcmin by 10 arcmin, with the long axis in position angle 70 deg. The position in the table is just an arcmin southwest of JH's position, adopted for GC and NGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC2319</oname> This object has a curious history. Before I get into that, however, I should say that I've finally assigned the number to h 423 which JH describes as a "Linear cluster of stars, forming a bent line nearly 15 arcmin long, terminated on the following side by a star 8 ..." He calls the cluster "VIII 1," though it is not (more below). The position I've assigned (06 57 55, +03 06.8; 1950) is for the mid-point of the chain, rather than that of JH's 8th magnitude star (he gives 06 58 31, +03 07.9 -- also 1950 -- less than an arcmin from the true position), so the RA is well off JH's, though the object is clearly the one that he saw. For the GC, he used his own position for the object rather than his father's (for reasons apparent below), and Dreyer did the same for NGC. This leads us unambiguously to JH's "bent line" as NGC2319. Curiously and perhaps unfortunately, both JH in GC and Dreyer in NGC also assigned an unusual WH number to the object: VIII 1B. There is no VIII 1A, and VIII 1B turns out to have nothing to do with VIII 1 (which is NGC2509) except that it follows the first entry chronologically in WH's list of scattered clusters. So, to the history. Dreyer has a short note in the NGC, beginning with JH's note in the GC: "Entered by CH as VIII 1B, with a remark `not in print.' -- JH." Dreyer continues, "It must be a very poor cluster; at any rate, Auwers could not find anything like a cluster in this place." Dreyer inserts VIII 1B in his 1912 edition of WH's first catalogue with an extensive note giving some of the details of WH's Sweep 48 on 18 December 1783. In short, WH's observation puts the cluster around 1950.0 RA = 06 45.3, and between +02 06 and +03 21. He describes it as "A cluster of very small stars, not rich." This is obviously too far off JH's position to be the same object, so I am wondering how JH arrived at the identity. In any case, there is no obvious cluster matching both WH's position and his description. Two objects partially match, however: Collinder 115 (at 06 44 03, +01 49.4 for 1950) matches the description, but is well off in position. A scattered group of 9th to 12th magnitude stars at 06 44 52, +03 08.0 comes closer to the position, but the stars -- particularly the 9th magnitude star near the center -- are too bright to appear "very small" to WH. I see nothing else that could be WH's cluster. In the end, H VIII 1B remains a footnote, unidentified and probably unidentifiable (though a careful scrutiny of the Herschel Archive might turn up more information than Dreyer found -- but that's unlikely in my opinion). It's connection with NGC2319 is a mistake by JH and Dreyer, and it has no other NGC number. </object> <object><oname>NGC2326</oname> This was originally found by William Herschel who describes it as "F, pL, iF, mbM. South-following a triangle of small [faint] stars." JH looked at it a quarter of a century later and noted: "eF, R, pslbM; has a small group of stars immediately preceding like the letter Y." The J2000.0 position from the Bologna group is 07 08 11.1, +50 40 53 which is in the right direction from the NGC2000.0 position to agree with the position measured by Glen Deen in the course of his work on MicroSky. The group of stars just west, shaped like the letter Y, clinches the identification, even if the NGC position (from the Herschels) is not too good. </object> <object><oname>NGC2327</oname>is a compact HII region, or part of one, in the large, sinuous nebula found by Max Wolf south of IC2177, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC2330</oname>and NGC2334. Malcolm has not been happy with my assignments of NGC 2330 and NGC2334 to IC457 and IC465. After going over all of the extant historical evidence once again, I'm not happy, either. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Here's the story. WH swept over this field twice, finding -- so he thought -- two nebulae, II 736 (on 9 Feb 1788) and II 862 (on 28 Dec 1790). His positions reduce to 07 07 21, +50 14.2 and 07 07 03, +50 14.4 (both for B1950.0). Since NGC2332 is well over a minute of time preceding either of these, I think that both observations refer to NGC2340. That galaxy is, in any case, the brightest in the group. WH's descriptions are consistent with his observations refering to the same galaxy. When JH swept up the field about 35 years later, he picked up NGC2340 twice and NGC2332 once. His positions and descriptions match the two galaxies well, so there is no reason to doubt that he actually did see both. After another 25 year gap, Lord Rosse turned his 72-inch "Leviathan" on the field. Unfortunately, the three sketches he made during his first two observations in January of 1851 did not appear in his 1861 monograph. He had only a short note under his entry for h 430, "Several knots around; 430 is E np, sf" (the directions should read "sp, nf"). So, when JH assembled the GC, he had only this scanty note on which to base the entry for GC 1492. Consequently, the position for GC 1492 is very rough (06 58+-, 39 36+-; RA and NPD for 1860), and the description reads only "Several near h 430 (?426, 433, & 1 nov[a])." When Dreyer was preparing LdR's observations for publication, he transcribed the details missing from the 1861 monograph, giving us the first two night's notes and sketches. Unfortunately, the arrows in the sketches are pointing in the wrong directions, and (as I noted) north and south are reversed in the notes for the first night's observations of NGC2332 = h 430. I think that the first two sketches must come from only the first night: one shows NGC 2332 and a new nebula, with the second showing NGC2340 and another nova. I also think that these are the objects which Dreyer intended to include in the NGC. This is the reason that I earlier adopted the NGC numbers 2330 and 2334 for them, in spite of the large differences in position from the NGC positions (from Bigourdan's observations; more on these below). The notes for LdR's second night refer to five novae, as well as the two known objects. A third sketch -- apparently from that night -- shows a total of nine nebulae. A third observation in 1863 refers to only six of these, with Dreyer adding the comment, "Zeta, iota, and theta not noticed this night." This is understandable as LdR says "A fog prevented these being well seen." In any event, Dreyer clearly had evidence for nine nebulae in the field, yet chose to include NGC numbers for only four. Perhaps he did this because he thought he had good positions for only those four -- two from JH via the GC, and two from Bigourdan for two of the "novae." However, given the confusion of the directions in the sketches and the observing notes, Dreyer was unable to sort out the field satisfactorily. So, he put question marks on LdR's initials under the numbers 2330 and 2334, adopting Bigourdan's positions published in his (Bigourdan's) first list. Dreyer could have inserted numbers for the remaining five nebulae, trusting to future observers to provide good positions, but unfortunately, did not. It is here that Bigourdan's complete observations could have provided positions for most of LdR's novae, had he (Bigourdan) chosen to publish them before the NGC appeared. For, on two nights in November of 1885, Bigourdan measured eight novae of his own, including six real nebulae, in addition to the two known nebulae. Unfortunately, he chose to publish only two of his novae. By startlingly bad luck, the two he did publish are stars. The six real galaxies remain buried in his massive tables of observational details and did not appear until 1907 in the Observations of Paris Observatory. Consequently, Dreyer put the two stars, with Bigourdan's positions and descriptions, into the NGC. While his clear intent was to include two of LdR's nebulae, he just as clearly -- with Bigourdan's unknowing assistance -- botched the job. So, what do we do with the two errant NGC numbers? If we assign them to the stars which Bigourdan's positions and descriptions point at, we do Dreyer's intentions (and JH's in the GC as well) a misservice. If, on the other hand, we assign them to the two novae that LdR found in 1851 (IC457 and IC465), then we incur Malcolm's wrath and my own furrowed brow. My solution is to adopt both options with lots of question marks, knowing full well that neither is satisfactory. Dreyer has simply not left us enough information to make any clear choice. As a footnote, I should mention that Heinrich Kobold also stumbled across this problem in 1893. He published a short note in AN 3184 with good positions for NGC2332, 2340, and nine other nebulae which he assumed included those found by Lord Rosse. However, he could not find Bigourdan's two published novae (the ones with NGC numbers). Dreyer put all of Kobold's novae into the first IC, and included a note reporting Kobold's negative observations of the two NGC numbers. Finally, a footnote to the footnote: Kobold published his complete observations in the Strassburg Annalen in 1909. There, he has two observations of I459, but has reversed the signs on the offsets for one of them. He apparently discovered this before he published his short announcement in AN, so he did not publish a non-existent object (one object, IC462, is a star, however). Since his monograph was published long after the observations, and long after he found the error, it's puzzling that he should let the mistake stand. The fact that the wrong signs are not just typos is shown by his including the second observation as if it were for another object. Also, his summary list of reduced positions includes only the IC objects (with the correct number of observations for each), so the decision to publish the incorrect observations is doubly puzzling. I certainly wouldn't have done it that way! </object> <object><oname>NGC2331</oname>is a large, scattered cluster of pretty bright stars. There is a concentration of several stars on the southeast edge that attracted JH's attention enough that he took it as the position for the whole object. Thus, the position in the main table is about 8 arcmin northwest of the NGC place, copied directly from GC and JH. A curious footnote to this object is in the "Other Observers" column in the NGC: "Flamsteed." I do not know yet why Dreyer credited Flamsteed with the discovery -- there is no mention of the object in Kenneth Glyn Jones's fine book, "The Search for the Nebulae." According to Glyn Jones, Flamsteed did find several other objects in the area, including M41 and NGC2244. But this cluster is missing from his catalogue and atlas. </object> <object><oname>NGC2332</oname> See NGC2330. </object> <object><oname>NGC2334</oname> See NGC2330. </object> <object><oname>NGC2338</oname>is probably the cluster about 50 seconds following and 5.5 arcmin south of JH's place. Brian Skiff and I independently found the cluster looking for N2338; it matches JH's description "Very loose and straggling cluster" pretty well, and is as good a candidate as any. </object> <object><oname>NGC2340</oname> See NGC2330. </object> <object><oname>NGC2343</oname> See NGC2351. </object> <object><oname>NGC2347</oname>and IC2179. On 1 Nov 1788, William Herschel found a "vF, S, R, lbM" nebula 01h 04m 05s following, 48' south of 36 Camelopardalis (the observation is from Dreyer's 1912 collection of Herschel's papers). This position reduces to 07 11 54, +65 06 using the SAO position of 36 Cam (proper motion changes its precessed position by about 5 arcsec between 1788 and 1950, a negligible amount considering the mean errors of a few arcmin in WH's positions). The GC/NGC position precesses to 07 11 31, +64 54. Since no other reference for the position is given, I suspect that JH must have used a later unpublished observation from his father's records. The NGC position falls about 6 arcmin north-following a 13th magnitude spiral galaxy (at 07 11 15.9, +64 47 57) which is usually taken as NGC2347. However, 9 arcmin south-preceding the NGC position is a smaller, but equally bright -- therefore, higher surface brightness -- S0 galaxy. This was found by Bigourdan while he was searching the area of N2347, and is in IC2 as IC 2179. The position there is within 2 arcmin of the correct position (07 10 42.6, +65 00 49). Is this possibly the object that WH saw? Bigourdan apparently thought so, since he assigned the number "NGC2347" to his observations of this smaller galaxy. However, he lists SA0 14129 as his comparison star. Using the 1950 position for this, we find a position for the galaxy of 07 11 26.5, +64 52 11, quite close to the NGC position for N2347. This certainly explains Bigourdan's choice of this object for N2347. If we look at this position on the sky, however, we find nothing at all. But applying Bigourdan's offsets to the position for BD +65 560 = GSC 4119-00435 (a star about a magnitude fainter, but still bright), we land exactly on IC 2179. But Bigourdan's observations, referred to SAO 14129, of what he calls "IC2179," point exactly to the spiral usually called N2347. Thus, it's clear that not only has Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star for I2179, he has also switched the two catalogue numbers. But where did the correct IC position come from? Since Bigourdan published his "new" nebulae in several short lists in Comptes Rendus, Dreyer most likely took the position from there. However, in his collected lists of "novae" in the introduction to his observations, Bigourdan prints the incorrect position given in the observations themselves. At the moment, I don't see a reasonable answer to the problem. Until more information surfaces, we will retain the usual identifications for the two galaxies: NGC2347 is the south-following spiral, and IC2179 is the north-preceding lenticular. See also the additional discussion under IC2179. </object> <object><oname>NGC2349</oname> This cluster was found by CH in 1783, and later catalogued by WH as VII 27. Their object, centered near 07 08 24, -08 30.6 (less than 30 arcsec from where they put it), is easily identified by the "extending branch towards the south-preceding." JH, however, called it a "poor straggling cluster," and took its position as that of a double star some 50 seconds west of the object observed by his father and his aunt. He adopted this position for GC, and Dreyer followed suit for the NGC. He must not have seen the same cluster as his father and aunt, however -- the positions and descriptions disagree too much. </object> <object><oname>NGC2351</oname> There is nothing in JH's position, but one degree north is a group of three bright and several faint stars that could be the object he saw. I'm frankly not too happy with this idea, but there isn't much else going. Other possibilities: this object may be a duplicated observation of NGC2343 or NGC2353, though neither one has a position with an obvious digit change that might point to NGC2351. </object> <object><oname>NGC2353</oname> See NGC2351. </object> <object><oname>NGC2355</oname> See NGC2356. </object> <object><oname>NGC2356</oname>is most likely NGC2355 with a 10 arcmin error in declination. There is no other group of stars in the area that fits WH's description "A pretty rich and compressed cluster of stars" as well. JH did not see NGC2356, but found NGC2355 easily. Note, too, that WH's position for N2355 is about 1m 40s too far west; Dreyer discusses the circumstances of WH's observation of N2355 a bit more in his 1912 edition of WH's papers. </object> <object><oname>NGC2358</oname> Seen only once by WH, this may be the large (20 arcmin by 15 arcmin) scattering of stars around 07 14 42, -17 01.6. Alternatively, it could be the richest part of this group, on to the southeast at 07 14 59, -17 04.2, though this is further from WH's position. Since we don't have much to go on here, I've taken the former position for the larger group as the most likely. </object> <object><oname>NGC2359</oname> See NGC2361. </object> <object><oname>NGC2361</oname>is a knot in NGC2359. JH's description and sketch from his Cape Observations is very appropriate for the larger object. Bigourdan's descriptions of N2361 make it clear that he was seeing only a small part of JH's object. Dreyer's IC1 note suggesting that N2361 is a reobservation of N2359, suggests that he had not seen Bigourdan's observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC2363</oname>and NGC2366. Well, folks, it's bad news for those of us who have always identified NGC2363 as the giant HII region in the low surface brightness irregular galaxy NGC2366. WH's original description clearly refers to the HII region as the principal object with the bit of fuzz to the north as an incidental appendage. This view was further solidified by Ralph Copeland, observing with Lord Rosse's 72-inch reflector. Copeland identified the HII region as the center of an greatly extended object, stretching 9 or 10 arcmin to the northeast. He lists micrometric measurements of seven different objects in the surrounding area, and all are clearly refered to the HII region. Here is a list of his measurements, along with mine (made from the POSS1 blue print): Copeland Corwin Note Object P.A. Dist. P.A. Dist. * 9.5 6.3 214.9 7.5 211 * 10 337.9 191.9 335 193 * 10 340.8 235.8 339 236 * 8 351.0 396.6 351.5 400 Dif neb 265.9 71.4 274 70.5 Copeland quadrant error? Neb * 318.0 77.6 318 75.2 Star sup on F ext of galaxy "Tail" 30.9 [9-10min] 31 8min+- Main body of the galaxy So, the historical record is unmistakeable: NGC2366 is the HII region. We can, of course, also include the rest of the galaxy under this number, since it was certainly seen. For the sake of the modern catalogues, this is also certainly the best thing to do. But what then is NGC2363? One of Copeland's micrometric measures above -- for the "Diffused nebulosity preceding" -- is the one that Dreyer put into the NGC with the note "III 748 s[outh] f[ollowing]." This, combined with Copeland's measurement which Dreyer used, clearly points to the smaller object that we now call UGC 03847 = MCG +12-07-039 (N2366 is U3851) -- it is NGC 2363, not the HII region. I have usually taken this object to be a detached star cloud of N2366, but Steve Odewahn has shown through his detailed study of the velocity fields of the objects that it is indeed a separate galaxy interacting with N2366. So, we have two galaxies here, along with two NGC numbers clearly attached to each one. We shall just have to get used to calling the HII region "Markarian 71" (or one of its other names) since it is not N2363 as we've thought all these years. There is still one other nebulous object seen by Copeland in the area. This is the "Nebulous star or nebulous knot" which is listed in the table above. Why didn't Dreyer include it in the NGC, too? Other objects with just that sort of description were included. While this is an unanswerable question, it's possible that Dreyer had access to other notes that were not published. Or, since he and Copeland were colleagues at the time, the two of them may well have decided that the object was a star. The object is indeed a star superposed on a faint extension of NGC2363. There may also be a distant background galaxy adding to the appearance of nebulosity -- see the lovely 200-inch photographs in the Revised Shapley Ames Catalogue (page 113) and in the Carnegie Atlas (Panel 327). </object> <object><oname>NGC2366</oname> See NGC2363. </object> <object><oname>NGC2378</oname>is a double star precisely identified by Stephan's micrometric position, and his description, "Two stars, very faint and very close which, occasionally seem to be enveloped in a nearly imperceptible nebulosity." </object> <object><oname>NGC2386</oname>is a triple star near NGC2388 and NGC2389. Like many other asterisms found by Lord Rosse and his observers, it was taken to be part of a group of nebulae, probably on a night of poor seeing. </object> <object><oname>NGC2388</oname> See NGC2386 and NGC2390. </object> <object><oname>NGC2389</oname> See NGC2386 and NGC2390. </object> <object><oname>NGC2390</oname>and NGC2391 are both stars near NGC2388 and NGC2389. Both are shown in Ball's diagram of 10 Dec 1866, and he has a micrometric measurement of NGC2390. </object> <object><oname>NGC2391</oname>is a star. See NGC2390 for a bit more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2398</oname> found by Stephan, is the brightest of three galaxies. Javelle saw one of the other two, but his note is not clear on which one. Since he gave no other details, the second object does not have an IC number. </object> <object><oname>NGC2399</oname>and NGC2400 are a pair of triple stars found by George Bond with the Harvard refractor on 26 Feb 1853. Bond gave only one position (closer to N2399), but Schultz later measured both. D'Arrest has the two 1 minute of time further east, but Bond and Schultz are correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC2400</oname>is a triple star. See NGC2399. </object> <object><oname>NGC2403</oname> See NGC2253 and NGC2404. </object> <object><oname>NGC2404</oname>is the brightest superassociation in NGC2403. The NGC position, however, is wrong, as is the position in Bigourdan's first Comptes Rendus paper. The correct position appears twice in his lists of new nebulae in his massive "Observations ...," and the offsets he gives also reduce to the correct position. My earlier incorrect identification of this as a star is based on the NGC position. </object> <object><oname>NGC2412</oname>is a star found by J.G. Lohse. I suspect its companion 10 arcsec south, mentioned by Lohse, has contributed to an appearance of nebulosity at the eyepiece. The other star Lohse mentions in his notes is SAO 115663, a "star 8 following 59 seconds, 1.5 arcmin south." Lohse's position for N2412 is also good. </object> <object><oname>NGC2428</oname> See NGC2430. </object> <object><oname>NGC2430</oname>may be the large sparce group of relatively faint stars centered about 5 arcmin north-east of WH's position. There is a concentration within this group centered just 6 seconds following his position, but it is rather small (8 x 4 arcmin) for a cluster described as "very large." The larger grouping is 14 x 11 arcmin across, so that is the one I've tentatively taken. Another possibility is OCL 606 1.7 minutes following, and 5 arcmin north, of WH's position. The 1.7 minutes is not an easy mistake to make, however, so I'm doubtful about this. But that cluster does match WH's description, so it remains a possibility. NGC2428 was found in the same sweep just 9 seconds preceding and 10 arcmin south of NGC2430. Had the two been found in different sweeps, I would have confidently declared them to be identical. NGC2428 is clearly a cluster that matches WH's description (and his position), and I could easily imagine that it could be stumbled across independently on different nights. However, having been found so close together, apparently within a few minutes of each other, the two objects that WH recorded are almost certainly different objects. </object> <object><oname>NGC2431</oname>is probably also NGC2436. </object> <object><oname>NGC2433</oname>is a triple star at JH's position. The 15th magnitude field star that he noticed to the northwest is at 07 39 57.13, +09 23 17.4 (B1950.0, measured on DSS as are the rest of the positions in this note). Dreyer has an NGC note that questions whether JH or d'A has the correct RA, both having just a single observation of the object. Checking at d'A's position shows a double star: 07 39 40.64, +09 23 47.6 and 07 39 41.85, +09 23 59.8. D'A also notes a 12th magnitude star to the southwest: 07 39 36.75, +09 22 32.5 (blended into a single image on DSS). He was puzzled by the discrepancy with JH, suggesting that JH's position was 19 seconds off. I've of course adopted JH's triple star as the correct object. (LEDA makes NGC2433 a faint galaxy on to the northeast, but this is clearly wrong.) </object> <object><oname>NGC2436</oname>is probably NGC2431. JH's RA is exactly 1.0 min larger, and his Dec exactly 1 deg smaller than those for NGC2431. The description matches the bright core of the galaxy, so I am pretty sure that the identity of the two numbers is correct. Nevertheless, there is a triple star about 3 arcmin southwest of JH's uncorrected position (07 41 57.4, +52 09 36; B1950.0). This might be the object he saw -- but I doubt it. The errors leading to NGC2431 are too exact to ignore. </object> <object><oname>NGC2442</oname>and NGC2443 are the southwest and northeast parts of a large, bright galaxy observed four times by JH. The last three times, he described it as a single large nebula, and measured a position for it that agrees very well with the modern position. His first observation, however, makes it "A double nebula, vF, vL, PA of centers = 40 deg, diameters 4' and 3' running together, and having a star 13 mag at their junction." This is the interpretation that he adopted for the GC, and that Dreyer used in the NGC. The "double star" that JH noted during one observation is the nucleus and a superposed star (or a compact HII region). In the main table, I've given the position of the nucleus under both numbers, and have also given positions for the approximate centers of the two halves of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC2443</oname> See NGC2442. </object> <object><oname>NGC2456</oname> See NGC2457. </object> <object><oname>NGC2457</oname> The identity of this galaxy is not in doubt: Copeland gives a micrometric offset from NGC2456 for it, and it is just where he claims to have seen it. What is interesting is his comment in the description, "About 3' north of the nova, there seemed to be another vF nebula. Telescope now at the limit of its range." There is in fact a fainter galaxy just three arcmin to the north of NGC2457. Dreyer could well have included this in the NGC, but chose not to, apparently because of Copeland's apparent uncertainty about its existence. This makes at least three nebulae found by Copeland that are not in NGC-- interesting since Copeland was a friend and colleague of Dreyer's. </object> <object><oname>NGC2458</oname> See NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2461</oname>is a star. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2462</oname> See NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2463</oname> See NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2464</oname>is a triple star. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2465</oname>is a star. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2469</oname>group. Two objects here were seen by the Herschels: NGC2463 (JH) and NGC2469 (WH and JH). The identity of these two is certain since John Herschel's positions are good. Lord Rosse saw, but did not measure them. He has only a note: "Great many knots, reckoned 10 nearly in a line pf." So, Herschel added eight other GC numbers for the additional objects even though no positions were available for them. Dreyer followed Herschel's lead explicitly with 10 NGC numbers for all the objects. Bigourdan measured eight of the 10 objects in 1886, so Dreyer was able to adopt Bigourdan's positions and identifications for six of the non-Herschel objects: NGC2458, 2461, 2462, 2464, 2465, and 2471. Bigourdan returned to the field in 1895 and 1900, measuring three other objects, one of which he mistook for NGC2458, and another which became IC2210. A third was not included in any of Dreyer's catalogues, and did not even receive a number in any of Bigourdan's lists of "novae." He did not observe NGC2472 or 2473 -- the final two of Lord Rosse's 10 -- so they have only approximate positions in the NGC. The Palomar Sky Survey shows only seven galaxies here, one faint and small enough, and well enough away from the others, that it may not have been seen by Lord Rosse. It was certainly not seen by Bigourdan, who in fact saw only four of the galaxies (his first observation of N2458, N2462, 63, and 69). Five other of his objects are asterisms -- single stars (N2461, 65), doubles (N2471, I2210), or a triple (N2464). The two remaining nebulae in Bigourdan's list (his second observation of N2458 and the unnumbered "nova") are unidentifiable, with only very faint stars near -- but not at -- his positions. As I mentioned above, the chances are good that Lord Rosse only saw the six brightest of the galaxies (the others were probably stars as the rich field is at a fairly low Galactic latitude; it is not unusual to find stars among Lord Rosse's novae). Since Dreyer used Bigourdan's 1886 positions, four of the NGC numbers are assigned to galaxies, and four others are taken up by asterisms. There are thus two galaxies without NGC numbers -- and fortuitously, two NGC numbers (N2472 and N2473) without galaxies. Since N2472 has been used by the CGCG for one of the unnumbered galaxies, I suggest using N2473 for the other. The only unfortunate result is that this puts N2473 -- the last of the 10 numbers -- preceding all but one of the other objects (the exception is the very faint galaxy that Lord Rosse may not have seen): it is out of NGC order. It's clear that these two identifications are uncertain, even though they are logical given the facts we have. </object> <object><oname>NGC2471</oname>is a double star. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2472</oname> The identity is uncertain. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2473</oname> The identity is uncertain. See the discussion under NGC2469. </object> <object><oname>NGC2491</oname>and NGC2496. Swift saw these as a pair oriented southwest- northeast, with his position for the brighter (N2496) being within 30 arcsec of a fairly bright galaxy with a faint star just preceding it. However, Swift puts the star to the east (following) where there is none. So, I'm going to suggest that his direction is wrong, but will still keep the galaxy as the one he saw. The other galaxy, though, is a problem. The object adopted by RNGC as N2491 (CGCG 031-007) is quite faint, and there are two others 10 arcmin north (CGCG 031-005 and 031-008) that would be easier to pick up: the former is considerably brighter and larger, while the latter has two stars just following that would enhance its visibility. These would have been well within Swift's 32 arcmin field, and should have been more apparent to him than the RNGC galaxy. In addition, Swift notes a "bright star near west." There is a 12th magnitude star about 2.5 arcmin to the northwest of CGCG 031-007; this might qualify as "bright" in a 16-inch refractor, but Swift usually reserved the word for stars of 10th magnitude or brighter. So, we have three galaxies to choose from: one matching Swift's position and (perhaps) his description, and two others that might be more easily seen. One option is that Swift has confused more than just his direction of the star near N2496: he confused all of the directions. This would make the orientation of the two nebulae northwest-southeast, and the bright star would be east, not west. This would make the star SAO 116199, which -- at 8th magnitude -- is indeed bright. The second is to simply accept Swift's positions as did RNGC and say that the descriptions are confused about the field stars. Adding to the confusion is Howe's observation of the field. He places N2496 near Swift's place, and notes the star preceding. But then he says, "... 2491, after careful scrutiny on a fine night, resolved itself into a few stars of mag. 14." The only object in the area matching this description is CGCG 031-008 -- but Howe makes no comment about the 10 arcmin declination error that must result. In the end, the identity of NGC2496 is pretty sure, but that for NGC2491 is uncertain enough in my mind to warrant some colons and question marks in the main table. Perhaps Swift was looking at a completely different pair of galaxies and simply got his positions wrong. If so, I haven't found the correct objects yet. </object> <object><oname>NGC2496</oname> See NGC2491. </object> <object><oname>NGC2509</oname> See NGC2319. </object> <object><oname>NGC2515</oname>is a double star. As with many of the other "nebulae" found at Harvard College Observatory during its early years in the 1850's and 1860's, there is no nebulosity associated with the stars. Poor seeing? Poor optics? Until someone examines the Observatory's early records in detail, we just won't know. In the meantime, however, the published position of NGC2515 is very good, and the identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC2518</oname>and NGC2519 were "Two nebulae, F, L, R, gbM, delta RA = 42 seconds" found by J. G. Lohse. There is only one galaxy (UGC 04221) in the field about an arcmin from Lohse's position, but 39 seconds following it is a 14th magnitude star with 3 fainter stars in a triangle to the northwest. The asterism is about the size of the galaxy (35-40 arcsec across), and may be the object that Lohse saw. In any case, there is no other candidate object in the field. </object> <object><oname>NGC2519</oname> See NGC2518. </object> <object><oname>NGC2520</oname><oname>NGC2527</oname>. The puzzle here starts with the GC. JH has two observations of the cluster, one from Slough, the other from the Cape, both clearly of the same object. The RA for the Cape observation is out by 2.5 minutes of time, but JH nevertheless gives both earlier names (h488 and H VIII 30). Why then did he give the object two GC numbers? He has no notes in the GC, nor does Dreyer in NGC or in his collection of WH's papers. If anything, I would have expected him to adopt the Cape Observation since his earlier one has the note, "RA by working list," with the RA marked plus or minus. Whatever the case, there is certainly only one cluster, and both NGC numbers apply to it. </object> <object><oname>NGC2524</oname>and NGC2528 are two galaxies found by Stephan in 1877. His positions are refered to BD +39 2062 = SAO 060607, so should be accurate within his measurement error of 2-3 arcsec. NGC2524 is indeed where Stephan places it, but NGC2528 is not south following as it should be if his position is correct. However, north preceding NGC2524, there is a galaxy that fits Stephan's description perfectly. Looking at his measurements and plotting the galaxies and the comparison star, I found what Stephan must have done. The difference in position between the two galaxies is exactly equal to the difference in position between the star and NGC2528. This means that Stephan actually measured NGC2528 with respect to NGC2524, not with respect to the star. He apparently forgot to make a note to that effect, so when he reduced his observations later, he assumed that both observations were refered to the star. Re-reducing his data taking this error into account gives positions in very close agreement with those in the GSC (aside from an offset in declination of about 15 arcsec because Stephan's declination for the comparison star is off by that amount). The PGC and RC3 have the correct identifications. </object> <object><oname>NGC2528</oname> See NGC2524. </object> <object><oname>NGC2529</oname> 30, and 31. Herschel did indeed discover N2530, and this is the name that, as Steve Gottlieb suggests, should be used for the galaxy. The other two objects were found by Bigourdan very close to N2530. Though he examined the field four times, he saw his two new objects only once. On that one night, he estimated positions with respect to N2530: N2529 is 1' distant at position angle 220 deg, and N2531 is 1' distant at PA = 150 deg. There is nothing in either position on the PSS. He also measured a thirteenth magnitude star the same distance away from N2530 on two nights; it is just where he saw it in <PA> = 15 deg. On the second night, Bigourdan claimed to see stellar objects at the very limit of visibility where he placed N2529 and N2531 earlier, but he did not attempt to measure them. It's clear to me that the two do not exist, probably being those faint illusions that we all see now and then when we get tired or try too hard to push the limits of our optics. </object> <object><oname>NGC2530</oname> See NGC2529. </object> <object><oname>NGC2531</oname> See NGC2529. </object> <object><oname>NGC2542</oname>= 19 Puppis = SAO 153942 = ADS 6647. JH may have been misled by the faint companion to the brighter star. With a separation of only 2 arcsec, and a magnitude difference of 6.5, it would be very difficult to make out the fainter star except under extraordinarily fine conditions. </object> <object><oname>NGC2543</oname><oname>IC2232</oname>. The galaxy was first seen by WH in Feb 1787, and was reobserved in Mar 1790. The two positions that he measured are not in particularly good agreement (08 09.6 +36 20 and 08 09.8 +36 35). JH picked it up once in Feb 1832. His position is 08 11 45, +36 24.6, also not in good agreement with either of his father's determinations. However, Sir John notes a "a coarse ** p points to it." This note is correct, and the "double star" is quite wide. The GC and NGC adopted sort of a mean of these three (08 10 43 +36 24.7) which was corrected by Dreyer in the IC1 notes, following Spitaler (08 09 38 +36 24.7). Actually, Spitaler's micrometric position (measured in Dec 1891) reduces to 08 09 42.9 +36 24 07, using the GSC position for his comparison star, and ignoring its (unknown) proper motion. Javelle scanned the field in Feb 1896 and his position (for IC2232) reduces to (again ignoring proper motion) 08 09 42.5 +36 24 12, agreeing well with Spitaler. Thus, there is no question that the two different numbers apply to the same object. This identity was first suggested as being the same as N2543 by Reinmuth in 1926, and every catalogue since has made the equality. The descriptions of the galaxy and the surrounding star field simply nail the lid, leaving no doubt about the equivalence of the two entries. </object> <object><oname>NGC2574</oname> See NGC2589. </object> <object><oname>NGC2582</oname><oname>IC2359</oname>. Here is a curious case. This is clearly noted as NGC 2582 in Wolf's first list, yet Dreyer still assigned it an IC number. There is no particular reason that he should have done this that I can see. The NGC position (from the two Herschels) agrees well with the GSC position, and with Wolf's position, and the descriptions are compatible. Oh, well -- these things happen. </object> <object><oname>NGC2583</oname>is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC2586 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2584</oname>is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC2586 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2585</oname>is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC2586 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2586</oname> This is a triple star. The galaxy with this label in RC3 (MCG -01-22-012) is near the nominal position, but N2586 is noted as the fourth of four nebulae. The other three (NGC2583-5) are a minute west of Muller's position, but their relative positions are good. If N2586's relative position is similarly good, then there is little doubt that it is the triple star. </object> <object><oname>NGC2589</oname>is probably lost. There are no bright galaxies near Swift's position, though NGC2574 (4 minutes preceding and 9 arcmin south) is a possibility. Given Swift's meager description, however -- "pF, pS, lE in meridian" -- this is little more than a guess. </object> <object><oname>NGC2590</oname><oname>IC507</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC2597</oname>is a double star. It is the preceding of two close "nebulae" that Marth found on New Year's night, 1864. The double is near Marth's place, as is his other object, NGC2598, a galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC2598</oname> See NGC2597. </object> <object><oname>NGC2599</oname> See NGC2600. </object> <object><oname>NGC2600</oname> 2602, 2603, 2605, and 2606. There is a group of six galaxies here. Two (N2602 and N2606) of the three brightest were seen twice by JH, while he curiously missed the brightest, N2600 (LdR and Bigourdan picked this up). Of the three others seen by LdR, JH and Dreyer gave new GC and NGC numbers to only two, the other being taken as a star once, and being thought as one of the other two "novae" the second time. [There is also some confusion in LdR's 1861 PT paper, noted by JH in the GC Notes and by Dreyer in LdR's 1880 monograph, with NGC2599 (= h507) 30 degrees south. Both JH and Dreyer come to the correct conclusion that this is a simple transcription error and that the correct numbers are h508 (= N2602) and h510 (= N2606).] JH's observations are relatively clear, though he does note a 10 second RA discrepancy between his first and second observations of N2602 (the second is more nearly correct). Also, his note "... np a star (about [PA =] 5 deg np)" should read "sp" instead of "np". As I've noted, his observations point at the second and third brightest in the group as being the two that he found. The first time LdR went over the group, he found three nebulae: 1850, Feb. 9. A fine object, 3 neb., one (N2600) B, another (N2606) f[ollowing] pB and E, the third (N2602) north and the last degree of faintness. [Dreyer appends the note about N2599.] LdR's second observation turned up four nebulae, and he provided a sketch: 1858, Mar. 11. 4 neb. found, alpha (N2603) is F, S, bM; beta (N2605) is vvF, gamma (N2602) F, S, lbM; delta is E and has a Nucl, a F * sf. alpha and gamma are about 5 arcmin dist. from one another, and beta and delta about the same dist. apart. Interestingly, he includes the faintest galaxy in the group in the sketch, but has it drawn as a star. Finally, a third observation yeilded only two nebulae: 1867, Mar. 5. 2 neb. seen nearly pf, p one (the unnumbered faintest galaxy in the group) eeF, f one (N2606) eF. Measures extremely difficult. Pos. 92 deg (2). Dist. 118 arcsec (1). In each case, the noted relative brightnesses and positions very clearly identify the objects that LdR and his observers are seeing. I find it informative that he turned up a different set of objects each night, pointing most likely to the importance of seeing, transparency, observer skill and fatigue, mirror reflectivity, and a host of other variables that determine the eventual outcome of any given observation. When Bigourdan went over the field, he found only the brightest three galaxies, N2600, N2602, and N2606, noting the others as simply "Non vue" (not seen). Making sense out of all of this is fairly straight-forward (though I swapped NGC2602 and NGC2605 in my first pass a few years ago; apologies to all). We simply adopt the NGC numbers for JH's two objects as given by Dreyer. JH's positions are not bad, either, though both he and Dreyer used a mean of the two discordant RAs for N2602. NGC2600 is easy as its relatively good position comes from Bigourdan, and his comment about the two stars preceding is accurate. This leaves NGC2603 and NGC2605 to distribute among the three "novae" found by LdR. I've arbitrarily assigned these to the fourth and fifth brightest galaxies in the group (LdR's alpha and beta), leaving only the sixth and faintest without an NGC number. I've included this in the position table as "N2606 w comp". The final entry in the table, "N2606 e comp" is the "F * sf" that LdR notes in his 1858 observation. On the DSS, this looks like a close double, or perhaps another companion galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC2602</oname> See NGC2600. </object> <object><oname>NGC2603</oname> See NGC2600. </object> <object><oname>NGC2605</oname> See NGC2600. </object> <object><oname>NGC2606</oname> See NGC2600. </object> <object><oname>NGC2617</oname>is the brighter and western of two galaxies (it is MCG -01-22-026). The NGC position, from Stephan's careful micrometric measurements, is within a few arcseconds of being correct, so I'm puzzled by the occasional misidentification of this NGC number with the eastern galaxy (MCG -01-22-027). This is especially disconcerting since the eastern galaxy is considerably fainter as well. Oh, well. </object> <object><oname>NGC2618</oname> See IC518. </object> <object><oname>NGC2623</oname> See IC2386. </object> <object><oname>NGC2629</oname> See NGC2630. </object> <object><oname>NGC2630</oname>and NGC2631. These two objects were found by Tempel (apparently in 1883), and described in his note in AN 2660. Of the twelve novae mentioned in the note, these are the only two not listed in his table. It is remarkable, too, that he nevertheless describes them as "much brighter" than NGC2629 and NGC2641, both seen and measured by the Herschels and by d'Arrest. At the moment, my feeling is that Tempel confused NGC2633 with NGC2629, and that his pair is actually NGC2634 and NGC2634A. These two galaxies are the only ones in the group that are close enough to be actually called a "pair." However, while N2634 is bright enough to rival the earlier observers' discoveries in the area, N2634A is certainly not. It's just conceiveable, however, that on a night of exceptional transparency, the pair may have stood out enough to capture Tempel's attention. He was, in fact, so struck by their brightness -- compared to the nearby nebulae that the Herschel's and d'Arrest found -- that he suggested variablility for them. This is a pretty weak argument, however, so until Tempel's discovery sketch (which he mentions explicitly) can be examined, the question of the identities of these two NGC numbers has to remain open. So, I've simply entered the NGC positions in the table for the time being. </object> <object><oname>NGC2631</oname> See NGC2630. </object> <object><oname>NGC2633</oname> See NGC2630. </object> <object><oname>NGC2634</oname> See NGC2630. </object> <object><oname>NGC2637</oname>is one of two galaxies found in the eastern part of the Beehive by Marth in 1864 (the other is NGC2643, which see). Both are placed by Marth too far south by about 10 arcmin, and too far east by 6 and 18 seconds, respectively. The eight other objects that Marth found that same night show no such offsets from the true positions, but these two are reasonably consistent with each other, and are fairly close on the sky. I'll take the identifications since nothing else in the area matches. </object> <object><oname>NGC2641</oname> See NGC2630. </object> <object><oname>NGC2643</oname><oname>IC2390</oname>. This identity, first suggested by Reinmuth, was taken up by RNGC. The object was found by Marth in 1864. Correcting his position by 18 seconds of time and 11 arcmin leads to IC2390. The IC object matches Marth's description, and there is no other object in the area (the east edge of the Beehive) that would fit better. NGC2637 (which see), found by Marth the same night, also suffers from a declination error of 8 arcmin of the same sign, though the RA is only off by 6 seconds. </object> <object><oname>NGC2653</oname>is a double star. It was found and well-described by Tempel who placed it 12 arcmin north of NGC2655. That is very close to the actual distance, and the identity is not in doubt. (Carlson notes that the Lick observers corrected the declination to 10 arcmin further north. There is a much fainter asterism in that position, but it does not have the eye-catching appearance of Tempel's double.) </object> <object><oname>NGC2655</oname> See NGC2653. </object> <object><oname>NGC2666</oname> JH's description reads only, "The chief * of a coarse cluster." There is nothing resembling this at his position (08 46 36, +47 14.8; 1950). However, a group of about a dozen stars around SAO 42564 (08 46 24, +44 53.5) does match. Could this be the "cluster" that JH found? A more thorough search of the sky at more reasonable offsets (1 hour, 10 deg, etc.) needs to be done, though. The SAO star happens to be in the same POSS1 field, but there could be other candidates in other fields. </object> <object><oname>NGC2667</oname><oname>IC2410</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC2674</oname> Though Ormond Stone had doubts about this object, his RA is just one minute of time off, and his declination is good. Aside from his note, "neb?" his estimated magnitude (16.0) and diameter (0.4 arcmin) are appropriate for the object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2684</oname> See NGC2688. </object> <object><oname>NGC2686</oname> See NGC2688. </object> <object><oname>NGC2687</oname> See NGC2688. </object> <object><oname>NGC2688</oname>and NGC2689. I've identified these using LdR's sketch. Though he saw the two objects on only one night, the sketch is a fair depiction of the sky in the area of NGC2684. It also shows the bright galaxy, it shows NGC 2686 to be double in the correct orientation, and it shows NGC2687 as well; all in their correct relative positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC2689</oname> See NGC2688. </object> <object><oname>NGC2696</oname>may be MCG -01-23-004. The description and declination are close to those recorded by Stone, though the RA is about 4 minutes of time off (Stone's RA is further east -- this is in the same direction as many other of his poor positions from the first two lists of Leander McCormick discoveries). </object> <object><oname>NGC2699</oname> See NGC2700. </object> <object><oname>NGC2700</oname> 2702, 2703, 2705, and 2707 are almost certainly all stars, with 2703 being a double. Found by Tempel (and word of them apparently sent directly to Dreyer -- I can find no mention of them in Tempel's ten papers), there are no nebulae near NGC2699 that he might have seen. The positions given in NGC fall only near stars. The 2 deg error in the NPD of NGC2700 is apparently a typo. The descriptions are reasonably apt for the stars, however. NGC2700 is within an arcminute northeast of N2699, NGC2703 is indeed "little extended" as one might expect of a double faintly seen, N2705 has three stars following it with which it forms a trapezoid, and N2702 is about 4 arcmin northeast of NGC2699. Only NGC2707 has no additional description (it is only "eF, S"), but its position is close to a star that might have a faint, close companion that would enhance its appearance of nebulosity. So, while the positions are not exactly on the stars, and the identities are clearly not sure, what little evidence we have suggests that they are appropriate, if not completely correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC2702</oname>is a probably star. See NGC2700 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2703</oname>is a double star. See NGC2700 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2704</oname><oname>IC2424</oname>. This is an identity first suggested by Bigourdan who found and measured I2424 on 18 March 1892. He could not, however, find the NGC galaxy at WH's position. Since that is just a minute of time preceding I2424, the brightest galaxy in the area, the identity is almost certain. Dreyer has a note about this in his 1912 paper and in his Notes to WH's observations; he, too, accepted the identity of the two nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC2705</oname>is probably a star. See NGC2700 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2707</oname>is perhaps a star. See NGC2700 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2708</oname><oname>NGC2727</oname>. I apologize for this missing story. I'll get to it. In the meantime, see IC2425 for a brief mention. </object> <object><oname>NGC2719</oname>may possibly be NGC2724, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC2724</oname>is most likely UGC 4726 with an error of almost a minute of time in RA. It's just possible, however, that the NGC number refers to NGC2719 since JH found that during another sweep. And U4726 is as far north of JH's declination as N2719 is south (about 2 arcmin). But N2719 is another 45 seconds west of U4726, so would require a larger RA correction. Thus, my preference is to set N2724 = U4726. </object> <object><oname>NGC2727</oname><oname>NGC2708</oname>. I apologize for this missing story. I'll get to it. In the meantime, see IC2425 for a brief mention. </object> <object><oname>NGC2736</oname> On the SERC IIIa-J film, this appears to be the brightest patch in a supernova remnant that covers most of the 6.4 deg field with delicate whisps of nebulosity. On the ESO IIIa-F film, however, it is much brighter than the rest of the SNr, and I wonder if the relatively bright star immersed in it is exciting it as it passes by. In either case, it is certainly a diffuse gaseous nebula, not a galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC2741</oname> Marth's RA is 1 minute too far east. This misled Dreyer into noting the galaxy as the first of two (the second is NGC2745, given its correct RA by Marth). Marth's declination is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC2745</oname> Marth's position is good. Dreyer mistakenly added the note, "f of 2." See NGC2741. </object> <object><oname>NGC2753</oname> The NGC position, from d'A, is one minute of time off. This is an improvement over N3575 and N3760, found the same night, which both have errors of 1 hour in the positions listed by d'A. See them for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC2754</oname> See NGC2757. </object> <object><oname>NGC2757</oname>is probably a triple star. It and two other objects, NGC2754 and NGC2758, were found by Frank Muller at Leander McCormick in 1886 or 1887. This is one case where the Leander McCormick discovery positions are quite good, so the identities of N2754 and 2758 with two neighboring galaxies are not in doubt. However, the third position of Muller's trio falls in a region where only stars are found. Herbert Howe, working with the 16-inch at Chamberlain Observatory in Denver around the turn of the century, noticed a double star near Muller's place. This is a relatively bright (15th magnitude), wide (12 arcsec) double, and I'd be surprised if Muller mistook it for a nebula in the 26-inch, even on a night of rather poor seeing. The 26-inch is optically quite good, and will certainly show fainter objects with considerably more clarity than any 16-inch, all else being equal. About an arcminute south-south-following the double star, however, is a triple star of about the same total magnitude. The separation of the components is much less than the separation of the double's two stars. The triple was in fact picked up as a single non-stellar object by the Guide Star Catalogue software. My guess is that this is actually the object that Muller mistook as nebulous. The position, while a minute or so further from Muller's than the double star's position, is well within the usual Leander McCormick standard deviation. So, while we can't be certain about the identification (there is no surviving sketch), I'm going to take the triple as NGC2757. </object> <object><oname>NGC2758</oname> See NGC2757. </object> <object><oname>NGC2760</oname>might possibly be CGCG 350-021 -- there is certainly nothing near Swift's position that matches his description. In particular, he notes "nearly between *8 and *9." The stars flanking the CGCG object are at least two magnitudes fainter, so I don't want to push this identification too hard. </object> <object><oname>NGC2783</oname> See IC2449. </object> <object><oname>NGC2804</oname>probably = IC2455, which see. The NGC identification is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC2806</oname>is a star, and is certainly not the galaxy listed in RNGC. It is in just the place noted by Dreyer in Lord Rosse's observations. Here is Dreyer's description of the object: "A vF * or cS, eF neb p [N2809] (sky bad), forming an equilateral triangle with [2807] and [2809] (susp as neb by d'A, = [N2806])." Dreyer's descriptions and offsets for other objects in the field are exact, so there is no mistaking the true identity of N2806. </object> <object><oname>NGC2807</oname> See NGC2806. </object> <object><oname>NGC2809</oname> See NGC2806. </object> <object><oname>NGC2823</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2825</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2826</oname> See NGC2829 and NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2827</oname><oname>IC2460</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2828</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2829</oname>is most likely the faint galaxy that I've included in the position table. This is tolerably close to the position shown in LdR's diagram. On the other hand, it may be a star, also close to the position in the diagram. In addition, it is sometimes identified with a faint double galaxy, but that is exactly on the line between NGC2826 and NGC2830 -- in the diagram, the object is well off to the east. </object> <object><oname>NGC2830</oname> See NGC2829 and NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2831</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2832</oname>is the brightest galaxy in Abell 779, and was seen by WH and JH. The younger Herschel also picked up another galaxy in the area, as did d'Arrest, but it remained for Lord Rosse's 72-inch Leviathan to reveal the cluster of a dozen or so galaxies around the brightest. These are NGC2823, 2825-2834, and 2839. Lord Rosse made micrometric measurements of only six of these (with respect to the brightest), but JH received notes from the Earl that allowed him (JH) to give good positions in the GC for six others. He had to give the remaining two of the 15 claimed nebulae estimated positions. In spite of JH's care, the GC is rather confused in the area. When Dreyer came around to the group during his preparation of LdR's observations, he sorted the area out pretty well, and the NGC reflects his careful work. In the process, he dropped two of the GC numbers, and combined two others so that the total number of nebulae here seen by LdR is just 12 -- the sketch shows those twelve in their correct relative positions. Only for NGC2829 (which see) is there any uncertainty left about the identifications. </object> <object><oname>NGC2833</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2834</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2839</oname> See NGC2832. </object> <object><oname>NGC2843</oname> In spite of the faintness of this galaxy, and its proximity to the considerably brighter star, it is almost surely the object that WH found. He is cautious in his description, noting that it took 240X to show the object and the star. His position is just an arcminute east, too, well within his usual observational error. </object> <object><oname>NGC2846</oname>is a double star. This was found by Lord Rosse (or by his observer at the time, Ralph Copeland) who thought it a star with a very small nebula nearby. Even though no accurate position is given, micrometric offsets to nearby stars positively identify the star they thought nebulous. A few years later, Lord Rosse (or Dreyer, who was then the resident observer at Parsonstown) reobserved the object, but could see no nebulosity. Instead, he suggested a very small cluster. A correction to the position, by Bigourdan, appeared in the Notes to the first IC. However, there is some error in Bigourdan's observation, since his offsets point to a blank region of sky. Just north of his position is a 15th magnitude star; another is just west. He probably saw one or the other of these. In any case, he missed Lord Rosse's double star, so we have to discount his correction. My first thought was to accept the first observation of the single star as N2846, but Glen Deen pointed out that the two star images are actually in contact on the Sky Survey. While they would not have been merged on a fairly good night at the 72-inch, they are still clearly close enough together to have misled some veteran observers into believing that one star was nebulous, or that there was a cluster present. Since the NGC itself accepts the second observation, it seems best to follow that. </object> <object><oname>NGC2871</oname>is a star just north-preceding NGC2872. Lord Rosse has two detailed observations of the N2872/4 group, one of which includes micrometrically measured offsets which point exactly at the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC2872</oname> See NGC2871. </object> <object><oname>NGC2874</oname> See NGC2875. </object> <object><oname>NGC2875</oname> This is the north-following part of NGC2874. Lord Rosse's micrometrically measured offsets point exactly at the rather knotty spiral arm, and his description is consistent with the appearance on the Sky Survey. </object> <object><oname>NGC2885</oname><oname>IC538</oname>. John Herschel saw this on only one night. The RA is marked with a plus-minus sign, and his description reads, "eF, vS, E in parallel; RA very uncertain." His description is correct, and his RA is indeed about 25 seconds too large (there is nothing in his estimated place, not even a star). The comment "... E in parallel ..." (that is, the position angle is 90 deg) fits no other galaxy in the area. This is also the brightest galaxy around, so the identification is secure. Bigourdan made four observations of the galaxy, and his position is accurate. On the other hand, he also claims to have glimpsed "NGC2885" (on one night only; on another night, he has this as "Non vue" [not seen]) about 1.4 arcmin north of JH's place. But again, there is nothing there, not even a star. </object> <object><oname>NGC2886</oname>is probably the asterism of 4 stars about an arcminute following JH's position. There is nothing else in the area that fits his sparce description. </object> <object><oname>NGC2901</oname>may be one of the galaxies (UGC 05070, 05074, or 05087) just over a degree south of Stone's especially crude position, estimated during a search for Winnecke's comet. There is nothing closer to his position that he might have mistaken as nebulous, unless it is one of the faint double stars in the area. Wolfgang has taken one of these. </object> <object><oname>NGC2902</oname>is not IC543 (which see for details) as suggested in MCG. </object> <object><oname>NGC2903</oname> See NGC2905. </object> <object><oname>NGC2905</oname>is the northeast arm of NGC2903. JH has several observations of it in that position, as well as a sketch. The only slight mystery here is why WH made it one of his first class nebulae, ranking it in brightness with the central portion of NGC2903 itself. </object> <object><oname>NGC2909</oname>is a double star about 30 arcsec following JH's position. Several observers have suggested other identifications for it, but nothing else in the area is as convincing. See also NGC4512 for more on the sweep in which JH found this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC2911</oname> See NGC2912. </object> <object><oname>NGC2912</oname>is a star described only in Schultz's note for his observation of NGC2911. The faint galaxy close following N2911 (taken as N2912 by all and sundry) is much too faint for Schultz to have picked up with his 9.6-inch refractor, especially given the considerably brighter star just a few arcsec following (the 1950 position for the star is 09 31 12.07, +10 22 57.2). Brian Skiff has suggested that N2912 is identical to N2914. But Schultz has observations of both galaxies on the same three nights, calling N2914 nearly as bright as N2911. Furthermore, Schultz's description of N2912 "eF, f h608 [N2911] some seconds, ab[out] 2' n, but not observable" places his "nova" northeast of N2911, not southeast. The only object in the area, bright enough that he could see, that matches his estimated offsets, is the star that I list in the table. This may not be a completely solid identification, but it is pretty close. </object> <object><oname>NGC2914</oname> See NGC2912. </object> <object><oname>NGC2932</oname>is a patch of the Milky Way about 1 degree across, centered near JH's approximate position (he gives it only to a full minute of time and a full minute of arc). In his description, he notes that it is "... a degree or degree and half in diameter, very rich in stars of all magnitudes from 8 m downwards ..." This is just what we see on the IIIa-J plate today. </object> <object><oname>NGC2938</oname>was the first of fifteen nebulae found by WH in sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801. There was considerable confusion in the 19th century about the identities of these galaxies, confusion still not sorted out at the time the NGC and the IC s were published. It was, however, mostly laid to rest in an unsigned note in MNRAS 71, 509, 1911 "Communicated by the Astronomer Royal". This gives accurate positions for forty nebulae in the area covered by WH's sweep, and enabled Dreyer to finally publish (in the Scientific Papers) corrected NGC identifications for WH's galaxies. Dreyer, however, did not give cross-identifications to all of the NGC numbers, particularly those which came in from other observers (JH and d'A). I list those in my note to NGC3752 (which see), where I give a fairly detailed account of the problem and its solution. </object> <object><oname>NGC2944</oname> It has seemed strange to me that just three arcmin north-following this triple galaxy is a considerably brighter pair. Did Palisa perhaps see one of the pair rather than the galaxy we now call N2944? Tracking down Palisa's original observation to AN 2782, I found that his micrometrically measured position (based on six settings) falls within three arcsec of the GSC position of brightest of the triple. The identity is thus certain -- but why did Palisa not see the brighter galaxies just to the north? </object> <object><oname>NGC2947</oname><oname>IC547</oname><oname>IC2494</oname> is the only object that I am currently (May 2003) aware of which has an entry in all three of Dreyer's catalogues. See IC547 for details. </object> <object><oname>NGC2972</oname><oname>NGC2999</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC2973</oname>is perhaps the triple star just following JH's position. If it is indeed the correct object, JH's note "a B * 8 m follows" is somewhat misleading since the star is clearly south-following. That raises the possibility that the double star also listed in the table is JH's object. However, JH describes his object as "eF, 40 arcsec." The triple is closer to that size than the double. So, both asterisms are candidates. For the present, I favor the triple -- but not by much. </object> <object><oname>NGC2977</oname>was one of the galaxies found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801 for which large, systematic errors exist in the position. See NGC3752 for more information. </object> <object><oname>NGC2984</oname><oname>IC556</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC2995</oname>appears to be a clump of stars roughly 20-25 arcmin across centered about 10 arcmin north of JH's position. His description reads "Cluster VIII class, at least 20 sts 11 m and upwards, and many smaller." This is what we see on the IIIa-J plate, though I doubt that it is a real cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC2998</oname> See NGC3000, 3002, and 3004. </object> <object><oname>NGC2999</oname><oname>NGC2972</oname>. JH's place for N2999 is only approximate. He says, "Observed for Dunlop 397, and place only rough. Possibly the same object with Sw 680, No. 27, which see above (No. 3183 [= N2972])." This is an entirely reasonable hypothesis, and JH's descriptions are the same, so I've adopted the identity. ===== NGC3000 is a double star, accurately located by LdR's micrometric observation referred to NGC2998. </object> <object><oname>NGC3002</oname>is a star. It and NGC3004 were seen only once by LdR, and are both included in his chart of the NGC2998 field. Of the three faint stars near the place shown for NGC3002, the brightest (included in the main table) and closest to LdR's position as sketched, is most likely the one he saw. The second brightest star is at 09 45 52.0, +11 17 34. MCG +07-20-052 is a low surface brightness interacting system less than 2 arcmin southeast of the star. MCG unfortunately took this to be NGC3002, so the object has been incorrectly saddled with the NGC number ever since. </object> <object><oname>NGC3004</oname>is, like NGC3002, a star. LdR saw it only once, and included it on his chart, though did not letter it: it should be "alpha," between NGC2998 and NGC3005. </object> <object><oname>NGC3005</oname> See NGC3004. </object> <object><oname>NGC3034</oname>= M 82. The position for this large, bright irregular galaxy depends strongly on wavelength. The brightest optical knot is not coincident with the radio "nucleus" nor with the brightest infrared knot. And there are several bright X-ray sources scattered throughout the galaxy. All the positions I've listed, though, fall within the boundaries of the galaxy, and there is of course no identification problem (but note that this is one of the few Messier objects which also received a number -- IV 79 -- in WH's catalogue). </object> <object><oname>NGC3046</oname>may be NGC3051. But if it is, JH has made some strange mistake since he specifically says in a note in the GC "h3199 [N3046] and 3201 [N3051] are also distinct nebulae, and were observed consecutively in sweep 562 (h)." His CGH observation has the note "RA precarious; a hurried observation." I'm inclined to believe that the two observations refer to the same object, in spite of JH's protestations to the contrary. The descriptions are identical (as far as they go; N3046 is noted only as "pF,R" while N3051 is "pF,S,R,gbM; 20 arcsec"), and the positions are not all that much different. There are two very faint double stars near JH's position for N3046, but they are much fainter than N3051 and any other double star that I know that JH has mistaken as a nebula. This sort of mistake -- measuring the same galaxy twice in the same sweep, thinking it a different object -- has occured at least twice in his father's sweeps, and I would not doubt that it appears in JH's, too. Still, I'm listing the main entry as "Not found", and putting a question mark on the identity with N3051. Whatever the case, there is certainly only one bright galaxy here, not two as JH has it. </object> <object><oname>NGC3051</oname>may also be NGC3046, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3058</oname><oname>IC573</oname> was found by Leavenworth at Leander-McCormick. As usual, the position is poor, though it was corrected by Howe. Leavenworth did note the object as double or bi-nuclear; it is, of course, double with the southern galaxy being the brighter. See IC573 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3061</oname>was found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801. The positions of all fifteen nebulae in the sweep (No. 1096) are affected by large, systematic errors. See NGC3752 where I give the story of how it all came to be sorted out, first by Dreyer; then by myself, Steve Gottlieb, and Wolfgang Steinicke. </object> <object><oname>NGC3063</oname>is the double star southwest of NGC3065 and NGC3066. Though N3063 was first seen by WH in 1802, he apparently described it only indirectly: "F, pL, R; the last of three, the others are II 333 and II 334." The position he gives is that of NGC3066, and the description fits, too, so that is probably the object he mistakenly thought was new. If so, he also mistook the double star as one of his previous objects. His confusion was carried over through the GC and d'A's catalogue into NGC, and eventually into Dreyer's 1912 reprinting of WH's papers. I actually prefer the numbering that he has in the NGC itself as it more accurately reflects the history: NGC3065 and 3066 are the true nebulae and are II 333 and II 334, respectively, while the last object found is II 909 = NGC3063. This last object was not seen by JH, but was measured twice by d'A (his position appears in the NGC). d'A also has five or six measures of the other two objects, so he pinned down all three. </object> <object><oname>NGC3065</oname> See NGC3063. </object> <object><oname>NGC3066</oname> See NGC3063. </object> <object><oname>NGC3069</oname><oname>IC580</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3070</oname> See IC580. </object> <object><oname>NGC3080</oname>is close to IC585. Both were seen by Bigourdan who got the NGC number on the correct object. I had some question about that as his position is somewhat different from the NGC position. The NGC position apparently comes from CH; it is based on a single observation by WH who compared it to "the Georgian Planet" on 1 April 1794. After some fussing about looking for an on-line ephemeris, Brian Skiff pointed me at JPL's "Horizons". Jon Giorgini, one of Horizons maintainers, set me straight on its use, so I was able to find that Uranus was at 09 57 30.0, +13 17 24 (B1950.0) on the night that WH used it as a comparison object. This position, combined with WH's offsets (16 seconds preceding, 2 arcmin south) fell within 1.5 arcmin of NGC3080, the brighter of the two galaxies. Fortunately, not only did Bigourdan get it right, but he published a correction to the NGC position that ended up in the IC2 Notes. Even that position, however, is a bit off because he used the old BD position for his comparison star. Once that is corrected, and proper motion taken into account, his position lands within a few arcseconds of the modern ones. </object> <object><oname>NGC3097</oname> I cannot find this one. Here are the original observations from the Harvard Annals, Vol. 8, Part 1, page 62, 1882: "Date GC RA (1860.0) Dec Remarks 1870 Mar.24 -- 09 54 19.6 +60 47 58.2 G.C. 1998 s f neb; p 45 deg s 2'. [Place only approximate.] 1870 Mar.24 1998 09 54 36.7 +60 46 33.3 G.C. 1998: F; S; R; mbMN." There are three things to note about these observations: 1) The position of the second (GC 1998 = NGC3102) is from the GC. 2) The "p 45 deg s 2' " means that the first (N3097) is 2' away from GC1998 at a position angle of 45 degrees. This is inconsistent with the position which implies the object to be northwest, not northeast, of N3102. 3) Both observations are credited to E. P. Austin, and there is a note for N3097: "Perhaps a nebulous star. It is half-way between G.C. 1998 and a star 11 magn." The positions don't tell us anything we don't already know since they are correctly transfered into NGC from GC and the Harvard list. Since Austin was observing with a 15-inch telescope, I don't think that he could have seen either of the faint stars Glen Deen measured during his MicroSky project. The magnitude estimate given by Austin for the "star 11 magn" is rough since there is nothing that bright near the galaxy. WH had this to say (N3102 = H III 916): "eF, vS, Stellar. Near a S st." And JH: "F, vS, R, bM; a coarse D * nf points to it; has a * 11 30'' dist, pos 142.2 deg ." All of JH's stars are identifiable, and I think that his star 11 must be the same one mentioned by WH and by Austin. So, where does that leave N3097? My guess is that Austin has misidentified another nebula as N3102, but I don't see it or its purported companion in the area. A more thorough search may turn them up. </object> <object><oname>NGC3102</oname> See NGC3097. </object> <object><oname>NGC3107</oname> Given WH's estimated position -- "3/4 deg following, 1/2 deg north [of the] Georgian planet," it's a wonder that this object was ever recovered. However, WH also noted that the object is "3 arcmin north of a pL red star." This pair of objects is unmistakeable enough that LdR had no trouble finding it in spite of the poor position, and the confusion in the GC description ("L red star north 3 arcmin"). It must be said, however, that the GC position, presumeably from CH's reduction of WH's observations, is remarkably good, being only 6 arcmin south and 5 seconds east of the galaxy. Dreyer picked the wrong star, however, as the "red" star near the nebula. This led him to assign the wrong position to the nebula in his note in the GC Supplement, in LdR's observations, and in the NGC. The correct star is SAO 98932 (spectral type K2), not SAO 98925 (spectral type F5). Using the SAO position for the correct star, and LdR's micrometric offsets, leads to a position for the galaxy that is within an arcsecond of the GSC position. </object> <object><oname>NGC3110</oname><oname>NGC3122</oname><oname>NGC3518</oname> (= MCG -01-26-014) and MCG -01-26-013 are an interacting pair separated by 1.9'. N3110 is the brighter of the pair. N3122 is actually an observation of N3110, but WH confused his comparison stars. Stephan's position is very close to the actual position of the galaxy, but is about an arcmin off in declination. This is probably due to the incorrect declination that he quotes for his comparison star (which is not the same one that Herschel used). Both Stephan (in his 1885 AN paper) and Dreyer (in MNRAS 73, 37, 1912) suggest that the two NGC numbers refer to the same galaxy. Dreyer makes further comments in his notes to WH's first catalogue of nebulae, (included in WH's complete papers, edited by Dreyer in 1912) saying "Looked for but not found in 1787. It was the only object compared with `20 Sextantis,' but the star was in reality B.1414. This gives for 1860 9h57m04s, 95d49m, in perfect agreement with N3110 (Stephan XIII)." Stephan's position is actually 2 arcmin north of this one, but the agreement is close enough to make the identification clear. The two stars by the way, are SAO 137424 (20 Sex) and SAO 137400 (B.1414, perhaps from Bessel's catalogue). Coincidentally, there is a galaxy 2 arcmin south of WH's position. It is the one that Jack Sulentic picked up for RNGC, but it is not in MCG. The RNGC galaxy is at 10 03 47.1, -06 19 49 (GSC, B1950) and is much fainter. If WH looked for it again in 1787 at roughly this location, then I'm not surprised that he did not recover it. The identity with NGC3518 (which see), is yet another story. </object> <object><oname>NGC3119</oname>is probably the same galaxy as NGC3121. There is no doubt about the identification of N3121. This was found by William Lassell in 1848 (see AN 635, and send me a copy; I've not seen it yet myself!) with one of his smaller telescopes. It was reobserved by Arthur Auwers, who noted the 9th magnitude star 4 arcmin north and 14-15 seconds of time preceding. The position listed by Auwers (1862) is very good. N3119 was found by Albert Marth in 1863 with Lassell's 48-inch reflector. He describes it only as "vF." His position, from one observation, falls about an arcmin southwest of NGC3121; it is also 2.4 arcmin north of the galaxy that RNGC chose as N3119 (CGCG 093-045, which is considerably fainter than N3121). Marth probably could have seen CGCG 093-045. However, since his position is closer to N3121, and since that galaxy is the brightest in the area, it is more likely that Marth's observation refers to it. I have adopted this identification for those reasons. RNGC could be right -- but then, why didn't Marth mention reobserving the galaxy that his mentor had found 15 years before? Would he even know about it? Unanswerable questions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3121</oname> See NGC3119. </object> <object><oname>NGC3122</oname><oname>NGC3110</oname><oname>NGC3518</oname> (both of which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC3129</oname>is a double star seen by both WH and JH. WH's position, adopted by JH, is good, and both descriptions are appropriate. It appears, however, that LdR must have seen it as a star or a double star, as he could not find any nebulosity at WH's position on three different nights. Dreyer has a note in NGC to that effect. </object> <object><oname>NGC3140</oname>and NGC3141. The field exactly matches the sketch that Leavenworth made, and his descriptions also match, down to the bright nucleus in the brighter galaxy. His original descriptions make it clear that the galaxy that got the smaller NGC number is actually the brighter, northeast member of the pair. Here are his data from AJ 7, 9, 1886: No. RA (1890) Dec Mag Size Form Condensation [NGC] 166 10 04 16 06 15.5 0.5' R sbMN [3140] 167 10 04 16 06 16.0 0.3 R --- [3141] Dreyer has added the notes "1st of 2" and "2nd of 2." I suspect that he thought that the larger and brighter galaxy was the preceding since it was listed first in the table. That turns out to be wrong, unfortunately, so the NGC numbers are reversed from the right ascensions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3141</oname> See NGC3140. </object> <object><oname>NGC3144</oname><oname>NGC3174</oname>. D'A found NGC3144 in the late 1850s and measured its place pretty accurately. NGC3174 is from WH's 2 April 1801 sweep 1096 which was affected by a large, systematic error of some sort. See NGC3752 for more on this sweep, and how we sorted it out. </object> <object><oname>NGC3148</oname>is probably only a star. JH's description reads "A star 7m has a photosphere 2 or 3 arcmin diam. Sky perfectly clear; glass quite clean; windy. Another * of same mag viewed presently after has no photosphere." There is certainly no bright nebulosity that large around the star, and it is not a double or multiple star, either. JH has a couple of other stars which he suspected of nebulosity, too, which show none today. These must be illusions of some sort, though very difficult to account for. </object> <object><oname>NGC3155</oname><oname>NGC3194</oname>. NGC3155 was found by JH and later remeasured by d'A. Their position, used in the NGC, is quite accurate. NGC3194 is from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the nebulae in that sweep have large, systematic position problems. See NGC3752 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3157</oname><oname>IC2555</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3162</oname><oname>NGC3575</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3167</oname> I can't find this object; there is nothing at all in d'A's position. The only reasonable asterism nearby (a triple, composed of a close double with a fainter single just north, about 4 arcmin northeast) does not have the "* 11 preceding 9.5 seconds, slightly north" that d'A notes in his description. If this is a bad position, it is one of the few in d'A's list (there are some, of course; see NGC3575 and NGC3966 for examples). </object> <object><oname>NGC3170</oname>is a double star. JH's position is just an arcminute south- southwest, and the double is very much like the several others that he mistook as nebulae. Interestingly, the double is also Reiz 248. I do not have Reiz's catalogue available, but would suspect that he picked up the object from the NGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC3174</oname><oname>NGC3144</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3180</oname>is a star cloud or HII region in NGC3184's northwestern arm. The position in NGC(by Dreyer from LdR's observations) fits the star cloud better, but the HII region is brighter, though smaller. The number may well apply to both objects or simply the general area of the arm where they are found. There is no problem with the identification of NGC3181 -- it is the brightest HII region in NGC3184, located southwest of the nucleus. </object> <object><oname>NGC3181</oname>is an HII region in NGC3184. See NGC3180. </object> <object><oname>NGC3183</oname><oname>NGC3218</oname>. NGC3183, found by d'A, has an accurate position given in the NGC. NGC3218, found by WH on 2 April 1801, does not; all the galaxies found that night have large, systematic position errors. See NGC3752 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3184</oname> See NGC3180. </object> <object><oname>NGC3186</oname>is perhaps the northeastern component of CGCG 036-074. There is nothing at Marth's position, and the CGCG galaxy is 1 minute 30 seconds preceding and 6 arcmin south. There are, however, "sev F sts near" as noted in the NGC. This is not true of the nearer, though fainter, candidate galaxy, CGCG 036-085 (20 seconds following, 5 arcmin south). But -- the NGC note about the nearby faint stars is not in Marth's original description. Dreyer had added it by the time he published the GC Supplement in 1878, but I have not been able to trace the source of the note. It is not in LdR's observations, and Dreyer has no reference in the Supplement. Given that uncertainty, I'm reluctant to discount either galaxy. Nor is there a systematic offset in Marth's positions for the other 25 objects he credits to the same date, 1865.23. NGC3186 seems to be the only object from that date with a large offset from Marth's position. All in all, not a very satisfactory identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC3191</oname><oname>NGC3192</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3192</oname><oname>NGC3191</oname>. WH's NPD is -9 arcmin in error, close enough to 10 to make this pretty clearly a digit mistake in reduction or copying. WH's description, "eF, vS. Perhaps a patch of small stars" is also appropriate for NGC3191 which has several OX knots in it. The identity was first suggested by JH, and was later taken up by Dreyer. </object> <object><oname>NGC3194</oname><oname>NGC3155</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3197</oname>was found by WH on 2 April 1801. All fifteen objects he found this night are more or less affected by large position errors. See NGC3752 for more on the sweep (No. 1096). </object> <object><oname>NGC3210</oname>is a close double star about an arcminute west-northwest of NGC3212. WH's description is appropriate, and his position (for three objects; the third is NGC3215) is good. There is another star of similar magnitude about 23 arcsec preceding the double; is it possible that WH glimpsed this, too? If so, it would probably have added to the illusion of nebulosity. </object> <object><oname>NGC3212</oname> See NGC3210. </object> <object><oname>NGC3215</oname> See NGC3210. </object> <object><oname>NGC3218</oname><oname>NGC3183</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3220</oname><oname>IC604</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3223</oname><oname>IC2571</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3229</oname>is a triple star. It is very close to Coolidge's position, and is similar to several other asterisms discovered at Harvard in the early 1850's. The hours of RA (20) in the NGC is a typo there, not in the original paper in AN. </object> <object><oname>NGC3231</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC3234</oname>is almost certainly = NGC3235. JH's position is exactly 1 degree north, and his description fits. Dreyer was the first to suggest the identity and his NGC note documents his idea. Unfortunately, his note in IC1 confuses the issue: "3234 is not = 3235; both seen by Denning." While I've not seen Denning's observation (it is not in his short paper about the circumpolar nebulae where he announces the discovery of several IC objects), I suspect that he must have picked up the two objects that d'A found: N3232 and N3234. There is certainly nothing nebulous at the nominal position for N3234, and the exact 1 degree error in JH's position argues convincingly for Dreyer's first interpretation. </object> <object><oname>NGC3235</oname><oname>NGC3234</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3247</oname> JH's position is approximate. Though he has three observations of this, only one -- and possibly not even that -- was made on the meridian. The only thing matching his descriptions "Stars involved in evident nebula," "A decidedly nebulous group," and "There is a nebulous appearance, which merits re-examination," is the HII region I've listed in the table with its attached cluster. Brian Skiff identifies this cluster as "Westerlund 1", but Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters" corrects this to "Westerlund 2". Brent also notes that Collinder 220 is often mistakenly called "N3247", as it is in ESO -- and indeed was here until I stumbled across the little cluster in the 2MASS Extended Source Catalog. The nebula shows nicely in the DSS2 red image where it is about 6 x 4 arcmin across. The correct identification was first made by Stewart on a Harvard plate (and included by Dreyer as an IC2 Note), but his position is about 3 arcmin southwest of the center of the object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3251</oname><oname>IC2579</oname>. D'Arrest's RA is just 1 minute of time off, an error first suggested by Dreyer in a note to IC2, as well as in the description for IC2579. The galaxy is positively identified by d'A's note about the three stars to the southwest. There is no problem with Javelle's observation for the IC entry -- it is accurate. </object> <object><oname>NGC3252</oname>has a two minute error in its RA and a 4 arcmin error in its Dec. But it is far enough north that the RA error amounts to just over 8 arcmin, so there is no mistaking the bright galaxy that WH found. </object> <object><oname>NGC3261</oname> See NGC3366. </object> <object><oname>NGC3267</oname> See NGC3271. </object> <object><oname>NGC3268</oname> See NGC3271. </object> <object><oname>NGC3269</oname> See NGC3271. </object> <object><oname>NGC3271</oname><oname>IC2585</oname> has an error of 20 seconds in its NGC RA. The NGC identity is not in doubt as it is one of the four bright galaxies in the area, and JH has four nebulae in a group listed in his CGH Observations. However, his observations are a bit confused since he mentions a fifth nebula "... more remote and brighter ..." in his description for NGC3268. Since there are only the four entries (corresponding to N3267, N3268, N3269, as well as N3271) in his CGH list, and since he mentions only four nebulae appearing in the diagram (not published) made during Sweep 571, we now have no way of knowing where he saw his fifth nebula. Aside from the 20 second RA error, the positions he adopted from the diagram for the CGH list and the GC (copied into the NGC, of course) are good enough to unambiguously identify his four listed objects, so it is unlikely that any of them are the fifth object. It's also clear that Stewart picked up the galaxy (on a Bruce plate taken at Arequipa) because of the RA error. Thus, it also carries the IC number. However, Stewart makes no mention of any of the NGC objects in the group. This is particularly puzzling since he obviously thought that N3271 was missing. Still, his position for it is good, and the identity with IC2585 is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC3272</oname>is a double star. Schultz's position is within an arcsecond of the modern position, and his complete description (F, vS, iR, stellar, r, m=12-13) fits perfectly. He also has a note that reads, "Nova VI an insignificant object; p h721 [= NGC3277] about 68 seconds and 160 arcsec south; ..." Those distances also exactly point to the double. </object> <object><oname>NGC3277</oname> See NGC3272. </object> <object><oname>NGC3283</oname>is ESO 263-G48. JH puts a plus-minus sign on the RA and notes "RA coarsely taken by an auxillary star." In addition to the uncertain RA is the GC (and NGC) NPD -- it is 10 arcmin too small. This must be an error in transcribing/precessing the CGH position into the GC. Once these are taken into account, ESO 263-G48 is the obvious candidate. </object> <object><oname>NGC3284</oname><oname>NGC3286</oname> is the brighter of two galaxies found by WH in April of 1793 (the fainter is NGC3288). The number N3284 applies to H III 912 seen on the 8th of April, while N3286 belongs to III 917, found the next night along with N3288 = III 918. The GC/NGC position of N3284 is 10 seconds too small (presumeably a reduction or transcription error) compared to my re-reduction of WH's position, so Dreyer did not comment on the possible identity until he prepared WH's papers for their 1912 publication. There he also notes that Bigourdan did not find N3284. A few other objects found the same night by WH show no systematic offset in their re-reduced positions, so the declination offset implied by the identity with N3286 is unique to III 912. The explanation adopted by RNGC(N3284 is a star) is considerably less likely. </object> <object><oname>NGC3286</oname><oname>NGC3284</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3288</oname> See NGC3284. </object> <object><oname>NGC3291</oname>is a star exactly at Bigourdan's position. Though he could not find it on a second night, his two measurements on the first are accurate. In addition, his comment "NGC3294 is toward PA = 35 deg, d = 4.5 arcmin" is also correct. The identity is thus certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC3294</oname> See NGC3291. </object> <object><oname>NGC3301</oname><oname>NGC3760</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3308</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC3309</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC3311</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC3314</oname> See NGC3315. </object> <object><oname>NGC3315</oname> My original thought that this might just be a duplicate observation of NGC3314 is unlikely since the discoverer E.P. Austin has an observation of N3314 on the same night. Also, Austin's description refers to a "star np neb 1 arcmin." While there is a star 1 arcmin northwest of NGC3314, it is actually fainter than another star much nearer the pair, also on the north side. So, I now support the idea that there is a 30 arcmin error in Austin's declination (which was not micrometrically measured as some of his were), and that NGC3315 is actually ESO 501-G48. RC3, therefore, is most likely correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC3324</oname> See IC2599, the southern part of the NGC object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3328</oname>is probably a pair of stars near Peters's position. Spitaler's position given in a note in IC1, is for another pair of stars about 5 arcmin southwest. Both observers saw and measured NGC3332 (which see) when they worked on N3328, and both have good positions for that. Since Peters saw both objects on two different nights, I've taken the stars nearer his position as the most likely object. Spitaler's is also possible, but that would demand an error in Peters's relative positions, possible on one night, but unlikely on two. Dreyer also credits N3328 to Tempel, but Tempel gives no position in his fifth paper, so it is not now possible to tell exactly what he was looking at. He records two observations, however, so -- like Peters -- the objects must have appeared nebulous under even pretty good conditions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3329</oname><oname>NGC3397</oname>. NGC3329 was found by JH; his position is only an arcmin off the galaxy. NGC3397, on the other hand, was found by his father in sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801 -- all fifteen of the galaxies that WH found in that sweep have very large, systematic errors in their positions. See NGC3752 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3332</oname><oname>NGC3342</oname> (which see) is probably the galaxy measured by Schoenfeld and Vogel, and mentioned in the notes to the GC Supplement by Dreyer. WH's first observation for H I 272 was refered to Uranus (his "Georgian Planet") and reduces to a place several arcmin away from the galaxy. But it is the only one in the area bright enough that he could have seen it, and the description fits as well. The galaxy is also number 24 in David Todd's list published as part of his search for a "trans-Neptunian" planet. His sketch matches the sky very well, but his position, like WH's, is not very good. This must be one of the Todd objects for which Dreyer suspected an identity with a known nebula, as he does not mention Todd's observation of this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3335</oname> See IC625. </object> <object><oname>NGC3339</oname>is a faint star preceding NGC3340. Marth's positions for both objects (found the same night) are good, and his descriptions apt. </object> <object><oname>NGC3340</oname> See NGC3339. </object> <object><oname>NGC3342</oname><oname>NGC3332</oname> (which see). WH did not do well with his positions for this galaxy. His first observation of it (on 18 Jan 1784 as III 5), fully related by Dreyer in the 1912 Papers, reads "The faintest and smallest nebula imaginable. I viewed it a long while and with a higher power than the sweeper. Having no person at the clock, I went in to write down the time and found it impossible to recover the nebula. It appeared like a vS nebulous star, and is probably of the cometic sort; there was another vS star south- following (I think, or rather, am pretty sure), and it preceded a pB * [the nebula is south-preceding of a star by a diagram, about 6 arcmin][JLED]. It should have been secured before I went into the light. Its place must be about 2 1/2 deg following rho Leonis and about 10 arcmin more north than that star." WH's vivid description of the field is clear enough to unmistakeably identify N3342 with N3332, even though his position is over 2 minutes of time, and 15 arcmin off. Dreyer notes that neither Spitaler nor Bigourdan could find the object -- understandably, given the data they had. He has two other observations, somewhat better, of it as H I 272 (= N3332), but even those led to questions about its position. </object> <object><oname>NGC3345</oname>is a double star found by JH. He was looking for his father's H I 26, but did not find it at WH's position. That position turns out to be just one minute of time preceding, and 20 arcmin north of M 95 (N3351), the description fits the bright galaxy, and WH did not mention M 95 in the sweep; so -- as Dreyer suggested -- H I 26 is probably an observation of Messier's object. JH's position for the double is good, though he seems to have doubted his observation, calling the object "eF, hardly visible." Though Dreyer adopted JH's description as well as position for the NGC, he noted the identity with H I 26 as very questionable, and also noted that neither he nor d'A could find anything at JH's place. The GC entry is an amalgam of WH's description ("cB, pL, E, mbM") and JH's position. Dreyer recognized the discrepancy between the descriptions, so cleaned up the entry for the NGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC3351</oname>= M 95 = H I 26. See NGC3345. </object> <object><oname>NGC3355</oname>could be any of a number of galaxies scattered over a 3x3 degree area near the nominal position. Found by S. P. Langley with Harvard's 15-inch refractor in April of 1866, he noted the position as "approximate." He was looking for Biela's comet at the time, so apparently recorded only a crude position for his nebula. ESO and SGC took the large late-type galaxy ESO 501-G079 as the most likely candidate, but this has a very low surface brightness and would be difficult to see in a long-focus telescope. A more likely candidate is ESO 501-G080, a "normal" early-type object with a surface brightness two magnitudes brighter than G079. Langley's position, however, does not fall very close to either object, so without further information, these identifications can be no more than suggestions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3366</oname><oname>IC2592</oname>. JH has a note: "The minute of RA is doubtful. The written record makes it 47; but as this is impossible from the context, 37 is assumed." Dreyer only noted in NGC that the RA was "very doubtful" and that the bright star that JH saw nearby was not in two catalogues. The actual RA is 27; that is allowed by the context of the sweep. The next non-stellar object in the sweep is NGC3446 at RA 10 44 44.6 (B1830), and the preceding object is NGC3261 at 10 21 46.6 (again B1830). JH assumed a 10 minute error, but the actual 20 minute error still fits into the sweep. The galaxy was rediscovered by Delisle Stewart on an Arequipa plate taken about 70 years after JH's sweep. Stewart made no errors in this entry, but he also did not note that NGC3366 was missing. Perhaps the nominal position is off the edge of his plate. Since he used a one-hour plate (number 3636), he did not give the central position. </object> <object><oname>NGC3371</oname>is probably NGC3384, and NGC3373 is probably NGC3389. JH's descriptions are appropriate for the galaxies, and his measured position angles -- 68.4 deg between his first and second objects, and 156.8 deg between his second and third -- are a close match for those between N3379 and N3384 (66.5 deg), and N3384 and N3389 (154.7 deg), especially when precession is taken into account. However, JH has left us positions that suggest that these are companions of NGC3367, not NGC3379. His position for N3367, the nominal first of the three, exactly matches the position for that object measured on another night when the additional two objects were not seen. Added to this is his observation of N3389 on the same night the two questionable objects were seen. Even so, my feeling is that he has somehow confused his observations of N3367 and N3379 on the night when he also measured the two companions. Adding more mystery to the case is Peters's comment: "[N3371] was distinctly seen by me 1880, Mar. 2; but [GC]2198, the third of the 'triple nebula,' could not be found." There are two faint stars within two arcmin of JH's nominal position for N3371; perhaps Peters saw one of these. Dreyer notes in the GC Supplement that no other observer had seen either N3371 or N3373 at JH's positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3373</oname>is probably identical with NGC3389. See NGC3371. </object> <object><oname>NGC3382</oname>is probably just two stars, if it is indeed anything on the sky. It was found by the fourth Earl of Rosse on 5 April 1874, who provided this description: "About 4 min p [NGC3432]. pF, cL, R, bM, *14 mag in centre. *9 Pos 238.0, Dist 173.7." There is no nebula within a reasonably large field around the nominal position that matches that description. On 24 March 1878, LdR (or his observer at the time, Dreyer himself) noted "4.0 min p and 6 arcmin +- n of [N3432]. vF, S, irr R, only a S group of sts. *9 Pos 192.0 deg, Dist 162.9 arcsec." This position is about an arcmin east- northeast of two faint stars where there is nothing else to be seen. There is a 10th mag star south-southwest of the widely-separated pair, but neither its distance (about 160 arcsec) nor position angle (about 192 deg) from the pair closely match the first of LdR's measurements. The agreement with Dreyer's measurements, though, lends some credence to the identification, though. I've entered the mean position of the two stars in the main table, but it seems more likely to me that LdR misidentified his reference galaxy: rather than being N3432, it is perhaps some other object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3384</oname>is probably also NGC3371, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3385</oname> See NGC3386. </object> <object><oname>NGC3386</oname>and NGC3387. John Herschel found these two and NGC3385 (which is 4 arcmin south of N3386). They were reobserved by d'Arrest whose positions for N3385 and N3386 match Herschel's. However, d'Arrest placed N3387 very close following N3386. The Sky Survey shows nothing near d'Arrest's place except a very faint star that Herschel did not mention. The NGC adopted d'Arrest's position for NGC3387. This turned out to be a mistake because very close to Herschel's position is what first looks like a double star, but is actually a star and a compact, high surface brightness galaxy. There is a star north following this double object that could well be Herschel's "B* near." Additional notes: CGCG calls the northern object "N3386/87" and notes it as a "double nebula." The MCG also calls it "N3386-7," but assigns the companion a magnitude of 19 and places it 0.3' north preceding -- which describes its position and appearance exactly, and which makes it far too faint and in the wrong position relative to N3386 to have been seen by Herschel or d'Arrest. </object> <object><oname>NGC3387</oname> See NGC3386. </object> <object><oname>NGC3388</oname> found by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector, is probably NGC3425. The declination is about right; and though Common's RA is 3 min too small, he marked it "+-" and his brief description ("F, R") is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>NGC3389</oname>is probably also NGC3373. See NGC3371 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC3392</oname> See NGC3394 and NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC3394</oname> JH's RA -- adopted in the GC and NGC-- is 45 seconds too large. WH's RA is much closer to the truth, though we can't blame JH for preferring his position to his father's. Dreyer noticed the difference but, lacking any other observations, could do no more than comment on it. The only confusion that this causes is with NGC3392 which is about 4 arcmin northeast, not northwest as implied by JH's observations. Though WH's positions are 2-3 arcmin northwest of the objects, his relative position is good, as are his (and JH's) descriptions. Most modern catalogues seem to have got the identities straight. Also see NGC4512 for more on the sweep in which JH found this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3395</oname><oname>IC2613</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3396</oname> See IC2613. </object> <object><oname>NGC3397</oname><oname>NGC3329</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3398</oname><oname>IC644</oname>. Considerable confusion has surrounded the identification of this object and its neighboring galaxies. The original observation is due to William Herschel, who found a "vF, S, E 20deg sp nf, er" nebulae on 17 April 1789 2m 11s preceding, 0d 50' north of 44 UMa. Reducing these offsets, taking the proper motion of 44 UMa into account, gives the position (for 1950) 10 48 24, +55 41.1. There are four galaxies in the area that might be the one that Herschel saw. Here are data for them: RA (1950.0) Dec B_t PA Type MCG CGCG UGC Notes 10 48 29.0 +55 39 25 14.55 73 SA:(rs:)ab? +09-18-038 267-18 5954 * superposed 0.55 sp 10 48 31.8 +55 43 51 15.6 130 SA:(rs?)0^+ +09-18-039 267-19 -- 10 48 44.8 +55 39 04 -- 55: E2/S0^-: +09-18-041 -- -- 10 48 59.9 +55 51 56 14.82 20 SAB(s)cd III +09-18-043 267-22 5976 Sev F sts, knots, comps near On the face of it, UGC 5976 is the most likely candidate: it is second brightest, the position angle is correct, it is knotty, and it is the largest of the galaxies in the area. However, its position is well off of Herschel's, and it has the lowest surface brightness of any of the galaxies here. I think it is doubtful that Herschel would have picked it up while sweeping. Instead, Herschel's position falls near UGC 5954, the brightest galaxy of the four, and also the one with the highest surface brightness. This means that it is the one that Herschel would be most likely to see. The position angle is at least in the correct quadrant, and Herschel's note "extremely mottled" could well be due the presence of the star near south-preceding combined with the galaxy's bright nucleus and pseudo-ring of uneven brightness. Still, visual verification of this theory would be nice to have. Finally, the identity of the two IC objects in the area -- I644 and I646 -- is unambiguous. While Swift's positions are often none too good, they are at least adequate in this case. The offset in RA is about 12 time-seconds for both, while the declinations are within a minute of arc. I644 turns out to be identical to NGC3398, while I646 is MCG +09-18-039. </object> <object><oname>NGC3401</oname>is lost. WH was the only one to observe it, his observation was apparently rushed (his description reads only, "eF, no time to verify"), and his data are not internally consistent. His table places it 5 min 42 sec preceding and 23 arcmin south of 56 Leonis. However, in his note in the 1912 Scientific Papers, Dreyer says, "In the sweep, it is 1.9 min p, 3 arcmin n of II 131 [N3423]." Reducing these two offsets leads to positions separated by 1 min and 5 arcmin. There is nothing at either position. Between five to ten arcmin southeast of the position reduced from the N3423 offset (10 46 45, +06 09.5; B1950.0), there are one or two asterisms of stars that WH might have picked up. The positions are far enough off, however, that I doubt these stars are WH's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3402</oname>is most likely a reobservation of NGC3411. Common admits that his positions are approximate, and his sparce description "F, R" is appropriate for the galaxy. LEDA has chosen a much fainter galaxy close to the NGC position. I doubt, however, that even a observer of Common's experience using his 36-inch reflector would be able to dig this out. </object> <object><oname>NGC3403</oname> See NGC3752. </object> <object><oname>NGC3404</oname><oname>IC2609</oname>. Common's declination for N3404 is about 14 arcmin off, though his RA is close. Even though Dreyer has the corrected NPD in the IC2 Notes (from Herbert Howe), he did not make the connection with IC2609. Nor did Bigourdan, who redisovered the galaxy and made it a "nova". He searched twice for N3404 at its nominal position, but only saw some faint stars in the area. His observations of the galaxy are good, though; reduced with respect to a modern position for his comparison star, they fall within a few arcsec of the nucleus. Knox Shaw, in Helwan Observatory Bulletin No. 15, also made the correction to the Dec of the NGC object. He was also the first to suggest the identity, repeating the position of N3404 for I2609, but putting a question mark on the note: "? = NGC3404. There is, however, a vF, vS neb. susp. 1.2 arcmin n and 0.4 arcmin f 3404." This, of course, is not IC2609. </object> <object><oname>NGC3423</oname> See NGC3401. </object> <object><oname>NGC3425</oname>is probably also NGC3388, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3430</oname>is not IC2613, which see, in spite of being noted identically equal to the IC number in CGCG. The IC number applies to NGC3395 instead. </object> <object><oname>NGC3432</oname> See NGC3382. </object> <object><oname>NGC3436</oname> This is Todd's 6th nebulous object found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" with the USNO 26-inch refractor. As usual, he gives sketches of the field done through both the large refractor and its 5-inch finder. These clearly identify N3436 as CGCG 038-039. Also as usual, Todd's nominal position is well off. I hope he would have done better had he found his planet ... </object> <object><oname>NGC3443</oname> Swift's declination is 8.3 arcmin too small, but the identity is still clear. See IC884 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3446</oname> See NGC3366. </object> <object><oname>NGC3457</oname>is a bit of a puzzle. It was catalogued by JH who describes it as "Stellar. 2 or 3 stars with a nebulous blur observed by Mr. Bailey." (Is Mr. Bailey perhaps an observing assistant?) This is an excellent descripiton of IC656 (a triple star, which see), but JH's position is very close to NGC 3460 (also which see). The description is persuasive, but JH usually does better with his positions: his declination is appropriate for either object, but his RA is 18 seconds off the triple star. Since it is only 1.5 seconds off the galaxy, that argues almost as persuasively for the identity with NGC 3460. Frankly, I'm undecided on this one, so have left the number ambiguous in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC3460</oname>and N3461 were first seen as a pair by LdR in 1854, then again in April of 1878. In March of that year, he says "Setting for this, I found an eS Cl with a * 12m in Pos 175.1 deg, Dist 305.0 arcsec." There is nothing in the area which matches this description as the star south-southeast of the galaxy is only 4 arcmin away, while that south-southeast of IC656 (a triple star, which see) is over 6 arcmin distant. In LdR's 1880 monograph, Dreyer lists all the observations under the GC number for NGC3457 (GC 2256 = h 793; which see), but as I note there, it's not clear that NGC3460 was the object JH and his Mr. Bailey saw. Swift picked up the galaxy in 1885; it is the 9th nebula of more than a thousand which he catalogued as "novae." Given the difference in his RA and JH's (23 seconds), both he and Dreyer can be forgiven for thinking he had found a new nebula. Since there is no question about the identity of NGC3461 -- it is the faint galaxy about 5.5 arcmin north-northeast of the brighter galaxy -- and since LdR saw the two as a pair twice, it makes sense to retain the number NGC3460 for the bright object. I'm not so sure what to do about the number NGC3457 (which see for more) -- it could belong to the brighter galaxy, or it could be for the triple star along with IC656. </object> <object><oname>NGC3461</oname> See NGC3460. </object> <object><oname>NGC3465</oname> Though credited only to JH in the NGC, this is also H III 967. WH found the galaxy on 2 April 1802, but it -- and the other fourteen in sweep 1096 -- has a large, systematic error in its position. Dreyer sorted out the problem in his notes to his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. See NGC 3752 for more. Also see NGC3484 for an unsolved mystery possibly related to NGC3465 -- but probably not. </object> <object><oname>NGC3474</oname> See IC884. </object> <object><oname>NGC3476</oname><oname>NGC3480</oname> (which see) and NGC3477. The two smaller numbers apply to nebulae found by Marth. His relative positions are good, but are offset from the true positions by 3 arcmin in declination. His descriptions are apt, so there is little doubt about the identifications. </object> <object><oname>NGC3477</oname> See NGC3476. </object> <object><oname>NGC3479</oname><oname>NGC3502</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3480</oname><oname>NGC3476</oname> is the 11th in Ainslie Common's list of nebulae found by him with his 36-inch reflector in 1880. None of his positions are very good, and this one seems to be worse than most -- there are no galaxies within 10 arcmin of his place. However, NGC3476, the largest and brightest of a group, is about 12 arcmin southwest. It would probably match Common's scanty description ("Small, stellar"), even as seen in a fairly large telescope. It is possible that NGC3480 is the same galaxy as NGC3490. But that is also one of Common's discoveries (on the same night? he does not give us dates of observation), and is a fainter object as well. So, I think it a less likely candidate. </object> <object><oname>NGC3484</oname>is lost. JH gives a position, suggests that it might be H. III 967 (but that is NGC3465), and says "A very doubtful object." That's it. Dreyer searched for this on the Greenwich plates that he asked to have taken of the area covered by one of WH's very strange sweeps (see NGC2938 and NGC 3752 for more). I've searched for it on the POSS1 prints. There are no candidate galaxies within 30-40 arcmin of JH's position. So, we just have to take JH's word for it -- "A very doubtful object," indeed! </object> <object><oname>NGC3487</oname> Swift's RA is about 35 seconds of time too small, but his Dec is good, and his description appropriate, for UGC 6092. </object> <object><oname>NGC3489</oname> See NGC3498. </object> <object><oname>NGC3490</oname> Common's RA is marked "+-", but it is close enough to CGCG 066-080 (and the Dec is within an arcmin), to make the identification pretty certain. There are other equally bright galaxies around (including NGC3480, which see), but none at the right declination. </object> <object><oname>NGC3494</oname>is most likely the double star 8-9 arcmin north of NGC3495. Tempel says only (in a very crude translation by yrs trly), "Six arcmin north of the middle knot [of three in N3495], I repeatedly saw a very small nebula, which at first sight I took to be [part of] N3495." There is nothing in the implied position (calculated by Dreyer from N3495's position), but the double is only 3 arcmin further north, and is of similar brightness to other stars that Tempel mistook for nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC3495</oname> See NGC3494. </object> <object><oname>NGC3497</oname><oname>NGC3525</oname><oname>NGC3528</oname><oname>IC2624</oname>. This object may hold the record as the one with the most NGC and IC numbers. It was independently discovered four different times, first by WH. As Dreyer noted in 1912 (MN and Scientific Papers), there is a 6 minute error in the CG/NGC RA. Re-reducing WH's data in the Scientific Papers leads to the correct position. JH found it next during his stay at the Cape of Good Hope. He was also the first to see NGC3528's brightest companion (N3529 = I2625). He got the identity with H III 824 correct in his Cape Observations, but separated his father's nebula from his brighter one for the GC. This suggests that the six-minute error is JH's rather than CH's. Dreyer copied the GC position into NGC, so it was not until his work on WH's papers that he noticed the discrepancy. Ormond Stone was the next in line -- his position is unusually good: only a minute of time off (his entry is NGC3525). The identity is nevertheless pretty sure as there are no other nebulae in the area that he would have called magnitude 12.0. Finally, Lewis Swift picked up the pair in 1898. His RA is nearly correct, but his declination for N3528 = I2624 is about 5 arcmin too far south, nearly equal with that for N3529 = I2625. Again, there can be little doubt about the identity as Swift describes the brighter of the pair as "considerably bright;" there are no other galaxies near that are bright enough for that description. It was his observation that gave the pair their IC numbers. </object> <object><oname>NGC3498</oname>is probably the triple star three arcmin northwest of WH's position. Dreyer reprints WH's full note in which he says, "eF, not S. I had some doubt and put on 240, but there being no stars very near it, I could not adjust the focus, and therefore could not verify it." Dreyer also notes that d'A could not find the nebula during repeated attempts when N3489 was seen easily. </object> <object><oname>NGC3500</oname>is given as a double nebula with one number in the NGC, while JH in GC assigns two numbers with a single position. In each catalogue, the position comes from WH's observations on the night of 2 April 1801 which suffer from large, systematic position errors (see NGC3752 for more). Dreyer more or less sorted out the problems for his edition of WH's Scientific Papers, based on accurate positions measured on 30-inch reflector plates taken at Greenwich in 1910 or 1911 (see MNRAS 71, 509, 1911). Unfortunately, neither Dreyer nor the Greenwich observer(s) assign NGC numbers to all of the galaxies in that list (I have those listed in my note to NGC 3752). I've taken a bit of a liberty here, and have split out WH's two numbers, III 967 and III 968, giving the first to NGC3465 (which see), and the second to NGC3500. I follow Dreyer's lead on the first, but use NGC3500 for the second where he does not. </object> <object><oname>NGC3502</oname><oname>NGC3479</oname>. The descriptions and declinations of the two entries (Nos. 180 by Leavenworth, and 181 by Stone) in the first Leander McCormick list are much the same, but the RA of the following nebula is 4 minutes of time too large. This is in the same sense as many other of the LM nebulae, so the identity is pretty certain. The suggestion in RNGC that the galaxy 50 arcmin north and a few tenths of a minute preceding Leavenworth's position strikes me as considerably less likely since RA errors are more common in the LM lists than Dec errors, though these also occur, of course. </object> <object><oname>NGC3505</oname>is perhaps a reobservation of NGC3508 (which see). Even though JH's position is over 3/4 deg off in Dec, his description fits very well, including the "star 14 near." JH found it during his stay at the Cape. The large position error is bothersome, but there is nothing else within several degrees that matches the description. </object> <object><oname>NGC3508</oname><oname>IC2622</oname> (which see) and is probably also = NGC3505 (also which see). WH called this "small" while his son saw it as "vL" -- WH is closer to the truth. Both positions are good, so there is no doubt that both men were looking at the same object. Similarly, Swift's note "... looks like a D *" in his description makes it clear that he, too, was looking at the same galaxy. In his case, however, the position is off by a few arcminutes to the northeast. </object> <object><oname>NGC3514</oname> See NGC3520. </object> <object><oname>NGC3518</oname><oname>NGC3122</oname><oname>NGC3110</oname>. In the original AJ paper, Stone notes, "In same field with nebula discovered by Stephan." This is a bit puzzling as none of Stephan's nebulae are within 5 degrees of Stone's nominal position. Stone has left us a sketch, too, with the same nominal position on the cover sheet. The sketch shows a nice double nebula with four stars nearby. Again, there is nothing on the sky within 5 degrees of the nominal position that matches the sketch. So, I assumed some sort of error in Stone's position and began looking at possible digit errors. After ruling out a few, I found NGC3122 in Stephan's 13th list (its number 54 there) just an hour of time preceding Stone's position. Checking his sketch against the PSS, I found that the "double nebula" is actually the central bulge, and a very bright arm to the southeast, of a single galaxy. Furthermore, one of the "stars" sketched by Stone is the nucleus of an interacting companion galaxy, MCG -01-26-013. Were it not for the sketch, I would assign the NGC number to this companion (though the position angle is more than 20 degrees off Stone's estimate of 110 deg). As is, I am tempted to put the number on just the arm -- but that does not match Stone's description, either. By default, then, N3518 = N3122 = N3110 (which see for another story). </object> <object><oname>NGC3520</oname>is another of the Leander McCormick discoveries, this one by Leavenworth. His nominal position is close to an asterism of 4 or 5 stars spread over an area of 0.8 by 0.6 arcmin, but his description (m = 15.3, D = 0.4, iR, gpmbM, sev vF sts inv) does not match the appearance of the stars. In addition, they are too bright, being 13 to 15th magnitude. A more likely match is to ESO 570- G004, an interacting triple or quadruple system 1 min 35 sec east and 5 arcmin south of the nominal position. It matches Leavenworth's description pretty well. Other possible matches include the double star at 11 01 55.6, -17 40 23; and NGC3514 = ESO 570- G001 at 11 01 32, -18 30.7. These don't match the description as well as the interacting system, however, so I view them as less likely to be Leavenworth's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC3523</oname>is H. II 904 from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the positions in that sweep suffer from large, systematic errors. See NGC3752 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3525</oname><oname>NGC3497</oname> (which see) = NGC3528 = IC2624. </object> <object><oname>NGC3526</oname><oname>NGC3531</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3528</oname><oname>NGC3497</oname> (which see) = NGC3525 = IC2624. </object> <object><oname>NGC3529</oname><oname>IC2625</oname>. See NGC3497. </object> <object><oname>NGC3531</oname><oname>NGC3526</oname>. Holden misidentified the star he noticed 46.5 seconds preceding the galaxy. When the correct star is used (BD +7 2412, not 2413 as Holden wrote), his position falls close to that of NGC3526 = Marth 215. The descriptions are virtually identical, and Holden notes the star just southwest of the galaxy. Spitaler was the first to suggest the identity. He found IC670 near Holden's position, but that is fainter and does not agree with either of the earlier descriptions, so Spitaler -- correctly -- called I670 a "nova." </object> <object><oname>NGC3537</oname>is an interacting galaxy pair about 15 arcmin north-northwest of N3541, and may have been found by Ainslie Common on the same night that he found the latter (though he does not give us the dates of his observations). His position and description is pretty good, being only about 1.5 arcmin off in Dec. The NGC position is even better, coming from two micrometric measurements by Tempel in 1881 and 1882. Nevertheless, RNGC has misidentified it, giving the number to the galaxy that is properly called NGC3541 (which see). Curiously, Vorontsov-Velyaminov skipped over the object for MCG, though he has included many other even fainter interacting pairs as well as N3541. There is a bit of a mystery about Tempel's observations, too. He lists them as separate entries in his table of new nebulae in his fifth paper with no indication that they might refer to the same object. However, his positions -- once precessed to a common equinox -- are within a few arcsec of being identical. Tempel mentions a "star" on one side of the nebula in his second observation, but not the first. The nebula is described as fainter the first night, too, being a (WH) class III nebula rather than class II-III. On both nights, however, he mentions a faint "star" in the middle of the nebula. I suspect that both his observations apply to the brighter of the two galaxies; the "star" on the side of the nebula is almost certainly the fainter object, seen only on the better night. </object> <object><oname>NGC3538</oname>is a double star found by d'A. It is identified in the MNRAS 71, 509, 1911 article which helps sort out one of WH's sweeps suffering from large, systematic position errors (see NGC3752 for more). </object> <object><oname>NGC3540</oname><oname>NGC3548</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3541</oname> Common's position from his short Copernicus list is very close to 15 arcmin south of MCG -02-29-003, and is within 0.2 min in RA. His description is appropriate for the galaxy as it would be seen in a 36-inch telescope, so the position is probably due to his misreading the declination circle. RNGC has the object as non-existent. See NGC3537 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC3544</oname><oname>NGC3571</oname>. NGC3544 was found 8 Jan 1886 UT by Ormond Stone with the Leander McCormick 66-cm refractor. The cover sheet on his sketch of the object (made 13 Jan 1886 UT) bears the note "near but prob. not G.C. 2330," in addition to the usual dates, position, magnification, and his initials. The position on the cover sheet is given as "11h 4.0m, -17d 41m." This was rounded off in RA to "11 4" in AJ 7, 9, 1886 where the discovery was published. The published paper also notes "G.C. 2330?" and there is no object at Stone's position. Stone's sketch also shows the elongated galaxy in the correct position angle. Unfortunately, the nearby field stars are not shown clearly on the sketch. A few specks on my copy are probably dust on the photocopier, but more or less correspond to nearby stars which Stone could have seen with the big refractor. Finally, the positions in the first two lists of nebulae found at LM are often 1-2 minutes of time west of the true positions. Assuming the identity with N3571, this is one of those cases. The NGC position for N3571 comes from William Herschel's single discovery observation on 8 March 1789, but is good enough to identify the galaxy unambiguously (the position was later verified by Bigourdan at Paris in 1888 and 1900, Kobold at Strassburg in 1901, Porter at Cincinnati in 1906 and 1908 -- though curiously, first by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick in 1887). The galaxy is just bright enough for Shapley-Ames, and it has been listed there and in the susequent literature under N3571 as the NGC position for that number is more nearly correct than the NGC position for N3544. So, in spite of Paturel's use of the number N3544 in RC3 (he perhaps followed ESO-B which has the listing as "N3544=N3571"), we should retain N3571 for consistency. </object> <object><oname>NGC3548</oname><oname>NGC3540</oname>. Both numbers are from JH, but his position for N3548 is 1 min 9 sec too far east. This probably represents a 1 minute error somewhere along the line from observation to final position, but without JH's original papers, finding the error will be difficult. The identity of the two numbers is assured by JH's notes (for NGC3540) "... a * 7m p, distance 7 arcmin to 8 arcmin" and (for N3548) "... a * 8m precedes." The star is very close to 8 arcmin preceding, and is about 25 arcsec south. </object> <object><oname>NGC3550</oname> See NGC3552. </object> <object><oname>NGC3551</oname>and NGC3555 are probably the two brightest galaxies in Abell 1177. Swift's RA's are just +1 minute of time in error. RNGC suggests that the brightest galaxy is NGC3555. This would make N3551 one of the triple system about 2 arcmin southwest. However, these galaxies are considerably fainter than the second brightest galaxy in the cluster, which is about 3.5 arcmin to the northeast. There is also a star close to the middle of the three, and I think that the ensemble would appear as a "small nebulous cluster." Swift describes his object as "eeF, vS, R, difficult; south of two." His second he calls, "vF, R, n of 2." It may seem odd that he would call the brighter galaxy the fainter, but it has a lower surface brightness, and could well appear fainter at the eyepiece. Unfortunately, Swift's relative position between the two galaxies (10 seconds of time, and 30 seconds of arc) matches neither the RNGC interpretation, nor my own. So, the positions don't help us much in this case. We need some visual observations to check Swift's descriptions. </object> <object><oname>NGC3552</oname>and NGC3553. William Herschel found two objects in 1785, and reobserved them in 1790, providing them with separate positions then. John Herschel has several sweeps over the area, finding four objects altogether. D'Arrest observed the same four galaxies, and picked up a fifth about 10 arcmin south. A sixth was found in 1885 by Bigourdan who also provided accurate positions for the other four (he also has one observation of a "nova" in the field, but his estimated position points at blank sky; see the discussion of this under NGC3561). These six nebulae were included in NGC. Lord Rosse did not observe (or at least left no record of) any of them. If he had, there would almost certainly be more than the six objects in NGC that there are, since these six NGC objects are the brightest in the cluster Abell 1185. At least two other "historical" observations of Abell 1185 exist. First, Kobold measured accurate positions in 1902 for five objects here (one, which he called "Kobold 13," was discovered by him). One of his positions (for N3552) points at blank sky. Three other of his positions are systematically off the galaxies by about 20 arcsec. Because of the supposed care with which Kobold did his work, Hubble (in his PhD thesis, published in 1917) was misled into questioning his own work in the area where he measured positions and estimated types for several dozen galaxies. We'll come back to this particular problem in a bit. With all these positions and observations, one can be excused for believing that all is well, and that we know exactly which NGC number applies to which object. Not true! Only the numbers for three of the six NGC galaxies are pretty solid (N3550, N3554, and N3558). Questions arise for the other three. If we restrict ourselves to the early observations, we can be pretty sure which objects were seen by the Herschels and by d'Arrest -- the brightest five galaxies. While the positions are not exact, they are good enough to pin down the correct objects. The problems begin with Bigourdan's observations. While his positions (reduced using GSC positions for his comparison stars) are excellent, he assigned the number N3553 to the object which John Herschel and d'Arrest called N3552. For N3552, he chose a faint galaxy about an arcminute south-preceding. It has a brighter star superposed -- it is actually this star which Bigourdan measured; he describes the two objects as a single faint nebulous spot. Dreyer adopted Bigourdan's position for N3553. It's no surprise then, that the NGC positions for N3552 and 3553 are very close -- they apply to the same object. For this catalogue, we've followed historical precedent, and assigned the number N3552 to the brighter north-following object, leaving the south-preceding object (the one first seen by Bigourdan) as N3553. This is counter the prevailing idea that lower NGC numbers are always preceding, but explicitly acknowledges the actual history of the observations. Well, I promised a brief discussion of Kobold's and Hubble's data. Kobold's mistake, not found by Hubble, was a transposition of two numbers in the declination measurement of his comparison star with respect to an FK1 reference star (the comparison star is actually the same star used by Bigourdan for most of his measurements). This transposition (instead of -9' 42.5" as used and published by Kobold, read -9' 24.5") resulted in a systematic error of 18.6" in the declinations of N3550, N3552, N3554, and K13. Once corrected, the positions of N3550, N3554, and K13 agree very well with those measured by Bigourdan, by Hubble, and with those in GSC. However, Kobold's position for N3552 points at blank sky -- there is nothing within 3 arcmin in any direction brighter than the POSS1 plate limit. I suspect that Kobold's offsets apply to another star/galaxy pair, but I've not been able to find which objects would fit (I admit to not having looked very hard; perhaps a reader could unravel the mystery). In any event, Kobold's systematic error misled Hubble into thinking that his positions, measured on a plate taken with the 24-inch reflector at Yerkes Observatory, were somehow incorrect. In the end, however, Hubble printed his own positions and identifications. His positions are quite good, but his identifications are wrong for N3552 (he got K13) and N3554 (he got N3552); he did not identify N3553 at all -- but it is his number 81 in his Table XI. </object> <object><oname>NGC3553</oname> See NGC3552. </object> <object><oname>NGC3554</oname> See NGC3552. </object> <object><oname>NGC3555</oname> See NGC3551. </object> <object><oname>NGC3558</oname> See NGC3552. </object> <object><oname>NGC3559</oname><oname>NGC3560</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3560</oname><oname>NGC3559</oname>. During his MicroSky work, Glen Deen could not find NGC 3560. There is indeed nothing in its position, copied exactly from the GC by Dreyer, and before that from JH's 1833 catalogue. Checking that catalogue, though, I found that JH himself equates his 834th object with his father's III 79. The descriptions are similar, and Sir John himself says, "The PD of the working list is 6 arcmin out, owing to which I have often before looked for it in vain." So, he must have had the correct polar distance in front of him when he wrote this. But his NPD is exactly 50 arcmin out. I suspect that the 1833 NPD suffers from a typographical error: in place of "77 53 50," read "77 03 50." D'Arrest also noticed the 6 arcmin problem (he also marks the name III 79 with a question mark, and does not mention JH's number), and has two observations of this to Sir John's one. Thus, it is d'Arrest's presumably more accurate position that Dreyer adopted for NGC3559. However, Dreyer had only JH's position for h834 to use. This is exactly 50 arcmin in declination out from d'Arrest's correct position for III 79. Since Sir John had included h834 in GC as a separate object, Dreyer followed JH's precedent. So, we are left with two numbers for the same object. Curiously, though, neither Dreyer nor JH have any note in GC or NGC about the identity, which JH himself had noted over 30 years earlier. </object> <object><oname>NGC3561</oname>is usually taken in modern catalogues as the entire double system Arp 105 = VV 237. However, the brighter (southern) of the two interacting galaxies is the one seen and measured by the visual observers, and by Hubble in his 1917 thesis. This is the one that I have labeled N3561 in the main position table. There is, however, an intriguing observation of a "nova" by Bigourdan about 15 arcsec north of the northern component of Arp 105. The right ascension offset estimated by Bigourdan, however, places the nova in a blank sky field four seconds of time preceding the galaxy. I wonder, though, if Bigourdan in fact saw the galaxy, but misplaced it because of its faintness. The question is a bit academic now, since the observation only exists in Bigourdan's list; he apparently did not publish it in any of his lists of new nebulae, so it did not receive an NGC or IC number. See NGC3552 for more discussion about this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC3565</oname>and NGC3566. These two objects were given the same poor position by Ormond Stone in the first Leander McCormick list. The identification with the close pair of galaxies listed in the table was made by noting that many of the first list nebulae were placed about two minutes of time too far west. Subtracting two minutes from the RA puts the position very close to the faint pair. The identification of this pair as NGC3565 and 3566 is obviously not very secure because the discovery position is poor, and there are no sketches of the objects among Stone's papers. Another possibility is that N3565 and 3566 are identical to IC2623 and the star superposed just south. However, this would require a 4 minute error in Stone's RA, as well as a 4 minute declination error. While a few of the Leander McCormick positions are indeed this far off, I think that this possibility is less likely. </object> <object><oname>NGC3566</oname> See NGC3565. </object> <object><oname>NGC3571</oname><oname>NGC3544</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3575</oname><oname>NGC3162</oname>. D'Arrest's RA is one hour too large. He must have had a bad night on 21 February 1863 since N2753 and N3760 (both of which see) are his other two novae from that night. In any event, when the one hour correction is made, d'A's position falls within one arcmin of NGC3162, and his description is perfect for the object, including the 11th mag star 3 arcmin west, and the 16th mag star 1 arcmin southeast (actually superposed on the southeast arm of the galaxy). </object> <object><oname>NGC3576</oname> Even though Lauberts marks the identity as questionable, there is no doubt that this is the object that JH saw. His figure shows all six of the bright patches of nebulosity in the area, and matches the appearance of the sky pretty well. He notes that the position for this object (and a couple of others) comes from two figures he sketched for the group. This may account for his RA being a bit off for this southwest patch: it is shown too close to the rest of the nebulae in his figure. The other nebulae are NGC3579, 3581, 3582, 3584, and 3586. JH's positions and descriptions for them are very good. </object> <object><oname>NGC3579</oname> See NGC3576. </object> <object><oname>NGC3581</oname> See NGC3576. </object> <object><oname>NGC3580</oname>is probably not IC675, which see for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3582</oname> See NGC3576. </object> <object><oname>NGC3584</oname> See NGC3576. </object> <object><oname>NGC3586</oname> See NGC3576. </object> <object><oname>NGC3594</oname> The NGC position falls between two galaxies that could be the object WH saw. The "standard" identification is with UGC 06286. Indeed, WH's position is closer to this object (about 8 arcmin) than to the other possibility, CGCG 268-006. This second galaxy, however, is brighter and smaller, so has a higher surface brightness. Still, WH's nominal position is over 12 arcmin away. In neither case, by the way, is there a possible digit error that might explain the poor nominal position. In the end, I have a slight preference for the UGC galaxy, but have retained both galaxies in the table. </object> <object><oname>NGC3604</oname><oname>NGC3611</oname>. WH's RA is one minute too small, but his description is apt for NGC3611. Dreyer, without benefit of wide-field plates, comments in his notes to WH's catalogue, "Should probably be rejected, together with III 88 (sic) and III 598 (NGC3509), the only other neb this night, as there was fog `which indeed was so strong as to make everything swim about me.' " NGC 3509 is also a minute of time east of WH's RA, reinforcing Reinmuth's suggestion of the identity of N3604 with N3611. I'm not sure, however, which object Dreyer means by "III 88." III 88 is NGC3401 (which see), and was found two and a half years earlier than the other two objects. In WH's catalogues, only NGC3509 is noted as being found on the same night (30 Dec 1786) as N3604. Did Dreyer mean to have only III 598 in his comment? Probably so, but we can't be sure without seeing his MS. </object> <object><oname>NGC3611</oname><oname>NGC3604</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3622</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC3630</oname> See NGC3645. </object> <object><oname>NGC3643</oname> NGC3644 = IC684, and NGC3647. Even though Marth's positions for N3643, 3644, and 3647 are pretty accurate, this has not prevented later observers from misidentifying these at one time or another. In particular, Bigourdan's "N3647" is a star, and he labeled N3644 as "new" (his positions for both are accurate). Thus, this latter galaxy received an IC number (I684) as well as its NGC number. Kobold got the right galaxies for N3643 and N3644, but both he and Wirtz list N3644 as "NGC3645(?)" (though Kobold does have an erratum saying that though the identity is uncertain it is probably N3644). Finally, RNGC has misidentified N3643 and N3645 (which see), and CGCG makes yet another object in the group N3645. </object> <object><oname>NGC3644</oname><oname>IC684</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC3643. </object> <object><oname>NGC3645</oname> This, and five other NGC/IC objects (N3643, N3644, and N3647, which see; and I683 and I684), lie in a relatively crowded field. There has been considerable confusion about the identifications here because of the crowding -- and because the NGC position of the (presumeably) brightest object, N3645, lies in a blank area of sky a few arcminutes northwest of the group center. This brightest object was found first by William Herschel on 23 Feb 1784. He placed it 6m 30s preceding and 7' north of 84 (tau) Leo. The NGC position comes from John Herschel's single uncertain observation during Sweep 143; the object is h867 in his 1833 list, though he notes both it and h861 as being II 32. This latter object is considerably brighter than any of the galaxies in the group, and precedes it by 1.3 min. JH saw it during two sweeps (141 and 238), but did not pick it up during Sweep 143. Similarly, h867 was seen only during Sweep 143, but not during sweeps 141 and 238. That, combined with the relative brightness of the object compared to those in the group and JH's uncertain position for h867, strongly suggests that h867 = h861; i.e. N3645 = N3630. N3645 is also credited to Tempel who has a long discussion of the field in AN 2212 (pp.51-2). I've not translated this yet, but I do not easily see any precise offset from a known object in the text. Is it possible that Tempel was misled by JH's attribution of H II 32 to two different objects? A translation is clearly needed. </object> <object><oname>NGC3646</oname> See IC682 = NGC3649 where I suggest that Swift's note of a "very faint star close north preceding" actually applies to his observation of this galaxy. He somehow confused it with his observation of the fainter galaxy. Curiously, WH puts this object, as well as NGC3649 which he observed in the same sweep, into his third ("very faint nebulae") class of objects. This is fully three magnitudes brighter than N3649. The only reason I can see is that the surface brightness is lower. JH has them right, though the final "brightness" in GC and NGC("cF") is an unsatisfactory compromise. </object> <object><oname>NGC3647</oname> See NGC3643. </object> <object><oname>NGC3649</oname><oname>IC682</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3676</oname>is MCG -02-29-029. The declination given by Muller and the NGC is about 30 arcmin too large, but the description is accurate. Muller's note, in particular, "star 10 north-following, star 10 south-following" is correct: each star is 0.95 arcmin from the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC3679</oname>and NGC3915 are H III 112 and III 113, both found the night of 24 April 1784, and both refered to the same star, 74 Leo (SAO 138102). There is nothing at either position reduced from WH's offsets from this star. The other brighter objects found on that night (N4697 and N4941 = H I 39 and 40; and N4593, N4602, and N4989 = H II 183,4,5) were all compared with 51 Virginis and are close enough to the derived positions to identify without problems. JH, however, noted that Mayer 510 (SAO 138798), taken later in the same sweep, is a better comparison star. He determined the positions of the two objects given in GC using this star, and Dreyer adopted these positions for NGC, too. He also discusses the problem of the comparison stars in a note to NGC, as well as in the Notes to his 1912 edition of WH's papers. Unfortunately, there are still no nebulae at either position. At this point, it's worth noting that, regardless of which star is used, WH's relative position between the two objects is the same: 24 minutes 12 seconds in RA and 49 arcmin in Dec. This suggests that we should look for objects matching his descriptions separated by these amounts. Now, other observers begin to cloud the picture. Dreyer credits Peters with an observation of N3915. But as with WH's observation, there is nothing at Peters's position (he says that he determined it by plotting the object on charts of his own construction). His note for N3915 reads, "AR in GC from 15 sec to 20 sec too small, and also the declination differs rather much. The nebula is vL, and not eS, as H. III. 113 has it." Just what nebula he saw is something of a mystery. It could have been IC2963, but Peters's RA is over a minute off, and his Dec is nearly 2 arcmin off as well. Spitaler has a series of good micrometric observations of nebulae which includes N3679. He makes it the object we now call MCG -01-29-021 = Markarian 1294. But this is nearly 15 arcmin away from the nearest of WH's positions, and does not match his description of being "very near a very bright star." Dreyer makes a note of Spitaler's observation in his IC1 Notes, and again in the 1912 Scientific Papers Notes. So, we're left with a puzzle: what did WH and Peters see? Let's assume that WH's descriptions are good [for N3679 he says, "eF, cL, R, r (v nr vB *)" and for N3915, "eF, eS w 240. 2 vS sts and nebulosity."]. The only objects in the area matching these descriptions are MCG -01-29-012 (at 11 19 15.35, -05 29 00.6; B1950.0 from GSC) which has SAO 138156 about 2 arcmin to the north, and the previously uncatalogued galaxy at 11 44 22.20, -04 54 35.4 (again, GSC for B1950.0) which has a somewhat fainter star superposed about 15 arcsec to the southwest of its bright core. The relative positions of these two galaxies in 1784 was 25 min 04 sec, and 35.3 arcmin, not wildly off WH's "observed" offsets -- but not very close, either. In the end, I've taken MCG -01-29-012 and the uncatalogued object as perhaps the two that WH saw. It's clear, however, that there are unexplained large errors in WH's offsets for these two objects. So, these identifications are quite uncertain, and could well be completely wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC3682</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC3685</oname>is CGCG 039-192. Though Todd's position is off (as it is for nearly all of the nebulae he found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet") his sketchs of the field are very good, as are his measurements of distances between stars and nebulae within each field. In this case, he found the higher surface brightness component of a pair of CGCG galaxies; the other is UGC 06466, a pretty low surface brightness barred spiral. </object> <object><oname>NGC3690</oname>and IC694 (which see for more discussion). These are not, as is often supposed, the two components of the peculiar interacting system, Arp 299. Instead, NGC3690 refers to these two peculiar galaxies, while IC694 is the small elliptical or lenticular about an arcmin northwest. Lord Rosse clearly resolved the two components in at least one of his observations, and he also noted IC694 as an "appendage" to the north-west of the pair. Swift later rediscovered the IC object; this led Dreyer to assign it its own number in the first IC. Note, too, that the numbers NGC3690 and IC694 are incorrectly assigned to Arp 296 in the tables in the Arp Atlas. This has further exacerbated the naming problem, as Arp 296 is another interacting pair just a few arcmin following Arp 299. </object> <object><oname>NGC3694</oname> See NGC3698 = NGC3695. </object> <object><oname>NGC3695</oname><oname>NGC3698</oname>, which see. <ignore />for more. Ball's description of the field with this, NGC3694, and NGC3700 is accurate. So, even though the NGC position is off, there is no doubt about the correct identifications. </object> <object><oname>NGC3698</oname><oname>NGC3695</oname>. In March 1867, Ball found two nebulae here forming a triangle with h899 = NGC3694, and suspected others. He did not measure the offsets from JH's nebula (he comments, in fact, "There being no great difference of brightness, it is not easy to see which is h899," but did give the relative positions of "the 2 nf ones, Pos 310 deg, Dist 339''." These numbers are accurate for NGC3695 and NGC3700. JH's position for NGC3694 is very good, too. Nine years later, Dreyer re-examined the field, noting that "nnp [h899] is a pS, eeF neb [= N3695] in Pos 357.2, Dist 256.7." This is actually a star. Dreyer goes on, "About 15' n and a few minutes f is another eF, vS neb [= N3700] with an eF * 2' sf." This is actually a reobservation of NGC3695, (the star is indeed 2 arcmin southeast), though Dreyer took it to be a new nebula and gave it a new number, NGC3698. </object> <object><oname>NGC3700</oname> Though the position is off, Ball's description of the field, including his measurement of the offset between this and NGC3695, makes clear the nebulae he found. See NGC3698 = NGC3695 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3703</oname>is one of Ormond Stone's discoveries. He made a sketch of the field, but it only vaguely matches the galaxy (and its surrounding stars) 10 arcmin north and 25 seconds preceding the published nominal position (the position on the sketch is another 30 seconds on east). In particular, the orientation of the sketch is unusual if the identification is correct -- south is normally at the top of the sketches; this has south at about 10 o'clock. Also, the brightest star shown on the sketch is actually the faintest on the sky. In the end, this is a possible identification, but no more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3704</oname>and 3707. This pair was found by Ainslie Common around 1880. His position for the pair is only approximate, but his description clearly identifies the nebulae, "2, F, R, on the parallel, star symmetrically placed between." The star is indeed there. The brighter object (N3704) was also seen (in 1878) by Wilhelm Tempel who published a micrometrically measured position for it in his fifth paper on nebulae. His descriptive note on the nebula reads, "Class III; a star 15m (nebulous?) follows 2 sec; near the comparison star is another fainter nebula." The star 2 sec following the measured nebula is the same one mentioned by Common. The positions that Dreyer adopted for NGC come from a letter to him from Tempel. In this letter, summarized by Dreyer in a note in IC2, Tempel says that he saw the brighter (which Dreyer mistakenly calls N3707) four times, but the fainter only once. Further, the position of the fainter comes from a sketch made on 25 May 1881, the same night on which Tempel measured the brighter. After quoting Common's description, Dreyer continues, "I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that 3704,07 are the same as Common's, the place of which is 11h 22m 57s, 100d 33.3m [1860], though Tempel's nebulae are not on the parallel." Dreyer's first assumption was correct, at least concerning the brighter nebula. What is wrong, however, is Tempel's place for the fainter. There is nothing in that position in spite of its being just about 2 arcmin north of his comparison star, and -- presumeably -- shown in that place on the sketch he sent to Dreyer. My guess is that Tempel somehow confused his observations, and that his note about the star and the fainter nebula refers to another field altogether. In any event, Common's observation is clear enough, even if his position isn't, to reliably assign the two numbers to the two galaxies in the field. Finally, the pair may also be IC703 and IC704 (which see). But the case for that is very weak. </object> <object><oname>NGC3707</oname> See NGC3704. </object> <object><oname>NGC3743</oname> 3744, 3745, 3746, 3748, 3750, 3751, 3753, and 3754. The last seven of these are Copeland's Septet. The Notes to IC1 relate how the positions in NGC came to be calculated incorrectly. Briefly, Dreyer took Copeland's reference to the comparison star as "reddish" to apply to the wrong star. Thus, the differences between the NGC positions and the correct positions is a simple offset in RA and Dec. Here are tables showing corrected identifications and information for the Septet area in the four major catalogues from which we drew information for the RC2. the RNGC, Zwicky's CGCG, VV's MCG, and Milson's UGC. Here are identifications for the galaxies with objects listed in MCG, UGC, and CGCG: NGC MCG UGC CGCG (Vol. II, pp. 176 and 180) 3743 --- --- 11 33.2 +22 00, mp = 15.6 3744 --- --- 33.2 +23 16, mp = 15.4 3758 +04-27-073 --- 33.8 +21 52, mp = 14.8 3745 +04-28-004 --- ---- 3746 +04-28-005 06597 35.1 +22 17, mp = 15.3 3748 +04-28-007 --- 35.2 +22 18, mp = 15.5 3750 +04-28-008 --- 35.3 +22 15, mp = 15.2 3751 +04-28-009 06601* ---- 3753 +04-28-010 06602 -\ - 35.4 +22 16, mp = 14.6* 3754 +04-28-011 --- -/ *UGC 6601 - coordinates and magnitude wrong in UGC, but the Note clearly points to the correct object. *NGC3753 are 3754 both included in the same CGCG entry. Finally, there is a bit of a mystery concerning the name "Copeland's Septet." When the de Vaucouleurs and I adopted this for RC2 (see Table 16b, page 52) in the early 1970's, we thought we were following our self-imposed rule to not provide new names for objects, but to merely copy those used in the literature. Since that time, I've been unable to find the source of the name. My query about this in the Webb Society Quarterly Journal (No. 90, 1992 October, page 41) has brought no response. It's possible, then, that we were the first to use the name. Wherever it came from, it is now in common use. </object> <object><oname>NGC3744</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3745</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3746</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3747</oname>is H. III 969, one of the fifteen nebulae found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801, where all the positions suffer from a large, systematic error. See NGC3752 for more about this sweep. </object> <object><oname>NGC3748</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3750</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3751</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3752</oname> This is discussed in an article in Monthly Notices in 1911 where the anonymous author gives accurate positions for forty nebulae found on Royal Observatory, Greenwich (RGO in modern parlance) 30-inch plates covering the area of WH's sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801. WH's positions in that sweep are affected by a large, systematic error, so Dreyer had requested that the Astronomer Royal take the plates in an effort to sort out the problems. They largely succeeded, but the paper is incorrect in saying in a note that h917 = N3752; actually, N3752 = H II 905. Dreyer and the article's author correctly concluded that h917 and H II 905 are two different galaxies, but they got the NGC number on the wrong one. The MN note should actually read "NGC3752 = No. 36 above = H II 905, but not h 917 = No. 38 above." This unfortunately leaves h917 without an NGC number. (Following the time-honored tradition of muddying the waters with suffixes, I suppose we could call it "NGC3752A", but I've not done that. Yet. I may eventually change my mind.) Since John Herschel gave his own position, but his father's description, to GC 2460 = NGC3752, and since it is clear that WH saw the brighter of the two galaxies (more on this below), the GC and NGC positions should be changed. To reach these conclusions, I re-reduced WH's offsets from his comparison stars (as given by Dreyer in the Scientific Papers) for all the objects in the sweep, using the SAO positions for the stars. The positions for the nebulae so found are very poor, ranging up to almost 6 minutes of time and 45 arcmin from the true positions. Nevertheless, there are no other galaxies in the area of WH's positions that could match his descriptions. By following along chronologically through the sweep, we can be pretty sure which galaxies correspond to which numbers in WH's list (only H III 966 = NGC3197 is out of RA order, but its identity is clear from the declination). This includes N3752 which, as Steve Gottlieb independently suggested, is certainly H II 905. Further "proof" of the correctness of these identifications comes from a plot (shown in crude form below) of the differences between WH's positions and the true positions from the RGO plates. (By the way, I've verified the RGO positions with modern measurements.) The differences are systematic, increasing towards higher right ascension. Though WH used three different comparison stars for these observations, he used one of these, BD +78 317, for only one object; another, BD +78 412, for two; but the third, BD +76 393, for the remaining 12 objects. (Curiously, Dreyer says in the NGC note and in his note for his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers that WH used only one star for all fifteen objects. This has led Wolfgang to speculate that Dreyer has changed the offsets from WH's originals published in PT; we'll have to check the original PT to see if this is true. Wolfgang also points out that the NGC positions for some of the fifteen nebulae cannot be derived from the Scientific Papers offsets.) For this third star in particular, the systematic errors are therefore quite well-determined. If corrected for these systematic errors, WH's positions would be good to his nominal accuracy of a few arcmin. To clinch this interpretation, I calculated the offset of John Herschel's position for h917 from the true position of N3752 = H II 905. The resulting points are coincidentally very close to the offset predicted if William Herschel had used BD +78 412 as his comparison star. But, as we can see on the graph, the points are very discrepant from the offset of the actual comparison star BD +76 393. So, again, N3752 is almost certainly II 905 and not h917. I can only guess at the cause of William Herschel's error: a clock running slowly perhaps? But since the declinations are also affected, this can be only part of the problem. So, there may have been some sort of other mechanical failure in the telescope, or maybe a curious reduction error. In any case, I'm now convinced, thanks to Steve's and Wolfgang's questioning, that the identifications that I've adopted here are the correct ones. Here is a list of the galaxies from the 1911 MNRAS paper, along with the NGC numbers, the numbers assigned by other observers, and the differences between WH's positions and the RGO positions. The objects flagged with asterisks are those found by WH during sweep 1096. MN NGC WH Others Delta RA Delta Dec (WH - RGO) 1* 2938 III 963 h 612 -1m 54s -17.8 arcmin 3* 2977 I 282 -3 17 -17.5 6* 3061 II 903 h 653 -1 49 -14.3 7* 3197 III 966 +1 34 + 6.9 8* 3144=3174 III 964 d'Arrest -2 16 - 2.1 9* 3155=3194 III 965 h 676, d'Arrest -1 53 - 0.9 11* 3183=3218 I 283 d'Arrest -2 25 + 1.2 13 3252 III 316 --- --- 15* 3329=3397 I 284 h 733 +4 01 +26.6 25 3403 II 335 h 767 --- --- 27* 3465 III 967 h 795 +0 50 +11.4 29* 3500 III 968 -1 33 +10.7 30* 3523 II 904 +1 12 + 9.9 34 3538 ... d'Arrest --- --- 36* 3752 II 905 +2 29 +14.8 37* 3747 III 969 +1 51 +12.7 38 .... ... h 917 (+5 22 +39.1) 39* 3901 III 970 +5 40 +42.9 40* 3890=3939 III 971 H III 940, d'Arrest +1 43 +25.3 Finally, here is a crude representation of the plot of the position differences, taken in the sense WH minus RGO: Delta Dec (arcmin) -- + Comparison stars used * = BD +76 393 +40 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 + = BD +78 412 x = BD +78 317 -- +30 -- -- * + +20 -- -- * N3752 if II 905 * +10 -- *** x -- * 0 -- * * -- -10 -- -- * -20 -- * * | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA Delta RA (minutes) +6 -- + +5 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 +4 -- + +3 -- * N3752 if II 905 +2 -- * * x +1 -- * * 0 -- -1 -- * -2 -- * * * * * -3 -- * -4 -- | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA</object> <object><oname>NGC3753</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3754</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3758</oname> See NGC3743. </object> <object><oname>NGC3760</oname><oname>NGC3301</oname>. As with N3575 = N3162 (which see), d'Arrest's RA is 1 hour too large (he measured both on the same night, 21 February 1863). In addition, his note "* 10-11 p 4.0 sec, 175'' south" should place the star north of the galaxy, not south. With these two changes, his single observation of his "nova" is in perfect accord with his three observations of NGC3301. Dreyer notes (in the NGC Notes) Copeland's not finding the object at Birr, discovering instead "a large group of novae preceding it" (Copeland's Septet, which see under NGC3743). He further comments in IC1 that the Strassburg observer (Kobold, who apparently first suggested the equality with N3301) also could not find N3760. </object> <object><oname>NGC3771</oname> Though the identifications of this and N3774 nearby are uncertain, a reasonably good fit can be made for this number to the galaxy at 11 39 05.9 -09 20 54 (ESGC). </object> <object><oname>NGC3774</oname> See NGC3771. </object> <object><oname>NGC3786</oname> See NGC3793. </object> <object><oname>NGC3788</oname> See NGC3793. </object> <object><oname>NGC3789</oname>is much more likely to be MCG -01-30-015 than MCG -01-30-019. The western galaxy is much brighter, and Leavenworth's description matches the bar (which extends north-south) very well. The eastern galaxy is considerably fainter, almost round, and has a fainter companion about 30 arcsec west. Had Leavenworth seen this pair, he would more likely have described it as extended east-west. It's true that Leavenworth's position is closer to MCG -01-30-019 than to -015. However, his position is about 1.5 minutes east of -015, an error that many other of his observations share. </object> <object><oname>NGC3790</oname> See NGC3807. </object> <object><oname>NGC3792</oname>is probably the double star listed in the table. Holden has two observations of it, noting in the second that the "Neb makes an isosceles triangle with DM 2523 and 2525." The only likely object making that triangle with the two BD stars is the double. </object> <object><oname>NGC3793</oname>and NGC3797 are most probably stars. Tempel has this to say about them in his paper in AN 2439 (1882): "For the fine double nebula [GC] 2479-80 = h. 331-32 [should be 'h. 931-32' = N3786,8], I have one hasty sketch from 12 Febr. '82, which shows two very small nebulae +18 sec and +30 sec following the southern component [of the double nebula], which I cannot find catalogued." (He goes on to describe his observations of NGC3786 and 3788.) There are two 15th magnitude stars at the appropriate offsets in RA, just a minute or two south of the declination of the brighter galaxies. For the NGC, Dreyer placed Tempel's two novae following the northern component, NGC3788. This makes the RA's of the novae too large by 2-3 seconds, and displaces the positions well off the stars. This has misled RNGC to assign NGC3793 to the much fainter galaxy VV 575 = CGCG 157-007 south- preceding NGC3786,8. When the correct reference galaxy is used, the RA's come to within a second or two of the stars. Thus, these are almost certainly the objects that Tempel saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC3794</oname><oname>NGC3804</oname>. There is no doubt that the objects are identical. Herschel's positions are 30 seconds of time apart, his descriptions are similar, and there is no galaxy at the position of NGC3794. The RNGC got the wrong galaxy for NGC3794, supposing that Herschel made a 1 degree error in the declination as well as a 1 minute error in RA. It is more likely that WH made a single smaller error rather than two larger ones. </object> <object><oname>NGC3797</oname> See NGC3793. </object> <object><oname>NGC3801</oname> See NGC3807. </object> <object><oname>NGC3802</oname> See NGC3807. </object> <object><oname>NGC3803</oname> See NGC3807. </object> <object><oname>NGC3804</oname> See NGC3794. </object> <object><oname>NGC3806</oname> See NGC3807. </object> <object><oname>NGC3807</oname>is a star, identified on LdR's diagram (it is labeled "C"). Other nebulae also shown on the diagram are N3790, N3801-03, and N3806, the first three observed by the Herschels, the last also seen by d'Arrest. </object> <object><oname>NGC3810</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC3817</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3819</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3820</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3822</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3825</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3826</oname> See NGC3830. </object> <object><oname>NGC3828</oname> The NGC position is within a minute of arc of the GSC position. Also, Bigourdan's original position, if reduced with respect to the GSC position for his comparison star, is within 3 arcsec. So how did CGCG -- and by extension, UGC -- miss the identification? Perhaps a mistake in precessing the position? In any event, the identification needs to be added to CGCG 1140.4+1646. The UGC Notes for UGC 6686 (6 arcmin east of NGC3828) give data for the NGC galaxy, but only under the CGCG number. These notes, too, should have the NGC identification added. </object> <object><oname>NGC3833</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3830</oname>is probably the same galaxy as NGC3826. The only observer to see N3830 (= h956) was John Herschel -- and his one observation is doubtful. His description reads (in full): "Cloudy; hardly discernable." This is from Sweep 416 of 19 April 1832. JH's position for N3830 follows that for NGC3826 (= H II 341 = h954) by 43 seconds of time; the declinations are identical. In addition, N3826 was seen during three sweeps (115, 343, and 417), all different from the single sweep during which N3830 was found. JH's three positions for N3826 are all in agreement. My guess is that because of the clouds, JH did not zero Sweep 416 on stars as well as he usually did. This half-baked idea could be checked by comparing JH's RA's for other objects in the same sweep with modern RA's: are they also off in RA by about 40 arcsec of time? See NGC898 where this sort of error has undoubtedly been made. Another, probably more correct guess, is that JH simply made an error in the RA. </object> <object><oname>NGC3847</oname>is just where JH put it, in spite of the note in IC2. Wolf chose the wrong galaxy for N3847 (his object is actually IC2952); coincidentally, the difference in declinations is just 10 arcmin. See also NGC3855 where I suggest that this galaxy might be NGC3856. </object> <object><oname>NGC3848</oname>is probably NGC3822, and NGC3852 is probably NGC3825. The two questionable identifications are a pair found by William Herschel on 15 March 1784, III 35 and III 36. He describes them as "Two on parallel, 3 or 4 arcmin distant. Both eF, vS," and assigns a single position to the pair. Dreyer, in the Notes to his 1912 edition of WH's papers, claims for N3848, "Observed by Bigourdan, place correct." For N3852, he says, "RA possibly 1 minute too great (see II 64 [NGC4352]). Not found by Bigourdan." This is curious, as Bigourdan clearly states "Not seen, at least in a sure way" for N3848, and "Not seen" for N3852. Perhaps there is a note in one of Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus papers. In any case, Bigourdan has precise measurements for NGC3822 and NGC3825, and identifies them correctly. They are 2 minutes west (not 1 minute) of WH's positions for N3848 and N3852, and they match WH's description well. Other fainter galaxies in the area include NGC3817, 3819, 3820, 3833, and several CGCG/MCG objects. Since N3822 and N3825 are the brightest of the lot, they are most probably the ones that WH picked up. </object> <object><oname>NGC3849</oname><oname>IC730</oname>. Todd's sketches from 14 Dec 1877 positively identify the galaxy, though his position (read from the setting circles of the Naval Observatory's 26-inch refractor) is -- as usual -- well off. In spite of his poor position, he was able to recover the object on 11 Feb 1878, and changed his description of it from "large and nebulous" to "small, quite condensed, somewhat nebulous, and faint." The galaxy was rediscovered by Javelle about 15 years later. Aside from the uncertainty in the position (from the BD) of his comparison star, Javelle's position for the galaxy is very good. His description (with the 30-inch refractor at Nice) is accordant with Todd's second observation. </object> <object><oname>NGC3852</oname> See NGC3848. </object> <object><oname>NGC3855</oname>may be IC2953 and NGC3856 may be NGC3847. These were both found by d'A. Unfortunately, he provides only a crude position for the first; the second is mentioned only in his description, with not even an offset given. So, there have been several guesses made at the identities by Wolf, Spitaler, CGCG, and RNGC. I think they are all wrong, and that d'A probably saw I2953 and NGC3847. These are the brightest galaxies in the area, so would be the ones most likely seen during a hurried observation. However, this too is a guess -- a better one, I think -- but still a guess. </object> <object><oname>NGC3856</oname> See NGC3855. </object> <object><oname>NGC3862</oname>is not IC2955. Bigourdan saw and measured both on the same nights, so the identity cannot be correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC3874</oname>is probably the double star that Reinmuth noted. WH's position is close following the double, and his description "vF, vS, left doubtful. Twilight" is appropriate. Dreyer notes that Bigourdan did not find the nebula; Bigourdan searched unsuccessfully for it twice. </object> <object><oname>NGC3888</oname> See NGC3889. </object> <object><oname>NGC3889</oname> The NGC has this as 5' south of NGC3888. This is incorrect; the original observation by Lord Rosse in 1852 places the nebula 5' north of NGC 3888. Of the three galaxies there, I've taken the brightest as N3889. [Note added June 1999: My old friend Tom DeMary has pointed out that the brief explanation above might not be enough to cover the situation. Here is a fuller story.] Lord Rosse's original observation of NGC3888 in 1852 has a second nebula five arcmin north (he most likely saw the brightest of the three galaxies north and northeast, so that is the one I've taken). In 1878, Dreyer revisited the field, but found nothing to the north. Instead, he measured an object at a position angle of 167.5 deg with a distance of 340.5 arcsec from N3888. It was this measurement that led to the position and note in NGC for N3889. Using the DSS position for NGC3888, Dreyer's measurement reduces to 11 45 03.36, +56 09 09.3. There is nothing at Dreyer's measured position. However, if he made a transcription error in his distance -- read 240.5 for 340.5 -- then his position falls close to a faint star (his position is 11 45 00.81, +56 10 47.0 for B1950.0; the star is at [end figures only] 01.51 and 52.6). It seems likely that this is the object that he measured and mistook as the nebula seen by Lord Rosse. </object> <object><oname>NGC3890</oname><oname>NGC3939</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3899</oname><oname>NGC3912</oname>. Though JH's position falls close to a very close double star (merged on POSS1), it is more likely that his observation refers to NGC 3912. His descriptions are the same, and his position for N3899 is just 1 minute of time west of N3912. Reinmuth first suggested the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC3901</oname> This is one of fifteen nebulae found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801 which have positions affected by a large, systematic error. See NGC3752 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC3905</oname> Is this also possibly IC2962 (which see)? I doubt it. </object> <object><oname>NGC3908</oname> Though Swift describes his object as "F, vS, R, mbM," I have my doubts that he could have seen the galaxy listed in the table. At 16th magnitude, it is too faint to have been included in CGCG, and it is not large enough to have captured VV's attention when he was compiling MCG. Still, there is nothing else in the area, or at reasonable digit errors, that Swift might have seen. This is as good a guess as any as to which object he actually saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC3909</oname>is a very large scattered group of fifty to sixty pretty bright stars; I'm not sure that it is a real cluster, however. JH took as its position one of two double stars which he saw in it. The same double served as the source of Brian Skiff's position, too. However, ESO's position, on to the east another 38 seconds of time, is more appropriate for the apparent center of group. ESO made its dimensions roughly 20 by 15 arcmin, but I measure it to be 24 x 14 arcmin. Coincidentally close to the center, and shining right through, is ESO 217-G007, a small Sa or Sb galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC3911</oname>is the brighter and following of two galaxies (the other is NGC 3920). It was found by WH whose position is very good. JH also saw it, but because his RA was off, thought it a nova and noted, "Follows III 341 [N3911] on same parallel." The galaxy he thought to be his father's was actually the nova, however. Since JH's RA is about 45 seconds too far east, this, and his note, have confused the identifications of the two objects ever since. Neither d'A nor Dreyer found a nebula at JH's position, of course. In spite of the correct NGC position for N3911, most modern catalogues place the two in numerical order. This necessitates changing the RA's of both. In placing NGC3911 on the following galaxy, I am giving precedence to the historical order of discovery, attributing to WH the brighter galaxy he actually saw. Since JH was the first to see the fainter preceding object, the number NGC3920 given by Dreyer to h 996 (JH's nova) necessarily applies to it. This leaves the numbers out of RA order, and also disagrees with the NGC notes about which is preceding and following, but better represents the history in this case. </object> <object><oname>NGC3912</oname><oname>NGC3899</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3915</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC3920</oname> See NGC3911. </object> <object><oname>NGC3922</oname> See NGC3924. </object> <object><oname>NGC3924</oname><oname>NGC3922</oname>. "Both" objects were discovered by William Herschel, but the positions that he gave them were rather discordant. He found N3922 = H III 716 on 9 March 1788, and placed it at 11 48.5, +50 29. N3924 = H II 825 was placed at 11 51.1, +50 33 (1950) by its discovery observation on 8 March 1789. But the next year (17 March 1790), Herschel redetermined its position and found 11 48.9, +50 28. Within Herschel's usual errors, this position is identical with that for III 716. Dreyer realized the identity when he was preparing his edition of William Herschel's Scientific Papers which he collected and published in 1912. He also has a brief note about it in MNRAS 73, 37, 1912. I think the NGC positions come from d'Arrest or Tempel, but haven't chased them down yet. Dreyer also has an intriguing note on the pair in the NGC itself: Tempel apparently saw two nebulae here, though d'Arrest picked up only the brightest. The confusion in the current catalogues comes from both CGCG and MCG which identify both numbers differently. There are many faint galaxies in the area (which is right in the plane of the Local Supercluster, and in the heart of the Ursa Major Cloud), but only one with a surface brightness high enough to be picked up easily at the eyepiece. This is the one that Herschel observed at least three times, and can be confidently called "NGC3922 = NGC3924." This is MCG +08-22-017 = UGC 06824. Though CGCG and UGC put the number N3924 on UGC 06849 = MCG +08-22-026, this is a low surface brightness galaxy that Herschel probably would not have noticed while sweeping. (Could this be Tempel's second nebula, though? I'll have to check.) Unfortunately, UGC, RNGC, and RC3 copied CGCG's incorrect identification for UGC 06849. </object> <object><oname>NGC3927</oname>is probably lost for good. D'A has only one observation of it, but he comments, "Observatio haud dubia, Coelum vero non favebat. Defesso caeteroquin oculo et hebetato." Given that, it's strange that there is nothing at all at his position, nor at any reasonable position resulting from a digit error. Other galaxies nearby that he might have picked up (e.g. N3964, N4008) all have field stars that d'A would have noted. </object> <object><oname>NGC3928</oname>may well be the faintest galaxy known with well-developed spiral structure. See Sidney van den Bergh's short article and splendid photograph in PASP 92, 409, 1980. Also see NGC3932. </object> <object><oname>NGC3932</oname>is a star. D'A has only one observation of it included in his AN 1500 list (where it is No. 125), and in the shorter list (where it is No. 84) that he sent to JH for inclusion in GC (where the NPD is 6 arcsec larger than the NGC NPD). He chose to not include it in his big 2nd monograph; Wolfgang suggests that this was because d'A knew it was a star by that time. In the AN list, d'A describes it as "vF, S. Companion of h. 999 [N3928]," while in the GC, the description reads "vF, v diffic, H.II.740 np." JH is surely responsible for substituting his father's catalogue number for his own, but I suspect that the "v diffic" comes from d'A. I would guess that d'A prepared the two lists at different times from the same observing logs. Perhaps the logs have both "S" and "v diffic" in them. In any event, the faint galaxy chosen by CGCG is not d'A's object -- it is 17 arcmin off his position, and is probably too faint for him to have seen with his 11-inch refractor. RC1 got it right: In the note for NGC3928, the de Vaucouleurs say "NGC3932 sf 5.5 arcmin is a star." They also have a reference to Reinmuth (1926, "Die Herschel-Nebel", in Vol. 9 of the Heidelberg publications) who gave the NGC position (d'Arrest's), a diameter of 0.3? x 0.3? arcmin, and the description "* 11.0 in eeF neb?" Reinmuth also classified the object as "(c)" on Wolf's system -- this means a star (or stellar nucleus) surrounded by a corona of faint nebulosity. There is, however, no trace of nebulosity surrounding the star on POSS1 or on POSS2. </object> <object><oname>NGC3937</oname> See NGC4055 and IC2968. </object> <object><oname>NGC3939</oname><oname>NGC3890</oname>. This was identified on a plate taken at RGO at Dreyer's request to sort out WH's positions during his sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801; the results were published in MN 71, 509, 1911. Dreyer then labeled III 971 in his 1912 collection of WH's papers as NGC3890. Curiously, he mentions N3890 in his 1912 MN note giving NGC corrections, but not N3939. See NGC3752 for more information. </object> <object><oname>NGC3948</oname>is a star identified precisely by Bigourdan's one measurement in 1886. The RNGC identification with N3954 is wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC3949</oname> See NGC3950. </object> <object><oname>NGC3950</oname>is probably the faint elliptical galaxy 1.6 arcmin north of NGC3949. However, LdR's estimated distance from the brighter galaxy on the first night he picked up the companion, and his accordant micrometric measurement three years later in 1875, are clearly 1 arcmin too great. This is all the more puzzling since he gives a table of measurements of six stars surrounding N3949 -- all of those measurements are very good (he notes one as possibly nebulous; it is not). Still, he could have seen the fainter galaxy, and it seems likely that he made a simple error in its distance from the brighter. </object> <object><oname>NGC3952</oname><oname>IC2972</oname>, which see. <ignore /> The NGC identification is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC3954</oname>is not NGC3948, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3955</oname> See IC2970. </object> <object><oname>NGC3957</oname><oname>IC2965</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3964</oname> See NGC3927. </object> <object><oname>NGC3966</oname><oname>NGC3986</oname>. d'A's position (from a single observation) is one of the few verifiably bad ones in his list. His description fits NGC3986 perfectly, and he notes the unresolved 12th magnitude double just southwest exactly in its place relative to the galaxy. Finally, he comments, "Found while looking for [N3986]; this is either a nova, or my RA is inexplicably erroneous." His RA is 1m 30s off, and his declination is 10 arcmin off, too. The galaxy chosen by Max Wolf as N3966 is actually IC2981 (which see as it has problems of its own). Wolf's note about N3966 in his 8th list was copied into the IC2 notes by Dreyer, apparently during its final stages of preparation since Dreyer did not include any of the 8th list objects in the IC itself. </object> <object><oname>NGC3971</oname><oname>NGC3984</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3975</oname>may possibly also be IC3166, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3977</oname><oname>NGC3980</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3978</oname>may possibly also be IC3180. See IC3166 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC3980</oname><oname>NGC3977</oname>. Swift's position is only an arcminute following N3977, there is nothing there, and the double star he notes is 3 arcmin following the galaxy. The identity is sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC3984</oname>is almost certainly the same object as NGC3971. John Herschel found N3984 during Sweep 342, and described it as "eF, R, bM, 25 arcsec." He adds an interesting note (aluded to in the IC2 Notes by Dreyer): "Supposed at the time to be II.724 [NGC3971], but on reducing the obs, it differs 1 min in RA and 1 deg in PD, BOTH which can hardly be mistakes" (Sir John's emphasis). Yet the only reasonable solution is to say that both ARE mistakes. JH found N3971 in Sweep 67, describing it "pB, R, bM. An exact obs." The difference in estimated brightness is significant, but many of JH's multiply-observed objects have the same wide range of description. Otherwise, however, the descriptions for these two objects are the same. Also, the position that he gives for N3971 is (within his usual statistical errors) 1 deg north, and 1 min preceding N3984, just as he noted. Since each nebula was noted in only one sweep, and since there are only very faint stars in the vicinity of his position for N3984, I am going to adopt the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC3986</oname><oname>NGC3966</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC3993</oname>is not H III 324. WH's object is, instead, NGC3997, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3996</oname>is not NGC4019, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC3997</oname>is the second brightest galaxy in a group of three found by WH in 1785. JH found it again 40 years later during his northern sweeps from Slough, and LdR and his observers noted over a dozen companions in the area. All these are in NGC, and Dreyer has the numbers pretty well sorted out (though NGC4009, which see, is a star; and NGC4007, which also see -- due to a 2 deg error in GC or in CH's reduction -- is identical to NGC4005 also seen by Otto Struve at St. Petersberg). However, Dreyer, in his 1912 Scientific Papers of WH, has put the number H III 324 on NGC3993, presumably because it is the closest galaxy northeast of H III 323 (= N3987). WH says only, "Suspected another nf, eF, 5 or 6 arcmin dist, pretty sure." Though his estimated distance falls directly between N3993 and N3997, the latter galaxy is brighter, larger, and (in the central regions at least) has a higher surface brightness. So, I'm pretty sure that it is the one seen by WH. As I noted above, it was also seen by JH -- it is, in fact, the only one of the group seen by him. He rather confused the issue a bit by listing it as "III 323" in his 1833 catalogue. ===== NGC4004 = NGC4004A. The secondary designation comes from Holmberg's 1937 monograph and catalogue of multiple galaxies. He always called the brightest galaxy of a multiplet "a", the second "b", and so on. In this case, "NGC 4004B" is IC2982 (which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC4005</oname><oname>NGC4007</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4006</oname>is not IC2983, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4007</oname><oname>NGC4005</oname>. First found by WH in 1785, this object was recovered by LdR and his observers, and by Otto Struve. Dreyer caught the identity when he revisited the area during preparation of WH's Scientific Papers. In GC, JH has the galaxy two degrees too far south, either because of a transcription error by him or a reduction error by CH. See NGC3997 for more on this group. </object> <object><oname>NGC4008</oname> See NGC3927. </object> <object><oname>NGC4009</oname>is a star identified exactly by LdR's micrometric measurements referred to a brighter star. It is often taken as the fainter galaxy 3.5 arcmin further northeast, but the measurements leave no doubt as to its correct identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC4014</oname><oname>NGC4028</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4019</oname><oname>IC755</oname>. Though JH's position is 2 min 16 sec and 6 arcmin off the true position of I755, the IC object is the only galaxy in the area to have a 9th magnitude star 5 arcmin southeast, matching JH's note. Other possibilities include NGC3996 (but seen in the same sweep as N4019), NGC 4037 (this has an 8th magnitude star following by 6-7 arcmin, but the star is a bit north, not south), and CGCG 069-010 (but that has a pretty low surface brightness and no bright star near). There is nothing at JH's position, so I'm pretty sure that I755 is the correct object. Malcolm notes, however, that there is a 9th magnitude star southeast of JH's (empty) position. This throws a little doubt on the I755 identity, but requires that JH's object be a comet. This is a possibility, but I think that the equality with I755 is more likely. </object> <object><oname>NGC4028</oname><oname>NGC4014</oname>, in spite of what JH had to say in a note in GC (repeated by Dreyer in the NGC Notes). This is one of WH's early discoveries (30 Dec 1783). As with other objects found during the fall and winter of 1783-1784, the position is not very good. However, WH's full record is published by Dreyer in the 1912 Scientific Papers. There, we find the note, "... It forms an isosceles triangle with two small stars {Dreyer's note:} [by a diagram, these are about 6 arcmin sp.]