IC 4005 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4006 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. ===== IC 4008 is a double star (or a star plus a fainter, compact galaxy) confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4009 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4010 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. ===== IC 4013 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4015 and IC 4016, 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. ===== IC 4016. See IC 4015. ===== IC 4018. My first sweep over this had it as a galaxy with a star superposed. Then, I took a second look at it and concluded that it was just two stars. However, during the IC NED load in 2005, I found that the northern "star" is a 2MASS extended source as well as a MAPS galaxy. So, looking at DSS2, and comparing it with the print of the original plate, it is clear that the IC object is a galaxy with a star about 25 arcsec to the southeast. I suspect I had the wrong objects on the POSS1 prints the first time around, and misinterpreted the overexposed images the second time around. I hope I have it right now -- spectra of these things will tell. ===== IC 4019 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's "* 14 att nf" is a defect. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4022 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4024 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4035 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. ===== IC 4036 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4046 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4050 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. ===== IC 4051. Malcolm has pointed out that the identification of this and NGC 4908 (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. ===== IC 4052 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. ===== IC 4053 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: IC 4054 is a star, but there is no mark on the plate for the second neighbor, IC 4055 (which see). See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4054 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4055 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. IC 4053 (which see) and IC 4054, 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4056 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. ===== IC 4057 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4061 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. ===== IC 4063. 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. ===== IC 4066 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4067 is the northern-most of a trio of galaxies; the others are IC 4068 -- with which I4067 is often confused, thanks to an ambiguous entry in MCG -- and IC 4073. All three are at the positions given them by Wolf, and all are marked on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 4068 is the southern-most of a trio of galaxies; the others are IC 4067 (which see) and IC 4073. ===== IC 4069 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. ===== IC 4072 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4073 is the eastern-most of a trio of galaxies. The other two are IC 4067 (which see) and IC 4068. ===== IC 4076 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4078 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. ===== IC 4079 has a star superposed preceding. As noted by Wolf, it was this star that he measured. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4080 is a double galaxy, not resolved on a print of the original plate. Wolf correctly noted the two stars flanking the object. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4084 is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4090 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. ===== IC 4092 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4093. 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. NGC 2529). ===== IC 4097 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. ===== IC 4099 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. ===== IC 4101 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4102 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 *." ===== IC 4109 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4112 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4116 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4117 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4118. 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. ===== IC 4119 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 IC 3636 for more about that discovery plate. ===== IC 4120 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4121 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4122 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. ===== IC 4124 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4126 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4129 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4132 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4134 = NGC 4920. 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 NGC 4933. 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 IC 4134. 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 IC 4173 was actually IC 4176 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 IC 4134 = NGC 4920, but IC 4173 and IC 4176 are the two components of NGC 4933. ===== IC 4136 may be NGC 4942, IC 4156 may be NGC 4948; and IC 4209 and IC 4212. 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: IC 4156 could be NGC 4948, and IC 4209 and IC 4212 are probably the galaxies listed in the table. Also, his first two objects, IC 4136 and IC 4156, 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 NGC 4942 and NGC 4948, respectively. Stewart gives a position for a fifth object on the plate: NGC 4995 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. ===== IC 4138. 