NGC 1. See NGC 7839. ===== NGC 2. See NGC 7839. ===== NGC 3. See NGC 4. ===== NGC 4. This really is the very faint galaxy about an arcminute south of Marth's position. He was observing with a 48-inch reflector, the second largest telescope in the world at the time, so he really could see very faint galaxies like this. LEDA took NPM1G +07.0004 as NGC 4. This is brighter, yes, but it is nearly 21 arcmin away from Marth's position, and by funny numbers in both RA and Dec (52 seconds of time, and 16.5 arcmin). Also, Marth's relative position from NGC 3 pins this down. He found both on the same night in November of 1864, so the telescope was zeroed the same for both galaxies. Marth's offset from NGC 3 to NGC 4 is just 10 seconds in RA and 5 arcmin in Dec. The offsets from modern positions are 7.6 seconds in RA and 4 arcmin 20 arcsec in Dec. This is well within the errors of Marth's usual accuracy, so the identification is secure. ===== NGC 6 = NGC 20. On the night of 20 September 1885, Lewis Swift found six objects. Four of these (NGC 19, NGC 21, NGC 7831, and NGC 7836; see the notes for these, too) have mean offsets in their positions as published by Swift, from the correct positions, of -1m 10s in RA and -8m 08s in Dec. A fifth found later in the night, NGC 801, has offsets of +19s and +0.9m; Swift clearly "re-zeroed" his telescope in the interim. The sixth object, NGC 6, shares the right ascension offsets of the first four, but its declination is about 45 arcmin too large. It's identity with NGC 20 is secured by Swift's note "... one of 5 sts which point to it is pretty near." The unmistakeable line of five stars stretches about 2 arcmin to the east; Swift's "pretty near" star is about 15 arcsec east of the galaxy. ===== NGC 8 is a double star about 3 arcmin northwest of NGC 9. Both objects were found by Otto Sturve in September 1865, NGC 9 on the 27th, and NGC 8 on the 29th. Struve's relative positions for the two are good, though his absolute positions are -12 sec and -2 arcmin off. His measurement of the 10th mag star about 6 arcmin east-southeast of NGC 9, however, clearly identifies the two objects he saw. ===== NGC 9 is a peculiar spiral with a bright blue knot on its southern arm, found by Otto Struve. Though Struve's position is about 3 arcmin off, his measurement of the star 6 arcmin east of the galaxy insures the identification. See NGC 8 for more. ===== NGC 14. See NGC 7555. ===== NGC 17 = NGC 34. This galaxy is clearly identified by its discovers' (Muller and Swift) descriptions of nearby stars, in particular the double star two arcmin west-northwest. Along with many other of the Leander McCormick nebulae, its approximate position is about 2 minutes of time too far east. Herbert Howe was the first to suggest the identity, again based on the clear descriptions of the double star, which he observed just where Muller and Swift claimed it to be. ===== NGC 18 is a double star 4 arcmin east of NGC 16. It was found by Herman Schultz whose micrometric position, measured on two nights, is within 3 arcsec of the GSC position. Dreyer notes that N18 was not seen by either d'Arrest or by Lord Rosse. ===== NGC 19. As with NGC 6 (which see), NGC 19 is unambiguously identified by Swift's note about the surrounding star field: "... in center of 3 very faint stars forming an equilateral triangle, two of them double." The double stars are northwest and southwest of the galaxy, with the third star being east- southeast. Swift's position for the galaxy also shares the systematic offset of NGC 21, NGC 7831, and NGC 7836 from the true position. Concidentally, Swift's position for NGC 21 (which see) is near NGC 19 which has led some to mistakenly call the latter galaxy NGC 21. ===== NGC 20 is also = NGC 6 (which see). NGC 20's original NGC position is correct. ===== NGC 21 = NGC 29. Though Swift makes no comment about the surrounding star field, the identity of his object with Herschel's is clinched by the offset of his (Swift's) position from the true position: NGC 19, 7831, and 7836 share the same offset (see NGC 6 for more information). The NGC position for NGC 29 is correct. ===== NGC 28 and NGC 31. Found by John Herschel during his stay at Cape Town in the mid-1830's, the identifications of these two galaxies are unequivocal. This has not prevented PGC from equivocating: it claims that the SGC identifications are wrong. Balderdash and bull feathers! Unfortunately, ESO missed the galaxies (and NGC 37 as well), so that N28 is not even in ESO. ESO 149-G020 is NGC 31, and ESO 149-G022 is NGC 37. All this is probably why the PGC folks were misled. The PGC error also crept over into RC3; the galaxy identified there as NGC 28 is actually NGC 31. ===== NGC 29. See NGC 21. ===== NGC 30 is a double star. This was recorded only once by Marth in late 1864 as a "nebulous star 13th magnitude." There are no galaxies within 10 arcmin of Marth's position, but the double star is within an arcmin. On a night of less than perfect seeing, it would probably appear as Marth described it. ===== NGC 31. See NGC 28. ===== NGC 32 is apparently the northeastern of a pair of stars separated by about 30 arcsec. It was found by Julius Schmidt on 10 Oct 1861, probably from Athens (where Schmidt had become director of the observatory 3 years earlier) with a 6.2-inch Ploessl refractor. He made a micrometric measurement of it, and provided a generic description, "A faint nebula." Auwers lists this as the first object in his appendix of nebulae discovered since the Herschels. Schmidt's position is within 3 arcsec of the star, so it is almost certainly the object he saw. ===== NGC 33 is a double star. The comment for NGC 30 fits this perfectly, too. The only difference is Marth's description: "eF, vS; or nebulous star." ===== NGC 34 = NGC 17, which see. ===== NGC 37. See NGC 28. ===== NGC 44 is a double star found by John Herschel. He describes it as "eF, vS; not to be seen but in the clearest night." There is a very faint galaxy 8.4 arcmin south of Herschel's position, but the double is within 15 arcsec and fits his description. ===== NGC 46 is a single star. Included as a nebula in the Markree Catalogue, it was reobserved twice in its catalogued place by Auwers who notes it as "... a completely sharp nebulous star 11th magnitude (9 arcmin north and 1 min 29 sec preceding a star 7.8 mag)." The 7.8 mag star is SAO 109091 which is exactly where Auwers says it is with respect to NGC 46. This positively identifies N46 as the star, as does the Markree position which is within 4 arcsec of the GSC position. ===== NGC 47 = NGC 58, which see. ===== NGC 50. See NGC 58. ===== NGC 54. See NGC 58. ===== NGC 55. See IC 1537. ===== NGC 56 does not exist. John Herschel recorded it only once very early in his observing career (Sweep 14 in 1825), saying, "About this place a considerable space seems affected with nebulosity." There is a possibility that he saw a reflection of the bright star 2 degrees north, but there is no other reasonable explanation for the observation. The other objects that he recorded in Sweep 14 (including M15) are all in the same area of the sky, so there is no gross error in the position. ===== NGC 58 = NGC 47. The brightest (N50) of the three nebulae (N47 and N54 are the others) in this group was found in 1866 by Brother Ferrari at the Vatican Observatory. It is one of only two in his short list, published in a note in AN 1571 by Father Secchi (the Observatory's director), which has a fairly accurate position. See NGC 7667 for more information about Secchi's note. Sometime later, Tempel went over the field and found Ferrari's nebula as well as a second nearby, N47. It seems likely that Tempel actually saw all three galaxies here, though Dreyer credits Tempel with observing only two of them (Wolfgang suggests that this might be one of Dreyer's rare errors). There is, by the way, no record of any of these in any of Tempel's ten published notes. So, he must have "announced" them in a letter to Dreyer. His position for N47 is good. Finally, on 21 October 1886, Lewis Swift saw all three nebulae. Since Secchi's position for the brightest is not exactly on the galaxy, and having no way to know of Tempel's observation, Swift included the three as new in his fifth list. Curiously, Dreyer credits only Secchi for N50, though he lists Swift as having observed the other two. Though Swift calls N58 the "3rd of 3," it is actually west of the other two. Swift's RA is in error by about 1 minute of time. This was noticed first by Herbert Howe who could not find N58, and suggested that Tempel's object, N47, is also the object seen by Swift. This, of course, makes it the "1st of 3," and suggests that Swift added the comments based on the positions in his list, rather than on his actual observations. ===== NGC 59 is one of the nebulae found by Ormond Stone with the 26-inch refractor at the Leander-McCormick Observatory in the mid-1880s. While most of the positions for these first nebulae found at LM are pretty poor, we have in this case (and about 190 others) a sketch to confirm the object in its surrounding star field. In addition, Stone has written the discovery date on the sketch cover sheet: November 10.4 1885. Bob Erdmann was curious about that "10.4": Was that really the date -- and time -- of the discovery? That set me to pondering, and this is what I eventually sent to Bob. The ".4" is indeed 4/10 of a day, or 9h 36m. I do not know if this is UT or local time, though. But I suspose we could work it out: I don't think they observed the thing at 9:36 in the morning, and since L-M is 6hr behind Greenwich, that would make local time at 10.4 UT something like 10.15 or 3:15+-AM local, which sort of makes sense for an observation of an object at RA = 0h 10m, -22d 03m (1890) in November. We can check that: Let's see ... on November 10, N59 crosses the meridian at about 3+ hours before midnight, so its hour angle at 3:15AM local time is about 3h25m which puts it pretty deep into the southwestern sky. Assuming they did not have a right-angle prism on the 26-inch, that would make for pretty comfortable observing, which at that time on a cool, fall night would be important. The LM observers wrote the RA and Dec on the cover sheets, too, providing an additional check on the identities. Finally, they gave us the page number and "book" number, probably an observing or log book, along with the power at which they observed the object. In this case, the power is 250, as it is for most of the observations. Some of the smaller and fainter nebulae, though, were observed at magnifications of up to 500. ===== NGC 61 is the brighter, southern component of a double galaxy found by WH. His description, "irregular figure," suggests that he might have glimpsed the fainter component to the north, too. The MCG position (copied into RNGC) is incorrect, ESGC (in RC3) is correct. ===== NGC 67 is the westernmost and faintest of at least seven nebulae found by LdR in what we now call the NGC 68 group. His fine sketch, published in his 1861 monograph, clearly shows that the object that most of us have been calling NGC 67A is, in fact, the object LdR sketched as one of the nebulae. The object we've been calling NGC 67 is shown on LdR's sketch as a star. So, I've reassigned NGC 67 to the correct galaxy to properly reflect the history. The other NGC objects in the group (N68, 69, 70, 71, 72, and 74) are brighter and have been correctly identified in the major catalogues. ===== NGC 68 is the brightest galaxy in a compact group. WH listed one of his fifth class ("large") nebulae here, so I think it likely that he saw the merged light of at least NGC 68, 70, and 71, the three brightest in the group. Several of the stars in the vicinity probably also added to the "object" that WH catalogued. LdR picked out seven of the nebulae here, and suspected at least two others. His sketch shows the seven, along with several stars, two of which turn out to be galaxies. See NGC 67, IC 1538, and IC 1539 for more on this group. ===== NGC 69. See NGC 67. ===== NGC 70 = IC 1539, which see. Also see NGC 67 and 68. ===== NGC 71. See NGC 67 and NGC 68. ===== NGC 72. See NGC 67. ===== NGC 74. See NGC 67. ===== NGC 78. This is usually taken as the northeastern of a close pair of galaxies, because that galaxy is brighter and has a higher surface brightness. However, I'd like to be sure that this is the case as the differences between the two galaxies are not large. I am hoping that Pechule's discovery paper will tell us which of the two nebulae he found, but am not hopeful -- nebulae were definitely not Pechule's main interest (see e.g. NGC 4239). In any event, we have not yet tracked down Pechule's paper (and Dreyer does not give us any more reference than Pechule's name), but it must have appeared between 1864 and 1879, the publication dates for the GC and the GC Supplement. The object is listed only in the Supplement. (Wolfgang is looking for the paper, too; November 2005). ===== NGC 81. Even though Bigourdan mistook the star northwest of the galaxy as NGC 81, Copeland's offsets from NGC 83 are very good and point unambiguously at the galaxy as the correct object. ===== NGC 82. Bigourdan's offsets just as unambiguously point to a star in this case as in his mistaken observation of a star for NGC 81. ===== NGC 83. See NGC 81. ===== NGC 84. As with Bigourdan's measurements of NGC 81 and 82, this, too, is a star, nailed exactly by those measurements. ===== NGC 85. I admit to caving in to the inevitable on this one. There is no problem with the NGC identification -- Copeland's offsets from NGC 83 are accurate, and just as accurately pin down the galaxy he measured. Similarly, Javelle's offsets from SAO 073902 are good and pin down IC 1546. The "A" and "B" suffixes for NGC 85 come from MCG, and confuse the simplicity of the history. I was tempted to ignore the suffixes altogether, but they have already been copied into the literature. So, I have to note that "N85B" is the same as IC 1546. ===== NGC 90, 91, and NGC 93. Dreyer has confused the observations of these objects. Lord Rosse's observations make it clear that he and his assistants saw only two nebulous objects here, so one of the "Ld R"'s has to be striken from the "Other Observers" column of the NGC. The offsets make it clear that the Irish observers saw what we now call NGC 90 and NGC 93. What do the observations of Schultz and d'Arrest have to say? Schultz's positions for all three objects -- not just one as the NGC credits -- precessed from the published equinox of 1865.0, agree to within two or three arcsec in all three cases with modern data from GSC. These pin down the three objects and show that NGC 91 is a star (Bigourdan also called the same star NGC 91 in his Observations). D'Arrest's positions are not quite as good, but fall within 20 arcsec of the galaxies. His descriptions of the locations and magnitudes of the nearby stars are also good, and confirm the identifications. So, NGC 90 should be credited to Lord Rosse, Schultz, and d'Arrest (rather than just Lord Rosse and Schultz), NGC 91 to Schultz alone (Lord Rosse and d'Arrest never commented on this star), and NGC 93 again to all three observers. To the description for NGC 90 should be added "* 13 sp." There are several other identification problems in the NGC 80/83 Group, too. See NGC 81, 82, and 84, as well as IC 1547. ===== NGC 91. See NGC 90. ===== NGC 93. See NGC 90. ===== NGC 110. Is this a true cluster, or just a part of the northern Milky Way that is randomly richer? JH found the grouping in late October 1831, and described it as "A very loose, pretty rich cluster; stars 9th to 12th magnitude; 9th magnitude star in the middle taken." Assuming that JH's position is correctly reduced and printed, the 9th magnitude star is GSC 4303-1643 at 00 24 29.38, +71 06 51.1 (I've adopted this position -- rounded off -- as the position of the cluster). Looking at the object on the POSS1 does not show much beyond a group of 50-60 stars scattered over an area about 20 arcmin across. Had this not been included in the Alter-Ruprecht catalogue, I suspect that it would have been one of the RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. There is the possibility of a mistake in JH's single position, but I don't see any other grouping in the area that would fit his description as well. I think this is a candidate for visual observation. Note added in October 2003. Bob Erdmann and I examined the cluster a couple of weeks ago under good skies in Prescott, AZ with 8-inch and 16-inch telescopes. JH's description from the eyepiece is more appropriate than mine from the POSS. The "cluster" is just a bit more than a random scattering of 15-20 stars from the 9th to the 12th magnitudes in an area about 20 arcmin across. It doesn't stand out very well from the field, but we can still see why JH recorded it. ===== NGC 111. I cannot see anything within 5 degrees of Leavenworth's position that agrees with his description of a "vF, vS, R, lbM; * 8.5 p 36 sec, n 2 arcmin. RA doubtful." There is a very faint, peculiar pair of galaxies (MCG -01-02-013) at the approximate offsets he gives -- but the star is 10th or 11th magnitude, and his description of the galaxy does not match the relatively low surface brightness twisted streamers that contribute most of the light of the pair. There is no sketch included in Stone's papers at the University of Virginia. The galaxy may not be irretrieveably lost, however. Since the declinations in the first two Leander McCormick lists are generally (though not always!) reliable to within a couple of arcminutes, it may be possible to scan around the sky at Leavenworth's declination to find the object (see e.g. NGC 331). I haven't tried yet, however. ===== NGC 116 is the last of fourteen new nebulae found by Brother Ferrari at the College Romain during the winter of 1865-1866. They were announced by Father Secchi, and Dreyer incorrectly credits him with their discovery. See NGC 7667 for more information about Father Secchi, Brother Ferrari, and their nebulae. This particular nebula is unusual in the list in having a candidate galaxy nearby (about 15 arcmin north of the nominal position), MCG -01-02-017. There is another galaxy about eight arcmin southeast (MCG -01-02-018), closer to the nominal position, but fainter. Most of us take the brighter, northwestern galaxy, but given the poor position, even that is unsure. ===== NGC 120 is correctly described as being about 10 arcmin north of the comparison star in Tempel's original paper. However, as noted first by Bigourdan, the NGC position is about 5 arcmin off. This is apparently one of the positions that Tempel sent to Dreyer as a private communication since only the description is published. See NGC 122 and NGC 123 for a bit more. ===== NGC 122 and NGC 123 are probably stars. Tempel published only the sparce descriptions; the NGC positions are apparently among those that he sent directly to Dreyer. There is certainly nothing at these positions except a faint star in the case of NGC 122 (which Bigourdan measured). Ironically, I think that this star may be the northeast of Tempel's "nebulae," so that it would be NGC 123 and not NGC 122. NGC 122 may be the equally faint star about an arcminute southwest of Bigourdan's star. See NGC 123 for more. ===== NGC 123 is probably one of two 15th magnitude stars, both in GSC, near Tempel's positions (see NGC 122 for more on this) in roughly the correct relative positions. Since there are no nebulae anywhere in the area, I've tentatively identified these two stars with the objects he described. A brighter galaxy, NGC 120 (which see) is further on to the northwest, again in the correct relative position which Tempel described in his paper. Bigourdan measured this star, but gave it the number NGC 122; there is nothing at all at his one measured place for NGC 123. ===== NGC 135 = IC 26. There is no doubt about the identity of IC 26 -- Javelle's position agrees to within 2 arcsec of that measured on the DSS. The problem comes from Leavenworth's position for NGC 135. Like many of the positions in the two lists of new nebulae from Leander McCormick Observatory, that one is over a minute of time off in RA, though much closer in declination (less than 2 arcmin off). Herbert Howe went after the object around the turn of the century (19th to 20th) and said simply, "The position is 00h 26m 43s, -13d 53.3m [1900.0]." This agrees exactly with the position for IC 26. Leavenworth has left us a sketch that verifies Howe's object, so the identity is secure. It's interesting to note, too, that the cover sheet for the sketch has the RA given to a tenth of a minute (00h 24.8m), while the RA in the published paper is rounded off to 00h 25m. I won't even speculate on why this was done. ===== NGC 151 = NGC 153, which see. ===== NGC 153 = NGC 151. Swift found four nebulae on the night of 9 August 1886 (N163, N217, and N7774 as well as N153) -- all have RA's in his list that are 10 - 15 seconds of time too large, though his declinations are pretty good. As it happens, all but N7774 had been previously seen. Dreyer caught the identities for two of the nebulae (N163 and N217), but not for N153. So, the galaxy now has two NGC numbers. N153 is sometimes taken to be the star just northeast of the galaxy. But this can't be because Swift mentions that star in his description of the galaxy. ===== NGC 156 is probably the northern of the pair of stars, northwest of NGC 157, that Wolfgang and I have pointed to in the past. Tempel has mistaken several other single stars near galaxies as nebulous (see e.g. NGC 4315, NGC 4322, NGC 4768/9), and this is probably another. We can't tell for sure, though, as he has not measured this micrometrically, and his description is scanty: "Very small". The NGC tells us all that Tempel did in his brief note. ===== NGC 157. See NGC 7667 where this galaxy -- N157 -- figures in the Father Secchi mysteries. ===== NGC 158. Though this is 4 arcmin from the NGC position, this close double star is probably Tempel's object. It is northeast of NGC 157, and could probably be seen on a night of less-than-perfect seeing as nebulous. I'm a bit more confident of this one than I am of NGC 156, which see. ===== NGC 160 is not NGC 162, which see. ===== NGC 162 is a star about 75 arcsec northeast of NGC 160. It was initially found and measured by Schultz at Uppsala (he calls it "G.C. 80" in his tables and notes), though Lord Rosse also noted it at least twice. In addition, the star was thought to be nebulous on Heidelberg and Lick plates, though the Mt. Wilson astronomers -- not finding a nebula at the place -- hypothesized that N162 = N160. The small galaxy 2.7 arcminutes southeast of N160 has also been mistaken for NGC 162, once by yrs trly. Live and learn. Also see Dreyer's NGC note for N160. He had this all figured out in 1888. ===== NGC 163. See NGC 153. ===== NGC 171 = NGC 175. Dreyer (1912, WH's collected papers) tells us that CH made a 1 degree error while reducing the position of III 223. There is certainly nothing in the place given in NGC, though the identity with III 223 carries two question marks. Auwers has the correct declination in his published reduction of WH's observations. The spare number comes from GC. Unfortunately, JH has no note there telling us why he put the number in. However, in CGH, he notes the 1 degree difference in the polar distances between III 223 and h2334 (N175) while again putting a question mark on the number from his father's catalogue. Enough doubt apparently remained in his mind about the identity that he put two entries into GC, both of which Dreyer copied into the NGC. Dreyer checked back into WH's manuscripts while working on the Collected Papers, and found CH's error. ===== NGC 175 = NGC 171, which see. ===== NGC 178 = IC 39. The IC identity is not in doubt. Javelle's micrometric measurement reduces to within a few arcsec of the modern position. The NGC number, though, comes from one of Ormond Stone's Leander McCormick discoveries with its typically bad RA. Stone's declination is fortunately close, and his description "F, S, mE 0 deg, bM, faint wing sp" fits the galaxy perfectly. The "faint wing" is, in fact, one of the arms of this object. I wonder if this is a superposition of two galaxies, or an interacting system. Stone has left a sketch of his nebula -- my rather poor copy of it shows the "wing" faintly. Unfortunately, the sketch shows only the galaxy; no nearby stars are included, so the identity is not quite pinned down. At least the galaxy itself is oriented along the north-south axis of the sketch with the "wing" apparently stretching off towards the southwest. Herbert Howe found the galaxy 1min 37sec following Stone's position, so the corrected position made it into the IC2 Notes. Unfortunately, Dreyer did not notice that the object is the same as IC 39, so the identity of the two numbers was not published until one of the Helwan observers noticed it. ===== NGC 203 = NGC 211, which see. ===== NGC 211 = NGC 203. Stephan misidentified his comparison star as BD +2 92; his star is actually GSC 0014-1250, not in BD. Within his mean errors, Stephan's offsets, applied to the correct star, point exactly to NGC 203. This was later picked up by Copeland with LdR's 72-inch, and was correctly positioned by him. A star that I had earlier pegged as the possible object that Stephan saw is about 0.5 arcmin south-southeast of Stephan's incorrect position used in NGC. Though I've not reduced Bigourdan's two measurements of "NGC 211," I suspect they refer to this same star. ===== NGC 213. See IC 1572. ===== NGC 217. See NGC 153. ===== NGC 219. See IC 44. ===== NGC 223 = IC 44, which see. ===== NGC 241 is probably identical with NGC 242. There is no doubt as to the identity of NGC 242 -- it is a compact double cluster in the SMC at the NGC position, faithfully copied from GC and CGH. However, the identity of NGC 241 is not as clear. The NGC puts it within an arcminute northwest of NGC 242 which suggests it might be identical to it -- or, just possibly, one of the two clusters making up the identified object (as e.g. ESO has it). However, Brent points out in "Star Clusters" that JH's NPD for NGC 241 in CGH is 10 arcmin larger than (hence southwards of) the NGC position. He also seems convinced that the large, scattered group of stars there is JH's object. (See Brent's note for more on his interpretation of the field.) I don't think that this is correct. JH calls NGC 241 "A vF, R nebula or group." He adds, in parentheses, "(We are now fairly in the Nubecula Minor, and the field begins to be full of a faint perfectly irresolvable nebulous light)," and makes the position 00 37 05.1, 164 31 32 for 1830. This is not a description of a scattered cluster, but of a small nebula, perhaps involving others nearby. In addition, JH has only one observation of NGC 241 in Sweep 482, while he has three observations of NGC 242 in Sweeps 441, 625, and 738. Why did he apparently not record NGC 242 in Sweep 482? Even if the NPD of NGC 241 is wrong, the description makes it sound like a fourth observation of NGC 242. Here are JH's notes from the three sweeps, followed by his 1830 positions: Sweep 441: "pL; vF; R; vgbM; (in a sweep below the pole and ill seen) the RA is probably also in error." 00 37 13.7:, 164 21 50. Sweep 625: "A binuclear nebula, or two, vS, R, running together." 00 37 07.2, 164 22 22. Sweep 738: "A small irresolvable knot in the bright part of Nubec. Min." 00 37 09.9, 164 22 18. All of these, including the observation leading to NGC 241, sound to me like different descriptions of the same object, seen under slightly different observing conditions. The positions, aside from the RA noted as poor, and the NPD error (if it is indeed one), are accordant to within JH's usual observational error. So, I suggest again that the objects are identical, and the separate entries in GC (and NGC, of course), may reflect JH's belief that the one observation of NGC 241 may in fact refer to one of the two "nebulae" making up NGC 242. At the same time, he corrected the NPD by 10 arcmin to place the object near its companion. (See NGC 1649 = NGC 1652 for another very similar case.) A stretch? Sure. But so, in my opinion, is Brent's hypothesis. Unfortunately, we have to leave this case here, unresolved. JH has no note in GC about the two objects, so we do not know if he deliberately changed the NPD of NGC 241, or if that was -- as Brent has argued -- a transcription error from CGH. I've put queries on the entries for NGC 241 to reflect all this. ===== NGC 242 is probably also NGC 241, which see. ===== NGC 250. Swift's position is over 4 arcmin to the east of the galaxy. But his description of the galaxy, "eF, vS, R; in center of 3 sts in form of a right triangle" is exact and points us to the correct object. ===== NGC 252, NGC 258, and NGC 260. Lord Rosse described this field differently on different nights. On 22 Dec 1848, the three objects appeared to be in a line; on 23 Oct 1856, they formed a triangle. He has two sketches, one showing the line, the second the triangle. Since the second has no field stars shown, it's difficult to determine the orientation. My guess, however, is that the third "nebula" shown there is a faint star about 2 arcmin south of the NGC position of N258. On the sky, the three objects are in a line. This is the orientation that Dreyer adopted, and the NGC positions are relatively accurate. ===== NGC 258. See NGC 252. ===== NGC 260. See NGC 252. ===== NGC 276 = IC 1591. There is no doubt about which galaxy the IC number belongs to -- Stewart has it well-placed and perfectly described from a Harvard plate. N276, however, is one of the Leander-McCormick nebulae first found by Muller, and published with a very poor position. Muller's description, however, is as detailed and as accurate as Stewart's. Herbert Howe found the galaxy 1 minute 13 seconds following Muller's position with the bright star north-northeast just as Muller had it. Unfortunately, Dreyer did not catch the connection to IC 1591 when he wrote the IC2 note, so the object now has two numbers. ===== NGC 281 = IC 11, which see. Also see IC 1590. ===== NGC 295 is lost. This object was found by Copeland with LdR's 72-inch reflector while he was examining what he thought was NGC 296. His description of the field is precise: "[NGC 296] F, R, *10m (yellow) Pos 29.6 deg, Dist 123.1 arcsec. Nova [NGC 295], S, R, and with a * or another neb 10 arcsec n. Pos from [296] 242.0 deg, Dist 314.6 arcsec or 21.6 seconds p, 147.6 arcsec s." Unfortunately, this configuration of objects is nowhere to be found near NGC 296 (which see for more). I've searched the POSS1 +30 deg 00h 52m field, but could find no galaxies with neighboring stars as Copeland describes. Perhaps a search of the adjacent fields would turn up something. ===== NGC 296. WH's position is about 20 seconds too large and an arcmin too far north. That alone would not have caused people to miss the identification with the brightest galaxy in a group of five. What caused the problem was NGC 295 (which see). Copeland misidentified the field with N296, found a second object near it, and Dreyer put that into NGC as N295. Unfortunately, with WH's position being off, the nominal position of N295 is very close to the actual position for N296. Hence, the confusion. The description in NGC is an "average" of WH's and Copeland's for the galaxy he thought was N296. WH's original description "F, E, preceding a B star", is closer, but the GC description (apparently taken from one of his father's observing logs by JH) is even better: "F, E, a B* f, vnr." Just about everyone has the wrong identification for this, but the correct one is not in doubt. Malcolm found this one, too. Good catch! ===== NGC 297 is an extremely faint companion to NGC 298. Both were found by Albert Marth with Lassell's 48-inch reflector during one of their Malta stays. When I first went over the field for ESGC, I found it hard to believe that such a faint galaxy could be seen visually. However, more experience in looking at some of the other objects Marth found has convinced me that he could indeed have picked this one up, especially since the brighter galaxy would have already caught his attention. In earlier versions of the position table, I suggested that N297 might be the double star at 00 52 29.6, -07 37 50 (B1950; HCo), but that is unlikely as the relative position of the two galaxies as given by Marth is very good. The double is almost straight south of N298, putting it about an arcmin off Marth's relative offset from N298. ===== NGC 298. See NGC 297. ===== NGC 301. See NGC 302. ===== NGC 302 is a probably the star 1.8 arcmin east-northeast of NGC 301. The pair was found by Frank Muller, and has a typically poor RA in the first list of nebulae from Leander McCormick. The declinations, though, seem to be close. Though there is no sketch, the objects can be tentatively identified by Muller's comment "* 8 p 30 seconds" in the description of NGC 301. There are, in fact, two stars of about 8th magnitude roughly 30 seconds preceding the galaxy. The northern star is slightly closer than 30 seconds, the southern is slightly further. It's possible that neither is the correct star, but this is the only configuration in the area that fits Muller's note. In any event, there is no object at his given offset from the galaxy (his note reads "Neb? f ([No.] 18 [in the first list = N301]), P 75 deg, dist 1.0 [arcmin]." The actual distance is 1.8 arcmin, though the position angle is about right. Unfortunately, 20th century versions of my position lists pointed to the wrong object as N302 (the faint star or compact galaxy 0.3 southeast of N301). The first 21st century version finally got the right star -- assuming, of course, that it is the object Muller saw. ===== NGC 305 is a small asterism of six or eight stars at JH's discovery position; his description, "A small cluster of p closely scattered stars" confirms the identification. RNGC incorrectly placed the NGC number on a nearby CGCG galaxy. Unfortunately, PGC followed RNGC, so this number crept into RC3 as well. Sigh. The position depends a bit on exactly which stars are taken as members of the asterism. Tom DeMary includes a few more than caught my eye at first, so his position is about an arcminute different. But the identification as an asterism is not in doubt. ===== NGC 307. See NGC 308. ===== NGC 308 and NGC 310 are both stars. [All this is from a letter to Malcolm Thomson; it's all a bit wordy, but I've saved it like this since it has a few details in it about my pre-DSS working methods.] Since Lord Rosse measured the positions of NGC 308 and 310 in relation to NGC 307, I decided to do the same. Using a comparator with a millimeter scale and an "angle fan" scale, I measured the distances and position angles of objects surrounding NGC 307 on the Palomar Sky Survey print. Since the scale of the paper prints is different in the x and y directions by about 0.9%, the measurements are liable to be a bit off from what would be measured on a glass plate. Estimating the center of NGC 307 was also a problem, and the resulting errors probably swamped the print scale problem. Nevertheless, the measurements are adequate to unambiguously identify the objects in question. So, here is a table of the objects identified and measured by Lord Rosse and myself. I've also included [Malcolm Thomson's] measurement of the galaxy that the RNGC calls NGC 310. Object Observer PA Dist Date Notes (deg) (arcsec) GC 5126 Ld. R. 147 60 31 Dec 1866 Measure obviously approximate = N308 Ld. R. 149.7 52 23 Oct 1876 Mean of two measures = star HC 150+- 52 14 Jul 1989 PA approx GC 5128 Ld. R. 81 225 31 Dec 1866 "Another neb. susp. near." = N310 Ld. R. 84.8 239 23 Oct 1876 One measure only = star HC 84 231 14 Jul 1989 --- HC -- --- 25 Oct 1983 "Both novae are stars." eF nova Ld. R. ssf 3-4 min 8 Nov 1866 Estimated position Stars HC (same) (same) 14 Jul 1989 "Only stars here" Star Ld. R. 199 225 31 Dec 1866 Ld. R. 201.6 240.1 23 Oct 1876 "* 11m. sp [GC] 172" HC 201 235 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Star Ld. R. 0+- 3.25min 23 Oct 1876 "* 11.12m, 3.25min exactly north of [GC] 172." HC 357 170 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Gal B HC 91 303 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch MT 90+- 4min Jun 1989? Gal C HC 215 185 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch Gal "D" HC 338 92 14 Jul 1989 On [Thomson's] sketch, unlabeled That's all the observations there are, aside from the modern work on NGC 307 (photometry, spectroscopy, etc.). Dreyer's NGC positions (and the offsets from NGC 307) are derived from Lord Rosse's measurements, so don't give us any new data. As you can see, my measurements agree (within the errors, a few arc seconds, and about 2 deg in PA) exactly with Lord Rosse's, and pinpoint the two stars as the "nebulae" that he found. Adding to my conviction that this must be correct is the fact that the galaxies C and D are approximately the same brightness as B, yet Lord Rosse mentions neither, in spite of the fact that he noticed the star further to the north of D and NGC 307. I also suspect that [Thomson] is correct that the "...2st., 13.14 m. sf" Lord Rosse's "...similar object, more stellar" seen during the 1876 observation are probably the two that [Thomson] mentioned, but that he (LdR) again missed the real nebula (B). There is a faint possibility that Lord Rosse actually saw the nucleus of B and just one of the sf stars, but this would need confirmation. I think he also may have glimpsed the faint star very close sff NGC 307 on 8 Nov 1866: "...on the p side is either a * close or some other appearance different to the f. side." However, since there is no star on the western side that I can see on the print, it is only the "some other appearance to the f. side" that offers evidence of this, so I wouldn't want to push this. In sum, I have no choice but to stand by my original conclusion that both NGC 308 and 310 are stars mistaken for nebulae. The agreement in the distances and position angles from NGC 307 allows no other conclusion. ===== NGC 310. See NGC 308. ===== NGC 311. See NGC 313. ===== NGC 313 is a triple star (the third star is very close to the northern of the brighter two) about an arcminute north west of NGC 315. Lord Rosse observed the group (NGC 311 and NGC 318 are the other two bona fide galaxies in it) on six different nights, and saw the triple as nebulous on all but one night when he noted it as a double star (his sketch was apparently made on that night as it shows N313 as a double star). His micrometric offsets from N315 on three nights point exactly to the triple. The southern star is just bright enough that it was picked up in GSC. The position I've adopted is midway between this and the image of the northern two stars. ===== NGC 315. See NGC 313, NGC 316, and NGC 318. ===== NGC 316 is a single star 45 arcsec east of NGC 315. Lord Rosse has four micrometric measurements of it, all referred to N315, so there is no confusion as to which object he was looking at. ===== NGC 318. Even though Lord Rosse saw this on just one of the six nights on which he observed the group around NGC 315, it is nevertheless correctly placed in his diagram, and is correctly described by him. The NGC position is pretty good. ===== NGC 321. The mess with this number is partly my fault. While working on RC2, I noticed that there is nothing at the (incorrect) RC1 position of "A0055." However, MCG -01-03-041 is just one degree south and 0.1 minute east of the RC1 position. I immediately jumped at this, and followed MCG in misidentifying the galaxy as N321. Early versions of ESGC perpetuate the error. However, the real NGC 321 is actually MCG -01-03-043 (which MCG calls N325, but that is MCG -01-03-45; are we confused yet?!). It was found by Marth in August or September of 1864, and is the first -- and faintest -- of four. The others are NGC 325 = MCG -01-03-045, N327 = MCG -01-03-047, and N329 = MCG -01-03-048. Marth's positions are very good, and his brief descriptions are appropriate. Even so, MCG managed to misidentify the first two of the four. By the way: the galaxy called "A0055" in RC1 is MCG -01-03-041 (I got the correct object, but put the wrong name on it). This object is the parent galaxy of SN 1939D, discovered by Zwicky (see Harvard Announcement Card #518), and included in his sample in ApJ 96, 28, 1942. He gives a relatively coarse position (00h 54m, -05d 20m; labeled "1938.0" in the ApJ paper, but "1939.0" in the HAC) which is nevertheless good enough to pinpoint MCG -01-03-041 as the correct galaxy. He notes the type as "Sb" in ApJ; he classified it on the 18-inch Schmidt film on which the supernova was found. ESGC calls it "SB(r)c pec" from a glass copy of the 48-inch POSS1 plate, in pretty good agreement. Zwicky also says in the HAC, "The spiral in which [the supernova] appears belongs to a small group of nebulae including N321, N325, N327, [and] N329 at the estimated distance of 7 million parsecs." Thus, the galaxy cannot be N321, so we can take his position as correct and pointing at MCG -01-03-041. (MCG -01-03-042 = Mark 966 is 4.0 arcmin on to the northeast, and is compact and overexposed on the POSS1, showing little trace of spiral structure; it would have been nearly stellar on the 18-inch films.) ===== NGC 324. John Herschel's observation reads: "F; S; Stellar; the bad definition of a south-easter prevents certainty, but I think it is not a star." His position (precessed to 1950.0): 00 54 55 -40 43.2. There is nothing here, but just 30 arcmin south at 00 54 56 -41 13.8 is a galaxy that agrees with Herschel's description, and was taken by ESO and RC3 as N324. I1609 (chosen by RNGC) at 00 57 28 -40 36.1 is also a possibility, but there is no easy digit error in the position that could account for Herschel's position. Therefore, I'm pretty sure that there is simply a 30 arcmin error in Herschel's position. ===== NGC 325 is MCG -01-03-045, not MCG -01-03-043. See NGC 321 for more. ===== NGC 327. See NGC 321. ===== NGC 329. See NGC 321. ===== NGC 331 may be MCG -01-03-012 which is 11m 30s west of the very rough position given by Leavenworth, who notes the RA as "doubtful." If we make a -10 minute correction to the RA, that places Leavenworth's nebula 1m 30s east of the MCG object. This is within the errors of being at the +2 minute systematic offset that many of the Leander McCormick nebulae show in their RAs. The declinations are usually within an arcminute, and there is a star (somewhat fainter than Leavenworth's rough estimate of 12th mag) three arcmin northeast of the galaxy. Since there is no other reasonable candidate object in the area, I've tentatively adopted the identification. There is apparently no extant sketch. Another suggested identification for N331 is MCG -01-03-039. But this has a very bright star just 5 arcmin west-northwest. Leavenworth would almost certainly have mentioned this, but does not. So, I think that is a less likely candidate than MCG -01-03-012, even though it is closer to the nominal position. ===== NGC 333. See IC 1604. ===== NGC 336 is not, as I supposed earlier, a double star. Thanks to the efforts of Doug Wereb, Bob Bunge, and Brent Archinal, I have a notebook full of copies of the discovery sketches of about a third of the nebulae found at Leander McCormick. These are apparently all the sketches that still exist, and may be all there ever were. In any event, NGC 336 is included among these sketches. It is shown as a small, faint, circular nebula in a field including 3 stars. Fairly close to the (very inaccurate) L-M position is ESO 541-IG002, a faint, peculiar galaxy, perhaps a colliding pair, with the three stars shown in the correct relative positions. The objects suggested as NGC 336 by ESO and RNGC do not have stars nearby matching those in the sketch. Thus, they cannot be NGC 336. ===== NGC 339 is a globular (or rich open) cluster in the SMC. Its core is a bit eccentric, being displaced about 10 arcsec to the northwest from the center of the outer isophotes. Thus, the positions do not agree as well as might be expected from the cluster's relatively small apparent size. This is a feature shared by many clusters, nebulae, and galaxies. In general, the positions I've adopted for the NGC and IC objects are meant to be representative of the object as seen by the discoverer. Where the "feature" becomes a problem, I've explicitely named the part of the object to which the position applies. Thus, N339 has positions for its "core" as well as the "entire cluster." Finally, I have classified the SMC and LMC clusters purely on morphological grounds. Thus, N339 is a "globular" cluster because of its richness, compactness, and relative symmetry. An H-R diagram might tell a different story. Folks interested in the astrophysics of these things will do well to consult the literature to be sure about the classification of any given object. ===== NGC 343 and NGC 344 are a pair of faint galaxies superimposed on the western outskirts of a poor cluster of galaxies. Muller's position is about 4 minutes of time too far west -- the same direction, though about twice as far, as many other Leander McCormick objects are from their true positions -- but his declination is good, and his descriptions are appropriate. The galaxy and star taken as this pair in ESO are too far apart to match Muller's relative positions, the star is too bright, and the galaxy has too low a surface brightness and too faint a nucleus to warrant Muller's notation "sbMN." RNGC also incorrectly picked this galaxy as NGC 344, and ESO may have been following their lead. ===== NGC 344. See NGC 343. ===== NGC 347. This is one of a group of six nebulae found by Albert Marth. There are other fainter nebulae in the area, but Marth has picked out the six brightest. In particular, RNGC got a somewhat larger, but fainter, galaxy about 4 arcmin to the south. This is a spiral with low surface brightness arms, but with a bright nucleus. It is not large enough to have made it into ESGC. I would guess that only the nucleus would be visible at the eyepiece, and the proximity to the 7th magnitude SAO 129088 would make it even harder to spot. The real NGC 347, which I picked up for ESGC, looks like a pair of interacting ellipticals close to Marth's position (however, it could well be simply a peculiar S0 with a dust lane, so I've retained just the single entry in ESGC). The total magnitude is about the same as the RNGC object, but since this has a much higher average surface brightness, it is more likely to be seen visually. A couple of additional comments: Marth's positions are so good here actually surprised me a bit. His positions have not impressed me in other areas of the sky (e.g. NGC 1474 and the other galaxies found that same night -- five out of the ten are more than 5 arcmin off the true positions). But in this area, the positions do seem to be pretty good, so I followed them for the identifications. Bigourdan's observation of NGC 347 may also be relevant. He observed it only once (on 21 Nov 1889), but did not measure its position. His description points clearly to the correct object, however: "I suspect an exceedingly faint object which could be nebulous, and which is situated toward [PA =] 3 deg , d = 4 arcmin, with respect to BD -7 159." This is just where Marth's position places NGC 347, another indication that this really is the object which Marth saw. ===== NGC 370. Is this NGC 372 (which see)? D'Arrest's description reads (translated from the Latin by me using a Latin-English dictionary -- keep in mind that I can't even read my own PhD diploma!), "Faint and diffuse, nucleus not condensed, * 13mag 15 arcsec s." There is nothing at his position (accurately transcribed into the NGC), but just 9 seconds of time east, and about 1 arcmin north is NGC 372 (which see), a triple star. On a night of bad seeing, I suspect that N372 might indeed match d'Arrest's description, though the 13th magnitude star -- which is 10.1 arcsec from the other two in the triplet -- is east-northeast, not south. Thus, it could well be that d'A's object is really just the western two stars of the triplet, rather than all three. d'A's position is also well off; other nebulae in the group that he measured the same night (7 Oct 1861) are close to his positions. So, I remain skeptical, and there are question marks on this number in the table. ===== NGC 372. This is a triple star west of the NGC 383 galaxy group. It was found the night of 12 Dec 1876 by Lord Rosse or his observing assistant at the time (Dreyer). The measured PA and distance from a star near the middle of the galaxy group unambiguously identifies the object, as does the note in its description about another 12th magnitude star at PA 166.5 deg with a distance of 74.0 arcsec. The description itself is telling: "The last nova looks at first sight like a hazy *, the higher power seems to resolve it, at all events sev. luminous points were seen." The south-western two of the stars may also be d'Arrest's object (NGC 370, which see); if so, he's been rather careless about it. ===== NGC 377 is positively identified as MCG -04-03-053 by Leavenworth's sketch and description. His position is well off the mark, of course, so both ESO and SGC missed the identification. ===== NGC 383. See NGC 372. ===== NGC 390 is a star. Bigourdan's offsets point exactly to a star at 01 05 08.6 +32 09 58 (B1950.0, reduced using the GSC coordinates for Bigourdan's comparison star), and his description "vF, stellar" is that which he gives to almost all of the stars which he mistook for nebulae. ===== NGC 396. RNGC places this object more than a degree away from Marth's position. Yet just 5 seconds of time east of the original position is a faint galaxy that Marth could well have seen with the 48-inch reflector. Unfortunately, Marth rarely mentions stars near his nebulae; had he done so in this case, the identity would have been clinched as there is a star just 10 or 12 arcsec northeast of the nucleus of the galaxy. Other than that, however, I see no reason not to identify this galaxy as N396. The GSC position is likely a blend of the galaxy and the star, and thus a few arcsec northeast of the true place. However, my own measurement puts the position a few arcsec north of the GSC position, so perhaps the GSC is OK. There is also a faint double star at 01 05 20 +04 15.7. I doubt that this is the object that Marth saw, but it could be. Still, I'll stick with the faint galaxy. ===== NGC 399. See NGC 400. ===== NGC 400, 401, and 402 are stars at Lord Rosse's measured offsets from NGC 403 and from a nearby star (his distance of N401 from N403 is an estimate, slightly too large). His fourth nova, NGC 399, is a galaxy, also at his measured offset. He also has a sketch showing N403, five nearby stars, and N400 and N401, all in their correct relative positions. ===== NGC 401 is a star. See NGC 400 for a discussion. ===== NGC 402 is a star. See NGC 400 for a discussion. ===== NGC 403. See NGC 400. ===== NGC 404. See NGC 537. ===== NGC 405 is a double star. It was found by John Herschel and is h2380 in his Cape Observations. He has this to say about it: `[RA] 01 00 45.1: [NPD] 137 35 13 (1830.0). A star 7m? After a long and obstinate examination with all powers and apertures, I cannot bring it to a sharp disc and leave it, in doubt whether it be a star or not. The star B 137 immediately preceding offered no such difficulty, giving a good disc with 320. [JH's italics:] No doubt a "Stellar Nebula."' I noted earlier, "JH's object is clearly a double star on the Southern Sky Survey (was it closer together in JH's time?), and I put it in the SGC Notes as such." However, on the DSS image, the two stars are not resolved. SIMBAD has the separation as 1.2 arcsec at 191 degrees (measured in 1954), and has another fainter star (component "C") at 47.5 arcsec and 81 degrees in 1913. That fainter star is partially covered by the diffraction spike on the Schmidt plate. In any event, we now know why JH could not bring the star to a "sharp disk". ===== NGC 407. See NGC 408. ===== NGC 408, Schultz's "Nova III," is a star at his carefully measured position. It is just 8 seconds west of NGC 410 = H II 220, which Schultz also measured. Note that he has reversed the names of "Nova III" and H II 219 = NGC 407 in his 1875 MN paper. Dreyer has sorted them out for the NGC, however. Schultz's other discovery ("Nova IV" = NGC 414) in the area, is a peculiar interacting galaxy. His position for it is excellent, as are those for NGC 407 and NGC 410. ===== NGC 410. See NGC 408. ===== NGC 412. Leavenworth has left us a sketch of this nebula, as well as the usual poor position and brief description. Unfortunately, his sketch shows only one star in the field, about 5 arcmin southwest of the nebula, so the field will not be easy to recognize. The sketch is one of the few to have the orientation marked, so that is not a problem here as it is with some of the LM nebulae. In fact, I can't find Leavenworth's object anywhere near his position. Nor are there any other nebula/star pairs within several degrees of that position that match the sketch, either. The galaxy chosen by ESO, 3.8 minutes preceding and 19 arcmin south of Leavenworth's position does not match the sketch, so that cannot be the object, either. Leavenworth added a note "Neb?" to his description, so it is possible that the object is simply a star. However, I could not even find two stars in the correct relative orientation in the area that would match the sketch. The sketch is dated 15 Oct 1885. Leavenworth made at least four other sketches that same night. They are of N377, N540, N635, and N842 (all of which see). Of these, N540's identification is unsure, and N635 is three degrees south of its nominal position. Assuming all four identities, though, the average offset of Leavenworth's positions in RA is +25.3 seconds of time with a mean error of +-32.2 seconds, and a standard deviation in one observation of +-64.5 seconds (all are at roughly the same declination, so the conversion to arcseconds can be ignored given the size of these numbers). In Dec, the equivalent numbers are -5.3 arcmin, +-4.2 arcmin, and +-8.4 arcmin. Given offsets and errors of this size, and the three-degree accidental error for N635, NGC 412 could be ANYwhere within several degrees of Leavenworth's nominal position. But I still can't find it. So, unless other folks want to spend more time on the field, NGC 412 is probably irretrieveably lost. ===== NGC 414. See NGC 408. ===== NGC 420. See NGC 421. ===== NGC 421 may be one of the several faint stars or wide double stars west of NGC 420. WH found the objects on 12 Sept 1784, describing them as "Two. Both eF, vS. The following is the largest." The field was examined again by JH, LdR, d'Arrest, and Bigourdan, none of whom found NGC 421, but all of whom placed NGC 420 within 5 seconds of time of WH's position for the pair. Dreyer has a curious statement in his note in the Scientific Papers (1912). Citing the observers above as having "... seen only one nebula," he goes on with "no doubt the following one." Yet all the observers have assigned the preceding number (H III 154 = N420) to the object. Dreyer himself followed JH's lead in this, giving the earlier number to the object that JH, d'A, and LdR all saw. In any case, there is no nebula in the area that might be N421. Since assigning the number to one of the stellar objects mentioned above is pure speculation, I'm not going to do it. Thus, N421 is "Not found." ===== NGC 443 = IC 1653. D'Arrest has a single observation of the galaxy from the night of 8 October 1861. He published it in AN 1500, and again in his big monograph. The declination is 0.5 arcmin greater in the monograph, but it is still nine arcmin too small. I suspect a digit error in the arcminute 10's place. With that, the position would be within an arcmin or so of the true position. D'A's note about the 15th magnitude star 8.3 seconds of time preceding the galaxy is correct -- the actual distance is 7.9 seconds. Javelle rediscovered the galaxy over 40 years later in 1903. His micrometric observation, re-reduced with respect to a modern position for his comparison star, is within a couple of arcseconds of the modern positions. ===== NGC 444 = IC 1658. Lord Rosse discovered NGC 444, observing it on four separate nights. He placed it roughly five arcmin west of NGC 452, but did not make any micrometric measurements of it. The NGC position is probably from Dreyer himself, and is about 30 seconds west of the actual position. The identity is secure, however -- the galaxy and surrounding star field are exactly described by LdR and his observers. Javelle's position for IC 1658 is within a few arcsec of the GSC position, so the identity of this object is also secure. Javelle's comparison star, BD +30 192, is, not coincidentally (it is the brightest star in the area), mentioned by Lord Rosse who notes that NGC 444 is about twice as far from NGC 452 as the star. ===== NGC 446 = IC 89. Found by Marth in 1864, this is one of his objects that he "verified" -- that is, reobserved. Nevertheless, his RA (and therefore, the NGC's) is just one minute of time off the true position. This is probably a transcription or typographical error. The declination is within an arcminute of being correct, however. IC 89 has a good micrometrically measured position in IC1 from Javelle's first list. RNGC has suggested that UGC 794 is NGC 446. That galaxy, though, is considerably fainter than the real N446, and its position is off by odd amounts from Marth's: 13 seconds of time, and 7 arcminutes. That identity is therefore unlikely. ===== NGC 447 = IC 1656. This is misnamed "NGC 449" in CGCG, and that has unfortunately carried over into several other catalogues. The galaxy was found by d'Arrest who observed it on four different nights, each time measuring its position with a micrometer. His position is good, as is his description, especially concerning an 11th magnitude star 9.2 seconds of time east and 110 arcseconds north of the nebula -- the star is there, so the identification is secure. IC 1656 was found about 40 years later by Barnard. Since this is one of the nebulae which he "published" in a private communication to Dreyer, we have only the position and description in the second IC to guide us. His RA is good, but the declination is about 1.4 arcmin north of the galaxy. His description is similarly confused, "Neb, S * close sf, *9 sf 3 arcmin." The "S * close sf" is indeed superposed on the southeastern edge side of the galaxy (the GSC position is a blend of this and the galaxy), but the "* 9 sf 3 arcmin" is actually northwest by three minutes. It is the same star that d'Arrest called 11th magnitude. Still, the are no other galaxies in the area with quite that arrangement of stars around them, so Barnard's object is certainly the same one that d'Arrest had seen earlier. See NGC 451 = IC 1661 for more about Barnard's observations in the area. ===== NGC 449. Mislabeled "NGC 447" in CGCG, this galaxy (Markarian 1) has had its incorrect name unfortunately carried over into several other catalogues. There is, however, no doubt as to the correct number as the NGC position (from a micrometric measurement by Stephan) is within a few arcsec of the GSC position. This is the first of three new "nebulae" in the area that Stephan found late in 1881 using the large refractor at Marseille. The other two are NGC 451 and NGC 453, both of which see for more information. ===== NGC 451 = IC 1661, and is another of Barnard's IC discoveries sent directly to Dreyer (Stephan discovered the object, and his observation led to the NGC entry). It is also the second of two nebulae which Barnard found in the area. Like the first (NGC 447, which see), there is possible confusion about its identification. In this case, Barnard's description is sparce, "eF, S, R" and his position has the RA of NGC 451, but is closer in declination to NGC 449. Two things convince me that Barnard reobserved NGC 451 (which is just where Stephan measured it to be): 1) this galaxy is brighter than N449 by at least a magnitude, and it is larger, too. 2) Barnard's declination is about 1.2 arcmin north of the true place of NGC 451, just as his declination of N447 is about 1.4 arcmin north of that galaxy. If he observed both objects on the same night, as seems likely, then the offset will be systematic. Since we know the identification of N447 = I1656 is solid, it follows that N451 must be I1661. ===== NGC 452. See NGC 444. ===== NGC 453 is a linear triple star found by Stephan. The stars are exactly where Stephan measured them to be, and his description mentions "one or two" vF stars involved. On a night of less than perfect seeing, the three stars must indeed resemble a faint nebula laced with even fainter stars. ===== NGC 456. See NGC 460. ===== NGC 460 is the second of at least three HII regions/stellar associations in the SMC. JH's position coincides with a bright knot on the southern edge of a nebulous mass with several bright stars nearby. I've taken this as the object that JH saw. About 2 arcmin southeast is another double-lobed nebula involved with many stars. JH does not have any entry in his CGH list that corresponds to this, though it should have been bright enough for him to pick out. Other objects in the area that he saw include NGC 456 (similar to N460, but larger), NGC 465 (a stellar association without nebulosity), and h2398 (not in the NGC) which JH places 2 minutes of time west of NGC 460 where there are no nebulae or clusters he could have seen. His description makes it sound like it is NGC 460, but it could be NGC 456 with a one minute error. Here is what he had to say about it: "Chief centre of condensation at southern edge of an irreg[ularly-] figured nebulous mass 2' diameter." Since he saw this in one of the same sweeps in which he picked up NGC 460, I'm inclined to believe that this is NGC 456 with a one-minute error in the RA. ===== NGC 464 is actually a triple star, though I noted it earlier as a double. The northwestern component is a blended double on the DSS image. Here is the historical note. Though credited to Tempel (in his fifth list of observations of nebulae), it was actually found by the BD observers as they swept the field. Tempel has only this to say about it: "Im Atlas vom Argelander einen kleinen neuen Nebel verzeichnet in: 01 11 25, +34 12" [In Argelander's Atlas, there is a small, new nebula plotted at ...]