IC 11 = NGC 281. IC 11 is one of Barnard's discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer; it is not, so far as I know, in any of Barnard's published papers. Though included in Cederblad's catalogue of bright diffuse nebulae (and thus plotted in several atlases), it is not on the sky in Barnard's position. I have not found it on the POSS, nor on plate 89 of Barnard's own collection of comet and Milky Way photographs (Lick Publ. XI; 1913). However, the triple star mentioned in the description suggests the identity with NGC 281, and makes the RA just 30 minutes of time too small. I suspect a simple transcription error on Barnard's part. ===== IC 26 = NGC 135, which see. ===== IC 39 = NGC 178, which see. ===== IC 44 = NGC 223 is the brighter of two galaxies (N219 is the fainter). These were found by G.P. Bond at Harvard, and N223 was independently discovered by d'Arrest. The positions and descriptions are good. Swift's later description is also appropriate, especially his reference to the two stars flanking the galaxy, each about 3 arcmin away in PA's 160 deg and 340 deg. The latter of these stars is also noted by Bond in his description of NGC 219. ===== IC 45 can probably be taken as a pair of stars near Bigourdan's position. Malcolm Thomson and Steve Gottlieb have pointed out that the identification of UGC 449 as IC 45 in several modern lists, including my first guess in 1976 about its identity, is incorrect. Bigourdan's original observations support their idea. Bigourdan found the 106th and 107th of his "new nebulae" on 15 Nov 1889, but measured only the first, giving an estimated position to the second of the two. A decade later, he remeasured the first, could not find the second, but noticed a "Granulated object which could be a small cluster about 40 arcsec across" nearby. He measured the object twice that night; his reduced position is almost exactly on the brighter of two stars aligned nearly east/west and separated by about 20 arcsec. Even though his original estimated position (where he found nothing because there is nothing there!) is in the IC with the cursory description "Suspected nebula," his final list of novae has the later position with the note "Small cluster?" Thus, we take the asterism as his object even though it is not, strictly speaking, represented by the entry in the IC. ===== IC 48 = IC 1577. The position as originally published by Barnard (AN 3097; MNRAS 55, 451) is correct. In reducing the declination to 1860, however, Dreyer applied the precession with the wrong sign. This galaxy is also identical to I1577 which has an 1 min error in its RA. Barnard apparently rediscovered this after his move to Yerkes. As with so many others of his later nebulae, he sent the discovery note directly to Dreyer rather than publishing it. Barnard thought this nebula was variable: is it perhaps a Seyfert galaxy (the colors and spectrum are normal for an S0, however), or was there possibly a supernova near the nucleus? ===== IC 67 and IC 68. Bigourdan has rough measurements of IC 67 (B109) and IC 68 (B110) on 21 Nov 1889, placing them both at PA = 152 deg , 4 arcmin and 6 arcmin, respectively, from BD -7 158. On 6 Dec 1898, he puts IC 67 at the same place, but says of IC 68, "I cannot see this nebula. Perhaps it was confused with 109 Big." On the next night (7 Dec 1898), he has this to say about IC 67 (he didn't measure it then), "Pretty stellar object; I can't comment clearly on its nature." There is nothing in either of these positions on the POSS, not even faint stars. As with other similar objects, I think that -- knowing that he was in a group of nebulae -- he was pushing his eyes too hard, perhaps on a less than ideal night. ===== IC 68. See IC 67. ===== IC 71 and IC 72. For IC 71 (Big 111), Bigourdan has observations and crude measures on two nights. On 21 Nov 1889, he roughly measured an "exceedingly faint" nebula at 280 deg , 4' from BD -7 deg 159; while on 6 Dec 1898, he found a "stellar object" at 295 deg , 5' from the BD star. While the second estimate is closer to a faint star, I think that both observations must refer to that same star; there is nothing else nearby which he could have seen. I've listed the GSC position of this star in the main table. He observed IC 72 (B112) only once (21 Nov 89): "stellar object, probably nebulous" at 347 deg, 2' from the BD star. On the second night, (6 Dec 1898), he notes "Object only suspected" and gives no measures or even estimates of its position. There is a faint star at 5 deg, 1.3' from the BD star, and I suspect it is this that he saw and mistook as nebulous. However, the actual offset is rather far from his estimated place (especially the position angle), so I don't place much weight in this identification. Nevertheless, I list the star's GSC position under the IC number in the main table. There is nothing else nearby that he might have seen. ===== IC 72. See IC 71. ===== IC 77 and IC 80 are two of Javelle's galaxies in the core of Abell 151. He found both on 31 August 1892, and measured both with respect to BD -16 189. His positions are very good since the BD position for the star is within 10 arcsec of the modern position. MCG misidentified IC 80 as IC 77. This has caused some confusion in modern catalogues, though RC2 has the right IC number on the pair, calling the brighter of the two "IC 80A" (though the RC2 position is for the southern; my apologies!). That is MCG -03-04-008 which is actually northeast of MCG -03-04-009, the fainter galaxy, called "IC 80B" in RC2 (again my apologies for the wrong position in RC2). These are the two objects in the cluster with redshifts measured by Milton Humason at Mt. Wilson. Though not called IC 80 by him, his finding chart points unambiguously to them. See the HMS 1956 AJ paper for the finding chart and redshifts. ===== IC 80. MCG misidentified this as IC 77. See that for more. ===== IC 87. See IC 88. ===== IC 88 was misidentified in MCG. Unfortunately, LEDA carried the wrong galaxy along for a while. The right one is not in MCG, but is cleanly identified by Javelle's micrometric measurement. Curiously, IC 87, measured just a few minutes before IC 88, was correctly identified for MCG. Given that the IC positions are within an arcminute of the modern positions (and Javelle's when a good position is used for his reference star), the relative offset might have been a clue to IC 88's correct identification. ===== IC 89 = NGC 446, which see. ===== IC 92 = NGC 468, and IC 94. JH's NPD for N468 (correctly transcribed into the NGC) is about 4 arcmin south of the galaxy. So, when Bigourdan went over the area late in 1885 and again in 1900, he incorrectly identified a star closer to JH's position as N468. On the same nights, he found what he thought were two new nebulae in the area. One of these (IC 94) is another star, but the other (I92) is the galaxy that JH found. So, it now has entries in both catalogues. The identity was first suggested in MCG. ===== IC 93 = IC 1671, which see. ===== IC 94 is a star. See IC 92. ===== IC 97 = NGC 475, which see. ===== IC 106 = NGC 530. This "bug" arose because of bad timing. Bigourdan found the galaxy in November of 1887, just a year after Swift had first discovered it. Swift sent the discovery to Dreyer in a letter (from which it went into the NGC), then published the galaxy in his sixth list. Bigourdan also published the galaxy as a "nova" after the NGC appeared, but apparently did not realize that it was Swift's object because of the difference in RA. So, it got an IC number, too. When Bigourdan went over the area again in 1897, he had completely forgotten his earlier observation, so remeasured the galaxy with respect to the same comparison star. This second time, he recognized that the object was the same one Swift had seen and gave it its NGC number in his list. He also noted the difference in RA. Howe also caught the RA difference and published a corrected position in 1898. This appeared as a note in the second IC. Dreyer also added the identity to Howe's corrected RA. Finally, MCG suggested that the galaxy was also IC 1696, but that is a different galaxy a few arcminutes southeast found by Howe. ===== IC 107 = IC 1700 (which also see). This is the brightest of three galaxies near Swift's position. The position given by Swift -- 20 sec in error -- coincidentally falls near IC 1699, the faintest of the three. Swift, however, mentions the star 0.5 arcmin southwest, confirming the identification with the brightest. Javelle later took the brightest as a new discovery, so it received the second IC number. ===== IC 110 might be a double star, but is more likely one of Bigourdan's illusory objects, or it suffers from a misidentified comparison star. He found it the night of 5 November 1885, and based his position for it on an estimated offset from IC 111: "Mag 13.5 object situated near Big 121 [IC 111] at PA = 320 deg, distance = 0.8 arcmin; it could be a little nebulous." There is nothing in that position (there is also nothing in the place of IC 111, but that is another story, which see). About 30 arcsec northeast of the estimated place, however, is a faint double star that Bigourdan might possibly have seen. Is this IC 110? I doubt it. Since there is no trace of IC 111 at its place -- nevertheless micrometrically measured -- IC 110 is just as unlikely to be in its estimated place. The possibility still exists that it is a real star or galaxy, but I do not see a pair of objects of the right descriptions in the area offset from a star similarly bright as the nominal comparison star (BD +33 250). ===== IC 111, like IC 110 (which see), is probably lost. Bigourdan has three observations of I111 on two different nights at two different positions. His first micrometrically measured place, which is the IC position, comes from 5 November 1885, but there is nothing at all within an arcmin of that position. He describes the "object" simply: "This object could be a star accompanied by a little nebulosity." The second position, from two measurements on 19 December 1900, is about 2 arcmin away from the first in the midst of an asterism of 6 faint stars. This is not the IC position, so even though Bigourdan's description ("Slightly granulated object about 30 arcsec in diameter; it could be formed by several small dispersed stars in the guise of a pretty nebulous ensemble") and position are appropriate for the asterism, I can't really take this as the IC object. What, then, does his first observation 15 years earlier refer to? Unless he misidentified his comparison star (he calls it BD +33 250), this is one of Bigourdan's illusory objects like NGC 2529 and NGC 2531. He also claimed to have found IC 110 nearby. That, too, is missing, and I don't see a pair of objects, stars or galaxies, in the area offset from a star similar to BD +33 250 that might fit his observations. ===== IC 116. See IC 117. ===== IC 117 = NGC 560. Every now and then, I can do really silly things. When I started on this project, I did not have a good feel for the original data that went into the NGC and ICs. So, I tended to overlook obvious points that now leap off the page at me. Javelle's descriptions, for example. Dreyer called the 58th nebula in Javelle's first list "pF, S, dif, III 441 [NGC 560] sf." Well, the only object north-preceding NGC 560 is a pretty bright star. So, I took that star to be IC 117 without checking Javelle's original paper. Are pretty bright stars "pF," "S," and -- especially -- "dif" [diffuse]?" Not usually. So, 29 years later, when I ran across my note that this was a star, I looked at Javelle's original monograph to find out what's wrong. Well, Dreyer got the data copied into the IC correctly, but he apparently interpreted Javelle's footnote "On a vu les nebuleuses NGC 558, 560, 564" simply as "III 441 sf". NGC 560 would indeed be "sf" if IC 117 were at the position that Javelle says it is, but there is nothing there. The star is about 20 arcsec northeast of Javelle's position, so it is definitely not the object he measured. Re-reducing his observation does us no good as that lands within the round-off error of the correctly-copied NGC position. Did Javelle perhaps make a sign error? Nope -- there is nothing at any of the offsets implied by such an error. How about his comparison star? Well, on the night in question, he observed another nearby nebula (IC 116) using BD -2 221 as his comparison star. He claims to have used BD -2 220 for IC 117; is it possible that he used 221 instead? Actually, yes. Reducing his observation with the modern position for BD -2 221 drops his position within 2 arcsec of the nucleus of NGC 560. There is no doubt that IC 117 = NGC 560. By the way, Carlson claims in her 1940 collection of Mt. Wilson identifications that IC 117 = NGC 558. I do not know what this is based on -- the nominal position of IC 117 is closer to NGC 560 than it is to NGC 558. ===== IC 124 is a star. Javelle's micrometric position is within 6 arcsec of the modern positions, though his description "Very faint, very small, diffuse; there is a very small brilliant point in the nebulosity" does not fit the star. Perhaps he made his measurement during a spell of less than perfect seeing, or ... Fill in the dots with your own hypothesis. There are many other such objects in the IC with no explanations. The observers obviously thought they had bagged new nebulae. We shall probably never know exactly why so many of these "novae" turned out to be nothing more than single stars. ===== IC 131 is a group of HII regions immersed in two small star clouds in M33. It is often misidentified as the much brighter compact HII region about half an arcminute preceding the northern star cloud. This cannot be the IC object as Bigourdan's measurements clearly point at the star clouds, his description fits them, and he specifically mentions the compact HII region calling it a 13.5 magnitude star. ===== IC 134 is a star superposed on the northern side of M33. Though Bigourdan estimated its position on only night, and noted it as "only suspected," there are no other objects in the area that are bright enough that he could have seen. ===== IC 135, IC 136, IC 139, and IC 140. These are all HII regions or star clouds in M33. There is an error in Bigourdan's estimated offset from M33's nucleus of his comparison star for these four. He claims that the 10th magnitude comparison star is 8' south, and 31 seconds of time preceding the nucleus. There is no star that bright in that position. However, there is a star of the right brightness 8 arcmin south and 31 seconds of time following the nucleus. When Bigourdan's measured offsets for his four novae are referred to this star, the four objects can be pretty easily identified (but see IC 139!). ===== IC 136. See IC 135. ===== IC 138. See IC 1528. ===== IC 139. The identity is not quite certain. I first measured the position of a star cloud that I thought was IC 139, but this turned out to be half an arcminute north of Bigourdan's micrometric position. Checking the field, however, I found that his position is very clearly on a foreground star (or possibly a compact HII region?) of about 14th magnitude embedded in a confused area of fainter stars. His description is telling, too, as he refers to a nebula about 30 arcsec across with a brighter central point that he measured. It seems likely that the combination of the star and the background light of M33 led him to think he had found a nebula. The position I've adopted, after some consultation with Steve Gottlieb and Tony Flanders, is that of the 14th magnitude star. I've measured two or three other star clouds in the area as well and their positions are in the table, too. Also see IC 135 for a note on the identity and position of Bigourdan's comparison star. ===== IC 140. See IC 135. ===== IC 146 = NGC 648. The NGC object is one of those found at Leander McCormick soon after their 26-inch refractor went into service. The galaxy not given a good position: the nominal RA is 1.6 minutes of time too far east -- though the declination is only two arcminutes out -- and there is no surviving sketch. There are no other candidate galaxies, so the identification is pretty secure. The eastward RA error is a common one in the first two lists of nebulae found with the 26-inch. The position was corrected by Herbert Howe in one of his Monthly Notices articles. Dreyer copied Howe's corrected RA into the IC2 Notes. Unfortunately, neither Howe nor Dreyer noticed that the corrected position coincided with that of IC 146, found in September of 1892 by Javelle with the 30-inch refractor at Nice. Javelle's micrometrically measured position is good, and the IC identity is not in doubt. ===== IC 151, IC 152, IC 153, and IC 157. Four "nebulae" found by Swift for which his positions refer to nothing in the area. (The galaxy identified as IC 152 in CGCG could well be one of those seen by Swift. But the position is well off and nothing else nearby matches). A thorough examination of POSS plates E-14 and O-15 revealed no galaxies matching his descriptions or relative positions. ===== IC 152 is lost; see IC 151. ===== IC 153 is also lost. Again, see IC 151. ===== IC 155 does not exist. Found by Wolf on an early Heidelburg plate. The position has been copied correctly into the IC, and Wolf gives it three times in his short paper, so there can be no large error in his reduction or in publication. This, therefore, may be one of the earliest examples of a photographic plate defect being mistaken for a nebula. ===== IC 157. This, too, is lost; see IC 151. ===== IC 161 and IC 162. Swift's positions are again not good, but it seems likely that he saw the brightest of the three galaxies in the area in 1889, and the two brightest in 1890. Therefore, his position for the brightest (IC 161) would be 10 arcmin in error for the 1890 observation. The original IC data should read as follows: IC 161 Sw IX and X 01 41 20 80 20.4 eeF, pS, lE IC 162 Sw X 01 41 23 80 20.3 eeF, pS, R ===== IC 162. See IC 161. ===== IC 165 = NGC 684. Dreyer does not give any references in the IC2 Notes for the source of this identity. However, Steve Gottlieb has found that Isaac Roberts (in AN 3429) notes the identity on one of his early photographic plates. It's likely that Dreyer picked it up in this article. The galaxy was rediscovered, by the way, by Edward Swift, Lewis Swift's teenage son, in January 1890 while Edward was "searching for Swift's Comet." The comet was presumeably one of his father's. ===== IC 177. One of the rare cases of a rather large error in Javelle's positions. Two fainter galaxies are to the south, one of which was mistakenly identified in the MCG as I177. ===== IC 186. Javelle noted this as a double nebula, though there are actually three components -- the eastern galaxy is itself a close double. There is a much fainter compact galaxy south of the western component, but Javelle could not have seen it with the Nice 30-inch. ===== IC 187 and IC 188. Though large errors exist in Swift's places for these two galaxies, they could have been seen by him, and the descriptions are not inconsistent. ===== IC 188. See IC 187. ===== IC 191 = NGC 794. Swift's position is just nine seconds preceding JH's (adopted for GC and NGC), close enough that Dreyer suggested the identification in the IC. The descriptions are quite different, however, suggesting that Swift picked up the galaxy on a particularly good night, while WH and JH must have seen it on poor nights, or when their speculum mirrors needed repolishing. In any case, the identity is almost certain as there are no other galaxies nearby that the Herschel's or Swift could have seen. ===== IC 198. See IC 199. ===== IC 199 = IC 1778. When the same galaxy is discovered twice by the same observer, it is usually by one whose positions are not very good (e.g. Lewis Swift has quite a few objects in his lists that he "discovered" more than once). It is rather unusual that Javelle, who measured everything he found micrometrically, should list the same object as new in two different lists. Yet that is what he has done. When his observations are reduced, they fall within about a dozen seconds of each other, and both point unmistakeably to the same galaxy. Even more curiously, on the second night (29 Jan 1897), he noted that he also remeasured another of his "novae," IC 198, from the first night (15 Dec 1892). Yet he did not recognize that his observations of the object in question were in fact for the same object. Curious indeed, but there it is. ===== IC 200. The galaxy 34s following the IC position is probably too faint to have been seen by Safford, and the description does not match in any case. The object 2 minutes of time following does match his description, and a 2 min digit error is more likely to be made than a 34s error. See IC 1008, IC 1026, and IC 1030 for other notes on nebulae found by Safford with the Clark 18.5-inch that also share digit errors in their RA's. ===== IC 206 and IC 207. The positions were referred to the wrong star by Javelle. The relative positions are exact, and the descriptions match. I209 (whose place in Javelle's list is correct), referred to what Javelle supposed to be the same star, was found and measured one night later than I206 and I207. ===== IC 207. See IC 206. ===== IC 209. See IC 206. ===== IC 210. See IC 1528. ===== IC 217 = IC 1787, which see. ===== IC 225 may also be NGC 867, which see. ===== IC 228 = NGC 944, which see. ===== IC 229. A nebula is marked on the CD chart, and Dreyer read its position correctly from the chart -- but it does not, in fact, exist. Since Thome was observing with a small telescope (12.5 cm), it is unlikely that he saw and incorrectly recorded any of the fainter galaxies in the area. Unlike the other four "nebulae" found by Thome (IC 1023, 1203, 1207, and 1290), this one is not an asterism, either. The nebula is not on the 1929 edition of the CD charts, so may have been an error affecting only the first edition. ===== IC 233 has been misidentified as the fainter, southern galaxy of a pair, most recently by LEDA and NED. It is, of course, the northern, brighter object. That has the star south 1 arcmin, too, just as Javelle noted. ===== IC 240 is probably a line of four faint stars. The IC position is correctly copied from Bigourdan's second list of novae in Comptes Rendus, but his detailed observations suggest that he applied his estimated offsets to the comparison star with the wrong signs. In that case, the position would be about an arcmin southeast of NGC 996; there is nothing there. However, this observation is in Bigourdan's list of errata. There we find that the data in the big table is reversed from its true values: "In place of PA = 30 deg, read 210 deg and change the signs of delta RA and delta Dec." When this is done, we can recover the IC position, and find that it falls near the line of stars. I'm still curious about his description in Comptes Rendus: "Mag. 13.3; 35-40 arcsec." His description in the observation list reads only "eF, only suspected." Where did the size come from? (There are several other such discrepancies among his published novae.) In this case, there is no supplemental observation, so the source of his size estimate remains a mystery. In any case, it's clear that Bigourdan was not much interested in his "novae," and preferred to spend his time measuring the brighter, well-known nebulae. ===== IC 242 is one of a double star. Javelle's position is not good enough to tell us which one, and his description, "eF, eS; nearly in contact with a very small star," does not give us relative positions, either. But it looks as though the proximity of the two stars misled him to seeing nebulosity where there is none. IC 243, found the same night, and less than 3 arcmin to the northeast, is well-measured with respect to the same comparison star, so there is no possibility of a mistaken comparison star for IC 242. ===== IC 243. See IC 242. ===== IC 249 = NGC 1051 = NGC 961. In spite of Javelle's assertion that IC 249 is "distinct from NGC 1051" (he says nothing about the relative orientations; that is Dreyer's interpretation for IC1), his measured position shows that it is the same object as the one that Stephan saw (and later Stone; his RA is 10 minutes off, leading to the number N961 for his observation). Here are the precise positions: RA (1950.0) Dec Notes Stephan 02 38 34.63 -07 08 52.0 (Re-reduced wrt GSC pos for comp *) (NGC 35 08.9) Javelle 02 38 33.57 -07 08 56.2 (Ditto) Bigourdan 02 38 34.07 -07 09 03.5 (Ditto; one delta dec rej). Skiff 02 38 34.15 -07 08 59.9 GSC 02 38 34.01 -07 08 57.5 n = 2 HC 02 38 34.1 -07 09 00 Sup * GSC 02 38 35.69 -07 08 33.7 n = 2 Notice that Stephan's position is about 1.05 seconds (16 arcsec) following Javelle's, though the declinations agree to within the errors. One possible source of the large difference is proper motion of the comparison stars. This could be significant since each of the visual observers used only one comparison star each (each used a different star). However, Stephan's comparison star (BD -7 490 = Weisse 678) is almost 1.5 degrees away from the galaxy, while Javelle's and Bigourdan's are about 5-6 arcmin distant. Therefore, I'm inclined to give a lower weight to Stephan's position for NGC 1051 than to Javelle's or Bigourdan's. It's also possible, of course, that one or the other of them simply made a 1 second of time error somewhere in their reduction or transcription to the publication. However, when Javelle made his measurement, Stephan's was the only other micrometric observation, so Javelle probably assumed that it was correct. This might lead him to believe that the difference (21 arcsec) between St's RA (as given in NGC) and his own is significant. The difference is coincidentally close to the RA difference (25 arcsec) in the GSC between the galaxy and the superposed star north following. If Javelle saw the star with even the slightest haze, he could well have thought that it was the real NGC 1051, since it is considerably brighter than the galaxy. Thus, he would have listed the galaxy as a "new" object even though it is clearly the same one that Stephan and Stone saw. The similar descriptions from all the observers, including Steve Gottlieb's, also point to their having seen the same object. Unfortunately, as was his custom, Javelle did not mention the superposed star. ===== IC 256. This identification is now (March 2005) fairly secure. The object I've picked for IC 256 is very faint, and I'm surprised that Swift could see it. However, Steve Gottlieb reports a solid detection with his 17.5-inch reflector, so it is conceiveable that Swift could indeed have picked it up with 16-inch refractor. This particular galaxy falls out almost by default if the two brighter objects Swift found nearby -- on the same night -- get the numbers IC 257 and IC 260. Swift's absolute positions for those two are not too bad, but his descriptions help only with I260 -- he has it "in line with 2 nr F sts"; the stars are there. He notes his other two objects as being "in [a] vacancy." This isn't quite true as this is a low-latitude field rich in faint stars, but there are no eye-catchingly bright stars near the galaxies. Finally, there is nothing at his position for I256 except I257. I had earlier posed the question "Is this another case where an observer picked up the same galaxy twice on the same night?" Well, maybe, but it's doubtful. In any event, I'm going to take this galaxy as IC 256 on the basis of Steve's observation. The galaxy, by the way, is either a double galaxy, nearly completely merged, or a galaxy with a faint star superposed just 4-5 arcsec north of the nucleus. None of the images I've seen are completely clear about the nature of the northern object, at least without detailed photometry and/or spectroscopy. ===== IC 257. See IC 256. ===== IC 258 and IC 259. Burnham gives his original observations and reductions for these two nebulae in Lick Obs. Publ., II, 181, 1894. All his measurements and computations are correct, but his final position for "Neb. II." (= IC 259) is 30 seconds of time in error. ===== IC 259. See IC 258. ===== IC 260. See IC 256. ===== IC 261 = NGC 1120, which see. ===== IC 263 and IC 264. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Malcolm Thomson found the correct one: BD -0deg 436 (Javelle incorrectly claimed -0deg 438). When this change is made, CGCG 389-027 clearly becomes IC 263, with Javelle's re-reduced position falling within 2 arcsec of the nucleus. IC 264, however, is subject to yet another error: Javelle's printed RA offset has the wrong sign. When changed to the correct minus sign, I264 is shown to be a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy matching Javelle's description. As with I263, his re-reduced position is within 2 arcsec of the nucleus. ===== IC 264. See IC 263. ===== IC 274. There is nothing much near Swift's position. About 7 arcmin northeast is a galaxy that he might have seen, however. And 3 arcmin east is a small group of stars (a double and a triple) that could also be the object he saw. Unfortunately, he does not tell us anything about the star field, so neither of these is a very solid identification. ===== IC 275 is a triple galaxy close to Swift's position. It's possible that his object is only one of the three, and that the "F star near preceding" is a second. There are also two candidates for his "D star nr sp", the prime one being a wide double about 3 arcmin southwest. ===== IC 280 may be no more than an asterism of 4 faint stars. There are no galaxies or nebulae within 10 arcmin of Swift's position, and his description is scanty enough to make the stars a likely candidate. Also, Swift's positions for the other four objects found that night are pretty good, aside from a -1 minute error in the RA of IC 282 (which see). ===== IC 281 = NGC 1177. This is a clear case of oversight on Dreyer's part, as well as Swift's. The positions are very close, and the descriptions are also very similar. Dreyer himself made a measurement of N1177 with Lord Rosse's 72-inch, so it surprises me a bit that he did not check Swift's observation more closely with the NGC. Whatever happened, the identity is sure. See NGC 1177 for more on this field. ===== IC 282 = NGC 1198. Swift's RA is just -1 minute of time out. Otherwise, the position is good, and his description fits. ===== IC 286 is lost, though perhaps not permanently. Bigourdan found it while searching for NGC 1202 (which see, and which is about 24 seconds of time preceding Ormond Stone's discovery position for it), but gave it only an estimated offset from a star at 03 01 54, -06 39 (1950). Unfortunately, there is no star at that nominal position. Bigourdan notes the star at 43 seconds preceding and half an arcminute south of a star he called BD -7 545. This is 10 seconds following Bigourdan's nominal position, and there is still nothing there. I also checked at 43 seconds following the BD star -- nothing. In his description of NGC 1202 (which he claims to have seen, but did not measure because of its faintness), Bigourdan describes the field around the BD star: "It [NGC 1202] is situated at PA = 175 deg, d = 2.5-3 arcmin with respect to the star BD -7 545. This star, magnitude 9.0, has a companion 12-12.5 toward PA = 125 deg, distance 1 arcmin." This precise description of the field does not match what we see on the sky around the star, so I am almost certain that Bigourdan misidentified some other star as the BD star. A search for several degrees around BD -7 545 fails to turn up any other star of similar brightness with companions in the relative places Bigourdan gives. So, I've been unable so far to recover the objects which he took for NGC 1202 and IC 286. My earlier conjecture that IC 286 = NGC 1202 was based purely on the fact that Bigourdan's nominal position for I286 is 15 seconds of time away from NGC 1202. Given the problems with the comparison stars, that conjecture is clearly wrong. There are couple of things still to check. For example, did Bigourdan by mistake look at BD +7 545, or BD -7 454? Until we've covered those possibilities, it may be premature to declare IC 286 "Not found." By the way, IC 286 is not NGC 1202 as I supposed in ESGC. Bigourdan saw the two of them, or thought he did, on the same night, 14 December 1890. ===== IC 290 = IC 1884. IC 290 was found near Algol by Swift on 11 September 1888 along with several other galaxies. His positions are not particularly good, so Barnard thought that he discovered the group when he was working in the area sometime later. He did not publish his observations, but sent them directly to Dreyer. Fortunately, his positions are good in this case, so we don't need to appeal to the original observations for verification. The other galaxies involved are IC 1883 = NGC 1213 (also found by Swift, but in October of 1884), I292 = I1887, I293 = I1888, and I294 = I1889. I295 and I296 are also supposed to be in the area, but are not. See them for some speculation. ===== IC 292 = IC 1887, IC 293 = IC 1888, and IC 294 = IC 1889. As I noted above for IC 290 = IC 1884, Swift's positions for most of these are poor enough that Barnard was misled into thinking that he had discovered a new group of nebulae near Algol. Also see NGC 1213 = IC 1883 (the fifth galaxy in the group) for more. (Swift has two additional nebulae here, IC 295 and IC 296, neither of which exist. See their brief notes, too.) ===== IC 293 = IC 1888. See IC 290 and IC 292. ===== IC 294 = IC 1889. See IC 290 and IC 292. ===== IC 295 is probably lost. It is supposed to be in a group of nebulae found by Swift near Algol (see IC 290 for more). In particular, it was found on 11 September 1888, the same night as I292-294. But there is no trace of it in the area, and Barnard found only five galaxies here when he went over it later, while Swift claims a total of seven (N1213, I290, and I292-296). ===== IC 296 may be a reobservation of IC 294; it was found three nights later on 14 September 1888. See IC 295 for more. ===== IC 297 is probably one of the two double stars that I've listed in the table. Swift found it on 15 Sept 1888, and called it "eeeF, pS, R; 4 sts in line s; F * p close sp [sic]; eee dif." Swift's note as printed is not very clear about the star to the west or southwest. Dreyer took it to mean southwest. The line of four stars is unmistakeable at 03 09 48, +41 52.0 (1950), but there are two candidate double stars to the north. The eastern of the two doubles more or less matches Swift's note with a faint star to the southwest, while the western double has TWO stars southwest and one southeast. So, while that western double is brighter, the field matches the eastern better. There are, by the way, no galaxies in the area with stars matching Swift's note. In particular, the line of four stars is just where Swift places it with respect to his nominal position -- but there is no galaxy there. My earlier guess at the identification was a much fainter double star much closer to Swift's position. But this double, I recognize now (Feb 2005) is much too faint for Swift to have seen. You can see it yourself, though, on the DSS at 03 09 58.5, +41 55 37 (1950). ===== IC 300. Swift's position is OK, but his description should read "bet 2 sts 9, np and sf" instead of "* 9 sp." Am I seeing the same object that he did? If not, there is a large error in his position, and we need to keep looking for his object. ===== IC 314 = NGC 1289. Bigourdan notes in his big table, "This nebula, 11 sec following the position given in the NGC, was published as new (140 Big.)." The identify with N1289 is therefore certain. ===== IC 319 is a star. There is a faint galaxy 45 arcsec south preceding that has been mistaken (by me, among others) as IC 319. However, Bigourdan's two micrometric measures of his nova (= Big 141) point precisely at the star. Furthermore, his description of the surrounding star field is exactly matched if the star is his reference object -- but not if the galaxy is the reference object. Malcolm Thomson has also pointed out that the galaxy is probably too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. In fact, there is another galaxy near a wide double star that Bigourdan measured in this field. This second galaxy is brighter and larger than the first, and Bigourdan makes no mention of the second. I presume that he did not see it, either. ===== IC 323 is a triple star very close to Swift's position. He notes this as the "preceding of 2", the second being a rediscovery of NGC 1334 (not included in the IC by Dreyer). Swift's position for that is very good, too, so the identity of I323 with the star is pretty sure. ===== IC 324 = NGC 1331 which is the fainter of two nebulae here discovered by WH (the brighter is N1332). His place for N1331 is poor, however, and falls coincidentally near a vF wisp that he could not have seen. The RNGC unfortunately identifies the wisp as N1331=I324. The galaxy that Herschel actually saw was correctly measured at Leander McCormick and by Bigourdan, though Bigourdan did not accept the identify with N1331 and published the galaxy as new (142 Big.). Dreyer (M.N. 73, 37, 1912) makes the identity clear, but recommends dropping the number N1331 in favor of I324. However, since the NGC number has been in general use for many years (e.g., in the Mt. Wilson and Helwan lists, in RC1 and 2, etc.), I have retained it here. ===== IC 333 does not exist. It was only suspected by Bigourdan, and observed by him just once. There is nothing in his measured position east-southeast of N1358 (which he also saw), so this, like IC 67 and IC 68, was probably an illusion. ===== IC 335 = IC 1963, which see. ===== IC 336, IC 341, IC 353, IC 354, and IC 360. These eF diffuse nebulae were identified by reference to Barnard's drawing in A.N. 3253, and to his drawing and photograph in M.N. 57, 12, 1897. Barnard's sketch is more or less confirmed by PSS plates O and E441 and O and E31. Curiously, Dreyer did not include all of the patches of nebulosity shown by Barnard, and those that he did list in the IC are not necessarily the brightest. With the possible exceptions of I353 and I354, these nebulae are probably not associated with the Pleiades, but appear more likely to be Galactic reflecting nebulae (see Alan Sandage's article in AJ 81, 954, 1976 for more on these fascinating objects). Note also that the IC position of I360 is 5m in error. ===== IC 337. Swift's position does not match anything in the area. The object in the table is certainly bright enough to have been picked up by Swift, but its position is well off in both RA and Dec. MCG -01-10-009 is about 1.2 minutes preceding the nominal position, and only a couple of arcmin off in Dec, but it has such a low surface brightness that I doubt that Swift could have seen it. Also, he mentions that the galaxy forms a "trapezium with three stars." None of the galaxies in the area fit this description. So, yet another mystery. ===== IC 341. See IC 336. ===== IC 346. See IC 2090. ===== IC 348 = IC 1985, which see. Dreyer put this into the first IC apparently without seeing Safford's footnote which reads, "A loose cluster with nebula." All that appears in the IC description is Safford's "vL, vgbM, pB" rearranged into the usual brightness-size-concentration order. Whatever happened, Safford is right -- there is a cluster associated with this nebulosity. Barnard did not mention the cluster, either, in his discovery note for IC 1985, though he examined the object both photographically and visually with the Yerkes 40-inch. ===== IC 349 is a knot in the Merope nebula less than 40 arcsec away from the star. For many years, I had thought it equal to NGC 1435 (which see), but that is the much larger and fainter nebulosity stretching 10 to 15 arcmin south of Merope. Like the larger nebula, I349 is a reflection nebula. It is, in fact, the brightest of the nebulosity around the Pleiades. In his discovery note in AN 3018, Barnard has micrometric measurements of IC 349 with respect to Merope. It is from those that I have reduced the position given in the table. The bright glare around Merope is so intense that IC 349 is difficult to photograph. Nevertheless, it's been done with some regularity over the years. Herbig has the full story in AJ 111, 1241, 1996 (with a follow up with Theodore Simon in AJ 121, 3138, 2001). When I was observing regularly, I didn't know enough to look for I349 as a "separate" object, or I might have done so. It will certainly be challenging for any observer who does go after it! ===== IC 353. See IC 336. ===== IC 354. See IC 336. ===== IC 359. The 1m error in Swift's RA has led to considerable confusion concerning the identity of this object. The diffuse nebula referred to by Lynds and Cederblad is about 1/2 a degree northeast of the IC object, and Hubble's (Ap. J. 56, 400, 1922) questioned identification is also incorrect. ===== IC 360. See IC 336. ===== IC 371 is a star. Bigourdan also mistook another nearby star to be NGC 1586 (d'Arrest's position quoted in the NGC is bad). Bigourdan's micrometrically measured positions (from 2 nights) are exact and refer unambiguously to the stars. ===== IC 376 is a fainter galaxy about 1.5 arcmin northwest of IC 377, which see. It is mentioned, though not identified, in the MCG note for I377. ===== IC 377. MCG has labeled this "IC 376-7". Unfortunately, only the first -- incorrect -- number has stuck on the galaxy. That number actually belongs to the fainter companion 1.5 arcmin to the northwest, while only I377 applies to MCG -02-12-031. ===== IC 382. This may possibly be NGC 1632, but that is more likely identical to IC 386, which see. ===== IC 386 is probably = NGC 1632. Note the possible confusion here over the identity of N1632 -- its quoted position falls between IC 382 and IC 386. The RNGC (probably incorrectly) chooses I382, the larger and brighter galaxy, as N1632, but does not mentioned the IC number. The NGC position, however, is closer to I386 and the descriptions (through similar size refractors) are the same. So, somewhat cautiously, I am going to adopt that identity. ===== IC 394 does not exist. Observed only once near N1667 by Bigourdan and noted as "Suspected only. It's existence is not at all certain." There is, indeed, nothing in the area. ===== IC 395 may also be NGC 1671, which see for more. ===== IC 397. Observed twice by Spitaler, but there is only an eF * near his position that he could not have seen. Another case of a misidentified comparison star, perhaps? ===== IC 400. Stone measured only the RA of this object, so the IC NPD is marked uncertain. In principle, the RA ought to be very good, as it was measured four times using a chronometer. Unfortunately, there is nothing at the derived RA anywhere near the nominal declination. Two seconds following, there is a faint late-type spindle, though it does not match the sparse description (m = 16.0, diameter = 0.1 arcmin) well. I also have my doubts whether the spindle could be seen visually, even with the 26-inch: its surface brightness is pretty low. There is also a transcription error in the Leander-McCormick list. The comparison star is called "CCO 228" at "04 55 03.54, -15 55 03.3" for 1890.0. Checking through the table, I noticed that CCO 228's declination is given differently in the observation for NGC 1730 (obs. no. 208): "-15 57 47.3". The declination of CCO 225 (in another observation of N1730, No. 203) is the same as that for the declination given for the comparison star of IC 400 (obs. no. 209), while the RA is different. So, which star did Stone use as a comparison for his new nebula? Since he used CCO 225 (which is SAO 150054) only for the one observation of N1730 on a different night than he found IC 400, it is most likely that the correct star is CCO 228 (SAO 150066). This makes the RA of the spindle close to the measured RA -- but it is still far enough off to bother me. Is there significant proper motion for the star? Perhaps it has moved enough in the interval between early 1889 when Stone observed it, and 1950 -- the SAO epoch and equinox -- that it could account for the difference in RA. The spindle has a faint companion about 20 arcsec southwest with a brighter star superposed. Is it possible that the combined image is actually Stone's object? It would be closer to his position than the spindle, but still a full second of time off. At the moment, I'm not willing to say which object -- if either -- is IC 400. There are just too many puzzles here. ===== IC 410 is a nebulosity found by Max Wolf in which is embedded the cluster NGC 1893, found by JH. While Wolf noted stars in his nebula, JH apparently did not see the nebula at all. Therefore, the common practice of equating the two objects is incorrect. This was pointed out by Brent in "Star Clusters" and by Wolfgang in an email. I've fixed the position tables accordingly. ===== IC 411. Swift noticed two other nebulae in the area of IC 411, but did not measure their positions. The two galaxies listed near IC 411 are the brightest in the area next to 411 itself, and may possibly by Swift's nebulae. ===== IC 412 = IC 2123 and IC 413 = IC 2124 were discovered by Javelle and also by Barnard -- twice. While Javelle published his observations, Barnard apparently sent his directly to Dreyer. The positions and descriptions are close enough that one or the other of them should have become suspicious about the identities. But that was left until the CGCG folks ran across these fifty years later. Different words describe this same situation under IC 2123. If curiosity overwhelms you, go see that number. ===== IC 413 = IC 2124. See IC 412 = IC 2123. ===== IC 419, IC 425, and IC 439 were all found by Wolf on a Heidelberg plate. IC 419 is only a line of 4 stars about 1' long (and matches Wolf's description in this respect). IC 425 and IC 439 are probably defects on the Heidelberg plate as no nebulae matching Wolf's descriptions are in this area of the sky. ===== IC 422 = IC 2131, which see. ===== IC 425 does not exist. See IC 419. ===== IC 429, a small cometary nebula found by Javelle, is indeed involved in IC 430 as supposed by Dreyer. Javelle actually saw and measured only the "head" of the nebula, while the fainter "tail" stretches off about an arcminute to the southeast. This is reasonable, recalling that Javelle was observing with a 30-inch F-23 refractor. Modern identifications of this nebula include PP37, V883 Ori, and Haro 4-13a (my thanks to Dave Riddle for this information). It is part of the star formation complex around the Orion Nebula (M 42 = NGC 1976). IC 430, discovered photographically by Wilhelmina Fleming on two of four plates covering the region of the Orion Nebula and reported by Pickering in Harvard Annals XX, No. 6, 1890, is just where Fleming puts it. This is the nebula that Wolfgang originally listed under the number IC 429. ===== IC 430. See IC 429. ===== IC 439 does not exist. See IC 419. ===== IC 443 and IC 444. I'm not quite certain which parts of these nebulae, apparently along nearly the same line of sight by coincidence, are meant to carry the IC numbers. Wolf makes clear in his article that the positions he gives (only to a full minute of time and a full degree) are quite crude, so I have assumed that he means to include all of the nebulosity. On the other hand, Dreyer adopted Barnard's (unpublished? If in print, I've not found the paper) descriptions and, at least for IC 444, position. These seem to suggest that Barnard saw only parts of the objects on his early plates. However, until I can find Barnard's descriptions, I'm hesitant to try to tag just parts of these nebulae. Still, I attempted to do that when I first looked at these in Scotland in the mid-1970's. Those positions are still in the table. But after Wolfgang asked about the identifications early in 2003, I estimated positions for the entire extent of the objects. Those are in the table, too. ===== IC 444. See IC 443. ===== IC 446 = IC 2167, which see. ===== IC 447 = IC 2169, which see. Also note that this is not NGC 2245 (which see) in spite of Barnard's note in the Lick Publications, Vol 11, Plate 28. ===== IC 452 = NGC 2296, and IC 453. Bigourdan has N2296 = B148; this is wrong. N2296 = B147 = I452. His relative positions for the two objects and their neighboring stars are precise, and B148 = I453 is unambiguously a star. Bigourdan's position as published in Observations, Vol. I is correct, though the IC position is 8' in error. Though NGC 2296 looks something like a galaxy, it is probably a small diffuse nebula. It is in a starless patch southeast of Sirius, and Clemens and Barvainis, ApJS 68, 257, 1988 have a detection in CO giving a radial velocity of +16.6 km/sec. This almost certainly confirms the Galactic nature of the object. ===== IC 453. See IC 452. ===== IC 457 may be (or maybe not!) NGC 2330, which see. ===== IC 458 may be -- but is probably not -- NGC 2334. See NGC 2330 for a discussion. ===== IC 459. See NGC 2330. ===== IC 462 is a star. It has a faint galaxy nearby that may have helped give the impression of nebulosity to the star. This is the only one of Kobold's nine new nebulae in the area which is not a galaxy. For more on this group, see the extensive discussion under NGC 2330. ===== IC 465 may be NGC 2334 (or, as with IC 457 and NGC 2330, maybe not!). See NGC 2330 for a discussion. ===== IC 468 is a triple star. Bigourdan has two observations, but his second applies to another star 14 seconds west of the double. ===== IC 470 is probably a double star near Swift's position; there are no nebulae in this area. The double is about the right brightness to have been mistaken by him on a poor night as a tiny nebula. He found only one other nebula on the same night (2 October 1891), IC 1300 (which see). That has an error of exactly one degree in its position (it is = NGC 6798), but there are no nebulae a degree north of the nominal place of IC 470. At least Swift did not make the same mistake twice on the same night. ===== IC 487 = NGC 2494, which see. ===== IC 488 may be the star with the accompanying faint, compact galaxy that Wolfgang has chosen. But Rudolf Spitaler's very precise position, measured with respect to two different comparison stars on the same night (8 Feb 1891), is over 20 arcseconds away. His two measurements, reduced with respect to the AC2000.2 positions for the comparison stars (epoch 1902.43, close enough to Spitaler's observation date that I've ignored the eleven plus years of proper motion), are accordant to within two arcseconds. I had originally thought that his object was the triple star on to the east of the double, but that is even further from his measured place. All the candidate stars for IC 488 are listed in the position tables. Another mystery: In his description of his nebula, Spitaler mentions a 13th magnitude star 16.84 seconds preceding, 20.4 arcsec south of his nebula. That star was 15.74 seconds west and 34.4 seconds south of the double (for equinox 1891.11). But reducing his offsets with respect to the AC2000.2 position (epoch 1903.35) for the star leads to a position 1.88 seconds of time on east and 30.9 seconds south of his other two positions. So, his three measurements are not internally consistent. For the time being, I've listed the star+compact as the most likely candidate, but am not convinced that either it or the triple was Spitaler's object. In addition, he calls it a quarter of an arcminute in diameter. While the distance across the triple is about 20 arcseconds, the separation of the star and galaxy is only 4.6 arcsec. The other obvious option is a comet. But this seems unlikely as Spitaler's three measurements are not internally consistent and I think he would have noticed a comet's motion against the background stars (unless it was very distant, of course). So, I suspect some sort of errors in his observations, but cannot even guess what they might be. I also should note that I mistook the compact galaxy for a star when I first saw it (my previous note calls the pair a double star). But having loaded the SDSS into NED, and revisiting the IC objects a couple of months later, I found that the SDSS team had actually taken a spectrum of the galaxy and found it to have a redshift of z = 0.1919 (57,530 km/s). This is one of the largest redshifts for any object in the IC, and makes it less likely -- in my mind, at least -- that Spitaler actually could have seen it. The SDSS g-band magnitude is around 18, probably too faint for the galaxy to have been picked up even with Spitaler's 27-inch refractor. Perhaps the galaxy added a bit of fuzz to the nearby star, but I'd want to check it in a similar-sized telescope. ===== IC 489 is a star. Spitaler describes it as "A small (not more than 10 arcsec diameter) faint nebula with a stellar nucleus." His single micrometrically- measured position used BD +26 1704 as a comparison. At the time he published the measurement, he had no good position for the BD star, so his roughly reduced position is the one that appears in IC1. A few years later (see "Wiener Annalen XI, 125"), he got a good position for the BD star, so was able to properly reduce his measurement. Dreyer provided a more accurate NPD in the IC2 Notes that leads us directly to the faint star that Spitaler mistook as a nebula. ===== IC 496 = IC 2229. This and IC 2229 are almost certainly identical. Both were found by Javelle; while the mean of his micrometric positions agrees to within a few seconds of the GSC position, he does not mention the existence of a nearby second nebula in either observation (one made 2 March 1892, the second 11 Feb 1896, with both being referred to the same star) -- unless one interprets his remark "extended east-west" as including the following object (both galaxies are extended north-south on the PSS). The 2nd is actually an interacting double system. Both of its components are fainter than the one single brighter galaxy 15 arcsec preceding. ===== IC 501. Included as a new nebula by Wolf in his first "Nebel-liste" from Heidelberg Bruce plates, Dreyer caught the identity with the IC1 object and did not assign it an IC2 number. ===== IC 507 = NGC 2590. The IC position is 12.5' northeast of N2590. However, Dreyer made an error of about 30s in reducing Swift's RA to 1860. When correctly reduced, the RA for I507 is identical to that for N2590, and the declinations are 10 arcmin different. Since Swift's description is similar to Stephan's for N2590, the identity seems certain. ===== IC 511. See IC 895. ===== IC 518. Not found, though observed twice (six years apart, first in 1890) by Bigourdan near N2618. His micrometric observations are in agreement and are unambiguously referred to BD +1 2137. However, there are only a few vF stars near his place, and nothing at all that matches his description. The RA given in the IC, though correctly copied from the Comptes Rendus paper, is wrong: it should read "08 28 51." ===== IC 532 apparently does not exist. Bigourdan normally gives detailed observations of the nebulae he observed. However, among those that he discovered, seven (IC 532, 543, 759, 1164, 1206, 4977, and 5303; see the notes for each of the others for details specific to them) were listed only in the two tables in his Appendix VII devoted to his new nebulae. They also appear, of course, in his separately published lists of new nebulae from which Dreyer extracted them for the NGC and IC's. No differential positions from nearby stars are given for these seven objects in Bigourdan's main tables, so we have only his reduced positions and the published descriptions to go on as we attempt to identify them. IC 532 = B 152 is especially curious among this group, as it was apparently the only object that Bigourdan recorded twice (23 and 25 March 1887). In addition to the position and date, we have a magnitude ("11?") and the remark "Fausse image?" as well as the IC description, "pB, pL, Epf, bM." The object was not found at Helwan in the 1920's, and I found no trace of it on the PSS while working on ESGC. Was it possibly a comet as was IC 2120, and perhaps IC 4977? Or was it, as Bigourdan remarked, simply a "false image"? ===== IC 538 = NGC 2885, which see. ===== IC 541. There is a faint star near Swift's place that he might have seen as an "eeF, pS, R" nebula -- but there is no sign of the "10m * s" that he mentions in the description. There must be a large error in Swift's position, but a search of the surrounding area turned up no galaxies that he might have seen with a 10th magnitude star to the south. ===== IC 543. The MCG has this = NGC 2902, but as Bigourdan observed the NGC object in its correct position, B.155 = IC 543 is not likely to be the NGC object. There is a faint galaxy 4.0 arcmin southwest of NGC 2902 that might be IC 543, but Bigourdan's positions are usually better. There is also a star near the position Bigourdan lists, but -- as with IC 532 (which see) -- he gives no details of his observation, so we have only his position and description ("vF, pL, E, dif") as clues. Neither supports the notion that Bigourdan actually recorded the star (unless the seeing was extraordinarily bad that night). One curious note: this object, IC 532, and IC 759 all come from the night of 23 March 1887. Perhaps the seeing was bad. Or did Bigourdan misplace his original observations? ===== IC 547 = NGC 2947 = IC 2494. The RA of N2947 is 2m 14s in error, but the NPD is good, and the descriptions (given the different telescopes used) match. Swift's position is fair, and Howe missed the identity with I547 (as did Dreyer), so the object received an entry in IC2 as well. It is, so far as I know now (May 2003), the only object to have an entry in all three of Dreyer's catalogues. ===== IC 554 = IC 555. Though there is a fainter galaxy near the nominal position for IC 555 (at 09 40 12.3 +12 36 44, B1950.0), it is more likely that Swift saw the same brighter object that Javelle did and made a 10 arcmin error in the declination. ===== IC 555 = IC 554, which see. ===== IC 556 = NGC 2984. The position for N2984 is poor, but as it was observed by both W. and J. Herschel, there can be little doubt as to its existence. The RNGC accepts Reinmuth's questioned identity (N2984 = I556), and I see no reason not to do the same. Javelle's position is good. There is a faint star 0.5 arcmin south-southwest, and I556 is the brightest in a group. ===== IC 565 has a very compact companion very nearly superposed on its warped disk. I've mistaken this companion as a star at least twice, but it is clearly non-stellar on closer inspection, even on the DSS image. ===== IC 573 = NGC 3058s. The NGC position is again off in RA (but note Howe's correction in an IC2 note), but the description is accurate as is the NPD. Javelle could not have been aware of Howe's correction which was published after Javelle's first list. Javelle's place is good, but his "vS * close" must be N3058n. ===== IC 579 may be MCG -02-26-005, but the MCG galaxy is 23 arcmin north of Swift's nominal position. The RA's are identical to within Swift's usual (rather large) error, which makes this the only reasonable candidate near Swift's position. However, it is fainter than I'd expect for an object that Swift describes as "pF, pS, R" (unfortunately, he has nothing about the star field). I have not yet checked for digit errors in the position. Perhaps Swift's Dec is one degree or ten degrees off. Or maybe his RA is ... (and so on). This should be checked before pronouncing the MCG galaxy as certainly being the object Swift dug out. ===== IC 580 = NGC 3069. Discovered by Dreyer with LdR's 72-inch, this is pretty well-placed by him at 5 arcmin north-northwest of NGC 3070. He does comment, however, "Clouds," which would account for his remaining caution in describing the object: "... an object which I have little doubt is a vF, vS neb, perhaps lE". Though the NGC position is a little over an arcmin southeast of the galaxy, there is no doubt that it was seen by Dreyer. Why, then, did Javelle think it was a "nova"? That he made some mistake is clear since he claims, in a footnote to IC 584, that I584 is "Distinct from NGC 3069 and 3070." Which two of the galaxies in the area he thought were the NGC pair is not clear to me, though. In any event, Javelle's position for the galaxy makes clear that he saw the same object as did Dreyer; the identity is secure. ===== IC 585 is a companion to NGC 3080, which see for more information on Bigourdan's observations. ===== IC 591, creditted in the IC to Javelle, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" in 1877. It is Todd's number (22). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== IC 604 = NGC 3220. Swift's description and position pinpoint NGC 3220 as the correct object. He most likely simply did not check the NGC before publishing this as new, as the NGC position -- from WH -- is good, too. ===== IC 606 = NGC 3217, which see. ===== IC 617 is the brightest of the triplet NGC 3280 = NGC 3295 (which see for another story). Neither NGC position is very good, so Javelle can be excused for thinking he had a new nebula. I do find it a little curious that he did not mention the two slightly fainter galaxies just following the brighter one that he measured. He was, after all, using a 30-inch refractor, larger than the 26-inch that Leavenworth used to sketch the triplet. There is, in any case, no doubting the identification. Javelle's micrometric measurement falls within a few arcseconds of the nucleus of the brightest galaxy. ===== IC 618 = NGC 3296, which see. As with IC 617, also found by Javelle, the NGC RA (from Leavenworth) is so far off that Javelle did not notice the identity. That was left to Herbert Howe. ===== IC 619 is UGC 05735. Swift's description of the three stars following the galaxy was summarized by Dreyer in IC1. In full, it reads: "A p l (sic) triangle of 3 F sts nr f, one a vF D." The "vF D" is indeed one of the stars southeast of the galaxy. A somewhat fainter star follows the double by 2.5 arcmin, and turns Swift's stars into an even more striking asterism. Swift's position is therefore off by +19 seconds and -20.0 arcmin. ===== IC 620 is the brighter of a double galaxy. Unfortunately, CGCG put the IC number on its entry for both objects, so the number has migrated to the fainter galaxy in its journey to LEDA (as of July 2004; it should be fixed soon). Javelle's position is good, and falls within four arcsec of the brighter galaxy. ===== IC 621. The IC position is about 2.5 arcmin too far north because the BD position for Javelle's comparison star (BD +3 2388) is in error by that amount. When the correct position for the star (from PPM, SAO, or GSC) is used, IC 621 is clearly identical with CGCG 037-074, not with CGCG 037-075 as claimed in CGCG. ===== IC 622 = NGC 3279, which see. ===== IC 625 is ESO 501- G080 = MCG -04-26-001. Muller's RA offset from NGC 3335 has the wrong sign in the big 1893 Leander McCormick list of micrometric observations. Rather than being 3min 3.6sec west of N3335, it is that distance east. The description fits, including the position angle, and there is no doubt about the identity. ===== IC 629 = NGC 3312. This is the identity that Bigourdan published in his big table without comment. So, we can only speculate as to why he thought he had a new nebula when he first went over the field. Perhaps it was JH's slightly uncertain north polar distance. In his first observation of it on 26 March 1835, he says "... PD only correct to the nearest minute." His polar distance is not, however, marked uncertain. But in his second observation four nights later, he says "No PD taken, a hurried observation, and the wire mistaken ([RA] rectified in reduction)." Curiously, his single polar distance is two arcminutes south of that in the NGC (which is just an arcminute south of the modern position for the galaxy). No other observers are creditted with observing this, so either Dreyer or JH made a mistake in transcribing the NPD into the GC and/or NGC, or JH has other observations that his did not include in his CGH volume. In any event, Bigourdan's object is certainly the same as JH's and the identity is sure. ===== IC 640 and IC 641 do not exist. Though Bigourdan has micrometric measurements for both of them -- four for IC 640 -- on 27 March 1887, he notes, in italics, "This is, without doubt, a false image" for both objects. The nominal positions are both near bright stars, about 15 arcmin apart. There are several galaxies in the area, but only NGC 3381 -- for which Bigourdan has separate measurements -- is bright enough to have been seen by him. I'm going to trust his comments and call both objects non-existent. ===== IC 641 does not exist. See IC 640. ===== IC 644 = NGC 3398, which see. ===== IC 646. See NGC 3398 = IC 644. ===== IC 652 = NGC 3421. Even though these numbers refer to the same galaxy, the nominal positions are 25 arcmin apart on the sky. Common's position for the NGC number is 13.5 arcmin too far north (and is actually a mean position for this and its companion, NGC 3422), while Javelle's is 11.5 arcmin too far south. Common's position is a crude estimate from his setting circles, while Javelle's is, like all of his, micrometrically measured. Unfortunately, as he sometimes did, Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Rather than being BD -11 2960 as he claims, it is actually -11 2959. Once the right star is used for the reduction, Javelle's position falls within five arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy. The identity is certain. ===== IC 656 is a triple star with a very faint galaxy just south of the eastern-most star. Found by Bigourdan, he later claimed it to be identical to NGC 3460 (not true; see N3460 for more). There has been additional confusion over the identification of this, since it is possible that this was actually the object seen by JH and the "Mr. Bailey" mentioned in JH's description. It is also possible that d'A saw this object when he was looking for h793. See both NGC 3457 and NGC 3460 for more. In any event, the IC identification is secure; Bigourdan's position, from five measurements on two nights, is within a few arcsec of the triple, and his description is appropriate. ===== IC 669, creditted in the IC to Javelle, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" in 1877. It is Todd's number (8). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== IC 670. See NGC 3531. ===== IC 675 may be the double star listed in the main table. There is certainly nothing at Javelle's position, and there is no error in his data for his nominal comparison star, BD +4 2426. His offsets (+46.78 seconds, -2' 29.6"), though, are matched (+46.43 seconds, -1' 28.8") -- except for the error of 1 arcmin in Dec -- by the double and a 12th magnitude star that he might have used as a comparison star. That star, though, is fainter than almost all his other comparison stars. Still, the double star matches his description, and the agreement of the offsets (that pesky 1 arcmin aside) make it tempting to accept the double as IC 675. Were it not for the fact that Javelle mentions NGC 3580 in a footnote, I might suggest that it is IC 675. But there is no star at any reasonable position that might have been the comparison star that Javelle used. In the end, we have a possible identification, but no more. ===== IC 682 = NGC 3649. Swift's RA is one minute of time too small, and I think that his note "vF * close np" applies to NGC 3646 -- there is no star northwest of NGC 3649 that he could have seen. Otherwise, his observation fits NGC 3649 very well. I assume typos and/or transcription errors. ===== IC 683. See IC 684 and NGC 3645. ===== IC 684 = NGC 3644. Even though Marth's positions, adopted in NGC, for NGC 3643, 44, and 47 are good, Bigourdan misidentified the latter two objects. He placed N3644 some 35 arcsec south-following his position for IC 683 (which has a 1 arcmin error in Bigourdan's big table in the distance from the comparison star, and he measured a star as N3647) -- there is nothing in his measured place. He lists two "new" objects in the area, I683 and I684. His positions for both are good, and that for I684 is almost identical to Marth's position for N3644. Also see the discussion under NGC 3645. ===== IC 688 was found by Ormond Stone in January 1888. He measured it micrometrically (12 settings in RA, 2 in Dec), as did Frank Muller about a year later (12 RA settings, 4 Dec settings). They referred their two sets of measurements to the same star, and it is those that I've used to re-reduce the position. (Stone has another set of four measurements using another star, but he did only the RA; I've not reduced these, but they are consistent with the other measurements.) The position so reduced is within a couple of arcseconds of the 2MASS position, so there is no question about the identity of the galaxy. Unfortunately, Wolfgang picked up a fainter galaxy 44 seconds of time further on east and called it IC 688. I did not catch this until I was loading the IC into NED early in 2005, so all my earlier lists have the wrong galaxy. ===== IC 689 = NGC 3661. The IC number is from another of the Leander McCormick micrometrically measured nebulae that found its way into IC1 by mistake. The two positions -- NGC and IC -- are virtually identical, yet neither the LM observers (Muller and Stone) nor Dreyer noticed this. This is even more puzzling since Muller and Stone did notice the NGC number on the following of the two nebulae, NGC 3667. Oh, well -- these things happen. Just to add to the confusion, Stone misidentified his comparison star, though Muller did not. Had the LM folks reduced their observations to RA and Dec, they probably would have noticed this. The stars, by the way, are two of three in a line southwest of the galaxy. Though of approximately equal brightness, only two of them made it into the BD extension. Stone thought his star was the first of the two BD stars, but it was actually the one the BD observers missed. ===== IC 694 is the faint galaxy just northwest of the peculiar interacting pair NGC 3690. Swift's discovery note is not very clear about the object's location with respect to the NGC object, but his position places it northwest. If we assume that he took the NGC position for 3690 and offset from that to find his own position and compare the offsets with those from the modern positions, we find roughly the same numbers. Swift, however, was not the first to see IC 694. Lord Rosse's observation of NGC 3690 in 1860 mentions an "appendage" about one object (i.e. NGC 3690) diameter northwest. This description fits what he could have easily seen with his 72-inch "Leviathan," so Dreyer correctly credits him as well as Swift with the discovery. ===== IC 696 is the largest of a group of galaxies including IC 698 and IC 699. All these, and many others, were seen on an early plate taken by Max Wolf at Heidelberg in the early 1900's. Many of the "nebulae" that Wolf found are, in fact, stars near the plate limit. See IC 2849 for more about these early plates. ===== IC 698. See IC 696. ===== IC 699. See IC 696. ===== IC 700. This is a compact group of galaxies, Hickson 54. Javelle may have seen just the largest and brightest of the objects. However, his description, "Nearly round, about 40 arcsec in diameter, a little brighter toward the middle," suggests that he saw at least the brightest three of the objects, blended into a single image. His estimated size easily encompasses at least these three, and perhaps all four. I've included all of the galaxies in the table. ===== IC 703 and IC 704 are a pair described by Swift as "eeF, S, R, p of 2" and "eF, vS (? close D), f of 2". His positions orient them southwest/northeast and separated by about 4 arcmin. There is nothing in the area that matches these constraints. There is a possibility that they may be NGC 3704 and N3707, about 1m 40s west of Swift's nominal positions. But those are on an almost exact east-west line, and are separated by only about an arcmin. Also, the brighter object is the western, while Swift makes the eastern brighter. Finally, NGC 3707 shows no sign of being double. There is also the possibility that NPM1G -11.0302, about 4 arcmin north- northeast might be the second of Swift's nebulae, with N3704 the first. Again, however, the Lick galaxy shows no sign of duplicity, and it is even fainter than N3707 and is thus less likely to have been picked up visually. The only other nebulae that Swift found on the same night (IC 619 and IC 799) have problems of their own (I619 is 20 arcmin north of Swift's position, while I799 is identical to NGC 4520). So, a systematic error in Swift's positions can't be claimed for the night. All in all, there is not much to go on here. So, the identifications with the NGC objects are only tentative, and very questionable. ===== IC 704. See IC 703. ===== IC 713 may be a 17th magnitude star near Bigourdan's estimated place. He notes the object as "only suspected", so he may actually have glimpsed the star. But it is so faint, that I wonder if he actually did, especially given that it is just 3 arcmin north-northeast of a 7th magnitude star. ===== IC 714 = NGC 3763, which see. ===== IC 717 = NGC 3779, which also see. Frank Muller observed this and NGC 3775 before the NGC was published, so the "name" he assigns to NGC 3775 is the reference to Common's short list of new nebulae in Copernicus. He also used NGC 3775 as the reference "star" for his observation of this. Given that he knew about Common's list, I find it a little odd that he labels this galaxy a "Nova" in his list. Unfortunately, Muller measured only an RA for the galaxy, and that is exactly 30 seconds of time too large. His offset from NGC 3775 is printed as +0min 53.92sec. Since he measured this three times, I suspect this is a simple transcription or typographical error somewhere between his observing log and the published table. Whatever happened, Muller's description leaves no doubt that he saw NGC 3779. He called it magnitude 15.8, diameter 1.0 x 0.8 arcmin, extended 90 degrees, diffuse. This is perfect for this low surface brightness object, so the identity with N3779 is certain. ===== IC 722 and IC 724. Spitaler misidentified his comparison star, and gave it the coordinates of yet another misidentified star. The star he actually used is BD +09d 2534. He claims he used BD +09d 2531, and gave the coordinates of BD +09d 2532. His descriptions of his objects, however, leaves no doubt as to the correct identifications. He notes a "* 10 nf 2 arcmin" for I722, and "lE 45d" for I724. Both clearly identify his objects; they are both 8 seconds east and 5.5 arcmin south of his positions (which Dreyer copied correctly into the IC). ===== IC 724. See IC 722. ===== IC 726. Spitaler's declination offset has the wrong sign in his paper: it should be "+" rather than "-". This puts Spitaler's position exactly on a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy. Curiously, there is a somewhat brighter galaxy (UGC 06696) just two arcmin to the northwest. How did Spitaler miss that? Well, it's a busy field (see NGC 3847, NGC 3855, and IC 2953 for more). ===== IC 730 = NGC 3849, which see. ===== IC 732. There are two galaxies at Bigourdan's place, roughly the same size and magnitude. Which one did he see? Going into his big table, we find that his description reads "Extremely faint and diffuse, but its existence is certain; I can see brighter points in it which may be stars 13.4-13.5." So, he saw both objects, even if marginally. ===== IC 734 is double, though Javelle's description is for a single object. Reducing his micrometric position, we find that he measured, and presumeably only saw, the southern object. ===== IC 735. There is nothing in the IC position. But going into Javelle's first paper, we find a footnote on page B.32 that reads "Page B.13, nebula no. 202, in place of 79d 0.6m, read 76d 0.6m." He caught a typo, apparently in proof before the final printing plates for the second section of his paper were set. When we make that change, Javelle's position falls exactly on UGC 6775, and his description fits the galaxy. ===== IC 736 and IC 737 are the two brightest galaxies in Hickson 59. They have been misidentified in several catalogues (including CGCG and Hickson's) in spite of the relatively good positions given in IC. Javelle discovered them on the same night and measured them with respect to the same star. Re- reducing his positions with respect to the AC 2000.2 position for that star removes all doubt about which galaxies he saw. ===== IC 739. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Though he claimed it to be BD +24 2401, it is actually +24 2403. When we re-reduce his observation using the correct star, his position falls within a few arcsec of the modern data for UGC 06830. ===== IC 740 = NGC 3913, which see. ===== IC 755 = NGC 4019, which see. ===== IC 757 = NGC 4068. Bigourdan misread his micrometer so that his position angle is 180 degrees out -- his "new" object is southeast of his comparison star, not northwest. Curiously, he made the same mistake on two objects -- the star that he mistook for NGC 4068 as well as his "nova" -- on two nights. His observations on a third night were interrupted by a storm. While he was preparing the manuscript of his big table for publication, he noticed the mistaken position angles and commented that the observations as recorded in his log book would be impossible at the declination of the objects. Once the correction is made, his position ends up within a few arcsec of a star superposed on NGC 4068, and his description ("Uncertain traces of nebulosity to one side of a * 12: the nebulosity follows this star."). This same star marks the position given for the galaxy in several more recent lists, too. The center of the outer isophotes of the low-surface-brightness dwarf galaxy is about 10 arcsec northeast of the star. A few arcsec further on is a faint knot or, perhaps, the nucleus. ===== IC 759 has to be marked "not found." This is another of only seven of Bigourdan's new objects for which he provides no details in his big tables of differential positions (see IC 532 for a general note on these objects). The only information we have comes from his Appendix VII in his Introductory volume, his second list of new nebulae published in Comptes rendus, and the first IC, which Dreyer, of course, took from the Comptes rendus list. The NGC description reads "pB, pL, Epf." In Appendix VII, we also find that the magnitude is 12.7, and a remark, "Fausse image?" Added to this is the information that Bigourdan apparently found this while observing NGC 4086 -- but he provides no differential positions for that object, either. So, the possibilities come down to these: 1) Was this perhaps a false image caused by a reflection from SAO 082124 (at about the same declination)? 2) is the object actually NGC 4086? or 3) is it the faint galaxy at 12 02 41.9, +20 35 21 (B1950.0). None of these seem particularly likely. Finally, to finish with a curious "coincidence," Bigourdan dates this discovery to 23 March 1887, the same evening on which he found IC 532 and IC 543 (which see). Bad seeing, maybe? Lost observing book? There are any number of possibilities. ===== IC 765 may be the star 10-12 arcsec southeast of Bigourdan's position. He has only one observation of the object, using NGC 4152 as the comparison object. Oddly, his position for N4152 in his big table is nearly 6 arcmin off, but the position for I765 in his list of novae is correct. Dreyer also copied it correctly into IC1 -- but there is still nothing there. Carlson has this as a double star. I suspect that the second star is the one an arcmin or so further southeast. But this is too wide to have been mistaken for a nebula by Bigourdan, and since he says nothing about stars near his nebula, I suspect that both stars are just a bit too faint to have been seen by him. In any event, I've put the first star in my position list as a possibility, but think that IC 765, too, is "not found." ===== IC 772 = IC 3067. Bigourdan's coarsely reduced position in IC1 was not good enough to alert Javelle 15 years later -- or Dreyer five years after that -- that the nebula had already been found. Also, Javelle's north polar distance offset has the wrong sign, throwing his position off the galaxy, too, and even further from Bigourdan's position. Hence, two IC numbers. There are also two other galaxies nearby that might confuse the identification problems for these two numbers were it not for the fact that both observers nailed the object to within five arcseconds when their observations are reduced using Tycho-2 data for their comparison stars. There is no doubt about the identity. ===== IC 778 = NGC 4198. Swift's position is exactly 5 minutes of time too large. Otherwise, his observation matches N4198 very well. Curiously, however, he notes that the star to the north is 13th magnitude, while the star south of the galaxy is the brighter of the two. Did he confuse his directions as well as the RA? I'd have thought that an observer would call special attention to the brighter of a pair of stars rather than the fainter. ===== IC 788 = NGC 4405. This identity was first suggested at Harvard, probably by Frost or Ames during their work on the Virgo Cluster. That it is, in fact, correct is shown when Javelle's observation is carefully reduced -- the resulting position lands exactly on N4405. Javelle also makes no mention of the NGC galaxy in his list, but does say in a footnote, "Distinct from the nebula which carries the no. 21 in the 7th Catalogue of M. L. Swift." That 21st nebula is IC 787. So, the note in the IC "II 88 [N4405] south" is almost certainly Dreyer's based only on the relative positions that he had in front of him. In any case, the identity was adopted in CGCG and MCG, so has found its way into the modern catalogues. ===== IC 793 = NGC 4445. IC 793 is the only nebula that Swift found on 6 May 1888. His description, "eF, S, eE; 3 others in field", was adopted almost unchanged by Dreyer for the first IC, so offers no clues beyond what we have in the IC itself. Swift's position precedes N4445 by about 15 seconds of time, and his description suggests that he certainly saw the same galaxy as d'Arrest. My guess is that Swift did not have either the NGC or d'Arrest's monograph in hand when he prepared his 8th list for AN, so he really did believe that the nebula was a "nova." Since the galaxy is in a moderately rich part of the Virgo Cluster, Swift's other three nebulae are probably also nearby NGC galaxies, most likely N4424, N4442, and N4451. If Swift did not have d'Arrest's monograph, I'm a bit surprised that he did not include N4424 and N4451 in his 8th list, given that neither was recorded by the Herschel's. Perhaps (pure speculation) he was clouded out before he could estimate positions for them. ===== IC 799 = NGC 4520. WH's position precedes the galaxy, while Swift's follows it; this probably accounts for Swift's belief that he found a new nebula. Both observers noted stars involved with or close to the galaxy. WH probably mistook the nucleus as one star and picked up the one just to the west as his second, while Swift suspected only that western star. ===== IC 802 is a star. Bigourdan saw it only one night when he was trying to find NGC 4572 (which see). His observation under that number also refers to a star, just about as far south of the galaxy as this star is north. In his description, he notes (a free translation), "It could well be only a star." He's right. ===== IC 805 = NGC 4611. Neither Swift nor Dreyer recognized the identity even though Swift's position is only 9 seconds west and 0.5 arcmin north of Stephan's. Perhaps the different notes about neighboring stars (Stephan: "... between two very faint stars." Swift: "... two pB stars north and north-following." Both notes are correct, by the way.) misled both astronomers. Stephan also notes that the galaxy is "... a little extended southeast-northwest," while Swift simply has "round." In any event, the two numbers apply to the same galaxy. ===== IC 808 is only two neighboring stars mistaken by Bigourdan for a slightly nebulous cluster. The galaxy identified by Wolf in his sixth list of nebulae as IC 808 is much too faint for Bigourdan to have seen. Wolf's position and comment "* 11 s 1 arcmin" clearly identify his object, just as Bigourdan's position points exactly at the following (slightly brighter) of the two stars. ===== IC 811 = NGC 4663. Bigourdan found the galaxy in 1888, too late for inclusion in the NGC, but it did make IC1. It's position there is different enough from Tempel's estimated one for N4663 that Dreyer included it without hesitation. Turning to Bigourdan's big tables, though, we find entries for both numbers. That for IC 811 has just two measurements on 13 May 1888. The mean offsets are +19.19 seconds in RA, and -7 arcmin 01.2 arcsec from a star identified as "A.G. Wien-Ott. 4631" which has an accurate and precisely given position. On 8 May eight years later, he has four measurements for NGC 4663. The mean values are +19.15 seconds in RA, and -7 arcmin 01.7 arcsec from the same star. Bigourdan has no notes about the two observations being for the same galaxy. I suspect the reason that he did not notice this is that the data are on successive pages of the table. I also suspect that Bigourdan did not prepare all the data for publication himself, but had help from one or more of the several people hired as "computers" at the Paris Observatory. They would have churned through the numbers as quickly as possible. Even if they had noticed the identical measurements, I doubt that they would have mentioned them. In any event, the NGC position is a bit off. Dreyer cobbled it up from Tempel's discovery note, which (roughly translated by me) reads, "About 8 arcmin south following NGC 4658 is a small, very faint (WH class III) nebula; it itself precedes a star 13-14 mag; a measure by me with the ring micrometer came to nothing." (I presume that the galaxy was too faint for him to measure accurately.) The galaxy is actually 7.2 arcmin south-southeast of N4658. This puts the nominal position far enough off that Bigourdan, taking it literally, found nothing where he was expecting it. However, just a few arcmin away just happened to be this small, faint nebula ... The identity was apparently first noticed by the Mt. Wilson observers, and was copied into RC1 and MCG from there. ===== IC 815 is not IC 3760, though some lists -- notably Adelaide Ames's Virgo Cluster catalogue of 1930 -- equate them. Frost has both objects in his list, and places them about 1.5 arcmin apart. His positions, however, are given with a precision of only an arcminute. So, the actual separation, just over an arcminute, is well within his nominal error, and the two galaxies are clearly separate objects. GSC includes them both, and I've listed them as separate objects in my tables. ===== IC 816. See IC 817 = IC 3764. ===== IC 817 = IC 3764. Schwassmann's position is accurate, and -- surprisingly -- so is Swift's. This hasn't prevented confusion in the area, though, as IC 816 is close preceding (and a bit south; Swift's notes have the relative positions flipped north to south -- IC 817 is "nf of 2", not "sf"). Ames has incorrectly equated IC 816 with IC 3764. I wonder if Swift has mixed up his notes on IC 816 and 817. I817 is the fainter galaxy, and has the wide double star only 4 arcmin northwest. Yet Swift calls I816 the fainter of the pair and mentions the star in its description. And there is the nf/sf switch, too. So, I wonder ... ===== IC 819 and IC 820 are together identical to NGC 4676. Spitaler has the two IC objects as new discoveries about 1m 12s preceding an 8th magnitude star which he identified correctly. He has measured the offsets micrometrically, so we'd expect his resulting positions to be quite good. However, the actual offsets are 2m 12s preceding the star. Spitaler has either misread his micrometer, or made a transcription error. Once that is corrected, the identity is not in doubt. ===== IC 823 is probably the star about 1.5 arcmin southwest of NGC 4692. In his list published in Contes Rendues, Bigourdan says "Suspected near NGC 4692 at p = 220 deg, d = 1.5'", a comment that Dreyer changed to "Susp, 2' s of II 381" for the IC. Unfortunately, there is a star in both places, so the southern one was chosen by Wolfgang, and -- in an earlier attempt at finding this object -- by me. However, Bigourdan's reduced position, from a single observation in 1885, is about 2 arcmin to the southwest of the galaxy, and falls on an empty patch of sky. The star he probably glimpsed is 20 arcsec directly north. His description from his big table "Suspected only; could be nebulous" is similar to that for other stars he found, so I've adopted the star -- with a cautionary colon -- as IC 823. ===== IC 824 = NGC 4678. Here the fault lies with the NGC position from the second Leander McCormick list -- the RA is 3 minutes of time off. Otherwise the description pretty well matches, including the "* f 2s." Javelle's position (re-reduced with respect to the Tycho-2 position for his comparison star) is very good, and he apparently had a better view of the galaxy than did Frank Leavenworth. Javelle noted that the galaxy was extended east-west, and that it has at least two bright "nuclei." Leavenworth even questions its nebular character. Given the chronically poor positions from Leander McCormick, I don't doubt that the two catalogue numbers refer to the same galaxy. ===== IC 825. This is probably the object picked up 95 years after Swift's observation as IRAS F12477-0505. Swift's position is not too bad, and his description ("eeeF, pS, R; nearly bet 2 sts east and west; 2nd of 3; [NGC] 4705 and 4718 near") is appropriate -- except for the "nearly bet 2 sts" phrase. This does not match the IRAS galaxy (a peculiar double or triple system) which has a star only to the east. It does, however, fit NGC 4718 perfectly. Is it possible that Swift confused his observing notes between the two objects? Or is it possible that his "nova" is actually NGC 4718 itself? If so, the mystery phrase becomes "2nd of 3" as N4718 is the third of the trio, not the second. Occam's Razor: take the IRAS galaxy, but include the identity with N4718 as a questionable possibility. ===== IC 829 is in the core of Abell 1631, and is one of the brightest galaxies in the cluster. Unfortunately, it is misidentified in MCG, and therefore in PGC as well. Bigourdan's offsets clearly point at the following galaxy of a close pair, while MCG chose a third galaxy 5.5 seconds of time following. ===== IC 833. The skeptic in me has been overly active of late. Here's a case: the galaxy that is obvious to take as IC 833 is within an arcminute of Swift's position, and is a dead ringer for his description, "vF, S, R". On the face of it, there is no problem at all. However, just five arcmin south of the faint, little galaxy that is so "obviously" the one that Swift saw, there is another nearly 2.5 magnitudes brighter, NGC 4813. Swift makes no mention of this in his very brief description, yet this would have been an outstanding object in his 32-arcmin field were it centered on the fainter galaxy. As Malcolm has pointed out, a five-arcminute separation often appears elsewhere in Swift's observations described as "near" or "close". So, I wonder, is NGC 4813 actually the object that Swift saw? But that's all I can really do -- wonder. What there is to go on, the entry in Swift's 8th list, points directly at the little guy. Maybe Swift really did see it, and I'm just being stroppy. But maybe, just maybe ... So, I've sprinkled some colons and question marks around. ===== IC 834. Dreyer has a note in the 2nd IC indicating an erroneous RA in Spitaler's original position. His source is Wolf's third list of nebulae from Heidelburg. Unfortunately, there is no object in Wolf's third list at the position of I834 (which is about 1.5 arcmin north of the IC position), so I do not know which object in WIII Dreyer was looking at. ===== IC 839 is a galaxy just where Bigourdan observed it, though it has been equated in the past with one or the other of the components of NGC 4851. Bigourdan's position for the IC object, reduced with respect to the GSC position for his reference star, falls within a few arcsec of the GSC position for the galaxy. ===== IC 841. In his sixth list, Wolf questions the identity of the galaxy he inserted under this number. He got the right object. ===== IC 845. Dreyer copies Swift's question mark on the declination into the IC. The declination is not too bad -- only 2 arcmin or so out. Swift's RA, however, is 22 seconds too far east. Aside from that, his description, including the "F * nr p" (the star is 3 arcmin west) is appropriate for the galaxy. The CGCG includes a faint companion about an arcmin to the east-southeast in the magnitude. A couple of faint stars must also be included. ===== IC 847 = NGC 4973. Swift's original position -- though not the IC position -- lands within an arcminute of NGC 4973, and his description ("vF, S, R, between 2 stars") fits, too. Interestingly, Howe (in MN 61, 29, 1900) states, "The description `between 2 stars' given in the Index Catalogue, I cannot verify from my sketch of the field of view." One possibility is that Howe's field was much smaller than Swift's unusually large one of 32 arcmin. The two stars are 9 arcmin apart, perhaps separated enough that Howe overlooked one of them. However, there is another more likely possibility: Howe was examining the wrong galaxy. His position for N4973 is almost identical to Swift's for I847, yet Howe listed it in his third list of "new" nebulae. Why did Howe mistake N4974 for I847? Dreyer made a mistake in precessing Swift's RA of I847 so that the IC RA is 30 seconds too large. This puts I847 so close to N4974 that Dreyer mistakenly equated the two when he got Reumker's correction to the positions of N4973 and N4974 (see N4967 for more discussion of the NGC objects). Howe obviously had not seen Reumker's corrections, though, or he would have realized that his "new" nebula was identical to N4973. This suggests that he thought that the nebula (which we now know as N4974) was I847. This would easily explain why he did not see Swift's stars: N4974 is not between two stars. Whatever the source of Howe's confusion, it's clear that Swift saw one of the galaxies that William Herschel had discovered a century earlier. Again, assuming Swift's position to be good in this case, that galaxy was probably N4973. ===== IC 853 = IC 4205, which see. ===== IC 864 and IC 866 are the northern-most two galaxies in a group of eight, seven with IC numbers from Swift and Javelle. Swift swept over the area in April of 1889, and Javelle followed in June of 1891. Javelle's positions are, of course, much better (but see IC 869 for a bit of a mystery), and there is little doubt as to which galaxies he saw. Swift's positions, though, are -- as is not uncommon -- not good enough to unambiguously identify the objects he found. Making the assumption that he saw the brightest five of the group, we can, however, make some pretty good guesses. (His descriptions are no help; four of the five are simply "eeF, pS, R". For IC 870, however, he adds a comment about "4 pB sts in a curve sf point to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th.") First, IC 868 and IC 870 are pretty clearly the close pair of galaxies on the southern edge of the group. These are the 1st and 3rd brightest in the group. Also, Swift comments that his "4th of 5" is a double with the 5th. Next, if Swift's relative positions are at all indicative, the 4th brightest, IC 867, is pretty clearly the 3rd of his five. This finally gets us to IC 864 and IC 866. Swift makes the relative positions just 2 arcmin apart in Dec; his RA is the same. However, on the sky, the 5th and 2nd brightest galaxies have nearly the same declination (only 4.3 arcsec different), but are separated in RA by just about 2 arcmin (1.94 arcmin to be exact). Perhaps Swift simply made a mistake in his observing notes or in his transcription of them. Whatever happened, these are the only two galaxies in the area that he might have seen, so we'll assume that he did indeed see them. That being the case, we must move Swift's name off the IC entry for IC 869 and put it on IC 864. ===== IC 866. There is no doubt about Javelle's identification of this object. However, see IC 864 for the uncertainty surrounding Swift's observations. IC 869 has more about Javelle's. ===== IC 867. As with the other group members, there is some uncertainty about Swift's observations of this. See IC 864 for more. Javelle's data are thankfully unambiguous on this object. See IC 869 for more about Javelle's micrometric observations in the group. ===== IC 868. This is one of two galaxies in the group clearly identified by Swift's note, "D with 5th [brightest]". See IC 864 for more about Swift's observations. IC 869 has more notes about Javelle's data for galaxies in the group. ===== IC 869 probably refers to both galaxies near Javelle's position. When that is corrected for a systematic offset seen in the other positions for the group galaxies (IC 864, 866-868, and 870), it falls very nearly midway between the two objects. Since they are about 30 arcsec apart, and both have small, bright nuclei, though, I would have expected Javelle to "resolve" them. Javelle's description "Faint, small, round, with little condensation" doesn't help us much at all. Still, it's clear that he saw something here, so I've used the IC number on both objects with positional suffixes. Since these are among the fainter galaxies in the group, Swift did not pick them up. See my comments on the other objects for more about Swift's observations. ===== IC 870 forms a close pair with IC 868 (which see). IC 864 and IC 869 have more information about the other group members. ===== IC 872, 877, 878, and 880. Swift recorded four new nebulae on 28 April 1891, one said in his description to be preceding, and the other three following, NGC 5060. Yet his positions put all of them at least a minute of time following the NGC galaxy. Except for the first, for which there are two candidates, none of the positions, as printed or "corrected" by a minute of time, has any galaxies or asterisms at all close. In particular, if his relative positions and descriptions of the following three objects were correct, there would be -- at least -- a striking triplet of galaxies in the area. But there isn't. Instead, there are three individual galaxies: NGC 5060, very close to its position measured by d'Arrest (who discovered it); UGC 8349, 11 seconds preceding the corrected position for I872; and UGC 8361, 6 seconds following and 1.5 arcmin south of Swift's printed position for I872. Given that Swift includes the note about N5060 in his description for I872, and that, for the only other nebula he found that night (IC 1016, which see), the RA is 1m 18s too large, I think that U8349 is I872. But U8361 is just as large and bright -- and therefore presumably as visible -- as U8349, so I've listed it as a possibility for I872, also. But for the other three, I see no reasonable candidates. I'm afraid that they, like many other of Swift's discoveries, are lost. ===== IC 877. See IC 872. ===== IC 878. See IC 872. ===== IC 879 = IC 4222, which see. ===== IC 880. See IC 872. ===== IC 884 and IC 887 were included in an appendix to the NGC, written after the main body of the catalogue had gone to press. Swift had somehow not included their positions and descriptions in the letters that he sent to Dreyer that Dreyer adopted for Swift's sixth list, finally published in its entirety while the NGC was in press. The positions for IC 887 in the appendix and in the sixth list agree. But those for IC 884 do not: the appendix -- and the first IC -- make the RA 1m larger than Swift's sixth list. Unfortunately, there are no galaxies at either position. Nor is there one at the position of IC 887 which is claimed to be "vF, vS; nearly bet 2 sts; [GC] 3517 [N5119] nr np." There are no galaxies near southeast of N5119 that Swift could have seen. Swift found three other galaxies the same night: NGC 3443, N3474, and N5122. With the exception of the declination for N3443 (8.3 arcmin too small), the positions for these three are not too bad. They average 7 seconds of time preceding and 0.3 arcmin south of the true positions, so give us no indication of a systematic offset. Even if we include the large declination error for N3443, we still have no real clues as to where Swift's other two objects might be. I personally think that he found two nebulae in the fairly rich area around NGC 5070 and NGC 5072, but I've been unable to find two reasonable candidates. So, two more of Swift's "novae" have to be declared lost, at least for now. ===== IC 887. See IC 884. ===== IC 888 = NGC 5136. Swift's position for IC 888, from his 8th list of "new" nebulae, is within 3 seconds of being exactly 1 minute of time off the NGC position (from the Herschels). Swift's description fits the object, so I suspect that he simply made a 1 minute error when reading the position from his setting circles. Another, though more remote, possibility for the identity of the IC object is CGCG 072-073. This has the correct right ascension, but the declination is 26 arcmin off and the object is considerably fainter than NGC 5136. Swift could have seen it -- but the 1 time-minute error for the brighter galaxy is more compelling. ===== IC 895 is lost -- unless it is an observation of NGC 5240. But neither Swift's description nor position fits the galaxy. In particular, the position is well off in both RA and Dec, and is not a digit error. Swift's comment "* in center ? D" (which Dreyer took to mean "sbM, D?"; could it be "* in center? D") does not fit N5240, either. The other three nebulae that Swift found the night of 1 September 1888 don't help at all with possible systematic offsets. Only one, IC 511, is near its nominal position, and Swift got the direction of a nearby "wide D *" wrong -- it is northwest, not southeast as Swift has it. The other two objects (IC 1028 and IC 1045, both of which see) are nowhere near their catalogued positions, and IC 1045 may well be lost, too. ===== IC 897. This number has almost always been applied to UGC 08544 = CGCG 102-016. However, Malcolm Thomson pointed out that Bigourdan's original description includes the note "Situated near NGC 5217 at PA = 105 deg, d = 3.5 arcmin." Since UGC 08544 is over 8 arcmin south of N5217, there is clearly something strange going on. That strange thing is simply that Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star. Instead of using BD +18 2750 as he did for N5217, he actually used BD +18 2754. When his measurements are reduced with respect to that star, they fall within about 12 arcsec of the closer companion of N5217. That brings up another question, however. Bigourdan's micrometric measurements are usually much closer to the mark than 12 arcsec. Curiously, his measurements of N5217 are also well off the galaxy, and in the same direction. In both cases, he has more than one measurement, and they are in accord with one another. I have not been able to work out his error, but there clearly is one somewhere in his observations of this pair on the night of 20 May 1890. In any event, the identification of IC 897 is now correct, thanks to Malcolm's diligence. ===== IC 907 is almost certainly UGC 8643. This identity was first suggested in CGCG, and is reasonable. The RA's are the same to well within Swift's usual error, and his Dec is just 20 arcmin off. This is probably a digit error. ===== IC 917 may be a star, but its companions (I918, 919, 921-3, 925, 926, 928-32, 934-38) are galaxies in Abell 1783. These were found by Burnham with the Lick 36-inch refractor in 1890. Barnard provides crude positions for them in AN 125, 380, 1890, copied correctly into the first IC. Barnard's positions and descriptions are not clear enough to positively identify more than four or five of the 18 galaxies in his table. One, I919, is called "cB" while the others are "vF" or "faint" and "vS, R." There are two pairs noted: I923 and I925, and I937 and I938. However, the positions imply the existence of two other pairs: I918 and I919, and I934 and I936. Faced with this puzzle, I wrote to Don Osterbrock at Lick to ask if Burnham's or Barnard's original observations are still extant. They are, but they turn out to be even more sketchy than the AN article, so are no help. Brent Archinal reports that Leos Ondra who, during an extended visit to several US observatories, has found that Barnard's original observing books at Yerkes are still kept in the library there. These may not help solve a mystery originating in the 36-inch dome at Lick, but they might be usefully examined, anyhow. All we can do now, however, is to assign the numbers, in approximate order of right ascension as given in AN, to the brightest 18 objects in the cluster, paying attention to the declinations when we can, as well as to the meager clues given in the descriptions. As I noted above, it seems likely that I917 is a star, but the remainder of the numbers can be assigned to galaxies without too much bending of Barnard's positions. However, I have to make it clear that there is a lot of guesswork going on here, and that these identifications really are tentative, pending uncovering more information. Hubble, by the way, in his PhD thesis at the University of Chicago (Publ. Yerkes Obs. IV, Part II, 1917) describes this area and lists positions of some of the galaxies in the field. He listed tentative identifications for only three of the galaxies: I921, I925, and I938. The identifications that I've adopted agree with Hubble's for I921 and I938, but not for I925 (Hubble has this as the galaxy at 13 41 22.7 +55 51 15 = I923, while I have the galaxy at 13 41 24.7 +55 52 00). ===== IC 918. See IC 917. ===== IC 919. See IC 917. ===== IC 921. See IC 917. ===== IC 922. See IC 917. ===== IC 923. See IC 917. ===== IC 925. See IC 917. ===== IC 926. See IC 917. ===== IC 928. See IC 917. ===== IC 929. See IC 917. ===== IC 930. See IC 917. ===== IC 931. See IC 917. ===== IC 932. See IC 917. ===== IC 934. See IC 917. ===== IC 935. See IC 917. ===== IC 936. See IC 917. ===== IC 937. See IC 917. ===== IC 938. See IC 917. ===== IC 945 is almost certainly UGC 08732 = CGCG 336-018. This is twice as large and twice as bright as CGCG 336-019, the galaxy identified in CGCG as IC 945. Swift's original position -- that copied correctly into the IC -- is much closer to the fainter galaxy, and his note of a "coarse D * nf points to it" could apply to either object. However, the idea that he should sweep up the fainter object while missing the brighter one just 3 arcmin away is difficult to accept (but see IC 997 and IC 998). ===== IC 953, IC 955, and IC 957 are lost, probably irretrievably. They are among Ormond Stone's novae in the extensive list of micrometric observations of nebulae published by the Leander McCormick observers in 1893. Apparently found during an observation of "GC 3697" (= NGC 5357), all four nebulae have several observations each, all referred to two stars. Thus, it is possible to lay out the relative positions of the nebulae and stars to form a clear picture of the field. This pattern is nowhere to be found near N5357. N5357 is probably an outlying member of the IC 4329 Group. I had the thought that the nebulae might be four in the core of the group. But the clear pattern of the four nebulae and two stars is not duplicated anywhere in the group. Nor can I find a similar pattern assuming that some of the novae are stars. So, "Not found" is the only reasonable conclusion. Here are some eye-glazing details. While it initially seems likely that Stone misidentified his comparison stars, a closer look at the problem shows that it is not as simple as that. He gives a precise position for one of the stars, and this one can be reliably identified with a GSC star at 13 50 58.01, -30 02 17.8 (B1950.0) -- Stone gives end figures of 58.04 and 17.1. However, reducing the measurements that he gives using this star gives positions in empty fields. Furthermore, his observations are not internally consistent: it should be possible to use the measurements from the "known" GSC star to pin down the other star by working through the positions for his nebulae. But this does not work: for the four objects involved, the derived positions for the unknown star (for which he gives only a crude position of 13 50 10, -30 04 again precessed to B1950) are several arcmin apart on the sky. Finally, again assuming that he used the identified GSC star to measure NGC 5357, his micrometric position for that galaxy ought to be close to the GSC position. Instead, the reduced position is 23.8 seconds east, and 1' 17" north of N5357. So, he obviously did not observe N5357. At this point, I quit wasting time and went on to the next puzzle. You may have more patience than I. Good luck! ===== IC 955. See IC 953. ===== IC 957. See IC 953. ===== IC 958 is almost certainly NGC 5360. Swift's description ("eeeF, pS, iR; seen only by glimpses") fits, and his typically crude position is only 3 arcmin away from Marth's galaxy. The only concern I have is that NGC 5364 is in the field -- why didn't Swift mention that, too? So, colons go on the IC number. ===== IC 973 = NGC 5467 and IC 974 are both stars near NGC 5468. They were found by Bigourdan while he was trying to recover the three "nebulae" seen by Tempel near NGC 5468. Bigourdan somehow became a bit confused by the field, so did not realize immediately that one of his "novae" (IC 973) was the same star that he took to be NGC 5467. He published it in his first Comptes Rendus list, so it got an IC number. He caught the identity later when he was preparing his complete observations for publication. See NGC 5465 for more. ===== IC 974 is probably the star 30 arcsec south of Bigourdan's estimated position. It is a bit fainter than NGC 5467 = IC 973, and would have been at the limit of Bigourdan's telescope. See IC 973 and NGC 5465 for more on this field. ===== IC 997 and IC 998 are perhaps the brightest and faintest galaxies in a group of four (the others are IC 4401 and MCG -01-37-002). Swift has these two objects entered in two of his lists ("(X)" and XI), but -- guessing here -- I think that he only observed them once, on 16 May 1892. His second "observation," claimed to be on 16 Sept 1896, reported in his long 11th list, looks to me like a hasty updating of the first, though perhaps after a quick second look at the field (it would have been low in the west just after sunset, though, not ideally placed for re-examination). The positions are just 10 seconds of time and 1.4 arcmin different, roughly the numbers one would expect from precession over the 10-year equinox difference (assuming that the short list in MNRAS 53, 273, 1893 has positions given for 1890.0). The descriptions are identical aside from the brightness of IC 997 ("vF" rather than "pF" in the earlier list). In particular, his note about the "star with distant companion near north" is worded the same in both lists. In other re-observations where Swift notes nearby stars, his wording is different (see e.g. NGC 5502 = NGC 5503). Howe has an extensive note about the group (in which he found a third object, IC 4401) in MNRAS 61, 46, 1900. Here he locates and measures the three galaxies that he and Swift saw, as well as the nearby star and its companion. He also notes the identity of Swift's nebulae in the two different lists. I have adopted his identities for the three galaxies -- though with questions. Keep reading. Malcolm has argued pretty persuasively that Swift probably saw the brightest two objects in the group, IC 997 and IC 4401. However, this would make Swift's positions not only further off in absolute terms, but his differences between his two objects would be off, too. Instead of the pretty good agreement with the actual differences of 20 seconds and 2.1 arcmin (Swift has 18 seconds and 1.0 arcmin), the differences would be 35 seconds and 4.2 arcmin. Also, the stars Swift mentions are much further from IC 4401 than they are from IC 997, though still within the 5 arcmin or so that he usually means when he uses the word "near" in his descriptions. Finally, IC 997 and IC 4401 are virtually equal in brightness (and surface brightness, too), while Swift's descriptions are quite different. He says "pF" or "vF" for I997 and "eeF" for I998. The galaxy that Howe and I take as I998 is a magnitude fainter than I997, more in keeping with Swift's descriptions. I also note that Howe saw only three of the four galaxies here, missing the MCG object, in spite of the fact that it is half a magnitude brighter than I998. So, we do indeed have a mystery: how could two seasoned observers miss seeing brighter objects in a group while picking up the faintest? Malcolm's argument is not without basis, so I've put colons and question marks on the identifications. ===== IC 998. See IC 997. ===== IC 1001, IC 1002, and IC 1003. Javelle had trouble in this field on the one night he observed it, 29 June 1892; he misidentified his two comparison stars. Once those are found, however -- the correct stars are BD +6deg 2873 for I1001 and I1002, and +5deg 2873 for I1003 -- his reduced positions fall within 5-6 arcsec of the modern positions for the galaxies. He also notes a "very small" star attached to I1003; this is correct for his galaxy, UGC 09190 = CGCG 047-024. For the record, I1001 = CGCG 047-014, and I1002 = CGCG 047-015. ===== IC 1002. See IC 1001. ===== IC 1003. See IC 1001. ===== IC 1004. MCG incorrectly assigned this number to MCG +03-37-007 = Ho 634a (Ho 634b is a star). Unfortunately, this bug has been picked up in a number of more recent sources. The real IC 1004 is about 3-4 arcmin southwest, and is the brightest of a double or triple system. It's position is very close to Javelle's micrometric position, re-reduced with respect to the GSC position for his comparison star. This is another of Malcolm's catches. ===== IC 1005 = NGC 5607. Swift's position is a minute of time too small. Otherwise, his description and place matches NGC 5607 to within his usual, rather large, observational error. The fact that he called it "F" means that it is one of the brightest objects he discovered; this makes the identity all the more certain. ===== IC 1008 = IC 4414. This is one of the 52 objects found by Safford that Dreyer put into the Appendix to the NGC. Later, Dreyer merged them into IC1 so that they would not be overlooked. As with IC 200, there appears to be a rather large error in RA, in this case, +1.5 minutes of time. There are no other galaxies nearby that Safford could have reasonably seen with the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn. Given that, and the expectation of a relatively poor position, the identity is pretty secure. ===== IC 1012 = IC 4431. This was found by T. H. Safford in 1866 using the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn Observatory (while testing this telescope, Clark found Sirius B). Safford's position is +2 arcmin off in declination, and +4 seconds of time off in RA -- not too bad, especially given that there are no other nebulae nearby to confuse an observer. Javelle found the galaxy 31 years later. When reduced with respect to the Tycho-2 position for his comparison star, his measurement of the galaxy is off in RA by just about a second, and is spot-on in declination. All in all, there is no doubt about the identity. So why are there two IC numbers? Javelle's published position was reduced from the BD position for his comparison star. The BD position is off by about an arcminute to the south. Safford's position is north of the galaxy, so Dreyer saw a published difference (assuming he checked) of nearly three arcminutes. This was enough that he must have thought that there were two nebulae here. By the way, this is one of the few nebulae for which Javelle has more than one measurement. His two observations differ by 0.78 seconds of time, and 1.3 arcseconds. This gives an idea of the internal accuracy of his data -- not too bad, but not the best that was done visually using micrometers. ===== IC 1016 = IC 4424 = NGC 5619B. Swift found IC 1016 on 28 April 1891, a peculiarly unfortunate night for him. Only two -- IC 872 and I1016 -- of the five nebulae that he found that night are identifiable, and both of those were poorly measured by Swift (see IC 872 for more). IC 1016 is recoverable only because Swift's declination is fairly accurate, as is his description ("vF, vS, R; f of [NGC] 5619"); the RA is 1m 18s too large. Bigourdan found and first measured the object the next year; he remeasured it seven years later. His micrometric observations put the faint galaxy within five arcsec of its true position. Thus, it ended up in IC2 with a pretty good position, compromised only by the imprecise position that Bigourdan adopted for his comparison star. The NGC designation came along nearly four decades later when Holmberg included N5619 and two of its companions in his list of multiple galaxies. RNGC then immortalized it for us as "5619B". ===== IC 1023. This is the only one of five "nebulae" that Juan Thome found while assembling the Cordoba Durchmusterung that may be an actual deep sky object. The others (IC 229, 1203, 1207, and 1290, which see) are either asterisms or do not exist. I1023 may be a small cluster of about 20 stars, but it could also be just a chance superposition of unrelated stars. Proper motions, spectra, and photometry will be needed to determine the true character of the grouping. In any event, Thome's position is good. ===== IC 1026 = NGC 5653 is another of the nebulae found by Truman Henry Safford with the 18.5 inch Clark refractor at Dearborn in the late 1860's. It's RA is just one minute of time too large, and Safford's terse description "pB" makes the identity pretty certain. See IC 200, IC 1008, and IC 1030 for other examples of digit errors in RA in Safford's list. ===== IC 1027. Swift comments "... another or a few F sts nr." Howe noted only one star of 13th magnitude 0.7 arcmin southwest of the galaxy, but there are several other faint galaxies in the area. The closest and brightest is 1.7 arcmin north-northeast; is this the other nebula that Swift suspected? ===== IC 1028, assuming that the identification (first suggested by CGCG) is correct, is well off its nominal position: +45 seconds in RA and +10.7 arcmin in declination. There is a "F * close nf", but I would hardly describe the galaxy as "pB, S, R". "Small" it is, but it is faint and elongated. I've saved the identity since the galaxy is the only one in the area that comes even close to fitting both Swift's position and description. For more about Swift's unfortunate night -- one among many -- of 1 September 1888, see IC 895. ===== IC 1029. This galaxy is correctly positioned, named, and described in the first IC -- but see the discussion of it under NGC 5673. ===== IC 1030 = NGC 5672 with a +1 minute error in the RA. This position shares the RA offset in common with several other of Safford's discoveries; see e.g. IC 200, IC 1008, and IC 1026. In this case, Safford's description "pF" is appropriate for the galaxy. ===== IC 1045 may be NGC 5731 (which is -37 seconds and +2.3 arcmin from Swift's position) -- but that is far from certain: if Swift could see N5731, why could he not see its near-twin, N5730, only a few arcmin distant? Nevertheless, Swift's comments about neighboring stars -- "nearly bet 2 sts, forms triangle with 2 sts" -- are accurate. Since this is the best candidate we have, I've listed it, though with colons. See IC 895 and IC 1028 for more about the other nebulae Swift found this night. ===== IC 1055 = IC 4491, which see. ===== IC 1056 = IC 1057. Swift found I1057 on 8 April 1888 and described it as "eF, pS, R; bet a pB * and a coarse D *, nearer the latter." Sweeping across the same area three months later on 4 July 1888, he found I1056: "eeF, L, R; forms an arc of a small circle with 2 sts; 3 pB sts nr sf in form of arc of a large circle." His positions (14 42 20, +50 50 05 and 14 42 03, +50 51 45, respectively; both for equinox 1890) are far enough apart, and the descriptions different enough that he thought the nebulae different objects. However, both descriptions are correct. The "pB *" about five arcmin south- southeast of the galaxy, is the western-most of the "3 pB sts nr sf" forming an arc. Similarly, the "coarse D *" about three arcmin west, is the two stars with which the nebula forms a smaller arc. ===== IC 1057 = IC 1056, which see. ===== IC 1063 = IC 1064. Javelle found the galaxy twice in 1892, first on 18 May, next on 15 July. His measurements, refered to different stars agree to within seven arcsec. The identity, first suggested by Glen Deen during his work on MicroSky, is not in doubt. ===== IC 1087 is the brighter, but smaller, of a pair of galaxies separated by about 30 arcsec. It is northwest of the larger, UGC 9710. Javelle's measurement from a BD star about five arcmin northeast is very good, and the identity is not in doubt. Also see IC 1088. ===== IC 1088 is a faint star about 1.5 arcmin northeast of IC 1087. Javelle's offsets land within five arcsec of the star, and his measurement of I1087 on the same night is just as good. There is no doubt about the identity. ===== IC 1090 does not exist -- or if it does, it is a very faint star. Bigourdan found the object on 18 June 1887, saying "At the measured position, I suspected a possibly nebulous object at the extreme limit of visibility." He has only one micrometric position for it from the same night, but there is nothing there. About an arcminute to the northwest is a 17th magnitude star. I doubt that Bigourdan could have seen it with the 12.2-inch refractor that he was using, so I favor the nonexistent idea for this observation. Several catalogues have put this number on CGCG 221-022, but that is 1 min 54 sec west of Bigourdan's position, and nowhere near his nominal offsets from any star that Bigourdan would have used as a comparison star. Malcolm caught this mistake, and I'm grateful, as always, for his careful work. ===== IC 1095 is the brighter component of CGCG 077-019, though since Swift notes it as "lE", it may well be both objects. Swift's position is +20 arcmin in error, but his observation is otherwise not too bad. He also notes a "* 9 mag in field sf"; this star is SAO 101405, and helps to positively identify Swift's object. ===== IC 1096 is one of three galaxies interspersed with several stars, one rather bright. Another of the galaxies is IC 1097, about which there are no identification problems. IC 1096 is usually taken as the brightest of the three. However, Javelle's single observation on 20 July 1892 points directly to the faintest of the three galaxies. He made an observation of IC 1097 a few minutes later on the same night using the same comparison star. That observation points directly at the second-brightest galaxy. So, there is no mistaking the objects that Javelle saw. How did he miss the brightest galaxy? Perhaps it has a lower surface brightness, or perhaps it has a stellar nucleus. Perhaps he did see it, but did not have time to measure it. Whatever happened, we can put IC numbers on only two of the three galaxies -- but not on the brightest one. ===== IC 1097. See IC 1096. ===== IC 1098 is, as Bigourdan suspected, simply a star. Even though his measurement is rounded off to the nearest second in RA as well as in Dec, the star is close enough, and isolated enough, to make it clear that it is indeed his object. ===== IC 1100 = NGC 5881, which see. ===== IC 1104 is a star, as I first suspected while assembling ESGC. Bigourdan's single measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the star, so there is no doubt about the identification. ===== IC 1108 = NGC 5882. Both positions are good enough to positively identify this planetary, but several people (Dreyer, Wilhelmina Fleming, Edward Pickering, and Luis Duncker -- whom Fleming and Pickering credit with the discovery of the IC object) missed the identity. The planetary was first seen by JH and recorded by him in two sweeps. He thought enough of it to sketch it and include it among the few of his nebulae with "figures" at the end of his CGH volume. His diameter estimates ("... = 1.35 seconds [of time, = 14.2 arcsec] by many observations", and "4 arcsec diam.") are not very consistent, but he was clearly impressed by the planetary. The object was next picked up on an objective prism plate at Arequipa by Duncker, and was announced by Fleming as an emission-line star in AN 3227. In a second paper in AN 3269, she adds a note that "A superposition of a chart and a spectrum plate ... shows that this object is in reality a gaseous nebula." So, there was plenty of opportunity to identify this with JH's planetary. However, it was apparently not until Andris and I stumbled across this while scanning southern Schmidt plates that the identity of the two numbers came to light. The object is called only by its NGC number in Perek and Kohoutek's 1967 catalogue of planetary nebulae, but Andris has it in the ESO list, and I penciled notes in my copy of the NGC and IC. It may be buried in the SGC Notes, too, but I doubt it. ===== IC 1111 = NGC 5876 with a +5 minute error in the RA. Swift calls the object "pB" and