IC 5000 = NGC 6901. Since Marth's position for N6901 (which see) is off, Bigourdan did not find it at the NGC place. Near that place, however, he did find a nebula that he entered as B335 in his list of novae. Dreyer listed this as IC 5000 in the second IC. In fact, there is only one galaxy in the area, and Marth's and Bigourdan's descriptions make it clear that they both saw this same galaxy. My supposition in RC2 that this object is also = IC 1316 is incorrect; Bigourdan "saw" both IC 1316 (which see) and IC 5000 on the same nights. He also measured a star which he took to be N6901 (which see) on those same nights. ===== IC 5003 = IC 5029 = IC 5039 = IC 5046 and IC 5007 = IC 5030 = IC 5041 = IC 5047 are a pair of galaxies found four times by Lewis Swift in the summer of 1897. The first galaxy is positively identified by his descriptions of the nearby star field, while the second is also matched to stars on at least one night and by his relative position from the first (with a 10 arcmin error in the declination in the case of IC 5030) on three others. The RA's are off by various amounts up to 18 minutes of time. Here are the messy details. On 9 June, Swift found two nebulae (I5046 and I5047) in the area, and noted three stars nearby. The stars near I5046 are described, "eeF * and vF * near sf, point to it." For I5047, "8 mag * 31 arcmin n." All three stars are just where Swift puts them, so the identities are secure. Swift's positions are about 1.5 minutes of time too large, and 3.5 arcmin too far south. These two appeared in Swift's 11th list. Swift again swept the area on 26 July. This time, he noted just the accompanying stars near I5030, "F * with dist. com. nr sf, point to it." This, too, is an exact description, but his positions are over 3 minutes of time too small, and his declination for I5029 10 arcmin too far south. Swift published these in his 12th list. Back to his 11th list, Swift has three nebulae found on 29 August. He notes for the first of the three that "2 F sts near nf point to it." His description of the second nebula includes the note, "Near p * of sev curved." He mentions no stars near the third nebula. Herbert Howe has a long note about these three in his paper in MN 60, 29, 1900. Here, he states that he has found only two nebulae in the area, and he speculates that -- because Swift's descriptions of the first two apply equally well to the first of his (Howe's) nebulae -- Swift's first and second objects are probably the same. Howe's description of the field is exact, so perhaps Swift got the date wrong on one object, or he made some other error, perhaps the result of a lapse in memory. Finally, on 8 September 1897, Swift again recorded two nebulae (I5003 and I5007). These appear as the 18th and 19th of his 12th list, and Swift has the field described as follows: I5003, "2 sts near sf point to it; sp of 2" and I5007, "bet 2 groups of B sts sf and np; nf of 2." Again, these are accurate descriptions. Here, his declinations are also accurate being within a minute of the true decs -- but his RA's are 18 minutes of time too small. Were it not for the RA's of I4946 and I4948 (which Swift found just three nights later on the 11th) also being 18 minutes too small, I would find such large errors hard to believe. I am guessing here, but I suspect that Swift zeroed his telescope on the same wrong star on both nights. If Howe is correct that Swift recorded the same nebula twice in the same night, then it is also clear that Swift recorded this same object five different times as a "nova," and its companion four different times. I know of no other object with as many independent discoveries by the same observer, and announced as different objects. ESO, by the way, suggested that the numbers I5003 and I5007 applied to a star, and also speculated that I5004 applied to the same star, though with a 1 degree error in Dec. But Andris Lauberts did not have Swift's lists in front of him when he went over the ESO plates. In any event, there are only two galaxies in the field, and it is clear that Swift saw them both on at least four occasions that summer. It's also clear that by this time of his life (he was 77 years old in 1897), his visual memory was failing badly. Also, his 11th and 12th lists of nebulae are thoroughly comingled as far as discovery dates are concerned, so his record keeping skills were also in decline. But he persevered for another year -- he found his last nebulae in the waning months of 1898. ===== IC 5004 = NGC 6923. Swift found this galaxy in July of 1897. As with other nebulae found that summer (see e.g. I4946 and I5003), his declination and description are appropriate, but his RA is off, in this case by 6 minutes of time. John Herschel's position and description for N6923 are good. ESO speculates that the IC number applies to the same object (a star) as I5003, but with a 1 degree error in declination. This is unlikely as Lauberts did not have Swift's papers, with the extensive descriptions of the star fields, in hand. ===== IC 5006 is a double star. Kobold found it on 23 Sept 1895, the second night he observed NGC 6906. The star about 20 arcsec northwest may be a part of the asterism, too, as Kobold noted "* 14 in F, vS, R neb." The fact that Kobold saw the two objects on the same night means that they cannot be the same. Also, his micrometric observations are unambiguous about which objects he measured. The double is pinned down exactly. ===== IC 5007. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5011 = IC 5013. These two objects, both found by Swift in the summer of 1897 (but on different nights: 25 July and 29 August, respectively) from Echo Mountain, are the 193rd and 194th in his big 11th list of new nebulae in AN. There is, however, nothing in the position for IC 5011. Because the descriptions are similar -- "pB, vS, eE" for I5011 and "eeS, eE in meridian; curious object" for I5013 -- I am pretty sure that Swift dug out the same galaxy. In that case, I5011 has a 1 minute 18 second of time error in its RA, while I5013 is only 8 seconds off. Both declinations are within an arcminute of reality. Swift does not say what makes I5013 a "curious object", and that phrase does not occur in any of the three papers where Swift published his third Echo Mountain list (where these two are the 15th and 16th entries). The galaxy's PA is around 5 degrees, and it is seen by us as nearly edgewise, so matches Swift's descriptions. Two of the companions are quite faint so would not have been seen by Swift, but the third to the southeast is bright enough that it might have been visible under good conditions. Perhaps this is the "curious" aspect of Swift's observation. ===== IC 5013 = IC 5011, which see. ===== IC 5015 may well be NGC 6925. The description fits ("pB, pS, R, nearly bet 2 sts with dist. companion" -- though I am puzzled about "with dist. companion") but Swift's position is well off. However, this is not unusual for the objects that he found during the summer of 1897 (see e.g. I4946 and I5003). Since N6925 is the only galaxy anywhere near Swift's place, it could well be his object. I've adopted the identification, though with a colon. ESO made the object a star, but that does not match Swift's description. ===== IC 5018. See IC 4998. ===== IC 5029. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5030. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5039. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5041. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5046. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5047. See IC 5003. ===== IC 5056 is probably a plate defect. It was the only new nebula that Stewart found on the one-hour Bruce plate (no. 3836) on which it appears. He calls it "F, cL, eE at 150 deg, no * N". There are no spindle galaxies within several degrees matching that description. ESO-B and Wolfgang Steinicke picked a galaxy at 20 45 58, -39 24.6 (ESO 341- IG016), but this is not "eE", it has the wrong PA, and it also has a stellar nucleus. All of these comments also apply to a galaxy at 20 45 14, -39 02.5 that I suggested during my work on SGC. So, probably a plate defect. ===== IC 5057. This is a star superimposed on the NGC 6962 group. Bigourdan's position is exact, and his descriptions on two nights note the neighboring star south-southwest 1.5 arcmin away. See the discussion under NGC 6962 for more about the field. ===== IC 5058 = NGC 6965, which see. Also see NGC 6962 for a discussion of the field and the galaxy group here. ===== IC 5061 is a triple star. As with IC 5057, Bigourdan's position is accurate, as are his descriptions of the neighboring starfield. Both objects are identified with certainty. Curiously, Bigourdan twice published another new "nebula" in this area, Big 437 = Big 547. Even though Dreyer included Bigourdan's 436th, 438th, and 439th "novae" in IC2 (= I5057, 58, and 61, respectively), he skipped this one. I don't know why he skipped it, but this prevented another star from being included in the second IC. See the discussion under NGC 6962 for more about this field. ===== IC 5062 is a double star. Bigourdan's position corresponds to RA of the southwestern star and the Dec of the northeastern. His description mentions the 13th magnitude star one arcmin west-northwest, so the identification is secure. This is not a reobservation of NGC 6968 as some have supposed. Bigourdan saw and measured both objects on the night of 7 October 1891. ===== IC 5067, 5068, and 5070 are three of the seven nebulae found by The Reverend Thomas Espin in 1899 and announced in AN No. 3633, 1900. These three are all in Cygnus near the "North American Nebula" (NGC 7000, which see) and may be part of the same complex of reflecting nebulae. Espin's position for IC 5067 falls on a nondescript area of sky with nothing obviously eyecatching that might be his object. IC 5068, however, is apparently a large (35 arcmin by 25 arcmin), diamond-shaped patch of nebulosity centered about 35 seconds east and 4 arcmin south of Espin's place. His position, though, is still well within the nebulosity (the brightest patch of this nebulosity is at 20 49 19, +42 26.1 for B1950.0). For IC 5070, Espin's position falls very close to the brightest strands of the nebulosity. This makes me suspect that he actually saw the large (35 arcmin by 18 arcmin) patch of nebulosity to the northwest of I5068. Its RA is 16 seconds off Espin's for I5067, but the declination is 1 deg, 25 arcmin south of his nominal declination. As with IC 5068, its brightest patch is off the center at 20 45 19, +42 47.4 for B1950.0. The relative brightnesses of the three nebulae, however, matches Espin's descriptions: "faint" for I5067, "very faint" for I5068, and "faint and diffused" for I5070. These words, by the way, are all that Espin has to say about the nebulae aside from their positions and discovery dates. Had he given us some indication of their sizes, we might be able to better pin them down. So, I've tentatively identified IC 5067 with the nebulosity northwest of IC 5068. This may not be correct, but there is nothing else in the area that fits as well. ===== IC 5068. See IC 5067. ===== IC 5070, the "Pelican Nebula", west of the "North American Nebula" (NGC 7000, which see). Of the three nebulae in the area found by Espin, this is the only one for which the position is good. See IC 5067 for the story. ===== IC 5076 is a fairly small (6 arcmin by 6 arcmin) diffuse nebula west of a bright star. Roberts's position is just east of the star, but as there is nothing else nearby matching his description, I've taken the nebula as the one he found. ===== IC 5079 may be, but is probably not, the star that I've listed in the Table. Innes found his object on 26 Nov 1897 with a 7-inch refractor in Cape Town, and described it as "Equal to a 9.7 mag star, elongated 15 arcsec; perhaps a small group of stars or a ring nebula." Unfortunately, his position is a "Circle reading", given to only full minutes of time and arc. There is nothing obvious near his position, though the star I've listed has one or two faint companions that might have lent a look of nebulosity to it. AC2000.2 has the B-magnitude as 12.6, though -- even allowing for an approximate visual scale, this is a long way from "9.7 mag". I'm doubtful. ===== IC 5082 = NGC 7010, which see. ===== IC 5086 is probably ESO 464-G025. This would make Swift's position 1 minute of time too small, and 16 arcmin too far south. However, his description of the object "eeF, pS, R; F* near f 90deg" is appropriate. In particular, the "F* near f 90deg" is there. Given the bum position, the identity is not a sure thing -- but given the matching description, it's pretty close. ===== IC 5089. Barnard notes a star 30 arcsec south-preceding; the star is actually north-following. There is another fainter star just west of the galaxy. ===== IC 5097 is probably the quadruple star I've listed in the table. Bigourdan has only a single estimated position: position angle = 140 degrees, distance = 3 arcmin from NGC 7045 (which is a double star; see that for more). Since there are a lot of stars in the area, I'm not sure which object he actually saw. However, the quadruple is certainly an obvious choice. Malcolm, however, takes a double star (the western star is very faint) closer to Bigourdan's nominal position. I don't think this is the correct object because of the imprecision of Bigourdan's observation. Had he specified the distance to a tenth of an arcminute, I might be more inclined to take the position literally. As is, however, the position is crude, and we have some leeway to choose a more nebulous looking asterism. ===== IC 5098 is probably the double star I've listed in my table. See the discussion for I5097 for the reasons I take this double rather than some of the other stars nearer Bigourdan's nominal position. He gave the estimated position for this object only in the description for IC 5097 -- it is at position angle = 100 degrees, distance 2.5 arcmin from NGC 7045. With such a crude estimate, we have considerable latitude in choosing which star Bigourdan might have seen. So, this identification is also uncertain. ===== IC 5112 and IC 5113. Found by Bigourdan near the nominal position of NGC 7074 (which see), these are both either single stars or asterisms of faint stars. Bigourdan has only one micrometric observation for each of these, and neither position points directly to anything on the sky. However, his position for I5112 is 12 arcsec south of a faint star, and his position for I5113 is about the same distance northeast of another faint (though brighter) star. In both cases, there are very faint galaxies (16th and 17th magnitude) just over an arcminute from the nominal positions, but Bigourdan could probably not have seen these with his 30-cm refractor. Nevertheless, I've listed the galaxies as well as the stars in the position table. Here is another case where visual confirmation would be useful. ===== IC 5113. See IC 5112. ===== IC 5114 = NGC 7091. Swift's RA is 2 minutes too small, and his declination 3.5 arcmin too far south. But his description "eF, pS, R; e wide D* f 30 sec" fits the galaxy provided one takes some liberty with his note "e wide D* f 30 sec". The "e wide" means 20 seconds of time, and "f 30 sec" is more like 50 sec (on average; the first star is actually about 40 