. Since the BD was made with a 78-mm refractor, Argelander's observer could not have seen the faint galaxy fingered by RNGC. ===== NGC 465. See NGC 460. ===== NGC 468 = IC 92, which see. ===== NGC 469. See NGC 475. ===== NGC 471. See NGC 475. ===== NGC 475 = IC 97. Marth discovered three galaxies here (NGC 469, 471, and 475), and his positions are pretty good. Two of his positions got changed for the NGC, however -- for the worse. Dreyer credits Peters for N475 as well as Marth, and it is apparently Peters's position which throws off the NGC. Marth's original position is within a minute of Bigourdan's measured place for IC 97, so the identity is certain. The object which Bigourdan calls N475 is a star near the incorrect NGC position. ===== NGC 480. The identification is not sure since there is no sketch of the object and its field. Nevertheless, the faint galaxy I've assigned the number to is not too far from Leavenworth's position, and matches his description. ===== NGC 483. See NGC 499. ===== NGC 486, about 5 arcmin north-northwest of NGC 488, is a compact galaxy with a faint star superposed on its eastern side. LdR's sketch is accurate, as are his offsets. ===== NGC 488. See NGC 486. ===== NGC 490. See NGC 492. ===== NGC 492 has a somewhat fainter companion about an arcmin southwest. LdR does not mention two objects here, and his micrometric offset of N492 from N490 is exactly on the brighter object, so there is no possible confusion of identities here. ===== NGC 498 is the object labeled "D" in the first two of LdR's diagrams of the group around NGC 499. Though he has no measured offsets for it, he clearly saw it the second night: "vvF, but certain" and the diagrams leave no doubt as to the correct object. ===== NGC 499 = IC 1686 is the brightest of a moderately compact group of galaxies in a cluster of which NGC 507 is the dominant member. It, with six others in the cluster, was found by WH. JH reobserved five of the six, but mislabeled a "nova" (NGC 483) as the first of his father's objects (d'Arrest makes the same mistake). Lord Rosse has observations on 8 different nights, and -- with the exception of NGC 483 in the first observation -- got the identifications correct. Schultz also got the correct objects, and Dreyer sorted the field out well for the NGC. Javelle swept over the field late in 1899, finding and measuring a dozen objects in the area that he took to be previously uncatalogued. However, his accurate position and exact description of one of those "novae" points directly at NGC 499 -- in spite of the fact that he has a footnote on the object saying that "NGC 499 was also measured." He has clearly misidentified the object in the crowded field. Since he unfortunately does not publish his measurements of the NGC objects, we cannot now be sure just which galaxy he mistook for NGC 499. Dreyer did not catch Javelle's error (Javelle's absolute declination is about 1.7 arcmin off since he used the BD position, also 1.7 arcmin off, for his comparison star), so the galaxy now carries the IC, as well as the NGC, number. ===== NGC 506 is a star just over an arcmin southwest of NGC 507. It was seen and its offsets measured on one night by LdR. The offsets are good and the identity is sure. ===== NGC 507 is the brightest of a relatively poor, though nearby cluster of galaxies. There are several notes about the area; see e.g. NGC 499 = IC 1686, and NGC 506. ===== NGC 510 is a double star found by Schultz. His micrometrically measured position is within a couple of arcseconds of being correct. ===== NGC 513. This is one of the galaxies that WH found the night of 13 Sept 1784. This, along all but one of the others, have poor positions in NGC. RC3 managed to get the correct position, however. See NGC 537 for the story. ===== NGC 515. See NGC 537. ===== NGC 517. See NGC 537. ===== NGC 520 is apparently an interacting galaxy. Classified as an I0 by de Vaucouleurs, the distorted dust lane and unresolved bulge with plumes may be the result of a collision. Vorontsov-Velyaminov marks three components in his Atlas of Interacting Galaxies; I've provided positions for them in the table. However, in the near-infrared, the structure is simpler with a bright peak at the center connected by a bridge to a somewhat fainter knot to the northwest (this fainter knot has no optical counterpart). The central peak breaks up into at least three hot spots in the 2MASS J-band. The J2000.0 positions are Central peak, K-band: 01 24 34.89 +03 47 30.1 Central peak, H-band: 01 24 34.86 +03 47 29.9 Central peak, J-band: 01 24 34.86 +03 47 28.3 southeast spot Central peak, J-band: 01 24 34.65 +03 47 35.0 northwest spot Central peak, J-band: 01 24 35.04 +03 47 33.1 northeast spot Northwestern knot: 01 24 33.33 +03 48 02.8 The southern of the three optical components (VV 231b) corresponds most closely to the position of the infrared/radio nucleus. ===== NGC 523 = NGC 537, which see. ===== NGC 529. See NGC 531 and NGC 537. ===== NGC 530 = IC 106, which see. Also see IC 1696 which is a different galaxy. ===== NGC 531 and NGC 542 are positively identified by LdR's sketch and offsets from NGC 536. However, Dreyer, apparently thinking that NGC 529 was the bright object reobserved by LdR, used an incorrect position for the reference object. So, the positions he gives in LdR's 1880 paper, and in the NGC, are off by about 40 arcsec. ===== NGC 534. See NGC 549. ===== NGC 536. See NGC 531 and NGC 537. ===== NGC 537 = NGC 523, and the surroundings. The night of 13 September 1784 was not a good one for WH's clock readings. With one exception (H II 224 = NGC 404), all eight objects for which he used Beta Andromedae as a comparison star are off in RA, and -- as it has turned out -- by different amounts. In addition, his descriptions are scanty, so identifying his nebulae has proved difficult over the years. Here is the story, roughly in chronological order. WH's seven questionable objects (III 167 through III 173; NGC 515, 517, 513, 523, 536, 552, and 553, respectively -- yes, NGC 513 is out of order) all appeared in his sweep within 3 minutes of each other. Given the rush, he determined the positions for only five of them, lumping four together into two pairs, and treating the remaining three individually. In addition, Dreyer noted that WH recorded three transits -- III 167/8, 170, and 171 -- to only a full minute of time. Finally, WH himself noted the final two as "a little doubtful." JH has only five nebulae here. He claimed one (h120) to be the same as his father's III 171, and the western of that pair (h118) to be a nova. Auwers, and later d'Arrest, agreed with JH in making H III 171 = h 120, but noted the difficulties in Herschel's RAs for some of the nebulae. d'Arrest in particular pointed out discrepancies of about 40 seconds of time between his own RA's and WH's in several cases, and found what he thought was a new double nebula in the field (NGC 523). However, while assembling the GC, JH reinterpreted the field and chose to regard the nebulae that his father discovered as separate objects from his own. Dreyer, too, was aware of the problem when he compiled the NGC, and attempted to sort things out based primarily on d'A's observations. It's clear, however, that he was a bit uncertain about the state of the field as he wrote NGC notes for some of the objects, and commented again on all of them in his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. How can we make sense out of the two Herschels' observations? Let's start by assuming that WH's nebulae are properly ordered by RA, and that their polar distances (Declinations) are also relatively correct. Doing this, and looking at JH's and d'A's later observations, we can make some tentative identifications for NGC 513, 515, 517, and 536. Plotting the difference in RA (WH minus "true") for these, we see that as the time went on, WH's RA's got worse. Plotting a straight line through the data points, and putting a mark at WH's RA for III 170 = NGC 537 suggests an RA correction of about 0.9 minutes of time for it. This moves the RA back to within 0.2 arcmin of NGC 523, and confirms Dreyer's suspicion in the NGC Notes that WH's number belongs on this NGC number. Adding this point to the plot actually suggests that the slope might be even steeper. But what about N536 = III 171? Did WH really see that, or did he perhaps see its brighter, higher surface brightness companion, N529, which precedes it by about 40 seconds? (N536's two fainter companions found by Lord Rosse, N531 and N542, have problems of their own; they have a seperate note here under N531). Assuming WH in fact did see the western of the two objects, we can then draw a new line through the points on the plot (this steeper relationship suggests that WH's clock was running at about half speed!) in a desperate attempt to recover his final two objects, N552 and N553. If we correct WH's RA accordingly, the position of these two objects falls close to CGCG 502-084 and an equally bright 15th magnitude star just west of it. Finally, I note that -- with the exception of NGC 513, the first object in the series -- all of WH's declinations here are 3-4 arcmin too large. This lends a bit of support to the hypothesis I've sketched out. In the end, then, I'm suggesting these identifications for the nebulae in the area (the CGCG names added for verification): RA (1950.0) Dec NGC WH JH d'A CGCG III WH JH 01 21 37.32 +33 32 21.0 513 169 111 --- --- 521-020 01 21 49.18 +33 12 45.9 515 167 113 167 113 502-077 01 21 54.47 +33 10 10.6 517 168 114 168 114 502-079 01 22 31.01 +33 45 54.7 523=537 170 --- (Nova) 521-022 01 22 50.01 +34 27 11.6 529 171 118 --- 118 521-023 01 23 31.25 +34 26 38.7 536 --- 120 171 120 521-025 01 23 20.45 +33 08 46.8 552 172 --- --- --- --- = * 01 23 22.94 +33 08 44.7 553 173 --- --- --- 502-084 The careful reader will have already seen that the RA's for N552 and N553 are smaller than that for N536. This adds more weight to the idea that Herschel saw N529 rather than N536. A postscript: both Auwers and d'Arrest comment about WH's insecure RA's for these objects. However, d'A apparently goes on to suggest that some of JH's RA's are off, too. But they aren't, so I clearly need to take the time to translate the comments. ===== NGC 539 = NGC 563, which see. ===== NGC 540 is one of the 170 or so nebulae found at Leander McCormick in the mid-1880s to have a sketch. Unfortunately, the sketch shows only one star in addition to the nebula. However, that field is fairly well matched by ESO 542- G012 1 minute and 50 seconds east and about 5 arcmin south. I've taken that as a tentative identification for N540. See NGC 412 for another LM nebula with a sketch that did not work out so well. ===== NGC 542. See NGC 531. ===== NGC 544. See NGC 549. ===== NGC 546. See NGC 549. ===== NGC 549. Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the SGC identification of this galaxy is incorrect. He is almost certainly right, in spite of the poor right ascension from John Herschel (18 seconds of time off); Herschel's declination is correct, though. The SGC galaxy is 15 arcminutes south and 4 seconds of time east of Herschel's position. Though this is brighter, it does not match Herschel's description ("eeeF, S, R, vgbM. The 4th of a group of 4."). Instead, this matches very closely what I'd expect him to see based on his descriptions of the other three galaxies in the group (NGC 534, 544, and 546, all "eeF, S, R, vgbM"). Accepting Steve's identification, the only error is in Herschel's RA. For each of the other three galaxies, Herschel has two observations, but only lists one for N549. There are no significant zero point offsets in the differences between the raw positions for the other three galaxies. This means that we have no reasonable way to "correct" the original position of N549 as given by Herschel. This in turn means that we are left with only the description to help us identify the galaxy. And that points directly to the object which Steve (and the original ESO list 5 in A&A Sup) chose as NGC 549. ===== NGC 551. See IC 1707. ===== NGC 552. See NGC 537. ===== NGC 553. See NGC 537. ===== NGC 557 = IC 1703. NGC 557 comes from Swift's 6th list, sent in pieces to Dreyer before it was published. The final published description reads: "eF, S; B * f 15 seconds and is n of it." This differs a bit from the NGC description: "eF, S, R, * 10 nf," but not in any significant way. The star is actually south-following, but the galaxy is still almost uniquely identified by that star. Swift's RA is nearly 50 seconds of time out, and I wonder if he made a 1 minute error in reading his circles -- a 10 or 12 second error is somewhat closer to his usual accuracy. Bigourdan did not find N557 when he looked for it at the NGC place, but he did run across it a few minutes later. Thinking it was a "nova," he listed it as new and it ended up in the IC2 at its actual position. ===== NGC 558 is not equal to IC 117, which see. ===== NGC 560 is identical to IC 117, which see. ===== NGC 563 = NGC 539. Leavenworth's description for NGC 563, particularly his comments "little extended 0 deg" (which applies to the bar) and "several faint stars following, in line north and south" exactly describes another discovery of his, NGC 539 (which he sketched; the star field around the galaxy matches the POSS1 star field). The position for NGC 563 is two minutes too far east, a common error in the Leander McCormick lists. Unfortunately, there is another galaxy about half a degree south of the poor position in NGC that has been taken by all the modern cataloguers (including me in SGC and the early versions of ESGC) as N563. However, the description just does not fit the object, and declination errors are far more unusual in the LM lists than RA errors. The identity with N539 is secure. ===== NGC 564. See IC 117. ===== NGC 568 = IC 1709, which see. ===== NGC 575 = IC 1710. The 2 degree error in declination is one of the few errors that can be traced to Dreyer himself. Entering this object in his 1878 GC Supplement, he miscopied the correct "69" (degrees of NPD) as "67" (It is also possible that the typesetter made a typographical error. If so, Dreyer did not catch it during proofreading.) He later transferred this exactly to the NGC, so it too has the incorrect degree of NPD. When the correction is made, the galaxy turns out to be the same as IC 1710, found and measured by Javelle. Had the NGC the correct position, Javelle no doubt would have not included the galaxy as a discovery of his own. Dreyer, of course, transcribed the position correctly the second time around. The equality was first noticed by Reinmuth, and mentioned by him in "Die Herschel Nebel" of 1926. ===== NGC 577 = NGC 580. Tempel claims to have found two nebulae 2m 50s following NGC 560 and 564, a pair found by WH. There is only one here, and it was also picked up by Swift in 1886 (more below) and, even earlier in 1867, by A. N. Skinner at Dearborn Observatory (see IC 1528 for that story). Tempel's position for it, apparently from a letter to Dreyer -- the position in his first paper on nebulae is about two arcmin off the NGC position -- is not bad. In particular, the NGC RA is less than two seconds of time off. Curiously, Dreyer also credits Tempel's second paper for this first nebula. I find no mention of it there, so suspect that Dreyer simply noted the wrong paper number. I'll check the rest of Tempel's papers to see if it is in fact mentioned in any of them. The second of Tempel's nebulae is probably one of the stars in the area, but since he gives the position with a precision of only 10 seconds of time and 10 arcminutes, we have little hope of recovering his object (Dreyer adopted Swift's position for this object). There are two stars northeast of the galaxy, though, that are similar in brightness to others that Tempel mistook for nebulae (see e.g. NGC 4315 and NGC 4322). One is at 01 28 12.05, -02 13 01.0; and a second somewhat brighter star is at 01 28 19.78, -02 12 20.3 (both positions are for equinox B1950.0). As I mentioned above, Swift also picked up the galaxy, on the night of 20 November 1886. Since he made his RA 23 seconds larger than Tempel's, Dreyer believed that this was the second of Tempel's nebulae. So, he adopted Swift's position. Howe corrected the RA in an observation in 1898, but neither he nor Dreyer, who published the correction as an IC2 Note, noticed that that made Swift's object, NGC 580, identical to NGC 577. Some observers might want to put one of these numbers onto one of the stars I've noted. But that number would be the following of Tempel's two, the one with the imprecise position -- and that is the one that Dreyer used for Swift's object. And we do not know for sure which star, if either, is the one seen by Tempel. So the easiest, and still a truthful, solution is to simply say that Tempel's one real nebula is identical to Swift's. ===== NGC 580 = NGC 577, which see. ===== NGC 584 = IC 1712, which see. ===== NGC 586. See IC 1712. ===== NGC 587 is not IC 1713, which see. ===== NGC 603 is a triple star found by Lord Rosse. It's position was unfortunately not well-determined, so there has been some puzzle over its identity. Dreyer, in the Notes to IC1, claimed that he could only see a faint star in the place of NGC 603. (I've been unable to identify this star with any certainty. One candidate is at 01 31 30.4, +29 55 58, B1950.0, while Bigourdan has two observations of another at 01 31 44.7, +29 56 42.) However, Lord Rosse's description makes the identification certain, even without a good position: "A small nebula or cluster with 3 stars in it. It is about 8 arcmin south-southpreceding a double star whose components are of the 11th magnitude." This is very close to the actual distance of the double from the triple star -- but there is no nebulosity or cluster associated with the triple. I suspect that the discovery was made on a night of relatively poor seeing, leading to the impression of accompanying nebulosity. The B1950.0 positions of the three stars, all from GSC, are *1 01 31 54.54 +29 58 37.1 = GSC 02293-00972 *2 01 31 54.85 +29 58 45.4 = GSC 02293-00966 *3 01 31 55.37 +29 58 31.6 = GSC 02293-00998. I've adopted the mean value for the main table. ===== NGC 607 is a double star. (Is it possibly triple? The northern of two images on the POSS1 looks elongated, as if it were a close double. The DSS image, from the UK Schmidt, looks like a single star). D'Arrest's position is exact, and his description appropriate, particularly regarding the 9th magnitude star 29.7 seconds east and 2 arcmin north. ===== NGC 608. See NGC 618 and NGC 627. ===== NGC 610 and 611. This pair of objects is probably irretrieveably lost, thanks to Muller's poor discovery positions. I searched the sky for several degrees in all directions from the nominal positions, but turned up nothing that matches Muller's description. In particular, there are no galaxies in the area with a 10th magnitude star at position angle = 280 degrees, distance 2.4 arcmin. Muller also gives an "accurate" offset of N611 from N610: "Following previous at PA 60 degrees, dist = 0.5 arcmin," but then adds, "vF *?" This would be a striking configuration -- even if the second object is a star -- but it's nowhere in the area that I can see. There is no sketch, but even if there were, it could only confirm Muller's clear descriptions. Wolfgang Steinicke again drew my attention to this missing pair in July 1998. I made a further search at "reasonable" digit errors (e.g. 1hr in RA, 10deg in Dec), but found nothing matching Muller's description anywhere near any of the resulting positions. It may be worthwhile for other interested investigators to cover the areas, too -- they may have more luck than I. ===== NGC 611. See NGC 610. ===== NGC 614 = NGC 627, which see. It may also be NGC 618. See that, too. ===== NGC 616 is a double star. As with NGC 607, d'A's position is very good, and his description fits the object. In addition, his offsets -- 14.2 seconds west and 4 arcmin north -- to an 8th magnitude star are correct. ===== NGC 618 may be NGC 614 (which is also NGC 627, which see) -- or it may be NGC 608. JH's position points at nothing, and there is no star 2 min 51 sec east of that position as his description claims. NGC 614 fits his description ("pB, pL, bM") but the fairly bright star follows by only 55 sec. Is there perhaps a combination of transcription errors and/or typos in JH's offset to the star? I'm thinking perhaps that the superscript "m" on the 2 in his description stands for "magnitude" rather than "minute." The star, of course, is not 2nd magnitude -- this is where the error would have to occur. Whatever the case, there is certainly an error in JH's position for the galaxy. Is his object NGC 608? This is not quite as likely; N608 is the fainter of the two galaxies in the area. Also, N618 was found during a different sweep (102) than NGC 608 and NGC 614 (both sweep 106), and different again from N627 (sweep 100), the other "missing" object in the area. I'm tempted to simply equate N618 with N608, and N627 with N614. But the relative magnitudes, and the fact that N618 and N627 were found during different sweeps argues in favor of JH having seen only the brightest object during each sweep. So, I note the possibility of the identity of N618 with N614 or with N608, but would not bet my Pentium on it! ===== NGC 627 = NGC 614 (which may also be NGC 618, which see). JH's description reads "vF, R; another precedes which must be III. 174. The RA conjectural, and PD liable to some error." As noted in the discussion of NGC 618, JH has three sweeps over this area. During the first sweep (100), he picked up the two objects noted in his description that I've just given, during the second sweep (102) he found just one object (N618, which see), and during the third (106), he found another (N614). Since there are just two galaxies here, it is reasonable to suppose that JH picked them both up once, and noticed only the brightest on the other two sweeps. But, as I noted above, JH's positions and descriptions do not rule out other interpretations, so this is simply conjecture. ===== NGC 629 is a short line of five stars six or seven arcmin west-southwest of Struve's position. I've pulled the data for this from Auwers's list of novae attached to his catalogue of WH's nebulae and clusters. There he notes "Not seen in the Heliometer." However, Struve's description ("Irregular nebula with 3 stars") with his 9-inch Fraunhofer refractor certainly fits the asterism well enough. It reminds me of NGC 7150 (which see), another -- though somewhat smaller and fainter -- asterism also found with a refractor (the 16-inch at Harvard) by an experienced observer (G.P. Bond). ===== NGC 635 is probably MCG -04-05-002 just 3 degrees south of Leavenworth's nominal position. His sketch matches the galaxy and surrounding star field very well, so I'm willing to accept that he made a simple mistake in recording the declination. ===== NGC 643. This is a star cluster in the SMC. The RC3 incorrectly calls a galaxy by this name. That galaxy is the one that de Vaucouleurs called "NGC 643B". "NGC 643A", by the way, is another SMC star cluster, while "NGC 643C" is a spiral galaxy seen edge on. None of these are related to NGC 643 except by the near coincidences of their locations on the sky. ===== NGC 648 = IC 146, which see. ===== NGC 650 and NGC 651 together form M76. They are the two bright lobes of a bipolar planetary nebula. (The fainter, whispy loops to the northwest and southeast were most likely not seen well until M76 was photographed.) For GC and NGC, JH and Dreyer took the lobes as two separate nebulae, put the Messier number on N650, and the WH number (I 193) on N651. There is a little justification for this, but not very much. WH was the first to recognize that the nebula was apparently double. He says of it "Two close together. Both vB. dist. 2' sp nf. One is 76 of the Conn[oissance des Temps]." That, strictly speaking, is incorrect as neither Mechain nor Messier reported the nebula as double. Still, two NGC numbers it is for the single Messier number. This has happened at least once more. See NGC 5194 and NGC 5195, the two galaxies comprising M51 -- though for that, Messier did see the two separate objects. ===== NGC 651. See NGC 650. ===== NGC 652 has a +13 second error in its RA. It shares this with three other nebulae which Swift discovered the same night. See those (NGC 1450, N1509 = IC 2026, and N1594 = I2075) for more. Also see N1677 = N1659 for other notes about that night of 22 October 1886. ===== NGC 657 looks like a poor cluster of relatively bright stars against the crowded backdrop of the Milky Way. JH has it as "A ** (h2070), the chief of a p rich loose cl; sts 12." His position is for the double, SAO 22555, but the apparent center -- a rough circle of 5 stars -- of the cluster is about 4 arcmin southwest of the double. ===== NGC 674 = NGC 697. The right ascensions are just 2 minutes different, so it seems likely that N674 is another observation of N697. This strikes me as the only reasonable interpretation of d'A's observations, in spite of the fact that he claims to have found N674 on a night when he also observed N697. Is the night number, 4, perhaps in error? d'A also observed N697 on nights 5 and 93, but saw N674 only once. In any case, the descriptions are virtually identical, down to the 14th magnitude star 8 or 9 seconds east, and there are no other objects in the area that d'A would have described as "pB, vmE." ===== NGC 676, a 13th magnitude edgewise S0, has a bright star superposed just a few arcseconds south of the nucleus. Its visual appearance is well-described in the NGC. Its magnitude in CGCG, 10.5, is misleading, of course, applying more to the star than the galaxy. The galaxy's total magnitude is around 12.5, but has not yet been measured accurately. ===== NGC 684 = IC 165, which see. ===== NGC 687 is not IC 1737, which see. ===== NGC 696. See NGC 729. ===== NGC 697 = NGC 674, which see. ===== NGC 698. See NGC 729. ===== NGC 700 is CGCG 522-030, not the larger but fainter CGCG 522-027. LdR has the object 8 arcmin southwest of the center of the NGC 705 group; CGCG 522-030 is 8.1 arcmin southwest, while -027 is 6.5 arcmin west-southwest. Since its surface brightness is higher than -027's, it is the more likely to have been seen. This is indeed Steve Gottlieb's experience. He notes that while he could pick out -027 in his 17.5-inch reflector, only the nucleus was visible as a nearly stellar object, while -030 was clearly the more nebulous of the two. ===== NGC 705. See NGC 700. ===== NGC 716 = IC 1743. Swift's RA for the NGC object is good, but his declination is almost exactly 40 arcmin too far south. His description -- including the bright star near east -- is appropriate, so the identity (first suggested by Dreyer in the IC2 notes) is almost certain. There is no question of the identity of IC 1743. It was found by Bigourdan, and his four micrometric offsets point exactly at the galaxy. ===== NGC 718 is probably not also NGC 728, which see. ===== NGC 719 = IC 1744. D'Arrest's RA is 13 seconds of time off. This is close enough that either Dreyer or Javelle might have had some questions about the identity, especially given that the descriptions are so close. Well, that didn't happen, so the galaxy has two numbers now. ===== NGC 723 = NGC 724. JH missed this one when he was putting his GC together. In his 1833 PT catalogue he notes for h167 (N724): "It is barely possible [those two words in JH's italics] that this may be III.460 [N723] with a mistake in reading the PD. When he swept this up at the Cape a few years later, he specifically noted "No other neb within 15' all around." When he published his Cape Observations, he added in parentheses, "(N.B. This remark shows that the nebula No. 167 of my former Catalogue is really identical (as there suspected) with III.460.)" Nevertheless, his two objects are entered separately in GC without a note, so it was left to Dreyer to add a query in the NGC description: "[? = h166]". JH and Dreyer were both right -- the two numbers do indeed refer to the same galaxy. RNGC, ESO, and SGC all carried along the equality. ===== NGC 727 = NGC 729, which see. ===== NGC 728 is probably the triple star about 1.5 arcmin north-northwest of JH's position. JH has only one observation of this object which he describes as "A suspected nebula." D'Arrest could not find this object, though he only looked for it once. On a night of relatively poor seeing, the three stars (with a maximum separation of about 20 arcsec, might appear nebulous. A glance at the Sky Survey suggests that N728 might be a reobservation of NGC 718, about 2 minutes west of JH's place (the declinations are the same to within the errors). However, JH first observed N718 in the same sweep (No. 95) in which he found N728. So, the two are unlikely to be the same. ===== NGC 729 = NGC 727. JH describes N729 = h2446 as "eeeF, S, R. RA only rudely taken by a star, being out of the field." He recorded it only once in Sweep 803. Much earlier, however, in Sweep 486, he found another nebula in the area, N727 = h 2445. His description of that reads "F, S, R, bM, 15 arcsec." He then adds (in italics enclosed by square brackets, flagging a note added during the preparation of the Cape Observations for publication), "It is barely possible that this and the next nebula [h2446 = N729] may be identical with Nos. 2440 [= N696] and 2441 [= N698] by a mistaken degree in PD." The relative positions -- the later object in each pair is northeast of the earlier -- as well as the descriptions [N696: "F, S, R, 15 arcsec;" N698: "vvF, S"] support the idea. I suspect that JH also had his note about the "rudely taken" RA in mind when he added his comment several years later. However, the N696/8 pair was found in Sweep 802, and its RA is 4 min 15 sec off the N727/9 pair. This means 1 degree errors in both coordinates, rather than just in Dec as JH points out. Since the position of N729, "rudely taken" as it is, is close to that of N727, and since the two were seen on different nights, it seems more plausible to me that the observations refer to the same object. We can't dismiss JH's comment out of hand, though having both coordinates off by a degree would be unusual in his southern data. ESO's suggestion that N729 is a double star at 01 52 01, -36 03.0 (it is ESO 354-**011) seems less probable to me. JH made many hurried observations of "new" nebulae which have turned out to be identical to objects that he has securely observed during other sweeps. ===== NGC 730 is a star -- or perhaps two different stars. Bigourdan has observations of this on three nights. The discovery observation on 7 Nov 1885, is only an estimate: +11 seconds and -4 arcmin from BD +5 328; there is nothing at that position, though three stars in a line are south and west. On 4 Dec of the same year, he has a single micrometric measurement that falls between the two eastern stars, though slightly closer to the eastern most. Finally, on 30 Nov 1891, his two measurements point exactly at this eastern most -- and brightest -- star of the three. In any event, Bigourdan described the object on the three different nights as 1) having a "Doubtful aspect," 2) being "Strongly stellar; could be a star 13.4 accompanied by nebulosity," and 3) as "Pretty strongly stellar. Could be a small nebula or a nebulous star; however, I'm not certain that there is any nebulosity there." Since even he sounds pretty convinced that his object is stellar, I'm not about to disagree! ===== NGC 731 = NGC 757, which see. ===== NGC 733 is most likely a star. Lord Rosse found a group of five nebulae in the area of NGC 736 (the brightest) on 11 October 1850. His sketch is reasonably accurate, though it is distorted in that it exaggerates the north-south separations between the objects. His micrometric offsets from N736 also point quite accurately to the surrounding objects, including the star which I've taken as N733. The sketch confirms the relative distances in the table between N733, N736, and N740 (the distance between N733 and N736 is about half that between N736 and N740). However, at the same position angle as the star, and just 100 arcsec further from the star which I take as N733, is a faint galaxy. Not otherwise catalogued, this is possibly the object which Lord Rosse meant to measure and sketch. Since the evidence from the sketch and the measurements point directly at the star, though, I'm currently retaining it, and not the galaxy, as N733. But I've nevertheless listed the galaxy, too, with the requisite question marks. ===== NGC 736 is the brightest of a group of five. See NGC 733 and NGC 737 for more. ===== NGC 737 is a line of three stars in the corona of NGC 736. This object was variously seen as a single star and as a nebula by the early observers. Lord Rosse seems to be the first to list it as possibly nebulous, so Dreyer included it in the NGC. Reinmuth found only the three stars at the place of Lord Rosse's nebula (shown in his sketch of the group around N736, and measured micrometrically by him in October 1850), and that is all that I see there on the POSS, too. ===== NGC 739. Ralph Copeland found this object near NGC 750 and N751 on 9 January 1874 using Lord Rosse's 72-inch telescope. He measured the distance and position angle from NGC 750; these point exactly at the galaxy he saw. His measures of three stars around N739 are also exact, giving further confirmation to the identification. In his description of the object, however, he mistakenly has N739 "south-preceding" N750, rather than "north-preceding." When Dreyer reduced a position for the object during preparation of Lord Rosse's observations for publication in 1880, he too made a mistake, placing the position of N739 too far south by 2 arcmin. Thus, the identity with the galaxy has been missed by most of the modern catalogues. ===== NGC 740. See NGC 733. ===== NGC 741 = IC 1751. This, along with NGC 742, was discovered by William Herschel, reobserved by John Herschel, and by Lord Rosse. N741 itself is the brightest in a group of galaxies, and the positions in NGC from the Herschels are good. Furthermore, their descriptions make it clear that all saw the same two galaxies. They did not pick up any of the other objects in the area. This leads to the puzzle of why the brighter of the two was also included in IC. True, it reappeared in Swift's 11th list of "new" nebulae (with one of his typically inaccurate positions), and was reobserved by Herbert Howe at Chamberlin Observatory in Denver. Howe provided a very good micrometric position for it which was adopted by Dreyer for the IC. I suspect that as Dreyer had come to trust Howe's positions and identifications (most of Howe's observations are of known objects), he (Dreyer) didn't bother to check the NGC to see if the galaxy had been seen previously. More recently, the IC number has been attached in CGCG (and in other subsequent lists) to the galaxy (CGCG 413-006) just over an arcminute northwest of N741. This object is indeed brighter than many that Swift found, but his description of a 9th magnitude star "north-preceding" rather than simply "preceding" pretty well establishes the identity. It is further pinned down by Howe's measurement of the distance and direction to the star (actually a double, or perhaps a single star superposed on a galaxy) which points exactly to N741 as the object that he measured. ===== NGC 742. See NGC 741 = IC 1751. ===== NGC 749 is not IC 1740, which see. ===== NGC 750 is the western of a well-known pair of interacting ellipticals (NGC 751 is the other). See NGC 739 for more. ===== NGC 751 is the eastern galaxy in an interacting double (NGC 750 is the other). See NGC 739. ===== NGC 755 = NGC 763, which see. ===== NGC 757 = NGC 731. Both N757 and N763 (which see) were found by Ormond Stone with the Leander McCormick 26-inch, presumeably on the same night, though he doesn't give us the dates in the discovery paper. He has, however, left us a sketch of N763 labeled "Drawn Jany 11.0 1886, sketched Jany 4.5 1885" where the "1885" pretty clearly should be 1886 (there are a couple of other sketches from early 1886 where the dates are given correctly). In any event, this is the western of two relatively bright galaxies in the area, found by WH early in 1785 (the other, as I noted, is NGC 755 = NGC 763). Taking Stone's poor positions into account, the true position difference of the two galaxies pretty well matches the difference in Stone's positions for his two nebulae. In addition, his descriptions match the galaxies very well, particularly his estimated magnitudes and diameters (N757: m = 11.0, D = 0.4 arcmin, gbMN; N763: m = 13.0, D = 1.6 x 0.4 arcmin, PA = 65 deg, gbMN). Even though WH's relative positions are good (though his declinations are about 4 arcmin too far north), JH had trouble with these two objects. Though he claims his Slough observation is for one of his father's objects, and his Cape observation is for the other, neither of his positions is very good. I suspect that both observations refer to the brighter western galaxy, N731. Peters got things sorted out when he micrometrically remeasured the galaxies' positions (see his second Copernicus article and his discussion in AN 2365). Dreyer adopted Peters's good positions for the NGC. Finally, my identification of both N757 and N763 with NGC 755 in the early versions of ESGC is wrong. ===== NGC 760 is a double star found by Copeland with Lord Rosse's 72-inch. His offset for it from NGC 761 is accurately measured, and his position for N761 is in turn well-measured from one of Lalande's stars. Thus, the NGC position is good, and the identification not in doubt. ===== NGC 761. See NGC 760. ===== NGC 763 = NGC 755. This is the southeastern of two pretty bright nebulae, originally found by WH. Fortunately, Stone has left us a sketch of the object which clearly shows it to be N755. Assuming that he found both nebulae the same night, the northwestern (N757) is almost certainly identical to NGC 731. See the discussion of NGC 757 for more. ===== NGC 764 may be the double star at 01 54 38.9, -16 18 22. There are no other candidates for it nearby, and Stone has left no sketch. His description is appropriate for the stars ("eF, vS, iR, gbM") but given his poor positions in the two Leander McCormick lists, its identity as N764 is nothing more than a guess. Curiously, the next object in Stone's list (No. 46) is not in NGC at all. It is described by Stone as "m = 14.0, D = 0.2, R, gbMN" and may simply be a star. But I do not see why Dreyer left it out of the NGC. Other of Stone's objects with similar descriptions are included, so the omission of this one is puzzling. In any event, there is nothing at all in the area that can be clearly identified with this list entry, so perhaps Dreyer had reason to suspect it that he has not told us. ===== NGC 771 = 50 Cassiopeiae is a star. During one sweep, JH said, "I suspect this star to be nebulous." No one since, including JH himself, has been able to see the suspected nebulosity. JH wrote in GC, and Dreyer quoted in NGC, "Retained in the catalogue for future occasional observation. Nothing can be more difficult than to verify or disprove the nebulosity of a considerable star under ordinary atmospheric conditions." A quick look (via SIMBAD) at the astrophysical literature on 50 Cas turned up no observed spectral peculiarities associated with it -- it is a normal A1 V main sequence star. Similarly, a look at the POSS1 reveals no trace of even faint nebulosity around the star. JH may have been misled by a moment of particularly poor seeing. ===== NGC 783 = IC 1765, which see. ===== NGC 785 = IC 1766, which see. ===== NGC 789. See NGC 793. ===== NGC 793. This is one of the few nebulae found by J.G. Lohse, an English amateur astronomer, working at the observatory of another amateur, Mr. Wigglesworth. Unfortunately, the observations never seem to have been published outside the NGC, so Lohse's approximate position and description as recorded in the NGC is all the information that we have. For this particular object, Lohse says only, "Very very faint, between two stars; south-following NGC 789." The only object in the area that fits the description is the faint double about two arcmin southeast of Lohse's place. It is quite a faint object (it is not in GSC), so Mr. Wigglesworth must have had a considerable telescope if Lohse was to have seen it. Some digging in the literature is clearly called for to find the details we need to know about the observatory and its instruments. Without that, my possible identification, while fitting Lohse's description, can only be tentative. ===== NGC 794 = IC 191, which see. ===== NGC 797. See NGC 801. ===== NGC 801. Four other galaxies (NGC 19, 21, 7831, and 7836; see these and NGC 6 for more discussion) discovered earlier in the evening of 20 September 1885 by Lewis Swift share a common offset in Swift's positions from the true positions of +1m 10s in RA and +8m 8s in Dec. If we accept the identity of NGC 801 as given by most catalogues (it is a large edgewise spiral on the northeast edge of Abell 262), then Swift's position for this object is about -19 sec and -0.9 arcmin off, more in line with Swift's usual precision (or lack of it). Swift mentions a "double star close following" which may be the faint double near the southeast end of the spindle. However, both stars are roughly at 17th magnitude on the POSS1; could Swift have seen them? Well, there is no other candidate galaxy near aside from NGC 797, and there are no doubles anywhere near it. So, while the identity of NGC 801 is somewhat uncertain, I will stick with it for now. Incidentally, this galaxy almost got an IC number as well. Searching for NGC 801, Bigourdan rediscovered this object -- it is number 473 in his fifth list of new nebulae. The first four lists were published in time for them to be included in the NGC or the IC's. The fifth list was not. Consequently, it has received almost no attention in the subsequent literature. ===== NGC 804 = IC 1773, which see. ===== NGC 810. Stephan's position, given in both MNRAS and AN, is correct, but the NGC position is 10 seconds west. This is one of the few transcription errors that Dreyer made in his catalogues. The galaxy itself appears to be triple: a close dumbbell is oriented south- west-northeast, and a much fainter companion (or jet?) is just east of the southwestern component. Stephan noted only one object here, and the dumbbell is just barely noticeable on POSS1. ===== NGC 811. The nominal RA, from a single observation by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick, is about 50 seconds too far east. This is not as bad as many of the Leander McCormick nebulae, but is still off enough that I did not recover this for ESGC. The identity is solidified by the star just an arcminute to the south -- Leavenworth mentions it in his description. ===== NGC 814 and 815. These two objects, found by Ormond Stone at Leander McCormick in 1886, have been misidentified or given up as lost by nearly everyone who has tried to find them. However, Stone's sketch, made a few days after their discovery, points to the correct objects a full eight minutes of time east of the recorded (and published) positions. The star field is unmistakeable, and the objects match Stone's descriptions. ===== NGC 815. See NGC 814. ===== NGC 823 = IC 1782, which see. ===== NGC 832 may be a double star. D'Arrest has only one observation of the nova, noting a star 9-10 about 5 arcmin southwest. There is such a star about four arcmin southeast of his position (copied correctly into NGC), but there is nothing at his position nor is there another bright star southwest of it. However, about 4 arcmin northeast of the star is a faint double star. It is 24 seconds east of d'A's position, and just 0.2 arcmin north. It is the sort of object that he could have seen as a "F, S" nebula on even a good night. Lacking any other candidate, this is a possible choice for his nova. ===== NGC 834. This was discovered by WH, who remained its sole observer at the time the NGC was compiled. See NGC 841 for more. ===== NGC 841 is the brightest of three galaxies forming a small group (the others are NGC 834 and 845). Though credited to Stephan (who has a note that it is clearly distinct from the other two, indicating that he saw all three), it was actually found by WH, and observed by d'Arrest. Interestingly, JH saw only the faintest of the three. Though his position is virtually exact for it, he was enough convinced that his object and his father's were the same that he equated them. So, in GC he noted a 1 minute of time difference in the RA's and adopted his own. For N834, he used his father's position since he did not come across it during his own sweeps. Thus, when Stephan observed the trio, he found two GC objects at their correct positions, and a "new" nebula which he measured and included in his list of "novae". Like WH, d'A also saw only the brightest of the three, but made the RA about 13 seconds too large (17 seconds larger than WH's). He, too, assumed that all the observations referred to the same object, so that is how Dreyer put them into NGC. There, Dreyer adopted d'A's RA for NGC 845. The credits for H III 604 and d'A need to be moved from NGC 845 to NGC 841. Aside from that and the adjustment needed for the RA of N845, the NGC is pretty close to being correct. ===== NGC 842 is one of the few Leander McCormick nebulae that is absolutely, positively identified. Not only did Leavenworth observe it three times, he made two sketches of the field. Even so, the nominal RA is 46 seconds of time off the true RA, a good indication of the quality of the LM positions. See NGC 412 for an LM nebula, found and sketched the same night as one of N842's, not so fortunate in its observation. ===== NGC 843 is a triple star very close to d'A's position. He describes the triple as a faint, small, round globular cluster. On a night of less than perfect seeing, that is how the triple must appear. ===== NGC 845. This is the faintest of three galaxies, and the only one seen by JH. Move the WH number (III 604) and the other observer credit to d'A to NGC 841 (which see). That is the brightest of the three. ===== NGC 846 = NGC 847. Stephan's micrometrically measured position is very accurate; Swift's position, estimated from setting circles is not too bad, and his description of the four field stars nearby is appropriate, too. The identity, first suggested by Spitaler in the early 1890's and included in the 1st IC, is certain. ===== NGC 856 = NGC 859. See NGC 863. ===== NGC 859 = NGC 856. See NGC 863. ===== NGC 863 = NGC 866 = NGC 885 and company. The problem here is what to do with the five observations reported by Lewis Swift in his fifth "catalogue" of nebulae, published in Astronomische Nachrichten No. 2763 (Vol. 116, page 33, 1886). All five received NGC numbers: 856, 859, 866, 868, and 885. So, in addition to NGC 863, found by William Herschel (H III 260), there are six numbers in the area and but only three fairly bright galaxies. NGC 863 itself is no problem. The NGC position, from JH's observations, is very good (there is a 30 second error in WH's RA; see Dreyer's note in his edition of WH's Scientific Papers). It obviously pins down the brightest of the galaxies in the area (which, by the way, is Markarian 590). Another of the galaxies is very nearly as bright (Mark 590 and this second galaxy are listed at m_p = 14.0 and 14.4, respectively, in the CGCG), and I'm a bit surprised that the Herschels did not see it. These two are obviously the two brightest that Swift found on the night of 3 October 1886 (N859 and N866, numbers 23 and 24, respectively, in his AN list). The relative positions that he gives them are correct -- "np of 2" and "sf of 2." The declinations are not too bad, but the RA's are out. The third object that he found that night is NGC 868; the position is not too bad, and the description (what there is of it: "eF, pS, R") is appropriate. Swift returned to the area on 31 October of the same year, finding two more objects. The first of these, NGC 856 (the 22nd object in Swift's list), has a good position, and the description ("eF, S, lE, F * close") is again appropriate. The star was measured by both Bigourdan and Howe, and is about a minute of arc east and slightly north of the galaxy. The second object, NGC 885 (number 27), has -- if my conjecture is correct -- the largest positional error of any of Swift's five objects here: five minutes of time in RA. Swift's declination is good. What I believe happened on this night is that Swift simply rediscovered the two brightest galaxies. So, NGC 859 = NGC 856 and NGC 885 = NGC 863. His descriptions of the brightnesses of the two objects, though, is systematically fainter -- "eF" vs. "pF" for the fainter of the two, and "vF" vs. "pF" for the brighter -- than on his earlier night's observations. This suggests to me that the sky was not as good on this second night as on the first, or that Swift was then simply noting nebulae as fainter. The right ascension problem for NGC 885 is, I believe, one of Swift's large random errors that are littered throughout his lists. For example, in the same list, NGC 1689 (found 22 October 1886) is also five minutes out, being = NGC 1667. Another example: NGC 1037, also in the same list, has as a part of its description "[GC] 581 in field." This means that GC 581 = NGC 1032 must be within 16 arcminutes of Swift's object (Swift was using an eyepiece that had a field diameter of 32 arcmin), but his declination for NGC 1037 is 2 deg 49.7 arcmin different from NGC 1032's declination! In summary, then, I think that my original assignments of the NGC numbers are probably correct, though we do not have the evidence to be absolutely sure. The observations reported by Herbert Howe in M.N. 68, 356, 1898, and 69, 29, 1900, support my position: he could not find NGC 859, NGC 866, and NGC 885, though he reports observing NGC 856, NGC 863, and NGC 868. Bigourdan also has observations of only three objects here, though he assigns a different number to the faintest: NGC 859 rather than NGC 868. I've yet to sort out his data completely, however. ===== NGC 866 = NGC 863 (which see) = NGC 885. ===== NGC 867 may be the same galaxy as NGC 875. Or it may be the same as IC 225. Or it may be neither, or another galaxy altogether. I don't have enough information to tell. Here is the story. This is the second of WH's third class (very faint) of nebulae, found during his first season of sweeping the sky. He placed it "13 minutes :: following, -- north" of 60 Ceti. Dreyer has a note in the Scientific Papers that reads (in full): Sweep 61, Dec 21, 1783. "An almost invisible F. neb., it is R. and about 8 or 10 arcsec diameter, being brighter in the center than outwards. It can only be seen when the glass is perfectly clean and the attention confined to the object." By two diagrams, it is about 1 1/2 deg nf a star which was taken to be 69 Ceti, but obs. was interrupted by clouds. Not found by Bigourdan twice. In his 1912 MN list of corrections to WH's NGC nebulae, Dreyer shortens this to read merely, "The place of III.2 is extremely uncertain." The suggestion that it might be NGC 875 comes from d'A who found N875 and measured a pretty accurate position for it. Dreyer copied this suggestion into the NGC description for N875. Auwers places it at "02 07 29, -1::" for 1830 which places it at 02 13 37, -0.5 for 1950. This is more than a degree south of the GC (and NGC) position, and I wonder if Auwers has his declination sign wrong. He has no note for the object, nor does JH in GC. And that is pretty much it as far as the observations go. The crude offset from 60 Ceti suggests that N875 is the galaxy WH saw, while the 69 Ceti note suggests that IC 225 might be his object. NGC 875 is brighter by half a magnitude and is therefore the more obvious choice, but the agreement of the diagrams -- assuming the identification of the star as 69 Ceti is correct -- is also compelling. We will have to go back to WH's observing records for the sweep to look for other clues. For example, I suspect that Dreyer has replaced the original offset published in PT, but that is only a suspicion, based on JH's adoption of a fully-reduced position in GC, and on Auwers's partially-reduced position. So, at the moment, all I can say is "NGC 867 may be the same galaxy as NGC 875. Or it may be the same as IC 225. Or ..." ===== NGC 868. See NGC 863. ===== NGC 874. Though Muller's position is off, his description is exact, including the position angle of the galaxy and the position angle and distance of the neighboring star. The RC3 is correct in this case. ===== NGC 875 may also be NGC 867, which see. ===== NGC 885 = NGC 863 (which see) = NGC 866. ===== NGC 886. Thanks to a typo ("6" for "5"), this appeared in an earlier unpublished errata list of mine as being equal to NGC 863. It's not, of course. It is actually a scattered cluster of about 20-30 stars centered near JH's position. It's obvious on the POSS; nevertheless, RNGC chose to call it "non-existent." See Brent's Monograph on the "non-existent" clusters for more. ===== NGC 894 is the northwestern arm of NGC 895. Lord Rosse and his observer at first thought that this was a double nebula. But their description makes clear that, after some study, they regarded the two as parts of the same extended system. This, of course, is just what they are. ===== NGC 896. Though WH noted the polar distance as uncertain, his position is only 4 arcmin south of the nebula, a bright knot in a huge HII ring (or possibly a supernova remnant). ===== NGC 900. See NGC 901. ===== NGC 901 is just 2.8 arcmin nnf NGC 900, and the NGC position (from Marth, who found the pair) is very close to the true position. Nevertheless, this has not prevented MCG and RNGC from getting the identification wrong. MCG calls N900 "N901," and RNGC claims N901 to be non-existent (though it does get N900 right). In spite of this, the identifications of the two objects are clear. ===== NGC 917. JH's position is exactly 20 arcmin too far north in declination. His description, "vF, S, R; forms a semicircle with four stars" from a single observation in Sweep 106 is a prefect match for UGC 1890 and four nearby field stars. Lord Rosse looked at the area of JH's published position, but saw only several very faint stars. There are two double stars about an arcminute south of JH's place. These are very faint; while they might have been visible in the 72-inch, it's very unlikely that JH could have seen them with the 20-foot reflector. In any case, UGC 1890 is almost certainly the object he saw. The galaxy and the nearby stars match his description exactly. ===== NGC 930 is lost. Copeland found it just an arcminute northwest of NGC 932 with Lord Rosse's 72-inch. He saw it only one night, and made a micrometric measurement of it with respect to the nucleus of NGC 932. Two stars that he also measured (on three other nights as well) are just where he places them. But there is no trace of his nebula. There is a faint knot (or superposed companion) in the corona of N932, but it is only about 35 arcsec northeast of the nucleus. While Copeland might have been able to see this, there is no way to make his measurement fit. There are no other likely galaxies nearby that he might have seen, either -- aside from NGC 938 about 10 arcmin east-southeast which he, in fact, also saw. So, NGC 930 is a mystery. The modern catalogues, by the way, are wrong in adopting that number for the galaxy that is here. Dreyer clearly meant NGC 932 to apply to WH's object. ===== NGC 932 is the correct number to apply to WH's nebula, not NGC 930 (which is lost; see its note for more) as most modern catalogues do. ===== NGC 937 is a curious galaxy. In the DSS2 blue image, it looks like a fairly normal late-type spiral, at least in its outer regions. Towards the center is what at first glance appears to be a bar, but turns out to be nothing more than a knot on the western side with the rest of the "bar" being an extended bulge. This is centered a few arcseconds north of a relatively bright, superposed star. At least it looks like a star, and Stephan saw it that way, too. Its image is quite stellar on the 2MASS scans, but there are whisps of nebulosity around it in both the DSS2 images. Even more curiously, the brightest pixel in this "star's" image, on both red and blue DSS2 plates, is on the northern edge close to the center of the outer isophotes of the galaxy. Is this "superposed star" perhaps some kind of extremely bright knot in the galaxy, or perhaps even an overexposed stellar nucleus? If I had to guess, I would say that it is a star. But we really do need a spectroscopic study of the galaxy to say for sure. ===== NGC 944 = IC 228. Javelle's position for IC 228 is accurate, but Leavenworth's for NGC 944 is not. As is usual for many of the Leander McCormick nebulae in the first two AJ lists, the crude position there is over 1.5 minutes of time too far east. Fortunately, Leavenworth has left us a sketch showing not just the nebula, but two nearby field stars in their correct relative positions and brightnesses. The brighter of the stars is BD -15 430, Javelle's reference star. ===== NGC 952. Stephan has misidentified his comparison star. My first suspicion was that he switched the comparison stars for this and for NGC 983 (which see; briefly, when 15 Triangulum is used as the comparsion star for N983, Stephan's position exactly matches that for NGC 1002). The position he lists for the N983 star, however -- "786 B.A.C." = 15 Tri -- has no bright star near it (that position is RA = 02h 24m 11.23s, NPD = 58d 59m 27.6s, for 1870). Furthermore, he lists different NPD's for the nebula in the two papers in which he published his third list: in MN, the NPD is given as 59 49 52.1; while in AN, the NPD is 55 49 52.1. There is nothing in either position. The next thing to try is to look for galaxies in the area that are at the offset inferred from Stephan's published positions. These are -4m 25.61s in RA, and +2m 58.0s in Dec. A cursory scan of the relevant areas didn't turn up any reasonable candidates, but I suspect that a careful inspection of the fields northwest of the stars between 5 and 9 in Triangulum would eventually reveal Stephan's object. Until then, however, N952 is unfortunately "Not found." ===== NGC 961 = NGC 1051 = IC 249. Stone's description matches Stephan's in every respect, but his (Stone's) RA is just 10 minutes of time off, an obvious digit error. See IC 249 for more on that story. ===== NGC 963 = IC 1808. Leavenworth's position, like many of his, is too far east by over a minute of time. But his declination and description, like many of his, are about right. Since he left us no sketch of the field, we have to depend on just the declination and description, but I have little doubt that they refer to IC 1808. Javelle rediscovered the galaxy about a decade after Leavenworth saw it; the position he measured at Nice -- and therefore the IC2 position -- is correct. ===== NGC 964 = IC 1814, which see. ===== NGC 970. See NGC 971. ===== NGC 971 is a star. Lord Rosse's diagram and micrometric measurements with respect to NGC 970 point exactly to the star. Thus, though some have taken the faint companion of NGC 970 as NGC 971, this is incorrect. ===== NGC 980 and NGC 982. William Herschel found these two nebulae, but did not measure individual positions; his position is "between them." Thus, it is John Herschel's positions that are used in the GC and NGC. Unfortunately, JH did not carry over into the GC his uncertainty in the position of H III 572 = h 235; this is noted in his 1833 catalogue (RA and NPD): "02 24 40.5:, 49 55 25:". The other nebula, H III 573 = h 235 carries no such uncertainty symbols: "02 24 44.8, 49 52 39." If this latter position is precessed to 1950, it agrees closely with those measured by Bigourdan and by Dressel and Condon for "NGC 980." Dressel and Condon, of course, simply copied the designation from UGC. Bigourdan gives no reason for his identifications, simply noting that "NGC 982" is fainter than "NGC 980." The MCG, however, calls this southeastern object "NGC 982," apparently preferring to believe that the NGC declination is incorrect rather than the right ascension. Who's right? Let's look back at John Herschel's observations since that is where the incorrect position comes from. If we precess his uncertain position for the western object, we find that the RA but not the declination agrees with that from the modern observations. So, the two galaxies are oriented northwest- southeast on the sky, but the NGC positions (from Sir John) say southwest- northeast. Indeed, the GC and NGC descriptions state this orientation explicitly. However, Dreyer has a note in the NGC repeating part of Sir John's original description for h 235: "Dist. 3 arcmin; pos from the next one = 337.0 deg," and adding, "Is the p one perhaps the most northern? H says nothing about their relative position; not observed by d'A." John Herschel's note about the position angle between the two being 337 deg is the vital clue here, since it suggests that the nw/se orientation is correct. Let's now take the position of h 236 as correct -- as indeed it is within the known statistical errors of Sir John's observations (about 2 arcmin). Now, assume that Sir John measured the position of h 235 with respect to h 236, perhaps by measuring the distance and position angle that he quotes. This would then imply that he made an error in calculating the offset in declination. If this is true, then changing the sign of the declination offset (2 arcmin 46 arcsec) would put the declination exactly on the true declination: +40 42.5 for 1950 (NPD = 49 49 53 for 1830). So, here is another case where the position for a nebula was measured with respect to another nearby nebula, which in turn was referred to the "fundamental" reference system (see the note on NGC 2424 and 2427 for another instance of this). So, I think that the declination of NGC 980 is out by 5.5 arcmin, that the UGC identifications are switched, and that the MCG got them right. Another minor mystery: in the GC, JH has the distance as "210 arcsec" rather than "3 arcmin". This makes his observation closer to the true distance on the sky. I suspect that it comes from his original observing records -- but why didn't he use it in his 1833 list? ===== NGC 982. See NGC 980. ===== NGC 983 = NGC 1002. Stephan misidentified his comparison star, a mistake caught by the editor of the Monthly Notices and given a footnote in Stephan's third list (the editor, too, made a mistake: for "... R.A. 02h 17m 52.66s ..." read "... R.A. 02h 27m 52.66s ..."). When the right star, 15 Triangulum, is used, Stephan's micrometrically measured position falls exactly on NGC 1002. The error is also mentioned in Esmiol's 1916 re-reduction of Stephan's observations. ===== NGC 993 = NGC 994. Marth found this in January of 1865, and only observed it once. Nevertheless, his position is good. That and his brief description (eF, vS) is enough to identify the galaxy he saw. Swift redisovered it 20 years and some months later in October 1885. His description of the galaxy and the surrounding star field exactly matches Marth's object: "eeF, pS, R, vF * close; bet a pB * and a F D *; np of 2 [the 'sf of 2' is NGC 1004] ..." So far, so good. But then Swift adds, "... not [GC] 5251 [NGC 993], 5264 [N1016] nor 602 [N1073]." This led Dreyer to assign a separate NGC number in spite of the virtually identical positions and descriptions. Swift seems to have confused another galaxy in the field with Marth's object. But I can't venture a guess as to which one it might be. I don't see any nearby that are bright enough for him to see that he has not already named. Perhaps there is an asterism in the area that he picked up. Whatever he did, there is no doubt about which galaxy he saw -- it was the same one that Marth saw (the identity was first suggested in CGCG, by the way). ===== NGC 996. See IC 240. ===== NGC 1002 = NGC 983, which see. ===== NGC 1006 = NGC 1010. Swift saw all three of the galaxies here. Curiously, his RAs for the first two (NGC 1011 is the second) of the triplet are both 10 seconds of time too small, but the RA for the third galaxy (NGC 1017) is close to being right (he saw them all on the same night). Stephan picked up the first two of the galaxies, but not the third, while Stone got all three and recognized that the first two were Stephan's. Swift apparently did not have the GC supplement at hand, so did not realize that Stephan had already seen the nebulae. Thus, he included all three as new in his fifth list. This led Dreyer astray, but -- again curiously -- only for NGC 1006. He credited Swift for all three, but included a separate number only for Swift's observation of NGC 1006. The other two he combined with Stephan's and Stone's nebulae to get this field almost, but not quite, right. ===== NGC 1010 = NGC 1006, which see. ===== NGC 1011. See NGC 1006. ===== NGC 1014 is a double star not too far from Muller's position. It is positively identified by his note "1st of 2"; the second is NGC 1018, a galaxy about three arcmin to the northeast. Muller's relative position for the galaxy -- +0.2 minutes and +1 arcmin -- is close to the true relative position -- +9.4 seconds and +1 arcmin 47 arcsec. Muller's descriptions are appropriate, too. ===== NGC 1017. See NGC 1006. ===== NGC 1018. See NGC 1014. ===== NGC 1023 is one of the nearest early-type galaxies in the sky, and is also the brightest in a group. It has a low-surface-brightness companion ("NGC 1023A" in the position list) attached on the eastern end. Both galaxies may have bars, but they are indistinct on the DSS image. ===== NGC 1027 is probably also = IC 1824, which see. ===== NGC 1032. See NGC 1037. ===== NGC 1036 = IC 1828, which see. ===== NGC 1037. Swift found this on the night of 29 Sept 1886, and gives an 1885.0 position of 02 34 08 -02 13 47, describing it as "eeeF; vS; vE; eee diff; [GC] 581 [NGC 1032] in field" in his 5th list of new nebulae. Something is obviously wrong since NGC 1032 is at 02 33 29 +00 35.9 (1885) and probably has no other galaxies bright enough for Swift to have seen within 16 arcmin of it (he used an eyepiece that gave a field of 32 arcmin, so if N1032 is "in field," it must have been within 16 arcmin, assuming that N1037 was centered). In addition, Swift's quoted declination is 2 deg 49.7 min south of NGC 1032. I don't see any obvious typos, so I've had to conclude "not found" for N1037. After I wrote the preceding paragraph, I learned that Wolfgang Steinicke (and others) have suggested that NGC 1037 is actually UGC 2119, two minutes of time preceding Swift's position, and 6.7 arcmin south. This is certainly possible as there are several other larger RA errors in Swift's 5th list. However, this still leaves the problem of NGC 1032 being nearly 3 degrees to the north. Looking at the field, two other possibilities suggest themselves. First, Swift may have picked up UGC 2106 which is in the same field as UGC 2119. This would suggest that he somehow thought that U2119 was NGC 1032. Secondly, if he had NGC 1032 correctly identified, then it is just barely possible that he might have also seen the very faint galaxy about 4 arcmin northwest. This is quite flattened, and might be visible in a 16-inch under very good skies. However, there are brighter stars near it -- in particular, a star is less than an arcminute to the northeast. Why didn't Swift mention any of these? This hypothesis also requires a large error in position (50 seconds in RA and 2 deg 53 min in Dec). All in all, I'm not convinced by any of these hypotheses, so shall stick with "Not found." ===== NGC 1040 = NGC 1053. Here is a peculiar case where Lewis Swift's position is closer to the galaxy than Edouard Stephan's! However, if Stephan's position is made exactly one minute of time larger, then it agrees with the GSC position to within 5 arcsec. Stephan apparently made a simple error in subtracting the RA offset of the galaxy from the comparison star as the position he lists for the star is correctly precessed from the BD. However -- another error -- he recorded the star's BD number as +40 677 in both publications of his third list: the correct number is +40 577. We all have bad days. The identity with NGC 1053, by the way, was suggested by Reinmuth, and Swift's position and description are good. ===== NGC 1051 = NGC 961 = IC 249. See NGC 961 and IC 249 for the stories. ===== NGC 1053 = NGC 1040, which see. ===== NGC 1057 is noted as double in the NGC. It was seen this way several times by Lord Rosse and his observers. It is actually an S0^+ galaxy with a double star superposed just northwest. The position in the GSC for N1057 does not include the double star. ===== NGC 1059 may be the double star about an arcmin east of JH's position. He recorded the object only once, and then described it as "eF; hardly sure." Dreyer noted that this object was found neither by d'Arrest nor by Burnham. The suggestion that N1059 is the double comes from Reinmuth. ===== NGC 1061. See NGC 1062. ===== NGC 1062 is a star found by Copeland in the NGC 1061 group (actually in the core of an extended cluster of galaxies) with Lord Rosse's 72-inch "Leviathan." The offsets from NGC 1061 measured by him fall precisely on a faint star, so the identity is certain. The RNGC and PGC identification of NGC 1062 with a low surface brightness spindle near NGC 1066 and 1067 is incorrect. Dreyer reduced positions for the objects in this group from the 72-inch micrometer measurements assuming a position for the nearby comparison star. It was these positions that he used in the NGC. Comparison with positions in the GSC show that Dreyer's position for the star is off by about 1.8 seconds in RA and 21 arcsec in declination. Taking these offsets into account, Copeland's measured position for NGC 1062 becomes 02 40 23.6, +32 15 00 (1950.0). ===== NGC 1066. See NGC 1062. ===== NGC 1067. See NGC 1062. ===== NGC 1072 = IC 1837, which see. ===== NGC 1105 = IC 1840 = MCG -03-08-004. My previous decision to list two galaxies under the number "NGC 1105" was misguided. After reviewing the evidence, I've decided to go with historical precedent and let Leavenworth's sketch -- which clearly shows that N1105 = I1840 -- provide the final word. However, for those still interested, here is the full story. The NGC galaxy was found in 1885 by Leavenworth with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick Observatory. As with most of the faint nebulae discovered visually with this telescope, the discovery position is crude, especially in RA. Fortunately, Leavenworth has left us a sketch that shows conclusively that his object is identical to IC 1840. The four stars to the west of the galaxy -- looking like the top four stars in the cross of Cygnus -- are all shown in the sketch along with the galaxy. The second candidate comes from Herbert Howe. Working with the 20-inch refractor at Chamberlain Observatory just outside of Denver, he could not find anything at the position given by Leavenworth. However, "... four minutes following was a very small nebula, about equal in brightness to a star of magnitude 13. As Leavenworth observed his nebula only once, and took its place roughly, the two may be identical." Dreyer took Howe's "may be identical" as "indeed are identical" and put Howe's RA in the IC2 Notes with only the qualification, "... (nothing in the place given by L.)