notes that it makes a "triangle with 2 stars." The stars are 2 arcmin northwest and 2.5 arcmin southwest. Interestingly, NGC 5876 was one of Swift's earliest discoveries, and was included by him in his first list of new nebulae. CGCG chose a considerably fainter galaxy (UGC 09800 = CGCG 274-037) as IC 1111. This galaxy is indeed closer to Swift's position, but the differences are not simple digits -- 1m 38s, and 2.7 arcmin. There are also no stars nearby that Swift would have noted as a triangle with the galaxy. Unfortunately, this error has propagated through the catalogues, so UZC, LEDA, and Wolfgang (in his first edition) have incorrectly put the IC number on the fainter object. ===== IC 1114 is probably a star. Bigourdan has no measurement of it, simply a note in his description that it is at PA = 255 deg, d = 6 arcmin from BD +76 557. There is nothing at that "exact" location, but about an arcminute southeast, there is a star that Bigourdan could have picked up. This is probably his object. ===== IC 1115 is a double star, identified by its proximity to a considerably brighter star about 5 arcmin to the southeast. Otherwise, we might be tempted to take MCG -01-39-005 as the IC object. It, however, has no brighter star to the southeast which would have been in Swift's field of view. The identity, first suggested by Herbert Howe (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) who measured and described the double as we see it today on the sky surveys, is therefore pretty certain. There is coincidentally a very faint background galaxy close to the stars, but even Howe, careful observer that he was, could not have dug it out: it is around 17th magnitude. ===== IC 1118 = IC 4543, which see. ===== IC 1120 is a very faint double or triple galaxy found by Javelle. He noted a star near to the northeast -- this star may actually be a compact galaxy; it appears to be slightly nebulous. But I suspect it really is a star, superposed on a plume or maybe a third galaxy in the faint system. ===== IC 1122 is not NGC 5931 as is sometimes stated, nor was it seen by Barnard whose position and comment (about a star preceding the galaxy) are adopted by Dreyer for the first IC. Barnard's data apply to NGC 5931. The IC object is a separate galaxy found by Bigourdan about 3 arcmin northwest of NGC 5931. His position, though about 15 arcsec off, is good enough to unambiguously identify the galaxy. See NGC 5931 for more details. ===== IC 1123 is a star. Bigourdan has two observations of this on 15 May 1890 which -- when reduced using the GSC position of his comparison star -- point exactly at the star. ===== IC 1125 is probably also IC 1128, which see. ===== IC 1126 is also a star. Bigourdan has only one observation of it, but his position falls within two arcseconds of the DSS position. Reinmuth has this number equal to NGC 5952, but Malcolm Thompson points out that Bigourdan observed that on the same night as he found IC 1126, and he used the same comparison star for both. Thus, the two cannot be the same. ===== IC 1127 = IC 4553. Just one minute of time east of IC 4553 (which see), and an arcmin south, lies the IC position for I1127. There is nothing at all in this position, though there are 2 or 3 very faint stars just to the north. I1127 was found in 1866 by Safford at Dearborn Observatory, and was first listed in an appendix to the NGC as Safford 7. Dreyer later included these appended objects in the first IC, where this one received the number 1127. Safford's positions are only approximate, having been determined simply by centering the object in the field, then reading the setting circles. Thus, they are often merely indicative and also seem to suffer from digit errors now and then (IC 200 is another example, with its RA being 2 minutes of time off). Since Safford's description (pF) is correct, IC 4553 is almost certainly the object which he saw. ===== IC 1128 is probably IC 1125 with a 5 minute error in RA and a 5 arcmin error in declination. IC 1125 is about a magnitude brighter, and considerably larger, than the galaxy that CGCG took (CGCG 022-018 = UGC 09939). That is close to Swift's RA, but is 12 arcmin to the north, an unusual error for Swift to make. In addition, UGC 09939 has a fairly close companion of nearly the same brightness just a couple of arcmin southwest. If Swift could see UGC 09939 and call it "pF, pS, R", he almost certainly could have seen CGCG 022-017 just as easily. But he makes no mention of it. In addition, there are to the south of this pair two fairly bright stars in the field that Swift might well have put into his description, too. All in all, it seems considerably more likely to me that I1125 is also I1128. I've left it and UGC 09939 in the main table, however, on the off chance that Swift might have picked up the fainter galaxy. For an example where he almost surely did find a fainter object rather than a brighter one, see IC 997 and IC 998. ===== IC 1130. There is nothing wrong with Bigourdan's single observation of this object on 29 May 1889. His micrometrically measured position is within three arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy, and his description "vF" is surely appropriate. The "* 8.7 f" mentioned in the IC is his comparison star. What caught my eye here is his note, "... I suspect another still fainter at [PA] = 220 degrees, d = 1.5 - 2 arcmin." There isn't anything at all there aside from some 19th magnitude chaff. He has another observation of I1130 five nights later, but does not mention any accompanying object this time. In fact, he says of I1130 (this is his complete observation, freely translated by me), "I intermittently see this object, which could be nebulous, and which is now at the extreme limit of visibility." ===== IC 1137 has a +30 second error in its IC RA, apparently one of the few errors made by Dreyer in compiling the catalogue. Swift's original paper (his 9th list) has an RA about 8 seconds preceding a galaxy that matches his brief description: "vF, S, R; 9 m * close np". In particular, the star is there. The object was not picked up again until 1983 when it made it into the IRAS lists (it is IRAS 15461+0844). ===== IC 1140. The IC1 position falls on an empty patch of sky. There are stars and asterisms in the area, but nothing leaps out as a "vF (? S Cl)" as Dreyer characterizes this in the IC. The "* 9.5 close" is indeed near the nominal position, but this does not help in identifying Bigourdan's object. Could this be another case like NGC 2529 and 2531 (which see), imaginary nebulae beyond the limit of detection? Checking his big table, we find that Bigourdan saw the object twice. He estimated its position on both nights with respect to a nearby star, which he called "An. b", to be PA = 120 degrees, distance = 1.3 arcmin. He tells us that "An. b" is +8.5 seconds and +2.5 arcmin from BD +19d 3021. There is a star there, so I've reduced his estimated position using a position for the star that I measured on DSS. This leads directly to an asterism of three stars that match Bigourdan's description perfectly. So what went wrong? Checking the list of new nebulae in CR 112, 703, 1891 in which this object appears, we find that his position (copied faithfully into IC1 by Dreyer) does not agree with the correctly reduced position. Further, his description reads, "... [the new object] is situated near BD +19d 3021 at p = 120 degrees, d = 1.3 arcmin." He must have confused his observing records and used the position of the BD star for his reduction. (He did, in fact, use the BD star, but only to estimate the position of "An. b".) As I found, when we use his correct comparison star, his estimated position falls almost exactly in the asterism. When Bigourdan prepared his vast set of observations for publication in 1912, he must have re-reduced the positions of all of his new nebulae. I1140 has its correct position in the tables of new nebulae. I suspect that the reason Bigourdan did not notice the mistake is that the position was precessed to equinox 1860 for the 1891 CR list, while the 1912 list is for equinox 1900. ===== IC 1142 has a -1 minute error in its RA. This goes right back to Javelle's listed RA offset from his comparison star -- it should read "+1m 41.95s" instead of "+0m 41.95s". Once the correction is made, Javelle's object is clearly identical to UGC 10055 = CGCG 107-055. ===== IC 1148 = NGC 6020. IC 1148 is another of the about 100 nebulae found by T. H. Safford at Dearborn in the mid-1860s. It, and the other 51 nebulae not found previously by other observers, was first listed in an appendix to the NGC. It's approximate position is only about 15 seconds west of NGC 6020 -- there is nothing in Safford's place -- and his brief description ("neb. *") is appropriate for the galaxy. The galaxy was found again about a decade later by Stephan who provided a micrometric measurement of its position. ===== IC 1150 may be a reobservation of NGC 6018. As Malcolm notes, the description -- including the superposed star -- and the declination are good matches to Javelle's single observation in July of 1891. However, Javelle's RA is off by 48.7 seconds of time, an unusual error to make. I searched the field for a star-galaxy pair with his observed separation (-20.90 seconds, -8.4 arcsec in north polar distance), but found none. Nor is there such a pair at -16 degrees, -6 degrees, +6 degrees, or +26 degrees as there would be if he made a digit error in his comparison star name (it is BD +16 2854). The only other galaxy Javelle found on the same night (IC 1155) is just where he observed it, so we are left with a mystery. Whatever happened, I've included the identity with a question mark on the IC number. I'm obviously not completely satisfied with the identification, but certainly think it is possible. ===== IC 1155. See IC 1150. ===== IC 1164 is a star. It is one of seven "nebulae" discovered by Bigourdan for which he gives no detailed measurements in his big tables. However, he does list a measurement in his Appendix 8, Supplementary Observations. This points exactly at the star. See IC 532 for more on these seven objects. ===== IC 1166. There are two galaxies here. Javelle calls his object "ill- defined", so I suspect he saw both. His single measurement falls between the two, so I've put the IC number on both objects with directional suffixes. ===== IC 1171 is a star. Bigourdan's estimated position is pretty good. While there is an asterism of three or four stars a couple of arcminutes to the south, there is no way to stretch his position to fit it. His RA and Dec offsets are consistent with his estimated position angle and distance, too; this rules out a typo in the declination. ===== IC 1172 = NGC 6044. This object is not listed in Bigourdan's detailed observations, but appears only in his list of new objects. Since the position and description are exactly that of NGC 6044, the identity is certain. ===== IC 1175 is a double star. Bigourdan's observation, referred to NGC 6053 (which he called NGC 6055), pinpoints the double exactly. ===== IC 1176 = NGC 6056. Swift's description, "2 pretty bright stars near south" points exactly at the NGC object as the one that he rediscovered. ===== IC 1177. Bigourdan's position is an estimate, but refers unambiguously to this galaxy and the 2-3 faint stars nearby. ===== IC 1178 is usually taken as the northwestern, brighter galaxy of the pair -- IC 1181 is the other. However, Swift's position is not very good, and the fact that he does not mention either object in his description of the other, casts some doubt on the identification. If, for example, his declination is 10 arcmin too far south, then IC 1178 could be the object at 16 03 15.6, +17 54 13 (often incorrectly called NGC 6054). This particular mistake is unlikely, however, as the galaxy to the north is a full magnitude fainter. It's possible that IC 1178 is identical to IC 1181, though since Swift claims that he found the two on the same night, this seems unlikely. So, 1) having nothing to go on but Swift's observations, 2) since there is no other object near his position that could be IC 1178, and 3) since the identification is in common use in the current astronomical literature, I retain the identification, though note that it is uncertain. ===== IC 1179 is almost certainly = NGC 6050. Together, the two objects are just visible in the 30-inch at McDonald. I found it impossible to separate them, even knowing that both existed. So, I think it is unlikely that Swift could have seen these as separate objects. ===== IC 1180 is a star. Again, Bigourdan's rough position, estimated with respect to NGC 6053 (which he calls NGC 6055), certainly refers to the star. ===== IC 1181. See IC 1178. ===== IC 1183 = NGC 6054, which see. ===== IC 1184 is a double -- or perhaps triple -- star. Bigourdan's estimated position, though rough, unambiguously points at the stars. The brightest star is the southeastern one, with the western and northern stars being about the same, very faint, magnitude. They may not have been involved in Bigourdan's image at all. But both are easily visible on the sky surveys. The northern is about twice as far from the brightest star as the western, so even if the western star is part of the asterism, the northern might not be. It was not until I looked at the 2MASS image of this in spring of 2005 that it occured to me that the northern star might be involved, so for years I had this listed as just a double star. All three are now in the table. ===== IC 1190 = CGCG 108-136 = MCG +03-41-113. Swift's position is bad, but his description "... another [= IC 1191] and [NGC] 6061 near in line" point to this galaxy (rather than to the fainter, smaller object, MCG +03-41-115 at 16 03 45.6, +18 19 48) as the one he saw. My earlier identification of I1190 as a star is incorrect. ===== IC 1191. See IC 1190. ===== IC 1193. Javelle's reduced position is about 1 second of time and 1 arcmin too large, but his description fits the galaxy. In addition, there is no other galaxy nearby that he could have mistaken for this one. Do his printed offsets have digit typos? ===== IC 1194. Javelle's offsets point exactly at the fainter lenticular, rather than at the brighter elliptical nearby. Perhaps he mistook the brighter object as a star, though it should have been clearly nebulous in the Nice 28-inch. ===== IC 1200 = NGC 6079. Swift's description and position are very good. He can be excused (in this case) for not realizing that William Herschel had found this object a century earlier since Herschel's position is well off the galaxy. Swift does refer (in his list VII) to this as the "south-preceding" of two objects (IC 1201 is the other), though it is actually north-preceding. See NGC 6071 and NGC 6079 for more discussion about WH's positions. This object is not, by the way, the same as B.207 = IC 1204 as Dreyer speculates in the description. See IC 1204 for a bit more on this. ===== IC 1201. See IC 1200. ===== IC 1202 = NGC 6081. For a change, Swift's position is good -- it agrees with Stephan's to within about 10 arcsec. Why, then, didn't he or Dreyer catch the identity? I suspect Swift did not catch the identity because he found the galaxy on 7 April 1888, and published his 7th list in August of the same year. That was the year, of course, when the NGC appeared. But Dreyer had plenty of time to at least note the identity, and didn't. Well, there are plenty of other cases like that, too. No one's perfect. ===== IC 1203 may be an asterism of 6 to 8 stars. Though his position -- at least as transcribed into the first IC by Dreyer, and as plotted on the 1929 edition of the CD charts -- is good, I'm not sure that the scattered group of 6-8 stars there is compact enough that Thome would have mistaken it for a nebula in his small telescope (12.5 cm aperture). IC 1207 (which see) has a much better candidate asterism; I think this one is too large (3.5 x 2.0 arcmin) and its stars too bright to be taken for a nebula. Nevertheless, I am retaining the identification, though with a colon, since there is nothing else there. Perhaps an experienced observer can poke at this with a similarly sized refractor to see what it looks like. ===== IC 1204 is not the same object as IC 1200 as Dreyer speculates in the description for IC 1200. In this particular case, the NGC position is wrong (see the IC2 Notes for the corrected declination), but once it is corrected, it is clear that this is a galaxy 3-4 arcmin northwest of NGC 6091. Bigourdan's precise position agrees well with GSC, and his comment (as summarized in the IC description) concerning the 11th magnitude star following by 3 arcmin is correct. Finally, Swift's position for IC 1200 = NGC 6079 is quite good in this case and pinpoints the other galaxy. See IC 1200, and NGC 6071 and NGC 6079 for more on this field. ===== IC 1206 is one of seven nebulae found by Bigourdan for which he provides no detailed observations in his big tables of differential measurements (see IC 532 for other notes on these objects). In spite of the fact that there are also no data for this object -- not even a date of observation -- in his Appendix VII devoted to new objects, this is also the only one of the seven which actually is a galaxy. His position is within 30 arcsec of that measured by Lewis Swift who called the object "eF, S, R." This is the description adopted by Dreyer for the IC. ===== IC 1207. Here is another asterism (2.0 x 0.5 arcmin) of 6 or 8 stars, fainter than those in IC 1203 (which see). This is a more believable object for a candidate nebula in a small telescope. Thome's position is good. ===== IC 1210 is not NGC 6111, which see. ===== IC 1213 = NGC 6172, which see. ===== IC 1216. See IC 1217. ===== IC 1217 is lost. Swift found it the same night, 2 August 1888, as several other nebulae (IC 1200, I1201, and I1216 are among them), and like most of them, it is one of his "eeeF, S, R, eee diff" nebulae. Unlike the others, there is no trace of it near his position. I1216 is, in Swift's 7th list, 30 seconds preceding, and 1deg 19.5 arcmin south of his position for I1217. Since that galaxy is close to his nominal position (just 10 seconds off in RA, not a large error at the large declination), we would expect I1217 to be within 10 seconds of its position, too. But there is nothing there aside from a few single stars. I suppose it is possible that I1217 is one of these, but there is no way to tell which; Swift's description has no notes about neighboring stars that would help pin it down. Finally, a search of the area on the POSS1 prints turned up no other galaxies in the area that might be I1217 with digit errors in their positions. So, another of Swift's nebulae is lost. ===== IC 1220. The NGC RA is 10 seconds of time off. This makes it most likely that the brighter CGCG 052-030 is the galaxy that Swift saw rather than the fainter CGCG 052-028. ===== IC 1226 may also be IC 1232, which see. ===== IC 1227 = NGC 6206. The identity was first suggested by Bigourdan himself in an italicized note in his big table. He puts the note under his second observation (1891) of the galaxy: "This nebula has in its neighborhood four stars, while Swift notes only three near NGC 6206, so I had thought at first that the two objects were distinct; but today it seems probable that NGC 6206 and Bigourdan 210 are identical." Indeed they are. Swift's RA is 20 seconds of time off. This misled Bigourdan to a faint star coincidentally close to the three stars that Swift mentions in his description: "pF, eS, R, stellar; 3 vF sts nr n point to it." In his first observation of "NGC 6206", Bigourdan carefully notes the distances and position angles of the same three stars -- but the object that he took to be N6206 is actually a fourth star that Swift apparently did not see (is it variable?). Bigourdan realized his mistake in 1891. By the time he returned to the field for a final measurement of the galaxy (in 1895), his description for N6206 is that of a single star, and he does not bother to make a third measurement of it. However, he does make four more measurements of his "new" nebula. Altogether, he has ten measurements of the galaxy. The average of the ten positions falls within two arcsec of the modern position. ===== IC 1229 and IC 1230 are probably the brightest two galaxies in a group scattered around Swift's position. He makes the separation between the galaxies more than twice the actual separation, but his descriptions are more or less OK. He mentions a double star between the objects. This may be the pair of compact "galaxies" that I've noted in the table as companions north of I1230. One of these is certainly a galaxy -- is the other a star? If they are galaxies, I'm surprised that Swift could see them. ===== IC 1230 is the brightest galaxy in a small group. It has a large and somewhat distorted corona, and is apparently interacting with a much smaller, fainter galaxy just to the south. Is the IC galaxy a cD in the making, swallowing up its fainter neighbor? ===== IC 1232 is probably IC 1226. Swift gives the RA only to a full minute of time with a question mark appended (his position is "16 46? +46 16.7" for 1890.0). He adds a note of explanation to his description: "Driving clock failed." Given the rest of his description, "eeeF, S, iR; B * with distant companion nr sf", however, we can scour the area for objects that he might have seen. The most obvious candidate is IC 1226, eight minutes preceding Swift's nominal RA. The stars, however, are southwest, not southeast as Swift would have them. The declination is appropriate, though (just 4 arcmin out), as is the description. So, I'm going to suggest that Swift made a simple mistake in his placement of the neighboring stars. He's confused his directions before, so I'm not surprised at the probability here -- especially given the broken clock which must have disconcerted him a bit. It certainly would have me! ===== IC 1233 = NGC 6247 as suggested by Dreyer in IC1. There is a 10 arcmin error in Swift's published position. Otherwise his position fits to within his usual errors, and his description "eF, vS, vE; bet 2 sts" also fits. There are no other galaxies in the area that match the description and have simple digit offsets from Swift's position. The galaxy itself looks like an interacting pair on the DSS. I've given separate positions for the components, though everyone else has taken it as a single, peculiar galaxy. ===== IC 1234 is a star -- though it does not match Bigourdan's description very well. He says (roughly translated by me; pardon my French!): "Object of doubtful appearance, which could be formed from stars 13.5 with a little nebulosity; it is completely insensible and a little elongated toward the position indicated for NGC 6262." He has two observations of it on the night of 5 Sept 1888. They do not agree very well, with differences of 0.95 seconds in RA, and 12.7 arcsec in Dec. Nevertheless, the mean of the two leads us unambiguously to the star. I should note that the identity of Bigourdan's comparison star is not quite secure. He places it -6 seconds and -7 arcmin from BD +57 1713; there is no star there. However, there are several stars scattered around including a noticeably brighter one 3 arcmin to the south. The identity of I1234 rests on our accepting this as Bigourdan's comparison star for his two measurements. ===== IC 1238 is a double star. See the discussion under NGC 6276. ===== IC 1239 = NGC 6276, which see. ===== IC 1240 is probably one of Bigourdan's imaginary objects. He describes it briefly as an "Object suspected [only for] an instant. The sky is beautiful." His position is not measured, only estimated at position angle 240 degrees, distance 3 arcmin from a star he calls "Arg. OE, 16761". The position he gives for the star is 2 arcmin south of the real position. I get the impression that he was not tremendously interested in this object. For a few minutes, I thought that the star an arcmin north of his position might be the object he saw. But the position angle and distance Bigourdan estimated probably rule this out. He correctly reduced them to offsets in RA and Dec, and I see no way to squeeze the extra arcminute out of the reduced position. So, another twinkle in the eye just beyond the limit of visibility. ===== IC 1243 is a line of five stars. It was first seen this way by Herbert Howe whose description (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) is so accurate that I can do no better than to quote it in full. "This was examined on two nights. It consists of five 12-14 mag. stars in a line, at an angle of 0 degrees, the length of the line being 45 arcsec. A star of mag. 14 immediately precedes the northern end of the row." Swift's position is adequate (10 seconds too large in RA, 1.3 arcmin too large in Dec) for a positive identification. ===== IC 1246 is a star. Bigourdan estimated its position only once, but his estimate still falls within a few arcsec of the star. His description makes it clear that Bigourdan was not much interested in the object: "Very faint object, maybe nebulous, only suspected." He also got the direction of his "comparison" star wrong (it is the "* 10 n 1 arcmin" in the NGC description) -- it is actually south of his suspected nebula. ===== IC 1247 is, like I1246 and so many other of Bigourdan's "novae", also a star. But he actually took the time to measure it once, the night he discovered it (21 June 1887). He describes it then as "A star 13.3-13.4 around which I suspect a few traces of nebulosity. A * 13.3 is at PA = 27 deg, distance = 0.7 arcmin." Bigourdan's measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the position found from the DSS. When he examined this object again on 9 June 1891, he calls it "A star 13.4 without a trace of nebulosity." A third and final examination yielded this description: "The object measured in 1887 is a star 13.5 or 13.4-13.5 without nebulosity." Herbert Howe also examined the area in the late 1890's and came to the same conclusion in one of his Monthly Notices papers. Dreyer put Howe's observation into an IC2 note, so there is no excuse for missing on this one. One other curious coincidence: I did the debugging of this object on 21 June 2002, exactly 115 years after Bigourdan found and measured it. ===== IC 1251 and IC 1254 are the two brightest galaxies in a group north and east of NGC 6340. Swift's positions are not too bad, and the galaxies are enough brighter than their companions that the identifications are secure. ===== IC 1252 = IC 4649. This identity was recognized by Bigourdan himself, and apparently stems from some error in his record keeping. He has the two as being identical in his Table II of new nebulae (Table II has the "novae" in RA order), but has them at different positions in Table I (this lists them in order of Bigourdan's own number). He attempted to measure a position for the object on only one of the three nights on which he saw it -- there is a considerably brighter star only 30 arcsec to the southeast. His single position falls between the star and the galaxy. ===== IC 1253 = NGC 6347. Safford's original position is very good, falling within 20 arcsec of the galaxy. Unfortunately, when Dreyer precessed the position, he made a +2 degree error in the declination. So, the IC position has nothing near it. This is one of the very few errors that Dreyer himself made in assembling his catalogues. ===== IC 1254. Carlson has a "correction" to the IC position of this galaxy -- it is not an improvement. Swift's position is actually closer to the galaxy. Also see IC 1251. ===== IC 1271. Swift's original description reads "eeeF, vL, N6523 nr p, ee diff; B * inv or is a neb *; discovered 2 years ago." He gives a position of 18 02 26 -24 27.2 (precessed to 1950) which falls about 5 arcmin southeast of the star at 18 02 06.48, -24 24 10.9 (B1950.0, GSC). His position is still well within the brighter part of the nebulosity, but I have given a position that is much closer to the star and corresponds to the brightest part of the nebula to the east of M8 on the POSS and SSS prints/films (18 02 09 -24 24.9). If Swift meant to give the position of the star, it is well off, but not unreasonably so for him, especially given the size of the object. This is not, by the way, = NGC 6526 = H V 9. That number applies to the much brighter southeastern portion of M8 that curves around to the northeast to eventually encompass NGC 6530. See N6526 for more. Swift's note "... discovered 2 years ago" deserves a comment. JH's sketch of M8 in the Cape of Good Hope Observations shows this entire area, including all of the nebulosity included in IC 1271, as well as Swift's star. So, I don't think that we can credit Swift with the discovery of this "object." JH clearly regarded it as a part of the M8 complex, and we can now see on photographs that his interpretation was correct. Herbert Howe came to the same conclusion through visual examination of the field a few years after Swift's observation. See NGC 6523, N6526, and N6533 for more discussion about the early observations of the M8 area. ===== IC 1272 is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan's one estimated position is about 10 arcsec preceding the geometric center of the asterism, but is good enough to allow unambiguous identification of the object. IC 1273 (which see) is a double star about 2.5 arcmin to the northeast observed the same nights. ===== IC 1273 is a double star -- actually a triple as the southwestern star is itself double -- close northeast of IC 1272 (which see). Bigourdan has one measurement of the object which clearly identifies it. ===== IC 1274 and IC 1275 are both reflection nebulae sketched by Barnard from a plate he took at Lick in the 1890's. The published sketch (in AN 3111), with BD stars identified on it, is accurate and identifies the nebulae exactly. ===== IC 1275. See IC 1274. ===== IC 1277 is a faint galaxy. Bigourdan has four observations of it; they do not agree very well, but his mean position is only 12 arcsec south of the nucleus. The identity is secure. ===== IC 1278 is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan observed it on the same nights as I1277 (which see), but his five measurements are much more accordant than for the galaxy. Again, the identification is secure. ===== IC 1280 = NGC 6581, which see. ===== IC 1282 is an asterism of four faint stars. It is faint enough that Wolfgang overlooked it in favor of a brighter asterism to the southwest. But Bigourdan's single measurement unambiguously points to the fainter object. ===== IC 1283 is a part of IC 1284. In AN 3111, Barnard gives the name (BD -19d 4948) and correct position of the nebulous star that he found on one of his plates. He continues, "The nebulosity is very small and principally noticeable on the southern side of the star." This is an accurate description as far as it goes. Later, in AN 4239, he describes the entire area as having a "large bed of diffused nebulosity" stretching between I1284 and BD -20d 5055 nearly a degree to the southwest. The Palomar and Siding Spring survey plates show Barnard's nebulosity and large swaths of Milky Way stars throughout the entire area. See NGC 6589 and NGC 6590 for more discussion of Barnard's and Swift's observations here. ===== IC 1284. See IC 1283, and NGC 6590 = NGC 6595 = IC 4700. ===== IC 1285 is an asterism of 5 stars. Bigourdan's position points to the two brightest on the northwestern corner, but his description suggests that he saw at least two of the other three. Wolfgang and I have estimated the center of the entire group. ===== IC 1290. As with I1203 and I1207 (which see), this is an asterism of 6 to 8 faint stars at Thome's position. ===== IC 1292 is lost. Pickering announced it in AN 137, 71, 1895 (which I've not seen), and listed it in HA 60 as the 74th nebula found at Harvard. It was found on an objective prism plate by Wilhelmina Fleming, and is credited to her in the IC. She adds the note "* 9.6 south following". There is indeed a star (GSC 6867 1486, V = 10.6) southeast of the nominal position, but there are only very faint stars in the immediate area of that position. Wolfgang has selected one of these for his list, but I don't think it likely that the Harvard plate went deep enough to pick it up. Was this object possibly a nova (or just a defect?) seen on a single plate of the area? Pickering's original AN article might shed some light on this notion. The other obvious possibility is that there is a typo or other error in the position. However, the IC position comes from the AN paper, and I suspect that the position given in HA 60 was simply copied from the same paper. So, any error would predate the AN paper. ===== IC 1293 is a small asterism of 5 or 6 stars. There is a brighter star less than an arcmin to the northwest. Swift suspected another "nebula" near to the southeast; this may be the fainter asterism at 18 40 54.5, +56 13 32 (B1950). Howe was the first to suggest that this was not a nebula, but his description is a good match for a line of three stars well to the south at 18 40 35.4, +56 09 31. He says "It appears to consist of three stars of mag 14, of which the following one is nebulous." The east-northeastern of the line of three stars is actually a blended double; it could well appear nebulous at the eyepiece. But it is unusual for one of Howe's objects to be so far off the catalogued position without his mentioning it. ===== IC 1294 is probably the asterism of 3 or 4 stars listed in the table of positions. Swift is unusually voluble about this object. In addition to the usual description of the object itself ("eeeF, S, iR, eee diff") he adds, "F * close nf both in line with 3 vF sts in form of arc of circle. The F * is in the middle. Not [NGC] 6695." The arc of three stars that Swift mentions is about 2 arcmin northeast. This is a clear match to his note. However, that would make his "F * ... in the middle" a considerably fainter double star a bit closer to his "nebula". In order for his "F *" to be brighter than the three "vF sts" in his arc, as his note suggests, we have to suppose that one or both of the pair is variable, and that he saw it near its maximum. This makes it less likely that the identification of I1294 that I suggest is actually the right one. But I don't see anything else nearby that matches Swift's note as well. Wolfgang has chosen a faint galaxy about 30 arcsec northwest of a considerably brighter star. I think it is too faint for Swift to have dug out, and is too far from his position. It would probably be overwhelmed by the star at the eyepiece. We have to keep in mind, too, Swift's propensity for mangling his positions. See IC 1300 and IC 1301 for two examples. So, I've put a colon on this IC number in the table. Sigh. ===== IC 1298. This one is so obvious that I got it for ESGC. The IC description reads simply "vS Cl, [NGC] 6778 p 3 [arcmin]." This is just where Bigourdan's three micrometric measurements made on two nights place his "cluster." It is probably a random grouping of 8-9 stars at Bigourdan's place -- but it certainly does look like small cluster. Once we have proper motions for the stars, we'll know better whether they might be associated. In the meantime, I suspect this would be an interesting object in a moderate size (say 15- to 20-inch) telescope. And it is indeed just three arcmin east of NGC 6778 = NGC 6785 (which has its own story). ===== IC 1299, et al. The Reverend Thomas Espin, an avid amateur astronomer active for nearly 50 years beginning in the late 1880's, published a list of 15 new "nebulae" in MNRAS 54, 327, 1894. He provides no-more-than-adequate positions for them (estimated from the BD charts), and his descriptions are generally minimal. Though he does not say so, he presumably swept them up during his searches for double stars. Taken altogether, his brief notes suggest that several of these are no more than enhancements of the stellar background of the Milky Way. Some are real clusters, and at least one is an asterism. I've written out my usual comments for the questionable objects; these notes are folded into the list in numerical order. See 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1310, 1311, 1314, 1363, 1369, 1378, 1400, 1402, and 1442. IC 1299 itself is a clump of stars that may or may not be a real cluster. Espin's position is very good and pins down this group of about a dozen stars scattered across an area 4 arcmin by 2.5 arcmin. ===== IC 1300 = NGC 6798. According to Swift himself in a letter to Herbert Howe, there is a one degree error in Swift's declination published in his 10th list. Howe cites Swift's letter in his long paper of observations of nebulae and clusters in MNRAS 61, 29, 1900. Curiously, Dreyer printed the correction in the IC2 Notes, but did not indicate the source. Swift's position is otherwise good. Another curiosity: NGC 6798 is also one of Swift's discoveries. It comes from his second list; the position there is very good. ===== IC 1301 is almost certainly equal to IC 4867. Dreyer has copied into the IC2 Notes a comment of Howe's to the effect that the north polar distance of I1301 may be 36 arcmin too large. Dreyer goes on to suggest that the nebula is therefore probably I4867 -- which, however, is still nearly fifteen arcmin away from Swift's "corrected" position. Howe's comment was made in the same note in which he commented on IC 1300 (which see), and had its as its source the same letter from Lewis Swift. Howe says, "In the same letter, Swift states that the declination of (1301) is about +49 40, which is 35 arcmin greater than the declination (for 1900.0) computed from the Index Catalogue." This would make the position for 1950.0 19 25 21, +49 47.2. As I suggested above, this is still about 15 arcmin from I4867, found by Burnham while he was observing a double star. How did Dreyer make the connection? I think he probably realized that two bright stars mentioned in both Swift's and Burnham's descriptions were identical, especially since one of these is Burnham's double. Swift's description reads: "eeF, vS, R; 2B and 1F * in line nr f, nearest * nf close D with 300." Burnham's description as abbreviated for the 2nd IC is: "S; 2 sts 7 nf 3 arcmin." Swift did not know that the double was the star later observed by Burnham, but Dreyer certainly suspected it. So, this chain of reasoning makes IC 1301 = IC 4867 = CGCG 256-017sw (the northeastern component, about an arcminute away, is fainter). CGCG suggests that IC 1301 is CGCG 256-018; this is probably not the case as the galaxy is near neither Swift's original position, nor his "corrected" position quoted by Howe. It does have three stars following, but all are faint and none of them is double. ===== IC 1304 may be a clump of field stars a few arcmin to the northeast of Espin's position. It may also be UGC 11460, but this would require an error in RA of 2 min 24 sec which would make it unique among his objects. His declination is just 2 arcmin off the galaxy's, within his nominal accuracy of 3 arcmin. Espin says nothing more than "Faint nebulosity." Without some notion of size, any attempt at identification is only speculation. At least we have a couple of candidates. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1305 is a more-or-less linear asterism of 4-5 stars stretching northwest of BD +19 4103. The identification is pretty secure as Espin's position is just 1.3 arcmin north and less than 2 seconds preceding the asterism. His note clinches the identity: "Very faint, extending N.P. from a 9.5 mag star." See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1306 may be the group of stars centered 2 seconds preceding and 2.5 arcmin north of Espin's position, though without the nebulosity that he claims: "Nebula round a group of faint stars." See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1307 has the most extensive note of any of Espin's discoveries: "While sweeping on September 14 [1893] I suddenly came upon a dark space. On carefully examining the field there is evidently a large faint nebulosity, mixed up with stars, sharply defined on f side, stretching N. and S. Max Wolf's photograph shows this nebulosity." Even so, there is no nebulosity here. There is, however, a fairly well- defined Milky Way star cloud. Espin's "dark space" marks its southern edge, while the eastern edge is not as clear as his description indicates. The position I give is well to the north of Espin's. His is close to his "dark space", well off the center of the star cloud -- assuming that this is indeed what he saw. The area is near the center of Barnard's plate 70 in his Milky Way Atlas (taken with a 6-inch lens); it is no more nebulous than any other area on the plate. Wolf used a similar lens for some of his early plates. Espin may be referring to one of these. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1310. Close to Espin's position is a small cluster or pretty rich asterism about 1.5 x 1 arcmin in size. This is probably Espin's object as it is the only outstanding object in the area. There is some extremely low surface brightness nebulosity around, but it is too faint to have been visible to Espin. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1311. Though Espin describes this as an "Extremely faint nebula within a circle of stars", it is actually a fine cluster about 5 arcmin across. It is indeed within the circle of stars, and makes an interesting object at the eyepiece (it was just barely visible in a 6-inch F7 reflector at about 150X). See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1312 is an asterism of about a dozen faint field stars covering an area of around 1.7 x 1.0 arcmin. Bigourdan himself suspected that the object might consist of stars "at the extreme limit of visibility," and notes that it was difficult to measure. In fact, his first two measurements on 20 Sept 1884 are quite discordant, being more than 20 arcsec apart. His third measurement twelve years later on 29 Oct 1896 is not even of the same clump of stars, but is a smaller and fainter asterism of four stars over three arcmin away. I've taken the first set of stars as the IC object as that is the one published in Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus list that Dreyer incorporated into the first IC. Reinmuth could not find the object on the Heidelberg plates that he examined, so questioned if it might be the same as NGC 6892. It isn't; N6892 is a different clump of four stars. Bigourdan's measurements under the NGC number refer to the right asterism. Since he found and measured I1312 on two of the same nights as N6892, the objects must be different. ===== IC 1314 is another star cloud in the Milky Way. There is no nebulosity associated with it. Espin describes it as a "Large misty patch, partly resolved." Though it is not the most prominent star cloud in the area, it is of an appropriate size (about 15-20 arcmin across) that it would be easily noticed during a sweep. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1315 is an asterism of five or six stars at Bigourdan's position. Though he has only one measurement of it, it points exactly at the stars, so there is no question about the identification. ===== IC 1316 does not exist. Bigourdan has two observations differing by 2.3 seconds of time and 6 arcsec; the first position is the one given in the IC. Neither position, however, refers to any object on POSS1, not even stars. There is no possibility that this is the same as NGC 6901 or IC 5000, since Bigourdan observed these other objects on the same nights as IC 1316. My statement in RC2 that this is = N6901 and I5000 (which see) is therefore wrong. ===== IC 1318. Gamma Cygni is apparently near the center of an extended region of very faint nebulosity. Barnard discovered this photographically, and comments in his Milky Way atlas that most of the nebulae do not show in the printed version of the plate. It is, however, well-seen on the prints from the Palomar Schmidt. Rather than try to locate the center of this extended nebulae, I've simply adopted the position of gamma Cyg itself. ===== IC 1323. Javelle noted this as a very small star immersed in nebulosity. It is actually nothing more than a faint double star. Javelle's position is about 9 arcsec northeast of the center point, but is still good enough to let us know exactly what object he was looking at. ===== IC 1324. Howe's correction to the RA of this galaxy, found by Swift, is quoted by Dreyer in the Notes appended to the Second IC. ===== IC 1325 = NGC 6928 and IC 1326 = NGC 6930. Swift's RA's are correct, but he has his declinations reversed. He apparently changed his descriptions to match his positions, because the fainter of the two objects is in fact south- east of the brighter. Howe was the first to suggest the correct identifications with Marth's NGC objects. Reinmuth, however, made I1325 = N6927 and I1326 = N6928. These mistaken identities were copied by Carlson, and are sometimes still quoted today. Swift's detailed notes about the stars neighboring N6930 clearly identify it, though, and his RA of N6928 does the same for the brightest object in the group. Howe correctly notes that Swift saw the two brightest in the group, and Reinmuth is just as clearly wrong. ===== IC 1326 = NGC 6930. See IC 1325 = NGC 6928. ===== IC 1329 is an asterism of about ten faint stars located in the middle of a "trapezium" of four pretty bright stars. Swift saw the asterism as a low surface brightness nebula, but otherwise described the field correctly. ===== IC 1333 is almost certainly = IC 1334. Javelle's declination offset is 2.5 arcmin off the galaxy for his measurement of IC 1333. This offset depends on a different comparison star than the measurement for IC 1334; I wonder if the difference represents one turn (or an integer multiple of one turn) of the micrometer screw. The RA's agree to within 3 arcsec, and J's descriptions are similar. There are also no other galaxies or stars near his position for I1333 that he might have taken for a nebula. ===== IC 1334 = IC 1333, which see. ===== IC 1340 is a knot in the Veil Nebula, probably involving a star, though it is overexposed on the POSS1, so I can't say for sure. It is indeed, as Safford supposed, connected with NGC 6995 (which see), and is probably a part of that larger object found and sketched by JH. See NGC 6960 for more on the Veil and its various pieces. ===== IC 1343. Javelle's RA offset is 10 seconds of time in error. His printed position for the comparison star (BD -15 5863) is correct, as is his arithmetic, so he must have recorded the incorrect offset when he reduced the observation. ===== IC 1346 and IC 1354 = IC 1350. Javelle found these two galaxies on 7 August 1891. His positions with respect to a star that he called "BD -14deg 5910," however, refer to blank patches of sky. He went over the area again on 26 July 1892, finding only one object, IC 1350. Again, he used the "same" BD star as his comparison star -- but this time, his position for the galaxy falls within 2 arcsec of the GSC position for MCG -02-53-021. Where are his first two galaxies? If we look at their relative positions, we find that the relative GSC positions of MCG -02-53-021 and MCG -02-53-019 are exactly the same. If we assume that these are in fact I1346 and I1354, then the offsets Javelle gives should point to the same star. In fact, they do: the star is GSC 5782-1182, about 5.5 sec preceding and 5.5 arcmin south of BD -14deg 5910. The position for the southern star, combined with Javelle's offsets, point to the MCG galaxies as the ones which he actually found. Since his "third" object in the area, I1350, is also one of the galaxies, it is clear that it is a repeat observation of I1354. ===== IC 1350 = IC 1354. See IC 1346. ===== IC 1354 = IC 1350. See IC 1346. ===== IC 1363 is another of Espin's asterisms which he took to be a nebula. He describes this one as "Faint, extending N. from DM +46 3214, 9.4 mag." The magnitude applies to the star, not the "nebula." The densest part of the asterism is actually a bit northeast of the BD star, but stretching on north as Espin notes. Coincidentally, there is another star, just a bit fainter than the BD star, at the south end of the asterism. I make the asterism's size about 2 x 1.5 arcmin. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1369. Though credited only to Pechule in the IC, this object was independently found by Espin as well. Both observers called it nebulous with many faint stars involved. It is actually a small, not too sparse, cluster about 5 x 3.5 arcmin in size. There is no nebulosity in the immediate vicinity of the cluster, but the rich Milky Way background may have lent that sort of appearance to the object. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1370. Though I have labeled only the brightest galaxy in this compact group as IC 1370, it's possible that all the objects here (at least six are galaxies and two others are probably stars) contributed to the visual image that Javelle found and measured. Three of the galaxies are very faint, though. While they make the photographic image quite spectacular, they don't add much to the total light of the system. ===== IC 1376 may be one of the faint double stars near Safford's nominal position. But without a description -- there is none in the annual report where Safford's list originally appears -- we really don't have a way to tell for sure. The one other nebula that Safford found on the same night (NGC 7416) is placed by Safford near its true position, so there is no systematic offset that we can invoke. Digit errors are fairly common in Safford's positions (see e.g. IC 1030). So, I checked at reasonable small digit offsets from the nominal position but don't find any nebula at any of them. Larger errors in the 10's digits are still possible; I haven't checked them yet. So, without more evidence, we really can't do much with this. Another lost nebula, I'm afraid. ===== IC 1378 may be the apparent cluster of stars that I've listed in the table. There is nothing else near that fits Espin's position, and his note that there are "some faint stars" is appropriate. However, there is not the background of dense a Milky Way star field to reinforce the illusion of nebulosity (in fact, the "cluster" seems to sit in a void between Milky Way star clouds), so I'm not entirely convinced by the identification. Maybe there is a larger error of some sort in the position. Showing that, however, will have to wait until someone can look into Espin's original observing records. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1382 = NGC 7056. There is a five minute error in Safford's RA. Once that is corrected, the RA falls within 15 seconds of NGC 7056, and the description fits well enough. ===== IC 1396 is unmistakable in spite of the sparse description in the IC. This may have been sent to Dreyer as a private communication; the IC gives no reference aside from "Barnard." Nor is there a reference to it in Barnard's Milky Way atlas, though he does discuss it quite a bit in his notes to Plate 82. The HII region itself is spectacular on the POSS1 prints, covering an area of about 3 deg x 2 deg. It has a pretty low surface brightness, but is bright enough that the many dark cometary globules superposed on it show up very well. There is a cluster of stars near its center; I've used the position of the brightest member (BD +56 2617 = SAO 033626) as that of the entire complex. This is a wonderful object. ===== IC 1400. Like several other of Espin's objects, there is no nebulosity associated with this small collection of about two dozen stars. They are probably nothing more than a random sprinkling of Milky Way field stars scattered over an area of 5 arcmin x 3 arcmin. This and IC 1402 are immersed in the northeastern end of a large Milky Way star cloud, probably defined more by the bordering dark nebulae than by being a true stellar association. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's short list. ===== IC 1402 is very similar to IC 1400 (which see), but at 2.5 arcmin x 2 arcmin is even smaller and has about half the number of stars as I1400. These may be small clusters, but proper motions and photometry will be needed. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's short list. ===== IC 1414. Spitaler has among his novae this object which he places 58.10 seconds of time west, and 2 arcmin 43.5 arcsec south of "BD +7deg 4775 pr. bor." Since he did not have a good position for the star (he apparently adopted the BD position), the position for the nebula in IC1 is not too precise, either. Is the nova CGCG 403-007, or is it CGCG 403-008 as taken by CGCG? A more distant possibility is CGCG 403-010, adopted by MCG. Precessing Spitaler's position for his comparison star, I found that it falls close to BD +7deg 4775, which is in Tycho-2. Applying his offsets to the star leads directly to CGCG 403-008 as the correct galaxy. Curiously, however, his declination offset is about 20 arcsec too large -- is there a typo in his published table? ===== IC 1415 and IC 1416. These novae were found and measured once by Bigourdan during his first search for NGC 7164 (which see). Since that galaxy is about two minutes of time west of its nominal position, he did not succeed in his quest. The object he took to be N7164 is, in fact, illusory. He describes four stars near his nominal position perfectly, but there is only blank sky where he measured a "nebula." Unfortunately, the two novae are also illusions, though there are faint stars near the places he measured. In the case of IC 1415, his distances and position angles to two neighboring stars suggest that the faint star is indeed the object he saw. However, he specifically mentions the star as being involved on one side of the nebula: it is at 21 56 09.4, +01 07 04 (B1950.0) 25 arcsec to the north of his position for the nebula, so is almost certainly not the IC object. Bigourdan similarly pinpoints IC 1416 with respect to one of the stars near his phantom NGC 7164, 0.7 arcmin distant at PA = 340 degrees (though his measured position puts it 0.9 arcmin distant, given the GSC position for the star). The faint star in this case is 0.8 arcmin distant at PA = 5 degrees (the B1950 position is 21 56 17.1, +01 12 37). This is only 8-10 arcsec away from Bigourdan's measured position for the nova, close enough that the star might have been the object he saw. Given his lack of success with the other two objects, however, I doubt that this identification is correct. So, in the end, we are left with two more non-existent IC objects. ===== IC 1416 does not exist. See IC 1415. ===== IC 1419. See IC 1426. ===== IC 1421. See IC 1426. ===== IC 1424 is a star about 0.7 arcmin southeast of the nucleus of NGC 7190. Bigourdan has only one measurement of it, and complains that it is very difficult to see because of its proximity to the NGC galaxy. The two objects are clear on the DSS. The galaxy chosen by Wolfgang is much too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. In any case, his measurement of the star with respect to N7190 leaves no doubt about the identification. ===== IC 1426 is lost. Javelle's one measurement lands in empty space, though there is a faint, wide double star about 25 arcsec to the southwest that might possibly be his object. I doubt it, however -- he found and measured I1419 and I1421 on the same night, and he puts them both in their correct places. There may be a transcription error of some sort. Javelle's published offset is +2m 02.62s in RA and +2' 26.6" in Dec -- there are an awful lot of twos and sixes in there. Unfortunately, if he identified his comparison star correctly, there are no galaxies at reasonable offsets that digit errors in the offsets could lead to. I also looked at other star/galaxy pairs in the area, but none match the offsets, either. So, another lost nebula. ===== IC 1429 is a star. In addition, Bigourdan published his single estimated RA offset from his comparison star with the wrong sign. This is clear from his note that "... some time after the measures (sic), I noted, from memory, that a star of 11th magnitude is toward PA = 330 deg, d = 1' +-". That brighter star is there if the sign is in fact opposite from the printed minus sign. As with IC 1424, Wolfgang has picked up a galaxy that is much too faint for Bigourdan to have seen with his 30-cm refractor. ===== IC 1442 is a real cluster centered about 5 arcmin southwest of Espin's place. It stands out well on the POSS1 prints. Though Espin noted some nebulosity in the field, there is none. This is apparently another case where the rich Milky Way background gave the appearance of nebulosity in his eyepiece. Espin also saw only about a dozen stars. He gives no indication of how large the group is, but the cluster that exists on the sky has apparent diameters of 5 arcmin by 4 arcmin. There are roughly 30 stars included. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's new objects. ===== IC 1448 = NGC 7308, which see. ===== IC 1450 is a double star found by Bigourdan. His offsets from his comparison star unequivocally identify the double, and the NGC position is correctly transcribed from his published lists of new objects, so the identification is sure. ===== IC 1452 = "NGC 7374B". There is a six-degree error in the IC NPD, one of Dreyer's rare transcription errors. The Comptes Rendus list has the 1860 NPD printed correctly as "79 53". Once the six-degree error is corrected, IC 1452 is the high-surface-brightness companion to NGC 7374. Bigourdan's position is within two arcsec of the modern ones, and his notes mention not being able to see the 10th magnitude star nearby that Lord Rosse records at PA = 25deg, d = 5 arcmin from N7374; was this an asteroid? ===== IC 1457 may be a star. Bigourdan places this 2.6 seconds preceding and 46 arcsec north (not a measurement, only an estimate) of BD -06 6097 -- there is nothing there. About an arcmin southwest is a 13th magnitude star that I suggested in ESGC might be the object. Wolfgang's suggestion is a somewhat fainter star about 2 arcmin northwest of the nominal position. Carlson chooses a star, too, but does not give a position; I suspect it is one of these two. Neither of these impresses me much, so I've put question marks on both. ===== IC 1458 is probably NGC 7441 (which see). The IC identification is not in doubt. ===== IC 1459 = IC 5265. This identity was, surprisingly, first suggested by Swift in his list reporting the discovery of IC 5265 and about 40 other nebulae. Nevertheless, Dreyer did not report this, but suggested instead that it might be NGC 7418 (that is about half a degree south, however). Swift's notes about the nebula being "... bet 2 sts p & f; nf of 2" make the identity clear. Barnard is credited with discovering I1459, but there is no publication given. I don't see the object in any of Barnard's articles in my collection, so I assume that this was a private communication to Dreyer. Thus, I've had no way to check Barnard's position. Whatever the case, that position is 10 seconds too large in RA and 2 arcmin too far north. This may have helped lead Swift and Dreyer somewhat astray -- though Swift's own position is even further off the mark. The southwestern nebula, by the way, is IC 5264 (which see). These make a striking pair with IC 1459 being one of the brightest objects in the southern sky that JH missed. He could have also easily picked up I5264, so he either missed sweeping the area, or he had one of his very few observing lapses. His observing assistant, John Stone, tells of a time that JH fell asleep and awoke to find the field absolutely blank -- Stone had continued to faithfully move the telescope with the stars until it was pointed at Table Mountain! Perhaps this is a similar incident. ===== IC 1462 is a star. Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star's comparison star as BD +07 4995 -- it is actually BD +07 4955. Once that change is made, his comparison star can be identified and his single measurement reduced. His position is within an arcsec of the position measured on DSS for the star, so there is no question about the identification. Bigourdan himself suggested that the object might be nothing more than a star. The DSS image is slightly elongated, while other star images in the field are more nearly round. It's possible that this is in fact a very close double. ===== IC 1463 is probably the southwestern of a pair of stars separated by about 20 arcsec. Howe suggested that the pair itself is Baron d'Engelhardt's object, but the original micrometric position is within 2-3 arcsec of the one star. Unfortunately, I do not have Engelhardt's description or his offsets from his comparison star, so can't really judge this very well. Consequently, I've left the double as the IC object, but give the individual stars in the position table, too. ===== IC 1464 is indeed double as suspected by Javelle. Both objects are included in the Lick catalog, and it is those positions that I've adopted for the position table. I've taken a simple mean of those for the IC number itself. ===== IC 1465, like so many of Bigourdan's "novae," is actually an asterism. In this case, it is a linear triple star about two arcmin southwest of NGC 7468. Bigourdan actually used N7468 as his comparison object on one of the two nights that he measured I1465. So, Wolfgang's suggestion in his earliest list that I1465 = N7468 is wrong. ===== IC 1470 is an HII region exactly at its discovery position. It was found nearly simultaneously by Spitaler (20 March 1892), Pechule, and Barnard (both 21 March 1892) while they were observing Comet Dennison (1892 II). The nebula has been incorrectly called a planetary nebula, and the IC number has also been incorrectly assigned to a much larger, much lower surface brightness diffuse nebula nearby. ===== IC 1475 is lost, at least for now. It does not appear in any of Barnard's published papers that I have in my files, so is apparently one of the nebulae sent directly to Dreyer. There is nothing at the IC position, nor is there any obvious candidate star in the UK Schmidt field of the area. I suppose it is possible that this is either NGC 7507 or NGC 7513. The declinations bracket Barnard's nominal Dec, and the RA's are roughly 2 and 1 minutes of time too small, respectively. NGC 7507, a fairly bright elliptical galaxy, might look something like a "nebulous star" in a small telescope or on a photographic plate taken with a similarly small telescope. But I'm not willing to stretch to either NGC number without more information. So, until we can turn up that additional information, there just isn't much more to be said about this entry -- at least for now. ===== IC 1477 = NGC 7596 (which see). ===== IC 1478 = NGC 7594 (which see). Bigourdan recorded IC 5307 (which also see) as NGC 7594, and called N7594 a nova. In spite of the confusion of the names, his positions are good (as are Kobold's), so we can easily sort out the field. ===== IC 1480 = NGC 7607 is a double star within seven arcsec of Bigourdan's measured position. His description reads "Small cluster 20 arcsec in diameter in which I can distinguish at least two stars, perhaps accompanied by a little nebulosity." Many of Bigourdan's "novae" which are nothing more than single or double stars carry that same note: "accompanied by a little nebulosity." There is almost always no trace of nebulosity around these stars and asterisms on the sky, so there may be some systematic problem with his observations at the limit of his vision. Perhaps he was just pushing that limit too hard, or perhaps he did much of his observing on poor nights (but that is not borne out by his notes about seeing and transparency). Whatever the case, it happened a lot. The NGC number, which see, comes from Tempel, who independently discovered the "nebula" some years before Bigourdan. Tempel's position is also micrometrically measured, so there is doubt neither about the identity with the double, nor with Bigourdan's object. It was not until I was putting the IC into NED in the spring and summer of 2005 that I tripped across the identity with the NGC object. Working through the catalogues over the previous years, I had measured the positions for the stars twice, once for the NGC number, then again for the IC, without noticing that the numbers pointed to the same objects. Perhaps there are more to be found. If so, I will find them as I continue loading the IC. ===== IC 1483 = NGC 7638 (which see). ===== IC 1484. See NGC 7638. ===== IC 1485 = NGC 7639. See NGC 7638. ===== IC 1486 = NGC 7648. There is no problem with the NGC position of this, nor with the IC position, at least to within the usual errors of the sources. Bigourdan, in fact, found the identity before he prepared his big table for publication, so there he has Big. 241 = NGC 7648. Since he does not comment about it, I suspect that he simply overlooked the NGC entry until after he had reduced his data. ===== IC 1487 = NGC 7649. Swift's position for NGC 7649 falls close to the brightest galaxy in the cluster Abell 2593, so there is no mistaking that identity. However, his position for IC 1487, which he found two years later, is very close to a fainter galaxy in the cluster. Just an arcminute or so to the southeast of this object is the second brightest cluster member, a double galaxy taken by Herbert Howe as IC 1487. He clearly described the two stars close to it, but makes no mention of the fainter galaxy at Swift's position. Swift's description of I1487, however, says, "8 m * f, F * nr nf" (he goes on to say "not [GC] 4659" = NGC 7653, some distance away from the cluster, so that turns out to be irrelevant to the discussion). Keeping in mind Swift's 32-arcmin field, his two stars are easy to pick out. They point to NGC 7649 as the most likely candidate as Swift's second object. There is the possibility that Howe's galaxy is in fact Swift's object, but that would require that Swift's "F * nr nf" actually be a "F * nr np." While there are a lot of errors of this sort in Swift's lists (e.g. NGC 6039, which see), it's easier to accept his observation at face value and think that he simply picked up the brightest cluster galaxy a second time. ===== IC 1488. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Not only that, but he gave the misidentified star the wrong BD number! Instead of BD +14 4982 -- for which he gives the position -- he has BD +14 4992. This occurs in both of his tables, so is not a printer's typo. The actual comparison star was BD +14 4986. When that is used, Javelle's offsets point exactly to a faint galaxy that matches his description perfectly. However, the IC position, based on BD +14 4982, is just a few arcmin north of NGC 7653 (which Javelle mentions in a footnote as being distinct from his new nebula). This has led some of the modern catalogues to suggest that IC 1488 is a reobservation of NGC 7653. They are all incorrect. ===== IC 1490 = I1524. Neither discovery position is very good; Swift's is, in fact, 30 minutes of time too small, a clear typo or transcription error. Safford's RA is 20 seconds too large, and 1.7 arcmin too far south. The RA error would be easily correctable as the galaxy is a fairly large and bright object -- but it has a somewhat fainter edge-on companion 4 arcmin south. MCG put "IC 1524" on the spindle instead of the brighter spiral. This in spite of the fact that the nominal position is closer to the brighter galaxy. Oh, well. We're sure of the identity of Swift's object as he mentions a "vF * close n" as well as "6 pB = Mag. sts p" in his notes. All these stars are there. Safford's object is missing its description. He complains in a footnote that the last 20 or so objects have no descriptions in the copy of his list that was sent to him after he left Dearborn. However, the position is similar to many others in his list in that it carries a digit error in RA. ===== IC 1493. Javelle mentions in his description of this faint galaxy that he suspects another object seven seconds preceding and an arcminute north. That suspected object is a star. ===== IC 1495 = IC 5327, which see. Also see IC 1499 for some possible confusion within Javelle's list. ===== IC 1497 does not exist. Bigourdan's single micrometric observation of it falls in empty space a little over an arcminute southwest of a faint galaxy. Wolfgang picked the galaxy as the IC object, but it is too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. Bigourdan also made some error in his first publication of this object. The position that he attaches to it is for a pretty bright star (probably one of his comparison stars) 2.5 minutes following and 18 arcmin north of the micrometric position. He corrected this in one of his later Comptes Rendus articles, and Dreyer picked it up for the notes to the second IC. Not that it helped ... ===== IC 1498. See IC 1490. ===== IC 1499 is probably the double star listed in the position table. However, as Malcolm Thomson has pointed out, the faintness of the stars is at odds with Javelle's description "pB, pE [not pL as the IC has it], iF." His position (re-reduced) is also off the double by 9-10 arcsec, so we have some doubts about the identity. Javelle found IC 1495 the same night, and compared it to the same star. Is it possible that he interchanged the descriptions of the two objects? They might fit the sky a bit better if that were so. In the end, however, that is speculation. So, as there are no other uncatalogued nebulae nearby, or at a reasonable digit error, that he might have seen, I'll keep the IC number on the double for the time being. ===== IC 1505. There is no possibility of mistaking the identification of this galaxy as Howe has provided a micrometrically measured correction to Swift's discovery position (which is 13 seconds of time off in RA, but very close in Dec). This clearly shows that the galaxy is MCG -1-60-20. Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the number might apply to the RC1 and RC2 galaxies A2339-03A and B. These two objects are a lovely interacting pair of spirals first noted by Zwicky, later observed at Mt. Wilson. The RC1 Notes identify them specifically as being south-following IC 1505, and they indeed are. They are illustrated in Arp's Atlas (Arp 295), and in Vorontsov- Velyaminov's Atlas (VV 34), as well as being included in MCG (MCG -1-60-21 and -22) and ESGC. On the POSS 1 prints, they appear to be further connected with a faint uncatalogued galaxy about two arcmin northeast of M-1-60-22. While there is no apparent connection with I1505, Arp 295 is probably in the same group with the IC object. Unfortunately, the redshift for I1505 is still unknown. ===== IC 1511 and IC 1512 are both stars just south of the NGC 7768 group. Bigourdan's offsets -- estimated in the case of I1511, measured twice for I1512 -- point almost exactly at the stars, and his descriptions are consistent with this. Both Reinmuth and CGCG suggest that I1511 is identical to N7767, but this is not the case. Bigourdan has measurements of the star superposed on N7767 that place it over an arcmin northwest of I1511. ===== IC 1512. See IC 1511. ===== IC 1514 = NGC 7776. Also see NGC 7761 = IC 5361, another Leander-McCormick mess, for more of the story. ===== IC 1512. See IC 1511. ===== IC 1523 = IC 5368, which see. ===== IC 1524 = IC 1490, which see. ===== IC 1528. The IC1 NPD is four degrees in error. This is either a typo that Dreyer did not catch during proof reading, or it is his own transcription error in copying the NGC Appendix objects into the IC: the NPD is correct in the Appendix (but "... not many people think of looking in an appendix."). When Safford's original position is used, it is clear that he saw MCG -01-01-028 = A0002-07 in RC2. In a footnote, Safford tells us that this object and four others (IC 138, IC 210, NGC 577, and NGC 7416) were "... found by A. N. Skinner, then [1867] assistant at Dearborn Observatory." This means that Skinner was actually the first to see all but NGC 7416; that was found just 2-3 years earlier by Marth. ===== IC 1530 = NGC 7831, which see. ===== IC 1537 is the east-southeast arm of NGC 55. It was first seen, described, and sketched by James Dunlop in the 1820s. JH provided a more detailed description and sketch a decade later. Both clearly noted that the south- following end of the nebula was much fainter than the north-preceding, and their estimated sizes (note the typo in Dunlop's paper: in place of 25 arcsec, read 25 arcmin) include the whole galaxy, not just the brighter portion. Furthermore, the fainter following part is clearly shown in both published sketches. In spite of these published observations, Swift claimed this part of N55 as his own discovery: "As Sir John Herschel does not mark it [N55] with a sign as being a remarkable object, lends [sic] plausibility to the idea that it [I1537] was not seen even by him." And this after implying that Dunlop had certainly not seen the fainter eastern end. Ahem. ===== IC 1538 does not exist. Bigourdan noted that he saw it only fleetingly on one night. He gave it an estimated position 17 seconds west, 2' 30" south of NGC 68 -- there is nothing there. There are a few 17th magnitude stars scattered around within 5-10 arcmin of his position, but all are too faint for him to have seen. This is most likely another of his "fausse images" (see e.g. N2529 and N2531). ===== IC 1539 = NGC 70. Bigourdan apparently did not take the time to look at LdR's published sketch of the field around NGC 68. If he had, he would have seen that LdR put an object just where he (Bigourdan) saw it half a century later, situated between two slightly brighter stars, a bit closer to the southern star. The object that Bigourdan called NGC 70 is a star. In fairness to Bigourdan, the NGC positions in the group are not too good (see NGC 67 for more), so he is not the only one to have misidentified galaxies here. ===== IC 1546 is the galaxy that MCG (and unfortunately others since) has called "N85B". There is no confusion in the historical literature about NGC 85 (which see), nor about I1546. But it's still worth noting here that the N85 suffixes are in use, and that the eastern of the two galaxies is in fact IC 1546. I clearly recommend dropping the suffixes on the NGC numbers, and only retain them for clarity when dealing with the modern catalogues. ===== IC 1547 is probably lost, even though Bigourdan gives us offsets from his star "j" (-4.0 seconds, and -2m 32s). This ends up in the neighborhood of IC 1546 (found by Javelle) but is well over a minute of arc east of that galaxy. Given that Bigourdan's position is only estimated, Javelle's object is still a distinct possibility, but the evidence is not overwhelming. ===== IC 1564. See IC 1567 and IC 5385. ===== IC 1565 is probably also IC 1567, which see. ===== IC 1567 is probably IC 1565. At the end of his first list of "novae", Howe has four nebulae (IC 1564, 5278, and 5385 are the others) for which he did not measure good positions. There is nothing at any of the positions, but expecting that, we can cast about the fields, checking for objects that he might have seen. In this case, the obvious choice is IC 1565. It is the brightest in a sub- group of Abell 0076. While there are other galaxies nearer Howe's crude position, this one is by far the brightest in the area and almost certainly the one he picked up. ===== IC 1572 is one of Bigourdan's imaginary nebulae. He has only one estimated position of it one night in 1888. There is no problem with his reduction of his position angle and distance to the comparison star (the same star he used for his first observations of NGC 213, which is just where he says it is) -- but there is nothing, not even a faint star, at his reduced position. I expect he was pushing his optics again. He looked for the object again nine years later in 1897, but did not measure it. This second observation may refer to another object as he says, "Stellar object, seen a little preceding NGC 213." (I can't come up with a reasonable candidate for this object, either.) His first observation puts it 1.5 seconds following N213 and 14 arcmin south. So, even if the first object is a "fausse image", it is probably a different one than this second. In any case, I1572 is lost. ===== IC 1577 = IC 48, which see. ===== IC 1589 is a double star, probably the one at the position given in the main table. It is some distance off Swift's place, but his positions determined after the move to Lowe Observatory are notoriously bad. His description clearly matches that of a double star seen through some rather thick layers of air. This is plausible as the object has a zenith distance of almost 70 degrees from the latitude of Echo Mountain (+34 deg). See IC 1740 for a similar double star that Swift found just over a month later in September of 1897. ===== IC 1590 is a star cluster involved in NGC 281 = IC 11. Bigourdan says of it, "In the region of NGC 281, there is in addition to the nebulosity suspected near BD +55 191, a large number of stars forming a very large cluster, without concentration." He gives no position in his big tables, but does have one in his tables of new objects, and in the CR article from which Dreyer took the IC position. That position is about 3 arcmin southeast of the center of a group of stars that Brian Skiff and I independently chose as IC 1590. I make the diameters 6 arcmin by 4 arcmin, so am not convinced that this is Bigourdan's object. Without better evidence from Bigourdan's published material, though, there is not much point in trying too hard to find this object. It sits in the middle of a large region of star formation, and any position we take in the area will get us some hot, young stars. ===== IC 1591 = NGC 276, which see. ===== IC 1604 is lost, probably forever, thanks to Swift's exceedingly crude published position: "00 53 00, -17?". His description "pF, vS, 7 1/2m * np, F * near sp" fits no galaxies in the area. Wolfgang takes a faint galaxy near NGC 333, while MCG puts the number -- with a question mark -- on MCG -03-03-009. Neither can be Swift's object; the stars are just not there. This object, by the way, is from Swift's last list. If we take his discovery date at face value, this is the very last object that Swift "discovered" -- his listed date is 19 November 1898. However, that makes it the last by 5.5 months; his previous discoveries are from 2 June 1898 and are preceded by an unbroken string of discoveries going back to 1895, soon after he established his observatory on Echo Mountain. So, I think that he put the year into his table at the incorrect spot, and that this object, along with six others, was actually found on 19 Nov 1897. But that is a supposition. See IC 4550 for more on this. ===== IC 1609 is not NGC 324, which see. ===== IC 1614. For some time, I questioned the identity of this galaxy, thinking it might be too faint for Javelle to have seen. I was wrong, of course; his micrometrically measured position is within a few arcseconds of the galaxy, and his description -- aside from the position angle -- is appropriate. The 15th magnitude star that he notes as being near the galaxy is about an arcminute to the southeast. ===== IC 1642 = IC 1645. Javelle found I1642 = J842 on 29 Jan 1897, and used BD +14 188 as his comparison star. Unfortunately, the BD position of this star is in error by about 1.5 arcmin. Therefore, so is the calculated position of I1642. Using the GSC position of the star, however, and Javelle's offsets, the object's position is within 6 arcsec of IC 1645 = J844. Javelle measured this on two nights at the end of 1897 (24 Nov and 17 Dec) along with IC 1646 = J845. He used BD +14 175 as his comparison star for both of these galaxies. Since the position for that star is pretty close in BD, Javelle's calculated positions for the galaxies are similarly good and there is no mistaking their identities. ===== IC 1645 = IC 1642, which see. ===== IC 1646. See IC 1642. ===== IC 1653 = NGC 443, which see. ===== IC 1656 = NGC 447, which see. ===== IC 1657 = IC 1663. Here is another case where Swift has rediscovered one of his own galaxies -- just seven weeks later. On 4 Sept 1897, he found a nebula which he described as "eeF, S, eeE, a ray; no sts near." There is such an object about 20 seconds preceding, and 0.7 arcmin north of his position; we can confidently assign the number IC 1657 to this. 20 second RA errors are common in Swift's lists. His second position, from 30 Oct 1897, is not as good. It is 2 minutes of time too large, and 2 degrees too far north. But he provides us with a more detailed description: "eeF, vE 350 deg; 5 sts sf, 3 have distant companions." This fits the nebula and the neighboring stars very well, too. Since there are no other galaxies in the area that fit this description, and since the position errors are digit errors, the identity is all but certain. Dreyer has another possible declination (30 arcmin south) for IC 1663 in the summary description. This comes from Swift's "5th Catalogue" of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory. Swift published these in several different places, and collected them all in a long list -- which Dreyer called "Swift XI" -- in AN. The shorter lists sometimes have more detailed descriptions, while the longer one occasionally has slightly revised positions (not that they help much ...). In this case, the declination published in the fifth list is a probably a typo as the long list position is just two degrees off (rather than 1.5 deg). This is, in fact, what caught my eye as I first tracked down IC 1663 during preparation of SGC: the minutes of declination are almost identical for both entries in the long list. A final comment: Swift's 11th and 12th "catalogues" (his final two lists), those with the nebulae that he found at Echo Mountain, contain more errors than his earlier lists assembled at Warner Observatory in Rochester, NY. By the time he made these observations, his eyesight was beginning to fail, and he was often distracted by having to show tourists around the observatory. I suspect that these two factors alone contributed to his increased error rate. ===== IC 1658 = NGC 444, which see. ===== IC 1661 = NGC 451, which see. ===== IC 1663 = IC 1657, which see. ===== IC 1664 is only two stars, roughly equal in magnitude, oriented southwest- northeast, and separated by about 30 arcsec. They are not "... inv in eeF neb" as Stewart describes them, unless he is talking about the SMC background on which the stars are superposed. This is the outskirts of the SMC, though, not the rich inner region, so I suspect a plate defect was involved as well. Andris Lauberts picked a faint galaxy some distance from the nominal position for the ESO catalogue, while Wolfgang Steinicke has only the southwestern star in his earlier lists. This star does have a faint companion less than 2 seconds of time preceding, so Wolfgang may have thought that these were the two stars that Stewart described. ===== IC 1665 is a close triple star at Javelle's position. He mentions in his description that he saw two or three stars surrounded by nebulosity. Aside from the fact that there is no nebulosity involved with the stars, Javelle's observation is accurate, so the identity is not in question. ===== IC 1667. See IC 1671 = IC 93. ===== IC 1670. See IC 1671 = IC 93. ===== IC 1671 = IC 93. Here is a galaxy that Swift found twice, once in September of 1889, and again in December of 1895. His positions are far enough apart (35 seconds of time, and 1.8 arcmin) that he and Dreyer thought that the two objects were different. On the second night, Swift also found two other galaxies nearby (I1667 and I1670), reinforcing his belief that he had not seen I1671 before. However, both of his descriptions mention the 7th or 8th magnitude star 47 seconds following and an arcmin north (the first IC has this as 14 seconds, but Swift's 9th list has it correctly printed as "46 seconds"). This star alone secures the identity of Swift's two objects. Swift has some further confusion in his description, however. He calls this the "p of 2", while it is clearly the "f of 2" by the numbering and RA's in his 9th list. He calls IC 1670 the other member of the pair, but that is 15 arcmin north. I think that he meant to have IC 1667 as the actual preceding of the pair, as that is just 5 arcmin west-northwest of I1671. ===== IC 1674 is probably a defect on the 24-inch Bruce plate that Stewart examined. There is nothing at his position on the modern sky survey plates, and the galaxy chosen by ESO as a possible candidate is 17 seconds in RA and 19 arcmin in Dec off the nominal position. ===== IC 1682. The sign on Javelle's NPD offset is incorrect. When the correct sign is used to re-reduce his position, his observation falls within 2-3 arcsec of the modern positions. ===== IC 1686 = NGC 499. Dreyer has pretty well sorted out the NGC identifications in the NGC 507 cluster, so I'm a bit surprised that Javelle blundered on his identification for N499. There is no question that he measured N499 -- his position falls within two arcsec of the modern position for the galaxy, and his description is perfect for the galaxy. Yet he has a footnote on his listing for I1686 that states that he "also measured NGC 499." So, we can only shrug and say that he blundered on this one. See NGC 499 for a bit more on the earlier observations in the area. ===== IC 1693. There is no question about the identity of this galaxy: it is the southeastern of a line of three. Howe's micrometrically measured position was copied correctly into the IC, and is accurate. The interesting thing about the object is that it has a star or compact galaxy superposed on the northern end. Zwicky included the compact object in his first list as "I Zw 6", but later withdrew it so that it does not appear in his "Red Book" (Catalogue of Selected Compact and Post-Eruptive Galaxies). A note on the back of his finding chart for the object shows that he thought it might be a star rather than a galaxy. This pair of objects has also been confused with the middle (brightest) galaxy in the line, CGCG 385-099. It is clearly not that object, however, as both are included with their correct positions in a 1964 ApJ paper by Zwicky and Humason. Zwicky also refers on his finding chart to IC 1693 (though without the IC number) by the running number (32) from that paper. CGCG 385-099 is number 31, and it is not IC 1693. ===== IC 1696 is not the same galaxy as NGC 530 = IC 106 (which see). It was found by Howe in 1900 who specifically noted the difference in positions in a note to his table. ===== IC 1698 has the wrong comparison star name, but the correct position, listed in Javelle's table. The star is actually BD +14 215, not BD -0 217 (that is the comparison star for IC 1697). Note that IC 1699 (which see) is probably a second observation of this galaxy. ===== IC 1699 is probably a second observation of IC 1698 (which see). There is no nebula at the offsets Javelle has published, nor are there any at the offsets implied by changing their signs. However, if the north polar distance offset is changed to read +0 arcmin 49.6 arcsec (from +5 arcmin 49.6 arcsec), then IC 1699 would fall within Javelle's usual error range of IC 1698. The two observations of I1700 show this pretty well -- his offsets for that differ in RA by 1.13 seconds and in NPD by 5.9 arcsec. IC 1699 is sometimes taken to be UGC 978. However, that has a lower surface brightness, so would have been more difficult to see with a long-focus refractor. Also, Javelle's published offsets would have been around +13.8 seconds, and -1 arcmin 22 arcsec (NPD), nowhere near the numbers that he gives. ===== IC 1700 = IC 107 (which see). Javelle claims in a footnote to his table that he also measured IC 107 (it could possibly be UGC 978, sometimes taken for IC 1699, which see). Unfortunately, he does not give that measurement, so we do not know for sure which object he took to be the one seen by Swift. However, the observations that he does give for IC 1700 point unmistakably to the brightest of three in the area, which is in fact the one that Swift picked up. ===== IC 1703 = NGC 557, which see. ===== IC 1704 and IC 1706. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. It is not, as he supposed, BD +13 214, but another (not in the BD) about 5 arcmin northeast. The two galaxies are exactly at the offsets that Javelle measured for them from this star. ===== IC 1706. See IC 1704. ===== IC 1707 does not exist. This is probably another of Bigourdan's "fausse images." There is nothing in his precise position, though he saw and measured the object on only one night when the "sky [was] perfectly clear." He describes it as "a star 13.2--13.3 near which is found a diffuse nebula of which precise observations can't be made." This suggests that I1707 might be one of the two double stars about 2 arcmin following Bigourdan's position (01 25 07.8 +36 51 31). The fainter double is at 01 25 15.0 +36 51 26 (HCo); the brighter is at 01 25 20.94 +36 51 16.0 (GSC). If one of these is Bigourdan's nova, then both his position angle and distance from his comparison star must be wrong. An error in one or the other is possible -- errors in both are unlikely. Did he misidentify his comparison star? I don't think so: no other bright star in the area has an object matching Bigourdan's description in his relative position. In addition, he measured NGC 551 four times on the same night, claiming that he used the same comparison star -- which he, in fact, did. Both the galaxy and the star are correctly identified there, and Bigourdan's position for N551 is very close to GSC's. Finally, to confuse us even more, I1707 has a typo in the north polar distance in the IC (for 57, read 54), and a typo in the RA on page 212 of Bigourdan's list of novae (for 23, read 22; the RA on page 215 is correct). ===== IC 1709 = NGC 568. Swift does not mention the NGC object in his observation from 4 September 1897. Since the galaxy is similar to others that he found in his far southern sky surveys from Lowe Observatory, the identity is virtually certain. The much fainter companion object suggested by ESO as I1709 is unlikely to be Swift's object. It is near enough to N568 that Swift would have noted it as a companion to the brighter galaxy. ===== IC 1710 = NGC 575, which see. ===== IC 1712 = NGC 584. The IC object is one of Barnard's discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer -- it does not appear in any of his published papers. This is a shame since I'd be very interested in knowing why Barnard thought this object was a "nova:" the IC position is identical to the NGC position. And how did Dreyer miss this, too? It's possible that Barnard's object is one of the other galaxies in the area (NGC 586, perhaps?). But we'd need to search his observing logs to know for sure. ===== IC 1713 is a star. CGCG put the number on NGC 587, but Bigourdan measured that galaxy on the same night as he did I1713, so they cannot be identical. In addition, Bigourdan's position is within a quarter of an arcsec of the DSS position of the star, and he was not at all sure about the existence of nebulosity around his object. This is another identification that Malcolm Thomson cleaned up for us. ===== IC 1717 is probably a plate defect. Stewart calls it "eF, eS, vE at 25 deg, *N." It's possible that the notation of a stellar nucleus indicates that a star was involved, but the position is not accurate enough to suggest which one. An examination of the original plate will be necessary to sort this one out. By the way, this was the only new object that he found on the plate (Bruce plate 3974). ===== IC 1723. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Rather than using BD +8 272, he actually used +8 268. Once this change is made, his micrometric position falls right in line with the modern positions. The galaxy is bright enough that it's a bit surprising that it was not found before the NGC was published. ===== IC 1737 is only two stars. Bigourdan's place falls south of the brighter, western of the pair. He measured it only one night in 1891 (his two measurements on that night disagree by over 10 arcsec), but claimed to have recovered it on another night in 1903. In spite of the agreement with his description, the galaxy (with 3 stars close west) 7 arcmin to the south -- which I had chosen in the early 70s as I1737 -- is almost certainly not his object. He used the same comparison star to measure NGC 687 on the same two nights he saw this; his position for N687 is within an arcsecond of the modern value. This makes a 7 arcmin Dec error highly unlikely, and the RA is also three seconds off. Malcolm caught this one, too. He has sharp eyes, thank goodness! ===== IC 1740 may be the double star at 01 49 21.0, -30 10 10 or it may be the double at 01 46 35.4, -30 20 03. The first is closer to Swift's position, but the second is a pair of nearly equally bright stars. That would fit Swift's description considerably better. Swift makes a great deal of this object (and a near twin, IC 1589, which see) as a close pair of nebulous stars, so Lauberts's suggestion that this one may be NGC 749 is certainly not correct (N749 has no companion, star or galaxy). Swift claims to have seen the object several times at different powers, but given that there is nothing at his position, we can't say for sure just what he did see. I'm leaning toward the second pair noted above, but we may never know for sure. ===== IC 1743 = NGC 716, which see. ===== IC 1744 = NGC 719, which see. ===== IC 1751 = NGC 741, which see. ===== IC 1752 is apparently an unresolved linear conglomerate of two stars with a faint galaxy between them: Javelle noted that the nebula was "merged with a star of mag. 14-15." I've included all three in the table of positions. ===== IC 1758 was found by Herbert Howe who says of it, "[The object] is a star of mag. 11 with very slight outlying nebulosity." There is indeed a star superposed on the galaxy, so I've included both in the position table. ===== IC 1759 = IC 1760, which see. ===== IC 1760 = IC 1759. The position in Swift's 11th collection of new nebulae for AN is one degree too far north. The object originally appeared in his 5th list of nebulae found from Lowe Observatory (it is number 8), and actually has the correct declination in the AN version of that list. Unfortunately, Swift apparently copied it from the AJ version, so its IC position is wrong. Dreyer noted the discrepancy, though he omitted Swift's note "Cordoba 681 sp." That is wrong, too, though -- CD -33 681 is southeast of the galaxy, not southwest. However, the star number clinches the declination, and therefore the identification -- the stars at this RA in the -32 zone have numbers in the range of 740 to 760. The declination of IC 1759 is roughly correct (it is 3 arcmin off), though the RA, like that of I1760, is 25 seconds too small. ===== IC 1765 = NGC 783 and IC 1766 = NGC 785. Barnard's positions -- particularly the RA's -- are poor enough that he was misled into thinking them new nebulae. He must have sent them in a letter to Dreyer as there is no reference to Barnard's published papers in the IC entries, nor can I find them in my copies of Barnard's papers that I've collected. Nevertheless, the identifications are quite certain. The position difference between the galaxies is 33.4 seconds in RA and 3 arcmin 20 arcsec in Dec. Barnard's positions are 33 seconds in RA and 4.1 arcmin in Dec in the correct orientation: IC 1766 is to the southeast of I1765. The differences for the NGC objects is 34 seconds and 3.3 arcmin (from Stephan's observations). Assuming that Barnard observed the galaxies on the same night and measured their positions in the same way, the agreement with the actual differences is compelling evidence that Barnard's "novae" are actually the NGC objects. Reinmuth was the first to suggest the identities. Carlson picked them up for her 1940 ApJ collection, and the CGCG has them both, too. Curiously, Wolfgang has only the I1765/N783 identity in his list. He puts the number IC 1766 on a very faint, low-surface-brightness galaxy that Barnard almost surely could not have seen, even if he found the galaxies with the 36-inch or 40-inch refractors. ===== IC 1766 = NGC 785. See IC 1765. ===== IC 1773 = NGC 804. Swift's position for N804 is far enough off that it misled Bigourdan into measuring a faint star as N804. On the same night, he saw the real NGC 804, but thought it a nova. So, it has ended up with an IC number as well. Bigourdan's positions fall within a few arcsec of the GSC positions, and his notes about neighboring stars further pin down his objects. The identification is firm. ===== IC 1778 = IC 199, which see. ===== IC 1782 = NGC 823. Swift's description, "vF; D* of = mag in nebulosity," is almost identical to JH's, "A vF double * involved in a vF nebula." Given that the positions are just over two arcmin apart, we can only wonder how the identity escaped both Swift and Dreyer. Swift, in addition, was especially taken with the object and added to his description, "Curious object. Note." I find his note revealing of the thinking of observers at the time. It reads in full, This appears like a nebulous double star, but I think it is simply a double star in a nebula. There is a vast difference between a nebulous star, and a star in a nebula. It is the note which strikes us as curious, knowing as we now do that the object is nothing more than a galaxy with a star superposed about 10 arcsec away from the nucleus. But this was obviously an interesting sight to a 19th century observer with only the vaguest ideas of the nature and distances of the nebulae. Curious indeed! ===== IC 1787 = IC 217. As with IC 1782, I'm left wondering how either Swift or Dreyer thought Swift's object to be a "nova". The position is 1.2 arcmin different from Javelle's, and the descriptions (Swift: "eeF, eeE, a ray ..." Javelle: "F, pL, E ns.") are similar enough that a flare should have gone off in one or the other's mind. I suspect that Swift's "eeF" versus Javelle's "F" mislead one or both of them to ignore the near-coincidence of position. Or maybe they just missed this one. Whatever happened, the galaxy has two IC numbers. ===== IC 1795. Barnard's RA is marked +-, but still falls well within a large HII region. The position I've measured is for the brightest knot within Barnard's "Patch of nebulosity." ===== IC 1802, 1803, and 1804 are three nebulae found by Barnard and, as with many others, not published but sent directly to Dreyer. So, the IC positions and descriptions are all that we have to work with to identify these objects. In the case of IC 1802, there is nothing at the nominal position, but 33 seconds of time following and 2.2 arcmin south is a galaxy that has a "* 11 np 1'". We can be fairly confident that this is Barnard's object as none of the other galaxies in the area has a similarly bright star to the northwest. If we apply this same offset to the positions for IC 1803 and IC 1804, we find a pair of galaxies oriented northwest-southeast, not southwest-northeast as Barnard's positions have them. IC 1803 is also sketchily described ("Stell N"), and IC 1804 carries no description at all. But they are the second brightest and brightest, respectively, in a small group of galaxies. So, I am reasonably sure that Barnard saw these two objects. However, which one has which IC number, I am not so sure. I've put the numbers on in RA order, assuming that the declinations are reversed. But it could be the other way, so I've put colons on the numbers. ===== IC 1803. See IC 1802. ===== IC 1804. See IC 1802. ===== IC 1805. Barnard's RA is off by about 50 seconds of time (this seemed to happen a lot with his observations; see e.g. IC 1802). Still, the cluster, immersed in a huge nebula, is too obvious to be missed. Barnard called it "compressed", so I've taken it to be the small cluster centered to the east of HD 15558. Brian Skiff puts the HD star closer to the center, and so takes the cluster to include many more of the surrounding stars. In this case, the group that I include is just the core of the cluster. I suspect Brian is right. Also see IC 1831 for another possible object in the area. ===== IC 1808 = NGC 963, which see. ===== IC 1814 = NGC 964. JH found the galaxy during his years at the Cape of Good Hope, and measured its position pretty well. Swift picked it up 60 years later from Echo Mountain in Southern California -- his RA is 43 seconds too small, so he thought he had a "nova". His brief description "pB, pS, mE" (identical to JH's) makes it clear, though, that he has just rediscovered JH's nebula. ===== IC 1822 is a star. Bigourdan saw this only one night in December of 1894, and called it "Pretty much a stellar object, maybe a little nebulous." He did not measure it, but only estimated its position with respect to BD -09 486. Unfortunately, his big table has a misprint for the sign of the RA offset -- it should be "-" and not "+". The positions in his CR list and in the second IC are correct, so the sign problem is either a typo, or he caught his error before he published the position. ===== IC 1824 is probably NGC 1027, a cluster in the Milky Way. This is one of many objects that Barnard sent notes about directly to Dreyer, so we have only the IC entry to lead us. There, Barnard's description reads "Cl, sts F, perh[aps] F neby p extends to it." There is indeed faint nebulosity west of the cluster, and with nothing at Barnard's nominal position except scattered field stars, NGC 1027 is the only logical choice. It's stars, however, are not "faint," especially taking the superposed SAO 12402 into account. Perhaps Barnard found this near the edge of a plate. ===== IC 1826 = IC 1830. Swift's RA is 40 seconds too small, but his declination and description are good. Stewart's position is good, but he found the object on only one plate so marked it "susp"[ected only]. He also notes the star 1.5 arcmin to the southwest as "eF"; Swift's estimate of 8 is much closer to the truth. In any event, the identity is sure because of Swift's noting the star. ===== IC 1828 = NGC 1036. This is simply a reobservation of NGC 1036. The NGC position for N1036 is 10 seconds of time and about 2 arcmin off. However, since there are no other galaxies in the neighborhood, it is a bit baffling that Javelle thought his "nova" a different object. He must have simply missed the NGC entry. Also note that this is not = IC 1829 (which see). ===== IC 1829. This is often assumed to be equal to IC 1828 = NGC 1036 (which see). This error is caused by a typo in Javelle's declination in the Nice Observations, Vol. XI, page D11 for J940 = IC 1829. The typo (a "76" in place of a "71" for the north polar distance of J940) has put the IC position 5 degrees north of the true position. Re-reducing Javelle's data shows that IC 1829 is CGCG 439-026. This is another of the errors that Malcolm Thomson tracked down years ago. ===== IC 1830 = IC 1826, which see. ===== IC 1831 may be a plume extending northeast from IC 1805. If so, its nominal declination, from a Heidelberg plate by Max Wolf, is one degree too far north. I think it is more likely that the object is a defect on the plate. This could, of course, be checked if the plate still exists. Here is Wolf's complete note from AN 4082, kindly translated by Wolfgang Steinicke: A third [IC 2088 and IC 2177, both of which see, are the first two] extended and pretty structured nebula was found at the border of Cassiopeia and Perseus. It measures many square degrees, too, irregularly covering a NW-SE oriented field, connecting some star groups while being crossed by many canals [dark streaks]. The center is approximately at RA = 2h 33m, Dec = +63d. This nebula is complicated, but unfortunately pretty faint, too. But I hope to reproduce a picture which was taken in December with the Bruce Telescope. We should also search Wolf's papers from 1806 on to see if he actually did publish the photograph. Another possibility is that the "nebula" is nothing more than the unresolved Milky Way, or even simple vignetting on Wolf's early plates. ===== IC 1837 = NGC 1072. Javelle's sign on his north polar distance offset is wrong -- it should be "-", not "+". Once this change is made, his reduced position falls within a few arcsec of the nucleus of NGC 1072. ===== IC 1840 = NGC 1105 = MCG -03-08-004. See NGC 1105 for the story. ===== IC 1845 is a double star. Swift notes another "double star north preceding," and that object is indeed there if Swift's RA is just 1 minute of time too large. This was first suggested as the identity for the IC object in ESO. ESO also suggested, though with a question mark, that ESO 416-G015 40 seconds following Swift's nominal position might be his object. However, the only double star north preceding that object is considerably fainter than other stars nearer the galaxy. The double is also 11 arcmin away from the galaxy; it would have been near the edge of Swift's field where it would not have attracted his attention. Even though Wolfgang adopted this identification, it is just not as attractive an option as the double star that ESO noted. ===== IC 1846; is it also NGC 1109? Javelle went over this field about 40 years after Marth's first reconnaissance of it. He measured only four of the nebulae here, but his positions are good enough to unmistakably identify all four. Would that Marth's positions were as good! See NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1850 may also be NGC 1111. See IC 1846 and NGC 1109 for the story. ===== IC 1852 may also be NGC 1112. See IC 1846 and NGC 1109 for the story. ===== IC 1851. Another of Barnard's "private communications" to Dreyer, there is no nebulosity associated with the star (HD 17581 = SAO 23662). Though the star is a spectroscopic binary, it has no other peculiarities, so the "nebula" that Barnard saw is most likely a plate defect. Carlson's 1940 paper, quoting the Lick collection of errata in the NGC/IC, notes only "Not found" for this object. I wonder if the original errata list has any reference to Barnard's plate. It may be that additional plates taken at Lick, perhaps even by Barnard himself, failed to confirm the object. ===== IC 1850 may also be NGC 1111. See IC 1846 and especially NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1852 may also be NGC 1112. See IC 1846, and especially NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1862. I always get concerned when I see that an IC object was found by Lewis Swift. He was an old man by the time he got the Warner Observatory moved to Echo Mountain, and his positions from Lowe Observatory (as it was renamed) are considerably worse than those from Warner. So, when I saw that the RA of this object is out by 41 seconds, and the Dec by 1.7 arcmin, I wondered if I had chosen the right galaxy to carry the IC number in SGC. It didn't help that Andris and Wolfgang had agreed with me -- I may have copied Andris's ESO catalogue and Wolfgang may have copied mine. I checked again. I found that I (or Andris) was probably right. Though there is another candidate galaxy (MCG -05-07-030 = ESO 356-GA011) just a degree north (1 deg 1.1 arcmin, to be fussy about it), the RA is 2min 34sec out, and the star south-following is magnitude 4.5 rather than 7 as Swift made it. These discrepancies seem to rule out the alternate pretty conclusively. So, I've kept the identification as is. (The star near I1862 = ESO 356- G015 has a magnitude of 8.1 in SAO, by the way, much closer to Swift's estimate). ===== IC 1864. Just two numbers on, it happened again! a large RA error by Swift casts doubt on an SGC identification (see IC 1862). So, once again, I went back to the SERC films. This time, there is no alternate candidate galaxy, so even though Swift's RA is off by 29 seconds of time and there is no confirming star mentioned nearby, I'm happy with this identification. And Swift's brief description ("eF, S, R") matches, too. Interestingly, the two objects, close on the sky, are also adjacent in Swift's published lists -- but were not discovered on the same night. IC 1862 is from 25 November 1897, while I1864 is from 19 October of that same year. ===== IC 1867. See IC 1868. ===== IC 1868. Javelle misidentified his comparison star, so the IC position is wrong. When the correct star, BD +08 451, is used, his re-reduced position falls within two arcsec of the modern positions. The star he claimed to have used was BD +08 452. That is the star he used for IC 1867, for which his position is also within two arcsec of the modern positions. ===== IC 1869 is a galaxy plus the superposed star. Even though the galaxy has a nearby companion, that companion would have been too faint for Javelle to see. Instead, he took the neighboring star and the galaxy's nucleus as a double star immersed in nebulosity. There is yet another, brighter star on to the southeast which he did not mention. ===== IC 1871. I think that Barnard got the wrong magnitude 9.3 BD star. Instead of BD +60d 596 which is surrounded by nebulosity, "chiefly following", he listed the position of BD +60d 624. This latter star is completely clear of nebulosity, and is 9 minutes of time east of the nebulosity. But the good match of description and magnitude for the object make the identity fairly certain. The position I assign is for the approximate center of the nebulosity rather than the star. There is a second cloud of nebulosity attached on further south west. Barnard may have seen this one, too, but how well it showed up would depend on its location on his plate. Many of the plates that Barnard took at Lick are strongly affected by coma and vignetting, so the effective exposure time towards the edge of the plate is considerably less than at the center. ===== IC 1872 is not NGC 1174 -- even though no one to my knowledge has equated them. See N1174 for the story. ===== IC 1877. While doing his survey of IC objects, Malcolm noticed that this galaxy was included in IC while its brighter neighbor, ESO 199-IG012, was not. Was there a reason for this? Found by Stewart on a 24-inch Bruce plate, IC 1877 is positively identified by its position and description, especially the position angle 170 deg (the modern value from ESO and ESO-LV is 153 deg). The brighter companion has a position angle of 19 deg, clearly different, and is about two arcmin on to the northeast. There is little possibility that Stewart mistook this for object for I1877. It is important to note that Stewart had only one plate of this area, so could not confirm the three objects he found on it. All are marked "suspected" as a result. Curious about this, Malcolm asked the folks at CfA if they could examine the original plate. They were good enough to make Polaroid copies of the area around IC 1877 and ESO 199-IG012. Both galaxies are well-shown on these copies of the plate, with IC 1877 in Stewart's position angle. However, the brighter object has a peculiar flattened triangular appearance with some apparent halo-like plumes projecting from its north and south ends. It looks similar to a plate defect about 30 arcmin to the east-northeast, so I think that Stewart assumed it to be a flaw. So, while many IC objects discovered on photographs are indeed plate flaws, here is a case of a real galaxy apparently mistaken for a defect, and so NOT included in the IC! ===== IC 1878. ESO applies this number to both IC 1878 and its companion 20 arcsec northeast. However, Stewart's original description, including the position angle (5 degrees), makes it clear that only the brighter galaxy was seen on the Harvard plate. ===== IC 1881 = NGC 1213, which see. ===== IC 1883 = NGC 1212, which see. ===== IC 1884 = IC 290, which see. ===== IC 1887 = IC 292, which see. ===== IC 1888 = IC 293, which see. ===== IC 1889 = IC 294, which see. ===== IC 1905 is probably the triple star that Wolfgang and I have measured -- but may include a fourth star less than an arcminute to the southeast. Bigourdan's position is only an estimate (-23 seconds, +5 minutes 30 seconds) made on a single night. That position falls a few seconds west of the triple, on the "wrong" side of the asterism if Bigourdan meant to include the outlying star. His full description (translated by me) reads, "Small, very faint cluster, around which there could be traces of nebulosity. Impossible to decide with certainty." I suspect that Bigourdan included the fourth star as he usually mentions nearby stars in his descriptions. The fact that it receives no specific mention here suggests that it is part of his "cluster." But given that his position is northwest of the center of the asterism, I find it "Impossible to decide with certainty." In the end, I take the path of least resistance and adopt the triple as IC 1905, but note all four stars as a distinct possibility. ===== IC 1907 = NGC 1278 = GC 675 = Big 375 = d'Arrest 56. Bigourdan has this in his fourth list of new nebulae (= Big 375), but in his final publication, he includes the measurements for it under the number NGC 1278. He has this note for the object: "This nebula has been listed under the number GC 674 by Lord Rosse, and in the NGC. It is this that led me to at first suppose that it was a new nebula." Thus, it is clear that Bigourdan was misled by the typo (or misidentification?) in Lord Rosse's observations and in the NGC. Just as clearly, he found the problem during preparation for publication of his data. The positions for NGC 1278 and IC 1907 are close enough to confirm the identity. ===== IC 1910 is described by Stewart as "2 eF, eS neb. spots, susp." Neither appears on the southern sky survey plates, so these are probably defects. ===== IC 1911 either does not exist, or is a star with a faint companion about 30 arcsec to the northwest. Bigourdan has one estimated position for the object in his Appendix of Supplemental Observations; he described it there as a "Trace of nebulosity, suspected only" from a single night in 1887. In the Comptes Rendu list where he announced his discovery, he adds "Sky mediocre." There is nothing in his position, a fact noted by Bigourdan himself during a second observation in 1902. He did note two stars near his position and gave estimated offsets for them -- they are indeed there. Is it possible that he mistook the fainter of them with its companion as nebulous on his relatively poor night in 1887? I've put it into the position table with a question mark. The brighter star is at 03 17 41.61, +35 08 43.0 (B1950) measured using Skyview and a DSS cutout. ===== IC 1914. Surprisingly, Stewart's position for this wonderful galaxy is about three arcmin to the west of the nucleus. Given that he describes it only as "Sp[iral]?" I wonder if a position error fully explains this object. We'd have to check the original plate to be sure. See IC 1923 for more about this particular plate. ===== IC 1920. Stewart's nominal position falls between two galaxies, but is a bit closer to the brighter, eastern of the candidates (it is 10 seconds of time off). The declination matches, too, though that is a loose constraint as Stewart gives declinations only to a full minute of arc. So, I've taken the eastern galaxy as IC 1920. Wolfgang, however, chose the slightly fainter western object. Since that is a possibility, I've left it in the table, though with question marks. Given the ambiguity, we need to look at the original plate. Stewart's positions on this plate, by the way, are good. See IC 1923 for more. ===== IC 1921 may be the faint star that I've listed in the position table. However, the star is fainter than I'd expect Stewart to be able to pick up on the Bruce plates, so I suspect that the object that he found is actually a plate defect. His description is simply "Stell[ar]", so doesn't help us much. Only an examination of the original plate will tell us for sure. See IC 1923 for more on this particular plate. ===== IC 1923 is most likely the faint double galaxy (or possibly a galaxy and a star) that I've listed in the position table. Unfortunately, Stewart describes it only as "Stell[ar]" -- brief, unhelpful descriptions plague his notes on this plate -- so we won't know for sure that this is his object until we can examine the original plate. However, his positions on this plate -- one of the first he searched for nebulae (this probably accounts for the scanty descriptions) -- are good. There is no significant systematic offset and the standard deviations are 0.67 arcmin in RA and 0.61 arcmin in Dec. Since Stewart's position for the double object I chose is well within the canonical 2-sigma of the true position, I'll take the pair as the object that he saw. ===== IC 1925 is probably a plate defect. It is listed as the first of a pair of nebulae, but there is only one object (IC 1929) on the modern plates. There is a faint possibility that it is identical to I1929 -- the descriptions are nearly the same -- so that is given as an option in the table. Since it was found on the same plate as I1929, however, I think it is unlikely that the two objects are identical. ===== IC 1927 may be the faint double star about an arcminute following the nominal position. But the double is quite faint, and I wonder if it would have shown up on the Bruce plate that Stewart examined. We'll have to look at the plate to be sure. See IC 1923 for more about Stewart's work with this plate. ===== IC 1929 may also be IC 1925, which see. But probably not. ===== IC 1939 is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing in the area but faint stars. However, about 4 arcmin preceding Stewart's nominal position is a double object that is "E p to f" (the extent of Stewart's description, unfortunately). I've put this into the position table as a possibility. However, since Stewart's positions are otherwise pretty good on this plate (see IC 1923 for more), this is only a possibility. ===== IC 1941 is probably the line of three or four stars three arcmin south of Stewart's nominal position. The description, particularly "vmE at 0 deg", fits. Since there is nothing else nearby that matches as well, I've taken the line of stars as his object. ===== IC 1942, described by Stewart as "Stell., E n to s" is actually a double galaxy. I've put both into the position table. ===== IC 1943 may be NGC 1411. Swift's position is about 9 minutes of time too small, but his declination and description fit the NGC galaxy pretty well. I personally suspect that he made a 10 minute digit error in reading his setting circle and combined that with his usual approximate RA. By the time he was observing at Echo Mountain, his ability to measure positions had become quite bad. This seems to be an example. ===== IC 1963 = IC 335. Swift's second position for this, taken 10 years later than the first, is only 8 seconds of time following his first, though both are about 30 seconds west of the galaxy. There is no doubt that he saw the same galaxy twice -- his descriptions match the appearance of this bright spindle exactly. ===== IC 1971 is simply described by Stewart as "E p to f". It is actually "E n to s". Since his position is good, I suspect that this is just a slip of the pen. ===== IC 1979 is a faint, pretty wide double star about two arcmin northwest of IC 1980. It matches Stewart's description quite well, and the position is close, too. Since it was found on the same plate as IC 1980, it is certainly not identical to the galaxy, in spite of the similar descriptions. ===== IC 1980 is not IC 1979. That number, which see, applies to a faint double star about two arcmin northwest of the galaxy. ===== IC 1981 = NGC 1412, which see. ===== IC 1983 is probably identical with NGC 1415. The NGC object is the brightest galaxy in the area, so is the one most likely to have been seen by Swift. He has his usual poor position (10 seconds and 3 arcmin off the correct position) as well as a sketchy description, "vF, pS, R; not [NGC] 1426" in his big 11th list in AN. The name of the galaxy that Swift was pretty sure this was not is not in the IC description. Just as well; it is a distraction at best, an embarrassment at worst as it is over half a degree away from NGC 1415. But it does lead us to a question: Could Swift have meant N1416 rather than N1426? N1416 actually is "vF, pS, R", while N1415 is much brighter. However, N1416 has two bright stars just south pointing at it -- had Swift seen these, he surely would mentioned them, just as he did dozens of other asterisms near his nebulae. I think this is unlikely as N1416 was found by Muller in the mid-1880s and has no GC number (see NGC 1416 for more on its chequered past). In Swift's original paper, the first list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory, IC 1983 appears as the 20th entry. There, the description reads "vF, pS, R. Not G.C. 765". So, Swift has got the right NGC number for the AN paper. Unfortunately, this means that he overlooked NGC 1415 and 1416 altogether when he was putting his description together. Somehow, Dreyer missed the possible NGC identifications, too. Whatever happened, I think that NGC 1415 is the best candidate for Swift's galaxy. ===== IC 1985 = IC 348. Barnard did not check the first IC before he published this as a new nebula at the end of his paper on the "Exterior Nebulosities of the Pleiades." Dreyer apparently did not, either, so the object now has two IC numbers. See IC 348 for more. The nebulosity that caught Barnard's eye on a photograph of the Pleiades also contains a cluster, though the cluster is not visible on either of Barnard's photographs in his Lick Publications, Vol. 11. (Safford actually did see the cluster, though Dreyer did not put that into the description for IC 348.) Barnard adopted the BD position for the central star in the nebula, and I've done the same. ===== IC 1988 may be NGC 1425 with a 50 second error in RA and a 10 degree digit error in Dec. Swift has made both these errors in other cases, and his description could be made to fit N1425, too (instead of "eF, pL, R; 2 sts near f, wide D* np" it would read "eF, pL, R; wide D* near f, 2 sts np"). He is certainly confused about the date he found this. He gives it as 14 Oct 1897 in the AN summary list, but as 3 Oct 1897 in his shorter List 5 where the nebula is number 14. While I'm fairly confident about the identification with the NGC galaxy, there are enough changes that have to be made that I've put a question mark on the IC number. ===== IC 1992 is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing near Stewart's position but a faint star. While it's possible that this is the object that Stewart had in mind (the brief description "Stell[ar]" fits), I doubt it. His other positions on the plate are pretty good -- see IC 1923, for more about this particular plate. ===== IC 2001 is probably the double star that Wolfgang picked up. Stewart includes a note "3 stars near" in his description; the three stars form a line just to the north of the double star. ===== IC 2002 is probably = NGC 1474, which see. The IC identification is not in doubt, but the NGC ID is. ===== IC 2007 = IC 2008. Swift found this twice, the first time in October of 1896, the second time in December 1897. His two positions are well off the true positions and, of course, don't agree with each other, either. So, two IC numbers. However, his descriptions, especially his notes ("F * in contact nf" and "eeeF * v close nf") makes it clear that the two observations not only point at the same galaxy, but identify the galaxy itself. ===== IC 2008 = IC 2007, which see. ===== IC 2011 is a double star. I noted this during my work on SGC and Wolfgang independently picked up the same double. Stewart's brief description "eeF, vS, R" is appropriate. ===== IC 2013 must be a defect on the Bruce plate; there is nothing in its nominal position. The exposure time was only one hour, very short for the slow plates used a century ago. A galaxy matching the description given by Stewart ("cB, cL, vE at 170 deg, cbM, susp") would have had to be bright enough to have been picked up by the Herschels. ===== IC 2019 is the northeastern of an interacting pair of galaxies. The south- western is enough fainter that Javelle missed it -- but because he reported that his object was mottled, it must have been affected to some extent by the companion. ===== IC 2026 = NGC 1509, which see. ===== IC 2030 was found by Stewart on the same plate as IC 2013. And like IC 2013, it does not exist, so is probably also a defect. There is a very faint galaxy about two arcmin southeast of Stewart's position that has been taken as the IC object. However, Stewart's description ("cF, vS, eE at 135 degrees, susp.") makes this unlikely -- the galaxy is nearly round, so would appear star-like on the one-hour plate, if it appears at all. We clearly need to check this. ===== IC 2031 is a nearly stellar compact galaxy, perhaps one of the compact blue irregulars. Unfortunately, Barnard's position, sent directly to Dreyer, is only approximate. That, combined with the stellar appearance of the galaxy has served to hide it from us for decades. But Barnard's description, including the "* 11 nf 3 arcmin" is accurate, and his position is close enough to make the identification secure. ===== IC 2041 = IC 2048, which see. ===== IC 2042 is nothing but a star. Innes, in one observation of 5 Feb 1897, claims to have seen it enshrouded in a nebula 1 arcmin in diameter. There is no nebula on the sky survey plates, and the star has not been noted as being peculiar in any way. I've adopted the Tycho-2 position. ===== IC 2045. Is this NGC 1538? See that for the story. ===== IC 2047. Or is this NGC 1538? Again, see the NGC object's entry for the (short) story. ===== IC 2048 = IC 2041. Though Swift's position for IC 2048 is well off the galaxy, the identity is assured by his notes about the field in his Lowe Observatory List 1: "... B * f; 1532 p; 3 in field including D neb ..." (in the AN summary list, this last phrase becomes "... 