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4142 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4143 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. ===== IC 4150 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4151 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. ===== IC 4153 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4154 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. ===== IC 4155 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4156 may well be NGC 4948. See IC 4136. ===== IC 4157 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. ===== IC 4168. 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. ===== IC 4169 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. ===== IC 4170 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 IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4172. 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. ===== IC 4173 = NGC 4933sw. 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 IC 4176. Bigourdan "discovered" another galaxy that night, IC 4134 (which see for details) -- but that is NGC 4920. ===== IC 4174 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. ===== IC 4176 = NGC 4933ne. See IC 4173 = NGC 4933sw and IC 4134 = NGC 4920 for more details. ===== IC 4179 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. ===== IC 4180. See IC 4196. ===== IC 4181 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. ===== IC 4185. 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 made the two of them IC 4185 itself, but have labeled the brighter object I4185s, and the fainter I4185n. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4186 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. ===== IC 4190 is a star about 3 arcmin following IC 4182. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4192 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. ===== IC 4194 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4195 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4196 = NGC 4970. 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 NGC 4970. 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 IC 4197, 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. ===== IC 4197. See IC 4196. ===== IC 4198 = NGC 4979. Javelle describes the single galaxy at this position correctly ("F, cS, R" in the IC), but then adds a footnote, "Distinct from NGC 4979," 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)." ===== IC 4199 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4203 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4205 = IC 853. Swift found I4205 on 23 May 1897, the same night as IC 3791 (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 IC 853 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. ===== IC 4206 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4208 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4209. See IC 4136. ===== IC 4211 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. ===== IC 4212. See IC 4136. ===== IC 4222 = IC 879. Even though Swift has the position a degree south, he says in his description for IC 4222 "[NGC] 5078 nr nf." This makes it certain that his object is identical to IC 879, 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. ===== IC 4233 = NGC 5124. 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 NGC 5124 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 NGC 5126), and I suspect that modern southern observers could dig out the other two with 15-20-inch class telescopes. ===== IC 4236 = NGC 5118. 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. ===== IC 4257 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 IC 4257 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. ===== IC 4274 = NGC 5189. 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 NGC 2000.0 as a 40 degree error in the declination of I4274. N5189's position there is correct, however. ===== IC 4287 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. ===== IC 4291. 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. ===== IC 4308 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 IC 4308. ===== IC 4317 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. ===== IC 4329 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 "IC 4329A". 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 IC 953 for a curious historical sidelight on this group. ===== IC 4330. 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. ===== IC 4335 is a single (or a very 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. ===== IC 4338 = NGC 5334. Swift has somehow confused NGC 5334 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 NGC 5334 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. ===== IC 4347 = NGC 5367. As usual, there is no question about which object JH found and measured. It is the brightest nebula in a group of reflection nebulae, this particular one around a double star, also discovered by JH (JH4636). Swift rediscovered this on 30 December 1897. That it is indeed the same nebula that JH saw is confirmed by Swift's note (published in the Popular Astronomy and MNRAS incarnations of his paper, but not in the big collected "11th Catalogue" in AN): This is a nebulous star, the only one I have ever found. The central star is about 8m, and surrounded with an exceedingly faint atmosphere. An 8m star follows 15s, which was free from nebulosity. This description is virtually identical to one of JH's: Very faint; 2-arcmin diameter; a * 9 m following, is about 4 arcmin distant, is unaffected with nebulosity. In another description, he refers to it as "A close double star in a very large, bright luminous atmosphere, 2-arcmin diameter." All this consistency means that Swift simply rediscovered NGC 5367. There are some minor differences between Swift's various published positions and descriptions, and the NGC description, but not enough to affect the final verdict in this case. ===== IC 4353. 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." ===== IC 4365 = NGC 5437. 