seconds following). If we're willing to accept this, as I am, then the identity is pretty sure. Also see NGC 7091 for a story of its own. JH didn't get the galaxy right, either. ===== IC 5121 = NGC 7096. There is nothing in the place of I5121, so it is likely that Frost made an error of 30 arcmin in his declination (read -64 21, instead of -64 51). Significantly, he did not include NGC 7096 in his table of nebulae, though all the other NGC and IC1 objects that he found are listed. Nor did he mention N7096 as one of the objects that he could NOT find. So, its complete omission supports the idea that I5121 is in fact N7096. The descriptions of the objects are also similar. JH has "vF, S, R, 12 arcsec; has a vS ** nf, near," and Frost simply says "Plan., magn. 13" (Dreyer added "stellar" to the NGC description; that is not in Frost's table). As far as I can tell, Andris Lauberts is the first to have pointed out the equality. I must have picked up the identity for SGC from there as I do not have it noted in the SGC workbook. ===== IC 5126. Javelle misidentified his comparison star, so the galaxy's position in his list and in IC2 is about a degree north of the true position. His offsets are exact, however, as is his description, including the note "between 2 sts 14." ===== IC 5127 is probably identical to NGC 7102. Bigourdan's position is just five seconds of time too large, and his description is appropriate. However, he dates his three measurements to the same night on which he made three measurements of NGC 7102 (these reduce to the correct position). Since I've not yet found Bigourdan's error -- if there is one -- I'm not prepared to say for sure that the two objects are identical. However, it seems likely. See IC 2120 for a case where we are sure that Bigourdan saw the same object on the same night, yet apparently thought that it was a nebula once and a comet the other time! One curious thing while I'm here: Bigourdan's comparison star for NGC 7102 (BD +5 4840) is almost exactly at its BD position, while that for IC 5127 (BD +5 4837) is nearly 4 arcmin away, as large an error as I've seen in the BD. Was this really the star that Bigourdan used? I don't see anything on the POSS1 prints that might be the star/galaxy pair matching Bigourdan's measurements (the galaxy being -3.83 seconds and -5 arcmin 44.0 arcsec from the star). So, a mystery. But probably identical. But I'd certainly like to know what went on that evening in the western dome of the Obs. de Paris. ===== IC 5132 and IC 5133 are two stars embedded in very faint nebulosity. Roberts's positions are 2-3 arcmin southwest of the stars, but his relative position between the two objects is good. Neither object is in the papers cited by Dreyer in the IC2 introduction, and I've not found them in another of Roberts's papers of which I have a copy. Nevertheless, I'm pretty sure that the two nebulous stars I've chosen are the correct ones. ===== IC 5133. See IC 5132. ===== IC 5134 is the part of NGC 7129 (which see) surrounding BD +65 1638. Bigourdan saw this only one night in October 1895. On two other nights in 1884 and 1889, he used this star as his comparison star for another patch of nebulosity which he called NGC 7129. As is clear from the Herschel's descriptions, however, the entire complex, at least 3 arcmin across enveloping three bright stars, comprises NGC 7129. ===== IC 5135 = NGC 7130 (which see). This is one of the identifications that Andris and I made during our southern surveys. JH's position is 30 arcmin off, and that for I5135 was rescued by Herbert Howe -- who also measured an accurate position for it -- from amongst the rubble of Swift's last two lists of "novae". In this case, Swift's position is actually not too bad. His note "sp of 2" and position place it southwest of NGC 7135. Of course, Swift called that the "nf of 2", thinking that it too was a new object. For more on that, see I5136. ===== IC 5136 is probably NGC 7135. Swift picked up I5136 on 15 September 1897, during his penultimate summer of observing. His positions from that time are notoriously bad (see I5003 for more on this). This one is no exception; there is nothing at all near his nominal position. However, NGC 7135 is about 55 seconds following and 1 degree, 14 arcmin south (this is not sounding good at all, is it). But Swift's description fits, particularly that of the star field around the galaxy. Here is what he has to say, in full: "eeF, S, R; wide D* points to it, sev pB sts sf and np." The wide double is a few arcmin to the southeast and is among the "sev pB sts sf". Were it not for the really bad position, off in both RA and Dec, I'd have little hesitation in declaring this a solid identification. As it is, I've put a question mark on it. Swift apparently saw N7135 again just two nights later. It appears in his big 11th list as number 209 which Howe (and Dreyer after him) applied to N7135. In any case, it is positively identified by Swift's note "3 B sts [p] form a triangle". The "p" comes from Swift's fourth list of Lowe Observatory "novae" published in Popular Astronomy, Monthly Notices, and PASP; that single letter did not make it into the eleventh list in AN, but the stars are so striking on the southern sky survey that anyone with just the eleventh list would know instantly which galaxy Swift had seen. ===== IC 5137 is most likely a defect on the original Bruce plate. Stewart marked it "susp"[ected], so it appears only on plate 4604. Since there are only very faint galaxies near his nominal position, Stewart's object is most likely just a defect. ===== IC 5143 = NGC 7155. This is one of the most southerly of any of the nebulae found by Swift. This may account for the large error in declination (25 arcmin), though the error may simply be a 30 arcmin circle reading error, combined with the usual uncertainty. The declination, by the way, has the same value in all four lists in which Swift published this object (MN 58, 18, 1897; PASP 9, 224, 1897; Pop. Astron. 5, 427, 1897; and AN 147, 209, 1898 = No. 3517). In any case, the identity with NGC 7155 is secured by Swift's note about the field stars: "... in line with 2 9m sts sf; 7m * sf." The three stars are there. ESO's suggested galaxy is much too faint, and though SGC's double star is considerably brighter and near Swift's nominal position, there are no bright stars to the southeast. ===== IC 5144 is the southwestern of two nebulae found by Barnard (the second is IC 5145 with which there are no identification problems). Their positions and descriptions were not published before IC2 appeared, but were apparently sent directly to Dreyer. Since the position for I5144 falls on a blank area of sky, though near a group of galaxies, it is a very good thing that Barnard gave us a note about the surrounding star field: "F, S, sev F sts close f". This positively identifies I5144 as the brightest galaxy in a group of six or seven -- it has a jagged line of four stars just to the southeast. The galaxy itself is peculiar, high surface brightness, compact system with a dust lane crossing its southern half; and with a distorted spiral companion (or peculiar triple system?) just west. Barnard's relative position between the galaxies is pretty good, too, so knowing the identity of I5145, we can be sure of I5144 even without his note about the stars. Unfortunately, the modern catalogues do not all pick up the same objects in the group. CGCG got I5144 and another galaxy just east-northeast, while MCG made that second CGCG galaxy I5144 (though put a question mark on the number). MCG also picked up a larger spiral to the east-southeast, UGC 11845 (UGC has I5144 in the Notes). These are all