NGC 3000 is a double star, accurately located by Dreyer's own micrometric observation referred to NGC 2998. ===== NGC 3002 is a star. It and NGC 3004 were found by LdR with his 72-inch, and are both included in his chart of the NGC 2998 field. Of the three faint stars near the place shown for NGC 3002, the brightest (included in the main table) and closest to Dreyer's position as sketched, is most likely the one he saw. The second brightest star is at 09 45 52.0, +11 17 34. MCG +07-20-052 is a low surface brightness interacting system less than 2 arcmin southeast of the star. MCG unfortunately took this to be NGC 3002, so the object has been incorrectly saddled with the NGC number ever since. ===== NGC 3004 is, like NGC 3002, a star. LdR saw it only once, and included it on his chart, though did not letter it: it should be "alpha," between NGC 2998 and NGC 3005. ===== NGC 3005. See NGC 3004. ===== NGC 3008. There is no doubt about the identity of this galaxy. It is included in a sketch in Lord Rosse's big 1880 monograph, and was measured by Dreyer himself on 1 Apr 1878 while he was examining the area around NGC 2998 (he used this as a reference object for his measurements). However, of the four galaxies he measured, it is the furthest from N2998, and he has given the position angle to only a full degree, and the distance to a full arcsecond. The other three objects have an additional digit in each coordinate. Reducing the positions, we find that this one is the furthest off the true position on the sky, and I wonder if Dreyer didn't make an error of some sort here. If, for example, the position angle is 83 degrees rather than 88 as Dreyer has it, the position of the galaxy comes considerably closer to the truth (the distance he gives is 552 arcseconds). As I said, though, the identity of the object is not in doubt. ===== NGC 3034 = M 82. The position for this large, bright irregular galaxy depends strongly on wavelength. The brightest optical knot is not coincident with the radio "nucleus" nor with the brightest infrared knot. And there are several bright X-ray sources scattered throughout the galaxy. All the positions I've listed, though, fall within the boundaries of the galaxy, and there is of course no identification problem. But note that this is one of the few Messier objects which also received a number -- IV 79 -- in WH's catalogue. I've found it curious that WH put it in with his "planetary" nebulae, but it is the last of that class that he found. It was actually published, along with seven other of WH's unpublished nebulae, by JH as an appendix to his (JH's) list of nebulae and clusters in the CGH observations. ===== NGC 3046 may be NGC 3051. But if it is, JH has made some strange mistake since he specifically says in a note in the GC "h3199 [N3046] and 3201 [N3051] are also distinct nebulae, and were observed consecutively in sweep 562 (h)." His CGH observation has the note "RA precarious; a hurried observation." I'm inclined to believe that the two observations refer to the same object, in spite of JH's protestations to the contrary. The descriptions are identical (as far as they go; N3046 is noted only as "pF,R" while N3051 is "pF,S,R,gbM; 20 arcsec"), and the positions are not all that much different. There are two very faint double stars near JH's position for N3046, but they are much fainter than N3051 and any other double star that I know that JH has mistaken as a nebula. This sort of mistake -- measuring the same galaxy twice in the same sweep, thinking it a different object -- has occured at least twice in his father's sweeps, and I would not doubt that it appears in JH's, too. Still, I'm listing the main entry as "Not found", and putting a question mark on the identity with N3051. Whatever the case, there is certainly only one bright galaxy here, not two as JH has it. ===== NGC 3050 = NGC 2979. Frank Muller found N3050 with the Leander McCormick 26-inch refractor. His description (m = 14.0, D = 0.6 arcmin, vlE at 200 deg, gbMN) suggests that it would be hard to miss -- it's among the brighter of the new nebulae found at Leander McCormick. However, there is nothing in Muller's position. NGC 2979, though, is 11m 15s preceding the place given by Muller. It matches the description perfectly, and the declination is within an arcminute of that given by Muller. If the RA is in error by 10 minutes of time, then the RA difference falls into the range often seen in the Leander McCormick positions, one to two minutes too far east. I'm pretty well convinced that this is the correct identification, though final proof is lacking. Unfortunately, there is no sketch, and Muller left us no descriptions of field stars around the galaxy that would help identify it. Still, the description and the Declination are right, and a digit error in the RA is likely, so I'm going with this. ===== NGC 3051 may also be NGC 3046, which see. ===== NGC 3058s = IC 573 was found by Leavenworth at Leander-McCormick. As usual, the position is poor, though it was corrected by Howe. Leavenworth did note the object as double or bi-nuclear; it is, of course, double with the southern galaxy being the brighter. See IC 573 for more. ===== NGC 3061 was found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801. The positions of all fifteen nebulae in the sweep (No. 1096) are affected by large, systematic errors. See NGC 3752 where I give the story of how it all came to be sorted out, first by Dreyer; then by myself, Steve Gottlieb, and Wolfgang Steinicke. ===== NGC 3063 is the double star southwest of NGC 3065 and NGC 3066. Though N3063 was first seen by WH in 1802, he apparently described it only indirectly: "F, pL, R; the last of three, the others are II 333 and II 334." The position he gives is that of NGC 3066, and the description fits, too, so that is probably the object he mistakenly thought was new. If so, he also mistook the double star as one of his previous objects. His confusion was carried over through the GC and d'A's catalogue into NGC, and eventually into Dreyer's 1912 reprinting of WH's papers. I actually prefer the numbering that he has in the NGC itself as it more accurately reflects the history: NGC 3065 and 3066 are the true nebulae and are II 333 and II 334, respectively, while the last object found is II 909 = NGC 3063. This last object was not seen by JH, but was measured twice by d'A (his position appears in the NGC). d'A also has five or six measures of the other two objects, so he pinned down all three. ===== NGC 3065. See NGC 3063. ===== NGC 3066. See NGC 3063. ===== NGC 3069 = IC 580, which see. ===== NGC 3070. See IC 580. ===== NGC 3080 is close to IC 585. Both were seen by Bigourdan who got the NGC number on the correct object. I had some question about that as his position is somewhat different from the NGC position. The NGC position apparently comes from CH; it is based on a single observation by WH who compared it to "the Georgian Planet" on 1 April 1794. After some fussing about looking for an on-line ephemeris, Brian Skiff pointed me at JPL's "Horizons". Jon Giorgini, one of Horizons maintainers, set me straight on its use, so I was able to find that Uranus was at 09 57 30.0, +13 17 24 (B1950.0) on the night that WH used it as a comparison object. This position, combined with WH's offsets (16 seconds preceding, 2 arcmin south) fell within 1.5 arcmin of NGC 3080, the brighter of the two galaxies. Fortunately, not only did Bigourdan get it right, but he published a correction to the NGC position that ended up in the IC2 Notes. Even that position, however, is a bit off because he used the old BD position for his comparison star. Once that is corrected, and proper motion taken into account, his position lands within a few arcseconds of the modern ones. ===== NGC 3081 = IC 2529, which see. ===== NGC 3084 = IC 2528, which see. ===== NGC 3097. I cannot find this one. Here are the original observations from the Harvard Annals, Vol. 8, Part 1, page 62, 1882: "Date GC RA (1860.0) Dec Remarks 1870 Mar.24 -- 09 54 19.6 +60 47 58.2 G.C. 1998 s f neb; p 45 deg s 2'. [Place only approximate.] 1870 Mar.24 1998 09 54 36.7 +60 46 33.3 G.C. 1998: F; S; R; mbMN." There are three things to note about these observations: 1) The position of the second (GC 1998 = NGC 3102) is from the GC. 2) The "p 45 deg s 2' " means that the first (N3097) is 2' away from GC1998 at a position angle of 45 degrees. This is inconsistent with the position which implies the object to be northwest, not northeast, of N3102. 3) Both observations are credited to E. P. Austin, and there is a note for N3097: "Perhaps a nebulous star. It is half-way between G.C. 1998 and a star 11 magn." The positions don't tell us anything we don't already know since they are correctly transfered into NGC from GC and the Harvard list. Since Austin was observing with a 15-inch telescope, I don't think that he could have seen either of the faint stars Glen Deen measured during his MicroSky project. The magnitude estimate given by Austin for the "star 11 magn" is rough since there is nothing that bright near the galaxy. WH had this to say (N3102 = H III 916): "eF, vS, Stellar. Near a S st." And JH: "F, vS, R, bM; a coarse D * nf points to it; has a * 11 30'' dist, pos 142.2 deg ." All of JH's stars are identifiable, and I think that his star 11 must be the same one mentioned by WH and by Austin. So, where does that leave N3097? My guess is that Austin has misidentified another nebula as N3102, but I don't see it or its purported companion in the area. A more thorough search may turn them up. ===== NGC 3100 = NGC 3103, which see. ===== NGC 3102. See NGC 3097. ===== NGC 3103 = NGC 3100. There is nothing in Swift's position which is roughly midway between NGC 3100 and NGC 3108, both found by JH. Swift notes a "coarse D* p"; it is actually following and a bit to the south of the galaxy. Howe was the first to make this identification in one of his MN articles; Dreyer has the appropriate note in the Notes to IC2. It is just possible that N3103 is actually NGC 3108. The RAs are exactly a minute of time different, and the declinations are within 0.1 arcmin. However, N3108 has a pretty bright star about 1 arcmin to the south that Swift probably would have mentioned (though JH didn't), and there are no double stars nearby, neither preceding nor following. ===== NGC 3107. Given WH's estimated position -- "3/4 deg following, 1/2 deg north [of the] Georgian planet," it's a wonder that this object was ever recovered. However, WH also noted that the object is "3 arcmin north of a pL red star." This pair of objects is unmistakeable enough that LdR had no trouble finding it in spite of the poor position, and the confusion in the GC description ("L red star north 3 arcmin"). It must be said, however, that the GC position, presumeably from CH's reduction of WH's observations, is remarkably good, being only 6 arcmin south and 5 seconds east of the galaxy. Dreyer picked the wrong star, however, as the "red" star near the nebula. This led him to assign the wrong position to the nebula in his note in the GC Supplement, in LdR's observations, and in the NGC. The correct star is SAO 98932 (spectral type K2), not SAO 98925 (spectral type F5). Using the SAO position for the correct star, and LdR's micrometric offsets, leads to a position for the galaxy that is within an arcsecond of the GSC position. ===== NGC 3108. See NGC 3103 = NGC 3100. ===== NGC 3110 = NGC 3122 = NGC 3518 (= MCG -01-26-014) and MCG -01-26-013 are an interacting pair separated by 1.9'. N3110 is the brighter of the pair. N3122 is actually an observation of N3110, but WH confused his comparison stars. Stephan's position is very close to the actual position of the galaxy, but is about an arcmin off in declination. This is probably due to the incorrect declination that he quotes for his comparison star (which is not the same one that Herschel used). Both Stephan (in his 1885 AN paper) and Dreyer (in MNRAS 73, 37, 1912) suggest that the two NGC numbers refer to the same galaxy. Dreyer makes further comments in his notes to WH's first catalogue of nebulae, (included in WH's complete papers, edited by Dreyer in 1912) saying "Looked for but not found in 1787. It was the only object compared with `20 Sextantis,' but the star was in reality B.1414. This gives for 1860 9h57m04s, 95d49m, in perfect agreement with N3110 (Stephan XIII)." Stephan's position is actually 2 arcmin north of this one, but the agreement is close enough to make the identification clear. The two stars by the way, are SAO 137424 (20 Sex) and SAO 137400 (B.1414, perhaps from Bessel's catalogue). Coincidentally, there is a galaxy 2 arcmin south of WH's position. It is the one that Jack Sulentic picked up for RNGC, but it is not in MCG. The RNGC galaxy is at 10 03 47.1, -06 19 49 (GSC, B1950) and is much fainter. If WH looked for it again in 1787 at roughly this location, then I'm not surprised that he did not recover it. The identity with NGC 3518 (which see), is yet another story. ===== NGC 3119 is perhaps the same galaxy as NGC 3121. There is no doubt about the identification of N3121. This was found by William Lassell in 1848 (see AN 635, and send me a copy; I've not seen it yet myself!) with one of his smaller telescopes. It was reobserved by Arthur Auwers, who noted the 9th magnitude star 4 arcmin north and 14-15 seconds of time preceding. The position listed by Auwers (1862) is very good. N3119 was found by Albert Marth in 1863 with Lassell's 48-inch reflector. He describes it only as "vF." His position, from one observation, falls about an arcmin southwest of NGC 3121; it is also 2.4 arcmin north of the galaxy that RNGC chose as N3119: CGCG 093-045. This is considerably fainter and smaller than N3121. Wolfgang also favors CGCG 093-045 and reports that it is visible in his 50-cm reflector as a slightly non-stellar patch. So, Marth almost certainly could have seen CGCG 093-045. However, since his position is closer to N3121, and since that galaxy is the brightest in the area, I think it more likely that Marth's observation refers to it. Wolfgang and RNGC could be right, of course -- but then, why didn't Marth mention reobserving the galaxy that his mentor had found 15 years before? Would he even know about it? We don't have answers to these questions. ===== NGC 3121. See NGC 3119. ===== NGC 3122 = NGC 3110 = NGC 3518 (both of which see). ===== NGC 3123 may be one of the stars, or the double star, that I've listed in the table. There are no nebulae in the area that Sidney Coolidge could have seen with the 15-inch refractor at Harvard. His position is noted as having a range of 4 seconds of time in RA, and 2 arcmin in Dec. All of the objects I've noted as possibilities are more or less within those ranges, though the star that I've noted with a single question mark is closest. It has two faint companions to the south (one looks like a galaxy) that may have added a bit of fuzziness to the image. I should note, however, that many of the "nebulae" found during the Harvard refractor's first decade are actually single stars, presumeably found on nights of less than good seeing. This may be another of those. ===== NGC 3129 is a double star seen by both WH and JH. WH's position, adopted by JH, is good, and both descriptions are appropriate. It appears, however, that LdR must have seen it as a star or a double