." So, we have two galaxies for one NGC number (where is Solomon when we need him?!). My previous solution added "e" and "w" suffixes to the NGC number for the two different galaxies. Not very satisfactory for the purist, I'm afraid, but it did give some credit to each of the observers, and attempted to deal with Dreyer's Note in IC2. As I've said, however, my current sensibilities are offended by this Solomaic decision, so I've reverted to using historical precedent and ignoring Dreyer's Note. For what it's worth, the galaxy that Howe found is now called MCG -03-08-036. ===== NGC 1109 (= IC 1846?), 1111, 1112, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1117, and 1127. Of these eight nebulae, all found on a single night in 1863 by Albert Marth with William Lassell's 48-inch reflector, only three -- N1115, 16, and 27 -- can be readily identified. All but one of the others can be force-fit to galaxies in area, but only by changing RA offsets from galaxy to galaxy. The declinations are pretty good, assuming that the RA offsets noted below are in fact leading us to the correct objects. All we have here to help decypher the field are Marth's positions -- five of them clearly wrong -- and descriptions -- all of them sparce. Here are my tentative conclusions, with Marth's data on the first line (my comments follow in parentheses), and the modern positions (for B1950.0) on the second: NGC RA (1950.0) Dec Description and comments 1109 02 46 55 +13 02.7 vF (Marth's RA 2.0 min off?) 02 44 59.45 +13 02 50.0 = IC 1846 = UGC 02265 = CGCG 440-008 1111 02 46 59 +13 01.6 F, vS, stell (Marth's RA 1.0 min off?) 02 45 55.0 +13 03 07 = IC 1850. Faint comp 0.4 arcmin s. 1112 02 47 16 +13 00.6 F, pS (Marth's RA 1.0 min off?) 02 46 16.20 +13 00 59.6 = IC 1852 = UGC 02293 = CGCG 440-015 1113 02 47 24 +13 05.6 vF (Marth's position on * 10). 02 47 20.76 +13 07 16.0 = * 15. 1115 02 47 41 +13 02.6 vF 02 47 41.11 +13 03 36.5 = CGCG 440-020 1116 02 47 51 +13 07.6 vF 02 47 51.40 +13 07 44.3 = UGC 02326 = CGCG 440-021 1117 02 47 59 +12 57.6 Close to a small * (RA 30 sec off? Is the comp 0.4 arcmin n the "small *"?) 02 48 28.88 +12 58 48.1 = CGCG 440-022s = UGC 02337s 1127 02 50 07 +13 02.4 vF 02 50 07.5 +13 03 10 = CGCG 440-024 = UGC 02356 The RA offsets strike me as rather ad hoc, so these are tentative conclusions. ===== NGC 1111 may be IC 1850. See NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== NGC 1112 may be IC 1852. See NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== NGC 1113. See NGC 1109. ===== NGC 1115. See NGC 1109. ===== NGC 1116. See NGC 1109. ===== NGC 1117. See NGC 1109. ===== NGC 1120 = IC 261. Leavenworth's RA for this is just over a minute of time larger than Javelle's correct one. But Leavenworth left us a sketch which clearly shows the galaxy in the surrounding star field. The identity is certain. ===== NGC 1122 = NGC 1123. Swift's position is nearly identical to that given in the GC, yet neither he nor Dreyer caught the identity with the Herschel's nebula. These things happen to the best of us. Swift, by the way, mentions a star near to the north. It is there, about 2.0 arcmin away from the nucleus. There is also a faint edgewise companion to the brighter galaxy on to the northeast of Swift's star. ===== NGC 1123 = NGC 1122, which see. ===== NGC 1127. See NGC 1109. ===== NGC 1128 is the dumbbell galaxy in the center of Abell 400. Swift's RA is five minutes too small, but his comment about two pretty faint stars close west is accurate. Several objects found by Swift in October of 1886 have the same 5 minute problem. I wonder if the printed RA of a star that he commonly used then to calibrate his setting circles had a typographical error. ===== NGC 1129. See NGC 1130. ===== NGC 1130 and 1131. Both of these were discovered by Lord Rosse (or by his observer) while he was examining NGC 1129. The Parsonstown observers looked at NGC 1129 three times, noting the superposed object to the southwest all three times (it was finally taken as a star or a double star, so did not receive an NGC number. It is VV85, and may be a line of three galaxies, or two galaxies plus a star). Two other "knots," seen only during the final observation, did receive NGC numbers. While Lord Rosse did not yet have a micrometer to measure accurate offsets, the estimates he gives (2 minutes north for the first, and 2 minutes east and "a little south" for the second) are just good enough to tentatively identify the objects. Dreyer calculated the NGC positions from the offsets and the position for NGC 1129. Neither identity is certain. While there is a brighter CGCG galaxy a four or five arcmin on further southeast of N1131, Lord Rosse would have had to make a mistake of five arcmin in his estimated offset; this is unlikely. The situation for N1130 is even less sure. There is no object directly north of N1129. Of the two possiblities, CGCG 540-004 1.5 arcmin northwest is the more likely identification. Not only is the galaxy brighter than the one about two arcmin northeast, there is a star superposed just southwest that would probably have enhanced the visibility of the CGCG object. Assuming these identifications, CGCG and UGC got the correct objects, but MCG did not (not even N1129!). The accurate position measured at Bologna for CGCG 540-007 = NGC 1131 is also for the wrong object; they got a faint spiral that may be in the background of the group. ===== NGC 1131. See NGC 1130. ===== NGC 1135 = NGC 1136, and not ESO 154- G018 as Andris and I have it in ESO and SGC. Glen Cozens has pointed out that E154-G018 would be one of JH's faintest objects if he had seen it, and he would probably have called it "eF" instead of just "F". JH, in fact, has two observations of the galaxy. For the object that became NGC 1135 (h2498) he writes, "F, R, gbM; taken for No. 3 sw 520, but proves, on reduction, to be a different nebula"; this from Sweep 732 on 11 Sept 1836. For h2499 (the "No. 3 sw 520" in the description just quoted), JH says only, "F, R, gbM; [moon above the horizon]." (Sweep 520 is dated 5 December 1834). Both observations refer to the brighter of the two objects (ESO 154- G019), but the earlier observation has a 5 arcminute error in the north polar distance. This led JH -- and Dreyer and Andris and myself and several others -- to believe that he had two nebulae here, not just one. Coincidentally, there are two nebulae in the field, but as with NGC 5440 and NGC 5441 (which see), JH almost certainly saw only the brighter of them. ===== NGC 1136 = NGC 1135, which see. RC3 and ESO give the correct position. RC2 and RNGC are wrong. The incorrect position comes from JH who made a five arcmin error in his NPD. ===== NGC 1141 = NGC 1143, and NGC 1142 = NGC 1144. This is a well-known interacting pair of galaxies, perhaps a collision. Marth's description for N1141 and N1142 fits, and his positions are just 30 arcminutes off. He apparently was having an off night when he found this pair: of the ten objects that he discovered on that night in early October 1864, five have large position errors, and another is a star. The discussion of NGC 1474 has more details. ===== NGC 1142 = NGC 1144. See NGC 1141. ===== NGC 1143 = NGC 1141, which see. ===== NGC 1144 = NGC 1142. See NGC 1141. ===== NGC 1146 is a group of four stars near d'A's position. He mentions a triple star near to the south -- that is what Brian Skiff and Tom DeMary have taken as the object itself, Brian noting that it is the southeastern of two groups of stars. For some time, I had thought that the NGC number applied to both groups. Seeing d'A's full description has finally made it clear that I was wrong. However, d'A is also wrong when he comments that he can see nebulosity mixed in with the cluster at a power of 226. Perhaps some of the fainter stars nearby lent the appearance of nebulosity on a less than perfect night. Finally, Wolfgang Steinicke got the right asterism a decade ago during his early work on the NGC. ===== NGC 1147 is probably lost. There is no object within five degrees of the nominal position that matches Muller's description (m = 15.0, Dxd = 0.4x0.2, extended 180 deg; star 9.5 mag following 25 sec, north 1 arcmin). I had the thought during preparation of ESGC that it might be identical with NGC 1157, a few degrees south, but there is no bright star in the right direction from that galaxy. ===== NGC 1157 is probably not NGC 1147, which see. ===== NGC 1170 may have been the tail of a comet. It was found by C.S. Pierce at Harvard on the last day of 1869, and was verified by Joseph Winlock. The description in Harvard Annals, Vol. 13, Part 1, reads, "J.W. and C.S.P. independently think the sky generally bright f and a little n of the comet for 14' or more (several fields according to C.S.P.). [The approximate place in Table VIII results from comparison with the comet.]" The comment in square brackets is from the author of the paper, probably J.W. In Table VIII, the only information is the position 02 54 10, +26 31 (1860), and the Remark, "Comet 1869 III p neb 2m 31s, a little s." I haven't yet done the library work to know if the comet's tail stretched off to the northeast from the head. But the description makes it possible that this is the correct explanation for this NGC entry. ===== NGC 1171. See NGC 1197. ===== NGC 1173. This is one of four objects (the others are NGC 1176, 78, and 83; N1176 has the story) that Bigourdan found scattered around NGC 1175 in December of 1884. Bigourdan's published north polar distances for the four are all one degree too large. The other three are stars, but this one is a mystery at the moment. I suspect that Bigourdan has misidentified his comparison star, but will have to look around the field some more for another that he might have used instead of the one he claims to have used. Whatever the case, there is nothing in Bigourdan's position, which comes from two accordant measurements on 17 December. About 40 arcsec to the southwest is a faint double star that he probably could not have seen (based on the fact that he had difficulty with NGC 1177). He adds a curious note to his description: "At the end of the measurements, I could see the object very well: the sky, very clear at just that moment, had been a little unsettled." This is what leads me to believe that he has misidentified his star field. ===== NGC 1174 = NGC 1186. Swift's position for N1174 is just 1 minute of time off. Otherwise, his description is a good match for NGC 1186, including the bright double star about 5 arcmin northwest: it does indeed point to the galaxy. Dreyer corrects the relative position of the double star and the galaxy in a note in IC1 where he also repeats Spitaler's suggestion that N1174 and N1186 are identical -- but for a different reason. See N1186 for that story. Coincidentally, Swift's incorrect position for N1174 lies near IC 1872, a group of 3-4 stars exactly at Bidschof's micrometric position (it was also independently found by Bigourdan, but his observation was published too late to be included in the second IC). Somehow, these two numbers have avoided being equated over the years. Even RNGC simply called N1174 "Not found." ===== NGC 1175. See NGC 1176 and NGC 1177. ===== NGC 1176, 1178, and 1183 are all stars in the vicinity of NGC 1175. Bigourdan's published north polar distances are all 1 deg too large, but he has correctly identified his comparison stars. Re-reducing his positions puts them directly on top of faint stars in the field. Another object found at the same time (N1173, which see) is apparently lost, or is the victim of a misidentified comparison star. Also, Bigourdan had trouble seeing N1175's one real companion galaxy, NGC 1177 = IC 281. Even though his measurements of N1175 itself are good, this was obviously not a well-seen field for him. ===== NGC 1177 = IC 281. N1177 was found by Lord Rosse, and clearly measured by him with respect to N1175. The NGC position is good, and LdR also mentions the brighter star 32 arcsec northeast of N1177. However, this has not prevented Swift from claiming the galaxy as one of his discoveries, so it has an IC number as well as its original NGC number. Bigourdan claimed to have found four "novae" in the field (N1173, 76, 78, and 83; see N1173 and N1176 for more), but three are clearly stars (the fourth, N1173, may be too, but I wonder if Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star for it; see N1173 for more). In spite of his four "discoveries," Bigourdan had trouble seeing N1177. He observed N1175 on two nights, could not find N1177 on the first of those, and saw it only vaguely on the second, commenting that the light of the brighter star mentioned by LdR prevented him from measuring it. ===== NGC 1178 is a star. See NGC 1176 for the discussion. ===== NGC 1182 is almost certainly = NGC 1205. Both objects were found by Ormond Stone with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick. As with all of the nebulae published in the first AJ paper from LM, the positions are crudely given to just a full minute of time and an arcminute. In this case, the two positions flank the actual position, with NGC 1182 being about a minute of time to the west, and NGC 1205 about two minutes east (this latter error is a common one in the Leander McCormick lists). The declination is within an arcminute in both cases. There are no sketches for either of these. Stone's descriptions of the nebulae are almost identical (m = 15.5, Dxd = 0.7x0.3, extended 120deg; *10 PA = 240deg, dist = 2.5 arcmin and m = 14.0, Dxd = 0.7x0.3, extended 25deg; *9.5 PA = 240deg, dist = 3.0 arcmin). Only the magnitudes and position angles are different enough to attract attention. Howe suggested that the two objects were the same, and put the star 8 seconds west and 2 arcmin south of the galaxy (I measure 8.1 seconds and 1 arcmin 27 arcsec; the separation is 2.47 arcmin). I suspect that the position angle of 25 degrees is a transcription error for "125"; the difference in magnitude could be the result of different observing conditions. There is a galaxy, NPM1G -09.0141, closer to the position for NGC 1205 and with a star at approximately the right distance and position angle. But the galaxy is considerably fainter than NGC 1182. Its position is also off in declination as well as RA, so I think it is unlikely to be Stone's second object, especially since he makes the eastern one brighter than the western. ===== NGC 1183 is a star. See NGC 1176 for the discussion. ===== NGC 1186 = NGC 1174 (which see for more). In the NGC, Dreyer notes that both Lord Rosse and d'Arrest looked for N1186 in vain. However, it was seen and consistently described by both WH and JH at much the same position. Until Spitaler's observation appeared (in AN 3030, which I've not seen), Dreyer must have been puzzled by this as both LdR and d'A were fine observers. The galaxy has a pretty low surface brightness, and with at least two 14th mag stars superposed, it would have been rather difficult to see, especially in long-focus telescopes. However, there is no doubt that both Herschels saw it, and the identity is not in question. Swift's RA for N1174 is just 1 minute off, and his description of the double star 5 arcmin northwest clinches that identification, too. ===== NGC 1197. Well, I can't find this one, either. There is nothing at Swift's position, and his description -- "pF, cE, pS; sev vF sts nr" -- could fit any of a dozen galaxies within a few degrees in any direction. He apparently found only one other galaxy on the same night (NGC 1171), and that is close to his nominal position. So, searching for a systematic offset won't help. A search of the surrounding POSS1 fields turns up no digit errors in the ten's places of RA and Dec that would nail an appropriate object. So, this object may well be lost. Wolfgang's identification, by the way, is a star about an arcminute west of Swift's position. Swift's description pretty well rules out this ID. ===== NGC 1198 = IC 282, which see. ===== NGC 1202 is positively identified by the wide double star at PA = 45 deg, d = 4 arcmin, mentioned in Stone's description. The galaxy is not, by the way, identical to IC 286 (which see) -- Bigourdan "observed" them on the same night in December of 1890. ===== NGC 1205 = NGC 1182, which see. ===== NGC 1212 = IC 1883. As with NGC 1213, Swift found this galaxy in October of 1884, and made an error in estimating its RA. Thus Barnard thought it a nova when he found it sometime later. Barnard's observation, like many others of his in IC2, is unpublished -- he apparently sent it directly to Dreyer. In this case, this object is the first of a group of five near Algol that appear in IC2 (the others are I1884 = I290, and I1887 = I292, I1888 = I293, and I1889 = I294; see IC 290 for notes on them). Swift explicitly notes the proximity to Algol in his notes for several of the galaxies. As I mentioned, his positions are not good, so misled Barnard into believing that all five galaxies were "novae" when all, in fact, are included in NGC or IC1. Thus, all have IC2 numbers, too. In this case, Algol is west-northwest by several arcmin. Swift's galaxy can be identified by his note "Right angled with 2 sts." The figure actually looks more like an equilateral triangle, but is close enough to provide strong support for this object as being the one that Swift saw. ===== NGC 1213 = IC 1881. Swift found NGC 1213 in October of 1884, soon after he began observing with the 16-inch refractor at Warner Observatory in Rochester, New York. As was to be his practice for the next 14-15 years, he "measured" the position of his "nova" by centering it in the eyepiece of his telescope, then reading the setting circles. This led to many mistakes in his positions. Swift's RA of this object is far enough off that Bigourdan thought it was probably also a "nova" when he rediscovered it in January of 1891 (the object that Bigourdan labels "NGC 1213" is a star). Though Bigourdan's observations of the galaxy are especially poor because of its low surface brightness, it is almost certainly the same object that Swift saw. Both of their descriptions are apt (including Swift's "F * close n"), and Bigourdan suggests in his that the galaxy might be NGC 1213. ===== NGC 1233. Is NGC 1235 (which see) possibly equal to this? ===== NGC 1235. Is this perhaps = NGC 1233? Found by Swift on one of his more productive nights, N1235 is one of 13 nebulae observed on 21 Oct 1886. Aside from NGC 58 (which see) which has a 1 minute error in RA, the other 12 objects have no significant systematic offsets in their true positions from Swift's discovery positions. If N1235 is indeed N1233, then it would be the lone exception with a 23.6 arcmin error in Dec. So, though the description (what there is of it) fits, I'm not comfortable with this identity, and consider it provisional at best. ===== NGC 1237 is most likely the double star about 30 seconds west, and a minute south, of Muller's position. It fits his description, including the position angle, and Muller himself notes "**?" ===== NGC 1240 is probably the double star 34 sec east and 3.7 arcmin south of WH's position. His description, from one observation on 12 Sept 1784 ("Suspected, 240 left a doubt; eF and vS, most probably 2 close stars; between 2 stars," quoted by Dreyer in the 1912 Papers collection) fits perfectly, and there is nothing else in the area that matches. The position difference is not unexpectedly large for WH's early observations. ===== NGC 1241. See NGC 1243. ===== NGC 1242. See NGC 1243. ===== NGC 1243 is a double star first seen by JH. There are two nebulae here, N1241 and N1242, both discovered by WH (though nearly two years apart). JH saw the brighter (N1241), but thought his father's description of the fainter's position ("... about 1 arcmin north-following II 286 [N1241]") wrong -- it isn't, but JH never saw the fainter (N1242). Curiously, neither did d'A who picked up the same two objects as JH, N1241 and the double star. The first observation at Birr turned up both of WH's nebulae, but not JH's double star, so the sketch made that night shows only the two nebulae and some field stars. JH thought that the orientation of the sketch must be wrong since it did not agree with his own observation. He made a comment to that effect in the note in GC, which certainly confused the situation. It was not until Dreyer looked at the field in November 1877 with the 72-inch that all three objects were observed together for the first time. Dreyer's measurements pinpoint all three, but he still describes N1243 as a nebula, making it the second brightest of the three. His description and sketch from that night is an accurate repesentation of the field -- except that he still believes N1243 to be nebulous. ===== NGC 1251 is a double star. It is so close to Coolidge's position that Reinmuth had no trouble identifying it as the NGC object. This is one of many asterisms in the list of "nebulae" found visually at Harvard in the late 1850s. ===== NGC 1252 is a sparce cluster (or random scattering of stars) 20 arcmin north of JH's position. His description (Star 8m, the chief of a cluster of 18 or 20 stars) fits perfectly, and his NPD for the star is very close to exactly 20 arcmin too large. This suggests a simple digit error in his NPD. ===== NGC 1257 is a double star. Bigourdan saw this object on two nights, but only estimated its position once. Since the BD position of his comparison star is also an estimate (and is actually closer to a slightly fainter star about 1.7 arcmin east-southeast), the NGC position is off. Consequently, the number N1257 has been mistakenly assigned to CGCG 540-073 in RNGC, PGC, and RC3. Bigourdan's estimated position, however, falls within an arcminute of the double, and he notes the two neighboring stars in his description. The identity is secure. ===== NGC 1264 is UGC 2643. Bigourdan's position is within 5 arcsec of the GSC position, so there is no doubt about the identification. RNGC has mistakenly put the number N1264 on CGCG 540-085, which is about 5 arcmin southwest of the real NGC 1264. ===== NGC 1269 = NGC 1291. Though JH claims to have seen them on the same night (1 November 1836), I think that he has some mistake in his records. His data and description for NGC 1269 are identical to those for NGC 1291 on that night with two exceptions. First, the RAs differ by 2 minutes 34 seconds, and second, he adds a diameter to his description of N1291 (90 arcsec), while N1269 has none. Otherwise, the data are the same: NPDs 131d 43m 11s, and descriptions "vB, R, gmbM (hazy)." He has two observations of N1291 (on the second night, he called it a "mottled, but not resolved" globular cluster). His RAs for the two nights differ by 10 seconds, and he suggests that one is in error. Not knowing which one, he simply took the mean value and used that for GC. The galaxy is so large that both positions fall within the image. The identity was first suggested by Robert Innes in a note in Monthly Notices 62, 468, 1902. He could not find N1269, but had no trouble seeing N1291. Dreyer, in his IC2 Note, did not go so far as to repeat the supposition of identity, but succinctly summarizes the other evidence. I don't think there can be any question of the identity of the two numbers -- though without seeing JH's observing logs for that first November night of 1836, I of course cannot say this with utter certainty. ===== NGC 1272. See NGC 1279. ===== NGC 1275 is the brightest galaxy in the Perseus Cluster and a strong radio source, as well as a fascinating object in other wavelengths. See NGC 1279. ===== NGC 1276 is a double star mixed in with the many galaxies in the Perseus Cluster. Dreyer himself found it while making micrometric measurements of the cluster galaxies in 1876. Fortunately, he has recorded his measurement of the object (352.3 degrees position angle, 291 arcsec distant from NGC 1278) so that we can positively identify it. I make the PA 352.5 and the distance 283 arcsec, not significantly different from Dreyer's numbers. ===== NGC 1278 = IC 1907, which see. Also see NGC 1276 for which this serves as Dreyer's micrometric reference point. ===== NGC 1279 is accurately located by Lord Rosse's micrometric offsets from his reference star which is directly between NGC 1272 and NGC 1275. It is certainly not the fainter galaxy superposed on the corona of NGC 1275 as suggested by LEDA. ===== NGC 1289 = IC 314, which see. ===== NGC 1291 is also NGC 1269, which see. ===== NGC 1304 is also probably NGC 1307. WH's position for N1304 is pretty good, being only 3 seconds off in RA and 2 minutes in Dec. Leavenworth's RA, though, is a minute of time east of the galaxy, and his note mentions a nearby star of magnitude 9.5 eight seconds east and 3 arcmin north. The star is closer to 6.5 seconds west (not east), 3.2 arcmin north, and has a V magnitude of about 11.8. All in all, the star is not a very good match to Leavenworth's description. But given the size of the 26-inch at Leander McCormick, it could well be that he simply overestimated the brightness. And there are cases known where he confused the directions in his field (I'll see if I can find a few others in these notes). There is a fainter galaxy (KUG 0319-047) about 5 seconds on east and 1.5 minutes north of Leavenworth's position, but the neighboring star for that galaxy is only four seconds west and 3.4 arcmin north. This star, too, is considerably fainter than Leavenworth's estimate (V about 11.7). Wolfgang originally chose this galaxy as NGC 1307. While it would probably have been within reach of the 26-inch, I still favor equating Leavenworth's nebula with WH's. N1304 would certainly be easier to pick up while sweeping, and Leavenworth's neighboring star more closely matches his estimated offsets, if not his indicated direction. ===== NGC 1307 is probably NGC 1304, which see. ===== NGC 1312. The RC3 is wrong in equating this with UGC 2711. This is actually a double star, as are many of the first "nebulae" found at Harvard by Bond and his colleagues. The positions of these are generally very good, and their descriptions and those of the surrounding fields make clear just what the early observers were seeing. ===== NGC 1316. See NGC 1317. ===== NGC 1317 is also NGC 1318. Curiously, the position for this galaxy is virtually the same in Schmidt's Fornax Cluster list (AN 88, 138, 1876) as it is in JH's catalogues, yet Schmidt calls it a new nebula. Schmidt complains that there are not very many reference stars in the declination zone of the Cluster, so he has instead referred his positions to those of JH's nebulae in the area. Thus, I am not surprised to see that Schmidt's position for NGC 1316 (given with JH's number h2527) is nearly identical to JH's. When I first went through Schmidt's list (in the mid-1970s at ROE while preparing SGC), I was, however, surprised to see that Schmidt did not notice that the first of his "Faint new" nebulae is at JH's position for N1317 (h2529). Glen Cozens has pointed out (in an email sent in September 2006), though, that the CGH observations have the NPD for h2529 20 degrees in error. JH himself caught this while proofreading his monograph, and has the error corrected in the errata at the end of the volume. The NPD is carried correctly over into the GC and the NGC. Since Schmidt does not use GC numbers in his list, only JH's numbers, we can be pretty sure that he had the CGH in front of him when he prepared his paper. So, without checking the errata, he thought h2529 was 20 degrees north of its true position. There are several other errors in Schmidt's list of stars and galaxies, suggesting that he threw it together quickly without checking JH's CGH observations very carefully. We can be sure about this identity. It was first noted (to my knowledge) by the de Vaucouleurs in RC1. Knox Shaw at Helwan in a 1912 list, and Carlson in her 1940 list of NGC corrections, both simply noted N1318 as not found, but did not suggest the identity. ===== NGC 1318 = NGC 1317, which see. ===== NGC 1327. This is L.M. 105, found by Ormond Stone with the 26-inch refractor at the Leander McCormick Observatory in Virginia. He describes it simply as "vS, neb?" and assigns a magnitude of 16.3. His position is typically uncertain with nothing resembling his description nearby. There is a faint galaxy (MCG -04-09-008) 0.6 minutes of time east of his RA and at the correct declination. Since the early Leander McCormick positions, not just Stone's, tend to be too far west, this object is a logical candidate. However, Delisle Stewart examined a Bruce reflector plate taken at Harvard's Arequipa station in Peru, and noticed a faint triple star near Stone's place. ESO has suggested that the wide triple about 2.5 arcmin north of Stone's place is Stewart's object. Since the stars in the triple are 13th and 14th magnitude, and since they are spread out along a line nearly an arcminute long, I doubt that they would appear as a "vS" nebula of the 16th magnitude in the 26-inch, even on a night of spectacularly bad seeing. Stewart created some additional confusion by simply precessing Stone's crude position to equinox 1900. This, together with his comment in Harvard Annals 60, "3 vF sts, close together, no neb," summarized by Dreyer in the IC2 Notes, would lead us to believe that the triple is at Stone's position. All of this makes me unhappy with Stewart's hypothesis, but I've nevertheless retained the triple in the main table as a possibility for N1327. ===== NGC 1330 is a group of five or six stars -- probably with several more fainter involved -- exactly located by Stephan's micrometric position. Efforts to identify it with galaxies in the area are futile. ===== NGC 1331 = IC 324, which see. ===== NGC 1333. Though there is no question about the identity of this nebula, its early observations with small telescopes were contradictory enough to lead to suggestions that it might be variable. The note in Auwers's 1862 appendix to WH's catalogue makes it clear that Tuttle's observation of 1859 has the directions of the field inverted. This probably contributed to the perception of variability. Interestingly, part of the object seems to be a collapsing protostar (see Sky and Telescope, January 1997, pages 15 and 16 for the story). Is it thus possible that N1333 really is variable? Depending on the density, position, and orientation of dust clouds around the protostar, and the possibly changing intensity of the star itself, variability from our point of view is not out of the question. This is apparently the cause of the variability of the nebulae around T Tauri (NGC 1554 and NGC 1555, which see), and perhaps also explains the variability of NGC 2261 (also which see). ===== NGC 1334. See IC 323. ===== NGC 1340 is certainly identical to NGC 1344, just as Dreyer first suggested in the NGC note. Swift looked for it with his 16-inch from Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain but could not find it. He wrote that it should be "struck out" in a note appended to his third list of new nebulae found at Lowe. As Dreyer notes, JH saw this in two different sweeps, but only crudely estimated the position in the first of those (JH says "Transit missed while observing another nebula"). That estimated position was far enough off that when he was assembling his CGH table of nebulae back in England, he thought he had two different nebulae. Lacking any other evidence, he took a rough mean between his position and his father's for NGC 1344. And there is another tale to tell. WH used a star he called "12 Eri" as the reference star for his offsets for the galaxy. I depend on "Sky Catalogue 2000.0", Vol. 1, for Flamsteed numbers, so was not happy to find no listing for "12" Eridani (11 and 13 are there, but not 12). A search based on WH's offsets and the modern position for N1344 shows that 12 Eri is probably alpha Fornacis. But this position is 20 seconds and 10 arcmin off JH's for N1340 -- no wonder he thought there were two nebulae here! In any event, there is only one. It's RA is close to that for NGC 1340 and its Dec is close to that for NGC 1344. Sometimes, it just takes teamwork to get things right. ===== NGC 1344 = NGC 1340, which see. ===== NGC 1356 is the brightest of a group of four galaxies, clearly interacting with at least two of the others. The companion that I've listed in the table is the nearest companion to the main galaxy, actually being superposed on the southwestern arm. It is difficult to tell from the IIIa-J survey plate (the DSS) whether this is a galaxy or a group of knots in the arm, but the 2MASS image clearly shows it to be a galaxy. It's redshift is close to that for N1356 itself. ===== NGC 1367 = NGC 1371. Ormond Stone found NGC 1367 sometime in 1885 or 1886, and as with the other nebulae in the first Leander McCormick list, gave its RA to only a full minute of time. This put it about 20 seconds of time west of NGC 1371 (accurately placed by the Herschels) and earned it its own entry in NGC. However, Stone made the magnitude 13.0, actually one of the brightest in the LM list of "new" nebulae, and he has a ninth magnitude star 5.0 arcmin north- east of his nebula. That star is there (as is a fainter one about 3 arcmin northeast), making the identity with N1371 certain. ===== NGC 1369 is probably ESO 358-G034 = MCG -06-09-004, a fairly bright Fornax Cluster galaxy that JH missed. This is one of the nebulae found by Julius Schmidt with a 6.2-inch refractor in Athens in the 1870s (others include NGC 1318 and NGC 1378, both of which see). His table in AN 2097 has stars and galaxies listed in RA order, and is full of errors. In this case, there is an entry for a bright star immediately following his entry for this nebula. If the star is SAO 194404, and if it and Schmidt's nebula share the same incorrect RA minutes of "27" instead of "30", then the nebula is ESO 358-G064. I do not see any other star/galaxy pairs in the cluster near the same declination that would fit as well. Schmidt's data are clearly estimates: he assigns a magnitude of 5.6 to the star, while the modern V magnitude is 7.3. His position -- with the RA corrected -- is 03 35 12, -36 29.2 (precessed to B1950), while that for the SAO star is 03 35 11, -36 27.4. For the nebula, he has 03 35 05, -36 26.8 compared to 03 34 51, -36 25.2, not particularly good matches. But as I said, I do not see any other reasonable candidates. ===== NGC 1378 is a double star found by Julius Schmidt with a 6-foot (focal length) refractor during his survey of the Fornax Cluster area from Athens in the early 1870s. His position is off in RA by about 3 seconds of time, but the double is the only object in the area that he might have picked up. His "description" reads "F. new" (in the original German, "S. neu") so it is not much help. The Mt. Wilson and Helwan observers came to the same conclusion, so RNGC has the same identity. For SGC, I consulted Schmidt's paper in AN 2097, and saw no reason to differ with the earlier concensus. ===== NGC 1382 is another of Julius Schmidt's discoveries in the Fornax Cluster. As given in his table, his RA is about 40 seconds of time off a galaxy that de Vaucouleurs (in his 1956 monograph on bright southern galaxies) called "NGC 1380B". Carlson had already included N1382 in her 1940 list of NGC/IC corrections, and deV noted that N1380B was the same galaxy. I think that he was reluctant to adopt the identification because he did not have Schmidt's list at hand, so could not check it himself. Since there is no other reasonable candidate for NGC 1382, I adopted the identity for SGC, and still think it is pretty solid. ===== NGC 1384. There is a faint double star very close to Marth's position, though the brightest galaxy in a scattered cluster about 2 arcmin south fits Marth's description ("Nebulous star 13m") very well -- it has a star superposed about 5 arcsec southwest of the nucleus. The galaxy/star pair are also considerably brighter than the double star, and are within Marth's usual error circle. So, while it's possible that the double is Marth's object, it is much more likely to be the galaxy with the superposed star. ===== NGC 1392 was found by Swift on 13 February 1887 about 5 arcmin north of a brighter "nebula" which Swift took to be Comet 1887-I three degrees south of its predicted position. There is nothing in either of the places given by Swift in his sixth list for either object. Nor is there anything three degrees north where the comet was supposed to have appeared that night. However, the center of the Fornax cluster is one and a half degrees north. I think it's likely that Swift saw two of the galaxies there, but choosing two out of the 15-20 that he could have seen would be pure guesswork. Similarly, Lauberts's guess in ESO (ESO 358-G040) is based on a reliance on the 1 degree difference in declination more than it is on the likelihood that Swift actually saw the object: ESO 358-G040 has a total visual magnitude around 16.2, likely putting it beyond Swift's limit, especially given the far southern declination. A third possibility is raised by Kreutz in a note following Swift's list in AN. Kreutz notes that the offset of Swift's position from that predicted for the comet by Finlay is 38 minutes east, and 4 degrees 1 arcminute south. However, searching at Finlay's place for a double nebula turned up nothing, either. Other objects found by Swift on the same night include NGC 1797 and NGC 1799, both very near Swift's positions for them; and NGC 2589, like NGC 1392, not found at Swift's position (see Herbert Howe's note in MN 61, 29, 1900, copied into the IC2 Notes). In the end, NGC 1392 is another of Swift's nebulae "not found." ===== NGC 1396. The galaxy chosen by me for SGC is the only reasonably match to the original position by Schmidt in his short paper on the Fornax Cluster. Unfortunately, Schmidt's table in that paper has several errors, some perhaps typos, some perhaps observational. In any event, given the size of his telescope, and the problems in his table, the SGC galaxy is as good a match to Schmidt's observation as I can make. ===== NGC 1408 is another of the new "nebulae" found by Schmidt during his survey of the Fornax Cluster area. There is nothing at his position, but during my sweep across the area for SGC, I noted two double stars nearby. The fainter and wider double is northwest of Schmidt's position, and the brighter but closer pair is southeast. Though I've listed both in the main table, with question marks, neither seems particularly likely to me to be mistaken for a nebula. This should be checked at the eyepiece, though. In any event, N1408 is currently unidentified. See NGC 1378 and NGC 1396 for more on Schmidt's Fornax Cluster work. ===== NGC 1411 may also be IC 1943, which see. ===== NGC 1412 = IC 1981. This is the only galaxy near Herschel's position that he could have seen. As with NGC 324, Herschel's RA is correct, though his declination is off. ===== NGC 1415 = IC 1983, which see. ===== NGC 1416 has suffered a bit in the literature. It was discovered by Frank Muller at Leander-McCormick before he and his fellow observers there were measuring good positions for the nebulae they were finding, so it has an NGC declination that is about 3.5 arcmin off. In addition, the two bright stars just south are described as "* 8.7, nr; * 8.6, n 2'". The actual place of the "* 8.6" is south by 3.5 arcmin, while the "* 8.7" is 1.5 arcmin south. This apparently confused Herbert Howe, too. He wrote in his second MN paper, "Muller gave this nebula as 2' north [sic] of a star of mag. 8.6. It is really south [sic] of the star. There is another star of equal mag. about 5' south of the star mentioned. The position of the nebula is 03 36 41, -23 02.4 [1900.0]." What Howe should have said is "Muller gave this nebula as 2' south of a star of mag. 8.6. It is really north of the star. ..." Still, he did get the galaxy's position right, assuming that this really is the one that Muller saw. Dreyer copied Howe's corrected declination into a note for IC2. Carlson had this to say in 1940 about the object: "NGC correct, W" where the "W" is the source of the note, a Mt. Wilson photograph. She has a footnote on the object that reads "Howe's correction (D III) to NGC not confirmed" ("D III" refers to Dreyer's Notes in IC2). Unfortunately, she is wrong as the NGC declination lands between the two bright stars; Howe is right. So, nobody has got it completely right. This leads me to question Howe's identification, which is the usual one adopted by every catalogue since that includes the galaxy. However, there is no other galaxy in the area that has two bright stars close to it. So, this is most likely Muller's object. ===== NGC 1420 is a triple star at d'Arrest's position. The identity is nailed down by d'A's mention of the "* 13 10.5 seconds preceding [at about the same] declination." That star is there. ===== NGC 1424. See NGC 1429. ===== NGC 1425 may also be IC 1988, which see. ===== NGC 1426. See IC 1983 = NGC 1415. ===== NGC 1427. See NGC 1436. ===== NGC 1429 is lost. Leavenworth describes it as "15.5, 0.3 x 0.2, E 180 deg, gbMN; 2nd of 2." The first of two is NGC 1424 which carries this description in the Leander McCormick list: "15.2, 0.2, R, gbM; 1st of 2, one of which is GC 763 [N1424]; * 10 p 15 sec." The description of Leavenworth's "2nd of 2" matches the one galaxy in the area. But that is it. The star 15 sec west of the galaxy is 13th magnitude, and there is an 11th magnitude star half that distance northwest. Why did Leavenworth not mention that? I think that Leavenworth has misidentified the known galaxy so that his description applies to a different pair altogether. But which pair? I don't see any other in the area that matches the descriptions. So, NGC 1429 is another lost NGC object until someone with sharper eyes than mine has a go at the problem. ===== NGC 1432 is the reflection nebula around Maia in the Pleiades. Though the brightest part of the nebula is to the north-northwest of the star (see e.g. Barnard's description in AN 3018), I have simply adopted the position of Maia itself. See NGC 1435 for more on the Pleiades nebulosity. ===== NGC 1434 may be the galaxy I chose for ESGC at 03 43.8, -09 50. This has a star of about the right brightness 20 seconds east and 3 arcminutes south that might match the star in Muller's description. He put the 8.5 mag star at 25 seconds east and 3 arcmin north. If he made a mistake in his direction, the ESGC galaxy would fit his description. NGC 1445 (which see), suggested as a possible identity for N1434, also fits Muller's description, but it has no star anywhere near that could be Muller's. I think this identification is less likely. ===== NGC 1435 is the part of the reflection nebula around Merope extending almost directly south by 10 to 15 arcmin from the star. For some time, I had thought that it and IC 349 (which see) are identical. However, reading Barnard's careful observations of the Pleiades in AN 3018 (where he announces the discovery of IC 349), it became clear that the IC object is actually a brighter knot in the larger Merope nebula, and very close to the star itself. Under normal conditions, Merope's light swamps the knot, so it is not surprising that it was not found until the keen-eyed Barnard turned the Lick 36-inch refractor on it (though Pritchard claims an earlier image on a plate taken at Cambridge in the late 1880's; see Herbig's article in AJ 111, 1241, 1996 for a complete history of IC 349). NGC 1435, however, is fairly easily seen on good nights with much smaller telescopes. I've picked it out with a six-inch, and I suspect that any good scope of four inches or more would give a view of it. ===== NGC 1436 is almost certainly identical with NGC 1437. JH saw 1436 twice, but not on the meridian, so did not derive an accurate position for it. The one position he gives is a rough one from his working list for Dunlop 562. He has this to say about it: "... I have reason to believe this RA too great and the NPD also materially in error -- perhaps 126 35 [instead of 126 45] would be preferable." His single observation of N1437 is from a different sweep with a secure position. But his diameter estimate of '4"' must be in error as he calls the galaxy "vL". I would guess that the diameter should read "4'". This would match Dunlop's estimate of 3.5 arcmin. Unfortunately, the rough position in the CGH Observations was precessed and copied into the GC with very little to warn us about its inaccuracy. Only in the "1?" entries in the columns in GC marked "No. of Obs. used." is there a hint of the problem. Dreyer did not carry those over, but just copied the summary description and position directly from GC. So it is that JH's careful notes in his early work have been lost in the later collections. In any event, the first suggestion that I've been able to find that N1436 is N1437 comes from Harold Knox Shaw in Helwan Observatory Bulletin No. 15, 1915 -- but even that is indirect and found under his entry for N1437, not N1436. For N1436, Knox Shaw says, "Nothing here. [N]1427 answers fairly well to the description and there are several other similar objects not far away." For N1437 he writes, "vF, pL, vlE, prob. spir., prob. = Dunlop 562." I've found one other observation of N1436, that by Schmidt in his Fornax Cluster paper in AN 2097. There he has it in the penultimate place in his table of stars and nebulae, and labels it "h 2581". He gives only a position "3h 35m 11.8s -36 23 49" for 1830 with no description. This is correct only if the minute of RA is changed to "37". Then, it falls within a few arcsec of the modern position for N1437. So things stood until I did SGC in the mid-70s at ROE. There I stumbled across the missing N1436 again (see below), and scribbled this note in my copy of Dunlop's paper: "Though Herschel saw Dunlop 562 in two sweeps, he was not able to get an accurate position for it. His estimated position, however is nearly that of N1437 for which he did obtain a good place in a third sweep. The descriptions are similar, so the identity is assumed." This overlooks the 22 arcmin difference in the declinations (ahem), but for the RA, it is not so bad ... (ahem). Well, N1436 is a reasonable choice, especially since JH has his note about the 10 arcmin correction to the Dec. Knox Shaw's suggestion of N1427 strikes me as very unlikely as both the RA and Dec are well off JH's estimated position. Finally, I first became aware of this puzzle during my years as an amateur astronomer in the late 1950s. NGC 1436 appeared in the copy of Norton's Star Atlas that was my introduction to the sky. I was curious about this because the object did not appear in any other list of deep sky objects that I had at hand. What was this thing that the NGC claimed was a very bright globular cluster? Twenty years later, I had my answer. Now, after nearly another 30 years, I'm FINALLY writing it all down. Patience reaps its rewards. ===== NGC 1437 also probably carries the number NGC 1436, which see. ===== NGC 1440 = NGC 1442. WH's offset from 54 Eridani should be 1 deg 10 armin north rather than the 10 arcmin that he recorded for II 594. Though JH and Dreyer both noticed this, as did Auwers and Schoenfeld (see the GC and NGC Notes), they both also included both of WH's entries for the galaxy. JH has a curious note appended to his two observations of this in the CGH Observations: "N.B. Both observations agree in making the degree of PD 108 -- whereas it appears in the reduction of my Father's observations as 109." Taken at face value, it shows how obvious this particular error was. But it is recorded under h2583 = H II 458 which has the correct offset from its comparison star, 20 Eridani. As I noted, it is WH's observation for II 594 that is incorrect. So, even JH was somehow confused here. In any event, the galaxy has two NGC numbers and the identity is certain. By the way, this turns out to be probably also identical with NGC 1458. See that number for that story. ===== NGC 1441. See NGC 1443 and NGC 1446. ===== NGC 1442 = NGC 1440, which see. ===== NGC 1443 is a star. Tempel found it while observing NGC 1441, 1449, 1451, and 1453. His description says that his nova forms a trapezium with N1441, N1449, and N1451 -- indeed it does. Tempel probably has another star here, NGC 1446, that also made it into the catalogue. See it for more. ===== NGC 1445 is clearly identified by Muller's 9th magnitude star, 2 arcmin away in position angle 330 degrees. Some of the Leander McCormick positions and descriptions are sufficient for pretty solid identifications of the objects. This galaxy has also been suggested as a possible identification for NGC 1434 (which see), but I think that is unlikely -- there is no 8.5 mag star 25 seconds east, 3 arcmin north (or south for that matter). ===== NGC 1446. This is probably a star roughly 2 arcmin south of Tempel's position. He says of it, "... follows N1441 by 16 seconds [and is] +3/4 arcmin" (a crude translation of "... und folgt 16 seconds auf [GC] 772 +3/4'.") If the plus sign is switched to a minus sign, the star I've included in the table is Tempel's object. He has another nova here that is certainly a star. See NGC 1443 for details. ===== NGC 1448 = NGC 1457, which see. ===== NGC 1449. See NGC 1443. ===== NGC 1450. Howe corrected Swift's RA which is 16 seconds too large, an error this object shares with three others that Swift found the same night (NGC 652, N1509 = IC 2026, and N1594 = IC 2075). See NGC 1677 = NGC 1659 for more about this night of Swift's observing. ===== NGC 1451. See NGC 1443. ===== NGC 1452 = NGC 1455, which see. ===== NGC 1453. See NGC 1443. ===== NGC 1454 is probably the star that Steve Gottlieb and I have independently fingered. It matches the description given by Muller, and -- in particular -- there is a considerably brighter star just where Muller notes it: "* 9.5, P 240 deg, distance 3.2 arcmin." My thanks to Steve for bringing this back to my attention; I had lost the identity in my hand-written notes (how many others are there, I wonder?!). ===== NGC 1455 is probably identical to NGC 1452. The position, by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick, is pretty poor, but the description exactly fits the nucleus and inner bar of NGC 1452. In particular, the position angle mentioned by Leavenworth (30 deg) is just that of the bar. The RNGC galaxy is certainly the wrong choice -- it has too low a surface brightness to be seen even with a 26-inch refractor. ===== NGC 1456 is a double star. One component looked nebulous to Lohse; other than that, his description -- "D * 10-12, comp. nebulous (130 deg, 9 arcsec)" -- is good. ===== NGC 1457 = NGC 1448. JH has only one observation of NGC 1448; its RA is exactly 50 seconds in error. He has three accordant observations of NGC 1457 at the correct position, yet modern observers -- following Shapley-Ames -- have used the number 1448 for the galaxy. Strange people, astronomers. The identity was first suggested by DeLisle Stewart in the big list of new nebulae which he found on Harvard plates in the 1890's and early 1900's. There, he noted that N1448 was "Not seen, error for 1457 which is identified." In spite of this correction coming from a paper which they must have known, Shapley and Ames chose to use the number 1448 rather than 1457. Strange people, cataloguers ... ===== NGC 1458 is probably identical with NGC 1442 = NGC 1440 (which see for that story). This is one of Leavenworth's Leander McCormick discoveries with an RA that is about 2 minutes of time too large. When that is corrected, his observation falls on NGC 1440, with his description pretty well matching the bright inner part of the galaxy. This is not a certain identification, though. There is no sketch, and Leavenworth did not mention any nearby stars which we could use to verify the identity. Nevertheless, I'm fairly confident of the match, so use colons in the position table rather than question marks. ===== NGC 1464 = NGC 1471. Once again, the Leander McCormick RA from Leavenworth is about 2 minutes of time too large. But Leavenworth has left us a sketch that accurately portrays the galaxy and three of the stars nearby. In particular, he has the size (which he simply records as "vS") right, and his position angle of 45 degrees is correct as well. Swift's position is closer to the modern position, but his description is a bit peculiar when he claims "... forms equilatoral [sic] triangle with 2 sts." It does form a triangle with two nearby stars -- the two brighter ones shown in Leavenworth's sketch, in fact -- but the triangle is far from equilateral. In spite of this, I do not doubt that this is the galaxy which Swift saw -- his position is too close and there are no other nearby galaxies which could be his object. So the identity, at least in my mind, is secure. ===== NGC 1471 = NGC 1464, which see. ===== NGC 1474 is probably the same as IC 2002 at 03 51 45.9, +10 33 37 (B1950.0 from GSC). In addition to the problem with the original position, RNGC got the Dec sign wrong, and that incorrect sign was copied into NGC 2000.0. NGC 1474 was discovered in early in October 1864 by Albert Marth using William Lassell's 48-inch reflector at Malta, and was only observed once. The position is rough, as are many of Marth's. Of the other nine objects that he found that same night, two (N1141/2) have declination errors of 30 arcmin, another (N7575) has a 1 degree dec error, and two others (N7519 and N7593) have RA errors of 30 seconds of time. IC 2002 was found 21 Dec 1903 by Javelle with the large refractor at Nice. He measured the galaxy micrometrically, so the IC position is pretty good. This galaxy is UGC 2898 = MCG +02-10-003, and also occurs in CGCG. While Marth's description ("very faint, small, round") does not match Javelle's very well, especially in ellipticity ("... elongated along the meridian ..."), there is no other galaxy in the area that Marth is likely to have seen. Nevertheless, the N1474 identification with I2002 must be an uncertain one. Perhaps N1474 is really another star. ===== NGC 1475. The galaxy about four arcmin west of the NGC position is most likely the object that Leavenworth found. He mentions a 14th magnitude star four arcmin northwest of the nebula; there is no such star there. However, four arcmin southwest of is just such a star. Given the otherwise good description of the object, the incorrect direction is probably a simple transcription mistake. I missed the object when scanning for ESGC, so it is not included in the early editions of that catalogue. ===== NGC 1479 and NGC 1480 are a lost pair of nebulae seen only by Frank Muller at Leander McCormick. He made careful notes of the field for each nebula (N1479: "1st of 2; nebulous **, PA 170 deg"; N1480: "2nd of 2; * 10 f 30 sec."), but these don't help to identify the objects. There is just no pattern of nebulae and stars in the area of his positions that could match the descriptions. ===== NGC 1480. See NGC 1479. ===== NGC 1487 is an interacting system with at least two bright components. There are a couple of other smaller knots involved, and the faint plumes stretch over at least 10 arcminutes. The GSC position is a blend of the three brightest components; it seems to represent the system pretty well. JH saw only a single object here, but did note the two stars nearby which make a neat triangle with the galaxy. (The triangle symbol in the NGC description is just that rather than another reference to Dunlop's list.) ===== NGC 1488 is a double star. Listed as a "Star 12 involved in nebulosity" in the Markree Catalogue, it was picked up by Auwers for his 1862 list of new nebulae appended to his reduction of WH's positions. Auwers adds a note which reads, "Place from the Markree Catalogue. I've not looked for it myself." The Markree position (03 57 12, +18 25.8; B1950.0) is very good and points exactly at the double. The object (CGCG 466-003) suggested as N1488 in several modern catalogues is far too faint to have been picked up by the Markree observers. The position for the double in the main table is a mean of the GSC positions for the individual stars. ===== NGC 1491 is a diffuse nebula found by WH. His description is very good, as is his position. Dreyer nevertheless used the micrometric position measured by Engelhardt. This is refers to a star about 1.5 arcmin east of the brightest part of the nebulosity; WH mentions the star explicitly: "... a pL star in it towards the following side, but unconnected." The position I've adopted follows WH, and applies to the center of the nebula. ===== NGC 1498 is probably the triangle of three stars centered about 2 arcmin west of the NGC position. Curiously, WH's original observation reduces to a position 34 seconds of time on further west (there is nothing in that field but a few 18th magnitude galaxies). The NGC position comes from GC; did CH make an error in her reduction of her brother's observations or did JH somehow miscopy his aunt's MS? Or did they have access to other information in the sweep that led them to change