LIST OF CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS.
Format.
LINE 1. This gives the IC identity.
LINE 2. Lists the particular Palomar print used by the author for the IC
identity.
LINE 3. Gives the name of the observer credited with the objects discovery and
the number as it appears in his lists. Followed by his Nominal or Corrected
Nominal positional data precessed to 1950 and 2000 epochs
LINE 4. Consists in the first sentence of my personal findings regarding
identity. Followed by how the modern catalogues view the identity and any
additional information which pertains to the errors or omissions.
The terms NOVA or NOVAE refers to its historical meaning (New discovery), also all
coordinates listed, other than when specifically noted, have been precessed to
epoch 1950 using NED's Coordinate and Extinction Calculator.
The term OMISSION refers to those instances in which a catalogue or other source
lists a particular galaxy but fails to give it the appropriate IC identity.
It should be remembered that for those IC identities shown to be either stars or
nonexistent, no listing, unless by error, would be expected in the majority of the
modern galaxy catalogues, however, in the case of both the NGC 2000 and the MOL
they list all of the original IC identities which does not necessarily mean that
the authors of both these catalogues considered them all to exist. Also it should
be understood that the term "Nonstellar object" or "NSO" when given by the MOL can
mean Unknown or Unverified.
References to Carlson are for a particular paper concerning catalogue errors,
(Carlson 1940.)
The 3 letters APL refer to the ACCURATE POSITIONS LIST of Dr. Harold Corwin, also
known as NGC/ICPOS (Version Dated January 16th 2004).
Finally I wish to state although such an identity survey will inevitably turn up
errors in the works of others I hope that I never get to the point where I
consider my own conclusions to be beyond challenge. What I do hope to accomplish
is to place before the reader one person's findings and conclusions based upon
those findings.
Naturally as one who investigates certain types of errors I would like to think
that I always arrive at the correct solutions, however, all such previous lists
contain errors and it will be for others to examine my claims and where necessary,
correct those which are deemed to be flawed.
It should always be remembered that although this type of survey points out what
the author considers to be the erroneous data of certain historical and modern
authorities, the majority of the IC identities have the correct data and
rightfully reflect the abilities and renown of those many outstanding nineteenth
century astronomers whose names are associated with the IC identities.
CORRECTIONS.
IC 1.
POSS. 0-779.
Bigourdan #103. 00hr 05m 52.734s + 27 26' 32.020" (1950).
00hr 08m 27.589s +27 43' 13.968" (2000).
This is a double star : Carlson, NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke and MOL all correctly
describe it as such. CGCG, PGC, UGC, MCG and RC3 have no listing for it as would
be expected as these four catalogues are based upon only existing galaxies. NED
gives "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
IC 5.
POSS. O-1193.
Javelle #3. 00hr 15m 02.167s - 09 49' 16.131" (1950).
00hr 17m 35.109s - 09 32' 36.120" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG lists 3 closely associated galaxies, -2-1-45 = Anon.
00hr 14.7m -09 47'.0, -2-1-46 = Anon 00hr 14.8m -09 49'.0 and -2-1-47 = IC 5 at
00hr 14.85m -09 50'.0, thus making IC 5 the most following and the most southern
of the three, however, when Javelle's separation values are measured from his
reference star DM-10 034 they show that IC 5 is the most following but that it is
the middle one in declination and NED confirms this positioning. The MCG gives the
correct order of RA, however, it would appear that their order of declination is a
typo error and MCG -2-1-47 should have its declination changed to read - 09 48'.0
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MOL (NSO) and APL each give the correct identity and order
of declination. The NGC 2000 gives the declination as -09 49'.7 using the MCG as
its reference. The PGC (#1145), equates it with MCG -2-1-47 and incorrectly gives
it a declination that makes it the most southern of the 3 galaxies.
IC 14.
POSS. O-823.
Bigourdan #104 : 00hr 19m 56.709s + 10 12 10.909" (1950).
00hr 22m 31.593s +10 28' 49.072" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan made three observations and on the last two was unable to
see any nebula. His reference star is equal to AC #202062 and when his offsets
(+0 tmin 11.60 tsec RA and -2.0 arcmin) are applied to this star they land on a
blank space, the closest object being a very faint star with an extremely faint
companion off it's following edge, which lie about 30 arcsec north of his nominal
position.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." Steinicke (Not found), APL = ** and MOL (NSO).
NOTE : Corwin has identified as IC 14 a faint double star which
lies at almost the same declination following the galaxy NGC 95. Now Bigourdan's
reference star for his observations of both NGC 95 and IC 14 (made on the same
night) is equal to AC #202062 and Bigourdan's separation in declination from this
star for NGC 95 is - 1 arcmin 20.4 arcsec and results in an excellent declination
for NGC 95, therefore if this double star is what Bigourdan is claiming as being
his Object #104 why would he then make its declination separation from this same
reference star be -2 arcmin, or some 39.6 arcsec further south, especially as NGC
95 would have been easily visible to him at the time he was estimating the
position for his Object # 104 ?
IC 17.
POSS. O-591.
Javelle #10. 00hr 25m 55.563s + 02 22' 23.892" (1950).
00hr 28m 29.663s + 02 38' 59.384" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC, PGC and MCG have incorrectly identified the Anon. ZWG
383.021, 00hr 25.4m + 2 14'.0 as being IC 17. However, the PGC (Corrections) note
this error. Correctly identified in the CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000
(GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 20.
POSS. O-1203.
Javelle #13. 00hr 26m 07.784s - 13 17' 08.894" (1950).
00hr 28m 39.674s - 13 00' 33.483" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's reference star DM-13, 81 is given as 00hr 26m 08.033s
- 13 24' 29.599s (1950), however it is equal to GSC 5268-897 which would have
coordinates of 00hr 26m 13.846s - 13 24' 04.888" (1950), thus the small error in
Javelle's coordinates The NGC 2000 gives as its reference source the MCG and both
of these have incorrectly assigned a RA to IC 20 that would result in making it
have a Right Ascension preceding what they give for both IC 18 and IC 19. The PGC
commits this same error. The correct order is to be found in the IC I, MOL, APL,
SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke.
IC 24.
POSS. O-1244.
Bigourdan #105. 00hr 28m 38.124s + 30 33' 39.072" (1950).
00hr 31m 17.056s + 30 50' 12.858" (2000).
This is a double star : Bigourdan described it as (A small cluster with perhaps
some associated nebulosity), however, examination of the Palomar print shows only
a double star whose components are aligned north preceding south following.
Dreyer also listed it as "Small cluster, 30-40 arcsec, Nebs?" which probably
accounts for both the NGC 2000 and MOL typing it as Open Cluster. APL lists as =
**, Steinicke (=*2). NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 26.
POSS. O-1203.
Javelle #18. 00hr 29m 13.987s - 13 36' 47.653" (1950).
00hr 31m 45.613s - 13 20' 13.949" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Possibly equal to NGC 135 (Leavenworth #5. A.J. No.146 :
Leavenworth gave coordinates for his NGC 135 of 00hr 28m 03s - 13 38'.1 which if
it is equal to IC 26 would mean that Leavenworth's RA has an error of ~ 1 tmin 10
tsec and he has other credited discoveries with errors of similar amount,
therefore the prospect is good that IC 26 is indeed a duplicate observation of NGC
135.
The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke all equate the two identities while the
MOL (NSO) gives no equivalency SIMBAD dies not equate both identities, but gives
them both comparable coordinates.
IC 31.
POSS. O-823.
Javelle #508. 0Ohr 31m 48.767s + 11 59' 42.845" (1950).
00hr 34m 24.948s + 12 16' 14.881" (2000). (Part 1 Data).
00hr 31m 48.842s + 12 53' 40.242" (1950).
00hr 34m 24.824s + 13 10' 12.445" (2000). (Part 2 Data).
The only discrepancy involved here is purely of historical interest in that there
is almost a 1 degree difference in the declination data found between Parts 1 and
2 of Javelle's catalogue. Fortunately Dreyer used only the coordinate values
found in Part 1 which in this case are correct therefore the modern coordinates
are the proper ones. Correctly listed in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, APL,
PGC, Steinicke, NGC 2000 and MOL.
IC 39.
POSS. O-1203.
Javelle #28. 00hr 36m 37.224s - 14 26' 44.436" (1950).
00hr 39m 08.170s - 14 10' 15.526" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 178 (Stone). Stone's given coordinates for NGC 178 are
00hr 35m 01s - 14 37'.2 which indicate a difference in RA from IC 39 of about 1
tmin 35 tsec. and about 11 arcmin dec. Stone describes NGC 178 as "F, S, mE PA 0
degrees, bM." and this matches the appearance of IC 39 on the DSS print. NGC 178
was discovered and measured at the Leander-McCormick Observatory and many of their
NGC discoveries have large positional errors, therefore it is most probable that
the two identities are for the same object.
The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, APL, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly
give the equivalency.
IC 41.
POSS. O-884.
Javelle #29. 00hr 37m 09.776s - 14 26' 54.960" (1950).
00hr 39m 40.682s - 14 10' 26.443" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is a galaxy lying about 4 arcmin north of NGC 207. The
MCG incorrectly identifies its -3-2-35 as being IC 41, however, this is NGC 207.
The PGC is wrong in equating IC 41 with NGC 207, they are separate galaxies. The
NGC 2000 has used the MCG as its reference authority and therefore is also
incorrect. As an additional error the RNGC has incorrectly placed (R)NGC 207 as
having a declination of -15 26'.2 (1950) and types it as Class 7 (Non-existent)
and this has resulted in the MOL also giving an incorrect declination value of -15
26'.0 (Non-existent).
Steinicke, NED and the APL have the correct identity. SIMBAD has the correct object,
but equates it with MCG-03-02-035, which is equal to NGC 207 not IC 41.
IC 44.
POSS. O-591.
Swift List X, #1. 00hr 39m 44.464s + 00 36' 10.028" (1950).
00hr 42m 18.368s + 00 52' 36.579" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 223 : The CGCG, UGC, APL, Steinicke, MCG, NGC 2000 (Gx), NED
SIMBAD and PGC correctly give the equivalency. The MOL (NSO) gives each identity
without any equivalency.
IC 45.
POSS O-1244.
Bigourdan #107. 00hr 39m 56.108s + 29 22' 51.953" (1950).
00hr 42m 36.643s + 29 39' 18.144" (2000).
This is a double star : Examination of the Palomar print clearly shows two
galaxies with almost the same right ascension and separated by ~ 3 arcmins in
declination. The southern galaxy is IC 43, however, the northern one is not IC 45
as it is identified in a number of the modern publications.
Bigourdan employed as his reference star BD +29 111 to measure positions for both
IC 43 and IC 45. His separation values for IC 43 are -10s RA and + 2 arcmin
37arcsec Declination and these confirm that the southern object is IC 43. His
separation values for his #107 (IC 45) are + 5s RA and + 3arcmin 26arcsec, thus it
would lie ~ 15s following and 49sec of arc north of IC 43 at which position there
is only a double star.
Bigourdan gives two observations for his #107. The first on November 15th, 1889
in which he states that he only supposes its existence and that his reference star
lies at a position angle of 210 and a separation of 5 arcmins from it. He also
states that the sky was less than ideal and that later he could not see it.
His second observation was on November 8th, 1899 when he now measures a position
for B.107 and describes it as like a small cluster, adding that at the exact
position he referred to in his 1889 observation he was now unable to see anything.
The UGC 00449, MCG +5-2-39, PGC #2537, SIMBAD and RC3 all have incorrectly
identified the galaxy (ZWG. 500.073) immediately north of IC 43 as being IC 45,
although the UGC does list it as IC 45?, but this galaxy lies 0.6s following and
3arcmin 21arcsec north of IC 43, which does not in anyway reflect the separations as
measured by Bigourdan. The APL, NED and Steinicke list as (= two stars). The CGCG
correctly does not identify any IC 45. The NGC 2000 lists (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 47.
POSS. O-1203.
Javelle #31. 00hr 40m 24.582s - 14 00' 54.150" (1950).
00hr 42m 55.347s - 13 44' 28.105" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson in her CORRECTIONS states "Not found, Helwan." and
this has probably influenced both the NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist).
Correctly identified in the APL, NED and by Steinicke. Not listed in PGC.
SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists it as LEDA 3093693.
IC 48.
POSS. O-1206.
Barnard. 00hr 41m 04.060s - 08 27' 42.116" (1950).
00hr 43m 36.011s - 08 11' 16.600" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Probably = IC 1577 : The above coordinates are those
furnished by Barnard in a paper published in the MNRAS LV, 8. page 452. and which
details his suspicion that the object was subject to brightness variations.
Dreyer's IC I coordinates for this identity are 00hr 41m 03s - 08 09'.2 but in his
Corrections NGC/IC page 377 Dreyer refers to this paper.
Dr. Corwin in his IC Bugs List give a solid argument that IC 1577 is equal to IC
48 and he is probably correct. The PGC, NED and Steinicke also make the same
equivalency. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both have the incorrect
declination value as given originally by Dreyer. SIMBAD has the correct object IC
48, however, it lists IC 1577 as "Not present in the database."
(See IC 1577).
IC 53.
POSS. O-1274.
Swift List X, No.3. 00hr 47m 52.253s + 10 20' 50.229" (1950).
00hr 50m 28.638s + 10 37' 09.758" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-5. Correctly listed
in the CGCG, UGC (Notes), RC3, NGC 2000 (GX.), APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and
MOL (NSO).
IC 54.
POSS. O-1206.
Spitaler. 00hr 48m 13.389s - 02 33' 49.845" (1950).
00hr 50m 46.531s - 02 17' 30.564" (2000).
This is a close double star : The components are almost touching and are aligned
north preceding south following.
Listed in the MOL as (Open cluster). The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke correctly
list it as a double star. NED has "!**" SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 60.
POSS. O-1204.Javelle #37. 00hr 53m 34.357s - 13 37' 41.713" (1950).
00hr 56m 04.306s - 13 21' 27.692" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as -2-3-49, this is confirmed by
Steinicke. The PGC also identifies this galaxy only as MCG -2-3-49. Correctly
identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), NED, SIMBAD and APL.
IC 62.
POSS. O-1274.
Javelle #515. 00hr 56m 06.725s + 11 32' 16.524" (1950).
00hr 58m 43.900s + 11 48' 27.712" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-21 (This noted in the PGC
Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL,
Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 64.
POSS.O-857.
Javelle #516. 00hr 56m 41.720s + 26 47' 24.247" (1950).
00hr 59m 23.981s + 27 03' 34.664" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in CGCG only as ZWG 480.030. Correctly identified in
UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO). Not
listed in RC3.
IC 67.
POSS. O-1206.
Bigourdan #109. 00hr 57m 46.151s - 07 10' 37.692" (1950).
01hr 00m 17.795s - 06 54' 28.193" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan was not certain of its nebular character and indeed only
suspected that it existed at all. Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). The
APL gives (Not found). NED and Steinicke state "Not found." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 68.
POSS. O-1206.
Bigourdan #110. 00hr 57m 49.938s - 07 12' 23.773" (1950).
01hr 00m 21.570s - 06 56' 14.345" (2000).
Not found : Here again Bigourdan reports that he only suspects its existence.
NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL, NED and Steinicke correctly state "Not found."
SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 71.
POSS. O-1206.
Bigourdan #111. 00hr 58m 46.641s - 07 03' 23.935" (1950).
01hr 01m 18.286s - 06 47' 15.569" (2000).
Not found : Here once more it would appear that Bigourdan was working at the
level of limitation because he again states "Only suspected."
Bigourdan's reference star was BD -7 159 (8.0 mag.) and he places his #111 at a
position north preceding this star where nothing exists. The only possible
candidate is a faint star which has an extremely faint star just off its preceding
edge, however, this is not at Bigourdan's nominal position.
The MCG has identified its -1-3-63, which lies close south preceding this star, as
being IC 71 but this is an Anon. SIMBAD also incorrectly makes this IC 71.
Meanwhile the PGC appears to have incorrectly identified this same Anon. as being IC
71 = NGC 347, however, NGC 347 lies north of the reference star, exactly where its
discoverer Marth placed it.
Also Bigourdan correctly observed NGC 347 on the same night he made his
observation for his #111 and correctly stated that NGC 347 lay at a PA of 3
degrees and a separation of 4 arcmin from the reference star.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the correct coordinates while the APL
gives (Probably a star) and Steinicke (Not found). NED has (Type !*), and states "ID
as IC 0071 is not certain" SIMBAD equates with MCG-01-03-063.
IC 72.
POSS O-1206.
Bigourdan #112. 00hr 58' 58.104s - 07 02' 09.551" (1950).
01hr 01m 29.749s - 06 46' 01.401" (2000).
Nothing at nominal position : The only possible candidate is a faint star which
lies between the reference star BD -7 159 and the correct NGC 347, however, this
is about 50 arcsecs south of Bigourdan's stated position.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give Bigourdan's coordinates. The APL (=*?)
and Steinicke (Not found). NED has "!*" SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 75.
POSS. O-1274.
Javelle #517. 01hr 04m 34.446s + 10 34' 06.792" (1950).
01hr 07m 11.777s + 10 50' 08.156" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-35. Correctly identified in
the CGCG, PGC, UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX), APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO).
IC 77 and IC 80.
Javelle #41. 01hr 06m 14.871s -15 41' 19.508" (1950).
01hr 08m 43.220s -15 25' 20.068" (2000).
Both existing galaxies at Javelle's positions:
The confusion concerning these two associated galaxies is found in the modern
catalogues. Beginning with the MCG who equates its -03-04-08/09 with the identity IC
77, this is actually IC 80. This same error is repeated by SIMBAD. The PGC equates
MCG -3-4-08/09 with both the identities (IC 77) and (IC 80). NGC 2000, MOL,
Steinicke, NED and APL have the correct identification for IC 77.
Now as for IC 80 the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and NED have the correct
identity, while SIMBAD has slected another galaxy lying south following the correct
IC 80, equal to LEDA 4070 at 01hr 08m 52.42s -15 25' 19.0" (2000) as being IC 80.
IC 81.
POSS. O-1259.
Swift List VII, #2. 01hr 06m 38.535s - 01 56' 51.513" (1950).
01hr 09m 11.663s - 01 40' 52.632" (2000).
Historical description error : Swift's description "*8 close nf." should be
corrected to read "*8 close sf." This error pointed out by Howe (NGC/IC page
377). Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), CGCG, MCG,
Steinicke, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL.
IC 85.
POSS. O-1259.
Bigourdan #113. 01hr 09m 12.930s - 00 44' 12.207" (1950).
01hr 11m 46.456s - 00 28' 16.533" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
Not found : This is a strange case as it would appear that Bigourdan gives two
separate positions for this identity and at both there is no nebular object.
To begin, Bigourdan gives the above coordinates in the Comptes Rendus for March
31st 1891, describing it as "Mag. 13.5, trace of nebulosity, near BD -1 156 and
when these coordinates are examined on the DSS no nebular image is to
be found. His second publication for this object is in his OBSERVATIONS (1919),
in which he gives no coordinates but states that in relation to the galaxy NGC 430
there is a 13.5 Mv star which lies at a PA of 125 degrees and a distance of 2.7
arcmin and that immediately preceding this star there appears to be exceedingly
faint nebulosity, while the star itself also seems a little nebulous.
He measured a number of galaxies in the field on this same night, December 6th
1888, describing the conditions of the sky as being a little hazy or foggy and the
field of view a little bright.
Now he measures very good coordinates for NGC 430 of 01hr 10m 25.2s - 00 31' 14"
(NED gives 01hr 10m 26.5s - 00 31' 05") and correctly describes two associated
stars, the first of mag.13.5, PA 125 degrees, Dist. 2.7 arcmin and the second of
mag. 13.4, PA 190 degrees, Dist.0'.9 arcmin and these are clearly visible on the
DSS, therefore according to his 1919 observation for his #113 it should lie close
south following NGC 430, however, there is no nebular object there.
Comparison of his positions as given in the Comptes Rendus and the 1919
Observations are in no manner compatible, however, regardless of which position
one examines neither result in producing any nonstellar image.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL (=*) NED "!*", SIMBAD
and Steinicke (Not found).
IC 86.
POSS. O-1194.
Javelle #48. 01hr 11m 21.615s - 16 30' 10.527" (1950).
01hr 13m 49.277s - 16 14' 18.175" (2000). Based on Dreyer's incorrect precession
rate.
Confirmed galaxy : The historical error here concerns the Right Ascension annual
precession rate found in Dreyer's IC I catalogue in which he gives it as 3.19 tsec
when the correct rate would be 2.96 tsec. When the correct rate is applied to
Javelle's data it proves the correct coordinates for IC 86 at 01hr 11m 00.411s -
16 30' 18.668" (1950) or 01hr 13m 28.071s - 16 14' 25.461" (2000).
NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), APL and Steinicke have the correct coordinates. No
listing for this galaxy in the PGC. NED has correct identity. SIMBAD gives its IC
86 coordinates that land on a blank space north following the correct galaxy and
identifies the correct IC 86 as GSC 05851-01764.
IC 89.
POSS. O-1201.
Javelle #49. 01hr 13m 28.400s + 04 01' 47.967" (1950).
01hr 16m 03.706s + 04 17' 37.634" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 446 (Marth #38) : Marth's given coordinates for his #38 are
01hr 12m 26s + 04 2'.8 and at this position no nebular image exists, however, the
difference between Marth's position and that given by Javelle for his #49 is
essentially only 1 tmin and Steven Gottlieb has suggested that the two identities
are probably for the same galaxy, a proposal with which I am now in agreement.
Earlier I had thought that the Marth object was the candidate identified as NGC
446 by the CGCG, UGC, PGC, SIMBAD and DSFG which lies about 1.1 tmins preceding and
6.2 arcmins south of IC 89, but if this was Marth #38 it is very likely he would
have also seen Javelle #49 which is a full magnitude brighter and therefore he would
have discovered both galaxies, but as both Marth and Javelle report only a single
object in the field it is more likely that they are both referring to the same
object and that the Marth RA has a 1 tmin error.
The CGCG, UGC, PGC and DSFG by making both identities separate objects are in
error. The MCG correctly identifies IC 89 but does not give any equivalency while
it also correctly identifies the south preceding galaxy only as M +1-4-6. The RC3
lists only the identity IC 89. Carlson in her CORRECTIONS correctly notes the
equivalency, crediting Reinmuth (Die Herschel-Nebel). The MOL correctly equates
IC 89 with NGC 446 as does the APL and NED. Steinicke also gives equivalency.
NOTE : I wish to thank Steve Gottlieb who questioned my original conclusions
regarding these identities and convinced me that they are both for the same
object.
IC 92.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #115. 01hr 17m 00.473s + 32 30' 32.445" (1950).
01hr 19m 48.585s + 32 46' 16.662" (2000).
This is equivalent to NGC 468 (h 98) : Bigourdan in his observation of the
field thought he had made an observation of NGC 468 but it turns out that he was
actually confusing it for a double star about 0.1 tmin preceding the true NGC 468.
Unfortunately he then proceeded to believe that the true NGC 468 was a nova which
he listed as B.115. The MCG, MOL, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly note
the equivalency.
The NGC 2000 lists it as a galaxy with the query (different from NGC 468?) while
the CGCG gives only the identity IC 92. The UGC has no listing.
IC 93.
POSS. O-1194.
Swift List IX, #2. 01hr 16m 31.237s - 17 19' 49.214" (1950).
01hr 18m 58.099s - 17 04' 03.736" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1671 (Swift List XI, #18) : The NGC 2000,and MOL (NSO)
list both identities as separate objects. The MCG, and RC 3 give only the identity
IC 93. SIMBAD Gives the identity IC 93, but lists the identity IC 1671 as "Not
present in the database." The APL, NED, Steinicke and PGC have correctly given the
equivalency.
Note : Both Dreyer and the NGC 2000 incorrectly give Swift's description as "* 8
follows 14 s and 1' north ", but Swift correctly states "* 8 follows 46s, 1'
north."
IC 94.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #116. 01hr 17m 17.143s + 32 27' 22.112" (1950).
01hr 20m 05.275s + 32 43' 05.921" (2000).
This is a single star which suggested possible associated nebulosity to Bigourdan
: The NGC 2000 does not give any Type while the MOL lists it as (Nonstellar
Object) however, it should be remembered that both of these catalogues list all
of the IC identities regardless of whether they exist as nonstellar objects or
not. The CGCG, MCG, UGC and RC3 have no listing. The APL and Steinicke correctly
list this as = *. NED has"!*" SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 96 and IC 1672.
POSS. 0-30.
Safford #69. 01hr 17m 32.087s + 29 24' 29.820" (1950).
01hr 20m 18.625s + 29 40' 13.455" (2000). (IC 96).
Javelle #857. 01hr 17m 50.747s + 29 26' 01.974" (1950).
01hr 20m 37.346s + 29 41' 45.005" (2000). (IC 1672).
Unable to confirm : IC 96 is possibly equal to IC 1672 discovered by Javelle (J.
857) If this evaluation is correct then by historical precedent the correct
identity would be IC 96.
There are definitely 2 galaxies in the immediate field which would suggest that
one, the south preceding is IC 96 and the other is IC 1672. Javelle's coordinates
are very good and clearly establish that the north following object is the one he
recorded as his #857 (IC 1672). Meanwhile Safford's coordinates are not very good
and could be for either of the two field galaxies.
As Safford observed the field some thirty years prior to Javelle and reported on
only one object it may be reasonably assumed that he would have seen the brighter
galaxy, in this case the north following of the pair, Javelle's #857, which is
almost one magnitude brighter than the south preceding galaxy and the CGCG, UGC
(Notes) and MCG have each identified the brighter as IC 1672, while making the
other an Anon. (ZWG 502. 035 and MCG + 5-4-23). Javelle in his observation also
does not mention the south preceding galaxy, but this could be due to his
considering it to be Safford's IC 96, which is what the APL has concluded as they
do list the south preceding of the pair as being IC 96.
According to Safford's coordinates the separation values between the two objects
would amount to 19s RA and 1.6 arcmins dec. while the correct separation values
are about 5s RA and 5.2 arcmins dec. however, it must be pointed out that
Safford's coordinates are usually not very precise.
Whether IC 96 and IC 1672 are separate galaxies or duplicate identities is
difficult to resolve. At this time I would favor the equivalency because of the
magnitude factor.
The RC3 and PGC give only IC 1672, while the NGC 2000, Steinicke and MOL list IC
96 and IC 1672 as separate objects with different coordinates without mention of
any equivalency. The NED lists the identity IC 96 and the identity IC 1672 as
separate galaxies. SIMBAD has IC 96 "Object of unknown nature," and IC 1672 "Galaxy
in Pair of Galaxies."
IC 97.
POSS. O-635.
Bigourdan #117. 01hr 17m 22.234s + 14 36' 03.357" (1950).
01hr 20m 01.902s + 14 51' 47.290" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 475 (Marth) : Marth discovered a Nova which he measured to
be at 01hr 17m 24s + 14 36'.5, however, Peters who later examined the field stated
that Marth's RA was too small by about 15 tsec and when Dreyer listed Marth's
object as NGC 475 he gave it the coordinates given by Peters.
Bigourdan in his NGC survey looked for NGC 475 at the corrected coordinates and
found what is only a faint star but he thought that perhaps it did suggest
extremely faint traces of nebulosity, thus having found what he believed was NGC
475 he also reported the existence in the field of a nova, (IC 97) at the
coordinates shown above. Comparison of Marth and Bigourdan's coordinates show
that they are the same object and that Marth's original coordinates are, contrary
to Peters and Dreyer, the correct ones for NGC 475.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL give both the same coordinates but without any
reference to their identities being equal. Steinicke has (= NGC 475). PGC has no
listing for IC 97 giving only the identity NGC 475. NED gives correct equivalency.
SIMBAD has IC 97 "Not present in the database," but does list NGC 475 without IC
equivalency.
NOTE : Dr. Corwin in his APL and NGC/IC Bugs List is to my knowledge the first
person to solve this problem.
IC 104.
POSS. O-1259.
Bigourdan #118. 01hr 22m 00.370s - 01 42' 59.359" (1950).
01hr 24m 33.457s - 01 27' 22.281" (2000).
This is a double star : Bigourdan describes it as "Strongly stellar in
appearance, looks like a 13.3 mag. star faintly nebulous." Its appearance on the
DSS is a double star whose two components are almost in contact and aligned north
preceding south following.
Correctly listed as a double star in the NGC 2000, MOL, APL and Steinicke. NED
Gives "!**" SIMBAD "Double or multiple star."
IC 106.
POSS. O-1259.
Bigourdan #119. 01hr 22m 08.695s - 01 50' 48.760" (1950)
01hr 24m 41.725s - 01 35' 11.846" (2000).
Equal to NGC 530 (Swift List VI, #9) : Swift's coordinates for his NGC 530 are
01hr 22m 23s - 01 51' 09" and due to the 15 tsec difference Bigourdan probably
thought that his #119 was an entirely separate object, however, it should be
pointed out that although Bigourdan discovered his #119 on Nov. 16th 1887 his
observation for NGC 530 is dated Oct. 26th 1897, or almost 10 years later at which
time he measured a position for NGC 530 of 01hr 22m 06s - 01 51' 27" and this
should have alerted him to the strong possibility that NGC 530 and IC 106 were the
same object, yet he never indicates this in his OBSERVATIONS. Furthermore, he
employed exactly the same reference star for both identities, a 10th mag. star he
called "Anon. (4)" and his separation values for both identities are almost
identical.
The MCG incorrectly identifies its -0-4-122 as being NGC 530 = IC 1696 (which
see), this error noted in the PGC The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 530. The
equivalency IC 106/NGC 530 is correctly listed in the NGC 2000, MOL, CGCG, UGC,
APL, PGC. NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 107.
POSS. O-635.
Swift List X, #5. 01hr 22m 25.505s + 14 37' 06.672 (1950).
01hr 25m 05.545s + 14 52' 42.928" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1700 (Javelle #879) : Examination of the Palomar print shows
3 galaxies in close association to each other. I shall call them in order of
right ascension Objects A, B and C.
Close to Swift's coordinates we find that Object A is located (1hr 22m 33.3s + 14
36' 40" Corwin's coordinates in the APL) and it is because of this that the modern
catalogues, CGCG, UGC, MCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL all make Object
A = IC 107, however, Dr. Corwin in his APL and NGC/Bugs List states that this is in
error and that IC 107 is equal to IC 1700 (Object C) and I am convinced that he is
correct. Steinicke also makes this equivalency.
Corwin confirms his selection by pointing out that Swift in his description of IC
107 stated "Star close preceding" and that this is what one finds for Object C not
Object A, additionally Corwin refers to the fact that the difference between
Swift's RA and IC 1700 is about 20 tsecs, not an unusual error in measurement
with Swift, and I believe that there is also more evidence to back up this choice.
Swift made his observation almost 6 years prior to Javelle's "discovery" of IC
1700 and if we accept that Object A is Swift's IC 107 (as the modern catalogues
list it) then it would be certain that he would have also seen and discovered
Javelle's IC 1700, Object C, as it is more than a magnitude brighter than Object
A, therefore I believe that Swift never saw Object A and that the fact that his
coordinates would suggest that he did is only a coincidence based upon there being
a galaxy (A) located close.
As Swift saw only one object in the field it would most likely have been the
brightest, (Object C).
This plus Corwin's findings convinces me that IC 107 is equal to IC 1700 and that
by historical precedence the correct identification of Object C is IC 107 as Swift
was the first to see this galaxy.
The second by right ascension of the three is IC 1698 (Object B) and the CGCG,
UGC, MCG, PGC, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL correctly identify it as such. however, there
is an additional problem when it comes to the other IC identity in the group, namely
IC 1699.
IC 1699 was credited to Javelle (his #878). He placed it at 1hr 22m 44s + 14
41'.6 or at a separation from his reference star BD =14 215 (Mv 9.5) of 0 tmin
22.98s following and 5 arcmin 49.6arcsec north, (This star is also GSC 620-340)
and when these separations are measured on the Palomar print the position shows
only a blank space lying about 0.3 tmin preceding and ~1 arcmin south of the
galaxy U00999 or at an RA between Object B and C and about 6 arcmins. north,
however, Dr. Corwin in both his APL selects Object A, the preceding of the three,
as being Javelle's #878 = IC 1699.
Javelle's coordinates for his 3 objects , all measured from the same star, BD +14
215, are
#877 = IC 1698. 1hr 22m 43s + 14 35'.1
#878 = IC 1699. 1hr 22m 44s + 14 41'.6
#879 = IC 1700. 1hr 22m 46s + 14 36'.7
Dr. Corwin's coordinates for these same identities as given in the APL are
IC 1698. 1hr 22m 41.9s + 14 34' 36" (Corwin).
IC 1699. 1hr 22m 33.3s + 14 36' 40" (Corwin).
IC 1700. 1hr 22m 44.7s + 14 36' 13" (Dressel and Condon).
This then means that Dr. Corwin has selected Object A ( the same object
incorrectly identified in the modern catalogues as IC 107) as being IC 1699 with
which at this time I am in disagreement as I cannot determine from the historical
data how this could possibly be what Javelle was referring to as his #878. It
does appear that Javelle did see Object A but that he also identified it as being
Swift's IC 107 for in his description of IC 1698 he adds a Note stating "On a
mesuré INDEX CAT.107."
Therefore I would suggest that IC 1699 is Not found and that Object A is an Anon.
as even if Javelle saw Object A he cannot receive credit for it as an IC identity.
The only other modern sources to list the identity IC 1699 are Steinicke (Not
found). The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both give coordinates consistent
with Javelle's data. The PGC shows IC 107 and IC 1700 as two separate galaxies.
For the identity IC 1699 NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
NOTE: Dr. Corwin in his latest version of the APL (November 19th 2004), states "IC
1699 is probably a second observation of IC 1698."
IC 110.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #120. 01hr 22m 59.999s + 33 15' 40.997" (1950).
01hr 25m 49.611s + 33 31' 16.072" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at the precise position given by Bigourdan's data.
The only other possible candidate in the vicinity would appear to be below 17.0 Mp
which suggests that it would be too faint for Bigourdan to have seen.
CGCG, UGC, MCG and RC3 have no listing. The NGC 2000 gives no Type, while the MOL
gives (Nonstellar Object). Carlson questions whether it might be a duplicate
observation of NGC 552. "NGC 552 ?" The APL gives "Nothing at nominal position "
and also (=**). Steinicke has (NF). NED types it as "Other." SIMBAD "Object of
unknown nature."
IC 111.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #121. 01hr 23m 10.361s + 33 14' 16.181" (1950).
01hr 25m 59.989s +33 29' 50.981" (2000).
Not found : The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC and RC3 as would be expected do not have any
listing for this identity. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) while the MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). The APL has "Nothing at nominal position" and "Group of six
stars." NED shows as "Other ." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke has
(Not found).
IC 115.
POSS. O-1251.
Burnham. 01hr 24m 11.757s + 18 57' 22.522" (1950).
01hr 26m 53.943s + 19 12' 56.041" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as + 3-4-39, this being pointed out in
the PGC (Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3,
APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 117.
POSS. O-1259.
Javelle #58. 01hr 24m 48.084s - 02 07' 25.186" (1950).
01hr 27m 20.974s - 01 51' 52.489" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no nebular image is present, however, the
closest object would be a star and the APL, MOL and NGC 2000 each identify IC 117
as being a star, while Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).. There is a
rather curious situation concerning the NGC 2000 as it also identifies the galaxy
NGC 558 as being equal to IC 117 and this makes for some interesting speculation.
The immediate field contains a number of galaxies including NGC 558, NGC 560 and
IC 564 and in Part 1 of Javelle's Catalogue he states as a footnote to his
observation for his #58 = IC 117, that he saw these 3 NGC galaxies.
Now Javelle would most likely have had his positional data for NGC 560 from Dreyer
who gives it excellent coordinates of 01hr 24m 52s - 02 10'.6, thus Javelle's
IC 117 would have separation values of - 0 tmin 5.4 tsec and - 03.3 arcmin, but
supposing the declination offset was + 03.3 arcmin then IC 117 would lie at 01hr
24m 46.6s -02 13'.9 and we now find that the galaxy NGC 558 has coordinates of
01hr 24m 42.9s - 02 13' 53", (APL), which certainly is an excellent positional
match.
It must be cautioned that all of this is totally based upon playing with
positional data and that one of the strongest arguments to be made against this
equivalency is that none of it fits when we apply Javelle's offsets from his
reference star the 8.6 Mv. DM -2 220, also there is the fact that Javelle claims
that he saw NGC 558 at the time he was observing the field and therefore it is
hardly likely that he would have confused it with his #58.
IC 124.
POSS. O-1259.
Javelle #62. 01hr 26m 36.256s - 02 11' 36.828" (1950).
01hr 29m 09.098s - 01 56' 07.058" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings found are the NGC 2000, MOL,
Steinicke and APL and all of these make it equal to a star. NED has "!*." SIMBAD "=
star."
IC 126.
POSS. O-1259.
Javelle #64. 01hr 27m 15.304s - 02 14' 27.686" (1950).
01hr 29m 48.119s - 01 58' 58.980" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error involved has nothing to do with the identity
but an error in the description as it appears in the NGC 2000 in which they give
"557 f." this should be corrected to read "577 f."
IC 128.
POSS. O-439.
Javelle #65. 01hr 28m 55.718s - 12 52' 54.696" (1950).
01hr 31m 23.663s - 12 37' 28.716" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG incorrectly equates its -2-4-62 with IC 128, it should
be MCG -2-4-63. This error pointed out in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly
listed in all the other modern catalogues.
IC 134.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #125. 01hr 30m 35.975s + 30 37' 52.559" (1950).
01hr 33m 25.267s + 30 53' 15.361" (2000).
This is a single star superimposed upon the spiral structure of NGC 598 :
This is one of Bigourdan's Missing objects (Not found in his 1919 work but
included in his Comptes Rendus publications). Only modern listings are NGC 2000
(= star), APL = *, Steinicke (=*) and MOL (Single star). NED gives "!*" SIMBAD (=
star).
IC 146.
POSS. O-349.
Javelle #70. 01hr 36m 15.662s - 18 05' 05.498" (1950).01hr 38m 40.469s - 17 49' 52.194" (2000).
Equivalent with NGC 648 (Leavenworth) : It is quite understandable why Javelle
might have considered his # 70 to be a new object as Leavenworth's RA for NGC 648
has an error of about 1 tmin 40 tsec.
The MOL gives both identities without any indication of equivalency. The MCG
gives only the identity NGC 648. The NGC 2000, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
each correctly make IC 146 = NGC 648.
IC 148.
POSS. O-15.
Swift List X, No.6. 01hr 39m 42.196s + 13 23' 44.189" (1950).
01hr 42m 22.802s + 13 38' 50.811" (2000).
Not found. Possible candidate? : At Swift's given coordinates no nebular object
exists, however, when the Palomar print is examined there is a 13.9 Mp galaxy at
about 20 arcmins north of Swift's declination and it does north-precede NGC 660,
something Swift stated in his description.
The Accurate Positions List (APL), NED and SIMBAD identify this galaxy as being IC
148 giving positions measured by Skiff, Dressel and Condon and equating it with
U01195, however, it should be pointed out that neither Dressel and Condon, PGC or
the UGC give this object an IC identity, nor does the CGCG (ZWG 437.010) or MCG (
+2-5-11), identify it as IC 148. The only other modern sources to list the identity
IC 148 are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both give coordinates consistent
with Swift. Steinicke has (Not found).
In support of the APL's selected candidate there is the Swift description, also an
error of 20 arcmins in declination would not be unexpected in Swift's positional
data.
IC 149.
POSS. O-349.
Javelle #533. 01hr 39m 58.479s - 16 33' 03.939" (1950).
01hr 42m 23.803s - 16 17' 57.484" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the PGC and MCG only as -3-5-15. NED has correct
identity. SIMBAD list it as "Not present in the database," while listing the
galaxy as MCG-3-5-015. NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke have correct
identity.
IC 151.
POSS. O-15.
Swift List X, No.7. 01hr 41m 17.039s + 12 57' 10.717" (1950).
01hr 43m 57.509s + 13 12' 14.379" (2000).
Not found at nominal position: Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), APL (Nominal position
only), Steinicke (Not found) and MOL (NSO). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown
nature."
IC 153.
POSS. O-15.
Swift List X, No.9. 01hr 41m 56.729s + 12 22' 39.244" (1950).
01hr 44m 36.931s + 12 37' 41.658" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At the coordinates as given by Swift no object exists,
however, at about 16 arcmins south there is the galaxy ZWG 437.018, Mp 15.2.
Whether this is Swift's No.9 I am unable to say, although the difference in
declination in itself is not excessive when dealing with Swift's positional data.
Other modern listings for the identity IC 153 are the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO), both giving Swift's coordinates. Steinicke (Not found). NED "Other." SIMBAD
"Object of unknown nature." APL (IC 153 is lost).
IC 157
POSS. O-15.
Swift List X, No.10. 01hr 43m 01.958s + 12 37' 24.817" (1950).
01hr 45m 42.356s + 12 52' 25.145" (2000).
Unable to confirm : Certainly once again no nebular image is to be found at
Swift's coordinates, however, Swift gave a position for IC 152 of 1hr 41m 27s + 12
47'.3 and the CGCG identifies IC 152 at 1hr 41.3m + 12 49'.0 Now when the
separation values (1m 34s RA, 09.8 arcsec dec.) between Swift's positions for IC
152 and IC 157 are applied to the CGCG's coordinates for IC 152 there is quite
close to this position a galaxy image. Again whether this could possibly be what
Swift was referring to I cannot say with conviction, therefore I shall leave it as
Unconfirmed.
Modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both reflecting Swift's
coordinates. Steinicke (Not found). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown
nature." APL (Lost).
IC 161 and IC 162.
POSS. O-15.
Swift List IX, No.3 and List X, Nos. 11 & 12.
This is an interesting problem and the credit for its solution is due to DR.
Harold Corwin who points out the errors in both his APL and NGC/Bugs List.
Swift first observed the field on October 3rd 1889 and saw only one object, his
No.3, which he placed at 1hr 46m 15.677s +10 16' 29.428 (1950) and describing it
as "eeF; S; cE; bet.2 distant st. in meridian."
The second time he examined the field, January 7th 1891 he measured coordinates
for an object, No.12, at 1hr 46m 07s + 10 16'.9 "eeF; pS; R." He also on January
8th 1891, recorded the existence of a second object, his No.11, at 1hr 46m 05.564s
+ 10 06' 41.816" (1950). "eeeF; S; R."
When the Palomar print is consulted there is a galaxy (A), the south preceding of
two, which fits Swift's description as given for his object No.3, however, Swift's
RA is too large by about 11 tseconds, meanwhile Swift's data for his No.12 observation
is also consistent with Palomar galaxy (A), having a more accurate RA
and it is Dr. Corwin's position, which I fully support, that Swift's Nos. 3 and 12
are for Object (A).
Corwin additionally points out that Object (A) is the brighter of the two galaxies
and that in the 1889 observation Swift only saw one galaxy which would most likely
be the brighter one (Object A), yet Dreyer in his IC I has made the combined
observations for Swift's No.3 and No.12 equal to the north following Palomar
galaxy, Object (B) identifying it as IC 162
Now as for Swift's object No.11. From his description it would appear that he was
referring to Palomar object (B) but that there is a 8 tsec RA error and a 10
arcmin error in the declination value he gives and that it should be corrected to
read 1hr 46m 12s + 10 16'.8.
Thus Object (A) is IC 161 and Object (B) is IC 162, however, because of the
misleading Dreyer data the CGCG (ZWG 437.033), UGC (U01266), MCG (+ 2-5-38) and
PGC (6643) have all incorrectly identified Object (A) as being IC 162 while making
Object (B) an Anon. = ZWG 437.034, U01267, PGC #6644 and MCG +2-5-39.
The NGC 2000 incorrectly gives IC 161 the declination value of + 10 07.1 but
correctly makes Object (B) = IC 162. The MOL gives the correct identities and
coordinates while the RC3 correctly selects Object (B) as being IC 162. Steinicke,
SIMBAD and NED have the correct identities.
NOTE : Dr. Corwin (APL) also shows that Dressel and Condon plus Kojoian, Elliott
& Tovmassian (Astron J. 86, 811, 1981.-Markarian 798-1095.) have incorrectly
identified Object (A) as being IC 162.
IC 165.
POSS. O-896.
Swift List 9, No. 6. 01hr 47m 22.722s + 27 22' 45.064" (1950).
01hr 50m 12.375s + 27 37' 36.625" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 684 (H 612-2) : All the modern authorities correctly equate
these two identities.
IC 172.
POSS.O-362.
Javelle #541. 01hr 52m 20.079s + 00 34' 02.148" (1950).
01hr 54m 54.204s + 00 48' 44.006" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The NGC 2000 types this as "Nebula" while the MOL makes it
"Bright Nebula."
Correctly identified in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, Steinicke, PGC and APL.
IC 173.
POSS. O-852.
Javelle #542. 01hr 53m 21.805s + 01 02' 30.994" (1950).
01hr 55m 56.199s + 01 17' 10.695" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Described in the MOL as a "Faint Nebula." Correctly listed
as a galaxy in the CGCG,UGC, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and
APL.
IC 175.
POSS. O-852.
Javelle #543. 01hr 53m 43.765s + 01 05' 14.021" (1950).
01hr 56m 18.186s + 01 19' 52.958" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Typed in both the NGC 2000 and MOL as a "Faint nebula."
Correctly listed as a galaxy in CGCG, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL.
IC 177.
POSS. O-852.
Javelle #75. 01hr 54m 26.699s - 00 20' 05.864" (1950).
01hr 57m 00.320s - 00 05' 28.413" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's coordinates are not very accurate due to the
inaccurate position he gives for his reference star DM -0,296 (equal to GSC 4686-
002) which he gives as 01hr 48m 59.50s 00 45' 00.0 1860 Epoch, when it should be
01hr 48m 53.5s 00 41' 35.0" (1860).
The APL gives IC 177 01hr 54m 27.1 - 00 20'.0 (1950) and these reflect much
greater precision.
The MCG has incorrectly identified MCG 0-6-03 as being IC 177, this is an "Anon."
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) base their coordinates upon Dreyer which
in turn reflects Javelle's data. The CGCG, RC3, APL, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke
have the correct identity and coordinates.
IC 181.
POSS. O-896.
Javelle #545. 01hr 57m 14.232s + 23 24' 58.696" (1950).
02hr 00m 02.387s + 23 39' 29.770" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy at the coordinates given by Javelle : It is most likely equal
to the CGCG galaxy ZWG 482.040. Mentioned, but not identified in the Notes
section of the UGC for NGC 776 as a comp. 1hr 57.2m + 23 25'.0 at a distance of
2.8 arcmin, PA 150, Mp 15.7 The Notes confuse the position angles (63 degrees and
150 degrees) for the identities IC 180 and IC 181. The MCG due to its very general
coordinate values (10th of a minute in both RA and Dec), can be confusing, as when
its position for its +4-5-30 = IC 181 is entered into the DSS it lands directly on
the middle one of the three field galaxies, namely NGC 776, however, the relative
order of Declination it gives for the 3 listed objects are correct therefore its
numbers 28, 29 and 30 are the correct NGC and IC identities. It is listed in both
the NGC 2000 and MOL. Identified by
PGC as = ZWG 482.039 = MCG +04-05-030, but ZWG 482.039 is IC 180 not
IC 181 NED equates it with ZWG 482.040. APL has correct identity, as does Steinicke
and SIMBAD.
IC 187.
POSS. O-896.
Swift List IX, No.7. 01hr 59m 01.593s + 26 13' 52.504" (1950).
02hr 01m 51.950s + 26 28' 19.638" (2000).
This is almost certainly the CGCG ZWG 482.048, also listed as only U 01507 in the
UGC and only as +4-5-37 in the MCG Listed in both the NGC 2000 and MOL. RC3,
Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, and APL give correct identity.
IC 188.
POSS. O-896.
Swift List IX, No.8. 01hr 59m 07.081s + 26 47' 16.280" (1950).
02hr 01m 57.857s + 27 01' 43.197" (2000).
Unable to find. Possibly a faint star : This identification is actually based
upon a observation by Lewis Swift's son Edward, who made this observation on the
same night he discovered IC 187 and he described it as "eeef, vS; R; 2 stars point
to it. Found searching for Swift's Comet."
The APL has two entries for what they identify as being IC 188, the first
referenced to Dressel and Condon at 1hr 58m 56.0s + 26 18' 15" (and which it
should be pointed out that they do not identify this as being IC 188) and the
second by Dr. Corwin at 1hr 58m 54s + 26 18'.2 offset from SAO 075099 and at these
coordinates there is the image of a galaxy, listed in the CGCG as ZWG 482.049, the
UGC as U 01510, PGC 7706 and MCG + 4-5-38, however, with the exception of the APL
none of these other sources identify this object as being IC 188. The NED has
identified as IC 187 the galaxy UGC 01507 which is one of the two associated
galaxies south preceding APL's second candidate. SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
Swift's declination separations for IC 187 (for which he measured a very good
declination) and IC 188 are about 33.4 arcmin, whereas the APL's would be less
than 4 arcmins, a considerable difference. Now one can credibly argue that such a
discrepancy in coordinates is not in itself impossible in Swift's given data,
however, I have a problem in that on the same night in which IC 187 was found and
measured the discoverer would have so badly measured a declination for IC 188 if
it was only about 15s of RA following and 3.5 arcmin north of IC 187 as the APL's
selection requires.
The only reason I can see that would support the APL candidate being IC 188 is
that north preceding it there are 2 stars pointing towards it, however, at Swift's
nominal position, where no nebular image exists, I can find on the Palomar print 2
field stars fitting that requirement, something I dare say is applicable to almost
any position on the prints. Now if Swift had indicated that the 2 stars were
north preceding his object then this would be more supportive of the APL
candidate, but he never stated this.
Additionally I searched through all of Swift's lists and in those cases in which
he claims more than one discovery in the same field of view (remembering that the
field of view he employed was unusually large) he always described them in his
lists as NP or SP of 2, or NF or SF of 2, many at much larger separations than the
APL's separations, yet in the case of IC 187 and IC 188 he does not state this.
Finally, consider Swift's reference to the brightness factor. His description
eeeF, stresses that what he was referring to was more than excessively faint, yet
the APL's IC 188 candidate is according to the CGCG and UGC of Mp 14.4 and its Mv
is probably brighter.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) identify IC 188, however, both of these
catalogues list all the IC identities and it should be pointed out that they list
it at coordinates consistent with the Swift data. Steinicke has (Not found).
IC 189.
POSS. O- 896.
Javelle #550. 01hr 59m 04.652s + 23 18' 35.955" (1950).
02hr 01m 52.936s + 23 33' 03.014" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It was found at Javelle's coordinates. Listed in the MCG
only as +4-5-39. CGCG, DSFG (NOTES to NGC776), NGC 2000 and MOL correctly list
it. No listing in UGC. Correctly listed in the APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 191.
POSS. O-1202.
Swift List IX, No.9. 01hr 59m 42.184s + 18 07' 38.622' (1950).
02hr 02m 27.040s + 18 22' 04.386" (2000).
It is equal to NGC 794 (H 207-3) : This equivalency was suspected by Dreyer and
so entered in his description in the IC I. The RC3 and MGC give only the identity
NGC 794. The CGCG, UGC, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and PGC
each have the correct equivalency.
IC 199.
(See IC 1778).
IC 203.
POSS. O-1282.
Javelle #558. 02hr 04m 51.050s + 08 53' 06.011" (1950).
02hr 07m 30.333s + 09 07' 20.394" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC mentions this galaxy in its NOTES for U01610 = IC 202,
however, it does not identify it as an IC object. Only modern listings are APL,
Steinicke, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has correct identity SIMBAD "Not
present in the database," but lists it as 212915.
IC 206.
POSS. O-1281.
Javelle #77. 02hr 07m 01.636s -07 12' 14.964" (1950).
02hr 09m 30.963s - 06 58' 05.376" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is the first of two Javelle discoveries in the same
field, the other being IC 207, however it is not at the coordinates as given in
his catalogue. Javelle states that his reference star is DM-7 364 (Mv 9.8)
at 02hr 05m 53.5s -07 17'.7 (1950) and when his separation values (-00m 52.7s and
-01'.9) are applied to this star no nebular image is found. The correct star (AC
#2114784) is also of 9th magnitude and has a 2000 position of about 02hr 10m
23.602s - 07 00' 01.85".
When his separation values are applied to this star they show the correct IC 206
to be located at 02hr 07m 01.636s - 07 12' 14.954" (1950) or 02hr 09m 30.963s - 06
58' 05.376" (2000).
The MCG identifies IC 206 as an "Anon" -1-6-53. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO) both incorrectly give it the incorrect coordinates based upon Dreyer. The
APL, NED, PGC, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identification.
IC 207.
POSS. O-1281.
Javelle #78. 02hr 07m 10.583s - 07 09' 31.658" (1950).
02hr 09m 39.934s - 06 55' 22.416" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is the companion to IC 206 and Javelle again gives the
incorrect reference star DM.-7 364.
When his separation values (-00m 43.8s and - 04'.6) are applied to the correct
star (AC #2114784) they land exactly on the companion to IC 206 which further
proves that Javelle's stated reference star is incorrect. The corrected nominal
coordinates for IC 207 are 02hr 07m 10.583s - 07 09' 31.658" (1950) or 02hr 09m
39.934s - 06 55' 22.416" (2000).
Identified in the MCG as "Anon" -1-6-54. Again the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
have the incorrect coordinates. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list
it as An Infra-Red source (IRAS 02071-0709). The APL, NED PGC and Steinicke are
correct.
Note: (See Corwin's Corrections to IC Puzzles).
IC 211.
POSS.O-1282.
Javelle #559. 02hr 08m 31.151s + 03 36' 59.821" (1950).
02hr 11m 07.233s + 03 51' 05.783" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, SIMBAD, APL, PGC,
Steinicke, RC3, NED and NGC 2000 (GX).
The error is the RA given by the MOL (NSO) which is 2hr 07m 33s.
IC 216.
POSS. O-852.
Javelle #81. 02hr 13m 23.437s - 02 14' 43.876" (1950).
02hr 15m 55.797s - 02 00' 49.435" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG and PGC only as ZWG 387.061. Correctly
identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD and NED have
correct object.
IC 217.
POSS. O-1183.
Javelle #563. 02hr 13m 45.888s - 12 09' 26.524" (1950).
02hr 16m 11.705s - 11 55' 32.883" (2000).
Equal to IC 1787 (Swift XI #37) : There can be no doubt that Swift made a
duplicate observation of IC 217. Comparison of his description matches exactly
the appearance of IC 217.
The MCG gives the single identity IC 217 while both the NGC 2000 and MOL give both
identities as having separate coordinates. The PGC, APL, Simbad, NED and Steinicke
have the correct equivalency. SIMBAD lists the identity IC 217 but without any
equivalency.
IC 219.
POSS. O-1281.
Javelle #82. and Stone #67. (discovered by Muller).
02hr 16m 09.587s - 07 07' 59.994s (1950).
02hr 18m 38.682s - 06 54' 12.280 (2000). Javelle.
02hr 16m 09.812s - 07 08' 00.236" (1950).
02hr 18m 38.905s - 06 54' 12.517" (2000). Stone.
Confirmed galaxy : The only errors here are the incorrect annual RA precession
rate as given by Dreyer ( + 3.97 tsec), this should be corrected to + 2.97, and
Stone's RA which is about 44 tsec too large.
All of the modern authorities have the correct coordinates.
IC 228.
POSS. O-440.
Javelle #85. 02hr 24m 17.810s - 14 44' 21.199" (1950).
02hr 26m 41.202s - 14 30' 53.948" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 944. (Leavenworth) : In this particular case Leavenworth had
given his NGC 944 a RA of 02hr 25m 43s or about 1 tmin 25 tsec larger than Javelle
gave for his #85, thus the confusion.
The MOL lists both identities as separate entries. The equivalency is correctly
given in the MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, NED, APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD curiously, gives
the galaxy the identity NGC 944 and omits the IC identity, which historically had
the correct coordinates.
IC 229.
POSS. O-1287.
Thome. 02hr 25m 06.856s - 24 02' 36.134" (1950).
02hr 27m 22.920s - 23 49' 10.654" (2000).
Not found : There is no nebular image at the nominal position. The closest
galaxy (ESO 479-G007) lies about 7 arcmin south, however, it is about 15.6 Mp and
therefore would have been beyond the capability of Thome's small telescope.
Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Both the APL and Steinicke have (Not
found) as does SIMBAD. NED types as "Other."
IC 233.
POSS O-1233.
Javelle #568. 02hr 29m 04.374s + 02 35'22.438" (1950).
02hr 31m 40.036s + 02 48' 36.825" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: There is absolutely no doubt that it is the brighter of two field
associated galaxies that is Javelle's object and has the faint star he describes as
1 arcmin south. The CGCG's coordinates are hardly precise, however, their magnitude
(14.9) indicates the correct object. Not listed in the UGC or MCG.
NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have the correct identity, as do Steinicke, PGC, NED and
the APL. SIMBAD incorrectly make IC 233 the fainter, south following galaxy.
IC 240.
POSS. O- 449.
Bigourdan #136. 02hr 35m 48.085s + 41 30 34.434" (1950).
02hr 38m 59.464s +41 43' 29.515" (2000).
Equal to a line of 4 faint stars : The solution to this problem is solely due to
Dr. Corwin who in researching the identity discovered that in an appendix
(Appendix #9) given by Bigourdan he corrected his original position of his #136 in
relation to his reference star, which is equal to AC 2000.2 #1427128, by changing
the PA from 30 degrees to 210 degrees, which in turn reverses the directions of
his measured offsets so that they both should read as + and not -, which then
places his #136 at 2hr 35m 48.085s +41 30" 34.434" (1950), where there is only a
line of 4 faint stars
The CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD and UGC are wrong in equating it with NGC 999. Bigourdan
measured both identities during the same observation, describing IC 240 as
excessively faint and only suspected to be nebulous. He used the same reference
star for each measurement placing IC 240 ~ 4 tsec of RA preceding and 1 tmin 58 tsec
south of NGC 999. which although he later corrected indicates that he was not
confusing his #136 for NGC 999.
The NGC 2000 gives no Type while the MOL lists it as (Nonstellar Object). It is
not listed in the MCG. The APL correctly states "(HCo) = line of 3-4 sts. Offset
from NGC 999." Steinicke has (* group). NED types as "Other."
IC 242.
POSS. O-1292.
Javelle #88. 02hr 35m 55.612s - 07 08' 56.730" (1950).
02hr 38m 24.119s - 06 56' 00.806" (2000).
This is a double star : The MCG has misidentified its -1-7-26 as being IC 242 as
has SIMBAD, but this is actually IC 243. When Javelle's separation values are
measured from his reference star, the 9.4 Mp DM -7 464, they confirm that IC 242 is
a double star. The NGC 2000 types IC 242 as (Gx), but they are using the MCG as
their source and the DSFG also makes the same mistake. The MOL gives (NSO).
Correctly typed as a double star in the APL, NED and by Steinicke. The PGC
incorrectly equates IC 242 with IC 243
IC 246.
POSS. O-1283.
Swift List VII, No.6. 02hr 37m 30.250s + 02 16' 19.832" (1950).
02hr 40m 05.761s + 02 29' 11.210" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Howe gave a correction in RA for this object (See NGC/IC. page
377.) enlarging it by some 22 tsec. The only other error involved is that Dreyer
in his description states "eeF, vF, R, 2 eeF st. nr." This should read "eeF, vS,
R, 2 eeF st nr."
IC 249.
POSS. O-1292.
Javelle #92. 02hr 38m 33.586s - 07 08' 56.314" (1950).
02hr 41m 02.120s - 06 56' 07.740" (2000).
Equal to NGC 961 (O.Stone II,#338) = NGC 1051 (Stephan List XI, #5).
To begin, Javelle stated that his object was "distinct from NGC 1051" yet his
coordinates differ from Stephan's by only 02 tsec and 13 arcsec, furthermore his
description for IC 249 "Pretty bright, small, 20 tsec in size and of uniform
surface brightness" can only be for IC 1051.
As for the other equivalency with NGC 961 this was established by Corwin (APL) and
results from the very poor RA position as given by Stone which would place NGC 961
at a RA of 02hr 28.7m.
The MOL gives all three identities separate coordinates. The MCG, NGC 2000, PGC,
and NED each give the equivalency with NGC 1051 while the RC3 and DSFG
give only a single identity (NGC 1051). The APL, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke are the
only sources to make the double equivalency.
Note : (See Corwin. APL).
IC 254.
POSS. O-440.
Javelle #97. 02hr 39m 42.670s - 15 19' 09.460" (1950).
02hr 42m 04.668s - 15 06' 23.953" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy ; This is not equal to NGC 1065 as listed in the MCG, NGC 2000
and PGC. IC 254 is a separate galaxy located close south preceding NGC 1065,
exactly where Javelle's offsets from his reference star DM -15 477 (Mv 7.5) places
it and it can be distinguished by having a faint star attached to its north
preceding edge. Also Javelle states in a footnote to his description that it is
different from NGC 1065 which he also measured at the same time. The MOL (NSO),
Steinicke, NED and APL correctly list it as a separate identity. Simbad incorrectly
equates it with NGC 1065.
IC 256.
POSS O-845.
Swift List VIII.#2. 02hr 46m 25.198s + 46 46' 24,250" (1950).
02hr 49m 46.700s + 46 58' 48.806" (2000).
Confirmed Galaxy : Incorrectly identified in MCG as +8-6-11 which is actually IC
257. This error detected by the PGC (Corrections). Not listed in CGCG, UGC or
RC3. Correctly listed in the APL, Steinicke, NED NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO).
SIMBAD equates it with IC 257.
IC 258 & IC 259.
POSS. 0-449.
Burnham. 02hr 46m 33.200s + 40 51' 13.242" (1950).
02hr 49m 45.778s + 41 03' 37.742" (2000). (IC 258).
02hr 46m 56.334s + 40 51' 17.258" (1950).
02hr 50m 08.986" + 41 03' 40.625" (2000). (IC 259).
Confirmed galaxies : The error here consists in the order of Right Ascension and
Declination as given to these two identities by the majority of sources both
historical and modern.
Burnham describes his discovery as "Both in the field with a 9.5-m star, DM +40
608, and I have measured directly from this star. The following nebula of the two
is double. The nuclei are small and fairly well defined. The other is only a
little brighter in the center, and considerably diffused. I have called the
magnitudes of the nuclei of the double nebula each 14." (Publications of the Lick
Observatory. Vol 2 ).
From his star he measured the PA and Separation to his Nebula #1 as 288.8 and
110.27 tsec and that to his Nebula #2 as 285.5 and 169.26 tsec. and from this he
derived his coordinates as given above.
When the Palomar print is consulted the following discrepancies are apparent.
Firstly, it is the preceding, not the following object which is the double system.
Secondly, the following of the two lies a few arcsecs south, not north of the
preceding one.
Because of these errors in Burnham's relative positions Dreyer was misled and
therefore the order of identification should be reversed so that the north
preceding galaxy is IC 259 and the south following one IC 258. The CGCG, UGC,
DSFG, NGC 2000, RC3, PGC, SIMBAD and MOL each have the identities incorrectly
reversed. Not listed in the MCG. Steinicke and NED have the correct identities.
NOTE : Dr. H. Corwin was the first to discover this error (See his APL). Also
thanks to an immediate response by Steve Gottlieb to my request for a copy of
Burnham's original paper and his input provided in the letter which accompanied
it, I was able to verify Corwin's conclusion making IC 259 the preceding of the
two.
IC 261.
POSS. O-911.
Javelle #88. 02hr 46m 41.784s - 14 40' 42.690" (1950).
02hr 49m 03.896s - 14 28' 17.279" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Probably equal to NGC 1120 (Leavenworth). Here again as in the
case of IC 1840 we have Leavenworth giving NGC 1120 coordinates of 02hr 47m 50s -
14 40'.0, a difference of 01 tmin 08 tsec in RA and at his position no object
exists.
The PGC, APL , NGC 2000, NED and Steinicke have all equated IC 261 with NGC 1120
while the RC3 and SIMBAD give the single identification NGC 1120. The MCG lists
these identifications as being -3-8-28 = IC 261 and -3-8-30 as NGC 1120?
IC 263.
POSS. O-1453.
Javelle #99. 02hr 47m 06.328s - 00 16' 35.699" (1950).
02hr 49m 39.928s - 00 04' 11.767" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At Javelle's given nominal position no nebular image is
present. Javelle gives as his reference star the 9.5 Mv DM -00 438 whose 1860
coordinates he lists as 02hr 43m 08.4s - 00 39'.1 and measured offsets
of + 00m 16.58s RA and + 02'.52".6 What he actually was using as his reference
star was DM -00 436 equal to GSC 4699-221. Only modern listings found were NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both at the historical coordinates. APL, NED and
Steinicke (= CGCG 389.027).
The star that Javelle identifies as being his reference star is also GSC 4700-109,
Mp 11.71. Now at 00 tmin 52.49 tsec preceding and 3' 30" north of this star is
the 10.46 Mp star GSC 4699-221 and by applying Javelle's offsets exactly as he
gives them they land right on a 14.7 Mp galaxy identified in the CGCG as Zwicky
389.027 at 02hr 47m 04.31s -00 16' 53.5"and this I now believe is Javelle's #99 =
IC 263. This is also PGC # 10716 which is identified in the PGC only as CGCG 389-
27.
I reported my findings to Dr. Corwin and after examining my argument he is in
agreement that this is the correct IC 263, furthermore, Corwin found that by
reversing the direction of RA for Javelle's #100 = IC 264 to preceed the
reference star GSC 4699-221 instead of following it, it also landed upon a galaxy
(NPMIG -00.0109) at 02hr 46m 14.014s - 00 18' 59.46", therefore, the two
identities, IC 263 and IC 264 have been established and the Corrected Nominal
coordinates are as given above following the discoverer's name.
The PGC identifies IC 264 only as MK 1401. Steinicke has correct identity. NGC
2000 give (No Type) at the historical coordinates. The MOL has (NSO) at the
historical coordinates. Simbad incorrectly lists the identity IC 263 as "Not
present in database," however, the correct IC 263 is, being listed as Leda 10716.
SIMBAD also has for IC 264 "Not present in the database," but list the same galaxy
as mrk 1401.
IC 264.
POSS. O-1453.
Javelle #100. 02hr 46m 13.913s - 00 18' 58.625" (1950).
02hr 48m 47.483s - 00 06' 32.136" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : (See IC 263).
IC 265.
POSS. O- 449.
Swift List VIII, #6. 02hr 51m 33.926s + 41 27' 30.027" (1950).
02hr 54m 48.293s + 41 39' 39.520" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: Listed in MCG only as +7-7-6 Correctly identified in CGCG,
NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, APL, DSFG (Notes to NGC1129), NED, SIMBAD and PGC. Not
listed in UGC.
IC 266.
POSS. O-449.
Swift List VIII, #7. 02hr 51m 47.992s + 42 03' 29.228" (1950).
02hr 55m 03.270s + 42 15' 37.997" (2000)
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-10. CGCG, Steinicke, APL, PGC,
NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and MOL give correct identity. Not listed in UGC.
IC 267.
POSS. O-16.
Swift List VII, #7. 02hr 51m 41.372s + 12 37' 12.536" (1950).
02hr 54m 25.452s + 12 49' 22.566" (2000).
Bigourdan #138. 2hr 51m 07.075s + 12 40' 33.537" (1950). (Historical position)
02hr 53m 51.175s +12 52'45.273" (2000). (Historical position).
Even though Swift observed this galaxy about year prior to Bigourdan Dreyer gave
both credit od discovery, probably because he was unsure as to whether it was indeed
the same object. Swift's coordinates are not very good but still within the normal
range of his expected error and his description makes it clear that he has the
correct object. Meanwhile, Bigourdan measured its position from a star he calls
(Anon 2, giving this star a position determined from its estimated offset from the
galaxy NGC 1134 (whose coordinates he had measured very accurately). Due to his
estimated coordinates for this star his offsets for his #138 come up about 1 arcmin
48 arcsec north of the actual galaxy, but there is no doubt that he is describing
the correct object.
Bigourdan's (Anon 2) is equal to the star AC2000.2 #1463359 at 2hr 53m 44.655s +12
40' 44.05" (2000) and when his offsets (+0 tmin 5.345 tsec RA and + 10 arcmin 13.950
arcsec Dec.) are applied they land right on the galaxy in question at 02hr 53m
50.326s +12 50' 57.388" (2000).
NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates based upon the Dreyer historical data.
ALL of the modern catalogues have the correct coordinates.
IC 274.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#8. 02hr 56m 45.655s + 44 00' 53.586" (1950).
03hr 00m 04.886s + 44 12' 47.194" (2000).
I am unable to confirm the validity of this identity : The only galaxy in the
immediate vicinity to Swift's given coordinates lies about 30s of RA following,
however it is extremely faint and does not appear to be a valid candidate although
Swift did describe IC 274 as "Extremely faint, exceedingly difficult. The most
difficult object yet seen here."
The only modern catalogues to list this identity are the APL, which gives 5
possible listings and positions, each with question marks. Steinicke (Not found),
the NGC 2000 (No Type), NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
and the MOL (Nonstellar Object).
IC 280.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#10. 03hr 00m 03.058s + 42 09' 35.490" (1950).
03hr 03m 20.042s + 42 21' 18.972" (2000).
Not found: CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing for this identity. NGC 2000
lists as an asterism. MOL lists as "Group of stars." Carlson states "Group
of stars on Mt. Wilson plate." Corwin (APL) states "4 stars only." Steinicke has
(* Group). NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: There is about 19 tsec preceding Swift's nominal RA a small group of faint
stars which is the group referred to by the modern authorities. This may well be
what Swift saw, however, without additional evidence I shall still go with Not
found.
IC 281.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#11. 03hr 01m 15.326s + 42 09' 31.054" (1950).
03hr 04m 32.532s + 42 21' 10.769" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1177 (Rosse): CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, UGC (Notes), NGC
2000, MOL, APL, Carlson and the PGC all correctly equate the two identities. The
MCG lists the single identity NGC 1177.
IC 282.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#12. 03hr 01m 54.589s + 41 39' 40.607" (1950).
03hr 05m 11.160s + 41 51' 18.285" (2000).
Equal to NGC 1198 (Stephan XI, #7) : There is a 1.0 tmin error in Swift's RA and
the correction makes his corrected RA to read 03hr 02m 54s which is in agreement
with that for NGC 1198. Both the NGC 2000 and the MOL give coordinates based upon
Swift's incorrect RA. Steinicke, APL and NED make IC 282 (= NGC 1198). Simbad has
"Not present in database," but gives the identity NGC 1198.
IC 286.
POSS. O-1452.
Bigourdan #139. (Coordinates given below).
Not found at nominal positions : This is a rather complex problem in that the
historical data appears to be subject to various inconsistencies.
Firstly, Bigourdan gives the position of his Nova first in the COMPTES RENDUS at
the March 31st 1891 meeting of the Academie des Sciences as 03hr 02m 19.360s - 06
40' 44.835" (1950), however, when this position is examined on the DSS no nebular
image is found.
Secondly, Bigourdan in his OBSERVATIONS (1919) gives the position as being 03hr
02m 09.461s - 06 40' 25.430" (1950), offsetting from a 9th mag. star he called
"Anonyme" which from his data would have a 1950 position of 03hr 01m 54.061s - 06
39' 13.430", yet when these coordinates are applied to the DSS there is no 9th
magnitude star, also at the coordinates he now gives his Nova no nebular image
exists.
Additional listings are Steinicke (Not found), APL (not found?), NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 288.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#14. 03hr 04m 11.006s + 42 10' 26.175" (1950).
03hr 07m 28.772s + 42 21' 56.648" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-27. DSFG (Notes to IC 284), CGCG,
APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and UGC have correct identity. Both NGC 2000 and
MOL list as an "Open Cluster."
IC 290.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#16. 03hr 06m 25.033s + 40 47' 41.704" (1950).
03hr 09m 41.099s + 40 59' 05.104" (2000).
Equal to IC 1884 (Barnard) : Swift has the earlier discovery date and therefore
by historical precedent the correct identity is IC 290. The CGCG, APL, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly list IC 290 = IC 1884. NGC 2000 list both as separate
galaxies, while the MOL describes both as (Nonstellar Objects) with slightly
different coordinates. The UGC lists its U02560 as IC 290 ? and gives the correct
IC 290 the single identity IC 1884. The MCG has no listing. RC3 gives the single
identity IC 290.
IC 292.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#17. 03hr 06m 59.765s + 40 34' 21.503" (1950).
03hr 10m 15.598s + 40 45' 43.054" (2000).
Equal to IC 1887 (Barnard) : Again as in the case of IC 290 Swift was the
original discoverer and the correct identity is IC 292. CGCG, UCG, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC2 (Notes) and PGC make IC 1887 = IC 292. Both the NGC
2000 and MOL list as separate galaxies. The MCG gives the single identity IC 292.
IC 293.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#18. 03hr 07m 35.555s + 40 57' 07.264" (1950).
03hr 10m 52.058s + 41 08' 26.883" (2000).
Equal to IC 1888 (Barnard) : As with the previous two corrections Swift was the
original discoverer and the correct identity is IC 293. The only possibilities
for Barnard's seemingly disregard for the earlier IC identities is that due to the
relatively small differences between his coordinates and those given by Swift he
considered his discoveries to be different objects or perhaps, as in the strange
case discussed in my evaluation of IC 1441, Barnard had made his observations
prior to Swift. (See IC 1441). CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC
correctly list IC 1888 = IC 293. MCG gives the single identity IC 293. UGC has no
listing while both the NGC 2000 and MOL list both as separate galaxies.
IC 294, IC 295 and IC 296.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII,#19, #20 and #21. 03hr 07m 39.678s
+ 40 26' 36.975" (1950).
03hr 10m 55.431s + 40 37' 56.392" (2000) (IC 294).
03hr 07m 44.666s + 40 25' 36.658" (1950).
03hr 11m 00.408s + 40 36' 55.808" (2000). (IC 295).
03hr 07m 48.700s + 40 26 18.403" (1950).
03hr 11m 04.471s + 40 37' 37.336" (2000). (IC 296).
These three identities are based upon claims by Swift of three nebulae he
supposedly discovered. The first two on September 11th 1888 and the third on
September 14th 1888.
Each have essentially the same description and they are given coordinates which
would place them within boundaries of 9 tsec RA and 1 arcmin Dec. and when the
immediate area is examined on the DSS it shows only a single galaxy which is
identified in Index Catalogue II as IC 1889 (Barnard).
If Swift was actually seeing a nebulous image on both the nights of September 11th
and 14th then he could only have been seeing the same one (IC 1889), therefore, IC
294, IC 295 and IC 296 would all be equivalent identities and additionally
equivalent to Barnard's IC 1889.
Alternatively, if Swift was confusing associated field stars as being nonstellar
images for two of the three objects he recorded then the one he measured closest
to the single existing galaxy would be his # 21 = IC 296, which would result in IC
296 being equal to IC 1889 and IC 294 and IC 295 being equal to stars.
CGCG gives only the single identity IC 296 while the MCG and RC3 identify it as IC
294.
UGC gives the identity as IC 294 and in its NOTES for U02574 refers to the
conflicting identities between the CGCG and MCG.
PGC and SIMBAD equate the identities IC 294 and IC 296 and SIMBAD has for IC 295
"Not present in the database." while both the NGC 2000 and MOL list each of the
identities as separate galaxies. The APL equates the identity IC 294 with IC 1889
and then queries whether the two identities IC 295 and IC 296 are equal to IC 294.
NED equates the two identities IC 294 and IC 296. Steinicke identifies the galaxy
as IC 296 = IC 294 = IC 295 = IC 1889.
NOTE: Swift's nominal position for his IC 294 lies close north of a closely
associated group of 3 faint stars and this could be what he considered to be the
"Irregularly round" he gives in his description for IC 294.
IC 297.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII, No.22. 03hr 09m 56.798s + 41 55' 10.344" (1950).
03hr 13m 15.198s + 42 06' 22.313" (2000).
Not found : The CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listings for IC 297. NGC 2000 and MOL
describe as "Double star" and "Two stars." The APL gives 03hr 09m 58.5s + 41 55'
37" HC. Steinicke and SIMBAD have (Not found). NED has "!**."
IC 311.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII, No.27. 03hr 13m 23.745s + 39 49' 26.917" (1950).
03hr 16m 39.519s + 40 00' 27.681" (2000).
The only discrepancy here concerns the original description as given by Swift and
published by Dreyer in the IC I in which the "very faint star very close
preceding" should be changed to read very close following.
IC 312.
POSS. O-1618.
Swift List VIII, No.29. 03hr 14m 49.160s + 41 33' 39.473" (1950).
03hr 18m 07.835s + 41 44' 35.469" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-51. CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL,
APL, Steinicke, DSFG (Notes to NGC 1257), NED, SIMBAD and PGC have correct identity.
IC 314.
POSS. O-363.
Bigourdan #140. 03hr 16m 17.876s - 02 09' 15.208" (1950).
03hr 18m 49.781s - 01 58' 22.943" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1289 (Swift List IV, #13) : Bigourdan himself came to
realize that his #140 was indeed equal to NGC 1289 as he clearly states this in an
observation made in 1897, "NGC 1289 lies 11 tsec after the NGC position and that
therefore it is equal to his #140."
The MOL gives both identities with separate coordinates while the DSFG gives only
the single identity NGC 1289. The MCG, PGC, CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, APL and
Steinicke have all correctly given the equivalency.
IC 319.
POSS. O-1618.
Bigourdan #141. 03hr 20m 10.021s + 41 14' 21.273" (1950).
03hr 23m 29.072s + 41 24' 59.409" (2000).
This is a star : For a long time I was of the opinion that this was the galaxy
identified by the NGC 2000 (GX), and MOL (Galaxy. SBO) as IC 319, and which is
visible on the Palomar print closely north preceding a 13 mag. star, however,
Bigourdan gives some important and crucial information regarding associated stars,
(13.2 star PA 185, Dist 1 arcmin, 13.3 star PA 210, Dist 2 arcmin and a double
star components of 11 mag. which are at PA 0, Dist 1 arcmin at a position relative
to the nebula of + 0m 20s and same dec.) and when these are measured on the
Palomar print they point exactly to a faint star which lies north following the
visible galaxy. NED lists as "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The
APL, NED and Steinicke are the only sources that I am aware of that correctly give
(=*).
IC 323.
POSS. O-643.
Swift List VIII, #36. 03hr 26m 09.588s + 41 41' 24.217" (1950).
03hr 29m 30.439s + 41 51' 41.860" (2000).
Not found at nominal position. Probably an asterism of 3 faint stars :
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = ***, NED types as "Other."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (= *3) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: After again looking at the nominal position it lands very close to a small
asterism mainly consisting of three faint stars in the form of a closely formed
triangle and this asterism does have a star of about 10.5 Mp just off its north
preceding edge. This would support Swift's description "eF, S, R, * v nr, p of
2." as following this asterism at almost the exact separations as given by Swift
there is the galaxy NGC 1334 (D'Arrest).
Another interesting finding is that Swift must have considered that the following
object was a "nova" as he identifies it in his Discovery List VIII, No.37 as "eF,
pS, R, f of 2" at a position of 03hr 26m 39.721s + 41 39' 22.174" (1950), yet
Dreyer makes no mention of Swift's claim in the NGC or IC Notes.
IC 324.
POSS. O-908.
Bigourdan #142. 03hr 24m 14.902s - 21 31' 41.866" (1950).
03hr 26m 28.137s - 21 21' 15.495" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1331 (H 959-3). Bigourdan does note that his #142 was
measured at the Leander McCormick Observatory where it was identified as being NGC
1331 and this is correct and was also published in the MNRAS 73,37. 1912 by Dreyer
in a series of corrections.
All of the modern catalogues that list the identity IC 324 correctly equate it
with NGC 1331.
IC 333.
POSS. O-1485.
Bigourdan #143. 03hr 31m 33.290s - 05 16' 33.325" (1950).
03hr 34m 02.156s - 05 06' 32.734" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan states that it was only suspected. The closest object to
the nominal position is a very, very faint star.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 No Type), MOL (NSO), APL (Not found), SIMBAD "Not
found." and Steinicke (Not found). NED types as "Other."
NOTE: The APL and NED give a 1950 declination of - 04 45.1' (Hcnf) Nominal Position.
IC 335.
(See IC 1963).
IC 337.
POSS. O-1485.
Swift List IX, #12. 03hr 34m 36.486s - 06 53' 12.971" (1950).
03hr 37m 03.766s - 06 43' 23.087" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : The APL tentatively list this identity as IC 337?
03hr 35m 06s - 06 41'.2, however, there is an alternative candidate which I feel
better fits Swift's description "eeF, pL, R, trap. with 3 stars." and it is the
MCG "Anon" -01-10-09 at 3hr 34.0m - 06 54'.0
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL have coordinates based upon those of Swift.
Steinicke list the MCG "Anon." as being IC 337. The PGC #13308, gives the MCG
identity -01-10-09 but does not equate it with any IC identity. NED types as
"Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 338.
POSS. O-932.
Javelle #588. 03hr 35m 01.078s + 02 57' 18.016" (1950).
03hr 37m 37.683s + 03 07' 06.166" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 391.019 as being IC
338 at 3hr 35.0m +3 06' 0. The correct identity should be ZWG 391.018 at 3hr
35.0m + 2 58'.0 This error is noted in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly
identified in the APL, Steinicke, MCG, NGC 2000 (GX), RC3, NED, SIMBAD and MOL
(NSO).
IC 339.
Stone #144. 03hr 35m 50.843s - 18 32' 37.210" (1950).
03hr 38m 06.465s - 18 22' 51.345" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at or close to the nominal position.
Listed in the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and Carlson as being
a star. NED has "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 344.
POSS. O-1485.
Swift List IX, #13. 03hr 39m 04.730s - 04 50' 25.833" (1950).
03hr 41m 33.895s - 04 40' 51.925" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not a regular error in identity , however, it does
have historical significance and is also a fascinating case.
Swift published a paper (Astr. & Astrophys No. 103),sometime after publication of
his List IX in which he gives a lengthy and extremely interesting account of this
identity stating that he discovered this object on December 23rd 1889 but that he
was unable to recover it in subsequent observations. He had described it as
"Exceedingly, exceedingly faint, pretty large, round, first of three. In line
with NGC 1417-18. Cometary. Unable to re-find it. Seeing good. Failed also at
Harvard College Observatory."
He reports that in the MNRAS of December, 1891, Dr Dreyer says that he had
observed it several times at Lord Rosse's Observatory and that on other occasions
had been unable to see it.
Swift then goes on to say that on January 31st 1892 he tried again and at 132x he
failed to see it, however, while employing a magnification of 195x he had two
momentary glimpses of it and that it was not exactly in line with the other two
NGC objects but rather it was a little north.
Meanwhile a search of John Herschel's Slough Observations (1833), reveals that he
also saw this object describing it as the 1st of 3, however, he misidentified it
as being his father's H 569-3 = NGC 1397 but this object lies almost 2 tmin
preceding IC 344, as W. Herschel's given position correctly shows.
Examination of the field on the DSS clearly shows IC 344 north preceding NGC 1417
very close to Swift's coordinates and John Herschel's measured coordinates for
what he incorrectly identified as being H 569-3 (03hr 39m 00s - 04 49'.0), clearly
establishes that he was the first person ever to see what later became IC 344 and
therefore historically John Herschel should be the credited discoverer.
IC 346.
Stone #151. 03hr 39m 09.223s - 18 31' 50.160" (1950).
03hr 41m 24.670s - 18 22' 16.088" (2000).
Not Found: This is a complex problem and the credit for first realizing that any
problem existed belongs entirely to Wolfgang Steinicke who brought it to my
attention through personal correspondence.
The Leander McCormick Observatory published a list (SOUTHERN NEBULAE),
detailing observations made with its 26 inch telescope by Stone,
Levenworth, Muller and Parrish. This list contains observations
of 5 separate "Novae" which were identified in the list as #144, 151,
160, 168 and 171, the first two being credited to Stone, the other
three to Muller, however, when Dreyer later assigned them IC identities
he only listed 4 objects.
Three of these, IC 339 = List #144, IC 343 = #List 160, IC 345 = List #168
present no problem as IC 339 is "Not Found" while both IC 343 and IC 345
exist as galaxies at the positions measured by Muller.
Now the problem concerns which of the two remaining original identities
(#151 and #171) should be equated with the identity IC 346, as #151 is
"Not Found" while #171 does exist as a galaxy.
In order to sort this conflict out it was necessary to take each of the 5
McCormick identities and precess their given coordinates back to epoch
1860 and then compare these positions to those as given by Dreyer in the
IC I and when this is done it is obvious that Dreyer employed Stone's
Object #151 and gave it the identity IC 346.
As for Muller's # 171, Dreyer has no coordinate values that in any way
match those as measured by Muller and it is clear that he never considered,
(or ignored), the data for #171, thus my conclusions are that IC 346 is
"Not Found" and Muller's discovery, the galaxy # 171 is an "Anonymous Galaxy"
at 03hr 41m 44.86s - 18 16' 14.6" (2000) and cannot be considered as being
IC 346 as historically it was never considered as such by Dreyer.
All of the modern sources that I have examined who list the identity IC 346
make it to be Muller's Object # 171, thus disagreeing with the above
conclusions, however, Wolfgang Steinicke, the discoverer of the problem and
I are in favour of the above given solution which is in keeping with the
historical data. Both NED and SIMBAD equate the Muller galaxy wirh the identity IC
346.
IC 359.
POSS O-1468.
Swift List X.#14. 04hr 10m 22.253s + 27 34' 22.191" (1950).
04hr 13m 27.162s + 27 41' 57.591" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG and UGC correctly identify and give better RA
coordinates (4hr 9.4m). The MOL gives Swift's original coordinates while the NGC
2000 somehow confuses the identity IC 359 with a reflection nebula at 4hr 15.9m +
28 4'.8. The MCG gives only the identity +5-10-9. The RC3, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke
and PGC identity is correct as is the APL.
IC 371.
POSS. O-1524.
Bigourdan #145. 04hr 27m 39.122s - 00 40' 04.642" (1950).
04hr 30m 12.191s - 00 33' 36.643" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Probably a star at Bigourdan's nominal position:
I was unable to find any image that I could establish as being nebular, rather it
appears to be completely stellar. NGC 2000 gives its listing No Type, while the
MOL states (Nonstellar Object). The APL lists it as = *. Steinicke also
identifies it as (*). The NED has "!*. " SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
During my investigation of this identity I came across some interesting
disagreements regarding coordinates.
Bigourdan carried out his observation of what he thought was a nebula (B.145) on
the same night that he made an observation of what he also thought was NGC 1586
(D'Arrest), in fact he measured NGC 1586 to be - 17 .36 tsec and + 2 arcmin 26.7
arcsec from his reference star BD -0 709 while from this same star he measured
B.145 (IC 371) to be - 14.94 tsec and + 2 arcmin 45.4 arcsec thus making them to
be very close companions.
His coordinates for NGC 1586 compute to 4hr 27m 35s - 00 39' 56"(1950), D'Arrest
had given 4hr 27m 39s - 00 37'.8 (1950), however the modern catalogues give NGC
1586 4hr 28m.1 - 00 25'.0 (1950), so the question is was Bigourdan actually
searching in the position he gives, in which case both his assumed NGC 1586 and IC
371 are stars, or was he seeing two nebulae at the position given for NGC 1586 by
the modern catalogues, as in this case there are two galaxies, NGC 1586 and an
Anon. companion at about the PA and distance separation required by Bigourdan's
measurements ? It must be stated that based upon Bigourdan's data there is
absolutely no indication that he was possibly searching anywhere else other than
the positions he gives.
It would appear that the candidate for NGC 1586 as listed in the modern catalogue
is D'Arrest's object as his description of the associated 3 stars matches
completely, however, it should be pointed out that Bigourdan's description of what
he considered to be NGC 1586 does not, indeed he refers to this difference with
D'Arrest's description.
IC 372.
POSS. O-918.
Javelle #594. 04hr 27m 36.081s - 05 07' 02.174" (1950).
04hr 30m 04.348s - 05 00' 33.804" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is that in the NGC 2000 they type this
identity as (?) quoting as their source Reinmuth. Correctly identified by MOL
(NSO), Steinicke, NED and APL. SIMBAD has no listing for this galaxy.
IC 376.
POSS. O-941.
Javelle #126. 04hr 28m 53.923s - 12 32' 21.649" (1950).
04hr 31m 13.972s - 12 25' 58.258" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This galaxy lies north preceding IC 377 which is the brightest
in the field and is a face-on spiral. The MCG (-02-12-031) combines this identity
with IC 377 which is misleading as both identities are for entirely separate
galaxies. The PGC equates it with MCG -2-12-31.
SIMBAD makes the bright spiral equal to IC 376, however, Corwin in his APL gives IC
376 coordinates of 04hr 28m 53.47s - 12 32' 24".9 and IC 377 coordinates of 04hr 28m
56.28s - 12 33' 42".6 and these I believe correctly identify Javelle's two nebulae.
NED, NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) give the correct identities. Steinicke has
the correct identities.
IC 377.
POSS. O-941.
Javelle #127. 04hr 28m 56.267s - 12 33' 42.940" (1950).
04hr 31m 16.290s - 12 27' 19.708" (2000).
(See IC 376).
IC 386.
POSS. O-941.
Javelle #601. 04hr 37m 35.115s - 09 33' 10.931" (1950).
04hr 39m 58.346s - 09 27' 23.029" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Probably equal to NGC 1632 (Muller).
Muller was one of the observers at the Leander McCormick Observatory and he with
O.Stone and F.P. Leavenworth published in the ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL two sets of
observations (Vol.VII. No.146 and VOL VII. No.152). with very imprecise
coordinates. His #399 in Vol. 152 is for NGC 1632 and he gives it a position of
04hr 36.8m - 09 32'.6 which if it is equal to IC 386 would mean that Muller has a
positional error of about 0.8 tmin in RA which is by no means excessive when it
comes to the positions published from this source.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list both identities as being separate
objects. while the PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the APL all equate it with NGC
1632.
IC 392.
POSS. O-974.
Javelle #604. 04hr 43m 48.585s + 03 24' 54.845" (1950).
04hr 46m 26.141s + 03 30' 16.613" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U03158. Correctly identified in
the CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx), RC3 and MOL (NSO).
IC 394.
POSS. O-1519.
Bigourdan #146. 04hr 46m 25.869s - 06 21' 58.161" (1950).
04hr 48m 52.553s - 06 16' 46.906" (2000).0
Nothing found at nominal position : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (?) and in the MOL
as (May not exist). The APL, Carlson and Steinicke have (Not found). NED "Other."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 395.
POSS. O-969.
Swift List IX, No.15. 04hr 46m 49.506s + 00 09' 43.167" (1950).
04hr 49m 23.461s + 00 14' 52.555" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy, but may be equal to NGC 1671 : At Swift's coordinates for IC
395 there is found the image of a galaxy, whereas at Swift's nominal position for
NGC 1671 no nonstellar object exists.
The APL equates it with NGC 1671 (Swift List V, No.63) stating that Dreyer's NGC
1671 coordinates are off by 50 tsec RA too large and his declination off by about
1 degree too far south. NED also make this same equivalency.
There is support for this equivalency in that Swift's description for NGC 1671
states "pB * nr, sp." and there is such a star south preceding IC 395.
The CGCG, PGC, MCG, SIMBAD and UGC give only the identity IC 395 while the NGC 2000
give no type to both identities but lists them at the Dreyer coordinates. The MOL
lists IC 395 as (NSO) and for NGC 1671 states "Non existent object " The APL and
Steinicke are the only sources to suggest the equivalency.
IC 397.
POSS O-668.
Spitaler #5. 04hr 57m 38.508s + 40 21' 26.815" (1950).
05hr 01m 07.115s + 40 25' 48.809" (2000).
This identity is equal to 3 faint stars : No modern listings for it other than
NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = line of 3 sts. and MOL (NSO). Steinicke (* Group).
NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 399.
POSS. O-1519.
Spitaler Nova #35. 04hr 59m 15.576s - 04 21' 31.127" (1950).
05hr 01m 44.419s - 04 17' 13.749" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is not equal to NGC 1741, being a separate galaxy located
south following the NGC object.
Spitaler made two separate measurements of both IC 399 and NGC 1741 on the same
night and he gave NGC 1741 coordinates of 04hr 59m 09.144s - 04 19' 58.212", thus
separation values of 0 tmin 6.426 tsec and 01' 32.788" of arc from IC 399 and at
these separations one finds a galaxy which although stellar in appearance is
definitely a galaxy being equal to Markarian 1090.
The MCG and NGC 2000 incorrectly equate IC 399 with NGC 1741. The MOL gives both
identities as separate objects and lists IC 399 as (EO). Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and
the PGC correctly equates it with MK 1090 and the APL correctly states (= KET2 =
Mark 1090).
IC 400.
POSS. O-1323.
O.Stone. 05hr 01m 27.899 - 15 52' 37.973" (1950).
05hr 03m 43.247s - 15 48' 29.460" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This galaxy exists but not at the historical coordinates.
Stone list his discovery in a paper titled SOUTHERN NEBULAE and gives it the
identity #209 Nova. He gives his reference star as C.C.O. 228, 04hr 57m 45.5s -
15 49' 39".3 (1950) and separation values only for RA of + 03 tmin 42.14 tsec
which would result in a 1950 position of 05hr 01m 27.6s - 15 49' 39.3 and at these
exact coordinates no nebular image exists.
Stone also used the same reference star to measure a position for his listed # 208
which is NGC 1730, however, the coordinates he gives for the star C.C.O.228 are
different in that his 1950 declination is given as -15 52' 23".3 or 02' 44".0
farther south, this star is also AC #2340489 at 05hr 00m 01.297s - 15 47' 55.09"
(2000) and when his separation values for his # 209 = IC 400 are applied to this
correction it results in being about 02 tsec from a faint extended galaxy which
has a companion very close south.
Why Stone omitted giving any separation value in declination I am unable to say
for sure, however, perhaps that as both the declination of the reference star and
this galaxy is less than 1 arcmin apart he may have reasoned that such a
difference would not hinder anyone from finding it. He also omitted any
declination separation value for NGC 1730.
Dr. Corwin has IC 400 listed in his APL three times and states that he is
uncertain as to its identity. His major points of uncertainty are based upon the
02 tsec difference in Stone's RA and the existing candidate, also that this galaxy
is perhaps too faint for Stone to have visually seen with the Leader McCormick 26
inch telescope, however, it must be remembered that Stone gives his object
a visual magnitude of 16.0, which even allowing for estimation errors still
implies that it appeared exceedingly faint.
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the declination based upon the historical
data which as published by Stone would have the reference star error. APL
(identity uncertain). Steinicke has the correct object. SIMBAD has "Not present in
database." NED has "Identity very uncertain."
For an excellent alternative opinion see Dr. Corwin's SOLUTIONS TO IC PROBLEMS.
NOTE: The galaxy I give as the candidate for the identity IC 400 is listed in the
GSC as 059-989, Mp 15.26 Type 3 (Nonstellar Object) at 05hr 01m 29.96s - 15 53'
15.2" (1950), or 05hr 03m 45.322s - 15 49' 06.816" (2000).
IC 403.
POSS O-668.
Spitaler #6. 05hr 11m 47.613s + 39 55' 01.971" (1950).
05hr 15m 16.161s + 39 58' 23.762" (2000).
This is equal to 2 stars : It was described by Spitaler as "Extremely faint,
round nebula,of about 5 arcsecs diameter." Only modern listings are Steinicke (*
2), NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = 2-3 stars and MOL (NSO). NED has "Other." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 406.
POSS. O-668.
Spitaler #7. 05hr 14m 20.529s + 39 49' 54.918" (1950).
05hr 17m 49.030s + 39 53' 05.780" (2000).
This is a small group of 3 stars in line north preceding south following :
Only listings in the modern catalogues are NGC 2000 (Open Cluster). MOL (Open
Cluster) and APL = line of 4 sts and Steinicke (*group).
NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 408.
POSS. O-1462.
Swift List VIII, #38. 05hr 15m 51.414s - 25 08' 27.451" (1950).
05hr 17m 54.359s - 25 05' 19.888" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Quite possibly equal to IC 2121 : At Swift's nominal position
no nebular object exists. Swift's description is "Very faint, pretty small,
elongated, 5 arcmin north of a 8.5 mag. star."
The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). APL (=**). The ESO has 486-?050
= IC 408? Steinicke has it equated with IC 2121. SIMBAD equates the identity IC 408
with IC 2121 and this has considerable merit as there is an 8th magnitude star lying
south of this galaxy and this galaxy has a Mp of 13.78 which would make it bright
enough for Swift to have seen at such a southern declination. NED has "**."
IC 412.
POSS. O-1270.
Javelle #608. 05hr 19m 18.834s + 03 26' 17.892" (1950).
05hr 21m 56.547s + 03 29' 09.295" (2000).
Equal to IC 2123 (Barnard) : Correctly noted as equivalent in the CGCG, UGC, NED,
PGC, SIMBAD, Steinicke and APL. The NGC 2000 lists both identities as separate
galaxies as does the MOL. The MCG gives only the identity IC 412.
NOTE : Both IC 412 and the following error IC 413 are credited by Dreyer to both
Barnard and Javelle in the IC I while the two identities IC 2123 and IC 2124 were
credited by Dreyer to Barnard in the later published IC II and comparison of
Dreyer's coordinates as given in the two IC catalogues would seem to me to suggest
that the four identities were for 2 objects, something Dreyer often queried with
other such cases yet he did not do so here. In investigating these identities I
came across a statement published in a paper (OBSERVATIONS OF NEBULAE WITH THE 36-
INCH REFRACTOR OF THE LICK OBSERVATORY. Publications of the Lick Observatory. vol
ii, p.177), by F. Burnham which reads
"This double nebula was discovered in 1888 by Barnard with the 12 inch telescope."
Now the discovery date given by Javelle for both IC 412 and IC 413 is January 12th
1894, which means that Barnard would have been the original discoverer. This of
course is only important in that it establishes which of the two observers was the
first to see these two galaxies and therefore for historical accuracy Barnard is
the rightful one to be credited with discovery.
IC 413.
POSS. O-1270.
Javelle #609. 05hr 19m 21.510s + 03 26' 04.277" (1950).
05hr 21m 59.218s + 03 28' 55.488" (2000).
Equal to IC 2124 (Barnard): Part of the double system with IC 412 = IC 2123.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and APL. Both
the NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities as separate galaxies and the MCG and RC3
give the single identity IC 413.
(See IC 412).
IC 421.
POSS. O-1477.
Pickering 05hr 29m 49.470s - 08 06' 46.274" (1950).
05hr 32m 13.749s - 08 04' 39.894" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Dreyer's declination is off by about 9.0 arcmin too far south
and this has influenced the declination as given in the NGC 2000 and MOL. The
APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and RC3 have the correct 1950 declination (- 07 57'
12"). Identified in the MCG only as -1-15-001.
IC 422.
POSS. O-1482.
Javelle #611. 05hr 30m 05.440s - 17 15' 28.614" (1950).
05hr 32m 18.586s - 17 13' 22.959" (2000).
This is a duplicate identity of IC 2131 (Swift List XI, #80) :
Swift gave it coordinates of 05hr 29m 52s - 17 17'.7, however, his discovery date
is October 16th 1896 whereas Javelle observed it on February 18th 1893 and
therefore is the correct discoverer.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both identities without
equivalency. The equivalency is correctly given in the APL, NED MCG, SIMBAD,
Steinicke and PGC.
IC 436.
POSS O-1290.
Spitaler #8. 05hr 50m 13.197s + 38 37' 11.771" (1950).
05hr 53m 40.287s + 38 37' 46.931" (2000).
Equal to 3 stars : Spitaler's description reads "Very clear air, looks like a
faint nebula."
Its appearance on the Palomar print is of three closely associated stars forming a
triangle, with two of the components being considerably fainter than the primary.
Only modern listings are APL 4-5 vF sts only; no neb., NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). Steinicke (=*3), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED has identified as
IC 436 (Type Galaxy) at 05hr 53m 40.1s 38 37' 29" (2000), however, I am unable to
see any nonstellar object at this position on the DSS.
IC 452.
POSS. O-1343.
Bigourdan #147. 06hr 46m 25.311s - 16 50' 38.286" (1950).
06hr 48m 39.198s - 16 54' 04.761" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2296 (Swift List VI, #28) :
To begin. Swift gave coordinates for his nova (NGC 2296) of 06hr 47m 03.971s - 16
51' 48.626" (1950) at which no nonstellar object exists. On March 9th 1890
Bigourdan, as part of his survey of NGC objects visible from Paris, searched for
NGC 2296 in the area suggested by Swift and Dreyer's coordinates and suspected a
nebular image at a position he measured as 06hr 46m 55.277s - 16 51' 05.123"
(1950), or about 09 tsec preceding Swift's RA. Bigourdan described this supposed
object as "Object strongly stellar, which appears to be formed by 2 or 3 very
close unequal stars, or by a 13.4 to 13.5 mag. star surrounded by a small
nebulosity, the envelope being of 10 arcsec extent." Offsetting from his
reference star shows that what he listed as NGC 2296 is in fact a star. ( It
should be remembered that this comes from his 1919 OBSERVATIONS).
At the March 31st 1891 meeting of L'Acadamie Des Sciences there was presented and
published in the COMPTES RENDUS a list of 50 new discoveries by Bigourdan which he
numbers 103 through 152.
His #147 is given coordinates of 06hr 46m 23s - 16 50'.7 (1950) and described as
"Star of 12.8 mag. which appears to have surrounding nebulosity of 25 to 30 arcsec
extent." This later received the identity IC 452.
His #148 is given coordinates of 06hr 46m 54s - 16 58'.7 (1950) and described as
"Star 13.4 to 13.5 mag. which is accompanied by a little nebulosity; appears to be
a small cluster of 2 or 3 very close and unequal stars." This later received the
identity IC 453.
In 1919 when Bigourdan published his completed work, OBSERVATIONS, we find that he
refers only to the identity B.147 (IC 452) and there is no reference or data
attributed by him for his B.148.
He measures what he identifies as his B147 to have a position of 06hr 46m 24.300s
- 16 50' 34.767" (1950) and then adds a footnote stating "This object may be
Swift's (NGC 2296) but in that case the RA of the NGC is too large by 30 tsec."
Something here is definitely wrong concerning his statement that the RA difference
would be 30 tsec because Swift had given NGC 2296 a RA of 6hr 47m 03.971s (which
is the same as given in the NGC),which would be different from Bigourdan's RA for
his #147 by about 40 tsec, not 30 tsec. however, the RA difference between
Bigourdan's #147 and what Bigourdan thought he had observed as being NGC 2296 is
about 31 tsec, therefore his reference to the NGC RA should be interpreted as
being for the positions as given by Bigourdan and not by either Swift or Dreyer.
Additionally, there is no reference in the 1919 publication to any B.148 = IC 453,
however, if we compare the COMPTES RENDUS data for B.148 the description he gives
reads almost word for word the same as appears in the 1919 OBSERVATIONS for his
NGC 2296 and the RA's are also almost a match. It must be stated that the
declinations involved here are different by about 7 arcmin but two out of three of
these facts bear a striking similarity and as there is no reference to any B.148
in the 1919 OBSERVATIONS one must wonder if Bigourdan considered the possibility
of equivalency between his NGC 2296 and his B.148 which prompted him to not
include B.148 in his completed works.
There is absolutely no dispute that at the coordinates as given by Bigourdan for
his B.147 = IC 452 there does exist a nebular object and as this object is about
40 tsec from the RA as given by Swift, something not unusual for him, I am willing
to accept that this is probably the object seen by Swift and given the identity
NGC 2296, therefore, IC 452 is equivalent to NGC 2296 and IC 453 is a star, the
same star that Bigourdan identified incorrectly as being NGC 2296.
The other fact about this object is that there is evidence that it is not a galaxy
but rather a diffuse, galactic nebula. Corwin in his IC PUZZLES points out that
Clemens et al have published a paper in which they have measured the radial
velocity of this object as being almost zero, which if correct would indicate that
it cannot be an extragalactic object.
The MOL gives separate identities to NGC 2296 and IC 452 while for IC 453 it
states "May not exist." NED gives the equivalency between IC 452 and NGC 2296
but types it as a galaxy, however, they do add "Claimed to be a galactic object by
Takata et al (1994, A & AJ, 104, 529). " SIMBAD equates the identities IC 452 and
NGC 2296, making it a "Reflection Nebula." The DSFG makes the correct equivalency
but types NGC 2296 as a galaxy as does the PGC and NGC 2000, the NGC 2000 making
IC 453 = * The MCG, APL and Steinicke correctly make the equivalency between IC
452 and NGC 2296 and in the case of the APL and Steinicke they type NGC 2296 as
being a galactic nebula while making IC 453 a star. NED equates IC 452 with IC
2296, typing it as a galaxy, however in its NOTES it does refer to the object as
possibly being galactic. SIMBAD for IC 453 has "Not present in the database."
IC 453.
(See IC 452).
IC 454.
POSS. O-428.
Swift List IX, N0.16. 06hr 48m 26.489s + 12 57' 56.343" (1950).
06hr 51m 15.209s + 12 54' 20.007" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Incorrect RA in MCG (+2-18-002) given as 6hr 43.8m Region not
covered in the CGCG. The UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke, PGC,
NED, SIMBAD and APL have the correct identity.
IC 457.
POSS. O-691.
Rosse, Kobold. 07hr 05m 38.201s + 50 13' 59.257" (1950).
07hr 09m 28.646s + 50 09' 08.030" (2000). (Kobold).
Confirmed galaxy equal to NGC 2330. : There is considerable confusion associated
with this identity, both in the historical and modern data. The identity IC 457
was given by Dreyer for a nebula that exists close south preceding NGC 2332.
Dreyer coordinates and description is based primarily upon Kobold's observation,
however, Dreyer also was aware that Rosse in his 3rd of 3 field sketches had
indicated that an object existed there, thus we have in the IC I Dreyer crediting
both Rosse and Kobold with the discovery.
Meanwhile in Rosse's Sketch #1 he had also indicated that there was a nebula which
Dreyer seems to have interpreted as being positioned close north of NGC 2332 as
Dreyer gives it a declination 2.4 arcmin north of NGC 2332 and gave it the
identity NGC 2330. Bigourdan therefore searched and thought he had found a
nonstellar object at this position which thus appeared to confirm the Dreyer
identity and position and Dreyer credited it to Rosse ? and Bigourdan, however,
examination of the POSS and DSS shows that this object is actually a faint star.
Rosse's Sketch 3 when compared with the modern field photographs clearly depicts
the relative positions for 9 nebulae and the comparison also confirms that Rosse
never indicated that there was any nebulae close north of NGC 2332, instead he
shows one close south which is Kobold's IC 457, therefore the identity NGC 2330
belongs to this galaxy and thus IC 457 is equal to NGC 2330.
The MCG list the south preceding of the two existing galaxies as NGC 2332, but
this is actually NGC 2330/IC 457, and then they identify the north following of
the pair as NGC 2330, but this is the correct NGC 2332. The NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG
have each identified NGC 2330 as a galaxy at the Dreyer (Bigourdan) position north
of NGC 2332, but this is a star. The CGCG and UGC (notes to U03699) list the
identity only as IC 457. Carlson states "NGC 2330 = IC 458.?, Reinmuth'' which is
incorrect.
The PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and APL correctly make IC 457 = NGC 2330, although
the APL add a ? to the equivalency and NED has "Uncertain.". The RC3 has no listing
for either of the identities NGC 2330 or IC 457.
NOTE: The precise nominal positions given for IC 457, 458, 461, 462 and 465 are
derived from Kobold's paper STRASSBURG ANNALEN, VOL.III, 1909. He previously had
published positions in AN #3184 which are only slightly different in positional
data.
IC 458.
POSS. O-691.
Rosse, Swift List VIII.#44 and Kobold. 07hr 06m 44.049s + 50 12' 04.738" (1950).
07hr 10m 34.293s + 50 07' 08.929" (2000). (Kobold).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the modern catalogues with the
exception of the MCG which incorrectly identifies its + 8-13-89 as IC 458 (this is
actually IC 460). The correct IC 458 is MCG + 8-13-85 and this error is pointed
out by the PGC. APL has in its NOTES "IC 458 may be(or maybe not!) NGC 2330, which
see."
IC 461.
POSS. O-691.
Rosse, Swift List VIII.#45 and Kobold. 07hr 06m 55.600s + 50 09' 39.825" (1950).
07hr 10m 45.715s + 50 04' 43.217" (2000). (Kobold).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +8-13-88. The CGCG, APL, PGC,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO) correctly identify IC 461.
The DSFG because it confuses the identities of NGC 2330 and NGC 2332 gives in its
data incorrect separation values (13 arcmins ESE of NGC 2332). Not listed in RC3.
IC 462.
POSS. O-691.
Kobold. 07hr 07m 05.956s + 50 15' 50.810" (1950).
07hr 10m 56.333s + 50 10' 53.471" (2000).
Either a double star or a star + galaxy? : At Kobold's nominal position there is
the image of a faint star with what may be an even fainter galaxy off its north
preceding edge. Based upon the fact that Kobold described NGC 2340 which follows
about 14 tsec as faint I would assume that he would have had difficulty seeing
this object.
Not listed in CGCG or UGC. The MCG identifies its +8-13-92 as IC 462, however,
this is IC 464. The PGC also incorrectly makes this equivalency, as has SIMBAD.
APL gives 3 separate listings. The first two. make it a star. Only other listings
are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*2) and MOL (NSO). NED has (Galactic star).
NOTE : The image on the new Second Generation of the DSS clearly shows that the
north preceding component is definitely a galaxy.
IC 465.
POSS. 0-61
Rosse, Kobold. 07hr 07 43.242s + 50 19' 55.207" (1950).
07hr 11m 33.737s + 50 14' 55.270" (2000).
One of the galaxies in the NGC 2332/NGC2340 group :
There is considerable confusion and some mystery in both the historical and modern
literature concerning the 4 NGC and 10 IC identities associated with this group.
Firstly, in addition to the 4 NGC identities (NGC 2330, 2332, 2334 and 2340),
given by Dreyer, he had access at the time he was compiling the observational data
for his NGC Catalogue (1888) to a sketch (No. III) by Lord Rosse made
in 1851, which clearly and accurately shows a total of 9 nebulae, yet for some
unknown reason Dreyer omitted in his NGC to include 7 of these objects. Secondly,
Bigourdan evidently made observations of the field as early as November 15th and
16th 1885 during which observations he correctly makes observations of NGC 2332
and NGC 2340 and additionally claims discovery of 8 other new nebulae, NGC 2330,
nothing at nominal position 07hr 05 44.375s +50 18' 57.307 (1950) other than a
very faint star and NGC 2334, equal to a faint star at 07hr 06m 01.929s +50 16'
32.808 (1950).and an additional 6 nebulae which turn out to be IC 457, IC 458,
IC459, IC 461, IC 464 and IC 465, each existing galaxies, yet it is not until
1919 that he publishes these IC galaxy discoveries, therefore, not only did
Bigourdan miss having these 6 IC identities credited to him in the NGC Catalogue
with NGC numbers, but he also reported them too late to be credited as co-
discoverer by Dreyer in the IC Catalogue I. Kobold examined the field in 1893
(Astronomische Nachrichten #3184 and Strassburg Annalen, Vol. III, 1909) and gives
coordinates (slightly offset to the north following of the precise positions), for
a total of 11 nebulae of which he only identifies NGC 2332 and IC 2340.
Later Dreyer gave the other 9 objects the following IC identities. IC 457, 458,
459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464 and 465. (Index Catalogue I). By the time Dreyer was
ready to publish his IC Catalogue I he realized that 7 of Kobold's objects were
also those depicted in Rosse's sketch No. III, therefore, he credited these 7 to
both Rosse and Kobold and the remaining 2 , IC 460 and IC 462, to Kobold alone.
Now concerning the identity IC 465. This galaxy definitely exists at 07hr 11m
33.82s +50 14' 51".15 (2000) and is clearly shown on Rosse's sketch No. III,
identified as (theta) north following NGC 2340. It was also seen by Bigourdan and
Kobold.
Dr. Harold Corwin, NED and Wolfgang Steinicke both equate this identity with the
identity NGC 2334 (Corwin IC 465 = NGC 2334? APL), whereas I can see no
justification for any equivalency, rather I identify IC 465 as an existing galaxy
and the identity NGC 2334 as being a faint star. Harold and I have discussed this
problem by e-mail and have failed to come to any agreement (See Corwin's
data files). SIMBAD gives the identity IC 465 and for NGC 2334 has "Not present in
the database."
Following are my arguments: Dreyer gave the identity NGC 2334 to a supposed
nonstellar object which he places in his NGC Catalogue at a 1950 position of 07hr
06m 03.303s +50 17' 17.413" thus placing it to be fairly close north following the
galaxy NGC 2332. He credits it to Lord Rosse ? and Bigourdan who placed it at
07hr 06m 01.929s +50 16' 32.808" (1950). (corrected by offset from his reference
star which is GSC 3400-1171).and at this position there is only a faint star lying
between two 12th Mv stars, which is exactly as described by Bigourdan.
IC 465 lies north following the galaxy NGC 2340 at a position of 07hr 07m 43.242s
+50 19' 55.207" (1950). (Kobold) and is credited by Dreyer to Lord Rosse and
Kobold and therefore would be distant from NGC 2334 by 1 tmin 41.008tsec RA and 3
arcmin 17.189 arcsec Dec. (based upon Bigourdan's coordinates).
In the Rosse observations there are 3 sketches. Sketch No. I shows 2 nebulae, a
faint double star (a) and an arrow which is supposed to indicate the direction of
field movement (preceding to following). The larger nebula is identified as GC
1491 (equal to NGC 2332) and the smaller nebula (b), is placed close preceding one
end of the larger nebula. Sketch No. II also shows 2 nebulae, a star and a
directional arrow. The larger is identified as h 433 (equal to NGC 2340) with a
smaller nebula at a much greater distance.
Rosse's descriptions pertaining to these two sketches are. "(a) is, I think a
double star and (b) a S neb. h 430 (NGC 2332),is E np sf. h 433 (NGC 2340), is
followed by a *10m at 1 arcmin distant, a second neb 6 arcmin sf [Diag. II] "
The problem with these two sketches concerns just where the directions north and
south lie, as based upon the descriptions the suggested north and south do not
comply in regards to the relative positions of the smaller nebulae with what one
finds in either Rosse's sketch No. III or with the field as seen on the POSS or
DSS. The object (b) would appear in sketch I to lie to the north of NGC 2332 and
the smaller nebula in sketch II would be south following NGC 3240 and if I
interpret correctly Harold's argument this is part of his basis for equating the
identities NGC 2334 and IC 465., but then we come to Rosse's sketch No. III in
which all of his depicted objects can be shown to be single existing galaxies and
he places none of his objects close north following NGC 2332 where both Bigourdan
and Dreyer have the object identified as being NGC 2334.
I believe that Bigourdan consulted Rosse's 3 sketches and as with Dreyer he
concluded that based upon sketches Nos. I and II there might be a nebula close
north of NGC 2332, therefore he searched that area and thought he had indeed
located a nonstellar object in a position relative to that suggested by sketch No.
I This then became what Dreyer identified as NGC 2334, but it has no affiliation
with the galaxy IC 465. When Sketch I is aligned correctly it greatly suggests
that object (b) should lie south preceding NGC 2332 and would be equal to IC 457
which is in turn equal to NGC 2330 (SEE IC 457)., and that the smaller galaxy on
sketch II is the single galaxy IC 465 which lies north following NGC 2340, not
south following as stated in Rosse's description.
The NGC 2000 gives both identities as separate objects at Dreyer's coordinates
while the MOL also gives the Dreyer coordinates making IC 465 (NSO) and NGC 2334
(Non existing object). Steinicke and the APL both equate the identities
NGC 2334 and IC 465, the APL qualifying the equivalency with a question mark (?).
PGC gives the single identity IC 465.
NOTE: It is also my opinion that Dreyer was not fully convinced as to whether
Bigourdan's nova (NGC 2334) was also one of Rosse's objects and that when he
assigned the identity NGC 2334 it was entirely based upon the fact that
according to Bigourdan there was a nebula relatively close to where Rosse's sketch
No.I suggested, close north of NGC 2332 and that it was this doubt that prompted
Dreyer to place the question mark following the name Lord Rosse as co-discoverer
of NGC 2334. Certainly by the time Dreyer had access to Kobold's observations
(prior to publication of the IC Catalogue I), he should have been able to compare
the relative positions given in the Kobold data with those shown in Rosse'e Third
sketch, which in both cases invalidate the existence of any nonstellar objects at
the required position for any NGC 2334, but evidently he never questioned this.
IC 467.
POSS. O-1256.
Denning. 07hr 19m 10.708s + 80 01' 02.217" (1950).
07hr 27m 37.408s + 79 55' 05.415" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error would appear to be only in the coordinate data and
due to the very high declination of this galaxy.
The MOL gives 7hr 19m 10s + 80 01' 5" which is in good agreement with Denning,
however, the CGCG, NGC 2000, UGC, PGC, DSFG, RC3 and MCG all give coordinates
around 7hr 21.6m + 79 58'.0 and these reflect better positional
accuracy. The APL and Steinicke have the most precise coordinates at 7hr 21m
54.4s + 79 58' 27". (1950). Correctly identified in NED and SIMBAD.
IC 468.
POSS. 0-1619.
Bigourdan # 149. 07hr 15m 01.172s - 13 07' 44.178" (1950).
07hr 19m 20.103s - 13 13' 11.367" (2000).
Bigourdan made two separate observation, both times employing as his reference
star (Anon) = AC 2000.2 #2387706 and his separation values as applied to this
star by his first observation would give the above coordinates, while for his
second observation the result would differ only by -4.54 tsec RA and 9.5 arcsec
farther north.
The former coordinates land very close to a faint double star, while the second
coordinates land close to a faint star preceding the double star. Thus at neither
do we find any evidence of any nonstellar image, only faint stars.
Bigourdan points out in his description for his second observation that he doubts
that it exists as any type of nebula.
NED has "Other." NGC 2000 lists it as "Neb." MOL has
"May not exist." APL gives it as ***, as does Steinicke. SIMBAD identifies it as an
HII Region at coordinates that have nothing to do with Bigourdan's data.
IC 470.
POSS. O-670.
Swift List X. #17. 07hr 19m 53.292s + 46 10' 20.042" (1950).
07hr 23m 32.141s + 46 04' 30.176" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke (*
2) and APL which gives (= **) as does NED. SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 473.
POSS. O-1003.
Spitaler 9. 07hr 39m 41.171s + 09 22' 27.506"
07hr 42m 24.815s + 09 15' 19.692" (2000).
Equal to 3 stars : It lies at 4 tsec following the star BD +9 1746 equal to AC
#287004 as stated by Spitaler. Correctly listed in the APL (=***). Listed in NGC
2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*3) and MOL (NSO). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 483.
POSS O-226.
Spitaler #10. 07hr 56m 50.166s + 26 03' 38.133" (1950).
07hr 59m 52.237s + 25 55' 23.173" (2000).
This is equal to 2 stars : Only listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = **,
Steinicke (* 2). MOL (NSO). NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 487.
POSS. O-1298.
Swift List VII, #10. 07hr 56m 38.818s - 00 31' 28.015" (1950).
07hr 59m 11.943s - 00 39' 41.374" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2494 (Marth #110) : Marth's RA has an error of ~ 01 tmin but
there can be little doubt that Swift's Nova is the same object first seen by
Marth.
The MCG gives only the identity IC 487. The equivalency is correctly noted in the
NGC 2000, NED, MOL, APL, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, PGC, and Carlson.
IC 488.
POSS O-226.
Spitaler #13. See below for coordinates.
There are two possible images either of which might be Spitaler's object :
If the stated coordinates are updated, 07hr 57m 46.848s +26 02' 45.960" (1950),
08hr 00m 48.834s + 25 54' 27.414" (2000), then what Spitaler was seeing is a faint
double star whose components are aligned south preceding north following. However,
Spitaler shows in his description that there is a 13 mag. star preceding
his nova and that the nova's separation from this star is 16.84 tsec RA and 20.4
arcsec north following, which then would give coordinates of 07hr 57m 48.718s + 26
02' 14.282" (1950), 08hr 00m 50.689s + 25 53' 55.618" (2000), which lands on the
brightest and preceding star of a compact trio very closely south following the
faint double star.
Due to this seemingly conflicting data it is difficult to know exactly which of
these two possibilities is correct. Therefore, like Dr. Corwin, I am leaving this
identity open.
Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (* 2), APL (= 3 F sts and =
** ?), NED "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (NSO).
IC 489.
POSS O-226.
Spitaler #14. 07hr 58m 35.987s + 26 08 14.347" (1950).
08hr 01m 38.028s + 25 59' 52.695" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "!*."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL = * , MOL has (NSO). Steinicke has (=
*).
IC 496.
POSS O-226
Javelle #152. 08hr 06m 42.650s + 26 01' 49.861" (1950).
08hr 09m 43.959s + 25 52' 57.843" (2000).
Javelle's Corrected Nominal Position lands right on the preceding of two galaxies
that line up preceding and following, being less than 2 tsec apart, therefore its
identity is secure.
During his observation of his #152 he makes no direct mention of the following
galaxy, other than a personal reference to the fact that #152 appears to be
extended in an east-west direction. Whether this impression results from
glimpsing the following galaxy it is impossible to say, therefore without
additional evidence one must at this time accept that his Object # 1025 = IC 2229,
observed some 4 years after his discovery of IC 496, is a duplicate observation of
IC 496. In his description for IC 2229 he omits any mention of IC 496 which would
appear to support the equivalency conclusion and his Corrected Nominal Position
for IC 2229 lands about half-way between the two galaxies, therefore I am going
with IC 496 being equal to IC 2229.
The CGCG and MCG incorrectly list the two identities as IC 495 = IC 2229. The NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list both IC 496 and IC 2229 as separate identities.
The PCG lists IC 495 = IC 2229 in its main catalogue, however, it changes this to
IC 496 = IC 2229 in its Corrections.
The APL and NED equate the identities IC 496 and IC 2229 as does Steinicke. Not
listed in the UGC or RC3. SIMBAD identifies the preceding image as being IC 496 and
the following image as IC 2229, and based upon the red shift values they would
appear to be separate galaxies.
IC 507.
POSS. O-1305.
Swift List VIII, #47. 08hr 22m 34.151s - 00 16' 52.281" (1950).
08hr 25m 07.537s - 00 26' 40.992" (2000).
This is a duplicate of NGC 2590. (Stephan IX, #15). Dreyer in the IC I
incorrectly reduced Swift's RA, giving it a position of 08hr 23m 04s or 31 tsec
greater than Swift's RA. Also on page 377, NGC/IC Dreyer states "Not found. Howe
3 nights." Stephan had given his NGC 2590 coordinates of 08hr 22m 27.9s - 00 25'
31" and Swift's description matches this galaxy.
The NGC 2000 types it as (?) at the incorrect Dreyer coordinates and the MOL also
gives the Dreyer coordinates and states "May not exist." Correctly equated with
NGC 2590 in the PGC, APL and Steinicke. The MCG and SIMBAD give the single identity
NGC 2590. NED has correct equivalency.
IC 518.
POSS. O-1305.
Bigourdan #151. 08hr 33m 32.565s + 00 52' 03.810" (1950).
08hr 36m 07.006s + 00 41' 36.925" (2000).
Not found : This is a rather unusual problem in that there is conflicting
historical data concerning this identity.
To begin with Dreyer lists this object with 1950 coordinates of 8hr 34m 28s + 00
51'.7 which is about 1 tmin larger than the RA I have given above, so why this
difference?
Dreyer obtained his positional data exactly as given by Bigourdan in the
publication COMPTES RENDUS for the meeting of March 31st 1891 in which Bigourdan
describes it as being a 13.5 mag. nebulous object appearing to be formed by a
number of associated stars, however, when the COMPTES RENDUS position is examined
on the Palomar print no object can be found and this is what Corwin in his APL
found in his investigation. Two of the other modern sources listing this
identity, the NGC 2000 (open cluster) and MOL (open cluster) place it at the
Dreyer position.
Next, examination of Bigourdan's 1919 OBSERVATIONS ETC; has two separate
observations for his #151. The first on March 15th 1890, the second on February
16th 1896 and on both occasions he employs as his reference star BD +1 2137
measuring separations of - 13.19 tsec. in RA and - 4 arcmin 33.6 arcsec which when
applied to the coordinates for his reference star and then precessed to 1950 and
2000 give the coordinate as I have listed above, at about 1 tmin less than
Dreyers.
Now when this new position is checked upon the Palomar print it lands very close
to the galaxy NGC 2618 and I was almost ready to claim that IC 518 and NGC 2618
were equivalent identities, however, Bigourdan on the same two nights made two
separate observations of NGC 2618 and there can be no doubt that he was observing
the correct object as in addition to using a reference star, which he called
(Anon 2), he gives separations and PA's for 3 associated stars and all of these
stars are at the relative positions he gives.
Bigourdan also states in his 1919 publication "NGC 2618. This nebula is found 13
secs in front of the NGC position."
Actually according to the APL 1950 position for NGC 2618 Dreyer's RA is 7 tsec too
large and then Bigourdan states in his description for his #151 = IC 518, "This
object is found at the position given by the NGC for NGC 2618."
Again according to the APL it is actually 7 tsecs of RA too small. So it would
seem that Bigourdan's arrived at positions for both of these identities is
somewhat off, but again what is Bigourdan's object #151?
As he gives positions for both identities I could then only work out the relative
separations he makes between them and measure these differences from NGC 2618 on
the Palomar print and the result is similar to Dr. Corwin's (except at a 1 tmin
difference), in that there is no nonstellar object, the closest thing being a 13
magnitude star.
Only other modern listings are Steinicke (Not found), NGC 2000 (Open cluster), NED
"Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and MOL (Open cluster).
IC 532.
POSS. O-1535
Bigourdan #152. 09hr 16m 42.200s - 16 32' 34.319" (1950).
09hr 19m 02.020s - 16 45' 16.507" (2000).
Not found : The only historical observation of this I found was in Bigourdan's
entry in the COMPTES RENDUS in which he describes it as being Bright, elongated
towards a PA of 97 degrees. Length 1.5 arcmin. Brightens towards the center but
not to a nucleus.
I was unable to find it listed in his 1919 OBSERVATIONS which might indicate that
he had second thoughts about its existence.
Listed in the NGC 20000 (?) and MOL (May not exist). Carlson has "Not found,
Helwan." as do the APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED
"Other."
IC 533.
POSS. O-922.
Javelle #633. 09hr 17m 52.452s - 03 46' 44.907" (1950).
09hr 20m 23.251s - 03 59' 30.435" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MOL (NSO) gives a 1950 declination of -07 46' 45" but
this refers to an "Anon" = MCG-01 -24-10 and is not Javelle's object which exists
at the coordinates he gives. The APL gives the correct identification as does the
NGC 2000 and Steinicke. NED has correct identity. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but lists the correct galaxy as
IC 538.
POSS. O-237.
Bigourdan #154. 09hr 24m 26.914s + 23 14' 20.675" (1950).
09hr 27m 18.439s + 23 01' 16.525" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2885 (h. 599) : J. Herschel (Slough Observations. 1833.)
listed discovery of a nebula at 9hr 24m 53s (+ or -) + 23 13 55, describing it as
"Exceedingly faint, very small, elongated in the parallel, RA very uncertain." and
it was this object that Dreyer assigned the identity NGC 2885.
Later Bigourdan searched for NGC 2885 at the given coordinates but was unable to
find anything, however, he did list discovery of a nebula (B.154) at 9hr 24m
27.085s + 23 14' 17.026" (1950) and Dreyer gave this object the identity IC 538
with a notation, "*13 in VF neb.(?=h599, whose RA was uncertain)." (NGC/IC.
P.257.).
This galaxy is the brightest of a group of 5 and because of the relatively small
amount of difference in RA between J. Herschel and Bigourdan (27s) and the
uncertainty expressed by Herschel as to the accuracy of his measured RA I am
convinced that NGC 2885 and IC 538 are the same object. (See WSQJ. No.81. July
1991. "Identification Errors in the NGC 2885 Galaxy Group." M.J.Thomson) also
(Q.J.R. astr. Soc.(1992). No.33. "A List of Some Corrections to Zwicky's
Catalogue of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies." M.J.Thomson.) The CGCG
incorrectly identifies this galaxy as being IC 2474 (See IC 2474). This same
error is repeated in the UGC and MOL. The MCG gives only the identity IC 538
while the PGC although pointing out the CGCG error, does not refer to the
equivalency.
The RNGC has completely confused the identity, making an Anon. ZWG 122.006 equal
to RNGC 2885 as does the DSFG. Not listed in the RC3. The APL and NED correctly
equate IC 538 and NGC 2885. Steinicke also equates NGC 2885 and IC 538. SIMBAD
list both identities separately.
IC 541.
POSS. O-922.
Swift List IX, #21. 09hr 28m 00.971s - 04 01' 42.900" (1950).
09hr 30m 31.745s - 04 14' 56.330" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at nominal position. Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No
Type) and MOL as (NSO). The APL and Steinicke both list it as Not found. NED
gives "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 543.
POSS. O-1016.
Bigourdan #155. 09hr 28m 46.413s - 14 33' 35.017" (1950).
09hr 31m 09.476s - 14 46' 50.516" (2000).
Not found : I was unable to find any reference to this object in Bigourdan's
publication (1919). At the separation values, 17s RA following and 2.7 arcmin
south of NGC 2902 (obtained from Comptes Rendus data), no nebular image exists,
however, at about these same values preceding and south of NGC 2902 there
definitely is a galaxy.
Whether this is a viable candidate or not I am unable to say but I doubt that IC
543 can be equal to NGC 2902 as Bigourdan made two separate observations of this
NGC galaxy.
The MCG, NGC 2000, SIMBAD and PGC all make IC 543 = NGC 2902. CGCG has no listing.
MOL lists as a separate (Nonstellar Object) with Dreyer's coordinates. RC3 gives
single identity NGC 2902. The APL states "Not found." as does Steinicke. NED has
"Other."
NOTE : I find it rather interesting that Bigourdan in his Comptes Rendus
description for his B.159 = IC 640 states that it is elongated in a PA of 104 and
is 80 arcsecs long by 35 arcsecs wide yet in his later published 1919 work he
states that without doubt this is a false image. His Comptes Rendus description
for B.155 = IC 543 states that it is elongated in a PA of 100 and is 80 arcsecs
long and 40 arcsecs wide.
IC 547.
(See IC 2494).
IC 554.
POSS. O-990.
Swift List X, #(None). 09hr 38m 58.483s + 12 40' 15.263" (1950).
09hr 41m 40.742s + 12 26' 33.287" (2000).
Not found. Probably equal to IC 555 : This is one of a few objects published in
MNRAS Vol. LIII, p.273, thus it does not have a Swift object number. At the
coordinates as measured by Swift no nonstellar object exists, the closest object
being a single star. Corwin in his APL equates Swift's identity with IC 555 which
was discovered by Javelle some 6 nights prior to Swift's observation and as the
differences in coordinates are only 9 seconds RA and 8.4 arcmin Dec. it is almost
certain that Corwin is correct.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both listing the two
identities as separate objects. The APL gives = IC 555. Steinicke has (IC 554 =
IC 555). PGC lists IC 555 but has no listing for IC 554. SIMBAD confirms the
identity IC 555 but without any equivalency with IC 554 which they lists as (Not
found). NED gives the equivalency.
IC 555.
(See IC 554).
IC 556.
POSS. O-990.
Javelle #168. 09hr 40m 59.631s + 11 17' 27.032" (1950).
09hr 43m 40.832s + 11 03' 40.059" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Probably = NGC 2984 (H 34-3). At the coordinates for NGC 2984
as measured by both William and John Herschel (9hr 42m 15s + 11 21 20 W.H. and 9hr
42m 16s + 11 15'.2 J.H.) no galaxy exists. Also in the case of John Herschel he
states that both his RA and DEC. are not precise, thus it is highly probable that
what Javelle recorded is H 34-3 and that he was misled by the coordinates as given
by Dreyer for NGC 2984 which were based upon the J.H. data.
The CGCG, UGC and MCG give only the identity IC 556 without listing any NGC 2984
identity. The MOL (NSO), lists both identities as separate objects. The APL,
Steinicke, NED, PGC, SIMBAD and NGC 2000 make IC 556 = NGC 2984.
IC 567.
POSS. O-990.
Bigourdan #156. 09hr 47m 51.607s + 13 01' 14.046" (1950).
09hr 50m 33.617s + 12 47' 10.446" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). The APL
correctly identifies it as being a star 1'.95 north following NGC 3024.
Steinicke originally equated this with the faint galaxy REIZ 77 and indeed REIZ in
his ANNALS OF THE LUND OBSERVATORY. NO.9, 1941 does identify his #77 as being IC
567 at 09hr 48m 00s + 13 03'.2, however, not only does this galaxy not fit
Bigourdan's offsets from the galaxy NGC 3024, but its appearance on the DSS would
strongly suggest that it was beyond the capabilities of the Paris 12.4 inch
refractor. Steinicke in his latest update now correctly list IC 567 as being a
star. NED has "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL "=*."
NOTE: Bigourdan measured the coordinates by offsetting from the galaxy NGC 3024,
however, although his offsets are correct his coordinates for NGC 3024 reflect a
positional error due to his incorrect coordinates for his prime reference star,
BD+31 2162, which he obtained from the BD catalogue and from which he then gave
separation values to his secondary reference star, ANON(1) and (2).
Because of the error originating in the BD catalogue Bigourdan's nominal position
is not very accurate, however, by confirming that his ANON (1) and (2) is equal to
GSC 834-265 at 09hr 47m 43.00 + 12 54' 49.6" (1950) and then applying his offsets
(+ 0 tmin 2.10 tsec RA and + 5 arcmin 12.4 arcsec Dec) the result is the correct
position for NGC 3024 and then when his offsets (+ 0 tmin 6.30 tsec RA and + 1
arcmin 17 arcsec Dec.) are in turn applied to his now corrected coordinates they
land right on the star north following NGC 3024.
IC 573.
POSS. O-1536.
Javelle #171. 09hr 51m 07.563s - 12 14' 36.347" (1950).
09hr 53m 33.550s - 12 28' 47.411" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3058 (Leavenworth) : There can be little if any doubt that
this is the object seen at the Leander McCormick Observatory. Leavenworth
described it as being "extremely faint, pretty large. Double or bi-nuclear." He
gave it very poor coordinates of 09hr 52m 55s - 12 13'.9 (something found with
almost all of the Leander McCormick positions for their NGC discoveries as opposed
to those measured for their IC discoveries which are generally very accurate) and
this is what misled Javelle into thinking he had a Nova.
The MOL (NSO) gives separate identities and separate coordinates for both
identities. Correctly noted as equal to NGC 3058 in the NGC 2000, MCG, NED, SIMBAD,
APL, PGC and Steinicke.
IC 579.
POSS. O-935.
Swift List VIII, #50. 09hr 54m 09.001s - 13 54' 43.889" (1950).
09hr 56m 34.008s - 14 09' 01.871" (2000).
Not found : There is no suitable image at the nominal position or in the
immediate field. The APL has a suggested identification (?) at 09hr 54m 14.1s -
13 32' 12" which the PGC, NED, SIMBAD, RC3 and Steinicke also identify as being IC
579. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list it at Swift's given position.
IC 580.
POSS. O-74.
Javelle #175. 09hr 55m 15.993s + 10 40' 17.907" (1950).
09hr 57m 56.115s + 10 25' 57.298" (2000).
This is equivalent to NGC 3069 (Rosse).
In Rosse's observation of NGC 3070 made on March 15th, 1877. he states "pB, pS, R,
mbM, among 3 st. 5' nnp is an object which I have little doubt is a vF, vS neb,
perhaps lE [= 5513]. Clouds."
Now the reference [=5513] is for the Dreyer Supplemental Identity to John
Herschel's GC catalogue and is equal to NGC 3069.
Javelle's #175 is quite obviously this same object as can easily be determined
from his coordinates and separations from his reference star DM +11 2133. How
Javelle overlooked the Dreyer data for NGC 3069 is something I am unable to
explain as in his description for IC 580 he makes no reference to NGC 3070.
CGCG and UGC (Notes to NGC 3070) identify this object only as IC 580. The MOL
(NSO) gives both identities with separate coordinates. The RC3 gives the correct
identity NGC 3069 but does not mention the equivalency. The MCG states "IC 580 =
NGC 3069?" The APL, NGC 2000, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NED and PGC correctly give the
equivalency.
NOTE : See RASQJ (1992) #33, p.61. "A List of Some Corrections to Zwicky's
Catalogue of Galaxies and Clusters of Galaxies." M.J.Thomson.
IC 587.
POSS. O-470
Javelle #661. 10hr 00m 32,156s - 02 09' 28.299" (1950).
10hr 03m 04.578s - 02 24' 00.414" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At the historical coordinates no nebular image exists,
however, by reversing the direction of separation as given by Javelle for both RA
and declination from his reference star, DM-1 2336 it results in finding a galaxy
fitting Javelle's description at 10hr 00m 32.156s - 02 09' 28,299" (1950).
Both Carlson and MOL have typed IC 567 as being equal to the star BD -1 2334 which
lies 01m 26.6s preceding and 04.7 arcmin south of Javelle's reference star DM -1
2336 and this identity is clearly based upon the separation values as given by
Javelle (01m 28.2 s following and 02.0 arcmin south), which lands less than 05.0
arcmin from the 9.3 star BD -1 2334, however, as stated, when Javelle's separation
signs are reversed they do land upon a galaxy compatible with Javelle's
description.
The MCG identifies this galaxy only as - 0-26-12 and the CGCG only as ZWG 470.028.
Correct identity given by NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3 and Steinicke.
IC 591.
POSS. O-74.
Javelle #177. 10hr 04m 47.388s + 12 31' 06.416" (1950).
10hr 07m 28.130s + 12 16' 25.184" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U05458. Correctly identified in
the CGCG, PGC, MCG, RC3, DSFG, NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO). The APL equates it
with Todd's #22, which never was assigned any NGC identity by Dreyer. I examined
Todd's data and could not derive any information that would confirm this
equivalency. Correctly identified by Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED.
IC 602.
POSS. O-1359.
Javelle #673. 10hr 15m 42.430s + 07 18' 14.723" (1950).
10hr 18m 19.825s + 07 03' 11.788" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy, but may be equal to NGC 3186 (Marth #195)
There is no doubt that IC 602 is at the coordinates as given by Javelle, making up
a double system with IC 601, however, Steve Gottlieb has put forth an excellent
argument that suggests that IC 602 is equal to NGC 3186.
Steve while examining the field visually found what he first thought was NGC 3186
but later realized that he had been observing what all the modern sources other
than the RNGC and MOL have identified as being IC 602. In the course of his
investigation he found that IC 602 lies almost exactly 1 tmin. following the
coordinates given by Marth for his #195 = NGC 3186 and that Marth's declination
was in agreement with that given by Javelle for IC 602 and that the RNGC (MOL)
candidate for NGC 3186 was much fainter than IC 602 and requires not only a
correction of about 19 tsec. in RA but would also need a change of about 5 arcmin.
in declination which he considered to be unlikely, as do I.
If Steve is right, and I feel that he has a very strong case, then IC 602 is
indeed equal to NGC 3186, which invalidates the RNGC and MOL data for NGC 3186 and
would require that the single identity IC 602 as given in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, NED,
PGC, SIMBAD, RC3, Steinicke, APL and NGC 2000 have the equivalency of NGC 3186 added
to their data.
IC 604.
POSS. O-962
Swift List IX, No.22.. 10hr 20m 30.149s + 57 16' 53.291" (1950).
10hr 23m 46.736s + 57 01' 41.031" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3220 (H 911-3). Listed in the CGCG, UGC, DFSG, PGC, SIMBAD and
MCG only as NGC 3220. Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities as separate
objects. The APL, NED and Steinicke correctly give (= NGC 3220).
IC 606.
POSS. O-238.
Javelle #676. 10hr 20m 55.155s + 11 12' 52.021" (1950).
10hr 23m 34.314s + 10 57' 39.404" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3217 (Todd #29) : Even though Todd's measured coordinates
for NGC 3217 are 10hr 18.8m + 11 08.4, which are greatly in error, comparison of
the configuration of the field stars he gives in his sketch make it almost a
certainty that what he saw was the same object as Javelle.
The CGCG, MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, SIMBAD and RC3 give only the identity IC 606. The MOL
(NSO), while making NGC 3217 Nonexistent. The APL, NED and Steinicke are the only
sources to equate the two identities.
IC 610.
(See IC 611).
IC 611.
POSS. O-1380.
Swift List VIII, #54. 10hr 23m 41.890s + 20 30' 09.464" (1950).
10hr 26m 25.627s + 20 14' 51.807" (2000).
This is equal to IC 610 (Swift List VIII,# 53) : Due to IC 610 being
discovered two nights prior to IC 611 the historically correct identity is IC 610.
CGCG and MCG give only the identity IC 611. UGC, NGC 2000, APL, MOL, NED,
Steinicke, SIMBAD and PGC correctly note the equivalency.
IC 617.
POSS. O-1537.
Javelle #179. 10hr 30m 16.060s - 12 22' 45.675" (1950).
10hr 32m 44.210s - 12 38' 14.469" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3280 (Common) which is equal to NGC 3295 (Leavenworth) :
Here we have another excellent example of how poorly reported coordinates can
mislead later observers and create confusion in the catalogues.
Common was the first to see this object giving it coordinates of 10hr 29m 56s - 12
14'.1 Six years later Leavenworth working at the Leander McCormick Observatory
came across this same object, claiming it as a discovery which he published as
being at 10hr 32.9m - 12 23'.5 Finally 6 years after the Leavenworth observation
Javelle found at the above coordinates a nebula which because of its difference in
position he rightfully believed to be a Nova.
I have during my study seen this same type of error repeated again and again where
later observers, especially Javelle and Bigourdan, were misled due to the
inaccuracy of earlier observers.
The MCG gives the single identity NGC 3280. The NGC 2000 (Gx) equates NGC 3280
with NGC 3295 but makes no equivalency with IC 617. The APL gives (= NGC 3280w =
NGC 3295w) while Steinicke gives (= NGC 3280A = NGC 3295A). NED has "Equal to NGC
3208B = NGC 3295. SIMBAD has IC 617 "Not present in the database, NGC 3280 "Existing
galaxy," and NGC 3295 (No Data).
The MOL gives no equivalency, listing IC 617 and NGC 3280 as separate objects and
for NGC 3295 stating "Non-existent object." The PGC gives the identity NGC 3280
but makes no equivalency for it with either NGC 3295 or IC 617 and has no listing
for IC 617.
IC 618.
POSS. O-1537.
Javelle #180. 10hr 30m 17.128s - 12 27' 32.510" (1950).
10hr 32m 45.241s - 12 43' 01.333" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3296 (Leavenworth). Again Leavenworth provided a very
inaccurate position (10hr 32.9m - 12 27'.4) which again misled Javelle into
believing he was discovering a new object.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO list both identities as separate objects. The
equivalency is correctly given in the APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 619.
POSS. O-238.
Swift List VIII, #55. 10hr 30m 51.477 + 12 48' 12.337" (1950).
10hr 33m 30.839s + 12 32' 42.581" (2000).
Possible candidate ? : At Swift's nominal position no object exists which fits
his description "eeF, S, R, a pL triangle of 3 F st. nr.f, one a vF D." However,
at 10hr 31m 10.49s + 13 08' 13.4 (1950) there is a galaxy, ZWG 65.056 Mp 14.8 which
does have such a triangle of stars following and one of the 3 stars is a double. The
APL and NED select this galaxy as IC 619.
As anyone who has worked with Swift's positional data knows, his methods for
obtaining his coordinates often resulted in large errors (even Dreyer refers to
this in the NGC/IC p.242) and such an amount of error as in this case would
certainly not be unique.
The only catalogues to list the identity IC 619 are the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO) both at Swift's given coordinates. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Steinicke equates IC 619 with ZWG 65.056. APL (Equal to UGC 05735) which is equal to
ZWG 65.056.
NOTE: In my previous Version 6.0 I also stated that ZWG 65.050 was a possible
candidate, however, after examining Dr. Corwin's argument (Puzzle Solution Files)
I now find his candidate to be the more likely solution.
IC 621.
POSS. O-1399.
Javelle #684. 10hr 30m 46.070s + 02 52' 28.479" (1950).
10hr 33m 21.009s + 02 36' 58.909" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is the brighter and southernmost of two galaxies in the
same field. Initially I questioned whether it might be the more northerly of the
two as the nominal coordinates as measured from Javelle's reference star would
place it about 1 arcmin closer to this galaxy than the brighter southern one and
this is probably what influenced the CGCG to identify the northern of the pair as
being IC 621, which is incorrect. Also as the NGC 2000 has used the CGCG as its
source for this identity it is also in error. Meanwhile Dreyer, as would be
expected, published its position according to the data submitted by Javelle and
as the MOL employed the IC I data their candidate is also the wrong one.
The error derives from the fact that in Javelle's discovery data there is a 2
arcmin 23 arcsec declination error published for his reference star DM +3 2388,
his declination being that amount too far north. Thus his offsetting was
adversely affected by this amount which when corrected makes the southern of the
two galaxies the correct IC 621.
Incorrectly identified in the CGCG and PGC. The correct IC 621 is ZWG 37.074 not
ZWG 37.075. Correctly identified in the APL, NED and by Steinicke. SIMBAD
incorrectly makes it the fainter and northern of the two field galaxies, it is the
brighter, southern galaxy that is the correct IC 621.
NOTE : The solution and explanation for this problem is entirely due to Dr.
Corwin from whom I requested assistance regarding my own failure to arrive at a
viable answer to the dilemma. My thanks to him for his prompt answer which
immediately cleared up any previous doubt I may have had as to the correct
identity.
IC 622.POSS. O-238.
Swift List IX, #23. 10hr 31m 55.645s + 11 27' 28.171" (1950).
10hr 34m 34.334s + 11 11' 56.688" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Possibly equal to NGC 3279 (Todd #30) :
The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC equate both identities and this is probably
correct. Todd's coordinates are again very poor as he gives NGC 3279 10hr 30.3m +
11 28'.0, whereas this time Swift's coordinates are not too bad.
The CGCG,UGC and MCG all give the single identity IC 622. The NGC 2000 (GX) lists
both identities without mention of any equivalency as does the MOL (NSO).
NOTE: Swift describes his object as having a 9th mag. star south, however, the
closest 9th magnitude star lies directly north.
IC 625.
POSS. O-1523.
Muller. 10hr 34m 48.704s - 23 38' 48.338" (1950).
10hr 37m 11.888s - 23 55' 21.407" (2000).
Not found at the nominal position : Muller was one of the observers at the
Leander McCormick Observatory. He gives his reference object as L.M. 425 and this
happens to be the galaxy NGC 3335, which Muller had discovered sometime earlier. As
with many of the NGC objects discovered at the Leander-McCormick Observatory the
published coordinates were far from precise, 10hr 40m 15.488s -23 54' 24.407"
(2000), however, there is no doubt as to the existence of NGC 3335, which is found
at 10hr 39m 34.17s -23 55' 21.4" (2000). Muller gives a measured offset in RA from
NGC 3335 of -3 tmin 3.6 tsec, which would result in placing IC 625 at 10hr 37m
11.888s - 23 54' 24.407" (2000), at which position no nonsteller object exists. It
was Dr. Corwin who correctly concluded that Muller's published offset in RA "-3 tmin
3.6 tsec" has the wrong sign and should be + not -. This then would result in
corrected coordinates of 10hr 42m 37.78s -23 56' 07.4" (2000) and at this position
there is a galaxy ESO 501-G080, which completely matches the requirements as given
in Muller's description.
Steinicke and NED have the correct identity. The NGC 2000 (No Type) has it listed
at 10hr 34.1m -23 39'.5 (1950) and the MOL (NSO) at 10hr 34m 07s - 23 39'. 41" both
of based upon the Dreyer coordinates. The PGC (#31695) identifies the APL and
Steinicke candidate only as an "Anon," as does the MCG (-04-26 001). The ESO (501-
G069) gives it equal to IC 625 ? and lists its 501-G80 as Anon. SIMBAD completely
incorrectly makes it equal to ESO 501-069
IC 628.
POSS. O-1399.
Javelle #182. 10hr 34m 59.191s + 05 51' 48.064" (1950).
10hr 37m 35.327s + 05 36' 11.744" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD,
UGC, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO), however, the MOL also incorrectly
identifies it as having coordinates of 10hr 41m 07s + 16 09'.0.
IC 629.
POSS. O-1523.
Bigourdan #158. 10hr 34m 41.641s - 27 17' 54.483" (1950).
10hr 37m 02.923s - 27 33' 30.433" (2000).(Based on Comptes Rendus).
This is equal to NGC 3312 (h 3282). I was unable to find any reference to B 158
in Bigourdan's 1919 OBSERVATIONS which suggests that by the time he prepared the
data for that publication he had concluded that he had mistaken NGC 3312 for a
nova in his COMPTES RENDUS entry. Additional support for this is that in the 1919
work he does give a measured position for NGC 3312 of 10hr 34m 41.822s - 27 18'
14.596" (1950), which almost exactly matches his coordinates as given for IC 629.
The MCG gives only the identity NGC 3312. The equivalency is correctly noted in
the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Carlson, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 640.
POSS. O-731.
Bigourdan #159. 10hr 44m 01.885s + 35 01' 53.055" (1950).
10hr 46m 50.527s + 34 46' 03.256" (2000).
Nonexistent : Bigourdan clearly states in his observation that he suspected that
what he saw was a false telescopic image. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC
2000 (No Type). MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke correctly has (Not
found). NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has "Fausse
image."
IC 641.
POSS. O-731.
Bigourdan #160. 10hr 45m 00.954s + 34 56' 13.121" (1950).
10hr 47m 49.355s + 34 40' 21.957" (2000).
Nothing at nominal position : As with IC 640 Bigourdan suspected this was a
false image. CGCG, PGC, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 gives no Type.
