NGC 5003 is CGCG 217-013. The NGC position is 2 minutes of time and 2 degrees off. The RA error comes from WH who commented (copied into the Scientific Papers by Dreyer), "[Minute of time] forgot, but is 5, 6, or 7." Dreyer assumed "5," but the actual offset is closer to "7." There is a systematic offset in the other RAs that night of about -20s; corrected for that, the RA is close to the CGCG galaxy. The Dec error originates in GC, or perhaps in CH's reduction of WH's data. Auwers has the correct declination, but JH either did not catch the difference, or made a transcription error. Another systematic error in Dec of +3' in WH's positions that night leads us closer to the correct Dec. Personal note: this is a particularly important object for me as it was one of the first NGC puzzles that I solved by reference to an "original" publication, in this case, WH's Scientific Papers. I had been aware of the problem presented by this number since I ran across it in RC1 in the mid-60s. The RC1 solution -- adopted from earlier astronomers at Lick and Mt. Wilson -- "pick the nearest galaxy and give it the number," did not appeal to my aesthetic sense: Which galaxy had Herschel actually seen? The clue came when I found a copy of the Scientific Papers in the early or mid 1970s in the Astronomy Department's Peridier Library at the University of Texas at Austin. I found the entry for NGC 5003, and by re-reducing WH's observation and following up on his comment about the forgotten minute of time, I found the right galaxy. That experience convinced me of the value of the historical literature in this work, so I became an amateur historian as well as a professional galaxy cataloguer. ===== NGC 5008 = IC 4381. D'A's RA is one hour too small, and his note that the neighboring 10th magnitude star is north is wrong -- the star is actually south, but very nearly at his offsets, 1.1 seconds preceding, 95 arcsec south. The actual offsets are 1.3 seconds and 86 arcsec. The galaxy (and a companion) was rediscovered by Javelle nearly half a century later. His position is correct. ===== NGC 5036 is clearly identified by Leavenworth's sketch. His position is also pretty good for a change. See also NGC 5039, a neighboring galaxy shown in the same sketch. ===== NGC 5039. Here is one case where Leavenworth's position is actually pretty good (well, statistics suggests that he might get one close once in a while). It is not only just a second of time off in RA and 30 arcsec in Dec, but his sketch clearly shows it in relation to NGC 5036 and several field stars. Thus, the identification is secure, and LEDA's choice of a much fainter double galaxy a few arcmin southwest is clearly wrong. ===== NGC 5043. JH's RA is apparently 30 seconds too large as a cluster matching his description ("Cluster VIII, oblong; 10' x 7', of loose sc sts 11 m") is centered west of his position. Though I make the cluster a bit larger (14 arcmin by 8 arcmin), I have no doubt that this is JH's object. ===== NGC 5045 may be NGC 5155. JH describes this as "A great cluster, or a surprisingly rich portion of the milky way. It contains 34 stars 11m, and perhaps 150 or 200 more of less magnitudes in the field." There is nothing at his position matching this description, but 10 minutes of time following is a large Milky Way star cloud, nearly a degree across, that might well have been seen by JH. He picked this up in the same sweep as NGC 5155 (which see), so I'm not convinced that he in fact made a 10 minute error. However, unless another more compelling idea comes up, I'm at least going to list this identity as a suggestion. ===== NGC 5060. See IC 872. ===== NGC 5066 = NGC 5069, which see. ===== NGC 5067 is a double star just 30 arcsec north of Marth's position. He found this and NGC 5066 on the same night in 1864. His position difference between the two (6 arcmin) is close to what we see on the sky today (5.3 arcmin), and the two stars match his description very well. ===== NGC 5069 = NGC 5066. N5069 is another of Ormond Stone's discoveries with the Leander-McCormick 26-inch refractor. His position, like those of many of the other nebulae found there, is too far east in RA, but approximately correct in Dec. This, and his appropriate description, gives me considerable confidence in the identity with N5066. ===== NGC 5070 = NGC 5072. This is in a relatively scattered group of at least six galaxies. The problem object, N5070, was discovered by Swift in June of 1886. Swift's position is, not unusually, rather poor and points to nothing at all. His description is telling, however: "eeF; eS; vF * v close; looks like a D * at first; another nr; 6 in