NGC 7000, the North America Nebula. WH saw only the brightest southern-most portion of this huge emission region, "Central America." JH was uncertain if his father had in fact seen the same nebulosity as he did, as WH's position is nearly a degree south of his own (I put the approximate center even further north than JH did). The most detailed part of WH's description makes JH's question even more relevant: "7 or 8 arcmin long, 6 arcmin broad ..." It's no wonder that WH's number ended up in the NGC followed by a question mark. There are a couple of minor mysteries about this nebula. WH claims only one observation of it in his published catalogue, as does JH in his. Yet, in GC, JH has the total number of observations by himself and his father as "3." In addition, JH claims in his observation that the "RA [is] that of V. 37 from working list, not being settled by the observation." However, the RA he quotes is nearly a minute of time larger than WH's published RA. The RA that JH adopts for GC is not quite a mean of the two values, but is closer to WH's original. I wonder if WH had another observation that somehow was skipped when it came time for publication. ===== NGC 7010 = IC 5082. John Herschel's declination is 10 arcmin too far south. Howe pointed this out, and his correct position was copied into the IC2 notes by Dreyer. At about the same time, Bigourdan scanned the field looking for N7010. The object which he points to as the NGC object is a star (GSC 05779-00648). He did rediscover the galaxy, however, and measured the correct position for it on three different nights. Dreyer unfortunately failed to notice that Bigourdan's position and Howe's for N7010 are identical to within the mutual errors. So, he listed Bigourdan's object as IC 5082. ===== NGC 7011 is most likely the V-shaped group of about 15 stars 2-3 arcmin northwest of JH's position. While he gives no more information than a position and the brief non-description, "A cluster. No further description," the group is very eye-catching on the DSS. There are a few other stars scattered around it that might add to its "eye appeal" during a sweep. Wolfgang also picked this same group when he looked at the field. So, I've adopted the identification. ===== NGC 7023 is an impressive diffuse nebula in Cygnus, made more so by the obscuring dark cloud surrounding it. It makes a fine sight in a six-inch which will not see deeply enough to pick up what faint stars there are scattered around the nebula -- it appears to stand alone in a large void in the sky. There is no difficulty with the identification, though I am curious as to why JH did not pick it up. The NGC entry is based on a single observation by his father. ===== NGC 7024. Even though RNGC claims non-existence for this cluster, it is a very nice object of about 30 stars close to the NGC position. The diameter on the DSS is about 8' x 8', and the brightest stars are around 11th magnitude, not far off JH's estimate of 10. ===== NGC 7025. See NGC 7028. ===== NGC 7028. This may be lost. There is certainly no nebula near Marth's place, even though he claims to have verified the object. The closest candidate object is a triple star well to the southwest. Since there is no large systematic offset (in Marth's positions from the modern positions) for the other four objects that he found the same night (N7025, N7033, N7034, and N7056), I don't believe that the triple is Marth's object. A possible candidate is CGCG 448-039. It matches Marth's scanty description (very faint, small, very little extended), and the declination is the same, but the RA is over 2.5 minutes of time off. However, the large non-digit difference makes the identity difficult to accept, so I've put a question mark on it in the main table. ===== NGC 7033. See NGC 7028. ===== NGC 7034. See NGC 7028. ===== NGC 7036. Claimed "non-existent" in RNGC, this cluster is clearly seen on DSS and the POSS1 prints. I put the center about 4 arcmin south of JH's position, but otherwise it matches JH's brief description: "A scattered cluster of small stars." There are about 20 stars in the cluster scattered over an area of about 8 arcmin by 5 arcmin. ===== NGC 7037. JH describes this cluster as "... not very rich; irregular figure, 8' l[ong], 5' br[oad]; stars 11 ... 15 m." This is just the sort of cluster that exists at his position. There is also a more compact "core" of stars a couple of minutes to the northeast (I put this core at 21 08 55, +33 33.8 for 1950.0) that JH does not mention. In any case, JH's cluster is clear on the DSS. RNGC nevertheless has it as non-existent. ===== NGC 7039 is a very large cluster about 20 arcmin long and 7 arcmin wide. Though JH says it is "Extended from nf to sp," it is actually extended from the southwest (sp) to the northeast (nf). I suspect this is a simple error on JH's part, though visual observers might want to have a look at the cluster to be sure. The position that JH gives is for SAO 50547 on the northeastern edge of the cluster. On POSS1, DSS, and GSC, there are two overlapping concentrations of stars within the cluster. The position in the main table is for a point midway between the centers of these concentrations. ===== NGC 7040. The faint galaxy near Harrington's position does not match Dreyer's summarized description "eF, vL, mE ns," so I was originally inclined to believe that Harrington might have seen another object. Thanks to Brian Skiff, I have recently seen the original note in AN 2479. It reads in full, "New Nebula, by M. W. Harringtion, Director of the Observatory, Ann Arbor, Mich. I wish to put on record a nebula which I found Aug. 18th of this year and which I believe to be new. Its position is RA. 21h 7m 34s Decl. N. 8d 25m. It is 67s preceding and 12' north of Argelander 8d 4632. It is so faint that I can only see it after resting my eyes in the dark a few moments. It is about 3' long by half that in bredth and is extended nearly north and south, the northern end preceding a little. Ann Arbor 1882 Oct. 31." This makes it clear that Harrington really did see the galaxy. The extension along the north-northwest/south-southeast direction is almost certainly due to the line of faint stars on the southern side of the galaxy. For the record, Harrington overstates the galaxy's size -- he must have included the line of stars to the south. However, his the offsets (for J2000.0) from the BD star are 62.2 seconds and 12 arcmin 20 arcsec, close to his estimates. ===== NGC 7042. See NGC 7043. ===== NGC 7043 is very close to Marth's place northeast of NGC 7042. Reinmuth, however, lists N7043 as "Not found." I found, though, that he has the note in parentheses which indicates that the only plate available to him showing the object was less than optimal in some respect -- underexposed, or the object was near the edge of the plate, or perhaps covered by a defect, etc. His description of N7042, considerably brighter and including the note "difficult," is also in parentheses, so I am no longer surprised that N7043 did not show up on the plate. ===== NGC 7045 is a double star. JH says of it "eF; field feebly illuminated by moon, but I remained satisfied of its reality." He has only this single observation of it in Sweep 79. His position is only 30 arcsec north of the pair of stars, so the identification is pretty certain. Spitaler first identified the object as the double. Dreyer noted in the NGC that d'A failed to find the object on two nights. The pair was either too faint for his telescope, or he dismissed them as being obviously stellar. A curiosity: Bigourdan has six observations of the double on two different nights, and apparently thought it nebulous on both nights. He used it as the comparison object for his estimated positions for IC 5097 and IC 5098 (both of which see). ===== NGC 7048. There are several stars and faint knots "in" the interior of this planetary. Most of the stars are only optical companions along our line of sight to the nebula. One, however -- clearly seen on the DSS2B image and no other -- is the central star. I've adopted the position of this star. Just east of this on the DSS2R image is a tight group of faint knots; the star has disappeared from this R-band image. ===== NGC 7050 is another of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. However, close to JH's position, there is a group of about 15 12th to 15th magnitude stars scattered over an area about 5 arcmin by 2 arcmin. Even though JH left no description for his cluster, the group stands out from the field well enough that it is almost certainly the sparce swarm of stars that he saw. ===== NGC 7054 is another lost object. Found by Stephan, its position is the same in both the AN and MNRAS lists in which it appears. The comparison star also has the same position in both lists; that position is about an arcsecond off the GSC position. But no nebulosity or asterism exists at Stephan's position, or at the positions implied by sign errors in the offset. Furthermore, a search of the POSS1 prints shows no nearby star with an obvious nebula at the correct offset. Jim Caplan finds no trace of NGC 7054 in Esmiol's 1916 monograph, so this object has to be listed simply as "not found." ===== NGC 7056 = IC 1382, which see. Also see NGC 7028. ===== NGC 7074 is a double galaxy about 6 arcmin south of its nominal position. Both Bigourdan and Spitaler noted the displacement, but neither commented on the fact that this is one of Marth's "verified" nebulae. I'm a bit surprised that one of these is so far off its nominal position -- but there it is. Bigourdan has two additional objects (IC 5112 and 5113, which see) near N7074's nominal position, but both of these are either single stars or asterisms. ===== NGC 7084. JH calls this simply "A coarse scattered cluster." There is nothing obvious at his position, but about 30 seconds following there is indeed a cluster matching his description. JH has noted that the positions from the early sweeps are often untrustworthy, and this seems to be an example. Examining this on the POSS1 shows that it extends on to the north and east from the core that JH apparently saw. The overall size is 18 arcmin by 16 arcmin, while the core is 10 arcmin by 9 arcmin. This cluster stands out pretty well on the POSS prints, so RNGC's "no cluster" is a bit surprising. ===== NGC 7088 does not exist, even though around a dozen sightings have been reported of it in the literature, including one by Dreyer himself in the NGC Notes. The nominal position, from Baxendell, is about half a degree north of M2 (NGC 7089), but there is nothing there but faint field stars. About half a degree on to the northwest of the NGC position is a 1.5 degree long streak of interstellar "cirrus", dust well above the plane of the Galaxy reflecting the light of the Galactic disk back to us (see IC 336 for some of these dust clouds that are definitely in the catalogues). The cirrus is most easily visible in the IRAS 100-micron ISSA images of the area, though it also shows up in the 12-, 25-, and 60-micron images, and on the POSS1 prints, AND on the IIIa-J film copies of the latest optical surveys from Palomar and Siding Spring. While I suppose it is just vaguely possible that this may be Baxendell's object, his clear description of a southern boundary just 7 arcmin north of M2, and of a nearly round shape, almost certainly rules this out. The IRAS 100-micron images in particular show a "hole" in the dust north of M2, just the opposite of what we'd expect if the nebula were real. My own feeling about this object is that it may have been a reflection of some other object (perhaps even M2) within Baxendell's telescope or eyepiece, and that later observations are similar illusions simply "wished" into existence (see NGC 2529 and NGC 2531 for a discussion of two other such objects). Also see NGC 1990 where an apparently similarly illusory nebula has been seen around a bright star. ===== NGC 7089. Shawl and White's position, though correctly copied from their 1986 list, is apparently 2 seconds of time too large. The cluster's image on both POSS1 and POSS2, though burned out in the center, is elongated and symmetric about a position 33 arcsec west of the Shawl/White position. I suspect a typo in their table. Also see NGC 7088. ===== NGC 7091 = IC 5114. JH found this on 1 September 1834, about 6 months after he began observing from the Cape of Good Hope. He says of it "... place considerably uncertain having been found when much past the meridian in searching in vain for Dunlop 561." The RA and NPD are both given only to full minutes of time in his CGH Observations. Unfortunately, he precesses this imprecise (and inaccurate) position to 1860 and gives it to 0.1 seconds of time and NPD in GC. The only indication that it is an approximate position is on the "Number of times observed by H and h" -- that is given as "1::". Dreyer either ignored or missed that, so the object came into the NGC with its position given nominal accuracy (1 second of time and 0.1 arcmin of NPD) and with no note. The galaxy is a good ways off JH's position (1m 20s preceding, 7.5 arcmin north), but can be positively identified by JH's note "It precedes a * 6m nearly in the parallel, about 40 seconds of time." Swift's position is even further off -- see the IC 5114 entry for that story. ===== NGC 7093. JH does not tell us much about this cluster: "The chief star (9m) in a cluster of the 8th class. The double * No. 1660 of my fourth catalogue belongs to this cluster." The cluster is indeed little