close enough that both NED and PGC initially got confused over the identities. Chantal Petit sorted out LEDA some time ago, and I've cleaned up NED, so the current (June 2003) versions of the databases are correct. ===== IC 5145 is the northeastern of two of Barnard's nebulae (see IC 5144 for more about them). Even though his position for it is not very good, and even though he gave no description for it, there are no other galaxies near it, so its identification is unmistakeable. ===== IC 5148 = IC 5150. Found first by W. Gale in June of 1894, it was correctly described by him (in AN 3426) as a "... ring nebula, almost circular, 1.5'+- in diameter; the center is not completely free of nebulosity." He credits the description to "Mr. Baracchi, Director of the Melbourne Observatory," who examined the object with the 48-inch Melbourne reflector, then one of the largest telescopes in the world. Swift rediscovered the planetary in July of 1897, and correctly described its location relative to two nearby stars, one of which is just off the edge of the annulus to the south-west. So, there is no doubt that the two numbers refer to the same object. Swift's position is, as usual, not particularly good, and neither is Gale's. In spite of its large quoted standard deviation, the GSC position is very close to the central star. ===== IC 5149 = ESO 466-G027 = MCG -05-51-033. Though Swift's position is typically bad, he notes that a "6.5 mag star same parallel follows 63 seconds." This positively identifies the galaxy as ESO 466-G027 rather than the somewhat brighter (but more distant) ESO 466-G024. ===== IC 5150 = IC 5148, which see. ===== IC 5153 is certainly the star, perhaps mixed with a bit of the galaxy's light, too, that I've listed in the table. Bigourdan's single estimated position is just a dozen or so arcsec south of the pair. ===== IC 5155 is a double star. Bigourdan's measured position falls between the two stars, though his estimated position angle toward a neighboring 13th mag star is wrong -- I make it 185 degrees rather than 95 degrees. ===== IC 5159 is a single star. Bigourdan measured it five times, so his position is within a few arcsec of the modern position. ===== IC 5163, IC 5164, and IC 5166 are all single stars or, in the case of I5163, an asterism, near the nominal position for NGC 7210. Bigourdan actually found four objects here that he thought nebulous, but only three ended up in his list of "novae" and thus in the 2nd IC. The fourth (which he called "NGC 7210B" in his table) has only a single observation, while the others have two each. However, IC 5163 is a curious case. Bigourdan's two observations of this object fall about 25 arcsec apart. He was not sure that they were the same object, speculated that they might be, but gave them separate numbers in his list of "novae". Dreyer combined them in the IC under the single number. I wonder if he asked Bigourdan about this. It turns out that Bigourdan's observations refer to different parts of a line of three stars about an arcminute long. The first observation is closer to the northeastern of the stars, while the second is nearly on the middle star. This middle star has a companion much closer to the southwest than the northern, so is reasonably taken as a double star on the POSS/DSS. ===== IC 5164 is a star. See IC 5163 for the story. ===== IC 5166 is a star. See IC 5163 for the story. ===== IC 5167 is a star, even though a fainter double star is closer to his nominal position. Bigourdan managed to make two measurements of a position angle, but not a distance, to his comparison star before being clouded out. So, his position is only approximate. However, he also noted a neighboring star about 2 arcmin to the northwest. This star unmistakeably identifies the star to which the IC number applies. The double star is too faint for Bigourdan to have seen in any case. ===== IC 5179 = IC 5183 = IC 5184. As with IC 5003 and its synonyms (which see), Swift swept up this galaxy on three different nights in the summer of 1897, his last full summer of searching for nebulae. One of those nights, 26 July, is, perhaps not coincidentally, one of the nights on which he saw IC 5003. He picked up this galaxy first on 19 July, giving it a position of 22 12 32, -37 07.5 (precessed to 1950.0) and describing it as "pF, pS, lE, bet 2 sts in meridian, 8 1/2m * sp, np of 2". The "sf" is IC 5186, which also see. I immediately suspected problems since he placed IC 5186 at 22 13 22, -37 05.5 for 1950.0, north following, not south as Swift states. There is nothing at his position for I5184 (as this observation eventually became). On 26 July, he found a nebula at 22 10 22, -37 07.7. This one he described as "vF, L, R, * close S, B * sp". Finally, on the 20th of September, he has another nebula at 22 12 26, -36 05.5: "pB, C, [sic] S, F * in contact sf, sev pB sts form segment of large circle." These became I5184 and I5179; like I5183, there is nothing at Swift's position. However, at 22 13 13, -37 05.6, is a large, bright galaxy between two stars almost on a north-south line with it, with a brighter star to the southwest, and inside a nearly complete circle of stars. While Swift mentions only some of the stars in each description, it's clear that the galaxy can match all of his descriptions with very little forcing. The positions are typical of his last year or two of observing: full of large accidental errors, and also filled with digit errors. By this time, Swift was 77 years old, and I suspect he was getting tired of trekking up and down his observing ladder to read the setting circles of his 16-inch refractor. It's also possible that his eyesight was beginning to fail, too. We know from the obituaries that he did go blind in his old age. In any event, the positions can all be more or less reconciled with the true position of the galaxy with digit errors, though a large helping of random error is needed here and there, too. What about IC 5186, "south-following of two"? Swift found it on 19 July along with the I5184 observation. Remarkably, he makes its position 22 13 22, -37 05.5, within 9 seconds of time of the brighter galaxy. His description, though, rules it out as a second observation of the same object on the same night: "eeF, S, R, F * nr p, * 8 np". The stars are there, so this fits a fainter galaxy at 22 15 51, -37 03.1, rather far -- but not uniquely -- to be called the "sf of 2". Still, it is the only other galaxy in the area bright enough to have been easily seen by Swift. ===== IC 5186. See IC 5179 = IC 5183 = IC 5184 for the full story. Briefly, it looks like Swift's RA is 2m 35s out, but the galaxy can be recovered by his description of the star field around it. Coincidentally, Swift's published position is close to the real position for IC 5179. This galaxy was also picked up by Delisle Stewart on a Harvard plate, so "D.S." is included by Dreyer as one of its discoverers. Stewart should really be credited with the discovery of I5179 et al as that is the galaxy that he found on his plate. ===== IC 5189 is a star without nebulosity. Bigourdan has only a single observation of this, but his position is good. ===== IC 5191, IC 5192, and IC 5193. These are three nebulae credited to Barnard (in AN 4136). Dreyer did not give individual positions to them as Barnard did not provide them, either. Instead, Barnard merely published a sketch of six nebulae (two being NGC 7240 and N7242, four being "new") along with the claim that he made the observations in 1888. Dreyer, realizing that IC 1441 must be among the six, only listed three as new. One other new object was found here by Bigourdan, and this has received the number IC 5195 (which