field, [N5072, N5076, N5077, N5079, N5088]." The only galaxy in the area that matches this is N5072 (it has a star superposed on the faint corona near the overexposed nucleus), so it looks like Steve Gottlieb's suggestion is correct: Swift and d'Arrest saw the same object. Given this, the RC3 (and RNGC) number should read "N5072 = N5070." Swift also claimed to have found at least two other nebulae in this area. See IC 884 for that story. ===== NGC 5072 = NGC 5070, which see. ===== NGC 5076. See NGC 5077 and NGC 5070 = NGC 5072. ===== NGC 5077 area. The Herschels observed the triplet, N5076-77-79 whose identities are not in doubt. Lord Rosse found N5072 and N5088, as did d'Arrest. There is some confusion in their observations concerning stars near N5072: both Howe and Swift comment that the object at first looks like a double star, with the nebula about 15 arcsec nf the star. But there is also another star about 1.7 arcmin nf the nebula; this was seen by Howe and Bigourdan (who, oddly, did not mention the star sp). It is possible that Lord Rosse's observers saw both, but on different nights, and that d'Arrest missed the sp star, just as Bigourdan did. Swift notes 6 nebulae in the area. He probably also saw the one labeled RNGC 5070 (it's possible that he saw the otherwise unnoticed object np N5088; this is brighter than RN5070), but it is clear that his description is for N5072. So, the obvious conclusion for these two is that N5072 = N5070 (not = RN5070) which is the galaxy 15 arcsec north-following the star seen by Howe and Swift. There is a bit more discussion under NGC 5070. ===== NGC 5079. See NGC 5077 and NGC 5070 = NGC 5072. ===== NGC 5082. See NGC 5086. ===== NGC 5086 may be a double star just north of JH's position. Or it may be the single star with a very faint companion just south. He saw the other three objects in the group (N5082, N5090, and N5091) on two nights, but only recorded this one once. His description ("eF, R, 15 arcsec. The 2nd of a group of 4") makes it the faintest and smallest of the group. Since there is nothing exactly at his position, not even stars, we can only guess at what he actually did see. I've put positions for the nearby stars into the table, but I've also scattered question marks around. ===== NGC 5088. See NGC 5077 and NGC 5070 = NGC 5072. ===== NGC 5090. See NGC 5086. ===== NGC 5091. See NGC 5086. ===== NGC 5094. See NGC 4802. ===== NGC 5096. See NGC 5098. ===== NGC 5098. There are two galaxies here, less than an arcminute apart, of virtually identical brightness. Which one did John Herschel see? His position falls just between the two objects, and he describes his object as "Faint, small, between two stars, the north-following of two" (the south-preceding is NGC 5096, actually a triple object, about 3.5 arcmin away). Noting the object as "between two stars" seems to point to the preceding of the pair, as the nearby stars apparently bracket this object rather better than the following one. But, the stars are far enough away that JH's comment could apply to either object. Later observations don't help much. For example, when Bigourdan measured N5098 in the 1890's, he picked up the following galaxy, noting the preceding as a neighboring "star." So, the question remains: which object is NGC 5098? For the time being, unable to provide a definitive answer, I list both objects. ===== NGC 5100 may be NGC 5106, which see. ===== NGC 5106 is probably NGC 5100. But there are some problems remaining. Here is the story: WH saw the nebula on just one night, and recorded only the right ascension, not the north polar distance. The GC and NGC note the polar distance as "v doubtful." The NGC carries a brief note: "Not found by Tempel (A.N. 2522); at least there was no 2nd class nebula near the place." Dreyer has a longer note in his edition of WH's complete papers: "Sw. 108. 'A vS and F neb sp 59 Virginis [= SAO 119847]. Its A.R. is about 13h 06 1/4m. While I looked into the finder to determine its situation, I lost it, but shall endeavour to find it another night.' The transit is given as 13h 10m, that of 31 Bootis (Sweep 111) as 14h 30 1/4m. It is probably = Marth 255 (NGC 5100), 35s p, 30' n of the assumed place of II. 22; no neb in H's place." In his NGC corrections based on the WH edition, Dreyer simply says, "II.22 must be = 5100." There is no problem with NGC 5100. Marth's position is very close to Bigourdan's which is, in turn, very close to the GSC's. It has a small companion which is mentioned in the CGCG, MCG, and UGC, though was apparently not seen by Marth or Bigourdan. And N5100 is indeed 35s p, and 30' n of the NGC position. All this supports Dreyer's