the position? GC has no notes on the object, and Dreyer's 1912 note to WH's observation, "There is no very pronounced cluster near the place," is not very informative even if it is accurate. The only other historical evidence comes from Auwers's reduction: he gets the same answer I do, 34 seconds west of the NGC position. Assuming that the asterism is indeed the object that WH saw, we now find it about 40 arcsec across, and matching WH's description pretty well. Could he have glimpsed some of the much fainter stars in the field as well? They might add a "depth" to the asterism that would make it appear to stand out even more from the surrounding field and take on the appearance of a richer cluster. ===== NGC 1499 is the brightest part of the very extensive California Nebula, so called since its outline more or less resembles the outline of the state. Barnard's position -- apparently sent to Dreyer in a letter, since it is not in any of his published notes -- is just off the nebula to its east. The position I've adopted is more or less the center of the brightest portion of the nebulosity on its northeastern edge. ===== NGC 1509 = IC 2026. NGC 1509 was found independently by Swift and by Muller (who claimed two observations; he left us no sketch). Dreyer adopted Swift's position (which is 12 seconds of time too large) and description, though Muller's descriptive data certainly match what Swift recorded. (See NGC 1677 = NGC 1659 for more on other nebulae which Swift discovered on this night of 22 October 1886.) Bigourdan tried to find the galaxy a few years later in December of 1890, but could not see anything at the NGC position ("Searched with care, but in vain"). His second observation seven years later was only slightly more successful: when his measurements are reduced, they point to a star east of the galaxy. However, he also saw the galaxy on that second night, and measured it, too. Supposing it to be new -- it is not at the NGC position, of course -- he listed it among his novae, so it received the IC number. There is a fainter galaxy just to the west of NGC 1509 that is often taken as IC 2026. I'm not surprised that Bigourdan and Swift missed it; its magnitude is around V = 15, and it does not have a bright nucleus. However, Muller, working with the 26-inch at Leander McCormick, has picked up fainter galaxies. Perhaps he observed on poor nights, or perhaps he could only see high surface brightness objects with the long-focus refractor. He makes NGC 1509 only 0.1 arcmin in diameter, which means that he saw only its core. Finally, the 1893 list of micrometrically measured nebulae from Leander McCormick includes a nebula claimed to be NGC 1509. Unfortunately, only the declination was measured, so the object cannot be unambiguously identified. However, even the measured declination does not agree with the accurate value from Bigourdan and the modern sources. This measurement probably refers to a star (the description given in the 1893 paper bears this out). ===== NGC 1516 is a double galaxy which is identical to NGC 1524 and NGC 1525. See those for the story. ===== NGC 1523 is only a group of 5-6 stars. JH's position is good, but his description from a single night is sparce. Delisle Stewart first saw the object as a group of stars on a Bruce plate from Arequipa, then Andris and I picked it up during our surveys of the southern sky in the 1970's. At first glance there are only four stars here. However, at least two of them appear to be blends of fainter stars, so there are probably at least six stars altogether in the asterism. ===== NGC 1524 and NGC 1525 are the two components of NGC 1516, a double galaxy found by WH. The pair, however, was not seen as double by WH, nor JH from the Cape of Good Hope; it was finally resolved by Ormond Stone on 31 December 1886 (within a month of the centenary of its discovery on 30 Jan 1786). The Herschels' positions are good, but Stone's, as is common for the objects he and his colleagues found at Leander McCormick in the mid-1880s, is well off. In this case, his position is over 2 minutes of time too far east. The pair is identified by Stone's sketch, however. It has the relative sizes and orientation correct, so there is no doubting the identity with WH's nebula. ===== NGC 1525 is the southeastern of a pair of galaxies first seen by WH that became NGC 1516. See NGC 1524 for the story. ===== NGC 1538 =? IC 2045, and IC 2047. N1538 is perhaps the brightest galaxy in a small cluster. Stone's sketch (at least my copy of the sketch), however, seems to point to IC 2047, the second brightest. Unfortunately, his position, as poor as usual, falls near yet another galaxy in the cluster. It was this object that has been taken to be N1538 by Howe in 1901 and Reinmuth in 1928. So, the NGC identification is not at all certain. Observing logic suggests IC 2045, the sketch suggests IC 2047, and Stone's crude position has led to the third galaxy. All three are in the table of positions. ===== NGC 1539 may be CGCG 488-001, which is about 1 minute east and 4-5 arcmin north of the NGC position, correctly copied from Marth's table. Marth has only one observation of the object, and there is nothing near his position that would match his description. The CGCG galaxy is bright enough that Marth could have seen it, and the 1 minute/5 arcmin offset puts his position within his usual accuracy of the galaxy, so I've retained it as a possible identification for the NGC entry. ===== NGC 1540 is probably the southern galaxy of the interacting pair. It is somewhat brighter and more concentrated than the northern. ===== NGC 1550 = NGC 1551, which see. ===== NGC 1551 = NGC 1550. WH made a recording or transcription error of exactly one degree in the NPD of II 464, placing it on the parallel with his comparison star (44 Eridani). D'Arrest could not find the object and was the first to suggest that it might be the same as N1550, just one degree north of WH's place. Dreyer added a note to this effect in NGC, and later adopted it as a "definitive" answer to the problem, as indeed, it seems to be. JH has a comment in GC about the object, noting a 5 arcmin difference between CH's reduction and Auwers's. He attributes this to CH using an incorrect NPD for the comparison star. He says nothing about the larger one degree error. Finally, while I'm splitting hairs, WH's description in Dreyer's 1912 edition of the Complete Papers reads, "F, vS, r," while GC and NGC both have "F, S, R". Since JH had access to WH's records, it may be that he corrected another mistake. Or it may be that Dreyer or his typesetter made one. A check of the original paper in Philosophical Transactions could eliminate at least one of these possibilities. A look at the Herschel Archives at the RAS (or at any library which has the microfilm version) would be needed to check the other. ===== NGC 1554 and NGC 1555 are both involved with the young variable star T Tauri. They are among the most notorious of the nebulae found during the 19th century as they are the only nebulae certainly known to vary in brightness -- even to the point of disappearing, as NGC 1554 has done. They are most likely reflection nebulae, created as thick dust clouds near the star move about, mostly casting shadows, but occasionally letting "shafts of sunlight" out to illuminate the surrounding dense interstellar gas and dust. Nebulae were first noticed around the star by Hind in the 1850's, and were later observed by d'Arrest, Struve, and Dreyer among others. Dreyer has brief synopses of the observations in the NGC and IC Notes, and points (in the IC2 Notes) to a paper by Barnard in Monthly Notices which details most of the history of the T Tauri nebulae up to about 1900. For all the fuss that these nebulae created in the 19th century, they are all quite small and very faint at the present time. As I noted above, NGC 1554 is not visible on the Palomar Sky Survey plates (taken in the early 1950's). Also not visible is a nebula seen only by Bigourdan (B. 144; mislabeled as B. 143 by him in his big table). He makes its position 04 19 09.5, +19 21 51 (B1950.0) from a single observation on 12 Dec 1890. This is about 4 arcmin southeast of T Tauri in a blank patch of sky. Still, observers might find it fascinating to monitor the area for changes. ===== NGC 1557 is a clump of 10-15 stars that cover an area of 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin a few degrees northwest of the LMC. JH's position applies to SAO 256073, but the clump is centered about 5 arcmin south. That is the position that I've adopted. ESO, Wolfgang Steinicke, and Tom DeMary put the declination closer to the star, but that misses JH's "loose and straggling" cluster. The few stars marked "N1557" in the Hodge-Wright Atlas are northwest of JH's object. ===== NGC 1560 is not IC 2062 as I supposed in RC2. I2062 (which see) is a star. ===== NGC 1570 = NGC 1571. JH's declination is 10 arcmin off for N1570, but his RA and description insure the identity with N1571 which he saw in a later sweep. ===== NGC 1571 is also NGC 1570, which see. ===== NGC 1575 = NGC 1577. Muller's RA is 23 seconds of time too small, but his note about the "* 9.5 P[A] 185 deg, [distance] 2 arcmin" insures the identity with Swift's 29th nebula in his third list. Swift's RA is very close to being correct but his declination is further off than Muller's. Swift also mentions the "* nr s", so it is clear that they found the same galaxy. The identity was first noted by Herbert Howe in a paper that appeared in the first issue of Monthly Notices for 1900. Dreyer has this as a note in IC2, simply saying "1575 = 1577 (Ho.)." ===== NGC 1577 = NGC 1575, which see. ===== NGC 1586. See IC 371. ===== NGC 1590. See IC 2074. ===== NGC 1593 = NGC 1608 = IC 2077. Neither of the NGC observers did very well by this galaxy. Marth has the RA 1 minute too small, and LdR has it 30 seconds too large along with a declination that is 8.5 arcmin off. In addition, LdR notes the nearby star as "south" of the galaxy rather than north (an error that Dreyer caught before he prepared the NGC). Javelle, however, has one observation that is within 10 arcsec of the galaxy -- he got it right. Reinmuth first suggested the identity of NGC 1608 with IC 2077, but I think that the identity with NGC 1593 had to wait until I ran across it doing ESGC. ===== NGC 1594 = IC 2075, which see for the story. Briefly, Swift's RA is off by 17 seconds of time (see also NGC 1677 = NGC 1659 for other interesting tidbits about the nebulae Swift found this night of 22 October 1886). This misled Bigourdan into thinking he had found a new nebula. Howe had corrected the RA for Swift's object, and Dreyer put the correction into an IC2 Note. However, Dreyer did not catch the identity with IC 2075 even though its position is only 30 arcsec off Howe's corrected place for N1594. This also had an impact on IC 2080 (which see) which shares the same RA error as NGC 1594. ===== NGC 1599 may also be NGC 1610, which see. ===== NGC 1600. See NGC 1610. ===== NGC 1608 = NGC 1593 = IC 2077. See NGC 1593. ===== NGC 1610 is probably one of the faint nebulae in the NGC 1600 group -- but which one? There is nothing at Leavenworth's position, and his description (m = 15.5, D = 0.2 arcmin; R, bMN) could match any of the several fainter members of the group. Among the more likely candidates are NGC 1599, and RNGC 1610. N1599 is at the same declination and is just over a minute of time west of the nominal place of N1610. However, it has a bright star just 1.1 arcmin east-northeast which Leavenworth would almost certainly have mentioned had he seen this galaxy. The RNGC identification is also possible, but is 7 arcmin south and 1.4 minutes of time east of Leavenworth's place. Neither of these options is particularly compelling, but are still worth noting. ===== NGC 1619, like N1610, is probably one of the faint members of the NGC 1600 group. It was found by Lewis Swift on 22 December 1886 along with N1621, N1627, N1628, and N1699. Unlike those other four, however, there is nothing at all near Swift's place. Again, as with N1610, there are two candidates for N1619 that seem more likely to me. RNGC 1610 is two minutes of time west and 8 arcminutes north, while the 51st object in Reinmuth's 1932 list of nebulae is 1 minute 20 seconds west and 28 arcmin north. I'm not convinced that either of these is Swift's lost nebula, but I note them in any event. ===== NGC 1621 = NGC 1626, which see. Also see NGC 1619. ===== NGC 1626 = NGC 1621 is another galaxy independently discovered by Swift and by one of the Leander McCormick observers, Francis Leavenworth in this case. Leavenworth left us no sketch of this object, but mentions a bright star north-preceding -- the star is 10 seconds west and 3 arcmin north. Curiously, Swift does not say anything about the star, though it must have been an outstanding object in his large field around the galaxy. This is one of the discoveries that Swift sent in a letter to Dreyer and later published in his 6th AN list. The letter to Dreyer apparently had a bit more detail as Dreyer adds "lbM" to the NGC description, otherwise the same as Swift's terse "eF, S, R" in the AN list. As usual, Leavenworth's declination is very good, but his RA is 50 seconds of time too far east. Swift's position is within 40 arcsec of true, so even without a word for the star, the galaxy is clearly identified. ===== NGC 1627. See NGC 1619. ===== NGC 1628. See NGC 1619. ===== NGC 1632 is probably = IC 386 (which see), but could possibly be IC 382. ===== NGC 1639 is a triple star. JH has it in a single sweep with an accurate position and description; he also mentions the two stars flanking it. Herbert Howe was the first to note that JH's object is an asterism, and Dreyer copied his note into the IC2 Notes. ===== NGC 1641 may be the clump of stars centered about 4 arcmin northwest of JH's position. He describes his object as a "pL, p rich, irreg R cluster; p m comp M; 5'; stars 11...16." There are only about 15 stars scattered across a 9 arcmin by 6 arcmin area. If this is JH's object, it must look better at the eyepiece than it does on the Sky Survey films or on the DSS. ESO apparently has the same object, as does Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters", though Brent puts the center about 3 arcmin southeast of the mean of mine and ESO's, and makes the diameter only 5 arcmin. The object labeled "N1641" in the Hodge-Wright Atlas is a pair of faint interacting galaxies (ESO 084-IG025) that JH could not have seen. The galaxies were further misclassified as an open cluster, and appeared as number 6 in the Shapley-Lindsay list. ===== NGC 1649 is probably NGC 1652. JH has only one observation of NGC 1649 in Sweep 523 that puts it about 9 arcmin south and 6 seconds preceding NGC 1652 (his original data for N1649 are 04 38 43.3, -69 08 37 for 1830). This is only a few arcsec from the star SAO 249073, but JH makes no mention of a nearby bright star in his observation. NGC 1652 is an LMC cluster which JH observed on three nights (Sweeps 508, 653, and 759) with fairly accordant positions (the unweighted mean is 04 38 49.2, -68 59 56). Note that JH did not record N1652 in the sweep in which he found N1649. Also interesting are his descriptions: they are virtually identical in sweeps 523 and 759. He writes `F, R, gbM, 30",' and `F, R, gbM, 35",' respectively. The descriptions in sweeps 508 and 653 make the cluster `vF, S, R, gbM, 12" ' and `vF, S, R'. Since the difference in declination is close to 10 arcmin (a digit error that JH and others made several times), and the RA's are not very much different -- many other CGH observations also show RA differences of six seconds or more of time, especially as far south as the LMC -- I think that the two NGC numbers refer to the same object. Hodge and Wright came to the same conclusion in the LMC Atlas, but are rather cautious and say, "Possibly NGC 1652. Declination off by 9'." (Another very similar case is NGC 241 and NGC 242 in the SMC. See those for the discussion.) However, just eight arcmin south of NGC 1652 is a faint LMC cluster (ESO 055-SC031 = KMHK 022) that Lauberts, in ESO-B, suggested might be NGC 1649, though with two question marks and a note commenting on the declination difference. He also has N1649 = N1652 with one less question mark. KMHK (Konzitas et al, A&AS 84, 527, 1990) do not use the NGC number on the cluster, and apparently did not notice the ESO-B entry. Bica et al (AJ 117, 238, 1999), however, use N1649 for the cluster, and also note the ESO entry. Jenni Kay has also picked up the faint cluster with her large reflector, so it is not impossible that JH saw it while sweeping. In an email to Jenni and to Mati Morel (who alerted me to Jenni's observation) I wondered, though, if the SAO star might hinder JH's ability to see the very faint cluster. It certainly did not get in Jenni's way! In response, Mati listed eight cases where JH found objects near bright stars (V < 9.5) in the LMC. JH mentions the star (or stars) in only four of his descriptions, so the presence of the star alone would probably not be an obstacle to his having seen the cluster, assuming that it (the cluster) is bright and large enough to have attracted his notice during a sweep. So, I do have a bit of doubt about the identity of NGC 1649 -- but not much. ===== NGC 1652 is probably also NGC 1649, which see. ===== NGC 1655. This is one of 20 new nebulae found by J. G. Lohse with a telescope at "Mr. Wigglesworth's observatory," and sent directly to Dreyer in the form of a private communication. Thus, the only readily available information we have on them comes from the NGC itself. In this case, that includes the position and the description, "pB, R, gbM, * 10 s." There is a star of about 10th magnitude 2.5 arcmin south of Lohse's position for N1655, but there is nothing at all at that position. Delisle Stewart searched for N1655 on a Harvard plate, and could not find it either. He has an intriguing note attached, however: "... a hazy star p 1 minute, same Dec." I don't even see that "hazy star" on the POSS1 prints; is it a defect on the Harvard plate? So, N1655, too, is presumeably lost. ===== NGC 1659 = NGC 1677, which see. ===== NGC 1663 is probably the poor, scattered cluster about 45 seconds of time following WH's single position. This is one of his earlier objects (10 Feb 1784), so the position problem -- if it is one -- may be understandable as part of his learning curve. His description "A cluster of large and small scattered stars, not rich" certainly fits. There are about two dozen stars scattered over an area 12 arcmin by 10 arcmin with a 4 arcmin by 4 arcmin core containing half the stars. WH's position itself sits in a void surrounded by a weak annulus half a degree across of scattered stars, strongest on the following side (where the cluster noted in the previous paragraph sits). Is this the object that WH actually saw? If so, I suspect that he would have noted the annular structure. My best guess is the cluster following his position. Visual verification would not go amiss. ===== NGC 1665. See IC 2091. ===== NGC 1667 = NGC 1689, which see. Also see IC 394 and NGC 1677 = NGC 1659. ===== NGC 1671 may refer to the same galaxy as IC 395. Swift's description ("pF, pS, R, pB * nr sp") matches I395 (a later discovery also by Swift) pretty well, but the position is over a degree off in declination, and 43 seconds of time off. None of the other objects found by Swift on the same night (2 October 1886) have position errors anywhere nearly that large, and there is no suggestion of systematic offsets in either coordinate among the other objects. So, this is probably another lost object, though the I395 connection is not totally outrageous. ===== NGC 1674 and NGC 1675 are "Two faint nebulae in the same field" found by J. G. Lohse at "Mr. Wigglesworth's observatory." Lohse did not publish any data for these, but sent them directly to Dreyer who included them in the NGC. As with NGC 1655 (which see), which Lohse found in the same part of the sky, there is no trace of these at Lohse's given position. Three arcmin south is a group of six faint stars about an arcmin across, but we would need visual observations to tell if these could be mistaken for two nebulae. ===== NGC 1677 = NGC 1659 with a 5 minute error in its RA. It is not IC 2099 as I had supposed when I went over the field for ESGC. Here is the story. Swift found 14 nebulae on the night of 22 October 1886. In general, his positions are pretty good, being on average out by +5 seconds in RA and just +17 arcsec in declination. However, these numbers exclude two objects, NGC 1689 and NGC 1677. Both have RA's in Swift's fifth list (and in the NGC) which are 5 minutes of time too large. (In addition, another group of four objects from this night, NGC 652, N1450, N1509 = IC 2026, and N1594 = I2075, have a mean RA offset of +15 seconds of time). The identifications are secured by Swift's declinations (which are within 20 arcsec in both cases), and by his descriptions which are accordant with the Herschel's (for N1659) and with Stephan's (for N1667). In addition, these are among the brightest three or four objects that Swift found this night, and thus are the least likely to have been overlooked by other observers. ===== NGC 1689 = NGC 1667 is five minutes of time off its true position. See NGC 1677 = NGC 1659 for more on the nebulae that Swift found this night of 22 October 1886. ===== NGC 1692 is another of the Leander McCormick nebulae which was sketched. The sketch confirms the SGC and NGC 2000.0 identification with the galaxy called "A0453-20" in RC2. ===== NGC 1699. See NGC 1619. ===== NGC 1707 = IC 2107 (which see for more) is an asterism of four stars with a fifth (considerably fainter) just north. JH's RA is 30 seconds of time too large; this misled Bigourdan into rediscovering the object. Reinmuth was apparently the first to notice that the two numbers apply to the same object. ===== NGC 1708 is a large cluster of stars of magnitudes 10 to 14, about 20 arcmin by 12 arcmin in size, and elongated north to south. It is centered about 7 arcmin southeast of JH's position, but nevertheless is unmistakeable. This is one of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters. Personally, I don't see how they could have missed it. ===== NGC 1709. Is this also = NGC 1717 (which see)? ===== NGC 1710 = IC 2108, which see. Once again, a poor position from the early lists out of Leander McCormick led to enough confusion for Bigourdan that the galaxy received two numbers in Dreyer's catalogues. However, Bigourdan eventually caught his mistake (after seeing the list of micrometrically measured nebulae from Leander McCormick), and made the identity himself in his own big table of micrometric measurements. The object which he initially measured as N1710 is nothing more than a faint star. ===== NGC 1712. The first of three "clusters" involved in nebulosity in the Large Magellanic Cloud, this has only one observation by JH while the others, NGC 1722 and NGC 1727, have three each. Also, JH notes them as "the [second/third] of a series of clustering patches," while NGC 1712 has no such comment. Even though JH calls it "A pB, S cluster", it is actually composed of several clump of stars, including foreground stars, covering an area of about 3 arcmin by 2 arcmin. Since it is ill-defined, the positions from various sources are not in very good agreement. Nevertheless, the identity is pretty clear. ===== NGC 1713. See NGC 1717. ===== NGC 1714 is a compact, annular HII region in the LMC. On the DSS1 image, there is a bright knot on the east side, and a short extension to the west, with no obvious cluster involved. Nor is there an obvious "central" star. I suspect that inspection of the DSS2 images would show considerably more detail. ===== NGC 1717. Dreyer gives 04 56 36, -00 19.2 (B1950.0) as the position of this object. There is nothing at all in that place, not even a faint star. So, the identity of this NGC entry is not known with certainty. However, we do know that it is either a star, or it is NGC 1709. Here is the story. Reading through Lord Rosse's descriptions of N1719 (bear with me here), it looks as if the "3 vF neb" seen on 15 Jan 1845 are NGC 1709, 1713, and 1719. This assumes that Dreyer's comment "The two upper (sic) ones are probably h339 (N1713) and h340 (N1719)" is meaningful and correct. This would probably point to N1709 as the third nebula -- but what does Dreyer mean by "upper"? The northern-most or (assume an inverted field) the southern-most? LdR goes on to say that d'Arrest, in his observation of N1719, has a star 13-14 4.7s p, and 80" north (as, indeed d'A does, along with a detailed description in Latin that I must translate one of these days). This must be the object that Dreyer is refering to in NGC when he says "(? F *)." There are two other stars, one perhaps double, in the same area. So, it is possible that one of these was mistaken by LdR as a faint nebula (many other of the stars to receive NGC numbers are also from LdR's observations). LdR looked again at NGC 1719 on two other nights, and could find no trace of a nebula northwest of it. So, it may be possible that he mistook NGC 1713 for NGC 1719 on that first night. Since there is a galaxy northwest of N1713 -- NGC 1709 -- this hypothesis would then make NGC 1717 = NGC 1709, as I suggested above. Since there were no other observations of the area published before the NGC appeared, we are left with four candidates for N1717. All but NGC 1709 are stars northwest of NGC 1719. Two of those stars are bright enough to be in GSC. Here are the positions (B1950.0) of all three stars: 04 56 52.2 -00 19 16 HCo Slightly elongated image -- perhaps double? 04 56 45.91 -00 18 11.2 GSC 04 56 56.55 -00 18 42.9 GSC Brightest of the three -- most likely candidate star. So, we are left with a puzzle. There may be other relevant observations in the post-NGC literature, but it's unlikely that they will help sort out this particular problem. ===== NGC 1719. See NGC 1717. ===== NGC 1722 is the second of three "clustering patches" in the LMC (the others are NGC 1712 and NGC 1727, both of which see). It is pretty ill-defined, and involves a considerable amount of nebulosity. It is probably better described as an association than a cluster. The three brightest patches in the association make up IC 2111, which also see. ===== NGC 1727 is actually a group of three HII regions and their associated stars. JH's size, "3 arcmin long, 90 arcsec broad" make clear what he saw, so the position that I've estimated on the DSS refers to all three patches. Most of the other positions refer to only the northwestern of the three. ===== NGC 1730 = IC 2113. This is one of the bright Leander McCormick nebulae that the Herschels could probably have picked up. However, it was apparently first seen on 12 November 1885 by Francis Leavenworth. It is one of the rare nebulae in the first LM list to have more than a single observation, but its position is still given to only a full minute of time. It is also one of the few to have two sketches from LM -- the first is Leavenworth's discovery sketch, the second is by Frank Muller from 16 February 1887. The sketches are similar, but Leavenworth claims two nebulae, while Muller -- correctly -- has a nebula with a superposed star. Leavenworth's measurement of the separation (10 arcsec at PA = 110 degrees) is, however, correct. The star can be easily seen in the 2MASS image superposed just a few arcseconds northwest of the nucleus of the barred spiral, within the inner ring. By the way, the NGC misattributes the object to Ormond Stone rather than to Leavenworth. In between the two LM observations which led to the sketches, Lewis Swift picked up the galaxy on 9 October 1886 and published it in his fifth list of new nebulae from Warner Observatory in Rochester, NY. His position for the galaxy is one of the best he ever published, falling just a few arcseconds from the nucleus (statistics suggests that this happens now and then). Fortunately, Dreyer used this position for the NGC. Well, OK, you say, but what about IC 2113? That was found by Barnard and is apparently one of the several discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer. I find no trace of it in any of his papers on nebulae, at least in those papers that I've collected. His position for the galaxy is nearly coincident with Swift's, so I have to assume that neither he nor Dreyer checked the NGC closely. Comparison stars for this also figure in the uncertain identifications for IC 400, which see. ===== NGC 1736. JH's position is toward the middle of the western "lobe" of the nebula. This is where the brightest stars are located, including the "chief of which in the anterior part of the neb [was] taken." In the one sweep when he estimated the size of the nebula, though, he made it four arcmin long and 2.5 arcmin across, almost exactly what we seen on the short exposure DSS1 V-band plate. The position I've adopted is more toward the intersection of the "lobes" and is more representative of the entire nebula. One last note on this: this is not identical to either IC 2115 or 2116, in spite of what ESO claims. See I2115 for more on this. ===== NGC 1737 is part of the NGC 1743 star-forming complex in the LMC. See NGC 1745 and IC 2114 for more. There is no obvious cluster directly associated with it, but there are many stars in the area. NGC 1737 itself is very faint in the DSS1 V-band image. ===== NGC 1743. See NGC 1745 and IC 2114. ===== NGC 1745 is a diffuse nebula -- probably an emission nebula -- in the NGC 1743 complex in the LMC. John Herschel's position was an estimate based on his measured positions for NGC 1743 and N1748, but it is close enough to the correct position to identify the nebula without question. It is pretty well- seen on the IIIa-J film of the area, and on the DSS2 images, though is just barely seen in the DSS1 short-exposure V-band image. N1745 is called a star cluster in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue, but this is wrong. Furthermore, there is no cluster at the ESO position, but just a group of faint stars. ===== NGC 1746. This is a curious case, found by d'A while searching for NGC 1750 (which see) = H VIII 43. He describes it as a poor cluster, and places it about 10 arcmin north of WH's place -- but nevertheless calls it H VIII 43. Dreyer apparently thought it a separate object since he gave it a new GC number in the GC supplement. There is a group of about a dozen faint stars at d'A's place, and a much more extensive group at WH's place (see the note for N1750 for a description). While I'm doubtful that d'A's object is worth numbering, I'm going to follow Dreyer as closely as possible and retain both objects at something like their original positions. I must note, however, that Galadi-Enriquez et al (A&AS 131, 239, 1998) have shown that this group of stars is neither astrometrically nor photometrically a real cluster. It is no more than a random clump in the rich Milky Way field in Taurus. ===== NGC 1748 = IC 2114, which see. Also see NGC 1745. ===== NGC 1750 may be the same object as NGC 1746 (which see). If so, there is a 10 arcminute error in the declination for N1746. The group of stars I see on the POSS1 close to WH's place consists of about 20 9th to 12th magnitude stars scattered over an area 25 arcmin by 12 arcmin, with the long axis at PA roughly = 125 degrees. I put the cluster center about 3 arcmin east of WH's RA. Reinmuth claims this to be the central group in a very large cluster also containing N1746 and N1758. Galadi-Enriquez et al (A&AS 131, 239, 1998) have confirmed the reality of this cluster as well as NGC 1758. They have also shown, however, that the clump of stars I call NGC 1746 (which see) near d'A's position is not a true cluster. ===== NGC 1757 is nonexistent. JH claims to have seen it once on 20 Feb 1830, saying of it, "A very large space affected with nebulous streams in zigzags up and down. (N.B. Such observations require several verifications. The opportunity has not occured in this case.)." He never got back to this and it has never been seen since. Lord Rosse and his observers tried six to eight times. The actual number is uncertain. In the 1861 monograph, LdR says "Looked for seven times. Not found," while the 1880 monograph says "Looked for 6 times in the years 1848-58, not found", and adds another attempt on 30 December 1867: "Night bad; suspected slightly luminous appearance in spots, but not very decided." (Dreyer in the NGC note says six times). Neither Tempel nor Spitaler could find it, and Reinmuth did not locate it on the Heidelberg plates. I searched for this on the sky survey prints and later on the DSS, as well as in the IRAS infrared images. The closest nebulosity is over 20 arcmin from JH's position and does not agree at all with his description. In any case, the whispy stuff is far too faint to be seen visually. Even JH came to doubt his observation. His GC note reads, "A very large diffused nebulosity, distributed in zigzags. This has been looked for seven times by Lord Rosse and not found. Its existence is therefore very doubtful." ===== NGC 1758. See NGC 1746 and NGC 1750. ===== NGC 1760 is a diffuse nebula in LMC, probably an HII region, south-southwest of NGC 1761 (which see). It just barely shows on the DSS1, and is associated there with a line of 9 or 10 stars. JH's sketch of the field is fairly close to what we see on the IIIa-J and IIIa-F plates (DSS2) of the area, though. ===== NGC 1761, though often called a "cluster", is actually a star cloud in LMC. JH mentions a double star of 9th magnitude in it -- I suspect this is a foreground Milky Way star. The star cloud is centered about an arcminute southeast of the double star. Most others have taken the position of the double as that for the star cloud but, using DSS1, I've given an estimate of the center of the cloud itself. ===== NGC 1763 is a bi-lobed complex of HII regions and star clusters in the LMC. JH's descriptions and positions from five different sweeps are appropriate, though he was not happy with one of his RA's. It's possible that the numbers IC 2115 and 2116 refer to parts of N1763. See them for that story. ===== NGC 1767 is one of a number of nebulae and clusters in the LMC that JH found with a 5-inch refractor. Beginning on 2 November 1836 and continuing through 26 March 1837, JH worked across the Cloud in 34 different zones with his refractor. He does not give us many details of his work on these zones, but if we assume to zeroth order that he worked steadily on these, given that there are 144 days between his beginning and end dates, that would allow him 4.24 days per zone. This would allow us to guess at the discovery dates -- or at least the years -- in which he discovered the objects. Since N1767 was put into zone 9, it was probably one of the earlier objects found, so November or December of 1836 is a reasonable guess as to its discovery date. ===== NGC 1770 is a large complex of clusters and HII regions in the LMC. The various positions for it reflect the difficulty in determining its center -- even JH had trouble. His two RA's are discordant by nearly 40 seconds of time. But when we examine the field, the limits of the star forming region are pretty clear. On DSS1, that center is about 40 arcsec southeast of the 9th magnitude star that JH noted in his second observation. Also see IC 2117, one of the HII knots in the southern part of this star cloud. ===== NGC 1781 = NGC 1794. Dreyer reprints as an NGC note JH's note from the GC explaining the choice of RA's from three different stars in WH's sweep from 6 Feb 1785 -- JH unfortunately picked the wrong RA. Ormond Stone found the object independently at Leander McCormick about a century after WH picked it up. But he, too, has the RA wrong. Fortunately, Stone has left us a sketch of the galaxy and nearby field stars which positively identify the correct object. Even without the sketch, Herbert Howe corrected the RA and suggested that the two NGC numbers refer to the same object, assuming the 3 minute of time RA difference noted by JH. Howe's observations led to Dreyer's IC2 notes nearly a decade later, and also to Dreyer's notes in his 1912 edition of WH's complete papers, and finally, to Dreyer's 1912 MN list of NGC corrections. ===== NGC 1785 is an asterism of about 5 stars superposed on the LMC. It was found by JH in Zone 9 of his special sweeps of the Large Cloud with "an equatorially mounted telescope of five inches aperture, and seven feet focal length, by Tulley, which had served me for the measurement of double stars in England ..." The position is good, and it is accurately plotted on JH's wonderful map of the LMC. ESO suggested two different objects as candidates for N1785. One was a chain of 5-10 stars (of which JH's object is the south-western end); the other was Shapley-Lindsay 150, a faint LMC open cluster about 20 arcmin south-east of JH's astersim. This latter is much too faint to have been seen during sweeps with a five-inch refractor, and the position is well off JH's. ===== NGC 1787 is a large (20 arcmin by 15 arcmin) cloud of stars in the LMC. This number has been applied to SL 178, but that is a faint, small cluster that JH did not see. On the Hodge-Wright Atlas, I put the center about five arcmin northwest of JH's, but either will serve to identify his cluster. ===== NGC 1790 is a group of about a dozen stars of 10th to 12th magnitude scattered around JH's position. It probably looks better at the eyepiece than it does on the Sky Survey prints; JH calls it "A pretty object," while RNGC puts it into the "nonexistent" category. JH's position is about 3 arcminutes east of the apparent center on the POSS1 blue plate. ===== NGC 1794 = NGC 1781, which see. ===== NGC 1797. See NGC 1392. ===== NGC 1799. See NGC 1392. ===== NGC 1814 is a cluster in the LMC star cloud NGC 1820, which see. ===== NGC 1816 is a cluster in the LMC star cloud NGC 1820, which see. ===== NGC 1820 is a large cloud of stars in the LMC, 8 arcmin by 5 arcmin, rather scattered on the DSS1. It contains several fainter, smaller clusters, two of which (NGC 1814 and NGC 1816) JH saw. The position I estimated on DSS1 is the approximate center of the entire complex. ===== NGC 1837. JH calls this "Scattered, more than fills the field." This tells us that JH's object is at least 15 arcmin across. The position I've given is for a clump of four stars near the center of JH's "cluster." ===== NGC 1838 is a scattered and pretty poor association in the LMC. JH's 7th magnitude star is on the western edge, so his position is off of the more modern ones that point to the center. I make the size 7.5 x 7.0 on DSS1. ===== NGC 1845 is a large, scattered cloud of stars in (or superposed on) the LMC. Its center is northwest of JH's 9th magnitude star by 2-3 arcmin, and I make the approximate size on DSS1 15 x 10 arcmin. ===== NGC 1854 and NGC 1855 are the "core" and "halo," respectively, of a stellar association in LMC. JH picked up NGC 1854 in five different sweeps, but only noticed NGC 1855 in one -- looking at DSS1, I can see why he recorded the the objects this way. The "core" is a much more prominent object than the "halo." I make the center of NGC 1855 slightly preceding NGC 1854; JH obviously has them reversed. Brent Archinal was, as far as I know, the first to point out the core/halo structure of the object(s) in "Star Clusters." ===== NGC 1855 is the extended outer part of a stellar association in the LMC; NGC 1854 (which see) is its birght, compact core. ===== NGC 1869. I make the center of this large (10 x 9 arcmin), scattered star cloud somewhat northwest of JH's position. ===== NGC 1874, NGC 1876, NGC 1877, and NGC 1880 are four emission nebulae and the many bright stars they envelope in a large, complex, star-forming region in the LMC. ESO did not provide separate positions for the first three (and put "N1880" on NGC 1874), so the positions I've adopted come from my measurements on DSS, from GSC, or from offsets to GSC stars. JH's positions are excellent for the first two, adequate for the third and fourth -- but those last two come from a sketch drawn on 17 Jan 1838, not from one of the sweeps, so I'd expect lesser accuracy for them. All four of the nebulae and clusters, by the way, are shown in JH's sketch (it is Plate III, No. 6 in his CGH volume), so can be pretty positively identified (but see NGC 1877 for a little doubt). To my embarrassment, I did not do this the first time I went over the field. Bob Erdmann caught the mess -- I had put the position for NGC 1880 on NGC 1877, and had missed N1880 altogether. I've just fixed it (thanks, Bob!). ===== NGC 1876 is the largest of a group of four nebulae and star clusters in the LMC. See NGC 1874. ===== NGC 1877 is one of a group of nebulae and star clusters in the LMC found by JH. Even though his sketch has it just south of NGC 1876, there is nothing exactly at the position he shows. There is an elongated complex of stars and nebulae centered just southwest of his knot. I've adopted a position close to the brightest nebular knot in this complex for N1877. This knot is easily seen on the DSS1 image. See NGC 1874 for more. ===== NGC 1880. See NGC 1874. ===== NGC 1882 is probably not NGC 1884, which see for more. ===== NGC 1884. During my early work on the LMC Atlas, I identified this with NGC 1882. But that is unlikely as JH found both objects during the same sweep. There is nothing obvious at JH's position matching his description ("eF, 2' diam."), and I entered it simply as "Not found" going through the NGC a few years ago. For now, that is how I'll leave it. ===== NGC 1891 is the scattering of stars somewhat following JH's position. That position is for the brightest star (SAO 195771), a double on the western side of the cluster. There are about 20 stars covering an area 19 arcmin by 14 arcmin. They may be a dispersed open cluster, but could just as well be a random collection of field stars. ===== NGC 1893 is a cluster found by JH. As noted by Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters" and in an email from Wolfgang Steinicke, it is embedded in a large, faint nebulosity found by Max Wolf and listed as IC 410. JH apparently did not see the nebula as he makes no note of it. While Wolf noted stars in his nebula, his note is primarily concerned with the nebula and not the stars. So, applying the two numbers to both objects is incorrect, though it has been done often in the 20th century catalogues. ===== NGC 1896. A nine degree error in declination was introduced in the GC, and copied intact into the NGC. The Herschels' original positions are good, and point to a scattering of about 20 9th to 12th magnitude stars. This may not be a real cluster, but that determination will depend on detailed studies of proper motions and photometry of the stars. This group, by the way, is not OCL 450 (in the Prague catalogue). That is a much more distant, much fainter cluster about half a degree north-west of NGC 1896. ===== NGC 1901 is a scattered grouping of Milky Way stars superposed on the Large Magellanic Cloud. The position I list in the table is for the eccentric core a few arcminutes northeast of the center of the entire group. JH's position applies to the seventh magnitude star on the southern edge of the group. Coincidentally, there is a much fainter LMC cluster just a couple of arcmin from JH's position. ESO took this to be the NGC cluster, but it is not. ===== NGC 1908. WH has only one observation of this on 1 Feb 1786 where he says, "Diffused extremely faint nebulosity. The means of verifying this phenomenon are difficult." JH and Dreyer took this to mean that the nebula was only suspected, so that is how it is entered in the GC and NGC. WH places the nebulosity 1 min, 26 sec east, and 7 arcmin south of Eta Ori. There is nothing here on either of the POSS1 plates, nor on the SERC EJ plate. However, 7 arcmin north of Eta Ori there is a very faint, very diffuse sheen of nebulosity (I make the approximate position 05 23.0, -02 20). But could WH have seen this? I very much doubt it. So, I've tentatively labeled this "Not found." ===== NGC 1909. WH has one observation of this "Strongly suspected nebulosity of very great extent." He makes its size "Not less than 2 deg 11 arcmin of PD and 26 sec of RA in time." These numbers come from his offsets from Rigel: 11m 09s east to 11m 35s east, and 1 deg 19 arcmin north to 52 arcmin south. While this whole area is covered with a very diffused, very low surface brightness nebulosity, I do not see anything that WH could have seen easily. In particular, there is no nebula stretched out north to south as WH describes. However, at about the right distance WEST of Rigel, there is such a nebula, IC 2118. It is bright enough that WH might have seen it during his sweeps, and it more or less matches his description. So, I am going to suggest, pending visual confirmation, that IC 2118 is the object WH found, and that he wrote "east" rather than "west" in his log book. ===== NGC 1911 may be NGC 1920. JH has N1920 in seven different sweeps, but not in the one sweep when he found N1911 -- that is Sweep 522. The declinations are within an arcminute, but the RA is different by 1m 20s. The extra 20 seconds bothers me, so I've put a colon on the identity. JH's eight different descriptions are pretty well accordant, though he does have the size of the nebula range between 20 arcsec and 2 arcmin (he puts N1911 at 30 arcsec). I also checked the possibility of a systematic position offset among the other 37 objects that JH recorded in that very productive sweep through the northern part of the LMC -- there isn't any. One curious thing turned up, however: N1911 is the ONLY object in the sweep that was not seen in any other sweep. A final note: JH suggests that this and N1915 may be the same. I don't think so; see N1915 for more on this. ===== NGC 1915. JH has this in only one sweep (760 on 2 Jan 1837), and calls it only "eF, pL." However, he adds, "(Possibly the same with No. 2826 [NGC 1911], but the nebulae are so crowded that they may with equal probablility be different ones.)" I don't think it is the same as N1911 (which see). The descriptions are too different, and N1911 is probably the same object as N1920. So, what is N1915? JH's position is about an arcminute northwest of the center of a stellar association 3 arcmin by 2 arcmin across (coincidentally, there is a faint cluster on the northeastern edge of the association). The object shows up clearly on the Southern Sky Survey IIIa-J film, somewhat less clearly on the 2nd generation DSS image, and not at all on the quick V plate used for the DSS distributed on CD-ROM. The association is, admittedly, pretty faint to have been picked up visually. Still, JH was careful, had keen eyesight, and didn't miss much in the LMC that he could have seen. Another possibility is that N1915 is a second observation (in the following sweep on the next night, 3 Jan 1837) of NGC 1919 which JH also describes as "eF, L ...". He goes on to add, however, "... irreg R, 4' diam. Resolved into small stars with nebulous light." That is a perfect description of NGC 1919, a cluster immersed in a reflection nebula. Is it possible that JH missed the stars the first time around? ===== NGC 1919 may also be NGC 1915, which see. ===== NGC 1920. See NGC 1911. ===== NGC 1927. JH has one observation that reads "All about this place (05 26 20, -08 24.9; B1950.0), there exists diffused nebulosity." In fact, there is none. Dreyer comments in a Note to the NGC, "Looked for three times at Birr Castle; twice the sky was fancied to have a milky appearance." There is certainly no nebulosity on the POSS1 plates, nor on the SERC EJ plate. Also, JH originally made this an observation of his father's V 38: that identity is shown in his 1833 catalogue. However, his position differed enough from WH's that he made them separate objects for GC; Dreyer followed suit for NGC. There, H V 38 = NGC 1909 (which see). In short, NGC 1927 is "Not found." ===== NGC 1932 and NGC 1933. JH found a faint nebula -- actually a compact star cluster in the LMC -- here, and observed it four times. His mean position is just a few arcsec from the center of the cluster, which ended up with 1933 as its NGC number. On the last night JH observed N1933, he also noticed a very faint, very small nebulous object 80 arcsec west of his brighter object. When reducing his observations, he noted it "curious" that he picked up this fainter object only once. The object turns out to be a 13th magnitude star, though other fainter stars in the area may contribute to its nebulous appearance. Lauberts, of course, found only one non-stellar object in the area, so assumed that N1932 = N1933. This incorrect equality is noted in ESO. ===== NGC 1933. See NGC 1932. ===== NGC 1935 is also IC 2126, which see. It is a small HII region in the LMC, found by JH, who measured it in four sweeps. He noted it as part of a group of nebulae and clusters. ===== NGC 1936 = IC 2127, which see, is another of the HII regions in this part of the LMC found by JH. He has it in six different sweeps, and his position is very good. ===== NGC 1938 is an open cluster in the LMC situated just 0.7 arcmin northwest of NGC 1939, a globular cluster. ESO did not give separate coordinates so I've adopted that for NGC 1939 from GSC and have measured the offset to N1938 from the brighter cluster. JH's position and descriptions are good, though he did not resolve either cluster. In particular, his micrometric measurement of the offset of N1938 from N1939 (distance = 50 arcsec, PA = 339.1 degrees) is very good. ===== NGC 1939. See NGC 1938. ===== NGC 1952 = M 1 = The Crab Nebula. This is the prototypical supernova remnant (from SN 1054), and is now a large, bright nebula. I have adopted the position of the pulsar near its center as the nebula's position as well. The pulsar, by the way, is the southern of the two stars of similar brightness near the nebula's center. There is evidence, however, that in this case at least, the star has a large proper motion -- it is no longer at the center of the nebulosity implied by the measured expansion of the knots and filaments, but is several arcsec to the northwest. This is taken as evidence for an asymmetric supernova explosion which gave the star a powerful kick and set it off at high velocity. In spite of all this, I'm sticking with the position of the pulsar as the center of the nebula for the time being. Perhaps I'll change my mind in a few thousand years when the star is well away from the center of the expanding gas cloud that Messier placed first in his famous list. ===== NGC 1955. See NGC 1974 = NGC 1991. ===== NGC 1961 = IC 2133 is another of the identifications that Dreyer himself made. He has the long explanation in a note in his 1912 edition the Scientific Papers; briefly, WH's comparison star had incorrect coordinates in one of the catalogues that CH was using during the reduction. When the right coordinates are used, WH's position is still 22 seconds out, but the identity with Bigourdan's object (Big. 385 = IC 2133, which see) is certain. There is nothing else nearby that WH could have mistaken for the galaxy. ===== NGC 1963 is an apparent cluster of about 20 stars, roughly arranged in the shape of the number 3 (JH describes it that way, and it still appears that way on the southern sky survey -- and on the southern sky for that matter). PGC and RC3 are clearly wrong in using the number for the bright spindle galaxy which is really IC 2135 = IC 2136. ESO, however, got it right. See IC 2136 for more. ===== NGC 1968. See NGC 1974 = NGC 1991. ===== NGC 1974 = NGC 1991 is a stellar association in the northern part of the LMC. JH calls it the fourth in a line of four (though he did not measure the first, so that does not have an NGC number). He also made a one minute error in the RA of NGC 1991. This was first caught, as far as I know, by Paul Hodge and is noted in his and Francis Wright's LMC Atlas. The observation leading to N1974 is the only one in the field not from Sweep 760 on 2 Jan 1837. The DSS image shows a field very much as JH describes it: "... a great line of rich clusters which are connected by abundant scattered stars. (The first not taken.)" The other NGC objects are NGC 1955 and NGC 1968. The western- most, which JH did not measure, is at 05 25 32.4, -67 31 49 (B1950.0). All are wreathed in loops and tangles of nebulosity, probably supernova remnants and HII regions. Curiously, all but the first of the associations appear to be double on the DSS image. JH's positions fall in between these concentrations, so I've estimated the centers of them, and have measured the approximate centers for each concentration. It may be that there are no really separate clusters here, just one large, extended, star-forming region. ===== NGC 1976 = M 42. I have adopted the position of the Trapezium as the position of M42. This helps us avoid the problem of trying to decide on a geometric center for the nebula. See also NGC 1982 = M 43 and IC 429 for other notes about the Orion Nebula and the large, complex region of star formation around it. ===== NGC 1982 = M 43. For this, and many other emission or reflection nebulae with clearly identified embedded stars, I have adopted the position of the star as that for the entire nebula. This follows the precedent set by the visual discovers who noticed that many of the nebulae are usually (though not always) brightest in the vicinity of the stars. There is a curiosity in the NGC listing for M 43. WH's first "Very Faint" nebula is in the vicinity, so GC and NGC suggest that it might be equivalent. This probably bothered Dreyer a bit, as he added a note to WH's observation when he edited the Complete Papers: "III 1 is an appendage to the north of M43." WH's own observation seems to support this, and it is well-known, too, that he tried to not include any of Messier's nebulae or clusters in his own lists (though several did creep in, including M8, M20, and M82). ===== NGC 1985 has been called a planetary nebula in the past, but is now generally accepted as a reflection nebula. There are several other such nebulae nearby, including UGC 03327 = MCG +05-14-001. In spite of its inclusion in two galaxy catalogues, that object is almost certainly a nebula within the Milky Way Galaxy. One or the other of these two, N1985 or U3327, is included in van den Bergh's 1966 catalogue of Galactic reflection nebulae. I've not checked yet, so it may be possible that that entry refers to both objects as well as to the other fainter reflection nebulae in the field. ===== NGC 1988. Suspected of variability by its discoverer (Chacornac, in 1855), this has never been seen by any other observer. Dreyer has a brief history in the NGC Notes. The NGC position comes from GC where JH gives a source as "Les Mondes, No. 9." This was apparently a short-lived journal or newsletter; there is no trace of it in the indexes of major astronomical libraries in the US, nor in the library of the Paris Observatory. Fortunately, Chacornac also published his position in Comptes Rendus 56, 637, 1863, a publication which is still very much with us. The only things in the area on the POSS1 are two or three stars. Chacornac's accurate position corresponds to the western-most of the the stars, a 10th magnitude object with two much fainter companions just a few arcsec east. My guess is that the "object" was perhaps a reflection or flare from zeta Tauri which is only 5 arcmin to the southeast, possibly enhanced by the faint stars around the 10th magnitude "primary." ===== NGC 1990. In spite of this nebulosity having been "seen" by WH, JH, and Dreyer, as well as by several amateurs in recent years, there is no trace of it on any photograph of the area. JH suggested that the nebulosity extends at least 12 arcmin north and south of Epsilon Orionis, while Dreyer makes it more extensive to the south. (On the POSS1 red plate, the star is apparently close to the center of an extended, striated nebulosity. This, however, is not visible on any other photo, including several color photos that would certainly show a red nebulosity if it existed. This striation is a defect on the red plate, apparently caused by imperfections or reflections in the red Plexiglass filter.) It is just possible that this may be another case like IC 349 (which see) which is so close to Merope as to be not easily imaged. Until Eps Ori is imaged in such a way that the star can be removed to show the nebulosity that the Herschels and Dreyer claimed to have seen, I have no choice but to call NGC 1990 an illusion. Also see NGC 7088 for another well-known case of an illusory nebula "seen" by many experienced observers. ===== NGC 1991 = NGC 1974, which see. ===== NGC 1995 is a double star, seen only once by JH. It is about two arcmin west-northwest of NGC 1998; JH's position is within 25 arcsec of the GSC position of the brighter of the stars, so the identity is certain. ===== NGC 1996. Another of RNGC's "nonexistent" clusters, this is clearly apparent on the POSS1, and is centered just an arcminute east of the NGC position. The 30 or so stars are scattered over an area of about 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin (the long axis is at PA = about 20 degrees). But is it a real cluster? To answer that, of course, will take a study of the area, with proper motions and photometry for the suspect stars. ===== NGC 1998. See NGC 1995. ===== NGC 2006. Brian Skiff has recently (July 2006) called this "cluster" to my attention. At the NGC position there are actually two very small, compact clusters, probably both globulars. Brian noted that the northern is certainly [SL63] 538, while the southern is almost always called "NGC 2006". Mati Morel and Jenni Kay certainly do this in their Atlases, as does Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters" and Andris Lauberts in ESO. But when I looked at JH's observations, I found a very different story. Here is what I wrote to Brian: JH has two observations for N2006 (precessed to J2000): 05 31 19.4 -66 57 27 A very small nuclear knot in an extremely rich assemblage of stars and clustering groups which fill the field. 