MOL (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke (Not found). NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." APL has "Fausse image."
IC 644.
POSS O- 673.
Swift List IX.#24. 10hr 48m 37.453s + 55 39' 58.160" (1950).
10hr 51m 40.380s + 55 24' 02.099" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3398 (H 792-3) : The MCG incorrectly identifies its +9-18-41
as being IC 644 while correctly identifying its +9-18-38 as being NGC 3398.
The CGCG identifies ZWG 267.018 as being IC 644 but then incorrectly identifies
ZWG 267.022 as being NGC 3398. The PGC Corrections state "ZWG 267.018 = NGC 3398
not IC 644" however, this is somewhat misleading as the IC identity is a duplicate
of the NGC identity. The PGC does correctly point out that ZWG 267. 022 is not
NGC 3398. Although the UGC gives U 05954 the identity IC 644 it states in its
NOTES section "U05954 ident.is IC 644 by several authors which is probably
incorrect, NGC 3398?" NGC 2000 lists IC 644 as (Galaxy) without mention of any
equivalency and the MOL lists both identities as separate objects, as does SIMBAD.
DSFG places IC 644 at 4 arcmins south of NGC 3398.
The RC3 lists IC 644 = PGC 32564, 10hr 48m 28'.8s + 55 39' 20" and NGC 3398 = PGC
32568, 10hr 48m 31.9s + 55 43' 51". The APL and Steinicke equate IC 644 and NGC
3398. NED correctly equates both identities
Meanwhile the following five historical measurements for NGC 3398 are :
Wm. Herschel..........10hr 48m 22s + 55 41' 05"
Auwers................10hr 48m 30s + 55 41' 00
Bigourdan.............10hr 48m 30s + 55 39' 28"
Reinmuth..............10hr 48.5m + 55 41'.3
Dreyer................10hr 48m 31s + 55 41'.6 (NGC 3398) and 10hr 48m 38s + 55
40'.4 (IC 644).
IC 652.
POSS. O-1022.
Javelle #187. 10hr 48m 26.951s - 12 10' 59.540" (1950).
10hr 50m 56.279s - 12 26' 55.348" (2000).
Not found at nominal position but equal to NGC 3421:
Javelle identifies as his reference star the 9.6 Mv star DM - 11 2960 (= GSC 5505-
88) and measured separation values of + 0 tmin 29.58s (following) and + 04 arcmin
11.9arcsec (south),
When these coordinates are examined on the DSS no nebular image is found, however,
I believe that the reference star actually employed is GSC 5502-563 at 10hr 50m
26.36s - 12 22' 40.3" (2000) and when Javelle's offsets are applied they land on
the galaxy also identified as being NGC 3421.
The APL, Steinicke and PGC have equated IC 652 with NGC 3421, as have NED and
SIMBAD.
Common published a list of some 32 New Nebulae (COPERNICUS Vol.1, page 50) and NGC
3421 is his No. 8 He states that "the positions given are only approximate, taken
directly from the setting circles" and this has produced some large errors.
Common's coordinates for his NGC 3421 would be 10hr 48m 25s - 11 57'.2 or about 14
arcmin too far north in declination and I am completely in agreement that the APL
and PGC have the correct NGC identity.
IC 655.
POSS. O-1397.
Javelle #189. 10hr 51m 48.489s - 00 05' 55.924" (1950).
10hr 54m 22.150s -00 21' 55.993" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The NGC 2000 types this identity as being a nebula while the
MOL states "Faint nebula." CGCG, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke correctly type
it as being a galaxy.
IC 656.
POSS. O-463.
Bigourdan #161. 10hr 52m 27.291s + 17 52' 39.293" (1950).
10hr 55m 07.132s + 17 36' 38.442" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is one of a group of galaxies of which considerable
identity confusion exists in both the historical and modern literature.
To begin with the following identities and 1950 coordinates as given by Dreyer
are,
NGC 3454. 10hr 51m 49s + 17 36'.3 credited to JH. (#790 = GC2253).
NGC 3455. 10hr 51m 51s + 17 33'.3 credited to WH. ( H82-2 = JH. #791 = GC2254).
NGC 3457. 10hr 52m 10s + 17 52'.5 credited to JH. (#793 = GC 2256).
NGC 3460. 10hr 52m 33s + 17 52'.9 credited to Rosse and Swift (List 1, #9).
NGC 3461. 10hr 52m 45s + 17 55'.4 credited to Rosse.
IC 656. 10hr 52m 28s + 17 52'.4 credited to Bigourdan (#161).
The first two by order of RA present no problem, all authorities being in
agreement as to their identities.
Now beginning with NGC 3457. It is obvious that Dreyer was relying upon its
discoverer JH for the NGC coordinates and they are reasonably good, however, JH's
description "Stellar. 2 or 3 stars with nebulous burr observed by Mr.Baily." is a
bit puzzling as NGC 3457 does not resemble this, but based upon the coordinates
and separation values between it and NGC 3455 the identity of NGC 3457 has been
firmly established by all the authorities. (See addenda).
Next we must examine the identity NGC 3460. This is credited to Rosse and Swift,
although both the coordinates and description were derived by Dreyer from Swift's
data.
At the position as given by Swift (very close to that for IC 656) there is
absolutely no object which fits his description "pB, R, no star near." except NGC
3457 and it is almost a certainty that what Swift saw and described is indeed NGC
3457 and I believe that it was the reference in JH's Slough description for NGC
3457 concerning the 2 or 3 associated stars that Swift thought that based upon his
measured RA position (which I also believe is too large by about 23 seconds of
time) he had discovered a nova, however, his description leaves little doubt that
NGC 3460 is equivalent to NGC 3457. Meanwhile there is the mystery of why Dreyer
would include Rosse as co-discoverer of NGC 3460.
Rosse made three observations of NGC 3457 and its immediate field, March 27th
1854, March 22nd 1878 and April 4th 1878. The only possible one that could be
construed as being for an object other than NGC 3457 and NGC 3461 is the March
22nd 1878 in which he states in reference to NGC 3457 "Setting for this I found an
eS CL, with a * 12m. in Pos. 175.1, Dist. 305 arcsec.
Examination of the Palomar print based upon this information turns up no image
that can be considered as nonstellar, or a small cluster. Furthermore it is in no
manner in compliance with the coordinate values or description as given to NGC
3460 by Dreyer, thus I am at a loss to explain why Dreyer would consider it as
comparable to Swift's "nova."
Next is the identity NGC 3461. This object is described in both of Rosse's
observations for March 27th 1854 and April 4th 1878 as a small nebula north of a
bright one, [NGC 3457], distance about 5 or 6 arcmins. (1854) and again in
reference to NGC 3457 as Very faint, diffuse nebula in PA 17, Dist. 326 arcsec.
(April 1878).
Here again I examined the relative position as given by Rosse and there is the
image of a stellar-like nebula which after examining with a number of oculars I am
prepared to state is nonstellar, therefore I believe that NGC 3461 is a confirmed
galaxy at the place described by Rosse, however, this is not where Dreyer
positions it as according to his coordinates NGC 3461 would lie further east, or
following the RA of IC 656 at a position that would have a PA much larger than
that given by Rosse. At Dreyer's coordinates for NGC 3461 no nonstellar image
exists. As if this was not enough confusion the RNGC has selected as its RNGC
3461 what is actually IC 656, a selection that has absolutely no basis in
historical data.
Finally we come to the identity IC 656. When Bigourdan's major publication of his
observations is examined there is no direct reference to his Nova #161, (however,
it does appear in his earlier publication in the COMPTES RENDUS at the coordinates
as given above, 10hr 52m 28s + 17 52'.4), instead in addition to his detailed
measurements and descriptions for NGC 3454, 3455 and 3457, (he failed to find NGC
3461, no doubt misled by Dreyer's coordinates), he includes three separate
observations for what he identifies as NGC 3460, placing it at 10hr 52m 26s + 17
52' 42" or 19s of RA following and 25 arcsecs south of the position he gives for
NGC 3457.
As a Note to his first observation of what he identified as being NGC 3460 he
states that "this object was at first taken to be a new nova" and there is no
doubt that because Bigourdan has second thoughts, thinking that it might possibly
be NGC 3460, (based upon Swift's incorrect position for what is actually NGC 3457)
that the identity B.161 was deleted from his major publication, however, this
object does exist, making up a rough and very closely associated trapezium
consisting of 3 faint stars and a very faint, small galaxy, the galaxy being the
south following component.
There is absolutely no doubt that this combination is B.161 as can be confirmed by
measuring Bigourdan's separation values from his reference star in addition to the
differences in his coordinate values for NGC 3454, 3455 and 3457 and thus IC 656
is a confirmed galaxy and an entirely separate object from any of the field NGC
galaxies.
What is amazing to me about IC 656 is that when one examines its image on the
Palomar print it seems almost unbelievable that Bigourdan could have distinguished
its nebular character with a 12.2 inch telescope yet his coordinates and
description cannot be disputed. Certainly it appears that none of the other
visual discoverers who examined the same field, nearly all of whom were employing
telescopes of much larger aperture, noticed this object.
The only modern sources to list the identity IC 656 are Steinicke (compact +3
stars), NGC 2000 and MOL and both type it as "Open cluster" which is no doubt
influenced by Dreyer's IC description and the APL which equates it with NGC 3457 ?
and also gives "= 3 sts + vF gal." The NED has correct IC identity. SIMBAD has no
listing for this galaxy.
Addenda : Now for some thoughts based entirely upon speculation.
There is one aspect of the historical data which is somewhat disconcerting and it
concerns JH's description for his #793 = NGC 3457. (Slough Observations 1833).
After consideration, the description "Stellar. 2 or 3 stars with a nebulous burr
observed by Mr. Baily." appears to me to consist of two contradictory sentences
which could be for two different objects. Firstly we have "Stellar." which
suggests a star-like image and this certainly is applicable to h 793 = NGC 3457,
(Steve Gottlieb observing with a telescope of similar aperture to that used by JH
describes NGC 3457 as "Small, Round, Compact."), then secondly, there is the
sentence "2 or 3 stars with a nebulous burr observed by Mr. Baily, which in no
manner resembles NGC 3457 but is an exact description for IC 656, so is it
possible that JH and Baily were describing two separate objects about 19s of RA
apart ?
I think that JH's #793 is definitely NGC 3457 and the only reason Swift claimed
his nova = NGC 3460 is because of his less than accurately measured RA for his
"nova" which would have, according to Swift, followed NGC 3457 by ~ 22s, also
Swift went out of his way to describe his nova as "no star near" which to me
strongly suggests that he wished to point out the difference between what he was
claiming and what JH's Slough description for h 793 stated.
IC 659.
POSS. O-991.
Javelle #704. 10hr 55m 32.147s - 05 59' 29.719" (1950).
10hr 58m 03.931s - 06 15' 24.392" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG does not have any identity for IC 659, however, both
the RC3 and Steinicke have equated MCG -01-28-010 with IC 659 giving it
coordinates compatible with Javelle's position. Examination of the MCG finds that
they place their -01-28-010 at a declination of -05 48'.0 which would mean that
the MCG declination is in error by about 11.6 arcmin. Correctly identified in the
NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL.
IC 673.
POSS. O-1400.
Javelle #194. 11hr 06m 51.545s + 00 10' 25.299" (1950).
11hr 09m 25.296s - 00 05' 51.634" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Incorrectly identified by a typo error in the CGCG as IC 678 =
ZWG 011.009., this noted in PCG (Corrections). Identified in the UGC only as
U06200 this also noted in PCG. NGC 2000 (No Type), Mol (NSO). APL, Steinicke,
PGC, RC3, NED, SIMBAD and MCG have correct identity.
NOTE : See RASQJ June 1992. (Some Corrections To Zwicky's CGCG.) page 61.
IC 675.
POSS. O-1392.
Javelle #713. 11hr 08m 06.647s + 03 56' 25.102" (1950).
11hr 10m 41.363s + 03 40' 06.974" (2000).
Not found : This is a curious problem in that there is absolutely no fitting
image close to Javelle's nominal position yet he describes it as being "Pretty
bright, pretty large, elongated in the direction of the meridian (north and
south), possibly bi-nuclear." He also states that he also saw and measured NGC
3580, but this galaxy lies about 2.5 tmins following the coordinates he gives and
it does not fit Javelle's description for his #713 as its Mp is close to 15.0.
Corwin has suggested a possible solution might be a pair of 14th mag. stars
located 5 arcmin south following Javelle's position which may under poor seeing
have appeared nebulous, however, again these 2 stars hardly fit the description
"Pretty bright." Also there is no 8th mag. star at any of the possible Javelle
offset combinations which would fit as a reference star.
Only modern listings found are APL ? = **, Steinicke (= *2), NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). NED "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 682.
POSS. O-1353.
Swift List VIII,#56. 11hr 18m 35.001s + 20 29' 36.407" (1950).
11hr 21m 13.069s + 20 13' 09.283" (2000).
Not found at nominal position: It is my feeling at this time that what Swift was
seeing was the galaxy NGC 3649, which NED positions at 11hr 19m 36.786s + 20 28'
58.59" (1950). This is almost exactly 1 tmin different than Swift's RA, while the
declinations are an excellent match.
Additionally, Swift states that there is a very faint star close north preceding,
while NGC 3649 has such a star only it is just off the south following edge, a not
uncommon error when it comes to directional offsets.
Only modern listings are Steinicke (Not found), NED equates IC 682 with NGC 3649.
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both these latter authorities
giving the historical coordinates. APL gives (= NGC 3649). SIMBAD has "Not present
in the database."
IC 683.
POSS. O-1392.
Bigourdan #162. 11hr 18m 57.405s + 03 00' 34.867" (1950).
11hr 21m 31.726s + 02 44' 07.427" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : There is quite an amount of confusion regarding this identity
both in the historical and the modern sources. Bigourdan measured this galaxy
from his reference star and stated that it lay almost in the middle of a line
joining this reference star, Anon4 equal to AC #112617, and NGC 3644 and this is
the case when one examines the Palomar print, however, when it came time for
Bigourdan to actually measure the position of what he identifies as being NGC 3644
he gives it a 1950 position of 11hr 18m 57.917s + 03 01' 03.225" which is the same
galaxy image as IC 683 Additionally, after having correctly stated that IC 683
lay about midway between his given reference star and NGC 3644 he now proceeded to
identify the correct NGC 3644 as a nova = B163 = IC 684.
In the modern sources we find that the CGCG has identified its ZWG 039.134 as
being IC 683, this is incorrect as this galaxy is not either a NGC or IC object
and lies close south preceding the true IC 683. The correct identity for IC 683 is
ZWG 039.138. These same two identities are also in error in the Notes given in
the UGC for its U06373 = NGC 3644 and the DSS (SIMBAD) also identifies incorrectly
the south preceding of the close pair as being IC 683.
Both the APL and NED have the correct identity, while the RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and
MOL ((Galaxy) also appear to have the correct identity. Not listed in the MCG.
Steinicke has the correct position and equates IC 683 with ZWG 039.138. The PGC
incorrectly equates IC 683 with CGCG's ZWG 039 134 and then identifies the correct
IC 683 as IC 683E = ZWG 039 138.
NOTE: Bigourdan's declination offset from his reference star is given as + 1
arcmin 7.6 arcsec, however, it seems that this is a typographical error as it is
exactly 1 arcmin too far south. Oddly enough, his Comptes Rendus declination is
almost exactly 1 arcmin too far north.
IC 684.
POSS.O-1392.
Bigourdan #163. 11hr 18m 58.744s + 03 05' 04.286" (1950).
11hr 21m 33.079s + 02 48' 36.829" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3644 (Marth 222).
Even though Bigourdan correctly refers to this galaxy as being NGC 3644 in his
description for IC 683 (See IC 683), he then according to the data as given in his
"Observations etc." listed it as a Nova = B162 = IC 684. There is no doubt that
he is measuring the position of NGC 3644 as his reference star for this
observation is just south preceding NGC 3644 and it is a different one from the
reference star he employed to measure the position for his IC 683.
The equivalency is correctly given in the CGCG, Steinicke, UGC, RC3, NED, SIMBAD,
NGC 2000, PGC, Carlson, APL and MOL. The MCG gives only the identity NGC 3644.
IC 685.
POSS. O-51.
Swift List VII,#16. 11hr 19m 24.199s + 18 04' 45.605" (1950).
11hr 22m 01.641s + 17 48' 17.853" (2000).
Possible identification : At a position close to that as given by Swift there is
the image of a very faint galaxy which has a star very close north following as
described in Swift's description "eeF, pS, R, * nr. nf. New General Catalogue
3605, 7, 8 in field."
I had accepted this object as being Swift's #16, however, there remained a problem
concerning the rest of Swift's description in which he refers to the 3 NGC
galaxies as being in the same field.
The 1950 positions for these 3 galaxies are as follows.
NGC 3605. 11hr 14m 08.6s + 18 17' 24"
NGC 3607. 11hr 14m 16.7s + 18 19' 29"
NGC 3608. 11hr 14m 21.0s + 18 25' 18"
Thus there is about a 5 tmin difference between where IC 685 would be according to
Swift and where the 3 NGC galaxies are located, which suggests that if correct,
then Swift would never have been able to have remotely seen the identified NGC
galaxies in the same field of view.
When I reviewed my previous conclusion in preparing this version I for the
first time decided to look at the area in which the 3 NGC galaxies exist and sure
enough found an excellent candidate that fits exceedingly well with Swift's
description. This galaxy lies at 11hr 14m 13.10s + 18 04' 18.9s (1950) or 11hr
16m 51.02s + 17 47' 55.6" (2000). It is considerably brighter, (Mp. 14.51), than
the original candidate and has a brighter star close north following, furthermore,
it is well within Swift's field of view (32 arcmin), containing the 3 NGC
galaxies. It is now my belief that this is Swift's Object # 16 List No.7 and that
there is a typographical error of about 5 tmin in the RA as published by Swift and
carried on by the modern cataloguers.
This galaxy is identified as being an Anonymous Galaxy in the CGCG. ZWG 96-020,
UGC 06296, MCG +03-29-021, PGC 34419 and in the MOL. Meanwhile both the MOL and
NGC 2000 have listed the faint galaxy close to the historical position as being IC
685, as have NED, the APL and Steinicke.
NOTE: The faint galaxy that lies close to Swift's position is identified in NED
as MAPS-NGPO-433-0628716 = PGC 034871. 11hr 19m 29.08s + 18 01' 39.2" (1950) or
11hr 22m 06.50s + 17 45' 11.7" (2000). and given a Mp of 17.56
The identity IC 685 is listed as "Not present in the database" by SIMBAD.
IC 688.
POSS. O-1029.
O. Stone. 11hr 21m 08.422s - 09 31' 16.262" 1950).
11hr 23m 40.303s - 09 47' 45.416" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Steinicke has correct identity. The APL has a single entry
credited to Steinicke as being a much fainter galaxy at 11hr 21m 52.2s - 09 31'
07" (1950), however, this must be from an much more earlier Steinicke file. Only
other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both at the correct
coordinates SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists the galaxy as IRAS
11211-0931. NED has correct identity.
IC 689.
POSS. O-1029.
O.Stone. 11hr 21m 07.521s - 13 33' 22.951" (1950).
11hr 23m 38.598s - 13 49' 52.120" (2000).
Equal to NGC 3661. (H 530-3) : MCG gives only the identity NGC 3661. NGC 2000,
MOL, APL, Steinicke, PGC and Carlson all correctly equate IC 689 with NGC 3661.
NED and SIMBAD correctly gives the equivalency.
Note: Stone identifies his reference star as DM -13 3360 which is the south
preceding star of three 10th magnitude stars very close south of NGC 3661,
however, the star he actually employed as his reference star is DM -13 3361 which
is the middle star of the three and is equal to AC #2476169 at 11hr 23m 35.986s -
13 51' 55.85" (2000). As he used the positional data for DM -13 3360 his
historical coordinates for his IC 689 are off by about 3.282 tsec RA and 1 arcmin
23.227 arcsec Dec.
IC 690.
POSS. O-1018.
Javelle #718. 11hr 21m 48.335s - 08 04' 03.411" (1950).
11hr 24m 20.528s - 08 20' 33.033" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here concerns the declination given in Part 2
of Javelle's catalogue for his reference star DM -7 3229 for which he incorrectly
gives its 1860 declination as -6 29'.9 when it should be -7 29'.9
All the modern authorities have the correct position which is 11hr 21m 48.866s -08
04' 01.198" (1950).
IC 703.
POSS. O-1562.
Swift List VIII, #58. 11hr 29m 17.146s - 11 19' 14.824" (1950).
11hr 31m 49.149s - 11 35' 49.189" (2000).
Not found : There are no suitable nebular images in the field. Listed in the NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke lists it as (Not found). The APL
has 5 listings each identified as IC 703 ? = NGC 3704, as does NED. For some
unknown to me reason SIMBAD identifies a galaxy (VCC 1737) at 12hr 37m 53.8s +14 17'
31" (2000) as being IC 703.
IC 704.
POSS. O-1562.
Swift List VIII, #59. 11hr 29m 22.162s - 11 16' 14.886" (1950).
11hr 31m 54.177s - 11 32' 49.297" (2000).
Not found : Again as with IC 703 there are no suitable nebular images visible in
the field. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke (Not
found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL suggests that it might be equal
to NGC 3707 and NED makes this same assumption.
IC 713.
POSS. O-1406.
Bigourdan #164. 11hr 32m 08.643s + 17 07' 19.920" (1950).
11hr 34m 44.755s + 16 50' 44.174" (2000).
Not found : The only image close to Bigourdan's position is that of a very faint
star which I doubt would have been visible to Bigourdan. NGC 2000 (No Type).
MOL. (Nonstellar Object), Steinicke (NF). NED "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." APL has IC 713 ? 11hr 32m 08.05s + 17 07' 23.7 = *.
IC 714.
POSS. O-1562.
Leavenworth 11hr 33m 58.075s - 09 34' 20.502" (1950).
11hr 36m 30.580s - 09 50' 57.283" (2000).
This is equivalent to NGC 3763. (Common) : Common placed his NGC 3763 at 11hr 34m
09s - 09 35'.2 and Dreyer gives it 11hr 34m 09s - 09 34'.8.
In 1895 and 1898 Bigourdan made some excellent observations of what he identifies
as being NGC 3763 and added that it has a RA 14 tsec before Dreyer's position.
The MOL lists both identities as separate objects. The MCG and NGC 2000 each list
IC 714 as = NGC 3763 ? The PGC, NED, APL and Steinicke each make it equivalent with
NGC 3763. SIMBAD correctly equates with NGC 3763.
IC 717.
POSS. O-1562.
Muller. 11hr 36m 18.299s - 10 18' 26.999" (1950).
11hr 38 50.835s - 10 35' 04.837" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3779. (Common) : Muller was one of the observers at the
Leander McCormick Observatory and although generally speaking the coordinates as
given for their IC discoveries are much better than those provided for their NGC
discoveries it would appear that in this case Muller was not very precise.
At Muller's given position no nebular image exists, however, at about 30 tsec
preceeding and about 03 arcmin north there is the image of a galaxy whose major
axis is extended at ~ 90 degrees as described by Muller.
Common's position for NGC 3779 is only 07 tsec and 01.5 arcmin off this galaxy
therefore the equivalency is confirmed.
NGC 2000 gives (?) while the MOL states (May not exist). The MCG gives the single
identity NGC 3779. The APL, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke correctly give the
equivalency.
IC 720.
POSS. O-468.
Spitaler #43. 11hr 39m 47.876s + 09 03' 00.152" (1950).
11hr 42m 22.463s + 08 46' 21.229" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG gives only the identity ZWG 068.035. (See QJRAS #33,
1992.page 62. A List of Some Corrections To Zwicky's Catalogue of Galaxies and
Clusters of Galaxies).
Correctly identified in the MCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and
MOL (NSO). The APL has the correct object, however, probably due to a typographical
error they incorrectly equate it with ZWG 068-075.
IC 722.
POSS. O-468.
Spitaler #44. 11hr 40m 09.115s + 09 14' 52.903" (1950).
1hr 42m 43.728s + 08 58' 13.754" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Spitaler's given coordinates are incorrect due to his
misidentification of his reference star which he states is BB.VI +9 2531 when it
should be BB.VI +9 2534 equal to AC #316928 at 11hr 41m 28.738s + 09 00' 53.52"
(2000). When the correct offsets are applied to this star they land on the galaxy
IC 722. The UGC mentions but does not identify it in its Notes for U06695 = IC
724. Correctly identified in the MCG, CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and
RC3.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the incorrect Spitaler coordinates
as given by Dreyer.
NOTE: The solution to this problem is due entirely to Dr. Corwin and is admirably
described in his Solutions Files.
IC 724.
POSS. O-468.
Spitaler #45. 11hr 40m 59.865s + 09 13 15.012" (1950).
11hr 43m 34.436s + 08 56' 35.571" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Again Spitaler's coordinates are incorrect as he confuses the
identities of the same stars as described in the case of IC 722. The NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO) have incorrectly based their coordinates upon Dreyer.
Correctly identified and positioned in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MCG,
UGC, RC3 and APL.
(See Corwin).
IC 726.
POSS. O-109.
Spitaler #17. 11hr41m 07.633s + 33 40' 09.151" (1950).
11hr 43m 44.783s + 33 23' 30.308" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: As Dr Corwin has pointed out Spitaler incorrected listed the
declination offset sign as - when it should be +, thus a declination error of 2
arcmin 7.2 arcsec. Spitaler's reference star is BD +34,2257, equal to GSC 141579
and when the corrected offsets are applied they land on the correct IC galaxy.
Not listed in the CGCG or MCG. The UGC lists the companion north preceding and in
its notes refers to a companion south following which is the correct IC 726. The NGC
2000 and MOL give the incorrect original declination. Not listed in the PGC or RC3.
Correctly identified in APL, NED and Steinicke. Simbad has no listing for the
identity IC 726, but identifies the galaxy as DOC NRGs 156.7
IC 730.
POSS. 0-495.
Javelle #728. 11hr 43m 01.518s + 03 30' 35.384" (1950).
11hr 45m 35.533s + 03 13' 55.269" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3849 (Todd): Todd employed the U.S. Naval Observatory's 26
inch telescope in a search for a Trans Neptunian Planet and during his search he
claimed discovery of a number of nebulae to which Dreyer later assigned NGC
identities. Todd's given coordinates were something less than accurate, (his
position for NGC 3849 was 11hr 42.0m +03 26'.0), therefore it is understandable
that Javelle should consider his #728 as being a new discovery. Fortunately, Todd
did provide field sketches with his observational data and from these it is often
possible to determine their existence and in this case his sketch matches well
with the field surrounding IC 730.
The NGC 2000 has No Type at the NGC coordinates for NGC 3849 and gives the correct
coordinates for IC 730 described as (Gx). The MOL also has NGC 3849 at the NGC
coordinates and lists as (Non-Existent Object), while correctly identifying IC 730
at its correct position. The CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD and MCG give only the identity IC
730. Steinicke identifies IC 730 at the correct coordinates with the correct
equivalency, as does NED and the APL.
IC 731.
POSS. O-1338.
Swift List IX,#32. 11hr 43m 21.162s + 49 50' 31.104" (1950).
11hr 46m 00.952s + 49 33' 51.070" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +8-21-96. Not listed in UGC. NGC
2000 and MOL RA too large by ~ 0m.7. CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have
correct identity and RA.
IC 735.
POSS. O-468.
Javelle #202. 11hr 45m 37.335s + 13 29' 13.704" (1950).
11hr 48m 11.990s + 13 12' 32.905" (2000). (Javelle Part 2).
Confirmed galaxy : Due to a misprint of 3 degrees in declination in Part 1 of
Javelle's Catalogue, Dreyer's declination is in error by this amount. Javelle in
Part 2 of this same catalogue (page B.32) adds a footnote to his object #202
stating that the NPD (1860) instead of reading 79 00'.6 should read 76 00'.6 thus
giving the necessary correction which evidently Dreyer missed. When this
correction is combined with Javelle's separation values from his reference star DM
+ 14 2439 = GSC 870-796, there is found a galaxy image fitting his description.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) incorrectly give the declination as + 10
29'.7 and + 10 29' 25" while the CGCG, ZWG 68.069, UGC 06775, PGC 36849 and MCG
+2-30-38 identify the correct IC 735 as being an "Anon." Steinicke and APL have
correct identity. NED has correct identity. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but lists the same galaxy as UGC 6775.
IC 736 and IC 737.
POSS. O-468.
Javelle #203. 11hr 45m 44.828s + 12 59' 38.085 (1950).
11hr 48m 19.440s + 12 42' 57.261" (2000). (IC 736) and Javelle #204. 11hr 45m
52.979s + 13 00' 17.238" (1950).
11hr 48m 27.582s +12 43' 36.381" (2000). (IC 737).
Both confirmed galaxies : The confusion concerning these 2 galaxies concerns the
incorrect identities given by most of the modern catalogues.
Both of these objects are part of a small galaxy group listed by Hickson as Group
59 in which he identifies alphabetically 5 galaxies (a, b, c, d and e). He
identifies his 59a as being IC 736 and his 59d as being IC 737, however, these IC
identities are based upon erroneous identities as given in the CGCG, NGC 2000,
MCG, RC3 and SIMBAD.
The entire credit for having first questioned and then solving the incorrect
identities belongs to Steve Gottlieb who observed the group with his 17.5 inch
telescope and was immediately struck with the fact that the two brightest in the
field are Hickson 59a and 59b, (Hickson also makes them the two brightest) while
he was unable to see 59d at all.
Javelle employed as a reference star DM +13 2454 which is equal to GSC 870-824 and
has coordinates of 11hr 47m 15.46s +12 39' 52".5 (2000) and when Javelle's offsets
for both IC 736 (+1tmin 4.02 tsec RA, + 3 arcmin 3.4 arcsec dec) and IC 737 (+1
tmin 12.18 tsec RA, + 3 arcmin 42.6 arcsec dec.), they without question conform to
Hickson's 59b and 59a respectively.
Additionally, as Javelle only noted 2 nebulae in the field it is most likely that
they would have been the two brightest,
Also, Hickson's listed coordinates and schematic field sketches show that his 59b
is slightly south and preceding his 59a which agrees entirely with Javelle's
observational data, thus as Gottlieb has correctly concluded, 59b is = IC 736 and
59a is = IC 737, however, most of the modern authorities have incorrectly selected
Hickson 59a as being IC 736 and Hickson 59d as being IC 737.
The CGCG identifies its ZWG 68.070 as IC 736 and its ZWG 68.072 as IC 737, this
should be changed to reflect that the "Anon" ZWG 68.068 is the correct IC 736
while ZWG 68.070 is the correct IC 737.
The MCG makes exactly the same errors of identity as the CGCG as do the NGC 2000,
PGC, SIMBAD and the RC3,
The MOL (typing both as being NSO) has the correct historical coordinates and
therefore the correct identities. Not listed in UGC or DSFG. Steinicke has the
correct identities. The APL has the correct identities as does NED.
NOTE: This is another example (See IC 2759) of the great importance modern
visual observations can often make towards correcting erroneous identifications.
Prior to Gottlieb's visual observation every modern cataloguer and investigator,
including myself, were unaware of any identity problems with IC 736 and IC 737 and
it is once again only because Gottlieb not only is an investigator of such
problems but additionally is an excellent telescopic visual observer that these
incorrect identities are found and then corrected.
IC 738.
POSS. O-1006.
Javelle #731. 11hr 46m 21.069s - 04 24' 12.562" (1950).
11hr 48m 54.525s - 04 40' 53.638" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not equal to NGC 3915 as identified by the PGC, but is
instead an entirely separate object and identity (See IC 2963 for a full
explanation).
The APL correctly lists it as a single identity as does the NGC 2000, Steinicke
and MOL. SIMBAD and NED have correct identity.
IC 739.
POSS. O-103.
Javelle #732. 11hr 48m 56.930s + 24 08' 26.309" (1950).
11hr 51m 31.950s + 23 51' 44.851" (2000).
At the position given by both Javelle and Dreyer in the IC I, 11hr 47m 46s + 24
06'.1, (1950), no nebular image exists, however, this is because Javelle mis
identified his reference star making it to be DM +24 2401 when it actually is DM
+24 2403 equal to AC #722356 at 11hr 52m 52.987s + 23 46' 51.83" (2000).
When the correct precession procedures are carried out using this star they give
the above Corrected Nominal Position at which there is found Javelle's # 732.
The CGCG and UGC list IC 739 at 11hr 48m.9 + 24 09'.0 while the MCG lists it at
11hr 48m.8 + 24 07'.0 and their candidate fits exactly Javelle's description.
NGC 2000 and MOL both give the incorrect RA. Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC
have correct identity and position.
IC 740.
POSS. O-59.
Swift List IX.#33. 11hr 48m 06.303s + 55 37' 59.383" (1950).
11hr 50m 44.517s + 55 21' 18.206" (2000).
Equal to NGC 3913 (H 786-2). CGCG, Steinicke, APL, UGC, MOL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC
correctly make IC 740 = NGC 3913. MCG, RC 3 and DSFG list only the identity NGC
3913. NGC 2000 gives type as (Galaxy).
IC 741.
POSS. O-1006.
Javelle #733. 11hr 47m 58.169s - 04 33' 25.879" (1950).
11hr 50m 31.654s - 04 50' 07.314" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MOL has the declination incorrectly given as -07 33' 25"
The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL and Steinicke have the correct
identity.
IC 743.
POSS. O-1562.
Javelle #205. 11hr 50m 50.662s - 12 59' 04.191" (1950).
11hr 53m 23.868s - 13 15' 46.231" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as -2-30-37. Correctly identified
in the NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 755.
POSS. O-1385.
Swift. List VIII, #61. 11hr 58m 34.632s + 14 24' 09.400" (1950).
12hr 01m 08.394s + 14 07' 26.954" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :
Dr. Corwin has equated IC 755 with NGC 4019 (h 1044)
Swift gives good coordinates for IC 755, (Modern position is 11hr 58m 36.6s +14
23'.0 HCds) and describes it as "eeF, S, E, between the northern 2 stars forming a
large triangle." and there is no doubt that what Swift describes definitely
exists.
John Herschel places his #1044 at 11hr 56m 19.3s + 14 29' 15", describing it as
"eF, has a 9th mag. star 5 arcmin south following.", however, there are no
suitable nonstellar images in the vicinity of the position he gives.
The difference in positions between John Herschel's coordinates and those for IC
755 are about 2 tmin 17 tsec RA and 6 arcmin and IC 755 does have a 9th mag. star
at about the correct offset (5 arcmin south following), however, there is also a
9th mag. star at about the same separation south and slightly following the
position as given by John Herschel.
Dr. Corwin has defended his equivalency by stating that as no object exists at
Herschel's coordinates then the closest candidate fitting his description would be
IC 755, however, I am still concerned by the large positional discrepancy,
especially as on the same SWEEP #419, Herschel gave positions for NGC 3996 and NGC
4126, both being excellent in accuracy.
Neither NGC 2000, MOL, CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, Dressel and Condon or SIMBAD equate the
identity IC 755 with any NGC identity, however, Steinicke does make the
equivalency, as does NED.
IC 757.
POSS. O-1389.
Bigourdan #166. 12hr 01m 28.440s + 52 52' 01.114" (1950).
12hr 04m 01.120s + 52 35' 18.903" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4068 (H 781-2) : Bigourdan employed as his reference star an
"Anonymous" star which would have coordinates of 12hr 03m 44.490s + 52 36' 35.331
(2000) based upon his data. This star is equivalent to AC 2000.2 Catalogue star
#1609671 at 12hr 03m 42.803 + 52 36' 33.01" (2000) and when precessed back to the
discovery year (1886) the coordinates would be 11hr 57m 53.077s + 53 14' 38.403".
Bigourdan gives his offsets from this star as + 18.63 tsec RA and + 1 arcmin 14.4
arcsec Dec. which when applied to the star lands on a blank space, however, if the
signs for both RA and Dec. are reversed the position resulting would be 11hr 58m
11.701s +53 13' 24.003 (1886) or 12hr 01m 28.440s + 52 52' 01.114 (1950) and this
lands right on the edge of a superposed star close to the central region of the
galaxy NGC 4068.
Bigourdan used the same reference star to also make an observation of what he
identifies as being NGC 4068. Here again his offset signs as given suggest the
wrong direction and indeed his reversed offset for declination lands on a faint
star directly south of NGC 4068 at 12hr 01m 33.607s + 52 49' 24.913" (1950).
There is evidence in his description for his # 166 that he is confusing north and
south orientation as he describes a double star which lies 1 arcmin to the north
of the reference star, however, this double star lies south of the reference star.
Finally, in his data on NGC 4068 Bigourdan mentions the possibility that both his
#166 and NGC 4068 might be the same object, requiring a change of 180 degrees in
position angle.
Only modern catalogues listing the identity IC 757 are NGC 2000 and MOL both
making it a double star and Steinicke, NED and APL (equal to NGC 4068).
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC and SIMBAD each give the single identity NGC 4068. while
for IC 757 SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." .
IC 758.
POSS.O- 674.
Swift List VII,#18. 12hr 01m 29.395s + 62 46' 14.300" (1950).
12hr 04m 01.575s + 62 29' 32.196" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 315. 009. The UCG, MCG,
Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG all correctly identify IC
758.
IC 759.
POSS. O-135.
Bigourdan #167. 12hr 02m 35.684s + 20 32' 22.034" (1950).
12hr 05m 09.019s + 20 15' 40.065" (2000).
Not found : This is a very interesting problem with a number of confusing aspects
which I must admit has caused me a great deal of doubt as to what is the correct
solution.
To begin with I have been unable to find in Bigourdan's great work (OBSERVATIONS
DE NEBULEUSES etc. etc. 1919.) any references to a B.167, which suggests to me
that by the time he was preparing for publication he for some reason either
queried the identity or decided that it did not exist as a nebular object. (See
appended note).
The description in the IC I reads "Pretty bright, Pretty large, Elongated
preceding and following", however, at the position as given no nebular image
exists.
The only modern references that list the identity IC 759 are the NGC 2000 and MOL
who list all IC identities), Steinicke (Not found) and the APL (Nothing here) and
a second entry listed as (IC 759 ?? 12hr 02m 41.92s + 20 35' 20".7 Too faint/small
for Big's description). NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Due to these inconsistencies I have at this time decided to go back to the
original publication data as given in the Comptes Rendus and based upon this have
decided that I must stay with the Not found solution.
NOTE : Steve Gottlieb has recently sent to me a copy of some information which
came into his possession regarding an entry by Bigourdan in his " Vol 1, Appendix
VIII." concerning IC 759, something I did not have in my original sources.
Bigourdan's reference star is AG BERLIN, 4434, Mv 8.5, the same star he later
employed to measure good positions for his observation of NGC 4076. Bigourdan's
separation values from this star are + 0m 4.69s RA and + 2' 11".7 (the mean of two
measurements) and again when these are applied to this reference star on the
Palomar print no nebular object is found. This I now believe to be the source of
Dreyer's data for IC 759.
IC 765.
POSS. O-89.
Bigourdan #168. 12 hr 07m 58.628s + 16 24' 56.406" (1950).
12hr 10m 31.594s +16 08' 14.614" (2000).(COMPTES RENDUS).
12hr 08m 04.440s + 16 18' 36.224" (1950). 12hr 10m 37.405"
+16 01' 54.932" (2000). (OBSERVATIONS).
Probably a wide double star : As one can see from the two sets of coordinates as
shown above there is considerable disagreement between them, especially as regards
Declination, yet both are from the same original source.
At the COMPTES RENDUS coordinates there is only the image of a star (or wide
double star) and it is this that Carlson (** Mt. Wilson), Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000
(Double star) and MOL (Double star) all identify as being IC 765. NED has " Other."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The APL has 3 separate entries, the first
stating nothing here and the other two suggesting that it might be a star.Now as
regards to the coordinates as found in Bigourdan's later published
OBSERVATIONS there appears to be considerable confusion. To begin with Bigourdan
measures coordinates for NGC 4152 of 12hr 08m 04s + 16 18' 40" which compare very
favorably with those given in the APL 12hr 08m 04s + 16 18' 43" but when it comes
to measuring coordinates for IC 765 he supposedly employed as his reference object
the same NGC 4152, however, he now gives NGC 4152 coordinates of 12hr 08m 10s + 16
12' 28" and measures the separation values for IC 765 to be -6.41 tsecs and +6' 8"
of arc which would result in a position for IC 765 of 12hr 08m 03.6s + 16 18' 36"
which are suspiciously equivalent to those he correctly measured for NGC 4152.
As his descriptions for NGC 4152 and IC 765 in no manner match it would seem that
he was not confusing NGC 4152 for IC 765, which would have been the case if they
had, therefore the probability would have to be that his positional data in his
OBSERVATIONS pertaining to IC 765 are incorrect, especially as in his COMPTES
RENDUS description for IC 765 he states that it lies in reference to NGC 4152 at a
PA of 347 and a distance of 6 arcmins.
IC 772.
(See IC 3067)
IC 778.
POSS.O-1389
Swift List VII.#19. 12hr 16m 56.210s + 56 16' 39.038" (1950).
12hr 19m 22.064s + 55 59' 59.946" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Only listings given are Steinicke (Not found),
APL (= NGC 4198), NED "Equal to NGC 4198 ." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 779.
POSS. O-1398.
Safford #19. 12hr 17m 18.422s + 30 09' 55.910" (1950).
12hr 19m 49.050s + 29 53' 16.759" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in CGCG only as ZWG 158.066. NGC 2000 correct
identity but no Type. MOL, UGC, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, DSFG (Notes to NGC
4253) and MCG all have the correct identity.
IC 781.
POSS. O-1576.
Bigourdan #172. 12hr 17m 31.987s + 15 14' 33.823" (1950).
12hr 20m 04.264s + 14 57' 54.738" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Bigourdan gives his RA offset as - 8.93 tsec, however, it
should be corrected to + 8.93 tsec. Typed in the NGC 2000 as (Nebula) and in the
MOL as (Bright Nebula). Correctly identified in the CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD and MCG.
IC 788.
POSS. O-1576.
Javelle #748. 12hr 23m 35.293s + 16 27' 26.790" (1950).
12hr 26m 06.932s + 16 10' 50.248" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4405. (H 88-2) : Oddly enough Dreyer in the IC I states that
it lies north of NGC 4405 and on the Palomar print there is the image of a very
faint galaxy at this position, however, from Javelle's description "Pretty bright,
irregularly round, 1 arcmin in diameter, brighter in the middle, appearance
somewhat globular." and additionally by employing his separation values from his
reference star, DM + 16 2370, the conclusion has to be that he is describing NGC
4405.
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, Steinicke, Carlson, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD, APL and MOL all
correctly equate the two identities. Not listed in the RC3.
IC 793.
POSS. O-1563.
Swift List VIII,#63. 12hr 25m 27.908s + 09 42' 21.856" (1950).
12hr 28m 00.348s + 09 25' 46.226" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4445 : Swift's RA is off by about 15 tsec. He describes it as being
"eE, 3 others in field," and this would apply to NGC 4445. CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG
have no listing for IC 793. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson equate IC 793 with NGC 4445
The APL has (= NGC 4445). Steinicke has (= NGC 4445). NED gives "Equal to NGC
4445." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but also list the identity NGC
4445.
IC 799.
POSS. O-1066.
Swift List VIII, #64. 12hr 31m 20.625s - 07 05' 16.549" (1950).
12hr 33m 55.573s - 07 21' 48.991" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4520 (H 757-2) : Wm. Herschel gave his discovery coordinates
of 12hr 31m 14.8s - 07 05' 15" and this is the only object in the immediate field
that applies. Furthermore, Swift's description "eF, * in contact on the p side."
confirms that it is this same object.
The NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, APL, SIMBAD, Steinicke and NED all correctly make the
equivalency. The DSFG incorrectly makes it a galaxy 04.5 arcmin south-west of NGC
4520. The MCG does not list either identity.
NOTE : Dreyer (1912), incorrectly equates H 757-2 with NGC 5879, this should be
H757-3.
IC 801.
POSS. O-729.
Swift List IX,#34. 12hr 31m 24.626s + 52 32' 31.581" (1950).
12hr 33m 46.064s + 52 15' 59.437" (2000).
The only error here consists of the relative position of the associated star in
the descriptions of Swift, IC I and NGC 2000. The star lies close south preceding
not close north.
IC 802.
POSS.O-1339.
Bigourdan #174 : 12hr 34m 00.639s + 74 34' 35.187" (1950).
12hr 35m 57.885s +74 18' 04.689" (2000).
This is a single star : Suspected as such by its discoverer. Only listed in APL
(= *), NGC 2000 (nebula) and MOL (faint nebula). Steinicke has (= *). NED has
"!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Bigourdan observed the field on July 12th 1887 during which time he made an
observation which he identified as being NGC 4572. This can be established by the
fact that his positional data between NGC 4572 and the bright galaxy NGC 4589
(which he also observed on the same night) would compute to a difference of 1. 5
tmin and 3' 9" of arc (the APL gives a difference of 1 tmin 40.2 tsec and 3' 15"
of arc).
Bigourdan employed as his reference star a 9.3 Mv (Anon. = GSC 4400-437) giving
the separation values to NGC 4572 as + 5 tsec and + 3' 54" of arc. He also
employed this same star from which to compute coordinates for his Nova = IC 802,
measuring the offsets to be + 1.69 tsec and + 9' 36.2" which would certainly imply
that he was not confusing IC 802 with NGC 4572, even though at such a high
declination normal measurements can be difficult.
The only object close to Bigourdan's coordinates and separations is a star and it
should be pointed out that Bigourdan in his description for IC 802 he states that
with rigorous inspection it is perhaps only a star. Thus I am unable to
understand why it would be considered as equal to NGC 4572.
NOTE : Dr. Corwin also presents an excellent argument that what Bigourdan
identified as being NGC 4572 is actually a star and not the correct NGC object.
IC 805.
POSS. O-1563.
Swift List VIII,#65. 12hr 38m 46.084s + 14 00' 43.158" (1950).
12hr 41m 16.972s + 13 44' 15.959" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4611 (Stephan List XII,#40) : NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson
identify IC 805 = NGC 4611. CGCG, UGC and MCG give the single identity NGC 4611.
APL gives (= NGC 4611. Deen) and Steinicke (= NGC 4611). The PGC gives only the
identity NGC 4611. NED has "Equal to NGC 4611." and SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," however, Simbad does list the equivalent identity NGC 4611.
IC 807.
POSS. O-1007.
Javelle #222. 12hr 39m 35.209s - 17 07' 48.809" (1950).
12hr 42m 12.646s - 17 24' 15.539" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here concern historical data in which Dreyer
(IC I) gives an incorrect annual rate of precession in declination, stating that
it is + 18.8 arcsec when it should be +19.8 arcsec.
All of the modern sources that list this identity have the correct declination.
IC 808.
POSS. O-1576.
Bigourdan #175. 12hr 39m 25.705s + 20 12' 21.249" (1950)
12hr 41m 55.154s + 19 55' 54.566" (2000).
This is a double star : I was unable to find anything in the immediate area that
would suggest that this might be considered as a "cluster of stars" as suggested
by Bigourdan. Only modern listings are APL (= **), Steinicke (= * 2), NED "Other."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (Open Cluster) and MOL (Open
Cluster). Oddly enough, Wolf has an entry in his List VI, No.15 which he identifies
as being IC 808, giving it coordinates of 12hr 39m 38s + 20 13' 57" and he describes
it as "eF, vS, * south 1 arcmin." As both Bigourdan and Wolf generally have
excellent coordinate data I wonder if both are referring to the same object?
IC 809.
(See IC 3672).
IC 811.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan #176. 12hr 42m 11.183s - 09 55' 28.233" (1950).
12hr 44m 47.166s - 10 11 52.880" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 4663 (Tempel).
Bigourdan made an observation of NGC 4663 on May 8th 1896 and employed as his
reference star the 8.6 magnitude AG Wein-077 and measured separation values of
19.5 tsec following and 07.0 arcmin 2.3 arcsec south to establish coordinates of
12hr 42m 11.141s - 09 55' 29.468". (1950) On May 13th 1888, he had made an
observation using the same star with separation values of 19.18 tsec following and
07arcmin 01.15 arcsec south to arrive at coordinates of 12hr 42m 11.183s - 09 55'
28.233" (1950) for what he somehow thought was a nova to which he assigned the
identity B.176 (IC 811).
The two observations are obviously for the same object and I can only assume that
because they were made 8 years apart, Bigourdan must have overlooked that he had
erroneously misidentified it as a Nova in his earlier observation.
The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, PGC and Carlson all have correctly noted
the equivalency. NED and SIMBAD correctly give the equivalency.
IC 813 & IC 3734.
POSS. O-1435.
Spitaler #20. 12hr 42m 43.828s + 23 18' 32.962" (1950).
12hr 45m 12.135s + 23 02' 08.977" (2000). (IC 813).
Wolf List VI, No.34. 12hr 42m 43.905s + 23 18' 32.432" (1950).
12hr 45m 12.213s + 23 02' 08.378" (2000). (IC 813) .
This is a problem that has resulted in different interpretations by the various
authorities.
To begin with there are definitely 2 galaxies making up a very closely
associated pair the larger and brighter being Spitaler's IC 813 while "attached"
to its north preceding edge there is a smaller system. Wolf identifies his No.34
as being IC 813 and it is IC 813 that he measured for his coordinates. He
describes his observation as "*14, np 0'.3, neb * 15 p 0'.5, in dif.Neb." Dreyer
description for IC 3734 is "*15 in dif neb; IC 813 follows 0'.5 . "
It would seem that Wolf saw both galaxies but the question concerning whether
there should be two separate IC identities, or as some authorities claim that IC
813 is equal to IC 3734, depends upon how one interprets the descriptions.
It is my position that Wolf in referring to the 15Mv. star in diffuse nebulosity
is describing the associated galaxy off the north preceding edge of IC 813, he had
already referred to the star that lies on the north preceding edge of IC 813
"* 14, np 0.3 arcmin." Certainly this is what Dreyer concluded and that is why he
assigned the identity IC 3734 to this "attached" object and therefore I agree with
Dreyer and disagree with the equivalency between the two identities, instead
finding that the two identities refer to two different galaxies.
The UGC although in its Notes mentions the companion galaxy "Pair with comp. at
0'.6, PA= 286, 0.30 x 0.2, contact." it does not identify it, instead it lists IC
813 = IC 3734. The PGC also equates both IC identities as does SIMBAD.
The MCG and CGCG correctly list the two as IC 813 + IC 3734 while the NGC 2000
(GX) and MOL (NSO) show them as individual galaxies, although it should be noted
that in the case of the NGC 2000 they give IC 3734 a more southerly declination
value than IC 813. The RC3 gives only a single identity, IC 813. The APL gives 6
separate entries but does not mention any equivalency. Steinicke gives both
identities as separate galaxies making IC 3734 the preceding of the pair. NED lists
them as separate galaxies.
IC 815.
(See IC 3756 and IC 3760).
IC 816 & IC 817.
POSS. O-41.
Swift VII, #25. 12hr 44m 11.668s + 10 07' 31.095" (1950).
12hr 46m 43.102s + 09 51' 08.305" (2000). (IC 816).
Swift VII, #26. 12hr 44m 26.650s + 10 08' 01.339" (1950).
12hr 46m 58.070s + 09 51' 38.764" (2000). (IC 817).
Both are confirmed galaxies : The first error concerning these identities
concerns Swift's description in which he incorrectly states that IC 816 is the
north preceding of 2. This also appears in the description data as given in
Dreyer and the NGC 2000 description. The correction should read the south
preceding of 2. Actually this misalignment is quite surprising as all of the
above authorities in their declination data indicate that IC 816 is the more
southern of the two objects.
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, RC3 and APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly
identify IC 816.
Now concerning the identity IC 817. Firstly, Swift, Dreyer and the NGC 2000
incorrectly make this the south following of 2 when it should be the north
following of 2. Secondly, the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have equated IC 817 with IC
3764 and it is possible that this is a correct evaluation, however, it is also
possible that there is a separate candidate for the identity, IC 3760. (See IC
3760). The MCG gives the single identity IC 817.
IC 819 & IC 820.
POSS. O-64.
Spitaler Nos.51 & 52. 12hr 44m 44.053s + 31 00' 31.647" (1950).
12hr 47m 09.854s + 30 44' 09.391" (2000). (IC 819).
12hr 44m 45.629s + 30 59m 37.629s + 30 59' 37.629" (1950).
12hr 47m 11.430s + 30 43' 15.396" (2000).(IC 820).
The above are the original uncorrected historical coordinates based upon the
Spitaler data.
This double identity is equal to NGC 4676 (H 326-2) : Spitaler misidentifies his
reference star making it equivalent to AC #962552 whose position for the year 2000
is 12hr 48m 22.562s + 30 45' 59.24" The correct reference star would be AC
#962463 at 12hr 47m 23.587s + 30 46' 03.25 (2000), or about 1 tmin difference
in RA.
When the offsets are applied to this star they give the Corrected
Nominal Coordinates for IC 819 and IC 820 as
IC 819: 12hr 43m 44.910s + 31 00' 36.555" (1950).
12hr 46m 10.879s + 30 44' 13.450" (2000).
IC 820: 12hr 43m 46.171s + 30 59' 44.574" (1950).
12hr 46m 12.140s + 30 43' 21.488" (2000).
NGC 2000 makes IC 819 connected with IC 820 = NGC 4676. MOL makes NGC 4676 + IC
819 separate galaxies but then equates IC 820 with NGC 4676. UGC makes IC 819 =
NGC 4676a and IC 820 = NGC 4676b. MCG makes IC 819 + IC 820 = NGC 4676.
Carlson gives "IC 820 = NGC 4676 ?" RC2 makes both IC identities = NGC 4676.
The DSFG in its NOTES makes IC 819 = NGC 4676A and IC 820 = NGC 4676B as does the
PGC, NED, APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD makes IC 819 = NGC 4876 and IC 820 = NGC 4676B.
NOTE: The historical coordinates are based upon Spitaler's given coordinates
precessed from epoch 1892 and indicate a 1 tmin error in RA as the double system
(NGC 4676) has a RA of 12hr 43m 44.7s + 31 00' 02" (1950).
IC 823.
POSS. O-64.
Bigourdan #177. 12hr 45 24.169s + 27 28' 33.485" (1950).
12hr 47m 50.196s +27 12' 11.593" (2000).
Not found : At the corrected nominal position as given above no image is found.
It lies close south following a faint star which lies south preceding NGC 4692.
Bigourdan did not confuse his nova with NGC 4692, in fact he employed NGC 4692 as
his reference object from which to measure separation values to his B.177. CGCG,
UGC, SIMBAD, MCG and PGC all incorrectly make IC 823 = NGC 4692. NGC 2000 gives
Type as [?] and adds 2'.0 south of NGC 4692. MOL states (May not exist). RC2
(Notes) make IC 823 = star as does Steinicke, NED and APL.
IC 824.
POSS. O-1600.
Javelle #754. 12hr 47m 07.087s - 04 18' 23.096" (1950).
12hr 49m 41.925s - 04 34' 43.363" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke have each equated this
identity with NGC 4678 (Leavenworth), who observed with the 26 inch refractor of
the Leander McCormick Observatory. If this equivalency is correct then
Leavenworth made an error of about 03 tmin in RA (a possibility, as the NGC
discoveries made at this observatory are subject to large positional errors).
There is absolutely no doubt that what Javelle observed and described as "Pretty
bright, pretty large. Elongated preceding and following, binuclear" exists at the
coordinates he gives, however, I am not as certain that this is also Leavenworth's
object as in addition to the large RA discrepancy there is a vast difference in
the descriptions of both observations as Leavenworth describes NGC 4678 as
"Exceedingly faint, extremely small. Round (nebula ?), * follows 2 seconds."
It must be admitted that IC 824 does have a faint star at about the described
separation, however, that is the only agreement between the image of IC 824 and
Leavenworth's description, but Javelle's description is very accurate, therefore
without having any other definitive data that would verify this equivalency I am
reluctant to accept such a solution at this time.
The NGC 2000 gives both identities at the historical coordinates, while the MOL
makes IC 824 (NSO) and NGC 4678 (Non-Existent Object). SIMBAD gives the single
identity IC 824.
IC 832.
POSS. O-64.
Safford and Spitaler. 12hr 51m 34.816s + 26 43' 00.722" (1950).
12hr 54m 00.940s + 26 26' 44.864" (2000). (Spitaler).
There is a description error in the IC I and NGC 2000 in which they state the
close double star lies north following, This should be corrected to read north
preceding.
NOTE: The incorrect statement originates in Spitaler's description.
IC 836.
POSS. O-717.
Swift VII,#28. 12hr 54m 01.734s + 63 53' 19.082" (1950).
12hr 56m 03.241s + 63 37' 05.668" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed but not identified as being IC 836 in the CGCG ZWG
316.006, UGC 08059 and MCG +11-16-07. Correctly identified in both the NGC 2000
and MOL also by Steinicke. Listed in the PGC as 44092 = "Anon." NED has correct
identity as does APL and SIMBAD.
IC 838.
POSS. O-1393.
Spitaler. 12hr 55m 46.022s + 26 38' 09.943" (1950).
12hr 58m 11.583s + 26 21' 58.425" (2000).
This is a confirmed separate galaxy :
Although Spitaler's declination is off by about 3 arcmin too far south his
description in which he states that it lies about 1.5 arcmin north following NGC
4849 is correct and identifies his object.
The CGCG incorrectly identifies NGC 4849 making it IC 838.
UGC correctly makes IC 838 a companion galaxy to NGC 4849 = IC 3935, (See IC
3935). NGC 2000 gives both NGC 4849 and IC 838 the same coordinates. MOL shows
IC 838 to be a separate object. DSFG states "IC 838 was NGC 4849a." as
does the APL and Steinicke. NED, SIMBAD and the PGC have the correct identity.
IC 839.
POSS. O-1393.
Bigourdan #179. 12hr 55m 50.017s + 28 23' 50.458" (1950).
12hr 58m 14.927s + 28 07' 38.980" (2000).
This is a separate galaxy : It is not part of the double system with NGC 4851
and is plainly visible 07s preceding and 1' 16" south of NGC 4851, exactly where
Bigourdan measured it to be. The CGCG makes NGC 4851 + IC 839 but their IC 839 is
the companion in the double system. The correct IC 839 is listed as ZWG 160.057
and is so designated in the APL. The UGC and MCG have no listing. MOL lists as
separate galaxies but incorrectly make IC 839 the companion to NGC 4851 which lies
~ 2s following and 4" north of NGC 4851. Carlson gives "IC 839 = NGC 4851 ?" and
PGC makes IC 839 = NGC 4851. Steinicke has the correct identity. NED correctly
equates it with ZWG 160.057. SIMBAD incorrectly makes it the south preceding
component of a double system (NGC 4851), that lies close north following the correct
IC 839.
This is a prime example of a number of the modern authors not having consulted the
historical data.
IC 841.
POSS. O-1581.
H.C.Wilson and Wolf List VI, No.132? 12hr 56m 50.838s (+ or -) + 22 06' 46.883"
(1950).
12hr 59m 17.839s + 21 50' 36.359" (2000). (Wilson).
12hr 57m 20.493s + 22 04' 55.456" (1950).
12hr 59m 47.448s + 21 48' 45.544" (2000). (Wolf).
Confirmed galaxy : There is no nebular image at the RA as given by
Wilson, however, as he did indicate that his RA was by no means precise I accept
that Wolf's No.132 is the same object with much better coordinates. (See Dreyer's
Note in the NGC/IC. pp.377. (IC 841).
This galaxy is identified by the CGCG only as ZWG 130.003 while the MCG identifies
this same galaxy only as +4-31-002. The PGC (Corrections) correctly notes the
CGCG omission, however, it fails to include the MCG omission in its Corrections,
meanwhile in its Main Catalogue it list its 44665 without the IC identity.
The NGC 2000 . (No Type), APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the MOL (NSO) correctly
identify IC 841 at the Wolf coordinates.
NOTE: Wolf identifies his #132 as IC 841 ?
IC 847.
POSS. O-729.
Swift List IX,#36. 13hr 03m 19.732s + 53 56' 59.096" (1950).
13hr 05m 28.139s + 53 40' 56.150" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4973 (H 781-3) : The identity IC 847 is for one of a group
of galaxies which include the three NGC identities NGC 4967, NGC 4973 and NGC
4974, these three having been discovered by Wm. Herschel whose measured positions
were in error.
John Herschel later made a correction to the position for NGC 4967, but apparently
did not observe any other associated field objects as he only reports seeing NGC
4967 = H 783-3 (Slough Observations 1833.).
When Dreyer was preparing his New General Catalogue he adopted John Herschel's
correction but retained Wm. Herschel's positions for NGC 4973 and 4974 therefore
the NGC data reads NGC 4967 13hr 03m 27s + 53 50'.2, NGC 4973 13hr 04m 9s + 53
52'.4 and NGC 4794 13hr 04m 23s + 53 54'.4
In the year 1890 Swift observed a nonstellar object which according to Dreyer
(ICI) has a position of 13hr 03m 49s + 53 56'.9 and therefore should be a new
discovery to which he gave the identity IC 847, however, Dreyer (Scientific
Papers of Sir William Herschel. 1912) later reported positional corrections made
by Rumker to both NGC 4973 and NGC 4974 so that they read NGC 4973 13hr 03m 26s +
53 57'.1 and NGC 4974 13hr 03m 50s + 53 55'.6 also confirmed by Bigourdan.
Based upon Dreyer's IC I coordinates for this object it would now seem that
Swift's IC 847 is a duplicate observation of NGC 4974, and due to this I was for
some considerable time convinced of this equivalency, however, some additional
evidence I recently examined has now required me to change my conclusion.
I am convinced that Dreyer's IC 847 coordinates are derived from the data supplied
to him in personal correspondence by Swift, but Swift also published his List IX
in the ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN No.3004, stating in the Introduction that "The
places of a few have been redetermined and slightly changed" and his #36 = IC 847
is now given coordinates of 13hr 03m 20s + 53 56'.9 which strongly suggests that
it is a duplicate of the corrected NGC 4973 not NGC 4974 .
The CGCG correctly makes ZWG 270.049 = IC 847, however, it incorrectly makes ZWG
270.051 = NGC 4973, thus making the two identities to be separate objects The
correct NGC 4974 is ZWG 270.051 which the CGCG incorrectly identifies as being NGC
4973. What the CGCG identifies as being NGC 4974 = ZWG 270.052 is actually an
Anon.
NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all equate IC 847 with NGC 4974 probably based upon
Reinmuth who it would appear was influenced by Dreyer's coordinates for IC 847 as
given in the IC I.
The MCG +9-22-9 is identified as being IC 847 which is incorrect as this object
is NGC 4974, while the correct NGC 4973 = IC 847 is listed only as +9-22-6. SIMBAD
also incorrectly equates MCG +09-22-009 as being NGC 4973, however it does correctly
identify IC 847.
Steinicke correctly equates IC 847 with NGC 4973. Additionally the MCG has
incorrectly selected +9-22-11, the same Anon. as the CGCG ( ZWG 270.052 ) and
misidentified it as being NGC 4973.
The UGC has no listing for any of the identities. The RC3 misidentifies NGC 4974
giving it the identity NGC 4973. The RNGC makes the same identity errors as the
CGCG concerning NGC 4973 and NGC 4974 while also equating its NGC 4974 with IC
847. The PGC lists IC 847 as a separate galaxy. The APL and NED correctly make
IC 847 = NGC 4973.
NOTE : The acceptance of IC 847 being equal to NGC 4973 has to be based upon
Swift's coordinates as they appear in the AN. 3004 publication as if one accepts
Dreyer's position as given in the IC I then Swift's #36 = IC 847 would be equal to
NGC 4974. I have chosen to go with former and am now in agreement with Dr. H.
Corwin who previously had arrived at this equivalency.
IC 853.
(See IC 4205).
IC 869.
POSS. O-1581.
Javelle #239. and Swift List VIII.#71.
Either Not found or equal to a star :
This is a very interesting problem in which there are two possible conclusions.
To begin with the identity IC 869 is one of six IC identities assigned to a group
of galaxies which include IC 864, 866, 867, 868, 869 and 870. Although Dreyer
credits both Javelle and Swift as discoverers it was Swift who actually first
observed the field on April 22nd. 1889, (List VIII). (Javelle on June 11th.
1891).
Following are their given coordinates (1950).
Swift.
IC 864. Not seen.
IC 866. Sw.68. 13hr 14m 44s + 20 55'.3 (1st of 5).
IC 867. Sw.70. 13hr 14m 54s + 20 52'.8 (3rd of 5).
IC 868. Sw.71. 13hr 14m 55s + 20 51'.3 (4th of 5).
IC 869. Sw.69. 13hr 14m 44s + 20 57'.3 (2nd of 5).
IC 870. Sw.72. 13hr 14m 56s + 20 51'.3 (5th of 5).
Javelle.
IC 864. J235. 13hr 14m 41s + 20 57'.2
IC 866. J236. 13hr 14m 49s + 20 57'.0
IC 867. J237. 13hr 14m 52s + 20 54'.1
IC 868. J238. 13hr 15m 00s + 20 52'.4
IC 869. J239. 13hr 15m 05.578s + 20 56' 35.551" (1950). (Corrected Nominal
Position).
13hr 17m 31.041s + 20 40' 48.193" (2000). (Corrected nominal
Position).
IC 870. J240. 13hr 15m 03s + 20 51'.7
The first thing the investigator learns when examining the group on the Palomar
print is that Swift's coordinates are especially inaccurate and serve little
purpose in trying to match up his object numbers with the Javelle and IC
identities, however, fortunately Swift does provide some very important
information in his descriptions for his #71 and #72 which establishes beyond
doubt which of his objects match those of Javelle and subsequently their IC
identities.
Swift describes his #71 (4th of 5) as "Double with 5th" and his #72 (5th of 5) as
"four pretty bright stars in a curve south following point to the 1st, 3rd, 4th
and 5th." and these 4 stars are easily found on the Palomar print, their
arc pointing as described to J236 (IC 866), J237 (IC 867), J238 (IC 868) and J240
(IC 870).
Now as to J239 = IC 869 = Sw.#71? Javelle identifies his reference star as ANON
(1) and this star is equal to GSC2.2 N1230111131 at 13hr 16m 56.601s +20 37'
48.54" (2000). From this star he measured his J239 to lie at + 0 tmin 34.62 tsec
RA and 2 arcmin 57.9 arcsec north which results in coordinates for his J239 of
13hr 17m 31.041s +20 40' 48.193" (2000). When these coordinates are applied to
the DSS (First Generation) with the HST Field of View Overlay activated they land
right on a stellar image close south following a galaxy identified in NED as MAPS
NGP 0 379 1276489 = NPM1G +20.0347. at 13hr 17m 29.942s +20 41' 02.63s (2000).
When I examined the south following image using First Generation DSS I took it to
be a faint star and so reported in my Version 4.0, however, after Second
Generation became available the image was seen to be definitely nonstellar,
therefore the identity of this south following object (identified in NED as MAPS-
NGP 0 379 1276538 at 13hr 17m 31.60s + 20 40' 38.6 (2000)) would thus appear to
establish the correct identity of J239 = IC 869, but there is another
factor that creates a problem.
The image of the north preceding galaxy on the DSS is obviously the brighter,
indeed according to the NED data it is more than 1.5 Mp brighter, yet if Javelle's
positional data points to the south following object being IC 869, then surely he
would have seen the north preceding object, but he makes no mention of it. Does
this mean that the north preceding galaxy is IC 869 and that Javelle's coordinates
are slightly in error ?
I have recently discussed this problem with Dr. Corwin and although in his APL
files dated June 21st 2000 he lists IC 869 as the north preceding galaxy he
informs me that he will in his next update suggest that the IC identity is equal
to both galaxies (IC 869 nw and IC 869 se), based upon the possibility that to
Javelle both images might have appeared as a single image in the telescope,
however, here again there is a problem.
If the combined mages were what Javelle saw then it would appear logical that he
would have used the brightest part of the image (the north preceding) to arrive at
his measured offsets, whereas, what we find is that it is the fainter image, the
south following one that his offsets point to as being J239.
All of this is indeed confusing, however, as Javelle's Corrected Nominal Position
precisely fits the south following galaxy I am accepting it at this time as being
IC 869.
Only modern listings are APL (= NPMIG +20.0347 at 13hr 15m 04.479s + 20 56' 49".73
1950).
NED "Galaxy Pair." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (=*). NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL(NSO) and it is of passing interest that the MOL gives the
declination + 20 59' 32" which was certainly not derived from historical data.
SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 872.
POSS. O-1561.
Swift List X, #21. 13hr 15m 41.332s + 06 37' 11.747" (1950).
13hr 18m 12.583s + 06 21' 25.262" (2000).
When Swift's given coordinates are examined on the DSS they land on a spot close
north preceding a galaxy that is equal to UGC 08361, Mp 15.20 at 13hr 18m 18.59s +06
20' 07.2s (NED). From its appearance I would say that it is certainly bright enough
to have been visible to Swift and the differences in coordinates would be considered
quite small, based upon a great many as given by Swift. The main problem with this
particular identity is that in Swift's description he states "5060 in field" and if
he is referring to NGC 5060 then this would be impossible as NGC 5060 lies at 13hr
17m 16.23s +06 02' 14.9" (2000. NED) which would put it well outside Swift's field
of view.
By searching the field around NGC 5060 there is another possible candidate as
suggested by Corwin, (UGC 08349, Mp 14.30), which is at 13hr 17m 01.61s + 06 21'
25.4" (2000), thus a difference from Swift's given position amounting to 1 tmin 10.9
tsec in RA, however, this candidate would be within the field of view employed by
Swift to confirm his statement in regard to NGC 5060. So the question becomes which
one of these two is likely to be the object Swift saw?
Although I have previously been of the opinion that the object UGC 08361 is Swift's
IC 872, due to its relative closeness to his stated position, I am now of two minds
as Dr. Corwin's argument concerning the other candidate (UGC 08349) has considerably
merit, therefore, at this time I can not determine which one is IC 872.
NED equates UGC 08349 with IC 872, while SIMBAD makes it equal to UGC 08361.
PGC has no listing for IC 872. Steinicke equates it with UGC 08361. APL gives both
as possible candidates. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates based upon
the historical data. CGCG MCG and UGC have no listing for the identity 872.
IC 877.
POSS. O-1561.
Swift List X, #22. 13hr 16m 26.427s + 06 20' 43.006" (1950).
13hr 18m 57.763s + 06 04' 57.609" (2000).
Not found : As with IC 876 and IC 878 Swift's RA is 1 tmin too large. Only
modern listings are Steinicke, APL (Not found), NED "Other," NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL NSO). SIMBAD has "Object of unknown nature."
IC 878.
POSS. O-1561.
Swift List X, #23. 13hr 16m 29.408s + 06 23' 01.090" (1950).
13hr 19m 00.727s + 06 07' 15.765" (2000).
Not found : There is a 1 tmin too large error in Swift's RA. No nebular image at
or close to the nominal position.
Swift describes it as " eeeF, pL, 4th of 5, eee diff."
Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type) and APL "Nothing
here". NED "Nothing here." and SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 879.
POSS. O-1361.
Muller. 13hr 16m 55.080s - 27 08' 52.397" (1950).
13hr 19m 40.383s - 27 24' 37.152" (2000).
Equal to IC 4222 (Swift List XI, #154). The correct identification is IC 879.
Muller was the first to see this galaxy and gave good coordinates for its position
so that there is no dispute regarding any of his data.
Swift in his List XI, # 154 gives coordinates of 13hr 16m 44s - 28 09'.9 and at
this position there are only two stars, however, Swift correctly describes his
object as "NGC 5078 near north following." and this exactly describes IC 879.
The MCG gives the single identity IC 879. The NGC 2000 and MOL both list the two
identities as being separate objects with separate coordinates. Steinicke, APL,
NED, SIMBAD and the PGC have the correct equivalency.
NOTE: Muller gives only a RA separation from his reference star AC #3023496,
something that apparently was occasionally done at Leander McCormick Observatory.
when there was not any large separation of either RA or Dec between the star and
the Nova.
IC 880.
POSS. O-1561.
Swift List X, #24. 13hr 16m 36.407s + 06 22'31.287" (1950).
13hr 19m 07.726s + 06 06' 46.132" (2000).
Not found : As with IC 872, IC 877 and IC 878 there is a 1 tmin too large error
in Swift's published RA. No nonstellar image at or close to nominal position.
Swift states that it has a "pB * nr south," however, no such star is found at the
required area south of the nominal position. Only modern listings are Steinicke
(=*), APL "Nothing here", NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED "Nothing here," and
SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature."
IC 884.
POSS. O-1061.
Swift List VI, ? :
Unable to find or confirm : This must rank about the highest in frustration level
that I have encountered with Swift's objects. According to Dreyer the data he
gives for this identity comes from Swift's List VI, yet I am unable to match the
IC identity with any entry in List VI, other than perhaps #53, however, the RA for
#53 differs from that of Dreyer's by about 01 tmin, therefore where did Dreyer
obtain the coordinates he gives for IC 884 ?
Dreyer's coordinates for IC 844 are 13hr 20m 14s - 12 28'.0
Now in Swift's List VII he lists a # 30 at 13hr 19m 15s - 12 28' 07" and in his
Notes to this list he states that # 30 is the same as List VI, # 53 and the
coordinates match (13hr 19m 15s - 12 28' 03"), but this still gives a difference
in RA of about 01 tmin from Dreyer's IC 884 position.
I am unable to state with confidence whether IC 884 is in fact another observation
of NGC 5110 (Swift List III, #71), which in turn is a duplicate observation of NGC
5111 (H 119-3) at 13hr 20m 17s -12 42'.4. This is the closest possible candidate
being about 03 tsec and 14.4 arcmin from Dreyer's position for IC 884, which is
well within the error range of Swift's coordinates, but my problem is which of all
of Swift's published observations involved would be for IC 844 ? as none of them
appear to be the source of Dreyer's given coordinates.
Not listed in the MCG. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) place it at Dreyer's
position. Steinicke and NED have (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 887.
POSS. O-1061.
Swift List VI, #55. 13hr 21m 33.042s - 12 11' 59.683" (1950).
13hr 24m 11.960s - 12 27' 37.533" (2000).
Not found : I was unable to find any suitable candidate at or anywhere near the
nominal position.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) MOL (NSO), NED (Nothing here), APL and
Steinicke (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 888.
POSS. O-1420.
Swift List VIII. #74. 13hr 23m 22.287s + 14 00' 13.269" (1950).
13hr 25m 50.072s + 13 44' 38.352" (2000).
Not found. Excellent possibility it is equal to NGC 5136 (H. 84-3) : At Swift's
given position no nebular image exists. The closest image is that of a faint
star, however, if Swift misread his RA by about 1 tmin too large then he could
have been making a duplicate observation of NGC 5136.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=NGC 5136), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). NED (Equal to NGC 5136). SIMBAD "Not present in database."
IC 895.
POSS. O-116.
Swift List VIII.#75. 13hr 30m 02.322s + 35 54' 56.228" (1950).
13hr 32m 17.420s + 35 39' 32.157" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at Swift's position. Only modern listings are
Steinicke (NF), APL and NED "Nothing here", SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 896.
POSS. O-90.
Javelle #245. 13hr 31m 37.689s + 05 07' 25.936" (1950). (CNC).
13hr 34m 09.142s + 04 52' 04.688" (2000). (CNC).
Confirmed galaxy : MCG incorrectly lists +1-35-5 as being IC 896 while listing
the correct IC 896 only as +1-35-7. UGC also incorrectly equates IC 896 with the
identity MCG +1-35-5, although it gives IC 896 the correct coordinates. CGCG,
Steinicke, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly identify IC 896.
IC 897.
POSS. O-1019.
Bigourdan #180. 13hr 31m 33.261s + 17 57' 30.416" (1950).
13hr 33m 58.561s + 17 42' 08.984" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. But not at Bigourdan's coordinates as given above :
The galaxy IC 897 = B.180 was discovered by M.G.Bigourdan using the exceptionally
fine 310mm refractor of the Paris Observatory.
It was first published in the COMPTES RENDUS as part of the French Academie Des
Sciences meeting held on April 6th 1891 in which its coordinates are roughly given
as 13hr 27m 12s + 18 25'.0 (1860), or 13hr 31m 33.499s + 17 57' 11.317 (1950) and
the description reads "Magnitude 13.5; situated from NGC 5217 at a PA of 105,
Dist. = 3.5 arcmins."
Later, in Bigourdan's monumental work (Observations de Nebuleuse et d'Amas
Stellaires 1919) he gives a much better account of his discovery in which he
employs as his reference star from which to obtain coordinates for his
B.180, the 9.5 Mv star BD + 18 2750, (equal to AC #728133, at 13hr 33m 39.764s +
17 49' 41.42" (2000), the same star he used for his measured position for NGC
5217), measuring IC 897 to lie 18.72 tsecs following and 7' 33".6 south of the
star while NGC 5217 was 24.28 tsecs following and 1' 34" north of this same star
and when these offsets are applied to the DSS, NGC 5217 can be correctly
identified but the position arrived at for IC 897 lands on a blank spot about 2
tsec of RA following and 35 arcsec south of an extended galaxy (ZWG. 102.016) which
just about all the modern catalogues identify as being IC 897. (NGC 2000, MOL, UGC,
CGCG, and PGC).
In my earlier versions of my survey I also accepted this galaxy as being IC 897,
however, I now believe that this is not Bigourdan's object, based upon two
reasons, the first being that it would require Bigourdan to be off on both his
offsets, something unlikely and secondly, his notations given in his descriptions
in both the Comptes Rendus and in his Observations.
They read as follows. "By reference to NGC 5217 this object is at a PA of 105.
Distance = 3.5 arcmins." and when the DSS is consulted there is at almost exactly
Bigourdan's PA and Separation values from NGC 5217 the image of another galaxy
which is the 15.7 Mp ZWG 102.020 (CGCG), a galaxy whose Mp is only 0.2 fainter
than that given for the catalogued IC 897.
In its splendid Notes Section the Uppsala General Catalogue, (UGC), for its U08546
= NGC 5217, 13hr 31.7m + 18 07'.0 (1950) states "Brightest in group with at least
6 galaxies; 13hr 31'.9 + 18 06'.0 at Dist. 3.2 arcmins. and PA 100, 0.6 x 0.15,
Mp 15.7 " which is almost exactly the PA and Distance factors given in the
Bigourdan's descriptions.
It is now my conclusion that the galaxy ZWG 102.020 at 13hr 34m 54.25s + 18 06'
13.7" (1950), or 13hr 34m 19.45s +17 50' 53.2" (2000), is the correct IC 897 and
both Steinicke, NED and the APL agree. SIMBAD incorrectly. equates it with ZWG.
102.016.
NOTE: SEE THE DEEP-SKY OBSERVER, (WSQJ. Issue #136. 2004. pps. 16 &17.)
IC 898.
POSS. O-1079.
Javelle #246. 13hr 31m 42.219s + 13 32' 14.429" (1950).
13hr 34m 09.695s + 13 16' 53.288" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Incorrectly equated with ZWG 73.031 in the CGCG, should be ZWG
73.032.(See QJRAS #33. 1992). Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (GX),
Steinicke, APL, NED and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD and PGC incorrectly equate it with ZWG
73.031.
IC 903.
POSS. O-465.
Javelle #770. 13hr 35m 51.979s + 00 01'36.212" (1950).
13hr 38m 25.764s - 00 13' 37.569" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the NGC 2000 and MOL as (Nebula). Correctly
identified in the CGCG, MCG, UGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3, PGC and APL.
IC 907.
POSS O- 675.
Swift List VII.#33. 13hr 37m 28.798s + 50 58' 21.879" (1950).
13hr 39m 28.356s + 50 43' 10.722" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Probably equal to MCG +9-22-90 : At the coordinates given by
Swift no nebular image exists. The CGCG, PGC, RC3, NED and UGC have identified an
object at 13hr 37.5m + 51 19'.0 as being IC 907, however, this is a difference in
declination of ~ 21 arcmins. The MCG lists this same object only as +9-22-90. The
MOL lists IC 907 as (NSO) and gives it the original Swift position as does the NGC
2000. Not listed in the DSFG. Steinicke and APL have identified the MCG galaxy
as being IC 907, as has SIMBAD.
IC 916.
POSS. O-125.
Safford #27. 13hr 40m 13.144s + 24 43' 41.549" (1950).
13hr 42m 33.809s + 24 28' 35.614" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC in its Notes to U08664 = IC 913 incorrectly states
that IC 916 lies at 13hr 39.3m + 23 26'.0, at PA 61, Dist. 2.9 arcmins. The
galaxy being described is actually IC 914.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, MCG, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX),
Steinicke and MOL (NSO).
IC 919 Group of Galaxies.
POSS. O-90
Barnard. 13hr 40m 59.463s + 55 50'12.596" (1950).
13hr 42m 51.034s + 55 35' 07.708" (2000). (IC 919).
Well I knew it had to happen sometime and that I would be drawn back again into
the IC 919 Group problem and the recent exchange of findings by Harold and Brian
has prompted me to re-examine what must surely be an investigators worst nightmare
and as for myself I must admit I am now still as confused as I have always been
regarding the true identities of the 18 Barnard objects.
The region was first noticed in 1890 by Burnham while doing some double star work
using the 36 inch refractor of the Lick Observatory. He noted it as having
numerous nonstellar images in close proximity Several months later he suggested
to Barnard that he measure coordinates for them and Barnard complied and
published a paper (A.N. 2998) in which he gives positions (Epoch 1860), based upon
"estimations of closely approximate places" referenced to two stars, DM + 56 1679
(= SAO 028864), 13hr 38m 00'.5s + 56 22'.0 (1860) and DM + 56 1682 (= SAO 028871),
13hr 38m 43.8s + 56 21'.5 (1860).
These two stars are the only definite sources from which to obtain separation
values using Barnard's positions which can then be compared on the Palomar prints
and this is what I have done and following are a comparison of the offsets from DM
+ 56 1679 for Barnard, Corwin and Skiff as obtained from the coordinates as given
by all three.
BARNARD. (1860 Epoch). CORWIN. (1950 Epoch). SKIFF. (2000 Epoch)..
Barnard #01=IC 917. - 38 tsecs 00'.0
Corwin. - 55 tsecs + 00' 01"
Skiff. None given.
Barnard #02=IC 918. - 35 tsecs - 02'.5
Corwin. - 48 tsecs - 06' 27"
Skiff. - 47 tsecs - 06'.4
Barnard.#03=IC 919. - 32 tsecs - 03'.0
Corwin. - 38 tsecs - 06' 56"
Skiff. - 38 tsecs - 06'.9
Barnard.#04=IC 921. - 12 tsecs + 01'.9
Corwin. - 18 tsecs + 00' 43"
Skiff. - 17 tsecs + 00'.9
Barnard,#05=IC 922. - 09 tsecs - 01'.5
Corwin. - 29 tsecs - 01' 59"
Skiff. - 29 tsecs - 02'.0
Barnard.#06=IC 923. - 05 tsecs - 01'.0
Corwin. - 11 tsecs - 02' 02"
Skiff. - 09 tsecs - 01'.3
Barnard.#07=IC 925. 00 tsecs - 02'.0
Corwin. - 09 tsecs - 01' 17"
Skiff. - 11 tsecs - 02'.0
Barnard.#08=IC 926. + 09 tsecs - 00'.5
Corwin. + 14 tsecs - 00' 21"
Skiff + 14 tsecs - 00'.3
Barnard.#09=IC 928. + 20 tsecs - 01'.0
Corwin. + 23 tsecs - 04' 10"
Skiff. + 20 tsecs - 00'.2
Barnard.#10=IC 929. + 21 tsecs + 01'.0
Corwin.. + 20 tsecs - 00' 17"
Skiff. + 21 tsecs + 00'.6
Barnard.#11=IC 930. + 25 tsecs + 02'.5
Corwin. + 20 tsecs + 00' 34"
Skiff. + 28 tsecs + 01'.2
Barnard.#12=IC 931. + 27 tsecs - 01'.0
Corwin. + 24 tsecs - 00' 55"
Skiff. + 24 tsecs - 00'.8
Barnard.#13=IC 932 + 27 tsecs 00'.0
Corwin. + 26 tsecs + 00' 34"
Skiff. + 26 tsecs + 00'.6
Barnard.#14=IC 934 + 40 tsecs + 01'.0
Corwin. + 27 tsecs + 01' 10"
Skiff. + 37 tsecs - 00'.1
Barnard.#15=IC 935 + 41 tsecs - 02'.0
Corwin. + 38 tsecs + 00' 44"
Skiff. None given.
Barnard.#16=IC 936 + 41 tsecs - 01'.0
Corwin. + 44 tsecs + 04' 09"
Skiff. + 38 tsecs + 00'.8
Barnard.#17=IC 937 + 70 tsecs + 00'.5
Corwin. + 64 tsecs - 00' 31"
Skiff. + 64 tsecs - 00'.4
Barnard.#18=IC 938 + 73 tsecs - 01'.0
Corwin. + 66 tsecs - 00' 40"
Skiff. + 66 tsecs - 00'.6
It is obvious by examination of the above that there are considerable differences
in the separation values between Barnard and those given by Harold and Brian.
Probably the most important example is Barnard's Object #3 = IC 919, which is the
only one of the 18 that Barnard describes as "considerably bright."
Barnard places it at a declination 3 arcmins south of the star while Harold and
Brian select an object (ZWG 271.059 = ZWG 272.004 due to overlapping prints),
almost 7 arcmins south of this same star.
Now granted Barnard's positions (from which the separation values are computed)
are admittedly "estimations" but I have difficulty accepting that an outstanding
visual observer such as Barnard would have been off by more than a 100 percent factor,
especially as his sole purpose for examining the area was to provide
coordinates for Burnham's "group or nest of nebulae." I might accept that Barnard
could err by up to 1 arcmin but not by almost 4 arcmins, therefore based upon
Barnard's coordinates his Object #3 = IC 919 would be Harold and Skiff's IC 922
and the galaxy ZWG 271.059 would not even be one of the 18 objects Barnard refers
to in his paper.
This then poses the question How could Barnard have missed seeing the brightest
galaxy in the immediate region ? Well I expect that he did see it, however, I
believe that he was only concerned with reporting on what he considered to be 18
nebulae which formed an almost straight chain all being contained within a band of
sky whose dimensions measure 5.5 arcmins north to south and 16.0 arcmins West to
East.
It is as if Barnard wished to emphasize that all of his 18 objects are to be found
in this band as Barnard in his paper states "that the entire group of 18 objects
are contained within an area 16'.0 X 5'.5" and " no effort was made to see other
nebulae outside the area mentioned" however, both Harold and Brian's selection for
IC 919 exceed the 5'.5 declination range, never mind the additional excess in
declination range for those objects selected by Harold and Brian lying north of
the reference star which results in Harold's declination range being 11' 5".1 and
Brian's being 8'.1 while the other candidate for the identity IC 919 (Harold and
Brian's IC 922) is within the declination range and would be the brightest object
within the band.
I feel that what made this group so interesting to Barnard was that he found all
of them to be within this small 16'.0 X 5'.5 band of sky and that if we include
ZWG 271.059 and Harold's selection for IC 936 then such an interest would be
somewhat diminished and lessen the significance which prompted Barnard to report
it in the A.N. It certainly made quite an impression on Barnard as he referred to
it again in another paper (A.N. #4136. Groups of small nebulae.) dated by him June
1st 1897, "There are quite a number of such clusters the most remarkable of these
being one composed of very small nebulae found by Mr. Burnham with the 36 inch and
described in A.N. 2998, where no less than eighteen nebulae are crowded into a
space 5'.5 X 16'.0. There can be no question that the components of such a group
are physically connected."
Now there is no doubt that at the positions given by Harold and Skiff for the
objects they identify there definitely are galaxies, whereas I could only find 10
nonstellar images based upon Barnard's positions and even for many of these I had
to allow for the possibility of up to 1 arcmin caused by estimation error, the
rest of the 18 being either not found or faint stars, however, in order to make
their identities Harold and Brian have selected galaxies which for the majority do
not remotely comply with the historical data, (in addition to many differences in
RA and declinations they also have some of their identities out of order of RA,
something necessary by offsetting from their IC 919), so either the historical
data is grossly incorrect or their selections are wrong.
One other aspect of the identities selected by Harold and Brian that I am
uncomfortable with is that when their coordinates are compared to those given by
Barnard there is no evidence of any systematic pattern in the differences, rather
it would seem that Harold and Brian again in the majority of cases made their
selections based upon the existence of nebular images and just about completely
ignored the historical data.
In fairness I must state that Harold admitted that his choices were subject to a
lot of guesswork and Brian concluded that the identities for this group pretty
much comes down to personal choices, a sentiment I can appreciate.
Well as you can see, nothing comes easy with this group of identities. I honestly
at this time am still at sea as to the correct solution (personally I wish they
had all been NGC identities then I would have not had to bother with them).
Barnard's 18 IC identities in this group are as follows
Nos.917,918,919,921,922,923,925,926,928,929,930,931,932,934,935,936,937 and 938.
The CGCG gives only the identity ZWG 271.059 = ZWG 272.004. (overlapping prints)
and this is what Dr. Corwin and B. Skiff have selected as being IC 919 and with
the exception of the APL, NGC 2000 and the MOL.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 922, IC 928 and IC 931 as (Nebula) while also
listing the other identities as (No Type) or (Nonstellar Objects). SIMBAD lists all
18 identities as "Not present in the database." NED Lists all 18 identities, given
them Dr. Corwin's positions, however, with the exception of IC 918 it adds a note
stating "Identity not certain."
ADDENDA :
IC 919 GROUP.
REPLY TO HAROLD'S COMMENTS.
I read Harold's reply to my assessment of the IC 919 identity problem with great
interest and wish to here state that perhaps his selected identities are the
correct ones as they are based upon existing galaxy images (with the possible
exception of IC 917,) however, whether his remaining 17 selections are all based
upon the historical data as Harold states "Brian and I have chosen to look at what
Barnard wrote, what we believe he saw," is still not clear to me, because the
exact words Barnard used in his paper are the following.
"Some months ago, while measuring double stars with the great telescope, Mr.
Burnham ran upon a very singular nest or group of nebulae. At his suggestion, I
estimated their positions with reference to the two stars DM + 56 1679 and DM + 56
1682. In addition to the more prominent ones seen at first , a number of fainter
ones were added, making eighteen new nebulae found in the small area 16' X 5'.5.
Doubtless with more careful attention others could have been found in the same
field. No effort was made to see other nebulae outside the area mentioned. From
these estimations, the following closely approximated places have been derived.
These Nebulae are all very small, and if seen at all in a smaller telescope might
be taken for small stars. They are given here both to show the remarkably small
space they occupy and to illustrate the wonderful power of the great telescope in
the department of the nebulae."
Now if Harold's selected identities are the correct ones then we have to conclude
that Barnard was extremely inept when it came to estimating "closely approximated
places" as opposed to "crude positions" and even if one accepts the "crude
positions," is it conceivable that such an outstanding and highly qualified
professional astronomer would have come up with declination values that differ
from those given by Harold by as much as 5 arcmins (IC 936) and almost 4 arcmins
(as in the case of both IC 918 and IC 919) ?, especially as according to Barnard
the dimensions of the field that he claimed contained the 18 nebulae was only 5.5
arcmins in declination width. Barnard obtained his coordinates for what he
considered to be 18 nebulous images by estimating their positions from the two
stars he mentions, whose coordinates were established and available to him, also
from his statement "closely approximated places," it is clear that he did not
perceive his estimates to be "crude".
I would agree with Harold that Barnard probably arrived at his 16' X 5'.5 field
from the range of his published coordinates, and there is absolutely nothing wrong
about doing that, after all that is what his positions indicated. Barnard's
declination range is 5.5 arcmins whereas Harold's is 11.1 arcmins (IC 919 to IC
936), or more than double Barnard's range, which, if Harold is correct, would
suggest that not only was Barnard inept, but that he was completely incompetent
when it comes to estimating minutes of arc in a telescopic field.
Well, I would disagree that these differences do support following the historical
data, furthermore, does following the historical data allow for Harold's selection
for his IC 930 having a Right Ascension 2.2 tsecs preceding his IC 928, whereas
Barnard places his #11 = IC 930 5.0 tsecs following his #9 = IC 928. (a 7.2 tsec
difference)? Also Barnard gives IC 923 a declination 1 arcmin north of IC 925,
whereas Harold places his IC 923 almost 1 arcmin south of his IC 925. Again if
one compares the differences between all of Barnard's given positions and the same
differences according to Harold's selected identities there are for many of these
identities no systematic matching pattern between the two sets of differences.
I must confess that I am unable to improve on Harold's identities, however, I
would say that basing my investigation strictly upon Barnard's data, the
historical data, which is what I have done, the problem is far from solved.
Perhaps if Barnard's Observing Notes are in existence and become available (I also
wrote to Lick requesting such information), then perhaps this issue can be laid to
rest. As for the present, I thoroughly agree with Brian's comment "you pays yer
money, you takes your choice."
Note: Since writing the above I have received from Professor Donald Osterbrock of
the Lick Observatory a reply to my request for copies of any of the original
logbook entries pertaining to this group made by either Burnham or Barnard. He
sent me all of the data involved that he could find, however, they contain no
additional information that would shed further light upon the controversy.
NOTE : Quite frankly, I must admit that having once more examined the matter I am
no closer to resolving the involved identities. As I am unable to clearly
establish Barnard's identities (there are too many inconsistencies), I can only
offer those as arrived at by Dr. Corwin as being the best available, although I
still have difficulty with those identities that differ from the historical as to
order of either RA or Declination with associated identities, while also I am
still not comfortable with the large differences of those identities which do not
fit within the 16 X 5.5 field as stated by Barnard.
BARNARD'S COORDINATES PRECESSED TO 1950.
CORWIN'S COORDINATES FOR 1950.
Barnard. IC 917. 13hr 40m 53.393s +55 53'12.264” Corwin.13hr 40m 39.5s +55 53'18"
Barnard. IC 918. 13hr 40m 56.475s +55 50'42.432” Corwin.13hr 40m 46.0s +55 46'50"
Barnard. IC 919. 13hr 40m 59.463s +55 50'12.596” Corwin.13hr 40m 55.7s +55 46' 20".9
Barnard. IC 921. 13hr 41m 18.998s +55 55'07.687” Corwin.13hr 41m 16.5s +55 54'00"
Barnard. IC 922. 13hr 41m 22.123s +55 51'43.856” Corwin.13hr 41m 04.8s +55 51' 17".9
Barnard. IC 923. 13hr 41m 26.052s +55 52'14.076” Corwin.13hr 41m 22.7s +55 51'15"
Barnard. IC 925. 13hr 41m 31.041s +55 51'14.352” Corwin.13hr 41m 24.7s +55 52'00"
Barnard. IC 926. 13hr 41m 39.817s +55 53'44.844” Corwin.13hr 41m 47.9s +55 52'56"
Barnard. IC 928. 13hr 41m 50.758s +55 52'15.453” Corwin.13hr 41m 56.6s +55 49'07"
Barnard. IC 929. 13hr 41m 51.652s +55 54'15.506” Corwin.13hr 41m 53.8s +55 53' 04".1
Barnard. IC 930. 13hr 41m 55.534s +55 55'45.725” Corwin.13hr 41m 54.4s +55 53'51"
Barnard. IC 931. 13hr 41m 57.676s +55 52'15.840” Corwin.13hr 41m 57.9s +55 52'22"
Barnard. IC 932. 13hr 41m 57.629s +55 53'15.839” Corwin.13hr 42m 00.2s +55 53'51"
Barnard. IC 934. 13hr 42m 10.524s +55 52'16.559” Corwin.13hr 42m 01.3s +55 54'27"
Barnard. IC 935. 13hr 42m 11.559s +55 51'16.616" Corwin.13hr 42m 11.9s +55 54'01"
Barnard. IC 936. 13hr 42m 11.512s +55 52'16.614" Corwin.13hr 42m 18.2s +55 57'26"
Barnard. IC 937. 13hr 42m 40.100s +55 53'48.222” Corwin.13hr 42m 37.8s +55 52'46"
Barnard. IC 938. 13hr 42m 43.137s +55 52'18.391” Corwin.13hr 42m 40.3s +55 52'37"
IC 942.
POSS. O-705.
Swift List VII,#34. 13hr 45m 54.795s + 56 52' 10.938" (1950).
13hr 47m 42.749s + 56 37' 15.605" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 295.013. MCG, NGC 2000, PGC,
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MOL have correct identity. UGC not listed.
IC 953, IC 955 and IC 957.
Parrish. 13hr 52m 04.634s - 30 01 59.827" (1950).
13hr 54m 56.849s - 30 16' 42.029" (2000). (IC 953).
13hr 52m 50.866s - 30 03 44.052" (1950).
13hr 55m 43.218s - 30 18' 24.645" (2000). (IC 955).
13hr 53m 15.369s - 30 03' 43.053" (1950).
13hr 56m 07.781s - 30 18' 22.789" (2000). (IC 957).
Not found :
These three identities all lie in the same region of the sky and were part of the
observations carried out at the Leander McCormick Observatory.
I was unable to find any nonstellar images that would be deemed suitable at or
near the given positions of all three.
Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and both of these give the
Coordinates based upon the historical data. Steinicke makes IC 953 (=*) and (NF)
for both IC 955 and IC 957. NED makes all 3 identities (Not found), as does APL and
SIMBAD.
NOTE : For an excellent evaluation of the problems associated with these 3
identities see WEBB SOCIETY QUARTERLY JOURNAL, July 1997. Issue #109. LOST IN
SPACE ?. J. Kaye and M. Cragin.
IC 958.
POSS. O-90.
Swift List IX,#39. 13hr 53m 15,994s + 05 16' 41.479" (1950).
13hr 55m 46.664s + 05 02' 01.576" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5360 (Marth) : Swift's coordinates place it relatively close
to NGC 5360 and his description "eeeF, pS, iR, seen only in glimpses" matches well
with Marth's "vF, vS, lE." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 gives
Type as [?]. MOL states (May not exist). Carlson lists as "Not Found." APL and
Steinicke give (= NGC 5360). SIMBAD has (Not found). NED has Equal to NGC 5360?
"Identification as IC 958 is not certain."
IC 963.
POSS. O-81.
Javelle #267. 13hr 55m 01.595s + 17 39' 03.595" (1950).
13hr 57m 25.111s + 17 24' 27.327" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MOL incorrectly lists the declination as +11 39' 12".
Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and NGC 2000
(GX).
IC 968.
POSS. O-1424.
Bigourdan #181. 13hr 58m 01.604s - 02 39' 57.218" (1950).
14hr 00m 36.979s - 02 54' 26.940" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The problem here is one of coordinates, something very unusual
with Bigourdan objects.
There is no doubt that Bigourdan's # 181 exists as a galaxy and this can be
confirmed by his relative separation values when compared to those he gave to the
galaxy NGC 5400, also from his reference star which he called "Anon 4."
His given coordinates for IC 968 are off by about 3 to 4 tsec RA and about 2
arcmin too far south and it would appear that the error is to be found in the
coordinates he applied to the star BD -1 2892 from which he then measured offsets
to his reference star "Anon 4". As his declination for BD -1 2829 is off by about
2 arcmin too far south then so is the declination he gives for "Anon 4" and this
in turn is reflected in the coordinates he gives for both IC 968 and NGC 5400,
however, that he saw both galaxies is beyond dispute as his offsets from his
reference star to both these identified objects are correct and establish that his
#181 = IC 968 is an existing galaxy, one of a double system.
I have found that Bigourdan's measured positions are usually excellent therefore
this apparent error would be quite rare in his published data and originates from
the incorrect coordinates taken from the BD star catalogue.
The MCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and CGCG have the correct identity and
more correctly reflect the proper declination, while both the NGC 2000 and MOL
basing their positional data upon Dreyer have the Bigourdan historical coordinates
IC 973.
POSS. O-1616.
Bigourdan #182. 14hr 03m 51.877s - 05 14' 56.441" (1950).
14hr 06m 28.889s - 05 29' 13.313" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
This is a single star : I was unable to find any reference to this in Bigourdan's
OBSERVATIONS and relied upon his publication of discovery in the COMPTES RENDUS in
which he describes it as appearing stellar.
Modern listings are NGC 2000 (*), MOL (May not exist), Carlson (Not found), NED
"!*." APL (= NGC 5467 = *) and Steinicke (= * = NGC 5467). SIMBAD has "Not present
in the database."
IC 974.
POSS. O-1616.
Bigourdan #183. 14hr 03m 57.228s - 05 16' 34.199" (1950).
14hr 06m 34.265s - 05 30' 50.730" (2000).
Unable to decide : Bigourdan employed as his reference object the identity NGC
5465, which is a faint star, therefore I treated this as a regular reference star
and although I was unable to find this star listed in either the AC or Tycho-2
catalogues it is listed in the GSC as 4981-340 at 14hr 06m 27.35s - 05 30' 23.3
(2000).
By precessing this back to the discovery date for IC 974 (1890) the position is
14hr 00m 42.286s - 04 58' 50.988" and then applying Bigourdan's estimated offsets
(+ 6.9 tsec RA and + 28 arcsec Dec) the 1890 position for IC 974 would be 14hr 00m
49.186s - 04 59' 18.988" which when precessed would give the following
coordinates, 14hr 03m 57.228s - 05 16' 34.199s (1950) and 14hr 06m 34.265s - 05
30' 50.730" (2000).
When these coordinates are entered into the DSS they land on a blank area of sky
between a very bright star and the following of two faint stars, the preceding
faint star being NGC 5465.
Bigourdan describes IC 974 as "Object very much stellar, appearing to be slightly
nebulous and situated at a PA of 105 degrees, distant 1.8 arcmin from NGC 5465.
This object is a little fainter than NGC 5465 and because of its faintness it is
difficult to decide if it is indeed nebulous. Sky a little misty at this
elevation."
Now the following of the two faint stars fulfills the PA in Bigourdan's
description, however, the 1.8 arcmin separation is closer to 1 arcmin than 1.8
arcmin between the two stars.
Granted, the separation values in this case were not measured by Bigourdan but
were estimated and except for this discrepancy the following of the two faint
stars fits Bigourdan's description, however, I am still bothered by
the almost 1 arcmin difference in distance between the two stars, therefore at
this time I shall hedge by concluding Not found at the corrected nominal position,
but probably the following of the two faint stars.
NGC 2000 (*), MOL (May not exist), Carlson (Not found. Mt. Wilson), APL (=*) and
Steinicke (NF). NED has "!*." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 984.
POSS. O-81.
Javelle #276. 14hr 07m 45.673s + 18 36' 04.457" (1950).
14hr 10m 07.526s + 18 21' 56.543" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG has incorrectly identified its ZWG 103.094 at 14hr
07.6m + 17 38'.0 as being IC 984. This should be corrected to ZWG 103. 099. (See
RASQJ #33, pp.63 & 64. 1992).
This error is also reported in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly identified in the
UGC, MCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD. NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO) and RC3.
IC 986.
POSS. O-1424.
Javelle #781. 14hr 08m 53.270s + 01 33' 50.640" (1950).
14hr 11m 26.123s + 01 19' 45.522" (2000). Based upon Part 2 data.
Confirmed galaxy : The RA coordinates in Javelle's Catalogue, Parts 1 and 2, for
his #781 differ by 2 tmin this due to a 2 tmin error in the RA of Javelle's
reference star DM +2-2783 as given in Part 2 of the catalogue. Dreyer fortunately
used the data in Javelle's Part 1, which has the correct RA, although the
declination is about 1.6 arcmin too far north.
All of the modern authorities have the correct coordinates.
IC 987.
POSS. O-81.
Javelle #277. 14hr 09m 10.671s + 19 24' 38.386" (1950).
14hr 11m 31.840s + 19 10' 33.790" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 103.112. Correctly
identified in the MCG, Steinicke, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO)
and DSFG (Notes to NGC 5492).
IC 990.
POSS O-1386.
Bigourdan #184. 14hr 13m 46.406s + 40 01' 43.712" (1950).
14hr 15m 49.153s + 39 47' 49.887" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in MCG only as +7-29-56. Correctly identified in
the CGCG, NED, APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Not
listed in RC3, UGC. Listed in DSFG (Notes to NGC 5536).
IC 996.
POSS. O-705.
Swift List VII,#43. 14hr 15m 22s + 57 52' 22"
Error in RA : CGCG, UGC, PGC, RC3, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MCG give correct RA
14hr 15m.8 (CGCG and UGC), or 14hr 15m.6 (MCG). NGC 2000 requires + 24 tsec and
MOL + 21 tsec in RA.
IC 997, IC 998 and IC 4401.
POSS. O-1062.
DSS Photograph of IC 997, IC998 and IC 4401 Field.
North up and Preceding right.
MODERN IDENTITIES.
A = IC 4401. B = IC 997. C = IC 998.
=======================================
SWIFT'S DATA: All Epoch 2000.0
List #10. (1893). MNRAS Publication.
PREC. 14h 19m 56.241s - 04 28' 46.464"
(D) "pF; S; R; star with distant companion near n. p of 2."
FOL. 14h 20m 14.228s - 04 27' 44.838" (E) "eeF; S; R; e diff. f of 2."
---------------------------------------
List #11. (1898). Astronomische Nachricten Publication.
(168). 14hr 19m 34.961s - 04 27'25.219" (F) "vF; S; R; star with distant companion
near n; p of 2."
(169). 14hr 19m 52.949s - 04 26'23.741"
(G) "eeF; S; R; f of 2."
=======================================
Howe's Data: All Epoch 2000.0
(1899 MNRAS Publication).
Nova = IC 4401.
14hr 19m 24.994s - 04 29' 14.037"
---------------------------------------
(1900 MNRAS Publication).
NOVA = IC 4401. = (OBJECT A).
14hr 19m 24.994s - 04 29' 14.037"
IC 997 = (OBJECT B).
14hr 19m 59.968s - 04 27' 05.165"
IC 998 = (OBJECT C).
14hr 20m 19.934s - 04 24' 57.519"
If you consult any of the sources that list these 3 galaxies you will find that
the vast majority identify them as being
A = IC 4401.B = IC 997. C = IC 998.[See Photo].
I should point out that up until now I seem to be the only person that disputes
these identities but I shall explain how I arrived at my conclusions and others
may judge their merit.
When I first examined this group I had no reason to dispute the given identities,
however, a number of findings turned up that caused me to have some doubt as to
their validity and after considerable time and thought I eventually formed two
different scenarios, which explain my concerns and reach the same conclusions
although from differing approaches.
The first person to observe this region was Lewis Swift, using the 16 inch
refractor of the Warner Swasey Observatory in Rochester, New York. This telescope
when used with the eyepiece employed by Swift for his search for new nebulae gave
the unusually large field of view of 33 arcmin with a magnification of 132X, or a
field that would just about cover the size of the full moon.
His method for obtaining positions was by using a chronometer for Right Ascension
and climbing down from his observing ladder to read off declinations from the
setting circle. Swift's positions can be highly frustrating as often they have
large errors and in order to identify correctly one must often resort to his field
descriptions and match up field stars or associated objects with what he
describes.
For this field they appear without any identities in the February, 1893 issue of
the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (MNRAS), as List (10), in
which he claims discovery of 2 nebulae. He describes the preceding as "Pretty
faint, Small, Round. Star with distant companion near North." and the following as
"Exceedingly faint, Small, Round. Extremely difficult."
When Swift's List 10 coordinates are applied to the field his preceding would land
at (D) and his following object would be at (E). [See Photo]
Meanwhile, Louis Dreyer, the compiler of the famous NGC catalogue published the
first of the IC catalogues in 1895 and assigned the identities IC 997 and IC 998
by order of Right Ascension to the two Swift discoveries, giving them coordinates
based upon Swift's data.
Swift next published in 1898 what he suggests as being a second observation, this
time in the German astronomical journal, ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICTEN #3517, and here
the same two discoveries are identified by order of Right Ascension as Swift's
#168 and #169. His positional data as given in this list shows a correction to that
given in his earlier List 10 and his descriptions read much as before, #168 "Very
faint, Small, Round. Star with distant companion near north. Preceding of 2." and
#169 "Exceedingly faint, Small, Round. Following of 2."
Now when we apply these corrected positions to the field we find that his #168
lies at (F) and his #169 at (G). [See Photo].
The next person to examine telescopically the same field was another American,
Professor Howe of the Chamberlin Observatory in Denver, Colorado.
Howe was a recognized professional astronomer and observed with the observatory's
20 inch refractor.
His first account of his examination appears in the December issue 1899 MNRAS in
which he lists a Nova (new discovery)
He adds the following NOTE. "It precedes IC 997 about 30 tsec. (IC 998) which
its discoverer pronounces Exceeding faint, very difficult. I did not see. In its
position, or very near it is a double star of mags. 13.5 and 13.5, distant 30
arcsec and angle 160 degrees."
As for Howe's double star there is a bit of a problem in that the only pair in the
vicinity fitting his description is according to the United States Observatory
Catalogue (USNO-B1.0) Red magnitudes of 16.4 and 15.9, whereas Howe calls them
both 13.5 magnitude.
Now it is very important to know that at this time Howe, using a larger telescope
and with much better sky conditions than those at Rochester, states that he could
not see IC 998, his references being only to object A, his Nova and Object B,
which he describes in his Note as being (997). Six pages later in the same
publication Howe added the following information.
Swift #168 and #169, "Probably they are identical with 997 and 998. I examined
the region on one night only and saw only a very faint double star in or near the
place of 998."
Here again Howe is suggesting that he saw only 2 objects, his Nova and what he
identifies as IC 997.
Finally, Howe in the November 1900 issue of MNRAS list notes on a number of
objects he observed belonging to the Index Catalogue and among his notes he
writes,
"(997) and (998) I have examined this locality with considerable care, and see
three nebulae, one of which is evidently a nova, as its description is widely
different from that of any of the others. 997 and Swift 168 agree in description
and are thought to be identical. The star with distant companion near north is of
mag. 9.5 and follows the nebula less than 1 tsec and 1.3 arcmin north. Its
companion is of mag. 10.5 and is 40 arcsec distant from the brighter star, at a
Position angle of 225 degrees."
It is obvious that by the time of publishing this Howe not only had seen all 3
galaxies but had concluded that Object B was Swift's 168 = IC 997 and Object C was
Swift's 169 = IC 998, while his nova was Object A, later given the identity IC
4401 by Dreyer. Thus the identities found in the modern catalogues.
Howe continues in his NOTE. "998 is very much fainter and smaller than 997 and is
judged to be identical with Swift's 169. Near it is a star of mag. 14 at a
Position angle of 180 degrees and distance of 20 arcsec. It is to be noticed that
according to the Index Catalogue 998 follows 997 by 18 tsec and 1 arcmin north,
these differences of coordinates being identical with those obtained from the
Astronomiche Nachricten #3517 for Swift 168 and 169."
Then Howe give excellent coordinates for all three galaxies.
It was not until a couple of years ago that when re-examining this data while
updating my files to more precise coordinates for epochs 1950 and 2000.0 that
while looking at the field photograph taken from the Digitized Sky Survey that I
began to suspect that any problem of identity might exist and caused me to begin
an investigation that has resulted in two possible solutions to the problem, both
solutions arriving at the same conclusions.
SOLUTION 1:
It first struck me that if Swift was able to see Object C as Howe suggests then
surely he would have also seen Object A as it is both brighter and larger than C.
Both lie well within the 33 arcmin field provided by Swift's telescope and also
remember that Howe, himself states in both of his first statements that he could
not see IC 998, his references as to what he saw being only applicable to Objects
A and B. and it was not until his 1900 publication that he even mentions the Third
object, Object C.
My next question was, What would have convinced Howe that Swift's two discoveries
were B and C and not A and B and the answer would appear to lie in two references
in Howe's published Notes.
First : The 18 tsec separation in RA between Swift's #168 and #169 (actually the
separation between Object B and C is closer to 21 tsec.).
Second : Swift's description for his 168 in which he says "Star with distant
companion near north."
Also if one considers Swift's MNRAS coordinates as given in his List 10 they might
indeed suggest that Objects B and C could be his two discoveries, but this then
requires one to ignore his corrected positional data as given in his List 11. A.N.
3517.
There is no doubt that in both Swift's positional data he does give exactly the
same separation values, 18 tsec Right Ascension and 1 arcmin dec. But remember
that Swift's general level of published coordinates are subject to error and I
believe that Swift actually made only a single observation of the field, his
first in 1892 (Dr. Harold Corwin also thinks that the single observation is a viable
assumption) and that sometime after his List 10 was published Swift determined
that a positional correction was necessary.
In order to make such an assumption one has to show a reason and two possibilities
are that perhaps there was some type of malfunction affecting his chronometer or
miscalculation in his reductions. Whatever the reason, by the time he published
his List 11 he had worked out what he believed to be a suitable correction and
applied it to his original Right Ascension for either #168 or #169 then he could
have simply used the earlier separation values to arrive at coordinates for the
other discovery object, thus the exact similarities between the original and
corrected separation data in both of his lists.
What is suspicious about the similarities is that seldom if ever does more than
one positional observation produce the exact same results. An example of this are
those made by Bigourdan and Javelle, two French observers who were very accurate
measurers and who often made multiple measurements of objects by employing field
associated stars, they always had small differences in separation values, never
exactly the same. Even today using machines to measure images on photographic
plates one has only to examine the precise coordinates published in the various
catalogues such as the Tycho-2 Catalogue and Guide Star Catalogue to name only
two, and you will find that there are minute differences between them and all the
others, therefore my doubt that Swift actually ever made a second telescopic
examination of the field, but instead made his positional corrections based upon
what I have already described.
Whatever the reason for the corrections the fact remains that Swift made them
before anyone else had examined the field, thus they are not the result of any
outside influence.
Now regarding Swift's two associated stars in his description for his Object #168.
"Star with distant companion near north." Howe takes these stars to be the two
immediately north of Object B, the brighter being GSC4980-965, mP 12.25.
However, I would argue that "the companion is hardly "DISTANT" as described by
Swift, whereas lying north of Object A are two such stars, the closest being
GSC4979-1100. Mp 11.34, [H on photo], which is only about 4.25 arcmin north of
Object A and in a field of view of 33 arcmin I think it can be said that this can
be described as "near", meanwhile, the companion star, GSC4979-1132. MP 11.96, [I
on photo], also answers to the description "distant companion."
One of the disagreements between Dr. Harold Corwin and I has been the term NEAR as
used by Swift. Corwin feels that the distance between Object A and the star H
would not be considered as being NEAR whereas that between Object B and the star
directly north would. In order to address this concern I searched Swift's
published data and by scanning through only three of his lists as published in the
Astronomische Nachricten, List 8, 10 and 11 I soon found 7 examples where Swift
describes a star or double star as being NEAR to his discovery object and for 3 of
these the distances involved are similar to that between Star H and Object A,
while for the other 4 examples the distance of separation are even larger than
between Star H and Object A.
It is clear that Howe's data and conclusions have influenced the modern day
identities for these three galaxies, but it is equally clear in my opinion that
had Howe employed Swift's corrected positions as published in 1898 (one year prior
to Howe's first publication), and he certainly had these corrected positions as he
includes them in his logbook, he would have immediately seen that they strongly
suggest that Objects A and B were the two Swift discoveries, not Objects B and C.
Swift's corrected coordinates (letters F and G) land nowhere close to Object C and
are much more compatible with Objects A and B respectively.
It is my opinion that this with the other findings I have described, such as the
brightness factor and the two stars should have guided Howe, however, he chose to
base his conclusions upon other determinations, concluding to go with Dreyer's
coordinates for IC 997 and IC 998, which in turn were based entirely upon Swift's
erroneous List #10 positions and ignore Swift's List 11 corrections which places
the two Swift objects much closer to where Object A and B exist, and in doing so I
believe he was in error, an error that I argue still exists to the present time.
Having arrived at the conclusions I have described I next sought additional data
to support those conclusions and wrote to Professor Stencel, the present director
of the Chamberlin Observatory, requesting copies of any of Howe's logbook entries
for the field in question if they still existed in the Denver College archives and
he most kindly took the time to search for them and send me a copy.
After examining these I was able to determine that Howe was in some doubt as to
just what were Swift's two discoveries as there are numerous annotations scribbled
in pencil on the data for that particular night's work. There are references to A
and B being Swift's #168 and #169, followed by other references suggesting that
they are not the same and on the second page of the entry there is scrawled in
large handwriting the word Nova in brackets, under which is written "Possibly this
is Swift 168. dated Aug. 4. 99"
Finally I have asked some experienced deep sky observers to take a look at the
field and report what they were able to see. One of these, Curtis Croulet,
employing a 10 inch Schmidt-Cassegrain telescope and observing from an excellent
mountain dark sky site was able to see both Objects A and B, yet even knowing
exactly where Object C is located he was unable to see any nebular image, only
seeing with difficulty that there was a very faint star at the position.
The other experienced observer was Ron Morales, who observes with a 12.5 inch F7
reflector and he reported exactly the same results as Curtis.
What is of particular importance about these two observations is that both
observers were able to see only two of the three IC galaxies, Objects A and B, and
as Swift, using a 16 inch telescope, reports only seeing two of the three objects
the logical conclusion would greatly favor that the two would be the same, namely
Objects A and B.
SOLUTION 2.
I was thus satisfied that I had found a solution that in my opinion created doubt
as to the proper identities of these three galaxies, however, very recently while
reviewing all the pros and cons of my arguments I realized that a second possible
solution could be reasonably argued and here again the visual observations of the
field made by Curtis Croulet and Ron Morales offered the key to this second
solution.
Both of these observers made their reports without any knowledge that the other
was involved and their reports are almost identical, which is to be expected as
they are both experienced and excellent deep sky observers. What I had overlooked
in both reports is that they each stated that Object B was obviously brighter than
Object A, Object A requiring averted vision in order to see at first, whereas,
Object B was seen quite easily with direct vision.
The significance of this is that it directly contradicts Swift's descriptions in
both of his lists, in which he makes the preceding object, Object A, the brighter
of the two nebulae. Obviously there appeared to be an additional problem here and
I spent considerable time trying to come up with a viable explanation and
eventually I did find a logical answer that might have caused such a situation.
If somehow, sometime before Swift's first publication the data describing the
appearance of his two discoveries had become switched or transposed this would
still make his identities #168 and #169 correct by virtue of their order of Right
Ascension and relative position of preceding and following, but would make #169
the brighter of the two instead of the fainter of the two. This switching of data
between associated objects is not a precedent as it has occurred with other
identities and if this is the correct solution it would also support my claim that
Swift made only a single observation of the field as it would be expected that had
he actually made a second telescopic examination he would have realized that his
descriptions as they apply to the two objects in his original observation were
reversed and he would have corrected this along with his corrected positional
data.
I should also point out that if this second solution is correct then I would have
to abandon completely my identifying the two stars (H) and (I) as being the two
described by Swift and accept that the brighter star just north of Object B is
indeed Swift's "star near north," however, I would still argue that Howe's
"companion' still does not fit the description "distant companion," and that it
would then most likely be one of the two stars north and slightly following the
main star.
In the end both solutions arrive at the same conclusions that Swift's two
discoveries are Objects A and B and that C is neither Swift's #168 or #169
So has this controversy been resolved ? Well not as of the present time, however,
I believe that I have presented reasonable arguments, based upon findings that
produce logical assumptions in favor of the three galaxies being.
A = Swift's #168 = IC 997 = IC 4401. (duplicate IC identities).
B = Swift's #169 = IC 998.
C = An anonymous galaxy discovered by Howe.
So there you have it. Can I prove that either Solution 1 or Solution 2 are
correct ? The answer is no. However, I would say that there is sufficient
evidence in the historical record to suggest that the modern identities are at the
very least suspect.
UPDATE. June 23rd 2004:
After having posted on the Amastro mailing website a request for visual observations
of the IC 997 field and posed the following 4 questions.
(A). Size of aperture and magnifications employed, also size of FOV would be
helpful.
(B). How many of the 3 galaxies were visible.
(C). Which did you see by order of brightness.
(D). If you had just been scanning the field without having any prior knowledge that
it contained any galaxies would it have been likely that you would have noticed any,
or all of the 3 galaxies. (The request also included a DSS photograph of the field,
showing the relative positions of the 3 galaxies).
I received the following 3 replies. The first is from Doug Snyder, using an
Obsession 20" (0.5m) f/5 Scope. The eyepieces used, 17mm and 12mm, provided
magifications of 149X and 211X, with FOV's of 33' and 23".
He reports "I observed all three, but with increasing difficulty.
'B' was easy with direct vision, 'A' was somewhat more difficult, but with
direct vision; 'C' was visible only using averted vision and was visible
only about 25% of the time when I used 211X. I could not detect it using
149X.
Using your field chart for identification, the order of brightness was B, A,
C.
I would have noticed 'B' readily; if I had been scanning that field without
the 'B' galaxy being present, I doubt if I would have picked up on 'A'. 'C'
definitely would not have been detected during scanning."
Doug made this observation from his observatory which is located in Palominas,
Arizona at an elevation of close to 4500 feet, in a sparsely populated area just
north of the Mexican border. He rated the Transparency as 8 on a scale of 10 and
the Seeing as 9 on the same scale.
The second reply was from fellow project member Steve Gottlieb who wrote,
IC 997 = MCG -01-37-001 = PGC 51220
14 19 59.3 -04 27 05
V = 12.8; Size 1.3x0.8; SB = 12.7; PA = 23d
18" (6/18/04): moderately bright, fairly small, elongated 2:1 or 5:3 ~N-S. A
striking equilateral triangle of mag 11-12 stars is close NE with the nearest
star 1' N of center. Also a mag 14 star is just 0.8' N of center. Contains a
small, brighter, roundish core and the extensions are a much lower surface
brightness. This galaxy is the brightest of a trio (easy with direct vision)
with IC 4401 9' WSW and IC 998 5' ENE.
************************************************************
IC 4401 = MCG -01-36-015 = PGC 51173
14 19 25.1 -04 29 21
V = 13.4; Size 1.5x0.6; SB = 13.2; PA = 21d
18" (6/18/04): fairly faint, fairly small, elongated 3:2 ~SW-NE, though the
orientation shifted slightly with averted vision. Weak concentration to a
small slightly brighter core. Visible with direct vision, though mostly the
small core remained. Second brightest of trio with IC 997 9' ENE and IC 998.
************************************************************
IC 998 = 2MASX J14201929-0424594
14 20 19.2 -04 25 00
Size 0.9x0.3; PA = 60d
18" (6/18/04): faint, very small, round. The view is a bit confused by a
very faint star which is close south (~20") so these objects could initially
appear to be a faint, close double. The galaxy appeared only 10" or so in
diameter. Barely visible with direct vision though only a faint stellar
nucleus remained. Faintest of trio with IC 997 and IC 4401 and situated 5'
ENE of IC 997.
And the third report was from Bob Hill and is as follows.
First, a brief note on conditions, equipment used, and observer.
Our observing site is a pasture provided by a friendly local rancher
located about 50 miles ESE of Amarillo Texas at +35°12'00" W101°51'00"
at 3400' altitude. NELM for these observations was 6.4. Conditions were
calm, seeing was <2" (double double a very clean separation)
transparency around 8/10. An excellent night.
The instrument used is a 20" f/5 Obsession with a 1/12 wave
(interferometry) Galaxy mirror with enhanced coatings. Optics were
clean. Tracking is provided with a ServoCat/Argo Navis combination that
is very smooth and accurate. Eyepieces used for this observation were
20, 17, 12, 9 and 7mm Naglers. All eyepieces are clean.
I have been involved on the amateur scene on and off since 1961 and have
only one simple goal in my observing. It's a big universe out there, and
I want to see all of it. ;-)
Before starting this evenings observations, I had re-read both yours and
Dr. Corwins notes on these galaxies at the NGC/IC website. I printed out
a MegaStar finder chart with a RealSky overlay covering the area from
14h21m to 14h19m and -4°16' to -4°40'. The telescope was critically
colimated and had two hours for the optics to come to ambient.
I tried to duplicate the FOV and magnification used by Swift for his
objects #168 & 169, thus using first the 20mm Nagler and then the 17mm
Nagler for 127x and 149x respectively. I also included MCG-1-37-2,
located 14' NE from object B, as a check on these observations, and
because I had a question in my mind as to if this was the third galaxy
that Hayes (Howe) had seen in this field.
With the 20mm, 40'fov, object B was immediately obvious with direct
vision with a bright star 1' to the N and a fainter star on the NW edge
of the galaxy. The galaxy had an irregular shape being wider at the N
end. Object A was fainter, being first detected with averted vision,
then held with direct as an oval object aligned NS elongated 3:1. Object
C was not visible although the two very faint stars located immediately
S of it's position would at times appear blurred. The MCG galaxy was not
visible with this eyepiece.
With the 17mm, 34' fov, B starts to show somewhat better with the
extension to the E of the nucleus being bright fading to the N, A is
somewhat easier to hold with direct vision, but still with no real
detail. Object C would appear about 5% of the time as an extremely faint
small bit of fuzz to the N of the very faint double star 6' NE from B.
The MCG gx would appear about 10% of the time as a very faint streak
about 1' in length aligned NE-SW.
With the 12mm at 212x, 24' fov, B would show occasional hints of being
double, while A showed a small oval core region with an occasional
stellar core. Object C, while not being any more visible than before,
would appear elongated when it did appear. The MCG galaxy was easier
seen, being visible around 40% of the time.
The 9mm eyepiece, at 282x, 18' fov, seemed to provide the answer to the
puzzle. B is definitely double at this magnification, A has a nicely
defined core, and C becomes visible with averted vision around 70% of
the time as a very faint elongated streak aligned NE-SW around 30" in
length. At this magnification it became very obvious that there was a
third object associated with A and B, and it was not the MCG galaxy
further to the NE.
In conclusion, it would seem obvious that objects B and A are Swifts
objects 168 and 169 for these reasons. From my lack of success in
detecting object C from my location with a larger modern instrument,
modern eyepieces, better skies and a lot better transparency than
Rochester due to my altitude, there is no way that Swift could have seen
object C with the low magnification that he used. I have no details of
the eyepiece or refractor that he used, but without modern coatings the
instrument would have suffered from both scattered light and ghost
images. Both of these would serve to reduce the contrast necessary to
detect object C.
On the other hand, Hayes (Howe) with the larger aperture of the Chamberlin
instrument, 5200' of altitude, much better skies, and probably higher
magnification, could easily have detected object C as his Nova.
Thus A=IC 997
B=IC 998
C=IC 4401
(End of report).
Now Swift at the end of his List #10.(A.N.), published exactly one year prior to his
MNRAS (List X) publication, has a note stating "as the large and increasing number
of electric street lights of this city has rendered the search for these faint
bodies almost useless, and may compel me to entirely abandon their quest and enter
upon some other line of work." Yet according to the modern authorities we are
expected to accept that somehow, using a 16 inch telescope, under sky conditions as
he describes, he was able to discover object "C" that proved to be only visible 25%,
of the time, with averted vision, to Doug Snyder employing a 20 inch telescope in
vastly superior sky conditions to those obtainable in Rochester, New York and with a
photograph showing the images and locations of all three objects.
IC 1001 GROUP.
POSS. O-1418.
Confirmed galaxies :
This group consists of the three following identities
IC 1001 = Javelle #285. 14hr 18m 09.348s + 05 39 20.523 (1950).
14hr 20m 39.405s +05 25' 37.868" (2000).
IC 1002 = Javelle #286. 14hr 18m 12.363s + 05 42' 45.967" (1950).
14hr 20m 42.380s + 05 29' 03.437" (2000).
IC 1003 = Javelle #287. 14hr 18m 59.808s + 05 18' 08.475" (1950).
14hr 21m 30.083s + 05 04' 27.927" (2000).
This is one of the most unusual and interesting problems I have as yet
encountered.
According to Javelle's catalogue data (Part 2), he employed as his reference star
for his #285 and #286 the 8.7 Mv star DM + 5 2870 giving it a 1860 position of
14hr 15m 13.4s + 05 51'.0 and for his #285 he measured separation values of - 1
tmin 32.09 tsec RA and - 4 arcmin 39.9 arcsec dec. while for his #286 he gives - 1
tmin 29.03 tsec RA and - 1 arcmin 14.6 arcsec dec. which when applied to his
reference star and then precessed to 1950 gives #285 coordinates of 14hr 18m 11.4s
+ 05 21'.3 and #286 coordinates of 14hr 18m 14.4s + 5 24'.8, however, when these
coordinates are examined on the Palomar print no nebular images are to be found
that would qualify as being suitable candidates, in fact they indicate areas of
blank space .
Next, for his #287 Javelle employed a different reference star, the 9.5 Mv star DM
+6 2873 giving it a 1860 position of 14hr 15m 10.4s + 06 8' 42". His separation
values are -1 tmin 17.54 tsec RA and - 2 arcmin 58.0 arcsec dec. which when
applied to this reference star and then precessed to 1950 results in coordinates
of 14hr 18m 23s + 05 41' 03" which when examined on the Palomar print also lands
on a blank space. Thus we have Javelle seeing 3 objects where no objects exist,
therefore I decided to investigate other possibilities.
Firstly, when Javelle claims to have seen something it is extremely rare if ever
that he is referring to empty space.
Certainly he has confused single or multiple stars for nonstellar objects or given
in his data incorrect sign directions and on a few cases claimed discovery of a
galaxy that had been previously discovered, but to claim three separate objects
where none exist would be a first for him. so I decided to use only one of his
reference stars for all three novae and as it was obvious that DM + 5 2870 had
produced nothing I decided to use only DM + 6 2873 and apply Javelle's separation
values for his #285 and # 286 to this star and the results were rather remarkable.
DM + 6 2873 is equal to AC 328424 at 14hr 22m 11.303s + 05 30' 26.01" (2000) and
when the proper precession tables are applied places #285 at 14hr 18m 09.348s + 05
39' 20.523" (1950) where there is a galaxy equal to ZWG 047.014,while for #286 the
coordinates are 14hr 18m 12.363s + 05 42' 45.967" (1950) which are also an
excellent match for the galaxy ZWG 047.015 at 14hr 18m 12.3s + 05 42' 50" (NED),
however, when the required separations and precession factors were applied for
#287 = IC 1003 no nonstellar image was found.
The solution for this problem was found by Dr. Corwin whose investigations
revealed that Javelle misidentified his reference star (DM +6 2873) and that the
star he actually used was DM +5 2873, which is equal to AC #328463 at 14hr 22m
47.489s + 05 07' 32.90" (2000) and that by applying the proper precession
procedures and Javelle's offsets the correct coordinates for IC 1003 are 14hr 18m
59.808s + 05 18' 08.475" (1950) which land beside the galaxy ZWG 047.024
Based upon these findings I would submit that the three Javelle discoveries are as
described above and that Javelle's error was in including in his published
catalogue the reference star DM + 5 2870 and that his measurements were actually
made from the star DM + 6 2873 for IC 1001 and IC 1002 and from DM + 5 2873 for IC
1003
Due to the historical confusion we have the following errors or omissions.
The CGCG and PGC identify IC 1001 only as ZWG 47.014 and IC 1002 only as ZWG
47.015 as does NED. Also NED identifies what is IC 1003 as CGCG 027-024 without
reference to its IC identity while for the identities IC 1001 and IC 1002
and IC 1003 NED has "There is no object with this name in NED.": SIMBAD has for all
3 IC identities "Not present in the database."
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give IC 1001 and IC 1002 coordinates
based upon the historically published coordinates which are incorrect. The APL
has the correct identifications for all three. Steinicke correctly identifies all 3
galaxies. The PGC lists only the identity 8ZW.401 for IC 1003.
NOTE: The PGC (1996 version) has no identities for any of the 3 IC objects.
IC 1004.
POSS. O-1417.
Javelle #288. 14hr 18m 28.789s + 17 53' 33.419" (1950).
14hr 20m 50.294s +17 39' 51.427" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG and PGC have equated MCG +03-37-07 with the identity
IC 1004 at 14hr 18.7m + 17 56'.0 and both SIMBAD and NED also identifies this galaxy
as being IC 1004, however, when this position is applied to the Palomar print it
shows the image of a galaxy different from Javelle's #288, as measured from his
reference star DM +18 2868 = GSC 1472-1190, their candidate lying at about 0.2 tmins
following and 2.1 arcmins north of IC 1004. NED identifies the correct IC 1004 only
as MAPS-NGP 0 441 0271979. MCG +03-37-7 would appear to be the same galaxy as Holm
634A/B (parts of a multiple galaxy).
Correctly identified in the APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1005.
POSS. O-1442.
Swift VII,#44. 14hr 17m 37.559s + 71 49' 32.575" (1950).
14hr 18m 16.831s + 71 35' 46.580" (2000).
Equal to NGC 5607 (H 331-2) : Swift's RA is too small by about 1 tmin 10 tsec,
which at such high declination is relatively close in angular measurement.
With the exception of APL, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), none of the modern
authorities, (UGC, CGCG, MCG, RC3 or PCG) list the identity or equivalency with IC
1005, although all of them do have the prime identity (NGC 5607). Steinicke list
IC 1005 as (= NGC 5607), SIMBAD "Not present in database," and NED has "No object
with this identity in NED."
IC 1008.
POSS. O-70.
Safford 5. 14hr 22m 49.963s + 28 33' 34.469" (1950).
14hr 25m 02.458s + 28 20' 03.332" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : At Safford's coordinates no nebular image is to be
found, however, there are a couple of possible candidates as follows. The APL and
Steinicke have equated this identity with IC 4414 (Javelle #1308), who gave his
object coordinates of 14hr 21m 30s + 28 34'.3. describing it as "Pretty bright."
Safford, using the 18.5 inch Alvan Clark telescope at Dearborn Observatory
describes his nova as "Pretty faint." and even though many of Safford's
discoveries were not accurately measured there is I feel a better candidate for
his IC 1008 than IC 4414 and it is a galaxy whose coordinates are 14hr 23m 24s +
28 28'.0 (1950. MOL) and which is identified in the MCG as (+5-34-38 = IC 1008) and
not only would it be within the magnitude capabilities of the Dearborn telescope but
it also better fits Safford's description.
The PGC, SIMBAD and NED also identifies IC 1008 as equal to MCG +5-34-38 .
Only other modern listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both
give it the Safford coordinates.
IC 1010.
POSS. O-1440.
Javelle #783. 14hr 24m 47.375s + 01 15' 01.843" (1950).
14hr 27m 20.347s +01 01' 36.143" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error concerns Javelle's data as he gives a
declination error in Part 2 of his catalogue of about 4 arcmin. This is due to
Javelle having reversed the correct sign for his separation, making it to lie
1 arcmin 51.8 arcsec south of his reference star when it should be this same
amount north of the star. His Part 1 declination is correct.
IC 1012.
(See IC 4431).
IC 1013.
POSS. O-61.
Javelle #291. 14hr 25m 36.042s + 26 03' 39.469" (1950).
14hr 27m 50.386s + 25 50' 15.621" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 133.060 and in the MCG only
as +4-34-30. Steinicke has correct identity. NED, SIMBAD and PGC identify IC 1013
only by the ZWG and MCG numbers. Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO). The APL has identified as IC 1013 an entirely separate extended galaxy
located close north following, having a 10th magnitude star close following it. This
is an "ANON." Listed as [KG2002] J142758.81+255159.0 in SIMBAD.
IC 1016.
(See IC 4424).
IC 1018 and IC 1019.
POSS. O-61.
Javelle #294 = IC 1018. 14hr 25m 58.084s + 26 03' 13.937" (1950).
14hr 28m 12.388s + 25 49' 50.880" (2000).
Javelle #295 = IC 1019 14hr 25m 59.890s + 26 10' 13.962" (1950).
14hr 28m 14.094s + 25 56' 51.150" (2000).
Both are confirmed galaxies : The NGC 2000 gives these two identities with
coordinates that makes IC 1019 the preceding of the two, the difference in RA
being 0.2m which is definitely incorrect.
Oddly enough, they correctly place IC 1018 as south of IC 1019 which is correct.
The CGCG, MCG, APL, SIMBAD, NED, Steinicke, MOL and DSFG (Notes to NGC 5629) have
the correct alignment (IC 1018 the south preceding) and correct identities.
The PGC incorrectly makes IC 1018 the south following of the pair.
IC 1026.
POSS. O-70.
Safford 13. 14hr 29m 06.327s + 31 26' 36.675" (1950).
14hr 31m 15.299s + 31 13' 21.877" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : It is highly likely that what Safford found and
described is the Mp 12.86 galaxy NGC 5653 at 14hr 28m 01.31s + 31 26' 11.2"
(1950).
Not listed in CGCG, UGC, MCG and RC3. Listed as a single star by the NGC 2000,
MOL and Carlson (Mt Wilson plate). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." Equated with NGC 5653 by both
Steinicke and APL.
NOTE: See IC 1030.
IC 1029.
POSS. O-1368.
Bigourdan #185. 14hr 30m 42.217s + 50 07' 27.845" (1950).
14hr 32m 27.035s + 49 54' 16.954" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5673 (H 696-2) : This is a most complex problem which was
drawn to my attention by Alister Ling who with Paul Campbell had observed the
field with a 20 inch telescope and questioned the given identities of the two
field galaxies NGC 5673 and IC 1029.
NGC 5673 was discovered by Wm. Herschel (H 696-2). The field was later examined
by John Herschel who gave it coordinates of 14hr 29m 51s + 50 09' 35" (Slough
Observations 1833), and these are the coordinates found in the NGC.
Bigourdan made two observations of the field and described it as containing two
extended objects, the preceding at 14hr 29m 41s + 50 11' 23" and the following at
14hr 30m 41s + 50 08' 03".
He noted that the following was the brighter object but because both J. Herschel
and Dreyer's coordinates and description matched the preceding object, even having
a faint associated star which Bigourdan measured as being at a PA of 300 Distant
0'.8 of arc, he assumed that the preceding had to be H 696-2 = NGC 5673 and that
therefore the following object was a nova, which became IC 1029.
Dreyer (1912 ) in his "Notes" to Wm. Herschel's SECOND CATALOGUE states H 696-
2. Sweep # 736, "The transit must have been entered 1m too late, as the RA is
about 1m too great and the RA from H 189-1 (NGC 5676) following is 0m 17s instead
of 1m 20s." But Wm. Herschel's separation of 0m 17s is correct and when the RA
separation 0m 17s is measured on the Palomar print it confirms that it is the
following, not the preceding of the two field galaxies that is H696-2 = NGC 5673
and this is where Wm. Herschel had correctly placed it originally at 14hr 30m 33s
+ 50 07' 04" (Scientific Papers of Sir William Herschel).
What John Herschel had seen and mistaken for H 696-2 was actually a nova rather
than his father's discovery and by accepting John Herschel's coordinates for H696-
2 over those given by Wm. Herschel both Dreyer and Bigourdan were misled.
Dreyer meanwhile had assigned the identity IC 1029 to Bigourdan's "nova" which in
reality is NGC 5673, therefore a duplicate identity. As for the preceding
galaxy, the true nova, it appears obvious that it was discovered by J. Herschel,
however, due to IC 1029 being equal to NGC 5673 this nova can only be considered
as an non-credited galaxy.
All of the modern catalogues incorrectly make the preceding galaxy NGC 5673 and
the following one IC 1029. This should be corrected to show the preceding galaxy
as being h1838 (also noted by Bigourdan), but without NGC identity and the
following galaxy to be NGC 5673 = IC 1029.
NOTE : It is my feeling that as Dreyer assigned the identity NGC 5373 to Wm.
Herschel's discovery (H696-2), then regardless of later errors of identity it
should remain the identity for what Wm. Herschel saw and he saw only the following
of the two objects, not the preceding one.
IC 1030.
POSS. O-70.
Safford 6. 14hr 31m 35.021s + 31 54' 47.195" (1950).
14hr 33m 43.179s + 31 41m 39.033" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Again, as in the case of IC 1026, Safford's
object is equal to a NGC object, in this case NGC 5672 at 14hr 30m 30.04s + 31 53'
22.6" (1950).
In both the IC identities the amount of RA error is 1 tmin 5 tsec from the NGC
coordinates.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." Steinicke
and APL have it equal to NGC 5672.
IC 1043.
POSS.0-1418.
Javelle #310 : 14hr 38m 12.287s +03 35' 15.205" (1950).
14h 40m 43.445s + 03 22' 25.752" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: The declination for Javelle's reference Star in Part 2, DM +4
2895 is off by almost 2 arcmin too small. This star is also AC #125829 at 14 40m
46.601s + 03 28' 50.48" (2000) and when Javelle's offsets, (- 0 tmin 03.33 tsec RA
and 6 arcmin 24.4 arcsec south) from this star's position are measured they land
on the correct object which would lie at 14hr 40m 43.445s + 03 22' 25.752" (2000).
Additionally, in Javelle's catalogue Part 2 he incorrectly gives the incorrect RA
for his star, making it 14hr 23m 43.8 (1860) when it should be 14hr 33m 43.8,
fortunately Dreyer employed the "correct" RA as is shown in Part 1 of
the catalogue, therefore except for the 2 arcmin declination error those sources
listing the identity IC 1043 are either correct or reflect in their data this
error. Other listings are NGC 2000 (No type), MOL (NSO), Both Steinicke and APL
have the correct identity. NED has "There is no object witth this name in NED," but
list the correct galaxy as 2MASX J14404334+0322265. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," and no other listing.
IC 1045.
POSS. 0-145.
Swift List VIII,#82. 14hr 38m 51.733s +42 57' 19.039 (1950).
14hr 40m 45.688s +42 44' 30.740"
Not found at nominal position: It is quite possible that this is equal to NGC 5731
as the differences in coordinates (about 36.5 tsec RA and 2 arcmin Dec.) are well
within Swift's level of error, however, as Swift makes mention of only a single
object in the immediate field, (his #82), it would then be also possible that he was
actully observing NGC 5730 at 14hr 39m 52.2s +42 44' 32" (2000), which is of similar
magnitude and whose declination is almost exactly the same as Swift gives.
Either of these two NGC galaxies would be suitable candidates.
Only listings found were NGC 2000 and MOL, both at the historical positions. APL has
equal to NGC 5731? And Steinicke supports this equivalency. SIMBAD has "Not present
in the database." NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
NOTE: (See Corwin's Notes).
IC 1046.
POSS. 0-1442
Swift List VII,#49. 14hr 37m 09.802s + 69 14' 20.790" (1950).
14hr 37m 52.349s + 69 01' 26.173" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +12-14-11 and noted in the PGC
(Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, APL, PGC,
NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). Not listed in the UGC, RC3 or DSFG.
IC 1048.
POSS. O-1421.
Javelle #312. 14hr 40m 28.971s + 05 06' 12.959" (1950).
14hr 42m 58.945s + 04 53' 29.914" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error is historical and quite minor. Dreyer in his
description makes it elongated preceding and following, however, Javelle states
"elongated north and south towards the meridian." and this is correct.
IC 1055.
(See IC 4491).
IC 1056.
POSS. O-715.
Swift List VII,#50. 14hr 44m 03.319s + 50 36' 34" (1950).
14hr 45m 43.643s + 50 24' 00.199" (2000). (IC 1056).
14hr 44m 20.290s + 50 34' 55.023" (1950).
14hr 46m 00.591s + 50 22' 21.985" (2000). (IC 1057).
It is equal to IC 1057 (Swift List VII,#51) : Due to the discovery date for IC
1057 being almost 3 months prior to that for IC 1056 the correct identity is IC
1057 as it was to Swift's object No. 51 (IC 1057) that Dreyer assigned the
identity IC 1057. CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and UGC make IC 1056 = IC 1057.
MCG and RC3 give only IC 1056. NGC 2000 gives both identities with different
coordinate as does the MOL. PGC makes IC 1056 = IC 1057. APL lists the single
identity IC 1056.
IC 1057.
(See IC 1056).
IC 1062.
POSS. O-54.
Javelle #321. 14hr 48m 59,169s + 18 53' 32.350" (1950).
14hr 51m 17.571s + 18 41' 13.699" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :
It is identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 105.047 . This noted in the PGC
(Corrections). The NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and
MCG have the correct identity.
IC 1063 and IC 1064.
POSS. O-1421.
Javelle #322. 14hr 49m 41.671s +04 53' 09.621" (1950).
14hr 52m 11.640s + 04 40' 53.315" (2000). IC 1063
Javelle #323. 14hr 49m 41.534s + 04 53 16.971" (1950).
14hr 52m 11.502s + 04 41' 00.659" (2000). IC 1064.
Javelle discovered his #322 = IC 1063 on May 18th 1892 and the star he employed as
his reference is equal to AC #330564 whose position precessed to the discovery
year (1892) would be 14hr 46m 31.817s + 05 08' 03.212". His offsets are +16.180
tsec RA and 30.400 arcsec south which when applied to the 1892 position of the
star and then precessed to both 1950 and 2000 gives the positions for both epochs
as shown above. When these coordinates are entered into the DSS they land right
on the south edge of a superposed star which is easily visible on the following
edge of a 14th Mp galaxy. Javelle's description for his #322 reads "Faint,
stellar, seen as a star of 14th magnitude surrounded by nebulosity."
On July 15th 1892 Javelle discovered his #323 = IC 1064. This time he employed
as his reference star AC #126725 whose position precessed to the discovery year
(1892) would be 14hr 46m 01.062s + 05 04' 19.576". His offsets are + 46.800 tsec
RA and 3 arcmin 20.600 arcsec north which when applied to the 1892 position of the
star and then precessed to both 1950 and 2000 gives the positions for both epochs
as shown above. When these coordinates are entered into the DSS they land exactly
on the superposed star located on the following edge of the same galaxy.
Javelle's description reads "Very faint, very small round, with a small condensed
center."
From the above data it would appear that Javelle by stating in his description for
IC 1063 "surrounded by nebulosity," is indicating that he realizes that it is a
nonstellar object and if this is correct then the identity IC 1063 would be
established, however, when it comes to his description for his #323 = IC 1064
there is no mention of nebulosity, rather he seems to be describing the
associated, superposed star, which has no physical connection with the galaxy,
its association being one of line of sight. Now if this assumption is correct the
identity IC 1064 would be for the associated star.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) make the two identities separate
objects. The APL quotes DEEN (IC 1064 = IC 1063). Steinicke equates both
identities. The MCG, UGC, PGC and CGCG gives the single identity IC
1063. NED list the identity IC 1063 but makes the identity IC 1064 "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 1065.
POSS. O-1575.
Swift List VII,#52. 14hr 48m 16.517s + 63 27' 58.940" (1950).
14hr 49m 20.775s + 63 15' 36.571" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +11-18-8, this is noted in the
PGC (Corrections).
Correctly identified in the CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, RC3 DSFG
and NGC 2000 (GX) who all give it the more accurate RA of 14hr 48.2m. The MOL (NSO)
gives it a RA of 14hr 47m 56s. which does not agree with any of the other
authorities either historical or modern.
IC 1076.
POSS. O-54.
Swift List VIII #84. 14hr 52m 36.275s + 18 14' 35.609" (1950).
14hr 54m 54.991s + 18 02' 27.747" (2000).
Javelle #330. 14hr 52m 40.943s + 18 14' 46.355" (1950).
14hr 54m 59.651s + 18 02' 38.595" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Although Dreyer in the IC I credits both Swift and Javelle as
co-discoverers the historically correct discover is Swift who observed it on April
22, 1889 whereas Javelle's observation date was June 3, 1892. All the modern
catalogues that list this identity have the correct object.
IC 1087.
(See IC 1088).
IC 1088.
POSS. O-1429.
Javelle #337. 15hr 04m 17.123s + 03 59' 02.451" (1950).
15hr 06m 47.601s + 03 47' 30.925" (2000).
This is a star : The CGCG, MCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, UGC (Notes), NGC 2000 (No Type)
are all incorrect as they make IC 1088 the south following companion of IC 1087,
while although the MOL correctly gives Javelle's declination north following IC 1087
they indicate that it is a nonstellar object (NSO). however, Javelle's clearly makes
IC 1088 to be a 14th magnitude star north following IC 1087.
The south following component of the double system is not only at the incorrect PA
but its separation from the north preceding object does not fit Javelle's data.
Correctly identified in the APL and by Steinicke as (=*).
Javelle claimed discovery of two objects (IC 1087 and IC 1088) during the same
observation. For both he employed the same reference star, DM +4 2966 which is
equal to GSC 342-66 and which has a position of 15hr 07m 02.59s + 03 50'
50.5"(2000). His offsets for IC 1087 are - 00 tmin 19.8 tsec RA and 04'14.8"
south in declination and when this are applied to the reference star they land on
the north preceding component of a double system almost in contact and establish
the identity for IC 1087.
From this same star his offsets for IC 1088 are - 00 tmin 15.30 tsec RA and 03'
18.7 " south and this when applied lands on a faint star north following IC 1087
NOTE : Steve Gottlieb was the first person to question the identity of IC 1088
and the credit for the correction belongs to him.
IC 1090.
POSS O-1371.
Bigourdan #186. 15hr 03m 54.022s + 42 52' 33.164" (1950).
15hr 05m 43.150s + 42 40' 59.489" (2000).
Not found : The closest image is that of a faint star north preceding the nominal
position. It is my opinion that a number of the modern authorities are in error
concerning this identity.
The CGCG, PGC, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD and RC3 have each selected a galaxy, 1 ZWG
101(Catalogue of Selected Compact Galaxies and Post-erupted Galaxies = ZWG
221.022) at 15hr 01.9m + 42 53'.0 (CGCG) as being IC 1090,which indicates a
difference in RA of about 2 minutes and this galaxy lacks the 10.5 Mv reference
star (Anon 3), at or close to the separation values as given by Bigourdan.
Bigourdan selected as his reference a 10.5 Mv star he named Anon (3), (equal to AC
#1471237 at 15hr 03m 55.851s +42 57' 45.501 (1950)). He first measured this
star's separation from the known star BD + 43 2462, 15hr 01m 38s + 42 41' 52"
(1950), obtaining separation values of + 2m 17s and +15' 30" which would give a
position for his Anon (3) of 15hr 03m 55s +42 57' 22" Now by applying
Bigourdan's measured separations from this star to his B. 186, which are -2.01s RA
and - 5' 12" Dec; they would place B.186 at 15hr 03m 53s + 42 52' 10", Nominal
Position.