. ..." The stars precede N4014 by the correct amount, so I am pretty sure that it is WH's nebula. This requires WH to have made two 2 min errors in his RA offsets from two different stars on two different nights. While it is highly unlikely that he would make two such errors leading to much the same position -- this is what prompted JH's comment -- this is apparently exactly what happened. The configuration on the sky is too outstanding to be mistaken. </object> <object><oname>NGC4032</oname>is probably not NGC4042, which see. Also see NGC4055. </object> <object><oname>NGC4037</oname> See NGC4019. </object> <object><oname>NGC4042</oname>is Marth 227, found the same night in March 1865 as N4056 (which see) and N4060. If the offsets (about 10 seconds of time, and 1 arcmin) suggested for those other two galaxies are even roughly correct, then N4042 can be tentatively identified with a galaxy in GSC at 12 00 13.2 +20 26 31. The declination offset would be the same as for the other objects, but the RA offset would be considerably larger at 26 seconds. Still, there are no other galaxies even remotely close to Marth's position that would match his description. Another possibility is that N4042 is a star somewhere in the area. RC1 raises the possiblility that it is identical to NGC4032, but that would lead to an error of over 2 minutes of time and 5 arcmin, making it unique amoung Marth's objects of that night. In the end, I'm not sure what Marth really saw, but the galaxy 26 seconds off his position seems the best choice. </object> <object><oname>NGC4052</oname> There is nothing at JH's place, but 1 minute of time west is a cluster, about 9 arcmin by 9 arcmin, that fits his description ("Cluster VII class; loose and scattered, but pretty rich."). I have no doubt that this is his intended object. </object> <object><oname>NGC4055</oname><oname>NGC4061</oname>, <oname>NGC4057</oname><oname>NGC4065</oname>, <oname>NGC4059</oname><oname>NGC4070</oname>. John Herschel found these three nebulae during his Sweep 423 on 29 April 1832. They have not been positively identified in any published catalogue since, though Reinmuth and PGC have made suggestions. Here is the story. Steve Gottlieb started the case by noting that Reinmuth's identifications were unlikely. Bob Erdmann followed up with the suggestion that these might be identical to some of the galaxies in the NGC4065 group 0.8 deg south. Then, Brent Archinal suggested a check of the other objects seen by Herschel in the same sweep. Here is what is in his 1833 catalog credited to Sweep 423 (there may be one or two others lurking in the list, but I haven't found them in two reasonably careful searches): NGC h RA (1830) NPD Desc 3937 1003 11 43 56 68 25.1 vF, S, R 4032 1049 11 51 49 68 58.2 pB, R, gbM, 40" [N.B. Seen in 5 other sweeps where the brightness ranges from "B" to "eF"; the positions agree] 4055 1062 11 55 00: 68+- pB 4057 1063 11 55 04: 68+- pB 4059 1064 11 55 08: 68+- pB. On merid[ian] with two more [I presume the other two are N4055 and N4057] 4066 1068 11 55 26 68 41.9 No description [Seen in 3 other sweeps; the positions agree. Those descriptions are "Not vF. Another seen", "pB", and "The third of 5"] 4095 1079 11 57 13 68 28.1 eF [seen in one other sweep; position agrees, but no description] 4098 1082 11 57 22 68 25.5 No description [two other sweeps: positions agree; "vF, R, bM" and "No description"] Looking at this table, I was struck by a couple of things. First, the north polar distances of the three questionable objects have been assigned the same number of degrees as the other five objects. This suggests to me that the minutes of NPD should be similar to the others -- say 68 30 to 68 50 -- since Herschel's sweeps were pretty limited in declination. This would make the NPD's roughly equivalent to the other bright objects in the core of the NGC 4065 group where the NPD's range from 68 38 to 68 53. Second, the descriptions suggest that the objects are not faint, and that they are aligned pretty closely along the same meridian of RA. The NGC4065 group has four bright objects: N4061, N4065, N4066, and N4070. Since Sir John saw N4066 during the sweep in question, this leaves N4061, N4065, and N4070 as the possible candidates. Interestingly, his more exact positions for N4055, 57, and 59 given in GC (from "a most careful consideration of all the observations and records in the sweeping books" [note in GC], and copied into NGC by Dreyer) are roughly coincident with these three galaxies if a systematic offset of about -0.88 degrees in Dec and +20 seconds in RA is applied. Putting all this together, Occam's Razor (the simplest hypothesis that fits the facts) suggests that NGC4055 = NGC4061 NGC4057 = NGC4065 NGC4059 = NGC4070 I'm not sure about this, of course. But this is certainly a reasonable solution to the problem. There is more discussion of the identities in the group under NGC4056 and NGC 4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4056</oname>and NGC4060. Albert Marth found these two objects in the area of the N4065 group during his Malta observations of March 1865 with William Lassell's 48-inch reflector (these are m229 = N4056 and m230 = N4060; their data are transcribed correctly into NGC). These do not have good positions (neither was "verified" by Marth), and the descriptions are vague enough to make identifications unsure. One possibility is N4060 = RN4056; Marth's position is close to that galaxy. However, that leaves the question of N4056. Marth's position is near a very faint galaxy that I doubt could be dug out visually even with the 48-inch -- is N4056 perhaps the star preceding Marth's position by about two arcmin? Another possibility is that N4060 = RN4069 and N4056 = RN4056; this would require a systematic offset of about 10 sec in RA and 1 min in dec for Marth's positions. (Another object, m227 = N4042, which see, found by him the same night, could then be identified with a faint galaxy in the GSC with the same declination offset, but would require an RA offset of 26 seconds.) Even with the offsets, however, the positions would not be good matches for the positions of the galaxies in the group. Finally, there is the RNGC"brute force" solution: ignore the positions and simply assign the numbers to the two relatively bright galaxies in the area that do not have other NGC numbers. If we accept this idea, N4060 is at least north-following N4056, though the difference in RA is about one-third of the difference given by Marth. Still, this could be the correct interpretation, so we'll go with it for the time being. See NGC4069 for more on this confused field. </object> <object><oname>NGC4057</oname><oname>NGC4065</oname>. See NGC4055. </object> <object><oname>NGC4059</oname><oname>NGC4070</oname>. See NGC4055. </object> <object><oname>NGC4060</oname> See NGC4042, NGC4056, and NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4061</oname> See NGC4055 and NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4065</oname><oname>NGC4057</oname>. See NGC4055 and NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4066</oname> See NGC4055 and NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4067</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4068</oname><oname>IC757</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Bigourdan misidentified a star as NGC4068 on two nights, apparently misled by the NGC description "stellar." This led him to rediscover the galaxy and claim it as a "nova." WH's own description "A pS star involved in nebulosity of no great extent; the star does not seem to belong to it" matches the galaxy and its brightest superposed star very well. I suspect that JH condensed the description while preparing the GC. See IC757 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4069</oname> This is one of the galaxies found by John Herschel during the problematic Sweep 423 of 29 April 1832 (see NGC4055 for a list of the nebulae found during the sweep). Unfortunately, Herschel saw it only during that one sweep, so its position is not well-determined. Also, it is in the midst of a group of nebulae found by William Herschel, and later reobserved by Heinrich d'Arrest. Making reasonable assumptions about the six objects found by Sir William (he measured positions only for the northern three of those he saw, saying only that the other three were 10-12 arcmin south) leads to the conclusion that d'Arrest got the same six. NGC4069 (= h1070) is not among them, in spite of the identity with H III 392 given in NGC. The three measured by Herschel are N4066, N4070, and N4074; and his other three to the south must be N4061, N4065, and N4076. These are the six brightest objects in the group. There are four other NGC objects scattered through the group. Unfortunately, only one can be pinned down with any certainty. That one is NGC4072, discovered by Ralph Copeland with Lord Rosse's Leviathan. His description (dated 3 April 1872) also makes it clear that he saw the fainter galaxy two minutes north-following N4076. The confusion in the positions, though, led Dreyer to not assign an NGC number to this galaxy. In any case, N4069 is one of the remaining three (the other two are N4056 and N4060, found by Marth; see the discussion of these). RNGC makes N4069 the faint galaxy just north-preceding a star (both are in GSC), but the nearby RN4060 is considerably brighter. Herschel's description, however, "vF, R, 4th of 5; has another on same meridian, north" doesn't support the identity with RN4060. There is the possibility, however, that the star just south-following RN4069 was "blended" with the galaxy so that the two objects together would appear as a single brighter nebula. This would save the description of "another on the same meridian, north," and would be relatively close to Sir John's position. Lacking any better hypothesis at the moment, we'll adopt the RNGC identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC4070</oname><oname>NGC4059</oname>. See NGC4055 and NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4072</oname> See NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4074</oname> See NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4076</oname> See NGC4069. </object> <object><oname>NGC4077</oname>is also NGC4140. See NGC4139 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4078</oname><oname>NGC4107</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4082</oname> See NGC4107. </object> <object><oname>NGC4083</oname> See NGC4107. </object> <object><oname>NGC4086</oname> See NGC4090 and IC759. </object> <object><oname>NGC4090</oname>is not IC2997 (which see). Both were seen on the same night by Bigourdan, though he included only his observations for I2997 in his big table. The observations for N4090 are in his appendix of complementary observations. Another curiosity with this object is its NGC right ascension from d'Arrest's observation. D'A found both this and NGC4086 on the same night, and mentions this object in his note for N4086. However, while his RA for N4086 is about right, he puts this object about 10 seconds of time following its true position 1.5 seconds preceding N4086. Since both are visible in the same eyepiece field, I suspect that this is a simple digit error somewhere in d'A's reduction. </object> <object><oname>NGC4092</oname> not NGC4093, is almost certainly H III 382. WH saw three galaxies in this group, most plausibly the brightest three. So, Dreyer's supposition that the first of the three is N4093 is probably wrong, just as JH's idea that III 382 is NGC4095 (note, too, that JH has a misprint in his list making his father's object "II 382"). N4092 is a magnitude brighter and considerably larger than N4093, so is probably WH's object. His other two are NGC4095 and NGC4098 = NGC4099, both of which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4093</oname>is probably not H III 382. See NGC4092 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4095</oname> The RC3 position is from MCG. GSC has 12 03 21.05 +20 51 03.6 (1950) for this galaxy. The relatively small difference in position normally wouldn't matter to the identification, but the galaxy is in a fairly compact group with five other NGC objects. Four of the six galaxies are in RC3, and as far as I can tell with a quick check of MCG, UGC, and CGCG, the data for each have been assigned correctly. This is also the second of the three objects that WH found (III 383). The first is NGC4092 (which see), and the third is NGC4098 = NGC4099 (also which see). Dreyer reassigned WH's numbers in the 1912 Scientific Papers, getting this one and III 384 correct. Also see NGC4055. </object> <object><oname>NGC4098</oname><oname>NGC4099</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC4055. </object> <object><oname>NGC4099</oname><oname>NGC4098</oname>. WH found three nebulae in this group. It's reasonable to suppose that he saw the three brightest (two of these were seen by JH, and the others were found by d'A); these are NGC4092, 4095, and 4098. As Dreyer realized in 1912, this would make the number 4099 = GC 2714 irrelevant as it was added (by JH) explicitly for H III 384, the third of his father's three. On the DSS image, this looks like an interacting double galaxy (it may be a triple -- there is a broad plume extending on to the southeast that may be a third component). The two are well merged, so the early observers would not have seen them as separate objects. So that won't save the extra NGC number (nor IC2998, which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC4107</oname><oname>NGC4078</oname> with a 2 minute error in d'A's RA. The object is positively identified by the "star 10-11 30.2 seconds following, 1 arcmin south." Just north of this star is a line of three faint galaxies, two (N4082 and N4083) seen by Marth with William Lassel's 48-inch reflector, the third found by Frost on a Harvard plate. All are faint enough that d'A could not have seen them with his 11-inch refractor. There is a curious footnote to this: Burnham claims to have seen the nebula in 1891 with the Lick 36-inch, and also says that the star is north-preceding, not south-following as d'A has it. Since I haven't yet seen Burnham's notes, I can't say anything about this except to speculate that Burnham saw a different object. We can also speculate that he would have noticed the RA error had he picked up N4078. ----- Since I wrote that previous paragraph, Wolfgang has kindly sent me a copy of Burnham's note which appears in Publ. Lick Obs. 2, 163, 1894 (his discoveries of IC258 and IC259, which see, are at the end of this paper). It reads in full: No. 4107 R.A. 11 59 35 Decl. +11 23 Not planetary, but it is brighter in the middle, and extended in the direction of 115 deg. In Dreyer, it is described as having a star 10-11m south following. There is nothing in that place, but there is a star of that magnitude north preceding. Wolfgang points out that there is a fainter star very near to the west of the galaxy. Since Burnham does not mention a distance to his star, and since d'A's star is a considerable distance away, it's possible that Burnham did not notice d'A's star. It is also possible that he simply got his directions confused. Whatever happened, it's clear that Burnham got the right galaxy -- his position angle is accurate for NGC4107. </object> <object><oname>NGC4108</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4113</oname><oname>NGC4122</oname>. JH has only one observation of N4113, calling it only "eF." His position is exactly 1 degree north of N4122, and his brief description is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>NGC4115</oname>is perhaps the 14th magnitude star near JH's position. There are no nebulae nearby, or at digit errors from his nominal position, that he could have picked up while sweeping. He also notes it as "A suspected nebula, extremely faint" which the star would have been were it seen on a less than perfect night. </object> <object><oname>NGC4119</oname><oname>IC3011</oname> (which see) is also probably NGC4124 as suggested by Dreyer in WH's Scientific Papers. WH's final position is just 50 arcmin south of N4124, and there are no other bright galaxies nearby that he might have picked up. It is worth noting, too, that this is one of his early discoveries (18 Jan 1784). Many other of his nebulae and clusters found during the winter of 1783-84 (his first season of sweeping) have relatively poor positions (see e.g. NGC4153 and NGC6533). Dreyer notes that N4124 already has two certain numbers in WH's lists, I 33 and II 60. The positions for these observations are better, but are still enough different -- along with the differing descriptions "B, L, ..." and "F, S" -- that WH listed them separately. </object> <object><oname>NGC4122</oname><oname>NGC4113</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4124</oname><oname>NGC4119</oname><oname>IC3011</oname>, both of which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4139</oname><oname>IC2989</oname>. The RA's of this and its companion NGC4140 are 5 minutes of time too large. When corrected by this amount, the positions agree closely with those for IC2989 and NGC4077, respectively. The descriptions clinch the identities, and RC3 is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC4140</oname><oname>NGC4077</oname>. See NGC4139. </object> <object><oname>NGC4147</oname> See NGC4153. </object> <object><oname>NGC4149</oname><oname>NGC4154</oname>. The two NGC numbers are due to WH having swept this galaxy up twice in succesive years, 1789 and 1790. JH has only one observation of it with no description which he put on his father's 1789 observation. Dreyer noted that Bigourdan did not find NGC4154 (the 1790 observation), but WH's position for this is actually closer to the galaxy than his position for N4149 which Bigourdan did observe. In any event, there is no doubt that the two numbers apply to the same galaxy. Steve Gottlieb (who called my attention to this) and Wolfgang Steinicke were apparently the first to notice the identity. Though I have the correct position for each object, they are just far enough apart in my working table (separated by many good positions for NGC4151) that I did not see the identity. Good catch, guys! </object> <object><oname>NGC4152</oname> See IC765. </object> <object><oname>NGC4153</oname>is probably NGC4147. This was found by WH on 15 Feb 1784, only two months after he started observing with his first "20-feet" telescope. He put the nebula 1m 30s preceding, 2d 11m south of 5 Comae. This gives 12 08.1 +18 38 (1950) for the nebula. Herschel described it as "B, pL, lE, bM, m[ilky]." It has not been seen since at this position. The closest reasonable object that might be the missing nebula is another early discovery of WH's, NGC4147 = H I 19, the bright globular northwest of the Virgo Cluster. Herschel found this just a month after N4153 (14 March 1784), and placed it at 10m 30s preceding, 0d 46m north of 11 Comae. This becomes 12 07.7, +18 50 (1950), in pretty good agreement with modern positions for the cluster. WH's description is very much the same as that for N4153: "vB, pL, gbM." At the time WH found N4153, he was still improving his method of determining positions. So, I suspect that the February observation, earlier on the "learning curve," actually refers to NGC4147. I also recall a Sky and Telescope article on this mystery object. It appeared many years ago, perhaps in the late 50s or early 60s. Someone whose S&T's are not buried in the storeroom might want to dig it out. It is not a "Deep Sky Wonders" article, since Walter Scott Houston's article -- at least as printed in the book edited by Stephen James O'Meara -- that mentions N4153 calls it a "true faint external galaxy ... about 13' south and about 8' east of NGC 4147." The declination would be close to WH's, but the RA is well off. And there is nothing in this position, either. </object> <object><oname>NGC4154</oname><oname>NGC4149</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4160</oname> Bigourdan has two accordant observations of this object on 27 May 1886 which place it 12.87 seconds east and 1 arcmin 24.8 arcsec north of "AG Bonn 8386" = SAO 044068. However, there is nothing there. A quick glance at the POSS1 shows another star about 35 seconds following and 40 arcsec north with a faint double star north following. The DSS gives the position of the double as 12 09 31.0, +44 00 49. Assuming that this is Bigourdan's object, and that he misidentified his comparison star, I reduced his observation. The resulting position is 12 09 41.0, +44 00 59. The 10 second and 10 arcsec differences are striking, but are difficult to understand given that Bigourdan read his micrometer in terms of position angle and distance and later reduced them to RA and Dec offsets. Since there is still nothing at Bigourdan's place (assuming the mistaken identity for the comparison star), I'm tempted to assume some kind of error in his observation leading to the digit errors. But so far, I've not been able to find it. </object> <object><oname>NGC4163</oname><oname>NGC4167</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4164</oname>and 4165. There is no doubt concerning the identifications of these two galaxies, yet UGC missed the NGC number for N4164. This is probably just an oversight. However, one comment: Tempel expresses some surprise that d'Arrest should have missed N4164; Tempel seems to think that the two galaxies are nearly equal in brightness. However, N4164 is a full magnitude fainter, and much smaller than N4165. There is a 15th magnitude star about 30 arcsec south-following that may have provided the illusion of a brighter nebula in Tempel's relatively small 11-inch refractor. Still, I'm not at all surprised that d'Arrest picked up N4165 alone. N4165 itself is identical to IC3035, which is from Schwassmann's list of photographically discovered nebulae in the Virgo Cluster. There can be no doubt about this as Schwassmann included other NGC objects, and his position falls much closer to N4165 than to the tiny companion just north-preceding. Nilson realized this, too, and corrected the mistaken entry in CGCG where the north-preceding galaxy is called I3035. Since Schwassmann was working on a plate taken with a telescope of 6-inches aperture, it's doubtful that the fainter galaxy is on the plate at all (the plate, by the way, has been lost. Wayne Johnson requested a print of it from Heidelberg along with the other prints of the discovery plates for many of Wolf's IC objects, but Schwassmann's plate could not be found). </object> <object><oname>NGC4165</oname> See NGC4164. </object> <object><oname>NGC4167</oname><oname>NGC4163</oname>. JH first suggested the identity -- it is clinched by the existence of the bright double star (SAO 62887/8) 10 arcmin southwest of the galaxy. JH's position is exactly 20 arcmin off. </object> <object><oname>NGC4169</oname> See NGC4170. </object> <object><oname>NGC4170</oname>and 4171. Found by d'Arrest near the group of four galaxies NGC 4169, 4173, 4174, and 4175, these two objects are probably stars picked up on a night of below-average seeing. D'A's entire observation (translated to colloquial English by a Latin teacher, and relayed courtesy of Steven Dick and Brent Archinal at USNO) reads in full: "In addition, I think I see two other nebulae very close to this one [NGC4169]; a clearer sky would help." His note for the night (10 May 1864) reads: "Wind; not perfectly clear." The approximate positions in the NGC apparently come from Dreyer. And that is the extent of the original "data." There are no other nebulae near the quartet found by the Herschels. Given d'A's scanty observation, we can safely conclude that these two objects do not exist. An interesting side note: Yann Pothier brought these objects back to my attention. His mother, also fluent in Latin, commented -- based on the sentence describing these nebulae -- that d'A's Latin was not very good. Here is the complete sentence for those of you who would be able to read my PhD diploma: "Praeterea visus sum mihi videre duas alias nebulas huic valde vicinas, quae Astronomis, Coelo adjutis sereniore, relinquuntur." </object> <object><oname>NGC4171</oname> See NGC4170. </object> <object><oname>NGC4173</oname> See NGC4170. </object> <object><oname>NGC4174</oname> See NGC4170. </object> <object><oname>NGC4175</oname> See NGC4170. </object> <object><oname>NGC4180</oname>is perhaps NGC4182, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4182</oname>may be NGC4180, or it may simply be a star at Peters's position. That position is 3 degrees south and 17 seconds following NGC4180. Arguing for the identity is his observation of NGC4191. Both it and NGC4180 are about 13th magnitude, and close enough together on the sky that it is difficult to understand how an observer could see one but miss the other. On the other hand, Peters's position for NGC4191 is only 4 seconds following the true position -- his measured separation for the objects (assuming only a 3 deg error in declination) does not match their separation on the sky. And the star at his quoted position is faint enough that it could have been mistaken for a nebula. In the end, we would need to re-examine Peters's charts to find the objects that he thought were nebulae. Until then, I slightly favor the NGC4182 = NGC 4180 idea, though not by much. </object> <object><oname>NGC4184</oname>is a group of faint stars just where JH says it is. The object was rediscovered over a century later by Ruprecht (it is his number 102), but the NGC number was not attached. Thus, the "non-existent" status in RNGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC4185</oname>may also be NGC4209, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4186</oname> Tempel mentions this object in two of his papers (AN 2212 and AN 2439). In the earlier paper, the offset from M98 (= N4192 = GC2786) is given as -10s and -10', leading to a position listed as 12 06 15 +15 32 (1855) [12 06 30 +15 30 (1860)] which is 10s off the NGC place (12 06 20 +15 31). However, the later paper lists the offset as +20s, -9.5m which gives 12 07 00 +15 31 (1860). This position agrees with that from Zwicky for an Sa galaxy with mp = 14.9; this was also earlier mentioned by Carlson (1940). The mistake seems to have been Dreyer's: he applied the right ascension offset (from Tempel's later paper) with the wrong sign. Carlson and RC2 are correct; RNGC, UGC, and VCC are incorrect. </object> <object><oname>NGC4189</oname><oname>IC3050</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4191</oname> See NGC4182. </object> <object><oname>NGC4192</oname> See NGC4186. </object> <object><oname>NGC4193</oname><oname>IC3051</oname>. See IC3050. </object> <object><oname>NGC4198</oname><oname>IC778</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4202</oname> Todd's published article has a sketch of the field of this galaxy that unambiguously identifies it with UGC 7337. The RC3 is correct; RNGC is not. </object> <object><oname>NGC4206</oname><oname>IC3064</oname>. See IC3050. </object> <object><oname>NGC4208</oname><oname>NGC4212</oname>. This one requires a coincidence of errors by both WH and JH. Though both nebulae were seen by WH in a single sweep, Dreyer has shown (in the Scientific Papers) that the objects could be identical if WH reset his telescope after fixing on a star. In his NGC note, Dreyer suggests that JH made a simple digit error in the RA of h1142 = N4208 -- it was seen only once in a different sweep than h1144 = N4212 (which has four accordant observations). This placed h1142 close enough to H II 107 that JH assumed the identity. Though remarkable, such a coincidence is almost sure to happen at least once in the crowded area of the Supergalactic equator. Since there are plausible explanations for both errors, I'm willing to accept Dreyer's identity of the "two" nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC4209</oname>may be NGC4185. Or it may be a star about 2 arcmin south-southwest of WH's position. The problem with equating N4209 and N4185 (which is about 2 minutes west of N4209) is that WH found them both during the same sweep. Dreyer's note in the Scientific Papers tells us that WH's position of N4209 was recorded to the nearest minute of time only, so may be "doubtful" as it then rests on WH's note that it follows N4196 by 1 minute 18 seconds. Dreyer has also shown us (see NGC4208) that WH, at least once, probably unknowingly observed the same galaxy twice in the same sweep. Could this have happened here? Wolfgang Steinicke has chosen the star noted above as being N4209. This is certainly possible, too, but WH's description "F, pS" does not give us very much to go on. So, we are left with questions and only suggestions of answers. </object> <object><oname>NGC4210</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4212</oname><oname>NGC4208</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4214</oname><oname>NGC4228</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4221</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4222</oname>is not IC3087, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4223</oname><oname>IC3102</oname><oname>NGC4241</oname><oname>IC3115</oname>. There are several curious things going on here, the least of which are the equalities with the IC numbers! Here are two galaxies, both seen by both Herschels, yet Dreyer has all but insisted on dropping the NGC number 4223. I'm not really in favor of this at the end of the story -- but we need the story first. WH found the brightest (H II 137) of the two galaxies on 13 April 1784, placing it "f 11 Virginis 7 min 18 sec, 0 deg 55 arcmin north." As Dreyer noted, these offsets reduce to 12 15 13, +06 58.6 (B1950). WH's second observation, from 28 Dec 1784, reduces to 12 14 49, +07 00.1, which is close to the actual position of the brighter galaxy of the pair. That these observations refer to the same nebula is obvious from WH's note about III 480 (seen only on the second night): "L, vF, would not have been seen if it had not been for the preceding [II 137]." WH's position for the fainter object is also very close to the true position, too. JH also has two observations of the brighter galaxy -- his positions are accordant with each other, and with his father's second position. However -- and here is where the confusion sets in -- he calls this brighter galaxy III 480. On his second sweep, he also has an observation of an object which he calls II 137, but of it he says, "pB, R, RA estimated from III 480, which it precedes on the same parallel." All that is true. But the position he gives for this brighter object is a minute of time earlier than it should be -- there is no nebula there. Somehow, JH has got his absolute positions about a minute of time west of the true positions. JH, of course, used his own positions in GC, and Dreyer copied them into the NGC noting that d'A never saw the preceding of the pair. However, while working on the Scientific Papers, Dreyer looked again at the problem, this time finding that H III 480 is = IC3115, and that II 137 = NGC4241 (apparently not noticing that N4241 would also be = IC3102). This leaves the number 4223 without a galaxy -- yet WH's observations are very clear that his II 137 applies to the brighter, western object. This would be N4223. This makes the fainter eastern object III 480 = N4241. All this is in accordance with the numbers in the GC and the NGC itself. The only incorrect data are the RA's which are about a minute of time (N4223) and 30 seconds (N4241) too far west. This leads me to suggest that the simplest solution is to adopt WH's positions, descriptions, and numbers. The only problem is that the number N4241 has been applied to the brighter galaxy for so long that confusion will undoubtedly result. My feeling is, "So be it." The IC numbers are unambiguous as Schwassmann's positions are very good. The question of why he did not assign the NGC numbers is pretty clear from the mess above. I would have thought, however, that either he or Dreyer would have caught the equality of the positions for I3102 and N4241 (as published in NGC); apparently, neither checked carefully enough, perhaps thrown off by the RA problems. An addendum: The mess with these two NGC numbers may not be the reason that Schwassmann did not assign them in his list -- he may simply have missed them. There are at least two other NGC/IC equalities in his list: NGC4235 = IC 3098, and NGC4246 = IC3113. There are no big problems with the NGC positions in these cases, yet he has not put the NGC numbers into his list. So, the galaxies also went into the IC. See the IC numbers for a bit more discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC4228</oname><oname>NGC4214</oname>. The equality was first implied by d'A, and later taken up at Lick, by Reinmuth, Carlson, and in RC1 and RNGC. The problem is simply an error of 1 minute of time in JH's position for the galaxy the first time he saw it (Sweep 72). He got it right the second time (Sweep 331). </object> <object><oname>NGC4230</oname>was misidentified in ESO and by Brian Skiff (and perhaps by others as well). Their positions point at an apparently real cluster roughly 12 arcmin southeast of JH's position. There is a bright star, HD 106826, superposed on the cluster just northwest of the core, a star that JH surely would not have called "12th magnitude" as he did the star near the center of his object. Brian took the position of the HD star as that of the cluster, while Andris Lauberts measure the position of the core itself. JH' object is a much more scattered grouping and may not be a real cluster. It is centered about an arcminute northeast of a 12th magnitude star which JH measured and took as the position of his cluster. I make the object 7 arcmin by 5 arcmin in diameter on the DSS cutout, in good agreement with JH's estimate of 6 arcmin. </object> <object><oname>NGC4235</oname><oname>IC3098</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC4223 = IC3102. </object> <object><oname>NGC4236</oname> While there is no question about the identification of this large, low surface brightness galaxy, its accurate position is not easily determined. There is no nucleus visible at any wavelength, so the published positions are all either estimates, or refer to various other features within the galaxy. The position that I've adopted is an estimated center of the outer isophotes visible on the POSS I prints. Because the galaxy is reasonably symmetrical -- unlike many other late-type galaxies which also have no nucleus -- this position pretty closely corresponds to the center of the bar, and is within a few arcsec of a superposed star. </object> <object><oname>NGC4241</oname><oname>IC3115</oname>. See NGC4223 = IC3102. </object> <object><oname>NGC4246</oname><oname>IC3113</oname> (which also see). In a note in the NGC, Dreyer defends the use of the declination from a Harvard observation by G. M. Searle rather than from WH's single observation. As it happens, Searle is correct. The RA is only five seconds out, so the identity with IC3113 is solid. Since there are other NGC objects in the area that Schwassmann did not identify as such (see e.g. NGC4223 = IC3102), I am beginning to think that he had a reason to omit the numbers from his table. Perhaps the confusion explained in the note about N4223 above had something to do with it. I'll have to dig into Schwassmann's text a bit to see if anything obvious falls out. </object> <object><oname>NGC4279</oname> See NGC4280. </object> <object><oname>NGC4280</oname>may be the short line of three stars between N4279 and N4285. Swift has it as the "2nd of 3," but there are only two galaxies here. Howe calls them N4280 and N4285, but modern catalogs (including ESGC) have made them the two outer objects of the triple Swift claimed to have seen. Unfortunately, he has no notes about stars in the area, so we are left only with his poor positions and inconsistent descriptions of brightness (he calls the last of the three the brightest; Howe noted correctly that it is actually fainter than the preceding galaxy). There are also no systematic offsets in the positions of the other galaxies he found the same night (see also N6059), so we can't recover the missing nebula that way. So, the only faintly reasonable explanation is that Swift's middle "nebula" is the line of stars, but this is little more than a guess. </object> <object><oname>NGC4284</oname>may also be IC3166, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4285</oname> See NGC4280. </object> <object><oname>NGC4286</oname><oname>IC3181</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4290</oname>may also be IC3180. See IC3166 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC4294</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4296</oname> See NGC4297. </object> <object><oname>NGC4297</oname> Though noted as not found by d'A and Reinmuth, this galaxy is indeed where WH found it: "... close by ..." N4296. It is actually north, and just a bit preceding the larger, brighter galaxy. It is very faint, though, and very small, so I'm not surprised that d'A did not see it. It probably appears stellar on the Bruce plates that Reinmuth examined. </object> <object><oname>NGC4305</oname> The position given for this by Schwassmann in his list of Virgo Cluster galaxies is about an arcmin off to the south of the true position. Since Schwassmann was a pioneer in the measurement of accurate positions on photographic plates, this -- and a few other buggy numbers in his list -- are a bit of a puzzle. They most likely come from numerical errors in the reduction of the measured rectangular coordinates to RA and Dec. In our present age of electronic computers, we often forget that the calculations at the turn of the century were all done by hand. Accidental errors were thus more likely. My guess is that this is one. See also NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4306</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4310</oname><oname>NGC4338</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC4311 and NGC4317. </object> <object><oname>NGC4311</oname> JH has only one observation of this, calling it "Faint; the south-following of two." The "north-preceding" of the two is N4310 which JH called "Very bright." There is only one galaxy here, N4310, and that was also seen by WH, as well as by JH during the sweep previous to the one during which he saw two objects in this place. It is possible that JH misidentified another pair -- but there is no other pair near his place, nor at any reasonable digit error from his place. In addition, his measured position for N4311 is less than 20 arcsec from the single galaxy here. This is would be a remarkable coincidence if the position actually applies to another object. So, we are confronted with another lost NGC object. </object> <object><oname>NGC4313</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4314</oname> See NGC4317. </object> <object><oname>NGC4315</oname>may be one of the two 13th magnitude stars south of NGC4316. Tempel mentioned the object in his descriptive note that accompanies his micrometric position for NGC4316 in his fifth paper including new nebulae. In that list, he places N4315 at 2 seconds preceding and 1.5 arcmin south of NGC4316 -- there isn't anything there. The brighter star is at the required declination offset, but its RA is about 3 seconds larger than N4316's. This would require that Tempel made a mistake in the sign of his RA offset. This isn't unknown -- see NGC4186 for another example. The fainter star is another candidate. The RA offset is in the right direction (it is 3 seconds preceding the RA of the galaxy), however, it is nearly 3 arcmin south of N4316, not 1.5 as Tempel made it. So, I feel that this is less likely to be his object (though it is the one that I chose the first time I went over the field without Tempel's paper at hand). In either case, Tempel has mistaken other stars near other galaxies as nebulous (see e.g. N577, N4322, N4327, and N4768/9), so having one near N4316 is no surprise. </object> <object><oname>NGC4316</oname> See NGC4315. </object> <object><oname>NGC4317</oname>is lost. WH's observation (this is II 324) fits in order with the rest of the nebulae he found the same night 13 March 1785, many of which were compared with 13 CVn (= 37 Comae = SAO 63288). II 324 has the same RA offset as I 76 = N4314, though is supposed to be 1 deg 9 arcmin north of that galaxy. There is nothing at WH's position. A possibility for WH's object is NGC4310 = NGC4338 (which see). It is at roughly the correct RA (17 seconds preceding WH's), but is 1 deg 50 arcmin south of WH's Dec. This makes it unlikely that this is the object he saw. Finally, Reinmuth, RNGC, and Steinicke have called N4317 a star. I think this is unlikely as WH would have probably noted the object "very small" or "extremely small" rather than simply "small." </object> <object><oname>NGC4319</oname><oname>NGC4345</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4320</oname> Is this possibly also NGC4368? See that for the speculation. </object> <object><oname>NGC4321</oname> See NGC4322, NGC4323, and NGC4327. </object> <object><oname>NGC4322</oname>is probably a star. It, NGC4323, and NGC4327 were all found by Tempel while he was observing NGC4321 (M 100) and NGC4328. He only gives descriptive places for them with respect to the brighter objects, so the NGC positions are only approximate. His entire note for the three objects reads (translation by me), "... on my drawing, there are three other very faint nebulae in the vicinity, two north of and close to 2890 [N4321], and the third south of 2894 [N4328]." Given Tempel's propensity for seeing nebulae where only stars exist, I think that the star northwest of M100, and one of the stars southeast, along with the galaxy to the northeast, are Tempel's three objects. It's certainly possible to argue with this since Tempel gives no details about the appearance of his objects, but this is a reasonable hypothesis under the circumstances. The galaxy to the northeast has been called "NGC4322 = NGC4323" by many observers. Since Tempel's description is very clear about his having seen two "nebulae" north of M100, the identity cannot be true. This has the unfortunate consequence that the number 4322 is put onto a star, but I prefer this to inverting the RA order. </object> <object><oname>NGC4323</oname>is the galaxy northeast of M100 (= NGC4321) that has been called "NGC4322 = NGC4323" in many catalogues and lists. See NGC4322 for the story on this. </object> <object><oname>NGC4325</oname>is probably also NGC4368, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4327</oname>is perhaps one of the two stars near NGC4321 and NGC4328 listed in the table. I don't see anything else "south of [N4328]" that Tempel might have included in his sketch. See NGC4322 for more details. There is what appears to be an asterism of four stars on the POSS1 version of DSS near the nominal position for N4327. This is in fact a single star with a group of four plate defects superposed. Malcolm noticed this, and I'm grateful that he called my attention to it. </object> <object><oname>NGC4328</oname> See NGC4322, NGC4323, and NGC4327. </object> <object><oname>NGC4332</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4336</oname><oname>IC3254</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Frost must have thought that IC3254 was a new object as he measured its position to be over 2.5 arcmin away from that for NGC4336. The GC/NGC position itself, from JH's two observations, is even further. (D'Arrest's position is within a few arcsec of the modern position, but JH did not get a copy of d'A's monograph in time to cross-check the GC positions.) In any case, as I explain in the story for I3254, the identity seems likely, so I've adopted it for the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC4338</oname><oname>NGC4310</oname>. d'A's RA is just one minute following NGC4310, and his description is apt. Also, he measured N4310 on three nights (his numbers 80, 164, and 380), and N4338 on one other night (night 110). </object> <object><oname>NGC4341</oname><oname>IC3260</oname>, NGC4342 = IC3256, and NGC4343. There is a group of five galaxies here to which three NGC numbers and four IC numbers apply. Needless to say, the identifications are pretty thoroughly scrambled in the literature. Here is the story: William Herschel (1786) saw three objects (III. 94-96) here, but gave only one position for the them. John Herschel included only one of the objects in his 1833 catalogue, calling it "III. 94," the first of the three numbers assigned by his father. When he prepared the GC, he used his position for this brightest object, but his father's position for the other two, thus giving the lowest of WH's numbers to the object with the largest right ascension. Dreyer used a mean value of JH's position and one from d'Arrest (1867) for the brightest object, but still had only WH's positions for the remaining two. Thus, the inverted order of WH's numbers remains in NGC, with the largest NGC number (4343) receiving the smallest WH number (III. 94). In sorting out the NGC numbers, I've simply assumed that WH saw the brightest three galaxies here, and that JH and d'Arrest measured the brightest one of these. These three galaxies also have the highest surface brightnesses of the five objects in question, so this is an entirely reasonable assumption to make (see RC3 for the data). This means, however, that the brightest object, NGC4343, has the smallest right ascension on the sky, but the largest RA in NGC. Also, I've followed RC1 (and most other modern catalogues) by assigning N4342 to the middle of the three galaxies, and N4341 to the remaining (following) object, thus retaining the reverse order. Bigourdan's observations of 1895 and 1907 of all five objects here yielded four numbers in the second IC. Schwassmann measured four of the five objects on a Heidelberg plate (the fifth object that he did not measure probably appears stellar on the plate). Dreyer used these four accurate positions in IC2; this has led Herzog (1967 and CGCG) to suggest dropping the questionable NGC numbers altogether, and simply use the unambiguous IC numbers instead. RC2 and RC3 adopted this solution. However, this discards two NGC numbers which we can now assign based on modern photometric data. So, I have adopted the identifications suggested here. Appendix 6 in RC3 is a table of most known identifications for all five of the galaxies. The curious are referred to it for cross-references into the modern literature and catalogues. You should also see NED for the new names added to these galaxies since 1991. </object> <object><oname>NGC4342</oname><oname>IC3256</oname>. See NGC4341. </object> <object><oname>NGC4343</oname> See NGC4341. </object> <object><oname>NGC4345</oname><oname>NGC4319</oname>. This was found by J. G. Lohse with Mr. Wigglesworth's 15-inch refractor. Lohse's position (which has nothing in it) is just a minute of time following N4319, and his description fits the galaxy. Since Lohse does not mention N4319 in the observation, this is almost certainly identical to it. Carlson called N4345 a star, an identification picked up by RNGC. I think it very unlikely that a star would be mistaken for a "F, pL, gbM" nebula in a 15-inch telescope. The more likely explanation is simply a 1 minute error in the RA. </object> <object><oname>NGC4347</oname>may be NGC4348, or it may be the star noted in the position list. There is another fainter star to the southwest of the brighter one that may play a role in this object, too. This was found by Peters, included on his charts, and published as a "nova" in his first list of positions. He notes there that the object "... hardly can be G.C. 2911 [N4348] ...; but upon my chart I find no nebula drawn in this place." At the end of his second list, he appends this note, "The note to Nova 12h 16m42s; -2d 27.7m [1860.0] should be cancelled, as on 1881, May 5, I have seen and drawn upon my chart also the nebula G.C. 2911." It is still possible that the N4347 = N4348 -- Peters never says that he saw both nebulae at the same time. Nevertheless, that is his clear implication, so the equality is a possibility, no more. I'm slightly more inclined to the notion that he somehow mistook the two stars as a nebula. Whether this is true or not may never be known as both objects must be shown on his charts. Whatever the case, there is certainly no nebula at the position Peters gives for NGC4347. </object> <object><oname>NGC4348</oname>may also be NGC4347, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4351</oname><oname>NGC4354</oname>, which see. <ignore /> See also NGC4367. </object> <object><oname>NGC4352</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4353</oname><oname>IC3266</oname>. Peter's position is not very good. That led Schwassmann to miss the NGC number when he picked up the galaxy on three of his 6-inch plates from Heidelburg. Still, Adelaide Ames caught the identity when she prepared her Virgo Cluster catalogue in 1930. However, CGCG muddied the picture again by calling the galaxy "I3265 = I3266 (= N4353?)". IC3265, which see, is a star north-northwest of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC4354</oname><oname>NGC4351</oname>. Swift's position is only 5 seconds of time following N4351, and his note "in vacancy" makes the identity virtually certain. Had there been another galaxy nearby, Swift would have noted that instead. The identity was first suggested in one of the Harvard papers (Dreyer has an IC2 Note that Frost did not find the object on a 4-hour plate), and was copied into Carlson's 1940 paper. RC1 and RNGC picked it up from there. </object> <object><oname>NGC4355</oname><oname>NGC4418</oname>. This is one of the 30-odd nebulae that David Todd ran across during his search for the "trans-neptunian" planet in 1877. He estimated very crude positions for most of them using the setting circles on the USNO's 26-inch refractor. Fortunately, he also gave us sketches of the star fields around each of the objects and, often, measurements of RA differences between the stars and the nebulae. Unfortunately, these were not enough to allow Dreyer to identify the objects. Dreyer included in the NGC some objects that he thought might be "novae", but he skipped others that seem, to me, just as likely to be included -- and that were, in fact, new nebulae. In any event, Dreyer did include Todd's 17th nebula as NGC4355. Using the sketch of that nebula's field, it's easy to see on the Sky Survey prints/films (even in a DSS field at least 15 arcmin on a side) that it clearly refers to NGC4418. </object> <object><oname>NGC4357</oname><oname>NGC4381</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4358</oname><oname>NGC4362</oname><oname>NGC4364</oname>. All three numbers are credited to WH, who recorded them as follows on 17 April 1789: WH delta RA delta Dec Star Desc III 799 1m 12s p 1d 36m n 71 UMa vF, vS III 800 1m 09s p 1d 37m n 71 UMa } } Two, both cF, cS, R. III 801 " " " " } The "lE" notation in NGC comes from John Herschel, who observed only two of these on 1 May 1831: JH WH RA (1830) NPD Desc 1230 III 799 12 15 42.1 30 40 32 F, lE, the p of 2 1233 III 800 12 15 50.1 30 41 32 eF, the last of 2 (the other was III 799; III 801 not seen). Note the relative positions, "p of 2" and "last of 2." These notes about the positions should take precedence over any comments about shape since apparent axis ratios depend on the limiting isophote of a galaxy (the deeper the isophote, the rounder a galaxy appears). This is how matters stood when JH put together the GC. There he assigned three numbers (GC 2914, 18, 20) assuming that all three objects existed, and added a comment about the RA of the first possibly being a minute later than listed. I've not been able to track the source of this comment, as all the positions measured up to that time are pretty much in agreement. The other pre-NGC observation was by d'Arrest, who also saw only two objects here (on 4 Oct 1866): h H RA (1860) Dec 1230 III 799 12 17 28.1 +59 09 38 1233 III 800 12 17 32.1 +59 08 02 d'Arrest's descriptions and comments are all in Latin which I don't read. I can make out the comment "III 800 is south-following" in the description for III 799, and there is a four-line note about III 801 in the description for III 800 (which also mentions the star just to the south). Unfortunately, Lord Rosse and his observers did not look at these galaxies. Based on JH's work on the GC, Dreyer again assigned three numbers. Later (WH's Scientific Papers, and MN 73, 37, 1912), he noted: "Very probably the word `two' refers to III 799 and III 800, as nobody seems to have seen three nebulae in the place." Both Bigourdan and Reinmuth also only saw two of the three -- though Bigourdan claimed to have missed N4362 while Reinmuth could not find N4364 -- so that has added to the confusion. As Glen (Deen) noted, there are indeed three galaxies here; all are mentioned in CGCG (only two entries, but the north-preceding is a pair), MCG (all three), and UGC (the brightest is UGC 7479; the other two are in the Notes). RNGC, of course, assigns one number to each galaxy (but not the ones you might expect; more below). Modern data for the three galaxies are as follows: RA (B1950.0) Dec D d m(p) CGCG MCG Other 12 21 34.56 +58 39 27.5 0.3 x 0.2 16.9 293-017w +10-18-037 NPM1G +58.0113 12 21 39.15 +58 39 43.7 0.9 x 0.7 14.4 293-017e +10-18-038 UGC 7479 12 21 48.45 +58 38 15.6 0.7 x 0.4 15.2 293-018 +10-18-039 --- Positions are from GSC, diameters are my own measured on POSS, and are roughly at the 25th mag/sq arcsec isophote. Magnitudes are from the CGCG. For 293-017 which has a combined magnitude of 14.3, I've assumed that the surface brightnesses of the two components are equal, and have simply apportioned the combined magnitude according to the ratio of the areas of the galaxies (the first covers 9% of the total area covered by both, so has 9% of the total light, etc.). In short, these numbers support Dreyer's contention that WH actually saw only two galaxies -- the third is most likely much too faint for WH to have seen (JH, d'Arrest, and Bigourdan, using similar-sized telescopes, certainly did not see it; it was also apparently not recorded on the plate which Reinmuth examined). Therefore, only the two brighter galaxies get NGC numbers. Since it is clear that the relative orientation seen by everyone (except WH) is nw-se, the nw object must be h1230 and the se must be h1233. Since Dreyer has assigned these to N4358 and N4362, respectively, the last number (N4364) is left by itself. This one comes only from WH's description ("Two"). Since it is the last number in the sequence of three, I propose that it be put on the 2nd galaxy. Finally, RNGC did its usual hatchet job on the field, leaving a mess behind. It put one number on each of the three galaxies, managing only one correct out of the three: N4358 = CGCG 293-017w -- wrong. N4362 = CGCG 293-018 -- right. N4364 = CGCG 293-017e -- wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC4362</oname><oname>NGC4364</oname>. See NGC4358. </object> <object><oname>NGC4364</oname><oname>NGC4362</oname>. See NGC4358. </object> <object><oname>NGC4365</oname> There is just the slightest whisper of a possibility that this may also be IC3281 (which see) -- but I did not write it loudly enough for you to hear. </object> <object><oname>NGC4367</oname>is probably the double star near d'A's position. In his description, d'A has this 35 seconds following a brighter nebula also found by him. That nebula is NGC4351, and the separation is correct. Also, d'A has two accordant observations of N4367, so it is reasonably clear that he saw a real object, nebulous or not. The second of the two stars is quite faint, though. This may account for Frost's not finding any nebulosity at d'A's position on a 4-hour Bruce plate. Dreyer, in an IC2 note, has this nebula among several that Frost did not find. </object> <object><oname>NGC4368</oname>is probably NGC4325. Dreyer notes that the "... RA is possibly 1 min too great (see under II 64 [= N4352]). Not found by Bigourdan." The note for N4352 reads, "RA is 1 min too great. The same is the case with several other nebulae observed this night (Sw 174, March 15, 1784) ..." The actual differences between WH's RA's and the true RA's varies from about 40 sec to well over a minute for the seven objects mentioned by Dreyer (N3810, N4067, N4294, N4313, N4352, N4371, and N4429). If N4368 is indeed N4325 (discovered by d'A), its difference is 1 min 28 sec, not an unreasonable value considering the other errors. The declination is 1.5 arcmin different, well within WH's usual observing errors. I can only speculate about the source of WH's error, since it does not affect every object observed in Sweep 174. Thus, it could be a correction due to a mistimed comparison star -- but different affected objects have different comparison stars. Or it could be that WH forgot to make the correction to the center of the field for the objects -- but since his field was only 15 arcmin across, the largest correction could only be half that value, or a bit less than 30 seconds of time at a declination of +10 deg. Also, this is a necessary correction for every object which does not sweep across the field center -- which is almost every object observed. I can't see WH forgetting such an obvious correction for a few objects in a sweep, but not for most others. Whatever caused the errors, the fact that they exist is clear, and N4368 seems to be affected. Finally, there is also the faint possibility that N4368 is N4320 (also found by d'A). However, that is fainter and smaller than N4325, and WH's Dec would be off by 3.0 arcmin rather than the 1.5 arcmin to N4325. The RA would also be further off, too, 1 min 40 sec, so overall, I do not think this is a strong possibility at all. </object> <object><oname>NGC4371</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4374</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4381</oname><oname>NGC4357</oname>. The equality was suggested by Dreyer, and confirmed by Bigourdan who did not find N4381, but who did discover N4357 and made eight observations of it on two different nights. Dreyer suggests a simple 1 minute error in WH's RA. Since the descriptions match, the identity is almost certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC4387</oname> See NGC4407 = NGC4413, and NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4388</oname> See NGC4407 = NGC4413, and NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4390</oname><oname>IC3320</oname>, which is probably also = IC3319 (which see). WH's position is enough off that the identity of the nebula was questioned by d'A (he got it right). Dreyer adopted d'A's position. See N4398 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC4393</oname>is identical to neither IC3323 (a foreground star) nor to IC3329 (a knot in the galaxy). See the IC numbers for a bit more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4394</oname> See NGC4397. </object> <object><oname>NGC4395</oname> See NGC4399 which, along with NGC4400 and NGC4401, are HII regions in NGC4395. </object> <object><oname>NGC4397</oname>is an asterism of four stars (or perhaps three stars and a galaxy). It is located where Tempel saw it, "... 5 sec following, 6 arcmin north of II 55 [N4394]." Another apparent asterism exists another three arcmin to the north -- but only on the POSS1 red plate and, therefore, on the DSS. It looked real enough to fool me, but Malcolm caught it. My thanks to him for letting me know about my mistake. </object> <object><oname>NGC4398</oname>is a star. d'A has only one observation of this, found while he was looking for N4390 (which see). His description for N4398 includes mention of two stars to the southwest: an 11th magnitude star 16.35 seconds preceding, and a 13th magnitude star 11.60 seconds preceding his "nebula." Both stars are there (the separations for 1950 are 16.58 seconds and 11.18 seconds, both well within the error bounds of the expected values). So, the identification is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC4399</oname> NGC4400, and NGC4401 are bright HII regions in NGC4395. WH found N4395 and N4401, the main body of the galaxy and the brightest HII region, recording them as two nebulae under one number. Thus, the NGC has the WH numbers given rather awkwardly as "V 29.1" and "V 29.2." Lord Rosse (or his observers) found the other two objects, but did not measure their offsets from nearby stars or the nucleus. Instead, they printed a diagram which can be pretty easily related to the sky, in spite of some distortion. The lack of offsets also allowed Dreyer to give only approximate positions for N4399 and N4400. Lord Rosse's sketch of the field, however, makes the identifications clear. </object> <object><oname>NGC4400</oname> See NGC4399. </object> <object><oname>NGC4401</oname> See NGC4399. </object> <object><oname>NGC4402</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4405</oname><oname>IC788</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4406</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4407</oname><oname>NGC4413</oname>. This came about because JH has two observations of this (and NGC4388 in the same sweeps) which he did not equate. N4407 comes from the second observation and is described only as "The following of 2." His description for N4388 reads, "vF, E, the p of 2, dist about 30 sec in RA." He marks the RA of N4407 with two colons (very uncertain), and the declination with a plus/minus sign. So, it is clear that he measured only N4388, and simply estimated the position of N4407 from the preceding galaxy. The only galaxy that JH could have seen roughly 30 sec following N4388 is N4413, so the identity of N4407 is almost certain. The identity with N4413 was suggested at both Lick and Harvard. Both are quoted in Carlson's 1940 list. As a result of JH's observations, N4388 has two separate GC numbers (2949 and 2956). Curiously, Dreyer caught the identity of the GC numbers for N4388, but not for N4407 (= GC 2968) and N4413 (= GC 2974). Perhaps he was a bit confused by WH's observations here which (correctly) call N4388 the south- following of a pair (with N4387) rather than the preceding of a pair with N4413 as noted -- also correctly -- by JH. </object> <object><oname>NGC4409</oname><oname>NGC4420</oname>. WH found NGC4409 (= III 17) on 23 Feb 1784; he has only the one observation of it. He found NGC4420 (= II 23) a month earlier on 24 January, and made a second observation of it sometime later. JH found N4420, but not N4409, so speculated that "This (N4420) may possibly be identical with III 17." Since there is nothing at all in either of WH's positions (that for N4409 precedes the galaxy by 33 seconds and is 2.5 arcmin north; and that for N4420 follows the true position by 14 seconds and is 3.8 arcmin south), and since there are no other galaxies in the area that WH could have seen, JH's suggestion is probably correct. Dreyer carried it over into the NGC description, and from there, it was adopted by Reinmuth, Harvard, Carlson, and RC1. </object> <object><oname>NGC4411</oname><oname>IC3339</oname> (which see) and "NGC4411B." We know now that there are a pair of low-surface-brightness spirals here, one at the position of NGC4411 = IC3339, and the other at the position of Bigourdan 298 noted by Dreyer in an IC2 Note for N4411. Dreyer, however, assumed the two positions to apply to just a single galaxy, so there has been some confusion in the modern catalogues as to which galaxy bears the number NGC4411. The solution I've adopted is to follow the historical positions -- Peters's and Schwassmann's clearly apply to the preceding of the pair of galaxies -- as well as to give a bit of credit to Bigourdan for finding the second galaxy. The slightly awkward numbering that apparently started with Holmberg in his 1958 monograph on galaxy photometry puts the numbers "N4411A" and "N4411B" on the galaxies. This was adopted by the de Vaucouleurs for RC1, and persisted through RC3 -- so we're probably stuck with it. Still, as I said, it gives some credit to Bigourdan for digging out the eastern galaxy. It is actually about half a magnitude brighter than the western, though I think that the star superposed on the western might shield the galaxy from sight in some circumstances or enhance it in others. </object> <object><oname>NGC4413</oname><oname>NGC4407</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4418</oname><oname>NGC4355</oname>, which see. <ignore /> N4418 itself has notes in the GC and NGC. There is enough slop in the original position from WH, and enough of a difference between his description and JH's, that JH was not convinced of the identity between his nebula and his father's. In the event, he sorted it out correctly, and Dreyer -- citing additional observations by Lord Rosse and d'Arrest -- confirmed the identity. The NGC4355 label comes from an observation by David Todd. See the brief discussion under that number for additional identification adventures. </object> <object><oname>NGC4420</oname><oname>NGC4409</oname>, which see. <ignore /> See also NGC4910. </object> <object><oname>NGC4424</oname> See IC793 and IC3366. </object> <object><oname>NGC4425</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4426</oname><oname>NGC4427</oname> is a double star. This is one of the very few objects which shows a bit of haste on Dreyer's part in his final work on assembling the NGC. D'Arrest's and Bigourdan's positions and descriptions are clearly pointing at the same object, and the two objects are adjacent in the NGC, yet not until he saw the proofs did Dreyer add the note "These are evidently identical (note added in press)." In IC2, he has an additional note: "According to M. Wolf (list IV.) only two stars 36 arcsec apart, n and s." The stars are actually separated by only 13-14 arcsec, and Wolf's southern position points to empty sky -- this may be a defect on his plate. In any event, there is no doubting the identification as both d'A and Bigourdan have two observations of the double, and both describe it as a small cluster, perhaps with nebulosity involved (there is none). There is a mistake in Bigourdan's notes, though his published position (in his first Comptes Rendus list) is correct. He chose an anonymous comparison star, noting that it is "+1m 31s, -7 arcmin" from BD +28 deg 2116. The correct distance in RA is -29.8s, so Bigourdan may have meant to write -31s. </object> <object><oname>NGC4427</oname><oname>NGC4426</oname> (which see) is a double star. </object> <object><oname>NGC4429</oname> See NGC4368. </object> <object><oname>NGC4430</oname> See NGC4453. </object> <object><oname>NGC4435</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4438</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4441</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4442</oname> See IC793. </object> <object><oname>NGC4443</oname>has usually been taken as a star following NGC4435 and NGC4438. Exactly which star, I'm not sure as there is nothing at the NGC position aside from a 19th or 20th magnitude object. In any event, the only evidence we have for this comes from one observation in 1849 when LdR sketched this as the last of 11 nebulae. The sketch is fairly crude and the distances between the objects does not correspond well to what we see on the sky. Indeed, LdR himself says, "Found the objects as in sketch, positions being put down very rudely." Nevertheless, we -- and Dreyer who identified the objects for LdR's 1880 monograph -- can recognize the brightest galaxies in an east-west swath of sky through the center of the Virgo Cluster. His objects are as follows (in his order): alpha = NGC4305 beta = NGC4306 gamma = NGC4374 delta = NGC4387 epsilon = NGC4388 zeta = NGC4406 eta = NGC4402 lambda = NGC4425 theta = NGC4435 iota = NGC4438 kappa = NGC4443 As I noted above, there is nothing in the exact position of LdR's "kappa", but NGC4461 is not too far away. It is certainly not a big stretch to this galaxy, and its description is a relative fit to the other galaxies. The objection to this is that only one galaxy is shown in the sketch, whereas there are, of course, two on the sky: NGC4458 is not too far northwest of N4461. Given the hurried nature of the observations, though, it may be that LdR thought N4458 to be a star. It is considerably smaller and fainter than its companion, so this is a possibility. So, I'm going to take N4443 to be a duplicate discovery of N4461, but with some uncertainty. </object> <object><oname>NGC4445</oname><oname>IC793</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4451</oname> See IC793. </object> <object><oname>NGC4453</oname> While there is no problem with the identity of JH's object (h 1283), there is a problem with WH's (H II 26). Dreyer notes in the Scientific Papers that the observations in Sweep 131 are "very unsatisfactory" (a criticism that extends to Sweep 132 as well; see NGC4577 for more). This was the only nebula found in Sweep 131, so there is little to compare it with aside from the "unsatisfactory" observations of the stars. The galaxy that JH found is "eF" in his catalogue, while WH's is "pB, pL, brighter toward the following side." Dreyer notes that NGC4430 is 20 arcmin in Dec off the position of N4453 -- it is also 30 seconds off in RA. He also has a note from WH that there is a "very large star" 9 minutes, 6 seconds preceding and 22 arcmin south of the nebula. Assuming that N4430 is indeed WH's object, the description fits. But there is no star at WH's offsets. The one that Dreyer suggests (BD +6 deg 2588) is 7 minutes, 29 seconds preceding, and 13 arcmin south. A somewhat brighter star (BD +xx deg xxxx) is at 12 17 22.13, +05 56 56.7 -- 7 minutes, 31 seconds preceding, and 35 arcmin south. Neither is a good match for WH's offsets. JH's much fainter galaxy (the one that we adopt as NGC4453), however, is 9 min 0 sec following, and 28 minutes north of BD +6 deg 2588, a better -- though not prefect -- match to WH's observation. But the galaxy can hardly be the one WH saw; it is far too faint, too small, and is not at all brighter toward the east. At the end of all this, I'm leaning toward adopting NGC4430 as II 26, though with considerable uncertainty. At this point, you are probably asking "Why bother? We know where NGC4453 is." Knowing which galaxy is II 26 will help with the puzzle of NGC4577 = H III 13, found the same night, and supposedly refered to the same star. See NGC4577 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4458</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4461</oname> See NGC4443. </object> <object><oname>NGC4470</oname><oname>NGC4610</oname>, which see. <ignore /> This may also be IC3281 (which see), but that is extremely unlikely. It is certainly not IC3417 (which see) -- that is a star 2.3 arcmin north of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC4471</oname>is apparently one of the two stars flanking the position given in the NGC. The object is not listed in any of Schmidt's papers that I've seen, so I have only the NGC to go on. If the position is accurate, then it seems likely that Schmidt did indeed pick up one of the stars. There is a considerably fainter compact galaxy about 1.5 arcmin on to the northwest from the stars, but I doubt that Schmidt could have seen it. </object> <object><oname>NGC4482</oname><oname>IC3427</oname>. WH's RA's for many of the objects in Sweep 174 on 15 March 1784 are too large by up to a minute of time. In this case, the error is only 30 seconds. See IC3427 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4492</oname><oname>IC3438</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4496</oname> There are three galaxies in the printed edition of RC3 bearing this number. One of these, VCC 1364 at 12 28 56.4 +04 14 54, has nothing to do with the real NGC4496 at 12 29 06.6 +04 12 54. This is the brighter of a double galaxy, so is usually called NGC4496A. Delete the NGC number from the listing for PGC 41450 in RC3. Also delete T, L, B(T), and m'(25). Also see NGC4505 for a genuine NGC mystery related to this galaxy, rather than simple modern bungling. </object> <object><oname>NGC4505</oname>is probably NGC4496. Originally found by William Herschel on 23 February 1784, there is no trace of this on the sky. Yet John Herschel claims to have observed it, too, and it is listed in Reinmuth's photographic reobservation of the Herschel's nebulae. After that, however, it disappears from the catalogues except to appear in errata lists. RC1, for example, considers it to be identical to NGC4496. Sir William has only one observation of it, and that is refered to a different star than his discovery observation of the nearby NGC4496, of which he has 3 observations altogether. His description of NGC4505 -- "vF, cL, r" is brief and could just be construed as a hurried observation of NGC4496. The positions are not that much different, either. Sir John's single observation places NGC4505 close to his father's position. His description is even briefer: "eF; the f of 2 in the field." His right ascension is marked "+-", so it is likely that we shall never know exactly what he saw, but there are several faint stars near his place that he could have mistaken for an "eF" nebula. Reinmuth's extended description, "eeF, eS, R; = neb * or *14; *8 sp 7', *11.8 sp 2'; NGC4505, *11.8, *8 in line" pinpoints a 14th magnitude star near Sir John's place. This may be the star that Sir John himself saw and mistook for a nebula. We are left, then, with Sir William's lone discovery observation to explain. Arguing against the equality with NGC4496 are the different positions, and the fact that both nebulae were found the same night. However, since different comparison stars were used, it is indeed possible that the two observations that night refer to the same object -- NGC4496. Until Sir William's original observing notes can be scrutinized, I'll adopt the identity as a working hypothesis. </object> <object><oname>NGC4508</oname>is a double star at JH's position. He describes it as "vS, R, a * 13 with a burr." This is just how it appears on the POSS1 as the two images are merged. </object> <object><oname>NGC4510</oname> See NGC4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4512</oname>is probably NGC4521. Steve Gottlieb has questioned the identity of NGC4512 as given in the modern catalogues. CGCG, UGC, and MCG all point to the galaxy at 12 30 17.9 +64 09 20 as N4512. However, this object is a pretty faint, low surface brightness spiral, and does not at all match JH's description, "pB, R, psbM; 20'' ". Reinmuth (1926) suggested that this may be the same as NGC4521. I looked at the field, and at all the objects which John Herschel found in Sweep 412 (N2909, 3231, 3392, 3394, 3622, 3682, 4108, 4210, 4221, 4332, and 4441, as well as 4512; there are no significant systematic offsets in Sir John's positions from the true positions), and only see one other possible candidate for N4512: N4510 (curiously, d'Arrest calls this a very small cluster; his position is accurately on the galaxy, though). This is just 30 arcmin north of JH's position, and a bit preceding. However, JH calls the object "pB", the same as N4521 which is 1.2 mag brighter than N4510. Aside from that, though, JH's description fits N4510 pretty well. But the magnitude difference makes me cautious about accepting the identity. In addition, N4521 is closer to JH's position for N4512. Everything considered, N4521 is the better match, so is the object that we've adopted as N4512. </object> <object><oname>NGC4520</oname><oname>IC799</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4521</oname>is probably = NGC4512 (which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC4526</oname>is probably also NGC4560, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4529</oname>may be UGC 7697, but the evidence is not very good. Here are my comments in response to a question about this object from Steve Gottlieb in October 1999. Though WH has two observations, neither of his positions fall near any galaxy he could have seen. His earlier position (which JH and Dreyer discount in notes in the GC and NGC; more below) is 1m 20s east and 4.9 arcmin north of UGC 7697, and 2m 39s east and 12.0 arcmin south of CGCG 129-006. His second position is 1m 14s east and 20.5 arcmin north of U7697, and 2m 23s east and 2.4 arcmin north of C129-006. None of this inspires much confidence in WH's positions, especially given that Dreyer quotes his first observation in the Papers: "Suspected a L, eF neb, but tho' I looked at it a good while, I could not verify the suspicion, nor could I convince myself that it was a deception." Dreyer than adds "P.D. apparently only approximate," but the offset in the table is not marked with a colon. U7697 is somewhat larger and brighter than C129-006, and has a slightly higher surface brightness. So, if WH actually saw a galaxy in this area, I think it is more likely that he saw U7697. All in all, however, the situation for making a clear identification for N4529 does not look good, hence the several question marks in the main table. Some additional comments: The NGC note is a slightly reworded version of JH's GC note with the "erratum" in WH's published list merged in. Fortunately, Dreyer decided to give WH's original data in the main table of his 1912 reprinting of WH's first list. Along with the second observation from 6 years later in Dreyer's notes, we apparently have all the data WH collected. Bigourdan's position, which Dreyer sites in support of WH's second observation, is about 20 arcsec off a faint star that Bigourdan must have just barely seen, if, in fact, he saw anything at all. Wolfgang's position makes his galaxy = MCG +04-30-003 = C129-006. I do not know where the PGC's separate entry for N4529 comes from, but the position is closer to PGC 41463 = C129-006 than to anything else, so that probably means that P41482 = P41463. </object> <object><oname>NGC4530</oname>= 8 Canum Venaticorum (Beta CVn) is a star, though JH recorded a "nebulous atmosphere" around it on four different nights. Dreyer notes in the NGC that of the late 19th century observers, only Tempel suspected the nebulosity, and even he was unsure about its existence. There is no trace of nebulosity on modern photographs, and the star's spectrum shows it to be a normal G0 V main sequence star with no strong emission lines. Thus, it was probably just JH's bad luck to have seen the star on four poor nights. Or his imagination may have been triggered three times by one poor night. In any event, there is only a star here. </object> <object><oname>NGC4536</oname> Note that the galaxy with this name included in UGC is actually an incorrect reference to IC3556, which is not NGC4563. See both the other NGC number and the IC number for more discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC4537</oname>is probably the same galaxy as NGC4542. John Herschel's place for N4542 is good, but Swift's place for N4537 is 49 seconds off in RA (his declination is good, however). Swift's description fits the galaxy nicely, including his note "nearly between two stars." In addition, this galaxy is the brightest of the three in the area. However, south-preceding N4542 is MCG +09-21-019 = CGCG 270-010. It, too, could easily fit Swift's description: "eeF, S, R." It is also "nearly between two stars." However, if this identification is correct, then Swift made errors in both RA (30 seconds of time) and Dec (8.6 arcmin). The galaxy is also considerably smaller and fainter than N4542, and would have been more difficult to dig out. Thus, I'm sticking with the idea, suggested by Steve Gottlieb, that N4537 is most likely the same galaxy as N4542. The RNGC suggestion that it is MCG +09-21-022 is very unlikely as this is the faintest galaxy in the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC4542</oname> See NGC4537. </object> <object><oname>NGC4544</oname> See NGC4740. </object> <object><oname>NGC4547</oname>and 4549. These two galaxies are differently identified in CGCG and MCG. William Herschel found both, measured the brighter south-preceding galaxy twice, but the fainter north-following one just once. His positions reduce to (equinox 1950) N4547 12 32 32 +59 11 N4549 12 33 04 +59 15 These are not the positions used in the NGC, however. Those come from John Herschel. Precessing his measurements gives (again for 1950.0) N4547 12 32 26 +59 10.8 N4549 12 32 33 +59 12.4 At least his relative orientation of the objects is the same as his father's, even though he places the two objects much closer together. Checking the GSC and the Sky Survey shows five galaxies in the area. MCG labels MCG +10-18-068 as N4547 and the preceding of the pair MCG +10-18-069 and -070 as N4549, while CGCG labels the pair as NGC4547/9. The GSC positions of these and the other two in the area are MCG +10-18-068 12 32 16.24 +59 13 35.7 MCG +10-18-069 12 32 34.39 +59 11 31.4 = CGCG 293-030w = N4547 MCG +10-18-070 12 32 37.27 +59 11 16.6 = CGCG 293-030e MCG +10-18-071 12 32 54.48 +59 19 23.4 = VII Zw 473 MCG +10-18-072 12 33 04.01 +59 13 29.4 = N4549 There is also a faint star very close to JH's differential position from the brightest of these five galaxies. It's my guess that this is the object he mistook for the second of the two nebulae. Looking at the descriptions that WH gave the objects, it seems likely to me that the preceding of his two is identical with the brightest object in the area, namely MCG +10-18-069. If so, then WH's relative and absolute positions for the second object point exactly at MCG +10-18-072, making it N4549. The galaxy is faint enough, however, that it ought to be checked at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC4549</oname> See NGC4547. </object> <object><oname>NGC4554</oname>is another of Tempel's lost nebulae. He has only a brief note about it in his fifth paper, calling it a very faint nebula 50 seconds preceding, 2.5 arcmin south of NGC4567/8. This position is in the middle of an extraordinarily empty field with nothing brighter than 19th magnitude for 2-3 arcmin in all directions. Checking the signs of Tempel's offsets turned up nothing that matched in any of the other three possible positions. There is a double star (noted in the position table) that might be his object. It has a faint double galaxy about an arcmin to the northwest, and an even fainter double star a bit further away to the southeast -- these may have enhanced a nebulous appearance a bit. However, adopting the brighter double as Tempel's object would require not only changing the sign of the declination offset, but its size and the size of the RA offset as well. So, I doubt very much that the double is Tempel's intended object. Until Tempel's original observing records can be examined for possible errors, this object will have to remain "lost." </object> <object><oname>NGC4555</oname><oname>IC3545</oname>. Here is another case where Wolf made a mistake in identifying an NGC object on one of his plates. He put the NGC number on a faint object (this one about 2 arcmin south of the brighter galaxy) that could not have been seen by the Herschels, and recorded the correct brighter object as a new nebula. This could have been a simple blunder, but I suspect that Wolf simply put too much faith in the NGC position without thinking too much about the relative visibility of the objects. In any case, his positions are good and make the identity clear. </object> <object><oname>NGC4556</oname> See NGC4563. </object> <object><oname>NGC4557</oname>is a triple star. Bigourdan did not provide a precise micrometric offset for this object, but his approximate offset with respect to NGC4558 (-3 seconds of time, +2.8 arcmin), combined with his description ("Trace of nebulosity which may be accompanied by a star...") clearly identifies the triple as the object which he saw. The MCG and PGC identifications are wrong. Wolf's identification in the Konigstuhl Nebel-List No. 4 is correct, where he calls it stellar and places it between two stars (he obviously resolved the triple while Bigourdan did not). The GSC includes 2 of the three stars, one being the central one measured by Wolf. The position that I've adopted for N4557 is for this central star. </object> <object><oname>NGC4558</oname> Discovered by John Herschel north-following NGC4556 (found by his father), and given a position 6 seconds following and two arcmin south of the true position, its identification is nonetheless clear as Dreyer gave d'Arrest's micrometrically measured position more weight than Herschel's. The NGC position is only 2 seconds and 0.8 arcmin from the true position. This has not prevented its misidentification in MCG and PGC. MCG gives the name NGC4557 (which see) to it; PGC follows suit, and tries to save the number 4558 by applying it to IC3556. Both catalogues are wrong. Wolf's identification in the Konigstuhl Nebel-List No. 4 is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC4559</oname> IC3550, 51, 52, 55, and 63 are HII regions in the arms of this galaxy, found on a Heidelberg plate by Max Wolf. IC3554 and 3564 are stars superposed on the galaxy. See the IC numbers for a bit more information. </object> <object><oname>NGC4560</oname>is probably NGC4526 with a 2 minute error in the RA. Discovered by WH, it was also observed by JH who gave a similar description. JH marked the RA uncertain, however -- I wonder if he simply adopted the RA measured by his father. The declinations of N4526 and N4560 are the same, and the 2.0 minute RA difference is exact to within the errors. In any event, there is nothing in the Herschel's position. The description agrees with the appearance of NGC4526 with one exception -- N4526 is quite extended, while N4560 is described by both Herschel's as "round." This is the main problem with the notion of the identity, but I find the exact RA difference, combined with identical declinations, arguing pretty compellingly for the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC4561</oname><oname>IC3569</oname>. Found by WH on 27 April 1785, observed again by JH in two sweeps, and rediscovered by Frost on a Harvard plate, there are no other galaxies in the area as bright or as large as this. It is a peculiar Magellanic irregular with two bright knots; one of these may be a superimposed companion. These would have led to JH's seeing the object as mottled, and Frost's description of two "stars" involved also fits. Curiously, JH's mean position from his two observations is within a few arcsec of the modern position from GSC, while Frost's photographic -- and presumeably more accurate -- place is further off. It may be this that led both Frost and Dreyer to include the galaxy in the second IC. </object> <object><oname>NGC4563</oname> This was found by d'Arrest whose two micrometrically measured positions are very good; the average is used in the NGC. CGCG still applied the number to the wrong galaxy (IC3556). Nilson copied this identification into the UGC notes for NGC4556 (= UGC 7765), but transposed two numbers so that his identification is doubly incorrect: "N4536"! Wolf's identification in the Konigstuhl Nebel-List No. 4 is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC4567</oname> See NGC4554. </object> <object><oname>NGC4568</oname> See NGC4554. </object> <object><oname>NGC4571</oname><oname>IC3588</oname>. Found by WH, and reobserved by JH and d'A, the galaxy's NGC position is pretty well determined. Nevertheless, Schwassmann measured the 14th magnitude star superposed about an arcmin west of the nucleus and called it N4571 in his 1902 survey of the Virgo Cluster. He also picked up the galaxy itself at its correct position, and included it in his list as a new nebula. Thus, the equality of the numbers. N4571 has also occasionally been mentioned as a possible candidate for the Messier number 91. However, M91 has been convincingly shown to be a reobservation of M58 with the declination offset from Messier's comparison star applied with the wrong sign. In addition, N4571 is too faint to have been seen by Messier. </object> <object><oname>NGC4572</oname>= CGCG 352-037 is a galaxy northwest of NGC4589. It was seen by both WH and JH, but Bigourdan's observation under "NGC4572" actually refers to a star a few arcmin southeast of the galaxy. The galaxy has also been taken by some to be identical to IC802 (which see). But Bigourdan found that (also a star) the same night as his observation of "NGC4572", and his precise measurements of both show that they cannot be the same. </object> <object><oname>NGC4577</oname>is possibly WH's first observation of NGC4591. He saw H III 13 (N4577) only once, and has this to say about it, "A minute before [the transit of 24 Vir], I suspected a S. neb., but while I took out another piece to examine it, I lost it again." Dreyer added the comment about the transit of 24 Virginis, and also noted, "P.D. not taken, clouds. Not seen with certainty by Bigourdan." N4591 is not the only galaxy in the area that WH might have seen, but given his position, and the uncertainty in it, it is perhaps the most likely. There are some other problems with the observation that deserve mention, though. First, the star name, 24 Virginis, is no longer used in the catalogues, and I asked Brent Archinal to dig out the current identification. The star is actually a duplicate entry for 5 Boo (apparently due to a reduction error on Flamsteed's part), so does not exist in Virgo at all. That being the case, there seem to me to be three explanations for Dreyer's comment about the star: 1) the number is a typo; 2) Dreyer misread WH's observation; or 3) WH misidentified the star. I think that a typo is unlikely -- the only stars likely to be seen about the time that WH made the observations are R Vir or 31 Vir. Getting a typo out of either of those would be difficult. I also think that an error on Dreyer's part is unlikely -- his work on the NGC and IC s is clear proof that he rarely made transcription errors. This leaves the most likely explanation of an identification error by WH. In any event, the comment about "24 Vir" does not help us much in pinning down NGC4577. Other relevant thoughts and comments: WH's sweep covered a 2 degree wide strip roughly between +5 deg and +7 deg (1950). The value of the polar distance in the NGC comes from the GC, but JH does not indicate how he arrived at it (or the description, "vF, vS"). If we take the polar distance to be the same as WH's comparison star (11 Vir) for the RA, then the declination would be 15 arcmin south of the GC and NGC value. Unfortunately, WH has only one other nebula found the same night, II 26 (which is probably = NGC4430 and is discussed under NGC4453). That is plagued by similar problems, so offers little help in resolving the case of NGC4577. There are no galaxies in any of the places that come from WH's observations, from GC/NGC, or from attempting to correct WH's RAs using the idea that H II 26 = NGC4453 (which see) is actually NGC4430. However, the approximate RA that we do have, along with the constraints on the declination, point to either NGC4580 or NGC4591 as probably being the object that WH saw. Since N4580 is H I 124, and N4591 is III 504, the sparce description of N4577 strongly suggests that it is N4591. Pending a different identification of "24 Vir," I'm going to take N4591 as the second nebula that WH found on the night of 28 Jan 1784. </object> <object><oname>NGC4580</oname> See NGC4577. </object> <object><oname>NGC4582</oname>is a star found by Sidney Coolidge with the Harvard 15-inch refractor. He has a micrometrically measured position that agrees well with the modern positions. In common with many of the other "nebulae" discovered in the 1850s and 1860s with this telescope, there is no nebulosity associated with the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC4589</oname> See NGC4572. </object> <object><oname>NGC4591</oname>may also be NGC4577, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4593</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC4600</oname>is probably not also NGC4624, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4602</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC4604</oname> ESGC is the source of this identification. However, since I have not seen Peters's Copernicus articles, I cannot be sure that this is the correct object. Since the NGC position is just 10 arcmin out (another digit error), however, this identification is a good guess for the time being. Let the RC3 stand as is for now. </object> <object><oname>NGC4610</oname><oname>NGC4470</oname>. Dreyer, in his notes in the Scientific Papers, shows convincingly that H II 19 = N4610 is the same galaxy as NGC4470, and that WH himself was at least aware that he had made a mistake in identifying one of Messier's nebulae in the Virgo Cluster. Dreyer reproduces one of WH's sketches of the I 7 and II 19 field -- it matches the appearance of M49, an accompanying star, and NGC4470 perfectly. </object> <object><oname>NGC4611</oname><oname>IC805</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4618</oname><oname>IC3667</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4624</oname><oname>NGC4665</oname> (which is also = NGC4664, which see). JH notes that the "RA [is] ill-observed," but did not mark it uncertain. During the same sweep, he made a one-degree error in the polar distance for NGC4636, an error that he himself suggested, and that Dreyer finally rectified for the NGC. Thus, NGC4624 cannot be NGC4636 as suggested by Reinmuth and adopted by RNGC. Instead, it is most likely NGC4665 which JH described as "B, pL" in two other sweeps. This, and the appearance of the bright bar of the galaxy, matches his terse description for N4624, "B, E." In addition, his declination is correct for all three observations. There is a faint possibility that N4624 is N4600, but JH's two observations of that make it "F, S" in contrast to his note on N4624. In addition, the declination of N4600 is off JH's measured dec for N4624. </object> <object><oname>NGC4625</oname><oname>IC3675</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4633</oname><oname>IC3688</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC4740. </object> <object><oname>NGC4634</oname> See IC3688 = NGC4633. </object> <object><oname>NGC4636</oname>is not NGC4624, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4637</oname>and NGC4638. The brighter of the two galaxies now carrying these numbers was found by WH (he actually found it twice, so it has two entries in his catalogue). The fainter, a much smaller spiral of fairly low surface brightness with a faint star superposed west of the nucleus, was seen only once in 1854 by Lord Rosse (or his observer), who noted only a "Double nebula; faint nebulosity connects them." Given this sparce description, Dreyer assigned an approximate position to the fainter and called it NGC4637, giving NGC4638 to WH's brighter object. He also added a note in the NGC suggesting that Lord Rosse had actually seen M60 (NGC4649) and NGC4647, which are just 12 arcmin northeast. This would explain why no other observers (aside from LdR and Herman Schultz) recorded the object as a double nebula. Schultz's observation is an interesting one. He has an extensive note in which he claims that the nebula is clearly double (in spite of relatively poor seeing on the night of observation), nearly on the parallel, and with a star of 10th magnitude north-preceding (which there indeed is; there is no such star north-preceding N4647 and M60). Like LdR, he says nothing about the relative brightness of the objects, but records his surprise that neither of the Herschel's noticed that the object was double and extended. Curiously, he gives measurements (on two different nights) of only one of the nebulae, though he specifically mentions that the micrometer wire, aligned with the equator, nearly bisected both objects. His reduced position is that of NGC 4638, the brighter object. In his Virgo Cluster survey, Schwassmann listed only one object here and assigned it the first NGC number of the pair. His description fits the brighter object, however, and he noted that the identity was uncertain and that the object could be NGC4638 instead. His position is peculiar, too: the RA is that of the fainter eastern galaxy, while the declination is that of the brighter western object. Remembering that Schwassmann's plate was taken with a 6-inch lens, I suspect that the plate recorded only the brighter object and that Schwassmann made a measurement or reduction error in his RA. Dreyer, however, had only Schwassmann's entry to go on, not a modern sky survey. So, he could not know about the potential problems in the Heidelberg observation. Thus, he adopted Schwassmann's observation as applying to the fainter object, and put a note in IC2 to that effect. My own guess, without Schultz's confirmation of the duplicity of the object, would have been that Dreyer was correct in his supposition about LdR having misidentified the objects he observed in 1854. If this is the case, then NGC 4637 is a reobservation of NGC4647 (found by JH) rather than the very faint companion to NGC4638. However, Schultz's observation seems to clearly point not to M60 and its companion, but to N4638 and its companion. Still, LdR and Schultz could have seen the fainter object -- both have others just as faint in their lists -- especially since it is enhanced by the superposed star, so the "classic" numbering for this pair of galaxies is still a possibility. I should note, too, that there has been some confusion in the modern catalogues as to which number applies to which object. Dreyer unfortunately confused the issue a bit with his IC2 note, and also with his original numbering: JH had the fainter companion coming second in the GC. Nevertheless, Dreyer clearly meant NGC4638 to apply to WH's object, so that is the identification I've adopted, leaving NGC4637 as probably applying to the faint companion -- or possibly to NGC4647. </object> <object><oname>NGC4638</oname>is probably also NGC4667, which see. Also see NGC4637. </object> <object><oname>NGC4647</oname> Is NGC4637 (which see) possibly an observation of this object? </object> <object><oname>NGC4648</oname> See NGC4972 = NGC4954. </object> <object><oname>NGC4649</oname>= M 60. See NGC4637. </object> <object><oname>NGC4652</oname> There is no doubt about the identity of the galaxy that JH found; his position and description "Not vF, pL, gbM. It is almost 6' dist np two B sts 8 and 10m" are accurate. The NGC comment "2 B sts 6' np" comes from LdR via Dreyer. Lord Rosse has the position angles of the two stars 180 deg out. He also comments at the beginning of the observation "Front view." This may have inverted the field of the 72-inch from its normal orientation, leading LdR to the wrong PAs. </object> <object><oname>NGC4664</oname><oname>NGC4665</oname> (which is also = NGC4624, but that's another story). This is another of WH's early discoveries with a large error in the position. There is nothing at WH's given position. However, in this case, it is a simple digit error in WH's recording or reduction. Dreyer correctly convinced himself that it explains the missing NGC4664 as a prediscovery observation of N4665 (= H I 142). The star 4.8 seconds preceding (mentioned in both of WH's observations, according to Dreyer) is the clincher here, even if the exact 10 arcmin error in Dec was not in itself enough. </object> <object><oname>NGC4665</oname><oname>NGC4624</oname><oname>NGC4664</oname>, both of which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4667</oname>is probably = NGC4638 with a 2 minute 30 second error in RA. The Dec's and descriptions are accordant, and there is nothing else in the area that JH might have described as "B, S, R, psbM; 15 arcsec." So, while the identity is a guess on my part, I think it is reasonable one. </object> <object><oname>NGC4678</oname><oname>IC824</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4686</oname>is in the field of IC3791 = NGC4695. See the story under the IC number for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4689</oname> See NGC4752. </object> <object><oname>NGC4692</oname><oname>NGC4702</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC823 for a different confusion. </object> <object><oname>NGC4695</oname><oname>IC3791</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4697</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC4702</oname><oname>NGC4692</oname>. D'Arrest has just one observation of NGC4702 on 4 March 1867, calling it "Doubtless a very small, very much compressed cluster." There is nothing at all in his place. Exactly a minute of time preceding, though, is NGC4692 which d'A has on two other nights, 16 March 1864 and 3 March 1867. Given the three or four nearby field stars around the galaxy, it is possible that d'A could have believed that he had found a small cluster. While the identity is not certain, I'm confident enough of it to have included it in the position table without colons or question marks. My thanks to Wolfgang who asked about this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC4705</oname> See IC825. </object> <object><oname>NGC4711</oname><oname>IC3804</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4714</oname> See NGC4722 and 4723, below. </object> <object><oname>NGC4718</oname>may be IC825 (which see), but is probably not. </object> <object><oname>NGC4722</oname>and 4723. These are two nebulae found by Tempel, described in his fifth paper simply as "Following [GC] 3244 [NGC4714] are two more small class III nebulae which I have sketched, but have still not been able to measure" (my translation of his note in German). Dreyer adopted the north polar distance of N4714 and added a bit to its RA (with a plus-minus sign to indicate the uncertainty) to arrive at an approximate position for Tempel's two nebulae. Bigourdan was the next to look for them, but his two measurements of "NGC 4722" fall in a blank region of the sky east of NGC4714. His table is pretty well scrambled at this point, with the declination of his comparison star given only as "+27" and the footnote "Position deduced from that of the nebula, given in the NGC." He has no errata, so just what his comparison object actually is is still a mystery. He's a bit better for N4723 (N4714 is the comparison object), but he only estimates the offset. The nearest object to his estimated position for that is a faint star. In the end, he's no help here. (One other curiosity: he claims, in the "Other Observer's" column that N4722 was seen at Leander McCormick. But the object is not listed in any of the LM papers.) He also found his 302nd new object, which became IC3833, in the area. He gave no indication, though, that it might be one of the NGC objects (see the IC number for a bit more information about this). That was left to Herbert Howe, who independently discovered and measured the same galaxy that Bigourdan picked up. Howe suggested, in a roundabout way, that it might be one of NGC4722 or 4723. Howe's comment made it into the IC2 Notes, but Dreyer did not notice that Howe's position was identical to that from Bigourdan for IC3833. It was probably for this reason that MCG adopted the identity "N4722 = I3833", a reasonable choice under the circumstances. Finally, working on ESGC, I also adopted the MGC's identifications, though without much thought. I did translate Tempel's note at that time, but of course found it to be little help. It's clear, though, that we do not (yet) know which nebulae Tempel found. There are actually four galaxies following NGC4714 that he might have seen. The two brightest are IC3833 and NGC4748, the two closest to NGC4714 are MCG -02-33-024 and -026. It is tempting to simply put the NGC numbers on the two closest and be done with it. But ... We need to find out if Tempel's sketches still exist. These would clear up questions about not just these two, but several other of his discoveries, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC4723</oname> See NGC4722. </object> <object><oname>NGC4724</oname>is the fainter of a double galaxy seen by both Herschels. It figures in the identification of NGC4726, NGC4740 = NGC4727, and IC3834, all of which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4726</oname> There has been confusion over this number ever since Howe's first note appeared in Volume 58 of the Monthly Notices for 1898 (page 515): The NGC place of this nebula of Tempel's seems to be considerably out, both in R.A. and declination. The correct position is 12h46m18s, -13d40.6m. This precesses to 12 48 55, -13 56.9 for B1950.0, and refers to IC3834 (which see). The confusion is understandable as Tempel's original note reads simply, "Near the fine double nebula [GC] 3250-51 [NGC4724-27], 4 arcmin further north, is a fainter companion." Dreyer just took the average of the positions for NGC4724 and 4727, adopted the RA and subtracted 4 arcmin for the north polar distance. This makes the declination very close to correct, but the RA is off by about 9 seconds. Tempel's nebula is a spindle galaxy; this is probably why Howe missed it. In any case, he took the only other galaxy he could find in the area, the one we now call IC3834 (which is probably not NGC4740, by the way; see the other numbers for notes). </object> <object><oname>NGC4727</oname><oname>NGC4740</oname>. This is the brightest of a group of galaxies, and the brighter of a close pair (NGC4724 is the fainter of the pair). It was seen by both Herschels, as well as by Tempel, Swift, Bigourdan, and Howe. Considerable confusion in the NGC and IC numbers has resulted. See NGC4740 for the story, and also see NGC4726 for one of Tempel's nebulae that almost got away. </object> <object><oname>NGC4729</oname>and NGC4730. This problem arose because John Herschel's original observations of 8 June 1834 yielded only very rough estimates of the positions of the two galaxies (see his Results of Observations...at the Cape of Good Hope... of 1847 for more information.) Inasmuch as the two galaxies were not observed again until 1920, Dreyer had no choice but to use Herschel's rough places when the NGC was prepared for publication in 1888. Ron Buta came across this same problem some years ago during his classification of galaxies on the Whiteoak PSS extension. In a letter of 3 Aug 1977, he suggested that the galaxies at 12 49 00.2 -40 51 33 (= ESO 323-G16, 1950 positions) and 12 49 14.0 -40 52 32 (= EU 323-G17) are N4729 and N4730, respectively. Andris Lauberts came to the same conclusion at about the same time when he was preparing ESO/Upps List VI. I entirely agree with their suggestions as these are the two brightest and most easily seen objects south-preceding NGC4744 where Herschel noticed them. The two galaxies are Vidal and Wickramasinghe's B and C, respectively. (By the way, VW's D = N4744 and E = N4743). Jack Sulentic's incorrect RNGC identifications refer to VW's N3 and N4, and Dawe et al are also wrong: in their list (1970 positions), 12 50 24 -40 59 54 = N4729 and 12 50 38 - 41 00 46 = N4730. More confusion: under the designation HB 288 (more on that in a moment), Sandage (Ap. J. 202, 563, 1975) gives the position of N4729, but the velocity of N4730 (compare VW and Dawe et al). Unfortunately, the de Vaucouleurs and I directly copied this mismatch into the Second Reference Catalogue (where the data are under the single listing for "A1248-40") and Sandage simply repeated his data in his redshift list in A.J. 83, 904, 1978. Finally, the "HB" designations come from a series of papers by Knox-Shaw, Gregory, and Madwar in the Helwan (formerly Khedivial) Observatory Bulletins Nos. 9, 15, 21, 22, 30, and 38. N4729 - 30 were noted by Gregory in Bulletin No. 22 as "Not found". However, among the (mostly!) new nebulae noted on the Helwan plates, Gregory suggested that Helwan Bulletin nebulae Nos. 281, 2, or 3 might be N4729 or 30. De Vaucouleurs (in Commonwealth Obs. Memoirs No. 13, his southern Shapley-Ames revision) concurs, but adds No. 288 as a possibility. (He also confuses the nomenclature problem even further by using "HB" for Harvard Bulletin! What a mess.) Actually, N4729 = Helwan Bulletin 288 and N4730 = HB 289. </object> <object><oname>NGC4730</oname> See NGC4729. </object> <object><oname>NGC4732</oname> See IC3791 = NGC4695 where this number figures in one of Swift's many mistaken identities. </object> <object><oname>NGC4736</oname>= M94. Wolf includes a good position for this in his fifth list, but cites neither the Messier nor NGC numbers. He does have a footnote, though, identifying the object as "A.G. Bonn 8688." The galaxy's nucleus is indeed bright enough and small enough that it could be measured precisely and included in the star catalogue. </object> <object><oname>NGC4740</oname><oname>NGC4727</oname>. Swift found this during his fourth year (1887 on 27 April) of chasing down faint, "new" nebulae. He gives a position that is about 50 seconds of time west but only half an arcmin south of that for NGC 4727, the brightest galaxy in the area. His description "pF, pS, R, mbM" fits N4727 better than any of the other three galaxies here, including IC3834, taken by nearly everyone (including me during my sweeping for ESGC) as NGC 4740. Howe suggested, and a short note from Swift published by Howe in Monthly Notices for 1899 seems to concur, that NGC4740 is actually NGC4726. But Tempel's observation of N4726 (which see) clearly rules this out -- he places N4726 just four arcmin north of N4724 and N4727, a close pair found by the Herschel's. With IC3834 being another 45 seconds of time east, it's extremely unlikely to be Tempel's galaxy. Bigourdan did not find NGC4740 at its NGC place, of course. I checked the other nebulae found by Swift that night -- there were none, at least found by Lewis Swift. His son Edward, then a teenager, actually found four new nebulae on the 27th: NGC4544, 4633, 4969, and 5309. With the exception of N5309 (which see), these all follow Swift's positions by about 18 seconds of time, and are south by about 30 arcsec (N5309, assuming we have the correct galaxy, follows by 29 seconds, but has a 10 arcmin digit error putting it south by 9 arcmin 10 arcsec). NGC4727 precedes Swift's position by 50 seconds, so does not agree with the mean RA offset of Edward's nebulae. However, it is indeed 30 arcsec south of Swift's position. (Did Lewis or Edward determine the positions for Edward's discoveries? Lewis does not say in his papers, but because these positions are no improvement over his father's, I would guess that Lewis did them.) I don't think we can make much of this comparison with the mean offsets, though, since N5309 also breaks the pattern, and since N4740 was the only galaxy which Lewis Swift himself found that night. However, of the four galaxies in the area, NGC4727 -- by far -- comes closest to fitting Swift's description. Thus, I am, in spite of a few misgivings, I am pretty well convinced that NGC4740 is just another observation of N4727. </object> <object><oname>NGC4743</oname> See NGC4729. </object> <object><oname>NGC4744</oname> See NGC4729. </object> <object><oname>NGC4752</oname>may be CGCG 071-058. WH's description "vF, S, E, r" fits very well -- but his position is 38 seconds off in RA, and 15 arcmin off in Dec. Dreyer notes that Bigourdan did not find the galaxy, and gives an additional offset from II 128 = N4689. That leads to a position that is within WH's observational error of the one in his table, so there is apparently no large error in his data collecting and reduction. The fact that his description fits the CGCG galaxy so well, however, suggests that there is an error somewhere in WH's position. But it is not apparent from the information we have on the object, so I've put a question mark on the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC4759</oname> See NGC4776. </object> <object><oname>NGC4761</oname> See NGC4776. </object> <object><oname>NGC4764</oname> See NGC4776. </object> <object><oname>NGC4768</oname>and NGC4769 are a star and a close double star, respectively. They were found by Tempel while he was examining the field around NGC4770, and his only description of them is copied correctly into the NGC. He gives no accurate positions, but the stars are a striking triplet just where he claims to have seen them "preceding III 525 (N4770) on the parallel." There are no galaxies or other stars that might fit, so the identities are pretty sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC4769</oname> See NGC4768. </object> <object><oname>NGC4770</oname> See NGC4768. </object> <object><oname>NGC4772</oname> See NGC4910. </object> <object><oname>NGC4776</oname><oname>NGC4759</oname>b. This is one of a double galaxy that also has two companions. However, there are three NGC numbers for the double: N4759, N4776, and N4778, the latter two from J. Herschel, the former due to WH, d'A, and Tempel. The descriptions make the identifications clear, however: N4759 is noted "double", so N4759A = N4776, and N4759B = N4778 with a 1 minute RA error for N4776 and 78. The companion 1.0' east-northeast N4778 is almost certainly N4761, and -- with somewhat more doubt as Tempel's positions are often coarse -- the companion 4' south of N4776 is N4764. All this means that RC3 needs to be corrected as follows: PGC 43757 = NGC4778 = NGC4759a, PGC 43760 = NGC4764, and PGC 43768 = NGC4761. PGC 43754 = NGC4776 = NGC4759b is OK. </object> <object><oname>NGC4778</oname><oname>NGC4759</oname>a. See NGC4776. </object> <object><oname>NGC4795</oname> See NGC4796. </object> <object><oname>NGC4796</oname> In an earlier list, I called this a star. It is not. It is a compact galaxy superposed on, and interacting with, the eastern arm of NGC 4795. There is no doubt about the identification (Marth places it close following NGC4795), and though the object looks pretty stellar on the blue POSS1, it is clearly elongated on the red plate (hence on the DSS). My apologies for the confusion. </object> <object><oname>NGC4797</oname>is almost certainly NGC4798. D'Arrest saw the two nebulae on different nights. Also his positions are close enough (same RA, 5 arcmin difference in Dec) that the two would make a striking pair that surely would have merited a comment from d'A -- he does not mention other nebulae near the one he saw. So, the identity seems pretty clear. </object> <object><oname>NGC4798</oname><oname>NGC4797</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4805</oname>is a star positively identified by Bigourdan's two observations. In spite of the accuracy of his measurements, he comments that "... near it is a star 13.4-13.5, but it's impossible to tell which direction it is from the nebula's center." This must be the object itself as there is nothing else in the area that he could have seen. Bigourdan also comments, "This whole region is rich in vF nebulae." Since the Coma Cluster is near, it isn't surprising that he saw many nebulae here. </object> <object><oname>NGC4808</oname> See NGC5242. </object> <object><oname>NGC4817</oname> The NGC position, and that in the Comptes Rendus list, are wrong; while the offsets in Bigourdan's big table, and the position reduced from them, are correct. I have not found a correction in any of Bigourdan's errata lists, so I assume that he did not catch the error, or chose to not mention it. In any case, the reduced position falls exactly on a faint galaxy. Bigourdan's note about the star northeast is correct, so the identification is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC4820</oname> See NGC4823. </object> <object><oname>NGC4823</oname>is one of three galaxies discovered by Wilhelm Tempel south of N4825. His paper in AN 2439 announcing the discovery (of these and many others) is not very helpful. It says only "Quite close to the south [of N4825] are three more faint nebulae." The NGC positions must have been among those that he sent privately to Dreyer (cf. Dreyer's comment on page 11 of the NGC) -- and they seem to be only approximate (N4823's NGC position is actually quite close to N4825). Here are the data (all for 1950): NGC Skiff NGC RA Dec Object RA Dec 4820 12 54 23 -13 27.3 1 12 54 22.9 -13 26 57 4823 12 54 29 -13 24.3 3 12 54 48.0 -13 25 44 4825 12 54 33 -13 23.9 --- 12 54 34.6 -13 23 42 4829 12 54 45 -13 28.3 2 12 54 46.8 -13 28 04 So, we have three galaxies and three NGC numbers that obviously refer to the galaxies (there are no others nearby). Matching things up by position alone -- Tempel's descriptions are the same for all the galaxies -- leads to the identifications that I suggest in the table. These are different from my initial identifications for ESGC. They require only that the RA of N4823 be out by 20 seconds, whereas my first guesses demand declination changes for both N4823 and N4829. I've adopted these for the final version of ESGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC4824</oname>is a star, pretty accurately measured by Bigourdan. There is no doubting the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC4825</oname> See NGC4823. </object> <object><oname>NGC4829</oname> See NGC4823. </object> <object><oname>NGC4824</oname>= Big. 61, found by Bigourdan while he was measuring positions in the Coma Cluster area, is a star. Bigourdan's measured offsets from his then unnamed comparison star (GSC 01995-01009) are exact, and refer unambigously to another star (GSC 01995-01329). The GSC position is identical, within the errors, to Bigourdan's. </object> <object><oname>NGC4837</oname>was found by John Herschel who described it only as "A rather doubtful object; haze." There is nothing at the position he gives (12 54 30, +49 04.4), but exactly 30' south is a peculiar double system that he could have seen (m_B = 14.4) during his sweep. The CGCG gives this object the NGC number, and I see no reason not to do likewise. The MCG gives it two numbers, MCG +08-24-011 (the brighter south-preceding object), and +08-24-012, but did not label either one N4837. UGC only gives one number to the pair, and also did not adopt the NGC number. </object> <object><oname>NGC4838</oname> See NGC4844. </object> <object><oname>NGC4844</oname>is probably the star listed in the position list, fingered by both Wolfgang and myself. Tempel gives no position for it, merely saying "... on the parallel with the nebula [NGC4838], another faint, small one follows..." If the NGC position -- presumeably one that he sent to Dreyer -- is good, then the listed star is the likely candidate. Another possibility is one that I noted in ESGC: the star superposed southwest of the nucleus of NGC4838. I think now that this is less likely as Tempel probably would have mentioned the proximity to N4838. Other possible stars in the area that he could have seen are at 12 55 37.32, -12 49 09.4 and 12 55 33.08, -12 47 28.3. There is a very faint galaxy near his position, too, but he could not have seen it with his 11-inch refractor. </object> <object><oname>NGC4845</oname>may also possibly be NGC4910, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4849</oname><oname>IC3935</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4851</oname>is not = IC839 (which see) which is about 2 arcmin south-preceding. Bigourdan observed both on the same night, and his accurate positions fall within a few arcsec of each object. NGC4851 does have a faint companion just north-following. Bigourdan may have glimpsed this as his description mentions that N4851 may be "a very small [star] cluster." </object> <object><oname>NGC4861</oname><oname>IC3961</oname>. Both of these numbers certainly apply to the galaxy itself and not, as supposed by CGCG, the first to the bright HII region, and the second to the galaxy. William Herschel's and Lord Rosse's (on three nights) descriptions leave no doubt that they saw the galaxy clearly. Not only are Wolf's position and description very accurate, he has also marked the correct object on his plate (though one of the "stars" which he notes as flanking it is actually the HII region). However, the NGC position (from Sir William's observation) is a bit off, and this may have misled both Wolf and Dreyer into believing that Wolf's object was new. I had the pleasure of seeing the galaxy at the 1992 Texas Star Party through Tom Polakis's superb 13", and it exactly matched the descriptions left by the earlier observers. The HII region was quite stellar until I viewed it with a nebular filter: it took on a bit of fuzz then, and the foreground star at the other end of the galaxy faded quite a bit (the galaxy itself faded not quite as much; it must have diffuse oxygen and hydrogen emission spread through it). Modern visual observers do have some advantages over Lord Rosse -- though none of us can yet beat him for sheer aperture! </object> <object><oname>NGC4862</oname>(which is probably also IC3999) and NGC4863 were found by Frank Leavenworth at Leander McCormick in 1886. Both galaxies are off their nominal RA's and are just faint enough that Bigourdan could not find them. He also searched in the wrong direction from his comparison star on one night. I think it was this confusion that led him to rediscover NGC4862 (see IC3999 for that story). Both objects are positively identified by the sketches that Leavenworth made of them. Herbert Howe did locate NGC4862 and gave a corrected position for it, copied into the IC Notes. He states that "Another was suspected perhaps 5 arcmin south of this one." That is about the correct distance north to NGC4863. Did Howe get his directions reversed, just as Bigourdan did when he was looking for NGC4862 in this field? </object> <object><oname>NGC4863</oname> See NGC4862. </object> <object><oname>NGC4878</oname> NGC4879, and NGC4888. Alister Ling pointed out that my original "short story" on N4878, N4879, and N4888 is confusing. Indeed it was. It is also obviously one of the cases that needs more attention. So, here is a revision. All three NGC objects were found by WH on 23 March 1789, and all are refered to 26 Virginis. Here are his observations: N4878,9 III 758,9 20m 55s f, 1d 53m n Two nebulae, both vF, vS. N4888 II 778 21m 12s f, 1d 54m n F, S, sf a double star. JH recorded only II 778 (h1505): 12 51 46.9, -05 09 16 pF, vS, E, psbM (1830 position) D'Arrest has, like WH, one position for N4878,9, and another for N4888. As always, I'm stuck on his Latin descriptions, but I can make out that there is an 11th magnitude star 5.5s preceding, 1.5m north of his observed place (12 53 09, -05 21.3; 1861) for N4878,9. He also mentions WH's double star near N4888; his 1861 position for that is 12 53 26, -05 19.6. Note that his difference in positions between the objects is close to WH's: 17s in RA and 1.7m in Dec. That is it for the pre-NGC observations. Post-NGC, I've found the following. 1) Bigourdan has eight observations each for N4878 and N4888, but could not identify N4879 with certainty. 2) Ormond Stone also lists N4878 and N4888 as nebulae in the 1893 Leander McCormick list (the novae here are in IC1), but has nothing about N4879. 3) Reinmuth has N4878 as an eF, eS stellar object or star (it is a star) 1.7' south-preceding N4879, the galaxy. 4) MCG has -01-33-064 as N4878, -064a as "4879?" (but this is a defect on the blue POSS1), and -066 as 4888. 5) the first "edition" of ESGC put N4878 at 12 57.8 -05 50 (1950.0), and N4879 = N4888 at 12 58.0 -05 48. When Brian Skiff measured the ESGC positions, he followed my ESGC identifications; the second is clearly wrong since (as I now know; ahem) WH claimed to have seen all three on the same night. So, it is clear that there are only two bright galaxies here. GSC has only one (which I'll call "NGC4878:"; note the colon), and also misses the bright double star (which WH mentioned) just preceding N4888. There is a star in GSC about 1.5 arcmin southeast of N4878 that I suspect is WH's second "nebula." It is a bit closer to the galaxy than is Reinmuth's star. Here are some positions, either from GSC, or measured by me on POSS1: Object RA (1950.0) Dec Source Adopted identifications (source) Star 12 57 38.9 -05 50 59 HC NGC4878? (Reinmuth) Galaxy 44.58 04.9 GSC NGC4878: (Big, Stone, MCG, HC) Star 50.06 31.3 GSC NGC4879: (HC) Galaxy 58 00.7 48 22 HC NGC4888 (All) The adopted identifications are based on the assumption that Herschel recorded one of the stars south of the preceding galaxy, thinking it was a second nebula. If he saw the preceding star, then it should be N4878, and N4879 is clearly the galaxy. If he saw the following star -- as I believe he did (it is brighter and nearer the galaxy than the preceding star) -- then the numbers should be reversed: N4878 becomes the galaxy, and N4879 is the star. There is no question about NGC4888. </object> <object><oname>NGC4879</oname> See NGC4878. </object> <object><oname>NGC4888</oname> See NGC4878. </object> <object><oname>NGC4891</oname>(a star) and NGC4897 (a galaxy) are two different objects. This is an error that goes back to Shapley-Ames: they called the galaxy NGC4891 when it is in fact NGC4897. Consequently, just about everybody has used the wrong number since. RC3, however, is correct, and so is DSFG, Megastar, and HyperSky. Both objects were found by Wilhelm Tempel on 21 April 1882, and are described in the same observation, so cannot be identical. Tempel has a micrometrically measured position for the big galaxy which precesses to 12 58 13.7, -13 10 58. Considering the relatively low surface brightness of the galaxy, this is not too far off a good modern position (I measured 12 58 15.04, -13 10 50.3 on the DSS). This is the object to which Dreyer assigned the number NGC4897. NGC4891 is mentioned only in Tempel's description of 4897: "2-3' nordlich geht ein feiner Nebelstern voran." A free translation would be, "There is a faint nebulous star 2-3 arcmin north-preceding." The star is in fact not nebulous, and the 17th magnitude galaxy about 30 arcsec north of it cannot be Tempel's object since he was observing with an 11-inch refractor. Many other of his faint "nebulae" have turned out to be nothing more than stars or asterisms, so the identification of N4891 as the star is certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC4893</oname><oname>IC4015</oname> + IC4016, an interacting system. Wolf's object under this NGC number in his fifth list is a plate defect. </object> <object><oname>NGC4894</oname> See NGC4908. </object> <object><oname>NGC4897</oname>is the big Sc galaxy incorrectly called "NGC4891" in Shapley-Ames, RC1, RC2, RNGC, and RSA. See NGC4891 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC4908</oname> Malcolm has pointed out that this number and IC4051 may have been switched by most observers and in most cataloguers. Only Bigourdan and Vorontsov-Velyaminov in MCG put the NGC number on the brighter, larger, south-southeastern object. d'Arrest's position, copied correctly into the NGC, actually falls a bit closer to the smaller, fainter north-northwestern galaxy of the pair. And the IC position, adopted from Kobold's micrometric observation, lands almost exactly on the brighter object because he was apparently the first observer to put the NGC identification on the fainter object. Bigourdan did the opposite, but Dreyer apparently went with Kobold's position simply because, as published, it is has more precision. Bigourdan is still credited as a co-discoverer of the IC galaxy, though. I suspect that Dreyer did not make much of a fuss about the discrepancy between Kobold and Bigourdan because he was distracted by an identification problem involving H III 363 -- JH incorrectly put this number on h 1510 = NGC 4894. Again, Malcolm and I think that WH, like d'Arrest, must have seen the brighter of the two galaxies. So, Dreyer's identification of WH's object as IC4051 is as misleading as the NGC and IC positions. In any event, because of Kobold's assumption that the NGC position is for the fainter galaxy, just about everyone has the identifications reversed. This probably includes Milton Humason who found a supernova near "IC4051" in 1950. Unfortunately, Humason does not give a position or a finding chart for the SN and galaxy in his PASP note, but I am pretty sure that it is the brighter, southern object. All this stands on d'Arrest's having actually seen the brighter galaxy. If he actually saw the fainter -- and it is only a tenth of a magnitude or so fainter -- then the NGC and IC have exactly the correct identifications. And so does everyone except Bigourdan and MCG. </object> <object><oname>NGC4910</oname>may possibly be NGC4845. There is nothing in WH's place, and Dreyer quotes WH's note in the Scientific Papers: "The place of this neb. is not determined with accuracy." Dreyer adds, "No modern observations known." WH refered two other nebulae -- NGC4420 and NGC4772 -- to the same comparison star (75 Leo). For N4772, Dreyer notes, "RA 40 seconds too great." This suggests that WH's RA for N4910 might also be too large. In that case, NGC4845 would be a candidate for WH's object. It is a large galaxy at about the right declination. However, WH describes his nebula as "eF, vL, er, R. 7 or 8 arcmin d[iameter]." N4845 is not quite that large, nor is it round. It is, however, the only reasonable candidate, so I've adopted the identity, though with a query. </object> <object><oname>NGC4912</oname> 4913, 4914, 4916. Of these galaxies, only one -- NGC4914 -- is easily identified. That one was found by WH and reobserved by JH; neither found any other nebulae in the area. The other three were seen only once by Lord Rosse, in 1865. He has a sketch showing their relationship with the surrounding star field, so it ought to be easy to identify them. His sketch, however, bears no relationship to the sky around NGC4914, so it seems likely that he misidentified the main galaxy. Dreyer took this possibility into account by questioning the identification of the main galaxy in the descriptions of N4912, 4913, and 4916. A search of the four POSS1 fields around N4914 also turned up nothing that matches the sketch. Another possibility is that LdR made a 10 deg error in his position, and actually observed several galaxies in the Coma Cluster. But that is about 10 deg 25+- arcmin south, and there are no galaxies/stars in the cluster area that match his sketch. One hour errors are also possible, but I've not yet looked closely at those. The next thing to do will be to look into the lists of nebulae that Lord Rosse had at his disposal at the time (e.g. JH's 1833 observations, the GC, d'Arrest, Auwers) to see if any objects listed near NGC4914 might be the one that he observed. Since the pattern in his sketch is clear (3 of the objects in a north-south line with a 4th following the southern most), it should jump out at us when we see it. I hope. Wolf claimed to have found and measured NGC4912 and NGC4916 on his plate with the IC objects from his fifth list. The object he took as N4912, however, is a star, and his N4916 is a defect (which he did not mark) on the plate. There is nothing in its position on POSS1. </object> <object><oname>NGC4913</oname>is probably lost. See NGC4912. </object> <object><oname>NGC4914</oname> See NGC4912. </object> <object><oname>NGC4916</oname>is probably lost. See NGC4912. </object> <object><oname>NGC4920</oname><oname>IC4134</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4933</oname> This has two components, the brighter one to the northeast. Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star one of the two nights he observed this, so the two components have IC numbers, I4173 and I4176, as well. The misidentified star led Bigourdan to believe that he had found a third "nova" in the field, too. See IC4134 = NGC4920 for the details. </object> <object><oname>NGC4937</oname>is a small asterism of 6 or 7 stars about 2 arcmin northwest of NGC 4940. Both were found by JH who adds a note to the description of N4937 not copied into GC or NGC: "... a * 7m, just at northern edge of field." The star is there, and JH's relative position of the two -- though not exact -- is nevertheless close enough to insure the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC4940</oname> See NGC4937. </object> <object><oname>NGC4941</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC4942</oname>may also be IC4136, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC4948</oname>may also be IC4156. See IC4136 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC4952</oname><oname>NGC4962</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4954</oname><oname>NGC4972</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4960</oname>is probably NGC4961 with a 15 arcmin error in the declination. D'A saw N4960 only once, on a night when he did not record N4961 (he observed that on four other nights). The descriptions and RA's match, too. D'A also leaves us a brief note: "Nebula indubie visa, etiamsi locus confirmatione adhuc indigebit." This seems to be saying that while the nebula was certainly seen, there could be some doubt about its position. Since there is nothing else obvious nearby that might be N4960, I'm going with N4961 for the time being. </object> <object><oname>NGC4961</oname> See NGC4960. </object> <object><oname>NGC4962</oname><oname>NGC4952</oname>. Dreyer was skeptical about NGC4962, the first of two nebulae that WH found southeast of 13 CVn (= 37 Com). The second is NGC4966 which WH noted as "Just nf a * 8 or 9 m." This comment allowed both JH in GC and Dreyer in NGC to correctly assign N4966 = h1531 to WH's observation of III 304. But JH has no observation of the preceding nebula, III 303, and Max Wolf could not find it on a Heidelberg plate -- hence Dreyer's note in the Scientific Papers. (Dreyer also notes here some of Max Wolf's speculation on the identity of N4962, but dismisses two of Wolf's suggested identifications on the basis of WH's relative positions, and a third by noting that a 1 degree error in declination would have put the object beyond the limits of WH's sweep.) Given that WH's RA for N4966 is about half a minute off, and that his Dec is also off (but only by two minutes, within WH's standard deviation), can such an offset be used to identify an object that might be N4962? The answer is "Yes," if we are willing to accept that WH's position for it has yet another 30 seconds of RA error. The total RA error of 1 minute, combined with the 2 arcmin Dec offset, point right at NGC4952. WH's similar descriptions are consistent with the similar magnitudes and sizes for the galaxies, and though he also found N4952, it was during a sweep nearly a month later. </object> <object><oname>NGC4966</oname> See NGC4962 = NGC4952. </object> <object><oname>NGC4967</oname> NGC4973 = IC847, and NGC4974. Discovered by William Herschel on the night of 14 April 1789, these are presumably the brightest in the group of six or seven galaxies in the area. Herschel's positions, though, are roughly a minute of time too large, and he gives only one position for N4973 and N4974. Dreyer recognized the problem with the positions in this sweep (921) and another (1001) which, unfortunately, did not cover these objects. In a note to WH's second catalogue, Dreyer gives "modern" positions from JH (N4967), Rumker (N4973 and 4974), and Howe (N4973). If we accept these positions (and I'm inclined to as they refer to the brightest three galaxies in the group, and do not disagree with WH's relative positions of N4967 and N4973/4), then WH's description of the relative positions of N4973 and N4974 needs to be changed. He claims that his "place is that of the 2nd, the other is 3' or 4' south-preceding." This should read "... 3' or 4' north- preceding." CGCG, MCG, and RNGC all have the identifications of N4973 and N4974 garbled. (MCG, in addition, gets the identification of IC847 wrong; it is actually the same galaxy as N4973 if we trust Swift's position.) Here are the correct identifications: N4973 = I847 = CGCG 1303.4+5357 = CGCG 270-049 = CGCG 271-005 = MCG +09-22-006 and N4974 = CGCG 1303.8+5356 = CGCG 270-051 = CGCG 271-007 = MCG +09-22-009 </object> <object><oname>NGC4969</oname> See NGC4740. </object> <object><oname>NGC4970</oname><oname>IC4196</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4972</oname><oname>NGC4954</oname>. WH has only one observation of this, and Dreyer has this to say in the Scientific Papers: "In the sweep (1064), the observation of I. 274 [= NGC4648, to which WH refers N4972 in his table] seems to be inaccurate, but III. 937 [= N4972] is between two well-determined stars (Kasan 2331 and 2388)." Dreyer goes on to work out the position of N4972, and it turns out to be the same -- within the errors -- as that for N4954 (observed by JH). Neither WH nor JH saw more than one nebula in the area. This verified JH's speculation in GC (copied verbatim into NGC) that N4954 and N4972 could be the same object, and Dreyer commented in the 1912 Monthly Notices list, "4972 to be struck out (= 4954)." </object> <object><oname>NGC4973</oname><oname>IC847</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC4967. </object> <object><oname>NGC4974</oname> See NGC4967. </object> <object><oname>NGC4979</oname><oname>IC4198</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC4982</oname>is probably the asterism of four stars just southwest of the NGC position. Though Dreyer credits this to Tempel's fifth paper, I can find no mention of the object there (still to be done is a search through the other papers to see if it occurs there). Until we can track down the original observation, though, the identification has to be taken as uncertain. </object> <object><oname>NGC4989</oname> See NGC3679. </object> <object><oname>NGC4993</oname><oname>NGC4994</oname>. I do not know where JH's incorrect declination for this observation of N4494 came from, but it is 50 arcmin too far north (his father got the right position for the galaxy). Whatever happened, JH's observation fits exactly in RA and in its description of the galaxy, so I am confident of the identity. There is nothing at JH's position. LEDA has picked up a galaxy too faint and small for JH to have seen, and it is well off his position by non-digit amounts (21 seconds of time and 4.3 arcmin). </object> <object><oname>NGC4995</oname> See IC4136. ===== NGC5003 is CGCG 217-013. The NGC position is 2 minutes of time and 2 degrees off. The RA error comes from WH who commented (copied into the Scientific Papers by Dreyer), "[Minute of time] forgot, but is 5, 6, or 7." Dreyer assumed "5," but the actual offset is closer to "7." There is a systematic offset in the other RAs that night of about -20s; corrected for that, the RA is close to the CGCG galaxy. The Dec error originates in GC, or perhaps in CH's reduction of WH's data. Auwers has the correct declination, but JH either did not catch the difference, or made a transcription error. Another systematic error in Dec of +3' in WH's positions that night leads us closer to the correct Dec. Personal note: this is a particularly important object for me as it was one of the first NGC puzzles that I solved by reference to an "original" publication, in this case, WH's Scientific Papers. I had been aware of the problem presented by this number since I ran across it in RC1 in the mid-60s. The RC1 solution -- adopted from earlier astronomers at Lick and Mt. Wilson -- "pick the nearest galaxy and give it the number," did not appeal to my aesthetic sense: Which galaxy had Herschel actually seen? The clue came when I found a copy of the Scientific Papers in the early or mid 1970s in the Astronomy Department's Peridier Library at the University of Texas at Austin. I found the entry for NGC5003, and by re-reducing WH's observation and following up on his comment about the forgotten minute of time, I found the right galaxy. That experience convinced me of the value of the historical literature in this work, so I became an amateur historian as well as a professional galaxy cataloguer. </object> <object><oname>NGC5008</oname><oname>IC4381</oname>. D'A's RA is one hour too small, and his note that the neighboring 10th magnitude star is north is wrong -- the star is actually south, but very nearly at his offsets, 1.1 seconds preceding, 95 arcsec south. The actual offsets are 1.3 seconds and 86 arcsec. The galaxy (and a companion) was rediscovered by Javelle nearly half a century later. His position is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC5036</oname>is clearly identified by Leavenworth's sketch. His position is also pretty good for a change. See also NGC5039, a neighboring galaxy shown in the same sketch. </object> <object><oname>NGC5039</oname> Here is one case where Leavenworth's position is actually pretty good (well, statistics suggests that he might get one close once in a while). It is not only just a second of time off in RA and 30 arcsec in Dec, but his sketch clearly shows it in relation to NGC5036 and several field stars. Thus, the identification is secure, and LEDA's choice of a much fainter double galaxy a few arcmin southwest is clearly wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC5043</oname> JH's RA is apparently 30 seconds too large as a cluster matching his description ("Cluster VIII, oblong; 10' x 7', of loose sc sts 11 m") is centered west of his position. Though I make the cluster a bit larger (14 arcmin by 8 arcmin), I have no doubt that this is JH's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5045</oname>may be NGC5155. JH describes this as "A great cluster, or a surprisingly rich portion of the milky way. It contains 34 stars 11m, and perhaps 150 or 200 more of less magnitudes in the field." There is nothing at his position matching this description, but 10 minutes of time following is a large Milky Way star cloud, nearly a degree across, that might well have been seen by JH. He picked this up in the same sweep as NGC5155 (which see), so I'm not convinced that he in fact made a 10 minute error. However, unless another more compelling idea comes up, I'm at least going to list this identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC5060</oname> See IC872. </object> <object><oname>NGC5066</oname><oname>NGC5069</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5067</oname>is a double star just 30 arcsec north of Marth's position. He found this and NGC5066 on the same night in 1864. His position difference between the two (6 arcmin) is close to what we see on the sky today (5.3 arcmin), and the two stars match his description very well. </object> <object><oname>NGC5069</oname><oname>NGC5066</oname>. N5069 is another of Ormond Stone's discoveries with the Leander-McCormick 26-inch refractor. His position, like those of many of the other nebulae found there, is too far east in RA, but approximately correct in Dec. This, and his appropriate description, gives me considerable confidence in the identity with N5066. </object> <object><oname>NGC5070</oname><oname>NGC5072</oname>. This is in a relatively scattered group of at least six galaxies. The problem object, N5070, was discovered by Swift in June of 1886. Swift's position is, not unusually, rather poor and points to nothing at all. His description is telling, however: "eeF; eS; vF * v close; looks like a D * at first; another nr; 6 in field, [N5072, N5076, N5077, N5079, N5088]." The only galaxy in the area that matches this is N5072 (it has a star superposed on the faint corona near the overexposed nucleus), so it looks like Steve Gottlieb's suggestion is correct: Swift and d'Arrest saw the same object. Given this, the RC3 (and RNGC) number should read "N5072 = N5070." Swift also claimed to have found at least two other nebulae in this area. See IC884 for that story. </object> <object><oname>NGC5072</oname><oname>NGC5070</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5076</oname> See NGC5077 and NGC5070 = NGC5072. </object> <object><oname>NGC5077</oname>area. The Herschels observed the triplet, N5076-77-79 whose identities are not in doubt. Lord Rosse found N5072 and N5088, as did d'Arrest. There is some confusion in their observations concerning stars near N5072: both Howe and Swift comment that the object at first looks like a double star, with the nebula about 15 arcsec nf the star. But there is also another star about 1.7 arcmin nf the nebula; this was seen by Howe and Bigourdan (who, oddly, did not mention the star sp). It is possible that Lord Rosse's observers saw both, but on different nights, and that d'Arrest missed the sp star, just as Bigourdan did. Swift notes 6 nebulae in the area. He probably also saw the one labeled RNGC5070 (it's possible that he saw the otherwise unnoticed object np N5088; this is brighter than RN5070), but it is clear that his description is for N5072. So, the obvious conclusion for these two is that N5072 = N5070 (not = RN5070) which is the galaxy 15 arcsec north-following the star seen by Howe and Swift. There is a bit more discussion under NGC5070. </object> <object><oname>NGC5079</oname> See NGC5077 and NGC5070 = NGC5072. </object> <object><oname>NGC5086</oname>is a double star at Herschel's position. He saw the other three objects in the group on two nights, but only recorded this one once. His description makes it the faintest and smallest of the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC5088</oname> See NGC5077 and NGC5070 = NGC5072. </object> <object><oname>NGC5096</oname> See NGC5098. </object> <object><oname>NGC5098</oname> There are two galaxies here, less than an arcminute apart, of virtually identical brightness. Which one did John Herschel see? His position falls just between the two objects, and he describes his object as "Faint, small, between two stars, the north-following of two" (the south-preceding is NGC5096, actually a triple object, about 3.5 arcmin away). Noting the object as "between two stars" seems to point to the preceding of the pair, as the nearby stars apparently bracket this object rather better than the following one. But, the stars are far enough away that JH's comment could apply to either object. Later observations don't help much. For example, when Bigourdan measured N5098 in the 1890's, he picked up the following galaxy, noting the preceding as a neighboring "star." So, the question remains: which object is NGC 5098? For the time being, unable to provide a definitive answer, I list both objects. </object> <object><oname>NGC5100</oname>may be NGC5106, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5106</oname>is probably NGC5100. But there are some problems remaining. Here is the story: WH saw the nebula on just one night, and recorded only the right ascension, not the north polar distance. The GC and NGC note the polar distance as "v doubtful." The NGC carries a brief note: "Not found by Tempel (A.N. 2522); at least there was no 2nd class nebula near the place." Dreyer has a longer note in his edition of WH's complete papers: "Sw. 108. 