3 in field with D neb ..."). The bright star is there; it is HD 26799. There is also some question about the date that Swift found the galaxy: the AN paper, and the PASP version of the first list, claims 10 Dec 1895; the AJ version has 5 Oct 1896. ===== IC 2053 is within Stewart's usual error of his place. ESO's claim that it is not found rests on a 10 arcmin typo in the nominal position in the ESO list. Wolfgang found the object. There still may be some question about it, however. Stewart claims that it is "cE 140 deg". The galaxy is nearly round on the SERC plate, so I wonder if there is a plate defect somehow involved with the IC object. When the original plate can be dug out, we'll find out. ===== IC 2055. Even though Wolfgang puts this number on a double star an arcminute north of Stewart's nominal position, I'm more inclined to think that this is a defect on the Bruce plate. Stewart describes the object as "F, S, cE at 0 deg; susp." His other "F, S" objects are well over an arcminute in diameter and are unmistakeably galaxies while Wolfgang's double is hardly distinguished from many other nearby field stars: the separation is only a few arcseconds, and the fainter star is nearly at 20th magnitude. This can be cleared up by examining the Bruce plate, hopefully still in the plate library at Harvard. ===== IC 2061 is probably a defect on the 1-hour Bruce plate; there is nothing in its position. Stewart's description certainly reads as if he's seen a defect: "F, cS, R, indistinct, nr. edge of plate, susp." ===== IC 2062. Found by Bigourdan near NGC 1560, this is nothing more than a star. Bigourdan's offsets point precisely to the star, and were made on the same nights as his observations of N1560, so there is no possibility that this might be a reobservation of N1560 (as suggested by CGCG, and as believed by me until I found Bigourdan's observations). The identity in RC2 is my fault; my embarrassment is real. Sorry, guys. ===== IC 2067. This is a reflection nebula at Roberts's position. It is brighter on the blue survey plates than on the red, and is brightest to the southwest of the star, just as Roberts describes. However, it actually extends further to the northeast, though is barely visible there. I've taken the position of the star as that for the nebula. ===== IC 2069 may be the faint double star -- at least I think it's a double; the secondary is very faint and blended with the primary -- at the position I've given in the table. That position is close to Stewart's nominal position. However, Stewart marks the object "Suspected" which means that he's seen it on only one plate. Since there are several other objects on the same part of this plate (Bruce plate 4199 from Arequipa) that are also marked "Suspected", and clearly do not exist (see e.g. I2076, I2084), I wonder if this object, too, is a defect on the Bruce plate. ===== IC 2072 may be the galaxy I've listed in the table. However, Stewart's position is more than 3 arcmin off -- quite a bit for him -- and this object, like several others on Bruce plate 4199 (see I2069) is marked "Suspected". So, the identification is not secure. In fact, I suspect that Stewart's object is actually a plate defect. So, I've put a couple of question marks on the galaxy's position in the table. ===== IC 2074 is a triple star at Bigourdan's position. It is one of several that he called "very small nebulous clusters". He claims to have first noticed this one on 8 January 1886 while measuring NGC 1590, but he did not measure it until (exactly) 13 years later. The identification is not in doubt. ===== IC 2075 = NGC 1594. Bigourdan searched for NGC 1594 on only a single night (17 Jan 1895), and did not find it. Instead, he found another nebula about 20 seconds preceding the NGC position. Instead of calling this "NGC 1594", he made it a "nova", number 260 in his list of new nebulae. Perhaps later, when he was preparing his large table for publication, he added a note to the description of his "new" object, "It is, without doubt, NGC 1594 with a 20 second error in RA." While I was working on ESGC, I came to the same conclusion. See NGC 1594 for a bit more. Briefly: Howe caught Swift's poor RA, too, but Dreyer did not notice that Howe's and Bigourdan's places were nearly the same. So, the IC number stuck. ===== IC 2076 is probably a defect on the Bruce plate from Arequipa. Like several other objects on this plate (see IC 2069), Stewart marked it "Suspected". All of these can of course be checked on the original plate, still in the plate library at Harvard (unless they've thrown it out). ===== IC 2077 = NGC 1593 = NGC 1608. See NGC 1593 for the brief story. ===== IC 2078 is a star. Bigourdan's position is only three arcsec north of the GSC position, so the identity is certain. ===== IC 2080 is the only one of Howe's third list of new nebulae which he did not measure micrometrically. He gives a position estimated with respect to NGC 1594 (which see) for which he did measure a corrected position. Unfortunately, he forgot to correct that reference position when he calculated the estimated position for his new object. So, the RA of I2080 shares the same from the real RA as NGC 1594 (a little under 30 seconds of time). Dreyer also did not notice the problem, so I2080 has been lost for some time. Once the correction to N1594's RA is made, though, I2080 appears very close to where Howe found it: about 90 seconds east and 3 arcmin north of N1594. ===== IC 2084 is probably a plate defect. See IC 2076 for more. ===== IC 2088 may well be LBN 792 (= LBN 172.09-14.64), a large (6 deg by 2 deg patch of nebulosity in northern Taurus). This suggestion comes from Dave Riddle. Earlier, I had written that I2088 might be "... a plate defect on Wolf's plate, a very low surface brightness nebulosity that does not show up on the POSS1 plates, a photographic effect of some kind, or perhaps even the unresolved Milky Way." However, I hesitate to declare this a simple defect on the basis of POSS1 because Wolf's description, especially the orientation of the nebula along the plane of the Milky Way, is creditable. He may even have seen the California Nebula and gotten the position wrong -- though I doubt it. He gives the position only to a whole degree, and he would have to be several degrees off to have got NGC 1499. LBN 792 is closer, however, with Wolf's admittedly crude position close to being inside the boundaries of Lynd's nebula. It's possible, too, that he was simply seeing the Milky Way. He comments that "The nebula is separated from the Pleiades nebula by a star hole [sic], many degrees long and ranging from tau Tauri to xi Persei." This sounds to me like a description of a large dark cloud, or simply the falling off of the Milky Way as the Galactic latitude increases. Or it could be as simple as uneven emulsion, or even vignetting, on his early plates. We need to examine them, if they still exist. Here is Wolf's full description from AN 4082, translated by Wolfgang Steinicke (thanks, Wolfgang!): Another nebula [the others he mentions in this note are IC 1831 and IC 2177] being extended, too, but pretty diffuse -- perhaps due to its faintness -- and structureless, was found in Taurus with different small lenses. It measures at least 3 by 5 degrees; the longer axis lies in the direction of iota Tauri toward xi Persei. The nebula is separated from the Pleiades nebula by a star hole [presumeably a vacancy], many degrees long and ranging from tau Tauri to xi Persei. The center of the extended nebula is roughly at RA = 4h 35m, Dec = +27d [for 1855]. Dave wrote that he thinks that Wolf's position is simply off by a few degrees and that his nebulosity could be LBN 792, 799, or 800. I looked at all of these, and think that 792 is the best match, both in description ("pretty diffuse ... and structureless") and in position (the separation of the nominal positions is 2 deg 53 arcmin). LBN 799 is narrow and rather serpentine, definitely not structureless, while LBN 800 is full of dark patches. Both are considerably smaller in at least one dimension than Wolf's estimate, and both are further from his nominal position than is LBN 792. ===== IC 2090 is lost. Swift's position is bad -- there is nothing nearby that matches his description "vF, pS, R; 3 stars in line near sp nearly point to it." There is also nothing at the positions implied by the possible digit errors that plague Swift's later positions (I've not checked at -44 deg; that would put the galaxy only 12 degrees above Swift's southern horizon; he rarely searched that far south). Other objects that he found on the same night (5 Oct 1896) are no help. Swift's positions for IC 346 (found by Ormond Stone a decade earlier) and I2008 (= I2007, found by Swift himself) average 15 seconds too small in RA and right on in Dec (though with a large scatter). There is nothing at this implied position, either. ===== IC 2091 is one of ten new "nebulae" claimed by Isaac Roberts on a photograph of the field around NGC 1665. Seven of these (IC 2094, 2097-99, 2101, and 2102) actually are galaxies, and are indeed new. I2091, however, is a group of four or five faint stars, apparently blurred together into a single "Stellar nucleus surrounded by faint nebulosity" on Roberts's plate. Since he was using a 20-inch reflector, the plate scale must have been rather small. This, poor seeing, and a long exposure on a grainy plate may account for the asterisms that he saw as nebulous. The same thing happened with IC 2100 (which see), a double star also on Roberts's plate though discovered by Bigourdan and properly credited to him by Roberts. Rather frustratingly, Roberts gives no details about exposure times or emulsion types -- just the sort of thing that would help us to better understand what he was describing on his plates. He does go on about the nebulae on this particular plate, however, noting many of them as spirals, and saying that WH did not see this feature or that in those that were known previously. I believe that Roberts's plates are now at the Observatoire de Paris. If so, it may be possible to examine them to see if -- as I suspect in the cases of IC 2092 and IC 2096 -- defects are masquerading as nebulae. Roberts also has an interesting note ending his short paper, saying that many of the faint "nebulae" being discovered on photographic plates by other astronomers are nothing more than stars blurred by seeing ("atmospheric tremors"). ===== IC 2092 is a line of three stars with a fourth just south of the western-most in the line. That, at least, is the only "object" near Roberts's position, measured on a plate of the NGC 1665 field. See IC 2091 for more about this plate, and the nebulae that Roberts found on it. The description written by Roberts for this object reads, "Small spiral nebula with bright stellar nucleus; indication of star on south end." I wonder if there was a defect tangled up with the stars. There is, in any event, no galaxy or other nebula here. ===== IC 2093 is a star. Even though Bigourdan measured it only once on 20 December 1897, his measurement points directly at the star so there can be no doubt as to which object he saw. LEDA and Wolfgang incorrectly picked a nearby galaxy that is several arcmin away from Bigourdan's star. ===== IC 2094. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2095. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2096 is a line of three stars on Isaac Roberts's plate of the field around NGC 1665. See IC 2091 for more on this plate. Robert's description is interesting: "Small right-hand spiral nebula; with stellar nucleus; elongated; indications of condensations." As with IC 2092, I suspect a defect was involved with the stars. ===== IC 2097. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2098. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2099 is not NGC 1677 as I had supposed fifteen years ago when I went over this field for ESGC. See N1677 = N1659 for that story, and see IC 2091 for more on Roberts's photograph of the NGC 1665 field. ===== IC 2100 is a double star found by Bigourdan and later picked up on Roberts's plate of the NGC 1665 field (see I2091 for more about that). Roberts's and Bigourdan's descriptions are more or less accordant: Roberts: Bigourdan 380 is shown on the photograph as a pretty bright stellar nucleus surrounded by nebulosity elongated in sf to np direction. Bigourdan: Pretty stellar object, a little nebulous, granulated, round and about 12 arcsec in diameter. Roberts gives no coordinates, but the double star is in fact oriented as he states. Bigourdan has four measurements on the night he found the double, 17 December 1897. ===== IC 2101. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2102. See IC 2091. ===== IC 2107 = NGC 1707, which see, is an astersim of four stars (a fifth, considerably fainter is just north). Bigourdan, misled by JH's 30 second error in the RA of NGC 1707, measured a star which he thought a bit nebulous (it isn't) and called it N1707. Eleven years later, he returned to the field and found the real N1707, but still not recognizing JH's error, put it into one of his lists of new nebulae. Thus, the IC number. Reinmuth was apparently the first to make the connection between the two numbers. ===== IC 2108 = NGC 1710. Bigourdan measured an object near NGC 1710 which he thought was a nova. This appeared as the 261st of his new nebulae, so received an IC number. Later, before preparing his big table for publication, he received the list of micrometrically-measured nebulae from Leander McCormick Observatory. There, he found that his nova is identical to N1710. He also measured a faint star nearby which he labels simply "Nova" in his big table. However, he appends a note saying, "This nebula was at first taken to be NGC 1710; the measures later published by L. McCormick [sic] show that N1710 = 261 Big." ===== IC 2109 and IC 2110 are stars. Found on a "slightly stormy" night by Bigourdan in January of 1885, he looked at these again in December of 1898 and could see no nebulosity at all. Nevertheless, he measured them both nights, and his reduced coordinates are accurate. ===== IC 2110 is a star. See IC 2109 for the short story. ===== IC 2111 is indeed a bright nebula, probably an HII region, in the LMC. As with several other such nebulae, this was found by Wilhelmina Fleming on an objective prism plate taken at Arequipa. This particular nebula is interesting as it has three "lobes". I've given positions for each lobe in the table, as well as a mean for all three. ===== IC 2113 = NGC 1730, which see. ===== IC 2114 = NGC 1748. Found on a Harvard objective prism plate by Wilhelmina Fleming, this stellar object entered the catalogue because of its "nebular" emission lines. This also led to its initial classification as a "planetary" nebula. Without having the original plate to examine, I nevertheless suspect that this is the bright knot on the eastern edge of NGC 1748 that was picked up in the GSC scan. If so, then this is actually an HII region in the N1743 complex in the LMC. Four parts of this were seen by John Herschel and received NGC numbers: the others are N1737, N1743, and N1745 (which is not a star cluster as supposed in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue). ===== IC 2115 and IC 2116 are both described in the IC as "Planetary, stellar." Like IC 2114 and IC 2117, both were found on Harvard objective prism plates by Wilhelmina Fleming. Also like those two, the positions are not very good, falling on blank areas of the LMC north and east of NGC 1763. ESO's contention that the IC objects are both identical to N1763 can't be true: The descriptions rule out the identities since N1763 is a large complex of HII regions and star clusters in the LMC. Annie Cannon in Harvard Obs. Bulletin 891 (my thanks to Dave Riddle for pointing me to this) makes I2116 equal to NGC 1769, but the same reasoning also rules out this identity. Cannon also suggests that I2115 is CPD -66 346. Going over the field again independently before Dave sent the reference to Cannon's paper, I came to the same conclusion. So, I think we can probably take the star as Fleming's object, subject to inspection of the original Harvard plate on which she found I2115. This would leave the bright nebulous star at 04 57 09.8, -66 27 52 as IC 2116. I've adopted this identification, again with some doubt that might be resolved by inspection of the original plate. There are two fainter stars in the neighborhood besides those I've listed in the main table (both B1950.0): 04 57 15.92 -66 28 57.2 04 57 19.98 -66 27 55.8 Neither of these seems likely to me as one of Fleming's objects. ===== IC 2116 is not NGC 1769 as some have claimed. See IC 2115. ===== IC 2117 is southern-most of four or five HII knots in NGC 1770 (Dave Riddle has reached the same conclusion; he notes that it is also HD 32364). Some catalogues, in particular ESO-B, have equated the NGC and IC numbers, but this (as Wolfgang and I independently found) is incorrect. Fleming's nebulae are all compact and were discovered by the appearance of emission lines in their spectra. She called them "planetaries", following Pickering's classification; see IC 2114-6 for other examples. NGC 1770 on the other hand, is a large, nebulous, LMC star cloud well- described by JH in his CGH Observations. On the DSS, the entire complex is about 5 arcmin by 4 arcmin. I2117 is toward the southern edge. ===== IC 2118 may also be NGC 1909, which see. ===== IC 2119. The IC NPD for 1860 is ten degrees too small, while that for 1900 is correct. This is clearly a typo. There is another mystery here, though. Howe caught Swift's 10 arcmin error in declination before the second IC went to press, so Dreyer adopted Howe's (correct) position. However, Howe claims to have seen Swift's "eeeF D *" at a distance of 90 arcsec and a position angle of 210 degrees from the galaxy. There is nothing there. Further, Howe has the magnitudes of the two stars equal at 12.5. The two stars that Swift presumeably saw are about 30 seconds away at a PA of roughly 135 degees, and are much fainter than 12.5. Swift's description also says "between 2 stars"; these two stars are about 5 arcmin west-northwest and east-southeast of the galaxy. So, even though Howe clearly saw the correct object -- his position is correct -- his description of the star field is wrong. I do not know what happened. ===== IC 2120. This is Comet 113/P Spitaler 1890. Bigourdan observed the comet about an hour and a half before returning to the field, apparently to reobserve it. Confusion set in somehow, since Bigourdan's precise offsets for the "nebula" fall within an arcsecond of the position of the comet at the time of his obsevation (thanks to Brian Marsden for computing the comet's position at that time). Since Bigourdan did not collect and assemble his observations of nebulae until years after his actual work at the eyepiece, it is possible that he simply misread his observing logs for the evening. The incorrect identification of IC 2120 as a planetary (though actually a compact HII region, it is listed as PK 169-00.1) comes from Minkowski (PASP 59, 257, 1947), but his object is 39 arcmin southwest of Bigourdan's position. Why Minkowski chose to call the nebula IC 2120 is not obvious, but it is certainly wrong. ===== IC 2123 = IC 412 and IC 2124 = IC 413. This interacting pair was discovered twice by Barnard and not published either time. Javelle did publish his observations. Curiously, considering the near-coincidence of the positions, neither Barnard nor Dreyer apparently considered the possibility of the identities. That had to wait half a century for CGCG. The story for I412 and I413 says the same thing, but in a slightly different way. See that if you're unbearably curious. ===== IC 2124 = IC 413. See IC 2123 = IC 412. ===== IC 2126 is NGC 1935, a small HII region in the LMC. There is no doubt about the identity as Fleming's position is within an arcminute of the NGC object. The IC description "Planetary; stellar" (shared with about a dozen other LMC HII regions, some of which we will need the original plates to identify) is also appropriate, considering the source on Harvard objective prism plates. There is also another HII region nearby, NGC 1936 = IC 2127, which see. Fleming's position and description for that, too, is appropriate. ===== IC 2127 = NGC 1936. See IC 2126 where the story for that object is appropriate for this one, too. ===== IC 2128 is a star cloud in the LMC. It was found by Solon Bailey on Harvard plates and included in his list of the brightest and largest non-stellar objects in the sky. He calls it a cluster with some nebulosity involved -- as indeed there is -- and with a diameter of 4 arcmin. With only 15 stars between the 10th and 14th magnitudes, it is not as noticeable as the nearby NGC 1929, but I'm still a bit surprised that JH did not pick this up. Perhaps with all the other distracting pleasures offered by the LMC, he simply missed it. Bailey's position is a bit off the center of the object, but it is close enough to insure the identification. The ESO star cluster is just a part of the considerably larger IC object, though the brightest HII region in the cloud is involved with the ESO cluster. ===== IC 2129 = IC 2130. This is one of Swift's late (December 1897) discoveries from Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain, and is identical to IC 2130, found 14 months earlier, also by Swift, also from Lowe. The position, as suggested by Andris Lauberts in the ESO/Uppsala list, is about 30 seconds of time, and 5 arcmin off. Swift's note, "7m * near sf" is correct. For the IC, Dreyer changed this note to read "* 7 ssf". I suspect that he had some correspondence with Swift (see I2131 where the IC position is different from those published by Swift). In SGC, I suggest that the RA of I2129 is about a minute of time off leading to a much fainter galaxy, MCG -04-14-001. However, that has a prominent double star nearby to the northeast which Swift surely would have noted. Since he did not, I am pretty confident about the identity with IC 2130. ===== IC 2130 = IC 2129 (which see) is fairly close to Swift's position. His description fits, too, aside from a mistake in the direction of the neighboring star: it is southeast, not northeast as Swift made it. ===== IC 2131 = IC 422. This is one of the galaxies that actually gives us a bit of insight into Dreyer's working methods. In the introduction to IC2, he makes no mention of any correspondence with Lewis Swift -- yet that must have happened in this case (see also I2129 = I2130 for another instance of Swift's published data, description in that instance, not agreeing with the IC2 data). The position for IC 2131 given in all of Swift's original papers is 05 29 53, -17 17.8 (precessed to B1950.0 from B1900), a bit off the galaxy to the southwest. Yet the IC2 carries the position 05 30 03, -17 15.4, very close to the actual position, and very close Javelle's micrometrically measured position given in IC1 for I422. So, Dreyer obviously had some additional input from Swift on this object. Along with other evidence in the IC itself (e.g. the many unpublished IC nebulae credited to Barnard), this suggests that Dreyer had an extensive correspondence with the astronomers working in the field of nebulae. If this correspondence still exists, it may be another source of data that we can use to help debug the IC's. About this object: there is no question about the identity. The positions and descriptions are too similar. Again, I'm faintly surprised that neither Dreyer nor Swift caught the identity. Given the frequency of such positional coincidences (see e.g. I2123 = I412 and I2124 = I413), I am beginning to wonder if IC2 was a bit of a chore for Dreyer, taken on not out of any lingering love for cataloguing new nebulae, but simply from a sense of duty. This is just a suspicion at the moment. I suspect that Dreyer's correspondence -- if it still exists -- might offer more clues. ===== IC 2133 = NGC 1961. Here is one of the objects that force me to ask the question "What was Bigourdan thinking?" He measured it twelve times on three nights, could not find NGC 1961 when he looked for it on one of those nights, and must have been aware that WH's positions were subject to large accidental errors. So, how could Bigourdan believe that his "Big. 385" was a new object and not the one that WH found? Well, he obviously did because the object ended up in the 2nd IC. Dreyer discovered the identity a few years later when he prepared WH's Scientific Papers for publication. There is no doubt about the identity, either. So, "What was Bigourdan thinking?" (Obviously, a rhetorical question.) Also see NGC 1961 for the story of WH's mistaken position. ===== IC 2135 = IC 2136, which see. ===== IC 2136 = IC 2135. Swift's declination for IC 2136 is 10 degrees too far north. This is certain; his description from his 11th list reads in full, "eF, pS, eE, almost a ray; [NGC] 1963 p." Since the degree of declination of N1963 is -36, that for I2136 must be the same. Also, there are no galaxies at -26 close to Swift's RA that match his description. So, the identity with I2135 is clear. Swift has an interesting observational note in his 11th list about this object and one other (IC 335 = IC 1963, which see): "Nos. 56 and 81. These in one respect are the most interesting nebulae I have ever seen, especially No. 56 [IC 335 = IC 1963], which is a nebulous hair-line of one uniform size from end to end. No. 81 [IC 2135 = IC 2136] at first sight seemed identical with it, but on a closer view the center seemed to have a very slight bulging in the middle." I wonder if he got his numbers in this note backwards. Both galaxies are indeed spindles, but IC 335 is an early type with a clearly seen nuclear bulge while IC 2135 is a later type with just a faintly visible bulge. Note, too, that this I2135 is NOT NGC 1963 (which see) as claimed by PGC, and (unfortunately) by extension, RC3. N1963 is an apparent cluster found by JH about a minute of time preceding the galaxy, which he did not see. The LEDA folks must have assumed a digit error without checking the NGC description. Finally, this is one of five nebulae that Swift found on the night of 22 February 1898, and one of the three that we can now identify. See IC 2595 for more about the nebulae found on that night. ===== IC 2137 = IC 2138. There are only two galaxies here bright enough to be seen easily at the eyepiece, NGC 1979 and the object that carries two IC numbers. Bigourdan found and measured it first in December of 1887. He examined it twice again, measuring it only one more time, however, on 11 February 1898. Coincidentally, Lewis Swift "discovered" the galaxy his second time just three days later, but made a 10 arcmin error in the declination. His description, including the relative position of the nearby bright star and N1979 is correct on that second night. His first "discovery" of it had come just three months earlier in December 1897; that night, his position was closer to the truth. His description from that night, however, contains two errors. He noted the bright star -- Bigourdan's comparison star -- as preceding the galaxy instead of following, and placed the galaxy "s[outh] f[ollowing] of [NGC] 1980". This is an obvious transcription error since N1980 is at -6 degrees, not -23 as is the correct object, N1979. Dreyer used Bigourdan's position and description in the second IC, combining it with Swift's first observation to form the entry for IC 2138. Swift's observation with the wrong declination became IC 2137. ===== IC 2138 = IC 2137, which see. ===== IC 2141 is a triple star close to Innes's position. The triple appears to be quite bright on the southern survey plates -- perhaps this is why ESO missed it, assuming that such a bright object could not be mistaken for a nebula. The asterism may actually have more than three stars -- the southeastern star appears to be a merged double on the DSS. This may be a digitization effect, however. Innes's description reads "Equal to 9.7m, round, 10 arcsec diameter, brighter in middle." This is probably quite accurate for the 7-inch refractor that he was using, but were I compiling the IC, I think that I would call the object "pB" rather than "F" as Dreyer did. ===== IC 2144 is just where Barnard places it. It is difficult to tell on the DSS, but it looks as though there is a star superposed. The position I've measured on DSS is for this star. Barnard notes two 12th magnitude stars nearby. One, "npp 2 arcmin" is actually a close double star, while the second star is 1 arcmin north of the galaxy, not south as Barnard claims. ===== IC 2147. Swift published this particular nebula four different times (at least he didn't claim it as a different nebula each time; see IC 5003 = IC 5029 = IC 5039 = IC 5046 for the story on a pair that he DID claim eight different numbers for). It is number 15 in his 6th list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory on Echo Mountain (now Mount Lowe), and is also included in his large eleventh list published in AN (collecting most of the nebulae from the 8 shorter lists previously published). Curiously, the details of the nearby star field change slightly from paper to paper. However, the major notes are clear: there are "several bright stars south-following" and "three stars north [in a] curved [line]." The "faint star north-preceding" that made it into the IC description is noted once as a "faint star near preceding." This latter comment is more nearly correct unless Swift made a transcription error: "north-preceding" for "south- preceding." In any case, Swift's detailed description of the star field (mostly left out of the IC) makes the identity clear: the correct galaxy is ESO 424-G013, 4.4 minutes of time preceding Swift's position. Lauberts first suggested this identity in ESO, but put a question mark on it. Had he seen the original lists, I suspect he would have dropped the query. ===== IC 2154 = NGC 2139. For once, a problem with an IC object discovered by Lewis Swift is not Swift's problem. His position, already better than average for those objects found by him in 1897, was pinned down by Herbert Howe. So, the identity problem rests with NGC 2139, which see. To make the longer story short, Dreyer found the trouble in WH's original records of the sweep in which N2139 was discovered. See the NGC object for a bit more. A curious footnote is Carlson's making this IC object a double star. She gives as her source a Mt. Wilson photograph. The Mt. Wilson observer (Hubble?) was confused somehow as the IC position is spot-on the galaxy. ===== IC 2155 is probably the galaxy which Wolfgang chose, but it is over two arcmin from Stewart's nominal position. So, I've listed two other candidates. Both are fainter, however, with lower surface brightnesses, so they are less likely to be the correct object. The first alternate also has a considerably brighter star just 15 arcsec southwest of the nucleus; this might have enhanced the visibility of the galaxy on the plate, but it might also have blotted it out entirely. Stewart's original description read "cF, vS, R, susp". Dreyer made this "eF, etc." for the IC; I suspect a transcription error since he took other "considerablies" from Stewart without changing them. ===== IC 2156 may be a part of IC 2157 (centered just six arcmin south), but I think it's more likely just a chance grouping of about a dozen stars. There is certainly no nebulosity involved, though Espin claims to have seen some on a photographic plate. ===== IC 2157. See IC 2156. ===== IC 2159 is a part of NGC 2175 (which see). Bigourdan's long focus refractor could not show him the entire nebulosity, so he picked up only the two bright knots in it, plus a fairly star-free section of it southeast of the center. It is this southeastern portion that carries the IC number. I don't see anything special on the DSS, nor on the POSS1, which would have attracted his attention to this particular part of the nebula -- but there rests his approximate position, the same from two different nights. ===== IC 2162 = Sharpless 255 is the brighter and eastern of two very similar HII regions. Listed by Stewart Sharpless in his catalogue of HII regions (the western is No. 257), these two are among the brightest (though not the largest) HII regions in a large area of star formation in the northern reaches of Orion. Barnard apparently found the object visually (we need to look at his observing records to be sure). He sent the observation directly to Dreyer and did not publish it before the IC2 appeared. His position is about 10 seconds of time too large, but his description "vF, pL, R, * 10 inv p" is appropriate. The star "involved" is the central star -- the brightest portion of the nebula is the eastern side. ===== IC 2167 = IC 446. The same two objects were apparently discovered twice by Barnard (the second is IC 2169 = IC 447, which see). In this case, there is no question about the correct object even though neither of Barnard's positions is particularly good -- it is a star immersed in diffuse nebulosity. Barnard notes this star both times around, and I've adopted its position for the table. The apparent size of the nebula is about 5 x 5 arcmin. One thing I find puzzling is that Barnard does not mention the line of stars just south of the bright central star. Perhaps they are not eye-catching enough at the eyepiece, or perhaps they are lost in nebulosity on Barnard's plates (if he in fact found the nebula photographically). Whatever happened, these stars show well on the DSS. A few years after I wrote the paragraph just above, I was directed back to this field by Dave Riddle (his question actually involved IC 443 and IC 444, which see). He was kind enough to send a copy of Barnard's first discovery note published in "Astronomy and Astro-Physics", Vol. 8, No. 3. There, Barnard clearly describes not only NGC 2245 and NGC 2247, but also IC 446 and IC 447 as seen on a plate taken with a 6-inch Willard lens. Barnard later published the plate in Lick Publications, Vol. 11 as Plate 28 (the region was also covered by Plate 29). ===== IC 2168. The object found by Bigourdan on 1 Jan 1892 is not the same object as the one he measured on 5 March 1899. The IC position is the estimated position from the earlier observation, and is for a double star. The later position, micrometrically measured, is for an asterism of six stars (three very faint) three arcminutes from the double star. Why did Bigourdan save the earlier less precise position? His observations offer no clues. Just the opposite, in fact: the nearby IC 2170 (which see), observed on the same nights, has as its IC position the later micrometric position! ===== IC 2169 = IC 447. Neither of Barnard's positions is particularly good, though we can get close to the apparent center of his large, diffused nebulosity if we adopt his RA for IC 447 and his Dec for IC 2169. Even though his two positions are more than 10 arcmin apart, they clearly refer to the same object: it is big (I make it about 30 x 30 arcmin on the DSS). Barnard notes "several stars 9-10 involved"; those stars are indeed there. This and IC 2167 = IC 446 (which see) were not published by Barnard, but were among those objects whose positions were sent directly to Dreyer. I'm a bit surprised that one or the other of them did not catch the identities before Dreyer published the second IC. Some years after I wrote the above paragraph, Dave Riddle alerted me to Barnard's original publication (see IC 2167 above) where he did in fact publish descriptions and positions of the two IC1 nebulae. Interestingly, Barnard also retracted his discovery of IC 447 in Lick 11 (again, see IC 2167), incorrectly claiming it to be identical to NGC 2245 (which see for the story). The NGC object is a small, fairly compact nebula northeast of the much larger, more diffuse IC object. ===== IC 2170. As with IC 2168, Bigourdan's two observations refer to two different asterisms. The first observation, on 1 Jan 1892, is for a line of very faint stars just north of NGC 2242 (which he measured a month and a half later on 20 Feb), while the second seems to refer to a group of three rather widely separated stars southwest of NGC 2242. In contrast to IC 2168 (which see), it is this second measurement which is in the IC. The "star 13.3 at PA = 250 deg, d = 0.8 armin" is actually at PA 280 deg, so the NGC description should read "* 13 npp 0.8 arcmin." The position which I measured for the three stars is two seconds of time larger than Bigourdan's, placing his measured point just north of the western-most star. It is therefore possible that Bigourdan's object is simply the one star, not all three as I've supposed. In any case, both observations are well within his diameter estimate of 30 arcsec for his object, so there is no doubt that there is no nebula here. ===== IC 2171 may be NGC 2283. This matches Barnard's note of "3 sts 10 around," if not his position. But the position, especially the RA, is only crudely given in the IC. Unfortunately, this is one of the many objects apparently sent directly to Dreyer; there is no reference to it in any of Barnard's articles that Dreyer cites. So, what we see in the IC is all there is to go on. There is thus also the possibility that Barnard's object is MCG -03-18-001. This is closer to Barnard's position, but the galaxy is fainter, and the three stars are not as obvious (though the low-latitude field is rich). A more remote possibility is that the object is a flare or reflection from Sirius which has virtually the same RA as Barnard's object. But Barnard was an experienced observer, so this is very unlikely. ===== IC 2172 = NGC 2282. Barnard published the NGC data in AN 115, 323, 1886, but sent the IC2 data directly to Dreyer. The positions and descriptions are not only appropriate for this HII region, but are in such close agreement with each other that I'm surprised (again; see e.g. IC 2123 = IC 412 and IC 2124 = IC 413) that neither Barnard nor Dreyer caught the equality. Barnard's published description of the nebula is apt: "A 9 1/2m or 10m star surrounded by a faint nebulosity. The star is, I am confident, not perfectly stellar. Possibly a minute nebula with a faint atmosphere. 4' or 5' p. and slightly n. is a faint double star that I suspect is enveloped in nebulosity. Observed a number of times." Only his suspicion about nebulositiy around the double star is not born out on the Sky Survey images. The double has a couple of fainter stars nearby that may have misled Barnard into thinking that he had seen nebulosity. Curiously, Barnard's micrometric measurement of the declination is off by about 13-14 arcsec. His RA is accurate, and the position he adopts for his comparison star is only 2 arcsec off. Perhaps the distance between the two stars was too great for a totally accurate measurement. ===== IC 2173 is a star. Wolfgang got the correct object, Carlson -- who equated this with NGC 2291 -- did not. Bigourdan's offsets point exactly at the star. ===== IC 2175 is a double star. Bigourdan apparently made a transcription error preparing this for one of his Comptes Rendus lists: it appears there with the RA equal to "06 50 21" for the equinox 1860, while it should be "06 59 21". It appears at the correct position in his Appendix 7 of new nebulae, but has no note or correction that I've found. This number appears on UGC 03623 courtesy of CGCG which apparently saw the IC number floating in space about 10 arcmin south of the galaxy. Not knowing about Bigourdan's real error, they assumed a 10 arcmin declination error. So it goes. ===== IC 2177. The IC position, claimed to have been taken from Isaac Roberts's short note in AN 3509, is not from that note. Roberts's position is for BD -10 1848 and the HII region surrounding it, and that is the position that I've adopted in the table. Roberts copied it correctly from the BD into his note, but the IC position points to a bit of non-descript space about 20 arcmin southeast of the HII region. There is an additional reference to this nebula in Wolf's note "Extended Nebulosities" in AN 4082, though Dreyer did not include that as a source for this object in the IC. Wolf notes that the nebula covers "many square degrees" and stretches at least from Roberts's nebula in the north on south to BD -12 1771. Wolf's description of this large star-forming region is fairly good as far as it goes. The brightest, largest nebula is indeed Roberts's, but Wolf found the 2.5-degree long S-shaped nebula to its south and east. This actually extends a bit more faintly at least another 2 degrees east from its northern end, but Wolf apparently did not photograph that portion of it. NGC 2327, a small compact nebula, probably also an HII region or at least a part of one, is embedded in the sinuous nebula south of I2177. I suspect that Dreyer was somewhat influenced by Wolf's description, so decided to give it some weight, but tried to retain Roberts's data as the main source for this object. This would account for the position southeast of the center of Roberts's object. So, I've simply gone back to his data for the main position for I2177. Given that Wolf's note is pretty accurate, though, I've also included the approximate center of gravity of his much larger S-shaped nebula under same number with a directional subscript. ===== IC 2179. Bigourdan did not often misidentify his comparison star -- but he did here. Interestingly, he (or Dreyer) caught the error before the 2nd IC was assembled -- the position given there is correct. But in Bigourdan's long series of observations, he still gives the comparison star as BD +65 562 (= SAO 14129), the same one used for his observations of NGC 2347. The correct star for the IC 2179 observations is BD +65 560, about 10 arcmin north- preceding the brighter star. Bigourdan also -- arguably in this case -- misidentified the nebulae, calling NGC 2347 "Big. 267," and IC 2179 (Big. 247) "NGC 2347." This assumes the common naming convention adopted by the modern catalogues with NGC 2347 being the southeastern of the two galaxies. I wonder about this, however. N2347 was found and observed only by William Herschel. No other positions entered the literature before the NGC was published. His position is not particularly good (and the GC/NGC position differs from that re-reduced from his observations as reprinted by Dreyer in 1912), and could equally well apply to IC 2179; ditto his description. Though it is smaller, I2179 in fact has the same visual magnitude as NGC 2347, so it actually has a higher surface brightness. Bigourdan called it the brighter of the two objects, so is this the object that WH actually saw? Lacking more evidence than that, I've retained the modern identifications for the time being, but the problem is certainly not solved to my satisfaction. See the entry under NGC 2347 for more discussion. ===== IC 2183 is probably a defect on the original plate. Stewart says of it "Nebula like wisp, extends 2 arcmin in dec, 3 stars to north, suspected." The three stars are there, though there is actually a fourth there, too. However, the plate is a "short" exposure plate (just one hour rather than four), so the fourth star may simply be too faint to show up. Or it may be variable. Whatever the case, there is no nebula to the south. ===== IC 2186 is probably I2188, but Javelle's declination is 1.2 arcmin off. The RA and description fit, and it makes sense that he saw the two brightest of the three galaxies here on the two nights he went over the field. The Dec error, though, is not a whole minute, so the possibility remains that Javelle saw another object nearby. Candidates include a considerably fainter galaxy 4.5 seconds of time east and 13.5 arcsec south of Javelle's position, and a star about 40 arcsec north. Neither of these, however, matches Javelle's description, and the position errors are also not whole minutes or seconds. Finally, there is nothing at the positions implied by errors of sign in his offsets. So, I2188 is the most likely candidate, though it is not certainly Javelle's object. ===== IC 2188 is probably also IC 2186, which see. ===== IC 2189 is probably only a star, just as is IC 2206 (which see; this one at least is a Wolf-Rayet star) announced in the same papers by W. P. Fleming. Unfortunately, Fleming does not give us anything but an "approximate position" for this first nebula. There are no planetaries near the position, nor are there known novae or peculiar stars, either. Is it possible that this object has defects superposed on its spectrum, thus masquerading as planetaries? So, until we can examine the objective prism plate(s) taken with the 8-inch Draper telescope at Harvard, we'll not be sure just which star I2189 is. There are at least half a dozen candidates near the position, none of them in any way outstanding. Wolfgang chooses one, but others nearby stand just as good a chance of being the "correct" object. ===== IC 2192 is the faintest of three galaxies (the others are IC 2194 and IC 2196) picked up by Javelle from a group of at least six south of Castor. His position is good and unambiguously identifies the galaxy he saw. In addition, his description includes a note about a "star 14 nearly in contact." Dreyer questioned in IC 2193's description whether it might be identical to this object. I don't think so. See I2193 for more. ===== IC 2193 is the first of five galaxies from among a group south of Castor first seen by Barnard in May of 1888. Barnard's positions, unfortunately, are not very good, though he claims to have "carefully corrected" his telescope on Castor. His descriptions are also meager; this one merely reads, "Close p 10m star." So, Dreyer questioned whether this object might be identical to IC 2192, one of Javelle's three galaxies from the group. I don't think so, even though this galaxy is much brighter and I was initially surprised that Javelle missed it. After a few seconds examining his table, however, it's clear that his sweep took him through the middle of the group, so he saw neither the northern-most nor southern-most galaxies of the group. In any event, there is a star just northeast of the galaxy. I don't think it is close to 10th magnitude, but Barnard found this with a 12-inch refractor. So, it was probably easy to overestimate the brightness of a star near a fainter galaxy. ===== IC 2194. See IC 2192. ===== IC 2195 is almost certainly a plate defect. Stewart describes it as "cB, S, R, bM, susp". This would make it a fairly easy galaxy that JH probably would have picked up. Since there is no trace of the object on the sky, its identity as a defect is pretty certain. This can be checked, of course, as long as the Harvard plate (or a digitized scan of it) is still in existence. ===== IC 2196. See IC 2192 and IC 2197. ===== IC 2197. I'm not quite convinced that this is Barnard's object -- it is very faint, and is closely flanked by two brighter stars -- but there is nothing else in the area that matches both his position (the declination is the same as IC 2196's in his list) and his description. The fainter of the two stars is superposed on the northwestern side of the galaxy, though. Perhaps it enhanced Barnard's view of it. Wolfgang chose an even fainter pair of galaxies a few arcmin to the south. I've left these in the table with question marks though I do not think that they are Barnard's intended object. ===== IC 2199 is the last of the galaxies in a group south of Castor found by Barnard in 1888. Though Barnard's declination is nearly 4 arcmin too far north, there is no other galaxy nearby that he could have seen. And his declinations for the other four galaxies are also south of the real positions, so the identity is virtually certain. See IC 2192, 2193, and 2197 for more about the group. The final two members, I2194 and I2196 were seen by both Javelle and Barnard. ===== IC 2206, according to Fleming's position, is CD -34 3878. However, Dave Riddle has pointed out that less than three arcmin to the northeast is a Wolf-Rayet star, WR 9 = HD 63009 = CD -34 3879. It is also an eclipsing binary with the Wolf-Rayet component being the primary. This matches Fleming's description of "Bright lines, Gas. Neb.", while SIMBAD has no notes about peculiarities of any kind for the brighter CD -34 3878. In particular, no spectrum is given and no emission features are noted. So, Dave is almost certainly right. SIMBAD also carries the IC number on the Wolf- Rayet star, so someone else has noticed Fleming's mistake, too. The details are given in two articles published by Fleming, one in AN 138, 175, 1895 (which I have not seen), the other in ApJ 1, 411, 1895. There, in addition to the description, the magnitude is given as 9.5 (again matching the brighter star), and the star is identified as "Z.C. 7h 2999". This must point to an entry in one of the Harvard "zone catalogues". Finally, even though Fleming's initials are given in HA 60 as "W.P.", all the other published articles carry a single initial "M.", perhaps "Miss" or "Mrs."? Clearly another IC Mystery. I have, of course, adopted the Wolf-Rayet star as the correct object. ===== IC 2208. Javelle's offsets are accurate, and he made no reduction errors. However, his (and IC's) position is too large by 20 seconds of time -- the BD position of his comparison star is off by that much, perhaps because of a typo. ===== IC 2210 is a double star, pinned down by Bigourdan's single micrometric observation. See the discussion under NGC 2469 for more. ===== IC 2215 is another of Bigourdan's illusory objects. There is nothing in his position, though two stars are within 30 arcsec. Perhaps these were enough to suggest the faint "cluster" to him. He used the same comparison star for this as he did for NGC 2498. His position for his "nova" is almost exactly on a line between the comparison star and the NGC galaxy. So, whatever he thought he saw, it was clearly in his view for some time. Because of this, I do not think that he misidentified his comparison star. Nor is there any trace of a cluster at the other places around the star if he had made a sign error in one or another of his offsets. So, unless there is an error that I haven't yet found in his reductions (see IC 2216 for just such an error), this object must have been an illusion (or a comet, but Bigourdan's description pretty much rules that out). ===== IC 2216 is a double star. Curiously, Bigourdan's reduced position fell nearly 2 seconds of time east of the star. I finally noticed, though, that his column headed "Delta RA/sec Dec" was, for this object, considerably different from his "Delta RA" column on the following page. Instead of dividing by the secant of I2116's declination, he seems to have divided by the secant of the declination of the next object in the list, NGC 2xxx at +53 degrees. Thus, instead of the correct Delta RA of +3.84 seconds (a mean of four micrometer readings), he has +6.51 seconds in his table. Once this change is made, his RA ends up exactly on the double star, and all doubt as to the identity of I2216 vanishes. It was pretty clear in any case, as Bigourdan notes a triangle of stars 1.3 arcmin in PA = 40 degrees from his "nova" -- that triangle is just where he put it. ===== IC 2221 and IC 2222 are faint galaxies. The GSC has IC 2221 at 08 01 50.18, +37 35 36.3, just 3 arcsec south of Javelle's position. He measured I2222 on two nights -- in the mean, his position is close to GSC's: 08 01 56.99, +37 36 56.1. Again, the main difference is in declination; this time, Javelle is about 7 arcsec north. ===== IC 2222. See IC 2221. ===== IC 2223 may be IC 2224. Glen Deen has suggested that these two numbers refer to the same galaxy. They may indeed apply to the same object, but we probably won't know until Javelle's observing records can be examined. Here's why. Javelle found these on different nights (I2223: 10 Feb 1896; I2224: 28 Feb 1900), but claimed to have referred them to the same star. His positions are 4 sec of time, and 8 arcsec different -- the 4 sec is significant, the 8 arcsec is not. In addition, his descriptions of the two are different enough to make me cautious about accepting the identity outright. The galaxy is 13 arcsec southeast of Javelle's position for I2224, a bit larger error than we usually find for his observations. There is a faint star superposed just northeast of the galaxy, and it is likely that he saw the whole thing as one image. There is nothing at all in Javelle's (IC) position for I2223. It would be unusual for Javelle to have made an accidental slip of 4 seconds of time. However, he did find the two objects on two different nights, and there is certainly a blunder somewhere. So, it is indeed possible that his measurements refer to the same galaxy. ===== IC 2224 may also be IC 2223, which see. ===== IC 2225. The CGCG identification of this number with CGCG 178-026 is almost certainly correct. Javelle's position is exactly 1 minute of time out in RA, and his declination (once the proper motion of his comparison star is taken into account) is less than 9 arcsec off, well within the statistical errors in his measurements. Glen Deen suggested that the bright, wide triple star northeast of Javelle's position might be I2225. I don't think that this is correct since Javelle was using a 30-inch refractor, and certainly not mistake a bright asterism for a 14th magnitude nebula. ===== IC 2227 = CGCG 178-028. There is nothing at all at Javelle's nominal position (08 04 06.4, +36 10 28; 1950.0; re-reduced using the SAO position for his nominal reference star). However, Malcolm Thomson found that if we suppose that Javelle's comparison star was actually BD +36 1746, then CGCG 178-028 is exactly at his offsets from that star. This is convincing evidence that Javelle simply misidentified his comparison star. ===== IC 2228 is the middle of 3 stars, or perhaps all three. Bigourdan's three observations point exactly to the middle one, and he correctly describes the distances and position angles of two brighter double stars which are nearby. He also gives separations and position angles for the doubles. CGCG has suggested that CGCG 031-048 is I2228. However, that galaxy is quite faint, and also has one component of one of Bigourdan's double stars superposed. Had he seen that galaxy, he would have noted the double as being involved in nebulosity. He has no such note. ===== IC 2229 = IC 496, which see. ===== IC 2232 = NGC 2543 (which see). Glen Deen suggested that I2232 might be the faint galaxy 3 arcmin south, but this consistent with neither Javelle's position (which is good), nor his description (which agrees with the Herschel's descriptions for N2543). ===== IC 2235 is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions on other plates have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2236 is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions on other plates have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. A very faint galaxy or star can be seen between the two stars, but I think that it is too faint to be seen on Wolf's plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2237 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang independently caught this one, too. I had earlier suggested that it might be a simple defect, but the star is well within Wolf's statistical errors of being at his position. My thanks to both Malcolm (via an email note) and Wolfgang (via his position list) for pointing this out. ===== IC 2238 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. ===== IC 2240 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. ===== IC 2241 is a merged double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2242 is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2243 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. ===== IC 2244 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. ===== IC 2245 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. ===== IC 2246 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate (which may no longer exist) on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. Malcolm and Wolfgang caught this one, too. See IC 2237 for more. The pretty wide double star that I suggested earlier is well north at 08 13 03.8, +24 00 53 (B1950). ===== IC 2247. The IC north polar distance is off by one degree, but that in Wolf's original list is correct. ===== IC 2251 is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2252 is a star. I found this one using DSS. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2255 is a double star close to Wolf's position, not the galaxy suggested by Wolfgang. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2257 is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2258 is almost certainly the star that I've included in the table, perhaps with a plate defect mixed in. The agreement with Wolf's position is excellent. Still, there is always the possibility that it may be Wolfgang's double star -- Wolf includes the note "biN" (bi-nuclear) in his description, so we can't dismiss this idea. Still, as I've said above, and will say again below, Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt in my mind of the identity. See IC 2262 for more. ===== IC 2259 is probably the star I've included in the table. But its position is ten arcsec north of Wolf's -- is there an digit error in his position? I've not seen a print of the original plate; see IC 2262 for more about that. ===== IC 2260 is a star, perhaps with a defect involved. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2261 is a wide double star. Wolf's PA for his nebula (45 deg) and his offsets to a nearby bright star (4.2 seconds of time following and 10 arcsec south) are about right even though his position is 8-9 arcsec off the mean for the two stars. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found. See IC 2262 for more on that plate. ===== IC 2262 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. Of the 154 nebulae found by Max Wolf on three plates taken with the 16-inch Bruce reflector at Heidelberg early in 1901, only a few are real galaxies. I have compared a print of one of the plates (B.137), kindly sent to Wayne Johnson by G. Klare of Heidelberg Observatory, with the POSS1 prints covering the field. The objects included in Wolf's list are marked on the plate, presumeably by Wolf himself. These leave no doubt that most of the objects are faint stars or, sometimes, multiple stars, occasionally involving plate defects. This was the first such paper published by Wolf. Later papers seem to have a somewhat smaller -- but still large -- percentage of non-nebular entries. These are discussed as needed in these notes. Most of the objects are right at the plate limit. Wolf was clearly pushing beyond certainty in his classification of these faint objects. Fortunately, his positions, once corrected for a small systematic error (they tend to be northeast of the true place by about 2-3 arcsec, at least for this first paper), are very good (mean errors around 2-3 arcsec) so that -- even in the absence of the photographs -- there is no way to misidentify the objects he saw as nebulous (aside from typographical errors in his tables, of course; IC 2350 is one such error). Very few of the objects are "Not found." Those marked on the plate that I can positively identify that are also not present on POSS1 are either photographic defects or -- in a few cases -- possible asteroid trails. Wolf's positions are used in the main table, supplemented by my own, by Wolfgang's, or by GSC's when I've had them handy. All the stars and multiple stars are identified there, as are the "Not found's." I won't go through a big "story" for these objects unless one happens to be a previously known nebula that Wolf missed identifying for some reason (e.g. NGC 2643 = IC 2390; see N2643 for the short discussion); or unless I have a special reason to do so. Aside from noting the identities, and possible errors in the NGC position, there just isn't a whole lot to be said about all these stars! Curiously, Wolf also missed a few real galaxies on the plate, too -- CGCG 089-027 is one such galaxy. It's image is indeed present on the plate -- if one knows in advance that it is there -- but is of low enough surface brightness that Wolf most likely overlooked it as a random variation in plate grain. By the way, it has helped considerably to use DSS to examine Wolf's positions. There is almost always a faint object within a couple of standard deviations of Wolf's position. Even so, his descriptions make clear that there must have been plate defects -- or plate grain clumps -- involved, too. ===== IC 2263 is a star. I found this one using DSS. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2264 is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2265 is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2266 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2270 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2272 is a pair of stars, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's nearby star is at 08 15 11.44, +18 53 26.7 (B1950.0), though there is of course no nebula connecting the stars. There may, however, be a whisp of a plate defect there. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2273 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2274 is a triple star, verified on a print of the original plate. On DSS, this is a merged blob. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2275 is a star with a very faint galaxy attached, verified on a print of the original plate. The galaxy is not well-seen on DSS. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2276 is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2277 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2278 is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2279 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2280 is a star with a superposed defect, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2281 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2282 is a galaxy (huzzah! At last!). It is closely followed, and a bit to the south by a faint star (= IC 2283, which see), then a much brighter star which was Javelle's comparison star. Reducing his position makes it clear that he did in fact see IC 2282, and not IC 2283 as Dreyer supposed. So, his number (J. 1033) and his comment "* 9 f 4.6 sec, 35 arcsec s", have to be moved to I2282. ===== IC 2283 is a star close southeast of IC 2282, which see. This is not Javelle's object; that is IC 2282. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2284 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2285 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. There are three other stars nearby that may have contributed to the image on Wolf's plate. I've measured positions for them, too. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2286 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2287 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2289 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate (see IC 2262). There is a 2 arcmin error in the IC north polar distance, but Wolf's NPD is correct. ===== IC 2291 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2292 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2294 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2295 is most likely a star, verified on a print of the original plate (see IC 2262). However, that star is the northeastern of a wide double. It's just possible that Wolf's object is the double with a plate defect involved. ===== IC 2296 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2297 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2298 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. The star is superposed on the eastern end of a very faint galaxy, but there is no trace of the galaxy on the print. I suspect it is not on the plate, either. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2299 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's position angle, 160 degrees, is correct. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2300 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2301 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2302 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2303 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2304 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2305 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2306 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2307 is in GSC at 08 17 49.7, +19 35 58 (B1950.0). Wolf's position is 08 17 51.1, +19 36 00; about 12 arcsec off in RA, but part of this may be systematic. Also, Wolf's position angle is "360," 18 degrees off from that measured by Glen Deen (which is correct). There is no obvious defect involved with the galaxy on the print of the original plate, but grain clumping may have been responsible for part of its appearance. ===== IC 2308 is an interacting triple galaxy, but the images are merged on Wolf's plate. ===== IC 2310 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2312 is a pair of galaxies, closely flanked by two stars, all of the images pretty much aligned north to south, though the brightest star follows by just over a second of time. All of these are blended together into one image on Wolf's plate. ===== IC 2313 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2314 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. The two stars are of roughly equal brightness. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2315 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2316 is probably the double star near Wolf's position, though that falls very close to the southeastern of the stars. I've verified that the object is on a print of the original plate, but the resolution is not good enough to tell if both stars are involved. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2317. Glen Deen has suggested (in correspondence) that this is a double star south of Wolf's position. This is unlikely as Wolf's position for the object is within 3 arcsec of a star. Wolf's description also supports the notion that it is a single star: "vS, F, dif, vF stell N." When an object is clearly elongated (as is NGC 2572, for example, for which Wolf notes "S, pB, l 155, dif, 2 zones, * 13 s att"), Wolf gives the position angle ("l = 155" in the case of N2572). His position and description pin down the star in this case as at least the nucleus of the "nebula" which he thought he saw. Examination of a print of the original plate, marked by Wolf, makes the identity with the star certain. The "dif[fuse]" notation is due to random grain clumping around the star. ===== IC 2318. Wolf's position falls between two stars, but is nearer the preceding of the pair, which is indeed the one marked on his original plate. See IC 2262 for more information about that original plate. ===== IC 2319 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2320 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2321 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2322 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2323 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2324 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. There is another star about 30 arcsec northwest which may be involved with the image on Wolf's plate. His description reads, "S, pF, l [PA] 155, nw, several N' -- s measured." See IC 2262. ===== IC 2325 is a defect, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. The "F * att f" mentioned in Wolf's description does exist, however; I've given a position for it in the table where I call it "I2325 nearby *e". See IC 2262. ===== IC 2326 includes a star, probably involved with plate defects, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf notes that it is extended east-west, and that it has "several N'". Unlike IC 2324, he does not tell us which of his small nuclei he measured. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2328 is a defect or an asteroid trail, verified on a print of the original plate. There are no objects visible in its location on the POSS1. The image is a bit elongated, and given that the ecliptic passes through the plate, this might be an asteroid trail. The nearest star is nearly an arcmin northeast. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2329 = UGC 04365 is a fairly large Sd sp with two faint stars superposed southeast of the galaxy's nucleus. Wolf's plate shows these stars as the apparent nucleus, however, and it was this that he measured. Thus, his position is about 15 arcsec off in RA. ===== IC 2330 is a defect (or, possibly, an asteroid trail) superposed on a star, verified on a print of the original plate. The brighter part of image is a bit elongated, and given that the ecliptic passes through the plate, the "defect" may be an asteroid trail. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2331 is a close double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2332 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2333 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2334 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2335 is a galaxy with a star superposed, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf calls this "binuclear;" one nucleus belongs to the galaxy, the other is the star. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2336 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. It is just northwest of IC 2337 which is often mistakenly called I2336. See IC 2262 for more about the plates Wolf examined for his first list of photographically- discovered nebulae. ===== IC 2337 is often mistakenly called "IC 2336". The smaller number refers to a star just to the northwest of I2337. Both are easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate taken with the 16-inch Bruce refractor at Heidelberg. ===== IC 2342 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2343 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. There is a much fainter star just a few arcsec to the east, but I doubt that it appears on Wolf's plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2344 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2345 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2346 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "2d v nr sf" either refers to a defect, or should read "sp" as there is another star of about the same brightness about 15 arcsec to the southwest. See IC 2262 for more about his plate. ===== IC 2347 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2349 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2350 is not marked on the original plate at its listed position (which is copied correctly from Wolf's first list). There is a star marked at 08 21 08.1, +19 49 35 (B1950.0), however. Wolf's description mentions a "B * s". The marked star has a 13th magnitude neighbor about 10 arcsec east. Given the difference in position, and the discrepancy in magnitudes, I'm not inclined to take the marked star as IC 2350. But there is no other object in the area that fits the description, and the marked star is not otherwise listed by Wolf. However, I'm not unhappy leaving this as simply "Not found." ===== IC 2351 is a star about 25 arcsec southwest of the nucleus of NGC 2581, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2352 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2353 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2354 is a double star, with the individual images nearly merged on the DSS. I've verified it on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2355 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2356 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2357 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2358 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2359 = NGC 2582. Dreyer has included this as a "new" nebula in IC2, even though Wolf clearly and correctly marks it as "NGC 2582" in his first list. Also, Dreyer correctly calls the object "W.I.121" in IC2, so its inclusion there must be a simple oversight on Dreyer's part. ===== IC 2360 is a star, clearly marked on a print of the original plate, 3.5 arcmin north of its listed position. The error occurs in Wolf's list, and was copied into the IC by Dreyer. I do not know the source of the error, but it may result from a digit error in Wolf's measurement or reduction process -- or it may simply be a mistake. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2361. See IC 2365. ===== IC 2362 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2364 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2365 is probably IC 2366. The galaxy is actually IC 2366, not IC 2365 as it is usually called. I2366 and I2361 were measured by Javelle on the same two nights (22 Apr 1897 and 26 Feb 1900), and were referred to the same star, BD +28 1602. Their positions, as measured by him, reduce to within a couple of arcseconds of the modern positions for the galaxies. He found I2365, however, on another night, 11 Feb 1896. Supposedly referred to the same BD star, his reduced position for this object falls exactly 2.5 arcmin north of the galaxy in an empty bit of sky. My guess, before I checked the POSS1 prints, was that Javelle misidentified his comparison star on that night, and that there might be another star/galaxy pair nearby which he actually measured. Well, there isn't. I searched the POSS1 for this and found nothing within several degrees of Javelle's nominal position. So, my best guess is that IC 2365 is identical to IC 2366, but with a 2.5 arcmin measuring or reduction error. ===== IC 2366 is probably also IC 2365, which see. ===== IC 2368 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2369 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. On POSS1, there is a very faint galaxy involved with the star, but there is no trace of the galaxy on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2370 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2371 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2372 is a star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2374 and IC 2376. The CGCG identifications for these two galaxies are wrong. Here's the story: Here is a table comparing Javelle's original positions with those in CGCG and GSC for the four galaxies that he (J) found in the cluster: Javelle GSC CGCG Galaxy RA (1950.0) Dec RA (1950.0) Dec RA(1950) Dec Type I2374 082516.2 +303635 (082516.9 +303635 ) 0825.2 +3037 SB(s)bc II? I2376 082520.7 +303421 082520.87 +303426.4 0825.3 +3035 E3: (SW comp) I2378 082525.9 +303549 082526.37 +303552.0 0825.4 +3036 SA0^o I2380 082538.5 +303412 082538.67 +303416.4 0825.6 +3035 Sa: I re-reduced J's positions from his offsets from his comparison star BD +30 1715 using the position from the GSC (08 26 22.38, +30 32 59.5, 1950.0) rather than the BD position which J himself used. This means that the positions in my table will not be quite the same as the NGC positions. GSC, unfortunately, does not include I2374, so the position in parentheses for it is my own, measured by offsetting from I2378 (the GSC positions are good to about an arcsec, my offset position is good to about 2-3 arcsec). Javelle, by the way, has two measurements of each of these galaxies; I used a simple mean. Examination of the table shows that J's positions so reduced are systematically offset in both RA and Dec by a few arcsec. However, they are more than good enough to unambiguously identify the CGCG galaxies. In addition, J's descriptions match what we see on the POSS, with one exception: I2374 "... near star 11.5". There is no bright star near it. Was this perhaps an asteroid? (A supernova in galaxies this distant would have been around V = 17 or fainter, so can be confidently ruled out as a possibility.) J does mention, however, the star just southeast of I2376 (this star is also in GSC). ===== IC 2376. See IC 2374. ===== IC 2378. See IC 2374. ===== IC 2380. See IC 2374. ===== IC 2381 is a double star, verified on a print of the original plate. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2386. This is a star. Bigourdan found it while examining the field of NGC 2623 on 13 March 1899. His two measurements are in agreement to within 10 arcsec, and point very closely to the star. In addition, his estimated offset to the brighter double star 3 arcmin to the north is exact, as is his position angle and separation for the double itself. ===== IC 2390 = NGC 2643, which see. ===== IC 2391. There is certainly a cluster here, and it was certainly found by Solon I. Bailey during his survey of the sky on Harvard Patrol Camera plates. However, it is still not clear, without delving into the professional literature, just which stars belong to the cluster, and which are in the field around it. Bailey made the cluster only 15 arcmin across and centered it on Omicron Velorum. Brian Skiff and AH make it 60 arcmin across and still center it on the star, though on the DSS and the IIIaJ film, this larger cluster is clearly centered about 30 seconds of time to the east and 10 arcmin to the south (I call this "IC 2391 all" in the table). I put Bailey's 15 arcmin core about 10 seconds west and 2.5 arcmin south of Omicron. For now, you have your choice. I'll do some digging someday and report here just which stars are cluster members and which are not. In the meantime, AH have a fascinating Note relating this cluster's part in an all-sky stellar association. ===== IC 2395 is another of Bailey's clusters. This one has about 15 bright stars scattered over an area of about 10 to 15 arcmin in diameter. There seems to be a cluster of fainter stars behind the bright stars (BH-47 = ESO 210-SC04), but this could simply be the faint stars of the same cluster. A color- magnitude diagram and a proper motion study would sort out the field. Bailey's position is about 30 seconds of time off, but the cluster is so obvious that it can't be missed. ===== IC 2396 is a faint star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so the identity is almost certain. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2397 is a double star, one of which is quite faint. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so the identity is almost certain. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2399 is probably a defect on Wolf's plate. However, I have not seen a print of that plate, so can not be certain about this. In particular, there is an otherwise uncatalogued galaxy just 1 minute of time following Wolf's position, and about 13 arcsec south. This may be Wolf's object, so I mention it as a possibility. ===== IC 2408 is a star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2410 = NGC 2667. Wolf did not include the NGC identity in his list, and the position is far enough off that Dreyer did not catch it either. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2412 is a star. Wolf notes a "* 14 np"; the star is there, so even though I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, I'm confident of the identity. See IC 2262 for information on a print of one of Wolf's plates that I have seen. ===== IC 2413 is a double star. Wolf's position is about 10 arcsec to the southeast, so there may well be a defect involved with the double on his plate. I've not seen that plate, so this identification is not as secure as many others in his first list. ===== IC 2415 is a star. It has a faint companion star near to the south-southeast that may have added some to the nebular appearance on Wolf's plate. I've not seen the plate, nor a print of it, but Wolf's position is close to the star, so I'm fairly confident of the identification. ===== IC 2416 is a star. Curiously, GSC has classified this a "non-stellar" object, though it is clearly a star on both red and blue POSS1 prints. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2417 is a star. Since it is about 5-6 arcsec to the west of Wolf's position, I speculated earlier that Wolf's object might be the galaxy which is about 10 arcmin to the north. But the offset is not exactly 10 arcmin as we would expect if Wolf's position were a typo. So it is most likely that his object is the much nearer star. Unfortunately, I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but because Wolf's positions have proved to be very good overall, I'm pretty confident in the identity. ===== IC 2419 is a double star. I have not seen a print of the original plate on which this was found, but Wolf's positions have proved to be very good, so there is little doubt of the identity. See IC 2262. ===== IC 2424 = NGC 2704, which see. ===== IC 2425 is a star about 5 arcmin southwest of NGC 2708. Bigourdan has only one observation of it and he was not very certain about the object. His description reads, "Mag. 13.5 object, sporadically seen, which could be nebulous; but I cannot pronounce on it with certainty." His position is 11 arcsec west of the star -- I wonder if he also vaguely saw the two stars on further west (the 1950 positions are 08 53 16.35, -03 13 49.0 and 08 53 16.44, -03 14 04.8). If so, these might have thrown his measurement off a bit. ===== IC 2436 is a double star at Stewart's position about 6 arcmin northwest of IC 2437 which he also found on the same plate. Though he marked both "susp", both do in fact exist -- he simply did not have another plate on which he could confirm them. I examined this field while putting together ESGC. When I did that, I somehow thought that this object was a triple star, so that is how it appeared in the position file for some time. Looking at it again in a DSS image, I see that it is indeed a double star, so I have reclassified it. The position is the same either way. ===== IC 2437. See IC 2436. ===== IC 2438 is an asterism of six stars found by Bigourdan in February 1894, and dug out again by him nine years later. It is remarkable among his "novae" in that the position comes only from a setting circle reading. I have not seen this before in his lists. There is another minor mystery here, too. The position he published in CR in 1896 (copied correctly into the IC) is different than that published later in his big tables. Since the CR position (RA = 08 59 28, NPD = 16 00) is for 1860, and his later position (RA = 09 04 25, Dec = +73 51) for 1900, perhaps he made a mistake in precessing it back to 1860. Whatever happened, the asterism is unmistakeably clear on the sky, with the actual position being between his two published ones. There is, by the way, a seventh star about an arcminute south of the six that Bigourdan noted; I apparently included that in my earlier position (HCos). My later position (from DSS) is for the six stars that Bigourdan included in his description: "Small cluster formed of 5-6 stars of magnitude 12.8 and fainter, within a circle of about 1.5 arcmin in diameter." ===== IC 2440 is a star. Bigourdan's position is very good (within about four arcsec), even though he makes us work hard for it. His first observation, from 3 Feb 1894, has only a position angle given, so he is unable to work out the RA and Dec offsets (he has no note explaining the missing distance; did the weather turn bad?). He gives only a position for his comparison star without noting its source. That's OK, since we can't use it, anyway. His description, by the way, reads "Almost completely stellar object, which however is a little less sharp than stars of the same magnitude." On 28 Feb 1903, he actually has a complete measurement, position angle and distance, from which he calculated the offsets. However, he does not give a position for his comparison star aside from its offsets, in the description column, from a BD star. Working through these offsets, it turns out to be the same star he used in 1894. And on this night, his description takes on a bit of a querelous tone: "A star of magnitude 13.3 around which I cannot, with any certainty, see nebulosity." And, after all of that, his "nova" is a star. (Wolfgang, in his first list, chose the wrong one.) ===== IC 2446 probably also carries the number IC 2447, which see. ===== IC 2447 is probably Javelle's third observation of IC 2446 with some mistake in the declination. He has two observations of I2446 (on 8 April 1896 and 26 March 1900) which clearly point to the galaxy. His RA from those two nights is identical to that for I2447, which he observed on only one other night, 8 Jan 1900. He claims to have used the same star for comparison. (I checked the obvious mistakes he could have made: sign errors and incorrectly identified comparison star -- nothing in the area matches.) The difference in declination is 12 arcmin 38.2 arcsec. Perhaps this points to a reading or reduction error, but I do not now know what it might be. I have in mind a unit multiple of his eyepiece scale, or of his micrometer dial's rotation -- something like that. Perhaps we can find the answer in other papers in the Nice Observatory's Publications. ===== IC 2449. Javelle has the wrong sign on his RA offset. When it is changed to "-", his position falls exactly on the galaxy we call "NGC 2783B". For those who don't like the NGC suffixed names, we also know it as UGC 04856, Hickson 037b, CGCG 151-026, and MCG +05-22-017. The obvious clue here is Javelle's footnote, "I [also] measured NGC 2783." ===== IC 2450. Here is another wrong sign on one of Javelle's RA's. Once it is corrected, his position lands right on UGC 04902 = Markarian 1230. ===== IC 2455 probably = NGC 2804. This is one of two objects that Javelle found in the NGC 2809 group on 9 April 1896 (the other is IC 2457 for which there is no question of identity). There is nothing at Javelle's offset (+0 min 45.60 sec, +2 min 36.7 sec ) from his comparison star (BD +20 2293 = SAO 080729). There is a faint star about 30 arcsec southeast, but this is well outside of Javelle's mean error circle (about 8-10 arcsec). However, NGC 2804 is exactly 5 arcmin north of Javelle's position. If we assume that his offset should read +7 min 36.7 sec, then N2804 falls with 5 arcsec of Javelle's position. Furthermore, Javelle's description ("F, nearly R, gBM, r; N = 13-13.5") fits N2804 quite well. On the other hand, Javelle, in a footnote to his observation of I2457, says that he also saw NGC 2804, 2806, 2807, and 2809. This would argue against the I2455 = N2804 hypothesis. However, there are a few other cases of similar footnotes in his lists where the identity with the NGC object is solid. This may be another of those cases. For the time being, then, I'm going to set I2455 identical to N2804. ===== IC 2456. Here is an interesting case where Javelle may have used two comparison stars, almost certainly by mistake, for measuring one galaxy. The brighter star is his nominal one, BD +35 1972, but there is a companion star of almost the same brightness about 8.5 seconds preceding and 1' 20" south. He would also have had to make another mistake in the sign of his declination offset, but bear with me for another paragraph. If Javelle used the BD star for his declination measurement (and made the sign error), and the companion star for his RA measurement, then his reduced position falls within five arcsec of NPM1G +34.0149. The galaxy is bright enough that he could have seen it, and he did sweep over the area on the night in question (25 April 1903; see IC 2459), so I'm listing the Lick galaxy as a possible match given the near-coincidence of the positions -- after assuming these two errors. His description is not a very good match, though: "F" and "S" are all right, but "dif" and "r" are not. Still, I've seen this kind of thing on other of his galaxies, so these two mismatches are not the deal-killers that they first appear. Also, Javelle has many other mistakes in his published observations in this part of his table (see e.g. IC 2447, IC 2449, IC 2450, IC 2455), so I am not surprised that this object, too, might have mistakes. All in all, this makes at least a half-baked case for the galaxy. ===== IC 2457. See IC 2455. ===== IC 2459. Javelle says that this object is right at the limit of visibility in his 30-inch refractor. The galaxy is indeed very faint (around 17th magnitude), but his measured position falls within 4-5 arcsec of the nucleus, and his description is accurate. We'll take it. ===== IC 2460 = NGC 2827 (which see for more about the N2832 group in Abell 779). Though claimed "not found" by Carlson, this galaxy is just 1.5 arcmin north of the IC place -- the BD declination of Javelle's comparison star (BD +34 1976) is a bit off. Re-reducing J's observation puts the position within 10 arcsec of the nucleus. The only puzzle is J's note "... allongee suivant le mouvement diurne ...." This clearly makes the object flattened in declination, while the true position angle is close to zero. Did Javelle simply get confused, or did he make some other error and really observe another galaxy in the cluster? ===== IC 2465. Somehow, LEDA has made a 2 degree error in the position of this galaxy. The right galaxy is just where the IC -- and Javelle -- puts it, but LEDA has picked up an object 2 degrees south. They are wrong, of course. ===== IC 2466 is just as Dreyer boiled down Javelle's description of it: "vF, vS, dif, * 13.5 att". We could argue about the "diffuse", but with the star very close to the south, the galaxy probably would look diffuse. In any event, the nature of the galaxy is not clear on the POSS1, but comes through in the POSS2 and 2MASS images. Neither object is double as I thought they might be from POSS1 and DSS. ===== IC 2469 is one of the largest and brightest galaxies that Swift found. I'm surprised that neither JH nor Shapley-Ames picked it up. In any event, Swift found it in December of 1897 near the end of his observing career. Unfortunately, his RA is 37 seconds too small (in the AJ version of his sixth list, he has the declination as "-22" instead of the correct "-32" which appears in PA, MNRAS, and AN). The identity with the IC number is, however, clinched by Swift's note of the superposed star just to the southwest of the central bulge. Unfortunately, too, it is in one of the low Galactic latitude fields that were skipped by ESO-LV, so its optical parameters remain poorly known. ===== IC 2470. Javelle's calculations are correct, and the data on page D42 of Volume XI of the Nice Annals are also correct in every detail. However, the declination on page D18 is out by exactly 20 degrees. While we can't prove that this is a typo without reference to Javelle's original papers, it seems likely that it is a simple replacement by the typesetter of a "6" by an "8" on page D18. Once that change is made, the correct galaxy falls right into our tables. ===== IC 2477 is probably identical to IC 2480. Javelle's nominal RA, from one observation on 1 May 1896, is 18 seconds less than that of the galaxy. His declination and description are just right and match those of IC 2480. Javelle has obviously made some error in his measurement or reduction of his RA. At least that's the hypothesis. There is no other candidate in the area, and I've marked the identity with a colon. That for IC 2480 is certain as Javelle has observations on two different nights, 14 Apr 1896 and 10 Jan 1900. The observation for I2477 comes from a third night, so this adds to the probability of the identity. ===== IC 2484 is lost. Swift calls this "pB, S, R; 7 m * nf, D * p". The description is identical in the three different journals where it was published. It was the only nebula he found the night of 22 Jan 1898. During my SGC work, I noted that this may be a triple star. Now (Dec 2002), however, I cannot find a triple near the nominal place that might have caught my eye twenty years ago. I've also searched the southern sky survey films near the obvious places where the object might be: 10 minutes east and west, an hour east and west, and north along Swift's nominal RA. Since this is one of the southern-most of the nebulae that Swift claims to have seen, I've only checked southwards on the sky survey plate carrying the nominal position. Perhaps there is a double error in his position: 10 minutes in RA and 10 degrees in Dec, for example. I'll leave these possibilities for others to explore. ===== IC 2485 is probably a defect. Stewart describes it as "eF, vS, R, like several sts inv in neb, susp." There is nothing at his position that matches this unless the defect appears around one of the several asterisms of double or triple stars in the area. In my SGC workbook, I noted "No neb, but cl?" The cluster, however, is large, at least 15 arcmin by 10 arcmin, and is composed of stars that are fairly bright (10th to 12th magnitude). This is clearly not Stewart's object. Once again, an examination of the original Harvard plate (4240) is called for. This is a one-hour plate; the only other object that Stewart found on it is IC 2492, which see for a story of its own. ===== IC 2489 is probably lost; there is nothing at Barnard's position. This is another of his unpublished objects, appearing only in IC2, so we have just the IC position (given in the table) and the description ("pF, R") to go on. I see only two possibilities on the POSS1: MCG -01-25-002 and MCG -01-25-034. The second galaxy matches the meager description better, but it is 12m 24s east of Barnard's position -- this seems a bit of a long shot to me. The first galaxy does somewhat better at only 1 minute 35 seconds east and 9.6 arcmin north (perhaps within observational error of being 1 min 30 sec and 10 arcmin). However, it is clearly elongated and has several stars nearby, as well as a couple of other fainter galaxies. While the position is off by nearly the sort of "integer" numbers I like, the description doesn't fit well. So, I've put neither into the table. Perhaps we should look for 10-degree or 1-hour errors. In the meantime, then, another "lost" nebula. ===== IC 2492, like IC 2485 (which see; it is the only other object that Stewart found on one-hour Arequipa Bruce plate 4240) may be a defect. Stewart's description reads, "cF, vS, R, B * 1' np, susp." In this case, however, there is a faint galaxy about 2.5 arcmin northeast of Stewart's nominal position. This is usually taken as IC 2492 even though it is obviously elongated, not round as Stewart describes his object. But Stewart's "bright" star is not where he claims it to be. There is a relatively faint star about an arcmin northeast of the galaxy, but I do not think that this is Stewart's star. It seems more likely to me that either Stewart made an error in measuring the object's position, or that both it and the "star" are defects. So, I'm clearly not convinced that the galaxy is the one that Stewart saw. And I'd just as clearly like to see the Harvard plate. In the meantime, I'm leaving a question mark on the IC number. ===== IC 2494 = NGC 2947 = IC 547 is the only object to have entries in all three of Dreyer's catalogues -- at least that I know about in May of 2003. See IC 547 for the (short) stories. ===== IC 2502 and IC 2503 are lost. The problem is Javelle's comparison star. He claims it is "BD +33 2042" with a magnitude of "6.5" at "09 34 16.1, 56 17.3" (1860.0 with north polar distance rather than declination; this becomes 09 33 58.0, +33 44.1 for 1855.0). The problem is that that BD star is at 10 42 33.2, +33 40.0 (1855) and has a magnitude of 9.5. It happens that the BD star closest to Javelle's position has a magnitude of 6.5, but it is +33 1898 at 09 33 55.1, +33 39.9 (also 1855), not a good match. In addition, there are no nebulae at Javelle's offsets from the star, nor at any of the obvious positions derived from sign errors in the offsets. Nor is there a pair of galaxies in the area that Javelle could have seen that shares the offsets from a fairly bright comparison star. There is also no pair at the offsets from BD +33 2042 (which has a magnitude of 13.3 in GSC; did it flare at the time of the BD observation, or was it picked up to distinguish it from the north-following BD +33 2043?). Whatever happened, neither Malcolm nor I can find the objects Javelle measured. Unless someone has a great deal of time and patience to scan over many square degrees of sky for a star-galaxy-galaxy triplet at Javelle's relative positions, I suspect that these two nebulae will remain lost. One additional clue to narrow the search a bit: Javelle gives the time of his observations as well as the date. Checking over the several nebulae measured by him on the night of 2 April 1900, I found that the two missing nebulae were measured at about the time one would expect if he was picking them off as they crossed the meridian. So, I think that they are probably somewhere around an RA of 9 hour 40 minute (1950) as his observations imply. Unless he got his date and/or times wrong, too. ===== IC 2503. See IC 2502. ===== IC 2504 is probably another Harvard plate defect. There is no trace of any nebula in the area matching Stewart's description: "eF, vS, eE at 170 deg, lbM, susp." ===== IC 2509 is probably the faint star I've listed in the table. Though I overlooked this years ago when I first went over this field, I now have Bigourdan's observations at hand. His place (-11 seconds, -30 arcsec from an unnamed star of magnitude 11.5) is an estimate on a single night. Like many other of his faint "novae", he describes is simply as a "Trace of extremely faint nebulosity, pretty surely existing; it needs a more powerful telescope." This may be the same star that Carlson lists in her 1940 paper. But with no position listed there, we don't know for sure. ===== IC 2511 = IC 2512. This is the western of a pair of galaxies found twice by Swift (the eastern is IC 2513 = IC 2514, which see), and included as separate objects in his 11th list of new nebulae. Stewart searched a 1-hour Bruce plate and could only find two of Swift's objects; he has a note to that effect at the end of his table. Various typos in Swift's tables apparently confused Dreyer. The IC has 2512 as the "south-following" of two, while Swift has it as the "north-following". It is actually the north-preceding as both got right for 2511. The identity of the galaxy is assured by Swift's notes about neighboring stars one of 7th magnitude, a couple of arcminutes northwest. ===== IC 2512 = IC 2511, which see. ===== IC 2513 = IC 2514. This is the eastern of a pair of galaxies, though Swift called I2513 the "south-preceding" of two, a mistake copied by Dreyer into the IC. Swift got the direction right in his entry for I2514 ("south-following"), but Dreyer again missed with "north-following." As with the western of the pair (IC 2511 = IC 2512, which see), the identities are clinched by Swift's notes about the stars near to the east. ===== IC 2514 = IC 2513, which see. ===== IC 2528 = NGC 3084. Swift's RA is 50 seconds off, but his note about an "eF D* s" matches the NGC object if the double star is the one about an arcmin to the southeast. There is, in any event, no other obvious candidate, though I have not checked at the positions implied by digit errors. This might be a reasonable thing to do as there is a star superposed on the galaxy that is about as bright as the double. Why didn't Swift mention this star as well? Swift does mention that NGC 3078 is in the field; it is in fact less than 15 arcmin away, so it would indeed have been in Swift's field of view with N3084 centered. Carlson labels the star close to Swift's position as the IC object, but there is no double to the south, and N3078 would be out of the field if this had been Swift's object. ===== IC 2529 is NGC 3081. Swift's position is just an arcminute to the south, but there is no obvious "eF * in contact" with the galaxy. I wonder if Swift has made a transcription error here. For example, there is an "eF * in contact" with IC 2528 = NGC 3084 (which see), the immediately preceding object in his eleventh list. ===== IC 2545 may be the very faint double star at Stewart's position. It matches his description exactly: "eF, eS, cE 25 deg, triangle with 2 F stars." But I'm astonished that he could see such a faint, tiny object, even on a 4-hour exposure (plate 4342). So, I've put a question mark on it in the position table. Andris Lauberts and Wolfgang Steinicke also had trouble believing that the double is the one Stewart found. They both picked a much brighter object 30 seconds preceding and 2 arcmin south of Stewart's nominal position. This, however, does not match Stewart's description at all, particularly with respect to the two stars. However, I'm including it in the table because it is bright enough for Stewart to have picked up. This is also obviously a candidate for examination on the original plate. Another note: When I first examined IC 2545, I mistook the double star for a faint galaxy on the IIIa-J plate. However, closer examination of the object on the 2MASS images shows that it is indeed a double star. ===== IC 2555 = NGC 3157. The IC position, from an Arequipa Bruce plate examined by Delisle Stewart, is good. But the NGC position is 30 arcmin off. Curiously, JH's original position in his CGH Observations is correct. It turns out that in precessing and transcribing the position to the GC, either JH or one of his assistants made a 30 arcmin error in the declination. Dreyer faithfully copied the mistake into the NGC. One other curiousity exists with JH's records of this galaxy. He has only a single observation from sweep 535 on 28 Jan 1835. He looked for it a second night (sweep 678 on 16 Feb 1836), but has no position recorded and the odd note, "Looked for by not found by this. However, no RA is noted, perhaps it was looked for too late. The obs of S 535 is positive, and correctly reduced." This tells us that JH hoped to make a second observation of the object, but somehow missed it. In any event, his problem was apparently in RA, not Dec as later crept into the GC and NGC. ===== IC 2571 = NGC 3223. Both NGC and IC carry positions that are unmistakeably close to the galaxy, with the IC position (from a micrometric measurement by Herbert Howe) being essentially spot on. Dreyer simply missed the identity. Here is how I think he did it. Swift published the object as new in his 11th list in AN, though it appeared a few months earlier in his 6th list (from Lowe Observatory) in Popular Astronomy and Monthly Notices. His position is far enough off NGC 3223 that Dreyer apparently agreed that it was a "nova", and put it into his working list for IC2 as such. Then, Howe's observation was published in MN, and Dreyer corrected his working list without checking the NGC again. So, the galaxy has an IC number as well as one in the NGC. ===== IC 2585 = NGC 3271, which see. ===== IC 2592 = NGC 3366, which see. ===== IC 2593. See NGC 3297. ===== IC 2595 is probably lost. There is nothing in Swift's position nor at any reasonable digit offsets that I've so far checked. There is the possiblility, however, of the object being 10 or 20 degrees south of Swift's nominal declination. He found five objects on the night of 22 February 1898. The three that are identifiable (IC 2135 = IC 2136, which see for a story of its own; NGC 5494; and IC 4453) are all between -27 degrees and -37 degrees. It's probably a coincidence that this object and the other (IC 2962) that are not at their nominal positions are both 20 degrees further north. But while the coincidence suggested a search strategy, it did not yeild the missing objects -- I did not find that at either 10 or 20 degrees south of their nominal positions. Perhaps there is an error in the RA by an hour one way or another. This still needs to be checked. Finally, there are no significant systematic offsets in Swift's positions for the three galaxies that we can identify. His positions are just bad, ranging from 24 seconds east to 15 seconds west, and 7.0 arcmin north to 2.5 arcmin south from the true positions. ===== IC 2599 is the southern part of NGC 3324. JH made it clear in his description of the nebula that it extended at least as far south as a bright star on the southern edge. Pickering and Bailey apparently did not have the CGH monograph in front of them because they claimed discovery of a new nebula south of N3324, centered on that star. To be fair to them, JH put the position of N3324 in the northern part of the nebula just west of a double star. The Harvard position of I2599 centers it around SAO 238271 (which Pickering calls AGC 14525 in his HA 26 paper). ESO has made the two numbers identical. I suppose this is strictly true, but the Harvard observers made the distinction between the two, so we should do the same -- noting, however, that the IC object is, in fact, simply the southern part of the NGC object. Wolfgang caught this independently, and spurred me on to write this note. ===== IC 2602. See IC 4651. ===== IC 2603 does not exist. Though Bigourdan has two micrometric measures of it on the night of 27 March 1887, as well as a plausible description, he failed to find it again on nights in 1899 and 1907. His note reads (translated by me from the original French), Diffuse nebulosity, elongated at 98.9 deg (measured PA = 97.42 deg, 1 pointing), about 1.4 arcmin long by 40 arcsec wide. It could be formed by 2 nebulae nearly in contact; the following one is a little brighter and more extended. [His italics:] Could be a false image. His final sentence, with his own italics added for emphasis, says it all. My suggestion that this could be a star 47 arcsec from the IC position (from many years ago when I was young and naive) is wrong. Since that more innocent age, I've discovered Bigourdan's massive set of observations, and have learned how to use them. It's clear that IC 2603 really is non-existent. It's still not clear, however, just what these "fausses images" of Bigourdan's actually were. I suspect some sort of internal reflection in his telescope -- the 30-cm refractor at Observatoire de Paris -- but that is just a guess. IC 2610 is another such object; see that for similar speculation. ===== IC 2609 = NGC 3404, which see. ===== IC 2610 was a "fausse image" in Bigourdan's eyepiece. There is nothing on the sky at his place matching his description. He also adds the note, in italics, "Could be a false image." I do not know what causes these things (internal reflections in his refractor, perhaps?), but they pop up occasionally in his observations. Bigourdan also notes that his measurement of the "nebula" was somewhat disturbed by a 13th magnitude star 25 arcsec away in PA = 270 deg. That star is indeed there -- but his "diffuse nebula, round, about 30 arcsec in diameter, little brighter in the middle with no nucleus" is not. Finally, a faint galaxy close southeast of a much brighter star -- the pair is about 1.5 arcmin southwest of Bigourdan's position -- is sometimes called IC 2610. Bigourdan's measurement makes clear that this cannot be true. ===== IC 2611 is a star. Bigourdan's measured place for it, from just one setting of his micrometer, is 30 arcsec south of the actual position. Did he make a measurement or reduction error somewhere along the line? Dorothy Carlson was the first to publish this identity in her 1940 paper. A curious footnote: Immediately following Bigourdan's single measurement of this star is another object called "Nova?" in his table. It has an estimated position of +5.8 seconds, -1 arcmin 25 arcsec from the same comparison star (BD +10 2241) that Bigourdan used for the IC object. This "nova?" does not appear in either the NGC or IC. This is a good thing as nothing exists in the place where Bigourdan suspected it. His description is "Object only glimpsed" and his position, reduced and precessed to B1950.0, is 10 50 07.0, +10 23 45. ===== IC 2613 = NGC 3395. Javelle got the sign on his RA offset from his comparison star wrong -- replace his "+" by a "-". When that change is made, his reduced position falls right on NGC 3395. His description is appropriate, too. This brings up the question of why Javelle did not mention NGC 3396 in a footnote. In fact, he did -- but the footnote is to IC 2604. So, why did he not also mention NGC 3395 in the same footnote? He obviously got confused somehow -- the incorrect sign attests to that. CGCG has this IC number noted as being identically equal to NGC 3430. This, of course, is wrong. It would require Javelle to have made a 2 minute, 5 second error in his RA, and a 1.8 arcmin error in Dec -- the flipped RA sign is a much easier error to make. ===== IC 2618 is a double star. In spite of Bigourdan's doubts about this object, his estimated position (he did not measure it) is good. His description reads only, "Slightly nebulous object; it will take a more powerful instrument to decide if it is really a nebula." That "more powerful instrument" turned out to be the 48-inch Schmidt telescope at Palomar Observatory. ===== IC 2622 = NGC 3508 (which see), and probably also = NGC 3505 (also which see). Swift's position is not very good, but his note "like a double star" is exactly right -- there is a star superposed just northeast. ===== IC 2623. Is this also NGC 3565 and/or NGC 3566? See the discussion under NGC 3565. The IC identification is not in doubt, but the NGC identifications are. ===== IC 2624 = NGC 3497 (which see) = NGC 3525 = NGC 3528. ===== IC 2625 = NGC 3529. See NGC 3497. ===== IC 2663 is a star, confirmed on the print of the original plate. Since the plate has none of Wolf's marks left on it, though, I've had to center up his position in a DSS field, then check the print against DSS. That procedure points unmistakeably at the star. ===== IC 2664 is a double star, confirmed on the print of the original plate. Wolf's position is actually closer to the eastern of the two stars, so that is often taken as the IC object. But the images of the two are blended on the print, so I suspect that both should bear the IC number. ===== IC 2672 is a star (or perhaps a bright knot?) superposed on the southern arm of IC 2673 (which see). There are two other much fainter knots to the west of the star; these, too, may be included in the image on Wolf's plate. The resolution on the print I looked at is too poor to be sure. It does show the star and the galaxy quite clearly separated, though. ===== IC 2673 is often mistakenly called "IC 2672". But the smaller IC number refers to a star (or knot?) superposed on the southern outskirts of I2673. The galaxy is also in the UGC as number 06288. ===== IC 2677 is, by Wolf's note ("in L E 290 deg neby"), a star with a fainter compact galaxy just to the northwest. His position, however, falls closely on the star, and the galaxy is too faint to have registered on his plate (the print shows only the star). However, the corona of the star may have been enhanced by the galaxy, giving rise to the appearance of the "little extended [in] 290 deg neby". ===== IC 2686 is a star -- perhaps merged with a galaxy or a defect. Only the star is visible on the print of the original photograph, and Wolf's position points directly at the star. However, his note says "att[ached] star 14, sf, * meas." Either he made a mistake and meant to say "np" instead of "sf", or (as I suspect) there is a faint defect northwest of the star. In any event, I've listed the star in the table with the galaxy to the south- east as a possible part of the IC object. ===== IC 2690. On the high-contrast POSS1 prints, this looked like a star. It is, however, a compact galaxy. ===== IC 2709. There is a relatively faint star and a low-surface-brightness galaxy near this position. Neither is clearly seen on the print of the original plate, and there may be a faint defect involved there, too. This is one of Wolf's objects that we might want to look up on the original plate. ===== IC 2712 is a pair of galaxies, confirmed on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 2719 is a very compact galaxy, not a star as we had classified it many years ago on the POSS1 prints. ===== IC 2721. There is nothing at the position of this object. Wolf found it on one of his early plates, and has made some kind of mistake in its position -- it does not appear on the print of that plate. Precessing this object for inclusion in the IC, Dreyer coincidentally made a 10 arcmin error in the NPD for this (compare the original NPD of this with that for IC 2720, also in Wolf's 7th list: the difference is about 14 arcmin. The difference in the IC is 4 arcmin, both in the 1860 position and in the 1900 position). Coincidentally, there is a very faint galaxy near this incorrect position which is sometimes taken for IC 2721, but it is not on Wolf's plate (a brighter star north of the galaxy is on the plate, but just barely). Since Wolf's marks have been erased from this plate, the object he meant to include in his list is probably lost for good. ===== IC 2722 is a close pair of galaxies, confirmed on the original plate. It is in a group of galaxies and there are several others (fainter) nearby. ===== IC 2726, IC 2728, and IC 2729. None of these are visible on the print of Wolf's original plate, though the positions of the latter two are covered with obvious plate defects. It's possible that these are actually the stars (IC 2726 and IC 2728) and the galaxy (IC 2729) that Wolfgang and I have picked up and included in the main table, but the objects are further from Wolf's nominal positions than is usual for him. Also, his marks have been erased from this plate. So, without being able to confirm the objects, I'm somewhat reluctant to make solid identifications. Thus, the colons. ===== IC 2728 may be a star near Wolf's position, though it is not visible on the print of his original plate -- the area is covered by a plate defect. See IC 2726 for more. ===== IC 2729 may be a galaxy near Wolf's position, though it is not visible on the print of his original plate -- the area is covered by a plate defect. See IC 2726 for more. ===== IC 2733 is probably the double star that I've listed in the table. There is nothing at Wolf's position on the DSS, POSS1, or on the print of his original plate. This is the closest nebulous object on the print, and the star of the 14th magnitude is indeed to the north. ===== IC 2741 is a galaxy with a faint star nearby. These are blended into a single object on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 2743 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. Wolf has a one minute of time typo in his table for this object -- his object is clearly out of RA order if the position is correct as printed. And there is nothing at the incorrect position. Dreyer caught this and corrected it for the IC. ===== IC 2751 is correctly identified as CGCG 185-047 by Javelle's reduced position. Wolfgang's first list had it as CGCG 185-046, but that is incorrect. ===== IC 2753 is not, as I had supposed for many years, a star at Wolf's position. It is a compact galaxy. I've not yet chased it down on the print of the original plate, but the position is very good, and there is nothing else nearby that Wolf could have picked up instead. ===== IC 2759. There are two galaxies, nearly equally bright, near Bigourdan's approximate position given in the second IC. To confuse things even further, the northwestern of the pair is just 1.0 second of time west and 1.0 arcmin to the north. That is IC 2759, and is positively identified by Bigourdan's single measured offset from NGC 3651. He also notes the 13th magnitude star 2.5 arcmin away in PA = 300 degrees. The galaxy is well-shown in Hickson's Atlas of compact groups where it is number 51e. The galaxy just over an arcminute to the southeast is Hickson 51b. ===== IC 2780 is the southern of two close objects. The northern is a star mentioned by Wolf in his note on this object. Both objects show well on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 2789 is a blend of a star and what looks like a much fainter galaxy just northwest. I am not sure, however, that the fainter object is indeed a galaxy; it may just be another, fainter star. The two objects are blended into a single image on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 2794 is a star 10 arcsec south of Wolf's position. Its image is on the print of Wolf's original Heidelberg plate. The image is large enough that it reaches to Wolf's position. Other objects on this plate are also south of Wolf's nominal positions (e.g. IC 2808). ===== IC 2808 is a star 20 arcsec south of Wolf's position. Its image is on the print of the original plate; there is nothing at Wolf's position. ===== IC 2825 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2831 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2836 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2849 is a star, seen on a print of the Wolf's original plate. Unfortunately, if Wolf marked the objects on this plate as he did on other plates in this series, the marks have been removed. So, I can only confirm that the IC objects are on the plate, not that they were in fact the actual objects that Wolf intended to list as nebulae. Of course, his positions are very good. So, given the presence of an object -- be it a galaxy, star (or multiple star), or defect -- at the catalogued position, we can be pretty certain about the identification. See IC 2262 for more about the prints of Wolf's plates. ===== IC 2854 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2858 is not a star, though we have classified it as such for many years. It is, in fact, a compact galaxy included in the 2MASS XSC and in the MAPS north Galactic pole catalogue. I discovered the misclassification when I was adding the IC number to NED in August of 2005. ===== IC 2859 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2863 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2865 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. The faint image probably includes a second star close north. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2866 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2868 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2869 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. See IC 2849 for more information. ===== IC 2872 is the brightest part of a large (18 arcmin by 16 arcmin) diffuse nebula. The IC object itself has two or three bright lobes, perhaps defined (as in the Trifid Nebula) by dust lanes. The positions I give in the table are eyeball means for the two and three brightest lobes, while that that Andris measured for ESO-B is probably for just one of the lobes. Frost's description "bM, neb. ext. 2' in R.A. and 5'.0 in Dec" matches the two western lobes almost perfectly. His position (given only a tenth of a minute of time and an arcminute in Dec) is a little east of that, but still within his usual error. Most of the fainter part of the nebula extends on to the northeast from the IC object itself. ===== IC 2875 is a star, seen on a print of the original plate. The DSS has this star and the one 3/4 arcmin preceding (mentioned by Wolf in his notes, as is the "* 9 sp 1 1/2 arcmin", thus clearly identifying his object) very nearly the same brightness. On the print of Wolf's plate, however, the preceding star is in the corona of the bright star and is considerably enhanced in brightness, apparently a hypersensitization effect. See IC 2849 for more information on Wolf's plate. ===== IC 2884 is a line of 6-7 stars with a position angle of 145 degrees. There are just four main images, but at least two of them are clearly multiple. Stewart's position is pretty good. So, I'm puzzled by my SGC workbook note that I could not find the object. Andris Lauberts, Wolfgang Steinicke, and Malcolm Thomson had no trouble with it during their searches. Perhaps I scanned the plate on one of my migraine days. Ouch. ===== IC 2905 is a star. Unfortunately, its image is hidden behind a defect on the print of the original plate -- I do not know if this defect is only on the print or is also on the plate. However, the "* 14 nf 3/4 arcmin" is clearly seen on the print, so shows us just where Wolf's object should be. As usual, his position is pretty good. ===== IC 2935 is a defect on the original plate. It also shows clearly on the print of that plate that I've examined. Wolf describes it as "cF, cS, E 130 degrees", and that is very much how it appears. Coincidentally, there is a 20th magnitude galaxy near Wolf's position. It is much too faint to be seen on Wolf's plate, and it is nearly round in any case. There is another similar galaxy about 20 arcsec south, but that is slightly elongated at about 5 degrees PA, and is again much too faint to register on the Heidelberg plate. ===== IC 2940 does not exist. Bigourdan places it approximately 4 arcmin south- southeast of BD +22 2377, and describes it as an "Extremely faint nebulous object, suspected only. It is possible that the PA is 180deg in error." If that is the case, then the object would be north-northwest of the star. There is nothing in either position. Given that Bigourdan gives only an estimated offset, it is possible that his object is one or another of the faint stars in the area, perhaps even the double star I measured in 1974. It may also be possible that Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star. However, neither hypothesis is likely. Bigourdan measured NGC 3743 on the same night, comparing it to the same star. So, I think it most likely that IC 2940 is one of his "fausses images." ===== IC 2944 and IC 2948. Gregg Thompson in Deep Sky No. XX, XXX, 198X (I've lost the reference, so will have to dig it out again later), raises an interesting question concerning the identity of IC 2948. While it is shown in Sky Atlas 2000.0 as a star cluster, its original IC description "eeL" (extremely, extremely large) makes no mention of its being a cluster. This would suggest that Gregg's identification of the nebula as IC 2948 is correct. Digging just a bit further, we find that the object is indeed listed as a bright nebula in Sky Catalogue 2000.0, along with IC 2944. Both of these objects are listed as clusters in an emission nebula complex in the ESO/Uppsala catalogue, which is probably also correct. But let's look more closely at the story behind the present confusion over the identification of IC 2944 and 2948. The objects are two of those discovered by Royal H. Frost on photographic plates taken in Peru at the Arequipa Station of Harvard Observatory in the early 1900's. For IC 2944, Frost's published notes read, "Nebula around AGC 15848 (lambda Centauri), extending from 11h 30m to 11h 31m, and from -62 14' to -62 40'." For IC 2948, he writes "Nebulous patch extending from 11h 30.6m to 11h 38.1m, and from -62 28' to -63 14'." (The positions are for the equinox 1900). It's obvious from this that Gregg has indeed picked up the correct object. The two nebulae look, on DSS2R images, as if they are simply parts of a single, much larger complex of nebulae extending over several degrees. It is still possible to make the case, as Frost did, that they are separate objects. In that case, IC 2944 would be somewhat more extensive than Frost measured it: my own estimates make it something like 40 arcmin by 20 arcmin. I2948 is much closer to the size that Frost measured: 45 arcmin by 40 arcmin. The particular plate that Frost found these nebulae on is plate 6715 taken on 5 May 1904 with the 24-inch Bruce refractor. This telescope is a short-focus instrument capable of taking very wide field photographs. Indeed, the field size is almost exactly that (6.4 x 6.4 degrees) of the modern 1.2-m Schmidt telescopes at Palomar Mountain and at Siding Spring which have given us our definitive twentieth-century optical sky surveys. Oddly enough, Gregg has also uncovered IC 2948's other common -- perhaps mistaken -- identification in the astronomical literature as a star cluster. B.A. Gould was the first to see it this way in 1897 on plates taken at Cordoba Observatory in Argentina. He counted 236 stars in the area, gave photographic magnitudes for them, and noted the proximity to Lambda Centauri. In his 1930 book Star Clusters, Harlow Shapley lists IC 2948 in the catalogue of open clusters with an angular diameter of 15 arcmin, but with only 25 stars. This discrepancy with Gould's description is unfortunately not unusual in the early catalogues of clusters and nebulae. These catalogues were usually little more than finding lists and descriptions, though Shapley was among the first to attempt to quantify the study of deep sky objects. He gave a distance of 660 parsecs for IC 2948, from which he calculated an intrinsic linear diameter of 2.9 parsecs. After another quarter century of obscurity, IC 2948 was again noted in the literature, this time by Colin Gumm in his exploration of the vast, glowing clouds of ionized hydrogen in the southern Milky Way. He entered it as number 42 in his "Survey of Southern H II Regions" found on wide field photographs taken at Mt. Stromlo in the early 1950's. David Thackery in 1964 was the first to note IC 2948's probable true nature: it is a cluster of brilliant young stars in an H II region. He also noticed the neighboring IC 2944 with its retinue of bright blue giant stars. Together with IC 2948, Thackery described the region as "containing one of the biggest concentrations of (spectral type) O stars in the sky." This has made it interesting to astronomers as a birthplace of stars, and only its far southern location has kept it from assuming an important role in recent studies of stellar evolution. In 1986, however, Charles Perry and Arlo Landolt of Louisiana State University, working at Cerro Telolo Observatory in Chile, have found that the "cluster" associated with IC 2944 is apparently a chance superposition of O and B type stars at different distances along our line of sight. Is it possible that IC 2948 is similarly an illusion? Gregg's description certainly bears this out, though the appearance of the nebula on the UK Schmidt Southern Sky Survey photograph is that of a typical young association of a gaseous nebula with its superimposed dark Bok globules, and with bright stars buried in the heart of the nebula. It reminds me quite a bit of the similar nebulae M16, M17, and M20 with their associated clusters -- and of course of that spectacular prototype of the stellar nursery, M42, the Orion Nebula. I suspect that if it were further north, IC 2948 would be nearly as famous as any of these. Well. Back to the identifications. For IC 2944, I've adopted the position for lambda Cen; and for I2948 the approximate geometrical center of the large nebula that Frost describes. As I noted above, ESO-B adopted positions for the clusters rather than the nebulae, so I've taken the ESO-B positions out of the position table. ===== IC 2948. See IC 2944. ===== IC 2949 may be the double star that I've put into the position table. It is fairly close to Finlay's crude position (from setting circles), and is bright enough that he could have seen it in the 6- and 7-inch refractors that he was using in the 1880's. Unfortunately, Finlay has left us no description of the object he found. I think, though, that the double would be a decent candidate for the sort of optics Finlay was using. I do not think that the much fainter galaxy (ESO 266-G016) seven arcmin to the south, chosen by Andris and Wolfgang as I2949, could have been seen in Finlay's relatively small telescopes. In addition, it has a brighter star superposed that would probably help to hide the galaxy were it a marginal object. ===== IC 2952. See NGC 3847 and NGC 3855. ===== IC 2953 may be NGC 3855, which see. ===== IC 2954. This is probably a star at Javelle's position. The doubt remains as there is a galaxy (CGCG 157-028) 3 min 32.2 sec north which matches Javelle's description -- and Javelle's offset from his comparison star is -3 min 30.7 sec. Is there a confusion somewhere that I've missed? I doubt this as Javelle found the nearby IC 2956 on the same night, and used the same comparison star to measure its offset, and got its position to within 6 arcsec in declination. Javelle's declination for the star in question is 4.5 arcsec off in the same direction, leading me to believe that he measured the star rather than the nearby galaxy. His right ascension for his object, though, agrees perfectly with that for the galaxy. Well -- put a question mark on the identification. Unless we can find his actual observing notes, we may never know the answer. ===== IC 2955 is not NGC 3862, but is the fainter companion about an arcminute to the northwest of the brighter elliptical. Bigourdan saw both galaxies on 28 March 1886 and measured them both the next night. He returned to them on 30 April 1899, and measured them both again. ===== IC 2956. See IC 2954. ===== IC 2957. This is probably a copying error by Javelle (or an assistant) in the coordinates of the comparison star, BD +32 2184 = SAO 62690: it is listed two degrees north of its actual position. Javelle's math is correct given this mistake, so his derived position for the galaxy is also two degrees north of the true position. This suggest a transcription error to me rather than a simple typo. ===== IC 2958. There is no problem with the IC identification or position for this galaxy. However, CGCG incorrectly printed this number for IC 2968 (which see). ===== IC 2959 = NGC 3871. Javelle must have been confused by Dreyer's NGC notes on this (see NGC 3871 for more). His RA is about 17 seconds off the NGC RA, but given that Dreyer had the position sorted out and the correct RA given in the IC 1 notes, I'm slightly surprised that Javelle did not notice the identity. He does comment in a footnote that he also measured NGC 3878, 3880, and 3881, so he, too, saw all four of the brighter members of the group. (He found a fainter one, too, IC 2858, which see.) ===== IC 2962 is currently lost. While excavating the sky for ESGC, I wondered if it might be identical to NGC 3905. That has the same RA, but the Dec is 2 deg 35 arcmin off Swift's, making the identity very doubtful. The object is also not 10 or 20 degrees south of its nominal position. Perhaps it is 10 degrees north, or the RA is one hour off one way or another. Perhaps someone else can check these possibilities. See IC 2595 for more about the nebulae that Swift discovered on the night of 22 February 1898. ===== IC 2964 does not exist. Bigourdan found it and another "nova" while searching for NGC 3908 (which see for its own story). He decided that his second new object was nothing more than a star, and it is included in the description for I2964 that he published in Comptes Rendus. This made it into the IC as well. In fact, Bigourdan's estimated position for the second object clearly points at a star. But there is nothing at all in his position for the IC object. ===== IC 2965 = NGC 3957. Swift has only a position and a spare description "B, S, eE, a ray." This description, and his declination, agree with those for NGC 3957, but his RA is 3.5 minutes of time off. Still, the NGC galaxy is the only one around which comes close to matching. So, unless someone can find a better candidate, I'm going with N3957 = I2965. ===== IC 2968. Kobold's original observation was not a careful micrometric offset, but an estimate appended to his description of NGC 3937: 12.7 seconds preceding, 16 arcsec south (the actual offsets are 12.1 seconds preceding, 21 arcsec south, based on Guide Star Catalogue positions for the two galaxies). Nevertheless, his offsets are good enough to unambiguously identify the galaxy. How Vorontsov missed it is a mystery to me. He lists the galaxy in the MCG notes (without the IC number, of course), yet -- in spite of the explicit note in the IC description -- he incorrectly makes it identical to NGC 3937. RNGC, UGC, NGC 2000.0, and PGC all copied his incorrect identification. The CGCG misidentification of I2968 as IC 2958 (either a copying error or a typo) is an unfortunate coincidence: this led to Nilson's giving that number to the galaxy in the UGC notes, and undoubtedly reinforced in his mind the incorrect MCG identification which he repeated, albeit with a query. ===== IC 2969. Swift's position is about 10 arcmin too far north. The incorrect position coincidentally falls near CGCG 012-110, which has sometimes been taken as the IC object. The object that Swift really found is MCG -01-30-040, and can be clearly identified by Swift's note of a "B * f 55 sec; np of 2." The star is SAO 138460, and the other nebula is IC 2972 = NGC 3952 (which see). Though the MCG object is smaller and fainter than the CGCG, it has a much higher surface brightness, so is more likely to have been seen during a visual survey. ===== IC 2970. In spite of Carlson's contention that this is a triple star, there is nothing at all near Swift's nominal position. It may be that the triple that showed up on the Mt. Wilson plate is the one at 11 51 15.7, -22 56 39, pretty close southwest of NGC 3955. This, however, is 30 seconds of time and 6 arcminutes off the nominal position; I suspect it was taken as I2970 just because Dreyer changed Swift's comment "not [N]3955" to "II 623 f." Another curiosity. In the SGC workbook, I note I2970 as "not found." But in my copy of the IC, I have it as a double star. I suspect that I was looking at the star with a faint companion at 11 50 28.1, -22 51 03. I also suspect that "Not found" is a better conclusion for this object, too. ===== IC 2972 = NGC 3952. The IC object can be clearly identified by Swift's notes in the description: "2 B sts n & np; s of 2." The two bright stars are SAO 138460 and 138464; the other galaxy is IC 2969 (which see). The NGC position for N3952, from the Herschels, is good, and Swift's is not far off, either. It's rather curious, then, that neither Swift nor Dreyer made the identification before the IC was published. This has happened in other cases, though -- perhaps there were in 1908 already too many known galaxies for one or two people to catalogue adequately. ===== IC 2974 pretty clearly also carries the number IC 2975, which see. ===== IC 2975 is almost certainly a reobservation of IC 2974. Swift's descriptions in his various papers are appropriate to the galaxy as well as to the star field around it. In particular, his note on the shape is "eE, a ray" in the PASP version of the second Lowe Observatory list. He mistranscribed this as "lE" in the MNRAS version and in the AN collection which Dreyer used. The position of IC 2975 is Swift's single least precisely noted position with both RA and Dec being marked by question marks, and the Dec being given to just a full degree. Curiously, his position for IC 2974, from just a couple of years earlier in March of 1895, is pretty good, being only a couple of arcminutes off the galaxy. But the positions from his last two years of observing are among his worst, and October of 1897 is within a few months of the last of his published discovery dates for any of his nebulae. ===== IC 2976 = NGC 3979, which see. ===== IC 2979. There is a one degree error in the north polar distance of Javelle's comparison star in his table. His measured position and description fit UGC 6925 very well, so the identity is sure. This one degree error also applies to IC 2981, found on the same night and referred to the same star. See that for more. ===== IC 2981. Javelle found the IC galaxy the same night and referred it to the same star as IC 2979 (which see); his declination for the star is also wrong for this object. Javelle made yet another error with this galaxy: his RA offset has the wrong sign. When that is corrected, his position falls within three arcsec of CGCG 157-056, his description is appropriate, and the identity is secure. The CGCG galaxy, by the way, is usually taken to be NGC 3966 with a 30 second error in its RA. This is wrong; N3966 (which see) is actually = NGC 3986. ===== IC 2982 was rediscovered by Holmberg, hence its secondary designation as "NGC 4004B". I had some doubts about the identification as I2982 since the galaxy is about three arcmin north of the IC position. Reducing Bigourdan's observation (he simply estimated the position with respect to the comparison star because the star prevented him from seeing the galaxy well), I found that his approximate position is about 15 arcsec from the galaxy. Combined with his description, "Probably nebulous object; the proximity of the comparison star prevents it from being seen well." The galaxy is indeed close to the star and in the direction which Bigourdan notes (2 seconds east at the same declination), so I now have no reason to doubt that he did indeed see the galaxy. ===== IC 2983 is not NGC 4006 as some have supposed. Bigourdan found I2983 on the same night on which he observed N4006, so the two cannot be identical. However, there is no object at the position estimated by Bigourdan for I2983: +10 sec and -6 arcmin from BD -1 2597. There are several stars near; one is mentioned in Bigourdan's description of N4006. Two fainter stars are possible candidates as Bigourdan's object, but they are more than an arcminute away from his position. In the end, I have chosen to simply say "Not found" for I2983. But the possibility remains that it is actually a star -- if so, it is probably unrecoverable, given the estimated position. ===== IC 2988 is, if anything at all, a faint star near Bigourdan's position. Though he has two measurements of it on 21 Mrach 1898, they disagree by nearly 20 arcsec in declination, so the identity is not beyond doubt. I do not see any reduction problem with his measurements, just the disagreement between them. Still, one of his measurements is within a few arcsec of the star, so he probably did see it vaguely. His description is telling, too: "Pretty nebulous, pretty granulated, no other detail seen because of the object's extreme faintness. * 11.5 at PA = 150 deg, d = 2.7 arcmin." The 11.5 magnitude star is where he says it is, so I'll take the identity with the faint star, even though it is fainter than Bigourdan normally sees. ===== IC 2989 = NGC 4139, which see. ===== IC 2992. This, too (see IC 2957), is probably a copying error by Javelle in the position of the comparison star: it is listed as being 30 minutes south of its actual position, a "5" replacing the correct "2" in the minutes of north polar distance. As with I2957, Javelle's math is correct aside from the 30 arcmin error. ===== IC 2993. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. When the correct star is used, IC 2993 is easily identified as a faint, otherwise uncatalogued galaxy about 3 arcmin southwest of MCG +06-27-003. Unfortunately, CGCG pulled CGCG 187-005 (a double galaxy) out of the hat for the IC number; this is the wrong object. IC 3003 was also affected by Javelle's error; see it for more. ===== IC 2997 is not NGC 4090, though is often taken to be. The confusion is understandable, as there is nothing at Bigourdan's (and the IC's) position. It's worth noting, too, that Bigourdan recorded the two objects on the same night (his observations of N4090 are in his Appendix 8, "Complementary Observations"). Bigourdan's two observations of I2997, referred to the same star on the same night, are as discordant as any of his that I've seen: 43 arcseconds apart. He's clearly made an error, and I suspect that his error was to record a position angle of 150.80 degrees as 158.80 degrees. With that corrected, the two observations agree to within 4 arcsec. That is the position I've given in the table. In any event, there is nothing exactly at this position, but 17.5 arcsec away is a 17th magnitude star that has another much brighter star at about PA = 155 degrees, distance 1.8 arcmin, an offset mentioned in his description for a star of "11.8-12". The actual magnitude is 13.5 (in B, 13.6 in R; both from USNO A2.0). This suggests that he glimpsed the 17th magnitude star -- with a 12-inch telescope, from the middle of Paris, in the late 1800's when street- lighting was becoming popular (stop laughing; it MIGHT be possible ...) My own guess is that IC 2997 is actually another of Bigourdan's "fausse images" such as NGC 2529 and NGC 2531, or IC 2610 (all of which see). It's interesting that another of Bigourdan's lost nebulae, IC 2998 (which see), is also in the NGC 4092 group -- and was also glimpsed on the same night as this one. ===== IC 2998 may be one of the galaxies in the NGC 4092 group -- but this isn't likely as Bigourdan has good measurements of all the others (though he lists NGC 4095 under the number "4098"). He has just one "observation" of I2998, and it consists only of a scanty description. He gives no offsets, not even estimated ones. The comparison "star" he lists is NGC 4099 with its NGC position. His note says only: "Object seen only once, then lost from view, the sky having become a little worse. One of d'A's new nebulae could be identical to one of H's. All the nebulae in the group are pretty insignificant except for GC 2714 [NGC 4099] which is pretty well seen." The CR paper, from which Dreyer correctly copied the IC position, has 11 58 46, 68 28 as the 1860.0 position (with NPD rather than declination which Bigourdan adopted for his big tables). The CR description is "vF nebula, neighboring but distinct from the nebulae in the area listed in NGC." In his tables of new nebulae, the 1900.0 position becomes 12 00 59, +21 11 with the brief comment "Only glimpsed." Precessing these positions to a common equinox shows immediately that they are about 10 arcmin apart, with the later position being just over an arcmin northeast of NGC 4098 = NGC 4099 (which see for its own problems). Bigourdan has no discussion of how he derived the two different positions, so we have no way of knowing which to accept. I've put them both in my position list -- no guessing here! In fact, it does not matter which position we go to -- there is no nebula at either one. I think that this, like IC 2997, is probably an illusory "nebula" picked up in a moment of fatigue, or while pushing too hard against the limit of the telescope. ===== IC 3000 is most likely a defect on the Bruce plate which Stewart examined. Even though there is a very faint spindle near Stewart's position, it is too faint and too small to have been recorded on the Bruce plate. It also does not match Stewart's description: "F, indistinct, * like, but poss. defect, susp." ===== IC 3003 is CGCG 187-011. As noted with IC 2993 (which see), Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Unlike I2993, however, CGCG has got the correct number on the correct galaxy for I3003. ===== IC 3006 is probably a plate defect. It was found by Royal Frost on a four- hour Bruce reflector plate taken at Arequipa, and was also recorded nearly 30 years later by Adelaide Ames at the same position, on the same plate. There is nothing near that position but a star about an arcmin northwest. Frost's and Ames's descriptions make an interesting contrast: Frost says "R, bM, magn 15", while Ames has m = 16.2, maximum diameter 41 arcsec, ellipticity (diamin/diamax) = 0.6, and a "class" that decodes as "irregular, bM but no N". All this is consistent with a description of a small plate defect. We can someday check the Harvard plate to be sure -- if the plate is not thrown out in the meantime (see e.g. B.E. Schaefer, S&T 105, No. 3, p. 42, 2003). ===== IC 3009 is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing near his position bright enough to match his description ("pB, cS, fig? dist"). ===== IC 3011 = NGC 4124 = NGC 4119 (which see for that story). The position given by Schwassmann for the galaxy is virtually identical to its NGC position. I do not know why he did not make the connection between the two, nor do I know why Dreyer did not also catch the identity. In any event, the two numbers clearly refer to the same galaxy. ===== IC 3017. Nearly all the modern catalogues follow CGCG in assigning the number IC 3017 to the brighter, southern of a pair of faint galaxies northwest of the center of the Virgo Cluster. This, however, is probably wrong as this brighter galaxy is likely to be IC 3018 (which see) with a 30 arcmin error in its declination. The fainter galaxy is almost certainly IC 3017 -- Frost's nominal position is closer to this object. Adelaide Ames, working from the same plate as Frost, agrees; she adopted his position for the entry for this galaxy in her Virgo Cluster catalogue. ===== IC 3018 is probably the brighter, southern-most of a pair of galaxies found on a Bruce refractor plate by Royal Frost (the northern is IC 3017, which see). However, Frost made the declination 30 arcmin too large; there is nothing at his nominal position which Dreyer copied correctly into the second IC. The mistake was caught by Adelaide Ames while compiling her Virgo Cluster catalogue from the same plates that Frost examined. She words her note very cautiously (did she ever meet Frost?) and does not give the IC number in her table. However, I am pretty well convinced of the identity, so adopt it without reservations. ===== IC 3026 must be a defect on the 1-hour Harvard plate, number 3703. There is nothing in its position and Stewart notes that IC 764 is "p 0.3 min, n 11 arcmin" which is correct. Stewart also lists IC 764 in his table where it has similar offsets (0.4 minutes west, 12 arcmin north), so it is clear that he has the position of I3026 correct. For the record, Dreyer correctly copies Stewart's position and description into the second IC. All this can be checked if the plate still exists at Harvard. ===== IC 3027 is a plate defect. Found by Royal Frost on Bruce plate number 6718, it was picked up again by Adelaide Ames for her Virgo Cluster catalogue -- but dropped into a footnote where she identifies it as a defect. ===== IC 3030 must also be a plate defect, though it fooled Ames, too (see IC 3027 which did not) -- there is nothing near the position given by Frost and Ames but a very faint, very small galaxy that would not have made it onto the Bruce plate. ===== IC 3035 = NGC 4165, which see. ===== IC 3042 = NGC 4178. This was a simple oversight on Schwassmann's part -- he did not include the NGC number in his Virgo Cluster table, and Dreyer did not catch the identity with N4178 (which is well-positioned by JH's observation). ===== IC 3045. Like IC 3009, this is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at all at his position, let alone anything that matches his description "pB or pF, cS, N s M, N = * 10.5, S N pt" ("pt" means "pointed"). The mention of the bright eccentric nucleus especially reminds me of some of the blemishes that regularly appear on the POSS1, especially near the edges of the plates. ===== IC 3048 is probably the western of two stars near Schwassmann's position. His positions are systematically too far east by about 0.3 or 0.4 seconds of time and about 2 arcsec too far north. Taking these offsets into account leads to the western star. However, his standard deviation is around 5 arcsec in both coordinates, so it is not implausible that he actually saw a blended image of both stars on his plate. Unfortunately, since the plate can not at present be found in Heidelberg, we can't check this or any of the other missing "nebulae" that Schwassmann found on it. ===== IC 3049 is perhaps the southeastern of a pair of galaxies. Frost calls it "R, planetary?, magn 16" which will make it very small and faint in the grand scheme of things. I suspect the southeastern as it is a fairly compact elliptical with a bright nucleus, and would show up better on Frost's plate. However, the northwestern object, a low surface brightness IBm pec, may well be blended with its brighter neighbor on the plate. So, I've chosen the pair itself as the IC object, but give the individual positions, including one for a bright knot (or superposed star?) also involved in the image. Short of looking at the original plate, this is probably the best we can do. ===== IC 3050 = NGC 4189, IC 3051 = NGC 4193, and IC 3064 = NGC 4206 all appeared in Schwassmann's list of nebulae in the Virgo Cluster. Their positions are all very close to the NGC positions, so I'm pretty sure that neither Schwassmann nor Dreyer checked the earlier catalogue closely before listing these as new nebulae. There is no doubt about the identities; the positions and descriptions are too close to question. Adelaide Ames was the first to suggest all three identifications in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue. ===== IC 3051 = NGC 4193. See IC 3050. ===== IC 3056 is most likely DDO 114 = UGC 07249 with a one-degree error in its declination. There is nothing at Frost's position that he could have picked up on his plate (the galaxy that Glen Deen suggests is much too faint and small to have been seen on the early Bruce plate). The identification was first suggested by Adelaide Ames in her 1930 monograph and catalogue of Virgo Cluster galaxies. Though the position angle is a bit off Frost's (he says 50 degrees, Ames has 60 degrees, and I measure 67 for the main body of the galaxy), the position is indeed exactly one degree south of Frost's nominal place. His brief description is appropriate, too: "Streak, E 1 arcmin at 50 degrees." ===== IC 3057 may be ESO 267-G036, but that is well off Stewart's nominal position. Also, the galaxy is a low surface brightness, late-type spiral, while Stewart's description reads "cF, S, R neb or defect, susp." Finally, the Bruce plate was exposed for only one hour rather than the usual four hours for deep sky-limited plates at Arequipa. So, I3057 is most likely, as Stewart suggested, a defect. ===== IC 3064 = NGC 4206. See IC 3050. ===== IC 3067 = IC 772, which see. ===== IC 3070 is a star northeast of the center of NGC 4206. Schwassmann's position is very close to the modern position. ===== IC 3071 and IC 3072 are stars near NGC 4207. Schwassmann's positions are good enough to unabiguously identify them. ===== IC 3072 is a star. See IC 3071. ===== IC 3076 is a star at Schwassmann's position. Even though Ames declared it "Not found" and Wolfgang pointed at a faint galaxy, Schwassmann's position is within five arcsec of the DSS position, and his description ("vF, vS") from the 6-inch plate is appropriate. ===== IC 3083 may be the galaxy that Wolfgang and I have noted in the position table. It is just 3 arcmin south of Frost's position, and matches his description (copied exactly into the IC). We need to look at the Harvard Bruce plate to be sure, however. ===== IC 3085 is a star, the western of three nearly equally bright stars forming a triangle. Schwassmann's position is good enough to clearly identify the star he measured. ===== IC 3086 is a double star. Schwassmann's position is good. ===== IC 3087 is two stars, rather widely separated, but in the correct position angle to match Schwassmann's description ("F, pS, like a line, 30 degrees"). Schwassmann also has a separate listing for NGC 4222, which he has at the correct position angle (58 degrees), so IC 3087 cannot be identical to this as suggested in CGCG and MCG. ===== IC 3088 is a star. Schwassmann's position falls within 10 arcsec of the star, and his description (vF, vS, li[ke] * 14) is appropriate for it. Wolfgang takes another star 25 arcsec north as the IC object. While I feel that this is less likely, it is possible. It may be that both stars are involved in Schwassmann's object. We'd have to look at his plate, but it may no longer exist. ===== IC 3090 is a double star. Schwassmann simply says "vF, S", and his position agrees in RA with the southeastern star, and in Dec with the northwestern. ===== IC 3098 = NGC 4235. There is a possibility that Schwassmann did not include the NGC number in his list because of the confusion over NGC 4223 (which see) and NGC 4241. However, I think he simply overlooked the NGC number in this particular case. His position agrees with the NGC position to within 6-7 arcsec, and his description matches that for N4235 very well. So, while the two "different" objects are clearly the same, both Schwassmann and Dreyer missed the identity, and we now have an IC number on the NGC object. ===== IC 3102 = NGC 4223, which see. ===== IC 3103 is a star. Like several others in Schwassmann's list, he notes that it is "li[ke] * 13." Since it is the only object in the area of his position, the identification is secure. ===== IC 3104 is a nearby dwarf galaxy found by Frost on one of the Bruce plates taken at Arequipa. It is well-resolved on the IIIa-J southern sky survey plates, and matches Frost's description well. Because of its far southern declination, its RA is not well-constrained, at least numerically. Also the galaxy also has no nucleus, so its position is usually taken as the center of the "bar". ===== IC 3106 is another star mistaken for a nebula by Schwassmann on his plate taken with a 6-inch telescope. Though he claims the nebula is elongated in PA = 95 degrees, this must be the result of a plate defect of some sort. Remarkably, there is a galaxy about an arcminute distant with the correct PA. However, it is too faint (SDSS makes it 17.0 in their "g" band; this is around 17.2 or 17.3 in B) to have registered on Schwassmann's plate, so the star is almost certainly the correct object. ===== IC 3109. CGCG has misidentified this object. It is actually the brighter, south-preceding of two galaxies, CGCG 069-131, not the fainter, north- following, CGCG 069-134. Frost's position is closer to the brighter object, so there is no question of the correct identification. ===== IC 3113 = NGC 4246. Schwassmann's position is within an arcminute of the NGC position. But given that that position derives from a single observation by WH, it's possible that neither Schwassmann nor Dreyer really believed that the object seen by WH existed (see the NGC note and my comments under NGC 4246 for more). It's just as likely, though, that both cataloguers simply missed the identity. I think that is what happened with IC 3098 (which see) = NGC 4235. In any event, the two numbers clearly point to only one galaxy. ===== IC 3114 is a star. Schwassmann called it "cF, vS, li[ke] * 12-13", but there is no nebulosity associated with it on the POSS plate. ===== IC 3115 = NGC 4241. See NGC 4223 = IC 3102. See also IC 3011 and IC 3098 for more about Schwassmann's list of new nebulae. ===== IC 3117 is a double star at the correct orientation (about 30 degrees) to be Schwassmann's object. He calls it "eF, S, l[engthened] 30 degrees". ===== IC 3123 probably involves a defect on Schwassmann's plate as well as the 10th magnitude star at his position. His description could go either way: "neb or *, dist, alpha delta :". ===== IC 3124 is a star. I suspect that Schwassmann's plate has a defect superposed as the star is relatively faint. ===== IC 3125 is a star close to Wolf's position. It is easily visible on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3128 is a double or triple system, perhaps including a third (or fourth) galaxy to the southeast. The main component (VIII Zw 180.2) appears to me to be a bright nearly stellar object with a plume to the southeast superposed on a fainter galaxy just northwest. Zwicky has yet another galaxy further on to the northwest. Neither this northwestern galaxy, nor the one to the southeast, appear to be interacting with the peculiar system in the middle. ===== IC 3129 is a star about 8 arcsec south of Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3130 involves at least two stars, and probably a defect as well. It appears on Schwassmann's plate as "eF, pS, ?, 140 deg, li plan li". The last phrase decodes to "like an asteroid trail." The nominal position is between the two stars, and there are two other stars in the area which may also be part of the object that Schwassmann thought nebulous. ===== IC 3131 = IC 3132, which see. ===== IC 3132 = IC 3131. Schwassmann's two positions are only ten arcseconds apart, not much larger than his standard deviation. Since he found the galaxy in two separate zones, it seems likely that he simply did not make the connection between the two listings, even though they ended up adjacent to each other in his table. ===== IC 3133 is most likely the wide triple star at Schwassmann's position. It matches his description ("eF, S, dif, alpha ::, delta :") well, so I've taken it as his object. ===== IC 3139 is a star close to Schwassmann's position. It is typical of some of the objects near the plate limit that he simply calls "eF, vS". His position, aside from the systematic offset (see IC 3048 above), is good. ===== IC 3142 is probably the brighter of a pair, though we can't be sure without checking the original plate -- Frost's description ("R, bM, magn. 14.5") is not very informative. ===== IC 3145 is a star. I've not yet looked for the object on the print of the original plate, but Wolf's position is good enough to be unambiguous. The only other possibility is a plate defect. ===== IC 3147, like IC 3142 (which see), is probably the brighter of a pair. However, it was found by Schwassmann rather than Frost. On the 6-inch plate, Schwassmann describes it as "vF, vS, like a star, probably nebulous", and puts the position between the two galaxies. Could there be a defect involved, too? So, while I'm inclined to take the brighter galaxy as I3147, I'm not at all sure. ===== IC 3158 is perhaps the star that I've flagged with a colon in the table, though there may well be a plate defect involved, too. Schwassmann's description reads "eF, cS, ??, alpha ::, delta ::". The double query means that Schwassmann was not sure of the object's reality. Combined with his uncertainty about the position, the fairly bright star is only a possibility. Indeed, Wolfgang has taken another fainter star to the north as the IC object. This could be right, too. Adelaide Ames and Dorothy Carlson have simply said that the object is a star, but we do not know which one they were looking at. It's a shame the original plate has gone missing. ===== IC 3160 is another star in Schwassmann's Virgo Cluster list, identified by his good position. ===== IC 3161 and IC 3162 are two stars, about 30 arcsec apart, which Schwassmann describes identically: "eF, vS, [perhaps] *". In a note attached to both, he goes on "I wonder if these are nebulous stars" (my free translation of his comment "in einer gemeinsamen Nebelhulle liegend"). His positions for both are very close to the modern positions, and the identities are sure. ===== IC 3162 is a star. See IC 3161. ===== IC 3163 may be the two stars that I've listed in the table, though they are pretty far from Schwassmann's position. Perhaps a defect is involved on the original plate, too. In any event, there are no galaxies nearby. Ames was the first to suggest the two stars, and Carlson picked this up for her 1940 ApJ list. ===== IC 3164 is a double star, seen, but not resolved, on the print of the original plate. Wolf's position angle is correct, and he notes that the object might be a double star, so that's what I've adopted. His position is good, too. ===== IC 3166 and IC 3180 are a pair found by Lewis Swift on 24 June 1897 during his several years observing from Echo Mountain north of Pasadena. Unfortunately, there is a large error in his positions for the nebulae as there is nothing within at least two degrees matching his descriptions: [IC 3166]: eeeF, S, 7 1/2 and 5 mag sts in field, p of 2. One of my faintest nebulae. [IC 3180]: vF, pL, R, 7 1/2 mag * south, f of 2. My own guess is that Swift rediscovered NGC 4284 and NGC 4290. His RA's would be fairly close (about 20 arcsec out), but his declinations would be 2 deg, 36 arcmin off. His relative brightnesses and sizes for the galaxies are correct, but I have trouble making the star field around the NGC galaxies match his description. There is a 6th magnitude star 14 arcmin south of NGC 4290; this may be his "7 1/2 mag * south" -- but where is that 5th magnitude star? I see no trace of it. Given that, I'm not even going to be putting the IC numbers in the position table with question marks. Similarly, Swift's nebulae could be NGC 3975 and NGC 3978. There, the Dec's are only 10.0 arcmin off, but the RA's are 24.5 minutes of time off. The two objects are closer together on the sky, though, and the problem of the star field remains. Here, there is a distinctive double star north of the galaxies, another of similar magnitude (about 10.5; I'm guessing here) west- southwest, and two brighter stars (9 and 7.5) east of the NGC objects. I also checked that one hour or ten degree errors were not involved. Nothing east or west, north or south, fits Swift's descriptions. I did not, however, check northeast, southeast, northwest, or southwest at these digit errors. In the end, I suspect the N4284/N4290 pair is what Swift actually saw, but ... ===== IC 3177 is almost certainly a defect on the Harvard plate on which Frost found it. The nominal position is in one of the overlap zones on the POSS1, so appears on eight different POSS1 plates -- not one shows a "F streak, ext 2.'5 at 45 deg" as Frost describes it. I searched for a similar object at reasonable RA and Dec offsets, but found nothing. So, even though I've not seen the original plate, I am quite certain that I3177 is a defect on it. Coincidentally, there is a defect on the DSS (but not on any of the POSS1 prints that I examined) just a few arcmin to the southwest of the nominal position. ===== IC 3178 is a star, probably with some extra plate grain mixed in with the image. It shows clearly on a contact positive print of the original plate, with IC 3179 (a galaxy) not very far to the southwest. The galaxy is sometimes called I3178, and a much fainter galaxy on a bit to the southwest is labeled I3179. However, there is no trace of this fainter galaxy on the print, while the brighter galaxy and the star are about equally bright and have similar sizes. ===== IC 3179. See IC 3178. ===== IC 3180. See IC 3166. ===== IC 3181 = NGC 4286. Here is another case where neither Wolf nor Dreyer caught a pretty obvious identity. The NGC position is less than an arcminute from Wolf's (copied correctly into the IC), so there is no doubt about the identity. ===== IC 3182 is just two stars, probably with a defect or random plate grain adding the appearance of nebulosity. Schwassmann's description reads "vF, S, li[ke] 2 F ** surr[ounded by] nebulosity, alpha delta :". There is a third star about 25 arcsec to the south that may have been involved with the image, too. ===== IC 3183 is a double star, perhaps connected to another star on the original plate by a defect or random grain noise? Schwassmann's position is close to the double, and the other star is less than an arcminute away. His description reads "vF, cS, perhaps 2 **, delta :". There is only one double in the area -- thus my lingering doubt about this. ===== IC 3190 is a star at Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3191 is a star at Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3197 is a star at Wolf's position. It is faintly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3211 = "NGC 4307A". There is nothing wrong with the IC identification -- the galaxy is just where Schwassmann puts it. The NGC number comes from RNGC and is based on Holmberg's list of double and multiple galaxies where it is number 380b. NGC 4307 is Holmberg 380a. This is why I don't like the suffixes. ===== IC 3213 is 40 arcsec north of Wolf's position. The identification is clinched by his mention of the "* 12 att np". The galaxy and the star, as well as several other galaxies in the area, are all visible on the print of Wolf's plate. Unfortunately, Wolf's marks are missing from this plate, but there is no doubt that he saw the galaxy and simply made a mistake in reducing its position. I do wonder, though, why he did not list some of the other galaxies; they are well seen. ===== IC 3214 is a star. It is at Wolf's position on the print of his plate, unmarked as are all of the objects on this plate. Wolfgang took a much fainter galaxy about an arcminute away; I did not see it on the print. ===== IC 3217. This is a star and a galaxy; the image is dominated by the star, but it still must have appeared slightly fuzzy to Wolf as he went over his plate. The unmarked image is on the print of his plate. ===== IC 3218 is described by Schwassmann as "Very faint, pretty large, extended, two nuclei, real??, RA and Dec uncertain." His position is also northeast of the galaxy, so the IC number pretty clearly includes the star 25 arcsec in that direction from the galaxy's center. ===== IC 3223 may be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. He says of it, "vF, pS, alpha :, delta :, am[ong] 3 vF sts." The three faint stars are clear on the sky today, and two of them have been taken as the IC object in various lists. Ames picked one (but did not give a position), while Wolfgang and I have two of them listed in the main table. The third is at 12 19 58.91, +09 45 58.0 for B1950.0 (my measurement on DSS). The problem, of course, with chosing any of these stars is that Schwassmann mentions them explicitly -- his IC object is not any of them. If his plate still exists (and it seems doubtful that it does), we could check the object there. ===== IC 3226 is probably just the star at Wolf's position. But there is another star about 20 arcsec to the southwest that may be involved with the object, too. Unfortunately, this is one of Wolf's objects for which his ink marks have been removed from his plate, so we can only verify that the stars are in fact present on it, not which one -- or both -- he meant to be his nebula. It's also curious that on the POSS1 version of DSS, the star at Wolf's position looks to be double. But on the POSS2 (red) DSS plate, the star is apparently single. Is there a small defect on the POSS1 red plate? ===== IC 3229 is often taken as the low surface brightness late-type galaxy (UGC 7448) 14 seconds of time following IC 3225 (= UGC 7441). However, Schwassmann's position and description make this unlikely. His position puts I3229 only 5 seconds of time following I3225, and he notes the object as being "on the edge of perceptibility." Furthermore, he found I3229 on just one plate, while I3225 appeared on two. All of this is enough to make me question the usual identification and suggest that Schwassmann's object is actually a defect or no more than random grain clumping. ===== IC 3232 is a star. I've not yet searched for it on the print of Wolf's plate, but his positions are good. ===== IC 3245 is a defect on the Harvard Bruce plate. Ames looked for the nebula on the same plate a quarter of a century after Frost found it, and found that it is, in fact, a defect. Frost himself suspected that, but put it in his list, anyway. I see no trace of the double star that Carlson credits to a Mt. Wilson observer (probably Hubble). ===== IC 3246. Though there is a galaxy at Schwassmann's position, it does not match his description ("eF, pL, li[ke a] li[ne] 145 deg, ?, alpha::, delta::". In particular, the galaxy is very small and round, so I suspect that there is a plate defect superposed on the original plate. ===== IC 3248, 3249, 3250, and 3251 are four of "about 18 pretty definite nebulae, [forming a] long chain from south to north" on the plate which Wolf examined to find the nebulae in his fourth list. Of these four nebulae, only one (IC 3249) is a galaxy, and the other "nebulae" in the chain are either stars or defects. There is a defect involved with IC 3249, and all of the several fainter objects around it are far too faint to show up on Wolf's plate. This is definitely a case where Wolf pushed his plate limit too hard. ===== IC 3249. See IC 3248. ===== IC 3250 is a star. See IC 3248 for more. ===== IC 3251 is a star. See IC 3248 for more. ===== IC 3252 is a double star. Like most of the objects in Wolf's fourth list, it is not marked on the print of his plate that I have. And I have not checked the print for this, either. However, the position alone is enough to clearly identify Wolf's object. ===== IC 3254 = NGC 4336 is the most likely explanation for the IC number. However, there is some doubt about this. Here is the story. The object was discovered by Royal Frost on an Arequipa Bruce 24-inch plate (number 6719, taken the night of 9 May 1904), and is included in his list in HA60 as number 884. He gives a position of 12 18.5 +20 01 (1900) which is northeast of NGC 4336 by about 2.5 arcmin. It falls within an arcminute of a 14th magnitude star. However, Frost does not mention NGC 4336 anywhere in the section of the paper devoted to his nebulae. In this respect, N4336 is included in the large majority of NGC objects that were just where he expected to find them. In particular, he does not include N4336 in his list of missing NGC objects. Also, his description is "Plan[etary], R, B, d 0.4'." Because the inner bright part of N4336 is over an arcmin across and is clearly not round -- though it is clearly bright! -- Frost's description does not fit the galaxy very well. So, it is possible that he was actually describing the star, perhaps with a defect superposed (this could, of course, be checked on the Harvard plate which surely still exists in their collection). On the other hand, Adelaide Ames -- in her Virgo Cluster catalogue in HA 88, No. 1 -- adopted the identity and gives it explicitly in her Table 1. For this object, she used the same plate that Frost searched 30 years before (Arequipa Bruce plate no. 6719), and she found no other objects within at least 10 arcmin of her position for N4336 (she adopted the NGC position which is a bit off). Since Ames was a meticulous astronomer (Shapley greatly missed her careful work after her tragically early death by drowning), I'm giving a considerable amount of weight to her decision to make the two objects identical. CGCG and MCG come to the same conclusion, though using only the data presented in the NGC and IC; they almost certainly did not have access to the original plate on which the IC object was found. So, I've accepted the identity -- but have also added the position of the star to the position list as a possible candidate for the IC object. ===== IC 3256 = NGC 4342, IC 3259, IC 3260 = NGC 4341, and IC 3267. Though the IC identifications in this group of five galaxies are not ambiguous, the NGC identifications have been. See the discussion under NGC 4341, and in RC3 (the Introduction, page 60; and Appendix 6, page 551). ===== IC 3257 is one of Bigourdan's "fausse images." He has one observation of it in April of 1895, calling it a "Trace of nebulosity nearly completely unseeable." In May of 1907, he said, "I can once in a while see this eF object," but made no measurement of it. There is nothing in his position. Malcolm pointed out that the declination of Bigourdan's comparison star is incorrect in the big table of observations. Nevertheless, the position in the IC is reduced correctly, so this is just a typo. Malcolm also points out that the object at Bigourdan's position seen on the red POSS1 -- thus also on DSS -- is a defect. It is not on the blue POSS1, nor is it on the POSS2. ===== IC 3259. See NGC 4341. ===== IC 3260 = NGC 4341, which see. ===== IC 3261 is probably one of two galaxies near Frost's position. I favor the smaller but brighter one because it matches his description -- "Sp., F * at center, d 1', doubtful" -- better than the larger, low-surface-brightness galaxy to the northeast. In particular, the "F * at center" is missing in the larger galaxy. But that object is closer to Frost's diameter of 1 arcmin. So, we're stuck until we can examine his plate. ===== IC 3265 is a star clearly identified by Schwassmann's good position from a 6-inch Heidelburg plate. However, CGCG put the number on NGC 4353, and we've had trouble with it ever since. Well, it's sorted out now. Actually, Adelaide Ames sorted it out in 1930, and we're just now catching up to her. ===== IC 3266 = NGC 4353, which see. There is no problem with the IC identification -- at least there wasn't until CGCG put it, along with IC 3265 and NGC 4353 on the galaxy. See the other numbers for the short story. ===== IC 3267. See NGC 4341. ===== IC 3272. Wolf's declination is actually that of his "* 13 att n", but the identity of his galaxy is clear. It is also clearly seen on the print of his plate, though as with all the other nebulae he found on this plate, it is now not marked. ===== IC 3273 = NGC 4356. Here is another case where Schwassmann missed the NGC number on one of the nebulae that he measured on a Heidelberg plate. Both his position and WH's are good, so Dreyer had an opportunity to equate them, too. The identity was first suggested by Adelaide Ames in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue. ===== IC 3279 is two stars, oriented very nearly east-west. Schwassmann describes his object as "pF or pB, S, perhaps 2 stars, p 11.8, f 10.8". While his magnitudes are estimates, the eastern star is indeed the brighter and thus secures the identification. ===== IC 3281 may well be a defect. There is nothing at either of Schwassmann's positions (only a few arcsec apart). Even though he has two measurements of the object, they are probably just that: two measurements on a single plate, referred to comparison stars in different zones across the plate. The object is unlikely to be the faint star that Wolfgang chose if only because it is almost two arcmin away from the nominal position. Schwassmann's descriptions make it unlikely in any case: "pB, cS, R, N, li[ke] *" and "cB, pS, R, li * 10-9, d = 25 [arcsec]". This would be an obvious object, and there is just nothing in the area like this. It could also be another Virgo Cluster galaxy with a measurement or reduction error. I think this is less likely as both of Schwassmann's positions are within his usual errors of being identical -- but they ARE different. I do not see any galaxy that is likely to be Schwassmann's object that is not already in his list. In particular, NGC 4365 is exactly 30 arcmin south, and NGC 4470 is 5m 10s east and 10 arcsec north. But he already lists both, so I do not think that I3281 is either one of them. So, another lost nebula. ===== IC 3282 is a star. Wolf's position is good, and I have no doubt that the object will show up on the print of his plate. ===== IC 3285 is a star at Wolf's position. ===== IC 3295 is a plate defect on Wolf's original plate. It actually covers the star that Wolfgang chose as the IC object, but is centered enough off it to make it clearly a defect. It is also surrounded by an annulus darker than the sky background in the area. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3297 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's plate, though it is unmarked, as are all the nebulae found by Wolf on this plate. ===== IC 3301 = IC 3307. The identity was first noticed by Ames who presumeably checked it on the Bruce plates, numbers A6718 and A6720, on which Frost found the nebula. Even without her note in HA 88-1, we would be quite sure of the identity as the galaxy sits between Frost's two positions, and is the only one in the area bright enough to have been picked up by him. ===== IC 3310 is a star superposed on the northwestern arm of NGC 4396. However, Bigourdan has an incorrect position for his comparison star listed in his big table. This led to an incorrect RA in his CR list and the IC. When the position is corrected (his approximate offsets of his comparison star from NGC 4379 ARE correct), the object turns out to be the star on the arm of NGC 4396. He has four observations of the star which pin it down precisely. Curiously, Bigourdan measured NGC 4396 itself on the same night using the same comparison star about two arcminutes northeast of the center of the galaxy. Yet he somehow confused the field so that IC 3310 was taken to be another star nearly 45 seconds of time away by both the Harvard and Mt. Wilson observers. ===== IC 3318 is a star at Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3319 is perhaps = NGC 4390 = IC 3320. Found by Schwassmann on his 6-inch plate of the Virgo Cluster area, this does not exist -- or is identical with IC 3320 = NGC 4390. Though there is a faint star less than an arcminute west-southwest of Schwassmann's position, this does not match his description which is identical to that for N4390 (which Schwassmann did not name as the NGC object, by the way). Is it possible that he made an error in his measurement reductions for the IC objects? They occur in different declination zones in his list, so this is a possibility. ===== IC 3320 = NGC 4390, which see. Also see IC 3319. ===== IC 3323 is a star superposed on the southwestern side of NGC 4393 (the CGCG has it equal to the galaxy along with IC 3329, which see, but this is wrong). Wolf's position is very close to the star, and though his markings have been removed from his plate, the object is there on the print of the plate that I examined. ===== IC 3329 is a knot in NGC 4393, east of the nucleus. It is visible on the print of Wolf's plate that I examined, but his marks have been scrubbed off the plate. Neverthless, the identification is secure. CGCG has this (along with I3323) equal to N4393 itself, but this is wrong. ===== IC 3333 is a star just north of NGC 4402. Schwassmann's position is very good, and his description "vF, vS, perhaps * 13.8" is appropriate. ===== IC 3335. There is another somewhat brighter galaxy about an arcmin to the north-northwest that has sometimes been taken as IC 3335. However, not only is Wolf's position precisely on the fainter object, the brighter one appears stellar on the contact print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3339 = NGC 4411. Here is another obvious identity that might have come about because neither Dreyer nor Schwassmann checked the NGC carefully (there are several of these in Schwassmann's list -- see e.g. IC 3098 and IC 3113 -- and I expect we'll turn up a few more before we're done). However, in this case, Dreyer was distracted by Bigourdan's discovery of a second object nearby. Dreyer's Note in IC2 tells what happened next: "[NGC] 4411 I assume that B. 298, 12h 19m 40s, 80d 21m, vF, L, 2.5 arcmin is identical with this." (See NGC 4411 for more on Bigourdan 298.) I'm actually puzzled by this because the NGC and IC positions for N4411 and I3339 are almost identical, differing by only one second of time and 0.2 arcmin. Why should Dreyer choose another object 17 seconds of time away when he had an obvious candidate in the same place? Just the distraction, I presume. Or, as I've suggested elsewhere in these notes, Dreyer was getting tired of cataloguing nebulae, and was not paying as much attention as he might have earlier in his career. As far as I can tell, Adelaide Ames was the first to suggest this identity. In any case, Schwassmann's description -- "* 11, north-following [is] surrounded by much nebulosity" -- is appropriate, and makes clear that he was indeed seeing the galaxy. ===== IC 3343 is probably the star that I've included in the position table. It is just east of NGC 4411 = IC 3339 (which see). There are two other stars that might have been involved, though, as might the eastern reaches of NGC 4411 itself. Schwassmann's position is not particularly close to any of the three stars (I've taken the nearest), and his object could well be a blend of any two or even all of them. His description "eF, vS, ??, alpha delta ::" is not too helpful, either. ===== IC 3350. There is a pretty bright star at Schwassmann's position (matching his description "perhaps * 10-11, sp surr m n"), but there must have been a defect involved, too. How else can we explain his comment "southwest [it is] surrounded by m[uch] n[ebulosity]" that he adds? There is nothing on the DSS aside from the star, so I am pretty confident about the defect. ===== IC 3351 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. Wolfgang took a brighter star to the southwest as the IC object, but that is clearly stellar on the plate. ===== IC 3352 may be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at his position. NGC 4411B is almost straight north -- but by 7 arcmin, 37 arcsec. Unless this is a unit (or ten, or 100) in Schwassmann's measuring system, I don't think Bigourdan's object is the one Schwassmann measured. Similarly, there is a small, faint galaxy 6.0 sec west, and 1 arcmin 5 arcsec south. I think this has a better chance of being the correct object, but I'm still not betting on it. We obviously need to check the plate, if it still exists (which, we are told, does not). ===== IC 3353. Wolf's RA is 3 seconds of time too small. But there is nothing in that place and the galaxy is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3354 is a star at Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3360 is a star at Wolf's position. I've confirmed the object on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3361. While there is nothing at Frost's position, there are two obvious candidates for this number. Unfortunately, neither galaxy is the outstanding choice. One, a large low-surface-brightness dwarf spiral five seconds west and an arcmin north, matches Adelaide Ames's diameter and magnitudes in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue (she worked from the same plates that Frost used 30 years earlier). But was this really the galaxy that she and Frost measured? Five seconds east at the nominal declination is a much smaller galaxy -- but it has a much higher surface brightness so might be picked up more easily in spite of its size. In the end, I slightly favor the larger galaxy, but we'll have to take a look at the Harvard plate to be sure. ===== IC 3366 is a faint galaxy just south of NGC 4424. Schwassmann made some error in his measurement or reduction of it and a nearby star -- both are just 4.0 seconds west and 15 arcsec south of his positions. His description of the galaxy is appropriate: "vF, vS, nf surr m n". The last bit "translates" as something like "surrounded by much nebulosity north-following." (He uses the same phrase to describe IC 3339 = NGC 4411, which see, where the description is a bit more apt because of the star superposed on the galaxy.) Whatever happened, I am confident of the identification because of the note about the "nebulosity" to the northeast. This is clearly a reference to NGC 4424. ===== IC 3372 is a star with a superposed defect at Wolf's position. It shows clearly on the print of the original plate. There is a fainter merged double star to the northeast that is sometimes incorrectly called I3372; this is just visible on the print, but is little more than random grain clumping. ===== IC 3375 is a star. It is close to Wolf's measured position and is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. Wolfgang mistakenly chose a nearby galaxy as the IC object. This, too, appears on the print of the original plate, but is smaller and fainter than the star Wolf measured. It appears stellar on the print, so Wolf must have skipped over it, thinking it a star. ===== IC 3399 is a star at Wolf's position. I've not yet looked for it on the print of the original plate, but the identification is nevertheless secure. ===== IC 3400 is a fairly bright star at Schwassmann's position. His description "cB, cS, li[ke] * 10" is appropriate. The identity was first suggested by Adelaide Ames and picked up by the Mt. Wilson observers for Dorothy Carlson's list, too. ===== IC 3402 is a nice edgewise galaxy just about an arcmin south-southeast of a pretty bright star. Wolf's position is about 15 arcsec too far north (along the major axis of the galaxy, still well within its image), but otherwise his data for the galaxy is appropriate. Even though this is one of the northern- most galaxies on his plate, well into the vignetted area of the plate, it is still clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3404 is probably a defect on Schwassmann's original plate. There is no trace of a "cB, cS, li * 10-11, surrounded by much nebulosity" galaxy in the area. There are also no galaxies at reasonable digit errors from Schwassmann's published position. The only possibility is NGC 4464, but that is not exactly one degree north, and Schwassmann has an entry for it, in any case. ===== IC 3408 is a pretty bright star (10 magnitude) at Schwassmann's position. His description ("neb or *, B, li * 9.2-9.5") is appropriate. ===== IC 3415 is a star found by Max Wolf on one of the plates he took early in the 20th century at Heidelberg. The position he measured is good. ===== IC 3417 is a star about 2.3 arcmin north of NGC 4470. It is often incorrectly equated with the galaxy (Adelaide Ames was apparently the first to do this), but Schwassmann's position is exactly on the star. In addition, his description "eF, vS, ?