compressed and scattered, and is apparently centered about 2 arcmin south of JH's accurate position for the star. Visual confirmation would be desireable. ===== NGC 7095. The GC and NGC NPD's are wrong, probably copied by mistake from the NPD for NGC 7097. JH's CGH observations have the correct NPD. I incorrectly equated NGC 7095 and 7097 in the SGC, and ESO's two suggested identifications are also of course wrong. The correct object is ESO 027-G001 at 21 45 48, -81 45.9; this is PGC 67546 which is also in RC3. The NGC number should be attached to this object. ===== NGC 7096 = IC 5121, which see. ===== NGC 7097. See NGC 7095. ===== NGC 7098. The incorrect RA from JH's CGH observations (it is 2 minutes too large, probably a simple reduction or clock reading error) has been copied into various catalogues all the way up to RC2. RC3 used the correct position from ESO. ===== NGC 7100 is a star at Bigourdan's position. Unfortunately, his position as first published -- and as copied into the NGC -- is 14 seconds too large in RA, and 3 arcmin too small in Dec. This, combined with a 6 arcmin error in Marth's Dec for NGC 7101, has led several cataloguers to put the number 7100 on the galaxy that is properly called N7101. Marth's RA is correct and leads us to the right galaxy. The confusion began with Spitaler (copied into the IC 1 and IC 2 Notes), and continues today in UZC and LEDA. Bigourdan got the identifications correct, and his micrometric offsets -- when re-reduced -- lead to the correct objects. The identifications I've adopted are Bigourdan's. ===== NGC 7101. See NGC 7100. ===== NGC 7102 is probably also IC 5127, which see for the story. ===== NGC 7105 is one of the Leander-McCormick nebulae found by Leavenworth; its nominal position is particularly bad. Fortunately, Leavenworth left a sketch so that we can positively identify the nebula with MCG -02-55-001, about 25 arcmin southeast of the nominal position. ===== NGC 7112 = NGC 7113. Though Marth makes no mention of the star close west of the galaxy, there is little doubt that his object is the same as the one found by Swift 22 years later (Swift does mention the star). His position is just three arcmin north of the galaxy, and his description fits it well. A puzzle here is Howe's note: "A search on two nights failed to reveal this (NGC 7112)." Swift's position is not that far off the galaxy (six seconds west and less than an arcmin north) and Howe has recovered many other of Swift's nebulae much further away from the nominal positions. Perhaps the star is close enough on the sky to the galaxy that its light swamped that of the much fainter galaxy. Another puzzle is why CGCG ignored the NGC description of NGC 7112 with its note of the star and put the number on the fainter galaxy 4.2 arcmin to the south. My guess is that they had two NGC numbers at hand and two galaxies on the sky, and simply dumped the numbers on the galaxies without much thought. ===== NGC 7113 = NGC 7112, which see. ===== NGC 7114 = Nova Cygni 1876 = Q Cyg. Dreyer included this in the NGC because -- as he mentions in the Notes -- "Mr. Lohse assets that it is surrounded by nebulosity." There is no nebulosity around the star on the POSS1, but given the presence of expanding shells around other novae, it is possible that Lohse could have seen one around this nova, too. However, I would have expected that it would not completely disperse in the 75 years from the time of its outburst to the time the POSS plates were taken. Today, the star is at 16th magnitude. Within the errors of measurement, its position is unchanged from its discovery position. ===== NGC 7129 is a diffuse nebula enveloping three pretty bright stars. Both Herschels described it the same, and JH measured the position angles and distances of the two flanking stars with respect to the brightest, more central southern one, BD +65 1638. His mean position for the nebula, adopted in GC and NGC, is for that star. Bigourdan apparently did not read JH's 1833 description before he examined the area in the 1884, 1889, and 1895. Bigourdan applied NGC 7129 only to the patch of nebulosity to the northwest of JH's star C, the northeastern of the three stars. He also found a "new" nebula in 1895 around JH's star A, the south-central of the three. This now carries the number IC 5134 (which see). Another "nova" from Bigourdan, NGC 7133 (which see), was apparently an illusion as there is nothing near his place but faint stars. ===== NGC 7130 = IC 5135 (which see). JH's declination is 30 arcmin off. I suspect this is a transcription error with JH's minutes of NPD supposed to read "43" instead of "13". In any event, there is no question about the identification of the galaxy that JH saw. Would that that were true of Swift's "nova" as well ... ===== NGC 7132. Spitaler was the first to notice that Swift's RA of this galaxy is 22 seconds too large. However, Swift's description is not bad: "vF, pL, lE; bet 2 sts; 5 sts w? in the form of a pyramid. My memory locates the stars east of the nebula." Swift's memory is, however, wrong. The stars are to the west. ===== NGC 7133 does not exist. Bigourdan describes it as a "Pretty extended area, perhaps 2 arcmin across, in which I suspect some extremely faint nebulosity, at the extreme limit of visibility." There is nothing near his single micrometrically measured position but a few faint stars. My guess is that this is another of what he would call his "fausse images." ===== NGC 7134 is an arc of 4 stars 30 arcsec south of the 11th magnitude star mentioned in the NGC description. Howe (see the IC2 notes) was apparently the first to notice that there is no nebulosity associated with the astersim. ===== NGC 7135 appeared in Swift's 11th list (it is No. 209), but was saved from having an IC number given to it by Herbert Howe. Howe saw the star just preceding the object and the triangle of brighter stars also preceding, and realized that Swift's object must be the same as JH's. However, IC 5136 turned up in Swift's 12th list with a description that makes it sound like yet another observation of this galaxy (see the IC note for more discussion on that object). Since NGC 7130 is in the area, that and I5135 are also part of the mess that Swift made here. See those numbers for even more discussion. This, by the way, is one of the strangest galaxies in the sky, looking rather like a sting-ray, and having a lower surface brightness than a normal galaxy. It is probably the result of a recent collision; most of these pathological objects are. ===== NGC 7136 is probably a double star. There is nothing at Muller's crude place, but 3/4 minute east, there is the double (with two or three much fainter stars involved) with a fairly bright star following by 2 arcmin, just as Muller describes. Howe was the first to suggest this as Muller's object, and I've followed along for lack of anything better in the immediate area. A more extended search would be useful. ===== NGC 7143 is a curving line of five stars at JH's position. He suspected that the object might be a nebulous double star, but the Birr Castle observers saw no nebulosity here. Hence, Dreyer has a short note in the NGC saying that the object is probably only a very faint double. On the POSS1 and DSS, however, the asterism is a striking object, and I can easily see why JH picked it up while sweeping. His double star is probably the brighter northeastern pair; Wolfgang's position applies to this pair. Lord Rosse and his observers did talk about a small cluster in two of their observations, however, and I'm a bit surprised that Dreyer did not include a number in NGC for it. ===== NGC 7148 is a double star. Observed three times on two nights by d'A, its identity is pinned down not only by d'A's accurate absolute position, but also by his relative position to NGC 7149 just 2.5 arcmin to the south. N7149 was observed the same three times on the same two nights, so there is no mistaking the identity of N7148 as anything but the double star. LEDA has nevertheless incorrectly taken a double galaxy, much too faint for d'A to have seen with his 11-inch telescope, as NGC 7148. The galaxies are also well off the mean of d'A's three accordant positions. Tsk. ===== NGC 7149. See NGC 7148. ===== NGC 7150 is an asterism of four stars found by Bond in February 1848 with the 15-inch Harvard refractor soon after it was installed. Though Bond describes it only as "A nebula," there is no nebulosity associated with the stars. Bond's position is good, so there is no doubt about the identification. This object, by the way, is almost an exact miniature of what is probably NGC 6634 (which see). It was my recollection of observing NGC 7150 with my 6-inch in the early 1960's that convinced me that La Caille could indeed have mistaken the four bright stars at his position for a nebula resembling "... a small nucleus of a comet." NGC 7150 appeared to me as a small, faint nebula, clearly defined, yet unresolved (it must have appeared similarly to Bond). La Caille's asterism, if they are indeed the stars he saw, would have appeared quite similar to him with his 0.5-inch telescope. ===== NGC 7155 = IC 5143, which see. ===== NGC 7158 is a triple star. It is precisely identified by Muller's note "* 9.5 PA = 40 deg, distance = 2.8 arcmin." Both Bigourdan and Howe found the object 0.6 minutes following a typically poor Leander McCormick position, and there it still is on the sky today. ===== NGC 7161 is apparently a group of three double stars about 2 arcmin south of d'A's position. However, his two descriptions are inconsistent, with only the second suggesting his object is a cluster. Both descriptions mention the 10th magnitude star 11 seconds preceding the object, and both also mention the two flanking 14th magnitude stars (though d'A puts them at 16th magnitude, a common occurance in the 19th century before good photometry was available). This object appeared first in GC thanks to a list of 125 new nebulae that d'A sent directly to JH; thus the entry "d'Arrest, 115" in GC. D'A next published a summary list of many of his novae in AN 1500. This object is number 194 there. Finally, when d'A's massive monograph appeared a few years later, the full observations finally appeared. Given the problem with the declination, I'm not completely happy with the identification. Reinmuth called the object simply a double star, and RNGC followed along. The brightest of the three pairs is the northern most, so I can see why it might be taken as d'A's object. The position I give, though, is a mean for all three -- but I'm not sure that this is the correct interpretation. Perhaps a complete translation of d'A's Latin notes would help. ===== NGC 7164. This galaxy is clearly identified by Leavenworth's comment, "4 vF stars north." This places it about two minutes of time west of its catalogued position, another example of the "standard offset" in the early Leander McCormick right ascensions. There is an interesting footnote to this NGC object in Bigourdan's unsuccessful search for it. See IC 1415 for the story. ===== NGC 7175 is probably part of the Milky Way. JH's position applies to "The chief * 9 m of a vL, loose clustering group which fills two fields, and is pretty rich of large stars." Checking the POSS1, I see such a grouping of a few dozen stars, roughly 30 arcmin by 20 arcmin, oriented pretty much east- west, and centered about 3 arcmin southwest of JH's 9th magnitude star. However, about 30 arcmin south is a smaller, sparcer, but much more obvious clustering of brighter stars. Years ago, I suggested that this might be JH's object. It is much too small, though, to "fill two fields" (30 arcmin), and JH's position is very close to the bright star he mentions. So, while his object is less obvious on the POSS, it is almost certainly the one he saw. ===== NGC 7186 is an asterism of at least eight stars about three arcmin southwest of WH's single position. Though he describes it as "5 or 6 stars forming a parallelogram with mixed nebulosity, verified 240," there is no nebulosity. Bigourdan and Reinmuth got the correct object. ===== NGC 7190. See IC 1424. ===== NGC 7193. While this is another of RNGC's "non-existent" clusters, it is clearly seen on DSS and the POSS1 prints about 30 seconds preceding JH's position (he cautioned that many of the positions from early sweeps -- this is from Sweep 14 -- are unreliable). The core is a band of 11 stars, 6 arcmin by 1 arcmin, stretching from the northwest to the southeast. There are other stars scattered around it, primarily to the south and west. ===== NGC 7201. See NGC 7202. ===== NGC 7202 is a star. JH has only one observation of it, though he swept the area three times. Interestingly, he never saw more than three objects in this field in any sweep, and picked up only two in one sweep. Nevertheless, he entered the group as four nebulae in GC, in spite of his descriptions clearly stating that there were only three nebulae in the area. Still, this is not a compact group, with N7201 and N7204 being separated by 13.5 arcmin, so he probably realized that he could have easily missed one. He stresses in a note that the RA is determined relative to NGC 7203 -- he puts it exactly one second of time preceding. The declination difference also puts N7202 exactly 3.0 arcmin south, so I suspect that this, too, is a relative determination, perhaps a simple estimated distance. In any case, the object at the offset is a star; it matches JH's description ("eF, S, star like") as well. ===== NGC 7203. See