Both of Bigourdan's stars are easily located on the Palomar print and at
Bigourdan's separation values they both result in showing that B.186 is the same
single star or blank space, therefore I can see no justification for accepting
the 2m RA difference required to accept that 1 ZWG 101 is B.186 = IC 1090.
The MOL (NSO) has given coordinates in accordance with those by Bigourdan, but has
incorrectly made it a Non-Stellar Object. There is no listing in the UGC, or
DSFG. The MCG has no listing for IC 1090 but they do list the CGCG candidate as
Anon. APL has (Not found; nominal position) and Steinicke (=*), this is the star
north preceding.
IC 1092.
POSS. O-1422.
Javelle #339. 15hr 05m 10.201s + 09 32' 58.957" (1950).
15hr 07m 35.884s + 09 21' 30.139" (2000).
Confirmed Galaxy : Identified in the CGCG, NED, and PGC only as ZWG 077.015.
Correctly identified in the APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: SIMBAD gives the single identity IC 1092 and poor coordinates in Declination
(09 23.1' 2000) which are about 1.5 arcmin too far north.
IC 1095.
POSS. O-1422.
Swift List VIII #85. 15hr 06m 09.596s + 14 12' 07.355" (1950).
15hr 08m 31.117s + 14 00' 41.571" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: Nothing at Swift's nominal position, however, at about 2.324
tsec following and 20 arcmin 11.155 arcsec south, at 15hr 06m 11.920s +13 51'
56.200" (1950) or 15hr 08m 33.75s + 13 40' 30.8" (2000), there is the galaxy ZWG
77.019 = MCG +02-39-003, which both catalogues list as being an Anon. and this
galaxy does have a 9th magnitude star south following as described in Swift's
description and is in my opinion what Swift saw.
Only other listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both at Swift's
given position and Steinicke and APL who select the correct image on the DSS at
15hr 08m 35s + 13 40 13" (2000),
The PGC gives its 54062 and 54063 only the CGCG and MCG identities with the same
coordinates and Mp of 15.2 NED has "No object found for the identity IC 1095," but
lists it as ZWG 077.019. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists it as
MCG +02-39-003
NOTE: In my previous files I had identified a galaxy (ZWG 77.016 at 15hr 05m
36.70s + 14 04' 00" (1950) as being IC 1095, however, I now believe that to be
incorrect and that ZWG 77.019 is the correct IC 1095.
IC 1096.
POSS. O-91.
Javelle #342. 15hr 06m 05.018s + 19 23' 00.701" (1950).
15hr 08m 21.742s + 19 11' 34.574" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : A very interesting problem in that I believe that most of the
modern authorities have selected the wrong candidate as being IC 1096.
IC 1096 and IC 1097 are a pair in a group of 3 closely associated galaxies and by
order of RA the modern sources identify the first as being a 15.6 Mp "anon" at
15hr 06.0m + 19 23'.0, the second as being IC 1096, Mp 15.1 at 15h 06'.1m + 19
24'.0 and the third as being IC 1097, Mp 14.7 at 15hr 06'.2m + 19 22'.0 (CGCG and
UGC coordinates and identities), same identities in the MCG.
The third galaxy is definitely IC 1097 as can be clearly established by applying
Javelle's offsets from his reference star the 9.4 Mv. DM +19 2928, his separation
values being + 0m 11.52 tsecs and - 1' 37".5 of arc (corrected for NPD). However,
when his separation values for IC 1096 are applied to this same star, +0m
2.22tsecs and - 1' 04".6 of arc, they strongly suggest that it is the first of 3,
and not the second of 3 that is IC 1096. Again by employing the more precise
coordinates for the star AC #793933 (15hr 08m 19.492s + 19 12' 38.92, epoch 2000),
which is equal to DM +19 2928 and applying Javelle's separations they clearly show
that IC 1096 is the 1st of the 3 galaxies.
Also when one measures on the Palomar print his separations between his two novae
(0m 9.30 tsecs and 32.2 arcsecs) this only makes sense between objects 1 and 3.
Of course the argument can well be how would he have selected a 15.6 Mp object and
missed a 15.1 Mp object ? which is probably why the modern catalogues select the
2nd and 3rd objects as being the two IC identities, however, based upon Javelle's
data Object #1 is IC 1096 and Object #3 is IC 1097, which leaves Object #2 as an
"anon".
The NGC 2000 list both identities with exactly the same coordinates while the MOL
taking its coordinates from Dreyer's data would seem to have the correct
identities. The APL lists correctly IC 1097 (RC3) but the two listings it gives
for the identity IC 1096 (WS and UZC), have coordinates consistent with the second
of the three galaxies. Steinicke has correctly selected and identified the first
of 3 as being IC 1096. The CGCG, UGC (Notes to IC 1097), MCG, PGC, SIMBAD and NED
have each incorrectly made the 2nd of 3 equal to IC 1096.
NOTE : Dr. H. Corwin has since informed me that he is in agreement with my
conclusions on the 3 identities.
IC 1098.
POSS. O-1096.
Bigourdan #188. 15hr 05m 04.144s + 55 47' 21.837" (1950).
15hr 06m 26.927s + 55 35' 51.182" (2000).
This is a single star : Bigourdan states in his observation that he thought that
it quite likely that it was only a 13 mag. star. The NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke,
APL and Carlson all identify it as being a star. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1100.
POSS. O-1575.
Swift List IX, #45. 15hr 05m 14.377s + 63 10' 55.026" (1950).
15hr 06m 12.757s +62 59 24.325" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5881 (H 818-2) : Dreyer originally gave NGC 5881 coordinates
of 15hr 08m 08s RA, however, in his 1912 publication of Sir William Herschel's
Scientific Works Dreyer has a correction in which he states "818-2. RA in GC and
NGC is 2 tmin too great. The companion star is 12 Drac; Hev, Woll. Cat. The neb
is probably = IC 1100."
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC and RC3 all give the single identity IC 1100 The NGC 2000
and MOL give each as separate identities with separate coordinates. The APL
correctly gives (= NGC 5881), as does NED. Steinicke also lists both identities as
being equivalent. SIMBAD correctly identifies IC 1100, however, they also identify
NGC 5881 as an entirely separate galaxy, which is UGC 09764.
IC 1101.
POSS. O-1429.
Swift List IX, #47. 15hr 08m 28.154s + 05 57' 15.870" (1950).
15hr 10m 56.869s + 05 45' 57.671" (2000).
Confirmed Galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U09752. CGCG, APL, SIMBAD PGC,
Steinicke, NED, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL have correct identity.
IC 1104.
POSS.O-751.
Bigourdan #190. 15hr 10m 11.833s - 04 52' 09.480" (1950).
15hr 12m 49.900s - 05 03' 21.933" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings found are NGC 2000 (=*), MOL (NSO),
NED "Not found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL and Steinicke (=*).
IC 1111.
POSS.0-1096.
Swift List VIII, #86. 15hr 12m 59.772s + 54 42' 35.874" (1950).
15hr 14m 23.140s + 54 31' 30.757" (2000).
Unable to arrive at a definitive identity: As usual Swift's given coordinates
produce no nebular image at, or what would be considered as being slightly off and
thus the investigator is pretty much reduced to equating Swift's description with
what may lie in adjacent fields.
The APL and Steinicke have chosen to equate the identity IC 1111 with an earlier
Swift discovery NGC 5876, which Swift had placed at 15hr 07m 59.918s +54 42'
07.585" (1950), or about 5 tmin preceding his RA for his #86.
Swift's description for NGC 5876 is "Faint, Small, much brighter in the middle,
Round" while his description for IC 1111 is pretty bright, Small, Round, triangle
with 2 stars."
NGC 5876 does have 2 stars as noted in Corwin's Puzzle Solution Files therefore
even though a 5 tmin positional error might be considered excessive, even for
Swift, this is a viable solution.
There is another possible candidate which although fainter than NGC 5876 does lie
closer to Swift's original coordinates and it is CGCG Zwg.274-037 = UGC 09800,
which lies at 15hr 14.6m +54 40'.0 (1950). Although this galaxy is fainter, (15.5
Mp) than NGC 5876 it still is well within the capability of Swift's telescope,
especially as his observation of his Object #86 was carried out at Echo Mountain
under much more favourable skies than he would have had for his observation of NGC
5876 in Rochester, New York. Also there are 2 stars lying fairly close north
preceding that might be considered as making a scalene (three uneven length sides)
triangle with this object
The majority of the modern literature, CGCG, UGC, MCG, RC3, PGC, SIMBAD and NED,
make IC 1111 the separate galaxy UGC 09800, while both the NGC 2000 and MOL give
coordinates as given by Dreyer based upon Swift's data, at which nothing exists.
As for myself , I quite frankly am unable to decide as both choices have
reasonable arguments and either could be the correct solution.
IC 1114.
POSS. O-768.
Bigourdan #191. 15hr 11m 55.459s + 75 37' 55.641" (1950).
15hr 11m 16.963s + 75 26' 43.792." (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
Not found : In his main publication Bigourdan does not give a precise position
for this object, instead he states that in relation to his reference star BD + 76
557 (the same star he employed to measure the coordinates for NGC 5909 and NGC
5912) it lies at a PA of 255 and a Dist. of 6 arcmins. This star is equal to 2
MASS Cat. Star at 15hr 12m 50.90s + 75 28' 16.2" (2000).
He does give coordinates for IC 1114 in the Comptes Rendus that when precessed
using the Ned Coordinate and Extinction Calculator give the above quoted positions
for 1950 and 2000 and at these coordinates on the DSS there is only a blank spot,
which does have the PA of 255 degrees from the reference star.
Both the APL and Steinicke identify IC 1114 as being a star located at 15hr 11m
16s +75 28' 30" (2000), or 15hr 11m 19.25s +75 28' 25.1" (2MASS All Sky Cat.)
however, I reject this candidate due to 3 factors. Firstly, this star in no
manner is compatible with Bigourdan's Comtes Rendus position. Secondly, it does
not comply with the 255 degree PA from the reference star, in fact the
APL/Steinicke candidate actually lies about 9 arcsec north of the declination for
the reference star, which would imply a position angle of 275(+) degrees, not
Bigourdan's 255 degrees which would place it south of the reference star and
thirdly, the appearance of the APL/Steinicke candidate on the DSS would suggest a
brightness of below 17th mP, (2Mass Cat. gives it a (R)visual magnitude of 16.70)
and would it would almost certainly have not been visible in the 12.4 inch
aperture telescope used by Bigourdan.
The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and MOL (Non Stellar Object). NED has (Not found).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Incidentally the declination value of + 75 20.0' as given by both the CGCG and UGC
for NGC 5909 and NGC 5912 is too small by about 14 arcmins.
NOTE: I was able to find the APL/Stienicke star listed in only the 2MASS All Sky
Catalogue. It was not listed in any of the other well known modern star
catalogues.
IC 1115.
POSS. O-1431.
Swift List VIII, #87. 15hr 19m 43.816s - 04 17' 00.466" (1950).
15hr 22m 21.510s - 04 27' 41.419" (2000).
Equal to two stars which are part of an asterism : Close south preceeding Swift's
position there is a small group of about 4 stars with an extremely faint galaxy
involved. This galaxy is far too faint to have been seen by Swift. Probably the
two brightest stars in the group are what Swift is referring to as his nova.
Possibly a double as their images are almost in contact. South following the
group is a 9th magnitude star as described by Swift. Howe also examined this
field and found only a double star 12.5 and 13.5 mag. distant 05 arcsec.
Only modern listings are Steinicke (= * Group), APL (**), NGC 2000 (=*), NED "Not
Found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." MOL (May not exist).
IC 1118 and IC 4543.
POSS. O-1422.
Swift List XI #179. 15hr 22m 13.070s + 13 39' 31.275" (1950).
15hr 24m 34.333s + 13 28' 58.392" (2000). (IC 4543).
Javelle #349. 15hr 22m 38.115s + 13 37' 13.631" (1950).
15hr 24m 59.514s + 13 26' 38.544" (2000). (IC 1118).
Equivalent identities :
There can be no doubt that both are identifying the same object . Swift describes
exactly the star close north preceding and Javelle's separation values from his
reference star makes it this same object.
As Javelle was the original discoverer by 6 years the correct identity should be
IC 1118 and thus it is correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, NGC 2000, MOL and
MCG. The APL lists IC 4543 = IC 1118. When the field is examined on the Palomar
print there is a second galaxy in the field at 15hr 22.2m + 13 39'.5 and both the
NGC 2000 and MOL incorrectly identify this as being IC 4543. Additionally they
type it as being a planetary nebula. Steinicke correctly gives the equivalency.
NED gives the single identity IC 1118 while making the identity IC 4543 "No Object
found." SIMBAD also has the single identity IC 1118.
IC 1122.
POSS. O-1429.
Bigourdan #192 and Barnard.15hr 26m 57.045s + 07 47' 29.541" (1950).
15hr 29m 23.638s +07 37' 12.961" (2000). (Bigourdan).
Confirmed galaxy : It is not equal to NGC 5931. Bigourdan measured both
identities and placed his B192 about 6 tsec preceding and about 3 arcmin north of
NGC 5931. The PGC is incorrect in equating both identities and the CGCG and MGC
have incorrectly identified what is NGC 5931 as being IC 1122. The NGC 2000 gives
the same coordinates to both identities thus suggesting equivalency. By
comparison of the RA data I would say that the MOL gives the correct identities
for both objects. The APL correctly states that IC 1122 is not equal to NGC 5931.
NED lists IC 1122 as equivalent to NGC 5931, as does SIMBAD. Steinicke has correct
object.
IC 1123.
POSS. O-1376.
Bigourdan #193. 15hr 27m 09.706s + 43 04 07.801" (1950).
15hr 28m 54.388s + 42 53' 50.885" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke and APL (=*), NED "No
object exists." SIMBAD "Not present in the database. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 1124.
POSS. O-1119.
Swift VIII,#88. 15hr 28m 21.424s + 23 49' 11.634" (1950).
15hr 30m 31.931s + 23 38' 59.518" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not an error in the context normally found and I enter
it only for the historical significance.
Javelle made an observation some 14 years after Swift and noted the presence of a
nebula, (he numbered as J.1367), which he measured from the 7.3Mv star DM+24 2874
resulting in coordinates of 15hr 27m 49s + 23 48'.2 (1950), which are at quite
some variance with those given by Swift as to RA. However, when this object is
examined on the Palomar print there can be no doubt that despite the very
inaccurate Swift RA coordinates this is definitely Swift's object #88 as can be
established by reference to his description in which he stated "eeF; vS; vE; 2pB
st. in field n," and the south following of these 2 stars is Javelle's DM+24 2874.
Dreyer obviously concluded that the Javelle observation was a duplicate as he not
only equated the two observations (Notes and Corrections to the Index Catalogue
1888-1894. NGC/IC page 377.), but he also has no reference to any identity for
J.1367 in his IC II, however, he did employ Swift's coordinates which are in
considerable error, fortunately the modern catalogues do not reflect this, rather
their coordinates are in keeping with those given by Javelle.
IC 1125.
(See IC 1128).
IC 1126.
POSS. O-1082.
Bigourdan #194. 15hr 32m 31.659s + 05 09' 24.106" (1950).
15hr 35m 00.661s + 04 59' 26.985" (2000).
This is a single star : At Bigourdan's position there is a faint star which
makes up a close triangle with a fainter star south preceding and what might be a
very faint galaxy very close north preceding. This "galaxy" is too faint to have
been seen by Bigourdan as is also probably the fainter star. It definitely is not
NGC 5952 which lies south preceding this group.
The NGC 2000 and MOL make IC 1126 = NGC 5952 based upon Carlson who states "IC
1126 = NGC 5952, Reinmuth," however, Bigourdan made an observation on the same
night of NGC 5952 and gave it excellent coordinates of 15hr 32m 26.7s + 05 07'
50", therefore again it is highly unlikely that he was confusing NGC 5952 for his
Nova. On both occasions he used the same reference star, BD + 5 3041 (equal to
GSC 358-683) and his offsets for both identities are considerably different,
especially in declination. The APL and Steinicke have (=*). The PGC has no
listing for the identity IC 1126. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1127.
POSS. O-1119.
Safford #7. 15hr 33s 44.181s + 23 38' 42.897" (1950).
15hr 35m 54.465s + 23 28' 49.515" (2000).
Not found at Safford's nominal position : Again, as in the cases of IC 1026 and
IC 1030, Safford's RA differs by about 1 tmin from IC 4553, therefore I am
accepting that IC 1127 is equal to IC 4553.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 1127. NGC 2000 lists without any Type.
MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object) and Steinicke has (= IC 4553).
NOTE ; Dr. Corwin in his NGC/IC Bugs List provides a good argument to suggest
that IC 1127 = IC 4553, pointing out that Safford's coordinates are far from
precise and that the difference in positions for both identities is within
reasonable error acceptance. NED and SIMBAD also equate the two identities.
IC 1128.
POSS. O-151.
Swift List VIII, #89. 15hr 35m 20.803s - 01 22' 50.245" (1950).
15hr 37m 55.952s - 01 32' 37.263" (2000).
Nothing found at Swift's position : It is probably equal to MCG 0-40-004 which
would mean that Swift has about a 12 arcmin error too far north in his
declination.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both give coordinates based upon the
historical data. The RC3, CGCG, PGC, UGC, MCG, NED, SIMBAD and Steincke all
identify MCG 0-40-004 as being IC 1128. The APL equates it with IC 1125, which is
equal to MCG +0-40-003 at 15hr 33m 05.6s -01 37' 42" (2000).
IC 1139.
POSS. O-1363.
Swift VII,#58. 15hr 34m 02.687s + 82 46' 05.510" (1950).
15hr 29m 40.957s + 82 36' 01.850" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has selected its +14-7-19, 14hr 31.5m + 82 52'.0 as IC
1139 ? which is incorrect. The CGCG's ZWG 366.017, PGC 55279, NGC 2000 (Galaxy)
and MOL (NSO) correctly identify IC 1139. The APL has the correct identity and
states "Not in MCG." Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have correct identity.
IC 1140.
POSS. O-82.
Bigourdan #196. 15hr 47m 04.996s + 19 15' 40.833" (1950).
15hr 49' 19.266s + 19 05' 35.987" (2000).
This is a small group of 3 stars without nebulosity : Bigourdan described it as
only possibly nebulous and that it appeared to be made up of 2 or 3 stars lying at
a PA of 120 degrees and distant 1.3 arcmin from his reference star.
Bigourdan's reference star is equal to GSC 1498-865 which has a 1900 position of
15hr 44m 50.891s + 19 25' 58".844 (NED Calculator). Bigourdan's position for this
star is about 1 arcmin too far south, however, by employing the star GSC 1498-865
and applying his offsets as to PA and distance the 3 stars he describes are easily
found.
Only modern listings found are APL and Steinicke (= *3). NED "No object found."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 1142.
POSS. O-82.
Javelle #356. 15hr 48m 11.286s + 18 17' 21.472" (1950).
15hr 50m 26.553s + 18 08' 20.348" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It would appear that due to a typographical error in Part 2 of
Javelle's Catalogue in which he gives the separation in RA from his reference star
DM + 18 3074 as + 0m 41.95 tsecs when it should be + 1m 41.95 tsecs that Dreyer
was misled and therefore the resultant RA is in error by 1 tmin. Because of this
both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO) have a 1 tmin error in their RA.
The error is corrected in the CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, PGC, SIMBAD, UGC, and MCG.
IC 1145.
POSS. O-752.
Swift List VII,#61. 15hr 46m 37.134s + 72 36' 35.002" (1950).
15hr 46m 13.591s + 72 27' 23.449" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +12-15-15 which is noted in the
PGC (Corrections). The modern catalogues, with the exception of the MOL give a
much more accurate RA (~ 15hr 44.6m). The MOL gives 15hr 46m 35s.
IC 1148.
POSS. O-113.
Safford #10. 15hr 54m 42.832s + 22 33' 08.019" (1950).
15hr 56m 52.918s + 22 24' 30.953" (2000).
Equal to NGC 6020 (Stephan List VII, #2). The UGC, MCG, MOL, PGC, Steinicke, APL,
NED and Carlson all correctly equate the two identities. The CGCG and RC3 give
only the identity NGC 6020. SIMBAD has the correct equivalency.
IC 1150.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #357.(CNP). 15hr 56m 01.210s + 16 01' 00.394" (1950).
15hr 58m 18.570s + 15 52' 28.464" (2000).
Possible candidate :
APL list as "Nothing here" and also suggests that it is possibly equal to NGC 6018.,
NED as "No object found" and Steinicke has (Not found) while SIMBAD has "Not present
in the database."
Javelle employed as his reference star DM +16 2854 which is equal to AC #553466 at
15hr 58m 39.443s +15 52' 22.91 (2000) and measured separation values of - 00 tmin
20.90 tsec RA and +00 arcmin 08.4 arcsec for his #357. When these offsets are
applied to the more precise coordinates of AC #553466 they result in a position
for 1950 of 15hr 56m 01.210s + 16 01' 00.394" where no nonstellar image is found.
The APL's 3 stars lie considerably north preceding this position and do not match
Javelle's offsets from either of the two 9th magnitude stars following in the same
field.
Only other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
In attempting to find any suitable nonstellar candidate in regards to the
Corrected Nominal Position I noticed that at 15hr 57m 29.8s +15 52' 22s (2000),
NED, there is the galaxy NGC 6018 which in addition to having a small, stellar
like nucleus also has a star invested north following the nucleus, both easily
seen on the DSS. Javelle's description for IC 1150 is "Faint, it has 2 small
stars surrounded by nebulosity."
Additionally Bigourdan's has two observations of NGC 6018, describing it as
"Nebula formed by a very bright point, 13.3 to 13.4 mag, accompanied by a small
star 13.4 mag. placed at between 220 and 225 degrees PA and between 7 and
10 arcsec distant, all being accompanied by nebulosity of 0.3 arcmin extent." I
would submit that Javelle's description of IC 1150 and Bigourdan's description of
NGC 6018 are virtually the same although one has to admit that NGC 6018 does not
fulfill Javelle's Right Ascension offset from his reference star, but it does fall
within the acceptable error level for the declination requirement, being less than
6 arcsec different.
IC 1164.
POSS. O-752.
Bigourdan #197. 15hr 55m 14.030s + 70 43' 26.690" (1950).
15hr 55m 04.989s + 70 34' 47.364" (2000).
Not found. Probably a single star as suggested by the IC description :
I was unable to locate Bigourdan's observation of this object in his 1919 work
thus the data is from the Comptes Rendus. Not listed in any of the modern sources
except APL (= * closest to nominal position). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Steinicke has (= *). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
has "Not present in the database."
NOTE: In Bigourdan's Appendix VIII, Page 31 he has an entry for this identity giving
it coordinates that compute to a J2000 position of 15hr 55m 02.387s +70 35' 10.348"
which places it just off the edge of the northern component of two stars.
IC 1165.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #366. 15hr 59m 51.021s + 15 50' 04.623" (1950).
16hr 02m 08.418s + 15 41' 47.170" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 108.067. (This noted in the
PGC). APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, RC3 and MCG have correct
identity.
IC 1170.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #370. 16hr 02m 17.617s + 17 51' 30.625" (1950).
16hr 04m 32.666s + 17 43' 22.419" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It lies just preceding NGC 6041. The MCG has a typographical
error in its identity listing it incorrectly as IC 1710, also incorrectly equating
it with NGC 6039-40.
CGCG, UGC, Steinicke, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) all
correctly identify IC 1170.
IC 1171.
POS. O-83.
Bigourdan #198. 16hr 02m 36.872s + 18 06' 57.555" (1950).
16hr 04m 51.616s + 17 58' 50.553" (2000).
This is a star : Bigourdan described it as "a star surrounded by a small amount
of nebulosity which is doubtful" and in a second observation noted that it was not
seen. Only listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC 2000 and MOL, both typing it
as a star. NED "No object found," and Carlson (Not found on Mt. Wilson plate).
SIMBAD describes it as "Object of unknown nature."
IC 1172.
POSS. O-83.
Bigourdan #199. 16hr 02m 44.361s + 18 00' 02.829" (1950).
16hr 04m 59.229s + 17 51' 56.212" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6044 (Swift List IV.#23) : Bigourdan's description and
coordinates are from his COMPTES RENDUS publication, however, his positions match
NGC 6044 and later when preparing his 1919 OBSERVATIONS he no longer included this
nova in this work.
The MCG gives only the identity NGC 6044. The CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED and PGC
correctly give the equivalency. The MOL lists both identities as being separate
as does the NGC 2000 (Gx). SIMBAD has incorrectly identified it as being a galaxy
at 16hr 06m 33.2s +17 46' 34" (2000).
IC 1175.
POSS. O-83.
Bigourdan # 200. 16hr 03m 07.565s + 18 17' 37.183" (1950).
16hr 05m 22.085s + 18 09' 32.131" (2000).
This is a single star : Bigourdan stated that the object was dubious. He
measured its separation from the galaxy NGC 6055 giving the NGC object coordinates
of 16hr 03m 19.004s +18 17' 19.227" (1950). NED gives NGC 6055 16hr 03m 18.05s
+18 17' 37.88" (1950) and when Bigourdan's separation values (- 10.5 tsec RA and +
0.13 arcsec Dec.) are applied to this they land upon a single, faint star. The
APL gives (= ** HCds) and Steinicke has (= *). Only other listings are Carlson
(Not found on Mt.Wilson plate). NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist). SIMBAD has "Object of unknown nature."
IC 1176.
POSS. O-83.
Swift List VII, #69. 16hr 03m 06.469s + 18 05' 24.674" (1950).
16hr 05m 21.219s + 17 57' 19.566" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6056 (Swift List III, #88) : The "2 pretty bright stars are
plainly visible to the south as Swift describes in his data for IC 1176. CGCG in
its NOTES and OMISSIONS, Vol 3, equates both identities as does the APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC while the MOL states "May be NGC 6056. The NGC 2000
The MCG identifies it only as IC 1176 = + 3 - 41- 100, without any reference to the
equivalency.
Corwin in his paper NOTES ON THE HERCULES GALAXY CLUSTER. Pub, Astron. Soc.
Pacific, Volume 83, June 1971. correctly equates the two identities.
IC 1179.
POSS. O-83.
Swift List VII, #71. 16hr 03m 09.741s + 17 53' 09.913" (1950).
16hr 05m 24.719s + 17 45' 05.020" (2000).
Equal to NGC 6050 (Swift List IV, #26) : The MCG and NGC 2000 (Gx) queries
whether it might be equal to NGC 6054. Carlson states "= NGC 6054, Mt Wilson."
The UGC makes it equal to NGC 6050. Described in the CGCG and Notes section for
IC 1185 in the DSFG as NGC 6050 + IC 1179 "Twin spirals in contact." The APL and
Steinicke make it equivalent with NGC 6050A. The PGC, SIMBAD and NED list IC 1079
and NGC 6050 as separate identities with separate coordinates.
Based upon Swift's description for NGC 6050 "eeF, S, R, v diff." I doubt very much
if the south preceding galaxy would have been visible to him and therefore I have
opted to go for the equivalency and that what Swift was describing in both
observations is the single nebular image.
IC 1180.
POSS. O-83.
Bigourdan #202. 16hr 03m 14.025s + 18 16' 41.217" (1950).
16hr 05m 28.557s +18 08' 36.577 (2000).
Bigourdan measured the coordinates for his #202 from the galaxy NGC 6055 whose
position for the year 1950 is 16hr 03m 17.590s +18 17 42.450 (DSS) and when
precessed back to the year 1888 (discovery date for his #202) NGC 6055 would be at
16hr 00m 31.046s + 18 27" 54.930" (NED's Coordinate Calculator).
His offsets are - 3.6 tsec RA and -1 arcmin 1 arcsec Dec. which gives a 1888
position for #202 of 16hr 00m 27.446s + 18 26' 53.930" which when precessed to the
year 1950 results in placing his #202 = IC 1180 at 16hr 03m 14.025s + 18 16'
41.217" and at this exact position on the DSS there is no image, the closest
viable image being a 15 or 16 Mp star which lies 1 tsec following and 30 arcsec
north of Bigourdan's Corrected Nominal Position.
As Bigourdan describes it as "A star thought to be accompanied by a little
nebulosity" I am accepting the above mentioned star as being what he saw, however,
this does require his offsets to be in some error.
The APL and Steinicke list it as (= *) and the NGC 2000 as (?) and MOL (May not
exist). The PGC has no listing for the identity IC 1180. NED has (Not found).
SIMBAD has "Object of unknown nature."
IC 1181.
POSS. O-83.
Swift List VII, #72. 16hr 03m 18.951s + 17 43' 25.606" (1950).
16hr 05m 34.104s + 17 35' 21.305" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Double system with IC 1178 : The MOL states "Same as IC 1178"
which is not entirely correct as this would suggest both identities for the same
object. The CGCG and UGC correctly describe it as making a double system with IC
1178 while the APL makes its IC 1178 = 1181A and its IC 1181 = IC 1181B. The MCG
correctly identifies both galaxies. The NGC 2000 (Gx) has the correct identity.
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have the correct identity.
IC 1182.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #372. 16hr 03m 22.030s + 17 56' 10.779" (1950).
16hr 05m 36.942s + 17 48' 06.675" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : UGC incorrectly queries whether it is equal to IC 1184 (which
is a double star).
Additionally the UGC (Notes) state that the CGCG is probably wrong in the identity
of IC 1184 and to a degree this is correct, however, Zwicky in Vol 3. CGCG (ERRORS
AND OMISSIONS), states "For IC 1184 add = IC 1183" and the identity IC 1183 is
correct. The MOL has what is probably a typographical error in its declination
value which it gives as being + 17 46' 06".
The PGC (Corrections) also incorrectly equates IC 1183 with IC 1184, but again the
identity IC 1184 is for an entirely different object, namely a double star. The
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3, NGC 2000 (Gx) and MCG have the correct identity.
IC 1183.
POSS. O-83.
Bigourdan #203. 16hr 03m 23.162s + 17 54' 10.940" (1950).
16hr 05m 38.110s + 17 46' 06.896" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Equal to NGC 6054 : The CGCG (see IC 1182 and IC 1184)
incorrectly equates this with IC 1184.
The UGC in its NOTES correctly identifies IC 1183, however, it again suggests that
IC 1182 is equal to IC 1184 as does the PGC (Corrections). The NGC 2000, MOL, RC3,
NED and MCG have the correct identity. The APL and Steinicke equate IC 1183 with
NGC 6054 and Corwin gives an excellent argument in his data files to support this
equivalency. SIMBAD incorrectly equates IC 1183 with IC 1184.
IC 1184.
POSS. O-83.
Bigourdan #204. 16hr 03m 29.043s + 17 55' 37.554" (1950).
16hr 05m 43.960s + 17 47' 33.884" (2000).
This is a double star whose components appear as being in contact :
Bigourdan's reference star is AC #738929and its position precessed back to the
discovery date (1888) would be 16hr 00m 32.297s + 18 03' 53.153"
Using Bigourdan's separations (+9.7 tsecs and +1' 56" of arc) from his reference
star which lies just south preceding IC 1183 there can be no doubt as to which
object Bigourdan was referring. Furthermore, he states in his third observation
of the object dated June 8th 1888 "This object is surely only a star."
Both the CGCG and PGC (Corrections) make IC 1184 = IC 1183, as does SIMBAD. The NGC
2000 and MOL both type this identity as being a galaxy. The APL has the correct
identity (H.C. = **) as does Carlson (** Mt. Wilson plate) and Steinicke (= *2).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
IC 1190.
POSS. O-83.
Swift List VII, #74. 16hr 04m 06.019s + 18 22' 54.227" (1950).
16hr 06m 20.393s + 18 14' 52.911" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The APL identifies it as (= UGC 10195 = CGCG 108.136 = MCG
+03-41-113 = KS136 at 16hr 03m 38s + 18 21' 16.2") and this is the correct object.
After reading Corwin's latest version of his IC Bug List and examining the
problem, his conclusion based upon the statement by Swift "another and NGC 6061 in
line," appears to clinch the identity of IC 1190 as there is no doubt as to the
identities of IC 1191 and NGC 6061 and the galaxy UGC 10195 completely fills the
alignment. The NGC 2000 types it as (?) and the MOL (May not exist). Carlson
gives (Not found Mt Wilson plate). Steinicke has the correct object. The UGC,
CGCG, PGC and MCG only identify this object as an "anon." NED has correct
identity. SIMBAD incorrectly equates it with NGC 6061.
IC 1194.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #377. 16hr 04m 23.821s + 17 55' 00.434" (1950).
16hr 06m 38.708" + 17 47' 00.278" (2000)
Confirmed galaxy : An unusual problem as all the modern authorities listing this
identity have in my opinion identified the wrong galaxy.
There are 3 galaxies in close association. The preceding is an elongated spiral
and is IC 1192. It is closely followed by two other galaxies, the fainter, which
has a declination about 27 arcsecs north of the declination of IC 1192, is a
lenticular with a star on its following edge while the brighter one which is an
elliptical lies at a declination below that of IC 1192 and it is this brighter
elliptical that is incorrectly listed in the modern literature as being IC 1194.
When Javelle's separation values for his #377 = IC 1194 (+ 2 tmins 48.92 tsecs and
- 1 arcmin 31.2 arcsec) are measured from his reference star DM + 18 3108 at 15hr
57m 32.3s + 18 11' 24" (1860) equal to AC #738753 at 16hr 03m 50.016s + 17 48'
08.30 (2000) and by employing the Type 2 procedures with the NED Calculator
Precession Tables the coordinates would be 16hr 06m 38.708s + 17 47' 00.278"
(2000), which lands directly on top of the north following galaxy of the three,
furthermore, comparison of Javelle's given declinations for IC 1192 and IC 1194
clearly demonstrate that he placed IC 1194 north of IC 1192 and this is the same
lenticular.
Why Javelle makes no mention of the brighter elliptical I am unable to say,
however, based upon his data it is the northern of the two that is his #377 = IC
1194. Dr. Ron Buta has suggested that when he visually examined the field with the
McDonald Observatory's 30 inch reflector some years ago he noticed that the south
following galaxy had a stellar-like nucleus and that this may have appeared to be
a simple star to Javelle and would explain why Javelle did not consider it to be
another nova.
The CGCG, MCG, RC3, PGC, NGC 2000 (GX), and DSFG have each selected the brighter
elliptical as being IC 1194 as has NED who also identifies the correct IC 1194 as
IC 1194A. The MOL lists the correct IC 1194 as IC 1194A and the southern
elliptical as IC 1194B. Steinicke has the correct galaxy. Simbad's Database also
incorrectly identifies the southern elliptical galaxy as being IC 1194.
NOTE : Dr. Harold Corwin has published a paper NOTES ON THE HERCULES GALAXY
CLUSTER. (Pub. Astron. Soc. Pacific, Vol.82. June 1971) in which he discusses the
problem of the identity of IC 1194 and the entire credit for finally
solving the identity problem belongs to him as it was his NOTE cautioning the
reader that although the modern identity sources select the brighter elliptical as
being IC 1194 Javelle's data is more consistent with the northern lenticular that
guided my investigation. In his current NGCICPOS he lists the elliptical as IC
1194 and the lenticular as IC 1194A, however, we are now both in agreement that
the correct IC 1194 is the most northern of the 3 galaxies and that the elliptical
is not either a NGC or IC galaxy.
IC 1197.
POSS. O-1067.
Spitaler. 16hr 05m 51.993s + 07 41' 05.907" (1950).
16hr 08m 17.902s + 07 33' 11.956" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U10219. The CGCG, APL,
Steinicke, NED, PGC, SIMBAD, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have the correct
identity.
IC 1200.
POSS. O-752.
Swift List VII. #77. 16hr 04m 32.566s + 69 48' 29.681" (1950).
16hr 04m 27.788s + 69 40' 25.777" (2000).
Equal to NGC 6079 (H884- 3) : Wm. Herschel made an observation of NGC 6079 and
obtained coordinates of 16hr 05m 38s + 69 38' 43", however, Bigourdan made four
separate observations of NGC 6079 and stated that he found the NGC was off in RA
by being 1m 5s too large and giving it coordinates of 16hr 04m 39s + 69 41' 45".
In Dreyer's later work (Scientific Papers of Sir William Herschel. 1912) he notes
that "H.III. 884. In the same sweep as H.III. 883, and its RA is also nearly 1m
too great. The neb. followed same star G.2091. 1hr 57m 03s, s. 8", which gives
16hr 05m 04s 19 54' (NPD), agreeing well with Bigourdan."
Swift was without doubt relying on the original data and thus would have thought
that his #77 was an entirely separate and new discovery, but there would seem to
be little doubt as to the equivalency, especially as both Bigourdan in his
observations for NGC 6079 and Swift in his for IC 1200 refer to the 12th Mv star
close south.
The CGCG, UGC,DSFG and MOL give only the identity NGC 6079 each at the correct
coordinates.
The NGC 2000 lists both at different coordinates. The MCG gives the identity only
as +12-15-50. The RC 3 lists neither identity while the PGC gives the single
identity NGC 6079. The APL, NED and Steinicke have the correct equivalency. SIMBAD
has "Not present in the database," but does give the single identity NGC 6079.
Note : I was unable to find any listing or reference to the identity IC 1200 in
the MOL.
IC 1201.
POSS O-752.
Swift List VII.#78. 16hr 05m 47.675s + 69 44' 35.439" (1950).
16hr 05m 42.971s + 69 36' 36.338" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift in his description incorrectly makes it the north
following of two, however, it is actually the south following of two, the north
preceding companion being IC 1200. The MCG identifies it only as +12-15-51 while
the CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, APL, PGC, NGC 2000 and MOL correctly identify
it. Listed in DSFG in Notes to NGC 6079.
IC 1202.
POSS. O-168.
Swift List VII, #79. 16hr 10m 31.753s + 09 59' 46.458" (1950).
16hr 12m 55.105s + 09 52' 10.282" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6081 (Stephan) : The MOL (NSO) list both identities as
separate galaxies. The equivalency is correctly given in the CGCG, Steinicke,
APL, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, UGC, NGC 2000 and PGC. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC
6081.
IC 1203.
POSS. O-1026.Thome. 16hr 12m 17.807s - 22 13' 01.640" (1950).
16hr 15m 16.074s - 21 20' 30.055" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : The only images found at this positions are for a few very faint
stars.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL has (asterism
of 6-8 stars) and Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 1204.
POSS. O-752.
Bigourdan #207. 16hr 07m 22.613s + 70 03' 48.221" (1950).
16hr 07m 14.548" + 69 55' 55.100" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 338.046 and in the MCG only as
+12-15-53. The PGC gives only the CGCG and MCG identities.
MOL (NSO) and NGC 2000 (No Type). Not listed in UGC, RC3 and DSFG. Correctly
identified in the APL, SIMBAD and Steinicke. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." however it does list the identity CGCG 338-046.
IC 1207.
Thome. 16hr 16m 18.131s - 29 31' 22.586" (1950).
16hr 19m 26.145s - 29 38' 34.888" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at or close to the given coordinates. Close to the
given position there are only a few faint stars. Thome does not give any
description for this identity and therefore I am not even sure he was claiming a
nonstellar object. Dreyer states that Thome's identities refer to some nebulae
picked off the charts of the Cordoba Durchmusterung.
NGC (No Type). MOL (NSO). APL has an asterism of 6-8 sts. Steinicke
(* group) and ESO (451-?019). NED "No object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 1209.
POSS. O-83.
Javelle #380. 16hr 16m 22.373s + 15 40' 43.859" (1950).
16hr 18m 39.305s + 15 33' 30.374" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Typed in the NGC 2000 as (Neb.). The MOL lists this identity
twice, 16hr 16m 23s + 15 40' 43" (NSO) and 16hr 16m 23s +15 41'.0 (Faint nebula).
The only image I found was that of a galaxy. The CGCG, RC3, APL, PGC, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, UGC and MCG have the correct identification and type.
IC 1213.
POSS. O-143.
Swift List IX, #61. 16hr 19m 26.049s - 01 24' 26.328" (1950).
16hr 22m 01.370s - 01 31' 27.141" (2000).
This is a duplicate of NGC 6172 (Stephan XIII, #86).
This is a case in which Swift cannot be blamed for thinking that he had discovered
a nova. Stephan's published coordinates for NGC 6172 has a 10 tmin typo error in
RA which can be verified by consulting his given reference star. When this
correction is made Stephan's position for NGC 6172 would be 16hr 19m 34.5s - 01
23' 16" and confirms that this is the same galaxy as seen by Swift. (See Corwin's
APL Corrections).
The MCG gives only the IC 1213 identity, as does the CGCG and UGC. The NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both the identities and coordinates as separate
objects. The APL, Steinicke, NED and PGC correctly give the equivalency. SIMBAD
gives the identities IC 1213 and NGC 6172 without equivalency, but they are
referring to the same object.
IC 1217.
POSS. O-752.
Swift List VII,#85. 16hr 16m 12.606s + 69 47' 54.234" (1950).
16hr 16m 03.630s + 69 40' 35.479" (2000).
Not found : Close to Swift's position there is visible on the Palomar print the
image of an extremely faint, compact galaxy, however, I strongly doubt whether
this could possibly be Swift's object. Listed only in the NGC 2000 (No Type),
Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED (Not found) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1220.
POSS. O-88.
Swift List X, #34. 16hr 26m 59.209s + 08 33' 58.226" (1950).
16hr 29m 23.771s + 08 27' 27.314" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 52.030 and in the MCG only
as +1-42-005. Other modern listings are APL (= CGCG 052-030). Steinicke, who has
the correct identity. SIMBAD has correct identity. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). The PGC gives only the CGCG and MCG identities. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED," but does list the identity CGCG 052-030.
IC 1226.
POSS O-1375.
Swift List X,#38. 16hr 39m 41.044s + 46 06' 20.730" (1950).
16hr 41m 09.606s + 46 00' 39.707" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error involving this identity is the very minor one
that Dreyer in the IC I catalogue states that Swift's data is to be found in his
List IX, whereas, it is actually in his List X. Correctly identified in the CGCG,
PGC, Steinicke, NED, NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO). APL has (= IC 1232).
NOTE: APL in its New Version queries whether it might be equal to IC 1232.
IC 1227.
POSS. O-1414.
Bigourdan #210. 16hr 39m 17.173s + 58 42' 50.727" (1950).
16hr 40m 07.842s + 58 37' 06.788" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6206 (Swift List V,#71) : Bigourdan suspected it might be
Swift's object stating that both are probably identical. CGCG, UGC, RC3, PGC and
MCG give the single identity NGC 6206. NGC 2000 gives IC 1227 = NGC 6206. MOL
states "May not exist." Steinicke and APL correctly equate the two identities.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 1228.
POSS. O-1410.
Swift List X.#39. 16hr 41m 54.748s + 65 40' 47.398" (1950).
16hr 42m 09.430s + 65 35' 13.042" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +11-20-26. CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED,
PGC, SIMBAD, UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO) correctly identify IC 1228.
Not listed in DSFG.
IC 1229.
POSS. O-1101.
Swift List X.#40. 16hr 43m 44.415s + 51 22' 53.452" (1950).
16hr 44m 59.165s + 51 17' 28.658" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC does not list IC 1229, however, in its NOTES for
U10538 = IC 1230 it incorrectly states "IC 1225 at a dist. 2.5 arcmins. PA 354."
but this should be for IC 1229 as IC 1225 lies at 16hr 36.9m + 67 44'.0 and the
UGC correctly identifies IC 1225 at its correct position in the main catalogue.
MCG, PGC, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and MOL correctly identify IC 1229.
Not listed in RC3.
IC 1232.
POSS. O-1370.
Swift List IX. #69 16hr 47m 14s ? +46 10' 27.217" (1950).
16hr 49m 42s ? + 46 05' 21.594" (2000).
Not found : No nonstellar image at or close to Swift's coordinates. Swift does
state that his clock drive had failed thus the question mark.
Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No type), MOL (NSO) NED "There is no object
with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has equal to IC
1226 and Steinicke (Not found).
IC 1233.
POSS. O-1410.
Swift List IX.#70. 16hr 47m 57.910s + 63 13' 58.795" (1950).
16hr 48m 25.879s + 63 08' 49.974" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : No nebular image exists at Swift's position,
however, at about 10 arcmins south there is the galaxy NGC 6247 (D'Arrest) and
Dreyer queries whether this might be Swift's #70.
Certainly Swift's description for IC 1233 does favourably compare with the
photographic appearance of NGC 6247, especially the reference "Very extended,
between two stars," and I believe that this is the object Swift saw and listed as
being his #70.
Listed only in Steinicke (Not found), NED There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type. = NGC 6247 ?). APL
(= NGC 6247) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1234.
POSS. O-1414.
Bigourdan #211. 16hr 51m 54.906s + 56 57 31.015" (1950).
16hr 52m 50.520s + 56 52' 39.590" (2000).
This is a faint star:
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 1234. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL
list as (Nonstellar Object) and Steinicke (Equal to a star). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has equal
to a star at 16hr 51m 55.25s + 56 57' 31.3" (1950).
IC 1238 and IC 1239.
POSS. O-1377.
Marth #327 16hr 58m 26.856s + 23 09' 46.920" (1950).
17hr 00m 33.083s + 23 05' 25.230" (2000). (IC 1238).
Bigourdan #213. 16hr 58m 38.004s + 23 05' 48.318" (1950).
17hr 00m 44.312s + 23 01' 27.525" (2000). (IC 1239, Comptes
Rendus).
There is considerable confusion concerning the identities of this small group of
galaxies whose dominant member is NGC 6278 discovered by Wm. Herschel (H 124-3).
Marth later claimed discovery of 2 additional objects, Marth 327 and
328, and this was followed by Stephan who added 2 more in an observation which
included NGC 6278.
Originally, Dreyer equated Marth's and Stephan's novae, giving them the identities
NGC 6276 and NGC 6277, however, he later corrected part of this to show that
Marth's #327 is not equal to NGC 6277 and that Marth's # 327 should have been
inserted in the NGC after NGC 6275. (NGC/IC Notes and Corrections pp.224). When
the IC I was published Dreyer, in an effort to remedy this, identified Marth's
#327 as IC 1238 at Marth's given coordinates, however, close to this position
there is visible on the Palomar print only the image of a close double star whose
components are aligned at almost 90 degrees.
Next we come to the observations of the field by Bigourdan. He correctly
identified Herschel's NGC 6278 but apparently he identified NGC 6276 as being a
nova, Big.213 = IC 1239. Later he realized his error and this most likely
accounts for the reason that no B. 213 appears in his 1919 publication. Therefore
the identity IC 1239 is a duplicate of NGC 6276.
During Bigourdan's examination of this field he came across what he believed to be
a nonstellar image whose position he measured from a 10.5 Mp star he called
(Anon.2) stating that this star lay about -24s RA and north by about 7 arcmins of
NGC 6278. From this star he measured separation values to this nonstellar image
of -6s RA and -01' 22" dec. and there is very close to this position a galaxy
visible on the Palomar print lying between the reference star and the asymmetrical
peculiar galaxy UGC 10650 which is located south preceding.
Unfortunately Bigourdan had surmised that this might be Marth's NGC 6277,
identifying it as NGC 6277?, and probably because of this, this existing object
never received any historical identity and therefore must be included in the
category "Anonymous."
Finally, the identity NGC 6277, based upon Stephan's coordinates turns out to be a
faint star located between NGC 6276 and NGC 6278.
For a number of years I had convinced myself that the image visible on the Palomar
print suggested it being nonstellar, however, recent re-examination has caused me
to refute my original conclusion and I now am of the opinion that it is a star.
As for the modern catalogues the following errors apply.
The CGCG confuses the identity NGC 6276 making it NGC 6277 which is a star.
The UGC and MCG each equate NGC 6276 and NGC 6277 which is incorrect as only NGC
6276 is an existing galaxy.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list the IC identities. The NGC 2000 lists IC 1238 as
(No Type), the MOL as (NSO), and IC 1239 as (GX) and (NSO), no listing of any
equivalency. The PGC correctly equates the identities IC 1239 and NGC 6276.
The APL makes IC 1238 = ** and IC 1239 = NGC 6276 as does Steinicke NED has for
IC 1238 "There is no object with this name in NED," and correctly equates IC 1239
with NGC 6276. SIMBAD has for both identities "Not present in the database."
IC 1240.
POSS. O-1414.
Bigourdan #214. 17hr 00m 22.933s + 61 07' 15.936" (1950).
17hr 00m 59.745s +61 02' 59.500" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 1240. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke, APL and NED have
(Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: Bigourdan's given position for his reference star is off by abut 2 arcmin
too far south.
IC 1243.
POSS. O-505.
Swift List IX, #72. 17hr 08m 14.350s + 10 51' 05.460" (1950).
17hr 10m 35.662s + 10 47' 26.014" (2000).
Not found : The only thing close to Swift's position is a small asterism formed
by a compact group of 7 stars in the form of a question mark (?) turned backwards.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist). Dreyer (Notes page
378 NGC/IC states "Only 5 stars 12-14 in line north to south, 45 arcsec long;
Howe." Steinicke has (* Group) and NED "No object found." APL has 5 stars. SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 1244.
POSS. O-1132.
Swift List VIII.#92. 17hr 08m 35.765s + 36 22' 27.096" (1950).
17hr 10m 21.563s + 36 18' 47.925" (2000).
List IX. #73. 17hr 08m 46.982s + 36 15' 58.042" (1950).
17hr 10m 32,960s + 36 12' 19.676" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift made two separate observations of this galaxy four
months apart and his coordinates for List VIII are by far the better. Correctly
identified in CGCG at 17hr 8.8m + 36 21'.0 but only identified in the UGC as
U10739. MCG, NGC 2000 (Gx.) APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO)
correctly identify IC 1244. Not listed in RC3.
IC 1246.
POSS. O-1127.
Bigourdan #215. 17hr 12m 03.634s + 20 17' 37.445" (1950).
17hr 14m 13.255s + 20 14' 13.903" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
(Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1247.
POSS. O-415.
Bigourdan #216. 17hr 13m 33.437s - 12 43' 36.693" (1950).
17hr 16m 22.044s - 12 46' 52.572" (2000).
This is a single star : Dreyer, (NGC/IC Notes, page 378), states "Not found by
Howe, 2 nights." Bigourdan made three separate observations and reported seeing
this object on only the first. For the other two observations he stated that it
was a 13.4 or 13.5 star without trace of nebulosity.
The MOL lists it as (May not exist). The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke each
correctly have it as being a star. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: Bigourdan on two later observations describes it as a 13.5 Mv star without
any nebulosity.
IC 1251 AND IC 1254.
POSS. O-756.
Swift List X.#43. 17hr 11m 11.452s + 72 28' 48.540" (1950).
17hr 10m 18.782" +72 25' 14.895" (2000). (IC 1251).
List X, #44. 17hr 12m 42.959s + 72 29' 26.394" (1950).
17hr 11m 49.852s + 72 25' 59.252" (2000). (IC 1254).
Both confirmed galaxies : These two were actually discovered by Swift's young son
Edward who incorrectly described IC 1251 as the "South preceding of 2" and IC 1254
as the " North following of 2 ." The correct alignment is North preceding - South
following and this error is continued on in the MOL. The NGC 2000 give both the
same declination value. The CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC,.RC3, DSFG
(Notes to NGC 6340) and MCG have the correct identifications and alignments.
IC 1252.
(See IC 4649).
IC 1253.
POSS. O-1127.
Safford #29. 17hr 17m 40.206s + 16 42' 53.214" (1950).
17hr 19m 54.271s + 16 39' 53.865" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6347 (Stephan List XI, #55) : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL have
been influenced by Dreyer who incorrectly gives the identity IC 1253 a declination
of + 18 42'.8, but examination of Safford's discovery announcement paper clearly
establishes that he gives a declination as shown above.
No listings for IC 1253 in the other catalogues. The CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, UGC
and MCG give only the single identity NGC 6347. Steinicke and APL have (= NGC
6347).
IC 1270.
POSS. O-1148.
Swift List VII,#93. 17hr 47m 20.214s + 62 14' 22.172" (1950).
17hr 47m 47.257s + 62 13' 27.868" (2000).
Not found: : At the nominal position there is no nonstellar object. There are
the stars reported in Swift's description and his nominal position does land
between them, however, I did not see any acceptable candidate there.
Listed only in the NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke and MOL, each making it a single star.
NED has (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1272.
POSS. O-260.
Bigourdan #218. 18hr 02m 51.904s + 25 07' 19.629" (1950).
18hr 04m 54.351s + 25 07' 36.651" (2000).
This is a double star : No evidence of a star cluster or nebulosity. The only
modern identities are in the NGC 2000 (Open cluster) and MOL (Open cluster). NED
(No object with this name in NED). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke
(=*2), APL (= 4-5 stars). The Palomar print shows it to consist of two close stars
aligned north-north preceding south-south following.
IC 1273.
POSS. O-260.
Bigourdan #219. 18hr 03m 00.248s + 25 07' 32.472" (1950).
18hr 05m 02.691s + 25 07' 50.101" (2000).
This is a double star : Close north following IC 1272, it also is not a star
cluster nor does it indicate the presence of any associated nebulosity, being
simply a double star whose components are aligned south preceding north following.
Again the only modern listings are Steinicke (* 2), APL (**), NED "No object
found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (Open cluster) and MOL (Open
cluster) and these two types are probably influenced by Dreyer's description based
upon Bigourdan's observational data.
IC 1277.
POSS. O-282.
Bigourdan #220. 18hr 08m 33.535s + 30 59' 19.293" (1950).
18hr 10m 27.207s + 31 00' 00.876" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list this as being an "Open
Cluster." Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD, UGC, MCG, DSFG (NOTES to
NGC 6575), APL, Steinicke, NED and RC3.
IC 1278.
POSS. O-282.
Bigourdan #221. 18hr 08m 48.835s + 31 08' 15.999" (1950).
18hr 10m 42.272s + 31 08' 58.689" (2000).
This is a compact asterism formed by 4 stars : Only modern listings are Steinicke
(* Group), APL 4-5 stars, NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1279 and IC 1281.
POSS. O-197.
Swift List VII,#95. 18hr 09m 21.100s + 36 01' 13.556" (1950).
18hr 11m 06.327s + 36 01m 58.281" (2000). (IC 1279)
List VIII,#96. 18hr 09m 51.125s + 36 00' 40.179" (1950).
18hr 11m 36.374s + 36 01' 27.091" (2000). (IC 1281).
Equivalent identities : According to Dreyer (NGC/IC Notes, P.378), IC 1281 is
equal to IC 1279. Although Dreyer had previously suggested this possibility, (IC
I), he was later supported by an observation made by Howe (MNRAS. LXI. 1.
Nov. 1900) in which Howe states that he saw only one nebula at the Index
Catalogue's positions and his measured position is 18hr 9m 30.150s + 35 59'
37.513" which indicates that it is IC 1279. He specifically states that he did
not see IC 1281.
Swift made his List VII observation on October 18th 1887 in which he refers to the
object lying "in a semi-circle of stars" and this is what one finds on the DSS for
IC 1279.
His List VIII #96 (IC 1281) description states that the object he is observing is
"considerably elongated, semi-circle of stars near," again this applies only to
his List VII object. Meanwhile Howe, employing a larger telescope than Swift, saw
only a single object which he identified as Swift's List VII, # 95 (IC 1279), so
why was he unable to see the object that does lie following IC 1279 and which NED
gives a Mp of 15.72 ?
Due to these findings it is now my opinion that on both occasions Swift was seeing
the same object, IC 1279 and thus IC 1281 is a duplicate of IC 1279 and not the
faint galaxy following as I originally thought.
The CGCG, APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and UGC (Notes), identify the faint
following galaxy as IC 1281. The NGC 2000 lists IC 1279 (No Type) and IC 1281 = IC
1279 (?), while the MOL gives IC 1279 (NSO) and IC 1281 (May not exist). The MCG
gives only the identity IC 1281 but they are incorrectly referring to IC 1279
(This error is noted by the PGC). The RC3 gives only the identity IC 1279.
IC 1280.
POSS. O-1089.
Bigourdan #222. 18hr 10m 16.646s + 25 38' 40.078" (1950).
18hr 12m 18.375s + 25 39' 29.477" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6581 (Stephan List 1) : Both Stephan and Bigourdan employed
the same Mv 8.0 reference star, Stephan identifying it as 33,555 Lat. while
Bigourdan identified it as A.G.CAM.8732, (It is also known as GSC 2096-731, DM +25
3481 and SAO 085828). Bigourdan gave the 1900 separation from this star as -0m
34s RA + 0' 42" while Stephan measured it as -0m 32.55s RA and + 0' 56".3 (1870).
On the same night Bigourdan searched for NGC 6581 at the coordinates as given in
the NGC, which meant that he was searching in an area about 11 tsecs of RA
following where he had measured his B.222 and strangely he never made any personal
measurement for what he states is NGC 6581, explaining that because it was
difficult to distinguish from 2 or 3 faint, close stars he was unable to make any
measurement.
There is no doubt that Bigourdan's coordinates for his B.222 are superior to
Stephan's in accuracy, however, there is only one possible candidate for both
identities in the immediate field and although Bigourdan's coordinates may be
better, Stephan's description for this galaxy "Scarcely visible. A vaporous aspect
comprised between two very small stars." is excellent, and pins down the fact that
he is describing the same object as B.222.
Steve Gottlieb has an observation of NGC 6581 which he describes as "Small, round.
A mag 14.5 star at the NE end and a mag 15 star at the south end. Image is
confused by these two close faint stars. A wide pair of stars is SW. Located in
the U11156 group and incorrectly identified as U11155 in the RNGC."
CGCG, MOL, and PGC give the single identity IC 1280. The MOL lists both
identities as separate objects and continue an error as given in the RNGC for the
identity 6581 in that the declination is given as + 25 25'.0, which is for an
entirely separate galaxy listed in the UGC as U11155. (See Gottlieb's
observation). The DSFG also incorrectly identifies NGC 6581 as being at the RNGC
and MOL declination, (U11155). Not listed in the UGC or RC3. NED list IC 1280 and
IC 1280 as equivalent identities. APL and Steinicke have the correct equivalency.
IC 1282.
POSS. O-1089.
Bigourdan # 223. 18hr 11m 57.352s + 21 05' 06.191" (1950).
18hr 14m 05.399s + 21 06' 03.116" (2000).
This consists of a small group of stars without nebulosity:
Bigourdan described it as "Formed of 2 or 3 small, closely associated stars with
perhaps some nebulosity." Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*4), APL (4
stars), NGC 2000 (Type ?) and MOL (May not exist). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1285.
POSS. O-1089.
Bigourdan #224. 18hr 14m 06.867s + 25 05' 13.705" (1950).
18hr 16m 09.419s + 25 06' 19.883" (2000).
A very small group of stars without associated nebulosity :
Bigourdan described it as being a 13.3 Mv star accompanied by a few others more
faint and that perhaps it might have some traces of nebulosity.
Only modern listings are Steinicke (= *4), APL (= 5 sts), NED "No object found."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist).
IC 1293.
POSS. O-789.
Swift List VIII,#97. 18hr 40m 46.278s + 56 15' 47.979" (1950).
18hr 41m 41.511s + 56 18' 47.344" (2000).
Swift's nominal position lands close to a grouped line of 4 stars none of which
appeared to me to have associated nebulosity :
Howe in an observation states "It appears to consist of 3 stars of mag. 14 of
which the following one is nebulous''. The only listings for this identity I could
find were Steinicke (* Group), NED "No object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1294.
POSS O-340.
Swift List VII,#99. 18hr 48m 13.150s + 40 11' 12.125" (1950).
18hr 49m 51.711s + 40 14' 44.985" (2000).
Not found : The only modern catalogues listing IC 1294 are Steinicke who has
(Not found). APL (3-4 stars). NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both at coordinates based upon the historical
data.
IC 1300.
POSS. O-774.
Swift List X,#47. 19hr 22m 51.537s + 52 33' 01.874" (1950).
19hr 24m 03.638s + 52 38' 58.854" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 6798 (Swift List II,#80.) :
Howe (1900) reports on a letter he received from Swift stating that the
declination value he originally gave for IC 1300 was 1 degree too far south and
when this correction is applied to the data it confirms the equivalency of IC 1300
and NGC 6798.
CGCG, MCG, UGC, PGC, RC3 and DSFG give the single identity NGC 6798. Dreyer in
his IC II NOTES, page 378. states "IC 1300, Delenda = NGC 6798'' and Carlson
refers to this correction in her TABLE 2. NED and SIMBAD have correct
equivalencies. Equivalency correctly noted in the APL and by Steinicke.
IC 1301.
POSS. O-814.
Swift List IX,#93. 19hr 25m 22.948s + 49 11' 13.784" (1950).
19hr 26m 44.601s + 49 17' 21.391" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy but not at the position originally given by Swift :
Swift at some time after his discovery wrote to Professor Howe at Chamberlin
Observatory informing him that the declination for IC 1301 was about 35 arcmins
greater than that given in the Index Catalogue I (See Howe. M.N. LX1, p.48.),
which would thus give a declination value of + 49 46' (+ or -).
Although no galaxy exists precisely at this corrected position there is one (ZWG.
256.018) at 19hr 25m 16.927s + 49 39' 23.31" (1950), or about 28 arcmin north of
his nominal position, that roughly fits Swift's description "eeF,vS,R, 2B and 1 F*
in line nr. f, nearest * nf close D with 300." however, I would not describe them
as "2 Bright and 1 Faint" as Swift does, as none of the three are bright, the
brightest being GCS 3551-564 Mp 10.46, at 19hr 25m 56.01 + 49 40' 57.5" (1950).
Neither would I say that the 3 stars are in line and it is ZWG. 256.018 that is
identified in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, UCG, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and RC3 as
being IC 1301.
This same galaxy is identified in the MCG only as + 8-35-009. The MOL incorrectly
gives the original Swift declination.
There is a brighter candidate (IC 4867) at 19hr 25m 12.488s + 50 01' 24.23"
(1950), which is about 50 arcmin north of Swift's nominal position that has stars
that do fit much better with Swift's description "2 bright and 1 Faint star in
line near following."
The brightest star is GSC 3551-1744, Mp 6.89, the second brightest is GSC 3551-
1320. Mp 8.52 and the third is GSC 3551-358, Mp 10.31
Additionally, GSC 3551-1744 has a companion star, GSC 3551-1932, Mp 11.63 and the
3 main stars are in line thus each of these stars are more in common with Swift's
description.
Dreyer in his IC II adds to its description, [? = IC 1301.] (Also see IC II. Page
378. RAS 1971).
The question then becomes which of these two candidates is the correct IC 1301 ?
Although the 35 arcmin correction favours ZWG.256-018, the description of the
associated stars fits better with Swift's object #93 being equivalent with IC 4867
and is my choice for this identity.
NOTE: The latest versions of both Steinicke and Corwin now agree with my
assessment that IC 1301 = IC 4867.
IC 1304.
POSS. O-281.
Espin. 19hr 33m 46.895s + 40 55' 46.928" (1950).
19hr 35m 27.477s + 41 02' 29.141" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : I am not even certain that what Espin was referring to in his
description (Faint nebulosity) was for a galaxy, however, I could not detect upon
the Palomar print any type of nonstellar object anywhere in the field. The only
modern listings I could find were Steinicke and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." APL (Field stars in Milky Way), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1312.
POSS. O-372.
Bigourdan #226. 20hr 14m 35.047s + 17 53' 29.132" (1950).
20hr 16m 50.844s + 18 02' 48.639" (2000). (Based upon 1884 data).
This is a small asterism comprised of faint stars closely grouped.
Only listings are Carlson (= NGC 6892 ? Reinmuth). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
which equates it with the identity NGC 6892 and states that both identities are
for nonexistent objects. Steinicke has (= *4), NED states "No object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has (12-15 Field stars).
NOTE : It is interesting to find in Bigourdan's publications that he gives 3
separate observations. The first on Sept. 20th 1884 in which he refers to a Trace
of nebulosity associated with a star at the extreme limit of visibility. His
second on Oct. 26th 1896 on which occasion he found nothing and his third on Oct.
29th 1896, in which he describes it as being half nebulous and half stellar in
which he sees a 13.4 Mv star which is accompanied by a few traces of nebulosity of
about 20 arcsecs in size, with a 12th magnitude star at a PA of 0 degrees, distant
1.2 arcmin. He additionally states for this observation that this object was
distinct from that measured on 20th Sept. 1884.
IC 1315.
POSS. O-332.
Bigourdan #227. 20hr 15m 20.739s + 30 31' 48.958" (1950).
20hr 17m 21.777s + 30 41' 10.793" (2000).
This is a single star with a few extremely faint stars immediately north :
Only modern listings are Steinicke (* Group), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). APL (5-6 stars).
NOTE: Bigourdan describes his #227 as an object that appears to be formed by a
star, 13.2 - 13.3 mag. accompanied by excessively faint nebulosity, the star not
being in the middle. Near the nebulosity one suspects another one or two stars at
the extreme limit of visibility.
IC 1316.
POSS. O- 315.
Bigourdan #228. 20hr 20m 00.378s + 06 20' 21.995" (1950).
20hr 22m 28.015s + 06 30' 01.445" (2000).
Not found : At the position as given by Bigourdan (1891), no nebular image
exists. The CGCG, and MCG list IC 1316 but their candidate is actually NGC 6901
discovered by Marth. The UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, SIMBAD and PGC all incorrectly equate
IC 1316 with IC 5000 (which is actually an equivalent identity of NGC 6901).
Carlson incorrectly states "= IC 5000; Declination of 1316 is wrong, of 5000
correct. Mt Wilson plate." There are no connections between the two identities IC
1316 and IC 5000. The APL gives (Not found). Steinicke has (Not found). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED."
(See IC 5000).
IC 1323.
POSS. O-1122.
Javelle #390. 20hr 27m 41.082s - 15 21' 10.831" (1950).
20hr 30m 29.372s - 15 11' 03.743" (2000).
Equal to two stars : The closest image to his position is made up of 2 faint
stars of similar magnitude aligned almost directly east and west.
The MOL lists it as (NSO). The only other modern listings are NGC 2000 (D*), NED
(No object found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (equal to **) and
Steincke (=*).
IC 1325. & IC 1326.
POSS. O-812.
Swift List VIII, #98. 20hr 30m 26.562s + 09 42' 19.972" (1950).
20hr 32m 51.238s + 09 52' 35.973" (2000). (IC 1325).
Swift List VIII, #99. 20hr 29m 36.551s + 09 43'14.667" (1950).
20hr 33m 01.217s + 09 53' 31.243" (2000). (IC 1326).
IC 1325 is equal to NGC 6928 and IC 1326 is equal to NGC 6930 : Examination of
the Palomar print shows the three brightest galaxies in the field to be as
follows.
(A). This is the smallest and the most preceding of the field. It is NGC 6927
(Marth).
(B). The second is the largest and brightest. It is NGC 6928 (Marth).
(C). The third and most southerly is extended south preceding north following
and is NGC 6930 (Marth).
Swift saw only the two brightest, which are NGC 6928 and NGC 6930 and his
descriptions are excellent , especially as regarding the 3rd one NGC 6930, even to
the "Pretty faint star near south, wide double star near south following."
Unfortunately, not only did Swift not realize that these had already been
discovered by Marth but he also incorrectly stated their relative alignment to
each other as he makes his preceding object (IC 1325) to be south preceding his IC
1326 when the correct alignment should be north preceding.
The CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD and UGC give only the NGC identities. Carlson incorrectly
equates IC 1325 with NGC 6927 (Mt. Wilson plate and Reinmuth) and IC 1326 with NGC
6928 (Mt. Wilson plate), however, examination of Reinmuth's observations shows that
he correctly identifies all three NGC identities but errs in his equivalencies as
for NGC 6927 he states "IC 1325 = NGC 6927?" while for NGC 6930 he states "IC 1325
south preceding preceding the middle of NGC 6930 by 1.5 arcmin." which I do not
understand, as having correctly identified NGC 6930 there is no nebular image 1.5
arcmin SSP its middle.
The MOL also equates the identities in the same manner as Carlson.
Howe in a series of corrections to Swift objects (MNRAS LXI. 1, page137), has what
I believe is the correct equivalencies involved. He states "IC 1325 and IC 1326.
I am inclined to the opinion that these two Swift nebulae are identical with two
which Marth found with the Lassell reflector at Malta, and which are Nos.6928 and
6930 respectively in the NGC." Also see Dreyer's correction (NGC/IC. page 378).
Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000 and MCG have the correct equivalencies. NED lists both
the identities IC 1325 and IC 1326 as "There is no object with this name in NED."
IC 1329.
POSS. O-558.
Swift List IX, #95. 20hr 41m 22.559s + 15 24' 22,999 (1950).
20hr 43m 42.276s + 15 35' 15.829" (2000).
This is a group of faint stars : Swift described it as being in the center of a
trapezium of 4 stars and this group is found as described at his coordinates.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both at coordinates consistent
with Swift's. NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and Steinicke
(*Group). APL (8-10 stars).
IC 1333 and IC 1334.
POSS. O-1150.
Javelle #395 20hr 49m 29.026s - 16 25' 55.951" (1950).
20hr 52m 17.191s - 16 14' 35.826" (2000). (IC 1333) and
Javelle #396. 20hr 49m 29.613s - 16 28' 28.683" (1950).
20hr 52m 17.817s - 16 17' 08.527" (2000). (IC 1334).
These are equivalent identities.: Javelle found J.395 on August 4th 1891 and
J.396 on July 22nd 1892 or almost one year apart. He employed different reference
stars for both observations and when his separations for each identity are
measured from each of their respective reference stars they give coordinates that
are only about 2.5 arcmin apart (The second observation being the more accurate).
As there is only a single galaxy visible in the immediate field it is almost a
certainty that this is the galaxy seen on both occasions by Javelle. Also if
Javelle had been referring to a supposed different image during his first
observation then surely he would have at that time also seen what he describes in
his second observations as a brighter object only 2 arcmin directly south.
The MCG "Anon." -3-53-008 should be identified as being IC 1333=IC 1334. The NGC
2000 and MOL list both identities as separate objects. The RC3 and PGC give the
single identity IC 1334. NED makes IC 1333 "There is no object with this name in
NED," while listing the identity IC 1334 as a galaxy. SIMBAD has for IC 1333 "Not
present in the database," while correctly identifying IC 1334. The APL and
Steinicke correctly give the equivalency.
IC 1334.
(See IC 1333).
IC 1346 and IC 1354.
POSS. O-791.
Javelle #407. 20hr 58m 56.248s - 14 03' 39.082" (1950).
21hr 01m 41.746s - 13 51' 49.201" (2000) (IC 1346) and
Javelle #415. 20hr 59m 12.012s - 13 57' 11.888" 1950).
21hr 01m 57.402s - 13 45' 21.199" (2000). (IC 1354).
There is considerable confusion here and the credit for sorting it out belongs
entirely to Dr. Corwin whose excellent account in his APL IC Puzzles should be
consulted.
Javelle observed both these identities on August 7th 1891 and gives as his
reference star the 10th mag. BD -14 5910, however, what he was actually using was
a different star (GSC 5782-1182 whose position is about 05 tsec preceeding and 5.5
arcmin south of BD -14 5910). When this star is employed and Javelle's separation
values are applied they fall on two separate galaxies which are the true IC 1346
and IC 1354, however, on July 26th 1892 Javelle again observed this region and
claimed discovery of another Nova (Javelle # 411 = IC 1350). This time he did use
as his reference star the correct BD -14 5910 and his offsets show that this is a
duplicate observation of IC 1354 as the separations from the two different stars
for the two different identities prove, therefore IC 1350 is equal to IC 1354.
The MCG queries whether its -2-53-019 might be IC 1346 and this identity is
correct. Also it gives only the single identity IC 1350. The NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO) both give the incorrect historical positions for IC 1346 and IC 1354
and separate identities to IC 1350 and IC 1354. The APL has the correct
identities and coordinates. Steinicke has correctly identified IC 1346 and IC
1350 = IC 1354. The PGC identifies IC 1346 only as MCG -2-53-19 and gives the
identity IC 1350 without any equivalency with IC 1354. NED correctly identifies
both IC 1346 and IC 1350, however, it makes the identity IC 1354 "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD correctly identifies IC 1346 and has the
correct identity for IC 1350, but makes its equivalent identity (IC 1354) "Not
present in the database."
The correct 1950 coordinates for these identities are
IC 1346. 20hr 58m 51.4s - 14 09'.5
IC 1354 = IC 1350. 20hr 59m 06.8s - 14 02' 59"
IC 1350 and IC 1354.
(See IC 1346).
IC 1361.
POSS. O-552.
Javelle #793. 21hr 08m 59.404s + 04 50' 55.473" (1950).
21hr 11m 29.268s + 05 03' 15.315" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here concerns the declination as given in the
MOL in which it reads + 04 05' 57"
IC 1373.
POSS.O-575.
Spitaler N.28. 21hr 18m 04.643s + 00 52' 36.544" (1950).
21hr 20m 37.673s + 01 05' 22.710" (2000).
There is no error regarding this identity and I only list it as something of
historical interest.
Spitaler in his observation of the field gives only coordinate for IC 1373 and
then adds "Has two others south." Dreyer in his IC 1 correctly copies this
description but as he had no other details as to exactly where these other two
nebulae were located he did not assign them any identifications.
Examination of the Palomar print shows that almost directly south of IC 1373 at
about 2.5 arcmins there is an extended galaxy listed in the UGC as U11724 and also
close south preceding IC 1373 there is a very small companion also mentioned in
the UGC Notes for U11724.
It is quite likely that the extended galaxy is one of those that Spitaler refers
to in his description, however, it would be difficult to say whether the companion
to IC 1373 is Spitaler's other referred to object.
IC 1376.
POSS. O-810.
Safford #85. 21hr 22m 03.185s - 05 57' 31.780" (1950).
21hr 24m 41.272s - 05 44' 34.353" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at his given position. Safford in a Footnote to
this identity states "Probably equal to GC 4654," however, GC 4654 is equal to NGC
7051 which has a declination about 3 degrees of arc farther south of the
declination given by Safford for his nova. As Safford did not give any description
to his object any possible candidate would at best be only an
assumption. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). APL and
Steinicke (Not found). NED "No object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 1382.
POSS. O-1141.
Safford #55. 21hr 24m 35.447s + 18 26' 10.661" (1950).
21hr 26m 55.249s + 18 39' 14.565" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image in the vicinity. Only listings found are APL and
Steinicke (= NGC 7056). NED (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1389.
POSS. O-1163.
Javelle #436. 21hr 29m 20.987s - 18 14' 22.901" (1950).
21hr 32m 08.023s - 18 01' 05.561" (2000).
Listed in the MCG only as "Anon." -3-55-001. Correctly identified in the NGC 2000
(No Type), MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke.
IC 1405.
POSS. O-1130.
Javelle #445. 21hr 48m 17.035s + 01 47' 08.763" (1950).
21hr 50m 49.606s + 02 01' 13.255" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : MCG incorrectly equates its + 0-55-20 with IC 1406 but this
is IC 1405. UGC points out this MCG error in its "Notes." CGCG, NGC 2000, MOL,
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC give the correct identity.
IC 1407.
POSS. O-1130.
Javelle #447. 21hr 49m 51.264s + 03 11' 32.548" (1950).
21hr 52m 22.972s + 03 24' 40.702" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 376.048. The PGC equates
CGCG's ZWG 376.048 with the identity NGC 7148, however, NGC 7148 is a double star
close north preceding the confirmed galaxy NGC 7149 = ZWG 376.047. Also the PGC's
#67535 which they identify only as 11 ZW.152 is the correct IC 1407. Not listed
in UGC or MCG. Correctly identified in the NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke and MOL. NED
makes the identity IC 1407 "There is no object with this name in NED," however,
they identify the correct object as IIZw 152. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but identify the same galaxy as CGPG 2149.8+0312.
IC 1415.
POSS. O-1146.
Bigourdan #229. 21hr 56m 09.432s + 01 06' 34.333" (1950).
21hr 58m 42.468s + 01 20' 56.911" (2000).
Not found : This is a very interesting problem in that Bigourdan in his first of
two observations describes his B.229 as being just a trace of nebulosity almost
beyond noting and that it lies off the edge of a 13.4 magnitude star. He also
gives the following data as to 2 associated field stars.
Star Mag. 13.3, PA 90, Dist. 2 arcmin. Star Mag.12.8, PA 130, Dist. 3 arcmin.
A later observation states that he was not able to see any nebulosity for certain
and then places it from his main reference star at PA 128, Dist. 8 arcmin.
When Bigourdan's position for his Nova is measured on the Palomar print it falls
on the 13.4 magnitude star and this star has immediately off its south following
edge a very faint, diffuse galaxy which has to be at least 17 Mp, probably
fainter.
The 2 associated stars are also visible at positions in accordance with
Bigourdan's data as is his main reference star the 9.5 magnitude BD + 1 4802, but
there is no way that Bigourdan could have seen the galaxy that exists at his
position unless at the time of his observations it was somehow brighter than now,
an explanation that is highly unlikely, other than the possibility that when he
observed it, it was experiencing an unusually bright supernova that somehow
suggested to him a nebular image, again very unlikely.
Dr Corwin at my request examined the field and agrees that its image on the print
would strongly indicate that it was well beyond the capabilities of Bigourdan's
telescope and additionally Steve Gottlieb very kindly examined the field with a
17.5 inch telescope at an excellent California observing site and reported to me
that using various powered oculars he was unable to detect the galaxy in question.
How Bigourdan selected the correct field star which does have a galaxy where he
stated is something I am unable to solve but I am convinced that the image on the
Palomar print could never have been visible to him.
The NGC 2000 (=*) APL an NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and
MOL (NSO) and Steinicke (Not found) are the only modern sources I have found which
list this identity.
IC 1416.
POSS. O-1146.
Bigourdan #230. 21hr 56m 16.617s + 01 12' 42.949" (1950).
21hr 58m 49.592s + 01 27' 05.793" (2000). (See Bigourdan's correction IC II).
This is a very faint star : At the coordinates as given by Bigourdan I was able
to find only the image of a faint star. Bigourdan's reference star is equal to AC
#188937 whose coordinates for the year 2000 are 21hr 58m 46.153s + 01 32' 50.81"
and when Bigourdan's offsets (+ 03.310 tsec RA and 5 arcmin 45.300 arcsec south)
are applied after precession to the discovery year and then precessing back to
epochs 1950 and 2000 the positions for IC 1416 are as given above and land right
on the faint star. Only listings are APL, NED and Steinicke (Not found), SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1422.
POSS. O-1146.
Javelle #794. 22hr 00m 26.661s + 02 21' 26.750" (1950).
22hr 02m 59.001s + 02 35' 58.698" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the PGC and CGCG only as ZWG 377.016. Only
other listings are NED "There is no object with this name in NED," but they do
list ZWG 377.016. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list it as LEDA
67922. APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) all correct.
IC 1424.
POSS 0-1137.
Bigourdan #231. 22hr 00m 41.821s + 10 57' 17.110" (1950).
22hr 03m 09.145s + 11 11' 49.525" (2000).
This is a single star just south following NGC 7190 and is not the very faint
galaxy which lies south following this star. Bigourdan measured his #231 from the
galaxy NGC 7190 whose modern position is 22hr 03m 06.6s +11 11' 57" (2000) and
when his offsets (+ 2.53 tsec RA and 0 arcmin 7.7 arcsec south) are applied to
these coordinates they land on the faint star south following NGC 7190, the
correct coordinates for the star being 22hr 03m 09.1s + 11 11' 49.5" (2000).
Listed in NGC 2000 as (Gx.) and in the MOL as (NSO). Steinicke and APL have (= *).
NED has"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
NOTE : See IC 5160 regarding NED's error with the identity NGC 7190.
IC 1426.
POSS. O-833.
Javelle #459. 22hr 01m 13.275s - 10 09' 20.455" (1950).
22hr 03m 52.839s - 09 54' 46.721" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at or close to Javelle's position. The closest
image is that of 2 stars. Listed in NGC 2000 as No Type and the MOL as (NSO).
The APL has (Nothing here). NED and Steinicke gives (Not found). SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 1429.
POSS. O-1137.
Bigourdan #232. 22hr 04m 34.669s + 09 51' 10.661" (1950).
22hr 07m 02.821s + 10 05' 51.307" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Bigourdan in his description states that the nebulosity
was only suspected.
Bigourdan estimated the coordinates for his reference star which happens to be AC
436101 22hr 06m 57.845s + 10 09'07.94" (2000) and when Bigourdan's offsets (- 4.9
tsec RA and - 3 arcmin 17 arcsec dec.) are applied to this position after the
proper precession rates are introduced they land upon a blank space.
Dr. Corwin has pointed out that Bigourdan incorrectly gave his RA offset as minus
when it should have been plus (Puzzle Solution Files) and his explanation for this
I affirm, this then gives the above coordinates and land close south following
Corwin's stellar candidate. As Bigourdan's offsets were estimations rather than
actual measurements I am in agreement that IC 1429 is this faint star.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NGC 2000 (No Type), and MOL
(NSO). NED (No object found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (NSO).
IC 1430 and IC 1431.
POSS. O-833.
Javelle #460. 22hr 04m 48.195s - 13 49' 38.006" (1950).
22hr 07m 29.728s -13 34' 56.654" (2000). (IC 1430) and
#461. 22hr 04m 58.036s - 13 45' 34.599" (1950).
22hr 07m 39.519s - 13 30' 52.906" (2000). (IC 1431).
Both confirmed galaxies : Javelle states that his reference star is DM -14 6219,
however, this is not the star he actually used, which is a different 9.5 Mv star
(GSC 5809-1358), which lies about 01 tmin preceeding DM -14 6219. Due to this his
given coordinates are incorrect and this is reflected in the data found in some of
the modern sources.
The MCG has no listing for IC 1430 and lists IC 1431 as an "ANON." -2-56-015. The
NGC 2000 gives the correct identity and position for IC 1431, however, their
coordinates for IC 1430 are based upon the erroneous historical data and there are
no nonstellar objects at that position they give. The MOL types both identities
as (NSO) but gives them the incorrect Right Ascension values. The PGC has no
listing for IC 1430 but they do correctly identify IC 1431. NED lists both
identities as "There is no object with this name in NED." But they do identify the
correct IC 1430 as NPM1G -13.0561 and the correct IC 1431 as MCG -02-56-15. SIMBAD
has IC 1430 "Not present in the database," but list it as LEDA 936014, and correctly
identoify IC 1431. The APL and Steinicke have the correct identities and
coordinates for both galaxies.
IC 1441.
POSS. O-778.
Bigourdan #233. 22hr 13m 07.375s + 37 03' 14.048" (1950).
22hr 15m 18.573s + 37 18' 11.499" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This proved to be one of the most interesting investigations
of my survey.
MCG incorrectly makes what is IC 5191 to be IC 1441 while identifying the correct
IC 1441 as NGC 7240. Carlson makes IC 1441 = NGC 7240. CGCG, UGC "Notes," APL,
Steinicke, NGC 2000, MOL, DSFG (NOTES to NGC 7240), NED, SIMBAD and PGC have all
correctly identified IC 1441.
Bigourdan observed B.233 on September 1889 and October 1895, however, Barnard,
using the Lick Observatory's 12 inch refractor had observed and sketched the same
field on December 5th, 1888, or almost one year prior to Bigourdan and there is
absolutely no doubt that he was the first person to note the existence of what
became IC 1441, (object e in his sketch). This can easily be confirmed by
comparison of Barnard's field sketch published in ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN
No.4136, P.118. with the Palomar print.
Barnard noted and sketched the relative position of six objects, two of which are
NGC 7240 (Stephan) and NGC 7242 (Stephan) and he was credited by Dreyer in the
IC II with three discoveries, IC 1591, IC 1592 and IC 1593, however he failed to
provide any coordinates for his discoveries which resulted in Dreyer having to
give them common coordinates See (IC II). But why did Barnard not receive credit
for IC 1441 ? The answer is to be found in a NOTE appended to the AN. paper which
states that the paper was not prepared for publication until June 1st, 1897 and
also states under the date August 30th, 1906 that he had put the paper in an
envelope nine years previously but for some unknown reason it had never been put
in the mail. Thus it is quite understandable that at the date of Bigourdan's
discovery Bigourdan could not have been aware of Barnard's earlier observation.
NOTE: Bigourdan gives his reference star a declination about 48 arcsec too far
south.
IC 1448.
POSS. O-1180.
Javelle #472. 22hr 31m 52.716s - 13 11' 34.822" (1950).
22hr 34m 32.213s - 12 56' 03.316" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7308 (Leavenworth). This is one of those unfortunate
situations in which due to the poor coordinates provided by the Leander McCormick
observers for their NGC discoveries later observers were misled into believing
that they were finding new objects. The Leander McCormick position for NGC 7308
was given as 22hr 31.2m -13 14'.6, whereas the Javelle coordinates are its true
position.
The MCG, SIMBAD and PGC correctly equates IC 1448 with NGC 7308 (MCG -2-57-017).
The MOL lists both identities as separate objects and makes no mention of any
equivalency.
The APL, NGC 2000, Steinicke, NED, and PGC correctly make the equivalency.
IC 1450.
POSS. O-778.
Bigourdan #234. 22hr 35m 40.831s + 34 16' 30.745" (1950).
22hr 37m 58.345s + 34 32' 07.835" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Not listed in CGCG, UGC or MCG. Listed as a "Star" in
NGC 2000, MOL and by Carlson. Steinicke and APL have (= *2). NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1452.
POSS. O-800.
Bigourdan #235. 22hr 43m 29.392s + 10 36' 14.806" (1950).
22hr 45m 59.071s + 10 52' 03.758" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG identifies it only as ZWG 430.005 and the MCG only as
+2-58-006 Dreyer incorrectly gives the declination as + 16 35'.2 (1950) or about
6 degrees too large and this is copied by the declinations as given in the NGC
2000 and MOL. Steinicke and APL have the correct identity. The PGC identifies
this galaxy as MCG 2-58-6 = CGCG 430-5 and omits the IC identity. NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED," but does list the identity CGCG
(ZWG. 430.005). SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists it as MCG +02-
58-006.
IC 1457.
POSS. O-811.
Bigourdan #236. 22hr 52m 48.085s - 05 50' 33.144" (1950).
22hr 55m 23.740s - 05 34' 31.750" (2000).
Not found : Unable to find any image at the given coordinates.
Bigourdan published two observations of the immediate field. The first in the
COMPTES RENDUS in which he describes it as "Magnitude 13.5, appears to be a nebula
close to BD -6 6097 which is at PA 140 degrees, distant 1 arcmin." however, I
found nothing at this position. His second published account is in his later work
"OBSERVATIONS." in which he states, "Not able to see this object in any certain
manner." therefore is it possible that as on other occasions he was referring to a
"false image." ?
The NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all identify it as being a star. The PGC and MCG
have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." Steinicke has (Not found). The APL has both equal to a
star ? and Nothing here.
IC 1459.
(See IC 5265).
IC 1462.
POSS. O-821.
Bigourdan #237. 22hr 56m 06.028s + 08 10' 23.031" (1950).
22hr 58m 37.157s + 08 26' 28.388" (2000).
This is either a single or perhaps double star : Here again Bigourdan states
"Object of doubtful aspect and that perhaps it is simply a star." Only modern
listings are Steinicke (=*), APL (* or **). NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: Bigourdan identified his Prime reference star as BD +7.4995, however, it
appears from his coordinates as given for his Secondary reference star (Anon-1)
that the Primary star is actually BD +7.4955.
IC 1463.
POSS. O-826.
Engelhardt. 22hr 56m 43.735s - 10 48' 03.975" (1950).
22hr 59m 20.856s - 10 31' 57.830" (2000).
Not found. Possibly equal to a double star :
At the exact place indicated by Engelhardt's coordinates there are a pair of faint
stars and the NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke have selected these to be what
Engelhardt saw. The only other listings I found were the MOL (May not exist).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and NED (No object found).
IC 1465.
POSS. O-1161.
Bigourdan #238. 23hr 00m 24.624s + 16 18' 47.194" (1950).
23hr 02m 53.424s + 16 34' 57.310" (2000).
This is a double star : Bigourdan made two observations of this object. The
first he described as "Taken for a nebula 13.4 Mv but might be a cluster based on
2 stars the brightest being between 13.3 and 13.4 Mv. After measuring there was
found on the object lens some moisture "
His second observation some 8 years later describes it as "Object stellar,
accompanied perhaps by traces of nebulosity that is almost beyond seeing and whose
existence is doubtful." Listed in the NGC 2000 and MOL and both type it as "Open
cluster." Steinicke has (=*2). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." APL has (***). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1468.
POSS. O-811.
Javelle #482. 23hr 02m 33.078s - 03 28' 31.381" (1950).
23hr 05m 07.785s - 03 12' 18.773" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :Listed in the MCG only as "Anon." = MCG -1-58-019.
Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx). MOL (NSO). RC3, Steinicke,
NED, PGC, SIMBAD and APL.
IC 1477.
POSS. O-306.
Javelle #485. 23hr 14m 36.849s - 07 11' 04.455" (1950).
23hr 17m 12.188s - 06 54' 40.399" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7596 (Leavenworth).
This is just one of a number of cases in which the extremely poor coordinates
furnished for their NGC discoveries by the observers at the Leander McCormick
Observatory later resulted in misleading other observers into thinking they had
discovered previously unseen objects.
Leavenworth published coordinates for NGC 7596 which would have placed it at 23hr
16.1m - 07 11'.4 or about 1.5 tmin following its correct RA and therefore it is
quite obvious that Javelle would have considered his #485 to be an entirely
different object.
IC 1477 fits well the description for NGC 7596 as given by Leavenworth "Pretty
small, mag. 13.5, little elongated in PA 180, little brighter in the middle to a
nucleus."
The MCG gives only the identity IC 1477. The NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) both
give the two identities as separate objects with declinations about 1 arcmin
apart. The PGC, APL, NED and Steinicke have the correct equivalency between IC
1477 and NGC 7596. SIMBAD list both identities but does not indicate that they are
equivalent identities.
IC 1478.
POSS. O-313.
Bigourdan #239. 23hr 15m 42.985s + 10 03' 05.461" (1950).
23hr 18m 14.505s + 10 19' 30.382" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7594 (Common). There is considerable confusion regarding a
number of the identities in this group of galaxies and the major credit for
sorting out the correct identifications belongs to Steve Gottlieb.
The confusion concerns the 4 brightest galaxies for which Dreyer assigned 5
separate identities these being NGC 7549 (Common), IC 1478 (Bigourdan), IC 5305
(Kobold), IC 5306 (Kobold) and IC 5307 (Kobold ).
To begin with Bigourdan mistakenly identifies NGC 7594 for what is actually IC
5307. This was due to Common's poor coordinates as published by Dreyer which
suggested that NGC 7594 would be found at 23hr 15m 54s + 09 55'.3 and IC 5307 has
coordinates of 23hr 15m 46s + 09 57'.5.
The immediate question of course is "Why is this not NGC 7594 ?" and the answer
was arrived at by Gottlieb who pointed out that although Common might have given
poor coordinates for his NGC 7594 his published description ((Copernicus Vol 1,
p.50) reads "F, R, f 3 stars in a line 90 degrees ; pointing to another fainter
neb s." and this is not applicable to IC 5307, however, it completely matches the
description for what Bigourdan thought was a nova (B. 239 = IC 1478) although the
most northern of the 3 stars is actually the galaxy IC 5305. Thus I am in
complete agreement with Gottlieb (Personal correspondence) that IC 1478 is equal
to NGC 7594.
This then poses a couple of interesting historical situations. Having established
that NGC 7594 is the same as IC 1478 then it follows that the "nebs" in Common's
description is another IC galaxy identified as IC 5306 which was reported as a
discovery by Kobold in 1897, however, from Common's description this galaxy was
seen by him prior to the publication of the NGC in 1888 and therefore the credit
for discovery really belongs to Common. Also what Bigourdan had incorrectly taken
to be NGC 7594 turns out to be IC 5307 (Kobold) and Bigourdan's observation was
made in 1889, again predating Kobold's discovery date, therefore the credit for
discovery of IC 5307, although based upon identity error, rightfully belongs to
Bigourdan not Kobold.
The CGCG identifies its ZWG 431.038 only as IC 1478 omitting the equivalency with
NGC 7594, this same omission occurs in the UGC. The MCG incorrectly equates NGC
7594 with IC 5307 and suggests that IC 1478 is equivalent with IC 5306 while the
RC3 by placing its NGC 7594 at 5 arcmins south of its IC 1478 suggests that it has
confused IC 5306 as being NGC 7594, these demonstrate the problems that can arise
from not consulting all of the historical discovery data.
The NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) both list IC 1478 and NGC 7594 as being separate
objects. Meanwhile the PGC is completely in error as they have NGC 7594 = IC 5306
= IC 5307. The RNGC incorrectly select what is IC 5307 as being RNGC 7594 and the
DSFG is in error in stating that IC 1478 lies 4 arcmins north of NGC 7594. The
APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke correctly equate IC 1478 with NGC 7594.
IC 1480.
POSS. O-313.
Bigourdan #240. 23hr 16m 27.963s + 11 03' 56.294" (1950).
23hr 18m 59.298s + 11 20' 21.835" (2000).
This is a double star : Bigourdan described it as "Perhaps a small cluster in
which can be distinguished 2 stars accompanied by nebulosity." Only listings are
Steinicke and APL (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (Open cluster) and MOL (Open cluster).
IC 1481.
POSS. O-316.
Spitaler N.34. 23hr 16m 52.718s + 05 37' 45.532" (1950).
23hr 19m 25.253s + 05 54' 11.409" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U12505.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, RC3, PGC, APL, NED SIMBAD, NGC 2000
(GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1482.
POSS. O-834.
Javelle #487. 23hr 18m 16.087s + 01 27' 54.969" (1950).
23hr 20m 49.519s + 01 44' 21.949" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has incorrectly made its +0-59-30 equal to IC 1482.
This is the "Anon. ZWG 380.039." The correct MCG identity should be +0-59-29.
The PGC (Corrections) correctly reports this error. Correctly identified in the
CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1483 GROUP OF GALAXIES.
POSS. O-313.
Javelle (See below for Numbers and coordinates).
Javelle #798 = IC 1483. 23hr 20m 02.171s + 11 03' 21.976" (1950).
23hr 22m 33.711s + 11 19' 50.223" (2000).
Javelle #799 = IC 1484. 23hr 20m 08.964s + 11 06' 41.478" (1950).
23hr 22m 40.500s + 11 23' 09.808" (2000).
Javelle #800 = IC 1485. 23hr 20m 16.826s + 11 05' 56.295" (1950).
23hr 22m 48.371s + 11 22' 24.721" (2000).
There is absolutely no doubt that these 3 galaxies exist exactly where Javelle
placed them and they can be easily identified by offsetting his separation values
from his reference star which is the 11.5 Mv star, AC #444813 at 23hr 22m 22.173s
+ 11 21' 56.51" (2000).
The first part of the problem is whether IC 1483 and IC 1485 are duplicate
observations of NGC 7638 and NGC 7639 both credited to Common by Dreyer based
upon information Common gives in regards to another discovery NGC 7630.
In his published observations (NEW NEBULAE, Copernicus Vol. 1 P.50) Common after
describing No. 32 on his list which is equal to NGC 7630, remarks "There are 2
similar nebulae within 30 arcmins south following No.32." and The IC 1483
Group lie within this distance, the two brightest being IC 1483 and IC 1485.
Common gave no coordinate data to these 2 nebulae other than his remark and Dreyer
when preparing the NGC just had to guess as to suitable positions so he gave a
combined approximate coordinates to both NGC identities.
Because it is difficult to definitely establish that these are Common's two
nebulae the equivalence with the IC identities is still debatable, however, at
this time I am in favor of listing IC 1483 = NGC 7638 and IC 1485 = NGC 7639.
The CGCG identifies only two of the group and gives only the identities IC 1483
and IC 1485. The MCG also lists only two IC identities , however, what
they list as +2-59-32 = IC 1484 is actually IC 1485. The APL and NED give the
correct equivalent identities. The MOL lists all 5 possible identities each with
different coordinates based upon Dreyer's data as does the NGC 2000.
The PGC equates IC 1483 with NGC 7638 but then equates IC 1484 with NGC 7639 which
I differ with as I believe that the correct equivalency would be IC 1485 = NGC
7639. Steinicke equates IC 1483 with NGC 7638 and IC 1485 with NGC 7639. SIMBAD
correctly identifies the IC identities, but for the equivalents (NGC 7638 and NGC
7639) it states "Not present in the database."
IC 1486.
POSS. O-316.
Bigourdan #241. 23hr 21m 22.088s + 09 22' 35.483" (1950).
23hr 23m 54.029s + 09 39' 04.891" (2000).
Equivalent to NGC 7648 (H 218-3). Wm. Herschel gave a 1950 position for his H218-
3 of 23hr 21m 20s + 09 37' 02" and apparently this was one of Wm. Herschel's
object that was not later re-observed by his son John and therefore his father's
coordinates were copied directly into the GENERAL CATALOGUE (1864) as GC 4953.
The next to observe what he surmised was H218-3 was D'Arrest who also questioned
Herschel's declination value as he gives it as + 09 23'.6, or about 13 arcmin
south.
Stephan in his List IX, #38. gives coordinates of 23hr 21m 21.3s + 09 23' 30", or
essentially the same as D'Arrest. Dreyer evidently agreed with D'Arrest as he
gives exactly the same coordinates in his NGC, 23hr 21m 20s + 09 23'.6 but oddly
enough never states anywhere in his 3 catalogues why he accepted this correction,
however, in his NOTES TO SIR W. HERSCHEL'S FIRST CATALOGUE OF NEBULAE AND CLUSTERS
(1912) he states. " 218 III. P.D. 14' too small. Reductions correct, but probably
an error was made in reading the scale. If 81 be corrected to 91, the nebula
would be 10.5 arcmin south of 58 Pegasi instead of 4 arcmin north."
In the COMPTES RENDUS for April 20th 1891 Bigourdan list as a discovery his B.241
at coordinates of 23hr 21m 21s + 09 23'.6. I can only assume that at the time he
listed this as a Nova he was still debating whether H 218-3 was where both the
Herschels had stated and that Dreyer was in error, however, by the time he
published his OBSERVATIONS (1919) Bigourdan had changed his opinion and fully
agreed that H 218-3 = NGC 7648 was indeed the same object as his B.241, now equal
to IC 1486 and he states this fact in both the unsuccessful attempts he made to
find GC 4953.
I am still a little puzzled that Dreyer did not query whether the two identities
were for one object, however, there can be little doubt that IC 1486 is indeed
equal to NGC 7648.
The CGCG gives only the identification NGC 7468, while the MOL gives both
identities with different coordinates. The UGC, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000, NED,
SIMBAD and the PGC correctly give the equivalency.
IC 1487.
POSS. O-313.
Swift List IX, #99. 23hr 22m 05.891s + 14 21' 50.962" (1950).
23hr 24m 36.904s + 14 38' 20.649" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :
To begin. Swift reported discovery of a nebula on Oct. 15th 1887 describing it as
"eeeF, pS, iR, 8 mag. * follows, F* nr.nf, not 4659." His position for this
galaxy after precession by employing NED's Coordinate Calculator would be as shown
above.
Dreyer in his NGC/IC, page 378, has a correction to Swift's description supplied
by Howe which reads "For * 8 f read * 7 p 15s, 9' s". Actually the original
correction as given by Howe is " (IC 1487). The F * nf is of mag. 12, and is
close to the nebula. There is a star of mag. 11.5 at about the same distance
south preceding. The "* 8 F" must be a long way off, as I saw no such star in the
vicinity. There is a star of mag. 7, which precedes about 15 seconds, 9'.2
south"
Thus we have Howe reporting an observation of what he believes is Swift's #99 and
examination of both the Palomar print and the DSS shows clearly Swift's #96 = NGC
7649 (List VI, #96) and south following is the image of what Howe identifies as
being Swift #99 = IC 1487. This can be definitely established by employing Howe's
offsets to the 7 mag. star south preceding.
Swift had discovered NGC 7649 in 1886 and the NED Calculator precessed coordinates
for Swift's given coordinates are 23hr 21m 45.920s + 14 22' 23.272" (1950) or 23hr
24m 16.907s + 14 38' 52.750" (2000), this gives separation values between the two
galaxies of 20.971 tsec RA and 33.310 arcsec Dec. (based upon the 1950 positions).
The NED precise position for NGC 7649 is 23hr 21m 49.128s + 14 22' 20.39" (1950)
and when Swift's separation values are applied the resultant precise coordinates
for his IC 1487 would be 23hr 22m 10.099s + 14 21' 47.08" (1950) and this is
exactly where Howe's candidate for the identity IC 1487 is located, therefore I
see no reason to consider that it is anything other than Swift's Object #99 = IC
1487.
The CGCG, UGC (Notes to U12579 = NGC 7649) NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG all identify
these two galaxies as being NGC 7649 and IC 1487 respectively, however, the MCG
(+2-59-37), RC3 and apparently the PGC (#71356) have identified a galaxy
having a declination about 2 arcmins NORTH of NGC 7649 as being IC 1487, while the
APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED equate IC 1487 with NGC 7649.
Dr. Harold Corwin again at my request examined the problem and through a series of
e-mail presented to me his findings which suggest to him that IC 1487 is equal to
NGC 7649. The main points of his argument are
(1). "Of the two stars close to Howe's galaxy, the brighter is the one to the
south-west. Yet the only star "near" the galaxy that Swift describes is north-
east. Why does Swift not also comment on the brighter star?"
(2). "Howe was unable to find Swift's 8th mag star following the galaxy, but
instead refers to the 7th magnitude star 9 arcmin west. Swift does not mention
this star in his description (though it might well have; it is closer to the
galaxy than a star he does mention."
(3). "There is a star just under 3 arcmin to the north -east of NGC 7649.
Remembering that Swift was observing with a telescope/eyepiece combination that
gave a field of 32 arcmin across, this star certainly qualifies as "near"
the galaxy since it is less than 10 percent of the field diameter away."
(4). "The 8th magnitude star Swift notes is about 10 arcmin east and 1.5 arcmin
north of NGC 7649. Again this is well within his field of view."
I would disagree that the star Dr. Corwin refers to is of 8th mag. It is GSC
1168-1083 and has a Mp mag. of 10.702 in Tycho 2, or a Mp of 10.81 (NED),
therefore I accept that it is more likely that Howe's 7th magnitude star is the
one Swift mentions, only he has the direction reversed, something he has done on
other occasions.
(5). "The quality of Swift's positions is erratic, and I (Dr. Corwin) always give
them lower weight than his descriptions and notes, especially where he mentions
nearby field stars."
(6). "Also, since Swift does not mention NGC 7649 in his observation of IC 1487,
we may assume that he was not aware of it during the later observation."
Thus the authorities are divided as to the correct identity of IC 1487.
I believe that the galaxy ZWG. 431-056, the one Howe identifies as being IC 1487
is Swift's Object #99, List IX.
IC 1488.
POSS. O-313.
Javelle #801. 23hr 23m 07.880s + 15 04' 46.285" (1950).
23hr 25m 38.833s + 15 21' 16.661" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The entire credit for solving the identity of IC 1488 belongs
to some outstanding investigations made by Dr. Harold Corwin who at my request
examined the problem and unearthed the key clue to establish without doubt the
valid independent identity of this galaxy.
Javelle obtained the position of his #801 by offsetting from a reference star he
believed to be the 9th magnitude star DM +14 4992, measuring separations from his
reference star of + 1 tmin 30.93 tsecs and + 0' 22".8 (corrected for NPD). which
from the coordinates he gives for his reference star would place his object about
2.5 arcmins directly north of NGC 7653. At this position there is no nebular
image visible and because of this the MCG, PGC, NGC 2000 (No Type), SIMBAD and NED
have equated IC 1488 with NGC 7653 while the UGC gives IC 1488 = NGC 7653 ? even
though in a footnote to his description Javelle states "Distinct from NGC 7653 which
was measured."
Because of this statement I was reluctant to accept the modern equivalent identity
but was unable to offer a valid solution and it was now that Dr. Corwin found the
answer to the problem which resulted from his checking on the supposed DM
reference star.
By starting with the original 1855 coordinates for DM +14 4992 he found out
through precession that from its 1950 position by applying Javelle's separation
values IC 1488 would be at 23hr 25m 31s + 15 00' 17" which is not anywhere near to
NGC 7653, therefore Javelle must have identified his reference star incorrectly.
Next he found that there is a star, DM +14 4982 which would give better agreement
with Javelle's stated position, however, this star has a magnitude of 11.4 which
Javelle would not have mistaken for a 9th magnitude star such as he made his
measurements from, therefore were there any other possibilities ?
Corwin noticed that in the same field as NGC 7653, but not at the coordinates as
given by Javelle, there were 2 elongated galaxies, one being UGC 12590 and a
fainter uncatalogued one and when he applied Javelle's offsets to this fainter
galaxy he was within 8-9 arcsec of a 9.4 magnitude star, DM + 14 4986 equal to AC
#618377. Furthermore, this galaxy is extended in a PA closely in keeping with
Javelle's description which states, elongated in the direction of the meridian
(north and south).
I think that there can be no doubt that Corwin has admirably demonstrated that
Javelle mistakenly confused what is DM +14 4992 for what is actually DM +14 4986
and that the extended galaxy pointed out by Corwin is what Javelle observed and
identified as his # 801. Therefore IC 1488 is an entirely separate galaxy from
NGC 7653 and the above modern authorities are incorrect, while although the MOL
shows IC 1488 at the incorrect Dreyer coordinates while also having a
typographical error in that it identifies IC 1488 as IC 1788.
Steinicke has correctly identified IC 1488.
IC 1490.
POSS. O-306.
Swift List X, #52. 23hr 26m 28.353s - 04 24' 29.371" (1950).
23hr 29m 02.810s - 04 07' 56.715" (2000).
(See IC 1524).
IC 1495.
POSS. O-1152.
Javelle #491. 23hr 28m 11.116s - 13 45' 40.135" (1950).
23hr 30m 47.024s - 13 29' 06.450" (2000).
This is equal to IC 5327 (Barnard) :
Barnard gave coordinates of 23hr 27m 43s - 13 51'.5 for IC 5327, however, his
description about the 11th magnitude star 1 arcmin following is a perfect match
for IC 1495 and it was probably due to his poorly arrived at coordinates that made
him think he had discovered a nova.
The MCG and NED give the single identity IC 1495 and NED has for IC 5327 "No Object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD correctly equates both identities. The NGC 2000 and
MOL both give the two identities as separate and also at the historical positions.
The RC3, PGC, APL and Steinicke all have the correct equivalency.
IC 1497.
POSS. O-313.
Bigourdan #242. 23hr 26m 18.298s +11 42' 40.101" (1950).
23hr 28m 50.083s +11 59' 12.625" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At the position as given by Bigourdan there is no nonstellar
image. Bigourdan employed as his reference star the 8.5 Mv W1-424 which is equal
to AC #445493 at 23hr 28m 40.709s +11 56' 43.99" (2000). His offsets are + 9.37
tsec RA and +2 arcmin 28.4 arcsec Dec. which results in a position for his #242 of
23hr 28m 50.079s +11 59' 12.39" (2000).
Only other listings found were APL and Steinicke (Not found), NGC 2000 (No type) and
MOL NSO).
NOTE: Bigourdan first published this object's discovery in COMPTES RENDUS.APRIL
20TH 1891, in which he gives it coordinates of 23hr 28m 52.9s + 12 00' 45.178"
(1950), which are considerably different than those as given in his later
OBSERVATIONS. However, at neither nominal position is there the image of any
nonstellar object. NED has "there is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 1499.
POSS. O-788.
Javelle #492. 23hr 29m 20.889s - 13 43' 06.779" (1950).
23hr 31m 56.709s - 13 26' 32.433" (2000).
Not found : The closest image to Javelle's position is a faint double star and
the NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke have each identified this double star as being IC
1499 and this may very well be correct, however, I at this time withhold
acceptance only due to Javelle's description which is "Pretty bright, Pretty
large, Irregular figure," which to me does not sound like what Javelle would have
stated if he was referring to the double star in question especially as he had
just minutes previously discovered IC 1495 (measured from the same reference star)
and described it as "F, S, lbM."
The only other modern listings found were MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1502.
POSS. O-1210.
Swift List X,#56. 23hr 34m 13.647s + 75 22' 42.357" (1950).
23hr 36m 19.594s + 75 39' 18.832" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC incorrectly identifies its U12105, 22hr 34.2m + 75
23'.0 as being IC 1502 while also correctly identifying its U12706, 23hr 34.1m +
75 23'.0 as being IC 1502. This error is pointed out in the PGC. The CGCG, APL,
PGC, Steinicke, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO) correctly identify
IC 1502 while the DSFG has no listing.
IC 1508.
POSS. O-318.
Javelle #803. 23hr 43m 22.456s + 11 47' 03.017" (1950).
23hr 45m 55.273s + 12 03' 43.262" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as + 2-60-16. Correctly identified in
CGCG, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, Steinieke, UGC, PGC, APL, NGC 2000 and MOL.
IC 1511.
POSS. O-779. Bigourdan #243. 23hr 48m 28.154s + 26 47' 08.239" (1950).
23hr 51m 00.399s + 27 03' 49.682" (2000).
It is the north following component of a coarse double star: Bigourdan employed
the south preceding component as his reference star (Anon.b2. Mv. 12.5 equal to
GSC2.2 12323237). CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, SIMBAD and PGC all equate IC
1511 with NGC 7767, however, Bigourdan was not confusing NGC 7767 which he also
observed and measured during the same observation. He placed B.243 to be 6s
following and 2' 8" south of NGC 7767. Correctly identified in the APL and
Steinicke as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
IC 1512.
POSS. O-779.
Bigourdan #244. 23hr 48m 29.386s + 26 44' 59.017"(1950).
23hr 51m 01.637s + 27 01' 40.465" (2000).
Equal to a 13 mag. star : Described as such by Bigourdan and that he thought that
perhaps it had accompanying nebulosity. CGCG, UGC MCG have no listing for this
identity. NGC 2000 gives no Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and
Steinicke give (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 1513.
POSS. O-318.
Javelle #804. 23hr 50m 56.237s +11 02' 21.139" (1950).
23hr 53m 29.548s + 11 19' 03.065" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as + 2-60-24. Correctly identified
in the CGCG, UGC, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO)
and DSFG(Notes to NGC 7774).
IC 1514.
POSS. O-788.
Palisa. 23hr 51m 41.921s - 13 51' 57.788" (1950).
23hr 54m 16.169s - 13 35' 15.589" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7776 (Stone).
Another of the Leander McCormick errors. Stone's coordinates for NGC 7776 are
23hr 47.1m and-13 40'.0 (+ or -), (1950), which are about as inaccurate as can be
expected even from this source. The only evidence to make the equivalency that I
am aware of is that Stone gave NGC 7776 a major axis PA of 315 degrees and IC 1514
has a similar PA. This plus the expected inaccuracy of the Stone positional data
pretty well establishes the equivalency.
The NGC 2000 gives both identities at their historical coordinates, typing IC 1514
as (Gx) and NGC 7776 as (nonexistent?). The MOL also gives the historical
coordinates for both identities while making IC 1514 (NSO) and NGC 7776 (Non-
existing object). The MCG identifies its -2-60-22 only as IC 1514 while equating
NGC 7776 incorrectly with NGC 7761 = IC 5361 (which see). The APL, PGC and
Steinicke have the correct identities which equate IC 1514 with NGC 7776. NED
lists the identity IC 1514 and equates it with NGC 7776. SIMBAD gives the two
identities for the same object, however, they do not indicate that they are
equivalents.
IC 1523.
(See IC 5368).
IC 1524.
POSS. O-1198.
Safford #87. 23hr 56m 56.996s - 04 26' 10.661" (1950).
23hr 59m 30.786s - 04 09' 16.107" (2000).
Equal to IC 1490 (Swift List X, #52). : Safford saw only one object in the field
which is the northern of two galaxies having almost identical RA and separated by
about 4 arcmin declination. Unfortunately he omitted to give any description,
however, the more northern of the pair is brighter by about 1.5 magnitude (MCG)
and therefore the more likely candidate.
Swift gives his discovery a 1950 position of 23hr 26m 28.353s - 04 24' 29.371'
which is an error in RA of roughly 30 tmin, which Dr. Corwin believes results from
a typographical error in his published data and with which I am now in agreement.
As Corwin points out Swift's description, "vF star close north, 6 pB stars of
equal magnitude preceding," nails down the correct identity of IC 1490 and it is
the same galaxy as Safford found, namely IC 1524.
The MCG lists both galaxies identifying its -1-1-012 as being IC 1524, however,
this is the galaxy to the south, while the correct IC 1524 is actually MCG -1-1-
011, at about 4 arcmin north at coordinates of 23hr 56m 37.7s - 04 24' 18". The
RC3 and PGC both incorrectly make IC 1524 equal to the southern of the two
galaxies and state that it is equal to MCG -1-1-012 , and the NGC 2000 gives the
declination as -04 25'.7 and the MOL (NSO) as -04 25' 56" both being closer to the
correct object.
The APL has the correct identity and coordinates. NED and SIMBAD appears to be the
only one who not only has the correct coordinates but also points out correctly that
IC 1524 is equal to MCG -1-1-011 and not MCG -1-10-012. Steinicke has the correct
IC 1524 (northern) galaxy but equates it with MCG -1-1-012. He correctly identifies
IC 1490.
IC 1525.
POSS. O- 839.
Swift List IX,#100. 23hr 57m 27.870s + 46 35' 50.510" (1950).
01hr 00m 01.235s + 46 52' 32.809" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift's RA off by about 44 tsec too large. Incorrectly listed
in MCG as + 8-1-17, should be + 8-1-16. RC3 Notes make IC 1525 = MCG + 8-1-16.
CGCG, UGC, APL, Steinicke, PGC, NGC 2000, MO, NED and PGC correct. SIMBAD
incorrectly equates it with MCG+08-01-017.
IC 1528.
POSS. O-1198.
Safford #88. 00hr 02m 30.774s - 07 23' 46.344" (1950).
00hr 05m 04.382s - 07 07' 03.838" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: To begin with Dreyer in the IC I incorrectly gives the 1860
declination for IC 1528 as - 03 53.8 (93 53'.8 NPD) but Safford in his published
list gives the 1950 declination as - 07 23'.7 or 4 degrees farther south.
Dreyer's error can be verified as in a Special Appendix to the NGC (pps 235-237)
Dreyer correctly lists the 1860 declination as -07 53'.8.
Due to Dreyer's error the NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) give it declination values
based upon Dreyer's IC I. Steinicke has correct identity and gives the correct
declination based on Safford's data.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." However, they do identify it
as MCG -01-01-028 at 00hr 02m 31.744s - 07 22' 18.57 (1950).
The MCG identifies it as an "Anon.= -01-01-028 and PGC identifies it only as PGC
000312 = MCG -01-01-028. APL has correct identity. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but identify the correct object as MCG-01-01-028.
IC 1530. POSS. O-1257.
Bigourdan #357. 00hr 04m 44.785s + 32 19' 51.696" (1950).
00hr 07m 19.667s + 32 36' 33.687" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7831 (Swift List II, #1) : CGCG , UGC and MCG identify
only as IC 1530. NGC 2000 and MOL list both as separate galaxies. The PGC,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and APL correctly give the equivalency. RC3 gives only NGC
7831.
NOTE: Bigourdan searched for NGC 7831 at Dreyer's and Swift's given coordinates
and states that he was unsuccessful, adding that at 59 tsec following the NGC
position for NGC 7831 was where his # 357 existed.
IC 1533.
POSS. O-1198.
Swift List XII, #2. 00hr 08m 03.368s - 07 41' 36.207" (1950).
00hr 10m 36.762s - 07 24' 54.519" (2000).
Not found : Nothing in the vicinity. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No
Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the
database" and APL which states (Not found at nominal position. Possibly = MCG -1-1-
44?), however, it should be pointed out that the MCG gives this galaxy the position
of 00hr 07.75m - 07 22'.0
IC 1537.
Swift List XI, #2. 00hr 13m 30.672s - 39 35' 31.202" (1950).
00hr 16m 00.889s - 39 18' 50.527" (2000).
This is a large bright region in the south following part of the large galaxy NGC
55 (Dunlop).
As Swift evidently was unable to see the nebulous connection between his Nova and
the bright central part of NGC 55 he must have concluded that his #2 was an
entirely separate object. Photographs of NGC 55 clearly show the object he is
referring to and it lies within the following broad extension.
The NGC 2000 gives no type and the MOL gives NSO. Neither mention any association
as part of NGC 55. The APL, Steinicke, ESO and DSFG correctly list it as a part
of NGC 55. The PGC equates it with ESO294-1. NED types it as being a galaxy with
a NOTE "Eastern portion of NGC 0055." SIMBAD types it as "Galaxy" in NGC 55
IC 1538.
POSS. O-1257.
Bigourdan #358. 00hr 15m 24.706s + 29 45' 09.565" (1950).
00hr 18m 01.266s + 30 01' 49.262" (2000).
Not found. : No nebular image at the coordinates obtained by offsetting from
Bigourdan's reference object (NGC 68). Carlson in her 1940 paper lists it as
being a star.
The NGC 2000 Types it as [?] while the MOL states "May not exist." The CGCG,
MCG, UGC and RC3 correctly have no listing for this identity. Steinicke has (Not
found). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." APL has "Not found at
nominal position". SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1539.
POSS. O-1257.
Bigourdan #359. 00hr 15m 46.776s + 29 48' 29.460" (1950).
00hr 18m 23.404s + 30 05' 09.038" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 70 discovered by Lord Rosse : Both the
MCG and RC3 give only the identity NGC 70 without mentioning the equivalency. The
CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000, MOL, NED, SIMBAD and UGC all show IC 1539 = NGC 70
as do both Carlson and the PGC.
IC 1547.
POSS. O-1188.
Bigourdan #360. 00hr 18m 59.449s + 22 18' 48.564" (1950).
00hr 21m 35.688s + 22 35' 27.813" (2000).
IC 1547 Field:
North is up and Preceding right.
Possible identity:
For his Object #360 (IC 1547) his reference star is called "J" and it is equal to
a 12th Rmag star listed in GSC 2.2 as being N3231023374 at 00hr 21m 39.668 + 22 32'
55.23 (2000) which when precessed back to the year 1897, the discovery date for his
Object #360, results in coordinates for the star of 00hr 16m 18.387s +21 58' 38.111"
From this position Bigourdan's estimated (not measured), offsets are - 4 tsec RA
and - 2 arcmin 32 arcsec Dec. or coordinates of 00hr 16m 14.387s + 21 56' 06.111"
(1897) or 00hr 21m 35.688 + 22 30' 23.23s (2000), at which position no image
exists, however, if his declination offset sign is changed to + 2 arcmin 32 arcsec
then the 1897 position for IC 1547 becomes 00hr 16m 14.387 +22 01' 10.111" or 00hr
21m 35.664s + 22 35' 27.813" (2000) and these land just off the south following
tip of an extended spiral listed in the MCG as +04-02-010 and in the PGC as
#001384.
NED gives this galaxy coordinates of 00h 21m 33.70s + 22 35' 35.2 (2000) and it is
this galaxy that I believe is what Bigourdan may have seen and recorded as being
Object #360 equal to IC 1547. It is an 15.8 magnitude galaxy and thus just within
the capabilities of Bigourdan's telescope.
Only listings for the identity IC 1547 are NGC 2000 (?). MOL (May not exist).
Carlson (Not found on Mt. Wilson plate), Steinicke and NED (Not found) and APL
(Not found at nominal position). The RNGC, PGC and Simbad have incorrectly
identified the galaxy MCG +04-02-010 as being NGC 84, which is actually only a star.
IC 1554.
Stewart #110. 00hr 30m 22.255s - 32 18' 25.857" (1950).
00hr 32m 50.233s - 32 01' 52.649" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Stewart describes this as "vF, vS, eeE at 170-175
degrees, sbM," however, at his position no such object exists.
The APL (GHD2) identifies IC 1554 as a galaxy at 00hr 30m 39.5s - 32 32' 04" and
this same galaxy is also identified as being IC 1554 by the NGC 2000, PGC, MOL,
NED, SIMBAD and the ESO who also equates it with the MCG "Anon." -5-2-015.
Steinicke has (Not found).
In order for this to be Stewart's object it would require that he made an error of
almost 14 arcmin, something that would be extremely unusual for him, also the
galaxy identified as being IC 1554 by the above modern authorities does not
resemble Stewart's description, especially as to the position angle of the major
axis.
NOTE: After examining the galaxy selected as being IC 1554 by the modern
authorities I expressed my doubts of its validity to Dr. Harold Corwin and he has
informed me that now he also doubts that it is what Stewart was describing and
that he now also will list IC 1554 as being Not found.
IC 1556.
POSS. O-1203.
Swift List XI, #4. 00hr 32m 32.041s - 09 50' 27.081" (1950).
00hr 35m 04.114s - 09 33' 55.443" (2000).
Not found : At the coordinates as given by Swift there is no nebular image,
however, the APL has suggested a candidate at a declination of -09 38' 35" which
is not excessively out of line when dealing with many of Swift's given positions.
The only other modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist). Steinicke,
SIMBAD and NED (Not found).
IC 1557.
POSS. O-314.
Howe List III, #1 00hr 33m 01.110s - 03 09' 09.366" (1950).
00hr 35m 34.337s - 02 52' 38.046" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG, NGC 2000 and PGC incorrectly equate this identity
with NGC 161 and the MCG additionally incorrectly makes its -1-2-36 = NGC 161 = IC
1557 and its -1-2-37 = Anon., but it is this Anon. that is the correct IC 1557.
The PGC also makes MCG -1-2-37 = Anon.
Howe describes IC 1557 as being in the same field as NGC 161 pointing out that it
is "Attended by a star of mag. 14, a trifle south, and by another, which follows
the nebula closely," and this is exactly what one finds on the DSS for the galaxy
MCG -1-2-37.
The MOL (NSO), APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke correctly show IC 1557 to be a
separate galaxy from NGC 161.
IC 1559.
POSS. O-1188.
Bigourdan #245. 00hr 34m 13.108s + 23 42' 33.600." (1950).
00hr 36m 51.431s + 23 59' 03.959" (2000).
This galaxy makes up part of a double system with NGC 169 (D'Arrest & Rosse) :
Dreyer in the IC II credits it to Lord Rosse, Bigourdan and Javelle (J.819).
Although it is identified only by its IC number there can be no doubt that
it was first recorded by Rosse on September 18th, 1857 which means that it should
have received a separate NGC identity, instead it will have to remain as an IC
object, however, Dreyer later realizing this omission did at least credit Rosse in
his IC II.
The CGCG gives NGC 169 + IC 1559. UCG lists as in contact with NGC 169 while the
RC3 makes it a close pair with NGC 169. MCG identifies it as 169 b and the DSFG
"Notes" make it = 169 a. NGC 2000 and MOL give correct identity. APL, PGC, NED
and Steinicke have correct identity. SIMBAD incorrectly equate it with NGC 169.
NOTE: Bigourdan gives his declination offset from what he describes as "Nucleus
A", which is NGC 169, as + 0.21.9 arcsec, this should be changed to read - 0.21.9
arcsec.
IC 1560.
POSS. O-591.
Bigourdan #361. 00hr 35m 04.514s + 02 23' 10.855" (1950).
00hr 37m 38.731s + 02 39' 40.792" (2000).
Not found : Could not detect any nebular image at Bigourdan's nominal position.
Bigourdan in his description queries whether it might be NGC 164, however, I think
that this is unlikely.
Only listings are APL (Nothing here,possibly = NGC 164 ?)., Steinicke and NED (Not
found), NGC
2000 (No Type) = NGC164? and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1567.
POSS. O-915.
Howe. 00hr 36m 59.767s + 06 20' 30.091" (1950).
00hr 39m 34.783s + 06 36' 58.624" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At Howe's declination position no nebular image exists and
Howe states that in an attempt to see it some 2 years later he was unsuccessful.,
however in a notation he adds that this object, with 3 others he lists, were not
included in his regular list due to their positions not being very accurate. Only
modern listings are Steinicke who equates it with a faint galaxy (Leda 073395 at
00hr 37m 01.69s + 06 23'26" Mp 15.0), (1950), or about 2.9 arcmin north of Howe's
position and this certainly is a most viable candidate. The APL equates it with IC
1565. Only other listings are NED "There is no object with this name in NED." but
they do list LEDA 073395. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
NOTE: In Steinicke's latest update he now equates IC 1567 with IC 1565.
IC 1570.
POSS. O-915.
Javelle #824. 00hr 37m 58.944s + 06 28' 46.201" (1950).
00hr 40m 34.020s + 06 45' 14.023" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MOL has a typographical error in its declination value
giving it as + 09 28' 48". NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
while listing the correct object as LEDA 073426. Only other listings are NGC
2000 (No Type),SIMBAD "Not present in the database," but lists it as [D80]ACO7623.
APL and Steinicke all at the correct coordinates.
IC 1572.
POSS. O-903.
Bigourdan #363. 00hr 38m 34.757s + 16 11' 42.194" (1950).
00hr 41m 11.906s + 16 28' 09.501" (2000).
This is a star located just off the south following end of NGC 213 :
Bigourdan's reference star is equal to GSC2.2 #N3231111293 at 00hr 41m 09.345s +
16 21' 11.57s (2000) and Bigourdan's offsets are given as + 2.5 tsec RA and - 6
arcmin 58 arcsec Dec. at which position no image is found, however, by reversing
the declination offset to read + 6 arcmin 58 arcsec the position lands on the star
immediately off the south following end of NGC 213.
Bigourdan states in his observational description that his #363 lies a little in
front of NGC 213, and this combined with the reversed declination offset sign
suggests to me that he was confused as to the orientation of the field as the star
is actually a little "behind" NGC 213, this being confirmed by the reduction
figures working from his primary reference star (BD +15 101) through his secondary
reference star (Anon. 2 equal to GSC2.2 #N3231111293), plus his offsets and the
DSS photograph.
Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*). APL and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO), also the MOL has a typographical error in the identity giving it
incorrectly as IC 1872. SIMBAD "Not present in the datacase."
IC 1577.
POSS. O-1206.
Barnard. 00hr 42m 04.356s - 08 24'40.980" (1950).
00hr 44m 36.269s - 08 08' 16.174" (2000). (Dreyer).
No nebular image at the nominal position : There is a good possibility that this
is equal to IC 48 which is also credited to Barnard and this equivalency is
presented by Dr. Corwin in his IC CORRECTIONS (which see). Steinicke also in his
IC DATABASE FILES makes this same equivalency. The PGC also equates IC 1577 with
IC 48 as does NED. Only other modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO) both giving the Dreyer based coordinates. SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 1580.
POSS.O-601.
Bigourdan #364. 00hr 43m 40.169s + 29 40' 05.085" (1950).
00hr 46m 21.397s + 29 56' 28.171" (2000).
This is a double star :
Bigourdan states that his reference star is BD +29 133 and gives it coordinates
derived from the Bonner Durchmunsterung that would compute to 00hr 46m 20.079s +29
53' 06.305 (2000), however, there is a 1 arcmin too large error in the declination
which is reflected in Bigourdan's data.
When the field is examined BD +29 133 (equal to AC #860223 at 00hr 46m 20.566s +
29 52' 01.45" (2000).), is easily found and when Bigourdan's offsets are applied
(- 0.8 tsec RA and + 2 arcmin Dec) they land on a blank space, but there is
another star (AC #860229 at 00hr 46m 22.183s + 29 54' 28.15 2000.)) of similar
magnitude and when the same offsets are applied to this star they land on a double
star.
The southern of the two stars is definitely BD +29 133 but I believe that
Bigourdan was actually employing as his reference star the northern of the pair as
he states in his description that the reference star has a companion of 9.5 Mv.
Situated at - 2 tsec RA and -2,5 arcmin Dec. which clearly demonstrates that he is
employing as his reference star the more northern star, which makes his #364 equal
to the double star.
NGC 2000 gives no Type while the MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). It is not
listed in any of the other catalogues other than the original IC II, Steinicke
(= *2). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL identifies it as **, but give a
declination about 1 arcmin 13 arcsec too far south.
IC 1583.
POSS O-857.
Javelle #826. 00hr 44m 31.346s + 22 48'03.972" (1950).
00hr 47m 10.726s + 23 04' 26.371" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +4-3-1. Correctly listed in CGCG, PGC,
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Not listed in UGC.
IC 1589.
Swift List XI, #6. 00hr 49m 08.969s - 34 44' 09.624" (1950).
00hr 51m 32.675s - 34 27' 50.983" (2000).
This is a double star : Swift gives a very interesting Note in his List XI
concerning this discovery and another, his #27 (IC 1740, which see). It reads
"These are very singular nebulae, and are new experiences to me. They resemble a
pretty bright double star, each component being an exceedingly small nebulous
disk, like an imaginary double nebulous Uranus, distant about 5 or 6 arcsec."
When Swift's coordinates are produced on the DSS they show only a blank space with
a very faint star close, however, at about 26 tsec following and about 2.5 arcmin
north there is a beautiful double star, easily visible whose components are almost
touching and they are of similar magnitude and it is my belief that this is what
Swift is referring to as his #6 = IC 1589.
It should be remembered that the latitude from which he was observing at this time
he gives as - 34 20', which means that the area he was examining would be at a
very low elevation and therefore it would not likely give the clearest of images
and that such an effect could produce an image of this double star fitting his
description.
The NGC 2000 lists IC 1589 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL, Steinicke
and ESO each correctly make IC 1589 = **. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1591.
POSS. O-1199.
Stewart #123. 00hr 49m 39.668s - 22 56' 40.063" (1950).
00hr 52m 07.233s - 22 40' 22.069" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 276 (Muller II) : Again this is an example
of the poor positional data which shows that Muller's RA is in error by being
about 01.1 tmin too small, thus misleading both Stewart and Dreyer. The
equivalency is correctly listed in the MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, APL, SIMBAD, NED, ESO and
Steinicke. The MOL gives no equivalency but does give the same coordinates to
both identities.
IC 1593.
POSS.O-601.
Bigourdan #367. 00hr 51m 56.369s + 32 14' 54.895" (1950).
00hr 54m 39.894s + 32 31' 10.236" (2000).
It is a double star whose components appear visually to be in contact : Bigourdan
describes it as between 13.4 and 13.5 Mv and that it is without detail, also
describing the sky condition as bad, making the observation in poor conditions.
The NGC 2000 (No Type), APL and Steinicke = **. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." and the MOL has (Nonstellar Object). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 1601.
POSS. O-1199.
Stewart #129. 00hr 53m 08.780s - 24 25' 43.380" (1950).
00hr 55m 35.444s - 24 09' 28.829" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy ; The MCG incorrectly places its IC 1601 (-4-03-032) as being 0.1
m of RA preceding the companion galaxy (-4-03-033). It should be following the
companion. The APL,NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, SIMBAD, RC3 and ESO have the correct
data.
IC 1604.
POSS. O-906.
Swift List XII, #4. 00hr 55m 28,902s - 16 43' 45.784" ??? (1950).
00hr 57m 57.774s - 16 27' 33.758" ??? (2000).
Not found : There would appear to be several differences of opinion on this
identity. At Swift's given coordinates there is no nebular image, however,
Swift's description "pF, vS, 7.5 mag star north preceding, F * near south
preceding" does give the investigator something with which to work. Dr. Corwin in
his APL states "Not found" and coordinates of 00hr 55.5m -16 30' (1950)
Meanwhile the MCG gives -3-3-09 = IC 1604 ? at 00hr 55.0m - 16 47.0' NED gives 00hr
55m 30s -16 30.0' (1950) and a NOTE stating "Nominal position; no galaxy nearby
matches IC description." SIMBAD has IC 1604 GALAXY, and equates it with IRAS
F00548-1646 and 1950 coordinates 00hr 54m 50s -16 46.9', however, there is no
nonstellar image visible on the DSS. The MOL gives (NSO) at 00hr 55m 29s -
16 31'.0 Steinicke and APL give (Not found), while Dreyer questions whether IC 1604
might possibly be a duplicate observation of NGC 333 which he gives a position of
00hr 56m 21s - 16 48'.8
IC 1606.
POSS. O-1204.
Swift List XI, #7. 00hr 55m 52.119s - 12 26' 58.095" (1950).
O0hr 58m 22.270s - 12 10' 46.537" (2000).
Nothing found at nominal position : Only modern listings are APL (Nominal
Position, nothing here), Steinicke (Not found), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 1613.
POSS. O-1196.
Wolf (no number). 01hr 00m 37.282s + 01 41' 06.068 (1950). (Dreyer).
01hr 03m 11.597s + 01 57' 12.279" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : A very unusual looking galaxy due to it being a low surface
brightness Irregular belonging to the Local Group. It is very large and shows a
large number of resolved stars, therefore it is difficult to give an exact
position for it , the best is probably that as given in the APL which is 1hr 02m
13.4s + 01 51'.00" I can only assume that Dreyer obtained his coordinates from
Wolf but they are off significantly, not landing on any part of the galaxy.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, MCG, UGC, PGC, APL, SIMBAD, Steinicke, NED, RC3,
NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). The error only involving the Dreyer positional data.
IC 1627.
Stewart #140. 01hr 06m 01.848s - 46 31' 57.704" (1950).
01hr 08m 15.330s - 46 15' 57.571" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no nebular image exists, the closest image
is that of a 11th mag. star, however, the APL, PGC, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx),
Steinicke, NED and the ESO have each identified the galaxy ESO 243-G034 at 01hr 05m
57s - 46 21'.6 as being IC 1627 and this galaxy does fit Stewart's description "veE,
PA of major axis 135 degrees" and therefore is an excellent candidate.
Although Stewart's normal level of positional error would be much less than the 10
arcmin required here it is conceivable that perhaps this is a typographical error.
The MOL has (NSO, at the historical coordinates).
IC 1639.
POSS. O-1259.
Javelle #840. 01hr 09m 13.153s - 00 55' 47.324" (1950).
01hr 11m 46.621s - 00 39' 51.875" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has incorrectly identified its 0-4-31 as being IC
1640 but this is IC 1639. This error pointed out in the Notes to U00750 in the UGC.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, UGC, NGC 2000
(Gx), MOL (Galaxy), and RC3.
IC 1640.
(See IC 1639).
IC 1642.
POSS. O-635.
Javelle #842. 01hr 09m 48.456s + 15 29' 06.426" (1950).
01hr 12m 27.916s + 15 45' 00.942" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1645 (Javelle #844) : Javelle observed IC 1642 only once and
that was on January 29th 1897 while for IC 1645 he has two observations, November
24th and December 17th of 1897, or almost 1 year later.
For IC 1642 he employed as a reference star DM +14 188, however, its position is
not too accurate thus Javelle's position for his nova is also off. DM +14 188 is
equal to AC #453770 whose position for 1897, (the year of Javelle's discovery)
would be 01hr 07m 43.243s + 15 12' 00.334" and when Javelle's offsets (-0 tmin
43.370 tsec RA and 0 arcmin 10.600 arcsec north) are applied and the result then
precessed to the year 1950 they land on the same galaxy as IC 1645 at 01hr 09m
48.456s + 15 29' 06.426"
For IC 1645 he used the star DM +14 175 and when his separation are applied for
both observations of this object they also land on the same galaxy, therefore the
equivalency is correct and historically speaking the correct identity by date of
discovery would be IC 1642. I also computed the difference between Javelle's data
for his #845 = IC 1646 and his #844 = IC 1645 and measured this on the
photographic plate and it also lands on IC 1642.
The CGCG, PGC and MCG give the single identity IC 1645. The NGC 2000 and MOL list
both identities as separate objects. The APL correctly makes IC 1642 = IC 1645.
Steinicke gives the equivalency. Both NED and SIMBAD have "Not found for IC 1642
and IC 1645 listwed with without the equivalency.
IC 1645.
(See IC 1642).
IC 1651.
POSS. O-1259.
Bigourdan #368. 01hr 10m 52.932s + 01 48' 12.425" (1950).
01hr 13m 27.380s + 02 04' 05.655" (2000).
It is the middle of 3 closely associated stars aligned almost directly north and
south :
Bigourdan describes it as being a 13.4 star which appears to have nebulosity
surrounding, brightest on the north following side. He mentions the most southern
of the 3 stars , a 13th mag star at a position angle of 195 , distant 0.2 arcmin
but makes no mention of the 3rd or northernmost star which suggests to me that
this is the "nebulosity" he is describing.
The APL lists as 3 stars, Steinicke has (=*) and NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED.". SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The NGC 2000 (No Type)
and the MOL (NSO).
IC 1653.
POSS..O-30.
Javelle #849. 01hr 12m 20.134s + 33 06' 48.575" (1950).
01hr 15m 07.739s + 33 22' 39.436" (2000).
Equal to NGC 443 (D'Arrest) : Due to D'Arrest's error in declination, 9'.2
Javelle was understandably misled into believing that he had discovered a
different object. Both the NGC 2000 and the MOL list each as separate identities.
The CGCG, MCG and UGC give only the IC 1653 identity. The DSFG lists as separate
identities with the same coordinates. The RC3 "Notes" and the PGC both correctly
list IC 1653 = NGC 443 as does the APL, NED and Steinicke. SIMBAD gives only the
identity IC 1653.
IC 1656.
POSS. O-30.
Barnard. 01hr 12m 48s + 32 49'.7
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 447 (D'Arrest) : The MCG lists only NGC
447. The NGC 2000, MOL, APL, SIMBAD, Steinicke, NED and PGC correctly equate the
two identities as does the "Notes" of the RC2, however both the CGCG and UGC
incorrectly make it equal to NGC 449 (the UGC Notes stating that the MCG makes it
NGC 447).
IC 1657.
Swift List XI, #14. 01hr 12m 05.407s - 32 55' 41.611" (1950).
01hr 14m 25.626s - 32 39' 49.657" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Equated with IC 1663 (Swift List XI, #15) by Steinicke, SIMBAD,
NED and the APL (= ESO 352-G024) , NGC 2000 (Gx) and Steinicke. The ESO list both
identities but as separate entries without equivalency and listing for IC 1663 (ESO
412-?022), only the given coordinates. The PGC gives only the identity IC 1657.
Swift discovered IC 1657 on September 4th 1897 and IC 1663 on October 30th 1897
and their descriptions are quite similar as to size, faintness and shape. For IC
1663 he gives coordinates of 01hr 13m 44s - 30 55'.5, which would imply a
separation between the two objects of 01 tmin 39 tsec RA and 2 degrees 0.1 arcmin
declination, which even for Swift are very large differences if they are
equivalent identities.
Dreyer in the IC II description queries whether the declination value for IC 1663
should be 30 arcmin farther south than as given by Swift, which would then place
IC 1663 at a declination of - 31 25'.5 which still would be a difference in
declination of 1 degree 30.1 arcmin from IC 1657.
At both suggested coordinates for IC 1663 I could not find any suitable candidate
and therefore at this time am listing IC 1657 as confirmed galaxy and IC 1663 as
(Not found).
IC 1658.
POSS. O-30.
Javelle #851. 01hr 13m 03.269s + 30 48' 56.122" (1950).
01hr 15m 49.811s + 31 04' 46.015" (2000).
Equal to NGC 444 (Lord Rosse) : CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, APL
and MOL all correctly equate both identities. The MCG gives only IC 1658 while
theRC3 gives NGC 444 without comment as to any equivalency. Both Carlson (quoting
Reinmuth) and the PGC make IC 1658 = NGC 444.
IC 1661.
POSS. O-30.
Barnard. 01hr 13m 24.973s + 32 49' 14.656" (1950).
01hr 16m 12.615s + 33 05' 04.205" (2000).
Equal to NGC 451 (Stephan List XII,#12) : The MCG, MOL, NGC 2000, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all correctly identify IC 1661 = NGC 451. The UGC
does not list either identity, however, in its "Notes" for U00804 it states that
there is conflict between the CGCG and MCG concerning the NGC identity. This is
confirmed by the CGCG which incorrectly makes ZWG 502.19 = NGC 449. ZWG 502.19 is
NGC 1661 = NGC 451 while the correct NGC 449 is ZWG 502.18. The RC3 gives only the
single identity NGC 451.
IC 1663.
(See IC 1657).
IC 1664.
Stewart #150. 01hr 12m 42.362s - 70 04' 06.688" (1950).
01hr 14m 18.468s - 69 48' 15.000" (2000).
Not found. Possibly a faint star with a very faint companion off its preceding
edge : No nebular image at the given coordinates. The NGC 2000 lists as (?)
while the MOL gives (May not exist). The PGC, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO have suggested
that this may be a galaxy (ESO 051-G025 at 01hr 12m 08s - 70 06'.7, however, its
image on the DSS is of an extremely faint object (Steinicke gives its Mp as 17.8)
and I doubt that it would be visible to Stewart, additionally this galaxy does not
match Stewart's description, "2 faint stars invested in eeF neb." Steinicke and APL
have (*2).
IC 1665.
POSS. O-1189.
Javelle #853. 01hr 14m 56.235s + 34 26' 14.568" (1950).
01hr 17m 45.044s + 34 42' 01.745" (2000).
This is a compact group of 3 faint stars : The NGC 2000 gives no Type. The MOL
lists as (Nonstellar Object). Only other modern listing are Steinicke (= *3),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature,"
and the APL which states (=***).
IC 1666.
POSS. O-30.
Javelle #854. 01hr 17m 05.512s + 32 12' 14.905" (1950).
01hr 19m 53.472s + 32 27' 58.992" (2000).
This is an existing galaxy but not at the position as given by Javelle and Dreyer:
Due to a typographical error in which Javelle's RA separation sign from his
reference star was reversed the IC II, NGC 2000 and MOL all give an incorrect RA
position. The correct RA should be 1hr 17m 05s and is to be found in the UGC,
PGC, Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD, NED and RC3. The CGCG (ZWG 502.030) and MCG (+05-04-
019) list the correct object only as "Anon."
IC 1667.
POSS. O-1194.
Swift List XI, #16. 01hr 15m 11969s - 17 22' 27.600" (1950).
01hr 17m 33.928s - 17 06' 40.251" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : The MCG lists its -3-4-39 = IC 1667? at 01hr
16.2m - 17 19'.0 and this would appear to be a very strong candidate based upon
Swift's level of coordinate error. Additionally this candidate has an 8th
magnitude star north following as described by Swift. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO) give coordinates consistent with Swift's position. The APL, NED, SIMBAD
and Steinicke identify the MCG candidate as being IC 1667 while the PGC gives only
the MCG identity.
IC 1671.
(See IC 93).
IC 1672.
(See IC 96).
IC 1674.
Stewart #151. 01hr 16m 54.793s - 50 54' 12.167" (1950).
01hr 19m 01.230s - 50 38' 26.750" (2000).
Not found : No object visible at Stewart's position The NGC 2000 lists it as (No
Type) while the MOL gives (NSO). The PGC, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have suggested that
it may be the galaxy (ESO 196-G002 at 01hr 17m 13s - 51 13'.6) and this galaxy is
bright enough for Stewart to have seen, however, I am concerned as to the difference
in coordinates which would require Stewart to have an error of about 19.4 arcmin in
declination, something unusual for him, therefore I am going to opt for a Not found.
Steinicke has (Not found). APL (Probably a defect).
IC 1679.
POSS. O-30.
Javelle #862. 01hr 18m 56.087s + 33 13' 56.246" (1950).
01hr 21m 44.951s + 33 29' 37.587" (2000).
Correctly identified but given wrong declination values by MCG (1'.8 too far
south) and NGC 2000 (1'.5 too far south). CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD
and MOL have correct declination. The RC3 does not list this galaxy.
IC 1684.
POSS. 0-30.
Javelle #867. 01hr 20m 04.086s +33 09' 11.806" (1950).
01hr 22m 53.108s + 33 24' 51.433" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's reference star BD +32 241 has a declination error of
1 arcmin 41.2 arcsec too far south, therefore his declination for IC 1684 is off
by this amount.
BD + 32,241 is = AC #1110976 at 01hr 22m 31.030s +33 24' 01.74" (2000) and
when Javelle's separation values (+ 21.93 tsec of RA and +50.8 arcsec of DEC. are
applied to this star they land exactly on a galaxy which is IC 1684.
Not listed in CGCG, UGC, PGC or MCG. NGC (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Correctly
identified in the APL and by Steinicke. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
But lists it as AGC 111082. NED has "No Object with this name in NED," but lists it
as MASX J01225306+3324491.
IC 1685.
POSS. 0-30.
Javelle #868. 01hr 20m 17.346s + 32 55' 46.286" (1950).
01hr 23m 06.277s + 33 11' 25.580" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's reference star is the 8.7 Mp DM +32 239 = AC
#1110957 and when his offsets (+0 tmin 59.8 tsec RA and 02' 48".9 of arc south)
are applied to this star they land exactly upon the galaxy north following NGC
494.
Not listed in the CGCG, UGC, PGC or MCG. The NGC 2000 gives both identities
having the same coordinates, however, it identifies them as being separate
objects. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." yet they list the
correct object as 2MASX J01230660+3311212. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," The MOL (NSO), Steinicke and APL have the correct identities.
IC 1686.
POSS. O-30.
Javelle #869. 01hr 20m 22.549s + 33 11' 58.845" (1950).
01hr 23m 11.653s + 33 27' 38.001" (2000).
This galaxy is equal to NGC 499 (W. Herschel,158-3):
Javelle based his coordinates for his reference star (DM +32,241) upon the data in
the Bonner Durchmusterung which has an error in declination of about 1 arcmin 24.9
arcsec too far south. This is reflected in his coordinates as given above.
His reference star is also GSC 2296-542 and when his offsets are computed from its
position they land on NGC 499.
The equivalency is correctly noted in the CGCG, MCG, UGC, Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD,
NED, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson and PGC. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 499.
IC 1693.
POSS. O-1259.
Howe List III, #2. 01hr 21m 29.821s - 01 54' 54.545" (1950).
01hr 24m 02.832s - 01 39' 16.690" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Ned has "There is no object with this name in Ned, but they do
identify the correct object as LEDA 073940.
Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), SIMBAD, APL and Steinicke.
IC 1696.
POSS. O-1259.
Howe List III, #3. 01hr 22m 18.829s - 01 52' 37.776" (1950).
01hr 24m 51.848s - 01 37' 01.189" (2000).
The MCG incorrectly equates its 0-4-122 with the identity NGC 530 = IC 1696. The
correct NGC 530 is actually MCG 0-4-119 and is equivalent with the identity IC
106. The DSFG also makes this same mistake. The UGC in its Notes to U00973 =
IC 1696 points out the MCG error. IC 1696 is correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC,
NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), RC3, APL, SIMBAD and Steinicke. NED has the correct
object.
IC 1699.
(See IC 107).
IC 1700.
(See IC 107.
IC 1703.
POSS. O-1259.
Bigourdan #369. 01hr 23m 52.399s - 01 53' 54.734" (1950).
01hr 26m 25.395s - 01 38' 20.587" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 557 (Swift List VI, #11) : Swift's RA is too large by about
46 tsec, also Swift states "B* f 15s and is north of it," this should be corrected
to read that the star lies south following. This is the 8.8 Mv BB VI, 215 the
same star Bigourdan used as his reference star.
The MOL gives both identities as separate objects while the CGCG, MCG, UGC give
only the single identity IC 1703. The PGC, NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
all correctly give the equivalency.
IC 1704 and IC 1706.
POSS. O-635.
Javelle #881. 01hr 24m 29.269s + 14 31 02.019" (1950).
01hr 27m 09.407s + 14 46' 34.985" (2000). (IC 1704).
and 01hr 24m 51.137s + 14 33' 40.308" (1950).
01hr 27m 31.324s + 14 49' 12.689" (2000). (IC 1706).
Confirmed galaxies : These are a pair of associated galaxies but not at the
coordinates as given by Javelle.
Javelle identifies his reference star as the 9.5Mv star DM +13 214 and places IC
1704 at a RA separation of -0m 12s and a declination of -1 arcmin, while for IC
1706 the separation values from the same star are RA +0m 10s, Dec.+1.7 arcmins.
The problem is that Javelle was not measuring from DM +13 214, but rather his
reference star, AC #454820 at 01hr 27m 21.254s +14 47' 33.54 (2000), is one
of similar magnitude which lies approximately 17s RA following and 3'.5 north of
DM + 13 214, thus his coordinates for both IC 1704 and IC 1706 are too small by
these same amounts and when these corrections are applied to the Palomar print his
misidentified reference star and the two galaxies fall exactly into place.
The CGCG, UGC and MCG all incorrectly identify as IC 1706 what is IC 1704
(this is pointed out in the PGC), while having no listing for the correct IC 1706.
The NGC 2000 and MOL both give the identities at coordinates based upon Javelle's
incorrect positions. The RC3, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL and Steinicke have the
correct identities and correct coordinates.
IC 1707.
POSS. O-30.
Bigourdan #370. 01hr 25m 08.289s + 36 51' 30.032" (1950).
01hr 28m 00.603s + 37 07' 01.643" (2000). (Observations).
Not found : There is considerable confusion regarding the correct declination
for this galaxy.
Dreyer in the IC II gives + 33 20'.2, ( the same as given by Bigourdan in his
Comptes Rendus list), however, Bigourdan employed as his field reference star BD +
36 256 (the same star he used to determine the coordinates for his observation of
NGC 551) and this star according to Bigourdan has a declination of + 36 49' 36".
Regardless I was unable to find any nebulous object at either declination.
The CGCG, MCG, UGC and RC3 have no listing for this identity. The NGC 2000 and
MOL both list it at Dreyer's declination, the NGC 2000 not giving any Type, while
the MOL describes it as (Nonstellar Object), Steinicke has (Not found) and the APL
states (Not found. Declination 36 51'.5). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: Possible candidate. Bigourdan's reference star is equal to AC #1289809 at
01hr 27m 46.540s + 37 04' 24.89" (2000) and his offsets are given as + 0 tmin
13.51 tsec RA and + 2 arcmin 37.5 arcsec Dec. which gives coordinates for his #
370 after corrected precession of 01hr 28m 00.201s + 37 07' 01.664" (2000)."