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 "NGC 5436." He also mislabeled N5436 itself as "N5437," and put the number "IC 4365" 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. ===== IC 4369, IC 4370, and IC 4371 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. ===== IC 4370 is in Hickson 70, and a companion of IC 4369, which see. ===== IC 4371 is in Hickson 70, and a companion of IC 4369, which see. ===== IC 4376 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. ===== IC 4381 = NGC 5008, which see. ===== IC 4383. Found by Bigourdan 1.7' north-preceding NGC 5504, 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. ===== IC 4385 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. ===== IC 4392. 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. ===== IC 4394. There is nothing at Bigourdan's position, which is about six arcmin north-northwest of NGC 5541. He has only one measurement of the position, referred 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. ===== IC 4400 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. ===== IC 4401. See IC 997 and IC 998. ===== IC 4404 is a star. The number is often assigned to the faint galaxy just north of NGC 5547, 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. ===== IC 4411 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. ===== IC 4412 = NGC 5594, which see. ===== IC 4414 = IC 1008, which see. ===== IC 4424 = IC 1016, which see. ===== IC 4430 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. ===== IC 4431 = IC 1012, which see. ===== IC 4437 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 NGC 5630. 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. ===== IC 4441 = IC 4444. This is another bad position from Swift -- there is nothing in his place. IC 4444, 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. ===== IC 4444 = IC 4441, which see. ===== IC 4453. 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 IC 2595 for more. ===== IC 4455 = NGC 5664, 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. ===== IC 4465 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. ===== IC 4471 = NGC 5697. 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 NGC 5697. However, that estimated position has relatively large errors, and Bigourdan did not mention NGC 5697 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 NGC 5697 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 NGC 5697. His note on the second night for IC 4471, 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 NGC 5697 (14.7). So, I think that his observations for his "nova" and for NGC 5697 actually refer to the same object. ===== IC 4490 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. ===== IC 4491 = IC 1055. 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. ===== IC 4493 = NGC 5747, which see. ===== IC 4494 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. ===== IC 4510 and IC 4513 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. ===== IC 4511 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. ===== IC 4513 is probably a plate defect. See IC 4510. ===== IC 4514. See IC 4550. ===== IC 4515. Javelle got the sign on his north polar distance offset wrong. Once that is corrected, his position lands right on CGCG 193-005. ===== IC 4516 was the last object discovered by Lewis Swift; the date was 2 June 1898. See IC 4550. ===== IC 4518 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." ===== IC 4528 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. ===== IC 4532 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 IC 4534, which see. ===== IC 4533 may also be NGC 5840 (which see) -- but probably is not. ===== IC 4534 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 IC 4532 (which see). He discovered I4534 three nights later on 28 July 1903, and the positions are about half a degree different. ===== IC 4535. 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. ===== IC 4540 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 (NGC 5904) 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". ===== IC 4543 = IC 1118. Though Swift's position falls within a couple of arcmin of NPM1G +13.0409, that galaxy is not IC 4543. Instead, the brighter IC 1118 (correctly positioned by Javelle) with the faint star northwest mentioned by Swift, is the correct object. ===== IC 4544 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 IC 4544 in any of them. Perhaps it is in another AN or ApJ note. ===== IC 4550 = NGC 5946. 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, IC 4514 and IC 4516). 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. ===== IC 4551 = NGC 5964. 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. ===== IC 4552 is almost certainly identical with UGC 09945. Swift found this the same night, 21 June 1897, as he found IC 4540 (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 NGC 5952, NGC 5955, 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. ===== IC 4553 = IC 1127, and IC 4554. 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 IC 4553 is close the the GSC position for Arp 220, so that identification is secure. But Javelle's position for IC 4554 is 2.2 arcmin southeast of IC 4553, much too far from his position for IC 4553 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 IC 4554. One other curiosity about this field: Javelle was not the discoverer of IC 4553. It was actually found in 1866 by Safford, and is IC 1127 (which see). ===== IC 4554. See IC 4553. ===== IC 4560. 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, IC 4563, 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. ===== IC 4563. Javelle misidentified his comparison star for his measurement of this object: it was BD +40 2905 and not +40 2903 as he claimed. See IC 4565 for more. ===== IC 4586 = NGC 6014. 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." NGC 6014 fits that description perfectly. ===== IC 4588 is very close to its IC position southeast of NGC 6051. 