'A vS and F neb sp 59 Virginis [= SAO 119847]. Its A.R. is about 13h 06 1/4m. While I looked into the finder to determine its situation, I lost it, but shall endeavour to find it another night.' The transit is given as 13h 10m, that of 31 Bootis (Sweep 111) as 14h 30 1/4m. It is probably = Marth 255 (NGC5100), 35s p, 30' n of the assumed place of II. 22; no neb in H's place." In his NGC corrections based on the WH edition, Dreyer simply says, "II.22 must be = 5100." There is no problem with NGC5100. Marth's position is very close to Bigourdan's which is, in turn, very close to the GSC's. It has a small companion which is mentioned in the CGCG, MCG, and UGC, though was apparently not seen by Marth or Bigourdan. And N5100 is indeed 35s p, and 30' n of the NGC position. All this supports Dreyer's contention of the equality of the two NGC numbers. However, JH makes no mention of how he determined the polar distance which he used in GC for N5106 (Dreyer simply copied the PD into NGC). If we assume that JH used the PD of 31 Bootis for II.22, then the GC/NGC PD is more than 30 arcmin in error -- it should read 81 18.1 rather than the 80 46.5 it does. Also, regardless of the PD, WH's RA places II.22 south-following 59 Virginis, not south-preceding as he states. So, questions linger around this object. Unless WH's or JH's unpublished notes can shed some light on this, we have to regard the identity of N5106 with N5100 as provisional. </object> <object><oname>NGC5109</oname><oname>NGC5113</oname>. Both objects were found by William Herschel, N5109 = H II 826 on 17 March 1790, and N5113 = H III 808 eleven months earlier on 24 April 1789. His descriptions are very nearly the same: "F, S, E" and "cF, S, E." John Herschel lists only one galaxy here (h1588) which he identifies as H II 826 (= N5109), in spite of the fact that his father's position for N5109 is a full minute of time and nearly two arcmin off, while that for N5113 is only 10 seconds of time and just over one arcmin off. Sir John's description "vF, pmE, 30sec" is also closer to his father's "cF" for N5113 than it is to the "F" for N5109. Dreyer followed Sir John's lead here, but added a note to the NGC description: "perhaps = N5109." He reinforced this in his 1912 MN paper and collection of Sir William's papers, and suggested that the number N5113 be discarded. Reinmuth agreed, and accepted the equality of the two numbers. CGCG, however, located a small galaxy six arcmin north of the NGC position for N5113, and assigned the number to that galaxy. UGC followed along. Given the data above, and the fact that this galaxy is 1.6 magnitudes fainter than the brighter one, this identification is certainly incorrect. So, I have followed Dreyer (1912) in equating the two NGC numbers. </object> <object><oname>NGC5110</oname><oname>NGC5111</oname>. The NGC position for N5111 (from the Herschels) is excellent, while that for N5110 from Swift's third list is a little off. But the identity is clinched by Swift's note that the object is "in line with 2 pB stars". The confusion has come from LEDA which incorrectly adopted a much fainter galaxy as N5111. Though this galaxy has stars nearby, they form a line to the north, with the galaxy being well off the line. It is also enough fainter that Swift probably would not have swept it up given the proximity of the brighter object 19 seconds east and six arcmin north. The identity, by the way, was first suggested by Reinmuth in "Die Nebel Herschel." </object> <object><oname>NGC5111</oname><oname>NGC5110</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5113</oname><oname>NGC5109</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5118</oname><oname>IC4236</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5119</oname> See IC884. </object> <object><oname>NGC5122</oname> See IC884. </object> <object><oname>NGC5124</oname><oname>IC4233</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5126</oname> See IC4233. </object> <object><oname>NGC5136</oname><oname>IC888</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5155</oname>is a Milky Way star cloud about 1 degree across, with dust lanes and patches splashed over it. I put it a little southwest of JH's position, but his description ("A portion of the Milky Way broken up into clustering masses of astonishing richness. There must be at least 200 or 300 stars in the field, none greater than 10 m.") idenitfies it securely. This same star cloud may also be NGC5045 (which see), but that was found in the same sweep (number 596 on 16 June 1835). That makes the identity unlikely, but I list it, anyhow. </object> <object><oname>NGC5160</oname>is a double star very near d'Arrest's position. It was seen as a double star by Tempel (though appeared nebulous on two nights) as well as by Bigourdan, who measured its position. His measurement agrees with mine for both stars, and also -- implicitly -- with the GSC position for the northern. Bigourdan also gave good estimates of the relative magnitudes of the stars, as well as their distance (10 arcsec) and position angle (0 degrees; though on the POSS1, the PA is about 7-8 degrees). Furthermore, d'Arrest notes the 12th magnitude star 28.3 seconds following, 1 arcmin north, of his object. That star is just where he says it is. </object> <object><oname>NGC5162</oname><oname>NGC5174</oname>. Swift's RA is 1 minute of time too small. Once that is corrected, his detailed description, "vF, pL, eE [not lE as in the NGC]; an eeF * at each focus of ellipse; B * in field sp; F * nr nf" is an exact match to NGC5174 (which see). The bright star (WH's comparison star for NGC5174), the star northeast, and the faint star involved to the south were also noted by JH and (the northeast star) by Dreyer with LdR's 72-inch. </object> <object><oname>NGC5171</oname>is the brightest galaxy in a curious group. "Curious" because, of the five NGC objects (N5171, N5176, N5177, N5178, and N5179) in it, only four were seen by any one observer. However, since at least two of the three observers were looking for Comet d'Arrest, they clearly picked up the nebulae as afterthoughts. First to go through the group was Hough, then directory of Dearborn Observatory in Chicago, and Burnham, apparently observing with Hough the night of 5 May 1883 on the 18.5-inch refractor. Though the positions are not particularly good, Burnham's offsets to the 8th magnitude star 21 seconds preceding and 58 arcsec south, pins down the nebula he saw as NGC5171. Dreyer creditted Burnham with the co-discovery of NGC5179, apparently because of the uncertain position. Hough is credited with NGC5171, but he describes his object as "Double. Nebula, round, condensed." This could apply to NGC5171 and its superposed compact companion or star, but it could also apply to NGC5176 and NGC5177 which are 2-3 arcmin north-northeast of NGC5171. Hough's position is not good enough to tell. It also seems odd that he would record the same nebula as new as Burnham, especially given that they were observing on the same night with the same telescope. On 11 May of the same year, Tempel saw NGC5171, N5178, and N5179 with the 10.5-inch Amici I refractor at Arcetri. He has micrometric positions for the first two, but the third was apparently too far from his comparison star to be measured. Nevertheless, his estimated position for it is good enough to positively identify the galaxy. Finally, on 29 June 1883, Ernst Hartwig, using the 18-inch refractor at Strassburg found and measured four nebulae in the group: N5171, N5176, N5177, and N5179. His positions are very good. So, the observers using the larger telescopes failed to find the faintest of the nebulae, N5178. But it is the southern-most of the five, and has a lower average surface brightness, so may not draw attention to itself as readily as the northern four. </object> <object><oname>NGC5174</oname><oname>NGC5162</oname> (which see) and NGC5175 are a pair of objects discovered by WH: "Two, mistaken for one; but 240 shewed (sic) them both. cL, vF." JH observed these twice; his description from his first observation (Sweep 120) is correct: "eF, E; involves a star at the south end, and has a star 6 mag 15 arcmin south and a few seconds preceding." His second (Sweep 242) more nearly matches his father's: "vF; two close together, or one E nearly in the meridian. A star 11 mag north." Using LdR's 72-inch, Dreyer also "Found only one neb, vF, vS, stellar, no other neb found. A * 12m about 4 arcmin nf. The ground appeared milky round about." He goes on to comment, "h seems also to have seen but one neb, viz, 1612, his `* 11m n' may be my * 12 m ..." On the sky survey prints, it's clear that the southern of the pair is, as JH noted, a superposed star. Yet CGCG called this a "double" galaxy, and has managed to confuse a lot of modern observers. It is vaguely possible, I suppose, that WH split the galaxy as happened with e.g. NGC2442 and NGC2443, and NGC2903 and NGC2905. In this case, the second nebula probably would be the faint HII region north-northwest of the nucleus. This was apparently seen by Swift (see his description under the note for NGC5162). However, the superposed star is considerably brighter, and is the more likely candidate for NGC5175. </object> <object><oname>NGC5175</oname>is most likely a star superposed on NGC5174 (which see for the evidence). </object> <object><oname>NGC5176</oname> This may perhaps have been seen by Hough as well as by Hartwig. See NGC5171 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5177</oname> This may perhaps have been seen by Hough as well as by Hartwig. See NGC5171 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5178</oname> This was not seen by Hartwig, nor by the Dearborn observers -- but was picked up by Tempel with a smaller telescope. See NGC5171 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5179</oname> See NGC5171. Dreyer incorrectly credits Burnham with this galaxy -- Burnham's description makes it clear that he saw NGC5171. This was seen, however, by Tempel and Hartwig. </object> <object><oname>NGC5189</oname><oname>IC4274</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5200</oname>is a double star. Like many other of the "nebulae" found at Harvard in the 1850s (see e.g. NGC2515, NGC4582, and NGC5404), the identity is assured by Coolidge's micrometric measurement. </object> <object><oname>NGC5208</oname> See NGC5212. </object> <object><oname>NGC5209</oname> See NGC5212. </object> <object><oname>NGC5212</oname> Seen by John Herschel on only one night, and described simply as "extremely faint," there is nothing in Sir John's position. That position follows a group of galaxies with NGC5208 and NGC5209 being the brightest. JH picked these two up during the same sweep in which he saw NGC5212, as well as in two other sweeps for N5208, one for N5209. In both cases, his positions measured during the other sweeps agree with those from the night in question. So, we do not have a systematic offset to help us here. Steve and Malcolm have suggested three other galaxies that might be Sir John's object. One is CGCG 045-021, 10 arcmin south but 13 seconds of time east of JH's position. CGCG 045-012 is 30 seconds of time west but 6 arcmin north. Finally, my own choice is the one that Malcolm and Steve also favor: CGCG 045-014, 27 seconds of time straight west of JH's position. This is the second brightest of the three, and has the highest surface brightness. Those factors, along with the offset (close enough to 30 seconds, a common error), make it pretty sure that this is the correct galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC5216</oname>and NGC5218. The MCG identifications are reversed from those by all other observers. There is no apparent reason for this in the NGC itself, and I doubt that Vorontsov or his colleagues consulted JH's 1833 catalogue where there is an identification error. For the record, Sir John makes his h 1635 a "nova" while he incorrectly labels h 1636 as H II 841. Sir William's original observation was of two objects which became H II 841 and H II 842. Sir John got the identifications sorted out for the GC, and the NGC has them exactly correct, too. So, the MCG is the only catalogue which reverses the identifications. All the other modern catalogues are correct in placing N5216 south-preceding N5218. </object> <object><oname>NGC5217</oname> See IC897 for a curious footnote to the observations of this galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC5218</oname> See NGC5216. </object> <object><oname>NGC5219</oname><oname>NGC5244</oname>. John Herschel's original position for N5219 is quite uncertain, being given only to a full minute of time in RA and marked +- in Dec. The description exactly matches that for NGC5244. Furthermore, the two objects were seen in different sweeps. The identity is therefore almost certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC5240</oname>may be IC895 (which see), but is probably not. </object> <object><oname>NGC5242</oname>probably never existed. JH saw it only once, and seemed unsure about its reality. His description reads, "eF, vL; fills the whole field. Strongly suspected; yet a doubt remains." His declination is followed by a double colon which further suggests a problem with the observation. However, under his entry for NGC4808, seen during the same sweep, he says, "Sky perfectly clear." Also, his measured declination, though marked uncertain, is appropriate for the sweep. Since there are no galaxies in the area matching JH's description (all are too small), nor are there any one hour preceding or following, or within two+- degrees of the nominal declination, this may well be a visual illusion of some sort, perhaps caused by scattered light in his telescope. </object> <object><oname>NGC5244</oname> See NGC5219. </object> <object><oname>NGC5264</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC5268</oname>is a star at the catalogued position. Included in the Markree Catalogue as a nebula, there is only a hint on the DSS of a very faint galaxy behind the much brighter star. I do not think that it could be seen in the 12.4-inch refractor at Markree, and suspect that the southern declination -- thus, a low altitude in Ireland -- might have played a role in the classification. </object> <object><oname>NGC5284</oname> There is a Milky Way star cloud, about 30 arcmin by 20 arcmin, centered about 45 seconds of time following JH's position. It also more or less matches his description, so I've adopted the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC5292</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC5298</oname> Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the traditional identification of N5298 with ESO 445- G039 may be wrong. Is it possible, he asks, that ESO 445- G035 is the galaxy that JH saw? His reasoning is that, relative to JH's observation of N5302, N5298's position is closer to G035 than it is to G039. This is probably also the source of the RC1, GHD2, and RNGC identifications: they, too, choose G035. It looks to me like the most likely explanation is a simple +30 second error in JH's RA for N5302, and that his position for N5298 is good. Here is my thinking. JH found 34 nebulae during Sweep 564 on 30 March 1835. Comparing his data for that night with those for the same objects from other nights, he seems to have had about his usual problem rate (5-10 percent) -- missed nebulae that he could have picked up, nebulae refered to nearby objects rather than being measured themselves, etc. Seven of the objects from sweep 564 are in what became ESO/SRC field 445, so I looked at the offsets from the ESO positions in that field. I found, as Steve did, that NGC5302 is off the modern position by +31.3 seconds of time, and that JH's position for N5298 is +26.0 seconds off if he saw G035 rather than G039. Looking at the offsets for the other nearby objects, though, I don't see any other large offsets: NGC Delta RA Delta Dec 5264 +0.5s -16" 5292 -0.1s +1'08" 5328 -1.7s +17" 5357 -0.6s +15" 5393 -0.4s +19" 5298 +1.0s -40" if = G039 5298 +26.0s +44" if = G035 5302 +31.3s +1'24" If we assume that JH saw G035 and made the same 30 second error in the position of N5298 that he did for N5302, then the offset would be 5298 -5.3s +44" That much larger negative error suggests to me that the "standard" identification is more likely to be correct since there are no other large RA errors in the positions for the five nearby galaxies. On the other hand, N5298 and N5302 are close enough that JH could have seen both in the same field, and could have made the same mistake for each. Steve then says, "I've observed both ESO 445-35 and ESO 445-39 and they appear similar in the eyepiece with perhaps ESO 445-39 a bit brighter. I don't understand, though, how he [JH] would picked up one of these galaxies and not the other." He clearly had problems in this field. He missed the brightest galaxy here (IC4329), and there are several other galaxies in the cluster that he could have picked up, but didn't. I also did not see anything unusual in his notes about the field, simply descriptions of the nebulae. In contrast, earlier in the same night, he made several comments about the NGC3308/09/11/etc group in Abell 1060, noting double objects, other objects in the group, and so forth. For the N5298 area, these comments are missing. So, there are some unresolvable problems here. Perhaps this is a case where he fell asleep at the eyepiece. John Stone, his mechanic and observing assistant, is reported to have commented about this happening several times. There are certainly some bright nebulae and doubles in the south that JH should have swept up, but did not. Some additional notes: the magnitudes of G035 and G039 are virtually identical (B = 14.0), and the diameters are not too different, either, so I don't see an easy way to use the data to choose between the two. Again, JH could/should have picked up both, but didn't. So, we're stuck with the ambiguity. In the end, I'm going to put a colon on the N5298 identification, and put G035 in with a question mark. </object> <object><oname>NGC5299</oname> There is a +30 arcmin error in the GC and NGC declination, but JH's original CGH observation is correct. Once we look in the right spot, we find a large (roughly 25 arcmin across) Milky Way star cloud that matches JH's description. I've adopted the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC5302</oname> There is a 30 second error in JH's RA. See NGC5298 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5309</oname> This was found the night of 27 April 1887 by Edward Swift, Lewis's teenaged son. He calls it "vF, pS, R, between a star and a coarse double star following." There is nothing in the position given in Swift's list, and I do not find reasonable candidates at big digit errors (1 hour in RA, 1 degree in Dec, etc), but there is a possible 10 arcmin digit error (more below). Wolfgang's candidate is probably too faint for either Swift (father or son) to have seen, and the flanking stars are very faint, too. My own candidate, while brighter, is further from Swift's position, though the declination offset (-9 arcmin 10 arcsec) suggests a digit error. The RA offset (+18 sec) is also in line with the other RA offsets of galaxies found that same night by Edward (see NGC4740 for more on this), so the position at least is suggestive. However, the "coarse double star following" is as much south as east, and is also quite faint. So, I've put question marks on both objects in the position table. </object> <object><oname>NGC5312</oname> See NGC5319. </object> <object><oname>NGC5314</oname> Swift's position is nearly a minute of time off, but the galaxy is clearly identified by the double star 4 arcmin to the south. Swift comments, "... the 2 components of a D* point to it." The "double" star is actually triple, but the third star is faint enough that it would probably be missed by Swift. Swift also mentions "An eF * v close; ...," but I do not see any star "very close" that he could have seen. In particular, the * 27 arcsec south of the galaxy is too faint for Swift's telescope. This, however, is the only unresolved puzzle about the object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5317</oname><oname>NGC5364</oname> with a 5 minute correction to its RA. JH's descriptions of the objects are identical, and he did not record N5364 in the sweep in which he found N5317. Nor did he record N5317 more than once. The identity is pretty sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC5318</oname> See NGC5319. </object> <object><oname>NGC5319</oname> Lord Rosse's sketch and description are exact. They unambiguously point to the faint galaxy north following NGC5318 as the nova; this is "C" in the sketch. "B" -- NGC5318 -- is shown as three separate nebulae, all of which exist just where Lord Rosse places them. So, the three galaxies are given suffixes in the order of brightness. The RNGC is incorrect in equating N5319 with N5318b. Note, too, that Holmberg only saw one of the companions on the Heidelberg plates that he used for his 1937 double galaxy study. Lord Rosse's sketch also shows NGC5312 ("A"), but curiously, not NGC5321 which is actually closer to N5318 than is N5312. This might suggest that there is a problem with N5321's identification, too, but John Herschel's position and description closely match the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC5321</oname> See NGC5319. </object> <object><oname>NGC5328</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC5334</oname><oname>IC4338</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5344</oname> The NGC RA -- but not Swift's original RA -- is a minute of time too small. Nevertheless, the galaxy is far enough north that none of the cataloguers have had any trouble assigning the number to the right object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5357</oname> See NGC5298 and IC953. </object> <object><oname>NGC5360</oname>is probably IC958, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5364</oname><oname>NGC5317</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC958. </object> <object><oname>NGC5371</oname>probably also carries the designation NGC5390, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5375</oname><oname>NGC5396</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5385</oname>is an asterism of about a dozen stars scattered over an area about five by three arcmin. It is unlikely to be a real cluster, but the group is eyecatching, nonetheless. JH's position and description, "A cluster of 11 stars 11m, and 2 of 15m," is accurate. </object> <object><oname>NGC5390</oname>is probably a reobservation of NGC5371. JH saw the objects in different sweeps, and marked the RA and Dec of N5390 uncertain. His description of N5390, "F, L, vgbM; has a * 9m, nf, 4 arcmin dist.," would match N5371 but for one detail: the star is only 2 arcmin distant, and there is another star, nearly as bright, 5 arcmin north-northeast. Unfortunately, he did not attach a description to his correct position for N5371, so the identity is not absolutely sure. But it is a suggestion from Reinmuth, carried over by Carlson, so has been in the literature for some time. </object> <object><oname>NGC5391</oname>is probably not MCG +08-25-054 though taken as such by RNGC and Wolfgang Steinicke. It is the faintest of the candidates in the area. The others -- in order of decreasing brightness -- are NGC5439, UGC 8876, and CGCG 246-029. However, Swift saw a star "very close" to the object. None of the galaxies has stars nearby that could be described that way, and the positions are well off Swift's nominal position. So, this object is probably lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC5393</oname> See NGC5298. </object> <object><oname>NGC5396</oname><oname>NGC5375</oname>. JH searched for his father's nebula (III 125) at WH's position, but could find only NGC5375 (h 1771) in the area. Dreyer notes "In the sweep, there is before III 125 a * 8 mag 2deg 49min more north than III 125, no transit ..." The star is there, about 30 seconds preceding. So, we can be pretty confident about the identity. Curiously, JH equated the two nebulae in his 1833 catalogue, but separated them for GC. This is probably just caution on his part, given his comment in the 1833 list, "If this be III 125, my Father's place is much out in RA." </object> <object><oname>NGC5404</oname> Found by Sidney Coolidge, one of the early Harvard observers, this is a double star. Coolidge gave an accurate position for the object which pinpoints it. Remarkably, nearly all of the so-called "nebulae" listed in the discovery paper (in AN 1453), are simply stars or double stars. I wonder if the Harvard telescope was put to the discovery and observation of nebulae only on less than perfect nights. The other possibility (that the telescope was optically poor or was poorly aligned) is too horrible to contemplate. </object> <object><oname>NGC5415</oname> Swift's position is between two faint galaxies, but he notes that his nebula forms a triangle with two faint stars nearby. This makes his object the preceding and brighter of the two. </object> <object><oname>NGC5426</oname> See NGC5428. </object> <object><oname>NGC5427</oname> See NGC5428. </object> <object><oname>NGC5428</oname> NGC5429, NGC5432, and NGC5435 are multiple stars (N5432 is a triple, the others double) north and east of the interacting pair NGC5426 and NGC5427. As with many other of the "nebulae" which were found by Tempel near brighter nebulae, these can be identified by his published descriptions, or by the positions that he later sent to Dreyer. In this case, the identities of N5432 and N5435 are clear from the descriptions and positions, N5428 is pretty clear from the description ("... in line with N5426 and N5427"), and N5429 merely probable from its similarity to the others. </object> <object><oname>NGC5429</oname>is a double star. See NGC5428. </object> <object><oname>NGC5432</oname>is a triple star. See NGC5428. </object> <object><oname>NGC5435</oname>is a double star. See NGC5428. </object> <object><oname>NGC5436</oname>is one of a line of three nebulae found by Temple (N5437 = I4365 and 5438 are the others). It's likely that WH saw at least one of these objects, the northern-most and brightest of the group, N5438; see N5446 for more on this. Except for N5438, Bigourdan mangled the names here; he mistook a nearby star as a nebula as well. So, N5437 has ended up with "IC4365" (which see) on it in addition to the NGC number. </object> <object><oname>NGC5437</oname><oname>IC4365</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5438</oname> See NGC5436 and NGC5446. </object> <object><oname>NGC5439</oname> See NGC5391. </object> <object><oname>NGC5446</oname>is probably identical to NGC5438. This is another of WH's earlier discoveries (19 March 1784). Many of the nebulae found in the spring of 1784 have larger position errors than later observations. In this case, the difference in RA is 30 seconds, and the Dec's are close. The descriptions are similar enough to make the identity almost certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC5447</oname> 5449, 5450, 5451, 5453, 5455, 5458, 5461, 5462, and NGC5471 are HII regions and/or star clouds in M101. Most were discovered by LdR, though WH found three of the brightest, and d'Arrest noticed the outlier, N5471. Unfortunately, only the identifications of WH's and d'A's objects are unambiguous. The positions of the others turn out to have been determined by JH for GC. He used the sketch of M101 that appeared in LdR's 1861 paper to estimate offsets from stars with known positions. This must have been a hurried chore, since his resulting positions for the knots are not very good. Without additional observations, Dreyer simply adopted JH's GC positions. There has thus been some confusion over the identifications of the objects found by LdR. Only in two cases, N5461 and N5462 (both found by WH), did LdR provide offsets from a nearby star. D'A's object, N5471, not only has a good position, but is isolated enough from the main body of the galaxy that its identification is also certain. To identify the other objects, I have gone back to the published 1861 sketch where they are clearly shown. I have easily identified the knots which JH saw in the same sketch. With those identifications in hand, I remeasured the positions, and have also been able to sort out most of the identifications used in earlier papers on M101. The correct identifications and new positions are in the main Table. </object> <object><oname>NGC5449</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5450</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5451</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5453</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5455</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5457</oname>= Messier 101, and is probably also Messier 102. The identification with M102 is controversial, but rests on a letter that Mechain (who discovered M102) wrote to Bernoulli, then the editor of the Berliner Jahrbuch, claiming that the object is nothing more than a reobservation of M101. This letter was published in 1947 by Helen Sawyer, and is usually taken as "proof" of the identity. However, a case can be made that M102 is actually NGC5866 (which see). I believe that the evidence points to NGC5457, but as I noted, this is still controversial. </object> <object><oname>NGC5458</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5461</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5462</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5463</oname> Though there is no problem with the identity of this object, the NGC position, adopted from two micrometric observation by Tempel (published in his 8th list) is 16 seconds west of the true position. I've not been able to find why Tempel's reduced position is wrong (even if he used the BD position for his comparison star, his position would only be 1-2 seconds of time off), but re-reducing his offsets using the GSC position for his comparison star (BD +10 2619) leads to a position much closer to the modern position. However, Tempel's position is still 12-14 arcsec off, further than I would have expected. Either the comparison star has a large proper motion, or Tempel's measurements are somehow in error. Other micrometric positions of his that I've re-reduced have had larger-than-expected offsets from modern positions, so I suspect that his measurements simply have larger standard deviations than would be normal for state-of-the-art work in the mid-1880s. </object> <object><oname>NGC5465</oname>and NGC5467 = IC973 are both stars southwest of NGC5468. Tempel does not give positions for either in his fifth list, so the NGC positions are probably from private communications to Dreyer. While looking at the field, Bigourdan found and measured stars near the NGC positions. It is those stars that I've taken to be Tempel's "nebulae" -- both share a common offset of +30 arcsec from Tempel's positions, so seem likely to be the objects that Tempel saw. Not able to easily see Tempel's nebulae in the field, Bigourdan nevertheless turned up two new "nebulae" (IC973 and IC974, which see) but later realized that one of them (IC973) was identical to the object he had taken for NGC5467. By that time, however, the first IC had been published, and included Bigourdan's "novae" from his first Comptes Rendus list of discoveries. So, the star has an IC number as well as an NGC number. </object> <object><oname>NGC5467</oname><oname>IC973</oname> is a star. See NGC5465. </object> <object><oname>NGC5468</oname> See NGC5465 and IC974. </object> <object><oname>NGC5469</oname>may be CGCG 074-136. [There has been considerable confusion about this object, so I'm scratching my original note and starting over.] Tempel does not list this object in his table of novae in his 8th list, but instead describes it in the text. Here is the full account, translated by Wolfgang Steinicke: "III 59 [= NGC5482] is 9s preceeding, 2 1/2' south of a faint star 11m; the nebula is small and has in its center a faint star with very little nebular matter. Following the star 11m, there is at 15s, parallel to it [the star or N5482?] a nice round nebula, III, without a faint star [in the center]. This nebula is also new." Tempel's text seems to suggest that his new nebula follows the 11th magnitude star by 15 seconds, but Wolfgang questions this, suggesting that it may be NGC5482 which is on the parallel. There is, in any case, no group of two galaxies and a star in the area of NGC5482 that could possibly match Tempel's description. He has certainly misidentified NGC5482. Nor is there anything at the NGC position for N5469 (the position probably comes from one of Tempel's letters to Dreyer). Furthermore, NGC5482 (which is CGCG 074-115; WH's position is too close to that galaxy for any doubt) is another 2.5 minutes of time on east, and half a degree south. So, it cannot be the nebula that Tempel observed: the NGC position is at odds with Tempel's text. Given Tempel's confusion in this area (see e.g. NGC5562, also well off the nominal position), I suspect that he mistook CGCG 074-134 as NGC5482. It has a star of about the right magnitude, 7.7 seconds following and 3.6 arcmin north, not unreasonably far off Tempel's estimates of 9 sec and 2.5 arcmin. CGCG 074-136 is 17.1 sec following CGCG 074-134, and 50 arcsec south, again not unreasonably off Tempel's description of the nova being 15 seconds following and on the parallel. I'm not convinced that this is the correct solution, but there is nothing else in the area that comes as close to matching. So, for now, I'm putting NGC 5469 on CGCG 074-136 with a question mark. </object> <object><oname>NGC5471</oname> See NGC5447. </object> <object><oname>NGC5472</oname>is a galaxy just where LdR's and Tempel's observations puts it. However, it was not seen by Bigourdan which may have contributed to his confusion about the field around NGC5468 (see NGC5465 and IC974 for more). </object> <object><oname>NGC5482</oname> See NGC5469. </object> <object><oname>NGC5488</oname><oname>IC4375</oname>. JH's position in the CGH Observations is crude (14 01+-, 122 50+- for 1830.0), yet he gave it in GC to his usual precision of 0.1 seconds and 0.1 arcseconds. He did list the number of observations as "1::", but this did not make it to the NGC. Dreyer did his usual rounding, too, so the NGC position is apparently a nomally accurate one of one or two arcminutes. The only reason we can be fairly sure about the identification is JH's note "near and to the north of a * 8 m." The star is there, and Stewart also comments on it: "cB,[sic] * sp" (I think the comma is a typo). In any event, there is nothing at JH's position, and the identity with the IC object is pretty sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC5494</oname>appears in Swift's big 11th AN list of new nebulae. Dreyer caught this, so Swift's rediscovery was not given an IC number. See IC2595 for more about the nebulae that Swift found on the night of 22 February 1898. </object> <object><oname>NGC5502</oname><oname>NGC5503</oname>. These were found by Edward and Lewis Swift, son and father, on 9 and 11 May 1885, respectively. Their descriptions of the galaxy are nearly the same, and the identity is clinched because both father and son carefully describe the surrounding star field (for NGC5502, the description is "between two stars, one a wide double," while for N5503, it reads "forms with two stars a right triangle"). Neither position is very good, but that for N5503 is closer to the true position. I suspect that the difference in position and description of the stars was enough to convince both of the Swifts -- and Dreyer, too -- that the observations refered to different nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC5503</oname> See NGC5502. </object> <object><oname>NGC5504</oname> See IC4383. </object> <object><oname>NGC5509</oname>= CGCG 133-010. Bigourdan's declination, as published in his first list of new nebulae in Comptes Rendus, is 16.3 arcmin off the position derived from his micrometric offsets. This may be a simple mistake, or it could be the result of confusion over his comparison star. He lists it twice (once for each of the nights he observed N5509), but at different magnitudes (8.5 and 11.5) and declination offsets from BD +21 2625 (-19 arcmin and -17.2 arcmin). GSC has m = 11.6 from two measurements with the offset being -18 arcmin. Whatever the cause of the error, the correct identity is clear when the reductions are redone using the modern position for the comparison star. </object> <object><oname>NGC5511</oname>is probably CGCG 074-141, but might possibly be CGCG 074-142. The southeastern galaxy is a low surface brightness late-type spiral, while the western object is an S0 of normal surface brightness. The S0, though fainter in total magnitude, is more likely to be seen in a long-focus 18.5-inch refractor (Hough's telescope at Dearborn Observatory, the same Clark refractor used by Safford nearly two decades earlier). However, Hough's published description reads, "Small, very faint. * 10m, * 10m [sic] preceding." This is a typographical error of some sort. There is no star of 10th magnitude preceding the galaxy (I also checked the possibility that a star might be 10 minutes of time or 10 arcmin preceding, but none are in either place). The only fairly bright star in the area is an 11th magnitude double star following CGCG 074-141 by 14.2 seconds. This casts doubt on the identity with either CGCG galaxy, but Hough's position precesses to within 2 arcmin of the galaxies. Thus, I'm going to give the confused description fairly low weight. Tempel certainly did not see CGCG 074-142. His description of Hough's nebula reads (in a translation by Wolfgang Steinicke): "I also searched for the last of Hough's nebulae at 14h 07.5m +9d 10.0' and found at this place a faint star of 12m with very little nebular matter." I think this is a description of the double star following the galaxies. The fainter star is merged with the image of the brighter, and is southwest. It probably lent just a trace of the appearance of nebulosity to the brighter star as Tempel observed it. </object> <object><oname>NGC5519</oname>is probably also NGC5570, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5524</oname>is probably the double star at the position noted in the Table. See NGC5527 for the discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC5527</oname>is probably the object called "NGC5524" by virtually everybody. Found by LdR on 19 April 1855, it has just the one observation recorded under LdR's entry for NGC5529. That observation reads, "[NGC5529], long narrow ray with a S, R, vF neb sf; another vF about 15' np [5529]; and another eeF about 6' p and 1' n of this last." Dreyer adds the note, "The positions given in the G.C. for 2 R. novae, [5524] and [5527], are not in accordance with this." In the observation, it's clear that there are four nebulae in the field. One of these, the "S, R, vF neb sf" is neither in GC nor NGC(it is one of several nebulae known to Dreyer that he did not include in NGC). The other three nebulae, N5524, N5527, and N5529 are arranged along a curve according to LdR's description. It is also clear that the new objects can have only approximate positions as no micrometric positions for them were measured at Birr Castle. An additional problem concerns the adopted positions and descriptions. The positions are by JH for GC and, as Dreyer noted, do not correspond with the description given by LdR. Dreyer switched the positions for NGC, but still got LdR's descriptions of brightness reversed -- the faintest object is clearly the western most of the objects, i.e. NGC5524. Given all this, it is reasonable to suppose that the brightest object northwest of NGC5529 is NGC5527, and that a still fainter object is west- northwest of it. This makes N5527 = CGCG 191-067 (it is 17.2 arcmin from N5529), but leaves the position for NGC5524 vacant. The object was taken to be a star by Carlson, and was noted in MCG as "Not found." There is a very faint galaxy in the right direction from N5527 that LdR might have seen, but it is almost 13 arcmin away, not 6+ arcmin as in the observation. There is also a somewhat brighter triple star on to the northwest of N5527 (14 11 42.2, +36 43 48; B1950.0, mean of the three DSS positions), but it is 9.5 arcmin from the galaxy, and is probably too bright to be called "eeF." The stars are also pretty well separated: the northern star is 30 arcsec away from the southern. The final possibility, the one I've adopted, is the double star 7.9 arcmin west-southwest of N5527. This is a reasonable choice if LdR's description reads "... another eeF about 6' p and 1' s ...." The second star of this pair is much fainter than the brighter, but may have added just a hint of nebulosity to the object. While this identity is a (reasonable) guess, it is still the best of the available options. </object> <object><oname>NGC5529</oname> See NGC5527. </object> <object><oname>NGC5541</oname> See IC4394. </object> <object><oname>NGC5547</oname> See IC4404. </object> <object><oname>NGC5552</oname><oname>NGC5558</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5554</oname><oname>NGC5564</oname>. See NGC5558. </object> <object><oname>NGC5558</oname><oname>NGC5552</oname>, and NGC5564 = NGC5554. Swift has an accurate description of the star field near these two galaxies. For the first, he notes "2 F st. point to it," and for the second "sf of 2; a * midway between them." His positions, though, are a minute of time too far east, putting both of these near NGC5563. This led Dreyer to suggest that the two are both equal to N5563, found by Marth, as were N5552 and N5554. In this case, Marth's positions are quite good enough for positive identification, as are Swift's descriptions (but see NGC5565). </object> <object><oname>NGC5561</oname> LEDA took UGC 9151 as Swift's object despite the fact that it is further off his position, is fainter with a much lower surface brightness, and has no "F * nr west" as Swift notes. Swift's object is a high surface brightness compact galaxy, perhaps one of the blue irregulars. In any event, he got it pinned down very well, while LEDA -- misled by the big splashy dwarf spiral 3.5 arcmin southwest -- got it wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC5562</oname>is CGCG 075-011, even though it is nearly 20 arcmin north of Tempel's nominal position. Here is his description (translated by Wolfgang Steinicke): "Two degrees north of it [NGC5511], I found on June 28th a new nebula and have seen it several times. At this time I can specify its position only from Argelander's atlas [the BD]: 14h 13m Os +10d 39'. It is small, III; 3' south-preceding the nebula is a star 11m, and 3s following is a very faint star." Both stars are just where Tempel puts them, and the description of the nebula as small and very faint (WH's class III) is correct. The actual distance north of NGC5511 (which see) is closer to 1.5 degrees rather than 2 as Tempel states. </object> <object><oname>NGC5563</oname> See NGC5558 = NGC5552, and NGC5565. </object> <object><oname>NGC5564</oname><oname>NGC5554</oname>. See NGC5558 = NGC5552, and NGC5565. </object> <object><oname>NGC5565</oname>-- is this a star? Swift claims this is just 30 arcsec south of NGC 5564, but there is nothing there. Just a bit further on to the southeast, though, is a star at V = 15.5. Swift could just possibly have seen this, and he may have thought it a third nebula since there are two others near (see NGC 5558). However, he claims to have found all three objects on the same night. So, I find it curious that he describes the star field around the other two carefully, and mentions in their descriptions "np of 2" and "sf of 2" with only a casual reference to this object "two others nr" in his description of NGC5558 = NGC5552. This leaves open the possibility that N5565 is the same as N5563, about a minute of time following. The declinations of N5565 and N5563, however, are four arcmin different, while the declinations of the other two nebulae that Swift found on this night are very good. The most likely hypothesis remains that Swift saw a star, but we cannot now be sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC5567</oname> See NGC5579. </object> <object><oname>NGC5568</oname> See NGC5579. </object> <object><oname>NGC5570</oname>is probably WH's first observation of NGC5519. His description reads, "vF, forming an arch with 3 sts." NGC5519 indeed forms an arch with two stars west and southwest, and a third is superposed on the galaxy. WH's observation puts N5570 21m 15s p, 0d 34' s of 31 Bootis. This is 6 minutes of time off the position of N5519. I think that the "21m" is a transcription error and should read "27m." In that case, the RA as well as the Dec and the description would match N5519. </object> <object><oname>NGC5571</oname>is a group of 4 stars. Bigourdan's second observation of it describes it exactly, though his first -- in the NGC-- attributes some nebulosity to it that is not there. RNGC incorrectly equates it to NGC5579. </object> <object><oname>NGC5575</oname><oname>NGC5578</oname>. N5578 was found by Marth, and his position is close enough to clearly identify the galaxy. Swift's position, though, is about 14 seconds on to the east. There is nothing there that he could have mistaken for a nebula, though, and his declination and description fits NGC5575. The identity is almost certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC5578</oname> See NGC5575. </object> <object><oname>NGC5579</oname>and NGC5580. N5579 was first seen by WH who described it as simply "eF, pL." JH saw it twice, first in April 1827, and again in March 1831. N5580 was picked up by him only on the first occasion. Here are his data: NGC H h/Sweep RA (1950) Dec Desc 5579 III.415 1784/72 14 18 21.1 +35 25 08 F, pL, the preceding of 2 " " " /331 18.4 47 eF, L, 30 or 40''. 5580 --- 1785/72 14 18 33.5 +35 26 13 Not vF; 20''; the following of 2 There five other NGC objects in the area, all but one seen or discovered by WH and/or JH. The Herschels' data (all precessed to 1950.0) 5567 --- 1780/337 14 17 09.6 +35 21 03 pF, R 5588 --- 1789/28 14 19 18.8 +35 21 11 eF 5589 III.416 1788/71 14 19 18.9 +35 30 13 vF, S, R " " " /337 14 19 18.2 +35 29 37 The np of 2. Pos with other = 330.0 deg by micrometer. 5590 III.417 1791/28 14 19 31.5 +35 26 12 vF, a stellar nucleus " " " /71 14 19 32.0 +35 25 54 pF, R, 20'' " " " /337 14 19 29.8 +35 25 31 pB, R, psbM; 15''; the sf of 2. Moon above horizon. The other object was found by Bigourdan: 5568 = Big. 72 14 17 14.2 +35 19 18 vF, S, v dif There is little question about the identities of NGC5567, 5568, 5579, 5589, and 5590. The GSC positions (B1950.0) are 5567 14 17 10.63 +35 22 01.7 5568 14 17 14.27 +35 19 16.9 5579 14 18 19.82 +35 25 00.2 5589 14 19 18.63 +35 29 54.1 5590 14 19 31.84 +35 25 56.5 However, as Glen Deen points out -- that's it. Nothing else in the area except stars and very faint galaxies that the visual observers would not have seen. The only other observations in the area before the NGC were by Lord Rosse; he and/or his observer looked twice for N5588, 5589, and 5590, and saw only two nebulae in the area both times. In spite of JH's rather emphatic statement in the GC notes, there are indeed only those two near JH's three positions. Looking at all of this, I noticed some peculiarities in the positions, descriptions, and sweeps. 1) First, N5580 was seen only during one sweep, and exactly precedes N5590 by one minute of time (the declinations are the same to within JH's usual standard deviation -- 2 arcmin give or take). 2) The description for N5580 is consistent with its being N5590. It also follows N5579 by the same amount that N5590 follows N5589, and is noted as the following of two. 3) Neither N5589 or N5590 were seen on the two sweeps when N5579 and N5580 were seen -- nor were N5579/80 seen on any of the sweeps when the others were seen. N5590 is also the brightest of the five objects, and is therefore the most likely to be seen during a sweep. So, I'm going to suggest that N5580 is actually N5590. This is not certain, of course, because N5579 is noted as the preceding of two in the same sweep in which N5580 was noted as the following of two. This would suggest that N5579 and N5589 are also identical -- but the positions and descriptions of those two fit very well with what we know is in the sky. Nevertheless, the idea that N5580 = N5590 is a plausible one, so I'll throw it out for discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC5580</oname>may be = NGC5590. See NGC5579. </object> <object><oname>NGC5583</oname> See NGC5586. </object> <object><oname>NGC5586</oname>may be = NGC5587, but Swift's description ("eF, vS, R; nearly bet 2 B sts") doesn't match -- the galaxy is very elongated and there is only one bright star near to the southeast -- and his nominal declination is 44 arcmin off. Another possibility is CGCG 075-022, but that is too faint, and has no flanking bright stars. The other two candidate galaxies in the area, NGC5583 and NGC5591, were both found the same night as N5586, so are not likely to be the missing galaxy. There is no significant systematic offset in their positions, either. I searched at reasonable digit errors (+- 1 deg and +- 1 minute) with no luck, so the best we can do with this object for the time being is "Not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC5587</oname>may also be NGC5586, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5588</oname><oname>NGC5589</oname>. This was seen during a sweep with N5590 -- but N5589 was not picked up on that sweep. JH put it just about as far south of N5590 as N5589 is north, the RA's are identical (to within the errors, of course), and the descriptions are consistent (notice that JH called N5590 "vF" that night). It looks to me like N5588 is the same as N5589. </object> <object><oname>NGC5589</oname><oname>NGC5588</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC5579 for more on the field. </object> <object><oname>NGC5590</oname>may also be NGC5580. See NGC5579. </object> <object><oname>NGC5591</oname> See NGC5586. </object> <object><oname>NGC5594</oname><oname>IC4412</oname>. Dreyer has noted that CH and JH have introduced an 11 arcmin error in WH's north polar distance offset from his comparison star. Even when the offset is corrected, the galaxy is still several arcmin from WH's position. But as there is no other bright galaxy near, this is the most likely candidate. Because of the error in the NGC position, Bigourdan did not find the galaxy, and Javelle rediscovered it in 1895. It made its way into the second IC from his third list. Javelle's position is good, though I find it odd that neither he nor WH mentioned the brighter star just to the southeast of the galaxy. Reinmuth was apparently the first to suggest the identity of the two numbers. </object> <object><oname>NGC5607</oname><oname>IC1005</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5609</oname> NGC5613, and NGC5615 are all companions of NGC5614 found by LdR. In spite of the good positions in NGC, there has been some confusion over the identifications. Even if the positions were not reliable, LdR's sketch of the field, and micrometric measurements of two of the novae, would be enough to clearly identify them. NGC5614 and NGC5615 have attracted recent attention as an interacting pair of galaxies. N5615 has a tidal plume streaming away from it and N5614, the clear result of the gravitational interaction. </object> <object><oname>NGC5613</oname> See NGC5609. </object> <object><oname>NGC5614</oname> See NGC5609. </object> <object><oname>NGC5615</oname> See NGC5609. </object> <object><oname>NGC5621</oname>is two 16th magnitude stars with a 19th magnitude star just to the north. There is nothing in WH's position, but JH's position -- used in the GC and NGC-- is within his usual errors of the double star. </object> <object><oname>NGC5632</oname> NGC5651, and NGC5658 are more of the stars mistaken by the early Harvard observers (in this case, Harvard's then-director G. P. Bond) for nebulae. Bond's positions are good enough that Auwers picked up the correct stars in all three cases -- but still described them as nebulae. For NGC 5632, Auwers also noted an 11th magnitude star following the "nebula" on the parallel by 2 minutes 30 seconds of time. That star is GSC 4984-0094 at 14 29 15.66, -00 12 49.6 (n = 2, B1950.0). </object> <object><oname>NGC5634</oname> See NGC5897. </object> <object><oname>NGC5640</oname> Dreyer has a note in the Scientific Papers that WH's offsets from another comparison star in the sweep, Kasan 2528, are probably to be prefered to those from 4 UMi which were used to reduce the NGC position of the galaxy. Neither position, in fact, is very good. The NGC places the object over a minute of time too far west, while Dreyer's new position places it too far east by about a minute. Both positions are about 3 arcmin too far south. All this assumes that CGCG 353-035 is indeed the object that WH found. In particular, his description "little extended near parallel" (i.e. extended in RA) is much more apt for the brighter component of CGCG 353-034. However, this object is yet another minute of time further to the west from the NGC position. So, I've prefered to stay with the "traditional" identification, though CGCG did not put the number on either galaxy. RNGC, however, got the correct object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5648</oname><oname>NGC5649</oname>. There are only two "bright" galaxies in this area. The slightly brighter, northwestern of the two was found by WH, the southeastern by JH who also remeasured his father's nebula. During his first set of observations of the area in 1887, Bigourdan mistook NGC5649 for a new nebula and published it in his first list of "novae." The correct position measured by Bigourdan is about 2 arcmin from JH's (used in GC and NGC), so Dreyer also assumed it was a new object and assigned it its own number in the NGC, 5648. Bigourdan remeasured the object in 1894 (his later position is within 2 arcsec of the earlier), and realized his mistake. He says, "This, which was mistaken for a new nebula [in 1887], is evidently III 645 [= NGC5649]; the position is slightly erroneous in GC and NGC." Unfortunately, the modern catalogues have been confused by the extra number and by JH's positions (which are off 2-3 arcmin to the southeast), assigning NGC5648 to the northwestern object, and using NGC5649 for the southeastern. This second object of the pair is actually NGC5655 (which see for its own problems in the modern catalogues). </object> <object><oname>NGC5649</oname><oname>NGC5648</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5650</oname><oname>NGC5652</oname>. Swift's description and position match NGC5652, found a century earlier by William Herschel. Also observed by JH, the NGC position is pretty good -- as is Swift's. The mystery here is why neither Swift nor Dreyer caught the match. The RA's are only 8 seconds of time different, and the declinations even closer at 0.5 arcmin. Well, there are many other matching objects with even closer coordinates that Dreyer did not catch, either. Perhaps he was giving the benefit of doubt to the observers. </object> <object><oname>NGC5651</oname>is a star. See NGC5632 and NGC5658. </object> <object><oname>NGC5652</oname><oname>NGC5650</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5653</oname><oname>IC1026</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5655</oname>is not the very faint little smudge of a galaxy to which RNGC assigns the number. Rather, it is the southeastern of a pair seen by John Herschel, the brighter northwestern having also been seen by his father. Unfortunately, JH's positions for both are off by about 2-3 arcmin to the southeast of the true positions. This has led the modern catalogues to give the NGC number 5648 to the preceding of the pair, and 5649 to the following. Left with NGC5655 unattached to any object, RNGC arbitrarily put it on the faint object that JH could not have seen. See NGC5648 = NGC5649, for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5658</oname> Discovered in 1853 by the then director of Harvard Observatory, George P. Bond, the nominal position is 14 29 22 -00 08 50. There is only a faint star at this position, and there are no galaxies nearby that would match Bond's description ("An elongated nebula, fainter than the above [NGC5651], seen 1853 May 9." See NGC5632 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5664</oname><oname>IC4455</oname>. Here is one which neither the NGC nor the IC get right (see the brief discussion under the IC number for that problem). The NGC observation comes from the first Leander McCormick list of nebulae: the RA is given to a whole minute of time only, and is 42 seconds off; the declination is off by more than 2 arcmin as well. But we do have a sketch showing the galaxy with four nearby field stars. These, along with a moderately useful description ("pF, S, E, gbM") positively identify the object. Since the position is fairly close (for a Leander McCormick position, anyway), Howe was able to find the right galaxy and give a corrected position in one of his MNRAS articles. Dreyer quotes this in the IC2 Notes, but also repeats the IC1 Note giving a corrected RA from Ormond Stone's 1893 paper "Southern Nebulae". This paper has three micrometric measurements of the object made on two different nights by Muller (one measurement) and Leavenworth (two measurements from about 10 months earlier). They used three different stars, so we are able to intercompare the resulting positions: they all agree with the value given in the IC Notes, and that RA is a minute of time larger than Howe's. Yet Howe is correct. The approximate positions for two of the Leander McCormick comparison stars are exactly one minute of time too large, while the RA offset (derived from 6 settings!) is one minute of time too small for the other star (for which an accurate and precise position is given). There are too many problems here to be simple typos or transcription errors, and I suspect that the numbers were "adjusted" to agree among themselves. In any event, the identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC5672</oname><oname>IC1030</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5673</oname>and IC1029. It's clear that -- in spite of Dreyer's note (in his 1912 edition of William Herschel's papers) to the contrary (he was misled by John Herschel's position for the north-preceding galaxy) -- WH saw the south- following object of the pair. His position is very good, and his description "pB, S, E" leaves no doubt that it was the brighter of the two galaxies that he picked up in his sweep. It is also clear that John Herschel saw the north- preceding object. Again, his position is good, and his description "vF, pmE, sf a * 15m" is spot-on for the object. Faced with the problem of whether to use William or John's position for N5673, Dreyer simply followed the GC. For this, Sir John adopted his own position, believing (correctly) that it is statistically more reliable than his father's. Also believing that there was only one nebula in the field, Sir John (and Dreyer after him) did exactly what I would have done in the same situation: place the GC number (to be followed by the NGC number), on the fainter of the two galaxies. Bigourdan saw and measured both, though there is a typo in his 8 June 1899 description for NGC5673: his comparison star is -1 min 48 sec -- not -1 min 58 sec -- away from BD +50 2091. Once this is corrected, his positions (re-reduced with respect to the Guide Star Catalogue positions for his comparison stars) agree very well with modern values from Dressel and Condon (used in RC3), and from the GSC. It's interesting to read his first description of IC1029: "... the star near [N5673] mentioned in the GC description was not seen" (a very free translation by yrs trly). I think that he must have believed when he observed it that this object, quite the brighter of the two, was the GC (and NGC) galaxy. His estimates of the magnitude (12 and 12.8) of the star in his descriptions of N5673, by the way, are much more in line with today's magnitude scale than is Sir John's single estimate of 15. But we know that the scale was considerably stretched in Sir John's day, and was not rationalized until Pogson did his work in the mid-1800's. In any event, we end up with the number NGC5673 = h1838 on the fainter galaxy, and the brighter galaxy is IC1029 = H II 696 = B 185. As I said, I believe that we should leave things this way. We have, after all, the authority of the GC, the NGC, and the IC behind the numbering. And I see no reason to introduce confusion if we don't have to (though I have done it in other cases). In addition, if we adopt the other point of view and give Sir William historical precedence, then the north-preceding galaxy looses its GC and NGC numbers (though not its number in Sir John's 1833 list) altogether, and the south-following nebula becomes N5673 = I1029. There is no justification at all for transfering the number I1029 to the north-preceding object; this number was given to the south-following nebula by Dreyer, and there is no confusion of position or nomenclature for it in Bigourdan's observations, or in the IC. </object> <object><oname>NGC5696</oname> See NGC5697. </object> <object><oname>NGC5697</oname><oname>IC4471</oname>, which see. <ignore /> There are two numbers on this galaxy because the Herschel's positions differ by 43 seconds of time (WH is closer, but keep reading), and their declinations are five arcmin off the real declinations. So, Bigourdan was understandably confused by the field. IC4471 has that part of the story. However, an NGC note reflects another confusion between NGC5696 and N5697 that arises when comparing the Herschels' positions. WH's relative positions place the galaxies southwest-northeast (this is correct), while JH's put them northwest-southeast. JH's RA's are at fault, and he marks both of them with plus-minus signs. His declination for N5697 is also so marked, while that for N5696 is flagged with a colon. He also notes that the "RA [for N5696] is by working list", but there is some error in the reduction (CH's?) for that list as that RA is 20 seconds smaller than WH's, and 28 seconds smaller than the GC's and NGC's. Where did this RA come from? Whatever the answer, WH's reduced positions (from his discovery observations) are closer in both cases, but are still five arcmin off in declination. In the Scientific Papers, Dreyer notes that WH saw both objects in Sweep 725 on 9 April 1787. Here, WH has N5696 (II 648) 36 seconds preceding, 10 arcmin south of N5697 (II 675). This is reasonably close to the real offsets (in 1787) of 26.3 seconds and 8 arcmin 27 arcsec. JH made the best of the situation he could, and Dreyer faithfully copied it into the NGC. Fortunately, the positions are not too far off the real values, and there are no other galaxies nearby to further confuse the issue. So, the identities in the NGC can be adopted pretty much as they are. The 1860 NGC positions should read 14 31 32, 47 33.7 for N5696, and 14 31 06, 47 42.3 for N5697. </object> <object><oname>NGC5699</oname><oname>NGC5706</oname><oname>NGC5703</oname><oname>NGC5709</oname>. Dreyer notes that a mistake in CH's reduction of her brother's observations placed III 127 and III 128 one degree too far south. JH did not catch the mistake for the GC, nor did Dreyer while preparing the NGC-- but he did notice it while working on his 1912 edition of WH's complete papers. Since he notes that Auwers has the correctly reduced positions, I suspect the discrepancy came to light when Dreyer was comparing CH's list to Auwers's. Once the correction is made, WH's positions are very close to two nebulae found by Stephan, NGC5706 and NGC5709. Stephan's micrometrically measured positions are excellent. </object> <object><oname>NGC5703</oname><oname>NGC5709</oname>. See NGC5699. </object> <object><oname>NGC5704</oname>is probably = NGC5708. There is no doubt that WH's object (II 649) is NGC5708; his description matches, and his position is just about 1.6 arcmin north-northeast of the galaxy. JH, however, has the number on the one observation of his in the area that does not apply to the galaxy. That one night, JH's position ends up almost exactly on the preceding star of a wide double (the position angle is about 100 degrees) -- is it possible that he mistook it for a nebula? His description, "F, S, R," supports this notion, with the shape being at variance with his father's "F, S, E nearly mer., r." Note, in particular, that WH has the galaxy extended north-south (as it actually is), not nearly east-west as the orientation of the double star would have it. His final comment ("r" = mottled) is probably due to the star superposed on the south- east edge of the galaxy, as well as the rather patchy nature of the object itself. On that same night, JH has another observation of what he calls a "nova" which is nevertheless clearly the galaxy. The position agrees, and his description "F, pL, E nearly in merid.; gbM" does, too. JH has one other observation that he credits to the first of these two objects, but he comments that the position is bad. He apparently did not notice that that "bad" position is identical to his two positions for NGC 5708 (the mean of his three positions is only 15 arcsec off the galaxy). So, the only puzzle is the position of the object found by JH which received the NGC number 5704. This is the position given in GC and NGC, and as I noted above, is close to the western component of a double star. However, since there is only one galaxy here, and since it is clear that both Herschel's saw it, I am going to put both NGC numbers on the object. But we do have to keep in mind that JH claimed to have seen two nebulae here on one night, so it is still possible that we could claim NGC5704 as the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC5706</oname><oname>NGC5699</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5708</oname>is probably also = NGC5704, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5709</oname><oname>NGC5703</oname>. See NGC5699. </object> <object><oname>NGC5721</oname> 5722, 5723, and 5724. The brightest three of this small group of six galaxies were found by William and John Herschel, the other three by Lord Rosse and his observer at the time, Johnstone Birney. Fortunately, the Birr Castle observers provide a diagram, so the galaxies can be positively identified, even though Dreyer's estimated NGC postions are not quite correct. MCG got all the numbers right, but the double nebula, CGCG 248-016, is incorrectly labeled as NGC5721 + NGC5723; it should be NGC5721 + NGC5722. Is NGC5724 the faintest positively identified NGC galaxy? It looks to be about 18th magnitude on the blue POSS1 print. There may be other such faint objects lurking among Lord Rosse's observations, but I don't recall seeing them. </object> <object><oname>NGC5722</oname> See NGC5721. </object> <object><oname>NGC5723</oname> See NGC5721. </object> <object><oname>NGC5724</oname> See NGC5721. </object> <object><oname>NGC5730</oname>and NGC5731. Here is another pair found by WH to which he gave only one position. John Herschel states explicitly that he estimated the position of the preceding of the two with respect to the following object. His position for N5731 = H III 658 = h 1868 is good, but that for N5730 = H III 657 = h 1867 is off in declination: his offset places it north-preceding N5731, not south-preceding as it really is. This has led to confusion only in CGCG which has the identifications reversed. All other major catalogues have this pair named correctly, though UGC placed colons on the names, indicating some uncertainty on Nilson's part about the identifications. There is a small mystery, though: where did the position angle notation in GC and NGC come from? It is correct (90 deg, which helps pin down the identification), but neither of the Herschel's published catalogues give a measurement. It is probably buried in Sir John's unpublished papers, as are the details for other of his observations (see e.g. NGC980 and NGC982). </object> <object><oname>NGC5731</oname> is it IC1045? See NGC5730 for a CGCG confusion. See IC1045 for a Swift confusion. The identity with NGC5731 is not in doubt, but there is some concerning IC1045. </object> <object><oname>NGC5736</oname> This is one of Swift's sixth list objects which he communicated to Dreyer before publication. In this case, the NGC position is virtually spot on the modern position -- but Swift's published position is over 4 arcmin away. Still, the identification is certain as this is the brightest of the three galaxies in the area (the largest is UGC 09490, an edgewise spiral with a rather low surface brightness). This tinkering by Swift with his positions was almost a hallmark in his lists. In another case (NGC6039 = NGC6042, NGC6040, and NGC6041 in the Hercules Cluster; see these for more), Swift's revised positions are very good and agree well with Stephan's (who found them independently). Yet in the rest of the cluster, Swift's positions are as poor as ever. Is it possible that he fudged his data a bit to make them look better than they really were? Possibly, possibly ... </object> <object><oname>NGC5747</oname><oname>IC4493</oname>. WH's single discovery observation is about 50 seconds of time too far east. Bigourdan looked for NGC5747 at WH's position and of course saw nothing. He did find the object, however, and measured it twice. He included it in his 4th list of new nebulae, so it received a number in the second IC. Herschel's note on the object, quoted by Dreyer in the 1912 reprinting of Herschel's papers, reads, "An extremely faint nebula, it is small and required some time to look at before it could be well seen." This helps to explain the position error, but errors of this size are not unknown in others of WH's observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC5758</oname>is the brighter of two nearly equal galaxies. It can be identified by Swift's note, "B * f 22 seconds". There is indeed a star about that far from the galaxy (actually about 19 seconds; the distance is only 12 seconds for the fainter galaxy). CGCG picked the correct galaxy, but Wolfgang did not, at least for his first edition. I suspect he will correct that for later editions of his catalogue. </object> <object><oname>NGC5761</oname>carries in the NGC another of the notoriously poor early Leander McCormick positions. Nevertheless, I am almost certain that this is one or the other of ESO 580-G039 or ESO 580-G040. Since the LM positions are more likely to be off in RA than in Dec, and since the nominal declination is close to that of -G040, this suggests that the RC3 identification with G39 is incorrect. However, -G039 is nearly a magnitude brighter than -G040 in ESO-LV, it is larger, and it is also more face-on -- all factors that suggest that it, and not -G040, is N5761. Unfortunately, there is no discovery sketch, so we can only guess at this point. Forced to a decision, I would say that the RC3 identification is perhaps correct -- but I certainly wouldn't bet any of my cats on it! </object> <object><oname>NGC5778</oname>may also be NGC5825, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5782</oname>was described by Swift as "eF, vS, E, * nr sf." His position is poor and lands on an empty patch of sky. 35 seconds preceding his position, though, there is a faint spindle that CGCG (076-094), MCG (+02-38-021), and RNGC all chose as the galaxy Swift saw. It fits his description, down to the star south-following -- except that there are two brighter stars closer to the galaxy north-preceding. Why didn't Swift mention them as well? There is, in fact, a better candidate for N5782. Steve Gottlieb points out that UGC 09602 and its fainter companion match exactly the revised position that Bigourdan provided in 1894 (and confirmed in 1899). Dreyer reported this position in the IC2 notes, and there is every reason to adopt U9602 as N5782. There is a star -- brighter than any of the three around the other galaxy -- within an arcminute of the nucleus of U9602. Also, the galaxy is significantly brighter, and has a higher surface brightness, than CGCG 076-094. The companion is nearly in contact with U9602, and would probably appear as part of it in a smaller telescope, making it appear "extended," just as Swift described it. </object> <object><oname>NGC5783</oname><oname>NGC5785</oname>. Both objects are nominally from Swift's 6th list, but we need to note that he sent that 6th list bit by bit to Dreyer in several letters during 1886 and 1887 before he later published it. NGC5785 appeared in the published version of the list, but NGC5783 did not. The position for N5783 is closer to the true position of the galaxy, but the description for N5785 is mostly appropriate, and the RA is just 30 seconds out. The part of the description that is not accurate is Swift's note "np of 2." The galaxy is actually the north-following of the pair (the other is NGC5788, which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC5785</oname><oname>NGC5783</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5788</oname>is actually the south-preceding of a pair of galaxies, not the south- following (the other, brighter galaxy is NGC5783 = NGC5785, which see). At least this is the obvious solution to the mess in Swift's 6th list and the NGC. It requires Swift to have confused his positions and orientations, something that happened more than once in his observations of nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC5794</oname>is UGC 09610; the NGC position is good. RNGC, however, struck again, getting the wrong position for this as well as for NGC5797, 5804, and 5805 (all of which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC5795</oname> Once again, Swift's description in his original paper provides the correct identification: "vF; pS; eE; spindle; pB * close to p end; [N5794, N5797, N5804, N5805] in field." This pinpoints the galaxy 1 deg, 10' north of Swift's position. The description is correct in every respect except that the star is superposed on the following end. The position of the galaxy, (which is MCG +08-27-035 = UGC 09617 = CGCG 248-029) is 14 54 39.5 +49 35 58 (measured with respect to SAO 045288). </object> <object><oname>NGC5797</oname>is UGC 09619. RNGC has got the wrong position for this as well as for NGC5794, 5804, and 5805 -- in spite of good positions in NGC. See NGC 5805 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC5804</oname>is UGC 09627. In spite of a good position in the NGC, RNGC has managed to mangle the identifications of not just this, but also N5794, N5797, and N5805 (which see), also in the area. N5804 has a bright Seyfert nucleus, easily visible on the Sky Survey prints as well as visually. </object> <object><oname>NGC5805</oname> Bob Erdmann points out that this is MCG +08-27-039 (with its declination corrected), a faint double galaxy also mentioned in the UGC Note for N5804, though not called N5805 there. Nor is it noted as a double object in either catalogue, though all the surveys clearly show the fainter companion just to the southeast. This was discovered by Lord Rosse east-southeast of N5804. His sketch shows N5805 as well as N5794, N5797, and N5804 clearly in relation to the 6th mag star mentioned in JH's descriptions for the three brighter galaxies. In spite of the good NGC positions for all four objects, RNGC has unfortunately put the numbers on the wrong galaxies in this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC5808</oname><oname>NGC5819</oname>. In spite of what Dreyer says in his notes to WH's Papers, the galaxy is very nearly between two stars about 6 arcmin apart, just as WH claims. D'Arrest's description ("Forms a triangle with two stars") is also correct -- the triangle is quite flat. D'A's position is pretty good, WH's less so: it is out by a minute of time in RA, and 6.5 arcmin in Dec. But there is no doubt concerning the identity; the stars nail it down. </object> <object><oname>NGC5816</oname>and NGC5817 are two more of the nebulae found at Leander McCormick in the mid-1880s for which only approximate RAs were given. There are no sketches to help with the identifications. Herbert Howe searched for at least one of the nebulae from Chamberlain Observatory at Denver, but has only this to say about N5817, "The position is 14 54 07, -15 46.9." (The equinox is 1900.0.) This position falls on one of two galaxies 2.5 minutes west of Stone's RA, an offset common among many other of the Leander McCormick nebulae. Howe says nothing at all about N5816. Howe's declination falls between Stone's two, so I'm not convinced that the object Howe observed should actually be called NGC5817. It is, in fact, the brighter of the pair. That would suggest it is really NGC5816, which Stone puts at m = 11.0, compared to N5817 which he has at m = 14.0. However, Stone also puts the brighter object to the north, while the real brightest galaxy is the southern of the pair. Given this confusion, I'm going to keep Howe's identity for the brighter object as NGC5817. The galaxy already appears in several catalogues under that number, and Dreyer included the corrected RA in the notes to IC2 under the same number. </object> <object><oname>NGC5817</oname> See NGC5816. </object> <object><oname>NGC5819</oname><oname>NGC5808</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5825</oname>may be identical to NGC5778. The descriptions fit -- especially the "pB star close following" -- and the declinations are close. However, the RA's are 7 min 40 sec apart, and Swift found both objects on the same night. There are no other galaxies in the area that might be NGC5825, though, so I'm going to keep the possibility of the identity in the table. </object> <object><oname>NGC5826</oname>is almost certainly identical to NGC5870, in spite of the large difference in RA (7.0 minutes of time). In addition to the NGC description, Swift's original description in his first list adds these comments: "Star near; [GC] 4058 [= NGC5866] in field." These additional notes make it pretty certain that Swift was looking at NGC5870 (which he rediscovered two nights later). In particular, NGC5866 is too far from his nominal position for N5826 to be in even his 32 arcmin field. N5870 is close enough, though, and it has the star nearby. </object> <object><oname>NGC5840</oname> Unless this is IC4533 1 deg 43 arcmin south of Swift's nominal position, the object is probably lost. There is nothing else nearby that Swift could have seen, and he leaves us nothing to go on in the way of other clues. His description reads only "eeeF, pS, lE, ee diff[icult]." IC4533 is also unlikely to be the object Swift saw because there is a brighter star just a couple of arcminutes northeast of the galaxy; Swift would probably have mentioned the star in his description, as Javelle in fact did. </object> <object><oname>NGC5856</oname>= ADS 9505 = SAO 101379 is a double star. WH described the object this way: "A star 7.6m enveloped in extensive milky nebulosity. Another star 7m is perfectly free from such appearance." JH on the other hand, noted "A star of fully 6m, with a supposed nebulous appearance about it, but of whose reality I cannot satisfy myself, as it `blinks' with the star behind the wire." D'Arrest made three observations of the star, but only suspected the nebulosity twice. Finally, Bigourdan saw no nebulosity around the star on two different nights. It is hard to reconcile WH's observation with a close double star. But there is certainly no nebulosity around the star now. The spectrum of the brighter component is that of a normal A2 V star with no emission noted. So, N5856 goes into the table as just a close double star. </object> <object><oname>NGC5861</oname> While preparing images for the NGC/IC Project's web pages, Bob Erdmann ran across a splendid edgewise galaxy in the DSS image of NGC5861 just west-northwest of the bright spiral. Wondering what it was, Bob tried to find it in NED -- no luck, though it of course appears in the DSS images of N5861 there. He had better luck with HyperLeda where the object carries the number LEDA 3xxxxxx. So why wasn't this in NED? It is a big object, with a major axis diameter nearly that of N5861 itself -- it should be there. Digging further, I found that not only was it not in NED, I had not included it in ESGC, and I had not even made a note about it under the entry for the NGC galaxy! "Was I blind?!" I facetiously asked Bob in an email. Well, it's clearly time to try another plate: the object does not appear on the DSS2 red plate, nor is it on the NEAT/SkyMorph plate. It also does not appear on the POSS1 red or blue prints, nor in any of the 2MASS scans. (It does appear on the "DSS2" blue images, but that is because HEASARC's SkyView uses DSS1 blue images for any part of the sky that does not yet have DSS2 blue coverage). So, the spindle "galaxy" is a defect on the IIIa-J plate. Just to be accurate about this, the equatorial position is 15 09 07.06, -11 18 41.4 (J2000.0) or 15 06 23.60, -11 07 17.1 (B1950.0). Others have probably already stumbled across this -- or if they haven't, they certainly will. One last note: it has a LEDA number because the LEDA group has included over a million non-stellar objects from GSC in HyperLeda. Most are galaxies, but the HyperLeda group has not been able to check them all. So, there are undoubtedly many more "galaxies" like this in HyperLeda. This demonstrates a larger problem with all of the automated galaxy catalogues and surveys. All are "polluted" to a greater or lesser extent with non-galaxies. There are no sure methods for cleaning out the interlopers. Their percentage in any given catalogue is nevertheless small, ranging from about 10% in the APM galaxy catalogue, to less than 1% in the SDSS list with redshifts. Nevertheless, they are there, so we need to approach these big catalogues with some caution and considerable preparation. </object> <object><oname>NGC5865</oname><oname>NGC5868</oname>. Here, RC3 followed Dreyer (1912) who writes that NGC 5865 should be deleted since NGC5868 is = H II 684 (WH's position is enough off that JH thought N5868 a "nova"). Dreyer is right -- there are only two bright galaxies in the area, not three (or four as Tempel claims; see NGC5871 for more on this). So, I will let RC3 stand as is. However, since both NGC numbers clearly refer to the same object, there can be no confusion if N5865 is adopted. </object> <object><oname>NGC5866</oname>may be Messier 102. There is a long history, particularly in France, of taking this galaxy to be one of those found by Mechain (in 1781 in this case), and verified by Messier. For M102, however, Messier's verification is limited to a penciled-in position in his own copy of his list published in Connaissance des Temps for 1783/4. That position is "14.40" and "56", i.e. 14h 40m, +56d. There is no equinox given, but we can assume it to be 1780 without too much error. For comparison, the accurate position for N5866 precesses back to 15 00.5, +56 37 for 1780. For M101 (= NGC5457, which see), the other usual choice for M102, the precessed accurate position is 13 55.4, +55 25. It's clear than neither galaxy fits the written-in position in Messier's list. But some evidence in favor of both objects has been found. This has been collected in a Web document by Hartmut Frommert on the SEDS site: http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m102d.html To summarize: Messier's working maps were laid out in grids of five degrees in both RA and Dec. This makes it possible that the written-in position was hastily read off his map with a 20 minute and 1 degree error for "15.00" and "57"; this would make the object NGC5866. The case for M102 being M101 is, in my mind, somewhat more convincing. Quite simply, Mechain wrote in 1783 to the editor of the Berliner Jahrbuch that the observation of M102 is nothing more than a repeated observation of M101. This letter still exists and was published in 1947 by Helen Sawyer. N5866 could certainly have been seen by both Messier and Mechain; other of Messier's objects are fainter (e.g. M92). However, Mechain's description is not very helpful: "Nebula between the stars Omicron [this should read "Theta"] Bootis and Iota Draconis; it is very faint; near it is a star of sixth magnitude." Aside from the description of the position, this could fit either galaxy. "Omicron" is almost certainly a typesetting error -- a lower case "Theta", with the top loop almost closed, looks quite a bit like a lower case "omicron." In the end, the evidence is contradictory, and the true identity of M102 may be lost forever. As I said, however, I lean toward the identity with M101. Also see NGC5826 where Swift has confused this with another galaxy, and NGC 5867 where this helps in the identity of that object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5867</oname>is a compact galaxy just a few arcminutes south-southwest of NGC 5866. It was seen twice by LdR, and the sketch on which he shows it is an accurate depiction of the field around NGC5866. Also, the position that Dreyer gives in the NGC is quite good (though he notes in LdR's monograph that the GC position is somewhat off). I suspect that the near-stellar appearance of the galaxy has led other modern cataloguers to mistake it for a star. </object> <object><oname>NGC5868</oname><oname>NGC5865</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5869</oname> See NGC5871. </object> <object><oname>NGC5870</oname>is almost certainly also equal to NGC5826, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC5871</oname>is a star. Tempel claims to have seen four nebulae here, the other three being N5865, N5868, and N5869, all included in the GC. He has them in the form of a trapezium, and made a sketch, though he unfortunately did not publish it. There are, in fact, only two nebulae in the area (see N5865 = N5868 for more on the identity). So, two of Tempel's objects are almost certainly stars (he has many other stars among his novae). Given the trapezium layout, and the NGC position (probably sent to Dreyer directly as it does not appear in Tempel's fifth paper), the star I've measured on the DSS is probably the correct one for NGC5871. But there are other stars in the area that Tempel could have seen, so I don't want to insist that this is certainly his object. After all, I chose a different star while working on ESGC. Perhaps we can find Tempel's sketches some day and definitively locate some of his new "nebulae." </object> <object><oname>NGC5876</oname><oname>IC1111</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC5877</oname>is a double star with a third star close to the north. The two southern stars are a bit fainter than the northern one, and are a bit closer together than they are to the northern. These facts apparently made all the difference in Schmidt's observation -- he saw them as a faint, small nebula with a 12th magnitude star attached to the north. Interestingly, his observation is not in any of the published papers of his that I have (including the two referenced in the NGC), nor does Dreyer give the reference in his GC Supplement. This is one case where I have not seen the original publication. Fortunately, Schmidt's position is very good and points right at the asterism. </object> <object><oname>NGC5881</oname><oname>IC1100</oname>. Dreyer notes that the minute of the 1860 RA should be 4, not 6. This still leaves the NGC position about a minute of time off IC1100 at 15 05 22.5 +63 10 19, but there is no other reasonable match. The IC position is not too good (Swift again), but the galaxy is a high surface brightness spiral, and the identification is reasonably secure. RC3 and RNGC are incorrect. </object> <object><oname>NGC5884</oname>is a double star. This is one of the "nebulae" found by J. G. Lohse, communicated directly to Dreyer. Like several others in the list, it turns out to be only a double star. Lohse's position and description is good, however, and clearly identifies the object. </object> <object><oname>NGC5886</oname> See NGC5889. </object> <object><oname>NGC5888</oname> See NGC5889. </object> <object><oname>NGC5889</oname> Lord Rosse's description suggests that NGC5889 is as far north- following N5888 as N5888 is north-following N5886. The identity is thus clear and RC3 is just as clearly wrong (the RC3 listing is probably a duplicate of NGC5888). The correct position for N5889 is 15 11 25.9 +41 30 51. </object> <object><oname>NGC5897</oname>is H VI 8 as well as H VI 19. JH noted the identification problem with the stars observed in WH's Sweep 209 on 25 April 1784 (see CGH, p. 109), and Auwers and Dreyer have notes about the field [Dreyer's are in the NGC, p. 223; IC1, p. 284 (combined NGC/IC edition of 1962); WH's Scientific Papers, Volume 1, p. 302; and MNRAS 73, 37, 1912]. (Marth apparently also published a note on VI 8 in 1864, but I have not seen that.) None of these folks positively identified VI 8, the only non-stellar object seen in the sweep, though Dreyer mentioned the possibility of N5897 and was leaning toward N5634 in 1912. The confusion arose simply because 25 April was a poor night; WH noted "flying clouds and hazy" at the beginning of the sweep. Nevertheless he, hoping to see more of the great "stratum" of nebulae that he'd found the previous months, swept for just over half an hour until he was completely clouded out. The entire sweep consists of four stars and one cluster. Dreyer reproduces the sweep in the Scientific Papers: 13h 57m .. .. flying clouds and hazy 14 01} } 62 1d19' 7.8m -0.5} 10.7 89 1 45 7m 12.5 0 19 cluster ... 25.2 59 1 16 star 25.4 -16 4 6.7m 31 .. .. cloudy The first column is the clock reading. Dreyer notes that WH reset the clock after the previous sweep, and that there is an uncertainty of 11 or 12 minutes in the readings. The second column is not explained, but is apparently a raw reading, approximately in arcminutes, of the relative north polar distance. The third column is reduced to relative north polar distance in degrees and arcminutes, and the fourth gives notes and object descriptions. So, the sweep consists of relative positions of four stars and one cluster. WH's full description of the cluster clearly makes it a globular: "A very close, compressed cluster of stars, 8 or 9' in diameter, extremely rich, of an irregular round figure, a little extended. The stars are so small as hardly to be visible, and so accumulated in the middle as to look nebulous." There are only three globular clusters in the right RA (14h to 16h) and Dec (+5d to -25d) ranges: NGC5634, NGC5897, and NGC5904 (M 5). None of the historical sources mention NGC5904, probably assuming it is too large and bright to have been WH's mystery object. As I've noted, Dreyer seemed to favor N5634 over N5897. However, N5634 is only half the size noted by WH, and has a bright star near to the southeast, and another even brighter star fairly close to the south-southwest. WH would have noted these in any description that he made of the object (as he, in fact, did; see the GC and NGC descriptions for N5634). This leaves NGC5897 as the most likely candidate. That it is indeed the correct object can be shown by reducing the relative clock times and polar distances for the stars to absolute values, using the equinox 1784.32 position of the cluster as the origin. That gives the following positions for equinoxes 1784.32 and (precessed to) J2000: RA (1784.32) Dec RA (J2000) Dec RA (IC RS) Dec V BD 14 53.6 -21 12 15 06.0 -22 03 15 06 27.14 -22 01 54.6 6.14 -21 4030 15 03.2 -21 38 15 15.7 -22 27 15 16 23.01 -22 23 57.9 5.52 -21 4065 15 17.7 -21 09 15 30.2 -21 54 15 30 42.81 -21 52 42.8 7.80 -21 4128 15 17.9 -19 57 15 30.3 -20 42 15 30 36.25 -20 43 42.8 6.21 -20 4246 I've added the Tycho-2 positions, the V magnitudes, and the BD identifications to the table. It's easy to see that WH's positions are systematically too small in RA and too far south in Dec. But if the systematic differences are removed, the stars match the modern positions to within WH's usual errors (3-4 arcmin). It's also easy to see the effect of the clouds on WH's magnitude estimates, too. Going through the exercise using NGC5634 and M 5 as the origins shows that they could not have been WH's cluster -- there are no stars near them matching the relative positions and magnitudes noted in the sweep. Dreyer could have performed this same exercise with the BD (I used SAO and the version of Tycho-2 online at CDS), but for some reason did not. Since it is an obvious check, and could easily have been done using the BD data, I wonder if anyone else has thought to do this over the years. In any event, there is no doubt that NGC5897 is the mystery object H VI 8. </object> <object><oname>NGC5904</oname>= M 5. See NGC5897 and IC4540. </object> <object><oname>NGC5919</oname> Swift found two objects in this area. One, NGC5920, can be clearly identified as the brightest galaxy in a poor cluster (MKW 3s). N5919, however, could be any of four or five other objects in the core of the cluster north preceding N5920. It is probably the brightest of these, CGCG 049-142e, but neither is Swift's position good enough, nor his description detailed enough, to be completely sure. Nevertheless, I have taken this object as N5919. </object> <object><oname>NGC5920</oname> See NGC5919. </object> <object><oname>NGC5931</oname>is not IC1122 as is sometimes assumed from the NGC and IC data and descriptions. N5931 was found by Swift whose position for it is quite good. This is the brightest galaxy in the area, one of the so-called "cD" galaxies in a cluster. These objects average one to two magnitudes brighter than the second brightest galaxy in the clusters, so they are often quite outstanding from their several faint companions. This is certainly the case here since N5931 is at least a magnitude brighter than I1122, the second brightest in the cluster. Next, Barnard, who was following an asteroid, ran across the brighter galaxy a few years after Swift. Barnard made a micrometric measurement of it and published it as a new object. His paper gives the position of his reference star as well as the offsets to the galaxy. The star's position is good, but the Dec offset is in error by 47 arcsec. This must reflect some sort of reduction error in Barnard's calculations as it appears to be a random number, not a clean digit error as we often see in the NGC and IC s. Fortunately, Barnard's description of the object mentions an 11th magnitude star 1 arcmin preceding. If we take the distance and magnitude of this star to be estimates (the actual separation is 2 arcmin and the magnitude is 13), then the object which Barnard saw is Swift's galaxy. Finally, Bigourdan found a "nova" while measuring NGC5931 (which he had no trouble identifying; his position is within an arcsecond of the GSC position). While Bigourdan's position for the new object is off by about 15 arcsec, he comments that because the nebula is so faint, it was difficult to measure. Even so, it is clearly a different object than NGC5931, and so is not the same "new" object that Barnard saw. Dreyer, however, faced with a micrometric measurement from Barnard, and an estimated position from Bigourdan (whose comparison star was not measured until GSC), agreeing to within about two arcmin, did the logical thing and adopted the micrometric measurement. So, the first IC includes the wrong position for IC1122, credits its discovery to Barnard as well as to Bigourdan, and also includes Barnard's comment about the preceding star in the description. In actuality, IC1122 is a separate galaxy found by Bigourdan and given a pretty good position and description by him. I've adopted his object here. </object> <object><oname>NGC5934</oname> See NGC5935. </object> <object><oname>NGC5935</oname>is misidentified in the UGC Notes (for N5934 = UGC 9862) as "NGC 5934." Aside from that, the identifications in the various catalogues are correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC5940</oname> See NGC5941. </object> <object><oname>NGC5941</oname> 5942, and 5944. These are three of a group of four nebulae found by Lewis Swift on 19 April 1887 (the brightest of the four is NGC5940, about which there is no identity question). Bigourdan observed these two years later, but found that N5941 was north-following N5942, rather than north- preceding as Swift's positions would suggest. Confusingly, CGCG and MCG call Bigourdan's N5942 "N5941," and point to yet another galaxy as "N5942." RNGC and Hickson followed CGCG in their NGC identifications, but Steve Gottlieb also questions their choice of N5941. The problems have arisen because of Swift's poor positions which are systematically north-preceding the true positions of the galaxies. In addition, the galaxies are in the core of the rich cluster Abell 2085. Hickson catalogued them -- and several fainter ones in the area -- as his compact group number 76. Among these are four that Swift could conceiveably have seen. Steve's observations suggest that Hickson 076b (the brightest) is NGC5941, 076d (the second brightest) is N5942, and 076a is N5944. Bigourdan used the same identifications except for N5942; he put this number on Hickson 076c. Since this object is half a magnitude brighter than d, this seems a more plausible choice. Swift's descriptions provide little help except that he notes N5941 as "ee dif(ficult)" and N5942 as "eee dif." This would suggest that N5941 is the brighter of the two (as noted by Bigourdan) -- but that would make it the 3rd of 4, rather than the 2nd as Swift notes. I'm inclined to follow Bigourdan's suggestion, however, even if it places the objects out of Swift's order. The first brightest is enough brighter than the others that both Steve and I would be very surprised if it were not among the galaxies that Swift observed here. So, with some uncertainty, I am going to call NGC5941 = Hickson 76b, NGC5942 = Hickson 76c, and NGC5944 = Hickson 76a. This leaves Hickson 76d without an NGC number; while it is not the faintest of the four, it does have a lower surface brightness which -- combined with its relatively faint magnitude -- would make it the least visible of the four objects in question. </object> <object><oname>NGC5942</oname> See NGC5941. </object> <object><oname>NGC5944</oname> See NGC5941. </object> <object><oname>NGC5952</oname>is not IC1126 (which is a star; see its note for more). Bigourdan observed both objects the same night (12 April 1886) and measured both with respect to the same star. Though his position (from a single measurement) for NGC5952 is about 20 arcsec south of the galaxy, the object is so faint that I'm surprised he saw it. After all, Marth, using a 48-inch reflector when he found the galaxy, described it as "eF, vS, alm stell." Bigourdan, trying to dig it out with a 12-inch was doing well to even detect it, let alone measure it. It is vaguely possible that this galaxy is also IC4552 (which see), but that is very unlikely. </object> <object><oname>NGC5955</oname> like NGC5952 (which see) is not at all likely to also be IC4552 (also which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC5964</oname><oname>IC4551</oname>, which see. <ignore /> There is nothing wrong with d'A's observation of this large, nearby galaxy. But Swift's position, from over a third of a century later, is well off. His description, though, is as appropriate as d'A's. </object> <object><oname>NGC5998</oname>is probably not a cluster, but it is close to WH's position, and matches his description. It is so clearly seen on the IIIa-J film that I'm a bit surprised that both RNGC and ESO list it as not found. Still, the relevant information is not in NGC; WH's description reads, in full, "A cluster of very small stars, pretty rich, 6 arcmin long, 4 arcmin broad; in the form of a parallelogram." The parallelogram encloses about two dozen stars, half of which are in GSC. The center of the figure is about 2 arcmin northeast of WH's place, but that is well within his usual error for clusters. ===== NGC6001. See NGC6002. </object> <object><oname>NGC6002</oname>may be a star 1.9 arcmin south of NGC6001. It was found by Lord Rosse while he was examining NGC6001 = H III 371. While he gives a micrometric offset from the galaxy (PA = 197.3 deg, distance = 97.6 arcsec), there is nothing in his place. A pretty low surface brightness spindle galaxy, MCG +05-37-026, is about an arcmin northwest of Lord Rosse's position, but it is faint enough that I doubt that he would have seen it. The star is closer to the measured position, but it, too, is quite faint. So, this remains a bit of a mystery. The galaxy that Wolfgang chose as N6002 is much too faint to have been seen visually, even with the 72-inch. I would put my money on the star and some kind of measuring error. </object> <object><oname>NGC6014</oname><oname>IC4586</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6018</oname>may also be IC1150, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6020</oname><oname>IC1148</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6027</oname>is the brightest galaxy in Seyfert's Sextet. There is some confusion about the designations for the six objects in the modern catalogues, but they are fairly easy to sort out. Nevertheless, I have retained the original letter designations assigned by Carl Seyfert in his 1951 PASP paper, in spite of my "rule" mandating positional notation in multiplets. I also find it curious that Stephan saw only one of the galaxies here. As well as NGC6027 itself, Seyfert's "a" and "b" are probably bright enough to be seen visually, especially in the 70-cm reflector that Stephan was using. Note also that Hickson and a few others considers "e" to be simply a tidal extension of N6027. This it may be, but I've retained the separate listing. </object> <object><oname>NGC6028</oname><oname>NGC6046</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6039</oname><oname>NGC6042</oname>. The description in Swift's list 4 reads "sp of 3," though it should be "sf of 3." Swift's positions in the Hercules Cluster area are not very good, and a few of his objects -- including this one -- are not identified with certainty. In defense of his positions, Swift claims that they agree well enough with Stephan's for the objects in common. This is true. It is also true that Swift's other positions for Hercules Cluster objects are much further off the mark. Did he perhaps fudge the numbers a bit for the three objects common to both lists? The others are NGC6040 and NGC 6041, both pairs of galaxies. Also see NGC5736 for another of Swift's nebulae which have different positions in different of his lists. </object> <object><oname>NGC6040</oname> See NGC5736, as well as NGC6039 = NGC6042 where I suggest that Swift might have fudged his position for this to make it agree better with Stephan's micrometrically-measured place. </object> <object><oname>NGC6041</oname> See NGC6039 = NGC6042. </object> <object><oname>NGC6042</oname><oname>NGC6039</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6044</oname><oname>IC1172</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6046</oname><oname>NGC6028</oname>. WH's RA is 3 minutes 20 seconds of time too large. Re-reducing his observation reduces the error to 3 minutes of time. Since the NGC position is copied correctly from the GC, the 20-second error is probably a reduction error of some sort. The larger 3-minute error could be a clock- reading or transcription error. Fortunately, Dreyer gives WH's complete description in a note in the Scientific Papers: "A neb suspected by 157 and the suspicion strengthened by 240, but the latter power does not remove all doubt. It follows 3 pB stars making an arch [concave towards np or nnp direction by a diagram]{Dreyer's comment}, south of which arch there is a still brighter star." Dreyer probably gave the whole description since Bigourdan twice searched unsuccessfully for WH's nebula. The arch is there, but is concave toward the northeast. The "still brighter star" to the south is SAO 101676. The configuration is so striking that there is no doubt about the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC6049</oname>= SAO 121361. JH's description reads, "A * 7m which I am strongly incline [sic] to think has a nebulous atmosphere about 2 arcmin in diameter." There is no trace of nebulosity on modern photographs, and the star has a normal A2 spectrum. It is a spectroscopic binary, but that would not have been a factor in JH's observation. </object> <object><oname>NGC6050</oname><oname>IC1179</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6052</oname><oname>NGC6064</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6053</oname><oname>NGC6057</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6054</oname><oname>IC1183</oname>. Swift notes that the neighboring star is south preceding, not south following. This points at IC1183 as the galaxy that received the number 6054 in the NGC. In support of this, IC1183 is considerably brighter and has a higher surface brightness than the spiral that is usually taken as NGC6054. Bigourdan did not see the spiral, either, so the identity is virtually certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC6055</oname> See NGC6057. </object> <object><oname>NGC6056</oname><oname>IC1176</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6057</oname><oname>NGC6053</oname>. Swift found the brightest of the two objects near this place (the other is NGC6055) on 6 June 1886. Two nights later, he found both objects, but apparently thought both were new discoveries. It is also possible that he saw CGCG 108-127 and made a 10 arcmin error in his declination. However, this would place his position somewhat northeast of the true place of the CGCG galaxy, whereas his positions for the other objects he discovered on 6 June are generally southwest of the true places. </object> <object><oname>NGC6059</oname>is probably lost for good. I could not find it for ESGC, and there are no galaxies at reasonable offsets from the nominal position that Swift might have seen. His complete description was copied intact into NGC, and his position was correctly precessed, so the original paper was no help in this case. The IC1 note is another curiosity about the field: there is nothing at Bigourdan's "revised" position, either. There are a few faint stars and even fainter galaxies in the area, but nothing that Bigourdan could have seen. He comments under his observation of IC4589 (which see), that he doesn't see how it would be possible to mistake IC4589 for N6059. He's right. Finally, there are no systematic offsets in Swift's positions for the night of 6 May 1886 that might lead us to a galaxy. Another (N4280, which see) of those objects, though, is also probably lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC6061</oname> See IC1190. </object> <object><oname>NGC6064</oname><oname>NGC6052</oname>. Dreyer's note in the Scientific Papers includes the following comment: "H did not observe the nebula in the centre of the field, but applied a correction of -0.7 minutes of time, which appears to have been too small." In the 1912 Monthly Notices list of corrections, he adds, "The identity with 6052 is certain." WH's declination is the same as Marth's, whose RA is very good, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC6065</oname>and NGC6066. When Swift finally got around to publishing these two (in his 9th list), he interchanged the declinations. Dreyer noticed this and commented on it in the notes to the first IC. Howe noticed the note, and reobserved the galaxies, showing that Swift's original positions (sent in a private communication to Dreyer) are correct. So, too, are Swift's descriptions, expanded somewhat for the 9th list. </object> <object><oname>NGC6066</oname> See NGC6065. </object> <object><oname>NGC6071</oname>and NGC6079 = IC1200 are two of the brighter galaxies in a group or scattered cluster. Both were found by WH on 6 May 1791, and positions for both were refered to 13 UMi = SAO 008220. Neither place has a galaxy in it, but preceding each place by about 1 minute of time are two objects that fit Herschel's descriptions and declinations. Dreyer mentions this in his 1912 edition of WH's complete papers, and corrects the position of NGC6079 in the IC2 notes, curiously leaving NGC6071 unannotated. Dreyer also notes in his edition of WH's complete papers that if another star in the sweep (G.2091 = SAO 016305) is used instead of 13 UMi as the comparison, then the positions agree "well" with Bigourdan. Well .... Bigourdan's places are excellent, but Herschel's positions are still five arcmin away, and the large RA error in the NGC is traded for a large error in declination. (There is, by the way, a 10 second error in Bigourdan's listed RA for his comparison star for NGC6071, perhaps a typo.) In any event, Herschel's relative position between the two galaxies is accurate as are his descriptions, so there is no uncertainty about the identifications once the systematic errors are removed. However, the poor NGC position for NGC6079 led Swift to believe that it was a previously unknown nebula when he ran across it in August of 1888. He did in fact find a "new" object nearby, IC1201, but incorrectly refers to it as the "north-following of 2" when it is actually south, as his surprisingly good position makes clear. The "south-preceding of 2" (which is actually north; again, his position is good), NGC6079 = IC1200 is otherwise well-described by him, including a "star 12th mag pretty close south." (His description of IC1201 is similarly unambiguous: "double star near points to it." All three stars are in GSC.) Finally, Dreyer suggests that IC1200 might be the same object as Bigourdan 207. This, however, is IC1204 (which see), a galaxy north-preceding NGC6091 by a few arcmin. Bigourdan's positions for both of these are also spot on. </object> <object><oname>NGC6079</oname><oname>IC1200</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC6071. </object> <object><oname>NGC6081</oname><oname>IC1202</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6082</oname>may be IC4597. If so, JH's position is 2 minutes of time too small, and 8 arcmin too far north. In SGC, I made the object identical with five faint stars. Now, 20 years later, I do not see any obvious asterism of five stars near JH's place unless it is the asterism at 16 12 13.2, -34 06 30. Wolfgang chose a triple star 4 seconds of time on east. JH's description is copied accurately into NGC(in CGH, he says "25 arcsec" rather than "S") and the declination is appropriate for the sweep. All in all, this one is a bit of a mystery. I've listed the IC identity in the Table for lack of anything better. </object> <object><oname>NGC6091</oname> See IC1204. </object> <object><oname>NGC6092</oname>is a double star at Bigourdan's place. </object> <object><oname>NGC6111</oname>is not IC1210. In a note in IC1, Dreyer says, "In Swift's list IX, the declination for 1890 is given as +63 32.6. It was 62 deg in the MS. communication sent me in 1887." That the more northerly declination is correct is confirmed by the note in Swift's published paper (but not carried over into the NGC) "Double star near south points to it." Unfortunately, the incorrect declination in Swift's letter to Dreyer has led to two incorrect identifications for the number. The first came from Bigourdan -- his "corrected" position quoted in the IC2 notes is for a star. The second came from the modern catalogues which equated the number with a galaxy that Swift also coincidentally discovered, IC1210 (it was independently found by Bigourdan, presumeably while searching for N6111). In any case, the two numbers apply to two separate objects. </object> <object><oname>NGC6122</oname> Even though Bigourdan's description for this galaxy is hardly appropriate ("vF, R, no N"; the object may be very faint, but it is nearly edge-on, and has a very bright nucleus), his position -- with the minutes of declination corrected in the IC2 Notes -- falls within 3 arcsec of the object. There can be no doubt about the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC6125</oname><oname>NGC6127</oname><oname>NGC6128</oname>. There are only two galaxies in this area (the other is NGC6130), but four NGC numbers. NGC6125 = H II 810 is the brighter of the two, so is almost certainly the galaxy that WH saw, though he must have made an error of 20 arcmin in reading the NPD (see Dreyer's note in the Herschel Papers, 1912). Herschel's original NPD is coincidentally identical to that of NGC6130; this has led Reinmuth to suggest that NGC6125 = NGC 6130. But the RA's are 51 seconds different, and Dreyer does not mention any problem with the RA's in Herschel's sweep. Dreyer's conclusion that the minutes of NPD recorded by Herschel (59) should be 39 is the most reasonable explanation. Swift has two objects near the correct place for the brighter galaxy, both from his 4th list, but found about a week apart on 28 June and 6 July in 1886. The descriptions of these two are similar ("pF, vS, R" and "pF, pS, R, BM"), and also agree with Herschel's description ("pF, pS, lE"). Therefore, I am almost certain that the three observations all refer to the same galaxy. A third object found by Swift, also on 28 June 1886, is preceded by a bright star (SAO 29889) that he noted in his description; this verifies the identification as NGC6130. The star is not mentioned by Herschel, further evidence that he saw the brighter northern galaxy and not this one. </object> <object><oname>NGC6127</oname><oname>NGC6128</oname><oname>NGC6125</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6128</oname><oname>NGC6127</oname><oname>NGC6125</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6130</oname>is the fainter of a pair of galaxies. See NGC6125 = NGC6127 = NGC 6128 which is the brighter. </object> <object><oname>NGC6132</oname><oname>IC4602</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6133</oname>may be the triple star listed in the table; this is near Swift's place, and it may be close enough together to have been mistaken for a nebula by him. It may also be CGCG 276-012, but this is mere guesswork. Swift has not left us much to go on -- the NGC description is copied correctly from his original list. Of the three other galaxies found the same night by Swift, NGC6262 (which see) is also missing. NGC6206 and NGC6279 are close to their nominal positions, with no significant systematic offset. </object> <object><oname>NGC6135</oname>may be CGCG 320-015. The bright central part of the galaxy fits Swift's description, and there are two stars near it. However, the position is 4.4 minutes of time and 5 arcmin off, so I am not convinced that this is the correct object. The double star that Wolfgang chose is probably too faint to be Swift's object. Since I don't see anything else in the area that might be Swift's nebula, I've put the CGCG object in the Table with a question mark. </object> <object><oname>NGC6138</oname><oname>NGC6363</oname>. I had earlier thought that N6138 might be one of the galaxies in the northwestern part of Abell 2199 near NGC6145 and NGC6146. Stephan has clearly misidentified his comparison star: he calls it "Arg. Z. +41 deg 2821" which I take to be BD +41 deg 2821. But that is one hour on east from the position Stephan gives for his comparison star, and there is no star near his position. However, in his introduction to his re-reduction of all of Stephan's observations, published in 1916, Esmiol mentions that NGC6138 is the same nebula as NGC6263. Because the other case that he mentions in the same sentence (NGC983 = NGC1002) is clearly true, I had thought that we could also accept this one as given. However, Steve Gottlieb and Albert Highe followed up on this and found that Stephan's implied offsets don't match any nearby star for NGC6263 while they do for NGC6363. So, Esmiol's note, N6138 = N6263, is a misprint and should read N6138 = N6363. I'm grateful to Steve and Albert for pointing this out. I also thank Jim Caplan at Marseilles Observatory for sending Esmiol's introduction and several pages of his tables; these have helped with various of Stephan's observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC6141</oname>is a faint galaxy at Bigourdan's measured offset. The NGC position, correctly copied from the Comptes Rendus article, is 3 arcmin to the south. It may result from an inaccurate estimated position for the comparison star. This might also be IC4606 (which see), but its position is well off that of the object that Finlay saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC6144</oname>may also be IC4606, which see for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6145</oname> See NGC6138 and NGC6147. </object> <object><oname>NGC6146</oname> See NGC6138 and NGC6147. </object> <object><oname>NGC6147</oname>is the middle (and faintest) of a line of three galaxies including N6145 and N6146 (the brightest). LdR's diagram shows all three, as well as another fainter galaxy that he mistook as a star. </object> <object><oname>NGC6151</oname>is an asterism of 8-10 faint stars at JH's position. It is positively identified by his comment that it "... is pointed to by 2 small stars 9m and 14m; the *9m is the only one of that magnitude within 6 arcmin." ESO mistakenly chose a very faint galaxy well east of JH's position, which is not only very good, but was copied correctly into the NGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC6164</oname>and NGC6165 are the two brightest lobes of the bipolar nebula associated with HD 148937, a hot, young, active star. These nebulae used to be called "planetaries", but we now know them to be the result of energetic winds from young, massive stars, rather than the dying gasps of dwarf stars like the Sun. These two fairly bright patches of ionized gas neatly flank the HD star. Deep exposures show more, though fainter, nebulosity closer to the star. JH picked these up in South Africa, and noted the star as a double. If it is, it is a close double, not resolved on the short-exposure V plate scanned for the DSS. </object> <object><oname>NGC6145</oname> See NGC6144. </object> <object><oname>NGC6166</oname>has been a thorn in the side for cataloguers since Holmberg included it in his multiple galaxy list in 1937. While there is no problem with the identification of N6166 itself, it is the brightest in Abell 2199, and is also composed of several interacting galaxies. Briefly, Holmberg's companions are not part of the galaxy itself, but are separate galaxies in the cluster surrounding N6166; all are 2-3 arcmin away, and all have magnitudes around B = 15.5 to 16. None of them are in RC3. On the other hand, Minkowski found in the late 50's that N6166 is itself made up of several components (see his classic paper on the system in AJ 66, 558, 1961). The three brightest are easily visible on the POSS1 prints, while the fourth is almost lost in the overexposed blur of the second. These are all within 5 or 10 arcsec of the "center" of N6166. The first three had separate entries in RC1, and the fourth is mentioned in the notes (the RC1 notes are wrong when they say that these are the Holmberg companions), but since they are clearly parts of the main galaxy itself, we dropped them from RC2 and RC3. Their positions are (measured by me with respect to 2 nearby GSC objects, one a galaxy, the other a star): Component RA (1950) Dec A 16 26 55.3 +39 39 37 B 16 26 56.2 +39 39 42 C 16 26 56.0 +39 39 35 D 16 26 56.4 +39 39 39 For the entire N6166 complex, GSC has: A - D 16 26 55.57 +39 39 37.9 which is just about what a magnitude weighted mean of my individual measures would give. Unfortunately, RNGC followed RC1, but (of course!) managed to confuse the identifications and did not give the Holmberg letters for the individual objects. I've also found in my copy of MCG the identifications that we had adopted before we sorted out the mess then. I've put them in square brackets because they were never published -- by us, at least! -- and shouldn't be. But if one were going to assign suffixes based on the Holmberg list, and wanted to make these suffixes similar to the others in use (starting with capital A rather than little b), then these are the suffixes that would be assigned. I think that this is what RNGC was trying to do. Anyhow, here are the correct identifications for the five Holmberg galaxies: Ho 751 BO MCG +7-34- RNGC CGCG [RC2 1st cut] a 1 60 6166 224-039 [N6166] b 24 50 6166D --- [N6166A] c 53 76 6166B 224-045 [N6166B] d 15 48 6166C --- [N6166C] e 12 56 6166A --- [N6166D] The "BO" numbers are from a paper by Harvey Butcher and Gus Oemler in which they give positions, magnitudes, and colors for nearly 200 galaxies in the cluster (ApJS 57, 665, 1985). In addition, there are two Zwicky compact galaxies nearby: I Zw 153 No. 1 = BO 61, and I Zw 153 No. 2 = BO 95. </object> <object><oname>NGC6168</oname>is probably CGCG 109-028 with a 1m 30s error in Swift's RA (the Dec is close). He has a faint star at the preceding end of the galaxy, but the star is actually at the following end. Because of these two problems, I'm not completely convinced that this identity is the correct one, but there are no other galaxies in the area that come as close to matching Swift's description. </object> <object><oname>NGC6170</oname><oname>NGC6176</oname>. Swift's RA for NGC6170 is 40 seconds of time off, but his description of the star field is accurate: "... in vacancy; many pB sts south." The declination is accurate, too, so there is little doubt about the identity, first suggested in RNGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC6172</oname><oname>IC1213</oname>. Stephan's position is 10 minutes of time too large due to a misprint in his paper in AN 2661. The position for his comparison star is correctly given, however, and identifies it as SAO 141069. Once the correction is made, it's clear that N6172 is IC1213. RC3 is correct for a change. </object> <object><oname>NGC6173</oname> See NGC6174. </object> <object><oname>NGC6174</oname>is one of three nebulae found by Lord Rosse in 1849 while he was observing NGC6173 (h 1962 = H III 640), and is the only one of the three included in the GC and NGC. JH took the observation from LdR's 1861 paper which lists only the three nebulae in the area found by JH, plus a terse comment "Another nearby." LdR's 1880 monograph has a fuller description of the observations, as well as a sketch of three of the nebulae. While the sketch is not labeled, it is clear from the descriptions that the one shown in the upper left is NGC6173. A double nebula is directly north at a distance, estimated in the sketch, of 6 arcmin; while the third is an estimated 8 arcmin "east" of the second. The direction is in quotes since the diagram does not fit the sky unless LdR (or Dreyer, who prepared the monograph) got the direction wrong. Normally, the arrows in the diagrams point to the east; in this case, it must be west. LdR has another observation and sketch in 1851 which confirms the three sketched in 1849. The fourth nebula is "About 15 arcmin following and 3 arcmin north of this [N6173] there is a new neb, vF, gbM." There are no galaxies in that location that LdR might have seen -- but there is one 15 arcmin preceding and 3 arcmin north that fits his description. This is another indication that the east/west directions in this observation have been reversed. Dreyer added a note to the NGC: "Second of 3, forming a rectangular triangle, the 2 others being assumed to be h1962 [N6173] and h1963 [N6175], but the identity of the group is doubtful." Dreyer's note is incorrect in making two of the nebulae identical to JH's; only one is. The other two are "novae." LdR's final observation from 1860 suggests that he saw N6175 ("... an E neb, with a * close to f end, and either a knot or a * in p end"), but then concludes, "Found no other nebulae near. Twilight troublesome." Perhaps the last two words explain the lack of additional nebulae, though N6175 is in the midst of a cloud of rather faint galaxies in the outskirts of Abell 2199. So, we have a problem: three new nebulae found by LdR, but only one NGC number for them. Several sources have taken the double nebula north of N6173 as N6174. I am reluctant to do this as Dreyer called N6174 only "vF" making no mention of the duplicity. Of the two nebulae north and west of N6173, I favor calling the brightest of these (which is also the closest to N6173) N6174. LdR observed and sketched this twice, whereas he has only one observation of the other. </object> <object><oname>NGC6175</oname> See NGC6174. </object> <object><oname>NGC6176</oname><oname>NGC6170</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6187</oname> There is a faint possibility that this is also NGC6191. See that for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6189</oname> This may be NGC6191, too. See that for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6190</oname> Is this possibly NGC6191, too? See that for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6191</oname>is not to be found at its nominal place. There are several other bright galaxies in the area, however, that Swift might have picked up. Possibilities include NGC6187, N6189, or N6190. N6187 has the two stars preceding that Swift noted in his description, but it is the faintest and smallest galaxy of the candidates. In addition, it has a bright star (SAO 29975) 3.5 arcmin north that Swift surely would have noted. N6189 fits Swift's description best -- though the two stars are following rather than preceding as Swift notes them -- but is 50 arcmin north of his position. N6190 is 20 arcmin south, and forms a rather large equilateral triangle with two stars west and northwest. Another possibility is UGC 10271. That is 20 min 30 sec preceding Swift's position, matches his declination and description, and has the two stars preceding. If that is the galaxy Swift saw, he clearly made a transcription error in his RA. All in all, several candidates, but no clear winner. </object> <object><oname>NGC6194</oname>is the brightest of a group of galaxies also including NGC6196, which see for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6196</oname><oname>IC4615</oname>, NGC6197 = IC4616, and NGC6199. N6196 is the second brightest of a small group of galaxies headed up by NGC6194 (discovered by John Herschel). Marth's discovery positions for N6196 and N6197 are 38 seconds of time preceding and 1.3 arcmin north of the true positions. If this same offset applies to NGC6199, then one of the two stars near the resulting position is likely the object that Marth saw. Though I pointed to the brighter of the two during preparation of RC2 as N6199, it has m = 12.0 in GSC which would almost surely make it unmistakeably a star in Laselle's 48-inch telescope. Thus, I now feel N6199 is more likely to be the fainter (m = 14.8 in GSC), though the position is further off (about 30 arcsec, compared to about 15 arcsec) from Marth's (corrected) position. Where did the IC objects come from? During his survey of the NGC nebulae, Bigourdan of course could not locate either N6196 or N6197 at their catalogued positions -- his estimated positions given under these numbers refer to stars. However, he did find five other nebulae in the area (B209, B324, B325, B425 and B426), and made micrometric observations of the three brightest of these. It is clear, even in Bigourdan's own notes, that B209 (the brightest) is NGC 6194, though he somehow got the position (from Schultz) incorrect (his position and Schultz's original position agree to within 10 arcsec). The other two measured nebulae have, as mentioned above, identical offsets from Marth's positions, so it is also clear that B325 = IC4615 = NGC6196, and B426 = IC4616 = NGC6197. Bigourdan searched in vain, however, for NGC 6199 at Marth's position. It's a bit surprising that he did not make the connection between the two brighter galaxies and his own, and thus search near the offset for N6199. Two other "nebulae" in Bigourdan's group had only estimated positions by him: B324 = IC4614, and B425 = IC4613. IC4614 is a galaxy, but there is nothing near his position for IC4613. See that number for further discussion of this group. </object> <object><oname>NGC6197</oname><oname>IC4616</oname>. See NGC6196. </object> <object><oname>NGC6199</oname>is probably a star. See NGC6196. </object> <object><oname>NGC6202</oname>may be the same galaxy as NGC6226. The description fits, there is a star near following, and the declinations are the same. The problem, of course, is the seven minute RA difference. This would not be the only large RA error in Swift's lists, of course, but it still prevents a positive identification. All in all, 9 July 1886 was not a good night for Lewis Swift. Of the three nebulae he found that night, we can now pretty surely identify only N6170 (which see). N6135 (which also see) and N6202 are far enough from Swift's positions that we will probably never know for sure which nebulae Swift actually saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC6206</oname><oname>IC1227</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC6133 and NGC6262. </object> <object><oname>NGC6211</oname>and NGC6213 are the southern-most two of a line of four galaxies stretching southwest to northeast (the other two are CGCG 299-018 and -019, not in NGC). Swift found these in June of 1887 and sent them directly to Dreyer who included them in NGC from Swift's letters. Swift published the discoveries a few years later in his 9th list. His RAs are 15-20 seconds of time too small, but Dreyer included Bigourdan's corrections in the IC2 notes. Bigourdan's published RAs are within two seconds for each object, and his offsets, if re-reduced using a modern position for his reference star, would agree with modern positions. </object> <object><oname>NGC6213</oname> See NGC6211. </object> <object><oname>NGC6216</oname><oname>NGC6222</oname>. JH recorded the cluster on four different sweeps. On three of those (NGC6216), his RA is accurate. However, the fourth sweep (NGC 6222) has the RA 1 min 20 sec following; the Dec is the same. The description for N6222 fits N6216, and there is only a Milky Way star field at N6222's position. The identification, adopted in RNGC and ESO, is pretty sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC6219</oname> Aside from an error of 27 seconds of time in the RA, Marth's position and description fit the galaxy well. He claims to have seen it on more than one night (it is marked "verified" in his table), so I'm a bit surprised that the RA is off so much. </object> <object><oname>NGC6222</oname><oname>NGC6216</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6226</oname>may also be NGC6202, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6227</oname>is described by JH as "A star 5m in a great cluster, or an immensely rich milky way patch." The star is SAO 227313, and it is superposed on a rich part of the Milky Way, just as JH saw it. There is a good scattering of stars between 5th and 10th magnitude within a degree or two following JH's star -- they stand out well on the Southern Sky Survey film. There are two major clumps of stars here: the southern one surrounds NGC6231, while the northern clump is Collinder 316; Trumpler 24 is apparently a concentration in the northeastern part of Cr 316. IC4628, a diffuse nebula, is on to the northeast of Tr 24. This whole region may be JH's "great cluster." The area to the west of SAO 227313 is heavily populated with stars of the 9th and 10th magnitude, but does not stand out as much as the areas to the east. Following JH, I've adopted the position of the SAO star. Brent Archinal alerted me to the information about the clusters in the area. Here is his note: I think there are two possibilities for this object. For one, I looked at a DSS image here (via Skyview) and there's nothing really obvious. However, with histogram equalization of a 30' and also a 90' field, there is a brightening of the Milky Way around the star of about 15-18' in diameter. I think it's most reasonable to assume that this is what JH saw. On the other hand, could it be that JH was refering to the _really big_ 3 degree grouping of stars here, including Cr 316, Tr 24, NGC6231, and Zeta-1 and -2 Sco? On a particularly transparent night a few years ago (from here in Virginia), I saw this area well for the first time as it crossed the meridian. This is a very spectacular binocular grouping of objects. Offhand, I would think that if he was refering to such a large grouping he'd describe it better or say something clearer about the size, so I think this is an unlikely identification -- but perhaps still possible. One identification I would reject is that this is one of the individual clusters, such as NGC6231, Tr 24, or Cr 316. The 5th magnitude star in question is on the edge of Cr 316, but this group doesn't stand out well at all, at least in the 90' field. Tr 24 is too far to the NE (part of Cr 316 probably), and NGC6321 is quite obvious to the SE and doesn't fit the description at all. None of this information corresponds with the observation by Hirsch reported in the Monograph, but he may have just been looking at a scattered group of stars here, if not Cr 316 or Tr 24. The comment by Harrington is probably copied from Hirsch (a number of Harrington's descriptions are similar to Webb Society descriptions, but without credit), and the information from Burnham, SkyAtlas 2000.0, and Houston does not seem useful. Anyway, since JH doesn't describe any resolved stars here other than the 5th magnitude one, and doesn't make any remarks that would indicate the whole 3 degree wide grouping here, the Milky Way brightening seems the best candidate for this object. It would be nice to have some visual confirmation of this particular area to help confirm this, though. Observers, to your eyepieces! </object> <object><oname>NGC6231</oname> See NGC6227. </object> <object><oname>NGC6232</oname> See NGC6237. </object> <object><oname>NGC6236</oname> See NGC6237. </object> <object><oname>NGC6237</oname>and NGC6245 may be duplicate observations of NGC6232 and NGC6236, respectively. Or they may be stars. Or, they may simply be "not found." Whatever the case, these are two of a group of four nebulae that Lewis Swift found on the night of 28 June 1884; the other two are NGC6232 and NGC6236. Over a year later, on 11 August 1885, Swift found another nebula, NGC6248, about half a degree south of his group. There were no other observations before Dreyer compiled the NGC, so he included all five. Looking at the area on the Sky Survey prints, we now see only three galaxies here that are bright enough that Swift could have seen them. These are NGC 6232, 6236, and 6248. Swift's RA's for the three are systematically too small by 20 to 25 seconds of time, but his declinations are very good. Looking at his positions for the missing two objects shows that the declination of NGC 6237 is close to that of NGC6232, and that for NGC6245 is similarly close to that for NGC6236. In addition, his RA's for the two missing objects each have roughly the same offset from the RA's for the same two galaxies (32 seconds in the first case, 48 seconds in the other). So, I wonder if NGC6237 = NGC6232 and NGC6245 = NGC6236 -- in spite of the fact that Swift found all of the objects on the same night, and explicitly noted "1st of 4," "2nd of 4," etc, in the descriptions of all four objects. Keep in mind his method of finding positions: centering the object in the eyepiece, and reading the setting circles. Did he perhaps bump the telescope or setting circles inadvertantly after reading positions for the first two objects? Still, he used a very large field eyepiece, so it may be that he mistook stars near the galaxies as other nebulae. Or, he may have seen reflections of stars out of the field and mistook them as nebulae. Or, his eyes may have played tricks on him if he was tired. I favor the jarred telescope/setting circle hypothesis, but would not bet even a nickel on its being right. Whatever happened, the two objects do not exist, so I've simply entered them as "Not found" in the table. </object> <object><oname>NGC6240</oname><oname>IC4625</oname>, which see. <ignore /> There is no problem in the NGC position, but the IC position -- from Barnard -- is a few arcmin off. The identity is clinched nevertheless by Barnard's note of a star near north-following. </object> <object><oname>NGC6245</oname> not found. See NGC6237. </object> <object><oname>NGC6247</oname><oname>IC1233</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6248</oname> See NGC6237. </object> <object><oname>NGC6262</oname>is another of Swift's missing objects. He recorded this one on the night of 23 October 1886 when he found three other nebulae: N6133 (which see), N6206, and N6279. Only the last two are anywhere near Swift's places, and they show no systematic offset that might help us with N6262. His description is also unhelpful (eeeF, pS, R, eee diff). Two possibilities are in the area: CGCG 299-039 and CGCG 277-010. The first would require a 5 minute and 10 arcmin error in Swift's position, the second a 1.4 minute and 1 degree error. The first is the brighter of the two, and the digit errors make it the more likely candidate. However, he could have seen either object, but without further evidence, I'm not going to do more than note them as possibilities. </object> <object><oname>NGC6263</oname>is not NGC6138 (which see) as I had earlier supposed. N6263 is an innocent bystander, the victim of a misprint in M. Esmiol's Introduction to his complete collection of Stephan's observations. The story is under N6138. </object> <object><oname>NGC6270</oname> Here is a case where Stephan's micrometric position falls exactly on the correct galaxy (the NGC position is about 20 arcsec too far north since the position for Stephan's comparison star is similarly off), yet LEDA nearly 20 arcmin south-southwest. There was no justification for this that I can see, and I'm mystified at their decision. Whatever happened, the identity is clear and Stephan's position is within three arcsec of the modern position from DSS. </object> <object><oname>NGC6276</oname><oname>IC1239</oname>, NGC6277 (a star), and NGC6278. William Herschel found one galaxy here. It, as one might expect, is the brightest of the group, NGC 6278. Sixty years later, Albert Marth found two other nebulous objects near Herschel's object. Shortly thereafter, Stephan discovered two nebulous objects, and also included Herschel's object in his list, correcting Herschel's inaccurate position. However, Stephan did not mention Marth's two objects; I don't know if he was aware of Marth's list or not. Dreyer, faced with this rather confusing array of five positions, asked to see Marth's observing records. These apparently did not reach Dreyer until after the NGC had gone to press, as he added a note "in press" to the NGC that Stephan had seen only one of Marth's objects. The positions are close enough that Dreyer was able to correctly identify the object (NGC6276) as m328. m327 is north preceding about three arcminutes, and was missed by Stephan. In the NGC note, Dreyer added that the missing object should have been inserted in the NGC immediately following NGC6275. Dreyer indeed added it later to the first Index Catalogue as IC1238. But when we turn to the sky, there are only two galaxies here bright enough to have been seen by the visual observers (a third, later catalogued as UGC 10650, has too low a surface brightness to have been picked up). The brightest is obviously NGC6278, but what is the other? Fortunately, Stephan's micrometric position is pretty good, being off only by the amount that his comparison star's catalogued position is off (about half an arcminute). This correctly identifies the second galaxy as NGC6276. If we then correct Stephan's position for NGC6277 for the comparison star's offset, we find that this object is in fact a star. Assuming that Marth's two positions are in good relative agreement, we can pin down IC1238 as a double star. The confusion crept into Bigourdan's observations, too. He correctly identified NGC6278, but misidentified a star as NGC6277, and actually published NGC6276 as a "nova" in his second list of new nebulae. He later realized his mistake, and correctly equated the NGC object with his "nova" (which had by then received the number IC1239) in his final published list of observations. His observation of "NGC6277" is interesting in that there is a faint galaxy just a few arcseconds north-following the star he measured. Did he perhaps glimpse the galaxy, but then measure the brighter star? Sulentic, with three NGC numbers in hand, and with three relatively large galaxies in sight on the Sky Survey, misidentifies UGC 10650 as RNGC6276, and assigns the number RNGC6277 to NGC6276. NGC6278's correct identification survived even into the RNGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC6277</oname>is a star. See NGC6276. </object> <object><oname>NGC6278</oname>is the brightest galaxy of a group. See NGC6276. </object> <object><oname>NGC6279</oname> See NGC6133, NGC6262, and IC4636. N6279 figures in the identification (or not!) of all of these. </object> <object><oname>NGC6293</oname> See NGC6294. </object> <object><oname>NGC6294</oname>is a double star northeast of NGC6293, a bright globular cluster. It is offset +5.5 seconds and +0.5 arcmin from the cluster; JH's positions for the two objects, both seen the same sweep, lead to offsets of +7 seconds and +0.1 arcmin. Howe's measurement of the stars' separation (PA = 315 deg, distance = 8 arcsec) is correct. Both stars have several faint companions -- presumably members of N6293 -- merged into their DSS images. </object> <object><oname>NGC6297</oname><oname>NGC6298</oname>. Though Swift claims that N6297 is the "sp of 2" and N6298 is the "nf of 2", there is only one galaxy here. He discovered it on two different nights (8 July 1885, and three weeks later on 1 Aug 1885), and apparently misled into believing he'd found two objects by the difference in his brightness estimates ("pB" and "vF", respectively), added the directional indicators during the publication process. At least, that is my theory -- he has certainly done that in other cases. An interesting sidelight: Bigourdan failed to find N6298 on three nights, but on those same three nights, measured N6297 16 different times using two different comparison stars. This may well be a record number of observations by Bigourdan for a non-descript 14th magnitude galaxy. I'd be interested in knowing why he did so much work on this -- I can't find a clue in his published data. </object> <object><oname>NGC6298</oname><oname>NGC6297</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6330</oname>is half a degree north of Swift's position. The galaxy there (CGCG 321-013) matches his description, and his note "... nearly between 2 stars" fits, too. Though I've not checked all the history on this object, I think that CGCG is the first to suggest the identity. Bigourdan's observation, mentioned in the IC2 notes, is for a star 36 seconds east and 1.3 arcmin north of Swift's nominal position. </object> <object><oname>NGC6335</oname> JH says of this, "The whole lower end of the zone is strongly affected with nebulous patches," and gives only an approximate position for it. Though included in Cederblad's catalogue of bright diffuse nebulae, there is no bright nebulosity in the area. Instead, the Southern Sky Survey films show a patchy field of star clouds, defined by the dust of dark nebulae. It is apparently these star clouds that JH saw in the spring of 1837, giving him the impression of patchy nebulosity all through his field. (Three years earlier, he happened on the same field, giving a position then about 5 minutes east; this has become NGC6360, which see.) I've adopted the approximate center of the brightest patch of stars nearest JH's position as the position for NGC6335. This is about a minute west of his place which lands in a relatively poor field -- in other words, in the midst of a dust cloud. </object> <object><oname>NGC6344</oname>is a double star at Lohse's position. In appearance, it matches several other of the "nebulae" found by him with the 15.5-inch (e.g. NGC 5884, also a double star, which see), and is very close to his nominal position. There is a faint galaxy about an arcminute to the north that has been taken as N6344, but it is certainly too faint to have been seen by Lohse. </object> <object><oname>NGC6347</oname><oname>IC1253</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6360</oname> As with NGC6335, which see, there is no nebulosity making up this "object." Instead, JH saw the bright background of the Milky Way broken up into many patches of nebulous light by the dark nebulae lacing the area with dust. The position I've adopted for NGC6360 is about a minute of time west and 7-8 arcmin north of JH's position (like N6335, in an area pretty well covered by dust). This is the brightest cloud of stars in the area, approximately 12 arcmin across. JH's comment, "The nebula is in patches of very great extent," makes it clear that this particular cloud is not the only one he saw in the area. </object> <object><oname>NGC6363</oname>is also = NGC6138, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6374</oname><oname>NGC6383</oname>. JH has only one observation (in Sweep 794) of N6374, and I believe that is a duplicate of an "Omitted Observation ..." (also in Sweep 794) for N6383 listed at the end of his CGH Observations. He has two other observations of N6383, both on different nights, but with accordant descriptions. In the single observation leading to the NGC number 6374, JH identifies the bright star in the middle of the cluster as "B[risbane] 6125". I suspect this is the correct identification, but will have to check. If the number is correct, then it is SAO 208977 = HD 159176. In any event, there is little doubt that the two NGC numbers refer to the same cluster. JH probably made a bookkeeping error somewhere along the line that led him to duplicate the observation in Sweep 794. </object> <object><oname>NGC6375</oname> See NGC6564. </object> <object><oname>NGC6379</oname> See NGC6564. </object> <object><oname>NGC6383</oname><oname>NGC6374</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6393</oname>and NGC6394 are a pair of objects found 7 July 1885 by Lewis Swift. Though he describes the two as equally faint, the southern of the two objects on the sky (more than 6 arcmin south of his position) is much fainter than the northern (3.5 arcmin south of the nominal position). I'm not convinced that Swift could have seen it. In fact, he did not find it again. When he went over the field on 15 June 1890, he recovered only one of the galaxies. This time, his position was virtually identical to the one that he gave for N6393, leading Dreyer to omit it from IC1. The position is also close to the true position for the brighter galaxy. This brighter galaxy has been taken by MCG and CGCG as N6393 based on the position. However, Swift's description does not match the field. Swift says, "vvF, pS, R; 2 B sts nr n; s of 2." The comment about the two bright stars north matches the fainter southern galaxy, but not the brighter northern one. For his northern object, Swift says, "vvF, pS, R; 2 sts point to it, the nearer is D; the other and the neb. are equally distant from the D *; n of 2." For the record, his 1890 observation reads, "eeF, pS, cE; B * nearly obscures it; between it and a F*, nearer the latter." This matches what is on the sky pretty well (his double star in the first observation is the "B *" in the second, and the other two stars are there also), so I have taken NGC6394 as the northern galaxy. I have also tentatively assigned NGC6393 to the very faint southern object since there is no other candidate object nearby. There are many other galaxies within one or two degrees, but none have the stars near that Swift describes. Whatever he saw, it clearly needs visual confirmation. </object> <object><oname>NGC6394</oname>is probably not NGC6393, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6406</oname>is a double star at Bigourdan's place. He has four micrometric observations of it, so there is no doubt about the identification. He notes a nearby star of magnitude 12.2 at PA = 265 degrees, distance = 1.2 arcmin. The position angle is actually about 95 degrees. I suspect that Bigourdan's value ought to read 85 degrees. </object> <object><oname>NGC6410</oname>is one of the few double stars from Lewis Swift's list of "nebulae" that we can confidently say that he saw. Though he believed it to be an "eeF, S, R" nebula, his additional notes "nearly between two stars; GC 4320 [NGC 6411] near north-following" make it clear that he was indeed observing the double star. His position is not too bad, but is still far enough off (over two arcminutes) that -- without his additional notes on the field -- we could not otherwise identify his object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6411</oname> found by d'A, was helpful in pinning down the identification of NGC 6410 (which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC6415</oname>is nothing more than a Milky Way field. There is no nebula obviously involved in spite of JH's brief description, "A great nebulous projection of the milky way [sic]." JH gives only an approximate RA. On the IIIa-J film, I make the RA a minute later, and the Dec 3-4 arcmin south. See NGC6421 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6416</oname> See NGC6421. </object> <object><oname>NGC6419</oname> 6420, 6422, and 6423. These were found by Lewis Swift on the nights of 1 and 17 August 1883. Because he recorded only two objects each night, I suspect that he saw the same two twice. If so, N6419 = N6423, and N6420 = N6422. His descriptions are similar enough that this is a distinct possibility. However, Bigourdan measured the four brightest galaxies in the field (there are at least six others brighter than about B = 16 nearby), and assigned the NGC numbers to them in RA order. This has the advantage of dishing out one number per galaxy, and of closely matching Swift's declinations. Swift's RAs, however, are too small by varying amounts (13 to 24 seconds of time). Also, if Bigourdan's suggested identifications are correct, then Swift's note of a "* near east" of N6423 should read, "* near north." Since Dreyer published Bigourdan's corrected positions (close to the real ones) in the IC2 notes, I'm going to accept Bigourdan's suggested identities, in spite of my reservations above. </object> <object><oname>NGC6420</oname> See NGC6419. </object> <object><oname>NGC6421</oname>is a brighter patch in the Milky Way that matches JH's description and sketch pretty well. His position is pretty good, too. Note, however, that the NGC description (taken from GC) is wrong. The correct description, from the CGH Observations, should read something like "Cl, vL, r, connected to Milky Way." I suspect that the NGC description was copied by mistake from the CGH entry for h3702 = N6416. There is also a prime symbol missing from the 3702 in the JH column in the NGC. Neither this object nor N6415 were numbered in the CGH Observations, and JH does not have a note for either in GC indicating why he entered them there. Dreyer copied the entries unchanged into NGC, also without notes. </object> <object><oname>NGC6422</oname> See NGC6419. </object> <object><oname>NGC6423</oname> See NGC6419. </object> <object><oname>NGC6427</oname><oname>NGC6431</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6428</oname>is a star. Bigourdan's position is midway between it and another star of similar magnitude, but his description mentions both objects and makes clear that he was measuring the northern of the pair: "In the neighborhood, I suspect several small stars, one of which is at PA = 195 deg, d = 8-10 arcsec." </object> <object><oname>NGC6430</oname>is CGCG 112-035. The description and declination fit well, and the RA is off by 38 seconds. Reinmuth has this as a chain of four stars, but the galaxy is clearly the object that Marth saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC6431</oname><oname>NGC6427</oname>. Stephan misidentified his comparison star. Though he claims to have used BD +25 3330, the star he actually used is BD +25 3327. Applying his offsets to this star lead to a position within an arcsecond of the DSS position for the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC6437</oname>is a star cloud in the Milky Way centered about 0.7 minutes preceding and 4 arcmin north of JH's approximate position. There is no nebulosity associated with it; the numerous faint stars in the area must have given the impression of nebulosity at the eyepiece during sweeping. </object> <object><oname>NGC6439</oname> I've used the finding chart in Steve Hynes book "Planetary Nebulae" to identify this planetary. Some lists have mistakenly pointed at the star about an arcminute to the north-northeast. </object> <object><oname>NGC6444</oname>is definitely OCl-1023 = Ru 132 as noted in ESO and by Brian Skiff. JH gives only an approximate position for the cluster, but calls it "A vfine L, rich sc cl of sts 12..13..m." The ESO position -- 40 seconds preceding and 2.5 arcmin north of JH's -- is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC6448</oname>is lost. It is the 60th entry in Swift's second list. Dreyer copied all of Swift's data exactly and correctly into the NGC. There are no galaxies in the area that might be Swift's object, and I can't find an obvious digit error that would lead to another (though I did not check for large errors, e.g. 10 degrees, 1 hour). Swift found no other nebulae the night of 16 July 1885, so we have no possible systematic offset to work from, either. </object> <object><oname>NGC6450</oname>(Swift II-61) is also lost. Dreyer copied the position correctly into NGC, but abbreviated Swift's description of the surrounding star field. Swift's full description is "vF, vS; B * f 8 seconds; bet 2 sts." There are several galaxies in the area that Swift could have seen, but none matching the pattern described by him. Howe also could not find the object, though he actually searched for it three nights, not just two as in Dreyer's IC2 note. </object> <object><oname>NGC6455</oname>may be the random clumping of Milky Way stars around SAO 209348 (this is about 50 seconds preceding JH's approximate position). JH, however, does not mention the bright star. His full description reads, "A very extensive nebulous clustering mass of the milky way [sic]. The stars [are] of excessive smallness, and infinite in number." ESO chooses a "concentration of stars" (not obvious to me) near JH's position, and Wolfgang Steinicke takes a small asterism of faint stars at 17 49.0 -35 27. I doubt that either of these could be JH's object. This is another case where a visual observation would be useful. </object> <object><oname>NGC6456</oname> 6463, 6470, 6471, 6472, and 6477. Here is another mess from Lewis Swift's 4th and 5th lists of nebulae. NGC6463 and NGC6470 were found on 9 June 1886, the remainder on 25 September 1886. All of Swift's positions fall within a group of (at least) eight galaxies. It's possible that Swift could have seen most of the objects, but only after seeing the DSS image from the POSS-II plate could I assign his numbers with any confidence to the galaxies. I also have to thank Brian Skiff for asking about the field; his questions forced a re-evaluation that I otherwise would not have made. The descriptions don't help much. All the galaxies are "eeeF, eS, R" or a close variation, and all are noted "v dif[ficult]" to "eee dif". Swift does mention that the preceding of the group is "bet[ween] 2 sts" -- but since the Galactic latitude is so low, there are enough stars around for that description to apply to virtually any of the galaxies in the group. Dreyer added the note "* nr" to N6471 and N6477; this is not in Swift's original paper, so it must be from a letter from Swift to Dreyer. In any event, there is not much to go on here that will help us assign the NGC numbers to the correct objects. If we make some reasonable assumptions -- 1) Swift saw the two brightest galaxies on his first sweep through the area, 2) he did in fact see all six 3.5 months later, and 3) his relative positions for the remaining four galaxies seen only the second night are more or less accurate -- then we can make a stab at some identifications. These are not certain by any means, and they do not agree with some previous identifications. However, they do make sense of Swift's data. On the first night, he saw the two brightest objects in the core of the group, N6463 and N6470. N6456 is reasonably isolated to the west of the core, and N6471 and N6472 flank N6470 in declination. They are also the brightest galaxies in the core after N6463 and N6470. It also is reasonable to suppose that both components of UGC 10973 contributed to the visual appearance of N6471, so I've listed both in the main table. I'm least certain about N6477, but Swift's observation places it following N6470/1/2, and between N6472 and N6470 in declination. The galaxy I've chosen matches these constraints -- but its position is still well off Swift's place. For reference, here is a table of B1950.0 positions, Swift's on the first line, and accurate positions on the second, of my suggested identifications. Object RA (Swift) Dec Discovered Other names and comments (Precise) Pos source V 76 17 42 29 +67 37.7 25 Sept 1886 CGCG 321-034 N6456 17 42 39.60 +67 36 48.6 GSC IV 55 17 43 44 +67 36.5 9 June 1886 CGCG 321-037 = MCG +11-21-022 N6463 17 43 42.27 +67 37 24.2 GSC IV 56 17 44 19 +67 37.8 9 June 1886 CGCG 321-039 = MCG +11-21-025 N6470 17 44 22.98 +67 38 18.3 GSC V 78 17 44 19 +67 36.4 25 Sept 1886 UGC 10973a = CGCG 321-038w = N6471w 17 44 20.89 +67 36 44.0 GSC = MCG +11-21-023 N6471e 17 44 26.06 +67 36 36.6 GSC UGC 10973b = CGCG 321-038e = = MCG +11-21-024 V 79 17 44 19 +67 39.9 25 Sept 1886 N6472 17 44 11.31 +67 38 58.5 NPM1 = NPM1G +67.0154 V 80 17 44 54 +67 39.2 25 Sept 1886 N6477: 17 44 38.38 +67 37 44.3 HCds Other possibilities: 17 43 16.26 +67 33 43.7 GSC Star superposed. 17 43 33.48 +67 40 17.4 GSC Extremely compact w vF arms; star superposed on nucleus? 17 44 51.37 +67 33 33.3 HCds </object> <object><oname>NGC6461</oname>is CGCG 340-017 (CGCG's guess -- CGCG 340-015 -- is wrong). The identity is clinched by Swift's description, "eF, pS, R; nr terminal * of 5 forming semi-circle." His RA is 12 seconds too large, and his declination 38 arcmin too small. </object> <object><oname>NGC6463</oname> See NGC6456. </object> <object><oname>NGC6465</oname>is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Though well south of the equator, it was actually found by JH from Slough. He describes it only as "Suspected; small; twilight," but his position is very good. The identification was made by Howe who found the four brighter stars here on the second night he searched for the object. He describes the object as "... simply two doubles of mag. 12. In each pair, the distance is 4 arcsec, and the two pairs are 15 arcsec apart." In the DSS image, one of Howe's four stars is double, and there is a fifth star 29 arcsec north that might have added to the appearance of nebulosity in JH's sweep. </object> <object><oname>NGC6466</oname>is correctly identified in CGCG as CGCG 278-030. RC1 and RC2 followed Carlson who has incorrectly equated this to NGC6478. Swift's full description pins down the correct object: "eF, vS, R; bet 2 sts which with 2 others form a cross like cross in Cygnus. Neb placed as gamma Cygni." The top of Swift's cross is to the west, and the galaxy is placed exactly as he says it is. </object> <object><oname>NGC6467</oname>and NGC6468 may be identical -- but maybe not. Though Marth apparently found them on the same night (he gives a discovery date of 1864.42 for both), the positions are different by only one second of time, and the descriptions (vF, vS, lE and vF, S, R) could well be for the same object. His data are correctly copied into NGC-- and that is all the published evidence we have. There is only one galaxy here, and either of Marth's positions could apply to it. There is nothing within one second of it that Marth might have seen. Since NGC6468 is nominally closer to the galaxy, it usually bears that name in the catalogues. There are two asterisms nearby (I called the triple star 12 seconds following Marth's position NGC6468 earlier), but neither is within a second of time of the galaxy, so I doubt now that either is Marth's second object. Until more evidence surfaces, I'm tentatively listing the two entries as identical. But I'm also listing the asterisms, too. They are still possibilities, remote though they be. </object> <object><oname>NGC6468</oname> See NGC6467. </object> <object><oname>NGC6470</oname> See NGC6456. </object> <object><oname>NGC6471</oname> See NGC6456. </object> <object><oname>NGC6472</oname> See NGC6456. </object> <object><oname>NGC6473</oname>and NGC6474 were both found on 22 July 1886 by Lewis Swift. However, there is only one galaxy near his position, though he clearly says he found two (there is a typo in the NGC description for N6474: for "n of 3", read "n of 2"). Swift's positions are separated by only 15 arcsec in declination, and his description for N6473 (eeF, S, R, s of 2) is not very helpful, even if it is short enough to have made it into NGC unchanged. However, his full description for N6474 is more interesting: "eF, pS, R; 3 sts in a line near and 3 others in a line point to it; e diff; n of 2." The three stars in a line near the galaxy are southeast of it, and the three stars pointing to it are to the northeast. This pins down NGC6474 pretty well. The only thing close south of the galaxy is an 18th magnitude star that Swift could not have seen. However, to the northeast, about 30 arcseconds away, there is a 16th magnitude star that he might have seen. Is this NGC6473? If so, Swift got his directions confused. He's done that before, so this star is a possibility for N6473. Bigourdan went further south in search of N6473. Four arcmin from Swift's place, Bigourdan found a triple star which he mistook for a nebula. He called it N6473 and measured it on two nights. On a third night, he measured another star which he thought was the same "nebula", but which he found later to be not just different, but uncatalogued as well. It has ended up with the number IC4668 (which see). In any event, Bigourdan's triple is also a possibility for Swift's nebula. It would mean a 4 arcmin error in Swift's position, not too much of a stretch. </object> <object><oname>NGC6474</oname> Bigourdan switched his comparison star with that for IC4668, which see. Once that is sorted out, the identity of I4668 becomes clear, and Bigourdan's position for N6474 falls within a few arcsec of the galaxy's nucleus. Also see NGC6473 for yet another story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6476</oname>is a star cloud in the Milky Way centered about two arcmin east of JH's approximate position. In the CGH Observations, JH says "Nebula. No description. It is probably only a nebulous portion of the Milky Way." As with other star clouds that JH saw in this same part of the sky, there is no nebulosity associated with N6476, but the dense background of faint stars would have appeared faintly nebulous during a sweep. </object> <object><oname>NGC6477</oname> See NGC6456. </object> <object><oname>NGC6478</oname>is not NGC6466 (which see). Carlson incorrectly equates the two numbers, and RC1 and RC2 followed along. </object> <object><oname>NGC6480</oname>is a star cloud in the Milky Way closely matching JH's sketch in the CGH Observations. My estimated position for the center of the projection to the east is about 10 seconds of time west of JH's, but there is no doubt of the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC6481</oname>is a line of four stars clearly identified by Peters's micrometric observation. Though his position is a few arcseconds east of the center of the line, the identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>NGC6497</oname><oname>NGC6498</oname>. Swift found his 80th and 81st nebulae on 16 Sept and 26 Sept 1884, respectively. The positions are only 1 second of time and 32 arcsec apart, and the descriptions are close enough that the only galaxy in the area can match both. In particular, Swift says of N6497, "Close s of middle * of 3 in a line, middle * the fainter;" and of N6498, "B * nr; F * v nr." The middle star in the line is the "faint star very near," and the bright star is the eastern of the three stars. So, I'm almost certain that the two observations refer to the same object, and that Swift added the comments "np of 2" and "sf of 2" as he was preparing his first list for publication. </object> <object><oname>NGC6498</oname><oname>NGC6497</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6499</oname>is a close double star. Discovered by Marth, he marked it "verified" in his list, so he saw it as nebulous at least twice. When the object was photographed at Heidelberg and Lick, the observers there found only a double star without nebulosity. That is how it appears today on the Palomar Surveys. Another faint star and 2-3 very faint stars just to the west may have given the appearance of nebulosity at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC6505</oname> Is this possibly NGC6534? See that for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6506</oname> The position in the main table applies to a cluster just southwest of JH's place. However, he notes that it is extremely large, "filling many fields." So, his object may be the larger star cloud in which the smaller cluster sits. </object> <object><oname>NGC6514</oname> See NGC6533. </object> <object><oname>NGC6523</oname>is the star-forming core of M8 at the heart of the bright northwestern part of the nebula. NGC6526 (which see) is the southeastern part of the nebula, and NGC6530 is the bright star cluster 10-12 arcmin following N6523. NGC6533 (which see) applies to the entire M8 complex, and IC1271 and IC4678 (both of which see) apply to condensations in its eastern reaches. </object> <object><oname>NGC6525</oname> Though listed as "nonexistent" in RNGC, there is an obvious poor cluster of bright stars just where JH placed it. It covers about 10 arcmin, and has a tight core of half a dozen stars. The position I've given in the table is for this core. </object> <object><oname>NGC6526</oname>= H V 9 is probably the part of M8 southeast of the dark lane. The nebula sweeps on up to the northeast to encompass NGC6530, the bright, well-known cluster in M8. WH found this the 22nd of May 1784, and measured the position with respect to 51 Ophiuchi. When re-reduced using the modern position for that star, WH's position for N6526 falls at 18 01 14, -24 27.6, well within the M8 complex. As Dreyer notes in the Herschel papers, the GC and NGC positions are one degree too far north due to an error by Caroline Herschel in her reduction of the position. WH describes V 9 only as "Large, extended, broad, milky figure." Thus, this could apply to any part of (or even all of) M8 (look at WH's second description of M20 = IV 41 for another almost discrepant description of the same object). Since this was apparently his first sweep across the area, and since we know his positions were rather error-prone at the time, I think that the object he saw was, in fact, M8. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, however, I think it fair to assign the NGC number, as I said above, to the southeastern section of the complex. See NGC6533 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6529</oname>was apparently first seen by James Dunlop who claimed two observations of it. His description reads, "A pretty large faint nebula, round figure, 5' or 6' diameter, resolvable into very minute stars, with nebula remaining." Unlike most of Dunlop's nebulae, JH claims to have seen this one, though only once. He lists an estimated position that is close to Dunlop's and calls it "A large milky way patch, much compressed, one portion much more so." However, checking the position on the SERC IIIa-J film shows nothing more than a rather unremarkable part of the Milky Way. Nothing stands out that strikes me as something that would catch an observer's eye. Compare this to other Milky Way fields that have NGC numbers (e.g. NGC6476 and NGC6480) from JH's sweeps -- there is nothing obvious here. I've put the nominal position in the table. I also checked the other nebulae seen in the same sweep; all are at about the same declination, so there is no large error in that part of JH's observation. A large RA error is possible, but I found nothing in the obvious places (plus or minus one minute, ten minutes, etc.). Perhaps a visual observer can turn up something here. </object> <object><oname>NGC6530</oname>is part of M8. See NGC6523, NGC6526, and NGC6533 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6533</oname>= M8 = H V 13. WH's position for this, reduced from the offsets published in the Scientific Papers is in a pretty empty patch of sky roughly 30 arcmin south of M8. He does give a pretty good description in his 1786 first catalogue, however. He observed it only one night, 12 July 1784: "Extensive milky nebulosity divided into 2 parts; the most northern above [larger than] 15 arcmin, the most southern followed by stars." What struck me about this was its uncanny similarity to his description of M8 given in his 1785 paper (which I unfortunately do not have a copy of), quoted by Kenneth Glyn Jones in his fine book on the Messier objects: "An extensive milky Nebulosity divided into two parts; the north being the strongest. Its extent exceeds 15 arcmin; the southern part is followed by a parcel of stars which I suppose to be the 8th of the Connaissance des Temps [i.e. M8]." WH's 1786 description reads like a simple condensation of his 1785 description. Is it therefore possible that H V 13 = N6533 is M8? WH's position doesn't encourage that interpretation. Both JH (in GC) and Dreyer (in WH's Scientific Papers which he edited in 1912) have notes about WH's problems determining the position -- as I've noted, that position is over 30 arcmin south-southeast of M8 in a barren patch of sky. But if WH was indeed looking at M8, is there any way that his offsets (4m 54s following, 38':: south of 5 Sagittarii) can be made to fit? Well, once I tracked down 5 Sgr (it is SAO 186074, not labeled as "5 Sgr" in Sky Catalogue 2000.0), it was clear that the NGC position was properly reduced (once the earlier bugs found by JH had been cleaned up. He says in GC that the offset as originally published in PT for 1786 -- 39' north -- is wrong.). Did WH observe any other nebulae that night? In particular, did he use that same comparison star? The answers are "Yes" to both questions. H V 10, H V 11, and H V 12, all = NGC6514 = M20 = the well-known "Trifid Nebula" have a single position referred to that same star on that same night. When we reduce that position, we find that it is about 30 arcmin south-southeast of M20 in a barren patch of sky .... Yet there is no doubt that these three nebulae constitute M20 (along with IV 41); both JH and Dreyer accept that in GC and NGC. So what's going on? The short of it: WH may have misidentified his comparison star (but see also N6698, found the same night, referred to a different star). He probably used 4 Sgr = SAO 186061, rather than 5 Sgr as is printed. Once that correction is made, it's clear that NGC6533 is, in fact, M8. WH's resultant position is about a minute of time following the brightest part of the nebula (N6523), but is more in line with the center of the entire complex as we see it on photographs. However, as Steve and I have noted before, WH's positions from these early runs of 1783 and 1784 have generally larger errors than his later positions -- he was still perfecting his observing techniques. The mystery here is this: if JH and Dreyer knew that H V 10-12 referred to the Trifid, why then did they not make the connection -- through the comparison star in common -- to the Lagoon as well? I don't see an answer to this in any of the papers I have in my collection. However, if there is any information in WH's 1785 paper that might shed some light on this, we should look at it again. M8 also encompasses several other NGC and IC objects: NGC6523, NGC6526, NGC 6530, IC1271, and IC4678, all of which see for more discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC6534</oname>is probably lost, like so many other of Swift's nebulae. The galaxy that CGCG chooses (CGCG 322-022) is about 1.2 minutes of time preceding Swift's position, and 2.3 arcmin south. Furthermore, the surrounding star field does not match Swift's note "... in center of a semi-circle of 4 stars." In particular, there is a fairly bright star within an arcmin of the galaxy to the north. If Swift saw this galaxy, he would surely have noted the star. Are there any other candidates in the area? Galaxies that could be force fit to Swift's description include NGC6505 (= UGC 11026), NGC6536 (= UGC 11077), and CGCG 322-032. None of these, however, are at positions that would be even digits off of the nominal position. I don't think they are likely to be the correct nebula, either. I'm listing the CGCG identity with a question mark. It's clear to me that it is the wrong object, but there is nothing else that comes as close. </object> <object><oname>NGC6536</oname>may just possibly also be NGC6534, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6543</oname>is the famous planetary near the north ecliptic pole. See IC4677 for a bit more about it. </object> <object><oname>NGC6548</oname>and NGC6550 = NGC6549. There are two galaxies in this field; the brighter, NGC6548, was found by WH in June of 1786, and given the number III 555 in his catalogue of nebulae and clusters. WH's position reduces to 18 03 55, +18 33.5 (B1950.0), about 2.2 arcmin southeast of the modern position for the brighter object. The position in GC and NGC was either reduced with respect to a rather crude position for the comparison star (101 Her), or a (simple digit?) error of -20 seconds of time has crept into the RA. The fainter galaxy was first seen by Marth in July 1864, and was rediscovered 18 years later by Stephan. Both noted the brighter object. Marth simply says "... near III 555" in his description, while Stephan says "Distinct from [GC] 4377 and [GC] 5892." Dreyer condensed that for the NGC by adding "... near m361" to Stephan's description. Since there are only the two nebulae here, and because Stephan did not measure the brighter objects he claims to have seen, we can only speculate on what his third object must have been. Perhaps it is the line of three stars east of Marth's galaxy. In any event, it is clear that Stephan and Marth found the same galaxy. Stephan's accurately measured position precesses to 18 03 38.4, +18 31 48, while Marth's less accurately estimated position precesses to 18 03 36, +18 32.2, still quite close to the galaxy. There matters would have stood had Lewis Swift not published a cryptic note in his 11th list of nebulae (AN 147, 210, 1898): "NGC6550 = H III 555. 