At this position there is only blank space, however, at about 12 tsec following
and at the same declination there is a double star of Mp 13.68, the components in
visual contact, north preceding south following. This double star is identified
as GSC 0230400561 at 01hr 25m 20.90s +36 51' 16.2" (1950) and Bigourdan's
description reads "This object is a 13.2 to 13.3 Mv star near which is found
diffuse nebulosity not easy to observe with precision. Requires a perfectly pure
sky."
Now there is another interesting finding regarding this double star as the VizieR
database classifies it under the GSC catalogue as being a nonstellar object (Class
3), whereas having examined the image on all three DSS photographs, Generation I
(Blue), Generation II (Blue and Red) I am convinced that both components are
stars.
IC 1709.
Swift List XI, #21. 01hr 25m 51.003s - 36 01' 25.464" (1950).
01hr 28m 06.831s - 35 45' 54.060" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 568 (h 2414). There are two galaxies visible in the field,
NGC 568 and an "Anon." lying 16 tsec following and about 3 arcmin north and both
John Herschel and Swift report only a single object which has to be NGC 568.
The ESO has suggested that the "Anon." (ESO 353-G004) might be IC 1709 and the PGC,
SIMBAD and DSFG supports this identity.
Swift's position is south following NGC 568 and Dreyer gives NGC 568 an excellent
set of coordinates (01hr 25m 42s - 35 58'.8), which would certainly have been
available to Swift and therefore if he had been referring to the "Anon." as his
Nova he would surely have been able to provide more accurate coordinates for it
than what he gives.
The MOL lists both identities as separate objects with separate coordinates. The
APL has (= NGC 568. ESO ID. for IC 1709 wrong), and Steinicke and NED have (= NGC
568).
IC 1710.
POSS. O-1251.
Javelle #883. 01hr 28m 03.320s + 21 10' 59.988" (1950).
01hr 30m 46.990s + 21 26' 27.043" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 575. (Stephan List VIII,#5): The NGC
2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and the PGC all list the
equivalency. The CGCG, MCG, and UGC each give only the identity IC 1710, while the
RC3 gives only NGC 575.
IC 1712.
POSS. O-1272.
Barnard. 01hr 28m 50.850s - 07 07' 27.096" (1950).
01hr 31m 21.442s - 06 52' 00.901" (2000). (Dreyer).
This is equal to NGC 584 (H 100-1) : Both Barnard and Dreyer must have just
overlooked this equivalency as Dreyer gives both identities exactly the same
coordinates. The RC 3 gives only the identity NGC 584. The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL,
PGC, Carlson, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all give the correct equivalency.
IC 1713.
POSS. O-1189.
Bigourdan #247. 01hr 29m 51.720s + 35 04' 04.874" (1950).
01hr 32m 43.754s + 35 19' 28.712" (2000).
This is a single star as was suspected by Bigourdan: The CGCG, UGC, NED, SIMBAD and
PGC incorrectly make it equal to NGC 587 but examination of Bigourdan's
observational data clearly refutes this conclusion.
Bigourdan used the star BD + 34 268 = AC #1199008 to measure the 1900 coordinates
of both NGC 587 and IC 1713, placing the former at a separation of - 33.95s RA and
+ 3' 58.7" Dec., while for the latter his separation values are - 23.56s RA and +
1' 59.7" Dec., both observations being made on the same night and establishing
that he was not confusing NGC 587 for what he thought might be a nova.The NGC
2000 lists IC 1713 but without any Type and the MOL makes it a (Nonstellar
Object) Both the MCG and RC3 do not list it. Steinicke and APL have (= *).
IC 1714.
POSS. O-1207.
Swift List XII, #7. 01hr 30m 27.371s - 13 45' 20.772" (1950).
01hr 32m 54.806s - 13 29' 57.390" (2000).
Not found at Swift's position : Corwin (APL) has identified IC 1714 as a galaxy
lying about 28 arcmin north of Swift's declination and this candidate has an 8th
magnitude star about 11 arcmin north preceding which certainly fits Swift's
description "* 8 n," also the amount of positional error is well within that often
encountered with Swift's data. This galaxy is identified in NED only as
APMUKS(BJ)BO13025.54-131652.4 at 01hr 30m 25.54s -13 16' 52.4 (1950) or 01hr 32m
53.22s - 13 01' 29.1"" (2000) and is given a Mp of 15.85
Steinicke also identifies this galaxy as being IC 1714. Both the NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO) give the coordinates as stated by Swift's positions. NED
lists the identity IC 1714 as Not found. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1716.
POSS. O-1207.
Bigourdan #371. 01hr 30m 58.687s - 12 33' 49.639" (1950).
01hr 33m 26.660s - 12 18' 27.153" (2000).
This is a star : Bigourdan described it as "Strongly stellar, fuzzy and which at
moments appears nebulous." Typed in the MOL as (NSO). Correctly listed in the
NGC 2000 (*), APL (=*) and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1717.
Stewart #153. 01hr 31m 00.435s - 67 47' 34.481" (1950).
01hr 32m 30.810s - 67 32' 10.946" (2000).
Not found : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO).
The ESO gives the identity IC 1717 listing it only as ESO 52-?005 (Not found) at
the historical coordinates. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have it as (Not
found).
IC 1723.
POSS. O-21.
Javelle #888. 01hr 40m 36.353s + 08 38' 09.240" (1950).
01hr 43m 14.530s + 08 53' 14.221" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : When the coordinates as given by Javelle are located on the
Palomar print no nebular image remotely resembling Javelle's description is to be
found, however, at about 1 tmin preceding and about 6 arcmin north there is a
galaxy which fits his description very well and it is this galaxy that the APL,
Steinicke, PGC, CGCG, UGC, RC3, NED, SIMMBAD and NGC 2000 each identify as being IC
1723.
It should also be mentioned that when Javelle's separation values are reversed
from this galaxy they give the position of a 9th magnitude star, GSC 622-968 = AC
#211689, which is not the reference star that Javelle identifies as being his
reference star (DM + 8 272), therefore it is pretty much confirmed that the star
Javelle actually used was GSC 622-968, not DM +8 272.The MCG identifies only as
+1-5-028. The NGC and MOL record the coordinates for IC 1723 as given by Javelle
and therefore need correcting.
IC 1730.
POSS. O-896.
Javelle #891. 01hr 47m 12.512s + 21 45' 49.889" (1950).
01hr 49m 58.515s + 22 00' 41.843" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG as +4-5-15a. UGC has no listing. The CGCG,
DSFG (NOTES to NGC 678), MOL, APL, SIMBAD, Steinicke, PGC, NED and NGC 2000
correctly identify IC 1730.
Javelle's error of 2 arcmin in declination, (Nominal Position) derives from the
incorrect position of his reference star (DM +21, 245) as it appears in the Bonner
Durchmusterung, which is what Javelle employed.
IC 1737.
POSS. O-1225.
Bigourdan #249. 01hr48m 45.550s +36 00' 10.709" (1950).
01hr 51m 41.863s + 36 14' 59.305" (2000).
Not found : Nothing resembling Bigourdan's description "Trace of nebulosity with
3 or 4 stars of 13th magnitude" is to be found at or close to his coordinates, the
closest images being made up by 2 faint stars. The APL and Steinicke list it as
(2*). The PGC has identified a galaxy, (MCG + 06-5-021) at 01hr 48m 49.5s +35 53'
15".8 as being IC 1737. Only other listings are NGC 2000 (No type), MOL (NSO).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and NED "No Object found."NOTE : In my
VERSION 4.0 of my survey I did not include this identity, believing
it to be the MCG object which does resemble Bigourdan's description, however,
recently I re-examined the problem and when I used Bigourdan's offsets from this
existing galaxy I was unable to find his reference 9.2 Mv star even though I
searched at all possible sign changes. Upon informing Dr. Corwin of this he
himself again examined the problem and determined that MCG +06 -5-021 was not IC
1737 and that based upon Bigourdan's stated coordinates he now favors it being the
2 stars located close to the original position.
IC 1738.
POSS. O-1207.
Swift XI, #26. 01hr 49m 13.178s -10 05' 06.975" (1950).
01hr 51m 41.480s - 09 50' 18.647" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift's coordinates are poor as was pointed out by Howe who
gives 01hr 48m 38s - 10 02'.2 which are much superior.
Correctly identified in the MCG, PGC, NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), RC3, APL, NED,
SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 1740.
Swift List XI, #27. 01hr 49m 00.992s -30 11' 24.772" (1950).
01hr 51m 16.781s - 29 56' 35.632" (2000).
Not found : This is a very interesting problem in that there is a diversity of
opinion as to what IC 1740 actually is, or whether it exists.
This is the second of two Swift discoveries that are included in a detailed Note
he added to his description, (See IC 1589).
Swift's description for IC 1740 is "pB, eS, lE, like double nebulous star See
Note."
In Swift's Note he describes both these discoveries as "Resembles a pretty bright
double star, each component being an exceedingly small nebulous disk like an
imaginary double nebulous Uranus distant about 5 to 6 arcsec."
The APL lists IC 1740 as ( 1740? = ** at 01hr 49m 21.0s - 30 10' 10". ESO ident.
as = N749 probably wrong), however, this candidate consists of a 10.5 or 11.0 mag.
star whose companion, which lies off the south following edge, is in my opinion
far too faint to have been seen by Swift and described by him to be "Pretty
bright." It certainly does not in any manner resemble the double star candidate
in the IC 1589 case. The APL also has a second candidate credited to HCds as "**
at 01hr 46m 35.43s -30 20' 03.3", " but here again neither of these two stars seem
to fit Swift's description "Pretty bright."
Now as for the ESO, SIMBAD and NED. They each list ESO 414-G011 as NGC 749 = IC
1740 ? at 01hr 53m 26s - 30 10'.0 Swift's description does not at all fit the
appearance of NGC 749. Steve Gottlieb using a telescope comparable in size to
Swift's and observing from a latitude further north than Swift describes NGC 749 as
"Fairly faint, moderately large, elongated 2:1 WNN-ESE, 1'.5 x 0'.8 . Fairly sharp
concentration with a prominent core and faint extensions. The core brightens to a
very small but non-stellar nucleus. A mag. 12 star lies 3.9 arcmin W of center."
This plus the 4.4 tmin difference in the RA position of NGC 749 and Swift's RA
convinces me that Swift was not confusing NGC 749 for his #27 = IC 1740.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both give the historical coordinates.
Steinicke has (Not found).
IC 1741.
POSS. O-349.
Howe List III, #4. 01hr 49m 32.248s - 17 02' 01.672" (1950).
01hr 51m 56.552s - 16 47' 13.878" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Both Dreyer and NGC 2000 suggest that IC 1741 is equivalent
with NGC 690 (Leavenworth) which is due to Leavenworth's poorly measured position
(01hr 51.9m - 16 47'.0), however, the correct coordinates for NGC 690 are 01hr 45m
23s - 16 58' 12" and this is an entirely separate object from IC 1741.
Correctly identified in the MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 1743.
POSS. O-15.
Bigourdan #250. 01hr 50m 18.946s + 12 27' 43.927" (1950).
01hr 52m 59.677s + 12 42' 29.778" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 716 (Swift List IV, No.6.) : Although Swift's declination is
about 39 arcmins too small there can be little doubt that due to his description
"eF; S; R; B * nr f." he is referring to Bigourdan's #250.
The CGCG, UGC. PGC and MCG each only give the identity IC 1743. The NGC 2000 (GX
= NGC716?). The MOL gives the identity IC 1743 correctly but makes NGC 716
"Nonexistent Object." The APL, SIMBAD and NED give IC 1743 = NGC 716 as does
Steinicke.
IC 1744.
POSS. O-1275.
Javelle #896. 01hr 50m 53.562s + 19 35' 43.180" (1950).
01hr 53m 38.583s + 19 50' 27.689" (2000).
Equal to NGC 719. (D'Arrest). Javelle makes no mention of NGC 719 even though he
should have been aware that D'Arrest had placed it only about 13s of RA from
Javelle's #896. Indeed Bigourdan had made two observations of NGC 719 seven years
prior to Javelle's observation and stated that it was located 21 seconds of RA
preceding the NGC value, or at 1hr 50m 44s +19 35' 11"
Both the NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) list both NGC 719 and IC 1744 as separate
objects. The MCG gives the single identity IC 1744 while the RC3 gives only NGC
719. The CGCG, Steinicke, UGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly give the
equivalency.
IC 1751.
POSS. O-1282
Swift List XI, #28. 01hr 53m 21.556s + 05 25' 56.805" (1950).
01hr 55m 58.419s + 05 40' 36.422" (2000).
HOWE 01hr 53m 44.539s + 05 23' 02.017" (1950).
01hr 56m 21.383s + 05 37' 40.829" (2000).
Equal to NGC 741 (H 272-2) : A very interesting problem. At the nominal
position as given by Swift no nonstellar object exists, however, based upon Howe's
coordinates correction we find a field containing several galaxies the brightest
being NGC 741 with its "attached" companion NGC 742.
Howe places what he identifies as being Swift #28 (= IC 1751), at a separation of
+ 7 tsec and - 1.6 arcmin from a 9th magnitude star and Swift had described his
#28 as "pF; pS; R; 9m * near np," the same star that Bigourdan had employed as a
reference star when he observed NGC 741, giving separation values of + 7.4 tsec
and -1.6 arcmin.
There can be no doubt that what Howe identified as being Swift's object #28 is
actually NGC 741 and if this is Swift's #28 then IC 1751 is equal to NGC 741.
Examination of the Palomar print reveals the image of another galaxy closely
following the 9th magnitude star and both the CGCG and UGC have identified this as
being IC 1751.
In the NOTES for U01413 = NGC 741 the UGC states "01 53.7 + 05 25 = IC 1751 at
1.5, 342." and "N 741 is not IC 1751 (as stated in BG)." however, there are two
reasons why I reject this the first being that this galaxy is best described as
following the star rather than being south following and secondly, it would seem
to me that if this same object was Swift's #28 then he would surely have referred
to the much brighter NGC 741 very close south following.
The original RC correctly equates both identities, however, the updated RC3 gives
only the identity NGC 741. The APL, Carlson, Steinicke, NED, NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL each equate the two identities. The MCG gives only the identity NGC 741.
The PGC gives the single identity IC 1751 and equates it with MCG +01-06-06 and
CGCG 413.006, as does SIMBAD.
IC 1754.
POSS. O-1282.
Javelle #902. 01hr 54m 13.697s + 03 46' 55.720" (1950).
01hr 56m 49.645s + 04 01' 33.515" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 413.011 and in the UGC only
as U01424. The PGC and NED omit the IC identity and identify this galaxy using
its UGC and CGCG identities. The APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL
(NSO) all have the correct identity.
IC 1756.
POSS. O-852.
Barnard. 01hr 54m 28.653s - 00 43' 03.737" (1950).
01hr 57m 02.050s - 00 28' 26.204" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has incorrectly identified its 0-6-005 as being IC
1757 but this is actually IC 1756. Comparison of the coordinates, brightness and
descriptions clearly establish that it is the south preceding elongated galaxy
that is being described by the MCG and this is IC 1756.
The MCG error is referred to in the UGC Notes to U01429 = IC 1756, also in the
PGC. Correct identity given by the CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, RC3, APL, PGC, SIMBAD,
NED and Steinicke.
IC 1759 and IC 1760.
Swift List XI, #29. 01hr 55m 16.587s - 33 16' 49.579" (1950).
01hr 57m 29.099s - 33 02' 13.343" (2000) (IC 1759)
Swift List XI, #30. 01hr 55m 18.397s - 32 15' 01.628" (1950).
01hr 57m 31.727s - 32 00' 25.476" (2000). (IC 1760).
Probably equivalent identities : This is a very interesting problem with more
than one possible solution.
The above coordinates are based upon those given in Swift's List XI as published
in the ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN # 3517, however, in a different publication (THE
ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL NO. 422) Swift list 25 objects discovered at the Lowe
Observatory and his #8 in this list is given the same discovery date (November
17th 1897) and same coordinates as his #30 in the A.N. List.
Dreyer, for some reason I have not been able to establish, suggests in his
description for IC 1760 that the declination might be - 33 15'.0, if this
suggestion is correct then it would clearly make IC 1759 and IC 1760 equivalent
identities.
There is no doubt that IC 1759 exists close to the position as given by Swift and
it is correctly identified as such in the ESO (ESO 354-G018 at 01hr 55m 43s - 33
13'.8 = IC 1759). The NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), RC3, SIMBAD, PGC and Steinicke also
correctly identify it as being IC 1759, however, the APL although identifying this
same galaxy as being IC 1759 also equates it with IC 1760, which has to be based
upon the Dreyer suggestion.
Now IC 1760 is identified as a separate galaxy in the ESO (IC 1760 ? ESO 414-G015
at 01hr 55m 11s - 32 13'.8 and this is the same object identified by the NED and
SIMBAD as being IC 1760, lying just north preceding the coordinates as given by
Swift, however, after looking at the image of this galaxy on the DSS and taking into
consideration how it would most likely appear from Swift's latitude I am very
doubtful if it could have been seen with Swift's telescope. He describes another
galaxy he discovered , IC 1720, which would be about 3 degrees of declination
farther north than ESO 414-G015, as being "eeF," yet IC 1720 is vastly brighter
than the ESO candidate, therefore I favor the equivalency solution as proposed by
Corwin.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) identify IC 1760 at the coordinates as given
by Swift. Steinicke has (= IC 1759) and the APL has (= IC 1759). PGC has no
listing for the identity IC 1760.
IC 1765.
POSS. O-413.
Barnard. 01hr 57m 43.899s + 31 36' 09.420" (1950).
02hr 00m 38.173s + 31 50' 38.804" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 783 (Stephan List VIII,#8) :
The CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, RC3, Carlson, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all
correctly make IC 1765 = NGC 783. The DSFG gives only the NGC identity. The MCG
gives only the identity NGC 783.
IC 1766.
POSS. O-413.
Barnard. 01 58m 16.908s +31 32' 07.158" (1950).
02hr 01m 11.217s +31 46' 35.512" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 785 Stephan List VIII,#9) :
The CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, RC3, Carlson, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all make IC
1766 equal to NGC 785. The DSFG gives only the NGC identity. The MCG and Steinicke
have listed a very faint "Anon" equal to MCG +05-05-043 as being IC 1766.
IC 1767.
POSS. O-1183.
Swift List XI, #32. 01hr 57m 32.042s - 11 21' 48.084" (1950).
01hr 59m 59.204s - 11 07' 17.172" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as -2-6-012. Correctly identified
in the RC3, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke.
IC 1768.
POSS. O-1185.
Swift List XI, #33. 01hr 58m 26.072s - 25 19' 26.864" (1950).
02hr 00m 44.138s - 25 04' 57.629" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG identifies its -4-5-24 = IC 1768, or the south
preceding of 2, the other being an "Anon." (-4-5-26), however, -4-5-26 is the
brighter object and better fits Swift's description. The PGC (Corrections) points
out the MCG error and the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke each select
-4-5-26 as being IC 1768.
IC 1773.
POSS. O-413.
Bigourdan #372. 02hr 01m 07.930s + 30 35' 36.828" (1950).
02hr 04m 01.913s + 30 49' 59.163" (2000)."
This is equal to NGC 804 (Swift List II,#19) : Bigourdan was evidently very
confused regarding the objects he observed in this field.
He noted what he considered to be two stellar-like nebulae about 19s of RA apart.
The preceding he assumed to be NGC 804, however, from his measurements he appears
to have mistaken a star for this object. The following object he then assumed was
a nova (B.372) but this is the true NGC 804.
The CGCG, UGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly list IC 1773 = NGC 804.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list them as separate galaxies while the MCG gives the
single identity IC 1773. The RC3 gives only NGC 804.
IC 1778.
POSS. O-1282.
Javelle #912. 02hr 03m 38.688s + 08 59.25.533" (1950).
02hr 06m 17.990s + 09 13' 42.643" (2000).
This is equal to IC 199 (Javelle #555) : There is no nebular image at the
corrected nominal position as given by Javelle which would place IC 1778 just on
the south preceding edge of IC 199.
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all correctly equate both
identities. The RC3 gives only the identity IC 199. The NGC 2000 types IC 199 as
(Gx) and IC 1778 as (No Type) giving both identities the same coordinates but
without any comment as to equivalency, while the MOL types both as (NSO) and gives
them both separate coordinates.
IC 1782.
POSS. O-1287.
Swift List XI, #34. 02hr 05m 11.968s - 25 43' 11.050" (1950).
02hr 07m 28.940s - 25 28' 56.915" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 823. (JH. 196=2460) : Examination of the object in question
leaves no doubt that Swift is describing John Herschel's object.
The MCG gives only the identity NGC 823. The MOL lists both identities as
separate objects with separate coordinates. The PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
correctly give the equivalency.
NOTE: The "Double star" effect as described by Swift is best seen on the Second
Generation photograph of the DSS.
IC 1787.
(See IC 217).
IC 1788.
Swift List XI, #36. 02hr 13m 21.267s - 31 25' 18.078" (1950).
02hr 15m 32.510s - 31 11' 22.968" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only errors here are to be found in the MOL which gives
the declination as + 31 25' 56' and also incorrectly identifies IC 1488 as being
IC 1788.
The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, ESO, RC3, MCG and DSFG correctly
identify the galaxy.
IC 1794.
POSS. O-443.
Javelle #923. 02hr 18m 45.694s + 15 32' 01.917" (1950).
02hr 21m 30.187s + 15 45' 42.691" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's nominal position has a declination error of about 1
arcmin 14 arcsec too far south caused by an error originating in the Bonner
Durchmusterung.
The above Corrected Nominal Position based upon the modern declination is correct,
the reference star being AC #458425 at 02hr 22m 12.703s + 15 15' 51.57 " (2000).
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL type this as being a "Nebula." The CGCG, Steinicke,
MCG, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and RC3 correctly list it as a galaxy.
IC 1799.
POSS O-907.
Bigourdan #251. 02hr 25m 31.181s + 45 44' 48.544" (1950).
02hr 28m 46.152s + 45 58' 11.258" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +8-5-12. Correctly identified
in CGCG, Steinicke, UGC, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX.), MOL (NSO), DSFG
(Notes to NGC 933) and RC3.
NOTE: Bigourdan's reference star (Anon.2) for his 1891 positional data is equal
to AC #1425525 at 02hr 21m 26.479s +45 29' 41.939" (1891) and his offsets (+ 0
tmin 16.135 tsec - 0 arcmin 51.550 arcsec.) give an excellent position for his
#251 of 02hr 25m 31.181s + 45 44' 48.544" (1950).
IC 1802.
POSS. O-858.
Barnard. 02hr 25m 49.956s + 22 53' 46.902" (1950).
02hr 28m 40.710s + 23 07' 09.542" (2000). (Dreyer)
Possible identity ? : At the coordinates as given no nebular image exists,
however, at approximately 30s of RA following and 2.2 arcmin south there is a
galaxy (ZWG 483.067) which does fit Barnard's description "11 mag. star north
preceding at 1 arcmin." and due to Barnard's description it is reasonable to
consider that this might be Barnard's object ?
Only modern listings for the identity IC 1802 are NED (Not found), APL has correct
identity. Steinicke (= ZWG 483.067), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) based upon
Dreyer's coordinates. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," however,
NOTE: (See IC 1803 and IC 1804).
IC 1803 and IC 1804.
POSS.O-858.
Barnard. 02hr 26m 27.113s + 22 55' 44.050" (1950).
02hr 29m 18.004s + 23 09' 05.159" (2000). (Dreyer). IC 1803
02hr 26m 27.126s + 22 56' 14.049" (1950).
02hr 29m 17.974s + 23 09' 35.061" (2000). IC 1804.
Confirmed galaxies : The entire credit for the correct identities belongs to Dr.
Corwin (See his Files), my previous identities being wrong. When the same
corrections as applied to IC 1802 are applied to Barnard's coordinates as given
above they not only land very close to the north preceding of two galaxies but
also confirm the correct identity for Barnard's IC 1804, although it appears that
Barnard has confused the order of declination.
The majority of the modern sources incorrectly list the identity IC 1803, instead
the PGC, RC3, NED, SIMBAD and MCG incorrectly identify the galaxy IC 1802 as being
IC 1803 and if they list the correct IC 1803 and IC 1804 they identify them as being
"Anons." According to NED the ZWG 468.068 Anon. is IC 1804, although I find it
difficult to determine whether this CGCG identity is for IC 1803 or IC 1804 as
Zwicky's coordinates could be for either. Steinicke has the correct IC 1804, but an
incorrect identity for IC 1803.
The modern catalogues appear to be all over the place regarding the identities for
IC 1802, 1803 and 1804 and I believe that Dr. Corwin's corrections have solved the
confusion.
IC 1808.
POSS. O-1292.
Javelle #929. 02hr 28m 00.341s - 04 26' 15.012" (1950).
02hr 30m 31.016s - 04 12' 57.701" (2000).
Equal to NGC 963 (Leavenworth) : This is another example of Javelle being misled
by Leavenworth's poor RA for his NGC 963 as Leavenworth gave his discovery the
coordinates 02hr 29m 18s - 04 26.9
The MOL gives both identities as separate with different coordinates. The MCG and
PGC gives the single identity IC 1808. The NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
have the correct equivalency.
IC 1811 and IC 1813.
Swift List XI, #38. 02hr 27m 51.105s - 34 28' 36.437" (1950).
02hr 29m 57.196s - 34 15' 17.954" (2000). (IC 1811).
#39. 02hr 28m 06.070s - 34 28'19.090" (1950).
02hr 30m 12.126s - 34 15' 01.266" (2000). (IC 1813).
Confirmed galaxies : The errors here are entirely historical.
Swift describes his #38 as "eeeF, S, R, D* nearly preceeding," while for his #39
the description is "eF, eS, R, F* near n, D* np, south following of 2." These
relative alignments are disputed by the coordinates he gives as according to them
his #39 would be the north following of 2 and it is exactly this we find when the
field is shown on the DSS.
Dreyer appears to have questioned the alignment as he adds (sic) at the end of
each description in the IC II, also Swift's reference to the D* (Dreyer describes
it as 2 stars),should be reversed for both identities.
All of the modern sources have the correct alignment.
IC 1814.
Swift List XI, #40. 02hr 28m 19.149s - 36 15' 31.702" (1950).
02hr 30m 23.276s - 36 02' 14.412" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 964 (h 2483) : John Herschel gave his #2483 coordinates of
02hr 29m 00.2s - 36 15' 23" and it would seem that because Swift's coordinates
were so poorly given that Swift concluded that he had made a separate discovery of
a different object.
The ESO, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have selected and identified as IC 1814 a galaxy, ESO
355-G023, at 02hr 28m 47s - 36 13'.4, however, although this galaxy is closer to
Swift's position than NGC 964 it does not match Swift's description, "pB, pS, vE."
and furthermore, it appears to me to be too faint for Swift's telescope.
The MOL gives IC 1814 at Swift's coordinates and makes no equivalency while the
RC3 lists only the identity NGC 964. The APL, NGC 2000 and Steinicke correctly
give the equivalency with NGC 964.
IC 1817.
POSS. O-1300.
Javelle #932. 02hr 31m 08.521s + 10 59' 02.460" (1950).
02hr 33m 50.352s + 11 12' 11.111" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error involved is of only historical significance in that
it concerns a typographical mistake in Part 2 of Javelle's catalogue in which he
incorrectly gives the declination of separation from his reference star as placing
his object to lie south when it should be north. Thus the correct 1950
coordinates would be 02hr 31m 08.521s + 10 59' 02.460" Fortunately the correct
declination is to be found in his Part 1, therefore neither Dreyer or any of the
modern catalogues (CGCG, MCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 or MOL)
which list this identity were misled.
IC 1822.
POSS. O-886.
Bigourdan #252.
Equal to a faint star preceding the star GSC 5285-243 :
Bigourdan published two different sets of coordinates for this one identity. The
first was in the COMPTES RENDUS in which he gives 02hr 33m 14.963s - 08 46'
45.334" (1950) and here we find a 13 mag. star, however, this star lies about 10
tsec preceding a 8.5 Mv star, not following as Bigourdan indicates in his
OBSERVATIONS.
Meanwhile in his 1919 OBSERVATIONS he places his nova at 02hr 33m 34.741s - 08 46'
46.498" (1950) or a difference in RA from his COMPTES RENDUS position of about 22
tsec and at this exact position there are no images visible. Bigourdan describes
his #252 as "Mag. 13.4 or 13.5, Strongly stellar, appearance a little nebulous."
Generally I would give greater importance to his OBSERVATIONS data, however, in
this case his COMPTES RENDUS does come up with a 13 mag. star and therefore I
would favor this data.
The NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke and APL (=*) are all based upon the
COMPTES RENDUS data. NED has " There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the dtatbase."
NOTE: Bigourdan's reference star is equal to AC #2116844 at 02hr 35 52.011 -08
33' 56.13 (2000) and when his RA offset is reversed to read - 0 tmin 10.1 tsec
instead of + 0 tmin 10.1 tsec and his Dec offset - 0 arcmin 13 arcsec, are applied
to this star precessed to discovery year (1894), and again precessed to the year
2000 it lands directly on top of the faint star.
IC 1826.
OS-28.
Swift List XI, #42. 02hr 36m 14.605s - 27 39' 22.776" (1950).
02hr 38m 26.247s - 27 26' 27.228" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1830 (Stewart #162) : At Swift's nominal position no
nonstellar object exists, however, at about 39 tsec following there is a bright
galaxy with a bright star close preceding and Swift's description for his #42 is
"Pretty bright, Considerably small, Round, 8th mag. star near preceding.",
however, this galaxy is IC 1830.
The MOL (NSO) places IC 1826 at the coordinates as given by Swift. The MCG, NGC
2000, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly make it equal to IC 1830.
IC 1828.
POSS.O-443.
Javelle #939. 02hr 37m 40.705s + 19 04' 56.861" (1950).
02hr 40m 29.330s + 19 17' 47.290" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1036 (H 475-3) : There is no doubt that IC 1828 is a
duplicate of NGC 1036 as there is only a single galaxy in the field and this is
William Herschel's NGC 1036, however, the CGCG, UGC, SIMBAD and PGC all identify NGC
1036 = IC 1828 = IC 1829 which is incorrect as IC 1829 is an entirely separate
galaxy (See IC 1829). The MCG, RC3 and DSFG give only the single identity NGC 1036,
while the NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) make no mention of any equivalency and give
both IC 1828 and IC 1829 the coordinates as published by Dreyer in the NGC.
Steinicke and NED have (= NGC 1036).The APL correctly gives IC 1828 = NGC 1036.
NOTE: The Bonner Durchmusterung declination for Javelle's reference star DM +18
333, is off by 2 arcmin therefore Javelle's Nominal Position is off by this amount
in declination. However, the Corrected Nominal Position as given above, based
upon the modern position of the star, which is equal to AC #636817, lands on the
correct galaxy.
IC 1829.
POSS. O-1300.
Javelle #940. 02hr 37m 48.303s + 14 05' 02.466" (1950).
02hr 40m 32.863s + 14 17' 52.684" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy with a declination error of 5.0 degrees : The problem was
created by a typographical error published in Part 1 of Javelle's Third Catalogue
in which the North Polar Distance is given as 71 17'.5, (Epoch 1860) whereas the
correct NPD is 76 17'.5 (1860) as given in Part 2 of the same catalogue where the
separation values (+ 0 tmin 6.23 tsec RA and 3' 54.2" north in declination), are
applied to Javelle's reference star DM +13 425 = GSC 645-1102 Unfortunately
Dreyer in compiling the IC II relied only on the Javelle data as given in Part 1
and this in turn led some of the modern cataloguers (CGCG, UGC, SIMBAD and PGC) to
incorrectly identify NGC 1036 as equal to both IC 1828 and IC 1829 when the
equivalency should concern only NGC 1036 and IC 1828.
IC 1829 is an existing galaxy and is listed in the CGCG as "Anon." ZWG 439.026. at
2hr 37.8m +14 05'. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) identify IC 1829 at the
incorrect Dreyer declination. Steinicke has the correct identity as does the APL.
For a more complete assessment of this problem see W.S.Q.J. #84, April 1991, pp
36-38 "The Identification of IC 1829." M.J. Thomson.
IC 1830.
(See IC 1826).
IC 1837.
POSS. O-1453.
Javelle #945. 02hr 40m 56.894s + 00 05' 43.577" (1950).
02hr 43m 30.784s + 00 18 25.258" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1072 (Stephan XII, No.24) :
The APL, SIMBAD, Steinicke and PGC give the correct equivalency while the CGCG, MCG
and UGC give only the identity NGC 1072. Javelle incorrectly gives his separation
sign in NPD as + 5' 44".6, it should be - 5' 44".6 which when corrected would change
the 1950 declination to read + 00 5' 43.577"
The NGC 2000 (No Type) gives the declination as + 00 07' (2000) while the MOL
gives - 00 5' 57" (1950), which is incorrect while still equating it with NGC 1072
which lies at + 00 5'.7
IC 1840.
POSS. O-911.
Howe III, #7. 02hr 41m 19.298s - 15 54' 54.651" (1950).
02hr 43m 40.715s - 15 42' 13.714" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. May be equal to NGC 1105 (Leavenworth) : There is absolutely
no doubt that Howe's object exists where he states it does and the MCG, PGC, NED,
SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), DSFG (Notes to NGC 1081) all agree that
this is a single identity (IC 1840), however, Dr. Corwin (APL) and Steinicke
equates it with NGC 1105 (Leavenworth).
Leavenworth gives NGC 1105 coordinates of 02hr 45m 16.5s - 15 54'.8 (Dreyer) which
is an excellent declination match with IC 1840 but would be about 03 tmin 58.5
tsec greater than the RA of IC 1840. This difference is not in itself excessive
in Leavenworth's given positions and therefore the Corwin/Steinicke candidate has
definite merit.
IC 1845.
Swift List XI, #44. 02hr 42m 45.343s -28 09' 52.958" (1950).
02hr 44m 55.729s - 27 57' 15.740" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is equal to the ESO galaxy 416-G015 at 02hr 43m 26s - 28
10'.2.
At Swift's nominal position no nebular image is found, however, there are
corroborating data that strongly supports this equivalency.
Swift discovered his #44 on the same night (December 22nd 1897), that he also
discovered and gave positions for IC 1811, IC 1813 and IC 1814 and in all four
cases his declination values are in good agreement with the modern declinations,
but his RA's are in error by 41 tsec too small (IC 1811), 37 tsec too small (IC
1813) and 44 tsec too small (IC 1814).
The difference in RA between Swift and ESO 416-G015 is 42 tsec which is in
excellent agreement with the error rate for the other three objects he discovered
on the same night and this plus the fact that ESO 416-G015 is certainly bright
enough to have been visible to Swift convinces me that they are one and the same.
The MCG lists it only as - 5-7-18. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the
historical coordinates. Correctly identified by Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED. The PGC
gives only the MCG and ESO identities. The APL lists it as (**).
IC 1849.
POSS. O-1320.
Javelle #954. 02hr 45m 29.480s + 09 08' 57.345" (1950).
02hr 48m 10.464s + 09 21' 25.755" (2000).
Possible candidate : There is no nebular image located at the Corrected Nominal
Position as given by Javelle, 02hr 48m 10.464s + 09 21' 25.755" (2000).
The CGCG, SIMBAD and MCG identify as IC 1849 a 15.5 Mp galaxy at the same
declination but at a RA of 2hr 45'.1 or about 23 tsec preceding Javelle's RA. The
PGC, Steinicke, APL and NED also identifies this same galaxy as being IC 1849.
I precessed Javelle's reference star, DM +8 294 to 1950 and found that the
CGCG/MCG candidate lies at 21.4 tsec. following and 2 arcmin 54 arcsec arcmin
north which does not conform with Javelle's RA separation of + 0m 47.3s
(although the declination separation is excellent) and as Javelle's usual
numerical values for his separations are very good (even though the direction of
separation are sometimes in error).
As the CGCG/MCG galaxy is the only one in the immediate field and requires a
Javelle correction for only the RA of 25.8 tsec I am accepting that this is what
Javelle saw. As for the difference in RA I am not able to account for it.
Only other listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both give the
RA in accordance with Javelle's RA.
IC 1846 Field.
POSS. O-16.
Javelle (Coordinates below)..
This is a very complicated series of identities. Javelle
has 3 IC identities involved as follows.
Javelle #952 = IC 1846. 2hr 45m 00.416s + 13 02' 46.437" (1950).
02hr 47m 44.523s + 13 15' 16.148" (2000).
Javelle #955 = IC 1850. 2hr 45m 56.122s + 13 03' 06.962" (1950).
02hr 48m 40.281s + 13 15' 33.970" (2000).
Javelle #956 = IC 1852. 2hr 46m 15.639s + 13 00' 57.249" (1950).
02hr 48m 59.784s + 13 13' 23.309" (2000).
All three represent confirmed galaxies visible on the Palomar print.
Marth was the first to examine the field and listed 7
discoveries which were given the following NGC identities.
Marth#75 = NGC 1109. 2hr 46m 54s + 13 02'.8
Marth#76 = NGC 1111. 2hr 46m 58s + 13 01'.8
Marth#77 = NGC 1112. 2hr 47m 15s + 13 00'.8
Marth#78 = NGC 1113. 2hr 47m 23s + 13 05'.8
Marth#79 = NGC 1115. 2hr 47m 40s + 13 02'.6
Marth#80 = NGC 1116. 2hr 47m 50s + 13 07'.6
Marth#81 = NGC 1117. 2hr 47m 58s + 12 57'.6
Dr. Corwin in his APL has suggested the following
equivalency
(1). IC 1846 = NGC 1109. This being dependent upon an almost 2 tmin error in
Marth's RA and I am in agreement that this is a reasonable solution. The PGC,
SIMBAD and RC3 however have equated IC 1852 with NGC 1109. I reject this on the
basis that it requires Marth to have not only erred in his RA position, but also
would place his NGC 1109 to follow in order of RA his NGC 1111. The PGC also makes
IC 1846 an entirely single identity, as does SIMBAD.
(2). IC 1850 = NGC 1111. This being dependent upon an almost 1 tmin error in
Marth's RA and again I find this a reasonable solution.
SIMBAD has IC 1850 "Not present in the database."
(3). IC 1852 = NGC 1112. This again reflecting an almost 1 tmin error by Marth and
once more this appears to me to be a reasonable solution. SIMBAD equates IC 1852
with NGC 1109
It would thus be quite understandable why Javelle would have considered that
according to the coordinates Marth had given the three IC identities represented
additional objects.
The CGCG, UGC, and MCG give only the two IC identities IC 1846 and IC 1852
without any equivalency
The NGC 2000 and MOL list all the NGC and IC identities giving
them separate coordinates and separate identities. Steinicke and NED make the same
equivalences as Dr. Corwin.
IC 1858 and IC 1859.
Swift List XI, #45. 02hr 46m 36.459s - 31 29' 58.080" (1950).
02hr 48m 42.948s - 31 17' 31.873" (2000). (IC 1858)
#46 02hr 46m 38.560s - 31 23' 58.179" (1950).
02hr 48m 45.151s - 31 11' 32.077" (2000). (IC 1859).
Confirmed Galaxies : Swift incorrectly describes IC 1858 as being the 1st of 3
and IC 1859 as the 2nd of 3, however, the RA of IC 1859 is actually about 3 tsec
preceeding IC 1858. Due to this error the MOL has the incorrect order of RA for
both identities.
The NGC 2000, APL, MCG, PGC, SIMBAD, ESO, RC3, NED and Steinicke each have the
correct order of RA.
IC 1867.
POSS. O-1320.
Javelle #963. 02hr 53m 11.197s + 09 06' 36.219" (1950).
02hr 55m 52.414s + 09 18' 41.812" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, SIOMBAD,
NED, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). Both the UGC (Notes) and PGC state that the MCG
confuses this identity making it IC 1868 and this appears to be the case.
IC 1868.
POSS. O-1320.
Javelle #964. 02hr 53m 24.399s + 09 10' 39.698" (1950).
02hr 56m 05.679s + 09 22' 44.624" (2000).
Probable candidate : In its NOTES to IC 1867 (U02400), the
UGC in addition to correcting the MCG error it states "IC 1868 is probably a
double star at 2.3 arcmin north following IC 1867." and such a double star does
lie reasonably close to the coordinates as given by Javelle, however, there is
another candidate.
Javelle's reference star for both IC 1867 and IC 1868 is a 9th magnitude star DM +
8 452 and by applying Javelle's separation values for IC 1867 to this star they
correctly point out IC 1867, however, there is another similar magnitude star (GSC
641-411) at 02hr 56m 15.83s + 09 21' 01.5" (2000), or about 5 tsecs preceding and
about 3 arcmin north of DM + 8 452 and I believe that Javelle mistook this north
preceding star to be DM + 8 452 when he measured the separations for his IC 1868
as when his separations (- 0m 10.25s RA and + 1'.41.3" dec.) are applied to this
star they do fall upon a galaxy which I suggest is the true IC 1868 which would
then have a 1950 position of about 2hr 53m 24.284s + 09 10' 38.297"
The only listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both at the original
Javelle position and the APL and Steinicke both of whom give the correct position
and identity. NED gives for IC 1868 "There is no object with this name in NED."
however they do list the candidate as NPM1G +09.0089. SIMBAD has "Not present in
the database," but do list the candidate as Leda 3091399.
IC 1873.
POSS. O-1320.
Javelle #966. 03hr 01m 10.774s + 09 25' 10.206" (1950).
03hr 03m 52.521s + 09 36' 51.221" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle not only misidentifies his reference star, calling it
DM +9 261 when it actually is DM +9 390, but additionally he makes almost a 6
arcmin error too small in its declination value.
When the correct reference star, equal to AC #221031 at 03hr 04m 01.113s + 09 39'
56.41 (2000), is reduced to the year 1897, the offsets applied and the result
precessed back to 2000 the coordinates for IC 1873 are given as 03hr 03m 52.521s +
09 36' 51.221" at which position is the galaxy IC 1873.
The MCG and CGCG have the correct object and identifies it as IC 1873. Position
given correctly in the APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke. Only other listings
found are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both have the incorrect declination
value.
IC 1877.
Stewart #165. 03hr 01m 35.506s - 50 42' 13.778" (1950).
03hr 03m 11.095s - 50 30' 31.976" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This actually has no direct significance as to the identity of
IC 1877, but rather is given here due to a most interesting mystery concerning a
companion galaxy identified as ESO 199-G011.
Examination of the field on the DSS immediately shows IC 1877 very close to
Stewart's coordinates and it can be established also by the fact that Stewart
described it as being "eF, vS, E at 170 degrees, probably neb. suspected."
The NGC 2000 (Gx.), MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, ESO, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly
select this object and identify it as being IC 1877 and the NED gives it a magnitude
of 16.3.
The mystery is that at about 0.2 tmin following and 1 arcmin north there is a
larger and brighter galaxy (ESO 199-IG012), of magnitude 14.71 (NED), which
Stewart makes no mention of in his Harvard paper (ANNALS OF HARVARD COLLEGE
OBSERVATORY. VOL LX. No.VI. page157.).
My first reaction was that surely he was referring to this brighter companion as
being his #165, however, the coordinates and PA of the major axis clearly identify
the south preceeding object as being IC 1877.
I then contacted Dr. Corwin and solicited his opinion and his reply was that he
likewise was mystified.
As I knew exactly the photographic plate number exposed by Stewart I decided to e-
mail Harvard and request them to see if it was still available in their archives
as examination of the original plate would indicate if both images were visible
and shortly later I was informed by Dr. Martha Hazen that they had indeed located
it and that both galaxies were on the plate and that she would take Polaroid
photographs to send to me. She also stated that the Harvard people also could not
come up with any definitive explanation as to why Stewart would have omitted it
from his list.
Upon arrival of the photographs I examined them and confirmed the existence of the
two images, although they were admittedly very faint (Dr. Hazen stated that they
were more clearly visible on the original plate), and I then sent them off to Dr.
Corwin who after examining them suggested that perhaps due to the rather unusual
image of the companion that perhaps Stewart had decided that it was a photographic
defect.
Dr. Hazen expressed great interest in the puzzle and very kindly searched and
obtained Stewart's field logbook, however, she reported that it shed no additional
light on the companion.
Thus, there does not appear to be any definite scientific explanation for the
omission other than that as suggested by Dr. Corwin, or Stewart somehow just
simply overlooked it.
NOTE (1) : Shortly after investigating this problem I came across an almost
similar situation regarding the identity IC 2022 which is Stewart's #258, Mp 16.5
and is almost exactly at the coordinates as given by Stewart. Here again, only
this time at about 18 tsec following and 1 arcmin south, there is a larger and
much brighter galaxy (IRAS F03580-5912 = PGC 014214. Mp 14.9) which is not
indicated in Stewart's List.
One mystery might indeed be the result of photographic defect or oversight, but
two mysteries certainly creates some doubt.
NOTE (2) : I relayed this second case to Dr. Corwin and received his reply that
obviously we cannot use the defect theory for this one. He stated that it is most
likely another example of being "missed" by Stewart or perhaps it results from
mistaking a bright stellar nucleus for a star ?
IC 1881.
POSS. O-1307.
Bigourdan #253. 03hr 06m 04.359s + 38 27' 56.453" (1950).
03hr 09m 17.007s + 38 39' 21.036" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1213 (Swift List1,#6).
Bigourdan mistook a star (actually a very close double star) for NGC 1213 and then
proceeded to identify the true NGC 1213 as being a nova (#253), although it must
be stated that he did point out in his description that this might be NGC 1213.
The CGCG, Steinicke, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and UGC correctly give the equivalency.
The RC3 and DSFG give only the identity NGC 1213. The MCG identifies its +6-7-45
only as IC 1881. The MOL lists IC 1881 (NSO) with separate coordinates from NGC
1213.
IC 1882.
POSS. O-363.
Javelle #968. 03hr 05m 13.200s + 02 57' 23.831" (1950).
03hr 07m 49.528s + 03 08' 52.249" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is a typographical one found in the UGC in
which the identity is incorrectly given as IC 1182.
IC 1883.
POSS O-1168.
Barnard. 03hr 06m 25.402s + 40 42' 08.264" (1950).
03hr 09m 41.330s + 40 53' 31.745" (2000). (Dreyer).
Confirmed galaxy : It is possible that this is equal to NGC 1212 (Swift List
1,#5. 03hr 05m 43s + 40 42' 15"), the difference in RA being 41s and in Dr H.
Corwin's List of PRECISE POSITIONS FOR NGC AND IC OBJECTS (APL) he favours this
equivalency.
Swift describes NGC 1212 as "Small, Round, very, very faint. Right angled with
two stars. In field with Algol," and at his coordinates there is no nebular image
visible. I find it very difficult to decide whether it was this faint star, or
Barnard's IC 1883 that Swift actually was describing. Certainly the 41s
difference in RA is acceptable in reference to Swift's description pertaining to
Algol as he generally employed an eyepiece having an unusually large field of view
(32 arcmin), therefore, as to the equivalency I can only state that certainly it
is a possibility.
Only listings found for IC 1883 are NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO),
neither refer to any equivalency, however, the APL does make it = NGC 1212.
Steinicke equates IC 1883 with NGC 1212.
Note : The RNGC 1212 has no validity based upon any historical data and it is
certainly not Barnard's object.
IC 1884.
(See IC 290).
IC 1887.
(See IC 292).
IC 1888.
(See IC 293).
IC 1889.
(See IC 294, IC 295 and IC 296).
IC 1904.
Stewart #172. 03hr 12m 51.856s -30 52' 48.830" (1950).
03hr 14m 55.777s - 30 41' 44.017" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as -5-8-24. Correctly identified
in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL, PGC, RC3, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO.
IC 1905.
POSS. O-1618.
Bigourdan #374. 03hr 15m 27.29.256s + 41 10' 58.120" (1950).
03hr 18m 47.448s + 41 21' 51.934" (2000).
This is a very small group of stars without associated nebulosity : Only modern
listings are NGC 2000 (***), APL = ***, Steinicke (* 3), NED "There is no object
with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (Three
stars).
IC 1907.
POSS. O-1618.
Bigourdan #375. 03hr 16m 33.999s + 41 22' 06.146" (1950).
03hr 19m 52.663s + 41 32' 56.015" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
In 1786 William Herschel discovered a nebula which he listed as H 603-2 giving it
coordinates of 3hr 16m 21s + 41 20' 52" and describing it as "pB, stellar or pcst
with S, vF chevalure."
The field was later examined by John Herschel who again reports only seeing and
measuring the position of his father's nebula, H 603-2 which he placed at 3hr 16m
27s + 41 19' 59", describing it to be "pB, R, gbM, 40'' diam." In addition to
listing it as H 603-2 he gave it the identity h 293.
Next to examine the field was the Danish astronomer H. D'Arrest who recorded the
discovery of 6 novae associated with H 603-2. The first 5 of these novae by order
of Right Ascension we know today as NGC 1267, NGC 1268, NGC 1270, NGC 1272 and NGC
1273, however, when it comes to the last 2 nebulae he observed he was uncertain
which of them was H 603-2 as he was confronted by what he describes as "Double
Nebula" and that one was of the Second Class (Faint nebula) while the other, which
was 5.7 tsec RA following and 2'.75 to the north, was of the Third Class (Very
faint nebula).
One would have thought that this would have made the brighter southern one the
best choice for being Herschel's object, but for some reason D'Arrest in his
published OBSERVATIONES HAVNIENSES decided to make the north following object H
603-2 = h 293, although he did follow these identities with a question mark (? ).
In 1864 John Herschel published his GENERAL CATALOGUE OF NEBULAE (GC) in which
he listed all of the discovered nonstellar objects known to that time, giving each
of them their original identities, listing their discoverers and adding by order
of Right Ascension a GC identity. He correctly identifies D'Arrest's 6th Nebula
(the southern of the "Double Nebula") as being H 603-2 = h293 = GC 674, whereas
D'Arrest had identified the northern of the pair as being H 603-2 = h293.
Comparison of D'Arrest's positional data with J. Herschel's as published in the GC
are in excellent agreement with the single exception of D'Arrest's 7th object (NGC
1278). D'Arrest gives it 3hr 16m 34s + 41 22'.7, which is reasonably accurate,
while J. Herschel gives 3hr 16m 29s + 41 20' 3" thus placing it right on the north
following edge of H 603-2.
L. Dreyer published in 1888 his great work the NGC and when faced with the obvious
disagreement between the John Herschel and D'Arrest candidates for which object
was H 603-2 unfortunately decided to go with D'Arrest (NGC/IC. Page 214.).
Having correctly noted that in the GC catalogue J. Herschel had made an error of
about 2 arcmins. for the declination of D'Arrest's object # 7 he then incorrectly
decided that GC 674 was the northern of D'Arrest's pair thus we have in the NGC
the identities NGC 1278 = GC 674 = h 293 = H 603-2 when the correct identities
should be NGC 1275 = GC 674 = h 293 = H 603-2 while GC 675 should be = NGC 1278.
It should be pointed out quite clearly that the NGC identities themselves are not
in error, it is only the equivalency with the earlier identities that are
incorrectly listed in the NGC. It should also be noted that these same pre- NGC
identities are confused in the observational data contained and prepared by Dreyer
in the Lord Rosse observations .
Now we come to these Rosse observations and according to the NGC three new objects
in the field of NGC 1275 were discovered, NGC1274 =GC 5302, NGC 1276 = GC 5303 and
NGC 1277 = GC 5304 = GC 5305.
It is important to remember that all GC identities from 5080 to 6251 are not from
J. Herschel's GC catalogue but rather are SUPPLEMENT IDENTITIES provided by
Dreyer (NGC Page 5 ).
NGC 1276 = GC 5303 is included in the Birr Observations of Dec. 12th 1876, being
measured from NGC 1278 (incorrectly identified as GC 674, should be GC 675).
The separation places NGC 1276 3.5 tsec RA preceding and 4' 48" north, however,
when these values are measured on the Palomar print O-1618 this turns out to be a
double star.
The RNGC lists its RNGC 1276 as being 0.1m of RA preceding and having the same
declination as NGC 1278 and even if one uses the XY coordinates in the RNGC the
difference in declination in millimeters is only 1mm. which hardly corresponds
with 4' 48" of arc, therefore their candidate for the identity NGC 1276 has
absolutely no historical support. The RNGC also gives contradictory data
regarding the declination values for RNGC 1276 in relation to RNGC 1277 as in its
SKY COORDINATES it places RNGC 1276 to lie 1arcmin. south of RNGC 1277 while for
it Rectangular Coordinates it places RNGC 1276 to lie 1mm. north of RNGC 1277.
Finally there is the puzzling case of IC 1907 = Bigourdan # 375. Nowhere in
Bigourdan's great 1919 publication is there any positional data given to this
identity other than in reference to NGC 1277, however, Bigourdan gives it a
position of 3hr 16m 32s + 41 22'.2 in the Comptes Rendus List from which Dreyer in
his IC II catalogue gives it coordinates of 3hr 16m 34s + 41 22'.1, thus placing
it 2 tsec following and 1'.5 south of his position for NGC 1277 or 0'.5 south of
his NGC 1278 and there is at almost exactly this position on the Palomar print the
image of a very faint galaxy which is listed in Wolf and Kaiser's List of 124
Nebulae in the Perseus Cluster in which it is identified as # 74. at 3hr 16m
33.79s + 41 22' 9".8. and for a considerable time I was of the opinion that this
must be IC 1907, however, I have now abandoned this as being tenable due to a
number of factors which will not support this premise. namely, WK #74 has a Mp of
16.7, also in the Webb Society Handbook Vol. 5 there are visual observations of
NGC 1278 by R.G.Buta of the McDonald Observatory using the 36 inch reflector,
myself using a 16.5 inch reflector and Dr. G. Whiston employing a 16 inch
reflector, only Buta was able to see WK #74 close south preceding NGC 1278 and he
described it as "Very faint" and finally Bigourdan's own references in his NGC
1277 observations made with a 12 inch refracting telescope.
Bigourdan only references for B.375 are in two of the four observations he made
for NGC 1277.
The first reference is in his October 21st 1884 observation in which he states
that NGC 1277 is at a distance of 50 arcsec. from the nebula B.375. The second
is for December 2nd 1886 in which he describes NGC 1277 as being at a Position
Angle of 320 and a distance of 1 arcmin. from B.375.
Well this would indicate that his B.375 is equal to NGC 1278 (The UGC Notes place
NGC 1277 at a PA of 321. Dist.0'.8 from NGC 1278), but why would Bigourdan not
just have dispensed with even mentioning the identity B.375 and instead have made
the same references using the identity NGC 1278?
Bigourdan in this same 1919 work identifies and measures accurately the position
for NGC 1278 on the same four dates he observed NGC 1277 so evidently he was well
aware of their existence.
I have now come to the belief that the reason for this confusion is that he
considered that just possibly John Herschel's position for GC 675 = D'Arrest's 7th
object = NGC 1278, placing it just off the north following edge of NGC 1275 was
correct and because of this possibility, small as it might be, he was not yet
ready to fully abandon his B.375 identity.
There is no way to prove my assumption to be the right one, however, it does
provide a reasonable explanation to the confusion involved. Never-the-less, it
appears to be certain that IC 1907 is equal to NGC 1278.
The CGCG and SIMBAD have incorrectly makes IC 1907 = NGC 1274, while the MCG, NED
and PGC have wrongly made IC 1907 equal to a very faint galaxy listed as CR 32
(Chincarini,G. & Rood. 1971.) at 3hr 16m 18s + 41 24'.0.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 1907 as a separate galaxy without any
equivalency to any other identity and giving it different coordinates from NGC
1278. The APL gives = NGC 1278. Steinicke equates IC 1907 with NGC 1278.
IC 1910.
POSS. O-897.
Stewart #176. 03hr 15m 43.671s - 21 36' 57.913" (1950).
03hr 17m 57.448s - 21 26' 02.920" (2000).
Not found : I was unable to find on the DSS any nebular image on or close to the
given position. Stewart described it as "2 extremely faint, extremely small
nebulae suspected."
The NGC 2000 gives (No Type), the MOL (NSO) while the APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
have (Not found).
IC 1911.
POSS. O-1333.
Bigourdan #258 03hr 17m 35.998s + 35 06' 54.120" (1950). 03hr 20m 45.749s + 35
17' 40.843" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
Not found : Bigourdan described it as "Glimpsed only, Sky less than normal."
Only modern listings are Steinicke, APL and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: In Bigourdan's Appendix VIII, Page 11 he reports that he measured a position
on 25th March 1887 from the star AG Leyde 1259 and when his offsets (+0m 5.10s RA +2'
49" Dec) are applied it would give coordinates of 03hr 20m 47.38s + 35 19' 23.0
(2000) for IC 1911. Bigoudan then describes it as "Trace of nebulosity, only
suspected."
IC 1917.
Stewart #182. 03hr 20m 48.542s - 53 22' 16.125" (1950).
03hr 22m 13.254s - 53 11' 36.479" (2000).
Possible candidate ? At the nominal position there is definitely a galaxy which
is faint and makes up a group with 4 very faint stellar images some of which may
be extremely compact galaxies. Whether this, or some combination of these images
is what Stewart is referring to as "Elongated north to south" I am unable to say
with any certainty
The obvious galaxy in this group has the identity APM 032047.78 - 532145.2 with
coordinates of 03hr 20m 48s - 53 21' 45" and has a Mp of 15.99 which is brighter
than many of Stewart's other discoveries
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type), the MOL as (NSO). NED identifies the galaxy
APM 032047.78 - 532145.2 but does not equate it with any IC identity. The APL
gives 6 entries all identified as IC 1917, while the ESO has 155-?023 at 03hr
20m 48s - 53 23'.0. Steinicke lists IC 1917 the same as the ESO, as does SIMBAD.
NOTE : Subsequent to my investigation I reported my findings to Dr. Corwin and
he responded by affirming the equivalency between IC 1917 and APM 032047.78-
532145.2
IC 1920.
Stewart #183. 03hr 22m 49.249s - 52 53' 22.872" (1950).
03hr 24m 14.663s - 52 42' 50.050" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Stewart's coordinates land between two very small galaxies
either of which might be his object and without seeing the original discovery
plate it is virtually impossible to decide which image he is referring to as his
#183.
The ESO has suggested that the preceeding of the pair is IC 1920 (ESO 155-G024),
which according to NED has a Mp of 16.34 and this equivalency is supported by the
APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke. The following galaxy is APMBGC 155-041-118 at
03hr 22m 58.9s - 52 53' 21", Mp 16.41 = Shap.324-5242.5 (Shapley, H. 1935. A
CATALOGUE OF 7889 EXTERNAL GALAXIES IN HOROGIUM AND SURROUNDING REGIONS . Harvard
Annals 88:107).
An interesting finding concerning the following of the pair is that Stewart's
discovery plate is #3339 and this is the same plate he employed to measure
positions for both IC 1924 and IC 1926 and in both these cases his RA is about 9.0
tsec too small, while for IC 1920 his RA is about 10.9 tsec too small
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates.
NOTE: I informed Dr. Harold Corwin of my thoughts on the identity of IC 1920 and
he agreed that my argument in support of the following of the pair being IC 1920
was valid, furthermore, he calculated the mean surface brightness for both
galaxies and found that ESO 155-G024 was = 14.33 and APMBGC 155-041-118 was =
14.38, also the ESO candidate has a smaller and brighter core with less light in
the spiral arms which would make its image on the original plate more stellar and
less likely to appear nebulous to Stewart.
This then combined with the apparent systematic offset errors in RA would favour
that IC 1920 is the galaxy APMBGC 155-041-118.
IC 1921.
Stewart #184. 03hr 23m 11.957s - 50 52' 24.018" (1950).
03hr 24m 42.045s - 50 41' 52.614" (2000).
Not found : This is supposed to make up one of a pair with IC 1922 and according
to Stewart's coordinates it would lie about 2 arcmin directly north of IC 1922,
however, at the nominal position there is only a blank spot. Possibly a defect on
the discovery plate ?
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list it at Stewart's position. The ESO has
(IC 1921 ? 200-?012 at 3hr 23m 12s - 50 53'.0). Both the APL and Steinicke give
(Not found, possibly = ESO candidate). NED gives "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1925.
Stewart #188. 03hr 23m 46.517s - 51 26' 26.007" (1950).
03hr 25m 15.173s - 51 15' 56.522" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1929 (Stewart #191) : Stewart measured coordinates for both
identities making IC 1929 to follow IC 1925 by 0.2 tmin and both having the same
declination. He described IC 1925 as "E np to sf, stell." and IC 1929 as "E np to
sf." and when the field is examined there is only a single galaxy that fits this
description and it is at the coordinates as given by Stewart for his #191.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both identities as separate objects at
the historical positions. The APL has (= 1829 ?. Not found at nominal position).
The ESO (200-?018 = IC 1925 = IC 1929 ? 03hr 23m 48s - 51 26'.0) Steinicke has
(Equal to IC 1929) and NED list as (Not found). The PGC gives the single identity
IC 1929. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 1927.
Stewart #190. 03hr 23m 45.418s - 51 54' 25.976" (1950).
03hr 25m 12.985s - 51 43' 56.396" (2000).
Not found. Possibly equal to 2 faint stars : At the exact coordinates as given by
Stewart there is no nebular image. Stewart gives it the same RA as IC 1926 and
places its declination as being 2 arcmin south and allowing for the 9 tsec error
that he gives for the RA of IC 1926 there is at a position close to 2 arcmin
directly south the images of 2 very faint stars and Steinicke equates these 2
stars with the identity IC 1927 and also equates this with ESO 200 ?019.
The APL has (Not found at nominal position = ESO 200-?019). The NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO) list IC 1927 at the historical coordinates. NED gives "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1929.
(See IC 1925).
IC 1934.
POSS. O-643.
Barnard. 03hr 27m 52.409s +42 37' 32.324" (1950).
03hr 31m 15.012s + 42 47' 44.095" (2000).(Dreyer).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in UGC, NED and PGC only as UGC 02769. The APL,
SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identification. Only other listings are NGC
2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1939.
Stewart #199. 03hr 26m 16.406s - 51 14' 34.509" (1950).
03hr 27m 44.954s - 51 04' 13.567" (2000).
Not found : Listed in the NGC as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL has
(Not found at nominal position) NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not found). Listed in
the ESO as 200-?027.
IC 1941.POSS O- 441.
Stewart #202. 03hr 29m 15.250s + 24 15' 17.804" (1950).
03hr 32m 13.033s - 24 25' 25.432" (2000).
At the nominal position there is only a faint star :
Only listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*3), NED (Not found), APL
"Line of 3 sts." and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 1943.
Swift List XI, #55. 03hr 28m 02.288s - 44 16' 40.161" (1950).
03hr 29m 44.656s - 44 06' 25.740" (2000).
Not found at nominal position. Probably equal to NGC 1411 (h 2573).
Swift describes his nova as "pB, S, R." and there is no image anywhere close to
his coordinates fitting this description, however, at 03hr 37m 05.8s - 44 15' 27"
there is a galaxy fitting this description, NGC 1411.
The difference in RA is about 9 tmin, which at first seems excessive even for
Swift, but on his same List XI the object listed immediately preceeding his #55 is
IC 1919 and Dreyer in the IC II queries whether there is a 9 tmin error in its
given RA. This would seem to establish that IC 1943 could very well be equal to
NGC 1411. The MOL (NSO) gives IC 1943 at the historical coordinates. The ESO
correctly gives NGC 1411 = 249-G011 at 03hr 37m 04s - 44 15'.7, and then lists IC
1943 = 248-?016 at 03hr 28m 00s - 44 17'.0
The APL, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke make the equivalency with NGC 1411.
The PGC gives the single identity NGC 1411.
IC 1956.
POSS. O-1499.
Javelle #979. 03hr 32m 54.863s + 04 54' 24.409" (1950).
03hr 35m 32.291s + 05 04' 19.912" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC identifies this galaxy only as U02795 and the MCG only
as +1-10-001 The PCG (Corrections) notes the MCG omission. Correctly identified
in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 1963.
Swift List XI, #56. 03hr 32m 56.697s - 34 36' 50.744" (1950).
03hr 34m 53.469s - 34 26' 53.942" (2000).
This is equal to IC 335 (Swift List VII, #8) :
Swift discovered IC 335 ten years prior to his observation for IC 1963 and he gave
IC 335 coordinates of 03hr 33m 04s - 34 36' 44". In both descriptions he
describes them as being elongated east and west (90 degrees) and there is such a
galaxy at the coordinates he gives. The matching positions for both identities
confirms the equivalency.
The MOL (NSO) gives both identities as separate objects. The NGC 2000, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD the PGC and ESO correctly equate the two identities.
IC 1972 and IC 1973.
Stewart #226. 03hr 35.0m - 52 08'.0 (IC 1972) and 03hr 35.0m - 52 09'.0 (IC
1973).
Confirmed galaxies : The error here is in the declinations as given in the NGC
2000 in which they make IC 1973 the northern of the pair when the reverse is
correct. The MOL, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have the correct
alignment.
IC 1979.
Stewart #231. 03hr 35m 36.773s - 58 06' 07.566" (1950).
03hr 36m 43.867s - 57 56' 18.601" (2000).
This is a faint double star : Stewart found a galaxy (IC 1980) on Plate #4184 at
03hr 35.8m - 58 08'.1, or 0.2 tmin following and 2 arcmin south of the position he
gives for IC 1979. At the position he gives for IC 1980 there is a galaxy as
described by Stewart "eE at 25 degrees" and at the separation values he gives for
1979 there is only the image of a faint double star which has a brighter star
preceeding the northern component. The components of this double star are also in
agreement with the PA (20 degrees) given by Swift in his description for IC 1979.
The ESO, SIMBAD and NED equate the identities IC 1979 and IC 1980 which is
incorrect, and the NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 1979 as (No Type) and (NSO). The APL
and Steinicke correctly make IC 1979 = ** and give IC 1980 as a galaxy. The PGC has
no listing for the identity IC 1979.
IC 1981.
POSS. SO-30.
Swift List XI, #58. 03hr 37m 45.910s - 27 01' 25.437" (1950).
03hr 39m 51.917s - 26 51' 46.060" (2000).
Not found at nominal position: At the given position no nebular image exists,
however, this is to be expected with Swift's coordinates. The APL, NGC 2000, PGC,
NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have all equated this identity with NGC 1412 (H 248-3) and
this is the most likely candidate. It is so identified in the MCG but only as IC
1981 without any mention of NGC 1412 and the MOL (NSO) gives the original Swift
coordinates.
IC 1983.
POSS. O-908.
Swift list XI, #59. 03hr 38m 55.735s - 22 45'53.429" (1950).
03hr 41m 06.583s - 22 36' 18.407" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At Swift's nominal position no nebular image is to be found.
Swift describes it as "Very faint, pretty small, round; Not NGC 1426." The PGC,
SIMBAD, Steinicke and APL have equated this identity with NGC 1415 at 03hr 38m
45.7s - 22 43' 19.30", Mp 12.77 (NED), which most likely means an even brighter
visual magnitude, whereas as we see Swift described it as "Very faint."
Also I checked Steve Gotttlieb's visual observation of NGC 1415 made with a
telescope of comparable aperture to the one employed by Swift, observing from Lowe
Mountain, California at a more southern latitude than Steve, and Steve describes
NGC 1415 as being moderately bright in both a 17.5 and 13 inch reflector, while he
also detected in both telescopes the elongated nature of NGC 1415 whereas Swift
describes his object as "Round."
Certainly the difference in coordinates between the two identities (about 08.3tsec
RA and 2.5 arcmin dec.) would be well within the normal error factor found with
many of Swift's given positions, but there is visible on the DSS another field
galaxy which is I believe better fits Swift's description, NGC 1416, Mp 14.30 at
03hr 38m 52.154s - 22 52' 43.90 (1950). Gottlieb describes this as "Faint, Small,
Round." An excellent match for that given by Swift. Based only on its given
magnitude it could have certainly been within the reach of Swift's telescope but
of course this is no guarantee that this is what he saw, therefore, I am at this
time listing the identity as "Unable to confirm."
The NGC 2000 lists both identities as separate galaxies with separate coordinates
while the MOL states (May not exist). The PGC also equates it with NGC 1415 while
Carlson states "Not found. Mt. Wilson and Helwan plates."
IC 1988.
Swift List XI, #61. 03hr 40m 57.501s - 40 02' 43.366" (1950).
03hr 42m 45.085s - 39 53' 14.790" (2000).
Not found : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL (NSO). The ESO has 302-
?002. The APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 1992.
Stewart #239. 03hr 43m 42.853s - 51 09' 35.962" (1950).
03hr 45m 07.869s - 51 00' 16.578" (2000).
Not found : There is no nonstellar image at or close to Stewart's position. The
NGC 2000 lists as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). The ESO has 200-?057 while
Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED list as Not found. The APL also has Not found.
IC 2001.
Stewart #245. 03hr 49m 23.383s - 48 46' 56.510" (1950).
03hr 50m 52.902s - 48 37' 58.055" (2000).
Not found : At Stewart's nominal position there is no nebular image only a very
faint single star close following. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL
(NSO). Steinicke has (*2). The ESO has 201-?005 and NED has (Not found).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The APL lists it as ** at 03hr 49m 22.1s - 48
44' 57" (1950) and this does lie close south of 3 stars as described by Stewart. If
this is IC 2201 then Stewart is off by about 2 arcmin too far south.
(See IC 2011).
IC 2002.
POSS. O-940.
Javelle #983. 03hr 51m 45.835s + 10 33' 38.841" (1950).
03hr 54m 30.245s + 10 42' 25.845" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Probably equal to NGC 1474 :
NGC 1474 is one of Marth's discoveries to which he gave coordinates of 3hr 51m 52s
+ 10 25'.5 and at this position no object is found. Dr. Corwin and Steinicke have
suggested that NGC 1474 is equal to IC 2002 stating that on the same night that
Marth observed his object he also claimed some additional novae and for a number
of these his coordinates are in error by as much as 30 tsec RA and/or 30 arcmin.
Dec.
The NGC 2000 and MOL lists both identities as separate objects and incorrectly
give NGC 1474 the declination - 10 33'.0 The PGC, CGCG, MCG, UGC, SIMBAD and NED
give the single identity IC 2002.
IC 2007.
Swift List XI, #64. 03hr 52m 43.074s - 28 17' 25.756" (1950).
03hr 54m 46.248s - 28 08' 40.857" (2000).
This is equal to IC 2008 (Swift List XI, #65) : Swift discovered his #64 on
December 26th 1897, describing it as "eF, S, R, F* in contact nf."
There is no nebular object at or in the vicinity of his given position.
He discovered his #65 on October 5th 1896, describing it as "eF, vS, eeeF * v
close nf." and giving it coordinates of 03hr 53m 03s - 28 21'.4 and at a RA of
03hr 53m 19s there is a galaxy which fits both of these descriptions, the faint
star lying right on the galaxy's north following edge.
The MOL (NSO) gives both identities as separate objects with the historical
coordinates. The MCG gives only the identity IC 2008 and questions the identity
(?). The NGC 2000, APL, ESO, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly make the
equivalency.
IC 2008.
(See IC 2007).
IC 2011.
Stewart #248. 03hr 51m 28.238s - 57 38' 04.952" (1950).
03hr 52m 32.796s - 57 29' 13.431" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : About 2 arcmin north of Stewart's position for IC
2011 there is a double star whose component are aligned at 90 degrees and are
almost in contact and Steinicke has selected this as being IC 2011 which has
considerable merit because its image may appear somewhat nebulous on the early
plates as employed by Stewart. The APL has both Not found and = **, while the ESO
lists it as Not found 117-?012. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list it
at the historical coordinates. NED gives "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: Is this a declination error similar to IC 2001 ? I would have no
hesitation in confirming this thought except for the fact that IC 2001 and IC 2011
were discovered on different plates.
IC 2013.
POSS. O-1517.
Stewart #251. 03hr 54m 27.898s - 17 15' 13.848" (1950).
03hr 56m 43.934s - 17 06' 35.970" (2000).
Not found : At Stewart's coordinates no nebular image is found, certainly nothing
resembling his description "Considerably bright, considerably large, much
elongated 170 degrees, considerably brighter in the middle, suspected." There is
at about 01.7 tmin preceding his position a very faint and very small galaxy but
this hardly fits Stewart's description, also his positional error ratio is much
smaller than this in RA.
Only modern listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED, SIMBAD, APL, and
Steinicke (Not found).
IC 2026.
POSS. O-912.
Bigourdan #376. 04hr 01m 33.094s - 11 18' 54.415" (1950).
04hr 03m 55.233s - 11 10' 43.547" (2000).
Equal to NGC 1509 (Swift List V, #59 and O.Stone AJ 1 #122):
This is a very interesting puzzle in that it would seem that more than one
authority is confused.
Both Swift and Stone using larger telescopes than Bigourdan are credited with the
discovery of a single object in the field, namely NGC 1509. Swift's coordinates
are 04hr 01m 43s - 11 18' 32" while Stone gives 04hr 01.8m - 11 17'.8 and for
these two observers the coordinates are quite accurate.
Swift's description (copied into the NGC by Dreyer) reads "Very faint, very small,
little extended. Faint star near preceding."
Bigourdan in his 1919 OBSERVATIONS attempted twice to find NGC 1509. The first
time on December 14th 1890 when he was unsuccessful and the second time on
December 16th 1897 when he measures an object from his reference star (BD -11 793)
and gives it coordinates of 04hr 01m 37.8s - 11 18' 33". He describes this object
as "Very faint, appears to be a small nebula of 10 to 15 arcsec and demi-stellar
without perceptible detail, the close star described in the NGC is the object
measured as BIG 376."
Next Bigourdan measures and describes a Nova (his Big. #376), using the same
reference star and giving its position as 04hr 01m 33.8s - 11 18' 17" "Object
13.2 to 13.3 Mag. A little nebulous, quite stellar of 05 to 10 arcsec in size."
Now when the field is examined on the DSS we find 3 objects in line almost equally
apart. By order of RA they are a 15.5 Mp galaxy, a 14.5 Mp galaxy and a star of
about 13th mag.
It is my believe that what Bigourdan thought was possibly NGC 1509 is the 13 mag.
star and that he then decided that what is the brighter of the two galaxies was a
nova and gave it the identity Big.#376 and as it appeared quite stellar to him he
assumed that it was what Swift had described as "a star close preceding," whereas
I also think that what Swift mistook as being a star close preceding his NGC 1509
was an Anon. galaxy (the preceding or first of two visible in the immediate field,
(the only other explanation for Swift's reference to an associated star would be
if he has mis-stated the relative RA of the star to that of NGC 1509 and that he
should have stated "star close following" not "close preceding," in which case it
would be the 3rd object in the immediate field, the star Bigourdan mistakenly
identified as being NGC 1509).
As both Swift and Stone only saw a single object it would have had to be the
brightest which is the second by RA and it is this same galaxy that Bigourdan
identifies as his Big.376.The MCG, PGC, SIMBAD and NED have incorrectly identified
the preceding galaxy as being IC 2026 and correctly identified the following of
two galaxies as being NGC 1509.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give separate identities and separate
coordinates to the NGC and IC identities.
The only modern authorities to equate IC 2026 with NGC 1509 that I am aware of are
the APL and Steinicke.
IC 2030.
POSS. O-1517.
Stewart #264. 04hr 02m 43.145s - 19 21' 44.991" (1950).
04hr 04m 56.420s - 19 13' 38.265" (2000).
Not found : There exists a small galaxy (ESO 550.G004 =NPMIG -19.0173), at about
2 arcmin south of and 04 tsec following Stewart's position, however, it does not
fit Stewart's description "Considerably faint, very small, exceedingly elongated
135 degrees, suspected."
The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO), while NED and SIMBAD select and
identify the faint galaxy NPMIG - 19.0173 as being IC 2030. The APL has "Not found"
Steinicke has (Not found).
NOTE: Here again there is a 2 arcmin difference in declination between the
nominal position and the suggested candidate as found in IC 2001 and IC 2011,
although in this case the error would be in the opposite direction and again is on
an entirely different photographic plate from the other two.
IC 2031.
POSS. O-1518.
Barnard. 04hr 03m 25.844s - 05 45' 06.218"
04hr 05m 53.732s - 05 37' 02.636" (2000). (Dreyer).
Possible candidate : At Barnard's coordinates no nebular image is found, however,
at about 21 tsec following and 02 arcmin south there is a galaxy, (NPMIG - 05.0170
Mp 16.03) at 04hr 06m 14.695s - 05 39' 06.87 (2000). that does fit his description
"Exceedingly faint, very small, diffuse, little brighter in the middle, * 11th
mag. north following 3 arcmin."
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 2031 at the Dreyer coordinates. Steinicke and
the APL has (= NPM1G - 05.0170) Not listed in the PGC. The GSC 2.2 identifies
this object as S0212300152 Type 0 (star). NED has (Not found), but does list NPMIG
- 5.0170 as a galaxy. SIMBAD "Not present in the database." They do however, l;ist
NPMIG -5.0170.
NOTE: The coordinates as given by Dreyer are only approximate, both RA and Dec
having + or - signs.
IC 2040.
Swift list XI, #67. 04hr 10m 25.543s - 32 42' 03.137" (1950).
04hr 12m 21.184s - 32 34' 25.454" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift's RA is about 46 tsec too small and this may account for
Carlson (Not found, Helwan) and the MOL listing it as (May not exist). The APL,
RC3, MCG, PGC, DSFG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have the correct identity.
IC 2041.
Swift List XI, #68. 04hr 10m 40.081s - 33 00' 04.091" (1950).
04hr 12m 35.260s - 32 52' 27.335" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Swift's declination is just over 3 arcmin too far south,
however, IC 2041 is easily visible on the DSS and matches Swift's description
concerning being in the same field as NGC 1531-2.
Carlson in her paper lists IC 2041 as (Not found, Helwan) and this may have
influenced the MOL which states "May not exist." The NGC 2000, RC3, PGC,
DSFG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO have the correct identity.
The APL equates it with IC 2048. Note: (See IC 2048).
IC 2042.
Innes. 04hr 10m 14.363s - 47 23' 17.273" (1950).
04hr 11m 43.617s - 47 15' 37.747" (2000).
This is equal to a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL
as (NSO). The APL, Steinicke and the ESO correctly equate it with a single star.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2045.
POSS. O-912.
Howe III,#14. 04hr 12m 16.528s -13 17' 51.541" (1950).
04hr 14m 36.206s - 13 10' 22.016" (2000).
Possibly equal to NGC 1538 but unable to confirm :
Listed in the PGC and NED as being equal to NGC 1538. The APL gives IC 2045=??
NGC 1538.
Howe discovered IC 2045 on January 20th 1900 with the Chamberin Observatory's 20
inch refractor. He described it as "Exceedingly faint, extremely small, almost
stellar; near NGC 1538."
When his coordinates are applied to the Palomar print they show a galaxy with a
fainter companion close south preceding. These two galaxies lie between 2 bright
stars , the stars being aligned south preceding north following.
The brighter of these two galaxies, (the north following of the pair) is Howe's IC
2045.
South following IC 2045 at about 20 tsec and 1.0 arcmin there is another galaxy
with a faint companion just beyond its preceding edge, the brighter of this pair
is Howe's other discovery, his #15 = IC 2047 to which he gave coordinates of 04hr
12m 36.499s - 13 18' 52,837 (1950)
Howe states that both IC 2045 and IC 2047 are near NGC 1538. His source for NGC
1538 would have either been from its discoverer's data (O. Stone. The
Astronomical Journal No.146. November 24th 1886), in which it is listed as
discovery #125, or from Dreyer's NGC (1888).
O. Stone (Leander McCormick Observatory) had discovered NGC 1538 while observing
with the 26 inch refractor and had given it coordinates of 04hr 12m 47.313s - 13
21' 51.153" (1950), while Dreyer gives 04hr 12m 45s - 13 21'.7 and these would
have provided to Howe where NGC 1538 should be found and when these coordinates
are examined on the Palomar print they land close to the south preceding of a pair
of galaxies south following both IC 2045 and IC 2047.
Now lets examine the NED (NASA EXTRAGALCTIC DATABASE) identities. All 1950 Epoch.
(1). NGC 1538 = NPMIG -13.0170. Mp 15.0 04hr 12m 16.3s - 13 17' 59"
(2). NPMIG.-13.0171. Mp 15.98 04hr 12m 36.4s - 13 18' 58"
(3). NPMIG -13.0172. Mp15.64 04hr 12m 45s - 13 21' 23".33
It is obvious from this that the NED also makes its NGC 1538 the same object
listed by Howe as #14 = IC 2045 , thus being in agreement with the APL and PGC and
that while not identifying NED's (2) as IC 2047 it is the same object discovered
and listed by Howe as his #15 = IC 2047, while NED's (3) is the galaxy which as
far as positional data would match the coordinates as given by O.Stone for his
#125 = NGC 1538.
As the field contains only one galaxy which has a NGC identity the argument
suggested by the APL, PGC and NED would have to be that it would most likely be
the brightest field object, NED's (1), as certainly based upon the positional
evidence the NGC identity would have to be for NED (3), which is according to NED
about 0.6 of a magnitude fainter than their NGC 1538, however, when it comes to
visually seeing faint galaxies listed Mps can be misleading as Howe, using a
smaller telescope than Stone was able to see and record a galaxy listed by NED as
Mp 15.98 (NED (2) = NPMIG -13.0171 which is Howe's #15 = IC 2047.
I have discussed this problem with Dr. Harold Corwin who has a copy of a field
sketch made of the field by O.Stone, however, Dr. Corwin informs me that the
sketch does not specify clearly which is the object Stone is referring to as being
his NGC 1538, indeed Harold states that although logic suggests that Stone's
object would be the brightest in the field, namely IC 2045, the sketch argues
against this, however, Harold has decided to keep the equivalency with the
addition of a question mark.
The MCG gives only the identity IC 2045 and due to their coordinates, 04hr 12.35m
- 13 20'.0 it is difficult to clearly establish just which object they are
identifying, however, I assume it is the brightest in the field.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give separate coordinates and identities to
IC 2045 and NGC 1538. Steinicke has identified NED's NPM1G -13.0171 as being NGC
1538 and then selects NPM1G -13.0170 Mp.15.41 at 04hr 12m 16.3s -13 17' 59.24" as
being Howe's IC 2045. Thus it would appear that the majority of the modern sources
have different conclusions as to the identities involved, each authority basing
their conclusions on either the historical coordinates, the brightness factors or
the historical description references, which makes this case a most complex one.
IC 2048.
Swift List XI, #69. 04hr 12m 26.546s - 33 14' 47.001" (1950).
04hr 14m 21.226s - 33 07' 17.153" (2000).
Not found : At Swift's nominal position there is only a blank space.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (?) and the MOL as (May not exist). Listed as Not
found by Carlson, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO. The APL equates IC 2048 with
IC 2041 and Dr. Corwin makes a good argument for this in his Files.
NOTE: The only galaxy that I can find that fits Swift's description, "eeeF, eS,
B* f, NGC 1532 p, 3 in field with D neb, ee diff," is his IC 2041 (which see),
however, the coordinates he gives for IC 2041 are considerably different
than those for IC 2048. The fact that he describes NGC 1532 as being in the same
field suggests that his nominal position is subject to major error.
He discovered IC 2048 almost 21 months prior to discovering IC 2041.
IC 2053.
Stewart #279. 04hr 14m 23.540s - 49 29' 31.615" (1950).
04hr 15m 47.236s - 49 22' 08.278" (2000).
Not found : This is a rather unusual case in that it has a connection with
problems involving the following additional IC identities, IC 2055, 2069, 2072,
2076 and 2084.
At the coordinates as given by Stewart for each of these identities there are no
suitable nebular images to be found, either at or close to the stated positions.
The NGC 2000 lists each as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The other modern
authorities (APL, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and ESO) all list them as Not found.
These 6 identities are all from Stewart's Plate #4199 which had an exposure time
of about 1 hour as opposed to many of the survey plates which were exposed for 3
to 5 hours and they are the only objects he lists as being found on this plate.
As none of these 6 identities can be found on the DSS it would strongly suggest
that Plate #4199 suffered from a defect problem which misled Stewart into the
possibility that he was seeing nonstellar images, as it is he does state for all 6
that they were only "suspected."
The NGC 2000 has (No Type). The MOL (NSO). Steinicke has (Not found). The APL
states "= ESO 201-?027 with 10 arcmin dec error in ESO."
IC 2055.
Stewart #280. 04hr 16m 24.343s - 49 02' 39.481" (1950).
04hr 17m 48.836s - 48 55' 24.092" (2000).
Not found : This is one of the identities (IC 2053, IC 2069, 76 and 84), that
were listed by Stewart on Plate #4199, none of which can be found at or close to
the positions he gives and which I suspect may result from photographic defects.
Steinicke has (Not found). The NGC 2000 gives (No Type). The MOL (NSO). The APL,
SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 2059.
Swift List XI, #70. 04hr 18m 26.530s - 31 34'28.440" (1950).
04hr 20m 23.159s - 31 27' 22.277" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : At Swift's coordinates no nonstellar object
exists, however, at about 16 arcmin to the south there is a galaxy and the NGC
2000, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED and ESO (420-G017 = IC 2059 ?) have each suggested
that this might be Swift's object, while the MCG identifies this same galaxy only
as -5-11-007 and the MOL lists IC 2059 (NSO) at the historical coordinates.
Certainly a 16 arcmin error would not be out of line for many of Swift's
positions, therefore this identity by a majority of the modern sources must be
considered a good candidate.
IC 2061.
POSS O-1501.
Stewart #283. 04hr 21m 02.755s + 20 58' 05.254" (1950).
04hr 23m 59.892s - 21 04' 58.825" (2000).
Not found : Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), APL "Probably a plate
defect." Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2062.
POSS.O-866.
Bigourdan #259. 04hr 26m 20.593s + 71 48' 47.114" (1950).
04hr 32m 02.553s + 71 55' 13.888" (2000).
This is a single star : Bigourdan measured positions for both NGC 1560 and B.259
during the same observation employing as his reference star BD + 71 257.
His separation values for NGC 1560 are + 1m 14 s RA and + 2' 36" Dec. while for
B.259 they are + 27 s RA and + 4' 53" Dec. therefore B.259 = IC 2062 can hardly be
a duplicate observation of NGC 1560 as indicated in the CGCG, UGC, PGC, SIMBAD, NGC
2000 and MOL. The MCG, RC3 and DSFG have no listing for this identity. The APL and
Steinicke correctly list it as = *. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED."
IC 2063.
POSS. O-1476.
Howe List 1, #5. 04hr 20m 23.488s - 15 46' 41.483" (1950).
04hr 22m 40.115s - 15 39' 43.850" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not equal to NGC 1563.
NGC 1563 is one of 5 galaxies discovered by Leavenworth making up a loose group,
the others being NGC 1561, 62, 64 and 65.
This is a typical example of the haphazard measurements published by the Leander
McCormick group in the ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL No.146, indeed these are for the most
part extremely poor, Leavenworth giving exactly the same RA for all 5 objects.
The only identity which can be definitely established is for NGC 1561 due to
Leavenworth's description regarding the 8th magnitude star 06 tsec preceding. As
for the RA values he gives they are all with the exceptions of NGC 1561 and NGC
1564 very poor and the best match ups I have found are those given by Dr. Corwin
in the APL which result in the following 1950 coordinates.
NGC 1561 : 04hr 20m 44.6s - 15 57' 47"
NGC 1562 : 04hr 19m 31.09s - 15 52' 21".1
NGC 1563 : 04hr 20m 37.3s - 15 51' 00" (Not equal to IC 2063).
NGC 1564 : 04hr 20m 44.2s - 15 51' 23"
NGC 1565 : 04hr 21m 07.1s - 15 51' 33"
IC 2063 : 04hr 20m 23.62s - 15 46' 36".4
The MCG identifies its -03-12-05 as NGC 1563 at 04hr 20'.5 - 15 46'.0 but this is
incorrect, as NGC 1563 is a galaxy at 04hr 20m 37.3s - 15 51'0" and makes up with
NGC 1564 a companion system which agrees with Leavenworth's description in which
he makes these two objects "Double."
What the MCG is identifying as NGC 1563 is actually IC 2063. The PGC also
incorrectly equates MCG -03-12-05 with the identity NGC 1563, as does SIMBAD.
The NGC 2000 and the MOL both list IC 2063 as being separate from NGC 1563,
however, their declination values suggest that NGC 1563 and IC 2063 are the same
object. The APL and Steinicke in my opinion have the correct identities
which result in IC 2063 being an entirely separate galaxy. NED gives "There is no
object with this name in NED," but does list the identity MCG-03-12-005.
IC 2069.
Stewart #287. 04hr 24m 30.972s - 48 19' 11.587" (1950).
04hr 25m 56.086s - 48 12' 28.453" (2000).
Not found : There are no nebular images visible at, or close to the nominal
position. This is another of the Plate #4199 "missing objects."
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The ESO gives 202-
?016. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have (Not found).
IC 2072.
Stewart #289. 04hr 25m 30.434s - 48 29' 15.566" (1950).
04hr 26m 55.012s - 48 22' 36.389" (2000).
Not found : Another of the missing objects on Plate #4199. Listed in the NGC
2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The ESO has 202-?020. The APL, NED, SIMBAD
and Steinicke have Not found.
IC 2074.
POSS. O-887.
Bigourdan #377. 04hr 28m 41.274s + 07 35' 42.329" (1950).
04hr 31m 23.298s + 07 42' 05.825" (2000).
This is 3 stars : Bigourdan described it as A small nebula in which there are at
least 2 stars, perhaps only a small cluster, size about 25 arcsec.
Correctly listed in the APL as ***. and Steinicke as (* 3). Only other modern
listings are NGC 2000 (Open cluster), NED "There is no object with this name in
NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and MOL (Open cluster).
IC 2075.
POSS. O-918.
Bigourdan #260. 04hr 28m 24.440s - 05 54' 22.328" (1950).
04hr 30m 51.841s - 05 47' 57.192" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 1594 (Swift List V,#61). Bigourdan in his 1919 OBSERVATIONS
states that this object is probably NGC 1594 with a 20 tsec error. The MCG gives
only the identity IC 2075 while both the NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) give both
identities to separate objects. The APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke correctly
list the equivalency.
IC 2076.
Stewart #291. 04hr 26m 42.638s - 48 20' 20.380" (1950).
04hr 28m 07.418s - 48 13' 46.046" (2000).
Not found : Again one of six claimed nebulae on Stewart's Plate # 4199 and which
are not visible on the modern photographs. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the
MOL (NSO). The ESO has 202-?024. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have Not
found.
IC 2077.
POSS. O-1524.
Javelle #988. 04hr 29m 32.017 + 00 27' 32.391" (1950).
04hr 32m 06.300s + 00 33' 52.750" (2000).
This is definitely equal to NGC 1608 (ROSSE) : Dreyer in his NGC incorrectly
places NGC 1608 north of NGC 1588, not where Rosse had stated in his observation
in which he correctly puts it south of NGC 1588. Due to this error Javelle
understandably thought that his J 988 was a new discovery.
Carlson, NGC 2000 and MOL all correctly equate IC 2077 with NGC 1608 while the
APL, NED, Steinicke and PGC give IC 2077 = NGC 1608 = NGC 1593 and Marth, the
discoverer of NGC 1593, placed his object almost exactly 1 tmin of RA preceding
NGC 1608/IC 2077 while having similar declinations, therefore there is excellent
evidence to suggests that all three identities are equivalent.
CGCG, MCG and UGC give only the identity IC 2077. SIMBAD correctly identifies IC
2077 but does not equate it with any of the 2 NGC identities, even though it gives
the identity NGC 1608 as having essentially the same coordinates.
IC 2078.
POSS. O-918.
Bigourdan #378. 04hr 29m 23.649s - 04 48' 14.857" (1950).
04hr 31m 52.240s - 04 41' 53.747" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as No Type and in the MOL as NSO.
NED and SIMBAD have (Not found) while the APL and Steinicke have (=*).
IC 2080.
POSS. O-918.
Howe List III, #16. 04hr 29m 52.263s (+ or -) - 05 51' 30.989" (1950).
04hr 32m 19.700s - 05 45' 11.779" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Howe generally gave very good coordinate
positions for his discoveries but in this case he gave only an approximate RA.
Dr. Corwin has selected a galaxy at only 26 tsec preceding Howe's position and I
believe that this is Howe's #16.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the erroneous historical RA. The
APL and Steinicke give the candidate at 04hr 29m 25s - 05 51'.4 The PGC lists
this same candidate as "Anon." = PGC #15426. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2084.
Stewart #297. 04hr 30m 41.998s - 48 23' 36.460" (1950).
04hr 32m 06.137s - 48 17' 18.213" (2000).
Not found : The last by order of RA listed from Plate 4199 that Stewart claimed
as being nebular and which are nonexistent. The NGC 2000 lists as (No Type) and
the MOL as (NSO). The ESO has 202-?033. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have
Not found.
IC 2090.
Swift List XI, #72. 04hr 42m 52.949s - 34 05' 07.273" (1950).
04hr 44m 43.996s - 33 59' 39.934" (2000).
Not found : No suitable images near or at Swift's position. The NGC 2000 has (No
Type) and the MOL (NSO). The ESO gives 361-?008. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke have Not found.
IC 2091.
POSS. O-1519.
Roberts. 04hr 44m 09.888s - 04 46' 21.317" (1950).
04hr 46m 38.365s - 04 41' 00.669" (2000).
Not found : The closest object to the Roberts position is a small asterism
consisting of 5 faint stars. Listed in the NGC 2000 as (Ast.) and in the MOL as
(Group of faint stars). Carlson has (grp of F stars, Mt. Wilson), Steinicke (=
star group) and the APL (= 4 stars). NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2092.
POSS. O-1519.
Roberts. 04hr 44m 19.344s - 05 02' 40.520" (1950).
04hr 46m 47.516s - 04 57' 20.518" (2000).
No nebular image at nominal position : It is quite possible that what Robert's
describes as "S, spiral, bright stell N, indication of star on south end" is the
galaxy NGC 1659 at 04hr 44m 01.548s - 04 52' 41.12" (1950), which fits the
description except that the star is on the north end. Listed as a double star in
the NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson. Steinicke and APL HAVE (*3). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Double or multiple star."
IC 2093.
POSS. O-969.
Bigourdan #379. 04hr 45m 01.814s - 02 47' 48.070" (1950).
04hr 47m 32.494s - 02 42' 31.125" (2000).
This is a single star : The CGCG has selected and identified a galaxy (ZWG
394.007) as being IC 2093 at 04hr 44.0m - 02 46'.0 also equal to MCG 0-13-006 and
this galaxy does have a star similar to Bigourdan's reference star, however,
Bigourdan identifies his reference star as BD -2 890, 9th mag. and has separation
values of - 0 tmin 18.3 tsec and -02' 15" which places his #379 north preceding
his reference star whereas ZWG 394.007 lies about 34 tsec preceding and also lies
south of its field star.
The MOL identifies IC 2093 as (NSO). Steinicke gives (= *). Identified in the
NGC 2000 as (Double star) and in the APL as (=*). The PGC, SIMBAD and NED identify
the CGCG galaxy as being IC 2093.
IC 2096.
POSS. O-1519.
Roberts. 04hr 47m 09.247s - 05 04' 25.588" (1950).
04hr 49m 37.362s - 04 59' 17.350" (2000).
At the nominal position no object exists: At 04hr 46m 14.955s - 05 03' 52.01"
(1950), there is the spiral galaxy MCG -01-13-012 = PGC Anon. 016065 at 04hr 46m
14.955s - 05 03' 52.01 which does match Roberts description "Small right hand
spiral; with stellar nucleus; elongated; indications of condensations."
Whether this is what Roberts saw I can not say for sure, however, it should be
noted that for the 10 novae he lists in this paper (MNRAS, vol.lxiii. p.302) he
states that the coordinates are only approximate.
The MOL lists it as (NSO). NGC 2000 (3 stars), Steinicke (= 3 stars) and APL
(Line of 3 stars). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 2099.
POSS. O-1519.
Roberts. 04hr 48m 21.411s - 04 59' 04.550" (1950).
04hr 50m 49.616s - 04 54' 01.326" (2000).
It is probably equal to NGC 1677 (Swift List V, #64): Swift gives his object a
position of 04hr 48m 52s - 04 52' 50" and another measurement of NGC 1677 by
Bigourdan gives 04hr 48m 58.2s - 04 52' 09" but at both these positions there are
only faint stars. The difference between the coordinates as given by Roberts and
Swift are about 31 tsec and 06 arcmin, which are not unusual with Swift's
measurements, therefore the equivalency is probably correct and Roberts cannot be
blamed for thinking that he had discovered a Nova.
The MCG gives only the identity IC 2099. The NGC 2000 and MOL both give the
separate identities at the historical positions. The PGC and SIMBAD equate IC 2099
with NGC 1677. NED gives the identity IC 2099 without mention of the equivalent
identity NGC 1677. The APL argues that it is not equal to NGC 1677 (See Corwin
Files) and Steinicke also does not give the equivalency.
IC 2100.
POSS. O-1519.
Bigourdan #380. 04hr 48m 47.179s - 04 54' 52.367" (1950).
04hr 51m 15.472s - 04 49' 50.978" (2000).
This is a double star : The MOL types it as (NSO). The NGC 2000, Steinicke and
APL correctly show it to be a double star. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2107.
POSS. O-974.
Bigourdan #381. 04hr 55m 37.978s + 08 09' 48.744" (1950).
04hr 58 20.979s + 08 14' 20.912" (2000).
Equal to NGC 1707 (h 338) : This is actually a small asterism made up of 4 or 5
stars and only John Herschel considered it to possibly have associated nebulosity,
"A resolved nebula, or a small, round group of very small stars, 30" in diameter."
Bigourdan described it as "Small cluster, 30" in diameter, can distinguish only 4
to 5 stars."
Correctly listed in the APL ( equal to NGC 1707 = 4 stars) and Steinicke (*
Group). Also listed in the NGC 2000 (?) and = NGC 1707, while the MOL lists NGC
1707 as "Non existent object" and IC 2107 as "May not exist." Carlson gives (=
NGC 1707. Reinmuth). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2108.
POSS. O-1323.
Bigourdan #261. 04hr 55m 00.782s - 15 22' 19.797" (1950).
04hr 57m 16.871s - 15 17' 44.075" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
Equal to NGC 1710 (Leavenworth. #140) : This is a somewhat complicated problem in
that Bigourdan gives two separate sets of coordinates for what appears to be his
#261.
To begin, in his published observations found in the COMPTES RENDUS (December
1896) he gives his #261 as 04hr 55m 00s - 15 22'.2 describing it as "Mag. 13.3,
round, 30 arcsec in diameter. more brighter towards the middle with a stellar
concentration. A little diffuse, which is well seen. A 9.5 mag. star is at a PA
of 130 degrees, distant 1.3 arcmin." Now when these coordinates are examined on
the Palomar print they show a galaxy which matches this description.
Now in his 1919 OBSERVATIONS Bigourdan does not give any identity number to his
observation but does employ a 10.5 reference star (Anon.2) and measures a position
from this star in order to give coordinates for what he only identifies as "NOVA"
and he gives it a 1950 position of 04hr 55m 56s -15 23' 53", which is almost 1
tmin different than his CR coordinates and when these are applied to the
photographic print they show only a single star at the required offsets from his
reference star.
His description for this Nova is "Appears as a small nebula but definitely
granular, irregularly round of 30 arcsec diameter, appears to be a group of 3 or 4
very faint stars difficult to perceive and accompanied by traces of nebulosity."
He then adds a footnote which states "This nebula was at first taken to be
Leavenworth #140 = NGC 1710, whose measurements are somewhat later (larger)
suggesting that Leavenworth #140 = Big. 261."
As the identity IC 2108 was given to Big. #261 by Dreyer based upon the COMPTES
RENDUS data it would seem that the galaxy that exists there is very likely also
Leavenworth's NGC 1710 and therefore the equivalency would seem to be the best
answer.
MCG gives only the identity IC 2108. NGC 2000 (GX. with separate identity from
NGC 1710). MOL gives both identities as separate, IC 2108 = NSO and NGC 1710 =
galaxy). APL has (= NGC 1710) as does Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC.
IC 2109.
POSS. O-969.
Bigourdan #382. 04hr 56m 26.066s - 00 22' 49.849" (1950).
04hr 58m 59.409s - 00 18' 20.700" (2000).
This is a star : Listed in NGC 2000 as (No Type) and in the MOL as (NSO). Listed
in the APL and Steinicke as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2110.
POSS. O-969.
Bigourdan #383. 04hr 56m 28.484s - 00 22' 38.401" (1950).
04hr 59m 01.831s - 00 18' 09.422" (2000).
This is a star : It lies close north following the star listed by Bigourdan as
#382 = IC 2109. Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and in the MOL (NSO). Listed in
the APL and Steinicke as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2113.
POSS. O-1323.
Barnard. 04hr 57m 15.472s - 15 53' 48.871" (1950).
04hr 59m 30.875s - 15 49' 22.575" (2000).
Equal to NGC 1730 (Swift List V, #66 and O.Stone ) :
There is only one possible candidate in the immediate field and this is NGC 1730.
Swift gave it coordinates of 04hr 57m 15s - 15 53' 36" while O. Stone has 04hr
57.7m - 15 54'.3 which for both of them is almost precise.
The MCG gives only the identity NGC 1730. The NGC 2000 gives two separate
identities but both with the same coordinates. The MOL also gives separate
identities 1 arcmin apart in declination. The PGC, Steinicke and APL correctly
give the equivalency. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2119.
POSS. O-1322.
Swift List XI, #74. 05hr 04m 39.299s - 20 33' 13.745" (1950).
05hr 06m 48.707s - 20 29' 18.542" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Howe makes a correction to Swift's coordinates to read 05hr
04m 40s - 20 24'.4. Meanwhile Dreyer in his IC II has a declination error of 10
degrees (Typo Error ?) and this has misled the MOL (NSO) 05hr 05m 03s - 10 25' 17
The MCG identifies IC 2119 only as -3-13-073. The PGC identifies IC 2119 only as
MCG -03-13-073 and ESO 553-005. The APL and Steinicke have the correct identity
and coordinates. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but they do
list the identity MCG -03-13-073. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but they
do identify MCG-03-13-073.
IC 2120.
POSS. O-1315.
Bigourdan #262. 05hr 15m 45.321s + 38 08' 01.342" (1950).
05hr 19m 10.660s + 38 11' 06.238" (2000).
Not found : Dr. Corwin in his APL lists it as = Comet Spitaler 1890 and then
notes that Minkowski's planetary nebula which lies 39 arcmins south preceding
Bigourdan's position is not IC 2120. I am in complete agreement with him and am
at a loss to understand why those modern catalogues which list IC 2120, [the NGC
2000 (PN), MOL (PN) and DSFG (Bright Nebula), NED (PN), SIMBAD (Possible PN)] all
have selected the Minkowski object as Bigourdan's IC 2120. Steinicke correctly has
(Not found).NOTE : See W.S.Q.J. No.105. July 1996. "IC 2120 - The Final Chapter ?"
H.C Corwin and B.A. Skiff.
IC 2121.
POSS. O-1462.
Swift List XI, #75. 05hr 17m 12.820s - 25 08 19.580" (1950).
05hr 19m 15.737s - 25 05' 17.853" (2000).
The correction here deals with the historical data as Howe made a correction
stating that Swift's coordinates should be changed to read 05hr 17m 41.842s - 25
06' 51.657" (1950) or 05hr 19m 44.781s - 25 03' 52.012" (2000), a correction in RA
of 29 tsec (The APL gives 05hr 17m 42s).
Secondly there is an excellent possibility that IC 2121 is a duplicate observation
of Swift's IC 408 (which see). NED equates both identities. SIMBAD has "Equal to IC
408?" Steinicke equates both identities.
IC 2123.
(See IC 412)
IC 2124.
(See IC 413).
IC 2129.
POSS. O-888.
Swift List XI, #78. 05hr 29m 10.390s - 23 05' 59.071" (1950).
05hr 31m 15.874s - 23 03' 49.133" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Swift describes this object as "Exceedingly
exceedingly faint, pretty small, Round, 7th mag. star near south following."
NED and SIMBAD identify IC 2129 = IC 2130 at 05hr 29m 45.128s - 23 10' 50.74"
(1950), Mp 13.81 and this galaxy does have a fairly bright star south following
which is GSC 6476-939 at 05hr 30m 04.95s - 23 13' 05.4" (1950), however, this star
does not appear to be as bright as Mv 7.0 as Swift's description states.
This same galaxy is also listed in NED as MCG -04-14-002 and PGC 17402, however,
both the MCG and PGC give it the identity IC 2130 (which see).
The NGC 2000 lists as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL has(= IC 2130),
and Steinicke gives (Not found).
NOTE: Whether this is equivalent to IC 2130 I am unable to say. Certainly
Swift's descriptions for both identities are somewhat similar, both referring to a
7th magnitude star.
IC 2130.
POSS. O-888.
Swift List XI, #79. 05hr 29m 35.237s - 23 12' 24.870" (1950).
05hr 31m 40.567s - 23 10' 16.722" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The ESO lists a galaxy 487-GO19 as IC 2130 = IC 2129?,
the APL identifies IC 2130 at 05hr 29m 45s - 23 10'.8 = IC 2129 The MCG, PGC,
NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO) and Steinicke each give the single identity IC 2130 Ned
equates it with IC 2129, as does SIMBAD.
IC 2131.
(See IC 422).
IC 2133.
POSS. O-975.
Bigourdan #385. 05hr 36m 34.368s + 69 21' 15.308" (1950).
05hr 42m 04.832s + 69 22' 45.572" (2000).
Equal to NGC 1961 (H 747-3) : Dreyer (1912) in his NOTES to Wm. Herschel's
Second Catalogue details the positional errors concerning NGC 1961 as found in the
NGC catalogue and shows that B.385 = IC 2133 is a duplicate of NGC 1961.
Bigourdan stated that he was unable to locate NGC 1961, seeing only a 12 magnitude
star at the original Dreyer position and his measured position for B.385 is only ~
30s RA and ~ 5' 44" Dec from this star.
The CGCG, UGC, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly equate IC 2133 with NGC
1961.
Carlson states "IC 2133 not found (W)." NGC 2000 types it as [?] while the MOL.
states "May not exist.''
The MCG lists {NGC 1961, IC 2133 ? } and the RC3 and DSFG give only the identity
NGC 1961.
IC 2135 and IC 2136.
Swift List XI, #81. 05hr 31m 04.706s - 36 25' 55.074" (1950).
05hr 32m 49.492s - 36 23' 52.567" (2000). (IC 2135).
Swift List XI, #82. 05hr 31m 35.610s - 26 28' 33.733" (1950).
05hr 33m 36.309s - 26 26' 34.097" (2000). (IC 2136).
Equivalent identities : At the position Swift gives for his #82 (IC 2136) there
is no nebular image. He describes it as "eF, pS, eE, almost a ray, NGC 1963
preceeds." His description for #81 (IC 2135) is "eeeF, eeS, eeeE, ee diff. See
note." and the Note reads "No. 81 at first view seems identical with #56 (NGC
1963), but on a closer view the center seemed to have a very slight bulging in the
middle."
Close to the position he gives for IC 2135 is a galaxy fitting his description and
directly preceeding it is NGC 1963 (h2861) and this matches his description for IC
2136 "NGC 1963 preceeds.' Thus it appears certain that Swift published a
declination for his #82 (IC 2136) that has a typographical error of 10 degrees too
small, this correction making it equivalent to his #81 = IC 2135.
The MOL gives the two identities as separate objects at the historical
coordinates. The RC 3 lists IC 2135 but without any equivalency. The PGC
(Corrections) has correctly equated the two IC identities, but then makes the
error of equating these with NGC 1963. NGC 1963 is an entirely separate object being
a loosely grouped open star cluster, exactly fitting John Herschel's original
description and directly preceeding IC 2135/36.
The NGC 2000, APL, ESO, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have correctly equated the
identities IC 2135 and IC 2136.
IC 2137 and IC 2138.
POSS. O-888.
Swift List XI, #83. 05hr 32m 04.694s - 23 34' 23.688" (1950).
05hr 34m 09.481s - 23 32' 26.332" (2000). (IC 2137).
#84 05hr 32m 12.972s - 23 22' 12.276" (1950).
05hr 34m 18.036s - 23 20' 15.533" (2000). (IC 2138).
These are equivalent identities:
This is a very complicated case with conflicting opinions:
To begin, Swift discovered his #83 (IC 2137) on December 1st 1897 describing it in
his List XI as "eeF, S, R; 7 mag. star close preceding; south following of NGC
1980," however, in a later publication, (MNRAS LV111. March 1898) he changes the 7
mag. star close preceding" to read "7 mag. star close following" and gives
coordinates of 05hr 32m 12.175s - 23 34' 16.395" (1950).
When these are applied to the DSS they come up with the correct IC 2137 showing
the mentioned star (GSC 6476-1135, Mp 8.80 at 05hr 32m 25.76s - 23 33' 54.4"
[1950]),correctly close following and NGC 1979 north preceding in the field, not
as he indicates NGC 1980.
Swift must have confused the NGC identity because NGC 1980 lies at a declination
of about 7 degrees south of the field he was examining and therefore it would have
had to be that the NGC galaxy he saw was NGC 1979, the same one he correctly
identifies in his description for IC 2138.
He discovered his #84 (IC 2138) on February 14th 1898 describing it as "eF, vS, R;
8 mag. star follows 10 tsec; in field with NGC 1979." He also later published it,
(MNRAS LV111.March 1898), with coordinates of 05hr 32m 17.971s -23 22' 04.435"
(1950) and these place it at a blank spot south following but much closer to NGC
1979, but his reference to the 10 tmin separation from an 8th mag. star, (the same
one referred to in his description for IC 2127), it would seem highly likely that
both IC 2137 and IC 2138 must be the same object, thus equivalent identities.
Swift's coordinates are given exactly as they appear in his List XI only precessed
to 1950.
Now look at how they appear in the IC II as given by Dreyer.
IC 2137 05hr 32m 12.9s - 23 22' 13.16 (1950).
IC 2138 05hr 32m 17.4s - 23 34' 07.78 (1950).
We can see that the declination values have been reversed from those given by
Swift which is curious as Dreyer quotes his source as being Swift's List XI.
Swift stated that IC 2137 lies south following NGC 1979 and NGC 1979 was
discovered by W. Herschel (H 240-3) who employed the star 12 Leporis as his
reference star whose 1950 position is 05hr 40m 07.7s - 22 23' 48". Herschel's
separations are - 07 tmin 55 tsec and + (south) 59 arcmins which results in his
coordinates for NGC 1979 being 05hr 32m 12.7s - 23 22' 48" (Dreyer gives 05hr 32m
17s - 23 22'.2).
MCG, NGC 2000, SIMBAD and NED each equate IC 2137 with NGC 1979. APL, Steinicke and
PGC equate IC 2137 with IC 2138. MOL gives all 3 identities as separate objects.
ESO has NGC 1979 = IC 2137? and IC 2137 = IC 2138? RC3 gives only the identities
NGC 1979 and IC 2138 as separate objects.
Note : As for the galaxy which does have the 8th mag. star closely following.
There is no doubt that it was first seen by Bigourdan as all three of his
observations are dated prior to Swift's first observation, Bigourdan's first
observation being dated December 16th 1887 and his last observation on February
11th 1888.
IC 2138.
(See IC 2137).
IC 2139.
POSS. O-1482.
Bigourdan #263. 05hr 33m 03.307s - 17 57' 58.185" (1950).
05hr 35m 15.517s - 17 56' 05.366" (2000).
This is composed of 3 stars without associated nebulosity : Bigourdan described
it as "Small cluster, somewhat nebulous, framed by a few close stars enveloped in
a 12 arcsec diameter. It appears to be surrounded by nebulosity 20 arcsec in
diameter."
The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke all correctly describe it as being 3 stars. The
MOL has (Open cluster). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2141.
Innes. 05hr 41m 08.137s - 51 03' 23.283" (1950).
05hr 42m 19.425s - 51 02' 03.167" (2000).
Equal to 3 stars : The NGC 2000 lists as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The ESO
gives 204-?029 and the APL (Triple star). NED (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." Steinicke has (*3).
IC 2147.
Swift List XI, #86. 05hr 45m 54.332s - 30 30' 48.244" (1950).
05hr 47m 48.743s - 30 29' 50.694" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : The ESO has a possible candidate, 424-G013 = IC
2147? at 05hr 41m 34s - 30 31'.0 which would have been bright enough for Swift to
have seen and there are additionally several bright stars south following as
required by Swift's description, however, I am not confident as to any "F* np." as
also stated by Swift. If this is what Swift was describing then the RA would have
an error of about 4 tmin 20 tsec.
The APL and NED also suggests this same galaxy as being IC 2147 (See Corwin's IC
Puzzle Solutions for a confirmatory account). The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO)
give the coordinates based upon the historical data. Steinicke has (Not found)
and the MCG identifies the ESO candidate only as -5-14-013. SIMBAD identifies the
ESO candidate as being IC 2147.
IC 2152.
POSS. O-655.
Swift List XI, #89. 05hr 55m 05.029s - 23 11' 03.947" (1950).
05hr 57m 10.138s - 23 10' 46.984" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy but not at Swift's RA : Howe examined and measured this object
and published a correction for the RA which would place it at 05hr 55m 47s - 23
10'.8 and Dreyer obviously employed Howe's correction as he gives it 05hr 55m 47s
and due to this the MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, ESO, RC3, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke all have the correct position.
IC 2154.
POSS. O-655.
Swift List XI, #90. 05hr 58m 49.325s - 23 41' 20.317" (1950).
06hr 00m 53.727s - 23 41' 19.677" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2139 (H. 264-2) : In addition to Swift's coordinates being
less than precise there are some additional historical inconsistencies which are
of interest.
NGC 2139 was discovered by Wm. Herschel who employed as his reference star Canis
25 whose coordinates for 1950 are 07hr 06m 21.5s - 26 18' 45". Herschel's
separations are - 01hr 07m 42s - 02 20' 00", certainly a very large offset in RA,
and thus we would have a 1950 position for NGC 2139 of 05hr 58m 39.5s - 23 58'
45". When Dreyer published his NGC catalogue he gave NGC 2139 coordinates of 05hr
58m 39s - 23 48'.9 which differ from Herschel's declination by almost 10 arcmin.
After Swift had claimed as a nova his List XI, #90 (IC 2154), Howe published in
the MNRAS LVIII, 9. Page 517 a correction to Swift's object stating that its
position is 05hr 59m 02s - 23 40'.2 and Dreyer selected Howe's correction for his
positional data for IC 2154 and in his description stated "probably = H. 264 2
(NGC 2139)." Also Dreyer in his Notes NGC/IC page 369 states that "NGC 2139. Not
found twice by Howe. Probably = IC 2154 , 23 tsec following, 09 arcmin north of
H's place." and later in his 1919 SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF SIR WILLIAM HERSCHEL he
gives this very interesting Note: "H264-2. Note in sweep. The AR (RA) cannot be
above 10 or 15 tsec out; the roller went off the apparatus which occasions the
uncertainty. Auwers' place is wrong owing to a misprint in PT. It is the only
nebula in this sweep; 4m 18s following and 2 degrees 36' south is a star 6 mag.
which is PV 327. This gives the PD = 113 degrees 41'.0 (for 1860) and the nebula
is = IC 2154 (Swift XI. 90), 23 tsec following 8'.5 north of the place of GC in
which nothing has been found by Howe and Bigourdan."
Swift in his description for this object states that it lies between a star north
following and a wide double star north preceding. This should be changed to read
"Star south following and a wide double star north preceding.
Carlson lists IC 2154 as (= ** Mt. Wilson) as does the MOL. The MCG identifies it
as = NGC 2139 ? The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO
correctly equate it with NGC 2139.
IC 2155.
Stewart #307. 05hr 59m 00.548s - 34 00' 51.710" (1950).
06hr 00m 49.163s - 34 00' 51.230" (2000).
Not found : At Stewart's nominal position there is no nebular image. Steinicke
has (NF). The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). The ESO, NED, SIMBAD and
the APL have it as (Not found).
IC 2158.
POSS. O-51.
Swift List XI, #91. 06hr 03m 03.317s - 27 51' 57.048" (1950).
06hr 05m 01.708s - 27 52' 14.669" (2000).
The error here is only of historical significance in that Swift's description
states "Star in contact north following." This should be changed to read "Star in
contact south following."
IC 2166.
POSS. O-1264.
Barnard. 06hr 27m 36.746s + 59 06' 54.234" (1950).
06hr 32m 01.169s + 59 04' 44.193" (2000). (Dreyer).
Confirmed galaxy:
There is an error of ~ 5m RA in the IC II as the CGCG, UGC, APL, Steinicke, NED,
PGC, SIMBAD, DSFG, RC3 and NGC 2000 each place IC 2166 at 6hr 22.5m where there is a
galaxy which completely fits Barnard's description " Neb; F* p 1 arcmin, D* f 3
arcmin." The MOL deriving its RA from Dreyer's data would also be incorrect.
The MCG identifies this object only as +10-10-1.
IC 2170.
POSS O-696.
Bigourdan #388. 06hr 30m 25.588s + 44 43' 38.318" (1950).
06hr 34m 04.804s + 44 41' 17.705" (2000). (March 1899 Observation).
Not found : Bigourdan's observations for B.388 suggest that he was somewhat
confused regarding its identity.
He first examined the field on January 1st. 1892 and reports only seeing a single
object which he believed to be a Nova. (B.388). For this observation he employed
two reference stars, BD +44 1484 and BD +44 1485, giving separation values of -0m
59s RA + 3 arcmins. (+ or -) Dec. from the first star and -1m 16s RA + 8arcmins.
Dec. (+ or -) from the second star and these would result in coordinates of 6hr
30m 26s + 44 50' 53" and 6hr 30m 25s + 44 50' 7" respectively.
During the date of this observation he makes no mention of the planetary nebula
NGC 2242 and it is not until February 20th.1892 that he makes his first of three
separate observations of NGC 2242 when he again employed the reference star BD +44
1484, measuring NGC 2242 to be - 59s RA + 1' 25" Dec. or coordinates of 6hr 30m
26s + 44 49' 18".
When comparison of the coordinates are made it strongly suggests that what
Bigourdan observed and reported as a Nova on January 1st.1892 was actually NGC
2242. and it is not until later, March 5th, 1899 (the same night he made his third
and last observation of NGC 2242) that he again refers to B.388 and measures its
coordinates from a 12.8 mag. star he calls ANON. (1). as 6hr 30m 23s + 44 43'16",
a difference of about 7 arcmins from his first measurement in 1892, however, there
is no visual evidence on the Palomar print of any nebulous object at this
position.
The only modern sources listing IC 2170 are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = 3 sts.
Steinicke and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (NSO).
The CGCG incorrectly lists NGC 2242 as being a galaxy instead of its correct type
which is planetary nebula.
IC 2171.
POSS. O-1343.
Barnard. 06hr 42m 59.025s ? - 17 37' 20.973" (1950).
06hr 45m 11.860s ? -17 40' 32.739" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : At the coordinates as given above no nebular image is found. The APL
identifies IC 2171 ? = NGC 2283 at 06hr 43m 40.6s - 18 09' 24" also IC 2171 ?? =
galaxy at 06hr 42m 15.4s - 17 52' 44" and is supported in this latter identity by
the RC3, PGC, NGC 2000, MOL, NED, SIMBAD, DSFG and ESO.
If this is Barnard's object then his coordinates are off by about 45 tsec RA and
15'.5 dec.
I am concerned as to this identity not only because of the difference in
coordinates but additionally the APL candidate has a 7.0 to 7.5 mag. star only
about 07 arcmin north of it which could not have escaped Barnard's attention yet
he makes reference to only other fainter stars in his description.
Steinicke has ((Not found).
NOTE: Dreyer's RA is given only to the nearest minute of time.
IC 2173.
POSS. O-1268.
Bigourdan #389. 06hr 47m 30.210s + 33 31' 01.870" (1950).
06hr 50m 47.140s + 33 27' 28.522" (2000).
This is a star, the south preceding of two faint stars close to NGC 2288: I had
originally thought that it might be NGC 2288, however, Bigourdan's reference star
is equal to GSC 2440-727 and his offsets (0 tmin 11.76 tsec RA, + 4 arcmin 10.70
arcsec Dec) land on the star.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL incorrectly equate IC 2173 with IC 2291 as does Carlson.
Steinicke gives (= *). APL "This is a star." NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in thw database." No other modern listings. Dreyer (IC II)
incorrectly gives IC 2173 = B.339.
IC 2175.
POSS. O-889.
Bigourdan #265. 07hr 05m 20.642s + 35 21' 58.124" (1950).
07hr 08m 39.725s + 35 17' 09.184" (2000).
This is a double star : Certainly at the position as given for his B.265 by
Bigourdan there is no nebular image, however, according to Dreyer's IC II data the
RA precessed to 1950 would be 6hr 56m 21s, or a difference of 8m 56s. ( Dreyer's
coordinates are based upon Bigourdan's earlier data as given in the Comptes
Rendus).
As it turns out there is a galaxy close to the Dreyer position (ZWG 176.006 at 6hr
56.5m + 35 31'.0) and the CGCG identifies this as IC 2175 as do the UGC, RC3,
SIMBAD, NED, NGC 2000 and MOL. Additionally the PGC incorrectly states that MCG +6-
16-7 should be identified as IC 2175, however, this is the same Anon.
ZWG.176.006.
Dr. Corwin is in agreement with me that IC 2175 is a double star at Bigourdan's
coordinates and so identifies it in the APL. Steinicke also has (=*2).
IC 2179.
POSS. O-686.
Bigourdan #267. 07hr 10m 43.057s + 65 02' 47.953 (1950). 07hr 15m 32.788s + 64
57' 33.606" (2000) (COMPTES RENDUS).
7hr 10m 43.208s + 65 00' 53.970" (1950).
07hr 15m 32.815s + 64 55' 39.535" (2000). (OBSERVATIONS ETC.).
As one can see from the two sets of coordinates that this is not only a complex
problem but it is open to more than one solution involving the other field galaxy
NGC 2347 :
I must begin by stating that the credit for sorting out the ambiguities found in
Bigourdan's data is entirely due to the excellence of Dr. Harold Corwin
investigation and findings and that although I previously had arrived at a
different conclusion I am now fully convinced of the conclusions he presents in
his unpublished "NGC/IC BUGS LIST."
Wm. Herschel recorded the discovery of a nebula at 7hr 11m 54s + 65 05' 53."
Later John Herschel in his GC publication (1864) changed this to 7hr 11m 32s + 64
53'.8, the coordinates selected by Dreyer for the NGC, and apparently the field
was not examined again until Bigourdan in 1894 and again in 1900.
The initial publication of Bigourdan in which he refers to his examination of the
field is in the 1896 COMPTES RENDUS, a journal in which he periodically reported
his discoveries, giving only his discovery number, coordinates and brief
description and it is here that he gives the position for his B.267 as shown
above. Unfortunately in this publication he does not state his reference star or
refer to any other field object.
Bigourdan's second and more detailed data for his observations are to be found in
his monumental publication OBSERVATIONS ETC. and it is here where the confusion
begins.
He now gives coordinates to his B.267 of 7hr 11m 18s + 64 48' 18" listing as his
reference star BD+65 562 stating that B.267 lies + 3 tsecs and - 4'12" of arc and
there is a galaxy located at this position, however, this is the object identified
in many of the modern catalogues as being Herschel's NGC 2347.
Next Bigourdan gives coordinates for what he identifies as being NGC 2347, stating
that he is again using the same reference star BD + 65 562, however, this is not
his reference star on this occasion as Corwin has correctly deduced the star
Bigourdan was actually employing now was another star, BD + 65 560, which is a
little fainter than BD + 65 562, and lies about 10 arcmins north preceding BD + 65
562 and when Bigourdan's offsets from this star are applied (+13 tsecs and +0' 2"
of arc.) they land exactly on the galaxy identified in the majority of the modern
sources as IC 2179 and are in excellent agreement with Bigourdan's original
coordinates for his B. 267 = IC 2179 as published in the COMPTES RENDUS.
Thus it would appear that now the solution to the correct identities has been
established and that in addition to Bigourdan having erred in his identification
of his reference star as it applies to IC 2179 he additionally in his OBSERVATIONS
mistakenly reversed the identities of the two galaxies as the majority of the
modern catalogues identify the north preceding as IC 2179 and the south following
object as being NGC 2347, however, Dr. Corwin poses the question Why did Bigourdan
in his OBSERVATIONS identify the north preceding galaxy as being NGC 2347? I was
very intrigued by this remark and further research proved interesting.
Remember, Bigourdan's main purpose was to observe and measure accurate positions
for NGC objects and Wm. Herschel's original coordinates for H 746-3 = NGC 2347
were 7hr 11m 54s + 65 05' 53" placing it considerably closer to the north
preceding galaxy than it does to the south following one (The ~ 1 tmin difference
in RA when seen on the Palomar print at such a northern declination is in angular
measurement quite small), therefore if Bigourdan was aware of Herschel's original
coordinates he might have been influenced by this. Also as Corwin points out the
difference in magnitude between the two galaxies being small, the north preceding
one has the higher surface brightness and its appearance would certainly fit
Herschel's description.
Therefore the question is a very valid one and as Corwin asks, " Is the north
preceding galaxy the one Herschel saw ?"
The NGC 2000 makes IC 2179 = NGC 2347? while the majority of the other modern
catalogues (CGCG, UGC, MOL, DSFG, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, PGC and Uranometria
2000) lists both identities as being separate galaxies, (the north-preceding one
being in all cases identified as being IC 2179).
An extra source I consulted was the DEEP SPACE CCD ATLAS : NORTH. (J. Vickers.
1993) which gives the identity NGC 2347 = IC 2179?. The MCG identifies the south
following galaxy as being NGC 2347 while listing the north-preceding galaxy as an
"Anon." +11-9-38a.
IC 2183.
POSS. O-647.
Stewart. 07hr 14m 46.186ss - 20 19' 12.553" (1950).
07hr 15m 56.414s - 20 24' 34.212" (2000).
Not found : At the position as given by Stewart no nebular image exists, nor are
there any in the immediate vicinity. The ESO equates the identity IC 2183 with
its ESO 559-?001 at 07hr 14m 48s - 20 19'.0 and this is noted in the APL. Both
the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates. Steinicke,
SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 2184.
POSS. O-665.
Bigourdan #390. 07hr 23m 38.541s + 72 13' 54.291" (1950).
07hr 29m 25.487s + 72 07' 44.794" (2000).
A confirmed galaxy : Bigourdan's reference star is equal to GSC 4368-774 and his
offsets (+ 0 tmin 36.80 tsec RA, + 1 arcmin 20.8 arcsec Dec.) land on the correct
galaxy. The CGCG does not give its IC identity only listing it as ZWG 330.039.
UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3 and NGC 2000 have the correct
identity.
The MOL. list it as "Nonstellar object'' however, as they have precessed their
positional data upon that originally given by Dreyer they arrive at a 1950
position of 7hr 24m 38s + 72 04'.0
NOTE : Dreyer's IC II coordinates are based upon those given by Bigourdan in the
COMPTES RENDUS and I have no explanation as to why Bigourdan should have changed
them in his later publication so that the RA differs by more than 1 tmin. I have
accepted the later publication on the assumption that it represents a correction
by Bigourdan.
IC 2186.
POSS O-1310.
Javelle #996. 07hr 19m 44.799s + 21 37' 47.551" (1950).
07hr 22m 43.327s + 21 31' 59.601" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Possibly equal to IC 2188: Based upon Javelle's data this
should be the most northern and most preceding of a group of 3 closely associated
galaxies, the other two being IC 2187 and IC 2188.
His reference star is equal to AC #696255 at 7hr 24m 08.866s +21 27' 29.0" (2000)
and when his offsets are applied to this star for the identities IC 2187 and IC
2188 they clearly establish the identities of these 2 galaxies on the DSS.
However, when his offsets (-1 tmin 25.85 tsec RA and 4 arcmin 18.4 arcsec north)
for the identity IC 2186 are applied to the same star reduced to the discovery
year of 1896 and then precessed back to the year 2000 they land on a blank spot
directly north of IC 2188 and very close to the same declination of a third field
galaxy listed in the GSC-ACT as 1359-482, Mp 13.98, which oddly is classified as
being a star, this later corrected in the GSC 2.2 to Nonstellar Object.
This galaxy is identified in NED as IC 2186 = NPM1G+21.0157 and it would require
that Javelle's offset in RA would be incorrect by about 4 tsec too large.
There is another possible solution that may have some merit and it is that IC 2186
and IC 2188 are the same object.
According to Javelle's catalogue data IC 2186 was discovered on February 11th 1896
while his discovery date for IC 2188 is February 28th 1900 or four years later.
Now if the NED candidate for IC 2186 is correct then why in 1896 did Javelle not
also discover the larger and brighter IC 2188 ?, therefore are the two identities
for only one object, namely what we call IC 2188, which poses the question. Is the
correct identity for what is accepted as being IC 2188 actually IC 2186 by reason
of date of discovery and the identity IC 2188 is a duplicate or equivalent
identity?
The PGC and MCG equate the two identities while what the CGCG identifies as being
IC 2186 is actually IC 2188. The NGC 2000 and MOL list all 3 identities as
separate objects. Steinicke and APL make IC 2186 (=IC 2188).
IC 2187.
POSS O-1310.
Javelle #997. 07hr 19m 45.028s + 21 34' 43.731" (1950).
07hr 22m 43.492s + 21 28' 55.768" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly identifies IC 2187 as being IC 2188, this
error is correctly noted in the PCG. It is correctly identified in the NGC 2000
(No Type) and the MOL (NSO) also in the APL, MCG, NED and Steinicke. Not listed
in either the UGC or RC3.
IC 2188.
POSS O-1310.
Javelle #998. 07hr 19m 44.882s + 21 36' 36.662" (1950).
07hr 22m 43.385s + 21 30' 48.718" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 117.025 as being IC 2188.
It should be IC 2187. The PGC makes ZWG 117.026 equal to IC 2186 = IC 2188. The
MCG ALSO equates IC 2186 = IC 2188 (+4-18-11). The NGC 2000 (No Type). APL,
Steinicke, NED and MOL (NSO) have the correct (?) identity. Not listed in the UGC
or RC3.
NOTE: (See IC 2186).
IC 2195.
Stewart #312. 07hr 27m 10.664" - 51 09' 09.511" (1950).
07hr 28m 27.268s - 51 15' 24.215" (2000).
Not found : There are no suitable images at or close to Stewart's nominal
position, certainly nothing that resembles his description "cB, S, R, bM, susp."
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical position. The APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have (Not found).
IC 2206.
Fleming #76. 07hr 43m 52.934s - 34 14' 58.067" (1950).
07hr 45m 45.714s - 34 22' 20.814" (2000).
This is a double star with a 9th magnitude primary :
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and in the MOL as (NSO). NED has (Not found) a
Steinicke types it as (=*2). SIMBAD "Eclipsing Binary."
IC 2208.
POSS O-1344.
Javelle #1011. 07hr 49m 03.163s + 27 36' 44.806" (1950).
07hr 52m 07.777s + 27 28' 59.653" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's RA is about 20 tsec too large, due to the fact that
he mistook his reference star, making it DM +27 1493 when it was actually DM +27
1491 equal to AC #931910 at 07hr 51m 47.885s + 27 29' 56.36" (2000).
After proper precessing and application of Javelle's offsets the correct IC 2208
is found at the above Corrected Nominal Position.
The PGC and CGCG lists as an "Anon." ZWG 148.053 at RA 7hr 49.0m + 27 37'.0 and
this is definitely Javelle's object as determined from his separation values from
his reference star. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the RA based
upon the Javelle original coordinates.
The MCG lists its +5-19-19 =IC 2208? which happens to be correct. Not listed in
the UGC or RC3. The APL, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identity and
coordinates. NED incorrectly equates IC 2208 with CGCG 148-051 which is an entirely
different galaxy at 07hr 48m 46.082s + 27 35' 18.02 (1950).
IC 2210.
POSS. O-960.
Bigourdan #391. 07hr 52m 53.573s + 56 48' 52.308" (1950).
07hr 56m 56.656s - 56 40' 50.535" (2000).
This is a small double star lying between NGC 2462 and NGC 2463 : Bigourdan
correctly describes it as having a 12th mag. star 08 tsec preceding and 1.0 arcmin
north
NGC 2000 lists its type as (Galaxy). MOL as (Nonstellar Object). APL = 2 stars.
Steinicke has (=*2). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2215.
Bigourdan #392. 07hr 56m 32.276s + 25 03' 58.048" (1950).
07hr 59m 33.129s + 24 55' 44.276" (2000).
Not found: The nominal position lands on a blank spot of sky , close north
following Bigourdan's reference star (= AC 2000, #93334).
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (Open cluster), MOL (Open cluster). APL "Nothing
here," and Steinicke (=*2), SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2216.
POSS. O-27.
Bigourdan #393. 07hr 56m 50.997s + 05 45' 06.455" (1950).
07hr 59m 30.514s + 05 36' 52.156" (2000).
This is a double star : Correctly identified in the APL (**). Only other
listings are Steinicke (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). The MOL
also gives the declination incorrectly as + 08 45'.0
IC 2221.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1019. 08hr 01m 50.218s + 37 35' 32.497" (19500.
08hr 05m 07.993s 37 26' 58.171" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is one of a group of galaxies in the same field , all of
which are credited to Javelle. IC 2221 is a faint galaxy at almost the
coordinates as given by Javelle, the modern position being 08hr 01m 50.18s + 37
35' 36.3" (APL).
The MCG list 06-18-10 = IC 2221 ? at 08hr 2.2m + 37 41.0', but this is the
southern of a closely associated pair of galaxies lying to the north of the
correct IC 2221. NED also incorrectly makes this object equal to IC 2221, as does
SIMBAD. The CGCG, PGC and MOL have no listing. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and
the MOL (NSO). The APL and Steinicke have the correct identity.
NOTE: NED identifies the correct IC 2221 as MASX J08050794+3727021, while SIMBAD
hano listing for this object.
IC 2222.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1020. 08hr 01m 56.386s + 37 36' 57.672" (1950).
08hr 05m 14.187s + 37 28' 22.959" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Another of Javelle's faint galaxies in the same field. Here
again the MCG identifies its 06-18-11 as IC 2222 ? at 08hr 02.2m + 37 42'.0, which
is the northern of the pair lying to the north of the correct IC 2222.
The CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly identify IC 2222 while the UGC has no
listing.
The NGC 2000 has (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). Both the APL and Steinicke have the
correct identification
IC 2223 and IC 2224.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1021. 08hr 02m 28.289s + 37 36' 22.155" (1950).
08hr 05m 46.013s + 37 27' 45.438" (2000). (IC 2223).
#1022. 08hr 02m 32.300s + 37 36' 14.806" (1950).
08hr 05m 50.012s + 37 27' 37.851" (2000). (IC 2224).
At the coordinates as given by Javelle only one galaxy exists and the APL gives it
coordinates of 08hr 02m 32.4s + 37 36' 25" and identifies is as being IC 2224,
while listing IC 2223 as "Not found".
Dr. Corwin gives an argument in his IC BUGS LIST that these are not equivalent
identities as suggested by DEEN, however, I find myself in disagreement with his
conclusions and believe that the two identities represent the single existing
galaxy.
I do not find the 4 tsec difference to be significant as such a small difference
in visual observations is easily understandable, (even measured positions from
photographs often differ by considerably larger amounts). Also Javelle's
observations for both identities were 4 years apart, which I feel supports the
possibility that these are equivalent identities.
The PGC, CGCG and UGC have no listings for these identities. The APL identifies
the single existing galaxy as IC 2224 and makes the identity IC 2223 (Not found).
Steinicke has same conclusion as APL. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) show the
two as separate identities with coordinates based upon the historical positions. NED
has "No object with this name in NED," however, they do identity the galaxy in
question as 2MASX JO8O55028+3727364, while SIMBAD has "Not present in the databas,"
but identifies this same object as LEDA 2001266.
IC 2224.
(See IC 2223).
IC 2225.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1023. 08hr 02m 12.817s + 36 05' 13.872" (1950).
08hr 05m 28.207s + 35 56' 38.168" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Dr. Harold Corwin is the person who arrived at the correct
identity for IC 2225.
He noted that it is quite likely that Javelle in his List gave his RA separation
from his reference star DM +36 1749 incorrectly as - 1 tmin 35 tsec when it should
have been - 2 tmin 35 tsec. When this correction of 1 tmin is applied to the star
it lands upon the galaxy ZWG 178.026 at 08hr 02m 12.7s + 36 05' 23" which I
believe is the correct IC 2225.
The CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have correctly identified ZWG 178.026 as being IC
2225, 8hr 02.2m + 36 05', however, the MCG lists this same object only as +6-18-12.
Not listed in the UGC or RC3. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) each give the
coordinates based upon Javelle. NED and Steinicke identify ZWG 178.026 as being IC
2225,
IC 2227.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1024. 08hr 03m 51.641s + 36 22' 45.763" (1950)
08hr 07m 07.294s + 36 14' 03.908" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy, but not at Javelle's position :
Javelle gives his reference star as being DM +36 1749 Mv.8.6 and then applies
separation values of - 41.30 tsec RA and - 0.7 arcmin declination which result in
coordinates of 08hr 04m 05.017s + 36 10' 29.036" (1950).
When these are applied to the DSS no nonstellar object is found while both the NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give it coordinates based upon the historical data.
I believe that Javelle incorrectly identified his reference star and that it
actually was the 7.98 Mp star DM +36 1746 = AC #1334193 at 08hr 07' 48.470" +36
14' 37.65" (2000) and when his separation values are applied to this star they
result in landing upon a 14.8 Mp galaxy listed in the CGCG as "Anon." ZWG 178.028
at 08hr 03m 51s + 36 23' 20"
Not listed in either the UGC, PGC or MCG. Both the APL and Steinicke have the
correct identity. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but do list
CGCG 178-028. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list it as IRAS
F08038+3622.
IC 2228.
POSS. O-27.
Bigourdan #394. 08hr 04m 23.369s + 08 10 15.486" (1950).
08hr 07m 05.214s + 08 01 32.701" (2000).
Equal to the middle star of a group of 3 faint stars : Bigourdan not only gives
separation values as measured from his reference star but also from a pair of
double stars, the first being of 11.8 and 13.2 Mv, components at PA = 0 and
distance equal to 15 arcsec. He measured this double to lie at a PA of 5,
distance 1.5 arcmin from his nova. The second double he describes as 12.0 and
12.5 Mv, components at PA 10 and distance 12arcsec. and measures the separation
from his nova as being at PA 90 and distance 1.8arcmin. Applying this data
definitely places his nova at the position of 3 stars.
The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 31.048 as being IC 2228, as does the UGC
(Notes to U04231 [Not U04320 as published] ). NED and SIMBAD also identify ZWG
31.048 as being IC 2228. The MCG (+1-21-13), PGC #22786, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL
(NSO) have all incorrectly identified the galaxy Kara 72.154B as being IC 2228. The
APL and Steinicke have (=*).
IC 2229.
(See IC 496.)
IC 2231.
POSS. O-27.
Swift List XI, No.92. 08hr 08m 13.919s + 05 14' 00.955s (1950).
08hr 10m 52.745s + 05 05' 03.992" (2000).
Javelle #1027. 08hr 08m 23.504s + 05 14' 09.285" (1950).
08hr 11m 02.324s + 05 05' 11.642" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not an error as such, rather I list it only in order
to establish the correct original discoverer who in this case is Swift as his
discovery date is March 23rd 1895, whereas Javelle's is February 12th 1898.
IC 2232.
POSS. O-989.
Javelle #1028. 08hr 09m 42.581s + 36 24' 16.189" (1950).
08hr 12m 57.603s + 36 15' 12.686" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2543 (H 719-2) : CGCG, UGC, PGC, MOL, APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD and MCG give the correct equivalency. RC3 and DSFG give only the identity
NGC 2543.
IC 2235.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.1. 08hr 10m 35.657s + 24 12' 46.341" (1950).
08hr 13m 34.524s + 24 04' 40.021" (2000).
This is a close double star : Only listings are APL (=**), Steinicke (= *2), NGC
2000 (No Type), NED "There is no object with this name in NED,"
SIMBAD "Not present in the database" and MOL (NSO).
NOTE : This is the first entry in Professor's Wolf's FIRST LIST OF NEBULAE
compiled from examination of Plate #137 taken with the Bruce 16 inch Astrographic
Telescope. This list has 154 entries considered by Wolf to be nonstellar objects,
7 of which he identifies as NGC objects while an 8th object (#42) is Javelle's IC
501, which evidently Dreyer must have concluded as he never gave Object #42 any IC
II identity. Of the remaining 146 identities claimed by Wolf as being nonstellar
I was only able to confirm 36 as being other than Not found, a single star or
multiple stars. I can only assume that the image quality on this particular
Heidelberg plate contained a large number of photographic defects and because of
this Wolf was badly misled.
H.D.Curtis in his paper, (DESCRIPTIONS OF 762 NEBULAE AND CLUSTERS. Publ. Lick
Observatory, Vol.XIII, Part 1, p.25. 1918), states that he examined the area very
carefully and was unable to identify any object making up the 17 he subjected to
spectroscopy as having any bright-line spectrum and that they were small, faint
stars. Dr. Harold Corwin in his NGC/IC Bug List also has commented upon Wolf's
List 1 and the extremely large number of errors it contains.
Whatever the reason for this problem it would appear that the plates employed by
Wolf for his other lists did not suffer from anything approaching the scale of
Plate #137 as the percentage of error in his succeeding lists is considerably
lower.
IC 2236.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.2. 08hr 10m 38.899s + 24 12' 02.038" (1950).
08hr 13m 37.729s + 24 02' 55.520" (2000).
This is a double star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = **, Steinicke
(= *3) and MOL (NSO). NED (No object found). SIMBAD Not present in the database."
IC 2237.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.3. 08hr 11m 08.379s + 24 49' 52.360" (1950).
08hr 14m 07.915s + 24 40' 44.026" (2000). APL (=*), and NED "Not
found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (=*) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2238.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.4. 08hr 11m 09.147s + 24 48' 51.287" (1950).
08hr 14m 08.662s + 24 39' 42.907" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type). NED
"Not found." SIMBAD "Not found in the database." Steinicke and APL (=*) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2240.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.6. 08hr 11m 48.427s + 24 37' 10.638" (1950).
08hr 14m 47.665s + 24 27' 59.870" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (N0 Type), NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke "Not found." APL (=*) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2241.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.7. 08hr 12m 10.088s + 24 16' 59.610" (1950).
08hr 15m 08.905s + 24 07' 47.533" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*),
however, it is a different star than I select. NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." APL = * (or defect + *?) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2242.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.8. 08hr 12m 12.889s + 24 17' 11.352" (1950).
08hr 15m 11.706s + 24 07' 59.104" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED and SIMBAD (Not
found), APL = * (or defect + *?). Steinicke (=*) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2243.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.9. 08hr 12m 19.874s + 24 06' 58.693" (1950).
08hr 15m 18.484s + 23 57' 46.025" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 2244.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.10. 08hr 12m 23..406s + 24 41' 55.415" (1950).
08hr 15m 22.694s + 24 32' 42.517" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED and SIMBAD (Not
found), Steinicke and APL (= *) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2245.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.11. 08hr 12m 29.680s + 24 41' 23.836" (1950).
08hr 15m 28.949s + 24 32' 10.557" (2000).
This is a single star : At precisely Wolf's position there is only the image of a
faint star. Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), NED (Not found), SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." Steinicke and APL (= *) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2246.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.12. 08hr 13m 02.700s +24 00' 13.736" (1950).
08hr 16m 01.128s - 23 50' 58.471" (2000).
This is equal to a very faint star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED
(Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (Not found), APL = *
and MOL (NSO).
IC 2247.
POSS O-1364.
Wolf List I, No.13. 08hr 13m 01.658s + 23 21' 12.780" (1950).
08hr 15m 59.335s + 23 11' 57.595" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Dreyer's declination as given in the IC II is 1 degree too far
north and this error is carried on in the NGC 2000 (No Type), and MOL (NSO).
Due also to this error the majority of the modern catalogues all make the correct
IC 2247 equal to an "Anon." (CGCG. ZWG 119.020, UGC 04299, MCG +4-20-8, and RC3 =
U 04299, PGC #23169). The APL and Steinicke have the correct identity and
declination. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," however, they do
list UGC 04299. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but they do list UGC 4299.
IC 2251.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.17. 08hr 13m 40.610s + 24 06' 13.257" (1950).
08hr 16m 39.108s + 23 56' 55.691" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Steinicke and APL = ** and MOL (NSO).
IC 2252.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.18. 08hr 13m 42.733s +24 50' 57.122" (1950).
08hr 16m 42.098s + 24 41' 37.410" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 2255
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.19. 08hr 13m 45.033s + 23 36' 34.810" (1950).
08hr 16m 42.954s + 23 27' 16.991" (2000).
Equal to 2 faint stars : Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = ** and MOL (NSO).
Steinicke (* group), but his given declination is 1 degree too far north. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in he database."
IC 2257.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.21. 08hr 14m 12.327s + 23 48' 15.519" (1950).
08hr 17m 10.440s + 23 38' 55.843" (2000).
Equal to two faint stars : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED (Not
found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has (= **), Steinicke (=*2) and
MOL (NSO).
IC 2258.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.22. 08hr 14m 18.192s + 23 43' 58.775" (1950).
08hr 17m 16.216s + 23 34' 38.947" (2000).
This is a faint star :
Only modern listings found were NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." Steinicke (= *2), although his coordinates are correct the only double
star lies north preceding Wolf's position NGC 2000 (No Type), and MOL (NSO). APL has
* or **?
IC 2259
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.23. 08hr 14m 20.063s + 23 43' 06.603" (1950).
08hr 17m 18.068s + 23 33' 46.661" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke
and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2260.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List1, No.24. 08hr 14m 28.512s + 24 49' 42.917" (1950).
08hr 17m 27.796s + 24 40' 22.437" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke
(=*), NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (= *) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2261.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.25. 08hr 14m 35.651s + 23 40' 11.169" (1950).
08hr 17m 33.581s + 23 30' 50.287" (2000).
This consists of two stars aligned south preceding north following : Wolf
describes it as being oriented at 45 degrees. Only modern listings are NGC 2000
(No Type), APL = wide **, Steinicke (= *), NED "There is no object with this name
in NED." and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 2262.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.26. 08hr 14m 30.606s + 18 36' 36.240" (1950).
08hr 17m 22.921s + 18 27' 15.779" (2000).
This is a star : Listed in both the NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist).
Carlson in her Table 1b quotes Curtis as Not found. APL = * as does Steinicke.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2263.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.27. 08hr 14m 42.754s + 23 44' 09.523" (1950).
08hr 17m 40.752s + 23 34' 48.211" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position there is an extremely faint star which might
be what Wolf listed.
Listed in NGC 2000 as (No Type), APL (*), Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found)
and MOL (NSO).
IC 2264.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.28. 08hr 14m 46.885s + 23 52' 17.156" (1950).
08hr 17m 45.034s + 23 42' 55.590" (2000).
This is equal to a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type),
Steinicke (= *), APL = * and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2265.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.29. 08hr 14m 51.720s + 24 21' 00.751" (1950).
08hr 17m 50.417s + 24 11' 38.882" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke
(=*). NED and SIMBAD (Not found), APL (= *) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2266.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.30. 08hr 14m 46.315s + 18 34' 00.798" (1950).
08hr 17m 38.569s + 18 24' 39.389" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist) and
Carlson (Curtis. Not found). APL = *, Steinicke (=*) and NED (Not found). SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2268.
POSS.O-1364.
Javelle #1032. 08hr 15m 07.405s + 24 57' 09.269" (1950).
08hr 18m 06.783s + 24 47' 46.495" (2000). (Javelle).
08hr 15m 07.661s + 24 57' 08.340" (1950).
08hr 18m 07.040s + 24 47' 45.494" (2000). (Wolf List 1, N0.33).
Confirmed galaxy : Original discoverer was Javelle.
The only error involved is a very minor one in that there is what appears to be a
typographical error in the IC II which gives the Javelle identity as J.1302 when
it should be J.1032.
Correctly identified in the modern sources.
IC 2270.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.35. 08hr 15m 08.109s + 19 15' 07.854" (1950).
08hr 18m 01.081s + 19 05' 45.110" (2000).
A double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist) and
Carlson (Curtis. Not found). APL = **. Steinicke (= *2). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2272.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.37. 08hr 15m 14.507s + 18 53' 28.241" (1950).
08hr 18m 07.084s + 18 44' 05.121" (2000).
A very faint double star whose components are aligned at almost 70 degrees : Only
modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), Steinicke (= *2), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
APL = ** and Carlson (Curtis. Not found).
IC 2273.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.38. 08hr 15m 20.954s + 18 33' 27.627" (1950).
08hr 18m 13.166s + 18 24' 04.130" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist),
Steinicke (= *), APL = * and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2274.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.39. 08hr 15m 21.984s + 18 49' 19.552" (1950).
08hr 18m 14.479s + 18 39' 55.984" (2000).
This is a triple star whose components on the DSS (Second Generation) appear to be
in contact :
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (3 stars), MOL (Three stars), Steinicke (= *3),
APL = *** and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2275.
POSS. O-236
Wolf List 1, No.40. 08hr 15m 21.869s + 18 34' 04.544" (1950).
08hr 18m 14.092s + 18 24' 40.991" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), APL
(= *), Steinicke (= *) and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2276.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.41. 08hr 15m 37.058s + 18 38' 04.161" (1950).
08hr 18m 29.337s + 18 28' 39.691" (2000).
Not found : It might possibly have been a photographic defect on the original
plate ? Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), APL (defect),
Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found) and Carlson (Curtis. Not found).
IC 2277.
POSS.O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.43. 08hr 15m 40.535s + 18 48' 26.856" (1950).
08hr 18m 32.997s + 18 39' 02.170" (2000).
Equal to a faint double star: Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not
exist), Carlson (Curtis. Not found), NED and SIMBAD (Not found), Steinicke and APL =
* .
IC 2278.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.44. 08hr 15m 42.125s + 18 37' 06.696" (1950).
08hr 18m 34.383s + 18 27' 41.922" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), Carlson
(Curtis. Not found), Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found) and APL( = defect).
IC 2279.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.45. 08hr 15m 43.696s + 18 43' 30.561" (1950).