*" fits perfectly. Finally, Schwassmann has two other entries in his list for NGC 4470, both correctly identified as the NGC object. ===== IC 3420 is a star north and just a bit west of NGC 4473. Schwassmann's position is off by a few arcsec, perhaps affected by the corona of the galaxy. ===== IC 3423 is a star close to Schwassmann's position a few arcminutes west- northwest of NGC 4477. His measured position is within 5-6 arcsec of the star, yet both the Harvard and Mt. Wilson observers listed I3423 as "not found." Dreyer copied the position correctly into IC2. ===== IC 3426 is a star about 2 arcmin south of NGC 4477. Schwassmann's position is about 10 arcsec north of the star, perhaps confused a bit by the corona of the galaxy. ===== IC 3427 = NGC 4482. William Herschel's RA is 30 seconds of time too large. Dreyer has a note about this in WH's Collected Papers. This is not an isolated error, as Dreyer adds "... same sweep as the last three, 174." The "last three" are the previous third class objects seen in the sweep, all with RA's too large by up to a minute of time, and referring to a general note under H II 64 = NGC 4352. Apparently most of the objects in the sweep are affected by the same error. Curiously, even though both Bigourdan and Dreyer noted WH's position error, Dreyer did not make the connection with IC 3427. That was left for Ames and Carlson. ===== IC 3428 is a star. Wolf's position is good, though his image may include the very galaxy or double star about 20 arcsec to the north. ===== IC 3438 = NGC 4492. Schwassmann has two entries for the galaxy in his table, but from different plates. The descriptions are comparable, and the positions are about 10 arcsec different, but still within the boundaries of the image of the galaxy. The identity was first suggested by Adelaide Ames in her Virgo Cluster list of the 1930's. It was picked up by the de Vaucouleurs for RC1, and also by Zwicky, Herzog, and Wild for CGCG. Wolfgang adopted the identity for his list, and Bob Erdmann also noticed the identity. He alerted me, and I have finally got the two galaxies equated here. Sometimes, it takes more than a village. ===== IC 3444 is a double star, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3450. Wolf's position is 44 arcsec north of the true position. The galaxy's image is on the print of his plate at the correct position, so this suggests that he has made a measurement or reduction error. His description is appropriate for the object, and there are no others nearby that match, so there is little reason not to accept the identification. ===== IC 3452 = NGC 4497. There is no doubt about this identity. As with several other of Schwassmann's objects, the only doubt is why both he and Dreyer missed the identity with the NGC object. Both the IC and NGC positions are near the modern position for the galaxy. Furthermore, Schwassmann has two accordant measurements and descriptions for the galaxy. The only difference with the image on the DSS is the position angle: Schwassmann gives 100 degrees, while the outer isophotes of the galaxy are closer to 70 degrees. However, the bright inner part is closer to Schwassmann's PA, suggesting that his plates showed only this piece of the galaxy. It's also possible that he got the quadrant wrong, and that he meant to write 80 degrees instead of 100. ===== IC 3456. There is nothing on either the DSS nor on the print of the original plate at Wolf's position. There is not even a defect on the original plate. So, I suspect a measuring or reduction error on Wolf's part. Unfortunately, Wolf's marks have been almost completely removed from the plate. So, we have almost no way to track down the object that Wolf saw. This is especially true since he was working so close to the plate limit -- his object could be one of literally hundreds of faint stars or defects on his plate. ===== IC 3463 is a wide double star, or perhaps just the northern of the two. Schwassmann's position is closer to the northern, but his description includes the position angle (40 deg) appropriate to both stars. I've opted to call the double IC 3463, but have included the two stars separately as well. ===== IC 3464 is a star with a defect superposed on the print of the original plate (the defect is probably on the original plate as well). The image is elongated, so it is not surprising that Wolf mistook it for a faint nebula. ===== IC 3477 is a star. It's image is clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. Wolf's declination is a bit off, but there is nothing exactly at his position, so I am pretty sure that this is the correct object. ===== IC 3480 is a double star. Not only is Wolf's position exactly on the stars, but his position angle for them is correct, too. Since there is no other object near this that meets the description, the identification is firm. Note that the MOL identification of this with IC 3490 is in error. I3490 is 16 deg south in the Virgo Cluster. ===== IC 3485 is another star, identified by Schwassmann's good position measured on his plate of the Virgo Cluster. ===== IC 3490. See IC 3480. ===== IC 3493 is probably a star. The situation is odd: Schwassmann has accurate positions for IC 3487 just west of I3493, and for a star just east. These agree to within a few arcsec of the modern positions. However, for I3493 itself, Schwassmann's position is 2 seconds of time east, and 12 arcsec south of the star that he perhaps measured. Is there a defect superposed that pulled his position off? We may never know, as his plates are reported to be missing from the plate vaults in Heidelberg. ===== IC 3495 is a blended double star at Wolf's position. My earlier idea, unfortunately copied into MOL, that this is KUG 1231+270 a couple of arcmin southeast is incorrect. Forgive me; I was young and naive. ===== IC 3496 is a star, blended with a defect. Though Wolf's position is well north of the position of the star, there is nothing exactly at his position on the print of the original plate. Furthermore, the star image is elongated on the print of his plate, and is quite eye-catching compared with the simple stars in the field. My earlier identification of this with IC 3498 (copied into MOL) is wrong; Wolf's positions are very good, and his description of I3498 makes it unmistakable. ===== IC 3497 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3498 is not a star as I had surmised earlier. Wolf's position and description unequivocally point at the correct galaxy, a highly inclined (early-type?) spiral. The image is easily seen on the print of the original plate. Unfortunately, MOL copied my earlier mistaken identity. Sorry about that. (Also see IC 3496.) ===== IC 3502. Wolf's position is significantly south of the position of the galaxy. There is a faint star just south-following the galaxy which is blended into the galaxy image on the original Heidelberg plate; only a single image is visible on the contact print of this plate. This pulled the center of the image south, and also accounts for Wolf's classification of "irregular." ===== IC 3503 is a star. It was the last object found by Javelle on 13 June 1896, a relatively productive night for him -- he found six galaxies as well as this star. Given its faintness, I was a bit skeptical about the identification, first suggested by Wolfgang. But there is no galaxy nearby that Javelle could have seen, nor are there any at sign-error offsets from his comparison star. Nor are there any other star galaxy pairs in the area that have the correct offsets and brightnesses. Finally, Javelle has no significant systematic error in his measurements for the night that might lead to a galaxy. So, by a process of elimination, we come back to the star. Reducing Javelle's measurements with respect to the AC 2000.2 position for his comparison star, his position for the faint star is just 7 arcseconds off the position I measured on DSS. This is just about Javelle's standard deviation, his "one- sigma error", so I am taking the star as his object with no further complaint. ===== IC 3504 is a star. Schwassmann notes "near * 10". That brighter star is 1.0 arcmin north. ===== IC 3511, 3512, and 3513 are stars involved with defects on Wolf's plate. All are seen as faint "nebulae" on the print of that plate. On the DSS and POSS1, IC 3511 has a very faint galaxy just to the west of the star, but this is not visible on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3512. See IC 3511. ===== IC 3513. See IC 3511. ===== IC 3514. This is a double star. The position and position angle given by Wolf are exact, and there is no other object nearby that he could have mistaken for a nebula. The object is also clearly seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3524 is a star with a fainter star about 30 arcsec to the southwest. Schwassmann's position is good. ===== IC 3526 is a double star. It is clearly seen, though only as a single object, on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3527 is also a double star. And like IC 3526, it is clearly seen, though only as a single object, on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3529 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3532 is a star blended with the image of a fainter object just west. I think that the western object is a galaxy, but cannot tell for sure on DSS. On the print of Wolf's original plate, this appears as a single object. ===== IC 3534. Though Frost's RA is 22 seconds of time off, more than twice the usual error (between 1 and 2 arcmin) that we usually associate with his positions, the identification is pretty secure. There are no galaxies closer to the nominal position that might be Frost's object, and this one matches his description well enough. ===== IC 3535 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3537 is another star in Schwassmann's list identified by his good position. There are two other stars flanking it to the northwest (brighter) and to the south (fainter), but Schwassmann does not mention either of these. ===== IC 3538 is a star at Wolf's position. His description ("S, eF") is appropriate, too. ===== IC 3539 is a star. It is clearly seen on the print of the original plate. ===== IC 3541 is a star very close to Wolf's position. Wolfgang took the fainter star just southeast in his first sweep through the IC. This is not on the print of Wolf's plate while the brighter star is. ===== IC 3544 is a double star exactly at Schwassmann's position, and matches his description pretty well: "cF, vS or S, ph * 12.5" ("ph" = perhaps). His magnitude estimates tend to be too bright by 2 or 3 magnitudes -- the double is more like 15. ===== IC 3545 = NGC 4555, which see. ===== IC 3547 is a star, probably with a plate defect superposed. The defect is faint enough that it does not show well on the print of the original plate, though the star is easily seen. Wolf's marks are no longer on this plate, but his description reads "little extended, [PA =] 70 [degrees]." His position is within 5 arcsec of the star, so there is little doubt about at least that part of the image. ===== IC 3549 is a star. As with I3547, Wolf's discovery plate has been wiped clean of his marks, but the position points very closely to the star -- which is easily seen on the plate -- and Wolf's description (vF, vS) is appropriate for the object. ===== IC 3550 is an HII region in NGC 4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC 3554. ===== IC 3551 is an HII region in NGC 4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC 3554. ===== IC 3552 is a compact HII region in, or a foreground star superposed on, NGC 4559. In either case, it is stellar or nearly so on DSS, and is close to stellar on the print of the original plate. See IC 3554. ===== IC 3553 is a star at Wolf's position. Though no longer marked on the discovery plate, Wolf's description (vF, vS) is appropriate, too. ===== IC 3554 has a very good position in Wolf's fourth list. Thus, it can be easily identified with a star superposed on NGC 4559. I3552 is either a star or a compact HII region. The other objects that Wolf saw in the arms of N4559 (I3550, I3551, I3555, I3563, and I3564) are indeed HII regions and/or star clouds in that galaxy. They all show up on the print of his original plate. ===== IC 3555 is an HII region in NGC 4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. See IC 3554. ===== IC 3556. Even though Wolf's photographic position in his 4th Konigstuhl Nebel-List is exact, CGCG, MCG, UGC, and PGC have all ignored the number in favor of NGC 4563, NGC 4558, NGC "4536" (typo for 4563), and NGC 4558, respectively. Wolf identified the NGC galaxies correctly, too, giving good positions for them, so we can be certain that IC 3556 is a "nova." See NGC 4558 and NGC 4563 for further discussion. ===== IC 3557 is a double (at least) galaxy in a compact group, which is, in turn, in a cluster. There are at least 4 companions nearby -- and on DSS, a defect as well. The defect, fortunately, is in an empty bit of sky just northeast of the IC object. ===== IC 3558 is noted as a double nebula by Frost, but the northern object may be a superposed star, not a second galaxy. ===== IC 3563 is an HII region in NGC 4559, easily seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. There is a foreground star just south that is probably included in Wolf's image, though that image is a single blob also including IC 3564 (which see). Wolf's original plate must be clearer in this area as he was able to make two objects out of the single blob on the contact print. Also see IC 3554 for a bit more on the objects around NGC 4559. ===== IC 3564 is a star cloud in the outer arms of NGC 4559. Though it is clearly visible on the print of Wolf's original plate, it is completely blended with the image of IC 3563 (which see) and a foreground star (which I mistakenly took to be I3564 when I first went over this area in the early 70s at Texas). See IC 3554. ===== IC 3566 is probably a defect -- but just possibly may be a comet. Found by Frost on Harvard plate A6720 (10 May 1904), he described it as "Com., head R, tail 1.0' long at 110 deg." Adelaide Ames, in her 1930 catalogue of the Virgo Cluster, says simply "A comet" in her footnote to a list of NGC and IC objects which she could not find. She examined the same plate that Frost used. Brian Skiff and Larry Wasserman at Lowell Observatory have run Frost's position (12 31.3 +11 43; 1900) through a comet identification program, and came up empty-handed. The nearest known comet was 10P/Tempel 2, but it was more than 15 deg away (at 13 36 11, +12 45.2) on 10 May. On Brian Skiff's advice, I also asked Brian Marsden to run his software to check his comet catalogue. He wrote back, "I don't see any known comet that IC 3566 could have been." So, it is almost certainly a defect on the old Harvard plate. ===== IC 3569 = NGC 4561, which see. ===== IC 3570 is a star, seen on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3572 is a double star close to Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3577 is a defect on Schwassmann's plate. We can be sure of this because there is nothing exactly at his position. But just to the northeast is a "* 12.8" which Schwassmann calls "* 207a" in his list (IC 3577 is itself number 207 of his list). Schwassmann's description of the IC object reads "vF, pS or cS, dif, cont[ains] * 207a". There is another fainter star on star on to the northeast that may also have been involved in Schwassmann's "nebulosity". ===== IC 3579 is a star just a few arcsec from Wolf's position. I've not yet looked at it on the print of the original plate, but I have little doubt about the identification. ===== IC 3582 has been misidentified by nearly everyone as the brighter galaxy southwest of the real I3582. Wolf's position is exact for his object, and it appears as a nearly stellar object on the print of his original plate. The brighter galaxy to the southwest (UGC 07778) also appears on the print, and it too appears to be stellar. I suspect that this is why Wolf skipped over it. ===== IC 3584 is a star, clearly identified by Schwassmann's good position. ===== IC 3588 = NGC 4571, which see. ===== IC 3589 is a star just north-preceding IC 3591. Schwassmann has the following data (equinox 1900.0) for these two objects: Working Running Number Number On Plates Object Sn (Sn) Zone RA Dec Desc I3589 29 7 Ia2 12 31 56.23 +07 29 13.2 vF, pS, R, li * I3591 30 6 Ia2 12 31 57.99 +07 28 35.0 F, pS 47 II3 12 31 58.24 +07 28 36.3 F, cS, nr * 14, alpha, delta: Note that IC 3589 was picked up in only one zone of the two that Schwassmann searched across this area. If we adopt 12 31 58.07 +07 28 35.4 for IC 3591 (half weight for the 2nd position which is noted uncertain) then the differential position with respect to I3589 is 27.4 arcsec in RA and -37.8 arcsec in Dec. Measured on the Sandage-Binggeli photo in their Paper III (Plate 52, p. 1095, AJ xx, 198x), the difference in position between the galaxy and the brighter star to the upper right is 26 arcsec in RA and -34 arcsec in Dec. Within the errors of my measurements (a few arcsec), the offsets agree, so IC 3589 is certainly the star. ===== IC 3591. See IC 3589. ===== IC 3594 is a star with a defect superposed. Both are very faint, but visible, on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3596 must be a defect. Wolf's position is just north-northeast of a wide double star, and his description reads, "Wings [curving arms], near a double star." There is nothing at all on the POSS1 in this place, and Wolf's mention of the double star near the "nebula" rules it out as his object, too. Since I wrote that, I've examined the print of Wolf's original plate, and can in fact see the defect north-northeast of the double star. ===== IC 3601 is a perfectly good galaxy, the brightest in a relatively compact group, about 1.5 arcmin north of Frost's position. Nevertheless, Ames has this to say about the IC number: "A defect on the plate where it was originally found by Frost." I suppose this is a possibility -- we will need to examine the plate to be sure. But the galaxy is similar to dozens of others in the area of the Virgo Cluster that Frost (and Ames) found. So, until we know for sure that it is in fact a defect, I'm going to keep the IC number on the galaxy. ===== IC 3602. There are two clear candidates for this object -- a relatively larger, lower surface brightness galaxy preceding Frost's position; and a smaller, more compact object that is the brightest in a quadruple interacting system (a triplet of fainter galaxies precedes the brighter object by about half an arcmin). Most of the catalogues have taken the preceding low surface brightness galaxy as the IC object. However, it does not match Frost's description which reads "F, R, lbM, dia = 0.1 arcmin." The preceding object is actually closer to half an arcmin across. So, while Frost does indeed have objects like it in his list, I don't believe that it was this galaxy that he picked up. Nevertheless, I'm out-voted on this, so have to put a colon on the IC number for the following, more compact galaxy. And I have to include the preceding galaxy -- but I do so with a question mark firmly attached to the number. ===== IC 3606 is a compact galaxy, not a star as we had it for some time. Apologies to all. ===== IC 3607. Though called a star in Carlson's 1940 list, this is clearly a galaxy on the DSS. Ames also has it as a galaxy in her 1930 Virgo Cluster catalogue. ===== IC 3609 is a pretty compact galaxy. It was misidentified in CGCG, and that incorrect label has been carried along into UZC. But other lists (VCC, VPC, and Wolfgang's) have the right galaxy. ===== IC 3610 appears as a very faint, irregular, linear image on the print of Wolf's original plate. It turns out to be a line of three faint galaxies plus a star. Wolf's position is just to the east of the galaxies, but is good enough to unambiguously identify the objects. ===== IC 3612 = IC 3616. Royal Frost found these "two" nebulae on two different overlapping Harvard plates. His two positions are only a tenth of a minute of time apart, and his descriptions are similar. Since there is no other galaxy nearby which is bright enough to be picked up on the plates, the identity is virtually certain. ===== IC 3613 is a compact galaxy about 1.5 arcmin north of Frost's position. Glen Deen took another fainter galaxy west of Frost's position, but this has a much lower mean surface brightness -- I doubt that it shows up on the Harvard plate. ===== IC 3614 is a star and a galaxy forming a single elongated image on the print of Wolf's original plate. There is another galaxy nearby that might be mistaken as IC 3614, but it is fainter and is just barely visible on the print. ===== IC 3616 = IC 3612, which see. ===== IC 3619 is a double star, unresolved on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3628 is a star, verified on the print of the plate from which Wolf assembled his fourth list of new nebulae. This is one of the plates from which Wolf's discovery markings have been erased, but the image of the star can be clearly seen at Wolf's published position. ===== IC 3630 is a star. It's image is on the print of Wolf's original plate. ===== IC 3636 is a double star (or perhaps a triple; the fainter star looks like a blended double star itself on the DSS). It was found on a plate taken by Max Wolf with the 16-inch Bruce refractor at Heidelberg on 27 January 1904. He published it and 197 other objects as new nebulae in 1905, and Dreyer incorporated most of them into the second IC. Wolf also measured positions for six NGC and IC1 objects on the plate. As with most of the other plates in this series, we have been fortunate to be able to compare prints of them, kindly made for us by Dr. G. Klare at Heidelberg, with the POSS1 and with the DSS. This plate, and two of the four others, still carry Wolf's original ink marks identifying the objects which he catalogued. This has made possible the positive identification of almost all of Wolf's objects on this plate which were included in the IC. By the time Wolf examined this plate, he had clearly refined his techniques considerably over his first paper of new "nebulae," where most of the objects are in fact faint stars. Here, only 55 stars or defects are included as nebulae -- still a relatively high percentage, but not too bad considering that Wolf was working with images near the limit of the plate (about 18th magnitude). ===== IC 3640. See IC 3641. ===== IC 3641 is about 30 arcsec southeast of IC 3640. Wolf has only one entry for the two objects in his 4th list of new nebulae found on a Heidelberg plate; I3641 is actually mentioned in the note to I3640. Wolf has the direction wrong in the note -- instead of "np," it should read "sf." Both objects are visible on the print of the original plate, though I3641 is almost indistinguishable from plate grain. ===== IC 3644. See IC 3645. ===== IC 3645 is a star. It is on the print of the original Heidelberg plate, but Wolf's marks have been scrubbed off this plate. Thus, we have only his good position to lead us to the star. I3644 and I3646 are just to the south, and the pair I3640/I3641 (which see) just to the west. ===== IC 3646. See IC 3645. ===== IC 3648 is a star, as with many others, accurately identified by Schwassmann's good position. ===== IC 3650 is a double star. Wolf's position is biased toward the brighter, northwestern star, though its image is blended with that of the southeastern star. ===== IC 3657. My first look at the print of the original plate suggested that this is nothing more than a defect. However, as Wolfgang and Malcolm have found, there is in fact a faint star just south of Wolf's position. A second look shows that the image of the star was indeed faintly recorded on Wolf's plate. I suspect that the original plate would show it more clearly. See IC 3636 for more about this discovery plate. ===== IC 3660 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3663 is a pretty low surface brightness galaxy which Frost found on the Bruce plate taken at Arequipa. There is a brighter compact galaxy to the south-southeast which has been mistaken for the IC object, but it probably appeared stellar on the Bruce plate. Whatever happened, Frost skipped right over it. ===== IC 3664 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3666 is a star. Schwassmann has the description as "eF, vS, ?, [alpha]:, [delta]:". The lonely question mark is interesting -- Dreyer even copied it verbatim into the second IC. It, and the colons on the position symbols, show that Schwassmann was not particularly confident about this object. However, the star is there on the DSS, so Schwassmann's plate did record something at his position. There may also have been a defect or a bit of random grain noise that lent a bit of fuzziness to the image, too. ===== IC 3667 = NGC 4618, and IC 3675 = NGC 4625. I have no idea how these identities came about, aside from a coincidence of oversight by both Max Wolf (in whose 5th Konigstuhl list the IC objects first appear) and Dreyer. The NGC and IC positions are vitually identical in both cases, and Wolf's descriptions -- liberally sprinkled with exclamation points -- leave no doubt as to which objects he saw on his plate (the correct objects are clearly marked on the print of the plate that I've compared to POSS1). Perhaps both astronomers were becoming bored with long lists of faint nebulae by 1904 and just didn't do the careful checking needed. Whatever the case, there is no doubting the identities. The second has been noted in several galaxy catalogues (RC1, MCG, etc.), but the first has been overlooked. I suspect that the feeling, on seeing an IC number attached to an 11th magnitude galaxy, was one of disbelief; or that the number must belong to a knot in the galaxy (IC 3668 is in fact such a knot, and IC 3669 is the south-southeastern arm). But this is all speculation, with none of the principals now alive to tell us what really happened. ===== IC 3668 is a knot in NGC 4618 = IC 3667 (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 3669 is the bright part of the southeastern arm of NGC 4618 = IC 3667 (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3673 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3674 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "exc[entric] neb *, * 11 sp 1 arcmin" is correct in all respects. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3675 = NGC 4625. See IC 3667. ===== IC 3676 is a star at Schwassmann's position. In his description, he notes "li[ke] * 13 (perhaps *)", making the identification even more sure. ===== IC 3679 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3680 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3681 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. Wolf also noted a "* 13 sp 1/2 arcmin"; the image of that star is there on both the print and the DSS. ===== IC 3682 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3685 is a star at Schwassmann's position, perhaps including the very faint star to the southwest, or perhaps involved with a plate defect. His description reads "vF, pL, ?, alpha delta ::". ===== IC 3688 = NGC 4633. Schwassmann's position is good, but it is 10 seconds of time following Swift's for NGC 4633 (actually found by his son Edward. Swift does not say who determined the positions for Edward's nebulae). The descriptions are similar, and Schwassmann has a note about the nearby star, just as Swift does. The identity, apparently first suggested by Ames, is therefore secure. ===== IC 3695 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3699 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Though there is a galaxy 0.8 arcmin to the north-northeast, Wolf's mark on the plate, his measured position, and his comment "2 *'[s] 13 np, * 15 n 1 arcmin," all point clearly to the stars as the IC object. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3700. At one point, I claimed "IC 3700 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate." However, going to Wolf's position in DSS shows two very faint galaxies, probably an interacting system. Checking the print again, the smudge there, with Wolf's mark, is exactly on the position of the two faint galaxies. I'm frankly surprised they came through, but there they seem to be. Are they perhaps enhanced by a defect? ===== IC 3703 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3705 is a faint double galaxy, not clearly resolved on the original plate. Wolf must have suspected some irregularity in the image as he calls it a possible spiral. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3706 is a double star at Schwassmann's position. There may be a defect involved, too, as his description includes the word "dif[fuse]". ===== IC 3707 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3708 is the northwestern arm of NGC 4654. Schwassmann's two positions roughly coincide with the middle of the arm, and his description "pB, cL, Af" (where "Af" means "Nebula similar to the Andromeda Nebula") matches it well enough as it might be seen on a plate taken with a six-inch lens. He has two other entries for NGC 4654 itself, from the same zones on the plate as IC 3708, so the IC object is clearly not a duplicate of the larger and brighter galaxy. ===== IC 3710 is a low-surface-brightness dwarf spiral in the Virgo Cluster. It's structure is similar to the LMC's, but the bar is much smaller, and the knot corresponding to 30 Doradus (NGC 2070) is much larger (though still of low surface brightness). So, the positions for this galaxy are all over its face. I have, as usual, provided the position for the center of the bar. ===== IC 3712 is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing on the DSS at his position, and there is also nothing at reasonable digit errors that match his description ("vF, pS, Af 42 deg, ??, alpha delta :"; "Af" means "Similar to the Andromeda Nebula"). ===== IC 3715. The IC position is 10 arcmin off in dec. This is a typo in the IC as Wolf's original declination is correct for the object he marked on his plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3716 and IC 3719 are two of Schwassmann's nebulae found on his plates of the Virgo Cluster. He describes both similarly (eF, vS) though adds two question marks after the entry for I3719. He also has a note: "Clearly distinct from one another," probably added since the two objects are separated by less than an arcminute. Unfortunately, there is only one galaxy in the area. Its position is about 10-15 arcsec west of the position for I3719, but the place of I3716 is even further west, and about 30 arcsec south as well. At Schwassmann's RA for I3716, there is a star -- but it is about 30 arcsec north of his Dec. I suspect plate flaws superposed on the galaxy that is there. Since the position for I3719 is closest to the galaxy, I'm going to adopt that number for it -- though with some trepidation. ===== IC 3719. See IC 3716. ===== IC 3721 = IC 3725. The position measured by Royal H. Frost on the Harvard plate is just 6 seconds of time preceding Wolf's more precise position from the Heidelberg Bruce plate. The descriptions are similar, and there are no other objects within 10 arcmin that could be mistaken by either observer for a nebula. The identity is certain. ===== IC 3722 is two blended double stars about 14 arcsec apart. Schwassmann's position falls just between them, and his description "vF, vS, li[ke] * 13" is appropriate. ===== IC 3725 = IC 3721, which see. ===== IC 3730 = CGCG 129-021. Wolf's declination is 30 arcsec off, but his mark on the original plate clearly points to the correct galaxy. ===== IC 3733 may be the star that I've indicated in the position table, though there are two other similarly bright stars nearby, as well as a very faint galaxy (or another star?) that would have blended in with the nearest star on Schwassmann's plate. His description ("eF, S, li * 14") is not very helpful, referring as it does to just a single object. The star I've taken is the closest to his position, though, and does well enough. ===== IC 3737 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3738 is two stars, enhanced by a very faint galaxy just to the northeast of the southwestern star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3739 is probably a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at his position, nor at obvious digit offsets, though there are faint stars and galaxies in the area. ===== IC 3741 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3743 is two stars centered on Schwassmann's position. There are two fainter stars to the southwest, but he makes no mention of these; they may not appear on his plate. ===== IC 3747 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3748 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3749 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3750 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. There is another star 15.5 arcsec south that Wolfgang took as IC 3750. On the red DSS, it does indeed look a little brighter, but the northern star is brighter on the blue POSS1 print, so is probably the object that Wolf marked. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3751 is a galaxy at Wolf's position, correctly marked and confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "neb * 15 p," however, applies to just a star; there is no nebulosity involved. ===== IC 3752 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3753 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. The "* 14 conn sp" that Wolf mentions in his notes is on the DSS, too. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3757 is a triple star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. The eastern star is the faintest and looks like a blended double on the DSS. ===== IC 3760 is not IC 815, which see. ===== IC 3764 = IC 817, which see. ===== IC 3765 is a star with a plate defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 3768 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3769 is a star, or is perhaps a blended double star. Whatever its nature, the correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3770. There is only a very faint star in Schwassmann's position. It does not match his description ("cF, cS, l 30 deg, ?"), so I suspect that most of the image belongs to a defect. I've nevertheless listed the star as it is within a standard deviation or so from Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3771 is a galaxy with a plate defect superposed. The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3772 = CGCG 188-020 = MCG +06-28-028. The IC number has sometimes been mistakenly attached to DD0 47 = UGC 07949 = MCG +06-28-030 which is 3 arcmin south-southeast. But Wolf's position is good, and he has marked the correct galaxy on his original plate. ===== IC 3773 is a pretty low surface brightness late-type galaxy in the Virgo Cluster, found by Frost on a Harvard plate. There is a 15th magnitude star superposed on the outer boundary of the galaxy about an arcmin northeast of the nucleus. Even though Frost claims that the galaxy is Sn 150, his position is about 2 arcmin southwest of Schwassmann's, which is within a few arcsec of the star. This suggests that Frost should be credited with the discovery of this galaxy rather than Schwassmann. ===== IC 3777 is a star at Schwassmann's position. Wolfgang, in his first list, took VCC 2054 as the IC object, but this is wrong. The galaxy is over an arcmin away from the nominal position, and neither RA nor Dec has reasonable digit errors to explain the offset. ===== IC 3780 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3781 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. It is quite faint on the DSS, but Wolf's position is very close and he mentions the stars to the north and west in his notes. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3782 is a star. Even though Wolf's declination is 30 arcsec too large, the correct object is marked on a print of Wolf's original plate. So, there can be no question about the identity. ===== IC 3785 is a galaxy, and there may be a faint defect superposed on the discovery plate. The print of the plate that I looked at is not clear enough to be sure. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3787 is a double star. The object is blended into a single image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. Wolf's mark points unmistakeably at the correct object. The only mistake here was mine in giving only the brighter eastern object the IC number when I first went over the field. ===== IC 3790 is a star exactly at Schwassmann's position. Even though he describes it as "eF, vS, ??" -- the "??" indicating considerable doubt about the nebulous character of the object -- there is no doubt about the identity. The position is too close to a star very similar to others that Schwassmann, working at the limit of his plates, mistook for faint nebulae. ===== IC 3791 = NGC 4695. Swift found the IC object on 23 May 1897. That same night, he found two other objects: I2976 and I4205 (both of which see). I2976 is NGC 3979, and I4205 is IC 853. For I3791, he notes "[NGC] 4732 in field." That can't be right as N4732 is 1.5 degrees south of Swift's position for I3791. (The galaxy in the field is actually N4686). This was not a particularly good night for Lewis Swift. His position for I3791 shares with that for I4205 a declination which is about five arcmin too far north; the right ascensions are very close to correct in both cases. (I2976, on the other hand, has a declination that is very close to the modern value, while its RA is 1.5 minutes too small.) Since his descriptions are also appropriate for the galaxies, I have little doubt about the identities I've suggested here. ===== IC 3792 is two faint stars, probably with a defect involved, too. Schwassmann's position is about 20 arcsec to the south. There is an extremely faint galaxy in the area, too, but it would not have showed up on the plate from the 6-inch refractor that Schwassmann was using. ===== IC 3794 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3796 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3797 must be a defect on Schwassmann's plate. His description is telling: "F, pS, perhaps FN, like an asteroid trail, geom N pt". I'm not sure about his last phrase, but the first three make it clear that he was looking at an elongated object. Since there is nothing like that at his position, nor at reasonable digit offsets, this is most likely a plate defect. ===== IC 3798 is a star at Schwassmann's position. ===== IC 3801 is another defect on Schwassmann's plate. He describes it as "cB, pS, li * 95 [sic]". There are no stars this bright in the area, and there are none either at positions where digit errors might put them. ===== IC 3802 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3803 is a star, probably with a defect involved. Schwassmann's position is good, but his description "eF, pL, ?, alpha: delta:" suggests that the object was more extended than his usual star. ===== IC 3804 = NGC 4711. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Neither he nor Dreyer realized that the object is NGC 4711 in spite of the nearly identical positions and Wolf's clear description of this as quite a noticeable nebula on his plate. ===== IC 3805 is a double star about 25 arcsec north of IC 3802, another star (which see). The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3807 may be NGC 4705. It is the only galaxy within several degrees of Swift's position that comes close to matching his description: "eeF, L, eE; 7m * nr s little f." However, the star is northeast, not south-southeast as Swift implies. If so, this just another of his mistakes in noting relative positions. I looked for another galaxy at a declination digit (10 and 20 degrees south) and sign (+3 rather than -3) away from his nominal position -- nothing at all. I have not yet checked at digit errors in RA hours, but there is certainly nothing at +- 1 minute or +- 10 minutes of time. My feeling is that this is another case like IC 3166/3180 (which see): the NGC galaxy is probably Swift's object, but we have only circumstanstial evidence of the match. So, I am not going to put the IC number on the NGC number, even with a question mark. With the position so far off, and the direction of the star being different from Swift's description, I am just not comfortable with the hypothesis. The magnitude of the star is V = 9.22, by the way, and it is 4.85 arcmin from NGC 4705. If this is Swift's object, the star would have been well within his field radius of 16 arcmin, and the magnitude at least in the ballpark for a rough estimate. ===== IC 3810 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3811 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3817 may be a double galaxy, though it looks more like a single, somewhat peculiar, blue galaxy on POSS1. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3820 is a fairly faint galaxy with a plate defect superposed on its image on Wolf's original plate. The defect pulls Wolf's position (copied correctly into IC2) 10 or 12 arcsec south off the galaxy. The object is marked on a print of the original plate. ===== IC 3821 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Its image is blended on DSS1, and when I first went over the field, I mistakenly called it a single star. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3823 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3827 = IC 3838, which see. ===== IC 3829. The identity is not sure. Swift has left us three different positions for his 19th nebula from his 7th list from Echo Mountain. He found the galaxy on 31 January 1898, within just a few months of his final nebular discoveries (the positions are in the table). The IC description reads "B, S, lE, *9 sf [?119deg 14.5']" (Dreyer's query, not mine). His description in the big AN "Catalogue No. 11 ..." reads simply "B, S, lE", so the additional information must come from one of the smaller lists. It is found in the Monthly Notices (58, 332, 1898) version where he adds "9m * near sf". After a search of the area, Andris and I settled on ESO 442-G026 as Swift's object. This is the brightest object around, it is an even 50 seconds of time from one of Swift's positions -- but it does not have a bright star nearby. The brightest star to the east is a 10th or 11th magnitude star 6.5 arcmin east. There are somewhat fainter ones 6 arcmin southeast and south-southwest. The other candidate is ESO 442-G024: larger, fainter, with a lower surface brightness, and surrounded by 9th magnitude stars: 2.5 arcmin northeast, 4 arcmin south, and 6.5 arcmin southwest. Swift would have seen all of these and would have commented on them. He would also have called the galaxy "eeF, vS" at best. Still, I suppose it is possible that his is his object, so I've put it in the table, too, though with question marks. ===== IC 3830 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3833. The IC identity of this galaxy is not in question. Bigourdan's measurements in April 1895 are very good (his comparison star has one of the highest proper motions I've encountered in doing this work -- over 0.42 arcsec per year), so we cannot mistake the galaxy he found. Herbert Howe ran across the same galaxy, but thought it might be one of the pair, NGC 4722 and 4723 (which see), that Tempel found following NGC 4714. Dreyer put Howe's object into the IC notes as "NGC 4722-23", apparently without noticing the coincidence of Bigourdan's and Howe's positions. MCG certainly picked up on it, however, so has N4722 = I3833. Working on ESGC, I made the same assignment of the numbers, but clearly did not do much digging into the literature (though I did translate Tempel's published note for N4722 and 4723). In any event, I see now that we actually do not know for sure which objects Tempel saw. So, we may not be correct in equating one of them with IC 3833. Thus, my liberal use of question marks in the position table for the two NGC numbers. ===== IC 3834 is not, as so often supposed, NGC 4740 (which see; it is actually a reobservation by Swift of NGC 4727, the brightest galaxy in the group of four here). Nor is it NGC 4726 (which also see), as first suggested by Howe and taken up by Dreyer in a couple of IC2 notes. Bigourdan wisely threw out all the NGC numbers for his observation of this galaxy (or he was utterly confused and simply ignored them) and declared it a "nova", even though Howe had obviously seen, too. ===== IC 3838 = IC 3827. Bigourdan made a mistake of +1 minute in the RA of his comparison star. Otherwise, his four observations on 14 Apr 1895 are a detailed and accurate account of the galaxy, the star to the south (also noted by Howe), and the comparison star. ===== IC 3839 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3840. Though Wolf comments "* sp inv," the object there is actually a part of the galaxy, a rather patchy IB(s)m IV, itself. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3841 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3845 is a star. There is a very faint galaxy just to the southeast of the star, but there is no trace of it on the print of the original plate. The star is marked on that print. ===== IC 3846 must be another defect on Schwassmann's plate. His description, like others for defects, would make this an outstanding object that the Herschels would be ashamed of for missing: "B, pL or pS, N = * 9.2". Needless to say, there is nothing like this in the area, nor at any reasonable digit errors. ===== IC 3847. Wolf's comment "neb * 15 sp" is slightly incorrect: the star is not nebulous. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3848 is a faint double galaxy, not resolved on the original plate. Wolf noted it as being elongated, however. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3849 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3851 is a star, with a defect superposed on the image, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's comment "* 12 s" is also correct. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3854 is the larger of two galaxies. Wolf actually saw the second on his plate, but called it a "* 15 f." ===== IC 3858 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Also, Wolf's comment "* 13 sp 1/3 arcmin" is correct. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3860 is a faint, little galaxy. I suspect that there is a defect enhancing its image on Wolf's original plate. Otherwise, I don't see how he could have picked it up. It is, however, close to his position, so I've included it in the table. ===== IC 3862 = UGC 08023 has an eccentric nucleus, noted by Wolf as an "att * 15." ===== IC 3863 is a galaxy with a star superposed. The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3864 is a faint galaxy, with a star superposed, not resolved on the original plate (my original classification as a double galaxy was wrong). Wolf noted the star 0.5 arcmin south, so there is no question about the identity. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3866 is a faint double galaxy, not clearly resolved on the original plate. Wolf must have noticed some irregularity in the image, however, as he suggested it might be a cluster. Perhaps the low surface brightness spindle to the southwest is included in the image, too, though it does not show up as an individual object on the print. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3877. Wolf's position is exactly 7.0 arcmin north of the true position -- the correct object is marked on his plate. I suspect this results from a measuring error which placed the object 2 cm closer to the top of the plate than it really is. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3878 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3881 is the northeastern of two faint galaxies, and is clearly marked on Wolf's plate. He describes it as "vF, vS; long chain? attached north (remarkable), chain? connecting [to I3877]." There is a trace of a very faint defect, or of a random clumping of photographic "grain," on the print of Wolf's plate which I examined, but certainly no "chain" of galaxies appears on POSS1. For more about the discovery plate, see IC 3636. ===== IC 3886 has a faint star superposed, but it is not clearly seen on the DSS. Wolf's note reads "Ch!! conn 1'n, &&, viF." This becomes, "Very remarkable chain connecting 1 arcmin north, very irregular figure." The print of Wolf's original plate shows the galaxy only faintly, but his mark points exactly at it. The two stars about an arcminute north are not connected to it in any way on either POSS1 or POSS2, so the connection that Wolf saw on his original plate must be a defect. It does not show clearly at all on the print of his plate. See IC 3636 for more about that plate. ===== IC 3887 is a double star, though the northwestern star is enough fainter that we missed it on the POSS1 O print. We called it a single star for several years. The correct object is clearly marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate -- the two are completely merged there. ===== IC 3889 is probably a single star, though it may include two other stars and a galaxy within an arcminute to the north. None of the objects is clear on the print of the original plate, nor is it clear to which of these objects Wolf's mark points. However, his position is for the southern star, so that is probably the object we ought to take. ===== IC 3891 is a galaxy. Though I took it to be a star with a plate defect superposed during my survey of the IC objects in Wolf's fifth list, this is clearly incorrect (thanks to Malcolm Thomson for catching the mistake). The object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, but is not clearly seen on the print. It is possible that it appears stellar on the POSS1 blue print which I looked at, but it is more likely that I made a simple mistake. DSS clearly shows it to be a galaxy. ===== IC 3893 is marked on the print of the original plate 3.5 arcmin north of Wolf's published position. Since other of the nebulae in this list are also off by the same amount (e.g. IC 3919), I think that the discrepancy represents a digit error in Wolf's y-axis measurement. The galaxy is the largest of three; the other two are just northwest of I3893, but only one is (faintly) visible on Wolf's plate. ===== IC 3894 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf notes a 15th magnitude star to the northeast; that star is there. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3898 is a faint galaxy with, according to Wolf, an "att eF * pr." The "star," however, is a defect on the original plate. It is just seen on the print of this plate that I examined. ===== IC 3901 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3902 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3903 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3904 = CGCG 188-029. Wolf correctly describes this as a spiral, but he has the sense of spirality backwards. ===== IC 3905 is a faint triple galaxy -- probably an interacting system -- not resolved on the print of the original plate. A fourth galaxy, not on the print, is about 40 arcsec on to the southwest from the brightest component. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3906 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3910 is a double star. Wolf's comment reads "? neb **" -- there is no nebulosity associated with the double. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3911 is two galaxies, or a galaxy and a star, whose images are merged on the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. The object is marked on a print of that original plate where it appears to be single. The second galaxy is very compact if it is indeed a galaxy. ===== IC 3912 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3914. On the DSS, this is a double object, with a star being about 12 arcsec northwest of a galaxy. On the print of the original plate, there is an apparent plate defect superposed. The defect -- which may only be present on the print of the original plate -- stretches to the northeast from the galaxy. Wolf's mark points at the galaxy itself. My earlier assessment of this as a single star and a defect may be the result of the appearance of the object on the POSS1 blue print. On the red print, and on the DSS, it is clearly a galaxy with a neighboring star. My thanks to Malcolm Thomson who called my attention to the discrepancy. ===== IC 3915 is the northern of two stars, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Though Wolf's position is in error by exactly 10 arcmin in declination -- clearly a typo -- his mark on the plate, and his comment "inv * 14 s" both refer to the correct object. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3917 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. This number has occasionally been mistakenly assigned to the galaxy IC 3918 (e.g. RC1), but Wolf's position corresponds to the star he has marked on his plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3918, a real galaxy, has occasionally been assigned the number IC 3917, which see. I3917 is actually a star. ===== IC 3919 is marked on the print of the original plate, and is 3.5 arcmin north of Wolf's published position. Since other of the nebulae in this list are also off by the same amount (e.g. IC 3893), I think that the discrepancy represents a digit error in Wolf's y-axis measurement. There is a larger but fainter galaxy about 1.5 arcmin east of the IC galaxy. It is not visible on the print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the plate. ===== IC 3923 is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3925 is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3926 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3932 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3933 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3935 = NGC 4849. The problem here is that the galaxy is in a crowded area of the sky (the Coma Cluster), and d'Arrest's position is 4 arcmin south of the galaxy. This was corrected by Spitaler and mentioned in the first IC by Dreyer, but he did not notice that Javelle's object was exactly at Spitaler's position, too. So, two numbers. ===== IC 3936. The position corresponds to a single star about 30 arcsec south of a line of three stars. The mark on Wolf's plate is not clearly pointing at one or the other of these, however, and his description is more apt for the line of stars (not resolved on the original plate). Wolf also noted the brighter star 1 arcmin following his object, again matching the line of stars better than the single star. However, the single star to the south is only 4 arcsec away from Wolf's position. Given that his mark is ambiguous, I've taken all four stars as IC 3936, and labeled them with my usual directional flags. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3938 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf correctly comments "* 13 sp." See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3939 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3941 is a galaxy. There is a defect on the print of original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate; Wolf's mark points to the defect, but also at the galaxy. Neither is very clear on the print, but Wolf's position is right on the galaxy. Thanks to Malcolm for catching my earlier error for this object. ===== IC 3942 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3951 has a defect superposed on the original plate, clearly visible on the print I examined. Wolf noted the second image, and suggested that the object might be a double star immersed in nebulosity. No trace of the second "object" appears on POSS1, however. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3961 = NGC 4861, which see. The entire galaxy is clearly marked on the original 16-inch Bruce plate (one of the "stars" mentioned in Wolf's description is the bright HII region), and Herschel's description also clearly applies to the entire galaxy. The identity is certain, and the CGCG's contention that N4861 is only the bright HII region in IC 3961 is wrong. ===== IC 3962 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3964 is a star. Kobold's offsets, re-reduced with respect to the AC 2000.2 positions for his comparison stars, point directly at it. This is just one of about 15 new nebulae that he found during his work in the Coma Cluster in the spring of 1896. ===== IC 3969 is a triple galaxy -- with a foreground star just west -- in the core of Abell 1657. Wolf found two other nebulae (IC 3971 and IC 3978) -- and a star, possibly blended with two galaxies (IC 3984) -- nearby, and suggested that they formed a chain. He encompassed all with a single mark on his plate; only IC 3969 and IC 3984 are clearly visible on the print. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 3970 is probably the star near Wolf's position. However, that position is far enough off the star toward another one to the west, that I wonder if it applies to both stars. If so, then Wolf's position angle is close to being correct, too. But then, Wolf's "* 15 att p" is lost. So, I favor the single star explanation. At least one object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined, but the print is not clear enough to show the two stars separately, or any defects that might be involved. ===== IC 3971 is a galaxy in Abell 1657. See IC 3969 for more. ===== IC 3972 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3974 = NGC 4947. Swift's position is just 5 minutes of time smaller than that for NGC 4947. Since there is nothing at Swift's position, the identity, while not secured by comments about the star field, is pretty certain. These sorts of large errors occur frequently in the observations from Swift's last years; he found this object on 28 March 1898, less than two months before his last recorded discovery. ===== IC 3977 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3978 is a galaxy in Abell 1657. See IC 3969 for more. ===== IC 3979 is a star with a defect superposed. The position I measured refers to the star alone. There is another star within an arcminute to the north, and I mistakenly took that as the IC object when I went over the field earlier. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3981 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3982 is a star, flanked to the southwest and northeast by two brighter stars, both noted by Wolf. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3983 is a double star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3984 is probably a blended image, a star with two galaxies about 28 arcsec west. While Wolf's position is for the star, the brighter galaxy looks like it is the object marked on the print of the original plate. I've given positions for all three in the main table. ===== IC 3988 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3989 is a star about 1.8 arcmin south of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3992 is a star, the eastern and slightly brighter of two. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3995 is a star about 9 arcmin north of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3996 is a blended double star on the DSS1 image. The two images are close enough that I called them a single star when I first went over the field. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate. ===== IC 3999 is probably identical to NGC 4862 (which has its own story). Bigourdan has only a note on the object in his big table, claiming the object to be +30 seconds and +3.7 arcmin from BD -13d 3633. This observation is dated 16 April 1895. However, refering to his table of novae, Bigourdan makes the date 12 May 1885. There is no other trace of this observation in his published tables, including his list of supplementary observations in Appendix 8 of his introduction. So, the 1895 observation is all that we have to go on. At Helwan and Mt. Wilson, observers chose the star close to the nominal position as the object. Wolfgang Steinicke and I made a different choice, the faint galaxy 7 seconds east and 4 arcmin south of the nominal position. Finally, Malcolm Thomson noticed that if the sign of Bigourdan's estimated RA offset is changed to a minus sign, the position is close to NGC 4862, a faint spiral found by Frank Leavenworth at Leander McCormick (the galaxy is positively identified by Leavenworth's sketch; as usual, the nominal position is off in RA). Malcolm's idea is given added support when we look at Bigourdan's attempts to find NGC 4862 -- he did not find the galaxy on two nights. On the first night, however, he searched at the offset of +10 seconds and +4 arcmin from the same BD star, and made a specific note that he did so. This is the wrong direction, however, so on the second night, he searched at -10 seconds and +4 arcmin. It was on this second night that he "... suspected a trace of nebulosity in the neighborhood of a star, magnitude 13.4, located at ..." the offsets noted above. Since he had his offsets confused for one night, it seems reasonable that he might have done the same the second. In any event, reversing the sign of his estimated RA offset puts his suspected object within an arcminute of NGC 4862. Thus, the identity is reasonable, so I've adopted it. ===== IC 4005 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4006 is a star with a defect superposed. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4008 is a double star (or a star plus a fainter, compact galaxy) confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4009 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4010 is a galaxy 1.2 arcminute south of its listed position. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4013 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4015 and IC 4016, an interacting pair of galaxies, together make up NGC 4893. The NGC position is off enough that Wolf misidentified a defect as the NGC object, and listed both IC objects as new nebulae. Both galaxies, and the defect, are marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4016. See IC 4015. ===== IC 4018. My first sweep over this had it as a galaxy with a star superposed. Then, I took a second look at it and concluded that it was just two stars. However, during the IC NED load in 2005, I found that the northern "star" is a 2MASS extended source as well as a MAPS galaxy. So, looking at DSS2, and comparing it with the print of the original plate, it is clear that the IC object is a galaxy with a star about 25 arcsec to the southeast. I suspect I had the wrong objects on the POSS1 prints the first time around, and misinterpreted the overexposed images the second time around. I hope I have it right now -- spectra of these things will tell. ===== IC 4019 is a double star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf's "* 14 att nf" is a defect. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4022 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4024 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4035 is actually a pair of galaxies. They are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate. ===== IC 4036 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4046 is a star. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4050 is a double star. Wolf's description notes this as a possibility. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4051. Malcolm has pointed out that the identification of this and NGC 4908 (which see for the details) may be switched in most catalogues and lists. I somewhat reluctantly agree with him and have made the switch. This is going to cause a bit of chaos, I'm afraid, but there it is. Note that this is likely to be one of WH's galaxies, too -- H. III. 363. Dreyer changed the identification from NGC 4894 in a note in the Scientific Papers. He points out (indirectly) that JH changed the identification for the GC. In his 1833 list, JH has h1510 as a "nova", while in GC, he equates it with III. 363. Dreyer almost certainly has even h1510 on the wrong NGC number; see NGC 4864 for the story. ===== IC 4052 is a blended double star, not a single star as I had first suggested. The correct object is marked on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. ===== IC 4053 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. Wolf has a question mark on this object in his list, and notes it as one of several "eF Neb" in a chain. There are two other objects nearby: IC 4054 is a star, but there is no mark on the plate for the second neighbor, IC 4055 (which see). See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4054 is a star, confirmed on a print of the original plate. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4055 is probably a defect on the original plate. Unfortunately, no trace of Wolf's ink mark remains -- if there ever was one -- and he has this with a question mark in his list. IC 4053 (which see) and IC 4054, both stars, both clearly marked, flank this object if Wolf's position is accurate. It is possible that there is another object marked on the plate, and that Wolf's position is the result of a reduction error. See IC 3636 for more about the discovery plate. ===== IC 4056 has a star superposed 10 arcsec south of the nucleus. The galaxy and the star are merged into one image on a print of the original Bruce 16-inch refractor plate which Wolf examined. Presumeably, they are also merged on the orginal plate, accounting for Wolf's description "exc" -- eccentric. ===== IC 4057 is a star, perhaps blended with a compact group of galaxies just 10-25 arcsec north. Wolf's position, however, is that of the star, and the image on the print of the original plate is not clear enough to show whether t