NGC 7202. ===== NGC 7204. See NGC 7202. ===== NGC 7210 is lost. There are notes about it in GC and NGC. Dreyer has a note in LdR's 1880 monograph that the object is the only nebula found by JH in Sweep 103 (I scanned JH's 1833 list between 14 hours and 8 hours, and found no others). In addition, JH marked both RA and Dec with double colons; he apparently had reason to doubt the position. Finally, his north polar distance is one degree less in the 1833 list than it is in GC (Dreyer adopts the GC position for NGC) -- this was apparently not noticed by anyone who tried to find N7210. Unfortunately, there is nothing matching JH's description at either position. For the record, that description reads, "eF, R, bM, ill-defined; a vF double star 45 deg np 4 arcmin dist points just to it." I scanned the POSS1 prints for several degrees around JH's nominal position, but found no galaxy in the area with a faint double where JH placed it. So, even with two positions and a striking description, the object remains at large. ===== NGC 7211. Marth's RA is exactly 1 minute of time too large. There is nothing at his given position, and the galaxy a minute preceding his position matches his description exactly. ===== NGC 7226. Holden describes this as a "pB Neb connected with a small cluster of stars which radiate in two streams from f to p side. Diam of neb 5', of cl 15', np in p = 315 deg is a small knot which may be nebulous." His "neb" is actually a small cluster, and the "knot" is composed of only four stars. The two streams of stars, pretty clearly visible on the DSS, are probably random field stars. If they are in fact a cluster, the size is about 10 arcmin by 7 arcmin. ===== NGC 7234 = NGC 7235. N7234 was found by WH. Reducing his observation as given in Dreyer's 1912 Collected Papers gives a position considerably different from the one given in GC and NGC. Auwer's reduced position agrees with the correctly reduced one, so this must be an error in CH's reduction of her brother's data. In any event, the correct position lands right on NGC 7235 found by JH who did not record anything at his aunt's position for N7234. ===== NGC 7235 = NGC 7234, which see. ===== NGC 7238 is lost. Swift describes it as "pF, S, R, mbM; 4 sts in form of a square nr p." There is nothing like this for several degrees around his position on the POSS1 prints (I haven't yet looked at larger distances: one hour east or west, 10 or 20 degrees north or south). There is little systematic offset in the positions of the other objects he found the same night, though several have large RA errors (10 or 20 seconds of time), and one (NGC 716 = IC 1743) has a large declination error. So, lost. ===== NGC 7242. See IC 5195. ===== NGC 7245. Pulling this cluster up on the DSS, I wondered at first if the somewhat richer, but more distant cluster at 22 13 37.4, +54 09 38 (King 9) might have been seen by one of the Herschels. However, reducing both their positions to B1950.0 makes it clear that they both saw the same, nearer, poorer cluster: both positions are within an arcminute of the center as I see it on the DSS. ===== NGC 7246 = IC 5198, which see. ===== NGC 7253 is an interacting double system with a bridge between the galaxies, plumes streaming off both, and lots of dust. In the blue, the brightest parts of the galaxies are knots in the disrupted arms. The images smooth over quite a bit in the red, but in the near-infrared, the two galaxies appear almost normal -- thin bulges evenly rising to bright nuclei. It is these bright nuclei that I have preserved as the positions for the two objects, with one of the bright knots in the southeastern object as an optical highlight. ===== NGC 7255. This object is positively identified with Leavenworth's sketch. RC3 is correct. ===== NGC 7261. JH's cluster is probably the scattered group of pretty bright stars, stretching nearly north-south across an area 15' by 10', about 20 seconds preceding his position for the bright star on its following edge. There is a smaller core (7' by 5') of generally fainter stars about five arcminutes north-northeast of the center of the larger group. Is this perhaps a background cluster? ===== NGC 7268 is correctly identified by ESO-LV, which means that the NGC RA is about 1 min off. The galaxy is double. Also see the SGC. ===== NGC 7281. JH's position is about 30 seconds of time preceding the center of the cluster, but it is large enough (15' by 9') that the difference does not affect the identification. ===== NGC 7283. Found by Marth, there is nothing near his unverified position aside from a double star about two arcmin preceding. It's possible that he saw CGCG 452-017 a minute of time following his published position, but it would also be 2.5 arcmin north. I'm leaning toward the smaller positional error, but do not want to insist on the double. So, both objects are listed in the main table. ===== NGC 7287 may be the double star listed in the main table. This is Howe's identification for an object found by Frank Muller with the 26-inch refractor at Leander-McCormick. His description fits Muller's except for the magnitude: Muller makes his object 15.0, while Howe puts his at 11.5 + 11.5 for a total of 10.7! The position angles are the same, though: 150 deg (Muller runs it on around the circle to 330 deg), as are the separations at 6 arcsec. On the DSS, Howe's "double" is actually a triple in a line at PA = 145 deg, with the largest separation being about 12-13 arcsec. The magnitude, as nearly as I can judge it, is about half way between the two earlier estimates. So, this could well be Muller's object. However, Dreyer has an interesting note in IC2: "Ho[we] says that the RA is about 2 minutes too great, and that the object is only a F D*, dist 6 arcsec. But he must have found a different object, as Burnham (Lick Obs, ii, p. 180) [which I have not seen] without noticing any great error in RA, gives Pos 60 deg, Dist 20 arcsec, and states that the p one is undoubtedly a nebula, while the f one may be a star." Muller's published position falls in group of galaxies, one of which is a double with a star nearby roughly in the configuration noted by Burnham. I've included this in the main table, too, as it may be Burnham's object. This, too, could have been the object seen by Muller -- his telescope was certainly big enough to pull in the photons. But with Howe's stars being brighter, near the 2 minute RA offset shared by several other of the Leander-McCormick nebulae, and with their sharing the correct description with Muller's original observation, I'm more inclined toward them. Hence, they have only one query in the table, while the galaxies and star that Burnham may have seen have two question marks. ===== NGC 7294 = IC 5225. The NGC RA is about 2 minutes of time off. It was first corrected by Howe who had nothing more to say about the object. However, the galaxy was also picked up by Lewis Swift in October of 1897 along with IC 5226 (which see also). See IC 5225 for more on Swift's observations. ===== NGC 7295 = NGC 7296. The equality rests on the supposition of a 30 arcminute error in JH's position for NGC 7295. JH himself suggests the identity in his 1833 list, noting h2163 as "VII. 41?". His description ("A Milky Way straggler; a poorish cluster of stars 12 ... 13m."), though scanty, matches N7296, so I'm adopting the identity. ===== NGC 7296 = NGC 7295, which see. ===== NGC 7300 is probably also IC 5204, which see for the story. ===== NGC 7302 = IC 5228. See IC 5204 for the details. ===== NGC 7303 is not = NGC 7304 as is sometimes stated, nor is it the double star (= Big. 452, but not in IC2 as Dreyer had noted the stellar character of the pair in 1875 while observing with LdR's Leviathan) southwest of the galaxy. It is the galaxy found by JH, and is clearly identified as such by d'Arrest who saw N7304 (which see for more) only once. ===== NGC 7304 does not exist. It was seen only once by d'A who put it 137 arcsec away from NGC 7303. He looked for it the second time that he observed N7303, but could not find it again. There are no objects, not even single stars, in the area where d'A put it that one night. For a while, I thought that the asterism of three stars 168 arcsec northeast of N7303 might be d'A's object, but these are very faint stars. Observing the area with a telescope larger than d'A's, Bigourdan tried and failed on three nights to find N7304. Dreyer, using the largest telescope in the world, could not find N7304 in spite of having "... looked most attentively for ..." it. All the observers had no problems with N7303 (which see for more). ===== NGC 7308 = IC 1448. The poor position from the first Leander-McCormick list led Javelle to overlook the NGC number. Herbert Howe, however, caught the mistake and correctly identified the galaxy. It is about 40 seconds of time east and 3 arcmin north of Leavenworth's position. A sketch would not have helped to identify this as Leavenworth correctly notes, "No star in field." ===== NGC 7325 is a close double star north preceding a slightly fainter single star. There can be no question as to the identity: Schultz's accurate position pinpoints the object he was looking at, and Lord Rosse's observer's offsets (distance and position angle) land on exactly the same object. The RNGC is of course wrong (RNGC 7325 is a relatively bright star superimposed on a much fainter galaxy). ===== NGC 7326 is, like NGC 7325 (which see), a close double star, though somewhat fainter. It is almost directly west of the nucleus of NGC 7331. Again, the distance and P.A. measured with the 72-inch at Birr Castle pinpoint the double; and again, RNGC is wrong. ===== NGC 7327, unfortunately, is one of those "....many novae merely alluded to in (Tempel's) published notes." A rough translation by me of what Tempel has to say about N7327 in his published article doesn't really help much, but here it is: "Of my eight companions [to N7331], Lord Rosse has still not seen two; one [N7338, which see] is located in the middle of the four brighter companions following, closer to the two southern objects; while the eighth [N7327] precedes the northern end of the spindle." That is it. Tempel gives no accurate positions or offsets, so all we have are the numbers published in the NGC to lead us to the area. There is nothing in the immediate vicinity but stars. However, about 4 arcmin northwest is a compact galaxy with a star superposed (I think the object is the one that RNGC incorrectly chose for N7325, which see) that might have been within range of Tempel's telescope. I've chosen it as a possibility for his object. However, there are four stars scattered around the NGC position. The brightest is 1.5 arcmin southwest, the faintest is 1.1 arcmin north-northeast, and the intermediate stars are 0.9 arcmin southeast and 0.9 arcmin east- northeast. One of these is taken to be N7327 in RC1, MCG, and RNGC. Given that so many of Tempel's new "nebulae" in other fields (see, e.g. NGC 4322 and NGC 4768/9) are stars or asterisms, it is actually more likely that one of these stars is his object than the galaxy that I give in the table. But which one? So, I put them all in the table with question marks everywhere. ===== NGC 7331. See NGC 7327 and NGC 7335. ===== NGC 7333 is a single star. Again, Schultz's accurate RA and Dec make the identification absolutely certain. The double star mentioned in the RNGC is taken directly from Carlson's 1940 article in Ap. J. Carlson misquotes Reinmuth (who got the right object, but called it a "nebulous star 15, star 14 p 0.7 arcmin)" as noting a double star. So, I suppose that we could say that the RNGC is half right in this case. ===== NGC 7335, 7336, 7337, and 7340 are correctly identified by just about everybody except the Lick astronomers who, as Steve Gottlieb notes, have thoroughly mangled the identifications in the area of NGC 7331. ===== NGC 7336. See NGC 7335. ===== NGC 7337. See NGC 7335. ===== NGC 7338, the second of Tempel's two objects in the area of NGC 7331, is most likely the double star about 3' sf N7335. Tempel notes that it is closer to the two southern galaxies following N7331 than to the two northern ones, even though the position that Dreyer quotes is a bit off. ===== NGC 7340. See NGC 7335. ===== NGC 7348. See NGC 7350. ===== NGC 7349. I agree with Steve Gottlieb's identification. In the SGC, I note the position as being 1 deg off. ===== NGC 7350 and NGC 7353 are two of a trio of nebulae discovered by Marth in August 1864. The third object, found the same night as N7350 and N7353, is N7348 and is the only one of the three listed near its discovery position in modern catalogues. N7350 is given as non-existent in RNGC which also suggests the galaxy at 22 37.1 +11 31 as N7353. RC3 accepted this identification. This, however, is incorrect as there is a faint galaxy close to Marth's position (22 38.9 +11 40) that he could have seen with Laselle's 48-inch reflector. N7350 is possibly a star with one or two faint companions, again near its discovery position. While the identification of NGC 7350 is not secure, that for NGC 7353 is. So, RC3 and RNGC got the wrong object. ===== NGC 7352. JH describes this as "A star 9-10m, chief of a p rich, vL, very coarse cluster." His position coincides with SAO 034672, but the "cluster," if it exists at all, is indeed "very coarse." I see nothing around the star that is at all eyecatching. Perhaps a sweep across the field with a telescope might draw out JH's object. There is, however, five minutes of time following JH's