1834 Dec 23 05 31 18.2 -66 59 11 A small highly condensed knot in an immensely large and very rich cluster, which fills much more than the field, and is like the Milky Way. 1837 Jan 03 He clearly saw the same (large!) thing both times. The position for the first more or less corresponds to the northern cluster, and that for the second to the southern. So, I think that he either did not separate the two -- unlikely, since you saw both clusters with a much smaller telescope -- or he was so impressed by the much larger background star cloud that he simply took both clusters to be a part of it. It is curious, though, that he didn't mention the "knot" as a double object. Looking at the field on the DSS, I would guess that JH's "object" goes all the way to include NGC 2002 to the northwest, and a similar distance to the southeast [roughly 15 arcmin by 7 arcmin]. I don't think that it extends as far southwest or northeast, though JH does not mention any particular elongation. So, I'm pretty sure that the JH/GC/NGC numbers are meant to include both clusters and much more of the Large Cloud besides. Though Brian suggests keeping the southern cluster as NGC 2006 for consistency with the modern literature, I've included both clusters in the position list with notes (hopefully) clarifying the identification. I've also adopted the rounded mean position of the two clusters for "NGC 2006" itself. ===== NGC 2017. JH calls this "A fine clustering group of large stars" when he saw it on 11 Dec 1835. But there are only 6 stars here brighter than V = 11.3, four of them brighter than V = 9.0. The four would nevertheless make a striking group at the eyepiece, and I'm a bit surprised that this asterism is not better known. Is it a real cluster? Probably not. One of the bright stars has a relatively large proper motion of 67.2 milliarcseconds per year, but the other proper motions are all six to twenty times smaller and not in any systematic direction. Brian Skiff comes to a slightly different conclusion; he also considers the photometry. His discussion is at ftp://ftp.lowell.edu/pub/bas/ocpos/n2017.pos Whether a real cluster or not, this is worth a look now and then. ===== NGC 2029 and NGC 2030 have their positions interchanged in GC and NGC. They are correctly given in CGH, so the error occured when JH was assembling the GC. ===== NGC 2030. See NGC 2029. ===== NGC 2039 (= h 366) was described by JH as "A large tract of stars filling many fields. It extends much further in RA." He has a second concordant observation: "A large ill-defined tract of loose stars, neither rich nor condensed," though for this one, he made an estimate of only the NPD. Just such a configuration, roughly 30 arcmin across in RA and 10 arcmin in Dec, is centered two or three arcmin north-northwest of JH's single position. It is a well-scattered group of about 30 stars ranging in magnitude from 8 to 13. I doubt very much that it is a true cluster. However, JH called this H VIII 2 in both observations in his 1833 catalogue. That this is probably not the case was realized by JH himself as H VIII 2 (NGC 2063, which see) and h 366 were given separate GC numbers. WH described his object as "A small cluster of very small scattered stars" and gave it a position (from two observations) nearly 3 minutes of time following and 8 arcmin north of JH's later position for h 366. Dreyer followed GC, but neither he nor JH mention the initial confusion of the two objects. ===== NGC 2045 = Lalande 10842 = SAO 094827. JH has this simply as "A star 8-9 mag with faint nebulosity." It is barely possible that there is indeed a bit of faint nebulosity around the star, but it is very difficult to see on the POSS1. ===== NGC 2050 was found during JH's stay at the Cape of Good Hope. Curiously, he does not give a sweep number for it in his main table, nor does he give a zone number for it in his table of LMC objects. However, in a note to that table (in which it is No. 628), he says that this object and several others near 30 Doradus (NGC 2070) had "... their places deduced from a very careful and deliberate drawing of the neighbourhood of 30 Doradus ..." In his text, he says that the drawing was made over several nights, but specifically mentions 29 November 1834, and 21 and 22 December 1835 as nights on which he worked on the drawing. So, it seems likely that NGC 2050 was first seen on one or another of these nights. ===== NGC 2054 is a group of 6 faint stars found by George P. Bond, then director of Harvard College Observatory. In his small "Comet-seeker," the grouping appeared nebulous, and he gave it only an approximate position. Dreyer himself saw the nebula and commented, "... at times, I thought it was a very small cluster, but it is doubtful." Nevertheless, he gave an accurate micrometric measurement of a star, 9-10th magnitude, in position angle 0.5 degrees and distance 404.0 arcsec. The star is indeed there, and was later seen by Howe (MN 58, 515, 1898) who misattributed it to Bond, but saw only "three small stars" in the place. Bigourdan provided a corrected position for the asterism, quoted by Dreyer in IC2. ===== NGC 2063 may be the small grouping of 7-8 faint stars at WH's place, though there is another larger clump with brighter stars about 8 arcmin to the south-southeast. Neither is likely to be a true cluster, and I am not sure that either one is the correct object. Taking WH at his word, though, I've tentatively assigned the NGC number to the stars at his place. JH did not see this clump, but mistakenly asigned the number H VIII 2 to h 366 (= NGC 2039, which see) in his 1833 catalogue. He separated the two objects for the GC, and Dreyer followed his lead. ===== NGC 2064. See NGC 2067. ===== NGC 2067 is a part of the large complex of nebulae around M78 = N2068. Found by Tempel, neither the position nor the description makes it really clear which part of the nebula he saw. The first position I give in the main table is for a large patch of pretty low surface brightness nebulosity about 5 arcmin northwest of M78. But this is not the brightest nebulosity in the area. That is a knot about 3 arcmin southwest, the brightest part of a long faint streamer pointed toward NGC 2064. This, however, is much more east than north of M78, while Tempel says that M78 is to the south. So, a bit of a mystery here -- which part of the nebulosity was Tempel refering to? I've stuck with the larger more northerly end of the nebula, but could well be wrong, so have also put the southern knot in the main table. ===== NGC 2068 = M 78. See NGC 2067. ===== NGC 2107. See NGC 2171. ===== NGC 2129 appears to be a cluster of about 30 stars scattered around two bright ones near the center. However, neither the UCAC2 proper motions, nor multi- color photometry (see J. H. Pena and R. Peniche in Rev. Mex. A&A 28, 139, 1994) support the idea that this is a true physical cluster. Instead, it seems that this is a random clumping of stars at different distances, accidentally rich enough to pass for a real cluster. James Kaler's article in S&T, Feb 2005, page 90, called attention to the purely optical nature of this object. ===== NGC 2132 may be a cluster centered a few arcmin following JH's position. That position applies to the "Chief * of a cluster of 8th class of about a dozen bright and some smaller stars." This is just what we see on the sky today. The stars are scattered over an area of 17 arcmin by 11 arcmin. They stand out enough from the field that I'm a bit surprised that Lauberts did not pick them up for the ESO list. JH's "chief star", by the way, is SAO 234207 which is within a few arcsec of his position for it. ===== NGC 2139 = IC 2154. Dreyer has a note in his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers on this object. Taken from WH's note in the sweep, it reads "The A.R. cannot be above 10 or 15 s out; the roller went off the apparatus which occasions the uncertainty." The RA is actually 24 seconds out, and the dec, due to another unspecified error, is 8.5 arcmin off. Dreyer was further able to identify a star in the sweep that was closer to the galaxy than WH's "official" reference star, delta Canis Majoris. Comparison with this star led to the correct position. However, he had not yet done this when Howe and Bigourdan tried to find the NGC object near WH's place -- not surprisingly, neither succeeded. What is surprising is that when Lewis Swift came across the galaxy over a century after WH, he did not make as nearly as large an error in its position as WH. Swift's positions from his last nights in 1897 and 1898 at Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain are nortoriously bad. But for this object, he actually came within 14 seconds in RA and 1 arcmin in Dec. Herbert Howe pinned the galaxy down with a micrometric observation and it was that position that Dreyer adopted for IC 2154. Dreyer himself discovered the identity when he fixed WH's position for the NGC object. ===== NGC 2142 = 3 Moncerotis = SAO 151037. JH says, "I am sure this star has a faint nebulous atmosphere 2 or 3 arcmin in diameter. Eye-glass examined, not dewed." This brightest part of the nebulosity is lost in the glare of the star on the POSS1, but a very faintly extended cloud can just be seen on the red plate. It would be nice to have independent confirmation of this. ===== NGC 2143. This is a cluster of pretty bright (V ~ 9 - 13) stars covering an area about 12 arcmin by 10 arcmin across. While JH puts the center close to the brightest star (SAO 113401), I make it (on the POSS1 print) about three arcmin to the west. Brian Skiff puts the center (using the DSS) seven arcmin to the north, nearly on the edge of the cluster. This must be a typo of some sort. A curiosity: JH's original description contained the note, "... place of a * 10m in M." Somehow, this metamorphosed into "stars 10" in GC and NGC. This may have led in part to RNGC's failure to find the cluster. ===== NGC 2163. The NGC NPD is incorrect, being one of Dreyer's very few transcription errors. He corrects the mistake in the IC2 Notes. The object is a striking example of a bi-polar nebula with fans of nebulosity extending north and south from the central star. Stephan's position is good. ===== NGC 2167 is probably SAO 132848; it is certainly not H IV 44. This error comes from JH who equated his own h378 with his father's "planetary" more than 10 arcmin south-following his (JH's) position. Dreyer followed JH in NGC, but when he prepared WH's papers for their re-publication in 1912, he realized that WH's description as well as position did not agree with JH's. Dreyer gives some additional information in his note in WH's Scientific Papers, and also suggests there that WH actually observed a nebulous star about 70 seconds of time following JH's position. This suggestion was the source of my own comment in the preliminary version of ESGC that the RA of N2167 is 1 minute of time too small. I think now that Dreyer and I were wrong. The description of IV 44 fits IV 19 = NGC 2170 very nicely, and the RA's are the same. The Dec's are about 8 arcmin different, and IV 19 was not seen in the sweep in which IV 44 was found. Therefore, it is likely that the only error in NGC is calling N2167 "IV 44." Is there, however, a problem with JH's observation? The star at his position has almost no trace of nebulosity around it. Yet JH does not mark the position as uncertain, and that position is within 20 arcsec of the true position of the star. And JH calls it a "star 7 m;" its V magnitude is 6.9. By contrast, the star in NGC 2170 is 9th magnitude, and the star that Dreyer suggested as IV 44 is 11th magnitude. Perhaps there is a trace of nebulosity hiding in the overexposed image of the bright star. A close visual examination is needed. ===== NGC 2170. See NGC 2167. ===== NGC 2171. I had given this up for lost, but Mati Morel found a star cloud in the LMC that fits pretty well: the two clusters SL 691 and 692 and the surrounding area. The contrast with the background of the LMC is subtle, but it fits JH's description very well. JH has it as "eeF, vL, R, glbM, 4'" from a single sweep (number 657 on 16 Dec 1835). The object marked in the Hodge-Wright Atlas is a faint star about 2 arcmin south of JH's position; ESO apparently adopted this identification, too. In "Star Clusters", Brent makes this KMHK 1573 at 05 59 03.8 -67 53 56 (B1950.0), with no explanation of the 2.5 degree difference from JH's declination. Mati had earlier suggested that this object is identical with SL 809, a small, faint star cluster in the LMC. While the position is not too far off (34 seconds in RA, and 3.8 arcmin in Dec), I was skeptical because this cluster is only 0.7 arcmin across, certainly not an object that JH would have called "vL ... 4'". I had finished up my earlier note by saying, "So, the only other possibility that I can see is that JH made a 10 or 20 minute error in his RA, and that his observation applies to one of the star clouds in the eastern end of the LMC's bar. However, this is such a stretch that I'm not going to list any of these star clouds in the main table." Mati took me at my word, though, and found a star cloud that matches JH's declination and his description almost perfectly. This is by no means, though, a solid identification. NGC 2107 is just one minute of time preceding the star cloud, and I wondered why JH did not mention that in the same sweep. However, looking at his list of nebulae in the LMC, it's obvious that in any given sweep, he skipped many that he recorded in other sweeps. The nebulae and clusters were just coming by too quickly for him to record them all, so he went over each area of the LMC several times to be sure to catch all the objects. In any event, Mati's star cloud, with its two embedded Shapley-Lindsay clusters, is the best candidate I've seen for this object, so it's in the main table with just a colon. ===== NGC 2174 is one of the knots in NGC 2175, which see. ===== NGC 2175 is a very large roughly circular emission nebula which also includes NGC 2174 and IC 2159 (both of which see), and a star cluster which has inherited the NGC number, though there is no mention of it in the discovery notes. The nebula is centered on SAO 078049, though the brightest knot (which Bigourdan took for N2175; hence, the "corrected" RA in the IC2 Notes) is about three arcmin to the west-northwest. Auwers's note makes it clear that NGC 2175 is much more than just the knot: he gives dimensions of 25 arcmin by 8 arcmin, and specifically adopts the position of Lalande 11668 = SAO 078049 as that for the object. I have followed his lead. ===== NGC 2189 is described by J.H. Safford as "Two clusters, seen 1863 March 19 near two stars of the 10-11th magnitude" with the "Great Refractor" at Harvard College Observatory. (The NGC description confuses the stars with two others in Safford's description of another cluster NGC 2198, which see). Curiously, he gives positions of the two stars, but not of the clusters. So, we can identify the stars with certainty (Safford's positions, precessed to B1950.0, are 06 09 15, +01 07.7 and 06 10 17, +01 09.0), but not the clusters -- there is nothing in the area aside from random clumpings of field stars. However, two of the clumpings -- listed in the main table as possibly being the correct objects -- may be the one's Safford noted. Both are extended roughly north-south, with the first having a diameter of about 6 x 3 arcmin and including only a dozen stars, and the second 3 x 2 arcmin, again with only a dozen stars, fainter than those in the first group. Neither is likely to be a real cluster. Are these the right objects? We need observations, and a look at Safford's original observing records, to be sure. ===== NGC 2195 is a double star; there are two fainter stars near to the north that may have added to the illusion of nebulosity. The object was found by J. G. Lohse who also noted the 10th magnitude star 31 arcsec north. It is this star that clinches the identification since Lohse's RA is about 3 arcmin too far west. RNGC picked the wrong object. ===== NGC 2198. Described as "A cluster, seen 1863 March 19 by J.H. Safford, between two stars ... With the Great Refractor" at Harvard, the NGC position actually corresponds to a field with fewer than the average numbers of stars. As with NGC 2189 (which see) Safford measured the two stars (one is 10-11 magnitude at 06 10 57, +01 00.1; the other is 9-10 magnitude at 06 11 42, +00 59.3, both for B1950.0), but not the cluster. I see nothing in the field on the POSS1 prints that looks like a cluster. Perhaps a visual observation can turn up something. ===== NGC 2218 is only an asterism of four stars. It is one of the "nebulae" recorded in the Markree Catalogue, pulled out by Auwers in his 1862 compilation of the nebulae found by others than the Herschels. Auwers looked for it, but had to note "Invisible in the Heliometer." The original position is good. ===== NGC 2220. JH calls this "A poor, very coarsely scattered, but brilliant cluster of 8th class. Place of a star 8m = B 1222, the chief of cl." The star is SAO 217873 and is well off the center towards the southeastern edge of a clump of 7-8 stars. Roughly 15 arcmin to the northwest is a similar clump of 4-5 stars; I wonder if JH meant to include this as well. I've included positions for both clumps and the entire grouping in the table. In any event, the stars probably do not constitute a real cluster. We'll need to check their proper motions to be sure of that, however. ===== NGC 2224 is perhaps the elongated gathering of stars centered about three arcmin southwest of the NGC position. It looks to me like a random fluctuation in the Milky Way, though it is overlain by an extremely diffuse band of nebulosity. This area should be examined telescopically -- the POSS is crowded with faint stars. ===== NGC 2225 and NGC 2226 have sometimes been considered to be the same object. In fact, the latter number refers to the compact core of the cluster, apparently unresolved in the 5- or 6-inch refractor with which Barnard found it. He described it as "Small, very difficult, with a star 10 close south" (the star is there). This is apparently from a letter to Dreyer as the observation does not appear in the Sidereal Messenger where Barnard published other of his early nebular discoveries. ===== NGC 2226. See NGC 2225. ===== NGC 2234 is described by both WH and JH as a very large cluster, at least half a degree across. I find three concentrations of stars in the area, the first at 06 25.4 +16 42, the second at 06 26.5 +16 45, and the third at 06 27.4 +16 30. Perhaps the Herschels' observations refer to all three. As with so many of the poor, scattered "clusters" found by them, telescopic observations will be needed for conformation. ===== NGC 2237, 2238, and 2246 are all parts of the large annular HII region often called the Rosette. Embedded in the middle of the nebula is a bright cluster of young stars, NGC 2239 = NGC 2244 (which see) discovered by WH, and observed again by JH. Albert Marth is apparently the first to see any part of the nebulosity (NGC 2238, which see), though Lewis Swift was the first to call attention to its great size. Barnard ran across the nebula independently in 1883 while sweeping for comets, and his observations inspired Swift to finally publish a note about it in 1884. Scanning the area again in 1886, Swift found part of the eastern side of the nebula (NGC 2246, which see), but it was not until Barnard began his photographic work at Lick in the early 1890s that the full extent of the nebula became known. The position for NGC 2237 given by Swift in his second list of nebulae actually comes from Barnard, though it is about 45 seconds of time west of the center of gravity of the western part of the Rosette to which it refers. Barnard's description is accurate, however, and there is no question as to which part of the nebulosity he saw. ===== NGC 2238 is a small patch of somewhat brighter nebulosity in the much larger Rosette Nebula. It was found by Marth in 1864 with Lasalle's 48-inch reflector, which probably accounts for Marth's ability to see the faint star embedded in the knot. See NGC 2237 and NGC 2239 for more on the Rosette. ===== NGC 2239 = NGC 2244, the bright young cluster in the center of the HII region called the Rosette (see the discussion under NGC 2237), was found by WH. JH recovered it 30 years later during his northern sweeps from Slough, though he made an error of 1 minute of time in the position. Neither noticed the nebulosity around the cluster; that remained for Marth, Swift, and Barnard to bring to our attention. ===== NGC 2242. See IC 2170. ===== NGC 2244 = NGC 2239, which see. ===== NGC 2245 is not identical to IC 447, in spite of what Barnard has to say in the caption to Plate 28 of Vol. 11 of the Lick Publications. He has misidentified IC 447 as NGC 2245; the NGC object is northeast of the larger more diffuse IC 447 at 41 mm from the right edge and 87 mm from the top of the plate. For comparison, I measure IC 447 to be at 31 mm and 94 mm (Barnard has 30 and 94). He does identify IC 446 correctly. See IC 446 = IC 2167 and IC 447 = IC 2169 for stories of their own. ===== NGC 2246 is a brighter patch of nebulosity in the eastern side of the Rosette first seen by Swift in 1886; see NGC 2237 and NGC 2239 for more on the discovery of this remarkable object. ===== NGC 2248. This asterism of nine stars was recorded in the Markree Catalogue where it remained essentially unnoticed until Auwers reobserved it in the late 1850s. He included it in his 1862 list of nebulae and clusters found by observers other than the Herschels, and JH picked it up there for the GC. The original position is good. ===== NGC 2250 is placed 1 minute of time too far west in RNGC and in the Alter and Ruprecht star cluster catalogue. JH recorded as the position that of the 8th magnitude star we now call SAO 133414, though that is on the eastern side of the cluster. The approximate center is about three arcminutes west-southwest of that star. ===== NGC 2253 can't be found. There is nothing at W. Herschel's position (06 36.8 +66 53, 1950), nor is there much to suggest a systematic error in the positions of the other objects found that night (NGC 2347 = III 746, though see this for some confusion; and NGC 2403 = V 44). Herschel's description -- "A vF patch or S cl of eS st(ars)" -- as well as the fact that he included this object in his class VII (number 54) suggests that we should be looking for a small, tight group of faint stars. There is a scattered group of (10 or 15 stars of magnitudes 14 to 16) at 06 37.4 +66 22 (1950), but it is not a "patch" by any stretch of the definition of that word. Herschel's description might just as well fit UGC 3511 (06 38 45.8 +65 15 22, 1950), a rather patchy late-type spiral galaxy, but the position is off by random amounts in both coordinates. Similarly, the CGCG object at 06 38.2 +65 43 (1950) is probably not WH's object. Since there are no reasonable solutions that we can easily see, we'll just have to let NGC 2253 be "Not found" for the time being. ===== NGC 2254. The NGC RA for this cluster is 10 seconds of time too far west. While that may be an error in reduction of WH's or JH's observations, it could also simply be a statistical fluke. ===== NGC 2261 is often called "Hubble's Variable Nebula" as its variability was indeed first noticed by Hubble during his years at Yerkes Observatory. The nebula was discovered, though, by WH in 1783, and is the second of his new class of "planetary" nebulae. We know now that the nebulosity is actually enveloping a very young double star system, R Monocerotis. The star's variability was first noted by Schmidt (AN 55, 91, 1861). The variability of the nebula is probably the result of circumstellar clouds close to the stars casting shadows on the surrounding nebulosity. NGC 1554/5 (which see) around T Tauri is another example. ===== NGC 2265 appears to be no more than a random grouping of stars. On the POSS, it is an elongated group of 12th to 14th magnitude stars about 10 x 5 arcmin in size, centered about three arcmin southwest of JH's position. ===== NGC 2270. Found by WH who called it "A cluster of very scattered stars, considerably rich and of very great extent," this appears on the POSS as an irregularly scattered grouping of about 50 stars centered about 2 arcmin north of the NGC position. About 12 arcmin north and 4 arcmin west is another similar group of stars. Could this second group be the reason WH noted the "very great extent" of the object? ===== NGC 2274 and NGC 2275. The UGC and MCG identifications of this close pair are opposite one another. This has happened in at least two other cases: NGC 980 and 982 where there is indeed an error in the NGC declination for one object, and NGC 5216 and 5218 where there is only a small error in John Herschel's 1833 list and the reversal of the identifications in MCG. The NGC, however, is correct in this second case (see the discussions of these objects for the details). In the case of N2274 and N2275, there is indeed an error in the NGC, but it is such a trivial one that I doubt that it led to the MCG reversal (it is indeed MCG that is incorrect here): the numbers from William Herschel's catalogue are reversed. JH got them right in his 1833 catalogue (and the GC) when he listed them under h406 = H II 614 and h407 = H II 615. Dreyer, too, got them right when he republished William's Scientific Papers in 1912, but did not mention the earlier mistake in his errata list of that year. In the end, it is clear that NGC 2274 is the southern and very slightly preceding of the two. The MCG identifications should be switched. ===== NGC 2275. See NGC 2274. ===== NGC 2277 is an asterism of five faint stars. It was found by d'A as he reobserved the interesting area containing NGC 2274, 2275, and the NGC 2290 group. Apparently observing on a poor night, or anxious to increase the number of nebulae in the area, he also found three other asterisms here (NGC 2278, 2284, and 2285, which see). ===== NGC 2278 is a double star found by d'A. Bigourdan reobserved it, and found a companion asterism nearby, NGC 2279 (which see). See also NGC 2277. ===== NGC 2279 is a triple star (one star is very faint) found by Bigourdan while he was measuring the previously discovered nebulae and asterisms in the area. See NGC 2277 for more. ===== NGC 2282 = IC 2172, which see. ===== NGC 2283 may also be IC 2171, which see. ===== NGC 2284 is an asterism, probably comprised of the four stars noted in the table, but perhaps the triple 2 arcmin southeast. It was found by d'A in the area between the NGC 2274 group and the NGC 2290 group. See also N2277 and N2285. ===== NGC 2285 is a double star. See NGC 2277 and NGC 2285. ===== NGC 2290 is the brightest of a group of galaxies. There are several asterisms in the area, too (see e.g. NGC 2277, 2278, 2284, and 2285). ===== NGC 2296 = IC 452, which see. This, by the way, is a Galactic diffuse nebula, not a galaxy. ===== NGC 2299 is probably the same cluster as NGC 2302. JH saw the cluster we now call N2299 only once, and noted its position as uncertain in both coordinates. his description reads, "A coarse cluster, not very rich; 30 or 40 stars; probably only an outlying portion of VIII 39"; this could easily match N2302. His three accordant observations of N2302 are all in other sweeps. Had the two clusters been seen on the same night, I would not have entertained thoughts about equating the objects. As is, however, I think it's likely that the two numbers refer to the same object. ===== NGC 2302 probably = NGC 2299, which see. ===== NGC 2306 is probably a rich portion of the Milky Way. Neither WH nor JH seemed mightily impressed with it. JH in particular thought it simply a concentration of stars rather than a true cluster. Examining the POSS1, I thought it might be identical to NGC 2309 which is 1.5 minutes of time to the east. However, JH saw both objects in the same three sweeps: his concurrent observations rule out an equality. The "object" I've chosen as N2306 appears on the POSS1 as an elongated cloud of stars, magnitudes 10-13, roughly 20 arcmin by 10 arcmin, with the long axis in position angle 70 deg. The position in the table is just an arcmin southwest of JH's position, adopted for GC and NGC. ===== NGC 2319. This object has a curious history. Before I get into that, however, I should say that I've finally assigned the number to h 423 which JH describes as a "Linear cluster of stars, forming a bent line nearly 15 arcmin long, terminated on the following side by a star 8 ..." He calls the cluster "VIII 1," though it is not (more below). The position I've assigned (06 57 55, +03 06.8; 1950) is for the mid-point of the chain, rather than that of JH's 8th magnitude star (he gives 06 58 31, +03 07.9 -- also 1950 -- less than an arcmin from the true position), so the RA is well off JH's, though the object is clearly the one that he saw. For the GC, he used his own position for the object rather than his father's (for reasons apparent below), and Dreyer did the same for NGC. This leads us unambiguously to JH's "bent line" as NGC 2319. Curiously and perhaps unfortunately, both JH in GC and Dreyer in NGC also assigned an unusual WH number to the object: VIII 1B. There is no VIII 1A, and VIII 1B turns out to have nothing to do with VIII 1 (which is NGC 2509) except that it follows the first entry chronologically in WH's list of scattered clusters. So, to the history. Dreyer has a short note in the NGC, beginning with JH's note in the GC: "Entered by CH as VIII 1B, with a remark `not in print.' -- JH." Dreyer continues, "It must be a very poor cluster; at any rate, Auwers could not find anything like a cluster in this place." Dreyer inserts VIII 1B in his 1912 edition of WH's first catalogue with an extensive note giving some of the details of WH's Sweep 48 on 18 December 1783. In short, WH's observation puts the cluster around 1950.0 RA = 06 45.3, and between +02 06 and +03 21. He describes it as "A cluster of very small stars, not rich." This is obviously too far off JH's position to be the same object, so I am wondering how JH arrived at the identity. In any case, there is no obvious cluster matching both WH's position and his description. Two objects partially match, however: Collinder 115 (at 06 44 03, +01 49.4 for 1950) matches the description, but is well off in position. A scattered group of 9th to 12th magnitude stars at 06 44 52, +03 08.0 comes closer to the position, but the stars -- particularly the 9th magnitude star near the center -- are too bright to appear "very small" to WH. I see nothing else that could be WH's cluster. In the end, H VIII 1B remains a footnote, unidentified and probably unidentifiable (though a careful scrutiny of the Herschel Archive might turn up more information than Dreyer found -- but that's unlikely in my opinion). It's connection with NGC 2319 is a mistake by JH and Dreyer, and it has no other NGC number. ===== NGC 2323 (M 50) has an apparent core-halo structure on the sky survey prints/ films and DSS. The overall diameter is roughly 30 arcmin by 25 arcmin, with the core being just 10.5 by 8.0 arcmin. Most previous catalogues put the diameter at about 15 arcmin, but I have no idea now whether that is just an eyeball estimate, or is based on photometric and proper motion studies. The diameters I measured are obviously just estimates. I also put the position slightly southeast of Brian Skiff's or the one from him adopted by Brent Archinal and Steve Hynes in "Star Clusters". The core- halo structure is well-shown in the DSS image reproduced in "Star Clusters" as Figure 4.70. ===== NGC 2326. This was originally found by William Herschel who describes it as "F, pL, iF, mbM. South-following a triangle of small [faint] stars." JH looked at it a quarter of a century later and noted: "eF, R, pslbM; has a small group of stars immediately preceding like the letter Y." The J2000.0 position from the Bologna group is 07 08 11.1, +50 40 53 which is in the right direction from the NGC 2000.0 position to agree with the position measured by Glen Deen in the course of his work on MicroSky. The group of stars just west, shaped like the letter Y, clinches the identification, even if the NGC position (from the Herschels) is not too good. ===== NGC 2327 is a compact HII region, or part of one, in the large, sinuous nebula found by Max Wolf south of IC 2177, which see. ===== NGC 2330 and NGC 2334. Malcolm has not been happy with my assignments of NGC 2330 and NGC 2334 to IC 457 and IC 465. After going over all of the extant historical evidence once again, I'm not happy, either. But I'm not sure what to do about it. Here's the story. WH swept over this field twice, finding -- so he thought -- two nebulae, II 736 (on 9 Feb 1788) and II 862 (on 28 Dec 1790). His positions reduce to 07 07 21, +50 14.2 and 07 07 03, +50 14.4 (both for B1950.0). Since NGC 2332 is well over a minute of time preceding either of these, I think that both observations refer to NGC 2340. That galaxy is, in any case, the brightest in the group. WH's descriptions are consistent with his observations refering to the same galaxy. When JH swept up the field about 35 years later, he picked up NGC 2340 twice and NGC 2332 once. His positions and descriptions match the two galaxies well, so there is no reason to doubt that he actually did see both. After another 25 year gap, Lord Rosse turned his 72-inch "Leviathan" on the field. Unfortunately, the three sketches he made during his first two observations in January of 1851 did not appear in his 1861 monograph. He had only a short note under his entry for h 430, "Several knots around; 430 is E np, sf" (the directions should read "sp, nf"). So, when JH assembled the GC, he had only this scanty note on which to base the entry for GC 1492. Consequently, the position for GC 1492 is very rough (06 58+-, 39 36+-; RA and NPD for 1860), and the description reads only "Several near h 430 (?426, 433, & 1 nov[a])." When Dreyer was preparing LdR's observations for publication, he transcribed the details missing from the 1861 monograph, giving us the first two night's notes and sketches. Unfortunately, the arrows in the sketches are pointing in the wrong directions, and (as I noted) north and south are reversed in the notes for the first night's observations of NGC 2332 = h 430. I think that the first two sketches must come from only the first night: one shows NGC 2332 and a new nebula, with the second showing NGC 2340 and another nova. I also think that these are the objects which Dreyer intended to include in the NGC. This is the reason that I earlier adopted the NGC numbers 2330 and 2334 for them, in spite of the large differences in position from the NGC positions (from Bigourdan's observations; more on these below). The notes for LdR's second night refer to five novae, as well as the two known objects. A third sketch -- apparently from that night -- shows a total of nine nebulae. A third observation in 1863 refers to only six of these, with Dreyer adding the comment, "Zeta, iota, and theta not noticed this night." This is understandable as LdR says "A fog prevented these being well seen." In any event, Dreyer clearly had evidence for nine nebulae in the field, yet chose to include NGC numbers for only four. Perhaps he did this because he thought he had good positions for only those four -- two from JH via the GC, and two from Bigourdan for two of the "novae." However, given the confusion of the directions in the sketches and the observing notes, Dreyer was unable to sort out the field satisfactorily. So, he put question marks on LdR's initials under the numbers 2330 and 2334, adopting Bigourdan's positions published in his (Bigourdan's) first list. Dreyer could have inserted numbers for the remaining five nebulae, trusting to future observers to provide good positions, but unfortunately, did not. It is here that Bigourdan's complete observations could have provided positions for most of LdR's novae, had he (Bigourdan) chosen to publish them before the NGC appeared. For, on two nights in November of 1885, Bigourdan measured eight novae of his own, including six real nebulae, in addition to the two known nebulae. Unfortunately, he chose to publish only two of his novae. By startlingly bad luck, the two he did publish are stars. The six real galaxies remain buried in his massive tables of observational details and did not appear until 1907 in the Observations of Paris Observatory. Consequently, Dreyer put the two stars, with Bigourdan's positions and descriptions, into the NGC. While his clear intent was to include two of LdR's nebulae, he just as clearly -- with Bigourdan's unknowing assistance -- botched the job. So, what do we do with the two errant NGC numbers? If we assign them to the stars which Bigourdan's positions and descriptions point at, we do Dreyer's intentions (and JH's in the GC as well) a misservice. If, on the other hand, we assign them to the two novae that LdR found in 1851 (IC 457 and IC 465), then we incur Malcolm's wrath and my own furrowed brow. My solution is to adopt both options with lots of question marks, knowing full well that neither is satisfactory. Dreyer has simply not left us enough information to make any clear choice. As a footnote, I should mention that Heinrich Kobold also stumbled across this problem in 1893. He published a short note in AN 3184 with good positions for NGC 2332, 2340, and nine other nebulae which he assumed included those found by Lord Rosse. However, he could not find Bigourdan's two published novae (the ones with NGC numbers). Dreyer put all of Kobold's novae into the first IC, and included a note reporting Kobold's negative observations of the two NGC numbers. Finally, a footnote to the footnote: Kobold published his complete observations in the Strassburg Annalen in 1909. There, he has two observations of I459, but has reversed the signs on the offsets for one of them. He apparently discovered this before he published his short announcement in AN, so he did not publish a non-existent object (one object, IC 462, is a star, however). Since his monograph was published long after the observations, and long after he found the error, it's puzzling that he should let the mistake stand. The fact that the wrong signs are not just typos is shown by his including the second observation as if it were for another object. Also, his summary list of reduced positions includes only the IC objects (with the correct number of observations for each), so the decision to publish the incorrect observations is doubly puzzling. I certainly wouldn't have done it that way! ===== NGC 2331 is a large, scattered cluster of pretty bright stars. There is a concentration of several stars on the southeast edge that attracted JH's attention enough that he took it as the position for the whole object. Thus, the position in the main table is about 8 arcmin northwest of the NGC place, copied directly from GC and JH. A curious footnote to this object is in the "Other Observers" column in the NGC: "Flamsteed." I do not know yet why Dreyer credited Flamsteed with the discovery -- there is no mention of the object in Kenneth Glyn Jones's fine book, "The Search for the Nebulae." According to Glyn Jones, Flamsteed did find several other objects in the area, including M41 and NGC 2244. But this cluster is missing from his catalogue and atlas. ===== NGC 2332. See NGC 2330. ===== NGC 2334. See NGC 2330. ===== NGC 2338 is probably the cluster about 50 seconds following and 5.5 arcmin south of JH's place. Brian Skiff and I independently found the cluster looking for N2338; it matches JH's description "Very loose and straggling cluster" pretty well, and is as good a candidate as any. ===== NGC 2340. See NGC 2330. ===== NGC 2343. See NGC 2351. ===== NGC 2347 and IC 2179. On 1 Nov 1788, William Herschel found a "vF, S, R, lbM" nebula 01h 04m 05s following, 48' south of 36 Camelopardalis (the observation is from Dreyer's 1912 collection of Herschel's papers). This position reduces to 07 11 54, +65 06 using the SAO position of 36 Cam (proper motion changes its precessed position by about 5 arcsec between 1788 and 1950, a negligible amount considering the mean errors of a few arcmin in WH's positions). The GC/NGC position precesses to 07 11 31, +64 54. Since no other reference for the position is given, I suspect that JH must have used a later unpublished observation from his father's records. The NGC position falls about 6 arcmin north-following a 13th magnitude spiral galaxy (at 07 11 15.9, +64 47 57) which is usually taken as NGC 2347. However, 9 arcmin south-preceding the NGC position is a smaller, but equally bright -- therefore, higher surface brightness -- S0 galaxy. This was found by Bigourdan while he was searching the area of N2347, and is in IC2 as IC 2179. The position there is within 2 arcmin of the correct position (07 10 42.6, +65 00 49). Is this possibly the object that WH saw? Bigourdan apparently thought so, since he assigned the number "NGC 2347" to his observations of this smaller galaxy. However, he lists SA0 14129 as his comparison star. Using the 1950 position for this, we find a position for the galaxy of 07 11 26.5, +64 52 11, quite close to the NGC position for N2347. This certainly explains Bigourdan's choice of this object for N2347. If we look at this position on the sky, however, we find nothing at all. But applying Bigourdan's offsets to the position for BD +65 560 = GSC 4119-00435 (a star about a magnitude fainter, but still bright), we land exactly on IC 2179. But Bigourdan's observations, referred to SAO 14129, of what he calls "IC 2179," point exactly to the spiral usually called N2347. Thus, it's clear that not only has Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star for I2179, he has also switched the two catalogue numbers. But where did the correct IC position come from? Since Bigourdan published his "new" nebulae in several short lists in Comptes Rendus, Dreyer most likely took the position from there. However, in his collected lists of "novae" in the introduction to his observations, Bigourdan prints the incorrect position given in the observations themselves. At the moment, I don't see a reasonable answer to the problem. Until more information surfaces, we will retain the usual identifications for the two galaxies: NGC 2347 is the south-following spiral, and IC 2179 is the north-preceding lenticular. See also the additional discussion under IC 2179. ===== NGC 2349. This cluster was found by CH in 1783, and later catalogued by WH as VII 27. Their object, centered near 07 08 24, -08 30.6 (less than 30 arcsec from where they put it), is easily identified by the "extending branch towards the south-preceding." JH, however, called it a "poor straggling cluster," and took its position as that of a double star some 50 seconds west of the object observed by his father and his aunt. He adopted this position for GC, and Dreyer followed suit for the NGC. He must not have seen the same cluster as his father and aunt, however -- the positions and descriptions disagree too much. ===== NGC 2351. There is nothing in JH's position, but one degree north is a group of three bright and several faint stars that could be the object he saw. I'm frankly not too happy with this idea, but there isn't much else going. Other possibilities: this object may be a duplicated observation of NGC 2343 or NGC 2353, though neither one has a position with an obvious digit change that might point to NGC 2351. ===== NGC 2353. See NGC 2351. ===== NGC 2355. See NGC 2356. ===== NGC 2356 is most likely NGC 2355 with a 10 arcmin error in declination. There is no other group of stars in the area that fits WH's description "A pretty rich and compressed cluster of stars" as well. JH did not see NGC 2356, but found NGC 2355 easily. Note, too, that WH's position for N2355 is about 1m 40s too far west; Dreyer discusses the circumstances of WH's observation of N2355 a bit more in his 1912 edition of WH's papers. ===== NGC 2358. Seen only once by WH, this may be the large (20 arcmin by 15 arcmin) scattering of stars around 07 14 42, -17 01.6. Alternatively, it could be the richest part of this group, on to the southeast at 07 14 59, -17 04.2, though this is further from WH's position. Since we don't have much to go on here, I've taken the former position for the larger group as the most likely. ===== NGC 2359. See NGC 2361. ===== NGC 2361 is a knot in NGC 2359. JH's description and sketch from his Cape Observations is very appropriate for the larger object. Bigourdan's descriptions of N2361 make it clear that he was seeing only a small part of JH's object. Dreyer's IC1 note suggesting that N2361 is a reobservation of N2359, suggests that he had not seen Bigourdan's observations. ===== NGC 2363 and NGC 2366. Well, folks, it's bad news for those of us who have always identified NGC 2363 as the giant HII region in the low surface brightness irregular galaxy NGC 2366. WH's original description clearly refers to the HII region as the principal object with the bit of fuzz to the north as an incidental appendage. This view was further solidified by Ralph Copeland, observing with Lord Rosse's 72-inch reflector. Copeland identified the HII region as the center of an greatly extended object, stretching 9 or 10 arcmin to the northeast. He lists micrometric measurements of seven different objects in the surrounding area, and all are clearly referred to the HII region. Here is a list of his measurements, along with mine (made from the POSS1 blue print): Copeland Corwin Note Object P.A. Dist. P.A. Dist. * 9.5 6.3 214.9 7.5 211 * 10 337.9 191.9 335 193 * 10 340.8 235.8 339 236 * 8 351.0 396.6 351.5 400 Dif neb 265.9 71.4 274 70.5 Copeland quadrant error? Neb * 318.0 77.6 318 75.2 Star sup on F ext of galaxy "Tail" 30.9 [9-10min] 31 8min+- Main body of the galaxy So, the historical record is unmistakeable: NGC 2366 is the HII region. We can, of course, also include the rest of the galaxy under this number, since it was certainly seen. For the sake of the modern catalogues, this is also certainly the best thing to do. But what then is NGC 2363? One of Copeland's micrometric measures above -- for the "Diffused nebulosity preceding" -- is the one that Dreyer put into the NGC with the note "III 748 s[outh] f[ollowing]." This, combined with Copeland's measurement which Dreyer used, clearly points to the smaller object that we now call UGC 03847 = MCG +12-07-039 (N2366 is U3851) -- it is NGC 2363, not the HII region. I have usually taken this object to be a detached star cloud of N2366, but Steve Odewahn has shown through his detailed study of the velocity fields of the objects that it is indeed a separate galaxy interacting with N2366. So, we have two galaxies here, along with two NGC numbers clearly attached to each one. We shall just have to get used to calling the HII region "Markarian 71" (or one of its other names) since it is not N2363 as we've thought all these years. There is still one other nebulous object seen by Copeland in the area. This is the "Nebulous star or nebulous knot" which is listed in the table above. Why didn't Dreyer include it in the NGC, too? Other objects with just that sort of description were included. While this is an unanswerable question, it's possible that Dreyer had access to other notes that were not published. Or, since he and Copeland were colleagues at the time, the two of them may well have decided that the object was a star. The object is indeed a star superposed on a faint extension of NGC 2363. There may also be a distant background galaxy adding to the appearance of nebulosity -- see the lovely 200-inch photographs in the Revised Shapley Ames Catalogue (page 113) and in the Carnegie Atlas (Panel 327). ===== NGC 2366. See NGC 2363. ===== NGC 2364 is a curious object, probably a simple asterism of unrelated stars. It is composed of two n-s lines of half a dozen stars each, with a void between the lines. The two star streams are slightly tilted with respect to each other, and there is another star at the apparent apex to the north. There is a straggling line of similarly bright stars running east just to the south of the eastern stream. There is no question about the identification as JH's position and description are perfect for the object. Most of the stars may be bright enough that we can check their proper motions, too, in Tycho-2 or in UCACS. That is left as an exercise for the curious. Curiously, RNGC has this as "Not found" even though it is very clear on the DSS and, presumeably, the Palomar Sky Survey prints. I noted the NGC position and description correct when I scanned through for ESGC in the mid-80s, and Brian Skiff says "*ism, but real object". ===== NGC 2378 is a double star precisely identified by Stephan's micrometric position, and his description, "Two stars, very faint and very close which, occasionally seem to be enveloped in a nearly imperceptible nebulosity." ===== NGC 2380 = NGC 2382, which see. ===== NGC 2382 = NGC 2380. JH found this nebula in two different sweeps just four days apart (1 and 5 February 1837), but catalogued it as two different objects. Dreyer called attention to JH's approximate position for N2382 in the IC2 notes where he also gave Howe's micrometric position for the galaxy. Curiously, neither noted the identity with N2380, though Howe had mentioned in an earlier Monthly Notices article (Vol. 58, p. 515, 1898) the relative ease with which he saw that object. It was there that he also noted unsuccessful searches on two nights for N2382. In his second note about the galaxy two years later (MN 61, 29, 1900), Howe notes the declination error of 10 arcmin, and the RA error of 18 seconds. But it was left to Andris and me to note the equality of the two NGC numbers in the 1980s when we published our southern catalogues. Finally, I should note that JH has a correction on the errata page of his CGH volume to the RA minutes of NGC 2380 where it appears there as h3079. ===== NGC 2386 is a triple star near NGC 2388 and NGC 2389. Like many other asterisms found by Lord Rosse and his observers, it was taken to be part of a group of nebulae, probably on a night of poor seeing. ===== NGC 2388. See NGC 2386 and NGC 2390. ===== NGC 2389. See NGC 2386 and NGC 2390. ===== NGC 2390 and NGC 2391 are both stars near NGC 2388 and NGC 2389. Both are shown in Ball's diagram of 10 Dec 1866, and he has a micrometric measurement of NGC 2390. ===== NGC 2391 is a star. See NGC 2390 for a bit more. ===== NGC 2398, found by Stephan, is the brightest of three galaxies. Javelle saw one of the other two, but his note is not clear on which one. Since he gave no other details, the second object does not have an IC number. ===== NGC 2399 and NGC 2400 are a pair of triple stars found by George Bond with the Harvard refractor on 26 Feb 1853. Bond gave only one position (closer to N2399), but Schultz later measured both. D'Arrest has the two 1 minute of time further east, but Bond and Schultz are correct. ===== NGC 2400 is a triple star. See NGC 2399. ===== NGC 2402. Though both WH and JH have this as a single nebula with a single star involved, there are actually two galaxies and two stars here. The south- western galaxy is the brighter, but has the fainter star superposed, while the fainter northeastern galaxy has the brighter star. I suspect that the Herschels saw the entire group of four objects as a nebulous blur with the brighter star occasionally glimmering through. ===== NGC 2403. See NGC 2253 and NGC 2404. ===== NGC 2404 is the brightest superassociation in NGC 2403. The NGC position, however, is wrong, as is the position in Bigourdan's first Comptes Rendus paper. The correct position appears twice in his lists of new nebulae in his massive "Observations ...," and the offsets he gives also reduce to the correct position. My earlier incorrect identification of this as a star is based on the NGC position. ===== NGC 2408 is probably a field irregularity. On DSS, I see a scatterering of 20-30 stars, roughly 10th - 12th magnitude, covering an area of about 25 by 20 arcmin. It is centered just west of the brightest star in the ensemble; this seems to be the star that JH took for his position. ===== NGC 2412 is a star found by J.G. Lohse. I suspect its companion 10 arcsec south, mentioned by Lohse, has contributed to an appearance of nebulosity at the eyepiece. The other star Lohse mentions in his notes is SAO 115663, a "star 8 following 59 seconds, 1.5 arcmin south." Lohse's position for N2412 is also good. ===== NGC 2422 is probably also M47 = NGC 2478, which see. ===== NGC 2428. See NGC 2430. ===== NGC 2430 may be the large sparce group of relatively faint stars centered about 5 arcmin north-east of WH's position. There is a concentration within this group centered just 6 seconds following his position, but it is rather small (8 x 4 arcmin) for a cluster described as "very large." The larger grouping is 14 x 11 arcmin across, so that is the one I've tentatively taken. Another possibility is OCL 606 1.7 minutes following, and 5 arcmin north, of WH's position. The 1.7 minutes is not an easy mistake to make, however, so I'm doubtful about this. But that cluster does match WH's description, so it remains a possibility. NGC 2428 was found in the same sweep just 9 seconds preceding and 10 arcmin south of NGC 2430. Had the two been found in different sweeps, I would have confidently declared them to be identical. NGC 2428 is clearly a cluster that matches WH's description (and his position), and I could easily imagine that it could be stumbled across independently on different nights. However, having been found so close together, apparently within a few minutes of each other, the two objects that WH recorded are almost certainly different objects. ===== NGC 2431 is probably also NGC 2436, which see. ===== NGC 2433 is a triple star at JH's position. The 15th magnitude field star that he noticed to the northwest is at 07 39 57.13, +09 23 17.4 (B1950.0, measured on DSS as are the rest of the positions in this note). Dreyer has an NGC note that questions whether JH or d'A has the correct RA, both having just a single observation of the object. Checking at d'A's position shows a double star: 07 39 40.64, +09 23 47.6 and 07 39 41.85, +09 23 59.8. D'A also notes a 12th magnitude star to the southwest: 07 39 36.75, +09 22 32.5 (blended into a single image on DSS). He was puzzled by the discrepancy with JH, suggesting that JH's position was 19 seconds off. I've of course adopted JH's triple star as the correct object. (LEDA makes NGC 2433 a faint galaxy on to the northeast, but this is clearly wrong.) ===== NGC 2436 is probably NGC 2431. JH's RA is exactly 1.0 min larger, and his Dec exactly 1 deg smaller than those for NGC 2431. The description matches the bright core of the galaxy, so I am pretty sure that the identity of the two numbers is correct. Nevertheless, there is a triple star about 3 arcmin southwest of JH's uncorrected position (07 41 57.4, +52 09 36; B1950.0). This might be the object he saw -- but I doubt it. The errors leading to NGC 2431 are too exact to ignore. ===== NGC 2442 and NGC 2443 are the southwest and northeast parts of a large, bright galaxy observed four times by JH. The last three times, he described it as a single large nebula, and measured a position for it that agrees very well with the modern position. His first observation, however, makes it "A double nebula, vF, vL, PA of centers = 40 deg, diameters 4' and 3' running together, and having a star 13 mag at their junction." This is the interpretation that he adopted for the GC, and that Dreyer used in the NGC. The "double star" that JH noted during one observation is the nucleus and a superposed star (or a compact HII region). In the main table, I've given the position of the nucleus under both numbers, and have also given positions for the approximate centers of the two halves of the galaxy. ===== NGC 2443. See NGC 2442. ===== NGC 2456. See NGC 2457. ===== NGC 2457. The identity of this galaxy is not in doubt: Copeland gives a micrometric offset from NGC 2456 for it, and it is just where he claims to have seen it. What is interesting is his comment in the description, "About 3' north of the nova, there seemed to be another vF nebula. Telescope now at the limit of its range." There is in fact a fainter galaxy just three arcmin to the north of NGC 2457. Dreyer could well have included this in the NGC, but chose not to, apparently because of Copeland's apparent uncertainty about its existence. This makes at least three nebulae found by Copeland that are not in NGC -- interesting since Copeland was a friend and colleague of Dreyer's. ===== NGC 2458. See NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2461 is a star. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2462. See NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2463. See NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2464 is a triple star. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2465 is a star. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2469 group. Two objects here were seen by the Herschels: NGC 2463 (JH) and NGC 2469 (WH and JH). The identity of these two is certain since John Herschel's positions are good. Lord Rosse saw, but did not measure them. He has only a note: "Great many knots, reckoned 10 nearly in a line pf." So, Herschel added eight other GC numbers for the additional objects even though no positions were available for them. Dreyer followed Herschel's lead explicitly with 10 NGC numbers for all the objects. Bigourdan measured eight of the 10 objects in 1886, so Dreyer was able to adopt Bigourdan's positions and identifications for six of the non-Herschel objects: NGC 2458, 2461, 2462, 2464, 2465, and 2471. Bigourdan returned to the field in 1895 and 1900, measuring three other objects, one of which he mistook for NGC 2458, and another which became IC 2210. A third was not included in any of Dreyer's catalogues, and did not even receive a number in any of Bigourdan's lists of "novae." He did not observe NGC 2472 or 2473 -- the final two of Lord Rosse's 10 -- so they have only approximate positions in the NGC. The Palomar Sky Survey shows only seven galaxies here, one faint and small enough, and well enough away from the others, that it may not have been seen by Lord Rosse. It was certainly not seen by Bigourdan, who in fact saw only four of the galaxies (his first observation of N2458, N2462, 63, and 69). Five other of his objects are asterisms -- single stars (N2461, 65), doubles (N2471, I2210), or a triple (N2464). The two remaining nebulae in Bigourdan's list (his second observation of N2458 and the unnumbered "nova") are unidentifiable, with only very faint stars near -- but not at -- his positions. As I mentioned above, the chances are good that Lord Rosse only saw the six brightest of the galaxies (the others were probably stars as the rich field is at a fairly low Galactic latitude; it is not unusual to find stars among Lord Rosse's novae). Since Dreyer used Bigourdan's 1886 positions, four of the NGC numbers are assigned to galaxies, and four others are taken up by asterisms. There are thus two galaxies without NGC numbers -- and fortuitously, two NGC numbers (N2472 and N2473) without galaxies. Since N2472 has been used by the CGCG for one of the unnumbered galaxies, I suggest using N2473 for the other. The only unfortunate result is that this puts N2473 -- the last of the 10 numbers -- preceding all but one of the other objects (the exception is the very faint galaxy that Lord Rosse may not have seen): it is out of NGC order. It's clear that these two identifications are uncertain, even though they are logical given the facts we have. ===== NGC 2471 is a double star. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2472. The identity is uncertain. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2473. The identity is uncertain. See the discussion under NGC 2469. ===== NGC 2478 = M47 is probably identical to NGC 2422. NGC 2478 is a place-holder for M47 in the NGC; Dreyer simply copied JH's GC entry for the missing Messier cluster. He also noted Auwers's 4 minute RA difference for M47 as being a "clerical error", along with a reference ("V.J.S., Vol. I, p. 183" which I have not seen). Precious little to go on if one were starting here to find the NGC object. Glyn Jones has a story, though, in his book on the Messier objects (he repeats it briefly in "The Search for the Nebulae"). This story apparently comes from Owen Gingerich's article in the October 1960 issue of Sky and Telescope (page 196) on "The Missing Messier Objects". He claims Messier apparently switched the signs of his offsets from his comparison star, 2 Navis (now 2 Puppis), and cites articles or notes by Oswald Thomas in 1934 and T. F. Morris in 1959. This, however, doesn't hold up very well if we precess the three positions to 1771 when Messier found M47. 2 Pup ought to be about equidistant between the two positions for M47: Messier's as recorded in the NGC for N2478 (this is the same as that given by Gingerich in his article), and the real position for N2422 (WH found that in February 1785, coincidentally using the same comparison star. WH's offsets are 8m 55s preceding and 10 arcmin north of the star). The differences are 8m 54s and 9.7 arcmin (close to WH's) and 9m 18s, 41.0 arcmin, well off being identical, at least in absolute value, as they should be. So, while I can accept that Messier actually saw NGC 2422 and recorded it as his 47th object -- his description fits and the cluster is certainly in the right part of the sky -- I'm skeptical about the explanation that Morris, Gingerich, and Glyn Jones have set forth. ===== NGC 2491 and NGC 2496. Swift saw these as a pair oriented southwest- northeast, with his position for the brighter (N2496) being within 30 arcsec of a fairly bright galaxy with a faint star just preceding it. However, Swift puts the star to the east (following) where there is none. So, I'm going to suggest that his direction is wrong, but will still keep the galaxy as the one he saw. The other galaxy, though, is a problem. The object adopted by RNGC as N2491 (CGCG 031-007) is quite faint, and there are two others 10 arcmin north (CGCG 031-005 and 031-008) that would be easier to pick up: the former is considerably brighter and larger, while the latter has two stars just following that would enhance its visibility. These would have been well within Swift's 32 arcmin field, and should have been more apparent to him than the RNGC galaxy. In addition, Swift notes a "bright star near west." There is a 12th magnitude star about 2.5 arcmin to the northwest of CGCG 031-007; this might qualify as "bright" in a 16-inch refractor, but Swift usually reserved the word for stars of 10th magnitude or brighter. So, we have three galaxies to choose from: one matching Swift's position and (perhaps) his description, and two others that might be more easily seen. One option is that Swift has confused more than just his direction of the star near N2496: he confused all of the directions. This would make the orientation of the two nebulae northwest-southeast, and the bright star would be east, not west. This would make the star SAO 116199, which -- at 8th magnitude -- is indeed bright. The second is to simply accept Swift's positions as did RNGC and say that the descriptions are confused about the field stars. Adding to the confusion is Howe's observation of the field. He places N2496 near Swift's place, and notes the star preceding. But then he says, "... 2491, after careful scrutiny on a fine night, resolved itself into a few stars of mag. 14." The only object in the area matching this description is CGCG 031-008 -- but Howe makes no comment about the 10 arcmin declination error that must result. In the end, the identity of NGC 2496 is pretty sure, but that for NGC 2491 is uncertain enough in my mind to warrant some colons and question marks in the main table. Perhaps Swift was looking at a completely different pair of galaxies and simply got his positions wrong. If so, I haven't found the correct objects yet. ===== NGC 2494 = IC 487. Marth's position, accurately copied into the NGC, is 1 minute of time too small, an obvious digit error. Swift's position in the IC is not too bad, but is far enough off the NGC position that neither he nor Dreyer caught the identity. Herbert Howe missed it, too, and commented only on the position angle of the galaxy (he has it at 110 degrees, though I would put it closer to 95 degrees). Reinmuth, in his 1926 "Die Herschel Nebel," was, as far as I know now, the first to suggest the identity of the two objects. He describes the galaxy accurately, and provides an improved position for it, but also notes an "eFeS neb nnp 7.5'". The object most closely matching his distance from NGC 2494 is enough fainter than several other galaxies in the field that I do not believe that it is the object that Reinmuth found. ===== NGC 2496. See NGC 2491. ===== NGC 2509. See NGC 2319. ===== NGC 2515 is a double star. As with many of the other "nebulae" found at Harvard College Observatory during its early years in the 1850's and 1860's, there is no nebulosity associated with the stars. Poor seeing? Poor optics? Until someone examines the Observatory's early records in detail, we just won't know. In the meantime, however, the published position of NGC 2515 is very good, and the identity is certain. ===== NGC 2518 and NGC 2519 were "Two nebulae, F, L, R, gbM, delta RA = 42 seconds" found by J. G. Lohse. There is only one galaxy (UGC 04221) in the field about an arcmin from Lohse's position, but 39 seconds following it is a 14th magnitude star with 3 fainter stars in a triangle to the northwest. The asterism is about the size of the galaxy (35-40 arcsec across), and may be the object that Lohse saw. In any case, there is no other candidate object in the field. ===== NGC 2519. See NGC 2518. ===== NGC 2520 = NGC 2527. The puzzle here starts with the GC. JH has two observations of the cluster, one from Slough, the other from the Cape, both clearly of the same object. The RA for the Cape observation is out by 2.5 minutes of time, but JH nevertheless gives both earlier names (h488 and H VIII 30). Why then did he give the object two GC numbers? He has no notes in the GC, nor does Dreyer in NGC or in his collection of WH's papers. If anything, I would have expected him to adopt the Cape Observation since his earlier one has the note, "RA by working list," with the RA marked plus or minus. Whatever the case, there is certainly only one cluster, and both NGC numbers apply to it. ===== NGC 2524 and NGC 2528 are two galaxies found by Stephan in 1877. His positions are referred to BD +39 2062 = SAO 060607, so should be accurate within his measurement error of 2-3 arcsec. NGC 2524 is indeed where Stephan places it, but NGC 2528 is not south following as it should be if his position is correct. However, north preceding NGC 2524, there is a galaxy that fits Stephan's description perfectly. Looking at his measurements and plotting the galaxies and the comparison star, I found what Stephan must have done. The difference in position between the two galaxies is exactly equal to the difference in position between the star and NGC 2528. This means that Stephan actually measured NGC 2528 with respect to NGC 2524, not with respect to the star. He apparently forgot to make a note to that effect, so when he reduced his observations later, he assumed that both observations were referred to the star. Re-reducing his data taking this error into account gives positions in very close agreement with those in the GSC (aside from an offset in declination of about 15 arcsec because Stephan's declination for the comparison star is off by that amount). The PGC and RC3 have the correct identifications. ===== NGC 2528. See NGC 2524. ===== NGC 2529, 30, and 31. Herschel did indeed discover N2530, and this is the name that, as Steve Gottlieb suggests, should be used for the galaxy. The other two objects were found by Bigourdan very close to N2530. Though he examined the field four times, he saw his two new objects only once. On that one night, he estimated positions with respect to N2530: N2529 is 1' distant at position angle 220 deg, and N2531 is 1' distant at PA = 150 deg. There is nothing in either position on the PSS. He also measured a thirteenth magnitude star the same distance away from N2530 on two nights; it is just where he saw it in = 15 deg. On the second night, Bigourdan claimed to see stellar objects at the very limit of visibility where he placed N2529 and N2531 earlier, but he did not attempt to measure them. It's clear to me that the two do not exist, probably being those faint illusions that we all see now and then when we get tired or try too hard to push the limits of our optics. ===== NGC 2530. See NGC 2529. ===== NGC 2531. See NGC 2529. ===== NGC 2542 = 19 Puppis = SAO 153942 = ADS 6647. JH may have been misled by the faint companion to the brighter star. With a separation of only 2 arcsec, and a magnitude difference of 6.5, it would be very difficult to make out the fainter star except under extraordinarily fine conditions. ===== NGC 2543 = IC 2232. The galaxy was first seen by WH in Feb 1787, and was reobserved in Mar 1790. The two positions that he measured are not in particularly good agreement (08 09.6 +36 20 and 08 09.8 +36 35). JH picked it up once in Feb 1832. His position is 08 11 45, +36 24.6, also not in good agreement with either of his father's determinations. However, Sir John notes a "a coarse ** p points to it." This note is correct, and the "double star" is quite wide. The GC and NGC adopted sort of a mean of these three (08 10 43 +36 24.7) which was corrected by Dreyer in the IC 1 notes, following Spitaler (08 09 38 +36 24.7). Actually, Spitaler's micrometric position (measured in Dec 1891) reduces to 08 09 42.9 +36 24 07, using the GSC position for his comparison star, and ignoring its (unknown) proper motion. Javelle scanned the field in Feb 1896 and his position (for IC 2232) reduces to (again ignoring proper motion) 08 09 42.5 +36 24 12, agreeing well with Spitaler. Thus, there is no question that the two different numbers apply to the same object. This identity was first suggested as being the same as N2543 by Reinmuth in 1926, and every catalogue since has made the equality. The descriptions of the galaxy and the surrounding star field simply nail the lid, leaving no doubt about the equivalence of the two entries. ===== NGC 2574. See NGC 2589. ===== NGC 2582 = IC 2359. Here is a curious case. This is clearly noted as NGC 2582 in Wolf's first list, yet Dreyer still assigned it an IC number. There is no particular reason that he should have done this that I can see. The NGC position (from the two Herschels) agrees well with the GSC position, and with Wolf's position, and the descriptions are compatible. Oh, well -- these things happen. ===== NGC 2583 is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC 2586 for more. ===== NGC 2584 is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC 2586 for more. ===== NGC 2585 is a minute west of its nominal position. See NGC 2586 for more. ===== NGC 2586. This is a triple star. The galaxy with this label in RC3 (MCG -01-22-012) is near the nominal position, but N2586 is noted as the fourth of four nebulae. The other three (NGC 2583-5) are a minute west of Muller's position, but their relative positions are good. If N2586's relative position is similarly good, then there is little doubt that it is the triple star. ===== NGC 2589 is probably lost. There are no bright galaxies near Swift's position, though NGC 2574 (4 minutes preceding and 9 arcmin south) is a possibility. Given Swift's meager description, however -- "pF, pS, lE in meridian" -- this is little more than a guess. ===== NGC 2590 = IC 507, which see. ===== NGC 2597 is a double star. It is the preceding of two close "nebulae" that Marth found on New Year's night, 1864. The double is near Marth's place, as is his other object, NGC 2598, a galaxy. ===== NGC 2598. See NGC 2597. ===== NGC 2599. See NGC 2600. ===== NGC 2600, 2602, 2603, 2605, and 2606. There is a group of six galaxies here. Two (N2602 and N2606) of the three brightest were seen twice by JH, while he curiously missed the brightest, N2600 (LdR and Bigourdan picked this up). Of the three others seen by LdR, JH and Dreyer gave new GC and NGC numbers to only two, the other being taken as a star once, and being thought as one of the other two "novae" the second time. [There is also some confusion in LdR's 1861 PT paper, noted by JH in the GC Notes and by Dreyer in LdR's 1880 monograph, with NGC 2599 (= h507) 30 degrees south. Both JH and Dreyer come to the correct conclusion that this is a simple transcription error and that the correct numbers are h508 (= N2602) and h510 (= N2606).] JH's observations are relatively clear, though he does note a 10 second RA discrepancy between his first and second observations of N2602 (the second is more nearly correct). Also, his note "... np a star (about [PA =] 5 deg np)" should read "sp" instead of "np". As I've noted, his observations point at the second and third brightest in the group as being the two that he found. The first time LdR went over the group, he found three nebulae: 1850, Feb. 9. A fine object, 3 neb., one (N2600) B, another (N2606) f[ollowing] pB and E, the third (N2602) north and the last degree of faintness. [Dreyer appends the note about N2599.] LdR's second observation turned up four nebulae, and he provided a sketch: 1858, Mar. 11. 