see). To sort out which numbers apply to which objects here, we need to identify the previously known nebulae. The two NGC objects are no problem, nor are Bigourdan's two "novae" (IC 1441 and IC 5195). Having pinned these down, and noting that IC 5195 was not seen by Barnard, we are left with the other three objects in Barnard's sketch. I've assigned the three IC numbers as Dreyer would have, in RA order. The only remaining question concerns the nature of IC 5192. On the Palomar Sky Survey, it looks like three or four faint stars plus a galaxy (MCG calls it a "group"). The less deeply exposed CCD image in John Vicker's northern Deep Space CCD Atlas also suggests that the object is a galaxy surrounded by three or four stars. Steve Gottlieb's observation of the group confirms this, so I'm inclined at the moment to say that IC 5192 is a galaxy plus the stars (Barnard's sketch shows only a nebula in this position). ===== IC 5192. See IC 5191. ===== IC 5193. See IC 5191. ===== IC 5194 does not exist. Bigourdan saw the object on one night in October of 1894 while searching for NGC 7246. He has one measurement of it, and his description reads (in rough translation), "Extremely faint object which I could not recover after the first pointing." He never saw it again, though he tried once more in October of 1898. There is nothing at all in his place, not even a faint star. See IC 5198 for more. ===== IC 5195. The NGC description placing this "0.5' s N7242" is wrong. Bigourdan states explicitly in his description "toward PA = 45 deg, d = 0.5' with respect to N7242" and his offsets from N7242's position are consistent with this. This points directly to the compact galaxy north-following N7242, and not to the star south-following as the true IC 5195. One other curious note about this object: it is IV Zw 90 and is placed by Zwicky just where Bigourdan places it. Zwicky gives a redshift for it in his catalogue of compacts, but the redshift in fact belongs to NGC 7242. This is clear not only in Humason's list in HMS, but also on the back of Zwicky's original finding chart where he describes the object: "Neutral spherical compact 25 arcsec NE of NGC 7242 [m_p = 14.6, V_s = +5684 km/sec] m_p = 16.4 (not in CAT)" ("CAT" is Zwicky's personal short reference to the CGCG). ===== IC 5198 = NGC 7246. Malcolm Thomson has sorted this one out. Bigourdan made several errors in his search for N7246 (which is just where the Herschels saw it), the first of which was to search half a degree too far south. Thus, his not finding N7246 is not surprising. Casting about the area, however, he came across two other objects, one of which (IC 5194, which see) does not exist. He has eight measurements of the other (I5198) with respect to two "anonymous" stars. Unfortunately, neither of his comparison stars is where he says they are: 10 seconds preceding, 21.5 arcmin north; and 17 seconds following, 15.5 arcmin north of BD -16 6057. Malcolm noticed, however, that there are stars matching Bigourdan's estimated magnitudes (9-10 and 11.5, respectively) at the same RA offsets but at 27.5 arcmin and 24.5 arcmin north of the BD star. Applying Bigourdan's measurements of IC 5198 to these stars points to within an arcsecond of NGC 7246. The identity is thus sure, but the errors (6 and 9 arcmin) are unusual. ===== IC 5204 is probably NGC 7300. Swift found it the same night that he found I5228 = N7302, and describes it as "vF, eE, a ray; p of 2." There is nothing within a degree of Swift's position that matches this description. However, we know that IC 5228 is certainly NGC 7302; the positions match to within 10 seconds of time, and there is nothing else nearby that could be Swift's object. His description reads, "pB, pS, R; B * nr s; f of 2." The bright star is there, and this galaxy is the "f of 2" with the preceding object being NGC 7300. Looking at Swift's position for I5204 (22 18 00, -14 39.1 for B1950.0), we see that it is about 10 minutes west and 20 arcmin south of N7300. Given that Swift's description could well apply to the bright inner part of N7300, I'm going to suggest simple digit errors in Swift's position. ===== IC 5214. This may be MCG -05-52-063 six minutes of time west and 7.5 arcmin north -- but is more likely lost. Swift found his object on 26 July 1897, during his last full summer of sweeping up new nebulae at Lowe Observatory. Andris suggested in ESO-B that it might be ESO 467-G047 one minute of time west and 9 arcmin north. But that galaxy is neither round, nor does it have an 8th magnitude star preceding as Swift noted (Swift's full description from his last list reads "eF, pS, R, 8m * p"). The 7.5 arcmin declination difference is enough to make MCG -05-52-063 merely a suggestion, too, hardly worth noting here, let alone in the position table. ===== IC 5216 is lost. Javelle found it on the night of 9 June 1896, and referred it to a 10th magnitude star at 22 17 20.2, -18 51.9 (1860.0). There is nothing at this position. In a footnote, Javelle says that he measured this position with respect to BD -18 6130. This is SAO 165097. Its 1860 position is 3m 8s following, and about 1 arcmin north of the nominal position of the missing comparison star. Searching at these offsets with other signs, I don't find any 10th magnitude stars. Searching for a star-galaxy pair with Javelle's nominal offsets turned into a fruitless exercise, too. None of the (just three) galaxies within two degrees of his position has stars at those offsets. So, I have to conclude that he made some sort of gross error in his position or measurements. Whatever happened, I cannot find IC 5216. ===== IC 5225 = NGC 7294. Leavenworth found the NGC object; he gave it a typically poor RA (2 minutes east of the true position) though an adequate Dec. The object was eventually identified by Howe, who micrometrically measured a very good position (see NGC 7294 for what little more there might be to say about all of that). Swift rediscovered the galaxy about a decade after Leavenworth's observation, and gave it a remarkably detailed description: "eeF, pS, R, between 2 stars; a dozen stars in margin of field following, form semicircle; 4 stars north preceding [form] a curve, one [star] a double; south preceding of two" (the second is IC 5226, which is actually south-following, not north-following as Swift states. See that for more.). This description matches the field around NGC 7294 perfectly, especially keeping in mind that Swift used an eyepiece that gave a field of 32 arcmin across. Swift's RA is 36 seconds too small, a fact that will help us identify I5226. ESO suggested that I5225 might be ESO 533-G039 = MCG -04-53-007, or that it might be ESO 533-G025 = MCG -04-52-045. The positions are further off, and the fields around these galaxies do not match Swift's description. ===== IC 5226 is ESO 533- G045 = MCG -04-53-010. Swift found this the same night as he did I5225 = N7294. Though his positions by this time in his life are so bad that it is almost impossible to identify systematic offsets within one night's observations, this is one case where it works: his RA's for this and for I5225 are off in the same direction and by similar amounts (36 seconds for I5225, and 48 seconds for this). This also means that his declination is exactly one degree too far north. But when his position is corrected, we find a galaxy that matches his description ("eeeF, pL, R, no * nr") very well. However, Swift apparently based his additional comment "nf of 2" on his written positions because the galaxy is actually the "sf of 2." In any event, the identification is reasonably secure. ===== IC 5228 = NGC 7302. The identity is certain. See IC 5204 for the