place, a more obvious clustering of stars scattered across an area about 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin. There are about 30 stars from the 9th to the 12th magnitudes. If this is the group that JH had in mind, his star is on the western edge of the group about two arcmin northwest of his position. This "cluster" is apparently not catalogued, and I suspect that it is merely a concentration of unrelated stars along the line of sight in the rich Milky Way field. I also think that it does not match JH's description of "very coarse." However, it, too, should be examined at the eyepiece. ===== NGC 7353. See NGC 7350. ===== NGC 7355. There is a one degree error in JH's CGH position that was copied faithfully into GC and NGC. The correct galaxy is pinned down, however, by JH's note about the double star 40 seconds following the galaxy. The double is there, and is bright enough that it might well be a noteworthy object on its own. ===== NGC 7361 = IC 5237. JH's RA is just 2 minutes of time out. This is obviously a digit error as his NPD and description are correct. Curiously, Swift's RA is also about 2 minutes out, but in the other direction. See IC 5237 for that story. ===== NGC 7374. See IC 1452. ===== NGC 7383. See NGC 7384. ===== NGC 7384 is a star about 5 arcmin southeast of NGC 7383. Both objects were found by LdR; while N7383 has been measured, the only reference to N7384 in his monograph is in the sketch of the group around N7385 and N7386. Dreyer unfortunately got the offset wrong for his description of the object (for north following, read south following), but the position implies the right direction. However, having said all that, I have to say that there is not one star near the position, but five. These are spread over an area of one by two arcmin, and form two triangles with a single star at the common vertex in the middle of the group. It is this star that I've entered in the main table, but the "correct" object could be any of the others. ===== NGC 7385. See NGC 7384. ===== NGC 7386. See NGC 7384. ===== NGC 7387. See NGC 7388. ===== NGC 7388 is a star 4.5 arcmin north-northeast of NGC 7387. Unlike N7384 (which see), LdR has a micrometric measurement of N7388 with respect to N7387. In turn, he also measured two stars southeast of N7388. While not exact, the numbers he published are quite good enough to show that N7388 is not the faint galaxy another 1.5 arcmin on to the north. ===== NGC 7394 is a scattered group of pretty bright (9-11m) stars including JH's double. Stretched out in a ragged band 12 arcmin by 5 arcmin to the northwest is an extension to the core (8 arcmin by 5 arcmin) that JH describes: "A double star, the last of a poor cluster of about a dozen stars." I doubt that all this is a part of any physical cluster, but proper motions and photometry should tell us eventually. ===== NGC 7403 is a star, another of those mistaken for a nebula by the Harvard observers in the late 1850's. The NGC position is more accurate than that published in AN, and probably comes from the Harvard Zone catalogue. Dreyer's note in the first IC indicates some interest in the object, and shows that Coolidge was the only observer to suspect any nebulosity around the star. ===== NGC 7404 = IC 5260, which see. ===== NGC 7405 is lost. Marth found this in August of 1864, describing it merely as "eF, S, R." Though his position was copied faithfully into the NGC, there are no galaxies nearby that Marth could have seen. The nearest object fitting his description that he could have picked up is NPM1G +12.0573, chosen by RNGC and Wolfgang Steinicke to carry the NGC number. However, it is 40 seconds of time preceding and 7 arcmin north of Marth's position, not an obvious error to make. Another candidate is CGCG 430-021 -- but that is even further away at 2 minutes 45 seconds of time preceding and 5 arcmin north. My own desperate, last-ditch, guess is that Marth picked up one of the faint stars nearer his position, but I have no idea which one. He found ten other nebulae that same night, but there is no significant systematic offset in his positions for them from the modern positions, and all are within 1.5 arcmin of his nominal positions. So, N7405 stands alone among them as unrecoverable. ===== NGC 7413 and NGC 7414 are two nebulae found on 2 Sept 1886 by Lewis Swift. Both are entered in NGC as "eeF," "R," and "v diffic;" with N7413 being "pS" and "s of 2", and N7414 being "S" and "n of 2." This, and the positions, would imply a pair of similar galaxies, oriented north-south, separated by 2.5 arcmin. Curiously, Howe has two apparently independent observations of NGC 7413 in which he corrects the position by 14 seconds of time. However, he does not mention NGC 7414 in either observation. If the pair were nearly identical objects as the NGC implies, then I would have expected Howe to at least mention N7414 and give a correction to its RA, too. Turning to Swift's original paper, we find considerably different descriptions for the two objects. N7413 = Sw IV-87 is "eeF, pS, R, e diff; 8 or 10 sts in an irregular line p; s of 2." N7414 = Sw IV-88 is "eeeF, S, R, eee diff; n of 2." Given this, I find it considerably easier to believe in RNGC's choice of the very faint northeastern galaxy as N7414. NGC 7413 does have the irregular line of stars preceding it, so this is pretty clearly Swift's object, even though his RA is well off. ===== NGC 7414. See NGC 7413. ===== NGC 7416. See IC 1376 and IC 1528. ===== NGC 7418. Dreyer suggested that this might be IC 5265 (which see), but it is not. ===== NGC 7423 is a nice, compressed cluster at the NGC position. It sits between two brighter stars, and would probably be an interesting, if faint, object at the eyepiece. JH was not sure in his 1833 catalogue if this was his father's III 745 or not. When he compiled the GC, however, he adopted his own position and his father's description. This is actually the best combination as both are correct. WH's position, however, is a minute of time east of the JH's position. Dreyer noticed this when he published all of WH's papers in 1912, and wrote a short note about it. In that note, Dreyer also mentions "In the sweep a star 6 mag = +56 2923 is 3m 41s f, 10' s." Doing the math from WH's reference star (Delta Cephei) for III 745, the BD star ends up close to its true position -- but III 745 is stubbornly 1 minute of time off. Curiously, RNGC calls the cluster non-existent though it is clear on the POSS, and is included in the cluster catalogues as Berkeley 57 (that identity was apparently first noticed by Alister Ling in 1985). SIMBAD mistakenly equates the cluster with a faint planetary (an infrared source) a few arcmin to the northeast. ===== NGC 7431 is pinpointed by Bigourdan's micrometric observation as a double compact galaxy just three arcmin preceding NGC 7433. The NGC position, derived from Bigourdan's observation, is fortuitously within one or two arcsec of the true position. The brighter preceding object is included in GSC, and is one of the Lick Northern Proper Motion survey reference galaxies. ===== NGC 7433 and NGC 7435 are galaxies close to NGC 7436, the brightest object in a subgroup of a cluster. All three objects, along with the fainter component of NGC 7436, are shown in Lord Rosse's sketch of the field. Though the NGC positions are not too good, the sketch positively identifies the objects that Dreyer catalogued. Bigourdan's observations of NGC 7433 and NGC 7435, by the way, refer to stars, while d'Arrest measured NGC 7435 (not N7433 as noted in the NGC) as well as N7436. ===== NGC 7435. See NGC 7433. ===== NGC 7436. See NGC 7433. ===== NGC 7438. JH describes this as "A large oblong cluster which fills two fields. Place that of the double star h. 3157 of my fifth Catal." DSS and POSS show a cloud of stars, elongated southwest to northeast, more compressed on the southwestern end into two apparent clusters separated by about 10 arcmin. Though well-defined on that end, it is very poorly defined on the northeastern side. The overall dimensions are roughly 30 arcmin by 10 arcmin. I doubt that the entire group is a cluster, though the southeastern-most two clumps might well be. Those portions of JH's object could stand out well in even small telescopes since the stars are fairly bright, 9th to 11th magnitudes. ===== NGC 7439. Dave Riddle has pointed out that the NGC description of this nebula, found by Albert Marth in the summer of 1863, does not match the galaxy that the NGC number is usually attached to. Marth's description, copied faithfully into the NGC, reads in full, "Long patch of F nebulosity." The only detail beyond the discovery date given by Marth is the brief note "ver." ("verified"), which simply means that Marth saw the object on at least two nights. Interestingly, there is nothing at all at Marth's position. The usual recourse in cases like this is to search the area for the nearest non-stellar object. Here, the object is the galaxy UGC 12273 = MCG +05-54-021 = CGCG 496-027 = NPM1G +28.0471. This does not at all match Marth's description or RA (30 seconds off), though the Dec is within 1.5 arcmin, and it is certainly a galaxy that Marth could have seen -- many that he discovered are considerably fainter. MCG put a question mark on the NGC number, though CGCG and UGC accepted it without question marks. At one point or another, I penciled a question mark into my copy of CGCG (but not UGC until today, 19 July 2005), probably copied from MCG. Just today, I have also put question marks on the entries in the accurate position list. Other people searching unsuccessfully for the object were Curtis at Lick and Reinmuth at Heidelberg, both noted by Carlson in her 1940 ApJ list of NGC/IC corrections. The IC2 Note has a correction to the north polar distance by Bigourdan, but his object (seen only on the last of three nights that Bigourdan searched for NGC 7439) is a double star. Again, the appearance of the double does not match Marth's description, and there are other doubles in the area, too. I did a search around the area of Marth's position today, and around the areas of digit errors in his position (+- 10 arcmin, +- 1 degree, +- 1 hour, etc). I found no galaxies aside from NGC 7729 (41 min, 47 sec from Marth's position) that fit two of the three basic data bits (Dec and description). But given the large, non-digit separation in RA, I doubt very much that this is much more than a wild guess. So, I've put a question mark on the NGC number. I suspect it is the right object (right declination, RA just 30 seconds out), but the odd description is bothersome. ===== NGC 7441 is probably IC 1458. Even though Ormond Stone's position is well east of the galaxy -- as many of the Leander McCormick positions are -- there is a 10th magnitude star preceding the galaxy as in his description, and the galaxy itself also matches the description well. Stone marked the declination with a question mark, so it's not surprising to find that it is 30 arcmin off. The galaxy usually taken as N7441, MCG -01-58-013, fits only Stone's position (and then only the declination is close), not the description. In particular, there is no 10th magnitude star preceding the galaxy; the nearest star of any consequence is 14th magnitude and 1.7 arcmin northeast. Still, because of the better positional coincidence, I've included the galaxy as a possibility for Stone's object. ===== NGC 7447 does not exist. It appears as a nebula in the Markree Catalogue, but has not been seen again. Auwers, Tempel, and Burnham all failed to find it. Dreyer says that Burnham also noted a "F triple star a little np the place", but I do not see anything with about 10 arcmin that could be called a triple star. I have not seen the entry in the Markree Catalogue, so do not know if it or the NGC entry might contain a typo. In any event, there is nothing at all near the place, not even a star bright enough to be included in the Markree list. ===== NGC 7452 is probably the second-brightest object in a poor cluster with N7459 (which see) being the brightest. Swift's RA is bad, but it is off in the same direction as are his RAs for N7459 and N7455 (which also see); he found all three objects on 14 October 1884. Interestingly, Howe probably picked this up, too. See N7459 for more. ===== NGC 7453 is a triple star at Peters's position. On the IIIa-J plate, the images of the stars overlap. They are also almost in contact with the 11th magnitude star 15 arcsec north that Peters noted in his description. ===== NGC 7455. Is this perhaps Encke's Comet of 1885? Swift claims that he found the nebula while searching for the comet. There is nothing near his place, and the galaxy usually taken as N7455 does not have a "pS * nr p" as Swift notes. As Howe first noted, the star is 10th magnitude and 6 arcmin northeast of the galaxy. Also, Swift's brief description (eF, cE) might fit a comet quite well. Still, the RA is off in the same direction as are those for N7452 and N7459 (both of which see), and Howe picked up the galaxy in spite of its faintness. ===== NGC 7459 is probably the double cD galaxy in a poor cluster of galaxies. Swift found only three galaxies on the night of 14 October 1884 -- this, N7452 (which see) about 20 seconds of time preceding it, and N7455 (also which see) about half a degree north. Assuming reasonable identifications for the three, Swift's RA's are well off for all the objects (-21s for N7452, -38s for N7455, and -29s for N7459), though his declinations are within 30 arcsec