08hr 18m 36.067s + 18 34' 05.688" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist),
Steinicke (= *), APL = * and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2280.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.46. 08hr 15m 46.501s + 18 36' 28.296" (1950).
08hr 18m 38.744s + 18 27' 03.258" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist),
Steinicke has (=*) and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the datatbase." APL
(= *) and Carlson (Curtis. Not found).
NOTE: Wolf describes IC 2276, IC 2278 and IC 2280 as being remarkable and
connected to each other which suggests that on his photographic plate there was a
spurious defect within which there were a few stars and this misled him into
taking them to be individual bright regions within a single nebula.
IC 2281.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.47. 08hr 16m 01.828s + 19 03' 55.931" (1950).
08hr 18m 54.548s + 18 54' 29.956" (2000).
Equal to a star : Actually Wolf describes this as being a star attached to his
#51 (= IC 2285). Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist) and
Carlson (Curtis. Not found). The APL gives (= *). Steinicke (=*). NED has (Not
found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2282.
(See IC 2283).
IC 2283.
POSS.O-1364.
Wolf List 1, No.50. 08hr 16m 18.315s + 24 56' 36.882" (1950). 08hr 19m 17.593s +
24 47' 09.785" (2000).
Javelle #1033. 08hr 16m 16.316s + 24 57' 04.812" (1950).
08hr 19m 15.604s + 24 47' 37.891" (2000).
Wolf's List 1, No.50 equal to IC 2283 is a single star located between IC 2282 and
Javelle's reference star DM + 25 1897 and is not equal to Javelle's #1033 = IC
2282:
IC 2282 (Wolf List 1, No.48) is an existing galaxy exactly where Wolf placed it at
08hr 16m 17.1s + 24 57' 10" and his description "L, pF, dif. * sf 135 degrees"
clearly establishes the galaxy visible on the DSS and Palomar print.
Javelle's reference star DM +25 1897 = GSC 1932-1644, from which he measured
offsets to his #1033 of - 0 tmin 04.57 tsec and + 0' 35 " of arc (north), also
clearly establish that his #1033 is equal to Wolf's No. 48 = IC 2282, not Wolf's
No. 50 = IC 2283 as published by Dreyer in the IC II.
Examination of the Palomar print and DSS shows the identity of Wolf's No. 50 = IC
2283 to be a star lying almost midway between IC 2282 and the reference star DM +
25 1897
The CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and MCG incorrectly equate IC 2282 and IC 2283. The RC3
lists the existing galaxy as being IC 2283 which is incorrect, this galaxy is IC
2282.
Not listed in UGC or DSFG. Listed in NGC 2000 without Type and in the MOL as
(NSO). The APL and Steinicke correctly list IC 2282 as an existing galaxy and IC
2283 as = *.
NOTE: Javelle's coordinates are slightly off due to the positional error in the
given coordinates for his reference star DM + 25, 1897. When his offsets from the
correct position for the star, (08hr 19m 19.50s + 24 47' 08.2" epoch 2000) are
applied they land directly on IC 2282.
IC 2284.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.49. 08hr 16m 06.829s + 18 45' 50.452" (1950).
08hr 18m 59.219s + 18 36' 24.186" (2000).
This is a star : It is the north preceding of 4 closely associated stars forming
the letter Y.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), Steinicke (= *), APL =
* and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2285.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.51. 08hr 16m 10.925s + 19 04' 16.101" (1950).
08hr 19m 03.642s + 18 54' 49.579" (2000).
Equal to a very faint, closely associated group of 4-5 stars whose 2 brightest
components point towards the star identified as IC 2281 :
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). The APL gives (= **).
Steinicke (= *2). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
NOTE: Wolf's description reads "! Curved N, Ch into *47," and this suggests to me
that he is referring to the grouping of stars rather than just the two brightest
which are aligned east and west.
IC 2286.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.52. 08hr 16m 11.492s + 19 06' 46.052" (1950).
08hr 19m 04.253s + 18 57' 19.496" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED (Not
found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2287.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.53. 08hr 16m 14.916s + 19 33' 24.773" (1950).
08hr 19m 08.154s + 19 25' 58.000" (2000).
This is a very faint star : The APL types it as = *. Only other modern listings
are Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2289.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.55. 08hr 16m 15.540s + 18 39' 20.649" (1950).
08hr 19m 07.807s + 18 29' 53.863" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), APL
= *, Steinicke (= *) and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2290.
POSS. O-236.
Wolf List 1, No.56. 08hr 16m 23.064s + 19 28' 16.024" (1950).
08hr 19m 16.200s + 19 18' 48.763" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD,
APL and RC3. Carlson in her Table 1b states that Curtis could not find it which is
somewhat strange as its image on the Palomar print is easily visible. Both the
NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist) also are in error.
IC 2291.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.57. 08hr 16m 25.942s + 18 39' 54.701" (1950).
08hr 19m 18.209s + 18 30' 27.290" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (?), MOL (May not exist), APL
and Steinicke =* and Carlson (Curtis. Not found). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2292.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.58. 08hr 16m 28.957s + 19 43' 17.504" (1950).
08hr 19m 22.370s + 19 33' 49.883" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL (= *), Steinicke (=*), NED (Not
found), SIMAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2294.
POSS. O-1311
Wolf List 1, No.59. 08hr 16m 33.411s + 19 08' 35,956" (1950).
08hr 19m 26.185s + 18 59' 07.182" (2000).
Equal to an extremely faint star : Only modern listings are APL (= *), Steinicke
(=*). SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2295.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.60. 08hr 16m 34.878s + 18 34' 18.880" (1950).
08hr 19m 27.037s + 18 24' 50.935" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke (=*) and the APL (= **). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2296.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.61. 08hr 16m 35.666s + 19 03' 21.844" (1950).
08hr 19m 28.343s + 18 53' 53.836" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (= *), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2297.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.62. 08hr 17m 13.077s + 18 32' 29.400" (1950).
08hr 20m 05.168s + 18 22' 59.165" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2298.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.63. 08hr 17m 15.207s + 18 33' 42.208" (1950).
08hr 20m 07.318s + 18 24' 11.844" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 2299.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.64. 08hr 17m 17.428s + 19 29' 47.075" (1950).
08hr 20m 10.539s + 19 20' 16.552" (2000).
Equal to two very faint stars: Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL
(NSO) and APL and Steinicke = ** (PA is correct). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2300.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.65. 08hr 17m 20.827s + 18 34' 42.698" (1950).
08hr 20m 12.950s + 18 25' 11.997" (2000).
Equal to a star: Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2301.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.66. 08hr 17m 21.943s + 18 35' 22.798" (1950).
08hr 20m 14.078s + 18 25' 52.029" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2302.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.67. 08hr 17m 24.549s + 19 30' 56.429" (1950).
08hr 20m 17.674s + 19 21' 25.479" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*), MOL
(NSO) and APL (= *) . NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2303.
POSS. O- 1311.
Wolf List 1, No.68. 08hr 17m 26.845s + 19 34' 34.225" (1950).
08hr 20m 20.033s + 19 25' 03.136" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke and APL (= *). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2304.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.69. 08hr 17m 42.362s + 19 35' 58.817" (1950).
08hr 20m 35.559s + 19 26' 26.799" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED" and APL (= **).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2305.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.70. 08hr 17m 47.176s + 19 36' 44.381" (1950).
08hr 20m 40.382s + 19 27' 12.074" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke and APL (= *). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the datbase."
IC 2306.
POSS. O- 1311.
Wolf List 1, No.71. 08hr 17m 46.815s + 19 16' 09.388" (1950).
8hr 20m 39.652s + 19 06' 37.111" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED (Not
found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2310.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.75. 08hr 17m 54.354s + 18 37' 23.656" (1950).
08hr 20m 46.493s + 18 27' 50.947" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2313.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.77. 08hr 18m 02.526s +18 40' 27.918" (1950).
08hr 20m 54.712s + 18 30' 54.718" (2000).
This is a single star : At first I had thought that this was the compact galaxy
immediately off the north following edge of IC 2312, however, after a second
examination and comparison of Wolf's separation values between his IC 2312 and IC
2313 (1.4 tsec and 25 arcsecs), it better suggests that it is the star located
north following the compact. Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC
2000 (No Type), NED "There is no object with this name in NED" and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2314.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.78. 08hr 18m 11.016s + 18 55' 20.166" (1950).
08hr 21m 03.458s + 18 45' 46.451" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke (=*2), NED (Not found) and APL = **. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2315.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.79. 08hr 18m 18.253s + 19 04' 27.521" (1950).
08hr 21m 10.851s + 18 54' 53.369" (2000).
This is a very faint star : Only modern listings are Steinicke and NED (Not
found), NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and APL = *. SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2316.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.80. 08hr 18m 22.425s + 19 55' 03.205" (1950).
08hr 21m 15.926s + 19 45' 28.784" (2000).
This is equal to two stars : Only modern listings are APL (probably a double star),
Steinicke (= *2),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2317.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.81. 08hr 18m 29.122s + 19 00' 10.531" (1950).
08hr 21m 21.633s + 18 50' 35.731" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (= *), NGC 2000 No Type),
MOL (NSO), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." and APL (= *). SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2318.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.83. 08hr 18m 40.847s + 18 46' 55.452" (1950).
08hr 21m 33.112s + 18 37' 19.960" (2000).
This is a star in a group of three : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke
(=*), NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2319.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.84. 08hr 18m 40.110s + 18 38' 08.418" (1950).
08hr 21m 33.219s + 18 28' 32.915" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 2320.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.85. 08hr 18m 43.021s + 18 49' 47.259" (2000).
08hr 21m 35.335s + 18 40' 11.636" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) Steinicke
(=*), NED (Not found) and APL (= *). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2321.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.86. 08hr 18m 47.192s + 18 37' 45.867" (1950).
08hr 21m 39.288s + 18 28' 10.001" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2322.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.87. 08hr 18m 47.414s + 18 38' 35.847" (1950).
08hr 21m 39.525s + 18 28' 59.968" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
IC 2323.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.88. 08hr 18m 49.021s + 18 46' 22.711" (1950).
08hr 21m 41.268s + 18 36' 46.732" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED (Not
found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2324.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.89. 08hr 19m 06.042s + 19 21' 17.214" (1950).
08hr 21m 58.893s + 19 11' 40.204" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL (= *),Steinicke (=*), NED and
SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2325.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.90. 08hr 19m 16.169s + 19 04' 21.277" (1950).
08hr 22m 08.709s + 18 54' 43.671" (2000).
At Wolf's nominal position no image exists, not even a star. Dr. Corwin examined
an original plate of this field and goes into detail in his Puzzle Solution Files
stating that he has compared it with the corresponding Palomar Survey print and
that there is visible on the original plate a photographic defect with the image
of an associated star. I have looked at the DSS field, employing all 3
generations and am unable to see any star at the nominal position, therefore the
associated star would have to be some other one in close proximity which would
require Wolf's given coordinates to be in greater error than normal. Only
modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke (NF), NED (Not
found) SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (* + defect).
IC 2326.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.91. 08hr 19m 19.426s + 19 10' 20.990" (1950).
08hr 22m 12.070s + 19 00' 43.188" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL (= defect+defect), Steinicke (=*),
NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2328.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.92. 08hr 19m 24.005s + 19 46' 37.621" (1950).
08hr 22m 17.292s + 19 36' 59.532" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are APL (= defect or asteroid trail?), Steinicke
and NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2330.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.94. 08hr 19m 31.053s + 19 00' 50.928" (1950).
08hr 22m 23.516s + 18 51' 12.437" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2331.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.95. 08hr 19m 42.384s + 19 50' 30.965" (1950).
08hr 22m 35.722s + 19 40' 51.781" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position there is only the image of an extremely faint
star. Wolf's description reads "vF, pL, R, dif-chief of a group," which does not
match the appearance of the star. Only modern listings are APL (=**), Steinicke
and NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2332.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.96. 08hr 19m 46.274s + 20 05' 01.632" (1950).
08hr 22m 39.868s + 19 55' 22.211" (2000).
This is the northern comes of a double star: Wolf describes it as "pB, vS, R,
stel N, F* att south." Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2333.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.97. 08hr 20m 08.170s + 19 14' 32.595" (1950).
08hr 23m 00.840s + 19 04' 51.891" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "Name does
not exist or no object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2334.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.98. 08hr 20m 07.916s + 18 46' 31.584" (1950).
08hr 23m 00.090s + 18 36' 50.905" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not preseent in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2336.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.100. 08hr 20m 27.163s + 18 41' 50.843" (1950).
08hr 23m 19.237s + 18 32' 09.028" (2000).
This is a star just off the preceding edge of IC 2337 : The CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and
PGC incorrectly equate the identities IC 2336 and IC 2337. IC 2337 is a confirmed
galaxy and Wolf's separation values for IC 2336 from IC 2337 (-1.3s of RA and + 5
arcsecs in declination) confirm the identity of the star. Correctly identified in
the APL. Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and in the MOL as (NSO). Steinicke
gives (=*).
IC 2337.
(See IC 2336).
IC 2338.
POSS. O-1364.
Javelle #1036, 08hr 20m 36.936s + 21 30' 25.524" (1950).
08hr 23m 32.023s + 21 20' 43.012" (2000).
The preceding companion of a double system with IC 2339:
The RC3 and PGC list IC 2339 the preceding of the pair which is incorrect as
Javelle definitely places J.1036 = IC 2338 to precede J.I037 = IC 2339 by 2s of
RA. CGCG and UGC give the identities IC 2338 + IC 2339. The APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD and MCG give the correct identities. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have
correct identities. No listing in DSFG.
IC 2340.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.102. 08hr 20m 37.992s + 18 54' 38.883" (1950).
08hr 23m 30.281s + 18 44' 56.419" (2000).
Javelle #1038. 08hr 20m 35.047s + 18 53'12.249" (1950).
08hr 23m 27.314s + 18 43' 29.902" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 89. 011, (this noted in the PGC
Corrections). Only other modern listings are APL, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, NGC 2000
(GX.) and MOL (NSO).which are all correct.
NOTE : For historical precedence Javelle was the first to record this galaxy,
almost a year prior to Wolf.
IC 2342.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.103. 08hr 20m 40.316s + 18 44' 28.662" (1950).
08hr 23m 32.423s + 18 34' 46.065" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO ). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2343.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.104. 08hr 21m 01.703s + 19 11' 11.770" (1950).
08hr 23m 54.261s + 19 01' 27.893" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2344.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.105. 08hr 21m 03.011s + 18 49' 13.626" (1950).
08hr 23m 55.180s + 18 39' 29.681" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO).
The APL and Steinicke give (= *). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2345.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.106. 08hr 21m 14.892s + 20 06'55.652" (1950).
08hr 24m 08.429s + 19 57' 10.972" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image visible. The closest image is of a faint star.
Only modern listings are APL (=*), however, Wolf describes it as "attached B* p"
which does not agree with the APL (*). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2346.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.107. 08hr 21m 17.587s + 19 52' 08.391" (1950).
08hr 24m 10.856s + 19 42' 23.559" (2000).
Equal to 2 very faint stars : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke
(=*2), NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2347.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.108. 08hr 21m 22.170s + 18 56' 09.912" (1950).
08hr 24m 14.443s + 18 46' 24.829" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL (=*),Steinicke (=*), SIMBAD and
NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2349.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.110. 08hr 21m 24.541s + 19 10' 05.716" (1950).
08hr 24m 17.057s + 19 00' 20.487" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2350.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.111. 08hr 21m 35.209s + 19 42' 52.797" (1950).
08hr 24m 28.296s + 19 33' 06.925" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are APL (Nothing at this position), Steinicke,
SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2351.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.112. 08hr 21m 38.049s + 18 45' 01.473" (1950).
08hr 24m 30.110s + 18 35' 15.457" (2000).
This is a star located on the south preceding edge of the galaxy NGC 2581 : Wolf
evidently thought that it was a nonstellar image as he described it as "pF, pS,
iF, p dif, F stell N, att No. 113 (NGC 2581)." and his positional data confirms
that it is the star.
The CGCG (ZWG 89.019) incorrectly identifies the galaxy as IC 2351 as does the UGC
SIMBAD and MCG. The NGC 2000 and MOL show them as being separate galaxies. The APL
correctly identifies IC 2351 as * 25 arcsecs ssp NGC 2581. Steinicke has (=*). The
PGC correctly identifies NGC 2581 and has no listing for IC 2351. NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED."
IC 2352.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.114. 08hr 21m 46.875s + 19 45' 56.754" (1950).
08hr 24m 40.004s + 19 36' 10.191" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 2353.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.115. 08hr 21m 45.848s + 18 49' 06.778" (1950).
08hr 24m 17.973s + 18 39' 20.299" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke(=* ), APL (*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 2354.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.116. 08hr 21m 48.560s + 18 49' 42.534" (1950).
08hr 24m 40.693s + 18 39' 55.895" (2000).
This is a very close double star whose components on the Palomar print are in
visual contact :
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (=* ). APL
(**)
IC 2355.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.117. 08hr 21m 58.063s + 20 37' 34.813" (1950).
08 24m 52.103s + 20 27' 47.569
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL (= **)
Steinicke (=**), NED and SIMBAD (Not found) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2356.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.118. 08hr 22m 08.072s + 19 39' 36.845" (1950).
08hr 25m 01.068s + 19 29' 49.033" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2357.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.119. 08hr 22m 11.386s + 19 40' 17.549" (1950).
08hr 25m 04.390s + 19 30' 29.541" (2000).
This is a star and also equal to the identity IC 2358: Only modern listings are
APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2358.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.120. 08hr 22m 12.163s + 19 39' 29.478" (1950).
08hr 25m 05.152s + 19 29' 41.425" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED and
SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2359.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.121. 08hr 22m 18.220s + 20 29' 50.997" (1950).
08hr 25m 12.100s + 20 20' 02.566" (2000).
Equal to NGC 2582 (H 753-3) : It is difficult to ascertain just why Dreyer would
assign any IC identity to this galaxy as Wolf in his List 1 definitely identifies
his No.121 as being NGC 2582. CGCG, MCG, PGC, NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD
and UGC correctly list the equivalency. The RC3 and DSFG give the single identity
NGC 2582. The MOL (NSO) list both identities at separate coordinates.
IC 2360.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.122. 08hr 22m 22.189s + 19 37' 17.577" (1950).
08hr 25m 15.128s + 19 27' 28.933" (2000).
Nothing found at the nominal position: Only modern listings are APL (=* at a
declination of + 19 40' 47". 3.5 arcmin error in Wolf's declination). Steinicke
(=*), SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2361.
POSS. O-1351.
Javelle #1040. 08hr 22m 42.067s + 28 02' 15.871" (1950).
08hr 25m 44.476s + 27 52' 25.910" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Dreyer in the IC II gives the annual rate of precession in RA
as 3.47s which is incorrect and would result in IC 2361 having a 1950 RA of 8hr
22m 25s. The correct rate of precession is 3.66s. The CGCG lists IC 2361 only as
ZWG 149.023. The UGC, MCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, APL, RC3, PGC, NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO) all have the correct identity.
IC 2362.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.123. 08hr 22m 47.935s + 20 06' 19.308" (1950).
08hr 25m 41.363s + 19 56' 29.135" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (**), NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database.
IC 2364.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.125. 08hr 22m 58.223s + 19 55' 23.375" (1950).
08hr 25 51.337s + 19 45' 32.600" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2365.
POSS. O-1351.
Javelle #1041. 08hr 23m 15.586s + 28 02 46.237" (1950).
08hr 26m 17.955s + 27 52' 54.291" (2000).
IC 2365 and IC 2366 are equivalent identities:
Javelle claimed discovery of his #1041 = IC 2365 some 14 months prior to his #1042
= IC 2366 and his descriptions for both objects are almost identical, "pB, vS, R,
stell." for IC 2365 and "pB, vS, R, bMN." For IC 2366.
There is only one possible candidate in the immediate field, "Pretty bright," (the
other close field galaxy being ~ 17 Mp) and this single candidate is at the
coordinates given by Javelle for his J.1042 = IC 2366 at 8hr 23m 15.633s + 28 00'
16.618" (1950), or 0.047 tsec RA and 2 arcmin 29.619 arcsec different from his
measurement for IC 2365.
The fact that the difference in RA coordinates is negligible and that those for
declination are almost exactly 2.5 arcmin I would say strongly supports the
equivalency.
Additionally, if Javelle, for whatever reason, thought that he was correctly
measuring a position for his #1041 in 1896 then it is my belief that he could not
have missed seeing at that same time his #1042 = IC 2366, yet it was not until
1897 that he reported finding IC 2366.
The CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, MCG and RC3 all identify the galaxy as IC 2365
(however, they are all referring to J.1042 = IC 2366. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO) list both identities with separate coordinates.
Not listed in DSFG. APL equates both identities. Steinicke equates IC 2365 and
IC 2366.
NOTE: If IC 2365 and IC 2366 are indeed equivalent identities then historically
Javelle's #1041 = IC 2365 would be the correct identity as his single observation
for his #1041 was made more than one year prior to the first of two observations
he made for his #1042 = IC 2366.
IC 2366.
(See IC 2365).
IC 2368.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.126. 08hr 23m 07.913s + 20 02' 56.518" (1950).
08hr 26m 01.260s + 19 53' 05.170" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED and SIMBAD
(Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2369.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.127. 08hr 23m 22.655s + 20 23' 47.226" (1950).
08hr 26m 16.358s + 20 13' 55.003" (2000).
This is an existing galaxy : The CGCG (ZWG 089.027), PGC, NED, SIMBAD and RC3 have
each identified as IC 2369 a galaxy with coordinates at 08hr 23m 27.91s + 20 26'
05.9 (1950 NED), however, I have difficulty accepting this as being Wolf's No.127 as
the difference in RA is ~ 5 tsec while the difference in Declination is almost 2
arcmin. Corwin has stated (Precise Positions Catalogue) that the mean error of
Wolf's positional data in his List 1 is between 3-5 arcsecs.
Additionally in this same source Corwin gives the position consistent with Wolf's,
concluding that it is a "star." and from my own examination of the positional data
in this list I find it hard to believe that such an error in measurement as
required to accept ZWG 089.27 as being Wolf's No.127 was made by Wolf.
In my earlier versions of my survey I incorrectly listed this as being only a
star, however, the Second Generation DSS photos, Red and especially Blue leave
absolutely no doubt as to the existence of a spiral galaxy with the foreground
star superposed upon its northern edge.
Corwin states that there is the image of a very faint galaxy on the POSS1 at
Wolf's position, however, he adds that it is not visible on the copy of the
original photograph that he examined. Of course such a faint image might have been
lost in the copying of the original plate.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL ( NSO) each list IC 2369 giving coordinates in
agreement with Wolf's. Not listed in UGC, MCG or DSFG. The APL lists it at the
correct coordinates and types it as (= *). Steinicke has (=*).
IC 2370.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.128. 08hr 23m 29.780s + 19 48' 09.547" (1950).
08hr 26m 22.843s + 19 38' 16.919" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2371.
POSS. O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.129. 08hr 23m 43.919s + 19 57' 48.297" (1950).
08hr 26m 37.138s + 19 47' 54.835" (2000).
This is a faint star : At the position as given by Wolf there is found only the
image of a star
APL gives (=*) as does Steinicke. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2372.
Wolf List 1, No.130. 08hr 23m 47.250s + 20 02' 52.006" (1950).
08hr 26m 40.555s + 19 52' 58.346" (2000).
This is a star : An additional error is found in Wolf's (and Dreyer's)
descriptions pertaining to the "Bright star south following. This should be
corrected to read Bright star south preceding.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2374 Group of Galaxies.
POSS. O-1351.
Javelle # 1043, #1044, #1045 and #1046
All are existing galaxies : I am entirely obligated to the excellent explanation
given in the NGC/IC Bug List by Dr. Corwin for bringing to my attention that the
CGCG has confused the identities of two of these galaxies and I have to admit that
I overlooked this in my own investigation.
There are four Javelle galaxies in the immediate field, IC 2374, IC 2376, IC 2378
and IC 2380 and following are the coordinates based upon Javelle's measurement.
#1043 = IC 2374 : 8hr 25m 16.358s + 30 36' 41.349" (1950)
08hr 28m 21.689s + 30 26' 42.245" (2000).
#1044 = IC 2376 : 8hr 25m 20.781s + 30 34' 27.372" (1950).
08hr 28m 26.057s + 30 24' 28.012" (2000).
#1045 = IC 2378 : 8hr 25m 26.054s + 30 35' 54.999" (1950).
08hr 28m 31.352s + 30 25' 55.331" (2000).
#1046 = IC 2380 : 8hr 25m 38.546s + 30 34' 17.181" (1950).
08hr 28m 43.788s + 30 24' 16.785" (2000).
Thus Javelle gives the order by declination from north to south as IC 2374, IC
2378, IC 2376 and IC 2380.
There are no problems involving the order of the RA values, however, this is not
true when it comes to the declinations involved.
The CGCG identifies only three as being IC objects, (IC 2374, IC 2378 and IC 2380)
making its IC 2378 the most northerly while giving its IC 2374 and IC 2380 the
same declination value 1 arcmin south of IC 2378. However, the CGCG also lists an
"Anon" ZWG 149. 027 at a declination value 1 arcmin north of its IC 2378 and it is
this galaxy that is the correct IC 2374 while what the CGCG identifies as IC 2374
(ZWG 149.029) is actually IC 2376. Meanwhile the MCG and PGC list all four IC
identities again in correct order of RA but in order of declination from north to
south they makes IC 2378 the most northerly then give IC 2374 and IC 2380 a
declination value 2 arcmin south of IC 2378 and finally place IC 2376 2 arcmins
south of IC 2374 and IC 2380 which obviously is in considerable conflict with the
Javelle's identities and order of declination.
The NGC 2000 also places their IC 2376 1 arcmin south of IC 2380 which is
incorrect, while the MOL, basing its coordinates upon Dreyer's correct reporting
of Javelle's coordinates, has all the identites and their order of RA and
declination correct. The APL, Steinicke and NED have the correct identities and
coordinates. SIMBAD incorrectly identifies IC 2374, as the galaxy it selects is
actually IC 2376, while it also identifies as IC 2376 an anonymous galaxy (2MASX
J08282365+3022513).
IC 2381.
POSS O-1311.
Wolf List 1, No.132. 08hr 25m 28.649s + 19 57' 27.980" (1950).
08hr 28m 21.752s + 19 47' 28.385" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2386.
POSS. O-364.
Bigourdan #395. 08hr 31m 45.303s + 25 58' 37.685" (1950).
08hr 34m 44.492s + 25 48' 16.275" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL (= *),
Steinicke (=*), NED and SIMBAD (Not found) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2390.
POSS. O-1311.
Barnard. 08hr 38m 57.999s + 19 53' 05.999" (1950).
08hr 41m 50.134s +19 42' 20.517" (2000).
This is an interesting problem in that the PGC, SIMBAD, NED and APL equate IC 2390
with Marth's NGC 2643, the CGCG and Steinicke give the single identity IC 2390, the
MOL and NGC 2000 lists both identities as being separate objects, while the other
authorities, UGC, MCG and RC3 have no listings for either identity.
To begin with Marth listed 3 nebulae in the immediate field, NGC 2637, NGC 2643
and NGC 2647 all three being "discovered" on the same night. Marth's coordinates
for these three are
NGC 2637 = Marth #130. 8hr 38m 26s + 19 44'.3
NGC 2643 = Marth #131. 8hr 39m 17s + 19 42'.1
NGC 2647 = Marth #132. 8hr 39m 51s + 19 49'.1
Thus according to Marth NGC 2637 and NGC 2643 have declinations south of that
given to NGC 2647.
I was able to confirm the existence of NGC 2647 at the coordinates as given by
Marth, however, at Marth's coordinates for the other two no nebular images were
found. This then requires that if IC 2390 is a duplicate observation of NGC 2643
then Marth's declination measurement for NGC 2643 is in error by about 11 arcmins
and means that NGC 2643 would lie at a declination north not south of NGC 2647,
while Marth's RA measurement for NGC 2643 would have an error of 19 seconds.
Now as Marth's measured coordinates for NGC 2647 are so good, the APL gives 8hr
39m 51.07s + 19 49' 49.9," I find it difficult to accept that Marth then would
have so poorly measured coordinates for NGC 2643 if Barnard's IC 2390 is Marth's
NGC 2643, therefore I would at this time conclude that IC 2390 is a separate
identity and not equivalent to NGC 2643.
NOTE : The RNGC has selected as its RNGC 2637 a galaxy at 8hr 38.3m + 19 52'.2
which again would be about 7.9 arcmins north of Marth's declination and would
again place it north not south of NGC 2647, however, the RNGC often assigns
questionable identities by selecting the closest nonstellar image regardless of
any historical data.
IC 2396.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.134. 08hr 43m 51.384s + 17 49' 55.955" (1950).
08hr 46m 41.182s + 17 38' 55.009" (2000).
This is a single faint star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000, MOL both making
it a double star. The APL gives (=*). Steinicke has (= *2), which is for a
faint pair north following the star I select. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2397.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.135. 08hr 43m 51.999s + 17 50' 35.905" (1950).
08hr 46' 41.807s + 17 39' 33.925" (2000).
This is a double star, the companion component, (PA 90 degrees), being extremely
faint : Not listed in the CGCG, UGC, MCG or RC3. The NGC 2000 gives (?) while
the MOL states (May not exist). The APL lists it as (=**) as does Steinicke. NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD :Not present in the
database."
IC 2399.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.137. 08hr 43m 59.051s + 19 05' 57.395" (1950).
08hr 46m 50.073s + 18 54' 54.997" (2000).
Not found at Wolf's nominal position : The CGCG (ZWG 90.010), PGC, SIMBAD, NED, NGC
2000 and MOL all identify a galaxy at about 8hr 45.0m as being IC 2399 suggesting
that Wolf's RA is about 1 minute in error. As Wolf was obviously employing stars on
the plate with accurately known coordinates from which to obtain his positional data
(in fact he lists 32 reference field stars for his List 1) plus the fact that his
measuring abilities were of a very high standard I am reluctant to accept the
selection of the above authorities.
The APL gives (Nothing in this position) and (IC 2399 = CGCG 090-010). Steinicke
has (Not found).
IC 2408.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.140. 08hr 45m 29.286s + 19 13' 19.91" (1950).
08hr 48m 20.326s + 19 02' 12.591" (2000).
This is a single star : The only modern listings are NGC 2000, MOL and APL and
Steinicke and all list it as being a star. NED "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2410.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.142. 08hr 45m 36.448s + 19 12' 16.317" (1950).
08hr 48m 27.463s + 19 01' 08.608" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2667 (D'Arrest) : Both the CGCG and MCG give only the
identity IC 2410 while the MOL lists both identities as separate galaxies. The
APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and Carlson correctly make IC 2410 = NGC
2667.
IC 2411.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.143. 08hr 45m 39.779s + 19 13' 46.043" (1950).
08hr 48m 30.815s + 19 02' 38.152" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as + 3-23-9 this being noted
in the PGC. Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000
(GX) and DSFG. The APL equates it with NGC 2667B while the MOL lists both IC 2411
and RNGC 2667B as separate identities at different coordinates.
IC 2412.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.146. 08hr 46m 33.351s + 18 43' 44.588" (1950).
08hr 49m 23.841s + 18 32' 33.802" (2000).
This is equal to a faint star that makes up a double with a star close north
preceding : Wolf describes his object as having a 14 mag. star north preceding
and this is the brighter of the two components visible on the DSS.: Only modern
listings are NGC 2000 (Double star), MOL (Two stars), Steinicke and APL (= *) and
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
IC 2413.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.147. 08hr 46m 41.531s + 18 55' 41.926" (1950).
08hr 49m 32.205s + 18 44' 30.692" (2000).
Equal to a double star : NGC 2000 (Double star), MOL (Two stars), Steinicke (= *2)
and APL = **. Carlson lists as = * on Mt. Wilson plate. SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." NED "No Objext found."
IC 2415.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.150. 08hr 47m 11.550s + 18 50' 19.449" (1950).
08hr 50m 02.104s + 18 39' 06.595" (2000).
This is a faint star : The only modern listings are NGC 2000 (***), MOL (Three
stars), Steinicke (= *). NED "There is no object with this name in NED" and APL
which states (= *). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2416.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.151. 08hr 47m 41.765s + 18 44' 47.961" (1950).
08hr 50m 32.197s + 18 33' 33.478" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000, MOL each making
it a double star. Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 2417.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.152. 08hr 48m 18.202s + 18 48' 44.977" (1950).
08hr 51' 08.657s + 18 37' 28.531" (2000).
This is a star : The only modern listings are NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (Galaxy) and
both select a galaxy at a declination of + 18 59'.3, or about 10 arcmins north of
Wolf's declination.
The APL lists as (*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
Steinicke has (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
As in the case of IC 2399 I am reluctant to accept that Wolf created an error of
10 arcmins, therefore at this time I maintain my conclusion as stated above
especially as the nominal position lands just off the south following edge of
the star, which is the case with almost all the nominal positions given in Wolf's
List 1.
IC 2419.
POSS. O-62.
Wolf List 1, No.154. 08hr 49m 19.640s + 18 17' 22.925" (1950).
08hr 52m 09.528s + 18 06' 03.194" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (= *), MOL (Single
star) Steinicke (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not
present in the databse." and APL = **.
NOTE : This is the final entry in Wolf's List 1.
IC 2423.
POSS. O-62.
Javelle #1062. 08hr 51m 55.399s + 20 24' 42.804" (1950).
08hr 54m 47.134s + 20 13' 14.822" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : I was unable to locate any listing for the actual identity IC
2423 in the MOL, instead, this source lists the correct object only as UGC 04667,
MCG +03-23 -017 and ZWG 090.035, all of which are correct but still no primary
identity (IC 2423).
The galaxy is correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD,
APL, PGC, RC3 and NGC 2000 (GX).
IC 2424.
POSS. O-721.
Bigourdan #271. 08hr 53m 33.986s + 39 34' 31.828" (1950).
08hr 56m 47.449s + 39 22' 58.121"
This is equal to NGC 2704 (Wm. Herschel H 625-3) : CGCG gives only the identity
IC 2424. MCG makes IC 2424 = NGC 2704 ?. UGC "Notes" for U04678 = IC 2424 states
"Probably equal to NGC 2704." NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all
correctly equate both identities. RC3 gives only NGC 2704. APL and Steinicke give
(= NGC 2704).
IC 2425.
POSS. O-469.
Bigourdan #396. 08hr 53m 18.500s - 03 13' 53.412" (1950).
08hr 55m 49.418s - 03 25' 25.275" (2000).
Equal to a star : Bigourdan was not sure as to its nature as he describes it as
"Object of 13.5 Mv. appears nebulous, but cannot say with certainty."
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (*) and in the MOL as (May not exist). NED and Carlson
each list it as "Not found," while both the APL and Steinicke correctly type it as
a star. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2436.
POSS. O-1011.
Stewart #316. 09hr 03m 05.633s - 18 57' 54.679" (1950).
09hr 05m 23.336s - 19 09' 56.608" (2000).
This is a pair of stars in visual contact : Listed in the MOL as (NSO). The NGC
2000, APL and Steinicke correctly list it as two stars. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2440.
POSS.O-1325.
Bigourdan #273. 09hr 10m 46.662s + 73 40' 02.360" (1950).
09hr 15m 50.958s + 73 27' 33.774 " (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in NGC 2000 without type. MOL makes it (NSO).
The APL gives = * and Steinicke gives (= *). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2447.
POSS. O-1365.
Javelle #1080. 09hr 10m 32.482s + 28 56' 52.007" (1950).
09hr 13m 30.845s + 28 44' 27.042" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image in the area as given by Javelle. Only modern
listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) Steinicke, APL "Probably equal to IC 2446." SIMBAD
and NED (Not found) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2449.
POSS. O-1365.
Javelle #1081. 09hr 10m 33.003s + 30 12' 22.081" (1950).
09hr 13m 32.658s + 29 59' 57.073" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At the separations given by Javelle from his reference star DM
+30 1834 no nebular image exists, however, if his RA separation sign was - 51.22
tsec instead of the + 51.22 tsec which he gives, it would be equal to ZWG 151.026
= UGC 04856 = MCG +05-22-17, being an extended galaxy close north preceding NGC
2783 which Javelle refers to in his observation (Part 1).
Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) at the historical position.
The APL gives it coordinates consistent with ZWG 151.026 and identifies it as
being equal to NGC 2783B. Steinicke has correct identity. The PGC list CGCG 151-
026 as an "Anon." = PGC #26012. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED," however, they do list it under the name NGC 2783B. Simbad has "Not present in
the database," however, they do list it under the identity UGC 4856.
RC3 lists this as Hick 37B. DSFG lists as NGC 2783B.
NOTE: Javelle's reference star is also AC #943305 whose 1903 (discovery year)
position would be 09hr 08m 34.876s + 30 20 43.687" and by applying his offsets
(corrected in RA from+ 51.22 tsec to - 51.22 tsec then it gives coordinates of
09hr 10m 33.003s + 30 12' 22.081" (1950), which lands right on the south edge of
the extended galaxy as described above.
IC 2450.
POSS. O-237.
Javelle #1082. 09hr 14m 10.441s + 25 38' 22.826" (1950).
09hr 17m 05.164s + 25 25' 47.392" (2000).
Not found at Javelle's position but it is an existing galaxy :
Corwin in his unpublished list (Accurate Positions List) suggests that Javelle
misidentified his reference star DM + 25 2071 and that his object #1082 actually
exists at 9hr 14m 11s + 25 38'.1 Steinicke and both the CGCG (ZWG. 121.049) and
UGC (U04902) agree with Corwin and identify this object as IC 2450.
I am in agreement that the above authorities have correctly identified IC 2450
DM + 25 2071 is equal to AC #943530 at 09hr 16m 24.052s + 25 21' 48.63" (2000).
Javelle took Argelander's coordinates for this star which unfortunately when
precessed to 2000 would give a position of 09hr 16m 24.246s + 25 23' 16.316" or
about 1 arcmin 27.6 arcsec off the true declination.
Secondly, Javelle's published offsets have the incorrect sign in RA, making it to
be - when it should be +.
When these corrections are applied and the correct coordinates for the star are
precessed back to the discovery year (1896) and the corrected offset directions
entered it results in giving IC 2450 coordinates of 09hr 14m 10.441s + 25 38'
22.826" (1950), or 09hr 17m 05.164s + 25 25'47.392" (2000).
The MCG lists this same object only as +4-22-29. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO) list the identity IC 2450 but place it at Javelle's original
coordinates. The PGC (# 26218), SIMBAD and NED list the CGCG, UGC, MCG candidate
but do not equate with the identity IC 2450.
NOTE: Corwin in his recent update now agrees that Javelle's reference star is DM
+25 2071.
IC 2451.
POSS. O-237.
Javelle #1083. 09hr 12m 54.878s + 23 42' 20.534" (1950).
09hr 15m 47.931s + 23 29' 48.771" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is the very minor typographical one found
in Javelle's Catalogue Part 2, in which the reference star is identified as DM 25
2065 when it should read DM 23 2065. Fortunately Javelle did record the correct
coordinates for the reference star, therefore his positional data was not in
error. The modern catalogues which list this identity, CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL,
Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO), all have the correct identity.
IC 2455.
POSS. O-57.
Javelle #1087. 09hr 13m 59.912s + 20 19' 31.550" (1950).
09hr 16m 49.849s + 20 06' 56.689" (2000).
Not found at Javelle's given position : The closest object visible on the Palomar
print is a faint star. Dr. Corwin in his NGC/IC Bugs List gives an argument that
perhaps Javelle's declination offsets are in error and if they were to read +7'
36".7 instead of +2' 36".7 then the galaxy NGC 2804 would be a viable candidate
for what Javelle was recording, however, Corwin adds that Javelle in his
observation of IC 2457 (discovered and measured by Javelle within minutes of IC
2455), states that he also measured its position from the nebula NGC 2804 which if
correct would mean that Javelle was well aware of the NGC galaxy and this would
most likely invalidate the IC 2455 = NGC 2804 hypothesis.
Because of this I am currently reluctant to accepting the equivalency and have
decided to go with the Not found explanation although there is no doubt that the 5
arcmin difference in declination would provide an excellent solution.
APL list it as = NGC 2804. Steinicke has (= NGC 2804). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2456.
POSS. O- 925.
Javelle #1088. 09hr 14m 28.181s + 34 59' 48.185" (1950).
09hr 17m 32.491s + 34 47' 11.708" (2000).
Not found: No nebular image found at or close to Javelle's separation values.
CGCG, MCG and UGC have no listing for this identity. Both the NGC 2000 and MOL
listings give the original IC II declination. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not
found). The APL suggests that it might be a galaxy at 09hr 14m 19,98s + 34 53' 04.9"
(1950).NOTE: See Corwin's PUZZLE SOLUTION FILES for an very interesting discussion as to
this identity and one that may well be the correct solution.
IC 2460.
POSS. O- 925.
Javelle #1091. 09hr 16m 15.910s + 34 05' 26.013" (1950).
09hr 19m 18.934s +33 52' 44.422" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 2827 (Rosse): CGCG gives the single identity NGC 2827. MCG
gives only IC 2460. UGC has no listing. NGC 2000 lists with the Type [?]. MOL
states "May not exist." Carlson reports "Not Found." The PGC, SIMBAD and NED
correctly make IC 2460 = NGC 2827. The APL and Steinicke equates IC 2460 with NGC
2827.
NOTE: When Javelle's data is computed by TYCHO 2, which takes into account the
reference star's proper motion, it places IC 2460 at 09hr 19m 18.582s + 33 52'
37.26" (2000).
IC 2465.
POSS. O-237.
Javelle #1096. 09hr 20m 39.475s + 24 39' 40.300" (1950).
09hr 23m 32.626s + 24 26' 46.564" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy at Javelle's position : The CGCG has incorrectly
assigned this identity to an Anon. at a declination of + 22 40' NED, SIMBAD and the
PGC also equate this CGCG galaxy with IC 2465. The only other modern listings are
NGC 2000 (No Type), APL, Steinicke and MOL (NSO) and each of these give the correct
declination and correct identity.
TYCHO 2 would give the coordinates as 09hr 20m 38.392" + 24 39' 38.90" (1950).
IC 2466.
POSS. O-237.
Javelle #1097. 09hr 20m 52.313s + 24 44' 05.161" (1950).
09hr 23m 44.507s + 24 31' 10.830" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG identifies this galaxy only as ZWG.121.076.
Not listed in the RC3 or UGC. Correctly listed in the MCG, PGC, Steinicke, NED,
APL, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
For additional information regarding this identity see Q.J.R.astr. Soc. (1992),
33, p 64. "Corrections to Zwicky's Catalogue."
IC 2470.
POSS. O- 237.
Javelle #1100. 09hr 22m 49.002s + 23 34' 50.337" (1950).
09hr 25m 40.981s + 23 21' 50.648" (2000). (Javelle Section II)
Declination error of 20 degrees : Due to a typographical error in Section I of
Javelle's catalogue Dreyer and other compilers of catalogues have been misled.
The correct IC 2470 is listed in the CGCG only as ZWG121.088 and the PGC also
identifies this galaxy only as #26730 = CGCG 121-88. In the MCG as +4-22-49 (dec.
+ 23 35'.4). UGC has no object listed at the correct declination. NGC 2000 and
MOL have the declination as given by Dreyer. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED," however, they do identify the IC galaxy as CGCG 121-088. SIMBAD
has "Not present in the database," but do identify the correct object as MCG+04-22-
049. APL and Steinicke have the correct identity and coordinates.
IC 2474.
POSS. O-237.
Bigourdan #275. 09hr 24m 20.402s + 23 15' 03.056" (1950).
09hr 27m 11.947s + 23 01' 59.202" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly lists its ZWG.121.098 at 9hr
24.4m + 23 04'.0 as being IC 2474. This is actually NGC 2885 = IC 538 and this
same error is repeated in the UGC (U05037) and MOL (NSO). The MCG has correctly
identified IC 2474. The PGC (Corrections) has pointed out the CGCG and UGC error
but has not referred to the equivalency that exists between the identities IC 538
and NGC 2885. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identities and
coordinates.
For a more complete understanding of the identity errors in this field see
W.S.Q.J..N0. 81. July 1990. "Identification Errors in the NGC 2885 Galaxy Group."
M.J.Thomson.
IC 2475.
POSS. O-1365.
Javelle #1103. 09hr 24m 56.863s + 30 00' 27.926" (2000).
09hr 27m 54.466s + 29 47' 22.331" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly listed in CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and
MCG. Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list it a "Bright Nebula."
IC 2476.
POSS O-1365.
Javelle #1104. 09hr 24m 55.029s + 30 12' 08.461" (1950).
09hr 27m 52.823s + 29 59' 02.927" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly listed in CGCG, PGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD,
UGC, RC3 and NGC 2000. Listed in MOL as "Bright Nebula."
IC 2477.
POSS. O-466.
Javelle #1105. 09hr 25m 02.193s + 29 55' 26.258" (1950).
09hr 27m 59.704s + 29 42' 20.409" (2000).
Not found at nominal position: Javelle's reference star is equal to AC 2000.2
944738 at 09hr 27m 50.410s +28 45' 42.30" (2000). When this is precessed back to
the year of Javelle's discovery (1896), it's position would be 09hr 21m 40.442s
+30 12' 46.900". Javelle's published offsets are +9.450 tsec RA and 3arcmin 21
arcsec north, which when applied and then precessed to the years 1950 and 2000
results in the above coordinates, at which there are no nonstellar images.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not
found) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: Since writing the above I see that in a later version of Dr. Corwin's APL
Files (Jan. 16th 2004) he suggests that there is an 18 tsec error in Javelle's
data, which he states is not the result of a typo error and that this correction
would land on a galaxy which he believes could be Javelle's IC 2477, however, this
particular object is another Javelle discovery, his #1108 = IC 2480, therefore if
this hypothesis is correct then IC 2477 and IC 2480 would be equivalent
identities, not separate galaxies as indicated in the Jan. 16th files.
Additionally, I am not so sure that this would not be the result of a typo error,
as if in original transcribing the RA offset should have been -29.450 tsec instead
of the published -9.450 tsec, this would then have placed Javelle's #1105 very
close to the south following edge of the image of IC 2480. The most compelling
evidence to support the equivalency is the fact that Javelle's observations for IC
2477 and IC 2480 were made about two weeks apart and not on the same night.
IC 2478.
POSS. O-1365.
Javelle #1106. 09hr 25m 03.137s + 30 15' 20.959" (1950).
09hr 28m 00.965s + 30 02' 15.057" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly listed in CGG, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD, UCG (Notes), and
MCG. Listed in NGC 2000 as "Nebula" and MOL as "Faint Nebula."
IC 2479.
POSS.O-1353.
Javelle #1107. 09hr 25m 06.181s + 30 12' 35.606" (1950).
09hr 28m 03.957s + 29 59' 29.568" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly listed in CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC
(Notes) and MCG. Listed in NGC 2000 as "Nebula" and in MOL as "Bright Nebula."
IC 2480.
POSS. O-466.
Javelle #1108. 09hr 25m 20.608s + 29 55' 23.332" (1950).
09hr 28m 18.077s + 29 42' 16.666" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Incorrectly listed in the NGC 2000 as (Nebula) and MOL (Bright
Nebula).
Correctly listed in APL, PGC, CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 2484.
Swift List XI, #94. 09hr 24m 55.079s - 42 37' 28.767" (1950).
09hr 26m 50.335s - 42 50' 33.029" (2000).
Not found : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO).
The APL, Steinicke, NED and ESO have (Not found). SIMBAD has "Object of unknown
nature. Nothing here."
IC 2485.
Stewart #317. 09hr 25m 11.677s - 39 03' 59.423" (1950).
09hr 27m 11.533s - 39 17' 04.563" (2000).
Not found. Possibly a faint double star ? : At Stewart's given position there
exists only a faint double star which is located in a rich stellar field. Whether
this is the image considered to be nebulous by Stewart I am unable to say.
The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and
the ESO each have (Not found).
IC 2487.
POSS. O-57.
Javelle #1112. 09hr 27m 19.419s + 20 18' 38.012" (1950).
09hr 30m 08.238s + 20 05' 26.131" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG has incorrectly identified ZWG 91.098 as IC 2489, it
should be IC 2487. (This error noted in the PGC Corrections which also corrects
the error in the PGC main catalogue which equates the identities IC 2487 and IC
2489). Listed correctly in the UGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, NGC 2000 (GX)
and MOL (NSO).
IC 2489.
Barnard. 09hr 28m 43s - 05 39'.8 (Dreyer).
Not found : At the nominal position no nonstellar object is found. Listed in the
NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). Steinicke, NED and the APL have (Not
found). Incorrectly equated with IC 2487 in the PGC (1986) main catalogue but
this error corrected in the "PGC Corrections and 1996 version." The CGCG
incorrectly identifies what is IC 2487 as being IC 2489as does SIMBAD.
IC 2490.
POSS. O-466.
Javelle #1113. 09hr 30m 06.118s + 30 09' 00.897" (1950).
09hr 33m 03.170s + 29 55' 41.498" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG, UGC, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MCG all
correctly list it as being a galaxy. NGC 2000 lists as "Nebula" and MOL as " Bright
Nebula."
IC 2492.
Stewart #318. 09hr 31m 08.363 - 37 41' 15.442" (1950).
09hr 33m 10.919s - 37 54' 36.547" (2000).
Unable to confirm : There are no nebular images at the nominal position, however,
there is a small, faint galaxy (16.0 Mp), at 09hr 31m 12s - 37 38'.6 which
Steinicke has identified as IC 2492. This galaxy is also suggested as being IC
2492 by the ESO (315-G013 = IC 2492?), the PGC, SIMBAD and NED, while the APL has (?
= ESO 315-G013)., however, Stewart's description reads "eF, vS, R, B* 1 arcmin np;
susp." and I am unable to find any bright star in this position relative to ESO 315-
G013. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical position.
IC 2494.
POSS. O-1536.
Swift List XI, #95. 09hr 33m 55.089s - 12 09' 52.279" (1950).
09hr 36m 20.228s - 12 23' 21.126" (2000).
Equal to NGC 2947 (Leavenworth) and IC 547 (Javelle #165).
Howe made a correction to Swift's coordinates stating that this object was
positioned at 09hr 33m 40s - 12 12'.6 and there is no doubt that this is
Leavenworth's NGC 2947 which Leavenworth had poorly placed at a position of 09hr
35.9m - 12 12'.0. This error by Leavenworth obviously misled Javelle who thought
that his IC 547 was a new discovery to which he had measured a position of 09hr
33m 40.7s - 12 12'.8, thus the double equivalency.
The MCG gives only the equivalency with IC 547. The NGC 2000 gives each identity
as separate objects while the MOL gives no equivalency and states that NGC 2947 is
a non existing object. The APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke make the correct double
equivalency. SIMBAD equates NGC 2947 and IC 547, but for the identity IC 2494 it
gives "Not present in the database.
IC 2500.
POSS. O-925.
Bigourdan #399. 09hr 39m 17.946s + 36 34' 25.633" (1950).
09hr 42m 19.858s + 36 20' 42.540" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson lists it as "Not found on Mt. Wilson plates." The MOL
states "May not exist." The NGC 2000 types it as [?]. Correctly identified in the
CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, DSFG (Notes to NGC 2965) and MCG. Not
listed in the RC3 or UGC.
IC 2502 and IC 2503.
POSS. O-925.
Javelle #1121. 09hr 40m 14.537s + 35 23' 20.172" (1950).
09hr 43m 15.091s + 35 09' 34.756" (2000). (IC 2502).
#1122. 09hr 40m 17.417s + 35 26' 11.351" (1950).
09hr 43m 18.011s + 35 12' 35.674" (2000). (IC 2503).
Both existing galaxies : At the coordinates derived from Javelle's data no such
galaxies exist, however, this is due to what appears to be a typographical error
in Javelle's published catalogue in which he identifies his reference star for
both objects as being DM +33 2042 when it actually is DM +35 2042 = AC 2000.2
1226788 at a declination 2 degrees north of where his data indicates.
Javelle states that his reference star's Mv is 6.5, placing it at 09hr 34m 16.4s
+33 42'.7 (1860), however, the BD catalogue identifies BD +33-2042 as having a Mv
of 9.5 and coordinates of 10hr 42m 49.976s +33 38' 25.747" (1860), therefore it
appears certain that Javelle has misidentified his reference star. Finally, when
Javelle's offsets are applied to DM +35 2042 they come up with the two galaxies at
the Corrected Nominal Positions as given above.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No type for both identities). MOL (NSO) for both
Identities. NED, SIMBAD and the APL who identify IC 2502 and IC 2503 as (NF) and
Steinicke who agrees with my conclusions.
IC 2504.
Stewart #319. 09hr 37m 41.424s - 68 51' 34.016" (1950).
09hr 38m 34.274s - 69 05' 10.665" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes this object as "eF, vS, eE at 170 degrees, lbM,
susp." and there is nothing in the field that resembles this description.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL, Steinicke,
SIMBAD, NED and the ESO each list it as (Not found).
IC 2509.
POSS. O-233.
Bigourdan #276. 09hr 44m 19.238s + 05 55' 38.389" (1950).
09hr 46m 56.737s + 05 41' 43.348" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position I was not able to see any object stellar or
nonstellar. Bigourdan described it as "Trace of nebulosity exceedingly faint but
whose existence seems certain. It requires a larger instrument."
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list it as being a star, probably based upon Carlson who
lists it as "* Mt. Wilson.". NED and SIMBAD have (Not found). APL (=*?) and
Steinicke (=*).
IC 2511, IC 2512, IC 2513 and IC 2514.
Swift List XI, #97. 09hr 47m 10.158s - 32 37' 00.950" (1950).
09hr 49m 20.529s - 32 51' 02.360" IC 2511. (2000).
#98. 09hr 47m 15.102s - 32 41' 38.150" (1950).
09hr 49m 25.416s - 32 55' 39.755" IC 2512. (2000).
#99. 09hr 47m 40.165s - 32 41' 45.155" (1950).
09hr 49m 50.544s - 32 55' 47.752" IC 2513. (2000).
#100. 09hr 47m 45.219s - 32 39' 02.356" (1950).
09hr 49m 55.651s - 32 53' 05.154" IC 2514. (2000).
This is an unusual problem in that Swift in his List XI actually gives four
separate observations suggesting that there are 4 separate but associated nebulae
in the field and this led to Dreyer assigning four separate IC identities, IC
2511, IC 2512, IC 2513 and IC 2514., whereas when the field in question is
examined there are only 2 galaxies.
It is interesting to note that IC 2511 and IC 2514 were discovered on December
30th 1897 and that IC 2512 and IC 2513 were supposedly discovered on February 12
1898, or more than one month later and it can be stated that Swift's nominal
positions for IC 2511 and IC 2514 are considerably more accurate than those he
gives for IC 2512 and IC 2513.
Additionally, comparison of Swift's descriptions for each of his four observations
indicate great similarity between IC 2511 and IC 2512, also between IC 2513 and IC
2514.
Stewart also examined this same field on his Plate #4313 and correctly identified
the 2 nonstellar objects as Swift's XI, #97 (IC 2511) and Swift's XI, #100 (IC
2514), thus corroborating that the correct historical identities are IC 2511 and
IC 2514 and that the identities IC 2512 and IC 2513 are the result of duplicate
observations by Swift and therefore equivalent identities.
Thus we have IC 2512 = IC 2511 and IC 2513 = IC 2514.
The MOL gives each identity as separate and at the historical coordinates.
The PGC correctly equates IC 2513 with IC 2514, however, they omit any reference
to any equivalency between IC 2511 and IC 2512. The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED
SIMBAD and ESO each give the correct equivalencies. The MCG gives only the
identities IC 2511 and IC 2514, which by date of discovery are the correct
identities. The DSFG in its Notes correctly gives the identities IC 2511 and IC
2514, but also incorrectly list the identity IC 2513 as being 17 arcmin WSW of NGC
3038.
IC 2525.
POSS. O-1345.
Javelle #1135. 09hr 55m 24.846s + 37 20 29.472" (1950).
09hr 58m 24.553s + 37 06' 08.259" (2000).
RA error by Javelle : Javelle's catalogue (Section II) has a typographical
error which results in placing his J.1135 to be 33.47 tsec following his reference
star DM + 37 2031 instead of where it actually is 33.47 tsec preceding the star.
Fortunately in Section I of this same catalogue, which gives the coordinates for
the epoch 1860, this error is not repeated and therefore Dreyer's IC II
coordinates are relatively correct as it was the same data as given in the first
section of Javelle's catalogue that Dreyer employed.
CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and MOL correct. UGC and MCG have
no listing for IC 2525.
NOTE: Javelle's declination is also almost 2 arcmin too far south, however, this
is due to the incorrect declination he gives to his reference star DM +37 2031,
this error originating in the Argelander data. DM +37 2031 is equal to AC
#1338969 at 09hr 58m 57.679s + 37 08' 23.26" (2000) and when the corrected Javelle
offsets are applied they land directly on the sought for galaxy at the above
Corrected Nominal Positions.
IC 2528.
POSS. O-1391.
Swift List XI, #102. 09hr 56m 21.136s - 26 56' 53.312" (1950).
09hr 58m 37.470s - 27 11' 16.019" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 3084 (h 3211) : At the coordinates given by Swift no
nebular image is found, however, at about 30 tsec following and about 03.5 arcmin
north there is the galaxy NGC 3084 which is a viable candidate based upon Swift's
normally less than precise positions.
The MCG lists NGC 3084 as an "Anon" -04-24-010. The PGC identifies NGC 3084
without any equivalency with IC 2528. The MOL types IC 2528 as (single star).
The NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all equate it with NGC 3084.
IC 2529.POSS. O-1391.
Swift List XI, #103. 09hr 57m 09.396s - 22 36' 13.068" (1950).
09hr 59m 28.958s - 22 50' 37.639" (2000).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 3081 (H 596-3) :
Dreyer's position for NGC 3081 is 09hr 56m 47s - 22 33'.6 and Bigourdan corrected
this to 09hr 57m 09.2s - 22 35' 08" which is an excellent match with Swift's
position for his #103. It would appear that Swift at the time of his observation
was unaware of the Bigourdan correction for NGC 3081, therefore he considered this
object to be a Nova.
Listed in the MCG as = NGC 3081 ? The MOL (NSO) gives both identities as separate
objects and places NGC 3081 at the incorrect Dreyer position. The NGC 2000, APL,
PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly make the equivalency.
IC 2542.
POSS. O-1345.
Javelle #1140. 10hr 4m 55.049s + 34 33' 35.151" (1950).
10hr 07m 50.585s + 34 18' 53.482" (2000).
Again Javelle's catalogue (Section II) has a typographical error placing his
J.1140 to lie 4' 14".2 south of his reference star DM + 34 2089 when it should be
4' 14".2 north of the star, however, this same error was also transcribed into the
Section I data so that both Javelle and Dreyer are off by ~ 8'.5 in declination.
This has resulted in the IC II, NGC 2000 and MOL declination values to be ~ 8' of
arc too far south. The CGCG gives the correct declination +34 33'.0. The UGC has
no listing for IC 2542. The MOL lists it as "Anon." = + 06-33-76. The APL, PGC,
NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct coordinates.
IC 2545.
Stewart #331. 10hr 04m 24.091s - 33 36' 35.084" (1950).
10hr 06m 36.443s - 33 51' 15.108" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at the nominal position, however, very close south
preceeding the nominal position there is a compact group of 4 faint stars in the
form of the letter Y and the 2 stars most south and preceeding of this group are
in the relative position angle of about 28 degrees, which is in excellent
agreement with Stewart's description "eF, eS, cE at 25 degrees, triangle 2 f
stars."
NED, SIMBAD and PGC have selected the galaxy ESO 374-IG032 at 10hr 03m 53s - 33
38'.5 and identified it as being IC 2545, however, this would require that Stewart
not only made an error in RA of 30 tsec but additionally measured the declination
incorrectly by 2 arcmin, something extremely unusual for him to have done.
The APL and ESO list ESO 374-IG032 as IC 2545 ?, while both the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO) give the coordinates based upon the historical data. Steinicke has
(Not found).
IC 2555.
Stewart #336. 10hr 09m 26.639s - 31 23' 45.577" (1950).
10hr 11m 41.534s - 31 38' 35.993" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3157 (h 3233) : The error results from an incorrect
declination given by Dreyer for NGC 3157, giving it as - 30 42'.5 when it should
be - 31 23'.7
Possibly the declination was an error in John Herschel's GENERAL CATALOGUE and
thus misled Dreyer, but certainly in Herschel's CAPE OBSERVATIONS he gives the
declination as -31 22' 27"0
The MOL correctly identifies IC 2555 but then makes NGC 3157 a nonexistent object
at the historical declination. The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and
ESO correctly give the equivalency.
IC 2571.
Swift List XI, #107. 10hr 18m 52.269s - 34 01' 22.132" (1950).
10hr 21m 06.840s - 34 16' 30.750" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3223 (h 3243) : Howe made a correction to Swift's
coordinates so that they read 10hr 19m 19s - 34 00'.8 and NGC 3223 has coordinates
of 10hr 19m 22s - 34 00'.0 (Dreyer).
The equivalency is correctly noted in the NGC 2000, Carlson, MOL, APL, PGC,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 3223.
IC 2579.
POSS. O-1387.
Javelle #1158. 10hr 26m 30.292s + 26 21' 23.659" (1950).
10hr 29m 16.915s + 26 06' 01.189" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3251 (D'Arrest) : D'Arrest made an error of 1m in RA,
however, when the image of IC 2579 on the Palomar print is examined and compared
to D'Arrest's description there can be little doubt that this is the object first
seen by D'Arrest and given the identity NGC 3251.
Due to D'Arrest's error the NGC RA for NGC 3251 is 1 tmin too small. CGCG, UGC
and MCG give the single identity IC 2579. NGC 2000 lists as IC 2579 = NGC 3251 ?.
MOL lists as = NGC 3251 as does both Carlson and the PGC. RC3 gives only NGC
3251. APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct equivalency.
IC 2585.
Stewart #349. 10hr 28m 09.192s - 35 06' 20.886" (1950).
10hr 30m 24.722s - 35 21' 45.951" (2000).
This is equivalent to NGC 3271 (h 3265) : This is a very interesting and unusual
problem as it is quite possible that John Herschel listed two entirely separate
galaxies as being his h 3265.
NGC 3271 is one of a group of galaxies including NGC 3257, NGC 3258, NGC 3260, NGC
3267, NGC 3268, NGC 3269, NGC 3271 and NGC 3273.
Herschel used 5 separate Sweeps over different periods of time in order to examine
and list each of these NGC identities
His coordinates for all but NGC 3271 are in excellent agreement with the modern
ones (e.g. APL), most of the discrepancies being on the order of about 3 tsec in
RA and less than 30 arcsec dec, except for NGC 3268, which has a difference of
2'.5 arcmin from the APL declination, however, it should be stated that in the
case of NGC 3268 Herschel gives only an approximate declination (+ or -).
NGC 3271 was observed during Sweeps # 446 and # 572 and Herschel measured the
following coordinates.
Sweep #446 : 10hr 27m 49s - 35 06' 41" (F,S,lE,bM,15", one of a group of 3 or
more).
Sweep #572 : 10hr 27m 49s - 35 08' 48" {+ or -}. (pB, pmE,pmbM,).
Dreyer gives : 10hr 27m 48s - 35 06'.7
The APL gives :10hr 28m 14s - 35 06'.0
Obviously the major difference between Herschel and the APL concerns the RA which
would be 25 tsec, also Herschel's two descriptions do not appear to match,
although it can be argued that different conditions on different nights might
account for this.
When the field is examined on the DSS the APL's NGC 3271 is easily visible and
does certainly fit Herschel's description as given in Sweep #572, however,
Herschel's given RA (25 tsec preceeding this galaxy), lands closer to another
galaxy (SGC 102737-3507.2) and this better fits Herschel's description as given in
Sweep #446.
The only other identity in the field which was observed during both Sweeps #446
and #572 is NGC 3269 and Herschel gave excellent coordinates for this galaxy.
Sweep #446. 10hr 27m 44.1s - 34 57' 11"
Sweep #572. 10hr 27m 44.1s - 34 58' 25'"
APL. 10hr 27m 42.0s - 34 58'.00
Now based upon Herschel's data the separations between NGC 3269 and NGC 3271 would
be 4.9 tsec RA and 9' 30" dec. (Sweep #446) and 4.9 tsec RA and 10' 23" dec (Sweep
#572) and according to the NED data the difference between NGC 3269 and SGC102737-
3507.2 is 5 tsec RA and 9' 12" dec. which would appear to support that what
Herschel was observing , measuring and describing, at least in his Sweep #446,
fits the SGC galaxy.
So my question is When it comes to the identity NGC 3271 was Herschel describing
two different galaxies and was he seeing the SGC object during Sweep #446 and the
brighter APL (and other modern authorities) galaxy identified as NGC 3271 during
Sweep #572 ?
I also think it possible that Stewart may have considered these or similar
possibilities concerning NGC 3271 as it would appear unlikely that he would have
had any other reason to select the modern NGC 3271 as being a "nova" and list it
as his #349 = IC 2585, especially with so many other bright galaxies in the
immediate field, (Why this one ?).
I have also considered that as John Herschel gives NGC 3271 the same RA for both
Sweep #446 and Sweep # 572, and the fact that his RA lands between the modern
candidate and the SGC galaxy then it is possible that for both observations he was
describing and seeing only one of the two possible candidates rather than both,
and logic would demand that it would be the brighter, modern candidate that he was
describing and seeing on both Sweeps, however, here again this can
only be an assumption and does not comply with the different descriptions he
gives.
I am going to go with the equivalency at this time, however, I still have the
slightest nagging doubt. Nobody said that this was going to be easy, but it does
add spice to the investigation.
There is an additional factor dependent on which object Herschel was seeing on
Sweep #446. If it was the SGC galaxy then by numerical order of Sweeps this
historically would be Herschel's #3265 = NGC 3271 as he would have viewed it at a
date prior to Sweep #572. However, if as also seems reasonable, he was seeing the
APL candidate on his Sweep # 572 then this also would be according to Herschel
description his #3265 = NGC 3271. So would this suggest two NGC 3271's, such as
NGC 3271 West and NGC 3271 East?
The NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO each have equated IC
2585 with NGC 3271. The RC3 gives the single identity NGC 3271.
IC 2592.
Stewart #351. 10hr 32m 51.988s - 43 26' 28.896" (1950).
10hr 35m 02.400s - 43 42' 01.647" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3366. (h 3294) : Herschel gave coordinates to his discovery
of 10hr 43m 01s - 43 27'.0 and described it as "F, E, gbM, close to a star 6.7m.
The minute of RA is doubtful."
Examination of the DSS shows that Stewart's #351 matches exactly this description
and the 6th magnitude star lies just off the northern end of the galaxy.
The MOL lists both identities as being separate objects at the historical
positions. The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and ESO all correctly
report the equivalency. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 3366.
IC 2595.
POSS. O-1537.
Swift List XI, #113. 10hr 35m 03.991s - 10 51' 27.212" (1950).
10hr 37m 33.094s - 11 07' 03.669" (2000).
Not found : There is no suitable nonstellar image in the immediate field.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). Only other listings found
are Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found). APL "Nothing here."
IC 2603.
POSS. O-731.
Bigourdan #279. 10hr 45m 37.601s + 33 11' 27.722" (1950).
10hr 48m 24.960s + 32 55' 35.728" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan describes it as having the shape of two nebulae and
elongated at 98.9 degrees, being about 1.4 arcmin long. He adds a later Note
stating "Appears to be a false image." And on two later observations he states
that he can not see any object. His reference star which he calls A.G.LEYTE 4280
is equal to GSC 2519-561 at 10hr 48m 19.69s + 32 53' 21.3" (2000) or AC 1142205 at
10hr 48m 19.821 +32 53' 21.85" (2000) and Bigourdan's offsets are (+ 0 tmin 5.13
tsec RA, + 2 arcmin 14 arcsec Dec.) and when these are applied to the DSS they
land on an empty space.
The star selected as being Big. #279 Steinicke appears to me to be
far to faint to have been seen by Bigourdan and does not match his description.
Their candidate is listed in the USNO-B1.0 Cat. as #1229-0240393 and given a Rmag.
Of 17.00.
NGC 2000, SIMBAD and MOL all list it as a single star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing for IC 2603. Steinicke has (=*). The APL lists it as Not found.
NOTE : An additional error is that in Bigourdan's OBSERVATIONS (1919) he lists
this as being Object # 270 while in his earlier COMPTES RENDUS he lists it as #
279.
IC 2605.
POSS. O-731.
Bigourdan #402. 10hr 47m 02.265s + 33 14' 27.868" (1950).
10hr 49m 49.397s + 32 58' 34.023" (2000).
Bigourdan measured the positions of the double system NGC 3395 and NGC 3396,
therefore he was well aware of their identities. His reference object for IC 2605
is NGC 3395 and his offsets are - 0.5 tsec RA and - 17 arcsec Dec. which places
his # 402 on the south spiral arm of NGC 3395, therefore it appears that what he
probably saw is a bright part of this arm which to him seemed to be a separate
object from the NGC galaxy.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 2605. Carlson states "Not Found." NGC
2000 lists Type as [?] and MOL states "May not exist." DSFG states that it is
an arm of the galaxy NGC 3395 (Notes to NGC 3395). APL (= sp arm of NGC 3395).
Steinicke equates it with spiral arm of NGC 3395. The PGC lists NGC 3395 but has
no references to the identity IC 2605. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the databse."
IC 2609.
POSS. O-1022.
Bigourdan #403. 10hr 47m 48.547s - 11 50' 35.571" (1950).
10hr 50m 17.965s - 12 06' 30.496" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3404 (Common #7) : Common's coordinates, 10hr 47m 45s - 11
36'.2 are as usual not precise and the declination difference must have convinced
Bigourdan that his #403 was a Nova. Bigourdan searched unsuccessfully for NGC
3404 at Common's position.
The equivalency is correctly given in the MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, MOL, SIMBAD, APL,
Carlson, NED and Steinicke.
IC 2610.
POSS. O-731.
Bigourdan #280. 10hr 49m 21.323s + 33 20' 56.331" (1950).
10hr 52m 08.087s + 33 04' 59.364" (2000).
Not found : Just north preceding the nominal position there is only the image of
an extremely faint star with a 13 Mv star at about PA 250 degrees and the right
separation as described by Bigourdan "Star 13.0 situated at 270 degrees, distance
25 arcsec." CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing for IC 2610. Carlson lists
as "Not Found." NGC 2000 gives the Type as [?]. MOL lists as "May not
exist." MSIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL and NED (Not found). Steinicke
has (Not found).
IC 2611.
POSS. O-976.
Bigourdan #404. 10hr 50m 01.745s + 10 23' 36.006" (1950).
10hr 52m 39.059s + 10 07' 38.245: (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, APL and
Carlson all make it a single star. NED and SIMBAD have (Not found).
IC 2613.
POSS. O-731.
Javelle #1169. 10hr 47m 02.590s + 33 14' 47.747" (1950).
10hr 49m 49.723s + 32 58' 53.879" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3395 :
A most complex problem whose solution was determined by Dr. Corwin.
All of the modern sources I have examined equate IC 2613 with NGC 3430 and that
included myself in my previous versions of my survey. This incorrect equivalency
was based upon supposing that Javelle had erred in his RA offset making it to be +
2 tmin 13.65 tsec when it should be + 0 tmin 13,65 tsec.
By applying this correction to his reference star DM +33 2046 = AC #1142260 at
10hr 46m 15.103s + 33 35' 49.197 (Discovery year of 1896) and then precessing this
to the year 1950 it gives a position for IC 2613 of 10hr 49 29.407s + 33 14'
44.110" placing it quite close to the northern end of NGC 3430, thus the
equivalency between IC 2613 and NGC 3430 in the modern sources.
Javelle's description for IC 2613, "Bright, 1 arcmin in size, elongated at a PA of
200 degrees, gradually much brighter in the middle with a diffuse nucleus."
certainly matches well with the appearance of NGC 3430, except perhaps that the
actual PA is closer to 210 (30) degrees.
While upgrading Javelle's positional data for this version of my survey I was not
completely satisfied with the relatively small error between the corrected
coordinates I was accepting for Javelle's corrected data and the actual position
for NGC 3430 as it exceeded that normally found with Javelle's measurements,
therefore, I contacted Dr. Corwin and expressed my concerns and asked him to check
on the apparent discrepancy.
He immediately replied that upon re-examination he had found that the solution lay
in the fact that Javelle's sign in RA was reversed and should have read - 2 arcmin
13.65 arcsec and when this correction was applied to Javelle's reference star it
landed within a couple of arcsec of the center of NGC 3395 at 10hr 47m 02.590s +
33 14' 47.747 (1950), thus making IC 2613 equal to NGC 3395, not NGC 3430.
Dr. Corwin further remarked that this solution poses another problem "Why did
Javelle not mention in his description for IC 2613 the companion galaxy to NGC
3395, namely NGC 3396, which lies just off the north following end of NGC 3395.
Instead Javelle in his description for his Object #1163 = IC 2604 states "One also
measured NGC 3396." ?
Dr. Corwin believes that the answer is that Javelle originally did have this
footnote for IC 2613 but that when he was later reducing the positional data for
his catalogues he applied the + sign instead of the correct - sign and upon
finding that the result was a difference of about 4.5 tmin, therefore he put the
footnote on his nearest object to NGC 3396, which was IC 2604.
I find this to be a convincing argument and I fully accept Dr. Corwin's findings
and conclusions making IC 2613 equal to NGC 3395.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL give the equivalency with NGC 3430, however, they also
list the RA of IC 2613 without the sign correction. CGCG, UGC, SIMBAD, NED, RC2
"Notes" and PGC have IC 2613 = NGC 3430. MCG gives only the identity NGC 3430.
APL, and Steinicke make the equivalency with NGC 3395.
IC 2618.
POSS. O-1357.
Bigourdan #281. 10hr 59m 15.571s + 28 03' 34.093" (1950).
11hr 01m 58.394s + 27 47' 25.207" (2000).
This is equal to a single star as Bigourdan suspected : Only modern listings are
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke gives (= *) and NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=**).
IC 2620.
POSS. O-1349.
Javelle #1175. 10hr 59m 36.362s + 38 46' 25.397" (1950).
11hr 02m 23.704s + 38 30' 16.155" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has incorrectly listed its +7-23-14 as being IC 2620
and the PGC repeats this error. The correct MCG object is +7-23-13. Correctly
listed in CGCG, UGC, APL, NED, NGC 2000 and MOL. Steinicke has correct object but
equates it with MCG +7-23-14, as does SIMBAD.
NOTE: The declination value for Javelle's reference star DM +39 2405 is off by
about 1 arcmin 32.2 arcsec.
IC 2622.
POSS. O-1012.
Swift List XI, #117. 11hr 00m 58.716s - 15 57' 52.784" (1950).
11hr 03m 27.644s - 16 14' 03.666" (2000).
At the position as given by Swift there is only a single star : The APL and
Steinicke have equated this identity with NGC 3508 (H 507-2) = NGC 3505 (h 3312)
at 11hr 00m 30.8s - 16 01' 58" and are supported in this equivalency by the PGC.
Certainly the difference in coordinates is within Swift's often found level of
error and therefore a reasonable candidate. Additional support for this candidate
is the fact that it does have a star attached to its north following end and Swift
describes his object as "looks like a double star."
The NGC 2000 and MOL give coordinates similar to those as given by Swift. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD equates with NGC 3508.
IC 2624 & IC 2625.
POSS. O-1012.
Swift List XI, #118. 11hr 04m 47.983s - 19 17'17.999" (1950).
11hr 07m 16.225s - 19 33' 32.923" (2000). (IC 2624).
11hr 04m 52.988s - 19 18' 00.088" (1950).
11hr 07m 21.235s - 19 34' 15.097" (2000). (IC 2625).
IC 2624 is = NGC 3497 = NGC 3528 and IC 2625 = NGC 3529.
This is an involved problem which goes back to an observation made in 1790 by Sir
William Herschel.
W. Herschel discovered and measured a Nova which he listed as H 824-3 employing as
his reference star Alpha (7) Crater and giving separation values of + 7 tmin 26
tsec and + 1 degree 09 tmin which gives coordinates of 11 hr 04m 46.2s - 19 10'
56" Dreyer gave this discovery the identity NGC 3497 but he copied the
coordinates as given by John Herschel in the GENERAL CATALOGUE (1864) in which
there was a reduction error of 6 tmin given in the RA, thus NGC 3497 has this
error published in the NGC, resulting in coordinates of 10hr 58m 54s - 19 12'.1
Dreyer at the time the NGC was published (1888) apparently was unaware that John
Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS had already equated his h 3316 with H 824-3
giving it a position of 11hr 04m 43'.7s - 19 12' 10" which is very compatible with
the position of his father, thus we have Dreyer giving h 3316 the identity NGC
3528, which means that NGC 3497 is equivalent with NGC 3528. In the SCIENTIFIC
PAPERS OF SIR WILLIAM HERSCHEL compiled by Dreyer and published in 1912 he was
aware of this 06 tmin error and on page 236 of this work he makes this correction.
John Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS also discovered a second nebula in the same
field as H 824-3 to which he gave the identity h 3317. His coordinates for this
object are 11hr 04m 46'.2 - 19 16' 25" or 02.5 tsec following and 04' 15" south of
NGC 3497 and Dreyer gave this second nebula the identity NGC 3529.
Now we come to Swift who claimed discovery of two novae. The preceding he listed
as #118 in his List XI, giving it coordinates of 11hr 04m 47.983s - 19 17' 17.999"
(1950) and the following he listed as #119 at 11hr 04m 52.988s - 19 18' 00.088"
(1950).
There are only 2 galaxies in the field that are bright enough for Swift to have
possibly seen and these are NGC 3497 = NGC 3528, and NGC 3529, therefore even
though Swift's separation values between his two objects do not match the
separations of the Herschel objects, if he did see 2 nebulae they have to be NGC
3529 and NGC 3497 = NGC 3528, which makes IC 2624 = NGC 3497 = NGC 3528 and IC
2625 = NGC 3529.
The MCG gives only the identities NGC 3528 and NGC 3529. The MOL gives no
equivalencies, listing all identities as separate. The NGC 2000 makes IC 2624 =
NGC 3528 and IC 2625 = NGC 3529. The APL, NED and PGC equate IC 2624 with NGC
3528 = NGC 3497 = NGC 3525 and IC 2625 with NGC 3529. SIMBAD equates IC 2624 with
NGC 3497 and NGC 3525 and then equates IC 2625 with NGC 3529.
Steinicke and the DSFG has equated IC 2624 with NGC 3497 = NGC 3525 = NGC 3528
while Steinicke also equates IC 2625 with NGC 3529, the DSFG having no listing for
IC 2625.
NOTE : There is also excellent evidence that NGC 3525 is also a duplicate
observation of NGC 3497 = NGC 3528, which in turn are = IC 2624.
NGC 3525 was credited as a discovery to O.Stone who had reported it as his Object
#183 in THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL No.146, #2. (1886). Stone gave it coordinates of
11hr 03m 56s - 19 11'.4 (1950) and described it as "12.0 Mv, 0.8 arcmin in size,
gbMN." The RA data published by the observers at the Leander McCormick
Observatory for their claimed NGC discoveries were very poor and therefore as no
object exists at Stone's coordinates for NGC 3525 and its stated RA is different
from that for NGC 3497 by just over 1 tmin, whereas the declination values are
consistent, it is highly probable that what Stone saw was Wm. Herschel's NGC 3497.
IC 2630.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.4. 11hr10m 06.550s + 12 35' 33.900" (1950).
11hr 12m 43.401s + 12 19' 13.832" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2635.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.8. 11hr 10m 53.328s + 11 44' 14.756" (1950).
11hr 13m 29.912s + 11 27' 53.982" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL which gives two listings
(=**) and (confirmed), Steinicke (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2641.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.15. 11hr 11m 34.848s + 09 40' 22.749" (1950).
11hr 14m 10.882s + 09 24' 01.358" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2642.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.16. 11hr 11m 39.779s + 12 32' 30.645" (1950).
11hr 14m 16.519s + 12 16' 09.171" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2643.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.17. 11hr 11m 51.213s + 10 24' 06.364" (1950).
11hr 14m 27.413s + 10 07' 44.730" (2000).
This is a star: Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2647.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.22. 11hr 12m 02.193s + 12 24' 53.113" (1950).
11hr 14m 38.878s + 12 08' 31.307" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2653.
POSS. O- 66.
Wolf List VII, No.28. 11hr 12m 17.542s + 10 49' 18.743" (1950).
11hr 14m 53.821s + 10 32' 56.724" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL (= 2 sts), Steinicke (=*2),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2658.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.34. 11hr 12m 32.282s + 13 16' 12.409" (1950).
11hr 15m 09.147s + 12 59' 50.155" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL correctly list this as a single
star. Carlson also lists it a star on Mt. Wilson plate. APL and Steinicke give
(=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 2659.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.35. 11hr 12m 51.806s + 13 09' 40.953" (1950).
11hr 15m 28.623s + 12 53' 18.418" (2000).
This is a faint star : Correctly listed as such by the NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke,
MOL and Carlson. NED has "Name dos not exist or no object found." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." No additional listings.
IC 2662.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.38. 11hr 12m 53.956s + 13 02' 37.902" (1950).
11hr 15m 30.742s + 12 46' 15.339" (2000).
Not found : At Wolf's coordinates there is no visible image. Identified as being
a star by the NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson. Steinicke gives (NF). The
APL states (= defect) while NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." No other modern listings.
IC 2663.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.39. 11hr 12m 56.088s + 12 52' 40.852" (1950).
11hr 15m 32.830s + 12 36' 18.259" (2000).
This is a single star : Correctly identified as such by the APL, Steinicke, NGC
2000, MOL and Carlson. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." No other modern listings.
IC 2664.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.40. 11hr 13m 02.561s + 12 50' 10.701" (1950).
11hr 15m 39.286s + 12 33' 48.015" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson, each
listing it as being a single star. The APL gives (=**) and Steinicke has (= *2).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2665.
POSS. O-66
Wolf List VII, No.41. 11hr 13m 04.131s + 11 59' 49.661" (1950).
11hr 15m 40.651s + 11 43' 26.954" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : There is the image of a very faint, extended galaxy at the
nominal position, however, it must be admitted that it does not appear to fit
Wolf's description "vF, pL, iF, E, att 2 p* 13, N meas."
It is extended, being an edge-on system, but although there are two 13 mag. stars
preceding, they certainly are not attached. Perhaps a photographic defect
suggested this to Wolf ?
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL gives only
coordinates. Steinicke identifies the galaxy as IC 2665 and I think he is
correct. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED., however, they do list
the correcr galaxy as MAPS-NGP 0 493 0344178." SIMBAD has no listing for this
object.
IC 2669.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.44. 11hr 13m 16.376s + 13 42' 11.386" (1950).
11hr 15m 53.298s + 13 25' 48.486" (2000).
This is a double star : Wolf in his description questions whether it might be a
double star.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not presentin the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2671.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.46. 11hr 13m 26.939s + 13 23' 58.141" (1950).
11hr 16m 03.775s + 13 07' 35.097" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2672.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No 47. 11hr 13m 28.295s + 10 25' 51.097" (1950).
11hr 16m 04.418s + 10 09' 28.052" (2000).
This is a star superposed on the south end of IC 2673 : The CGCG, PGC, UGC, MCG,
NED, SIMBAD and RC3 all incorrectly give the identity IC 2672 to the galaxy IC 2673
and with the exception of the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have no listing for
IC 2673. Examination of Wolf's descriptions, No 47 = IC 2672 "F, vS, R, 47 att 48"
and No.48 = IC 2673 "F, pL, iF with N, 48 att 47, * 11 f 1' " clearly establishes
that his No.48 = IC 2673 is the only galaxy visible on the Palomar print at the
required coordinates. APL gives (=*). Steinicke gives (=*).
NOTE: The star is best seen on the DSS Second Generation Blue photograph.
IC 2673.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.48. 11hr 13m 28.597s + 10 26' 12.090" (1950).
11hr 16m 04.721s + 10 09' 49.041" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :
(See IC 2672).
IC 2675.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.50. 11hr 13m 34.587s + 12 31' 22.962" (1950).
11hr 16m 11.203s + 12 14' 59.817" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL NSO).
IC 2681.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.56. 11hr 13m 56.854s + 11 28' 49.449" (1950).
11hr 16m 33.199s + 11 12' 25.995" (2000).
Not found : Until my last version I was convinced that IC 2681 was the galaxy
identified as such by everyone except Dr. Corwin, however, having now re-examined
all of the problem identities in Wolf's List VII I have found that Wolf's
positional data is extremely accurate, so that his positions are consistently off
by only fractions of tsec RA and a few arcsec of declination, I can no longer
support that the galaxy listed as being IC 2681 by the modern authorities is
valid.
The APL has (= Plate defect, confirmed) and probably explains Wolf's confusion.
Steinicke (NF). The CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, UGC and NGC 2000 all type it as being a
galaxy. Only other listing is the MOL (NSO).
NOTE: The actual coordinates for the galaxy would be 11hr 13m 59.254s + 11 28'
29.449" (1950).
IC 2682.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.57. 11hr 14m 00.472s + 09 41' 03.359" (1950).
11hr 16m 36.392s + 09 24' 39.856" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= 2 sts),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type ) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2685.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No. 60. 11hr 14m 24.397s + 10 22' 09.820" (1950).
11hr 17m 00.457s + 10 05' 45.981" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2686.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No. 61. 11hr 14m 26.071s + 13 13' 35.795" (1950).
11hr 17m 02.800s + 12 57' 11.917" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : In Wolf's description he states " Att * 14 sf." This should
read " Att * 14 np." The APL gives two listings (=*) and (not confirmed; 2 sts ~
5' s could be it). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," however,
they do list the correct galaxy as MAPS-NGP 0 493 0167308 Steinicke has the
correct identity. Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD has "Not
present in the database."
IC 2687.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.62. 11hr 14m 36.405s + 10 25' 57.550" (1950).
11hr 17m 12.469s + 10 09' 33.544" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2688.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No. 63. 11hr 14m 42.148s + 13 45' 48.436" (1950).
11hr 17m 18.985s + 13 29' 24.324" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Note : The MOL gives IC 2689 a RA 1 tsec preceding IC 2688 which is not in
agreement with Wolf's data.
IC 2690.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.65. 11hr 14m 45.048s + 13 15' 05.369" (1950).
11hr 17m 21.761s + 12 58' 41.226" (2000).
Unable to confirm : Although there is a faint, inclined galaxy at 11hr 14m 42.7s
+ 13 14' 05.369" (1950), the difference from Wolf's nominal position as given
above would be about 2 tsec RA and 1 arcmin dec. which would be much larger than
the differences found in the vast majority of Wolf's List VII Objects.
Steinicke selects the extended system as being IC 2690.
The APL has 3 separate listings (= *) and (confirmed) Only other listings are NED
which gives the galaxy only the identity MAPS-NGP 0-0167562 Mp 17.14. SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2691.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.66. 11hr 14m 48.785s + 12 18' 17.281" (1950).
11hr 17m 25.273s + 12 01' 53.093" (2000).
This is the south preceding component of a wide double star : Only modern
listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2693.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.68. 11hr 15m 00.139s + 13 49' 24.034" (1950).
11hr 17m 36.969s + 13 32' 59.672" (2000).
This is a very faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2696.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.71. 11hr 15m 13.417s + 13 01' 50.736" (1950).
11hr 17m 50.048s + 12 45' 26.206" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2697
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.73. 11hr 15m 14.557s + 13 40' 25.713" (1950).
11hr 17m 51.335s + 13 24' 01.156" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO).
Steinicke and APL (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
Wolf in his lists gave his object numbers in order of RA but for some unknown reason
(quite possibly a typographical error) his Nos.72 (IC 2698) and 73 (IC 2697) got
interchanged. His RA coordinates clearly shows No.73 to precede No.72 by 1.4 tsec
and Dreyer obviously noted this and quite correctly gave the identity IC 2697 to
Wolf's No.73 and the identity IC 2698 to his No.72. Oddly enough, due to a very
slight difference in the annual rate of precession, 3.13 tsecs for IC 2698 and 3.14
tsecs for IC 2697 their 1950 RA's are almost exactly the same, being
different by only 10ths of a second.
IC 2699.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.74. 11hr 15m 16.497s + 12 11' 04.664" (1950).
11hr 17m 52.928s + 11 54' 40.095" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2705.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.79. 11hr 15m 27.877s + 12 10' 39.413" (1950).
11hr 18m 04.294s + 11 54' 14.687" (2000).
Not found : The closest image to the position is an exceptionally faint star.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the daatabase." APL gives
(=*) and Steinicke (= *).
IC 2706.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.80. 11hr 15m 53.074s + 12 49' 19.862" (1950).
11hr 18m 29.613s + 12 32' 54.793" (2000).
This is a single star : In addition to measuring from a field star I also offset
from IC 2708 which is a confirmed galaxy. Only modern listings are APL and
Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD :Not present
in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2709.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.83. 11hr 16m 04.261s + 12 50' 16.618" (1950).
11hr 18m 40.792s + 12 33' 51.398" (2000).
Unable to confirm with certainty: Wolf describes it as "pL, irreg Fig. eF,
diffic, Several N', *13 n." At the position he gives there is on the DSS an
extremely faint, irregularly shaped nebular image. There is the 13th magnitude
star lying north as described.
The nebular image is so faint and of such uniform brightness that it would suggest
that it would never have been visible on Wolf's photographic plate, however
Wolf's coordinates land directly upon it. Its appearance to me can best be
described as a smudge. Best examined on the DSS Second Generation Blue.
Only modern listings are APL (Prob = gal + defect. Perhaps confirmed), Steinicke
(Not found), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO).
IC 2710.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.84. 11hr 16m 08.324s + 13 50' 30.534" (195).
11hr 18m 45.079s + 13 34' 05.242" (2000).
This is the north following component of a double star : Wolf describes it as
having a "* 13 attached sp." and that is what is visible on the DSS. Only modern
listings are APL (=**), Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2711.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.85. 11hr 16m 10.084s + 14 00' 48.497" (1950).
11hr 18m 46.877s + 13 44' 23.178" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2715,
P0SS. 0-66.
Wolf List VII, No.89. 11hr 16m 37.989s +12 14' 27.887" (1950).
11hr 19m 14.350s +11 58' 02.216" (2000).
Unable to determine definitely: When Wolf's coordinates are applied to the DSS they
land almost 1 arcmin north of a 17.91 Mp galaxy that is barely visible on the print.
The APL lists this as being IC 2715 and it does have a PA similar to that given by
Wolf (120 degrees) and may well be what Wolf listed, however, I am concerned about
the discrepency in declination, as it is considerable more than what one finds in
Wolf's level of error, the vast majority of his coordinates landing just off the
south following edge of the objects he records. NED records it as MAPS-NGP 0 493
0317959, while SIMBAD has no listing for this galaxy. Steinicke has Not found. NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2717.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.91. 11hr 16m 42.512s + 12 19' 25.790" (1950).
11hr 19m 18.887s + 12 03' 00.059" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*),NED and
SIMBAD (Not found). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2719.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.93. 11hr 16m 56.094s + 12 20' 03.499" (1950).
11hr 19m 32.457s + 12 03' 37.588" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2721.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.95. 11hr 17m 05.868s + 12 35' 04.292" (1950).
11hr 19m 42.276s + 12 18' 38.252" (2000).
Not found : When Dreyer entered this object into the IC II he of course gave it a
North Pole Distance (NPD) value, as had indeed Wolf in each of his lists. Dreyer
converted the Wolf NPD (77 00' 21" Epoch 1875) to Epoch 1860 by applying the
annual rate of declination change (19.7 arcsecs), which for the 15 year difference
would be 4.9 arcmins, however, instead of subtracting this from Wolf's NPD value
he incorrectly added it which in turn when converting from NPD to Declination
results in an error of about 9.8 arcmins and with the exception of the APL, NED,
SIMBAD and Steinicke ( ALL giving Not found), has influenced the modern catalogues
which list IC 2721 to give a wrong declination. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO)
give a declination about 10 arcmins too far south and Dreyer's IC II NPD should read
76 55'.4 not 77 05'.4.
IC 2726.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.100. 11hr 17m 21.837s + 13 41' 21.957" (1950).
11hr 19m 58.473s + 13 24' 55.693" (2000).
This is a star : Listed by the following authorities. NGC 2000 (= *), MOL (=
single star) and Carlson (= * Mt. Wilson plate). APL lists both (Not found or *
30" N of Wolf's position). NED and SIMBAD give (Not found) Steinicke (=*).
IC 2728.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.102. 11hr 17m 28.928s + 13 41' 54.807" (1950).
11hr 20m 05.558s + 13 25' 28.451" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Correctly typed in NGC 2000 (= *), MOL (= single star),
APL (=*), Steinicke (= *) and Carlson (= * Mt. Wilson plate). NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2729.
POSS. 0-66.
Wolf List VII, No.103. 11hr 17m 30.619s + 13 40' 56.771" (1950).
11hr 20m 07.244s + 13 24' 30.394" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: This is an existing galaxy whose Rmag. is listed in the 2MASS
Catalogue as 15.00. Only modern catalogues to identity it as being IC 2729 are
Steinicke, while the APL states " IC 2729. Not confirmed; defect superposed."
NED states IC 2729 "There is no object with this name in Ned," however, they do list
the correct object as 2MASX J11200675+1324333. SIMBAD is entirely incorrect in
equating it with IC 2720.
IC 2730.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.104. 11hr 17m 31.447s + 12 38' 29.750" (1950).
11hr 20m 07.841s + 12 22' 03.375" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2731.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.105. 11hr 17m 33.968s + 13 50' 03.701" (1950).
11hr 20m 10.622s + 13 33' 37.277" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Correctly listed in APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (=
*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database. MOL (Single star) and Carlson (* Mt Wilson plate).
IC 2733.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.109. 11hr 17m 47.754s + 14 08' 37.413" (1950).
11hr 20m 24.460s + 13 52' 10.806" (2000).
Not found : Nothing at nominal position. Listed in APL and NED (Not found),
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (= Not found), NGC 2000 (**) and MOL
(double star). Only modern listings.
IC 2736.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.111. 11hr 18m 18.984s + 12 40' 55.757" (1950).
11hr 20m 55.336s + 12 24' 28.769" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Only image found at nominal position. Only modern
listings are Steinicke (=*). APL (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2737.
POSS. O-51.
Wolf List VII, No.112. 11hr 18m 31.822s + 14 34' 03.498" (1950).
11hr 21m 08.568s + 14 17' 36.326" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2743.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.117. 11hr 17m 49.939s + 08 58' 05.348" (1950).
11hr 20m 25.523s + 08 41' 38.745" (2000).
Not found or equal to a star : Wolf has a 1 tmin too small error in his RA which
places his #117 out of proper order. Dreyer corrected this but there is only the
image of a star at Dreyer's coordinates while at those published in Wolf's list
there is no nonstellar image.
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO) both at Dreyer's position. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database."
IC 2747.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.120. 11hr 19m 04.889s + 09 04' 39.802" (1950).
11hr 21m 40.440s + 08 48' 12.244" (2000).
This identity is for 2 stars aligned north preceding south following : The only
modern listings are APL (=**), Steinicke (= *), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2750.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.123. 11hr 19m 15.036s + 09 55' 59.598" (1950).
11hr 21m 50.782s + 09 39' 31.909" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The declination value as published in the MOL is incorrectly
given as + 18 55' 58". NED list as "There is no object with this name in NED."
However, they do list it as 2MASX J11215073+0939312. Both the APL and Steinicke
have the correct identity. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." And does not
list it under any other identity.
IC 2751.
POSS. O-695.
Javelle #1180. 11hr 19m 26.013s + 34 38' 23.793" (1950).
11hr 22m 07.581s + 34 21' 56.141" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle employed as his reference star DM +35 2238, Mv 9.0
which is equal to AC #1228902 and when his offsets are applied (+ 0 tmin 47.90
tsec RA and 2 arcmin 53.6 arcsec south) they land on a galaxy at 11hr 19m 26.013s
+34 38' 23.793 and the CGCG correctly identifies this galaxy as ZWG 185.047 = IC
2751. Meanwhile the MCG incorrectly selects its +06-25-054 as being IC 2751 which
is an extended galaxy lying directly south and slightly preceding the correct IC
2751 and is an "Anon." equal to ZWG 185.046.
The PGC (# 34873)and NED also incorrectly select and identify this same extended
galaxy as being IC 2751. SIMBAD has the correct object, but incorrectly equates it
with MCG +06-25-054, which is the extended galaxy to the south. The CGCG (ZWG
185.047), APL, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have the correct identities. Not listed
in the UGC. Steinicke gives coordinates for IC 2751 which land on the correct
galaxy, ZWG 185.0047, however, he incorrectly equates this with MCG +6-25-54 and PGC
#34873, both of these being for the extended galaxy south preceding.
IC 2752.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.124. 11hr 19m 24.964s + 14 24' 04.413" (1950).
11hr 22m 01.609s + 14 07' 36.574" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the NGC 2000 as "Neb." and MOL as "faint nebula."
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," But they do list the correct
IC 2752 as MAPS-NGP 0 493 0013293. Correctly identified in the APL and by
Steinicke. SIMBAD has no listing for this galaxy.
IC 2754.
POSS. O-51.
Wolf List VII, No.126. 11hr 19m 25.669s + 14 25' 04.399" (1950).
11hr 22m 02.317s + 14 08' 36.551" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 "Neb." MOL "Faint nebula."
Listed in NED as "There is no object with this name in NED," but listed as MAPS-
NGP 0 493 0013302. Steinicke and APL have correct identity. SIMBAD has no listing
for this galaxy.
IC 2755.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.127. 11hr 19m 25.848s + 14 04' 03.394" (1950).
11hr 22m 02.421s + 13 47' 35.545" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000
(= *) and MOL (Single star). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2759.
POSS. O-1353.
Bigourdan #405. 11hr 19m 34.485s + 24 35' 33.031" (1950).
11hr 22m 12.397s + 24 19' 05.245" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : I am entirely indebted to Steve Gottlieb for having brought to
my attention the erroneous identities given to this galaxy in a number of the
modern catalogues.
Hickson in his two papers (Astrophy J. #255 and Astrophy J. Supplement #70)
examines a group of 6 galaxies which he lists as Group 51, two of which he
correctly identifies as NGC 3651 (Hickson 51a) and NGC 3653 (Hickson 51c), the 4
remaining galaxies receiving only Hickson identities. The controversy involves
the two galaxies listed as Hickson b and Hickson e which are only about 0.49 tsecs
and 1.1 arcmins apart.
The CGCG ZWG 126.40, PGC #34882, UGC (Notes to NGC 3651 = U06388), MCG +4-27 -26,
NED and RC3 have all incorrectly identified the larger of the two (Hickson 51b) as
being IC 2759, however, Gottlieb has made a visual observation of the field and
correctly states that Hickson 51e is visually the brighter due to a higher surface
brightness and this has been confirmed by Dr. Corwin. Additionally Bigourdan's
coordinates are almost exactly those found for Hickson 51e and as he saw only a
single object at this position it would have been the brighter.
The MOL (NSO) and NGC 2000 (No Type) have the correct identity due to both having
relied upon Dreyer's coordinates, however, the CGCG and MCG should be corrected to
list ZWG 126.41 and + 4-27-27 as being IC 2759. Steinicke and APL have correct
identities. Corrections are also in order for the UGC and RC3 data. SIMBAD also
incorrectly identifies the south following of the pair as being IC 2759. It is the
north preceding that is the correct object.
NOTE : It must be stated that it is only because Steve Gottlieb made a visual
observation of this field and immediately recognized that Hickson 51e was visually
brighter than Hickson 51b that we now can confirm that B #405 = IC 2759 is Hickson
51e. A tribute to Gottlieb's awareness and the importance of such observations.
IC 2761.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.132. 11hr 19m 40.652s + 14 27' 07.098" (1950).
11hr 22m 17.289s + 14 10' 39.064" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the NGC 2000 as "Neb." and MOL as "Faint nebula."
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but list it as MAPS-NGP 0 493
0013595. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." Correctly identified by Steinicke
and APL.
IC 2763.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.134. 11hr 19m 42.070s + 13 20' 20.065" (1950).
11hr 22m 18.471s + 13 03' 52.027" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is the brighter and preceding companion of a double
system with IC 2767 also discovered by Wolf. The PGC (Main catalogue and
Corrections), in its Table 1 incorrectly equates these two identities, they are
instead two separate galaxies easily seen as such on the Palomar print. The CGCG
correctly describes them as a double system and the UGC in its Notes for IC 2763
refers to the companion as object b.
IC 2763 is correctly identified in the MCG, RC3, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMNAD, NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2764.
Swift List XI, #121. 11hr 19m 27.038s - 28 43' 55.627" (1950).
11hr 21m 54.488s - 29 00' 23.494" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error here consists of a large discrepancy in the RA value
as given by Swift.
At the nominal position there is nothing remotely resembling Swift's description
"pB, pS, R, 10 mag. star close nf, 7th mag. star f," however, at 11hr 24m 37s - 28
42'.2, or at about 5 tmin 10 tsec following there is such a galaxy with the two
reported stars at the correct relative positions.
The MOL (NSO) gives the incorrect historical RA. The MGC identifies it only as -
5-27-012. The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, ESO and RC3 have the
correct coordinates.
IC 2767.POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.137. 11hr 19m 46.766s + 13 21' 110.971" (1950).
11hr 22m 23.165s + 13 04' 42.875" (2000).
(See IC 2763).
IC 2769.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.139. 11hr 19m 49.142s + 14 28' 09.928" (1950).
11hr 22m 25.773s + 14 11' 41.789" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in NGC 2000 as (Neb.) and in the MOL as (Faint nebula).
Correctly identified in the APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and by Steinicke.
NOTE : Since my original entry as given above Steve Gottlieb has kindly pointed
out to me that the CGCG also correctly lists this galaxy as ZWG 067. 065
IC 2772.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.142. 11hr 19m 53.831s + 13 52' 23.832" (1950).
11hr 22m 30.330s + 13 35' 55.639" (2000).
This is a star which has a very faint, very small galaxy immediately preceding :
Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Both the APL and Steinicke
correctly make it (= *). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 2773.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.143. 11hr 19m 59.810s + 13 50' 40.712" (1950).
11hr 22m 36.296s + 13 34' 12.447" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Probably equal to a faint star : At Wolf's position I could
only find an extremely faint, very compact image which I was unable to decide as
to type. Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the dsatabase." NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO).
IC 2774.
POSS.O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.144. 11hr 20m 00.653s +12 47' 20.692" (1950).
11hr 22m 36.919s + 12 30' 52.433" (2000).
This is a faint star : It lies close north preceding IC 2775 and appears to be
completely stellar to me.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No type), MOL (NSO), APL (= * or gx UA10 = IC 2775).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED" SIMBAD "Not present in the database,"
and Steinicke (= *).
IC 2776.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.146. 11hr 20m 03.725s + 13 36' 49.634" (1950).
11hr 22m 40.159s + 13 20' 21.325" (2000).-
Confirmed galaxy : This is the south preceding of a pair of galaxies, the
companion being IC 2779.
The PGC incorrectly equates these two identities, however, both are clearly
visible on the Palomar print at the separations as given by Wolf. The CGCG
correctly identifies both as a double system while the MCG gives only the identity
IC 2776. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) correctly lists them as
separate galaxies. Correctly identified in the APL, NED, SIMBAD and by Steinicke.
IC 2778.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.148. 11hr 20m 05.748s +12 47' 56.591" (1950).
11hr 22m 42.010s + 12 31' 28.269" (2000).
This is a faint star. Only listings are NGC 2000 (No type), MOL (NSO), NED and
SIMBAD Not found. and Steinicke (=*).
IC 2779.
Wolf List VII, No.149. 11hr 20m 08.420s + 13 37' 19.540" (1950).
11hr 22m 44.850s + 13 20' 51.174" (2000).
(See IC 2776).
IC 2785 and 2786.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.155. 11hr 20m 39.280s +13 39' 57.923" (1950).
11hr 23m 15.683s +13 23' 29.190" (2000). IC 2785.
Wolf List VII, No.156. 11hr 20m 41.376s + 13 39' 57.890" (1950).
11hr 23m 17.777s + 13 23' 29.124" (2000). IC 2786
Confirmed and separate galaxies : These are a close but separate pair, the
preceding being IC 2785. Both are easily visible on the Palomar print and the
preceding (IC 2785) appears to be the brighter, which is in accordance with Wolf's
description which states "Pretty faint" for IC 2785 and "Considerably faint" for IC
2786. The CGCG lists IC 2786 as a double system but does not identify the preceding
companion as IC 2785, while the MCG and PGC give only the identity IC 2786.
Correctly identified in both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), also in the APL
and by Steinicke. NED correctly identifies IC 2786 but then names IC 2785 as being
IC 2786 NED01 while also stating for the identity IC 2785 "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD also identifies the preceding galaxy as IC 2786 and
states for IC 2785 "This Identifier is not present in the Database."
IC 2789.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.159. 11hr 20m 56.514s + 14 27' 46.597" (1950).
11hr 23m 33.060s + 14 11' 17.642" (2000).
Unable to confirm : The image appears as two faint objects almost in contact,
aligned north preceding south following. The south following component seems to
definitely be a star, however, the north preceding one strongly suggests being
nonstellar, especially on the DSS Second Generation. Only modern listings are APL
(=** or * + eS GX?), Steinicke (= *2), NGC 2000 (Double *) and MOL (Double star).
NED gives "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2794.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.164. 11hr 21m 27.699s +13 04' 06.989" (1950).
11hr 24m 03.928s + 12 47' 37.682" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
First verified as being a star by Steve Gottlieb.
IC 2799.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.169. 11hr 21m 50.602s + 14 07' 26.554" (1950).
11hr 24m 27.014s + 13 50' 56.961" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in NGC 2000 as (Neb.) and MOL as (Faint nebula). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED, " but lists it as 2MASX
J11242669+1350564. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database." But lists the galaxy
as LEDA 1442248. Correctly identified in the APL and by Steinicke.
IC 2805.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.176. 11hr 22m 23.794s + 14 17' 25.926" (1950).
11hr 25m 00.200s + 14 00' 55.949" (2000).
This is a star that has what appears to me to have an extremely faint, small
extended nonstellar system attached to its preceding edge. : It would seem that
the attached image would have been beyond the limits of Wolf's photographic plate
and that it is the star that he is referring to as his Object #176 ? Only modern
listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (*) and MOL (Single star).
IC 2806.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.177. 11hr 22m 39.999s + 09 55' 47.610" (1950).
11hr 25m 15.549s + 09 39' 17.473" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2808.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.179. 11hr 22m 51.826s + 09 24' 46.388" (1950).
11hr 25m 27.269" + 09 08' 16.119" (2000).
Not found : At the exact nominal position there is no image visible. The closest
image is that of a star which is the southernmost of a diamond of stars, however,
the separation of this star is larger than those normally found in Wolf's List VII
data, which generally is only fractions of tsec in RA and less than 5 arcsec in
declination.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
NGC 2809.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.180. 11hr 23m 02.528s + 08 48' 11.188" (1950).
11hr 25m 37.849s + 08 31' 40.798" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (=*). NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2810.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.181. 11hr 23m 08.819s + 14 57' 02.090" (1950).
11hr 25m 45.298s + 14 40' 31.599" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (Neb.) and MOL as (Faint nebula).
Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and
RC3.
NOTE : IC 2810 is the brighter and larger of a pair, the fainter being identified
in the UGC Notes as "Companion at 1'.2, PA 114, 0.8 x 0.2" and in NED and the MCG
as "IC 2810b. 11hr 23.1m + 14 56'.0
Now Wolf in his description for IC 2810 states "* 14 sf 0.3 arcmins." and I
thought that perhaps this might refer to the companion galaxy, however, the star
in question does exist at exactly the place where Wolf describes while the
companion galaxy lies at about 1.0 arcmin south following this star. I mention
this only because I am very surprised to see that Wolf makes absolutely no mention
of this companion galaxy yet it is quite obvious on the Palomar print and is both
larger and brighter than many of Wolf's other confirmed objects. This companion
galaxy is listed in E. A. Fath's "A Study of Nebulae." Astr. J. 128: 267. 1914.
as 1.401.
IC 2817.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.189. 11hr 23m 43.467s + 09 25' 32.440" (1950).
11hr 26m 18.871s + 09 09' 01.591" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "No object
found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2824.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.196. 11hr 24m 28.983s + 14 21' 40.635" (1950).
11hr 27m 05.251s + 14 05' 09.260" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), APL (*, UA10), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2825.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.197. 11hr 24m 27.409s + 08 43' 44.648" (1950).
11hr 27m 02.655s + 08 27' 13.318" (2000).
Not found : Wolf's star "south following one-third arcmin attached," is where he
states, however, no image at the position he gives for his object. Only modern
listings are NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not found), APL (IC 2825? 11 24 28.37 +08 43
09.1 UA10). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2827.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.199. 11hr 24m 34.202s + 11 47' 30.535" (1950).
11hr 27m 09.992s + 11 30' 59.126" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
(Not found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2831.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.203. 11hr 24m 47.938s + 09 15' 14.285" (1950).
11hr 27m 23.262s + 08 58' 42.734" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2832.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.204. 11hr 24m 49.516s + 14 15' 57.271" (1950).
11hr 27m 25.741s + 13 59' 25.674" (2000).
This is star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2833.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.205. 11hr 24m 50.198s + 13 52' 45.257" (1950).
11hr 27m 26.352s + 13 36' 13.656" (2000).
This is a very faint star : It is also possible that there was on the original
plate a photographic defect as Wolf states that a 14th mag. star attached north
preceding 1 arcmin, and such a star does exist at the separation as given.
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NED "There is no object with this name in NED." NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO).
IC 2836.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.208. 11hr 25m 02.152s + 09 21' 35.036" (1950).
11hr 27m 37.483s + 09 05' 03.331" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2841.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.213. 11hr 25m 13.060s + 12 52' 29.854" (1950).
11hr 27m 49.006s + 12 35' 58.025" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2849.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.221. 11hr 25m 36.912s + 09 22' 10.431" (1950).
11hr 28m 12.218s + 09 05' 38.358" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2854.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.226. 11hr 25m 44.967s + 09 14' 40.291" (1950).
11hr 28m 20.245s + 08 58' 08.136" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2858.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.230. 11hr 26m 00.089s + 13 56' 19.044" (1950).
11hr 28m 36.171s + 13 39' 46.705" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : When I first examined the image on the DSS (First Generation)
I was unable to confirm its type, however, recent re-examination employing the DSS
(Second Generation), leaves no doubt as to its nonstellar nature.
Steinicke sees it as a being a compact galaxy, possibly a star. The APL (=* ,
Referenced to UA10). NED "There is no object with this name in NED," however,
they do identify it as 2MASX J11283591+1339408. SIMBAD has no listing for this
object. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2859.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.232. 11hr 26m 06.780s + 09 23' 03.918" (1950).
11hr 28m 42.056s + 09 06' 31.424" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2863.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.235. 11hr 26m 19.061s + 09 22' 12.710" (1950).
11hr 28m 54.334s + 09 05' 40.200" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2865.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.237. 11hr 26m 24.462s + 09 23' 42.618" (1950).
11hr 28m 59.735s + 09 07' 10.054" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are Carlson (= *, Mt Wilson), APL (=*),
Steinicke (= *), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2866.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.238. 11hr 26m 24.740s + 09 19' 03.614" (1950).
11hr 29m 00.000s + 09 02' 31.046" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are Carlson (= *, Mt. Wilson), APL (=*),
Steinicke (= *), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2868.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.241. 11hr 26m 30.547s + 09 22' 12.516" (1950).
11hr 29m 05.811s + 09 05' 39.889" (2000).
This is a star : Carlson in her Mt. Wilson Paper states that IC 2868 is equal to
IC 698 and both the NGC 2000 and MOL have followed this finding, however, IC 2868
is a star located about 2 tsec following and about 1 arcmin south IC 698. The PGC
correctly identifies IC 698 and has no listing for the identity IC 2868. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Steinicke and APL have (=*). There can be absolutely no doubt that Wolf was not
mistaking his No.241 (IC 2868) for IC 698 as in his List VII he also separately
identifies IC 698 giving it coordinates of 11hr 26m 28.4s + 09 23' 17", which not
only clearly dispute any equivalency but agrees almost precisely with the GSC
coordinates for IC 698. Additionally, Wolf's descriptions for IC 698 and IC 2868
are entirely different.
IC 2869.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.243. 11hr 26m 33.722s + 09 17' 36.462" (1950).
11hr 29m 08.971s + 09 01' 03.803" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2870.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.244. 11hr 26m 36.313s +12 08' 28.425" (1950).
11hr 29m 12.042s + 11 51' 55.733" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : An extremely faint, face-on system. Best seen on DSS Second
Generation photograph.
Identified in the UGC only as UGC 06486. Other listings are NGC 2000 (Gx). MOL
(NSO). Both the APL and Steinicke have the correct identity. Both NED and Simbad
identify it as UGC 0648.
IC 2874.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.247. 11hr 26m 52.245s + 10 54' 25.156" (1950).
11hr 29m 27.749s + 10 37' 52.312" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Rather unusual in appearance having a horse-shoe shape.
Listed in the NGC 2000 and MOL as being an "Open cluster." Steinicke has
(Peculiar galaxy). NED states "There is no object with this name in NED," but
then lists it as MAPS-NGP 0 493 0491564. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 2875.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.248. 11hr 26m 59.592s + 13 15' 58.039" (1950).
11hr 29m 35.488s + 12 59' 25.105" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2880.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No. 253. 11hr 27m 17.519s + 13 28' 30.742" (1950).
11hr 29m 53.431s + 13 11' 57.626" (2000).
This is a star with an extremely faint companion just off its south end :
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2882.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.256. 11hr 27m 33.458 + 12 16' 00.478" (1950).
11hr 30m 09.149s + 11 59' 27.213" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2884.
Stewart #354. 11hr 26m 04.097s - 79 27' 30.723" (1950).
11hr 27m 45.514s - 79 44' 03.074" (2000).
This is a closely associated line of faint stars : Stewart's coordinates land
directly on this group of 4 faint stars which are aligned at a PA close to 145
degrees as Stewart reported as being the extended PA of the major axis. Stewart
himself was unsure as to its nonstellar character as he added "Susp." to the end
of his description.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). Correctly identified in
the APL as (6-7 stars in line), Steinicke (=* group) and the ESO (20-**2). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2885.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.258. 11hr 27m 47.835s + 10 03' 00.239" (1950).
11hr 30m 23.149s + 09 46' 26.837" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2888.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.261. 11hr 28m 00.255s + 10 11' 03.038" (1950).
11hr 30m 35.580s + 09 54' 29.516" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=2*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD completely confuses this
identity equating it with MCG -00-13-061 at 04hr 59m 45.9s -0009' 27" (2000). NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2890.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.262. 11hr 28m 10.722s + 13 27' 37.876" (1950).
11hr 30m 46.570s + 13 11' 04.238" (2000).
This is the south following of 3 faint stars aligned north preceding to south
following:
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2895.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.267. 11hr 28m 22.144s + 10 15' 11.687" (1950).
11hr 30m 57.462s + 09 58' 37.953" (2000).
This is a star in a group of 3 forming a small triangle: Only modern listings are
APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2897.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.269. 11hr 28m 44.228s + 11 49' 35.339" (1950).
11hr 31m 19.776s + 11 33' 01.391" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD types IC 2897 as "Nebula of unknown
nature." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2899.
POSS. O-66.
Wolf List VII, No.271. 11hr 28m 45.186s + 10 54' 40.322" (1950).
11hr 31m 20.588s + 10 38' 06.373" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL (= 2 sts), Steinicke (= *2),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2902.
POSS. O-1406.
Wolf List VII, No.274. 11hr 28m 57.517s + 14 29' 54.135" (1950).
11hr 31m 33.480s + 14 13' 20.040" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings found are APL and Steinicke (=*),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (Nonstellar Object).
IC 2904.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.276. 11hr 29m 06.824s + 13 27' 42.987" (1950).
11hr 31m 42.609s + 13 11' 08.814" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2905.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No 277 11hr 29m 11.854s + 09 22 58.901" (1950).
11hr 31m 46.995s + 09 06' 24.696" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL NSO).
IC 2906.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.278. 11hr 29m 13.897s + 13 24' 35.877" (1950).
11hr 31m 49.666s + 13 08' 01.639" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2907.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No. 279. 11hr 29m 13.756s + 10 10' 33.873" (1950).
11hr 31m 49.017s + 09 53' 59.649" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke and APL (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 2908.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.280. 11hr 29m 14.745s + 13 12' 56.863" (1950).
11hr 31m 50.482s + 12 56' 22.621" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2911.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No 282. 11hr 29m 29.729s + 13 15' 14.631" (1950).
11hr 32m 05.455s + 12 58' 40.249" (2000).
This is the south preceding component of a double star : Only modern listings are
APL (=*), Steinicke (= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2915.
POSS. O-1406.
Wolf List VII, No.285. 11hr 29m 39.706s + 14 45' 36.481" (1950).
11hr 32m 15.658s + 14 29' 01.992" (2000).
This is a star : Even though this star may have a very faint galaxy attached to
its north preceding edge the galaxy would in my opinion not be what Wolf was
referring to as his nova.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke and APL (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 2916.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.286. 11hr 29m 40.676s + 11 57' 37.460" (1950).
11hr 32m 16.188s + 11 41' 02.982" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Only modern listings are APL Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2918.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.288. 11hr 29m 50.663s + 13 31' 29.310" (1950).
11hr 32m 26.408s + 13 14' 53.730" (2000).
This is a star : At the nominal position there is only the image of a single
faint star. Wolf's description "PA 100 degrees," suggests that he was referring
to an extended image , perhaps a photographic defect ? Only modern listings are
APL (*), Steinicke (Not found), NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
NGC 2000 (No Type), SIMBAD "Not present in the database" and MOL (NSO).
IC 2920.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.290. 11hr 30m 13.646s + 12 50' 02.960" (1950).
11hr 32m 49.259s + 12 33' 28.180" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2922.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.292. 11hr 30m 16.035s + 13 11' 57.924" (1950).
11hr 32m 51.701s + 12 55' 23.120" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBASD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2924.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.294. 11hr 30m 17.654s + 09 18' 02.893" (1950).
11hr 32m 52.730s + 09 01' 28.084" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Steinicke and APL who correctly identify it as being a star.
IC 2926.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.295. 11hr 30m 28.790s + 12 42'47.732" (1950).
11hr 33m 04.368s + 12 26' 12.816" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2927.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.296. 11hr 30m 29.453s + 13 21' 45.723" (1950).
11hr 33m 05.129s + 13 05' 10.795" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "Name does
not exist or no object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2931.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.299. 11hr 31m 15.221s + 12 44' 41.045" (1950).
11hr 33m 50.754s + 12 28' 05.720" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." MOL (NSO),
Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 2932.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.300. 11hr 31m 18.746s + 10 49' 16.990" (1950).
11hr 33m 53.994s + 10 32' 41.644" (2000).
This is a very close double star : Only modern listings are APL (=**), Steinicke
(= *2), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database.NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2935.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.303. 11hr 32m 13.400s + 10 31' 36.205" (1950).
11hr 34m 48.557s + 10 15' 00.389" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at Wolf's nominal position, only an exceedingly
faint image for which I cannot determine its nature.
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2937.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.305. 11hr 32m 28.845s + 10 22' 52.987" (1950).
11hr 35m 03.969s + 10 06' 17.042" (2000).
Equal to a star : Actually Wolf described it possibly being a "nebulous star ?"
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 2939.
POSS. O-468.
Wolf List VII, No.307. 11hr 33m 02.735s + 10 58' 27.517" (1950).
11hr 35m 37.909s + 10 41' 51.297" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2940.
POSS. O-103.
Bigourdan #283. 11hr 33m 25.545s + 21 54' 55.005" (1950).
11hr 36m 02.236s + 21 38' 18.687" (2000). (OBSERVATIONS).
Not found : Bigourdan first published his discovery of his #283 in the COMPTES
RENDUS in 1897 and gave it coordinates of 11hr 33m 22s + 22 03' 09" (1950) and it
was these that Dreyer employed in his IC II.
In Bigourdan's 1919 OBSERVATIONS he gives his date of discovery as April 29th 1891
and his stated reference star is BD 2377 Mv.9.4, (equal to AC 721451 at 11hr 33m
24.045s +21 58' 54.155 (1950). Bigourdan gives it coordinates that for 1950
compute to 11hr 33m 24.051s + 21 59' 31.098" and from this star he measured the
separations to his # 283 to be + 01.5 tsec RA and - 3' 59 " of arc which would
result in 1950 coordinates for IC 2940 of 11hr 33m 25.551s + 21 55' 32.098" or by
employing the more modern coordinates, a 1950 position of 11hr 33m 25.545s + 21
54' 55.155"
When Bigourdan's position for the star BD 2377 is entered into the DSS it lands
very close to a 9th magnitude star, however, when Bigourdan's offsets are applied
to this star they come up with only blank space to the south of the star, also
when his coordinates as based upon the COMPTES RENDUS data are applied to the DSS
they also land in a blank space only now to the north of the star.
The CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL list it as a "Double
star," however, at the coordinates they give (based upon the Dreyer data), there
is no double star, the closest double being 15 tsecs preceding the given
position.
There is absolutely no doubt as to the 9th magnitude star being the one used by
Bigourdan as on the same night he made an excellent measurement as to the offset
from this same star for the galaxy NGC 3743.
Steinicke (Not found, Possibly = NGC 3743?). NED and SIMBAD have (Not found). The
APL has "Not found, nominal position."
NOTE: Bigourdan adds a notation to his OBSERVATION description stating that
perhaps the position angle is in error by 180 degrees, however at neither PA is
there an image.
IC 2949.
Finlay. 11hr 38m 23.630s - 46 11' 54.425" (1950).
11hr 40m 51.134s - 46 28' 33.219" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no nebular image exists, however, there is a
galaxy at 11hr 38m 31s - 46 17'.5 which the PGC, ESO, SIMBAD and NED suggest might
be IC 2949 by identifying it as ESO IC 2949 ? 266-G016. APL gives (**) and Steinicke
(*2).
I am reluctant to equate this galaxy with the identity IC 2949 due to the fact
that its Mp is listed as being 15.4 and Finlay was visually observing with
telescopes of 6 and 7 inch apertures and thus it would have been extremely
difficult for such a telescope to have picked up such a faint object.
IC 2953.
POSS. O-109.
Javelle #1189. 11hr 41m 48.630s + 33 37' 56.883" (1950).
11hr 44m 25.633s + 33 21' 17.275" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 3855 (D'Arrest) ? :
The problem concerning this identity involves the equally confusing situation
regarding just which two of the three closely associated galaxies in the field are
D'Arrest's NGC 3855 and NGC 3856.
D'Arrest was the first to examine the field and reported the discovery of two
objects "A very faint, obscure nebula with another in the field which is a little
north," adding that he was doubtful about his declination value.
Unfortunately he measured only a single position for this observation and later
Dreyer gave them the identities NGC 3855 and NGC 3856 with the common coordinates
given by D'Arrest of 11hr 42m 07s + 33 37'.4. (Incorrectly printed as 11hr 41m
07s in the W.S.Q.J. April, 1992 paper. "The Complex Identities of NGC 3855 and NGC
3856." M.J.Thomson).
In the "Notes" to the NGC / IC catalogues there is a correction given by Spitaler
which reads "NGC 3855: RA is 11hr 41m 40s + 33 37'.0, D'Arrest's declination is
correct. NGC 3856: 11hr 41m 50s + 33 36'. 7." These two galaxies I shall call
for the moment Objects A and B.
Javelle later observed the field and claimed discovery of two novae, J.1188 = IC
2952, 11hr 41m 40s.349" + 33 37' 47.039" and J.1189 = IC 2953, 11hr 41m 48.630s +
33 37' 56.883".
When these coordinates are measured on the Palomar print they indicate that J.1188
= IC 2952 and J.1189 = IC 2953 are exactly the same two objects listed in
Spitaler's correction, namely Objects A and B.
Bigourdan next reported his observations of the field and gave the positions for
the only two objects he saw and identified them as NGC 3855, 11hr 41m 49s.4 + 33
36' 29" and NGC 3856, 11hr 42m 08s.5 + 33 34' 20".
He noted that NGC 3855 lies 17s of RA preceding Dreyer's RA and from his
positional data I was able to determine that Bigourdan's NGC 3855 is Object B, but
what is of more significance is that his NGC 3856 is an entirely separate object
from either A or B, and was not mentioned by either Spitaler or Javelle. (I shall
call this Object C).
The major arguments against this possibly being the NGC 3856 seen by D'Arrest are.
(1). That with a Mp of 15.6 it could not have been one of D'Arrest's objects,
however, Bigourdan, using a telescope only 3 cm. larger than D'Arrest, without any
doubt saw Object C, this can further be confirmed by his measuring by position
angle and distance two associated stars which are clearly visible on the Palomar
print at Bigourdan's positions. (2). As Object B is brighter than Object C by
about half a magnitude it would
usually be assumed that D'Arrest would have used the brighter object as his basis
for his single measurement. But the evidence is entirely the opposite,
suggesting that he did in this instance employ the fainter object, Object C, as
D'Arrest's positional data matches very well with the position where Object C is
located, while as Bigourdan points out , the other field object lies north at a RA
17s preceding the common RA given to both NGC 3855 and NGC 3856 by both D'Arrest
and Dreyer.
Additionally if Object C is indeed NGC 3856 this would fit the D'Arrest's
description for NGC 3855 (Object B), "another in the field which is a little
north."
If my conclusions are correct then
Object A is IC 2952.
Object B is NGC 3855 = IC 2953.
Object C is NGC 3856.
Those seeking a more detailed evaluation of this problem may wish to consult the
April, 1992 issue of the Webb Society Quarterly Journal. (The Complex Identities
of NGC 3855 and NGC 3856.M.J.Thomson).
CGCG equates NGC 3855 and NGC 3856 making them Object C, while making A = IC 2952
and B = IC2953. UGC gives IC 2953 = Object B and in its "Notes" makes IC
2952 = Object A and NGC 3855 = NGC 3856 = Object C. The MCG makes Object A = IC
2952, Object B = IC 2953 and Object C = NGC 3855.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL lists all identities making IC 2952 = Object A, IC 2953
= Object B, NGC 3855 = Object C, and NGC 3856 either without Type or listed as
"Nonexistent." The RC3 lists only IC 2953, making it = Object B. The PGC
equates NGC 3855 and NGC 3856 while making the identity IC 2953 an entirely
separate identity. The APL gives IC 2953 as (= NGC 3855). Steinicke equates
the identity IC 2953 with NGC 3855. NED gives the single identity IC 2953 without
any NGC equivalency as does SIMBAD.
IC 2954.
POSS. O-1379.
Javelle #1190. 11hr 42m 27.808s + 27 03' 48.185" (1950).
11hr 45m 03.962s + 26 47' 08.393" (2000).
This is a single star : At Javelle's position there is only the image of a star.
UGC in it's Notes for U06729 states "IC 2954 may be a galaxy at 11hr 42.4m + 27
07'.0." and this is the galaxy selected by the NGC 2000 (GX) as being IC 2954,
however, this would require an error of about 2 arcmin 39 arcsec in Javelle's
measured declination which I believe is unlikely.
Listed in MOL as (NSO) with Javelle's coordinates. Listed in APL and Steinicke as
(= *). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Object of
unknown nature."
IC 2956.
POSS. O-1379.
Javelle #1191. 11hr 42m 41.224s + 27 02' 37.211" (1950).
11hr 45m 17.343s + 26 45' 57.349" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 157.030 and in the UGC only as
U06729. Correctly identified in the MCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, DSFG (NOTES to NGC
3830), RC3, PGC, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). APL gives correct identity.
IC 2957.
POSS. O-109.
Javelle #1192. 11hr 43m 00.480s + 31 34' 35.823" (1950).
11hr 45m 37.023s + 31 17' 55.847" (2000).
Declination error of ~ 2.0 degrees : This is another case in which the
transposing of positional data in Javelle's catalogue from one section to the
other resulted in a typographical error.
In Section II the 1860 declination for IC 2957 is correctly computed to be + 32
04.7", however in Section I this becomes + 34 04'.6, 1860, a difference of ~ 2.0
degrees.
Due to this Dreyer's IC II declination value is in error and the error has been
continued by some of the modern catalogues.
CGCG lists the correct IC 2957 only as ZWG157.031 and it is listed in the MCG only
as +5-28-28, these two identities also only being given in the PGC. UGC has no
listing at the correct declination. NGC 2000 and MOL both give the incorrect
declination computed from Dreyer. APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have correct
identity and coordinates.
IC 2959.
POSS. O-109.
Javelle #1194. 11hr 43m 33.668s + 33 23' 06.332" (1950).
11hr 46m 10.307s + 33 06' 26.191" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3871 (h 967) : CGCG and UGC lists as only NGC 3871. MCG
lists as IC 2959. NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities as separate galaxies.
PGC gives IC 2959 = NGC 3871 as does SIMBAD, NED, APL and Steinicke.
IC 2962.
POSS. O-1562.
Swift List XI, #123. 11hr 46m 32.736s - 12 01' 58.162" (1950).
11hr 49m 05.714s - 12 18' 39.326" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no nebular image exists. Only modern
listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not
found). APL "Nothing here ."
IC 2963.
POSS O-1006.
Bigourdan #284. 11hr 46m 50.218s - 04 50' 23.499" (1950).
11hr 49m 23.658s - 05 07' 04.695" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 3915 (H 113-3) : Herschel discovered NGC 3915 on the 24th
April 1784, describing it as "Exceedingly faint, exceedingly small, with 240x, 2
very small stars and nebulosity." The reference star he employed on this night
was 74 Leonis and measured the offsets to his discovery as 34 tmin following and 1
degree 03 arcmin south arriving at coordinates of 11hr 48m 25.1s - 04 25' 41"
Peters (Copernicus I, p 53) gives coordinates for NGC 3915 of 11hr 47m 59s - 04
52'.2, stating that the RA in the GC was from 15 to 20 tsec too small and that the
declination differs rather much. It was Peters coordinates that Dreyer gives in
his NGC. Now when these coordinates are applied to the DSS there is no suitable
image found.
In Dreyer's 1912 publication of THE SCIENTIFIC WORKS OF SIR WILLIAM HERSCHEL there
is a Note (page 300) which reads "H 113-3. Better star (adopted by C.H.), Mayer
510, preceeds 37m 36s, south 0 degrees 31arcmin. This agrees within 18
tsec and 1 arcmin with Peter's place."
It is thus understandable that when Bigourdan found a nebula at the position he
gives there was no reason for him to conclude that it might be NGC 3915, however,
the visible image of IC 2963 certainly fits Wm. Herschel's description
for NGC 3915 and due to all the above I feel that the equivalency is valid.
One other item of historical interest concerning Bigourdan's observation is that
he employed as his reference a 12th magnitude star which he called Anon.(2)
and he arrived at its coordinates by measuring its separation from the BD star BD
-4 3152, finding that Anon (2) was 01 tmin 39 tsec preceeding and 13 arcmin north.
He then states that from this star he measured separation values of 10.4 tsec
following and 09 arcsec south to obtain coordinates for his nova. Next in his
description he states "that there is a 12th magnitude star situated at a PA of 300
degrees and a distance of 0.3 arcmin" from his Nova and this is confirmed on the
DSS photograph, however, it is this second or preceding 12th magnitude star (GSC
4937-1243) that is actually his Anon (2), not the first one (which is visible
right on the north preceeding edge of the galaxy. This can be confirmed by
measuring the separations he gives between BD -4 3152 and Anon (2) and then
between the preceeding 12th magnitude star and his object.
The NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) give separate identities to IC 2963 and NGC 3915.
The MCG gives the single identity IC 2963. Meanwhile both the PGC (Corrections)
has equated NGC 3915 with an entirely different galaxy, IC 738 (which see).
The APL gives IC 2963 = NGC3915??. Steinicke has (= NGC 3915). NED gives the
single identity IC 2963, as does SIMBAD.
IC 2964.
POSS. O-468.
Bigourdan #407. 11hr 47m 17.530s + 12 19' 38.783" (1950).
11hr 49m 51.998s + 12 02' 57.628" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not found),
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 2965.
POSS. O-1013.
Swift List XI, #124. 11hr 47m 57.291s - 19 18' 40.539" (1950).
11hr 50m 29.928s - 19 35' 22.037" (2000).
Equal to NGC 3957 : At Swift's coordinates no nonstellar image is visible. The
NGC 2000, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and APL have equated it with NGC 3957 which
would require that Swift's RA has about a 3.5 tmin too small in error,
It can be stated that Swift's description "B, S, eE, a ray" is an excellent
description for NGC 3957, with the single exception of the size which he gives as
small, however, Bigourdan, using a telescope one-third smaller than Swift, was
able to see NGC 3957 as quite large, describing it as 1 arcmin in length.
Due to the fact that Swift's declination is compatible with that of NGC 3957 and
that for many of his List XI discoveries his RA values often are too small I am
accepting that IC 2965 is a duplicate of NGC 3957.
IC 2968.
POSS. O-103.
Kolbold. 11hr 49m 55.039s + 20 54' 34.495" (1950).
11hr 52m 29.766s + 20 37' 52.662" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : IC 2968 precedes NGC 3937 by ~ 12s RA, which is where Kolbold
had originally placed it and where it is easily visible on the Palomar print.
CGCG lists the correct object ZWG 127.085, but incorrectly identifies it as IC
2958. The PGC gives only the identity CGCG 127-85. UGC lists only NGC 3937 then
in its "Notes" for this galaxy (U06851) states "IC 2968 ?; 11hr 49m.9 + 20
55'.0 = IC 2958," however, IC 2958 lies at a declination of + 33 25'.4. MCG
incorrectly equates IC 2968 with NGC 3937, as does the PGC (Corrections). NGC
2000 and MOL correctly identify each galaxy. The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have
the correct identity and coordinates.
IC 2969.
POSS. O-471.
Swift List XI, #125. 11hr 49m 56.449s - 03 26' 53.004" (1950).
11hr 52m 30.034s - 03 43' 34.761" (2000).
Declination error : There is an error of about 7 arcmin in Swift's declination
which is also found in Dreyer and the MOL. The correct declination is - 03 35'.7
and is correctly given in the APL, MCG, NGC 2000, CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke.
IC 2970.
POSS. O-1360.
Swift List XI, #126. 11hr 50m 37.342s - 22 50'41.149" (1950).
11hr 53m 10.086s - 23 07' 23.740" (2000).
Not found : No nonstellar image at or close to Swift's coordinates.
At about 47 tsec following and 3 arcmin south of Swift's position is the bright
galaxy NGC 3955, however, Swift in his description states that his object is not
NGC 3955.
The NGC 2000, MOL and ESO each describe IC 2970 either as a triple star or 3
stars, however, at the coordinates as given in the APL's previous version (11hr
50m 36s - 22 51'.0), I was unable to land on any such grouping of stars when these
positions were entered into the DSS, rather the exact position resulted in empty
space. Furthermore, the APL coordinates would suggest that at least in this case
Swift would have excelled himself in giving such an accurate position for what he
claimed to be his #126. The APL in its latest version (which see) states "nothing
here, nominal position." Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 2972.
POSS. O-1006.
Swift List XI, #127. 11hr 51m 06.456s - 03 41' 53.243" (1950).
11hr 53m 40.052s - 03 58' 35.187" (2000).
This is equivalent to NGC 3952. (H 612-3) : Actually this is one of those rare
cases where Swift's coordinates are quite accurate and confirm that what he was
seeing is NGC 3952. The MCG gives only the identity NGC 3952. Both the NGC 2000
and MOL give separate identities and separate positions. Steinicke, SIMBAD, NED APL
and PGC correctly equate IC 2972 with NGC 3952.
IC 2975.
POSS. O-1006.
Swift List XII, #9. 11hr 51.5m ? - 05 16'.7 ? (1950).
11hr 54.1m ? - 05 33.4' ? (2000).
Not found : Swift gives very incomplete coordinates for this identity. His
coordinates (Given for the year 1900) are 11hr 49m ? - 05 ?? which allow for
considerable differences when subjected to varying years of precession, therefore
it becomes mostly a matter of assumption in trying to match just what it was he
claimed to have discovered.
At the above 1950 nominal position no nebular image exists, however, the APL
suggests that it might be equal to IC 2974 which is an existing galaxy at 11hr 51m
15.2 - 04 53' 24". Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) identify it as being
at the Dreyer coordinates (11hr 51.6m - 05 30'.0) which are based upon 90 years of
precession. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found). The PGC gives only the
identity IC 2974. APL (=IC 2974).
IC 2976.
POSS. O-1401.
Swift List XI, #129. 11hr 51m 56.530s - 02 26' 41.398" (1950).
11hr 54m 30.187s - 02 43' 23.437" (2000).
Equal to NGC 3979 (Swift List III, #61) :
The APL, Steinicke, PGC, SIMBAD and NED all equate this identity with NGC 3979 at
about 11hr 53m 27.3s - 02 26' 32" and this is pretty strong support, especially as
the declinations match and this galaxy does have a faint star north following as
Swift described. The NGC 2000, MCG and MOL make no equivalency between these two
identities.
IC 2979.
POSS. O-109.
Javelle #1201. 11hr 54m 19.970s + 32 26' 12.815" (1950).
11hr 56m 54.527s + 32 09' 30.679" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Declination error : Javelle used as his reference star the 8th
Mv. DM+33 2172 and listed its NPD as 56 01.1m (1860) or declination + 33 28'.9
(1950), however, this is incorrect, being 1 degree of arc too far north as DM + 33
2172 = SAO 062767 lies at +32 28' 52.703" (1950).
Due to what is probably a typographical error published in Javelle's catalogue
Dreyer, NGC 2000 and MOL all give the incorrect declination value. Listed in the
CGCG only as ZWG 157.059 at 11hr 54.3m + 32 25'.0, The UGC only as U06925 and MCG
only as +5-28-54. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as "Nonstellar
Object," both giving the incorrect declination. The RC3, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD and DSFG (Notes to NGC 3986) have the correct identity and coordinates.
IC 2981.
POSS. O-109.
Javelle #1202. 11hr 53m 07.894s + 32 28' 02.205" (1950).
11hr 55m 42.674s + 32 11' 20.182" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : As with IC 2979 Javelle employed the star DM + 33 2172 as
his reference and again the 1 degree error in Declination was given in his
catalogue which means that the correct declination for IC 2981 should be + 32 28'
00"
Additionally, Dr. Corwin has pointed out that it appears that Javelle also gives
the wrong separation sign in computing his RA as he places it 01 tmin 04.4 tsec
following the star whereas if this is changed to 01 tmin 04.4 tsec preceding the
star the corrected coordinates land on a galaxy fitting Javelle's description.
This galaxy is incorrectly identified in the CGCG as ZWG 157.056 = NGC 3966. The
MCG identifies its +5-28-48 as = NGC 3966? but this is IC 2981. The PGC and NED
also makes this same error. The NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities
as separate objects at the historical coordinates which is incorrect as what they
identify as being NGC 3966 is actually IC 2981 and NGC 3966 is equal to NGC 3986
(See Corwin). No listing for IC 2981 in the UGC. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke and Corwin
have correct identity.
IC 2983.
POSS. O-1401.
Bigourdan #286. 11hr 55m 41.127s - 01 36' 38.629" (1950).
11hr 58m 14.844s - 01 53' 21.045" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : There are a number of different opinions as to the identity of
IC 2983. The MCG, PGC, SIMBAD and NED have each equated it with the galaxy NGC
4006, while The NGC 2000 makes it equal to a star , quoting B. Skiff as its source.
The MOL gives both identities as being separate objects while the APL states "Not
found at nominal position and Steinicke has (Not found).
Examination of Bigourdan's observational data clearly refutes the possibility that
any equivalency exists between it and NGC 4006 as he also made on the same night
(March 30th 1892), a correct observation and correct identity of NGC 4006 and in
both cases he employed the same reference star BD -1 2597 and his separations for
each of the two identities differ by about 11.2 tsec and 1.8 arcmin, thus whatever
he thought might be a Nova he certainly was not confusing it with NGC 4006.
It should be pointed out that he described it as being only suspected and
exceedingly faint and at the coordinates he gives there is no nebular image,
however, his reference star is equal to Tycho 2. #4932 whose 2000 position after
applying proper motion values would be 11hr 58m 04.837 -01 59' 21.015" and after
precessing back to the discovery year (1892) and applying Bigourdan's offsets of +
10 tsec RA and - 6 arcmin Dec (which it is important to know were estimated
offsets, not measures by micrometer), then the result after precessing again
forward to 1950 would place IC 2983 at 11hr 55m 41.121s - 01 48' 38.619." where no
image exists, but by reversing Bigourdan's offset declination sign to read north
instead of south the coordinates would then be 11hr 55m 41.127s - 01 36' 38.629
(1950) for his Nova and this lands just off the north end of the 16.03 Mp galaxy
ZWG. 13.016 equal to PGC #037665 at 11hr 55m 41.520s - 01 36' 47.60 (NED).
Due to Bigourdan's offsets for IC 2983 being estimations and also by reversing his
declination sign results in being an excellent match for the position of ZWG.
13.016, I am at this time concluding that this is what Bigourdan saw and
identified as Object # 286.
IC 2988.
POSS. O-1611.
Bigourdan #408. 12hr 01m 08.061s + 03 42' 38.503" (1950)>
12hr 03m 41.765s + 03 25' 56.117" (2000).
This is a faint star : The APL and Steinicke correctly list it as = *. Only
other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (NSO)
IC 2989.
POSS. O-1401.
Bigourdan #287. 12hr 02m 00.299s + 02 04' 50.673" (1950).
12hr 04m 34.013s + 01 48' 08.308" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4139 (D'Arrest) : It would appear that D'Arrest published
erroneous data regarding his RA for NGC 4139 giving it a position 5 tmins too far
east as when this is corrected by this amount it lands very close to the position
of IC 2989. Additionally D'Arrest described it as the north preceding of a double
nebula (NGC 4140), the separation in RA being between 4 to 5 tsecs and this again
matches the separation between IC 2989 and NGC 4077 discovered by Wm. Herschel
(H 258-3), therefore not only is IC 2989 = NGC 4139 but NGC 4140 is equal to NGC
4077.
The CGCG, MCG and UGC give only the identity IC 2989 as does the NGC 2000 and MOL,
however, in the case of the MOL it lists both NGC 4139 and NGC 4140 as being
nonexistent objects. The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly have the
equivalency.
IC 2992.
POSS. O-1398.
Javelle #1207. 12hr 02m 43.119s + 31 08' 00.717" (1950).
12hr 05m 16.171s + 30 51' 18.546" (2000).
Declination error : Javelle has a declination error for his reference star DM +
31 2327, which is equal to AC #959087, of 30'.6 too far south.
When Javelle's separations are applied to the reference star at its correct
position the image of a galaxy fitting Javelle's description is found.
This error was not detected and has affected the identity in most of the modern
catalogues. CGCG lists this galaxy as ZWG 158. 014, RC3 and MCG as +5-29-8. UGC
has no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL give the incorrect declination. APL has correct
identity and coordinates while also referring to the Javelle 30 arcmin
declination error. The PGC gives only the CGCG, MCG and MK identities. Steinicke
has correct identity. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but they
list the correct IC 2992 as MRK 0757. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but
lists the object as Mrk 757.
IC 2993.
POSS. O-1599.
Javelle #1208. 12hr 03m 05.367s + 33 05' 56.783" (1950).
12hr 05m 38.293s + 32 49' 14.680" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle identified his reference star as DM +33 2298 and when
his offsets (+ 0 tmin 47.45 tsec RA and 01' 52".1 of arc south) are applied no
object is found.
It would appear that Javelle misidentified his reference star and that what he
actually employed was the 8.3 mag. star DM 33 2189 which lies at 12hr 02m 18s + 33
07' 54".2 and now when his offsets are applied they do land on a galaxy at 12hr
03m 05.367s + 33 05' 56.783, which is the correct IC 2993.
The CGCG, SIMBAD and NED identify as IC 2993 a double system at 12hr 03.6m +33 10.0'
(1950), however, this is not IC 2993. MCG identifies this same galaxy as being an
Anon. + 6-27-05 as does the PGC. APL and Steinicke give correct identity and
coordinates.
IC 2997.
POSS. O-135.
Bigourdan #288. 12hr 03m 12.231s + 20 33' 44.077" (1950).
12hr 05m 45.500s + 20 17' 01.869" (2000).
Not found: Until very recently I believed that IC 2997 was a duplicate
observation of NGC 4090, however, Dr. Corwin has re-examined the problem and has
indicated that based upon the historical positional data he finds that IC 2997 is
not equal to NGC 4090 and I am now in agreement with his assessment. Since
arriving at my previous conclusion I have received a copy of Bigourdan's Appendix
VIII in which he includes his observation for NGC 4090, (Not given in his
OBSERVATIONS) and one of his two observations for NGC 4090 (correctly identified
by him in his Appendix VIII) is dated May 7th 1894, the same night he gives for
his single observation of IC 2997. As the two recorded objects lie in the same
immediate field it is highly unlikely that he could have mistaken NGC 4090 for a
nova, thus this fact alone would negate the equivalency conclusion.
MOL lists as separate galaxies. UGC, MCG, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD and PGC list as IC
2997 = NGC 4090. APL gives "Nothing here, nominal position," and IC 2997? "=*."
Steinicke has (NF).
NOTE: (See Corwin's Explanation Files).
IC 2998.
POSS. O-135.
Bigourdan #289. 12hr 03m 22.301s + 21 01' 55.872" (1950).
12hr 05m 55.540s + 20 45' 13.697" (2000). (CR).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 2998. Listed in NGC 2000
without any Type. Listed in MOL as (Nonstellar Object). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke and
APL have (Not found).
NOTE: I was unable to find any reference to this identity in Bigourdan's
OBSERVATIONS. The above coordinates are based upon the COMPTES RENDUS data.
IC 3000.
Stewart #358. 12hr 03m 34.013s - 29 23' 42.180" (1950).
12hr 06m 08.562s - 29 40' 24.556" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Probably Not found : At Stewart's nominal position no nebular
image is found and the APL (Not found), Steinicke (Not found) and ESO (440-?053)
reflect this.
At a little north preceeding the nominal position (12hr 03m 30.7s - 29 23' 38")
there is a very faint (Mp. 17.0), very small, lenticular galaxy, however, due to
its appearance on the DSS I have doubts that this is Stewart's object. Stewart
description reads "F, indistinct, *like, but poss, defect."
It should be noted that on the same photographic plate #3703 employed by Stewart
and directly north of the galaxy IC 3005 = Stewart #359, there is another extended
galaxy which is brighter than this candidate and Stewart did not see this galaxy
when he examined the plate, thus supporting the premise that he would not have
been able to see or recognize the fainter candidate as being nonstellar.
The NGC (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both give the historical coordinates. Not listed
in the MCG. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 3002.
POSS O-1599.
Javelle #1211. 12hr 04m 31.031s + 33 39' 32.949" (1950).
12hr 07m 03.664s + 33 22' 50.949" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG lists this only as ZWG 187.08 (See RASQJ # 33, p.68,
1992).
MCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) are correct. Not
listed in RC3 or UGC.
IC 3003.
POSS. O-1599.
Javelle #1212. 12hr 05m 00.192s + 33 05' 23.680" (1950).
12hr 07m 32.759s + 32 48' 41.772" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle identified his reference star as being DM +33 2298
(8.8 Mv.) and measured offsets for his #1212 from what he thought was this star,
however, he had misidentified the star which actually is DM +33 2189 and
when his offsets are applied to this star they land upon the correct galaxy at
12hr 05m 00.192s + 33 05' 23.680".
The NGC 2000 and MOL give coordinates incorrectly based upon the historical
position. The CGCG, MCG, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct
identity.
NOTE : Also see IC 2993.
IC 3006.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #796. 12hr 04m 51.391s +13 16' 17.891" (1950).
12hr 07m 24.726s 12 59' 35.858" (2000).
Not found : At Frost's position there are no nonstellar images. The closest
object is a faint star north preceding. Only listings found are NGC 2000 (No
type), MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." and Steinicke (= *). APL has Nothing here; nominal
position.
IC 3009.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #221. 12hr 05m 26.838s + 12 55' 29.035" (1950).
12hr 08m 00.145s + 12 38' 47.077" (2000).
Not found : Not listed in CGCG, UGC or MCG. Listed in NGC 2000 and given Type [?
]. MOL states " May not exist." Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 3011.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #124. 12hr 05m 35s + 10 39' 25"
This is equal to NGC 4124 (H 33-1) : CGCG, UGC, MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson and
PGC all correctly make IC 3011 = NGC 4124. RC2 gives only the identity NGC 4124.
APL and Steinicke make it (= NGC 4124 = NGC 4119). NED has "= NGC 4124," as does
SIMBAD.
IC 3014.
POSS. O-1367.
Javelle #1214. 12hr 06m 05.040s + 39 06' 35.922" (1950).
12hr 08m 37.054s + 38 49' 54.154" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified only as +7-25-28a in the MCG. Correctly listed in
CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL.
IC 3018.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #802. 12hr 06m 57.212s + 14 21' 18.076" (1950).
12hr 09m 30.358s + 14 04' 36.326" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC, and MCG have no listing for IC 3018. NGC 2000 lists but
gives the Type as [?]. MOL states "May not exist." Carlson states "Not Found
, but possibly a nebula 30' south of Frost's position," and the APL makes this
galaxy equal to IC 3018 as does Steinick SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
Carlson's possible candidate is I feel unlikely to be Frost's object as although
Frost only gave his declination coordinates to the closest minute of arc I find it
difficult to accept that he made a 30'.0 error. I would suggest rather that
perhaps he was misled by a photographic defect.
IC 3026.
Stewart # 360. 12hr 07m 58.743s - 29 38' 41.803" (2000).