contention of the equality of the two NGC numbers. However, JH makes no mention of how he determined the polar distance which he used in GC for N5106 (Dreyer simply copied the PD into NGC). If we assume that JH used the PD of 31 Bootis for II.22, then the GC/NGC PD is more than 30 arcmin in error -- it should read 81 18.1 rather than the 80 46.5 it does. Also, regardless of the PD, WH's RA places II.22 south-following 59 Virginis, not south-preceding as he states. So, questions linger around this object. Unless WH's or JH's unpublished notes can shed some light on this, we have to regard the identity of N5106 with N5100 as provisional. ===== NGC 5109 = NGC 5113. Both objects were found by William Herschel, N5109 = H II 826 on 17 March 1790, and N5113 = H III 808 eleven months earlier on 24 April 1789. His descriptions are very nearly the same: "F, S, E" and "cF, S, E." John Herschel lists only one galaxy here (h1588) which he identifies as H II 826 (= N5109), in spite of the fact that his father's position for N5109 is a full minute of time and nearly two arcmin off, while that for N5113 is only 10 seconds of time and just over one arcmin off. Sir John's description "vF, pmE, 30sec" is also closer to his father's "cF" for N5113 than it is to the "F" for N5109. Dreyer followed Sir John's lead here, but added a note to the NGC description: "perhaps = N5109." He reinforced this in his 1912 MN paper and collection of Sir William's papers, and suggested that the number N5113 be discarded. Reinmuth agreed, and accepted the equality of the two numbers. CGCG, however, located a small galaxy six arcmin north of the NGC position for N5113, and assigned the number to that galaxy. UGC followed along. Given the data above, and the fact that this galaxy is 1.6 magnitudes fainter than the brighter one, this identification is certainly incorrect. So, I have followed Dreyer (1912) in equating the two NGC numbers. The galaxy itself is a peculiar spiral, with a knotty bar-like structure in the middle. It is brighter toward the southern end of this structure in the blue, roughly equal in the red, and considerably brighter in the north in the near-IR (the 2MASS bands). I've adopted the position for the southern knot in the table. Here are some measurements for the northern (I've left the UZC measurement in the table): DSS2B: 13 18 54.78 +57 54 22.6 DSS2R: 13 18 54.78 +57 54 22.6 DSS1: 13 18 54.62 +57 54 23.5, n = 2 2MASS J: 13 18 54.78 +57 54 23.0 2MASS H: 13 18 54.83 +57 54 23.6 2MASS K: 13 18 54.71 +57 54 23.4 ===== NGC 5110 = NGC 5111. The NGC position for N5111 (from the Herschels) is excellent, while that for N5110 from Swift's third list is a little off. But the identity is clinched by Swift's note that the object is "in line with 2 pB stars". The confusion has come from LEDA which incorrectly adopted a much fainter galaxy as N5111. Though this galaxy has stars nearby, they form a line to the north, with the galaxy being well off the line. It is also enough fainter that Swift probably would not have swept it up given the proximity of the brighter object 19 seconds east and six arcmin north. The identity, by the way, was first suggested by Reinmuth in "Die Nebel Herschel." ===== NGC 5111 = NGC 5110, which see. ===== NGC 5113 = NGC 5109, which see. ===== NGC 5118 = IC 4236, which see. ===== NGC 5119. See IC 884. ===== NGC 5122. See IC 884. ===== NGC 5124 = IC 4233, which see. ===== NGC 5126. See IC 4233. ===== NGC 5136 = IC 888, which see. ===== NGC 5155 is a Milky Way star cloud about 1 degree across, with dust lanes and patches splashed over it. I put it a little southwest of JH's position, but his description ("A portion of the Milky Way broken up into clustering masses of astonishing richness. There must be at least 200 or 300 stars in the field, none greater than 10 m.") idenitfies it securely. This same star cloud may also be NGC 5045 (which see), but that was found in the same sweep (number 596 on 16 June 1835). That makes the identity unlikely, but I list it, anyhow. ===== NGC 5160 is a double star very near d'Arrest's position. It was seen as a double star by Tempel (though appeared nebulous on two nights) as well as by Bigourdan, who measured its position. His measurement agrees with mine for both stars, and also -- implicitly -- with the GSC position for the northern. Bigourdan also gave good estimates of the relative magnitudes of the stars, as well as their distance (10 arcsec) and position angle (0 degrees; though on the POSS1, the PA is about 7-8 degrees). Furthermore, d'Arrest notes the 12th magnitude star 28.3 seconds following, 1 arcmin north, of his object. That star is just where