in each case. For this particular object, his position and description relative to N7452 fit reasonably well. This is "eeF, pL, R; * nr; sf of 2," while N7452 is "eeeF, pL, R, e diff; np of 2." Since Howe apparently saw this when he examined the field; he "suspected another nebula preceding about 15 seconds;" this was most likely N7452, the second brightest object in the cluster. See it and N7455 for more about the field. ===== NGC 7468 is not IC 1465 (which see). Bigourdan measured both objects on the same nights, and actually used N7468 as a comparison "star" on one of those nights. ===== NGC 7471 is lost. Seen only once by Frank Muller with the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor, there is nothing within several degrees of its position that comes close to matching his description, accurately copied into the NGC (Muller made the magnitude 15.8, and the size 0.2 arcmin). There is no sketch. Wolfgang chose a 19th magnitude galaxy 3+ arcmin southeast of the nominal position. That, however, is too faint, has no 10th magnitude stars 20 seconds preceding, and has a different position angle; it cannot be the object that Muller saw. I have not checked large digit errors (10 degrees, 1 hour, etc). Someone with more time and patience than I might uncover Muller's nebula that way. ===== NGC 7472 = NGC 7482. Burnham (and Dreyer in an IC1 Note) suggest that these are also identical with NGC 7477 (which see). But they are not. The two numbers DO refer to the same galaxy, but d'Arrest's object is a different one. In this case, Struve's RA is 2 minutes of time too small, but his Dec is correct, as is his brief description (in a rough translation by me) "Faint small star ('sternchen') with nebulous envelope." The RA error is probably a transcription error. Marth's position is close to the galaxy, and his description "F, vS, stellar" is also appropriate. ===== NGC 7477 is an asterism of two stars superposed on a fainter galaxy close to d'Arrest's position. It is not, as supposed by Burnham (and Dreyer in an IC1 Note), identical to NGC 7472 = NGC 7482 (which see). D'Arrest describes a 17th magnitude star which is attached to his nebula to the north. N7482 has no such star to the north, while the asterism does (there is also an even fainter star to the southeast that d'A did not see). D'A also discusses Struve's object and suggests that it is identical to his (d'A's). Since Marth's observations had not yet been published when d'A drew up his monograph, this was a reasonable assumption on d'A's part. However, it is probably wrong. Struve's description matches N7482 very well, and d'A's asterism only roughly. ===== NGC 7481 is also lost. Described by Ormond Stone as being of magnitude 14.0, very small, round, and gradually brighter in the middle, it is certainly not the galaxy that ESO chose as a possible candidate. That is too faint, elongated, has a brighter star superposed just east, and an equally bright companion galaxy within an arcminute to the northeast. A search of the POSS1 prints around the nominal position reveals no galaxy matching Stone's description. Since there is no sketch, and Stone mentions no nearby stars, we probably won't be able to recover this object. As with NGC 7471, I have not checked for large digit errors. ===== NGC 7482 = NGC 7472, which see. ===== NGC 7485. See NGC 7486. ===== NGC 7486 is a tight group of four stars about two arcmin southeast of N7485. Copeland found it on 25 August 1871 with LdR's 72-inch, and Dreyer managed a quick micrometric measurement with the same telescope on 3 December 1877 just before "Clouds and fog came on." That measurement, with respect to N7485 -- position angle 109.5+- degrees, distance 114 arcsec -- pins down the asterism exactly. ===== NGC 7493 is a star. Its micrometrically measured position and its description, from a single observation by Bigourdan in October 1886, clearly identifies it. Bigourdan was not so sure about it the second time he saw it: "Star 13.3 around which I suspect an exceedingly faint trace of nebulosity of which the existence is not certain." ===== NGC 7502 is a triple star (at first glance a double) 32 seconds of time west, and 1 arcmin north of the nominal position from a single observation by Frank Muller with the 26-inch refractor at Leander-McCormick. The combined magnitude of the stars, their separation, and their position angle all agree with Muller's estimates (15.8, 0.3 arcmin, and 290 degrees). In addition, he notes the possibility that the object is only a double star. The southeastern "star" is itself double which undoubtedly added to the impression of nebulosity. ===== NGC 7504 may be a star, as first noted by Reinmuth. It was one of eleven nebulae found by Marth one night late in the summer of 1864 (his date reads "1864.67"), and the only one not clearly a galaxy. The other ten have a systematic offset in their positions estimated by Marth of -1.0 seconds in RA, and +0.6 arcmin in Dec from the modern positions. Applying these to his position for N7504 moves the position a bit closer to the star that Wolfgang and I chose as Marth's possible object. However, it is still further from its modern position than most of Marth's other objects from that same night. So, I am not at all sure of the identification of N7504 with this star. There are other galaxies in the area that Marth could have seen, but none have positions suggesting digit errors in Marth's position. ===== NGC 7507 might also be IC 1475 (which see). But so might NGC 7513. ===== NGC 7513 might also be IC 1475 (which see). But so might NGC 7507. ===== NGC 7515. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7519 is UGC 12424, not UGC 12416. Marth's position and description fit UGC 12424 very well. While Bigourdan's correction, quoted by Dreyer in the IC2 Notes, suggests that NGC 7519 is UGC 12416 rather than UGC 12424, it nevertheless leaves us with a large declination offset (2 arcmin) and a description that does not fit the galaxy. Checking Bigourdan's observations, we find that the declination he measured is also correct for UGC 12416, so it is clear that he simply observed a different galaxy than did Marth. To preserve Marth's priority here, we have given the NGC number to UGC 12424. ===== NGC 7520 may be IC 5290. Tempel had trouble with the position, and gives it as "23 06 :: -24 35 :" (equinox 1855) in his paper. He does note that the nebula was "repeatedly seen" and I5290 is the only object near his position -- aside from stars -- that he could have dug out. Of course, since there are many stars (e.g. NGC 4322) in his lists of "nebulae", this object too could well be another. Dreyer adds a note in the second IC that Howe could not find the object on two nights. A further curiosity is the added note in the NGC description reading "between 2 stars." This is not in Tempel's paper, so was apparently added by him later in a note to Dreyer. (Or, horror, Dreyer got the object confused with another ...) ===== NGC 7522. There is no trace of a nebula matching Muller's description (magnitude = 16.0, diameter = 0.3 arcmin, irregularly round, suddenly brighter in the middle? [the query is Muller's], star 10 in position angle 75 deg, distance 3.2 arcmin) in his published position. Unfortunately, no sketch of the field survives among the unpublished Leander McCormick papers. ESO has suggested that the number might apply to an extremely faint galaxy near the NGC position, but it is almost certainly too faint to have been seen even in the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor -- it is barely visible on the blue POSS1 print. Another possibility for Muller's object is the faint star about 2 minutes of time following the published position. It has the correct distance and position angle from a brighter star to the east-northeast, is about of the right magnitude, and is offset from the published position by about the same amount and in the same direction as many other of the nebulae in the Leander McCormick lists. I stress, however, that this is just another possibility for the identity of N7522. It could well be wrong, and the nebula truly lost. ===== NGC 7526. WH simply calls this "eF, vS", then adds, "240 left doubtful." Whatever it was that caused him concern has not come down to us as GC and NGC not only left off the final remark, but gave us no notes, either. In any case, the object is a short line of three stars; there is a fourth nearby to the northwest. WH's position is 8 seconds preceding and 1.5 arcmin north, but that is well within his usual errors. ===== NGC 7528 is one of the fainter of the NGC nebulae, having been found by A. A. Common using his 36-inch glass-mirrored reflector. Though he calls it simply "F, S", it is around V = 15.5 - 16. Similar nebulae were usually called "eF, eS" by other observers. Fortunately, there are no other nebulae anywhere as bright in the area, so we can be fairly sure of the identity. Common's approximate position -- which he determined simply by reading his setting circles -- is about 20 seconds of time preceding the galaxy. ===== NGC 7536. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7540 is not NGC 7551, which see. ===== NGC 7541 may also be NGC 7581, which see. Also see NGC 7560. ===== NGC 7547. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7549. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7550. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7551 is a faint galaxy with a somewhat brighter star superposed just to the southwest. The pair of objects is about 2/3 of an arcmin north of Marth's position. Some lists have N7551 equal to N7540, but Marth found that the same night that he picked up N7551. The two objects cannot, therefore, be identical. ===== NGC 7552 = IC 5294, which see. ===== NGC 7555 is probably one of the following: NGC 7515, NGC 7536, NGC 7559, NGC 7563, or NGC 7570. If I were betting, I'd narrow it down to N7536, N7559, or N7563. Here is JH's full description: "F, R, bM; place very loose; two or three more nebulae suspected in the neighbourhood." There is a fairly rich, scattered group about a degree north of JH's "very loose" position. Just about any of the brighter of the galaxies in it could be the one he saw, with the some of others being his "suspected" nebulae. Just to be sure, I checked for other objects found in the same sweep; there are only two, N14 and N7810. JH's positions for both are well within an arcmin of the modern positions, so there is no reason to suspect a systematic offset in the position of N7555. There certainly is, however, an accidental error. ===== NGC 7559. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7560 and NGC 7561 are a double star and a single star, respectively. Both were found by Herman Schultz in the early 1860's about 1.5 minutes of time east of NGC 7541. Though he saw N7560 three times, and N7561 on the later two of those nights, none of the nights was very good. The first two nights he notes as turbulent with "gales" and aurorae, the third as being interrupted by clouds. His positions are good, though, and point to within a few arcsec of the objects. So it was that Reinmuth had no trouble identifying the stars; his identifications were picked up by Carlson, and by RNGC. ===== NGC 7561 is a star. See NGC 7560. ===== NGC 7562 may also be NGC 7575, which see -- but probably is not. ===== NGC 7563. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7564 is a star identified exactly by Bigourdan's micrometric measurements. CGCG 406-036, a few arcmin southwest chosen by Wolfgang, RNGC, and LEDA, is clearly not Bigourdan's object. ===== NGC 7565 is lost, probably for good. It is one of the fourteen new nebulae found by Brother Ferrari and announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. See NGC 7667 for more on these nebulae. ===== NGC 7568 may also be NGC 7574, which see. ===== NGC 7569 has a two-degree error in its published Declination: instead of +10 16 45, it should be +08 16 45. Swift's position then falls very close to UGC 12472. He also noted "3 F sts sf form a small right angle triangle." The stars are there. So, however, is another star of about the same brightness, closer to the galaxy. Perhaps the triangle is so eye-catching that Swift hardly noticed the closer star. ===== NGC 7570. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7571 may be NGC 7597. Or maybe not. Here is Schultz's entire note on the object (I've expanded his abbreviations). "A poor stellar group of pretty bright stars follows the above nebulae [N7547, N7549, and N7550] about 1 1/2 minutes; and the whole region following this stellar group seems nebulous: [Schultz italics] a group of small nebulae or a considerably extended nebulosity with several knots? [end italics] As yet the sky was not sufficiently dark, and the nebulosity very faint and indistinct, no decision could be arrived at. This nebulosity independently remarked in the autumns 1867 and 1869, as on the second occasion the elder notice was forgotten. Description and position do not at all agree with III. 181 [N7550]!" There is no such group of bright stars 1.5 minutes following the N7550 galaxy group. The stellar group is instead 1.5 minutes of time following NGC 7578 (coincidentally, RNGC makes N7571=N7578; it probably isn't unless Schultz got his direction wrong and the nebulosity is PRECEDING the stellar group). But Schultz would have had to misidentify N7578 as N7547 or N7550. This, I admit, is a bit of a stretch. But the group of stars is 3.3 minutes following the N7550 group, as well as nearly 20 arcmin to the south. Schultz would have been aware of that considerable difference. Scattered around through the bright stars are several galaxies, four of which (N7588, N7597, N7598, and N7602) Marth ran across about the same time using Lasalle's great telescope in Malta. These are bright enough that Schultz could have pulled them out with his 9.6-inch. So, I've tentatively put NGC 7571 on the brightest of Marth's galaxies, N7597. The other possibility is that of RNGC's: N7571 is the same as N7578. N7578 is double and is the brightest in a tight group of galaxies (Hickson 94). This would be in accord with Schultz's description of his object as possibly being a group of nebulae. However, it also requires Schultz to make a mistake in his directions. Also, N7578 is considerably fainter than N7550 or N7597 -- but either of these hypotheses requires that Schultz saw N7578. I'm leaning slightly toward the N7597 hypothesis, but the other could well be the correct one. ===== NGC 7574 may be identical with NGC 7568. This would require errors of 30 seconds of time in RA and 30 arcmin in Dec in d'A's nominal position. He only observed the object once, so these are possible. With no other reasonable candidates that I can see, I've adopted the identity, though with a question mark. ===== NGC 7575 is probably CGCG 406-044, just one degree south of Marth's otherwise not-too-badly-determined position. The description matches, and the considerably fainter galaxy just to the south would probably have escaped Marth's attention. The identification as a star (by Reinmuth, copied by Carlson and RNGC) seems less likely given that a "Faint, small, very little extended" nebula would be well-seen in a 48-inch telescope. Still, Marth has probably picked up a few other stars, so this remains a possibility, however -- ahem -- faint. Another, even less likely possibility, is that N7575 is NGC 7562 with a 1.3 minute error in RA. The one-degree digit error strikes me as a better bet. ===== NGC 7577. I was skeptical about Wolfgang's identification of this (the Lyon folks fingered the same faint galaxy), even with the star close northeast. So, I reduced Bigourdan's observation -- his position falls exactly and cleanly between star and galaxy. He apparently really did see the pair, so it is in the big table. ===== NGC 7578. The modern catalogues make a small mess of this NGC number, so here are the facts in RA order (the positions are from HKA): RA (1950.0) Dec Hickson VV UGC RC2/3 23 14 42.50 +18 25 39.5 94b=N7578A 181b 12477=N7578a N7578A 23 14 44.00 +18 26 04.4 94a=N7578B 181a 12478=N7578b N7578B Hickson and VV did things logically (by magnitude), choosing the brightest component as "a". UGC followed its internal scheme, also logical, of choosing component letters by RA. RC2/3 followed UGC. Looking at the NGC, we see that N7578 was only observed by William and John Herschel. Though WH noted "4 or 5 small stars with nebulosity," JH saw only one object here which he succinctly described with a single letter "F." Neither of their positions is good enough to pin down one or the other of the galaxies as the real N7578, but since Hickson 94a is brighter by over 0.6 mag, I think that we can choose it as N7578 without bending the history too much. So, I have ignored the NGC identifications in Hickson, UGC, and RC2/3; and have made the brighter north-following object (UGC 12478) = NGC 7578. This group, buy the way, may also be NGC 7571, which see. ===== NGC 7580. See NGC 7644. ===== NGC 7581 may be NGC 7541. Dreyer credits the object to Holden, but it is not in either of the lists in the Washburn Observatory Publications that Dreyer credits in the NGC. Nor does Dreyer give a reference in the GC Supplement where the object first appears. If Holden published a note about the object, it must have been in the time between the GC's appearance in 1864 and the publication of the Supplement in 1878. Perhaps someone could check the appropriate journals of the time (AN, MN, The Observatory, AJ, and so forth). In any event, the identity with NGC 7541 was first suggested by Reinmuth. From Die Nebel Herschel, it was picked up by Carlson, then RC1, and RNGC. The identity is reasonable: aside from being called "very faint," the remainder of the GC/NGC description "much extended, star 12-13 close following" is accurate. However, the position is 3 minutes of time off in RA, and 8 arcmin in Dec. These don't seem to suggest simple digit errors, though they could be. I've put a question mark on the identification because of the position mismatch and the lack of a reference. ===== NGC 7582. See IC 5308 = NGC 7599. ===== NGC 7583 = NGC 7605. See NGC 7604. ===== NGC 7586. Marth's position, verified on at least a second night, and copied correctly into the NGC, falls near a galaxy meeting his description "eF, vS, alm stellar." For some reason, CGCG ignores this object and incorrectly puts the NGC number on a considerably fainter galaxy 17 seconds preceding and a full 20 arcmin to the south. At least Hubble got the right object in his thesis. ===== NGC 7588. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7590. See IC 5308 = NGC 7599. ===== NGC 7593. Found by Albert Marth, the RA he listed is off by 30 seconds of time. See NGC 1474 about other nebulae found by Marth on this night. ===== NGC 7594 = IC 1478. The confusion arose because Ainslie Common's position is none too good. His description, however, pinpoints the galaxy: "Faint, round, following 3 stars in a line [oriented at] 90 deg pointing to another fainter nebula south." The "fainter nebula south" is IC 5306 (which see; it was rediscovered by Kobold). I suspect that Dreyer did not include this in the NGC because of the lack of a position. That did not prevent him from including other poorly observed nebulae, however, so his decision remains a bit of a puzzle. ===== NGC 7596 = IC 1477. Here is another case where the Leander McCormick RA is well off the real RA. In this case, we have Leavenworth's sketch showing the galaxy and four stars around it in a distinctive pattern to positively identify the galaxy. His description also fits well, though the position angle of the major axis is closer to 25 degrees than to zero. Javelle picked up the galaxy just a few years after Leavenworth discovered it. The IC position, correctly copied from Javelle's list and referred as usual to a BD star, is good. Presumeably his micrometric offsets and a modern position for the star would yield an even better position, but I've not reduced them. The identity is obvious, and we have better modern positions in any case. ===== NGC 7597 may be NGC 7571, which see. ===== NGC 7598. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7599 = IC 5308, which see. ===== NGC 7602. See NGC 7571. ===== NGC 7604 and NGC 7605 = NGC 7583 were found by Marth late in 1864. There is nothing in his places that he could have seen with Laselle's 48-inch telescope, but just one minute of time preceding is a pair matching his descriptions and relative positions. It happens that he had found the brighter of the pair earlier in the same year. Thus, that object has two entries in his list, and two NGC numbers. Unfortunately, CGCG put the number 7583 on the fainter of the galaxies, though it does in fact belong to the brighter. ===== NGC 7605 = NGC 7583. See NGC 7604. ===== NGC 7607 = IC 1480 is a double star. The NGC object is one of Tempel's "nebulae" with a very good ring micrometer measurement. That pins down the star accurately, as does his note of a 16th magnitude star half an arcminute to the northeast. The IC entry comes from Bigourdan, whose micrometric position falls within seven arcsec of the double. Curiously, the NGC object is missing from his big table. There is no entry for it, not even with his frequent, terse "Non vue" comment. See the IC number for more. ===== NGC 7610 and NGC 7616 are two of the objects found by Ainslee Common with his 36-inch reflector. His positions coincide with nothing on the sky, but close to the position for NGC 7610 is a relatively large Scd galaxy that might well have been described as "diffuse" by him. There is nothing at all near the position for NGC 7616, and I suspect that Common's two observations refer to the same object. This galaxy has been micrometrically measured by Kobold. His second measurement, reported under the number NGC 7610, was corrected on his errata page. The corrected measurement is obviously a repeat measure of the same object as his first measure, listed under NGC 7616. He therefore added a note to that effect, saying that the measured object was "most likely" to be NGC 7616. I think this is because Common's description is "pF, dif" for N7616, but "F, S, dif" for N7610. Bigourdan has no observations for either object, though he reports having seen NGC 7610 at its NGC position. Carl Wirtz also provides only a description for it, and includes the object under the number "NGC 7616?" in his collection of the Strassberg micrometric positions. The galaxy was subsequently ignored until its appearance in CGCG, MCG, UGC, and the 10th KUG list. Steve Gottlieb reports a visual sighting of it in 1992, but could find nothing near the position of NGC 7616. He pointed out, though, a very faint galaxy a few seconds of time east of the NGC position; I doubt that Common could have seen this, even with a 36-inch. If it were N7616, then Common's descriptions would be backwards: "F" for the much brighter galaxy, and "pF" for the much fainter. ===== NGC 7613 and NGC 7614 are two of Brother Ferrari's nebulae announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. N7614 is "Very near [N7613] south-preceding" according to the note that Secchi gives, but there is no obvious double nebula anywhere near the nominal position. There are many galaxies in this area, however. Perhaps one of them, plus a faint star or asterism, will turn out to be the objects the good brothers saw. See NGC 7667 for more about these observations. ===== NGC 7614. See NGC 7613. ===== NGC 7616 may be NGC 7610, which see. ===== NGC 7622. Curious! My early list of RNGC errata is wrong, but I've not yet found out why (probably a typo). I correctly identified the galaxy for SGC, however, and ESO also has the right object. RC3 is therefore correct. But what led me to think it nonexistent? Curious, indeed! ===== NGC 7627 is probably NGC 7641. At least that is the opinion of Lewis Swift and Herbert Howe as expressed in Howe's note in MNRAS 61, 29, 1900. Howe wrote to Swift after being unable to find the object on two nights. There is indeed nothing in Swift's place. However, in spite of Swift's imprimatur, I'm a unsure about this identification. While there are indeed two stars north of the galaxy, Swift's full note in his 6th list reads "vF, S, vE; coarse D * nr n; the D * is bet 2 sts." I would not call the two stars even a coarse double -- they are separated by nearly an arcminute and are quite faint. Furthermore, I see no trace of the two stars flanking the coarse double. Swift's description of the galaxy is accurate, but the lack of the stars is bothersome. A search of the area turned up nothing else that might be Swift's object, however. The possibility of a large digit error remains to be checked. In the meantime, I've marked the identification with colons. ===== NGC 7630. See NGC 7638. ===== NGC 7632 = IC 5313, which see. ===== NGC 7638 = IC 1483 and NGC 7639 = IC 1485 are two nebulae discovered by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector. They are mentioned only in his discriptive note for NGC 7630, presumeably found the same night: "There are 2 similar nebulae within 30' sf No. 32 [N7630]." Even though the position of N7630 is coarsely given (23 15, +10 47 for 1880), its identity is fortunately clear. We are also fortunate that the only two galaxies bright enough for Common to have easily seen "within 30' sf" are the only two candidates there are in that part of the sky. The identities are therefore very secure, even if the NGC positions (worked out by Dreyer for lack of anything better, and marked with plus-minus signs) are far off. The poor positions led Javelle to think these two nebulae "novae" when he went over the field in the early 1890's. So, they (and a third nearby, IC 1484) received IC numbers as well. ===== NGC 7639 = IC 1485. See NGC 7638. ===== NGC 7641 may also be NGC 7627, which see. ===== NGC 7643. See NGC 7644. ===== NGC 7644. There is nothing at Swift's nominal position. The faint galaxy two arcmin following is too faint and too small to match Swift's description. There are two reasonable candidates for Swift's object: NGC 7643 (found by Stephan) and NGC 7651, found by Swift himself just four weeks before N7644 (on 1 Sept 1886). N7643 is exactly two degrees south of Swift's nominal position, and 22 seconds of time preceding. The description pretty well matches the galaxy. N7651 has the same declination, and is 1 minute 15 seconds of time east of N7644's position. This is a fainter object -- Swift called it "extremely faint" rather than the "very faint" he used for N7644. In neither description does he refer to nearby stars, though N7651 is noted as being "in vacancy." This almost certainly rules out a third candidate, N7580 (5 min 32 sec west, but only 1.5 arcmin north) around which Swift noted four stars when he found it four nights earlier (on 25 Sept 1886). The object that RNGC and Wolfgang choose as N7644 is an even fainter object of lower surface brightness just over an arcmin