12hr 10m 34.038s - 29 55' 23.585" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at or close to the nominal position. Both the NGC
2000 and MOL list this as being a single star which I am sure is based upon
Carlson who gives (=*.Mt. Wilson). The ESO has no listing for this identity
Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED give (Not found).
IC 3027.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #809. 12hr 07m 57.133s + 14 28' 18.194" (1950).
12hr 10m 30.199s + 14 11' 36.611" (2000).
Not found : It is certain that this object is nonexistent as Carlson in her 1940
paper states "Not found, a defect on the plate where it was originally found by
Frost, Harvard Annals." Only modern listings are Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not
found). APL (= defect). NGC 2000 and MOL and both of these indicate that its
identity is dubious.
IC 3028.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #810. 12hr 07m 57.220" + 12 02' 18.194" (1950).
12hr 10m 30.404s + 11 45' 36.612" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG as ZWG 69.070 and this is also as it
appears in the PGC. Not listed in either the UGC or MCG. Listed in the NGC 2000
but given no Type. MOL, APL and Steinicke have the correct object and identity.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED" yet they do list it as VCC
0024. SIMBAD lists IC 3028 and VCC 24 as two separate objects with different
coordinates.
IC 3030.
POSS.O-1385.
Frost #812. 12hr 08m 33.089s + 14 25' 18.274" (1950).
12hr 11m 06.113s + 14 08' 36.799" (2000).
Not found. : Might possibly be a faint star. Only listings are NGC 2000 (No
Type), MOL (NSO), APL (Nothing here) and Steinicke (=*). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NED "No Object with this name in NED."
IC 3035.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #222 12hr 09m 39.326s + 13 31' 30.439" (1950).
12hr 12m 12.321s + 13 14' 49.185" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4165 : CGCG describes NGC 4165/IC 3035 as a double nebula This
faint companion is also listed as Reinmuth 3.012b 12hr 09m 39s.12 + 13 31' 28".1.
The UGC, MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NED, Carlson and PGC all list
IC 3035 = NGC 4165. As IC 3035 is a duplicate observation of NGC 4165 then the CGCG
identity making IC 3035 the companion galaxy is of course incorrect.
NOTE : Dr. Corwin in his NGC/IC Bugs List present a very strong argument that IC
3035 is equal to NGC 4165, pointing out that the companion just off the north edge
of NGC 4165 is too faint to be Schwassmann's #222. This is supported by an
observation of the field by Steve Gottlieb using a 17.5 inch telescope with which
he records NGC 4165 but makes no mention of the companion galaxy.
IC 3036.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #817. 12hr 09m 45.074s + 12 45' 18.454" (1950).
12hr 12m 18.107s + 12 28' 37.224" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 69.077. Listed in UGC as
U07200. APL = U07200, MCG has no listing. Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000
and MOL give correct identity and coordinates.
IC 3042.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #151. 12hr 10m 12.670s + 11 08' 33.731" (1950).
12hr 12m 45.771s + 10 51' 52.598" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4178 (h 1125) :
CGCG, MCG and UGC list only the identity NGC 4178. NGC 2000, MOL, RC2 "Notes ."
Carlson, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all make IC 3042 = NGC 4178.
IC 3045.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #224. 12hr 10m 26.693s + 13 03' 26.871" (1950).
12hr 12m 59.663s + 12 46' 45.792" (2000).
Not found : No suitable image at the nominal position.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3045. NGC 2000 lists but without any
Type. MOL lists but describes as "May not exist." Carlson states "Not Found."
Steinicke has (=*2), however, these stars lies north preceding the location I
give. APL "Not found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED "No object with
this name in NED."
IC 3048.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #226. 12hr 10m 48.923s + 13 20' 49.237" (1950).
12hr 13m 21.849s + 13 04' 08.239" (2000).
This is a star which is a component of a coarse double star : Schwassmann makes
it quite clear in his description that he suspected that it was a star. CGCG, UGC
and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson each list it as a "Double
star." Steinicke has (= *2). APL (= *). NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3050.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #227. 12hr 11m 15.283s + 13 42' 16.719" (1950).
12hr 13m 48.155s + 13 25' 35.821" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4189 (H 106-2) : CGCG, UGC, MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, RC2,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, APL, Carlson and the PGC all correctly make IC 3050 = NGC
4189.
IC 3051.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #228. 12hr 11m 21.200s + 13 27' 01.438" (1950).
12hr 13m 54.082s + 13 10' 20.566" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4193 (H 163-2) : RC2 gives only the identity NGC 4193.
CGCG, UGC, MCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000, Carlson and PGC all correctly
give IC 3051 = NGC 4193. MOL correctly equates IC 3051 with NGC 4193.
IC 3053.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #827. 12hr 11m 26.866s + 14 29' 18.756" (1950).
12hr 13m 59.672s + 14 12' 37.904" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : To begin with the CGCG identifies as IC 3053 two different
objects, ( ZWG 98.109, 12hr 11.3m + 14 30'.0 and ZWG 69.094, 12hr 11.6m + 14
26'.0). Obviously one of these is in error and the PGC has selected the ZWG
69.094 (the more southerly of the two to be the incorrect identity) and I am in
agreement with this conclusion.
In addition to measuring Frost separation values from a star I also measured the
separation of his position for IC 3053 from the galaxy IC 3044, employing
Schwassmann's more precise coordinates and again verified that it is ZWG 98.109
which is Frost's #827 = IC 3053.
IC 3053 is not listed in the UGC, MCG, RC3 or DSFG. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and the MOL (NSO) have the correct identity. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED also give
the correct identity.
IC 3056.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #830. 12hr 12m 02.845s + 14. 04' 18.876" (1950).
12hr 14m 35.635s + 13 47' 38.171" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3056. NGC 2000 list but
gives its Type as [?]. MOL lists but states "May not exist." Carlson states
"Not Found" but adds "Possibly a nebula 1 degree south of Frost's position."
Again I feel that this is not a viable candidate (See IC 3018). The APL gives a
listing credited to DEEN making it a galaxy at 12hr 12m 05.2s +14 03' 27".
Steinicke and NED have (Not found). SIMBAD Identifies it as "Uncertain object," and
gives it coordinates which land close to the APL candidate.
IC 3057.
Stewart #361. 12hr 12m 24.772s - 44 11' 41.054" (1950).
12hr 15m 02.421s - 44 28' 21.896" (2000).
Not found : The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the ESO each list as Not found.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO) each have the historical coordinates.
IC 3059.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #832. 12hr 12m 26.836s + 13 43' 18.960" (1950).
12hr 14m 59.624s + 13 26' 38.360" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is a galaxy of low surface brightness and appears fainter
than its given Mp 15.3 Carlson was unable to find it on the Mt. Wilson plates
she examined and recommended that it be removed from the IC II. The MOL was
evidently influenced by this as they list it as "May not exist." The CGCG, MCG,
Steinicke, UGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 and RC3 all correctly identify IC
3059.
NOTE: Frost's declination is about 1 arcmim too far south.
IC 3064.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #230. 12hr 12m 44.201s + 13 18' 34.022" (1950).
12hr 15m 16.999s + 13 01' 53.503" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4206 (H 165-2) : CGCG, UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD,
NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson and PGC all make IC 3064 = NGC 4206. RC2 lists only as NGC
4206.
IC 3065.
POSS. O-89.
Frost #834. 12hr 12m 44.755s + 14 41' 19.024" (1950).
12hr 15m 17.449s + 14 24' 38.504" (2000).
A confirmed galaxy : The CGCG (ZWG 98.114) incorrectly equates IC 3065 with IC
3077, both are separate galaxies, IC 3077 being ZWG 98.118 which the CGCG
identifies as being an "anon."
The NGC 2000 gives the type as (Nebula) while the MOL gives (Bright Nebula). The
MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3 and PGC each have the correct identity.
IC 3067.
POSS. O-135.
Javelle #1216. 12hr 12m 44.085s + 24 14' 08.273" (1950).
12hr 15m 16.016s + 23 57' 27.825" (2000).
This is equal to IC 772 (Bigourdan #170)
Javelle employs as his reference star DM + 24 2443 (12hr 13m 48s + 24 13' 23")
from which to measure his five claimed novae, IC 3067, IC 3082, IC 3084, IC 3089
and IC 3095. (This star is also AC #723752. (12hr 16m 20.745s + 23 56' 44.06"
J2000).
He placed only IC 3095 north of this star. The CGCG has identified the galaxy IC
772 as IC 3067 (IC 772 lies north of DM 24 2443), while Javelle #1216 was placed
south of the star, (the APL also makes this equivalency).
At Javelle's nominal position no nebular image exists, only a faint star.
There can be little doubt that Javelle in his Third Catalogue Part 2 has a
misprint in the sign for his declination separation from his reference star which
would then place his #1216 00' 44".3 north instead of south of this star, in
which case it would be equal to IC 772, Therefore there certainly is strong
support for such an equivalency.
NGC 2000 gives (GX) and their coordinates suggest that they are referring to IC
772, while the MOL gives (NSO), at Javelle's given position. UGC and MCG have no
listing for IC 3067. NED gives the single identity IC 3067, as does SIMBAD however,
when it comes to the identity IC 772 they state "There is no object with this name
in NED," and "Not present in the database," which is indeed curious as the first
discoverer of the object, Bigourdan, gives excellent coordinates for the identity IC
772 which he discovered about 15 years prior to Javelle's observation. Steinicke and
APL have (IC 3067 = IC 772).
NOTE: As Bigourdan's observation was made on April 6th 1888 and Javelle's on May
15th 1903 the correct discoverer is Bigourdan.
IC 3070.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #231. 12hr 12m 51.972s + 13 19' 03.051" (1950).
12hr 15m 24.760s + 13 02' 22.556" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson correctly describe it as
a star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3071.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #126. 12hr 12m 58.891s + 09 49' 29.176" (1950).
12hr 15m 31.932s + 09 32' 48.713" (2000).
This is a star : NGC 2000 lists Type as [?].
MOL states "May not exist." Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke give "Not Found."
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. APL (=*).
IC 3072.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #127. 12hr 13m 03.906s + 09 50' 05.495" (1950).
12hr 15m 36.943s + 09 33' 25.055" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Schwassmann gave excellent coordinates for NGC 4207
(12hr 12m 57.19s + 09 51' 49.4") and this lies close north preceding the very
faint star that is IC 3072. NGC 2000 lists Type as [?]. MOL states "May not
exist." Carlson describes as "Not Found." Steinicke has (=*) and NED and SIMBAD
have (Not found). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. APL (=*).
IC 3076.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #77. 12hr 13m 31.153s + 09 21' 24.099" (1950).
12hr 16m 04.204s + 09 04' 43.785" (2000).
This is a faint star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 gives Type as
[?]. MOL describes as "May not exist." Carlson, SIMBAD and NED list as "Not
Found." Steinicke identifies as IC 3076 as (=*). APL (=*).
IC 3077.
POSS. O-89.
Frost #839. 12hr 13m 32.693s + 14 41' 19.206" (1950).
12hr 16m 05.327s + 14 24' 38.905" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 98.118 and in the UGC
only as U07285 (these omissions listed in the PGC Corrections). Typed in the NGC
2000 as (Nebula) and in the MOL as (Faint Nebula). Correctly listed in the MCG,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, APL, RC3 and PGC.
IC 3080.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #842. 12hr 13m 38.702s + 14 26' 19.229" (1950).
12hr 16m 11.348s + 14 09' 38.956" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : NGC 2000 and MOL describe it as "nebula." CGCG, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, PGC and the APL give correct identity. UGC and MCG have no listing for
IC 3080.
IC 3083.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #844. 12hr 13m 50.793s + 12 52' 19.277" (1950).
12hr 16m 23.551s + 12 35' 39.067" (2000).
Not found : No nonstellar object visible at Frost's position.
Carlson lists it as "Not found, Harvard." The NGC 2000 gives (Type ?) and the MOL
states "May not exist." The APL gives (GX. Deen) at 12hr 13m 55.2 +12 51' 17".
Steinicke has (Not found). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: I am rejecting the candidate (GX Deen) due to the fact that in the majority
of Frost's offsets from the correct position of his objects measured on his Plate
# 6718 his coordinates land south following the object, eg; IC 3081, IC 3091 and
IC 3096. In the case of (GX Deen) his offset would be to the north preceding
side. As the coordinates on each plate were measured from reference stars any
offset errors would be expected to be relatively consistent.
IC 3085.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #128. 12hr 13m 53.239s + 09 44' 51.286" (1950).
12hr 16m 26.242s + 09 28' 11.077" (2000).
This is the preceding of a group of 3 stars : NGC 2000, Steinicke and MOL
correctly describe it as a star. CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing. NED has
"Name does not exist or no object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
APL (=*).
IC 3086.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #78. 12h 13m 54.909s + 09 17' 08.393" (1950).
12hr 16m 27.947s + 09 00' 28.192" (2000).
This is a faint double star with its components in contact: Carlson lists as "
Not found, Harvard." and the NGC 2000 gives Type as [?]. The MOL states "May not
exist." Steinicke has (= *2). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=**). No other modern listings
found.
IC 3087.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #234. 12hr 13m 54.692s + 13 33' 58.793" (1950).
12hr 16m 27.389s + 13 17' 18.597" (2000).
This is a wide double star : Schwassmann describes it as "Like a line PA 30."
which is confirmed by the double star's image. Schwassmann also measured the
position of NGC 4222, placing it 4s preceding and 1' 11" north of his # 234.
CGCG, UGC, NED, SIMBAD, MCG and PGC incorrect in making IC 3087 = NGC 4222.
NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson correctly describe it as "A double star."
APL (Equal to 2 stars).
IC 3088.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #129. 12hr 13m 56.158s + 09 44' 19.498" (1950).
12hr 16m 29.159s + 09 27' 39.303" (2000).
This is a star in a group of three : It is the most southern of the same 3 stars
which contains IC 3085 (the most preceding star).
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (*), the MOL as (single star). APL and Steinicke
(=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 3090.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #79. 12hr 13m 59.156s + 09 43' 02.910" (1950).
12hr 16m 32.157s + 09 26' 22.730" (2000).
Equal to a single star which is the south following component of a coarse double
star aligned north preceding south following :
Schwassmann describes it as "Very faint, Very small."
NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson list as "A double star." Steinicke lists as (=*2).
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has "Is a double star."
IC 3091.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #845. 12hr 14m 02.684s + 14 16' 19.325" (1950).
12hr 16m 35.314s + 13 59' 39.166" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy with a star attached to its south preceding edge : CGCG,
Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and MCG correctly list this galaxy. NGC 2000 and
MOL list it as "Double star." UGC has no listing.
IC 3096.
POSS. O-89.
Frost #848. 12hr 14m 26.618s + 14 46' 19.424" (1950).
12hr 16m 59.177s + 14 29' 39.385" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (Nebula) and in the MOL as (Bright
Nebula). Correctly identified in the CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and
MCG.
IC 3098.
POSS. O-1611.
Schwassmann #55. 12hr 14m 36.611s + 07 28' 07.265" (1950).
12hr 17m 09.766s + 07 11' 27.262" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4235. (H 172). The CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, MCG,
PGC, Carlson, APL, NGC 2000 and MOL all correctly give the equivalency.
IC 3102.
POSS. O-1611.Schwassmann #6. 12hr 14m 52.756s + 06 57' 59.534" (1950).
12hr 17m 25.943s + 06 41' 19.610" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4223. : The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, Carlson, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and
MOL all give the equivalency IC 3102 = NGC 4241. The APL, NED and Steinicke make the
equivalency IC 3102 = NGC 4223
NOTE : See IC 3115.
IC 3103.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #81. 12hr 14m 56.024s + 09 38' 15.348" (1950).
12hr 17m 28.985s + 09 21' 35.452" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, APL, MOL and Carlson all list it as
"Single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3106.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #130. 12hr 15m 13.211s + 09 53' 29.724" (1950).
12hr 17m 46.137s + 09 36' 49.917" (2000).
This is a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3106. NGC 2000 gives
no Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke and APL make it (=*). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 3109.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #852 : 12hr 15m 14.658s + 13 25' 19.631" (1950).
12hr 17m 47.276s + 13 08' 39.840" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 069.134 as being IC
3109, it should be ZWG 069.131. The MCG Lists it only as +2-31-81. Correctly
listed in APL, NED, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke has the correct
identity. PGC and SIMBAD incorrectly cross reference it with ZWG 069.134 but as
stated it is ZWG 069.131 that is the correct equivalency.
IC 3113.
POSS. O-1611.
Schwassmann #7. 12hr 15m 24.830s + 07 27' 51.675" (1950).
12hr 17m 57.956s + 07 11' 11.922" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4246 (H 913). The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD, Carlson, NGC 2000 and MOL all have the correct equivalency.
IC 3114.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #82. 12hr 15m 24.157s + 09 24' 43.273" (1950).
12hr 17m 57.115s + 09 08' 03.524" (2000).
This is a single star : Schwassmann described it as "cF, vS, like a star 12-13
mag." NGC 2000 gives Type as [?]. MOL describes as "May not exist." Carlson
lists as "Not Found." Steinicke identifies as (=*). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." APL (=*).
IC 3115.
POSS. O-1611.
Schwassmann #8. 12hr 15m 26.578s +06 55' 51.083" (1950).
12hr 17m 59.749s + 06 39' 11.336" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4241 = H 480-3 : In the past I have listed the identity IC
3115 as being a separate galaxy, however, after re-examining the problem from the
argument as given by Dr. Harold Corwin in his NGC Bugs List I am delighted to say
that his findings have convinced me that IC 3115 is indeed the same galaxy seen by
William Herschel and assigned the identity H 480-3 = NGC 4241 and that IC 3102 is
equal to NGC 4223.
The CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, NGC 2000 and MOL have each identified IC 3115
as a separate galaxy. Steinicke and APL have (= NGC 4241).
(See IC 3102. Also the excellent account in Corwin's NGC data files).
IC 3117.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #83. 12hr 15m 31.406s + 09 20' 57.805" (1950).
12hr 18m 04.364s + 09 04' 18.095" (2000).
This is a star with a fainter companion close north following: NGC 2000 lists
Type as [?]. MOL describes as "May not exist." Carlson lists as "Not Found."
Steinicke identifies it as (=*). APL (Double star). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 3121.
POSS O-1385.
Frost #854. 12hr 15m 50.608s + 13 31' 19.794" (1950).
12hr 18m 23.175s + 13 14' 40.194" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is equal to VIII ZW 178 at 12hr 15m 44.81s + 13 32' 06".4
Steinicke lists it as (= 8ZW 178). The NGC 2000 has (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
The PGC identifies it as only as (8ZW 178). SIMBAD identifies it as [DCY96] 10.
Correctly identified in NED. APL "Pair in contact."
IC 3123.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #37. 12hr 15m 54.664s + 08 20' 33.712" (1950).
12hr 18m 27.693s + 08 03' 54.123" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all correctly list
it as "A single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (defect or
star).
IC 3124.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #132. 12hr 15m 55.097s + 09 51' 52.014" (1950).
12hr 18m 27.990s + 09 35' 12.432" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all correctly list
it as "A single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3125.
POSS O-135.
Wolf List IV, No. 6. 12hr 15m 54.308s + 24 38' 35.391" (1950).
12hr 18m 25.784s +24 21' 55.875" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Not listed in the CGCG, MCG, UGC. Steinicke
identifies it as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3129.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #133. 12hr 16m 12.012s + 09 52' 19.894" (1950).
12hr 18m 44.890s + 09 35' 40.404" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL Steinicke and Carlson all list it as "A
single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3130.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #38. 12hr 16m 16.835s + 08 30' 30.116" (1950).
12hr 18m 49.833s + 08 13' 50.651" (2000).
This is a single star (the 3rd most southerly) in a group of 4: NGC gives Type
as [?]. MOL lists as "May not exist." Carlson states "Not Found." CGCG, UGC
and MCG have no listing. Steinicke has (= *4). NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED. SIMBAD "Not present inn the database." APL "At least 2 stars."
IC 3131.
(See IC 3132).
IC 3132.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #40. 12hr 16m 18.313s + 08 08' 22.523" (1950).
12hr 18m 51.343s + 07 51' 43.064" (2000).
This is equal to IC 3131. (Schwassmann #39) :
Schwassmann gives 2 nebulae (IC 3131 and IC 3132), with almost the same
coordinates, those for IC 3131 being 12hr 16m 17.683s + 08 08' 23.320" (1950).
When these are applied to the DSS they show that both are for the same galaxy.
Steinicke has (IC 3132 = IC 3131). CGCG, NGC 2000, MOL Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and PGC
all make IC 3132 = IC 3131. The MCG list as IC 3131-2. APL makes the equivalency.
IC 3133.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #41. 12hr 16m 22.277s + 07 55 07.342" (1950).
12hr 18m 55.325s + 07 38' 27.904" (2000).
This is a star in a group of 3 stars : Carlson lists as "Not found, Harvard. "
Steinicke and APL (= *3) and the only other modern listings are NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 and
MOL who both indicate that its identity is dubious.
IC 3139.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #85. 12hr 16m 28.146s + 09 24' 22.871" (1950).
12hr 19m 01.053s + 09 07' 43.472" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all make it "A
single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3140.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.8. 12hr 16m 26.517s + 27 24' 27.512" (1950).
12hr 18m 57.613s + 27 07' 48.181" (2000).
This is a star : NGC give it without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object).
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 3142.
POSS. O-1385.
Frost #860. 12hr 16m 32.498s + 14 15' 19.993" (1950).
12hr 19m 04.948s + 13 58' 40.622" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : NGC 2000 and the MOL list it as "Nebula." CGCG, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, PGC, APL, UGC and MCG list it correctly.
IC 3145.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.12. 12hr 16m 39.565s +24 34' 19.702" (1950).
12hr 19m 10.949s + 24 17' 40.437" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position there is only the image of two extremely
faint stars which would appear to be at least of the 20th Mp. It is possible that
Wolf's original plate had a spurious image caused by a photographic defect.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3150.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #43. 12hr 16m 56.391s + 08 4' 27.409" (1950).
12hr 19m 29.402s + 07 47' 48.166" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson list as "Not found, Harvard." NGC 2000 lists as [?]
and MOL as " May not exist." Not listed in UGC, MCG or DSFG. Correctly
identified in CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and RC3.
IC 3158.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #87. 12hr 17m 15.833s + 09 34' 09.407" (1950).
12hr 19m 48.688s + 09 17' 30.283" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, APL and Carlson all correctly
make it "A single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3160.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #88. 12hr 17m 27.659s + 09 22' 42.468" (1950).
12hr 20m 00.523s + 09 06' 03.413" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all correctly
identify as "A single star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3161.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #89. 12hr 17m 28.477s + 09 16' 32.772" (1950).
12hr 20m 01.350s + 08 59' 53.722" (2000).
This is the north preceding component of a double star : NGC 2000, MOL and
Carlson correctly describe it as "Double star." Steinicke has (= *). CGCG, UGC
and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3162.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #90. 12hr 17m 30.336s + 09 16' 28.082" (1950).
12hr 20m 03.208s + 08 59' 49.043" (2000).
This is the south following component of the same double star (IC 3161) :
NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all make it "Double star." Steinicke has (*). CGCG,
UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3163.
POSS. O-1385.
Schwassmann #90x 12hr 17m 30.724s + 09 32' 02.784" (1950).
12hr 20m 03.570s + 09 15' 23.747" (2000).
This is a double star : NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all make it "A
double star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=**?)
IC 3164.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.18. 12hr 17m 33.985s + 25 14'.03.098" (1950).
12hr 20m 05.173s + 24 57' 24.053" (2000).
This is a pair of faint stars : Steinicke also lists it as (=*2), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." No additional listings. APL (= double star).
IC 3166.
POSS. O-1427.
Swift List XII. #10. 12hr 17m 30.039s + 60 58' 20.300" (1950).
12hr 19m 54.019s + 60 41' 41.484" (2000).
Not found : The only modern sources to list this identity are NGC 2000 (No Type),
Steinicke, SIMBAD, and NED (Not found) and MOL (NSO). APL (See Corwin's Files).
IC 3169.
POSS. O- 1398.
Wolf List IV, No.22. 12hr 17m 50.631s + 25 52' 33.224" (1950).
12hr 20m 21.705s + 25 35' 54.287" (2000).
Declination error. Given as 1 degree too far north :
Dreyer in the IC II gives the declination for the year 1950 as + 26 52'.5, whereas
Wolf gives + 25 52' 33". Wolf places IC 3171 at 12hr 17m 52s + 25 50' 16" and
also shows a separation between IC 3169 and IC 3171 of -2.5 tsec and + 2' 17" of
arc. I checked this out on the Palomar print and there is the image of a galaxy
exactly where Wolf puts IC 3169 in relation to IC 3171.
Because of the IC II error the NGC 2000 and MOL have an error of +1 degree in
declination. CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing at either declination. APL
and Steinicke have correct declination. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED," however, they list it as 2MASX J12202133+2535582. SIMBAD has "Not
present in the database,"
IC 3177.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #866. 12hr 18m 02.373s + 14 24' 20.451" (1950).
12hr 20m 34.697s + 14 07' 41.610" (2000).
Not found : NGC 2000 list without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). CGCG,
UGC and MCG have no listing. Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 3178.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.26. 12hr 18m 04.792s + 26 26' 57.333" (1950).
12hr 20m 35.763s + 26 10' 18.483" (2000).
This is a star : Previously I had thought this was the brighter of two associated
galaxies, however, I now believe that it is the brightest of 3 stars forming a
triangle immediately preceding the brighter or preceding of 2 galaxies, which is
IC 3179.
I base this upon the consistency of Wolf's positional error which places his
nominal positions to land just off the Following or South Following edge of the
images he is identifying, and for IC 3178 his coordinates place it just off the
following edge of this star.
Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both reflecting Wolf's Coordinates.
Steinicke and APL have (= *). NED lists only the brighter galaxy identifying it
only as MAPS-NGP 0-321-1295962. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
The PGC has only one identity, IC 3179 and correctly makes it the preceding of the
two galaxies.
IC 3179.
POSS. O-1398
Wolf List IV, No.27. 12hr 18m 07.085s +26 26' 34.350" (1950).
12hr 20m 38.051s + 26 09' 55.514" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is the brighter and preceding of the two associated
galaxies following the small triangle of stars, one of which is Wolf's object
identified as IC 3178, (which see).
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), both at the historical
coordinates. PGC which has the correct identity and Steinicke who correctly lists
it.
NOTE: After sending my findings on the two identities IC 3178 and IC 3179 to Dr.
Corwin I am happy to say that he kindly examined my arguments and informed me that
he is in complete agreement with my conclusions.
IC 3180.
POSS. O-1427.
Swift List XII.#11. 12hr 17m 59.777s + 60 58' 20.457" (1950).
12hr 20m 23.500s + 60 41' 41.819" (2000).
Not found : Listed in NGC 2000 without any type. Oddly enough I was unable to
find any listing for this identity in the MOL. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not
found). APL (See Corwin's Files). No other listing in the other modern catalogues.
IC 3181.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.28. 12hr 18m 12.155s + 29 37' 22.392" (1950).
12hr 20m 43.590s + 29 20' 43.590" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4286 (H 300-1) : CGCG, UGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, NGC
2000, MOL, APL, RC2 (Notes), Carlson and PGC all correctly equate IC 3181 with NGC
4286.
IC 3182.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #237. 12hr 18m 15.475s + 13 00' 17.021" (1950).
12hr 20m 47.929s + 12 43' 38.268" (2000).
This is a triple star : NGC 2000 and MOL make it "Three stars." Carlson
describes it as "Group of 3 stars." Steinicke has (= *3). CGCG, UGC and MCG have
no listing for IC 3182. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." APL (= **2).
IC 3183.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #9. 12hr 18m 16.073s + 06 57' 55.222" (1950).
12hr 20m 49.143s + 06 41' 16.451" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson make it a "Single
star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL makes it a double star.
IC 3190.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #136. 12hr 18m 30.136s + 09 50' 50.400" (1950).
12hr 21m 02.903s + 09 34' 11.727" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL Steinicke, APL and Carlson all give "Single
star." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3191.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #45. 12hr 18m 32.283s + 07 58' 54.011" (1950).
12hr 21m 05.238s + 07 42' 15.346" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL states "May not exist."
Carlson has "Not Found." Steinicke and APL have (=*). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 3197.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.37. 12hr 18m 55.226s +25 43' 13.732" (1950).
12hr 21m 26.169s + 25 26' 35.196" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and
Steinicke (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." "NED "There is no
object with this name in NED."
IC 3198.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.38. 12hr 19m 00.457s +26 38' 38.775" (1950).
12hr 21m 31.269s + 26 22' 00.275" (2000).
This is the south following of two faint star : Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL as (NSO). Steinicke and APL correctly have (=*). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3208.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #872. 12hr 19m 26.479s + 12 14' 20.917"(1950).
12hr 21m 58.939s + 11 57' 42.614" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : . Frost's description "Pretty large, Very much extended at
PA 70 degrees," is impossible to distinguish as such on the Palomar blue print in my
possession, although it can be readily confirmed on the DSS Second Generation.
NGC 2000 has no Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL gives (GX. Adamik).
CGCG and MCG have no listing. The UGC identifies it only as U07421 and this is
the identity in the PGC and SIMBAD. Steinicke has the correct identity. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." but does identify it as UGC 07421.
IC 3214.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.50. 12hr 19m 38.766s + 27 30' 49.095" (1950).
12hr 22m 09.369s + 27 14' 10.842" (2000).
This is a single star : Steinicke identifies it as (=*). NGC 2000 lists without
Type. MOL lists as a (Nonstellar Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." APL (=*).
IC 3223.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #137. 12hr 19m 57.840s + 09 45' 51.700" (1950).
12hr 22m 30.543s + 09 29' 13.599" (2000).
Not found : Schwassmann describes it as "vF, pS. Among 3 vF *."
His nominal position lands midway between the two most southerly of the 3 stars
where nothing exists. NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all list it as a
single star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." APL (Possible defect).
IC 3226.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.58. 12hr 20m 04.473s + 26 20' 40.315" (1950).
12hr 22m 35.172s + 26 04' 02.238" (2000).
Equal to 2 stars : NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Steinicke has (*2) and NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
APL has (* possibly **?)
IC 3229.
POSS. 0-1560.
Schwassmann #14. 12h 20m 11.325s +16 57' 16.680" 91950).
12hr 22m 44.329s + 06 40' 38.659" (2000).
Unable to resolve : Until recently I was of the opinion that Schwassman's object
was the galaxy UGC 7448 which follows IC 3225, however, after reading Dr. Corwin's
files I am left in somewhat of a quandary as his statement in regards to
Schwassmann's coordinates placing IC 3229 5 tsec following IC 3225, whereas UGC
7448 lies about 14 tsec following IC 3225, is quite true and in order to accept
that Schwassmann has such an error in measuring is as Corwin says "unlikely,"
based upon the high degree of accuracy usually found with Schwassmann's
coordinates and which is illustrated by his coordinates for IC 3225.
It is possible that Schwassmann's RA reflects a transcription error, however,
there is absolutely no evidence to support this, therefore I would say that at
present I would have to favor Corwin's conclusions regarding this identity, which
dispute IC 3229 being equal to UGC 7448.
The NGC 2000, MOL, UGC, CGCG, MCG, RC3, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke each select
and identify the galaxy UGC 7448 as being IC 3229.
IC 3232.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.63. 12hr 20m 17.310s + 24 42' 12.426" (1950).
12hr 22m 48.199s + 24 25' 34.421" (2000).
This is a star : Correctly identified by Steinicke. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type).
MOL (NSO).
IC 3245.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #883. 12hr 20m 44.687s + 09 24' 21.384" (1950).
12hr 23m 17.392s + 09 07' 43.604" (2000).
Not found : NGC 2000 lists Type as [?]. MOL describes as "May not exist."
Carlson states " Not Found ". Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found). CGCG, UGC and
MCG have no listing. APL has "defect on Harvard plate."
IC 3246.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #240. 12hr 20m 45.291s + 13 19' 44.089" (1950).
12hr 23m 17.542s + 13 03' 06.322" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Definite galaxy image exactly at the given coordinates.
Schwassmann describes it "Like a line" which suggests that he considered it to be
extended, however the image on the Palomar print does not indicate this.
Steinicke and APL have correct object. NED has (No object with this name in NED",
however, they list it as VPC 0272, as does SIMBAD. NGC 2000 lists without Type.
MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Identified in
the PGC only as #40202.
IC 3247.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.69. 12hr 20m 44.107s + 29 10' 12.667" (1950).
12hr 23m 14.308s + 28 53' 34.865" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is not equal to NGC 4338 (D'Arrest). D'Arrest's
declination differs from the declination given to IC 3247 by ~ 20' of arc. It is
unlikely that what D'Arrest was describing even exists as in his description he
states "Extremely difficult due to twilight," which means that he would have had
to have been able to see an object of Mp 15.6 in a telescope of 28 cm aperture
during twilight, something I find difficult to accept, especially as no object is
visible on the Palomar print at these coordinates.
CGCG, UGC, APL, NED, Steinicke and MCG have correct identity. NGC 2000
incorrectly equate IC 3247 with NGC 4338 as does the PGC and SIMBAD. MOL correctly
identifies IC 3247 , however, it gives incorrect coordinate data for NGC 4338 ( RA
off by-10s and Declination off by - 21' from both D'Arrest's and Dreyer's
positions), thus suggesting that IC 3247 and NGC 4338 are equivalent identities.
Carlson lists IC 3247 = NGC 4338 ?, quoting as her source Reinmuth (1926) who lists
NGC 4338 as "Not Found. = IC 3247 ?."
IC 3248.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.70. 12hr 20m 46.213s + 25 49' 45.684" (1950).
12hr 23m 16.885s + 25 33' 07.892" (2000).
This is a very faint star : Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO).
Steinicke correctly makes it a star. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3250.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.72. 12hr 20m 47.595s + 25 54' 20.696" (1950).
12hr 23m 18.253s + 25 37' 42.916" (2000).
This is a very faint star : Correctly identified as such by Steinicke. Listed in
the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database.
IC 3251.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.73. 12hr 20m 48.387s + 25 55' 51.703" (1950).
12hr 23m 19.040s + 25 39' 13.929" (2000).
Not found : Probably a photographic defect on the original plate I was unable to
see any image at the precise spot. Steinicke lists as (Not found)). The NGC 2000
has (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3252.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.74. 12hr 20m 55.413s + 28 53' 44.769" (1950).
12hr 23m 25.624s + 28 37' 07.046" (2000).
This is a single star or at best a double star :
Wolf's nominal position lies on the following edge of a star which lies among a
small group of about 5 stars. No associated nebulosity evident.
Only modern listings are Steinicke (= * group), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (Open cluster) and MOL
(Open cluster). APL (**). Both of these types are most likely based upon Dreyer's
IC description which reads "F,S,iF,?cL." which would suggest that Wolf's use of the
abbreviation cL, means cluster, however, having looked at a number of Wolf's
descriptions for other identities (including some obvious nonstellar images of
single NGC galaxies for which he included the same abbreviation) it would seem that
he was not referring to the typing as being an open star cluster.
NOTE : Wolf in his INTRODUCTION to his List #3 includes an explanation for each
of the abbreviated forms he applies to his descriptions, however, there is no
listing of the abbreviation cL except in the context of size of an object
(considerably large).
IC 3254.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #884. 12hr 21m 01.559s + 19 44' 21.493" (1950).
12hr 23m 33.006s + 19 27' 43.857" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4336 (H 406-2) : The CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, UGC, MCG,
MOL, SIMBAD and PGC all correctly equate the two identities as does Carlson (= NGC
4336.Harvard Annals 88. 1930).
IC 3256 and IC 3260.
POSS. O-1560.
Bigourdan #291. 12hr 21m 06.095s + 07 19' 51.477" (1950)
12 23 39.025s + 07 03' 13.867 (2000). (IC 3256).
Bigourdan #294. 12hr 21m 20.490s + 07 23 05.780" (1950).
12hr 23m 53.406s + 07 06' 28.274" (2000). (IC 3260).
Wm. Herschel was the first to report on the field and he listed 3 objects (H 94-3,
H 95-3 and H96-3). He gave only a single position, 12hr 21m 01.7s + 07 14' 38".
Later John Herschel examined the field and reported seeing only a single object
which he identified as being H 94-3, giving it coordinates of 12hr 21m 05.3s + 07
13'.1.
Dreyer included in the NGC all 3 of Wm. Herschel's claimed objects and recorded
them as follows.
H 94-3 = NGC 4343. 12hr 21m 06s = 07 13'.8
H 95-3 = NGC 4341. 12hr 21m 05s + 07 15'.5
H 96-3 = NGC 4342. 12hr 21m 05s + 07 15'.5
Bigourdan examined the field on two occasions, April 25th 1895 and May 8th 1907.
On both nights he searched for Wm. Herschel's 3 nebulae but stated that he only
found NGC 4341, placing it at 12hr 21m 05s + 07 13' 01' and that he
did not find either NGC 4342 or NGC 4343, however, based upon Dreyer's given NGC
identities it would appear that Bigourdan's coordinates for what he identifies as
being NGC 4341 are in better agreement with what Dreyer had given for NGC 4343.
Next Bigourdan claimed discovery of 2 Novae in the immediate field containing his
NGC identity. The first Nova (B #291) he places at 12hr 21m 06.095s + 07 19'
51.477" (1950) and it received the identity IC 3256, while the second Nova (B
#294) he places at 12hr 21m 20.490s + 07 23' 05.780 (1950)."
Now as these two Novae are in the same field as the one he identifies as being one
of Herschel's three one must wonder why he did not question whether they might be
indeed Wm. Herschel's claimed objects, instead he evidently assumed that as they
were not at the positions as given by Dreyer for Wm. Herschel's "missing" pair
they had to be new discoveries, however, if Bigourdan was able to see them then it
is almost certain that Herschel would have and therefore what Bigourdan claimed as
his # 291 and #294 are in fact equal to NGC 4341 and NGC 4342 and when Bigourdan's
coordinates for these 2 identities are compared with the modern data it shows that
IC 3256 is equal to NGC 4342 and IC 3260 is equal to NGC 4341.
The CGCG gives the single identities IC 3256 and IC 3260. The UGC correctly
equates IC 3256 with NGC 4342 and IC 3260 with NGC 4341 as does the PGC, SIMBAD and
NED.
The MCG makes NGC 4342-3 = NGC 4341 which is entirely incorrect as they are 3
separate galaxies, then gives the single identities IC 3256 and IC 3260.
Carlson also correctly gives the IC and NGC equivalencies as does the APL,
Steinicke, RC3 and DSFG.
NOTE: Bigourdan's reference star for his # 293 and #294 is equal to AC 319831 at
12hr 23m 36.033s +07 10' 36.93 (2000) and when his offsets, (+0 tmin 2.972 tsec RA
and - 7 arcmin 23.100 arcsec Dec) and (+ 0 tmin 17.29 tsec RA and - 4 arcmin 10.9
arcsec Dec.) are applied to this star they land on NGC 4342 and NGC 4341
respectively.
IC 3257.
POSS. O-1560.
Bigourdan #292. 12hr 21m 11.737s + 07 31 51.259" (1950).
12hr 23m 44.639s + 07 15' 13.642" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without any Type.
MOL states "May not exist." Carlson, Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED list as "Not
Found."
NOTE: Bigourdan incorrectly gave the 1900 declination of his reference star BD
+8-2594 as + 07 43' 52". It is equal to AC #319824 at 12hr 23m 30.175s + 07 18'
57.14" (2000) It is equal to GSC 288-075 at 12hr 20m 56.941" +07 35' 33.699"
(1950), and its declination for 1900 is + 07 52' 13.462".
When Bigourdan's offsets are applied to the AC star the correct coordinates for IC
3257 would be 12hr 21m 11.737s + 07 31' 51.259" (1950) and 12hr 23m 44.639s + 07
15' 13.642" (2000).
Now when these coordinates are entered into the DSS (First Generation) they land
right on an image that appears decidedly nebular, however, this same image is no
longer visible on either the Red or Blue versions for DSS (Second generation), the
closest image being of extreme faintness.
It is my opinion that the First Generation image is spurious and that Bigourdan's
object #292 = IC 3257 is Not found.
IC 3260
(See IC 3256).
IC 3262.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.75. 12hr 21m 17.957s + 27 40' 10.975" (1950).
12hr 23m 48.290s + 27 23' 33.406" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL have correct
identity. UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL describe it as "Open
cluster."
IC 3265.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #48. 12hr 21m 26.622s + 08 04' 51.748" (1950).
12hr 23m 59.450s + 07 48' 14.261" (2000).
This is a star close north of NGC 4353 (Peters) : Schwassmann makes it clear in
his description that he suspected that it might possibly be a star, also his
positional data shows that there is no equivalency between IC 3265 and IC 3266.
NGC 2000 lists it with Type [?]. MOL states "May not exist." CGCG lists as IC
3265 = IC 3266 = NGC 4353 ?. RC2 (Notes) list IC 3265 + IC 3266 = NGC 4353. MCG
lists as IC 3265-IC 3266. PGC makes IC 3265 = IC 3266 = NGC 4353 as does SIMBAD
UGC has no listing. APL (= *). Steinicke has (=*). Carlson correctly makes IC
3265 "Single star." NED equates NGC 4353 with both IC 3265 and IC 3266.
IC 3266.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #49. 12hr 21m 27.503s + 08 03' 43.754" (1950).
12hr 24m 00.333s + 07 47' 06.273" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4353:
The CGCG and PGC both equate IC 3266 with IC 3265 = NGC 4353. NGC 2000, MOL and
Carlson equate IC 3266 with NGC 4353. MCG equates IC 3266 with IC 3265. UGC has
no listing. Steinicke and APL have (= NGC 4353 = IC 3265). NED has NGC 4353 = IC
3265 and IC 3266 as does SIMBAD
NOTE : (See IC 3265).
IC 3273.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #95. 12hr 21m 42.253s + 08 48' 54.849" (1950).
12hr 24m 14.983s + 08 32' 17.479" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4356 (H 481-3) : CGCG, UGC and MCG all only give the
identity IC 3273. NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and Carlson
correctly make IC 3273 = NGC 4356. RC3 gives the single identity NGC 4356.
IC 3279.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #242. 12hr 21m 51.976s + 13 07' 42.814" (1950).
12hr 24m 24.177s + 12 51' 05.526" (2000).
This consists of a pair of stars : Schwassmann himself stated that perhaps it was
2 stars. Listed in the NGC 2000 (= *) and the MOL (single star). Steinicke has
(*2), Carlson (* Harvard). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (**).
IC 3280.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #888. 12hr 21m 50.188s + 13 29' 21.802" (1950).
12hr 24m 22.346s + 13 12' 44.498" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 70.054. Listed in MCG only as
+2-32-30. UGC has no listing. NGC 2000, Steinicke and MOL give correct identity.
The PGC gives only the MCG and CGCG identities. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED" but then they list it as VCC 0729. SIMBAD ha "Not present in the
database," but lists it as MCG +02-32-030.
IC 3281.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #51. 12hr 21m 55.080s + 08 05' 46.032" (1950).
12hr 24m 27.887s + 07 49' 08.753" (2000).
Not found : Schwassmann describes this object a "Pretty bright and Considerably
bright, like a star of mag. 9 or 10." There is no object fitting this
description in the position given by its discoverer. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing for IC 3281. NGC lists with the Type as [?]. MOL states "May not
exist." Carlson states "Not Found." Steinicke has (Not found). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (Not
found).
IC 3282.
POSS O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.84. 12hr 21m 57.637s + 25 56' 52.348" (1950).
12hr 24m 28.125s + 25 40' 15.071" (2000).
This is a very faint star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO).
Correctly listed as (=*) by Steinicke. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3285.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.86. 12hr 22m 03.171s + 25 08' 12.400" (1950).
12hr 24m 33.764s + 24 51' 35.154" (2000).
At the nominal position there is only the image of a very faint star :
Wolf describes it as "in long diffuse nebulosity," which suggests that there was a
photographic defect involved in the original plate.
NGC lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have
no listing. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED list as (Not found).
IC 3294.
POSS. O-135.
Wolf List IV, No.90. 12hr 22m 19.274s + 25 52' 30.557" (1950).
12hr 24m 49.722s + 25 35' 53.440" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Wolf himself classified it as (?) :
Its appearance to me is that of a very faint star ? yet it does suggest having a
softer image than similar stars in the field.
Steinicke identifies it as (=*). NGC 2000 gives no Type. MOL lists as(Nonstellar
Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The GSC 2.2. classifies it
as being a star.
IC 3295.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.91. 12hr 22m 18.956s + 28 59' 05.557" (1950).
12hr 24m 48.933s + 28 42' 28.440" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no image is visible, the closest star being
beyond the error level of Wolf's coordinate.
NGC 2000 lists without any Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). CGCG, UGC and
MCG have no listing. Steinicke has (= *). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL "Nothing here."
IC 3297.
POSS. 0-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.93. 12 22m 28.311s +27 02' 44.646" (1950).
12hr 24m 58.562s +26 46' 07.592" (2000).
This is a single star:
NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL has (NSO). Only other listings are APL and
Steinicke (=*). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED "There is no object with
this name in NED."
IC 3301.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #894. 12hr 22m 38,022s + 14 26' 22.121" (1950).
12hr 25m 10.004s + 14 09' 45.171" (2000).
Probably equal to IC 3307 (Frost #896) :
Frost listed two galaxies (#894 = IC 3301 and #896 = IC 3307) as being 0.2m apart
in RA. I was able to find only one on the Palomar print and it fits Frost's data
for IC 3307. At the nominal position for IC 3301 there is only a 10th mag star.
NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL makes IC 3301 equal to a single star. Carlson
lists IC 3307 as a star and quotes Harvard Annals, 88, as equating IC 3301 and IC
3307. This equivalency is strengthened by the fact that IC 3301 and IC 3307 were
discovered on separate plates at Harvard.
CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD, UGC and MCG have no listings for either IC 3301 or IC 3307. The
APL Gives "= IC 3307."
Steinicke identifies IC 3301 as equal to IC 3307. NED has no identities for either
IC 3301 and IC 3307.
NOTE: Additional support that IC 3301 is equal to IC 3307 is that concerning
offset error. IC 3301 was measured on Plate # 6720 and the nominal position lands
south preceding IC 3307.
IC 3280 was also measured on this same plate and the offset error is also south
preceding by a similar amount, which suggests that Frost's reference star was
subject to positional error.
IC 3307 was measured on Plate # 6718 and the nominal position lands south
following the galaxy as do all other adjacent Plate # 6718 objects measured by
Frost.
IC 3307.
(See IC 3301).
IC 3310.
POSS. O-1576.
Bigourdan #297. 12hr 22m 38.419s + 15 57' 02.967" (1950).
12hr 25m 10.204s + 15 40' 25.806" (2000). (COMPTES RENDUS).
12hr 23 23.490s + 15 57' 27.097" (1950).
12hr 25m 55.213s + 15 40' 50.464" (2000). (OBSERVATIONS).
This is equal to a star located in the north preceding edge of NGC 4396 :
The first publication for this identity is found in the COMPTES RENDUS JAN. 11
1897 in which it is given a rough position of 12 hr 23m 03s +15 57'.0 (1950) and
described as being of magnitude 13.4, diffuse, from 15 to 20 arcsecs in
diameter, having a condensation that is stellar and just visible.
When this position is examined on the Palomar print or DSS there is found the
image of a faint double star (probably only the primary would have been within the
range of Bigourdan's telescope). It is this image that is most likely the one
selected by Carlson and subsequently the NGC 2000 and MOL as being Bigourdan's
B297 = IC 3310.
In Bigourdan's 1919 OBSERVATIONS he publishes as his reference star the 11.5 Mv
Anon.(4) which would have 1950 coordinates of 12hr 24m 15s + 16 03' 21" and from
this position he gives his IC 3310 separations of - 6 tsecs -49 arcsecs which
would result in coordinates for IC 3310 of about 12hr 24m 09s + 16 02' 32"
(1950). When these are applied to the Palomar print or DSS they gives no image at
all, being approximately 6 tsec preceding a 9th Mp star.
This is confusing as we can see that he has given two sets of coordinates more
than 1 tmin apart, however, he gives us in his 1919 work some additional data that
I feel is conclusive.
He adds as a footnote that his reference star Anon.(4) is distant from NGC 4379 by
+ 0 tmin 49 tsec and + 5 arcmin and by computing the position he gives for NGC
4379, which by the way is excellent, 12hr 22m 43s + 15 53' 11" (1950) and then
applying his stated offsets we have him placing his star Anon. (4) at 12 hr 23m
32s + 15 58' 11" (1950) which is considerably different from the published
coordinates and now by measuring his stated offsets (- 6 tsec and - 49 arcsec)
would give IC 3310 coordinates of 12hr 23m 26s + 15 57' 22" (1950).
The APL gives coordinates for NGC 4396 of 12hr 23m 27.5s + 15 56' 53" (1950) and I
originally considered that perhaps IC 3310 would then be equal to NGC 4396,
however, Bigourdan measured both identities on the same night and these positions
are extremely close , so close that I am unable to accept that he would be
measuring and describing the same image as two different objects.
The reference star Bigourdan employs for his observation of NGC 4396 he lists as
Anon. (3), this is equal to AC #541901 at 12hr 26m 01.255s +15 41' 39.56 (2000)
and his separation values for NGC 4396 are - 2 tsec and - 1 arcmin 24 arcsec and
this is reflected as being accurate on the photographic print and when the
separation values for his IC 3310 are measured on the same print from this same 11
mag. star they come down exactly upon a 13th mag. star located in the north
preceding extension of NGC 4396 and would fit Bigourdan's description for his IC
3310, therefore I believe now that this star is IC 3310 and that the reference
star as published in Bigourdan's 1919 work is incorrect and that he was actually
using the same reference star for both NGC 4396 and IC 3310. The latest version
(March 31st 2005) of Steinicke's NGC/IC Catalogue is in agreement with my
conclusion as is Corwin (Jan. 16th 2004). NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." And SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3318.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #139. 12hr 23m 17.489s + 10 02' 27.992" (1950).
12hr 25m 49.993s + 09 45' 51.342" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all make IC 3318 =
a star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3319.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #140. 12hr 23m 18.416s + 10 40' 04.398" (1950).
12hr 25m 50.839s + 10 23' 27.762" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : It is not equivalent to NGC 4390 (H 39-3).
Bigourdan measured NGC 4390 and his coordinates would place NGC 4390 4' 41" north
of the position given to IC 3319 by Schwassmann, (PGC gives a declination for NGC
4390 4arcmin 10arcsec north of Schwassmann), also Schwassmann's description
"Considerably faint , or pretty faint, pretty small" does not match NGC 4390 (Mp
13.7 CGCG). NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all make IC 3319 = NGC 4390. CGCG, UGC,
PGC and MCG have no listing. The APL has (Not found; nominal position. = NGC
4390=IC 3320?) Steinicke has (NF). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED."SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3320.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #155. 12hr 23m 17.998s + 10 44' 06.595" (1950).
12hr 25m 50.413s + 10 27' 29.957" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4390 (H 39-3) : NGC 2000, MOL, APL and Carlson all equate
IC 3320 with NGC 4390. CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have only the identity NGC 4390.
The APL equates IC 3320 with NGC 4390 and Steinicke equates IC 3320 with NGC 4390.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 3323.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.107. 12hr 23m 18.562s + 27 49' 10.151" (1950).
12hr 25m 48.567s + 27 32' 33.483" (2000).
This is a superposed star Examination of the image of NGC 4393 (H 361-3) on the
Palomar print shows at Wolf's position what is a foreground star located on the
south preceding edge of NGC 4393. Wolf in his description clearly indicates that
he is referring to this associated
object, "Nebulous star attached to NGC 4393." and that he is well aware of the
identity of the prominent galaxy, indeed he identifies and gives very precise
coordinates for NGC 4393 (his object #111, 12hr 23m 21.1s + 27 50' 20"), which
land right on the nucleus of NGC 4393.
CGCG and UGC equate IC 3323 with NGC 4393. MCG, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD and PGC lists
as IC 3323 = IC 3329 = NGC 4393. Steinicke and APL have (=*). MOL lists both IC
3323 and NGC 4393 as separate objects but due to the RNGC giving a poor RA value for
NGC 4393 the MOL coordinates would place IC 3323 on the south following edge of NGC
4393 instead of the correct south preceding edge.
(Also see IC 3329).
IC 3324.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No. 108. 12hr 23m 19.227s + 27 00' 57.157" (1950).
12hr 25m 49.357s + 26 44' 20.497" (2000).
Equal to a galaxy with a star attached south preceding: In my Version 4 I listed
this as a double star based upon the image on DSS First Generation, however,
having recently re-examined it employing Second Generation DSS I see that it is
indeed a small galaxy that is the north following companion.
NGC 2000 lists without type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar object). CGCG, UGC and MCG
have no listings. Steinicke lists it as (=*2 or * + GXY). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED," However they do list it as 2MASX J12245914+2644237.
SIMBAD has no listings for this object. The APL correctly identifies the galaxy and
foreground star.
IC 3329.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.112. 12hr 23m 26.228s + 27 50' 23.230" (1950).
12hr 25m 56.211s + 27 33' 46.622" (2000).
Either an associated galaxy or nebulous knot : As with IC 3323 this is again
visible on the Palomar print superposed on the image of NGC 4393, being located
very close north following the nucleus.
Once again Wolf's description leaves no doubt that he was well aware that what he
was referring to was not the result of confusing the identity of NGC 4393 as he
describes IC 3329 as "attached to NGC 4393."
MCG, NED, SIMBAD and PGC make IC 3329 = IC 3323 = NGC 4393. CGCG equates IC 3329
with NGC 4393. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as a separate, nonstellar
object. Steinicke and APL agree with me that the north following "Knot" is IC 3329.
UGC has no listing for IC 3329.
IC 3333.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #248. 12hr 23m 37.182s + 13 24' 38.832" (1950).
12hr 26m 09.228s + 13 08' 02.343" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all correctly list
as a star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3335.POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.116. 12hr 23m 49.243s +26 24' 19.467" (1950).
12hr 26m 19.398s + 26 07' 43.045" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is the south preceding of two galaxies and although the
north following one appears to be the brighter, Wolf's coordinates land at the
expected offset from the fainter south preceding object.
Steinicke has correct identity. NED states "There is no object with this name in
NED" however, they identify the same galaxy as 2MASXiJ1226191+260745. The APL,
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) all have the correct object. SIMBAD has no listing
for this galaxy.
IC 3339.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #99. 12hr 23m 56.921s + 09 08' 55.171" (1950).
12hr 26m 29.509s + 08 52' 18.832" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 4411 (Peters) : It is difficult to correctly evaluate
exactly just what Schwassmann was referring to as IC 3339. His description reads
"* 11 mag. nf surr m n," which I loosely translate as meaning 'Like a 11 mag. star
north following the surrounding main nebulosity.' Dreyer gives "11mag. star with
nebulosity north following."
At the precise position as given by Schwassmann there is an 11th mag, star
superposed upon the south preceding edge of the nucleus of NGC 4411 and this very
well could be what Schwassmann was referring to as the object he measured, in
which case IC 3339 would be a star.
CGCG, PGC and MCG lists the single identity NGC 4411. UGC lists only NGC 4411a.
NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson each equate IC 3339 with NGC 4411. The APL, SIMBAD and
NED list as IC 3339 = NGC 4411 = NGC 4411A and Steinicke equates IC 3339 with NGC
4411A and NGC 4411-1.
A somewhat unrelated but interesting discovery I made while investigating these
identities concerns the modern identity NGC 4411b which is listed in the UGC, RNGC
and MOL.
This galaxy is easily visible on the Palomar print following NGC 4411, or NGC
4411a, by ~ 0.3m of RA. and is not included in Dreyer's catalogues. My research
turned up the fact that this galaxy was observed and described in an observation
made by Bigourdan on April 25th, 1895, which by date would have qualified it for
inclusion in possibly the IC I, or certainly in the IC II, yet its discovery was
never included in these catalogues.
Bigourdan listed it as B.298 and there is absolutely no doubt that he was
observing what has become NGC 4411b. I established this by not only measuring
and computing the separation values involved between it and NGC 4411a, but also
between it and another field galaxy, IC 790, also discovered by Bigourdan. NGC
4411b is definitely B.298 and unfortunately, or fortunately, is one of a
relatively small number of objects whose discoverers have never received the
credit due them.
The reason that B.298 was never credited by Dreyer to Bigourdan has been brought
to my attention by Dr. Corwin who has informed me that Dreyer in his "Notes" for
NGC 4411 (IC II, Page372.) stated "I assume that B.298 vF, L, 2'.5 is identical
with this" however, Corwin also brought to my attention the fact that while
Dreyer considered Bigourdan's B.298 to be a duplicate observation of NGC 4411 for
some unexplained reason he did not consider Schwassmann's, #99 to be a duplicate
even though Schwassmann and Peter's coordinates are almost identical.
IC 3340.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #900. 12hr 23m 55.588s + 17 08' 22.665" (1950).
12hr 26m 27.104s + 16 51' 46.328" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 99.052 as IC 3365
which has a declination of almost 1 degree farther south. ZWG 99.052 is IC 3340.
The MCG identifies it only as +3-32-37 as does the PGC. Only other modern
listings are NGC 2000 (GX), Steinicke and APL (GX) and MOL (NSO). NED has correct
identity. SIMBAD identifies it as VCC 918 and MCG +03-32-037.
IC 3342.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.121. 12hr 23m 57.797s + 27 24' 56.558" (1950).
12hr 26m 27.769s + 27 08' 20.201" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Steinicke has (=*). NED gives
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3343.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann # 100. 12hr 24m 02.106s + 09 09' 11.009" (1950).
12hr 26m 34.690s + 08 52' 34.711" (2000).
This is a double star : This is undoubtedly an excellent example of how an
investigator, (certainly this one), of identity problems can be misled.
My original examination of this identity would have suggested that Schwassmann's
object was possibly a small galaxy very close north following NGC 4411. Its image
and position on the Palomar print matched very well with Schwassmann's data.
Its appearance was that of a double star, the following component having what
seemed to be a nebulous appendage on its north following edge. However, due to
Dr. Corwin's letter concerning B.298 in which he also alluded to the identity of
IC 3343, stating that he considered the identity of IC 3343 to be referring to
"One or both of the two faint stars following NGC 4411a," I was of course, upon
receipt of this information required to re-examine my original conclusions and
upon subsequent examination , using high magnification oculars, I became aware
that immediately preceding the image of this double star there was evidence of a
photographic defect which resulted in producing two very small ring like spurious
images and of significant importance this same defect appeared to be associated as
a third defect located superposed on the north following edge of this double star
where an arc of this ring had originally suggested to me the presence of a
nonstellar image.
When observed with low power oculars the preceeding defects could easily have
passed as faint stars, however, when examined with an ocular of 6mm focal length
the tiny ring like images of all three defects became apparent. Thus it would
seem that the identity IC 3343 is indeed exactly as Dr. Corwin suggested, that of
a double star without any nebular association. Steinicke has (=*2) and NED has
"No object with this name found in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The
NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist).
IC 3350.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #102. 12hr 24m 14.218s + 09 43' 12.997" (1950).
12hr 26m 46.718s + 09 26' 36.797" (2000).
This is a star : Schwassmann himself described it as "perhaps only a star."
Listed in the NGC 2000 (= *) and MOL (single star). Steinicke has (= *). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
APL (**).
IC 3351.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.124. 12hr 24m 11.742s + 27 52'57.706" (1950).
12hr 26m 41.603s + 27 36' 21.460" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
and Steinicke (=*). APL (=*).
IC 3352.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #103. 12hr 24m 15.200s + 09 02' 03.304" (1950).
12hr 26m 47.789s + 08 45' 27.112" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type as [?]. MOL
states "May not exist." Carlson state "Not Found." Steinicke has (Not found).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." APL "Nothing here."
IC 3354.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #187. 12hr 24m 19.591s + 12 22' 25.637" (1950).
12hr 26m 51.729s + 12 05' 49.489" (2000).
This is a single star : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL correctly list as a star.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Carlson lists as "Equal to a star."..
Steinicke gives (= ). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."APL (=).
IC 3360.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.127. 12hr 24m 20.746s + 26 19' 28.801" (1950).
12hr 26m 50.839s + 26 02' 52.632" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO),
Steinicke (=*) and APL (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3366.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #105. 12hr 24m 43.557s + 09 41' 25.413" (1950).
12hr 27m 16.057s + 09 24' 49.453" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Schwassmann measured excellent coordinates for the galaxy NGC
4424 (his #104), then proceeded to measure coordinates for his #105 = IC 3366 at a
separation from those he gave for NGC 4424 of + 4.27 tsec RA and 23.4 arcsec south
and at the resultant coordinates there are no nonstellar images, however, very
close directly south of NGC 4424 there is a very small galaxy with an 12th mag.
star between it and the following end of NGC 4424. This star is identified by
Schwassmann as 105a and although Schwassmann gives incorrect coordinates for it
the separation values he gives between it and IC 3366 establish that it is this
galaxy that is IC 3366. Schwassmann's coordinates for IC 3366 are evidently in
error by about 4 tsec RA and this can be supported by the separation values
between the star whose correct position is 12hr 24m 39.96s +09 41' 33".3 (1950),
from which he also separately measured IC 3366, his offsets being 0.85 tsec RA and
14.7 arcsec dec. and these exactly match the separations between the star and the
small galaxy just south of NGC 4424. The correct coordinates for IC 3366 should
be 12hr 24m 39.11s +09 41' 18".6 (1950).
UGC "Notes" lists only as a companion to NGC 4424. NGC 2000 lists as [?]. MOL
states "May not exist." Steinicke and APL have the correct identity. CGCG, PGC and
MCG have no listing. Carlson states "Not Found." Carlson, SIMBAD and NED state
"Not Found."
IC 3375.
POSS. O-1398.
Wolf List IV, No.134. 12hr 25m 11.166s + 27 38' 32.353" (1950).
12hr 27m 40.918s + 27 21' 56.596" (2000).
This is a single star : It is the north following of a pair of faint stars and
fits exactly Wolf's description "F, vS, R, att * 14 sp." Steinicke identifies it
as (=*). NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). CGCG,
UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED.
SIMBAD "Not present in thes database." APL (=*).
IC 3378 and IC 3379.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #914. 12hr 25m 37.374s + 17 35' 23.426" (1950).
12hr 28m 08.673s + 17 18' 47.932" (2000).
Confirmed and separate galaxies : For a reason I am unable to explain, Frost
decided to provide a single Object Number to these two galaxies and gave only the
above coordinates, however, in his description he states "2 neb; separated 1.0
arcmin, mag. 15.5" and Dreyer correctly assigned separate IC identities to the
pair which are readily confirmed by examination of the Palomar print.
The PGC incorrectly equates both identities. The CGCG correctly lists as IC 3378
+ IC 3379 while the NGC 2000 (No Type). Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO)
correctly list both as separate objects. No listings in the UGC, MCG or RC3.
IC 3398.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #279. 12hr 26m 27.056s + 13 50' 28.915" (1950).
12hr 28m 58.845s + 13 33' 53.839" (2000).
This is a single star : NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all list it as a
star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the databbase."
IC 3399.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.149. 12hr 26m 26.173s + 25 58' 21.207" (1950).
12hr 28m 56.031s + 25 41' 46.098" (2000).
This is a star : Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke correctly
makes it a star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 3400.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #108. 12hr 26m 30.818s + 09 41' 00.942" (1950).
12hr 29m 03.212s + 09 24' 25.897" (2000).
This is a single star : Schwassmann described it as being "like a 10th mag.
star," and that is exactly what it is. Steinicke makes it (=*). NGC 2000 lists
Type as [?]. MOL states "May not exist." Carlson and NED state "Not Found." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. APL (=*).
IC 3404.
POSS. O-1560
Schwassmann #22. 12hr 26m 38.020s + 07 25' 48.399" (1950).
12hr 29m 10.733s + 07 09' 13.409" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3404. NGC 2000 lists Type
as [?]. MOL states "May not exist." Carlson, SIMBAD and NED list as "Not Found," as
does Steinicke. APL "Nothing here."
IC 3408.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #194. 12hr 26m 44.076s + 12 09' 06.751" (1950).
12hr 29m 16.096s + 11 52' 31.829" (2000).
This is a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson
all list it as being a star. Steinicke has (= *). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3415.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.156. 12h 26m 52.523s + 27 02' 36.520" (1950).
12hr 29m 22.128s + 26 46' 01.642" (2000).
This is a star : CGCG,UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without any
Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke has (= *). NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3417.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #60. 12hr 27m 06.546s + 08 08' 18.631" (1950).
12hr 29m 39.138s + 07 51' 43.900" (2000).
This is a single star : Schwassmann's description is "eF, vS, ?, probably a
star." and his positional data lands right on a 14th mag. star. It definitely is
not equal to NGC 4470 which Schwassmann measured with excellent coordinates as
being 1.28 tsec preceding and 2' 13".5 of arc south of his #60. CGCG, UGC, PGC and
MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL list it as being a star. Carlson lists as
"Equal to a star (Mt. Wilson plates), Equal to NGC 4470 (Harvard Annals 88 No.
1)." Steinicke has (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3420.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #257. 12hr 27m 10.920s + 13 43' 11.070" (1950).
12hr 29m 42.676s + 13 26' 36.386" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, Steinicke,
MOL and Carlson all make it a star. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3421.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.157. 12hr 27m 08.792s + 26 30' 24.715" (1950).
12hr 29m 38.455s + 26 13' 49.983" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG and UGC have no listing for IC 3421. MCG, PGC, NED,
SIMBAD and Steinicke give correct identity. NGC 2000 and MOL both list it as being
an open cluster.
IC 3423.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #282. 12hr 27m 15.275s + 13 56' 05.706" (1950).
12hr 29m 46.993s + 13 39' 31.060" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type
as [?]. MOL states "May not exist." Carlson gives "Not Found." Steinicke has
(=*) and NED has "No object with this name in NED." Simbad "Not present in the
database." APL (=*).
IC 3426.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #284. 12hr 27m 30.234s + 13 52' 41.930" (1950).
12hr 30m 01.944s + 13 36' 07.420" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG,UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL,
Steinicke and Carlson all correctly list it as a star. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3427.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #158 & Frost. 12hr 27m 38.402s + 11 03' 19.607" (1950).
12hr 30m 10.534s + 10 46' 45.269" (2000). (Schwassmann)
This is equal to NGC 4482 (H 40-3) : Wm. Herschel gave a RA value of 12hr 28m
06s for his H 40-3 which he discovered during his Sweep #174.
Bigourdan made two observations of NGC 4482 and his measured RA is 12hr 27m 38s.
He also noted that Wm. Herschel's RA was too large. Dreyer in his "Notes" to both
the NGC (page 372) and SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF SIR WILLIAM HERSCHEL-1912, gives the
Bigourdan correction.
As IC 3427 has a RA of 12hr 27m 37s there can be little doubt that it is the same
object as NGC 4482. CGCG, UGC and MCG give only the identity IC 3427. NGC 2000,
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, Carlson and PGC have correctly given IC 3427 = NGC
4482. MOL lists both without comment as to equivalence although they do have the
corrected RA for NGC 4482.
IC 3428.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.160. 12hr 27m 37.204s + 23 57' 03.056" (1950).
12hr 30m 07.257s + 23 40' 28.560" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*) and NED "No
object with this name in NED." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD has
incorrectly equated the identity IC 3428 with NGC 4492 which is more than 13 degrees
south of Wolf's #160. APL (=*).
IC 3431.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #930. 12hr 27m 49.996s + 11 52' 24.495" (1950).
12hr 30m 21.992s + 11 35' 50.170" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG, PGC, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3431. NGC
2000, MOL and Carlson all list it as being a star. APL gives (GX, Deen).
Steinicke correctly makes it a galaxy. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED" but they do list it as VPC 0746. SIMBAD ha "Not present in the database,"
but list the same galaxy as Borngen 193.
IC 3435.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #933. 12hr 28m 01.475s + 15 24' 24.594" (1950).
12hr 30m 32.906s + 15 07' 50.373" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC has incorrectly identified this galaxy as IC 3455
which has a declination of about +26 3'.5 It is correctly identified in the
CGCG, PGC, MCG, NGC 2000 (GX), Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO).
IC 3438.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #65. 12hr 28m 27.789s + 08 21' 21.115" (1950).
12hr 31m 00.292s + 08 04' 47.133" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4492 (H 499-2) : CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, UGC,
RC2,MOL, Carlson and PGC all correctly make IC 3438 = NGC 4492. MCG gives only the
identity NGC 4492.
IC 3440.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #198. 12hr 28m 33.439s + 12 18' 10.467" (1950).
12hr 31m 05.324s + 12 01' 36.548" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is extremely diffuse but exists at the coordinates as given
by Schwassmann. Frost also noted it was visible on his Plate #6720 and identified
it as being Schwassmann #198.
Steinicke has correct identity and NED has "No object with this name in NED" but
then identifies this same object as VPC 0784. NO listing in SIMBAD. NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3444.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.164. 12hr 28m 45.297s +27 49' 27.917" (1950).
12hr 31m 14.477s + 27 32' 54.075" (2000).
This is a single star : Wolf's position lies just off the south following edge of
this star. There is an extremely faint galaxy (19.23 Mp. MAPS-NGP 0 322 1521530)
south following this star.
Only other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type). Steinicke (=*). APL (= double star).
NED "No object by this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database" and MOL
(NSO).
IC 3447.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #940. 12hr 28m 50.068s + 10 57' 25.010" (1950).
12hr 31m 22.149s + 10 40' 51.253" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL
list it a being a star. Carlson states "Equal to a star (Mt. Wilson plates) and
Found (Harvard Annals 88 No.1)." APL gives (Gx, Adamik). Steinicke has correct
identity. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." but list the same
object as VPC 0805. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists the same
galaxy as [DCY96] 247.
IC 3452.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #199. 12hr 29m 00.579s + 11 54' 03.803" (1950).
12hr 31m 32.500s + 11 37' 30.142" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4497 (H 42-3) : CGCG, UGC, RC3, PGC and MCG list only as
NGC 4497. NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and Carlson all correctly make IC 3452 =
NGC 4497. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 3455.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.170. 12hr 29m 14.649s + 26 03' 37.294" (1950).
12hr 31m 44.098s + 25 47' 03.738" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson states " Not found on Mt. Wilson plates."
NGC 2000 lists Type as [?] and MOL lists as "May not exist." Not listed in CGCG,
PGC, UGC, MCG or RC3. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but list
the same object as 2MASX J12314455+2547098. SIMBAD Has "Not present in the
database," but lists it as NGP9 F378-0034902.
Steinicke correctly lists it as a galaxy.
IC 3456.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.171. 12hr 29m 14.765s + 28 37' 59.300" (1950).
12hr 31m 43.709s + 28 21' 25.744" (2000).
Not found : There is nothing at or close to the nominal position.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type as [?]. MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found). APL "Nothing
here."
IC 3463.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #202. 12hr 29m 33.860s + 12 35' 48.700" (1950).
12hr 32m 05.635s + 12 19' 15.364" (2000).
Schwassmann's nominal position is for the north following of 2 stars, however, his
description reads "vF, cS, elongated at 40 degrees," and this would suggest that
he was referring to both stars as their position angle agrees with that as stated
by Schwassmann.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson list it as a double
star. APL (=*. Southwestern of 2 stars and Northeastern of 2 stars). Steinicke
(= *2). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Not
present in the database."
IC 3464.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.174. 12hr 29m 31.132s + 26 16' 54"2.510" (1950).
12hr 32m 00.500s + 26 00' 19.114" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL and
Carlson correctly make it a star. Steinicke has (=*) and NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3467.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #947. 12hr 29m 43.851s + 12 03' 25.489" (1950).
12hr 32m 15.703s + 11 46' 52.249" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG as Anon. ZWG 70.154. UGC lists as U07686.
MCG lists as +2-32-121. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object). Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have correct identity.
IC 3469.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.175. 12hr 29m 41.548s + 26 04' 44.648" (1950).
12hr 32m 10.930s + 25 48' 11.354" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The image visible at Wolf's position is extremely compact,
however, on the DSS (Second Generation), there is no doubt as to its nonstellar
nature. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke has
correct identity. NED has (Not found), however, they do list the correct galaxy,
identifying it as MAPS NGP 0 378 0032807. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database,"
but they do list it as NGP9 F378-0035109. APL "Confirmed."
IC 3477.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.177. 12hr 30m 09.185s + 26 19' 01.018" (1950).
12hr 32m 38.456s + 26 02' 27.996" (2000).
This is a single star ; CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, Steinicke,
MOL and Carlson all correctly list it as a star. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not presentin the database." APL (=*).
IC 3480.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.179. 12hr 30m 12.559s + 27 06' 16.065" (1950).
12hr 32m 41.663s + 26 49' 43.074" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without any Type. MOL makes it "= two stars," however, they also incorrectly give
the same coordinates for both IC 3480 and IC 3490 (MOL page 509). The APL = **.
Steinicke (= *2). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 3485.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #112. 12hr 30m 38.800s + 09 29' 42.792" (1950).
12hr 33m 11.024s + 09 13' 10.093" (2000).
This is a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL
and Carlson all correctly list it as a star. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3493.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #114. 12hr 30m 48.606s +09 39' 56".684 (1950).
12hr 33m 20.794s + 09 23' 24.084" (2000).
This is a single star :
When the field is examined on the DSS it shows a galaxy (IC 3487 = Schwassmann
#113),with 2 stars closely following, the stars being about 2 tsec apart.
Schwassmann's coordinates place his #114 closest to the following of the 2 stars
however, in his published list he additionally measures coordinates for a star
which he describes as "* 114a. * of 11 or 12 mag," and this star is also the
following of the 2 stars. .
The APL gives Schwassmann's coordinates for IC 3493 as 12hr 30m 48.64s + 09 39'
56".4 and this when applied to the DSS indicates that IC 3493 would be the
following of the 2 stars.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all
correctly list it as a star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: I had originally believed that the preceding of the two stars was
Schwassmann's object, based upon the fact that Schwassmann had placed his nova
0.92 tsec preceding the star 114a and therefore the logical candidate would have
been the preceding star, however, after employing the superior precession rates
now made available by NED I have had to revise my conclusions to making both IC
3493 and the star 114a the same, namely the following of the 2 stars.
IC 3495, IC 3496 and IC 3498.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.184. (See coordinates at end of text).
These are three of a total of seven closely associated IC identities which were
all credited to Wolf. It is my belief that there is considerable confusion in
some of the catalogues regarding which images on the Palomar print have been
selected as these three identities.
In order to attempt to sort out the problem I eventually resorted to selecting all
three of the Wolf objects whose identities could be established with confidence
(IC 3491, IC 3502, and IC 3508) and then by employing only Wolf's coordinates each
of the disputed identities (IC 3495, IC 3496, IC 3498 and 3514) were all in turn
measured separately against each of the three established galaxies and without
exception this resulted every time in exactly the same print images.
The image for IC 3495 is that of a single star. Certainly that is how the image
appears to me.
The NGC 2000, SIMBAD and MOL list this as being a galaxy, which I believe they are
confusing with an Anon. listed only as KN 16.014 lying at 12hr 31m 00.3s + 27 00'
57" directly north of the true IC 3498.
Additionally the coordinates both these catalogues give are not in agreement with
either Dreyer or Wolf. The NGC 2000 gives IC 3495 12hr 31.0m + 27 03'.5, the MOL
gives 12hr 31m 00s.8 + 27 03' 18". Wolf gives 12hr 30m 46.6s + 27 05'.0. The
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing.
The image of IC 3496 is also that of a star. Here again all of the separation
factors point directly to this star (which lies close north preceding the true IC
3498).
It would appear that the NGC 2000, SIMBAD and MOL have incorrectly selected what is
actually IC 3498 as being IC 3496 and again the coordinates do not match Dreyer or
Wolf. NGC 2000 for IC 3496 gives 12hr 31m.0 + 27 00'.5 , MOL gives 12hr 31m 00s.1 +
27 00' 48" while Wolf gives 12hr 30m 48.9s + 27 02' 10". CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing.
IC 3498 is a confirmed galaxy exactly where Wolf placed it at 12hr 30m 59.2s + 27
00' 48" and is easily visible on the Palomar print being extended south preceding
- north following with a star located just north of its northern extension. Both
the NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 3498 as a star while the CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. SIMBAD equates it with IC 3498. The PGC lists only one identity, IC 3508.
I found this to be a more than usually interesting problem to investigate,
however, I have based my conclusions on the data found in Wolf's list and although
Wolf may have on occasion mistaken a star for a nebular image (something I have
done myself both at the telescope and while examining compact photographic images)
I can say that I have great confidence in the accuracy of Wolf's measured
coordinates. Wolf's coordinates for all seven IC identities and my conclusions are
for epoch 1950 :
IC 3491 = W.182 12hr 30m 39.982s + 27 22' 12.439" = Galaxy
IC 3495 = W.184 12hr 30m 47.534s + 27 04' 59.542" = Star
IC 3496 = W.185 12hr 30m 49.839s + 27 02' 09.574" = Star (probable defect
involved. Wolf describes as "pL, * 15 south invested."
IC 3498 = W.187 12hr 31m 00.107s + 27 00' 47.716" = Galaxy
IC 3502 = W.188 12hr 31m 13.592s + 26 53' 17.903" = Galaxy
IC 3508 = W.190 12hr 31m 38.184s + 26 56' 47.250" = Galaxy
IC 3514 = W.194 12hr 31m 47.143s + 26 58' 30.378" = Double star
The APL is in agreement with my assessment as is Steinicke.
NED makes IC 3491, IC 3498 and IC 3508 to be galaxies and for each of the other
identities "There is no object with this name in NED."
NOTE : The PGC (1996 Version), lists both IC 3495 and IC 3496 as being the exact
same two galaxies as those listed by Steinicke, however, the coordinates for these
two galaxies do not comply with those derived from Wolf's data.
IC 3497.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.186. 12hr 30m 59.556s + 25 45' 54.706" (1950).
12hr 33m 28.819s + 25 29' 22.190" (2000).
This is a star: Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*),
however, this is a different star to the one I identify as being IC 3497.
MOL has (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3503.
POSS. O-105.
Javelle #1225. 12hr 31m 21.390s + 38 04' 00.493" (1950).
12hr 33m 47.763s + 37 47' 28.310" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : At the nominal position there is only the image of a very
faint star. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke and APL (=*),
NED "There is no object with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the
database," and MOL (NSO).
IC 3504.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #24. 12hr 31m 35.421s + 07 09' 43.426" (1950).
12hr 34m 07.997s + 06 53' 11.300" (2000).
This is a faint star : Carlson listed it as "Not found, Harvard."
The NGC 2000 Types it as [?] and the MOL as "May not exist." Steinicke has (=*).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." APL (=*).
IC 3505.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #960. 12hr 31m 37.046s + 16 14' 26.549" (1950).
12hr 34m 08.046s + 15 57' 54.451" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 99.091. Correctly listed in
PGC, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3511.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.191. 12hr 31m 40.978s + 27 37' 26.291" (1950).
12hr 34m 09.757s + 27 20' 54.201" (2000).
Equal to a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 Type[?]. MOL "May
not exist." APL (=*). Steinicke has (=*). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3512.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.192. 12hr 31m 41.273s + 27 38' 17.295" (1950).
12hr 34m 10.048s + 27 21' 45.208" (2000).
Equal to a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type as
[?]. MOL states "May not exist." APL (=*). Steinicke has (=*). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3513.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.193. 12hr 31m 42.976s + 27 36' 19.320" (1950).
12hr 34m 11.754s + 27 19' 47.250" (2000).
This is a faint star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type
as [?]. MOL states "May not exist." APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3514.
POSS. O-64
Wolf List IV, No.194. (See IC 3495).
IC 3519.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #964. 12hr 32m 01.077s + 15 51' 26.782" (1950).
12hr 34m 32.113s + 15 34' 54.934" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson states "Not found on Mt. Wilson plate. Found at
Harvard." This has influenced both the NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist).
Only other references to this galaxy are in the Notes to NGC 4540 in the UGC
"Companion at PA 317, Dist.4'.3" and this is Frost's object and the APL which
correctly identifies it stating "Offset from Dressel and Condon's position for NGC
4540." Both NED and PGC #41845 identify this galaxy only as VCC 1577.
Steinicke and SIMBAD have the correct identity.
IC 3524.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #290. 12hr 32m 11.738s +14 31' 17.485" (1950).
12hr 34m 43.001s + 14 14' 45.752" (2000).
This is a star : Schwassmann himself described it as perhaps only a 12.5 mag.
star. Only listings are Carlson (** Mt. Wilson and Harvard). NGC 2000 (Double
star), MOL (two stars). Steinicke who correctly types it as (=*). NED has "No Object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD incorrectly makes it a galaxy, equating it with LEDA
41859. APL (=*).
IC 3526.
POSS. O-1435
Wolf List IV, No.197. 12hr 32m 11.645s + 25 57' 36.727" (1950).
12hr 34m 40.702s + 25 41' 04.964" (2000).
This is a faint double star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*2), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (= double star).
IC 3527.
POSS. O-64
Wolf List IV, No.198. 12hr 32m 13.502s + 26 26' 01.755" (1950).
12hr 34m 42.454s + 26 09' 30.010" (2000).
This is a double star: NGC 2000, Steinicke, APL and MOL list it as two stars.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3529.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.199. 12hr 32m 20.909s + 25 58' 26.861" (1950).
12hr 34m 49.941s + 25 41' 55.196" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3530.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #971. 12hr 32m 24.661s + 18 04' 27.015" (1950).
12hr 34m 55.253s + 17 47' 55.431" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 99. 094. Correctly
identified in the NGC 2000 (GX), Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, PGC and DSFG
(Notes to NGC 4539).
IC 3532.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.201. 12hr 32m 28.429s + 26 09' 21.971" (1950).
12hr 34m 57.405s + 25 52' 50.386" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3535.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.203. 12hr 32m 41.725s + 26 00' 26.166" (1950).
12hr 35m 10.702s + 25 43' 54.723" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke who has the correct
identity. NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "There is no object with this name in NED,"
SIMBAD "Not present in the database," and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3537.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #69. 12hr 32m 50.640s + 07 55' 40.765" (1950).
12hr 35m 23.036s + 07 39' 09.440" (2000).
This is a double star with a brighter star close north preceding : CGCG, UGC and
MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, Steinicke, MOL and Carlson all list it as a double
star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." APL (=*).
IC 3538.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.205. 12hr 32m 46.659s + 26 30' 40.239" (1950).
12hr 35m 15.516s + 26 14' 08.848" (2000).
Equal to a star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL list it as
a double star. The APL and Steinicke give = *. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3539.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.206. 12hr 32m 50.499s + 24 15' 30.291" (1950).
12hr 35m 19.824s + 23 58' 58.923" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3541.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.207. 12hr 32m 52.794s + 24 15' 00.325" (1950).
12hr 35m 22.115s + 23 58' 28.981" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star with a 14th magnitude star close north preceding as
described by Wolf: Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3542.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #973. 12hr 33m 13.652s + 11 56' 27.500" (1950).
12hr 35m 45.313s + 11 39' 56.436" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in CGCG only as ZWG 70.181. It is equal to PGC
#41970, however, the PGC identifies this galaxy only as CGCG 70.181 = VCC 1633.
Not listed in UGC or MCG. NGC 2000 gives (No Type). MOL lists a (Nonstellar
Object). Correctly identified in the APL (=Gx, Deen) and by Steinicke (Gx). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." yet they list VCC 1633. SIMBAD has
"Not present in the database," but lists the galaxy as FIRST J123541.2+114001.
IC 3544.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #291. 12hr 33m 16.237s + 14 34' 31.429 (1950).
12hr 35m 47.411s + 14 18' 00.390" (2000).
This is a double star : Not listed in CGCG, UGC or MCG. NGC 2000, Steinicke,
APL, MOL and Carlson all list it as being a double star. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3545.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.211. 12hr 33m 12.778s + 26 47' 54.627" (1950).
12hr 35m 41.509s + 26 31m 23.519" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : A rather unusual problem as there is absolutely no doubt
that Wolf's coordinates for IC 3545 are those for NGC 4555, however, it is my
belief that the error in this particular case is not one of equivalency, but
rather that Wolf's List IV, at the time it was published, incorrectly confused his
objects No.210 (which he identifies as being NGC 4555) and No.211 (identified as
IC 3545).
Examination of his descriptions would more than imply this as he describes No.210
as "Very small, very faint" while for No.211 he states "Small, ! pretty bright."
which convinces me that he would have been well aware that the bright one would
have to be NGC 4555, therefore I am confident that the data error results from a
typographical error in reversing the two identities in List IV.
This then requires that what Wolf's List IV identifies as being NGC 4555 is
actually his Nova and it would lie ~ 2'26" of declination south of NGC 4555 and at
this position there is the image of a faint stellar object that is listed by Reiz,
(Annals Obs. Lund. 9. 1941) as a Mp 15.2 galaxy #2574 at 12hr 33m 11s + 26 45'.0
which has to be the same object as Wolf #210 (the correct nova), at 12hr 33m 12s +
26 45' 27".
The CGCG, UGC, MCG, RC3, PGC and DSFG only give the identity NGC 4555. Listed in
NGC 2000 (No Type = NGC 4555) and MOL (Equal to NGC 4555). The APL gives = NGC
4555. Steinicke (= NGC 4555). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED," however, they do list it as 2MASX J12354133+2628567. SIMBAD has "Not present
in the database," but identifies the correct galaxy as LEDA 1777936.
NOTE: The correct nominal positions for IC 3545 are 12hr 33m 12.690s + 26 45'
28.626" (1950) 12hr 35m 41.431s + 26 28' 57.516" (2000).
IC 3547.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.214. 12hr 33m 20.507s + 26 36' 18.743" (1950).
12hr 35m 49.263s + 26 19' 47.719" (2000).
This is a star : Not listed in CGCG, UGC or MCG. NGC 2000 and MOL list it as
being a double star. APL as (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3549.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.216. 12hr 33m 22.281s + 26 40' 16.769" (1950).
12hr 35m 51.018s + 26 23' 45.765" (2000).
This is a single star : Not listed in the CGCG, UGC or MCG. NGC 2000,
Steinicke, APL and MOL list it as being a single star. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3550, IC 3551, IC 3552, IC 3554, IC 3555, IC 3563 & IC
3564.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, Nos. 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 229 and 230.
12hr 33m 24.103s + 28 12' 30.800" (1950). (IC 3550)
12hr 35m 52.494s + 27 55' 59.813" (2000).
12hr 33m 25.588s + 28 14' 25.823" (1950). (IC 3551).
12hr 35m 53.967s + 27 57' 54.852" (2000).
12hr 33m 25.678s + 28 16' 15.824" (1950). (IC 3552).
12hr 35m 54.050s + 27 59' 44.854" (2000).
12hr 33m 27.292s + 28 12' 12.848" (1950). (IC 3554).
12hr 35m 55.676s + 27 55' 41.896" (2000).
12hr 33m 28.169s + 28 15' 57.862" (1950). (IC 3555).
12hr 35m 56.537s + 27 59' 25.919" (2000).
12hr 33m 39.147s + 28 12' 06.027" (1950). (IC 3563).
12hr 36m 07.500s + 27 55' 35.205" (2000).
12hr 33m 40.242s + 28 12' 05.044" (1950). (IC 3564).
12hr 36m 08.593s + 27 55' 34.234" (2000).
All but IC 3554 and IC 3564 are "knots" in the spiral structure of NGC 4559 (H 92-
1). IC 3554 and IC 3564 are faint stars superposed on the spiral arms of NGC 4559
:
Although these are not separate galaxies they are legitimate identities and as
such deserve separate recognition. Wolf makes it quite clear in his descriptions
that he was well aware that they all constituted individual objects within the
spiral form of NGC 4559.
CGCG in a (Footnote) to its Field #159 states that each of these identities are
condensations on the spiral arms of NGC 4559. UGC "Notes," MCG and NGC 2000
lists each as "knots." MOL lists each as (Nonstellar Object). The APL
correctly makes IC 3554 and IC 3564 equal to stars and also correctly makes the
others H II regions associated with NGC 4559. Steinicke has correct identities.
IC 3553.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.221. 12hr 33m 27.224s + 26 28' 08.843" (1950).
12hr 35m 55.994s + 26 11' 37.894" (2000).
This is a single star : Carlson lists as "Double star, Mt. Wilson." Only other
modern listings found are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (Type ?). NED "There
is no object with this name in NED" SIMBAD "Not present in the databae." and MOL
"May not exist."
IC 3556.
POSS. O- 64.
Wolf List IV, No.225. 12hr 33m 30.278s + 27 14' 28.891" (1950).
12hr 35m 58.869s + 26 57' 57.973" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is an entirely separate galaxy lying almost between NGC
4558 and NGC 4563. Wolf also observed and measured excellent coordinates for both
of the NGC galaxies.
I would like to thank Dr. Harold G. Corwin who in response to my request to
examine my findings regarding this identity confirmed that he had arrived at
exactly the same conclusion.
The NGC 2000, MCG and PGC incorrectly equate IC 3556 with NGC 4558. CGCG and UGC
"Notes" list IC 3556 = NGC 4563 which is also incorrect. MOL, SIMBAD and NED list
IC 3556 as a separate object. Mentioned in NOTES to NGC 4558 in the DSFG. APL
correct identity. Steinicke has correct identity.
IC 3559.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.226. 12hr 33m 35.153s + 27 15' 46.965" (1950).
12hr 36m 03.728s + 26 59' 16.100" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG and PGC only as +5-30-31. Not listed in
the CGCG or UGC. NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD, APL and Steinicke correctly lists as a
galaxy as does the MOL.
IC 3566.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #980. 12hr 33m 49.701s + 11 26' 27.869" (1950).
12hr 36m 21.418s + 11 09' 57.204" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists Type as [?]. MOL
lists as "May not exist." Carlson and NED state "Not Found." APL (Nothing here).
Steinicke (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED "There is no object
with this name in NED."
NOTE: Frost describes it as "Com, head R, tail 1 arcmin long at 110 PA," and
perhaps it really was a comet ?
IC 3569.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #978. 12hr 33m 48.251s + 19 34' 27.861" (1950).
12hr 36m 18.417s + 19 17' 57.192" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4561 (H 407-2) : Frost description "Sp; 1 branch B and 1, F,
* at centre, and another * inv; d 0'7" definitely shows that he was referring to
NGC 4561, also I measured his separation values from his #983 = IC 3580 and they
confirm the equivalency.
The CGCG gives the single identity NGC 4561. The UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, PCG, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and Carlson each correctly give the equivalency. The MCG
states "Equal to NGC 4561 ?"
IC 3570.
POSS. O-1435.Wolf List IV, No.233. 12hr 33m 48.879s + 24 21' 12.166" (1950).
12hr 36m 18.058s + 24 04' 41.438" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3572.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #205. 12hr 33m 55.997s + 11 53' 39.834" (1950).
12hr 36m 27.624s + 11 37' 09.238" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3572. NGC
2000, MOL, Steinicke and Carlson all make it a single star. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (= double
star).
IC 3577.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #207. 12hr 34m 04.689s + 12 10' 19.525" (1950).
12hr 36m 26.256s + 11 53' 49.025" (2000).
This is a faint star with a brighter one close south preceding: Originally I
thought that these two stars were what Schwassmann was referring to as Object
#207, however, further investigation now indicates that Object #207 is the
fainter, north following of the pair.
Schwassmann in his list also includes a separate and accurate position for the
brighter star, identifying it as "* 207a, A star 12.5 Mp." His position for this
star is 12hr 34m 06.11s +12 10' 29".2, or very close NORTH FOLLOWING the position
he gives for his Object #207, the separations being 1.38 tsec RA and 11.7 arcsec
dec.
When Schwassmann's coordinates for the 12.5 magnitude star are entered into the
DSS they come up just on the south following edge of the brighter of the two
stars, however, those he gives for his Object #207 land on a blank space just
south preceding the 12.5 mag. star. By reversing the separation values so that
they make Schwassmann's Object #207 follow to the north of Star 207a they now give
a position on the DSS just on the south following edge of the fainter of the two
stars at 12hr 34m 07.49s + 12 10' 40".9 and it is this fainter star that is
Schwassmann's nebula # 207.
Thus it would appear that Schwassmann somehow reversed the actual Position Angle
as it applies to Object 207 in reference to star 207a. .
Not listed in the CGCG, UGC or MCG. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all list it as
being a double star which is incorrect as Schwassmann was well aware that the
brighter component was only a star. Steinicke has correctly identified IC 3577 as
the fainter north following star. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database. APL "Nothing here."
IC 3579.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.236. 12hr 34m 04.417s + 26 22' 41.408" (1950).
12hr 36m 33.119s + 26 06' 10.871" (2000).
This is a very faint single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. Both the
NGC 2000 and MOL list it as being a single star. The APL lists as = **.
Steinicke has (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
NOTE: I have examined the image of this star on every DSS format (9 choices) and
have not been able to see anything that would suggest that it is a double star.
IC 3584.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #208. 12hr 34m 14.001s + 12 30' 26.322" (1950).
12hr 36m 45.495s + 12 13' 55.929" (2000).
This is a single star : Not listed in the CGCG, UGC or MCG. NGC 2000, MOL,
Steinicke and Carlson both list it as being a single star. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3588.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #293. 12hr 34m 24.985s + 14 29' 35.239" (1950).
12hr 36m 56.090s + 14 13' 04.964" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4571 (H 602-3) : This is a rather interesting problem in that it
would appear that Schwassmann has listed a star as being NGC 4571 and
then made the true NGC 4571 equal to his #293. Schwassmann in his KONIGSTUHL-
NEBELLISTE No.2 identifies his object #292 = NGC 4571. 12hr 34m 20.960s + 14 29'
34.397" (1950), describing it as "Considerably faint, considerably small, like a
star of the 13mag." He then lists object #293 (IC 3588). 12hr 34m 24.985s + 14
29' 35.239" (1950), describing it as "Considerably faint or faint, pretty large or
considerably large, pretty faint nucleus."
In a SPECIAL NOTES section he states "Object #292. Nebulous knot or star in
object #293," therefore according to his own identities object #292 = NGC 4571 is
either a knot or star in object #293 = IC 3588.
Examination of the Palomar print shows a circular galaxy image with a superimposed
star at what I measured to be 4.25 seconds of RA preceding the nucleus of the
galaxy.
Both John Herschel in his observation of H 602-3 (Slough 1833) and Reinmuth (Die
Herschel-Nebel. 1926) refer to this star as "attached" to NGC 4571, but there is
no doubt that the nebulosity they describe is for H 602-3 = NGC 4571.
NGC 2000, RC2, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all correctly equate IC 3588 with NGC 4571. MOL
states "May not exist." Carlson gives "= to a star on Mt. Wilson plate, = NGC 4571
according to Harvard Annals 88." The CGCG and UGC give only the identity NGC
4571. APL and Steinicke = NGC 4571).
IC 3589 and IC 3591.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #29 and #30. 12hr 34m 28.626s + 07 12' 41.471" (1950).
12hr 37m 01.090s + 06 56' 11.227 " (2000). (IC 3589).
12hr 34m 30.506s + 07 12' 03.941" (1950).
12hr 37m 02.972s + 06 55' 33.718" (2000). (IC 3591)
IC 3589 is the 14th magnitude star which lies north preceding the galaxy IC 3591
mentioned in Schwassmann's description for IC 3591, while IC 3591 is a galaxy :
The image on the Palomar print shows what appears to be a ring-like structure with
an elongated bar extended south preceding north following, with a bright knot or
superposed star located on the south preceding end.
Schwassmann's descriptions are as follows. #29 "Very faint, small, round, like a
star" while for #30 there are two separate descriptions "Faint, pretty small" and
"Faint, considerably small, near star 14 Mv."
Now the controversy seems to concern the character of the stellar-like image on
the south preceding edge. The UGC and MCG equate the identities IC 3589 and IC
3591, the MCG gives for its +1-32-115 the identity IC 3589-IC 3591, the
description being "Nucleus with bar on each side ?. Halo plus star." The PGC
lists the MCG to be in error, stating "MCG +1-32-115 not IC 3589 which is a star."
The CGCG lists as "IC 3589/IC 3591. A double nebula, peculiar." This suggests
that the CGCG takes the brightening in the south preceding end to be a separate
galaxy equal to IC 3589 otherwise they would have listed the identities as IC 3589
= IC 3591. Oddly enough the PGC makes no mention of this in its Table 2
corrections to the CGCG.
The NGC 2000 lists both identities but has no Type for either. The MOL lists both
as separate identities making them (Nonstellar Objects). Holmberg (Lunds Annals
6. 1937) lists as 428B 12hr 34m 30s + 07 13'.0, Mp14.5, and 428A 12hr 34m 32s + 07
12'.0, Mp14.3, describing both as "Part of a multiple galaxy," which may, or may
not, be referring to both IC 3589 and IC 3591.
Meanwhile, Reiz (Annals Obs. Lund. 9. 1941) lists as #2611 12hr 34m 26s + 07
12'.0, Mp15.2, and #2617 12hr 34m 32s + 07 13'.0, Mp15.0, describing both as
galaxies. Again these may, or may not be for the two identities IC 3589 and IC
3591. Steinicke lists IC 3589 (=*) and IC 3591 (=Gx).
I also consulted Zwicky's CATALOGUE OF SELECTED COMPACT GALAXIES AND POST-ERUPTIVE
GALAXIES 1971. to see if perhaps it listed anything for the involved bright
"knot," however, nothing was found. NED has IC 3589 "There is no object with this
name in NED" and IC 3591 "Galaxy." SIMBAD has correct identities.
NOTE : Subsequent to my examination of this problem I consulted Dr. Corwin who
very kindly sent me a copy of a paper, (Astron. J. No.1569. 1986.) in which he
addressed this questionable identity. Corwin makes IC 3591 to be the galaxy and
the identity IC 3589 to be the provisional reference star (#14) north preceding IC
3591 and which Schwassmann had identified in his list as #29.
Certainly Schwassmann's coordinates would appear to support this, thus the
stellar-like object located on the south preceding edge of the main image would
therefore not have any significance relative to either of the given identities.
Corwin's conclusion regarding the identity of IC 3589 is the correct one.
IC 3594.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.244. 12hr 34m 28.427s + 26 23' 21.779" (1950).
12hr 36m 57.069s + 26 06' 51.512" (2000).
This is a single star : The image on the DSS (First Generation) shows this star
with what appears to be a fainter stellar image suggesting a possible double star
with components in contact lying south following this star, however, this is a
false image as it is completely missing on both the Second Generation Blue and Red
plates.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, APL and Carlson all
list it as being a star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 3596.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.246. 12hr 34m 50.419s + 26 47' 45.123" (1950).
12hr 37m 18.916s + 26 31' 15.105" (2000).
Not found : The double star mentioned by Wolf exists, however, no nonstellar
image near. Probably a photographic defect on original plate.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 and MOL list it as a double star,
however, Wolf in his description states "near a double star" which means that he
was aware of the double star. APL (Defect). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found).
IC 3601.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #985. 12hr 35m 18.876s + 15 28' 28.815" (1950).
12hr 37m 49.721s + 15 11' 59.156" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Carlson states "nf; a defect on the plate where it was
originally found by Frost, Harvard Annals 88," and this has obviously misled more
recent authorities as both the NGC 2000 and MOL type it as being a plate defect.
My examination of the Palomar print clearly shows the image of a faint galaxy at
Frost's position as measured from my reference star, GC 17256 and also by
measuring Frost's separation values from his #987 = IC 3603. Steinicke and APL
have the correct identity. Listed in NED only as VPC 1124 and in SIMBAD as [DCY96]
345.
IC 3606.
POSS O-1563.
Frost #990. 12hr 35m 55.314s + 12 52' 29.209" (1950).
12hr 38m 26.629s + 12 35' 59.983" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : There is no doubt that the image is that of a galaxy. The APL
Lists it as (=*). The NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). Steinicke correctly
lists it as a galaxy. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED" however,
they do list it as 2MASX J12382508+1236380. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but does list a galaxy LEDA 42266 at a position that lands on a blank
space about 12 tsec following the actual galaxy.
IC 3607.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #991. 12hr 36m 01.718s + 10 38' 29.277" (1950).
12hr 38m 33.465s + 10 22' 00.124" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy ; It is the southernmost of 2 closely associated and very faint
galaxies aligned almost directly north and south. Carlson states "Equal to a star
on Mt. Wilson plates and Found at Harvard." Typed by the NGC 2000 as [?] and
listed in the MOL as " May not exist." APL (Gx, Deen). Steinicke correct. PGC
identify it only as VCC 1762. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
but then identify it as VCC 1762. SIMBAD "Not present in the database," but list the
galaxy as GRDG 10 55.
IC 3609.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #992. 12hr 36m 06.972s + 14 37' 29.339" (1950).12hr 38m 37.926s + 14 21'
00.244" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG has incorrectly identified its ZWG 99.100 as being IC
3609. The correct CGCG identity for IC 3609 is ZWG 99.101. (This noted in the PGC
Corrections). Not listed in UGC, MCG, RC3 or DSFG. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO) have the correct identity, as does Steinicke, PGC, NED and the APL.
SIMBAD identifies it as being at 12hr 37.8m +14 17'.0 (2000), which is nowhere near
the correct coordinates.
IC 3612.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #995. 12hr 36m 36.864s + 14 59' 29.672" (1950).
12hr 39m 07.706s + 14 43' 00.935" (2000).
This is equal to IC 3616 (Frost #997) : The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG
99.102 as being IC 3621, however, IC 3621 lies at 12hr 37.0m + 15 45'.5 and ZWG
99.102 is equal to IC 3612. The PGC (Corrections) notes this error. The UGC
makes this same error identifying its U07814, which is equal to ZWG 99.102, as
being IC 3621. The APL gives (= IC 3616) and this appears to be correct as both
IC 3612 and IC 3616 were both credited as discoveries to Frost, however, he found
them on different plates and this strongly supports the possibility of
equivalency. Steinicke and NED have correct identity for IC 3612 but NED gives no
equivalency, making IC 3616 (Not found) as does SIMBAD. Only other modern listings
are NGC 2000 (No Type. IC 3612 and ? for IC 3616) and MOL (NSO for IC 3612 and May
not exist for IC 3616).
IC 3616.
POSS.O-1576.
Frost #997. 12hr 36.7m + 15 00'.5
Not found. Probably equal to IC 3612 : Certainly at Frost's coordinates no
nebular image exists. Carlson states Not found on Mt. Wilson plate; Equal to IC
3612 Harvard; and this is a reasonable assumption as their positions as given by
Frost are only 0.1m RA and 1 arcmin dec. different and what is of importance is
that Frost employed two different plates (6719 for IC 3616 and 6720 for IC 3612)
from which to discover these two novae. Only other modern listings are APL (= IC
3612). NGC 2000 (Typed as ?), Steinicke has (= IC 3612). SIMBAD and NED (Not
found). MOL (May not exist).
(See IC 3612).
IC 3619.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.255. 12hr 36m 50.261s + 24 24' 51.056" (1950).
12hr 39m 19.035s + 24 08' 22.427" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Wolf's description "?Af, FN ?" indicates that he was
referring to what appeared to be an extended object on his plate and this fits the
double star. Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*2). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). APL (=**).
IC 3621.
POSS. O-1576.
Frost #998. 12hr 37m 00.683s + 15 45' 29.941" (1950).
12hr 39m 31.336s + 15 29' 01.487" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG confuses this identity with IC 3612 as does the UGC,
(See IC 3612). The APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the
correct identity. NED and SIMBAD have correct identity.
IC 3624.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #1000. 12hr 37m 07.351s + 12 15' 30.013" (1950).
12hr 39m 38.714s + 11 59' 01.646" (2000).
Disputed position angle : This is a very faint but unusual looking object which
Frost described as "Faint, Elongated 0'.4 at PA 180."
My examination of the image on the Palomar print found it to consist of what looks
like two nuclei or a nucleus and bar following which is a little extended north
preceding south following, both involved in an extended common envelope whose
major axis is west to east. It might possibly be two galaxies in visual contact,
however, I am unable to verify Frost's PA of 180 either in the direction of the
following 'nucleus' or the surrounding envelope.
IC 3628.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.260. 12hr 37m 10.797s +26 30' 57.405" (1950).
12hr 39m 39.025s + 26 14' 29.042" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and in the MOL as
(NSO). Steinicke has correct identity.
NED referencing MAPS-NGP (Minnesota Automated Plate Scanner), types the star as
being a galaxy which is of course incorrect. Dr. Corwin has confirmed to me by e-
mail that he also types this to be a star and not a galaxy. SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 3630.
POSS O-1435.
Wolf List IV, No.261. 12hr 37m 18.541s + 25 42' 23.534" (1950).
12hr 39m 46.947s + 25 25' 55.263" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke and APL (=*), SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." NED "There is no object with this name in NED." NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3636.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.1. 12hr 37m 46.248s + 22 20' 55.995" (1950).
12hr 40m 15.385s + 22 04' 28.022" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Only modern listings are APL (=**). Steinicke (=*2).
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3640 & IC 3641.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.263. 12hr 37m 57.430s + 26 47' 58.199" (1950).
12hr 40m 25.477s + 26 31' 30.407" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy (IC 3640) and possible candidate (IC 3641):
Wolf in his published list gives a single identity and coordinates for only a
single object, however, in his single description he states "Very faint nebula,
round, small, without nucleus, north preceding 30 arcsec." and Dreyer, when
compiling the IC II, gave the identities as combined, IC 3640 and IC 3641. with
the single coordinates as provided by Wolf.
When these coordinates are examined on the Palomar print they clearly show two
separate galaxies at about the correct separation and therefore I have concluded
that as there are two galaxies there is no equivalency involved. It must be added
that the brighter and larger of the two is the north preceding galaxy, whereas,
Wolf's description would make the north preceding one the fainter, however, all
observers have at some time got the relative directions reversed and the
separations are correct.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type for either), MOL (Both as NSO) and the
APL (IC 3640 and IC 3641 both galaxies). Steinicke and NED identify the 2
galaxies as IC 3640 and IC 3641, as does SIMBAD.
NOTE: There is always the possibility that IC 3641 is not the fainter companion
to IC 3640.
If Wolf is correct in stating that the companion lies north preceding then he
could have been referring to a photographic defect and not the faint system close
south following IC 3640.
IC 3645.
POSS. O-64.
Wolf List IV, No.266. 12hr 38m 09.878s + 26 48' 57.414" (1950).
12hr 40m 37.891s + 26 32' 29.776" (2000).
Equal to a single star : The CGCG and MCG have both confused IC 3646 for IC
3645. UGC has no listing. NGC 2000 lists it as a galaxy while MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke have (=*).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD equates it with IC 3644
which is a galaxy.
IC 3647.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #1010. 12hr 38m 19.572s + 10 44' 30.846" (1950).
12hr 40m 51.176s + 10 28' 03.370" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is an extended image, PA ~ 140 (Frost gave 135) and it is
of low surface brightness. Carlson lists it in her Table 1b (Objects to be
stricken from the Index Catalogues) as a star on the Mt. Wilson plates and as
Found at Harvard (Harvard Annals, 88, No1, 1930). The MOL lists it as "May not
exist" while the NGC 2000 gives the Type as [?]. Correctly identified in the
CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, PGC, MCG and RC3.
IC 3648.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #266. 12hr 38m 21.505s + 13 15' 36.171" (1950).
12hr 40m 52.582s + 12 59' 08.720" (2000).
This is a faint star : Not listed in CGCG, UGC, MCG, RC3 or DSFG. Carlson
states "Not found. Harvard." The NGC 2000 Types as [?] and the MOL lists as "May
not exist." Steinicke has (=*) and NED and SIMBAD have (Not found). APL (=*).
IC 3650.
POSS. O- 64.
Wolf List IV, No.268. 12hr 38m 20.363s + 26 44' 57.595" (1950).
12hr 40m 48.368s + 26 28' 30.089" (2000).
Equal to two stars : " CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists as a
galaxy. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). The APL states (=**). Steinicke (=*2).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 3657.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.6. 12hr 38m 49.789s + 21 56' 58.095" (1950).
12hr 41m 18.897s + 21 40' 30.909" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=*+defect, verified),
Steinicke (= *), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE: As Corwin has examined the original plate and states that there is a
defective image there, this might explain Wolf's statement "?neb*"
IC 3660.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.8. 12hr 39m 07.520s + 21 22' 00.406" (1950).
12hr 41m 36.740s + 21 05' 33.437" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3664.
POSS. O-1576.
Wolf List VI, No.11. 12hr 39m 12.091s + 20 13' 02.484" (1950).
12hr 41m 41.562s + 19 56' 35.559" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE : Dreyer's IC II incorrectly makes it Wolf's List V.
IC 3666.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #72. 12hr 39m 21.566s + 08 07' 06.981" (1950).
12hr 41m 53.667s + 07 50' 40.281" (2000).
Equal to a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 3666. NGC
2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke and APL
have (=*) and SIMBAD NED have (Not found).
IC 3667.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.1. 12hr 39m 08.990s + 41 25' 23".503" (1950).
12hr 41m 32.458s + 41 08' 56.637" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4618 (H 178-1 and H 179-1) : Examination of Wolf's
description "Pretty Large,!! Considerably Bright, Similar to Andromeda Nebula."
would appear to indicate that he was not referring to any associated feature of
NGC 4618, but rather to the galaxy itself.
CGCG, UGC, PGC, MCG and RC3 each only give the identity NGC 4618.. Listed in NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL and Steinicke have (= NGC 4618). NED has the
correct equivalency. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3668 and IC 3669.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, Nos.2 & 3. 12hr 39m 09.400s + 41 23' 59.511" (1950). (IC 3668).
12hr 41m 32.874s + 41 07' 32.649" (2000).
12hr 39m 12.374s + 41 24' 44".564" (1950) (IC 3669)
12hr 41m 35.831s + 41 08' 17.740" (2000)..
These two identities are for different parts of the galaxy NGC 4618 (H 178-1 and H
179-1): Only listed and identified as IC objects in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). NED list both IC identities as "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD Lists both identities as "Not present in the database." Both APL and
Steinicke list as either knots or Galaxy parts in NGC 4618.
IC 3672.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #213. 12hr 39m 37.161s + 12 01' 39.574" (1950).
12hr 42m 08.419s + 11 45' 13.083" (2000).
This is equal to IC 809 (Swift List # VII,No.23) : The CGCG, UGC and MCG all
give only the single identity IC 3672. MOL lists as separate identities. NGC
2000 lists IC 3672 and states equal to IC 809 north. Carlson and PGC both
correctly equate the two identities as does Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED.
A rather interesting note concerns Frost's Harvard list in which following his
No.1016 entry he has four listings which he credits to previous discoverers.
Two of these are as follows ( epoch 1900 ). 12hr 37.1m + 12 22' vF, R, d. 0'.1
(IC 809, Swift VII) and 12hr 37.1m + 12 18' bM, mag. 13 (Schwassmann #213).
Now to begin with there is absolutely no doubt that the southern of these two is
IC 809 and that it is also Schwassmann's #213 or IC 3672, thus these two
identities are for one galaxy, which by date of discovery makes IC 809 the correct
identity, but what about the northern of Frost's two objects ?
Well it definitely exists at the 4 arcminute difference Frost gives, its image is
extremely faint but it does exist.
It would therefore seem that because Frost incorrectly assumed that he was seeing
Swift and Schwassmann's objects, (even though he reversed the identities), his
northern object was never considered for inclusion in the IC II and can now only
be considered as being an anonymous galaxy.
IC 3673.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.13. 12hr 39m 35.335s + 21 24' 45.902" (1950).
12hr 42m 04.483s + 21 08' 19.290" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3674.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.14. 12hr 39m 35.973s + 22 47' 06.918" (1950).
12hr 42m 04.790s + 22 30' 40.339" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL (= **), Steinicke (=*2), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3675.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.4. 12hr 39m 29.395s + 41 32' 53.869" (1950).
12hr 41m 52.731s + 41 16' 27.264" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4625 (H 660-2) : As with IC 3667, Wolf's description
"Pretty Large, ! Pretty Bright, Pretty Round." confirms the equivalency rather
than reference to a specific associated part of the galaxy. This equivalency is
noted by the CGCG, UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MOL and PGC. NGC 2000
lists IC 3675 without Type and RC3 gives only the identity NGC 4625.
IC 3676.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #294. 12hr 39m 41.386s + 13 49' 55.328" (1950).
12hr 42m 12.248s + 13 33' 28.888" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL,
Steinicke and Carlson all correctly describe it as being a single star. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
APL (=*).
IC 3679.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.18. 12hr 39m 43.047s + 23 05' 29.046" (1950).
12hr 42m 11.775s + 22 49'02.564" (2000).
Equal to a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= **), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3680.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.5. 12hr 39m 36.537s +39 22' 37.987" (1950).
12hr 42m 00.616s + 39 06' 11.454" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *),
however, in the case of Steinicke he selects the north following of a pair that
lies directly south of my star. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3681.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.6. 12hr 39m 37.143s + 39 21' 27.998" (1950).
12hr 42m 01.226s + 39 05' 01.473" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 3682.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.19. 12hr 39m 50.483s + 21 08' 21.174" (1950).
12hr 42m 19.668s + 20 51' 54.754" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (= *), NGC 2000(No
Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 3685.
POSS. O-1560.
Schwassmann #32. 12hr 39m 59.794s + 07 08' 40.344" (1950).
12hr 42m 32.077s + 06 52' 14.135" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without any Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke has (=*) and NED
has (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3688.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #295. 12hr 40m 06.667s + 14 38' 02.938" (1950).
12hr 42m 37.323s + 14 21' 36.828" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4633 (Swift List VI, No.46.): The following authorities are
all in agreement that IC 3688 = NGC 4633. CGCG, UGC, MCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD,
APL, NGC 2000, MOL, RC2 Notes, Carlson and PGC.
IC 3693.
POSS. O-1563.
Frost #1020. 12hr 40m 31.409s + 10 56' 32.439" (1950).
12hr 43m 02.852s + 10 40' 06.662" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG and PGC list it only as ZWG 71.005. UGC and MCG
have no listing for it. NGC 2000 lists but without any Type. MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). APL (GX, Deen). Steinicke (= ZWG 71.005). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." then lists it as VCC 1948. SIMBAD "Not present
in the database," but identifies the same galaxy as GRDG 10 62.
IC 3695.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.25. 12hr 40m 38.601s + 23 00' 59.058" (1950).
12hr 43m 07.236s + 22 44' 33.302" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*) SIMBAD
and NED (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3699.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.27. 12hr 40m 47.4.850s + 19 16' 32.217" (1950).
12hr 43m 17.379s + 19 00' 06.530" (2000).
Equal to 2 stars :: Listed in the APL as (2 stars confirmed). At Wolf's position
there are two stellar images in close proximity which are compact and very faint.
Wolf describes it as "S, F, irreg. fig. with nucleus. 2 * 13 mag. np, * 15 mag.
north 1 arcmin." and the 2 stars north preceding are as described, however, the 15
mag. star 1 arcmin north is actually a compact galaxy. Steinicke has (=*2).
Only other listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "There is no object with
this name in NED" and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3700.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.28. 12hr 40m 50.655s + 19 32' 20.270" (1950).
12hr 43m 20.116s + 19 15' 54.623" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are Steinicke (Not found). NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
Oddly enough, the APL gives Wolf's position as 12hr 40m 50.7s + 19 32' 20" = 2
galaxies (verified), which is essentially in accordance with my coordinates, yet at
both positions on DSS Generation I and II I am unable to find any sort of acceptable
image, only an exceedingly faint, < 20th Mp image, while the closest star would in
my opinion be beyond the normal error offset associated with Wolf's measured
positions. As Corwin examined the original plate is it possible that the image there
is a spurious one ?
NOTE: (See Corwin's explanation. Nov. 19th 2004).
IC 3703.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.9. 12hr 40m 57.413s + 38 14' 57.464" (1950).
12hr 43m 21.571s + 37 58' 31.980" (2000).
This is a faint star: Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3706
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #118. 12hr 41m 16.210s + 09 29' 58.700" (1950).
12hr 43m 47.931s + 09 13' 33.511" (2000).
This is a faint star with a companion close north following: CGCG, UGC and MCG
have no listing. NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all list it as being a star.
Steinicke has (=*2). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." APL (= double star).
IC 3707.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.10. 12hr 41m 04.369s + 38 15' 22.594" (1950).
12hr 43m 28.500s + 37 58' 57.203" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3708.
POSS. O-1563.
Schwassmann #270. 12hr 41m 21.977s + 13 24' 38.978" (1950).
12hr 43m 52.818s + 13 08' 13.871" (2000).
Equal to a couple of bright spots or knots almost in contact on the north
preceding part of NGC 4654 :
The CGCG, UGC and MCG give only the identity NGC 4654. Steinicke has (GxyP. Knot
in N 4654). RC2 Notes, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, SIMBAD and the PGC all equate IC
3708 with NGC 4654, however it should be pointed out that Schwassmann's data places
IC 3708 at 4.15 tsecs preceding and 42.6 arcseconds north of the position he
measured for NGC 4654, 12hr 41m 26.134s +13 23' 56.381" (1950), thus making it
possibly a couple of the knots (some of which may or may not be superposed or
background galaxies) associated with NGC 4654 or part of the bright spiral arm. One
would think that as Schwassmann obviously was aware of the identity of NGC 4654 and
measured such a precise position for its nucleus that what he was referring to as
his #270 was not due to any misconception on his part as to equivalency.
Furthermore, Schwassmann on page 101 of his list has a NOTE in which he states that
#270 consists of 2 nuclei or bright spots on # 271 (NGC 4654), or that they might be
independent nebulae. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED. "APL "NW
arm of NGC 4654."
IC 3710.
POSS. O-41.
Frost #1025. 12hr 41m 43.036s + 12 22' 33.345" (1950).
12hr 44m 14.089s + 12 06' 08.525" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : There is absolutely no doubt that Frost's #1025 is the same as
identified in the PGC and UGC only as U07906. Dwarf irregular. Mp 16.5 Only
other modern listings are APL (Gx, JA), Steinicke (= UGC 07906). NED "There is no
object with this name in NED" but then they list it as UGC 07906. NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO) and both of these have the correct identities. SIMBAD Identifies
IC 3710 as " Object of unkown nature," and places it at 12hr 44.1m +12 08'.0 (2000),
which lands on a blank space north preceding UGC 07906, while Simbad also lists the
correct object as UGC 7906, but does not equate it with the identity IC 3710.
IC 3711.
POSS. O-41.
Frost #1026. 12hr 41m 43.236s + 11 26' 33.346" (1950).
12hr 44m 14.500s + 11 10' 08.530" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC in its Notes to U07914 = NGC 4660 refers to, but does
not identify a companion galaxy distant 5'.5, PA 262, Very late spiral, and it is
this companion that is IC 3711. The PGC only gives it the identity VCC 1991. NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED" however, they list the correct IC
3711 as VCC 1991. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list the correst
object as LEDA 42878.
Only other modern listings are APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3712.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #148. 12hr 41m 45.163s + 10 38' 52.970" (1950).
12hr 44m 16.604s + 10 22' 28.179" (2000).
Not found. Nothing at the nominal position : Carlson in her 1940 paper states
"IC 3712 = IC 3690 W; Not found Harvard." however, I am in disagreement with this
as IC 3690 according to the APL coordinates lies at 12hr 40m 18s, a difference in
RA of 1m 27s and Schwassmann's mean error in measurements are only about 2 to 3
arcsecs (APL Sources). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found). Both the NGC
2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist) are the only other modern sources which list this
identity. APL "Nothing here."
IC 3715.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.30. 12hr 41m 52.334s + 20 17' 54.430" (1950).
12hr 44m 21.505s + 20 01'29.622" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Due to a misprint in the IC II in which the NPD is shown as 69
22'.5 when it should be 69 12'.5 both the NGC 2000 and MOL incorrectly give the
declination as being + 20 07'.4 (NGC 2000) and 20 07' 53" (MOL). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED," but lists the correct galaxy as MAPS-NGP 0 437
0019608. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," and no other equivalent identity.
The APL and Steinicke have the correct declination.
IC 3716.
POSS. O-104.
Schwassmann #74. 12hr 42m 13.172s + 08 22' 32.628" (1950).
12hr 44m 45.101s + 08 06' 08.211" (2000).
Not found, or possibly the star just off the preceeding edge of IC 3719 : The
CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and PGC are incorrect in making this equal to IC 3719.
Schwassmann gives a separation between IC 3716 and IC 3719 of 3.44 tsec and 21.2
arcsec which is very close to the star immediately preceding IC 3719. Additionally
Schwassmann makes a point in his description to say that his #74 (IC 3716) and his
#75 (IC 3719) are distinct from each other, while as usual he gives excellent
coordinates for IC 3719 (12hr 42m 15.75s + 08 22' 50".1) Whatever it was that
Schwassmann thought was a nebula at the position he gave for his #74 I feel that it
was not IC 3719.
The APL states (Not found, probably a defect, * and IC 3719 near). Steinicke has
(=*). Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3719.
POSS. O-104.
Schwassmann #75. 12hr 42m 16.609s + 08 22' 53.873" (1950).
12hr 44m 48.534s + 08 06' 29.503" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is not equal to IC 3716 as stated in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and
PGC. Correctly identified as an individual object in the APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3721.
POSS. O-1572.
Frost #1028. 12hr 42m 17.504s + 19 01' 33.799" (1950).
12hr 44m 46.946s + 18 45' 09.454" (2000).
This is equal to IC 3725 (Wolf List VI, No.31) : Dr. H. Corwin in his unpublished
NGC/IC Bug List gives an excellent explanation of this equivalency pointing out
that both Frost and Wolf are referring to the only possible candidate in the
field. Wolf dated his List VI July 1905 and Frost's paper "Nebulae discovered at
the Harvard Observatory is dated 1908 therefore by historical precedent it would
appear that the correct identity should be IC 3725. The RC 3 gives only the
identity IC 3721 while both the CGCG, MCG and UGC give the single identity IC
3725. NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the APL correctly equate
both identities. The PGC (Corrections. Table 2, Page 388) states "ZWG 100.005 = IC
3721 , not IC 3725," which implies that the correct identity is IC 3721, however,
Wolf's publication date precedes that of Frost's and therefore the correct single
identity would be IC 3725.
IC 3722.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #219. 12hr 42m 19.568s + 12 03' 05.716" (1950).
12hr 44m 50.658s + 11 46' 41.394" (2000).
Equal to a double star : This is a double star whose components are of similar
magnitude, their alignment being almost directly north and south. Carlson types
it as "= * H" and both the NGC 2000 and MOL also make it equal to a star.
Steinicke has (=*2). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." APL "2 blended stars."
IC 3725.
(See IC 3721).
IC 3730.
POSS. O-1435..699
Wolf List VI, No.33. 12h 42m 38.699s + 21 26' 57.324" (1950).
12hr45m 07.498s + 21 10' 33.167s (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 129.021. Correctly
identified in the APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL
(NSO). Not listed in the UGC or DSFG.
IC 3733.
POSS. O-104.
Schwassmann #33. 12hr 42m 44.565s + 07 13' 51.836" (1950).
12hr 45m 16.731s + 06 57' 27.848" (2000).
This is the most southern star in a group of three : Only modern listings are
Steinicke (=*), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*).
IC 3734.
(See IC 813).
IC 3737.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.36. 12hr 42m 51.778s + 22 13' 55.581" (1950).
12hr 45m 20.350s + 21 57' 31.620" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (= double star," and Steinicke (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3738.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.37. 12hr 42m 56.144s + 19 30' 06.657" (1950).
12hr 45m 25.404s + 19 13' 42.720" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Equal to a star ? : At the nominal position there
is the image of a very faint star with an exceedingly faint galaxy almost attached
to its north following edge best seen on Generation II DSS.
It is difficult to know whether Wolf's plate would have shown this galaxy and
therefore what he is listing is only the star. His description reads "Irregular
figure with nucleus. Extremely small, very faint. A nebulous star."
Only modern listings are APL (2 stars + Gx," and Steinicke (=*). NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 3739.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #272. 12hr 43m 01.503s + 13 16' 13.767" (1950).
12hr 45m 32.266s + 12 59' 50.029" (2000).
Not found : Carlson states "Not found, Harvard." NGC 2000 types as (?) and MOL
as (May not exist). Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found). No additional
modern listings.
IC 3741.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.39. 12hr 43m 03.933" +19 28' 39.809" (1950).
12hr 45m 33.186s + 19 12' 15.981" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3743.
POSS. O-41..035
Schwassmann #165. 12hr 43m 10.035s + 11 22' 29.578" (1950).
12hr 45m 41.233s + 11 06' 05.960" (2000).
The following of 4 closely associated stars which form a triangle : Carlson, NGC
2000 and MOL all correctly lists it as being a star. Steinicke has (=*4). APL(=2*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." No additional listings.
IC 3744.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.40. 12hr 43m 12.107s + 19 46' 20.970" (1950).
12hr 45m 41.272s + 19 29' 57.260" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The NGC 2000 incorrectly gives IC 3744 a RA value O.1m
following that which it gives IC 3745 whereas IC 3745 lies ~ 4 tsecs of RA
following IC 3744. I am certain the reason for this is that the NGC 2000 obtained
its RA value for IC 3744 from Dreyer and its IC 3745 RA from the not very accurate
coordinates as given in the MCG. NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED" but they do list the same object as 2MASX J12454151+1930019. Steinicke has
correct order of RA as does the APL. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but
lists the object as LEDA 3090098.
IC 3747.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.18. 12hr 43m 11.152s + 38 14' 31.027" (1950).
12hr 45m 34.814s + 37 58' 07.370" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3748.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.42. 12hr 43m 22.007s + 19 42' 06.165" (1950).
12hr 45m 51.173s + 19 25' 42.593" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3749.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.43. 12hr 43m 22.267s + 19 48' 34.170" (1950).
12hr 45m 51.406s + 19 32' 10.603" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD
(Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3750.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.44. 12hr 43m 28.605s + 19 22' 36.294" (1950).
12hr 45m 57.843s + 19 06' 12.811" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3752.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.45. 12hr 43m 34.823s + 19 17' 01.416" (1950).
12hr 46m 04.074s 19 00' 38.021" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3753.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.46. 12hr 43m 36.479s + 19 23' 41.450" (1950).
12hr 46m 05.699s + 19 07' 18.079" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3755.
POSS O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No. 47. 12hr 43m 39.259s + 19 25' 49.505" (1950).
12hr 46m 08.465s + 19 09' 26.174" (2000).
Equal to 3 very faint stars in line, the southernmost being extremely faint. (POSS
Second Generation Blue): The APL has (Wolf 047a, verified), however, Wolf 47a is
for IC 3759, which is a verified galaxy at 12hr 43m 48.9s + 21 03' 25". The NGC
2000 gives IC 3755 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). Steinicke has (=*2). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3756 and IC 3760.
POSS. O-41.
Frost # 1034. 12hr 43m 42.954s + 12 10' 34.918" (1950).
12hr 46m 13.930s + 11 54' 11.763" (2000). (IC 3756)
#1035. 12hr 43m 54.949s + 12 08' 35.080" (1950).
12hr 46m 25.921s + 11 52' 12.095" (2000). (IC 3760).
Both are confirmed galaxies and neither are equal to IC 815 (Javelle #223) :
The field was first examined by Javelle who discovered only one object, IC 815 to
which he gave excellent coordinates 12hr 43m 51.7s + 12 09 28'.8
When Frost examined the field he not only measured and correctly identified IC
815, (12hr 44.0m + 12 09'.6), he also listed two novae, his #1034 and # 1035,
placing the former at 12hr 43'.7 + 12 10'.6 and the latter at 12hr 43.9m + 12
08'.6 therefore he was placing his #1034 at a declination about 1 arcmin north of
IC 815 and his #1035 at a declination about 1 arcmin south of IC 815 ( remember
that in both RA and dec. positions Frost only gave them to 10ths of a minute and
which I believe he only employed here to indicate that one object was either north
or south of another field identity).
At or close to the relative separations derived from Frost's data as they pertain
to IC 815 there are two galaxies, the first at 12hr 43m 38.9s + 12 11' 13" (1950)
and the second at 12hr 43m 47.30s + 12 08' 47".6 (1950) and both Dr. Corwin and I
agree that these are Frost's # 1034 = IC 3756 and # 1035 = IC 3760.
What the NGC 2000 identifies as being IC 3756 is actually IC 3760 and it
incorrectly equates the identity IC 3760 with IC 815. The MCG does not list the
correct IC 3756, and its + 02-33-14, identified as IC 815a is also Frost's IC
3760, meanwhile what the MCG identifies as + 02-33-15 (IC 815b) is Javelle's IC
815, NED and the PGC also make these same errors.
The MOL, because it follows Dreyer's coordinates which are based upon Frost's
data, has the correct identities.
The CGCG lists only the identity IC 815, while the UGC does not list any of the
identities. Carlson equates the identity IC 3760 with IC 815 Steinicke correctly
shows the 3 galaxies as being separate objects. NED identifies both IC 3756 and
IC 3760 as "There is no object with this name in NED.", however, what it
identifies as 2MASX J12461012+1154519 is IC 3756 and what it identifies as IC 0815A
is IC 3760. SIMBAD also has "Not present in the database," for the two identities IC
2756 and IC 3760, however, in the former case they have no listings or alternative
names and for the latter object they give MCG +02-33-014.
NOTE : There is another field galaxy (MCG + 02-33-17 = ZWG 71.037) which lies
north following IC 815. It is relatively bright and it can be argued why was it
that Frost did not record this object ? I can only suggest that he did not
recognize it as being nonstellar and add that it also was not detected by Javelle
during his observation.
IC 3757.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.20. 12hr 43m 36.721s + 38 47' 11.536" (1950).
12hr 46m 00.087s + 38 30' 48.243" (2000).
This is for 3 closely grouped stars : Only modern listings
are APL (=***), Steinicke (=*3). NED "No object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: Wolf's nominal position lands just off the south following edge of the
brightest of the 3 stars and when the group is examined on the Second Generation
Blue print of the DSS this star has an extremely faint galaxy attached to its
following edge. It would suggest being too faint to have registered on the
original photograph and thus would not have been listed by Wolf, however, it does
exist and Wolf states "* 13 invested. Shows as an arm."
IC 3764.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #149. 12hr 44m 25.304s + 10 07' 49.589" (1950).
12hr 46m 56.727s + 09 51' 27.036" (2000).
Equal to IC 817 : The CGCG and PGC have equated this with IC 817 and this is
correct.
Examination of the image of IC 817 clearly shows that it is a double system with a
companion galaxy located right on its south following edge. Schwassmann makes
absolutely no reference to IC 817 and this therefore would suggest that he is not
referring to the companion.
One definite error concerning this identity is that Carlson states "= IC 816. H."
and this has been copied by both the NGC 2000 and MOL. If IC 3764 is equivalent
to any other identity it would be IC 817 not IC 816. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED
equate with IC 817. The APL lists both identities as separate galaxies.
IC 3765.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.22. 12hr 44m 12.183s + 38 50' 50.247" (1950.
12hr 46m 35.391s + 38 34' 27.459" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=* + defect), Steinicke
(=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3768.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.23. 12hr 44m 19.124s + 40 52' 10.398" (1950).
12hr 46m 41.518s + 40 35' 47.728" (2000).
This is a star : Only listings I could find were APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3769.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.24. 12hr 44m 25.954s + 40 44' 34.536" (1950).
12hr 46m 48.370s + 40 28' 11.962" (2000).
Equal to a faint star: There is very close to the given position the image of an
extremely faint, barely visible galaxy which I feel does not qualify as being IC
3769. Only listed in APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 3770.
POSS. O-41
Schwassmann #120. 12hr 44m 43.867s + 09 28' 33.342" (1950).
12hr 47m 15.430s + 09 12' 11.057" (2000).
At the nominal position there is only an extremely faint star : Only modern
listings are Steinicke and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL (=*?).
IC 3772.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.26. 12hr 44m 32.734s + 36 48' 21.652" (1950).
12hr 46m 56.618s + 36 31' 59.143" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The NGC 2000 and PGC incorrectly lists IC 3772 as following IC
3774 by 0.2m of RA. IC 3772 is the preceding galaxy and is correctly shown to be
by the GGCG, NED, UGC "Notes," MCG, Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and MOL. The correct
separation in RA is ~ 4.4 tsec.
IC 3774.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.27. 12hr 44m 37.233s + 36 33' 49.743" (1950).
12hr 47m 01.188s + 36 17' 27.298" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : [See IC 3772].
IC 3775.
POSS. O-41.
Frost #1037. 12hr 44m 48.923s + 12 00' 35.815" (1950).
12hr 47m 19.873s + 11 44' 13.608" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the PGC and UGC only as U07953. Only other
modern listings are APL and Steinicke (GX). NED "There is no object with this
name in NED" but they list it as UGC07953. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database,"
however, they list the same galaxy as UGC 7953. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3777.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #121. 12hr 44m 53.762s + 09 24' 58.278" (1950).
12hr 47m 25.343s + 09 08' 36.502" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Steinicke identifies it as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3780.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.29. 12hr 44m 46.063s + 40 30' 26.944" (1950).
12hr 47m 08.492s + 40 14' 04.659" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings found were APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3781.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List, No.54. 12hr 44m 56.872s + 22 50' 32.082" (1950).
12hr 47m 25.036s + 22 34' 09.916" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL (=**), Steinicke (=*2). NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no Object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3782.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No. 30. 12hr 44m 53.833s +40 39' 02.104" (1950).
12hr 47m 16.173s + 40 22' 39.933" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At Wolf's nominal position there is no nonstellar image, only
blank sky with some very faint, compact galaxies very close north. At a slightly
closer distance but south of the nominal position there is a faint star which I
believe is the star that Corwin identifies as being Wolf's object and as Corwin
has examined a copy of the original plate upon which Wolf marked his identified
objects then this would appear to establish that Wolf mistook this star to be a
nebula.
Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke (= *). APL has equal
to a star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
NOTE: I should add that Wolf's nominal position lies north following Corwin's
star, also at a distance that is not in agreement with Wolf's usual offset error
(normally to the south following edge of the actual image, such as with IC 3783 at
12hr 45m 05.651s + 40 50' 16.348" (1950)).
IC 3787.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.33. 12hr 45m 20.823s + 40 53' 40.662" (1950).
12hr 47m 43.954s + 40 37' 18.887" (2000).
This is a single star : Correctly listed in the APL and by Steinicke. Listed in
the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3790.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #166. 12hr 45m 43.355s + 11 22' 51.672" (1950).
12hr 48m 14.415s + 11 06' 30.653" (2000).
This is a star : Schwassmann considered that it was suspect as to being a
nonstellar object. Correctly listed as a star in Carlson , NGC 2000 and MOL.
Steinicke and APL also identifies it as being a star. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3791.
POSS. O-729.
Swift List XI.#141. 12hr 45m 17.461s + 54 43' 24.318" (1950).
12hr 47m 32.299s + 54 27' 02.603" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4695: Swift's nominal position lands 0.281 tsec following and 5.1
arcmin north of NGC 4695 and there is north preceding this galaxy another one
which Swift incorrectly identifies as NGC 4732, it is instead NGC 4686.
Due to Swift's description, "eeF, Sm, CE, 4732 in field," I was at first not
certain which of the two field galaxies Swift was claiming as being his #141,
however, after having requested Dr. Corwin to examine the problem he concluded
that IC 3791 was the same object as NGC 4695 and I am in agreement with his
assessment.
The only catalogues listing IC 3791 are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED "There
is no object with this name in NED" SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and
Steinicke (Correct identity and equivalency).
IC 3792.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #167. 12hr 45m 43.581s + 11 21' 12.175" (1950).
12hr 48m 14.648s + 11 04' 51.159" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : At the nominal position there is only blank sky.
The closest image is that of an extremely faint star, however, the offset distance
is larger than one would expect from Schwassmann's measurements, especially as he
had just measured an excellent position for IC 3790, a star just 1 arcmin 39
arcsec directly north.
Carlson states "Not found, W. H." NGC 2000 types as (?) and MOL as "May not
exist." Steinicke has (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*2).
IC 3794.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.60. 12hr 45m 52.613s + 19 26' 32.222" (1950).
12hr 48m 21.594s + 19 10' 11.828" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3796.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.61. 12hr 45m 59.067s + 20 18' 37.360" (1950).
12hr 48m 27.804s + 20 02' 16.072" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3797.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #220. 12hr 46m 04.009s + 11 52' 12.764" (1950).
12hr 48m 34.919s + 11 35' 51.664" (2000).
Not found : Carlson states "Not found, H." NGC 2000 (?) and MOL "May not exist."
Steinicke has (Not found), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database." APL (= Defect).
IC 3798.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #123. 12hr 46m 11.807s + 09 30' 45.271" (1950).
12hr 48m 43.293s + 09 14' 24.284" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are Steinicke and APL (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3801.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #169. 12hr 46m 29.606s + 11 13' 41.827" (1950).
12hr 49m 00.652s + 10 57' 21.115" (2000).
Not found : Close to Schwassmann's position there is visible on the Palomar print
the image of a very small and very faint galaxy, however, due to its faintness I
am somewhat dubious of this being IC 3801 as Schwassmann in his description states
that it is considerably bright. and that it is like a 9.5 mag. star.
Carlson states "Not found, W, H." and the NGC 2000 gives (?) while the MOL states
"May not exist." Steinicke has (Not found). NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (= Defect).
IC 3802.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.36. 12hr 46m 20.122s + 38 31' 06.890" (1950).
12hr 48m 42.971s + 38 14' 45.974" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO). Steinicke has (=*), at 12hr 46m 19.7s +38 31' 29" NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3803.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #170. 12hr 46m 33.670s +10 54' 11.985" (1950).
12hr 49m 04.793s + 10 37' 51.335" (2000).
This is a star : Steinicke has the correct star.
Other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type). MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=*).
IC 3804.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.37. 12hr 46m 22.369s + 35 36' 16.921" (1950).
12hr 48m 46.309s + 35 19' 56.024" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4711 (H412-2) : The CGCG and UGC give the single identity
IC 3804 while the RC3 gives only the identity IC 4711. MOL, APL, PGC, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, MCG and Carlson each make it equal to NGC 4711.
IC 3805.
POSS. O-115.
Wolf List V, No.38. 12hr 46m 22.211s + 38 31' 33.913" (1950).
12hr 48m 44.054s + 38 15' 13.013" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3807.
POSS. O-1600.
Swift List XI, #142. 12hr 46m 54.562s - 04 07' 46.439" (1950).
12hr 49m 29.354s - 04 24' 06.863" (2000).
Not found : At the coordinates as given by Swift there are no nebular images.
The only modern listings are SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED and Steinicke
(Not found). The APL suggests that it might be equivalent with NGC 4705.
IC 3808.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.39. 12hr 46m 37.063s + 40 52' 00.264" (1950).
12hr 48m 58.894s + 40 35' 39.622" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy : The PCG, SIMBAD and NED incorrectly equate it with IC
3810 which is a star. The MCG confuses its +7-26-55 making it IC 3810, but it is IC
3808. CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO) correctly identify IC
3808. Not listed in UGC, DSFG or RC3.
IC 3810.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.41. 12hr 46m 41.902s + 40 55' 03.368" (1950).
12hr 49m 03.692s + 40 38' 42.799" (2000).
This is a single star : In addition to employing a GC star as my measuring
reference I also measured the separation values (4.9s RA and 3' 3" Dec.) between
Wolf's coordinates for IC 3808 and IC 3810 and in each case the result produced
the same star at the position for IC 3810.
The PCG, SIMBAD and NED's equivalency with IC 3808 and the MCG's confusion
concerning its +7-26- 55 (See IC 3808) are in error. Not listed in other catalogues
other than APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3811.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.62. 12hr 46m 57.449s + 21 44' 04.602" (1950).
12hr 49m 25.688s + 21 27' 44.211" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "Name does
not exist or no object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3817.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.65. 12hr 47m 15.942s + 23 06' 11.006" (1950).
12hr 49m 43.755s + 22 49' 50.920" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: Only modern listings are APL (= two (??) galaxies, NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke lists it as a 17.0 galaxy at the correct position.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," however, they do list it under
the name 2MASX J12494348+2249525. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list
it as IRAS F12472+2306.
IC 3821.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.67. 12hr 47m 29.256s + 21 14' 24.285" (1950).
12hr 49m 57.575s + 20 58' 04.372" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3823.
POSS O-115.
Wolf List V, No.44. 12hr 47m 22.700s + 41 09' 24.248" (1950).
12hr 49m 44.220s + 40 53' 04.301" (2000).
This is a star:
Carlson (Table 1b) states that on Mount Wilson plates it is seen only as being two
stars.
Only listed in APL (=*), Steinicke (=*),, NED "Name does not exist or no object
found," SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3827 (See IC 3838).
IC 3828.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.45. 12hr 47m 58.428s + 38 13' 16.008" (1950).
12hr 50m 21.028s + 37 56' 56.587" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the NGC 2000 as "Double star" and in the MOL as "Two
stars." Listed in APL (Verified). Steinicke has (Gx). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." but list it as KUG 1247+382. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but list the same galaxy as LEDA 3088213. Not listed in the
other modern catalogues.
IC 3829.
Swift List XI, #144. 12hr 48m 40.752s - 27 33' 56.926" (1950).
12hr 51m 22.104s - 27 50' 15.766" (2000). (ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN).
Swift S List 7, #19. 12hr 48m 41.424s - 29 43' 55.921" (1950).
12hr 54m 05.980s - 30 16' 30.542" (2000). (MNRAS LVIII, 5).
Confirmed galaxy. Two possible candidates : There are some conflicting and
unusual data concerning the identity of IC 3829 which make this a puzzling case.
Swift's description as given in his List XI (A.N. #3517. page 214. Dated June
1898), is "B, S, lE." and he makes no mention of any associated star. or any
reference to a possible correction for the declination.
His published data in the MNRAS (dated March 1898), gives the above coordinates
and the description reads "B, S, lE, 9 mag * nr sf." As we can see there is a
difference of more than 2 degrees in the published declinations.
Dreyer gives coordinates based upon Swift's A.N.data and his description is "B,
S, lE, * 9 sf," but then adds "[?119 degrees 14'.5 NPD]," this suggested
correction in declination results in a 1950 declination of - 29 44'.0 and
is clearly based upon the Swift MNRAS data.
If we examine the field employing the MNRAS data, which would be at 12hr 48m 40s -
29 44'.0, no nonstellar image is found.
When the coordinates as given by Swift (A.N.) are entered into the DSS they show
the field and at about 10 tsec following and 3.1 arcmin north of the nominal
position there is an extended galaxy which is identified in NED as IC 3829, Mp
13.87 = ESO 442 - G024 at 12hr 48m 51s - 27 30' 42". This galaxy does have a
star, GSC 6705-255, Mp 10.13 at 12hr 48m 59.88s - 27 28' 52.2 however, it lies
close north following, not south following as suggested by Swift (MNRAS), however,
Swift, especially with his southern objects, has quite a few incorrect directional
signs, often confusing north for south and vice versa, therefore I think it can
fairly be claimed that this candidate is a viable one.
In addition to NED this candidate is identified as being IC 3829 in the MCG (-5-
30-10), SIMBAD and PGC #43558.. It certainly is well within the capabilities of
Swift's telescope, being brighter than most of the IC galaxies, and it is extended
as stated by Swift.
There is however another candidate for the identity IC 3829 put forward by both
the APL and Steinicke and it is the galaxy ESO 442- G026 at 12hr 49m 31s - 29
34'.2, although it should be stated that the ESO itself does not identify
this as being IC 3829, in fact the ESO identifies ESO 442 -G024, the NED object,
as being IC 3829 at 12hr 48m 51s - 27 30'.7
The APL/Steinicke candidate lies about 50 tsec of RA following and 9.4 arcmin
north of Swift's nominal position (MNRAS.) It is also extended and is brighter
than the NED candidate, being about 12.5 Mp, additionally there is a
brightish star south following, GSC 6709-728, Mp 11.88 at 12hr 50m 00.20s - 29 35'
10.2 (1950). The only other star that lies south following and is somewhat
consistent with the one described by Swift would be GSC 7248-299, Mp 8.76 at 12hr
50m 34.54s -29 44' 39.5, however, in Swift's field of view, 32 arcmin, and with
the APL/Steinicke candidate centered, this star would be very near the edge of the
field, hardly "near" as described by Swift.
The major factor supporting the APL/Steinicke candidate is its brightness,
however, brightness when graded visually is often subjective and dependent upon a
number of things such as sky conditions on the night of the observation and even
the fact that one may have spent a few observing sessions seeing only faint
objects so that when one sees a relatively brighter object his description of
brightness may be a comparison one.
Without more definitive evidence I would lean in favour of accepting the NED
candidate as being Swift's IC 3829.
The NGC 2000 also identifies the APL/Steinicke object as being IC 3829. The MOL
gives (NSO) at the historical coordinates and the MCG identifies the NED candidate
as being IC 3829.
IC 3830.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.68. 12hr 48m 23.362s + 20 06' 35.463" (1950).
12hr 50m 51.904s + 19 50' 16.378" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED (Not
found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3833.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan #302. 12hr 48m 55.028s - 13 03' 31.492" (1950).
12hr 51m 32.184s - 13 19' 50.139" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4722 (Tempel). Tempel gave very poor coordinates for his NGC
4722 (12hr 48m 11s - 13 03'.5) and this obviously misled Bigourdan into thinking
that he had discovered an entirely different object.
The MCG, NGC 2000, Steinicke and PGC correctly equate IC 3833 with NGC 4722.
Meanwhile the MOL (NSO) has completely mis-stated the declination giving it as -12
33'.0 NED and SIMBAD give the correct equivalency. APL (= NGC 4722?)
IC 3834.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan #303. 12hr 48m 56.499s - 13 57' 26.852 (1950).
12hr 51m 33.888s - 14 13' 45.683" (2000). (COMPTES RENDUS).
12hr 48m 54.736s -13 56' 55.447"
12hr 51m 32.16s - 14 13' 13.46" (2000) (OBSERVATIONS).
Equal to NGC 4740. (Swift List VI, #49) : This is an identity that has involved
considerable confusion both historical and modern.
Swift gives his discovery coordinates of 12hr 49m 09s - 14 03' 10", which as usual
are not too accurate as the correct position for NGC 4740 is 12hr 48m 54s - 13 56'
58" and its identity can be established by the fact that Swift saw only
a single object in the field and any others that are relatively close are
considerably fainter.
Now comparison of Bigourdan's COMPTES RENDUS coordinates with those giving the
correct position for NGC 4740 establish that his #303 is this same galaxy,
therefore IC 3834 is equivalent to NGC 4740.
Bigourdan in his OBSERVATIONS 1919, creates more confusion because he incorrectly
gives the position for his reference star which he called Anon (1) and when his
separation values (-0 tmin 20.23 tsec and 2' 15.46" south ) are applied to this
incorrect position the coordinates arrived at for IC 3834 are 12hr 46m 55.8s - 13
57' 39" or about 2 tmin less than those he gives in his COMPTES RENDUS data.
It can be shown that his RA for his reference star is in error as he states that
it lies at + 56 tsec and 7.8 arcmin north of NGC 4727, which he had accurately
measured to have coordinates of 12hr 48m 19.6s - 14 03' 25", thus his reference
star would have a position of 12hr 49m 15.6s - 13 55' 37".
His reference star is equal to GSC5541-880 at 12hr 49m 14.966s - 13 54' 39.987 and
when his separation values are now applied to this it would give coordinates of
12hr 48m 54.736s - 13 56' 55.447" (1950) for his #303 = IC 3834.
The MCG makes IC 3834 = NGC 4726 at 12hr 48'.9 -13 57'.0 but they are confusing
NGC 4726 for what is actually NGC 4640 and the NGC 2000, PGC and MOL have each
made this exact same error, (The PGC and SIMBAD give NGC 4726 = NGC 4740 = IC
3834). NED has "There is no Object with this name in NED."NGC 4726 is a lenticular
galaxy whose coordinates are 12hr 48m 00s - 13 59' 48", lying about 4 arcmin to
the north of the double system NGC 4724 (H 280-3) and NGC 4727 (H 298-2), just
where the discoverer of NGC 4726 (Tempel) stated it to be located.
I have only found one source to equate IC 3834 with NGC 4740 and it is Steinicke.
IC 3838.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan # 304. 12hr 49m 14.842s - 14 13' 14.395" (1950).
12hr 50m 52.262s - 14 29' 33.678" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: Equal to IC 3827 (Howe. List II, page 135).
According to Bigourdan's data as given in his OBSERVATIONS his reference star
(Anon.3) would have a 1950 position of 12hr 49m 19s - 14 20' 20.2" and his offsets
(- 0 tmin 04.28 tsec RA. - 7 arcmin 20.7 arcsec Dec) would place his # 304 at 12hr
49m 14.72s - 14 12' 59.5" (1950), however, at these coordinates there is no
suitable reference star or nonstellar object.
Bigourdan in his description states his 10th mag. Reference star has a companion
star of 10.5 mag. at a PA of 50 degrees, distant 1.5 arcmin and by searching in
the area I found such a combination which would identify his reference star as
being GSC 5541-908 at 12hr 50m 56.437s - 14 36' 54.297" (2000) and thus placing
his # 304 at 12hr 50m 52.262s - 14 29' 33.678" (2000) and this results in landing
on the galaxy IC 3827 previously discovered by Howe.
There can be no doubt that this is the galaxy observed by Bigourdan as he further
describes it as having a 13.2 to 13.3 mag. star situated at a PA of 180 degrees
distant 48 arcsec and this is exactly what one finds with IC 3827.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the original Bigourdan position while
Steinicke and SIMBAD and NED have (Not found). APL = IC 3827.
IC 3839.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.70. 12hr 49m 18.078s + 20 41' 29.685" (1950).
12hr 51m 46.358s + 20 25' 11.469" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED and
SIMBAD (Not found), Steinicke and APL (=*).
IC 3841.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.72. 12hr 49m 23.258s + 22 36' 57.811" (1950).
12hr 51m 50.961s + 22 20' 39.707" (2000).
This is a double star : Wolf himself was doubtful as to its type as he described
it as "?". Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3845.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.53. 12hr 49m 47.308s + 38 53' 25.448" (1950).
12hr 52m 09.224s + 38 37' 07.750" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED (Not
found), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3846.