star, as he could not find any nebulosity at WH's position on three different nights. Dreyer has a note in NGC to that effect. ===== NGC 3134 is David Todd's number (21), found during his search for "the trans- Neptunian planet." It can be positively identified with Todd's sketch. See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3140 and NGC 3141. The field exactly matches the sketch that Leavenworth made, and his descriptions also match, down to the bright nucleus in the brighter galaxy. His original descriptions make it clear that the galaxy that got the smaller NGC number is actually the brighter, northeast member of the pair. Here are his data from AJ 7, 9, 1886: No. RA (1890) Dec Mag Size Form Condensation [NGC] 166 10 04 -16 06 15.5 0.5' R sbMN [3140] 167 10 04 -16 06 16.0 0.3 R --- [3141] Dreyer has added the notes "1st of 2" and "2nd of 2." I suspect that he thought that the larger and brighter galaxy was the preceding since it was listed first in the table. That turns out to be wrong, unfortunately, so the NGC numbers are reversed from the right ascensions. ===== NGC 3141. See NGC 3140. ===== NGC 3144 = NGC 3174. D'A found NGC 3144 in the late 1850s and measured its place pretty accurately. NGC 3174 is from WH's 2 April 1801 sweep 1096 which was affected by a large, systematic error of some sort. See NGC 3752 for more on this sweep, and how we sorted it out. ===== NGC 3148 is probably only a star. JH's description reads "A star 7m has a photosphere 2 or 3 arcmin diam. Sky perfectly clear; glass quite clean; windy. Another * of same mag viewed presently after has no photosphere." There is certainly no bright nebulosity that large around the star, and it is not a double or multiple star, either. JH has a couple of other stars which he suspected of nebulosity, too, which show none today. These must be illusions of some sort, though very difficult to account for. ===== NGC 3153, discovered by WH, is also David Todd's number (20b), found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet." See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3155 = NGC 3194. NGC 3155 was found by JH and later remeasured by d'A. Their position, used in the NGC, is quite accurate. NGC 3194 is from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the nebulae in that sweep have large, systematic position problems. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3157 = IC 2555, which see. ===== NGC 3162 = NGC 3575, which see. ===== NGC 3167. I can't find this object; there is nothing at all in d'A's position. The only reasonable asterism nearby (a triple, composed of a close double with a fainter single just north, about 4 arcmin northeast) does not have the "* 11 preceding 9.5 seconds, slightly north" that d'A notes in his description. If this is a bad position, it is one of the few in d'A's list (there are some, of course; see NGC 3575 and NGC 3966 for examples). I still haven't checked for big digit errors; a couple of d'A's nebulae are an hour out in RA. A search is in order. ===== NGC 3170 is a double star. JH's position is just an arcminute south- southwest, and the double is very much like the several others that he mistook as nebulae. Interestingly, the double is also Reiz 248. I do not have Reiz's catalogue available, but would suspect that he picked up the object from the NGC. ===== NGC 3174 = NGC 3144, which see. ===== NGC 3176 may possibly be the galaxy a degree south and 23 seconds preceding Ormond Stone's position. However, the object (ESO 567-G029) is about half the size that Stone estimated and nearly round. Stone's description in full is "Mag = 16.0, Diameter = 0.8 arcmin, iR, neb?" from a single observation. As usual in the first list of Leander McCormick nebulae, the position is given only to a full minute of time in RA and one arcmin in Dec. There is no sketch, and the galaxies near Stone's position that he might possibly have seen all have stars nearby that are bright enough that he would have mentioned them as neighbors. Consequently, the identification with the ESO galaxy is tentative at best. ===== NGC 3180 is a star cloud or HII region in NGC 3184's northwestern arm. The position in NGC (by Dreyer from LdR's observations) fits the star cloud better, but the HII region is brighter, though smaller. The number may well apply to both objects or simply the general area of the arm where they are found. There is no problem with the identification of NGC 3181 -- it is the brightest HII region in NGC 3184, located southwest of the nucleus. ===== NGC 3181 is an HII region in NGC 3184. See NGC 3180. ===== NGC 3183 = NGC 3218. NGC 3183, found by d'A, has an accurate position given in the NGC. NGC 3218, found by WH on 2 April 1801, does not; all the galaxies found that night have large, systematic position errors. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3184. See NGC 3180. ===== NGC 3186 is perhaps the northeastern component of CGCG 036-074. There is nothing at Marth's position, and the CGCG galaxy is 1 minute 30 seconds preceding and 6 arcmin south. There are, however, "sev F sts near" as noted in the NGC. This is not true of the nearer, though fainter, candidate galaxy, CGCG 036-085 (20 seconds following, 5 arcmin south). But -- the NGC note about the nearby faint stars is not in Marth's original description. Dreyer had added it by the time he published the GC Supplement in 1878, but I have not been able to trace the source of the note. It is not in LdR's observations, and Dreyer has no reference in the Supplement. Given that uncertainty, I'm reluctant to discount either galaxy. Nor is there a systematic offset in Marth's positions for the other 25 objects he credits to the same date, 1865.23. NGC 3186 seems to be the only object from that date with a large offset from Marth's position. All in all, not a very satisfactory identity. ===== NGC 3191 = NGC 3192, which see. ===== NGC 3192 = NGC 3191. WH's NPD is -9 arcmin in error, close enough to 10 to make this pretty clearly a digit mistake in reduction or copying. WH's description, "eF, vS. Perhaps a patch of small stars" is also appropriate for NGC 3191 which has several OX knots in it. The identity was first suggested by JH, and was later taken up by Dreyer. ===== NGC 3194 = NGC 3155, which see. ===== NGC 3197 was found by WH on 2 April 1801. All fifteen objects he found this night are more or less affected by large position errors. See NGC 3752 for more on the sweep (No. 1096). ===== NGC 3210 is a close double star about an arcminute west-northwest of NGC 3212. WH's description is appropriate, and his position (for three objects; the third is NGC 3215) is good. There is another star of similar magnitude about 23 arcsec preceding the double; is it possible that WH glimpsed this, too? If so, it would probably have added to the illusion of nebulosity. ===== NGC 3212. See NGC 3210. ===== NGC 3215. See NGC 3210. ===== NGC 3217 = IC 606. The IC position, from Javelle, is good, but the NGC position, from David Todd's paper chronicling his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet", is over two minutes of time off. Fortunately, Todd has left us a sketch in his article, so we can positively identify the galaxy he saw. (See NGC 3604 for more about Todd's objects.) Because he was searching for a new planet, Todd was concerned about observing possible motion across the sky. His note for this object (his number 29) is almost totally concerned about its motion, yet helps us to identify the galaxy, too. Here, for those interested, is the complete note from Todd's second observation ("a" is the object in question, "c" is a nearby star): "1878 Mar. 4.6, delta alpha (ac) = 5.2s +- 0.1s [the separation on the DSS is 5.5 seconds]. I feel quite sure that 'a' has not moved: the delta alpha (7.0s) [from the discovery night 28.5 Feb 1878] was put down from memory on March 2, without much hope of its being right. But, judging from the configuration, I say that 'a' has not moved appreciably." ===== NGC 3218 = NGC 3183, which see. ===== NGC 3220 = IC 604, which see. ===== NGC 3223 = IC 2571, which see. ===== NGC 3229 is a triple star. It is very close to Coolidge's position, and is similar to several other asterisms discovered at Harvard in the early 1850's. The hours of RA (20) in the NGC is a typo there, not in the original paper in AN. ===== NGC 3231. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3234 is almost certainly = NGC 3235. JH's position is exactly 1 degree north, and his description fits. Dreyer was the first to suggest the identity and his NGC note documents his idea. Unfortunately, his note in IC1 confuses the issue: "3234 is not = 3235; both seen by Denning." While I've not seen Denning's observation (it is not in his short paper about the circumpolar nebulae where he announces the discovery of several IC objects), I suspect that he must have picked up the two objects that d'A found: N3232 and N3234. There is certainly nothing nebulous at the nominal position for N3234, and the exact 1 degree error in JH's position argues convincingly for Dreyer's first interpretation. ===== NGC 3235 = NGC 3234, which see. ===== NGC 3247. JH's position is approximate. Though he has three observations of this, only one -- and possibly not even that -- was made on the meridian. The only thing matching his descriptions "Stars involved in evident nebula," "A decidedly nebulous group," and "There is a nebulous appearance, which merits re-examination," is the HII region I've listed in the table with its attached cluster. Brian Skiff identifies this cluster as "Westerlund 1", but Brent Archinal in "Star Clusters" corrects this to "Westerlund 2". Brent also notes that Collinder 220 is often mistakenly called "N3247", as it is in ESO -- and indeed was here until I stumbled across the little cluster in the 2MASS Extended Source Catalog. The nebula shows nicely in the DSS2 red image where it is about 6 x 4 arcmin across. The correct identification was first made by Stewart on a Harvard plate (and included by Dreyer as an IC2 Note), but his position is about 3 arcmin southwest of the center of the object. ===== NGC 3251 = IC 2579. D'Arrest's RA is just 1 minute of time off, an error first suggested by Dreyer in a note to IC2, as well as in the description for IC 2579. The galaxy is positively identified by d'A's note about the three stars to the southwest. There is no problem with Javelle's observation for the IC entry -- it is accurate. ===== NGC 3252 has a two minute error in its RA and a 4 arcmin error in its Dec. But it is far enough north that the RA error amounts to just over 8 arcmin, so there is no mistaking the bright galaxy that WH found. ===== NGC 3261. See NGC 3366. ===== NGC 3267. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3268. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3269. See NGC 3271. ===== NGC 3271 = IC 2585 has an error of 20 seconds in its NGC RA. The NGC identity is not in doubt as it is one of the four bright galaxies in the area, and JH has four nebulae in a group listed in his CGH Observations. However, his observations are a bit confused since he mentions a fifth nebula "... more remote and brighter ..." in his description for NGC 3268. Since there are only the four entries (corresponding to N3267, N3268, N3269, as well as N3271) in his CGH list, and since he mentions only four nebulae appearing in the diagram (not published) made during Sweep 571, we now have no way of knowing where he saw his fifth nebula. Aside from the 20 second RA error, the positions he adopted from the diagram for the CGH list and the GC (copied into the NGC, of course) are good enough to unambiguously identify his four listed objects, so it is unlikely that any of them are the fifth object. It's also clear that Stewart picked up the galaxy (on a Bruce plate taken at Arequipa) because of the RA error. Thus, it also carries the IC number. However, Stewart makes no mention of any of the NGC objects in the group. This is particularly puzzling since he obviously thought that N3271 was missing. Still, his position for it is good, and the identity with IC 2585 is secure. ===== NGC 3272 is a double star. Schultz's position is within an arcsecond of the modern position, and his complete description (F, vS, iR, stellar, r, m=12-13) fits perfectly. He also has a note that reads, "Nova VI an insignificant object; p h721 [= NGC 3277] about 68 seconds and 160 arcsec south; ..." Those distances also exactly point to the double. ===== NGC 3277. See NGC 3272. ===== NGC 3279 = IC 622 is another of David Todd's nebular discoveries (No. 30) dug out while searching for a "trans-Neptunian" planet. Todd has left us sketches of all of his objects (see NGC 3604 for more), so the poor positions that he also left can at least be used to get us into the right area of the sky. In this case, Lewis Swift picked up the galaxy a dozen years after Todd (on 4.5 March 1878, Swift on 29 Jan 1890). Swift's position, for once, is not too far off, though he notes a "9m * s" -- that star is actually north, and is the one Todd labels "b" on his sketch. ===== NGC 3280 = NGC 3295 is a triple galaxy discovered independently by both Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector (this telescope eventually found its way to Lick Observatory where it was called the "Crossley Reflector" after its purchaser, Edward Crossley of Halifax, England). Though Common noted only two nebulae in his object, Francis Leavenworth found and sketched all three with the Leander McCormick refractor. He also found (on the same night, 26 Feb 1886) NGC 3296 and 3297. The identities of these two is not quite as clear from his sketches, so having them near in both time and space helps us to identify them with certainty. Unfortunately, neither Common's nor Leavenworth's positions are very good. (Leavenworth's is, as usual for the LM nebulae, too far east, this time by 2m 40s. His declination, however, is less than an arcminute off. Common's RA is 20 seconds of time off, and his declination 8 arcmin too far north.) This led to the brightest galaxy being rediscovered by Stephane Javelle and included in IC1 as IC 617, which see. Herbert Howe finally suggested that N3280 and N3295 were the same object, but did not notice the identity with IC 617. ===== NGC 3283 is ESO 263-G48. JH puts a plus-minus sign on the RA and notes "RA coarsely taken by an auxillary star." In addition to the uncertain RA is the GC (and NGC) NPD -- it is 10 arcmin too small. This must be an error in transcribing/precessing the CGH position into the GC. Once these are taken into account, ESO 263-G48 is the obvious candidate. ===== NGC 3284 = NGC 3286 is the brighter of two galaxies found by WH in April of 1793 (the fainter is NGC 3288). The number N3284 applies to H III 912 seen on the 8th of April, while N3286 belongs to III 917, found the next night along with N3288 = III 918. The GC/NGC position of N3284 is 10 seconds too small (presumeably a reduction or transcription error) compared to my re-reduction of WH's position, so Dreyer did not comment on the possible identity until he prepared WH's papers for their 1912 publication. There he also notes that Bigourdan did not find N3284. A few other objects found the same night by WH show no systematic offset in their re-reduced positions, so the declination offset implied by the identity with N3286 is unique to III 912. The explanation adopted by RNGC (N3284 is a star) is considerably less likely. ===== NGC 3286 = NGC 3284, which see. ===== NGC 3288. See NGC 3284. ===== NGC 3291 is a star exactly at Bigourdan's position. Though he could not find it on a second night, his two measurements on the first are accurate. In addition, his comment "NGC 3294 is toward PA = 35 deg, d = 4.5 arcmin" is also correct. The identity is thus certain. ===== NGC 3294. See NGC 3291. ===== NGC 3295 = NGC 3280, which see. IC 617 is the brightest of this triple system; see that also. ===== NGC 3296 = IC 618. As with NGC 3295 = NGC 3280 (which see), Leavenworth's RA is nearly 3 minutes of time too far east. And as with N3295, Howe identified the correct galaxy, but did not notice the IC1 number, from Javelle's first list of new nebulae. Leavenworth left us a sketch of the galaxy, but the orientation is not sure, so I'm depending on the fact that the discovery date as well as the (incorrect) RA is the same as for N3295 and N3297. Leavenworth's declination is close, however, and his description is appropriate for the galaxy. ===== NGC 3297. This shares with NGC 3295 = NGC 3280 (which see), and NGC 3296 = IC 618 (also which see), a large error in RA. Leavenworth found it on the same night as the other two, however, so we can be pretty sure of the identity even if the orientation of his sketch is not quite sure. As with the other two, his declination and description is good. Herbert Howe looked for, but did not see this galaxy with any certainty. He says (in a note for IC 2593 which he found nearby), "On 1899 April 10 I measured the places of 3295 and 3296. I could only suspect 3297." Nevertheless, the galaxy is there. ===== NGC 3301 = NGC 3760, which see. ===== NGC 3308. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3309. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3311. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 3312 = IC 629, which see. ===== NGC 3314. See NGC 3315. ===== NGC 3315. My original thought that this might just be a duplicate observation of NGC 3314 is unlikely since the discoverer E.P. Austin has an observation of N3314 on the same night. Also, Austin's description refers to a "star np neb 1 arcmin." While there is a star 1 arcmin northwest of NGC 3314, it is actually fainter than another star much nearer the pair, also on the north side. So, I now support the idea that there is a 30 arcmin error in Austin's declination (which was not micrometrically measured as some of his were), and that NGC 3315 is actually ESO 501-G48. RC3, therefore, is most likely correct. ===== NGC 3321 = NGC 3322. This was first found by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector that finally ended up at Lick Observatory (where it was known as the "Crossley Reflector" after Edward Crossley, the intermediate owner who was persuaded to give it to Lick. The story is told in the Introduction to Volume VIII of the Lick Publications, the volume of beautifully-reproduced photographs taken with that telescope by James Keeler). Common claims in his short paper in Copernicus that this -- and about 30 other new nebulae -- were found in 1880. He estimated the position; his RA is OK, but his Dec is off. Seven years later, on Jan 3, Francis Leavenworth came across the galaxy with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick. Like many of the positions of the objects found there, the RA is off, but the Dec is pretty good. Both Common and Leavenworth, by the way, provided adequate descriptions of the galaxy, noting the star to the northwest. Leavenworth seems to have confused east and west, though, at least as far as the position angle of the galaxy is concerned. He recorded it as 160 degrees, while the actual angle is close to 20 degrees, a simple quadrant error. Herbert Howe was the first to note the probable identity of the objects, making NGC 3322 (the entry with Common's name on it) "not seen on two nights." It's pretty clear, though, there being no other galaxy as bright within 30 arcmin, that both Common and Leavenworth found the same object. ===== NGC 3322 = NGC 3321, which see. ===== NGC 3324. See IC 2599, the southern part of the NGC object. ===== NGC 3328 is probably a pair of stars near Peters's position. Spitaler's position given in a note in IC1, is for another pair of stars about 5 arcmin southwest. Both observers saw and measured NGC 3332 (which see) when they worked on N3328, and both have good positions for that. Since Peters saw both objects on two different nights, I've taken the stars nearer his position as the most likely object. Spitaler's is also possible, but that would demand an error in Peters's relative positions, possible on one night, but unlikely on two. Dreyer also credits N3328 to Tempel, but Tempel gives no position in his fifth paper, so it is not now possible to tell exactly what he was looking at. He records two observations, however, so -- like Peters -- the objects must have appeared nebulous under even pretty good conditions. ===== NGC 3329 = NGC 3397. NGC 3329 was found by JH; his position is only an arcmin off the galaxy. NGC 3397, on the other hand, was found by his father in sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801 -- all fifteen of the galaxies that WH found in that sweep have very large, systematic errors in their positions. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3332 = NGC 3342 (which see) is probably the galaxy measured by Schoenfeld and Vogel, and mentioned in the notes to the GC Supplement by Dreyer. WH's first observation for H I 272 was referred to Uranus (his "Georgian Planet") and reduces to a place several arcmin away from the galaxy. But it is the only one in the area bright enough that he could have seen it, and the description fits as well. The galaxy is also number (24) in David Todd's list published as part of his search for "the trans-Neptunian" planet (see NGC 3604 for more on this). His sketch matches the sky very well, but his position, like WH's, is not very good. This must be one of the Todd objects for which Dreyer suspected an identity with a known nebula, as he does not mention Todd's observation of this object. ===== NGC 3335. See IC 625. ===== NGC 3339 is a faint star preceding NGC 3340. Marth's positions for both objects (found the same night) are good, and his descriptions apt. ===== NGC 3340. See NGC 3339. ===== NGC 3342 = NGC 3332 (which see). WH did not do well with his positions for this galaxy. His first observation of it (on 18 Jan 1784 as III 5), fully related by Dreyer in the 1912 Papers, reads "The faintest and smallest nebula imaginable. I viewed it a long while and with a higher power than the sweeper. Having no person at the clock, I went in to write down the time and found it impossible to recover the nebula. It appeared like a vS nebulous star, and is probably of the cometic sort; there was another vS star south- following (I think, or rather, am pretty sure), and it preceded a pB * [the nebula is south-preceding of a star by a diagram, about 6 arcmin][JLED]. It should have been secured before I went into the light. Its place must be about 2 1/2 deg following rho Leonis and about 10 arcmin more north than that star." WH's vivid description of the field is clear enough to unmistakeably identify N3342 with N3332, even though his position is over 2 minutes of time, and 15 arcmin off. Dreyer notes that neither Spitaler nor Bigourdan could find the object -- understandably, given the data they had. He has two other observations, somewhat better, of it as H I 272 (= N3332), but even those led to questions about its position. ===== NGC 3345 is a double star found by JH. He was looking for his father's H I 26, but did not find it at WH's position. That position turns out to be just one minute of time preceding, and 20 arcmin north of M 95 (N3351), the description fits the bright galaxy, and WH did not mention M 95 in the sweep; so -- as Dreyer suggested -- H I 26 is probably an observation of Messier's object. JH's position for the double is good, though he seems to have doubted his observation, calling the object "eF, hardly visible." Though Dreyer adopted JH's description as well as position for the NGC, he noted the identity with H I 26 as very questionable, and also noted that neither he nor d'A could find anything at JH's place. The GC entry is an amalgam of WH's description ("cB, pL, E, mbM") and JH's position. Dreyer recognized the discrepancy between the descriptions, so cleaned up the entry for the NGC. ===== NGC 3351 = M 95 = H I 26. See NGC 3345. ===== NGC 3355 could be any of a number of galaxies scattered over a 3x3 degree area near the nominal position. Found by S. P. Langley with Harvard's 15-inch refractor in April of 1866, he noted the position as "approximate." He was looking for Biela's comet at the time, so apparently recorded only a crude position for his nebula. ESO and SGC took the large late-type galaxy ESO 501-G079 as the most likely candidate, but this has a very low surface brightness and would be difficult to see in a long-focus telescope. A more likely candidate is ESO 501-G080, a "normal" early-type object with a surface brightness two magnitudes brighter than G079. Langley's position, however, does not fall very close to either object, so without further information from the historical record, these identifications can be no more than suggestions. ===== NGC 3366 = IC 2592. JH has a note: "The minute of RA is doubtful. The written record makes it 47; but as this is impossible from the context, 37 is assumed." Dreyer only noted in NGC that the RA was "very doubtful" and that the bright star that JH saw nearby was not in two catalogues. The actual RA is 27; that is allowed by the context of the sweep. The next non-stellar object in the sweep is NGC 3446 at RA 10 44 44.6 (B1830), and the preceding object is NGC 3261 at 10 21 46.6 (again B1830). JH assumed a 10 minute error, but the actual 20 minute error still fits into the sweep. The galaxy was rediscovered by Delisle Stewart on an Arequipa plate taken about 70 years after JH's sweep. Stewart made no errors in this entry, but he also did not note that NGC 3366 was missing. Perhaps the nominal position is off the edge of his plate. Since he used a one-hour plate (number 3636), he did not give the central position. ===== NGC 3371 is probably NGC 3384, and NGC 3373 is probably NGC 3389. JH's descriptions are appropriate for the galaxies, and his measured position angles -- 68.4 deg between his first and second objects, and 156.8 deg between his second and third -- are a close match for those between N3379 and N3384 (66.5 deg), and N3384 and N3389 (154.7 deg), especially when precession is taken into account. However, JH has left us positions that suggest that these are companions of NGC 3367, not NGC 3379. His position for N3367, the nominal first of the three, exactly matches the position for that object measured on another night when the additional two objects were not seen. Added to this is his observation of N3389 on the same night the two questionable objects were seen. Even so, my feeling is that he has somehow confused his observations of N3367 and N3379 on the night when he also measured the two companions. Adding more mystery to the case is Peters's comment: "[N3371] was distinctly seen by me 1880, Mar. 2; but [GC]2198, the third of the 'triple nebula,' could not be found." There are two faint stars within two arcmin of JH's nominal position for N3371; perhaps Peters saw one of these. Dreyer notes in the GC Supplement that no other observer had seen either N3371 or N3373 at JH's positions. ===== NGC 3373 is probably identical with NGC 3389. See NGC 3371. ===== NGC 3382 is probably just two stars, if it is indeed anything on the sky. It was found by the fourth Earl of Rosse on 5 April 1874, who provided this description: "About 4 min p [NGC 3432]. pF, cL, R, bM, *14 mag in centre. *9 Pos 238.0, Dist 173.7." There is no nebula within a reasonably large field around the nominal position that matches that description. On 24 March 1878, LdR (or his observer at the time, Dreyer himself) noted "4.0 min p and 6 arcmin +- n of [N3432]. vF, S, irr R, only a S group of sts. *9 Pos 192.0 deg, Dist 162.9 arcsec." This position is about an arcmin east- northeast of two faint stars where there is nothing else to be seen. There is a 10th mag star south-southwest of the widely-separated pair, but neither its distance (about 160 arcsec) nor position angle (about 192 deg) from the pair closely match the first of LdR's measurements. The agreement with Dreyer's measurements, though, lends some credence to the identification, though. I've entered the mean position of the two stars in the main table, but it seems more likely to me that LdR misidentified his reference galaxy: rather than being N3432, it is perhaps some other object. ===== NGC 3384 is probably also NGC 3371, which see. ===== NGC 3385. See NGC 3386. ===== NGC 3386 and NGC 3387. John Herschel found these two and NGC 3385 (which is 4 arcmin south of N3386). They were reobserved by d'Arrest whose positions for N3385 and N3386 match Herschel's. However, d'Arrest placed N3387 very close following N3386. The Sky Survey shows nothing near d'Arrest's place except a very faint star that Herschel did not mention. The NGC adopted d'Arrest's position for NGC 3387. This turned out to be a mistake because very close to Herschel's position is what first looks like a double star, but is actually a star and a compact, high surface brightness galaxy. There is a star north following this double object that could well be Herschel's "B* near." Additional notes: CGCG calls the northern object "N3386/87" and notes it as a "double nebula." The MCG also calls it "N3386-7," but assigns the companion a magnitude of 19 and places it 0.3' north preceding -- which describes its position and appearance exactly, and which makes it far too faint and in the wrong position relative to N3386 to have been seen by Herschel or d'Arrest. ===== NGC 3387. See NGC 3386. ===== NGC 3388, found by Ainslie Common with his 36-inch reflector, is probably NGC 3425. The declination is about right; and though Common's RA is 3 min too small, he marked it "+-" and his brief description ("F, R") is appropriate. ===== NGC 3389 is probably also NGC 3373. See NGC 3371 for the story. ===== NGC 3392. See NGC 3394 and NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3394. JH's RA -- adopted in the GC and NGC -- is 45 seconds too large. WH's RA is much closer to the truth, though we can't blame JH for preferring his position to his father's. Dreyer noticed the difference but, lacking any other observations, could do no more than comment on it. The only confusion that this causes is with NGC 3392 which is about 4 arcmin northeast, not northwest as implied by JH's observations. Though WH's positions are 2-3 arcmin northwest of the objects, his relative position is good, as are his (and JH's) descriptions. Most modern catalogues seem to have got the identities straight. Also see NGC 4512 for more on the sweep in which JH found this object. ===== NGC 3395 = IC 2613, which see. ===== NGC 3396. See IC 2613. ===== NGC 3397 = NGC 3329, which see. ===== NGC 3398 = IC 644. Considerable confusion has surrounded the identification of this object and its neighboring galaxies. The original observation is due to