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. ====