POSS. O-41.
Schwassmann #300. 12hr 50m 09.048s + 13 55' 06.596" (1950).
12hr 52m 39.160s + 13 38' 49.305" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no image exists. Only modern listings are
Steinicke (Not found). APL (not found) NED "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3849.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.54. 12hr 50m 16.280s + 41 02' 42.128" (1950).
12hr 52m 37.136s + 40 46' 24.913" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3851.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.75. 12hr 50m 37.324s + 22 10' 56.501" (1950).
12hr 53m 05.014s + 21 54' 39.585" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3858.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.78. 12hr 51m 28.065s + 21 03' 30.678" (1950).
12hr 53m 56.003s + 20 47' 14.580" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3859.
POSS. O-1600.
Bigourdan #409. 12hr 51m 43.741s - 08 50' 46.641" (1950).
12hr 54m 19.913s - 09 07' 02.492" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Typed in the NGC 2000 and MOL as an open cluster. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." but they lists it as GSC 5535 00638 and
SIMBAD also omits the IC identity and gives the GSC identity.
Only other modern listings found were Steinicke and APL who correctly lists it as
a galaxy
IC 3866.
POSS. O-1435.
Wolf List VI, No.82. 12hr 51m 48.416s + 22 37' 50.167" (1950).
12hr 54m 15.830s + 22 21' 34.434" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy with companion: Only modern listings are Steinicke (2 galaxies).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED" but NED lists it as MAPS-NGP 0 379
0669802. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists it as IRAS F12517+2238.
APL (= two galaxies), NGC 2000 and MOL and both of these give the type as "Open
cluster."
IC 3877.
(See IC 3881).
IC 3878..
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.64. 12hr 52m 09.243s + 40 20' 30.775" (1950).
12hr 54m 29.965s + 40 04' 15.417" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only listings found are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 3881.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.95. 12hr 52m 26.134s + 19 23' 16.048" (1950).
12hr 54m 54.479s + 19 07' 00.907" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is a very complex problem and additionally includes the
possible identity of IC 3877.
To begin with this immediate field contains a considerable number of faint galaxy
images and one very dominant galaxy image which is both considerably brighter and
larger than all the others (ZWG 100.017 = U08036). This dominant object is a Mp
14.1 SBc galaxy which almost all the modern authorities identify as being IC 3881.
Its image is easily visible on the Palomar print, being the 4th or 5th brightest
nonstellar image on the entire print and its precise 1950 coordinates according to
the APL are 12hr 52m 25.6s + 19 23' 18."
I began my investigation by measuring the separation values between the GC star
17442 and the coordinates as given by Wolf and they indicated a galaxy image (with
a fainter companion close south preceding and at least another fainter galaxy
south preceding this one, all in close proximity), the nominal position being at
approximately 5.5 tsecs following and 3.4 arcmins south of the dominant
spiral. Well this fitted Wolf's description, however, I also employed as
references the Mv 7.1 star SAO 100323, which has a 1950 position of 12hr 51m
19.64s + 19 19' 41" and the closely associated galaxy IC 3886 and the
separation values in both cases pointed exactly to the same faint galaxy south
following the dominant SBc galaxy.
I am now convinced that it is this faint galaxy and not the much larger and much
brighter one which is what Wolf measured and is IC 3881 and that the CGCG, UGC,
MCG, RC3, PGC, DSFG, and UGC 2000 by selecting the SBc galaxy as being IC 3881
have all identified the wrong object.
Meanwhile the APL gives 2 separate sets of coordinates for IC 3881, one being
Wolf's and the other being Dressel and Condon's which is for the large SBc galaxy.One additional error concerns the declination value for IC 3881 as derived from
Dreyer's data.
Dreyer obtained his IC II coordinates entirely from those given by the discoverer,
in this case Wolf, whose 1875 epoch NPD coordinate for his Object #95 is 70 12'
17". Both Dreyer and Wolf agree that the annual rate of NPD precession is 19".6
therefore by applying this for the 15 years difference in epochs (4'.9) the Dreyer
1860 NPD should be 70 07'.4 not as Dreyer gives 70 05'.4 and due to this the
declination value given for the identity IC 3881 by the MOL (19 25' 15" epoch
1950) is in error.
When one examines the immediate field it is most obvious that the galaxy ZWG
100.017 by far dominates the area, no other field galaxy remotely approaching the
scale of ZWG 100.017, yet Wolf, who is the only observer to have any of the other
field associated IC identities, indicates by his coordinate data that he missed
this galaxy as the closest coordinate values he gives to this galaxy are those
given to his Object No.95, therefore the question is How could he have overlooked
ZWG 100.017 ?
I believe that he did not overlook ZWG 100.017 and that he did record it as his
Object No.93 = IC 3877. Wolf's coordinates for this identity are 12hr 52m 20s + 19
33' 50.906" (1950), which would place it at exactly the same RA as ZWG 100.017 but
6' 53" north and there is absolutely no nonstellar image anywhere close to this
position on the Palomar print.
Wolf describes his Object No.93 as [Considerably large, pretty faint, having a
shape similar to the Andromeda Nebula and extended in a PA of 20] and only one
object in this field fits this description and it is ZWG 100.017. It is also of
interest that the UGC gives its IC 3881 (= ZWG 100.017) a PA of 30 which is 10
degrees greater than Wolf's for his Object No.93, however, on the same Heidelberg
plate Wolf measured the PA for NGC 4826 to be 105 while the UGC gives 115, exactly
the same 10 degrees difference. Incidentally, Reiz, (A study of External Galaxies,
1941), using the same Heidelberg plates employed by Wolf gives the PA for ZWG
100.017 as 21.
Admittedly I have found no explanation for the almost 7 arcmin difference in
declination that is required to accept this hypothesis, other than a possible typo
error in Wolf's list, however, what is the alternative ? It could only be that IC
3877 is nonexistent and that Wolf did not recognize the nonstellar image of ZWG
100.017 on the Heidelberg plate.
I can certainly accept that IC 3877 could be nonexistent but the possibility that
Wolf must have overlooked the image of ZWG 100.017 is something with which I would
have great difficulty, especially as his description matches so well and if he
could recognize the nonstellar appearance of his Object No.95 then there is no way
he could have overlooked the nonstellar image of ZWG 100.017, therefore I am
proposing that what the modern authorities have identified as being IC 3881 is
actually IC 3877.
Steinicke has the correct identity for both IC 3877 and IC 3881 while NED lists IC
3877 as (Not found), and identifies what is actually IC 3877 as being IC 3881, as
does SIMBAD. NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), all at the declination based upon
Dreyer which is taken from Wolf's data. The APL has the correct identity for IC
3877 and IC 3881.
IC 3887.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.67. 12hr 52m 23.003s + 40 34' 36.106" (1950).
12hr 54m 43.560s + 40 18' 20.981" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3889.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.69. 12hr 52m 28.876s +36 17' 15.215" (1950).
12hr 54m 51.299s + 36 01' 00.162" (2000).
This is a star : It lies directly south of a triangle made up of a faint galaxy
and two stars. Steinicke has (=*). The APL has (probably a star). Listed in NGC
2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3893.
POSS. O-105.
Wolf List V, No.73. 12hr 52m 46.007s +38 50' 09.647" (1950).
12hr 55m 07.270s + 38 33' 54.898" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At the published coordinates as given by Wolf no nonstellar
image exists, but this is due to an almost 3.5 arcmin error in declination
discovered by Dr. Corwin on Wolf's original plate on which Wolf clearly marked its
image, many authorities have been misled as to its coordinates as given by Dreyer
based upon Wolf's mistaken declination.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL have declinations based upon this error. The APL and
Steinicke have the correct data and identity. Although NED states "There is no
object with this name in NED," the correct IC 3893 is found in NED identified as
2MASX J12550744+3837263. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists the
same galaxy as IRAS F12527+3853.
Correct coordinates for IC 3893 are 12hr 52m 45.7m +38 53' 39" (1950).
IC 3894.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.99. 12hr 52m 59.370s + 19 20' 29.849" (1950).
12hr 55m 27.674s + 19 04' 15.271" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3901.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.101. 12hr 53m 23.524s + 22 12' 30.452" (1950).
12hr 55m 50.888s + 21 56' 16.323" (2000).
This is a single star : At the position as given by Wolf I could only find the
image of a star and nothing that resembled Wolf's description "Vs, eF, elongated
in PA = 95." Carlson states "* Mt. Wilson photographs." and both of the modern
catalogues, NGC 2000 and MOL type it as being a star as does the APL. Steinicke
has (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 3902.
POSS. O- 110.
Wolf List V, No.77. 12hr 53m 16.240s + 36 15' 54.363" (1950).
12hr 55m 38.509s + 35 59' 40.115" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED and
SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 3903.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.78. 12hr 53m 18.398s + 40 40' 12.450" (1950).
12hr 55m 38.689s + 40 23' 58.267" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Listed in APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." No other listings found.
IC 3906.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.80. 12hr 53m 30.776s + 40 44' 09.754" (1950).
12hr 55m 50.986s + 40 27' 55.784" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings found were APL and Steinicke (=*),
however, Steinicke's star is different to mine which lies north following his
selection. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3910.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.82. 12hr 53m 44.300s + 39 59' 39.080" (1950).
12hr 56m 04.807s + 39 43' 25.338" (2000).
This is a double star : Wolf in his description states "? neb double star."
Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED. SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 3912.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.84. 12hr 53m 47.256s + 40 10' 47.155" (1950).
12hr 56m 07.664s + 39 54' 33.465" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listed in APL and Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD
(Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3914.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No. 85. 12hr 54m 00.877s + 36 38' 07.463" (1950).
12hr 56m 22.833s + 36 21' 53.986" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Only modern listings are APL (= galaxy + star (or comp?)
(+defect?) (verified). Steinicke (= elliptical galaxy). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED" however, they do list it as 2MASX J1256227+362139. SIMBAD
"Not present in the database," however, they identify the same galaxy as NGP9 F269-
0571497. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3915.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.104. 12hr 54m 11.616s + 20 23' 29.625" (1950).
12hr 56m 39.471s + 20 07' 16.305" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=* 10 arcmin error in Dec.),
Steinicke(=*). NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Correct coordinates for IC 3915 are 12hr 54m 11.1s + 20 33' 42" (1950).
NOTE: See Dr.Corwin's explanation in his PUZZLE SOLUTION FILES.
IC 3917 & IC 3918.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.106. 12hr 54m 24.614s + 22 16' 29.958" (1950). (IC 3917)
12hr 56m 51.840s + 22 00' 16.891" (2000).
Wolf List VI, No.107. 12hr 54m 26.636s + 22 38' 35.001" (1950). (IC 3918).
12hr 56m 53.737s + 22 22' 21.986" (2000).
This is a rather interesting problem due to the fact that for some reason, which I
have been unable to find, a number of the modern sources equate these two
identities, giving them the same coordinates yet according to Wolf and Dreyer they
are separated by some 22' 5" of declination.
At the coordinates Wolf gives for IC 3918 there is the image of a verifiable
galaxy and it is at this position that the PGC, NED, NGC 2000 and MOL place both
identities, while at the position Wolf gives for IC 3917 there is only the image
of a star.
As I am unable to find at this time any corrections that would have supported the
equivalency as published by the PGC, NED, NGC 2000 and MOL I can only conclude
that IC 3917 is a star and IC 3918 a confirmed galaxy. The APL gives the correct
coordinates and correct identities as does Steinicke. SIMBAD lists both identities
as separate yet their coordinates for both IC 3917 and IC 3918 are practically the
same.
IC 3919.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.86. 12hr 54m 27.942s + 38 47' 58.154" (1950).
12hr 56m 48.837s + 38 31' 45.161" (2000).
Not found at nominal position :
Corwin has determined from the original plate that Wolf's declination is about 3.5
arcmin too far south and when the correction is applied it lands just off the
south following end of a galaxy. This then would validate IC 3919 as being a
galaxy at 12hr 54m 27.84s + 38 51' 32.8" (1950).
Only modern listings are APL (Marked on Wolf's plate. = West of 2), Steinicke and
NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE : See Dr Corwin's explanation in his "Corrections to IC Puzzles."
IC 3923.
POSS. O- 110.
Wolf List V, No.91. 12hr 54m 40.250s + 38 13' 33.457" (1950).
12hr 57m 01.360s + 37 57' 20.676" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 3925.
POSS. O- 110.
Wolf List V, No.92. 12hr 54m 53.361s + 36 41' 37.775" (1950).
12hr 57m 15.108s + 36 25' 25.215" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=**). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3926.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.109. 12hr 55m 04.015s + 23 04' 54.950" (1950).
12hr 57m 30.897s + 22 48' 42.591" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD
(Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3932.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.112. 12hr 55m 37.735s + 19 51' 14.785" (1950).
12hr 58m 05.615s + 19 35' 02.982" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star :
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke has (=*). NGC 2000 gives (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 3933.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.96. 12hr 55m 35.694s + 36 54' 53.849" 91950).
12hr 57m 57.195s + 36 38' 42.040" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED
(Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3934.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.113. 12hr 55m 49.454s + 19 05' 44.079" (1950).
12hr 58m 17.558s + 18 49' 32.478" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Dr. Corwin in his APL types this same object as being "= *,
(verified)." however, its appearance to me on the DSS seems to definitely be a
galaxy, (Confirmed on the DSS Second Generation). The NGC 2000 has (No Type) and
the MOL (NSO). Steinicke lists it as (spiral GX). NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED" however, they list it as 2MASX J12581756+1849316. SIMBAD "Not
present in the database," and has no listing for the correct object.
IC 3935.
POSS. O-1393.
Javelle #1230. 12hr 55m 47.308s + 26 39' 57.973" (1950).
12hr 58m 12.855s + 26 23' 46.490" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4849 (D'Arrest) : The CGCG has mistaken what is actually
NGC 4849 and listed it as being IC 838. The UGC correctly equates IC 3935 with
NGC 4849 and makes it a companion to IC 838. MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, RC Notes,
Steinicke, NED and PGC all correctly equate IC 3935 and NGC 4849. SIMBAD has
completely confused the identity making it equal to LEDA 44438 at coordinates of
12hr 58m 18.21s +29 07' 43.2" (2000).
IC 3936.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.114. 12hr 55m 51.347s + 19 19' 09.129" (1950).
12hr 58m 19.376s + 19 02' 57.564" (2000).
This is a double star : At Wolf's nominal position there is an extremely faint
star (possibly 18th mag.), however, very close north are 3 brighter stars, the
following 2 being closest together and it this pair that I believe is what Wolf
listed as being his #114. Wolf describes his object as "neb *13, *12.5 follows 1
arcmin." and such a star does follow the double.
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*2). NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 3938.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.116. 12hr 55m 57.668s + 19 01' 18.289" (1950).
12hr 58m 25.782s + 18 45' 06.835" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3939.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.117. 12hr 56m 00.162s + 19 01' 18.353" (1950).
12hr 58m 28.272s + 18 45' 06.943" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD
(Not found), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3941.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No. 98. 12hr 55m 54.186s + 40 02' 31.349" (1950).
12hr 58m 14.159s + 39 46' 19.892" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The APL has as one of its three given entries for this
identity describing it as "Defect, verified," however, to me the image based upon
the DSS is that of a small, faint elliptical galaxy. It should also be stated
that the APL under the sources HCds and KHJ 1 does indicate that IC 3941 is an
existing galaxy. Steinicke lists it as "galaxy = NPMIG +40.0304." The NGC 2000
has (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED",
however, they do list it as 2MASX J12581387+3946225. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but list it as LEDA 3088023.
IC 3942.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.99. 12hr 55m 58.117s + 36 22' 42.419" (1950).
12hr 58m 19.780s + 36 06' 31.012" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED and
PGC have identified as IC 3942 a 17.8 Mp galaxy = IZW. 048 at 12hr 58m 36.23s +36
07' 55.0" (2000) " which does not comply with the historical coordinates. NED does
add a NOTE stating "Found to be a Galactic star by Sargent (ApJ 160, 405, 1970).
SIMBAD also identifies it as LEDA 44492 and this is the same incorrect object as
selected by NED and PGC.
IC 3948.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.119. 12hr 56m 32.027s + 24 19' 53.206" (1950).
12hr 58m 58.301s + 24 03' 42.436" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It is the preceding of two compact galaxies aligned south
preceding north following: I must admit that I originally identified it as the
middle of three faint stars in line, however, I have re-examined the field on the
DSS Second Generation and there is no doubt that the two images are galaxies
preceded in line by a faint star. Only modern listings are APL (Middle of 3
galaxies). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke (E type galaxy). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED" but they do list it as NGP9 F379-
0279883 as does SIMBAD.
IC 3961.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.103. 12hr 56m 40.285s + 35 08' 06.498" (1950).
12hr 59m 02.351s + 34 51' 55.853" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4861 (H 30-4) : Wolf's description for IC 3961 is
"Somewhat like the Andromeda Nebula, lying between 2 stars of the 12th magnitude,
Pretty large, ! pretty faint, major axis aligned 30 degrees."
Now this is obviously a description of the elongated galaxy visible as such on the
Palomar print and is confirmed by the CGCG which states "IC 3961 is a spiral
galaxy of magnitude 14.1 seen edgewise. NGC 4861 is a bright emission patch of
magnitude 13.2 at the SW end of the galaxy." and the UGC which reports in its
Notes for U08098 = NGC 4861 + IC 3961, "IC 3961 is a large diffuse system of mag.
14.1; NGC 4861 is a bright knot 0.35 x 0.30, mag. 13.2, superimposed on the south
part of IC 3961." Both the CGCG and UGC are incorrect in stating that NGC 4861 is a
bright knot. The two identities are equivalent and only apply to the large galaxy.
There can be no doubt that what William Herschel discovered in 1785 and which
became NGC 4861 is this same object described by Wolf. Herschel's description
states "Two stars distant 3 minutes of arc connected with a faint, narrow
nebulosity," (Scientific Papers 1912).
Later John Herschel recorded it as "A very faint nebula, elongated north following
south preceding, between two stars the southern of which is ill defined, both seem
to belong to the nebula," (Slough Observations 1833).
A further historical source can be found in three separate observations carried
out at Birr Castle with the Rosse 72 inch reflector, the object being seen as "A
very faint streak of nebulosity elongated south preceding north following having a
plain star in the northern extremity and either a star or what looks more like a
bright little knot invested in the southern end," (Rosse 1880).
Thus it would seem that what Wolf was referring to is exactly the same object as H
30-4, therefore IC 3961 has to be a duplicate observation of NGC 4861 and not a
separate , associated object as suggested by both the CGCG, SIMBAD and UGC.
From a correct historical position I would also argue that one cannot claim the
associated "knot" as being IC 3961 as it is quite evident that Wolf was not in any
way referring to this feature in his description.
The MCG lists the object as NGC 4861 = IC 3961 ?. The APL and NED correctly make
IC 3961 = NGC 4861. Both the NGC 2000 and M.O.L. show both identities as being
separate objects. The DSFG lists only the identity NGC 4861 (which is
historically correct), as does the RC3, while the PGC (Corrections) points out
that the UGC is incorrect in assigning the identity IC 3961 to UO8098 and also
correctly equates it with NGC 4861. Steinicke equates IC 3961 with both NGC 4861
and UGC 08098. Anyone interested in further details of this problem see my paper
"NGC 4861/IC 3961 A Problem of Identity. W.S.Q.J. No. 45. July 1981."
There is another error in the NGC in which Dreyer identifies IC 3961 as being
Wolf's Object # 105 when it should be # 103.
NOTE : The 1996 version of the PGC lists IC 3961 as equal to ZWG 189.005 (CGCG)
and does not equate it with NGC 4861.
IC 3962.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.125. 12hr 56m 48.870s + 23 56' 13.641" (1950).
12hr 59m 15.247s + 23 40' 03.174" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3964.
POSS. O-1393.
Kobold. 12hr 56m 49.182s + 28 07' 22.888" (1950).
12hr 59m 14.047s + 27 51' 12.529" (2000).
This is a faint star : Only listings found were NGC 2000 (= Star), APL = *. NED
There is no object with this name in NED" SIMBAD "Not present in the database" and
MOL (single star). Steinicke also correctly lists it as being a star.
IC 3970.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.107. 12hr 56m 52.279s + 40 40' 25.859" (1950).
12hr 59m 11.707s + 40 24' 15.457" (2000).
Equal to the south following of 2 stars : Only modern listings are APL (=*),
Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3972.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No. 108. 12hr 56m 56.339s + 37 32' 58.937" (1950).
12hr 59m 17.265s + 37 16' 48.588" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL
(=*). Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 3974.
Swift List XI, #146. 12hr 57m 38.992s - 35 05' 06.168" (1950).
13hr 00m 24.762s - 35 21' 15.748" (2000).
Not found : At Swift's coordinates no nonstellar object exists. The NGC 2000,
APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and ESO each equate it with the identity NGC 4947
(h 3461) a 12.6 Mp galaxy at 13hr 02m 34s - 35 04'.2 which means that if this is
what Swift was observing then his RA has an error of almost 5 tmin.
I examined Swift's observational data in order to see if on the same night (March
28th 1898), that he listed his #146 he had discovered any other objects and thus I
would perhaps be able to see if there was evidence of any similar type positional
error and found that the only other discovery was his #154 = IC 4222 and although
this nova turns out to be two stars there does not appear to be any confirmable
coordinate error concerning this identity.
Swift data often has large positional errors, however, although perhaps not a
singular case, an error of 5 tmin would not be expected. There is one other
possible candidate and it is an extended galaxy identified as NGC 4947A or MCG -
06-29-005A = PGC 045180. Mp 15.01 It lies at 13hr 01m 34.3s -34 57' 37".2, which
is about 1 tmin RA closer to Swift's given RA, however, its declination differs
from Swift by about 7.5 arcmin. otherwise it fits Swift's description "eeF, pS,
lE."
The MOL (NSO) has the historical coordinates. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC
4947.
IC 3977.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.111. 12hr 56m 58.548s + 37 03' 59.991" (1950).
12hr 59m 19.689s + 36 47' 49.678" (2000).
This is a star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL and
Steinicke (=*) NED and SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 3979.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.112. 12hr 56m 59.751s + 36 35' 44.018" (1950).
12hr 59m 21.103s + 36 19' 33.728" (2000).
Appears completely stellar : Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and APL
(=*). Steinicke identifies it as (=*). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3981.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.115. 12hr 57m 00.749s + 37 29' 54.052" (1950).
12hr 59m 21.683s + 37 13' 43.783" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without any Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*).
NED and SIMBAD have (Not found).
IC 3982.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.116. 12hr 56m 59.073s + 40 21' 02.034" (19450).
12hr 59m 18.637s + 40 04' 51.754" (2000).
This is the middle star of a group of three : Wolf describes it as "Very Small,
Very Faint, Between two 13 mag. stars.", however, I was unable to detect any
evidence of nebulosity associated with this star. Only listings found were APL
and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3983.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.118. 12hr 57m 00.363s + 39 31' 01.060" (1950).
12hr 59m 20.336s + 39 14' 50.707" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*2). APL (=**), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3984.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.130. 12hr 57m 14.465s + 19 53' 44.284" (1950).
12hr 59m 42.168s + 19 37' 34.235" (2000).
This is a star : Listed in the APL as (=*, verified). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Only other
listings are Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3988.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.120. 12hr 57m 06.605s + 37 31' 02.205" (1950).
12hr 59m 27.508s + 37 14' 52.044" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED
and SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 3989.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.121. 12hr 57m 08.302s + 37 03' 24.246" (1950).
12hr 59m 29.413s + 36 47' 14.112" (2000).
This is a single star : This is one of the few times that it appears that Wolf
had a significant error in his measured coordinates as Corwin has examined the
original photograph on which Wolf clearly marks the object on the plate and its
position would have 1950 coordinates of 12hr 57m 07.6s + 37 01' 34", or almost 2
arcmin south of his given declination.
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 3992.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.122. 12hr 57m 12.191s + 37 02' 33.348" (1950).
12hr 59m 33.294s + 36 46' 23.285" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). NED
and SIMBAD (Not found).
Also measured from IC 4002.
IC 3995.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.124. 12hr 57m 13.540s + 39 09' 23.402" (1950).
12hr 59m 33.639s + 38 53' 13.379" (2000).
This is a complex problem : At the standard error found in Wolf's coordinates
(fractions of a tsec RA and a couple of arcsec Dec.) there is the image of a
small, very faint galaxy with a companion immediately north preceding (DSS. Second
Generation Red), however, Corwin states that on the marked plate copy he examined
Wolf indicates the image to be that of a star at 12hr 57m 13.9 + 39 18' 34"
(1950), or about 9 arcmin north of the nominal position.
If the marked position is not a historical error then Corwin's finding must be the
correct solution. Listed in the APL as being equal to a star.
Only other listings are Steinicke (=*). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 3996.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.125. 12hr 57m 12.409s + 40 44' 11.387" (1950).
12hr 59m 31.725s + 40 28' 01.354" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only listings are Steinicke and APL (=*). NED "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 3999.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan #305. 12hr 56m 48.481s - 13 52' 04.548" (1950).
12hr 59m 26.412s - 14 08' 15.111" (2000).
Equal to NGC 4862 (Leavenworth) :
Bigourdan in the COMPTES RENDUS. January 11th 1897, describes his #305 as "A trace
of nebulosity, excessively faint. Suspected only." He gives it coordinates of
12hr 57.9m - 13 58'.2 which are the coordinates as given by Dreyer in the IC II.
Later in his 1919 work he states "IC 3999. One suspects a trace of nebulosity in
the vicinity of a 13.4 star (A), situated from the star BD -13 3633 at 0m 30s
following and 3.7arcmin north."
The 1950 position for the 8th magnitude star BD -13 3633 is 12hr 57m 18.6s - 13
55' 20", therefore by applying Bigourdan's separation values the coordinates for
the star (A) would be 12hr 57m 48.6s - 13 51' 38 and at these coordinates there is
only blank space.
If Bigourdan got his directions wrong in his RA offset, or there is a
typographical error in the direction of his RA offset so that it was - 30 tsec
instead of + 30 tsec then the resultant position would be 12hr 56m 48.6s - 13 51'
38", very close to the galaxy NGC 4862 at 12hr 56m 52.9s - 13 51' 48" (NED).
To support this equivalency it can be argued that Bigourdan also looked for
Leavenworth's NGC 4862 at the coordinates as given in the NGC, however, these were
based upon the atrocious coordinates provided by Leavenworth which were 12hr 57m
08s - 12 52'.9 and Bigourdan, as expected could not find NGC 4862, therefore, he
would not have even considered that what he listed as his #305 could be
Leavenworth's NGC 4862.
The NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), APL and Steinicke have the correct equivalency.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
NOTE : After completing my findings and conclusion I sent off a version to Dr.
Corwin for his comments and am happy to say that he is in full agreement with
them. He further noted that Bigourdan stated when searching for NGC 4862 that he
changed his RA offset from + (1st observation) to - (2nd observation) and this
adds support to my findings.
IC 4005.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.134. 12hr 57m 36.437s + 22 54' 26.881" (1950).
13hr 00m 03.077s + 22 38' 17.278" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4006.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.132. 12hr 57m 28.445s + 37 16' 42.778" (1950).
12hr 59m 49.382s + 37 00' 33.015" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=* + defect). Steinicke
(=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4008.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.136. 12hr 57m 39.172s + 22 37' 10.951" (1950).
13hr 00m 05.907s + 22 21' 01.394" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4009.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.133. 12hr 57m 31.163s + 36 55' 51.846" (1950).
12hr 59m 52.251s + 36 39' 42.132" (2000).
This is a star : At the exact position derived from Wolf's measurements there is
the image of a faint star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4013.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No135. 12hr 57m 37.069s + 37 28' 15.007" (1950).
12hr 59m 57.885s + 37 12' 05.405" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG and UGC have no listing. MCG lists the fainter of
the double system NGC 4893 as = IC 4013, however this is incorrect as IC 4013
is a star located 2 tsec preceding and 21 arcsecs north of the northernmost of the
system NGC 4893. NGC 2000 lists without Type and the MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object). The APL and Steinicke correctly list it as (= *). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED," however, when a search is made for NGC 4893 NED
equates its identity with IC 4013. SIMBAD incorrectly equates IC 4013 with the MCG
galaxy +06-29-009, or the fainter of the two galaxies.
IC 4015 & IC 4016.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, Nos.136 & 137. 12hr 57m 39.062s + 37 27' 54.060" (1950).
12hr 59m 59.874s + 37 11' 44.495" (2000) (IC 4015).
12hr 57m 39.263s + 37 27m 42.065" (1950).
13hr 00m 00.076s + 37 11' 32.504" (2000). (IC 4016).
Both of these identities are equal to the single identity NGC 4893 (D'Arrest) :
There is considerable confusion regarding all three identities.
To begin with Wolf incorrectly identified his No142a as being NGC 4893, but his
No.142a is actually an anon. galaxy located ~ 9.5s of RA following and 7 '.0 north
of the true NGC 4893. He also mistakes the correct NGC 4893 for the
two associated objects Nos. 136 = IC 4015 and 137 = IC 4016.
The CGCG, NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all correctly equate IC 4015 and IC
4016 with NGC 4893. MCG, NED and PGC give only the identity NGC 4893. UGC gives
NGC 4893 (double system ), however, in its Notes it incorrectly identifies as a
star IC 4073, which is a galaxy located about 2' 43 " north of NGC 4893 . This is
probably a misprint for IC 4013. DSFG states "IC 4016 = NGC 4893A." APL makes IC
4015 and IC 4016 = NGC 4893 . Steinicke make IC 4015 = NGC 4893 and IC 4016 = NGC
4893A. SIMBAD lists NGC 4893 and IC 4013 as two separate identities making up the
double system and has no references to the identities IC 4015 and IC 4016 other than
"Not present in the database."
IC 4018.
POSS. 0-133.
Wolf List V, No.138. 12hr 57m 38.834s +40 45' 12.085" (1950).
12hr 59m 58.035s +40 29' 02.537" (2000).
This is a galaxy: There appears to be considerable confusion as to the type of
object this is, whether it is a star or nonstellar object.
Corwin in the NOTES to his Files states "IC 4018. My first sweep over this had it as
a galaxy with a star superposed. But looking at the DSS, and comparing it with the
print of the original plate,it is clear that the object is simply two stars. I
suspect I had the wrong objects on the POSS1 prints the first time around."
When I first examined this identty many years ago I decided that the image, although
difficult to correctly assess with the POSS1 photos, was that there were two
"stars", the southern one being definitely a star, while the northern of the two was
a nonstellar object and therefore, until now I had not included it as part of my
"Corrections." Since then I have just recently re-examned the image on the DSS,
employing all of the various options available and my original belief as to the
northern component being a galaxy is still strong, especially when viewed on the
POSS2 photos.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000(No Type), MOL (NSO). APL (= 2 stars). Steinicke (=
E type galaxy).
NED When the identity IC 4018 is entered the return read " There is no object with
this name in NED," however, by placing a search at the coordinates it returns one
Object and gives it 3 Object Names, two being the IRS identities and the third being
typed as (G = Galaxy).
SIMBAD. Has "Not present in the database," and has no other listing for the object.
USNO-A2.0 Identifies it as #1275-08175085 and gives no type or class, therefore I
assume it takes it to be a star?
USNO-B1.0: #1304-0229520 Class (Star-galaxy separation) = 7. The scale reads , 0
means "quite dissimilar" equal to Non-stellar object. 11 means "Quite similar"
equal to a Stellar object.
GSC2.2: N13001123422. Class 3 = Non-star.
APM-North Cat: E00133-0246268. bClass1 = Non-stellar, probably galaxy. (Same
classification in rClass).
NOTE: Steve Gottlieb upon my request examined the DSS photographs of IC 4018 and
following his his reply.
"I did look at the images of IC 4018 at the position you stated (12h 59m 57.36s, +40
29' 19.0" (2000) and the object at that position certainly is non-stellar and does
look to me to be a galaxy (nearly elongated 2:1 N-S). The density and softness of
the image does not seem to match other stellar objects of a similar size, which also
implies it is not a star. The only other possibility would be the merged image of a
galaxy + star or a merged double star but I don't see the evidence based on the
image."
IC 4019.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.139. 12hr 57m 50.848s + 23 59' 16.269" (1950).
13hr 00m 17.078s + 23 43' 06.942" (2000).
This is the south preceding component of a double star : Only modern listings are
APL (double star). Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4022.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.140. 12hr 57m 45.045s + 38 44' 54.230" (1950).
13hr 00m 05.223s + 38 28' 44.784" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (= *). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4024.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.141. 12hr 57m 44.977s +40 46' 45.248" (1950).
13hr 00m 04.140s + 40 30' 35.814" (2000).
This is a single star : Only listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4034 (See IC 4043).
IC 4036.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.148. 12hr 57m 59.941s + 37 10' 48.612" (1950).
13hr 00m 20.812s + 36 54' 39.431" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 4036. NGC 2000
lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*).
NED and SIMBAD (Not found).
IC 4038.
(See IC 4043).
IC 4040.
POSS. O-1393.
Bigourdan #306. 12hr 58m 14.250s + 28 17' 07.503" (1950).
13hr 00m 38.839s + 28 00' 58.690" (2000).
Kobold. 12hr 58m 12.995s + 28 19' 35.793" (1950).
13hr 00m 37.580s + 28 03' 27.408" (2000).
Both confirmed but different galaxies : Although Dreyer indicates that
Bigourdan and Kobold are referring to the same object this is incorrect as they
are separate galaxies about 2.5 arcmins apart in declination.
Bigourdan's object is = Reinmuth 1.103 = RB110 = the double system PGC44792/44794.
Bigourdan's reference star (Anon 1) is equal to GSC 1995-1703 at 12hr 58m 22.4s
+28 25' 07".9 and his offsets (- 8.84 tsec and 7' 57" of arc south) clearly
indicate that he was measuring a completely separate object from that measured by
Kobold.
Kobold's object = Reinmuth 1.101, is slightly extended North preceding south
following.
As it would appear that Bigourdan's B.306 was discovered prior to Kobold's object
(Kobold in his publication, Vierteljahrsschrift der Astr. Ges; xxxiii. p.154.
describes it as "= B.306 ?"), then Bigourdan's object would qualify as being the
correct IC 4040 as both cannot be this identity.
Dreyer employed Kobold's coordinates for the identity IC 4040, thus it can be
argued that Kobold's object is IC 4040, if so then Bigourdan's galaxy would have
to be considered as not being either a NGC or IC identity, however, it may be
equally argued that just because Dreyer erred by equating what are in fact two
separate objects then why should Bigourdan not get the IC identity which he would
appear to merit, after all, Dreyer does credit the identity IC 4040 to B.306
making him the prime discoverer.
CGCG, MOL (Galaxy), NGC 2000 (Galaxy), IC II, RC3, DSFG, APL, NED, SIMBAD PGC,
Steinicke and MCG all identify Kobold's object as being IC 4040..
Note: In Dreyer's IC II he credits in this same field Bigourdan's #307 (IC 4045)
and Bigourdan's #308 (IC 4051) with Kobold's numbers 33 and 34 and this is
correct, however, it should be pointed out that in both cases Bigourdan was the
original discoverer.
NOTE : See Astronomy & Geophysics (The Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society), August 1999. page 4.9
Steinicke has informed me that Bigourdan's galaxy is a single object and that the
"double system" consists of a galaxy with a star attached north. This correction
being found in the 1996 Version of the PGC, however, the PGC still identifies
Kobold's object as being IC 4040.
IC 4043.
POSS. O-110,
Wolf List V, No.151. 12hr 58m 14.353s +37 20' 30.998" (1950).
13hr 00m 35.097s + 37 04' 22.087" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as UGC 08123. NED and PGC give the
UGC identity but not the IC identity. The UGC also in its NOTES for UGC 08123
refers to a companion double system at a PA of 238, separation 1.7 arcmin, but
this double system is made up by the two identities IC 4034 and IC 4038.
Not listed in CGCG or MCG. NGC 2000 has (Gx) and MOL (NSO). Correctly identified
in the APL and by Steinicke.
IC 4046.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.152. 12hr 58m 18.791s + 36 57' 17.113" (1950).
13hr 00m 39.701s + 36 41' 08.283" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4050.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.156. 12hr 58m 22.734s + 37 00' 29.219" (1950).
13hr 00m 43.605s + 36 44' 20.463" (2000).
This is a double star, suspected as such by Wolf : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. NGC 2000 lists the identity and gives Type as [Double Star ?]. MOL
lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=**). Steinicke gives (=*2). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4051.
POSS. O-1393.
Bigourdan #308. 12hr 58m 26.631s + 28 18' 39.365" (1950).
13hr 00m 51.180s + 28 02' 30.784" (2000).
Kobold 12hr 58m 26.640s + 28 18' 43.621" (1950).
13hr 00m 51.187s + 28 02' 35.039" (2000).
IC 4051 Field:
North is up and Preceding right.
Confirmed galaxy : The problem concerns the identities of both IC 4051 and NGC
4908, two separate galaxies which lie close to each other in a north preceding,
south following orientation.
The modern authorities make the north preceding object equal to NGC 4908, while
the historical data makes the north preceding object equal to IC 4051.
When D'Arrest discovered what was to be listed by Dreyer as NGC 4908 he gave it
coordinates which compute to 12hr 58m 25.761s + 28 17' 09.692 (1950), which land
close north preceding the south following galaxy which I shall call Object A.
Bigourdan made an observation of NGC 4908 and placed it at 12hr 58m 29.697s + 28
16' 37.831 (1950). These more accurate coordinates land right on the south
following of the two galaxies, again this is Object A. He then proceeded to
record a Nova, his #308 equal to IC 4051, placing it at 12hr 58m 26.631 + 28 18'
39.365 (1950), this lands upon the north preceding galaxy which I shall call
Object B.
Kobold also measured the positions of these same two galaxies, 12hr 58m 26.640s +
28 18' 43.621" (1950) for Object B which he identifies as "= B.308 ?" and 12 58
29.619 +28 16' 38.056" (1950) for Object A which he identifies as "NGC 4908 ?"
Dreyer gave the identity IC 4051 to Object B, and employed Kobold's positions for
Object B in the IC II, Thus the historical data all make IC 4051 the north
preceding galaxy, namely Object B.
Now when it comes to the modern authorities, CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000,
MOL, DFSG and RC3 all make the north preceding galaxy (Object B) equal to NGC 4908
and the south following galaxy (Object A) is identified as being IC 4051, which I
believe to be incorrect and that these identities should be reversed. It should be
noted that the MCG, Steinicke and APL are the only modern catalogues that I have
found that identifies the north preceding galaxy as IC 4051 and the south following
galaxy as NGC 4908.
IC 4052.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.157. 12hr 58m 22.075s + 39 56' 11.229" (1950).
13hr 00m 41.522s + 39 40' 02.479" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*). APL (= blended
**), NED "There is no object with this name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4053.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.144. 12hr 58m 34.814s + 23 11' 43.436" (1950).
13hr 01m 01.237s + 22 55' 34.925" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke(=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4054.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.145. 12hr 58m 35.125s + 23 10' 23.444" (1950).
13hr 01m 01.555s + 22 54' 14.939" (2000).
Equal to a faint star: Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4055.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.146. 12hr 58m 36.119s + 23 10' 39.471" (1950).
13hr 01m 02.546s + 22 54' 30.984" (2000).
Not Found : At the nominal position no image exists, the closest being the star
equal to IC 4054 which lies about 1 tsec preceeding and 16 arcsec south. Only
modern listings are APL (=defect?), Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED (Not found), NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4057.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.147. 12hr 58m 38.883s + 23 25' 36.547" (1950).
13hr 01m 05.215s + 23 09' 28.114" (2000).
This is a star : The nominal position is for a very faint star, however, just off
the star's northern end there is what appears to be a group of four closely
associated, exceedingly faint galaxies
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*2). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 4064.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.164. 12h 58m 48.591s + 40 06' 22.945" (1950).
13hr 01m 07.847s + 39 50' 14.693" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG has identified its ZWG 217.006 as being IC 4062, this
object is IC 4064. This error is noted in the UGC (Notes to U08131) and the PGC.
The UGC, SIMBAD, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) all have the correct
identity.
APL, NED and Steinicke correctly equate the identity ZWG 217.006 with IC 4064.
IC 4066.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.150. 12hr 59m 13.032s + 19 32' 30.442" (1950).
13hr 01m 40.656s + 19 16' 22.606" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4067.
POSS.0-133.
Wolf List V, No.166. 12hr 59m 00.642s + 40 12' 29.272" (1950).
13hr 01m 19.799s + 39 56' 21.248" (2000).
The northern of 3 galaxies: NED omits the IC identity, while SINBAD has "No
Listing." NGC 2000 and MOL have correct identities as does the APL and Steinicke.
Not listed in the CGCG or UGC. The MCG has incorrectly combined the two identities
IC 4067-68 and made it the southern of the 3 galaxies.
IC 4068.
POSS 0-133.
Wolf List V, No.167. 12hr 59m 00.872s + 40 10' 01.278" (1950).
13hr 01m 20.048s + 39 53' 53.258" (2000).
The southern of 3 galaxies: NED and SIMBAD both incorrectly identify this as being
IC 4067. NGC 2000 and MOL have the correct identities. The MCG lists it as IC
4067-68, IC 4067 is an entirely separate galaxy. Not listed in the CGCG or UGC.
Correctly identified by APL and Steinicke.
IC 4072.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.169. 12hr 59m 05.080s + 37 37' 34.367" (1950).
13hr 01m 25.507s + 37 21' 26.411" (2000).
This is and exceedingly faint star. Only listings are APL and Steinicke (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4078.
POSS. O- 110.
Wolf List V, No.172. 12hr 59m 15.152s + 36 51' 45.634" (1950).
13hr 01m 35.908s + 36 35' 37.864" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists and
gives the Type as Galaxy, however, they give it the same coordinates as IC 4086
which is a confirmed galaxy lying 8s of RA following and 3'15" north of the
position Wolf gives for IC 4078. APL (=**). MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object) and gives the correct coordinates. Steinicke identifies as (*2). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4084.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.175. 12hr 59m 20.764s + 37 14' 11.790" (1950).
13hr 01m 41.323s + 36 58' 04.128" (2000).
This is a double star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=**). NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4090.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.178. 12hr 59m 25.728s + 37 06' 20.924" (1950).
13hr 01m 46.331s + 36 50' 13.356" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without any Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=* + defect). Steinicke
(=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 4092.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.161. 12hr 59m 46.391s + 19 27' 09.351" (1950).
13hr 02m 13.991s + 19 11' 02.150" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4093.
POSS. O-1393.
Bigourdan #310. 12hr 59m 41.218s + 29 15' 37.526" (1950).
13hr 02m 04.908s + 28 59' 30.48" (2000).
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC lists without Type. MOL
lists as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 4097.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.179a. 12hr 59m 44.487s + 36 52' 25.435" (1950).
13hr 02m 05.136s + 36 36m 18.224" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4099.
POSS. O-1581
Wolf List VI, No.164. 12hr 59m 57.152s + 24 21' 15.680" (1950).
13hr 02m 22.985s + 24 05' 08.743" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At Wolf's given position no object exists, however, Corwin
points out in the APL that there is a 3.5 arcmin error in Wolf's position which
would give it a declination of + 24 17' 45" (1950). and that the correct object is
marked on the original Heidelberg plate
Only other modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type)and MOL (NSO) both at Dreyer's
incorrect position. Steinicke has the correct identity. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED" but they do list it as 2MASX J13022324+2401449.
SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list the correct object as NGP9 F379-
0319672.
IC 4101.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.182. 12hr 59m 55.114s + 40 12' 30.760" (1950).
13hr 02m 14.055s + 39 56' 23.773" (2000).
Equal to a star: Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4109.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.166. 13hr 00m 30.371s + 19 16' 13.561" (1950).
13hr 02m 57.968s + 19 00' 07.206" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=* + defect), NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). Steinicke has (Compact galaxy) and NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4112.
POSS. O-110
Wolf List V, No.188. 13hr 00m 24.448s + 37 28' 44.544" (1950).
13hr 02m 44.663s + 37 12' 38.104" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG and UGC have no listing.
MCG lists its +6-29-20 as IC 4112 = IC 4115 ? however, although IC 4115 is an
existing galaxy Wolf placed his No.188 (IC 4112) 3.9s of RA preceding and 45" of
arc south of his IC 4115 at which position there is only the image of a single
star.
NGC 2000 lists without Type and MOL (NSO). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED list as a
galaxy equal to MCG +06-29-020 and identify it incorrectly as IC 4112, but the
galaxy is IC 4115. The PGC lists both IC 4112 and IC 4115 as galaxies. They give
the correct coordinates for IC 4115, however, what they claim as being IC 4112
they place north following IC 4115 whereas, Wolf's data clearly places IC 4112
south preceding his correct position for IC 4115, at which place there is only a
star. NED incorrectly identifies what is IC 4115 as being IC 4112, while lsting the
identity IC 4115 as Not found. SIMBAD incorrectly equates both identities.
IC 4116.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.169. 13hr 00m 42.90s + 19 21' 02.909" (1950).
13hr 03m 10.442s + 19 04' 56.798" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD
(Not found). NGC 2000 (no Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4117.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.191. 13hr 00m 29.752s + 40 47' 38.725" (1950).
13hr 02m 48.244s + 40 31' 32.408" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4120.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.193. 13hr 00m 41.247s + 37 21' 06.010" (1950).
13hr 03m 01.464s + 37 04' 59.894" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4121.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.171. 13hr 00m 54.870s + 19 32' 57.244" (1950).
13hr 03m 22.324s + 19 16' 51.368" (2000).
Equal to a very faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4126.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.175. 13hr 01m 08.815s + 19 35' 18.634" (1950).
13hr 03m 36.232s + 19 19' 13.031" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4132.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.197. 13hr 01m 14.920s + 38 38' 47.966" (1950).
13hr 03m 34.366s + 38 22' 42.515" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4134.
POSS. O-1591.
Bigourdan #314. 12hr 59m 24.057s - 11 06' 11.070" (1950).
13hr 02m 01.284s - 11 22' 18.715" (2000).This is equivalent to NGC 4920 : The entire
credit for solving this problem
belongs to Dr. H. Corwin who in response to correspondence sent to him by me re-
examined the identity data and arrived at the correct solution.
Bigourdan misidentified the BD star he quotes in his observation, making it BD +10
3594 when it actually should have been BD -10 3589. When his offsets from this
star are applied they land exactly upon the galaxy NGC 4920. The correct
coordinates for NGC 4920/IC 4134 are 12hr 59m 26.9s - 11 06' 35".
The MCG (-2-33-105), PGC #45169, NED and the DSFG have each selected and
identified as IC 4134 a 16.1 Mp galaxy at 13hr 01m 39.6s - 11 14' 42" The NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates. Steinicke has
(Equal to NGC 4920).
IC 4135
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.198. 12hr 01m 18.175s _40 30' 55.078" (1950).
13hr 03m 36.624s + 40 14' 49.701" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC, SIMBAD and NED as being UGC 08163 and the
IC identity omitted.
The NGC 2000 has (Gx) and MOL (NSO). Not listed in the CGCG or RC3.
The PGC lists it as #045108 = UGC 08163, again making no mention of its IC
identity. Correctly identified in both the APL and by Steinicke.
IC 4136 & IC 4156.
POSS. 0-1600.
Stewart #368. 13hr 01m 47.339s - 05 42' 07.518" (1950).
13hr 04' 22.948s - 05 58' 12.308" (2000). (IC 4136).
13hr 02m 23.449s - 06 00' 06.829" (1950).
13hr 04m 59.171s - 06 16' 10.904" (2000). (IC 4156).
Most likely equal to NGC 4942 (H 761-3) and NGC 4948 (Swift List VI, #51) : At
the above given coordinates there are no nebular images to be found which at first
would suggest that Stewart had incorrectly mistaken some photographic anomaly on
Plate #3776 of his survey as being nonstellar images and that therefore these two
identities would come under the category "Not found." Indeed the NGC 2000 and MOL
both list these two identities as either (?) or (May not exist).
Stewart described IC 4136 as "eeF, cS." and IC 4156 as "eeF, eS, vE at 140
degrees." and his positional data would suggest a separation distance between his
two objects of 0.6 tmins and 18.0 arcmins.
The PGC, APL and Steinicke have listed the following identities, IC 4136 = NGC
4942 at 13hr 01m 42.8s - 07 22' 50" and IC 4156 = NGC 4948 at 13hr 02m 31.6s - 07
40' 37" and the separation values between these two galaxies are about 0.8 tmin
and 17.8 arcmin.
When it comes to comparing Stewart's IC 4136 description with the image of NGC
4942 there really is no clear evidence that they match or disagree, however, in
the case of Stewart's description for his IC 4156 and the image of NGC 4948 the
match is excellent, especially the Position Angle of the major axis, therefore I
believe that the equivalencies are the correct solution and that the errors,
typographical or otherwise can be traced to Stewart's published data.
The NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist), give the Stewart coordinates.
The MCG gives only the NGC identities. Carlson states Not found for both
IC identities. SIMBAD equates IC 4136 with NGC 4942 and IC 4156 with NGC 4948 as
does NED.
IC 4142.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.199. 13hr 01m 28.082s +38 27' 44.335" 91950).
13hr 03m 47.573s + 38 11' 39.141" (2000)..
This is a star : Only listings are APL and Steinicke (=*), NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 4143.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.200. 13hr 01m 27.350s + 40 28' 31.336" (1950).
13hr 03m 45.785s + 40 12' 26.140" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4150.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.188. 13hr 01m 46.830s + 22 15' 15.724" 91950).
13hr 04m 13.220s + 21 59' 10.901" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4153.
POSS. O-1572.
Wolf List VI, No.189. 13hr 01m 59.326s + 19 19' 01.057" (1950).
13hr 04m 26.756s + 19 02' 56.447" (2000).
This is a star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4155.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.205. 13hr 01m 50.462s + 40 16' 55.989" (1950).
13hr 04m 08.910s + 40 00' 51.246" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). APL and
Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." No additional listings.
IC 4156.
(See IC 4136).
IC 4157.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.206. 13hr 01m 59.252s + 38 55' 58.225" (1950).
13hr 04m 18.384s + 38 39' 53.648" (2000).
This is a star : For some time I thought that it was the one of 3 faint and
closely grouped galaxies that lie very close following the star, however, I have
since offset from IC 4169 and the separations land on the star.
Only modern listings are APL (=*), Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 4164.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.195. 13hr 02m 47.822s + 20 48' 44.455" 91950).
13hr 05m 14.631s + 20 32' 40.825" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Wolf's description "? nebulous group of stars 16th mag. Star
14th mag north." (also copied by Dreyer) has evidently misled the authors of both
the NGC 2000 and MOL as they describe IC 4164 as being an Open Cluster. It is
definitely a galaxy with a 14 mag. star located about 40" of arc north. Only
other listings are APL (Verified). Steinicke (Galaxy). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED" but they do list it as MAPS-NGP-0 379 1239986.
IC 4168.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.210. 13hr 02m 52.128s + 40 29' 09.759" 91950).
13hr 05m 10.220s + 40 13' 06.245" 92000).
Not found at nominal position : Corwin has pointed out in the APL that there is
a 10 arcmin error too far north in Wolf's published declination and that the
correct object is marked on the original plate at + 40 19' 09.759" (1950).
This then would make PGC #45244 = MCG +7-27-29 = IC 4168.
Additionally, Wolf describes his No.210 as having a 13th mag star 30 arcsec south
preceding and this is what we find at Corwin's corrected declination. Only other
listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), and MOL (NSO) each at Wolf's nominal position.
Steinicke has correct identity and coordinates. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke has correct
identity and coordinates.
IC 4172.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.199. 13hr 03m 07.625s + 23 07' 02.044" 91950).
13hr 05m 33.534s + 22 50' 58.848" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. Wolf's RA off by 1 tmin : At Wolf's nominal position there is
no nonstellar image, only a star closely preceding, however, Dr. Corwin states
that he was able to confirm it on the original plate and that there is a 1 tmin
error (too small), in Wolf's published RA The only galaxy visible near the
nominal position lies about 1 arcmin south of the star. Only modern listings are
APL in which Corwin states "Correct object marked on print of original plate."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) at nominal position. Steinicke identifies the
Correct galaxy. NED has "No object with this name in NED," but they do list it as
KUG 1304+231. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4173 and IC 4176.
POSS. O-1391.
Bigourdan #315 13hr 03m 16.283s - 11 21' 47.825" (1950).
13hr 05m 53.815s - 11 37' 50.870" (2000). (IC 4173).
Bigourdan #316. 13hr 01m 19.753s - 11 13' 44.987" (1950).
13hr 03m 57.129s - 11 29' 50.390" (2000). (IC 4176).
Possible solution ? This is a remarkable case involving what would appear to
possibly be a large amount of confusion regarding the original discovery data.
To begin with, Bigourdan first reported the discovery of these two identities in
the January 1897 issue of the COMPTES RENDUS listing them as #315. 12hr 58m 54s -
10 49'.0 (1860). "Star 13.3 - 13.4 mag. which appears to have accompanying
nebulosity."
#316. 12hr 58m 57s -10 48'.0 (1860). "Quite bright, 13.0 - 13.2 mag. and 30" to
35" in diameter, brighter towards the center with condensation that is well seen.
The preceeding nebulous star is at PA 225, distant 1 arcmin."
These are the positional data and descriptions that Dreyer employed in the IC II,
assigning them the identities IC 4173 and IC 4176 and by simple precession their
1950 positions would be 13hr 03m 36s - 11 18'.1 and 13hr 03m 39s - 11 17'.1, thus
the two identities would according to these figures be about 03 tsec and 01 arcmin
apart, however, it should be pointed out that as far as the declination values
Bigourdan gave only to the nearest arcmin for all of his COMPTES RENDUS entries.
The next publication for these two identities by Bigourdan is in his 1919
OBSERVATIONS and these are as usual much more detailed.
According to his observational data he made only one observation of each identity,
both being on the same night, April 16th 1895 and he gives the following.
IC 4173 : Reference star Anonyme. Mag. 13.3 to 13.4 13hr 00m 42s - 11 05' 00"
(1900). Separations -02.9tsec RA and 01.7arcmin north, (which would give IC 4173
a 1950 position of 13hr 03m 16s - 11 21' 48").
IC 4176 : Reference star Anonyme (6). Mag. 8.0 13hr 00m 42s - 11 05' 00" (1900).
Separations + 19.8 tsec RA and 04.9 arcmin north, (which would give IC 4176 a 1950
position of 13hr 03m 37.8s - 11 16' 14").
Based upon these positions the separations between the two identities would
be about 22.8 tsec RA and 05' 37 " declination. Now there are some obvious
discrepancies involved here.
Firstly, the differences in coordinates between the COMPTES RENDUS and 1919
OBSERVATIONS. Secondly, the resultant differences in separation values between
the two objects from these two same sources. Thirdly, Bigourdan in his
OBSERVATIONS gives exactly the same coordinates to both of his Reference stars
(Anonyme and Anonyme 6) yet for Anonyme he states that its magnitude is 13.3 to
13.4, whereas for Anonyme 6 he makes it magnitude 8.0
Further confusion is found when we examine how Bigourdan arrived at his
coordinates for Anonyme 6 as he states that he measured it to lie at a separation
of + 04tmin 03 tsec and 0.5 arcmin south of the 9.5 MV star BD -10 3594. The star
BD -10 3594 has a 1855 position of 12hr 54m 10.2s - 10 50'.7 which when precessed
to the year 1900 (which is the year Bigourdan gives for the Anonyme 6
coordinates), is 12hr 56m 30.2 - 11 05'.2 and based upon this would give
1900 coordinates for Bigourdan's star (Anonyme 6) of 13hr 00m 32.2s - 11 05'.7
which not only disagrees with the coordinates he gives for Anonyme 6, but
additionally there is no 8th magnitude star anywhere in the immediate area,
also I would expect that any 8th magnitude star by the last decade of the 19th
century would have been listed in one or more catalogues and therefore would not
need to be referred to as Anonyme. Regardless, when Bigourdan's stated
positions for both IC 4173 and IC 4176 are examined on the DSS no images, nebular
or otherwise, can be found.
On the same night, April 16th 1895, that Bigourdan claimed discovery of IC 4173
and IC 4176 he searched for and was unable to find the multiple system known as
NGC 4933, however, two years later, May 4th 1897, he does find and gives detailed
descriptions of two of the brightest components which he refers to as nuclei.
He first measures a position for what he (incorrectly) calls the south preceeding
nucleus, employing as his reference the 8th magnitude star which he identifies as
SCHJELL 4712 which is also equal to AC #2485462 whose coordinates for the
discovery year, 1895 would be 12hr 58m 07.219s - 11 00' 57.813" Bigourdan
measures separation values from this star of + 0tmin 19.797 tsec and 04' 57.766"
of arc north which accurately lands right on the north following bright area of
the NGC 4933 complex or a 1950 position of 13hr 01m 19.753s - 11 13' 44.987" He
next measures from this north following "nucleus" the position of the second
brightest part, which he incorrectly calls the north following nucleus, finding it
to lie at a separation of - 02.5 tsec RA and 30.2 arcsec south and again when the
resultant coordinates are applied to the DSS they land on the south preceeding
bright part of NGC 4933.
Now if we examine the separation values from his quoted reference stars between
those given by Bigourdan for his two IC identities and those he gives for NGC 4933
we find amazing similarities.
In the case of IC 4176 he gives separations of + 19.796 tsec and 04' 56.075"
north, while for the north following nucleus of NGC 4933 they are + 19.797 tsec
and 04' 57.766" north, also his separation values between the two nuclei of NGC
4933 are - 02.5 tsec and 30.2 arcsec south, while those he applies for IC 4173 are
- 02.9 tsec and 42.0 arcsec south.
Each of these separate findings combined with evident errors in Bigourdan's data
strongly suggests to me that by the time he was preparing his 1919 work for
publication, about 20 years after he had made the actual observations,
he somehow became terribly confused over his observational data as it applied to
the two IC identities and the NGC identity and that what he had observed on April
16th 1895 was actually not a pair of Novae but rather two of the brightest
components of the NGC 4933 complex and the 8th magnitude reference star he calls
Anonyme 6 is actually SCHJELL 4712 = BD - 10 3599.
The MCG gives only the identities A, B and C for the NGC 4933 components as does
the PGC. The NGC 2000 and MOL each list IC 4173, IC 4176 and NGC 4933 as separate
identities with the originally based Dreyer coordinates. The APL has IC 4173 =
NGC 4933B and IC 4176 = NGC 4933 = 4933A. Steinicke equates IC 4173 with NGC
4933B and IC 4176 with NGC 4933. NED makes both identities "There is no
object with this name in NED," as does SIMBAD.
IC 4174.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No. 213. 13hr 03m 08.550s + 36 39' 59.193" (1950).
13hr 05m 28.591s + 36 23' 55.989" (2000).
Equal to a star : Only modern listings are APL (=* + defect), Steinicke (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4176.
(See IC 4173).
IC 4179.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.215. 13hr 03m 26.866s + 37 27' 49.734" (1950).
13hr 05m 46.438s + 37 11' 46.903" (2000).
Unable to come to a definite conclusion : Wolf's nominal position lands close to
the south following end of a faint star (GSC2.2 N13032032759 Mp 15.88), however,
examination of this star on the Generation 2 Blue DSS reveals that there is an
extremely faint galaxy image (GSC 2.2 N13032032760 at 13hr 05m 46.543s + 37 11'
49.84" 2000. GSC), which is also just off the south following end of this star, in
fact Wolf's position is closer to the galaxy than the star. Wolf describes his
No. 215 as 'vS, F, irreg figure with core (nucleus), *14 preceeds." This *14 is
GSC 2.2 N130320370 at 13hr 05m 40.732s + 37 11' 42.51" 2000 GSC. The galaxy image
is very faint and that gives me some doubt as to whether it is visible on Wolf's
photographic print, but it definitely exists. Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). The APL has (=* verified) as does Steinicke. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4185.
POSS. O-1581.
Wolf List VI, No.203. 13hr 03m 46.498s + 22 02' 35.166" (1950).
13hr 06m 12.740s + 21 46' 32.741" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Wolf described this discovery as "Small, Very Faint,
Irregular figure; has attached a 15th magnitude star north which is measured."
It turns out that this star is actually another galaxy and is clearly shown to be
such on the Palomar print. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
NOTE : Dr. Corwin has examined this galaxy prior to my survey and has correctly
pointed out (Unpublished IC Bugs List) that Wolf undoubtedly saw both objects,
even though he misidentified the northern component. Corwin has secured Wolf's
claim to original discovery by identifying the double system as IC 4185n and IC
4185s. Steinicke has (spiral = NPMIG +22.0397) as does NED. SIMBAD has correct IC
identity.
IC 4186.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.218. 13hr 03m 37.665s + 37 15' 08.047" 91950).
13hr 05m 57.307s + 36 59' 05.433" (2000).
Equal to 2 stars aligned south preceding north following (P.A. 25 degrees) :
CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as
(Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=**).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4190.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.222. 13hr 03m 46.647s + 37 52' 46.317" (1950).
13hr 06m 05.932s + 37 36' 43.889" (2000).
This is a star :
Both Wolf and Dreyer give the declination to be + 37 52' 41", however the MOL
lists the declination at +37 42' 49". No nebular image found at either
declination. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists as a galaxy at
Wolf's declination, however, their RA is 0.2m too small. Carlson, SIMBAD and NED
give "Not Found." APL (=*). Steinicke (=*).
IC 4192.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.223. 13hr 03m 49.236s + 37 52' 22.393" (1950).
13hr 06m 08.517s + 37 36' 20.018" (2000).
Not found : No image present at the position as given by Wolf. CGCG, UGC and
MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as "May not exist."
Carlson states "Not found on Mt. Wilson plates." The APL states "= defect
(verified)." Steinicke has (Not found). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4194.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.225. 13hr 03m 49.258s + 39 08' 29.408" (1950).
13hr 06m 07.866s + 38 52' 27.040" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4195.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No 226. 13hr 03m 56.222s + 37 18' 32.592" (1950).
13hr 06m 15.770s + 37 02' 30.356" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 4195. NGC 2000
lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL and Steinicke (=*).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4196.
POSS. O-1361.
Swift List XI, #149. 13hr 04m 41.613s - 23 45' 10.189" (1950).
13hr 07m 23.780s - 24 01' 11.485" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 4970 (H765-3) : The MCG gives only the identity NGC 4970.
The MOL gives separate identities and separate coordinates. NGC 2000, PGC, APL,
NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly make the equivalency.
IC 4198.
POSS. O-1581.
Javelle #1235. 13hr 05m 17.536s + 25 04' 41.306" (1950).
13hr 07m 42.405s + 24 48' 40.871" (2000).
It is equal to NGC 4979 (H 346-3) :
This is one of the more difficult problems I have investigated and for a
considerable time I was of the opinion that the majority of the modern authorities
were incorrect and that no equivalency could exist between these two identities,
however, I have now become convinced that I was wrong and that Javelle was
examining NGC 4979 when he mistakenly thought that it was a nova.
The CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, Steinicke, APL Carlson and PGC all equate IC 4198 with
NGC 4979 while the MCG gives NGC 4979=IC 4198 ? whereas the MOL (NSO) list them at
different coordinates suggesting separate identities NED equates the two
identities IC 4196 and NGC 4979, as does SIMBAD.
Examination of the Palomar print shows in the immediate field only a single image
and this definitely has to be H346-3 =NGC 4979.
The following authorities give these 1950 coordinates for NGC 4979.
Wm. Herschel. 13hr 5m 34.6s + 25 01' 2"
Dreyer. 13hr 5m 28.0s + 25 01'.7
Auwers. 13hr 5m 31.0s + 25 01'.4
Bigourdan 13hr 5m 17.0s + 25 04' 38"
Wolf. 13hr 5m 17.0s + 25 04'.6
Reimuth. 13hr 5.2m + 25 03'.9
PGC 13hr 5m 18.0s + 25 04' 38".2
Now Javelle gives his #1235=IC 4198 coordinates of 13hr 05m 17.536s + 25 04'
41.306" which would certainly strongly suggest that he was unknowingly examining
NGC 4979, mistaking it to be a nova and as no other nonstellar object is located
in the vicinity it is very understandable why the majority of the modern
authorities concluded that this is exactly what occurred.
Dreyer himself came to this belief as in his Notes for the CATALOGUE OF ONE
THOUSAND. (SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF SIR WILLIAM HERSCHEL. 1912.) he lists Auwers',
Javelle's and Wolf's coordinates for H346-3 and states "Wolf has only this one
near the place, and his description agrees with that of H." Furthermore, in his
List of Corrections (MNRAS. 73, 37. 1912.) Dreyer states "NGC
4979. H346-3 must be equal to IC 4198, as Wolf's ninth list has only one object
there (No.105)."
All of this would seem to establish the equivalency of both identities, except for
one thing and it was this that misled me for so long. Javelle in his description
for IC 4198 states that it is distinct from NGC 4979, which suggested to me that
at the time he made his "discovery" he was also aware of the presence of NGC 4979
in his field of view, otherwise why even bother to mention it except to bring to
the attention of others that he was not confusing Herschel's object with what he
was claiming as a nova.
I have searched through all of the historical observations for NGC 4979 published
prior to Javelle's discovery data (June 20th, 1895.) and found only Auwers' and
Dreyer's NGC, therefore it is reasonable to consider that the only positional data
for NGC 4979 available to Javelle would be from one or both of these sources,
therefore he would be under the impression that it had coordinates of
approximately 13hr 05m 29s + 25 01'.6 or about 16s following and 2'.9 south of the
position he measured for his #1235 and this it can be argued is why he considered
#1235 to be an entirely different object to NGC 4979, but why would he state that
they were distinct objects?
This then caused me to continue to object to any equivalency between the two
identities, however, just recently I re-examined the problem and this time I was
unable to refute the equivalency.
I measured on the Palomar print the separation values between Javelle #1236 =
IC4202 and NGC 4979 and they are almost exactly what Javelle's same values are for
IC 4242 and his IC 4198 (49s RA and 6'.4 declination), therefore Javelle could not
have seen 2 objects and his description had to have been based solely upon what he
believed to be different coordinates for NGC 4979 and there can be no doubt that
the equivalency of NGC 4979 and IC 4198 is firmly established.
IC 4199.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.227. 13hr 05m 12.897s + 37 07' 26.854" (1950).
13hr 07m 32.788s + 35 51' 26.196" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG and UGC have no listing. MCG makes its + 06-29-039 =
IC 4199 as does NED and SIMBAD, however, this is incorrect. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL (=*). Steinicke (=*). The
PGC correctly has no listing for IC 4199.
IC 4203.
POSS O-133.
Wolf List V, No.229. 13hr 06m 01.109s + 40 41' 37.363" (1950).
13hr 08m 18.333s + 40 25' 37.731" (2000).
This is a star : Only listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4204.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.230. 13hr 06m 03.803s + 39 43' 35.432" (1950).
13hr 08m 21.575s + 39 27' 35.852" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in UGC, RC3 and PGC only as U08224 . Correctly listed
in APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO). Not listed in CGCG or MCG. NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED" but they do list the identity UGC
08224. SIMBAD omits the IC identity and names it UGC 8224.
IC 4205.
POSS. O- 675.
Swift List XI. #151. 13hr 06m 35.395s + 53 07' 46.446" (1950).
13hr 08m 43.344s + 52 51' 47.597" (2000).
Equal to IC 853 (Swift List IX, #37), as Dreyer suspected (IC II) :
CGCG, UGC, PGC and RC3 give the single identity IC 853. MCG lists its +9-22-19 as
IC 853 = IC 4205 ? as does NGC 2000. MOL lists both identities as being separate
objects with different coordinates. Not listed in DSFG. Steinicke equates IC 853
with IC 4205. NED has " No object with this name in NED," however, it does list the
single IC identity IC 853 as does SIMBAD.
IC 4206.
POSS. O-133.
Wolf List V, No.231. 13hr 07m 04.512s + 39 17' 19.285" (1950).
13hr 09m 22.301s + 39 01' 20.989" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type ) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4208.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No. 233. 13hr 07m 19.558s + 37 31' 18.728" (1950).
13hr 09m 38.274s + 37 15' 20.745" (2000).
This is a star : Wolf describes it as being a spiral, however, there is no
evidence of this and probably suggests that there was a defect on the original
plate? Only modern listings are APL and Steinicke (=*). NED "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO).
IC 4210.
POSS. O-1393.
Bigourdan.#410. 13hr 08m 25.304s + 29 58' 30.274" (1950).
13hr 10m 47.599s + 29 42' 33.849" (2000).
This is a confirmed galaxy : NGC 2000 describes it as [Nebula]. MOL as "Faint
nebula." DSFG makes IC 4210 = NGC 5004b as does the APL. UGC has no listing.
CGCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and MCG correctly list IC 4210.
IC 4211.
POSS. O-110.
Wolf List V, No.236. 13hr 08m 38.297s + 37 26' 29.187" (1950).
13hr 10m 56.778s + 37 10' 32.906" (2000).
This is a star with a companion close north preceding :
NGC 2000, MOL, APL and Carlson all list this as being a single star. CGCG, UGC
and MCG have no listing. Steinicke has (=*2). NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4212.
POSS. O-1077.
Stewart #373. 13hr 09m 53.838s - 06 29' 57.669" (1950).
13hr 12m 29.966s - 06 45' 52.220" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, NED,SIMBAD, RC3 and
Steinicke have each selected a galaxy at 13hr 09m 26.87s - 06 43' 35.6" as being IC
4212. This is MCG -1-34-011 which the MCG lists as an "Anon."
If this is Stewart's discovery then he would have to have erred in its position by
about 27 tsec RA and 13.5 arcmin in Dec. which seems to me to be a very large
error, especially as it effects both coordinates.
IC 4222.
(See IC 879).
IC 4229.
POSS. O-1595.
Stewart #380. 13hr 19m 58.431s - 02 08' 43.737" (1950).
13hr 22m 33.108s - 02 24' 23.865" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error involved is that the UGC incorrectly
identifies this as IC 4239. Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, RC3 MCG, NGC
2000, MOL, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
IC 4233.
Swift List XI, #155. 13hr 21m 11.763s - 30 03' 18.078" (1950).
13hr 23m 59.228s - 30 18' 56.305" (2000).
Equal to NGC 5124. (h 3499) : At Swift's nominal position there are no nebular
images. NGC 5124 lies at 13hr 22.03m - 30 02'.8 which is about 1 tmin following
the RA as given for IC 4233 by Swift. On the same night (December 31st 1897),
that Swift observed IC 4233 he also discovered and measured positions for IC 4214
and IC 4219 and for both of these galaxies his RA is off by about 1 tmin too
small, therefore it would appear pretty certain that what he was seeing in his
observation for IC 4233 was John Herschel's NGC 5124.
The NGC 2000(No Type) and MOL (NSO) each give the two identities as separate
objects. Steinicke has (= NGC 5124). The MCG, PGC and RC3 identify the galaxy
only as NGC 5124. Both the APL and ESO have (ESO 444-G027 = NGC 5124 = IC 4233
?). NED correctly identifies the equivalency, as does SIMBAD.
IC 4236.
POSS. O-1561.
Swift List XI, #156. 13hr 20m 53.998s + 06 29' 35.676" (1950).
13hr 23m 25.141s + 06 13' 56.981" (2000).
Equal to NGC 5118 (H 925-3). There is no nebular image at Swift's nominal
position, however, at about 10 arcmin north is the galaxy NGC 5118 which is well
within Swift's level of possible positional error, furthermore Swift makes no
mention of NGC 5118 which he might be expected to do in his description.
The APL makes the equivalency with NGC 5118, while the MCG, PGC, CGCG and UGC list
only the identity NGC 5118. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both
identities as separate objects. Steinicke has (=NGC 5118) and NED has correct
equivalency. SIMBAD omits the IC identity and gives the NGC identity with other
modern names.
IC 4239.
POSS. O-131.
Javelle #1246. 13hr 22m 06.187s + 31 13' 12.190" (1950).
13hr 24m 25.630s + 30 57' 35.340" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC incorrectly confuses IC 4229 for IC 4239. They have
no listing for the correct IC 4239. CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, MCG,
RC3, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) are all correct. The DSFG lists IC 4239 in
its NOTES to NGC 5131.
IC 4256.
POSS. O-131.
Javelle #1252. 13hr 24m 44.177s + 31 14' 08.531" (1950).
13hr 27m 03.178s + 30 58' 35.798" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : It would appear that there is a typographical error in the
separation sign as given in Javelle's catalogue for his declination. It should be
south not north of the reference star. This has resulted in a declination error
of almost 4 arcmins in the IC II, NGC 2000 and MOL. The CGCG Steinicke NED, SIMBAD
and APL have the correct declination and identity. The PGC gives only the identity
CGCG 161- 54.
IC 4257.
POSS O-1593.
Keeler. 13hr 25m 10.105s + 47 07' 41.574" (1950).
13hr 27m 17.514s + 46 52' 09,298" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : Close to this position there is what appears to be the image of an
extremely faint object, however, I feel that it is a very unlikely candidate.
Only listings found were APL, SIMBAD and NED (Not found). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). Steinicke has (= *).
IC 4258.
POSS O-131.
Javelle #1253. 13hr 25m 32.938s + 28 46 00.737" (1950).
13hr 27m 53.221s + 28 30' 29.326" (2000).
Possible candidate : Javelle gives his declination offset from his reference star
DM +29 2410 as- 3' 28" (corrected from NPD) and at this declination no nebular
image exists, however, if the sign is changed so that the declination would
reflect a position 3'28" north instead of south, or a 1950 declination of + 28
46'.0 then it would fall almost exactly upon a galaxy identified in the CGCG as
ZWG 161.057 and in the MCG as +5-32-22.
There is no data evidence to confirm that in this case Javelle's declination sign
is wrong, however, other examples of such an error do exist in his published
catalogues, no doubt the result of typographical errors.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO) list the identity but at the
declination as given by Javelle. No listing in the RC3 or UGC. The APL and
Steinicke make it equal to the CGCG identity. The PGC gives the CGCG and MCG
identities only. NED and SIMBAD have it as "Not found."
IC 4263.
POSS O-1593.
Keeler. 13hr 26m 24.355s + 47 10' 57.077" (1950).
13hr 28m 31.354s + 46 55' 26.798" (2000). (Dreyer).
This is a confirmed galaxy : Although the UGC correctly identifies its U 08470
as IC 4263 it incorrectly lists IC 4263 in its NOTES to U09923 = NGC 5966. This
error is noted in the PGC (Corrections. Table 2. Page 386). The MCG identifies IC
4263 only as +8-25-7. Correctly identified in CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD,
NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO), DSFG (Notes to NGC 5173) and RC3.
IC 4282.
POSS. O-1593.
Keeler, 13hr 29m 13.419s + 47 26' 05.245" (1950).
13hr 31m 19.358s + 47 10' 39.609" (2000). (Dreyer).
Confirmed galaxy : It is very diffuse and difficult to see on the DSS First
Generation , however, it definitely exists and is easily confirmed as a galaxy on
DSS Second Generation lying close south preceding a faint star as described in the
APL by Corwin. Steinicke had correct object. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and
the MOL (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 4308.
POSS. O-116.
Javelle #1268. 13hr 34m 36.116s + 32 59' 15' 16.527" (1950).
13hr 36m 52.367s + 32 44' 00.442" (2000).
Not found : No nonstellar image at the nominal position.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), NED "There is no object with this
name in NED" SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL and Steinicke (Not found).
IC 4330.
Frost #1094. 13hr 46m 25.316s - 28 03' 58.852" (1950).
13hr 49m 15.317s - 28 18' 52.541" (2000).
Unable to confirm :
At the coordinates as given by Frost no nonstellar image is to be found, however,
there are two galaxies either of which might be considered as legitimate
candidates.
The first candidate is ESO 445-G027 at 13hr 44m 25s - 28 04'.1 and this candidate
is the one favored by the APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000, Steinicke and RC3, while
the ESO itself has 445-G027 = IC 4330 ? NED give this galaxy a MP of 14.70 and
diam. 1.2 X 0.6 arcmin.
In correspondence with Dr. Corwin he has pointed out that this candidate has a RA
difference of 2 tmin from Frost's RA and has suggested quite logically that this
could result from a typographical error in Frost published paper (ANNALS OF
HARVARD COLLEGE OBSERVATORY.VOL.LX. No. VI. p.188.). Additionally Corwin states
that Frost description "Ellip, 1'.0 by 0.5', mag.13.5" matches the appearance of
ESO 445-G027
Certainly this is an excellent candidate, however, there is also another
possibility, the galaxy ESO 445-G051 at 13hr 46m 31s - 27 57'06"
NED gives this galaxy a Mp of 14.56 and diam. 1.1 X 0.6 arcmin. In its favour are
that its position is clearly closer to Frost given coordinates. It is slightly
brighter than ESO 445-G027 and the size factor is compatible, although I should
point out that Corwin feels that the fainter outer ring of ESO 445- G051 would not
have been visible on Frost's plate.
Both Dr. Corwin and I agree that in order to solve this problem it would be
necessary to examine the original plate and possible access to this plate is
something we both hope can be accomplished at a future date.
IC 4332.
POSS. O-68.
Javelle #1274. 13hr 47m 33.133s + 25 26' 14.570" (1950).
13hr 49m 52.462s + 25 11' 22.911" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the CGCG only as ZWG 132.018.
Correctly identified in the MCG, Steinicke, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX) and
MOL (NSO).
IC 4334.
POSS. O-86.
Javelle #1275. 13hr 47m 31.587s + 29 56' 27.969" (1950).
13hr 49m 47.866s + 29 41' 36.231" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Both the NGC 2000 and the MOL incorrectly type this as being a
planetary nebula. Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD,
MGC, PGC and RC3.
IC 4335.
POSS. O-116.
Bigourdan #318. 13hr 47m 31.915s + 33 55' 14.669" (1950).
13hr 49m 45.258s + 33 40' 22.885" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*). NED "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (=
double star). NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
NOTE: Dr. Corwin describes this as "a close double star," however, to me it appears
to be a single star. It is listed in the GSC2.2 as N130132150 and there is nothing
in their data that suggests that it is a double star.
IC 4336.
POSS. O-1386.
Bigourdan #412. 13hr 48 35.135s + 39 57' 27.799" (1950).
13hr 50m 43.230s + 39 42' 38.09" (2000). (OBSERVATIONS)
13hr 48m 36.205s + 39 58' 06.083" (1950).
13hr 50m 44.287s + 39 43' 16.423" (2000). (COMPTES RENDUS).
Confirmed galaxy : Bigourdan's reference star BD + 40 2701 which he lists in his
OBSERVATIONS as 13hr 40m 59.66s which is about 6m too small. Bigourdan stated
that his reference star lies - 31s of RA from BD + 40 2701 and this star has a
1950 RA of 13hr 49m 44s which means that the reference star employed by Bigourdan
would have a 1950 RA of 13hr 48m 35.135s and when Bigourdan's separation (-
32.840s) to his B.412 is applied it would give a 1950 RA of 13hr 48m 35.135s which
supports the modern data as all of the modern catalogues correctly list IC 4336 as
being at 13hr 48.6m. Fortunately Dreyer's ICII coordinates are based upon the
earlier COMPTES RENDUS data which is correct.
IC 4338.
POSS. O-465.
Swift List XI, #161. 13hr 50m 10.990s - 00 52'54.192" (1950).
13hr 52m 45.315s -01 07' 40.037" (2000).
Equal to NGC 5334.(H 665-3) : Even though in his description Swift sates that his
#161 is in the same field as NGC 5334, thus implying that he is referring to some
other image the rest of his description, "Very Large, exceedingly faint.
Considerably elongated north and south." can only be for one field galaxy, which
is NGC 5334.
The CGCG, UGC and MCG give only the NGC 5334 identity. Carlson, NGC 2000, MOL,
APL, Steinicke NED, SIMBAD and the PGC all equate the two identities.
IC 4339.
POSS. O-106.
Javelle #1276. 13hr 51m 20.181s + 37 46' 08.683" (1950).
13hr 53m 29.658s + 37 31' 24.580" (2000).
Equal to IC 4341:
Javelle's reference star, DM +38, 2593 is equal to AG #1345343 whose position for
1897 (the discovery year), is 13h 52m 06.872s + 37 57' 33.116" When Javelle's
separations (- 3 tmin 4.05 tsec RA and + 4 arcmin 17.7 arcsec) are applied the
result is 13hr 49m 02.822s + 38 01' 50.816" (1897) for the position of IC 4339.
This precesses to a position of 13hr 51m 20.181s + 37 46' 08.683 (1950), which is
just off the preceding edge of IC 4341 discovered one night earlier by Javelle.
Javelle makes no mention of IC 4341 in his description for IC 4339, however, his
descriptions for both objects are almost identical, "F,S,R,r," with the addition
of "*12 nr," for IC 4341. Javelle's Corrected Nominal Position places his #1276
closer to the single galaxy than it does to the star which in turn is the star
mentioned in Javelle's description of IC 4341.
The CGCG, UGC and RC3 have no listing for the identity IC 4339. The MCG makes it
possibly equal to IC 4341. The revised APL gives (=*). Steinicke has (= IC
4341). The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list both identities as separate
objects. The PGC gives the single identity IC 4341. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
NOTE : My attention to this correction was directed by Steve Gottlieb who in a
study of Javelle objects missing from Corwin's APL (ICPOS) posed questions
regarding the identity of IC 4339 which caused me to re-examine and revise my
previous erroneous conclusion concerning this identity.
IC 4340.
POSS. O-106.
Javelle #1277. 13hr 51m 24.554s + 37 37' 55.867" (1950).
13hr 53m 34.137s + 37 23' 11.910" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : CGCG lists this galaxy only as ZWG 191.010. PGC, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000, MOL and MCG give the correct identity. UGC has no listing.
IC 4341.
POSS. O-106.
Javelle #1278. 13hr 51m 24.836s + 38 46' 00.750" (1950).
13hr 53m 34.267s + 37 31' 16.822" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy equal to IC 4339 (See). :
MCG lists its +6-31-10 as IC 4341 = IC 4339 ?. The CGCG, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD,
NGC 2000 and MOL give the single identity IC 4341. UGC has no listing. Steinicke
correctly equates with IC 4339.
IC 4345.
POSS. O-68.
Javelle #1282. 13hr 52m 54.394s + 25 17' 47.688" (1950).
13hr 55m 13.166s + 25 03' 06.956" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The RC3 has incorrectly identified IC 4345 as being Hickson's
69b (Astrophs. J. 255: 382-391. April 1982) and the PGC (Paturel et al) have also
made the same error.
Hickson 69b is one of 4 anonymous galaxies in a close group which lie north
following the two IC galaxies IC 4344 and IC 4345 and has no association with the
IC pair other than being in the same general field.
The largest and brightest of the Hickson group, 69a, follows IC 4345 (the northern
of the two IC identities) by about 17s RA and lies about 1 arcmin to the north,
while Hickson 69b follows IC 4345 by about 22s RA and lies about 46 arcsecs south.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, NGC 2000 (No
Type) and MOL (NSO). Mentioned in the Notes to U08842 in the UGC.
IC 4353.
POSS. O-106.
Bigourdan #413. 13hr 54m 55.133s + 37 58' 21.115" (1950).
13hr 57m 03.719s + 37 43' 44.487" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Bigourdan's nominal position lands on a blank
space between two stellar images, either being far too faint to have been seen by
Bigourdan who stated that it was of doubtful aspect. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no
listing. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL list as (Nonstellar Object).
Steinicke has (=*) and NED gives "There is no object with this name in NED."
APL has "Nothing here at nominal position." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4365.
POSS. O-1051.
Bigourdan #319. 14hr 01m 19.140s + 09 45' 49.015" (1950).
14hr 03m 47.115s + 09 31' 26.533" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5437 (Tempel). Tempel, using the Acreti 11 inch telescope,
reported the discovery of 3 closely associated nebulae which he described as "3
very faint in line, 2'- 3' distant., northern one the brightest, north following a
star 8.6 mag." These 3 received the identities NGC 5436, NGC 5437 and NGC 5438.
When Bigourdan examined the field he stated that there was 4 nebulae in the field.
The brightest being the northernmost which he correctly identified as being NGC
5438. Next he identified a second galaxy which lies just south preceding NGC 5438
as being NGC 5437 which is incorrect as this is actually NGC 5436 (by correct
order of RA). Now he must have assumed that because Tempel had stated that his 3
nebulae were in a line he searched for the 3rd NGC identity to the south preceding
position of the true NGC 5436 and found a stellar image which he did state was
doubtful, however, because as he stated "that it was found to be to the right
(preceding) side of the other two" and thus formed a line from south preceding to
north following, he concluded that this must be the remaining NGC object, namely
NGC 5436.
It is now that he made a crucial mistake as he was well aware of an additional
nebulae in the field which lay south following the true NGC 5436 (Bigourdan's NGC
5437), and having almost the same RA as NGC 5438. This he then decided must be a
nova and so he listed it as being B 319, which later received the identity IC
4365, however, this is actually Tempel's 2nd in order of RA, NGC 5437.
It would appear that because Bigourdan was expecting the 3 NGC objects to be in
line when this is not entirely correct as the middle one of the 3 (NGC 5436)
actually precedes the other two by about 6.5 tsec, he was misled into believing
that he was the discoverer of the most southern of the group.
Dreyer in his IC II queries whether IC 4365 might be = NGC 5438, but the correct
equivalency is = NGC 5437.
The CGCG, PGC and MCG give only the identity NGC 5437. The UGC correctly
identifies both NGC 5436 and NGC 5437 (Notes), however, there is no mention of the
equivalency and even more strange is that there is no mention of the brightest of
the group NGC 5438. NGC 2000 gives the Dreyer description (perhaps equal to NGC
5438), the MOL gives all 4 identities without mentioning any equivalency. The APL
correctly equates IC 4365 with NGC 5437 as does Steinicke. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4369, IC 4370 and IC 4371 Group.
POSS. O-106.
Javelle #1289,1290 &1291. (See below for coordinates)
All three are confirmed galaxies : There is considerable confusion regarding the
correct identities involving these 3 galaxies which make up a tightly knit group
which includes a couple of anonymous galaxies.
After examining Javelle's observations and measuring on the Palomar print his
separation values from his reference star DM +34 2485 (which is equal to AC
#1146253),it became obvious that the most northern of the three (A) is IC 4370
and it makes up a double system with an Anon. which lies close, directly south.
The middle one by declination and most preceding is IC 4369 (B) and the most
southern of the three is IC 4371 (C). Any reader wishing to obtain a much more
detailed account of my findings and conclusions regarding this group will find it
in a paper (W.S.Q.J. No. 83. Jan. 1991 On the Identity of IC 4369. M.J.Thomson.)
The CGCG and UGC have made the same errors of identity. ZWG 191.045 is IC 4371
not IC 4369, the double system ZWG 191.046 is IC 4370 + Anon. not IC 4370 + IC
4371 while the true IC 4369 is not listed. In the UGC listings only the
identity IC 4370 (U08990) is given as "Pair with IC 4371," however, again this is
referring to IC 4370 + the Anon. while in the Notes section the UGC states "14hr
01.9m + 33 33' = IC 4369," which again is incorrect as this galaxy is IC 4371.
The MCG and PGC have completely misidentified IC 4371 (+6-31-65), making it to
follow the group by 0.2m. MCG +6-31-65 is an Anon.
Because Dreyer employed Javelle's coordinates in the IC II both the NGC 2000 and
MOL have correctly identified these three galaxies.
Hickson (1982 and 1989) includes references to the identities of these three
galaxies listing them as 70a = IC 4371, 70b = IC 4369, 70d = IC 4370 and 70e =
Anon; but here again by examination of the coordinate values he gives
there can be no doubt that his 70e is actually IC 4369 while his 70b is IC 4371
and his 70a is an "Anon." directly south of the correct IC 4370 The PGC makes IC
4369 = Hickson 70b, IC 4370 =Hickson 70a and IC 4371 = Hickson 70c.
Steinicke has the correct identities. NED correctly identifies IC 4369 and IC
4370 but incorrectly equates IC 4371 with Hickson 70a, as does SIMBAD. The APL is in
agreement with my findings.
Javelle's coordinates based upon his separation values from his coordinates for DM
+34 3485 and precessed to 1950 and also based upon the more precise coordinates
for GSC 2548-617 (2000).
IC 4369 14hr 01m 54.680s + 33 33' 38.039" (1950).
14hr 04m 05.879s + 33 19' 16.664" (2000).= Hickson 70e.
IC 4370 14hr 01m 58.873s + 33 35' 11.405" (1950).
14hr 04m 10.039s + 33 20' 50.186" (2000).= Hickson 70d.
IC 4371 14hr 01m 59.957s + 33 32' 46.948" (1950).
14hr 04m 11.154s + 33 18' 25.769" (2000).= Hickson 70b.
IC 4375.
Stewart #393. 14hr 05m 07.893s - 33 04' 19.832" (1950).
14hr 08m 04.597s - 33 18' 33.353" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5488 (h 3558) : John Herschel gave very imprecise
coordinates for NGC 5488 (14hr 08.0m + or -, -33 24'.2 + or -) and this obviously
misled Stewart into believing that his #393 was an entirely different object.
Examination of h's description "F, R, near and to the north of a * 8mag."
completely matches IC 4375 and confirms the equivalency.
The MOL gives the correct coordinates for both identities , however, it lists them
as separate objects. The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 5488 while the MCG gives
only IC 4375. The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 ESO and PGC have the
correct equivalency.
IC 4376.
Stewart #394. 14hr 07m 54.231s - 30 34' 13.508" (1950).
14hr 10m 49.211s - 30 48' 20.630" (2000).
This is a compact group of 3 stars aligned south preceeding north following :
Correctly identified in the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steincke, ESO, and Carlson. NED
has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4377.
Stewart #397. 14hr 12m 01.970s - 75 24' 06.183" (1950).
14hr 16m 59.117s - 75 38' 01.292" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Only error here is historical in that both Stewart and Dreyer
give the PA of the major axis to be 180 degrees when it should be 94 degrees.
IC 4381.
POSS. O-68.
Javelle #1294. 14 08m 40.820s + 25 43' 50.053" (1950).
14hr 10m 57.396s + 25 29' 44.278" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5008 (D'Arrest) : Both Steinicke and Dr. Corwin in his APL
equates this identity with NGC 5008 (D'Arrest) and D'Arrest gives it coordinates
of 13hr 09m 11s + 25 39' 30" or a difference of about 59 tmin 30 tsec RA and 04'
24" of arc dec. D'Arrest, using an 11 inch refractor, describes
his object as "pretty faint, pretty large, round. a 10th mag. star preceding at
1.1 tsec and 95 arcsec to the north."
At D'Arrest's position no nonstellar object exists and IC 4381 does have a star of
about 10.5 Mp. very close to D'Arrest's stated separations, except that it lies
south, not north of the galaxy and D'Arrest's description does fit IC 4381.
None of the other modern sources I have consulted other than NED equate the two
identities. The CGCG, UGC, PGC, SIMBAD, MCG and Hickson, each of them giving the
single identity IC 4381.
IC 4383.
POSS. O-81.
Bigourdan #416. 14hr 09m 50.001s + 16 06' 07.474" (1950).
14hr 12m 13.410s + 15 52' 04.460" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : IC 4383 is one of three closely grouped galaxies whose
dominant member is NGC 5504. Bigourdan specifically employed as his reference
object NGC 5504 placing his nova at a separation of -2 tsecs and + 1.6 arcmins.
Additionally he reports that in relation to NGC 5504 it lies at a PA of 340 and at
a distance of between 1.5 and 1.8 arcmins, thus making it to lie north preceding
NGC 5504.
There is another galaxy located exactly north of NGC 5504 at about 2 arcmins
distance , or very close north following B.416 and it this other galaxy that the
CGCG (ZWG 103.115), UGC (09086, also equated with MCG +3-36-082). The PGC also is
incorrect in stating in its Table 2. page 383. that MCG +3-36-79 is not IC 4383 and
that the correct IC 4383 is MCG +3-36-82, however, the MCG is correct in equating
its +3-36-79 with IC 4383.
IC 4383 is actually ZWG 103.113 and the Anon. referred to in the UGC Notes to
U09085 = NGC 5504 "14hr 09.8m + 16 06'.0 at 1'.8, PA 335, 0.5 X 0.5, spiral, m =
15.4" is also the correct IC 4383.
NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) MCG, NED, SIMBAD, APL, Steinicke and RC3 have the
correct identity, although the RC3 incorrectly equates it with UGC 09086.
NOTE : See RASQJ #33, page 64. 1992. (Corrections to the CGCG) for further
explanation.
IC 4385.
Frost #1095. 14hr 11m 35.919s - 42 04' 05.158" (1950).
14hr 14m 42.923s - 42 18' 03.321" (2000).
Not found : At the nominal position no image exists. The ESO, PGC, NED and SIMBAD
have suggested the possibility that ESO 326-G013 at 14hr 11m 32s - 41 50'.4 might be
IC 4385, which would indicate a declination error of about 14 arcmin.
Frost describes his #1095 as "R, lbM, diam.0'.2arcmin." The image of ESO 326-G013
on the DSS appears to be extremely faint, (NED does not list any magnitude for
this object),and therefore I am doubtful that Frost would have been able to
recognize it as a nebula on his photographic plate (#6765). He also discovered on
this same plate IC 4386, IC 4387 and IC 4389, all considerably brighter than ESO
326-G013, describing each of these as either "Faint or very faint.", also he gave
each of these excellent coordinates.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the historical coordinates. Steinicke
gives (*Group)).
NOTE: Corwin in his latest revised APL Notes (Nov. 19th 2004) now believes that IC
4385 may be an asterism of 4-5 stars about 1.5 arcmin preceding the nominal position
and agrees that the ESO candidate is much too faint to have been recorded by Frost.
IC 4392.
POSS. O-1036.
Stewart #399. 14hr 13m 11.877s - 12 53' 00.901" (1950).
14hr 15m 54.184s - 13 06' 55.646" (2000).
Not found : No nebular images close to the given coordinates. Only modern
listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not
found). APL has "4-5 sts in line."
IC 4394.
POSS. O-1386.
Bigourdan #418. 14hr 14m 19.613s +39 55' 44.664" (1950).
14hr 16m 22.359s + 39 41' 52.188" (2000).
Not found : Originally I thought that this might be the galaxy MCG +07-29-58,
however, Bigourdan's reference star, A.G.Bonn 9350 is equal to GSC 3035-734 and is
easily visible on the DSS and when Bigourdan's separations (-3.30tsec RA and 2
arcmin 47.7 arcsec south) are applied to this star they do not indicate that the
MCG galaxy is the object claimed by Bigourdan.
Based upon the coordinates as given by Bigourdan for his reference star and then
precessed to 1950 the star would be at 14hr 14m 32.28s +39 58' 30.2" but this
actually is too large in RA by about 9 tsec (unless this star has considerable
proper motion ?), however, regardless, the result is the same as no nonstellar
image is found at either offset position.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The MCG gives its +07-
29-58 = IC 4394 ? Steinicke has (Not found). The APL (Bugs List) correctly gives
(Not found at nominal position). NED in its listing for MCG +07-29-58 has the
following Note. "MCG correctly doubts the identification with IC 4394 (which does
not exist). SIMBAD incorrectly equates it with the MCG galaxy +07-29-058.
IC 4400.
Innes. 14hr 18m 30s - 60 21'.2
This is a compact group of 4 stars : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the
MOL as (NSO). Steinicke and ESO correctly make it equal to 4 stars. APL (6 or 7
stars). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 4401. (See IC 997 and IC 998).
IC 4404.
POSS. O-1374.
Bigourdan #417. 14hr 11m 17.138s + 78 51' 45.072" (1950).
14hr 10m 49.174s + 78 37' 42.311" (2000).
This is a star :
It definitely is not equal to NGC 5547 as stated by the PGC (Corrections). Both
the CGCG and UGC make it a double system with NGC 5547, however, according to the
UGC Notes it is the companion lying 0.7 of an arcmin; north following NGC 5547,
(the CGCG makes NGC 5547 + IC 4404, double system, bridge) and I think it possible
that they are referring to a companion galaxy just off the north following edge of
NGC 5547 which is identified in both NED and SIMBAD as IC 4404.
Bigourdan measured both NGC 5547 and his Nova B.417 from the same 9.0 Mv.
reference star, (A.G.Kasan. 2469 = BD + 79 440. = AC #2027474), giving separation
values from this star of -1m 31.80s RA and + 3'13".8 dec. for NGC 5547 and 22.685s
RA and +4' 47".150 for IC 4404, thus giving them separation from each other of ~1m
09s RA and 1' 33" Dec. which suggests to me that it is the more distant star image
that is the one Bigourdan was referring to in his observation. The APL gives (=*
HCO), however it gives coordinates, 14hr 10m 17.7s + 78 51' 45" (1950) that lands
on an empty space between two stars aligned north and south and which are quite
distant preceding the star I select as being IC 4404. Steinincke now also makes
it the same star as the one I select.
IC 4407.
POSS. O-1062.
Finlay. 14hr 18m 43.080" ? - 05 45' 54.128" (1950).
14hr 21m 20.779s ? -05 59' 35.470" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found. Nothing at nominal position : Finlay observed at the Cape Observatory
in South Africa, using 6 inch and 7 inch telescopes. Dreyer indicates by a blank
space that Finlay gave his RA position only to the nearest minute of time and
provided no description for his discovery. NED, SIMBASD, NGC 2000, APL, PGC and RC3
have identified the galaxy MCG -1-37-005 as being IC 4407 at 14hr 20m 59.2s - 05 45'
21" (1950), although the MCG lists this object as "Anon." Steinicke has (Not
found).
As Finlay was not a major contributor to the IC catalogues I am unable to assess
his capabilities or accuracy when it comes to coordinates, therefore I considered
it possible that MCG -1-37-005 might be his object, however, the NED gives it a Mp
of 14.59, which taking into account its low surface brightness, would be almost
impossible for the size telescopes Finlay employed.
Due to its stated magnitude, size and appearance on the DSS I asked Curtis
Croulet, President of the Temecula Valley Astronomers, to try an observation with
his 12.5 inch telescope of MCG -1-37-005 as he is an excellent and experienced
deep sky observer. He made an attempt from an excellent observing site about 2000
feet above the Anza Borrego Desert and reported back to me that using
magnifications of 67x to 216x he was unable to see this galaxy, which would
suggest that it is not Finlay's claimed object.
The MOL (NSO) gives the Dreyer coordinates.
IC 4411.
Stewart #404. 14hr 22m 00.240s - 34 47' 39.719" (1950).
14hr 25m 01.335s - 35 01' 12.157" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : At the nominal position no nebular image exists.
Stewart describes his #404 as "F, S, eE at 45 degrees" and the PGC, NED, SIMBAD and
ESO have suggested that ESO 385-G018 at 14hr 20m 22s - 34 53'.1 might be IC 4411.
Certainly the image of ESO 385-G018 on the DSS is that of an edge-on galaxy whose
PA is 45 degrees, however, this galaxy has a Mp of almost 17.0 and in my opinion
would most likely not have been visible on Stewart's photographic plate (#3638).
Also for ESO 385-G018 to be IC 4411 it would require that not only did Stewart's
RA be incorrectly given by 1 tmin 38 tsec but that he also erred in the
declination measurement by 5.4 arcmin.
Stewart also measured positions from this same photographic plate for IC 4366,
4376, 4378, 4379, 4388, 4391 and 4393 and all of these have excellent RA
coordinates, therefore I find it difficult to accept that somehow he made a
complete mess of measuring RA coordinates for IC 4411.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the historical coordinates.
Steinicke has (Not found). The APL originally equated IC 4411 with the ESO galaxy,
however, in his latest version Corwin suggest that it is probably a plate defect.
IC 4412.
POSS. O-61.
Javelle #1306. 14hr 20m 55.249s + 26 29' 32.024" (1950).
14hr 23m 09.768s + 26 15' 55.131" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5594 : Dreyer's coordinates as published in the NGC for NGC
5594 = H135-3 are 14hr 20m 26s + 26 36'.5 but this is not what Wm. Herschel
measurements give (14hr 20m 37s + 26 24' 40"). Auwers correction (NGC/IC pp.223)
makes the declination + 26 26'.8 Dreyer in his 1912 paper (MNRAS. 73. 37.
Corrections to the NGC.) states "NGC 5594. The NPD should be 63 08'.0" which
when precessed to 1950 gives + 26 27'.3, therefore between the corrections we have
coordinates for NGC 5594 of 14hr 20m 37s + 26 27'.3
Examination of the Palomar print strongly suggests that Javelle's IC 4412 is a
duplicate observation of NGC 5594 and this conclusion is in agreement with the NGC
2000 (No Type), MOL (Same as NGC 5594), Carlson quoting Reinmuth, and PGC. The
CGCG and MCG give the single identity IC 4412. Not listed in the UGC, RC3 or
DSFG. The APL gives (IC 4412 = NGC 5594). Steinicke equates both identities.
NED equates both identities. SIMBAD does not equate both identities.
IC 4414.
(See IC 1008).
IC 4416.
POSS. O-70.
Javelle #1309. 14hr 22m 05.637s + 29 51' 40.305" (1950).
14hr 24m 17.066s + 29 38' 07.350" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 163.039 Correctly
identified in the APL, PGC, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Also correctly identified in the MCG and NED. Not listed in the UGC, RC3 or DSFG.
IC 4417.
POSS. O-1417.
Frost # 1102. 14hr 22m 27.544s + 17 16' 22.242" (1950).
14hr 24m 49.211s + 17 02' 50.373" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD and UGC, however,
the MOL (NSO) lists it at coordinates of 17hr 22m 12s + 17 36' which are entirely
incorrect in both RA and Declination. Correct identity in the PGC, APL and by
Steinicke.
IC 4424.
POSS. O-1418.
Bigourdan #320. 14hr 25m 01.869s + 05 02' 39.043" 91950).
14hr 27m 32.196s + 04 49' 13.963" (2000).Probably equal to IC 1016 (Swift List X,
#26.) Swift's RA is off by about 1 tmin
17 tsec but he does state that it follows NGC 5619 and the magnitude (14.8) is
within the range of his telescope. Bigourdan of course when he made his
observation could have not had any idea that it was Swift's object as the
positions were so different.
CGCG, PGC and MCG give only the identity IC 4424. The UGC (Notes to U09258 =
Anon.) also only gives the identity as IC 4424. Both the NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL
(NSO) list both identities at separate coordinates. The APL makes it = IC 1016 =
NGC 5619B. Steinicke gives (= IC 1016) as does NED. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database," but does list the identity IC 1016.
IC 4430.
Stewart #405. 14hr 26m 23.556s - 33 23' 28.512" (1950).
14hr 29m 23.908s - 33 36' 49.550" (2000).
Not found. Possible candidate : At Stewart's nominal position there are no
nonstellar images, however, Steinicke has identified the galaxy ESO 385-G030 as
being IC 4430 at 14hr 26m 19.3s - 33 13' 44", or about 10 arcmin to the north of
Stewart's position.
ESO 385-G030 has a Mp of 14.0 which is certainly bright enough to have been on
Stewart's photographic plate and it does lie well within the area covered by this
same plate and these two factors support this candidate., also if Stewart either
made a 10 arcmin error in measurement, or his list reflects a typographical error
of that amount then this would be beyond dispute. The fact that such an error
would be for only one of the two coordinates again strengthens Steinicke's claim,
however, as I am unable to confirm that such is the case I am at this time going
to list this identity as "Not found."
The ESO lists its 385-G030 without any IC identity as does the PGC. The MCG lists
the candidate as -5-34-14 (Anon). The APL agrees with Steinicke. The NGC 2000 and
MOL give the historical coordinates. NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NOTE : (See IC 4814).
IC 4431.
POSS. O-70.
Javelle #1316. 14hr 25m 00.983s + 31 10' 16.649" (1950).
14hr 27m 10.788s + 30 56' 51.204" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1012 (Safford 8.) : Correctly equated by CGCG, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, MCG and PGC. The NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities
giving each separate coordinates.
IC 4432.
Stewart #406. 14hr 26m 41.886s - 39 18' 27.859" (1950).
14hr 29m 48.759s - 39 31' 47.988" (2000).
Not found : The APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and ESO each equate IC 4432 with
ESO 326-G025 at 14hr 25m 43s - 39 19'.7, or about 1.0 tmin preceeding Stewart's
position. Again as in the case of IC 4430 the difference in positions is for only
one coordinate, (this time the RA) and this fact goes in favour of this candidate,
especially as it is a complete unit of time.
Whether this is the correct candidate or not I am unable to confirm, therefore
will for now retain the "Not found."
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the original coordinates.
IC 4437.
POSS. O-145.
Barnard : 14hr 25m 27.180s + 41 42' 38.909" (1950).
14hr 27m 25.548s + 41 29' 14.255" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : At the given position I could only find an 8th mag. star. Only
modern listings are Steinicke (=*). APL (=**). NED "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO).
IC 4441 and IC 4444.
Swift List XI, #171. 14hr 28m 1.074s - 43 17' 54.108" (1950).
14hr 31m 23.276s -43 31' 10.169" (2000). (IC 4441).Stewart #407. 14hr 28m 28.998s
- 43 11' 23.326" (1950).
14hr 32m 41.119s - 43 24' 38.594" (2000). (IC 4444).
An interesting problem in which I believe that NED, SIMBAD, PGC and the ESO have
incorrectly identified IC 4441 = ESO 272-G011 at 14hr 27m 06s - 43 20'.3 :
To begin, Stewart's #407 is where Stewart placed it and is a 12.0 mag. galaxy =
ESO 272-G014 and is identified as being IC 4444 by all the modern authorities.
IC 4441 was described by Swift as "pF, pS, R." and at his coordinates no suitable
nebular images exist. ESO 272 -G011 lies about 1 tmin 3 tsec preceeding and about
2.3 arcmin south of the position given by Swift and this is within the relative
error range for Swift, however, ESO 272-G011 has a MP of 15.0 and is considerably
smaller than ESO 272-G014.
When I examined the image of ESO 272-G011 on the DSS I immediately thought that
considering its extremely southern declination from Mt Lowe (where Swift was
observing), it was very unlikely that he could have seen it. Also the fact that
Stewart's plate (#3637) easily included the area in which ESO 272-011 lies, yet he
never listed it in his survey, while Swift's field of view covers 32 arcmin and
both the ESO galaxies lie within this field , therefore if Swift's IC 4441 is ESO
272-G011 then why does he make no mention of the much brighter ESO 272-G014 ?,
remembering that Swift's observation of the field was at least 1 year prior to
Stewart.
The answer to these findings are that neither Swift or Stewart ever saw ESO 272-
G011, but both of them saw and listed ESO 272-G014, thus IC 4441 and IC 4444 are
equivalent identities.
An important piece of information is found in Stewart's description for IC 4444
which read, :vF, vS, *M, sp or ring neb, Rem. (A.N. 147, 209, Swift T XI, 171, p
0.3m, s 6 arcmin). These separation values are based upon Swift's data and
Stewart could not have seen anything on Plate # 3637 at these separations because
there are no nebular images there, so is he suggesting that his #407 might just be
Swift's #171 ?
The reference "Rem." in Stewart's description stands for Remarks and for this
entry his Remarks read "Observed by Frost on A 6765 as bM, mag. 13." and from
this we can affirm that not only is IC 4444 visible on two separate Harvard plates
but that also neither Stewart or his colleague Frost were able to distinguish ESO
272-G011 as being nonstellar, which clearly suggests that Swift, at a much more
northerly observing site, would not have been able to visually distinguish it.
Based upon the above findings I would submit that IC 4441 is equivalent to IC
4444.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates for IC 4441
without any equivalency. Both the RC3 and DSFG list only Stewart's IC 4444 and do
not have any listing for IC 4441. Steinicke equates both identities.
There is an additional historical problem. As Swift was the first to examine the
field and therefore was the first to see ESO 272-G014 and that Dreyer assigned the
identity IC 4441 to the Swift object #171, then by historical precedent should the
galaxy ESO 272-G014 be IC 4441 or IC 4444 ? By simple retaining only the identity
IC 4444 implies that it is not Swift's object and therefore deprives its
legitimate discoverer of his due merit. Personally I am happy with the
equivalency and recording Swift as its discoverer.
NOTE: Dr. Corwin has examined my arguments on this problem and has informed me
that he now believes that the equivalency is correct.
IC 4444.
(See IC 4441).
IC 4455.
POSS. O-1394.
Stewart #410. 14hr 31m 44.037s - 14 25' 14.145" (1950).
14hr 34m 28.529s - 14 38' 21.254" (2000).
Not found at nominal position but probably equal to NGC 5664 (Leavenworth).
The APL, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke equate IC 4455 with NGC 5664 at 14hr 30m
59.2s - 14 24'.0. (APL). The MCG lists this same object but gives it the single
identity IC 4455. Stewart's description "eF, eS, cE at 30 degrees." is an
excellent match for NGC 5664.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both identities as separate objects with
separate coordinates.
IC 4458.
Stewart #411. 14hr 34m 01.207s - 39 15' 08.529" (1950).
14hr 37m 09.395s - 39 28' 08.917" (2000).
Compact group of 3 or 4 faint stars : Stewart describes his #411 as "eF, eS, E at
100 degrees." and at his position there is this group of faint stars aligned in
the correct PA which is what Stewart took to be a nebula.
The APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and ESO have selected the galaxy ESO 327-G003 at 14hr 34m
57s - 39 17'.4 as being equal to IC 4458 and this galaxy's appearance on the DDS is
a very faint, very small galaxy whose major axis is 90 degrees.
As the difference in coordinates between this candidate and Stewart' position is
about 1 tmin and 2.2 arcmin it would require that Stewart's given position is in
error in both RA and declination, something not too likely.
As there are a group of compact stars at Stewart's coordinates and they are
aligned in the stated PA I am in favour of this being what Stewart listed as his
#411.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates. Steinicke
has (=*3).
IC 4470.
POSS O-1374.
Bigourdan #421. 14hr 30m 16.333s + 79 06' 17.685" (1950).
14hr 28m 30.809s + 78 40' 14.108" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy. The historical positional data is very confusing :
Bigourdan's reference object is the galaxy NGC 5712 which he places at 14hr 30m
33.333s + 79 04' 47.685 (1950). (NED gives 14hr 30m 36.834s + 79 05' 05.79")
Bigourdan then gives his separation values as - 17 tsec RA and + 2 arcmin 30
arcsec Dec. which gives a 1950 position for his #421 = IC 4470 of 14hr 30m 16.333s
+ 17 07' 17.685 (employing simple reductions), however, when these coordinates are
applied to the DSS they land on a blank space north preceding NGC 5712 and at a
greater separation from an extended galaxy which lies south preceding.
Now if the RA separation was - 1 tmin 17 tsec and the declination changed from + 2
arcmin 30 arcsec to read + 2 arcmin 0 arcsec then this would result in landing
just off the north edge of the extended galaxy, which is MCG 13-10-019.
Normally I would list IC 4470 as "Not found" based upon the original Bigourdan
historical data, however, Bigourdan also describes his #421 as "It is vaguely
extended at 90 degrees, 1 arcmin long and 40 arcsec broad," and this matches the
appearance of the MCG galaxy, therefore, I believe that this is what Bigourdan saw
and described as his Nova #421.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL. incorrectly list this as being an "Open cluster.''
Correctly listed in CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MCG. Not listed in
UGC and DSFG.
IC 4471.
POSS O-145.
Bigourdan #321. 14hr 34m 30.284s + 41 53' 41.212" (1950).
14hr 36m 26.568s + 41 40' 40.878" (2000).
This is a complicated problem with more than one possible solution:
Bigourdan examined the field on two separate nights, June 6th 1894 and May 4th
1899. On the first of these dates he lists a single observation of an object
(Big. #321) which he describes as a nebula which he was unable to measure any
position for with the micrometer as the sky conditions were not favourable,
however, he does give it estimated separations from the star BD +42,2516 of + 30
tsec RA and - 36 arcsec Dec. He arrived at coordinates for the BD star by
employing Argelander's published position 14hr 30m 19.6s +42 18'.8 (1855) and
precessing it to 14hr 32m 04.5s + 42 6' 54" (1900), which in turn would have
coordinates of 14hr 34m 00.878s + 41 53' 47.051" (1950) after applying NED's
Calculator precession tables. Now by using Bigourdan's offsets as given above we
arrive at coordinates for Bigourdan's #321 of 14hr 34m 30.878s + 41 53' 41.212"
(1950) and this places the object just south of a double star that lies off the
south preceding end of the galaxy NGC 5697.
BD +42,2516 is equal to GSC 3039-721 at 14hr 35m 56.76s + 41 41' 14.0" (2000) or
14hr 31m 50.047s +42 08' 57.691" (1894), the discovery year for IC 4471 and thus
would give a 1950 position for Bigourdan's #321 of 14hr 34m 30.284s + 41 53'
39.389", very compatible with those arrived at by Bigourdan and now they place his
object just off the south preceding edge of the double star, therefore is this
double star Bigourdan's #321 ?
Bigourdan additionally states that his #321 has a 11.5 mag star located midway
between his object and his reference star BD +42, 2516 and as the double star lies
at 14hr 34m 31.058s + 41 54' 04.389 (1950), the midway position between it and the
reference star BD +42,2516 would be -15 tsec RA and -18 arcsec Dec. which gives
14hr 34m 15.348s + 41 53' 21.389" (1950) and that places it just off the south
preceding edge of the described midway star which is equal to GSC 3039-668.
It should be pointed out that Bigourdan on this night does not indicate having
made any search or observation for the galaxy NGC 5697.
Next is Bigourdan's second observation made on May 4th 1899. Now he makes an
observation of the NGC 5697, correctly identifying it and measuring coordinates
for it based upon the same star he previously had noted lay midway between his
Object #321 and BD +42,2516. His coordinates for NGC 5697, 14hr 34m 35.820 + 41
54' 06.374 (1950) are quite good landing just on the south following end of the
galaxy and his description matches the appearance of the galaxy. He adds a Note
to this night's observation concerning his Object #321 which reads "Not seen, but
it was searched for before the star BD +42,2516." Does this mean that he
considered his Nova to be something else than NGC 5697 ?
As there is a single nonstellar image in the immediate field, NGC 5697, it would
seem the logical conclusion would be that IC 4471 is a duplicate observation of
NGC 5697, especially as Bigourdan makes no mention of NGC 5697 on his first
observation, however, the positional data would at least suggest that IC 4471
could be the double star lying close to the south preceding end of the galaxy NGC
5697.
CGCG, APL, UGC, MOL, PCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and Carlson all state the
equivalency. RC3, MCG and DSFG give only the identity NGC 5697. NGC 2000 lists the
two identities separately and lists IC 4471 without type.
IC 4481.
POSS. O-1417.
Frost #1127. 14hr 37m 45.179s + 16 21' 02.708" (1950).
14hr 40m 06.504s + 16 08' 11.833" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The declination in the MOL (NSO) is incorrectly given as + 19
21'.0.
The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke have the correct identity and coordinates. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED" however, they list it as MAPS-NGP 0 441
0444429. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 4483.
POSS. O-1417.
Frost #1129. 14hr 37m 56.737s + 16 53' 03.250" (1950).
14hr 40m 17.617s + 16 40' 12.910" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the UGC only as U09455 (This pointed out in the PGC
Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, Steinicke, APL, NED, SIMBAD,
MCG, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4490.
Innes. 14hr 42m 17.079s - 35 57' 46.504" (1950).
14hr 45m 22.751s - 35 10' 23.899" (2000).(Dreyer).
Equal to a double star : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO).
Correctly identified as two stars in the APL, Steinicke and ESO. NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4491.
POSS. O-1025.
Stewart #415. 14hr 41m 43.896s - 13 30' 46.724" (1950).
14hr 44m 28.233s - 13 43' 26.004" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Stewart states "Faint, small, exceedingly
elongated at 00 degrees (IC 1055 = Javelle 318 follows 3.0m, same dec.)," and 3
tmin following his given RA IC 1055 does exist as described.
The APL, SIMBAD and PGC have equated IC 4491 with IC 1055 at 14hr 44m 41.2s - 13 30'
20".
It is possible that the equivalency is correct, however, my question is why would
Stewart have any reason to mention the fact that IC 1055 lies 03 tmin following if
he was confusing it for a nova ?
Additionally, IC 1055 hardly resembles Stewart's description for IC 4491. Instead
IC 1055 has a diameter of 2.00 X 0.7 arcmin and a Mp of 13.6.
The NGC 2000 and MOL give the two separate identities and separate coordinates,
while the MCG lists IC 1055 without any equivalency. NED has "There is no object
with this name in NED." Steinicke has (Not found? IC 1055?).
IC 4493.
POSS. O-1087.
Bigourdan #422. 14hr 41m 56.519s + 12 20' 31.433" (1950).
14hr 44m 20.819s + 12 07' 52.460" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 5747 (H 48-3). Wm. Herschel placed his nova incorrectly at
14hr 42m 45s + 12 18'.4 and as Bigourdan was unable to find anything at these
coordinates he assumed that what he found was a new discovery.
The CGCG, UGC and MCG give only the identity IC 4493. The APL, Steinicke, NED,
MOL, SIMBAD and PGC correctly make the two identities equal.
IC 4497.
POSS. O-1390.
Javelle #1336. 14hr 42m 10.770s + 28 45' 41.013" (1950).
14hr 44m 20.671s + 28 33' 02.454" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only erroneous data concerns Javelle's Catalogue Part 2 in
which he gives 3 separate measurements, two based upon separations from the star
DM +29 2564 and the third from the star DM +29 2578. For this third measurement
the separation in RA is given as +2m 52.97s which should read -2m 52.97s.
Fortunately in Part 1 of his catalogue the position is based upon his first two
measurements, which are correct, and it was this that Dreyer used for the IC II
thus the modern catalogues are not in error.
Correctly identified in the CGCG, Steinicke, MCG, RC3, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC
2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO) and DSFG (Notes to NGC 5735).
IC 4507.
POSS. O-54.
Frost #1136. 14hr 45m 24.731s + 18 39' 24.341" (1950).
14hr 47m 43.600s + 18 26' 55.259" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error involved is one of historical significance in
that in the IC II Dreyer incorrectly list this as being Frost Object #1336 instead
of the correct # 1136.
IC 4510.
POSS. O-1009.
Stewart #417. 14hr 47m 50.177s - 20 31' 29.415" (1950).
14hr 50m 40.860s - 20 43' 50.850" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes it as "Indistinct, suspected." which reveals that
he was in some doubt as to its existence as a nonstellar object.
NGC 2000 lists it as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke
have (Not found).
IC 4511.
Frost #1137. 14hr 48m 53.275s - 40 17' 26.866" (1950).
14hr 52m 05.548s - 40 29' 44.696" (2000).
Not found : Frost describes this as "Dif, R, lbM, dia.0'.6 ", however, there are
no suitable nonstellar images at or close to his position. Probably a plate
defect.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). The APL, NED, SIMBAD,
Steinicke and ESO have (Not found).
IC 4513.
POSS. O-1009.
Stewart #419. 14hr 49m 26.286s - 20 31' 24.747" (1950).
14hr 52m 17.117s - 20 43' 41.444" (2000).
Not found : The NGC 2000 lists it as (No Type) while the MOL gives (NSO). The
APL states (Not found at nominal position). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not
found).
IC 4514.
POSS. O-1390.
Swift List XI, #175. 14hr 48m 26.058s + 27 46' 51.298" (1950).
14hr 50m 36.204s + 27 34' 30.916" (2000).
Javelle #1346. 14hr 48m 45.598s + 27 49' 00.0" (1950).
14hr 50m 55.666s + 27 36' 40.446" (2000).
There is an interesting story involving the identity IC 4514 as Dreyer credits it
to both Swift and Javelle. Swift's computed coordinates are in error by 18.86
tsec RA too small and 26 arcsec too far south and Javelle's given coordinates are
subject to positional error due to the position he gives his reference star, DM
+28,2377 which is equal to GSC 2019-328.
According to Argelander's data DM +28,2377 would have a 2000 position of 14hr 52m
47.07s + 27 31' 52.74", whereas its correct 2000 position, (GSC) is 14hr 52m
46.809s +27 29' 54,64" (Tycho-2). Thus when Javelle's offsets (- 1 tmin RA and +
5 arcmin 3.0 arcsec) are applied, Javelle's given declination for IC 4514 is about
1 arcmin 58.10 arcsec too far north.
The other item of importance is that Swift discovered IC 4514 on June 2nd 1898,
however, Javelle made his discovery on July 10th 1896 or almost 2 years earlier,
therefore the correct historical discoverer would have to be Javelle and Swift can
have claim only to an equivalency observation.
Correctly identified in all of the modern catalogues.
IC 4515.
POSS. O-1610.
Javelle #1347. 14hr 49m 07.862s + 37 41' 55.766" (1950).
14hr 51m 06.845s + 37 29 37.175" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Javelle in Part 2 of his catalogue incorrectly gives the
separation in declination from his reference star DM +38 2595 as being north when
it should be south, which may have caused the CGCG to not include the identity IC
4515, instead it lists it only as ZWG 193.005.
Not listed in the UGC, or RC3. Correctly listed in the MCG, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the incorrect
declination value. The APL gives a listing credited to KHJ at a declination of +37
41' 59.45" = NPMIG +37.0451 and this is the correct IC 4515.
IC 4516.
POSS. O-54.
Swift XI #176. 14hr 51m 57.056s + 16 35' 13.397" (1950).
14hr 54m 17.270s + 16 23' 03.643" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : To begin with Dreyer gives a RA precession rate of 3.35 tsecs
when it should be about 2.81 tsecs while his declination rate is given at 14".9
when it should be around 15".3 Even with these corrections Swift's RA position is
off by about 6 tsecs. and this is probably why the CGCG lists the galaxy fitting
Swift's description only as ZWG 105.064. The UGC, Steinicke, SIMBAD, PGC and MCG
have the correct identity while the NGC 2000 (No Type) gives incorrect coordinates
based upon Dreyer's precession rates and Swift's poor coordinates. I could not find
it listed in the MOL.
The APL and NED correctly list it at "14hr 52m 03.223s + 16 33' 28.07" KHJ 2 =
NPMIG +16.0409."
NOTE: One additional item, only of historical significance, is that Swift
published two sets of coordinates for this identity the only difference being that
in one set he gives the declination for the year 1900 as + 16 47.5m while in the
other it is + 16 47' 05", a difference of 25 arcsec.
IC 4518.
Frost #1138. 14hr 54m 22.033s - 42 56' 10.795" (1950).
14hr 57m 39.149s - 43 08' 12.047" (2000).
There are no identity errors concerning this galaxy, however, there is an item of
historical importance.
Frost in his description states "Also a streak, 1'.0 X 0'.2 at 100 degrees." and
when his coordinates are entered into the DSS they show IC 4518 and at 100 degrees
PA to it there is a definite elongated galaxy which must be what Frost mentioned.
Dreyer refers to this associated galaxy in the IC II description, but for some
unknown reason he never decided to assign it a separate IC identity, therefore it
remains today a non IC object.
IC 4526.
POSS. O-102.
Javelle #1354. 15hr 00m 25.035s + 23 32' 44.563" (1950).
15hr 02m 38.178s + 23 21' 00.568" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is a separate, companion galaxy to NGC 5829 as noted in
the CGCG, APL, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG. The UGC has equated both
identities which is incorrect as IC 4526 is the north preceding companion
mentioned in the UGC Notes to U09673 = NGC 5829. It is listed in Hickson's 1982
and 1989 Astrophys. Journal papers as Group 73b. Steinicke and PGC have correct
identity.
IC 4528.
POSS. O-1368
Bigourdan #423. 14hr 59m 54.376s + 49 18' 32.619" (1950).
15hr 01m 33.198s + 49 06' 46.211" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Bigourdan's reference star is GSC 3484-1536 and when his
offsets (+6.74 tsec RA and - 4arcmin 56 arcsec) are applied they land on MCG +8-
27-55. Listed in CGCG as ZWG 248.046. MCG incorrectly identifies its +8-27-49 =
IC 4528 as does NED and SIMBAD. The correct IC 4528 is listed as +8-27-55. NGC
2000, PGC, Steinicke, APL and MOL give the correct identity.
IC 4532.
POSS. O-87.
Javelle #1357. 15hr 02m 41.040s +23 27' 00.692" (1950).
15hr 04m 54.078s + 23 15' 23.785" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy but not at Javelle's position :
Javelle states that his reference star is DM 23 2764 which is equal to AC #733629
at 15hr 04m 18.895s + 23 09' 56.52" (2000) and when his offsets from this star (+0
tmin 11.88.4 tsec RA, + 02 arcmin 40 arcsec) are applied they land on blank space.
Javelle actually employed as his reference star a 9.70 Mp star which is AC #733651
at 15hr 04m 42.318s + 23 12' 42.19" (2000). Now when his offsets are applied to
this star they land on a galaxy fitting his description, "vF, N, Stellar." The
correct coordinates for IC 4532 are 5hr 02m 41.040s +23 27' 00.692" (1950).
Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 135.006. Not listed in either the UGC or MCG.
The PGC identifies it as an "Anon. PGC 053828." NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO)
both at the incorrect coordinates. Steinicke and APL have the correct identity.
SIMBAD omits the IC identity and gives LEDA 53828, while NED also omits the IC
identity while giving its prime identity as CGCG 135-006.
IC 4534
POSS. O-87.
Javelle #1359. 15hr 04m 29.236s + 23 50' 02.649" (1950).
15hr 06m 41.730s + 23 38' 31.419" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is an interesting problem in that it would appear that
Javelle incorrectly identified his reference star, making it the 9th magnitude
star DM +24 2818, which is equal to GSC 2024-328 at 15hr 06m 58.65s +
23 49' 11.6" (2000), however, when his separation values (+1 tmin 11.70 tsec and 5
arcmin 11.5 arcsec south) are applied to this star no nonstellar image is found.
As Javelle's description "pB, S, Elongated north and south, Nucleus." greatly
suggests that he was describing an existing galaxy I began my re-examination by
searching for such an object in the surrounding field area and found one
that exactly matches his description, UGC 09713 at 15hr 04m 29.3s + 23 50' 02"
(1950), or 15hr 06m 41.8s +23 38'31" (2000) and then by reversing the directions
of Javelle's separation values there is found at the resulting position
a different 9th magnitude star, AC #733715 at 15hr 05m 30.072s + 23 43' 35.63"
(2000). and it is this star that Javelle incorrectly identified as being DM +24
2818.
Identified in the UGC only as UGC 09713. The CGCG identifies it only as ZWG
135.014 and the MCG only as MCG + 04-36-13. The PGC (#53943) and MOL give only
the UGC, MCG and CGCG identities.
Steinicke and APL have the correct identity and coordinates. NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO), each of these sources being based upon the historical coordinates.
NED and SIMBAD omit the IC identity and give it as UGC 09713.
IC 4535.
POSS. 0-1610.
Javelle #1360. 15hr 06m 45.314s +37 45' 37.644" (1950).
15hr 08m 41.416s +37 34' 13.421" (2000).
Comfirmed galaxy: It is located exactly at Javelle's coordinates. Not listed in
the CGCG, MCG or UGC. Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). It is identified
in NED as 2MASX J15084159+3734129 and in SIMBAD as FIRST J150841.5+373415, both
these sources omitting the IC identity. APL has the correct identity. Steinicke has
correct identity.
IC 4540.
POSS. O-1402.
Swift List XI, #177. 15hr 17m 30.827s + 01 57' 57.297" (1950).
15hr 20m 02.926s + 01 47' 08.847" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are Steinicke (= NF). APL has "nothing here and
**?" NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 ((No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4543.
(See IC 1118).
IC 4546.
POSS. O-1092.
Javelle #1363. 15hr 24m 53.545s + 29 01'31.808" (1950).
15hr 26m 58.409s + 28 51' 07.642" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is the rather minor one concerning a
typographical error in the separation sign as given in the declination data found
in Part 2 of Javelle's catalogue. It is listed there as 2' 0".9 south of his
reference star when he should read as 2' 0".9 north of the star. Oddly enough at
the nominal position as given in Part 2 there is the image of a faint galaxy,
however, at the corrected declination there is also a galaxy and its identity as
IC 4546 is clearly established by the fact that it has the 13th Mv star attached
as described by Javelle. Additionally the coordinates as given in Javelle's Part
1 are correct.
All of the modern catalogues which list this identity have the correct object.
IC 4551.
POSS. O-1082.
Swift List XII, #12. 15hr 31m 27.816s + 06 10' 50.684" (1950).15hr 33m 55.871s
+ 06 00' 49.848" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 5964 : At Swift's nominal position no object exists and the
difference in coordinates between the position for IC 4551 and NGC 5964 would be
about 3.7 tmins RA and 2.6 arcmins Dec.
Only modern listings are Carlson (= NGC 5964 ?). Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000, MOL
and PGC all listing it as equal to NGC 5964. NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD equates it with NGC 5964.
IC 4552.
POSS. O-1082.
Swift List XI, #181. 15hr 32m 29.031s + 04 51' 54.197" (1950).
15hr 34m 58.310s + 04 41' 56.965" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*). APL (= UGC 09945). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the datbase." NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4553 & IC 4554.
POSS. O-1119.
Javelle Nos.1368 and 1369.
15hr 32m 47.285s + 23 40' 10.828". (1950).
15hr 34m 57.617s + 23 30' 14.202" (2000). (IC 4553).
15hr 32m 54.763s + 23 38' 38.937" (1950).
15hr 35m 05.114s + 23 28' 42.749" (2000). (IC 4554).
These are separate galaxies : IC 4554 is not a component of the double system IC
4553, rather it is a separate galaxy south following the double system. CGCG
lists ZWG136.017 = IC 4553 + IC 4554 thus confusing the double system as applying
to both identities. UGC gives U09913 = IC 4553, IC 4554, symbiotic pair, and in
the Notes refers to a "companion distant 2.' 2 , PA 133," and it is this
companion that is IC 4554. The MCG also confuses the double system IC 4553 as
combining the two identities as it lists its +4-37-5 = IC 4453 + IC 4554, while
having no listing for the true IC 4554.
NGC 2000 and MOL both correctly identify the two galaxies although the NGC 2000
has (No Type) for IC 4554. The DSFG confuses the double system as being for both
identities. The PGC also confuses the identity of IC 4554, making it part of the
double system IC 4553. The APL makes IC 4553 = IC 1127 and IC 4554 a separate
galaxy = NPMIG +23.0402.
Javelle's separation values from his reference star clearly establish that the
companion south following the double system is the correct IC 4554. Steinicke,
SIMBAD and NED have the correct identities.
(See Note to IC 1127 regarding possible equivalency between IC 1127 and IC 4553).
IC 4555.
Stewart #423. 15hr 41m 13.546s - 77 30 42.332" (1950).
15hr 47m 59.679s - 77 40' 00.959" (2000).
Not found : At the position given by Stewart no nebular images exist. Stewart
describes his nova as "vF, vS, eE at 55 degrees, bM. Also on Plate A 4537." (His
discovery plate is 4535 and is the only object he lists on this plate).
The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and RC3 all identify ESO 22-G012 = IC
4555 at 15hr 41m 18s - 78 01',5. The ESO makes its 22-G012 = IC 4555?, while the
MOL (NSO) gives coordinates of 15hr 41m 18s - 77 31'.0
If ESO 22-G012 is equal to IC 4555 then either Stewart made a 30 arcmin error in
his declination or the declination value given in his list has a 30 arcmin
typographical error.
The difference in RA is not of any major significance as at such a large southern
declination precise RA coordinates are difficult to accurately obtain, however,
the declination positions are not and it is the declination that has the largest
discrepancy.
ESO 22-G012 certainly is bright enough to have been visible on Stewart's plate and
therefore supports the ESO 22-G012 equivalency, and it does have a PA of 61
degrees which is close to Stewart's, as he gives 55 degrees.
ESO 22-G012 is a reasonable candidate, however, I am unable to confirm that it
definitely is IC 4555, therefore I am listing it as (Not found).
IC 4562.
POSS O-1376.
Barnard. 15hr 33m 56.444s + 43 35' 56.763" (1950).
15hr 35m 39.057s + 43 26' 03.331" (2000). (Dreyer).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +7-32-34.
Dreyer's coordinates derived from Barnard's data are not very precise most likely
because Barnard never provided coordinates in his A.N. # 4136 paper and therefore
Dreyer had to more or less guess the coordinates based upon the 43' field sketch
provided by Barnard which included the position of a star, BD +44 2493. They are
more accurately given in the APL, Steinicke, CGCG (15hr 34.3m + 43 39'.0), NGC
2000, UGC (Notes to U09928) and RC3. The MOL correctly lists it as NSO, however,
with coordinates based upon the Dreyer positional data. Correctly identified in
the PGC, SIMBAD and NED.
IC 4586.
POSS. O-1067.
Swift List XII, #13. 15hr 52m 27.455s + 06 10' 06.040" (1950).
15hr 54m 55.147s + 06 01' 21.114" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6014 : The difference in coordinates between Swift's
position for IC 4586 and NGC 6014 is ~ 1 tmin RA and 5 arcmins Dec. however,
Swift's description "Between an 8th mag. star following and a curve of stars
preceding" matches NGC 6014.
Carlson, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000 and MOL correctly give the equivalency. The
CGCG, PGC, MCG, RC3 and UGC give the single identity NGC 6014. NED has "There is
no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4588.
POSS. O-113.
Javelle #1391. 16hr 02m 56.703s + 24 03' 12.175" (1950).
16hr 05m 04.476s + 23 55' 06.300" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is a companion to NGC 6051 and is as described in the
Notes to U10178 = NGC 6051 "IC 4588 is a comp. at 2.0, PA = 120, 0.4 x 0.3;"
Incorrectly equated with NGC 6051 by the MCG, SIMBAD, and PGC. Correctly identified
in the NGC 2000, Steinicke, APL, MOL and DSFG. NED lists it as 2MASX
J16050427+2355015 and omits the IC identity.
NOTE : There is an error in Dreyer's description in that it reads " NGC 5051
precedes," this should read "NGC 6051 precedes." Also noted in the UGC Notes.
IC 4589.
POSS. O-764.
Bigourdan #323. 16hr 04m 44.573s - 06 15' 06.465" (1950).
16hr 07m 24.844s - 06 23' 04.599" (2000).
This is a single star without any nebulosity : Bigourdan described this as being
a 13.3 mag. star accompanied by a 13.3 mag. star at PA 265 degrees, distant 1.0
arcmin, with a few traces of nebulosity and both stars a readily visible on the
DSS.
The MOL lists this as (NSO). The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke correctly make it a
star. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 4594.
POSS. 0-113.
Javelle #1393. 16hr 09m 15.220s +23 48' 08.909" (1950).
16hr 11m 22.913s + 23 40' 27.344" (2000).
There is some confusion concerning the correct identity of this object: When I
originally examined this identity many year ago I found the image of a faint galaxy
at the above coordinates as published by Javelle. Early references to various
catalogues produced the following results. CGCG, UGC and MCG had no listings. NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). More recent references include NED who list this
particular object as 2MASX J16112451+2340283, Steinicke identifies it as IC 4594, as
does SIMBAD. Steinicke gives it a magnitude of 16.5 and its Bmag as listed in the
GSC2.2 is, 16.07, or Rmag 14.43.
I was satisfied that this was Javelle's #1393, however, after consulting Dr.
Corwin's latest NOTES (IC 4594 Sept. 2004), in which he states that Javelle's
published declination is incorrect due to reversing the sign, which when corrected
lands on the true IC 4594 at 16hr 11m 22.51s +23 57' 54.3" (2000) I had some doubt
as to my original confirmation because as Corwin remarks when Javelle's offsets in
declination are reversed they do indeed land on a much brighter galaxy.
After further investigating I am at this time not convinced as to Dr. Corwin's
argument as (1) There is a galaxy at the published Javelle position and (2),
Corwin's candidate is actually NGC 6075, discovered by Stephan List XII, No.82 and
his coordinates for the year 2000 would be 16hr 11m 22.807s + 23 57' 45.619, which
leave no doubt as to his claim of discovery.
Now as Javelle had this information readily available at the time of his discovery
of his #1393, I believe it is highly unlikely that he would have not taken this into
consideration at the time of his observation. Certainly there are examples where
Javelle confused one of his discoveries with one previously credited, however, in
such cases it was due to extremely poor positional data provided by the original
discoverer and that is not the case here. It is my position that the coordinates as
published by Javelle for IC 4594 are correct and that IC 4594 is the object so
identified by Steinicke and others and that it is not Stephan's NGC 6075.
IC 4600.
POSS. O-1026.
Stewart #430. 16hr 15m 16.513s - 22 39' 28.025" (1950).
16hr 18m 15.478s - 22 46' 44.598" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At the position as given by Stewart there are no nebular
images, however, Corwin has suggested that perhaps Stewart's object is a galaxy
that lies at 16hr 13m 07s - 22 39'.6 or about 10 arcmin directly south of
Stewart's #428 = IC 4596. Corwin is supported in this possible candidate by
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the PGC who equate it with ESO 516-10, Mp 16.4 and this
galaxy does fit Stewart's description "eF, eS, R." however, it should be considered
that IC 4596 and IC 4600 are both credited to Stewart and these are the only two
galaxies that he found on the plate #3690 and my concern is that it would be
expected that he would have noticed an error of more than 2 tmin, which is what is
required if the Corwin/Steinicke candidate is IC 4600, especially as on this same
plate he had measured excellent coordinates for IC 4596.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give coordinates based on the historical
data. No other listings found.
IC 4602.
POSS. O-1372.
Swift List XI, #183. 16hr 21m 04.746s +12 51' 56.399" (1950).
16hr 23m 24.691s + 12 45' 01.697" (2000).
The credit for finding the correct IC 4602 belongs to Dr. Corwin who places it at
16hr 21m 17.87s + 11 54' 04.4" (1950) and equates it with NGC 6132 (Stephan).
The MOL (NSO) and NGC 2000 (No Type) list it at Dreyer's
coordinates which are those derived from Swift. Steinicke has correct identity.
NED has (Not found). SIMBAD has "Object of unknown nature," and gives coordinates
based upon Swift's published data. Not listed in the other catalogues.
IC 4610, IC 4611 and IC 4612.
POSS. O- 743.
Javelle #1396, #1397 and #1398.
These are 3 existing galaxies, however, there is considerable confusion concerning
their identities in both the historical and modern literature.
Javelle employed as his reference star DM +39 3013 and his coordinates for this
star would compute to a 1950 position of 16hr 32m 36.7s + 39 21'.9. This star is
also equal to AC #1349939 at 16hr 34m 22.660s + 39 15' 38.09" (2000).
First the historical errors :
Javelle's catalogues are divided into two parts. Part 1 gives the 1860 RA and
NPD, followed by his description for each of his discoveries while Part 2 gives
the 1860 RA and NPD for his reference stars and also his measured + or - RA
separations and north or south separations in NPD to his objects.
For his Object #1396 = IC 4610 his separations are given as - 00m 43.68s RA and +
00' 04".3 of arc NPD, however to convert to declination for Northern hemisphere
objects the NPD sign must be reversed to read - 00' 04".3 and when these
separations are applied to the GSC star they land exactly upon Javelle's #1396. at
16hr 31m 56.136s + 39 21' 40.267 (1950), or 16hr 33m 39.111s + 39 15' 26.067"
(2000).
Javelle's given separations for his #1397 = IC 4611 in Part 2 of his catalogue are
- 00m 40.72s RA and - 04' 28".4 of arc NPD (which converts to + 04' 28".4 of arc
declination), but when these are applied to the AC star they land upon a
blank area, however, by reversing Javelle's declination sign so that it reads
south instead of north of the reference star the resultant coordinates (16hr 31m
59.716s + 39 17' 16.391" (1950), or 16hr 33m 42.818s + 39 11' 04.437"
(2000).), land exactly upon the correct #1397 = IC 4611.
Unfortunately this same error was repeated in Part 1 of Javelle's catalogue and
was copied by Dreyer in the IC II and has led to confusing a number of the modern
authorities.
Finally Javelle's Object #1398 = IC 4612 : Javelle's given separations are + 00m
33.22s RA and - 00' 11".6 of arc NPD which converts to +00' 11".6 of arc
declination) which result in coordinates for IC 4612 of 16hr 33m 12.42s + 39 22'
04".1 (1950) again this lands upon a blank spot, however, if the RA sign as given
by Javelle is reversed to read - 00m 33.22s the resultant coordinates are 16hr 32m
07.073s + 39 21' 56.862" (1950), or 16hr 33m 50.024s + 39 15' 45.402" (2000) and
they land exactly upon the brightest galaxy in the group.
Fortunately Part 1 of Javelle's catalogue correctly reflects the proper RA value
and therefore Dreyer's data for IC 4612 has the correct RA.
The Modern Errors :
The MCG + 07-34-113 is identified as being IC 4610, however, it is actually IC
4612. and MCG Anon. + 07-34 112 is actually IC 4611. What NED identifies as IC
4610 and IC 4612 is the correct IC 4612 but it certainly is not also IC
4610 which lies south preceding IC 4612 and has a fainter companion galaxy close
north preceding. NED correctly identifies MCG + 07-24-112 but fails to equate it
with IC 4611. SIMBAD correctly identifies IC 4610 and IC 4612, while for IC 4611 it
has "Not present in the database," however it does list the same galaxy as MCG +07-
34-0112.
Steinicke correctly identifies all three galaxies. The PGC equates IC 4610 and IC
4612 which is incorrect. RC3 confuses IC 4612 making it IC 4610 and states "= I
ZWG 157", however, Zwicky makes I ZWG 157 = IC 4612.
The NGC 2000 correctly identify both IC 4610 and IC 4612, however, their
coordinates for IC 4611 reflect the original sign error as copied into Dreyer's
data and the same error is present in the MOL data. The APL has the correct
identities at the correct coordinates.
IC 4613.
POSS. O-1093.
Bigourdan #425. 16hr 35m 21.624s + 36 13' 45.995" (1950).
16hr 37m 09.753s + 36 07' 47.879" (2000).
Not found : No nonstellar image at or close to nominal position. CGCG, UGC and
MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists as [Galaxy] = NGC 6196? and gives a
declination value 6 arcmins too far south. MOL lists as "Spiral."
Carlson lists IC 4613 as equal to NGC 6196 as does the RC2.
Bigourdan estimated his offsets from his reference star which he called Anonyme(1)
whose position he determined by offsetting from the star BD +36. 2756. This then
would make his reference star equal to AC #1350073 whose position reduced to the
discovery year (1895) would be 16hr 33m 30.376s +36 27' 28.479" and the offsets
are - 7.5 tsec RA and -7 arcmin Dec. resulting after precessing to epoch 1950 a
position for IC 4513 of 16hr 35m 21.624s +36 13' 45.995" at which there is no
nonstellar image.
Notes. It is much more likely that IC 4615 = NGC 6196 and IC 4616 = NGC 6197.
APL (Not found at nominal position). Steinicke has (Not found). The PGC equates
NGC 6196 with IC 4615. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED."SIMBAD
incorrectly equates it with an "anonymous" galaxy, which is KUG 1635+360.
IC 4615.
POSS. O-1093.
Bigourdan #325. 16hr 36m 05.852s + 36 10' 17.630" (1950).
16hr 37m 54.018s + 36 04' 22.504" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6196 (Marth # 311) : UGC list it as U10482, however, in its
Notes section it states that "this galaxy appears to be identified in BG (RC2
Notes) as NGC 6196 = IC 4613."
CGCG gives only the identity IC 4615 as does the MCG. NGC 2000 lists it giving
its Type as galaxy. MOL equates it with NGC 6196 as does PGC, Steinicke, NED, and
APL. SIMBAD incorrectly equates it with NGC 6197.
IC 4616.
POSS. O-1093.
Bigourdan #426. 16hr 36m 11.490s + 36 05' 36.754" (1950).
16hr 37m 59.780s + 35 59' 42.016" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6197 (Marth # 312) : CGCG and MCG give only the identity IC
4616. UGC in its Notes for U10482 states "6hr 36m.3 + 36 05' = IC 4616," which is
correct. NGC 2000 and MOL list IC 4616 and NGC 6197 as separate galaxies.
Carlson equates IC 4616 with NGC 6197?. The PGC wrongly equates it with NGC 6199.
The APL, NED and Steinicke make IC 4616 = NGC 6197. SIMBAD places IC 4616 on a blank
spot about 45 arcsec south of a galaxy which they identify as being IC 6199, but
which is NGC 6197.
IC 4620.
POSS. O-122.
Frost #1146. 16hr 46m 17.325s + 19 22' 38.647" (1950).
16hr 48m 28.826s + 19 17' 26.339" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG only as ZWG 110.010 and in the MCG only
as + 3-43-04. Dreyer also gives the declination incorrectly as + 18 22'.1 and
this has created the wrong declination in both the NGC 2000 and MOL. Steinicke
and APL have correct identity. The PGC gives only the MCG and CGCG identities.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED" yet it list the identity CGCG
110.010. SIMBAD "Not present in the database," but list it as MCG +03-43-004.
IC 4622.
POSS. O-1072.
Stewart #434. 16hr 49m 15.989s - 16 09' 10.400" (1950).
16hr 52m 08.291s - 16 14' 09.029" (2000).
Not found : No nebular images at or near Stewart's position.
Carlson gives (Not found, Mt. Wilson). The NGC 2000 (?). The MOL (May not exist)
APL and Steinicke (Not found). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4625.
POSS. O-155.
Barnard. 16hr 50m 25.329s + 02 31' 13.687" (1950).
16hr 52m 56.330s + 02 26' 19.196" (2000). (Dreyer).
This is a duplicate observation of NGC 6240 : NGC 6240 is the only object in the
field with a 10th mag. star close north following as described by Barnard. Dreyer
correctly surmised that the two objects were equal.
Both the CGCG, MCG and UGC correctly identify NGC 6240 but make no mention of the
equivalency. The APL, PGC, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NED, NGC 2000, MOL and Carlson all
correctly note the equivalency.
IC 4626.
POSS. O-155.
Bigourdan #427. 16hr 50m 49.774s + 02 25' 12.806" (1950).
16hr 53m 20.891s + 02 20' 20.075" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are Carlson (Not found on Mt. Wilson
plate), APL (= **), Steinicke (=*). NED and SIMBAD (Not found), NGC 2000 (= *) and
MOL (May not exist)
IC 4629.
POSS. O-1072.
Stewart #435. 16hr 53m 16.673s - 16 37' 53.698" (1950).
16hr 56m 09.654s - 16 42' 35.509" (2000).
Not found : Stewart states that his given RA may be further east by about 0.6
tmin and that he only suspected it as actually being nonstellar.
I checked both possible positions but found no nebular images at either.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD
and NED have (Not found).
IC 4631.
Stewart #436. 17hr 03m 30.763s - 77 32' 20.229" (1950).
17hr 10m 59.923s - 77 36' 09.002" (2000).
Not found : Nothing nonstellar at or close to the nominal position. Probably a
plate defect.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). Correctly listed in the
APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO as Not found.
IC 4632.
POSS. O-1377.
Bigourdan #326. 16hr 56m 25.552s + 22 59' 26.444" (1950).
16hr 58m 32.077s + 22 54' 56.395" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan's reference star is AC #744647 at 16hr 53m 59.071s +23 08'
23.535" (1891), the discovery year, and at Bigourdan's separations (-0 tmin 2.60
tsec RA, - 3 arcmin 27 arcsec Dec.) there are only a few very faint stars. Only
modern listings are Steinicke (Not found). NED "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present I the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). The
APL has "Nothing here and IC 4632 = *?
IC 4636.
POSS. O-1370.
Bigourdan #327. 16hr 57m 39.983s + 47 16' 10.783" (1950).
16hr 59m 04.101s + 47 11' 44.523" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed in MOL as (NSO) and in the NGC 2000 (No Type).
Steinicke lists it as c. APL has (*). NED has "There is no object with this name
in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Bigourdan measured the position for his #327 from the galaxy NGC 6279, whose 2000
position is 16hr 59m 01.397s + 47 14' 14.14", as +2.5 tsec and - 2' 30" of arc.
and in his description states that it is followed by a 12 mag. star, separated by
5 tsec. Not listed in any of the other modern catalogues.
IC 4643.
POSS. O-1135.
Palisa. 17hr 06m 57.555s + 42 24' 01.349" (1950).
17hr 08m 31.935s + 42 24' 14.782" (2000). (Dreyer)
This is equal to NGC 6301 (H 57-4) ; CGCG, APL, Steinicke, PGC, UGC, MCG, NED,
NGC 2000, MOL, SIMBAD and Carlson all correctly equate IC 4643 with NGC 6301. RC3
gives the single identity NGC 6301.
IC 4647.
Stewart #443. 17hr 27m 33.764s - 80 07' 40.550" (1950).
17hr 36m 29.580s - 80 09' 42.614" (2000).
Not found at nominal position. Probably = ESO 24-G005 :
At the coordinates as given by Stewart no nebular image is found, however, the ESO
had tentatively suggested that the galaxy ESO 24-G005 = IC 4647 ? at 17hr 17m 08s
- 80 08'.9 and the NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, APL, NED and Steinicke have agreed
that this is correct.
This then requires that Stewart's given RA has an error of about 9 tmin 22 tsec.
The declinations are in good agreement and this factor I feel adds strength to the
ESO galaxy as we are dealing with only one of the coordinates.
Certainly ESO 24-G005 is bright enough to have been seen by Stewart (14th mag.)
and there is some additional circumstantial evidence which also supports the ESO
candidate.
Stewart's 1900 RA coordinates for his #443 are 17hr 18.7m and if this is a
typographical error and the correct RA is 17hr 08.7m, then by precession to 1950
this would result in a RA of about 17 hr 17.4m which is very close to the RA for
ESO 24-G005.
The MOL gives the RA based upon the historical coordinates.
IC 4648.
POSS. O-1135.
Bigourdan #428. 17hr 14m 39.121s + 43 54' 23.633" (1950).
17hr 16m 09.844s + 43 51' 09.899" (2000).
Equal to a double star : The only modern listings of this identity that I have
been able to find are Steinicke and APL (*2). NGC 2000 (Open cluster) and MOL
(Open cluster) and these are based upon the Dreyer IC II description and
coordinates which I believe contain a large declination error. NED states "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
Dreyer gives the coordinates as 17hr 14m 33s + 45 54'.9 and the NGC 2000 gives
17hr 14.6m + 45 55'.2 while the MOL gives 17hr 14m 34s + 45 55'.0 Steinicke has
the correct coordinates.