William Herschel, who found a "vF, S, E 20deg sp nf, er" nebulae on 17 April 1789 2m 11s preceding, 0d 50' north of 44 UMa. Reducing these offsets, taking the proper motion of 44 UMa into account, gives the position (for 1950) 10 48 24, +55 41.1. There are four galaxies in the area that might be the one that Herschel saw. Here are data for them: RA (1950.0) Dec B_t PA Type MCG CGCG UGC Notes 10 48 29.0 +55 39 25 14.55 73 SA:(rs:)ab? +09-18-038 267-18 5954 * superposed 0.55 sp 10 48 31.8 +55 43 51 15.6 130 SA:(rs?)0^+ +09-18-039 267-19 -- 10 48 44.8 +55 39 04 -- 55: E2/S0^-: +09-18-041 -- -- 10 48 59.9 +55 51 56 14.82 20 SAB(s)cd III +09-18-043 267-22 5976 Sev F sts, knots, comps near On the face of it, UGC 5976 is the most likely candidate: it is second brightest, the position angle is correct, it is knotty, and it is the largest of the galaxies in the area. However, its position is well off of Herschel's, and it has the lowest surface brightness of any of the galaxies here. I think it is doubtful that Herschel would have picked it up while sweeping. Instead, Herschel's position falls near UGC 5954, the brightest galaxy of the four, and also the one with the highest surface brightness. This means that it is the one that Herschel would be most likely to see. The position angle is at least in the correct quadrant, and Herschel's note "extremely mottled" could well be due the presence of the star near south-preceding combined with the galaxy's bright nucleus and pseudo-ring of uneven brightness. Still, visual verification of this theory would be nice to have. Finally, the identity of the two IC objects in the area -- I644 and I646 -- is unambiguous. While Swift's positions are often none too good, they are at least adequate in this case. The offset in RA is about 12 time-seconds for both, while the declinations are within a minute of arc. I644 turns out to be identical to NGC 3398, while I646 is MCG +09-18-039. ===== NGC 3401 is lost. WH was the only one to observe it, his observation was apparently rushed (his description reads only, "eF, no time to verify"), and his data are not internally consistent. His table places it 5 min 42 sec preceding and 23 arcmin south of 56 Leonis. However, in his note in the 1912 Scientific Papers, Dreyer says, "In the sweep, it is 1.9 min p, 3 arcmin n of II 131 [N3423]." Reducing these two offsets leads to positions separated by 1 min and 5 arcmin. There is nothing at either position. Between five to ten arcmin southeast of the position reduced from the N3423 offset (10 46 45, +06 09.5; B1950.0), there are one or two asterisms of stars that WH might have picked up. The positions are far enough off, however, that I doubt these stars are WH's object. ===== NGC 3402 is most likely a reobservation of NGC 3411. Common admits that his positions are approximate, and his sparce description "F, R" is appropriate for the galaxy. LEDA has chosen a much fainter galaxy close to the NGC position. I doubt, however, that even a observer of Common's experience using his 36-inch reflector would be able to dig this out. ===== NGC 3403. See NGC 3752. ===== NGC 3404 = IC 2609. Common's declination for N3404 is about 14 arcmin off, though his RA is close. Even though Dreyer has the corrected NPD in the IC2 Notes (from Herbert Howe), he did not make the connection with IC 2609. Nor did Bigourdan, who redisovered the galaxy and made it a "nova". He searched twice for N3404 at its nominal position, but only saw some faint stars in the area. His observations of the galaxy are good, though; reduced with respect to a modern position for his comparison star, they fall within a few arcsec of the nucleus. Knox Shaw, in Helwan Observatory Bulletin No. 15, also made the correction to the Dec of the NGC object. He was also the first to suggest the identity, repeating the position of N3404 for I2609, but putting a question mark on the note: "? = NGC 3404. There is, however, a vF, vS neb. susp. 1.2 arcmin n and 0.4 arcmin f 3404." This, of course, is not IC 2609. ===== NGC 3405. Though Marth says "close to a small star", the second object is really another galaxy. Marth presumeably saw the brighter, larger galaxy on the southwest as nebulous, so this is the object that bears the NGC number. ===== NGC 3411 = NGC 3402, which see. ===== NGC 3421 = IC 652 and NGC 3422. Among the nebulae found in 1880 by A. A. Common are two that received these NGC numbers. Common gave them a single rough position -- there are only faint stars near it. However, ten arcmin south is a pair that he could have easily seen in his 36-inch reflector. One of these was later picked up by Javelle, but because the position is so different -- and because Javelle misidentified his comparison star, driving his position even further south -- it was not recognized as one of Common's nebulae until I stumbled across it during work on ESGC. Javelle's object is in IC1 under the number IC 652, which see. Herbert Howe measured one of the galaxies, N3421, on two nights, but missed the other, probably because there is a much brighter star less than an arcminute to the south. Howe also commented about the possibility of two other nebulae in the field, but there is nothing at his approximate places (1.5 arcmin north, and 12 seconds preceding and 2 arcmin south) but faint stars. ===== NGC 3422. See NGC 3421. ===== NGC 3423. See NGC 3401. ===== NGC 3425 is probably also NGC 3388, which see. ===== NGC 3427, creditted in the NGC to Tempel, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet". It is Todd's number (4). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3428 = NGC 3429. Both positions -- from Marth in 1865, and Common in 1880 -- are pretty good. I'm surprised that Dreyer did not catch the identity. Perhaps if one of the observations had been by one of the Herschels he might have. In any event, the identity is secure. ===== NGC 3429 = NGC 3428, which see. ===== NGC 3430 is not IC 2613, which see, in spite of being noted identically equal to the IC number in CGCG. The IC number applies to NGC 3395 instead. ===== NGC 3432. See NGC 3382. ===== NGC 3436. This is Todd's 6th nebulous object found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet" with the USNO 26-inch refractor (see NGC 3604 for more about Todd's list). As usual, he gives sketches of the field done through both the large refractor and its 5-inch finder. These clearly identify N3436 as CGCG 038-039. Also as usual, Todd's nominal position is well off. I hope he would have done better had he found his planet ... ===== NGC 3443. Swift's declination is 8.3 arcmin too small, but the identity is still clear. See IC 884 for more. ===== NGC 3446. See NGC 3366. ===== NGC 3457 is a bit of a puzzle. It was catalogued by JH who describes it as "Stellar. 2 or 3 stars with a nebulous blur observed by Mr. Bailey." (Is Mr. Bailey perhaps an observing assistant?) This is an excellent descripiton of IC 656 (a triple star, which see), but JH's position is very close to NGC 3460 (also which see). The description is persuasive, but JH usually does better with his positions: his declination is appropriate for either object, but his RA is 18 seconds off the triple star. Since it is only 1.5 seconds off the galaxy, that argues almost as persuasively for the identity with NGC 3460. Frankly, I'm undecided on this one, so have left the number ambiguous in the main table. ===== NGC 3460 and N3461 were first seen as a pair by LdR in 1854, then again in April of 1878. In March of that year, he says "Setting for this, I found an eS Cl with a * 12m in Pos 175.1 deg, Dist 305.0 arcsec." There is nothing in the area which matches this description as the star south-southeast of the galaxy is only 4 arcmin away, while that south-southeast of IC 656 (a triple star, which see) is over 6 arcmin distant. In LdR's 1880 monograph, Dreyer lists all the observations under the GC number for NGC 3457 (GC 2256 = h 793; which see), but as I note there, it's not clear that NGC 3460 was the object JH and his Mr. Bailey saw. Swift picked up the galaxy in 1885; it is the 9th nebula of more than a thousand which he catalogued as "novae." Given the difference in his RA and JH's (23 seconds), both he and Dreyer can be forgiven for thinking he had found a new nebula. Since there is no question about the identity of NGC 3461 -- it is the faint galaxy about 5.5 arcmin north-northeast of the brighter galaxy -- and since LdR saw the two as a pair twice, it makes sense to retain the number NGC 3460 for the bright object. I'm not so sure what to do about the number NGC 3457 (which see for more) -- it could belong to the brighter galaxy, or it could be for the triple star along with IC 656. ===== NGC 3461. See NGC 3460. ===== NGC 3462, discovered by WH, was also seen by David Todd during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet". It is Todd's number (5). See NGC 3604 for more. ===== NGC 3465. Though credited only to JH in the NGC, this is also H III 967. WH found the galaxy on 2 April 1802, but it -- and the other fourteen in sweep 1096 -- has a large, systematic error in its position. Dreyer sorted out the problem in his notes to his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. See NGC 3752 for more. Also see NGC 3484 for an unsolved mystery possibly related to NGC 3465 -- but probably not. ===== NGC 3472 may be ESO 572-G025, just an hour off of Stone's position -- but I don't think so. There is a bright double star, with a fainter star closer to the galaxy, just two arcmin to the southwest of the galaxy. Stone would certainly have mentioned this in his description, and he does not. The entirety of his description is "Mag = 15.5, Dia = 0.4, R, gbM." He has left no sketch for us, either. So the ESO galaxy is a possibility, but no more. ===== NGC 3474. See IC 884. ===== NGC 3476 = NGC 3480 (which see) and NGC 3477. The two smaller numbers apply to nebulae found by Marth. His relative positions are good, but are offset from the true positions by 3 arcmin in declination. His descriptions are apt, so there is little doubt about the identifications. ===== NGC 3477. See NGC 3476. ===== NGC 3479 = NGC 3502, which see. ===== NGC 3480 = NGC 3476 is the 11th in Ainslie Common's list of nebulae found by him with his 36-inch reflector in 1880. None of his positions are very good, and this one seems to be worse than most -- there are no galaxies within 10 arcmin of his place. However, NGC 3476, the largest and brightest of a group, is about 12 arcmin southwest. It would probably match Common's scanty description ("Small, stellar"), even as seen in a fairly large telescope. It is possible that NGC 3480 is the same galaxy as NGC 3490. But that is also one of Common's discoveries (on the same night? he does not give us dates of observation), and is a fainter object as well. So, I think it a somewhat less likely candidate -- but many other people have rediscovered the same object, even on the same night. ===== NGC 3484 is lost. JH gives a position, suggests that it might be H. III 967 (but that is NGC 3465), and says "A very doubtful object." That's it. Dreyer searched for this on the Greenwich plates that he asked to have taken of the area covered by one of WH's very strange sweeps (see NGC 2938 and NGC 3752 for more). I've searched for it on the POSS1 prints. There are no candidate galaxies within 30-40 arcmin of JH's position. So, we just have to take JH's word for it -- "A very doubtful object," indeed! ===== NGC 3487. Swift's RA is about 35 seconds of time too small, but his Dec is good, and his description appropriate, for UGC 6092. ===== NGC 3489. See NGC 3498. ===== NGC 3490. Common's RA is marked "+-", but it is close enough to CGCG 066-080 (and the Dec is within an arcmin), to make the identification pretty certain. There are other equally bright galaxies around (including NGC 3480, which see), but none at the right declination. ===== NGC 3494 is most likely the double star 8-9 arcmin north of NGC 3495. Tempel says only (in a very crude translation by yrs trly), "Six arcmin north of the middle knot [of three in N3495], I repeatedly saw a very small nebula, which at first sight I took to be [part of] N3495." There is nothing in the implied position (calculated by Dreyer from N3495's position), but the double is only 3 arcmin further north, and is of similar brightness to other stars that Tempel mistook for nebulae. ===== NGC 3495. See NGC 3494. ===== NGC 3497 = NGC 3525 = NGC 3528 = IC 2624. This object may hold the record as the one with the most NGC and IC numbers. It was independently discovered four different times, first by WH. As Dreyer noted in 1912 (MN and Scientific Papers), there is a 6 minute error in the GC/NGC RA. Re-reducing WH's data in the Scientific Papers leads to the correct position. JH found it next during his stay at the Cape of Good Hope. He was also the first to see NGC 3528's brightest companion (N3529 = I2625). He got the identity with H III 824 correct in his Cape Observations, but separated his father's nebula from his brighter one for the GC. This suggests that the six-minute error is JH's rather than CH's. Dreyer copied the GC position into NGC, so it was not until his work on WH's papers that he noticed the discrepancy. Ormond Stone was the next in line -- his position is unusually good: only a minute of time off (his entry is NGC 3525). The identity is nevertheless pretty sure as there are no other nebulae in the area that he would have called magnitude 12.0. Finally, Lewis Swift picked up the pair in 1898. His RA is nearly correct, but his declination for N3528 = I2624 is about 5 arcmin too far south, nearly equal with that for N3529 = I2625. Again, there can be little doubt about the identity as Swift describes the brighter of the pair as "considerably bright;" there are no other galaxies near that are bright enough for that description. It was his observation that gave the pair their IC numbers. ===== NGC 3498 is probably the triple star three arcmin northwest of WH's position. Dreyer reprints WH's full note in which he says, "eF, not S. I had some doubt and put on 240, but there being no stars very near it, I could not adjust the focus, and therefore could not verify it." Dreyer also notes that d'A could not find the nebula during repeated attempts when N3489 was seen easily. ===== NGC 3500 is given as a double nebula with one number in the NGC, while JH in GC assigns two numbers with a single position. In each catalogue, the position comes from WH's observations on the night of 2 April 1801 which suffer from large, systematic position errors (see NGC 3752 for more). Dreyer more or less sorted out the problems for his edition of WH's Scientific Papers, based on accurate positions measured on 30-inch reflector plates taken at Greenwich in 1910 or 1911 (see MNRAS 71, 509, 1911). Unfortunately, neither Dreyer nor the Greenwich observer(s) assign NGC numbers to all of the galaxies in that list (I have those listed in my note to NGC 3752). I've taken a bit of a liberty here, and have split out WH's two numbers, III 967 and III 968, giving the first to NGC 3465 (which see), and the second to NGC 3500. I follow Dreyer's lead on the first, but use NGC 3500 for the second where he does not. ===== NGC 3502 = NGC 3479. The descriptions and declinations of the two entries (Nos. 180 by Leavenworth, and 181 by Stone) in the first Leander McCormick list are