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. ===== IC 4591, IC 4592, IC 4601, IC 4603, IC 4604, and IC 4605 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 IC 4601 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. ===== IC 4592. See IC 4591. ===== IC 4594 = NGC 6075. Javelle got the sign on his NPD offset wrong. Corrected, his position falls within three arcsec of the nucleus of the NGC 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. Wolfgang Steinicke was the first to note the identity. ===== IC 4596. See IC 4600. ===== IC 4597 may also be NGC 6082, which see. ===== IC 4600 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 IC 4596. That is at its nominal position, and matches Stewart's description very well. ===== IC 4601. 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 IC 4591 for more on the vast and wonderful complex of nebulosity around rho Ophiuchi. ===== IC 4602 = NGC 6132. 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. ===== IC 4603. See IC 4591. ===== IC 4604. See IC 4591. ===== IC 4605. See IC 4591. ===== IC 4606 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 NGC 6144 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. ===== IC 4610 is one of a group of three nebulae (IC 4610, 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 IC 4612 for the story. ===== IC 4611 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 IC 4612 for more. ===== IC 4612. 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. IC 4610 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: IC 4611 has the wrong NPD sign in Javelle's table of offsets -- and the wrong reduced position, too. ===== IC 4613, IC 4614, IC 4615 = NGC 6196, and IC 4616 = NGC 6197. 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, NGC 6194, 6196, 6197, and 6199. He managed to "find" NGC 6194, 6196, and 6197, though his entries under those numbers are for stars. He found no trace of NGC 6199, and gave the three galaxies new numbers (B209, B325, and B426, respectively), though later correctly identified B209 with NGC 6194, 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 IC 4615 and B426 became IC 4616, while the other two objects, B324 and B425 became IC 4614 and IC 4613, respectively. As I explain in the notes for NGC 6196, 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 NGC 6196 = IC 4615 and NGC 6197 = IC 4616. 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 = IC 4613, though for B324 = IC 4614, 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, IC 4613 is "not found," IC 4614 is almost certainly a galaxy, IC 4615 is certainly NGC 6196, and IC 4616 is just as certainly NGC 6197. ===== IC 4614. See IC 4613 and NGC 6196. ===== IC 4615 = NGC 6196. See IC 4613 and NGC 6196. ===== IC 4616 = NGC 6197. See IC 4613 and NGC 6196. ===== IC 4620. 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. ===== IC 4622. 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, IC 4629 (which see) is also missing; Stewart found it on the same plate. ===== IC 4625 = NGC 6240. 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. ===== IC 4626 is a double star about 7 arcmin southeast of NGC 6240 = IC 4625 (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. ===== IC 4627. 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? ===== IC 4628 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 NGC 6227 for more about JH's observation of a Milky Way star cloud in the area. ===== IC 4629 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. Ralph Dowdee, using the telescopes of SLOOH.com, has several images of the area, none of which show anything at the nominal position of IC 4629. Ralph's images did show the dark nebula LDN 122, located at 16 52 25, -16 40.0 about a minute of time preceding the nominal position for I4629. See also IC 4622, 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. ===== IC 4631 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. ===== IC 4632 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. ===== IC 4636 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 NGC 6279. 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. ===== IC 4643 = NGC 6301. 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 IC 1748 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. ===== IC 4646. See IC 4658. ===== IC 4648 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. ===== IC 4649 = IC 1252, which see. ===== IC 4651. 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. IC 2602, IC 4665). 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. ===== IC 4652. See IC 4658. ===== IC 4655 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. ===== IC 4657 and IC 4659 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. ===== IC 4658. 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, IC 4646 and IC 4652, both close to their nominal positions. Both are fairly good-sized galaxies, and IC 4652 has a description that is identical to IC 4658'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. ===== IC 4659. See IC 4657. ===== IC 4665. See IC 4651. ===== IC 4666 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. ===== IC 4667. 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 NGC 6459, 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 IC 4666 (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. ===== IC 4668 is a star. It was a bit difficult to track down since Bigourdan mistakenly swapped its comparison star for the comparison star for NGC 6474 (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. ===== IC 4671 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. ===== IC 4675. 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. ===== IC 4677 is a part of the corona of NGC 6543, 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. ===== IC 4678. 