story. ===== IC 5237 = NGC 7361. Even though Swift calls this "eeeF, eeeS, eeeE, eee dif", he adds "... a line. 8m * np." These comments make the identification with N7361 almost certain, even though Swift's RA is nearly 2.5 minutes of time too small. JH also has a two minute error in the RA, but that is clearly a digit error; see the note for N7361 for the story. ===== IC 5239. There is a 10 minute of time digit error in Swift's RA -- it is too large. The galaxy, ESO 345-G017, matches his description "vF, pS, R" pretty well. It is also the only galaxy in the area that he could have seen. Another double galaxy sometimes mistaken as I5239, ESO 345-IG038, while closer to the nominal position, is much too faint to have been seen by Swift. Its combined R magnitude is only 16.0, while that for 345-G017 is 13.4, well within range of Swift's 16-inch on Echo Mountain. ===== IC 5248. There is nothing in Bigourdan's place (derived from two measurements on 30 Oct 1891), not even a faint star. I checked the usual possibilities of wrong signs and misidentified comparison stars, but nothing worked. There is in fact one wrong sign in his table, but it is on the declination offset of just one measurement -- the other declination offset is correct. Finally, Bigourdan's comparison star is claimed to be BD -01 4344; that is also the "base" star for his measurement of NGC 7364 for which he used another nearer star, but gave approximate offsets to that one from the BD star. That trail led directly to the NGC object, so the BD number is correct. So, once again, Bigourdan seems to have pushed his eyes too far, and picked up random intraocular fluctuations as a result. This set is a bit unusual as it persisted long enough to be measured twice. ===== IC 5251 is a triple star. Bigourdan has only one estimated position for this, but it is fairly close to the triple (22 42 40, +10 54.0 for B1950.0), and the identification is not in doubt. Carlson has this listed as a single star, but the IC position is close to the triple, too, so I'm not at all sure why the Mt. Wilson folks called it a single star. ===== IC 5255, 5259, and 5268 are three objects found by Barnard, and not otherwise published. Unfortunately, some large error affects his positions, and I've been able to recover only I5259 with confidence. Its description reads "Neb; D * 9.5 f 2 arcmin". The double star clearly identifies CGCG 515-011 as Barnard's nebula -- it is 2.5 minutes of time east, and 2.5 arcmin south of the position in IC2. Unfortunately, applying the same offset to the other two objects yeilds no galaxies or asterisms. Looking over the field, though, I wonder if CGCG 515-013 might not be IC 5255, and NGC 7440 IC 5268. But these are wild guesses, and I do not even feel confident enough about them to put them into the table. I don't see anything else here, though perhaps I've missed something. So, one out of three. All right for baseball, but not galaxies. ===== IC 5259 is CGCG 515-011. It is clearly identified by Barnard's description: "Neb; D * 9.5 f 2 arcmin", even though the position is 2.5 minutes in RA, and 2.5 arcmin in Dec, off. See IC 5255 for more. ===== IC 5260 is probably NGC 7404. If so, Swift's position is +20 seconds, and +2 degrees in error, and his description, including the "9m * nr sp" is accurate. Given that no other galaxy closer to his nominal position fits as well, I'm going to adopt the identity. ===== IC 5262 is the brighter of an interacting double galaxy positively identified by Swift's notes "bet a * p and a wide D nf, 8m * f". However, he calls it the "np of 2" without listing a "sf of 2" object in either table where he published this. The closest object that he could mean in his lists is IC 5271 which is actually northeast of I5262. Swift probably meant to say "sp of 2" for I5262. ===== IC 5264 is not, in spite of a note to the contrary in one of the Helwan publications, lost. It is a perfectly good galaxy southwest of IC 1459 = IC 5265 (both of which see). Swift's position is not too good, it's true, but his description "vF, S, eeE, a ray sp of below stars; sp of 2" points right at it once we realize that the "below stars" are those described in the IC 5265 notes. One curiosity: in his 11th list in AN, where Swift combined all of the lists of nebulae found by him at Lowe Observatory in Southern California, he has the discovery dates of IC 5264 and IC 5265 as different: 10 June 1896 and 16 June 1896, respectively. In the first list, published separately in both AJ and PASP, he has the discovery date for both as 2 September 1896. It may be possible that he found one of the galaxies while overlooking the other, but I find it hard to believe that he overlooked the brighter (by far!) while seeing the fainter. ===== IC 5265 = IC 1459. Swift himself first suggested this identity, but Dreyer instead chose N7418 (about half a degree on further south) as being the correct identification for I5265. Swift, for once, was right. See IC 1459 for more. ===== IC 5268 is probably lost, though it just might be NGC 7440. See IC 5255 for the story. ===== IC 5271. See IC 5262. ===== IC 5275 is a triple star exactly at Javelle's position. There is another star just southeast which may have played a role, also. ===== IC 5278. See IC 5385. ===== IC 5281 is a star (perhaps a merged double on the DSS) exactly identified by Bigourdan's two measurements. He also notes a star (which really is a double) 2.5 arcmin to the east-southeast -- that star is there. ===== IC 5289 may be a ring galaxy similar to NGC 985, or it may be a double or multiple system. The DSS1 image is not quite clear enough to tell. At the moment, I favor the single galaxy interpretation. ===== IC 5290 may also be NGC 7520, which see. ===== IC 5294 = NGC 7552. Swift's RA is only 9 seconds of time off the galaxy, and his declination and description (including the "8m * p") even closer. There is no doubt about the identity, first suggested by de Vaucouleurs. Helwan took Swift at his word, however, and says "Not found" for I5294. ===== IC 5300 itself has no particular identification problems -- it is the brightest of a double system. However, the DSS1 has a defect 10 or 15 arcsec to the east that, at first glance, looks like a multiple interacting system. It had an entry in the position table for a time; my apologies. (For the record, the "position" I measured for the defect is 23 14 07.58, +20 33 25.3 for B1950.0). ===== IC 5303 is a double star -- assuming that it is B351 as well as B350 as noted by Dreyer. B350 is one of seven of Bigourdan's new objects which have no detailed observations given in his tables of differential positions (see IC 532 for more on these seven). He apparently found it on 5 Oct 1891, just about a week after he found B351, for which he does list an observation. Since the positions in his lists of new objects are the same for these two objects, the data probably refer to the same object. In this case, both numbers refer unambiguously to a double star. Interestingly, Bigourdan's description mentions a possible double star in the center of the nebulosity. Many of the "nebulae" that he observed are nothing but stars. Why did he think so many of these faint single and double stars were nebulous? I suspect a slight imperfection in the optics of his telescope, combined with less than perfect seeing. But that is speculation at this point. ===== IC 5305, IC 5306, and IC 5307 were all found by Kobold. Curiously, I5307 was first seen by Bigourdan eight year earlier in 1889, but he mistakenly recorded it as NGC 7594 (which see; he also saw N7594, but thinking it a nova, listed that as a "new" object. Thus, Dreyer gave it an IC number, 1478). Kobold's