much the same, but the RA of the following nebula is 4 minutes of time too large. This is in the same sense as many other of the LM nebulae, so the identity is pretty certain. The suggestion in RNGC that the galaxy 50 arcmin north and a few tenths of a minute preceding Leavenworth's position strikes me as considerably less likely since RA errors are more common in the LM lists than Dec errors, though these also occur, of course. ===== NGC 3505 is perhaps a reobservation of NGC 3508 (which see). Even though JH's position is over 3/4 deg off in Dec, his description fits very well, including the "star 14 near." JH found it during his stay at the Cape. The large position error is bothersome, but there is nothing else within several degrees that matches the description. ===== NGC 3508 = IC 2622 (which see) and is probably also = NGC 3505 (also which see). WH called this "small" while his son saw it as "vL" -- WH is closer to the truth. Both positions are good, so there is no doubt that both men were looking at the same object. Similarly, Swift's note "... looks like a D *" in his description makes it clear that he, too, was looking at the same galaxy. In his case, however, the position is off by a few arcminutes to the northeast. ===== NGC 3514. See NGC 3520. ===== NGC 3518 = NGC 3122 = NGC 3110. In the original AJ paper, Stone notes, "In same field with nebula discovered by Stephan." This is a bit puzzling as none of Stephan's nebulae are within 5 degrees of Stone's nominal position. Stone has left us a sketch, too, with the same nominal position on the cover sheet. The sketch shows a nice double nebula with four stars nearby. Again, there is nothing on the sky within 5 degrees of the nominal position that matches the sketch. So, I assumed some sort of error in Stone's position and began looking at possible digit errors. After ruling out a few, I found NGC 3122 in Stephan's 13th list (its number 54 there) just an hour of time preceding Stone's position. Checking his sketch against the PSS, I found that the "double nebula" is actually the central bulge, and a very bright arm to the southeast, of a single galaxy. Furthermore, one of the "stars" sketched by Stone is the nucleus of an interacting companion galaxy, MCG -01-26-013. Were it not for the sketch, I would assign the NGC number to this companion (though the position angle is more than 20 degrees off Stone's estimate of 110 deg). As is, I am tempted to put the number on just the arm -- but that does not match Stone's description, either. By default, then, N3518 = N3122 = N3110 (which see for another story). ===== NGC 3520 is another of the Leander McCormick discoveries, this one by Leavenworth. His nominal position is close to an asterism of 4 or 5 stars spread over an area of 0.8 by 0.6 arcmin, but his description (m = 15.3, D = 0.4, iR, gpmbM, sev vF sts inv) does not match the appearance of the stars. In addition, they are too bright, being 13 to 15th magnitude. A more likely match is to ESO 570- G004, an interacting triple or quadruple system 1 min 35 sec east and 5 arcmin south of the nominal position. It matches Leavenworth's description pretty well. Other possible matches include the double star at 11 01 55.6, -17 40 23; and NGC 3514 = ESO 570- G001 at 11 01 32, -18 30.7. These don't match the description as well as the interacting system, however, so I view them as less likely to be Leavenworth's object. ===== NGC 3523 is H. II 904 from WH's sweep 1096 of 2 April 1801; all the positions in that sweep suffer from large, systematic errors. See NGC 3752 for more. ===== NGC 3525 = NGC 3497 (which see) = NGC 3528 = IC 2624. ===== NGC 3526 = NGC 3531, which see. ===== NGC 3528 = NGC 3497 (which see) = NGC 3525 = IC 2624. ===== NGC 3529 = IC 2625. See NGC 3497. ===== NGC 3531 = NGC 3526. Holden misidentified the star he noticed 46.5 seconds preceding the galaxy. When the correct star is used (BD +7 2412, not 2413 as Holden wrote), his position falls close to that of NGC 3526 = Marth 215. The descriptions are virtually identical, and Holden notes the star just southwest of the galaxy. Spitaler was the first to suggest the identity. He found IC 670 near Holden's position, but that is fainter and does not agree with either of the earlier descriptions, so Spitaler -- correctly -- called I670 a "nova." ===== NGC 3533 = "NGC 3557A," which see. ===== NGC 3537 is an interacting galaxy pair about 15 arcmin north-northwest of N3541, and may have been found by Ainslie Common on the same night that he found the latter (though he does not give us the dates of his observations). His position and description is pretty good, being only about 1.5 arcmin off in Dec. The NGC position is even better, coming from two micrometric measurements by Tempel in 1881 and 1882. Nevertheless, RNGC has misidentified it, giving the number to the galaxy that is properly called NGC 3541 (which see). Curiously, Vorontsov-Velyaminov skipped over the object for MCG, though he has included many other even fainter interacting pairs as well as N3541. There is a bit of a mystery about Tempel's observations, too. He lists them as separate entries in his table of new nebulae in his fifth paper with no indication that they might refer to the same object. However, his positions -- once precessed to a common equinox -- are within a few arcsec of being identical. Tempel mentions a "star" on one side of the nebula in his second observation, but not the first. The nebula is described as fainter the first night, too, being a (WH) class III nebula rather than class II-III. On both nights, however, he mentions a faint "star" in the middle of the nebula. I suspect that both his observations apply to the brighter of the two galaxies; the "star" on the side of the nebula is almost certainly the fainter object, seen only on the better night. ===== NGC 3538 is a double star found by d'A. It is identified in the MNRAS 71, 509, 1911 article which helps sort out one of WH's sweeps suffering from large, systematic position errors (see NGC 3752 for more). ===== NGC 3540 = NGC 3548, which see. ===== NGC 3541. Common's position from his short Copernicus list is very close to 15 arcmin south of MCG -02-29-003, and is within 0.2 min in RA. His description is appropriate for the galaxy as it would be seen in a 36-inch telescope, so the position is probably due to his misreading the declination circle. RNGC has the object as non-existent. See NGC 3537 for more on this field. ===== NGC 3544 = NGC 3571. NGC 3544 was found 8 Jan 1886 UT by Ormond Stone with the Leander McCormick 66-cm refractor. The cover sheet on his sketch of the object (made 13 Jan 1886 UT) bears the note "near but prob. not G.C. 2330," in addition to the usual dates, position, magnification, and his initials. The position on the cover sheet is given as "11h 4.0m, -17d 41m." This was rounded off in RA to "11 4" in AJ 7, 9, 1886 where the discovery was published. The published paper also notes "G.C. 2330?" and there is no object at Stone's position. Stone's sketch also shows the elongated galaxy in the correct position angle. Unfortunately, the nearby field stars are not shown clearly on the sketch. A few specks on my copy are probably dust on the photocopier, but more or less correspond to nearby stars which Stone could have seen with the big refractor. Finally, the positions in the first two lists of nebulae found at LM are often 1-2 minutes of time west of the true positions. Assuming the identity with N3571, this is one of those cases. The NGC position for N3571 comes from William Herschel's single discovery observation on 8 March 1789, but is good enough to identify the galaxy unambiguously (the position was later verified by Bigourdan at Paris in 1888 and 1900, Kobold at Strassburg in 1901, Porter at Cincinnati in 1906 and 1908 -- though curiously, first by Leavenworth at Leander McCormick in 1887). The galaxy is just bright enough for Shapley-Ames, and it has been listed there and in the susequent literature under N3571 as the NGC position for that number is more nearly correct than the NGC position for N3544. So, in spite of Paturel's use of the number N3544 in RC3 (he perhaps followed ESO-B which has the listing as "N3544=N3571"), we should retain N3571 for consistency. ===== NGC 3548 = NGC 3540. Both numbers are from JH, but his position for N3548 is 1 min 9 sec too far east. This probably represents a 1 minute error somewhere along the line from observation to final position, but without JH's original papers, finding the error will be difficult. The identity of the two numbers is assured by JH's notes (for NGC 3540) "... a * 7m p, distance 7 arcmin to 8 arcmin" and (for N3548) "... a * 8m precedes." The star is very close to 8 arcmin preceding, and is about 25 arcsec south. ===== NGC 3550. I've been curious for some time about this galaxy, called a "double nebula" in CGCG. The object actually looks triple in the DSS image -- or are those superposed stars? I have wanted to examine it on one of the digital sky surveys. Unfortunately, the SDSS has not yet (as of Data Release 5 in June 2006) covered the area. However, 2MASS has three acceptable images in its three bands. It appears that all three objects are galaxies. This is confirmed by the redshifts given by John Tonry in AJ 90, 2431, 1985 (cz = 11000 km/s for the faint southwestern galaxy, 10447 km/s for the central galaxy, and 10388 km/s for the northeastern galaxy; all the redshifts have errors of +- 15 km/s). Also see NGC 3552 where this figures in the NGC identification problems in Abell 1185. ===== NGC 3551 and NGC 3555 are probably the two brightest galaxies in Abell 1177. Swift's RA's are just +1 minute of time in error. RNGC suggests that the brightest galaxy is NGC 3555. This would make N3551 one of the triple system about 2 arcmin southwest. However, these galaxies are considerably fainter than the second brightest galaxy in the cluster, which is about 3.5 arcmin to the northeast. There is also a star close to the middle of the three, and I think that the ensemble would appear as a "small nebulous cluster." Swift describes his object as "eeF, vS, R, difficult; south of two." His second he calls, "vF, R, n of 2." It may seem odd that he would call the brighter galaxy the fainter, but it has a lower surface brightness, and could well appear fainter at the eyepiece. Unfortunately, Swift's relative position between the two galaxies (10 seconds of time, and 30 seconds of arc) matches neither the RNGC interpretation, nor my own. So, the positions don't help us much in this case. We need some visual observations to check Swift's descriptions. ===== NGC 3552 and NGC 3553. William Herschel found two objects in 1785, and reobserved them in 1790, providing them with separate positions then. John Herschel has several sweeps over the area, finding four objects altogether. D'Arrest observed the same four galaxies, and picked up a fifth about 10 arcmin south. A sixth was found in 1885 by Bigourdan who also provided accurate positions for the other four (he also has one observation of a "nova" in the field, but his estimated position points at blank sky; see the discussion of this under NGC 3561). These six nebulae were included in NGC. Lord Rosse did not observe (or at least left no record of) any of them. If he had, there would almost certainly be more than the six objects in NGC that there are, since these six NGC objects are the brightest in the cluster Abell 1185. At least two other "historical" observations of Abell 1185 exist. First, Kobold measured accurate positions in 1902 for five objects here (one, which he called "Kobold 13," was discovered by him). One of his positions (for N3552) points at blank sky. Three other of his positions are systematically off the galaxies by about 20 arcsec. Because of the supposed care with which Kobold did his work, Hubble (in his PhD thesis, published in 1917) was misled into questioning his own work in the area where he measured positions and estimated types for several dozen galaxies. We'll come back to this particular problem in a bit. With all these positions and observations, one can be excused for believing that all is well, and that we know exactly which NGC number applies to which object. Not true! Only the numbers for three of the six NGC galaxies are pretty solid (N3550, N3554, and N3558). Questions arise for the other three. If we restrict ourselves to the early observations, we can be pretty sure which objects were seen by the Herschels and by d'Arrest -- the brightest five galaxies. While the positions are not exact, they are good enough to pin down the correct objects. The problems begin with Bigourdan's observations. While his positions (reduced using GSC positions for his comparison stars) are excellent, he assigned the number N3553 to the object which John Herschel and d'Arrest called N3552. For N3552, he chose a faint galaxy about an arcminute south-preceding. It has a brighter star superposed -- it is actually this star which Bigourdan measured; he describes the two objects as a single faint nebulous spot. Dreyer adopted Bigourdan's position for N3553. It's no surprise then, that the NGC positions for N3552 and 3553 are very close -- they apply to the same object. For this catalogue, we've followed historical precedent, and assigned the number N3552 to the brighter north-following object, leaving the south-preceding object (the one first seen by Bigourdan) as N3553. This is counter the prevailing idea that lower NGC numbers are always preceding, but explicitly acknowledges the actual history of the observations. Well, I promised a brief discussion of Kobold's and Hubble's data. Kobold's mistake, not found by Hubble, was a transposition of two numbers in the declination measurement of his comparison star with respect to an FK1 reference star (the comparison star is actually the same star used by Bigourdan for most of his measurements). This transposition (instead of -9' 42.5" as used and published by Kobold, read -9' 24.5") resulted in a systematic error of 18.6" in his declinations of N3550, N3552, N3554, and K13. Once corrected, the positions of N3550, N3554, and K13 agree very well with those measured by Bigourdan, by Hubble, and with those in GSC. However, Kobold's position for N3552 points at blank sky -- there is nothing within 3 arcmin in any direction brighter than the POSS1 plate limit. I suspect that Kobold's offsets apply to another star/galaxy pair, but I've not been able to find which objects would fit (I admit to not having looked very hard; perhaps a reader could unravel the mystery). In any event, Kobold's systematic error misled Hubble into thinking that his positions, measured on a plate taken with the 24-inch reflector at Yerkes Observatory, were somehow incorrect. In the end, however, Hubble printed his own positions and identifications. His positions are quite good, but his identifications are wrong for N3552 (he got K13) and N3554 (he got N3552); he did not identify N3553 at all -- but it is his number 81 in his Table XI. ===== NGC 3553. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3554. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3555. See NGC 3551. ===== "NGC 3557A" = NGC 3533. There is no problem with JH's position of NGC 3533, nor with de Vaucouleurs's for "NGC 3557A" as he called it in his Stromlo survey of southern Shapley-Ames galaxies. De Vaucouleurs simply missed the NGC entry for N3533. ===== NGC 3558. See NGC 3552. ===== NGC 3559 = NGC 3560, which see. ===== NGC 3560 = NGC 3559. During his MicroSky work, Glen Deen could not find NGC 3560. There is indeed nothing in its position, copied exactly from the GC by Dreyer, and before that from JH's 1833 catalogue. Checking that catalogue, though, I found that JH himself equates his 834th object with his father's III 79. The descriptions are similar, and Sir John himself says, "The PD of the working list is 6 arcmin out, owing to which I have often before looked for it in vain." So, he must have had the correct polar distance in front of him when he wrote this. But his NPD is exactly 50 arcmin out. I suspect that the 1833 NPD suffers from a typographical error: in place of "77 53 50," read "77 03 50." D'Arrest also noticed the 6 arcmin problem (he also marks the name III 79 with a question mark, and does not mention JH's number), and has two observations of this to Sir John's one. Thus, it is d'Arrest's presumably more accurate position that Dreyer adopted for NGC 3559. However, Dreyer had only JH's position for h834 to use. This is exactly 50 arcmin in declination out from d'Arrest's correct position for III 79. Since Sir John had included h834 in GC as a separate object, Dreyer followed JH's precedent. So, we are left with two numbers for the same object. Curiously, though, neither Dreyer nor JH have any note in GC or NGC about the identity, which JH himself had noted over 30 years earlier. ===== NGC 3561 is usually taken in modern catalogues as the entire double system Arp 105 = VV 237. However, the brighter (southern) of the two interacting galaxies is the one seen and measured by the visual observers, and by Hubble in his 1917 thesis. This is the one that I have labeled N3561 in the main position table. There is, however, an intriguing observation of a "nova" by Bigourdan about 15 arcsec north of the northern component of Arp 105. The right ascension offset estimated by Bigourdan, however, places the nova in a blank sky field four seconds of time preceding the galaxy. I wonder, though, if Bigourdan in fact saw the galaxy, but misplaced it because of its faintness. The question is a bit academic now, since the observation only exists in Bigourdan's list; he apparently did not publish it in any of his lists of new nebulae, so it did not receive an NGC or IC number. See NGC 3552 for more discussion about this field. ===== NGC 3565 and NGC 3566. These two objects were given the same poor position by Ormond Stone in the first Leander McCormick list. The identification with the close pair of galaxies listed in the table was made by noting that many of the first list nebulae were placed about two minutes of time too far west. Subtracting two minutes from the RA puts the position very close to the faint pair. The identification of this pair as NGC 3565 and 3566 is obviously not very secure because the discovery position is poor, and there are no sketches of the objects among Stone's papers. Another possibility is that N3565 and 3566 are identical to IC 2623 and the star superposed just south. However, this would require a 4 minute error in Stone's RA, as well as a 4 minute declination error. While a few of the Leander McCormick positions are indeed this far off, I think that this possibility is less likely. ===== NGC 3566. See NGC 3565. ===== NGC 3571 = NGC 3544, which see. ===== NGC 3575 = NGC 3162. D'Arrest's RA is one hour too large. He must have had a bad night on 21 February 1863 since N2753 and N3760 (both of which see) are his other two novae from that night. In any event, when the one hour correction is made, d'A's position falls within one arcmin of NGC 3162, and his description is perfect for the object, including the 11th mag star 3 arcmin west, and the 16th mag star 1 arcmin southeast (actually superposed on the southeast arm of the galaxy). ===== NGC 3576. Even though Lauberts marks the identity as questionable, there is no doubt that this is the object that JH saw. His figure shows all six of the bright patches of nebulosity in the area, and matches the appearance of the sky pretty well. He notes that the position for this object (and a couple of others) comes from two figures he sketched for the group. This may account for his RA being a bit off for this southwest patch: it is shown too close to the rest of the nebulae in his figure. The other nebulae are NGC 3579, 3581, 3582, 3584, and 3586. JH's positions and descriptions for them are very good. ===== NGC 3578. JH found this on 16 Dec 1827 along with at least sixteen of his father's nebulae. Of these seventeen nebulae, only one other (NGC 2848) has a position in JH's table marked uncertain. This one, N3578, has the NPD given only to a full arcmin and is marked with a plus-minus sign. JH's description is also short and discouraging: "A doubtful object, but probably a nebula." Nevertheless, there is close double star within JH's usual statistical error of his position. On the DSS (from a IIIa-J plate taken at Siding Spring), the double is blended too closely to reliably estimate individual positions. However, this might be just the sort of object that would lead JH to the sort of description he has left us. There is another double star seven arcmin south. I think that is less likely, so I've put question marks on it. It is still, however, the sort of double that JH mistook for nebulae several other times, so I'm going to at least mention it as a possibility for N3578. ===== NGC 3579. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3581. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3580 is probably not IC 675, which see for more. ===== NGC 3582. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3584. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3586. See NGC 3576. ===== NGC 3594. The NGC position falls between two galaxies that could be the object WH saw. The "standard" identification is with UGC 06286. Indeed, WH's position is closer to this object (about 8 arcmin) than to the other possibility, CGCG 268-006. This second galaxy, however, is brighter and smaller, so has a higher surface brightness. Still, WH's nominal position is over 12 arcmin away. In neither case, by the way, is there a possible digit error that might explain the poor nominal position. In the end, I have a slight preference for the UGC galaxy, but have retained both galaxies in the table. ===== NGC 3596. See NGC 3616. ===== NGC 3599. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3604 = NGC 3611. WH's RA is one minute too small, but his description is apt for NGC 3611. Dreyer, without benefit of wide-field plates, comments in his notes to WH's catalogue, "Should probably be rejected, together with III 88 (sic) and III 598 (NGC 3509), the only other neb this night, as there was fog `which indeed was so strong as to make everything swim about me.' " NGC 3509 is also a minute of time east of WH's RA, reinforcing Reinmuth's suggestion of the identity of N3604 with N3611. I'm not sure, however, which object Dreyer means by "III 88." III 88 is NGC 3401 (which see), and was found two and a half years earlier than the other two objects. In WH's catalogues, only NGC 3509 is noted as being found on the same night (30 Dec 1786) as N3604. Did Dreyer mean to have only III 598 in his comment? Probably so, but we can't be sure without seeing his MS. Coincidentally, this object is also the first of 30 numbered nebulae and stars that David Todd found during his 1877-1878 "Telescopic search for the trans- Neptunian planet" with the USNO 26-inch refractor. He has given us a nearly complete transcription of his observing notes in his AN article; this makes digging out the nebulae, and all the comments about a single object, rather more difficult than is ideal. Also, Todd's positions are very crude (apparently read from the refractor's setting circles), though he has given us sketches of each object's field so that we can still positively identify all but one of his objects (Dreyer, I'm sure, would have done this had he had a sky survey at hand). Todd found at least two other objects which were bright enough that he (correctly) assumed them to be known nebulae. Several people, including Wolfgang Steinicke, Steve Gottlieb, Klaus Wenzel (inspired by one of Wolfgang's articles), and me, have tackled the list. Here are the identifications of each of his sketched objects. Todd's Modern name Type Note number (1) NGC 3604 = NGC 3611 Galaxy (2) GSC 0838-0889 Star (3) GSC 0848-1219 Star (4) NGC 3427 Galaxy (5) NGC 3462 Galaxy (6) NGC 3436 Galaxy (7) --- --- See comments below. (8) IC 669 Galaxy (9) NGC 3685 Galaxy (10) NGC 3849 = IC 730 Galaxy (11) NGC 4075 Galaxy (12a) NGC 4073 Galaxy (12d) NGC 4063 Galaxy (13a) NGC 4045A Galaxy = CGCG 013-045 (13b) NGC 4045 Galaxy (13e) CGCG 013-049 Galaxy (14a) NGC 4077 = NGC 4140 Galaxy Same as (16a) (14b) NGC 4139 = IC 2989 Galaxy Same as (16b) (15) NGC 4179 Galaxy (16a) NGC 4077 = NGC 4140 Galaxy Same as (14a) (16b) NGC 4139 = IC 2989 Galaxy Same as (14b) (17) NGC 4355 = NGC 4418 Galaxy (18) NGC 4202 Galaxy (19) GSC 0836-0339 Star (20b) NGC 3153 Galaxy (20c) CGCG 064-091 Galaxy (21) NGC 3134 Galaxy (22) IC 591 Galaxy (23) CGCG 064-093 Galaxy = MCG +02-26-033 (24) NGC 3332 = NGC 3342 Galaxy (25) CGCG 066-007 Galaxy = UGC 05864 (26) CGCG 065-074 Galaxy = MCG +02-27-033 (27) GSC 0841-1088 Star (28) CGCG 065-073 Galaxy (29) NGC 3217 = IC 606 Galaxy (30) NGC 3279 = IC 622 Galaxy I've checked that each of the sketches matches the sky as it appears on the POSS1 prints or on the DSS. The stars were initially identified by Klaus Wenzel; I have confirmed his identifications with one exception. That exception is number (7). Klaus suggests that number (7) is also a star, GSC 0268-0113, but the field around it does not match Todd's sketch. In addition, this star is just 2 arcmin south of IC 670 which is bright enough that Todd would have recorded it had he seen it. I cannot find any star field that matches Todd's detailed sketch for number (7), though his second sketch of the finder field (from 12 December 1877) does indeed match the sky. Unfortunately, his detailed field as sketched through the 26-inch is not at the center of this finder field. His first finder field sketch from 3 December 1877 accompanying the 26-inch sketch is also unmatchable -- at least by me -- with the sky. Finally, Todd gives two different crude positions (11h00m, +07d10' on 3 Dec; and 11h00m, +07d17' on 12 Dec) for that field center. These led me to the second finder field, but not the first. He has several measurements of the stars in the field; you can see these in his paper which is available at ADS (AN 113, 153, 1886). If you can recover this object, or think that you can convince me that it is indeed Klaus's star, please let me know. Thanks! ===== NGC 3607. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3608. See NGC 3632. ===== NGC 3611 = NGC 3604, which see. ===== NGC 3616 is probably lost. It may be one of the stars I've noted in the position table, but I'm not sanquine about the possibility. Found 8 April 1784 by WH, and never seen again by anyone, he called it merely "eF, pL; easily ver[ified with] 240[power]." The star I chose decades ago when I was young and naive is surely not WH's object, and I am pretty sure that the double star close to WH's place is not it, either. Neither of these is "pretty large", and while the double star might appear somewhat nebulous on a poor night, I don't see how WH could have anything but "vS" or "eS". He also had trouble with the previous class III object in the same sweep (NGC 3498, which see), though not with the immediately preceding NGC 3596 (= II 102). It's possible that the declination is off, but that would pull this one object out of the zone of all the other nebulae found this same night. I would rather think that the RA is out, but that, too, is a problem because of the solidity of WH's observation with respect to NGC 3596 (Dreyer notes, "In the sweep, it is 3.2m f, 3' s of II. 102 [= N3596], the place of which is correct."). I've yet to examine the sweep -- but as I said, I do not expect to find the object. Still, it's a field rich in galaxies, so we may yet dig this out. ===== NGC 3622. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3626 is also = NGC 3632, which see. ===== NGC 3630. See NGC 3645. ===== NGC 3632 = NGC 3626. This is an identity first suggested by Dreyer, and was adopted by him in his notes to his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers. It is most likely correct since WH found II 30 (which later became N3632) during one of his earlier sweeps (on 15 February 1784) when he was still perfecting his techniques. I did notice, however, that NGC 3599 is just 5 minutes of time preceding the position WH gave for N3632. The problem with that galaxy, though, is that it does not match WH's description -- "A pB nebula, it seems to contain stars; it is of some extent" -- very well. Also, if WH had seen N3599, I would have expected him to also record the much brighter NGC 3607 and 3608 just a minute and a half following at essentially the same declination. He did not record these until a month later. All considered, then (well, all that I can think of given the field), Dreyer's solution is the best one, so is the one that I fully endorse. ===== NGC 3643, NGC 3644 = IC 684, and NGC 3647. Even though Marth's positions for N3643, 3644, and 3647 are pretty accurate, this has not prevented later observers from misidentifying these at one time or another. In particular, Bigourdan's "N3647" is a star, and he labeled N3644 as "new" (his positions for both are accurate). Thus, this latter galaxy received an IC number (I684) as well as its NGC number. Kobold got the right galaxies for N3643 and N3644, but both he and Wirtz list N3644 as "NGC 3645(?)" (though Kobold does have an erratum saying that though the identity is uncertain it is probably N3644). Finally, RNGC has misidentified N3643 and N3645 (which see), and CGCG makes yet another object in the group N3645. ===== NGC 3644 = IC 684, which see. Also see NGC 3643. ===== NGC 3645. This, and five other NGC/IC objects (N3643, N3644, and N3647, which see; and I683 and I684), lie in a relatively crowded field. There has been considerable confusion about the identifications here because of the crowding -- and because the NGC position of the (presumeably) brightest object, N3645, lies in a blank area of sky a few arcminutes northwest of the group center. This brightest object was found first by William Herschel on 23 Feb 1784. He placed it 6m 30s preceding and 7' north of 84 (tau) Leo. The NGC position comes from John Herschel's single uncertain observation during Sweep 143; the object is h867 in his 1833 list, though he notes both it and h861 as being II 32. This latter object is considerably brighter than any of the galaxies in the group, and precedes it by 1.3 min. JH saw it during two sweeps (141 and 238), but did not pick it up during Sweep 143. Similarly, h867 was seen only during Sweep 143, but not during sweeps 141 and 238. That, combined with the relative brightness of the object compared to those in the group and JH's uncertain position for h867, strongly suggests that h867 = h861; i.e. N3645 = N3630. N3645 is also credited to Tempel who has a long discussion of the field in AN 2212 (pp.51-2). I've not translated this yet, but I do not easily see any precise offset from a known object in the text. Is it possible that Tempel was misled by JH's attribution of H II 32 to two different objects? A translation is clearly needed. ===== NGC 3646. See IC 682 = NGC 3649 where I suggest that Swift's note of a "very faint star close north preceding" actually applies to his observation of this galaxy. He somehow confused it with his observation of the fainter galaxy. Curiously, WH puts this object, as well as NGC 3649 which he observed in the same sweep, into his third ("very faint nebulae") class of objects. This is fully three magnitudes brighter than N3649. The only reason I can see is that the surface brightness is lower. JH has them right, though the final "brightness" in GC and NGC ("cF") is an unsatisfactory compromise. ===== NGC 3647. See NGC 3643. ===== NGC 3649 = IC 682, which see. ===== NGC 3661 = IC 689, which see. ===== NGC 3667. See IC 689. ===== NGC 3676 is MCG -02-29-029. The declination given by Muller and the NGC is about 30 arcmin too large, but the description is accurate. Muller's note, in particular, "star 10 north-following, star 10 south-following" is correct: each star is 0.95 arcmin from the galaxy. ===== NGC 3679 and NGC 3915 are H III 112 and III 113, both found the night of 24 April 1784, and both referred to the same star, 74 Leo (SAO 138102). There is nothing at either position reduced from WH's offsets from this star. The other brighter objects found on that night (N4697 and N4941 = H I 39 and 40; and N4593, N4602, and N4989 = H II 183,4,5) were all compared with 51 Virginis and are close enough to the derived positions to identify without problems. JH, however, noted that Mayer 510 (SAO 138798), taken later in the same sweep, is a better comparison star. He determined the positions of the two objects given in GC using this star, and Dreyer adopted these positions for NGC, too. He also discusses the problem of the comparison stars in a note to NGC, as well as in the Notes to his 1912 edition of WH's papers. Unfortunately, there are still no nebulae at either position. At this point, it's worth noting that, regardless of which star is used, WH's relative position between the two objects is the same: 24 minutes 12 seconds in RA and 49 arcmin in Dec. This suggests that we should look for objects matching his descriptions separated by these amounts. Now, other observers begin to cloud the picture. Dreyer credits Peters with an observation of N3915. But as with WH's observation, there is nothing at Peters's position (he says that he determined it by plotting the object on charts of his own construction). His note for N3915 reads, "AR in GC from 15 sec to 20 sec too small, and also the declination differs rather much. The nebula is vL, and not eS, as H. III. 113 has it." Just what nebula he saw is something of a mystery. It could have been IC 2963, but Peters's RA is over a minute off, and his Dec is nearly 2 arcmin off as well. Spitaler has a series of good micrometric observations of nebulae which includes N3679. He makes it the object we now call MCG -01-29-021 = Markarian 1294. But this is nearly 15 arcmin away from the nearest of WH's positions, and does not match his description of being "very near a very bright star." Dreyer makes a note of Spitaler's observation in his IC1 Notes, and again in the 1912 Scientific Papers Notes. So, we're left with a puzzle: what did WH and Peters see? Let's assume that WH's descriptions are good [for N3679 he says, "eF, cL, R, r (v nr vB *)" and for N3915, "eF, eS w 240. 2 vS sts and nebulosity."]. The only objects in the area matching these descriptions are MCG -01-29-012 (at 11 19 15.35, -05 29 00.6; B1950.0 from GSC) which has SAO 138156 about 2 arcmin to the north, and the previously uncatalogued galaxy at 11 44 22.20, -04 54 35.4 (again, GSC for B1950.0) which has a somewhat fainter star superposed about 15 arcsec to the southwest of its bright core. The relative positions of these two galaxies in 1784 was 25 min 04 sec, and 35.3 arcmin, not wildly off WH's "observed" offsets -- but not very close, either. In the end, I've taken MCG -01-29-012 and the uncatalogued object as perhaps the two that WH saw. It's clear, however, that there are unexplained large errors in WH's offsets for these two objects. So, these identifications are quite uncertain, and could well be completely wrong. ===== NGC 3682. See NGC 4512. ===== NGC 3685 is CGCG 039-192. Though Todd's position is off (as it is for nearly all of the nebulae he found during his search for "the trans-Neptunian planet") his sketchs of the field are very good, as are his measurements of distances between stars and nebulae within each field. In this case, he found the higher surface brightness component of a pair of CGCG galaxies; the other is UGC 06466, a pretty low surface brightness barred spiral. This is Todd's number (9). See NGC 3604 for more about Todd's search. ===== NGC 3690 and IC 694 (which see for more discussion). These are not, as is often supposed, the two components of the peculiar interacting system, Arp 299. Instead, NGC 3690 refers to these two peculiar galaxies, while IC 694 is the small elliptical or lenticular about an arcmin northwest. Lord Rosse clearly resolved the two components in at least one of his observations, and he also noted IC 694 as an "appendage" to the north-west of the pair. Swift later rediscovered the IC object; this led Dreyer to assign it its own number in the first IC. Note, too, that the numbers NGC 3690 and IC 694 are incorrectly assigned to Arp 296 in the tables in the Arp Atlas. This has further exacerbated the naming problem, as Arp 296 is another interacting pair just a few arcmin following Arp 299. ===== NGC 3694. See NGC 3698 = NGC 3695. ===== NGC 3695 = NGC 3698, which see for more. Ball's description of the field with this, NGC 3694, and NGC 3700 is accurate. So, even though the NGC position is off, there is no doubt about the correct identifications. ===== NGC 3696 is probably the galaxy that I've listed in the table. It is 10 seconds, and 10 arcmin off the nominal place listed by Leavenworth. Still, there is little besides the position to go on (Leavenworth's description could apply to just about any of the faint galaxies in the area), so I am not confident about the identification. There is no sketch. Another candidate galaxy that I considered, but dropped, was NGC 3704, but that does not have such neat offsets from the nominal position, and is brighter than Leavenworth's description would make it. ===== NGC 3698 = NGC 3695. In March 1867, Ball found two nebulae here forming a triangle with h899 = NGC 3694, and suspected others. He did not measure the offsets from JH's nebula (he comments, in fact, "There being no great difference of brightness, it is not easy to see which is h899," but did give the relative positions of "the 2 nf ones, Pos 310 deg, Dist 339''." These numbers are accurate for NGC 3695 and NGC 3700. JH's position for NGC 3694 is very good, too. Nine years later, Dreyer re-examined the field, noting that "nnp [h899] is a pS, eeF neb [= N3695] in Pos 357.2, Dist 256.7." This is actually a star. Dreyer goes on, "About 15' n and a few minutes f is another eF, vS neb [= N3700] with an eF * 2' sf." This is actually a reobservation of NGC 3695, (the star is indeed 2 arcmin southeast), though Dreyer took it to be a new nebula and gave it a new number, NGC 3698. ===== NGC 3700. Though the position is off, Ball's description of the field, including his measurement of the offset between this and NGC 3695, makes clear the nebulae he found. See NGC 3698 = NGC 3695 for more. ===== NGC 3703 is one of Ormond Stone's discoveries. He made a sketch of the field, but it only vaguely matches the galaxy (and its surrounding stars) 10 arcmin north and 25 seconds preceding the published nominal position (the position on the sketch is another 30 seconds on east). In particular, the orientation of the sketch is unusual if the identification is correct -- south is normally at the top of the sketches; this has south at about 10 o'clock. Also, the brightest star shown on the sketch is actually the faintest on the sky. In the end, this is a possible identification, but no more. ===== NGC 3704 and 3707. This pair was found by Ainslie Common around 1880. His position for the pair is only approximate, but his description clearly identifies the nebulae, "2, F, R, on the parallel, star symmetrically placed between." The star is indeed there. The brighter object (N3704) was also seen (in 1878) by Wilhelm Tempel who published a micrometrically measured position for it in his fifth paper on nebulae. His descriptive note on the nebula reads, "Class III; a star 15m (nebulous?) follows 2 sec; near the comparison star is another fainter nebula." The star 2 sec following the measured nebula is the same one mentioned by Common. The positions that Dreyer adopted for NGC come from a letter to him from Tempel. In this letter, summarized by Dreyer in a note in IC2, Tempel says that he saw the brighter (which Dreyer mistakenly calls N3707) four times, but the fainter only once. Further, the position of the fainter comes from a sketch made on 25 May 1881, the same night on which Tempel measured the brighter. After quoting Common's description, Dreyer continues, "I assumed, perhaps erroneously, that 3704,07 are the same as Common's, the place of which is 11h 22m 57s, 100d 33.3m [1860], though Tempel's nebulae are not on the parallel." Dreyer's first assumption was correct, at least concerning the brighter nebula. What is wrong, however, is Tempel's place for the fainter. There is nothing in that position in spite of its being just about 2 arcmin north of his comparison star, and -- presumeably -- shown in that place on the sketch he sent to Dreyer. My guess is that Tempel somehow confused his observations, and that his note about the star and the fainter nebula refers to another field altogether. In any event, Common's observation is clear enough, even if his position isn't, to reliably assign the two numbers to the two galaxies in the field. There is also the faint possibility that Ormond Stone saw NGC 3704; see NGC 3696 for that. Finally, the pair may also be IC 703 and IC 704 (which see). But the case for that is very weak. ===== NGC 3707. See NGC 3704. ===== NGC 3708 and NGC 3709 are lost. Ormond Stone found these with the 26-inch refractor at Leander McCormick and gave his usual crude positions to them. He also left us a sketch of NGC 3708, showing it midway between two stars near the edge of his field. (I do not know the field size, but do not think it can be more than a few arcmin.) There is no trace of N3709 in the sketch. Since it is supposed to be just two arcmin south of N3708, I wonder if it is the same galaxy, but seen on a different night. I searched at all the reasonable digit error offsets where I've found other "lost" nebulae, but found nothing that resembles the north-south pair in the table, nor the galaxy flanked by stars in the sketch. So, unfortunately, two lost nebulae. ===== NGC 3709 is lost. See NGC 3708 for the story. ===== NGC 3712 is probably NGC 3714. JH observed the objects during different sweeps, and his position for N3712 is enough off his others to lead him to think he'd found a new nebula. There is nothing at his position, though, and the descriptions of his two different nebulae are very similar. There are, however, some curiosities here. JH was looking for two of his father's nebulae, II 367 (N3713) and III 353 (probably N3714), in the area. JH assigned the numbers to two of his own nebulae (h906 = N3713, and h907 = N3714), but in his description of N3713 (never seen on the same nights as N3714), he says "No companion seen." Similarly, in his description of N3714, he claims, "No other near on the same parallel." The two galaxies are only 12.6 arcmin apart. How does it happen that neither appeared in the same sweep with the other -- aside from Sweep 68 where JH gives a crude declination and no RA to h905 = N3712 -- though he went over the area in 8 different sweeps? JH also noted the 10 minute error in his father's position for III 353. The galaxy, however, is neither of WH's "wrong" position, nor in the "corrected" one. (I thought I had found it just 10 seconds of time off the "wrong" one, but I, too, made an error in RA, this one of 1 hour. Is it possible that WH also made a 1 hour error? Nope -- in that case, the object would have appeared preceding 44 LMi, not following it, and would have been the first object referred to that star that night, not the last.) JH had to stretch a bit to make III 353 fit his position, but he managed it in the note in GC, saying that WH's position (first corrected by CH), when corrected, falls within 35 seconds of his (JH's) own. Finally, N3714 is a rather peculiar galaxy, having a faint, disturbed corona with a broad plume to the southwest. I am unable to decide if two objects -- one superposed on the galaxy just to the northeast of the center, the second 32 arcseconds to the southwest -- are stars or compact companion galaxies. I am guessing here: the superposed object is a compact galaxy, the more distant object is a star. Spectra are clearly needed. ===== NGC 3713. See NGC 3712 = NGC 3714. ===== NGC 3714 = NGC 3712, which see. ===== NGC 3721, 3722, 3724, and 3730. Here is another of the Leander McCormick fields that is irksome at best, frustrating at worst, and will probably never be sorted out satisfactorily. These four numbers are usually applied to various members of a group of galaxies north of NGC 3732 (found by WH, reobserved by JH, there is no problem with the identification of this galaxy). There is some justification for this; the true RAs for the Leander McCormick objects are often east of the nominal RAs, while the Decs are often (though not always!) fairly accurate. I've listed these identifications in the big table with two question marks. In this case, however, there is another group of galaxies to the west of Leavenworth's nominal positions. The brightest is IC 2910. With two others, this matches the relative positions, brightnesses, and diameters estimated by Leavenworth for three (N3721/22/24 of the four objects (though the declination for the northern-most, N3721, is 4 arcmin off). I've marked these candidate objects with a single question mark. This leaves NGC 3730, which Dreyer credits jointly to Leavenworth and A. A. Common. I'm not convinced that they both saw the same object. If Leavenworth saw it the same night as the other three, he rezeroed his RA because there is no galaxy offset from the other three by the amount in his table. This applies to both groups of galaxies, the one to the east as well as that to the west. Here is where we turn to Common's observation. He lists a single nebula at the position of NGC 3732 calling it "F, R", and adds the note "... a cluster of 3 similar ones 15' n." Dreyer, noting that Leavenworth's position is about 15 arcmin north of N3732, supposed that one of Common's "cluster" was the object that Leavenworth saw. However, Dreyer adopted Leavenworth's RA, nearly a full minute of time preceding N3732. He also has a note in the NGC reading "Common has '3, F, R, 15[arcmin] n of h913 [N3732].' This is not what Common actually wrote, of course, though it summarizes the situation pretty well. But we are still left to wonder which galaxy to take for NGC 3730. Not quite pulling things out of the hat, I'm going to go with the usual choice for this, the brightest galaxy in the "cluster" north of NGC 3732. There is a question mark on it, of course. What about Common's other two galaxies? If the object we take as NGC 3730 is one of his, then the other two are logically those that are sometimes called N3722 and N3724 (those with double question marks in the table). It's not beyond reason, though, to think that he saw those two and the third on to the east in the line, MCG -01-30-008. But all this is speculation. We don't have good positions from the original observers for any of these, so all we can do is -- speculate. Frustrating, isn't it? ===== NGC 3722. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3724. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3730. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3732. See NGC 3721. ===== NGC 3743, 3744, 3745, 3746, 3748, 3750, 3751, 3753, and 3754. The last seven of these are Copeland's Septet. The Notes to IC1 relate how the positions in NGC came to be calculated incorrectly. Briefly, Dreyer took Copeland's reference to the comparison star as "reddish" to apply to the wrong star. Thus, the differences between the NGC positions and the correct positions is a simple offset in RA and Dec. Here are tables showing corrected identifications and information for the Septet area in the four major catalogues from which we drew information for the RC2. the RNGC, Zwicky's CGCG, VV's MCG, and Milson's UGC. Here are identifications for the galaxies with objects listed in MCG, UGC, and CGCG: NGC MCG UGC CGCG (Vol. II, pp. 176 and 180) 3743 --- --- 11 33.2 +22 00, mp = 15.6 3744 --- --- 33.2 +23 16, mp = 15.4 3758 +04-27-073 --- 33.8 +21 52, mp = 14.8 3745 +04-28-004 --- ---- 3746 +04-28-005 06597 35.1 +22 17, mp = 15.3 3748 +04-28-007 --- 35.2 +22 18, mp = 15.5 3750 +04-28-008 --- 35.3 +22 15, mp = 15.2 3751 +04-28-009 06601* ---- 3753 +04-28-010 06602 -\ - 35.4 +22 16, mp = 14.6* 3754 +04-28-011 --- -/ *UGC 6601 - coordinates and magnitude wrong in UGC, but the Note clearly points to the correct object. *NGC 3753 are 3754 both included in the same CGCG entry. Finally, there is a bit of a mystery concerning the name "Copeland's Septet." When the de Vaucouleurs and I adopted this for RC2 (see Table 16b, page 52) in the early 1970's, we thought we were following our self-imposed rule to not provide new names for objects, but to merely copy those used in the literature. Since that time, I've been unable to find the source of the name. My query about this in the Webb Society Quarterly Journal (No. 90, 1992 October, page 41) has brought no response. It's possible, then, that we were the first to use the name. Wherever it came from, it is now in common use. ===== NGC 3744. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3745. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3746. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3747 is H. III 969, one of the fifteen nebulae found by WH on the night of 2 April 1801, where all the positions suffer from a large, systematic error. See NGC 3752 for more about this sweep. ===== NGC 3748. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3750. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3751. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3752. This is discussed in an article in Monthly Notices in 1911 where the anonymous author gives accurate positions for forty nebulae found on Royal Observatory, Greenwich (RGO in modern parlance) 30-inch plates covering the area of WH's sweep 1096 on 2 April 1801. WH's positions in that sweep are affected by a large, systematic error, so Dreyer had requested that the Astronomer Royal take the plates in an effort to sort out the problems. They largely succeeded, but the paper is incorrect in saying in a note that h917 = N3752; actually, N3752 = H II 905. Dreyer and the article's author correctly concluded that h917 and H II 905 are two different galaxies, but they got the NGC number on the wrong one. The MN note should actually read "NGC 3752 = No. 36 above = H II 905, but not h 917 = No. 38 above." This unfortunately leaves h917 without an NGC number. (Following the time-honored tradition of muddying the waters with suffixes, I suppose we could call it "NGC 3752A", but I've not done that. Yet. I may eventually change my mind.) Since John Herschel gave his own position, but his father's description, to GC 2460 = NGC 3752, and since it is clear that WH saw the brighter of the two galaxies (more on this below), the GC and NGC positions should be changed. To reach these conclusions, I re-reduced WH's offsets from his comparison stars (as given by Dreyer in the Scientific Papers) for all the objects in the sweep, using the SAO positions for the stars. The positions for the nebulae so found are very poor, ranging up to almost 6 minutes of time and 45 arcmin from the true positions. Nevertheless, there are no other galaxies in the area of WH's positions that could match his descriptions. By following along chronologically through the sweep, we can be pretty sure which galaxies correspond to which numbers in WH's list (only H III 966 = NGC 3197 is out of RA order, but its identity is clear from the declination). This includes N3752 which, as Steve Gottlieb independently suggested, is certainly H II 905. Further "proof" of the correctness of these identifications comes from a plot (shown in crude form below) of the differences between WH's positions and the true positions from the RGO plates. (By the way, I've verified the RGO positions with modern measurements.) The differences are systematic, increasing towards higher right ascension. Though WH used three different comparison stars for these observations, he used one of these, BD +78 317, for only one object; another, BD +78 412, for two; but the third, BD +76 393, for the remaining 12 objects. (Curiously, Dreyer says in the NGC note and in his note for his 1912 edition of WH's Scientific Papers that WH used only one star for all fifteen objects. This has led Wolfgang to speculate that Dreyer has changed the offsets from WH's originals published in PT; we'll have to check the original PT to see if this is true. Wolfgang also points out that the NGC positions for some of the fifteen nebulae cannot be derived from the Scientific Papers offsets.) For this third star in particular, the systematic errors are therefore quite well-determined. If corrected for these systematic errors, WH's positions would be good to his nominal accuracy of a few arcmin. To clinch this interpretation, I calculated the offset of John Herschel's position for h917 from the true position of N3752 = H II 905. The resulting points are coincidentally very close to the offset predicted if William Herschel had used BD +78 412 as his comparison star. But, as we can see on the graph, the points are very discrepant from the offset of the actual comparison star BD +76 393. So, again, N3752 is almost certainly II 905 and not h917. I can only guess at the cause of William Herschel's error: a clock running slowly perhaps? But since the declinations are also affected, this can be only part of the problem. So, there may have been some sort of other mechanical failure in the telescope, or maybe a curious reduction error. In any case, I'm now convinced, thanks to Steve's and Wolfgang's questioning, that the identifications that I've adopted here are the correct ones. Here is a list of the galaxies from the 1911 MNRAS paper, along with the NGC numbers, the numbers assigned by other observers, and the differences between WH's positions and the RGO positions. The objects flagged with asterisks are those found by WH during sweep 1096. MN NGC WH Others Delta RA Delta Dec (WH - RGO) 1* 2938 III 963 h 612 -1m 54s -17.8 arcmin 3* 2977 I 282 -3 17 -17.5 6* 3061 II 903 h 653 -1 49 -14.3 7* 3197 III 966 +1 34 + 6.9 8* 3144=3174 III 964 d'Arrest -2 16 - 2.1 9* 3155=3194 III 965 h 676, d'Arrest -1 53 - 0.9 11* 3183=3218 I 283 d'Arrest -2 25 + 1.2 13 3252 III 316 --- --- 15* 3329=3397 I 284 h 733 +4 01 +26.6 25 3403 II 335 h 767 --- --- 27* 3465 III 967 h 795 +0 50 +11.4 29* 3500 III 968 -1 33 +10.7 30* 3523 II 904 +1 12 + 9.9 34 3538 ... d'Arrest --- --- 36* 3752 II 905 +2 29 +14.8 37* 3747 III 969 +1 51 +12.7 38 .... ... h 917 (+5 22 +39.1) 39* 3901 III 970 +5 40 +42.9 40* 3890=3939 III 971 H III 940, d'Arrest +1 43 +25.3 Finally, here is a crude representation of the plot of the position differences, taken in the sense WH minus RGO: Delta Dec (arcmin) -- + Comparison stars used * = BD +76 393 +40 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 + = BD +78 412 x = BD +78 317 -- +30 -- -- * + +20 -- -- * N3752 if II 905 * +10 -- *** x -- * 0 -- * * -- -10 -- -- * -20 -- * * | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA Delta RA (minutes) +6 -- + +5 -- (*) N3752 if h 917 +4 -- + +3 -- * N3752 if II 905 +2 -- * * x +1 -- * * 0 -- -1 -- * -2 -- * * * * * -3 -- * -4 -- | | | | | | | 12h 11h30m 11h 10h30m 10h 9h30m 9h RA ===== NGC 3753. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3754. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3758. See NGC 3743. ===== NGC 3760 = NGC 3301. As with N3575 = N3162 (which see), d'Arrest's RA is 1 hour too large (he measured both on the same night, 21 February 1863). In addition, his note "* 10-11 p 4.0 sec, 175'' south" should place the star north of the galaxy, not south. With these two changes, his single observation of his "nova" is in perfect accord with his three observations of NGC 3301. Dreyer notes (in the NGC Notes) Copeland's not finding the object at Birr, discovering instead "a large group of novae preceding it" (Copeland's Septet, which see under NGC 3743). He further comments in IC1 that the Strassburg observer (Kobold, who apparently first suggested the equality with N3301) also could not find N3760. ===== NGC 3763 = IC 714. For once, the Leander McCormick observation, this one a micrometric one by Francis Leavenworth, referred to an unmistakeable star, is correct (though perhaps with a 10-arcsec declination error). Even A. A. Common's position is fairly close, only 12 seconds of time and one arcminute off. So Dreyer must have been feeling cautious when he did not mention that the two entries might refer to the same object -- or perhaps he just missed them. Leavenworth does list his comparison star as "Wash. Cat. 4946" -- it is theta Crateris with a V magnitude of 4.7 -- so it would not be instantly recognizeable to someone reading through the list of Leander McCormick observations. Also, Common has an odd note about it (at least I suppose his note refers to the star.) His full description reads "F, diffused, sp 7 stars." The galaxy is indeed "sp", but what does "7 stars" mean? I don't see any other galaxy in the area that has seven obvious stars to the northeast, so given that Common's position is not all that bad, I'll leave this particular mystery to someone else to solve. Perhaps an eyepiece view with the same power and field as Common used on his 36-inch would be more revealing than the DSS. ===== NGC 3771. Though the identifications of this and N3774 nearby are uncertain, a reasonably good fit can be made for this number to the galaxy at 11 39 05.9 -09 20 54 (ESGC). ===== NGC 3774. See NGC 3771. ===== NGC 3775. See both numbers: NGC 3779 = IC 717. ===== NGC 3779 = IC 717, which also see. A. A. Common found this sometime in 1880 along with NGC 3775. He gives a position for N3775, but notes this as only "... another 5' nf, eeF." Dreyer either concocted a position for the object from Common's published information, or asked Common to provide one. I suspect the latter because the NGC position is given with the usual precision that Dreyer adopts for other of Common's nebulae (see NGC 3858 = NGC 3866 for a case where this usual precision is not used). That position is not all that bad as it turns out. Unfortunately, Frank Muller only measured a right ascension for the galaxy, and that is marred by what I think is a transcription error (see the IC 717 note for more), but his description fits the galaxy perfectly. So, the identification with IC 717 is certain in spite of the missing declination and the bad RA. The identity of the two numbers was first suggested by Herbert Howe in 1899. Curiously, his position is just one arcminute too far north, one of the few times that we find an error in his work. I wonder if this, too, is due to a transcription error. Howe also "... suspected another [nebula] between it [N3779] and 3775." But this is only a faint star; it would have been near the limit of his 20-inch refractor. ===== NGC 3786. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3788. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3789 is much more likely to be MCG -01-30-015 than MCG -01-30-019. The western galaxy is much brighter, and Leavenworth's description matches the bar (which extends north-south) very well. The eastern galaxy is considerably fainter, almost round, and has a fainter companion about 30 arcsec west. Had Leavenworth seen this pair, he would more likely have described it as extended east-west. It's true that Leavenworth's position is closer to MCG -01-30-019 than to -015. However, his position is about 1.5 minutes east of -015, an error that many other of his observations share. ===== NGC 3790. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3792 is probably the double star listed in the table. Holden has two observations of it, noting in the second that the "Neb makes an isosceles triangle with DM 2523 and 2525." The only likely object making that triangle with the two BD stars is the double. ===== NGC 3793 and NGC 3797 are most probably stars. Tempel has this to say about them in his paper in AN 2439 (1882): "For the fine double nebula [GC] 2479-80 = h. 331-32 [should be 'h. 931-32' = N3786,8], I have one hasty sketch from 12 Febr. '82, which shows two very small nebulae +18 sec and +30 sec following the southern component [of the double nebula], which I cannot find catalogued." (He goes on to describe his observations of NGC 3786 and 3788.) There are two 15th magnitude stars at the appropriate offsets in RA, just a minute or two south of the declination of the brighter galaxies. For the NGC, Dreyer placed Tempel's two novae following the northern component, NGC 3788. This makes the RA's of the novae too large by 2-3 seconds, and displaces the positions well off the stars. This has misled RNGC to assign NGC 3793 to the much fainter galaxy VV 575 = CGCG 157-007 south- preceding NGC 3786,8. When the correct reference galaxy is used, the RA's come to within a second or two of the stars. Thus, these are almost certainly the objects that Tempel saw. ===== NGC 3794 = NGC 3804. There is no doubt that the objects are identical. Herschel's positions are 30 seconds of time apart, his descriptions are similar, and there is no galaxy at the position of NGC 3794. The RNGC got the wrong galaxy for NGC 3794, supposing that Herschel made a 1 degree error in the declination as well as a 1 minute error in RA. It is more likely that WH made a single smaller error rather than two larger ones. ===== NGC 3797. See NGC 3793. ===== NGC 3801. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3802. See NGC 3807. ===== NGC 3803.