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 NGC 6523, N6526, N6533, and I1271 for more discussion of the M8 area. ===== IC 4681 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 IC 4690. So, is it possible that he made some error here, too? ===== IC 4683 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. ===== IC 4684. See IC 4681. ===== IC 4690 is probably identical with NGC 6589 (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 NGC 6590 rather than NGC 6589. 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. ===== IC 4693 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. ===== IC 4695 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. ===== IC 4700 = NGC 6590 (which see) = NGC 6595. ===== IC 4703 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 (NGC 6611) 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. ===== IC 4706 and IC 4707. 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. IC 4690, IC 4700, and IC 4715. ===== IC 4707. See IC 4706. ===== IC 4711 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." ===== IC 4715 = 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 NGC 6603 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. ===== IC 4721. 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 ("IC 4721A") 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. ===== IC 4725 = 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. ===== IC 4733 is a star, exactly measured by Bigourdan who also noted a wide double star about an arcminute away to the northeast. ===== IC 4762 = 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 NGC 6678 (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 IC 4762 is clear. ===== IC 4763 is one of a trio of numbers -- the others are NGC 6677 and NGC 6679, 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 NGC 6677 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 NGC 6677, but am convinced that B is NGC 6679 = IC 4763. 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 NGC 6677 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 NGC 6677. 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 NGC 6679: "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 NGC 6679 -- and adds support to the evidence from his measured position that the pair is equal to B333 = IC 4763 (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. ===== IC 4768 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. ===== IC 4784 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. ===== IC 4791 is just where Burnham measured it, but Dreyer has the 6th magnitude comparison star following rather than preceding. ===== IC 4802 is a part of NGC 6717. It was found and measured on the same night that Bigourdan measured NGC 6717. 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 NGC 6717. 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 IC 4802 is identical to NGC 6717. 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. ===== IC 4803 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. ===== IC 4812 is a large, faint nebulosity southwest of the brighter trio NGC 6726, 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. ===== IC 4850. 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. ===== IC 4854 = IC 4855, IC 4857 = IC 4858, and IC 4871 = IC 4872. 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). ===== IC 4857 = IC 4858. See IC 4854 = IC 4855. ===== IC 4863 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". ===== IC 4865 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. ===== IC 4867 = IC 1301, which see. ===== IC 4868 is a close 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 things distinguishing it from a single star on the southern survey plates are 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 Innes's impression of nebulosity. ===== IC 4871 = IC 4872. See IC 4854 = IC 4855. ===== IC 4889 = IC 4891. Stewart found IC 4891 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, IC 4888) 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. ===== IC 4895 = NGC 6822, which also see. Dreyer condenses Wolf's description to "group of nebulae, 25 arcmin in diameter." Wolf notes that "NGC 6822" 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 IC 1308) 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 NGC 6822 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. ===== IC 4898 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. ===== IC 4922 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. ===== IC 4924 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. ===== IC 4930 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. ===== IC 4940 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. ===== IC 4943. See IC 4949 = NGC 6861. ===== IC 4946 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 IC 4948, 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, NGC 6902. 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. ===== IC 4948 may be = to NGC 6902. See IC 4946 for the story. ===== IC 4949 = NGC 6861. IC 4949 was the "following of 2" nebulae that Swift found on the night of 8 July 1897. Curiously, he published the first, IC 4943, 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 IC 4943 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. ===== IC 4959 may just possibly be IC 4961, 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. IC 4961 (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. ===== IC 4961. See IC 4959. ===== IC 4966 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. ===== IC 4974. 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. ===== IC 4977 is the last of seven objects found by Bigourdan for which he gives no details in his tables of differential measures (see IC 532 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. IC 2120 (which see), also found by Bigourdan, is in fact a comet, so that kind of mistake does happen in his lists. ===== IC 4988 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. ===== IC 4996 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. ===== IC 4998 is perhaps a duplicate observation of IC 5018. 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 IC 4946 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. =====