4 neb. found, alpha (N2603) is F, S, bM; beta (N2605) is vvF, gamma (N2602) F, S, lbM; delta is E and has a Nucl, a F * sf. alpha and gamma are about 5 arcmin dist. from one another, and beta and delta about the same dist. apart. Interestingly, he includes the faintest galaxy in the group in the sketch, but has it drawn as a star. Finally, a third observation yeilded only two nebulae: 1867, Mar. 5. 2 neb. seen nearly pf, p one (the unnumbered faintest galaxy in the group) eeF, f one (N2606) eF. Measures extremely difficult. Pos. 92 deg (2). Dist. 118 arcsec (1). In each case, the noted relative brightnesses and positions very clearly identify the objects that LdR and his observers are seeing. I find it informative that he turned up a different set of objects each night, pointing most likely to the importance of seeing, transparency, observer skill and fatigue, mirror reflectivity, and a host of other variables that determine the eventual outcome of any given observation. When Bigourdan went over the field, he found only the brightest three galaxies, N2600, N2602, and N2606, noting the others as simply "Non vue" (not seen). Making sense out of all of this is fairly straight-forward (though I swapped NGC 2602 and NGC 2605 in my first pass a few years ago; apologies to all). We simply adopt the NGC numbers for JH's two objects as given by Dreyer. JH's positions are not bad, either, though both he and Dreyer used a mean of the two discordant RAs for N2602. NGC 2600 is easy as its relatively good position comes from Bigourdan, and his comment about the two stars preceding is accurate. This leaves NGC 2603 and NGC 2605 to distribute among the three "novae" found by LdR. I've arbitrarily assigned these to the fourth and fifth brightest galaxies in the group (LdR's alpha and beta), leaving only the sixth and faintest without an NGC number. I've included this in the position table as "N2606 w comp". The final entry in the table, "N2606 e comp" is the "F * sf" that LdR notes in his 1858 observation. On the DSS, this looks like a close double, or perhaps another companion galaxy. ===== NGC 2602. See NGC 2600. ===== NGC 2603. See NGC 2600. ===== NGC 2605. See NGC 2600. ===== NGC 2606. See NGC 2600. ===== NGC 2617 is the brighter and western of two galaxies (it is MCG -01-22-026). The NGC position, from Stephan's careful micrometric measurements, is within a few arcseconds of being correct, so I'm puzzled by the occasional misidentification of this NGC number with the eastern galaxy (MCG -01-22-027). This is especially disconcerting since the eastern galaxy is considerably fainter as well. Oh, well. ===== NGC 2618. See IC 518. ===== NGC 2623. See IC 2386. ===== NGC 2629. See NGC 2630. ===== NGC 2630 and NGC 2631. These two objects were found by Tempel (apparently in 1883), and described in his note in AN 2660. Of the twelve novae mentioned in the note, these are the only two not listed in his table. It is remarkable, too, that he nevertheless describes them as "much brighter" than NGC 2629 and NGC 2641, both seen and measured by the Herschels and by d'Arrest. At the moment, my feeling is that Tempel confused NGC 2633 with NGC 2629, and that his pair is actually NGC 2634 and NGC 2634A. These two galaxies are the only ones in the group that are close enough to be actually called a "pair." However, while N2634 is bright enough to rival the earlier observers' discoveries in the area, N2634A is certainly not. It's just conceiveable, however, that on a night of exceptional transparency, the pair may have stood out enough to capture Tempel's attention. He was, in fact, so struck by their brightness -- compared to the nearby nebulae that the Herschel's and d'Arrest found -- that he suggested variablility for them. This is a pretty weak argument, however, so until Tempel's discovery sketch (which he mentions explicitly) can be examined, the question of the identities of these two NGC numbers has to remain open. So, I've simply entered the NGC positions in the table for the time being. ===== NGC 2631. See NGC 2630. ===== NGC 2633. See NGC 2630. ===== NGC 2634. See NGC 2630. ===== NGC 2637 is one of two galaxies found in the eastern part of the Beehive by Marth in 1864 (the other is NGC 2643, which see). Both are placed by Marth too far south by about 10 arcmin, and too far east by 6 and 18 seconds, respectively. The eight other objects that Marth found that same night show no such offsets from the true positions, but these two are reasonably consistent with each other, and are fairly close on the sky. I'll take the identifications since nothing else in the area matches. ===== NGC 2641. See NGC 2630. ===== NGC 2643 = IC 2390. This identity, first suggested by Reinmuth, was taken up by RNGC. The object was found by Marth in 1864. Correcting his position by 18 seconds of time and 11 arcmin leads to IC 2390. The IC object matches Marth's description, and there is no other object in the area (the east edge of the Beehive) that would fit better. NGC 2637 (which see), found by Marth the same night, also suffers from a declination error of 8 arcmin of the same sign, though the RA is only off by 6 seconds. ===== NGC 2652 = NGC 2974. Searching for this during ESGC, I could not find it. When I came back to the number two decades later, I tried larger errors. The galaxy finally showed up one hour later on the sky. Stone's position is otherwise about 3/4 of a minute of time further east, a common error for him and his colleagues at Leander McCormick. His description is spot-on, including the 9th magnitude star at 240 degrees position angle, 0.8 arcmin distant. ===== NGC 2653 is a double star. It was found and well-described by Tempel who placed it 12 arcmin north of NGC 2655. That is very close to the actual distance, and the identity is not in doubt. (Carlson notes that the Lick observers corrected the declination to 10 arcmin further north. There is a much fainter asterism in that position, but it does not have the eye-catching appearance of Tempel's double.) ===== NGC 2655. See NGC 2653. ===== NGC 2664, like NGC 2017 (which see), is probably not a cluster -- but it is a striking object of about a dozen stars. Villanova et al (A&A 428, 67, 2004) looked at the proper motions, radial velocities, and photometry to see if they form a cluster -- they almost certainly do not. Even so, this is an interesting object, and would probably be quite a sight at the eyepiece. ===== NGC 2666. JH's description reads only, "The chief * of a coarse cluster." There is nothing resembling this at his position (08 46 36, +47 14.8; 1950). However, a group of about a dozen stars around SAO 42564 (08 46 24, +44 53.5) does match. Could this be the "cluster" that JH found? A more thorough search of the sky at more reasonable offsets (1 hour, 10 deg, etc.) needs to be done, though. The SAO star happens to be in the same POSS1 field, but there could be other candidates in other fields. ===== NGC 2667 = IC 2410, which see. ===== NGC 2674. Though Ormond Stone had doubts about this object, his RA is just one minute of time off, and his declination is good. Aside from his note, "neb?" his estimated magnitude (16.0) and diameter (0.4 arcmin) are appropriate for the object. ===== NGC 2684. See NGC 2688. ===== NGC 2686. See NGC 2688. ===== NGC 2687. See NGC 2688. ===== NGC 2688 and NGC 2689. I've identified these using LdR's sketch. Though he saw the two objects on only one night, the sketch is a fair depiction of the sky in the area of NGC 2684. It also shows the bright galaxy, it shows NGC 2686 to be double in the correct orientation, and it shows NGC 2687 as well; all in their correct relative positions. ===== NGC 2689. See NGC 2688. ===== NGC 2696 may be MCG -01-23-004. The description and declination are close to those recorded by Stone, though the RA is about 4 minutes of time off (Stone's RA is further east -- this is in the same direction as many other of his poor positions from the first two lists of Leander McCormick discoveries). ===== NGC 2699. See NGC 2700. ===== NGC 2700, 2702, 2703, 2705, and 2707 are almost certainly all stars, with 2703 being a double. Found by Tempel (and word of them apparently sent directly to Dreyer -- I can find no mention of them in Tempel's ten papers), there are no nebulae near NGC 2699 that he might have seen. The positions given in NGC fall only near stars. The 2 deg error in the NPD of NGC 2700 is apparently a typo. The descriptions are reasonably apt for the stars, however. NGC 2700 is within an arcminute northeast of N2699, NGC 2703 is indeed "little extended" as one might expect of a double faintly seen, N2705 has three stars following it with which it forms a trapezoid, and N2702 is about 4 arcmin northeast of NGC 2699. Only NGC 2707 has no additional description (it is only "eF, S"), but its position is close to a star that might have a faint, close companion that would enhance its appearance of nebulosity. So, while the positions are not exactly on the stars, and the identities are clearly not sure, what little evidence we have suggests that they are appropriate, if not completely correct. ===== NGC 2702 is a probably star. See NGC 2700 for more. ===== NGC 2703 is a double star. See NGC 2700 for more. ===== NGC 2704 = IC 2424. This is an identity first suggested by Bigourdan who found and measured I2424 on 18 March 1892. He could not, however, find the NGC galaxy at WH's position. Since that is just a minute of time preceding I2424, the brightest galaxy in the area, the identity is almost certain. Dreyer has a note about this in his 1912 paper and in his Notes to WH's observations; he, too, accepted the identity of the two nebulae. ===== NGC 2705 is probably a star. See NGC 2700 for more. ===== NGC 2707 is perhaps a star. See NGC 2700 for more. ===== NGC 2708 is probably also NGC 2727, which see. Also see IC 2425 for a brief mention. ===== NGC 2719 may possibly be NGC 2724, which see. ===== NGC 2722 is probably also NGC 2733, which see. ===== NGC 2724 is most likely UGC 4726 with an error of almost a minute of time in RA. It's just possible, however, that the NGC number refers to NGC 2719 since JH found that during another sweep. And U4726 is as far north of JH's declination as N2719 is south (about 2 arcmin). But N2719 is another 45 seconds west of U4726, so would require a larger RA correction. Thus, my preference is to set N2724 = U4726. ===== NGC 2727 is probably NGC 2708 five minutes west at the same declination. I'm no longer convinced that this is the correct identification, but I can find nothing better in the area. The RA difference is, within JH's usual errors, exactly five minutes, and the galaxy could be called "large". However, it is not "round", but is noticeably elongated. Another curiosity concerns the next galaxy that JH found in this sweep (number 21 on 12 March 1826, an early sweep), NGC 2733. The RA for that is also uncertain, but JH marks it "+-" and has a note, "[RA] between 52m 31s and 54m 41s" for equinox 1830. This suggests that he had problems of some sort during this sweep, making it more likely that the RA for N2727 is indeed off. ===== NGC 2733 is most likely an observation of NGC 2722. JH marks his RA 08 53 00 "+-" and notes "[RA] between 52m 31s and 54m 41s" (for 1830). (His north polar distance is 93 03 54, also for 1830.) There are, however, no nebulae of any kind in this RA range that he could have seen. The declination (from his father's observations) of N2722 is the same, and the descriptions are not incompatible. Given that JH probably also had trouble with the RA for NGC 2727 (which see) in the same sweep, this is a likely identification. By the way, this is another case where the positional uncertainty that JH notes in his original list has gotten lost along the way to the NGC. In GC, the galaxy has its "Number of Observations by H and h" marked "::"; Dreyer did not carry this over into the NGC, so the position there appears as if it carries normal accuracy. Having said that, I have to also say that Dreyer has a note in his 1912 Herschel papers, and in his MN list of NGC corrections resulting from that collection, about the RA for NGC 2722. Dreyer says that the RA in the GC is too large by 44 seconds, saying that JH should probably have corrected it (as he did for other nebulae in the same sweep) to the meridian. This is indeed true, and the NGC position, corrected by the -34 seconds, lands within 9 seconds of the galaxy. ===== NGC 2736. On the SERC IIIa-J film, this appears to be the brightest patch in a supernova remnant that covers most of the 6.4 deg field with delicate whisps of nebulosity. On the ESO IIIa-F film, however, it is much brighter than the rest of the SNr, and I wonder if the relatively bright star immersed in it is exciting it as it passes by. In either case, it is certainly a diffuse gaseous nebula, not a galaxy. ===== NGC 2741. Marth's RA is 1 minute too far east. This misled Dreyer into noting the galaxy as the first of two (the second is NGC 2745, given its correct RA by Marth). Marth's declination is correct. ===== NGC 2742 is probably also NGC 2816, which see. ===== NGC 2745. Marth's position is good. Dreyer mistakenly added the note, "f of 2." See NGC 2741. ===== NGC 2753. The NGC position, from d'A, is one minute of time off. This is an improvement over N3575 and N3760, found the same night, which both have errors of 1 hour in the positions listed by d'A. See them for more. ===== NGC 2754. See NGC 2757. ===== NGC 2757 is probably a triple star. It and two other objects, NGC 2754 and NGC 2758, were found by Frank Muller at Leander McCormick in 1886 or 1887. This is one case where the Leander McCormick discovery positions are quite good, so the identities of N2754 and 2758 with two neighboring galaxies are not in doubt. However, the third position of Muller's trio falls in a region where only stars are found. Herbert Howe, working with the 16-inch at Chamberlain Observatory in Denver around the turn of the century, noticed a double star near Muller's place. This is a relatively bright (15th magnitude), wide (12 arcsec) double, and I'd be surprised if Muller mistook it for a nebula in the 26-inch, even on a night of rather poor seeing. The 26-inch is optically quite good, and will certainly show fainter objects with considerably more clarity than any 16-inch, all else being equal. About an arcminute south-south-following the double star, however, is a triple star of about the same total magnitude. The separation of the components is much less than the separation of the double's two stars. The triple was in fact picked up as a single non-stellar object by the Guide Star Catalogue software. My guess is that this is actually the object that Muller mistook as nebulous. The position, while a minute or so further from Muller's than the double star's position, is well within the usual Leander McCormick standard deviation. So, while we can't be certain about the identification (there is no surviving sketch), I'm going to take the triple as NGC 2757. ===== NGC 2758. See NGC 2757. ===== NGC 2760 might possibly be CGCG 350-021 -- there is certainly nothing near Swift's position that matches his description. In particular, he notes "nearly between *8 and *9." The stars flanking the CGCG object are at least two magnitudes fainter, so I don't want to push this identification too hard. ===== NGC 2783. See IC 2449. ===== NGC 2804 probably = IC 2455, which see. The NGC identification is not in doubt. ===== NGC 2806 is a star, and is certainly not the galaxy listed in RNGC. It is in just the place noted by Dreyer in Lord Rosse's observations. Here is Dreyer's description of the object: "A vF * or cS, eF neb p [N2809] (sky bad), forming an equilateral triangle with [2807] and [2809] (susp as neb by d'A, = [N2806])." Dreyer's descriptions and offsets for other objects in the field are exact, so there is no mistaking the true identity of N2806. ===== NGC 2807. See NGC 2806. ===== NGC 2809. See NGC 2806. ===== NGC 2816 is probably JH's second observation of NGC 2742. The first came on 8 March 1832 where the galaxy is recorded at its correct position, close to where his father placed it when he found it in 1790. JH called it "vF, pL, R, vgbM, 60 arcsec; moon very troublesome. A * 8 m np." (This compares to his father's rather more interesting note, "cB, E near par., er, bM; 4' l, 2' b. I suppose, with a higher power and longer attention, the stars would become visible." WH's "er" means "extremely mottled," which leads to his comment about the stars.) Just three weeks later, on 30 March 1832, JH swept over the area again, this time recording a "F, pmE" nebula 13m 30s to the east at the same north polar distance. There is nothing at that position, a fact first noticed by Reinmuth in his 1926 "Die Herschel Nebel." Since the declination is the same, and the description for N2816 appropriate for N2742, I'm going to suggest that the two nebulae are the same. Even though the RA difference is large, there is nothing else around that JH might have seen that makes more sense to me. Still, I'm not convinced, so I've put colons on the identification. ===== NGC 2823. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2825. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2826. See NGC 2829 and NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2827 = IC 2460, which see. Also see NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2828. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2829 is most likely the faint galaxy that I've included in the position table. This is tolerably close to the position shown in LdR's diagram. On the other hand, LdR's object may be a star, also close to the position in the diagram. In addition, it is sometimes identified with a faint double galaxy, but that is exactly on the line between NGC 2826 and NGC 2830 -- in the diagram, the object is off to the east of that line. ===== NGC 2830. See NGC 2829 and NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2831. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2832 is the brightest galaxy in Abell 779, and was seen by WH and JH. The younger Herschel also picked up another galaxy in the area, as did d'Arrest -- who also saw three others, measuring two of them -- but it remained for Lord Rosse's 72-inch Leviathan to reveal the cluster of a dozen or so galaxies around the brightest. These are NGC 2823, 2825-2834, and 2839. Note that the identification of NGC 2829 is somewhat uncertain, and that NGC 2827 = IC 2460 (which see). Lord Rosse made micrometric measurements of only six of these (with respect to the brightest), but JH received notes from the Earl that allowed him (JH) to give good positions in the GC for six others. He had to give the remaining two of the 15 claimed nebulae estimated positions. In spite of JH's care, the GC is rather confused in the area. When Dreyer came around to the group during his preparation of LdR's observations, he sorted the area out pretty well, and the NGC reflects his careful work. In the process, he dropped two of the GC numbers, and combined two others so that the total number of nebulae here seen by LdR is just 12 -- the sketch shows those twelve in their correct relative positions. Only for NGC 2829 (which see) is there any uncertainty left about the identification. Curiously, however, Dreyer put WH's observation and the brightest of JH's on NGC 2830. LdR calls the brightest "alpha", and this is clearly the third of three in short line in the center of the cluster. Yet Dreyer is apparently claiming that WH and JH saw one of the fainter galaxies here, not the brightest (Dreyer of course switches the descriptions as well). I find it odd that, given his otherwise careful treatment of the area, he should have misidentified the brightest galaxy, and not one of the fainter. However, his note in the NGC gives an alternate (and correct) numbering of the galaxies, showing that he was not convinced that he had it right in the main body of the catalogue. Finally, Dreyer has a note appended to the second of WH's catalogues of nebulae for H I 113: "A second and better obs. in Sw. 549, Mar. 28, 1876, 40 Lyncis, p. 1m 11s, s. 39'." Reducing both this and the observation in WH's main table shows that this is not a "better" observation, but is further off in both coordinates than the presumeably "worse" one (09 16 40, +33 57.9 for WH's first observation w.r.t. 66 Cancri; vs. 09 16 51, +33 57.5 for his second. The modern position is 09 16 44.0, +33 57 43). In neither case, however, is there any chance for mistaking the identification of WH's object for anything but the brightest galaxy in the cluster. ===== NGC 2833. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2834. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2837 is a double star found by JH on 16 Dec 1827. He mistook it for a nebula, perhaps on a night of poor seeing, but correctly noted that it is west of a brighter star. His estimated distance to the star was 8.5 seconds, while the actual distance is 9.2 seconds, good enough agreement that the identity can be regarded as pretty certain. ===== NGC 2839. See NGC 2832. ===== NGC 2843. In spite of the faintness of this galaxy, and its proximity to the considerably brighter star, it is almost surely the object that WH found. He is cautious in his description, noting that it took 240X to show the object and the star. His position is just an arcminute east, too, well within his usual observational error. ===== NGC 2846 is a double star. This was found by Lord Rosse (or by his observer at the time, Ralph Copeland) who thought it a star with a very small nebula nearby. Even though no accurate position is given, micrometric offsets to nearby stars positively identify the star they thought nebulous. A few years later, Lord Rosse (or Dreyer, who was then the resident observer at Parsonstown) reobserved the object, but could see no nebulosity. Instead, he suggested a very small cluster. A correction to the position, by Bigourdan, appeared in the Notes to the first IC. However, there is some error in Bigourdan's observation, since his offsets point to a blank region of sky. Just north of his position is a 15th magnitude star; another is just west. He probably saw one or the other of these. In any case, he missed Lord Rosse's double star, so we have to discount his correction. My first thought was to accept the first observation of the single star as N2846, but Glen Deen pointed out that the two star images are actually in contact on the Sky Survey. While they would not have been merged on a fairly good night at the 72-inch, they are still clearly close enough together to have misled some veteran observers into believing that one star was nebulous, or that there was a cluster present. Since the NGC itself accepts the second observation, it seems best to follow that. ===== NGC 2848. See NGC 3578. ===== NGC 2863 = NGC 2869, which see. ===== NGC 2868 is a companion to NGC 2863 = NGC 2869, which see for the story. ===== NGC 2869 is identical to NGC 2863. WH found N2863 in March of 1786, and JH observed it again forty years later. JH used his own position and most of his description in GC, but took an "average" of his and his father's brightness estimates: "vF" and "F" became "cF". All this is very close to the position and description we would make today from the Sky Survey. Dreyer copied this into the NGC. In 1885 or 1886, Frank Muller was sweeping across the field. He rediscovered N2863 and also found a fainter companion which became N2868. As usual, his positions from the circles of the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor were so bad that he thought he had found two "novae" rather than just one. He also suggested that the RA might actually be five minutes larger than that given in the table in the AJ paper. But there is nothing in either of his positions. Herbert Howe sorted all of this out satisfactorily in a Monthly Notices note which Dreyer quoted succinctly in the Notes to the second IC. Howe also got the positions correct. ===== NGC 2871 is a star just north-preceding NGC 2872. Lord Rosse has two detailed observations of the N2872/4 group, one of which includes micrometrically measured offsets which point exactly at the star. ===== NGC 2872. See NGC 2871. ===== NGC 2874. See NGC 2875. ===== NGC 2875. This is the north-following part of NGC 2874. Lord Rosse's micrometrically measured offsets point exactly at the rather knotty spiral arm, and his description is consistent with the appearance on the Sky Survey. ===== NGC 2885 = IC 538. John Herschel saw this on only one night. The RA is marked with a plus-minus sign, and his description reads, "eF, vS, E in parallel; RA very uncertain." His description is correct, and his RA is indeed about 25 seconds too large (there is nothing in his estimated place, not even a star). The comment "... E in parallel ..." (that is, the position angle is 90 deg) fits no other galaxy in the area. This is also the brightest galaxy around, so the identification is secure. Bigourdan made four observations of the galaxy, and his position is accurate. On the other hand, he also claims to have glimpsed "NGC 2885" (on one night only; on another night, he has this as "Non vue" [not seen]) about 1.4 arcmin north of JH's place. But again, there is nothing there, not even a star. ===== NGC 2886 is probably the asterism of 4 stars about an arcminute following JH's position. There is nothing else in the area that fits his sparce description. ===== NGC 2901 may be one of the galaxies (UGC 05070, 05074, or 05087) just over a degree south of Stone's especially crude position, estimated during a search for Winnecke's comet. There is nothing closer to his position that he might have mistaken as nebulous, unless it is one of the faint double stars in the area. Wolfgang has taken one of these. ===== NGC 2902 is not IC 543 (which see for details) as suggested in MCG. ===== NGC 2903. See NGC 2905. ===== NGC 2905 is the northeast arm of NGC 2903. JH has several observations of it in that position, as well as a sketch. The only slight mystery here is why WH made it one of his first class nebulae, ranking it in brightness with the central portion of NGC 2903 itself. ===== NGC 2909 is a double star about 30 arcsec following JH's position. Several observers have suggested other identifications for it, but nothing else in the area is as convincing. See also NGC 4512 for more on the sweep in which JH found this object. ===== NGC 2911. See NGC 2912. ===== NGC 2912 is a star described only in Schultz's note for his observation of NGC 2911. The faint galaxy close following N2911 (taken as N2912 by all and sundry) is much too faint for Schultz to have picked up with his 9.6-inch refractor, especially given the considerably brighter star just a few arcsec following (the 1950 position for the star is 09 31 12.07, +10 22 57.2). Brian Skiff has suggested that N2912 is identical to N2914. But Schultz has observations of both objects on the same three nights, calling N2914 nearly as bright as N2911. Furthermore, Schultz's description of N2912 "eF, f h608 [N2911] some seconds, ab[out] 2' n, but not observable" places his "nova" northeast of N2911, not southeast. The only object in the area, bright enough that he could see, that matches his estimated offsets, is the star that I list in the table. This may not be a completely solid identification, but it is pretty close. ===== NGC 2914. See NGC 2912. ===== NGC 2932 is a patch of the Milky Way about 1 degree across, centered near JH's approximate position (he gives it only to a full minute of time and a full minute of arc). In his description, he notes that it is "... a degree or degree and half in diameter, very rich in stars of all magnitudes from 8 m downwards ..." This is just what we see on the IIIa-J plate today. ===== NGC 2938 was the first of fifteen nebulae found by WH in sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801. There was considerable confusion in the 19th century about the identities of these galaxies, confusion still not sorted out at the time the NGC and the ICs were published. It was, however, mostly laid to rest in an unsigned note in MNRAS 71, 509, 1911 "Communicated by the Astronomer Royal". This gives accurate positions for forty nebulae in the area covered by WH's sweep, and enabled Dreyer to finally publish (in the Scientific Papers) corrected NGC identifications for WH's galaxies. Dreyer, however, did not give cross-identifications to all of the NGC numbers, particularly those which came in from other observers (JH and d'A). I list those in my note to NGC 3752 (which see), where I give a fairly detailed account of the problem and its solution. ===== NGC 2944. It has seemed strange to me that just three arcmin north-following this triple galaxy is a considerably brighter pair. Did Palisa perhaps see one of the pair rather than the galaxy we now call N2944? Tracking down Palisa's original observation to AN 2782, I found that his micrometrically measured position (based on six settings) falls within three arcsec of the GSC position of brightest of the triple. The identity is thus certain -- but why did Palisa not see the brighter galaxies just to the north? ===== NGC 2947 = IC 547 = IC 2494 is the only object that I am currently (May 2003) aware of which has an entry in all three of Dreyer's catalogues. See IC 547 for details. ===== NGC 2953 is probably the star about 6 arcmin south-southeast of NGC 2954. JH found both during one of his rare excursions north of the equator during his South African sojourn on 18 March 1836. He says of this, "Suspected nebula. (N.B. These suspicions have been so constantly verified on reobservation, that I have little hesitation in registering it as an object in the catalogue.)" He adds in his description of NGC 2954, "Another suspected 6 arcmin south, nearly on the same meridian." JH gives the position only to a full minute of time and a full minute of arc; the seconds are missing in both coordinates. The star is almost strikingly isolated -- there is no brighter star within 4-5 arcminutes of it, and no galaxy or nebula aside from N2954 nearby, either. While we can't be absolutely certain about the identity -- the approximate position erodes confidence -- the lack of any other candidate matching JH's description lends considerable credibility to the star. ===== NGC 2954. See NGC 2953. ===== NGC 2972 = NGC 2999, which see. ===== NGC 2973 is perhaps the triple star just following JH's position. If it is indeed the correct object, JH's note "a B * 8 m follows" is somewhat misleading since the star is clearly south-following. That raises the possibility that the double star also listed in the table is JH's object. However, JH describes his object as "eF, 40 arcsec." The triple is closer to that size than the double. So, both asterisms are candidates. For the present, I favor the triple -- but not by much. ===== NGC 2974 is also NGC 2652, which see. ===== NGC 2977 was one of the galaxies found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801 for which large, systematic errors exist in the position. See NGC 3752 for more information. ===== NGC 2979 = NGC 3050, which see. ===== NGC 2984 = IC 556, which see. ===== NGC 2995 appears to be a clump of stars roughly 20-25 arcmin across centered about 10 arcmin north of JH's position. His description reads "Cluster VIII class, at least 20 sts 11 m and upwards, and many smaller." This is what we see on the IIIa-J plate, though I doubt that it is a real cluster. ===== NGC 2998. See NGC 3000, 3002, 3004, and 3008. ===== NGC 2999 = NGC 2972. JH's place for N2999 is only approximate. He says, "Observed for Dunlop 397, and place only rough. Possibly the same object with Sw 680, No. 27, which see above (No. 3183 [= N2972])." This is an entirely reasonable hypothesis, and JH's descriptions are the same, so I've adopted the identity. ===== NGC 3000 is a double star, accurately located by Dreyer's own micrometric observation referred to NGC 2998. ===== NGC 3002 is a star. It and NGC 3004 were found by LdR with his 72-inch, and are both included in his chart of the NGC 2998 field. Of the three faint stars near the place shown for NGC 3002, the brightest (included in the main table) and closest to Dreyer's position as sketched, is most likely the one he saw. The second brightest star is at 09 45 52.0, +11 17 34. MCG +07-20-052 is a low surface brightness interacting system less than 2 arcmin southeast of the star. MCG unfortunately took this to be NGC 3002, so the object has been incorrectly saddled with the NGC number ever since. ===== NGC 3004 is, like NGC 3002, a star. LdR saw it only once, and included it on his chart, though did not letter it: it should be "alpha," between NGC 2998 and NGC 3005. ===== NGC 3005. See NGC 3004. ===== NGC 3008. There is no doubt about the identity of this galaxy. It is included in a sketch in Lord Rosse's big 1880 monograph, and was measured by Dreyer himself on 1 Apr 1878 while he was examining the area around NGC 2998 (he used this as a reference object for his measurements). However, of the four galaxies he measured, it is the furthest from N2998, and he has given the position angle to only a full degree, and the distance to a full arcsecond. The other three objects have an additional digit in each coordinate. Reducing the positions, we find that this one is the furthest off the true position on the sky, and I wonder if Dreyer didn't make an error of some sort here. If, for example, the position angle is 83 degrees rather than 88 as Dreyer has it, the position of the galaxy comes considerably closer to the truth (the distance he gives is 552 arcseconds). As I said, though, the identity of the object is not in doubt. ===== NGC 3034 = M 82. The position for this large, bright irregular galaxy depends strongly on wavelength. The brightest optical knot is not coincident with the radio "nucleus" nor with the brightest infrared knot. And there are several bright X-ray sources scattered throughout the galaxy. All the positions I've listed, though, fall within the boundaries of the galaxy, and there is of course no identification problem. But note that this is one of the few Messier objects which also received a number -- IV 79 -- in WH's catalogue. I've found it curious that WH put it in with his "planetary" nebulae, but it is the last of that class that he found. It was actually published, along with seven other of WH's unpublished nebulae, by JH as an appendix to his (JH's) list of nebulae and clusters in the CGH observations. ===== NGC 3046 may be NGC 3051. But if it is, JH has made some strange mistake since he specifically says in a note in the GC "h3199 [N3046] and 3201 [N3051] are also distinct nebulae, and were observed consecutively in sweep 562 (h)." His CGH observation has the note "RA precarious; a hurried observation." I'm inclined to believe that the two observations refer to the same object, in spite of JH's protestations to the contrary. The descriptions are identical (as far as they go; N3046 is noted only as "pF,R" while N3051 is "pF,S,R,gbM; 20 arcsec"), and the positions are not all that much different. There are two very faint double stars near JH's position for N3046, but they are much fainter than N3051 and any other double star that I know that JH has mistaken as a nebula. This sort of mistake -- measuring the same galaxy twice in the same sweep, thinking it a different object -- has occured at least twice in his father's sweeps, and I would not doubt that it appears in JH's, too. Still, I'm listing the main entry as "Not found", and putting a question mark on the identity with N3051. Whatever the case, there is certainly only one bright galaxy here, not two as JH has it. ===== NGC 3050 = NGC 2979. Frank Muller found N3050 with the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor. His description (m = 14.0, D = 0.6 arcmin, vlE at 200 deg, gbMN) suggests that it would be hard to miss -- it's among the brighter of the new nebulae found at Leander McCormick. However, there is nothing in Muller's position. NGC 2979, though, is 11m 15s preceding the place given by Muller. It matches the description perfectly, and the declination is within an arcminute of that given by Muller. If the RA is in error by 10 minutes of time, then the RA difference falls into the range often seen in the Leander McCormick positions, one to two minutes too far east. I'm pretty well convinced that this is the correct identification, though final proof is lacking. Unfortunately, there is no sketch, and Muller left us no descriptions of field stars around the galaxy that would help identify it. Still, the description and the Declination are right, and a digit error in the RA is likely, so I'm going with this. ===== NGC 3051 may also be NGC 3046, which see. ===== NGC 3058s = IC 573 was found by Leavenworth at Leander-McCormick. As usual, the position is poor, though it was corrected by Howe. Leavenworth did note the object as double or bi-nuclear; it is, of course, double with the southern galaxy being the brighter. See IC 573 for more. ===== NGC 3061 was found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801. The positions of all fifteen nebulae in the sweep (No. 1096) are affected by large, systematic errors. See NGC 3752 where I give the story of how it all came to be sorted out, first by Dreyer; then by myself, Steve Gottlieb, and Wolfgang Steinicke. ===== NGC 3063 is the double star southwest of NGC 3065 and NGC 3066. Though N3063 was first seen by WH in 1802, he apparently described it only indirectly: "F, pL, R; the last of three, the others are II 333 and II 334." The position he gives is that of NGC 3066, and the description fits, too, so that is probably the object he mistakenly thought was new. If so, he also mistook the double star as one of his previous objects. His confusion was carried over through the GC and d'A's catalogue into NGC, and eventually into Dreyer's 1912 reprinting of WH's papers. I actually prefer the numbering that he has in the NGC itself as it more accurately reflects the history: NGC 3065 and 3066 are the true nebulae and are II 333 and II 334, respectively, while the last object found is II 909 = NGC 3063. This last object was not seen by JH, but was measured twice by d'A (his position appears in the NGC). d'A also has five or six measures of the other two objects, so he pinned down all three. ===== NGC 3065. See NGC 3063. ===== NGC 3066. See NGC 3063. ===== NGC 3069 = IC 580, which see. ===== NGC 3070. See IC 580. ===== NGC 3080 is close to IC 585. Both were seen by Bigourdan who got the NGC number on the correct object. I had some question about that as his position is somewhat different from the NGC position. The NGC position apparently comes from CH; it is based on a single observation by WH who compared it to "the Georgian Planet" on 1 April 1794. After some fussing about looking for an on-line ephemeris, Brian Skiff pointed me at JPL's "Horizons". Jon Giorgini, one of Horizons maintainers, set me straight on its use, so I was able to find that Uranus was at 09 57 30.0, +13 17 24 (B1950.0) on the night that WH used it as a comparison object. This position, combined with WH's offsets (16 seconds preceding, 2 arcmin south) fell within 1.5 arcmin of NGC 3080, the brighter of the two galaxies. Fortunately, not only did Bigourdan get it right, but he published a correction to the NGC position that ended up in the IC2 Notes. Even that position, however, is a bit off because he used the old BD position for his comparison star. Once that is corrected, and proper motion taken into account, his position lands within a few arcseconds of the modern ones. ===== NGC 3081 = IC 2529, which see. ===== NGC 3084 = IC 2528, which see. ===== NGC 3097. I cannot find this one. Here are the original observations from the Harvard Annals, Vol. 8, Part 1, page 62, 1882: "Date GC RA (1860.0) Dec Remarks 1870 Mar.24 -- 09 54 19.6 +60 47 58.2 G.C. 1998 s f neb; p 45 deg s 2'. [Place only approximate.] 1870 Mar.24 1998 09 54 36.7 +60 46 33.3 G.C. 1998: F; S; R; mbMN." There are three things to note about these observations: 1) The position of the second (GC 1998 = NGC 3102) is from the GC. 2) The "p 45 deg s 2' " means that the first (N3097) is 2' away from GC1998 at a position angle of 45 degrees. This is inconsistent with the position which implies the object to be northwest, not northeast, of N3102. 3) Both observations are credited to E. P. Austin, and there is a note for N3097: "Perhaps a nebulous star. It is half-way between G.C. 1998 and a star 11 magn." The positions don't tell us anything we don't already know since they are correctly transfered into NGC from GC and the Harvard list. Since Austin was observing with a 15-inch telescope, I don't think that he could have seen either of the faint stars Glen Deen measured during his MicroSky project. The magnitude estimate given by Austin for the "star 11 magn" is rough since there is nothing that bright near the galaxy. WH had this to say (N3102 = H III 916): "eF, vS, Stellar. Near a S st." And JH: "F, vS, R, bM; a coarse D * nf points to it; has a * 11 30'' dist, pos 142.2 deg ." All of JH's stars are identifiable, and I think that his star 11 must be the same one mentioned by WH and by Austin. So, where does that leave N3097? My guess is that Austin has misidentified another nebula as N3102, but I don't see it or its purported companion in the area. A more thorough search may turn them up. ===== NGC 3100 = NGC 3103, which see. ===== NGC 3102. See NGC 3097. ===== NGC 3103 = NGC 3100. There is nothing in Swift's position which is roughly midway between NGC 3100 and NGC 3108, both found by JH. Swift notes a "coarse D* p"; it is actually following and a bit to the south of the galaxy. Howe was the first to make this identification in one of his MN articles; Dreyer has the appropriate note in the Notes to IC2. It is just possible that N3103 is actually NGC 3108. The RAs are exactly a minute of time different, and the declinations are within 0.1 arcmin. However, N3108 has a pretty bright star about 1 arcmin to the south that Swift probably would have mentioned (though JH didn't), and there are no double stars nearby, neither preceding nor following. ===== NGC 3107. Given WH's estimated position -- "3/4 deg following, 1/2 deg north [of the] Georgian planet," it's a wonder that this object was ever recovered. However, WH also noted that the object is "3 arcmin north of a pL red star." This pair of objects is unmistakeable enough that LdR had no trouble finding it in spite of the poor position, and the confusion in the GC description ("L red star north 3 arcmin"). It must be said, however, that the GC position, presumeably from CH's reduction of WH's observations, is remarkably good, being only 6 arcmin south and 5 seconds east of the galaxy. Dreyer picked the wrong star, however, as the "red" star near the nebula. This led him to assign the wrong position to the nebula in his note in the GC Supplement, in LdR's observations, and in the NGC. The correct star is SAO 98932 (spectral type K2), not SAO 98925 (spectral type F5). Using the SAO position for the correct star, and LdR's micrometric offsets, leads to a position for the galaxy that is within an arcsecond of the GSC position. ===== NGC 3108. See NGC 3103 = NGC 3100. ===== NGC 3110 = NGC 3122 = NGC 3518 (= MCG -01-26-014) and MCG -01-26-013 are an interacting pair separated by 1.9'. N3110 is the brighter of the pair. N3122 is actually an observation of N3110, but WH confused his comparison stars. Stephan's position is very close to the actual position of the galaxy, but is about an arcmin off in declination. This is probably due to the incorrect declination that he quotes for his comparison star (which is not the same one that Herschel used). Both Stephan (in his 1885 AN paper) and Dreyer (in MNRAS 73, 37, 1912) suggest that the two NGC numbers refer to the same galaxy. Dreyer makes further comments in his notes to WH's first catalogue of nebulae, (included in WH's complete papers, edited by Dreyer in 1912) saying "Looked for but not found in 1787. It was the only object compared with `20 Sextantis,' but the star was in reality B.1414. This gives for 1860 9h57m04s, 95d49m, in perfect agreement with N3110 (Stephan XIII)." Stephan's position is actually 2 arcmin north of this one, but the agreement is close enough to make the identification clear. The two stars by the way, are SAO 137424 (20 Sex) and SAO 137400 (B.1414, perhaps from Bessel's catalogue). Coincidentally, there is a galaxy 2 arcmin south of WH's position. It is the one that Jack Sulentic picked up for RNGC, but it is not in MCG. The RNGC galaxy is at 10 03 47.1, -06 19 49 (GSC, B1950) and is much fainter. If WH looked for it again in 1787 at roughly this location, then I'm not surprised that he did not recover it. The identity with NGC 3518 (which see), is yet another story. ===== NGC 3119 is perhaps the same galaxy as NGC 3121. There is no doubt about the identification of N3121. This was found by William Lassell in 1848 (see AN 635, and send me a copy; I've not seen it yet myself!) with one of his smaller telescopes. It was reobserved by Arthur Auwers, who noted the 9th magnitude star 4 arcmin north and 14-15 seconds of time preceding. The position listed by Auwers (1862) is very good. N3119 was found by Albert Marth in 1863 with Lassell's 48-inch reflector. He describes it only as "vF." His position, from one observation, falls about an arcmin southwest of NGC 3121; it is also 2.4 arcmin north of the galaxy that RNGC chose as N3119: CGCG 093-045. This is considerably fainter and smaller than N3121. Wolfgang also favors CGCG 093-045 and reports that it is visible in his 50-cm reflector as a slightly non-stellar patch. So, Marth almost certainly could have seen CGCG 093-045. However, since his position is closer to N3121, and since that galaxy is the brightest in the area, I think it more likely that Marth's observation refers to it. Wolfgang and RNGC could be right, of course -- but then, why didn't Marth mention reobserving the galaxy that his mentor had found 15 years before? Would he even know about it? We don't have answers to these questions. ===== NGC 3121. See NGC 3119. ===== NGC 3122 = NGC 3110 = NGC 3518 (both of which see). ===== NGC 3123 may be one of the stars, or the double star, that I've listed in the table. There are no nebulae in the area that Sidney Coolidge could have seen with the 15-inch refractor at Harvard. His position is noted as having a range of 4 seconds of time in RA, and 2 arcmin in Dec. All of the objects I've noted as possibilities are more or less within those ranges, though the star that I've noted with a single question mark is closest. It has two faint companions to the south (one looks like a galaxy) that may have added a bit of fuzziness to the image. I should note, however, that many of the "nebulae" found during the Harvard refractor's first decade are actually single stars, presumeably found on nights of less than good seeing. This may be another of those. ===== NGC 3129 is a double star seen by both WH and JH. WH's position, adopted by JH, is good, and both descriptions are appropriate. It appears, however, that LdR must have seen it as a star or a double star, as he could not find any nebulosity at WH's position on three different nights. Dreyer has a note in NGC to that effect. ===== NGC 3134 is David Todd's number (21), found during his search for "the trans- Neptunian planet." It can be positively identified with Todd's sketch. See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3140 and NGC 3141. The field exactly matches the sketch that Leavenworth made, and his descriptions also match, down to the bright nucleus in the brighter galaxy. His original descriptions make it clear that the galaxy that got the smaller NGC number is actually the brighter, northeast member of the pair. Here are his data from AJ 7, 9, 1886: No. RA (1890) Dec Mag Size Form Condensation [NGC] 166 10 04 -16 06 15.5 0.5' R sbMN [3140] 167 10 04 -16 06 16.0 0.3 R --- [3141] Dreyer has added the notes "1st of 2" and "2nd of 2." I suspect that he thought that the larger and brighter galaxy was the preceding since it was listed first in the table. That turns out to be wrong, unfortunately, so the NGC numbers are reversed from the right ascensions. ===== NGC 3141. See NGC 3140. ===== NGC 3144 = NGC 3174. D'A found NGC 3144 in the late 1850s and measured its place pretty accurately. NGC 3174 is from WH's 2 April 1801 sweep 1096 which was affected by a large, systematic error of some sort. See NGC 3752 for more on this sweep, and how we sorted it out. ===== NGC 3148 is probably only a star. JH's description reads "A star 7m has a photosphere 2 or 3 arcmin diam. Sky perfectly clear; glass quite clean; windy. Another * of same mag viewed presently after has no photosphere." There is certainly no bright nebulosity that large around the star, and it is not a double or multiple star, either. JH has a couple of other stars which he suspected of nebulosity, too, which show none today. These must be illusions of some sort, though very difficult to account for. ===== NGC 3153, discovered by WH, is also David Todd's number (20b), found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet." See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3155 = NGC 3194. NGC 3155 was found by JH and later remeasured by d'A. Their position, used in the NGC, is quite accurate. NGC 3194 is from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the nebulae in that sweep have large, systematic position problems. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3157 = IC 2555, which see. ===== NGC 3162 = NGC 3575, which see. ===== NGC 3167. I can't find this object; there is nothing at all in d'A's position. The only reasonable asterism nearby (a triple, composed of a close double with a fainter single just north, about 4 arcmin northeast) does not have the "* 11 preceding 9.5 seconds, slightly north" that d'A notes in his description. If this is a bad position, it is one of the few in d'A's list (there are some, of course; see NGC 3575 and NGC 3966 for examples). I still haven't checked for big digit errors; a couple of d'A's nebulae are an hour out in RA. A search is in order. ===== NGC 3170 is a double star. JH's position is just an arcminute south- southwest, and the double is very much like the several others that he mistook as nebulae. Interestingly, the double is also Reiz 248. I do not have Reiz's catalogue available, but would suspect that he picked up the object from the NGC. ===== NGC 3174 = NGC 3144, which see. ===== NGC 3176 may possibly be the galaxy a degree south and 23 seconds preceding Ormond Stone's position. However, the object (ESO 567-G029) is about half the size that Stone estimated and nearly round. Stone's description in full is "Mag = 16.0, Diameter = 0.8 arcmin, iR, neb?" from a single observation. As usual in the first list of Leander McCormick nebulae, the position is given only to a full minute of time in RA and one arcmin in Dec. There is no sketch, and the galaxies near Stone's position that he might possibly have seen all have stars nearby that are bright enough that he would have mentioned them as neighbors. Consequently, the identification with the ESO galaxy is tentative at best. ===== NGC 3180 is a star cloud or HII region in NGC 3184's northwestern arm. The position in NGC (by Dreyer from LdR's observations) fits the star cloud better, but the HII region is brighter, though smaller. The number may well apply to both objects or simply the general area of the arm where they are found. There is no problem with the identification of NGC 3181 -- it is the brightest HII region in NGC 3184, located southwest of the nucleus. ===== NGC 3181 is an HII region in NGC 3184. See NGC 3180. ===== NGC 3183 = NGC 3218. NGC 3183, found by d'A, has an accurate position given in the NGC. NGC 3218, found by WH on 2 April 1801, does not; all the galaxies found that night have large, systematic position errors. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3184. See NGC 3180. ===== NGC 3186 is perhaps the northeastern component of CGCG 036-074. There is nothing at Marth's position, and the CGCG galaxy is 1 minute 30 seconds preceding and 6 arcmin south. There are, however, "sev F sts near" as noted in the NGC. This is not true of the nearer, though fainter, candidate galaxy, CGCG 036-085 (20 seconds following, 5 arcmin south). But -- the NGC note about the nearby faint stars is not in Marth's original description. Dreyer had added it by the time he published the GC Supplement in 1878, but I have not been able to trace the source of the note. It is not in LdR's observations, and Dreyer has no reference in the Supplement. Given that uncertainty, I'm reluctant to discount either galaxy. Nor is there a systematic offset in Marth's positions for the other 25 objects he credits to the same date, 1865.23. NGC 3186 seems to be the only object from that date with a large offset from Marth's position. All in all, not a very satisfactory identity. ===== NGC 3191 = NGC 3192, which see. ===== NGC 3192 = NGC 3191. WH's NPD is -9 arcmin in error, close enough to 10 to make this pretty clearly a digit mistake in reduction or copying. WH's description, "eF, vS. Perhaps a patch of small stars" is also appropriate for NGC 3191 which has several OX knots in it. The identity was first suggested by JH, and was later taken up by Dreyer. ===== NGC 3194 = NGC 3155, which see. ===== NGC 3197 was found by WH on 2 April 1801. All fifteen objects he found this night are more or less affected by large position errors. See NGC 3752 for more on the sweep (No. 1096). ===== NGC 3210 is a close double star about an arcminute west-northwest of NGC 3212. WH's description is appropriate, and his position (for three objects; the third is NGC 3215) is good. There is another star of similar magnitude about 23 arcsec preceding the double; is it possible that WH glimpsed this, too? If so, it would probably have added to the illusion of nebulosity. ===== NGC 3212. See NGC 3210. ===== NGC 3215. See NGC 3210. ===== NGC 3217 = IC 606. The IC position, from Javelle, is good, but the NGC position, from David Todd's paper chronicling his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet", is over two minutes of time off. Fortunately, Todd has left us a sketch in his article, so we can positively identify the galaxy he saw. (See NGC 3604 for more about Todd's objects.) Because he was searching for a new planet, Todd was concerned about observing possible motion across the sky. His note for this object (his number 29) is almost totally concerned about its motion, yet helps us to identify the galaxy, too. Here, for those interested, is the complete note from Todd's second observation ("a" is the object in question, "c" is a nearby star): "1878 Mar. 4.6, delta alpha (ac) = 5.2s +- 0.1s [the separation on the DSS is 5.5 seconds]. I feel quite sure that 'a' has not moved: the delta alpha (7.0s) [from the discovery night 28.5 Feb 1878] was put down from memory on March 2, without much hope of its being right. But, judging from the configuration, I say that 'a' has not moved appreciably." ===== NGC 3218 = NGC 3183, which see. ===== NGC 3220 = IC 604, which see. ===== NGC 3223 = IC 2571, which see. ===== NGC 3229 is a triple star. It is very close to Coolidge's position, and is similar to several other asterisms discovered at Harvard in the early 1850's. The hours of RA (20) in the NGC is a typo there, not in the original paper in AN. ===== NGC 3231. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3234 is almost certainly = NGC 3235. JH's position is exactly 1 degree north, and his description fits. Dreyer was the first to suggest the identity and his NGC note documents his idea. Unfortunately, his note in IC1 confuses the issue: "3234 is not = 3235; both seen by Denning." While I've not seen Denning's observation (it is not in his short paper about the circumpolar nebulae where he announces the discovery of several IC objects), I suspect that he must have picked up the two objects that d'A found: N3232 and N3234. There is certainly nothing nebulous at the nominal position for N3234, and the exact 1 degree error in JH's position argues convincingly for Dreyer's first interpretation. ===== NGC 3235 = NGC 3234, which see. ===== NGC 3247. JH's position is approximate. Though he has three observations of this, only one -- and possibly not even that -- was made on the meridian. The only thing matching his descriptions "Stars involved in evident nebula," "A decidedly nebulous group," and "There is a nebulous appearance, which merits re-examination," is the HII region I've listed in the table with its attached cluster. Brian Skiff identifies this cluster as "Westerlund 1", but Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters" corrects this to "Westerlund 2". Brent also notes that Collinder 220 is often mistakenly called "N3247", as it is in ESO -- and indeed was here until I stumbled across the little cluster in the 2MASS Extended Source Catalog. The nebula shows nicely in the DSS2 red image where it is about 6 x 4 arcmin across. The correct identification was first made by Stewart on a Harvard plate (and included by Dreyer as an IC2 Note), but his position is about 3 arcmin southwest of the center of the object. ===== NGC 3251 = IC 2579. D'Arrest's RA is just 1 minute of time off, an error first suggested by Dreyer in a note to IC2, as well as in the description for IC 2579. The galaxy is positively identified by d'A's note about the three stars to the southwest. There is no problem with Javelle's observation for the IC entry -- it is accurate. ===== NGC 3252 has a two minute error in its RA and a 4 arcmin error in its Dec. But it is far enough north that the RA error amounts to just over 8 arcmin, so there is no mistaking the bright galaxy that WH found. ===== NGC 3261. See NGC 3366. ===== NGC 3267. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3268. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3269. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3271 = IC 2585 has an error of 20 seconds in its NGC RA. The NGC identity is not in doubt as it is one of the four bright galaxies in the area, and JH has four nebulae in a group listed in his CGH Observations. However, his observations are a bit confused since he mentions a fifth nebula "... more remote and brighter ..." in his description for NGC 3268. Since there are only the four entries (corresponding to N3267, N3268, N3269, as well as N3271) in his CGH list, and since he mentions only four nebulae appearing in the diagram (not published) made during Sweep 571, we now have no way of knowing where he saw his fifth nebula. Aside from the 20 second RA error, the positions he adopted from the diagram for the CGH list and the GC (copied into the NGC, of course) are good enough to unambiguously identify his four listed objects, so it is unlikely that any of them are the fifth object. It's also clear that Stewart picked up the galaxy (on a Bruce plate taken at Arequipa) because of the RA error. Thus, it also carries the IC number. However, Stewart makes no mention of any of the NGC objects in the group. This is particularly puzzling since he obviously thought that N3271 was missing. Still, his position for it is good, and the identity with IC 2585 is secure. ===== NGC 3272 is a double star. Schultz's position is within an arcsecond of the modern position, and his complete description (F, vS, iR, stellar, r, m=12-13) fits perfectly. He also has a note that reads, "Nova VI an insignificant object; p h721 [= NGC 3277] about 68 seconds and 160 arcsec south; ..." Those distances also exactly point to the double. ===== NGC 3277. See NGC 3272. ===== NGC 3279 = IC 622 is another of David Todd's nebular discoveries (No. 30) dug out while searching for a "trans-Neptunian" planet. Todd has left us sketches of all of his objects (see NGC 3604 for more), so the poor positions that he also left can at least be used to get us into the right area of the sky. In this case, Lewis Swift picked up the galaxy a dozen years after Todd (on 4.5 March 1878, Swift on 29 Jan 1890). Swift's position, for once, is not too far off, though he notes a "9m * s" -- that star is actually north, and is the one Todd labels "b" on his sketch. ===== NGC 3280 = NGC 3295 is a triple galaxy discovered independently by both Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector (this telescope eventually found its way to Lick Observatory where it was called the "Crossley Reflector" after its purchaser, Edward Crossley of Halifax, England). Though Common noted only two nebulae in his object, Francis Leavenworth found and sketched all three with the Leander McCormick refractor. He also found (on the same night, 26 Feb 1886) NGC 3296 and 3297. The identities of these two is not quite as clear from his sketches, so having them near in both time and space helps us to identify them with certainty. Unfortunately, neither Common's nor Leavenworth's positions are very good. (Leavenworth's is, as usual for the LM nebulae, too far east, this time by 2m 40s. His declination, however, is less than an arcminute off. Common's RA is 20 seconds of time off, and his declination 8 arcmin too far north.) This led to the brightest galaxy being rediscovered by Stephane Javelle and included in IC1 as IC 617, which see. Herbert Howe finally suggested that N3280 and N3295 were the same object, but did not notice the identity with IC 617. ===== NGC 3283 is ESO 263-G48. JH puts a plus-minus sign on the RA and notes "RA coarsely taken by an auxillary star." In addition to the uncertain RA is the GC (and NGC) NPD -- it is 10 arcmin too small. This must be an error in transcribing/precessing the CGH position into the GC. Once these are taken into account, ESO 263-G48 is the obvious candidate. ===== NGC 3284 = NGC 3286 is the brighter of two galaxies found by WH in April of 1793 (the fainter is NGC 3288). The number N3284 applies to H III 912 seen on the 8th of April, while N3286 belongs to III 917, found the next night along with N3288 = III 918. The GC/NGC position of N3284 is 10 seconds too small (presumeably a reduction or transcription error) compared to my re-reduction of WH's position, so Dreyer did not comment on the possible identity until he prepared WH's papers for their 1912 publication. There he also notes that Bigourdan did not find N3284. A few other objects found the same night by WH show no systematic offset in their re-reduced positions, so the declination offset implied by the identity with N3286 is unique to III 912. The explanation adopted by RNGC (N3284 is a star) is considerably less likely. ===== NGC 3286 = NGC 3284, which see. ===== NGC 3288. See NGC 3284. ===== NGC 3291 is a star exactly at Bigourdan's position. Though he could not find it on a second night, his two measurements on the first are accurate. In addition, his comment "NGC 3294 is toward PA = 35 deg, d = 4.5 arcmin" is also correct. The identity is thus certain. ===== NGC 3294. See NGC 3291. ===== NGC 3295 = NGC 3280, which see. IC 617 is the brightest of this triple system; see that also. ===== NGC 3296 = IC 618. As with NGC 3295 = NGC 3280 (which see), Leavenworth's RA is nearly 3 minutes of time too far east. And as with N3295, Howe identified the correct galaxy, but did not notice the IC1 number, from Javelle's first list of new nebulae. Leavenworth left us a sketch of the galaxy, but the orientation is not sure, so I'm depending on the fact that the discovery date as well as the (incorrect) RA is the same as for N3295 and N3297. Leavenworth's declination is close, however, and his description is appropriate for the galaxy. ===== NGC 3297. This shares with NGC 3295 = NGC 3280 (which see), and NGC 3296 = IC 618 (also which see), a large error in RA. Leavenworth found it on the same night as the other two, however, so we can be pretty sure of the identity even if the orientation of his sketch is not quite sure. As with the other two, his declination and description is good. Herbert Howe looked for, but did not see this galaxy with any certainty. He says (in a note for IC 2593 which he found nearby), "On 1899 April 10 I measured the places of 3295 and 3296. I could only suspect 3297." Nevertheless, the galaxy is there. ===== NGC 3301 = NGC 3760, which see. ===== NGC 3308. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3309. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3311. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3312 = IC 629, which see. ===== NGC 3314. See NGC 3315. ===== NGC 3315. My original thought that this might just be a duplicate observation of NGC 3314 is unlikely since the discoverer E.P. Austin has an observation of N3314 on the same night. Also, Austin's description refers to a "star np neb 1 arcmin." While there is a star 1 arcmin northwest of NGC 3314, it is actually fainter than another star much nearer the pair, also on the north side. So, I now support the idea that there is a 30 arcmin error in Austin's declination (which was not micrometrically measured as some of his were), and that NGC 3315 is actually ESO 501-G48. RC3, therefore, is most likely correct. ===== NGC 3321 = NGC 3322. This was first found by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector that finally ended up at Lick Observatory (where it was known as the "Crossley Reflector" after Edward Crossley, the intermediate owner who was persuaded to give it to Lick. The story is told in the Introduction to Volume VIII of the Lick Publications, the volume of beautifully-reproduced photographs taken with that telescope by James Keeler). Common claims in his short paper in Copernicus that this -- and about 30 other new nebulae -- were found in 1880. He estimated the position; his RA is OK, but his Dec is off. Seven years later, on Jan 3, Francis Leavenworth came across the galaxy with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick. Like many of the positions of the objects found there, the RA is off, but the Dec is pretty good. Both Common and Leavenworth, by the way, provided adequate descriptions of the galaxy, noting the star to the northwest. Leavenworth seems to have confused east and west, though, at least as far as the position angle of the galaxy is concerned. He recorded it as 160 degrees, while the actual angle is close to 20 degrees, a simple quadrant error. Herbert Howe was the first to note the probable identity of the objects, making NGC 3322 (the entry with Common's name on it) "not seen on two nights." It's pretty clear, though, there being no other galaxy as bright within 30 arcmin, that both Common and Leavenworth found the same object. ===== NGC 3322 = NGC 3321, which see. ===== NGC 3324. See IC 2599, the southern part of the NGC object. ===== NGC 3328 is probably a pair of stars near Peters's position. Spitaler's position given in a note in IC1, is for another pair of stars about 5 arcmin southwest. Both observers saw and measured NGC 3332 (which see) when they worked on N3328, and both have good positions for that. Since Peters saw both objects on two different nights, I've taken the stars nearer his position as the most likely object. Spitaler's is also possible, but that would demand an error in Peters's relative positions, possible on one night, but unlikely on two. Dreyer also credits N3328 to Tempel, but Tempel gives no position in his fifth paper, so it is not now possible to tell exactly what he was looking at. He records two observations, however, so -- like Peters -- the objects must have appeared nebulous under even pretty good conditions. ===== NGC 3329 = NGC 3397. NGC 3329 was found by JH; his position is only an arcmin off the galaxy. NGC 3397, on the other hand, was found by his father in sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801 -- all fifteen of the galaxies that WH found in that sweep have very large, systematic errors in their positions. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3332 = NGC 3342 (which see) is probably the galaxy measured by Schoenfeld and Vogel, and mentioned in the notes to the GC Supplement by Dreyer. WH's first observation for H I 272 was referred to Uranus (his "Georgian Planet") and reduces to a place several arcmin away from the galaxy. But it is the only one in the area bright enough that he could have seen it, and the description fits as well. The galaxy is also number (24) in David Todd's list published as part of his search for "the trans-Neptunian" planet (see NGC 3604 for more on this). His sketch matches the sky very well, but his position, like WH's, is not very good. This must be one of the Todd objects for which Dreyer suspected an identity with a known nebula, as he does not mention Todd's observation of this object. ===== NGC 3335. See IC 625. ===== NGC 3339 is a faint star preceding NGC 3340. Marth's positions for both objects (found the same night) are good, and his descriptions apt. ===== NGC 3340. See NGC 3339. ===== NGC 3342 = NGC 3332 (which see). WH did not do well with his positions for this galaxy. His first observation of it (on 18 Jan 1784 as III 5), fully related by Dreyer in the 1912 Papers, reads "The faintest and smallest nebula imaginable. I viewed it a long while and with a higher power than the sweeper. Having no person at the clock, I went in to write down the time and found it impossible to recover the nebula. It appeared like a vS nebulous star, and is probably of the cometic sort; there was another vS star south- following (I think, or rather, am pretty sure), and it preceded a pB * [the nebula is south-preceding of a star by a diagram, about 6 arcmin][JLED]. It should have been secured before I went into the light. Its place must be about 2 1/2 deg following rho Leonis and about 10 arcmin more north than that star." WH's vivid description of the field is clear enough to unmistakeably identify N3342 with N3332, even though his position is over 2 minutes of time, and 15 arcmin off. Dreyer notes that neither Spitaler nor Bigourdan could find the object -- understandably, given the data they had. He has two other observations, somewhat better, of it as H I 272 (= N3332), but even those led to questions about its position. ===== NGC 3345 is a double star found by JH. He was looking for his father's H I 26, but did not find it at WH's position. That position turns out to be just one minute of time preceding, and 20 arcmin north of M 95 (N3351), the description fits the bright galaxy, and WH did not mention M 95 in the sweep; so -- as Dreyer suggested -- H I 26 is probably an observation of Messier's object. JH's position for the double is good, though he seems to have doubted his observation, calling the object "eF, hardly visible." Though Dreyer adopted JH's description as well as position for the NGC, he noted the identity with H I 26 as very questionable, and also noted that neither he nor d'A could find anything at JH's place. The GC entry is an amalgam of WH's description ("cB, pL, E, mbM") and JH's position. Dreyer recognized the discrepancy between the descriptions, so cleaned up the entry for the NGC. ===== NGC 3351 = M 95 = H I 26. See NGC 3345. ===== NGC 3355 could be any of a number of galaxies scattered over a 3x3 degree area near the nominal position. Found by S. P. Langley with Harvard's 15-inch refractor in April of 1866, he noted the position as "approximate." He was looking for Biela's comet at the time, so apparently recorded only a crude position for his nebula. ESO and SGC took the large late-type galaxy ESO 501-G079 as the most likely candidate, but this has a very low surface brightness and would be difficult to see in a long-focus telescope. A more likely candidate is ESO 501-G080, a "normal" early-type object with a surface brightness two magnitudes brighter than G079. Langley's position, however, does not fall very close to either object, so without further information from the historical record, these identifications can be no more than suggestions. ===== NGC 3366 = IC 2592. JH has a note: "The minute of RA is doubtful. The written record makes it 47; but as this is impossible from the context, 37 is assumed." Dreyer only noted in NGC that the RA was "very doubtful" and that the bright star that JH saw nearby was not in two catalogues. The actual RA is 27; that is allowed by the context of the sweep. The next non-stellar object in the sweep is NGC 3446 at RA 10 44 44.6 (B1830), and the preceding object is NGC 3261 at 10 21 46.6 (again B1830). JH assumed a 10 minute error, but the actual 20 minute error still fits into the sweep. The galaxy was rediscovered by Delisle Stewart on an Arequipa plate taken about 70 years after JH's sweep. Stewart made no errors in this entry, but he also did not note that NGC 3366 was missing. Perhaps the nominal position is off the edge of his plate. Since he used a one-hour plate (number 3636), he did not give the central position. ===== NGC 3371 is probably NGC 3384, and NGC 3373 is probably NGC 3389. JH's descriptions are appropriate for the galaxies, and his measured position angles -- 68.4 deg between his first and second objects, and 156.8 deg between his second and third -- are a close match for those between N3379 and N3384 (66.5 deg), and N3384 and N3389 (154.7 deg), especially when precession is taken into account. However, JH has left us positions that suggest that these are companions of NGC 3367, not NGC 3379. His position for N3367, the nominal first of the three, exactly matches the position for that object measured on another night when the additional two objects were not seen. Added to this is his observation of N3389 on the same night the two questionable objects were seen. Even so, my feeling is that he has somehow confused his observations of N3367 and N3379 on the night when he also measured the two companions. Adding more mystery to the case is Peters's comment: "[N3371] was distinctly seen by me 1880, Mar. 2; but [GC]2198, the third of the 'triple nebula,' could not be found." There are two faint stars within two arcmin of JH's nominal position for N3371; perhaps Peters saw one of these. Dreyer notes in the GC Supplement that no other observer had seen either N3371 or N3373 at JH's positions. ===== NGC 3373 is probably identical with NGC 3389. See NGC 3371. ===== NGC 3382 is probably just two stars, if it is indeed anything on the sky. It was found by the fourth Earl of Rosse on 5 April 1874, who provided this description: "About 4 min p [NGC 3432]. pF, cL, R, bM, *14 mag in centre. *9 Pos 238.0, Dist 173.7." There is no nebula within a reasonably large field around the nominal position that matches that description. On 24 March 1878, LdR (or his observer at the time, Dreyer himself) noted "4.0 min p and 6 arcmin +- n of [N3432]. vF, S, irr R, only a S group of sts. *9 Pos 192.0 deg, Dist 162.9 arcsec." This position is about an arcmin east- northeast of two faint stars where there is nothing else to be seen. There is a 10th mag star south-southwest of the widely-separated pair, but neither its distance (about 160 arcsec) nor position angle (about 192 deg) from the pair closely match the first of LdR's measurements. The agreement with Dreyer's measurements, though, lends some credence to the identification, though. I've entered the mean position of the two stars in the main table, but it seems more likely to me that LdR misidentified his reference galaxy: rather than being N3432, it is perhaps some other object. ===== NGC 3384 is probably also NGC 3371, which see. ===== NGC 3385. See NGC 3386. ===== NGC 3386 and NGC 3387. John Herschel found these two and NGC 3385 (which is 4 arcmin south of N3386). They were reobserved by d'Arrest whose positions for N3385 and N3386 match Herschel's. However, d'Arrest placed N3387 very close following N3386. The Sky Survey shows nothing near d'Arrest's place except a very faint star that Herschel did not mention. The NGC adopted d'Arrest's position for NGC 3387. This turned out to be a mistake because very close to Herschel's position is what first looks like a double star, but is actually a star and a compact, high surface brightness galaxy. There is a star north following this double object that could well be Herschel's "B* near." Additional notes: CGCG calls the northern object "N3386/87" and notes it as a "double nebula." The MCG also calls it "N3386-7," but assigns the companion a magnitude of 19 and places it 0.3' north preceding -- which describes its position and appearance exactly, and which makes it far too faint and in the wrong position relative to N3386 to have been seen by Herschel or d'Arrest. ===== NGC 3387. See NGC 3386. ===== NGC 3388, found by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector, is probably NGC 3425. The declination is about right; and though Common's RA is 3 min too small, he marked it "+-" and his brief description ("F, R") is appropriate. ===== NGC 3389 is probably also NGC 3373. See NGC 3371 for the story. ===== NGC 3392. See NGC 3394 and NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3394. JH's RA -- adopted in the GC and NGC -- is 45 seconds too large. WH's RA is much closer to the truth, though we can't blame JH for preferring his position to his father's. Dreyer noticed the difference but, lacking any other observations, could do no more than comment on it. The only confusion that this causes is with NGC 3392 which is about 4 arcmin northeast, not northwest as implied by JH's observations. Though WH's positions are 2-3 arcmin northwest of the objects, his relative position is good, as are his (and JH's) descriptions. Most modern catalogues seem to have got the identities straight. Also see NGC 4512 for more on the sweep in which JH found this object. ===== NGC 3395 = IC 2613, which see. ===== NGC 3396. See IC 2613. ===== NGC 3397 = NGC 3329, which see. ===== NGC 3398 = IC 644. Considerable confusion has surrounded the identification of this object and its neighboring galaxies. The original observation is due to William Herschel, who found a "vF, S, E 20deg sp nf, er" nebulae on 17 April 1789 2m 11s preceding, 0d 50' north of 44 UMa. Reducing these offsets, taking the proper motion of 44 UMa into account, gives the position (for 1950) 10 48 24, +55 41.1. There are four galaxies in the area that might be the one that Herschel saw. Here are data for them: RA (1950.0) Dec B_t PA Type MCG CGCG UGC Notes 10 48 29.0 +55 39 25 14.55 73 SA:(rs:)ab? +09-18-038 267-18 5954 * superposed 0.55 sp 10 48 31.8 +55 43 51 15.6 130 SA:(rs?)0^+ +09-18-039 267-19 -- 10 48 44.8 +55 39 04 -- 55: E2/S0^-: +09-18-041 -- -- 10 48 59.9 +55 51 56 14.82 20 SAB(s)cd III +09-18-043 267-22 5976 Sev F sts, knots, comps near On the face of it, UGC 5976 is the most likely candidate: it is second brightest, the position angle is correct, it is knotty, and it is the largest of the galaxies in the area. However, its position is well off of Herschel's, and it has the lowest surface brightness of any of the galaxies here. I think it is doubtful that Herschel would have picked it up while sweeping. Instead, Herschel's position falls near UGC 5954, the brightest galaxy of the four, and also the one with the highest surface brightness. This means that it is the one that Herschel would be most likely to see. The position angle is at least in the correct quadrant, and Herschel's note "extremely mottled" could well be due the presence of the star near south-preceding combined with the galaxy's bright nucleus and pseudo-ring of uneven brightness. Still, visual verification of this theory would be nice to have. Finally, the identity of the two IC objects in the area -- I644 and I646 -- is unambiguous. While Swift's positions are often none too good, they are at least adequate in this case. The offset in RA is about 12 time-seconds for both, while the declinations are within a minute of arc. I644 turns out to be identical to NGC 3398, while I646 is MCG +09-18-039. ===== NGC 3401 is lost. WH was the only one to observe it, his observation was apparently rushed (his description reads only, "eF, no time to verify"), and his data are not internally consistent. His table places it 5 min 42 sec preceding and 23 arcmin south of 56 Leonis. However, in his note in the 1912 Scientific Papers, Dreyer says, "In the sweep, it is 1.9 min p, 3 arcmin n of II 131 [N3423]." Reducing these two offsets leads to positions separated by 1 min and 5 arcmin. There is nothing at either position. Between five to ten arcmin southeast of the position reduced from the N3423 offset (10 46 45, +06 09.5; B1950.0), there are one or two asterisms of stars that WH might have picked up. The positions are far enough off, however, that I doubt these stars are WH's object. ===== NGC 3402 is most likely a reobservation of NGC 3411. Common admits that his positions are approximate, and his sparce description "F, R" is appropriate for the galaxy. LEDA has chosen a much fainter galaxy close to the NGC position. I doubt, however, that even a observer of Common's experience using his 36-inch reflector would be able to dig this out. ===== NGC 3403. See NGC 3752. ===== NGC 3404 = IC 2609. Common's declination for N3404 is about 14 arcmin off, though his RA is close. Even though Dreyer has the corrected NPD in the IC2 Notes (from Herbert Howe), he did not make the connection with IC 2609. Nor did Bigourdan, who redisovered the galaxy and made it a "nova". He searched twice for N3404 at its nominal position, but only saw some faint stars in the area. His observations of the galaxy are good, though; reduced with respect to a modern position for his comparison star, they fall within a few arcsec of the nucleus. Knox Shaw, in Helwan Observatory Bulletin No. 15, also made the correction to the Dec of the NGC object. He was also the first to suggest the identity, repeating the position of N3404 for I2609, but putting a question mark on the note: "? = NGC 3404. There is, however, a vF, vS neb. susp. 1.2 arcmin n and 0.4 arcmin f 3404." This, of course, is not IC 2609. ===== NGC 3405. Though Marth says "close to a small star", the second object is really another galaxy. Marth presumeably saw the brighter, larger galaxy on the southwest as nebulous, so this is the object that bears the NGC number. ===== NGC 3411 = NGC 3402, which see. ===== NGC 3421 = IC 652 and NGC 3422. Among the nebulae found in 1880 by A. A. Common are two that received these NGC numbers. Common gave them a single rough position -- there are only faint stars near it. However, ten arcmin south is a pair that he could have easily seen in his 36-inch reflector. One of these was later picked up by Javelle, but because the position is so different -- and because Javelle misidentified his comparison star, driving his position even further south -- it was not recognized as one of Common's nebulae until I stumbled across it during work on ESGC. Javelle's object is in IC1 under the number IC 652, which see. Herbert Howe measured one of the galaxies, N3421, on two nights, but missed the other, probably because there is a much brighter star less than an arcminute to the south. Howe also commented about the possibility of two other nebulae in the field, but there is nothing at his approximate places (1.5 arcmin north, and 12 seconds preceding and 2 arcmin south) but faint stars. ===== NGC 3422. See NGC 3421. ===== NGC 3423. See NGC 3401. ===== NGC 3425 is probably also NGC 3388, which see. ===== NGC 3427, creditted in the NGC to Tempel, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet". It is Todd's number (4). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3428 = NGC 3429. Both positions -- from Marth in 1865, and Common in 1880 -- are pretty good. I'm surprised that Dreyer did not catch the identity. Perhaps if one of the observations had been by one of the Herschels he might have. In any event, the identity is secure. ===== NGC 3429 = NGC 3428, which see. ===== NGC 3430 is not IC 2613, which see, in spite of being noted identically equal to the IC number in CGCG. The IC number applies to NGC 3395 instead. ===== NGC 3432. See NGC 3382. ===== NGC 3436. This is Todd's 6th nebulous object found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" with the USNO 26-inch refractor (see NGC 3604 for more about Todd's list). As usual, he gives sketches of the field done through both the large refractor and its 5-inch finder. These clearly identify N3436 as CGCG 038-039. Also as usual, Todd's nominal position is well off. I hope he would have done better had he found his planet ... ===== NGC 3443. Swift's declination is 8.3 arcmin too small, but the identity is still clear. See IC 884 for more. ===== NGC 3446. See NGC 3366. ===== NGC 3457 is a bit of a puzzle. It was catalogued by JH who describes it as "Stellar. 2 or 3 stars with a nebulous blur observed by Mr. Bailey." (Is Mr. Bailey perhaps an observing assistant?) This is an excellent descripiton of IC 656 (a triple star, which see), but JH's position is very close to NGC 3460 (also which see). The description is persuasive, but JH usually does better with his positions: his declination is appropriate for either object, but his RA is 18 seconds off the triple star. Since it is only 1.5 seconds off the galaxy, that argues almost as persuasively for the identity with NGC 3460. Frankly, I'm undecided on this one, so have left the number ambiguous in the main table. ===== NGC 3460 and N3461 were first seen as a pair by LdR in 1854, then again in April of 1878. In March of that year, he says "Setting for this, I found an eS Cl with a * 12m in Pos 175.1 deg, Dist 305.0 arcsec." There is nothing in the area which matches this description as the star south-southeast of the galaxy is only 4 arcmin away, while that south-southeast of IC 656 (a triple star, which see) is over 6 arcmin distant. In LdR's 1880 monograph, Dreyer lists all the observations under the GC number for NGC 3457 (GC 2256 = h 793; which see), but as I note there, it's not clear that NGC 3460 was the object JH and his Mr. Bailey saw. Swift picked up the galaxy in 1885; it is the 9th nebula of more than a thousand which he catalogued as "novae." Given the difference in his RA and JH's (23 seconds), both he and Dreyer can be forgiven for thinking he had found a new nebula. Since there is no question about the identity of NGC 3461 -- it is the faint galaxy about 5.5 arcmin north-northeast of the brighter galaxy -- and since LdR saw the two as a pair twice, it makes sense to retain the number NGC 3460 for the bright object. I'm not so sure what to do about the number NGC 3457 (which see for more) -- it could belong to the brighter galaxy, or it could be for the triple star along with IC 656. ===== NGC 3461. See NGC 3460. ===== NGC 3462, discovered by WH, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet". It is Todd's number (5). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3465. Though credited only to JH in the NGC, this is also H III 967. WH found the galaxy on 2 April 1802, but it -- and the other fourteen in sweep 1096 -- has a large, systematic error in its position. Dreyer sorted out the problem in his notes to his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. See NGC 3752 for more. Also see NGC 3484 for an unsolved mystery possibly related to NGC 3465 -- but probably not. ===== NGC 3472 may be ESO 572-G025, just an hour off of Stone's position -- but I don't think so. There is a bright double star, with a fainter star closer to the galaxy, just two arcmin to the southwest of the galaxy. Stone would certainly have mentioned this in his description, and he does not. The entirety of his description is "Mag = 15.5, Dia = 0.4, R, gbM." He has left no sketch for us, either. So the ESO galaxy is a possibility, but no more. ===== NGC 3474. See IC 884. ===== NGC 3476 = NGC 3480 (which see) and NGC 3477. The two smaller numbers apply to nebulae found by Marth. His relative positions are good, but are offset from the true positions by 3 arcmin in declination. His descriptions are apt, so there is little doubt about the identifications. ===== NGC 3477. See NGC 3476. ===== NGC 3479 = NGC 3502, which see. ===== NGC 3480 = NGC 3476 is the 11th in Ainslie Common's list of nebulae found by him with his 36-inch reflector in 1880. None of his positions are very good, and this one seems to be worse than most -- there are no galaxies within 10 arcmin of his place. However, NGC 3476, the largest and brightest of a group, is about 12 arcmin southwest. It would probably match Common's scanty description ("Small, stellar"), even as seen in a fairly large telescope. It is possible that NGC 3480 is the same galaxy as NGC 3490. But that is also one of Common's discoveries (on the same night? he does not give us dates of observation), and is a fainter object as well. So, I think it a somewhat less likely candidate -- but many other people have rediscovered the same object, even on the same night. ===== NGC 3484 is lost. JH gives a position, suggests that it might be H. III 967 (but that is NGC 3465), and says "A very doubtful object." That's it. Dreyer searched for this on the Greenwich plates that he asked to have taken of the area covered by one of WH's very strange sweeps (see NGC 2938 and NGC 3752 for more). I've searched for it on the POSS1 prints. There are no candidate galaxies within 30-40 arcmin of JH's position. So, we just have to take JH's word for it -- "A very doubtful object," indeed! ===== NGC 3487. Swift's RA is about 35 seconds of time too small, but his Dec is good, and his description appropriate, for UGC 6092. ===== NGC 3489. See NGC 3498. ===== NGC 3490. Common's RA is marked "+-", but it is close enough to CGCG 066-080 (and the Dec is within an arcmin), to make the identification pretty certain. There are other equally bright galaxies around (including NGC 3480, which see), but none at the right declination. ===== NGC 3494 is most likely the double star 8-9 arcmin north of NGC 3495. Tempel says only (in a very crude translation by yrs trly), "Six arcmin north of the middle knot [of three in N3495], I repeatedly saw a very small nebula, which at first sight I took to be [part of] N3495." There is nothing in the implied position (calculated by Dreyer from N3495's position), but the double is only 3 arcmin further north, and is of similar brightness to other stars that Tempel mistook for nebulae. ===== NGC 3495. See NGC 3494. ===== NGC 3497 = NGC 3525 = NGC 3528 = IC 2624. This object may hold the record as the one with the most NGC and IC numbers. It was independently discovered four different times, first by WH. As Dreyer noted in 1912 (MN and Scientific Papers), there is a 6 minute error in the GC/NGC RA. Re-reducing WH's data in the Scientific Papers leads to the correct position. JH found it next during his stay at the Cape of Good Hope. He was also the first to see NGC 3528's brightest companion (N3529 = I2625). He got the identity with H III 824 correct in his Cape Observations, but separated his father's nebula from his brighter one for the GC. This suggests that the six-minute error is JH's rather than CH's. Dreyer copied the GC position into NGC, so it was not until his work on WH's papers that he noticed the discrepancy. Ormond Stone was the next in line -- his position is unusually good: only a minute of time off (his entry is NGC 3525). The identity is nevertheless pretty sure as there are no other nebulae in the area that he would have called magnitude 12.0. Finally, Lewis Swift picked up the pair in 1898. His RA is nearly correct, but his declination for N3528 = I2624 is about 5 arcmin too far south, nearly equal with that for N3529 = I2625. Again, there can be little doubt about the identity as Swift describes the brighter of the pair as "considerably bright;" there are no other galaxies near that are bright enough for that description. It was his observation that gave the pair their IC numbers. ===== NGC 3498 is probably the triple star three arcmin northwest of WH's position. Dreyer reprints WH's full note in which he says, "eF, not S. I had some doubt and put on 240, but there being no stars very near it, I could not adjust the focus, and therefore could not verify it." Dreyer also notes that d'A could not find the nebula during repeated attempts when N3489 was seen easily. ===== NGC 3500 is given as a double nebula with one number in the NGC, while JH in GC assigns two numbers with a single position. In each catalogue, the position comes from WH's observations on the night of 2 April 1801 which suffer from large, systematic position errors (see NGC 3752 for more). Dreyer more or less sorted out the problems for his edition of WH's Scientific Papers, based on accurate positions measured on 30-inch reflector plates taken at Greenwich in 1910 or 1911 (see MNRAS 71, 509, 1911). Unfortunately, neither Dreyer nor the Greenwich observer(s) assign NGC numbers to all of the galaxies in that list (I have those listed in my note to NGC 3752). I've taken a bit of a liberty here, and have split out WH's two numbers, III 967 and III 968, giving the first to NGC 3465 (which see), and the second to NGC 3500. I follow Dreyer's lead on the first, but use NGC 3500 for the second where he does not. ===== NGC 3502 = NGC 3479. The descriptions and declinations of the two entries (Nos. 180 by Leavenworth, and 181 by Stone) in the first Leander McCormick list are much the same, but the RA of the following nebula is 4 minutes of time too large. This is in the same sense as many other of the LM nebulae, so the identity is pretty certain. The suggestion in RNGC that the galaxy 50 arcmin north and a few tenths of a minute preceding Leavenworth's position strikes me as considerably less likely since RA errors are more common in the LM lists than Dec errors, though these also occur, of course. ===== NGC 3505 is perhaps a reobservation of NGC 3508 (which see). Even though JH's position is over 3/4 deg off in Dec, his description fits very well, including the "star 14 near." JH found it during his stay at the Cape. The large position error is bothersome, but there is nothing else within several degrees that matches the description. ===== NGC 3508 = IC 2622 (which see) and is probably also = NGC 3505 (also which see). WH called this "small" while his son saw it as "vL" -- WH is closer to the truth. Both positions are good, so there is no doubt that both men were looking at the same object. Similarly, Swift's note "... looks like a D *" in his description makes it clear that he, too, was looking at the same galaxy. In his case, however, the position is off by a few arcminutes to the northeast. ===== NGC 3514. See NGC 3520. ===== NGC 3518 = NGC 3122 = NGC 3110. In the original AJ paper, Stone notes, "In same field with nebula discovered by Stephan." This is a bit puzzling as none of Stephan's nebulae are within 5 degrees of Stone's nominal position. Stone has left us a sketch, too, with the same nominal position on the cover sheet. The sketch shows a nice double nebula with four stars nearby. Again, there is nothing on the sky within 5 degrees of the nominal position that matches the sketch. So, I assumed some sort of error in Stone's position and began looking at possible digit errors. After ruling out a few, I found NGC 3122 in Stephan's 13th list (its number 54 there) just an hour of time preceding Stone's position. Checking his sketch against the PSS, I found that the "double nebula" is actually the central bulge, and a very bright arm to the southeast, of a single galaxy. Furthermore, one of the "stars" sketched by Stone is the nucleus of an interacting companion galaxy, MCG -01-26-013. Were it not for the sketch, I would assign the NGC number to this companion (though the position angle is more than 20 degrees off Stone's estimate of 110 deg). As is, I am tempted to put the number on just the arm -- but that does not match Stone's description, either. By default, then, N3518 = N3122 = N3110 (which see for another story). ===== NGC 3520 is another of the Leander McCormick discoveries, this one by Leavenworth. His nominal position is close to an asterism of 4 or 5 stars spread over an area of 0.8 by 0.6 arcmin, but his description (m = 15.3, D = 0.4, iR, gpmbM, sev vF sts inv) does not match the appearance of the stars. In addition, they are too bright, being 13 to 15th magnitude. A more likely match is to ESO 570- G004, an interacting triple or quadruple system 1 min 35 sec east and 5 arcmin south of the nominal position. It matches Leavenworth's description pretty well. Other possible matches include the double star at 11 01 55.6, -17 40 23; and NGC 3514 = ESO 570- G001 at 11 01 32, -18 30.7. These don't match the description as well as the interacting system, however, so I view them as less likely to be Leavenworth's object. ===== NGC 3523 is H. II 904 from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the positions in that sweep suffer from large, systematic errors. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3525 = NGC 3497 (which see) = NGC 3528 = IC 2624. ===== NGC 3526 = NGC 3531, which see. ===== NGC 3528 = NGC 3497 (which see) = NGC 3525 = IC 2624. ===== NGC 3529 = IC 2625. See NGC 3497. ===== NGC 3531 = NGC 3526. Holden misidentified the star he noticed 46.5 seconds preceding the galaxy. When the correct star is used (BD +7 2412, not 2413 as Holden wrote), his position falls close to that of NGC 3526 = Marth 215. The descriptions are virtually identical, and Holden notes the star just southwest of the galaxy. Spitaler was the first to suggest the identity. He found IC 670 near Holden's position, but that is fainter and does not agree with either of the earlier descriptions, so Spitaler -- correctly -- called I670 a "nova." ===== NGC 3533 = "NGC 3557A," which see. ===== NGC 3537 is an interacting galaxy pair about 15 arcmin north-northwest of N3541, and may have been found by Ainslie Common on the same night that he found the latter (though he does not give us the dates of his observations). His position and description is pretty good, being only about 1.5 arcmin off in Dec. The NGC position is even better, coming from two micrometric measurements by Tempel in 1881 and 1882. Nevertheless, RNGC has misidentified it, giving the number to the galaxy that is properly called NGC 3541 (which see). Curiously, Vorontsov-Velyaminov skipped over the object for MCG, though he has included many other even fainter interacting pairs as well as N3541. There is a bit of a mystery about Tempel's observations, too. He lists them as separate entries in his table of new nebulae in his fifth paper with no indication that they might refer to the same object. However, his positions -- once precessed to a common equinox -- are within a few arcsec of being identical. Tempel mentions a "star" on one side of the nebula in his second observation, but not the first. The nebula is described as fainter the first night, too, being a (WH) class III nebula rather than class II-III. On both nights, however, he mentions a faint "star" in the middle of the nebula. I suspect that both his observations apply to the brighter of the two galaxies; the "star" on the side of the nebula is almost certainly the fainter object, seen only on the better night. ===== NGC 3538 is a double star found by d'A. It is identified in the MNRAS 71, 509, 1911 article which helps sort out one of WH's sweeps suffering from large, systematic position errors (see NGC 3752 for more). ===== NGC 3540 = NGC 3548, which see. ===== NGC 3541. Common's position from his short Copernicus list is very close to 15 arcmin south of MCG -02-29-003, and is within 0.2 min in RA. His description is appropriate for the galaxy as it would be seen in a 36-inch telescope, so the position is probably due to his misreading the declination circle. RNGC has the object as non-existent. See NGC 3537 for more on this field. ===== NGC 3544 = NGC 3571. NGC 3544 was found 8 Jan 1886 UT by Ormond Stone with the Leander McCormick 66-cm refractor. The cover sheet on his sketch of the object (made 13 Jan 1886 UT) bears the note "near but prob. not G.C. 2330," in addition to the usual dates, position, magnification, and his initials. The position on the cover sheet is given as "11h 4.0m, -17d 41m." This was rounded off in RA to "11 4" in AJ 7, 9, 1886 where the discovery was published. The published paper also notes "G.C. 2330?" and there is no object at Stone's position. Stone's sketch also shows the elongated galaxy in the correct position angle. Unfortunately, the nearby field stars are not shown clearly on the sketch. A few specks on my copy are probably dust on the photocopier, but more or less correspond to nearby stars which Stone could have seen with the big refractor. Finally, the positions in the first two lists of nebulae found at LM are often 1-2 minutes of time west of the true positions. Assuming the identity with N3571, this is one of those cases. The NGC position for N3571 comes from William Herschel's single discovery observation on 8 March 1789, but is good enough to identify the galaxy unambiguously (the position was later verified by Bigourdan at Paris in 1888 and 1900, Kobold at Strassburg in 1901, Porter at Cincinnati in 1906 and 1908 -- though curiously, first by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick in 1887). The galaxy is just bright enough for Shapley-Ames, and it has been listed there and in the susequent literature under N3571 as the NGC position for that number is more nearly correct than the NGC position for N3544. So, in spite of Paturel's use of the number N3544 in RC3 (he perhaps followed ESO-B which has the listing as "N3544=N3571"), we should retain N3571 for consistency. ===== NGC 3548 = NGC 3540. Both numbers are from JH, but his position for N3548 is 1 min 9 sec too far east. This probably represents a 1 minute error somewhere along the line from observation to final position, but without JH's original papers, finding the error will be difficult. The identity of the two numbers is assured by JH's notes (for NGC 3540) "... a * 7m p, distance 7 arcmin to 8 arcmin" and (for N3548) "... a * 8m precedes." The star is very close to 8 arcmin preceding, and is about 25 arcsec south. ===== NGC 3550. I've been curious for some time about this galaxy, called a "double nebula" in CGCG. The object actually looks triple in the DSS image -- or are those superposed stars? I have wanted to examine it on one of the digital sky surveys. Unfortunately, the SDSS has not yet (as of Data Release 5 in June 2006) covered the area. However, 2MASS has three acceptable images in its three bands. It appears that all three objects are galaxies. This is confirmed by the redshifts given by John Tonry in AJ 90, 2431, 1985 (cz = 11000 km/s for the faint southwestern galaxy, 10447 km/s for the central galaxy, and 10388 km/s for the northeastern galaxy; all the redshifts have errors of +- 15 km/s). Also see NGC 3552 where this figures in the NGC identification problems in Abell 1185. ===== NGC 3551 and NGC 3555 are probably the two brightest galaxies in Abell 1177. Swift's RA's are just +1 minute of time in error. RNGC suggests that the brightest galaxy is NGC 3555. This would make N3551 one of the triple system about 2 arcmin southwest. However, these galaxies are considerably fainter than the second brightest galaxy in the cluster, which is about 3.5 arcmin to the northeast. There is also a star close to the middle of the three, and I think that the ensemble would appear as a "small nebulous cluster." Swift describes his object as "eeF, vS, R, difficult; south of two." His second he calls, "vF, R, n of 2." It may seem odd that he would call the brighter galaxy the fainter, but it has a lower surface brightness, and could well appear fainter at the eyepiece. Unfortunately, Swift's relative position between the two galaxies (10 seconds of time, and 30 seconds of arc) matches neither the RNGC interpretation, nor my own. So, the positions don't help us much in this case. We need some visual observations to check Swift's descriptions. ===== NGC 3552 and NGC 3553. William Herschel found two objects in 1785, and reobserved them in 1790, providing them with separate positions then. John Herschel has several sweeps over the area, finding four objects altogether. D'Arrest observed the same four galaxies, and picked up a fifth about 10 arcmin south. A sixth was found in 1885 by Bigourdan who also provided accurate positions for the other four (he also has one observation of a "nova" in the field, but his estimated position points at blank sky; see the discussion of this under NGC 3561). These six nebulae were included in NGC. Lord Rosse did not observe (or at least left no record of) any of them. If he had, there would almost certainly be more than the six objects in NGC that there are, since these six NGC objects are the brightest in the cluster Abell 1185. At least two other "historical" observations of Abell 1185 exist. First, Kobold measured accurate positions in 1902 for five objects here (one, which he called "Kobold 13," was discovered by him). One of his positions (for N3552) points at blank sky. Three other of his positions are systematically off the galaxies by about 20 arcsec. Because of the supposed care with which Kobold did his work, Hubble (in his PhD thesis, published in 1917) was misled into questioning his own work in the area where he measured positions and estimated types for several dozen galaxies. We'll come back to this particular problem in a bit. With all these positions and observations, one can be excused for believing that all is well, and that we know exactly which NGC number applies to which object. Not true! Only the numbers for three of the six NGC galaxies are pretty solid (N3550, N3554, and N3558). Questions arise for the other three. If we restrict ourselves to the early observations, we can be pretty sure which objects were seen by the Herschels and by d'Arrest -- the brightest five galaxies. While the positions are not exact, they are good enough to pin down the correct objects. The problems begin with Bigourdan's observations. While his positions (reduced using GSC positions for his comparison stars) are excellent, he assigned the number N3553 to the object which John Herschel and d'Arrest called N3552. For N3552, he chose a faint galaxy about an arcminute south-preceding. It has a brighter star superposed -- it is actually this star which Bigourdan measured; he describes the two objects as a single faint nebulous spot. Dreyer adopted Bigourdan's position for N3553. It's no surprise then, that the NGC positions for N3552 and 3553 are very close -- they apply to the same object. For this catalogue, we've followed historical precedent, and assigned the number N3552 to the brighter north-following object, leaving the south-preceding object (the one first seen by Bigourdan) as N3553. This is counter the prevailing idea that lower NGC numbers are always preceding, but explicitly acknowledges the actual history of the observations. Well, I promised a brief discussion of Kobold's and Hubble's data. Kobold's mistake, not found by Hubble, was a transposition of two numbers in the declination measurement of his comparison star with respect to an FK1 reference star (the comparison star is actually the same star used by Bigourdan for most of his measurements). This transposition (instead of -9' 42.5" as used and published by Kobold, read -9' 24.5") resulted in a systematic error of 18.6" in his declinations of N3550, N3552, N3554, and K13. Once corrected, the positions of N3550, N3554, and K13 agree very well with those measured by Bigourdan, by Hubble, and with those in GSC. However, Kobold's position for N3552 points at blank sky -- there is nothing within 3 arcmin in any direction brighter than the POSS1 plate limit. I suspect that Kobold's offsets apply to another star/galaxy pair, but I've not been able to find which objects would fit (I admit to not having looked very hard; perhaps a reader could unravel the mystery). In any event, Kobold's systematic error misled Hubble into thinking that his positions, measured on a plate taken with the 24-inch reflector at Yerkes Observatory, were somehow incorrect. In the end, however, Hubble printed his own positions and identifications. His positions are quite good, but his identifications are wrong for N3552 (he got K13) and N3554 (he got N3552); he did not identify N3553 at all -- but it is his number 81 in his Table XI. ===== NGC 3553. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3554. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3555. See NGC 3551. ===== "NGC 3557A" = NGC 3533. There is no problem with JH's position of NGC 3533, nor with de Vaucouleurs's for "NGC 3557A" as he called it in his Stromlo survey of southern Shapley-Ames galaxies. De Vaucouleurs simply missed the NGC entry for N3533. ===== NGC 3558. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3559 = NGC 3560, which see. ===== NGC 3560 = NGC 3559. During his MicroSky work, Glen Deen could not find NGC 3560. There is indeed nothing in its position, copied exactly from the GC by Dreyer, and before that from JH's 1833 catalogue. Checking that catalogue, though, I found that JH himself equates his 834th object with his father's III 79. The descriptions are similar, and Sir John himself says, "The PD of the working list is 6 arcmin out, owing to which I have often before looked for it in vain." So, he must have had the correct polar distance in front of him when he wrote this. But his NPD is exactly 50 arcmin out. I suspect that the 1833 NPD suffers from a typographical error: in place of "77 53 50," read "77 03 50." D'Arrest also noticed the 6 arcmin problem (he also marks the name III 79 with a question mark, and does not mention JH's number), and has two observations of this to Sir John's one. Thus, it is d'Arrest's presumably more accurate position that Dreyer adopted for NGC 3559. However, Dreyer had only JH's position for h834 to use. This is exactly 50 arcmin in declination out from d'Arrest's correct position for III 79. Since Sir John had included h834 in GC as a separate object, Dreyer followed JH's precedent. So, we are left with two numbers for the same object. Curiously, though, neither Dreyer nor JH have any note in GC or NGC about the identity, which JH himself had noted over 30 years earlier. ===== NGC 3561 is usually taken in modern catalogues as the entire double system Arp 105 = VV 237. However, the brighter (southern) of the two interacting galaxies is the one seen and measured by the visual observers, and by Hubble in his 1917 thesis. This is the one that I have labeled N3561 in the main position table. There is, however, an intriguing observation of a "nova" by Bigourdan about 15 arcsec north of the northern component of Arp 105. The right ascension offset estimated by Bigourdan, however, places the nova in a blank sky field four seconds of time preceding the galaxy. I wonder, though, if Bigourdan in fact saw the galaxy, but misplaced it because of its faintness. The question is a bit academic now, since the observation only exists in Bigourdan's list; he apparently did not publish it in any of his lists of new nebulae, so it did not receive an NGC or IC number. See NGC 3552 for more discussion about this field. ===== NGC 3565 and NGC 3566. These two objects were given the same poor position by Ormond Stone in the first Leander McCormick list. The identification with the close pair of galaxies listed in the table was made by noting that many of the first list nebulae were placed about two minutes of time too far west. Subtracting two minutes from the RA puts the position very close to the faint pair. The identification of this pair as NGC 3565 and 3566 is obviously not very secure because the discovery position is poor, and there are no sketches of the objects among Stone's papers. Another possibility is that N3565 and 3566 are identical to IC 2623 and the star superposed just south. However, this would require a 4 minute error in Stone's RA, as well as a 4 minute declination error. While a few of the Leander McCormick positions are indeed this far off, I think that this possibility is less likely. ===== NGC 3566. See NGC 3565. ===== NGC 3571 = NGC 3544, which see. ===== NGC 3575 = NGC 3162. D'Arrest's RA is one hour too large. He must have had a bad night on 21 February 1863 since N2753 and N3760 (both of which see) are his other two novae from that night. In any event, when the one hour correction is made, d'A's position falls within one arcmin of NGC 3162, and his description is perfect for the object, including the 11th mag star 3 arcmin west, and the 16th mag star 1 arcmin southeast (actually superposed on the southeast arm of the galaxy). ===== NGC 3576. Even though Lauberts marks the identity as questionable, there is no doubt that this is the object that JH saw. His figure shows all six of the bright patches of nebulosity in the area, and matches the appearance of the sky pretty well. He notes that the position for this object (and a couple of others) comes from two figures he sketched for the group. This may account for his RA being a bit off for this southwest patch: it is shown too close to the rest of the nebulae in his figure. The other nebulae are NGC 3579, 3581, 3582, 3584, and 3586. JH's positions and descriptions for them are very good. ===== NGC 3578. JH found this on 16 Dec 1827 along with at least sixteen of his father's nebulae. Of these seventeen nebulae, only one other (NGC 2848) has a position in JH's table marked uncertain. This one, N3578, has the NPD given only to a full arcmin and is marked with a plus-minus sign. JH's description is also short and discouraging: "A doubtful object, but probably a nebula." Nevertheless, there is close double star within JH's usual statistical error of his position. On the DSS (from a IIIa-J plate taken at Siding Spring), the double is blended too closely to reliably estimate individual positions. However, this might be just the sort of object that would lead JH to the sort of description he has left us. There is another double star seven arcmin south. I think that is less likely, so I've put question marks on it. It is still, however, the sort of double that JH mistook for nebulae several other times, so I'm going to at least mention it as a possibility for N3578. ===== NGC 3579. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3581. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3580 is probably not IC 675, which see for more. ===== NGC 3582. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3584. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3586. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3594. The NGC position falls between two galaxies that could be the object WH saw. The "standard" identification is with UGC 06286. Indeed, WH's position is closer to this object (about 8 arcmin) than to the other possibility, CGCG 268-006. This second galaxy, however, is brighter and smaller, so has a higher surface brightness. Still, WH's nominal position is over 12 arcmin away. In neither case, by the way, is there a possible digit error that might explain the poor nominal position. In the end, I have a slight preference for the UGC galaxy, but have retained both galaxies in the table. ===== NGC 3596. See NGC 3616. ===== NGC 3599. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3604 = NGC 3611. WH's RA is one minute too small, but his description is apt for NGC 3611. Dreyer, without benefit of wide-field plates, comments in his notes to WH's catalogue, "Should probably be rejected, together with III 88 (sic) and III 598 (NGC 3509), the only other neb this night, as there was fog `which indeed was so strong as to make everything swim about me.' " NGC 3509 is also a minute of time east of WH's RA, reinforcing Reinmuth's suggestion of the identity of N3604 with N3611. I'm not sure, however, which object Dreyer means by "III 88." III 88 is NGC 3401 (which see), and was found two and a half years earlier than the other two objects. In WH's catalogues, only NGC 3509 is noted as being found on the same night (30 Dec 1786) as N3604. Did Dreyer mean to have only III 598 in his comment? Probably so, but we can't be sure without seeing his MS. Coincidentally, this object is also the first of 30 numbered nebulae and stars that David Todd found during his 1877-1878 "Telescopic search for the trans- Neptunian planet" with the USNO 26-inch refractor. He has given us a nearly complete transcription of his observing notes in his AN article; this makes digging out the nebulae, and all the comments about a single object, rather more difficult than is ideal. Also, Todd's positions are very crude (apparently read from the refractor's setting circles), though he has given us sketches of each object's field so that we can still positively identify all but one of his objects (Dreyer, I'm sure, would have done this had he had a sky survey at hand). Todd found at least two other objects which were bright enough that he (correctly) assumed them to be known nebulae. Several people, including Wolfgang Steinicke, Steve Gottlieb, Klaus Wenzel (inspired by one of Wolfgang's articles), and me, have tackled the list. Here are the identifications of each of his sketched objects. Todd's Modern name Type Note number (1) NGC 3604 = NGC 3611 Galaxy (2) GSC 0838-0889 Star (3) GSC 0848-1219 Star (4) NGC 3427 Galaxy (5) NGC 3462 Galaxy (6) NGC 3436 Galaxy (7) --- --- See comments below. (8) IC 669 Galaxy (9) NGC 3685 Galaxy (10) NGC 3849 = IC 730 Galaxy (11) NGC 4075 Galaxy (12a) NGC 4073 Galaxy (12d) NGC 4063 Galaxy (13a) NGC 4045A Galaxy = CGCG 013-045 (13b) NGC 4045 Galaxy (13e) CGCG 013-049 Galaxy (14a) NGC 4077 = NGC 4140 Galaxy Same as (16a) (14b) NGC 4139 = IC 2989 Galaxy Same as (16b) (15) NGC 4179 Galaxy (16a) NGC 4077 = NGC 4140 Galaxy Same as (14a) (16b) NGC 4139 = IC 2989 Galaxy Same as (14b) (17) NGC 4355 = NGC 4418 Galaxy (18) NGC 4202 Galaxy (19) GSC 0836-0339 Star (20b) NGC 3153 Galaxy (20c) CGCG 064-091 Galaxy (21) NGC 3134 Galaxy (22) IC 591 Galaxy (23) CGCG 064-093 Galaxy = MCG +02-26-033 (24) NGC 3332 = NGC 3342 Galaxy (25) CGCG 066-007 Galaxy = UGC 05864 (26) CGCG 065-074 Galaxy = MCG +02-27-033 (27) GSC 0841-1088 Star (28) CGCG 065-073 Galaxy (29) NGC 3217 = IC 606 Galaxy (30) NGC 3279 = IC 622 Galaxy I've checked that each of the sketches matches the sky as it appears on the POSS1 prints or on the DSS. The stars were initially identified by Klaus Wenzel; I have confirmed his identifications with one exception. That exception is number (7). Klaus suggests that number (7) is also a star, GSC 0268-0113, but the field around it does not match Todd's sketch. In addition, this star is just 2 arcmin south of IC 670 which is bright enough that Todd would have recorded it had he seen it. I cannot find any star field that matches Todd's detailed sketch for number (7), though his second sketch of the finder field (from 12 December 1877) does indeed match the sky. Unfortunately, his detailed field as sketched through the 26-inch is not at the center of this finder field. His first finder field sketch from 3 December 1877 accompanying the 26-inch sketch is also unmatchable -- at least by me -- with the sky. Finally, Todd gives two different crude positions (11h00m, +07d10' on 3 Dec; and 11h00m, +07d17' on 12 Dec) for that field center. These led me to the second finder field, but not the first. He has several measurements of the stars in the field; you can see these in his paper which is available at ADS (AN 113, 153, 1886). If you can recover this object, or think that you can convince me that it is indeed Klaus's star, please let me know. Thanks! ===== NGC 3607. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3608. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3611 = NGC 3604, which see. ===== NGC 3616 is probably lost. It may be one of the stars I've noted in the position table, but I'm not sanquine about the possibility. Found 8 April 1784 by WH, and never seen again by anyone, he called it merely "eF, pL; easily ver[ified with] 240[power]." The star I chose decades ago when I was young and naive is surely not WH's object, and I am pretty sure that the double star close to WH's place is not it, either. Neither of these is "pretty large", and while the double star might appear somewhat nebulous on a poor night, I don't see how WH could have anything but "vS" or "eS". He also had trouble with the previous class III object in the same sweep (NGC 3498, which see), though not with the immediately preceding NGC 3596 (= II 102). It's possible that the declination is off, but that would pull this one object out of the zone of all the other nebulae found this same night. I would rather think that the RA is out, but that, too, is a problem because of the solidity of WH's observation with respect to NGC 3596 (Dreyer notes, "In the sweep, it is 3.2m f, 3' s of II. 102 [= N3596], the place of which is correct."). I've yet to examine the sweep -- but as I said, I do not expect to find the object. Still, it's a field rich in galaxies, so we may yet dig this out. ===== NGC 3622. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3626 is also = NGC 3632, which see. ===== NGC 3630. See NGC 3645. ===== NGC 3632 = NGC 3626. This is an identity first suggested by Dreyer, and was adopted by him in his notes to his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. It is most likely correct since WH found II 30 (which later became N3632) during one of his earlier sweeps (on 15 February 1784) when he was still perfecting his techniques. I did notice, however, that NGC 3599 is just 5 minutes of time preceding the position WH gave for N3632. The problem with that galaxy, though, is that it does not match WH's description -- "A pB nebula, it seems to contain stars; it is of some extent" -- very well. Also, if WH had seen N3599, I would have expected him to also record the much brighter NGC 3607 and 3608 just a minute and a half following at essentially the same declination. He did not record these until a month later. All considered, then (well, all that I can think of given the field), Dreyer's solution is the best one, so is the one that I fully endorse. ===== NGC 3643, NGC 3644 = IC 684, and NGC 3647. Even though Marth's positions for N3643, 3644, and 3647 are pretty accurate, this has not prevented later observers from misidentifying these at one time or another. In particular, Bigourdan's "N3647" is a star, and he labeled N3644 as "new" (his positions for both are accurate). Thus, this latter galaxy received an IC number (I684) as well as its NGC number. Kobold got the right galaxies for N3643 and N3644, but both he and Wirtz list N3644 as "NGC 3645(?)" (though Kobold does have an erratum saying that though the identity is uncertain it is probably N3644). Finally, RNGC has misidentified N3643 and N3645 (which see), and CGCG makes yet another object in the group N3645. ===== NGC 3644 = IC 684, which see. Also see NGC 3643. ===== NGC 3645. This, and five other NGC/IC objects (N3643, N3644, and N3647, which see; and I683 and I684), lie in a relatively crowded field. There has been considerable confusion about the identifications here because of the crowding -- and because the NGC position of the (presumeably) brightest object, N3645, lies in a blank area of sky a few arcminutes northwest of the group center. This brightest object was found first by William Herschel on 23 Feb 1784. He placed it 6m 30s preceding and 7' north of 84 (tau) Leo. The NGC position comes from John Herschel's single uncertain observation during Sweep 143; the object is h867 in his 1833 list, though he notes both it and h861 as being II 32. This latter object is considerably brighter than any of the galaxies in the group, and precedes it by 1.3 min. JH saw it during two sweeps (141 and 238), but did not pick it up during Sweep 143. Similarly, h867 was seen only during Sweep 143, but not during sweeps 141 and 238. That, combined with the relative brightness of the object compared to those in the group and JH's uncertain position for h867, strongly suggests that h867 = h861; i.e. N3645 = N3630. N3645 is also credited to Tempel who has a long discussion of the field in AN 2212 (pp.51-2). I've not translated this yet, but I do not easily see any precise offset from a known object in the text. Is it possible that Tempel was misled by JH's attribution of H II 32 to two different objects? A translation is clearly needed. ===== NGC 3646. See IC 682 = NGC 3649 where I suggest that Swift's note of a "very faint star close north preceding" actually applies to his observation of this galaxy. He somehow confused it with his observation of the fainter galaxy. Curiously, WH puts this object, as well as NGC 3649 which he observed in the same sweep, into his third ("very faint nebulae") class of objects. This is fully three magnitudes brighter than N3649. The only reason I can see is that the surface brightness is lower. JH has them right, though the final "brightness" in GC and NGC ("cF") is an unsatisfactory compromise. ===== NGC 3647. See NGC 3643. ===== NGC 3649 = IC 682, which see. ===== NGC 3661 = IC 689, which see. ===== NGC 3667. See IC 689. ===== NGC 3676 is MCG -02-29-029. The declination given by Muller and the NGC is about 30 arcmin too large, but the description is accurate. Muller's note, in particular, "star 10 north-following, star 10 south-following" is correct: each star is 0.95 arcmin from the galaxy. ===== NGC 3679 and NGC 3915 are H III 112 and III 113, both found the night of 24 April 1784, and both referred to the same star, 74 Leo (SAO 138102). There is nothing at either position reduced from WH's offsets from this star. The other brighter objects found on that night (N4697 and N4941 = H I 39 and 40; and N4593, N4602, and N4989 = H II 183,4,5) were all compared with 51 Virginis and are close enough to the derived positions to identify without problems. JH, however, noted that Mayer 510 (SAO 138798), taken later in the same sweep, is a better comparison star. He determined the positions of the two objects given in GC using this star, and Dreyer adopted these positions for NGC, too. He also discusses the problem of the comparison stars in a note to NGC, as well as in the Notes to his 1912 edition of WH's papers. Unfortunately, there are still no nebulae at either position. At this point, it's worth noting that, regardless of which star is used, WH's relative position between the two objects is the same: 24 minutes 12 seconds in RA and 49 arcmin in Dec. This suggests that we should look for objects matching his descriptions separated by these amounts. Now, other observers begin to cloud the picture. Dreyer credits Peters with an observation of N3915. But as with WH's observation, there is nothing at Peters's position (he says that he determined it by plotting the object on charts of his own construction). His note for N3915 reads, "AR in GC from 15 sec to 20 sec too small, and also the declination differs rather much. The nebula is vL, and not eS, as H. III. 113 has it." Just what nebula he saw is something of a mystery. It could have been IC 2963, but Peters's RA is over a minute off, and his Dec is nearly 2 arcmin off as well. Spitaler has a series of good micrometric observations of nebulae which includes N3679. He makes it the object we now call MCG -01-29-021 = Markarian 1294. But this is nearly 15 arcmin away from the nearest of WH's positions, and does not match his description of being "very near a very bright star." Dreyer makes a note of Spitaler's observation in his IC1 Notes, and again in the 1912 Scientific Papers Notes. So, we're left with a puzzle: what did WH and Peters see? Let's assume that WH's descriptions are good [for N3679 he says, "eF, cL, R, r (v nr vB *)" and for N3915, "eF, eS w 240. 2 vS sts and nebulosity."]. The only objects in the area matching these descriptions are MCG -01-29-012 (at 11 19 15.35, -05 29 00.6; B1950.0 from GSC) which has SAO 138156 about 2 arcmin to the north, and the previously uncatalogued galaxy at 11 44 22.20, -04 54 35.4 (again, GSC for B1950.0) which has a somewhat fainter star superposed about 15 arcsec to the southwest of its bright core. The relative positions of these two galaxies in 1784 was 25 min 04 sec, and 35.3 arcmin, not wildly off WH's "observed" offsets -- but not very close, either. In the end, I've taken MCG -01-29-012 and the uncatalogued object as perhaps the two that WH saw. It's clear, however, that there are unexplained large errors in WH's offsets for these two objects. So, these identifications are quite uncertain, and could well be completely wrong. ===== NGC 3682. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3685 is CGCG 039-192. Though Todd's position is off (as it is for nearly all of the nebulae he found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet") his sketchs of the field are very good, as are his measurements of distances between stars and nebulae within each field. In this case, he found the higher surface brightness component of a pair of CGCG galaxies; the other is UGC 06466, a pretty low surface brightness barred spiral. This is Todd's number (9). See NGC 3604 for more about Todd's search. ===== NGC 3690 and IC 694 (which see for more discussion). These are not, as is often supposed, the two components of the peculiar interacting system, Arp 299. Instead, NGC 3690 refers to these two peculiar galaxies, while IC 694 is the small elliptical or lenticular about an arcmin northwest. Lord Rosse clearly resolved the two components in at least one of his observations, and he also noted IC 694 as an "appendage" to the north-west of the pair. Swift later rediscovered the IC object; this led Dreyer to assign it its own number in the first IC. Note, too, that the numbers NGC 3690 and IC 694 are incorrectly assigned to Arp 296 in the tables in the Arp Atlas. This has further exacerbated the naming problem, as Arp 296 is another interacting pair just a few arcmin following Arp 299. ===== NGC 3694. See NGC 3698 = NGC 3695. ===== NGC 3695 = NGC 3698, which see for more. Ball's description of the field with this, NGC 3694, and NGC 3700 is accurate. So, even though the NGC position is off, there is no doubt about the correct identifications. ===== NGC 3696 is probably the galaxy that I've listed in the table. It is 10 seconds, and 10 arcmin off the nominal place listed by Leavenworth. Still, there is little besides the position to go on (Leavenworth's description could apply to just about any of the faint galaxies in the area), so I am not confident about the identification. There is no sketch. Another candidate galaxy that I considered, but dropped, was NGC 3704, but that does not have such neat offsets from the nominal position, and is brighter than Leavenworth's description would make it. ===== NGC 3698 = NGC 3695. In March 1867, Ball found two nebulae here forming a triangle with h899 = NGC 3694, and suspected others. He did not measure the offsets from JH's nebula (he comments, in fact, "There being no great difference of brightness, it is not easy to see which is h899," but did give the relative positions of "the 2 nf ones, Pos 310 deg, Dist 339''." These numbers are accurate for NGC 3695 and NGC 3700. JH's position for NGC 3694 is very good, too. Nine years later, Dreyer re-examined the field, noting that "nnp [h899] is a pS, eeF neb [= N3695] in Pos 357.2, Dist 256.7." This is actually a star. Dreyer goes on, "About 15' n and a few minutes f is another eF, vS neb [= N3700] with an eF * 2' sf." This is actually a reobservation of NGC 3695, (the star is indeed 2 arcmin southeast), though Dreyer took it to be a new nebula and gave it a new number, NGC 3698. ===== NGC 3700. Though the position is off, Ball's description of the field, including his measurement of the offset between this and NGC 3695, makes clear the nebulae he found. See NGC 3698 = NGC 3695 for more. ===== NGC 3703 is one of Ormond Stone's discoveries. He made a sketch of the field, but it only vaguely matches the galaxy (and its surrounding stars) 10 arcmin north and 25 seconds preceding the published nominal position (the position on the sketch is another 30 seconds on east). In particular, the orientation of the sketch is unusual if the identification is correct -- south is normally at the top of the sketches; this has south at about 10 o'clock. Also, the brightest star shown on the sketch is actually the faintest on the sky. In the end, this is a possible identification, but no more. ===== NGC 3704 and 3707. This pair was found by Ainslie Common around 1880. His position for the pair is only approximate, but his description clearly identifies the nebulae, "2, F, R, on the parallel, star symmetrically placed between." The star is indeed there. The brighter object (N3704) was also seen (in 1878) by Wilhelm Tempel who published a micrometrically measured position for it in his fifth paper on nebulae. His descriptive note on the nebula reads, "Class III; a star 15m (nebulous?) follows 2 sec; near the comparison star is another fainter nebula." The star 2 sec following the measured nebula is the same one mentioned by Common. The positions that Dreyer adopted for NGC come from a letter to him from Tempel. In this letter, summarized by Dreyer in a note in IC2, Tempel says that he saw the brighter (which Dreyer mistakenly calls N3707) four times, but the fainter only once. Further, the position of the fainter comes from a sketch made on 25 May 1881, the same night on which Tempel measured the brighter. After quoting Common's description, Dreyer continues, "I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that 3704,07 are the same as Common's, the place of which is 11h 22m 57s, 100d 33.3m [1860], though Tempel's nebulae are not on the parallel." Dreyer's first assumption was correct, at least concerning the brighter nebula. What is wrong, however, is Tempel's place for the fainter. There is nothing in that position in spite of its being just about 2 arcmin north of his comparison star, and -- presumeably -- shown in that place on the sketch he sent to Dreyer. My guess is that Tempel somehow confused his observations, and that his note about the star and the fainter nebula refers to another field altogether. In any event, Common's observation is clear enough, even if his position isn't, to reliably assign the two numbers to the two galaxies in the field. There is also the faint possibility that Ormond Stone saw NGC 3704; see NGC 3696 for that. Finally, the pair may also be IC 703 and IC 704 (which see). But the case for that is very weak. ===== NGC 3707. See NGC 3704. ===== NGC 3708 and NGC 3709 are lost. Ormond Stone found these with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick and gave his usual crude positions to them. He also left us a sketch of NGC 3708, showing it midway between two stars near the edge of his field. (I do not know the field size, but do not think it can be more than a few arcmin.) There is no trace of N3709 in the sketch. Since it is supposed to be just two arcmin south of N3708, I wonder if it is the same galaxy, but seen on a different night. I searched at all the reasonable digit error offsets where I've found other "lost" nebulae, but found nothing that resembles the north-south pair in the table, nor the galaxy flanked by stars in the sketch. So, unfortunately, two lost nebulae. ===== NGC 3709 is lost. See NGC 3708 for the story. ===== NGC 3712 is probably NGC 3714. JH observed the objects during different sweeps, and his position for N3712 is enough off his others to lead him to think he'd found a new nebula. There is nothing at his position, though, and the descriptions of his two different nebulae are very similar. There are, however, some curiosities here. JH was looking for two of his father's nebulae, II 367 (N3713) and III 353 (probably N3714), in the area. JH assigned the numbers to two of his own nebulae (h906 = N3713, and h907 = N3714), but in his description of N3713 (never seen on the same nights as N3714), he says "No companion seen." Similarly, in his description of N3714, he claims, "No other near on the same parallel." The two galaxies are only 12.6 arcmin apart. How does it happen that neither appeared in the same sweep with the other -- aside from Sweep 68 where JH gives a crude declination and no RA to h905 = N3712 -- though he went over the area in 8 different sweeps? JH also noted the 10 minute error in his father's position for III 353. The galaxy, however, is neither of WH's "wrong" position, nor in the "corrected" one. (I thought I had found it just 10 seconds of time off the "wrong" one, but I, too, made an error in RA, this one of 1 hour. Is it possible that WH also made a 1 hour error? Nope -- in that case, the object would have appeared preceding 44 LMi, not following it, and would have been the first object referred to that star that night, not the last.) JH had to stretch a bit to make III 353 fit his position, but he managed it in the note in GC, saying that WH's position (first corrected by CH), when corrected, falls within 35 seconds of his (JH's) own. Finally, N3714 is a rather peculiar galaxy, having a faint, disturbed corona with a broad plume to the southwest. I am unable to decide if two objects -- one superposed on the galaxy just to the northeast of the center, the second 32 arcseconds to the southwest -- are stars or compact companion galaxies. I am guessing here: the superposed object is a compact galaxy, the more distant object is a star. Spectra are clearly needed. ===== NGC 3713. See NGC 3712 = NGC 3714. ===== NGC 3714 = NGC 3712, which see. ===== NGC 3721, 3722, 3724, and 3730. Here is another of the Leander McCormick fields that is irksome at best, frustrating at worst, and will probably never be sorted out satisfactorily. These four numbers are usually applied to various members of a group of galaxies north of NGC 3732 (found by WH, reobserved by JH, there is no problem with the identification of this galaxy). There is some justification for this; the true RAs for the Leander McCormick objects are often east of the nominal RAs, while the Decs are often (though not always!) fairly accurate. I've listed these identifications in the big table with two question marks. In this case, however, there is another group of galaxies to the west of Leavenworth's nominal positions. The brightest is IC 2910. With two others, this matches the relative positions, brightnesses, and diameters estimated by Leavenworth for three (N3721/22/24 of the four objects (though the declination for the northern-most, N3721, is 4 arcmin off). I've marked these candidate objects with a single question mark. This leaves NGC 3730, which Dreyer credits jointly to Leavenworth and A. A. Common. I'm not convinced that they both saw the same object. If Leavenworth saw it the same night as the other three, he rezeroed his RA because there is no galaxy offset from the other three by the amount in his table. This applies to both groups of galaxies, the one to the east as well as that to the west. Here is where we turn to Common's observation. He lists a single nebula at the position of NGC 3732 calling it "F, R", and adds the note "... a cluster of 3 similar ones 15' n." Dreyer, noting that Leavenworth's position is about 15 arcmin north of N3732, supposed that one of Common's "cluster" was the object that Leavenworth saw. However, Dreyer adopted Leavenworth's RA, nearly a full minute of time preceding N3732. He also has a note in the NGC reading "Common has '3, F, R, 15[arcmin] n of h913 [N3732].' This is not what Common actually wrote, of course, though it summarizes the situation pretty well. But we are still left to wonder which galaxy to take for NGC 3730. Not quite pulling things out of the hat, I'm going to go with the usual choice for this, the brightest galaxy in the "cluster" north of NGC 3732. There is a question mark on it, of course. What about Common's other two galaxies? If the object we take as NGC 3730 is one of his, then the other two are logically those that are sometimes called N3722 and N3724 (those with double question marks in the table). It's not beyond reason, though, to think that he saw those two and the third on to the east in the line, MCG -01-30-008. But all this is speculation. We don't have good positions from the original observers for any of these, so all we can do is -- speculate. Frustrating, isn't it? ===== NGC 3722. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3724. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3730. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3732. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3743, 3744, 3745, 3746, 3748, 3750, 3751, 3753, and 3754. The last seven of these are Copeland's Septet. The Notes to IC1 relate how the positions in NGC came to be calculated incorrectly. Briefly, Dreyer took Copeland's reference to the comparison star as "reddish" to apply to the wrong star. Thus, the differences between the NGC positions and the correct positions is a simple offset in RA and Dec. Here are tables showing corrected identifications and information for the Septet area in the four major catalogues from which we drew information for the RC2. the RNGC, Zwicky's CGCG, VV's MCG, and Milson's UGC. Here are identifications for the galaxies with objects listed in MCG, UGC, and CGCG: NGC MCG UGC CGCG (Vol. II, pp. 176 and 180) 3743 --- --- 11 33.2 +22 00, mp = 15.6 3744 --- --- 33.2 +23 16, mp = 15.4 3758 +04-27-073 --- 33.8 +21 52, mp = 14.8 3745 +04-28-004 --- ---- 3746 +04-28-005 06597 35.1 +22 17, mp = 15.3 3748 +04-28-007 --- 35.2 +22 18, mp = 15.5 3750 +04-28-008 --- 35.3 +22 15, mp = 15.2 3751 +04-28-009 06601* ---- 3753 +04-28-010 06602 -\ - 35.4 +22 16, mp = 14.6* 3754 +04-28-011 --- -/ *UGC 6601 - coordinates and magnitude wrong in UGC, but the Note clearly points to the correct object. *NGC 3753 are 3754 both included in the same CGCG entry. Finally, there is a bit of a mystery concerning the name "Copeland's Septet." When the de Vaucouleurs and I adopted this for RC2 (see Table 16b, page 52) in the early 1970's, we thought we were following our self-imposed rule to not provide new names for objects, but to merely copy those used in the literature. Since that time, I've been unable to find the source of the name. My query about this in the Webb Society Quarterly Journal (No. 90, 1992 October, page 41) has brought no response. It's possible, then, that we were the first to use the name. Wherever it came from, it is now in common use. ===== NGC 3744. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3745. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3746. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3747 is H. III 969, one of the fifteen nebulae found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801, where all the positions suffer from a large, systematic error. See NGC 3752 for more about this sweep. ===== NGC 3748. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3750. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3751. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3752. This is discussed in an article in Monthly Notices in 1911 where the anonymous author gives accurate positions for forty nebulae found on Royal Observatory, Greenwich (RGO in modern parlance) 30-inch plates covering the area of WH's sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801. WH's positions in that sweep are affected by a large, systematic error, so Dreyer had requested that the Astronomer Royal take the plates in an effort to sort out the problems. They largely succeeded, but the paper is incorrect in saying in a note that h917 = N3752; actually, N3752 = H II 905. Dreyer and the article's author correctly concluded that h917 and H II 905 are two different galaxies, but they got the NGC number on the wrong one. The MN note should actually read "NGC 3752 = No. 36 above = H II 905, but not h 917 = No. 38 above." This unfortunately leaves h917 without an NGC number. (Following the time-honored tradition of muddying the waters with suffixes, I suppose we could call it "NGC 3752A", but I've not done that. Yet. I may eventually change my mind.) Since John Herschel gave his own position, but his father's description, to GC 2460 = NGC 3752, and since it is clear that WH saw the brighter of the two galaxies (more on this below), the GC and NGC positions should be changed. To reach these conclusions, I re-reduced WH's offsets from his comparison stars (as given by Dreyer in the Scientific Papers) for all the objects in the sweep, using the SAO positions for the stars. The positions for the nebulae so found are very poor, ranging up to almost 6 minutes of time and 45 arcmin from the true positions. Nevertheless, there are no other galaxies in the area of WH's positions that could match his descriptions. By following along chronologically through the sweep, we can be pretty sure which galaxies correspond to which numbers in WH's list (only H III 966 = NGC 3197 is out of RA order, but its identity is clear from the declination). This includes N3752 which, as Steve Gottlieb independently suggested, is certainly H II 905. Further "proof" of the correctness of these identifications comes from a plot (shown in crude form below) of the differences between WH's positions and the true positions from the RGO plates. (By the way, I've verified the RGO positions with modern measurements.) The differences are systematic, increasing towards higher right ascension. Though WH used three different comparison stars for these observations, he used one of these, BD +78 317, for only one object; another, BD +78 412, for two; but the third, BD +76 393, for the remaining 12 objects. (Curiously, Dreyer says in the NGC note and in his note for his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers that WH used only one star for all fifteen objects. This has led Wolfgang to speculate that Dreyer has changed the offsets from WH's originals published in PT; we'll have to check the original PT to see if this is true. Wolfgang also points out that the NGC positions for some of the fifteen nebulae cannot be derived from the Scientific Papers offsets.) For this third star in particular, the systematic errors are therefore quite well-determined. If corrected for these systematic errors, WH's positions would be good to his nominal accuracy of a few arcmin. To clinch this interpretation, I calculated the offset of John Herschel's position for h917 from the true position of N3752 = H II 905. The resulting points are coincidentally very close to the offset predicted if William Herschel had used BD +78 412 as his comparison star. But, as we can see on the graph, the points are very discrepant from the offset of the actual comparison star BD +76 393. So, again, N3752 is almost certainly II 905 and not h917. I can only guess at the cause of William Herschel's error: a clock running slowly perhaps? But since the declinations are also affected, this can be only part of the problem. So, there may have been some sort of other mechanical failure in the telescope, or maybe a curious reduction error. In any case, I'm now convinced, thanks to Steve's and Wolfgang's questioning, that the identifications that I've adopted here are the correct ones. Here is a list of the galaxies from the 1911 MNRAS paper, along with the NGC numbers, the numbers assigned by other observers, and the differences between WH's positions and the RGO positions. The objects flagged with asterisks are those found by WH during sweep 1096. MN NGC WH Others Delta RA Delta Dec (WH - RGO) 1* 2938 III 963 h 612 -1m 54s -17.8 arcmin 3* 2977 I 282 -3 17 -17.5 6* 3061 II 903 h 653 -1 49 -14.3 7* 3197 III 966 +1 34 + 6.9 8* 3144=3174 III 964 d'Arrest -2 16 - 2.1 9* 3155=3194 III 965 h 676, d'Arrest -1 53 - 0.9 11* 3183=3218 I 283 d'Arrest -2 25 + 1.2 13 3252 III 316 --- --- 15* 3329=3397 I 284 h 733 +4 01 +26.6 25 3403 II 335 h 767 --- --- 27* 3465 III 967 h 795 +0 50 +11.4 29* 3500 III 968 -1 33 +10.7 30* 3523 II 904 +1 12 + 9.9 34 3538 ... d'Arrest --- --- 36* 3752 II 905 +2 29 +14.8 37* 3747 III 969 +1 51 +12.7 38 .... ... h 917 (+5 22 +39.1) 39* 3901 III 970 +5 40 +42.9 40* 3890=3939 III 971 H III 940, d'Arrest +1 43 +25.3 Finally, here is a crude representation of the plot of the position differences, taken in the sense WH minus RGO: Delta Dec (arcmin) -- + Comparison stars used * = BD +76 393 +40 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 + = BD +78 412 x = BD +78 317 -- +30 -- -- * + +20 -- -- * N3752 if II 905 * +10 -- *** x -- * 0 -- * * -- -10 -- -- * -20 -- * * | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA Delta RA (minutes) +6 -- + +5 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 +4 -- + +3 -- * N3752 if II 905 +2 -- * * x +1 -- * * 0 -- -1 -- * -2 -- * * * * * -3 -- * -4 -- | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA ===== NGC 3753. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3754. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3758. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3760 = NGC 3301. As with N3575 = N3162 (which see), d'Arrest's RA is 1 hour too large (he measured both on the same night, 21 February 1863). In addition, his note "* 10-11 p 4.0 sec, 175'' south" should place the star north of the galaxy, not south. With these two changes, his single observation of his "nova" is in perfect accord with his three observations of NGC 3301. Dreyer notes (in the NGC Notes) Copeland's not finding the object at Birr, discovering instead "a large group of novae preceding it" (Copeland's Septet, which see under NGC 3743). He further comments in IC1 that the Strassburg observer (Kobold, who apparently first suggested the equality with N3301) also could not find N3760. ===== NGC 3763 = IC 714. For once, the Leander McCormick observation, this one a micrometric one by Francis Leavenworth, referred to an unmistakeable star, is correct (though perhaps with a 10-arcsec declination error). Even A. A. Common's position is fairly close, only 12 seconds of time and one arcminute off. So Dreyer must have been feeling cautious when he did not mention that the two entries might refer to the same object -- or perhaps he just missed them. Leavenworth does list his comparison star as "Wash. Cat. 4946" -- it is theta Crateris with a V magnitude of 4.7 -- so it would not be instantly recognizeable to someone reading through the list of Leander McCormick observations. Also, Common has an odd note about it (at least I suppose his note refers to the star.) His full description reads "F, diffused, sp 7 stars." The galaxy is indeed "sp", but what does "7 stars" mean? I don't see any other galaxy in the area that has seven obvious stars to the northeast, so given that Common's position is not all that bad, I'll leave this particular mystery to someone else to solve. Perhaps an eyepiece view with the same power and field as Common used on his 36-inch would be more revealing than the DSS. ===== NGC 3771. Though the identifications of this and N3774 nearby are uncertain, a reasonably good fit can be made for this number to the galaxy at 11 39 05.9 -09 20 54 (ESGC). ===== NGC 3774. See NGC 3771. ===== NGC 3775. See both numbers: NGC 3779 = IC 717. ===== NGC 3779 = IC 717, which also see. A. A. Common found this sometime in 1880 along with NGC 3775. He gives a position for N3775, but notes this as only "... another 5' nf, eeF." Dreyer either concocted a position for the object from Common's published information, or asked Common to provide one. I suspect the latter because the NGC position is given with the usual precision that Dreyer adopts for other of Common's nebulae (see NGC 3858 = NGC 3866 for a case where this usual precision is not used). That position is not all that bad as it turns out. Unfortunately, Frank Muller only measured a right ascension for the galaxy, and that is marred by what I think is a transcription error (see the IC 717 note for more), but his description fits the galaxy perfectly. So, the identification with IC 717 is certain in spite of the missing declination and the bad RA. The identity of the two numbers was first suggested by Herbert Howe in 1899. Curiously, his position is just one arcminute too far north, one of the few times that we find an error in his work. I wonder if this, too, is due to a transcription error. Howe also "... suspected another [nebula] between it [N3779] and 3775." But this is only a faint star; it would have been near the limit of his 20-inch refractor. ===== NGC 3786. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3788. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3789 is much more likely to be MCG -01-30-015 than MCG -01-30-019. The western galaxy is much brighter, and Leavenworth's description matches the bar (which extends north-south) very well. The eastern galaxy is considerably fainter, almost round, and has a fainter companion about 30 arcsec west. Had Leavenworth seen this pair, he would more likely have described it as extended east-west. It's true that Leavenworth's position is closer to MCG -01-30-019 than to -015. However, his position is about 1.5 minutes east of -015, an error that many other of his observations share. ===== NGC 3790. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3792 is probably the double star listed in the table. Holden has two observations of it, noting in the second that the "Neb makes an isosceles triangle with DM 2523 and 2525." The only likely object making that triangle with the two BD stars is the double. ===== NGC 3793 and NGC 3797 are most probably stars. Tempel has this to say about them in his paper in AN 2439 (1882): "For the fine double nebula [GC] 2479-80 = h. 331-32 [should be 'h. 931-32' = N3786,8], I have one hasty sketch from 12 Febr. '82, which shows two very small nebulae +18 sec and +30 sec following the southern component [of the double nebula], which I cannot find catalogued." (He goes on to describe his observations of NGC 3786 and 3788.) There are two 15th magnitude stars at the appropriate offsets in RA, just a minute or two south of the declination of the brighter galaxies. For the NGC, Dreyer placed Tempel's two novae following the northern component, NGC 3788. This makes the RA's of the novae too large by 2-3 seconds, and displaces the positions well off the stars. This has misled RNGC to assign NGC 3793 to the much fainter galaxy VV 575 = CGCG 157-007 south- preceding NGC 3786,8. When the correct reference galaxy is used, the RA's come to within a second or two of the stars. Thus, these are almost certainly the objects that Tempel saw. ===== NGC 3794 = NGC 3804. There is no doubt that the objects are identical. Herschel's positions are 30 seconds of time apart, his descriptions are similar, and there is no galaxy at the position of NGC 3794. The RNGC got the wrong galaxy for NGC 3794, supposing that Herschel made a 1 degree error in the declination as well as a 1 minute error in RA. It is more likely that WH made a single smaller error rather than two larger ones. ===== NGC 3797. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3801. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3802. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3803. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3804. See NGC 3794. ===== NGC 3806. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3807 is a star, identified on LdR's diagram (it is labeled "C"). Other nebulae also shown on the diagram are N3790, N3801-03, and N3806, the first three observed by the Herschels, the last also seen by d'Arrest. ===== NGC 3810. See NGC 4368. ===== NGC 3817. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3819. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3820. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3822 = NGC 3848, which see. ===== NGC 3825 = NGC 3852. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3826 = NGC 3830, which see. ===== NGC 3828. The NGC position is within a minute of arc of the GSC position. Also, Bigourdan's original position, if reduced with respect to the GSC position for his comparison star, is within 3 arcsec. So how did CGCG -- and by extension, UGC -- miss the identification? Perhaps a mistake in precessing the position? In any event, the identification needs to be added to CGCG 1140.4+1646. The UGC Notes for UGC 6686 (6 arcmin east of NGC 3828) give data for the NGC galaxy, but only under the CGCG number. These notes, too, should have the NGC identification added. ===== NGC 3833. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3830 is probably the same galaxy as NGC 3826. The only observer to see N3830 (= h956) was John Herschel -- and his one observation is doubtful. His description reads (in full): "Cloudy; hardly discernable." This is from Sweep 416 of 19 April 1832. JH's position for N3830 follows that for NGC 3826 (= H II 341 = h954) by 43 seconds of time; the declinations are identical. In addition, N3826 was seen during three sweeps (115, 343, and 417), all different from the single sweep during which N3830 was found. JH's three positions for N3826 are all in agreement. My guess is that because of the clouds, JH did not zero Sweep 416 on stars as well as he usually did. This half-baked idea could be checked by comparing JH's RA's for other objects in the same sweep with modern RA's: are they also off in RA by about 40 arcsec of time? See NGC 898 where this sort of error has undoubtedly been made. Another, probably more correct guess, is that JH simply made an error in the RA. ===== NGC 3847 is just where JH put it, in spite of the note in IC2. Wolf chose the wrong galaxy for N3847 (his object is actually IC 2952); coincidentally, the difference in declinations is just 10 arcmin. See also NGC 3855 where I suggest that this galaxy might also be NGC 3856. ===== NGC 3848 is probably NGC 3822, and NGC 3852 is probably NGC 3825. The two questionable identifications are a pair found by William Herschel on 15 March 1784, III 35 and III 36. He describes them as "Two on parallel, 3 or 4 arcmin distant. Both eF, vS," and assigns a single position to the pair. Dreyer, in the Notes to his 1912 edition of WH's papers, claims for N3848, "Observed by Bigourdan, place correct." For N3852, he says, "RA possibly 1 minute too great (see II 64 [NGC 4352]). Not found by Bigourdan." This is curious, as Bigourdan clearly states "Not seen, at least in a sure way" for N3848, and "Not seen" for N3852. Perhaps there is a note in one of Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus papers. In any case, Bigourdan has precise measurements for NGC 3822 and NGC 3825, and identifies them correctly. They are 2 minutes west (not 1 minute) of WH's positions for N3848 and N3852, and they match WH's description well. Other fainter galaxies in the area include NGC 3817, 3819, 3820, 3833, and several CGCG/MCG objects. Since N3822 and N3825 are the brightest of the lot, they are most probably the ones that WH picked up. ===== NGC 3849 = IC 730. Todd's sketches [this is his number (10)] from 14 Dec 1877 positively identify the galaxy, though his position (read from the setting circles of the Naval Observatory's 26-inch refractor) is -- as usual -- well off. In spite of his poor position, he was able to recover the object on 11 Feb 1878, and changed his description of it from "large and nebulous" to "small, quite condensed, somewhat nebulous, and faint." See NGC 3604 for more about the nebulae that Todd found. The galaxy was rediscovered by Javelle about 15 years later. Aside from the uncertainty in the position (from the BD) of his comparison star, Javelle's position for the galaxy is very good. His description (with the 30-inch refractor at Nice) is accordant with Todd's second observation. ===== NGC 3852 = NGC 3825. See NGC 3848. ===== NGC 3854 = NGC 3865. Here is another case where neither discovery position is particularly good. Common's is his usual estimate, while Leavenworth's RA is, as usual, just bad. Leavenworth also, rather unusually, has a 10 arcmin Dec error as well for this galaxy. Unfortunately, there is no surviving sketch. But there is still no mistaking the object. His description is appropriate for the brighter central part of the galaxy, and his estimate of the position angle (70 degrees) is not too far off. Finally, he has another nebula in the correct relative position (assuming the 10 arcmin error is fixed), and that nebula (N3858 = N3866, which see) also bears an appropriate description. ===== NGC 3855 may be IC 2953 and NGC 3856 may be NGC 3847. These were both found by d'A. Unfortunately, he provides only a crude position for the first; the second is mentioned only in his description, with not even an offset given. So, there have been several guesses made at the identities by Wolf, Spitaler, CGCG, and RNGC. I think they are all wrong, and that d'A probably saw I2953 and NGC 3847. These are the brightest galaxies in the area, so would be the ones most likely seen during a hurried observation. However, this too is a guess -- a better one, I think -- but still a guess. ===== NGC 3856 may be NGC 3847. See NGC 3855 for the story. ===== NGC 3858 = NGC 3866 is the southeastern of a pair of big spirals, both with relatively low surface brightnesses. I'm a bit surprised the Herschel's missed them; both have many other galaxies that are considerably fainter. In any event, A. A. Common found both objects, but gave a position for only the brighter northwestern. For this one, he says only "... another sf not so L." Dreyer rounded off the RA to a full minute of time, and put a plus-minus sign on the NPD. But once we've identified the brighter object -- it is N3854 = N3865, which see -- this one falls into place, too. For this one, Leavenworth has his usual approximately correct declination, and his usual sloppy RA. But his description is very good for the central part of the galaxy, and he mentions the "* 9.5, p 3 seconds." There is no doubt about the identification. ===== NGC 3862 is not IC 2955. Bigourdan saw and measured both on the same nights, so the two numbers cannot refer to the same object. ===== NGC 3865 = NGC 3854, which see. ===== NGC 3866 = NGC 3858, which see. ===== NGC 3871 = IC 2959 is an edgewise Sa or Sab, the western-most of a group of four first seen by JH in April of 1827. Curiously, he saw only three of the four then, those forming "... an unequally divided line of 3." These three are NGC 3878, 3880, and 3881. Four years later in April of 1831, he saw "... 3 forming an equilateral triangle." These three are NGC 3871, 3880, and 3881. Considering the extremely crude positions he measured in 1831 (given to only a full minute of time, and a full arcmin, all marked +- with the exception of the NPD for NGC 3880), he sorted out the area remarkably well, recoginizing that he had actually seen all four of the brighter galaxies here. Fortunately, his earlier positions are very good so led not just him, but later micrometric observers to the correct objects. Spitaler saw all four in 1892 and measured positions for three of them. In March 1856, Lord Rosse saw only the three forming the equilateral triangle, so Dreyer was understandably puzzled by JH's note for N3871: "1 minute added to the R.A.; it is evidently the first of the group of 4." In any event, the confusion was sorted out in time for a clarifying note in the first IC. Unfortunately, Javelle seems to have not seen that, so N3871 picked up an IC number in IC2 from his observation in June of 1896. ===== NGC 3874 is probably the double star that Reinmuth noted. WH's position is close following the double, and his description "vF, vS, left doubtful. Twilight" is appropriate. Dreyer notes that Bigourdan did not find the nebula; Bigourdan searched unsuccessfully for it twice. ===== NGC 3878. See NGC 3871 = IC 2959. ===== NGC 3880. See NGC 3871 = IC 2959. ===== NGC 3881. See NGC 3871 = IC 2959. ===== NGC 3888. See NGC 3889. ===== NGC 3889. The NGC has this as 5' south of NGC 3888. This is incorrect; the original observation by Lord Rosse in 1852 places the nebula 5' north of NGC 3888. Of the three galaxies there, I've taken the brightest as N3889. [Note added June 1999: My old friend Tom DeMary has pointed out that the brief explanation above might not be enough to cover the situation. Here is a fuller story.] Lord Rosse's original observation of NGC 3888 in 1852 has a second nebula five arcmin north (he most likely saw the brightest of the three galaxies north and northeast, so that is the one I've taken). In 1878, Dreyer revisited the field, but found nothing to the north. Instead, he measured an object at a position angle of 167.5 deg with a distance of 340.5 arcsec from N3888. It was this measurement that led to the position and note in NGC for N3889. Using the DSS position for NGC 3888, Dreyer's measurement reduces to 11 45 03.36, +56 09 09.3. There is nothing at Dreyer's measured position. However, if he made a transcription error in his distance -- read 240.5 for 340.5 -- then his position falls close to a faint star (his position is 11 45 00.81, +56 10 47.0 for B1950.0; the star is at [end figures only] 01.51 and 52.6). It seems likely that this is the object that he measured and mistook as the nebula seen by Lord Rosse. ===== NGC 3890 = NGC 3939, which see. ===== NGC 3899 = NGC 3912. Though JH's position falls close to a very close double star (merged on POSS1), it is more likely that his observation refers to NGC 3912. His descriptions are the same, and his position for N3899 is just 1 minute of time west of N3912. Reinmuth first suggested the identity. ===== NGC 3901. This is one of fifteen nebulae found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801 which have positions affected by a large, systematic error. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3905. Is this also possibly IC 2962 (which see)? I doubt it. ===== NGC 3908. Though Swift describes his object as "F, vS, R, mbM," I have my doubts that he could have seen the galaxy listed in the table. At 16th magnitude, it is too faint to have been included in CGCG, and it is not large enough to have captured VV's attention when he was compiling MCG. Still, there is nothing else in the area, or at reasonable digit errors, that Swift might have seen. This is as good a guess as any as to which object he actually saw, but visual verification would be nice. ===== NGC 3909 is a very large scattered group of fifty to sixty pretty bright stars; I'm not sure that it is a real cluster, however. JH took as its position one of two double stars which he saw in it. The same double served as the source of Brian Skiff's position, too. However, ESO's position, on to the east another 38 seconds of time, is more appropriate for the apparent center of group. ESO made its dimensions roughly 20 by 15 arcmin, but I measure it to be 24 x 14 arcmin. Coincidentally close to the center, and shining right through, is ESO 217-G007, a small Sa or Sb galaxy. ===== NGC 3911 is the brighter and following of two galaxies (the other is NGC 3920). It was found by WH whose position is very good. JH also saw it, but because his RA was off, thought it a nova and noted, "Follows III 341 [N3911] on same parallel." The galaxy he thought to be his father's was actually the nova, however. Since JH's RA is about 45 seconds too far east, this, and his note, have confused the identifications of the two objects ever since. Neither d'A nor Dreyer found a nebula at JH's position, of course. In spite of the correct NGC position for N3911, most modern catalogues place the two in numerical order. This necessitates changing the RA's of both. In placing NGC 3911 on the following galaxy, I am giving precedence to the historical order of discovery, attributing to WH the brighter galaxy he actually saw. Since JH was the first to see the fainter preceding object, the number NGC 3920 given by Dreyer to h 996 (JH's nova) necessarily applies to it. This leaves the numbers out of RA order, and also disagrees with the NGC notes about which is preceding and following, but better represents the history in this case. ===== NGC 3912 = NGC 3899, which see. ===== NGC 3913 = IC 740. WH's RA is just far enough off (10-15 seconds of time) that neither Swift nor Dreyer recognized Swift's 33rd object in his 9th list as being a reobservation of WH's object. Swift's position is just 6 seconds off in RA, so being as far north as it is, the galaxy is unambiguously identified. ===== NGC 3915. See NGC 3679. ===== NGC 3920. See NGC 3911. ===== NGC 3922 = NGC 3924, which see. ===== NGC 3924 = NGC 3922. "Both" objects were discovered by William Herschel, but the positions that he gave them were rather discordant. He found N3922 = H III 716 on 9 March 1788, and placed it at 11 48.5, +50 29. N3924 = H II 825 was placed at 11 51.1, +50 33 (1950) by its discovery observation on 8 March 1789. But the next year (17 March 1790), Herschel redetermined its position and found 11 48.9, +50 28. Within Herschel's usual errors, this position is identical with that for III 716. Dreyer realized the identity when he was preparing his edition of William Herschel's Scientific Papers which he collected and published in 1912. He also has a brief note about it in MNRAS 73, 37, 1912. I think the NGC positions come from d'Arrest or Tempel, but haven't chased them down yet. Dreyer also has an intriguing note on the pair in the NGC itself: Tempel apparently saw two nebulae here, though d'Arrest picked up only the brightest. The confusion in the current catalogues comes from both CGCG and MCG which identify both numbers differently. There are many faint galaxies in the area (which is right in the plane of the Local Supercluster, and in the heart of the Ursa Major Cloud), but only one with a surface brightness high enough to be picked up easily at the eyepiece. This is the one that Herschel observed at least three times, and can be confidently called "NGC 3922 = NGC 3924." This is MCG +08-22-017 = UGC 06824. Though CGCG and UGC put the number N3924 on UGC 06849 = MCG +08-22-026, this is a low surface brightness galaxy that Herschel probably would not have noticed while sweeping. (Could this be Tempel's second nebula, though? I'll have to check.) Unfortunately, UGC, RNGC, and RC3 copied CGCG's incorrect identification for UGC 06849. ===== NGC 3927 is probably lost for good. D'A has only one observation of it, but he comments, "Observatio haud dubia, Coelum vero non favebat. Defesso caeteroquin oculo et hebetato." Given that, it's perhaps not strange that there is nothing at all at his position, nor at any reasonable position resulting from a digit error. Other galaxies nearby that he might have picked up (e.g. N3964, N4008) all have field stars that d'A would almost surely have noted. ===== NGC 3928 may well be the faintest galaxy known with well-developed spiral structure. See Sidney van den Bergh's short article and splendid photograph in PASP 92, 409, 1980. Also see NGC 3932. ===== NGC 3931. WH's RA is 1 minute too large. This was first mentioned, as far as I can determine, by Anders Reiz in his thesis published in the Lund Annals, No. 9, in 1941. Reinmuth took a much fainter galaxy closer to WH's position as N3931. But even though it is a high-surface-brightness object, it is quite faint and very small. If WH could have seen it, I think he would have simply counted it as a star. Perhaps a visual investigation is in order, but this galaxy is so much fainter than the one just a minute of time preceding, that I think that Reiz must have chosen the correct object. Here is a curious footnote. Dreyer reports in his 1912 notes to WH's lists that Bigourdan could not find NGC 3931. However, looking at Bigourdan's big published table, we find a "Nova" as the very next object following his entry for NGC 3931. He found it the same night that he searched for N3931. Bigourdan did not include this new nebula in any of his lists of new objects, so it has no IC number. Reducing this observation, however, shows that it refers to the very object that Reiz picked up 40 years later. Finally, the number "NGC 3917A" is sometimes put on this object. This was first done by Philip Keenan in a 1935 paper (ApJ 82, 62); I've copied the number only to make it clear which galaxy Keenan actually listed. Let's not carry this any further, shall we? ===== NGC 3932 is a star. D'A has only one observation of it included in his AN 1500 list (where it is No. 125), and in the shorter list (where it is No. 84) that he sent to JH for inclusion in GC (where the NPD is 6 arcsec larger than the NGC NPD). He chose to not include it in his big 2nd monograph; Wolfgang suggests that this was because d'A knew it was a star by that time. In the AN list, d'A describes it as "vF, S. Companion of h. 999 [N3928]," while in the GC, the description reads "vF, v diffic, H.II.740 np." JH is surely responsible for substituting his father's catalogue number for his own, but I suspect that the "v diffic" comes from d'A. I would guess that d'A prepared the two lists at different times from the same observing logs. Perhaps the logs have both "S" and "v diffic" in them. In any event, the faint galaxy chosen by CGCG is not d'A's object -- it is 17 arcmin off his position, and is probably too faint for him to have seen with his 11-inch refractor. RC1 got it right: In the note for NGC 3928, the de Vaucouleurs say "NGC 3932 sf 5.5 arcmin is a star." They also have a reference to Reinmuth (1926, "Die Herschel-Nebel", in Vol. 9 of the Heidelberg publications) who gave the NGC position (d'Arrest's), a diameter of 0.3? x 0.3? arcmin, and the description "* 11.0 in eeF neb?" Reinmuth also classified the object as "(c)" on Wolf's system -- this means a star (or stellar nucleus) surrounded by a corona of faint nebulosity. There is, however, no trace of nebulosity surrounding the star on POSS1 or on POSS2. ===== NGC 3933 and NGC 3934. Dreyer credits these two galaxies only to Borelly, but they were independently discovered by Pechule. I suspect that he does not list Pechule as the positions for the five galaxies in Pechules paper are only estimates from the BD charts while Borelly measured his micrometrically. See NGC 4239 for more about Pechule's discoveries. ===== NGC 3937. See NGC 4055 and IC 2968. ===== NGC 3939 = NGC 3890. This was identified on a plate taken at RGO at Dreyer's request to sort out WH's positions during his sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801; the results were published in MN 71, 509, 1911. Dreyer then labeled III 971 in his 1912 collection of WH's papers as NGC 3890. Curiously, he mentions N3890 in his 1912 MN note giving NGC corrections, but not N3939. See NGC 3752 for more information. ===== NGC 3948 is a star identified precisely by Bigourdan's one measurement in 1886. The RNGC identification with N3954 is wrong. ===== NGC 3949. See NGC 3950. ===== NGC 3950 is probably the faint elliptical galaxy 1.6 arcmin north of NGC 3949. However, LdR's estimated distance from the brighter galaxy on the first night he picked up the companion, and his accordant micrometric measurement three years later in 1875, are clearly 1 arcmin too great. This is all the more puzzling since he gives a table of measurements of six stars surrounding N3949 -- all of those measurements are very good (he notes one as possibly nebulous; it is not). Still, he could have seen the fainter galaxy, and it seems likely that he made a simple error in its distance from the brighter. ===== NGC 3952 = IC 2972, which see. The NGC identification is not in doubt. ===== NGC 3954 is not NGC 3948, which see. ===== NGC 3955. See IC 2970. ===== NGC 3957 = IC 2965, which see. ===== NGC 3964. See NGC 3927. ===== NGC 3965 is probably the faint galaxy that I've noted in the table. It has a star 4 arcmin north-preceding as noted by Francis Leavenworth. The star is not as bright as his "9.5" -- V = 11.3, according to AC2000.2, but I would expect him to overestimate the magnitude with a telescope as large as the 26-inch he was using. Nor is the galaxy unreasonably far off his position, 44 seconds of time preceding. The mystery here is why neither I in ESGC, nor Jack Sulentic in RNGC, noted the object. The declination is right, and I knew about the poor RA's in the Leander McCormick lists, so why did I not pick it up? The magnitude more or less matches Leavenworth's estimate (16.0), and the size is appropriate, too (0.1 arcmin), as is his "R, bMN" note. Perhaps I just did not believe that he could dig out a galaxy that faint. While this should be checked visually, I'm fairly certain that the galaxy is Leavenworth's object. ===== NGC 3966 = NGC 3986. d'A's position (from a single observation) is one of the few verifiably bad ones in his list. His description fits NGC 3986 perfectly, and he notes the unresolved 12th magnitude double just southwest exactly in its place relative to the galaxy. Finally, he comments, "Found while looking for [N3986]; this is either a nova, or my RA is inexplicably erroneous." His RA is 1m 30s off, and his declination is 10 arcmin off, too. The galaxy chosen by Max Wolf as N3966 is actually IC 2981 (which see as it has problems of its own). Wolf's note about N3966 in his 8th list was copied into the IC2 notes by Dreyer, apparently during its final stages of preparation since Dreyer did not include any of the 8th list objects in the IC itself. ===== NGC 3971 = NGC 3984, which see. ===== NGC 3975 may possibly also be IC 3166, which see. ===== NGC 3977 = NGC 3980, which see. ===== NGC 3978 may possibly also be IC 3180. See IC 3166 for the story. ===== NGC 3979 = IC 2976. Here is a galaxy discovered twice by Lewis Swift, once toward the beginning of his systematic sweeping for new nebulae (April 1886), and once toward the end (May 1897). His first position is not too bad, being only 8 seconds of time and 1.2 arcmin off the galaxy. But he was not the first to see it; that was Edward Holden in April of 1881. Holden found it first on the 23rd, but only estimated the RA then. On the 27th, he measured it at 42 seconds of time preceding the star BD -1d 2593. And that position is close to the modern one. But for the NGC entry, Dreyer chose to use an average, at least in RA, of Holden's and Swift's; he adopted Holden's declination (about 1.5 arcmin north of the galaxy). For the IC, of course, Dreyer had only Swift's second position, 1.5 minutes off -- no wonder he thought Swift had found a new nebula! But there is nothing in Swift's position. The identification is ensured by Swift's comment about the "vF * near nf". This is the same star that Holden called "A star 11.5 n and f 30 [arcsec]." ===== NGC 3980 = NGC 3977. Swift's position is only an arcminute following N3977, there is nothing there, and the double star he notes is 3 arcmin following the galaxy. The identity is sure. ===== NGC 3984 is almost certainly the same object as NGC 3971. John Herschel found N3984 during his Sweep 342 (10 April 1831), and described it as "eF, R, bM, 25 arcsec." He adds an interesting note (aluded to in the IC2 Notes by Dreyer): "Supposed at the time to be II.724 [NGC 3971], but on reducing the obs, it differs 1 min in RA and 1 deg in PD, BOTH which can hardly be mistakes" (Sir John's emphasis). Yet the only reasonable solution is to say that both ARE mistakes. JH found N3971 in Sweep 67 (2 April 1827), describing it "pB, R, bM. An exact obs." The difference in estimated brightness is significant, but many of JH's multiply-observed objects have the same wide range of description. Otherwise, however, the descriptions for these two objects are the same. Also, the position that he gives for N3971 is (within his usual statistical errors) 1 degree north, and 1 minute preceding N3984, just as he noted. Since each nebula was noted in only one sweep, and since there are only very faint stars in the vicinity of his position for N3984, I am going to adopt the identity. ===== NGC 3986 = NGC 3966, which see. ===== NGC 3993 is not H III 324. WH's object is, instead, NGC 3997, which see. ===== NGC 3996 is not NGC 4019, which see. ===== NGC 3997 is the second brightest galaxy in a group of three found by WH in 1785. JH found it again 40 years later during his northern sweeps from Slough, and LdR and his observers noted over a dozen companions in the area. All these are in NGC, and Dreyer has the numbers pretty well sorted out (though NGC 4009, which see, is a star; and NGC 4007, which also see -- due to a 2 deg error in GC or in CH's reduction -- is identical to NGC 4005 also seen by Otto Struve at St. Petersberg). However, Dreyer, in his 1912 Scientific Papers of WH, has put the number H III 324 on NGC 3993, presumably because it is the closest galaxy northeast of H III 323 (= N3987). WH says only, "Suspected another nf, eF, 5 or 6 arcmin dist, pretty sure." Though his estimated distance falls directly between N3993 and N3997, the latter galaxy is brighter, larger, and (in the central regions at least) has a higher surface brightness. So, I'm pretty sure that it is the one seen by WH. As I noted above, it was also seen by JH -- it is, in fact, the only one of the group seen by him. He rather confused the issue a bit by listing it as "III 323" in his 1833 catalogue. ===== NGC 4004 = NGC 4004A. The secondary designation comes from Holmberg's 1937 monograph and catalogue of multiple galaxies. He always called the brightest galaxy of a multiplet "a", the second "b", and so on. In this case, "NGC 4004B" is IC 2982 (which see). ===== NGC 4005 = NGC 4007, which see. ===== NGC 4006 is not IC 2983, which see. ===== NGC 4007 = NGC 4005. First found by WH in 1785, this object was recovered by LdR and his observers, and by Otto Struve. Dreyer caught the identity when he revisited the area during preparation of WH's Scientific Papers. In GC, JH has the galaxy two degrees too far south, either because of a transcription error by him or a reduction error by CH. See NGC 3997 for more on this group. ===== NGC 4008. See NGC 3927. ===== NGC 4009 is a star identified exactly by LdR's micrometric measurements referred to a brighter star. It is often taken as the fainter galaxy 3.5 arcmin further northeast, but the measurements leave no doubt as to its correct identity. ===== NGC 4014 = NGC 4028, which see. ===== NGC 4019 = IC 755. Though JH's position is 2 min 16 sec and 6 arcmin off the true position of I755, the IC object is the only galaxy in the area to have a 9th magnitude star 5 arcmin southeast, matching JH's note. Other possibilities include NGC 3996 (but seen in the same sweep as N4019), NGC 4037 (this has an 8th magnitude star following by 6-7 arcmin, but the star is a bit north, not south), and CGCG 069-010 (but that has a pretty low surface brightness and no bright star near). There is nothing at JH's position, so I'm pretty sure that I755 is the correct object. Malcolm notes, however, that there is a 9th magnitude star southeast of JH's (empty) position. This throws a little doubt on the I755 identity, but requires that JH's object be a comet. This is a possibility, but I think that the equality with I755 is more likely. ===== NGC 4028 = NGC 4014, in spite of what JH had to say in a note in GC (repeated by Dreyer in the NGC Notes). This is one of WH's early discoveries (30 Dec 1783). As with other objects found during the fall and winter of 1783-1784, the position is not very good. However, WH's full record is published by Dreyer in the 1912 Scientific Papers. There, we find the note, "... It forms an isosceles triangle with two small stars {Dreyer's note:} [by a diagram, these are about 6 arcmin sp.]. ..." The stars precede N4014 by the correct amount, so I am pretty sure that it is WH's nebula. This requires WH to have made two 2 min errors in his RA offsets from two different stars on two different nights. While it is highly unlikely that he would make two such errors leading to much the same position -- this is what prompted JH's comment -- this is apparently exactly what happened. The configuration on the sky is too outstanding to be mistaken. ===== NGC 4032 is probably not NGC 4042, which see. Also see NGC 4055. ===== NGC 4037. See NGC 4019. ===== NGC 4042 is Marth 227, found the same night in March 1865 as N4056 (which see) and N4060. If the offsets (about 10 seconds of time, and 1 arcmin) suggested for those other two galaxies are even roughly correct, then N4042 can be tentatively identified with a galaxy in GSC at 12 00 13.2 +20 26 31. The declination offset would be the same as for the other objects, but the RA offset would be considerably larger at 26 seconds. Still, there are no other galaxies even remotely close to Marth's position that would match his description. Another possibility is that N4042 is a star somewhere in the area. RC1 raises the possiblility that it is identical to NGC 4032, but that would lead to an error of over 2 minutes of time and 5 arcmin, making it unique amoung Marth's objects of that night. In the end, I'm not sure what Marth really saw, but the galaxy 26 seconds off his position seems the best choice. ===== NGC 4045 (is also NGC 4046, which see), discovered by WH, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" in 1877. It is Todd's number (13b). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 4046 = NGC 4045. D'Arrest himself first suggested this identity, and Dreyer repeated the suggestion in an NGC note. Unfortunately, the Mt. Wilson observers (probably Hubble) took another, fainter galaxy on to the east (CGCG 013-049). This appeared as a "correction" to the NGC position in Table 3 of Dorothy Carlson's 1940 ApJ paper. However, reading d'A's full description makes it clear that he did in fact see NGC 4045 (a joint translation from his Latin by James Bryan and me): "Makes a triangle with two stars 13 and 16, southward and following the nebula 6.6 seconds." While the Mt. Wilson object does make a triangle with two stars, they are nearly of equal brightness, and they are north and west of the galaxy, not east and south. The stars near NGC 4045 are close to where d'A says they are -- though it is just possible that his southern star is actually CGCG 013-045 (sometimes called "NGC 4045A"). This fainter galaxy has a faint star just southwest that d'A might have seen. Eyepiece work is called for here. D'A's eastern star, the brighter of the two, is closer to 5.5 seconds east rather than his 6.6 seconds. Is this perhaps a typographical error of some sort? It seems more likely to me to be simply a rough observation. So, the bottom line is that d'A certainly made a 15 arcminute error in his declination. The identity is therefore sure. ===== NGC 4052. There is nothing at JH's place, but 1 minute of time west is a cluster, about 9 arcmin by 9 arcmin, that fits his description ("Clust