positions are all good, and pin down the objects that he saw. One of his objects is the northern-most of the line of three "stars" which Ainslie Common mentions in his discovery description for NGC 7594 (the other two really are stars). IC 5306 has a faint companion just north-preceding not seen by the visual observers. As with several similar cases, the precision of Kobold's positions has not prevented the modern catalogues from misidentifying the objects. ===== IC 5306. See IC 5305. ===== IC 5307. See IC 5305. ===== IC 5308 is almost certainly NGC 7599. Swift's position is less than 2 arcmin south of N7599, and his description makes his object the "f of 3" (the preceding two are, of course, NGC 7582 and NGC 7590). I think that he somehow confused the NGC entries for the nebulae in the area and, thinking that N7590 was N7599, added the note "f of 7599." In any event, there is no nebula "f of 7599" that he could have seen. And given that his observation of the galaxies would have been less than fifteen degrees above his horizon -- at best! -- the remainder of his description "eeF, S, cE" would match the central part of N7599 pretty well. As far as I know, Wolfgang was the first to explicitely adopt the equality, though ESO has the note "Part of N7599?" Helwan makes I5308 the double star just southwest of the galaxy, but if this were true, Swift would almost certainly have noted this. ===== IC 5311 is either a double star northeast of Bigourdan's single estimated position, or it is the fainter single star directly south. Unfortunately, the nominal position is between the two, somewhat closer to the fainter star. My guess is that Bigourdan saw the brighter double star (though the companion to the primary star is much fainter than either of the other two in this discussion), but that is all it is. His position is not good enough to tell for sure. It may be that this is another of his "fausses images", but that, too, is a guess. All we can say for sure is that the IC object is not NGC 7625 as that was his reference object. ===== IC 5313 = NGC 7632. Swift found this in August of 1897, just a few months before his last discovery from Echo Mountain. His position is fairly good, being just 14 seconds of time off in RA. The identity with N7632 is assured by Swift's notes about the surrounding stars: "10m * nr sp, 11m * f". He has the 10th magnitude star simply as "south" in the AN list, but correctly notes it "south-preceding" in the Popular Astronomy list. ===== IC 5318 may be NGC 7646, which see. ===== IC 5320 and IC 5322 both have 1 minute of time errors in their RAs -- they are east of IC 5323 and IC 5324 rather than west. The errors occur in Frost's original list in HA 60 as well as in the IC. ===== IC 5322 forms a nice pair with IC 5320, which see. ===== IC 5323. Stewart mentions in a remark that Frost also found this and IC 5324 on a later Harvard plate, but Frost does not give a separate position. Also see IC 5320. ===== IC 5324. See IC 5320 and IC 5323. ===== IC 5327 = IC 1495. There is no question about the identity of IC 1495; Javelle's position, even reduced with respect to the BD position for his comparison star, falls near the galaxy. However, Barnard's position is about 30 seconds of time too small, and almost six arcmin too far south. This is clearly one of Barnard's estimated positions. Unfortunately, this is one of the objects that he apparently sent directly to Dreyer -- I don't find any mention of it in the copies of Barnard's articles that I have. Still, his description, including the 11th magnitude star one arcmin following (actually north-following), fits the galaxy. There are no other galaxies nearby that match the entry better that Barnard could have seen, so this is the most likely candidate. ===== IC 5330. This is one of Bigourdan's more peculiar "novae". He has three observations of it on a single night, two referred to a star at 23 31 04.6, -03 08 25 (B1950; AC2000.2); and one referred to another fainter star at 23 30 56.4, -03 15 48 (again B1950 from AC2000.2). The first two observations point clearly at a faint star that I've included in the table as IC 5330. The final observation falls about 20 arcsec away from an even fainter star that is nearly two arcmin away from the one I've called IC 5330. Bigourdan gives no indication that he knew that the observations were of different objects aside from an enigmatic sentence: "In this area, I suspect other nebulous objects at the extreme limit of visibility." This is a peculiar statement for him to make as there are no galaxies anywhere around brighter than about 17th magnitude, well below his visual limit. I suspect here, as with IC 5311, that "fausses images" are responsible for the "objects" that Bigourdan himself suspected. ===== IC 5333 = NGC 7697, which see. ===== IC 5336 belongs to (perhaps) both objects in a pair of faint galaxies in Abell 2626. The IC position is actually closer to a lower surface brightness galaxy two arcmin south of the pair, but once the position for Javelle's comparison star is corrected, his position falls between the two galaxies. The southeastern of the pair is closer, but Javelle comments that the object is extended along the meridian. This better fits the northwestern galaxy. Since the two galaxies are nearly equal in brightness and size, I'm going to assign the IC number to both. ===== IC 5340 is the result of two discordant observations made by Bigourdan on 2 Dec 1894. They give positions about 30 arcsec apart, neither of which falls near a star or a galaxy. This seems to be another case of Bigourdan's pushing too hard to glimpse an imagined object, or one that was caused by a random pulse of "light" in his visual system. ===== IC 5342. See NGC 7726. ===== IC 5344. While there is a faint star about 35 arcsec southeast of Bigourdan's position (from one micrometric measurement), there is nothing that matches his description. He also notes "This area could be rich in extremely faint nebulae which would need a larger instrument." There are no galaxies in the area that he could even glimpse in his 12-inch refractor, so IC 5344 must be the result of pushing his optics too hard. ===== IC 5348 = NGC 7744. Swift's RA is only 17 seconds of time off, but he and Dreyer missed the identity with N7744. I suspect Dreyer thought that the object was too faint (Swift describes it as "vF" or "eF, eS, R, stellar", while JH description boils down to "cB, S, vlE, svmbM *14" in the NGC. I have to confess that that made me look carefully, too -- and there is nothing else in the area that Swift could have seen. The identity is virtually certain. ===== IC 5350. See IC 5362. ===== IC 5353. See IC 5362. ===== IC 5354. This is the western component of a double galaxy in the cluster Klemola 44 = Abell 4038. ESO picks only the brighter galaxy as the IC object, but given Swift's description "eeF, S, R, 3rd of 5", it could well be both. Howe gives a refined position which points at the brighter galaxy, but has no additional description to help us. Given that Howe almost certainly saw the brighter galaxy, and that he is credited in the IC as a co-discoverer, I don't see any reason not to follow along. ===== IC 5358. See IC 5362. ===== IC 5360 is probably lost, though there are some possibilities (more on those in the next paragraph). Originally found by Swift in September of 1897, he describes it simply as "eeF, cS, R, in vacancy". Unfortunately, there is nothing near his nominal position, and there are about a dozen pretty bright stars scattered around it as well. Possibilities for his object include ESO 349- G011 (which may also be IC 5365, which see), ESO 349- G019, or ESO 408- G012. All these