6550 must be struck out." The wording of Swift's original note in his "Catalogue No. II ..." (which appeared in PASP 9, 186, 1897, and in MNRAS 57, 629, 1897) makes better sense: "NGC6550 must be struck out, as it is identical with H. III 555." Dreyer made what sense he could of all this, and has a Note in the second IC which reads "6548 = 6550, Swift in Cat. XI." (Dreyer also changed the NGC number to "6550" for H III 555 in his 1912 collection of WH's papers.) Swift was apparently trying to tell us that there are only two galaxies here, too, but his wording in the AN list just made the cataloguing problem worse. Enough people have read the IC Note that the modern identifications are thoroughly confused. An obvious predilection for the objects in RA order has also fed the confusion. In the end, though, it is clear that WH found the brighter, northeastern galaxy, while Marth saw both objects -- and Stephan not only saw the two real galaxies, but (apparently) an asterism as well. So, my position table reflects this by keeping Dreyer's original NGC number, 6548, on H III 555; and by equating Marth's and Stephan's "novae", N6549 and N6550. </object> <object><oname>NGC6549</oname><oname>NGC6550</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC6548 for the full story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6550</oname><oname>NGC6549</oname> is not NGC6548 as we have long supposed. Thanks to Malcolm Thomson and Steve Gottlieb for first directing my attention to this puzzling triplet of numbers, and to Christopher Watson for questioning the inconsistency in my earlier "untangling" of the problem. See NGC6548 for the full story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6551</oname>refers to an object found by Leavenworth in July of 1885. He has left us a vivid sketch showing what looks like a globular cluster placed exactly between two moderately bright stars. The position on the sketch cover matches that published in the AJ list (18 02, -29 34 for equinox 1890), but there is nothing in the area that matches the sketch. The only other notes on the sketch besides the position and Leavenworth's initials read, "Drawn July 6 from sketch July 7 '85. Power 500+-." The dates are not mistakes -- the date "drawn" really does precede the date "sketched." One must be wrong. Andris and Wolfgang have taken N6551 to be the asterism of half a dozen stars near Leavenworth's position. But they do not match his sketch at all. The nearest globular cluster is NGC6522, and while that might be seen as "vF, vS, R, rr" at -29 degrees from Leander McCormick, the stars flanking it do not correspond with those shown on the sketch. So, another mysterious L-M object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6554</oname> During the plate scanning for ESGC, I noted this as "20-30 stars in a 20 arcmin area." I don't believe that these stars are a real cluster, but they do stand out from the field enough that they could be picked up during a visual sweep. JH's comment "Has several double stars in it" also makes it clear that he was seeing the same concentration of stars. I put the center somewhat east-northeast of JH's position, but the identity is not in question. </object> <object><oname>NGC6556</oname> The problems with this object began with Sir John himself and his summary description published in the GC, then copied faithfully into the NGC. That description makes the object "F, vL, cE, lbM, rr." On the other hand, JH's original notes read "Cl VI. An oval patch comprised within limits of the field, barely resolvable into infinitely minute points, but which, without attention, appears as a great nebula 15' l; 12' br; hardly bM." Howe saw it the same way 65 years later: "I see nothin in the entire region except thousands of the minutest stars." Dreyer summarized this in the IC2 Notes simply as "No nebulosity (Ho)." The object is actually part of the complex region of star clouds and obscuring dust clouds near the Galactic Center. JH's position points to an otherwise unremarkable part of the Milky Way, comprised of, as both he and Howe saw, "... thousands of the minutest stars." I've adopted JH's position, and his description above is apt. </object> <object><oname>NGC6564</oname>is probably a triple star 1.5 seconds preceding and 1.5 arcmin south of Marth's position. There is no galaxy near that he might have seen, and the triple would probably match his view of it with Lassell's 48-inch. Marth found two other galaxies the same night (N6375 and N6379); the mean offset of their positions from Marth's is in the same direction and about the same size (1 second of time and 1 arcmin) as those for the triple. All in all, this amounts only to circumstantial evidence, but it is the best we can do at the moment. </object> <object><oname>NGC6573</oname>may be the Milky Way star cloud about 30 seconds following JH's position, but could also be the large scattered clump of clumps of stars right around his position. His description, from one night's observation at Slough, reads, "A cluster composed of 2 or 3 clusters of very small stars, and loose large ones. Perhaps an outlier of VIII. 31 [N6583]." He marks the RA with a plus/minus sign, so either grouping seems possible. This is a candidate for observation at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC6574</oname>is probably also NGC6610, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6581</oname><oname>IC1280</oname>. The position that Stephan quotes for his comparison star is off by about 15 seconds of time, so the NGC position for the galaxy is also off by the same amount. Digging into the data a bit more suggests that there is an additional 2 second error in Stephan's RA, but his description "... between two very small stars" is exactly right. Bigourdan, of course, could not find N6581 at its catalogued position, but rediscovered it at its true position. Thinking it was a "nova," he included it in his third list of new nebulae. He saw it only on one night, and commented then that it is "Impossible to measure, because I cannot easily distinguish it from 2-3 vF neighboring stars." His position is therefore based on a single estimate from the same star that Stephan used, and points to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC6583</oname> See NGC6573. </object> <object><oname>NGC6586</oname> See NGC6591. </object> <object><oname>NGC6588</oname>is probably one of the asterisms that I've listed in the position table. My guess is the line of three or four stars that I've marked with a colon. The southern most of these is the brightest, and is a merged double which might have looked nebulous on a night of less than perfect seeing. It is at JH's declination and is just 30 seconds preceding his RA. Otherwise, JH's description, "eF, S; among stars. A *6 m sp 10 arcmin distant," fits nicely. The star is SAO 254209. However, there are two other asterisms that might be JH's object. I've listed them with question marks. I also checked for a large blunder in the position, but found none. In particular, the other objects in this sweep (No. 708 on 8 June 1836), are in the same declination range, and at much the same RA as well. </object> <object><oname>NGC6589</oname>may also be IC4690 (which see for more discussion). Swift's position for N6589 is about 36 seconds of time off, a mistake corrected by Barnard, and included in the IC2 Notes. Ironically, Barnard is also responsible for a mistake of his own which makes the identity with I4690 probable. Also see discussion under NGC6590 and IC1283 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6590</oname><oname>NGC6595</oname><oname>IC4700</oname>. JH found the brightest nebula in this group while observing at Slough; his position is good. Swift came across it and another nearby nebula nearly 60 years later in 1885, but misplaced both by about 45 seconds of time in RA from the correct positions. In a note in AN 3101, Barnard corrected the positions for both of Swift's objects, noting the identity of N6590 with N6595. He also announced the discovery of another larger, though fainter nebula (I1284) northeast of the brighter pair. (In still another note in AN 3111, Barnard also announced the discovery of yet another nebula here, I1283. See that for more). Curiously, Barnard mentions the AN 3111 note in AN 4239, but not the AN 3101 note. Had he done so, it might have alerted Dreyer to the identity of one of Barnard's nebulae mentioned there (see N6589 for the passage) with N6595. Had this happened, Dreyer probably would not have been included it in the second IC. </object> <object><oname>NGC6591</oname>may be the galaxy that I've flagged with a question mark in the table. That matches Marth's description ("eeF, vS, stell") and is not too far off his position (the RA is 12 seconds too large). However, it may not be the object that Marth saw. That object was found the same night as NGC6586 which has offsets from Marth's position of -2 seconds of time and -14 arcsec in declination. At similar offsets (-3 seconds and -32 arcsec) is a faint galaxy with two foreground stars just to the southwest, the brighter star superposed on the galaxy itself. While this group of objects does not match Marth's description -- in particular, the galaxy is fainter than the one I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the brighter superposed star is considerably brighter than the galaxy (why didn't Marth mention the star if he saw it?) -- its positional coincidence within Marth's usual observational errors is fairly compelling. Still, I'm keeping open the possibility that the brighter, isolated galaxy is Marth's object. It may even be possible that the asterism of five stars that I've also included in the table is the object that Marth saw. But that is the least likely option because its brightest star is nearly of the 10th magnitude, far too bright to match Marth's description. </object> <object><oname>NGC6592</oname> Swift's position is not very good, but he notes "nearly between 2 stars." Given that he was working with a large field, that comment pins down the galaxy. See NGC6607 for more on the field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6594</oname> As with NGC6592, Swift's note about nearby stars "between a faint and a more distant bright star" nails the identification. The bright star is SAO 17798. See NGC6607 for more about other objects in this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6595</oname><oname>NGC6590</oname> (which see) = IC4700. </object> <object><oname>NGC6597</oname> Swift's comment "Difficult by proximity to a bright star" is correct -- the star is SAO 17798, the same one he mentions in his description for NGC6594 (which see). Also see NGC6607 for more details about this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6599</oname>is probably also NGC6600, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6600</oname>is probably = NGC6599, though RNGC suggests NGC6602. Marth could have seen either, but since N6599 is nearly a magnitude brighter and has a higher surface brightness as well, it is the more likely candidate. This makes Marth's declination 7 arcmin off, and I am going to suggest that the printed north polar distance should actually be "65 07" rather than "65 01". Marth's RA is exact. If Marth's RA is off instead, and this is NGC6602, it would be 52 seconds too small; the Dec would then be just an arcmin off. Since Marth lists this as one of his "verified" nebulae, I'm more inclined to believe that the NPD he gives is in error. </object> <object><oname>NGC6601</oname> Swift's note "Near end of a curve of stars" is accurate and unambiguously identifies this galaxy. See NGC6607 for the reason this particular identification is so important. </object> <object><oname>NGC6602</oname>is probably not NGC6600, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6603</oname> a relatively small and faint cluster, is not M24. The Messier object is actually IC4715, which see for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC6605</oname> There appears to be a +2 minute error in JH's RA, as a cluster matching his description "Loose straggling cluster; stars 10...12m" is at his declination, but 2 minutes of time preceding. There are about 30 stars of the correct magnitude scattered over a 15 arcmin by 15 arcmin area, while there are none brighter than 14th or 15th magnitude at the nominal place. </object> <object><oname>NGC6607</oname> 6608, and 6609. This is a trio of objects all credited to Lewis Swift. They were all discovered on the night of 4 Aug 1883, and are listed in Swift's first paper as being the 5th, 6th, and 7th of 8, respectively (numbers 91-93 in his sequential numbering of the entire list). The other five objects are N6592, N6594, N6597, N6601, and N6617. Though Swift's positions aren't too good for these five, either, the galaxies are nevertheless unambiously identified by Swift's comments about nearby stars (or the lack of them). N6601, by the way, is the only other object of the eight that Swift found that night in 1883; the remaining four are dated 14 June 1885. Swift's declination for NGC6608 is the problem. He places it at exactly the same declination as NGC6609 just 15 arcsec north of NGC6607. So, while there are three galaxies in the area, only two are at Swift's declination while the other is 2 arcmin south. Furthermore, the southern object is a faint edgewise Scd or Sd with a low mean surface brightness. Not only does it not match Swift's descriptions of shape ("R", "R", and "lE" for the three objects) it is so faint (around V = 15.5 at a guess, compared to V = 14.5 and 15.0 for the other two) that I would be surprised if Swift could have seen it at all. The object that Swift described as the faintest of the batch of eight (NGC6617, which see) is considerably brighter than than this spindle. In addition to that, Swift says there is a "vF star near" his object -- there are none near the spindle that he could have seen that are not nearer NGC6609 (and that leads to yet another hypothesis for NGC6608; see the last paragraph of this note). Still, there are three galaxies here, and three NGC numbers. If we assume that Swift's RA's for the four objects found this night are correct among themselves in a relative sense, then we can apply the correction necessary to make his RA for NGC6601 agree with the GSC position (+13 seconds of time) to the others. This leads to RA's for the others that are different from the true RA's by -4, -4, and -3 seconds of time, respectively. Thus, Swift's RA's for the three galaxies are in very good relative agreement. So, in spite of my doubts that he saw the faint edgewise galaxy (MCG +10-26-024), I'm going to assume a 2 arcmin error in the declination for this object and call it NGC6608. The other two, NGC6607 and NGC6609, fit his descriptions very well -- including the "F star near" NGC6609 -- so there is no problem with them. As a final possibility, I'm going to suggest that perhaps, just perhaps, Swift's observations of the latter two objects (numbers 92 and 93 in his list) refer to the same galaxy. Had the observations been made on different nights, I would have said "A-ha!" at the beginning of this story and equated them with hardly a doubt left. As is, we'd have to assume some sort of blunder in Swift's observations within a single night in a small area of sky. With that third galaxy just south, though -- well, Occam's razor slashes deeply enough that that is the more likely choice. </object> <object><oname>NGC6608</oname> See NGC6607. </object> <object><oname>NGC6609</oname> See NGC6607. </object> <object><oname>NGC6610</oname>is probably NGC6574. There is nothing at the catalogued position of N6610, and there are no reasonable changes to the calculated offsets (+1m 0.11s, -4' 31.3") from Stephan's nominal comparison star ("208 W. (A.C.) H.XVIII") that point to anything aside from very faint stars. However, about 1.3 deg north, and 1.75 minutes following Stephan's nominal position is a star-galaxy pair that matches the offsets to within Stephan's normal observing errors (the actual offsets are +59.77s and -4' 32.5"). The galaxy, UGC 11198, also matches his description pretty well. So, I had taken this to be a very good candidate for NGC6610, with some sort of confusion in Stephan's observing records. But the question about the identity had originally come from Leos Ondra who posted it to one of the astronomy forums on the Internet in 1999. There, it attracted the attention of Steve Gottlieb who did the same kind of digging back into the literature that I did, but did not come up with a candidate. Brian Skiff suggested that NGC6574, about 5 minutes west, might be N6610, but noted that there is no comparison star at the correct offsets. Leos also noted a paper by Seares in PASP 28, 122, 1916 titled "Identification of NGC6610." Brian checked a copy of that paper and found that the object Seares suggests is actually a plate defect on an early plate of the area. The object is not on either POSS1 or POSS2. Finally, Leos sent me a copy of a note that he had had "off-list" from Jim Caplan, a research astronomer at the Observatoire de Marseille where Stephan observed and was director between 1866 and 1907. Jim called attention to a monograph containing a complete re-reduction of Stephan's observations by a Monsieur Esmiol, presumeably one of the younger astronomers at Marseille. This was published in 1916 after Stephan's retirement, and carries not only the reduced positions, but mean values of Stephan's micrometric measurements, too. (I had seen a copy of this at the library at ROE in the late 1970s, but failed to make a photocopy for myself -- bad move!). The observation previously leading to the NGC number 6610 is listed in the monograph under the designation "anonyme" with completely different offsets (-1m 42.63s, -0' 14.0" from six settings in RA and 3 in Dec) from a completely different star (BD +14 3453). A footnote reads "Class\'e \`a tort 6610" ("Called 6610 by mistake"); this is apparently the only published "explanation" of this particular case. Reducing these observations with the GSC position for the comparison star puts the position directly on NGC6574. So, it looks like Brian is correct, though for a different reason than he probably envisioned. I am still curious, however, about the extraordinary coincidence of the earlier calculated offsets with the UGC 11198/BD +16 3447 pair. Where did Stephan's originally published positions come from? Jim tells me that many of Stephan's original observing records and reductions are still in existence; we may be able to eventually find an answer to this question. </object> <object><oname>NGC6616</oname> Though Swift's RA is off by 24 seconds of time, Herbert Howe found the correct galaxy and remeasured its position. His correction is included in IC2. </object> <object><oname>NGC6617</oname> Swift not only describes this as the largest, faintest, and most difficult of the eight objects he found in the area, he also says that it is "in [a] vacancy." While there are faint stars nearby, the ones he would have noticed are far enough away that the object does indeed appear to be pretty isolated. See NGC6607 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6625</oname> JH's RA is marked uncertain in his 1833 PT catalogue where he describes it only as "A loose straggling cluster of stars 11 .. 12 m." There is no immediately obvious cluster at his position, but about two arcmin northwest there is a clump of stars, four arcmin by two arcmin in size, that might be his object. This is on the southeastern edge of a much larger clump (roughly 10 arcmin by 8 arcmin) that could also be JH's object. Neither is particularly striking, but the former has been identified as a real cluster. Since it stands out a bit more, and might make an impression during a sweep, I've adopted it as N6625. </object> <object><oname>NGC6647</oname> H VIII 14, was also seen by JH whose position is adopted in NGC. There is nothing obvious at that position. WH's original position is about 8 arcmin west-northwest of his son's. Just 4 arcmin northeast of that is a group, about four arcmin across, of a couple of dozen stars. The brightest is around 12th magnitude. I think that these are the stars that WH took to be a cluster. What I find curious about this object is the description. NGC follows GC exactly in calling the object a "Cl, L, Ri, lC, sts vS." How did JH get that out of his father's and his own observations? WH's description reads, "A cl of sc pL sts," while JH's reads "A very loose parcel of v small stars, hardly noticeable as a cluster." "Large" perhaps, but "Rich"? Perhaps JH penned the description in haste. Whatever the case, the clump of stars that I believe to be WH's object does not match the NGC description, though it does fit what WH himself wrote. </object> <object><oname>NGC6655</oname>was found in June 1855 by Winnecke with the 9-inch Fraunhofer refractor in Berlin and has not been seen since. Auwers lists it as the 42nd new object in the appendix to his 1862 reduction of WH's nebulae where he gives Winnecke's description. This boils down to pF, S, E, 10 x 3 arcsec. The position is 18 25 43, -06 06 for 1830. There is nothing there. (Auwers also notes that he could not find the object.) However, 20 seconds of time west, and 3.3 arcmin north is a 14th magnitude double star with a separation of about 11 arcsec. This may be the object that Winnecke saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC6659</oname>appears to be a clump of about 20 stars between 10 and 15 mag covering an area about 9 x 5 arcmin. JH describes it tersely, "A v poor cluster 8th class." His position is about 2 arcmin southwest of the center of the clump of stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC6660</oname><oname>NGC6661</oname>. Swift's declination for N6660 is 10 arcmin too small, but his description fits, including the note "between 2 stars." The identity was first noticed by Pechule, and included in the Notes to IC1 by Dreyer. </object> <object><oname>NGC6661</oname><oname>NGC6660</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6666</oname>could be any of a number of galaxies within a degree or so of Swift's position. It could also be UGC 11278 or UGC 11281 five degrees north. Whatever Edward Swift saw, it is certainly not at the position his father sent to Dreyer or later published. Bigourdan's single observation a decade after Edward Swift's is for an asterism of five stars, the brightest three in a line extending from northwest to southeast. I don't think that this is likely to be Swift's object, but it is a possibility. The asterism is 20 seconds east and 2.5 arcmin south of Swift's position, but I don't think that it would match his description. This could be easily checked, of course, with a 15-inch class telescope. </object> <object><oname>NGC6667</oname><oname>NGC6668</oname><oname>NGC6678</oname>, both of which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6668</oname><oname>NGC6667</oname> (as well as NGC6678, which see). Found by Swift (included in his 4th list), this is most likely to be NGC6667 as there is nothing at Swift's place resembling a "pB, pS, vE" nebula. Howe could not find it, either, and suggested that N6668 might be N6677. However, N6667 is brighter and its inner regions perhaps fit Swift's description better. Also, the difference in position is exactly 50 arcmin, suggesting a transcription error or a typo somewhere in Swift's reduction/publication chain. </object> <object><oname>NGC6669</oname>is most likely the asterism of six faint stars just north of Marth's position. This is of an appropriate size and combined magnitude that he would probably describe it as he did, "eF, pL." Wolfgang followed the LEDA group's lead in assigning this number to a 16th magnitude galaxy with a 12th magnitude star superposed well off Marth's place. Had Marth seen this object, he would certainly have mentioned the star. I think that the galaxy is faint enough, however, that the star would mask it, even at the eyepiece of Lassell's 48-inch reflector. </object> <object><oname>NGC6672</oname>is a triple star at Stephan's position. The mean position (measured on DSS) for the three stars is less than three arcseconds away from his micrometrically-measured position. </object> <object><oname>NGC6677</oname>and 6679 = IC4763. Malcolm and I have fussed over this field for several years now, and have been unable to come to a consensus. So here is my take on the area. The two brightest galaxies here -- Malcolm's objects "A" and "B" -- were seen by Swift, Bigourdan, and Howe. (Kobold also has an observation of NGC6677 in the Strassburg Annals, Vol. 3, 1909, but his comparison star has a high proper motion which makes the derivation of an accurate position more difficult.) I agree with Malcolm that A must be NGC6677, but am pretty well convinced that B is NGC6679 = IC4763. Here's why: 1) As I always do for identification problems, I determined as accurate a position as I can for every object bearing on an identity question. In this case, this meant reducing Bigourdan's micrometric observations, and digging positions out of the Guide Star Catalogue. Here are the results for Malcolm's three objects (positions are for the equinox 1950.0): Galaxy NGC/IC RA Dec Source Notes A N6677 18 33 39.20 +67 04 09.8 GSC 18 33 38.83 +67 04 11.3 Big 5 Sept 1891 only 18 33 40 +67 04.1 Howe B N6679=I4763 18 33 33.29 +67 05 47.1 GSC 18 33 33.58 +67 05 44.8 Big 18 33 35 +67 05.7 Howe C --- 18 33 34.36 +67 06 21.8 GSC Notice that I have used Bigourdan's observations only from the night of 5 Sept 1891 for NGC6677. His observations on 25 June 1897 refer to the star southeast of the galaxy. I also suspect that his comparison star (BD +66 1115 = GSC 4227-00549) has a relatively large proper motion as there is a systematic offset of +0.24 sec and -7.8 arcsec between his positions and the GSC positions for all the objects for which he used this star as a comparison. I've corrected his positions in the table above for these offsets. The excellent agreement between Bigourdan's, Howe's, and the GSC positions convinces me that the two micrometric observations from each of the early observers do indeed refer to Malcolm's objects A and B. Furthermore, their descriptions also make sense -- and agree with Swift's -- if we note one additional fact: object B is in fact a close double galaxy. Object C is more than 30 arcsec north of B, which puts it much too far away to be part of the object that Howe measured as NGC6679: "This is a nebulous D * of mags 12.5, distance 5 arcsec, [position] angle 60 deg." Bigourdan's description of it as a double star, one that he could not resolve at 344X, also points to the close pair as the actual NGC6679 -- and adds support to the evidence from his measured position that the pair is equal to Big 333 = IC4763 (it is, of course, clear that Bigourdan himself realized this). All of this evidence, combined with Swift's own descriptions (in his papers 1, 3, and 9) seem to me to pin down the identifications without much doubt. I've not taken Swift's own positions into account as we know that they are not very good. In this case, Howe has noted that Swift's declination for N6679 in the NGC is out by 8.5 arcmin. Swift corrected this by 10 arcmin when he finally published the observation in AN 3004, but by then, the damage had been done. </object> <object><oname>NGC6678</oname><oname>NGC6667</oname> (which is also = NGC6668, which see). IC4762 = Big 332 is a double star at exactly the location given by Bigourdan. Until I found that it was a double star, I thought that it might be NGC6678, found by Swift (it is No. 99 in his first list), and with an identical declination. However, I'm more inclined to believe that N6678 is the same as NGC6667 (see NGC6668 for more discussion); this galaxy is brighter than the double star, and its inner regions might be taken as a "pF, pS, R" nebula. Howe could not find this, either, but suggested no alternative identification for it. </object> <object><oname>NGC6679</oname><oname>IC4763</oname>. See NGC6677. </object> <object><oname>NGC6682</oname> Bigourdan was the first to notice that JH's RA is 2 minutes too large. Alister Ling picked up the error independently a century later. With an additional small correction in Dec (about 3 arcmin to the south), JH's "A large, pretty rich cluster of straggling stars ..." is found to be located in a Milky Way star cloud. The remainder of his description "... having a vacuity in the middle and broken into 2 or 3 clusters. Fills field. 70 or 80 stars of all magnitudes from 10 to 18 counted. Extended in parallel. The most compressed part following," is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>NGC6688</oname> See NGC6693. </object> <object><oname>NGC6689</oname><oname>NGC6690</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6690</oname><oname>NGC6689</oname>. Both Swift and d'A found this galaxy twice. D'A, however, realized that his two observations refered to the same object, while Swift's second position was far enough off to mislead him into including the galaxy twice in his fifth list. Dreyer somehow recognized Swift's mistake, so only included one of the entries in NGC-- but he (Dreyer) also missed the identity with d'A's object, even though the two positions are less than an arcmin apart on the sky. Whatever happened, there is certainly only one galaxy, and it clearly bears two NGC numbers. The several descriptions are good, and all the nearby field stars are just where d'A and Swift put them in their notes. </object> <object><oname>NGC6693</oname>is lost. There are only faint stars in the area of Marth's position. The RNGC claims the object to be a star, but I see no particular single, double, or multiple star around that might have caught Marth's eye. Of the nine other objects that Marth found the same night ("1864.59"), two bracket N6693 in RA, and are at similar Dec's: N6688 and N6713. Neither has a large offset in Marth's position from the modern positions, so I have to presume that N6693 is also unaffected by any systematic error. Barring a large digit error (e.g. 1 degree, 10 minutes), Marth's object is probably gone forever. </object> <object><oname>NGC6695</oname> See IC1294. </object> <object><oname>NGC6698</oname>may be the somewhat denser region of stars about 25 arcmin north of WH's position. If so, his position for it shares the same large offset that affects his positions for N6514 and N6533 (which see), found the same night. If this is WH's object -- his description "A suspected cluster of vF stars of considerable extent" certainly fits -- it is probably not a true cluster, but just a concentration in the rich Milky Way field. Coincidentally, the planetary nebula PK 009-10.1 is close to the center of the concentration. The proper motions would have to be checked to see if there is a connection, or indeed if there really is a cluster here. </object> <object><oname>NGC6709</oname>may also be NGC6724, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6713</oname> See NGC6693. </object> <object><oname>NGC6714</oname>is probably lost. There is nothing at Swift's position, though his note "... sev B sts nr n" is appropriate for his field. Did he perhaps see a faint comet? Since he rarely comments about verifying his nebulae, this seems a possibility worth mentioning, at least in this case. Barring a digit error, though, this object may be gone forever. </object> <object><oname>NGC6717</oname> IC4802 (which see) is a clump of stars in this globular. </object> <object><oname>NGC6724</oname>is described by JH simply as "A cluster discovered with the 7-feet (sic) equatorial, Sept 5, 1828." He puts a plus/minus sign on the RA which he lists to only a full minute of time, though the Dec is given to his usual precision of an arcsec. About five arcmin northwest of his place is a small (5 arcmin by 3 arcmin) clump of stars, a dozen of which are bright enough to be in GSC. Given the paucity of information, though, the object could also be NGC6709, a much richer cluster 10 minutes west at the same declination. Until further data can be dug out of JH's original observing notes (assuming there is more data), I am going to adopt the poorer clump of stars for this number -- though with a colon to flag the uncertainty inherent in the observation. </object> <object><oname>NGC6726</oname> NGC6727, and NGC6729 are all stars immersed in nebulae. Delisle Stewart found them associated with a much larger and fainter nebulosity, IC 4812 (which see), on a 5-hour Harvard plate. The positions I give apply to the stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC6728</oname>could be Isserstedt 662, a stellar ring (though it does not look very ring-like to me). This is one minute, 13 seconds preceding and 1.6 arcminutes north of WH's position at which there is nothing. WH describes the cluster as being composed of "... coarsely scattered stars, not rich." This certainly fits Iss. 662 which is the only object in the area that WH might have picked up. Those interested in Isserstedt's idea that the stellar rings have a constant size -- so can therefore be used as distance indicators -- can read more about them in A&A 9, 70, 1970 which gives other earlier references. </object> <object><oname>NGC6731</oname>is probably the double star whose position I give in the main table. It was found by J. G. Lohse, and is similar to other "nebulae" found by him (e.g. NGC6344 and NGC6767, both of which see). He describes it simply as "Very faint," though, so the identification is not as secure as it might be. </object> <object><oname>NGC6735</oname>is a clustering of stars around SAO 142915 (JH's position refers to this star), though the center of the cluster seems to be a bit southwest of the star. It matches JH's description quite well, and would probably stand out nicely in a wide-field eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC6737</oname>is another of JH's clusters nearly lost against the bright Milky Way background on the modern sky surveys. His position refers to SAO 162109, though the cluster itself is centered about a minute straight east of the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC6738</oname> found by JH, is an optical alignment of a couple of dozen bright stars seen through varying amounts of dust. It is not a real cluster. Boeche et al (A&A, XXX, XXX, 2003) have done a thorough photometric, astrometric, and spectroscopic study of the field and have not been able to find a real cluster here. There are undoubtedly many other such clusters in the catalogues. </object> <object><oname>NGC6743</oname> JH describes this as "A pL, poor cl of stars forming irreg groups or patches, 11 ... 12 m; diam = 8'." About an arcminute preceding his position are three pretty bright stars and roughly 30 fainter ones scattered over an area about 8 - 10 arcmin across. This is doubtless the group that JH saw. As with many of these apparent clusterings, it may not be a real cluster. It will take astrometric and photometric studies to determine whether the stars are neighbors in space. </object> <object><oname>NGC6748</oname>may be lost forever. This is an unusual fate for one of Stephan's discoveries, as he measured all of his objects carefully with respect to stars with accurately-determined positions. He claims five measurements of this nebula with respect to SAO 86851, and describes it simply as "Pretty bright, very small, and brighter in the center." The implied offsets (for equinox 1870.0) from the star are -4m 18.53s and -9 arcmin 25.5 arcsec. Not only is there nothing at these offsets from his nominal star, I find nothing at similar offsets from other stars in the same area of sky. Unfortunately, the object is not listed in Esmiol's 1916 collection and re-reduction of Stephan's nebulae, so unless Stephan's original observing and reduction logs can be found, we will probably never recover this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6752</oname>may also be NGC6777, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6762</oname><oname>NGC6763</oname>. The identity was first suggested by Howe. He apparently had a letter from Swift confirming that the two numbers apply to the same galaxy as he starts his note in MN 61, 42, 1900 by saying "These are identical; Swift admits it." Since Swift found them on different nights (30 August 1883 and 30 April 1884), and gave them virtually identical positions, there is little doubt that they indeed refer to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC6763</oname><oname>NGC6762</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6766</oname> Things are not looking good for this stellar planetary discovered by Pickering. The NGC position (precessed to 1950) is 19 08.6, +46 11, while Pickering himself gives 20 08.8, +46 19 in his collection of nebulae found at Harvard (Harvard Annals 60; I have not seen his note in AN 105, 355 where he actually announced the discovery.) Assuming that the "20" hours he gives is actually a typo for "19", the HA 60 position would be 19 08.7, +46 15, still far enough off the NGC position to make locating a "stellar" nebula in the rich Milky Way field a headache. There are no planetaries obvious in DSS fields around Pickering's positions, so examination of objective prism plates would seem to be necessary to recover his object if it exists. Pickering's method of finding the planetaries is interesting: he simply swept the sky looking through a low-dispersion spectrograph. The stars' spectra must have appeared mostly continuous through his instrument, while the planetaries would still be stellar because most of their visible light is concentrated in the emission lines of oxygen at 4958 and 5007 angstroms. </object> <object><oname>NGC6767</oname>is another double star found by Lohse. He describes it as "Very faint, small, round, stellar; small star near north." The double star is very close to his position, and the "small star" is 33 arcsec north. </object> <object><oname>NGC6773</oname> This is a "Coarse; not very rich, eighth class" cluster found by JH. His position refers to a pretty bright star west of the cluster's center where I place it in a 10 x 10 arcmin DSS field. </object> <object><oname>NGC6774</oname>is a large cluster, over 20 arcmin across with perhaps 75 to 100 stars as possible members. JH's position is close northeast of SAO 162395, the brightest star in (or superposed on) the cluster, but the center on the POSS1 prints is six arcmin west-northwest. </object> <object><oname>NGC6775</oname>may not be a real cluster, but it is clear on the sky as a tight clump of about a dozen stars, with another looser clump about five arcmin to the west. JH's position is on the tight clump. </object> <object><oname>NGC6777</oname>may be NGC6752 (first suggested by Owen Gingerich in a Sky and Telescope article which appeared in the February 1960 issue on page 207). If so, there is a large error in Lacaille's position. Much closer to his position is a fairly close pair of 9th magnitude stars, SAO 257685 and 257686. These were mentioned by Delisle Stewart in his Harvard Annals 60 list, and were subsequently picked up by Andris Lauberts for ESO-B. Would these two stars look like "the nucleus of a small comet" in the eyepiece of Lacaille's half-inch aperture quadrant? Perhaps. But I like Gingerich's idea a bit better. </object> <object><oname>NGC6778</oname><oname>NGC6785</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6781</oname> The position is for a very faint, very blue star -- the southeastern of two -- near the geometric center of the planetary. The star is not seen at all in any of the 2MASS images, but is clear on the DSS2B image. </object> <object><oname>NGC6784</oname> There are two galaxies of virtually equal magnitude and diameter here, separated by 4.6 seconds of time, and 30 arcsec -- the orientation is southwest-northeast. Which one did JH see? He has three observations of his nebula and records it as "eeF" all three times. He made only two firm measurements of its position, however (about the third, he says, "No RA observed, and the PD not to be put in competition with those of regular observations."). These are separated by 8.2 seconds and 68 seconds. Is it possible that he measured a different galaxy each time? Unfortunately, this is an unanswerable question since the orientation of his two observations is northwest-southeast. So, while it's tempting to speculate about this (and speculate I have), I don't think we can say anything definite here. Thus, I've attached the number NGC6784 to both galaxies. </object> <object><oname>NGC6785</oname><oname>NGC6778</oname>. JH's description reads "An eS stellar neb = a * 15m; it is 2/3 of a diam of field (= 10') from a double star which it follows, to S. Pos from the star = 240 deg +-. The RA is excessively loose." This fits N6778 if the phrase "which it follows" is changed to "which follows it." Then, the position angle agrees as well. This means, however, that not only is the RA "excessively loose," but that there is 30 arcmin error in JH's Dec as well. Bigourdan's correction to the RA quoted in the IC2 Notes applies to a random clump of stars at JH's original (incorrect) Declination. These are clearly not NGC6785. </object> <object><oname>NGC6795</oname> The NGC description, "Cl, Ri, bet 2 sts 9", transcribed correctly from GC, doesn't really do justice to JH's original description: "The first of 3 sts 9 m, nearly in the parallel, joined by a rich clustering portion of the Milky Way." I sometimes wonder if JH wrote the GC descriptions or had a clerk do the chore for him. I've made the position a little closer to the middle of the three stars. That seems to represent the "rich clustering portion" better than JH's own place nearer the first star. </object> <object><oname>NGC6797</oname>is a triple star. Peters only gives its position and the note, "* 9m att f." The 9th magnitude star is there, but there is no nebulosity associated with the triple. Andris Lauberts was the first to identify this object correctly, in his ESO/Uppsala Catalogue. </object> <object><oname>NGC6798</oname><oname>IC1300</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6800</oname> WH's RA is 1 minute of time too small, but JH's is correct. Since JH adopted his own position for GC, NGC also has the correct position. See NGC6882 = NGC6885 for more on WH's observations on the night of 10 Sept 1784. </object> <object><oname>NGC6811</oname> JH has two observations of this, separated by nearly a minute of time in RA and 6 arcmin in Dec. The RA of the first observation is correct, while the declination of the second is correct. Unfortunately, the position JH adopted for the GC carries the RA of the second, and a Dec 10 arcmin further on north. I think he meant to use only the second observation (he notes that the first observation refers to "A double star in the southern part ..."), so the incorrect Dec must be a transcription or typographical error. Once these errors are corrected, though, N6811 turns out to be quite a nice cluster, ten or twelve arcmin across, with perhaps a hundred stars, many of the 10th and 11th magnitudes. </object> <object><oname>NGC6814</oname> See NGC6822 = IC4895. </object> <object><oname>NGC6815</oname> On POSS1, this appears to be a cluster about 20' by 10', elongated roughly in position angle 135 deg, centered about 4 arcmin southwest of JH's position. It's not too obvious on the photographs, but could well stand out while sweeping with a large telescope. </object> <object><oname>NGC6816</oname> RC3 is indeed wrong on this as it followed ESO and RNGC. SGC got the wrong galaxy, too, and as Steve Gottlieb noted earlier, JH's original description of the position of the star (six arcmin north) is correct. Looking at GC, I see that the description is exactly the same as in NGC; it does not follow the Cape of Good Hope description. So, the modification of the description is due to John Herschel himself, not Dreyer. JH must have done this to save space, though how he decided to place the star preceding as well as north is a mystery to me. He also apparently mistook the nucleus of ESO 460-G030 for one of the "vS stars" around the bright star 6' north. Herbert Howe (1898, MN 58, 515) also has a curious observation of this object: "In this is a star of mag 13.5. h noted a '* np.' I saw only a star of mag 14 at an angle of 20 degrees and a distance of 30 arcsec. The sky was dull, so that the nebula was difficult to measure." I see his "star" of mag 13.5; it looks like it is actually a superposed interacting galaxy. Howe also did not publish his position; this means that he found that the original position to be correct to within two arcmin. However, there are no stars 30 arcsec away at PA = 20. There are stars at about this PA, but they are 14 arcsec and 55 arcsec away from the nucleus of the galaxy. I wonder if Howe somehow picked up the wrong object. Well, whatever the case, while there are some unsolved mysteries here, the identification of N6816 is clear. </object> <object><oname>NGC6822</oname><oname>IC4895</oname>, which also see. The IC number is easily explained, but I am a bit puzzled at the record concerning NGC6822 itself. William Sheehan, in his biography of Barnard "The Immortal Fire Within" has the galaxy being "swept up with the 5-inch Byrne refractor in 1884". However, in his short note on its discovery in Sidereal Messenger, Barnard says that he used the 6-inch refractor to determine its position, and that it is in the same low- power field (in the 6-inch) as the well-known planetary nebula, NGC6814. Barnard is also a bit parsimonious with his description of the galaxy, calling it only "exceedingly faint". There is nothing about its size or shape, so the NGC description "vF, L, E, dif" probably reached Dreyer in a letter. This galaxy is important historically as it is the subject of Edwin Hubble's first published paper on Cepheids in external galaxies. Though he announced the discovery of extragalactic Cepheids in M31 in 1924, he chose NGC6822, "a remote stellar system", as the first to have his systematic studies reported in the Astrophysical Journal (Volume 62, page 409, 1925). M33 and M31 followed in 1926 and 1929, respectively. Extragalactic astronomy begins here, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC6828</oname>may be simply a random scattering of stars around SAO 125116 (I've adopted this star's position for the "cluster"). The GSC has a scattered concentration of about 60 stars, 12 x 10 arcmin across, centered about 2.5 arcmin southwest of the SAO star, but this does not show well on the POSS1. Perhaps it would be more outstanding visually. </object> <object><oname>NGC6832</oname>is similar in appearance to NGC6828 (which see) -- a few dozen fainter stars are scattered around a bright "central" star, SAO 32016 in this case. However, because the background here is not dominated by the Milky Way, the cluster stands out more on the POSS1 prints and on the DSS. There are even a few galaxies seen through the cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC6837</oname>is a cluster of about 15-20 stars 12th magnitude and fainter, only six by three arcmin in size, centered about 3 arcmin west of WH's nominal position (19 50 57, +11 34.7; B1950.0). The position in the GC and NGC comes from JH whose notes read, "Viewed. In place by working list? It is a coarse straggling part of the Milky Way." He puts plus/minus signs on both RA and NPD. It's clear that he should have used his father's position, but I suspect he thought he was. I also suspect that he did not really see the cluster that his father did as his description is not the one he uses for small clusters elsewhere in his observations. WH himself is not much more informative: "A small forming cluster of stars." He used the word "forming" literally as he interpreted the cluster as a young object just settling into clusterhood. The only real clue we have now is "small" and that fits the object pretty well. The NGC position actually lands in a region void of brighter stars. It's no wonder that RNGC lists it as non-existent. </object> <object><oname>NGC6838</oname>= M 71 may also be NGC6839, which see -- but probably not. </object> <object><oname>NGC6839</oname> WH has one observation of this on 18 August 1784; it was the only object (not a star or double star) that he found that night. His description reads only "A very small cluster of compressed stars." There is nothing like that in the area. JH swept over the spot twice and did not positively identify the cluster either time. The position he gives for one observation is probably that reduced by CH, but he puts plus-minus signs on both coordinates. There are several small clumps of stars in the area that might be WH's object, but none stand out on POSS1, GSC, or DSS. It is barely possible that this could be M71 (NGC6838) which is 45 seconds preceding and 53 arcmin north of WH's nominal position. Since WH recorded no other nebulae or clusters that night, we can't say anything about systematic errors without digging into the detailed records of his sweep. The offset to M71 is not unheard of in WH's observations, but it IS rare for him to have such a large position error. And M71 is hardly a "very small" cluster. </object> <object><oname>NGC6840</oname>and NGC6843 are two sparce clusters found by JH. N6840 has two groups of seven stars (separated by about 5 arcmin) in its core, surrounded by about 5-6 others. The stars are of fairly equal brightness, all being around 11th to 12th magnitude, and cover an area of 10 arcmin by 8 arcmin. N6843 is poorer with only around a dozen stars, again 11th to 12th magnitude, scattered over a smaller area. Both are superposed on rich Milky Way backgrounds, so I'm not surprised that they did not stand out enough to be identified for RNGC. In fact, neither may be a real cluster, but proper motions and photometry could tell us that. </object> <object><oname>NGC6842</oname> Is this possibly NGC6847 (which see)? Probably not, but it is a possibility. </object> <object><oname>NGC6843</oname> See NGC6840. </object> <object><oname>NGC6846</oname> The RNGC position is 2 degrees too far south. At the correct position is a compact little cluster matching Stephan's description exactly: the three brightest stars are clear enough that he could see them, but the others are considerably fainter, so the entire group must have looked quite nebulous to him. </object> <object><oname>NGC6847</oname>may be the cluster and HII region 1 degree north and 30 seconds west of WH's single position. There is certainly nothing near his place, and these objects may well be the ones he saw. They are immersed in a fairly large star cloud in the Milky Way, which might have led to WH's comments about the surround area. His full description, given by Dreyer in the Collected Papers of 1912, reads, "A resolvable nebulous patch; there are great numbers of them in this neighborhood like forming nebulae; but this is the strongest of them; they are evidently congeries of small stars." Another possibility is raised by Dreyer's note in the NGC, "Not noticed by d'A, who has 2 observations of GC 5947 = m 403 [= NGC6842, a planetary]." Is N6842 the object that WH saw? It is just 2 minutes of time preceding and 3 arcmin south of his position. There may be enough stars around the nebula to lead to WH's description, but I suspect not. Two other possibilities are nearby on the POSS prints. First is a clump of stars about 20 arcmin north of WH's position. The second is another clump about 55 arcmin south. Neither of these, however, has "great numbers" of similar clumps nearby. Dreyer notes that Bigourdan found no nebulosity at WH's place, though he searched the area four times. His one micrometric observation (I haven't reduced it) probably points at a double or multiple star. There are many of them around. Finally, using the POSS1 overlays, I thought that this might be identical to "NGC6846" (which see). However, the overlay copies RNGC's 2 degree error in the declination for N6846 so that it lands on top of the cluster and HII region I noted at the beginning of this story. N6846 is not these objects, though as I said, N6847 might just be. </object> <object><oname>NGC6861</oname><oname>IC4949</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6873</oname> JH's position (and so GC and NGC) is 1 minute of time too large. The correct position for Struve 2631 (the double star noted in the description) puts it into the midst of a relatively rich Milky Way field. But JH is right in calling it "... a coarse straggling group of stars 10...13m, hardly entitled to be called a cluster." The grouping is approximately 13 arcmin x 10 arcmin with a center of gravity just south of the double very close JH's position corrected by 1 minute in RA. </object> <object><oname>NGC6874</oname> WH found this on 15 Sept 1792, describing it as "A coarsly scattered cluster of large stars, of a right-angled triangular shape." This is exactly the configuration seen about 15 seconds preceding the NGC position, and is the cluster that I've taken as the NGC object. The tabulated position refers to the approximate center of the triangle. JH's position, copied correctly into GC and NGC, refers to the 10th magnitude star at the apex of the triangle, east of the center. </object> <object><oname>NGC6882</oname>is probably a duplicate observation of NGC6885. Both clusters were found by WH on subsequent nights (9 and 10 Sept 1784; N6882 is from 10 Sept), were refered to the same star, and have almost identical descriptions: "A cluster of coarsely scattered stars." For NGC6885, he adds, "... not rich". There is nothing striking near the position of N6882, but that for N6885 is in the middle of a large scattered cluster also observed by JH. Over the years, there has been considerable speculation about what WH saw. Some observers have made the clusters identical, while others (notably Reinmuth) have pointed at the wide group of three bright (m = 6) stars about 20 arcmin north of N6885. Brent Archinal has suggested that the clump of nine stars at 20 09 51, +26 35.1, including HD xxxxxx (the southernmost of Reinmuth's three stars), is N6882. This is unlikely as the clump is only two arcmin across. Had WH seen this, he would most likely have put it into his 7th class; it certainly is not "coarsely scattered." Neither of these matches WH's description, so I'm more inclined to the identity of the two NGC objects. This would imply an error of 15 arcmin in WH's declination; the RA's are 12 seconds different, but both are still well within the central part of the cluster (which is over 20 arcmin across). Adding to my conviction that N6882 = N6885 is the fact that, of the seven objects found by WH on 10 Sept 1784, four have significant offsets in WH's positions (the three besides N6882 are: N6800, -1 minute off in RA; N7720, +40 seconds off in RA; and N7741, +4 arcmin off in Dec). WH was clearly not up to snuff that night, and the +15 arcmin error in the declination of N6882 fits right in with the other problems. Brent has more about 20th century cataloguers' notions on the identity of these two NGC numbers in his marvelous book with Steve Hynes, "Star Clusters." I've tried to stay with to WH's observations, though, spare as they are: they are the source of the two NGC numbers, so it is primarily to them that I look for a solution. </object> <object><oname>NGC6885</oname>is probably also NGC6882, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6888</oname>is a large oval-shaped HII region (Sharpless 105), brightest along its northeastern side. WH's place is close to the knots and streamers on that side of the nebula, and it is clear from his description that that is the part he saw. Bigourdan puts the position closer to the center of the oval. He descriptions of the field on two nights (he claims to have seen the nebula on only one of them) makes it clear that he did not see WH's object, just two stars near the revised place given in the IC2 notes. It looks like purest coincidence that this is near the center of the HII region. </object> <object><oname>NGC6892</oname>is a group of four faint stars a bit southeast of d'A's position (from a single observation). His description fits, too -- d'A suspected the object to be resolvable, but was not able to do so with his 231X eyepiece. The summary description in the NGC is an accurate assessment of how the object must appear in a moderate sized telescope at fairly high power. Also see IC1312 for a bit more on the field around this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6895</oname>is described by WH as "A cluster of scattered stars, above 15 arcmin diameter, pretty rich, joining to the Milky Way, or a projecting part of it." Centered close to his position (I put the center about 2 arcmin northeast) is a large cloud of stars, about 20 arcmin by 18 arcmin, most likely a random clump in the Milky Way. Four SAO stars, and dozens of fainter stars are included. This might well be a nice object telescopically, but on the POSS1 prints, it is not impressive. RNGC's "NO CL" is understandable here. </object> <object><oname>NGC6896</oname> There is only a double star at d'A's position. He has three accordant observations, and I do not see any mistake in the transcription into GC and NGC. However, d'A does talk about an RA error in his first observation. Apparently, his second and third observations a few night later revealed that error, but he gives no numbers that might suggest another position on the sky for his "cluster." With nothing else to go on, I'm left with only the double as a possibility for his object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6901</oname><oname>IC5000</oname>. Seen only once by Marth, his position, correctly copied into the NGC, is off. This misled Bigourdan to measure a nearby star which he took to be N6901, and to rediscover Marth's galaxy. Thus, it got a second number, IC5000 (which see). There is only one galaxy in the area, however, and Marth's and Bigourdan's descriptions are near enough that they undoubtedly refer to the same object. My supposition in RC2 that the galaxy is also = IC1316 is, however, incorrect. IC1316 (which see) was another of Bigourdan's discoveries, which he "observed" twice in different places on the same nights on which he also saw N6901. It is, in fact, non-existent. </object> <object><oname>NGC6902</oname>may also be IC4948. See IC4946 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC6904</oname>was described by JH as "A small straggling cluster of stars 10...11m. One of the 9m, whose place is taken." In spite of the inconsistency in the magnitude of the brightest star, JH's description and position is exactly correct. Wolfgang and I put the center of the cluster just southeast of the 9th magnitude star. Curiously, neither Reinmuth nor RNGC found this object. It is perfectly clear on the POSS1 and the DSS. It may not be a real cluster, but JH's object certainly exists on the sky. </object> <object><oname>NGC6906</oname>is not IC5006, which see for the details. </object> <object><oname>NGC6907</oname> See NGC6908 which is a superposed companion galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC6908</oname>is a companion of NGC6907 superposed on its northeastern arm. Barry Madore first pointed this out to me after he examined an image from 2MASS -- N6908 is clearly a separate object interacting with N6907. It is overwhelmed on blue plates by N6907's arm, but is clearly seen not only in the 2MASS images, but on red plates as well. I suspect it would be just as clearly seen at the eyepiece of a large telescope. Marth's original description reads "eF, vS, lE (close to h. 2076)." Dreyer shortened the parenthetical comment to read "h2076 p". This is just enough different that it may have thrown both RC1 and RNGC off the trail; both noted it as identical to N6908. </object> <object><oname>NGC6914</oname>is the northern-most of three similar nebulae, probably all reflection nebulae -- the show up best on the POSS1 blue plate. Interestingly, the area on the red plate is dominated by a large HII region, centered 20-30 arcmin to the northeast of N6914. Are the reflection nebulae part of the same system of gas and dust, or are they merely superposed along the line of sight? I suspect the former, but of course can't say for sure. </object> <object><oname>NGC6923</oname><oname>IC5004</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6925</oname>may also be IC5015, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC6928</oname><oname>IC1325</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6930</oname><oname>IC1326</oname>. See IC1325 = NGC6928. </object> <object><oname>NGC6933</oname>is usually taken as the double star centered a few arcsec northeast of Schultz's position. However, it is clear from Schultz's detailed note in his monograph that his object is actually the single southwestern star of the pair. He says of his object that it "... forms an elongated triangle with 2 stars north: star 9.5 mag preceding, star 10 mag following." His position, from 11 settings in RA and 8 in Dec on two different nights, agrees exactly with that measured on the DSS. The identification with the single star is not in doubt. Why did Schultz think it nebulous, though? His notes on the sky conditions give us clues. On 14 September 1865, his note reads, "Strong gale; images very unsteady," while on 26 August 1867, he has, "Aurora; sky first very fine, soon clouding." However, his description of the nebula itself reads, "Nebula is nearly stellar, its nebulous atmosphere scarcely perceptible; yet it looks quite differently from the surrounding stars, and has a peculiarly flickering light." By the time Schultz found this object, he was an experienced observer. His description reminds me of several of JH's descriptions of "nebulous atmospheres" around stars, stars which today show no sign at all of any accompanying nebulosity. </object> <object><oname>NGC6938</oname>is probably the scattered group of stars about a minute of time following WH's single position from 18 July 1784. There is a small core about 5 arcmin by 3 arcmin at the eastern end of a larger elongated grouping 18 arcmin by 8 arcmin -- both of these are clearly seen on the red POSS1, and both are elongated in the same position angle (about 105-110 degrees). On the blue POSS1, the small core is southeast of the center of a poorly-defined, nearly circular grouping of stars about 20 arcmin across. Even though JH saw the cluster (if that is what it is) twice, he was clearly not impressed. His first observation has no RA and only an approximate Dec. His description reads, "Very poor. The large star taken but carelessly, as it offers no interest." He did better the second time with a well-determined RA, but still only an approximate Dec, 3 arcmin south of his first estimate. He also misidentifies the cluster as "VII. 17" rather than "VIII. 17" as it properly is. </object> <object><oname>NGC6950</oname>looks like a good, if scattered, cluster on the POSS1 prints. It was seen by both WH and JH, and their positions and descriptions agree. Still, no one has included it in a cluster catalogue, and RNGC has it as not found. I suspect, though, that it could be easily dug out with a six- or eight-inch telescope. </object> <object><oname>NGC6951</oname><oname>NGC6952</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6952</oname><oname>NGC6951</oname>. Credited to Coggia, N6952 is clearly N6951 with a 20 arcmin error in its declination. The description is exactly right, and the note of a 15th magnitude star close following is also correct. Denning was apparently the first to notice the identity, but the note in IC1 gives the impression that it is the position for N6951 that is wrong. Dreyer corrects this in the IC2 Notes, but does not give a source. I suspect it is Herbert Howe's micrometric position that Dreyer is indirectly citing. I've not yet traced Coggia. Dreyer gives no clues in the introduction to the NGC, nor do I recall running across Coggia's name before. Any information would be welcomed. </object> <object><oname>NGC6953</oname>may be the group of five or six faint stars 17 seconds west of Swift's place noted by Howe and Bigourdan, and copied into the IC2 Notes. Or it may be the similar grouping of 12-15 stars three minutes of time east of Swift's position. There is no galaxy nearby. Swift found his object the same night as he found NGC6951 (see NGC6952 = NGC 6951 for another observation in the area), so we might expect that the same relative offsets might apply to both objects and lead us to the correct object for N6953. When we do this, however, we find that N6951 is east of Swift's position, while the sparser group of stars is west. So, I'm not even sure that the Howe/Bigourdan group is the correct identification. The number is flagged with a colon in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC6959</oname> This is a galaxy in the NGC6962 group. Discovered by Lord Rosse or his observer (though incorrectly credited to Bigourdan in NGC), and measured by Bigourdan, the resulting accurate position pinpoints it exactly as object "a" in Lord Rosse's sketch. </object> <object><oname>NGC6960</oname> NGC6974, NGC6979, NGC6992, NGC6995, and IC1340 are all part of the Veil Nebula, the wonderful supernova remnant in Cygnus. The various parts are so large, and most of them so bright, that the generally poor positions in the NGC don't matter. Only the position for NGC6974 (which see) is completely off its intended part of the nebulosity. WH describes his "front-view" (what we now call the Herschelian focus of a reflecting telescope) in a note to his observation of NGC6960. He writes that at the Newtonian focus the nebula extended one degree acorss the sky, while at the Herschelian focus, it stretched twice as far. He is clearly extremely pleased with the performance of his telescope in its "front-view" configuration, but I expect that the additional awkwardness in using it drove him to the Newtonian focus for most of his sweeping. In the IC2 Notes for NGC6992, Dreyer paraphrases a short note by Pickering (at the end of an article in ApJ 23, 257, 1906) which describes the appearance of the entire Veil as seen on a 24-inch Bruce plate of 4 hours exposure. Unfortunately, Pickering chose to not publish the photograph; it would have made an impressive plate in this early ApJ paper. </object> <object><oname>NGC6961</oname> The identification is not sure. Since it is credited to Lord Rosse in the NGC, Dreyer apparently intended that the number apply to one of the five brightest objects in the N6962 group. However, Dreyer's own measurement (with Lord Rosse's telescope) on 23 August 1876 points at one of the fainter galaxies in the area. In addition, he claims that this object was found by d'Arrest, though he gives d'Arrest credit for NGC6966 in the NGC. Micrometric positions by Bigourdan and Kobold agree with the one by Dreyer, so I've taken the measured galaxy -- located between those labeled "a" (N6959) and "d" (N6962) in Lord Rosse's diagram -- as N6961, rather than any of the brighter galaxies to the north. The evidence is contradictory, however, so I can't insist that this interpretation is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC6962</oname>is the brightest in a group of 8-10 galaxies in Aquarius. It and the second brightest galaxy here, NGC6964, were found by William Herschel, and remeasured by John Herschel. Of all the galaxies in the group, these two are the only ones with absolutely positive identifications. The others (N6959, N6961, N6963, N6965, N6966, N6967, I5057, I5058, and I5061) have all been misidentified at one time or another. I think that I've sorted out the mess as well as it can be, but the published record remains contradictory for a couple of the objects. See the separate discussions of the other NGC and IC numbers for more details. </object> <object><oname>NGC6963</oname>is a double star found by Bigourdan just northwest of NGC6965 with which it is often confused. Bigourdan has two accurate measurements that point exactly to the double, and he also gives offsets to five neighboring objects in his remarks. All of these can be easily and positively identified with nearby stars or galaxies, so there is no question about this identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC6964</oname>is the second brightest galaxy in the N6962 group. See NGC6962 for a general discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC6965</oname><oname>IC5058</oname>. This is the northern-most of the brighter galaxies in the NGC6962 group. It was first found by Lord Rosse in 1857, and labeled "b" in his diagram. Unfortunately, it was apparently not seen again until Bigourdan went through the area a fifth time in 1891. Thus, the NGC position was apparently estimated by Dreyer from the diagram, and is not good enough to unambiguously identify the object. Bigourdan's entry under the number simply says "I can't see anything at the place indicated by Lord Rosse." He searched for it only once in August 1885. However, Bigourdan actually did see NGC6965. It appears in his fourth list of new nebulae under the number Big 436, so received the number IC5058. He has four measurements of it, so the position in the IC is good. That the object really is NGC6965 could perhaps be questioned as we have only Lord Rosse's sketch to rely on. However, it is one of the brighter objects in the area, and the diagram is good enough to support the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC6966</oname>is a double star. It is credited in the NGC to d'Arrest (incorrectly) and Bigourdan who provides an accurate position for it. d'A probably saw one of the brighter galaxies near NGC6962 rather than this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC6967</oname> The eastern-most galaxy in the NGC6962 group has been correctly identified by most catalogues except MCG and UGC which called it "NGC6965." This error, combined with the correct identification in CGCG, led RC3 to include two entries for the galaxy, both, fortunately, under the correct number. See the RC3 errata paper for the correct data, which I summarize in the main table here. </object> <object><oname>NGC6968</oname>is not IC5062, which see. Bigourdan saw and measured the two objects on the same night. </object> <object><oname>NGC6973</oname>and NGC6980 are both stars near the NGC6976/6977/6978 triplet. Bigourdan thought the stars slightly nebulous, so listed them among his "novae." His positions are excellent and identify the stars exactly. </object> <object><oname>NGC6974</oname>was found by the fourth earl of Rosse, and is clearly part of the Veil Nebula (see N6960 for general comments on this huge supernova remnant). However, LdR's nominal position for it falls in a pretty empty patch of sky inside the main loop, well away from any bright nebulosity. Bigourdan found no nebulosity here, either. RNGC, however, suggests that the number applies to a moderately bright patch on the northern side of the loop, southwest of NGC6979, just a degree north of the nominal position. This is as good an idea as any about the object, but LdR's description does not match very well. LdR simply says, "Nebulous *, neby cE pf, RA = 20h 45.5m, NPD = 59d 50'+-." The part of the Veil that I've chosen has no clear star associated with it, and is not obviously extended in any particular direction, let alone east-west. I've marked the identification uncertain. Another, less likely, possibility is that N6974 is one of the 20 or so observations of NGC6960 made with the 72-inch reflector. In this case, the position error would be in RA (5 minutes too large), and the description would have to read "cE ns." The star would be Kappa Cygni which JH took for the position of NGC6960. I offer this as just a possibility, however; as I said, I'm inclined to think that the RNGC identification is more likely to be correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC6975</oname><oname>NGC6976</oname>. Even Bigourdan, who "found" NGC6975, admits that it is identical to N6976. Here is a free translation of his comment: "Does not exist. Because of an error of 180 degrees in the position angle estimate, Big 88 (= N6975) was thought to be new. It is identical to N6976." The RNGC is wrong. RC3 is also. </object> <object><oname>NGC6976</oname><oname>NGC6975</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC6977</oname> See NGC6973. </object> <object><oname>NGC6978</oname> See NGC6973. </object> <object><oname>NGC6979</oname>is a part of the Veil Nebula. WH's position for it is not particularly good, and points to a relatively faint piece of the supernova remnant. However, 7-8 arcmin to the southwest is a brighter piece that he could well have seen. I've taken this as NGC6979. See NGC6960 for more on the Veil. </object> <object><oname>NGC6980</oname>is a star. See NGC6973. </object> <object><oname>NGC6985</oname> RC3 follows Skiff in placing this galaxy at 20 42 19.1 -11 17 14. This is correct, and my earlier "correction" was itself incorrect by one minute. Sorry about that (sigh). </object> <object><oname>NGC6989</oname>is listed as non-existent in RNGC. However, it seems to be a grouping in the northern reaches of the North America Nebula looking pretty much as WH saw it, "A large cluster of pretty small stars of several sizes." I put the position within a minute or two of WH's position, and make the diameter 8' by 8'. This may not, however, be a real cluster, but simply a random group of stars in the rich Milky Way field. And it may not be the object that WH saw. JH looked for his father's cluster, VIII 82, twice, once saying only "Viewed. A mere clustering portion of the Milky Way," without determining a position for it. The second night, he makes it a "Coarse, poor, pretty large cluster; stars small." He determined a position for it then, but it is 2 minutes, 15 seconds of time east, and 12.5 arcmin north of his father's position. So, when it came time to prepare the GC, he made two separate clusters out of the observations he had at hand. Since there are "clustering portions of the Milky Way" at both positions, I've kept JH's separate entries as they appear in GC and NGC. The other entry is NGC6996, which see. NGC6997 is a third cluster, probably a real one, in the North America Nebula. See its discussion for even more information. </object> <object><oname>NGC6991</oname> WH and JH saw two different clusters; JH mistakenly included them in GC under a single number. Dreyer, of course, followed GC for the NGC. I've included both in the table, so you get to choose which one you want. Here are the stories to help you along: WH describes his object as "A star 6 m surrounded by considerable stars forming a brilliant scattered cluster; the large star not in the middle, but following." His position is a couple of arcmin south of the bright star, but there is no mistaking the group that he saw. There is also some nebulosity on the preceding side of the cluster, but it is faint enough that neither of the Herschels saw it. JH has two observations of his cluster, which is smaller, fainter, perhaps a bit richer, and southwest of his father's. The first reads, "A star 11 m. The last of that magnitude in an irregular triangular cluster 6' diameter; poor and straggling." His second, from his next sweep, says simply, "A star 9 m; the largest of a cluster." His positions point pretty accurately to the stars he mentions, and his cluster is just as clear as his father's. But -- just as clearly -- the two clusters are not the same. Choose one if you wish. I'll take both. </object> <object><oname>NGC6992</oname>is part of the Veil Nebula. See NGC6960 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>NGC6993</oname>may be ESO 529-G011. Found by Leavenworth in the first seasons of observing with the 26-inch at Leander McCormick, its nominal position is particularly bad -- nearly 6 minutes of time and 13 arcmin off if the identity with the ESO galaxy is correct. Leavenworth's sketch more or less supports this notion, with the stars shown roughly in their right places with respect to the galaxy. Both the galaxy and the sketch also support his description of a small, bright nucleus surrounded by a fainter envelope. </object> <object><oname>NGC6994</oname>= M 73 is an asterism of four fairly bright stars. The Hipparcos data suggest that they are at different distances, so this is one of THE prototypical asterisms. </object> <object><oname>NGC6995</oname>is part of the Veil Nebula. The position I've chosen is more or less for the middle of the nebulous complex shown in JH's sketch, published as Figure 82 in his 1833 Slough Catalogue. He probably saw the knot we now call IC1340 (which see) as well. Though it is off the southwest side of the sketch, the entire panel of the figure is filled with nebulosity, and I'm pretty sure that JH could have traced the nebula well beyond the boundaries he chose to include in his drawing. See NGC6960 for more discussion of the Veil. </object> <object><oname>NGC6996</oname> This is a loose cluster, or rich region of the Milky Way, in the northern part of the North America Nebula. It has often been confused with NGC6997 (which see) in the cluster catalogues, but the position from JH's single observation seems to be pretty good. However, JH was actually looking for his father's VIII 82, which eventually entered the catalogues as NGC6989 (which see). As I note there, the positions that JH had when he was pulling together the GC are far enough apart that he made two different clusters out of the observations. I (1970, Griffith Observer) and Brent Archinal (1993, "non-existent" RNGC clusters monograph) present observations and further discussions of these objects. </object> <object><oname>NGC6997</oname>is a real cluster immersed in the "East Coast" part of the North America Nebula. Several of the cluster catalogues have confused it with NGC 6996, but the GC/NGC position, from a single observation by WH, is pretty good. As with NGC6996, I (1970) and Brent (1993) have further discussions and observations. Reinmuth and Bigourdan pretty much agree with these assessments of the three clusters (N6989, N6996, and N6997) involved in the North America Nebula. And they wrote their descriptions long before Brent and I did, independently, and from different observing techniques. ===== NGC7000, the North America Nebula. WH saw only the brightest southern-most portion of this huge emission region, "Central America." JH was uncertain if his father had in fact seen the same nebulosity as he did, as WH's position is nearly a degree south of his own (I put the approximate center even further north than JH did). The most detailed part of WH's description makes JH's question even more relevant: "7 or 8 arcmin long, 6 arcmin broad ..." It's no wonder that WH's number ended up in the NGC followed by a question mark. There are a couple of minor mysteries about this nebula. WH claims only one observation of it in his published catalogue, as does JH in his. Yet, in GC, JH has the total number of observations by himself and his father as "3." In addition, JH claims in his observation that the "RA [is] that of V. 37 from working list, not being settled by the observation." However, the RA he quotes is nearly a minute of time larger than WH's published RA. The RA that JH adopts for GC is not quite a mean of the two values, but is closer to WH's original. I wonder if WH had another observation that somehow was skipped when it came time for publication. </object> <object><oname>NGC7010</oname><oname>IC5082</oname>. John Herschel's declination is 10 arcmin too far south. Howe pointed this out, and his correct position was copied into the IC2 notes by Dreyer. At about the same time, Bigourdan scanned the field looking for N7010. The object which he points to as the NGC object is a star (GSC 05779-00648). He did rediscover the galaxy, however, and measured the correct position for it on three different nights. Dreyer unfortunately failed to notice that Bigourdan's position and Howe's for N7010 are identical to within the mutual errors. So, he listed Bigourdan's object as IC5082. </object> <object><oname>NGC7011</oname>is most likely the V-shaped group of about 15 stars 2-3 arcmin northwest of JH's position. While he gives no more information than a position and the brief non-description, "A cluster. No further description," the group is very eye-catching on the DSS. There are a few other stars scattered around it that might add to its "eye appeal" during a sweep. Wolfgang also picked this same group when he looked at the field. So, I've adopted the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC7023</oname>is an impressive diffuse nebula in Cygnus, made more so by the obscuring dark cloud surrounding it. It makes a fine sight in a six-inch which will not see deeply enough to pick up what faint stars there are scattered around the nebula -- it appears to stand alone in a large void in the sky. There is no difficulty with the identification, though I am curious as to why JH did not pick it up. The NGC entry is based on a single observation by his father. </object> <object><oname>NGC7024</oname> Even though RNGC claims non-existence for this cluster, it is a very nice object of about 30 stars close to the NGC position. The diameter on the DSS is about 8' x 8', and the brightest stars are around 11th magnitude, not far off JH's estimate of 10. </object> <object><oname>NGC7025</oname> See NGC7028. </object> <object><oname>NGC7028</oname> This may be lost. There is certainly no nebula near Marth's place, even though he claims to have verified the object. The closest candidate object is a triple star well to the southwest. Since there is no large systematic offset (in Marth's positions from the modern positions) for the other four objects that he found the same night (N7025, N7033, N7034, and N7056), I don't believe that the triple is Marth's object. A possible candidate is CGCG 448-039. It matches Marth's scanty description (very faint, small, very little extended), and the declination is the same, but the RA is over 2.5 minutes of time off. However, the large non-digit difference makes the identity difficult to accept, so I've put a question mark on it in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC7033</oname> See NGC7028. </object> <object><oname>NGC7034</oname> See NGC7028. </object> <object><oname>NGC7036</oname> Claimed "non-existent" in RNGC, this cluster is clearly seen on DSS and the POSS1 prints. I put the center about 4 arcmin south of JH's position, but otherwise it matches JH's brief description: "A scattered cluster of small stars." There are about 20 stars in the cluster scattered over an area of about 8 arcmin by 5 arcmin. </object> <object><oname>NGC7037</oname> JH describes this cluster as "... not very rich; irregular figure, 8' l[ong], 5' br[oad]; stars 11 ... 15 m." This is just the sort of cluster that exists at his position. There is also a more compact "core" of stars a couple of minutes to the northeast (I put this core at 21 08 55, +33 33.8 for 1950.0) that JH does not mention. In any case, JH's cluster is clear on the DSS. RNGC nevertheless has it as non-existent. </object> <object><oname>NGC7039</oname>is a very large cluster about 20 arcmin long and 7 arcmin wide. Though JH says it is "Extended from nf to sp," it is actually extended from the southwest (sp) to the northeast (nf). I suspect this is a simple error on JH's part, though visual observers might want to have a look at the cluster to be sure. The position that JH gives is for SAO 50547 on the northeastern edge of the cluster. On POSS1, DSS, and GSC, there are two overlapping concentrations of stars within the cluster. The position in the main table is for a point midway between the centers of these concentrations. </object> <object><oname>NGC7040</oname> The faint galaxy near Harrington's position does not match Dreyer's summarized description "eF, vL, mE ns," so I was originally inclined to believe that Harrington might have seen another object. Thanks to Brian Skiff, I have recently seen the original note in AN 2479. It reads in full, "New Nebula, by M. W. Harringtion, Director of the Observatory, Ann Arbor, Mich. I wish to put on record a nebula which I found Aug. 18th of this year and which I believe to be new. Its position is RA. 21h 7m 34s Decl. N. 8d 25m. It is 67s preceding and 12' north of Argelander 8d 4632. It is so faint that I can only see it after resting my eyes in the dark a few moments. It is about 3' long by half that in bredth and is extended nearly north and south, the northern end preceding a little. Ann Arbor 1882 Oct. 31." This makes it clear that Harrington really did see the galaxy. The extension along the north-northwest/south-southeast direction is almost certainly due to the line of faint stars on the southern side of the galaxy. For the record, Harrington overstates the galaxy's size -- he must have included the line of stars to the south. However, his the offsets (for J2000.0) from the BD star are 62.2 seconds and 12 arcmin 20 arcsec, close to his estimates. </object> <object><oname>NGC7042</oname> See NGC7043. </object> <object><oname>NGC7043</oname>is very close to Marth's place northeast of NGC7042. Reinmuth, however, lists N7043 as "Not found." I found, though, that he has the note in parentheses which indicates that the only plate available to him showing the object was less than optimal in some respect -- underexposed, or the object was near the edge of the plate, or perhaps covered by a defect, etc. His description of N7042, considerably brighter and including the note "difficult," is also in parentheses, so I am no longer surprised that N7043 did not show up on the plate. </object> <object><oname>NGC7045</oname>is a double star. JH says of it "eF; field feebly illuminated by moon, but I remained satisfied of its reality." He has only this single observation of it in Sweep 79. His position is only 30 arcsec north of the pair of stars, so the identification is pretty certain. Spitaler first identified the object as the double. Dreyer noted in the NGC that d'A failed to find the object on two nights. The pair was either too faint for his telescope, or he dismissed them as being obviously stellar. A curiosity: Bigourdan has six observations of the double on two different nights, and apparently thought it nebulous on both nights. He used it as the comparison object for his estimated positions for IC5097 and IC5098 (both of which see). </object> <object><oname>NGC7048</oname> There are several stars and faint knots "in" the interior of this planetary. Most of the stars are only optical companions along our line of sight to the nebula. One, however -- clearly seen on the DSS2B image and no other -- is the central star. I've adopted the position of this star. Just east of this on the DSS2R image is a tight group of faint knots; the star has disappeared from this R-band image. </object> <object><oname>NGC7050</oname>is another of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. However, close to JH's position, there is a group of about 15 12th to 15th magnitude stars scattered over an area about 5 arcmin by 2 arcmin. Even though JH left no description for his cluster, the group stands out from the field well enough that it is almost certainly the sparce swarm of stars that he saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC7054</oname>is another lost object. Found by Stephan, its position is the same in both the AN and MNRAS lists in which it appears. The comparison star also has the same position in both lists; that position is about an arcsecond off the GSC position. But no nebulosity or asterism exists at Stephan's position, or at the positions implied by sign errors in the offset. Furthermore, a search of the POSS1 prints shows no nearby star with an obvious nebula at the correct offset. Jim Caplan finds no trace of NGC7054 in Esmiol's 1916 monograph, so this object has to be listed simply as "not found." </object> <object><oname>NGC7056</oname><oname>IC1382</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC7028. </object> <object><oname>NGC7074</oname>is a double galaxy about 6 arcmin south of its nominal position. Both Bigourdan and Spitaler noted the displacement, but neither commented on the fact that this is one of Marth's "verified" nebulae. I'm a bit surprised that one of these is so far off its nominal position -- but there it is. Bigourdan has two additional objects (IC5112 and 5113, which see) near N7074's nominal position, but both of these are either single stars or asterisms. </object> <object><oname>NGC7084</oname> JH calls this simply "A coarse scattered cluster." There is nothing obvious at his position, but about 30 seconds following there is indeed a cluster matching his description. JH has noted that the positions from the early sweeps are often untrustworthy, and this seems to be an example. Examining this on the POSS1 shows that it extends on to the north and east from the core that JH apparently saw. The overall size is 18 arcmin by 16 arcmin, while the core is 10 arcmin by 9 arcmin. This cluster stands out pretty well on the POSS prints, so RNGC's "no cluster" is a bit surprising. </object> <object><oname>NGC7088</oname>does not exist, even though around a dozen sightings have been reported of it in the literature, including one by Dreyer himself in the NGC Notes. The nominal position, from Baxendell, is about half a degree north of M2 (NGC7089), but there is nothing there but faint field stars. About half a degree on to the northwest of the NGC position is a 1.5 degree long streak of interstellar "cirrus", dust well above the plane of the Galaxy reflecting the light of the Galactic disk back to us (see IC336 for some of these dust clouds that are definitely in the catalogues). The cirrus is most easily visible in the IRAS 100-micron ISSA images of the area, though it also shows up in the 12-, 25-, and 60-micron images, and on the POSS1 prints, AND on the IIIa-J film copies of the latest optical surveys from Palomar and Siding Spring. While I suppose it is just vaguely possible that this may be Baxendell's object, his clear description of a southern boundary just 7 arcmin north of M2, and of a nearly round shape, almost certainly rules this out. The IRAS 100-micron images in particular show a "hole" in the dust north of M2, just the opposite of what we'd expect if the nebula were real. My own feeling about this object is that it may have been a reflection of some other object (perhaps even M2) within Baxendell's telescope or eyepiece, and that later observations are similar illusions simply "wished" into existence (see NGC2529 and NGC2531 for a discussion of two other such objects). Also see NGC1990 where an apparently similarly illusory nebula has been seen around a bright star. </object> <object><oname>NGC7089</oname> Shawl and White's position, though correctly copied from their 1986 list, is apparently 2 seconds of time too large. The cluster's image on both POSS1 and POSS2, though burned out in the center, is elongated and symmetric about a position 33 arcsec west of the Shawl/White position. I suspect a typo in their table. Also see NGC7088. </object> <object><oname>NGC7091</oname><oname>IC5114</oname>. JH found this on 1 September 1834, about 6 months after he began observing from the Cape of Good Hope. He says of it "... place considerably uncertain having been found when much past the meridian in searching in vain for Dunlop 561." The RA and NPD are both given only to full minutes of time in his CGH Observations. Unfortunately, he precesses this imprecise (and inaccurate) position to 1860 and gives it to 0.1 seconds of time and NPD in GC. The only indication that it is an approximate position is on the "Number of times observed by H and h" -- that is given as "1::". Dreyer either ignored or missed that, so the object came into the NGC with its position given nominal accuracy (1 second of time and 0.1 arcmin of NPD) and with no note. The galaxy is a good ways off JH's position (1m 20s preceding, 7.5 arcmin north), but can be positively identified by JH's note "It precedes a * 6m nearly in the parallel, about 40 seconds of time." Swift's position is even further off -- see the IC5114 entry for that story. </object> <object><oname>NGC7093</oname> JH does not tell us much about this cluster: "The chief star (9m) in a cluster of the 8th class. The double * No. 1660 of my fourth catalogue belongs to this cluster." The cluster is indeed little compressed and scattered, and is apparently centered about 2 arcmin south of JH's accurate position for the star. Visual confirmation would be desireable. </object> <object><oname>NGC7095</oname> The GC and NGC NPD's are wrong, probably copied by mistake from the NPD for NGC7097. JH's CGH observations have the correct NPD. I incorrectly equated NGC7095 and 7097 in the SGC, and ESO's two suggested identifications are also of course wrong. The correct object is ESO 027-G001 at 21 45 48, -81 45.9; this is PGC 67546 which is also in RC3. The NGC number should be attached to this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7096</oname><oname>IC5121</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7097</oname> See NGC7095. </object> <object><oname>NGC7098</oname> The incorrect RA from JH's CGH observations (it is 2 minutes too large, probably a simple reduction or clock reading error) has been copied into various catalogues all the way up to RC2. RC3 used the correct position from ESO. </object> <object><oname>NGC7100</oname>is a star at Bigourdan's position. Unfortunately, his position as first published -- and as copied into the NGC-- is 14 seconds too large in RA, and 3 arcmin too small in Dec. This, combined with a 6 arcmin error in Marth's Dec for NGC7101, has led several cataloguers to put the number 7100 on the galaxy that is properly called N7101. Marth's RA is correct and leads us to the right galaxy. The confusion began with Spitaler (copied into the IC1 and IC2 Notes), and continues today in UZC and LEDA. Bigourdan got the identifications correct, and his micrometric offsets -- when re-reduced -- lead to the correct objects. The identifications I've adopted are Bigourdan's. </object> <object><oname>NGC7101</oname> See NGC7100. </object> <object><oname>NGC7102</oname>is probably also IC5127, which see for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC7105</oname>is one of the Leander-McCormick nebulae found by Leavenworth; its nominal position is particularly bad. Fortunately, Leavenworth left a sketch so that we can positively identify the nebula with MCG -02-55-001, about 25 arcmin southeast of the nominal position. </object> <object><oname>NGC7112</oname><oname>NGC7113</oname>. Though Marth makes no mention of the star close west of the galaxy, there is little doubt that his object is the same as the one found by Swift 22 years later (Swift does mention the star). His position is just three arcmin north of the galaxy, and his description fits it well. A puzzle here is Howe's note: "A search on two nights failed to reveal this (NGC7112)." Swift's position is not that far off the galaxy (six seconds west and less than an arcmin north) and Howe has recovered many other of Swift's nebulae much further away from the nominal positions. Perhaps the star is close enough on the sky to the galaxy that its light swamped that of the much fainter galaxy. Another puzzle is why CGCG ignored the NGC description of NGC7112 with its note of the star and put the number on the fainter galaxy 4.2 arcmin to the south. My guess is that they had two NGC numbers at hand and two galaxies on the sky, and simply dumped the numbers on the galaxies without much thought. </object> <object><oname>NGC7113</oname><oname>NGC7112</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7114</oname>= Nova Cygni 1876 = Q Cyg. Dreyer included this in the NGC because -- as he mentions in the Notes -- "Mr. Lohse assets that it is surrounded by nebulosity." There is no nebulosity around the star on the POSS1, but given the presence of expanding shells around other novae, it is possible that Lohse could have seen one around this nova, too. However, I would have expected that it would not completely disperse in the 75 years from the time of its outburst to the time the POSS plates were taken. Today, the star is at 16th magnitude. Within the errors of measurement, its position is unchanged from its discovery position. </object> <object><oname>NGC7129</oname>is a diffuse nebula enveloping three pretty bright stars. Both Herschels described it the same, and JH measured the position angles and distances of the two flanking stars with respect to the brightest, more central southern one, BD +65 1638. His mean position for the nebula, adopted in GC and NGC, is for that star. Bigourdan apparently did not read JH's 1833 description before he examined the area in the 1884, 1889, and 1895. Bigourdan applied NGC7129 only to the patch of nebulosity to the northwest of JH's star C, the northeastern of the three stars. He also found a "new" nebula in 1895 around JH's star A, the south-central of the three. This now carries the number IC5134 (which see). Another "nova" from Bigourdan, NGC7133 (which see), was apparently an illusion as there is nothing near his place but faint stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC7130</oname><oname>IC5135</oname> (which see). JH's declination is 30 arcmin off. I suspect this is a transcription error with JH's minutes of NPD supposed to read "43" instead of "13". In any event, there is no question about the identification of the galaxy that JH saw. Would that that were true of Swift's "nova" as well ... </object> <object><oname>NGC7132</oname> Spitaler was the first to notice that Swift's RA of this galaxy is 22 seconds too large. However, Swift's description is not bad: "vF, pL, lE; bet 2 sts; 5 sts w? in the form of a pyramid. My memory locates the stars east of the nebula." Swift's memory is, however, wrong. The stars are to the west. </object> <object><oname>NGC7133</oname>does not exist. Bigourdan describes it as a "Pretty extended area, perhaps 2 arcmin across, in which I suspect some extremely faint nebulosity, at the extreme limit of visibility." There is nothing near his single micrometrically measured position but a few faint stars. My guess is that this is another of what he would call his "fausse images." </object> <object><oname>NGC7134</oname>is an arc of 4 stars 30 arcsec south of the 11th magnitude star mentioned in the NGC description. Howe (see the IC2 notes) was apparently the first to notice that there is no nebulosity associated with the astersim. </object> <object><oname>NGC7135</oname>appeared in Swift's 11th list (it is No. 209), but was saved from having an IC number given to it by Herbert Howe. Howe saw the star just preceding the object and the triangle of brighter stars also preceding, and realized that Swift's object must be the same as JH's. However, IC5136 turned up in Swift's 12th list with a description that makes it sound like yet another observation of this galaxy (see the IC note for more discussion on that object). Since NGC7130 is in the area, that and I5135 are also part of the mess that Swift made here. See those numbers for even more discussion. This, by the way, is one of the strangest galaxies in the sky, looking rather like a sting-ray, and having a lower surface brightness than a normal galaxy. It is probably the result of a recent collision; most of these pathological objects are. </object> <object><oname>NGC7136</oname>is probably a double star. There is nothing at Muller's crude place, but 3/4 minute east, there is the double (with two or three much fainter stars involved) with a fairly bright star following by 2 arcmin, just as Muller describes. Howe was the first to suggest this as Muller's object, and I've followed along for lack of anything better in the immediate area. A more extended search would be useful. </object> <object><oname>NGC7143</oname>is a curving line of five stars at JH's position. He suspected that the object might be a nebulous double star, but the Birr Castle observers saw no nebulosity here. Hence, Dreyer has a short note in the NGC saying that the object is probably only a very faint double. On the POSS1 and DSS, however, the asterism is a striking object, and I can easily see why JH picked it up while sweeping. His double star is probably the brighter northeastern pair; Wolfgang's position applies to this pair. Lord Rosse and his observers did talk about a small cluster in two of their observations, however, and I'm a bit surprised that Dreyer did not include a number in NGC for it. </object> <object><oname>NGC7148</oname>is a double star. Observed three times on two nights by d'A, its identity is pinned down not only by d'A's accurate absolute position, but also by his relative position to NGC7149 just 2.5 arcmin to the south. N7149 was observed the same three times on the same two nights, so there is no mistaking the identity of N7148 as anything but the double star. LEDA has nevertheless incorrectly taken a double galaxy, much too faint for d'A to have seen with his 11-inch telescope, as NGC7148. The galaxies are also well off the mean of d'A's three accordant positions. Tsk. </object> <object><oname>NGC7149</oname> See NGC7148. </object> <object><oname>NGC7150</oname>is an asterism of four or five stars found by Bond in February 1848 with the 15-inch Harvard refractor soon after it was installed. Though Bond describes it only as "A nebula," there is no nebulosity associated with the stars. Bond's position is good, so there is no doubt about the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC7155</oname><oname>IC5143</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7158</oname>is a triple star. It is precisely identified by Muller's note "* 9.5 PA = 40 deg, distance = 2.8 arcmin." Both Bigourdan and Howe found the object 0.6 minutes following a typically poor Leander McCormick position, and there it still is on the sky today. </object> <object><oname>NGC7161</oname>is apparently a group of three double stars about 2 arcmin south of d'A's position. However, his two descriptions are inconsistent, with only the second suggesting his object is a cluster. Both descriptions mention the 10th magnitude star 11 seconds preceding the object, and both also mention the two flanking 14th magnitude stars (though d'A puts them at 16th magnitude, a common occurance in the 19th century before good photometry was available). This object appeared first in GC thanks to a list of 125 new nebulae that d'A sent directly to JH; thus the entry "d'Arrest, 115" in GC. D'A next published a summary list of many of his novae in AN 1500. This object is number 194 there. Finally, when d'A's massive monograph appeared a few years later, the full observations finally appeared. Given the problem with the declination, I'm not completely happy with the identification. Reinmuth called the object simply a double star, and RNGC followed along. The brightest of the three pairs is the northern most, so I can see why it might be taken as d'A's object. The position I give, though, is a mean for all three -- but I'm not sure that this is the correct interpretation. Perhaps a complete translation of d'A's Latin notes would help. </object> <object><oname>NGC7164</oname> This galaxy is clearly identified by Leavenworth's comment, "4 vF stars north." This places it about two minutes of time west of its catalogued position, another example of the "standard offset" in the early Leander McCormick right ascensions. There is an interesting footnote to this NGC object in Bigourdan's unsuccessful search for it. See IC1415 for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC7175</oname>is probably part of the Milky Way. JH's position applies to "The chief * 9 m of a vL, loose clustering group which fills two fields, and is pretty rich of large stars." Checking the POSS1, I see such a grouping of a few dozen stars, roughly 30 arcmin by 20 arcmin, oriented pretty much east- west, and centered about 3 arcmin southwest of JH's 9th magnitude star. However, about 30 arcmin south is a smaller, sparcer, but much more obvious clustering of brighter stars. Years ago, I suggested that this might be JH's object. It is much too small, though, to "fill two fields" (30 arcmin), and JH's position is very close to the bright star he mentions. So, while his object is less obvious on the POSS, it is almost certainly the one he saw. </object> <object><oname>NGC7186</oname>is an asterism of at least eight stars about three arcmin southwest of WH's single position. Though he describes it as "5 or 6 stars forming a parallelogram with mixed nebulosity, verified 240," there is no nebulosity. Bigourdan and Reinmuth got the correct object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7190</oname> See IC1424. </object> <object><oname>NGC7193</oname> While this is another of RNGC's "non-existent" clusters, it is clearly seen on DSS and the POSS1 prints about 30 seconds preceding JH's position (he cautioned that many of the positions from early sweeps -- this is from Sweep 14 -- are unreliable). The core is a band of 11 stars, 6 arcmin by 1 arcmin, stretching from the northwest to the southeast. There are other stars scattered around it, primarily to the south and west. </object> <object><oname>NGC7201</oname> See NGC7202. </object> <object><oname>NGC7202</oname>is a star. JH has only one observation of it, though he swept the area three times. Interestingly, he never saw more than three objects in this field in any sweep, and picked up only two in one sweep. Nevertheless, he entered the group as four nebulae in GC, in spite of his descriptions clearly stating that there were only three nebulae in the area. Still, this is not a compact group, with N7201 and N7204 being separated by 13.5 arcmin, so he probably realized that he could have easily missed one. He stresses in a note that the RA is determined relative to NGC7203 -- he puts it exactly one second of time preceding. The declination difference also puts N7202 exactly 3.0 arcmin south, so I suspect that this, too, is a relative determination, perhaps a simple estimated distance. In any case, the object at the offset is a star; it matches JH's description ("eF, S, star like") as well. </object> <object><oname>NGC7203</oname> See NGC7202. </object> <object><oname>NGC7204</oname> See NGC7202. </object> <object><oname>NGC7210</oname>is lost. There are notes about it in GC and NGC. Dreyer has a note in LdR's 1880 monograph that the object is the only nebula found by JH in Sweep 103 (I scanned JH's 1833 list between 14 hours and 8 hours, and found no others). In addition, JH marked both RA and Dec with double colons; he apparently had reason to doubt the position. Finally, his north polar distance is one degree less in the 1833 list than it is in GC (Dreyer adopts the GC position for NGC) -- this was apparently not noticed by anyone who tried to find N7210. Unfortunately, there is nothing matching JH's description at either position. For the record, that description reads, "eF, R, bM, ill-defined; a vF double star 45 deg np 4 arcmin dist points just to it." I scanned the POSS1 prints for several degrees around JH's nominal position, but found no galaxy in the area with a faint double where JH placed it. So, even with two positions and a striking description, the object remains at large. </object> <object><oname>NGC7211</oname> Marth's RA is exactly 1 minute of time too large. There is nothing at his given position, and the galaxy a minute preceding his position matches his description exactly. </object> <object><oname>NGC7226</oname> Holden describes this as a "pB Neb connected with a small cluster of stars which radiate in two streams from f to p side. Diam of neb 5', of cl 15', np in p = 315 deg is a small knot which may be nebulous." His "neb" is actually a small cluster, and the "knot" is composed of only four stars. The two streams of stars, pretty clearly visible on the DSS, are probably random field stars. If they are in fact a cluster, the size is about 10 arcmin by 7 arcmin. </object> <object><oname>NGC7234</oname><oname>NGC7235</oname>. N7234 was found by WH. Reducing his observation as given in Dreyer's 1912 Collected Papers gives a position considerably different from the one given in GC and NGC. Auwer's reduced position agrees with the correctly reduced one, so this must be an error in CH's reduction of her brother's data. In any event, the correct position lands right on NGC7235 found by JH who did not record anything at his aunt's position for N7234. </object> <object><oname>NGC7235</oname><oname>NGC7234</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7238</oname>is lost. Swift describes it as "pF, S, R, mbM; 4 sts in form of a square nr p." There is nothing like this for several degrees around his position on the POSS1 prints (I haven't yet looked at larger distances: one hour east or west, 10 or 20 degrees north or south). There is little systematic offset in the positions of the other objects he found the same night, though several have large RA errors (10 or 20 seconds of time), and one (NGC716 = IC1743) has a large declination error. So, lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC7242</oname> See IC5195. </object> <object><oname>NGC7245</oname> Pulling this cluster up on the DSS, I wondered at first if the somewhat richer, but more distant cluster at 22 13 37.4, +54 09 38 (King 9) might have been seen by one of the Herschels. However, reducing both their positions to B1950.0 makes it clear that they both saw the same, nearer, poorer cluster: both positions are within an arcminute of the center as I see it on the DSS. </object> <object><oname>NGC7246</oname><oname>IC5198</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7253</oname>is an interacting double system with a bridge between the galaxies, plumes streaming off both, and lots of dust. In the blue, the brightest parts of the galaxies are knots in the disrupted arms. The images smooth over quite a bit in the red, but in the near-infrared, the two galaxies appear almost normal -- thin bulges evenly rising to bright nuclei. It is these bright nuclei that I have preserved as the positions for the two objects, with one of the bright knots in the southeastern object as an optical highlight. </object> <object><oname>NGC7255</oname> This object is positively identified with Leavenworth's sketch. RC3 is correct. </object> <object><oname>NGC7261</oname> JH's cluster is probably the scattered group of pretty bright stars, stretching nearly north-south across an area 15' by 10', about 20 seconds preceding his position for the bright star on its following edge. There is a smaller core (7' by 5') of generally fainter stars about five arcminutes north-northeast of the center of the larger group. Is this perhaps a background cluster? </object> <object><oname>NGC7268</oname>is correctly identified by ESO-LV, which means that the NGC RA is about 1 min off. The galaxy is double. Also see the SGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC7281</oname> JH's position is about 30 seconds of time preceding the center of the cluster, but it is large enough (15' by 9') that the difference does not affect the identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC7283</oname> Found by Marth, there is nothing near his unverified position aside from a double star about two arcmin preceding. It's possible that he saw CGCG 452-017 a minute of time following his published position, but it would also be 2.5 arcmin north. I'm leaning toward the smaller positional error, but do not want to insist on the double. So, both objects are listed in the main table. </object> <object><oname>NGC7287</oname>may be the double star listed in the main table. This is Howe's identification for an object found by Frank Muller with the 26-inch refractor at Leander-McCormick. His description fits Muller's except for the magnitude: Muller makes his object 15.0, while Howe puts his at 11.5 + 11.5 for a total of 10.7! The position angles are the same, though: 150 deg (Muller runs it on around the circle to 330 deg), as are the separations at 6 arcsec. On the DSS, Howe's "double" is actually a triple in a line at PA = 145 deg, with the largest separation being about 12-13 arcsec. The magnitude, as nearly as I can judge it, is about half way between the two earlier estimates. So, this could well be Muller's object. However, Dreyer has an interesting note in IC2: "Ho[we] says that the RA is about 2 minutes too great, and that the object is only a F D*, dist 6 arcsec. But he must have found a different object, as Burnham (Lick Obs, ii, p. 180) [which I have not seen] without noticing any great error in RA, gives Pos 60 deg, Dist 20 arcsec, and states that the p one is undoubtedly a nebula, while the f one may be a star." Muller's published position falls in group of galaxies, one of which is a double with a star nearby roughly in the configuration noted by Burnham. I've included this in the main table, too, as it may be Burnham's object. This, too, could have been the object seen by Muller -- his telescope was certainly big enough to pull in the photons. But with Howe's stars being brighter, near the 2 minute RA offset shared by several other of the Leander-McCormick nebulae, and with their sharing the correct description with Muller's original observation, I'm more inclined toward them. Hence, they have only one query in the table, while the galaxies and star that Burnham may have seen have two question marks. </object> <object><oname>NGC7294</oname><oname>IC5225</oname>. The NGC RA is about 2 minutes of time off. It was first corrected by Howe who had nothing more to say about the object. However, the galaxy was also picked up by Lewis Swift in October of 1897 along with IC5226 (which see also). See IC5225 for more on Swift's observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC7295</oname><oname>NGC7296</oname>. The equality rests on the supposition of a 30 arcminute error in JH's position for NGC7295. JH himself suggests the identity in his 1833 list, noting h2163 as "VII. 41?". His description ("A Milky Way straggler; a poorish cluster of stars 12 ... 13m."), though scanty, matches N7296, so I'm adopting the identity. </object> <object><oname>NGC7296</oname><oname>NGC7295</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7300</oname>is probably also IC5204, which see for the story. </object> <object><oname>NGC7302</oname><oname>IC5228</oname>. See IC5204 for the details. </object> <object><oname>NGC7303</oname>is not = NGC7304 as is sometimes stated, nor is it the double star (= Big. 452, but not in IC2 as Dreyer had noted the stellar character of the pair in 1875 while observing with LdR's Leviathan) southwest of the galaxy. It is the galaxy found by JH, and is clearly identified as such by d'Arrest who saw N7304 (which see for more) only once. </object> <object><oname>NGC7304</oname>does not exist. It was seen only once by d'A who put it 137 arcsec away from NGC7303. He looked for it the second time that he observed N7303, but could not find it again. There are no objects, not even single stars, in the area where d'A put it that one night. For a while, I thought that the asterism of three stars 168 arcsec northeast of N7303 might be d'A's object, but these are very faint stars. Observing the area with a telescope larger than d'A's, Bigourdan tried and failed on three nights to find N7304. Dreyer, using the largest telescope in the world, could not find N7304 in spite of having "... looked most attentively for ..." it. All the observers had no problems with N7303 (which see for more). </object> <object><oname>NGC7308</oname><oname>IC1448</oname>. The poor position from the first Leander-McCormick list led Javelle to overlook the NGC number. Herbert Howe, however, caught the mistake and correctly identified the galaxy. It is about 40 seconds of time east and 3 arcmin north of Leavenworth's position. A sketch would not have helped to identify this as Leavenworth correctly notes, "No star in field." </object> <object><oname>NGC7325</oname>is a close double star north preceding a slightly fainter single star. There can be no question as to the identity: Schultz's accurate position pinpoints the object he was looking at, and Lord Rosse's observer's offsets (distance and position angle) land on exactly the same object. The RNGC is of course wrong (RNGC7325 is a relatively bright star superimposed on a much fainter galaxy). </object> <object><oname>NGC7326</oname>is, like NGC7325 (which see), a close double star, though somewhat fainter. It is almost directly west of the nucleus of NGC7331. Again, the distance and P.A. measured with the 72-inch at Birr Castle pinpoint the double; and again, RNGC is wrong. </object> <object><oname>NGC7327</oname> unfortunately, is one of those "....many novae merely alluded to in (Tempel's) published notes." A rough translation by me of what Tempel has to say about N7327 in his published article doesn't really help much, but here it is: "Of my eight companions [to N7331], Lord Rosse has still not seen two; one [N7338, which see] is located in the middle of the four brighter companions following, closer to the two southern objects; while the eighth [N7327] precedes the northern end of the spindle." That is it. Tempel gives no accurate positions or offsets, so all we have are the numbers published in the NGC to lead us to the area. There is nothing in the immediate vicinity but stars. However, about 4 arcmin northwest is a compact galaxy with a star superposed (I think the object is the one that RNGC incorrectly chose for N7325, which see) that might have been within range of Tempel's telescope. I've chosen it as a possibility for his object. However, there are four stars scattered around the NGC position. The brightest is 1.5 arcmin southwest, the faintest is 1.1 arcmin north-northeast, and the intermediate stars are 0.9 arcmin southeast and 0.9 arcmin east- northeast. One of these is taken to be N7327 in RC1, MCG, and RNGC. Given that so many of Tempel's new "nebulae" in other fields (see, e.g. NGC4322 and NGC4768/9) are stars or asterisms, it is actually more likely that one of these stars is his object than the galaxy that I give in the table. But which one? So, I put them all in the table with question marks everywhere. </object> <object><oname>NGC7331</oname> See NGC7327 and NGC7335. </object> <object><oname>NGC7333</oname>is a single star. Again, Schultz's accurate RA and Dec make the identification absolutely certain. The double star mentioned in the RNGC is taken directly from Carlson's 1940 article in Ap. J. Carlson misquotes Reinmuth (who got the right object, but called it a "nebulous star 15, star 14 p 0.7 arcmin)" as noting a double star. So, I suppose that we could say that the RNGC is half right in this case. </object> <object><oname>NGC7335</oname> 7336, 7337, and 7340 are correctly identified by just about everybody except the Lick astronomers who, as Steve Gottlieb notes, have thoroughly mangled the identifications in the area of NGC7331. </object> <object><oname>NGC7336</oname> See NGC7335. </object> <object><oname>NGC7337</oname> See NGC7335. </object> <object><oname>NGC7338</oname> the second of Tempel's two objects in the area of NGC7331, is most likely the double star about 3' sf N7335. Tempel notes that it is closer to the two southern galaxies following N7331 than to the two northern ones, even though the position that Dreyer quotes is a bit off. </object> <object><oname>NGC7340</oname> See NGC7335. </object> <object><oname>NGC7348</oname> See NGC7350. </object> <object><oname>NGC7349</oname> I agree with Steve Gottlieb's identification. In the SGC, I note the position as being 1 deg off. </object> <object><oname>NGC7350</oname>and NGC7353 are two of a trio of nebulae discovered by Marth in August 1864. The third object, found the same night as N7350 and N7353, is N7348 and is the only one of the three listed near its discovery position in modern catalogues. N7350 is given as non-existent in RNGC which also suggests the galaxy at 22 37.1 +11 31 as N7353. RC3 accepted this identification. This, however, is incorrect as there is a faint galaxy close to Marth's position (22 38.9 +11 40) that he could have seen with Laselle's 48-inch reflector. N7350 is possibly a star with one or two faint companions, again near its discovery position. While the identification of NGC7350 is not secure, that for NGC7353 is. So, RC3 and RNGC got the wrong object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7352</oname> JH describes this as "A star 9-10m, chief of a p rich, vL, very coarse cluster." His position coincides with SAO 034672, but the "cluster," if it exists at all, is indeed "very coarse." I see nothing around the star that is at all eyecatching. Perhaps a sweep across the field with a telescope might draw out JH's object. There is, however, five minutes of time following JH's place, a more obvious clustering of stars scattered across an area about 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin. There are about 30 stars from the 9th to the 12th magnitudes. If this is the group that JH had in mind, his star is on the western edge of the group about two arcmin northwest of his position. This "cluster" is apparently not catalogued, and I suspect that it is merely a concentration of unrelated stars along the line of sight in the rich Milky Way field. I also think that it does not match JH's description of "very coarse." However, it, too, should be examined at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC7353</oname> See NGC7350. </object> <object><oname>NGC7355</oname> There is a one degree error in JH's CGH position that was copied faithfully into GC and NGC. The correct galaxy is pinned down, however, by JH's note about the double star 40 seconds following the galaxy. The double is there, and is bright enough that it might well be a noteworthy object on its own. </object> <object><oname>NGC7361</oname><oname>IC5237</oname>. JH's RA is just 2 minutes of time out. This is obviously a digit error as his NPD and description are correct. Curiously, Swift's RA is also about 2 minutes out, but in the other direction. See IC5237 for that story. </object> <object><oname>NGC7374</oname> See IC1452. </object> <object><oname>NGC7383</oname> See NGC7384. </object> <object><oname>NGC7384</oname>is a star about 5 arcmin southeast of NGC7383. Both objects were found by LdR; while N7383 has been measured, the only reference to N7384 in his monograph is in the sketch of the group around N7385 and N7386. Dreyer unfortunately got the offset wrong for his description of the object (for north following, read south following), but the position implies the right direction. However, having said all that, I have to say that there is not one star near the position, but five. These are spread over an area of one by two arcmin, and form two triangles with a single star at the common vertex in the middle of the group. It is this star that I've entered in the main table, but the "correct" object could be any of the others. </object> <object><oname>NGC7385</oname> See NGC7384. </object> <object><oname>NGC7386</oname> See NGC7384. </object> <object><oname>NGC7387</oname> See NGC7388. </object> <object><oname>NGC7388</oname>is a star 4.5 arcmin north-northeast of NGC7387. Unlike N7384 (which see), LdR has a micrometric measurement of N7388 with respect to N7387. In turn, he also measured two stars southeast of N7388. While not exact, the numbers he published are quite good enough to show that N7388 is not the faint galaxy another 1.5 arcmin on to the north. </object> <object><oname>NGC7394</oname>is a scattered group of pretty bright (9-11m) stars including JH's double. Stretched out in a ragged band 12 arcmin by 5 arcmin to the northwest is an extension to the core (8 arcmin by 5 arcmin) that JH describes: "A double star, the last of a poor cluster of about a dozen stars." I doubt that all this is a part of any physical cluster, but proper motions and photometry should tell us eventually. </object> <object><oname>NGC7403</oname>is a star, another of those mistaken for a nebula by the Harvard observers in the late 1850's. The NGC position is more accurate than that published in AN, and probably comes from the Harvard Zone catalogue. Dreyer's note in the first IC indicates some interest in the object, and shows that Coolidge was the only observer to suspect any nebulosity around the star. </object> <object><oname>NGC7404</oname><oname>IC5260</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7405</oname>is lost. Marth found this in August of 1864, describing it merely as "eF, S, R." Though his position was copied faithfully into the NGC, there are no galaxies nearby that Marth could have seen. The nearest object fitting his description that he could have picked up is NPM1G +12.0573, chosen by RNGC and Wolfgang Steinicke to carry the NGC number. However, it is 40 seconds of time preceding and 7 arcmin north of Marth's position, not an obvious error to make. Another candidate is CGCG 430-021 -- but that is even further away at 2 minutes 45 seconds of time preceding and 5 arcmin north. My own desperate, last-ditch, guess is that Marth picked up one of the faint stars nearer his position, but I have no idea which one. He found ten other nebulae that same night, but there is no significant systematic offset in his positions for them from the modern positions, and all are within 1.5 arcmin of his nominal positions. So, N7405 stands alone among them as unrecoverable. </object> <object><oname>NGC7413</oname>and NGC7414 are two nebulae found on 2 Sept 1886 by Lewis Swift. Both are entered in NGC as "eeF," "R," and "v diffic;" with N7413 being "pS" and "s of 2", and N7414 being "S" and "n of 2." This, and the positions, would imply a pair of similar galaxies, oriented north-south, separated by 2.5 arcmin. Curiously, Howe has two apparently independent observations of NGC7413 in which he corrects the position by 14 seconds of time. However, he does not mention NGC7414 in either observation. If the pair were nearly identical objects as the NGC implies, then I would have expected Howe to at least mention N7414 and give a correction to its RA, too. Turning to Swift's original paper, we find considerably different descriptions for the two objects. N7413 = Sw IV-87 is "eeF, pS, R, e diff; 8 or 10 sts in an irregular line p; s of 2." N7414 = Sw IV-88 is "eeeF, S, R, eee diff; n of 2." Given this, I find it considerably easier to believe in RNGC's choice of the very faint northeastern galaxy as N7414. NGC7413 does have the irregular line of stars preceding it, so this is pretty clearly Swift's object, even though his RA is well off. </object> <object><oname>NGC7414</oname> See NGC7413. </object> <object><oname>NGC7416</oname> See IC1376 and IC1528. </object> <object><oname>NGC7418</oname> Dreyer suggested that this might be IC5265 (which see), but it is not. </object> <object><oname>NGC7423</oname>is a nice, compressed cluster at the NGC position. It sits between two brighter stars, and would probably be an interesting, if faint, object at the eyepiece. JH was not sure in his 1833 catalogue if this was his father's III 745 or not. When he compiled the GC, however, he adopted his own position and his father's description. This is actually the best combination as both are correct. WH's position, however, is a minute of time east of the JH's position. Dreyer noticed this when he published all of WH's papers in 1912, and wrote a short note about it. In that note, Dreyer also mentions "In the sweep a star 6 mag = +56 2923 is 3m 41s f, 10' s." Doing the math from WH's reference star (Delta Cephei) for III 745, the BD star ends up close to its true position -- but III 745 is stubbornly 1 minute of time off. Curiously, RNGC calls the cluster non-existent though it is clear on the POSS, and is included in the cluster catalogues as Berkeley 57 (that identity was apparently first noticed by Alister Ling in 1985). SIMBAD mistakenly equates the cluster with a faint planetary (an infrared source) a few arcmin to the northeast. </object> <object><oname>NGC7431</oname>is pinpointed by Bigourdan's micrometric observation as a double compact galaxy just three arcmin preceding NGC7433. The NGC position, derived from Bigourdan's observation, is fortuitously within one or two arcsec of the true position. The brighter preceding object is included in GSC, and is one of the Lick Northern Proper Motion survey reference galaxies. </object> <object><oname>NGC7433</oname>and NGC7435 are galaxies close to NGC7436, the brightest object in a subgroup of a cluster. All three objects, along with the fainter component of NGC7436, are shown in Lord Rosse's sketch of the field. Though the NGC positions are not too good, the sketch positively identifies the objects that Dreyer catalogued. Bigourdan's observations of NGC7433 and NGC7435, by the way, refer to stars, while d'Arrest measured NGC7435 (not N7433 as noted in the NGC) as well as N7436. </object> <object><oname>NGC7435</oname> See NGC7433. </object> <object><oname>NGC7436</oname> See NGC7433. </object> <object><oname>NGC7438</oname> JH describes this as "A large oblong cluster which fills two fields. Place that of the double star h. 3157 of my fifth Catal." DSS and POSS show a cloud of stars, elongated southwest to northeast, more compressed on the southwestern end into two apparent clusters separated by about 10 arcmin. Though well-defined on that end, it is very poorly defined on the northeastern side. The overall dimensions are roughly 30 arcmin by 10 arcmin. I doubt that the entire group is a cluster, though the southeastern-most two clumps might well be. Those portions of JH's object could stand out well in even small telescopes since the stars are fairly bright, 9th to 11th magnitudes. </object> <object><oname>NGC7441</oname>is probably IC1458. Even though Ormond Stone's position is well east of the galaxy -- as many of the Leander McCormick positions are -- there is a 10th magnitude star preceding the galaxy as in his description, and the galaxy itself also matches the description well. Stone marked the declination with a question mark, so it's not surprising to find that it is 30 arcmin off. The galaxy usually taken as N7441, MCG -01-58-013, fits only Stone's position (and then only the declination is close), not the description. In particular, there is no 10th magnitude star preceding the galaxy; the nearest star of any consequence is 14th magnitude and 1.7 arcmin northeast. Still, because of the better positional coincidence, I've included the galaxy as a possibility for Stone's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7447</oname>does not exist. It appears as a nebula in the Markree Catalogue, but has not been seen again. Auwers, Tempel, and Burnham all failed to find it. Dreyer says that Burnham also noted a "F triple star a little np the place", but I do not see anything with about 10 arcmin that could be called a triple star. I have not seen the entry in the Markree Catalogue, so do not know if it or the NGC entry might contain a typo. In any event, there is nothing at all near the place, not even a star bright enough to be included in the Markree list. </object> <object><oname>NGC7452</oname>is probably the second-brightest object in a poor cluster with N7459 (which see) being the brightest. Swift's RA is bad, but it is off in the same direction as are his RAs for N7459 and N7455 (which also see); he found all three objects on 14 October 1884. Interestingly, Howe probably picked this up, too. See N7459 for more. </object> <object><oname>NGC7453</oname>is a triple star at Peters's position. On the IIIa-J plate, the images of the stars overlap. They are also almost in contact with the 11th magnitude star 15 arcsec north that Peters noted in his description. </object> <object><oname>NGC7455</oname> Is this perhaps Encke's Comet of 1885? Swift claims that he found the nebula while searching for the comet. There is nothing near his place, and the galaxy usually taken as N7455 does not have a "pS * nr p" as Swift notes. As Howe first noted, the star is 10th magnitude and 6 arcmin northeast of the galaxy. Also, Swift's brief description (eF, cE) might fit a comet quite well. Still, the RA is off in the same direction as are those for N7452 and N7459 (both of which see), and Howe picked up the galaxy in spite of its faintness. </object> <object><oname>NGC7459</oname>is probably the double cD galaxy in a poor cluster of galaxies. Swift found only three galaxies on the night of 14 October 1884 -- this, N7452 (which see) about 20 seconds of time preceding it, and N7455 (also which see) about half a degree north. Assuming reasonable identifications for the three, Swift's RA's are well off for all the objects (-21s for N7452, -38s for N7455, and -29s for N7459), though his declinations are within 30 arcsec in each case. For this particular object, his position and description relative to N7452 fit reasonably well. This is "eeF, pL, R; * nr; sf of 2," while N7452 is "eeeF, pL, R, e diff; np of 2." Since Howe apparently saw this when he examined the field; he "suspected another nebula preceding about 15 seconds;" this was most likely N7452, the second brightest object in the cluster. See it and N7455 for more about the field. </object> <object><oname>NGC7468</oname>is not IC1465 (which see). Bigourdan measured both objects on the same nights, and actually used N7468 as a comparison "star" on one of those nights. </object> <object><oname>NGC7471</oname>is lost. Seen only once by Frank Muller with the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor, there is nothing within several degrees of its position that comes close to matching his description, accurately copied into the NGC (Muller made the magnitude 15.8, and the size 0.2 arcmin). There is no sketch. Wolfgang chose a 19th magnitude galaxy 3+ arcmin southeast of the nominal position. That, however, is too faint, has no 10th magnitude stars 20 seconds preceding, and has a different position angle; it cannot be the object that Muller saw. I have not checked large digit errors (10 degrees, 1 hour, etc). Someone with more time and patience than I might uncover Muller's nebula that way. </object> <object><oname>NGC7472</oname><oname>NGC7482</oname>. Burnham (and Dreyer in an IC1 Note) suggest that these are also identical with NGC7477 (which see). But they are not. The two numbers DO refer to the same galaxy, but d'Arrest's object is a different one. In this case, Struve's RA is 2 minutes of time too small, but his Dec is correct, as is his brief description (in a rough translation by me) "Faint small star ('sternchen') with nebulous envelope." The RA error is probably a transcription error. Marth's position is close to the galaxy, and his description "F, vS, stellar" is also appropriate. </object> <object><oname>NGC7477</oname>is an asterism of two stars superposed on a fainter galaxy close to d'Arrest's position. It is not, as supposed by Burnham (and Dreyer in an IC1 Note), identical to NGC7472 = NGC7482 (which see). D'Arrest describes a 17th magnitude star which is attached to his nebula to the north. N7482 has no such star to the north, while the asterism does (there is also an even fainter star to the southeast that d'A did not see). D'A also discusses Struve's object and suggests that it is identical to his (d'A's). Since Marth's observations had not yet been published when d'A drew up his monograph, this was a reasonable assumption on d'A's part. However, it is probably wrong. Struve's description matches N7482 very well, and d'A's asterism only roughly. </object> <object><oname>NGC7481</oname>is also lost. Described by Ormond Stone as being of magnitude 14.0, very small, round, and gradually brighter in the middle, it is certainly not the galaxy that ESO chose as a possible candidate. That is too faint, elongated, has a brighter star superposed just east, and an equally bright companion galaxy within an arcminute to the northeast. A search of the POSS1 prints around the nominal position reveals no galaxy matching Stone's description. Since there is no sketch, and Stone mentions no nearby stars, we probably won't be able to recover this object. As with NGC7471, I have not checked for large digit errors. </object> <object><oname>NGC7482</oname><oname>NGC7472</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7485</oname> See NGC7486. </object> <object><oname>NGC7486</oname>is a tight group of four stars about two arcmin southeast of N7485. Copeland found it on 25 August 1871 with LdR's 72-inch, and Dreyer managed a quick micrometric measurement with the same telescope on 3 December 1877 just before "Clouds and fog came on." That measurement, with respect to N7485 -- position angle 109.5+- degrees, distance 114 arcsec -- pins down the asterism exactly. </object> <object><oname>NGC7493</oname>is a star. Its micrometrically measured position and its description, from a single observation by Bigourdan in October 1886, clearly identifies it. Bigourdan was not so sure about it the second time he saw it: "Star 13.3 around which I suspect an exceedingly faint trace of nebulosity of which the existence is not certain." </object> <object><oname>NGC7502</oname>is a triple star (at first glance a double) 32 seconds of time west, and 1 arcmin north of the nominal position from a single observation by Frank Muller with the 26-inch refractor at Leander-McCormick. The combined magnitude of the stars, their separation, and their position angle all agree with Muller's estimates (15.8, 0.3 arcmin, and 290 degrees). In addition, he notes the possibility that the object is only a double star. The southeastern "star" is itself double which undoubtedly added to the impression of nebulosity. </object> <object><oname>NGC7504</oname>may be a star, as first noted by Reinmuth. It was one of eleven nebulae found by Marth one night late in the summer of 1864 (his date reads "1864.67"), and the only one not clearly a galaxy. The other ten have a systematic offset in their positions estimated by Marth of -1.0 seconds in RA, and +0.6 arcmin in Dec from the modern positions. Applying these to his position for N7504 moves the position a bit closer to the star that Wolfgang and I chose as Marth's possible object. However, it is still further from its modern position than most of Marth's other objects from that same night. So, I am not at all sure of the identification of N7504 with this star. There are other galaxies in the area that Marth could have seen, but none have positions suggesting digit errors in Marth's position. </object> <object><oname>NGC7507</oname>might also be IC1475 (which see). But so might NGC7513. </object> <object><oname>NGC7513</oname>might also be IC1475 (which see). But so might NGC7507. </object> <object><oname>NGC7515</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7519</oname>is UGC 12424, not UGC 12416. Marth's position and description fit UGC 12424 very well. While Bigourdan's correction, quoted by Dreyer in the IC2 Notes, suggests that NGC7519 is UGC 12416 rather than UGC 12424, it nevertheless leaves us with a large declination offset (2 arcmin) and a description that does not fit the galaxy. Checking Bigourdan's observations, we find that the declination he measured is also correct for UGC 12416, so it is clear that he simply observed a different galaxy than did Marth. To preserve Marth's priority here, we have given the NGC number to UGC 12424. </object> <object><oname>NGC7520</oname>may be IC5290. Tempel had trouble with the position, and gives it as "23 06 :: -24 35 :" (equinox 1855) in his paper. He does note that the nebula was "repeatedly seen" and I5290 is the only object near his position -- aside from stars -- that he could have dug out. Of course, since there are many stars (e.g. NGC4322) in his lists of "nebulae", this object too could well be another. Dreyer adds a note in the second IC that Howe could not find the object on two nights. A further curiosity is the added note in the NGC description reading "between 2 stars." This is not in Tempel's paper, so was apparently added by him later in a note to Dreyer. (Or, horror, Dreyer got the object confused with another ...) </object> <object><oname>NGC7522</oname> There is no trace of a nebula matching Muller's description (magnitude = 16.0, diameter = 0.3 arcmin, irregularly round, suddenly brighter in the middle? [the query is Muller's], star 10 in position angle 75 deg, distance 3.2 arcmin) in his published position. Unfortunately, no sketch of the field survives among the unpublished Leander McCormick papers. ESO has suggested that the number might apply to an extremely faint galaxy near the NGC position, but it is almost certainly too faint to have been seen even in the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor -- it is barely visible on the blue POSS1 print. Another possibility for Muller's object is the faint star about 2 minutes of time following the published position. It has the correct distance and position angle from a brighter star to the east-northeast, is about of the right magnitude, and is offset from the published position by about the same amount and in the same direction as many other of the nebulae in the Leander McCormick lists. I stress, however, that this is just another possibility for the identity of N7522. It could well be wrong, and the nebula truly lost. </object> <object><oname>NGC7526</oname> WH simply calls this "eF, vS", then adds, "240 left doubtful." Whatever it was that caused him concern has not come down to us as GC and NGC not only left off the final remark, but gave us no notes, either. In any case, the object is a short line of three stars; there is a fourth nearby to the northwest. WH's position is 8 seconds preceding and 1.5 arcmin north, but that is well within his usual errors. </object> <object><oname>NGC7528</oname>is one of the fainter of the NGC nebulae, having been found by A. A. Common using his 36-inch glass-mirrored reflector. Though he calls it simply "F, S", it is around V = 15.5 - 16. Similar nebulae were usually called "eF, eS" by other observers. Fortunately, there are no other nebulae anywhere as bright in the area, so we can be fairly sure of the identity. Common's approximate position -- which he determined simply by reading his setting circles -- is about 20 seconds of time preceding the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>NGC7536</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7540</oname>is not NGC7551, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7541</oname>may also be NGC7581, which see. Also see NGC7560. </object> <object><oname>NGC7547</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7549</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7550</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7551</oname>is a faint galaxy with a somewhat brighter star superposed just to the southwest. The pair of objects is about 2/3 of an arcmin north of Marth's position. Some lists have N7551 equal to N7540, but Marth found that the same night that he picked up N7551. The two objects cannot, therefore, be identical. </object> <object><oname>NGC7552</oname><oname>IC5294</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7555</oname>is probably one of the following: NGC7515, NGC7536, NGC7559, NGC 7563, or NGC7570. If I were betting, I'd narrow it down to N7536, N7559, or N7563. Here is JH's full description: "F, R, bM; place very loose; two or three more nebulae suspected in the neighbourhood." There is a fairly rich, scattered group about a degree north of JH's "very loose" position. Just about any of the brighter of the galaxies in it could be the one he saw, with the some of others being his "suspected" nebulae. Just to be sure, I checked for other objects found in the same sweep; there are only two, N14 and N7810. JH's positions for both are well within an arcmin of the modern positions, so there is no reason to suspect a systematic offset in the position of N7555. There certainly is, however, an accidental error. </object> <object><oname>NGC7559</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7560</oname>and NGC7561 are a double star and a single star, respectively. Both were found by Herman Schultz in the early 1860's about 1.5 minutes of time east of NGC7541. Though he saw N7560 three times, and N7561 on the later two of those nights, none of the nights was very good. The first two nights he notes as turbulent with "gales" and aurorae, the third as being interrupted by clouds. His positions are good, though, and point to within a few arcsec of the objects. So it was that Reinmuth had no trouble identifying the stars; his identifications were picked up by Carlson, and by RNGC. </object> <object><oname>NGC7561</oname>is a star. See NGC7560. </object> <object><oname>NGC7562</oname>may also be NGC7575, which see -- but probably is not. </object> <object><oname>NGC7563</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7564</oname>is a star identified exactly by Bigourdan's micrometric measurements. CGCG 406-036, a few arcmin southwest chosen by Wolfgang, RNGC, and LEDA, is clearly not Bigourdan's object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7565</oname>is lost, probably for good. It is one of the fourteen new nebulae found by Brother Ferrari and announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. See NGC 7667 for more on these nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC7568</oname>may also be NGC7574, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7569</oname>has a two-degree error in its published Declination: instead of +10 16 45, it should be +08 16 45. Swift's position then falls very close to UGC 12472. He also noted "3 F sts sf form a small right angle triangle." The stars are there. So, however, is another star of about the same brightness, closer to the galaxy. Perhaps the triangle is so eye-catching that Swift hardly noticed the closer star. </object> <object><oname>NGC7570</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7571</oname>may be NGC7597. Or maybe not. Here is Schultz's entire note on the object (I've expanded his abbreviations). "A poor stellar group of pretty bright stars follows the above nebulae [N7547, N7549, and N7550] about 1 1/2 minutes; and the whole region following this stellar group seems nebulous: [Schultz italics] a group of small nebulae or a considerably extended nebulosity with several knots? [end italics] As yet the sky was not sufficiently dark, and the nebulosity very faint and indistinct, no decision could be arrived at. This nebulosity independently remarked in the autumns 1867 and 1869, as on the second occasion the elder notice was forgotten. Description and position do not at all agree with III. 181 [N7550]!" There is no such group of bright star 1.5 minutes following the N7550 galaxy group. The stellar group is instead 1.5 minutes of time following NGC7578 (coincidentally, RNGC makes N7571=N7578; it probably isn't unless Schultz got his direction wrong and the nebulosity is PRECEDING the stellar group). But Schultz would have had to misidentify N7578 as N7547 or N7550. This, I admit, is a bit of a stretch. But the group of stars is 3.3 minutes following the N7550 group, as well as nearly 20 arcmin to the south. Schultz would have been aware of that considerable difference. Scattered around through the bright stars are several galaxies, four of which (N7588, N7597, N7598, and N7602) Marth ran across about the same time using Lasalle's great telescope in Malta. These are bright enough that Schultz could have pulled them out with his 9.6-inch. So, I've tentatively put NGC7571 on the brightest of Marth's galaxies, N7597. The other possibility is that of RNGC's: N7571 is the same as N7578. N7578 is double and is the brightest in a tight group of galaxies (Hickson 94). This would be in accord with Schultz's description of his object as possibly being a group of nebulae. However, it also requires Schultz to make a mistake in his directions. Also, N7578 is considerably fainter than N7550 or N7597 -- but either of these hypotheses requires that Schultz saw N7578. I'm leaning slightly toward the N7597 hypothesis, but the other could well be the correct one. </object> <object><oname>NGC7574</oname>may be identical with NGC7568. This would require errors of 30 seconds of time in RA and 30 arcmin in Dec in d'A's nominal position. He only observed the object once, so these are possible. With no other reasonable candidates that I can see, I've adopted the identity, though with a question mark. </object> <object><oname>NGC7575</oname>is probably CGCG 406-044, just one degree south of Marth's otherwise not-too-badly-determined position. The description matches, and the considerably fainter galaxy just to the south would probably have escaped Marth's attention. The identification as a star (by Reinmuth, copied by Carlson and RNGC) seems less likely given that a "Faint, small, very little extended" nebula would be well-seen in a 48-inch telescope. Still, Marth has probably picked up a few other stars, so this remains a possibility, however -- ahem -- faint. Another, even less likely possibility, is that N7575 is NGC7562 with a 1.3 minute error in RA. The one-degree digit error strikes me as a better bet. </object> <object><oname>NGC7577</oname> I was skeptical about Wolfgang's identification of this (the Lyon folks fingered the same faint galaxy), even with the star close northeast. So, I reduced Bigourdan's observation -- his position falls exactly and cleanly between star and galaxy. He apparently really did see the pair, so it is in the big table. </object> <object><oname>NGC7578</oname> The modern catalogues make a small mess of this NGC number, so here are the facts in RA order (the positions are from HKA): RA (1950.0) Dec Hickson VV UGC RC2/3 23 14 42.50 +18 25 39.5 94b=N7578A 181b 12477=N7578a N7578A 23 14 44.00 +18 26 04.4 94a=N7578B 181a 12478=N7578b N7578B Hickson and VV did things logically (by magnitude), choosing the brightest component as "a". UGC followed its internal scheme, also logical, of choosing component letters by RA. RC2/3 followed UGC. Looking at the NGC, we see that N7578 was only observed by William and John Herschel. Though WH noted "4 or 5 small stars with nebulosity," JH saw only one object here which he succinctly described with a single letter "F." Neither of their positions is good enough to pin down one or the other of the galaxies as the real N7578, but since Hickson 94a is brighter by over 0.6 mag, I think that we can choose it as N7578 without bending the history too much. So, I have ignored the NGC identifications in Hickson, UGC, and RC2/3; and have made the brighter north-following object (UGC 12478) = NGC7578. This group, buy the way, may also be NGC7571, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7580</oname> See NGC7644. </object> <object><oname>NGC7581</oname>may be NGC7541. Dreyer credits the object to Holden, but it is not in either of the lists in the Washburn Observatory Publications that Dreyer credits in the NGC. Nor does Dreyer give a reference in the GC Supplement where the object first appears. If Holden published a note about the object, it must have been in the time between the GC's appearance in 1864 and the publication of the Supplement in 1878. Perhaps someone could check the appropriate journals of the time (AN, MN, The Observatory, AJ, and so forth). In any event, the identity with NGC7541 was first suggested by Reinmuth. From Die Nebel Herschel, it was picked up by Carlson, then RC1, and RNGC. The identity is reasonable: aside from being called "very faint," the remainder of the GC/NGC description "much extended, star 12-13 close following" is accurate. However, the position is 3 minutes of time off in RA, and 8 arcmin in Dec. These don't seem to suggest simple digit errors, though they could be. I've put a question mark on the identification because of the position mismatch and the lack of a reference. </object> <object><oname>NGC7582</oname> See IC5308 = NGC7599. </object> <object><oname>NGC7583</oname><oname>NGC7605</oname>. See NGC7604. </object> <object><oname>NGC7586</oname> Marth's position, verified on at least a second night, and copied correctly into the NGC, falls near a galaxy meeting his description "eF, vS, alm stellar." For some reason, CGCG ignores this object and incorrectly puts the NGC number on a considerably fainter galaxy 17 seconds preceding and a full 20 arcmin to the south. At least Hubble got the right object in his thesis. </object> <object><oname>NGC7588</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7590</oname> See IC5308 = NGC7599. </object> <object><oname>NGC7593</oname> Found by Albert Marth, the RA he listed is off by 30 seconds of time. See NGC1474 about other nebulae found by Marth on this night. </object> <object><oname>NGC7594</oname><oname>IC1478</oname>. The confusion arose because Ainslie Common's position is none too good. His description, however, pinpoints the galaxy: "Faint, round, following 3 stars in a line [oriented at] 90 deg pointing to another fainter nebula south." The "fainter nebula south" is IC5306 (which see; it was rediscovered by Kobold). I suspect that Dreyer did not include this in the NGC because of the lack of a position. That did not prevent him from including other poorly observed nebulae, however, so his decision remains a bit of a puzzle. </object> <object><oname>NGC7596</oname><oname>IC1477</oname>. Here is another case where the Leander McCormick RA is well off the real RA. In this case, we have Leavenworth's sketch showing the galaxy and four stars around it in a distinctive pattern to positively identify the galaxy. His description also fits well, though the position angle of the major axis is closer to 25 degrees than to zero. Javelle picked up the galaxy just a few years after Leavenworth discovered it. The IC position, correctly copied from Javelle's list and refered as usual to a BD star, is good. Presumeably his micrometric offsets and a modern position for the star would yield an even better position, but I've not reduced them. The identity is obvious, and we have better modern positions in any case. </object> <object><oname>NGC7597</oname>may be NGC7571, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7598</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7599</oname><oname>IC5308</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7602</oname> See NGC7571. </object> <object><oname>NGC7604</oname>and NGC7605 = NGC7583 were found by Marth late in 1864. There is nothing in his places that he could have seen with Laselle's 48-inch telescope, but just one minute of time preceding is a pair matching his descriptions and relative positions. It happens that he had found the brighter of the pair earlier in the same year. Thus, that object has two entries in his list, and two NGC numbers. Unfortunately, CGCG put the number 7583 on the fainter of the galaxies, though it does in fact belong to the brighter. </object> <object><oname>NGC7605</oname><oname>NGC7583</oname>. See NGC7604. </object> <object><oname>NGC7607</oname>is a double star. This is one of Tempel's nebulae with a very good ring micrometer measurement. That pins down the star accurately, as does Tempel's note of a 16th magnitude star half an arcminute to the northeast. </object> <object><oname>NGC7610</oname>and NGC7616 are two of the objects found by Ainslee Common with his 36-inch reflector. His positions coincide with nothing on the sky, but close to the position for NGC7610 is a relatively large Scd galaxy that might well have been described as "diffuse" by him. There is nothing at all near the position for NGC7616, and I suspect that Common's two observations refer to the same object. This galaxy has been micrometrically measured by Kobold. His second measurement, reported under the number NGC7610, was corrected on his errata page. The corrected measurement is obviously a repeat measure of the same object as his first measure, listed under NGC7616. He therefore added a note to that effect, saying that the measured object was "most likely" to be NGC7616. I think this is because Common's description is "pF, dif" for N7616, but "F, S, dif" for N7610. Bigourdan has no observations for either object, though he reports having seen NGC7610 at its NGC position. Carl Wirtz also provides only a description for it, and includes the object under the number "NGC7616?" in his collection of the Strassberg micrometric positions. The galaxy was subsequently ignored until its appearance in CGCG, MCG, UGC, and the 10th KUG list. Steve Gottlieb reports a visual sighting of it in 1992, but could find nothing near the position of NGC7616. He pointed out, though, a very faint galaxy a few seconds of time east of the NGC position; I doubt that Common could have seen this, even with a 36-inch. If it were N7616, then Common's descriptions would be backwards: "F" for the much brighter galaxy, and "pF" for the much fainter. </object> <object><oname>NGC7613</oname>and NGC7614 are two of Brother Ferrari's nebulae announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. N7614 is "Very near [N7613] south-preceding" according to the note that Secchi gives, but there is no obvious double nebula anywhere near the nominal position. There are many galaxies in this area, however. Perhaps one of them, plus a faint star or asterism, will turn out to be the objects the good brothers saw. See NGC7667 for more about these observations. </object> <object><oname>NGC7614</oname> See NGC7613. </object> <object><oname>NGC7616</oname> See NGC7610. </object> <object><oname>NGC7622</oname> Curious! My early list of RNGC errata is wrong, but I've not yet found out why (probably a typo). I correctly identified the galaxy for SGC, however, and ESO also has the right object. RC3 is therefore correct. But what led me to think it nonexistent? Curious, indeed! </object> <object><oname>NGC7627</oname>is probably NGC7641. At least that is the opinion of Lewis Swift and Herbert Howe as expressed in Howe's note in MNRAS 61, 29, 1900. Howe wrote to Swift after being unable to find the object on two nights. There is indeed nothing in Swift's place. However, in spite of Swift's imprimatur, I'm a unsure about this identification. While there are indeed two stars north of the galaxy, Swift's full note in his 6th list reads "vF, S, vE; coarse D * nr n; the D * is bet 2 sts." I would not call the two stars even a coarse double -- they are separated by nearly an arcminute and are quite faint. Furthermore, I see no trace of the two stars flanking the coarse double. Swift's description of the galaxy is accurate, but the lack of the stars is bothersome. A search of the area turned up nothing else that might be Swift's object, however. The possibility of a large digit error remains to be checked. In the meantime, I've marked the identification with colons. </object> <object><oname>NGC7630</oname> See NGC7638. </object> <object><oname>NGC7632</oname><oname>IC5313</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7638</oname><oname>IC1483</oname><oname>NGC7639</oname><oname>IC1485</oname> are two nebulae discovered by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector. They are mentioned only in his discriptive note for NGC7630, presumeably found the same night: "There are 2 similar nebulae within 30' sf No. 32 [N7630]." Even though the position of N7630 is coarsely given (23 15, +10 47 for 1880), its identity is fortunately clear. We are also fortunate that the only two galaxies bright enough for Common to have easily seen "within 30' sf" are the only two candidates there are in that part of the sky. The identities are therefore very secure, even if the NGC positions (worked out by Dreyer for lack of anything better, and marked with plus-minus signs) are far off. The poor positions led Javelle to think these two nebulae "novae" when he went over the field in the early 1890's. So, they (and a third nearby, IC 1484) received IC numbers as well. </object> <object><oname>NGC7639</oname><oname>IC1485</oname>. See NGC7638. </object> <object><oname>NGC7641</oname>may also be NGC7627, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7643</oname> See NGC7644. </object> <object><oname>NGC7644</oname> There is nothing at Swift's nominal position. The faint galaxy two arcmin following is too faint and too small to match Swift's description. There are two reasonable candidates for Swift's object: NGC7643 (found by Stephan) and NGC7651, found by Swift himself just four weeks before N7644 (on 1 Sept 1886). N7643 is exactly two degrees south of Swift's nominal position, and 22 seconds of time preceding. The description pretty well matches the galaxy. N7651 has the same declination, and is 1 minute 15 seconds of time east of N7644's position. This is a fainter object -- Swift called it "extremely faint" rather than the "very faint" he used for N7644. In neither description does he refer to nearby stars, though N7651 is noted as being "in vacancy." This almost certainly rules out a third candidate, N7580 (5 min 32 sec west, but only 1.5 arcmin north) around which Swift noted four stars when he found it four nights earlier (on 25 Sept 1886). The object that RNGC and Wolfgang choose as N7644 is an even fainter object of lower surface brightness just over an arcmin east-northeast of N7651. Had Swift seen this, he certainly would have noted the two as a close pair -- in his 32 arcmin field, they would appear to be almost on top of one another. In the end, I suspect that N7643 is the most likely candidate, though N7651 has the advantage of only an error in RA. However, choosing either one is speculation, so I've sprinkled question marks liberally among the several galaxies in the table. </object> <object><oname>NGC7646</oname> which may be = IC5318, is another of the Leander-McCormick nebulae found by Muller, with its discovery announced before a decent position was available. Muller's description (magnitude = 14.5, diameter = 0.2 x 0.1, extended 260 deg) would fit IC5318 if he saw only the bar of the galaxy. He also has a "*9, PA 10 deg, distance 3.6 arcmin." The star is actually 3.8 arcmin away at PA = 346 deg. Did Muller somehow get his PA into the wrong quadrant? (There is no sketch to help us in this case). The main thing that makes me question the identification is the star of magnitude 9 or 10 superposed on the galaxy. Muller surely would have mentioned the star had he noticed it -- since the nature of the nebulae was still in debate in the late 1880's, nearby stars were often taken as possibly physically associated with the nebulae. IC5318 was found by Herbert Howe, using Chamberlain Observatory's 16-inch refractor. He measured the position of the galaxy, and noted the superposed star but, because of Muller's poor position, did not make a connection with the NGC number. Given the problems with Muller's position and description, we should perhaps simply note the possibility of the identity, and let it go at that. </object> <object><oname>NGC7648</oname><oname>IC1486</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC7667. </object> <object><oname>NGC7649</oname><oname>IC1487</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7651</oname> See NGC7644. </object> <object><oname>NGC7653</oname>is not IC1488, which see. </object> <object><oname>NGC7654</oname>= M 52. The NGC position (from JH) is for SAO 20606, west of the cluster itself. The cluster has a tight core of perhaps a dozen stars, but this is not at the geometrical center of the cluster. Hence, I've listed two positions in the table. Take whichever one seems appropriate to you. </object> <object><oname>NGC7663</oname>is one of Brother Ferrari's nebulae announced by Father Secchi. It, unlike eight other nebulae found by Ferrari, has two candidate galaxies in the area of the nominal position. One, MCG -01-59-023 is slightly brighter than the other, MCG -01-59-022. The former galaxy also has the advantage of being closer to the nominal RA (the nominal position is 23 24 06, -05 01.7), but is just as far off in declination. I've put both in the table of positions -- with question marks, of course. </object> <object><oname>NGC7666</oname>is lost. It is one of the fourteen nebulae announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. See NGC7667 for more on these nebulae. </object> <object><oname>NGC7667</oname> NGC7668, NGC7669, and NGC7670. Father Angelo Secchi was a Jesuit priest who worked at College Romain in the mid-1800's. He is remembered today primarily as a pioneer in spectral classification of stars, and for his studies of the sun: he was among the first to photograph the corona during an eclipse, and also was the first to attempt to deduce the interior structure of the sun. It's fair to say that he was -- pun fully intended -- a father of stellar astrophysics. In 1866, he published in AN 1571 a short list of fourteen new nebulae that one of his fellow Jesuits, Brother Ferrari, discovered during a (fruitless) search for Biela's Comet from 11 November 1865 to 18 January 1866. Father Secchi has this to say about the 9.5-inch Merz equatorial at the College Romain, "From this study, we have convinced ourselves that the refractor at our observatory is at least as keen and powerful as the Herschels' telescopes ..." (translated by me from his French original). Also, he says that they "fitted [to the telescope] a large eyepiece which gives a 27 arcmin field." (My thanks to Wolfgang Steinicke for digging out the size of the telescope.) Back to the fourteen new nebulae. I searched near the nominal positions on the POSS1 prints for all of these, and was unable to find any trace of eight of them (NGC7565, N7613, N7614, N7666, N7667, N7668, N7669, and N7670). There are good candidates for three others (N7683, the only one of the objects whose position was determined by actual comparison to a star, N7738, and N50), and poor candidates for the remaining three (N7663, N7739, and N116). Secchi (or Ferrari) also "corrects" WH's positions for two nebulae, N157 and N7648. His positions for those are indeed better than Herschel's -- but they don't help us find the other missing objects in his list. If we take mean offsets from modern positions for the "good" candidates -- excepting N7683 for which the position comes from a different method -- and the two corrected WH galaxies, we find systematic offsets of -5 seconds of time, and -1 arcmin 10 arcsec in Dec. The standard deviations on these numbers (+- 18 seconds and +- 26 arcsec) suggest that the RA offset is not significant and that the Declination offset is barely significant. But even that does not help us find the missing objects. Reading more of Father Secchi's note, I learned why the positions are so bad. "The position is determined from the setting circles of the equatorial, corrected for instrumental errors, simply by placing the nebula in the center of the field." Secchi, however, also says that he verified each of the nebulae after Brother Ferrari found them. He must have done this on the same nights as their discovery since he never would have recovered them otherwise. Since Secchi gives no equinox in his note, I, like Dreyer before me, have assumed that his positions refer to the equinox at the date of observation, i.e. 1866.0 give or take a few weeks. I adopted 1866.0. Specifically for NGC7667 and its cohorts: there is nothing at all near the single nominal position that Secchi gives for them, and only one or two of the galaxies within a degree of that position are bright enough to have been seen with a 9.5-inch telescope. However, Steve Gottlieb has suggested that some of the knots in the arms of UGC 12578 might be N7668, N7669, and N7670 which Secchi says "surround" N7667. These are much too faint for a 9.5-inch telescope, but the galaxy itself is quite bright enough to be one of Secchi's objects, in spite of having a pretty low surface brightness. However, it is 3 minutes off in RA and nearly five arcmin in Dec from the nominal position, so it would be a stretch to point to this object. There are also three other objects within 13.5 arcmin of it that might be Secchi and Ferrari's other three nebulae: UGC 12589, and the double stars at 23 21 54.6, -00 12 35 and 23 22 12.5, -00 21 42 (1950 positions). All are northeast of U12578, though, and Secchi's description clearly translates as "Very faint: the other three surround the 9th [in the list = N7667] in the field." So, U12589 and the double stars are pure guesswork, and I don't think that I'd want to stake my life on them -- or even on U12578 being N7667. </object> <object><oname>NGC7668</oname> See NGC7667. </object> <object><oname>NGC7669</oname> See NGC7667. </object> <object><oname>NGC7670</oname> See NGC7667. </object> <object><oname>NGC7681</oname> CGCG, RNGC, and UGC all chose the wrong galaxy in spite of the very good NGC position (from two determinations by John Herschel). This is even more curious as the correct galaxy is a full magnitude brighter and twice as large as the one they all chose. Furthermore, the description in the NGC mentions the double star following the nebula: there is none following the wrong galaxy, but there is a clear double just north-following the correct object. The identification is unambiguous. </object> <object><oname>NGC7689</oname> The RC3 position (from ESO) is correct (barring an error in ESO, of course), while RC2 gives the wrong RA. Oddly, there is nothing in the GSC at either position, though ESO-LV repeats the ESO position and gives plausible data for the galaxy there. </object> <object><oname>NGC7697</oname><oname>IC5333</oname>. I'm pretty sure that this is = ESO 110-G012. This means that the RA error (3 minutes of time, not one minute as I earlier stated), and the Dec error (9.4 arcmin, close enough to 10 arcmin), are both digit errors. In addition, ESO 110-G012 is nearly a magnitude brighter than 110-G014 (14.33 vs. 15.18 in ESO-LV); it is also considerably larger. All this leads to the conclusion that RC3 is wrong: PGC 71800 = N7697 = I5333, type = .S..3P/, S(T) = S, T = 2.5 +- 0.7. Also PGC 71812 is not = N7697, type = .SBT6.., and T = 6.3 +- 0.6. </object> <object><oname>NGC7699</oname> NGC7700, and NGC7701. The brightest of this triplet was found by WH and given the number III 188 in his first catalogue. This galaxy was also observed by d'Arrest who marked the identification with H III 188 questionable (until I can find time to translate his Latin descriptions, I won't know why he queried the ID; I suspect Herschel's position is not too good). His four observations provide the good NGC position for NGC7701. The NGC description is also accurate -- there is an 11th magnitude star south-preceding. In November of 1864, after d'Arrest had made his observations, but before he published them, Marth found the other two galaxies in the group with Laselle's 48-inch reflector during one of their stays at Malta. Though neither was verified, the positions and descriptions are good enough to establish the identifications. There the matter rested until I included the two largest of the galaxies in the ESGC. Unfortunately, I reversed the identifications in the prepublication version of ESGC, calling NGC7700 "NGC7701" and vice versa. Steve Gottlieb caught the mistake, but unfortunately not until after publication of RC3. In any event, this is one case in which the NGC positions and descriptions point to exactly the right galaxies. My apologies for muddying the waters! </object> <object><oname>NGC7700</oname> See NGC7699. </object> <object><oname>NGC7701</oname> See NGC7699. </object> <object><oname>NGC7708</oname> This is probably just a random group of stars. The NGC position, from JH, is for SAO 10791, the 8th magnitude star mentioned in the NGC description. The other fainter stars seem to be scattered more to the north, and the extent of the "cluster" is indefinite on the POSS1. Perhaps it would appear better at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC7720</oname> WH's RA is 40 seconds too large. See NGC6882 = NGC6885 for more on the observations he made on 10 Sept 1784. Also see NGC7726. </object> <object><oname>NGC7726</oname> When I measured positions in Abell 2634 for RC2, I assigned the number N7726 to the galaxy at 23 36 41.1 +26 50 21 (N7720 is at 23 35 58.7 +26 45 22, N7728 at 23 37 30.0 +26 51 28, and IC5342 is at 23 36 08.1 +26 44 05). However, I had not then dug out Swift's original description: "eeF; pS; R; e diff; pB * nr f; [N7728] nr nf, but is not little, but very elongated." I really have to stretch to make my first choice fit this description; the "pB *" is hardly "near" (but keep in mind Swift's 32 arcmin field!), though it is north-following, as is N7728 (more following than north). On the other hand, Swift's description of N7728 is wrong: it is indeed little elongated, just as d'Arrest saw it. So, which galaxy did Swift see? I don't see any other object in Abell 2634 that fits his description. For the time being, I'm going to let my original identification stand, but it is certainly questionable. RC3 is almost certainly wrong, and the number N7726 ought to be deleted from PGC 71991 and -- perhaps! -- added to PGC 72024. </object> <object><oname>NGC7728</oname> See NGC7726. </object> <object><oname>NGC7738</oname>and NGC7739. Father Secchi listed 14 new nebulae in his short discovery note (see NGC7667 for more about these objects). Of these, I cannot locate eight. Three others -- including N7738 and N7739 -- have candidate galaxies, though I'm still very uncertain about the identifications. The only galaxies that even come close to satisfying Secchi's position for the pair and brief description ("Very faint: the seventh [N7739] is near to the south") are UGC 12757 and CGCG 381-038. The latter is nearly as far east of the former as it is south, so I've put question marks by the identities. </object> <object><oname>NGC7739</oname> See NGC7738. </object> <object><oname>NGC7740</oname> MCG apparently made an error in the RA when precessing the NGC position since the object called N7740 in it precedes the correct object by about a minute of time. The correct object is not in MCG, but is in CGCG -- it is CGCG 476-123. </object> <object><oname>NGC7741</oname> WH's position is almost +4 arcmin off. See NGC6882 = NGC6885 for more on this and his other observations of 10 Sept 1784. </object> <object><oname>NGC7744</oname><oname>IC5348</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>NGC7745</oname> MCG missed the NGC identification in spite of the fact that Marth's position is quite good. Though this is in a poor galaxy cluster, it is the brightest member. Since none of the other cluster members is nearly as bright, there are no other objects nearby that Marth could have confused with this one, so the identification is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC7748</oname> Only the star (SAO 20818) is here. JH says, "About a * 8m is a very extensive space which I am certain is affected with nebulosity." He saw this on only one night, so the nebulosity may well have been a transient feature of some sort (thin cloud? aurora?). The magnitude of the star becomes "7" in the NGC; GC follows JH of course, in making it "8": another curiousity with this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7756</oname> The fourth Earl of Rosse puts this object five arcmin southwest of N7757. The original description reads in full "Another neb about 5' sp." Not much to go on! There is a star in the area that was taken by MCG and RC1 as N7756, and I've put a colon on it as it seems the most likely object. However, LdR also has measures of two other stars just north of N7757 in his observation of it. Both of them are about the same magnitude as the star to the southwest. This makes me wonder why LdR didn't see them as nebulae as well. It also lead me to poke around the area a bit. There is a close double star -- quite faint, though -- closer to N7757, and a somewhat brighter and much wider double further south. Neither seems a likely candidate to me, but there isn't much else around that LdR could have seen with the Leviathan. </object> <object><oname>NGC7757</oname> See NGC7756. </object> <object><oname>NGC7761</oname><oname>IC5361</oname>. This is one of two galaxies in this area found by Ormond Stone in 1886 at Leander-McCormick. As you know by now, I am not generally thrilled with the positions that Stone has left us in the AJ articles announcing the discovery of these things. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify most of the objects. In this case, we need to go back to Stone's notes since he left us no sketch of the field. In the notes to NGC7776 -- which he DID sketch -- we find the note "near [N7761]". We can definitely show that N7776 is the same object as IC1514, so Stone's rough positions yeild an offset of about 3 minutes of time in RA and an identical declination (though the declination for N7776 is marked with a plus-minus sign) to N7761. When we apply those offsets to N7776 = I1514 -- noting that the nominal Dec for N7761 is not marked with any uncertainty symbol -- we find IC5361 at just about where we'd expect it to be if it is indeed N7761. Since the description pretty well fits, I'm confident of the identification. The note in the second IC is a bit misleading because Howe thought he searched in vain for N7761 and N7776. He did, in fact, come across N7761, but took it to be new. Thus it, like N7776, ended up with an IC number, too. </object> <object><oname>NGC7765</oname>is in a group with NGC7766, N7767, and N7768. See the latter two for notes on the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC7766</oname>is in a group with NGC7765, N7767, and N7768. See the latter two for notes on the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC7767</oname> Though both Reinmuth and CGCG suggested that this is identical to IC1511 (which see), it is a different object. Bigourdan has measurements of both objects which show that I1511 is a star, while this is a galaxy with a star superposed about 15 arcsec southwest of the nucleus (Bigourdan actually measured this star rather than the galaxy itself). Lord Rosse's diagram is useful in sorting out the identities of the other galaxies in the field, NGC7765, N7766, and N7768. </object> <object><oname>NGC7768</oname>is the brightest of a group of galaxies found by Lord Rosse. His diagram makes clear the identities of the objects he saw. Others in the group are N7765, N7766, and N7767 (which see). Bigourdan's two "novae" here (IC 1511 and I1512, which see) are stars. </object> <object><oname>NGC7774</oname> See NGC153. </object> <object><oname>NGC7776</oname><oname>IC1514</oname> is another of Ormond Stone's discoveries at Leander- McCormick. Though his nominal position is quite poor (1.5 minutes of time off in RA and nearly 12 arcmin in Dec), he has left us a sketch showing the nebula and two nearby stars. The brighter of the stars is just outside of the nominal field diameter, but is nevertheless found on the sky where Stone placed it on the sketch. This clearly identifies his nebula as the same one that Johann Palisa found and measured accurately seven years later in September of 1893. Even though Palisa did not have a precise position for his comparison star, the position he published is quite accurate. So, there is no doubt about the identity of the galaxy he measured. Clinching the identity, Palisa noted an eccentric nucleus, and Stone's sketch shows that same offset nucleus. See NGC7761 = IC5361 for another Stone discovery that depends on this galaxy for its identification. </object> <object><oname>NGC7772</oname>is an astersim of 7 stars, the southern-most brighter than the others. Still, it is a striking object, well isolated, and would probably stand out quite well at the eyepiece. </object> <object><oname>NGC7791</oname>is a double star. Even JH had doubts about its nebular character, adding to his notes "Query if not a star." His position is good. </object> <object><oname>NGC7795</oname> This is a sparce group of stars generally to the east of the 7th magnitude star (SAO 35922) that JH called "the chief of a vL coarse scattered but poor cluster which fills the field." It doesn't stand out well on POSS1, but may look better at the eyepiece where the background of faint stars would not be seen. </object> <object><oname>NGC7799</oname>is a star about 20 arcsec northeast of a somewhat brighter star. D'A mentions both objects in his description, and has them in the correct relative orientation as well as at the correct distance. Furthermore, his position is within 20 arcsec of the true position. Other catalogues have pointed to UGC 12882 as NGC7799, but that is a very faint object, and the even fainter star southwest is twice as far from the object as d'A has measured it. I don't think it likely that d'A could have seen either object with his 11-inch refractor. </object> <object><oname>NGC7801</oname> This is a possible cluster at JH's position. He says of it only "A double star in a tolerable cluster in which is one star 9 m." To my eye on a DSS image, this is a group of 20-30 stars covering an area about 15 arcmin by 11 arcmin. Brian Skiff sees it as an "asterism, center defined as position of a wide magnitude 12 pair." Whatever the true nature of the object, the 9th magnitude star is a couple of arcmin northwest of the double in the center of the group. </object> <object><oname>NGC7804</oname>is a double star. Dreyer, in a note in NGC itself, says that "von Engelhardt in 4 obs could only see a D* without nebulosity." Once Burnham turned the 36-inch at Lick on the object, the question was settled for Dreyer. His IC1 note is quite firm: "To be struck out, only a F double star without nebulosity (Burnham)." This is indeed what we see today. The discoverer of this object, Schweizer, is not otherwise known to me. Perhaps someone can do some biographical digging. He was probably an observer at Moscow as the observation comes originally, according to the NGC note, from the "Obs. de Moscou," Vol II, book 2, pp 115 and 119. </object> <object><oname>NGC7807</oname> The ESO RA for 1950 has the seconds of time inverted -- instead of "23 57 05" read "23 57 50". This error was propogated into SGC (blush), NGC 2000.0, and DSFG by cataloguers who assumed ESO was correct (as it usually is!). Otherwise, all is well with this object. </object> <object><oname>NGC7810</oname> See NGC7555. </object> <object><oname>NGC7813</oname>is probably identical with IC5384, though the descriptions do not match, and Muller's position is a typically poor one from the second Leander McCormick list in AJ. The IC number comes from Howe who found the galaxy while looking for NGC7813. The position angles for the galaxy (Muller, 80 deg; Howe, 160 deg) and surrounding stars (Muller, "*8.5 f 38s" and "*9 np 40s"; Howe "*8.5 p 49s" and "two sts 9 nnp") don't match, but the declinations are the same as are the general descriptions "eF, vS, E". I do see a somewhat fainter star (about 10th magnitude) roughly 25 seconds following the galaxy -- is this possibly Muller's "* 8.5"? Unfortunately, he has left us no sketch. The IC identification, at least, is secure. </object> <object><oname>NGC7814</oname> See IC5378. </object> <object><oname>NGC7815</oname>is a single star, exactly at the position measured for it by Schultz. It is his "Nova XII" in his monograph of about 500 micrometrically measured nebulae. He comments, "Several fine stars seen in the neby? The object in the autumn of 1866 quite distinctly seen as a nebula with a stellar core; in the autumn of 1869, hardly visible!" He lists only two night's observations for the object, 2 and 3 October 1866. Neither was good; the 2nd was "Extremely variable; soon clouding" and the 3rd was "Very damp; object-glass covered with moisture." Given those conditions, it doesn't surprise me that he thought the star nebulous. In fact, I am a bit surprised that he does not have more than just an even dozen "Novae". Bigourdan, by the way, has this as two pretty-widely separated stars; his position, though, falls on Schultz's star. </object> <object><oname>NGC7822</oname> I wonder about JH's declination for this. He has only one observation of it, and places it quite definitely 1.5 degrees north of the center of a huge HII region that would match his description pretty well. Here is what he has to say about it: The central part of what I am positive is an enormously large, but extremely faint nebulosity of a round figure, though I cannot trace its limits. The night exquisite. I swept often across it to be sure, but always recurred to the same place. No doubt but can never be seen but in the best state of air and sky. Diameter 10 arcmin +-. Dreyer attached two notes to the object, one in NGC itself: "Not seen at Birr Castle in two observations. It is, however, far north of the Zenith, and the speculum may have tilted." In the 2nd IC, he says briefly, "40' diameter, many stars involved (Roberts, MN lxviii, 301)." Roberts's description, from three 90-minute plates taken in 1901 and 1902, is clearly that of the large nebula south of JH's position. Roberts notes three pretty bright stars involved (BD +66 1675, 1676, and 1679) which make it quite clear that he thought N7822 to be the HII region. I'm puzzled, though, that neither he nor Dreyer mentioned the differing declinations. I also find JH's diameter estimate to be puzzling. Usually, a 10 arcmin diameter would rate a description of "vL", not "eeL". Also, there is, centered just a few arcmin south of JH's place, a "wing" of the nebula that could possibly be the object that he saw. But it is fainter than the main part of the object. Perhaps the northern part happened to be in the sweep on that "exquisite" night, while the brighter central portion was passed over in another sweep on an average night. Whatever the case, this fainter wing is a possible candidate for N7822, also. However, I'm going to follow Roberts and Dreyer in adopting the HII region as the object that JH probably described, and assume that his declination represents an error of some sort. So, it gets the colon, while the northern wing gets the question mark. I've put the position for the HII region midway between the latter two BD stars in Roberts's note. The HII region, by the way, is Cederblad 214B. It is incorrectly listed as a reflection nebula in at least one catalogue, and various pieces of it have ended up with separate numbers in Lynds's catalogue of bright nebulae. See Dixon's "Master List" for a complete list of the various names. </object> <object><oname>NGC7825</oname> The NGC positions for this and NGC7827 are quite good, having come from John Herschel (via the GC) and from d'Arrest. This hasn't kept MCG from mangling the identifications for the galaxies. UGC sorted out N7827, but still got the wrong galaxy for N7825. This led PGC -- and thus RC3 -- to adopt the incorrect identification. CGCG got everything right, but PGC ignored it (and has further made a hash of the CGCG numbers, positions, and magnitudes in the area). In any event, delete the NGC number from PGC 377 in RC3. </object> <object><oname>NGC7826</oname>is "A triangular group of about a dozen stars" according to JH. What he doesn't say is that the stars are fairly bright, and are scattered over an area of 13 arcmin by 9 arcmin. The apex of the triangle is to the south. I think it's unlikely that this is a real cluster, but haven't checked the proper motions. </object> <object><oname>NGC7827</oname> See NGC7825. </object> <object><oname>NGC7831</oname><oname>IC1530</oname>. This galaxy was first seen by Lewis Swift on 20 September 1885. Unfortunately, Swift's position is well off the mark, as are his positions for all the galaxies found that night. This one, however, shares a common offset with three of the other galaxies (NGC19, NGC21, and NGC7836). The correct identities are unmistakeable, though, because of Swift's clear descriptions of the star fields surrounding three of the four objects (see NGC 6 for more details). In this case, he notes "bright star south, very faint star very near." The bright star is SAO 053654, and the very faint star is at the southwest end of the galaxy. Swift's poor position led to the galaxy's being rediscovered by Bigourdan. So, it has ended up with the IC number as well. </object> <object><oname>NGC7832</oname><oname>IC5386</oname>. This one is another blunder by Swift (originally), but also by Howe and Dreyer who evidently did not check the NGC. Howe's accurate position is only three seconds of time off the NGC position, and Swift's description "pB, pS, vE" should have caught everyone's eyes. But it didn't, so the galaxy now has an IC number as well as an NGC entry. </object> <object><oname>NGC7836</oname> Curiously, this is the only one of Swift's five discoveries on 20 September 1885 (suffering large offsets from the true positions; see NGC6 for more details) to be correctly identified by most of the modern catalogues. Yet, Swift's notes about the nearby stars for this galaxy are the most ambiguous of the batch. He merely says "between 2 stars." There is a line of fairly bright stars about 2 arcmin following, but none of the fainter stars preceding the galaxy seem to be a match for the description. Nevertheless, the systematic position offset (+1 min 10 sec and +8 arcmin 8 arcsec) for the nebulae found that night is so closely shared by NGC7836 (+1 min 14 sec and +8 arcmin 10 arcsec) that its identity is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>NGC7839</oname> Bigourdan's position lands directly on the brighter and northeastern of two stars about 4 arcmin southwest of NGC1 and 2. The fainter star is probably too faint for Bigourdan to have consciously seen with his 30-cm refractor, but it may have added some to the impression of nebulosity around the brighter star. So, I've included it as a part of N7839. </object> |