Bigourdan employed as his reference star the 9.2Mv. A.G.Bonn 11058 equal to AC
#1478069 at 17hr 13m 08.143s + 43 53' 32.204" (1897), the discovery year, and the
same star he used to measure coordinates for his observation on the same night for
NGC 6336) and for his Nova he measured separation values of - Om 5.2s RA and + 4'
24" dec.
He described what he observed as "Object, aspect nebulous. appears as a small
cluster in which one sees a double star (13.3 and 13.4; PA 270; separation 12" to
15")."
Now at the position as given by Bigourdan there is nothing that I would describe
as being a star cluster, however, there is the double star, exactly as he
describes and which I believe is the correct candidate for the IC identity, in
which case the IC II, NGC 2000 and MOL have an error in declination of just more
than 2 degrees.
IC 4649.
POSS. O-1414.
Bigourdan #429. 17hr 15m 01.905s + 57 25' 47.793" (1950).
17hr 15m 53.132s + 57 22' 34.259" (2000).
This is equal to IC 1252 (Bigourdan #217). : This can be determined from
Bigourdan's separation values which are measured from the reference star BD +57
1746, both objects being at the same separation.
For both IC identities Bigourdan refers to a 12th magnitude star which lies at a
PA of between 95 and 100 degrees and a distance of 30 arcsec and which is + 43
tsec following and 10 arcmin south of the star BD +57 1746. This 12th magnitude
star is equal to GSC 3895-1022 whose 1950 coordinates are 17hr 15m 02.076s + 57
25' 14.570 and the galaxy IC 1252 equal to IC 4649 lies immediately preceding this
star.
CGCG, UGC, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MCG all correctly show the
equivalency between IC 4649 and IC 1252. NGC 2000 gives both identities the same
coordinates without Type. MOL lists them as separate galaxies 2 tsec of RA apart.
IC 4650.
POSS. O-1414.
Bigourdan #430. 17hr 14m 59.837s + 57 22' 27.085" (1950).
17hr 15' 51.290s + 57 19' 13.416" (2000).
Equal to a faint star : CGCG and UGC have no listing for IC 4650. The MCG lists
its +10-24-114 as IC 4650? which is incorrect as this galaxy is NGC 6346 and is
correctly identified as such in the PGC. Additionally the identities the MCG
gives for NGC 6338 and NGC 6345 are incorrect. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL
lists as (Nonstellar Object). The APL has a listing credited to KHJ (Klemola,
Hanson and Jones) and a second listing (HCds) that are = NPMIG +57.0229 Mp 15.89
at 17hr 14m 55.772s + 57 21' 20".65. (1950). NED has "There is no object with this
name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke correctly makes it
(=*).
Bigourdan places IC 4650 to be + 28 tsec and - 5 arcmin 30 arcsec from NGC 6338
after giving the excellent coordinates of 17hr 14m 30.96s + 57 27' 55".7 to the
NGC galaxy (NED gives NGC 6338 17hr 14m 31.77s + 57 27' 55".4). When these
offsets are applied to his NGC 6338 position they land on the following of two
faint star which lie close north following NPMIG +57.0229.
IC 4655.
Stewart #445. 17hr 30m 01.381s - 60 41' 20.518" (1950).
17hr 34m 33.446s - 60 43' 21.460" (2000).
Not found : Stewart's description reads "eF, eS, vE at 170 degrees." and very
close north following his position there is a compact group of 6 very faint
stars which are generally aligned to 170 degrees, but whether this is what Stewart
was describing I am unable to say.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give positions based upon the historical
coordinates. NED has (Not found) and Steinicke (* group). APL "Line of 6 sts."
The ESO has 139-?007, indicating not found. SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4658.
Frost #1151. 17hr 31m 44.227s - 59 33' 12.906" (1950).
17hr 36m 11.078s - 59 35' 06.576" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Described by Frost as "F, plan. mag.15." The ESO
has 139-G010 = IC 4658 ? and NED, SIMBAD and the PGC equate these two identities
giving coordinates of 17hr 31m 49s - 59 30' 48" Mp = 17.03 and this is a viable
candidate.
The APL has ( Nothing here and IC 4658 ? = ESO 139-G010) while Steinicke has (Not
found).
There are also a number of sources that differ on the RA coordinates involved for
IC 4658.
Frost gives the RA as 17hr 27.3m (1900) which precesses to 17hr 31.7m(1950).
Dreyer gives 17hr 24m 45s (1860) which precesses to 17hr 32m 43s (1950) and the
coordinates given by the NGC 2000 and MOL reflect Dreyer's RA position which
differ from Frost's by about 1 tmin.
NOTE: The latest APL in its NOTES expresses doubt as to the validity of the
candidate ESO 139-10 and suggests that ESO 139-12 is a more likely candidate to be
IC 4658.
IC 4659.
POSS. O-1116.
Barnard. 17hr 31m 16.916s - 17 53' 41.965" (1950).
17hr 34m 12.136s - 17 55' 41.105" (2000).
Not found : Only listings are NGC 2000 (no Type). MOL (NSO). APL (not found).
NED and Steinicke (Not found).
IC 4666.
POSS. O-1102.
Bigourdan #431. 17hr 45m 06.836s + 55 47' 27.100" (1950).
17hr 46m 02.533s + 55 46' 24.098" (2000).
This is a single star : Listed by Steinicke and APL as (=*), NGC 2000 as
(Galaxy). MOL
lists as (NSO). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Object
of unknown nature." Not listed in the other modern catalogues.
IC 4667.
POSS. O-1102.
Bigourdan #432. 17hr 45m 23.675s + 55 53'34.589" (1950).
17hr 46m 18.987s + 55 52' 32.799" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at the nominal position. Only modern listings are
Steinicke and NED (Not found), SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." NGC 2000 (No Type)
and MOL (NSO). APL (=*?).
IC 4668.
POSS. O-1148.
Bigourdan #433. 17hr 46m 07.982s + 57 23' 08.767" (1950).
17hr 46m 57.529s + 57 22' 09.997" (2000).
This is a star : The only modern catalogues listing this identity are Steinicke
(Not found) and the APL which has HCds = *, at 17hr 46m 09.94s + 57 25' 01.1"
(1950). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Object of unknown
nature." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Dr. Corwin sorted this problem out by showing that although Bigourdan claimed to
have employed the same star he used to measure on the same night a position for
NGC 6474, he actually measured his #433 from a different star lying to the north.
This correct reference star is listed as E01148-0376722 at 17gr 47m 30.24s + 57
16' 49.8" (2000) and when Bigourdan's offsets (- 0tmin 29.18 tsec RA and + 7
arcmin 6.3 arcsec) are applied to this star they land extremely close to the star
which Bigourdan identified as his Object #433, at 17hr 46m 11.544s + 57 24'
54.532" (1950), or 17hr 47m 01.06s + 57 23' 56.1" (2000).
IC 4669.
POSS. O-1148.
Bigourdan #328. 17hr 46m 41.311s + 61 27' 03.367" (1950).
17hr 47m 12.502s + 61 25' 06.380" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC identifies this galaxy only as U10992. CGCG,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, APL, RC3, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO) correctly
identify IC 4669. Not listed in the MCG or DSFG.
IC 4671.
POSS. O-1098.
Stewart #449. 17hr 52m 21.739s - 10 16' 39.430" (1950).
17hr 55m 07.632s - 10 17' 06.869" (2000).
Not found : At Stewart's position I found only a small group of 4 stars in the
form of a trapezium. It could have been a plate defect as Stewart describes it as
"Looks like a spiral, edge of plate."
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type). The MOL as (NSO). The APL, SIMBAD and NED
have (Not found) and Steinicke as (Star group).
IC 4675.
POSS. O-503.
Bigourdan #329. 18hr 00m 26.434s - 09 15' 42.452" (1950).
18hr 03m 11.102s - 09 15' 34.609" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan made two separate observations for this identity. The
first he described it as only momentarily suspected and the second observation he
stated "Not seen," which certainly indicates he had doubts as to its existence.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type). The MOL as (NSO). The APL, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke have (Not found).
NOTE: Steinicke gives the epoch 2000 declination as - 09 01' 40", being about 14
arcmin different from mine.
IC 4693.
POSS. O-529.Bigourdan #330. 18hr 06m 57.553s + 17 20' 17.184" (1950).
18hr 09m 10.478s + 17 20' 52.451" (2000).
This is a triple star, no associated nebulosity : Only listings are Steinicke and
APL (=*3). NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 4695.
Stewart #457. 18hr 13m 00.468s - 58 56' 12.771" (1950).
18hr 17m 24.947s - 58 55' 06.234" (2000).
This is a small group of faint stars : At the nominal position there is only this
group of faint stars. Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO).
Steinicke has(*2) while the APL has (**). SIMBAD and NED (Not found). The ESO lists
as questionable.
IC 4709.
Stewart #461. 18hr 20m 07.287s - 56 13' 41.318" (1950).
18hr 24m 20.512s - 56 12' 04.150" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error here concerns the declination as given by Stewart
which is about 10 arcmin too small.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the incorrect historical declination.
The APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have the correct position.
IC 4711.
Stewart #464. 18hr 23m 08.263s - 64 58' 29.735" (1950).
18hr 28m 04.255s - 64 56' 37.953" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes this object as "eF, eS, eE at 125 degrees, *N
crossed by neb line." and there is nothing remotely resembling this at or near the
given position. It would appear likely that the logical answer is that there was
some plate defect involved.
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL has (***)
and Steinicke (*3). The ESO correctly states questionable object. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4723.
Stewart #476. 18hr 31m 04.213s - 63 24' 54.884" (1950).
18hr 35m 50.048s - 63 22' 29.046" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL incorrectly type this as (Planetary
nebula). The APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and ESO correctly list it as being a
galaxy.
IC 4733.
POSS. O-550.
Bigourdan #331. 18hr 26m 26.338s + 64 56' 06.914" (1950).
18hr 26m 38.090s + 64 58' 02.752" (2000).
Equal to a faint star :
CGCG, UGC, and MCG have no listing. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists
as (Nonstellar Object). Steinicke has (compact galaxy). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has (=*).
IC 4762.
POSS. O-550.
Bigourdan #332. 18hr 32m 38.777s + 67 49' 06.817" (1950).
18hr 32m 30.158s + 67 51' 28.836" (2000).
This is a double star : Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list it as being an "Open
cluster." Steinicke and APL gives (= *2). CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing.
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4763.
POSS. O-550.
Bigourdan #333. 18hr 33m 32.945s + 67 05' 45.832" (1950).
18hr 33m 30.106s + 67 08' 11.966" (2000).
A confirmed galaxy (B) in a closely associated group of three : In addition to
some obviously erroneous identities in some of the modern sources there is
considerable disagreement among current investigators regarding the involved
identities.
For simplification I shall employ the identities A (the most southern), B (the
middle one by declination) and C (the most northern of the three).
According to Dreyer (NGC), Swift reported the discovery of 2 objects, supposedly
in his Lists Nos. I and III (NGC 6677) and List No. VI (NGC 6679).
Dreyer's data originally gives, NGC 6677 18hr 33m 23s + 67 05'.2 "vF, vS, bet *
v close & vFD *." NGC 6679 18hr 33m 42s + 67 14'.2 "eF, close double."
Bigourdan in 1891 and 1897 examined the field reporting that he had found NGC 6677
but that its RA required a correction of + 19s, he positioned it at 18hr 33m 42s +
67 03' 53". From his description and coordinates this has to be Object A.
Additionally he claimed the existence of a Nova which he surmised was the double
star mentioned in the NGC description, which he correctly recognized had
associated nebulosity, giving it coordinates of 18hr 33m 33s + 67 05' 46". This
is Object B. and was later given the identity IC 4763. He also stated that
although he had searched at Dreyer's given coordinates for Swift's NGC 6679 he had
been unable to find it.
In November 1900 Howe published his examination of this field (MNRAS vol. LXI.
P.41.), in which he gave observations for both NGC 6677 and NGC 6679 (?).
There is no doubt that what he identified as being NGC 6677 is also Object A,
however, it is also clear that what he identified as being NGC 6679 is Object B,
the "double star" equal to IC 4763.
Howe's description for NGC 6679 reads "This is a nebulous double star of mags.
12.5, distance 5", and Position angle 60. The NGC place is 8'.5 out in
declination." He placed it at 18hr 33m 37s + 67 05' 30".
Thus if Howe's identification of Swift's NGC 6679 is correct, which Corwin
(private correspondence) has stated he believes to be the case, then IC 4763 is
equivalent to NGC 6679.
Thus two of the three objects, A and B have been accounted for, which leaves only
Object C and Corwin, with support from the GUIDE STAR CATALOGUE (Space Telescope
Institute, 1989.) data, has determined that it is an associated anonymous galaxy,
however, I would submit that there are also grounds to believe that Object C is
Swift's NGC 6679.
I would additionally argue that Swift is referring to NGC 6679 in his List#1, NGC
6677 in his List 3 and IC 4763 in his List 9, the latter would be a duplicate
observation of Bigourdan's IC 4763.
I base this upon his reference to NGC 6679 and the fact that Swift was required to
use high magnification to clearly separate it from NGC 6679 which lies only 34
arcsecs away, always remembering that Swift's eyepieces gave an extraordinary
large field of view (his 132x gave a field of 33 arcmins).
Swift published a total of twelve Lists of discovered nebulae, the first eleven
lists in the Astronomische Nachrichten.
List 1. Object #98. 18hr 33m 25s + 67 06' 18" "pF, pS, R."
List 3, Object #100 18hr 33m 30s + 67 04' 03" "eF, eS, bet. a * v close and a v
F D *."
List 9, Object #90* 18hr 33m 40s + 67 04' 12" "An e close double with NGC 6679;
suspected with 132x, confirmed with 200x; perfectly separated with 250x."
Now what might be inferred from this data ? Firstly there is the missing List VI
(6) that Dreyer refers to in the NGC 6677 data, however this can be explained by a
notation to List 9 in which Swift states that although those marked
with an asterisk appeared in the NGC they were by oversight not published in
previous AN publications.
Secondly, nowhere in these three lists does Swift give a declination value
comparable to Dreyer's + 67 14'.2 for NGC 6679, therefore either Swift changed the
original declination error, in which case he never personally informed Dreyer, as
Howe's correction did not appear until 10 years after Swift's last reference to
the field, or Dreyer's original NGC declination represents a typographical error
of ~8' of arc.
Thirdly, according to Dreyer, Swift's List I and List III refer to NGC 6677,
however, Swift never implied that such was the case in these two reported
observations and I believe that his List I (1) applies to NGC 6679 = Object C,
not IC 6677, while his List III (3) is for NGC 6677 = Object A.
Dr. Corwin has carefully measured the positions of Objects A, B, and C based upon
GSC (Guide Star Catalogue) data and also corrected Bigourdan's coordinates for
systematic offsets of + 0s.24 and - 7".8 derived from comparison of GSC positions
and he gives the following identities and Coordinates (1950).
Object A = NGC 6677 18hr 33m 39s.20 + 67 04' 09".8 GSC.
Bigourdan. 18hr 33m 38s.83 + 67 04' 11".3
Howe. 18hr 33m 40s.00 + 67 04'.1
Object B = NGC 6679=IC 4763 18hr 33m 33s.29 + 67 05' 47".1 GSC.
Bigourdan. 18hr 33m 33s.58 + 67 05' 46".8
Howe. 18hr 33m 35s.00 + 67 05'.7
Object C = Anon. Galaxy 18hr 33m 34s.36 + 67 06'.21".8 GSC.
It is my argument that one can dispense with Swift's RA values , we already know
that Bigourdan showed them to be very inaccurate, however the correlation from
Swift's declination values are interesting.
Based upon Corwin's measurements there is a GSC declination separation between
objects A and C of 2' 12". Now compare Swift's separation in declination between
his List No.1, which I believe is NGC 6679 = Object C and List No.3 = NGC 6677 =
Object A, it is 2' 15", while by computing Corwin's Howe separation,
using Howe's declination for NGC 6677= Object A and the GSC's Anon.= Object C, the
difference is 2' 15".8, which suggests to me that Object C is NGC 6679, while
Object A is NGC 6677 and Object B is IC 4763. NED makes Object A = IC
4763, Object B = NGC 6677 and Object C = NGC 6679.
Obviously the jury is still out on this one, however, there are some definite
errors that can be pointed out in the modern literature. The CGCG, UGC and MOL
have incorrectly identified Object A = IC 4763 while making Objects B and C
= NGC 6677 and NGC 6679. The MCG identifies Object A as being an Anon, Object B
as NGC 6677 and Object C as IC 4763. PGC correctly identifies MCG's 11-22-56 as
being NGC 6679, however, they incorrectly make MCG +11-22-57 = IC 4763,it should
be = NGC 6677, SIMBAD also makes this same error. The DSFG makes the double system
(Objects B and C) equal to NGC 6677 and NGC 6679 while making the southernmost
galaxy (Object A) equal to IC 4763. The APL makes IC 4763 = NGC 6679. Steinicke
correctly gives the single identity IC 4763.
IC 4772.
POSS. O-1445.
Howe II, No.12. 18hr 38m 18.406s + 39 58'49.201" (1950).
18hr 39m 56.921s + 40 01' 39.513" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Both Bigourdan, (Observations) and Howe (MNRAS. LX. 2, P.129),
indicate that IC 4772 precedes NGC 6685. (Also see Q.J.R.astr. soc. (1992), 33,
P.69. "A List of Some Corrections to Zwicky's Catalogue of Galaxies and Clusters
of Galaxies." M.J.Thomson).
The CGCG, SIMBAD, UGC, MCG, NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG all confuse the identities of IC
4472 and NGC 6685. The identities are correctly reported in the APL, Steinicke,
NED, RC3 and PGC.
IC 4784.
Stewart #526. 18hr 48m 09.020s - 63 28' 41.148" (1950).
18hr 51m 53.347s - 63 25' 01.899" (2000).
Not found. Possibly = ESO 104-G020 at 18hr 48m 05s - 63 19'.3 :
At the coordinates as given by Stewart no object exists, however, at about 10
arcmin north there is a galaxy (ESO 104-G020) which is certainly bright enough (Mp
13.71) to have been easily visible on Stewart's photographic plate. As the
possible error would involve only one coordinate value (declination), this
candidate is a good possibility.
One aspect of this candidate being what Stewart was referring to as his #526 that
does concern me is that at 13 tsec following and 42 arcsec south there is another
galaxy (AM 1848-632) that appears to be of a magnitude well within the level
obtainable by Stewart. I have not been able to find any magnitude data for this
galaxy but based upon the Mp for ESO 104-G020 being 13.71 (NED) I would estimate
that the companion's Mp would be about 15.0. Certainly Stewart has listed
galaxies much fainter and smaller than this object, however, the fact that this
object differs in coordinates from Stewart's in both RA and declination does raise
a question as to its validity.
This companion is mentioned in the Notes to ESO 104-G020 as Spiral companion, 2.2
arcmin south following.
The NGC 2000 and MOL give declination values based upon the historical data.
Steinicke, PGC, SIMBAD and NED equate IC 4784 with ESO 104-G020, while the APL has
(= ESOB 104-G20 and ESO has (IC 4784 ? = ESO 104-G020).
NOTE : (See IC 4814).
IC 4814.
Stewart #552. 19hr 00m 38.598s - 58 48' 47.063" (1950).
19hr 04m 58.544s -58 44' 15.641" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : At Stewart's position no nebular images are found,
however, at 09.8 arcmin north there is a galaxy fitting his description (ESO 141-
G023 at 19hr 00m 40s - 58 39'.3) and this galaxy is identified as being IC 4814 by
the APL, PGC, ESO, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke.
Support for this being the correct solution is to be found in the fact that in
Stewart's List there are a number of his objects that have a remarkable similarity
as to difference of declination from candidates given by some of the modern
authorities.
IC 4430. Difference = 09.7 arcmin (Steinicke).
IC 4709. Difference = 09.8 arcmin (APL, Steinicke and ESO).
IC 4784. Difference = 09.7 arcmin (APL, Steinicke and ESO).
IC 4814. Difference = 09.8 arcmin (APL, Steinicke and ESO).
IC 4869. Difference = 10.6 arcmin (APL, Steinicke and ESO).
At first I considered that these might be just typographical errors in Stewart's
list, but with such similarity in the amount of declination error this appears
unlikely, instead one must wonder if these particular cases reflect a problem
originating in either the actual measuring due to incorrect positioning of the
measuring overlays, or perhaps in the reducing of the declination values by
Stewart.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the coordinates based upon the
historical data.
IC 4854, IC 4855, IC 4857 and IC 4858.
IC 4854 (Stewart #588). IC 4855 (Stewart #589), IC 4857 (Stewart #592), IC 4858
(Stewart #593).
IC 4854 is equal to IC 4855 and IC 4857 is equal to IC 4858 :
The problem for these identities involves two separate photographic plates
examined by Stewart, namely Plates #5556 and #5656.
Plate #5656 was exposed on the night of 17th June 1901 and is credited with the
discoveries of IC 4855 and IC 4858, while Plate #5556 was exposed on the night of
August 20th 1901 and is credited with the discoveries of IC 4854 and IC 4857.
Stewart's coordinates are :
IC 4854. 19hr 23m 01.878s - 59 24' 13.659" (1950).
19hr 27m 20.789s - 59 18' 09.429" (2000).
IC 4855. 19hr 23m 07.861s - 59 24' 13.249" (1950).
19hr 27m 26.753s - 59 18' 08.613" (2000).
IC 4857. 19hr 24m 17.436s - 58 52' 08.413" (1950).
19hr 28m 33.921s -58 45' 59.132" (2000).
IC 4858. 19hr 24m 23.350s - 58 51' 08.007" (1950).
19hr 28m 39.751s - 58 44' 58.327" (2000).
Examination of these coordinates on the DSS confirms that in each case only one
suitable candidate exists and this is supported by the similarities in positional
data. Obviously the area covered by both plates overlapped and Stewart at the
time he examined them must have somehow overlooked this fact, thus the confusion.
The NGC 2000 and MOL list both the identities IC 4854 and IC 4855 as being
separate objects. The RC3 gives only the identity IC 4854 without any
equivalency. The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, ESO and PGC correctly equate both
identities.
The MOL lists both the identities IC 4857 and IC 4858 as being separate objects
while the RC3 gives only the identity IC 4857 with no equivalency. The NGC 2000,
APL, Steinicke, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and ESO correctly make IC 4857 = IC 4858.
NOTE : Also see IC 4871 and IC 4872.
IC 4863.
Swift #184. 19hr 25m 19.574s - 36 18' 08.207" (1950).
19hr 28m 38.873s - 36 11' 56.728" (2000).
Not found at nominal position. Perhaps equal to a double star (ESO 398-**001. at
19hr 24m 32s - 36 19'.1 :
At the position as given by Swift no nonstellar object exists. In his
ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN. publication his description reads "B, eS, lE."
Howe (MNRAS List 1. p.522) states. Swift #184. "In Swift's List No.2, at 19hr 22m
00s - 36 24'.1 (1900), there is an object which he describes as "B, eS, vE,
stellar, close nebulous D*?. In this position I found nothing, but about 20 tsec
preceding it there seemed to be a close double, this star being elongated at 100
degrees."
The reference to Swift List, No. 2 is to one of eight lists published in either
the ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL, MNRAS or PASP and are generally called The Short Lists.
Examination of Swift's Short List #2 gives exactly the same coordinates as in the
A.N publication but significantly more description which now reads, "B, eS, lE,
stellar, looks like close D* both nebulous. Note." The footnote reads "This is
also a singular object. I have never seen but one resembling it, and that was on
the same night, which I think is NGC 6861. It resembles a close, bright, double
nebulous disk. A power of 200 failed to divide it."
Now by applying Howe's position (20 tsec preceding) it would give 1950 coordinates
of 19hr 24m 59s - 36 18'.3 but at this position no bright double star is found on
the DSS, the closest is 27 tsec preceding Howe's position (ESO 398-**001) and the
PA of the components is about 60 degrees, however, this could be the result of
orbital change.
I contacted Robert Argyle, President of the Webb Society and an expert on double
stars regarding this double star and whether he might be able to give me any data
that might establish the PA of the comes in the year 1900, however, his search
resulted in not being able to find any reference to it in the standard double star
sources and he thinks it might not be catalogued.
It would seem that if Swift and Howe both refer to something either being or
resembling a bright double star then the only possible candidate would be the ESO
object, however, it would be rather unusual for Howe to have misstated its
approximate RA by such an error, therefore I am leaving this identity as described
above.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give coordinates based upon the Swift
position. The APL, and Steinicke make it equal to the double star ESO 398 -
**001). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in
the database."
IC 4864.
Stewart #599. 19hr 33m 05.767s - 77 40' 38.673" (1950).
19hr 40m 17.504s - 77 33' 48.038" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy :
The only error here concern the historical Position Angle as reported by Stewart
and copied into the IC II and NGC 2000 which is given as being 70 degrees. This
should be corrected to read 170 degrees (actually 176 degrees), and may have
resulted from a typographical error which omitted the full measurement in the
original description.
Correctly given in the ESO, PGC and by Steinicke.
IC 4865.
Innes. 19hr 27m 12.507s - 46 48' 14.148" (1950).
19hr 30m 52.049s - 46 41' 54.161" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : Innes describes this as "F, perhaps stellar nucleus, star 9.5
attached south following." and when his coordinates are put into the DSS they
result in landing on a very small, closely associated group of stars whose
brightest member (about 10.0 or 10.5 Mp), lies at the south following end.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list it based upon the historical
coordinates. The ESO has (283-?003. Concerns position of ? IC Note 9.5). The APL
has (=*). Steinicke has (*grp) and NED has (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
IC 4867.
(See IC 1301).
IC 4868.
Innes. 19hr 29m 55.655s - 46 00' 05.72" (1950).
19hr 33m 33.061s - 45 53' 35.082" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : At the position as given by Innes there is only a 10th magnitude star
with two faint companion stars just off its north preceding edge. Innes,
observing with the Cape Observatory's 7 inch telescope, describes it as "eS, lE,
mag. 9.4" and it would appear that he mistakenly thought that this was a nebula.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list it based upon the historical
position. Steinicke has (*2). The ESO has (283-?006. 10th mag. star). The APL
has (**). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database."
IC 4869.
Stewart #601. 19hr 31m 44.787s - 61 18' 38.386" (1950).
19hr 36m 10.354s - 61 11' 58.700" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error involved concerns Stewart's declination which is
10.6 arcmin too large and should be - 61 08'.9 (1950).
Again this is a similar case to those concerning the declinations given for IC
4430, IC 4709, IC 4784 and IC 4814 (which see).
Stewart describes it as "F, S, R, bM, F* 1'.0 sp." and this exactly fits the
description of the galaxy at the corrected declination.
The MOL (NSO) has the incorrect declination. The ESO has (IC 4869? 142-G025 and
the APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the RC3 each agree that this is the correct
identity.
IC 4871 and IC 4872.
Stewart #600. 19hr 31m 29.319s - 57 37' 38.908" (1950).
19hr 35m 39.682s - 57 31' 00.731" (2000). (IC 4871).
Stewart #602. 19hr 31m 35.301s - 57 37' 38.504" (1950).
19hr 35m 45.646s - 57 30' 59.928" (2000). (IC 4872).
These are equivalent identities for the same galaxy : This is another case
exactly similar to IC 4854, IC 4855 and IC 4857, IC 4858. Again it involves the
same two photographic plates #5556 and #5656 and again it appears that Stewart did
not realize that when he made his second examination he had already previously
discovered and noted this galaxy, thus the two identities.
The MOL (NSO) lists both identities as separate objects. The NGC 2000, APL,
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, ESO and PGC correctly make the equivalency.
IC 4873.
Frost #1159. 19hr 31m 14.297s - 46 14' 38.809" (1950).
19hr 34m 52.084s - 46 08' 02.736" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The ESO lists this galaxy but only as ESO 283-G008, omitting
to identify it as being IC 4873. The PGC has no listing. NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED" but they do list it as ESO 283-G 008. SIMBAD has
"Not present in the database," but list it as ESO 283-8. The NGC
2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke have the correct identity.
IC 4885.
Stewart #610. 19hr 39m 52.611s - 60 46' 05.618" (1950).
19hr 44m 13.946s 60 38' 53.700" (2000).
Not found. Possible candidate ? : Stewart describes this as "vF, eS, eE at 85
degrees, *N." and when his coordinates are examined on the DSS no such nebular
image is to be found, however, at about 24 tsec preceding this position there is a
galaxy (ESO 142-G036), which the NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and the
RC3 have selected as being IC 4885, while the ESO itself has 142-G036 = IC 4885 ?
Whether this is Stewart's object or not I am unable to confirm. Certainly its
magnitude (14.6 Mp), is well within his range and the fact that only one
coordinate is at issue supports the probability of this candidate, however, the PA
of the major axis of the ESO galaxy is at 113 degrees, which differs from that
given by Stewart by almost 30 degrees.
The MOL (NSO) gives coordinates based upon the historical position.
IC 4889.
Frost #1167. 19hr 41m 10.806s - 54 28' 59.649" (1950).
19hr 45m 08.731" - 54 21' 43.324" (2000).
This is equal to IC 4891 (Stewart #611) :
Stewart measured the position of his #611 on Plate #3649 to be 19hr 41.3m - 54
19'.2 describing it as "cB, S, R, bM." and at this position no such object exists,
but, at 8.7 arcmin south there exists a galaxy (ESO 185-G014) which matches his
description and this galaxy is Frost's #1167 = IC 4889. Mp 12.1
As with other Stewart discoveries (See IC 4814 etc.), there are examples of what
appears to be a similar pattern of error in declination values.
It should be pointed out that the Harvard lists indicate that Stewart carried out
his examination of the Arequipa plates prior to Frost's examination, therefore, by
historical precedence Stewart was the actual discoverer of this galaxy and as it
was his #611 that was assigned the identity IC 4891 then this should be the
correct identity.
The RC3 and DSFG give only the identity IC 4889. The MOL gives the incorrect
declination to IC 4891. The ESO and PGC each list 185-G014 as IC 4889 but do not
indicate any equivalency with IC 4891, indeed the PGC lists IC 4891 as a separate
galaxy at 19hr 45m 16.3s - 54 11' 19" (2000), however, there is no nonstellar
image at these coordinates. The NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke correctly
equate the two identities.
IC 4891.
Stewart #611. (See IC 4889).
IC 4895.
POSS. O-292.
Wolf. 19hr 42m 11.854s - 14 56' 44.039" (1950).
19hr 45m 01.601s - 14 49' 26.153" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6822 (Barnard) : Wolf describes it as "Group of neb. 25
arcmin diam.", but it is actually the galaxy IC 6822 belonging to the Local Group.
I was unable to find any listing for the identity IC 4895 in the MOL. The NGC
2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC all equate IC 4895 with NGC 6822.
IC 4898.
Swift List XII, #14. 19hr 44m 33.487s - 33 26' 44.798" (1950).
19hr 47m 46.667s - 33 19' 16.761" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image at or close to Swift's position. Swift described it
as "eeeF, eeS, eee dif sev F st near."
The NGC 2000 has (No Type) while the MOL has (NSO). The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD
and ESO all list it as either Not found or Dubious identity.
IC 4899.
Stewart #617. 19hr 49m 01.116" -70 43' 31.587" (1950).
19hr 54m 23.226s - 70 35' 41.975" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error concerns the RA as given incorrectly in the MOL
where it is reported as being 19hr 47m 03s. The correct RA is given in the NGC
2000, PGC, APL, ESO, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and RC3.
IC 4913.
Swift List XI, #185. 19hr 52m 29.122s - 37 29' 26.019" (1950).
19hr 55m 47.833s - 37 21' 27.054" (2000).
Error of exactly 1.0 tmin in RA : The error is historical only and the correction
was first pointed out by Howe who correctly reported the coordinates of Swift's
object were 19hr 53m 29s - 37 28'.0 (MNRAS LX. 2, page 137). Dreyer refers to
this correction and therefore the IC II and all the modern sources have the proper
coordinates.
IC 4922.
Stewart #627. 19hr 56m 05.861s - 40 30' 00.243" (1950).
19hr 59m 29.229s - 40 21' 47.286" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes this as "vF, vS, R, susp." and there are no nebular
images at or close to his position. Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL
as (NSO). Steinicke has (=*) while the APL, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have (Not found).
IC 4924.
Stewart #629. 19hr 56m 25.959s - 41 40' 59.025" (1950).
19hr 59m 51.392s - 41 32' 44.710" (2000).
Not found : At or close to Stewart's position I was unable to find any suitable
candidate. Steinicke has (Not found). The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) base
their coordinates on those as given by Stewart. The ESO lists 339-G015 but does
not equate it with IC 4924. The APL has "Nothing here." NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 4930.
Stewart #631. 19hr 58m 31.503s - 54 26' 51.956" (1950).
20hr 02m 25.985s - 54 18' 28.727" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes it as "cB, S, vE at 45 degrees, susp." but there is
no such object anywhere close to his coordinates. As he states that it was only
suspected it might well have been the result of a photographic defect ?
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as (NSO). The APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD and ESO have (Not found).
IC 4940.
Stewart #641. 20hr 02m 13.262s - 44 50' 37.140" (1950).
20hr 05m 43.880s - 44 42' 00.758" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes this as "F, S, E at 100 degrees," however, there
are no suitable nonstellar images anywhere in the area.
Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). The APL, ESO, NED, SIMBAD and
Steinicke have (Not found).
IC 4946 and IC 4948.
Swift List XII, #15. 20hr 02' 29.905s - 44 10' 54.048" (1950).
20hr 05m 59.185s - 44 02' 16.676" (2000). (IC 4946).
Swift List XII, #16. 20hr 02m 59.184s - 43 50' 52.182" (1950).
20hr 06m 27.750s - 43 42' 13.008" (2000). (IC 4948).
This is an extremely interesting problem involving a large RA error which has
evidently misled a number of the modern authorities.
Swift describes his #15 as "eF, S, R, 3 or 4 st f, form with the neb, a circle, sp
of 2." and his #16 as "vF, pS, R, bet a wide D* f and a * np, nf of 2." It is
important to know that from his positional data the separation values between
these two objects would be 29 tsec RA and 20 arcmin declination.
When his coordinates are entered into the DSS neither one comes up with a suitable
nonstellar image.
Stewart in his Harvard List identifies as Swift XII, #16 a nebula which he places
at 20hr 03.0m - 43 25'.7 and it his coordinates that Dreyer employed for the
identity IC 4948, however, again when these coordinates are applied to the DSS no
suitable image is found.
The modern authorities have the following identities:
The NGC 2000 and MOL each place IC 4946 at coordinates based upon Swift's given
position. The APL, RC3, Steinicke PGC, SIMBAD and NED identify the galaxy ESO 285-
G007 at 20hr 20m 31s - 44 09' 30" as being IC 4946, although the ESO itself does not
make this equivalency.
The NGC 2000 and MOL each place IC 4948 at coordinates based upon the Stewart
correction. The NED also selects a 17.32 Mp galaxy about 50 tsec following the RA
as given by Stewart and identifies this as being IC 4948. Meanwhile both the APL
and Steinicke identify the galaxy ESO 285-G008 at 20hr 21m 02s - 43 48'.9 as IC
4948 = NGC 6902, which the PGC, SIMBAD and the ESO itself identifies only as NGC
6902 without any equivalency involved. The RC 3 also gives only the identity NGC
6902.
Thus what the APL, Steinicke and NED suggest is IC 4946 would require a RA error
on the part of Swift of 18 tmin, an unusually large error even by Swift's
standards and at first I was reluctant to accept their suggested candidate,
however, further investigation produced some findings that strongly suggest that
Corwin's identities in the APL are indeed the correct ones.
When the image of ESO 285-G007 is examined on the DSS the stars referred to in
Swift's description are found as described and this is also true for NGC 6902 =
ESO 185-G069. Also the brightness of both of these ESO identities is such that
they would have been within the capabilities of Swift's telescope even at such a
low declination, whereas the NED candidate for IC 4948 at 17.32 Mp is obviously
far too faint to have been seen by Swift. However, the evidence that for me
confirms Corwin's identities is that the separations between the two candidates he
gives are 29 tsec RA and 20.6 arcmin declination, which can be considered an exact
match with the separations as given by Swift.
It would appear that Swift's published RA for both identities result from his
having misread his instruments as the 18 tmin error does not strike me as being
due to a typographical error, and that IC 4946 is ESO 285-G007 and IC 4948 is
equal to NGC 6902 (h3827) and the full credit for correctly identifying both
galaxies belongs solely to Dr. Corwin.
NOTE: Since writing the above NED has changed its original conclusions as to the
identity of IC 4948 and now makes it equivalent with NGC 6902, Simbad meanwhile
continues to equate the identity IC 4948 with the 17th mag galaxy ESO 284-18.
IC 4949
Swift List XI, #189. 20hr 03m 38.801s - 48 27' 19.993" (1950).
20hr 07m 16.809s - 48 18' 38.341" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6861 (h 3811). There can be little doubt that this is a
duplicate observation of John Herschel's #3811. Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS
gives his object coordinates of 20hr 03m 38.7s - 48 31' 15".
The MOL gives separate coordinates and identities for IC 4949 and NGC 6861. The
APL, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and ESO correctly make the equivalency.
IC 4956.
Swift List XI, #190. 20hr 05m 48.648s - 45 47' 11.666" (1950).
20hr 09m 20.599s - 45 38' 22.126" (2000).
Not found at nominal position. Probably equal to ESO 284-G023 :
There are no candidates close to the position as given by Swift, however, ESO 284-
G023 at 20hr 07m 59s - 45 44'.5 is an excellent candidate as it is certainly
bright enough for Swift to have seen and would fit his description "vF, pS, R."
If this is what Swift found then his coordinates would be off by 2 tmin 10 tsec RA
and 2.7 arcmin dec.
The MOL (NSO) places it at the historical position. The NGC 2000 (Gx), APL, PGC,
RC3, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke make it equal to ESO 284-G023. The ESO has (284-G023
= IC 4956 ?).
IC 4957.
Frost #1188. 20hr 06m 46.092s - 55 50' 20.874" (1950).
20hr 10m 43.018s - 55 41' 26.705" (2000).
Unable to confirm : At the coordinates as given by Frost no nebular image exists,
only that of a faint star very close following. Frost describes it only as "bM,
mag 14."
The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3, PGC and ESO have all selected the
galaxy ESO 186-G003 at 20hr 05m 38s - 55 51'.4 as being IC 4957. This galaxy
according to Steinicke has a Mp of 15.3 while NED gives it a Mp of 15.20
It certainly looks on the DSS to be the brightest of the galaxies in the field,
having an extended envelope which become curved arms on each end however, there is
another galaxy much closer to Frost's given position, ESO 186-G005 at 20hr 06m 25s
- 55 53'.0 and according to the ESO the Mp for this galaxy is 14.8, or 15.17
(NED), either way it is still listed as being brighter than ESO 186-G003.
The difference in coordinates between Frost and ESO 186-G003 would be 1 tmin 08
tsec RA and 1 arcmin declination while the difference between Frost and ESO 186-
G005 would be 21 tsec RA and 2.4 arcmin declination and if ESO 186-G003 is IC 4957
then it would be the largest error I have ever found with any of Frost's
measurements.
In order to resolve this problem it probably will require examination of Plate #
6770 which is the one on which Frost discovered his #1188.
The MOL (NSO) gives coordinates based upon Frost's data.
IC 4959.
Stewart #647. 20hr 07m 08.261s - 53 14' 19.249" (1950).
20hr 10m 57.506s - 53 05' 23.951" (2000).
Not found: Stewart describes this as "Hazy star." but I was unable to find any
such star at the nominal position.
Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD
and ESO have (Not found).
IC 4962.
Stewart #652. 20hr 10m 38.351s - 71 09' 09.001" (1950).
20hr 15m 55.108s - 70 59' 58.188" (2000).
Stewart's nominal position lands just off the south following edge of a small
galaxy bracketed between two close stars aligned north preceding/south following.
The only identity I have found for this galaxy is in the GSC which identifies it
as GSC 0931100579 at 20hr 10m 37.87s - 71 08' 59.5" (1950). Mp 13.38. Type (3),
Nonstellar Object.
As this is well within Stewart's positional error level I have accepted it as
being his # 652 = IC 4962, as the difference in coordinates amounts to only 0.478
tsec RA and 9.501 arcsec Dec. and it is certainly bright enough to have registered
on Stewart's plate.
Stewart's description reads "F, S, eE at 160 degrees, vmbM." The APL, Steinicke,
Ned, SIMBAD, PGC and the ESO have selected ESO 73-G030 at 20hr 11m 25s -71 17'.0 a
16.2 Mp galaxy as being IC 4962 and its elongation is 155 degrees which is very
close to the value as given by Stewart. This might possibly be correct, however, I
am uncomfortable with the fact that it requires Stewart to have erred in measuring
both RA and declination coordinates.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates based upon Stewart's
position.
IC 4966.
Stewart #650. 20hr 08m 27.446s - 53 45' 14.363" (1950).
20hr 12m 17.839s - 53 36' 14.155" (2000).
Equal to three stars : Stewart's description reads "F, vS, E at 40 degrees." and
very close south preceding Stewart's position there is a line of three closely
grouped faint but distinct stars whose alignment is about 40 degrees.
ESO, SIMBAD, PGC and NED have suggested that the 16.3 Mp galaxy ESO 186-G014 at
20hr 09m 24s - 53 39'.1 might be IC 4966, however, again this would require that
Stewart erred in measuring both coordinates, the difference being 57 tsec RA and
6.8 arcmin declination. Additionally the PA of the ESO galaxy is 200 degrees,
which is vastly different to that given by Stewart. Steinicke and APL have (=*3),
although the APL and I differ as to the nominal position as given by Stewart, the
APL making it to be south of the 3 stars, while I find Stewart's nominal position to
lie north of the 3 stars. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates
based upon Stewart's position.
IC 4977.
POSS. O-1107.
Bigourdan #435. 20hr 08m 57.404s - 21 47' 10.803" (1950).
20hr 11m 53.598s - 21 38' 10.610" (2000). (Comptes Rendus).
Not found : The fact that I was unable to find any reference to this identity in
Bigourdan's major work (Observations), suggests that he was not very confident
that it existed.
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical Dreyer coordinates.
The APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have (Not found).
IC 4988.
Stewart #667. 20hr 16m 45.543s - 69 32' 45.986" (1950).
20hr 21m 45.888s - 69 23' 13.491" (2000).
Not found : Stewart describes it as "Hazy patch, may be only a star, susp." and
at his given position no nonstellar object can be found.
The NGC 2000 lists as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL, Steinicke, NED,
SIMBAD and ESO have not found or doubtful.
IC 4991.
Swift List XI, #191. 20hr 14m 22.670s - 41 44' 15.651" (1950).
20hr 17m 45.736s - 41 34' 54.682" (2000).
Not found : Swift's description reads "vF, cS, R, no bright star near." and at
his nominal position no such object exists.
The APL, NGC 2000, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and ESO have identified an 11.9 Mp galaxy
(ESO 340-G011), at 20hr 15m 01s - 41 12'.4 as being IC 4991.
Although the differences in coordinates are within the possible error factor found
with Swift's positions the ESO galaxy hardly fits the description "very faint.'
Also at about 25 tsec preceding and 2.8 arcmin north of the ESO galaxy there is
the 10th mag. star GSC 7952-1945, while at about 9.5 arcmin directly north of this
same galaxy there is a 9.7 Mp star (GSC 7952-2291). Both these separations would
be well within Swift's field of view yet his description reads "No bright star
near."
The MOL gives (NSO) at the historically based coordinates. Steinicke has (Not
found).
IC 4998 and IC 5018.
Swift List XII, #17. 20hr 20m 42.278s - 38 24' 22.512" (1950).
20hr 23m 59.022s - 38 14' 39.038" (2000). (IC 4998).
Swift List XII, #21. 20hr 27m 16.341s - 38 22' 14.129" (2000). (IC 5018).
Probably equivalent identities, but not found at either nominal positions :
There is obviously a large amount of confusion surrounding a number of List XII's
entries, (IC 5039 etc. which see), and this appears to be another case of
confusing the same described object as being two separate ones.
Swift discovered both #17 and #21 on the same night, September 11th 1897 and their
description match completely, "eF, pS, bet two 8.5 mag stars nf and sp."
The closest object which might qualify as being bright enough to have been seen by
Swift is ESO 340-G020 at 20hr 18m 52s - 38 28'.1 and the ESO, APL, Steinicke, PGC,
NGC 2000, SIMBAD and NED have each identified this galaxy as being IC 4998.
I have no problem with the differences in coordinates between this candidate and
Swift's position, however, I am bothered by the fact that for ESO 340-G020 there
are no 8.5 magnitude stars in the field , the two brightest possibilities being
GSC 7949-1519 (Mp 10.26) at 20hr 21m 27.19s - 38 28' 42".5 or south preceding and
GSC 7949-480 (Mp 10.46) at 20hr 22m 01.9s - 38 04' 45".9 or north preceding which
do not match the description as given by Swift.
Due to the matching descriptions given by Swift for both his #17 and #21 I do
think that he is referring to a single object, therefore as far as the equivalent
identities between IC 4998 and IC 5018 I am in agreement, but I am still not sure
as to ESO 340-G020 being what Swift saw.
The MOL is the only modern source to list both identities as being separate
objects at coordinates based upon Swift's data.
IC 5000.
POSS. O-315.
Bigourdan #335. 20hr 19m 53.404s + 06 16' 10.643" (1950).
20hr 22m 21.107s + 06 25' 49.680" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6901 (Marth) : Marth's measured RA for NGC 6901 is just over
1 tmin too small and this later misled Bigourdan into believing that he had
discovered a nova (B.335), however, there can be little doubt that both IC 5000
and NGC 6901 are the same object. To add to the confusion the UGC, NGC 2000, MOL,
SIMBAD and PGC in addition to correctly equating IC 5000 with NGC 6901 have
incorrectly made both IC 5000 and NGC 6901 equal to IC 1316. (Which see). APL, NED
and Steinicke correctly give the equivalency.
IC 5003, IC 5004 and IC 5007.
Swift List XII, #18 20hr 22m 05.335s - 30 02' 11.194" (1950).
20hr 25m 10.311s - 39 52' 23.177" (2000). (IC 5003).
Swift List XI, #192. 20hr 22m 16.601s - 31 01' 58.561" (1950).
20hr 25m 22.823s - 30 52' 09.830" (2000). (IC 5004).
Swift List XII, #19. 20hr 22m 30.083s - 29 52' 09.713" (1950).
20hr 25m 34.808s - 29 42' 20.244" (2000). (IC 5007).
No nonstellar objects at or close to the nominal positions of all three :
This appears to be another example of the considerable confusion regarding Swift's
identities in his List XII, in which he seems to have repeated observations, or
became muddled when presenting his published claims and confused the same single
object as being a number of entirely separate ones,
The ESO matches the three identities with its 462-?018, at coordinates of 20hr 22m
19s - 30 02'.1, = IC 5003 = IC 5004 = IC 5007? At the coordinates as given by the
ESO there is only the image of a single star. APL has (IC 5003 = IC 5029 = IC
5039), (IC 5004 = NGC 6923) and (IC 5007 = IC 5030 = IC 5041). Steinicke gives the
samer equivalencies as APL.
The NGC 2000 gives coordinates for IC 5003 and IC 5007 based upon Swift's positions
and for IC 5004 the NGC 2000 has coordinates agreeing with those of the
ESO. For all three identities the NGC 2000 has no indication of equivalencies.
The MOL gives positions and single identities to all three, while SIMBAD and NED
have (Not found) for all three identities.
IC 5006.
POSS. O-315.
Kobold. 20hr 21m 16.845s + 06 18' 32.783" (1950).
20hr 23m 44.531s + 06 28' 16.868" (2000).
Not found, probably a star: At the coordinates as given by Kobold (12 tsecs
following and 1 arcmin north of NGC 6906), there is no nebular image. Kobold
makes no reference to the NGC galaxy which is somewhat unusual and It certainly
was easily visible to Bigourdan who describes NGC 6906 as being between 40 and 50
arcsec in size. I am confident that Kobold was not referring to the companion
galaxy (mentioned in the UGC Notes to U11548 = NGC 6906. Comp. PA 20, Dist. 3'.7).
Only modern listings are Steinicke (=*2), APL (=**) NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO). The PGC gives the single identity NGC 6906. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 5010.
Stewart #671. 20hr 26m 23.976s - 66 05' 10.544" (1950).
20hr 30m 57.431s - 65 55' 04.729" (2000).
Not found : Stewart's description reads "vF, vS, cE at 20 degrees, mbM." and
there is nothing resembling this at or close to his given position.
The APL, ESO, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke have identified as IC 5010 the galaxy
ESO 106-G006 at 20hr 25m 52s - 66 15'.9 or a difference in position of 32 tsec RA
and 10'.5 arcmin declination and oddly enough there is another Stewart identity (IC
5056), that has exactly the same difference values, however, it should be pointed
out that IC 5010 and IC 5056 were measured by Stewart on two entirely separate
plates. Stewart's description matches well with the ESO candidate, except that the
ESO galaxy is extended at 0 degrees and is not "Considerably extended."
As with other suggested candidates for Stewart's "Not found" category, I am reluctant
to accept them when it requires differences in both coordinates (RA and
declination) and therefore will go with Not found.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have positions based upon the historical
data.
IC 5011 and IC 5013.
Swift List XI, #193. 20hr 24m 03.494s - 36 11' 10.414" (1950).
20h 27m 16.498s - 36 01' 15.189" (2000). (IC 5011).
Swift List XI, #194. 20hr 25m 13.374s - 36 12' 12.578" (1950).
230hr 28m 26.255s - 36 02' 13.263" (2000). (IC 5013).
Confirmed galaxies : To begin, I believe that there is a typographical error of
1.0 tmin in the RA as reported by Swift for his #193, thus changing his RA
coordinates for this object to 20hr 25m 04s and that this would then give
according to Swift, separations between his two identities of 10 tsec RA and 1.4
arcmin declination.
When Swift's corrected position is entered into the DSS it come up very close (17
tsec) preceding a bright double system identified as ESO 400-G029 at 20hr 25m 21s
- 36 11'.6 and ESO 400 -G030 at 20hr 25m 22s - 36 12'.6 and the ESO identifies the
larger, brighter, north preceding galaxy as being IC 5011 = IC 5013 while making
the south following companion an "Anon." and is supported in this by the APL, NED,
NGC 2000 and PGC. Meanwhile Steinicke has identified the north preceding
companion as IC 5011 and the south following galaxy as being IC 5013.
Swift's discovered his #193 on July 25th 1897 and his #194 on August 29th 1897 and
his descriptions are #193. "pB, vS, eE." and #194. "eeS, eE in meridian, curious
object," and his description for #193 is an excellent fit for ESO 400-G029 and as
for ESO 400-G030 it does in some respects fit Swift's description for his #194 in
that it is much more extended towards the meridian than ESO 400-G029.
I definitely believe that ESO 400-G029 is IC 5011. As to whether it then follows
that IC 5011 and IC 5013 are equivalent identities or separate members of the
double system is in my opinion debatable.
The MOL lists both identities as separate objects at coordinates based upon the
historical ones. SIMBAD gives its IC 5011 coordinates based on Swift's original
position where no object exists and lists IC 5013 as the brighter galaxy of the pair
but without equivalency with IC 5011.
IC 5013.
(See IC 5011).
IC 5015.
Swift List XII, #20. 20hr 25m 27.363s - 31 52' 05.275" (1950).
20hr 28m 34.324s - 31 423' 05.315" (2000).
Not found : Swift describes his nova as "pB, pS, R, nearly between 2 stars with
dist. companion." and there are no such images at or close to his position.
The ESO lists IC 5015 = 452-?023 at 20hr 25m 40s - 31 53'.2 star only and the APL
has (:= NGC 6925 ). Steinicke has (Not found) and NED has (Not found), SIMBAD "Not
present in the database." and the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates
consistent with Swift's.
IC 5018.
(See IC 4998).
IC 5019.
Swift List XI, #195. 20hr 27m 38.482s - 36 29' 15.747" (1950).
20hr 30m 51.456s - 36 19' 07.980" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Swift's description reads "vF, cS, R, several pB
st sf." and at his position no such object exists.
The ESO, NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and RC3 have each listed the 15.5 Mp galaxy
ESO 400-G035 at 20hr 27m 34s - 36 14'.7 as being IC 5019,and it does have 3 bright
stars, but they lie north following not south following as stated by Swift. This of
course may result from the fact that every observer occasionally incorrectly states
the relative direction of associated objects and Swift has many such examples,
especially among his southern objects, however, examination of this
galaxy's image on the DSS would , in my opinion, strongly suggest that it would
not have been visible to Swift.
Certainly it is not nearly as bright looking as the vast majority of Swift's
confirmed objects at or near similar southern declinations. Comparison can be
made with the galaxy ESO 400-G037, which lies close following Swift's IC
5020 and is both larger and brighter (Mp 14.54), than ESO 400-G035, yet Swift when
he did discover IC 5020 did not see ESO 400-G037 and it has a declination almost 3
degrees north of that for ESO 400-G035.
The MOL (NSO) has the identity IC 5019 placed at coordinates based upon Swift's.
Steinicke has (Not found).
IC 5029 and IC 5030.
(See IC 5039 etc.).
IC 5039, 5041, 5046 and 5047.
These four IC identities were credited by Dreyer to Swift from his List XI.
however, Swift actually gives five separate identities within this field and they
appear in his List No.11 published in the ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN
#3517 and dated June , 1898. They are :
#197. 20hr 39m 53.491s - 30 00' 51.280" (1950).
20hr 42m 56.584s - 29 56' 02.066" (2000). "vF, pS, R, 2 F st near nf point to it,
1st of 3.".
#198. 20hr 40m 08.464s - 30 00' 50.438" (1950).
20hr 43m 11.530s - 29 50' 00.393" (2000). "eeF, eS, eE,
near p* of sev curved, 2nd of 3."
#199. 20hr 40m 33.219s - 29 50' 49.043" (1950).
20hr 43m 36.044s - 29 39' 57.633" (2000). "eeeF, pS, vE,
eee diff, 3rd of 3."
#200. 20hr 41m 42.393s - 30 05' 45.180" (1950).
20hr 44m 45.383s - 29 54' 49.937" (2000). "eF, pS, vE,
eeF* and vF* near sf, point to it, sp of 2."
#201. 20hr 41m 48.183s - 29 55' 44.851" (1950).
20hr 44m 50.967s - 29 44' 49.296" (2000). "eeF, pS, vE,
8 mag.* 31' n, v diff. nf of 2"
Now according to the field of view Swift employed in his observations (32 arcmin
with a power of 132x), all five objects would lie within its parameters, however,
when Howe examined the field he was only able to see two nonstellar objects and
his findings are confirmed by the DSS. This would suggest that as only two
existing objects are found where Swift gives five then three of his identities are
either duplicates of the other two or nonexistent.
Howe goes into detail about his examination of the field and states. (MNRAS LXI.
I, Nov. 1900, p.51).
"Swift #197 and #198 : The announced positions put these at the same declination,
and make them differ only 15 seconds in right ascension. They were discovered on
the same night. #197 is called vF, R and #198 eeF, eE." I examined the locality
on three nights, and could find only one nebula which is 1' in length, and
elongated at 160 degrees; on one night it was suspected of being binuclear. Swift
says of #197, 2 F st near nf point to it and of #198, near p * of sev. curved.
Both these statements true of the nebula which I observed. On two of the three
nights I also measured Swift #199, which is in the same field of view, was
discovered on the same night and is described by Swift as fainter than #197 and
#198. Swift has sent me a copy of his original records, which says of #198, sp of
2 and of #199, nf of two. For #197 there is no such remark. I conclude that
there is no nebula corresponding to the position and description of Swift #197.
The position for Swift #198 is 20hr 37m 08s - 30 12'.7 (1900). Swift #199. The
position is 20hr 37m 28s - 30 03'.8 (1900)."
Howe's positions for what he identifies as being Swift #198 and Swift #199 are for
the year 1900 and when precessed to 1950 become 20hr 40m 11s - 30 02'.2 and 20hr
40m 31s - 29 53'.2 respectively and perfectly match the two existing galaxies as
seen on the DSS, which are in turn identified as ESO 463-G020 and ESO 463-G021.
When I examined the field on the DSS I immediately saw that the stars mentioned in
Swift's descriptions as being associated in the field of view applied only to the
south preceding object, exactly as Howe had reported in his statement,(except I
believe that the two stars mentioned as being near north following should read
near south following), therefore it appears logical to assume that somehow Swift
confused one nebula as being two separate objects (#197 and #198), this would also
explain why in his List 11 he gives the same declination value for both of these,
thus Swift's #197 and #198 are equivalent identities, being for the same south
preceding galaxy = ESO 463-G020 and this is the one that Dreyer identified as
being IC 5039.Swift gives separation values between his #198 and his #199 of
25 tsec RA and 10
arcmin dec. which are in fairly good agreement with the separation values between
the two ESO galaxies (20 tsec RA and 8.9 arcmin dec.). This fact and his
description, other than the "3rd of 3," means that Swift # 199 is equal to ESO
463-G021 and Dreyer gave this the identity IC 5041.
Swift dates discovery of his #197, #198 and #199 as August 20th, 1897 and #200 and
#201 on June 9th, 1897 and I believe that it was the earlier date on which he
reports only two objects that is more correct as to data as the descriptions are
entirely correct, even the reference to the 8th mag. star 31 arcmin north of # 201
(the north following of the pair), only his positional coordinates are off,
something quite general with most of Swift's objects. Thus we now have Swift's
#200 = ESO 463-G020 and his # 201 = ESO 463-G021.
The results of all this confusion are that Swift's #197/#198 = IC 5039 = ESO 463-
G020, but Swift's #200 = IC 5046 is also = ESO 463-G020, therefore IC 5039 is
equal to IC 5046. Also Swift's #199 = IC 5041 = ESO 463-G021, but Swift #201 = IC
5047 is also = ESO 463-G021, therefore IC 5041 is equal to IC 5047 and thus we
have Swift's five identities and Dreyer's four identities reduced to the correct
number of two existing galaxies.
All the following modern sources (APL, ESO, PGC, SIMBAD, Steinicke and NGC 2000)
have the correct equivalencies. The MOL gives no equivalencies and four entirely
separate sets of coordinates for the four IC identities, typing IC 5039 as (Galaxy,
E1) and IC 5041, 5046 and 5047 as (NSO). It should be stated that the MOL, by its
positional data does make IC 5039 = ESO 463-G020 and IC 5041 = ESO 463-G02, however,
the positional data for the other two IC identities reflect no existing galaxies.
The MCG and DSFG give only the identities IC 5039 and IC 5041 without mention of any
equivalencies.
As if these identities were not enough confusion there is excellent evidence to
suggest that Swift also confused the identities of two additional discovery
objects as being new when in fact they also are equal to ESO 463-G020 and ESO 463-
G021 and they are Swift List XII, #22 (IC 5029) and Swift List XII, No.23 (IC 5030).
Swift's positional data and descriptions are ;
#22. 20hr 37m 13s - 30 01'.3 "eeF, eS, eE, F* with dist com. nr sf, point to
it."
#23. 20hr 37m 33s - 30 02.3 "eeeF, vS, cE, ee dif, sf of 2."
Dr. Harold G. Corwin reported to me in an e-mail message "I've been mulling over
the IC 5029/30 problem for a few days and have come to the conclusion that these
are the same galaxies as IC 5039 = IC 5046 and IC 5041 = IC 5047. Swift's
description of the south-following wide double star pointing at IC 5029 fits IC
5039 perfectly. If we then accept a 3 minute of time error in his RA's for IC
5029/30, his relative RA between the two is correct, but his declination for IC
5030 would be off by 10 arcmin--I think that is a typo."
What Corwin states is accurate and I am convinced that he is correct , therefore
what we now have is.
IC 5029 = IC 5039 = IC 5046 = EGO 463-G020.
IC 5030 = IC 5041 = IC 5047 = ESO 463-G021.
The NGC 2000 types IC 5029 as (?) and IC 5030 as (No Type), both at coordinates
based upon Swift's data.
The MOL states (IC 5029 May not exist) and (IC 5030 Nonstellar object), both at
coordinates based upon Swift's data.
The ESO makes IC 5029 = double star and IC 5030 (Doubtful).
The APL had made IC 5029 = **, and (Not found) for IC 5030, however, its author,
Dr. Corwin has now put forward the equivalency conclusion which I fully support.
NED and SIMBAD make IC 5029 and IC 5030 (Not found).
Steinicke makes IC 5029=IC 5003=IC 5039=IC 5046, also he makes IC 5030=IC 5007=IC
5041=IC 5047.
The MCG has no listings for the identities IC 5029 and IC 5030.
I am very indebted to Corwin for having sent me his findings and to my knowledge
he is the first person to have tied in the IC 5029/5030 to the overall problem.
IC 5056.
Stewart #691. 20hr 45m 45.127s - 39 22' 02.060" (1950).
20hr 48m 59.622s - 39 10' 53.182" (2000).
Not found : Stewart's description reads "F, cL, eE at 150 degrees. No * N." and
at his given position no such object exists.
The APL in its latest version has "Probabley a plate defect."Meanwhile, ESO 341-
IG016 although much more compatible in positional data with Stewart's coordinates
does not appear to have a comparable PA and is also not considerably large.
PGC, NED, SIMBAD and the RC3 equate the ESO galaxy with the identity IC 5056.The NGC
2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list IC 5056 at coordinates based upon those of
Stewart. Steinicke has (NF).
IC 5057.
POSS. O-305.
Bigourdan #436. 20hr 44m 39.875s + 00 08' 17.045" (1950).
20hr 47m 13.444s + 00 19' 21.181" (2000).
This is a single star : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing, NGC 2000, MOL, APL,
Steinicke and Carlson all list it as a star. NED has "Name does not exist or no
object found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 5058.
POSS. O-305.
Bigourdan #438. 20hr 44m 46.758s + 00 18' 01.263" (1950).
20hr 47m 20.187s + 00 29' 05.728" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 6965 (Lord Rosse) : CGCG incorrectly makes ZWG 374.016 =
NGC 6963, as does SIMBAD. It is NGC 6965 = IC 5058, (NGC 6963 is a double star).
This same error is also in the UGC, (U11630), and appears again in the PGC. NGC
2000, MOL and Carlson all make IC 5058 = star. The MCG gives only the identity
NGC 6965. The RC3 in its Notes correctly makes IC 5058 = NGC 6965. NED has
"There is no object with this name in NED." Steinicke equates IC 5058 with NGC
6965.
Corwin has provided me with an excellent evaluation of the problem in which he
goes into detail concerning each of the involved identities and I am delighted to
say that my own examination of this field supports his earlier findings, one being
that IC 5058 = NGC 6965.
IC 5061.
POSS. O-305.
Bigourdan #439. 20hr 45m 04.581s + 00 08' 56.830" (1950).
20hr 47m 38.141s + 00 20' 02.290" (2000).
This is a triple star : Bigourdan in his description shows that he suspected
that it might only be a triple star. CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing. NGC
2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and Carlson all make it a triple star. NED has "There
is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 5062.
POSS. O-797.
Bigourdan #336. 20hr 45m 28.642s - 08 32' 39.775" (1950).
20hr 48m 09.825s - 08 21' 32.830" (2000).
This is a double star : There is considerable confusion among the modern
authorities concerning the identity of IC 5062. The MCG lists its -2-53-006 as
being IC 5062 however, this galaxy is NGC 6968 and has no equivalency with what
Bigourdan was describing.
Bigourdan observed and gave excellent measurements for the position of NGC 6968 on
the same night he measured a position for IC 5062. For both identities he
employed the same reference star which he identified as (Anon. 4. of 10.5 Mv.),
this star is equal to AC #2291015 which has coordinates of 20hr 48m 11.657s - 08
18' 22.94 (2000) and his offsets from this star are - 0 tmin 02 tsec RA. and
03.arcmin 09.7 arcsec south and at this exact position there is only a faint
double star.
His separation values as measured from this star are entirely different in RA (for
IC 5062 they lie west of the star and for NGC 6968 they lie east) and are greatly
different in measurement of time, therefore Bigourdan was certainly not confusing
NGC 6968 with his Nova. His October 7th observation, on which he discovered his
#336 and also made his second observation of NGC 6968, clearly establish from 2
associated field stars that he was correctly identifying NGC 6968 and his
description for his #336 in which he describes it having a 13.2 to 13.3 Mv star
situated at a PA of 290 degrees and a separation of 1 arcmin applies exactly to
the double star.
The APL and Steinicke have (=*2). The PGC identifies IC 5062 as equal to NGC
6968. The MOL gives both identities as separate objects and makes IC 5062 (NSO).
The NGC 2000 has the correct identity (= D*). NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD incorrectly equates it with the galaxy MCG-02-53-006,
which is NGC 6968.
IC 5065.
Swift List XII, #24. 20hr 47m 12.688s - 30 00' 44.920" (1950).
20hr 50m 14.966s - 29 49' 31.658" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy but large RA error :
Swift describes his nova as "vF, pS, R, 8m star in margin of field n." At his
coordinates no nonstellar image exists, however, at 20hr 48m 44s - 30 02'.2 there
is the galaxy ESO 187-G030 and it does have such a star as described.
The APL, ESO, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and NGC 2000 all identify this galaxy as
being IC 5065. The MOL (NSO) gives the identity at the historical coordinates.
The MCG also identifies this same galaxy but only as an "Anon" = -5-49-004.
IC 5079.
Innes. 21hr 01m 46.527" ? - 56 26' 53.264" (1950).
21hr 05m 30.209s ? -56 14' 52.866" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found : Innes description reads "F, S, E, ?vs CL or ring neb."
There is nothing at or close to this position that fits this description.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL type this identity as being an Open Cluster.
The APL has "Nothing here, nominal position."
ESO states "ESO 187-G049 = IC 5079 ? Cluster of galaxies, distant." SIMBAD also
equates the ESO candidate with IC 5079.
Meanwhile, the PGC identifies ESO 187-49 as equal to IC 5079 (Mp 19.7).
It is quite obvious that when this cluster of galaxies is examined upon the DSS
that it would have been impossible for Innes using a 7 inch refractor to have
remotely seen any of the galaxies in this group as they all appear to be fainter
than 17th magnitude.
NED identifies this cluster of galaxies as ESO 187-G049. Mp 19.69) and makes the
identity IC 5079= (!*). Steinicke has (Not found).
IC 5082.
POSS. O-791.
Bigourdan #440. 21hr 01m 55.234s - 12 32' 12.722" (1950).
21hr 04m 39.276s - 12 20' 13.778" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7010 (h 2100) : To begin. There is only one galaxy in the
immediate field. Bigourdan in his examination of this field has a total of three
separate observations for IC 5082, August 27th 1886, October 3rd 1891 and October
16th 1897, while for NGC 7010 he makes a single observation on the October 16th
1897 observing run, measuring a separate position for what he identifies as being
NGC 7010, giving it coordinates of 21hr 01m 52.6s - 12 31' 40".2.
Now John Hershel had given his h 2100 coordinates of 21hr 02m 01.1s - 12 41' 59"
which reflect an error in declination of about 11 arcmin and this might account
for Bigourdan's considering that at least for his first two observations of the
field he was seeing a different object, however, by his third observation (October
16th 1897), he had accepted that John Herschel's declination was wrong as he now
proceeded to make an observation of what he identifies as being NGC 7010.
I think it can be clearly demonstrated with Bigourdan's two earlier observations
that he believes that he is observing a nova and this can be verified by the
offsets he additionally gives to 4 closely associated field stars, therefore I
feel that the crucial comparison data comes from his final observation of the
field in which he not only measures coordinates for his "Nova" but also for what
he identifies as NGC 7010 and these positions are those I have given above.
His coordinates result in a separation between the two objects he is describing of
03 tsec and 01' 10".9 dec, also it appears to me that even in his 1897 observation
he is still describing the only field galaxy when he is measuring what he calls
his #440, but then what is it he is referring to as being NGC 7010 ?
By accepting that what he measures and identifies as being B.440 is the galaxy
then the position he gives for NGC 7010 would place it north preceeding, however,
there is absolutely no image visible there. There is a faint star just off the
south preceeding end of the galaxy but its separation in declination is far less
than the 01' 10".9 given by Bigourdan.
There is absolutely no doubt that what Bigourdan was describing as # 440 in his
three observations is the galaxy that exists in the field and this galaxy is the
true NGC 7010, therefore although Bigourdan never seems to consider this his #440
= IC 5082 is indeed a duplicate of NGC 7010.
The MCG gives only the identity IC 5082. NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, NED,
Carlson and PGC correctly give the equivalency. SIMBAD lists both the NGC and IC
identities but without equivalency.
IC 5083.
POSS. O-558.
Swift List XI, #203. 21hr 01m 13.011s + 11 37' 06.736" (1950).
21hr 03m 37,076s + 11 49' 03.046" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Howe give a correction to Swift's placing it at 21hr 01m
27.068s +11 33' 49.458" (1950).
The CGCG gives an RA of 21hr 01.4m as do both the NGC 2000 and MOL.
Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, APL and PGC have correct identity. Not listed in the other
catalogues.
IC 5086.
Swift List XI, #204. 21hr 04m 31.927s - 30 14' 32.025" (1950).
21hr 07m 32.412s - 30 02' 24.627" (2000).
Not found. Probably equal to a galaxy at 21hr 05m 32s - 29 58'.3 :
Swift described his nova as "eeF, pS, R, F * near f 90 degrees," however at his
nominal position no nebular image exists, there are only 3 stars in the form of a
triangle but they do not suggest being an asterism.
ESO have two entries for the identity IC 5086. The first is ESO 464-
?024 at Swift's nominal position and the second is ESO 464-G025 = IC 5086 ? at
21hr 05m 32s - 29 58'.3.
The difference in coordinates between ESO 464-G025 and Swift's given position is 1
tmin RA and 16'.4 arcmin declination and the brightness of this candidate, Mp13.7
and the fact that it does have a star about 14th mag. following at close to the
correct separation and PA certainly qualifies it as being an excellent choice.
The RC3, NGC 2000, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL and Steinicke also identify this galaxy as
being IC 5086, while the MCG identifies it as "Anon." = -5-50-02.
The MOL gives coordinates based upon the historical position.
IC 5088.
POSS. O-1108
Howe #16. 21hr 06m 33.418s - 23 05' 01.686" (1950).
21hr 09m 26.525s - 22 52' 48.486" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is a typographical one in which the MCG
incorrectly equates its -4-50-001 with IC 5008 when it should be IC 5088. The
correct identity is given by the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL, NED and Steinicke.
The PGC and SIMBAD have the correct identity.
IC 5097.
POSS. 0-552.
Bigourdan #441. 21hr 12m 27.679s + 04 15' 36.905" (1950).
21hr 14m 58.065s + 04 28' 06.930" (2000).
This is a faint star with an extremely faint companion attached to its preceding
edge, lying close south following the triple star identified by the APL as being
IC 5097:
Bigourdan estimated its position from what he listed as the identity NGC 7045,
which is in fact a double star whose south following component is the star GSC2.2
N0020023190 at 21hr 14m 50.296s + 04 30' 24.11 (2000).
This star when reduced to 1891, the discovery year for IC 5097, would have
coordinates of 21hr 09m 22.526s + 04 03 19.540" and by applying Bigourdan's
offsets (+ 7.7 tsec RA and - 2 arcmin 18 arcsec Dec) the 1891 coordinates for IC
5097 would be 21hr 09m 30.226s + 04 01' 01.540" which precess to 21hr 12m 27.679s
+ 04 15' 36.905" (1950) or 21hr 14m 58.065s + 04 28' 06.930" (2000).
When these corrected nominal positions are entered into the DSS they land just off
the southern edge of a faint star identified in the GSC2.2 as N0020023208 lying
close south and slightly following the triple star mentioned above.
Steinicke (*4). NGC 2000 and MOL all make IC 5097 = ***. NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." APL has (=4 sts). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database.
NOTE: Bigourdan states in his Comptes Rendus publication that his #441 lies at a
PA of 140 degrees, distant by 3 arcmin from NGC 7045, which is a double star, and
this is almost exactly where the star GSC2.2 N0020023208 is located.
IC 5098.
POSS. O-552.
Bigourdan #442. 21hr 12m 29.700s + 04 17' 11.430" (1950).
21hr 15m 00.074s + 04 29' 41.317" (2000). (Dreyer).
This is a single star: Bigourdan in his OBSERVATIONS does not give coordinates
for this discovery, rather he states that in relation to NGC 7045 it lies at a PA
of 100 and a distance of 2.5 arcmin. however in the Comptes Rendus
descriptions of IC 5097 he states that IC 5097 lies in relation to NGC 7045 at a
PA of 140 and a distance of 3 arcmin, but the PA and distance values for IC 5098
when applied to the double star NGC 7045 and compared with those Bigourdan gives
for IC 5097 suggests to me a single star.
Listed in the APL, NGC 2000 and MOL as a double or two stars Steinicke has (=*2).
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database."
Bigourdan's description of IC 5098 also refers to it as a single star 13.4 to 13.5
Mv. and the companion star appears far too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan.
IC 5112 & IC 5113.
POSS. O-552.
Bigourdan #337. 21hr 27m 00.425s + 06 33' 45.183" (1950).
21hr 29m 29.389s + 06 46' 55.848" (2000). (IC 5112).
#443. 21hr 27m 11.394 + 06 35' 35.028" (1950).
21hr 29m 40.340s + 06 48' 46.220" (2000). (IC 5113).
Unable to resolve: To begin with we have both Bigourdan and Spitaler stating that
the Dreyer position for NGC 7074, 21hr 27m 08s + 06 34'.4 (obtained exactly from
Marth's observational data), is off by about 6 arcmin too far north, however,
comparison of Marth's data with that of Bigourdan shows that Marth's NGC 7074 is
an excellent positional match for Bigourdan's IC 5113, indeed Bigourdan in his
observations of NGC 7074 and for his IC 5113 refers to these close positional
matches.
There is no doubt that the galaxy identified as being NGC 7074 by Bigourdan and
Spitaler is the brightest in the field. Bigourdan describes it as between 25 to
30 arcsec in size, about 13.4 or 13.5 magnitude, diffuse and unable to clearly
establish its form or extent, he also states that it brightens in the middle,
meanwhile Marth, using a telescope almost four times larger than the one employed
by Bigourdan had described NGC 7074 as being very faint, small, extended. I
mention this as at Bigourdan's position for IC 5113 there is a galaxy which fits
Marth's description, especially as it has a star of similar magnitude just off its
northern end which could add to the appearance of extended.
In support of Bigourdan and Spitaler's candidate for being NGC 7074 is that it is
the brightest field object and as Marth saw only a single nebula in the field it
would seem that this would most likely be the brightest one.
Therefore I am left with two possibilities. (A). IC 5113 is equal to NGC 7074 or
(B). IC 5113 is "Not found."
But now there is an additional problem. At about 12 to 15 tsec preceding and 15
arcsec south of the image of IC 5113 there is another galaxy whose appearance
on the Palomar print is both brighter and larger than IC 5113.
At first I thought this must be Bigourdan's other Nova = IC 5112
however, Bigourdan's coordinates for IC 5112 although good in RA are about 1
arcmin south of the Palomar image.
Bigourdan first observed IC 5113 on July 31st 1886 and did not observe IC 5112
until October 27th 1894, or 8 years later, Which poses two questions, firstly why
did he miss the brighter and larger preceding object on his 1886 observation ? and
secondly, If IC 5113 is equal to NGC 7074 why did Marth not see the brighter and
larger preceding object ?
At this time I must admit that I have no solution to these identities and
therefore am listing them as unresolved.
Both the NGC 2000 and MOL type IC 5112 and IC 5113 as being an "Open cluster."
NED has "There is no object with this name in NED" for both identities. SIMBAD "Not
present in the database," for both identities.
NOTE: Dr. Corwin at my request kindly examined the problem and has suggested that
the double galaxy is Marth's NGC 7074 and that he believes that due to the
faintness of the other field galaxies they would have been beyond the
ability of Bigourdan's telescope and therefore that he favors both IC 5112 and IC
5113 as being simply stars. Steinicke lists both IC 5112 and IC 5113 as being
stars.
NOTE 2.: Bigourdan's reference star for both IC 5112 and IC 5113 is equal to AC
#429907 at 21hr 29m 37.266s + 06 52' 48.21 (2000). and Bigourdan's separation
values for both IC 5112 and IC 5113 land respectively upon a blank space (IC 5112)
and a very faint star (IC 5113)..
IC 5114.
Swift List XI, #206. 21hr 29m 09.752s - 36 56' 00.247" (1950).
21hr 32m 13.870s - 36 42' 42.925" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7091 (h 3873).
John Herschel describes NGC 7091 as "eF, pL, vgbM, 2'.; place considerably
uncertain. It precedes a * 6m nearly in the parallel, about 40 seconds of time."
and he gives it coordinates of 21hr 32.4m - 37 00'.4 and these are the coordinates
employed by Dreyer in the NGC.
Swift's description reads "eF, pS, R, e wide D* f 30s." and this is true of NGC
7091, the 6th mag. star being the closest of the wide double described by Swift.
In this case it is understandable that Swift might have thought he had discovered
a nova as his stated coordinates differ from those as they appear for NGC 7091 in
the NGC, although as usual, Swift's own coordinates are also in error by 1 tmin 54
tsec RA and 3.6 arcmin declination as the correct coordinates for NGC 7091 = IC
5114 are 21hr 31m 04s - 36 52'.5
The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and NGC 2000 correctly make the equivalency while
the ESO gives 403-G008 = NGC 7091 = IC 5114 ? The PGC gives only NGC 7091.
The MOL lists both as separate identities and coordinates based upon Dreyer.
IC 5115.
POSS. O-298.
Swift List XI, #205. 21hr 28m 05.258s + 11 33' 24.736" (1950).
21hr 30m 30.597s + 11 46' 38.170" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is not an error in the normal sense but rather the
problem refers to a puzzling statement in Swift's description in which he says
that his object is not NGC 7068. But NGC 7068 lies at 21hr 24m 12s + 11 59'.0
which even with Swift's large field of view would hardly be within the field
containing IC 5115, so why the reference ?
IC 5118.
Stewart #722. 21hr 35m 46.330s - 71 36' 35.680" (1950).
21hr 40m 16.139s - 71 22' 59.298" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error here is a 2 tmin error in Stewart's RA, something
quite unusual with him.
Stewart's description reads "vF, S, eE at 35 degrees, * mag. 10 sp 2 arcmin." and
no nebular image is found at his position, however, at 21hr 37m 45s - 71 36'.7
there is the galaxy ESO 75-G020 which does fit Stewart's description.
It must be considered that at such a low declination of 71 degrees a difference of
2 tmin RA would provide a significantly smaller apparent separation in a
telescopic field than at declinations closer to the celestial equator and
therefore what otherwise might be considered as being a considerable error on the
part of Stewart would not apply.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give coordinates based upon the historical
data. The APL, PGC, ESO, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identity and
position.
IC 5121.
Frost #1221. 21hr 37m 27.126s - 64 37' 30.523" (1950).
21hr 41m 21.648s - 64 23' 50.640" (2000).
Equal to NGC 7096 (h 3874) : No nonstellar image at or close to the nominal
position.
The APL, Steinicke, PGC, NGC 2000, NED, SIMBAD and ESO have equated the galaxy ESO
107-G046 = NGC 7096 at 21hr 37m 27s - 64 08'.3 with the identity IC 5121, which
would require that Frost misstated his declination by 29.4 arcmin.
Although this would be a very large error on the part of Frost it is a viable
candidate, having a Mp of 12.8 which would be similar to the magnitude given by
Frost (13.0), also the appearance on the DSS of its large core does suggest being
similar to the image of a planetary, which is how Frost described it.
The MOL (NSO) gives it coordinates based upon the historical data.
IC 5122.
POSS. O-194.
Howe II, #13. 21hr 36m 56.152s - 22 37' 54.418" (1950).
21hr 39m 45.981s - 22 24' 17.343" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG has incorrectly identified its -4-51-006 as being IC
5122, this should be NGC 7103. Steinicke correctly identifies IC 5122.
Although the PGC, SIMBAD and NED have the correct object by coordinates they
incorrectly equate IC 5122 with MCG -04-51-006. Correctly identified by the NGC
2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and APL.
IC 5126.
POSS. O-1126.
Javelle #1409. 21hr 37m 50.212s - 06 34' 21.173" (1950).
21hr 40m 28.341s - 06 20' 42.089" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : At the nominal position no nebular images exist. Javelle
gives as his reference star the 9.1 Mv star DM -6 5799 and his position for this
is correct, however, it is clear that Javelle was mistaken in identifying his
reference star and that he was actually using the star DM -7 5611 equal to AC
#2299676 whose 2000 coordinates are 21hr 40m 20.284s -06 22' 08.21" and when his
separation values are made from this star they land upon a galaxy which does have
the 2 stars flanking as described by Javelle. Thus the correct coordinates for
J.#1409 = IC 5126 should be 21hr 37m 50.212s - 06 34' 21.173" (1950), or 21hr 40m
28.341s - 06 20' 42.089" (2000).
Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type at the historical position) and the MOL as (NSO,
also at the historical position). Steinicke and APL have correct identity. Not
listed in the PGC. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED," but
identifies it as 2MASX J21402857-0620448. SIMBAD has "Not present in the
database."
NOTE :
The entire credit for solving this identity belongs to Dr. Corwin, whom I
contacted in regards to this identity and it was his investigation that correctly
sorted out the problem.
IC 5127.
POSS. O-860.
Bigourdan #338. 21hr 37m 21.339s + 06 00' 29.378" (1950).
21hr 39m 50.962s + 06 14' 07.076" (2000).
Not found : At the coordinates as given by Bigourdan no nebular image is visible.
Carlson makes it equal to NGC 7102 and the NGC 2000 and MOL appear to have been
influenced by this, however, Bigourdan on the same night he measured the position
for his B.338 also measured accurately the position of NGC 7102 which indicates
that he was not confusing the two identities. Steinicke has (Not found). PGC has
only a single identity which is for NGC 7102. NED has "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL has "Nothing here" and
Probably = NGC 7102."
IC 5135.
Swift List XI, #208. 21hr 45m 00.214s - 35 13' 10.332" (1950).
21hr 47m 59.831s - 34 59' 13.018" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7130 (h 3890) : Swift describes this as "vF, pL, R; sp of 2;
not NGC 7130 or 7135." but he was misled as to the position of NGC 7130 by the
poor declination as given by John Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS, in which he
gives the declination as - 35 40' 58" or about 39.9 arcmin too far south, thus
when Swift found a nebula at the coordinates he gives he naturally thought that it
was a nova.
Howe also gives a small correction for what he identifies as Swift List XI, #208,
his correction resulting in coordinates of 21hr 45m 20s - 35 11'.2, which are
precisely those of the corrected NGC 7130, however, Howe evidently also never
considered this to be NGC 7130.
The APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and ESO correctly make ESO 403-G032 =
NGC 7130 = IC 5135. The MOL, for some unknown reason to me, not only makes the two
identities separate objects (galaxies), but after giving correct coordinates for the
identity NGC 7130 then gives coordinates of 21hr 47m 09s - 35 02' 37" for the
identity IC 5135.
IC 5136.
Swift List XII, #27. 21hr 45m 53.776s - 33 53' 08.119" (1950).
21hr 48m 51.991s - 33 39' 08.584" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image found at or close to the nominal position. Listed
in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The ESO and Steinicke
have (Not found). APL has IC 5136? = NGC 7135. NED equates with MGC 7135. SIMBAD
"Not present in the database."
IC 5137.
Stewart #727. 21hr 47m 44.339s - 65 49' 04.806" (1950).
21hr 51m 37.860s -65 34' 59.867" (2000).
Not found : Unable to find any suitable nonstellar image within the immediate
field. Possibly the result of a photographic defect on the Harvard plate ?
Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and the MOL as (NSO). The APL, ESO, SIMBAD, NED
and Steinicke have (Not found).
IC 5143.
Swift List XI, #210. 21hr 53m 01.145s - 49 17' 45,469" (1950).
21hr 56m 15.163s - 49 03' 29.004" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7155 (h 3899) :
The entire credit for having determined that IC 5143 is a duplicate observation of
NGC 7155 belongs to Dr. H. Corwin.
Swift describes his nova as "eeF, pS, R, in line with 2 * 9th mag., 7th mag star
sf." and at his nominal position no suitable image is found.
NED, SIMBAD and ESO have identified a galaxy, ESO 237-G018 at 21hr 53m 53s - 49
17'.1 as being IC 5143, however, not only does this galaxy not have any of the
associated stars as described by Swift but it has a Mp of 16.62, which would be very
unlikely to have been seen by Swift, especially at what for him would have been an
extremely low declination.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have given coordinates based upon Swift's
data. I also originally decided that the (Not found) solution seemed to be the
most logical and it was only because I contacted Dr. Corwin to express my views
against the ESO 237-G018 identity that I learned the correct solution.
Corwin referring to some early Notes he had made years previously decided to check
out the image of NGC 7155 = ESO 237-G016 at 21hr 52m 55s - 49 45'.5 and
immediately realized that the field as described by Swift for his nova was exactly
reproduced by the field surrounding NGC 7155 and that this definitely established
that both NGC 7155 and IC 5143 are one and the same. The PGC gives the single
identity NGC 7155. Steinicke has (= NGC 7155).
IC 5153.
POSS. O-187.
Bigourdan #341. 21hr 58m 00.768s + 17 37' 11.864" (1950).
22hr 00m 23.790s + 17 51' 38.258" (2000).
Unable to confirm. Probably a faint double star :
This is a faint star with what seems to be an extremely faint and very small
galaxy or star attached to its northern end. Bigourdan describes it as being only
suspected, and that it appears to be attended by a stellar point suggesting that
perhaps it might be a small star cluster of extreme faintness.
It is very difficult for me to arrive at a conclusion as the appearance of the
"galaxy" on the Palomar print is such that I have great difficulty accepting that
it could have been remotely visible in the 12.4 inch telescope Bigourdan was
employing, however, he just about pinpoints the position and there definitely is
something there.
The only modern listings I found are Carlson (Not found, Mt. Wilson plate).
Steinicke (= 2?). APL (*+gal). NGC 2000 (?). NED "There is no object with this
name in NED," SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (May not exist).
IC 5155.
POSS. O-1146.
Bigourdan #342. 21hr 59m 32.932s + 00 14' 44.299" (1950).
22hr 02m 06.486s + 00 29' 14.340" (2000).
This is a double star : Only modern listings found were Carlson (Not found, Mt.
Wilson plate). Steinicke and APL (*2). NED (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (=*) and MOL (May not exist).
IC 5159.
POSS. O-1146.
Bigourdan #343. 22hr 00m 06.361s + 00 04' 43.436" (1950).
22hr 02m 40.012s + 00 19' 41.688" (2000).
This is a star : Bigourdan himself was doubtful as to it being a nebula as he
describes it as "Object of doubtful appearance, probably nebulous, formed by a
13.4 - 13.5 star accompanied by a small amount of nebulosity which is very faint
and very diffuse."
Only modern listings found are Carlson (= * Mt. Wilson plate). Steinicke (=*).
APL (*). NED (Not found). "SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 (= *)
and MOL (Single star).
IC 5160.
POSS. O-1137.
Javelle #1412. 22hr 00m 37.464s + 10 40' 57.062" (1950).
22hr 03m 04.948s + 10 55' 29.237" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The UGC and NED give the declination as + 10 58'.0 which is
the declination for NGC 7190 and then incorrectly gives NGC 7190 the correct
declination for IC 5160 (These errors noted in the PGC). The CGCG, APL,
Steinicke, PGC, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX), MOL (NSO) and DSFG (Notes to NGC 7190) have
the correct identity.
IC 5161.
POSS. O-795.
Javelle #1413. 22hr 03m 10.295s + 09 23 45.121" (1950).
22hr 05m 38.650s + 09 38' 22.755" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Steve Gottlieb pointed out in his Javelle List that Javelle's
listed declination for his reference star DM +8 4790 is incorrect, being about 5
arcmin too far south, thus his declination is off by that amount and this same
error has resulted in incorrect declination values in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and
MOL (NSO). The CGCG, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL have the correct identity
and coordinates.
NOTE: DM +8 4790 is equal to AC #436052 at 22hr 06m 22.794s + 09 40' 25.39"
(2000) and his separation values are - 00 tmin 44.12 tsec RA and - 1 arcmin 59.6
arcsec Dec. which results in the correct coordinates for IC 5161 to be
22hr 05m 38.650s + 09 38' 22.755" (2000), or 22hr 03m 10.295s + 09 23' 45.121"
(1950).
IC 5163 Field.
POSS. O-204.
Bigourdan. 22hr 03m 29.304s + 26 50' 26.436" (1950).
22hr 05m 46.681s +27 05' 04.483" (2000). (IC 5163).
22hr 03m 33.005s +26 47' 49.173" (1950)
22hr 05m 50.420s +27 02' 27.350" (2000). (IC 5164).
22hr 03m 40.767s +26 48' 15.361" (1950).
22hr 05m 58.194s +27 02' 53.812" (2000). (IC 5166).
Bigourdan claimed discovery of 3 associated nebulae (IC 5163, IC 5164 and IC 5166)
in the immediate field while conducting an unsuccessful search for NGC 7210.
His reference star for all three is AC #1087428 which has coordinates for the
discovery year (1898) of 22hr 01m 39.703s + 26 26' 26.267" and when his offsets
from this star are measured and precessed to 1950 they fail to bring up any
nonstellar images and are instead images of faint stars mistaken for nebulae.
Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and Steinicke who types
them as IC 5163 = 2*, IC 5164 = * and IC 5166 = *group. NED "No objects with these
identities in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database," for all 3 identities."
APL has "All single stars."
IC 5167.
POSS. O-312.
Bigourdan #344. 22hr 04m 53.188s - 08 22' 36.817" (1950).
22hr 07m 31.571s - 08 07' 55.342" (2000).
This is a faint, single star : Bigourdan's corrected nominal position from his
reference star, which is AC #2302476 at 22hr 01m 42.735s - 08 44' 45.507" (1891,
the discovery year) would place IC 5167 at 22hr 01m 46.135s - 08 39' 49.507 (1891)
which when precessed to 1950 results in coordinates of 22hr 04m 53.188s - 08 22'
36.817" (1950) or 22hr 07m 31.571s - 08 07' 55.342" (2000).
At this position there is only blank space. Bigourdan in his description for IC
5167 states "A star 13.2 (already indicated near NGC 7211) is about PA 320,
distant 2 arcmin." This star is equal to GSC2.2 S3213013158
at 22hr 07m 27.81s - 08 05' 36.7 (2000) and by reversing the given PA as stated by
Bigourdan and applying the distance separation results on landing upon a 15.9 Mp
star listed as GSC2.2 S32130137626 at 22hr 07m 31.79s - 08 07' 21.3 (2000) and
this is IC 5167.
Thus Bigourdan's corrected nominal position indicates an error of about 34 arcsec
in declination.
Only listings found are NGC 2000 (=*), MOL (NSO), NED "There is no object with
this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL (*) and Steinicke
(=*).
IC 5170.
Lunt. 22hr 07m 38.070s - 47 25' 21.005" (1950).
22hr 10m 45.513s - 47 10' 32.973" (2000).
Not found. Possibly = ESO 237-G046 : Lunt made his observations with the 18 inch
refractor of the Cape Observatory and gave data only pertaining to coordinates and
did not provide any descriptions, which means that the modern investigator is
dependent primarily as to whether any likely candidate exists within a reasonable
offset from his coordinates, although the best candidate would only be an
assumption.
In this case the closest possible candidate would be ESO 237-G046 at 22hr 09m 23s
- 47 28'.2 (1950), or at a position different from Lunt's of 1 tmin 43 tsec RA and
2.8 arcmin dec.
As I have not been able to find any information that would definitively establish
that such an error occurred I am therefore unable to make this equivalency.
Lunt has 5 IC identities credited to him in the 22nd hour of RA and although each
of these 5 identities have discrepancies of RA from the modern values none of the
other four would have positional errors of such a large range, the second largest
being IC 5224, which is a confirmed galaxy with a RA error of 63 tsec.
The NGC 2000, ESO, APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, Steinicke (ESO 288-G051 which is the same
as ESO 237-G046) and RC3 have identified the galaxy ESO 237-G046 as being IC 5170.
The MOL (NSO), has given the coordinates based upon the historical data.
IC 5176.
Stewart #741. 22hr 11m 17,442s - 67 05' 12.231" (1950).
22hr 15m 01.899s - 66 50' 16.495" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error here concerns the PA of the major axis as reported
in the PGC and RC3 which give it as being 151 degrees.
Stewart describes this object as "vF, S, eeE at 30 degrees, * N." and examination
of the galaxy on the DSS shows that the PA of the major axis is at the value as
given by Stewart and not as given in the three modern sources. The FLAT GALAXY
CATALOGUE (FGC),. Karachentsev et al 1993. give the PA as 29 degrees as does
Steinicke (28 degrees).
IC 5179, IC 5183 and IC 5184.
All three of these identities were given to objects claimed as discoveries by
Swift in his List XII and reveal that at the time he prepared this list for
publication he apparently became quite confused. These 3 identities being
not the only such examples in List XII. His published data is as follows.
#33 = IC 5179. 22hr 10m 22.319s - 37 07'43.253" (1950).
22hr 13m 18.991s - 36 52' 50.168" (2000). "vF, L, R, * close south, B * sp."
#34.= IC 5183. 22hr 12m 26.049s - 36 05' 27.065" (1950).
22hr 15m 21.480s - 35 50' 29.938" (2000). "pB, C, S, F* in
contact sf, sev pB st form a segment of large circle."
#35.= IC 5184. 22hr 12m 31.892s - 37 07 32.884" (1950).
22hr 15m 28.137s - 36 52' 35.550" (2000). "pF, pS, lE, bet 2 st in meridian, 8.5
* sp, np of 2."
Now at all three positions no nonstellar object exists, however, at 22hr 13m 13s -
37 05'.5 there is a galaxy (ESO 405-G005), bright enough to have been seen by
Swift and it certainly fits Swift's descriptions for both IC 5179 and IC 5184,
also, except for the statement by Swift "F * in contact sf." for his # 34 = IC
5183, his description referring to the segment of a large circle does apply and
one can reasonably speculate that as for the F * in contact, he may have been
referring to the southern of the two stars which frame ESO 405-G005, lying about
1.3 arcmin south.
The APL, ESO, NED,SIMBAD, PGC and Steinicke each make IC 5179 = IC 5183 = IC 5184
and I find that I am in agreement with them.
The NGC 2000 correctly gives the coordinates for IC 5184, however, it fails to
give any of the equivalencies involved, placing IC 5179 and IC 5183 at coordinates
based upon Swift's positions.
The MOL gives coordinates for all 3 identities based upon Swift and also has no
equivalencies. The RC3 and DSFG equate ESO 405-G005 only with IC 5179.
NOTE : See also IC 5186.
IC 5180.
POSS O-815.
Bigourdan #345. 22hr 09m 03.233s + 38 40' 50.099" (1950).
22hr 11m 12.218s + 38 55' 39.424" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error involving IC 5180 concerns an incorrect rate of
precession in right ascension published by Dreyer in the IC II where it is given
an annual rate of 3.58 tsecs. while the correct rate is 2.58 tsecs. As I had been
applying the incorrect rate of precession I was for some months under the belief
that Bigourdan's data should give a 1950 RA of 22hr 09m 58s and therefore I was at
some loss to understand why nearly all of the modern authorities had RA values of
almost 1 tmin. smaller and it was not until I checked the precession rate of NGC
7228 (which is sufficiently close enough to the area of the sky of IC 5180) and
found it to be 2.57 tsecs. that I realized the reason for the apparent conflicting
coordinates.
The CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, PGC, Steinicke and RC3 which list the identity
IC 5180 each give the correct 1950 RA of about 22hr 9.0m while IC 5180 is
identified in the MCG only as +6-48-12. Correctly identified in NED and SIMBAD.
IC 5181.
Lunt : 22hr 11m 23.475s - 46 09' 12.831" (1950).
22hr 14m 28.449s - 45 54' 17.328" (2000).
Not found : Another of Lunt's 5 objects none of which he provided with any
description. There are no suitable nebular images at or close to Lunt's position,
however, the APL, PGC, NGC 2000, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC3 and ESO have identified
the galaxy ESO 289-G001 at 22hr 10m 16s - 46 16'.0 as being IC 5181
Certainly ESO 289-G001 is bright enough (Mp 12.5), to have been easily seen by
Lunt using an 18 inch telescope, therefore it is a viable candidate.
The MOL gives coordinates based upon the historical position.
IC 5183.
(See IC 5179).
IC 5184.
(See IC 5179).
IC 5186.
Swift List XII, #36. 22hr 13m 21.700s - 37 05' 31.225" (1950).
22hr 16m 17.755s - 36 50' 32.280" (2000).
Unable to determine : This is a complex problem with two possible solutions.
Swift describes his #36 as "eeF, S, R, F * nr p, 8m * np, sf of 2."
At 22hr 13m 13s - 37 05'.5, or 12 tsec preceeding and 0.3 arcmin north of Swift's
given position there is a galaxy, however, this is ESO 405-G005 which we have
already shown to be equal to the identities IC 5179 = IC 5183 = IC 5184, so is
this another example of confusion on Swift's part resulting in 4 equivalent
IC identities ?
Stewart in his Harvard Observations gives the following data on a galaxy he
measured on his Plate #3840. 22hr 13.3m -37 04'.2 "cB, S, cE at 40 degrees, Sp.
?(M.N.59, 568, Sw. XII, 36)." This certainly confirms that the galaxy Stewart
identifies as Swift #36 (IC 5186) is the same as ESO 405-G005.
The ESO, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3 and NGC 2000 have each identified the
galaxy ESO 405- G007 at 22hr 15m 51s - 37 03'.1 as being IC 5186 and it also is
bright enough to have been seen by Swift, and does have a 8 Mp star north
preceding as described by Swift, whereas ESO 405-G005 has a 9 Mp star south
preceding, however, if ESO 405-G007 is indeed Swift's #36 then his position is off
by about 2 tmin 38 tsec RA .
There appears to be conclusive evidence that Swift when preparing his List XII
data for publication in the MNRAS was in considerable confusion which caused him
to report on a number of occasions separate descriptions and positions for what
were in fact single objects and therefore it is difficult for me in this
particular case to correctly determine just exactly which of the two involved ESO
galaxies might be Swift's #36 and is the reason why I have listed it as I have.
The MOL gives coordinates based upon those of Swift.
IC 5189.
POSS. O-312.
Bigourdan #312. 22hr 13m 37.864s - 05 15' 15.989" (1950).
22hr 16m 14.283s - 05 00' 16.945" (2000).
This is a single star : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (=*). MOL (NSO). APL
and Steinicke (=*). NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 5191.
POSS. O-778.
Barnard. 22hr 12m 50.990s + 37 03' 04.190" (1950).
22hr 15m 02.156s + 37 18' 00.689" (2000). (MOL).
Confirmed galaxy : This is one of a group of closely associated galaxies whose
dominant member is NGC 7242.
There is a lot of confusion concerning a number of the identities involved (also
see IC 1441). The CGCG lists IC 5191 only as ZWG 513.020 while the UGC lists it
only as U11963 . MCG incorrectly identifies its +6-48-21 as IC 1441, it is IC
5191. The PGC gives only the UGC, MCG and CGCG identities, as does NED.
APL, Steinicke, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and MOL have the correct identity.
NOTE: Barnard's paper (AN. #4136) has an excellent sketch of the field galaxies,
however, he only gives estimated coordinates for a single object, NGC 7242 and it
is not accurate. Dreyer was thus faced with giving IC 5191, 5192 and 5193 the
same positional data and indicated in the ICII that this position was at best
conditional.
I have thus employed the positions from MOL which are accurate.
IC 5192.
POSS. O-778.
Barnard. 22hr 13m 03.990s + 37 01' 26.190" (1950).
22hr 15m 14.218s + 37 16' 23.080" (2000). (MOL).
Confirmed galaxy : Also a member of the NGC 7242 group. I had some difficulty
deciding whether the image on the Palomar print was nebulous as its appearance
suggested that it might only be a multiple star group, however, Steve Gottlieb
made a visual observation from an excellent observing site in Northern California
and confirmed that the object in question definitely exists as a galaxy visually
involved with stars. CGCG and UGC have no listing.
Listed in MCG and PGC only as +6-48-22. The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD
and MOL have correct identity.
IC 5193.
POSS. O-778.
Barnard. 22hr 13m 31.991s + 36 59' 39.190" (1950).
22hr 15m 43.338s + 37 14' 37.022" (2000). (MOL).
Confirmed galaxy : Also one of the NGC 7242 group. CGCG and UGC have no
listing. Listed in the MCG and PGC only as + 6-48-26, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC
2000, APL and MOL have correct identity.
IC 5194 and IC 5198.
POSS. O-1448.
Bigourdan #450. 22hr 14m 25.782s - 16 11' 45.380" (1950)
22hr 17m 08.005s - 15 56' 44.714" (2000). (IC 5194).
#451. 22hr 15m 01.090s - 15 49' 13.937" (1950).
22hr 17m 43.063s - 15 34' 12.161 (2000). (IC 5198).
This is a complex problem involving what appears to be not only erroneous
positional data but also the identity of the galaxy NGC 7246.
Bigourdan made two attempts to observe NGC 7246 and in both cases he states that
he is unsure as to whether he could see it. He measures a position for it only on
his second observation, employing the 7th Mv star A.OE2W 17316, which is equal to
BD -16 6057, also equal to GSC 6378-594. His offsets from this star would result
in coordinates of 22hr 15m 02.4s - 16 15' 53' for NGC 7246, which reflect a
declination error of about 26.5 arcmin too far south as NGC 7246 actually lies
at 22hr 15m 00.8s - 15 49' 20".
Next he uses this same reference star to measure coordinates for his nova B.450
and I must add that the coordinates he gives for this star are correct, and when
his offsets for this identity are applied they do not show any nebular image. It
should be pointed out that he states that he only suspects an extremely faint
image and that on a second attempt he was unable to see it.
Finally we have his data for his #451 = IC 5198. He uses two different reference
stars to obtain coordinates. The first star is a 9.5 Mv star he calls ANON (1)
which he measures from the 7th magnitude star BD -16 6057 (the same
star he employed for NGC 7246 and IC 5194), the separation values he measures
being - 0m 10s RA and 21.5 arcmin north.
For his second reference star, (ANON (2), Mv 11.5), he again gives its separation
from BD -16 6057 as + 17s RA and 15.5 arcmin north, however, when these
separations are applied from BD -16 6057 they do not fall upon either 9.5
or 11.5 stars., also if the resulting positions from this data are in turn
subjected to his separation values for his B.451 and examined on the DSS again no
nebular images come up.
Bigourdan in his description for B.451 leaves little doubt as to that he is seeing
an existing object as he states that it is Nebulous, round and quite large, about
40 arcsec in diameter, this then prompted me to examine the area as a whole and I
found that if Bigourdan's stated separations from the star BD -16 6057 were changed
to read about - 11.2s and 27'.6 arcmin north for his ANON (1), which is
equal to AC #2593238 at 22hr 17m 14.722s -15 31' 09.88" (2000), and + 17.3s and
24'.4 arcmin north for his ANON (2) equal to AC #2593292 at 22hr 17m 43.397s - 15
33' 20.44" (2000), then they both would land on 9.5 Mv and 11.5 MV stars as
required by his observational data and that then by applying his separation values
from these two stars to what he lists as B.451 they do land on exactly the same
galaxy, a galaxy that fits Bigourdan's description, however, this galaxy is
actually NGC 7246.
Thus based upon these findings I would suggest that IC 5194 is "Not found' while
IC 5198 is equivalent to NGC 7246 (H 932-3).
The MCG gives the single identity NGC 7246 and does not have any identities for IC
5194 or IC 5198. The NGC 2000 lists all three identities as separate objects with
positions based upon the historical data, while typing IC 5194 as (Gx. source
Dixon and Sonneborn) and IC 5198 as (No Type). The MOL also lists all three
identities as separate objects, also at the historical positions, giving IC 5194
as (Galaxy) and IC 5198 as (NSO). Steinicke has (IC 5194 Not found and IC 5198 =
NGC 7246).
The APL gives IC 5194 "Not found; nominal pos." and for IC 5198 = NGC 7246. The
PGC has no listing for IC 5194 and identifies its #68512 only as NGC 7246. NED
has for both identities "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD has "Not
present in the database," for both IC identities.
NOTE : It is my belief that Bigourdan's two reference stars are (Anon.1) equal to
AC #2593238 at 22hr 17m 14.722s -15 31' 09.88" (2000), and (Anon 2.) equal to AC
#2593292 at 22hr 17m 43.397s - 15 33' 20.44" (2000).
IC 5195.
POSS. O-778.
Bigourdan #449 22hr 13m 29.828s + 37 03' 12.966" (1950).
22hr 15m 41.102s + 37 18' 11.123" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Also a member of the NGC 7240 group. It is another example
of the extraordinary eye acuity of its discoverer.
Located on the north following edge of NGC 7242 (not as Dreyer incorrectly states
"south of NGC 7242."). Bigourdan clearly states in his description that it lies
in relation to NGC 7242 at a separation of 0.5 arcmins and a PA of 45.
Its appearance is certainly stellar, however, it is definitely a separate,
although possibly associated galaxy with NGC 7242. CGCG lists NGC 7242 as a
double system but neglects to mention that the companion is IC 5195. The UGC
Notes for NGC 7242 state that a companion (b) is superposed 0'.5 at PA 57 . MCG
and PGC list only the identity NGC 7242. NGC 2000 has the correct identity but
makes the same error as Dreyer in its position relative to NGC 7242. RC3 gives
NGC 7242 + star. DSFG (NOTES to NGC 7242), places IC 5195 3'.5 south preceding
NGC 7242 which is incorrect. APL and Steinicke give the correct identity. NED
Has "No Object with this name in NED," however, they do list it as NGC 7242 NED02,
Meanwhile SIMBAD completely confuses the identity IC 5195, making it equivalent with
NGC 705, which lies at 01hr 52m 41.66s + 36 08' 37.7" (2000).
IC 5198.
POSS. 0-1448.
Bigourdan #451. 22hr 15m 02.447s - 15 55'12.177" (1950).
22hr 17' 44.473s - 15 40' 10.362" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7246 (H 932-3) : (See IC 5194 and IC 5198). MOL gives both
identities as separate objects at separate coordinates. NGC 2000 gives IC 5198 a
declination 8 arcmin south of what it gives for NGC 7246. MCG gives the single
identity NGC 7246. APL and Stienicke give (IC 5198 = NGC 7246). NED gives the
single identity NGC 7246. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database."
IC 5204.
POSS. O-1171.
Swift List XI, #212. 22hr 18m 00.320s - 14 39' 03.937" (1950).
22hr 20m 41.449s - 14 23' 56.556" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL
(NSO), NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." Steinicke (Not found). The APL makes IC 5204 probably = NGC 7300.
IC 5209.
Stewart #750. 22hr 20m 08.265s - 38 13' 54.145" (1950).
22hr 23m 03.855s - 37 58' 42.459" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error here appears to only concern the historical
description for IC 5209 in which Stewart states "2 st np "
There are two galaxies concerned. The first is IC 5209 and the second is
Stewart's #752 = IC 5212 at 22hr 20m 32.235s - 38 17' 53.399" (1950). (Stewart's
coordinates). Now there are no suitable stars north preceding IC 5109, however,
there are two close north preceding IC 5212. so it would appear that the reference
in Stewart's description regarding the 2 stars would only be accurate for IC 5112.
The modern authorities have all correctly identified the two galaxies.
IC 5214.
SO. O-14.
Swift List XII, #37. 22hr 20m 53.630s - 27 43' 22.617" (1950).
22hr 23m 41.848s 27 28' 09.735" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Steinicke has offered a possible
candidate (ESO 467-047) at 22hr 19m 55s - 27 36'.5 and this galaxy does have an
8th magnitude star about 4 arcmin south preceeding which may well be the star
referred to by Swift in his description. This galaxy is listed as an "Anon." -5-
52-067 in the MCG and as ESO 467.G047. The PGC gives both these identities but
does not equate it with IC 5214. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO),
both at the historical coordinates. NED equates the identity IC 5214 with ESO 467-
G047, as does SIMBAD. APL states "May be MCG-05-52-063, but is more likely lost."
IC 5216.
POSS. O-1171.
Javelle #1416. 22hr 22m 01.095s - 18 20' 32.015" (1950).
22hr 24m 43.859s - 18 05' 17.131" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (No Type) and MOL as
(NSO). Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED give "Not found." The APL lists it as Not found.
IC 5224.
Lunt. 22hr 28m 31.118s - 46 14' 38.136" (1950).
22hr 31m 31.475s - 45 59' 11.461" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The error concerns Lunt's given RA which has a 1 tmin error.
The ESO, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 and RC3 have each correctly
identified the galaxy ESO 289-G031 at 22hr 27m 29s - 46 15'.0 as being IC 5224.
The MOL (NSO) gives coordinates based upon Lunt's incorrect position.
IC 5225.
POSS. O-1172.
Swift List XIII, #38. 22hr 28m 46.311s - 25 37' 14.494" (1950).
22hr 31m 32.256s - 25 21' 47.952" (2000).
Equal to NGC 7294 : At the given coordinates no nebular image exists, however,
that is not unusual with Swift's positions. The MCG lists its -4-53-007 as IC
5225 ? and SIMBAD equates these two identities at 22hr 28m 16.74s -25 35' 59.8"
(1950)
Meanwhile the APL and Steinicke have opted for IC 5225 being equivalent to NGC
7294 (Leavenworth), at 22hr 29m 22s - 25 39'.4 (1950) and after re-examining the
32 arcmin field centered upon this galaxy I found that the stars mentioned in
Swift's description, "between 2 stars, a dozen stars in margin of field following
form semicircle. Four stars north preceding {form} a curve, one double. South
following of 2." apply to this galaxy.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the historical coordinates. The PGC
lists both the MCG galaxy and NGC 7294 but does not equate either with the
identity IC 5225. NED equates IC 5225 with NGC 7294.
IC 5226.
POSS. O-1172.
Swift List XII, #39. 22hr 28m 55.895s - 24 54' 56.213" (1950).
22hr 31m 41.436s - 24 39' 29.419" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: It is the second galaxy mentioned in Swift's description for IC
5225 (which see), however, in addition to its nominal position being in
considerable error it is actually the south following, not north following of two.
It is listed only as an "Anon" ESO 533-G045. MCG -04-53-010 and PGC 069097 at 22hr
29m 44.210s - 25 55' 11.06" (1950) or 22hr 32m 30.190s - 25 39' 43.10" (2000). Mp
13.5
Other sources are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both give coordinates based
on the historical data. SIMBAD has (Not found). The APL has the correct identity,
as does NED and Steinicke.
IC 5228.
POSS. O-1180.
Swift List XI, #215. 22hr 29m 34.379s - 14 22'43.038" (1950).
22hr 32' 14.577s - 14 07' 15.318" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7302 (H 31-4) It is a mystery why Swift would not have
realized that this was NGC 7302 as Dreyer's given coordinates for it differ from
those of Swift by only about 8 tsec RA and have the same declination.
The MCG, APL, Carlson, PGC, Steinicke, NGC 2000 and MOL all correctly equate IC
5228 with NGC 7302. NED and SIMBAD correctly equate with NGC 7302.
IC 5237.
Swift List XII, #40. 22hr 37m 07.729s - 30 16' 00.759" (1950).
22hr 39m 55.004s - 30 00' 20.793" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7361 (h 3954) : Dreyer based his coordinates for NGC 7361 on
the data as given by John Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS which would result in
a 1950 position of 22hr 41m 32.3s - 30 18' 51"
This position is considerably in error as the correct coordinates are 22hr 39m 31s
- 30 19'.2, therefore even though Swift's given position is as equally as poor he
probably accepted Dreyer's data and therefore concluded that his #40 could not be
a duplicate of NGC 7361 as according to Dreyer it would differ from his
coordinates by 4 tmin 24 tsec in RA.
The MOL gives the correct identity and coordinates for RNGC 7361, however, it
lists IC 5273 as a separate nonstellar object at a position based upon Swift's
coordinates. The NGC 2000, APL, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, ESO and PGC correctly make
the equivalency while the RC3 and MCG give only the single identity NGC 7361.
IC 5239.
Swift List XI, #216. 22hr 37m 52.546s - 38 18' 11.652" (1950).
22hr 40m 44.435s - 38 02' 30.461" (2000).
Not found : Examination on the DSS shows no nonstellar image at or close to
Swift's nominal position.
The APL and NGC 2000 have identified the galaxy ESO 345-G017 at 22hr 28m 13s - 38
17'.0 as being IC 5239, while the PGC and ESO itself does not make this
equivalency, only showing it to be an "Anon." Meanwhile NED identifies ESO 345-
G017 equal to IC 5239 and states "The IC RA is +10 minutes in error." Steinicke
has (Not found). SIMBAD selects a different galaxy (ESO345-38) a being IC 5239.
This is one of Swift's most southern discoveries and in my opinion the ESO 345-
G017 image as seen on the DSS would not have been recognizable by Swift as being a
nebular image. Having examined all of Swift's confirmed objects found south of
declination - 28 degrees I would say that they all are considerably brighter and
larger than ESO 345-G017, many of them described by Swift as being "eF or eeF."
The MOL lists IC 5239 at coordinates based upon those of Swift.
IC 5248.
POSS. O-905.
Bigourdan #347. 22hr 42m 08.791s - 00 36' 19.308" (1950).
22hr 44m 42.735s - 00 20' 32.183" (2000).
Not found : Bigourdan's reference star is BD - 1 4344 and his separations are -
23 tsec and almost the same declination and when this star is located on the DSS
and the difference in offsets applied both preceeding and following no nebular
images are found.
Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). NED, SIMBAD, APL and
Steinicke (Not found).
IC 5251.
POSS. O-800.
Bigourdan #454. 22hr 42m 40.257s + 10 53' 57.247" (1950).
22hr 45m 09.778s + 11 09' 44.994" (2000).
This is either 3 very faint stars or 2 stars plus an extremely faint galaxy
forming a triangle :
Bigourdan describes as" Excessively faint. Its existence appears certain but it
is not possible to describe its nature."
Only listings found are Carlson (= *, Mt Wilson plate). Steinicke and APL (= *3).
NGC 2000 (*) and MOL (Single star). NED has "There is no object with this name in
NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the databse."
IC 5255.
POSS. O-778.
Barnard. 22hr 43m 28.431s + 35 57' 49.114" (1950).
22hr 45m 46.460s + 36 13' 37.854" (2000). (Dreyer)
Not found : CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listing for IC 5255. NGC 2000 lists
without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). APL "Nothing here."
Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).
IC 5259.
POSS. O-838.
Barnard. 22hr 50 26.443s +36 26m 42.725" (1950).
22hr 52m 45.625s + 36 42' 40.878" (2000). (Dreyer).
Not found. Possibly equal to CGCG 515.011: No nebular images found in immediate
area which match Barnard's description "Neb; D* 9.5 f 2arcmin." However the CGCG
galaxy at 22hr 55m 14.62s +36 40' 18.2" (2000) does have th double star as
described.
Only listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO) and Steinicke (Not found). APL
equates it with CGCG 515-011. NED has "No object with this name in NED" SIMBAD "Not
present in the database."
IC 5260.
Swift List XII, #41. 22hr 51m 49.114s - 37 37' 33.618" (1950).
22hr 54m 37.610s - 37 21' 33.179" (2000).
Not found at nominal position :
Due to the rather inaccurate coordinates found with a large number of Swift's
objects nominal position is at best only a starting point from which to proceed.
The ESO identifies the galaxy ESO 346-G010 only as being NGC 7404 at 22hr 51m 29s
- 39 34'.9 and this is certainly close enough to Swift's position to suggest that
this is what he was seeing.
Swift describes his #41 as "eeF, pS, R, 9m star nr sp, ee dif.' Now NGC 7404 does
have a 9th mag. star associated with it but it lies south following not south
preceding as described by Swift, however, relative positions can be and
have been misstated by Swift (and all other observers) in the past, therefore the
equivalency of IC 5260 with NGC 7404 is certainly a valid solution. However,
there is an alternative candidate that I would suggests better fits the
identity, namely NGC 7421, Mp 13.02 at 22hr 54m 06.10s -37 36' 53.0" (1950).
NGC 7421 is round in shape and has a 9th magnitude star near south preceding as
described by Swift, also it is certainly bright enough to have been visible to
Swift.
The APL, NGC 2000, PGC and Steinicke each equate IC 5260 with NGC 7404.
The MOL states "May not exist." Carlson has (Not found, Helwan). Both NED and
SIMBAD equate it with NGC 7404.
IC 5264.
Swift List XI, #219. 22hr 53m 53.266s - 36 52' 48.943" (1950).
22hr 56m 40.938s - 36 36m 45.955" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : This is actually one of Swift's better measured positions as
it is immediately visible on the DSS quite near north following the given
position.
It is equal to the galaxy ESO 406-G029 at 22hr 54m 05s - 36 49'.3 and the NGC
2000, ESO, APL, PGC, RC3, DSFG, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke have correctly identified
it.
The MOL has the original coordinates but states "May not exist" which has to be
based upon Carlson who gives (Not found. Helwan), which is difficult to understand
as it is quite bright (13.5 Mp. Steinicke), and obviously nebular.
NOTE: In his List XI, #219 description Swift correctly states "south preceding of
2," and gives its date of discovery as June 10th 1896 however, in a second
publication, THE ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL No. 388, Swift gives the same description
except now he incorrectly makes it the "south following of 2," and makes its
discovery date September 2nd 1896.
IC 5265.
Swift List XI, #220. 22hr 53m 58.204s - 36 47' 48.838" (1950).
22hr 56m 45.817s - 36 31' 45.751" (2000).
Equal to IC 1459 (Barnard) :
Barnard placed his IC 1459 at 22hr 54m 33s - 36 41'.8 and there is no mistaking
that it is the galaxy as seen as described by both Barnard and Swift. It is very
bright (Mp 11.0) and its correct position is 22hr 54m 23s - 36 43'.8
Additionally, Swift in one of his "Short Papers" (ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL #388, p
28),repeats his observation and adds a footnote stating "May possibly be No.1459
of Dreyer's Index Catalogue."
The RC3 and DSFG give only the identity IC 1459. The equivalency is correctly
given by the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, ESO, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and the PGC.
IC 5274.
POSS. O-1161.
Javelle #1428. 22hr 56m 00.080s + 18 39' 06.469" (1950).
22hr 58m 27.702s + 18 55' 11.521" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy: Javelle's separation sign in Part 2 of his catalogue is
incorrectly given as showing the object to lie south of his reference star DM = 18
5083 = AC #847308, when it actually lies north of the star. When this correction
is made it lands on a galaxy at 22hr 56m 00.080s + 18 39' 06.469" (1950) or 22hr
58m 27.702s + 18 55' 11.521" (2000).
As Part 1 of the catalogue gives the correct historical declination Dreyer and the
modern sources are correct.
IC 5275.
POSS. O-1161.
Javelle #1429. 22hr 56m 11.732s + 18 35' 40.926" (1950).
22hr 58m 39.393s + 18 51' 46.208" (2000).
This is a double star : Only listings are Steinicke (= *2). APL (***).
NED "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the
database." NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 5278.
POSS. O-811.
Howe List 1. 22hr 58m 01.373s - 08 23' 55.731" (1950).
23hr 00m 37.674s - 08 07' 48.143" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Howe was a meticulous measurer of positions and this identity
is added with three others separately at the end of his List 1 because as he
states these 4 objects were not accurately measured. Because of this statement
Dreyer in his description has "eF (not verified)" however, IC 5278 does exist and
is identified in the MCG as -1-58-014 = IC 5278 ?
The APL, NED, SIMBAD and PGC have correctly identified IC 5278 at 22hr 57m 39.5s -
08 26' 51" (APL) and both Steinicke and the RC3 also correctly identify this galaxy.
The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) base their coordinates upon the historical
position.
IC 5279.
Stewart #776. 22hr 59m 45.633s - 69 28' 54.124" (1950).
23hr 03m 04.285s -69 12' 43.962" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is quite minor in that the ESO does have
the correct object (ESO 77-IG001), however, it identifies it as equal to IC 5279 ?
IC 5281.
POSS. O-1175.
Bigourdan #455. 22hr 59m 36.733s + 26 46' 24.464" (1950).
23hr 02m 01.843s + 27 02' 33.633" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7466 (Stephan List V.) : Stephan recorded the existence of
a nebula at 26hr 59m 37.9s + 26 46' 49".8 and it received the identity NGC 7466.
Bigourdan first examined the field on October 19th 1886 and identified as NGC 7466
a nebula that he offset from a 9th magnitude star he called Anon. (2),. (equal to
GSC 2242-830). He gave this star the coordinates 22hr 59m 31s + 26 40' 04" and
measured offsets to this nebula of + 0 tmin 9.5 tsec RA and +7' 32 " of arc
dec. thus a position for the nebula of 22hr 59m 40s + 26 47' 36" He again on
October 16th 1898 makes an observation of NGC 7466, using the same 9th magnitude
star and measures essentially the same offsets thus obtaining almost the same
coordinates.
The APL gives NGC 7466 at 22hr 59m 38s + 26 47' 01" which is an excellent match.
On November the 19th 1895 Bigourdan again observed the field and recorded the
discovery of a Nova giving it coordinates of 22hr 59m 58s + 26 46' 00". He
arrived at these coordinates by offsetting from an 11th magnitude star he called
ANON. 1.(equal to GSC 2243-1353), whose position he measured from the star BD +26
4549 as being +1 tmin 04 tsec RA and 5 arcmin south, thus giving the star
coordinates of 22hr 59m 51s + 26 39' 04" and from this star he gives separation
values to his Nova of + 7.9 tsec RA and + 6' 56" of arc dec. from which we obtain
the position of IC 5281 to be 22hr 59m 58".9 + 26 46' 00", however, when these
coordinates are applied to the DSS they do not show any nonstellar object in close
proximity.
The problem is that Bigourdan's reference star is not the one listed as GSC 2243-
1353, rather it is another star listed as GSC 2243-1422 = AC #1098457 at 23hr 01m
54.008s +26 55' 37.37" (2000) and when Bigourdan's offsets (+ 0 tmin 7.12 tsec RA,
+ 6 arcmin 55 arcsec Dec.) are applied to this star it results in landing just off
the south preceding end of NGC 7466.
The CGCG and UGC have no identity listing for IC 5281 only giving the single
identity NGC 7466. NGC 2000 lists without Type. MOL lists as (Nonstellar
Object). The APL gives * or merged **. Steinicke has (= NGC 7466) as does the
MCG and PGC. NED gives only the identity NGC 7466. SIMBAD correctly equates it with
NGC 7466.
IC 5289.
Swift List XI, #225. 23hr 08m 13.592s - 32 48' 56.586" (1950).
23hr 10m 56.714s - 32 32' 38.050" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The MCG identifies it only as an "anon." = -5 54-20/21.
Correctly identified in the APL, NGC 2000, (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke, NED,
PGC, SIMBAD and ESO.
IC 5294.
Swift List XI, #226. 23hr 13m 15.630s - 42 52' 03.787" (1950).
23hr 16m 01.534s - 42 35' 40.595" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7552 (h 3977) : Swift should have realized that what he was
seeing was probably NGC 7552 as Dreyer's NGC coordinates place NGC 7552 pretty
close to those given by Swift for his nova.
The MOL states "May not exist." The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, ESO and
PGC correctly give the equivalency.
IC 5299 & IC 5300.
POSS. O-320.
Javelle #1443. 23hr 13m 50.601.172s + 20 35' 02.748" (1950).
23hr 16m 20.019s + 20 51' 25.959" (2000). (IC 5299).
Javelle #1444. 23hr 14m 05.785s + 20 33' 17.728" (1950).
23hr 16m 34.667s + 20 49' 41.155" (2000). (IC 5300).
The only error regarding these two identities is the minor historical one that
does not affect any of the modern data:
In Part 2 of Javelle's catalogue there is a typographical error in that the
reference star DM +20 5293 is incorrectly listed as DM +23 5293.
IC 5302.
Stewart #781. 23hr 15m 32.170s - 64 50' 37.873" (1950).
23hr 18m 32.326s - 64 34' 12.696" (2000).
Not found. Possibly equal to ESO 110-G009 :
There are no nonstellar objects at or close to the nominal position, however, The
NGC 2000 (No Type), APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3 and ESO have selected the
galaxy ESO 110-G009 at 23hr 16m 37s - 64 50'.6 as being IC 5302. which if correct
would require a 1 tmin error on the part of Stewart's RA which of course is quite
possible although not common with Stewart's data.
The MOL gives IC 5302 coordinates based upon Stewart's position.
IC 5303.
POSS. O-834.
Bigourdan #351. 23hr 15m 21.144s - 00 00' 33.800" (1950).
23hr 17m 54.876s + 00 15' 50.869" (2000).
This is a double star : Bigourdan described as being a double star which appeared
to have associated nebulosity, however, at his position the double star exists but
I could not perceive any nebulosity. Listed in the MOL as (NSO). The NGC 2000
gives (D*). The APL (= Double star) and Steinicke (= 2*). NED has "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
IC 5304.
POSS. O-1152.
Swift List XII, #44. 23hr 15m 36.142s - 10 34' 13.627" (1950).
23hr 18m 12.203s - 10 17' 48.786" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : This is probably equal to a galaxy listed in the
MCG as "Anon." -2-59-11 and the APL, NED, SIMBAD, PGC and Steinicke have so
concluded giving it coordinates of 23hr 16m 16s - 10 32' 01"(1950).
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) place this identity at the historical
coordinates.
IC 5305, IC 5306 and IC 5307.
(See IC 1478).
IC 5308.
Swift List XI, #227. 23hr 16m 35.609s - 42 33' 24.845" (1950).
23hr 19m 20.511s - 42 16' 58.897" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7599 (h 3981) : This is an interesting problem.
Swift gives two separate accounts for his discovery. The first in his List XI
(A.N.) in which he describes it as "eeF, S, CE, f of 7599." and the second in
POPULAR ASTRONOMY in which he provides the same coordinates but describes it as
"eeF, S, CE, f of 3, f 7599."
When his coordinates are entered into the DSS they land about 1.7 arcmin directly
south of NGC 7599.
I examined a 35 arcmin field centered upon his given position and there are only 3
galaxies that in my opinion he could have possibly seen at what for him was an
extremely southern declination, these three being NGC 7582 (Mp 11.37), NGC 7590
(Mp 12.11) and NGC 7599 (Mp 12.08).
Although the area is rich in galaxies (NED lists 88 within a 15 arcmin field), all
of these are too faint to have been seen by Swift as the next two brightest
galaxies in the field are MCG -7-47-031 Mp 15.0 and MCG -7-47-032 Mp 15.0.
NGC 7582, NGC 7590 and NGC 7599 do make up a group which would fit a description
such as Swift's "following of 3," the most following being NGC 7599 and therefore
I believe that if Swift actually saw a nebula which he claimed as being a nova
then it would have to be NGC 7599.
The NGC 2000 lists all 3 NGC identities and IC 5308 as separate objects. The MOL
states "Two stars." The ESO has (347-?35, IC 5308, Part of NGC 7599 ?) and the
APL lists the ESO data. NED and SIMBAD have the correct equivalencies.
Steinicke and PGC have (= NGC 7599) and I think this is the correct solution.
IC 5309.
POSS. O-316.
Javelle #1445. 23hr 16m 39.845s + 07 50 13.682" (1950).
23hr 19m 11.899s + 08 06' 39.279" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : In both Part I and 2 of Javelle's catalogue there is a
typographical error in the declination sign which when corrected would read 3.6
arcmin north not south. This has resulted in a declination error of 7.2
arcmin. Dreyer was thus misled as were both the NGC 2000
(No Type) and MOL (NSO). The CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, MCG, UGC, RC3 and
APL have the correct declination.
IC 5311.
POSS. O-320.
Bigourdan #352. 23hr 18m 03.660s + 16 59' 28.424" (1950).
23hr 20m 33.790s + 17 15' 55.100" (2000).
Equal to a single star : Only listings are Carlson (= *, Mt Wilson plate).
Steinicke (= *). APL (=* or D*). NED "There is no object with this name in NED."
SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NGC 2000 and MOL and both type is as being a
star.
NOTE: Bigourdan states that his position for his Nova is only an estimate.
IC 5313.
Swift List XI, #228. 23hr 19m 03.048s - 42 46' 52.811" (1950).
23hr 21m 47.390s - 42 30' 24.959" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7632 (h 3985) : Swift should have been aware that his #228
could have been NGC 7632 as Dreyer's coordinates in the NGC place it at 23hr 19m
20s - 42 54'.3, yet Swift makes no mention of the NGC object.
The MOL has (May not exist). The NGC 2000, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, APL, ESO and PGC
correctly make the equivalency.
IC 5318.
POSS O-1152.
Howe List I, #20. 23hr 21m 31.150s - 12 08' 08.830" (1950).
23hr 24m 07.204s - 11 51' 39.474" (2000).
Probably equal to NGC 7646 (Muller) ?. Again another of the Leander McCormick
group of observers. Muller's position for NGC 7646 is 23hr 21m 07.466s - 12 16'
15,973" (1950) and he describes it as "Neb ? elongated at PA 260, *9 PA 10,
distant 3'.6"
The APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke have each equated IC 5318 with NGC 7646 and as
Muller's NGC positions are generally subject to considerable error the equivalency
is appropriate. IC 5318 does have a 9th mag. star at the correct separation,
however, it would be at a PA of about 345 degrees as opposed to Muller's 10
degrees. SIMBAD lists both identities but does not make them equivalent identities.
Howe describes IC 5318 as "Very faint, very small, follows a 9.5 mag. star 1
tsec." and this is correct
The MCG gives the single identity IC 5318.. The NGC 2000 and MOL give separate
identities without equivalency, however, coordinates that would place both
identities in close proximity.
IC 5320 and IC 5322.
Frost #1234. 23hr 24m 24.510s - 68 01' 30.869" (1950).
23hr 27m 22.706s - 67 44' 59.190" (2000). (IC 5320).
#1235. 23hr 24m 30.439s - 68 01' 30.799" (1950).
23hr 27m 28.565s - 67 44' 59.056" (2000). (IC 5322).
Confirmed galaxies but 1 tmin error in both RA values :
This is a most interesting group having four separate IC identities, two being
credited to Frost (IC 5320 and IC 5322) and two to Stewart.(IC 5323 and IC 5324).
Examination of the field on the DSS shows four relatively bright galaxies (IC
5320, IC 5322, IC 5323 and IC 5324), in close association. For identification
purposes I shall list them alphabetically in order of RA and identify them
according to NED.
(A). 23hr 24m 38.9s - 68 05' 25" Mp15.17 (IC 5323). Credited to Stewart
(B). 23hr 25m 20.2s - 68 05' 49" Mp15.09 (IC 5324). Credited to Stewart.
(C). 23hr 25m 24.3s - 68 02' 10" Mp14.01 (IC 5320). Credited to Frost.
(D). 23hr 25m 33.4s - 68 02' 13". Mp14.06 (IC 5322). Credited to Frost.
The declinations given by Frost for his two discoveries are quite good but there
are 1 tmin errors in his given RA's which misled Dreyer so that according to
Frost's data his two objects would precede Stewart's two, whereas in reality they
follow Stewart's objects.
As can be seen from Frost's coordinates the separation between his two objects
would be 0.2 tmin and NED's IC 5320 and IC 5322 have a RA separation of 9.1 tsec
while the RA separations for IC 5323 and IC 5324 according to Stewart are 0.6 tmin
and NED gives 41 tsec, this then confirms the proper identities for the four
galaxies.
No doubt due to Dreyer being misled by Frost's RA the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL
(NSO) give the incorrect RA values for the identities IC 5320 and IC 5322 based
upon the historical data. The APL, NED, Steinicke, SIMBAD, PGC and ESO have the
correct identities for all four IC galaxies.
IC 5327.
(See IC 1495).
IC 5328.
Swift List XI, #232. 23hr 30m 27.764s - 45 19' 08.861" (1950).
23hr 33m 09.777s - 45 02' 33.634" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : The only reason I have listed this is because of historical
significance.
This is one of a number of Swift's objects whose data he published in more than
one source. The above is based upon his ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN NO. 3517
publication which contains his List XI in which he compiled a majority of his
Southern Nebulae. He also published his observation of this same object in
POPULAR ASTRONOMY (One of his so called Short Lists), which he called List No. 3
and listed it as Object #30, however, he now gives its coordinates as 23hr 29m 42s
- 45 19' 48"
Obviously there is considerable difference here, especially in the RA, however,
the modern coordinates for IC 5328 are 23hr 30m 35s - 45 17'.6 (APL) which
indicate that his Swift's A.N. coordinates are the most accurate of the two
historical publications.
IC 5330.
POSS. O-1147.
Bigourdan #353. 23hr 30m 52.233s - 03 08' 33.222" (1950).
23hr 33m 26.419s - 02 52' 58.062" (2000).
This is equal to a single star : Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
Steinicke has (=*). NED has (Not found). SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL
(=*).
NOTE: Bigourdan's reference star (Anon.1) is equal to GSC2.2 S320011114 at 23hr
33m 38.827s - 02 51' 52.22" (2000).
IC 5333.
Stewart #784. 23hr 32m 10.596s - 65 41' 25.927" (1950).
23hr 35m 01.290s - 65 24' 49.818" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7697 (h 3998) :
There is no doubt that these are equivalent identities, however, it should be
explained how Stewart considered that his #784 was a new discovery.
John Herschel in his CAPE OBSERVATIONS gave the coordinates for NGC 7697 as 23hr
32m 01.7s - 65 40' 46" which as we can see is in excellent agreement with those
given by Stewart for IC 5333, however, Stewart's comparison source for previously
discovered objects would have been Dreyer's NGC and that source places NGC 7697 at
23hr 35m 03s - 65 49'.7, therefore Stewart would not have considered NGC 7697 as
being anywhere in the vicinity of his discovery.
Dreyer later did realize that he had made a positional error for NGC 7697 and he
stated "NGC 7697 minutes of RA should be 26, misprint." This then would correct
the NGC to read 23hr 32m 03s RA, but Dreyer in his correction never did anything
about the declination difference between John Herschel's data and the original NGC
data, thus even with the Dreyer correction in RA there still is a declination
error of about 9.0 arcmin.
The only modern sources I have found that correctly make the equivalency are the
APL, Steinicke and NGC 2000. The MOL lists both identities as separate objects,
placing NGC 7697 at 23hr 35m 23s - 65 50'.0 which have to be based generally upon
the incorrect NGC coordinates. NED, PGC, SIMBAD and ESO each correctly identify IC
5333, however, they then identify as NGC 7697 the 15.13 Mp galaxy ESO 110-G014 at
23hr 32m 20s - 65 51'.8, which not only ignores John Herschel's discovery data for
NGC 7697 but also in my opinion ESO 110-G014 would have been extremely difficult to
have been seen by Herschel employing a 18.25 inch telescope, especially one with a
speculum mirror.
The RNGC places its RNGC 7697 at 23hr 35.3m -65 50'.3 (1950), which again suggests
that they base this on the incorrect NGC data.
IC 5340.
POSS. O-1147.
Bigourdan #354. 23hr 35m 58.150s - 05 07' 54.671" (1950).
23hr 38m 32.486s - 04 51' 17.057" (2000).
Not found : No nebular image found at the nominal position.
Only modern listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). NED "There is no
object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL and
Steinicke (Not found).
IC 5344.
POSS. O-1147.
Bigourdan #355. 23hr 36m 41.518s - 05 14' 38.844" (1950).
23hr 39m 15.848s - 04 58' 00.921" (2000).
Not found : No suitable nebular image at or close to the given position.
Steinicke, SIMBAD, APL and NED identify IC 5344 as "Not found.". Only other
listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 5348.
Swift List XI, #235. 23hr 42m 03.934s - 43 12' 33.306" (1950).
23hr 44m 42.220s - 42 55' 53.156" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7744 (h 4003) : Swift should definitely have realized that
the object he was seeing had to be NGC 7744 as Dreyer had given it coordinates of
23hr 42m 22s - 43 11'.5. Normally when Swift claimed discovery of a nova that
close to a previously discovered object he would mention the fact that both were
in the same field, however, he makes no reference to the NGC object in his
description for IC 5348.
The MOL lists both identities as separate objects. The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke,
NED, SIMBAD, PGC and ESO all correctly make the equivalency.
The IC 5351 Field.
POSS O-1147.
Barnard 23hr 44m 46.975s - 02 35' 01.124" (1950).
23hr 47m 20.899s - 02 18' 20.249" (2000). (IC 5351). (Dreyer).
This is an extremely interesting field to examine containing 5 separate IC
identities all in close proximity.
Barnard published an excellent field sketch in ASTRONOMISCHE NACHRICHTEN #4136,
page 122, under the title "On a group of small nebulae." He gives PA's and
distances to each of the 5 galaxies measured from a 9.5 Mv star which is easily
found in the field and his data clearly establish each of the identities which are
IC 5351, IC 5352, IC 5356, IC 5357, and IC 5359.
Hickson in his two papers, (A.J. #255. 1982 and A.J. Supplement Series #70. 1989
lists all 5 galaxies in his Group 97 and correctly identifies four of the IC
galaxies, however, he does not identify the fifth galaxy Hickson 97e which is IC
5352 even though he gives 97e the correct coordinates and relative position to
where Barnard had placed it in relation to the other 4 galaxies. This omission
was first pointed out in a letter I received from Steve Gottlieb after he had
completed an examination of the Hickson 97 Group and noticed the discrepancy.
The MCG lists all the identities other than IC 5352. The PGC and NED omit the
identity IC 5352, instead identifying it as Hickson 97E. SIMBAD correctly identifies
IC 5351, IC 5356, IC 5357 and IC 5359, but omits the identity IC 5352, giving it as
LEDA 72405, The APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 and MOL have the correct identities.
IC 5358.
Swift List XI, #239. 23hr 44m 56.238s - 28 27' 14.323" (1950).
23hr 47m 32.163s - 28 10' 33.467" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Howe corrected Swift's coordinates to read 23hr 45m 09s - 28
25'.0 The MOL correctly identifies IC 5358 but gives coordinates of 23hr 44m 53s
- 28 24' 43" which have to be based upon those originally given by Swift.
The NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, PGC, RC3 and ESO have the correct
coordinates.
IC 5360.
Swift List XI, #240. 23hr 45m 17.218s - 37 20' 14.217" (1950).
23hr 47m 53.946s - 37 03' 33.208" (2000).
Not found : I searched an area 35 arcmin surrounding the position as given by
Swift and could not find any suitable candidate. Listed in the NGC 2000 (No Type)
and the MOL (NSO) The APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and ESO all list it as a "Not
found" object.
IC 5361.
POSS. O-788.
Bigourdan #356. 23hr 48m 54.523s - 13 39' 35.196" (1950).
23hr 51m 28.966s - 13 22' 53.553" (2000).
This is equal to NGC 7761 (Stone).
Stone's coordinates for NGC 7761 are 23hr 47.1m - 13 40'.0 which explains why
Bigourdan thought that his #356 was a nova.
Stone describes NGC 7761 as having an 8th mag. star preceding about 8 arcmin
(Bigourdan's reference star AC #2603035) and that is what we find when we look at
IC 5361. This coupled with the usual large discrepancies found in Stone's NGC
coordinates strongly suggests that the equivalency is valid.
The MCG not only equates IC 5361 with NGC 7761 but also equates it with NGC 7776
which is incorrect (see IC 1514). The NGC 2000 gives the identity IC 5361 and
lists NGC 7761 and NGC 7776 as nonexistent ? The MOL lists IC 5361 as (NSO), NGC
7761 as (galaxy) and NGC 7776 as (Non existent object). The PGC, APL, NED and
Steinicke correctly equate IC 5361 with NGC 7761. SIMBAD give comparable coordinates
to both identities, but does not equate them in its database.
IC 5362 and IC 5363.
Swift List XI, #241. 23hr 47m 35.832s - 28 38' 13.559" (1950).
23hr 50m 11.353s - 28 21' 32.069" (2000). (IC 5362).
Swift List XII, #45. 23hr 49m 35.534s - 28 54' 43.076" (1950).
23hr 52m 10.756s - 28 38' 01.195" (2000). (IC 5363).
This is a most interesting problem. To begin, Swift published his discovery data
for his #241 in two separate sources, the ASTRON0MISCHE NACHRICHTEN No. 3517 and
in his Short List published in the ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL No. 388.
His coordinates are the same for both sources as is his date of discovery (Sept.
14th 1896) and his descriptions read as follows.
A.N. "eeF, pS, bet 2 B st; 5th of 5."
A.J. "eeF, pS, nrly bet an 8m * nf and a 9m * sp nearer
the former 5th of 5."
At the coordinates he gives no nonstellar object or described stars exist.
Howe at the Chamberlin Observatory in Denver, Colorado published in 1900 (MNRAS
LXI, 1), a large series of his observations made in 1899 and 1900 containing a
number of corrections to previously discovered nebulae. One of these corrections
he gives for what he identifies as being Swift's List XII, #241 (IC 5362).
Howe writes, "I saw nothing in the place given by Swift, but measured one 34
seconds following at nearly the same declination. It precedes a star of mag. 8,
17 seconds, 2'.3 south. This star has a companion of mag. 12 at 70 degrees, 6".
The position of the nebula is 23 hr 46m 26s - 28 55'.2 (1900)."
Now I am somewhat puzzled by part of Howe's description in which he states that
the object he believes is Swift's #241 lies 34 seconds following Swift's given RA
because if we subtract Swift's RA from that given by Howe's RA position
(23hr 49m 02s ) the difference would be 1 tm 26 tsec, not 34 tsec. however, when
we make the subtraction from Swift's RA for his Object # 45, List No. 12, (IC
5363) the result is 34 tsec, therefore it would appear that the identity in Howe's
correction has a typo error as far as identity, having said that, the galaxy at
Howe's coordinates (23hr 49m 02s - 28 38'.5) does have the two bright stars as
described by Swift, therefore I am in agreement with the NGC 2000, MOL, APL,
Steinicke, NED, MCG and ESO that IC 5362 is the galaxy which exists at Howe's
coordinates. Thus the identity IC 5362 is confirmed as an existing object.
Now as for IC 5363. Swift published its discovery in the single source MNRAS LXI,
10, stating that he discovered it on July 24th 1897, or 10 months after
discovering IC 5362, but what is important, between 2 and 3 years before Howe
published his correction for IC 5362.
He described it as "vF, eS, R, 3 st in line p, one D." Again at his given
position no nebular image is found.
I then examined a field of view of 35 arcmin on the DSS centered on Swift's
position and the only galaxy that came up that was bright enough to have been seen
in Swift's telescope was ESO 471-G026, but this is IC 5362 at 23hr 49m 01s - 28
38'.5
Examination of the field around IC 5362 now revealed that it does have 3 stars in
line and one of these stars is a double just as described by Swift, but these 3
stars follow IC 5362 rather than precede as described by Swift, however,
Swift, as indeed all observers both historical and modern, have on occasion mis-
stated the relevant direction of associated objects and I believe that this is
what occurred in Swift's description for IC 5363.
Additionally, it must be remembered that at the time of its discovery Swift would
not have been aware of the correction for his #241 (IC 5362) made by Howe,
therefore he would have no reason to suspect that he was making a duplicate
observation, regardless of his less than accurate coordinates.
My conclusion then is that IC 5362 and IC 5363 are equivalent identities and that
what Swift saw on two nights separated by 10 months was the same object.
I have discussed my findings and conclusion with Dr. H. Corwin and am pleased to
say that he examined my arguments and informed me that he is now in agreement with
them and supports the equivalency.
NED, SIMBAD and ESO type IC 5363 as (Not found). The MCG and PGC give only the
identity IC 5362. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) place IC 5363 at
coordinates consistent with Swift's position. Steinicke has the correct
equivalencies.
IC 5365.
Swift List XI, #241. 23hr 55m 00.044s -37 18' 12.470" (1950)
23hr 57m 34.625s - 37 01' 29.535" (2000).
Not found at nominal position, but may be equal to NGC 7418:
This is the last entry in Swift's List XI and is dated September 25th 1897, his
description being "pB, Cs, eE, 1 star near sf." and it is the only "discovery" given
for that night's observations. There is no suitable nonstellar object anywhere
close to the given position, however, NGC 7418 lies at 22hr 56m 36.1s - 37 01' 48"
(2000) and it is a very large spiral galaxy whose mag. is given in Simbad's data as
B12.0 and V11.39. In order to even consider this a possible candidate it would
require that Swift mis-read the RA hour angle as 23hr instead of 22hr and then the
remaining RA discrepency (~1 tmin) and Dec. discrepency (19 arcsec) would certainly
be well within his normal error of measurement. I am unable to emphatically state
that NGC 7418 is what Swift was describing, however, NGC 7418 is the closest object
to where Swift's coordinates lie that would in anyway match his description and be
of sufficient magnitude to have been visible in his telescope at such a low
declination from Echo mountain.
NED makes it equivalent with ESO 349.G011, at 23hr 57m 11.05s -37 00' 08.0" (2000)
as does SIMBAD, however, its appearance on the DSS suggests that it would have been
extremely dificult to have been seen by Swift from his location and certainly not
bright enough to fit his description, also it has no star near south following. NGC
2000 has (No Type) and at the historical cordinates. MOL (NSO) also at the
historical coordinates, APL (Not found). Steinicke (Not found). PGC makes it
equivalent with ESO 349-11.
NOTE: It is of historical interest that Dreyer in his IC II queries whether the
identity IC 5265 (which see), might be equal to NGC 7418, however, IC 5265 is
actually equal to IC 1459.
IC 5368.
POSS. O-1465.
Barnard. 23hr 56m 43.195s + 06 35' 21.612" (1950).
23hr 59m 16.880s + 06 52' 04.294" (2000). (Dreyer).
This is equal to IC 1523 (Burnham) :
Barnard is very indefinite in his position for this galaxy stating that it lies "3
arcmin preceding or following W (Omega) PISIUM." When the field is examined on
the Palomar print the only nebular image that fits is Burnham's IC 1523 which
Burnham had described as "Very faint, * 4 mag. 3 arcmin following."
Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give these 2 identities as being
separate objects at the Dreyer positions. Steinicke has (= IC 1523). No listing
in the PGC. NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present
in the database." APL correctly list IC 5368, but does not equate it with IC 1523.
IC 5373.
POSS. O-1257.
Javelle #1464. 23hr 57m 55.280s + 32 30' 15.906" (1950).
00hr 00m 28.894s + 32 46' 58.228" (2000).
Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +5-1-19. PGC correctly points out the
MCG error. CGCG, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and APL give correct identity. UGC has no
listing. NGC 2000 gives IC 5372 and IC 5373 the same coordinates, however they
are about 12 tsec of RA apart. MOL (NSO) has correct identity and position.
IC 5383.
POSS. O-1195.
Javelle #1469. 00hr 01m 15.047s + 15 44' 11.584" (1950).
00hr 03m 49.020s + 16 00' 53.918" (2000).
Not found : Only modern listings are Steinicke and APL who have (Not found). NED
"There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database."
NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO).
IC 5384.
POSS. 0-1193.
Howe. 00hr 01m 35.620s - 12 15' 21.770" (1950).
00hr 04m 09.196s - 11 58' 39.325" (2000).
Not found at the nominal position. May be equal to NGC 7813 (Muller) ? : Muller
is one of the McCormick-Leander Observatory group that made a number of NGC and IC
discoveries, however, much of their NGC positional data is far from being precise
and for NGC 7813 Muller gave coordinates of 00hr 00m 40.429s - 12 15' 57.309"
(1950) which suggests an error in RA of ~ 55 tsec. Howe actually identified it as
being NGC 7813 and gave the following lengthy description.
"I do not find anything in the NGC place of this Muller nebula. But 55 secs
following, at nearly the same declination, I found a similar object, elongated,
however, at 160 degrees, while Muller puts the elongation at 80 degrees. He says
"* 8.5 f 38s," while I found such a star preceding 49s. He also says "* 9 np
40s." There are two such stars about 8' north, and a few seconds preceding. The
region may well be examined with a larger telescope."
Howe's description is accurate, however, at Muller's position, although devoid of
any nonstellar object there are two similar stars of the described magnitude, but
it must be pointed out that they are considerably closer in separation distance
than those stated by Muller.
Dreyer himself questioned whether both were the same object and the equivalency is
noted in the MCG, APL, NED, SIMMBAD, PGC and Steinicke.
NOTE: It is very likely that the equivalency is correct, however, due to the
inconsistencies concerning the separation values and relative position angles I am
at this time listing it as Unable to confirm.
IC 5385.
POSS. O-319.
Howe. 00hr 03m 49.634s - 00 21' 17.831" (1950).
00hr 06m 23.384s - 00 04' 35.565" (2000).
Not found at nominal position : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (Not verified).
MOL (NSO) and Steinicke, APL, SIMBAD and NED (Not found).
IC 5386.
POSS. O-1198.
Swift List XI, #1. 00hr 04m 13.577s - 04 02' 29.852"
00hr 06m 47.223s - 03 45' 47.624" (2000).(Swift).
00hr 03m 55.584s - 03 59 41.836" (1950).
00hr 06m 29.238s - 03 42' 59.578" (2000). (Howe).
This is equal to NGC 7832 (H. 190-3) : This is the only object in the vicinity
that fits Swift's description (pB, pS, vE) and the discrepancy in coordinates is
well in keeping with Swift's level of error, however, it is somewhat surprising
that Howe did not associate this object with NGC 7832 as usually he spotted such
equivalencies and the difference between his measurements and those given by
Dreyer for NGC 7832 are only 02 tsecs RA and 2 arcsec Dec.
The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL, Carlson and Steinicke all correctly
make IC 5386 = NGC 7832.
COMPLETES Version dated May 6th 2005.