he says it is. ===== NGC 5162 = NGC 5174. Swift's RA is 1 minute of time too small. Once that is corrected, his detailed description, "vF, pL, eE [not lE as in the NGC]; an eeF * at each focus of ellipse; B * in field sp; F * nr nf" is an exact match to NGC 5174 (which see). The bright star (WH's comparison star for NGC 5174), the star northeast, and the faint star involved to the south were also noted by JH and (the northeast star) by Dreyer with LdR's 72-inch. ===== NGC 5171 is the brightest galaxy in a curious group. "Curious" because, of the five NGC objects (N5171, N5176, N5177, N5178, and N5179) in it, only four were seen by any one observer. However, since at least two of the three observers were looking for Comet d'Arrest, they clearly picked up the nebulae as afterthoughts. First to go through the group was Hough, then directory of Dearborn Observatory in Chicago, and Burnham, apparently observing with Hough the night of 5 May 1883 on the 18.5-inch refractor. Though the positions are not particularly good, Burnham's offsets to the 8th magnitude star 21 seconds preceding and 58 arcsec south, pins down the nebula he saw as NGC 5171. Dreyer creditted Burnham with the co-discovery of NGC 5179, apparently because of the uncertain position. Hough is credited with NGC 5171, but he describes his object as "Double. Nebula, round, condensed." This could apply to NGC 5171 and its superposed compact companion or star, but it could also apply to NGC 5176 and NGC 5177 which are 2-3 arcmin north-northeast of NGC 5171. Hough's position is not good enough to tell. It also seems odd that he would record the same nebula as new as Burnham, especially given that they were observing on the same night with the same telescope. On 11 May of the same year, Tempel saw NGC 5171, N5178, and N5179 with the 10.5-inch Amici I refractor at Arcetri. He has micrometric positions for the first two, but the third was apparently too far from his comparison star to be measured. Nevertheless, his estimated position for it is good enough to positively identify the galaxy. Finally, on 29 June 1883, Ernst Hartwig, using the 18-inch refractor at Strassburg found and measured four nebulae in the group: N5171, N5176, N5177, and N5179. His positions are very good. So, the observers using the larger telescopes failed to find the faintest of the nebulae, N5178. But it is the southern-most of the five, and has a lower average surface brightness, so may not draw attention to itself as readily as the northern four. ===== NGC 5174 = NGC 5162 (which see) and NGC 5175 are a pair of objects discovered by WH: "Two, mistaken for one; but 240 shewed (sic) them both. cL, vF." JH observed these twice; his description from his first observation (Sweep 120) is correct: "eF, E; involves a star at the south end, and has a star 6 mag 15 arcmin south and a few seconds preceding." His second (Sweep 242) more nearly matches his father's: "vF; two close together, or one E nearly in the meridian. A star 11 mag north." Using LdR's 72-inch, Dreyer also "Found only one neb, vF, vS, stellar, no other neb found. A * 12m about 4 arcmin nf. The ground appeared milky round about." He goes on to comment, "h seems also to have seen but one neb, viz, 1612, his `* 11m n' may be my * 12 m ..." On the sky survey prints, it's clear that the southern of the pair is, as JH noted, a superposed star. Yet CGCG called this a "double" galaxy, and has managed to confuse a lot of modern observers. It is vaguely possible, I suppose, that WH split the galaxy as happened with e.g. NGC 2442 and NGC 2443, and NGC 2903 and NGC 2905. In this case, the second nebula probably would be the faint HII region north-northwest of the nucleus. This was apparently seen by Swift (see his description under the note for NGC 5162). However, the superposed star is considerably brighter, and is the more likely candidate for NGC 5175. ===== NGC 5175 is most likely a star superposed on NGC 5174 (which see for the evidence), but may be a faint HII region in the galaxy. ===== NGC 5176. This may perhaps have been seen by Hough as well as by Hartwig. See NGC 5171 for more. ===== NGC 5177. This may perhaps have been seen by Hough as well as by Hartwig. See NGC 5171 for more. ===== NGC 5178. This was not seen by Hartwig, nor by the Dearborn observers -- but was picked up by Tempel with a smaller telescope. See NGC 5171 for more. ===== NGC 5179. See NGC 5171. Dreyer incorrectly credits Burnham with this galaxy -- Burnham's description makes it clear that he saw NGC 5171. This was seen, however, by Tempel and Hartwig. ===== NGC 5189 = IC 4274, which see. ===== NGC 5194 is the Whirlpool Galaxy, one of