|
icnotes.txt (695,550 bytes)
<object><oname>IC11</oname> <oname>NGC281</oname>. IC11 is one of Barnard's discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer; it is not, so far as I know, in any of Barnard's published papers. Though included in Cederblad's catalogue of bright diffuse nebulae (and thus plotted in several atlases), it is not on the sky in Barnard's position. I have not found it on the POSS, nor on plate 89 of Barnard's own collection of comet and Milky Way photographs (Lick Publ. XI; 1913). However, the triple star mentioned in the description suggests the identity with NGC281, and makes the RA just 30 minutes of time too small. I suspect a simple transcription error on Barnard's part. </object> <object><oname>IC26</oname> <oname>NGC135</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC39</oname> <oname>NGC178</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC44</oname> <oname>NGC223</oname> is the brighter of two galaxies (N219 is the fainter). These were found by G.P. Bond at Harvard, and N223 was independently discovered by d'Arrest. The positions and descriptions are good. Swift's later description is also appropriate, especially his reference to the two stars flanking the galaxy, each about 3 arcmin away in PA's 160 deg and 340 deg. The latter of these stars is also noted by Bond in his description of NGC219. </object> <object><oname>IC45</oname> can probably be taken as a pair of stars near Bigourdan's position. Malcolm Thomson and Steve Gottlieb have pointed out that the identification of UGC 449 as IC45 in several modern lists, including my first guess in 1976 about its identity, is incorrect. Bigourdan's original observations support their idea. Bigourdan found the 106th and 107th of his "new nebulae" on 15 Nov 1889, but measured only the first, giving an estimated position to the second of the two. A decade later, he remeasured the first, could not find the second, but noticed a "Granulated object which could be a small cluster about 40 arcsec across" nearby. He measured the object twice that night; his reduced position is almost exactly on the brighter of two stars aligned nearly east/west and separated by about 20 arcsec. Even though his original estimated position (where he found nothing because there is nothing there!) is in the IC with the cursory description "Suspected nebula," his final list of novae has the later position with the note "Small cluster?" Thus, we take the asterism as his object even though it is not, strictly speaking, represented by the entry in the IC. </object> <object><oname>IC48</oname> <oname>IC1577</oname>. The position as originally published by Barnard (AN 3097; MNRAS 55, 451) is correct. In reducing the declination to 1860, however, Dreyer applied the precession with the wrong sign. This galaxy is also identical to I1577 which has an 1 min error in its RA (Barnard apparently rediscovered this after his move to Yerkes; he sent the discovery note directly to Dreyer rather than publishing it). Barnard thought this nebula was variable: is it perhaps a Seyfert galaxy (the colors and spectrum are normal for an S0, however), or was there possibly a supernova near the nucleus? </object> <object><oname>IC67</oname> <oname>IC68</oname>. Bigourdan has rough measurements of IC67 (B109) and IC68 (B110) on 21 Nov 1889, placing them both at PA = 152 deg , 4 arcmin and 6 arcmin, respectively, from BD -7 158. On 6 Dec 1898, he puts IC67 at the same place, but says of IC68, "I cannot see this nebula. Perhaps it was confused with 109 Big." On the next night (7 Dec 1898), he has this to say about IC67 (he didn't measure it then), "Pretty stellar object; I can't comment clearly on its nature." There is nothing in either of these positions on the POSS, not even faint stars. As with other similar objects, I think that -- knowing that he was in a group of nebulae -- he was pushing his eyes too hard, perhaps on a less than ideal night. </object> <object><oname>IC68</oname>. See IC67. </object> <object><oname>IC71</oname> <oname>IC72</oname>. For IC71 (Big 111), Bigourdan has observations and crude measures on two nights. On 21 Nov 1889, he roughly measured an "exceedingly faint" nebula at 280 deg , 4' from BD -7 deg 159; while on 6 Dec 1898, he found a "stellar object" at 295 deg , 5' from the BD star. While the second estimate is closer to a faint star, I think that both observations must refer to that same star; there is nothing else nearby which he could have seen. I've listed the GSC position of this star in the main table. He observed IC72 (B112) only once (21 Nov 89): "stellar object, probably nebulous" at 347 deg, 2' from the BD star. On the second night, (6 Dec 1898), he notes "Object only suspected" and gives no measures or even estimates of its position. There is a faint star at 5 deg, 1.3' from the BD star, and I suspect it is this that he saw and mistook as nebulous. However, the actual offset is rather far from his estimated place (especially the position angle), so I don't place much weight in this identification. Nevertheless, I list the star's GSC position under the IC number in the main table. There is nothing else nearby that he might have seen. </object> <object><oname>IC72</oname>. See IC71. </object> <object><oname>IC77</oname> <oname>IC80</oname> are two of Javelle's galaxies in the core of Abell 151. He found both on 31 August 1892, and measured both with respect to BD -16 189. His positions are very good since the BD position for the star is within 10 arcsec of the modern position. MCG misidentified IC80 as IC77. This has caused some confusion in modern catalogues, though RC2 has the right IC number on the pair, calling the brighter of the two "IC80A" (though the RC2 position is for the southern; my apologies!). That is MCG -03-04-008 which is actually northeast of MCG -03-04-009, the fainter galaxy, called "IC80B" in RC2 (again my apologies for the wrong position in RC2). These are the two objects in the cluster with redshifts measured by Milton Humason at Mt. Wilson. Though not called IC80 by him, his finding chart points unambiguously to them. See the HMS 1956 AJ paper for the finding chart and redshifts. </object> <object><oname>IC80</oname>. MCG misidentified this as IC77. See that for more. </object> <object><oname>IC87</oname>. See IC88. </object> <object><oname>IC88</oname> was misidentified in MCG. Unfortunately, LEDA carried the wrong galaxy along for a while. The right one is not in MCG, but is cleanly identified by Javelle's micrometric measurement. Curiously, IC87, measured just a few minutes before IC88, was correctly identified for MCG. Given that the IC positions are within an arcminute of the modern positions (and Javelle's when a good position is used for his reference star), the relative offset might have been a clue to IC88's correct identification. </object> <object><oname>IC89</oname></oname><oname>NGC446</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC92</oname><oname>NGC468</oname>, and IC94. JH's NPD for N468 (correctly transcribed into the NGC) is about 4 arcmin south of the galaxy. So, when Bigourdan went over the area late in 1885 and again in 1900, he incorrectly identified a star closer to JH's position as N468. On the same nights, he found what he thought were two new nebulae in the area. One of these (IC94) is another star, but the other (I92) is the galaxy that JH found. So, it now has entries in both catalogues. The identity was first suggested in MCG. </object> <object><oname>IC93</oname><oname>IC1671</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC94</oname> is a star. See IC92. </object> <object><oname>IC97</oname><oname>NGC475</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC106</oname><oname>NGC530</oname>. This "bug" arose because of bad timing. Bigourdan found the galaxy in November of 1887, just a year after Swift had first discovered it. Swift sent the discovery to Dreyer in a letter (from which it went into the NGC), then published the galaxy in his sixth list. Bigourdan also published the galaxy as a "nova" after the NGC appeared, but apparently did not realize that it was Swift's object because of the difference in RA. So, it got an IC number, too. When Bigourdan went over the area again in 1897, he had completely forgotten his earlier observation, so remeasured the galaxy with respect to the same comparison star. This second time, he recognized that the object was the same one Swift had seen and gave it its NGC number in his list. He also noted the difference in RA. Howe also caught the RA difference and published a corrected position in 1898. This appeared as a note in the second IC. Dreyer also added the identity to Howe's corrected RA. Finally, MCG suggested that the galaxy was also IC1696, but that is a different galaxy a few arcminutes southeast found by Howe. </object> <object><oname>IC107</oname><oname>IC1700</oname> (which also see). This is the brightest of three galaxies near Swift's position. The position given by Swift -- 20 sec in error -- coincidentally falls near IC1699, the faintest of the three. Swift, however, mentions the star 0.5 arcmin southwest, confirming the identification with the brightest. Javelle later took the brightest as a new discovery, so it received the second IC number. </object> <object><oname>IC110</oname> might be a double star, but is more likely one of Bigourdan's illusory objects, or it suffers from a misidentified comparison star. He found it the night of 5 November 1885, and based his position for it on an estimated offset from IC111: "Mag 13.5 object situated near Big 121 [IC111] at PA = 320 deg, distance = 0.8 arcmin; it could be a little nebulous." There is nothing in that position (there is also nothing in the place of IC 111, but that is another story, which see). About 30 arcsec northeast of the estimated place, however, is a faint double star that Bigourdan might possibly have seen. Is this IC110? I doubt it. Since there is no trace of IC111 at its place -- nevertheless micrometrically measured -- IC110 is just as unlikely to be in its estimated place. The possibility still exists that it is a real star or galaxy, but I do not see a pair of objects of the right descriptions in the area offset from a star similarly bright as the nominal comparison star (BD +33 250). </object> <object><oname>IC111</oname>, like IC110 (which see), is probably lost. Bigourdan has three observations of I111 on two different nights at two different positions. His first micrometrically measured place, which is the IC position, comes from 5 November 1885, but there is nothing at all within an arcmin of that position. He describes the "object" simply: "This object could be a star accompanied by a little nebulosity." The second position, from two measurements on 19 December 1900, is about 2 arcmin away from the first in the midst of an asterism of 6 faint stars. This is not the IC position, so even though Bigourdan's description ("Slightly granulated object about 30 arcsec in diameter; it could be formed by several small dispersed stars in the guise of a pretty nebulous ensemble") and position are appropriate for the asterism, I can't really take this as the IC object. What, then, does his first observation 15 years earlier refer to? Unless he misidentified his comparison star (he calls it BD +33 250), this is one of Bigourdan's illusory objects like NGC2529 and NGC2531. He also claimed to have found IC110 nearby. That, too, is missing, and I don't see a pair of objects, stars or galaxies, in the area offset from a star similar to BD +33 250 that might fit his observations. </object> <object><oname>IC124</oname> is a star. Javelle's micrometric position is within 6 arcsec of the modern positions, though his description "Very faint, very small, diffuse; there is a very small brilliant point in the nebulosity" does not fit the star. Perhaps he made his measurement during a spell of less than perfect seeing, or ... Fill in the dots with your own hypothesis. There are many other such objects in the IC with no explanations. The observers obviously thought they had bagged new nebulae. We shall probably never know exactly why so many of these "novae" turned out to be nothing more than single stars. </object> <object><oname>IC131</oname> is a group of HII regions immersed in two small star clouds in M33. It is often misidentified as the much brighter compact HII region about half an arcminute preceding the northern star cloud. This cannot be the IC object as Bigourdan's measurements clearly point at the star clouds, his description fits them, and he specifically mentions the compact HII region calling it a 13.5 magnitude star. </object> <object><oname>IC134</oname> is a star superposed on the northern side of M33. Though Bigourdan estimated its position on only night, and noted it as "only suspected," there are no other objects in the area that are bright enough that he could have seen. </object> <object><oname>IC135</oname>, IC136, IC139, and IC140. These are all HII regions or star clouds in M33. There is an error in Bigourdan's estimated offset from M33's nucleus of his comparison star for these four. He claims that the 10th magnitude comparison star is 8' south, and 31 seconds of time preceding the nucleus. There is no star that bright in that position. However, there is a star of the right brightness 8 arcmin south and 31 seconds of time following the nucleus. When Bigourdan's measured offsets for his four novae are referred to this star, the four objects can be pretty easily identified (but see IC139!). </object> <object><oname>IC136</oname>. See IC135. </object> <object><oname>IC138</oname>. See IC1528. </object> <object><oname>IC139</oname>. The identity is not quite certain. I first measured the position of a star cloud that I thought was IC139, but this turned out to be half an arcminute north of Bigourdan's micrometric position. Checking the field, however, I found that his position is very clearly on a foreground star (or possibly a compact HII region?) of about 14th magnitude embedded in a confused area of fainter stars. His description is telling, too, as he refers to a nebula about 30 arcsec across with a brighter central point that he measured. It seems likely that the combination of the star and the background light of M33 led him to think he had found a nebula. The position I've adopted, after some consultation with Steve Gottlieb and Tony Flanders, is that of the 14th magnitude star. I've measured two or three other star clouds in the area as well and their positions are in the table, too. Also see IC135 for a note on the identity and position of Bigourdan's comparison star. </object> <object><oname>IC140</oname>. See IC135. </object> <object><oname>IC146</oname><oname>NGC648</oname>. The NGC object is one of those found at Leander McCormick soon after their 26-inch refractor went into service. The galaxy not given a good position: the nominal RA is 1.6 minutes of time too far east -- though the declination is only two arcminutes out -- and there is no surviving sketch. There are no other candidate galaxies, so the identification is pretty secure. The eastward RA error is a common one in the first two lists of nebulae found with the 26-inch. The position was corrected by Herbert Howe in one of his Monthly Notices articles. Dreyer copied Howe's corrected RA into the IC2 Notes. Unfortunately, neither Howe nor Dreyer noticed that the corrected position coincided with that of IC146, found in September of 1892 by Javelle with the 30-inch refractor at Nice. Javelle's micrometrically measured position is good, and the IC identity is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>IC151</oname>, IC152, IC153, and IC157. Four "nebulae" found by Swift for which his positions refer to nothing in the area. (The galaxy identified as IC152 in CGCG could well be one of those seen by Swift. But the position is well off and nothing else nearby matches). A thorough examination of POSS plates E-14 and O-15 revealed no galaxies matching his descriptions or relative positions. </object> <object><oname>IC152</oname> is lost; see IC151. </object> <object><oname>IC153</oname> is also lost. Again, see IC151. </object> <object><oname>IC155</oname> does not exist. Found by Wolf on an early Heidelburg plate. The position has been copied correctly into the IC, and Wolf gives it three times in his short paper, so there can be no large error in his reduction or in publication. This, therefore, may be one of the earliest examples of a photographic plate defect being mistaken for a nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC157</oname>. This, too, is lost; see IC151. </object> <object><oname>IC161</oname> <oname>IC162</oname>. Swift's positions are again not good, but it seems likely that he saw the brightest of the three galaxies in the area in 1889, and the two brightest in 1890. Therefore, his position for the brightest (IC161) would be 10 arcmin in error for the 1890 observation. The original IC data should read as follows: IC161 Sw IX and X 01 41 20 80 20.4 eeF, pS, lE IC162 Sw X 01 41 23 80 20.3 eeF, pS, R </object> <object><oname>IC162</oname>. See IC161. </object> <object><oname>IC165</oname><oname>NGC684</oname>. Dreyer seems to have found this identity himself. He has an IC2 Note that simply equates the two numbers, and gives no reference. The usual sources of these corrections (Howe, Bigourdan, Harvard, etc.) make no mention of the objects, so I think that Dreyer must have noticed the very similar descriptions and the close positions. If anyone can find another source for this identity, please let me know. In any event, there is only one galaxy here. It was rediscovered, by the way, by Edward Swift, Lewis Swift's teenage son, in January 1890 while Edward was "searching for Swift's Comet." The comet was presumeably one of his father's. </object> <object><oname>IC177</oname>. One of the rare cases of a rather large error in Javelle's positions. Two fainter galaxies are to the south, one of which was mistakenly identified in the MCG as I177. </object> <object><oname>IC186</oname>. Javelle noted this as a double nebula, though there are actually three components -- the eastern galaxy is itself a close double. There is a much fainter compact galaxy south of the western component, but Javelle could not have seen it with the Nice 30-inch. </object> <object><oname>IC187</oname> <oname>IC188</oname>. Though large errors exist in Swift's places for these two galaxies, they could have been seen by him, and the descriptions are not inconsistent. </object> <object><oname>IC188</oname>. See IC187. </object> <object><oname>IC191</oname><oname>NGC794</oname>. Swift's position is just nine seconds preceding JH's (adopted for GC and NGC), close enough that Dreyer suggested the identification in the IC. The descriptions are quite different, however, suggesting that Swift picked up the galaxy on a particularly good night, while WH and JH must have seen it on poor nights, or when their speculum mirrors needed repolishing. In any case, the identity is almost certain as there are no other galaxies nearby that the Herschel's or Swift could have seen. </object> <object><oname>IC198</oname>. See IC199. </object> <object><oname>IC199</oname><oname>IC1778</oname>. When the same galaxy is discovered twice by the same observer, it is usually by one whose positions are not very good (e.g. Lewis Swift has quite a few objects in his lists that he "discovered" more than once). It is rather unusual that Javelle, who measured everything he found micrometrically, should list the same object as new in two different lists. Yet that is what he has done. When his observations are reduced, they fall within about a dozen seconds of each other, and both point unmistakeably to the same galaxy. Even more curiously, on the second night (29 Jan 1897), he noted that he also remeasured another of his "novae," IC198, from the first night (15 Dec 1892). Yet he did not recognize that his observations of the object in question were in fact for the same object. Curious indeed, but there it is. </object> <object><oname>IC200</oname>. The galaxy 34s following the IC position is probably too faint to have been seen by Safford, and the description does not match in any case. The object 2 minutes of time following does match his description, and a 2 min digit error is more likely to be made than a 34s error. See IC1008, IC1026, and IC1030 for other notes on nebulae found by Safford with the Clark 18.5-inch that also share digit errors in their RA's. </object> <object><oname>IC206</oname> <oname>IC207</oname>. The positions were referred to the wrong star by Javelle. The relative positions are exact, and the descriptions match. I209 (whose place in Javelle's list is correct), referred to what Javelle supposed to be the same star, was found and measured one night later than I206 and I207. </object> <object><oname>IC207</oname>. See IC206. </object> <object><oname>IC209</oname>. See IC206. </object> <object><oname>IC210</oname>. See IC1528. </object> <object><oname>IC217</oname><oname>IC1787</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC229</oname>. A nebula is marked on the CD chart, and Dreyer read its position correctly from the chart -- but it does not, in fact, exist. Since Thome was observing with a small telescope (12.5 cm), it is unlikely that he saw and incorrectly recorded any of the fainter galaxies in the area. Unlike the other four "nebulae" found by Thome (IC1023, 1203, 1207, and 1290), this one is not an asterism, either. The nebula is not on the 1929 edition of the CD charts, so may have been an error affecting only the first edition. </object> <object><oname>IC233</oname> has been misidentified as the fainter, southern galaxy of a pair, most recently by LEDA and NED. It is, of course, the northern, brighter object. That has the star south 1 arcmin, too, just as Javelle noted. </object> <object><oname>IC240</oname> is probably a line of four faint stars. The IC position is correctly copied from Bigourdan's second list of novae in Comptes Rendus, but his detailed observations suggest that he applied his estimated offsets to the comparison star with the wrong signs. In that case, the position would be about an arcmin southeast of NGC996; there is nothing there. However, this observation is in Bigourdan's list of errata. There we find that the data in the big table is reversed from its true values: "In place of PA = 30 deg, read 210 deg and change the signs of delta RA and delta Dec." When this is done, we can recover the IC position, and find that it falls near the line of stars. I'm still curious about his description in Comptes Rendus: "Mag. 13.3; 35-40 arcsec." His description in the observation list reads only "eF, only suspected." Where did the size come from? (There are several other such discrepancies among his published novae.) In this case, there is no supplemental observation, so the source of his size estimate remains a mystery. In any case, it's clear that Bigourdan was not much interested in his "novae," and preferred to spend his time measuring the brighter, well-known nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC242</oname> is one of a double star. Javelle's position is not good enough to tell us which one, and his description, "eF, eS; nearly in contact with a very small star," does not give us relative positions, either. But it looks as though the proximity of the two stars misled him to seeing nebulosity where there is none. IC243, found the same night, and less than 3 arcmin to the northeast, is well-measured with respect to the same comparison star, so there is no possibility of a mistaken comparison star for IC242. </object> <object><oname>IC243</oname>. See IC242. </object> <object><oname>IC249</oname><oname>NGC1051</oname><oname>NGC961</oname>. In spite of Javelle's assertion that IC249 is "distinct from NGC1051" (he says nothing about the relative orientations; that is Dreyer's interpretation for IC1), his measured position shows that it is the same object as the one that Stephan saw (and later Stone; his RA is 10 minutes off, leading to the number N961 for his observation). Here are the precise positions: RA (1950.0) Dec Notes Stephan 02 38 34.63 -07 08 52.0 (Re-reduced wrt GSC pos for comp *) (NGC 35 08.9) Javelle 02 38 33.57 -07 08 56.2 (Ditto) Bigourdan 02 38 34.07 -07 09 03.5 (Ditto; one delta dec rej). Skiff 02 38 34.15 -07 08 59.9 GSC 02 38 34.01 -07 08 57.5 n = 2 HC 02 38 34.1 -07 09 00 Sup * GSC 02 38 35.69 -07 08 33.7 n = 2 Notice that Stephan's position is about 1.05 seconds (16 arcsec) following Javelle's, though the declinations agree to within the errors. One possible source of the large difference is proper motion of the comparison stars. This could be significant since each of the visual observers used only one comparison star each (each used a different star). However, Stephan's comparison star (BD -7 490 = Weisse 678) is almost 1.5 degrees away from the galaxy, while Javelle's and Bigourdan's are about 5-6 arcmin distant. Therefore, I'm inclined to give a lower weight to Stephan's position for NGC 1051 than to Javelle's or Bigourdan's. It's also possible, of course, that one or the other of them simply made a 1 second of time error somewhere in their reduction or transcription to the publication. However, when Javelle made his measurement, Stephan's was the only other micrometric observation, so Javelle probably assumed that it was correct. This might lead him to believe that the difference (21 arcsec) between St's RA (as given in NGC) and his own is significant. The difference is coincidentally close to the RA difference (25 arcsec) in the GSC between the galaxy and the superposed star north following. If Javelle saw the star with even the slightest haze, he could well have thought that it was the real NGC 1051, since it is considerably brighter than the galaxy. Thus, he would have listed the galaxy as a "new" object even though it is clearly the same one that Stephan and Stone saw. The similar descriptions from all the observers, including Steve Gottlieb's, also point to their having seen the same object. Unfortunately, as was his custom, Javelle did not mention the superposed star. </object> <object><oname>IC256</oname>. This identification is not secure. The object I've picked for IC256 is very faint, and I'd be surprised if Swift could have seen it. However, it falls out almost by default if the two brighter objects Swift found nearby -- on the same night -- get the numbers IC257 and IC260. Swift's absolute positions for those two are not too bad, but his descriptions help only with I260 -- he has it "in line with 2 nr F sts"; the stars are there. He notes his other two objects as being "in [a] vacancy." This isn't quite true as this is a low-latitude field rich in faint stars, but there are no eye- catchingly bright stars near the galaxies. Finally, there is nothing at his position for I256 except I257. Is this another case where an observer picked up the same galaxy twice on the same night? The faint "IC256", by the way, is either a double galaxy, nearly completely merged, or a galaxy with a faint star superposed just 4-5 arcsec north of the nucleus. None of the images I've seen are completely clear about the nature of the northern object, at least without detailed photometry. </object> <object><oname>IC257</oname>. See IC256. </object> <object><oname>IC258</oname> <oname>IC259</oname>. Burnham gives his original observations and reductions for these two nebulae in Lick Obs. Publ., II, 181, 1894. All his measurements and computations are correct, but his final position for "Neb. II." (= IC 259) is 30 seconds of time in error. </object> <object><oname>IC259</oname>. See IC258. </object> <object><oname>IC260</oname>. See IC256. </object> <object><oname>IC263</oname> <oname>IC264</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Malcolm Thomson found the correct one: BD -0deg 436 (Javelle incorrectly claimed -0deg 438). When this change is made, CGCG 389-027 clearly becomes IC263, with Javelle's re-reduced position falling within 2 arcsec of the nucleus. IC264, however, is subject to yet another error: Javelle's printed RA offset has the wrong sign. When changed to the correct minus sign, I264 is shown to be a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy matching Javelle's description. As with I263, his re-reduced position is within 2 arcsec of the nucleus. </object> <object><oname>IC264</oname>. See IC263. </object> <object><oname>IC274</oname>. There is nothing much near Swift's position. About 7 arcmin northeast is a galaxy that he might have seen, however. And 3 arcmin east is a small group of stars (a double and a triple) that could also be the object he saw. Unfortunately, he does not tell us anything about the star field, so neither of these is a very solid identification. </object> <object><oname>IC275</oname> is a triple galaxy close to Swift's position. It's possible that his object is only one of the three, and that the "F star near preceding" is a second. There are also two candidates for his "D star nr sp", the prime one being a wide double about 3 arcmin southwest. </object> <object><oname>IC280</oname> may be no more than an asterism of 4 faint stars. There are no galaxies or nebulae within 10 arcmin of Swift's position, and his description is scanty enough to make the stars a likely candidate. Also, Swift's positions for the other four objects found that night are pretty good, aside from a -1 minute error in the RA of IC282 (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC281</oname><oname>NGC1177</oname>. This is a clear case of oversight on Dreyer's part, as well as Swift's. The positions are very close, and the descriptions are also very similar. Dreyer himself made a measurement of N1177 with Lord Rosse's 72-inch, so it surprises me a bit that he did not check Swift's observation more closely with the NGC. Whatever happened, the identity is sure. See NGC1177 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>IC282</oname><oname>NGC1198</oname>. Swift's RA is just -1 minute of time out. Otherwise, the position is good, and his description fits. </object> <object><oname>IC286</oname> is lost, though perhaps not permanently. Bigourdan found it while searching for NGC1202 (which see, and which is about 24 seconds of time preceding Ormond Stone's discovery position for it), but gave it only an estimated offset from a star at 03 01 54, -06 39 (1950). Unfortunately, there is no star at that nominal position. Bigourdan notes the star at 43 seconds preceding and half an arcminute south of a star he called BD -7 545. This is 10 seconds following Bigourdan's nominal position, and there is still nothing there. I also checked at 43 seconds following the BD star -- nothing. In his description of NGC1202 (which he claims to have seen, but did not measure because of its faintness), Bigourdan describes the field around the BD star: "It [NGC1202] is situated at PA = 175 deg, d = 2.5-3 arcmin with respect to the star BD -7 545. This star, magnitude 9.0, has a companion 12-12.5 toward PA = 125 deg, distance 1 arcmin." This precise description of the field does not match what we see on the sky around the star, so I am almost certain that Bigourdan misidentified some other star as the BD star. A search for several degrees around BD -7 545 fails to turn up any other star of similar brightness with companions in the relative places Bigourdan gives. So, I've been unable so far to recover the objects which he took for NGC1202 and IC286. My earlier conjecture that IC286 = NGC1202 was based purely on the fact that Bigourdan's nominal position for I286 is 15 seconds of time away from NGC1202. Given the problems with the comparison stars, that conjecture is clearly wrong. There are couple of things still to check. For example, did Bigourdan by mistake look at BD +7 545, or BD -7 454? Until we've covered those possibilities, it may be premature to declare IC286 "Not found." By the way, IC286 is not NGC1202 as I supposed in ESGC. Bigourdan saw the two of them, or thought he did, on the same night, 14 December 1890. </object> <object><oname>IC290</oname><oname>IC1884</oname>. IC290 was found near Algol by Swift on 11 September 1888 along with several other galaxies. His positions are not particularly good, so Barnard thought that he discovered the group when he was working in the area sometime later. He did not publish his observations, but sent them directly to Dreyer. Fortunately, his positions are good in this case, so we don't need to appeal to the original observations for verification. The other galaxies involved are IC1883 = NGC1213 (also found by Swift, but in October of 1884), I292 = I1887, I293 = I1888, and I294 = I1889. I295 and I296 are also supposed to be in the area, but are not. See them for some speculation. </object> <object><oname>IC292</oname><oname>IC1887</oname>, IC293 = IC1888, and IC294 = IC1889. As I noted above for IC290 = IC1884, Swift's positions for most of these are poor enough that Barnard was misled into thinking that he had discovered a new group of nebulae near Algol. Also see NGC1213 = IC1883 (the fifth galaxy in the group) for more. (Swift has two additional nebulae here, IC295 and IC296, neither of which exist. See their brief notes, too.) </object> <object><oname>IC293</oname><oname>IC1888</oname>. See IC290 and IC292. </object> <object><oname>IC294</oname><oname>IC1889</oname>. See IC290 and IC292. </object> <object><oname>IC295</oname> is probably lost. It is supposed to be in a group of nebulae found by Swift near Algol (see IC290 for more). In particular, it was found on 11 September 1888, the same night as I292-294. But there is no trace of it in the area, and Barnard found only five galaxies here when he went over it later, while Swift claims a total of seven (N1213, I290, and I292-296). </object> <object><oname>IC296</oname> may be a reobservation of IC294; it was found three nights later on 14 September 1888. See IC295 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC300</oname>. Swift's position is OK, but his description should read "bet 2 sts 9, np and sf" instead of "* 9 sp." Am I seeing the same object that he did? If not, there is a large error in his position, and we need to keep looking for his object. </object> <object><oname>IC314</oname><oname>NGC1289</oname>. Bigourdan notes in his big table, "This nebula, 11 sec following the position given in the NGC, was published as new (140 Big.)." The identify with N1289 is therefore certain. </object> <object><oname>IC319</oname> is a star. There is a faint galaxy 45 arcsec south preceding that has been mistaken (by me, among others) as IC319. However, Bigourdan's two micrometric measures of his nova (= Big 141) point precisely at the star. Furthermore, his description of the surrounding star field is exactly matched if the star is his reference object -- but not if the galaxy is the reference object. Malcolm Thomson has also pointed out that the galaxy is probably too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. In fact, there is another galaxy near a wide double star that Bigourdan measured in this field. This second galaxy is brighter and larger than the first, and Bigourdan makes no mention of the second. I presume that he did not see it, either. </object> <object><oname>IC323</oname> is a triple star very close to Swift's position. He notes this as the "preceding of 2", the second being a rediscovery of NGC1334 (not included in the IC by Dreyer). Swift's position for that is very good, too, so the identity of I323 with the star is pretty sure. </object> <object><oname>IC324</oname><oname>NGC1331</oname> which is the fainter of two nebulae here discovered by WH (the brighter is N1332). His place for N1331 is poor, however, and falls coincidentally near a vF wisp that he could not have seen. The RNGC unfortunately identifies the wisp as N1331=I324. The galaxy that Herschel actually saw was correctly measured at Leander McCormick and by Bigourdan, though Bigourdan did not accept the identify with N1331 and published the galaxy as new (142 Big.). Dreyer (M.N. 73, 37, 1912) makes the identity clear, but recommends dropping the number N1331 in favor of I324. However, since the NGC number has been in general use for many years (e.g., in the Mt. Wilson and Helwan lists, in RC1 and 2, etc.), I have retained it here. </object> <object><oname>IC333</oname> does not exist. It was only suspected by Bigourdan, and observed by him just once. There is nothing in his measured position east-southeast of N1358 (which he also saw), so this, like IC67 and IC68, was probably an illusion. </object> <object><oname>IC335</oname><oname>IC1963</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC336</oname>, IC341, IC353, IC354, and IC360. These eF diffuse nebulae were identified by reference to Barnard's drawing in A.N. 3253, and to his drawing and photograph in M.N. 57, 12, 1897. Barnard's sketch is more or less confirmed by PSS plates O and E441 and O and E31. Curiously, Dreyer did not include all of the patches of nebulosity shown by Barnard, and those that he did list in the IC are not necessarily the brightest. With the possible exceptions of I353 and I354, these nebulae are probably not associated with the Pleiades, but appear more likely to be Galactic reflecting nebulae (see Alan Sandage's article in AJ 81, 954, 1976 for more on these fascinating objects). Note also that the IC position of I360 is 5m in error. </object> <object><oname>IC337</oname>. Swift's position does not match anything in the area. The object in the table is certainly bright enough to have been picked up by Swift, but its position is well off in both RA and Dec. MCG -01-10-009 is about 1.2 minutes preceding the nominal position, and only a couple of arcmin off in Dec, but it has such a low surface brightness that I doubt that Swift could have seen it. Also, he mentions that the galaxy forms a "trapezium with three stars." None of the galaxies in the area fit this description. So, yet another mystery. </object> <object><oname>IC341</oname>. See IC336. </object> <object><oname>IC346</oname>. See IC2090. </object> <object><oname>IC348</oname><oname>IC1985</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Dreyer put this into the first IC apparently without seeing Safford's footnote which reads, "A loose cluster with nebula." All that appears in the IC description is Safford's "vL, vgbM, pB" rearranged into the usual brightness-size-concentration order. Whatever happened, Safford is right -- there is a cluster associated with this nebulosity. Barnard did not mention the cluster, either, in his discovery note for IC1985, though he examined the object both photographically and visually with the Yerkes 40-inch. </object> <object><oname>IC349</oname> is a knot in the Merope nebula less than 40 arcsec away from the star. For many years, I had thought it equal to NGC1435 (which see), but that is the much larger and fainter nebulosity stretching 10 to 15 arcmin south of Merope. Like the larger nebula, I349 is a reflection nebula. It is, in fact, the brightest of the nebulosity around the Pleiades. In his discovery note in AN 3018, Barnard has micrometric measurements of IC 349 with respect to Merope. It is from those that I have reduced the position given in the table. The bright glare around Merope is so intense that IC349 is difficult to photograph. Nevertheless, it's been done with some regularity over the years. Herbig has the full story in AJ 111, 1241, 1996 (with a follow up with Theodore Simon in AJ 121, 3138, 2001). When I was observing regularly, I didn't know enough to look for I349 as a "separate" object, or I might have done so. It will certainly be challenging for any observer who does go after it! </object> <object><oname>IC353</oname>. See IC336. </object> <object><oname>IC354</oname>. See IC336. </object> <object><oname>IC359</oname>. The 1m error in Swift's RA has led to considerable confusion concerning the identity of this object. The diffuse nebula referred to by Lynds and Cederblad is about 1/2 a degree northeast of the IC object, and Hubble's (Ap. J. 56, 400, 1922) questioned identification is also incorrect. </object> <object><oname>IC360</oname>. See IC336. </object> <object><oname>IC371</oname> is a star. Bigourdan also mistook another nearby star to be NGC1586 (d'Arrest's position quoted in the NGC is bad). Bigourdan's micrometrically measured positions (from 2 nights) are exact and refer unambiguously to the stars. </object> <object><oname>IC376</oname> is a fainter galaxy about 1.5 arcmin northwest of IC377, which see. It is mentioned, though not identified, in the MCG note for I377. </object> <object><oname>IC377</oname>. MCG has labeled this "IC376-7". Unfortunately, only the first -- incorrect -- number has stuck on the galaxy. That number actually belongs to the fainter companion 1.5 arcmin to the northwest, while only I377 applies to MCG -02-12-031. </object> <object><oname>IC382</oname>. This may possibly be NGC1632, but that is more likely identical to IC386, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC386</oname> is probably = NGC1632. Note the possible confusion here over the identity of N1632 -- its quoted position falls between IC382 and IC386. The RNGC(probably incorrectly) chooses I382, the larger and brighter galaxy, as N1632, but does not mentioned the IC number. The NGC position, however, is closer to I386 and the descriptions (through similar size refractors) are the same. So, somewhat cautiously, I am going to adopt that identity. </object> <object><oname>IC394</oname> does not exist. Observed only once near N1667 by Bigourdan and noted as "Suspected only. It's existence is not at all certain." There is, indeed, nothing in the area. </object> <object><oname>IC395</oname> may also be NGC1671, which see for more. </object> <object><oname>IC397</oname>. Observed twice by Spitaler, but there is only an eF * near his position that he could not have seen. Another case of a misidentified comparison star, perhaps? </object> <object><oname>IC400</oname>. Stone measured only the RA of this object, so the IC NPD is marked uncertain. In principle, the RA ought to be very good, as it was measured four times using a chronometer. Unfortunately, there is nothing at the derived RA anywhere near the nominal declination. Two seconds following, there is a faint late-type spindle, though it does not match the sparse description (m = 16.0, diameter = 0.1 arcmin) well. I also have my doubts whether the spindle could be seen visually, even with the 26-inch: its surface brightness is pretty low. There is also a transcription error in the Leander-McCormick list. The comparison star is called "CCO 228" at "04 55 03.54, -15 55 03.3" for 1890.0. Checking through the table, I noticed that CCO 228's declination is given differently in the observation for NGC1730 (obs. no. 208): "-15 57 47.3". The declination of CCO 225 (in another observation of N1730, No. 203) is the same as that for the declination given for the comparison star of IC 400 (obs. no. 209), while the RA is different. So, which star did Stone use as a comparison for his new nebula? Since he used CCO 225 (which is SAO 150054) only for the one observation of N1730 on a different night than he found IC400, it is most likely that the correct star is CCO 228 (SAO 150066). This makes the RA of the spindle close to the measured RA -- but it is still far enough off to bother me. Is there significant proper motion for the star? Perhaps it has moved enough in the interval between early 1889 when Stone observed it, and 1950 -- the SAO epoch and equinox -- that it could account for the difference in RA. The spindle has a faint companion about 20 arcsec southwest with a brighter star superposed. Is it possible that the combined image is actually Stone's object? It would be closer to his position than the spindle, but still a full second of time off. At the moment, I'm not willing to say which object -- if either -- is IC400. There are just too many puzzles here. </object> <object><oname>IC411</oname>. Swift noticed two other nebulae in the area of IC411, but did not measure their positions. The two galaxies listed near IC411 are the brightest in the area next to 411 itself, and may possibly by Swift's nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC412</oname><oname>IC2123</oname> <oname>IC413</oname><oname>IC2124</oname> were discovered by Javelle and also by Barnard -- twice. While Javelle published his observations, Barnard apparently sent his directly to Dreyer. The positions and descriptions are close enough that one or the other of them should have become suspicious about the identities. But that was left until the CGCG folks ran across these fifty years later. Different words describe this same situation under IC2123. If curiosity overwhelms you, go see that number. </object> <object><oname>IC413</oname><oname>IC2124</oname>. See IC412 = IC2123. </object> <object><oname>IC419</oname>, IC425, and IC439 were all found by Wolf on a Heidelberg plate. IC 419 is only a line of 4 stars about 1' long (and matches Wolf's description in this respect). IC425 and IC439 are probably defects on the Heidelberg plate as no nebulae matching Wolf's descriptions are in this area of the sky. </object> <object><oname>IC422</oname><oname>IC2131</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC425</oname> does not exist. See IC419. </object> <object><oname>IC429</oname>, a small cometary nebula found by Javelle, is indeed involved in IC430 as supposed by Dreyer. Javelle actually saw and measured only the "head" of the nebula, while the fainter "tail" stretches off about an arcminute to the southeast. This is reasonable, recalling that Javelle was observing with a 30-inch F-23 refractor. Modern identifications of this nebula include PP37, V883 Ori, and Haro 4-13a (my thanks to Dave Riddle for this information). It is part of the star formation complex around the Orion Nebula (M 42 = NGC1976). IC430, discovered photographically by Wilhelmina Fleming on two of four plates covering the region of the Orion Nebula and reported by Pickering in Harvard Annals XX, No. 6, 1890, is just where Fleming puts it. This is the nebula that Wolfgang originally listed under the number IC429. </object> <object><oname>IC430</oname>. See IC429. </object> <object><oname>IC439</oname> does not exist. See IC419. </object> <object><oname>IC443</oname> <oname>IC444</oname>. I'm not quite certain which parts of these nebulae, apparently along nearly the same line of sight by coincidence, are meant to carry the IC numbers. Wolf makes clear in his article that the positions he gives (only to a full minute of time and a full degree) are quite crude, so I have assumed that he means to include all of the nebulosity. On the other hand, Dreyer adopted Barnard's (unpublished? If in print, I've not found the paper) descriptions and, at least for IC444, position. These seem to suggest that Barnard saw only parts of the objects on his early plates. However, until I can find Barnard's descriptions, I'm hesitant to try to tag just parts of these nebulae. Still, I attempted to do that when I first looked at these in Scotland in the mid-1970's. Those positions are still in the table. But after Wolfgang asked about the identifications early in 2003, I estimated positions for the entire extent of the objects. Those are in the table, too. </object> <object><oname>IC444</oname>. See IC443. </object> <object><oname>IC446</oname><oname>IC2167</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC447</oname><oname>IC2169</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC452</oname><oname>NGC2296</oname>, and IC453. Bigourdan has N2296 = B148; this is wrong. N2296 = B147 = I452. His relative positions for the two objects and their neighboring stars are precise, and B148 = I453 is unambiguously a star. Bigourdan's position as published in Observations, Vol. I is correct, though the IC position is 8' in error. Though NGC2296 looks something like a galaxy, it is probably a small diffuse nebula. It is in a starless patch southeast of Sirius, and Clemens and Barvainis, ApJS 68, 257, 1988 have a detection in CO giving a radial velocity of +16.6 km/sec. This almost certainly confirms the Galactic nature of the object. </object> <object><oname>IC453</oname>. See IC452. </object> <object><oname>IC457</oname> may be (or maybe not!) NGC2330, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC458</oname> may be -- but is probably not -- NGC2334. See NGC2330 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC459</oname>. See NGC2330. </object> <object><oname>IC462</oname> is a star. It has a faint galaxy nearby that may have helped give the impression of nebulosity to the star. This is the only one of Kobold's nine new nebulae in the area which is not a galaxy. For more on this group, see the extensive discussion under NGC2330. </object> <object><oname>IC465</oname> may be NGC2334 (or, as with IC457 and NGC2330, maybe not!). See NGC 2330 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC468</oname> is a triple star. Bigourdan has two observations, but his second applies to another star 14 seconds west of the double. </object> <object><oname>IC470</oname> is probably a double star near Swift's position; there are no nebulae in this area. The double is about the right brightness to have been mistaken by him on a poor night as a tiny nebula. He found only one other nebula on the same night (2 October 1891), IC1300 (which see). That has an error of exactly one degree in its position (it is = NGC6798), but there are no nebulae a degree north of the nominal place of IC470. At least Swift did not make the same mistake twice on the same night. </object> <object><oname>IC488</oname> may be the double star that Wolfgang has chosen. But Rudolf Spitaler's very precise position, measured with respect to two different comparison stars on the same night (8 Feb 1891), is over 20 arcseconds away (his two measurements, reduced with respect to the AC2000.2 positions for the comparison stars (epoch 1902.43, close enough to Spitaler's observation date that I've ignored the eleven plus years of proper motion), are accordant to within two arcseconds). I had originally thought that his object was the triple star on to the east of the double, but that is even further from his measured place. All the candidate stars for IC488 are listed in the position tables. Another mystery: In his description of his nebula, Spitaler mentions a 13th magnitude star 16.84 seconds preceding, 20.4 arcsec south of his nebula. That star was 15.74 seconds west and 34.4 seconds south of the double (for equinox 1891.11). But reducing his offsets with respect to the AC2000.2 position (epoch 1903.35) for the star leads to a position 1.88 seconds of time on east and 30.9 seconds south of his other two positions. So, his three measurements are not internally consistent. For the time being, I've listed the double as the most likely candidate, but am not convinced that either it or the triple was Spitaler's object. In addition, he calls it a quarter of an arcminute in diameter. While the distance across the triple is about 20 arcseconds, the separation of the double is only 4.6 arcsec. The other obvious option is a comet. But this seems unlikely as Spitaler's three measurements are not internally consistent and I think he would have noticed a comet's motion against the background stars (unless it was very distant, of course). So, I suspect some sort of errors in his observations, but cannot even guess what they might be. </object> <object><oname>IC496</oname><oname>IC2229</oname>. This and IC2229 are almost certainly identical. Both were found by Javelle; while the mean of his micrometric positions agrees to within a few seconds of the GSC position, he does not mention the existence of a nearby second nebula in either observation (one made 2 March 1892, the second 11 Feb 1896, with both being referred to the same star) -- unless one interprets his remark "extended east-west" as including the following object (both galaxies are extended north-south on the PSS). The 2nd is actually an interacting double system. Both of its components are fainter than the one single brighter galaxy 15 arcsec preceding. </object> <object><oname>IC501</oname>. Included as a new nebula by Wolf in his first "Nebel-liste" from Heidelberg Bruce plates, Dreyer caught the identity with the IC1 object and did not assign it an IC2 number. </object> <object><oname>IC507</oname><oname>NGC2590</oname>. The IC position is 12.5' northeast of N2590. However, Dreyer made an error of about 30s in reducing Swift's RA to 1860. When correctly reduced, the RA for I507 is identical to that for N2590, and the declinations are 10 arcmin different. Since Swift's description is similar to Stephan's for N2590, the identity seems certain. </object> <object><oname>IC511</oname>. See IC895. </object> <object><oname>IC518</oname>. Not found, though observed twice (six years apart, first in 1890) by Bigourdan near N2618. His micrometric observations are in agreement and are unambiguously referred to BD +1 2137. However, there are only a few vF stars near his place, and nothing at all that matches his description. The RA given in the IC, though correctly copied from the Comptes Rendus paper, is wrong: it should read "08 28 51." </object> <object><oname>IC532</oname> apparently does not exist. Bigourdan normally gives detailed observations of the nebulae he observed. However, among those that he discovered, seven (IC532, 543, 759, 1164, 1206, 4977, and 5303; see the notes for each of the others for details specific to them) were listed only in the two tables in his Appendix VII devoted to his new nebulae. They also appear, of course, in his separately published lists of new nebulae from which Dreyer extracted them for the NGC and IC's. No differential positions from nearby stars are given for these seven objects in Bigourdan's main tables, so we have only his reduced positions and the published descriptions to go on as we attempt to identify them. IC532 = B 152 is especially curious among this group, as it was apparently the only object that Bigourdan recorded twice (23 and 25 March 1887). In addition to the position and date, we have a magnitude ("11?") and the remark "Fausse image?" as well as the IC description, "pB, pL, Epf, bM." The object was not found at Helwan in the 1920's, and I found no trace of it on the PSS while working on ESGC. Was it possibly a comet as was IC2120, and perhaps IC4977? Or was it, as Bigourdan remarked, simply a "false image"? </object> <object><oname>IC538</oname><oname>NGC2885</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC541</oname>. There is a faint star near Swift's place that he might have seen as an "eeF, pS, R" nebula -- but there is no sign of the "10m * s" that he mentions in the description. There must be a large error in Swift's position, but a search of the surrounding area turned up no galaxies that he might have seen with a 10th magnitude star to the south. </object> <object><oname>IC543</oname>. The MCG has this = NGC2902, but as Bigourdan observed the NGC object in its correct position, B.155 = IC543 is not likely to be the NGC object. There is a faint galaxy 4.0 arcmin southwest of NGC2902 that might be IC543, but Bigourdan's positions are usually better. There is also a star near the position Bigourdan lists, but -- as with IC532 (which see) -- he gives no details of his observation, so we have only his position and description ("vF, pL, E, dif") as clues. Neither supports the notion that Bigourdan actually recorded the star (unless the seeing was extraordinarily bad that night). One curious note: this object, IC532, and IC759 all come from the night of 23 March 1887. Perhaps the seeing was bad. Or did Bigourdan misplace his original observations? </object> <object><oname>IC547</oname><oname>NGC2947</oname><oname>IC2494</oname>. The RA of N2947 is 2m 14s in error, but the NPD is good, and the descriptions (given the different telescopes used) match. Swift's position is fair, and Howe missed the identity with I547 (as did Dreyer), so the object received an entry in IC2 as well. It is, so far as I know now (May 2003), the only object to have an entry in all three of Dreyer's catalogues. </object> <object><oname>IC554</oname>. Though there is a fainter galaxy near I555 (at 09 40 12.3 +12 36 44, B1950.0), it is more likely that Swift saw the same brighter object that Javelle did and made a 10 arcmin error in the declination. </object> <object><oname>IC555</oname>. See IC554. </object> <object><oname>IC556</oname><oname>NGC2984</oname>. The position for N2984 is poor, but as it was observed by both W. and J. Herschel, there can be little doubt as to its existence. The RNGC accepts Reinmuth's questioned identity (N2984 = I556), and I see no reason not to do the same. Javelle's position is good. There is a faint star 0.5 arcmin south-southwest, and I556 is the brightest in a group. </object> <object><oname>IC573</oname><oname>NGC3058</oname>s. The NGC position is again off in RA (but note Howe's correction in an IC2 note), but the description is accurate as is the NPD. Javelle could not have been aware of Howe's correction which was published after Javelle's first list. Javelle's place is good, but his "vS * close" must be N3058n. </object> <object><oname>IC580</oname><oname>NGC3069</oname>. Discovered by Dreyer with LdR's 72-inch, this is pretty well-placed by him at 5 arcmin north-northwest of NGC3070. He does comment, however, "Clouds," which would account for his remaining caution in describing the object: "... an object which I have little doubt is a vF, vS neb, perhaps lE". Though the NGC position is a little over an arcmin southeast of the galaxy, there is no doubt that it was seen by Dreyer. Why, then, did Javelle think it was a "nova"? That he made some mistake is clear since he claims, in a footnote to IC584, that I584 is "Distinct from NGC3069 and 3070." Which two of the galaxies in the area he thought were the NGC pair is not clear to me, though. In any event, Javelle's position for the galaxy makes clear that he saw the same object as did Dreyer; the identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC585</oname> is a companion to NGC3080, which see for more information on Bigourdan's observations. </object> <object><oname>IC604</oname><oname>NGC3220</oname>. Swift's description and position pinpoint NGC3220 as the correct object. He most likely simply did not check the NGC before publishing this as new, as the NGC position -- from WH -- is good, too. </object> <object><oname>IC619</oname> is UGC 05735. Swift's description of the three stars following the galaxy was summarized by Dreyer in IC1. In full, it reads: "A p l (sic) triangle of 3 F sts nr f, one a vF D." The "vF D" is indeed one of the stars southeast of the galaxy. A somewhat fainter star follows the double by 2.5 arcmin, and turns Swift's stars into an even more striking asterism. Swift's position is therefore off by +19 seconds and -20.0 arcmin. </object> <object><oname>IC620</oname> is the brighter of a double galaxy. Unfortunately, CGCG put the IC number on its entry for both objects, so the number has migrated to the fainter galaxy in its journey to LEDA (as of July 2004; it should be fixed soon). Javelle's position is good, and falls within four arcsec of the brighter galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC621</oname>. The IC position is about 2.5 arcmin too far north because the BD position for Javelle's comparison star (BD +3 2388) is in error by that amount. When the correct position for the star (from PPM, SAO, or GSC) is used, IC621 is clearly identical with CGCG 037-074, not with CGCG 037-075 as claimed in CGCG. </object> <object><oname>IC625</oname> is ESO 501- G080 = MCG -04-26-001. Muller's RA offset from NGC3335 has the wrong sign in the big 1893 Leander McCormick list of micrometric observations. Rather than being 3min 3.6sec west of N3335, it is that distance east. The description fits, including the position angle, and there is no doubt about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC640</oname> <oname>IC641</oname> do not exist. Though Bigourdan has micrometric measurements for both of them -- four for IC640 -- on 27 March 1887, he notes, in italics, "This is, without doubt, a false image" for both objects. The nominal positions are both near bright stars, about 15 arcmin apart. There are several galaxies in the area, but only NGC3381 -- for which Bigourdan has separate measurements -- is bright enough to have been seen by him. I'm going to trust his comments and call both objects non-existent. </object> <object><oname>IC641</oname> does not exist. See IC640. </object> <object><oname>IC644</oname><oname>NGC3398</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC646</oname>. See NGC3398 = IC644. </object> <object><oname>IC656</oname> is a triple star with a very faint galaxy just south of the eastern-most star. Found by Bigourdan, he later claimed it to be identical to NGC3460 (not true; see N3460 for more). There has been additional confusion over the identification of this, since it is possible that this was actually the object seen by JH and the "Mr. Bailey" mentioned in JH's description. It is also possible that d'A saw this object when he was looking for h793. See both NGC3457 and NGC3460 for more. In any event, the IC identification is secure; Bigourdan's position, from five measurements on two nights, is within a few arcsec of the triple, and his description is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC670</oname>. See NGC3531. </object> <object><oname>IC675</oname> may be the double star listed in the main table. There is certainly nothing at Javelle's position, and there is no error in his data for his nominal comparison star, BD +4 2426. His offsets (+46.78 seconds, -2' 29.6"), though, are matched (+46.43 seconds, -1' 28.8") -- except for the error of 1 arcmin in Dec -- by the double and a 12th magnitude star that he might have used as a comparison star. That star, though, is fainter than almost all his other comparison stars. Still, the double star matches his description, and the agreement of the offsets (that pesky 1 arcmin aside) make it tempting to accept the double as IC675. Were it not for the fact that Javelle mentions NGC3580 in a footnote, I might suggest that it is IC675. But there is no star at any reasonable position that might have been the comparison star that Javelle used. In the end, we have a possible identification, but no more. </object> <object><oname>IC682</oname><oname>NGC3649</oname>. Swift's RA is one minute of time too small, and I think that his note "vF * close np" applies to NGC3646 -- there is no star northwest of NGC3649 that he could have seen. Otherwise, his observation fits NGC3649 very well. I assume typos and/or transcription errors. </object> <object><oname>IC683</oname>. See IC684 and NGC3645. </object> <object><oname>IC684</oname><oname>NGC3644</oname>. Even though Marth's positions, adopted in NGC, for NGC 3643, 44, and 47 are good, Bigourdan misidentified the latter two objects. He placed N3644 some 35 arcsec south-following his position for IC683 (which has a 1 arcmin error in Bigourdan's big table in the distance from the comparison star, and he measured a star as N3647) -- there is nothing in his measured place. He lists two "new" objects in the area, I683 and I684. His positions for both are good, and that for I684 is almost identical to Marth's position for N3644. Also see the discussion under NGC3645. </object> <object><oname>IC694</oname> is the faint galaxy just northwest of the peculiar interacting pair NGC 3690. Swift's discovery note is not very clear about the object's location with respect to the NGC object, but his position places it northwest. If we assume that he took the NGC position for 3690 and offset from that to find his own position and compare the offsets with those from the modern positions, we find roughly the same numbers. Swift, however, was not the first to see IC694. Lord Rosse's observation of NGC3690 in 1860 mentions an "appendage" about one object (i.e. NGC3690) diameter northwest. This description fits what he could have easily seen with his 72-inch "Leviathan," so Dreyer correctly credits him as well as Swift with the discovery. </object> <object><oname>IC696</oname> is the largest of a group of galaxies including IC698 and IC699. All these, and many others, were seen on an early plate taken by Max Wolf at Heidelberg in the early 1900's. Many of the "nebulae" that Wolf found are, in fact, stars near the plate limit. See IC2849 for more about these early plates. </object> <object><oname>IC698</oname>. See IC696. </object> <object><oname>IC699</oname>. See IC696. </object> <object><oname>IC700</oname>. This is a compact group of galaxies, Hickson 54. Javelle may have seen just the largest and brightest of the objects. However, his description, "Nearly round, about 40 arcsec in diameter, a little brighter toward the middle," suggests that he saw at least the brightest three of the objects, blended into a single image. His estimated size easily encompasses at least these three, and perhaps all four. I've included all of the galaxies in the table. </object> <object><oname>IC703</oname> <oname>IC704</oname> are a pair described by Swift as "eeF, S, R, p of 2" and "eF, vS (? close D), f of 2". His positions orient them southwest/northeast and separated by about 4 arcmin. There is nothing in the area that matches these constraints. There is a possibility that they may be NGC3704 and N3707, about 1m 40s west of Swift's nominal positions. But those are on an almost exact east-west line, and are separated by only about an arcmin. Also, the brighter object is the western, while Swift makes the eastern brighter. Finally, NGC3707 shows no sign of being double. There is also the possibility that NPM1G -11.0302, about 4 arcmin north- northeast might be the second of Swift's nebulae, with N3704 the first. Again, however, the Lick galaxy shows no sign of duplicity, and it is even fainter than N3707 and is thus less likely to have been picked up visually. The only other nebulae that Swift found on the same night (IC619 and IC799) have problems of their own (I619 is 20 arcmin north of Swift's position, while I799 is identical to NGC4520). So, a systematic error in Swift's positions can't be claimed for the night. All in all, there is not much to go on here. So, the identifications with the NGC objects are only tentative, and very questionable. </object> <object><oname>IC704</oname>. See IC703. </object> <object><oname>IC713</oname> may be a 17th magnitude star near Bigourdan's estimated place. He notes the object as "only suspected", so he may actually have glimpsed the star. But it is so faint, that I wonder if he actually did, especially given that it is just 3 arcmin north-northeast of a 7th magnitude star. </object> <object><oname>IC722</oname> <oname>IC724</oname>. Spitaler misidentified his comparison star, and gave it the coordinates of yet another misidentified star. The star he actually used is BD +09d 2534. He claims he used BD +09d 2531, and gave the coordinates of BD +09d 2532. His descriptions of his objects, however, leaves no doubt as to the correct identifications. He notes a "* 10 nf 2 arcmin" for I722, and "lE 45d" for I724. Both clearly identify his objects; they are both 8 seconds east and 5.5 arcmin south of his positions (which Dreyer copied correctly into the IC). </object> <object><oname>IC724</oname>. See IC722. </object> <object><oname>IC726</oname>. Spitaler's declination offset has the wrong sign in his paper: it should be "+" rather than "-". This puts Spitaler's position exactly on a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy. Curiously, there is a somewhat brighter galaxy (UGC 06696) just two arcmin to the northwest. How did Spitaler miss that? Well, it's a busy field (see NGC3847, NGC3855, and IC2953 for more). </object> <object><oname>IC730</oname><oname>NGC3849</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC732</oname>. There are two galaxies at Bigourdan's place, roughly the same size and magnitude. Which one did he see? Going into his big table, we find that his description reads "Extremely faint and diffuse, but its existence is certain; I can see brighter points in it which may be stars 13.4-13.5." So, he saw both objects, even if marginally. </object> <object><oname>IC735</oname>. There is nothing in the IC position. But going into Javelle's first paper, we find a footnote on page B.32 that reads "Page B.13, nebula no. 202, in place of 79d 0.6m, read 76d 0.6m." He caught a typo, apparently in proof before the final printing plates for the second section of his paper were set. When we make that change, Javelle's position falls exactly on UGC 6775, and his description fits the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC736</oname> <oname>IC737</oname> are the two brightest galaxies in Hickson 59. They have been misidentified in several catalogues (including CGCG and Hickson's) in spite of the relatively good positions given in IC. Javelle discovered them on the same night and measured them with respect to the same star. Re- reducing his positions with respect to the AC 2000.2 position for that star removes all doubt about which galaxies he saw. </object> <object><oname>IC739</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Though he claimed it to be BD +24 2401, it is actually +24 2403. When we re-reduce his observation using the correct star, his position falls within a few arcsec of the modern data for UGC 06830. </object> <object><oname>IC755</oname><oname>NGC4019</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC757</oname><oname>NGC4068</oname>. Bigourdan misread his micrometer so that his position angle is 180 degrees out -- his "new" object is southeast of his comparison star, not northwest. Curiously, he made the same mistake on two objects -- the star that he mistook for NGC4068 as well as his "nova" -- on two nights. His observations on a third night were interrupted by a storm. While he was preparing the manuscript of his big table for publication, he noticed the mistaken position angles and commented that the observations as recorded in his log book would be impossible at the declination of the objects. Once the correction is made, his position ends up within a few arcsec of a star superposed on NGC4068, and his description ("Uncertain traces of nebulosity to one side of a * 12: the nebulosity follows this star."). This same star marks the position given for the galaxy in several more recent lists, too. The center of the outer isophotes of the low-surface-brightness dwarf galaxy is about 10 arcsec northeast of the star. A few arcsec further on is a faint knot or, perhaps, the nucleus. </object> <object><oname>IC759</oname> has to be marked "not found." This is another of only seven of Bigourdan's new objects for which he provides no details in his big tables of differential positions (see IC532 for a general note on these objects). The only information we have comes from his Appendix VII in his Introductory volume, his second list of new nebulae published in Comptes rendus, and the first IC, which Dreyer, of course, took from the Comptes rendus list. The NGC description reads "pB, pL, Epf." In Appendix VII, we also find that the magnitude is 12.7, and a remark, "Fausse image?" Added to this is the information that Bigourdan apparently found this while observing NGC4086 -- but he provides no differential positions for that object, either. So, the possibilities come down to these: 1) Was this perhaps a false image caused by a reflection from SAO 082124 (at about the same declination)? 2) is the object actually NGC4086? or 3) is it the faint galaxy at 12 02 41.9, +20 35 21 (B1950.0). None of these seem particularly likely. Finally, to finish with a curious "coincidence," Bigourdan dates this discovery to 23 March 1887, the same evening on which he found IC532 and IC 543 (which see). Bad seeing, maybe? Lost observing book? There are any number of possibilities. </object> <object><oname>IC765</oname> may be the star 10-12 arcsec southeast of Bigourdan's position. He has only one observation of the object, using NGC4152 as the comparison object. Oddly, his position for N4152 in his big table is nearly 6 arcmin off, but the position for I765 in his list of novae is correct. Dreyer also copied it correctly into IC1 -- but there is still nothing there. Carlson has this as a double star. I suspect that the second star is the one an arcmin or so further southeast. But this is too wide to have been mistaken for a nebula by Bigourdan, and since he says nothing about stars near his nebula, I suspect that both stars are just a bit too faint to have been seen by him. In any event, I've put the first star in my position list as a possibility, but think that IC765, too, is "not found." </object> <object><oname>IC772</oname><oname>IC3067</oname>. Bigourdan's coarsely reduced position in IC1 was not good enough to alert Javelle 15 years later -- or Dreyer five years after that -- that the nebula had already been found. Also, Javelle's north polar distance offset has the wrong sign, throwing his position off the galaxy, too, and even further from Bigourdan's position. Hence, two IC numbers. There are also two other galaxies nearby that might confuse the identification problems for these two numbers were it not for the fact that both observers nailed the object to within five arcseconds when their observations are reduced using Tycho-2 data for their comparison stars. There is no doubt about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC778</oname><oname>NGC4198</oname>. Swift's position is exactly 5 minutes of time too large. Otherwise, his observation matches N4198 very well. Curiously, however, he notes that the star to the north is 13th magnitude, while the star south of the galaxy is the brighter of the two. Did he confuse his directions as well as the RA? I'd have thought that an observer would call special attention to the brighter of a pair of stars rather than the fainter. </object> <object><oname>IC788</oname><oname>NGC4405</oname>. This identity was first suggested at Harvard, probably by Frost or Ames during their work on the Virgo Cluster. That it is, in fact, correct is shown when Javelle's observation is carefully reduced -- the resulting position lands exactly on N4405. Javelle also makes no mention of the NGC galaxy in his list, but does say in a footnote, "Distinct from the nebula which carries the no. 21 in the 7th Catalogue of M. L. Swift." That 21st nebula is IC787. So, the note in the IC"II 88 [N4405] south" is almost certainly Dreyer's based only on the relative positions that he had in front of him. In any case, the identity was adopted in CGCG and MCG, so has found its way into the modern catalogues. </object> <object><oname>IC793</oname><oname>NGC4445</oname>. IC793 is the only nebula that Swift found on 6 May 1888. His description, "eF, S, eE; 3 others in field", was adopted almost unchanged by Dreyer for the first IC, so offers no clues beyond what we have in the IC itself. Swift's position precedes N4445 by about 15 seconds of time, and his description suggests that he certainly saw the same galaxy as d'Arrest. My guess is that Swift did not have either the NGC or d'Arrest's monograph in hand when he prepared his 8th list for AN, so he really did believe that the nebula was a "nova." Since the galaxy is in a moderately rich part of the Virgo Cluster, Swift's other three nebulae are probably also nearby NGC galaxies, most likely N4424, N4442, and N4451. If Swift did not have d'Arrest's monograph, I'm a bit surprised that he did not include N4424 and N4451 in his 8th list, given that neither was recorded by the Herschel's. Perhaps (pure speculation) he was clouded out before he could estimate positions for them. </object> <object><oname>IC799</oname><oname>NGC4520</oname>. WH's position precedes the galaxy, while Swift's follows it; this probably accounts for Swift's belief that he found a new nebula. Both observers noted stars involved with or close to the galaxy. WH probably mistook the nucleus as one star and picked up the one just to the west as his second, while Swift suspected only that western star. </object> <object><oname>IC802</oname> is a star. Bigourdan saw it only one night when he was trying to find NGC4572 (which see). His observation under that number also refers to a star, just about as far south of the galaxy as this star is north. In his description, he notes (a free translation), "It could well be only a star." He's right. </object> <object><oname>IC805</oname><oname>NGC4611</oname>. Neither Swift nor Dreyer recognized the identity even though Swift's position is only 9 seconds west and 0.5 arcmin north of Stephan's. Perhaps the different notes about neighboring stars (Stephan: "... between two very faint stars." Swift: "... two pB stars north and north-following." Both notes are correct, by the way.) misled both astronomers. Stephan also notes that the galaxy is "... a little extended southeast-northwest," while Swift simply has "round." In any event, the two numbers apply to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC808</oname> is only two neighboring stars mistaken by Bigourdan for a slightly nebulous cluster. The galaxy identified by Wolf in his sixth list of nebulae as IC808 is much too faint for Bigourdan to have seen. Wolf's position and comment "* 11 s 1 arcmin" clearly identify his object, just as Bigourdan's position points exactly at the following (slightly brighter) of the two stars. </object> <object><oname>IC823</oname> is probably the star about 1.5 arcmin southwest of NGC4692. In his list published in Contes Rendues, Bigourdan says "Suspected near NGC4692 at p = 220 deg, d = 1.5'", a comment that Dreyer changed to "Susp, 2' s of II 381" for the IC. Unfortunately, there is a star in both places, so the southern one was chosen by Wolfgang, and -- in an earlier attempt at finding this object -- by me. However, Bigourdan's reduced position, from a single observation in 1885, is about 2 arcmin to the southwest of the galaxy, and falls on an empty patch of sky. The star he probably glimpsed is 20 arcsec directly north. His description from his big table "Suspected only; could be nebulous" is similar to that for other stars he found, so I've adopted the star -- with a cautionary colon -- as IC823. </object> <object><oname>IC824</oname><oname>NGC4678</oname>. Here the fault lies with the NGC position from the second Leander McCormick list -- the RA is 3 minutes of time off. Otherwise the description pretty well matches, including the "* f 2s." Javelle's position (re-reduced with respect to the Tycho-2 position for his comparison star) is very good, and he apparently had a better view of the galaxy than did Frank Leavenworth. Javelle noted that the galaxy was extended east-west, and that it has at least two bright "nuclei." Leavenworth even questions its nebular character. Given the chronically poor positions from Leander McCormick, I don't doubt that the two catalogue numbers refer to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC825</oname>. This is probably the object picked up 95 years after Swift's observation as IRAS F12477-0505. Swift's position is not too bad, and his description ("eeeF, pS, R; nearly bet 2 sts east and west; 2nd of 3; [NGC] 4705 and 4718 near") is appropriate -- except for the "nearly bet 2 sts" phrase. This does not match the IRAS galaxy (a peculiar double or triple system) which has a star only to the east. It does, however, fit NGC4718 perfectly. Is it possible that Swift confused his observing notes between the two objects? Or is it possible that his "nova" is actually NGC4718 itself? If so, the mystery phrase becomes "2nd of 3" as N4718 is the third of the trio, not the second. Occam's Razor: take the IRAS galaxy, but include the identity with N4718 as a questionable possibility. </object> <object><oname>IC829</oname> is in the core of Abell 1631, and is one of the brightest galaxies in the cluster. Unfortunately, it is misidentified in MCG, and therefore in PGC as well. Bigourdan's offsets clearly point at the following galaxy of a close pair, while MCG chose a third galaxy 5.5 seconds of time following. </object> <object><oname>IC834</oname>. Dreyer has a note in the 2nd IC indicating an erroneous RA in Spitaler's original position. His source is Wolf's third list of nebulae from Heidelburg. Unfortunately, there is no object in Wolf's third list at the position of I834 (which is about 1.5 arcmin north of the IC position), so I do not know which object in WIII Dreyer was looking at. </object> <object><oname>IC839</oname> is a galaxy just where Bigourdan observed it, though it has been equated in the past with one or the other of the components of NGC4851. Bigourdan's position for the IC object, reduced with respect to the GSC position for his reference star, falls within a few arcsec of the GSC position for the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC841</oname>. In his sixth list, Wolf questions the identity of the galaxy he inserted under this number. He got the right object. </object> <object><oname>IC845</oname>. Dreyer copies Swift's question mark on the declination into the IC. The declination is not too bad -- only 2 arcmin or so out. Swift's RA, however, is 22 seconds too far east. Aside from that, his description, including the "F * nr p" (the star is 3 arcmin west) is appropriate for the galaxy. The CGCG includes a faint companion about an arcmin to the east-southeast in the magnitude. A couple of faint stars must also be included. </object> <object><oname>IC847</oname><oname>NGC4973</oname>. Swift's original position -- though not the IC position -- lands within an arcminute of NGC4973, and his description ("vF, S, R, between 2 stars") fits, too. Interestingly, Howe (in MN 61, 29, 1900) states, "The description `between 2 stars' given in the Index Catalogue, I cannot verify from my sketch of the field of view." One possibility is that Howe's field was much smaller than Swift's unusually large one of 32 arcmin. The two stars are 9 arcmin apart, perhaps separated enough that Howe overlooked one of them. However, there is another more likely possibility: Howe was examining the wrong galaxy. His position for N4973 is almost identical to Swift's for I847, yet Howe listed it in his third list of "new" nebulae. Why did Howe mistake N4974 for I847? Dreyer made a mistake in precessing Swift's RA of I847 so that the IC RA is 30 seconds too large. This puts I847 so close to N4974 that Dreyer mistakenly equated the two when he got Reumker's correction to the positions of N4973 and N4974 (see N4967 for more discussion of the NGC objects). Howe obviously had not seen Reumker's corrections, though, or he would have realized that his "new" nebula was identical to N4973. This suggests that he thought that the nebula (which we now know as N4974) was I847. This would easily explain why he did not see Swift's stars: N4974 is not between two stars. Whatever the source of Howe's confusion, it's clear that Swift saw one of the galaxies that William Herschel had discovered a century earlier. Again, assuming Swift's position to be good in this case, that galaxy was probably N4973. </object> <object><oname>IC853</oname><oname>IC4205</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC864</oname> <oname>IC866</oname> are the northern-most two galaxies in a group of eight, seven with IC numbers from Swift and Javelle. Swift swept over the area in April of 1889, and Javelle followed in June of 1891. Javelle's positions are, of course, much better (but see IC869 for a bit of a mystery), and there is little doubt as to which galaxies he saw. Swift's position, though, are -- as is not uncommon -- not good enough to unambiguously identify the objects he found. Making the assumption that he saw the brightest five of the group, we can, however, make some pretty good guesses. (His descriptions are no help; four of the five are simply "eeF, pS, R". For IC870, however, he adds a comment about "4 pB sts in a curve sf point to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.") First, IC868 and IC870 are pretty clearly the close pair of galaxies on the southern edge of the group. These are the 1st and 3rd brightest in the group. Also, Swift comments that his "4th of 5" is a double with the 5th. Next, if Swift's relative positions are at all indicative, the 4th brightest, IC867, is pretty clearly the 3rd of his five. This finally gets us to IC864 and IC866. Swift makes the relative positions just 2 arcmin apart in Dec; his RA is the same. However, on the sky, the 5th and 2nd brightest galaxies have nearly the same declination (only 4.3 arcsec different), but are separated in RA by just about 2 arcmin (1.94 arcmin to be exact). Perhaps Swift simply made a mistake in his observing notes or in his transcription of them. Whatever happened, these are the only two galaxies in the area that he might have seen, so we'll assume that he did indeed see them. That being the case, we must move Swift's name off the IC entry for IC869 and put it on IC864. </object> <object><oname>IC866</oname>. There is no doubt about Javelle's identification of this object. However, see IC864 for the uncertainty surrounding Swift's observations. IC869 has more about Javelle's. </object> <object><oname>IC867</oname>. As with the other group members, there is some uncertainty about Swift's observations of this. See IC864 for more. Javelle's data are thankfully unambiguous on this object. See IC869 for more about Javelle's micrometric observations in the group. </object> <object><oname>IC868</oname>. This is one of two galaxies in the group clearly identified by Swift's note, "D with 5th [brightest]". See IC864 for more about Swift's observations. IC869 has more notes about Javelle's data for galaxies in the group. </object> <object><oname>IC869</oname> probably refers to both galaxies near Javelle's position. When that is corrected for a systematic offset seen in the other positions for the group galaxies (IC864, 866-868, and 870), it falls very nearly midway between the two objects. Since they are about 30 arcsec apart, and both have small, bright nuclei, though, I would have expected Javelle to "resolve" them. Javelle's description "Faint, small, round, with little condensation" doesn't help us much at all. Still, it's clear that he saw something here, so I've used the IC number on both objects with positional suffixes. Since these are among the fainter galaxies in the group, Swift did not pick them up. See my comments on the other objects for more about Swift's observations. </object> <object><oname>IC870</oname> forms a close pair with IC868 (which see). IC864 and IC869 have more information about the other group members. </object> <object><oname>IC872</oname>, IC877, IC878, and IC880. Swift recorded four new nebulae on 28 April 1891, one said in his description to be preceding, and the other three following, NGC5060. Yet his positions put all of them at least a minute of time following the NGC galaxy. Except for the first, for which there are two candidates, none of the positions, as printed or "corrected" by a minute of time, has any galaxies or asterisms at all close. In particular, if his relative positions and descriptions of the following three objects were correct, there would be -- at least -- a striking triplet of galaxies in the area. But there isn't. Instead, there are three individual galaxies: NGC5060, very close to its position measured by d'Arrest (who discovered it); UGC 8349, 11 seconds preceding the corrected position for I872; and UGC 8361, 6 seconds following and 1.5 arcmin south of Swift's printed position for I872. Given that Swift includes the note about N5060 in his description for I872, and that, for the only other nebula he found that night (IC1016, which see), the RA is 1m 18s too large, I think that U8349 is I872. But U8361 is just as large and bright -- and therefore presumably as visible -- as U8349, so I've listed it as a possibility for I872, also. But for the other three, I see no reasonable candidates. I'm afraid that they, like many other of Swift's discoveries, are lost. </object> <object><oname>IC877</oname>. See IC872. </object> <object><oname>IC878</oname>. See IC872. </object> <object><oname>IC879</oname><oname>IC4222</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC880</oname>. See IC872. </object> <object><oname>IC884</oname> <oname>IC887</oname> were included in an appendix to the NGC, written after the main body of the catalogue had gone to press. Swift had somehow not included their positions and descriptions in the letters that he sent to Dreyer that Dreyer adopted for Swift's sixth list, finally published in its entirety while the NGC was in press. The positions for IC887 in the appendix and in the sixth list agree. But those for IC884 do not: the appendix -- and the first IC-- make the RA 1m larger than Swift's sixth list. Unfortunately, there are no galaxies at either position. Nor is there one at the position of IC887 which is claimed to be "vF, vS; nearly bet 2 sts; [GC] 3517 [N5119] nr np." There are no galaxies near southeast of N5119 that Swift could have seen. Swift found three other galaxies the same night: NGC3443, N3474, and N5122. With the exception of the declination for N3443 (8.3 arcmin too small), the positions for these three are not too bad. They average 7 seconds of time preceding and 0.3 arcmin south of the true positions, so give us no indication of a systematic offset. Even if we include the large declination error for N3443, we still have no real clues as to where Swift's other two objects might be. I personally think that he found two nebulae in the fairly rich area around NGC5070 and NGC5072, but I've been unable to find two reasonable candidates. So, two more of Swift's "novae" have to be declared lost, at least for now. </object> <object><oname>IC887</oname>. See IC884. </object> <object><oname>IC888</oname><oname>NGC5136</oname>. Swift's position for IC888, from his 8th list of "new" nebulae, is within 3 seconds of being exactly 1 minute of time off the NGC position (from the Herschels). Swift's description fits the object, so I suspect that he simply made a 1 minute error when reading the position from his setting circles. Another, though more remote, possibility for the identity of the IC object is CGCG 072-073. This has the correct right ascension, but the declination is 26 arcmin off and the object is considerably fainter than NGC5136. Swift could have seen it -- but the 1 time-minute error for the brighter galaxy is more compelling. </object> <object><oname>IC895</oname> is lost -- unless it is an observation of NGC5240. But neither Swift's description nor position fits the galaxy. In particular, the position is well off in both RA and Dec, and is not a digit error. Swift's comment "* in center ? D" (which Dreyer took to mean "sbM, D?"; could it be "* in center? D") does not fit N5240, either. The other three nebulae that Swift found the night of 1 September 1888 don't help at all with possible systematic offsets. Only one, IC511, is near its nominal position, and Swift got the direction of a nearby "wide D *" wrong -- it is northwest, not southeast as Swift has it. The other two objects (IC 1028 and IC1045, both of which see) are nowhere near their catalogued positions, and IC1045 may well be lost, too. </object> <object><oname>IC897</oname>. This number has almost always been applied to UGC 08544 = CGCG 102-016. However, Malcolm Thomson pointed out that Bigourdan's original description includes the note "Situated near NGC5217 at PA = 105 deg, d = 3.5 arcmin." Since UGC 08544 is over 8 arcmin south of N5217, there is clearly something strange going on. That strange thing is simply that Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star. Instead of using BD +18 2750 as he did for N5217, he actually used BD +18 2754. When his measurements are reduced with respect to that star, they fall within about 12 arcsec of the closer companion of N5217. That brings up another question, however. Bigourdan's micrometric measurements are usually much closer to the mark than 12 arcsec. Curiously, his measurements of N5217 are also well off the galaxy, and in the same direction. In both cases, he has more than one measurement, and they are in accord with one another. I have not been able to work out his error, but there clearly is one somewhere in his observations of this pair on the night of 20 May 1890. In any event, the identification of IC897 is now correct, thanks to Malcolm's diligence. </object> <object><oname>IC907</oname> is almost certainly UGC 8643. This identity was first suggested in CGCG, and is reasonable. The RA's are the same to well within Swift's usual error, and his Dec is just 20 arcmin off. This is probably a digit error. </object> <object><oname>IC917</oname> may be a star, but its companions (I918, 919, 921-3, 925, 926, 928-32, 934-38) are galaxies in Abell 1783. These were found by Burnham with the Lick 36-inch refractor in 1890. Barnard provides crude positions for them in AN 125, 380, 1890, copied correctly into the first IC. Barnard's positions and descriptions are not clear enough to positively identify more than four or five of the 18 galaxies in his table. One, I919, is called "cB" while the others are "vF" or "faint" and "vS, R." There are two pairs noted: I923 and I925, and I937 and I938. However, the positions imply the existence of two other pairs: I918 and I919, and I934 and I936. Faced with this puzzle, I wrote to Don Osterbrock at Lick to ask if Burnham's or Barnard's original observations are still extant. They are, but they turn out to be even more sketchy than the AN article, so are no help. Brent Archinal reports that Leos Ondra who, during an extended visit to several US observatories, has found that Barnard's original observing books at Yerkes are still kept in the library there. These may not help solve a mystery originating in the 36-inch dome at Lick, but they might be usefully examined, anyhow. All we can do now, however, is to assign the numbers, in approximate order of right ascension as given in AN, to the brightest 18 objects in the cluster, paying attention to the declinations when we can, as well as to the meager clues given in the descriptions. As I noted above, it seems likely that I917 is a star, but the remainder of the numbers can be assigned to galaxies without too much bending of Barnard's positions. However, I have to make it clear that there is a lot of guesswork going on here, and that these identifications really are tentative, pending uncovering more information. Hubble, by the way, in his PhD thesis at the University of Chicago (Publ. Yerkes Obs. IV, Part II, 1917) describes this area and lists positions of some of the galaxies in the field. He listed tentative identifications for only three of the galaxies: I921, I925, and I938. The identifications that I've adopted agree with Hubble's for I921 and I938, but not for I925 (Hubble has this as the galaxy at 13 41 22.7 +55 51 15 = I923, while I have the galaxy at 13 41 24.7 +55 52 00). </object> <object><oname>IC918</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC919</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC921</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC922</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC923</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC925</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC926</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC928</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC929</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC930</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC931</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC932</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC934</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC935</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC936</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC937</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC938</oname>. See IC917. </object> <object><oname>IC945</oname> is almost certainly UGC 08732 = CGCG 336-018. This is twice as large and twice as bright as CGCG 336-019, the galaxy identified in CGCG as IC945. Swift's original position -- that copied correctly into the IC-- is much closer to the fainter galaxy, and his note of a "coarse D * nf points to it" could apply to either object. However, the idea that he should sweep up the fainter object while missing the brighter one just 3 arcmin away is difficult to accept (but see IC997 and IC998). </object> <object><oname>IC953</oname>, IC955, and IC957 are lost, probably irretrievably. They are among Ormond Stone's novae in the extensive list of micrometric observations of nebulae published by the Leander McCormick observers in 1893. Apparently found during an observation of "GC 3697" (= NGC5357), all four nebulae have several observations each, all referred to two stars. Thus, it is possible to lay out the relative positions of the nebulae and stars to form a clear picture of the field. This pattern is nowhere to be found near N5357. N5357 is probably an outlying member of the IC4329 Group. I had the thought that the nebulae might be four in the core of the group. But the clear pattern of the four nebulae and two stars is not duplicated anywhere in the group. Nor can I find a similar pattern assuming that some of the novae are stars. So, "Not found" is the only reasonable conclusion. Here are some eye-glazing details. While it initially seems likely that Stone misidentified his comparison stars, a closer look at the problem shows that it is not as simple as that. He gives a precise position for one of the stars, and this one can be reliably identified with a GSC star at 13 50 58.01, -30 02 17.8 (B1950.0) -- Stone gives end figures of 58.04 and 17.1. However, reducing the measurements that he gives using this star gives positions in empty fields. Furthermore, his observations are not internally consistent: it should be possible to use the measurements from the "known" GSC star to pin down the other star by working through the positions for his nebulae. But this does not work: for the four objects involved, the derived positions for the unknown star (for which he gives only a crude position of 13 50 10, -30 04 again precessed to B1950) are several arcmin apart on the sky. Finally, again assuming that he used the identified GSC star to measure NGC5357, his micrometric position for that galaxy ought to be close to the GSC position. Instead, the reduced position is 23.8 seconds east, and 1' 17" north of N5357. So, he obviously did not observe N5357. At this point, I quit wasting time and went on to the next puzzle. You may have more patience than I. Good luck! </object> <object><oname>IC955</oname>. See IC953. </object> <object><oname>IC957</oname>. See IC953. </object> <object><oname>IC958</oname> is almost certainly NGC5360. Swift's description ("eeeF, pS, iR; seen only by glimpses") fits, and his typically crude position is only 3 arcmin away from Marth's galaxy. The only concern I have is that NGC5364 is in the field -- why didn't Swift mention that, too? So, colons go on the IC number. </object> <object><oname>IC973</oname><oname>NGC5467</oname> <oname>IC974</oname> are both stars near NGC5468. They were found by Bigourdan while he was trying to recover the three "nebulae" seen by Tempel near NGC5468. Bigourdan somehow became a bit confused by the field, so did not realize immediately that one of his "novae" (IC973) was the same star that he took to be NGC5467. He published it in his first Comptes Rendus list, so it got an IC number. He caught the identity later when he was preparing his complete observations for publication. See NGC5465 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC974</oname> is probably the star 30 arcsec south of Bigourdan's estimated position. It is a bit fainter than NGC5467 = IC973, and would have been at the limit of Bigourdan's telescope. See IC973 and NGC5465 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>IC997</oname> <oname>IC998</oname> are perhaps the brightest and faintest galaxies in a group of four (the others are IC4401 and MCG -01-37-002). Swift has these two objects entered in two of his lists ("(X)" and XI), but -- guessing here -- I think that he only observed them once, on 16 May 1892. His second "observation," claimed to be on 16 Sept 1896, reported in his long 11th list, looks to me like a hasty updating of the first, though perhaps after a quick second look at the field (it would have been low in the west just after sunset, though, not ideally placed for re-examination). The positions are just 10 seconds of time and 1.4 arcmin different, roughly the numbers one would expect from precession over the 10-year equinox difference (assuming that the short list in MNRAS 53, 273, 1893 has positions given for 1890.0). The descriptions are identical aside from the brightness of IC997 ("vF" rather than "pF" in the earlier list). In particular, his note about the "star with distant companion near north" is worded the same in both lists. In other re-observations where Swift notes nearby stars, his wording is different (see e.g. NGC5502 = NGC5503). Howe has an extensive note about the group (in which he found a third object, IC4401) in MNRAS 61, 46, 1900. Here he locates and measures the three galaxies that he and Swift saw, as well as the nearby star and its companion. He also notes the identity of Swift's nebulae in the two different lists. I have adopted his identities for the three galaxies -- though with questions. Keep reading. Malcolm has argued pretty persuasively that Swift probably saw the brightest two objects in the group, IC997 and IC4401. However, this would make Swift's positions not only further off in absolute terms, but his differences between his two objects would be off, too. Instead of the pretty good agreement with the actual differences of 20 seconds and 2.1 arcmin (Swift has 18 seconds and 1.0 arcmin), the differences would be 35 seconds and 4.2 arcmin. Also, the stars Swift mentions are much further from IC4401 than they are from IC997, though still within the 5 arcmin or so that he usually means when he uses the word "near" in his descriptions. Finally, IC997 and IC4401 are virtually equal in brightness (and surface brightness, too), while Swift's descriptions are quite different. He says "pF" or "vF" for I997 and "eeF" for I998. The galaxy that Howe and I take as I998 is a magnitude fainter than I997, more in keeping with Swift's descriptions. I also note that Howe saw only three of the four galaxies here, missing the MCG object, in spite of the fact that it is half a magnitude brighter than I998. So, we do indeed have a mystery: how could two seasoned observers miss seeing brighter objects in a group while picking up the faintest? Malcolm's argument is not without basis, so I've put colons and question marks on the identifications. </object> <object><oname>IC998</oname>. See IC997. ===== IC1001, IC1002, and IC1003. Javelle had trouble in this field on the one night he observed it, 29 June 1892; he misidentified his two comparison stars. Once those are found, however -- the correct stars are BD +6deg 2873 for I1001 and I1002, and +5deg 2873 for I1003 -- his reduced positions fall within 5-6 arcsec of the modern positions for the galaxies. He also notes a "very small" star attached to I1003; this is correct for his galaxy, UGC 09190 = CGCG 047-024. For the record, I1001 = CGCG 047-014, and I1002 = CGCG 047-015. </object> <object><oname>IC1002</oname>. See IC1001. </object> <object><oname>IC1003</oname>. See IC1001. </object> <object><oname>IC1004</oname>. MCG incorrectly assigned this number to MCG +03-37-007 = Ho 634a (Ho 634b is a star). Unfortunately, this bug has been picked up in a number of more recent sources. The real IC1004 is about 3-4 arcmin southwest, and is the brightest of a double or triple system. It's position is very close to Javelle's micrometric position, re-reduced with respect to the GSC position for his comparison star. This is another of Malcolm's catches. </object> <object><oname>IC1005</oname><oname>NGC5607</oname>. Swift's position is a minute of time too small. Otherwise, his description and place matches NGC5607 to within his usual, rather large, observational error. The fact that he called it "F" means that it is one of the brightest objects he discovered; this makes the identity all the more certain. </object> <object><oname>IC1008</oname><oname>IC4414</oname>. This is one of the 52 objects found by Safford that Dreyer put into the Appendix to the NGC. Later, Dreyer merged them into IC1 so that they would not be overlooked. As with IC200, there appears to be a rather large error in RA, in this case, +1.5 minutes of time. There are no other galaxies nearby that Safford could have reasonably seen with the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn. Given that, and the expectation of a relatively poor position, the identity is pretty secure. </object> <object><oname>IC1012</oname><oname>IC4431</oname>. This was found by T. H. Safford in 1866 using the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn Observatory (while testing this telescope, Clark found Sirius B). Safford's position is +2 arcmin off in declination, and +4 seconds of time off in RA -- not too bad, especially given that there are no other nebulae nearby to confuse an observer. Javelle found the galaxy 31 years later. When reduced with respect to the Tycho-2 position for his comparison star, his measurement of the galaxy is off in RA by just about a second, and is spot-on in declination. All in all, there is no doubt about the identity. So why are there two IC numbers? Javelle's published position was reduced from the BD position for his comparison star. The BD position is off by about an arcminute to the south. Safford's position is north of the galaxy, so Dreyer saw a published difference (assuming he checked) of nearly three arcminutes. This was enough that he must have thought that there were two nebulae here. By the way, this is one of the few nebulae for which Javelle has more than one measurement. His two observations differ by 0.78 seconds of time, and 1.3 arcseconds. This gives an idea of the internal accuracy of his data -- not too bad, but not the best that was done visually using micrometers. </object> <object><oname>IC1016</oname><oname>IC4424</oname><oname>NGC5619</oname>B. Swift found IC1016 on 28 April 1891, a peculiarly unfortunate night for him. Only two -- IC872 and I1016 -- of the five nebulae that he found that night are identifiable, and both of those were poorly measured by Swift (see IC872 for more). IC1016 is recoverable only because Swift's declination is fairly accurate, as is his description ("vF, vS, R; f of [NGC] 5619"); the RA is 1m 18s too large. Bigourdan found and first measured the object the next year; he remeasured it seven years later. His micrometric observations put the faint galaxy within five arcsec of its true position. Thus, it ended up in IC2 with a pretty good position, compromised only by the imprecise position that Bigourdan adopted for his comparison star. The NGC designation came along nearly four decades later when Holmberg included N5619 and two of its companions in his list of multiple galaxies. RNGC then immortalized it for us as "5619B". </object> <object><oname>IC1023</oname>. This is the only one of five "nebulae" that Juan Thome found while assembling the Cordoba Durchmusterung that may be an actual deep sky object. The others (IC229, 1203, 1207, and 1290, which see) are either asterisms or do not exist. I1023 may be a small cluster of about 20 stars, but it could also be just a chance superposition of unrelated stars. Proper motions, spectra, and photometry will be needed to determine the true character of the grouping. In any event, Thome's position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC1026</oname><oname>NGC5653</oname> is another of the nebulae found by Truman Henry Safford with the 18.5 inch Clark refractor at Dearborn in the late 1860's. It's RA is just one minute of time too large, and Safford's terse description "pB" makes the identity pretty certain. See IC200, IC1008, and IC1030 for other examples of digit errors in RA in Safford's list. </object> <object><oname>IC1027</oname>. Swift comments "... another or a few F sts nr." Howe noted only one star of 13th magnitude 0.7 arcmin southwest of the galaxy, but there are several other faint galaxies in the area. The closest and brightest is 1.7 arcmin north-northeast; is this the other nebula that Swift suspected? </object> <object><oname>IC1028</oname>, assuming that the identification (first suggested by CGCG) is correct, is well off its nominal position: +45 seconds in RA and +10.7 arcmin in declination. There is a "F * close nf", but I would hardly describe the galaxy as "pB, S, R". "Small" it is, but it is faint and elongated. I've saved the identity since the galaxy is the only one in the area that comes even close to fitting both Swift's position and description. For more about Swift's unfortunate night -- one among many -- of 1 September 1888, see IC895. </object> <object><oname>IC1029</oname>. This galaxy is correctly positioned, named, and described in the first IC-- but see the discussion of it under NGC5673. </object> <object><oname>IC1030</oname><oname>NGC5672</oname> with a +1 minute error in the RA. This position shares the RA offset in common with several other of Safford's discoveries; see e.g. IC 200, IC1008, and IC1026. In this case, Safford's description "pF" is appropriate for the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1045</oname> may be NGC5731 (which is -37 seconds and +2.3 arcmin from Swift's position) -- but that is far from certain: if Swift could see N5731, why could he not see its near-twin, N5730, only a few arcmin distant? Nevertheless, Swift's comments about neighboring stars -- "nearly bet 2 sts, forms triangle with 2 sts" -- are accurate. Since this is the best candidate we have, I've listed it, though with colons. See IC895 and IC1028 for more about the other nebulae Swift found this night. </object> <object><oname>IC1055</oname><oname>IC4491</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1056</oname><oname>IC1057</oname>. Swift found I1057 on 8 April 1888 and described it as "eF, pS, R; bet a pB * and a coarse D *, nearer the latter." Sweeping across the same area three months later on 4 July 1888, he found I1056: "eeF, L, R; forms an arc of a small circle with 2 sts; 3 pB sts nr sf in form of arc of a large circle." His positions (14 42 20, +50 50 05 and 14 42 03, +50 51 45, respectively; both for equinox 1890) are far enough apart, and the descriptions different enough that he thought the nebulae different objects. However, both descriptions are correct. The "pB *" about five arcmin south- southeast of the galaxy, is the western-most of the "3 pB sts nr sf" forming an arc. Similarly, the "coarse D *" about three arcmin west, is the two stars with which the nebula forms a smaller arc. </object> <object><oname>IC1057</oname><oname>IC1056</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1087</oname> is the brighter, but smaller, of a pair of galaxies separated by about 30 arcsec. It is northwest of the larger, UGC 9710. Javelle's measurement from a BD star about five arcmin northeast is very good, and the identity is not in doubt. Also see IC1088. </object> <object><oname>IC1088</oname> is a faint star about 1.5 arcmin northeast of IC1087. Javelle's offsets land within five arcsec of the star, and his measurement of I1087 on the same night is just as good. There is no doubt about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC1090</oname> does not exist -- or if it does, it is a very faint star. Bigourdan found the object on 18 June 1887, saying "At the measured position, I suspected a possibly nebulous object at the extreme limit of visibility." He has only one micrometric position for it from the same night, but there is nothing there. About an arcminute to the northwest is a 17th magnitude star. I doubt that Bigourdan could have seen it with the 12.2-inch refractor that he was using, so I favor the nonexistent idea for this observation. Several catalogues have put this number on CGCG 221-022, but that is 1 min 54 sec west of Bigourdan's position, and nowhere near his nominal offsets from any star that Bigourdan would have used as a comparison star. Malcolm caught this mistake, and I'm grateful, as always, for his careful work. </object> <object><oname>IC1095</oname> is the brighter component of CGCG 077-019, though since Swift notes it as "lE", it may well be both objects. Swift's position is +20 arcmin in error, but his observation is otherwise not too bad. He also notes a "* 9 mag in field sf"; this star is SAO 101405, and helps to positively identify Swift's object. </object> <object><oname>IC1096</oname> is one of three galaxies interspersed with several stars, one rather bright. Another of the galaxies is IC1097, about which there are no identification problems. IC1096 is usually taken as the brightest of the three. However, Javelle's single observation on 20 July 1892 points directly to the faintest of the three galaxies. He made an observation of IC1097 a few minutes later on the same night using the same comparison star. That observation points directly at the second-brightest galaxy. So, there is no mistaking the objects that Javelle saw. How did he miss the brightest galaxy? Perhaps it has a lower surface brightness, or perhaps it has a stellar nucleus. Perhaps he did see it, but did not have time to measure it. Whatever happened, we can put IC numbers on only two of the three galaxies -- but not on the brightest one. </object> <object><oname>IC1097</oname>. See IC1096. </object> <object><oname>IC1098</oname> is, as Bigourdan suspected, simply a star. Even though his measurement is rounded off to the nearest second in RA as well as in Dec, the star is close enough, and isolated enough, to make it clear that it is indeed his object. </object> <object><oname>IC1100</oname><oname>NGC5881</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1104</oname> is a star, as I first suspected while assembling ESGC. Bigourdan's single measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the star, so there is no doubt about the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC1111</oname><oname>NGC5876</oname> with a +5 minute error in the RA. Swift calls the object "pB" and notes that it makes a "triangle with 2 stars." The stars are 2 arcmin northwest and 2.5 arcmin southwest. Interestingly, NGC5876 was one of Swift's earliest discoveries, and was included by him in his first list of new nebulae. CGCG chose a considerably fainter galaxy (UGC 09800 = CGCG 274-037) as IC 1111. This galaxy is indeed closer to Swift's position, but the differences are not simple digits -- 1m 38s, and 2.7 arcmin. There are also no stars nearby that Swift would have noted as a triangle with the galaxy. Unfortunately, this error has propagated through the catalogues, so UZC, LEDA, and Wolfgang (in his first edition) have incorrectly put the IC number on the fainter object. </object> <object><oname>IC1115</oname> is a double star, identified by its proximity to a considerably brighter star about 5 arcmin to the southeast. Otherwise, we might be tempted to take MCG -01-39-005 as the IC object. It, however, has no brighter star to the southeast which would have been in Swift's field of view. The identity, first suggested by Herbert Howe (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) who measured and described the double as we see it today on the sky surveys, is therefore pretty certain. There is coincidentally a very faint background galaxy close to the stars, but even Howe, careful observer that he was, could not have dug it out: it is around 17th magnitude. </object> <object><oname>IC1118</oname><oname>IC4543</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1120</oname> is a very faint double or triple galaxy found by Javelle. He noted a star near to the northeast -- this star may actually be a compact galaxy; it appears to be slightly nebulous. But I suspect it really is a star, superposed on a plume or maybe a third galaxy in the faint system. </object> <object><oname>IC1122</oname> is not NGC5931 as is sometimes stated, nor was it seen by Barnard whose position and comment (about a star preceding the galaxy) are adopted by Dreyer for the first IC. Barnard's data apply to NGC5931. The IC object is a separate galaxy found by Bigourdan about 3 arcmin northwest of NGC5931. His position, though about 15 arcsec off, is good enough to unambiguously identify the galaxy. See NGC5931 for more details. </object> <object><oname>IC1123</oname> is a star. Bigourdan has two observations of this on 15 May 1890 which -- when reduced using the GSC position of his comparison star -- point exactly at the star. </object> <object><oname>IC1125</oname> is probably also IC1128, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC1126</oname> is also a star. Bigourdan has only one observation of it, but his position falls within two arcseconds of the DSS position. Reinmuth has this number equal to NGC5952, but Malcolm Thompson points out that Bigourdan observed that on the same night as he found IC1126, and he used the same comparison star for both. Thus, the two cannot be the same. </object> <object><oname>IC1127</oname><oname>IC4553</oname>. Just one minute of time east of IC4553 (which see), and an arcmin south, lies the IC position for I1127. There is nothing at all in this position, though there are 2 or 3 very faint stars just to the north. I1127 was found in 1866 by Safford at Dearborn Observatory, and was first listed in an appendix to the NGC as Safford 7. Dreyer later included these appended objects in the first IC, where this one received the number 1127. Safford's positions are only approximate, having been determined simply by centering the object in the field, then reading the setting circles. Thus, they are often merely indicative and also seem to suffer from digit errors now and then (IC200 is another example, with its RA being 2 minutes of time off). Since Safford's description (pF) is correct, IC4553 is almost certainly the object which he saw. </object> <object><oname>IC1128</oname> is probably IC1125 with a 5 minute error in RA and a 5 arcmin error in declination. IC1125 is about a magnitude brighter, and considerably larger, than the galaxy that CGCG took (CGCG 022-018 = UGC 09939). That is close to Swift's RA, but is 12 arcmin to the north, an unusual error for Swift to make. In addition, UGC 09939 has a fairly close companion of nearly the same brightness just a couple of arcmin southwest. If Swift could see UGC 09939 and call it "pF, pS, R", he almost certainly could have seen CGCG 022-017 just as easily. But he makes no mention of it. In addition, there are to the south of this pair two fairly bright stars in the field that Swift might well have put into his description, too. All in all, it seems considerably more likely to me that I1125 is also I1128. I've left it and UGC 09939 in the main table, however, on the off chance that Swift might have picked up the fainter galaxy. For an example where he almost surely did find a fainter object rather than a brighter one, see IC997 and IC 998. </object> <object><oname>IC1130</oname>. There is nothing wrong with Bigourdan's single observation of this object on 29 May 1889. His micrometrically measured position is within three arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy, and his description "vF" is surely appropriate. The "* 8.7 f" mentioned in the IC is his comparison star. What caught my eye here is his note, "... I suspect another still fainter at [PA] = 220 degrees, d = 1.5 - 2 arcmin." There isn't anything at all there aside from some 19th magnitude chaff. He has another observation of I1130 five nights later, but does not mention any accompanying object this time. In fact, he says of I1130 (this is his complete observation, freely translated by me), "I intermittently see this object, which could be nebulous, and which is now at the extreme limit of visibility." </object> <object><oname>IC1137</oname> has a +30 second error in its IC RA, apparently one of the few errors made by Dreyer in compiling the catalogue. Swift's original paper (his 9th list) has an RA about 8 seconds preceding a galaxy that matches his brief description: "vF, S, R; 9 m * close np". In particular, the star is there. The object was not picked up again until 1983 when it made it into the IRAS lists (it is IRAS 15461+0844). </object> <object><oname>IC1140</oname>. The IC1 position falls on an empty patch of sky. There are stars and asterisms in the area, but nothing leaps out as a "vF (? S Cl)" as Dreyer characterizes this in the IC. The "* 9.5 close" is indeed near the nominal position, but this does not help in identifying Bigourdan's object. Could this be another case like NGC2529 and 2531 (which see), imaginary nebulae beyond the limit of detection? Checking his big table, we find that Bigourdan saw the object twice. He estimated its position on both nights with respect to a nearby star, which he called "An. b", to be PA = 120 degrees, distance = 1.3 arcmin. He tells us that "An. b" is +8.5 seconds and +2.5 arcmin from BD +19d 3021. There is a star there, so I've reduced his estimated position using a position for the star that I measured on DSS. This leads directly to an asterism of three stars that match Bigourdan's description perfectly. So what went wrong? Checking the list of new nebulae in CR 112, 703, 1891 in which this object appears, we find that his position (copied faithfully into IC1 by Dreyer) does not agree with the correctly reduced position. Further, his description reads, "... [the new object] is situated near BD +19d 3021 at p = 120 degrees, d = 1.3 arcmin." He must have confused his observing records and used the position of the BD star for his reduction. (He did, in fact, use the BD star, but only to estimate the position of "An. b".) As I found, when we use his correct comparison star, his estimated position falls almost exactly in the asterism. When Bigourdan prepared his vast set of observations for publication in 1912, he must have re-reduced the positions of all of his new nebulae. I1140 has its correct position in the tables of new nebulae. I suspect that the reason Bigourdan did not notice the mistake is that the position was precessed to equinox 1860 for the 1891 CR list, while the 1912 list is for equinox 1900. </object> <object><oname>IC1142</oname> has a -1 minute error in its RA. This goes right back to Javelle's listed RA offset from his comparison star -- it should read "+1m 41.95s" instead of "+0m 41.95s". Once the correction is made, Javelle's object is clearly identical to UGC 10055 = CGCG 107-055. </object> <object><oname>IC1148</oname><oname>NGC6020</oname>. IC1148 is another of the about 100 nebulae found by T. H. Safford at Dearborn in the mid-1860s. It, and the other 51 nebulae not found previously by other observers, was first listed in an appendix to the NGC. It's approximate position is only about 15 seconds west of NGC6020 -- there is nothing in Safford's place -- and his brief description ("neb. *") is appropriate for the galaxy. The galaxy was found again about a decade later by Stephan who provided a micrometric measurement of its position. </object> <object><oname>IC1150</oname> may be a reobservation of NGC6018. As Malcolm notes, the description -- including the superposed star -- and the declination are good matches to Javelle's single observation in July of 1891. However, Javelle's RA is off by 48.7 seconds of time, an unusual error to make. I searched the field for a star-galaxy pair with his observed separation (-20.90 seconds, -8.4 arcsec in north polar distance), but found none. Nor is there such a pair at -16 degrees, -6 degrees, +6 degrees, or +26 degrees as there would be if he made a digit error in his comparison star name (it is BD +16 2854). The only other galaxy Javelle found on the same night (IC1155) is just where he observed it, so we are left with a mystery. Whatever happened, I've included the identity with a question mark on the IC number. I'm obviously not completely satisfied with the identification, but certainly think it is possible. </object> <object><oname>IC1155</oname>. See IC1150. </object> <object><oname>IC1164</oname> is a star. It is one of seven "nebulae" discovered by Bigourdan for which he gives no detailed measurements in his big tables. However, he does list a measurement in his Appendix 8, Supplementary Observations. This points exactly at the star. See IC532 for more on these seven objects. </object> <object><oname>IC1171</oname> is a star. Bigourdan's estimated position is pretty good. While there is an asterism of three or four stars a couple of arcminutes to the south, there is no way to stretch his position to fit it. His RA and Dec offsets are consistent with his estimated position angle and distance, too; this rules out a typo in the declination. </object> <object><oname>IC1172</oname><oname>NGC6044</oname>. This object is not listed in Bigourdan's detailed observations, but appears only in his list of new objects. Since the position and description are exactly that of NGC6044, the identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>IC1175</oname> is a double star. Bigourdan's observation, referred to NGC6053 (which he called NGC6055), pinpoints the double exactly. </object> <object><oname>IC1176</oname><oname>NGC6056</oname>. Swift's description, "2 pretty bright stars near south" points exactly at the NGC object as the one that he rediscovered. </object> <object><oname>IC1177</oname>. Bigourdan's position is an estimate, but refers unambiguously to this galaxy and the 2-3 faint stars nearby. </object> <object><oname>IC1178</oname> is usually taken as the northwestern, brighter galaxy of the pair -- IC1181 is the other. However, Swift's position is not very good, and the fact that he does not mention either object in his description of the other, casts some doubt on the identification. If, for example, his declination is 10 arcmin too far south, then IC1178 could be the object at 16 03 15.6, +17 54 13 (often incorrectly called NGC6054). This particular mistake is unlikely, however, as the galaxy to the north is a full magnitude fainter. It's possible that IC1178 is identical to IC1181, though since Swift claims that he found the two on the same night, this seems unlikely. So, 1) having nothing to go on but Swift's observations, 2) since there is no other object near his position that could be IC1178, and 3) since the identification is in common use in the current astronomical literature, I retain the identification, though note that it is uncertain. </object> <object><oname>IC1179</oname> is almost certainly = NGC6050. Together, the two objects are just visible in the 30-inch at McDonald. I found it impossible to separate them, even knowing that both existed. So, I think it is unlikely that Swift could have seen these as separate objects. </object> <object><oname>IC1180</oname> is a star. Again, Bigourdan's rough position, estimated with respect to NGC6053 (which he calls NGC6055), certainly refers to the star. </object> <object><oname>IC1181</oname>. See IC1178. </object> <object><oname>IC1183</oname><oname>NGC6054</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1184</oname> is a double star. Bigourdan's estimated position, though rough, unambiguously points at the double. </object> <object><oname>IC1190</oname> = CGCG 108-136 = MCG +03-41-113. Swift's position is bad, but his description "... another [= IC1191] and [NGC] 6061 near in line" point to this galaxy (rather than to the fainter, smaller object, MCG +03-41-115 at 16 03 45.6, +18 19 48) as the one he saw. My earlier identification of I1190 as a star is incorrect. </object> <object><oname>IC1191</oname>. See IC1190. </object> <object><oname>IC1193</oname>. Javelle's reduced position is about 1 second of time and 1 arcmin too large, but his description fits the galaxy. In addition, there is no other galaxy nearby that he could have mistaken for this one. Do his printed offsets have digit typos? </object> <object><oname>IC1194</oname>. Javelle's offsets point exactly at the fainter lenticular, rather than at the brighter elliptical nearby. Perhaps he mistook the brighter object as a star, though it should have been clearly nebulous in the Nice 28-inch. </object> <object><oname>IC1200</oname><oname>NGC6079</oname>. Swift's description and position are very good. He can be excused (in this case) for not realizing that William Herschel had found this object a century earlier since Herschel's position is well off the galaxy. Swift does refer (in his list VII) to this as the "south-preceding" of two objects (IC1201 is the other), though it is actually north-preceding. See NGC6071 and NGC6079 for more discussion about WH's positions. This object is not, by the way, the same as B.207 = IC1204 as Dreyer speculates in the description. See IC1204 for a bit more on this. </object> <object><oname>IC1201</oname>. See IC1200. </object> <object><oname>IC1202</oname><oname>NGC6081</oname>. For a change, Swift's position is good -- it agrees with Stephan's to within about 10 arcsec. Why, then, didn't he or Dreyer catch the identity? I suspect Swift did not catch the identity because he found the galaxy on 7 April 1888, and published his 7th list in August of the same year. That was the year, of course, when the NGC appeared. But Dreyer had plenty of time to at least note the identity, and didn't. Well, there are plenty of other cases like that, too. No one's perfect. </object> <object><oname>IC1203</oname> may be an asterism of 6 to 8 stars. Though his position -- at least as transcribed into the first IC by Dreyer, and as plotted on the 1929 edition of the CD charts -- is good, I'm not sure that the scattered group of 6-8 stars there is compact enough that Thome would have mistaken it for a nebula in his small telescope (12.5 cm aperture). IC1207 (which see) has a much better candidate asterism; I think this one is too large (3.5 x 2.0 arcmin) and its stars too bright to be taken for a nebula. Nevertheless, I am retaining the identification, though with a colon, since there is nothing else there. Perhaps an experienced observer can poke at this with a similarly sized refractor to see what it looks like. </object> <object><oname>IC1204</oname> is not the same object as IC1200 as Dreyer speculates in the description for IC1200. In this particular case, the NGC position is wrong (see the IC2 Notes for the corrected declination), but once it is corrected, it is clear that this is a galaxy 3-4 arcmin northwest of NGC6091. Bigourdan's precise position agrees well with GSC, and his comment (as summarized in the IC description) concerning the 11th magnitude star following by 3 arcmin is correct. Finally, Swift's position for IC1200 = NGC6079 is quite good in this case and pinpoints the other galaxy. See IC1200, and NGC 6071 and NGC6079 for more on this field. </object> <object><oname>IC1206</oname> is one of seven nebulae found by Bigourdan for which he provides no detailed observations in his big tables of differential measurements (see IC532 for other notes on these objects). In spite of the fact that there are also no data for this object -- not even a date of observation -- in his Appendix VII devoted to new objects, this is also the only one of the seven which actually is a galaxy. His position is within 30 arcsec of that measured by Lewis Swift who called the object "eF, S, R." This is the description adopted by Dreyer for the IC. </object> <object><oname>IC1207</oname>. Here is another asterism (2.0 x 0.5 arcmin) of 6 or 8 stars, fainter than those in IC1203 (which see). This is a more believable object for a candidate nebula in a small telescope. Thome's position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC1210</oname> is not NGC6111, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC1213</oname><oname>NGC6172</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1216</oname>. See IC1217. </object> <object><oname>IC1217</oname> is lost. Swift found it the same night, 2 August 1888, as several other nebulae (IC1200, I1201, and I1216 are among them), and like most of them, it is one of his "eeeF, S, R, eee diff" nebulae. Unlike the others, there is no trace of it near his position. I1216 is, in Swift's 7th list, 30 seconds preceding, and 1deg 19.5 arcmin south of his position for I1217. Since that galaxy is close to his nominal position (just 10 seconds off in RA, not a large error at the large declination), we would expect I1217 to be within 10 seconds of its position, too. But there is nothing there aside from a few single stars. I suppose it is possible that I1217 is one of these, but there is no way to tell which; Swift's description has no notes about neighboring stars that would help pin it down. Finally, a search of the area on the POSS1 prints turned up no other galaxies in the area that might be I1217 with digit errors in their positions. So, another of Swift's nebulae is lost. </object> <object><oname>IC1220</oname>. The NGC RA is 10 seconds of time off. This makes it most likely that the brighter CGCG 052-030 is the galaxy that Swift saw rather than the fainter CGCG 052-028. </object> <object><oname>IC1226</oname> may also be IC1232, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC1227</oname><oname>NGC6206</oname>. The identity was first suggested by Bigourdan himself in an italicized note in his big table. He puts the note under his second observation (1891) of the galaxy: "This nebula has in its neighborhood four stars, while Swift notes only three near NGC6206, so I had thought at first that the two objects were distinct; but today it seems probable that NGC6206 and Bigourdan 210 are identical." Indeed they are. Swift's RA is 20 seconds of time off. This misled Bigourdan to a faint star coincidentally close to the three stars that Swift mentions in his description: "pF, eS, R, stellar; 3 vF sts nr n point to it." In his first observation of "NGC6206", Bigourdan carefully notes the distances and position angles of the same three stars -- but the object that he took to be N6206 is actually a fourth star that Swift apparently did not see (is it variable?). Bigourdan realized his mistake in 1891. By the time he returned to the field for a final measurement of the galaxy (in 1895), his description for N6206 is that of a single star, and he does not bother to make a third measurement of it. However, he does make four more measurements of his "new" nebula. Altogether, he has ten measurements of the galaxy. The average of the ten positions falls within two arcsec of the modern position. </object> <object><oname>IC1229</oname> <oname>IC1230</oname> are probably the brightest two galaxies in a group scattered around Swift's position. He makes the separation between the galaxies more than twice the actual separation, but his descriptions are more or less OK. He mentions a double star between the objects. This may be the pair of compact "galaxies" that I've noted in the table as companions north of I1230. One of these is certainly a galaxy -- is the other a star? If they are galaxies, I'm surprised that Swift could see them. </object> <object><oname>IC1230</oname> is the brightest galaxy in a small group. It has a large and somewhat distorted corona, and is apparently interacting with a much smaller, fainter galaxy just to the south. Is the IC galaxy a cD in the making, swallowing up its fainter neighbor? </object> <object><oname>IC1232</oname> is probably IC1226. Swift gives the RA only to a full minute of time with a question mark appended (his position is "16 46? +46 16.7" for 1890.0). He adds a note of explanation to his description: "Driving clock failed." Given the rest of his description, "eeeF, S, iR; B * with distant companion nr sf", however, we can scour the area for objects that he might have seen. The most obvious candidate is IC1226, eight minutes preceding Swift's nominal RA. The stars, however, are southwest, not southeast as Swift would have them. The declination is appropriate, though (just 4 arcmin out), as is the description. So, I'm going to suggest that Swift made a simple mistake in his placement of the neighboring stars. He's confused his directions before, so I'm not surprised at the probability here -- especially given the broken clock which must have disconcerted him a bit. It certainly would have me! </object> <object><oname>IC1233</oname><oname>NGC6247</oname> as suggested by Dreyer in IC1. There is a 10 arcmin error in Swift's published position. Otherwise his position fits to within his usual errors, and his description "eF, vS, vE; bet 2 sts" also fits. There are no other galaxies in the area that match the description and have simple digit offsets from Swift's position. The galaxy itself looks like an interacting pair on the DSS. I've given separate positions for the components, though everyone else has taken it as a single, peculiar galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1234</oname> is a star -- though it does not match Bigourdan's description very well. He says (roughly translated by me; pardon my French!): "Object of doubtful appearance, which could be formed from stars 13.5 with a little nebulosity; it is completely insensible and a little elongated toward the position indicated for NGC6262." He has two observations of it on the night of 5 Sept 1888. They do not agree very well, with differences of 0.95 seconds in RA, and 12.7 arcsec in Dec. Nevertheless, the mean of the two leads us unambiguously to the star. I should note that the identity of Bigourdan's comparison star is not quite secure. He places it -6 seconds and -7 arcmin from BD +57 1713; there is no star there. However, there are several stars scattered around including a noticeably brighter one 3 arcmin to the south. The identity of I1234 rests on our accepting this as Bigourdan's comparison star for his two measurements. </object> <object><oname>IC1238</oname> is a double star. See the discussion under NGC6276. </object> <object><oname>IC1239</oname><oname>NGC6276</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1240</oname> is probably one of Bigourdan's imaginary objects. He describes it briefly as an "Object suspected [only for] an instant. The sky is beautiful." His position is not measured, only estimated at position angle 240 degrees, distance 3 arcmin from a star he calls "Arg. OE, 16761". The position he gives for the star is 2 arcmin south of the real position. I get the impression that he was not tremendously interested in this object. For a few minutes, I thought that the star an arcmin north of his position might be the object he saw. But the position angle and distance Bigourdan estimated probably rule this out. He correctly reduced them to offsets in RA and Dec, and I see no way to squeeze the extra arcminute out of the reduced position. So, another twinkle in the eye just beyond the limit of visibility. </object> <object><oname>IC1243</oname> is a line of five stars. It was first seen this way by Herbert Howe whose description (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) is so accurate that I can do no better than to quote it in full. "This was examined on two nights. It consists of five 12-14 mag. stars in a line, at an angle of 0 degrees, the length of the line being 45 arcsec. A star of mag. 14 immediately precedes the northern end of the row." Swift's position is adequate (10 seconds too large in RA, 1.3 arcmin too large in Dec) for a positive identification. </object> <object><oname>IC1246</oname> is a star. Bigourdan estimated its position only once, but his estimate still falls within a few arcsec of the star. His description makes it clear that Bigourdan was not much interested in the object: "Very faint object, maybe nebulous, only suspected." He also got the direction of his "comparison" star wrong (it is the "* 10 n 1 arcmin" in the NGC description) -- it is actually south of his suspected nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC1247</oname> is, like I1246 and so many other of Bigourdan's "novae", also a star. But he actually took the time to measure it once, the night he discovered it (21 June 1887). He describes it then as "A star 13.3-13.4 around which I suspect a few traces of nebulosity. A * 13.3 is at PA = 27 deg, distance = 0.7 arcmin." Bigourdan's measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the position found from the DSS. When he examined this object again on 9 June 1891, he calls it "A star 13.4 without a trace of nebulosity." A third and final examination yielded this description: "The object measured in 1887 is a star 13.5 or 13.4-13.5 without nebulosity." Herbert Howe also examined the area in the late 1890's and came to the same conclusion in one of his Monthly Notices papers. Dreyer put Howe's observation into an IC2 note, so there is no excuse for missing on this one. One other curious coincidence: I did the debugging of this object on 21 June 2002, exactly 115 years after Bigourdan found and measured it. </object> <object><oname>IC1251</oname> <oname>IC1254</oname> are the two brightest galaxies in a group north and east of NGC6340. Swift's positions are not too bad, and the galaxies are enough brighter than their companions that the identifications are secure. </object> <object><oname>IC1252</oname><oname>IC4649</oname>. This identity was recognized by Bigourdan himself, and apparently stems from some error in his record keeping. He has the two as being identical in his Table II of new nebulae (Table II has the "novae" in RA order), but has them at different positions in Table I (this lists them in order of Bigourdan's own number). He attempted to measure a position for the object on only one of the three nights on which he saw it -- there is a considerably brighter star only 30 arcsec to the southeast. His single position falls between the star and the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1253</oname><oname>NGC6347</oname>. Safford's original position is very good, falling within 20 arcsec of the galaxy. Unfortunately, when Dreyer precessed the position, he made a +2 degree error in the declination. So, the IC position has nothing near it. This is one of the very few errors that Dreyer himself made in assembling his catalogues. </object> <object><oname>IC1254</oname>. Carlson has a "correction" to the IC position of this galaxy -- it is not an improvement. Swift's position is actually closer to the galaxy. Also see IC1251. </object> <object><oname>IC1271</oname>. Swift's original description reads "eeeF, vL, N6523 nr p, ee diff; B * inv or is a neb *; discovered 2 years ago." He gives a position of 18 02 26 -24 27.2 (precessed to 1950) which falls about 5 arcmin southeast of the star at 18 02 06.48, -24 24 10.9 (B1950.0, GSC). His position is still well within the brighter part of the nebulosity, but I have given a position that is much closer to the star and corresponds to the brightest part of the nebula to the east of M8 on the POSS and SSS prints/films (18 02 09 -24 24.9). If Swift meant to give the position of the star, it is well off, but not unreasonably so for him, especially given the size of the object. This is not, by the way, = NGC6526 = H V 9. That number applies to the much brighter southeastern portion of M8 that curves around to the northeast to eventually encompass NGC6530. See N6526 for more. Swift's note "... discovered 2 years ago" deserves a comment. JH's sketch of M8 in the Cape of Good Hope Observations shows this entire area, including all of the nebulosity included in IC1271, as well as Swift's star. So, I don't think that we can credit Swift with the discovery of this "object." JH clearly regarded it as a part of the M8 complex, and we can now see on photographs that his interpretation was correct. Herbert Howe came to the same conclusion through visual examination of the field a few years after Swift's observation. See NGC6523, N6526, and N6533 for more discussion about the early observations of the M8 area. </object> <object><oname>IC1272</oname> is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan's one estimated position is about 10 arcsec preceding the geometric center of the asterism, but is good enough to allow unambiguous identification of the object. IC1273 (which see) is a double star about 2.5 arcmin to the northeast observed the same nights. </object> <object><oname>IC1273</oname> is a double star -- actually a triple as the southwestern star is itself double -- close northeast of IC1272 (which see). Bigourdan has one measurement of the object which clearly identifies it. </object> <object><oname>IC1274</oname> <oname>IC1275</oname> are both reflection nebulae sketched by Barnard from a plate he took at Lick in the 1890's. The published sketch (in AN 3111), with BD stars identified on it, is accurate and identifies the nebulae exactly. </object> <object><oname>IC1275</oname>. See IC1274. </object> <object><oname>IC1277</oname> is a faint galaxy. Bigourdan has four observations of it; they do not agree very well, but his mean position is only 12 arcsec south of the nucleus. The identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC1278</oname> is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan observed it on the same nights as I1277 (which see), but his five measurements are much more accordant than for the galaxy. Again, the identification is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC1280</oname><oname>NGC6581</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1282</oname> is an asterism of four faint stars. It is faint enough that Wolfgang overlooked it in favor of a brighter asterism to the southwest. But Bigourdan's single measurement unambiguously points to the fainter object. </object> <object><oname>IC1283</oname> is a part of IC1284. In AN 3111, Barnard gives the name (BD -19d 4948) and correct position of the nebulous star that he found on one of his plates. He continues, "The nebulosity is very small and principally noticeable on the southern side of the star." This is an accurate description as far as it goes. Later, in AN 4239, he describes the entire area as having a "large bed of diffused nebulosity" stretching between I1284 and BD -20d 5055 nearly a degree to the southwest. The Palomar and Siding Spring survey plates show Barnard's nebulosity and large swaths of Milky Way stars throughout the entire area. See NGC6589 and NGC6590 for more discussion of Barnard's and Swift's observations here. </object> <object><oname>IC1284</oname>. See IC1283, and NGC6590 = NGC6595 = IC4700. </object> <object><oname>IC1285</oname> is an asterism of 5 stars. Bigourdan's position points to the two brightest on the northwestern corner, but his description suggests that he saw at least two of the other three. Wolfgang and I have estimated the center of the entire group. </object> <object><oname>IC1290</oname>. As with I1203 and I1207 (which see), this is an asterism of 6 to 8 faint stars at Thome's position. </object> <object><oname>IC1292</oname> is lost. Pickering announced it in AN 137, 71, 1895 (which I've not seen), and listed it in HA 60 as the 74th nebula found at Harvard. It was found on an objective prism plate by Wilhelmina Fleming, and is credited to her in the IC. She adds the note "* 9.6 south following". There is indeed a star (GSC 6867 1486, V = 10.6) southeast of the nominal position, but there are only very faint stars in the immediate area of that position. Wolfgang has selected one of these for his list, but I don't think it likely that the Harvard plate went deep enough to pick it up. Was this object possibly a nova (or just a defect?) seen on a single plate of the area? Pickering's original AN article might shed some light on this notion. The other obvious possibility is that there is a typo or other error in the position. However, the IC position comes from the AN paper, and I suspect that the position given in HA 60 was simply copied from the same paper. So, any error would predate the AN paper. </object> <object><oname>IC1293</oname> is a small asterism of 5 or 6 stars. There is a brighter star less than an arcmin to the northwest. Swift suspected another "nebula" near to the southeast; this may be the fainter asterism at 18 40 54.5, +56 13 32 (B1950). Howe was the first to suggest that this was not a nebula, but his description is a good match for a line of three stars well to the south at 18 40 35.4, +56 09 31. He says "It appears to consist of three stars of mag 14, of which the following one is nebulous." The east-northeastern of the line of three stars is actually a blended double; it could well appear nebulous at the eyepiece. But it is unusual for one of Howe's objects to be so far off the catalogued position without his mentioning it. </object> <object><oname>IC1294</oname> is probably the asterism of 3 or 4 star listed in the table of positions. Swift is unusually voluble about this object. In addition to the usual description of the object itself ("eeeF, S, iR, eee diff") he adds, "F * close nf both in line with 3 vF sts in form of arc of circle. The F * is in the middle. Not [NGC] 6695." The arc of three stars that Swift mentions is about 2 arcmin northeast. This is a clear match to his note. However, that would make his "F * ... in the middle" a considerably fainter double star a bit closer to his "nebula". In order for his "F *" to be brighter than the three "vF sts" in his arc, as his note suggests, we have to suppose that one or both of the pair is variable, and that he saw it near its maximum. This makes it less likely that the identification of I1294 that I suggest is actually the right one. But I don't see anything else nearby that matches Swift's note as well. We have to keep in mind, too, Swift's propensity for mangling his positions. See IC1300 and IC1301 for two examples. So, I've put a colon on this IC number in the table. Sigh. </object> <object><oname>IC1298</oname>. This one is so obvious that I got it for ESGC. The IC description reads simply "vS Cl, [NGC] 6778 p 3 [arcmin]." This is just where Bigourdan's three micrometric measurements made on two nights place his "cluster." It is probably a random grouping of 8-9 stars at Bigourdan's place -- but it certainly does look like small cluster. Once we have proper motions for the stars, we'll know better whether they might be associated. In the meantime, I suspect this would be an interesting object in a moderate size (say 15- to 20-inch) telescope. And it is indeed just three arcmin east of NGC6778 = NGC6785 (which has its own story). </object> <object><oname>IC1299</oname>, et al. The Reverend Thomas Espin, an avid amateur astronomer active for nearly 50 years beginning in the late 1880's, published a list of 15 new "nebulae" in MNRAS 54, 327, 1894. He provides no-more-than-adequate positions for them (estimated from the BD charts), and his descriptions are generally minimal. Though he does not say so, he presumably swept them up during his searches for double stars. Taken altogether, his brief notes suggest that several of these are no more than enhancements of the stellar background of the Milky Way. Some are real clusters, and at least one is an asterism. I've written out my usual comments for the questionable objects; these notes are folded into the list in numerical order. See 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1310, 1311, 1314, 1363, 1369, 1378, 1400, 1402, and 1442. IC1299 itself is a clump of stars that may or may not be a real cluster. Espin's position is very good and pins down this group of about a dozen stars scattered across an area 4 arcmin by 2.5 arcmin. </object> <object><oname>IC1300</oname><oname>NGC6798</oname>. According to Swift himself in a letter to Herbert Howe, there is a one degree error in Swift's declination published in his 10th list. Howe cites Swift's letter in his long paper of observations of nebulae and clusters in MNRAS 61, 29, 1900. Curiously, Dreyer printed the correction in the IC2 Notes, but did not indicate the source. Swift's position is otherwise good. Another curiosity: NGC6798 is also one of Swift's discoveries. It comes from his second list; the position there is very good. </object> <object><oname>IC1301</oname> is almost certainly equal to IC4867. Dreyer has copied into the IC2 Notes a comment of Howe's to the effect that the north polar distance of I1301 may be 36 arcmin too large. Dreyer goes on to suggest that the nebula is therefore probably I4867 -- which, however, is still nearly fifteen arcmin away from Swift's "corrected" position. Howe's comment was made in the same note in which he commented on IC1300 (which see), and had its as its source the same letter from Lewis Swift. Howe says, "In the same letter, Swift states that the declination of (1301) is about +49 40, which is 35 arcmin greater than the declination (for 1900.0) computed from the Index Catalogue." This would make the position for 1950.0 19 25 21, +49 47.2. As I suggested above, this is still about 15 arcmin from I4867, found by Burnham while he was observing a double star. How did Dreyer make the connection? I think he probably realized that two bright stars mentioned in both Swift's and Burnham's descriptions were identical, especially since one of these is Burnham's double. Swift's description reads: "eeF, vS, R; 2B and 1F * in line nr f, nearest * nf close D with 300." Burnham's description as abbreviated for the 2nd IC is: "S; 2 sts 7 nf 3 arcmin." Swift did not know that the double was the star later observed by Burnham, but Dreyer certainly suspected it. So, this chain of reasoning makes IC1301 = IC4867 = CGCG 256-017sw (the northeastern component, about an arcminute away, is fainter). CGCG suggests that IC1301 is CGCG 256-018; this is probably not the case as the galaxy is near neither Swift's original position, nor his "corrected" position quoted by Howe. It does have three stars following, but all are faint and none of them is double. </object> <object><oname>IC1304</oname> may be a clump of field stars a few arcmin to the northeast of Espin's position. It may also be UGC 11460, but this would require an error in RA of 2 min 24 sec which would make it unique among his objects. His declination is just 2 arcmin off the galaxy's, within his nominal accuracy of 3 arcmin. Espin says nothing more than "Faint nebulosity." Without some notion of size, any attempt at identification is only speculation. At least we have a couple of candidates. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1305</oname> is a more-or-less linear asterism of 4-5 stars stretching northwest of BD +19 4103. The identification is pretty secure as Espin's position is just 1.3 arcmin north and less than 2 seconds preceding the asterism. His note clinches the identity: "Very faint, extending N.P. from a 9.5 mag star." See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1306</oname> may be the group of stars centered 2 seconds preceding and 2.5 arcmin north of Espin's position, though without the nebulosity that he claims: "Nebula round a group of faint stars." See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1307</oname> has the most extensive note of any of Espin's discoveries: "While sweeping on September 14 [1893] I suddenly came upon a dark space. On carefully examining the field there is evidently a large faint nebulosity, mixed up with stars, sharply defined on f side, stretching N. and S. Max Wolf's photograph shows this nebulosity." Even so, there is no nebulosity here. There is, however, a fairly well- defined Milky Way star cloud. Espin's "dark space" marks its southern edge, while the eastern edge is not as clear as his description indicates. The position I give is well to the north of Espin's. His is close to his "dark space", well off the center of the star cloud -- assuming that this is indeed what he saw. The area is near the center of Barnard's plate 70 in his Milky Way Atlas (taken with a 6-inch lens); it is no more nebulous than any other area on the plate. Wolf used a similar lens for some of his early plates. Espin may be referring to one of these. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1310</oname>. Close to Espin's position is a small cluster or pretty rich asterism about 1.5 x 1 arcmin in size. This is probably Espin's object as it is the only outstanding object in the area. There is some extremely low surface brightness nebulosity around, but it is too faint to have been visible to Espin. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1311</oname>. Though Espin describes this as an "Extremely faint nebula within a circle of stars", it is actually a fine cluster about 5 arcmin across. It is indeed within the circle of stars, and makes an interesting object at the eyepiece (it was just barely visible in a 6-inch F7 reflector at about 150X). See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1312</oname> is an asterism of about a dozen faint field stars covering an area of around 1.7 x 1.0 arcmin. Bigourdan himself suspected that the object might consist of stars "at the extreme limit of visibility," and notes that it was difficult to measure. In fact, his first two measurements on 20 Sept 1884 are quite discordant, being more than 20 arcsec apart. His third measurement twelve years later on 29 Oct 1896 is not even of the same clump of stars, but is a smaller and fainter asterism of four stars over three arcmin away. I've taken the first set of stars as the IC object as that is the one published in Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus list that Dreyer incorporated into the first IC. Reinmuth could not find the object on the Heidelberg plates that he examined, so questioned if it might be the same as NGC6892. It isn't; N6892 is a different clump of four stars. Bigourdan's measurements under the NGC number refer to the right asterism. Since he found and measured I1312 on two of the same nights as N6892, the objects must be different. </object> <object><oname>IC1314</oname> is another star cloud in the Milky Way. There is no nebulosity associated with it. Espin describes it as a "Large misty patch, partly resolved." Though it is not the most prominent star cloud in the area, it is of an appropriate size (about 15-20 arcmin across) that it would be easily noticed during a sweep. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1315</oname> is an asterism of five or six stars at Bigourdan's position. Though he has only one measurement of it, it points exactly at the stars, so there is no question about the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC1316</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan has two observations differing by 2.3 seconds of time and 6 arcsec; the first position is the one given in the IC. Neither position, however, refers to any object on POSS1, not even stars. There is no possibility that this is the same as NGC6901 or IC5000, since Bigourdan observed these other objects on the same nights as IC1316. My statement in RC2 that this is = N6901 and I5000 (which see) is therefore wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC1318</oname>. Gamma Cygni is apparently near the center of an extended region of very faint nebulosity. Barnard discovered this photographically, and comments in his Milky Way atlas that most of the nebulae do not show in the printed version of the plate. It is, however, well-seen on the prints from the Palomar Schmidt. Rather than try to locate the center of this extended nebulae, I've simply adopted the position of gamma Cyg itself. </object> <object><oname>IC1323</oname>. Javelle noted this as a very small star immersed in nebulosity. It is actually nothing more than a faint double star. Javelle's position is about 9 arcsec northeast of the center point, but is still good enough to let us know exactly what object he was looking at. </object> <object><oname>IC1324</oname>. Howe's correction to the RA of this galaxy, found by Swift, is quoted by Dreyer in the Notes appended to the Second IC. </object> <object><oname>IC1325</oname><oname>NGC6928</oname> <oname>IC1326</oname><oname>NGC6930</oname>. Swift's RA's are correct, but he has his declinations reversed. He apparently changed his descriptions to match his positions, because the fainter of the two objects is in fact south- east of the brighter. Howe was the first to suggest the correct identifications with Marth's NGC objects. Reinmuth, however, made I1325 = N6927 and I1326 = N6928. These mistaken identities were copied by Carlson, and are sometimes still quoted today. Swift's detailed notes about the stars neighboring N6930 clearly identify it, though, and his RA of N6928 does the same for the brightest object in the group. Howe correctly notes that Swift saw the two brightest in the group, and Reinmuth is just as clearly wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC1326</oname><oname>NGC6930</oname>. See IC1325 = NGC6928. </object> <object><oname>IC1329</oname> is an asterism of about ten faint stars located in the middle of a "trapezium" of four pretty bright stars. Swift saw the asterism as a low surface brightness nebula, but otherwise described the field correctly. </object> <object><oname>IC1333</oname> is almost certainly = IC1334. Javelle's declination offset is 2.5 arcmin off the galaxy for his measurement of IC1333. This offset depends on a different comparison star than the measurement for IC1334; I wonder if the difference represents one turn (or an integer multiple of one turn) of the micrometer screw. The RA's agree to within 3 arcsec, and J's descriptions are similar. There are also no other galaxies or stars near his position for I1333 that he might have taken for a nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC1334</oname><oname>IC1333</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1340</oname> is a knot in the Veil Nebula, probably involving a star, though it is overexposed on the POSS1, so I can't say for sure. It is indeed, as Safford supposed, connected with NGC6995 (which see), and is probably a part of that larger object found and sketched by JH. See NGC6960 for more on the Veil and its various pieces. </object> <object><oname>IC1343</oname>. Javelle's RA offset is 10 seconds of time in error. His printed position for the comparison star (BD -15 5863) is correct, as is his arithmetic, so he must have recorded the incorrect offset when he reduced the observation. </object> <object><oname>IC1346</oname> <oname>IC1354</oname><oname>IC1350</oname>. Javelle found these two galaxies on 7 August 1891. His positions with respect to a star that he called "BD -14deg 5910," however, refer to blank patches of sky. He went over the area again on 26 July 1892, finding only one object, IC1350. Again, he used the "same" BD star as his comparison star -- but this time, his position for the galaxy falls within 2 arcsec of the GSC position for MCG -02-53-021. Where are his first two galaxies? If we look at their relative positions, we find that the relative GSC positions of MCG -02-53-021 and MCG -02-53-019 are exactly the same. If we assume that these are in fact I1346 and I1354, then the offsets Javelle gives should point to the same star. In fact, they do: the star is GSC 5782-1182, about 5.5 sec preceding and 5.5 arcmin south of BD -14deg 5910. The position for the southern star, combined with Javelle's offsets, point to the MCG galaxies as the ones which he actually found. Since his "third" object in the area, I1350, is also one of the galaxies, it is clear that it is a repeat observation of I1354. </object> <object><oname>IC1350</oname><oname>IC1354</oname>. See IC1346. </object> <object><oname>IC1354</oname><oname>IC1350</oname>. See IC1346. </object> <object><oname>IC1363</oname> is another of Espin's asterisms which he took to be a nebula. He describes this one as "Faint, extending N. from DM +46 3214, 9.4 mag." The magnitude applies to the star, not the "nebula." The densest part of the asterism is actually a bit northeast of the BD star, but stretching on north as Espin notes. Coincidentally, there is another star, just a bit fainter than the BD star, at the south end of the asterism. I make the asterism's size about 2 x 1.5 arcmin. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1369</oname>. Though credited only to Pechule in the IC, this object was independently found by Espin as well. Both observers called it nebulous with many faint stars involved. It is actually a small, not too sparse, cluster about 5 x 3.5 arcmin in size. There is no nebulosity in the immediate vicinity of the cluster, but the rich Milky Way background may have lent that sort of appearance to the object. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1370</oname>. Though I have labeled only the brightest galaxy in this compact group as IC1370, it's possible that all the objects here (at least six are galaxies and two others are probably stars) contributed to the visual image that Javelle found and measured. Three of the galaxies are very faint, though. While they make the photographic image quite spectacular, they don't add much to the total light of the system. </object> <object><oname>IC1376</oname> may be one of the faint double stars near Safford's nominal position. But without a description -- there is none in the annual report where Safford's list originally appears -- we really don't have a way to tell for sure. The one other nebula that Safford found on the same night (NGC7416) is placed by Safford near its true position, so there is no systematic offset that we can invoke. Digit errors are fairly common in Safford's positions (see e.g. IC1030). So, I checked at reasonable small digit offsets from the nominal position but don't find any nebula at any of them. Larger errors in the 10's digits are still possible; I haven't checked them yet. So, without more evidence, we really can't do much with this. Another lost nebula, I'm afraid. </object> <object><oname>IC1378</oname> may be the apparent cluster of stars that I've listed in the table. There is nothing else near that fits Espin's position, and his note that there are "some faint stars" is appropriate. However, there is not the background of dense a Milky Way star field to reinforce the illusion of nebulosity (in fact, the "cluster" seems to sit in a void between Milky Way star clouds), so I'm not entirely convinced by the identification. Maybe there is a larger error of some sort in the position. Showing that, however, will have to wait until someone can look into Espin's original observing records. See IC1299 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1382</oname><oname>NGC7056</oname>. There is a five minute error in Safford's RA. Once that is corrected, the RA falls within 15 seconds of NGC7056, and the description fits well enough. </object> <object><oname>IC1396</oname> is unmistakable in spite of the sparse description in the IC. This may have been sent to Dreyer as a private communication; the IC gives no reference aside from "Barnard." Nor is there a reference to it in Barnard's Milky Way atlas, though he does discuss it quite a bit in his notes to Plate 82. The HII region itself is spectacular on the POSS1 prints, covering an area of about 3 deg x 2 deg. It has a pretty low surface brightness, but is bright enough that the many dark cometary globules superposed on it show up very well. There is a cluster of stars near its center; I've used the position of the brightest member (BD +56 2617 = SAO 033626) as that of the entire complex. This is a wonderful object. </object> <object><oname>IC1400</oname>. Like several other of Espin's objects, there is no nebulosity associated with this small collection of about two dozen stars. They are probably nothing more than a random sprinkling of Milky Way field stars scattered over an area of 5 arcmin x 3 arcmin. This and IC1402 are immersed in the northeastern end of a large Milky Way star cloud, probably defined more by the bordering dark nebulae than by being a true stellar association. See IC1299 for more about Espin's short list. </object> <object><oname>IC1402</oname> is very similar to IC1400 (which see), but at 2.5 arcmin x 2 arcmin is even smaller and has about half the number of stars as I1400. These may be small clusters, but proper motions and photometry will be needed. See IC1299 for more about Espin's short list. </object> <object><oname>IC1414</oname>. Spitaler has among his novae this object which he places 58.10 seconds of time west, and 2 arcmin 43.5 arcsec south of "BD +7deg 4775 pr. bor." Since he did not have a good position for the star (he apparently adopted the BD position), the position for the nebula in IC1 is not too precise, either. Is the nova CGCG 403-007, or is it CGCG 403-008 as taken by CGCG? A more distant possibility is CGCG 403-010, adopted by MCG. Precessing Spitaler's position for his comparison star, I found that it falls close to BD +7deg 4775, which is in Tycho-2. Applying his offsets to the star leads directly to CGCG 403-008 as the correct galaxy. Curiously, however, his declination offset is about 20 arcsec too large -- is there a typo in his published table? </object> <object><oname>IC1415</oname> <oname>IC1416</oname>. These novae were found and measured once by Bigourdan during his first search for NGC7164 (which see). Since that galaxy is about two minutes of time west of its nominal position, he did not succeed in his quest. The object he took to be N7164 is, in fact, illusory. He describes four stars near his nominal position perfectly, but there is only blank sky where he measured a "nebula." Unfortunately, the two novae are also illusions, though there are faint stars near the places he measured. In the case of IC1415, his distances and position angles to two neighboring stars suggest that the faint star is indeed the object he saw. However, he specifically mentions the star as being involved on one side of the nebula: it is at 21 56 09.4, +01 07 04 (B1950.0) 25 arcsec to the north of his position for the nebula, so is almost certainly not the IC object. Bigourdan similarly pinpoints IC1416 with respect to one of the stars near his phantom NGC7164, 0.7 arcmin distant at PA = 340 degrees (though his measured position puts it 0.9 arcmin distant, given the GSC position for the star). The faint star in this case is 0.8 arcmin distant at PA = 5 degrees (the B1950 position is 21 56 17.1, +01 12 37). This is only 8-10 arcsec away from Bigourdan's measured position for the nova, close enough that the star might have been the object he saw. Given his lack of success with the other two objects, however, I doubt that this identification is correct. So, in the end, we are left with two more non-existent IC objects. </object> <object><oname>IC1416</oname> does not exist. See IC1415. </object> <object><oname>IC1419</oname>. See IC1426. </object> <object><oname>IC1421</oname>. See IC1426. </object> <object><oname>IC1424</oname> is a star about 0.7 arcmin southeast of the nucleus of NGC7190. Bigourdan has only one measurement of it, and complains that it is very difficult to see because of its proximity to the NGC galaxy. The two objects are clear on the DSS. The galaxy chosen by Wolfgang is much too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. In any case, his measurement of the star with respect to N7190 leaves no doubt about the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC1426</oname> is lost. Javelle's one measurement lands in empty space, though there is a faint, wide double star about 25 arcsec to the southwest that might possibly be his object. I doubt it, however -- he found and measured I1419 and I1421 on the same night, and he puts them both in their correct places. There may be a transcription error of some sort. Javelle's published offset is +2m 02.62s in RA and +2' 26.6" in Dec -- there are an awful lot of twos and sixes in there. Unfortunately, if he identified his comparison star correctly, there are no galaxies at reasonable offsets that digit errors in the offsets could lead to. I also looked at other star/galaxy pairs in the area, but none match the offsets, either. So, another lost nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC1429</oname> is a star. In addition, Bigourdan published his single estimated RA offset from his comparison star with the wrong sign. This is clear from his note that "... some time after the measures (sic), I noted, from memory, that a star of 11th magnitude is toward PA = 330 deg, d = 1' +-". That brighter star is there if the sign is in fact opposite from the printed minus sign. As with IC1424, Wolfgang has picked up a galaxy that is much too faint for Bigourdan to have seen with his 30-cm refractor. </object> <object><oname>IC1442</oname> is a real cluster centered about 5 arcmin southwest of Espin's place. It stands out well on the POSS1 prints. Though Espin noted some nebulosity in the field, there is none. This is apparently another case where the rich Milky Way background gave the appearance of nebulosity in his eyepiece. Espin also saw only about a dozen stars. He gives no indication of how large the group is, but the cluster that exists on the sky has apparent diameters of 5 arcmin by 4 arcmin. There are roughly 30 stars included. See IC1299 for more about Espin's new objects. </object> <object><oname>IC1448</oname><oname>NGC7308</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1450</oname> is a double star found by Bigourdan. His offsets from his comparison star unequivocally identify the double, and the NGC position is correctly transcribed from his published lists of new objects, so the identification is sure. </object> <object><oname>IC1452</oname> = "NGC7374B". There is a six-degree error in the IC NPD, one of Dreyer's rare transcription errors. The Comptes Rendus list has the 1860 NPD printed correctly as "79 53". Once the six-degree error is corrected, IC1452 is the high-surface-brightness companion to NGC7374. Bigourdan's position is within two arcsec of the modern ones, and his notes mention not being able to see the 10th magnitude star nearby that Lord Rosse records at PA = 25deg, d = 5 arcmin from N7374; was this an asteroid? </object> <object><oname>IC1457</oname> may be a star. Bigourdan places this 2.6 seconds preceding and 46 arcsec north (not a measurement, only an estimate) of BD -06 6097 -- there is nothing there. About an arcmin southwest is a 13th magnitude star that I suggested in ESGC might be the object. Wolfgang's suggestion is a somewhat fainter star about 2 arcmin northwest of the nominal position. Carlson chooses a star, too, but does not give a position; I suspect it is one of these two. Neither of these impresses me much, so I've put question marks on both. </object> <object><oname>IC1458</oname> is probably NGC7441 (which see). The IC identification is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>IC1459</oname><oname>IC5265</oname>. This identity was, surprisingly, first suggested by Swift in his list reporting the discovery of IC5265 and about 40 other nebulae. Nevertheless, Dreyer did not report this, but suggested instead that it might be NGC7418 (that is about half a degree south, however). Swift's notes about the nebula being "... bet 2 sts p & f; nf of 2" make the identity clear. Barnard is credited with discovering I1459, but there is no publication given. I don't see the object in any of Barnard's articles in my collection, so I assume that this was a private communication to Dreyer. Thus, I've had no way to check Barnard's position. Whatever the case, that position is 10 seconds too large in RA and 2 arcmin too far north. This may have helped lead Swift and Dreyer somewhat astray -- though Swift's own position is even further off the mark. The southwestern nebula, by the way, is IC5264 (which see). These make a striking pair with IC1459 being one of the brightest objects in the southern sky that JH missed. He could have also easily picked up I5264, so he either missed sweeping the area, or he had one of his very few observing lapses. His observing assistant, John Stone, tells of a time that JH fell asleep and awoke to find the field absolutely blank -- Stone had continued to faithfully move the telescope with the stars until it was pointed at Table Mountain! Perhaps this is a similar incident. </object> <object><oname>IC1462</oname> is a star. Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star's comparison star as BD +07 4995 -- it is actually BD +07 4955. Once that change is made, his comparison star can be identified and his single measurement reduced. His position is within an arcsec of the position measured on DSS for the star, so there is no question about the identification. Bigourdan himself suggested that the object might be nothing more than a star. The DSS image is slightly elongated, while other star images in the field are more nearly round. It's possible that this is in fact a very close double. </object> <object><oname>IC1463</oname> is probably the southwestern of a pair of stars separated by about 20 arcsec. Howe suggested that the pair itself is Baron d'Engelhardt's object, but the original micrometric position is within 2-3 arcsec of the one star. Unfortunately, I do not have Engelhardt's description or his offsets from his comparison star, so can't really judge this very well. Consequently, I've left the double as the IC object, but give the individual stars in the position table, too. </object> <object><oname>IC1464</oname> is indeed double as suspected by Javelle. Both objects are included in the Lick catalog, and it is those positions that I've adopted for the position table. I've taken a simple mean of those for the IC number itself. </object> <object><oname>IC1465</oname>, like so many of Bigourdan's "novae," is actually an asterism. In this case, it is a linear triple star about two arcmin southwest of NGC7468. Bigourdan actually used N7468 as his comparison object on one of the two nights that he measured I1465. So, Wolfgang's suggestion in his earliest list that I1465 = N7468 is wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC1470</oname> is an HII region exactly at its discovery position. It was found nearly simultaneously by Spitaler (20 March 1892), Pechule, and Barnard (both 21 March 1892) while they were observing Comet Dennison (1892 II). The nebula has been incorrectly called a planetary nebula, and the IC number has also been incorrectly assigned to a much larger, much lower surface brightness diffuse nebula nearby. </object> <object><oname>IC1475</oname> is lost, at least for now. It does not appear in any of Barnard's published papers that I have in my files, so is apparently one of the nebulae sent directly to Dreyer. There is nothing at the IC position, nor is there any obvious candidate star in the UK Schmidt field of the area. I suppose it is possible that this is either NGC7507 or NGC7513. The declinations bracket Barnard's nominal Dec, and the RA's are roughly 2 and 1 minutes of time too small, respectively. NGC7507, a fairly bright elliptical galaxy, might look something like a "nebulous star" in a small telescope or on a photographic plate taken with a similarly small telescope. But I'm not willing to stretch to either NGC number without more information. So, until we can turn up that additional information, there just isn't much more to be said about this entry -- at least for now. </object> <object><oname>IC1477</oname><oname>NGC7596</oname> (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC1478</oname><oname>NGC7594</oname> (which see). Bigourdan recorded IC5307 (which also see) as NGC7594, and called N7594 a nova. In spite of the confusion of the names, his positions are good (as are Kobold's), so we can easily sort out the field. </object> <object><oname>IC1480</oname> is a double star within 7 arcsec of Bigourdan's measured position. His description reads "Small cluster 20 arcsec in diameter in which I can distinguish at least two stars, perhaps accompanied by a little nebulosity." Many of Bigourdan's "novae" which are nothing more than single or double stars carry that same note: "accompanied by a little nebulosity." There is almost always no trace of nebulosity around these stars and asterisms on the sky, so there may be some systematic problem with his observations at the limit of his vision. Perhaps he was just pushing the limit too hard, or perhaps he did much of his observing on poor nights (but that is not borne out by his notes about seeing and transparency). Whatever the case, it happened a LOT. </object> <object><oname>IC1483</oname><oname>NGC7638</oname> (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC1484</oname>. See NGC7638. </object> <object><oname>IC1485</oname><oname>NGC7639</oname>. See NGC7638. </object> <object><oname>IC1486</oname><oname>NGC7648</oname>. There is no problem with the NGC position of this, nor with the IC position, at least to within the usual errors of the sources. Bigourdan, in fact, found the identity before he prepared his big table for publication, so there he has Big. 241 = NGC7648. Since he does not comment about it, I suspect that he simply overlooked the NGC entry until after he had reduced his data. </object> <object><oname>IC1487</oname><oname>NGC7649</oname>. Swift's position for NGC7649 falls close to the brightest galaxy in the cluster Abell 2593, so there is no mistaking that identity. However, his position for IC1487, which he found two years later, is very close to a fainter galaxy in the cluster. Just an arcminute or so to the southeast of this object is the second brightest cluster member, a double galaxy taken by Herbert Howe as IC1487. He clearly described the two stars close to it, but makes no mention of the fainter galaxy at Swift's position. Swift's description of I1487, however, says, "8 m * f, F * nr nf" (he goes on to say "not [GC] 4659" = NGC7653, some distance away from the cluster, so that turns out to be irrelevant to the discussion). Keeping in mind Swift's 32-arcmin field, his two stars are easy to pick out. They point to NGC7649 as the most likely candidate as Swift's second object. There is the possibility that Howe's galaxy is in fact Swift's object, but that would require that Swift's "F * nr nf" actually be a "F * nr np." While there are a lot of errors of this sort in Swift's lists (e.g. NGC6039, which see), it's easier to accept his observation at face value and think that he simply picked up the brightest cluster galaxy a second time. </object> <object><oname>IC1488</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Not only that, but he gave the misidentified star the wrong BD number! Instead of BD +14 4982 -- for which he gives the position -- he has BD +14 4992. This occurs in both of his tables, so is not a printer's typo. The actual comparison star was BD +14 4986. When that is used, Javelle's offsets point exactly to a faint galaxy that matches his description perfectly. However, the IC position, based on BD +14 4982, is just a few arcmin north of NGC7653 (which Javelle mentions in a footnote as being distinct from his new nebula). This has led some of the modern catalogues to suggest that IC1488 is a reobservation of NGC7653. They are all incorrect. </object> <object><oname>IC1490</oname> = I1524. Neither discovery position is very good; Swift's is, in fact, 30 minutes of time too small, a clear typo or transcription error. Safford's RA is 20 seconds too large, and 1.7 arcmin too far south. The RA error would be easily correctable as the galaxy is a fairly large and bright object -- but it has a somewhat fainter edge-on companion 4 arcmin south. MCG put "IC1524" on the spindle instead of the brighter spiral. This in spite of the fact that the nominal position is closer to the brighter galaxy. Oh, well. We're sure of the identity of Swift's object as he mentions a "vF * close n" as well as "6 pB = Mag. sts p" in his notes. All these stars are there. Safford's object is missing its description. He complains in a footnote that the last 20 or so objects have no descriptions in the copy of his list that was sent to him after he left Dearborn. However, the position is similar to many others in his list in that it carries a digit error in RA. </object> <object><oname>IC1493</oname>. Javelle mentions in his description of this faint galaxy that he suspects another object seven seconds preceding and an arcminute north. That suspected object is a star. </object> <object><oname>IC1495</oname><oname>IC5327</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC1499 for some possible confusion within Javelle's list. </object> <object><oname>IC1497</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan's single micrometric observation of it falls in empty space a little over an arcminute southwest of a faint galaxy. Wolfgang picked the galaxy as the IC object, but it is too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. Bigourdan also made some error in his first publication of this object. The position that he attaches to it is for a pretty bright star (probably one of his comparison stars) 2.5 minutes following and 18 arcmin north of the micrometric position. He corrected this in one of his later Comptes Rendus articles, and Dreyer picked it up for the notes to the second IC. Not that it helped ... </object> <object><oname>IC1498</oname>. See IC1490. </object> <object><oname>IC1499</oname> is probably the double star listed in the position table. However, as Malcolm Thomson has pointed out, the faintness of the stars is at odds with Javelle's description "pB, pE [not pL as the IC has it], iF." His position (re-reduced) is also off the double by 9-10 arcsec, so we have some doubts about the identity. Javelle found IC1495 the same night, and compared it to the same star. Is it possible that he interchanged the descriptions of the two objects? They might fit the sky a bit better if that were so. In the end, however, that is speculation. So, as there are no other uncatalogued nebulae nearby, or at a reasonable digit error, that he might have seen, I'll keep the IC number on the double for the time being. </object> <object><oname>IC1505</oname>. There is no possibility of mistaking the identification of this galaxy as Howe has provided a micrometrically measured correction to Swift's discovery position (which is 13 seconds of time off in RA, but very close in Dec). This clearly shows that the galaxy is MCG -1-60-20. Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the number might apply to the RC1 and RC2 galaxies A2339-03A and B. These two objects are a lovely interacting pair of spirals first noted by Zwicky, later observed at Mt. Wilson. The RC1 Notes identify them specifically as being south-following IC1505, and they indeed are. They are illustrated in Arp's Atlas (Arp 295), and in Vorontsov- Velyaminov's Atlas (VV 34), as well as being included in MCG (MCG -1-60-21 and -22) and ESGC. On the POSS 1 prints, they appear to be further connected with a faint uncatalogued galaxy about two arcmin northeast of M-1-60-22. While there is no apparent connection with I1505, Arp 295 is probably in the same group with the IC object. Unfortunately, the redshift for I1505 is still unknown. </object> <object><oname>IC1511</oname> <oname>IC1512</oname> are both stars just south of the NGC7768 group. Bigourdan's offsets -- estimated in the case of I1511, measured twice for I1512 -- point almost exactly at the stars, and his descriptions are consistent with this. Both Reinmuth and CGCG suggest that I1511 is identical to N7767, but this is not the case. Bigourdan has measurements of the star superposed on N7767 that place it over an arcmin northwest of I1511. </object> <object><oname>IC1512</oname>. See IC1511. </object> <object><oname>IC1514</oname><oname>NGC7776</oname>. Also see NGC7761 = IC5361, another Leander-McCormick mess, for more of the story. </object> <object><oname>IC1512</oname>. See IC1511. </object> <object><oname>IC1524</oname><oname>IC1490</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1528</oname>. The IC1 NPD is four degrees in error. This is either a typo that Dreyer did not catch during proof reading, or it is his own transcription error in copying the NGC Appendix objects into the IC: the NPD is correct in the Appendix (but "... not many people think of looking in an appendix."). When Safford's original position is used, it is clear that he saw MCG -01-01-028 = A0002-07 in RC2. In a footnote, Safford tells us that this object and four others (IC138, IC210, NGC577, and NGC7416) were "... found by A. N. Skinner, then [1867] assistant at Dearborn Observatory." This means that Skinner was actually the first to see all but NGC7416; that was found just 2-3 years earlier by Marth. </object> <object><oname>IC1530</oname><oname>NGC7831</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1537</oname> is the east-southeast arm of NGC55. It was first seen, described, and sketched by James Dunlop in the 1820s. JH provided a more detailed description and sketch a decade later. Both clearly noted that the south- following end of the nebula was much fainter than the north-preceding, and their estimated sizes (note the typo in Dunlop's paper: in place of 25 arcsec, read 25 arcmin) include the whole galaxy, not just the brighter portion. Furthermore, the fainter following part is clearly shown in both published sketches. In spite of these published observations, Swift claimed this part of N55 as his own discovery: "As Sir John Herschel does not mark it [N55] with a sign as being a remarkable object, lends [sic] plausibility to the idea that it [I1537] was not seen even by him." And this after implying that Dunlop had certainly not seen the fainter eastern end. Ahem. </object> <object><oname>IC1538</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan noted that he saw it only fleetingly on one night. He gave it an estimated position 17 seconds west, 2' 30" south of NGC 68 -- there is nothing there. There are a few 17th magnitude stars scattered around within 5-10 arcmin of his position, but all are too faint for him to have seen. This is most likely another of his "fausse images" (see e.g. N2529 and N2531). </object> <object><oname>IC1539</oname><oname>NGC70</oname>. Bigourdan apparently did not take the time to look at LdR's published sketch of the field around NGC68. If he had, he would have seen that LdR put an object just where he (Bigourdan) saw it half a century later, situated between two slightly brighter stars, a bit closer to the southern star. The object that Bigourdan called NGC70 is a star. In fairness to Bigourdan, the NGC positions in the group are not too good (see NGC67 for more), so he is not the only one to have misidentified galaxies here. </object> <object><oname>IC1546</oname> is the galaxy that MCG (and unfortunately others since) has called "N85B". There is no confusion in the historical literature about NGC85 (which see), nor about I1546. But it's still worth noting here that the N85 suffixes are in use, and that the eastern of the two galaxies is in fact IC 1546. I clearly recommend dropping the suffixes on the NGC numbers, and only retain them for clarity when dealing with the modern catalogues. </object> <object><oname>IC1547</oname> is probably lost, even though Bigourdan gives us offsets from his star "j" (-4.0 seconds, and -2m 32s). This ends up in the neighborhood of IC1546 (found by Javelle) but is well over a minute of arc east of that galaxy. Given that Bigourdan's position is only estimated, Javelle's object is still a distinct possibility, but the evidence is not overwhelming. </object> <object><oname>IC1564</oname>. See IC1567 and IC5385. </object> <object><oname>IC1565</oname> is probably also IC1567, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC1567</oname> is probably IC1565. At the end of his first list of "novae", Howe has four nebulae (IC1564, 5278, and 5385 are the others) for which he did not measure good positions. There is nothing at any of the positions, but expecting that, we can cast about the fields, checking for objects that he might have seen. In this case, the obvious choice is IC1565. It is the brightest in a sub- group of Abell 0076. While there are other galaxies nearer Howe's crude position, this one is by far the brightest in the area and almost certainly the one he picked up. </object> <object><oname>IC1572</oname> is one of Bigourdan's imaginary nebulae. He has only one estimated position of it one night in 1888. There is no problem with his reduction of his position angle and distance to the comparison star (the same star he used for his first observations of NGC213, which is just where he says it is) -- but there is nothing, not even a faint star, at his reduced position. I expect he was pushing his optics again. He looked for the object again nine years later in 1897, but did not measure it. This second observation may refer to another object as he says, "Stellar object, seen a little preceding NGC213." (I can't come up with a reasonable candidate for this object, either.) His first observation puts it 1.5 seconds following N213 and 14 arcmin south. So, even if the first object is a "fausse image", it is probably a different one than this second. In any case, I1572 is lost. </object> <object><oname>IC1577</oname><oname>IC48</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1589</oname> is a double star, probably the one at the position given in the main table. It is some distance off Swift's place, but his positions determined after the move to Lowe Observatory are notoriously bad. His description clearly matches that of a double star seen through some rather thick layers of air. This is plausible as the object has a zenith distance of almost 70 degrees from the latitude of Echo Mountain (+34 deg). See IC1740 for a similar double star that Swift found just over a month later in September of 1897. </object> <object><oname>IC1590</oname> is a star cluster involved in NGC281 = IC11. Bigourdan says of it, "In the region of NGC281, there is in addition to the nebulosity suspected near BD +55 191, a large number of stars forming a very large cluster, without concentration." He gives no position in his big tables, but does have one in his tables of new objects, and in the CR article from which Dreyer took the IC position. That position is about 3 arcmin southeast of the center of a group of stars that Brian Skiff and I independently chose as IC1590. I make the diameters 6 arcmin by 4 arcmin, so am not convinced that this is Bigourdan's object. Without better evidence from Bigourdan's published material, though, there is not much point in trying too hard to find this object. It sits in the middle of a large region of star formation, and any position we take in the area will get us some hot, young stars. </object> <object><oname>IC1591</oname><oname>NGC276</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1604</oname> is lost, probably forever, thanks to Swift's exceedingly crude published position: "00 53 00, -17?". His description "pF, vS, 7 1/2m * np, F * near sp" fits no galaxies in the area. Wolfgang takes a faint galaxy near NGC333, while MCG puts the number -- with a question mark -- on MCG -03-03-009. Neither can be Swift's object; the stars are just not there. This object, by the way, is from Swift's last list. If we take his discovery date at face value, this is the very last object that Swift "discovered" -- his listed date is 19 November 1898. However, that makes it the last by 5.5 months; his previous discoveries are from 2 June 1898 and are preceded by an unbroken string of discoveries going back to 1895, soon after he established his observatory on Echo Mountain. So, I think that he put the year into his table at the incorrect spot, and that this object, along with six others, was actually found on 19 Nov 1897. But that is a supposition. See IC4550 for more on this. ===== IC1609 is not NGC324, which see. ===== IC1614. For some time, I questioned the identity of this galaxy, thinking it might be too faint for Javelle to have seen. I was wrong, of course; his micrometrically measured position is within a few arcseconds of the galaxy, and his description -- aside from the position angle -- is appropriate. The 15th magnitude star that he notes as being near the galaxy is about an arcminute to the southeast. </object> <object><oname>IC1642</oname><oname>IC1645</oname>. Javelle found I1642 = J842 on 29 Jan 1897, and used BD +14 188 as his comparison star. Unfortunately, the BD position of this star is in error by about 1.5 arcmin. Therefore, so is the calculated position of I1642. Using the GSC position of the star, however, and Javelle's offsets, the object's position is within 6 arcsec of IC1645 = J844. Javelle measured this on two nights at the end of 1897 (24 Nov and 17 Dec) along with IC1646 = J845. He used BD +14 175 as his comparison star for both of these galaxies. Since the position for that star is pretty close in BD, Javelle's calculated positions for the galaxies are similarly good and there is no mistaking their identities. </object> <object><oname>IC1645</oname><oname>IC1642</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1646</oname>. See IC1642. </object> <object><oname>IC1653</oname><oname>NGC443</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1656</oname><oname>NGC447</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1657</oname><oname>IC1663</oname>. Here is another case where Swift has rediscovered one of his own galaxies -- just seven weeks later. On 4 Sept 1897, he found a nebula which he described as "eeF, S, eeE, a ray; no sts near." There is such an object about 20 seconds preceding, and 0.7 arcmin north of his position; we can confidently assign the number IC1657 to this. 20 second RA errors are common in Swift's lists. His second position, from 30 Oct 1897, is not as good. It is 2 minutes of time too large, and 2 degrees too far north. But he provides us with a more detailed description: "eeF, vE 350 deg; 5 sts sf, 3 have distant companions." This fits the nebula and the neighboring stars very well, too. Since there are no other galaxies in the area that fit this description, and since the position errors are digit errors, the identity is all but certain. Dreyer has another possible declination (30 arcmin south) for IC1663 in the summary description. This comes from Swift's "5th Catalogue" of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory. Swift published these in several different places, and collected them all in a long list -- which Dreyer called "Swift XI" -- in AN. The shorter lists sometimes have more detailed descriptions, while the longer one occasionally has slightly revised positions (not that they help much ...). In this case, the declination published in the fifth list is a probably a typo as the long list position is just two degrees off (rather than 1.5 deg). This is, in fact, what caught my eye as I first tracked down IC1663 during preparation of SGC: the minutes of declination are almost identical for both entries in the long list. A final comment: Swift's 11th and 12th "catalogues" (his final two lists), those with the nebulae that he found at Echo Mountain, contain more errors than his earlier lists assembled at Warner Observatory in Rochester, NY. By the time he made these observations, his eyesight was beginning to fail, and he was often distracted by having to show tourists around the observatory. I suspect that these two factors alone contributed to his increased error rate. </object> <object><oname>IC1658</oname><oname>NGC444</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1661</oname><oname>NGC451</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1663</oname><oname>IC1657</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1664</oname> is only two stars, roughly equal in magnitude, oriented southwest- northeast, and separated by about 30 arcsec. They are not "... inv in eeF neb" as Stewart describes them, unless he is talking about the SMC background on which the stars are superposed. This is the outskirts of the SMC, though, not the rich inner region, so I suspect a plate defect was involved as well. Andris Lauberts picked a faint galaxy some distance from the nominal position for the ESO catalogue, while Wolfgang Steinicke has only the southwestern star in his earlier lists. This star does have a faint companion less than 2 seconds of time preceding, so Wolfgang may have thought that these were the two stars that Stewart described. </object> <object><oname>IC1665</oname> is a close triple star at Javelle's position. He mentions in his description that he saw two or three stars surrounded by nebulosity. Aside from the fact that there is no nebulosity involved with the stars, Javelle's observation is accurate, so the identity is not in question. </object> <object><oname>IC1667</oname>. See IC1671 = IC93. </object> <object><oname>IC1670</oname>. See IC1671 = IC93. </object> <object><oname>IC1671</oname><oname>IC93</oname>. Here is a galaxy that Swift found twice, once in September of 1889, and again in December of 1895. His positions are far enough apart (35 seconds of time, and 1.8 arcmin) that he and Dreyer thought that the two objects were different. On the second night, Swift also found two other galaxies nearby (I1667 and I1670), reinforcing his belief that he had not seen I1671 before. However, both of his descriptions mention the 7th or 8th magnitude star 47 seconds following and an arcmin north (the first IC has this as 14 seconds, but Swift's 9th list has it correctly printed as "46 seconds"). This star alone secures the identity of Swift's two objects. Swift has some further confusion in his description, however. He calls this the "p of 2", while it is clearly the "f of 2" by the numbering and RA's in his 9th list. He calls IC1670 the other member of the pair, but that is 15 arcmin north. I think that he meant to have IC1667 as the actual preceding of the pair, as that is just 5 arcmin west-northwest of I1671. </object> <object><oname>IC1674</oname> is probably a defect on the 24-inch Bruce plate that Stewart examined. There is nothing at his position on the modern sky survey plates, and the galaxy chosen by ESO as a possible candidate is 17 seconds in RA and 19 arcmin in Dec off the nominal position. </object> <object><oname>IC1682</oname>. The sign on Javelle's NPD offset is incorrect. When the correct sign is used to re-reduce his position, his observation falls within 2-3 arcsec of the modern positions. </object> <object><oname>IC1686</oname><oname>NGC499</oname>. Dreyer has pretty well sorted out the NGC identifications in the NGC507 cluster, so I'm a bit surprised that Javelle blundered on his identification for N499. There is no question that he measured N499 -- his position falls within two arcsec of the modern position for the galaxy, and his description is perfect for the galaxy. Yet he has a footnote on his listing for I1686 that states that he "also measured NGC499." So, we can only shrug and say that he blundered on this one. See NGC499 for a bit more on the earlier observations in the area. </object> <object><oname>IC1693</oname>. There is no question about the identity of this galaxy: it is the southeastern of a line of three. Howe's micrometrically measured position was copied correctly into the IC, and is accurate. The interesting thing about the object is that it has a star or compact galaxy superposed on the northern end. Zwicky included the compact object in his first list as "I Zw 6", but later withdrew it so that it does not appear in his "Red Book" (Catalogue of Selected Compact and Post-Eruptive Galaxies). A note on the back of his finding chart for the object shows that he thought it might be a star rather than a galaxy. This pair of objects has also been confused with the middle (brightest) galaxy in the line, CGCG 385-099. It is clearly not that object, however, as both are included with their correct positions in a 1964 ApJ paper by Zwicky and Humason. Zwicky also refers on his finding chart to IC1693 (though without the IC number) by the running number (32) from that paper. CGCG 385-099 is number 31, and it is not IC1693. </object> <object><oname>IC1696</oname> is not the same galaxy as NGC530 = IC106 (which see). It was found by Howe in 1900 who specifically noted the difference in positions in a note to his table. </object> <object><oname>IC1698</oname> has the wrong comparison star name, but the correct position, listed in Javelle's table. The star is actually BD +14 215, not BD -0 217 (that is the comparison star for IC1697). Note that IC1699 (which see) is probably a second observation of this galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1699</oname> is probably a second observation of IC1698 (which see). There is no nebula at the offsets Javelle has published, nor are there any at the offsets implied by changing their signs. However, if the north polar distance offset is changed to read +0 arcmin 49.6 arcsec (from +5 arcmin 49.6 arcsec), then IC1699 would fall within Javelle's usual error range of IC1698. The two observations of I1700 show this pretty well -- his offsets for that differ in RA by 1.13 seconds and in NPD by 5.9 arcsec. IC1699 is sometimes taken to be UGC 978. However, that has a lower surface brightness, so would have been more difficult to see with a long-focus refractor. Also, Javelle's published offsets would have been around +13.8 seconds, and -1 arcmin 22 arcsec (NPD), nowhere near the numbers that he gives. </object> <object><oname>IC1700</oname><oname>IC107</oname> (which see). Javelle claims in a footnote to his table that he also measured IC107 (it could possibly be UGC 978, sometimes taken for IC 1699, which see). Unfortunately, he does not give that measurement, so we do not know for sure which object he took to be the one seen by Swift. However, the observations that he does give for IC1700 point unmistakably to the brightest of three in the area, which is in fact the one that Swift picked up. </object> <object><oname>IC1703</oname><oname>NGC557</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1704</oname> <oname>IC1706</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. It is not, as he supposed, BD +13 214, but another (not in the BD) about 5 arcmin northeast. The two galaxies are exactly at the offsets that Javelle measured for them from this star. </object> <object><oname>IC1706</oname>. See IC1704. </object> <object><oname>IC1707</oname> does not exist. This is probably another of Bigourdan's "fausse images." There is nothing in his precise position, though he saw and measured the object on only one night when the "sky [was] perfectly clear." He describes it as "a star 13.2--13.3 near which is found a diffuse nebula of which precise observations can't be made." This suggests that I1707 might be one of the two double stars about 2 arcmin following Bigourdan's position (01 25 07.8 +36 51 31). The fainter double is at 01 25 15.0 +36 51 26 (HCo); the brighter is at 01 25 20.94 +36 51 16.0 (GSC). If one of these is Bigourdan's nova, then both his position angle and distance from his comparison star must be wrong. An error in one or the other is possible -- errors in both are unlikely. Did he misidentify his comparison star? I don't think so: no other bright star in the area has an object matching Bigourdan's description in his relative position. In addition, he measured NGC551 four times on the same night, claiming that he used the same comparison star -- which he, in fact, did. Both the galaxy and the star are correctly identified there, and Bigourdan's position for N551 is very close to GSC's. Finally, to confuse us even more, I1707 has a typo in the north polar distance in the IC(for 57, read 54), and a typo in the RA on page 212 of Bigourdan's list of novae (for 23, read 22; the RA on page 215 is correct). </object> <object><oname>IC1709</oname><oname>NGC568</oname>. Swift does not mention the NGC object in his observation from 4 September 1897. Since the galaxy is similar to others that he found in his far southern sky surveys from Lowe Observatory, the identity is virtually certain. The much fainter companion object suggested by ESO as I1709 is unlikely to be Swift's object. It is near enough to N568 that Swift would have noted it as a companion to the brighter galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1710</oname><oname>NGC575</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1712</oname><oname>NGC584</oname>. The IC object is one of Barnard's discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer -- it does not appear in any of his published papers. This is a shame since I'd be very interested in knowing why Barnard thought this object was a "nova:" the IC position is identical to the NGC position. And how did Dreyer miss this, too? It's possible that Barnard's object is one of the other galaxies in the area (NGC586, perhaps?). But we'd need to search his observing logs to know for sure. </object> <object><oname>IC1713</oname> is a star. CGCG put the number on NGC587, but Bigourdan measured that galaxy on the same night as he did I1713, so they cannot be identical. In addition, Bigourdan's position is within a quarter of an arcsec of the DSS position of the star, and he was not at all sure about the existence of nebulosity around his object. This is another identification that Malcolm Thomson cleaned up for us. </object> <object><oname>IC1717</oname> is probably a plate defect. Stewart calls it "eF, eS, vE at 25 deg, *N." It's possible that the notation of a stellar nucleus indicates that a star was involved, but the position is not accurate enough to suggest which one. An examination of the original plate will be necessary to sort this one out. By the way, this was the only new object that he found on the plate (Bruce plate 3974). </object> <object><oname>IC1723</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Rather than using BD +8 272, he actually used +8 268. Once this change is made, his micrometric position falls right in line with the modern positions. The galaxy is bright enough that it's a bit surprising that it was not found before the NGC was published. </object> <object><oname>IC1737</oname> is only two stars. Bigourdan's place falls south of the brighter, western of the pair. He measured it only one night in 1891 (his two measurements on that night disagree by over 10 arcsec), but claimed to have recovered it on another night in 1903. In spite of the agreement with his description, the galaxy (with 3 stars close west) 7 arcmin to the south -- which I had chosen in the early 70s as I1737 -- is almost certainly not his object. He used the same comparison star to measure NGC687 on the same two nights he saw this; his position for N687 is within an arcsecond of the modern value. This makes a 7 arcmin Dec error highly unlikely, and the RA is also three seconds off. Malcolm caught this one, too. He has sharp eyes, thank goodness! </object> <object><oname>IC1740</oname> may be the double star at 01 49 21.0, -30 10 10 or it may be the double at 01 46 35.4, -30 20 03. The first is closer to Swift's position, but the second is a pair of nearly equally bright stars. That would fit Swift's description considerably better. Swift makes a great deal of this object (and a near twin, IC1589, which see) as a close pair of nebulous stars, so Lauberts's suggestion that this one may be NGC749 is certainly not correct (N749 has no companion, star or galaxy). Swift claims to have seen the object several times at different powers, but given that there is nothing at his position, we can't say for sure just what he did see. I'm leaning toward the second pair noted above, but we may never know for sure. </object> <object><oname>IC1743</oname><oname>NGC716</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1744</oname><oname>NGC719</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1751</oname><oname>NGC741</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1752</oname> is apparently an unresolved linear conglomerate of two stars with a faint galaxy between them: Javelle noted that the nebula was "merged with a star of mag. 14-15." I've included all three in the table of positions. </object> <object><oname>IC1758</oname> was found by Herbert Howe who says of it, "[The object] is a star of mag. 11 with very slight outlying nebulosity." There is indeed a star superposed on the galaxy, so I've included both in the position table. </object> <object><oname>IC1759</oname><oname>IC1760</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1760</oname><oname>IC1759</oname>. The position in Swift's 11th collection of new nebulae for AN is one degree too far north. The object originally appeared in his 5th list of nebulae found from Lowe Observatory (it is number 8), and actually has the correct declination in the AN version of that list. Unfortunately, Swift apparently copied it from the AJ version, so its IC position is wrong. Dreyer noted the discrepancy, though he omitted Swift's note "Cordoba 681 sp." That is wrong, too, though -- CD -33 681 is southeast of the galaxy, not southwest. However, the star number clinches the declination, and therefore the identification -- the stars at this RA in the -32 zone have numbers in the range of 740 to 760. The declination of IC1759 is roughly correct (it is 3 arcmin off), though the RA, like that of I1760, is 25 seconds too small. </object> <object><oname>IC1765</oname><oname>NGC783</oname> <oname>IC1766</oname><oname>NGC785</oname>. Barnard's positions -- particularly the RA's -- are poor enough that he was misled into thinking them new nebulae. He must have sent them in a letter to Dreyer as there is no reference to Barnard's published papers in the IC entries, nor can I find them in my copies of Barnard's papers that I've collected. Nevertheless, the identifications are quite certain. The position difference between the galaxies is 33.4 seconds in RA and 3 arcmin 20 arcsec in Dec. Barnard's positions are 33 seconds in RA and 4.1 arcmin in Dec in the correct orientation: IC1766 is to the southeast of I1765. The differences for the NGC objects is 34 seconds and 3.3 arcmin (from Stephan's observations). Assuming that Barnard observed the galaxies on the same night and measured their positions in the same way, the agreement with the actual differences is compelling evidence that Barnard's "novae" are actually the NGC objects. Reinmuth was the first to suggest the identities. Carlson picked them up for her 1940 ApJ collection, and the CGCG has them both, too. Curiously, Wolfgang has only the I1765/N783 identity in his list. He puts the number IC1766 on a very faint, low-surface-brightness galaxy that Barnard almost surely could not have seen, even if he found the galaxies with the 36-inch or 40-inch refractors. </object> <object><oname>IC1766</oname><oname>NGC785</oname>. See IC1765. </object> <object><oname>IC1773</oname><oname>NGC804</oname>. Swift's position for N804 is far enough off that it misled Bigourdan into measuring a faint star as N804. On the same night, he saw the real NGC804, but thought it a nova. So, it has ended up with an IC number as well. Bigourdan's positions fall within a few arcsec of the GSC positions, and his notes about neighboring stars further pin down his objects. The identification is firm. </object> <object><oname>IC1778</oname><oname>IC199</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1782</oname><oname>NGC823</oname>. Swift's description, "vF; D* of = mag in nebulosity," is almost identical to JH's, "A vF double * involved in a vF nebula." Given that the positions are just over two arcmin apart, we can only wonder how the identity escaped both Swift and Dreyer. Swift, in addition, was especially taken with the object and added to his description, "Curious object. Note." I find his note revealing of the thinking of observers at the time. It reads in full, This appears like a nebulous double star, but I think it is simply a double star in a nebula. There is a vast difference between a nebulous star, and a star in a nebula. It is the note which strikes us as curious, knowing as we now do that the object is nothing more than a galaxy with a star superposed about 10 arcsec away from the nucleus. But this was obviously an interesting sight to a 19th century observer with only the vaguest ideas of the nature and distances of the nebulae. Curious indeed! </object> <object><oname>IC1787</oname><oname>IC217</oname>. As with IC1782, I'm left wondering how either Swift or Dreyer thought Swift's object to be a "nova". The position is 1.2 arcmin different from Javelle's, and the descriptions (Swift: "eeF, eeE, a ray ..." Javelle: "F, pL, E ns.") are similar enough that a flare should have gone off in one or the other's mind. I suspect that Swift's "eeF" versus Javelle's "F" mislead one or both of them to ignore the near-coincidence of position. Or maybe they just missed this one. Whatever happened, the galaxy has two IC numbers. </object> <object><oname>IC1795</oname>. Barnard's RA is marked +-, but still falls well within a large HII region. The position I've measured is for the brightest knot within Barnard's "Patch of nebulosity." </object> <object><oname>IC1802</oname>, IC1803, and IC1804 are three nebulae found by Barnard and, as with many others, not published but sent directly to Dreyer. So, the IC positions and descriptions are all that we have to work with to identify these objects. In the case of IC1802, there is nothing at the nominal position, but 33 seconds of time following and 2.2 arcmin south is a galaxy that has a "* 11 np 1'". We can be fairly confident that this is Barnard's object as none of the other galaxies in the area has a similarly bright star to the northwest. If we apply this same offset to the positions for IC1803 and IC1804, we find a pair of galaxies oriented northwest-southeast, not southwest-northeast as Barnard's positions have them. IC1803 is also sketchily described ("Stell N"), and IC1804 carries no description at all. But they are the second brightest and brightest, respectively, in a small group of galaxies. So, I am reasonably sure that Barnard saw these two objects. However, which one has which IC number, I am not so sure. I've put the numbers on in RA order, assuming that the declinations are reversed. But it could be the other way, so I've put colons on the numbers. </object> <object><oname>IC1803</oname>. See IC1802. </object> <object><oname>IC1804</oname>. See IC1802. </object> <object><oname>IC1805</oname>. Barnard's RA is off by about 50 seconds of time (this seemed to happen a lot with his observations; see e.g. IC1802). Still, the cluster, immersed in a huge nebula, is too obvious to be missed. Barnard called it "compressed", so I've taken it to be the small cluster centered to the east of HD 15558. Brian Skiff puts the HD star closer to the center, and so takes the cluster to include many more of the surrounding stars. In this case, the group that I include is just the core of the cluster. I suspect Brian is right. Also see IC1831 for another possible object in the area. </object> <object><oname>IC1808</oname><oname>NGC963</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1814</oname><oname>NGC964</oname>. JH found the galaxy during his years at the Cape of Good Hope, and measured its position pretty well. Swift picked it up 60 years later from Echo Mountain in Southern California -- his RA is 43 seconds too small, so he thought he had a "nova". His brief description "pB, pS, mE" (identical to JH's) makes it clear, though, that he has just rediscovered JH's nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC1822</oname> is a star. Bigourdan saw this only one night in December of 1894, and called it "Pretty much a stellar object, maybe a little nebulous." He did not measure it, but only estimated its position with respect to BD -09 486. Unfortunately, his big table has a misprint for the sign of the RA offset -- it should be "-" and not "+". The positions in his CR list and in the second IC are correct, so the sign problem is either a typo, or he caught his error before he published the position. </object> <object><oname>IC1824</oname> is probably NGC1027, a cluster in the Milky Way. This is one of many objects that Barnard sent notes about directly to Dreyer, so we have only the IC entry to lead us. There, Barnard's description reads "Cl, sts F, perh[aps] F neby p extends to it." There is indeed faint nebulosity west of the cluster, and with nothing at Barnard's nominal position except scattered field stars, NGC1027 is the only logical choice. It's stars, however, are not "faint," especially taking the superposed SAO 12402 into account. Perhaps Barnard found this near the edge of a plate. </object> <object><oname>IC1826</oname><oname>IC1830</oname>. Swift's RA is 40 seconds too small, but his declination and description are good. Stewart's position is good, but he found the object on only one plate so marked it "susp"[ected only]. He also notes the star 1.5 arcmin to the southwest as "eF"; Swift's estimate of 8 is much closer to the truth. In any event, the identity is sure because of Swift's noting the star. </object> <object><oname>IC1828</oname><oname>NGC1036</oname>. This is simply a reobservation of NGC1036. The NGC position for N1036 is 10 seconds of time and about 2 arcmin off. However, since there are no other galaxies in the neighborhood, it is a bit baffling that Javelle thought his "nova" a different object. He must have simply missed the NGC entry. Also note that this is not = IC1829 (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC1829</oname>. This is often assumed to be equal to IC1828 = NGC1036 (which see). This error is caused by a typo in Javelle's declination in the Nice Observations, Vol. XI, page D11 for J940 = IC1829. The typo (a "76" in place of a "71" for the north polar distance of J940) has put the IC position 5 degrees north of the true position. Re-reducing Javelle's data shows that IC1829 is CGCG 439-026. This is another of the errors that Malcolm Thomson tracked down years ago. </object> <object><oname>IC1830</oname><oname>IC1826</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1831</oname> may be a plume extending northeast from IC1805. If so, its nominal declination, from a Heidelberg plate by Max Wolf, is one degree too far north. I think it is more likely that the object is a defect on the plate. This could, of course, be checked if the plate still exists. Here is Wolf's complete note from AN 4082, kindly translated by Wolfgang Steinicke: A third [IC2088 and IC2177, both of which see, are the first two] extended and pretty structured nebula was found at the border of Cassiopeia and Perseus. It measures many square degrees, too, irregularly covering a NW-SE oriented field, connecting some star groups while being crossed by many canals [dark streaks]. The center is approximately at RA = 2h 33m, Dec = +63d. This nebula is complicated, but unfortunately pretty faint, too. But I hope to reproduce a picture which was taken in December with the Bruce Telescope. We should also search Wolf's papers from 1806 on to see if he actually did publish the photograph. Another possibility is that the "nebula" is nothing more than the unresolved Milky Way, or even simple vignetting on Wolf's early plates. </object> <object><oname>IC1837</oname><oname>NGC1072</oname>. Javelle's sign on his north polar distance offset is wrong -- it should be "-", not "+". Once this change is made, his reduced position falls within a few arcsec of the nucleus of NGC1072. </object> <object><oname>IC1840</oname><oname>NGC1105</oname> = MCG -03-08-004. See NGC1105 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC1845</oname> is a double star. Swift notes another "double star north preceding," and that object is indeed there if Swift's RA is just 1 minute of time too large. This was first suggested as the identity for the IC object in ESO. ESO also suggested, though with a question mark, that ESO 416-G015 40 seconds following Swift's nominal position might be his object. However, the only double star north preceding that object is considerably fainter than other stars nearer the galaxy. The double is also 11 arcmin away from the galaxy; it would have been near the edge of Swift's field where it would not have attracted his attention. Even though Wolfgang adopted this identification, it is just not as attractive an option as the double star that ESO noted. </object> <object><oname>IC1846</oname>; is it also NGC1109? Javelle went over this field about 40 years after Marth's first reconnaissance of it. He measured only four of the nebulae here, but his positions are good enough to unmistakably identify all four. Would that Marth's positions were as good! See NGC1109 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC1850</oname> may also be NGC1111. See IC1846 and NGC1109 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC1852</oname> may also be NGC1112. See IC1846 and NGC1109 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC1851</oname>. Another of Barnard's "private communications" to Dreyer, there is no nebulosity associated with the star (HD 17581 = SAO 23662). Though the star is a spectroscopic binary, it has no other peculiarities, so the "nebula" that Barnard saw is most likely a plate defect. Carlson's 1940 paper, quoting the Lick collection of errata in the NGC/IC, notes only "Not found" for this object. I wonder if the original errata list has any reference to Barnard's plate. It may be that additional plates taken at Lick, perhaps even by Barnard himself, failed to confirm the object. </object> <object><oname>IC1850</oname> may also be NGC1111. See IC1846 and especially NGC1109 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC1852</oname> may also be NGC1112. See IC1846, and especially NGC1109 for a discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC1862</oname>. I always get concerned when I see that an IC object was found by Lewis Swift. He was an old man by the time he got the Warner Observatory moved to Echo Mountain, and his positions from Lowe Observatory (as it was renamed) are considerably worse than those from Warner. So, when I saw that the RA of this object is out by 41 seconds, and the Dec by 1.7 arcmin, I wondered if I had chosen the right galaxy to carry the IC number in SGC. It didn't help that Andris and Wolfgang had agreed with me -- I may have copied Andris's ESO catalogue and Wolfgang may have copied mine. I checked again. I found that I (or Andris) was probably right. Though there is another candidate galaxy (MCG -05-07-030 = ESO 356-GA011) just a degree north (1 deg 1.1 arcmin, to be fussy about it), the RA is 2min 34sec out, and the star south-following is magnitude 4.5 rather than 7 as Swift made it. These discrepancies seem to rule out the alternate pretty conclusively. So, I've kept the identification as is. (The star near I1862 = ESO 356- G015 has a magnitude of 8.1 in SAO, by the way, much closer to Swift's estimate). </object> <object><oname>IC1864</oname>. Just two numbers on, it happened again! a large RA error by Swift casts doubt on an SGC identification (see IC1862). So, once again, I went back to the SERC films. This time, there is no alternate candidate galaxy, so even though Swift's RA is off by 29 seconds of time and there is no confirming star mentioned nearby, I'm happy with this identification. And Swift's brief description ("eF, S, R") matches, too. Interestingly, the two objects, close on the sky, are also adjacent in Swift's published lists -- but were not discovered on the same night. IC1862 is from 25 November 1897, while I1864 is from 19 October of that same year. </object> <object><oname>IC1867</oname>. See IC1868. </object> <object><oname>IC1868</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star, so the IC position is wrong. When the correct star, BD +08 451, is used, his re-reduced position falls within two arcsec of the modern positions. The star he claimed to have used was BD +08 452. That is the star he used for IC1867, for which his position is also within two arcsec of the modern positions. </object> <object><oname>IC1869</oname> is a galaxy plus the superposed star. Even though the galaxy has a nearby companion, that companion would have been too faint for Javelle to see. Instead, he took the neighboring star and the galaxy's nucleus as a double star immersed in nebulosity. There is yet another, brighter star on to the southeast which he did not mention. </object> <object><oname>IC1871</oname>. I think that Barnard got the wrong magnitude 9.3 BD star. Instead of BD +60d 596 which is surrounded by nebulosity, "chiefly following", he listed the position of BD +60d 624. This latter star is completely clear of nebulosity, and is 9 minutes of time east of the nebulosity. But the good match of description and magnitude for the object make the identity fairly certain. The position I assign is for the approximate center of the nebulosity rather than the star. There is a second cloud of nebulosity attached on further south west. Barnard may have seen this one, too, but how well it showed up would depend on its location on his plate. Many of the plates that Barnard took at Lick are strongly affected by coma and vignetting, so the effective exposure time towards the edge of the plate is considerably less than at the center. </object> <object><oname>IC1872</oname> is not NGC1174 -- even though no one to my knowledge has equated them. See N1174 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC1877</oname>. While doing his survey of IC objects, Malcolm noticed that this galaxy was included in IC while its brighter neighbor, ESO 199-IG012, was not. Was there a reason for this? Found by Stewart on a 24-inch Bruce plate, IC1877 is positively identified by its position and description, especially the position angle 170 deg (the modern value from ESO and ESO-LV is 153 deg). The brighter companion has a position angle of 19 deg, clearly different, and is about two arcmin on to the northeast. There is little possibility that Stewart mistook this for object for I1877. It is important to note that Stewart had only one plate of this area, so could not confirm the three objects he found on it. All are marked "suspected" as a result. Curious about this, Malcolm asked the folks at CfA if they could examine the original plate. They were good enough to make Polaroid copies of the area around IC1877 and ESO 199-IG012. Both galaxies are well-shown on these copies of the plate, with IC1877 in Stewart's position angle. However, the brighter object has a peculiar flattened triangular appearance with some apparent halo-like plumes projecting from its north and south ends. It looks similar to a plate defect about 30 arcmin to the east-northeast, so I think that Stewart assumed it to be a flaw. So, while many IC objects discovered on photographs are indeed plate flaws, here is a case of a real galaxy apparently mistaken for a defect, and so NOT included in the IC! </object> <object><oname>IC1878</oname>. ESO applies this number to both IC1878 and its companion 20 arcsec northeast. However, Stewart's original description, including the position angle (5 degrees), makes it clear that only the brighter galaxy was seen on the Harvard plate. </object> <object><oname>IC1881</oname><oname>NGC1213</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1883</oname><oname>NGC1212</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1884</oname><oname>IC290</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1887</oname><oname>IC292</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1888</oname><oname>IC293</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1889</oname><oname>IC294</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1905</oname> is probably the triple star that Wolfgang and I have measured -- but may include a fourth star less than an arcminute to the southeast. Bigourdan's position is only an estimate (-23 seconds, +5 minutes 30 seconds) made on a single night. That position falls a few seconds west of the triple, on the "wrong" side of the asterism if Bigourdan meant to include the outlying star. His full description (translated by me) reads, "Small, very faint cluster, around which there could be traces of nebulosity. Impossible to decide with certainty." I suspect that Bigourdan included the fourth star as he usually mentions nearby stars in his descriptions. The fact that it receives no specific mention here suggests that it is part of his "cluster." But given that his position is northwest of the center of the asterism, I find it "Impossible to decide with certainty." In the end, I take the path of least resistance and adopt the triple as IC1905, but note all four stars as a distinct possibility. </object> <object><oname>IC1907</oname><oname>NGC1278</oname> = GC 675 = Big 375 = d'Arrest 56. Bigourdan has this in his fourth list of new nebulae (= Big 375), but in his final publication, he includes the measurements for it under the number NGC1278. He has this note for the object: "This nebula has been listed under the number GC 674 by Lord Rosse, and in the NGC. It is this that led me to at first suppose that it was a new nebula." Thus, it is clear that Bigourdan was misled by the typo (or misidentification?) in Lord Rosse's observations and in the NGC. Just as clearly, he found the problem during preparation for publication of his data. The positions for NGC 1278 and IC1907 are close enough to confirm the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC1910</oname> is described by Stewart as "2 eF, eS neb. spots, susp." Neither appears on the southern sky survey plates, so these are probably defects. </object> <object><oname>IC1911</oname> either does not exist, or is a star with a faint companion about 30 arcsec to the northwest. Bigourdan has one estimated position for the object in his Appendix of Supplemental Observations; he described it there as a "Trace of nebulosity, suspected only" from a single night in 1887. In the Comptes Rendu list where he announced his discovery, he adds "Sky mediocre." There is nothing in his position, a fact noted by Bigourdan himself during a second observation in 1902. He did note two stars near his position and gave estimated offsets for them -- they are indeed there. Is it possible that he mistook the fainter of them with its companion as nebulous on his relatively poor night in 1887? I've put it into the position table with a question mark. The brighter star is at 03 17 41.61, +35 08 43.0 (B1950) measured using Skyview and a DSS cutout. </object> <object><oname>IC1914</oname>. Surprisingly, Stewart's position for this wonderful galaxy is about three arcmin to the west of the nucleus. Given that he describes it only as "Sp[iral]?" I wonder if a position error fully explains this object. We'd have to check the original plate to be sure. See IC1923 for more about this particular plate. </object> <object><oname>IC1920</oname>. Stewart's nominal position falls between two galaxies, but is a bit closer to the brighter, eastern of the candidates (it is 10 seconds of time off). The declination matches, too, though that is a loose constraint as Stewart gives declinations only to a full minute of arc. So, I've taken the eastern galaxy as IC1920. Wolfgang, however, chose the slightly fainter western object. Since that is a possibility, I've left it in the table, though with question marks. Given the ambiguity, we need to look at the original plate. Stewart's positions on this plate, by the way, are good. See IC1923 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC1921</oname> may be the faint star that I've listed in the position table. However, the star is fainter than I'd expect Stewart to be able to pick up on the Bruce plates, so I suspect that the object that he found is actually a plate defect. His description is simply "Stell[ar]", so doesn't help us much. Only an examination of the original plate will tell us for sure. See IC1923 for more on this particular plate. </object> <object><oname>IC1923</oname> is most likely the faint double galaxy (or possibly a galaxy and a star) that I've listed in the position table. Unfortunately, Stewart describes it only as "Stell[ar]" -- brief, unhelpful descriptions plague his notes on this plate -- so we won't know for sure that this is his object until we can examine the original plate. However, his positions on this plate -- one of the first he searched for nebulae (this probably accounts for the scanty descriptions) -- are good. There is no significant systematic offset and the standard deviations are 0.67 arcmin in RA and 0.61 arcmin in Dec. Since Stewart's position for the double object I chose is well within the canonical 2-sigma of the true position, I'll take the pair as the object that he saw. </object> <object><oname>IC1925</oname> is probably a plate defect. It is listed as the first of a pair of nebulae, but there is only one object (IC1929) on the modern plates. There is a faint possibility that it is identical to I1929 -- the descriptions are nearly the same -- so that is given as an option in the table. Since it was found on the same plate as I1929, however, I think it is unlikely that the two objects are identical. </object> <object><oname>IC1927</oname> may be the faint double star about an arcminute following the nominal position. But the double is quite faint, and I wonder if it would have shown up on the Bruce plate that Stewart examined. We'll have to look at the plate to be sure. See IC1923 for more about Stewart's work with this plate. </object> <object><oname>IC1929</oname> may also be IC1925, which see. But probably not. </object> <object><oname>IC1939</oname> is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing in the area but faint stars. However, about 4 arcmin preceding Stewart's nominal position is a double object that is "E p to f" (the extent of Stewart's description, unfortunately). I've put this into the position table as a possibility. However, since Stewart's positions are otherwise pretty good on this plate (see IC1923 for more), this is only a possibility. </object> <object><oname>IC1941</oname> is probably the line of three or four stars three arcmin south of Stewart's nominal position. The description, particularly "vmE at 0 deg", fits. Since there is nothing else nearby that matches as well, I've taken the line of stars as his object. </object> <object><oname>IC1942</oname>, described by Stewart as "Stell., E n to s" is actually a double galaxy. I've put both into the position table. </object> <object><oname>IC1943</oname> may be NGC1411. Swift's position is about 9 minutes of time too small, but his declination and description fit the NGC galaxy pretty well. I personally suspect that he made a 10 minute digit error in reading his setting circle and combined that with his usual approximate RA. By the time he was observing at Echo Mountain, his ability to measure positions had become quite bad. This seems to be an example. </object> <object><oname>IC1963</oname><oname>IC335</oname>. Swift's second position for this, taken 10 years later than the first, is only 8 seconds of time following his first, though both are about 30 seconds west of the galaxy. There is no doubt that he saw the same galaxy twice -- his descriptions match the appearance of this bright spindle exactly. </object> <object><oname>IC1971</oname> is simply described by Stewart as "E p to f". It is actually "E n to s". Since his position is good, I suspect that this is just a slip of the pen. </object> <object><oname>IC1979</oname> is a faint, pretty wide double star about two arcmin northwest of IC1980. It matches Stewart's description quite well, and the position is close, too. Since it was found on the same plate as IC1980, it is certainly not identical to the galaxy, in spite of the similar descriptions. </object> <object><oname>IC1980</oname> is not IC1979. That number, which see, applies to a faint double star about two arcmin northwest of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1981</oname><oname>NGC1412</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC1983</oname> is probably identical with NGC1415. The NGC object is the brightest galaxy in the area, so is the one most likely to have been seen by Swift. He has his usual poor position (10 seconds and 3 arcmin off the correct position) as well as a sketchy description, "vF, pS, R; not [NGC] 1426" in his big 11th list in AN. The name of the galaxy that Swift was pretty sure this was not is not in the IC description. Just as well; it is a distraction at best, an embarrassment at worst as it is over half a degree away from NGC1415. But it does lead us to a question: Could Swift have meant N1416 rather than N1426? N1416 actually is "vF, pS, R", while N1415 is much brighter. However, N1416 has two bright stars just south pointing at it -- had Swift seen these, he surely would mentioned them, just as he did dozens of other asterisms near his nebulae. I think this is unlikely as N1416 was found by Muller in the mid-1880s and has no GC number (see NGC1416 for more on its chequered past). In Swift's original paper, the first list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory, IC1983 appears as the 20th entry. There, the description reads "vF, pS, R. Not G.C. 765". So, Swift has got the right NGC number for the AN paper. Unfortunately, this means that he overlooked NGC1415 and 1416 altogether when he was putting his description together. Somehow, Dreyer missed the possible NGC identifications, too. Whatever happened, I think that NGC1415 is the best candidate for Swift's galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC1985</oname><oname>IC348</oname>. Barnard did not check the first IC before he published this as a new nebula at the end of his paper on the "Exterior Nebulosities of the Pleiades." Dreyer apparently did not, either, so the object now has two IC numbers. See IC348 for more. The nebulosity that caught Barnard's eye on a photograph of the Pleiades also contains a cluster, though the cluster is not visible on either of Barnard's photographs in his Lick Publications, Vol. 11. (Safford actually did see the cluster, though Dreyer did not put that into the description for IC348.) Barnard adopted the BD position for the central star in the nebula, and I've done the same. </object> <object><oname>IC1988</oname> may be NGC1425 with a 50 second error in RA and a 10 degree digit error in Dec. Swift has made both these errors in other cases, and his description could be made to fit N1425, too (instead of "eF, pL, R; 2 sts near f, wide D* np" it would read "eF, pL, R; wide D* near f, 2 sts np"). He is certainly confused about the date he found this. He gives it as 14 Oct 1897 in the AN summary list, but as 3 Oct 1897 in his shorter List 5 where the nebula is number 14. While I'm fairly confident about the identification with the NGC galaxy, there are enough changes that have to be made that I've put a question mark on the IC number. </object> <object><oname>IC1992</oname> is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing near Stewart's position but a faint star. While it's possible that this is the object that Stewart had in mind (the brief description "Stell[ar]" fits), I doubt it. His other positions on the plate are pretty good -- see IC1923, for more about this particular plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2001</oname> is probably the double star that Wolfgang picked up. Stewart includes a note "3 stars near" in his description; the three stars form a line just to the north of the double star. </object> <object><oname>IC2002</oname> is probably = NGC1474, which see. The IC identification is not in doubt, but the NGC ID is. </object> <object><oname>IC2007</oname><oname>IC2008</oname>. Swift found this twice, the first time in October of 1896, the second time in December 1897. His two positions are well off the true positions and, of course, don't agree with each other, either. So, two IC numbers. However, his descriptions, especially his notes ("F * in contact nf" and "eeeF * v close nf") makes it clear that the two observations not only point at the same galaxy, but identify the galaxy itself. </object> <object><oname>IC2008</oname><oname>IC2007</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2011</oname> is a double star. I noted this during my work on SGC and Wolfgang independently picked up the same double. Stewart's brief description "eeF, vS, R" is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC2013</oname> must be a defect on the Bruce plate; there is nothing in its nominal position. The exposure time was only one hour, very short for the slow plates used a century ago. A galaxy matching the description given by Stewart ("cB, cL, vE at 170 deg, cbM, susp") would have had to be bright enough to have been picked up by the Herschels. </object> <object><oname>IC2019</oname> is the northeastern of an interacting pair of galaxies. The south- western is enough fainter that Javelle missed it -- but because he reported that his object was mottled, it must have been affected to some extent by the companion. </object> <object><oname>IC2026</oname><oname>NGC1509</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2030</oname> was found by Stewart on the same plate as IC2013. And like IC2013, it does not exist, so is probably also a defect. There is a very faint galaxy about two arcmin southeast of Stewart's position that has been taken as the IC object. However, Stewart's description ("cF, vS, eE at 135 degrees, susp.") makes this unlikely -- the galaxy is nearly round, so would appear star-like on the one-hour plate, if it appears at all. We clearly need to check this. </object> <object><oname>IC2031</oname> is a nearly stellar compact galaxy, perhaps one of the compact blue irregulars. Unfortunately, Barnard's position, sent directly to Dreyer, is only approximate. That, combined with the stellar appearance of the galaxy has served to hide it from us for decades. But Barnard's description, including the "* 11 nf 3 arcmin" is accurate, and his position is close enough to make the identification secure. </object> <object><oname>IC2041</oname><oname>IC2048</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2042</oname> is nothing but a star. Innes, in one observation of 5 Feb 1897, claims to have seen it enshrouded in a nebula 1 arcmin in diameter. There is no nebula on the sky survey plates, and the star has not been noted as being peculiar in any way. I've adopted the Tycho-2 position. </object> <object><oname>IC2045</oname>. Is this NGC1538? See that for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC2047</oname>. Or is this NGC1538? Again, see the NGC object's entry for the (short) story. </object> <object><oname>IC2048</oname><oname>IC2041</oname>. Though Swift's position for IC2048 is well off the galaxy, the identity is assured by his notes about the field in his Lowe Observatory List 1: "... B * f; 1532 p; 3 in field including D neb ..." (in the AN summary list, this last phrase becomes "... 3 in field with D neb ..."). The bright star is there; it is HD 26799. There is also some question about the date that Swift found the galaxy: the AN paper, and the PASP version of the first list, claims 10 Dec 1895; the AJ version has 5 Oct 1896. </object> <object><oname>IC2053</oname> is within Stewart's usual error of his place. ESO's claim that it is not found rests on a 10 arcmin typo in the nominal position in the ESO list. Wolfgang found the object. There still may be some question about it, however. Stewart claims that it is "cE 140 deg". The galaxy is nearly round on the SERC plate, so I wonder if there is a plate defect somehow involved with the IC object. When the original plate can be dug out, we'll find out. </object> <object><oname>IC2055</oname>. Even though Wolfgang puts this number on a double star an arcminute north of Stewart's nominal position, I'm more inclined to think that this is a defect on the Bruce plate. Stewart describes the object as "F, S, cE at 0 deg; susp." His other "F, S" objects are well over an arcminute in diameter and are unmistakeably galaxies while Wolfgang's double is hardly distinguished from many other nearby field stars: the separation is only a few arcseconds, and the fainter star is nearly at 20th magnitude. This can be cleared up by examining the Bruce plate, hopefully still in the plate library at Harvard. </object> <object><oname>IC2061</oname> is probably a defect on the 1-hour Bruce plate; there is nothing in its position. Stewart's description certainly reads as if he's seen a defect: "F, cS, R, indistinct, nr. edge of plate, susp." </object> <object><oname>IC2062</oname>. Found by Bigourdan near NGC1560, this is nothing more than a star. Bigourdan's offsets point precisely to the star, and were made on the same nights as his observations of N1560, so there is no possibility that this might be a reobservation of N1560 (as suggested by CGCG, and as believed by me until I found Bigourdan's observations). The identity in RC2 is my fault; my embarrassment is real. Sorry, guys. </object> <object><oname>IC2067</oname>. This is a reflection nebula at Roberts's position. It is brighter on the blue survey plates than on the red, and is brightest to the southwest of the star, just as Roberts describes. However, it actually extends further to the northeast, though is barely visible there. I've taken the position of the star as that for the nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC2069</oname> may be the faint double star -- at least I think it's a double; the secondary is very faint and blended with the primary -- at the position I've given in the table. That position is close to Stewart's nominal position. However, Stewart marks the object "Suspected" which means that he's seen it on only one plate. Since there are several other objects on the same part of this plate (Bruce plate 4199 from Arequipa) that are also marked "Suspected", and clearly do not exist (see e.g. I2076, I2084), I wonder if this object, too, is a defect on the Bruce plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2072</oname> may be the galaxy I've listed in the table. However, Stewart's position is more than 3 arcmin off -- quite a bit for him -- and this object, like several others on Bruce plate 4199 (see I2069) is marked "Suspected". So, the identification is not secure. In fact, I suspect that Stewart's object is actually a plate defect. So, I've put a couple of question marks on the galaxy's position in the table. </object> <object><oname>IC2074</oname> is a triple star at Bigourdan's position. It is one of several that he called "very small nebulous clusters". He claims to have first noticed this one on 8 January 1886 while measuring NGC1590, but he did not measure it until (exactly) 13 years later. The identification is not in doubt. </object> <object><oname>IC2075</oname><oname>NGC1594</oname>. Bigourdan searched for NGC1594 on only a single night (17 Jan 1895), and did not find it. Instead, he found another nebula about 20 seconds preceding the NGC position. Instead of calling this "NGC1594", he made it a "nova", number 260 in his list of new nebulae. Perhaps later, when he was preparing his large table for publication, he added a note to the description of his "new" object, "It is, without doubt, NGC1594 with a 20 second error in RA." While I was working on ESGC, I came to the same conclusion. See NGC1594 for a bit more. Briefly: Howe caught Swift's poor RA, too, but Dreyer did not notice that Howe's and Bigourdan's places were nearly the same. So, the IC number stuck. </object> <object><oname>IC2076</oname> is probably a defect on the Bruce plate from Arequipa. Like several other objects on this plate (see IC2069), Stewart marked it "Suspected". All of these can of course be checked on the original plate, still in the plate library at Harvard (unless they've thrown it out). </object> <object><oname>IC2077</oname><oname>NGC1593</oname><oname>NGC1608</oname>. See NGC1593 for the brief story. </object> <object><oname>IC2078</oname> is a star. Bigourdan's position is only three arcsec north of the GSC position, so the identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>IC2080</oname> is the only one of Howe's third list of new nebulae which he did not measure micrometrically. He gives a position estimated with respect to NGC 1594 (which see) for which he did measure a corrected position. Unfortunately, he forgot to correct that reference position when he calculated the estimated position for his new object. So, the RA of I2080 shares the same from the real RA as NGC1594 (a little under 30 seconds of time). Dreyer also did not notice the problem, so I2080 has been lost for some time. Once the correction to N1594's RA is made, though, I2080 appears very close to where Howe found it: about 90 seconds east and 3 arcmin north of N1594. </object> <object><oname>IC2084</oname> is probably a plate defect. See IC2076 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2088</oname> may be a plate defect on Wolf's plate, a very low surface brightness nebulosity that does not show up on the POSS1 plates, a photographic effect of some kind, or perhaps even the unresolved Milky Way. Whatever showed up on Wolf's plates is certainly not on the POSS1 today. However, I hesitate to declare this a simple defect on the basis of POSS1 because Wolf's description, especially the orientation of the nebula along the plane of the Milky Way, is creditable. He may even have seen the California Nebula and gotten the position wrong -- though I doubt it. He gives the position only to a whole degree, and he would have to be several degrees off to have got NGC1499. It's possible, too, that he was simply seeing the Milky Way. He comments that "The nebula is separated from the Pleiades nebula by a star hole [sic], many degrees long and ranging from tau Tauri to xi Persei." This sounds to me like a description of a large dark cloud, or simply the falling off of the Milky Way as the Galactic latitude increases. Or it could be as simple as uneven emulsion, or even vignetting, on his early plates. We need to examine them, if they still exist. Here, for the record, is his full description from AN 4082, translated by Wolfgang Steinicke (thanks, Wolfgang!): Another nebula [the others he mentions in this note are IC1831 and IC2177] being extended, too, but pretty diffuse -- perhaps due to its faintness -- and structureless, was found in Taurus with different small lenses. It measures at least 3 by 5 degrees; the longer axis lies in the direction of iota Tauri toward xi Persei. The nebula is separated from the Pleiades nebula by a star hole [a vacancy], many degrees long and ranging from tau Tauri to xi Persei. The center of the extended nebula is roughly at RA = 4h 35m, Dec = +27d [for 1855]. </object> <object><oname>IC2090</oname> is lost. Swift's position is bad -- there is nothing nearby that matches his description "vF, pS, R; 3 stars in line near sp nearly point to it." There is also nothing at the positions implied by the possible digit errors that plague Swift's later positions (I've not checked at -44 deg; that would put the galaxy only 12 degrees above Swift's southern horizon; he rarely searched that far south). Other objects that he found on the same night (5 Oct 1896) are no help. Swift's positions for IC346 (found by Ormond Stone a decade earlier) and I2008 (= I2007, found by Swift himself) average 15 seconds too small in RA and right on in Dec (though with a large scatter). There is nothing at this implied position, either. </object> <object><oname>IC2091</oname> is one of ten new "nebulae" claimed by Isaac Roberts on a photograph of the field around NGC1665. Seven of these (IC2094, 2097-99, 2101, and 2102) actually are galaxies, and are indeed new. I2091, however, is a group of four or five faint stars, apparently blurred together into a single "Stellar nucleus surrounded by faint nebulosity" on Roberts's plate. Since he was using a 20-inch reflector, the plate scale must have been rather small. This, poor seeing, and a long exposure on a grainy plate may account for the asterisms that he saw as nebulous. The same thing happened with IC2100 (which see), a double star also on Roberts's plate though discovered by Bigourdan and properly credited to him by Roberts. Rather frustratingly, Roberts gives no details about exposure times or emulsion types -- just the sort of thing that would help us to better understand what he was describing on his plates. He does go on about the nebulae on this particular plate, however, noting many of them as spirals, and saying that WH did not see this feature or that in those that were known previously. I believe that Roberts's plates are now at the Observatoire de Paris. If so, it may be possible to examine them to see if -- as I suspect in the cases of IC2092 and IC2096 -- defects are masquerading as nebulae. Roberts also has an interesting note ending his short paper, saying that many of the faint "nebulae" being discovered on photographic plates by other astronomers are nothing more than stars blurred by seeing ("atmospheric tremors"). </object> <object><oname>IC2092</oname> is a line of three stars with a fourth just south of the western-most in the line. That, at least, is the only "object" near Roberts's position, measured on a plate of the NGC1665 field. See IC2091 for more about this plate, and the nebulae that Roberts found on it. The description written by Roberts for this object reads, "Small spiral nebula with bright stellar nucleus; indication of star on south end." I wonder if there was a defect tangled up with the stars. There is, in any event, no galaxy or other nebula here. </object> <object><oname>IC2093</oname> is a star. Even though Bigourdan measured it only once on 20 December 1897, his measurement points directly at the star so there can be no doubt as to which object he saw. LEDA and Wolfgang incorrectly picked a nearby galaxy that is several arcmin away from Bigourdan's star. </object> <object><oname>IC2094</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2095</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2096</oname> is a line of three stars on Isaac Roberts's plate of the field around NGC1665. See IC2091 for more on this plate. Robert's description is interesting: "Small right-hand spiral nebula; with stellar nucleus; elongated; indications of condensations." As with IC2092, I suspect a defect was involved with the stars. </object> <object><oname>IC2097</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2098</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2099</oname> is not NGC1677 as I had supposed fifteen years ago when I went over this field for ESGC. See N1677 = N1659 for that story, and see IC2091 for more on Roberts's photograph of the NGC1665 field. </object> <object><oname>IC2100</oname> is a double star found by Bigourdan and later picked up on Roberts's plate of the NGC1665 field (see I2091 for more about that). Roberts's and Bigourdan's descriptions are more or less accordant: Roberts: Bigourdan 380 is shown on the photograph as a pretty bright stellar nucleus surrounded by nebulosity elongated in sf to np direction. Bigourdan: Pretty stellar object, a little nebulous, granulated, round and about 12 arcsec in diameter. Roberts gives no coordinates, but the double star is in fact oriented as he states. Bigourdan has four measurements on the night he found the double, 17 December 1897. </object> <object><oname>IC2101</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2102</oname>. See IC2091. </object> <object><oname>IC2107</oname><oname>NGC1707</oname>, which see. <ignore /> is an astersim of four stars (a fifth, considerably fainter is just north). Bigourdan, misled by JH's 30 second error in the RA of NGC1707, measured a star which he thought a bit nebulous (it isn't) and called it N1707. Eleven years later, he returned to the field and found the real N1707, but still not recognizing JH's error, put it into one of his lists of new nebulae. Thus, the IC number. Reinmuth was apparently the first to make the connection between the two numbers. ===== IC2108 = NGC1710. Bigourdan measured an object near NGC1710 which he thought was a nova. This appeared as the 261st of his new nebulae, so received an IC number. Later, before preparing his big table for publication, he received the list of micrometrically-measured nebulae from Leander McCormick Observatory. There, he found that his nova is identical to N1710. He also measured a faint star nearby which he labels simply "Nova" in his big table. However, he appends a note saying, "This nebula was at first taken to be NGC1710; the measures later published by L. McCormick [sic] show that N1710 = 261 Big." ===== IC2109 and IC2110 are stars. Found on a "slightly stormy" night by Bigourdan in January of 1885, he looked at these again in December of 1898 and could see no nebulosity at all. Nevertheless, he measured them both nights, and his reduced coordinates are accurate. ===== IC2110 is a star. See IC2109 for the short story. ===== IC2111 is indeed a bright nebula, probably an HII region, in the LMC. As with several other such nebulae, this was found by Wilhelmina Fleming on an objective prism plate taken at Arequipa. This particular nebula is interesting as it has three "lobes". I've given positions for each lobe in the table, as well as a mean for all three. ===== IC2114 = NGC1748. Found on a Harvard objective prism plate by Wilhelmina Fleming, this stellar object entered the catalogue because of its "nebular" emission lines. This also led to its initial classification as a "planetary" nebula. Without having the original plate to examine, I nevertheless suspect that this is the bright knot on the eastern edge of NGC1748 that was picked up in the GSC scan. If so, then this is actually an HII region in the N1743 complex in the LMC. Four parts of this were seen by John Herschel and received NGC numbers: the others are N1737, N1743, and N1745 (which is not a star cluster as supposed in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue). </object> <object><oname>IC2115</oname> <oname>IC2116</oname> are both described in the IC as "Planetary, stellar." Like IC2114 and IC2117, both were found on Harvard objective prism plates by Wilhelmina Fleming. Also like those two, the positions are not very good, falling on blank areas of the LMC north and east of NGC1763 (ESO's contention that the IC objects are both identical to N1763 can't be true. The descriptions rule out the identities since N1763 is a large complex of HII regions and star clusters in the LMC). I suspect that one of her objects is the bright nebulous star at 04 57 09.8, -66 27 52 -- but which one? While Fleming's declination for IC2115 matches, the RA for the object falls exactly between her RA's for the two IC objects. In that case, we would expect to find another object about 30 seconds east and an arcminute south -- there is nothing there. There are two fainter stars in the neighborhood besides those I've listed in the main table (both B1950.0): 04 57 15.92 -66 28 57.2 04 57 19.98 -66 27 55.8 Neither of these seems likely to me. If the nebulous star is IC2116, and since N1763 is about 30 seconds preceding that object, that might make a knot in JH's object I2115. But N1736 is south of I2116, not north as the relative position would make it. So this seems unlikely, too. In the end, only examining the original Harvard plate will tell us what is going on here. </object> <object><oname>IC2116</oname>. See IC2115. </object> <object><oname>IC2117</oname> is one of four or five HII knots in NGC1770. Some catalogues, in particular ESO-B, have equated the two numbers, but this (as Wolfgang and I independently found) is incorrect. Fleming's nebulae are all compact and were discovered by the appearance of emission lines in their spectra (she called them "planetaries", following Pickering's classification; see IC2114 for another example). NGC1770 on the other hand, is a large, nebulous, LMC cluster well-described by JH in his CGH Observations. On the DSS, the entire complex is about 5 arcmin by 4 arcmin; I2117 is toward the southern edge. </object> <object><oname>IC2118</oname> may also be NGC1909, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2119</oname>. The IC NPD for 1860 is ten degrees too small, while that for 1900 is correct. This is clearly a typo. There is another mystery here, though. Howe caught Swift's 10 arcmin error in declination before the second IC went to press, so Dreyer adopted Howe's (correct) position. However, Howe claims to have seen Swift's "eeeF D *" at a distance of 90 arcsec and a position angle of 210 degrees from the galaxy. There is nothing there. Further, Howe has the magnitudes of the two stars equal at 12.5. The two stars that Swift presumeably saw are about 30 seconds away at a PA of roughly 135 degees, and are much fainter than 12.5. Swift's description also says "between 2 stars"; these two stars are about 5 arcmin west-northwest and east-southeast of the galaxy. So, even though Howe clearly saw the correct object -- his position is correct -- his description of the star field is wrong. I do not know what happened. </object> <object><oname>IC2120</oname>. This is Comet 113/P Spitaler 1890. Bigourdan observed the comet about an hour and a half before returning to the field, apparently to reobserve it. Confusion set in somehow, since Bigourdan's precise offsets for the "nebula" fall within an arcsecond of the position of the comet at the time of his obsevation (thanks to Brian Marsden for computing the comet's position at that time). Since Bigourdan did not collect and assemble his observations of nebulae until years after his actual work at the eyepiece, it is possible that he simply misread his observing logs for the evening. The incorrect identification of IC2120 as a planetary (though actually a compact HII region, it is listed as PK 169-00.1) comes from Minkowski (PASP 59, 257, 1947), but his object is 39 arcmin southwest of Bigourdan's position. Why Minkowski chose to call the nebula IC2120 is not obvious, but it is certainly wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC2123</oname><oname>IC412</oname> <oname>IC2124</oname><oname>IC413</oname>. This interacting pair was discovered twice by Barnard and not published either time. Javelle did publish his observations. Curiously, considering the near-coincidence of the positions, neither Barnard nor Dreyer apparently considered the possibility of the identities. That had to wait half a century for CGCG. The story for I412 and I413 says the same thing, but in a slightly different way. See that if you're unbearably curious. </object> <object><oname>IC2124</oname><oname>IC413</oname>. See IC2123 = IC412. </object> <object><oname>IC2126</oname> is NGC1935, a small HII region in the LMC. There is no doubt about the identity as Fleming's position is within an arcminute of the NGC object. The IC description "Planetary; stellar" (shared with about a dozen other LMC HII regions, some of which we will need the original plates to identify) is also appropriate, considering the source on Harvard objective prism plates. There is also another HII region nearby, NGC1936 = IC2127, which see. Fleming's position and description for that, too, is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC2127</oname><oname>NGC1936</oname>. See IC2126 where the story for that object is appropriate for this one, too. </object> <object><oname>IC2128</oname> is a star cloud in the LMC. It was found by Solon Bailey on Harvard plates and included in his list of the brightest and largest non-stellar objects in the sky. He calls it a cluster with some nebulosity involved -- as indeed there is -- and with a diameter of 4 arcmin. With only 15 stars between the 10th and 14th magnitudes, it is not as noticeable as the nearby NGC1929, but I'm still a bit surprised that JH did not pick this up. Perhaps with all the other distracting pleasures offered by the LMC, he simply missed it. Bailey's position is a bit off the center of the object, but it is close enough to insure the identification. The ESO star cluster is just a part of the considerably larger IC object, though the brightest HII region in the cloud is involved with the ESO cluster. </object> <object><oname>IC2129</oname><oname>IC2130</oname>. This is one of Swift's late (December 1897) discoveries from Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain, and is identical to IC2130, found 14 months earlier, also by Swift, also from Lowe. The position, as suggested by Andris Lauberts in the ESO/Uppsala list, is about 30 seconds of time, and 5 arcmin off. Swift's note, "7m * near sf" is correct. For the IC, Dreyer changed this note to read "* 7 ssf". I suspect that he had some correspondence with Swift (see I2131 where the IC position is different from those published by Swift). In SGC, I suggest that the RA of I2129 is about a minute of time off leading to a much fainter galaxy, MCG -04-14-001. However, that has a prominent double star nearby to the northeast which Swift surely would have noted. Since he did not, I am pretty confident about the identity with IC2130. </object> <object><oname>IC2130</oname><oname>IC2129</oname> (which see) is fairly close to Swift's position. His description fits, too, aside from a mistake in the direction of the neighboring star: it is southeast, not northeast as Swift made it. </object> <object><oname>IC2131</oname><oname>IC422</oname>. This is one of the galaxies that actually gives us a bit of insight into Dreyer's working methods. In the introduction to IC2, he makes no mention of any correspondence with Lewis Swift -- yet that must have happened in this case (see also I2129 = I2130 for another instance of Swift's published data, description in that instance, not agreeing with the IC2 data). The position for IC2131 given in all of Swift's original papers is 05 29 53, -17 17.8 (precessed to B1950.0 from B1900), a bit off the galaxy to the southwest. Yet the IC2 carries the position 05 30 03, -17 15.4, very close to the actual position, and very close Javelle's micrometrically measured position given in IC1 for I422. So, Dreyer obviously had some additional input from Swift on this object. Along with other evidence in the IC itself (e.g. the many unpublished IC nebulae credited to Barnard), this suggests that Dreyer had an extensive correspondence with the astronomers working in the field of nebulae. If this correspondence still exists, it may be another source of data that we can use to help debug the IC's. About this object: there is no question about the identity. The positions and descriptions are too similar. Again, I'm faintly surprised that neither Dreyer nor Swift caught the identity. Given the frequency of such positional coincidences (see e.g. I2123 = I412 and I2124 = I413), I am beginning to wonder if IC2 was a bit of a chore for Dreyer, taken on not out of any lingering love for cataloguing new nebulae, but simply from a sense of duty. This is just a suspicion at the moment. I suspect that Dreyer's correspondence -- if it still exists -- might offer more clues. </object> <object><oname>IC2133</oname><oname>NGC1961</oname>. Here is one of the objects that force me to ask the question "What was Bigourdan thinking?" He measured it twelve times on three nights, could not find NGC1961 when he looked for it on one of those nights, and must have been aware that WH's positions were subject to large accidental errors. So, how could Bigourdan believe that his "Big. 385" was a new object and not the one that WH found? Well, he obviously did because the object ended up in the 2nd IC. Dreyer discovered the identity a few years later when he prepared WH's Scientific Papers for publication. There is no doubt about the identity, either. So, "What was Bigourdan thinking?" (Obviously, a rhetorical question.) </object> <object><oname>IC2135</oname><oname>IC2136</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2136</oname><oname>IC2135</oname>. Swift's declination for IC2136 is 10 degrees too far north. This is certain; his description from his 11th list reads in full, "eF, pS, eE, almost a ray; [NGC] 1963 p." Since the degree of declination of N1963 is -36, that for I2136 must be the same. Also, there are no galaxies at -26 close to Swift's RA that match his description. So, the identity with I2135 is clear. Swift has an interesting observational note in his 11th list about this object and one other (IC335 = IC1963, which see): "Nos. 56 and 81. These in one respect are the most interesting nebulae I have ever seen, especially No. 56 [IC335 = IC1963], which is a nebulous hair-line of one uniform size from end to end. No. 81 [IC2135 = IC2136] at first sight seemed identical with it, but on a closer view the center seemed to have a very slight bulging in the middle." I wonder if he got his numbers in this note backwards. Both galaxies are indeed spindles, but IC335 is an early type with a clearly seen nuclear bulge while IC2135 is a later type with just a faintly visible bulge. Note, too, that this I2135 is NOT NGC1963 (which see) as claimed by PGC, and (unfortunately) by extension, RC3. N1963 is an apparent cluster found by JH about a minute of time preceding the galaxy, which he did not see. The LEDA folks must have assumed a digit error without checking the NGC description. Finally, this is one of five nebulae that Swift found on the night of 22 February 1898, and one of the three that we can now identify. See IC2595 for more about the nebulae found on that night. </object> <object><oname>IC2137</oname><oname>IC2138</oname>. There are only two galaxies here bright enough to be seen easily at the eyepiece, NGC1979 and the object that carries two IC numbers. Bigourdan found and measured it first in December of 1887. He examined it twice again, measuring it only one more time, however, on 11 February 1898. Coincidentally, Lewis Swift "discovered" the galaxy his second time just three days later, but made a 10 arcmin error in the declination. His description, including the relative position of the nearby bright star and N1979 is correct on that second night. His first "discovery" of it had come just three months earlier in December 1897; that night, his position was closer to the truth. His description from that night, however, contains two errors. He noted the bright star -- Bigourdan's comparison star -- as preceding the galaxy instead of following, and placed the galaxy "s[outh] f[ollowing] of [NGC] 1980". This is an obvious transcription error since N1980 is at -6 degrees, not -23 as is the correct object, N1979. Dreyer used Bigourdan's position and description in the second IC, combining it with Swift's first observation to form the entry for IC2138. Swift's observation with the wrong declination became IC2137. </object> <object><oname>IC2138</oname><oname>IC2137</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2141</oname> is a triple star close to Innes's position. The triple appears to be quite bright on the southern survey plates -- perhaps this is why ESO missed it, assuming that such a bright object could not be mistaken for a nebula. The asterism may actually have more than three stars -- the southeastern star appears to be a merged double on the DSS. This may be a digitization effect, however. Innes's description reads "Equal to 9.7m, round, 10 arcsec diameter, brighter in middle." This is probably quite accurate for the 7-inch refractor that he was using, but were I compiling the IC, I think that I would call the object "pB" rather than "F" as Dreyer did. </object> <object><oname>IC2144</oname> is just where Barnard places it. It is difficult to tell on the DSS, but it looks as though there is a star superposed. The position I've measured on DSS is for this star. Barnard notes two 12th magnitude stars nearby. One, "npp 2 arcmin" is actually a close double star, while the second star is 1 arcmin north of the galaxy, not south as Barnard claims. </object> <object><oname>IC2147</oname>. Swift published this particular nebula four different times (at least he didn't claim it as a different nebula each time; see IC5003 = IC 5029 = IC5039 = IC5046 for the story on a pair that he DID claim eight different numbers for). It is number 15 in his 6th list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain (now Mount Lowe), and is also included in his large eleventh list published in AN (collecting most of the nebulae from the 8 shorter lists previously published). Curiously, the details of the nearby star field change slightly from paper to paper. However, the major notes are clear: there are "several bright stars south-following" and "three stars north [in a] curved [line]." The "faint star north-preceding" that made it into the IC description is noted once as a "faint star near preceding." This latter comment is more nearly correct unless Swift made a transcription error: "north-preceding" for "south- preceding." In any case, Swift's detailed description of the star field (mostly left out of the IC) makes the identity clear: the correct galaxy is ESO 424-G013, 4.4 minutes of time preceding Swift's position. Lauberts first suggested this identity in ESO, but put a question mark on it. Had he seen the original lists, I suspect he would have dropped the query. </object> <object><oname>IC2154</oname><oname>NGC2139</oname>. For once, a problem with an IC object discovered by Lewis Swift is not Swift's problem. His position, already better than average for those objects found by him in 1897, was pinned down by Herbert Howe. So, the identity problem rests with NGC2139, which see. To make the longer story short, Dreyer found the trouble in WH's original records of the sweep in which N2139 was discovered. See the NGC object for a bit more. A curious footnote is Carlson's making this IC object a double star. She gives as her source a Mt. Wilson photograph. The Mt. Wilson observer (Hubble?) was confused somehow as the IC position is spot-on the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2155</oname> is probably the galaxy which Wolfgang chose, but it is over two arcmin from Stewart's nominal position. So, I've listed two other candidates. Both are fainter, however, with lower surface brightnesses, so they are less likely to be the correct object. The first alternate also has a considerably brighter star just 15 arcsec southwest of the nucleus; this might have enhanced the visibility of the galaxy on the plate, but it might also have blotted it out entirely. Stewart's original description read "cF, vS, R, susp". Dreyer made this "eF, etc." for the IC; I suspect a transcription error since he took other "considerablies" from Stewart without changing them. </object> <object><oname>IC2156</oname> may be a part of IC2157 (centered just six arcmin south), but I think it's more likely just a chance grouping of about a dozen stars. There is certainly no nebulosity involved, though Espin claims to have seen some on a photographic plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2157</oname>. See IC2156. </object> <object><oname>IC2159</oname> is a part of NGC2175 (which see). Bigourdan's long focus refractor could not show him the entire nebulosity, so he picked up only the two bright knots in it, plus a fairly star-free section of it southeast of the center. It is this southeastern portion that carries the IC number. I don't see anything special on the DSS, nor on the POSS1, which would have attracted his attention to this particular part of the nebula -- but there rests his approximate position, the same from two different nights. </object> <object><oname>IC2162</oname> = Sharpless 255 is the brighter and eastern of two very similar HII regions. Listed by Stewart Sharpless in his catalogue of HII regions (the western is No. 257), these two are among the brightest (though not the largest) HII regions in a large area of star formation in the northern reaches of Orion. Barnard apparently found the object visually (we need to look at his observing records to be sure). He sent the observation directly to Dreyer and did not publish it before the IC2 appeared. His position is about 10 seconds of time too large, but his description "vF, pL, R, * 10 inv p" is appropriate. The star "involved" is the central star -- the brightest portion of the nebula is the eastern side. </object> <object><oname>IC2167</oname><oname>IC446</oname>. The same two objects were apparently discovered twice by Barnard (the second is IC2169 = IC447, which see). In this case, there is no question about the correct object even though neither of Barnard's positions is particularly good -- it is a star immersed in diffuse nebulosity. Barnard notes this star both times around, and I've adopted its position for the table. The apparent size of the nebula is about 5 x 5 arcmin. One thing I find puzzling is that Barnard does not mention the line of stars just south of the bright central star. Perhaps they are not eye-catching enough at the eyepiece, or perhaps they are lost in nebulosity on Barnard's plates (if he in fact found the nebula photographically). Whatever happened, these stars show well on the DSS. </object> <object><oname>IC2168</oname>. The object found by Bigourdan on 1 Jan 1892 is not the same object as the one he measured on 5 March 1899. The IC position is the estimated position from the earlier observation, and is for a double star. The later position, micrometrically measured, is for an asterism of six stars (three very faint) three arcminutes from the double star. Why did Bigourdan save the earlier less precise position? His observations offer no clues. Just the opposite, in fact: the nearby IC2170 (which see), observed on the same nights, has as its IC position the later micrometric position! </object> <object><oname>IC2169</oname><oname>IC447</oname>. Neither of Barnard's positions is particularly good, though we can get close to the apparent center of his large, diffused nebulosity if we adopt his RA for IC447 and his Dec for IC2169. Even though his two positions are more than 10 arcmin apart, they clearly refer to the same object: it is big (I make it about 30 x 30 arcmin on the DSS). Barnard notes "several stars 9-10 involved"; those stars are indeed there. This and IC2167 = IC446 (which see) were not published by Barnard, but were among those objects whose positions were sent directly to Dreyer. I'm a bit surprised that one or the other of them did not catch the identities before Dreyer published the second IC. </object> <object><oname>IC2170</oname>. As with IC2168, Bigourdan's two observations refer to two different asterisms. The first observation, on 1 Jan 1892, is for a line of very faint stars just north of NGC2242 (which he measured a month and a half later on 20 Feb), while the second seems to refer to a group of three rather widely separated stars southwest of NGC2242. In contrast to IC2168 (which see), it is this second measurement which is in the IC. The "star 13.3 at PA = 250 deg, d = 0.8 armin" is actually at PA 280 deg, so the NGC description should read "* 13 npp 0.8 arcmin." The position which I measured for the three stars is two seconds of time larger than Bigourdan's, placing his measured point just north of the western-most star. It is therefore possible that Bigourdan's object is simply the one star, not all three as I've supposed. In any case, both observations are well within his diameter estimate of 30 arcsec for his object, so there is no doubt that there is no nebula here. </object> <object><oname>IC2171</oname> may be NGC2283. This matches Barnard's note of "3 sts 10 around," if not his position. But the position, especially the RA, is only crudely given in the IC. Unfortunately, this is one of the many objects apparently sent directly to Dreyer; there is no reference to it in any of Barnard's articles that Dreyer cites. So, what we see in the IC is all there is to go on. There is thus also the possibility that Barnard's object is MCG -03-18-001. This is closer to Barnard's position, but the galaxy is fainter, and the three stars are not as obvious (though the low-latitude field is rich). A more remote possibility is that the object is a flare or reflection from Sirius which has virtually the same RA as Barnard's object. But Barnard was an experienced observer, so this is very unlikely. </object> <object><oname>IC2172</oname><oname>NGC2282</oname>. There's not much to say about this. Barnard published the NGC data in AN 115, 323, 1886 (which I haven't seen), but sent the IC2 data directly to Dreyer. The positions and descriptions are not only appropriate for this HII region, but are in such close agreement with each other that I'm surprised (again; see e.g. IC2123 = IC412 and IC2124 = IC 413) that neither Barnard nor Dreyer caught the equality. </object> <object><oname>IC2173</oname> is a star. Wolfgang got the correct object, Carlson -- who equated this with NGC2291 -- did not. Bigourdan's offsets point exactly at the star. </object> <object><oname>IC2175</oname> is a double star. Bigourdan apparently made a transcription error preparing this for one of his Comptes Rendus lists: it appears there with the RA equal to "06 50 21" for the equinox 1860, while it should be "06 59 21". It appears at the correct position in his Appendix 7 of new nebulae, but has no note or correction that I've found. This number appears on UGC 03623 courtesy of CGCG which apparently saw the IC number floating in space about 10 arcmin south of the galaxy. Not knowing about Bigourdan's real error, they assumed a 10 arcmin declination error. So it goes. </object> <object><oname>IC2177</oname>. The IC position, claimed to have been taken from Isaac Roberts's short note in AN 3509, is not from that note. Roberts's position is for BD -10 1848 and the HII region surrounding it, and that is the position that I've adopted in the table. Roberts copied it correctly from the BD into his note, but the IC position points to a bit of non-descript space about 20 arcmin southeast of the HII region. There is an additional reference to this nebula in Wolf's note "Extended Nebulosities" in AN 4082, though Dreyer did not include that as a source for this object in the IC. Wolf notes that the nebula covers "many square degrees" and stretches at least from Roberts's nebula in the north on south to BD -12 1771. Wolf's description of this large star-forming region is fairly good as far as it goes. The brightest, largest nebula is indeed Roberts's, but Wolf found the 2.5-degree long S-shaped nebula to its south and east. This actually extends a bit more faintly at least another 2 degrees east from its northern end, but Wolf apparently did not photograph that portion of it. NGC2327, a small compact nebula, probably also an HII region or at least a part of one, is embedded in the sinuous nebula south of I2177. I suspect that Dreyer was somewhat influenced by Wolf's description, so decided to give it some weight, but tried to retain Roberts's data as the main source for this object. This would account for the position southeast of the center of Roberts's object. So, I've simply gone back to his data for the main position for I2177. Given that Wolf's note is pretty accurate, though, I've also included the approximate center of gravity of his much larger S-shaped nebula under same number with a directional subscript. </object> <object><oname>IC2179</oname>. Bigourdan did not often misidentify his comparison star -- but he did here. Interestingly, he (or Dreyer) caught the error before the 2nd IC was assembled -- the position given there is correct. But in Bigourdan's long series of observations, he still gives the comparison star as BD +65 562 (= SAO 14129), the same one used for his observations of NGC2347. The correct star for the IC2179 observations is BD +65 560, about 10 arcmin north- preceding the brighter star. Bigourdan also -- arguably in this case -- misidentified the nebulae, calling NGC2347 "Big. 267," and IC2179 (Big. 247) "NGC2347." This assumes the common naming convention adopted by the modern catalogues with NGC2347 being the southeastern of the two galaxies. I wonder about this, however. N2347 was found and observed only by William Herschel. No other positions entered the literature before the NGC was published. His position is not particularly good (and the GC/NGC position differs from that re-reduced from his observations as reprinted by Dreyer in 1912), and could equally well apply to IC2179; ditto his description. Though it is smaller, I2179 in fact has the same visual magnitude as NGC2347, so it actually has a higher surface brightness. Bigourdan called it the brighter of the two objects, so is this the object that WH actually saw? Lacking more evidence than that, I've retained the modern identifications for the time being, but the problem is certainly not solved to my satisfaction. See the entry under NGC2347 for more discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC2183</oname> is probably a defect on the original plate. Stewart says of it "Nebula like wisp, extends 2 arcmin in dec, 3 stars to north, suspected." The three stars are there, though there is actually a fourth there, too. However, the plate is a "short" exposure plate (just one hour rather than four), so the fourth star may simply be too faint to show up. Or it may be variable. Whatever the case, there is no nebula to the south. </object> <object><oname>IC2186</oname> is probably I2188, but Javelle's declination is 1.2 arcmin off. The RA and description fit, and it makes sense that he saw the two brightest of the three galaxies here on the two nights he went over the field. The Dec error, though, is not a whole minute, so the possibility remains that Javelle saw another object nearby. Candidates include a considerably fainter galaxy 4.5 seconds of time east and 13.5 arcsec south of Javelle's position, and a star about 40 arcsec north. Neither of these, however, matches Javelle's description, and the position errors are also not whole minutes or seconds. Finally, there is nothing at the positions implied by errors of sign in his offsets. So, I2188 is the most likely candidate, though it is not certainly Javelle's object. </object> <object><oname>IC2188</oname> is probably also IC2186, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2189</oname> is probably only a star, just as is IC2206 (which see) announced in the same papers by W. P. Fleming. Unfortunately, Fleming does not give us anything but an "approximate position" for this first nebula. There are no planetaries near either position, nor are there known novae or peculiar stars, either. Is it possible that both objects have defects superposed on their spectra, thus masquerading as planetaries? So, until we can examine the objective prism plate(s) taken with the 8-inch Draper telescope at Harvard, we'll not be sure just which star I2189 is. There are at least half a dozen candidates near the position, none of them in any way outstanding. Wolfgang chooses one, but others nearby stand just as good a chance of being the "correct" object. </object> <object><oname>IC2192</oname> is the faintest of three galaxies (the others are IC2194 and IC2196) picked up by Javelle from a group of at least six south of Castor. His position is good and unambiguously identifies the galaxy he saw. In addition, his description includes a note about a "star 14 nearly in contact." Dreyer questioned in IC2193's description whether it might be identical to this object. I don't think so. See I2193 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2193</oname> is the first of five galaxies from among a group south of Castor first seen by Barnard in May of 1888. Barnard's positions, unfortunately, are not very good, though he claims to have "carefully corrected" his telescope on Castor. His descriptions are also meager; this one merely reads, "Close p 10m star." So, Dreyer questioned whether this object might be identical to IC2192, one of Javelle's three galaxies from the group. I don't think so, even though this galaxy is much brighter and I was initially surprised that Javelle missed it. After a few seconds examining his table, however, it's clear that his sweep took him through the middle of the group, so he saw neither the northern-most nor southern-most galaxies of the group. In any event, there is a star just northeast of the galaxy. I don't think it is close to 10th magnitude, but Barnard found this with a 12-inch refractor. So, it was probably easy to overestimate the brightness of a star near a fainter galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2194</oname>. See IC2192. </object> <object><oname>IC2195</oname> is almost certainly a plate defect. Stewart describes it as "cB, S, R, bM, susp". This would make it a fairly easy galaxy that JH probably would have picked up. Since there is no trace of the object on the sky, its identity as a defect is pretty certain. This can be checked, of course, as long as the Harvard plate (or a digitized scan of it) is still in existence. </object> <object><oname>IC2196</oname>. See IC2192 and IC2197. </object> <object><oname>IC2197</oname>. I'm not quite convinced that this is Barnard's object -- it is very faint, and is closely flanked by two brighter stars -- but there is nothing else in the area that matches both his position (the declination is the same as IC2196's in his list) and his description. The fainter of the two stars is superposed on the northwestern side of the galaxy, though. Perhaps it enhanced Barnard's view of it. </object> <object><oname>IC2199</oname> is the last of the galaxies in a group south of Castor found by Barnard in 1888. Though Barnard's declination is nearly 4 arcmin too far north, there is no other galaxy nearby that he could have seen. And his declinations for the other four galaxies are also south of the real positions, so the identity is virtually certain. See IC2192, 2193, and 2197 for more about the group. The final two members, I2194 and I2196 were seen by both Javelle and Barnard. </object> <object><oname>IC2206</oname> is CD -34 3878. Even though Fleming describes the star as "Bright lines, Gas. Neb.", SIMBAD has no notes about peculiarities of any kind. In particular, no spectrum is given and no emission features are noted. The details are given in two articles published by Fleming, one in AN 138, 175, 1895 (which I have not seen), the other in ApJ 1, 411, 1895. There, in addition to the description, the magnitude is given as 9.5, and the star is identified as "Z.C. 7h 2999". This must point to an entry in one of the Harvard "zone catalogues". Finally, even though Fleming's initials are given in HA 60 as "W.P.", all the other published articles carry a single initial "M.", perhaps "Miss" or "Mrs."? Clearly another IC Mystery. </object> <object><oname>IC2208</oname>. Javelle's offsets are accurate, and he made no reduction errors. However, his (and IC's) position is too large by 20 seconds of time -- the BD position of his comparison star is off by that much, perhaps because of a typo. </object> <object><oname>IC2210</oname> is a double star, pinned down by Bigourdan's single micrometric observation. See the discussion under NGC2469 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2215</oname> is another of Bigourdan's illusory objects. There is nothing in his position, though two stars are within 30 arcsec. Perhaps these were enough to suggest the faint "cluster" to him. He used the same comparison star for this as he did for NGC2498. His position for his "nova" is almost exactly on a line between the comparison star and the NGC galaxy. So, whatever he thought he saw, it was clearly in his view for some time. Because of this, I do not think that he misidentified his comparison star. Nor is there any trace of a cluster at the other places around the star if he had made a sign error in one or another of his offsets. So, unless there is an error that I haven't yet found in his reductions (see IC2216 for just such an error), this object must have been an illusion (or a comet, but Bigourdan's description pretty much rules that out). </object> <object><oname>IC2216</oname> is a double star. Curiously, Bigourdan's reduced position fell nearly 2 seconds of time east of the star. I finally noticed, though, that his column headed "Delta RA/sec Dec" was, for this object, considerably different from his "Delta RA" column on the following page. Instead of dividing by the secant of I2116's declination, he seems to have divided by the secant of the declination of the next object in the list, NGC2xxx at +53 degrees. Thus, instead of the correct Delta RA of +3.84 seconds (a mean of four micrometer readings), he has +6.51 seconds in his table. Once this change is made, his RA ends up exactly on the double star, and all doubt as to the identity of I2216 vanishes. It was pretty clear in any case, as Bigourdan notes a triangle of stars 1.3 arcmin in PA = 40 degrees from his "nova" -- that triangle is just where he put it. </object> <object><oname>IC2221</oname> <oname>IC2222</oname> are faint galaxies. The GSC has IC2221 at 08 01 50.18, +37 35 36.3, just 3 arcsec south of Javelle's position. He measured I2222 on two nights -- in the mean, his position is close to GSC's: 08 01 56.99, +37 36 56.1. Again, the main difference is in declination; this time, Javelle is about 7 arcsec north. </object> <object><oname>IC2222</oname>. See IC2221. </object> <object><oname>IC2223</oname> may be IC2224. Glen Deen has suggested that these two numbers refer to the same galaxy. They may indeed apply to the same object, but we probably won't know until Javelle's observing records can be examined. Here's why. Javelle found these on different nights (I2223: 10 Feb 1896; I2224: 28 Feb 1900), but claimed to have refered them to the same star. His positions are 4 sec of time, and 8 arcsec different -- the 4 sec is significant, the 8 arcsec is not. In addition, his descriptions of the two are different enough to make me cautious about accepting the identity outright. The galaxy is 13 arcsec southeast of Javelle's position for I2224, a bit larger error than we usually find for his observations. There is a faint star superposed just northeast of the galaxy, and it is likely that he saw the whole thing as one image. There is nothing at all in Javelle's (IC) position for I2223. It would be unusual for Javelle to have made an accidental slip of 4 seconds of time. However, he did find the two objects on two different nights, and there is certainly a blunder somewhere. So, it is indeed possible that his measurements refer to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2224</oname> may also be IC2223, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2225</oname>. The CGCG identification of this number with CGCG 178-026 is almost certainly correct. Javelle's position is exactly 1 minute of time out in RA, and his declination (once the proper motion of his comparison star is taken into account) is less than 9 arcsec off, well within the statistical errors in his measurements. Glen Deen suggested that the bright, wide triple star northeast of Javelle's position might be I2225. I don't think that this is correct since Javelle was using a 30-inch refractor, and certainly not mistake a bright asterism for a 14th magnitude nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC2227</oname> = CGCG 178-028. There is nothing at all at Javelle's nominal position (08 04 06.4, +36 10 28; 1950.0; re-reduced using the SAO position for his nominal reference star). However, Malcolm Thomson found that if we suppose that Javelle's comparison star was actually BD +36 1746, then CGCG 178-028 is exactly at his offsets from that star. This is convincing evidence that Javelle simply misidentified his comparison star. </object> <object><oname>IC2228</oname> is the middle of 3 stars, or perhaps all three. Bigourdan's three observations point exactly to the middle one, and he correctly describes the distances and position angles of two brighter double stars which are nearby. He also gives separations and position angles for the doubles. CGCG has suggested that CGCG 031-048 is I2228. However, that galaxy is quite faint, and also has one component of one of Bigourdan's double stars superposed. Had he seen that galaxy, he would have noted the double as being involved in nebulosity. He has no such note. </object> <object><oname>IC2229</oname><oname>IC496</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2232</oname><oname>NGC2543</oname> (which see). Glen Deen suggested that I2232 might be the faint galaxy 3 arcmin south, but this consistent with neither Javelle's position (which is good), nor his description (which agrees with the Herschel's descriptions for N2543). </object> <object><oname>IC2235</oname> is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions on other plates have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2236</oname> is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions on other plates have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2237</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang independently caught this one, too. I had earlier suggested that it might be a simple defect, but the star is well within Wolf's statistical errors of being at his position. My thanks to both Malcolm (via an email note) and Wolfgang (via his position list) for pointing this out. </object> <object><oname>IC2238</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2240</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2241</oname> is a merged double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2242</oname> is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2243</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2244</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2245</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2246</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC2237 for more. The pretty wide double star that I suggested earlier is well north at 08 13 03.8, +24 00 53 (B1950). </object> <object><oname>IC2247</oname>. The IC north polar distance is off by one degree, but that in Wolf's original list is correct. </object> <object><oname>IC2251</oname> is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2252</oname> is a star. I found this one using DSS. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2255</oname> is a double star close to Wolf's position, not the galaxy suggested by Wolfgang. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2257</oname> is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2258</oname> is almost certainly the star that I've included in the table, perhaps with a plate defect mixed in. The agreement with Wolf's position is excellent. Still, there is always the possibility that it may be Wolfgang's double star -- Wolf includes the note "biN" (bi-nuclear) in his description, so we can't dismiss this idea. Still, as I've said above, and will say again below, Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt in my mind of the identity. See IC2262 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2259</oname> is probably the star I've included in the table. But its position is ten arcsec north of Wolf's -- is there an digit error in his position? I've not seen a print of the original plate; see IC2262 for more about that. </object> <object><oname>IC2260</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2261</oname> is a wide double star. Wolf's PA for his nebula (45 deg) and his offsets to a nearby bright star (4.2 seconds of time following and 10 arcsec south) are about right even though his position is 8-9 arcsec off the mean for the two stars. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found. See IC 2262 for more on that plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2262</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. Of the 154 nebulae found by Max Wolf on three plates taken with the 16-inch Bruce reflector at Heidelberg early in 1901, only a few are real galaxies. I have compared a print of one of the plates (B.137), kindly sent to Wayne Johnson by G. Klare of Heidelberg Observatory, with the POSS1 prints covering the field. The objects included in Wolf's list are marked on the plate, presumeably by Wolf himself. These leave no doubt that most of the objects are faint stars or, sometimes, multiple stars, occasionally involving plate defects. This was the first such paper published by Wolf. Later papers seem to have a somewhat smaller -- but still large -- percentage of non-nebular entries. These are discussed as needed in these notes. Most of the objects are right at the plate limit. Wolf was clearly pushing beyond certainty in his classification of these faint objects. Fortunately, his positions, once corrected for a small systematic error (they tend to be northeast of the true place by about 2-3 arcsec, at least for this first paper), are very good (mean errors around 2-3 arcsec) so that -- even in the absence of the photographs -- there is no way to misidentify the objects he saw as nebulous (aside from typographical errors in his tables, of course; IC 2350 is one such error). Very few of the objects are "Not found." Those marked on the plate that I can positively identify that are also not present on POSS1 are either photographic defects or -- in a few cases -- possible asteroid trails. Wolf's positions are used in the main table, supplemented by my own, by Wolfgang's, or by GSC's when I've had them handy. All the stars and multiple stars are identified there, as are the "Not found's." I won't go through a big "story" for these objects unless one happens to be a previously known nebula that Wolf missed identifying for some reason (e.g. NGC2643 = IC2390; see N2643 for the short discussion); or unless I have a special reason to do so. Aside from noting the identities, and possible errors in the NGC position, there just isn't a whole lot to be said about all these stars! Curiously, Wolf also missed a few real galaxies on the plate, too -- CGCG 089-027 is one such galaxy. It's image is indeed present on the plate -- if one knows in advance that it is there -- but is of low enough surface brightness that Wolf most likely overlooked it as a random variation in plate grain. By the way, it has helped considerably to use DSS to examine Wolf's positions. There is almost always a faint object within a couple of standard deviations of Wolf's position. Even so, his descriptions make clear that there must have been plate defects -- or plate grain clumps -- involved, too. </object> <object><oname>IC2263</oname> is a star. I found this one using DSS. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2264</oname> is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2265</oname> is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2266</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2270</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2272</oname> is a pair of stars, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's nearby star is at 08 15 11.44, +18 53 26.7 (B1950.0), though there is of course no nebula connecting the stars. There may, however, be a whisp of a plate defect there. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2273</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2274</oname> is a triple star, verified on a print of the original plate. On DSS, this is a merged blob. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2275</oname> is a star with a very faint galaxy attached, verified on a print of the original plate. The galaxy is not well-seen on DSS. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2276</oname> is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2277</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2278</oname> is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2279</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2280</oname> is a star with a superposed defect, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2281</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2282</oname> is a galaxy (huzzah! At last!). It is closely followed, and a bit to the south by a faint star (= IC2283, which see), then a much brighter star which was Javelle's comparison star. Reducing his position makes it clear that he did in fact see IC2282, and not IC2283 as Dreyer supposed. So, his number (J. 1033) and his comment "* 9 f 4.6 sec, 35 arcsec s", have to be moved to I2282. </object> <object><oname>IC2283</oname> is a star close southeast of IC2282, which see. This is not Javelle's object; that is IC2282. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2284</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2285</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. There are three other stars nearby that may have contributed to the image on Wolf's plate. I've measured positions for them, too. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2286</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2287</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2289</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate (see IC2262). There is a 2 arcmin error in the IC north polar distance, but Wolf's NPD is correct. </object> <object><oname>IC2291</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2292</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2294</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2295</oname> is most likely a star, verified on a print of the original plate (see IC2262). However, that star is the northeastern of a wide double. It's just possible that Wolf's object is the double with a plate defect involved. </object> <object><oname>IC2296</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2297</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2298</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2299</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's position angle, 160 degrees, is correct. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2300</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2301</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2302</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2303</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2304</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2305</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2306</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2307</oname> is in GSC at 08 17 49.7, +19 35 58 (B1950.0). Wolf's position is 08 17 51.1, +19 36 00; about 12 arcsec off in RA, but part of this may be systematic. Also, Wolf's position angle is "360," 18 degrees off from that measured by Glen Deen (which is correct). There is no obvious defect involved with the galaxy on the print of the original plate, but grain clumping may have been responsible for part of its appearance. </object> <object><oname>IC2308</oname> is an interacting triple galaxy, but the images are merged on Wolf's plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2310</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2312</oname> is a pair of galaxies, closely flanked by two stars, all of the images pretty much aligned north to south, though the brightest star follows by just over a second of time. All of these are blended together into one image on Wolf's plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2313</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2314</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. The two stars are of roughly equal brightness. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2315</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2316</oname> is probably the double star near Wolf's position, though that falls very close to the southeastern of the stars. I've verified that the object is on a print of the original plate, but the resolution is not good enough to tell if both stars are involved. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2317</oname>. Glen Deen has suggested (in correspondence) that this is a double star south of Wolf's position. This is unlikely as Wolf's position for the object is within 3 arcsec of a star. Wolf's description also supports the notion that it is a single star: "vS, F, dif, vF stell N." When an object is clearly elongated (as is NGC2572, for example, for which Wolf notes "S, pB, l 155, dif, 2 zones, * 13 s att"), Wolf gives the position angle ("l = 155" in the case of N2572). His position and description pin down the star in this case as at least the nucleus of the "nebula" which he thought he saw. Examination of a print of the original plate, marked by Wolf, makes the identity with the star certain. The "dif[fuse]" notation is due to random grain clumping around the star. </object> <object><oname>IC2318</oname>. Wolf's position falls between two stars, but is nearer the preceding of the pair, which is indeed the one marked on his original plate. See IC 2262 for more information about that original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2319</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2320</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2321</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2322</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2323</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2324</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. There is another star about 30 arcsec northwest which may be involved with the image on Wolf's plate. His description reads, "S, pF, l [PA] 155, nw, several N' -- s measured." See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2325</oname> is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. The "F * att f" mentioned in Wolf's description does exist, however; I've given a position for it in the table where I call it "I2325 nearby *e". See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2326</oname> includes a star, probably involved with plate defects, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf notes that it is extended east-west, and that it has "several N'". Unlike IC2324, he does not tell us which of his small nuclei he measured. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2328</oname> is a defect or an asteroid trail, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. The image is a bit elongated, and given that the ecliptic passes through the plate, this might be an asteroid trail. The nearest star is nearly an arcmin northeast. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2329</oname> = UGC 04365 is a fairly large Sd sp with two faint stars superposed southeast of the galaxy's nucleus. Wolf's plate shows these stars as the apparent nucleus, however, and it was this that he measured. Thus, his position is about 15 arcsec off in RA. </object> <object><oname>IC2330</oname> is a defect (or, possibly, an asteroid trail) superposed on a star, verified on a print of the original plate. The brighter part of image is a bit elongated, and given that the ecliptic passes through the plate, the "defect" may be an asteroid trail. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2331</oname> is a close double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2332</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2333</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2334</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2335</oname> is a galaxy with a star superposed, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf calls this "binuclear;" one nucleus belongs to the galaxy, the other is the star. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2336</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. It is just northwest of IC2337 which is often mistakenly called I2336. See IC2262 for more about the plates Wolf examined for his first list of photographically- discovered nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC2337</oname> is often mistakenly called "IC2336". The smaller number refers to a star just to the northwest of I2337. Both are easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate taken with the 16-inch Bruce refractor at Heidelberg. </object> <object><oname>IC2342</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2343</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2344</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2345</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2346</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "2d v nr sf" either refers to a defect, or should read "sp" as there is another star of about the same brightness about 15 arcsec to the southwest. See IC2262 for more about his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2347</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2349</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2350</oname> is not marked on the original plate at its listed position (which is copied correctly from Wolf's first list). There is a star marked at 08 21 08.1, +19 49 35 (B1950.0), however. Wolf's description mentions a "B * s". The marked star has a 13th magnitude neighbor about 10 arcsec east. Given the difference in position, and the discrepancy in magnitudes, I'm not inclined to take the marked star as IC2350. But there is no other object in the area that fits the description, and the marked star is not otherwise listed by Wolf. However, I'm not unhappy leaving this as simply "Not found." </object> <object><oname>IC2351</oname> is a star about 25 arcsec southwest of the nucleus of NGC2581, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2352</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2353</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2354</oname> is a double star, with the individual images nearly merged on the DSS. I've verified it on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2355</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2356</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2357</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2358</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2359</oname><oname>NGC2582</oname>. Dreyer has included this as a "new" nebula in IC2, even though Wolf clearly and correctly marks it as "NGC2582" in his first list. Also, Dreyer correctly calls the object "W.I.121" in IC2, so its inclusion there must be a simple oversight on Dreyer's part. </object> <object><oname>IC2360</oname> is a star, clearly marked on a print of the original plate, 3.5 arcmin north of its listed position. The error occurs in Wolf's list, and was copied into the IC by Dreyer. I do not know the source of the error, but it may result from a digit error in Wolf's measurement or reduction process -- or it may simply be a mistake. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2361</oname>. See IC2365. </object> <object><oname>IC2362</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2364</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2365</oname> is probably IC2366. The galaxy is actually IC2366, not IC2365 as it is usually called. I2366 and I2361 were measured by Javelle on the same two nights (22 Apr 1897 and 26 Feb 1900), and were referred to the same star, BD +28 1602. Their positions, as measured by him, reduce to within a couple of arcseconds of the modern positions for the galaxies. He found I2365, however, on another night, 11 Feb 1896. Supposedly referred to the same BD star, his reduced position for this object falls exactly 2.5 arcmin north of the galaxy in an empty bit of sky. My guess, before I checked the POSS1 prints, was that Javelle misidentified his comparison star on that night, and that there might be another star/galaxy pair nearby which he actually measured. Well, there isn't. I searched the POSS1 for this and found nothing within several degrees of Javelle's nominal position. So, my best guess is that IC2365 is identical to IC2366, but with a 2.5 arcmin measuring or reduction error. </object> <object><oname>IC2366</oname> is probably also IC2365, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2368</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2369</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. On POSS1, there is a very faint galaxy involved with the star, but there is no trace of the galaxy on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2370</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2371</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2372</oname> is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2374</oname> <oname>IC2376</oname>. The CGCG identifications for these two galaxies are wrong. Here's the story: Here is a table comparing Javelle's original positions with those in CGCG and GSC for the four galaxies that he (J) found in the cluster: Javelle GSC CGCG Galaxy RA (1950.0) Dec RA (1950.0) Dec RA(1950) Dec Type I2374 082516.2 +303635 (082516.9 +303635 ) 0825.2 +3037 SB(s)bc II? I2376 082520.7 +303421 082520.87 +303426.4 0825.3 +3035 E3: (SW comp) I2378 082525.9 +303549 082526.37 +303552.0 0825.4 +3036 SA0^o I2380 082538.5 +303412 082538.67 +303416.4 0825.6 +3035 Sa: I re-reduced J's positions from his offsets from his comparison star BD +30 1715 using the position from the GSC (08 26 22.38, +30 32 59.5, 1950.0) rather than the BD position which J himself used. This means that the positions in my table will not be quite the same as the NGC positions. GSC, unfortunately, does not include I2374, so the position in parentheses for it is my own, measured by offsetting from I2378 (the GSC positions are good to about an arcsec, my offset position is good to about 2-3 arcsec). Javelle, by the way, has two measurements of each of these galaxies; I used a simple mean. Examination of the table shows that J's positions so reduced are systematically offset in both RA and Dec by a few arcsec. However, they are more than good enough to unambiguously identify the CGCG galaxies. In addition, J's descriptions match what we see on the POSS, with one exception: I2374 "... near star 11.5". There is no bright star near it. Was this perhaps an asteroid? (A supernova in galaxies this distant would have been around V = 17 or fainter, so can be confidently ruled out as a possibility.) J does mention, however, the star just southeast of I2376 (this star is also in GSC). </object> <object><oname>IC2376</oname>. See IC2374. </object> <object><oname>IC2378</oname>. See IC2374. </object> <object><oname>IC2380</oname>. See IC2374. </object> <object><oname>IC2381</oname> is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2386</oname>. This is a star. Bigourdan found it while examining the field of NGC 2623 on 13 March 1899. His two measurements are in agreement to within 10 arcsec, and point very closely to the star. In addition, his estimated offset to the brighter double star 3 arcmin to the north is exact, as is his position angle and separation for the double itself. </object> <object><oname>IC2390</oname><oname>NGC2643</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2391</oname>. There is certainly a cluster here, and it was certainly found by Solon I. Bailey during his survey of the sky on Harvard Patrol Camera plates. However, it is still not clear, without delving into the professional literature, just which stars belong to the cluster, and which are in the field around it. Bailey made the cluster only 15 arcmin across and centered it on Omicron Velorum. Brian Skiff and AH make it 60 arcmin across and still center it on the star, though on the DSS and the IIIaJ film, this larger cluster is clearly centered about 30 seconds of time to the east and 10 arcmin to the south (I call this "IC2391 all" in the table). I put Bailey's 15 arcmin core about 10 seconds west and 2.5 arcmin south of Omicron. For now, you have your choice. I'll do some digging someday and report here just which stars are cluster members and which are not. In the meantime, AH have a fascinating Note relating this cluster's part in an all-sky stellar association. </object> <object><oname>IC2396</oname> is a faint star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so the identity is almost certain. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2397</oname> is a double star, one of which is quite faint. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so the identity is almost certain. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2399</oname> is probably a defect on Wolf's plate. However, I have not seen a print of that plate, so can not be certain about this. In particular, there is an otherwise uncatalogued galaxy just 1 minute of time following Wolf's position, and about 13 arcsec south. This may be Wolf's object, so I mention it as a possibility. </object> <object><oname>IC2408</oname> is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2410</oname><oname>NGC2667</oname>. Wolf did not include the NGC identity in his list, and the position is far enough off that Dreyer did not catch it either. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2412</oname> is a star. Wolf notes a "* 14 np"; the star is there, so even though I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, I'm confident of the identity. See IC2262 for information on a print of one of Wolf's plates that I have seen. </object> <object><oname>IC2413</oname> is a double star. Wolf's position is about 10 arcsec to the southeast, so there may well be a defect involved with the double on his plate. I've not seen that plate, so this identification is not as secure as many others in his first list. </object> <object><oname>IC2415</oname> is a star. It has a faint companion star near to the south-southeast that may have added some to the nebular appearance on Wolf's plate. I've not seen the plate, nor a print of it, but Wolf's position is close to the star, so I'm fairly confident of the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC2416</oname> is a star. Curiously, GSC has classified this a "non-stellar" object, though it is clearly a star on both red and blue POSS1 prints. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2417</oname> is a star. Since it is about 5-6 arcsec to the west of Wolf's position, I speculated earlier that Wolf's object might be the galaxy which is about 10 arcmin to the north. But the offset is not exactly 10 arcmin as we would expect if Wolf's position were a typo. So it is most likely that his object is the much nearer star. Unfortunately, I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but because Wolf's positions have proved to be very good overall, I'm pretty confident in the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC2419</oname> is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC2262. </object> <object><oname>IC2424</oname><oname>NGC2704</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2425</oname> is a star about 5 arcmin southwest of NGC2708 = NGC2727. Bigourdan has only one observation of it and he was not very certain about the object. His description reads, "Mag. 13.5 object, sporadically seen, which could be nebulous; but I cannot pronounce on it with certainty." His position is 11 arcsec west of the star -- I wonder if he also vaguely saw the two stars on further west (the 1950 positions are 08 53 16.35, -03 13 49.0 and 08 53 16.44, -03 14 04.8). If so, these might have thrown his measurement off a bit. </object> <object><oname>IC2436</oname> is a double star at Stewart's position about 6 arcmin northwest of IC2437 which he also found on the same plate. Though he marked both "susp", both do in fact exist -- he simply did not have another plate on which he could confirm them. I examined this field while putting together ESGC. When I did that, I somehow thought that this object was a triple star, so that is how it appeared in the position file for some time. Looking at it again in a DSS image, I see that it is indeed a double star, so I have reclassified it. The position is the same either way. </object> <object><oname>IC2437</oname>. See IC2436. </object> <object><oname>IC2438</oname> is an asterism of six stars found by Bigourdan in February 1894, and dug out again by him nine years later. It is remarkable among his "novae" in that the position comes only from a setting circle reading. I have not seen this before in his lists. There is another minor mystery here, too. The position he published in CR in 1896 (copied correctly into the IC) is different than that published later in his big tables. Since the CR position (RA = 08 59 28, NPD = 16 00) is for 1860, and his later position (RA = 09 04 25, Dec = +73 51) for 1900, perhaps he made a mistake in precessing it back to 1860. Whatever happened, the asterism is unmistakeably clear on the sky, with the actual position being between his two published ones. There is, by the way, a seventh star about an arcminute south of the six that Bigourdan noted; I apparently included that in my earlier position (HCos). My later position (from DSS) is for the six stars that Bigourdan included in his description: "Small cluster formed of 5-6 stars of magnitude 12.8 and fainter, within a circle of about 1.5 arcmin in diameter." </object> <object><oname>IC2440</oname> is a star. Bigourdan's position is very good (within about four arcsec), even though he makes us work hard for it. His first observation, from 3 Feb 1894, has only a position angle given, so he is unable to work out the RA and Dec offsets (he has no note explaining the missing distance; did the weather turn bad?). He gives only a position for his comparison star without noting its source. That's OK, since we can't use it, anyway. His description, by the way, reads "Almost completely stellar object, which however is a little less sharp than stars of the same magnitude." On 28 Feb 1903, he actually has a complete measurement, position angle and distance, from which he calculated the offsets. However, he does not give a position for his comparison star aside from its offsets, in the description column, from a BD star. Working through these offsets, it turns out to be the same star he used in 1894. And on this night, his description takes on a bit of a querelous tone: "A star of magnitude 13.3 around which I cannot, with any certainty, see nebulosity." And, after all of that, his "nova" is a star. (Wolfgang, in his first list, chose the wrong one.) </object> <object><oname>IC2446</oname> probably also carries the number IC2447, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2447</oname> is probably Javelle's third observation of IC2446 with some mistake in the declination. He has two observations of I2446 (on 8 April 1896 and 26 March 1900) which clearly point to the galaxy. His RA from those two nights is identical to that for I2447, which he observed on only one other night, 8 Jan 1900. He claims to have used the same star for comparison. (I checked the obvious mistakes he could have made: sign errors and incorrectly identified comparison star -- nothing in the area matches.) The difference in declination is 12 arcmin 38.2 arcsec. Perhaps this points to a reading or reduction error, but I do not now know what it might be. I have in mind a unit multiple of his eyepiece scale, or of his micrometer dial's rotation -- something like that. Perhaps we can find the answer in other papers in the Nice Observatory's Publications. </object> <object><oname>IC2449</oname>. Javelle has the wrong sign on his RA offset. When it is changed to "-", his position falls exactly on the galaxy we call "NGC2783B". For those who don't like the NGC suffixed names, we also know it as UGC 04856, Hickson 037b, CGCG 151-026, and MCG +05-22-017. The obvious clue here is Javelle's footnote, "I [also] measured NGC2783." </object> <object><oname>IC2450</oname>. Here is another wrong sign on one of Javelle's RA's. Once it is corrected, his position lands right on UGC 04902 = Markarian 1230. </object> <object><oname>IC2455</oname> probably = NGC2804. This is one of two objects that Javelle found in the NGC2809 group on 9 April 1896 (the other is IC2457 for which there is no question of identity). There is nothing at Javelle's offset (+0 min 45.60 sec, +2 min 36.7 sec ) from his comparison star (BD +20 2293 = SAO 080729). There is a faint star about 30 arcsec southeast, but this is well outside of Javelle's mean error circle (about 8-10 arcsec). However, NGC2804 is exactly 5 arcmin north of Javelle's position. If we assume that his offset should read +7 min 36.7 sec, then N2804 falls with 5 arcsec of Javelle's position. Furthermore, Javelle's description ("F, nearly R, gBM, r; N = 13-13.5") fits N2804 quite well. On the other hand, Javelle, in a footnote to his observation of I2457, says that he also saw NGC2804, 2806, 2807, and 2809. This would argue against the I2455 = N2804 hypothesis. However, there are a few other cases of similar footnotes in his lists where the identity with the NGC object is solid. This may be another of those cases. For the time being, then, I'm going to set I2455 identical to N2804. </object> <object><oname>IC2456</oname>. Here is an interesting case where Javelle may have used two comparison stars, almost certainly by mistake, for measuring one galaxy. The brighter star is his nominal one, BD +35 1972, but there is a companion star of almost the same brightness about 8.5 seconds preceding and 1' 20" south. He would also have had to make another mistake in the sign of his declination offset, but bear with me for another paragraph. If Javelle used the BD star for his declination measurement (and made the sign error), and the companion star for his RA measurement, then his reduced position falls within five arcsec of NPM1G +34.0149. The galaxy is bright enough that he could have seen it, and he did sweep over the area on the night in question (25 April 1903; see IC2459), so I'm listing the Lick galaxy as a possible match given the near-coincidence of the positions -- after assuming these two errors. His description is not a very good match, though: "F" and "S" are all right, but "dif" and "r" are not. Still, I've seen this kind of thing on other of his galaxies, so these two mismatches are not the deal-killers that they first appear. Also, Javelle has many other mistakes in his published observations in this part of his table (see e.g. IC2447, IC2449, IC2450, IC2455), so I am not surprised that this object, too, might have mistakes. All in all, this makes at least a half-baked case for the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2457</oname>. See IC2455. </object> <object><oname>IC2459</oname>. Javelle says that this object is right at the limit of visibility in his 30-inch refractor. The galaxy is indeed very faint (around 17th magnitude), but his measured position falls within 4-5 arcsec of the nucleus, and his description is accurate. We'll take it. </object> <object><oname>IC2460</oname><oname>NGC2827</oname> (which see for more about the N2832 group in Abell 779). Though claimed "not found" by Carlson, this galaxy is just 1.5 arcmin north of the IC place -- the BD declination of Javelle's comparison star (BD +34 1976) is a bit off. Re-reducing J's observation puts the position within 10 arcsec of the nucleus. The only puzzle is J's note "... allongee suivant le mouvement diurne ...." This clearly makes the object flattened in declination, while the true position angle is close to zero. Did Javelle simply get confused, or did he make some other error and really observe another galaxy in the cluster? </object> <object><oname>IC2465</oname>. Somehow, LEDA has made a 2 degree error in the position of this galaxy. The right galaxy is just where the IC-- and Javelle -- puts it, but LEDA has picked up an object 2 degrees south. They are wrong, of course. </object> <object><oname>IC2469</oname> is one of the largest and brightest galaxies that Swift found. I'm surprised that neither JH nor Shapley-Ames picked it up. In any event, Swift found it in December of 1897 near the end of his observing career. Unfortunately, his RA is 37 seconds too small (in the AJ version of his sixth list, he has the declination as "-22" instead of the correct "-32" which appears in PA, MNRAS, and AN). The identity with the IC number is, however, clinched by Swift's note of the superposed star just to the southwest of the central bulge. Unfortunately, too, it is in one of the low Galactic latitude fields that were skipped by ESO-LV, so its optical parameters remain poorly known. </object> <object><oname>IC2470</oname>. Javelle's calculations are correct, and the data on page D42 of Volume XI of the Nice Annals are also correct in every detail. However, the declination on page D18 is out by exactly 20 degrees. While we can't prove that this is a typo without reference to Javelle's original papers, it seems likely that it is a simple replacement by the typesetter of a "6" by an "8" on page D18. Once that change is made, the correct galaxy falls right into our tables. </object> <object><oname>IC2477</oname>. Javelle's nominal RA is 18 seconds less than that of the galaxy that is probably his object. His declination and description are just right for the galaxy, but he has made some error in his measurement or reduction of his RA. At least that's the hypothesis. There is no other candidate in the area, but I've still marked the identity with a colon. </object> <object><oname>IC2484</oname> is lost. Swift calls this "pB, S, R; 7 m * nf, D * p". The description is identical in the three different journals where it was published. It was the only nebula he found the night of 22 Jan 1898. During my SGC work, I noted that this may be a triple star. Now (Dec 2002), however, I cannot find a triple near the nominal place that might have caught my eye twenty years ago. I've also searched the southern sky survey films near the obvious places where the object might be: 10 minutes east and west, an hour east and west, and north along Swift's nominal RA. Since this is one of the southern-most of the nebulae that Swift claims to have seen, I've only checked southwards on the sky survey plate carrying the nominal position. Perhaps there is a double error in his position: 10 minutes in RA and 10 degrees in Dec, for example. I'll leave these possibilities for others to explore. </object> <object><oname>IC2485</oname> is probably a defect. Stewart describes it as "eF, vS, R, like several sts inv in neb, susp." There is nothing at his position that matches this unless the defect appears around one of the several asterisms of double or triple stars in the area. In my SGC workbook, I noted "No neb, but cl?" The cluster, however, is large, at least 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin, and is composed of stars that are fairly bright (10th to 12th magnitude). This is clearly not Stewart's object. Once again, an examination of the original Harvard plate (4240) is called for. This is a one-hour plate; the only other object that Stewart found on it is IC2492, which see for a story of its own. </object> <object><oname>IC2489</oname> is probably lost; there is nothing at Barnard's position. This is another of his unpublished objects, appearing only in IC2, so we have just the IC position (given in the table) and the description ("pF, R") to go on. I see only two possibilities on the POSS1: MCG -01-25-002 and MCG -01-25-034. The second galaxy matches the meager description better, but it is 12m 24s east of Barnard's position -- this seems a bit of a long shot to me. The first galaxy does somewhat better at only 1 minute 35 seconds east and 9.6 arcmin north (perhaps within observational error of being 1 min 30 sec and 10 arcmin). However, it is clearly elongated and has several stars nearby, as well as a couple of other fainter galaxies. While the position is off by nearly the sort of "integer" numbers I like, the description doesn't fit well. So, I've put neither into the table. Perhaps we should look for 10-degree or 1-hour errors. In the meantime, then, another "lost" nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC2492</oname>, like IC2485 (which see; it is the only other object that Stewart found on one-hour Arequipa Bruce plate 4240) may be a defect. Stewart's description reads, "cF, vS, R, B * 1' np, susp." In this case, however, there is a faint galaxy about 2.5 arcmin northeast of Stewart's nominal position. This is usually taken as IC2492 even though it is obviously elongated, not round as Stewart describes his object. But Stewart's "bright" star is not where he claims it to be. There is a relatively faint star about an arcmin northeast of the galaxy, but I do not think that this is Stewart's star. It seems more likely to me that either Stewart made an error in measuring the object's position, or that both it and the "star" are defects. So, I'm clearly not convinced that the galaxy is the one that Stewart saw. And I'd just as clearly like to see the Harvard plate. In the meantime, I'm leaving a question mark on the IC number. </object> <object><oname>IC2494</oname><oname>NGC2947</oname><oname>IC547</oname> is the only object to have entries in all three of Dreyer's catalogues -- at least that I know about in May of 2003. See IC547 for the (short) stories. </object> <object><oname>IC2502</oname> <oname>IC2503</oname> are lost. The problem is Javelle's comparison star. He claims it is "BD +33 2042" with a magnitude of "6.5" at "09 34 16.1, 56 17.3" (1860.0 with north polar distance rather than declination; this becomes 09 33 58.0, +33 44.1 for 1855.0). The problem is that that BD star is at 10 42 33.2, +33 40.0 (1855) and has a magnitude of 9.5. It happens that the BD star closest to Javelle's position has a magnitude of 6.5, but it is +33 1898 at 09 33 55.1, +33 39.9 (also 1855), not a good match. In addition, there are no nebulae at Javelle's offsets from the star, nor at any of the obvious positions derived from sign errors in the offsets. Nor is there a pair of galaxies in the area that Javelle could have seen that shares the offsets from a fairly bright comparison star. There is also no pair at the offsets from BD +33 2042 (which has a magnitude of 13.3 in GSC; did it flare at the time of the BD observation, or was it picked up to distinguish it from the north-following BD +33 2043?). Whatever happened, neither Malcolm nor I can find the objects Javelle measured. Unless someone has a great deal of time and patience to scan over many square degrees of sky for a star-galaxy-galaxy triplet at Javelle's relative positions, I suspect that these two nebulae will remain lost. One additional clue to narrow the search a bit: Javelle gives the time of his observations as well as the date. Checking over the several nebulae measured by him on the night of 2 April 1900, I found that the two missing nebulae were measured at about the time one would expect if he was picking them off as they crossed the meridian. So, I think that they are probably somewhere around an RA of 9 hour 40 minute (1950) as his observations imply. Unless he got his date and/or times wrong, too. </object> <object><oname>IC2503</oname>. See IC2502. </object> <object><oname>IC2504</oname> is probably another Harvard plate defect. There is no trace of any nebula in the area matching Stewart's description: "eF, vS, eE at 170 deg, lbM, susp." </object> <object><oname>IC2509</oname> is probably the faint star I've listed in the table. Though I overlooked this years ago when I first went over this field, I now have Bigourdan's observations at hand. His place (-11 seconds, -30 arcsec from an unnamed star of magnitude 11.5) is an estimate on a single night. Like many other of his faint "novae", he describes is simply as a "Trace of extremely faint nebulosity, pretty surely existing; it needs a more powerful telescope." This may be the same star that Carlson lists in her 1940 paper. But with no position listed there, we don't know for sure. </object> <object><oname>IC2511</oname><oname>IC2512</oname>. This is the western of a pair of galaxies found twice by Swift (the eastern is IC2513 = IC2514, which see), and included as separate objects in his 11th list of new nebulae. Stewart searched a 1-hour Bruce plate and could only find two of Swift's objects; he has a note to that effect at the end of his table. Various typos in Swift's tables apparently confused Dreyer. The IC has 2512 as the "south-following" of two, while Swift has it as the "north-following". It is actually the north-preceding as both got right for 2511. The identity of the galaxy is assured by Swift's notes about neighboring stars one of 7th magnitude, a couple of arcminutes northwest. </object> <object><oname>IC2512</oname><oname>IC2511</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2513</oname><oname>IC2514</oname>. This is the eastern of a pair of galaxies, though Swift called I2513 the "south-preceding" of two, a mistake copied by Dreyer into the IC. Swift got the direction right in his entry for I2514 ("south-following"), but Dreyer again missed with "north-following." As with the western of the pair (IC2511 = IC2512, which see), the identities are clinched by Swift's notes about the stars near to the east. </object> <object><oname>IC2514</oname><oname>IC2513</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2528</oname><oname>NGC3084</oname>. Swift's RA is 50 seconds off, but his note about an "eF D* s" matches the NGC object if the double star is the one about an arcmin to the southeast. There is, in any event, no other obvious candidate, though I have not checked at the positions implied by digit errors. This might be a reasonable thing to do as there is a star superposed on the galaxy that is about as bright as the double. Why didn't Swift mention this star as well? Swift does mention that NGC3078 is in the field; it is in fact less than 15 arcmin away, so it would indeed have been in Swift's field of view with N3084 centered. Carlson labels the star close to Swift's position as the IC object, but there is no double to the south, and N3078 would be out of the field if this had been Swift's object. </object> <object><oname>IC2529</oname> is probably NGC3081. Swift's position is just an arcminute to the south, but there is no obvious "eF * in contact" with the galaxy unless it is superposed on the bright, overexposed core of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2545</oname> may be the very faint galaxy at Stewart's position. It matches his description exactly: "eF, eS, cE 25 deg, triangle with 2 F stars." But I'm astonished that he could see such a faint, tiny object, even on a 4-hour exposure (plate 4342). So, I've put a question mark on it in the position table. Andris Lauberts and Wolfgang Steinicke also had trouble believing that the galaxy is the one Stewart found. They both picked a much brighter object 30 seconds preceding and 2 arcmin south of Stewart's nominal position. This, however, does not match Stewart's description at all, particularly with respect to the two stars. However, I'm including it in the table because it is, nevertheless, a reasonable candidate for IC2545. This is also obviously a candidate for examination on the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2555</oname><oname>NGC3157</oname>. The IC position, from an Arequipa Bruce plate examined by Delisle Stewart, is good. But the NGC position is 30 arcmin off. Curiously, JH's original position in his CGH Observations is correct. It turns out that in precessing and transcribing the position to the GC, either JH or one of his assistants made a 30 arcmin error in the declination. Dreyer faithfully copied the mistake into the NGC. One other curiousity exists with JH's records of this galaxy. He has only a single observation from sweep 535 on 28 Jan 1835. He looked for it a second night (sweep 678 on 16 Feb 1836), but has no position recorded and the odd note, "Looked for by not found by this. However, no RA is noted, perhaps it was looked for too late. The obs of S 535 is positive, and correctly reduced." This tells us that JH hoped to make a second observation of the object, but somehow missed it. In any event, his problem was apparently in RA, not Dec as later crept into the GC and NGC. </object> <object><oname>IC2571</oname><oname>NGC3223</oname>. Both NGC and IC carry positions that are unmistakeably close to the galaxy, with the IC position (from a micrometric measurement by Herbert Howe) being essentially spot on. Dreyer simply missed the identity. Here is how I think he did it. Swift published the object as new in his 11th list in AN, though it appeared a few months earlier in his 6th list (from Lowe Observatory) in Popular Astronomy and Monthly Notices. His position is far enough off NGC3223 that Dreyer apparently agreed that it was a "nova", and put it into his working list for IC2 as such. Then, Howe's observation was published in MN, and Dreyer corrected his working list without checking the NGC again. So, the galaxy has an IC number as well as one in the NGC. </object> <object><oname>IC2585</oname><oname>NGC3271</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2592</oname><oname>NGC3366</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2595</oname> is probably lost. There is nothing in Swift's position nor at any reasonable digit offsets that I've so far checked. There is the possiblility, however, of the object being 10 or 20 degrees south of Swift's nominal declination. He found five objects on the night of 22 February 1898. The three that are identifiable (IC2135 = IC2136, which see for a story of its own; NGC5494; and IC4453) are all between -27 degrees and -37 degrees. It's probably a coincidence that this object and the other (IC 2962) that are not at their nominal positions are both 20 degrees further north. But while the coincidence suggested a search strategy, it did not yeild the missing objects -- I did not find that at either 10 or 20 degrees south of their nominal positions. Perhaps there is an error in the RA by an hour one way or another. This still needs to be checked. Finally, there are no significant systematic offsets in Swift's positions for the three galaxies that we can identify. His positions are just bad, ranging from 24 seconds east to 15 seconds west, and 7.0 arcmin north to 2.5 arcmin south from the true positions. </object> <object><oname>IC2599</oname> is the southern part of NGC3324. JH made it clear in his description of the nebula that it extended at least as far south as a bright star on the southern edge. Pickering and Bailey apparently did not have the CGH monograph in front of them because they claimed discovery of a new nebula south of N3324, centered on that star. To be fair to them, JH put the position of N3324 in the northern part of the nebula just west of a double star. The Harvard position of I2599 centers it around SAO 238271 (which Pickering calls AGC 14525 in his HA 26 paper). ESO has made the two numbers identical. I suppose this is strictly true, but the Harvard observers made the distinction between the two, so we should do the same -- noting, however, that the IC object is, in fact, simply the southern part of the NGC object. Wolfgang caught this independently, and spurred me on to write this note. </object> <object><oname>IC2602</oname>. See IC4651. </object> <object><oname>IC2603</oname> does not exist. Though Bigourdan has two micrometric measures of it on the night of 27 March 1887, as well as a plausible description, he failed to find it again on nights in 1899 and 1907. His note reads (translated by me from the original French), Diffuse nebulosity, elongated at 98.9 deg (measured PA = 97.42 deg, 1 pointing), about 1.4 arcmin long by 40 arcsec wide. It could be formed by 2 nebulae nearly in contact; the following one is a little brighter and more extended. [His italics:] Could be a false image. His final sentence, with his own italics added for emphasis, says it all. My suggestion that this could be a star 47 arcsec from the IC position (from many years ago when I was young and naive) is wrong. Since that more innocent age, I've discovered Bigourdan's massive set of observations, and have learned how to use them. It's clear that IC2603 really is non-existent. It's still not clear, however, just what these "fausses images" of Bigourdan's actually were. I suspect some sort of internal reflection in his telescope -- the 30-cm refractor at Observatoire de Paris -- but that is just a guess. IC2610 is another such object; see that for similar speculation. </object> <object><oname>IC2609</oname><oname>NGC3404</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2610</oname> was a "fausse image" in Bigourdan's eyepiece. There is nothing on the sky at his place matching his description. He also adds the note, in italics, "Could be a false image." I do not know what causes these things (internal reflections in his refractor, perhaps?), but they pop up occasionally in his observations. Bigourdan also notes that his measurement of the "nebula" was somewhat disturbed by a 13th magnitude star 25 arcsec away in PA = 270 deg. That star is indeed there -- but his "diffuse nebula, round, about 30 arcsec in diameter, little brighter in the middle with no nucleus" is not. Finally, a faint galaxy close southeast of a much brighter star -- the pair is about 1.5 arcmin southwest of Bigourdan's position -- is sometimes called IC 2610. Bigourdan's measurement makes clear that this cannot be true. </object> <object><oname>IC2611</oname> is a star. Bigourdan's measured place for it, from just one setting of his micrometer, is 30 arcsec south of the actual position. Did he make a measurement or reduction error somewhere along the line? Dorothy Carlson was the first to publish this identity in her 1940 paper. A curious footnote: Immediately following Bigourdan's single measurement of this star is another object called "Nova?" in his table. It has an estimated position of +5.8 seconds, -1 arcmin 25 arcsec from the same comparison star (BD +10 2241) that Bigourdan used for the IC object. This "nova?" does not appear in either the NGC or IC. This is a good thing as nothing exists in the place where Bigourdan suspected it. His description is "Object only glimpsed" and his position, reduced and precessed to B1950.0, is 10 50 07.0, +10 23 45. </object> <object><oname>IC2613</oname><oname>NGC3395</oname>. Javelle got the sign on his RA offset from his comparison star wrong -- replace his "+" by a "-". When that change is made, his reduced position falls right on NGC3395. His description is appropriate, too. This brings up the question of why Javelle did not mention NGC3396 in a footnote. In fact, he did -- but the footnote is to IC2604. So, why did he not also mention NGC3395 in the same footnote? He obviously got confused somehow -- the incorrect sign attests to that. CGCG has this IC number noted as being identically equal to NGC3430. This, of course, is wrong. It would require Javelle to have made a 2 minute, 5 second error in his RA, and a 1.8 arcmin error in Dec -- the flipped RA sign is a much easier error to make. </object> <object><oname>IC2618</oname> is a double star. In spite of Bigourdan's doubts about this object, his estimated position (he did not measure it) is good. His description reads only, "Slightly nebulous object; it will take a more powerful instrument to decide if it is really a nebula." That "more powerful instrument" turned out to be the 48-inch Schmidt telescope at Palomar Observatory. </object> <object><oname>IC2622</oname><oname>NGC3508</oname> (which see), and probably also = NGC3505 (also which see). Swift's position is not very good, but his note "like a double star" is exactly right -- there is a star superposed just northeast. </object> <object><oname>IC2623</oname>. Is this also NGC3565 and/or NGC3566? See the discussion under NGC 3565. The IC identification is not in doubt, but the NGC identifications are. </object> <object><oname>IC2624</oname><oname>NGC3497</oname> (which see) = NGC3525 = NGC3528. </object> <object><oname>IC2625</oname><oname>NGC3529</oname>. See NGC3497. </object> <object><oname>IC2663</oname> is a star, confirmed on the print of the original plate. Since the plate has none of Wolf's marks left on it, though, I've had to center up his position in a DSS field, then check the print against DSS. That procedure points unmistakeably at the star. </object> <object><oname>IC2664</oname> is a double star, confirmed on the print of the original plate. Wolf's position is actually closer to the eastern of the two stars, so that is often taken as the IC object. But the images of the two are blended on the print, so I suspect that both should bear the IC number. </object> <object><oname>IC2672</oname> is a star (or perhaps a bright knot?) superposed on the southern arm of IC2673 (which see). There are two other much fainter knots to the west of the star; these, too, may be included in the image on Wolf's plate. The resolution on the print I looked at is too poor to be sure. It does show the star and the galaxy quite clearly separated, though. </object> <object><oname>IC2673</oname> is often mistakenly called "IC2672". But the smaller IC number refers to a star (or knot?) superposed on the southern outskirts of I2673. The galaxy is also in the UGC as number 06288. </object> <object><oname>IC2677</oname> is, by Wolf's note ("in L E 290 deg neby"), a star with a fainter compact galaxy just to the northwest. His position, however, falls closely on the star, and the galaxy is too faint to have registered on his plate (the print shows only the star). However, the corona of the star may have been enhanced by the galaxy, giving rise to the appearance of the "little extended [in] 290 deg neby". </object> <object><oname>IC2686</oname> is a star -- perhaps merged with a galaxy or a defect. Only the star is visible on the print of the original photograph, and Wolf's position points directly at the star. However, his note says "att[ached] star 14, sf, * meas." Either he made a mistake and meant to say "np" instead of "sf", or (as I suspect) there is a faint defect northwest of the star. In any event, I've listed the star in the table with the galaxy to the south- east as a possible part of the IC object. </object> <object><oname>IC2709</oname>. There is a relatively faint star and a low-surface-brightness galaxy near this position. Neither is clearly seen on the print of the original plate, and there may be a faint defect involved there, too. This is one of Wolf's objects that we might want to look up on the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2721</oname>. There is nothing at the position of this object. Wolf found it on one of his early plates, and has made some kind of mistake in its position -- it does not appear on the print of that plate. Precessing this object for inclusion in the IC, Dreyer coincidentally made a 10 arcmin error in the NPD for this (compare the original NPD of this with that for IC2720, also in Wolf's 7th list: the difference is about 14 arcmin. The difference in the IC is 4 arcmin, both in the 1860 position and in the 1900 position). Coincidentally, there is a very faint galaxy near this incorrect position which is sometimes taken for IC2721, but it is not on Wolf's plate (a brighter star north of the galaxy is on the plate, but just barely). Since Wolf's marks have been erased from this plate, the object he meant to include in his list is probably lost for good. </object> <object><oname>IC2733</oname> is probably the double star that I've listed in the table. There is nothing at Wolf's position on the DSS, POSS1, or on the print of his original plate. This is the closest nebulous object on the print, and the star of the 14th magnitude is indeed to the north. </object> <object><oname>IC2743</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. Wolf has a one minute of time typo in his table for this object -- his object is clearly out of RA order if the position is correct as printed. And there is nothing at the incorrect position. Dreyer caught this and corrected it for the IC. </object> <object><oname>IC2751</oname> is correctly identified as CGCG 185-047 by Javelle's reduced position. Wolfgang's first list had it as CGCG 185-046, but that is incorrect. </object> <object><oname>IC2753</oname> is a star at Wolf's position. I've not yet chased it down on the print of the original plate, but the position is very good, and there is nothing else nearby that Wolf would have picked up instead. </object> <object><oname>IC2759</oname>. There are two galaxies, nearly equally bright, near Bigourdan's approximate position given in the first IC. To confuse things even further, the northwestern of the pair is just 1.0 second of time west and 1.0 arcmin to the north. That is IC2759, and is positively identified by Bigourdan's single measured offset from NGC3651. He also notes the 13th magnitude star 2.5 arcmin away in PA = 300 degrees. The galaxy is well-shown in Hickson's Atlas of compact groups where it is number 51e. The galaxy just over an arcminute to the southeast is Hickson 51b. </object> <object><oname>IC2808</oname> is a star 20 arcsec south of Wolf's position. Its image is on the print of the original plate; there is nothing at Wolf's position. </object> <object><oname>IC2825</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2831</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2836</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2849</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the Wolf's original plate. Unfortunately, if Wolf marked the objects on this plate as he did on other plates in this series, the marks have been removed. So, I can only confirm that the IC objects are on the plate, not that they were in fact the actual objects that Wolf intended to list as nebulae. Of course, his positions are very good. So, given the presence of an object -- be it a galaxy, star (or multiple star), or defect -- at the catalogued position, we can be pretty certain about the identification. See IC2262 for more about the prints of Wolf's plates. </object> <object><oname>IC2854</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2859</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2863</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2865</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. The faint image probably includes a second star close north. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2866</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2868</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2869</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC2849 for more information. </object> <object><oname>IC2872</oname> is the brightest part of a large (18 arcmin by 16 arcmin) diffuse nebula. The IC object itself has two or three bright lobes, perhaps defined (as in the Trifid Nebula) by dust lanes. The positions I give in the table are eyeball means for the two and three brightest lobes, while that that Andris measured for ESO-B is probably for just one of the lobes. Frost's description "bM, neb. ext. 2' in R.A. and 5'.0 in Dec" matches the two western lobes almost perfectly. His position (given only a tenth of a minute of time and an arcminute in Dec) is a little east of that, but still within his usual error. Most of the fainter part of the nebula extends on to the northeast from the IC object itself. </object> <object><oname>IC2875</oname> is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. The DSS has this star and the one 3/4 arcmin preceding (mentioned by Wolf in his notes, as is the "* 9 sp 1 1/2 arcmin", thus clearly identifying his object) very nearly the same brightness. On the print of Wolf's plate, however, the preceding star is in the corona of the bright star and is considerably enhanced in brightness, apparently a hypersensitization effect. See IC2849 for more information on Wolf's plate. </object> <object><oname>IC2884</oname> is a line of 6-7 stars with a position angle of 145 degrees. There are just four main images, but at least two of them are clearly multiple. Stewart's position is pretty good. So, I'm puzzled by my SGC workbook note that I could not find the object. Andris Lauberts, Wolfgang Steinicke, and Malcolm Thomson had no trouble with it during their searches. Perhaps I scanned the plate on one of my migraine days. Ouch. </object> <object><oname>IC2905</oname> is a star. Unfortunately, its image is hidden behind a defect on the print of the original plate -- I do not know if this defect is only on the print or is also on the plate. However, the "* 14 nf 3/4 arcmin" is clearly seen on the print, so shows us just where Wolf's object should be. As usual, his position is pretty good. </object> <object><oname>IC2940</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan places it approximately 4 arcmin south- southeast of BD +22 2377, and describes it as an "Extremely faint nebulous object, suspected only. It is possible that the PA is 180deg in error." If that is the case, then the object would be north-northwest of the star. There is nothing in either position. Given that Bigourdan gives only an estimated offset, it is possible that his object is one or another of the faint stars in the area, perhaps even the double star I measured in 1974. It may also be possible that Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star. However, neither hypothesis is likely. Bigourdan measured NGC3743 on the same night, comparing it to the same star. So, I think it most likely that IC2940 is one of his "fausses images." </object> <object><oname>IC2944</oname> <oname>IC2948</oname>. Gregg Thompson in Deep Sky No. XX, XXX, 198X (I've lost the reference, so will have to dig it out again later), raises an interesting question concerning the identity of IC2948. While it is shown in Sky Atlas 2000.0 as a star cluster, its original IC description "eeL" (extremely, extremely large) makes no mention of its being a cluster. This would suggest that Gregg's identification of the nebula as IC2948 is correct. Digging just a bit further, we find that the object is indeed listed as a bright nebula in Sky Catalogue 2000.0, along with IC2944. Both of these objects are listed as clusters in an emission nebula complex in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue, which is probably also correct. But let's look more closely at the story behind the present confusion over the identification of IC2944 and 2948. The objects are two of those discovered by Royal H. Frost on photographic plates taken in Peru at the Arequipa Station of Harvard Observatory in the early 1900's. For IC2944, Frost's published notes read, "Nebula around AGC 15848 (lambda Centauri), extending from 11h 30m to 11h 31m, and from -62 14' to -62 40'." For IC2948, he writes "Nebulous patch extending from 11h 30.6m to 11h 38.1m, and from -62 28' to -63 14'." (The positions are for the equinox 1900). It's obvious from this that Gregg has indeed picked up the correct object. The two nebulae look, on DSS2R images, as if they are simply parts of a single, much larger complex of nebulae extending over several degrees. It is still possible to make the case, as Frost did, that they are separate objects. In that case, IC2944 would be somewhat more extensive than Frost measured it: my own estimates make it something like 40 arcmin by 20 arcmin. I2948 is much closer to the size that Frost measured: 45 arcmin by 40 arcmin. The particular plate that Frost found these nebulae on is plate 6715 taken on 5 May 1904 with the 24-inch Bruce refractor. This telescope is a short-focus instrument capable of taking very wide field photographs. Indeed, the field size is almost exactly that (6.4 x 6.4 degrees) of the modern 1.2-m Schmidt telescopes at Palomar Mountain and at Siding Spring which have given us our definitive twentieth-century optical sky surveys. Oddly enough, Gregg has also uncovered IC2948's other common -- perhaps mistaken -- identification in the astronomical literature as a star cluster. B.A. Gould was the first to see it this way in 1897 on plates taken at Cordoba Observatory in Argentina. He counted 236 stars in the area, gave photographic magnitudes for them, and noted the proximity to Lambda Centauri. In his 1930 book Star Clusters, Harlow Shapley lists IC2948 in the catalogue of open clusters with an angular diameter of 15 arcmin, but with only 25 stars. This discrepancy with Gould's description is unfortunately not unusual in the early catalogues of clusters and nebulae. These catalogues were usually little more than finding lists and descriptions, though Shapley was among the first to attempt to quantify the study of deep sky objects. He gave a distance of 660 parsecs for IC2948, from which he calculated an intrinsic linear diameter of 2.9 parsecs. After another quarter century of obscurity, IC2948 was again noted in the literature, this time by Colin Gumm in his exploration of the vast, glowing clouds of ionized hydrogen in the southern Milky Way. He entered it as number 42 in his "Survey of Southern H II Regions" found on wide field photographs taken at Mt. Stromlo in the early 1950's. David Thackery in 1964 was the first to note IC2948's probable true nature: it is a cluster of brilliant young stars in an H II region. He also noticed the neighboring IC2944 with its retinue of bright blue giant stars. Together with IC2948, Thackery described the region as "containing one of the biggest concentrations of (spectral type) O stars in the sky." This has made it interesting to astronomers as a birthplace of stars, and only its far southern location has kept it from assuming an important role in recent studies of stellar evolution. In 1986, however, Charles Perry and Arlo Landolt of Louisiana State University, working at Cerro Telolo Observatory in Chile, have found that the "cluster" associated with IC2944 is apparently a chance superposition of O and B type stars at different distances along our line of sight. Is it possible that IC2948 is similarly an illusion? Gregg's description certainly bears this out, though the appearance of the nebula on the UK Schmidt Southern Sky Survey photograph is that of a typical young association of a gaseous nebula with its superimposed dark Bok globules, and with bright stars buried in the heart of the nebula. It reminds me quite a bit of the similar nebulae M16, M17, and M20 with their associated clusters -- and of course of that spectacular prototype of the stellar nursery, M42, the Orion Nebula. I suspect that if it were further north, IC2948 would be nearly as famous as any of these. Well. Back to the identifications. For IC2944, I've adopted the position for lambda Cen; and for I2948 the approximate geometrical center of the large nebula that Frost describes. As I noted above, ESO-B adopted positions for the clusters rather than the nebulae, so I've taken the ESO-B positions out of the position table. </object> <object><oname>IC2948</oname>. See IC2944. </object> <object><oname>IC2949</oname> may be the double star that I've put into the position table. It is fairly close to Finlay's crude position (from setting circles), and is bright enough that he could have seen it in the 6- and 7-inch refractors that he was using in the 1880's. Unfortunately, Finlay has left us no description of the object he found. I think, though, that the double would be a decent candidate for the sort of optics Finlay was using. I do not think that the much fainter galaxy (ESO 266-G016) seven arcmin to the south, chosen by Andris and Wolfgang as I2949, could have been seen in Finlay's relatively small telescopes. In addition, it has a brighter star superposed that would probably help to hide the galaxy were it a marginal object. </object> <object><oname>IC2952</oname>. See NGC3847 and NGC3855. </object> <object><oname>IC2953</oname> may be NGC3855, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2954</oname>. This is probably a star at Javelle's position. The doubt remains as there is a galaxy (CGCG 157-028) 3 min 32.2 sec north which matches Javelle's description -- and Javelle's offset from his comparison star is -3 min 30.7 sec. Is there a confusion somewhere that I've missed? I doubt this as Javelle found the nearby IC2956 on the same night, and used the same comparison star to measure its offset, and got its position to within 6 arcsec in declination. Javelle's declination for the star in question is 4.5 arcsec off in the same direction, leading me to believe that he measured the star rather than the nearby galaxy. His right ascension for his object, though, agrees perfectly with that for the galaxy. Well -- put a question mark on the identification. Unless we can find his actual observing notes, we may never know the answer. </object> <object><oname>IC2955</oname> is not NGC3862, but is the fainter companion about an arcminute to the northwest of the brighter elliptical. Bigourdan saw both galaxies on 28 March 1886 and measured them both the next night. He returned to them on 30 April 1899, and measured them both again. </object> <object><oname>IC2956</oname>. See IC2954. </object> <object><oname>IC2957</oname>. This is probably a copying error by Javelle (or an assistant) in the coordinates of the comparison star, BD +32 2184 = SAO 62690: it is listed two degrees north of its actual position. Javelle's math is correct given this mistake, so his derived position for the galaxy is also two degrees north of the true position. This suggest a transcription error to me rather than a simple typo. </object> <object><oname>IC2958</oname>. There is no problem with the IC identification or position for this galaxy. However, CGCG incorrectly printed this number for IC2968 (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC2962</oname> is currently lost. While excavating the sky for ESGC, I wondered if it might be identical to NGC3905. That has the same RA, but the Dec is 2 deg 35 arcmin off Swift's, making the identity very doubtful. The object is also not 10 or 20 degrees south of its nominal position. Perhaps it is 10 degrees north, or the RA is one hour off one way or another. Perhaps someone else can check these possibilities. See IC2595 for more about the nebulae that Swift discovered on the night of 22 February 1898. </object> <object><oname>IC2964</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan found it and another "nova" while searching for NGC3908 (which see for its own story). He decided that his second new object was nothing more than a star, and it is included in the description for I2964 that he published in Comptes Rendus. This made it into the IC as well. In fact, Bigourdan's estimated position for the second object clearly points at a star. But there is nothing at all in his position for the IC object. </object> <object><oname>IC2965</oname><oname>NGC3957</oname>. Swift has only a position and a spare description "B, S, eE, a ray." This description, and his declination, agree with those for NGC 3957, but his RA is 3.5 minutes of time off. Still, the NGC galaxy is the only one around which comes close to matching. So, unless someone can find a better candidate, I'm going with N3957 = I2965. </object> <object><oname>IC2968</oname>. Kobold's original observation was not a careful micrometric offset, but an estimate appended to his description of NGC3937: 12.7 seconds preceding, 16 arcsec south (the actual offsets are 12.1 seconds preceding, 21 arcsec south, based on Guide Star Catalogue positions for the two galaxies). Nevertheless, his offsets are good enough to unambiguously identify the galaxy. How Vorontsov missed it is a mystery to me. He lists the galaxy in the MCG notes (without the IC number, of course), yet -- in spite of the explicit note in the IC description -- he incorrectly makes it identical to NGC3937. RNGC, UGC, NGC2000.0, and PGC all copied his incorrect identification. The CGCG misidentification of I2968 as IC2958 (either a copying error or a typo) is an unfortunate coincidence: this led to Nilson's giving that number to the galaxy in the UGC notes, and undoubtedly reinforced in his mind the incorrect MCG identification which he repeated, albeit with a query. </object> <object><oname>IC2969</oname>. Swift's position is about 10 arcmin too far north. The incorrect position coincidentally falls near CGCG 012-110, which has sometimes been taken as the IC object. The object that Swift really found is MCG -01-30-040, and can be clearly identified by Swift's note of a "B * f 55 sec; np of 2." The star is SAO 138460, and the other nebula is IC2972 = NGC3952 (which see). Though the MCG object is smaller and fainter than the CGCG, it has a much higher surface brightness, so is more likely to have been seen during a visual survey. </object> <object><oname>IC2970</oname>. In spite of Carlson's contention that this is a triple star, there is nothing at all near Swift's nominal position. It may be that the triple that showed up on the Mt. Wilson plate is the one at 11 51 15.7, -22 56 39, pretty close southwest of NGC3955. This, however, is 30 seconds of time and 6 arcminutes off the nominal position; I suspect it was taken as I2970 just because Dreyer changed Swift's comment "not [N]3955" to "II 623 f." Another curiosity. In the SGC workbook, I note I2970 as "not found." But in my copy of the IC, I have it as a double star. I suspect that I was looking at the star with a faint companion at 11 50 28.1, -22 51 03. I also suspect that "Not found" is a better conclusion for this object, too. </object> <object><oname>IC2972</oname><oname>NGC3952</oname>. The IC object can be clearly identified by Swift's notes in the description: "2 B sts n & np; s of 2." The two bright stars are SAO 138460 and 138464; the other galaxy is IC2969 (which see). The NGC position for N3952, from the Herschels, is good, and Swift's is not far off, either. It's rather curious, then, that neither Swift nor Dreyer made the identification before the IC was published. This has happened in other cases, though -- perhaps there were in 1908 already too many known galaxies for one or two people to catalogue adequately. </object> <object><oname>IC2974</oname> pretty clearly also carries the number IC2975, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC2975</oname> is almost certainly a reobservation of IC2974. Swift's descriptions in his various papers are appropriate to the galaxy as well as to the star field around it. In particular, his note on the shape is "eE, a ray" in the PASP version of the second Lowe Observatory list. He mistranscribed this as "lE" in the MNRAS version and in the AN collection which Dreyer used. The position of IC2975 is Swift's single least precisely noted position with both RA and Dec being marked by question marks, and the Dec being given to just a full degree. Curiously, his position for IC2974, from just a couple of years earlier in March of 1895, is pretty good, being only a couple of arcminutes off the galaxy. But the positions from his last two years of observing are among his worst, and October of 1897 is within a few months of the last of his published discovery dates for any of his nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC2979</oname>. There is a one degree error in the north polar distance of Javelle's comparison star in his table. His measured position and description fit UGC 6925 very well, so the identity is sure. This one degree error also applies to IC2981, found on the same night and referred to the same star. See that for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2981</oname>. Javelle found the IC galaxy the same night and referred it to the same star as IC2979 (which see); his declination for the star is also wrong for this object. Javelle made yet another error with this galaxy: his RA offset has the wrong sign. When that is corrected, his position falls within three arcsec of CGCG 157-056, his description is appropriate, and the identity is secure. The CGCG galaxy, by the way, is usually taken to be NGC3966 with a 30 second error in its RA. This is wrong; N3966 (which see) is actually = NGC3986. </object> <object><oname>IC2982</oname> was rediscovered by Holmberg, hence its secondary designation as "NGC4004B". I had some doubts about the identification as I2982 since the galaxy is about three arcmin north of the IC position. Reducing Bigourdan's observation (he simply estimated the position with respect to the comparison star because the star prevented him from seeing the galaxy well), I found that his approximate position is about 15 arcsec from the galaxy. Combined with his description, "Probably nebulous object; the proximity of the comparison star prevents it from being seen well." The galaxy is indeed close to the star and in the direction which Bigourdan notes (2 seconds east at the same declination), so I now have no reason to doubt that he did indeed see the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC2983</oname> is not NGC4006 as some have supposed. Bigourdan found I2983 on the same night on which he observed N4006, so the two cannot be identical. However, there is no object at the position estimated by Bigourdan for I2983: +10 sec and -6 arcmin from BD -1 2597. There are several stars near; one is mentioned in Bigourdan's description of N4006. Two fainter stars are possible candidates as Bigourdan's object, but they are more than an arcminute away from his position. In the end, I have chosen to simply say "Not found" for I2983. But the possibility remains that it is actually a star -- if so, it is probably unrecoverable, given the estimated position. </object> <object><oname>IC2988</oname> is, if anything at all, a faint star near Bigourdan's position. Though he has two measurements of it on 21 Mrach 1898, they disagree by nearly 20 arcsec in declination, so the identity is not beyond doubt. I do not see any reduction problem with his measurements, just the disagreement between them. Still, one of his measurements is within a few arcsec of the star, so he probably did see it vaguely. His description is telling, too: "Pretty nebulous, pretty granulated, no other detail seen because of the object's extreme faintness. * 11.5 at PA = 150 deg, d = 2.7 arcmin." The 11.5 magnitude star is where he says it is, so I'll take the identity with the faint star, even though it is fainter than Bigourdan normally sees. </object> <object><oname>IC2989</oname><oname>NGC4139</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC2992</oname>. This, too (see IC2957), is probably a copying error by Javelle in the position of the comparison star: it is listed as being 30 minutes south of its actual position, a "5" replacing the correct "2" in the minutes of north polar distance. As with I2957, Javelle's math is correct aside from the 30 arcmin error. </object> <object><oname>IC2993</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. When the correct star is used, IC2993 is easily identified as a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy about 3 arcmin southwest of MCG +06-27-003. Unfortunately, CGCG pulled CGCG 187-005 (a double galaxy) out of the hat for the IC number; this is the wrong object. IC3003 was also affected by Javelle's error; see it for more. </object> <object><oname>IC2997</oname> is not NGC4090, though is often taken to be. The confusion is understandable, as there is nothing at Bigourdan's (and the IC's) position. It's worth noting, too, that Bigourdan recorded the two objects on the same night (his observations of N4090 are in his Appendix 8, "Complementary Observations"). Bigourdan's two observations of I2997, referred to the same star on the same night, are as discordant as any of his that I've seen: 43 arcseconds apart. He's clearly made an error, and I suspect that his error was to record a position angle of 150.80 degrees as 158.80 degrees. With that corrected, the two observations agree to within 4 arcsec. That is the position I've given in the table. In any event, there is nothing exactly at this position, but 17.5 arcsec away is a 17th magnitude star that has another much brighter star at about PA = 155 degrees, distance 1.8 arcmin, an offset mentioned in his description for a star of "11.8-12". The actual magnitude is 13.5 (in B, 13.6 in R; both from USNO A2.0). This suggests that he glimpsed the 17th magnitude star -- with a 12-inch telescope, from the middle of Paris, in the late 1800's when street- lighting was becoming popular (stop laughing; it MIGHT be possible ...) My own guess is that IC2997 is actually another of Bigourdan's "fausse images" such as NGC2529 and NGC2531, or IC2610 (all of which see). It's interesting that another of Bigourdan's lost nebulae, IC2998 (which see), is also in the NGC4092 group -- and was also glimpsed on the same night as this one. </object> <object><oname>IC2998</oname> may be one of the galaxies in the NGC4092 group -- but this isn't likely as Bigourdan has good measurements of all the others (though he lists NGC4095 under the number "4098"). He has just one "observation" of I2998, and it consists only of a scanty description. He gives no offsets, not even estimated ones. The comparison "star" he lists is NGC4099 with its NGC position. His note says only: "Object seen only once, then lost from view, the sky having become a little worse. One of d'A's new nebulae could be identical to one of H's. All the nebulae in the group are pretty insignificant except for GC 2714 [NGC4099] which is pretty well seen." The CR paper, from which Dreyer correctly copied the IC position, has 11 58 46, 68 28 as the 1860.0 position (with NPD rather than declination which Bigourdan adopted for his big tables). The CR description is "vF nebula, neighboring but distinct from the nebulae in the area listed in NGC." In his tables of new nebulae, the 1900.0 position becomes 12 00 59, +21 11 with the brief comment "Only glimpsed." Precessing these positions to a common equinox shows immediately that they are about 10 arcmin apart, with the later position being just over an arcmin northeast of NGC4098 = NGC4099 (which see for its own problems). Bigourdan has no discussion of how he derived the two different positions, so we have no way of knowing which to accept. I've put them both in my position list -- no guessing here! In fact, it does not matter which position we go to -- there is no nebula at either one. I think that this, like IC2997, is probably an illusory "nebula" picked up in a moment of fatigue, or while pushing too hard against the limit of the telescope. </object> <object><oname>IC3000</oname> is most likely a defect on the Bruce plate which Stewart examined. Even though there is a very faint spindle near Stewart's position, it is too faint and too small to have been recorded on the Bruce plate. It also does not match Stewart's description: "F, indistinct, * like, but poss. defect, susp." </object> <object><oname>IC3003</oname> is CGCG 187-011. As noted with IC2993 (which see), Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Unlike I2993, however, CGCG has got the correct number on the correct galaxy for I3003. </object> <object><oname>IC3006</oname> is probably a plate defect. It was found by Royal Frost on a four- hour Bruce reflector plate taken at Arequipa, and was also recorded nearly 30 years later by Adelaide Ames at the same position, on the same plate. There is nothing near that position but a star about an arcmin northwest. Frost's and Ames's descriptions make an interesting contrast: Frost says "R, bM, magn 15", while Ames has m = 16.2, maximum diameter 41 arcsec, ellipticity (diamin/diamax) = 0.6, and a "class" that decodes as "irregular, bM but no N". All this is consistent with a description of a small plate defect. We can someday check the Harvard plate to be sure -- if the plate is not thrown out in the meantime (see e.g. B.E. Schaefer, S&T 105, No. 3, p. 42, 2003). </object> <object><oname>IC3009</oname> is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing near his position bright enough to match his description ("pB, cS, fig? dist"). </object> <object><oname>IC3011</oname><oname>NGC4124</oname><oname>NGC4119</oname> (which see for that story). The position given by Schwassmann for the galaxy is virtually identical to its NGC position. I do not know why he did not make the connection between the two, nor do I know why Dreyer did not also catch the identity. In any event, the two numbers clearly refer to the same galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3017</oname>. Nearly all the modern catalogues follow CGCG in assigning the number IC3017 to the brighter, southern of a pair of faint galaxies northwest of the center of the Virgo Cluster. This, however, is probably wrong as this brighter galaxy is likely to be IC3018 (which see) with a 30 arcmin error in its declination. The fainter galaxy is almost certainly IC3017 -- Frost's nominal position is closer to this object. Adelaide Ames, working from the same plate as Frost, agrees; she adopted his position for the entry for this galaxy in her Virgo Cluster catalogue. </object> <object><oname>IC3018</oname> is probably the brighter, southern-most of a pair of galaxies found on a Bruce refractor plate by Royal Frost (the northern is IC3017, which see). However, Frost made the declination 30 arcmin too large; there is nothing at his nominal position which Dreyer copied correctly into the second IC. The mistake was caught by Adelaide Ames while compiling her Virgo Cluster catalogue from the same plates that Frost examined. She words her note very cautiously (did she ever meet Frost?) and does not give the IC number in her table. However, I am pretty well convinced of the identity, so adopt it without reservations. </object> <object><oname>IC3026</oname> must be a defect on the 1-hour Harvard plate, number 3703. There is nothing in its position and Stewart notes that IC764 is "p 0.3 min, n 11 arcmin" which is correct. Stewart also lists IC764 in his table where it has similar offsets (0.4 minutes west, 12 arcmin north), so it is clear that he has the position of I3026 correct. For the record, Dreyer correctly copies Stewart's position and description into the second IC. All this can be checked if the plate still exists at Harvard. </object> <object><oname>IC3027</oname> is a plate defect. Found by Royal Frost on Bruce plate number 6718, it was picked up again by Adelaide Ames for her Virgo Cluster catalogue -- but dropped into a footnote where she identifies it as a defect. </object> <object><oname>IC3030</oname> must also be a plate defect, though it fooled Ames, too (see IC3027 which did not) -- there is nothing near the position given by Frost and Ames but a very faint, very small galaxy that would not have made it onto the Bruce plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3035</oname><oname>NGC4165</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3045</oname>. Like IC3009, this is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at all at his position, let alone anything that matches his description "pB or pF, cS, N s M, N = * 10.5, S N pt" ("pt" means "pointed"). The mention of the bright eccentric nucleus especially reminds me of some of the blemishes that regularly appear on the POSS1, especially near the edges of the plates. </object> <object><oname>IC3049</oname> is perhaps the southeastern of a pair of galaxies. Frost calls it "R, planetary?, magn 16" which will make it very small and faint in the grand scheme of things. I suspect the southeastern as it is a fairly compact elliptical with a bright nucleus, and would show up better on Frost's plate. However, the northwestern object, a low surface brightness IBm pec, may well be blended with its brighter neighbor on the plate. So, I've chosen the pair itself as the IC object, but give the individual positions, including one for a superposed star (or bright knot?) also involved in the image. Short of looking at the original plate, this is probably the best we can do. </object> <object><oname>IC3048</oname> is probably the western of two stars near Schwassmann's position. His positions are systematically too far east by about 0.3 or 0.4 seconds of time and about 2 arcsec too far north. Taking these offsets into account leads to the western star. However, his standard deviation is around 5 arcsec in both coordinates, so it is not implausible that he actually saw a blended image of both stars on his plate. Unfortunately, since the plate can not at present be found in Heidelberg, we can't check this or any of the other missing "nebulae" that Schwassmann found on it. </object> <object><oname>IC3050</oname><oname>NGC4189</oname>, IC3051 = NGC4193, and IC3064 = NGC4206 all appeared in Schwassmann's list of nebulae in the Virgo Cluster. Their positions are all very close to the NGC positions, so I'm pretty sure that neither Schwassmann nor Dreyer checked the earlier catalogue closely before listing these as new nebulae. There is no doubt about the identities; the positions and descriptions are too close to question. Adelaide Ames was the first to suggest all three identifications in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue. </object> <object><oname>IC3051</oname><oname>NGC4193</oname>. See IC3050. </object> <object><oname>IC3057</oname> may be ESO 267-G036, but that is well off Stewart's nominal position. Also, the galaxy is a low surface brightness, late-type spiral, while Stewart's description reads "cF, S, R neb or defect, susp." Finally, the Bruce plate was exposed for only one hour rather than the four hours used for deep sky-limited plates at Arequipa. So, I3057 is most likely, as Stewart suggested, a defect. </object> <object><oname>IC3064</oname><oname>NGC4206</oname>. See IC3050. </object> <object><oname>IC3067</oname><oname>IC772</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3070</oname> is a star northeast of the center of NGC4206. Schwassmann's position is very close to the modern position. </object> <object><oname>IC3071</oname> <oname>IC3072</oname> are stars near NGC4207. Schwassmann's positions are good enough to unabiguously identify them. </object> <object><oname>IC3072</oname> is a star. See IC3071. </object> <object><oname>IC3076</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. Even though Ames declared it "Not found" and Wolfgang pointed at a faint galaxy, Schwassmann's position is within five arcsec of the DSS position, and his description ("vF, vS") from the 6-inch plate is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC3083</oname> may be the galaxy that Wolfgang and I have noted in the position table. It is just 3 arcmin south of Frost's position, and matches his description (copied exactly into the IC). We need to look at the Harvard Bruce plate to be sure, however. </object> <object><oname>IC3085</oname> is a star, the western of three nearly equally bright stars forming a triangle. Schwassmann's position is good enough to clearly identify the star he measured. </object> <object><oname>IC3086</oname> is a double star. Schwassmann's position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC3087</oname> is two stars, rather widely separated, but in the correct position angle to match Schwassmann's description ("F, pS, like a line, 30 degrees"). Schwassmann also has a separate listing for NGC4222, which he has at the correct position angle (58 degrees), so IC3087 cannot be identical to this as suggested in CGCG and MCG. </object> <object><oname>IC3088</oname> is a star. Schwassmann's position falls within 10 arcsec of the star, and his description (vF, vS, li[ke] * 14) is appropriate for it. Wolfgang takes another star 25 arcsec north as the IC object. While I feel that this is less likely, it is possible. It may be that both stars are involved in Schwassmann's object. We'd have to look at his plate, but it may no longer exist. </object> <object><oname>IC3090</oname> is a double star. Schwassmann simply says "vF, S", and his position agrees in RA with the southeastern star, and in Dec with the northwestern. </object> <object><oname>IC3098</oname><oname>NGC4235</oname>. There is a possibility that Schwassmann did not include the NGC number in his list because of the confusion over NGC4223 (which see) and NGC4241. However, I think he simply overlooked the NGC number in this particular case. His position agrees with the NGC position to within 6-7 arcsec, and his description matches that for N4235 very well. So, while the two "different" objects are clearly the same, both Schwassmann and Dreyer missed the identity, and we now have an IC number on the NGC object. </object> <object><oname>IC3102</oname><oname>NGC4223</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3103</oname> is a star. Like several others in Schwassmann's list, he notes that it is "li[ke] * 13." Since it is the only object in the area of his position, the identification is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC3104</oname> is a nearby dwarf galaxy found by Frost on one of the Bruce plates taken at Arequipa. It is well-resolved on the IIIa-J southern sky survey plates, and matches Frost's description well. Because of its far southern declination, its RA is not well-constrained, at least numerically. Also the galaxy also has no nucleus, so its position is usually taken as the center of the "bar". </object> <object><oname>IC3106</oname> is another star mistaken for a nebula by Schwassmann on his plate taken with a 6-inch telescope. Though he claims the nebula is elongated in PA = 95 degrees, this must be the result of a plate defect of some sort. Remarkably, there is a galaxy about an arcminute distant with the correct PA. However, it is too faint to have registered on Schwassmann's plate, so the star is almost certainly the correct object. </object> <object><oname>IC3109</oname>. CGCG has misidentified this object. It is actually the brighter, south-preceding of two galaxies, CGCG 069-131, not the fainter, north- following, CGCG 069-134. Frost's position is closer to the brighter object, so there is no question of the correct identification. </object> <object><oname>IC3113</oname><oname>NGC4246</oname>. Schwassmann's position is within an arcminute of the NGC position. But given that that position derives from a single observation by WH, it's possible that neither Schwassmann nor Dreyer really believed that the object seen by WH existed (see the NGC note and my comments under NGC4246 for more). It's just as likely, though, that both cataloguers simply missed the identity. I think that is what happened with IC3098 (which see) = NGC4235. In any event, the two numbers clearly point to only one galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3114</oname> is a star. Schwassmann called it "cF, vS, li[ke] * 12-13", but there is no nebulosity associated with it on the POSS plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3115</oname><oname>NGC4241</oname>. See NGC4223 = IC3102. See also IC3011 and IC3098 for more about Schwassmann's list of new nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC3117</oname> is a double star at the correct orientation (about 30 degrees) to be Schwassmann's object. He calls it "eF, S, l[engthened] 30 degrees". </object> <object><oname>IC3123</oname> probably involves a defect on Schwassmann's plate as well as the 10th magnitude star at his position. His description could go either way: "neb or *, dist, alpha delta :". </object> <object><oname>IC3125</oname> is a star close to Wolf's position. It is easily visible on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3129</oname> is a star about 8 arcsec south of Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3130</oname> involves at least two stars, and probably a defect as well. It appears on Schwassmann's plate as "eF, pS, ?, 140 deg, li plan li". The last phrase decodes to "like an asteroid trail." The nominal position is between the two stars, and there are two other stars in the area which may also be part of the object that Schwassmann thought nebulous. </object> <object><oname>IC3131</oname><oname>IC3132</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3132</oname><oname>IC3131</oname>. Schwassmann's two positions are only ten arcseconds apart, not much larger than his standard deviation. Since he found the galaxy in two separate zones, it seems likely that he simply did not make the connection between the two listings, even though they ended up adjacent to each other in his table. </object> <object><oname>IC3133</oname> is most likely the wide triple star at Schwassmann's position. It matches his description ("eF, S, dif, alpha ::, delta :") well, so I've taken it as his object. </object> <object><oname>IC3139</oname> is a star close to Schwassmann's position. It is typical of some of the objects near the plate limit that he simply calls "eF, vS". His position, aside from the systematic offset (see IC3048 above), is good. </object> <object><oname>IC3142</oname> is probably the brighter of a pair, though we can't be sure without checking the original plate -- Frost's description ("R, bM, magn. 14.5") is not very informative. </object> <object><oname>IC3147</oname>, like IC3142 (which see), is probably the brighter of a pair. However, it was found by Schwassmann rather than Frost. On the 6-inch plate, Schwassmann describes it as "vF, vS, like a star, probably nebulous", and puts the position between the two galaxies. Could there be a defect involved, too? So, while I'm inclined to take the brighter galaxy as I3147, I'm not at all sure. </object> <object><oname>IC3158</oname> is perhaps the star that I've flagged with a colon in the table, though there may well be a plate defect involved, too. Schwassmann's description reads "eF, cS, ??, alpha ::, delta ::". The double query means that Schwassmann was not sure of the object's reality. Combined with his uncertainty about the position, the fairly bright star is only a possibility. Indeed, Wolfgang has taken another fainter star to the north as the IC object. This could be right, too. Adelaide Ames and Dorothy Carlson have simply said that the object is a star, but we do not know which one they were looking at. It's a shame the original plate has gone missing. </object> <object><oname>IC3160</oname> is another star in Schwassmann's Virgo Cluster list, identified by his good position. </object> <object><oname>IC3161</oname> <oname>IC3162</oname> are two stars, about 30 arcsec apart, which Schwassmann describes identically: "eF, vS, [perhaps] *". In a note attached to both, he goes on "I wonder if these are nebulous stars" (my free translation of his comment "in einer gemeinsamen Nebelhulle liegend"). His positions for both are very close to the modern positions, and the identities are sure. </object> <object><oname>IC3162</oname> is a star. See IC3161. </object> <object><oname>IC3163</oname> may be the two stars that I've listed in the table, though they are pretty far from Schwassmann's position. Perhaps a defect is involved on the original plate, too. In any event, there are no galaxies nearby. Ames was the first to suggest the two stars, and Carlson picked this up for her 1940 ApJ list. </object> <object><oname>IC3164</oname> is a double star, seen, but not resolved, on the print of the original plate. Wolf's position angle is correct, and he notes that the object might be a double star, so that's what I've adopted. His position is good, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3166</oname> <oname>IC3180</oname> are a pair found by Lewis Swift on 24 June 1897 during his several years observing from Echo Mountain north of Pasadena. Unfortunately, there is a large error in his positions for the nebulae as there is nothing within at least two degrees matching his descriptions: [IC3166]: eeeF, S, 7 1/2 and 5 mag sts in field, p of 2. One of my faintest nebulae. [IC3180]: vF, pL, R, 7 1/2 mag * south, f of 2. My own guess is that Swift rediscovered NGC4284 and NGC4290. His RA's would be fairly close (about 20 arcsec out), but his declinations would be 2 deg, 36 arcmin off. His relative brightnesses and sizes for the galaxies are correct, but I have trouble making the star field around the NGC galaxies match his description. There is a 6th magnitude star 14 arcmin south of NGC4290; this may be his "7 1/2 mag * south" -- but where is that 5th magnitude star? I see no trace of it. Given that, I'm not even going to be putting the IC numbers in the position table with question marks. Similarly, Swift's nebulae could be NGC3975 and NGC3978. There, the Dec's are only 10.0 arcmin off, but the RA's are 24.5 minutes of time off. The two objects are closer together on the sky, though, and the problem of the star field remains. Here, there is a distinctive double star north of the galaxies, another of similar magnitude (about 10.5; I'm guessing here) west- southwest, and two brighter stars (9 and 7.5) east of the NGC objects. I also checked that one hour or ten degree errors were not involved. Nothing east or west, north or south, fits Swift's descriptions. I did not, however, check northeast, southeast, northwest, or southwest at these digit errors. In the end, I suspect the N4284/N4290 pair is what Swift actually saw, but ... </object> <object><oname>IC3177</oname> is almost certainly a defect on the Harvard plate on which Frost found it. The nominal position is in one of the overlap zones on the POSS1, so appears on eight different POSS1 plates -- not one shows a "F streak, ext 2.'5 at 45 deg" as Frost describes it. I searched for a similar object at reasonable RA and Dec offsets, but found nothing. So, even though I've not seen the original plate, I am quite certain that I3177 is a defect on it. Coincidentally, there is a defect on the DSS (but not on any of the POSS1 prints that I examined) just a few arcmin to the southwest of the nominal position. </object> <object><oname>IC3178</oname> is a star, probably with some extra plate grain mixed in with the image. It shows clearly on a contact positive print of the original plate, with IC3179 (a galaxy) not very far to the southwest. The galaxy is sometimes called I3178, and a much fainter galaxy on a bit to the southwest is labeled I3179. However, there is no trace of this fainter galaxy on the print, while the brighter galaxy and the star are about equally bright and have similar sizes. </object> <object><oname>IC3179</oname>. See IC3178. </object> <object><oname>IC3180</oname>. See IC3166. </object> <object><oname>IC3181</oname><oname>NGC4286</oname>. Here is another case where neither Wolf nor Dreyer caught a pretty obvious identity. The NGC position is less than an arcminute from Wolf's (copied correctly into the IC), so there is no doubt about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC3182</oname> is just two stars, probably with a defect or random plate grain adding the appearance of nebulosity. Schwassmann's description reads "vF, S, li[ke] 2 F ** surr[ounded by] nebulosity, alpha delta :". There is a third star about 25 arcsec to the south that may have been involved with the image, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3183</oname> is a double star, perhaps connected to another star on the original plate by a defect or random grain noise? Schwassmann's position is close to the double, and the other star is less than an arcminute away. His description reads "vF, cS, perhaps 2 **, delta :". There is only one double in the area -- thus my lingering doubt about this. </object> <object><oname>IC3190</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3191</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3211</oname> = "NGC4307A". There is nothing wrong with the IC identification -- the galaxy is just where Schwassmann puts it. The NGC number comes from RNGC and is based on Holmberg's list of double and multiple galaxies where it is number 380b. NGC4307 is Holmberg 380a. This is why I don't like the suffixes. </object> <object><oname>IC3213</oname> is 40 arcsec north of Wolf's position. The identification is clinched by his mention of the "* 12 att np". The galaxy and the star, as well as several other galaxies in the area, are all visible on the print of Wolf's plate. Unfortunately, Wolf's marks are missing from this plate, but there is no doubt that he saw the galaxy and simply made a mistake in reducing its position. I do wonder, though, why he did not list some of the other galaxies; they are well seen. </object> <object><oname>IC3214</oname> is a star. It is at Wolf's position on the print of his plate, unmarked as are all of the objects on this plate. Wolfgang took a much fainter galaxy about an arcminute away; I did not see it on the print. </object> <object><oname>IC3217</oname>. This is a star and a galaxy; the image is dominated by the star, but it still must have appeared slightly fuzzy to Wolf as he went over his plate. The unmarked image is on the print of his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3218</oname> is described by Schwassmann as "Very faint, pretty large, extended, two nuclei, real??, RA and Dec uncertain." His position is also northeast of the galaxy, so the IC number pretty clearly includes the star 25 arcsec in that direction from the galaxy's center. </object> <object><oname>IC3223</oname> may be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. He says of it, "vF, pS, alpha :, delta :, am[ong] 3 vF sts." The three faint stars are clear on the sky today, and two of them have been taken as the IC object in various lists. Ames picked one (but did not give a position), while Wolfgang and I have two of them listed in the main table. The third is at 12 19 58.91, +09 45 58.0 for B1950.0 (my measurement on DSS). The problem, of course, with chosing any of these stars is that Schwassmann mentions them explicitly -- his IC object is not any of them. If his plate still exists (and it seems doubtful that it does), we could check the object there. </object> <object><oname>IC3226</oname> is probably just the star at Wolf's position. But there is another star about 20 arcsec to the southwest that may be involved with the object, too. Unfortunately, this is one of Wolf's objects for which his ink marks have been removed from his plate, so we can only verify that the stars are in fact present on it, not which one -- or both -- he meant to be his nebula. It's also curious that on the POSS1 version of DSS, the star at Wolf's position looks to be double. But on the POSS2 (red) DSS plate, the star is apparently single. Is there a small defect on the POSS1 red plate? </object> <object><oname>IC3229</oname> is often taken as the low surface brightness late-type galaxy (UGC 7448) 14 seconds of time following IC3225 (= UGC 7441). However, Schwassmann's position and description make this unlikely. His position puts I3229 only 5 seconds of time following I3225, and he notes the object as being "on the edge of perceptibility." Furthermore, he found I3229 on just one plate, while I3225 appeared on two. All of this is enough to make me question the usual identification and suggest that Schwassmann's object is actually a defect or no more than random grain clumping. </object> <object><oname>IC3245</oname> is a defect on the Harvard Bruce plate. Ames looked for the nebula on the same plate a quarter of a century after Frost found it, and found that it is, in fact, a defect. Frost himself suspected that, but put it in his list, anyway. I see no trace of the double star that Carlson credits to a Mt. Wilson observer (probably Hubble). </object> <object><oname>IC3246</oname>. Though there is a galaxy at Schwassmann's position, it does not match his description ("eF, pL, li[ke a] li[ne] 145 deg, ?, alpha::, delta::". In particular, the galaxy is very small and round, so I suspect that there is a plate defect superposed on the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3254</oname><oname>NGC4336</oname> is the most likely explanation for the IC number. However, there is some doubt about this. Here is the story. The object was discovered by Royal Frost on an Arequipa Bruce 24-inch plate (number 6719, taken the night of 9 May 1904), and is included in his list in HA60 as number 884. He gives a position of 12 18.5 +20 01 (1900) which is northeast of NGC4336 by about 2.5 arcmin. It falls within an arcminute of a 14th magnitude star. However, Frost does not mention NGC4336 anywhere in the section of the paper devoted to his nebulae. In this respect, N4336 is included in the large majority of NGC objects that were just where he expected to find them. In particular, he does not include N4336 in his list of missing NGC objects. Also, his description is "Plan[etary], R, B, d 0.4'." Because the inner bright part of N4336 is over an arcmin across and is clearly not round -- though it is clearly bright! -- Frost's description does not fit the galaxy very well. So, it is possible that he was actually describing the star, perhaps with a defect superposed (this could, of course, be checked on the Harvard plate which surely still exists in their collection). On the other hand, Adelaide Ames -- in her Virgo Cluster catalogue in HA 88, No. 1 -- adopted the identity and gives it explicitly in her Table 1. For this object, she used the same plate that Frost searched 30 years before (Arequipa Bruce plate no. 6719), and she found no other objects within at least 10 arcmin of her position for N4336 (she adopted the NGC position which is a bit off). Since Ames was a meticulous astronomer (Shapley greatly missed her careful work after her tragically early death by drowning), I'm giving a considerable amount of weight to her decision to make the two objects identical. CGCG and MCG come to the same conclusion, though using only the data presented in the NGC and IC; they almost certainly did not have access to the original plate on which the IC object was found. So, I've accepted the identity -- but have also added the position of the star to the position list as a possible candidate for the IC object. </object> <object><oname>IC3256</oname><oname>NGC4342</oname>, IC3259, IC3260 = NGC4341, and IC3267. Though the IC identifications in this group of five galaxies are not ambiguous, the NGC identifications have been. See the discussion under NGC4341, and in RC3 (the Introduction, page 60; and Appendix 6, page 551). </object> <object><oname>IC3257</oname> is one of Bigourdan's "fausse images." He has one observation of it in April of 1895, calling it a "Trace of nebulosity nearly completely unseeable." In May of 1907, he said, "I can once in a while see this eF object," but made no measurement of it. There is nothing in his position. Malcolm pointed out that the declination of Bigourdan's comparison star is incorrect in the big table of observations. Nevertheless, the position in the IC is reduced correctly, so this is just a typo. Malcolm also points out that the object at Bigourdan's position seen on the red POSS1 -- thus also on DSS -- is a defect. It is not on the blue POSS1, nor is it on the POSS2. </object> <object><oname>IC3259</oname>. See NGC4341. </object> <object><oname>IC3260</oname><oname>NGC4341</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3261</oname> is probably one of two galaxies near Frost's position. I favor the smaller but brighter one because it matches his description -- "Sp., F * at center, d 1', doubtful" -- better than the larger, low-surface-brightness galaxy to the northeast. In particular, the "F * at center" is missing in the larger galaxy. But that object is closer to Frost's diameter of 1 arcmin. So, we're stuck until we can examine his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3265</oname> is a star clearly identified by Schwassmann's good position from a 6-inch Heidelburg plate. However, CGCG put the number on NGC4353, and we've had trouble with it ever since. Well, it's sorted out now. Actually, Adelaide Ames sorted it out in 1930, and we're just now catching up to her. </object> <object><oname>IC3266</oname><oname>NGC4353</oname>, which see. <ignore /> There is no problem with the IC identification -- at least there wasn't until CGCG put it, along with IC3265 and NGC4353 on the galaxy. See the other numbers for the short story. </object> <object><oname>IC3267</oname>. See NGC4341. </object> <object><oname>IC3272</oname>. Wolf's declination is actually that of his "* 13 att n", but the identity of his galaxy is clear. It is also clearly seen on the print of his plate, though as with all the other nebulae he found on this plate, it is now not marked. </object> <object><oname>IC3279</oname> is two stars, oriented very nearly east-west. Schwassmann describes his object as "pF or pB, S, perhaps 2 stars, p 11.8, f 10.8". While his magnitudes are estimates, the eastern star is indeed the brighter and thus secures the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC3281</oname> may well be a defect. There is nothing at either of Schwassmann's positions (only a few arcsec apart). Even though he has two measurements of the object, they are probably just that: two measurements on a single plate, refered to comparison stars in different zones across the plate. The object is unlikely to be the faint star that Wolfgang chose if only because it is almost two arcmin away from the nominal position. Schwassmann's descriptions make it unlikely in any case: "pB, cS, R, N, li[ke] *" and "cB, pS, R, li * 10-9, d = 25 [arcsec]". This would be an obvious object, and there is just nothing in the area like this. It could also be another Virgo Cluster galaxy with a measurement or reduction error. I think this is less likely as both of Schwassmann's positions are within his usual errors of being identical -- but they ARE different. I do not see any galaxy that is likely to be Schwassmann's object that is not already in his list. In particular, NGC4365 is exactly 30 arcmin south, and NGC4470 is 5m 10s east and 10 arcsec north. But he already lists both, so I do not think that I3281 is either one of them. So, another lost nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC3295</oname> is a plate defect on Wolf's original plate. It actually covers the star that Wolfgang chose as the IC object, but is centered enough off it to make it clearly a defect. It is also surrounded by an annulus darker than the sky background in the area. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3297</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's plate, though it is unmarked, as are all the nebulae found by Wolf on this plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3301</oname><oname>IC3307</oname>. The identity was first noticed by Ames who presumeably checked it on the Bruce plates, numbers A6718 and A6720, on which Frost found the nebula. Even without her note in HA 88-1, we would be quite sure of the identity as the galaxy sits between Frost's two positions, and is the only one in the area bright enough to have been picked up by him. </object> <object><oname>IC3310</oname> is a star superposed on the northwestern arm of NGC4396. However, Bigourdan has an incorrect position for his comparison star listed in his big table. This led to an incorrect RA in his CR list and the IC. When the position is corrected (his approximate offsets of his comparison star from NGC 4379 ARE correct), the object turns out to be the star on the arm of NGC4396. He has four observations of the star which pin it down precisely. Curiously, Bigourdan measured NGC4396 itself on the same night using the same comparison star about two arcminutes northeast of the center of the galaxy. Yet he somehow confused the field so that IC3310 was taken to be another star nearly 45 seconds of time away by both the Harvard and Mt. Wilson observers. </object> <object><oname>IC3318</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3319</oname> is perhaps = NGC4390 = IC3320. Found by Schwassmann on his 6-inch plate of the Virgo Cluster area, this does not exist -- or is identical with IC3320 = NGC4390. Though there is a faint star less than an arcminute west-southwest of Schwassmann's position, this does not match his description which is identical to that for N4390 (which Schwassmann did not name as the NGC object, by the way). Is it possible that he made an error in his measurement reductions for the IC objects? They occur in different declination zones in his list, so this is a possibility. </object> <object><oname>IC3320</oname><oname>NGC4390</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see IC3319. </object> <object><oname>IC3323</oname> is a star superposed on the southwestern side of NGC4393 (the CGCG has it equal to the galaxy along with IC3329, which see, but this is wrong). Wolf's position is very close to the star, and though his markings have been removed from his plate, the object is there on the print of the plate that I examined. </object> <object><oname>IC3329</oname> is a knot in NGC4393, east of the nucleus. It is visible on the print of Wolf's plate that I examined, but his marks have been scrubbed off the plate. Neverthless, the identification is secure. CGCG has this (along with I3323) equal to N4393 itself, but this is wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC3333</oname> is a star just north of NGC4402. Schwassmann's position is very good, and his description "vF, vS, perhaps * 13.8" is appropriate.</object> <object><oname>IC3335</oname>. There is another somewhat brighter galaxy about an arcmin to the north-northwest that has sometimes been taken as IC3335. However, not only is Wolf's position precisely on the fainter object, the brighter one appears stellar on the contact print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3339</oname><oname>NGC4411</oname>. Here is another obvious identity that might have come about because neither Dreyer nor Schwassmann checked the NGC carefully (there are several of these in Schwassmann's list -- see e.g. IC3098 and IC3113 -- and I expect we'll turn up a few more before we're done). However, in this case, Dreyer was distracted by Bigourdan's discovery of a second object nearby. Dreyer's Note in IC2 tells what happened next: "[NGC] 4411 I assume that B. 298, 12h 19m 40s, 80d 21m, vF, L, 2.5 arcmin is identical with this." (See NGC4411 for more on Bigourdan 298.) I'm actually puzzled by this because the NGC and IC positions for N4411 and I3339 are almost identical, differing by only one second of time and 0.2 arcmin. Why should Dreyer choose another object 17 seconds of time away when he had an obvious candidate in the same place? Just the distraction, I presume. Or, as I've suggested elsewhere in these notes, Dreyer was getting tired of cataloguing nebulae, and was not paying as much attention as he might have earlier in his career. As far as I can tell, Adelaide Ames was the first to suggest this identity. In any case, Schwassmann's description -- "* 11, north-following [is] surrounded by much nebulosity" -- is appropriate, and makes clear that he was indeed seeing the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3343</oname> is probably the star that I've included in the position table. It is just east of NGC4411 = IC3339 (which see). There are two other stars that might have been involved, though, as might the eastern reaches of NGC4411 itself. Schwassmann's position is not particularly close to any of the three stars (I've taken the nearest), and his object could well be a blend of any two or even all of them. His description "eF, vS, ??, alpha delta ::" is not too helpful, either. </object> <object><oname>IC3350</oname>. There is a pretty bright star at Schwassmann's position (matching his description "perhaps * 10-11, sp surr m n"), but there must have been a defect involved, too. How else can we explain his comment "southwest [it is] surrounded by m[uch] n[ebulosity]" that he adds? There is nothing on the DSS aside from the star, so I am pretty confident about the defect. </object> <object><oname>IC3351</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. Wolfgang took a brighter star to the southwest as the IC object, but that is clearly stellar on the plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3352</oname> may be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at his position. NGC4411B is almost straight north -- but by 7 arcmin, 37 arcsec. Unless this is a unit (or ten, or 100) in Schwassmann's measuring system, I don't think Bigourdan's object is the one Schwassmann measured. Similarly, there is a small, faint galaxy 6.0 sec west, and 1 arcmin 5 arcsec south. I think this has a better chance of being the correct object, but I'm still not betting on it. We obviously need to check the plate, if it still exists (which, we are told, does not). </object> <object><oname>IC3353</oname>. Wolf's RA is 3 seconds of time too small. But there is nothing in that place and the galaxy is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3354</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3360</oname> is a star at Wolf's position. I've confirmed the object on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3361</oname>. While there is nothing at Frost's position, there are two obvious candidates for this number. Unfortunately, neither galaxy is the outstanding choice. One, a large low-surface-brightness dwarf spiral five seconds west and an arcmin north, matches Adelaide Ames's diameter and magnitudes in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue (she worked from the same plates that Frost used 30 years earlier). But was this really the galaxy that she and Frost measured? Five seconds east at the nominal declination is a much smaller galaxy -- but it has a much higher surface brightness so might be picked up more easily in spite of its size. In the end, I slightly favor the larger galaxy, but we'll have to take a look at the Harvard plate to be sure. </object> <object><oname>IC3366</oname> is a faint galaxy just south of NGC4424. Schwassmann made some error in his measurement or reduction of it and a nearby star -- both are just 4.0 seconds west and 15 arcsec south of his positions. His description of the galaxy is appropriate: "vF, vS, nf surr m n". The last bit "translates" as something like "surrounded by much nebulosity north-following." (He uses the same phrase to describe IC3339 = NGC4411, which see, where the description is a bit more apt because of the star superposed on the galaxy.) Whatever happened, I am confident of the identification because of the note about the "nebulosity" to the northeast. This is clearly a reference to NGC 4424. </object> <object><oname>IC3372</oname> is a star with a superposed defect at Wolf's position. It shows clearly on the print of the original plate. There is a fainter merged double star to the northeast that is sometimes incorrectly called I3372; this is just visible on the print, but is little more than random grain clumping. </object> <object><oname>IC3375</oname> is a star. It is close to Wolf's measured position and is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. Wolfgang mistakenly chose a nearby galaxy as the IC object. This, too, appears on the print of the original plate, but is smaller and fainter than the star Wolf measured. It appears stellar on the print, so Wolf must have skipped over it, thinking it a star. </object> <object><oname>IC3400</oname> is a fairly bright star at Schwassmann's position. His description "cB, cS, li[ke] * 10" is appropriate. The identity was first suggested by Adelaide Ames and picked up by the Mt. Wilson observers for Dorothy Carlson's list, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3402</oname> is a nice edgewise galaxy just about an arcmin south-southeast of a pretty bright star. Wolf's position is about 15 arcsec too far north (along the major axis of the galaxy, still well within its image), but otherwise his data for the galaxy is appropriate. Even though this is one of the northern- most galaxies on his plate, well into the vignetted area of the plate, it is still clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3404</oname> is probably a defect on Schwassmann's original plate. There is no trace of a "cB, cS, li * 10-11, surrounded by much nebulosity" galaxy in the area. There are also no galaxies at reasonable digit errors from Schwassmann's published position. The only possibility is NGC4464, but that is not exactly one degree north, and Schwassmann has an entry for it, in any case. </object> <object><oname>IC3408</oname> is a pretty bright star (10 magnitude) at Schwassmann's position. His description ("neb or *, B, li * 9.2-9.5") is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC3417</oname> is a star about 2.3 arcmin north of NGC4470. It is often incorrectly equated with the galaxy (Adelaide Ames was apparently the first to do this), but Schwassmann's position is exactly on the star. In addition, his description "eF, vS, ?*" fits perfectly. Finally, Schwassmann has two other entries in his list for NGC4470, both correctly identified as the NGC object. </object> <object><oname>IC3420</oname> is a star north and just a bit west of NGC4473. Schwassmann's position is off by a few arcsec, perhaps affected by the corona of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3423</oname> is a star close to Schwassmann's position a few arcminutes west- northwest of NGC4477. His measured position is within 5-6 arcsec of the star, yet both the Harvard and Mt. Wilson observers listed I3423 as "not found." Dreyer copied the position correctly into IC2. </object> <object><oname>IC3426</oname> is a star about 2 arcmin south of NGC4477. Schwassmann's position is about 10 arcsec north of the star, perhaps confused a bit by the corona of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3427</oname><oname>NGC4482</oname>. William Herschel's RA is 30 seconds of time too large. Dreyer has a note about this in WH's Collected Papers. This is not an isolated error, as Dreyer adds "... same sweep as the last three, 174." The "last three" are the previous third class objects seen in the sweep, all with RA's too large by up to a minute of time, and referring to a general note under H II 64 = NGC4352. Apparently most of the objects in the sweep are affected by the same error. Curiously, even though both Bigourdan and Dreyer noted WH's position error, Dreyer did not make the connection with IC3427. That was left for Ames and Carlson. </object> <object><oname>IC3428</oname> is a star. Wolf's position is good, though his image may include the very galaxy or double star about 20 arcsec to the north. </object> <object><oname>IC3438</oname><oname>NGC4492</oname>. Schwassmann has two entries for the galaxy in his table, but from different plates. The descriptions are comparable, and the positions are about 10 arcsec different, but still within the boundaries of the image of the galaxy. The identity was first suggested by Adelaide Ames in her Virgo Cluster list of the 1930's. It was picked up by the de Vaucouleurs for RC1, and also by Zwicky, Herzog, and Wild for CGCG. Wolfgang adopted the identity for his list, and Bob Erdmann also noticed the identity. He alerted me, and I have finally got the two galaxies equated here. Sometimes, it takes more than a village. </object> <object><oname>IC3444</oname> is a double star, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3450</oname>. Wolf's position is 44 arcsec north of the true position. The galaxy's image is on the print of his plate at the correct position, so this suggests that he has made a measurement or reduction error. His description is appropriate for the object, and there are no others nearby that match, so there is little reason not to accept the identification. </object> <object><oname>IC3452</oname><oname>NGC4497</oname>. There is no doubt about this identity. As with several other of Schwassmann's objects, the only doubt is why both he and Dreyer missed the identity with the NGC object. Both the IC and NGC positions are near the modern position for the galaxy. Furthermore, Schwassmann has two accordant measurements and descriptions for the galaxy. The only difference with the image on the DSS is the position angle: Schwassmann gives 100 degrees, while the outer isophotes of the galaxy are closer to 70 degrees. However, the bright inner part is close to Schwassmann's PA, suggesting that his plates showed only this piece of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3456</oname>. There is nothing on either the DSS nor on the print of the original plate at Wolf's position. There is not even a defect on the original plate. So, I suspect a measuring or reduction error on Wolf's part. Unfortunately, Wolf's marks have been almost completely removed from the plate. So, we have almost no way to track down the object that Wolf saw. This is especially true since he was working so close to the plate limit -- his object could be one of literally hundreds of faint stars or defects on his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3463</oname> is a wide double star, or perhaps just the northern of the two. Schwassmann's position is closer to the northern, but his description includes the position angle (40 deg) appropriate to both stars. I've opted to call the double IC3463, but have included the two stars separately as well. </object> <object><oname>IC3464</oname> is a star with a defect superposed on the print of the original plate (the defect is probably on the original plate as well). The image is elongated, so it is not surprising that Wolf mistook it for a faint nebula. </object> <object><oname>IC3477</oname> is a star. It's image is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. Wolf's declination is a bit off, but there is nothing exactly at his position, so I am pretty sure that this is the correct object. </object> <object><oname>IC3480</oname> is a double star. Not only is Wolf's position exactly on the stars, but his position angle for them is correct, too. Since there is no other object near this that meets the description, the identification is firm. Note that the MOL identification of this with IC3490 is in error. I3490 is 16 deg south in the Virgo Cluster. </object> <object><oname>IC3485</oname> is another star, identified by Schwassmann's good position measured on his plate of the Virgo Cluster. </object> <object><oname>IC3490</oname>. See IC3480. </object> <object><oname>IC3493</oname> is probably a star. The situation is odd: Schwassmann has accurate positions for IC3487 just west of I3493, and for a star just east. These agree to within a few arcsec of the modern positions. However, for I3493 itself, Schwassmann's position is 2 seconds of time east, and 12 arcsec south of the star that he perhaps measured. Is there a defect superposed that pulled his position off? We may never know, as his plates are reported to be missing from the plate vaults in Heidelberg. </object> <object><oname>IC3495</oname> is a blended double star at Wolf's position. My earlier idea, unfortunately copied into MOL, that this is KUG 1231+270 a couple of arcmin southeast is incorrect. Forgive me; I was young and naive. </object> <object><oname>IC3496</oname> is a star, blended with a defect. Though Wolf's position is well north of the position of the star, there is nothing exactly at his position on the print of the original plate. Furthermore, the star image is elongated on the print of his plate, and is quite eye-catching compared with the simple stars in the field. My earlier identification of this with IC3498 (copied into MOL) is wrong; Wolf's positions are very good, and his description of I3498 makes it unmistakable. </object> <object><oname>IC3497</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3498</oname> is not a star as I had surmised earlier. Wolf's position and description unequivocally point at the correct galaxy, a highly inclined (early-type?) spiral. The image is easily seen on the print of the original plate. Unfortunately, MOL copied my earlier mistaken identity. Sorry about that. (Also see IC3496.) </object> <object><oname>IC3502</oname>. Wolf's position is significantly south of the position of the galaxy. There is a faint star just south-following the galaxy which is blended into the galaxy image on the original Heidelberg plate; only a single image is visible on the contact print of this plate. This pulled the center of the image south, and also accounts for Wolf's classification of "irregular." </object> <object><oname>IC3503</oname> is a star. It was the last object found by Javelle on 13 June 1896, a relatively productive night for him -- he found six galaxies as well as this star. Given its faintness, I was a bit skeptical about the identification, first suggested by Wolfgang. But there is no galaxy nearby that Javelle could have seen, nor are there any at sign-error offsets from his comparison star. Nor are there any other star galaxy pairs in the area that have the correct offsets and brightnesses. Finally, Javelle has no significant systematic error in his measurements for the night that might lead to a galaxy. So, by a process of elimination, we come back to the star. Reducing Javelle's measurements with respect to the AC 2000.2 position for his comparison star, his position for the faint star is just 7 arcseconds off the position I measured on DSS. This is just about Javelle's standard deviation, his "one- sigma error", so I am taking the star as his object with no further complaint. </object> <object><oname>IC3504</oname> is a star. Schwassmann notes "near * 10". That brighter star is 1.0 arcmin north. </object> <object><oname>IC3511</oname>, IC3512, and IC3513 are stars involved with defects on Wolf's plate. All are seen as faint "nebulae" on the print of that plate. On the DSS and POSS1, IC3511 has a very faint galaxy just to the west of the star, but this is not visible on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3512</oname>. See IC3511. </object> <object><oname>IC3513</oname>. See IC3511. </object> <object><oname>IC3514</oname>. This is a double star. The position and position angle given by Wolf are exact, and there is no other object nearby that he could have mistaken for a nebula. The object is also clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3524</oname> is a star with a fainter star about 30 arcsec to the southwest. Schwassmann's position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC3526</oname> is a double star. It is clearly seen, though only as a single object, on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3527</oname> is also a double star. And like IC3526, it is clearly seen, though only as a single object, on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3529</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3532</oname> is a star blended with the image of a fainter object just west. I think that the western object is a galaxy, but cannot tell for sure on DSS. On the print of Wolf's original plate, this appears as a single object. </object> <object><oname>IC3534</oname>. Though Frost's RA is 22 seconds of time off, more than twice the usual error (between 1 and 2 arcmin) that we usually associate with his positions, the identification is pretty secure. There are no galaxies closer to the nominal position that might be Frost's object, and this one matches his description well enough. </object> <object><oname>IC3535</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3537</oname> is another star in Schwassmann's list identified by his good position. There are two other stars flanking it to the northwest (brighter) and to the south (fainter), but Schwassmann does not mention either of these. </object> <object><oname>IC3538</oname> is a star at Wolf's position. His description ("S, eF") is appropriate, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3539</oname> is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3541</oname> is a star very close to Wolf's position. Wolfgang took the fainter star just southeast in his first sweep through the IC. This is not on the print of Wolf's plate while the brighter star is. </object> <object><oname>IC3544</oname> is a double star exactly at Schwassmann's position, and matches his description pretty well: "cF, vS or S, ph * 12.5" ("ph" = perhaps). His magnitude estimates tend to be too bright by 2 or 3 magnitudes -- the double is more like 15. </object> <object><oname>IC3545</oname><oname>NGC4555</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3547</oname> is a star, probably with a plate defect superposed. The defect is faint enough that it does not show well on the print of the original plate, though the star is easily seen. Wolf's marks are no longer on this plate, but his description reads "little extended, [PA =] 70 [degrees]." His position is within 5 arcsec of the star, so there is little doubt about at least that part of the image. </object> <object><oname>IC3549</oname> is a star. As with I3547, Wolf's discovery plate has been wiped clean of his marks, but the position points very closely to the star -- which is easily seen on the plate -- and Wolf's description (vF, vS) is appropriate for the object. </object> <object><oname>IC3550</oname> is an HII region in NGC4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC3554. </object> <object><oname>IC3551</oname> is an HII region in NGC4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC3554. </object> <object><oname>IC3552</oname> is a compact HII region in, or a foreground star superposed on, NGC 4559. In either case, it is stellar or nearly so on DSS, and is close to stellar on the print of the original plate. See IC3554. </object> <object><oname>IC3553</oname> is a star at Wolf's position. Though no longer marked on the discovery plate, Wolf's description (vF, vS) is appropriate, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3554</oname> has a very good position in Wolf's fourth list. Thus, it can be easily identified with a star superposed on NGC4559. I3552 is either a star or a compact HII region. The other objects that Wolf saw in the arms of N4559 (I3550, I3551, I3555, I3563, and I3564) are indeed HII regions and/or star clouds in that galaxy. They all show up on the print of his original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3555</oname> is an HII region in NGC4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC3554. </object> <object><oname>IC3556</oname>. Even though Wolf's photographic position in his 4th Konigstuhl Nebel-List is exact, CGCG, MCG, UGC, and PGC have all ignored the number in favor of NGC4563, NGC4558, NGC"4536" (typo for 4563), and NGC4558, respectively. Wolf identified the NGC galaxies correctly, too, giving good positions for them, so we can be certain that IC3556 is a "nova." See NGC 4558 and NGC4563 for further discussion. </object> <object><oname>IC3557</oname> is a double (at least) galaxy in a compact group, which is, in turn, in a cluster. There are at least 4 companions nearby -- and on DSS, a defect as well. The defect, fortunately, is in an empty bit of sky just northeast of the IC object. </object> <object><oname>IC3558</oname> is noted as a double nebula by Frost, but the northern object may be a superposed star, not a second galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3563</oname> is an HII region in NGC4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. There is a foreground star just south that is probably included in Wolf's image, though that image is a single blob also including IC3564 (which see). Wolf's original plate must be clearer in this area as he was able to make two objects out of the single blob on the contact print. Also see IC3554 for a bit more on the objects around NGC4559. </object> <object><oname>IC3564</oname> is a star cloud in the outer arms of NGC4559. Though it is clearly visible on the print of Wolf's original plate, it is completely blended with the image of IC3563 (which see) and a foreground star (which I mistakenly took to be I3564 when I first went over this area in the early 70s at Texas). See IC3554. </object> <object><oname>IC3566</oname> is probably a defect -- but just possibly may be a comet. Found by Frost on Harvard plate A6720 (10 May 1904), he described it as "Com., head R, tail 1.0' long at 110 deg." Adelaide Ames, in her 1930 catalogue of the Virgo Cluster, says simply "A comet" in her footnote to a list of NGC and IC objects which she could not find. She examined the same plate that Frost used. Brian Skiff and Larry Wasserman at Lowell Observatory have run Frost's position (12 31.3 +11 43; 1900) through a comet identification program, and came up empty-handed. The nearest known comet was 10P/Tempel 2, but it was more than 15 deg away (at 13 36 11, +12 45.2) on 10 May. On Brian Skiff's advice, I also asked Brian Marsden to run his software to check his comet catalogue. He wrote back, "I don't see any known comet that IC3566 could have been." So, it is almost certainly a defect on the old Harvard plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3569</oname><oname>NGC4561</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3570</oname> is a star, seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3572</oname> is a double star close to Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3577</oname> is a defect on Schwassmann's plate. We can be sure of this because there is nothing exactly at his position. But just to the northeast is a "* 12.8" which Schwassmann calls "* 207a" in his list (IC3577 is itself number 207 of his list). Schwassmann's description of the IC object reads "vF, pS or cS, dif, cont[ains] * 207a". There is another fainter star on star on to the northeast that may also have been involved in Schwassmann's "nebulosity". </object> <object><oname>IC3582</oname> has been misidentified by nearly everyone as the brighter galaxy southwest of the real I3582. Wolf's position is exact for his object, and it appears as a nearly stellar object on the print of his original plate. The brighter galaxy to the southwest (UGC 07778) also appears on the print, and it too appears to be stellar. I suspect that this is why Wolf skipped over it. </object> <object><oname>IC3584</oname> is a star, clearly identified by Schwassmann's good position. </object> <object><oname>IC3588</oname><oname>NGC4571</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3589</oname> is a star just north-preceding IC3591. Schwassmann has the following data (equinox 1900.0) for these two objects: Working Running Number Number On Plates Object Sn (Sn) Zone RA Dec Desc I3589 29 7 Ia2 12 31 56.23 +07 29 13.2 vF, pS, R, li * I3591 30 6 Ia2 12 31 57.99 +07 28 35.0 F, pS 47 II3 12 31 58.24 +07 28 36.3 F, cS, nr * 14, alpha, delta: Note that IC3589 was picked up in only one zone of the two that Schwassmann searched across this area. If we adopt 12 31 58.07 +07 28 35.4 for IC3591 (half weight for the 2nd position which is noted uncertain) then the differential position with respect to I3589 is 27.4 arcsec in RA and -37.8 arcsec in Dec. Measured on the Sandage-Binggeli photo in their Paper III (Plate 52, p. 1095, AJ xx, 198x), the difference in position between the galaxy and the brighter star to the upper right is 26 arcsec in RA and -34 arcsec in Dec. Within the errors of my measurements (a few arcsec), the offsets agree, so IC3589 is certainly the star. </object> <object><oname>IC3591</oname>. See IC3589. </object> <object><oname>IC3594</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. Both are very faint, but visible, on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3596</oname> must be a defect. Wolf's position is just north-northeast of a wide double star, and his description reads, "Wings [curving arms], near a double star." There is nothing at all on the POSS1 in this place, and Wolf's mention of the double star near the "nebula" rules it out as his object, too. Since I wrote that, I've examined the print of Wolf's original plate, and can in fact see the defect north-northeast of the double star. </object> <object><oname>IC3601</oname> is a perfectly good galaxy, the brightest in a relatively compact group, about 1.5 arcmin north of Frost's position. Nevertheless, Ames has this to say about the IC number: "A defect on the plate where it was originally found by Frost." I suppose this is a possibility -- we will need to examine the plate to be sure. But the galaxy is similar to dozens of others in the area of the Virgo Cluster that Frost (and Ames) found. So, until we know for sure that it is in fact a defect, I'm going to keep the IC number on the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3602</oname>. There are two clear candidates for this object -- a relatively larger, lower surface brightness galaxy preceding Frost's position; and a smaller, more compact object that is the brightest in a quadruple interacting system (a triplet of fainter galaxies precedes the brighter object by about half an arcmin). Most of the catalogues have taken the preceding low surface brightness galaxy as the IC object. However, it does not match Frost's description which reads "F, R, lbM, dia = 0.1 arcmin." The preceding object is actually closer to half an arcmin across. So, while Frost does indeed have objects like it in his list, I don't believe that it was this galaxy that he picked up. Nevertheless, I'm out-voted on this, so have to put a colon on the IC number for the following, more compact galaxy. And I have to include the preceding galaxy -- but I do so with a question mark firmly attached to the number. </object> <object><oname>IC3607</oname>. Though called a star in Carlson's 1940 list, this is clearly a galaxy on the DSS. Ames also has it as a galaxy in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue. </object> <object><oname>IC3609</oname> is a pretty compact galaxy. It was misidentified in CGCG, and that incorrect label has been carried along into UZC. But other lists (VCC, VPC, and Wolfgang's) have the right galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3610</oname> appears as a very faint, irregular, linear image on the print of Wolf's original plate. It turns out to be a line of three faint galaxies plus a star. Wolf's position is just to the east of the galaxies, but is good enough to unambiguously identify the objects. </object> <object><oname>IC3612</oname><oname>IC3616</oname>. Royal Frost found these "two" nebulae on two different overlapping Harvard plates. His two positions are only a tenth of a minute of time apart, and his descriptions are similar. Since there is no other galaxy nearby which is bright enough to be picked up on the plates, the identity is virtually certain. </object> <object><oname>IC3613</oname> is a compact galaxy about 1.5 arcmin north of Frost's position. Glen Deen took another fainter galaxy west of Frost's position, but this has a much lower mean surface brightness -- I doubt that it shows up on the Harvard plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3614</oname> is a star and a galaxy forming a single elongated image on the print of Wolf's original plate. There is another galaxy nearby that might be mistaken as IC3614, but it is fainter and is just barely visible on the print. </object> <object><oname>IC3616</oname><oname>IC3612</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3619</oname> is a double star, unresolved on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3628</oname> is a star, verified on the print of the plate from which Wolf assembled his fourth list of new nebulae. This is one of the plates from which Wolf's discovery markings have been erased, but the image of the star can be clearly seen at Wolf's published position. </object> <object><oname>IC3630</oname> is a star. It's image is on the print of Wolf's original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3636</oname> is a double star. It was found on a plate taken by Max Wolf with the 16-inch Bruce refractor at Heidelberg on 27 January 1904. He published it and 197 other objects as new nebulae in 1905, and Dreyer incorporated most of them into the second IC. Wolf also measured positions for six NGC and IC1 objects on the plate. As with most of the other plates in this series, we have been fortunate to be able to compare prints of them, kindly made for us by Dr. G. Klare at Heidelberg, with the POSS1 and with the DSS. This plate, and two of the four others, still carry Wolf's original ink marks identifying the objects which he catalogued. This has made possible the positive identification of almost all of Wolf's objects on this plate which were included in the IC. By the time Wolf examined this plate, he had clearly refined his techniques considerably over his first paper of new "nebulae," where most of the objects are in fact faint stars. Here, only 55 stars or defects are included as nebulae -- still a relatively high percentage, but not too bad considering that Wolf was working with images near the limit of the plate (about 18th magnitude). </object> <object><oname>IC3640</oname>. See IC3641. </object> <object><oname>IC3641</oname> is about 30 arcsec southeast of IC3640. Wolf has only one entry for the two objects in his 4th list of new nebulae found on a Heidelberg plate; I3641 is actually mentioned in the note to I3640. Wolf has the direction wrong in the note -- instead of "np," it should read "sf." Both objects are visible on the print of the original plate, though I3641 is almost indistinguishable from plate grain. </object> <object><oname>IC3644</oname>. See IC3645. </object> <object><oname>IC3645</oname> is a star. It is on the print of the original Heidelberg plate, but Wolf's marks have been scrubbed off this plate. Thus, we have only his good position to lead us to the star. I3644 and I3646 are just to the south, and the pair I3640/I3641 (which see) just to the west. </object> <object><oname>IC3646</oname>. See IC3645. </object> <object><oname>IC3648</oname> is a star, as with many others, accurately identified by Schwassmann's good position. </object> <object><oname>IC3650</oname> is a double star. Wolf's position is biased toward the brighter, northwestern star, though its image is blended with that of the southeastern star. </object> <object><oname>IC3657</oname>. My first look at the print of the original plate suggested that this is nothing more than a defect. However, as Wolfgang and Malcolm have found, there is in fact a faint star just south of Wolf's position. A second look shows that the image of the star was indeed faintly recorded on Wolf's plate. I suspect that the original plate would show it more clearly. See IC3636 for more about this discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3660</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3663</oname> is a pretty low surface brightness galaxy which Frost found on the Bruce plate taken at Arequipa. There is a brighter compact galaxy to the south-southeast which has been mistaken for the IC object, but it probably appeared stellar on the Bruce plate. Whatever happened, Frost skipped right over it. </object> <object><oname>IC3664</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3666</oname> is a star. Schwassmann has the description as "eF, vS, ?, [alpha]:, [delta]:". The lonely question mark is interesting -- Dreyer even copied it verbatim into the second IC. It, and the colons on the position symbols, show that Schwassmann was not particularly confident about this object. However, the star is there on the DSS, so Schwassmann's plate did record something at his position. There may also have been a defect or a bit of random grain noise that lent a bit of fuzziness to the image, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3667</oname><oname>NGC4618</oname>, and IC3675 = NGC4625. I have no idea how these identities came about, aside from a coincidence of oversight by both Max Wolf (in whose 5th Konigstuhl list the IC objects first appear) and Dreyer. The NGC and IC positions are vitually identical in both cases, and Wolf's descriptions -- liberally sprinkled with exclamation points -- leave no doubt as to which objects he saw on his plate (the correct objects are clearly marked on the print of the plate that I've compared to POSS1). Perhaps both astronomers were becoming bored with long lists of faint nebulae by 1904 and just didn't do the careful checking needed. Whatever the case, there is no doubting the identities. The second has been noted in several galaxy catalogues (RC1, MCG, etc.), but the first has been overlooked. I suspect that the feeling, on seeing an IC number attached to an 11th magnitude galaxy, was one of disbelief; or that the number must belong to a knot in the galaxy (IC3668 is in fact such a knot, and IC3669 is the south-southeastern arm). But this is all speculation, with none of the principals now alive to tell us what really happened. </object> <object><oname>IC3668</oname> is a knot in NGC4618 = IC3667 (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC3669</oname> is the bright part of the southeastern arm of NGC4618 = IC3667 (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3673</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3674</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "exc[entric] neb *, * 11 sp 1 arcmin" is correct in all respects. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3675</oname><oname>NGC4625</oname>. See IC3667. </object> <object><oname>IC3676</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. In his description, he notes "li[ke] * 13 (perhaps *)", making the identification even more sure. </object> <object><oname>IC3679</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3680</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3681</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. Wolf also noted a "* 13 sp 1/2 arcmin"; the image of that star is there on both the print and the DSS. </object> <object><oname>IC3682</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3685</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position, perhaps including the very faint star to the southwest, or perhaps involved with a plate defect. His description reads "vF, pL, ?, alpha delta ::". </object> <object><oname>IC3688</oname><oname>NGC4633</oname>. Schwassmann's position is good, but it is 10 seconds of time following Swift's for NGC4633 (actually found by his son Edward. Swift does not say who determined the positions for Edward's nebulae). The descriptions are similar, and Schwassmann has a note about the nearby star, just as Swift does. The identity, apparently first suggested by Ames, is therefore secure. </object> <object><oname>IC3695</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3699</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Though there is a galaxy 0.8 arcmin to the north-northeast, Wolf's mark on the plate, his measured position, and his comment "2 *'[s] 13 np, * 15 n 1 arcmin," all point clearly to the stars as the IC object. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3700</oname>. At one point, I claimed "IC3700 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate." However, going to Wolf's position in DSS shows two very faint galaxies, probably an interacting system. Checking the print again, the smudge there, with Wolf's mark, is exactly on the position of the two faint galaxies. I'm frankly surprised they came through, but there they seem to be. Are they perhaps enhanced by a defect? </object> <object><oname>IC3703</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3705</oname> is a faint double galaxy, not clearly resolved on the original plate. Wolf must have suspected some irregularity in the image as he calls it a possible spiral. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3706</oname> is a double star at Schwassmann's position. There may be a defect involved, too, as his description includes the word "dif[fuse]". </object> <object><oname>IC3707</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3708</oname> is the northwestern arm of NGC4654. Schwassmann's two positions roughly coincides with the middle of the arm, and his description "pB, cL, Af" (where "Af" means "Nebula similar to the Andromeda Nebula") matches it well enough as it might be seen on a plate taken with a six-inch lens. He has two other entries for NGC4654 itself, from the same zones on the plate as IC3708, so the IC object is clearly not a duplicate of the larger and brighter galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3710</oname> is a low-surface-brightness dwarf spiral in the Virgo Cluster. It's structure is similar to the LMC's, but the bar is much smaller, and the knot corresponding to 30 Doradus (NGC2070) is much larger (though still of low surface brightness). So, the positions for this galaxy are all over its face. I have, as usual, provided the position for the center of the bar. </object> <object><oname>IC3712</oname> is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing on the DSS at his position, and there is also nothing at reasonable digit errors that match his description ("vF, pS, Af 42 deg, ??, alpha delta :"; "Af" means "Similar to the Andromeda Nebula"). </object> <object><oname>IC3715</oname>. The IC position is 10 arcmin off in dec. This is a typo in the IC as Wolf's original declination is correct for the object he marked on his plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3716</oname> <oname>IC3719</oname> are two of Schwassmann's nebulae found on his plates of the Virgo Cluster. He describes both similarly (eF, vS) though adds two question marks after the entry for I3719. He also has a note: "Clearly distinct from one another," probably added since the two objects are separated by less than an arcminute. Unfortunately, there is only one galaxy in the area. Its position is about 10-15 arcsec west of the position for I3719, but the place of I3716 is even further west, and about 30 arcsec south as well. At Schwassmann's RA for I3716, there is a star -- but it is about 30 arcsec north of his Dec. I suspect plate flaws superposed on the galaxy that is there. Since the position for I3719 is closest to the galaxy, I'm going to adopt that number for it -- though with some trepidation. </object> <object><oname>IC3719</oname>. See IC3716. </object> <object><oname>IC3721</oname><oname>IC3725</oname>. The position measured by Royal H. Frost on the Harvard plate is just 6 seconds of time preceding Wolf's more precise position from the Heidelberg Bruce plate. The descriptions are similar, and there are no other objects within 10 arcmin that could be mistaken by either observer for a nebula. The identity is certain. </object> <object><oname>IC3722</oname> is two blended double stars about 14 arcsec apart. Schwassmann's position falls just between them, and his description "vF, vS, li[ke] * 13" is appropriate. </object> <object><oname>IC3725</oname><oname>IC3721</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3730</oname> = CGCG 129-021. Wolf's declination is 30 arcsec off, but his mark on the original plate clearly points to the correct galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3733</oname> may be the star that I've indicated in the position table, though there are two other similarly bright stars nearby, as well as a very faint galaxy (or another star?) that would have blended in with the nearest star on Schwassmann's plate. His description ("eF, S, li * 14") is not very helpful, referring as it does to just a single object. The star I've taken is the closest to his position, though, and does well enough. </object> <object><oname>IC3737</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3738</oname> is two stars, enhanced by a very faint galaxy just to the northeast of the southwestern star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3739</oname> is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at his position, nor at obvious digit offsets, though there are faint stars and galaxies in the area. </object> <object><oname>IC3741</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3743</oname> is two stars centered on Schwassmann's position. There are two fainter stars to the southwest, but he makes no mention of these; they may not appear on his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3747</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3748</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3749</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3750</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. There is another star 15.5 arcsec south that Wolfgang took as IC3750. On the red DSS, it does indeed look a little brighter, but the northern star is brighter on the blue POSS1 print, so is probably the object that Wolf marked. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3751</oname> is a galaxy at Wolf's position, correctly marked and confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "neb * 15 p," however, applies to just a star; there is no nebulosity involved. </object> <object><oname>IC3752</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3753</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. The "* 14 conn sp" that Wolf mentions in his notes is on the DSS, too. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3757</oname> is a triple star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. The eastern star is the faintest and looks like a blended double on the DSS. </object> <object><oname>IC3765</oname> is a star with a plate defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC3768</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3769</oname> is a star, or is perhaps a blended double star. Whatever its nature, the correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3770</oname>. There is only a very faint star in Schwassmann's position. It does not match his description ("cF, cS, l 30 deg, ?"), so I suspect that most of the image belongs to a defect. I've nevertheless listed the star as it is within a standard deviation or so from Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3771</oname> is a galaxy with a plate defect superposed. The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3772</oname> = CGCG 188-020 = MCG +06-28-028. The IC number has sometimes been mistakenly attached to DD0 47 = UGC 07949 = MCG +06-28-030 which is 3 arcmin south-southeast. But Wolf's position is good, and he has marked the correct galaxy on his original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3773</oname> is a pretty low surface brightness late-type galaxy in the Virgo Cluster, found by Frost on a Harvard plate. There is a 15th magnitude star superposed on the outer boundary of the galaxy about an arcmin northeast of the nucleus. Even though Frost claims that the galaxy is Sn 150, his position is about 2 arcmin southwest of Schwassmann's, which is within a few arcsec of the star. This suggests that Frost should be credited with the discovery of this galaxy rather than Schwassmann. </object> <object><oname>IC3777</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. Wolfgang, in his first list, took VCC 2054 as the IC object, but this is wrong. The galaxy is over an arcmin away from the nominal position, and neither RA nor Dec has reasonable digit errors to explain the offset. </object> <object><oname>IC3780</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3781</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. It is quite faint on the DSS, but Wolf's position is very close and he mentions the stars to the north and west in his notes. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3782</oname> is a star. Even though Wolf's declination is 30 arcsec too large, the correct object is marked on a print of Wolf's original plate. So, there can be no question about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC3785</oname> is a galaxy, and there may be a faint defect superposed on the discovery plate. The print of the plate that I looked at is not clear enough to be sure. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3787</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3790</oname> is a star exactly at Schwassmann's position. Even though he describes it as "eF, vS, ??" -- the "??" indicating considerable doubt about the nebulous character of the object -- there is no doubt about the identity. The position is too close to a star very similar to others that Schwassmann, working at the limit of his plates, mistook for faint nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC3791</oname><oname>NGC4695</oname>. Swift found the IC object on 23 May 1897. That same night, he found two other objects: I2976 and I4205 (both of which see). I2976 is NGC3979, and I4205 is IC853. For I3791, he notes "[NGC] 4732 in field." That can't be right as N4732 is 1.5 degrees south of Swift's position for I3791. (The galaxy in the field is actually N4686). This was not a particularly good night for Lewis Swift. His position for I3791 shares with that for I4205 a declination which is about five arcmin too far north; the right ascensions are very close to correct in both cases. (I2976, on the other hand, has a declination that is very close to the modern value, while its RA is 1.5 minutes too small.) Since his descriptions are also appropriate for the galaxies, I have little doubt about the identities I've suggested here. </object> <object><oname>IC3792</oname> is two faint stars, probably with a defect involved, too. Schwassmann's position is about 20 arcsec to the south. There is an extremely faint galaxy in the area, too, but it would not have showed up on the plate from the 6-inch refractor that Schwassmann was using. </object> <object><oname>IC3794</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3796</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3797</oname> must be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. His description is telling: "F, pS, perhaps FN, like an asteroid trail, geom N pt". I'm not sure about his last phrase, but the first three make it clear that he was looking at an elongated object. Since there is nothing like that at his position, nor at reasonable digit offsets, this is most likely a plate defect. </object> <object><oname>IC3798</oname> is a star at Schwassmann's position. </object> <object><oname>IC3801</oname> is another defect on Schwassmann's plate. He describes it as "cB, pS, li * 95 [sic]". There are no stars this bright in the area, and there are none either at positions where digit errors might put them. </object> <object><oname>IC3802</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3803</oname> is a star, probably with a defect involved. Schwassmann's position is good, but his description "eF, pL, ?, alpha: delta:" suggests that the object was more extended than his usual star. </object> <object><oname>IC3804</oname><oname>NGC4711</oname>. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Neither he nor Dreyer realized that the object is NGC4711 in spite of the nearly identical positions and Wolf's clear description of this as quite a noticeable nebula on his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3805</oname> is a double star about 25 arcsec north of IC3802, another star (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3807</oname> may be NGC4705. It is the only galaxy within several degrees of Swift's position that comes close to matching his description: "eeF, L, eE; 7m * nr s little f." However, the star is northeast, not south-southeast as Swift implies. If so, this just another of his mistakes in noting relative positions. I looked for another galaxy at a declination digit (10 and 20 degrees south) and sign (+3 rather than -3) away from his nominal position -- nothing at all. I have not yet checked at digit errors in RA hours, but there is certainly nothing at +- 1 minute or +- 10 minutes of time. My feeling is that this is another case like IC3166/3180 (which see): the NGC galaxy is probably Swift's object, but we have only circumstanstial evidence of the match. So, I am not going to put the IC number on the NGC number, even with a question mark. With the position so far off, and the direction of the star being different from Swift's description, I am just not comfortable with the hypothesis. The magnitude of the star is V = 9.22, by the way, and it is 4.85 arcmin from NGC4705. If this is Swift's object, the star would have been well within his field radius of 16 arcmin, and the magnitude at least in the ballpark for a rough estimate. </object> <object><oname>IC3810</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3811</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3817</oname> may be a double galaxy, though it looks more like a single, somewhat peculiar, blue galaxy on POSS1. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3820</oname> is a fairly faint galaxy with a plate defect superposed on its image on Wolf's original plate. The defect pulls Wolf's position (copied correctly into IC2) 10 or 12 arcsec south off the galaxy. The object is marked on a print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3821</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3823</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3827</oname><oname>IC3838</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC3829</oname>. The identity is not sure. Swift has left us three different positions for his 19th nebula from his 7th list from Echo Mountain. He found the galaxy on 31 January 1898, within just a few months of his final nebular discoveries (the positions are in the table). The IC description reads "B, S, lE, *9 sf [?119deg 14.5']" (Dreyer's query, not mine). His description in the big AN "Catalogue No. 11 ..." reads simply "B, S, lE", so the additional information must come from one of the smaller lists. It is found in the Monthly Notices (58, 332, 1898) version where he adds "9m * near sf". After a search of the area, Andris and I settled on ESO 442-G026 as Swift's object. This is the brightest object around, it is an even 50 seconds of time from one of Swift's positions -- but it does not have a bright star nearby. The brightest star to the east is a 10th or 11th magnitude star 6.5 arcmin east. There are somewhat fainter ones 6 arcmin southeast and south-southwest. The other candidate is ESO 442-G024: larger, fainter, with a lower surface brightness, and surrounded by 9th magnitude stars: 2.5 arcmin northeast, 4 arcmin south, and 6.5 arcmin southwest. Swift would have seen all of these and would have commented on them. He would also have called the galaxy "eeF, vS" at best. Still, I suppose it is possible that his is his object, so I've put it in the table, too, though with question marks. </object> <object><oname>IC3830</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3833</oname>. The IC identity of this galaxy is not in question. Bigourdan's measurements in April 1895 are very good (his comparison star has one of the highest proper motions I've encountered in doing this work -- over 0.42 arcsec per year), so we cannot mistake the galaxy he found. Herbert Howe ran across the same galaxy, but thought it might be one of the pair, NGC4722 and 4723 (which see), that Tempel found following NGC4714. Dreyer put Howe's object into the IC notes as "NGC4722-23", apparently without noticing the coincidence of Bigourdan's and Howe's positions. MCG certainly picked up on it, however, so has N4722 = I3833. Working on ESGC, I made the same assignment of the numbers, but clearly did not do much digging into the literature (though I did translate Tempel's published note for N4722 and 4723). In any event, I see now that we actually do not know for sure which objects Tempel saw. So, we may not be correct in equating one of them with IC3833. Thus, my liberal use of question marks in the position table for the two NGC numbers. </object> <object><oname>IC3834</oname> is not, as so often supposed, NGC4740 (which see; it is actually a reobservation by Swift of NGC4727, the brightest galaxy in the group of four here). Nor is it NGC4726 (which also see), as first suggested by Howe and taken up by Dreyer in a couple of IC2 notes. Bigourdan wisely threw out all the NGC numbers for his observation of this galaxy (or he was utterly confused and simply ignored them) and declared it a "nova", even though Howe had obviously seen, too. </object> <object><oname>IC3838</oname><oname>IC3827</oname>. Bigourdan made a mistake of +1 minute in the RA of his comparison star. Otherwise, his four observations on 14 Apr 1895 are a detailed and accurate account of the galaxy, the star to the south (also noted by Howe), and the comparison star. </object> <object><oname>IC3839</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3840</oname>. Though Wolf comments "* sp inv," the object there is actually a part of the galaxy, a rather patchy IB(s)m IV, itself. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3841</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3845</oname> is a star. There is a very faint galaxy just to the southeast of the star, but there is no trace of it on the print of the original plate. The star is marked on that print. </object> <object><oname>IC3846</oname> must be another defect on Schwassmann's plate. His description, like others for defects, would make this an outstanding object that the Herschels would be ashamed of for missing: "B, pL or pS, N = * 9.2". Needless to say, there is nothing like this in the area, nor at any reasonable digit errors. </object> <object><oname>IC3847</oname>. Wolf's comment "neb * 15 sp" is slightly incorrect: the star is not nebulous. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3848</oname> is a faint double galaxy, not resolved on the original plate. Wolf noted it as being elongated, however. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3849</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3851</oname> is a star, with a defect superposed on the image, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "* 12 s" is also correct. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3854</oname> is the larger of two galaxies. Wolf actually saw the second on his plate, but called it a "* 15 f." </object> <object><oname>IC3858</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Also, Wolf's comment "* 13 sp 1/3 arcmin" is correct. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3860</oname> is a faint, little galaxy. I suspect that there is a defect enhancing its image on Wolf's original plate. Otherwise, I don't see how he could have picked it up. It is, however, close to his position, so I've included it in the table. </object> <object><oname>IC3862</oname> = UGC 08023 has an eccentric nucleus, noted by Wolf as an "att * 15." </object> <object><oname>IC3863</oname> is a galaxy with a star superposed. The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3864</oname> is a faint galaxy, with a star superposed, not resolved on the original plate (my original classification as a double galaxy was wrong). Wolf noted the star 0.5 arcmin south, so there is no question about the identity. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3866</oname> is a faint double galaxy, not clearly resolved on the original plate. Wolf must have noticed some irregularity in the image, however, as he suggested it might be a cluster. Perhaps the low surface brightness spindle to the southwest is included in the image, too, though it does not show up as an individual object on the print. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3877</oname>. Wolf's position is exactly 7.0 arcmin north of the true position -- the correct object is marked on his plate. I suspect this results from a measuring error which placed the object 2 cm closer to the top of the plate than it really is. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3878</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3881</oname> is the northeastern of two faint galaxies, and is clearly marked on Wolf's plate. He describes it as "vF, vS; long chain? attached north (remarkable), chain? connecting [to I3877]." There is a trace of a very faint defect, or of a random clumping of photographic "grain," on the print of Wolf's plate which I examined, but certainly no "chain" of galaxies appears on POSS1. For more about the discovery plate, see IC3636. </object> <object><oname>IC3886</oname> has a faint star superposed, but it is not clearly seen on the DSS. Wolf's note reads "Ch!! conn 1'n, &&, viF." This becomes, "Very remarkable chain connecting 1 arcmin north, very irregular figure." The print of Wolf's original plate shows the galaxy only faintly, but his mark points exactly at it. The two stars about an arcminute north are not connected to it in any way on either POSS1 or POSS2, so the connection that Wolf saw on his original plate must be a defect. It does not show clearly at all on the print of his plate. See IC3636 for more about that plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3887</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3889</oname> is probably a star, though it may include two other stars and a galaxy within an arcminute to the north. None of the objects is clear on the print of the original plate, nor is it clear to which of these objects Wolf's mark points. However, his position is for the southern star, so that is probably the object we ought to take. </object> <object><oname>IC3891</oname> is a galaxy. Though I took it to be a star with a plate defect superposed during my survey of the IC objects in Wolf's fifth list, this is clearly incorrect (thanks to Malcolm Thomson for catching the mistake). The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, but is not clearly seen on the print. It is possible that it appears stellar on the POSS1 blue print which I looked at, but it is more likely that I made a simple mistake. DSS clearly shows it to be a galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3893</oname> is marked on the print of the original plate 3.5 arcmin north of Wolf's published position. Since other of the nebulae in this list are also off by the same amount (e.g. IC3919), I think that the discrepancy represents a digit error in Wolf's y-axis measurement. The galaxy is the largest of three; the other two are just northwest of I3893, but only one is (faintly) visible on Wolf's plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3894</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf notes a 15th magnitude star to the northeast; that star is there. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3898</oname> is a faint galaxy with, according to Wolf, an "att eF * pr." The "star," however, is a defect on the original plate. It is just seen on the print of this plate that I examined. </object> <object><oname>IC3901</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3902</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3903</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3904</oname> = CGCG 188-029. Wolf correctly describes this as a spiral, but he has the sense of spirality backwards. </object> <object><oname>IC3905</oname> is a faint double galaxy, not resolved on the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3906</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3910</oname> is a double star. Wolf's comment reads "? neb **" -- there is no nebulosity associated with the double. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3911</oname> is two galaxies, or a galaxy and a star, whose images are merged on the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. The object is marked on a print of that original plate where it appears to be single. The second galaxy is very compact if it is indeed a galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC3912</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3914</oname>. On the DSS, this is a double object, with a star being about 12 arcsec northwest of a galaxy. On the print of the original plate, there is an apparent plate defect superposed. The defect -- which may only be present on the print of the original plate -- stretches to the northeast from the galaxy. Wolf's mark points at the galaxy itself. My earlier assessment of this as a single star and a defect may be the result of the appearance of the object on the POSS1 blue print. On the red print, and on the DSS, it is clearly a galaxy with a neighboring star. My thanks to Malcolm Thomson who called my attention to the discrepancy. </object> <object><oname>IC3915</oname> is the northern of two stars, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Though Wolf's position is in error by exactly 10 arcmin in declination -- clearly a typo -- his mark on the plate, and his comment "inv * 14 s" both refer to the correct object. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3917</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. This number has occasionally been mistakenly assigned to the galaxy IC3918 (e.g. RC1), but Wolf's position corresponds to the star he has marked on his plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3918</oname>, a real galaxy, has occasionally been assigned the number IC3917, which see. I3917 is actually a star. </object> <object><oname>IC3919</oname> is marked on the print of the original plate, and is 3.5 arcmin north of Wolf's published position. Since other of the nebulae in this list are also off by the same amount (e.g. IC3893), I think that the discrepancy represents a digit error in Wolf's y-axis measurement. There is a larger but fainter galaxy about 1.5 arcmin east of the IC galaxy. It is not visible on the print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3923</oname> is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3925</oname> is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3926</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3932</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3933</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3935</oname><oname>NGC4849</oname>. The problem here is that the galaxy is in a crowded area of the sky (the Coma Cluster), and d'Arrest's position is 4 arcmin south of the galaxy. This was corrected by Spitaler and mentioned in the first IC by Dreyer, but he did not notice that Javelle's object was exactly at Spitaler's position, too. So, two numbers. </object> <object><oname>IC3936</oname>. The position corresponds to a single star about 30 arcsec south of a line of three stars. The mark on Wolf's plate is not clearly pointing at one or the other of these, however, and his description is more apt for the line of stars (not resolved on the original plate). Wolf also noted the brighter star 1 arcmin following his object, again matching the line of stars better than the single star. However, the single star to the south is only 4 arcsec away from Wolf's position. Given that his mark is ambiguous, I've taken all four stars as IC 3936, and labeled them with my usual directional flags. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3938</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf correctly comments "* 13 sp." See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3939</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3941</oname> is a galaxy. There is a defect on the print of original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate; Wolf's mark points to the defect, but also at the galaxy. Neither is very clear on the print, but Wolf's position is right on the galaxy. Thanks to Malcolm for catching my earlier error for this object. </object> <object><oname>IC3942</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3951</oname> has a defect superposed on the original plate, clearly visible on the print I examined. Wolf noted the second image, and suggested that the object might be a double star immersed in nebulosity. No trace of the second "object" appears on POSS1, however. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3961</oname><oname>NGC4861</oname>, which see. <ignore /> The entire galaxy is clearly marked on the original 16-inch Bruce plate (one of the "stars" mentioned in Wolf's description is the bright HII region), and Herschel's description also clearly applies to the entire galaxy. The identity is certain, and the CGCG's contention that N4861 is only the bright HII region in IC3961 is wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC3962</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3964</oname> is a star. Kobold's offsets, re-reduced with respect to the AC 2000.2 positions for his comparison stars, point directly at it. This is just one of about 15 new nebulae that he found during his work in the Coma Cluster in the spring of 1896. </object> <object><oname>IC3969</oname> is a triple galaxy -- with a foreground star just west -- in the core of Abell 1657. Wolf found two other nebulae (IC3971 and IC3978) -- and a star, possibly blended with two galaxies (IC3984) -- nearby, and suggested that they formed a chain. He encompassed all with a single mark on his plate; only IC3969 and IC3984 are clearly visible on the print. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3970</oname> is probably the star near Wolf's position. However, that position is far enough off the star toward another one to the west, that I wonder if it applies to both stars. If so, then Wolf's position angle is close to being correct, too. But then, Wolf's "* 15 att p" is lost. So, I favor the single star explanation. At least one object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, but the print is not clear enough to show the two stars separately, or any defects that might be involved. </object> <object><oname>IC3971</oname> is a galaxy in Abell 1657. See IC3969 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC3972</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3977</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3978</oname> is a galaxy in Abell 1657. See IC3969 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC3979</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. The position I measured refers to the star alone. There is another star within an arcminute to the north, and I mistakenly took that as the IC object when I went over the field earlier. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3981</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3982</oname> is a star, flanked to the southwest and northeast by two brighter stars, both noted by Wolf. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3983</oname> is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3984</oname> is probably a blended image, a star with two galaxies about 28 arcsec west. While Wolf's position is for the star, the brighter galaxy looks like it is the object marked on the print of the original plate. I've given positions for all three in the main table. </object> <object><oname>IC3988</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3989</oname> is a star about 1.8 arcmin south of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3992</oname> is a star, the eastern and slightly brighter of two. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3995</oname> is a star about 9 arcmin north of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3996</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC3999</oname> is probably identical to NGC4862 (which has its own story). Bigourdan has only a note on the object in his big table, claiming the object to be +30 seconds and +3.7 arcmin from BD -13d 3633. This observation is dated 16 April 1895. However, refering to his table of novae, Bigourdan makes the date 12 May 1885. There is no other trace of this observation in his published tables, including his list of supplementary observations in Appendix 8 of his introduction. So, the 1895 observation is all that we have to go on. At Helwan and Mt. Wilson, observers chose the star close to the nominal position as the object. Wolfgang Steinicke and I made a different choice, the faint galaxy 7 seconds east and 4 arcmin south of the nominal position. Finally, Malcolm Thomson noticed that if the sign of Bigourdan's estimated RA offset is changed to a minus sign, the position is close to NGC4862, a faint spiral found by Frank Leavenworth at Leander McCormick (the galaxy is positively identified by Leavenworth's sketch; as usual, the nominal position is off in RA). Malcolm's idea is given added support when we look at Bigourdan's attempts to find NGC4862 -- he did not find the galaxy on two nights. On the first night, however, he searched at the offset of +10 seconds and +4 arcmin from the same BD star, and made a specific note that he did so. This is the wrong direction, however, so on the second night, he searched at -10 seconds and +4 arcmin. It was on this second night that he "... suspected a trace of nebulosity in the neighborhood of a star, magnitude 13.4, located at ..." the offsets noted above. Since he had his offsets confused for one night, it seems reasonable that he might have done the same the second. In any event, reversing the sign of his estimated RA offset puts his suspected object within an arcminute of NGC4862. Thus, the identity is reasonable, so I've adopted it. ===== IC4005 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4006</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4008</oname> is a double star (or a star plus a fainter, compact galaxy) confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4009</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4010</oname> is a galaxy 1.2 arcminute south of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4013</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4015</oname> <oname>IC4016</oname>, an interacting pair of galaxies, together make up NGC 4893. The NGC position is off enough that Wolf misidentified a defect as the NGC object, and listed both IC objects as new nebulae. Both galaxies, and the defect, are marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4016</oname>. See IC4015. </object> <object><oname>IC4018</oname>. My first sweep over this had it as a galaxy with a star superposed. But looking at the DSS, and comparing it with the print of the original plate, it is clear that the object is simply two stars. I suspect I had the wrong objects on the POSS1 prints the first time around. </object> <object><oname>IC4019</oname> is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's "* 14 att nf" is a defect. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4022</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4024</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4035</oname> is actually a pair of galaxies. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4036</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4046</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4050</oname> is a double star. Wolf's description notes this as a possibility. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4051</oname>. Malcolm has pointed out that the identification of this and NGC4908 (which see for the details) may be switched in most catalogues and lists. I somewhat reluctantly agree with him and have made the switch. This is going to cause a bit of chaos, I'm afraid, but there it is. </object> <object><oname>IC4052</oname> is a blended double star, not a single star as I had first suggested. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4053</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf has a question mark on this object in his list, and notes it as one of several "eF Neb" in a chain. There are two other objects nearby: IC4054 is a star, but there is no mark on the plate for the second neighbor, IC4055 (which see). See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4054</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4055</oname> is probably a defect on the original plate. Unfortunately, no trace of Wolf's ink mark remains -- if there ever was one -- and he has this with a question mark in his list. IC4053 (which see) and IC4054, both stars, both clearly marked, flank this object if Wolf's position is accurate. It is possible that there is another object marked on the plate, and that Wolf's position is the result of a reduction error. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4056</oname> has a star superposed 10 arcsec south of the nucleus. The galaxy and the star are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate, accounting for Wolf's description "exc" -- eccentric. </object> <object><oname>IC4057</oname> is a star, perhaps blended with a compact group of galaxies just 10-25 arcsec north. Wolf's position, however, is that of the star, and the image on the print of the original plate is not clear enough to show whether the galaxies might have registered or not. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4061</oname> is actually a pair of galaxies. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4063</oname>. When I went over this field earlier, I noted a "vF gal sup 6 arcsec ese". I may have got the direction wrong. On the DSS and DSS2R, the galaxy appears to have a faint extension to the southwest. </object> <object><oname>IC4066</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4067</oname> is the northern-most of a trio of galaxies; the others are IC4068 -- with which I4067 is often confused, thanks to an ambiguous entry in MCG -- and IC4073. All three are at the positions given them by Wolf, and all are marked on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4068</oname> is the southern-most of a trio of galaxies; the others are IC4067 (which see) and IC4073. </object> <object><oname>IC4069</oname> is a galaxy 0.7 arcmin north of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4072</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4073</oname> is the eastern-most of a trio of galaxies. The other two are IC4067 (which see) and IC4068. </object> <object><oname>IC4076</oname> is a galaxy. Wolf's comment "? Cl; * 15 np" is correct about the star north-preceding, but not about the nature of the object. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4078</oname> is a double star; Wolf's position is for the following of the two. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4079</oname> has a star superposed preceding. As noted by Wolf, it was this star that he measured. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4080</oname> is a double galaxy, not resolved on a print of the original plate. Wolf correctly noted the two stars flanking the object. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4084</oname> is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4090</oname> is a star with a defect superposed on the original plate. The correct object is marked on a print of that Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4092</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4093</oname>. Bigourdan says of this, "Very close to the star BD +29d 2357 and in the region preceding it, I suspect a trace of nebulosity, seen only when the star is hidden by the wire." He made no measurement of it, and adopted a position that puts his nebula just preceding the star. There is nothing there. So, this is probably a case where either some optical effect led to Bigourdan's suspecting a nebula, or he was again pushing beyond the envelope of his equipment or his eyesight (see e.g. NGC2529). </object> <object><oname>IC4097</oname> is a star (it looks like a blended double on the DSS). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4099</oname> is 3.5 arcmin south of the IC position which was copied correctly from Wolf's list. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4101</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4102</oname> has at least one star superposed; there may be another between the two obvious objects. Both (or all) the images are merged into just one on the print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate, accounting for Wolf's description "neb *." </object> <object><oname>IC4109</oname> is a star, perhaps with a defect superposed. The image on the print of the original plate is faint and messy. I'm no longer sure that a defect is involved. There is certainly a faint galaxy about 25 arcsec south of the star. It is faintly visible on the print, but Wolf's mark, and his position, both point clearly at the star. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4112</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4116</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4117</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4118</oname>. Wolf's RA is two seconds of time too large. This may simply be a typo as the correct galaxy is marked on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4119</oname> is a galaxy with a star superposed. Wolf must have suspected some irregularity in the image since he has a question mark in his Remarks column. The galaxy itself is asymmetrical with the brightest part at the north end. The position we give in the data table is for that bright northern core. The correct object is marked on the print of the original plate; see IC3636 for more about that discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4120</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4121</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. There is a galaxy with a superposed star about forty arcsec to the north. This appears on the print of the original plate, but it is not marked as is the real IC 4121. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4122</oname> is a galaxy, but with its nominal position in Wolf's sixth list three seconds of time preceding the correct position. Wolf notes "like a chain, star 15 preceding 1/3 arcmin". That star is clearly seen, but the fainter star on further west, prominent on the red DSS image, is barely seen on the print of the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4124</oname> is a blended image of a galaxy with a star superposed. Wolf noted the image as somewhat flattened; this apparent extension is due to the star. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4126</oname> is a star. The mark on the original plate does not clearly point to this, but the position is only 8 arcsec from Wolf's. His note has this as one of a curved chain of nebulae 6 arcmin long. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4129</oname> has a star superposed. The image is not resolved on the print of the original plate, and Wolf makes no comment about irregularity, so it must have appeared single there, too. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4132</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4134</oname><oname>NGC4920</oname>. I had this as being a "lost" object for some time. Then, Malcolm suggested that it might actually be a faint galaxy about an arcmin off of Bigourdan's position. That prompted me to take another look at the field. Bigourdan covered the area twice, searching for NGC4933. He found N4933 only once, in May 1897, and noticed that it was double. Curiously, he found two years earlier another double nebula in the area, with about the same separation, and at the same offset from his comparison star. The comparison stars were claimed to be different, however, so the "new" nebulae ended up in the Second IC. That same night in April 1895 yeilded a third "nova" which became IC4134. Bigourdan, of course, misidentified his comparison star that April night, calling it BD -10 3594 when it was, in fact, -10 3589. He did have one published errata for the field, noting that the comparison object for IC4173 was actually IC4176 while he had originally noted it as being another star. Another error which he did not catch was making the declination zone +10 for the BD star in one of the observations, though it was clearly the same star. In any event, once the change is made, his observations fall right into place. Not only is IC4134 = NGC4920, but IC4173 and IC4176 are the two components of NGC4933. </object> <object><oname>IC4136</oname> may be NGC4942, IC4156 may be NGC4948; and IC4209 and IC4212. Something has gone amiss on Harvard plate A3776. It is a one-hour exposure plate, and Stewart found four nebulae on it, all "eeF, cS" or "eF, eS." None of his positions matches any of the galaxies in the area, but fortunately, he gives position angles for three of the four objects he found. Those do allow us to tentatively match three of the galaxies to his objects: IC4156 could be NGC4948, and IC4209 and IC4212 are probably the galaxies listed in the table. Also, his first two objects, IC4136 and IC4156, apparently share the same strange position error: about +5 seconds in RA, and +1d 40 arcmin in declination. When that offset is applied to Stewart's positions, the objects he probably saw turn out to be NGC4942 and NGC4948, respectively. Stewart gives a position for a fifth object on the plate: NGC4995 at 13 07 04, -07 34.0 (1950), within his nominal error of the correct position (he has an interesting note for this: "! S ring neb. with * at centre [sic]). The four IC objects clearly should be checked on the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4138</oname>. Wolf's comment "* 16 inv np, ?**" is interesting since the north- preceding object is a plate defect. The other object is clearly a single galaxy on POSS1, so his concluding comment apparently concerns both the galaxy and the defect. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4142</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4143</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4150</oname> is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4151</oname> is actually an interacting pair of galaxies. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4153</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original plate, even though it's declination is 14 arcsec too large in Wolf's sixth list. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4154</oname> is a relatively low surface brightness spiral at Wolf's position. This is apparently the galaxy observed by Gregory et al. (AJ 95, 662, 1988), though their position is for a star 6 arcmin north. Their finding list was built around low surface brightness galaxies with bright nuclei, a good description of this galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC4155</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4156</oname> may well be NGC4948. See IC4136. </object> <object><oname>IC4157</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. This probably accounts for Wolf's description "2 nuclei?" The correct star is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, and the defect is seen on the print, too. </object> <object><oname>IC4168</oname>. The declination in Wolf's list -- and in the IC-- is 10 arcmin too far north, clearly a typo. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4169</oname> has a very faint galaxy superposed. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4170</oname> is a double galaxy, the northern two of a triple system. The two are not resolved on the print of the original plate, and the third is not on the print, probably being too faint to have registered on the original plate. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4172</oname>. The right ascension in Wolf's list -- and in the IC-- is 1.0 minute too far west, clearly a typo. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4173</oname><oname>NGC4933</oname>sw. This is the fainter component of the double galaxy. It was seen twice by Bigourdan, though he misidentified his comparison star on one night, so it has ended up with an IC number as well as the NGC number. The other component of N4933 is IC4176. Bigourdan "discovered" another galaxy that night, IC4134 (which see for details) -- but that is NGC4920. </object> <object><oname>IC4174</oname> is a star with a defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4176</oname><oname>NGC4933</oname>ne. See IC4173 = NGC4933sw and IC4134 = NGC4920 for more details. </object> <object><oname>IC4179</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Wolf's comment about a "* 14 p" is also correct. He says nothing, however, about a very faint galaxy 6 arcsec to the east -- there is no trace of this on the print. </object> <object><oname>IC4180</oname>. See IC4196. </object> <object><oname>IC4181</oname> is a double galaxy, or a galaxy with a bright knot on the northern end. The two are not resolved on the print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4185</oname>. The last nebula in Max Wolf's 6th list, his description clearly states "* 15 north meas[ured]." Dreyer overlooked the last word, so the IC description simply reads "att * 15 n." The object that Wolf measured is actually a rather faint galaxy, apparently interacting with the larger slightly distorted spiral to the south. Since Wolf obviously saw both objects on his plate, I've labeled the brighter object I4185s, and the fainter I4185n. See IC3636 for more about the discovery plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4186</oname> is a pair of stars. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4190</oname> is a star about 3 arcmin following IC4182. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4192</oname> is a defect on the 16-inch Bruce refractor plate which Wolf examined. The object is marked on the print that plate that I've looked at, but it is neither on POSS1 nor POSS2. </object> <object><oname>IC4194</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4195</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4196</oname><oname>NGC4970</oname>. Swift found this and two other nebulae (I4180 and I4197) in the area on 27 February 1898. My guess is that he simply forgot to check the NGC, or else he did check and missed NGC4970. WH's position is very close to the modern positions, and Swift's is within two arcmin of WH's. However, Dreyer also missed the identity, as did Howe when he went over the field, presumably in 1899 (his note in MNRAS 61, 31, 1900 where he also corrects the position for IC4197, Swift's "3rd of 3"). The galaxy is positively identified by Swift's note "11m * near p". Dreyer adopted Howe's distance (4 arcmin) to the star for the IC description. </object> <object><oname>IC4197</oname>. See IC4196. </object> <object><oname>IC4198</oname><oname>NGC4979</oname>. Javelle describes the single galaxy at this position correctly ("F, cS, R" in the IC), but then adds a footnote, "Distinct from NGC4979," which suggests that he saw two objects here. Since there is only one galaxy in the field, and since Javelle's position is within three arcsec of the nucleus of that, we have to conclude that his observation in fact refers to WH's object. My guess is that his footnote applies to another of his "novae", and that the NGC number got confused during reduction and preparation for publication. Dreyer first noticed the identity when he examined Wolf's ninth list of new nebulae found photographically at Heidelburg. In his brief 1912 Monthly Notices list of NGC corrections based on his edition of WH's Scientific Papers, he says, "III. 346 must be = I.C. 4198, as Wolf's ninth list has only one object there (No. 105)." </object> <object><oname>IC4199</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4203</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4205</oname><oname>IC853</oname>. Swift found I4205 on 23 May 1897, the same night as IC3791 (which see) with which it shares a +5 arcmin offset in declination from the modern position. Swift's description is appropriate for the galaxy, so I'm pretty well convinced of the identity. Swift catalogued IC853 in June of 1890 while he was still in Rochester: it was actually found by his son Edward. The position and description are near enough to the fairly isolated galaxy to preclude any other identification. Swift must have been well enough aware of his poor positions to check that his "novae" were indeed "novae." I suspect, though, that the lure of fame was too much for him, so that he simply accepted objects as new if his positions put them further than a few arcminutes from a known nebula. Unfortunately, there is little evidence in his papers to suggest that he often tried to recover his nebulae. He surely would have been disappointed had he made the attempt. </object> <object><oname>IC4206</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4208</oname> is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4209</oname>. See IC4136. </object> <object><oname>IC4211</oname> is a star with a fainter nearby companion. The brighter star is clearly seen and marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, but the fainter star is not there. </object> <object><oname>IC4212</oname>. See IC4136. </object> <object><oname>IC4222</oname><oname>IC879</oname>. Even though Swift has the position a degree south, he says in his description for IC4222 "[NGC] 5078 nr nf." This makes it certain that his object is identical to IC879, found a few years earlier by Ormond Stone (this is one of the few "novae" found at Leander McCormick after the astronomers there began their long series of micrometric measurements). This, by the way, is one of Lewis Swift's last new nebulae, found in March of 1898, and published only in his big 11th "catalogue of new nebulas" in AN. It missed his 8th list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory by a few days, so we do not have a published verification of the 1 degree declination error. But the sky and Swift's description provide all the verification we need. Another by the way: I had earlier thought that this might be a double star near Swift's published position -- I was wrong. Andris, Wolfgang, and Malcolm all got it right before I got back around to it. </object> <object><oname>IC4233</oname><oname>NGC5124</oname>. Swift found this on the night of 31 December 1897. Though he calls it "eeF, pS, R," his additional note "trapezium near sf" makes the identification with NGC5124 certain: the stars are there. Swift's RA is 50 seconds of time too small. This is the brightest of a compact, interacting group of four galaxies. JH saw the two brightest (the other is NGC5126), and I suspect that modern southern observers could dig out the other two with 15-20-inch class telescopes. </object> <object><oname>IC4236</oname><oname>NGC5118</oname>. Swift's declination is 10 arcmin too small; otherwise, his position is good for a change, and his description (especially the note "... in vacancy ...") is entirely appropriate. There are two other minor problems here. Swift published two different RA's for the object, and his description of the form of the nebula varies, too. The first paper (PASP 9,186,1897) has the RA 10 arcsec too large, and the description is misprinted "... CE ...." In MN 57, 629, 1897, he has the correct position, and the description correctly reads "... cE ...." He transfered the correct RA to his ninth long list in AN 3004, but he transcribed the description as "... eE ...." Dreyer took this ninth list to be definitive, so the IC2 data agree with it rather than either of the first two papers. </object> <object><oname>IC4257</oname> is one of 7 nebulae near M51 found by Keeler on two Lick 36-inch reflector plates. The other six are all in their measured places, but there is no trace of IC4257 where Keeler placed it. The original position, published in a short Monthly Notices paper, is not significantly different from a refined position that appears in the Lick Publications, Volume 8, a few years later. About 4 arcmin north of the published position, however, is a faint galaxy that pretty well matches Keeler's description. However, the position is not exactly 4 arcmin north, even taking into account systematic offsets (from modern positions) of +0.3 sec and +4 arcsec in Keeler's positions for the other six galaxies. This makes a simple typo unlikely, suggesting some sort of mistake in measurement or reduction on Keeler's part. However, Keeler claims to have seen the object on two plates, so one would think that a mistake working on one would be found by comparison with the other. </object> <object><oname>IC4274</oname><oname>NGC5189</oname>. Found by Wilhelmina Fleming on a Harvard objective prism plate, this was put into the second IC with the north polar distance of 115 degrees rather than the correct 155 degrees (the Harvard Annals, Volume 60, lists the declination as -65 degrees). Unfortunately, this simple typo has been carried over into NGC2000.0 as a 40 degree error in the declination of I4274. N5189's position there is correct, however. </object> <object><oname>IC4287</oname> is a double galaxy -- the western component is considerably brighter and larger -- with a star or compact companion to the northeast. There appears to be a bridge between this northeastern object and the galaxy pair. </object> <object><oname>IC4291</oname>. Though described by Innes as if it is a pretty small nebula, this is actually a fairly compact open cluster. It's overall size is about 5 x 3 arcmin, while there is a more compact core 2.0 x 1.8 arcmin. I suspect it was this core that Innes saw in his 6- or 7-inch refractor. </object> <object><oname>IC4308</oname> is, at least for now, lost. Javelle's offsets and notes do not fit any star-galaxy pair in the area, so a wide-ranging search will have to be done. Here are some details. Javelle's measurements on 17 June 1903 are +1m 58.58s, +5' 50.4" (declination, not NPD) from a star with magnitude 9.3 which he calls "BD +33 2354". He has one of his rare notes on this star: "Double; I took the second, the brighter." The BD star he names is not double. I thought at first that UGC 8539 and BD +33 2345 (m = 9.3 -- caught my eye, of course) might be Javelle's object and comparison star, but the position differences do not match his measurements -- they are about 6 seconds of time and 1.4 arcmin off. Wolfgang took a pair of very faint galaxies with an equally faint star superposed. The three are well beyond the limit of even the 30-inch refractor that Javelle was using at Nice. So, we need to keep looking for IC4308. </object> <object><oname>IC4317</oname> is sometimes taken to be the brighter CGCG 161-122 six arcmin south of Javelle's position. But when his position is re-reduced with respect to the AC 2000.2 position for his comparison star, BD +27 2283, it falls within five arcseconds of the nucleus of the fainter northern object. There is no doubt about which galaxy Javelle saw. It probably has a higher surface brightness than the larger, brighter galaxy to the south. So, this is a well-documented case where a visual observer missed a brighter object, but picked up a fainter one nearby. </object> <object><oname>IC4329</oname> is a bright southern galaxy not swept up by JH. Ironically, he did find several other galaxies near it, so there are now NGC galaxies in the "IC 4329 Group." A Seyfert galaxy near the IC object is now commonly called "IC4329A". It is almost exactly edgewise to our line of sight, yet the Seyfert nucleus shines through. I classified this as "S0+ sp", so it may not have much dust to block the light of the nucleus. Also see IC953 for a curious historical sidelight on this group. </object> <object><oname>IC4330</oname>. There is nothing in Frost's place, but exactly two minutes preceding is a galaxy (ESO 445- G027) meeting his description: "Ellip., 1.0' by 0.5', magn. 13.5." Frost's printed RA is probably a typo or transcription error. Malcolm has suggested that Frost's object might be ESO 445- G051. This is less likely, I think, because there would have to be two position errors: 0.1 minute in RA (a possible digit error), and about 7 arcmin in Dec. Frost's description also does not match the likely appearance of the galaxy on his plate. The faint outer ring would probably not be visible on the plate, and the bright bulge of the galaxy is nearly round, so most likely appeared stellar. </object> <object><oname>IC4335</oname> is a close double star at Bigourdan's position. He has two measurements of it on 25 May 1895. His description is apt, and he correctly notes the position angle -- 10 degrees -- and distance -- 2.5 arcmin -- of a nearby 13th magnitude star (actually a merged multiple star; I cannot tell for sure on the DSS image how many stars are involved). The identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC4338</oname><oname>NGC5334</oname>. Swift has somehow confused NGC5334 with a new nebula. He has two different dates for it, too (20 April 1897 is probably correct; this appears twice: in the big AN "Catalogue No. 11", and in the shorter second list from Lowe Observatory as published in MNRAS. The PASP version of the list has 30 April 1897). His description clearly refers to the NGC galaxy, except -- well, read it for yourself (this is the PASP version; that in MNRAS is the same). "vL, eF, C[sic]E n & s; in field with 5334. A F st close to each end of major axis. See note." His note reads "This is a remarkable object. I have never seen one just like it. It resembles an elliptical planetary nebula. The light is evenly diffused, and the limb sharp as a planet. Strange, Sir William Herschel missed it, being so near his III 665. Munich 9619 is nf 121 seconds." All this positively identifies NGC5334 as the object Swift saw. His position, of course, is off in RA (10 seconds of time), though is pretty close in declination (just half an arcminute south). If the star he mentions is SAO 139616 (at 13 52 17.92, -00 51 44.7; actually 118 seconds following the galaxy), then there is no doubt at all. So, why did he think that WH's nebula was nearby? Is it possible that he picked up UGC 8801, thinking -- because of its higher surface brightness -- that it is H III 665? This is the only other object in the area that Swift might have mistaken for N5334, but it seems a stretch to me. In any event, the identity of the IC object is certain, as is that of the NGC galaxy -- they are one and the same. </object> <object><oname>IC4347</oname>. Swift refers to this in a note attached to his discovery paper as the most perfect example of a "nebulous star" that he's found. It is actually a double star, separated by about three arcseconds immersed in nebulosity. Nearby are three other similar, though fainter, objects. ESO put the IC number on the wrong one. </object> <object><oname>IC4353</oname>. This may be one of Bigourdan's illusory nebulae. Or it may be, as Wolfgang suggests, a star near Bigourdan's estimated position. However, the nominal position falls in a void between two 15th magnitude stars. And Bigourdan correctly notes the distance to his comparison star if he "saw" his object at his nominal position -- the distance would be off if he actually meant either of the stars to be his "nova". His full description reads, "Object of doubtful aspect which could be a small cluster, perhaps accompanied by a little nebulosity." Considering everything, I think that this is another of his "fausse images." </object> <object><oname>IC4365</oname><oname>NGC5437</oname>. Bigourdan measured all three of Tempel's nebulae and thought he'd found a fourth. However, his "nova" is actually a star that he mislabeled "NGC5436." He also mislabeled N5436 itself as "N5437," and put the number "IC4365" on N5437 (this piece of his big table was published after IC2 had appeared). His measurements of the four objects are good; it's just his labels that are not. </object> <object><oname>IC4369</oname>, IC4370, and IC4371 are three of the galaxies in Hickson's compact group number 70. Curiously, they do not include the brightest galaxy in the group, but Javelle's micrometrically measured positions accurately point at the galaxies he saw. The identifications have been mangled badly in the modern literature, but as I said, Javelle's positions are definitive. </object> <object><oname>IC4370</oname> is in Hickson 70, and a companion of IC4369, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC4371</oname> is in Hickson 70, and a companion of IC4369, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC4376</oname> is almost certainly the line of three stars listed in the positon list. The only possible question is the position angle: Stewart has 40 degrees, while the stars are actually at 64 degrees. This is close enough, however, to make the identification very sure. It was first suggested by Helwan, Andris picked up on it for ESO, and so did I during the SGC work. Wolfgang also took the stars. We'll go with them. </object> <object><oname>IC4381</oname><oname>NGC5008</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4383</oname>. Found by Bigourdan 1.7' north-preceding NGC5504, the discovery position is good, though was estimated only, not measured. This has not prevented CGCG and UGC from misidentifying the galaxy straight north of N5504 as I4383. Fortunately, MCG has it right, so RC3 also got it right. </object> <object><oname>IC4385</oname> is most likely the asterism of 4-5 stars about 1.5 arcmin west of the nominal position. There is nothing else around that matches Frost's description ("R, lbM, d 0.2 arcmin") and position as well, though the star field is fairly rich this close to the Milky Way. Perhaps another asterism is the correct one; we need to check the Harvard plate to be sure. The galaxy that ESO suggested is much too faint to have turned up even on a four-hour Bruce plate, and the position is 14 arcmin off, too (you know how much I like digit errors -- this is not a digit error). So, I'm adopting the asterism. It fits well enough. </object> <object><oname>IC4392</oname>. I think that this is the line of 4-5 stars about four arcmin north of the nominal position. The position angle is correct, and there is a "F * sf" just as Stewart says. Given that he found it on only a single one-hour plate, the declination difference is probably within his nominal errors. So, while the identification is not certain, I'm fairly confident that it is nevertheless correct. </object> <object><oname>IC4394</oname>. There is nothing at Bigourdan's position, which is about six arcmin north-northwest of NGC5541. He has only one measurement of the position, refered to AGK1 (Bonn) 9350 = SAO 064040. His table has the RA of this star 10 seconds too large, but that does not help us find his nebula. In the immediate area, there are no galaxies at similar offsets from other stars of similar brightness. Wolfgang has put the IC number on MCG +07-29-058, but this is 3 arcmin off of Bigourdan's position and does not match his measured position angle and distance at all. I suspect he misidentified his comparison star, but with no candidates in the area, this remains only a suspicion. A check of Bigourdan's supplemental observations and his errata lists turned up no more information on this object, so this observation will probably remain a mystery. </object> <object><oname>IC4400</oname> is a pretty compact group of six or seven stars, four of them pretty bright (noted by Andris Lauberts for ESO). The position that we've all adopted is for this group. However, Innes notes that the object is "elongated." Did his object also include the additional 3-4 stars about an arcminute to the northwest? If so, the 1950 position becomes 14 18 27.8, -60 20 22. These are far enough away that I don't think that they would have merged with the others, even with a night of very bad seeing. Still, an observation with a 6- or 7-inch refractor would be useful to confirm this speculation. </object> <object><oname>IC4401</oname>. See IC997 and IC998. </object> <object><oname>IC4404</oname> is a star. The number is often assigned to the faint galaxy just north of NGC5547, and some have speculated that it might be identical to N5547. However, Bigourdan's precise measurements on one night, and an estimated position on another, point exactly to the star. In addition, he measured N5547 on that second night, so the two objects are clearly different. </object> <object><oname>IC4411</oname> is probably a plate defect. The faint spindle suggested in ESO-B is much fainter than any other galaxy that Stewart found on the 1hr Bruce plate, and its position is well off (-1m 38s, -5.5 arcmin). All the other IC galaxies on the plate -- save one with a 10 arcmin declination digit error -- are within an arcminute of their nominal positions. There are no galaxies with digit errors that could be I4411, either. We need to check the Bruce plate, presumeably still at Harvard. </object> <object><oname>IC4412</oname><oname>NGC5594</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4414</oname><oname>IC1008</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4424</oname><oname>IC1016</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4430</oname> is probably ESO 385- G030 with a 10 arcmin error in the Declination. Stewart found this on a one-hour Bruce plate where it probably would have indeed appeared "cF, cS, indistinct". Nevertheless, the galaxy is large and bright enough to be a candidate for the NGC, let alone the IC. It is in good company -- there are several dozen others in the south that JH also missed during his sweeping from the Cape. I noticed the error through comparison with Wolfgang's position. Malcolm may have caught this, too. </object> <object><oname>IC4431</oname><oname>IC1012</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4437</oname> is another of Barnard's unpublished discoveries. The NGC position and description (such as it is ...) is all we have. There is nothing at the position, and the 8th magnitude star that Barnard notes is south-preceding his position, not north-following. There is, however, a faint, close double star about 1.5 arcmin from Barnard's position. Barnard probably could have seen this, and it's possible that he got his directions confused in an inverting eyepiece. Another, much more remote possibility, is that Barnard picked up NGC5630. But that is 15 arcmin south-southeast of his position, and the star east- northeast of it is over eight arcmin away. It is also 10th or 11th magnitude; would Barnard have bothered to mention it without describing his nebula? I doubt it. </object> <object><oname>IC4441</oname><oname>IC4444</oname>. This is another bad position from Swift -- there is nothing in his place. IC4444, however, is 16 seconds following and 6.0 arcmin south, and it matches Swift's description. Stewart hinted at the identity, noting the offsets to Swift's object. Frost also found the galaxy on another Harvard plate, and the position in Stewart's list is good. ESO (SGC followed along; see the note to I4444) made I4441 = to ESO 272- G011. This is incorrect as this ESO object is too faint for Swift to have seen as far south as it is. Even had he seen it, he surely would have commented on the several bright stars nearby. It remained for Malcolm to sort this one out, which he did in his usual inimitable style. </object> <object><oname>IC4444</oname><oname>IC4441</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4453</oname>. This is one of the five nebulae that Swift found on the night of 22 February 1898; it is one of the three that we can identify. See IC2595 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC4455</oname><oname>NGC5664</oname>, which also see for a somewhat longer story (the NGC object comes from Leander McCormick). Stewart's RA is 45 seconds off, but his declination and description from a one-hour plate ("eF, eS, cE at 30 degrees") is good enough to identify the galaxy he saw. </object> <object><oname>IC4465</oname> is noted as "lE 180 deg" by Frost. The position angle is actually closer to 85 deg. This may be a misprint, or it may suggest that the image on the discovery plate is flawed in some way. Frost's position is good, and there are no other likely candidates nearby, so I do not doubt the identification. But the position angle is a bit of a mystery. Checking the original Bruce plate might clear up the question. </object> <object><oname>IC4471</oname><oname>NGC5697</oname>. Bigourdan went over this area on two nights. On the first, 6 June 1894, he found a faint nebula that he could not measure because of a poor sky. He estimated its position as 30 seconds of time following and 36 arcsec south of BD +42 2516. This is close to a double star about 0.8 arcmin southwest of NGC5697. However, that estimated position has relatively large errors, and Bigourdan did not mention NGC5697 itself in his descriptive note. He does, however, say, "[The nebula] is preceded by a star 11.5 situated in the middle of the distance between BD +42 2516 and this nebula." That star is his comparison star for his measurements of NGC5697 on the second night, 4 May 1899. His reduced observation places the galaxy within a few arcsec of the modern position (surprisingly, the galaxy is in the Tycho-2 star catalogue; is there a star superposed, or does it have a stellar nucleus?). However, on this night, Bigourdan claims that he did not see the faint nebula that he found five years earlier. Nor does he mention the new nebula in his note for NGC5697. His note on the second night for IC4471, his "nova," reads in full: "Not seen; [then, in italics] I looked for it preceding the star BD +42 2516." I think that during preparing his observations for publication, he realized his mistake and inserted the italicized part of the note. In any event, he never observed more than one nebula at a time in this field. Also, the combined magnitude for the double star (15.6) is about a magnitude fainter than the magnitude for NGC5697 (14.7). So, I think that his observations for his "nova" and for NGC5697 actually refer to the same object. </object> <object><oname>IC4490</oname> is only a double star; there is no nebulosity surrounding it. There is also no mistaking the identification as Innes describes the field perfectly: "Elliptical neb. surrounding two stars as if they were the foci of an eclipse [sic], mags 9.5 and 10. The Cor. D.M. mag. of the chief star is 9.7. In a high-power field with Lac. 6076 [= SAO 205904]." He adopts the position of the Cordoba Durchmusterung, too, so there can be no doubt as to the double star he saw. There is just no nebulosity around the stars. It was perhaps an optical effect of some sort due to the proximity of the 7th magnitude star just 1.5 arcmin north; or it could have been as simple as bad seeing or dew on a lens somewhere in the optical chain. </object> <object><oname>IC4491</oname><oname>IC1055</oname>. Stewart's RA is three minutes of time off, apparently a mismeasurement. His description reads "F, S, eE at 0 degrees (I.C.1055, J.318, f 3.0m, same dec.)". It's not clear from this whether he saw something on his plate at what he thought was I1055's position, but there is certainly nothing at the position he gives for his object. The description, and the even three-minute error, make it clear that the two numbers refer to the same object. </object> <object><oname>IC4493</oname><oname>NGC5747</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4494</oname> may be CGCG 105-013 = MCG +03-38-003 -- but it may also be CGCG 105-014 = MCG +03-38-004. The first is closer to Frost's nominal position, but the second is a virtually perfect match for his description: "vF and dif., R, d 0.2 arcmin". Given that the 4-hour Bruce plate on which Frost found the galaxy has a limiting magnitude of about 17, the galaxy would appear considerably smaller on that plate than on the POSS1 prints. CGCG 105-013 has an apparent diameter of 1.0 x 0.4, while C-014 has a diameter of 0.5 x 0.4. So which one did he see? We'll have to examine the plate in the Harvard archives to know for sure. In the meantime, I'm listing both objects, giving slightly more weight to the northern object (CGCG 105-013), but only because it is closer to Frost's nominal position. As I've noted, Frost's description favors the southern galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC4510</oname> <oname>IC4513</oname> are probably plate defects on Arequipa Bruce plate number 3671. This was a short-exposure plate, too, so the objects would have to be fairly bright to show up on it if they were real. There is nothing at all at the positions that Stewart gives, and he notes "indistinct, susp" for I4510. </object> <object><oname>IC4511</oname> is probably also a plate defect. Frost describes it as "Dif[fuse], R, lbM, d 0.6 arcmin." There is nothing like this anywhere near his nominal position. </object> <object><oname>IC4513</oname> is probably a plate defect. See IC4510. </object> <object><oname>IC4514</oname>. See IC4550. </object> <object><oname>IC4515</oname>. Javelle got the sign on his north polar distance offset wrong. Once that is corrected, his position lands right on CGCG 193-005. </object> <object><oname>IC4516</oname> was the last object discovered by Lewis Swift; the date was 2 June 1898. See IC4550. </object> <object><oname>IC4518</oname> itself is the western and slightly brighter of a pair of interacting galaxies. The eastern object, mentioned in the description but not given a separate entry in either Frost's list nor the IC, has a bright plume extending back to the northwest -- this is sometimes taken as a separate object. On the DSS, the two lie under the diffraction spike of a bright star a few arcminutes to the east. Frost's plates were all taken with a refractor, so don't suffer from such "defects" -- though most of us simply accept these as "features." </object> <object><oname>IC4528</oname> is one of the relatively few real galaxies that Bigourdan found. It is just where he observed it, and the 12th magnitude star that he noted is still at PA = 300 deg and d = 2 arcmin from it. Wolfgang's choice in early editions of his lists, a minute of time preceding and 2.7 arcmin north, must have been due to a typo. </object> <object><oname>IC4532</oname> is CGCG 136-006. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. It is actually the star at 15 02 29.2, +23 24 20 (1950). Once this change is made, his measured position falls within four arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy. And his description (summarized by Dreyer) "vF, N, stellar" fits as well. He made a similar error, but with a different comparison star, for IC4534, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC4533</oname> may also be NGC5840 (which see) -- but probably is not. </object> <object><oname>IC4534</oname> is UGC 09713. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. It is actually the star at 15 03 17.6, +23 55 10 (1950). Once this change is made, his measured position falls within half an arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy. And his description (summarized by Dreyer) "pB, S, Ens, N" fits as well. However, in spite of the similarity of errors, Javelle did not use the same comparison star for IC4532 (which see). He discovered I4534 three nights later on 28 July 1903, and the positions are about half a degree different. </object> <object><oname>IC4535</oname>. Wolfgang chose the wrong galaxy, apparently because the one at Javelle's place is so faint. However, it fits his (Javelle's) position to within 2 arcsec, and the faint star mentioned in the description is indeed southwest by about an arcminute. I would guess that the object's appearance on RealSky is somewhat degraded by the extra digitization so that it looks stellar. The object that Wolfgang chose can be ruled out by applying Javelle's measurements to the galaxy using the opposite signs. Were it the correct galaxy, a fairly bright comparison star would be at the offsets -- there is none. </object> <object><oname>IC4540</oname> is lost, unless Wolfgang's guess that it is the double star a few arcmin north of SAO 120946 is correct. In this case, Swift's position is 45 seconds of time and 3 arcmin off (not unusual for Swift's later positions), and his description "B * in field n partly obscures it" has the star misplaced if Wolfgang is correct -- it is south of Wolfgang's double rather than north. Nevertheless, the double is the only reasonable possibility that I see in the area, so I've kept it in the table. Interestingly, M 5 (NGC5904) is about 20 arcmin northwest of the double. I wonder if Swift saw it while he was sweeping for new nebulae, and if he did, why he did not mention it in his note for I4540. Finally, I should note that I checked every "bright" star in this POSS1 field and found no "vF, pS, mE" galaxy near any of them. My hesitation in accepting the double star as Swift's object is that it is close enough that he probably would have called it "vS" or "eS" rather than just "pS". Well, I've put it in the table, anyway, like it or not: it is certainly a candidate and Swift has been further off in describing many other of his "novae". </object> <object><oname>IC4543</oname><oname>IC1118</oname>. Though Swift's position falls within a couple of arcmin of NPM1G +13.0409, that galaxy is not IC4543. Instead, the brighter IC1118 (correctly positioned by Javelle) with the faint star northwest mentioned by Swift, is the correct object. </object> <object><oname>IC4544</oname> is one of Fleming's "stellar planetary nebulae" discovered on objective plates taken at one of Harvard's southern stations. Unfortunately, the position lands in a field of very faint stars, and the reference to the original paper is given incorrectly in HA 60: the object is not included in the AN volume 128, page 11 paper of 1891 (Dreyer would have included it in IC1 if it were there). Short of tracking it down in one of the Harvard publications of 1893 (the discovery date in HA 60) to see if it might also be a variable star, there is not much that we can do to recover this. Still, I'll go through the historical literature as well as I can to see if I can in fact find it. Patience. Or, better yet, have a go yourself! After I wrote that a couple of years ago ("now" is September 2004), ADS got all of the Harvard College Observatory Circulars online. I checked all of Fleming's devoted to emission line objects and did not find IC4544 in any of them. Perhaps it is in another AN or ApJ note. </object> <object><oname>IC4550</oname><oname>NGC5946</oname>. This globular cluster is not only the southern-most of Swift's "discoveries", it is also one of his last -- he probably found it on 24 May 1898, the penultimate night on which he recorded any "new" nebulae (the very last night appearing in his lists, 2 June 1898, has two objects, IC4514 and IC4516). Though this object appears only in his 11th list, the date appears in his 12th list on at least two other nebulae, and probably three. There is a lot of overlap of dates between those two lists; I've wondered if Swift was careless with his observing records, or just becoming forgetful or easily distracted as he grew older. I also say "probably" above because his 12th list in MN may have a typo with the year above the date column inserted at the wrong point in the table. If it is at the right point, there is a gap of almost six months between his next-to-last night, 24 May 1898 and the last night, 11 November. It seems odd to me that he'd find only one object on that night so far removed from his previous observations, when before that there is nearly an unbroken string of discoveries from mid-1896 to mid-1898, with a few earlier in 1895. It seems more likely to me that the observation of 11 November is actually in 1897 -- especially since he found six other objects on 11 Nov 1897 -- and that there is, in fact, a typo in the 12th list table. I'd like to see Swift's original log book or records, but I do not know if it (or they) still exists. In any case, Swift's RA for this globular is 40 seconds of time too small, but his declination and description are good. He apparently did not resolve the cluster -- not surprising as it would have been, at most, only five or six degrees above his horizon. I actually am surprised that he called this "pB" (Dreyer changed this to "B" for the IC entry) -- this is one of the fainter Galactic globular clusters. There is no doubt about the identity, in spite of the object's low altitude as seen from Echo Mountain. Nothing else in the area comes close to matching Swift's observation. </object> <object><oname>IC4551</oname><oname>NGC5964</oname>. Swift gives the RA only to a whole minute of time and puts a question mark after it. It turns out to be only 3.5 minutes of time off, and his declination is just 2.6 arcmin too far north. However, the clincher is Swift's description: "eeeF, L, R, eee dif". N5964 fits that perfectly. Lacking any other reasonable candidate within several degrees, I'm going to accept Reinmuth's suggestion and make the two numbers equal. </object> <object><oname>IC4552</oname> is almost certainly identical with UGC 09945. Swift found this the same night, 21 June 1897, as he found IC4540 (which see). Here, however, we have a reasonable candidate matching his description, if not very well his position. Swift's description "eF, pS, R; near the 1st of 6 or 8 sts in a curved line" is accurate for U9945 -- the curved line of stars stretches to the east for 10 to 11 arcmin, just enough to nearly reach the edge of Swift's 32-arcmin field and be a striking sight with the galaxy centered. It is also further evidence of Swift's declining observing skills; his position is 4 minutes of time and 6.9 arcmin off. Other candidate galaxies, closer to Swift's nominal position, are fainter and do not have obvious lines of stars nearby. These include NGC5952, NGC5955, and UGC 09886. I don't think that we can stretch Swift's description to fit any of these as well as U9945. Nevertheless, I've put colons on the IC number as a flag of the poor position match. </object> <object><oname>IC4553</oname><oname>IC1127</oname>, and IC4554. In the recent astronomical literature, the two numbers I4553 and I4554 are usually applied to the single peculiar galaxy Arp 220 = IRAS 15327+2340. The object has two optically bright "nuclei" or knots, so it has been assumed that one IC number applies to each (the real nucleus, a strong infrared source, is actually hidden behind the dust lane that splits the optical image of the galaxy). However, the IC positions are from careful micrometric measurements by Javelle. That for IC4553 is close the the GSC position for Arp 220, so that identification is secure. But Javelle's position for IC4554 is 2.2 arcmin southeast of IC4553, much too far from his position for IC4553 to be the other of the optical knots. Exactly at the position given by Javelle, however, is a somewhat fainter galaxy. It matches Javelle's description, and there is no doubt that it is the real IC4554. One other curiosity about this field: Javelle was not the discoverer of IC 4553. It was actually found in 1866 by Safford, and is IC1127 (which see). </object> <object><oname>IC4554</oname>. See IC4553. </object> <object><oname>IC4560</oname>. Javelle got confused in the middle of his observation about his comparison star, so he used BD +40 2905 for the RA offset and BD +40 2903 for the Dec offset (he claimed to have used +40 2903 for this object). For the other object he found on the same night near the same stars, IC4563, he used only +40 2905. Both stars, by the way, have very high proper motions at nearly half an arcsecond per year, among the highest I've seen for comparison stars. Javelle, of course, did not know that. </object> <object><oname>IC4563</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star for his measurement of this object: it was BD +40 2905 and not +40 2903 as he claimed. See IC4565 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC4586</oname><oname>NGC6014</oname>. This is one of the last nebulae found by Lewis Swift. He gives the RA only to a whole minute of time, though his declination is precise to a tenth of an arcminute (it is, however, off by almost six arcmin). The identity, first suggested in Carlson's 1940 paper, is assured by Swift's notes about the field: "Between a star 8 following and a curve of stars preceding." NGC6014 fits that description perfectly. </object> <object><oname>IC4588</oname> is very close to its IC position southeast of NGC6051. And Dreyer added a note to Javelle's description mentioning the NGC galaxy. So, it's a bit of a mystery why MCG has equated the two numbers. UGC separated them again, and it's clear that they ought to remain that way. </object> <object><oname>IC4591</oname>, IC4592, IC4601, IC4603, IC4604, and IC4605 are all part of the great complex of nebulae around rho Ophiuchi in the general area of Antares. Though discovered visually by Barnard while he was sweeping for comets, the nebulae are too faint to be clearly seen by eye. So, Barnard's descriptions, published first in AN and a few months later -- with photographs -- in MN, come from his early Lick plates of the area. Interestingly, Stewart also examined a plate of the area, his taken from Harvard's Arequipa Station in Peru, but found only IC4601 on it. His plate was a one-hour exposure, while Barnard was able to expose for two-plus hours with a faster camera for his discovery plates. Barnard's 6-inch portrait lens also gave a considerably larger field of view, roughly 12 deg by 10 deg (at least as reproduced in Vol. 11 of the Lick Publications). Stewart worked with a field of 6.4 x 6.4 degrees, coincidentally very close to that of the Palomar and Southern (Siding Spring) Sky Surveys. Barnard's descriptions, while very sketchy and qualitative, are adequate to identify the nebulae, and his positions refer to the stars involved in the brighter parts of the nebulosity. Dreyer adopted generally adopted positions for the stars as given in Barnard's papers, so I've followed along using positions from Tycho-2 for the same stars. I've taken mean values when necessary. </object> <object><oname>IC4592</oname>. See IC4591. </object> <object><oname>IC4594</oname>. Javelle got the sign on his NPD offset wrong. Corrected, his position falls within three arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy. Unfortunately, there is an 18th magnitude galaxy near the incorrect position copied into the IC. This has been occasionally taken as the IC object; it is not. </object> <object><oname>IC4596</oname>. See IC4600. </object> <object><oname>IC4597</oname> may also be NGC6082, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC4600</oname> may be the small asterism of three stars which I've noted in the position table; it is close to the nominal position. Or the IC object may be the small, round galaxy 2min, 10sec of time preceding the nominal position. This suggestion comes from ESO-B, and was picked up by Wolfgang Steinicke as well. There is also a linear asterism of three stars north of the nominal position that I've put into the position table. Or I4600 may be a defect on the 4.5-hour Bruce plate. Hopefully the plate still exists so that it can be checked someday. The only other object which Stewart found on this particular plate is IC4596. That is at its nominal position, and matches Stewart's description very well. </object> <object><oname>IC4601</oname>. The NGC RA is 20 seconds of time too large. I thought at first that this was a problem with Stewart's position having been combined with Barnard's, but Stewart's is quite accurate. Barnard's is only another nine seconds to the east, so Dreyer has made some small additional error. Whatever happened, the position and identification of the nebula is not in doubt. See IC4591 for more on the vast and wonderful complex of nebulosity around rho Ophiuchi. </object> <object><oname>IC4602</oname><oname>NGC6132</oname>. Swift's declination is just 1 degree too far north. Otherwise, his position and description fit the galaxy perfectly. He says, "eeeF, lE, S, F * near f; 2 B sts s nearly point to it; eee dif." His notation "S" comes from his second list from Lowe Observatory, and did not make it into his big 11th catalogue in AN, so is also missing from the IC. The faint star near following is probably the one at 16 21 25.26, +11 52 56.6, though there are fainter stars closer to the galaxy. The two bright stars to the south are SAO 102127 and 102128 at V = 8.9 and 8.4, respectively. </object> <object><oname>IC4603</oname>. See IC4591. </object> <object><oname>IC4604</oname>. See IC4591. </object> <object><oname>IC4605</oname>. See IC4591. </object> <object><oname>IC4606</oname> is lost, at least to a fairly cursory search around its nominal position. William H. Finlay found this with the 7-inch refractor at Cape Town, and gave the RA only to a whole minute of time. His description reads in full, "Circle reading. Follows a faint star 4.5 seconds, and is 0.5 arcmin south." There are no nebulae in this area (near the great rho Oph nebulosity) that match this description. Several minutes west is NGC6144 at the same declination. If it were not so obvious, and if it had the faint star to the northwest, it would be a candidate for Finlay's object. I wrote that a few months ago. I've just become aware (June 2004) of a thread on the "amastro" web site that makes the point that there is in fact a star to the west of the cluster. It's position is 16 24 04.73, -25 54 38.1 (B1950.0, measured by me on the DSS). This puts it about 5.8 seconds west of the cluster, though it's declination is virtually the same. Still, if Finlay's numbers are estimates, they may fit the star and cluster well enough. I've added the IC number, with a query, to the cluster's entry in the position table. My thanks to Chris Watson and, especially, David Frew for calling the amastro thread to my attention. </object> <object><oname>IC4610</oname> is one of a group of three nebulae (IC4610, 4611, and 4612) found by Javelle on 25 July 1903. It is the only one of the three to not have an error in its position. See IC4612 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC4611</oname> has an incorrect sign in its North Polar Distance offset from its comparison star. When this is corrected, Javelle's position falls within two arcsec of MCG +07-34-112. See IC4612 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC4612</oname>. A curious case; this is the brightest of three galaxies in a group found on 25 July 1903. The IC position is correct, as is Javelle's reduced position. However, his RA offset carries the wrong sign. This error had no effect on the subsequent history of the object. This has, however, not kept MCG from giving the wrong IC number to the object. IC4610 is about 2 arcmin preceding, and it is this number that has ended up on the brighter object. This was unfortunately copied into RC3, once again showing the roots of that catalogue in MCG, via PGC. CGCG got the right number on the right galaxy. Another curiosity of the field: IC4611 has the wrong NPD sign in Javelle's table of offsets -- and the wrong reduced position, too. </object> <object><oname>IC4613</oname>, IC4614, IC4615 = NGC6196, and IC4616 = NGC6197. Bigourdan found a group of five "nebulae" here during his several observations beginning in August of 1886 and extending through April of 1897. He was searching for the four previously catalogued objects, NGC6194, 6196, 6197, and 6199. He managed to "find" NGC6194, 6196, and 6197, though his entries under those numbers are for stars. He found no trace of NGC6199, and gave the three galaxies new numbers (B209, B325, and B426, respectively), though later correctly identified B209 with NGC6194, and found a new galaxy B324 = IC 4614. The entry in the NGC notes for N6196 has further discussion of the NGC objects. When Dreyer assembled IC2, B325 became IC4615 and B426 became IC4616, while the other two objects, B324 and B425 became IC4614 and IC4613, respectively. As I explain in the notes for NGC6196, Marth's positions for N6196 and N6197 are off by equal amounts: 38 seconds of time in RA, and 1.3 arcmin in declination. When these offsets are applied to Marth's positions, it is clear that NGC6196 = IC4615 and NGC6197 = IC4616. While Bigourdan measured micrometric positions for the three brightest galaxies (N6194, N6196, and N6197), he gave the two fainter objects only estimated offsets from the comparison stars. There is nothing in the place of B425 = IC4613, though for B324 = IC4614, there is a galaxy (CGCG 196-087) about an arcmin preceding the estimated position. I have had two earlier, both incorrect, ideas about this object, making it first a faint galaxy 6 arcmin south of the position, then a star 18 seconds of time following the IC position. Malcolm has correctly pointed out that Bigourdan's RA offset is to be read as -46 seconds, not -0.46 minutes. This pretty well secures the identification with the CGCG galaxy, which additionally has a star superposed on its northern edge. This would have enhanced the visibility of the object. In summary, IC4613 is "not found," IC4614 is almost certainly a galaxy, IC 4615 is certainly NGC6196, and IC4616 is just as certainly NGC6197. </object> <object><oname>IC4614</oname>. See IC4613 and NGC6196. </object> <object><oname>IC4615</oname><oname>NGC6196</oname>. See IC4613 and NGC6196. </object> <object><oname>IC4616</oname><oname>NGC6197</oname>. See IC4613 and NGC6196. </object> <object><oname>IC4620</oname>. The IC NPD for 1860 is 1 degree too small; the 1900 NPD is correct, as is Frost's. The IC number ends up on MCG +03-43-004, while the fainter galaxy that Wolfgang chose (among the brighter in a small cluster) is not yet in any catalogue. </object> <object><oname>IC4622</oname>. Stewart calls this "cF, S, i, D". He names a plate of one hour exposure, 3795, from the Bruce telescope at Arequipa as being the source of the object. However, he does not mark the object "susp" as he would if he had seen it on only one plate. So, it's a bit puzzling to find nothing in the area of his position matching his description. Carlson also notes this as "Not found", and I did not find it during scanning for ESGC. This is probably a defect rather than the faint double star Wolfgang suggests. The Harvard plate should be checked, of course. Incidentally, IC4629 (which see) is also missing; Stewart found it on the same plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4625</oname><oname>NGC6240</oname>. The identity is sure; Barnard notes the star near north-following. I suspect a mistake in his computations, but this is one of the nebulae which he did not publish, but sent directly to Dreyer. Unless Barnard's letter still exists, we may never know for sure. </object> <object><oname>IC4626</oname> is a double star about 7 arcmin southeast of NGC6240 = IC4625 (which see). Bigourdan's measured offsets point exactly at the double, and his description is consistent with the many other double stars that appear among his new nebulae. </object> <object><oname>IC4627</oname>. Barnard's position, reported for the first time in the IC, is very good. Curiously, though, the star that he notes 12 arcsec from the galaxy is actually more nearly east rather than south of the galaxy. A slip of the eye or pen, perhaps? </object> <object><oname>IC4628</oname> is a large diffuse nebula centered about 30 seconds of time following Frost's position (adopted by Dreyer for the 2nd IC). Dreyer also lists Barnard as having observed this, but as with so many other of Barnard's new nebulae in IC2, this one was not published. In any event, Frost's description from an Arequipa Bruce plate is appropriate: "F, L, dif., ext. half a degree in RA and a fourth a degree in dec." I actually make it a little closer to 20 arcmin in Dec, but it's clear that Frost was looking at the same object. Also see NGC6227 for more about JH's observation of a Milky Way star cloud in the area. </object> <object><oname>IC4629</oname> is probably a plate defect. Stewart gives a relatively detailed description, "vF, vS, eE at 75 degrees, RA may be [16] 51.0 [1900.0], susp," but there is nothing at either of his positions that matches this. Since the plate is a short-exposure, one-hour plate and Stewart had no other of the area, the most likely hypothesis is a plate defect. See also IC4622, another missing object that Stewart found on the same plate. In that case, however, he did not mark the object "susp." Was this an oversight, or did he actually have another plate that overlapped the position for I4622? We need to look at the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4631</oname> is also probably a plate defect. Stewart notes it as "suspected" which means that he saw it on only one plate. Since there is nothing but very faint stars at his position, the plate defect hypothesis is the most likely. </object> <object><oname>IC4632</oname> is probably another of Bigourdan's "fausses images." There is nothing near his single estimated position but very faint stars, only one of which he could have seen (it is in the position table with a question mark). However, it follows his comparison star by about a second, while he places his object 2.7 seconds preceding. So, I'm doubtful that this plays much of a role in the story. </object> <object><oname>IC4636</oname> is a star near Bigourdan's single estimated position. The identity is almost certain as he notes "It is followed by a * 12 which is on the same parallel and which follows 5 seconds later." The * 12 is closer to 7 seconds following, but it is close to where Bigourdan places it. Some have taken I4636 to be identical with NGC6279. Bigourdan, however, used the galaxy as the reference object for I4636, placing his "nova" +2.5 seconds, -2 arcmin 30 arcsec from the galaxy. In addition, the first part of his description reads, "At this position, I suspect an object similar to N6279, but much fainter and considerably more stellar." All of this makes it certain that the two objects are not identical. </object> <object><oname>IC4643</oname><oname>NGC6301</oname>. Dreyer credits this to Palisa, though without a specific reference. I did not find the object in any of Palisa's published papers that I've copied, nor is there a reference to any nebulae in the titles of his papers between 1895 and 1908 aside from the one in which he lists IC1748 and a few others (the titles are listed by ADS, but they have not yet scanned the full texts). So, I assume that Palisa sent this discovery directly to Dreyer. Whatever the case, the IC position is good, and the brief description "F, * 12 inv" is accurate -- the star is about 0.5 arcmin southwest of the nucleus. The NGC position, from two observations by WH, is also good. WH's description "A vS F * involved in eF nebulosity" is also accurate, though he listed it as a "planetary nebula". Looking at the NGC description "F, stellar", I thought perhaps CGCG 225-050 -- with its very bright bar -- might have been WH's object. But WH's position is almost exactly on the larger, lower-surface- brightness galaxy, and his description of the nebulosity as "eF" is a perfect match. So, the question remains as to why Palisa and Dreyer thought Palisa's observation belonged to a new object. Until someone can see Dreyer's papers to see if he corresponded about this with Palisa, I have no answer. At a guess, this is probably just another NGC object that Dreyer missed while assembling the IC. </object> <object><oname>IC4646</oname>. See IC4658. </object> <object><oname>IC4648</oname> is a double star two degrees south of the IC position. Because I do not have Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus list, I do not know if he is responsible for the error, or if Dreyer is. In his big publication of his observations, he has the correct positions and estimated offsets for this object, so it is easy to identify at the correct declination. In addition, his description reads "Pretty nebulous object; could be a small cluster in which I can distinguish a double * (13.3 + 13.4; 270 degrees; 12 seconds to 15 seconds)." This description fits the double perfectly. The fainter star is to the west and looks like it itself is a merged double. Finally, this object (along with about a dozen others) ended up with two entries in Bigourdan's list of new nebulae; it is B. 428 and B. 540. I suspect this is a bookkeeping error as Bigourdan has only one observation of the double on 1 June 1897. </object> <object><oname>IC4649</oname><oname>IC1252</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4651</oname>. Solon I. Bailey published a list of about 300 bright nebulae and clusters in Volume 60 (No. 8) of the Harvard Annals, describing them as he saw them on the Harvard patrol camera plates. This was the first all-sky catalogue of deep sky objects assembled from a fairly uniform set of photographic plates. Among the objects were 13 clusters not in the NGC or the first IC. Dreyer gave 11 of them entries in the second IC, and several have gone on to become quite well-known (e.g. IC2602, IC4665). The two that Dreyer did not include are the Pleiades and the Hyades. This particular cluster has fainter stars than most of Bailey's other discoveries, so has not become as popular among observers. It is nevertheless a fairly large cluster of 50-75 stars ranging from magnitude 10 or 11 on down. These are scattered over an area of about 9 arcmin by 9 arcmin (Bailey made it 15 arcmin across). I would expect it to show up fairly well in 20-cm and larger telescopes. </object> <object><oname>IC4652</oname>. See IC4658. </object> <object><oname>IC4655</oname> is a line of six stars at Stewart's position. It is an obvious asterism, matching his description and position angle, yet ESO-B missed it. Well, we all have our off days. </object> <object><oname>IC4657</oname> <oname>IC4659</oname> are presently lost. These are two of Barnard's unpublished nebulae that he sent directly to Dreyer; neither is at their IC positions. Nor are there stars nearby as Barnard claims -- "* 11 np 2 arcmin" I4657, and "* 8 f 21 seconds, 3 arcmin north" of I4659. It's tempting to think that Barnard found these on the same night or on the same photographic plate; they are only about half a degree apart. Unfortunately, they are within a few degrees of the Galactic plane, so they might be two of the many asterisms in the area. The neighboring stars and the relative positions are the only clues we have. Perhaps that will be enough, or perhaps we can dig into Barnard's observing logs again. Cederblad included both objects in his catalogue of diffuse nebulae, probably because of the low Galactic latitudes. However, he admits in his notes that he has not been able to identify either one. In addition to searching around the nominal positions, I also checked one and ten degrees north and south, and 1 minute of time east and west -- nothing. Perhaps one of the other obvious digit errors might yield the objects. Please look if you have the time and patience. </object> <object><oname>IC4658</oname>. If this is the big galaxy that I think it is -- ESO 139-G012 -- it suffers from errors in not just its IC RA (1860 only), but in its original RA and Dec as well. I do not believe that this can be the much fainter ESO 139-G010, even though that is within 3-4 arcmin of Frost's nominal position. Though Andris lists the IC number for this galaxy in ESO-B, he put a query on the IC number. Frost found this on a Bruce plate taken at Arequipa. He found only two other nebulae on this plate, IC4646 and IC4652, both close to their nominal positions. Both are fairly good-sized galaxies, and IC4652 has a description that is identical to IC4658's: "F, plan. magn. 15." Thus, we should look for an object that is similar in appearance to I4652. That object is ESO 139-G012. It is 1.5 minutes following and 20 arcmin south of Frost's nominal position, close enough to "digit errors" to suggest some sort of transcription or procedural error. I've therefore adopted the object as I4658, though with a cautionary colon to flag the identification as uncertain. As a reality check, I calculated the distance of the galaxy from the center of Frost's plate (17 24 17, -57 32.7 for 1950) -- is the galaxy really on the plate? The answer is yes, it is 158 arcmin from the center while the edges of the plate (6.3 x 6.3 degrees) are 189 arcmin from the center. This is comparable to 149 arcmin for I4646 and 130 arcmin for I4652, though perhaps it is farther enough than those two to have led to the position problem. Well. We obviously need to check this on the plate, hopefully still at Harvard. The IC RA? Dreyer made a 1 minute error when he precessed it to 1860; the 1900 IC RA is correct. </object> <object><oname>IC4659</oname>. See IC4657. </object> <object><oname>IC4665</oname>. See IC4651. </object> <object><oname>IC4666</oname> is certainly a star, though Bigourdan's position is only an estimate. Nevertheless, his star is the brightest in the area and is far enough from the nearest other candidates that I've no doubts about the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC4667</oname>. I am not sure about this object. Bigourdan's position is only estimated, not measured, and his description is similarly unsure: "In the neighborhood of NGC6459, I suspect several objects of mixed appearance which need a more powerful telescope [to verify]; at this position, I suspect two." While there are several stars nearby, his position falls in a blank spot. I've listed the two brightest stars in the area. There are two other objects nearby, both much fainter, a star and a galaxy. So, there are some question marks in the table. Another of the objects in the neighborhood is IC4666 (which see). Even though Bigourdan only estimated its position, too, on the same night, I am pretty sure that it is the star at Bigourdan's position. </object> <object><oname>IC4668</oname> is a star. It was a bit difficult to track down since Bigourdan mistakenly swapped its comparison star for the comparison star for NGC6474 (which see for a different story). When the correct star is used, Bigourdan's position is an even 10 arcsec off, suggesting another error. However, I've not checked closely for that one. The position is close enough. </object> <object><oname>IC4671</oname> does not exist. I suspect it to be a plate defect on Stewart's one- hour plate (number 3664). His description is telling: "Looks like sp[iral], edge of plate." The Harvard plate should be checked and compared with the DSS. </object> <object><oname>IC4675</oname>. Described in the IC as "Doubtful, not seen a second time," indeed does not exist. Bigourdan has only one estimated position for it on 5 August 1891, putting it 6.9 seconds west and 4 arcmin 42 arcsec south of a 10th magnitude star at 18 00 33.2 -09 11 00. The star is pretty well isolated in a field of much fainter stars, so is unmistakeable. But there is nothing at all at Bigourdan's position. His description from that night reads in full, "Trace of nebulosity suspected for an instant; the sky, which was becoming stormy, prevented me from clearly recovering it." On 25 June 1895, he simply notes "Not seen," and goes on to repeat the offsets of his comparison star from BD -9 4639, which he had given in the first observation, to make perfectly clear that there really was nothing there. Nevertheless, he inserted this in his list of "novae" as number 329 where Dreyer picked it up. </object> <object><oname>IC4677</oname> is a part of the corona of NGC6543, the bright planetary near the north pole of the ecliptic. It is a complex of relatively bright knots in the planetary's corona, preceding the central star by an arcminute or so. While its position has never been in doubt (Barnard's position and description of it in his private communication to Dreyer is exact, and there is a sketch of it in his Yerkes observations along with several micrometric measurements, all kindly sent to me by Leos Ondra), its character has been questioned, primarily by Vorontsov-Velyaminov. He included it in his first list of interacting galaxies (where it is No. 121), and in the MCG (it is MCG +11-22-017). This is a bit surprising as VV was an early authority on planetary nebulae; his book from the 1930's is now something of a classic on the topic. Still, the object does look something like a distorted late barred spiral on the PSS prints. It is nevertheless clear that the object is not an interacting galaxy. Its radial velocity is the same as N6543 (-70 km/sec), and large scale photographs clearly show filamentary connections between it, the planetary, and the rest of the corona. The best photo that I've seen is that published in AJ 79, 1259, 1974, taken with the Mayall 4-m telescope at Kitt Peak. </object> <object><oname>IC4678</oname>. This was found on a photographic plate taken by Barnard around the turn of the century, and described in his article in AN 4239. About it, he only says, "There is a small, elongated, bright nebula in the position 1860.0 17h 59m 25s+- -23d 53m+-." The +- signs are important since there is nothing at Barnard's position. However, about 1.5 minutes of time west of that position is a small nebula that matches Barnard's description. As Barnard himself noted, it is clearly just a concentration in the general nebulosity of the area northeast of M8, but still stands out on blue-sensitive photos enough that it is unmistakably the object that Barnard was discussing. Other IC objects found by him on the same plate also have positions that are estimates, not real measurements. See NGC6523, N6526, N6533, and I1271 for more discussion of the M8 area. </object> <object><oname>IC4681</oname> is probably the star that ESO and I have chosen. Barnard says only that "There is a conspicuous small nebula or nebulous star in position 1860.0 18h 00m 35s +- -23d 26m +- [this is I4684 which is a double star with faint nebulosity around it] and another in 1860.0 17h 59m 46s +- -23d 25m +-." This second star has no nebulosity around it, and there are no others nearby that Barnard could have meant (the star that Wolfgang chose is closer to Barnard's nominal position, but is not nearly as bright; nor does it have the background of Milky Way stars that might masquarade as nebulosity on a deeply exposed plate). Whatever happened, Dreyer dropped the +- signs when he picked up these for the second IC. We could have used them, I think. ESO also suggests that I4681 might be identical to I4684, but this is not possible as Barnard almost certainly saw the two nebulae on the same plate. However, for a case of confusion from his same paper in AN 4239, see IC4690. So, is it possible that he made some error here, too? </object> <object><oname>IC4683</oname> may be nothing more than the rich Milky Way star field in this area. Wolf says only this about it: "The nebula M8 and the large nebula covering more than 10 square grads [about 8 square degrees] found by me to the south (RA = 18.0h, Dec = -26.4 deg) ..." He has a footnote that the coordinates are for 1855. There is no remarkable nebula in the area. This may also be nothing more than a large plate defect, too. ESO has a curious note about this IC number: "Pos but not descr corresponds to an absorption region of elliptical shape." The position in ESO (18 05 12, -26 16.9) indeed corresponds to an absorption patch. But there is no indication in either the IC or Wolf's original article that there is any absorption associated with the IC object. In any event, I've adopted Wolf's position for the main table. If his original plate still exists, it may be possible to find the object on it. </object> <object><oname>IC4684</oname>. See IC4681. </object> <object><oname>IC4690</oname> is probably identical with NGC6589 (which see for a problem of its own). If so, Barnard misidentified the star in his note published in AN 4239. There he says "The two stars BD -19d 4881 and -19d 4946 are closely and densely nebulous. The nebulosity about -19d 4881 is somewhat extended nf and sp." In order to make this match the field he is describing, the star number BD -19d 4881 has to be replaced in the first sentence with BD -19d 4940, and then with -19d 4946 in the second. The nebula around -19d 4946 is N6590 (which see) = N6595 = I4700; it is elongated as Barnard describes, while the nebula around -19d 4940 is nearly circular. That leads to my thought that Barnard's second mention of -19d 4881 is actually a reference to NGC6590 rather than NGC6589. This in turn suggests that I4690 is N6589. In any event, there is no nebulosity around -19d 4881; that star is nearly seven minutes of time west of -19d 4946. Barnard's mentioning it is almost certainly a misidentification on his part. </object> <object><oname>IC4693</oname> is a triple star. Bigourdan notes that it was found by M. Callandreau, but gives no other details about its discovery. He does note two neighboring stars, though -- they are just where he places them with respect to M. Callandreau's "nova", so the identity is secure. His three micrometric measurements pin it down, too. </object> <object><oname>IC4695</oname> is a double star with several other nearby stars scattered around it. Even though Stewart marked it "suspected" because he found it on only one plate, his description -- including the other stars nearby -- is clear, and his position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC4700</oname><oname>NGC6590</oname> (which see) = NGC6595. </object> <object><oname>IC4703</oname> is the nebulosity associated with M16. Isaac Roberts picked it up on one of his plates, though it is not in any of the papers that Dreyer gives references to in IC2. M16 (NGC6611) itself is called only a cluster in NGC with no mention of nebulosity. But the nebula is bright and easy, so I'm a bit puzzled at its not being mentioned, and also by Roberts claiming it as a "new" nebula. I'd like to see his notes on the object. In the meantime, the identity is clear, even if it may well be superfluous. </object> <object><oname>IC4706</oname> <oname>IC4707</oname>. These two nebulae are easily seen on any of the survey plates/films/prints, but since Barnard has misidentified the BD stars in the area, their IC positions are wrong. Barnard also claims that two of the stars are involved in nebulosity, where only one really is (aside from faint, whispy stuff all over the field northwest of M17). The star actually involved is BD -16 4811, while Barnard claims 4812 and 4813 are the nebulous stars. There are other identification errors in this particular paper of Barnard's (it appeared in AN 177, 232, 1908 = AN 4239): see e.g. IC4690, IC4700, and IC4715. </object> <object><oname>IC4707</oname>. See IC4706. </object> <object><oname>IC4711</oname> is a line of three stars with a position angle of 130 degrees. This agrees closely with Stewart's description which has 125 degrees. There may be a defect involved with the stars on the original plate as his full description reads, "eF, eS, eE at 125 deg; * N crossed by neb. line." </object> <object><oname>IC4715</oname> = M24. Barnard's RA as published in AN 4239 is 10 minutes of time too large. This is either a typo, or a simple digit error. His description of the star cloud is accurate, though, as are his notes about the two dark nebulae on the northern edge. Also, his positions for the dark nebulae are correct. And the star cloud is too large to miss -- even Barnard's incorrect position is within its boundaries. The position I estimate is for the entire elongated cloud of stars, 2 deg by 1 deg. M24 may just be the northern part of this cloud, about a degree across with NGC6603 near the center (N6603 is often mistakenly equated with M24, but the NGC object is too faint and too small to match Messier's description). Dreyer copied Barnard's incorrect position into the second IC, so insured that a casual reader of the catalogues would not notice the identity with M24. Brent Archinal was apparently the first to catch the error, and it was pointed out to me in March 2001 by Brian Skiff. </object> <object><oname>IC4721</oname>. There is no problem with the identity of this big, lovely, southern spiral. But it sits in front of a background group, one of which is a large elliptical ("IC4721A") just a couple of arcmin to the southwest (this has been mistaken at the eyepiece at least once for I4721; see Corwin and Emerson, MNRAS 200, 621, 1982). There is another galaxy behind the western side of the galaxy -- in the optical, the object looks something like a peculiar arm segment of the larger, foreground spiral. But in the IR, the nucleus is actually brighter than that of I4721 itself. An interesting field. </object> <object><oname>IC4725</oname> = M 25. This is also one of Solon Bailey's clusters, though he did not make the identity with M25 -- that was left to Dreyer. I've given positions for the core of the cluster, and also for a much larger, more extended "halo" which is probably the object recorded by Bailey. </object> <object><oname>IC4733</oname> is a star, exactly measured by Bigourdan who also noted a wide double star about an arcminute away to the northeast. </object> <object><oname>IC4762</oname> = B332 is a double star at exactly the position measured by Bigourdan. Until I found that it was a double star, I thought that it might be NGC6678 (which see) found by Swift, with an identical declination. However, Bigourdan's double star is probably too faint to have been described as "pB" by Swift. At least the identity of IC4762 is clear. </object> <object><oname>IC4763</oname> is one of a trio of numbers -- the others are NGC6677 and NGC6679, which see -- applied to an interacting quadruplet of galaxies. Here is an excerpt from a letter to Malcolm Thomson (dated 23 October 1992) concerning the objects: In short, I think that only your objects "A" and "B" were seen by Swift, Bigourdan, and Howe. (Kobold also has an observation of NGC6677 in the Strassburg Annals, Vol. 3, 1909, but his comparison star has a high proper motion which makes the derivation of a precise position more difficult.) I agree with you that A must be NGC6677, but am convinced that B is NGC6679 = IC4763. Here's why: 1) As I always do now for identification problems, I determined extremely precise positions for all the objects in question. In this case, this meant reducing Bigourdan's micrometric observations, and digging positions out of the Guide Star Catalogue. Here are the results for your three objects (positions are for the equinox 1950.0): Galaxy NGC/IC R.A. Dec Source Notes A NGC6677 18 33 39.20 +67 04 09.8 GSC 18 33 38.83 +67 04 11.3 Big 5 Sept 1891 only 18 33 40 +67 04.1 Howe B N6679=I4763 18 33 33.29 +67 05 47.1 GSC 18 33 33.58 +67 05 44.8 Big 18 33 35 +67 05.7 Howe C --- 18 33 34.36 +67 06 21.8 GSC Notice that I have used Bigourdan's observations only from the night of 5 Sept 1891 for NGC6677. His observations on 25 June 1897 refer to the star south- following the galaxy. I also suspect that his comparison star (BD +66 1115 = GSC 4227-00549) has a relatively large proper motion as there is a systematic offset of +0.24 sec and -7.8 arcsec between his positions and the GSC positions for all the objects for which he used this star as a comparison. I've corrected his positions in the table above for these offsets. The excellent agreement between Bigourdan's, Howe's, and the GSC positions convinces me that the two micrometric observations from each of the early observers do indeed refer to your objects A and B. Furthermore, their descriptions also make sense -- and agree with Swift's -- if we note one additional fact: your object B is in fact a close double galaxy. Object C is more than 30 arcsec north of B, which puts it much too far away to be part of the object that Howe measured as NGC6679: "This is a nebulous D * of mags 12.5, distance 5," [position] angle 60 deg." Bigourdan's description of it as a double star, one that he could not resolve at 344X, also points to the close pair as the actual NGC6679 -- and adds support to the evidence from his measured position that the pair is equal to B333 = IC4763 (it is, of course, clear that Bigourdan himself realized this). All of this evidence, combined with Swift's own descriptions (in his papers 3 and 9) pin down the identifications without doubt. </object> <object><oname>IC4768</oname> is two apparent clusters found by Bigourdan. He makes the entire grouping 30 arcmin in Dec by 15 arcmin in RA, with centers about 15 arcmin apart and oriented southwest-northeast. He notes the brightest stars as having magnitudes of 9.5 to 10, with the bulk of the stars in both clusters being "faint or very faint." Finally, he labels the southwestern cluster "I" and the northeastern "II". I've adopted this notation for the position tables, where I give estimated positions from the DSS after having first located the clusters on the POSS1 prints. </object> <object><oname>IC4784</oname> has a ten arcmin error in its declination given by Stewart, and copied faithfully into the IC by Dreyer. The description and RA are correct. The galaxy has a companion to the southeast, but there is a brighter star superposed on the northeastern side of this companion. This probably wiped out the galaxy on the 4.5-hour Harvard plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4791</oname> is just where Burnham measured it, but Dreyer has the 6th magnitude comparison star following rather than preceding. </object> <object><oname>IC4802</oname> is a part of NGC6717. It was found and measured on the same night that Bigourdan measured NGC6717. His position is precise and agrees to within a few arcsec of the GSC position (if we could accurately account for the proper motion of Bigourdan's comparison star, Ups2 Sgr, I've no doubt that the agreement would be even better). This nails the object as a clump of stars about 15 arcsec northeast of the center of NGC6717. It is pretty easily seen on the ESO IIIa-F film, and is even more clear in the Digitized Sky Survey image of the cluster. Some have suggested that IC4802 is identical to NGC6717. However, the fact that Bigourdan used N6717 as his comparison "star" for I4802, nails the coffin lid tightly shut on that hypothesis. Similarly, ESO's identification of I4802 with a star 2.0 arcmin northeast N6717 is also wrong. </object> <object><oname>IC4803</oname> is the western of a triple interacting system. ESO put the IC number on all three objects, but it actually applies only to the western galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC4812</oname> is a large, faint nebulosity southwest of the brighter trio NGC6726, 6727, and 6729, but still associated with the NGC objects. I've taken Stewart's "star" (it is actually double) as its center. He found this, and the association with the NGC objects, on a 5-hour plate, one of the longer exposures made at Arequipa. </object> <object><oname>IC4850</oname>. Dreyer included this nova (it is Nova Aquilae 1899) because Fleming and Pickering noted the emission lines of a gaseous nebula in its spectrum. The discovery paper gives the position to only an arcminute, so the identification I've adopted depends on the position given by Duerbeck in his catalogue of Galactic novae. The DSS shows only an elongated, curved image here, apparently that of 2 or 3 faint, blended stellar images. My DSS position supposes that the western of these is the nova remnant. I'll do more searching in the Harvard Circulars to see if one of the Harvard folks might not have given a better position in a subsequent paper. </object> <object><oname>IC4854</oname><oname>IC4855</oname>, IC4857 = IC4858, and IC4871 = IC4872. These three galaxies were all found by Stewart on two overlapping plates, numbers 5556 (a one-hour exposure) and 5656 (3h 15m). In each case, the positions are only 0.1 minute of time or 1 arcmin different, and the descriptions are accordant. And -- most importantly -- there is only one galaxy at each position that Stewart could have picked up (the edgewise companion to I4857 is too faint to have registered on these early Harvard plates). </object> <object><oname>IC4857</oname><oname>IC4858</oname>. See IC4854 = IC4855. </object> <object><oname>IC4863</oname> is a double star about 50 seconds of time west of Swift's original position. The position in the IC is from Howe who found a much fainter double about 20 seconds west of Swift's position. We can be reasonably sure about the identifications as Swift's description and note are quite effusive: "B, eS, lE, stellar; looks like a close D * both nebulous." His note, in full, reads "This is also a singular object. I have never seen but one resembling it, and that was on the same night, which I think is N.G.C. 6861. It resembles a close, bright, double star, each component having a small, bright, round, star-like, nebulous disk. A power of 200 failed to divide it." Also, the double is actually composed of at least three, and probably more, stars. These fainter stars would give a nebulous appearance to the brighter two on nights of less than perfect seeing. Swift, too, was scanning within 20 degrees of his southern horizon, which would not help to clarify his view of the object. Howe's object is composed of two 15th magnitude stars having a position angle of about 100 degrees. Though he does not mention the magnitude, he does give the position angle, and his note about the object being 20 seconds preceding Swift's position clearly identifies it. The object is much too faint for Swift to have called it "B". </object> <object><oname>IC4865</oname> is a double star just where Innes found it. He calls it "A faint nebula joined to, but np, a 9.5 mag star. There is perhaps a stellar nucleus." This is indeed how it might appear in a 7-inch refractor on a night of less than perfect seeing. ESO's note about this object is curiously worded "Concerns position? of '* 9.5 att sf'", but indicates that its entry for I4685 is actually the single star, not the double. </object> <object><oname>IC4867</oname><oname>IC1301</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC4868</oname> is a double star. Innes identifies it clearly as CPD -46 9730, and describes it as "... an even patch of light 3 arcsec by 2 arcsec." The only thing distinguishing it from a single star on the southern survey plates is a very slightly elongated image and a slightly fuzzy set of diffraction spikes. There are two fainter stars about 10 arcsec away, one to the northwest, the other to the west-northwest; these might have added somewhat to the impression of nebulosity. </object> <object><oname>IC4871</oname><oname>IC4872</oname>. See IC4854 = IC4855. </object> <object><oname>IC4889</oname><oname>IC4891</oname>. Stewart found IC4891 first on a one-hour plate from Arequipa -- but he made a 10 arcmin error in the declination. Frost found it again (with its bright companion, IC4888) on another Arequipa plate, this one of 3h 45m exposure. He recorded the position correctly. Since there is nothing at Stewart's position, and since his description ("cB, S, R, bM") fits what he would have seen on a "short-exposure" plate, and since his declination is just a digit error -- the identity is secure. </object> <object><oname>IC4895</oname><oname>NGC6822</oname>, which also see. Dreyer condenses Wolf's description to "group of nebulae, 25 arcmin in diameter." Wolf notes that "NGC6822" and "IC 1308" are on the northern edge of his group, so he and Dreyer apparently took Barnard's position to be for one of the HII regions (like IC1308) on the northern end of the galaxy. This explains the entry in IC2, but is at odds with the NGC description "vF, L, E, dif" (see the note under NGC6822 for more on this). The main difference in the observations, of course, is that Barnard discovered the galaxy visually, while Wolf recorded it on one of his early Heidelberg plates. </object> <object><oname>IC4898</oname> is lost. Swift describes it as "eeeF, eeS, eee dif sev F sts near". Close to Swift's position is a very faint triple star and -- even closer -- an even fainter double star. Given Swift's descriptions of the other nebulae that he found during 1897 and 1898 (12th and 13th magnitude galaxies appear as "eeF" in his lists), these stars (at 16th and 17th magnitudes) are too faint to be his nebula. It's just possible that Swift's object is ESO 398-G027. It is the brightest galaxy in an area of over two degrees in any direction from his position. The galaxy is 3.0 minutes of time and 12.5 arcmin off Swift's place, and its magnitude is around B = 15 (unfortunately, it is on one of the few uncalibrated plates in the ESO-LV list, so has no magnitude there). This all makes it unlikely that this is Swift's object, but I've put it in the table with question marks, anyway. </object> <object><oname>IC4922</oname> is most likely a plate defect. Stewart recorded it on a one-hour Bruce plate, so it would had have to have been fairly bright to show up there. He described it as "vF, vS, R, susp", the "susp[ected] meaning that he found it on only that one plate. There is a galaxy cluster a few arcmin south of his position, but the brightest objects in it are around 17th magnitude, too faint to have been picked up on a "short" exposure plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4924</oname> is most likely a defect, too. Wolfgang has chosen ESO 339-G015, about 2.5 arcmin northeast of Stewart's position, but I think it is too small (0.5 x 0.35 arcminute) and faint (B_t = 16.6) to appear on Stewart's plate 3701 (a one-hour exposure). The galaxy also has too high a surface brightness to match his description "neb. like and hazy, but poss. defect, susp." Dreyer shortened this to simply "dif (?defect)". We, of course, need to examine the Bruce plate to be sure. Curiously, this IC number does not appear in ESO-B or in ESO-LV. It is one of the few that Andris missed. </object> <object><oname>IC4930</oname> is, like I4922 (which see), probably a plate defect. This one, however, was described by Stewart as "cB, S, vE at 45 deg, susp", so it would have been a fairly prominent galaxy if it existed. As with I4922, the plate was one of the one-hour Bruce plates taken at Arequipa. </object> <object><oname>IC4940</oname> is also likely to be a plate defect. Seen by Stewart on the same Bruce plate as I4922, his description reads "F, S, E at 100 deg". There is nothing like that within 10 arcmin of his position. While working on SGC, I noted in my copy of IC2 that this might be four stars. However, the only four stars that I see on DSS that might have caught my eye twenty years ago are 3.5 arcmin south of the nominal position, and nearly form a square. So, they do not match Stewart's position angle, and are certainly not his object. </object> <object><oname>IC4943</oname>. See IC4949 = NGC6861. </object> <object><oname>IC4946</oname> is probably identical with Shapley-Ames's "New 5", ESO 285-G007. Swift's declination and description fit pretty well: "eF, S, R, 3 or 4 sts f, form with the neb, a circle; sp of 2"; the stars are there. (The "nf of 2" is IC4948, which I'll write about in the next couple of paragraphs.) Swift's position is 20 02 30, -44 10.9 (for 1950); there are no nebulae near that position that Swift could have seen. He dates his discovery to 11 Sept 1897. The position of the galaxy is 20 20 31.6, -44 09 28. This leads to the major problem: Swift's RA is a full 18 minutes of time off. However, the presence of the other object which Swift noted gives us a chance to test the hypothesis. There is indeed another galaxy in the relative position given by Swift's observations, NGC6902. If I4946 is indeed New 5, then I4948 is identical to N6902. Here is what Swift has to say about I4948: "vF, vS, R, bet a wide D * f and a * np; nf of 2". His position is 20 02 59, -43 50.9 (1950); that for N6902 is 20 21 02.2, -43 48 57. Again, the RA is 18 minutes out. Swift gives the discovery date as 17 Sept 1897, a week later than for I4946. How could he make the same unlikely 18 minute error on two different nights? I wonder if it is possible that he got his date wrong for I4948. He has no other objects recorded on 17 Sept, but there are two others on 11 Sept 1897, I4998 (which see), and I5018 (but these may be identical -- more confusion!). If "17" is a transcription error for "11", then Swift's observations make more sense. It's possible, however, that, on the 17th, he zeroed his setting circles on the galaxy that he found on the 11th. In this case, his relative position would be good (as it is), but his absolute position would be off once again by the same amount. Also, Swift's description of the star field around I4948 is not a good match to the sky. It is, in fact, a better match to the stars around I4946, particularly the "wide D * f" (these two are the brightest of the circle of stars he notes for I4946). This leads me to suggest that I4948 may possibly be a duplicate observation of I4946, this time with a large Dec error as well as an even larger RA error. This isn't very likely at all, of course, but given the problems here, even this may be possible. Finally, adding to the mess is one of Delisle Stewart's nebulae. He did not number it, but gave the discovery credit to Swift. Dreyer followed Stewart's lead, and included both observers in IC2 for I4948. Stewart's RA is the same as Swift's, but his declination is 5.3 arcmin north (Dreyer adopted Stewart's Dec). His description reads "F, S, R, bM" from a one-hour Bruce plate (number 3701). There are only stars in Stewart's position -- but, interestingly, a wide double star follows it by an arcminute or so. If this were the only observation of the nebula, I'd say that Stewart has another plate defect (see I4922, I4924, and I4940, the only other objects that Stewart found on plate 3701; all are probably defects). Also, he does not mention the double star, and I at first took it to be his object. In fact, the double could well be his object, but we will need to examine the plate to know for sure. At the moment, though, it looks like Stewart's I4948 is indeed another defect or perhaps the double star. So, that's the evidence. I'm leaning toward the 18 minute of time error for both objects, but there are enough pieces of contradictory evidence that I can't be sure about either one. In the end, I've marked the I4946 identification with colons, and that for I4948 with question marks. That about sums it up. </object> <object><oname>IC4948</oname> may be = to NGC6902. See IC4946 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC4949</oname><oname>NGC6861</oname>. IC4949 was the "following of 2" nebulae that Swift found on the night of 8 July 1897. Curiously, he published the first, IC4943, in his second list nebulae that he found at Lowe Observatory, but published this one in his fourth list. Both finally appeared together in his big eleventh "catalogue" in AN. The equality with the NGC object is assured by the fact that there are no other galaxies nearby that fit Swift's position and description as well. He called his nebula "B, vS, C [sic] E, stellar, f of 2". Not only is this the only galaxy in the area that he might have seen as "bright", but his position is just four arcmin north of the NGC object (JH got its position correct). Also, his relative position for this object with respect to IC4943 is pretty good -- Swift has picked out the two brightest galaxies in the area. As far as I know, de Vaucouleurs was the first to suggest the identity of the two numbers, probably in his Reynolds Survey of the southern Shapley-Ames galaxies. </object> <object><oname>IC4959</oname> may just possibly be IC4961, but is more likely a defect. Stewart found the object on a one-hour Bruce plate (number 3649), and simply called it a "Hazy star." There is nothing at his position. IC4961 (coincidentally found on a later Bruce plate, but a 4-hour exposure, by Frost; his position and description is accurate) is about 4.5 arcmin away from Stewart's position for I4959. This makes it unlikely to be I4959, but the galaxy is a fairly low surface brightness spiral that might resemble a "hazy star" on a short- exposure plate. So, it is worth a mention here. </object> <object><oname>IC4961</oname>. See IC4959. </object> <object><oname>IC4966</oname> is probably the linear triple star about an arcminute north of Stewart's nominal position. Stewart's description "F, vS, E at 40 deg" matches the asterism. Andris, in ESO-B, and Wolfgang in the first edition of his IC list, select a galaxy (ESO 186-G014) one minute of time east, and 6.2 arcmin north as I4966. I think this is unlikely because the position angle is different, and the declination is not a digit error. Also, the galaxy is much fainter than those that Stewart normally calls "F" on the one-hour exposure plates that he examined. </object> <object><oname>IC4974</oname>. Stewart notes this as "2 neb., eF, eS, R, bM, * sp 1 arcmin". Dreyer omitted the "2 neb." from his description, so some cataloguers have put the number on the brighter, northern galaxy of the pair. But it's clear that Stewart saw both, so I've put the number on both. And there is a star about an arcminute southwest of the pair. </object> <object><oname>IC4977</oname> is the last of seven objects found by Bigourdan for which he gives no details in his tables of differential measures (see IC532 for more). There is a wide double star and an equally wide triple about an arcminute northwest of his position as listed in Appendix VII, but there are no nebulous objects nearby. (In SGC, I note "Only a few stars in pos of I4977."). However, Bigourdan does have an interesting note: "Taken for a comet." His "Initial designation" column -- where he notes the GC and NGC numbers of the nebulae he was observing when he found the "nova" -- has a comet symbol followed by "Giac." apparently an abbreviation for Giaccobini. The date attached is 21 June 1898. Bigourdan's description, taken from the NGC, "Stellar, close to * 13," suggests that the object is one of the stars (or multiple stars) in the area. We still need to do a detailed search to recover data for the comet on the night of observation, however. IC2120 (which see), also found by Bigourdan, is in fact a comet, so that kind of mistake does happen in his lists. </object> <object><oname>IC4988</oname> may be the faint triple star at Stewart's position, but I don't think so. The triple is probably too faint to have shown up on even a four-hour Bruce plate, and Stewart labels it "susp" besides (he found it on only one plate). His description "Hazy patch, may only be stars" doesn't really fit the asterism, either -- it's probably too small to be "hazy". We clearly need to check the original plate. </object> <object><oname>IC4996</oname> is an apparent cluster found by F. A. Bellamy on a 13-inch Oxford astrograph plate. His article is devoted to the measurement of positions and magnitudes of 103 stars in an area of about 15 arcmin across more or less centered on the cluster. Unfortunately, Bellamy does not explicitely give a position for the cluster, and that given by Dreyer in IC2 is about 25 arcmin off in declination. Searching around the correct position, I found a clump of faint stars arrayed around a bright double or triple star a few arcmin north. This looks like only a random field clump to me -- the area is littered with dust patches and faint traces of nebulosity. Nevertheless, I've included the clump in the position table as the "core" of Bellamy's object. If some of the bright stars that he gives in his table really do form a cluster, then the entire thing is about 17 arcmin across. Those interested in seeing just what stars Bellamy measured will find his article in MN 64, 662, 1904. </object> <object><oname>IC4998</oname> is perhaps a duplicate observation of IC5018. The descriptions are identical, and there is only a single galaxy in the area that Swift could have seen. But -- and it's a big BUT, too -- there is nothing in either of Swift's positions, the differences with the galaxy are not even digits (but many of Swift's errors are not), and both RA and Dec are off for both observations. Furthermore, he claims to have found the objects on the same night, 11 September 1897 (see IC4946 for more confusing observations on this night). Finally, his description of the surrounding star field does not fit the galaxy very well. That description for both objects reads "eF, pS, R, bet 2 8 1/2 mag sts nf and sp." There is a star southwest of the galaxy, but it is 13.3 arcmin away and its magnitude is 9.6. So, it would have been close to the edge of Swift's 32 arcmin field (if the galaxy was centered), and though it is the brightest star in the field, it is not as bright as Swift estimated. However, there is no star to the northeast. There is one of magnitude 9.8 almost directly north -- and a little west -- 13.8 arcmin away. The brightest star to the east is 7.9 arcmin almost directly east -- and a little south -- and magnitude 10.1. All in all, I'm skeptical about this being Swift's galaxy -- if he is indeed giving us observations of only one object. Perhaps there are larger errors here -- one degree, or ten degrees, or one hour. All of these possibilities remain to be investigated. </object> <object><oname>IC5000</oname><oname>NGC6901</oname>. Since Marth's position for N6901 (which see) is off, Bigourdan did not find it at the NGC place. Near that place, however, he did find a nebula that he entered as B335 in his list of novae. Dreyer listed this as IC5000 in the second IC. In fact, there is only one galaxy in the area, and Marth's and Bigourdan's descriptions make it clear that they both saw this same galaxy. My supposition in RC2 that this object is also = IC 1316 is incorrect; Bigourdan "saw" both IC1316 (which see) and IC5000 on the same nights. He also measured a star which he took to be N6901 (which see) on those same nights. </object> <object><oname>IC5003</oname><oname>IC5029</oname><oname>IC5039</oname><oname>IC5046</oname><oname>IC5007</oname><oname>IC5030</oname><oname>IC5041</oname><oname>IC5047</oname> are a pair of galaxies found four times by Lewis Swift in the summer of 1897. The first galaxy is positively identified by his descriptions of the nearby star field, while the second is also matched to stars on at least one night and by his relative position from the first (with a 10 arcmin error in the declination in the case of IC5030) on three others. The RA's are off by various amounts up to 18 minutes of time. Here are the messy details. On 9 June, Swift found two nebulae (I5046 and I5047) in the area, and noted three stars nearby. The stars near I5046 are described, "eeF * and vF * near sf, point to it." For I5047, "8 mag * 31 arcmin n." All three stars are just where Swift puts them, so the identities are secure. Swift's positions are about 1.5 minutes of time too large, and 3.5 arcmin too far south. These two appeared in Swift's 11th list. Swift again swept the area on 26 July. This time, he noted just the accompanying stars near I5030, "F * with dist. com. nr sf, point to it." This, too, is an exact description, but his positions are over 3 minutes of time too small, and his declination for I5029 10 arcmin too far south. Swift published these in his 12th list. Back to his 11th list, Swift has three nebulae found on 29 August. He notes for the first of the three that "2 F sts near nf point to it." His description of the second nebula includes the note, "Near p * of sev curved." He mentions no stars near the third nebula. Herbert Howe has a long note about these three in his paper in MN 60, 29, 1900. Here, he states that he has found only two nebulae in the area, and he speculates that -- because Swift's descriptions of the first two apply equally well to the first of his (Howe's) nebulae -- Swift's first and second objects are probably the same. Howe's description of the field is exact, so perhaps Swift got the date wrong on one object, or he made some other error, perhaps the result of a lapse in memory. Finally, on 8 September 1897, Swift again recorded two nebulae (I5003 and I5007). These appear as the 18th and 19th of his 12th list, and Swift has the field described as follows: I5003, "2 sts near sf point to it; sp of 2" and I5007, "bet 2 groups of B sts sf and np; nf of 2." Again, these are accurate descriptions. Here, his declinations are also accurate being within a minute of the true decs -- but his RA's are 18 minutes of time too small. Were it not for the RA's of I4946 and I4948 (which Swift found just three nights later on the 11th) also being 18 minutes too small, I would find such large errors hard to believe. I am guessing here, but I suspect that Swift zeroed his telescope on the same wrong star on both nights. If Howe is correct that Swift recorded the same nebula twice in the same night, then it is also clear that Swift recorded this same object five different times as a "nova," and its companion four different times. I know of no other object with as many independent discoveries by the same observer, and announced as different objects. ESO, by the way, suggested that the numbers I5003 and I5007 applied to a star, and also speculated that I5004 applied to the same star, though with a 1 degree error in Dec. But Andris Lauberts did not have Swift's lists in front of him when he went over the ESO plates. In any event, there are only two galaxies in the field, and it is clear that Swift saw them both on at least four occasions that summer. It's also clear that by this time of his life (he was 77 years old in 1897), his visual memory was failing badly. Also, his 11th and 12th lists of nebulae are thoroughly comingled as far as discovery dates are concerned, so his record keeping skills were also in decline. But he persevered for another year -- he found his last nebulae in the waning months of 1898. </object> <object><oname>IC5004</oname><oname>NGC6923</oname>. Swift found this galaxy in July of 1897. As with other nebulae found that summer (see e.g. I4946 and I5003), his declination and description are appropriate, but his RA is off, in this case by 6 minutes of time. John Herschel's position and description for N6923 are good. ESO speculates that the IC number applies to the same object (a star) as I5003, but with a 1 degree error in declination. This is unlikely as Lauberts did not have Swift's papers, with the extensive descriptions of the star fields, in hand. </object> <object><oname>IC5006</oname> is a double star. Kobold found it on 23 Sept 1895, the second night he observed NGC6906. The star about 20 arcsec northwest may be a part of the asterism, too, as Kobold noted "* 14 in F, vS, R neb." The fact that Kobold saw the two objects on the same night means that they cannot be the same. Also, his micrometric observations are unambiguous about which objects he measured. The double is pinned down exactly. </object> <object><oname>IC5007</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5011</oname><oname>IC5013</oname>. These two objects, both found by Swift in the summer of 1897 (but on different nights: 25 July and 29 August, respectively) from Echo Mountain, are the 193rd and 194th in his big 11th list of new nebulae in AN. There is, however, nothing in the position for IC5011. Because the descriptions are similar -- "pB, vS, eE" for I5011 and "eeS, eE in meridian; curious object" for I5013 -- I am pretty sure that Swift dug out the same galaxy. In that case, I5011 has a 1 minute 18 second of time error in its RA, while I5013 is only 8 seconds off. Both declinations are within an arcminute of reality. Swift does not say what makes I5013 a "curious object", and that phrase does not occur in any of the three papers where Swift published his third Echo Mountain list (where these two are the 15th and 16th entries). The galaxy's PA is around 5 degrees, and it is seen by us as nearly edgewise, so matches Swift's descriptions. Two of the companions are quite faint so would not have been seen by Swift, but the third to the southeast is bright enough that it might have been visible under good conditions. Perhaps this is the "curious" aspect of Swift's observation. </object> <object><oname>IC5013</oname><oname>IC5011</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC5015</oname> may well be NGC6925. The description fits ("pB, pS, R, nearly bet 2 sts with dist. companion" -- though I am puzzled about "with dist. companion") but Swift's position is well off. However, this is not unusual for the objects that he found during the summer of 1897 (see e.g. I4946 and I5003). Since N6925 is the only galaxy anywhere near Swift's place, it could well be his object. I've adopted the identification, though with a colon. ESO made the object a star, but that does not match Swift's description. </object> <object><oname>IC5018</oname>. See IC4998. </object> <object><oname>IC5029</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5030</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5039</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5041</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5046</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5047</oname>. See IC5003. </object> <object><oname>IC5056</oname> is probably a plate defect. It was the only new nebula that Stewart found on the one-hour Bruce plate (no. 3836) on which it appears. He calls it "F, cL, eE at 150 deg, no * N". There are no spindle galaxies within several degrees matching that description. ESO-B and Wolfgang Steinicke picked a galaxy at 20 45 58, -39 24.6 (ESO 341- IG016), but this is not "eE", it has the wrong PA, and it also has a stellar nucleus. All of these comments also apply to a galaxy at 20 45 14, -39 02.5 that I suggested during my work on SGC. So, probably a plate defect. </object> <object><oname>IC5057</oname>. This is a star superimposed on the NGC6962 group. Bigourdan's position is exact, and his descriptions on two nights note the neighboring star south-southwest 1.5 arcmin away. See the discussion under NGC6962 for more about the field. </object> <object><oname>IC5058</oname><oname>NGC6965</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Also see NGC6962 for a discussion of the field and the galaxy group here. </object> <object><oname>IC5061</oname> is a triple star. As with IC5057, Bigourdan's position is accurate, as are his descriptions of the neighboring starfield. Both objects are identified with certainty. Curiously, Bigourdan twice published another new "nebula" in this area, Big 437 = Big 547. Even though Dreyer included Bigourdan's 436th, 438th, and 439th "novae" in IC2 (= I5057, 58, and 61, respectively), he skipped this one. I don't know why he skipped it, but this prevented another star from being included in the second IC. See the discussion under NGC6962 for more about this field. </object> <object><oname>IC5062</oname> is a double star. Bigourdan's position corresponds to RA of the southwestern star and the Dec of the northeastern. His description mentions the 13th magnitude star one arcmin west-northwest, so the identification is secure. This is not a reobservation of NGC6968 as some have supposed. Bigourdan saw and measured both objects on the night of 7 October 1891. </object> <object><oname>IC5067</oname>, IC5068, and IC5070 are three of the seven nebulae found by The Reverend Thomas Espin in 1899 and announced in AN No. 3633, 1900. These three are all in Cygnus near the "North American Nebula" (NGC7000, which see) and may be part of the same complex of reflecting nebulae. Espin's position for IC5067 falls on a nondescript area of sky with nothing obviously eyecatching that might be his object. IC5068, however, is apparently a large (35 arcmin by 25 arcmin), diamond-shaped patch of nebulosity centered about 35 seconds east and 4 arcmin south of Espin's place. His position, though, is still well within the nebulosity (the brightest patch of this nebulosity is at 20 49 19, +42 26.1 for B1950.0). For IC5070, Espin's position falls very close to the brightest strands of the nebulosity. This makes me suspect that he actually saw the large (35 arcmin by 18 arcmin) patch of nebulosity to the northwest of I5068. Its RA is 16 seconds off Espin's for I5067, but the declination is 1 deg, 25 arcmin south of his nominal declination. As with IC5068, its brightest patch is off the center at 20 45 19, +42 47.4 for B1950.0. The relative brightnesses of the three nebulae, however, matches Espin's descriptions: "faint" for I5067, "very faint" for I5068, and "faint and diffused" for I5070. These words, by the way, are all that Espin has to say about the nebulae aside from their positions and discovery dates. Had he given us some indication of their sizes, we might be able to better pin them down. So, I've tentatively identified IC5067 with the nebulosity northwest of IC 5068. This may not be correct, but there is nothing else in the area that fits as well. </object> <object><oname>IC5068</oname>. See IC5067. </object> <object><oname>IC5070</oname>, the "Pelican Nebula", west of the "North American Nebula" (NGC7000, which see). Of the three nebulae in the area found by Espin, this is the only one for which the position is good. See IC5067 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5076</oname> is a fairly small (6 arcmin by 6 arcmin) diffuse nebula west of a bright star. Roberts's position is just east of the star, but as there is nothing else nearby matching his description, I've taken the nebula as the one he found. </object> <object><oname>IC5079</oname> may be, but is probably not, the star that I've listed in the Table. Innes found his object on 26 Nov 1897 with a 7-inch refractor in Cape Town, and described it as "Equal to a 9.7 mag star, elongated 15 arcsec; perhaps a small group of stars or a ring nebula." Unfortunately, his position is a "Circle reading", given to only full minutes of time and arc. There is nothing obvious near his position, though the star I've listed has one or two faint companions that might have lent a look of nebulosity to it. AC2000.2 has the B-magnitude as 12.6, though -- even allowing for an approximate visual scale, this is a long way from "9.7 mag". I'm doubtful. </object> <object><oname>IC5082</oname><oname>NGC7010</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC5086</oname> is probably ESO 464-G025. This would make Swift's position 1 minute of time too small, and 16 arcmin too far south. However, his description of the object "eeF, pS, R; F* near f 90deg" is appropriate. In particular, the "F* near f 90deg" is there. Given the bum position, the identity is not a sure thing -- but given the matching description, it's pretty close. </object> <object><oname>IC5089</oname>. Barnard notes a star 30 arcsec south-preceding; the star is actually north-following. There is another fainter star just west of the galaxy. </object> <object><oname>IC5097</oname> is probably the quadruple star I've listed in the table. Bigourdan has only a single estimated position: position angle = 140 degrees, distance = 3 arcmin from NGC7045 (which is a double star; see that for more). Since there are a lot of stars in the area, I'm not sure which object he actually saw. However, the quadruple is certainly an obvious choice. Malcolm, however, takes a double star (the western star is very faint) closer to Bigourdan's nominal position. I don't think this is the correct object because of the imprecision of Bigourdan's observation. Had he specified the distance to a tenth of an arcminute, I might be more inclined to take the position literally. As is, however, the position is crude, and we have some leeway to choose a more nebulous looking asterism. </object> <object><oname>IC5098</oname> is probably the double star I've listed in my table. See the discussion for I5097 for the reasons I take this double rather than some of the other stars nearer Bigourdan's nominal position. He gave the estimated position for this object only in the description for IC 5097 -- it is at position angle = 100 degrees, distance 2.5 arcmin from NGC 7045. With such a crude estimate, we have considerable latitude in choosing which star Bigourdan might have seen. So, this identification is also uncertain. </object> <object><oname>IC5112</oname> <oname>IC5113</oname>. Found by Bigourdan near the nominal position of NGC7074 (which see), these are both either single stars or asterisms of faint stars. Bigourdan has only one micrometric observation for each of these, and neither position points directly to anything on the sky. However, his position for I5112 is 12 arcsec south of a faint star, and his position for I5113 is about the same distance northeast of another faint (though brighter) star. In both cases, there are very faint galaxies (16th and 17th magnitude) just over an arcminute from the nominal positions, but Bigourdan could probably not have seen these with his 30-cm refractor. Nevertheless, I've listed the galaxies as well as the stars in the position table. Here is another case where visual confirmation would be useful. </object> <object><oname>IC5113</oname>. See IC5112. </object> <object><oname>IC5114</oname><oname>NGC7091</oname>. Swift's RA is 2 minutes too small, and his declination 3.5 arcmin too far south. But his description "eF, pS, R; e wide D* f 30 sec" fits the galaxy provided one takes some liberty with his note "e wide D* f 30 sec". The "e wide" means 20 seconds of time, and "f 30 sec" is more like 50 sec (on average; the first star is actually about 40 seconds following). If we're willing to accept this, as I am, then the identity is pretty sure. Also see NGC7091 for a story of its own. JH didn't get the galaxy right, either. </object> <object><oname>IC5121</oname><oname>NGC7096</oname>. There is nothing in the place of I5121, so it is likely that Frost made an error of 30 arcmin in his declination (read -64 21, instead of -64 51). Significantly, he did not include NGC7096 in his table of nebulae, though all the other NGC and IC1 objects that he found are listed. Nor did he mention N7096 as one of the objects that he could NOT find. So, its complete omission supports the idea that I5121 is in fact N7096. The descriptions of the objects are also similar. JH has "vF, S, R, 12 arcsec; has a vS ** nf, near," and Frost simply says "Plan., magn. 13" (Dreyer added "stellar" to the NGC description; that is not in Frost's table). As far as I can tell, Andris Lauberts is the first to have pointed out the equality. I must have picked up the identity for SGC from there as I do not have it noted in the SGC workbook. </object> <object><oname>IC5126</oname>. Javelle misidentified his comparison star, so the galaxy's position in his list and in IC2 is about a degree north of the true position. His offsets are exact, however, as is his description, including the note "between 2 sts 14." </object> <object><oname>IC5127</oname> is probably identical to NGC7102. Bigourdan's position is just five seconds of time too large, and his description is appropriate. However, he dates his three measurements to the same night on which he made three measurements of NGC7102 (these reduce to the correct position). Since I've not yet found Bigourdan's error -- if there is one -- I'm not prepared to say for sure that the two objects are identical. However, it seems likely. See IC2120 for a case where we are sure that Bigourdan saw the same object on the same night, yet apparently thought that it was a nebula once and a comet the other time! One curious thing while I'm here: Bigourdan's comparison star for NGC7102 (BD +5 4840) is almost exactly at its BD position, while that for IC5127 (BD +5 4837) is nearly 4 arcmin away, as large an error as I've seen in the BD. Was this really the star that Bigourdan used? I don't see anything on the POSS1 prints that might be the star/galaxy pair matching Bigourdan's measurements (the galaxy being -3.83 seconds and -5 arcmin 44.0 arcsec from the star). So, a mystery. But probably identical. But I'd certainly like to know what went on that evening in the western dome of the Obs. de Paris. </object> <object><oname>IC5132</oname> <oname>IC5133</oname> are two stars embedded in very faint nebulosity. Roberts's positions are 2-3 arcmin southwest of the stars, but his relative position between the two objects is good. Neither object is in the papers cited by Dreyer in the IC2 introduction, and I've not found them in another of Roberts's papers of which I have a copy. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the two nebulous stars I've chosen are the correct ones. </object> <object><oname>IC5133</oname>. See IC5132. </object> <object><oname>IC5134</oname> is the part of NGC7129 (which see) surrounding BD +65 1638. Bigourdan saw this only one night in October 1895. On two other nights in 1884 and 1889, he used this star as his comparison star for another patch of nebulosity which he called NGC7129. As is clear from the Herschel's descriptions, however, the entire complex, at least 3 arcmin across enveloping three bright stars, comprises NGC7129. </object> <object><oname>IC5135</oname><oname>NGC7130</oname> (which see). This is one of the identifications that Andris and I made during our southern surveys. JH's position is 30 arcmin off, and that for I5135 was rescued by Herbert Howe -- who also measured an accurate position for it -- from amongst the rubble of Swift's last two lists of "novae". In this case, Swift's position is actually not too bad. His note "sp of 2" and position place it southwest of NGC7135. Of course, Swift called that the "nf of 2", thinking that it too was a new object. For more on that, see I5136. </object> <object><oname>IC5136</oname> is probably NGC7135. Swift picked up I5136 on 15 September 1897, during his penultimate summer of observing. His positions from that time are notoriously bad (see I5003 for more on this). This one is no exception; there is nothing at all near his nominal position. However, NGC7135 is about 55 seconds following and 1 degree, 14 arcmin south (this is not sounding good at all, is it). But Swift's description fits, particularly that of the star field around the galaxy. Here is what he has to say, in full: "eeF, S, R; wide D* points to it, sev pB sts sf and np." The wide double is a few arcmin to the southeast and is among the "sev pB sts sf". Were it not for the really bad position, off in both RA and Dec, I'd have little hesitation in declaring this a solid identification. As it is, I've put a question mark on it. Swift apparently saw N7135 again just two nights later. It appears in his big 11th list as number 209 which Howe (and Dreyer after him) applied to N7135. In any case, it is positively identified by Swift's note "3 B sts [p] form a triangle". The "p" comes from Swift's fourth list of Lowe Observatory "novae" published in Popular Astronomy, Monthly Notices, and PASP; that single letter did not make it into the eleventh list in AN, but the stars are so striking on the southern sky survey that anyone with just the eleventh list would know instantly which galaxy Swift had seen. </object> <object><oname>IC5137</oname> is most likely a defect on the original Bruce plate. Stewart marked it "susp"[ected], so it appears only on plate 4604. Since there are only very faint galaxies near his nominal position, Stewart's object is most likely just a defect. </object> <object><oname>IC5143</oname><oname>NGC7155</oname>. This is one of the most southerly of any of the nebulae found by Swift. This may account for the large error in declination (25 arcmin), though the error may simply be a 30 arcmin circle reading error, combined with the usual uncertainty. The declination, by the way, has the same value in all four lists in which Swift published this object (MN 58, 18, 1897; PASP 9, 224, 1897; Pop. Astron. 5, 427, 1897; and AN 147, 209, 1898 = No. 3517). In any case, the identity with NGC7155 is secured by Swift's note about the field stars: "... in line with 2 9m sts sf; 7m * sf." The three stars are there. ESO's suggested galaxy is much too faint, and though SGC's double star is considerably brighter and near Swift's nominal position, there are no bright stars to the southeast. </object> <object><oname>IC5144</oname> is the southwestern of two nebulae found by Barnard (the second is IC5145 with which there are no identification problems). Their positions and descriptions were not published before IC2 appeared, but were apparently sent directly to Dreyer. Since the position for I5144 falls on a blank area of sky, though near a group of galaxies, it is a very good thing that Barnard gave us a note about the surrounding star field: "F, S, sev F sts close f". This positively identifies I5144 as the brightest galaxy in a group of six or seven -- it has a jagged line of four stars just to the southeast. The galaxy itself is peculiar, high surface brightness, compact system with a dust lane crossing its southern half; and with a distorted spiral companion (or peculiar triple system?) just west. Barnard's relative position between the galaxies is pretty good, too, so knowing the identity of I5145, we can be sure of I5144 even without his note about the stars. Unfortunately, the modern catalogues do not all pick up the same objects in the group. CGCG got I5144 and another galaxy just east-northeast, while MCG made that second CGCG galaxy I5144 (though put a question mark on the number). MCG also picked up a larger spiral to the east-southeast, UGC 11845 (UGC has I5144 in the Notes). These are all close enough that both NED and PGC initially got confused over the identities. Chantal Petit sorted out LEDA some time ago, and I've cleaned up NED, so the current (June 2003) versions of the databases are correct. </object> <object><oname>IC5145</oname> is the northeastern of two of Barnard's nebulae (see IC5144 for more about them). Even though his position for it is not very good, and even though he gave no description for it, there are no other galaxies near it, so its identification is unmistakeable. </object> <object><oname>IC5148</oname><oname>IC5150</oname>. Found first by W. Gale in June of 1894, it was correctly described by him (in AN 3426) as a "... ring nebula, almost circular, 1.5'+- in diameter; the center is not completely free of nebulosity." He credits the description to "Mr. Baracchi, Director of the Melbourne Observatory," who examined the object with the 48-inch Melbourne reflector, then one of the largest telescopes in the world. Swift rediscovered the planetary in July of 1897, and correctly described its location relative to two nearby stars, one of which is just off the edge of the annulus to the south-west. So, there is no doubt that the two numbers refer to the same object. Swift's position is, as usual, not particularly good, and neither is Gale's. In spite of its large quoted standard deviation, the GSC position is very close to the central star. </object> <object><oname>IC5149</oname> = ESO 466-G027 = MCG -05-51-033. Though Swift's position is typically bad, he notes that a "6.5 mag star same parallel follows 63 seconds." This positively identifies the galaxy as ESO 466-G027 rather than the somewhat brighter (but more distant) ESO 466-G024. </object> <object><oname>IC5150</oname><oname>IC5148</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC5153</oname> is certainly the star, perhaps mixed with a bit of the galaxy's light, too, that I've listed in the table. Bigourdan's single estimated position is just a dozen or so arcsec south of the pair. </object> <object><oname>IC5155</oname> is a double star. Bigourdan's measured position falls between the two stars, though his estimated position angle toward a neighboring 13th mag star is wrong -- I make it 185 degrees rather than 95 degrees. </object> <object><oname>IC5159</oname> is a single star. Bigourdan measured it five times, so his position is within a few arcsec of the modern position. </object> <object><oname>IC5163</oname>, IC5164, and IC5166 are all single stars or, in the case of I5163, an asterism, near the nominal position for NGC7210. Bigourdan actually found four objects here that he thought nebulous, but only three ended up in his list of "novae" and thus in the 2nd IC. The fourth (which he called "NGC 7210B" in his table) has only a single observation, while the others have two each. However, IC5163 is a curious case. Bigourdan's two observations of this object fall about 25 arcsec apart. He was not sure that they were the same object, speculated that they might be, but gave them separate numbers in his list of "novae". Dreyer combined them in the IC under the single number. I wonder if he asked Bigourdan about this. It turns out that Bigourdan's observations refer to different parts of a line of three stars about an arcminute long. The first observation is closer to the northeastern of the stars, while the second is nearly on the middle star. This middle star has a companion much closer to the southwest than the northern, so is reasonably taken as a double star on the POSS/DSS. </object> <object><oname>IC5164</oname> is a star. See IC5163 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5166</oname> is a star. See IC5163 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5167</oname> is a star, even though a fainter double star is closer to his nominal position. Bigourdan managed to make two measurements of a position angle, but not a distance, to his comparison star before being clouded out. So, his position is only approximate. However, he also noted a neighboring star about 2 arcmin to the northwest. This star unmistakeably identifies the star to which the IC number applies. The double star is too faint for Bigourdan to have seen in any case. </object> <object><oname>IC5179</oname><oname>IC5183</oname><oname>IC5184</oname>. As with IC5003 and its synonyms (which see), Swift swept up this galaxy on three different nights in the summer of 1897, his last full summer of searching for nebulae. One of those nights, 26 July, is, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the nights on which he saw IC5003. He picked up this galaxy first on 19 July, giving it a position of 22 12 32, -37 07.5 (precessed to 1950.0) and describing it as "pF, pS, lE, bet 2 sts in meridian, 8 1/2m * sp, np of 2". The "sf" is IC5186, which also see. I immediately suspected problems since he placed IC5186 at 22 13 22, -37 05.5 for 1950.0, north following, not south as Swift states. There is nothing at his position for I5184 (as this observation eventually became). On 26 July, he found a nebula at 22 10 22, -37 07.7. This one he described as "vF, L, R, * close S, B * sp". Finally, on the 20th of September, he has another nebula at 22 12 26, -36 05.5: "pB, C, [sic] S, F * in contact sf, sev pB sts form segment of large circle." These became I5184 and I5179; like I5183, there is nothing at Swift's position. However, at 22 13 13, -37 05.6, is a large, bright galaxy between two stars almost on a north-south line with it, with a brighter star to the southwest, and inside a nearly complete circle of stars. While Swift mentions only some of the stars in each description, it's clear that the galaxy can match all of his descriptions with very little forcing. The positions are typical of his last year or two of observing: full of large accidental errors, and also filled with digit errors. By this time, Swift was 77 years old, and I suspect he was getting tired of trekking up and down his observing ladder to read the setting circles of his 16-inch refractor. It's also possible that his eyesight was beginning to fail, too. We know from the obituaries that he did go blind in his old age. In any event, the positions can all be more or less reconciled with the true position of the galaxy with digit errors, though a large helping of random error is needed here and there, too. What about IC5186, "south-following of two"? Swift found it on 19 July along with the I5184 observation. Remarkably, he makes its position 22 13 22, -37 05.5, within 9 seconds of time of the brighter galaxy. His description, though, rules it out as a second observation of the same object on the same night: "eeF, S, R, F * nr p, * 8 np". The stars are there, so this fits a fainter galaxy at 22 15 51, -37 03.1, rather far -- but not uniquely -- to be called the "sf of 2". Still, it is the only other galaxy in the area bright enough to have been easily seen by Swift. </object> <object><oname>IC5186</oname>. See IC5179 = IC5183 = IC5184 for the full story. Briefly, it looks like Swift's RA is 2m 35s out, but the galaxy can be recovered by his description of the star field around it. Coincidentally, Swift's published position is close to the real position for IC5179. This galaxy was also picked up by Delisle Stewart on a Harvard plate, so "D.S." is included by Dreyer as one of its discoverers. Stewart should really be credited with the discovery of I5179 et al as that is the galaxy that he found on his plate. </object> <object><oname>IC5189</oname> is a star without nebulosity. Bigourdan has only a single observation of this, but his position is good. </object> <object><oname>IC5191</oname>, IC5192, and IC5193. These are three nebulae credited to Barnard (in AN 4136). Dreyer did not give individual positions to them as Barnard did not provide them, either. Instead, Barnard merely published a sketch of six nebulae (two being NGC7240 and N7242, four being "new") along with the claim that he made the observations in 1888. Dreyer, realizing that IC1441 must be among the six, only listed three as new. One other new object was found here by Bigourdan, and this has received the number IC5195 (which see). To sort out which numbers apply to which objects here, we need to identify the previously known nebulae. The two NGC objects are no problem, nor are Bigourdan's two "novae" (IC1441 and IC5195). Having pinned these down, and noting that IC5195 was not seen by Barnard, we are left with the other three objects in Barnard's sketch. I've assigned the three IC numbers as Dreyer would have, in RA order. The only remaining question concerns the nature of IC5192. On the Palomar Sky Survey, it looks like three or four faint stars plus a galaxy (MCG calls it a "group"). The less deeply exposed CCD image in John Vicker's northern Deep Space CCD Atlas also suggests that the object is a galaxy surrounded by three or four stars. Steve Gottlieb's observation of the group confirms this, so I'm inclined at the moment to say that IC5192 is a galaxy plus the stars (Barnard's sketch shows only a nebula in this position). </object> <object><oname>IC5192</oname>. See IC5191. </object> <object><oname>IC5193</oname>. See IC5191. </object> <object><oname>IC5194</oname> does not exist. Bigourdan saw the object on one night in October of 1894 while searching for NGC7246. He has one measurement of it, and his description reads (in rough translation), "Extremely faint object which I could not recover after the first pointing." He never saw it again, though he tried once more in October of 1898. There is nothing at all in his place, not even a faint star. See IC5198 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC5195</oname>. The NGC description placing this "0.5' s N7242" is wrong. Bigourdan states explicitly in his description "toward PA = 45 deg, d = 0.5' with respect to N7242" and his offsets from N7242's position are consistent with this. This points directly to the compact galaxy north-following N7242, and not to the star south-following as the true IC5195. One other curious note about this object: it is IV Zw 90 and is placed by Zwicky just where Bigourdan places it. Zwicky gives a redshift for it in his catalogue of compacts, but the redshift in fact belongs to NGC7242. This is clear not only in Humason's list in HMS, but also on the back of Zwicky's original finding chart where he describes the object: "Neutral spherical compact 25 arcsec NE of NGC7242 [m_p = 14.6, V_s = +5684 km/sec] m_p = 16.4 (not in CAT)" ("CAT" is Zwicky's personal short reference to the CGCG). </object> <object><oname>IC5198</oname><oname>NGC7246</oname>. Malcolm Thomson has sorted this one out. Bigourdan made several errors in his search for N7246 (which is just where the Herschels saw it), the first of which was to search half a degree too far south. Thus, his not finding N7246 is not surprising. Casting about the area, however, he came across two other objects, one of which (IC5194, which see) does not exist. He has eight measurements of the other (I5198) with respect to two "anonymous" stars. Unfortunately, neither of his comparison stars is where he says they are: 10 seconds preceding, 21.5 arcmin north; and 17 seconds following, 15.5 arcmin north of BD -16 6057. Malcolm noticed, however, that there are stars matching Bigourdan's estimated magnitudes (9-10 and 11.5, respectively) at the same RA offsets but at 27.5 arcmin and 24.5 arcmin north of the BD star. Applying Bigourdan's measurements of IC5198 to these stars points to within an arcsecond of NGC 7246. The identity is thus sure, but the errors (6 and 9 arcmin) are unusual. </object> <object><oname>IC5204</oname> is probably NGC7300. Swift found it the same night that he found I5228 = N7302, and describes it as "vF, eE, a ray; p of 2." There is nothing within a degree of Swift's position that matches this description. However, we know that IC5228 is certainly NGC7302; the positions match to within 10 seconds of time, and there is nothing else nearby that could be Swift's object. His description reads, "pB, pS, R; B * nr s; f of 2." The bright star is there, and this galaxy is the "f of 2" with the preceding object being NGC7300. Looking at Swift's position for I5204 (22 18 00, -14 39.1 for B1950.0), we see that it is about 10 minutes west and 20 arcmin south of N7300. Given that Swift's description could well apply to the bright inner part of N7300, I'm going to suggest simple digit errors in Swift's position. </object> <object><oname>IC5214</oname>. This may be MCG -05-52-063 six minutes of time west and 7.5 arcmin north -- but is more likely lost. Swift found his object on 26 July 1897, during his last full summer of sweeping up new nebulae at Lowe Observatory. Andris suggested in ESO-B that it might be ESO 467-G047 one minute of time west and 9 arcmin north. But that galaxy is neither round, nor does it have an 8th magnitude star preceding as Swift noted (Swift's full description from his last list reads "eF, pS, R, 8m * p"). The 7.5 arcmin declination difference is enough to make MCG -05-52-063 merely a suggestion, too, hardly worth noting here, let alone in the position table. </object> <object><oname>IC5216</oname> is lost. Javelle found it on the night of 9 June 1896, and refered it to a 10th magnitude star at 22 17 20.2, -18 51.9 (1860.0). There is nothing at this position. In a footnote, Javelle says that he measured this position with respect to BD -18 6130. This is SAO 165097. Its 1860 position is 3m 8s following, and about 1 arcmin north of the nominal position of the missing comparison star. Searching at these offsets with other signs, I don't find any 10th magnitude stars. Searching for a star-galaxy pair with Javelle's nominal offsets turned into a fruitless exercise, too. None of the (just three) galaxies within two degrees of his position has stars at those offsets. So, I have to conclude that he made some sort of gross error in his position or measurements. Whatever happened, I cannot find IC5216. </object> <object><oname>IC5225</oname><oname>NGC7294</oname>. Leavenworth found the NGC object; he gave it a typically poor RA (2 minutes east of the true position) though an adequate Dec. The object was eventually identified by Howe, who micrometrically measured a very good position (see NGC7294 for what little more there might be to say about all of that). Swift rediscovered the galaxy about a decade after Leavenworth's observation, and gave it a remarkably detailed description: "eeF, pS, R, between 2 stars; a dozen stars in margin of field following, form semicircle; 4 stars north preceding [form] a curve, one [star] a double; south preceding of two" (the second is IC5226, which is actually south-following, not north-following as Swift states. See that for more.). This description matches the field around NGC7294 perfectly, especially keeping in mind that Swift used an eyepiece that gave a field of 32 arcmin across. Swift's RA is 36 seconds too small, a fact that will help us identify I5226. ESO suggested that I5225 might be ESO 533-G039 = MCG -04-53-007, or that it might be ESO 533-G025 = MCG -04-52-045. The positions are further off, and the fields around these galaxies do not match Swift's description. </object> <object><oname>IC5226</oname> is ESO 533- G045 = MCG -04-53-010. Swift found this the same night as he did I5225 = N7294. Though his positions by this time in his life are so bad that it is almost impossible to identify systematic offsets within one night's observations, this is one case where it works: his RA's for this and for I5225 are off in the same direction and by similar amounts (36 seconds for I5225, and 48 seconds for this). This also means that his declination is exactly one degree too far north. But when his position is corrected, we find a galaxy that matches his description ("eeeF, pL, R, no * nr") very well. However, Swift apparently based his additional comment "nf of 2" on his written positions because the galaxy is actually the "sf of 2." In any event, the identification is reasonably secure. </object> <object><oname>IC5228</oname><oname>NGC7302</oname>. The identity is certain. See IC5204 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5237</oname><oname>NGC7361</oname>. Even though Swift calls this "eeeF, eeeS, eeeE, eee dif", he adds "... a line. 8m * np." These comments make the identification with N7361 almost certain, even though Swift's RA is nearly 2.5 minutes of time too small. JH also has a two minute error in the RA, but that is clearly a digit error; see the note for N7361 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5239</oname>. There is a 10 minute of time digit error in Swift's RA -- it is too large. The galaxy, ESO 345-G017, matches his description "vF, pS, R" pretty well. It is also the only galaxy in the area that he could have seen. Another double galaxy sometimes mistaken as I5239, ESO 345-IG038, while closer to the nominal position, is much too faint to have been seen by Swift. Its combined R magnitude is only 16.0, while that for 345-G017 is 13.4, well within range of Swift's 16-inch on Echo Mountain. </object> <object><oname>IC5248</oname>. There is nothing in Bigourdan's place (derived from two measurements on 30 Oct 1891), not even a faint star. I checked the usual possibilities of wrong signs and misidentified comparison stars, but nothing worked. There is in fact one wrong sign in his table, but it is on the declination offset of just one measurement -- the other declination offset is correct. Finally, Bigourdan's comparison star is claimed to be BD -01 4344; that is also the "base" star for his measurement of NGC7364 for which he used another nearer star, but gave approximate offsets to that one from the BD star. That trail led directly to the NGC object, so the BD number is correct. So, once again, Bigourdan seems to have pushed his eyes too far, and picked up random intraocular fluctuations as a result. This set is a bit unusual as it persisted long enough to be measured twice. </object> <object><oname>IC5251</oname> is a triple star. Bigourdan has only one estimated position for this, but it is fairly close to the triple (22 42 40, +10 54.0 for B1950.0), and the identification is not in doubt. Carlson has this listed as a single star, but the IC position is close to the triple, too, so I'm not at all sure why the Mt. Wilson folks called it a single star. </object> <object><oname>IC5255</oname>, IC5259, and IC5268 are three objects found by Barnard, and not otherwise published. Unfortunately, some large error affects his positions, and I've been able to recover only I5259 with confidence. Its description reads "Neb; D * 9.5 f 2 arcmin". The double star clearly identifies CGCG 515-011 as Barnard's nebula -- it is 2.5 minutes of time east, and 2.5 arcmin south of the position in IC2. Unfortunately, applying the same offset to the other two objects yeilds no galaxies or asterisms. Looking over the field, though, I wonder if CGCG 515-013 might not be IC5255, and NGC7440 IC5268. But these are wild guesses, and I do not even feel confident enough about them to put them into the table. I don't see anything else here, though perhaps I've missed something. So, one out of three. All right for baseball, but not galaxies. </object> <object><oname>IC5259</oname> is CGCG 515-011. It is clearly identified by Barnard's description: "Neb; D * 9.5 f 2 arcmin", even though the position is 2.5 minutes in RA, and 2.5 arcmin in Dec, off. See IC5255 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC5260</oname> is probably NGC7404. If so, Swift's position is +20 seconds, and +2 degrees in error, and his description, including the "9m * nr sp" is accurate. Given that no other galaxy closer to his nominal position fits as well, I'm going to adopt the identity. </object> <object><oname>IC5262</oname> is the brighter of an interacting double galaxy positively identified by Swift's notes "bet a * p and a wide D nf, 8m * f". However, he calls it the "np of 2" without listing a "sf of 2" object in either table where he published this. The closest object that he could mean in his lists is IC5271 which is actually northeast of I5262. Swift probably meant to say "sp of 2" for I5262. </object> <object><oname>IC5264</oname> is not, in spite of a note to the contrary in one of the Helwan publications, lost. It is a perfectly good galaxy southwest of IC1459 = IC 5265 (both of which see). Swift's position is not too good, it's true, but his description "vF, S, eeE, a ray sp of below stars; sp of 2" points right at it once we realize that the "below stars" are those described in the IC5265 notes. One curiosity: in his 11th list in AN, where Swift combined all of the lists of nebulae found by him at Lowe Observatory in Southern California, he has the discovery dates of IC5264 and IC5265 as different: 10 June 1896 and 16 June 1896, respectively. In the first list, published separately in both AJ and PASP, he has the discovery date for both as 2 September 1896. It may be possible that he found one of the galaxies while overlooking the other, but I find it hard to believe that he overlooked the brighter (by far!) while seeing the fainter. </object> <object><oname>IC5265</oname><oname>IC1459</oname>. Swift himself first suggested this identity, but Dreyer instead chose N7418 (about half a degree on further south) as being the correct identification for I5265. Swift, for once, was right. See IC1459 for more. </object> <object><oname>IC5268</oname> is probably lost, though it just might be NGC7440. See IC5255 for the story. </object> <object><oname>IC5271</oname>. See IC5262. </object> <object><oname>IC5275</oname> is a triple star exactly at Javelle's position. There is another star just southeast which may have played a role, also. </object> <object><oname>IC5278</oname>. See IC5385. </object> <object><oname>IC5281</oname> is a star (perhaps a merged double on the DSS) exactly identified by Bigourdan's two measurements. He also notes a star (which really is a double) 2.5 arcmin to the east-southeast -- that star is there. </object> <object><oname>IC5290</oname> may also be NGC7520, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC5294</oname><oname>NGC7552</oname>. Swift's RA is only 9 seconds of time off the galaxy, and his declination and description (including the "8m * p") even closer. There is no doubt about the identity, first suggested by de Vaucouleurs. Helwan took Swift at his word, however, and says "Not found" for I5294. </object> <object><oname>IC5303</oname> is a double star -- assuming that it is B351 as well as B350 as noted by Dreyer. B350 is one of seven of Bigourdan's new objects which have no detailed observations given in his tables of differential positions (see IC 532 for more on these seven). He apparently found it on 5 Oct 1891, just about a week after he found B351, for which he does list an observation. Since the positions in his lists of new objects are the same for these two objects, the data probably refer to the same object. In this case, both numbers refer unambiguously to a double star. Interestingly, Bigourdan's description mentions a possible double star in the center of the nebulosity. Many of the "nebulae" that he observed are nothing but stars. Why did he think so many of these faint single and double stars were nebulous? I suspect a slight imperfection in the optics of his telescope, combined with less than perfect seeing. But that is speculation at this point. </object> <object><oname>IC5305</oname>, IC5306, and IC5307 were all found by Kobold. Curiously, I5307 was first seen by Bigourdan eight year earlier in 1889, but he mistakenly recorded it as NGC7594 (which see; he also saw N7594, but thinking it a nova, listed that as a "new" object. Thus, Dreyer gave it an IC number, 1478). Kobold's positions are all good, and pin down the objects that he saw. One of his objects is the northern-most of the line of three "stars" which Ainslie Common mentions in his discovery description for NGC7594 (the other two really are stars). IC5306 has a faint companion just north-preceding not seen by the visual observers. As with several similar cases, the precision of Kobold's positions has not prevented the modern catalogues from misidentifying the objects. </object> <object><oname>IC5306</oname>. See IC5305. </object> <object><oname>IC5307</oname>. See IC5305. </object> <object><oname>IC5308</oname> is almost certainly NGC7599. Swift's position is less than 2 arcmin south of N7599, and his description makes his object the "f of 3" (the preceding two are, of course, NGC7582 and NGC7590). I think that he somehow confused the NGC entries for the nebulae in the area and, thinking that N7590 was N7599, added the note "f of 7599." In any event, there is no nebula "f of 7599" that he could have seen. And given that his observation of the galaxies would have been less than fifteen degrees above his horizon -- at best! -- the remainder of his description "eeF, S, cE" would match the central part of N7599 pretty well. As far as I know, Wolfgang was the first to explicitely adopt the equality, though ESO has the note "Part of N7599?" Helwan makes I5308 the double star just southwest of the galaxy, but if this were true, Swift would almost certainly have noted this. </object> <object><oname>IC5311</oname> is either a double star northeast of Bigourdan's single estimated position, or it is the fainter single star directly south. Unfortunately, the nominal position is between the two, somewhat closer to the fainter star. My guess is that Bigourdan saw the brighter double star (though the companion to the primary star is much fainter than either of the other two in this discussion), but that is all it is. His position is not good enough to tell for sure. It may be that this is another of his "fausses images", but that, too, is a guess. All we can say for sure is that the IC object is not NGC7625 as that was his reference object. </object> <object><oname>IC5313</oname><oname>NGC7632</oname>. Swift found this in August of 1897, just a few months before his last discovery from Echo Mountain. His position is fairly good, being just 14 seconds of time off in RA. The identity with N7632 is assured by Swift's notes about the surrounding stars: "10m * nr sp, 11m * f". He has the 10th magnitude star simply as "south" in the AN list, but correctly notes it "south-preceding" in the Popular Astronomy list. </object> <object><oname>IC5318</oname> may be NGC7646, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC5320</oname> <oname>IC5322</oname> both have 1 minute of time errors in their RAs -- they are east of IC5323 and IC5324 rather than west. The errors occur in Frost's original list in HA 60 as well as in the IC. </object> <object><oname>IC5322</oname> forms a nice pair with IC5320, which see. </object> <object><oname>IC5323</oname>. Stewart mentions in a remark that Frost also found this and IC5324 on a later Harvard plate, but Frost does not give a separate position. Also see IC5320. </object> <object><oname>IC5324</oname>. See IC5320 and IC5323. </object> <object><oname>IC5327</oname><oname>IC1495</oname>. There is no question about the identity of IC1495; Javelle's position, even reduced with respect to the BD position for his comparison star, falls near the galaxy. However, Barnard's position is about 30 seconds of time too small, and almost six arcmin too far south. This is clearly one of Barnard's estimated positions. Unfortunately, this is one of the objects that he apparently sent directly to Dreyer -- I don't find any mention of it in the copies of Barnard's articles that I have. Still, his description, including the 11th magnitude star one arcmin following (actually north-following), fits the galaxy. There are no other galaxies nearby that match the entry better that Barnard could have seen, so this is the most likely candidate. </object> <object><oname>IC5330</oname>. This is one of Bigourdan's more peculiar "novae". He has three observations of it on a single night, two referred to a star at 23 31 04.6, -03 08 25 (B1950; AC2000.2); and one referred to another fainter star at 23 30 56.4, -03 15 48 (again B1950 from AC2000.2). The first two observations point clearly at a faint star that I've included in the table as IC5330. The final observation falls about 20 arcsec away from an even fainter star that is nearly two arcmin away from the one I've called IC5330. Bigourdan gives no indication that he knew that the observations were of different objects aside from an enigmatic sentence: "In this area, I suspect other nebulous objects at the extreme limit of visibility." This is a peculiar statement for him to make as there are no galaxies anywhere around brighter than about 17th magnitude, well below his visual limit. I suspect here, as with IC5311, that "fausses images" are responsible for the "objects" that Bigourdan himself suspected. </object> <object><oname>IC5333</oname><oname>NGC7697</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC5336</oname> belongs to (perhaps) both objects in a pair of faint galaxies in Abell 2626. The IC position is actually closer to a lower surface brightness galaxy two arcmin south of the pair, but once the position for Javelle's comparison star is corrected, his position falls between the two galaxies. The southeastern of the pair is closer, but Javelle comments that the object is extended along the meridian. This better fits the northwestern galaxy. Since the two galaxies are nearly equal in brightness and size, I'm going to assign the IC number to both. </object> <object><oname>IC5340</oname> is the result of two discordant observations made by Bigourdan on 2 Dec 1894. They give positions about 30 arcsec apart, neither of which falls near a star or a galaxy. This seems to be another case of Bigourdan's pushing too hard to glimpse an imagined object, or one that was caused by a random pulse of "light" in his visual system. </object> <object><oname>IC5342</oname>. See NGC7726. </object> <object><oname>IC5344</oname>. While there is a faint star about 35 arcsec southeast of Bigourdan's position (from one micrometric measurement), there is nothing that matches his description. He also notes "This area could be rich in extremely faint nebulae which would need a larger instrument." There are no galaxies in the area that he could even glimpse in his 12-inch refractor, so IC5344 must be the result of pushing his optics too hard. </object> <object><oname>IC5348</oname><oname>NGC7744</oname>. Swift's RA is only 17 seconds of time off, but he and Dreyer missed the identity with N7744. I suspect Dreyer thought that the object was too faint (Swift describes it as "vF" or "eF, eS, R, stellar", while JH description boils down to "cB, S, vlE, svmbM *14" in the NGC. I have to confess that that made me look carefully, too -- and there is nothing else in the area that Swift could have seen. The identity is virtually certain. </object> <object><oname>IC5350</oname>. See IC5362. </object> <object><oname>IC5353</oname>. See IC5362. </object> <object><oname>IC5354</oname>. This is the western component of a double galaxy in the cluster Klemola 44 = Abell 4038. ESO picks only the brighter galaxy as the IC object, but given Swift's description "eeF, S, R, 3rd of 5", it could well be both. Howe gives a refined position which points at the brighter galaxy, but has no additional description to help us. Given that Howe almost certainly saw the brighter galaxy, and that he is credited in the IC as a co-discoverer, I don't see any reason not to follow along. </object> <object><oname>IC5358</oname>. See IC5362. </object> <object><oname>IC5360</oname> is probably lost, though there are some possibilities (more on those in the next paragraph). Originally found by Swift in September of 1897, he describes it simply as "eeF, cS, R, in vacancy". Unfortunately, there is nothing near his nominal position, and there are about a dozen pretty bright stars scattered around it as well. Possibilities for his object include ESO 349- G011 (which may also be IC 5365, which see), ESO 349- G019, or ESO 408- G012. All these are quite faint for Swift to have seen, and only the first (and faintest) is actually in a "vacancy". Its position is over 9 minutes of time and 3 arcmin off, too. While errors that large are not unprecedented during Swift's final year of observing (see e.g. IC5003 and Co.), I'm hesitant to declare a match here without a more detailed description of the surrounding star field from Swift. </object> <object><oname>IC5361</oname><oname>NGC7761</oname>, which see. <ignore /> </object> <object><oname>IC5362</oname><oname>IC5363</oname>, which see. <ignore /> I5362 itself is the last of five nebulae which Swift found on 24 July 1896. The others are I5350, I5353, I5354, and I5358, the brightest galaxies in the cluster Klemola 44 = Abell 4038. Swift's positions (absolute as well as relative) and descriptions for these five objects were just good enough that Herbert Howe could recover the galaxies without too much trouble. Dreyer adopted Howe's micrometrically measured positions for all five, so there has been little doubt about the identities since. </object> <object><oname>IC5363</oname><oname>IC5362</oname>. Swift's published description is "vF, eS, R, 3 sts in line p, one D" for IC5363, and "eeF, pS, nrly bet an 8m * nf and a 9m * sp, nearer the former; 5th of 5" (see I5362 for more on these). His position for I5362 is well off, but that was corrected by Herbert Howe who found the galaxy 1m 34s following Swift's place. Swift's description, including the nearby stars, is correct. His position for I5363 is 34 seconds west and 16 arcmin south of I5362. There is nothing there, however. But if his "3 sts in line" are made "following" rather than "preceding", this would be his object -- the middle of the three stars is double. Given that Swift's positions are notoriously bad during this last year of his observing (I5363 was found on 24 July 1897), the identity is not unreasonable. </object> <object><oname>IC5364</oname>. Here is another double galaxy, probably also in Klemola 44, though well south of the center of the cluster. It is easily and positively identified by Swift's note "8m * sf" (the star is more "s" than "f"). Some have taken the brighter, eastern component as Swift's galaxy, but I prefer to adopt the pair itself as the IC object. The two galaxies are pretty closely merged, and would probably be difficult to separate at the eyepiece. Speculation, of course. Observations needed! </object> <object><oname>IC5365</oname> is another of Swift's nebulae found at Echo Mountain that we cannot now recover. He describes it as "pB, C[sic]S, eE, 1 * near sf." The galaxy chosen by ESO (ESO 349-G011) is not "pB", is not "eE", and has no star "near sf". Nor is there a galaxy within several degrees of Swift's position that matches this description. Since this is the only object he found on 25 Sept 1897, we have no way to check for a systematic offset. So far, the only digit errors I've checked are +-1 and +-10 minute errors in RA, +-1 degree and -10 degree errors in Dec. There is nothing at any of these positions. </object> <object><oname>IC5366</oname> may be the very faint, extended nebulosity two degrees south of Barnard's nominal position (published only in the second IC). This, however, is very faint, so it seems just as likely to me that the object is a plate defect. </object> <object><oname>IC5368</oname>. Barnard's description from IC2, and not otherwise published, reads "eF, vS, lbM, 3 arcmin p or f from omega Piscium" -- he must have been in a rush the night he found it. The position given in the IC is that for the star. The galaxy turns out to be west and a little north, but it is just as Barnard describes it. </object> <object><oname>IC5377</oname>. See IC5378. </object> <object><oname>IC5378</oname> <oname>IC5379</oname>. Found by Isaac Roberts on a plate of NGC7814 taken with his 20-inch reflector, these two objects -- and the surrounding stars -- are clearly described by him. He measured positions with respect to NGC7814, and lists them assuming that the NGC position is correct. [I5378] 23 55 28, 74 09.4 [for 1950.0, assuming the GSC position for N7814: 00 00 04 +16 21.5] F, Ens, 1 of 3 sts 15 inv, cond at n end, length incl st 42 arcsec. [I5379] 23 55 31, 74 11.8 [for 1950.0: 00 00 07 +16 19.1] F, S, Epf, FN, star 17 close to p end. The first description and position points exactly to an interacting pair as I5378. There are two 15th magnitude stars just preceding, and the nucleus of the southern galaxy is about the same magnitude and almost stellar. The fainter companion galaxy is just north of the brighter southern object, and on a small-scale plate, would almost certainly be mistaken for part of the brighter galaxy. The pair is Arp 130, and the 200-inch photo shown by Arp is very good indeed. Similarly for I5379, the description and position are exactly matched by the galaxy just south-following the pair. Just as Roberts claims, this object has a faint star just preceding it, and is indeed extended nearly east-west. In addition, the other two objects (I5377 and I5381) found on the same plate by Roberts are just where he places them, and the descriptions match. There is thus no question about the correct identifications for these two objects. </object> <object><oname>IC5379</oname>. See IC5378. </object> <object><oname>IC5381</oname>. See IC5378 and IC5383. </object> <object><oname>IC5383</oname> may be unrecoverable. At least, I can't find it. Javelle's published position falls on a blank patch of sky two or three arcminutes from the nearest candidate galaxy (later catalogued as number 742 by James Keeler in his list of new, faint, nebulae found on Lick 36-inch plates taken around 1900). Javelle lists his reference star as BD +15 4927, the same star which he used on two nights to measure IC5381 (for which Javelle's position is correct). The discovery date was 10 November 1893; IC 5381 was found two nights later, and reobserved on the 13th. Javelle makes a couple of typical errors in his lists: reversing the signs of one or the other (or both) of his measured offsets, and misidentifying his comparison stars. Checking the first possibility led nowhere -- all the resulting positions are in blank fields. The second kind of error seemed likely after looking at the POSS. BD +15 4928 is about 3 arcmin northeast of BD +15 4927, and is very nearly the same magnitude. Again, however, checking all of Javelle's possible offsets from this star turned up nothing except very faint stars (B = 18-19) that he could not have seen. A rather cursory search of the area a couple of degrees around the nominal position also showed no galaxies at the correct offsets from other stars of similar magnitude. So, the unhappy conclusion for now is "Not found." </object> <object><oname>IC5384</oname> is probably NGC7813, which see for the story. There is no doubt about the IC identification. </object> <object><oname>IC5385</oname> is lost, at least for now. It was seen once by Herbert Howe on 27 Dec 1894, but he did not have time to micrometrically measure its position. So, it -- along with three other nebulae that he found in 1894 and 1895 (IC1564, 1567, and 5278) -- has only an approximate position along with a sketchy description, "eF, prob. S". Unlike the other three nebulae, though, there is no trace of IC5385 near Howe's approximate position. The other three, assuming the identifications I've adopted are correct, are within 22 seconds of time and 7 arcmin of Howe's nominal positions. The closest galaxy of magnitude similar to the others (about V = 13.5-14) is well over a degree away, and does not have a position error suggestive of a simple digit mistake. Perhaps larger digit errors might yeild a candidate. A search at 1, 2, and 10 degrees is in order here. </object> <object><oname>IC5386</oname><oname>NGC7832</oname>, which see. <ignore /> Howe corrected Swift's position, but neither of them, nor Dreyer, noticed that N7832 has a position virtually identical to Howe's. The identity is not in doubt. </object> |
|
I corrected and completed my persolnal SAC database from Dr. Wolfgang Steinicke catalog. I've added to my database descriptions from ftp://cdsarc.u-strasbg.fr/pub/cats/VII/239A/ngcnotes.txt & icnotes.txt see attache files. I used simple regular expressions to parse these files. I'm aware fact WS database is far better than VII/239A, but I think 90% descriptions are correct. Maybe this is idea for "general use" catalog? If You need ANY help with that subject let me know :) Regards |
|
Update: personal database is SAC import to postgresql with web based fronted. |
|
I think the Corvin notes in VII/239A are too much oriented to help the identification process of the "lost" NGC objects. They are now 10 years old and many are no more relevant due to the continuous work in the mean time. Steve Gottlieb notes ( http://www.astronomy-mall.com/Adventures.In.Deep.Space/steve.ngc.htm ) are much more useful for the observers. |
|
|
|
|
|
I imported Steve Gottlieb notes too :) See attached files. If you want files in other form please let me know. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cleaned and polished files attached: NGC.txt and IC.txt |
|
Also add search index for all the small catalog |
|
Since Wolfgang Steinicke's NGC/IC cannot be packaged in some linux distributions because it's not entirely free, I've created a completely free NGC database and compiled it using catgen. You can find it on gitHub https://github.com/mattiaverga/OpenNGC It's still work in progress, but NGC objects data is complete. I need to tweak lines for galaxy groups and I plan to add IC objects in future. I would really appreciate an opinion and suggestions on how it can be improved for a better compatibility in skychart/catgen (I've uploaded both the catalog and the project file in the 'skychart_catalog' dir). |
|
Thank you Mattia! I try your catalog and it work well. I try to integrate it at the same level as SAC for the version 4.0 (highlight Messier object, interface with pictures ...) |
|
I mark this issue as solved and open a new one to add an observing notes function to the program as this is not exactly the same as a catalog. NGC2000 is removed and replaced by Open NGC. NGC is now an alternative to SAC for the default catalog and installed part of the basic package. "SAC Pictures" are rebuild to take advantage of the improved position in Open NGC. They can be used with Open NGC. WDS is updated to the last available release on Vizier, dated 02-Jan-2017 GCVS is updated to the last available release on Vizier, dated 30-Apr-2013 PGC is updated with the HyperLeda database as of 11-Jan-2017. It include about 5 million galaxies. Two new catalog are added to the standard catalog package: - Sharpless Catalogue of HII Regions - Barnard's Catalogue of Dark Objects The new version of the program, after version 3.11-3421 is required to use this new catalog. But old catalog can still be used with the new program version. All the new data packages have version 4.0 in the file name. They will be put on the deb unstable repository Monday, and available from Sourceforge for download. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
13-11-25 11:05 | Patrick Chevalley | New Issue | |
13-11-25 11:05 | Patrick Chevalley | Status | new => assigned |
13-11-25 11:05 | Patrick Chevalley | Assigned To | => Patrick Chevalley |
13-11-29 10:36 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Added: 0002692 | |
13-11-29 17:36 | Patrick Chevalley | File Added: ngcic_test1.zip | |
13-11-29 17:42 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Added: 0002693 | |
13-11-29 20:07 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: ngcnotes.txt | |
13-11-29 20:07 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: icnotes.txt | |
13-11-29 20:25 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Added: 0002694 | |
13-11-29 20:42 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Added: 0002695 | |
13-11-29 20:43 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Edited: 0002695 | |
13-11-30 12:12 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Added: 0002696 | |
13-11-30 12:25 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: NGC 1-7840 complete.txt.gz | |
13-11-30 12:25 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: IC 1-5386 complete.txt.gz | |
13-11-30 12:27 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Added: 0002697 | |
13-11-30 18:38 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: NGC.txt.gz | |
13-11-30 18:39 | Jerzy Rokicki | File Added: IC.txt.gz | |
13-11-30 18:41 | Jerzy Rokicki | Note Added: 0002698 | |
14-09-01 08:44 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Added: 0002939 | |
16-01-10 12:01 | Patrick Chevalley | Fixed in Version | 0.3.0 => |
16-01-10 12:01 | Patrick Chevalley | Target Version | 4.0 => 4.2 |
16-12-28 15:52 | Mattia Verga | Note Added: 0003510 | |
16-12-29 17:56 | Patrick Chevalley | Target Version | 4.2 => 4.0 |
16-12-29 17:56 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Added: 0003511 | |
17-01-12 18:14 | Patrick Chevalley | Status | assigned => resolved |
17-01-12 18:14 | Patrick Chevalley | Resolution | open => fixed |
17-01-12 18:14 | Patrick Chevalley | Fixed in Version | => 3.11 SVN |
17-01-12 18:14 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Added: 0003513 | |
17-01-12 18:18 | Patrick Chevalley | Note Edited: 0003513 | |
17-01-12 18:21 | Patrick Chevalley | Relationship added | related to 0001598 |