are quite faint for Swift to have seen, and only the first (and faintest) is actually in a "vacancy". Its position is over 9 minutes of time and 3 arcmin off, too. While errors that large are not unprecedented during Swift's final year of observing (see e.g. IC 5003 and Co.), I'm hesitant to declare a match here without a more detailed description of the surrounding star field from Swift. ===== IC 5361 = NGC 7761, which see. ===== IC 5362 = IC 5363, which see. I5362 itself is the last of five nebulae which Swift found on 24 July 1896. The others are I5350, I5353, I5354, and I5358, the brightest galaxies in the cluster Klemola 44 = Abell 4038. Swift's positions (absolute as well as relative) and descriptions for these five objects were just good enough that Herbert Howe could recover the galaxies without too much trouble. Dreyer adopted Howe's micrometrically measured positions for all five, so there has been little doubt about the identities since. ===== IC 5363 = IC 5362. Swift's published description is "vF, eS, R, 3 sts in line p, one D" for IC 5363, and "eeF, pS, nrly bet an 8m * nf and a 9m * sp, nearer the former; 5th of 5" (see I5362 for more on these). His position for I5362 is well off, but that was corrected by Herbert Howe who found the galaxy 1m 34s following Swift's place. Swift's description, including the nearby stars, is correct. His position for I5363 is 34 seconds west and 16 arcmin south of I5362. There is nothing there, however. But if his "3 sts in line" are made "following" rather than "preceding", this would be his object -- the middle of the three stars is double. Given that Swift's positions are notoriously bad during this last year of his observing (I5363 was found on 24 July 1897), the identity is not unreasonable. ===== IC 5364. Here is another double galaxy, probably also in Klemola 44, though well south of the center of the cluster. It is easily and positively identified by Swift's note "8m * sf" (the star is more "s" than "f"). Some have taken the brighter, eastern component as Swift's galaxy, but I prefer to adopt the pair itself as the IC object. The two galaxies are pretty closely merged, and would probably be difficult to separate at the eyepiece. Speculation, of course. Observations needed! ===== IC 5365 is another of Swift's nebulae found at Echo Mountain that we cannot now recover. He describes it as "pB, C[sic]S, eE, 1 * near sf." The galaxy chosen by ESO (ESO 349-G011) is not "pB", is not "eE", and has no star "near sf". Nor is there a galaxy within several degrees of Swift's position that matches this description. Since this is the only object he found on 25 Sept 1897, we have no way to check for a systematic offset. So far, the only digit errors I've checked are +-1 and +-10 minute errors in RA, +-1 degree and -10 degree errors in Dec. There is nothing at any of these positions. ===== IC 5366 may be the very faint, extended nebulosity two degrees south of Barnard's nominal position (published only in the second IC). This, however, is very faint, so it seems just as likely to me that the object is a plate defect. ===== IC 5368 = IC 1523. Barnard's description from IC2, and not otherwise published, reads "eF, vS, lbM, 3 arcmin p or f from omega Piscium" -- he must have been in a rush the night he found it, and he did not check the first IC, either. Had he, he would have found his friend S. W. Burnham's entry for IC 1523 which notes the star 3 arcmin following the nebula. Barnard's position given in the IC is that for the star, while Burnham has the correct position for the galaxy. ===== IC 5377. See IC 5378. ===== IC 5378 and IC 5379. Found by Isaac Roberts on a plate of NGC 7814 taken with his 20-inch reflector, these two objects -- and the surrounding stars -- are clearly described by him. He measured positions with respect to NGC 7814, and lists them assuming that the NGC position is correct. [I5378] 23 55 28, 74 09.4 [for 1950.0, assuming the GSC position for N7814: 00 00 04 +16 21.5] F, Ens, 1 of 3 sts 15 inv, cond at n end, length incl st 42 arcsec. [I5379] 23 55 31, 74 11.8 [for 1950.0: 00 00 07 +16 19.1] F, S, Epf, FN, star 17 close to p end. The first description and position points exactly to an interacting pair as I5378. There are two 15th magnitude stars just preceding, and the nucleus of the southern galaxy is about the same magnitude and almost stellar. The fainter companion galaxy is just north of the brighter southern object, and on a small-scale plate, would almost certainly be mistaken for part of the brighter galaxy. The pair is Arp 130, and the 200-inch photo shown by Arp is very good indeed. Similarly for I5379, the description and position are exactly matched by the galaxy just south-following the pair. Just as Roberts claims, this object has a faint star just preceding it, and is indeed extended nearly east-west. In addition, the other two objects (I5377 and I5381) found on the same plate by Roberts are just where he places them, and the descriptions match. There is thus no question about the correct identifications for these two objects. ===== IC 5379. See IC 5378. ===== IC 5381. See IC 5378 and IC 5383. ===== IC 5383 may be unrecoverable. At least, I can't find it. Javelle's published position falls on a blank patch of sky two or three arcminutes from the nearest candidate galaxy (later catalogued as number 742 by James Keeler in his list of new, faint, nebulae found on Lick 36-inch plates taken around 1900). Javelle lists his reference star as BD +15 4927, the same star which he used on two nights to measure IC 5381 (for which Javelle's position is correct). The discovery date was 10 November 1893; IC 5381 was found two nights later, and reobserved on the 13th. Javelle makes a couple of typical errors in his lists: reversing the signs of one or the other (or both) of his measured offsets, and misidentifying his comparison stars. Checking the first possibility led nowhere -- all the resulting positions are in blank fields. The second kind of error seemed likely after looking at the POSS. BD +15 4928 is about 3 arcmin northeast of BD +15 4927, and is very nearly the same magnitude. Again, however, checking all of Javelle's possible offsets from this star turned up nothing except very faint stars (B = 18-19) that he could not have seen. A rather cursory search of the area a couple of degrees around the nominal position also showed no galaxies at the correct offsets from other stars of similar magnitude. So, the unhappy conclusion for now is "Not found." ===== IC 5384 is probably NGC 7813, which see for the story. There is no doubt about the IC identification. ===== IC 5385 is lost, at least for now. It was seen once by Herbert Howe on 27 Dec 1894, but he did not have time to micrometrically measure its position. So, it -- along with three other nebulae that he found in 1894 and 1895 (IC 1564, 1567, and 5278) -- has only an approximate position along with a sketchy description, "eF, prob. S". Unlike the other three nebulae, though, there is no trace of IC 5385 near Howe's approximate position. The other three, assuming the identifications I've adopted are correct, are within 22 seconds of time and 7 arcmin of Howe's nominal positions. The closest galaxy of magnitude similar to the others (about V = 13.5-14) is well over a degree away, and does not have a position error suggestive of a simple digit mistake. Perhaps larger digit errors might yeild a candidate. A search at 1, 2, and 10 degrees is in order here. ===== IC 5386 = NGC 7832, which see. Howe corrected Swift's position, but neither of them, nor Dreyer, noticed that N7832 has a position virtually identical to Howe's. The identity is not in doubt. =====