east-northeast of N7651. Had Swift seen this, he certainly would have noted the two as a close pair -- in his 32 arcmin field, they would appear to be almost on top of one another. In the end, I suspect that N7643 is the most likely candidate, though N7651 has the advantage of only an error in RA. However, choosing either one is speculation, so I've sprinkled question marks liberally among the several galaxies in the table. ===== NGC 7646, which may be = IC 5318, is another of the Leander-McCormick nebulae found by Muller, with its discovery announced before a decent position was available. Muller's description (magnitude = 14.5, diameter = 0.2 x 0.1, extended 260 deg) would fit IC 5318 if he saw only the bar of the galaxy. He also has a "*9, PA 10 deg, distance 3.6 arcmin." The star is actually 3.8 arcmin away at PA = 346 deg. Did Muller somehow get his PA into the wrong quadrant? (There is no sketch to help us in this case). The main thing that makes me question the identification is the star of magnitude 9 or 10 superposed on the galaxy. Muller surely would have mentioned the star had he noticed it -- since the nature of the nebulae was still in debate in the late 1880's, nearby stars were often taken as possibly physically associated with the nebulae. IC 5318 was found by Herbert Howe, using Chamberlain Observatory's 16-inch refractor. He measured the position of the galaxy, and noted the superposed star but, because of Muller's poor position, did not make a connection with the NGC number. Given the problems with Muller's position and description, we should perhaps simply note the possibility of the identity, and let it go at that. ===== NGC 7648 = IC 1486, which see. Also see NGC 7667. ===== NGC 7649 = IC 1487, which see. ===== NGC 7651. See NGC 7644. ===== NGC 7653 is not IC 1488, which see. ===== NGC 7654 = M 52. The NGC position (from JH) is for SAO 20606, west of the cluster itself. The cluster has a tight core of perhaps a dozen stars, but this is not at the geometrical center of the cluster. Hence, I've listed two positions in the table. Take whichever one seems appropriate to you. ===== NGC 7663 is one of Brother Ferrari's nebulae announced by Father Secchi. It, unlike eight other nebulae found by Ferrari, has two candidate galaxies in the area of the nominal position. One, MCG -01-59-023 is slightly brighter than the other, MCG -01-59-022. The former galaxy also has the advantage of being closer to the nominal RA (the nominal position is 23 24 06, -05 01.7), but is just as far off in declination. I've put both in the table of positions -- with question marks, of course. ===== NGC 7666 is lost. It is one of the fourteen nebulae announced by Father Secchi in AN 1571. See NGC 7667 for more on these nebulae. ===== NGC 7667, NGC 7668, NGC 7669, and NGC 7670. Father Angelo Secchi was a Jesuit priest who worked at College Romain in the mid-1800's. He is remembered today primarily as a pioneer in spectral classification of stars, and for his studies of the sun: he was among the first to photograph the corona during an eclipse, and also was the first to attempt to deduce the interior structure of the sun. It's fair to say that he was -- pun fully intended -- a father of stellar astrophysics. In 1866, he published in AN 1571 a short list of fourteen new nebulae that one of his fellow Jesuits, Brother Ferrari, discovered during a (fruitless) search for Biela's Comet from 11 November 1865 to 18 January 1866. Father Secchi has this to say about the 9.5-inch Merz equatorial at the College Romain, "From this study, we have convinced ourselves that the refractor at our observatory is at least as keen and powerful as the Herschels' telescopes ..." (translated by me from his French original). Also, he says that they "fitted [to the telescope] a large eyepiece which gives a 27 arcmin field." (My thanks to Wolfgang Steinicke for digging out the size of the telescope.) Back to the fourteen new nebulae. I searched near the nominal positions on the POSS1 prints for all of these, and was unable to find any trace of eight of them (NGC 7565, N7613, N7614, N7666, N7667, N7668, N7669, and N7670). There are good candidates for three others (N7683, the only one of the objects whose position was determined by actual comparison to a star, N7738, and N50), and poor candidates for the remaining three (N7663, N7739, and N116). Secchi (or Ferrari) also "corrects" WH's positions for two nebulae, N157 and N7648. His positions for those are indeed better than Herschel's -- but they don't help us find the other missing objects in his list. If we take mean offsets from modern positions for the "good" candidates -- excepting N7683 for which the position comes from a different method -- and the two corrected WH galaxies, we find systematic offsets of -5 seconds of time, and -1 arcmin 10 arcsec in Dec. The standard deviations on these numbers (+- 18 seconds and +- 26 arcsec) suggest that the RA offset is not significant and that the Declination offset is barely significant. But even that does not help us find the missing objects. Reading more of Father Secchi's note, I learned why the positions are so bad. "The position is determined from the setting circles of the equatorial, corrected for instrumental errors, simply by placing the nebula in the center of the field." Secchi, however, also says that he verified each of the nebulae after Brother Ferrari found them. He must have done this on the same nights as their discovery since he never would have recovered them otherwise. Since Secchi gives no equinox in his note, I, like Dreyer before me, have assumed that his positions refer to the equinox at the date of observation, i.e. 1866.0 give or take a few weeks. I adopted 1866.0. Specifically for NGC 7667 and its cohorts: there is nothing at all near the single nominal position that Secchi gives for them, and only one or two of the galaxies within a degree of that position are bright enough to have been seen with a 9.5-inch telescope. However, Steve Gottlieb has suggested that some of the knots in the arms of UGC 12578 might be N7668, N7669, and N7670 which Secchi says "surround" N7667. These are much too faint for a 9.5-inch telescope, but the galaxy itself is quite bright enough to be one of Secchi's objects, in spite of having a pretty low surface brightness. However, it is 3 minutes off in RA and nearly five arcmin in Dec from the nominal position, so it would be a stretch to point to this object. There are also three other objects within 13.5 arcmin of it that might be Secchi and Ferrari's other three nebulae: UGC 12589, and the double stars at 23 21 54.6, -00 12 35 and 23 22 12.5, -00 21 42 (1950 positions). All are northeast of U12578, though, and Secchi's description clearly translates as "Very faint: the other three surround the 9th [in the list = N7667] in the field." So, U12589 and the double stars are pure guesswork, and I don't think that I'd want to stake my life on them -- or even on U12578 being N7667. ===== NGC 7668. See NGC 7667. ===== NGC 7669. See NGC 7667. ===== NGC 7670. See NGC 7667. ===== NGC 7681. CGCG, RNGC, and UGC all chose the wrong galaxy in spite of the very good NGC position (from two determinations by John Herschel). This is even more curious as the correct galaxy is a full magnitude brighter and twice as large as the one they all chose. Furthermore, the description in the NGC mentions the double star following the nebula: there is none following the wrong galaxy, but there is a clear double just north-following the correct object. The identification is unambiguous. ===== NGC 7689. The RC3 position (from ESO) is correct (barring an error in ESO, of course), while RC2 gives the wrong RA. Oddly, there is nothing in the GSC at either position, though ESO-LV repeats the ESO position and gives plausible data for the galaxy there. ===== NGC 7697 = IC 5333. I'm pretty sure that this is = ESO 110-G012. This means that the RA error (3 minutes of time, not one minute as I earlier stated), and the Dec error (9.4 arcmin, close enough to 10 arcmin), are both digit errors. In addition, ESO 110-G012 is nearly a magnitude brighter than 110-G014 (14.33 vs. 15.18 in ESO-LV); it is also considerably larger. All this leads to the conclusion that RC3 is wrong: PGC 71800 = N7697 = I5333, type = .S..3P/, S(T) = S, T = 2.5 +- 0.7. Also PGC 71812 is not = N7697, type = .SBT6.., and T = 6.3 +- 0.6. ===== NGC 7699, NGC 7700, and NGC 7701. The brightest of this triplet was found by WH and given the number III 188 in his first catalogue. This galaxy was also observed by d'Arrest who marked the identification with H III 188 questionable (until I can find time to translate his Latin descriptions, I won't know why he queried the ID; I suspect Herschel's position is not too good). His four observations provide the good NGC position for NGC 7701. The NGC description is also accurate -- there is an 11th magnitude star south-preceding. In November of 1864, after d'Arrest had made his observations, but before he published them, Marth found the other two galaxies in the group with Laselle's 48-inch reflector during one of their stays at Malta. Though neither was verified, the positions and descriptions are good enough to establish the identifications. There the matter rested until I included the two largest of the galaxies in the ESGC. Unfortunately, I reversed the identifications in the prepublication version of ESGC, calling NGC 7700 "NGC 7701" and vice versa. Steve Gottlieb caught the mistake, but unfortunately not until after publication of RC3. In any event, this is one case in which the NGC positions and descriptions point to exactly the right galaxies. My apologies for muddying the waters! ===== NGC 7700. See NGC 7699. ===== NGC 7701. See NGC 7699. ===== NGC 7708. This is probably just a random group of stars. The NGC position, from JH, is for SAO 10791, the 8th magnitude star mentioned in the NGC description. The other fainter stars seem to be scattered more to the north, and the extent of the "cluster" is indefinite on the POSS1. Perhaps it would appear better at the eyepiece. ===== NGC 7720. WH's RA is 40 seconds too large. See NGC 6882 = NGC 6885 for more on the observations he made on 10 Sept 1784. Also see NGC 7726. ===== NGC 7726. When I measured positions in Abell 2634 for RC2, I assigned the number N7726 to the galaxy at 23 36 41.1 +26 50 21 (N7720 is at 23 35 58.7 +26 45 22, N7728 at 23 37 30.0 +26 51 28, and IC 5342 is at 23 36 08.1 +26 44 05). However, I had not then dug out Swift's original description: "eeF; pS; R; e diff; pB * nr f; [N7728] nr nf, but is not little, but very elongated." I really have to stretch to make my first choice fit this description; the "pB *" is hardly "near" (but keep in mind Swift's 32 arcmin field!), though it is north-following, as is N7728 (more following than north). On the other hand, Swift's description of N7728 is wrong: it is indeed little elongated, just as d'Arrest saw it. So, which galaxy did Swift see? I don't see any other object in Abell 2634 that fits his description. For the time being, I'm going to let my original identification stand, but it is certainly questionable. RC3 is almost certainly wrong, and the number N7726 ought to be deleted from PGC 71991 and -- perhaps! -- added to PGC 72024. ===== NGC 7728. See NGC 7726. ===== NGC 7738 and NGC 7739. Father Secchi listed 14 new nebulae in his short discovery note (see NGC 7667 for more about these objects). Of these, I cannot locate eight. Three others -- including N7738 and N7739 -- have candidate galaxies, though I'm still very uncertain about the identifications. The only galaxies that even come close to satisfying Secchi's position for the pair and brief description ("Very faint: the seventh [N7739] is near to the south") are UGC 12757 and CGCG 381-038. The latter is nearly as far east of the former as it is south, so I've put question marks by the identities. ===== NGC 7739. See NGC 7738. ===== NGC 7740. MCG apparently made an error in the RA when precessing the NGC position since the object called N7740 in it precedes the correct object by about a minute of time. The correct object is not in MCG, but is in CGCG -- it is CGCG 476-123. ===== NGC 7741. WH's position is almost +4 arcmin off. See NGC 6882 = NGC 6885 for more on this and his other observations of 10 Sept 1784. ===== NGC 7744 = IC 5348, which see. ===== NGC 7745. MCG missed the NGC identification in spite of the fact that Marth's position is quite good. Though this is in a poor galaxy cluster, it is the brightest member. Since none of the other cluster members is nearly as bright, there are no other objects nearby that Marth could have confused with this one, so the identification is secure. ===== NGC 7748. Only the star (SAO 20818) is here. JH says, "About a * 8m is a very extensive space which I am certain is affected with nebulosity." He saw this on only one night, so the nebulosity may well have been a transient feature of some sort (thin cloud? aurora?). The magnitude of the star becomes "7" in the NGC; GC follows JH of course, in making it "8": another curiousity with this object. ===== NGC 7756. The fourth Earl of Rosse puts this object five arcmin southwest of N7757. The original description reads in full "Another neb about 5' sp." Not much to go on! There is a star in the area that was taken by MCG and RC1 as N7756, and I've put a colon on it as it seems the most likely object. However, LdR also has measures of two other stars just north of N7757 in his observation of it. Both of them are about the same magnitude as the star to the southwest. This makes me wonder why LdR didn't see them as nebulae as well. It also lead me to poke around the area a bit. There is a close double star -- quite faint, though -- closer to N7757, and a somewhat brighter and much wider double further south. Neither seems a likely candidate to me, but there isn't much else around that LdR could have seen with the Leviathan. ===== NGC 7757. See NGC 7756. ===== NGC 7761 = IC 5361. This is one of two galaxies in this area found by Ormond Stone in 1886 at Leander-McCormick. As you know by now, I am not generally thrilled with the positions that Stone has left us in the AJ articles announcing the discovery of these things. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify most of the objects. In this case, we need to go back to Stone's notes since he left us no sketch of the field. In the notes to NGC 7776 -- which he DID sketch -- we find the note "near [N7761]". We can definitely show that N7776 is the same object as IC 1514, so Stone's rough positions yeild an offset of about 3 minutes of time in RA and an identical declination (though the declination for N7776 is marked with a plus-minus sign) to N7761. When we apply those offsets to N7776 = I1514 -- noting that the nominal Dec for N7761 is not marked with any uncertainty symbol -- we find IC 5361 at just about where we'd expect it to be if it is indeed N7761. Since the description pretty well fits, I'm confident of the identification. The note in the second IC is a bit misleading because Howe thought he searched in vain for N7761 and N7776. He did, in fact, come across N7761, but took it to be new. Thus it, like N7776, ended up with an IC number, too. ===== NGC 7765 is in a group with NGC 7766, N7767, and N7768. See the latter two for notes on the group. ===== NGC 7766 is in a group with NGC 7765, N7767, and N7768. See the latter two for notes on the group. ===== NGC 7767. Though both Reinmuth and CGCG suggested that this is identical to IC 1511 (which see), it is a different object. Bigourdan has measurements of both objects which show that I1511 is a star, while this is a galaxy with a star superposed about 15 arcsec southwest of the nucleus (Bigourdan actually measured this star rather than the galaxy itself). Lord Rosse's diagram is useful in sorting out the identities of the other galaxies in the field, NGC 7765, N7766, and N7768. ===== NGC 7768 is the brightest of a group of galaxies found by Lord Rosse. His diagram makes clear the identities of the objects he saw. Others in the group are N7765, N7766, and N7767 (which see). Bigourdan's two "novae" here (IC 1511 and I1512, which see) are stars. ===== NGC 7772 is an astersim of 7 stars, the southern-most brighter than the others. Still, it is a striking object, well isolated, and would probably stand out quite well at the eyepiece. ===== NGC 7774. See NGC 153. ===== NGC 7776 = IC 1514 is another of Ormond Stone's discoveries at Leander- McCormick. Though his nominal position is quite poor (1.5 minutes of time off in RA and nearly 12 arcmin in Dec), he has left us a sketch showing the nebula and two nearby stars. The brighter of the stars is just outside of the nominal field diameter, but is nevertheless found on the sky where Stone placed it on the sketch. This clearly identifies his nebula as the same one that Johann Palisa found and measured accurately seven years later in September of 1893. Even though Palisa did not have a precise position for his comparison star, the position he published is quite accurate. So, there is no doubt about the identity of the galaxy he measured. Clinching the identity, Palisa noted an eccentric nucleus, and Stone's sketch shows that same offset nucleus. See NGC 7761 = IC 5361 for another Stone discovery that depends on this galaxy for its identification. ===== NGC 7791 is a double star. Even JH had doubts about its nebular character, adding to his notes "Query if not a star." His position is good. ===== NGC 7795. This is a sparce group of stars generally to the east of the 7th magnitude star (SAO 35922) that JH called "the chief of a vL coarse scattered but poor cluster which fills the field." It doesn't stand out well on POSS1, but may look better at the eyepiece where the background of faint stars would not be seen. ===== NGC 7799 is a star about 20 arcsec northeast of a somewhat brighter star. D'A mentions both objects in his description, and has them in the correct relative orientation as well as at the correct distance. Furthermore, his position is within 20 arcsec of the true position. Other catalogues have pointed to UGC 12882 as NGC 7799, but that is a very faint object, and the even fainter star southwest is twice as far from the object as d'A has measured it. I don't think it likely that d'A could have seen either object with his 11-inch refractor. ===== NGC 7801. This is a possible cluster at JH's position. He says of it only "A double star in a tolerable cluster in which is one star 9 m." To my eye on a DSS image, this is a group of 20-30 stars covering an area about 15 arcmin by 11 arcmin. Brian Skiff sees it as an "asterism, center defined as position of a wide magnitude 12 pair." Whatever the true nature of the object, the 9th magnitude star is a couple of arcmin northwest of the double in the center of the group. ===== NGC 7804 is a double star. Dreyer, in a note in NGC itself, says that "von Engelhardt in 4 obs could only see a D* without nebulosity." Once Burnham turned the 36-inch at Lick on the object, the question was settled for Dreyer. His IC1 note is quite firm: "To be struck out, only a F double star without nebulosity (Burnham)." This is indeed what we see today. The discoverer of this object, Schweizer, is not otherwise known to me. Perhaps someone can do some biographical digging. He was probably an observer at Moscow as the observation comes originally, according to the NGC note, from the "Obs. de Moscou," Vol II, book 2, pp 115 and 119. ===== NGC 7807. The ESO RA for 1950 has the seconds of time inverted -- instead of "23 57 05" read "23 57 50". This error was propogated into SGC (blush), NGC 2000.0, and DSFG by cataloguers who assumed ESO was correct (as it usually is!). Otherwise, all is well with this object. ===== NGC 7810. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 7813 is probably identical with IC 5384, though the descriptions do not match, and Muller's position is a typically poor one from the second Leander McCormick list in AJ. The IC number comes from Howe who found the galaxy while looking for NGC 7813. The position angles for the galaxy (Muller, 80 deg; Howe, 160 deg) and surrounding stars (Muller, "*8.5 f 38s" and "*9 np 40s"; Howe "*8.5 p 49s" and "two sts 9 nnp") don't match, but the declinations are the same as are the general descriptions "eF, vS, E". I do see a somewhat fainter star (about 10th magnitude) roughly 25 seconds following the galaxy -- is this possibly Muller's "* 8.5"? Unfortunately, he has left us no sketch. The IC identification, at least, is secure. ===== NGC 7814. See IC 5378. ===== NGC 7815 is a single star, exactly at the position measured for it by Schultz. It is his "Nova XII" in his monograph of about 500 micrometrically measured nebulae. He comments, "Several fine stars seen in the neby? The object in the autumn of 1866 quite distinctly seen as a nebula with a stellar core; in the autumn of 1869, hardly visible!" He lists only two night's observations for the object, 2 and 3 October 1866. Neither was good; the 2nd was "Extremely variable; soon clouding" and the 3rd was "Very damp; object-glass covered with moisture." Given those conditions, it doesn't surprise me that he thought the star nebulous. In fact, I am a bit surprised that he does not have more than just an even dozen "Novae". Bigourdan, by the way, has this as two pretty-widely separated stars; his position, though, falls on Schultz's star. ===== NGC 7822. I wonder about JH's declination for this. He has only one observation of it, and places it quite definitely 1.5 degrees north of the center of a huge HII region that would match his description pretty well. Here is what he has to say about it: The central part of what I am positive is an enormously large, but extremely faint nebulosity of a round figure, though I cannot trace its limits. The night exquisite. I swept often across it to be sure, but always recurred to the same place. No doubt but can never be seen but in the best state of air and sky. Diameter 10 arcmin +-. Dreyer attached two notes to the object, one in NGC itself: "Not seen at Birr Castle in two observations. It is, however, far north of the Zenith, and the speculum may have tilted." In the 2nd IC, he says briefly, "40' diameter, many stars involved (Roberts, MN lxviii, 301)." Roberts's description, from three 90-minute plates taken in 1901 and 1902, is clearly that of the large nebula south of JH's position. Roberts notes three pretty bright stars involved (BD +66 1675, 1676, and 1679) which make it quite clear that he thought N7822 to be the HII region. I'm puzzled, though, that neither he nor Dreyer mentioned the differing declinations. I also find JH's diameter estimate to be puzzling. Usually, a 10 arcmin diameter would rate a description of "vL", not "eeL". Also, there is, centered just a few arcmin south of JH's place, a "wing" of the nebula that could possibly be the object that he saw. But it is fainter than the main part of the object. Perhaps the northern part happened to be in the sweep on that "exquisite" night, while the brighter central portion was passed over in another sweep on an average night. Whatever the case, this fainter wing is a possible candidate for N7822, also. However, I'm going to follow Roberts and Dreyer in adopting the HII region as the object that JH probably described, and assume that his declination represents an error of some sort. So, it gets the colon, while the northern wing gets the question mark. I've put the position for the HII region midway between the latter two BD stars in Roberts's note. The HII region, by the way, is Cederblad 214B. It is incorrectly listed as a reflection nebula in at least one catalogue, and various pieces of it have ended up with separate numbers in Lynds's catalogue of bright nebulae. See Dixon's "Master List" for a complete list of the various names. ===== NGC 7825. The NGC positions for this and NGC 7827 are quite good, having come from John Herschel (via the GC) and from d'Arrest. This hasn't kept MCG from mangling the identifications for the galaxies. UGC sorted out N7827, but still got the wrong galaxy for N7825. This led PGC -- and thus RC3 -- to adopt the incorrect identification. CGCG got everything right, but PGC ignored it (and has further made a hash of the CGCG numbers, positions, and magnitudes in the area). In any event, delete the NGC number from PGC 377 in RC3. ===== NGC 7826 is "A triangular group of about a dozen stars" according to JH. What he doesn't say is that the stars are fairly bright, and are scattered over an area of 13 arcmin by 9 arcmin. The apex of the triangle is to the south. I think it's unlikely that this is a real cluster, but haven't checked the proper motions. ===== NGC 7827. See NGC 7825. ===== NGC 7831 = IC 1530. This galaxy was first seen by Lewis Swift on 20 September 1885. Unfortunately, Swift's position is well off the mark, as are his positions for all the galaxies found that night. This one, however, shares a common offset with three of the other galaxies (NGC 19, NGC 21, and NGC 7836). The correct identities are unmistakeable, though, because of Swift's clear descriptions of the star fields surrounding three of the four objects (see NGC 6 for more details). In this case, he notes "bright star south, very faint star very near." The bright star is SAO 053654, and the very faint star is at the southwest end of the galaxy. Swift's poor position led to the galaxy's being rediscovered by Bigourdan. So, it has ended up with the IC number as well. ===== NGC 7832 = IC 5386. This one is another blunder by Swift (originally), but also by Howe and Dreyer who evidently did not check the NGC. Howe's accurate position is only three seconds of time off the NGC position, and Swift's description "pB, pS, vE" should have caught everyone's eyes. But it didn't, so the galaxy now has an IC number as well as an NGC entry. ===== NGC 7836. Curiously, this is the only one of Swift's five discoveries on 20 September 1885 (suffering large offsets from the true positions; see NGC 6 for more details) to be correctly identified by most of the modern catalogues. Yet, Swift's notes about the nearby stars for this galaxy are the most ambiguous of the batch. He merely says "between 2 stars." There is a line of fairly bright stars about 2 arcmin following, but none of the fainter stars preceding the galaxy seem to be a match for the description. Nevertheless, the systematic position offset (+1 min 10 sec and +8 arcmin 8 arcsec) for the nebulae found that night is so closely shared by NGC 7836 (+1 min 14 sec and +8 arcmin 10 arcsec) that its identity is not in doubt. ===== NGC 7839. Bigourdan's position lands directly on the brighter and northeastern of two stars about 4 arcmin southwest of NGC 1 and 2. The fainter star is probably too faint for Bigourdan to have consciously seen with his 30-cm refractor, but it may have added some to the impression of nebulosity around the brighter star. So, I've included it as a part of N7839. =====