the nearest and most spectacular of the giant spirals. It has the distinction of being one of the first to be recognized as a spiral by Lord Rosse with his 72-inch reflector. It is also the first of two galaxies comprising Messier 51; the second is NGC 5195. Unlike M76 (= NGC 650/651), Messier noticed that this object was in fact a pair. The two galaxies are interacting -- with interesting results for both. N5194's "grand-design" spiral pattern probably owes its existence to N5195, while N5195 itself has dust lanes from the outer arm of N5194 superposed on its generally amorphous structure. Plumes and an irregular corona around N5195 are also the result of the interaction. Finally, the two galaxies may be in the process of merging. Some billions of years hence, observers may well see only a single, giant elliptical galaxy where we currently have a pair of the most magnificent extragalactic objects in the sky. ===== NGC 5195 is the amorphous irregular companion to NGC 5194 (which see), and the second component of Messier 51. ===== NGC 5200 is a double star. Like many other of the "nebulae" found at Harvard in the 1850s (see e.g. NGC 2515, NGC 4582, and NGC 5404), the identity is assured by Coolidge's micrometric measurement. ===== NGC 5208. See NGC 5212. ===== NGC 5209. See NGC 5212. ===== NGC 5212. Seen by John Herschel on only one night, and described simply as "extremely faint," the only thing close to his position is a wide double star (separation about 20 arcsec). Wolfgang Steinicke chose this double as N5212. Since JH has other doubles similar to it in his lists, and since his position is within his nominal errors of the double, this is a prime candidate for his object. But there are other candidates. Sue French sent a note early in May 2005 asking about the possibility of CGCG 045-008 (NGC2000 and Glen Deen also picked this galaxy as their candidate for N5212). This is close to two other galaxies (found by WH) that JH saw the same night as he did his "nova". However, his "eF" nebula follows the other two by nearly a minute of time, while CGCG 045-008 is between the two brighter galaxies in RA. There is no easy digit error that would shift JH's RA to match that of CGCG 045-008, though the declinations are identical. The faint galaxy is also close southeast of NGC 5208, so I think that had he seen it, JH would have commented on its proximity to the brighter object. By the way, JH picked up his father's two nebulae during the same sweep in which he saw NGC 5212, as well as in two other sweeps for N5208 and one for N5209. In both cases, his positions measured during the other sweeps agree with those from the night in question. So, we do not have a systematic offset to help us here. Steve Gottlieb and Malcolm Thomson have suggested three other galaxies that might be Sir John's object. One is CGCG 045-021, 10 arcmin south but 13 seconds of time east of JH's position. CGCG 045-012 is 30 seconds of time west but 6 arcmin north. Finally, my own choice is the one that Malcolm and Steve also favor in the end: CGCG 045-014, 27 seconds of time straight west of JH's position. This is the second brightest of the three, and has the highest surface brightness. Those factors, along with the offset (close enough to 30 seconds, a common error), make this galaxy, too, a candidate for JH's object. In the end, however, I favor the double star simply because it is the closest object to JH's position. This, of course, ought to be checked at the eyepiece of a good-sized telescope. ===== NGC 5216 and NGC 5218. The MCG identifications are reversed from those by all other observers. There is no apparent reason for this in the NGC itself, and I doubt that Vorontsov or his colleagues consulted JH's 1833 catalogue where there is an identification error. For the record, Sir John makes his h 1635 a "nova" while he incorrectly labels h 1636 as H II 841. Sir William's original observation was of two objects which became H II 841 and H II 842. Sir John got the identifications sorted out for the GC, and the NGC has them exactly correct, too. So, the MCG is the only catalogue which reverses the identifications. All the other modern catalogues are correct in placing N5216 south-preceding N5218. ===== NGC 5217. See IC 897 for a curious footnote to the observations of this galaxy. ===== NGC 5218. See NGC 5216. ===== NGC 5219 = NGC 5244. John Herschel's original position for N5219 is quite uncertain, being given only to a full minute of time in RA and marked +- in Dec. The description exactly matches that for NGC 5244. Furthermore, the two objects were seen in different sweeps. The identity is therefore almost certain. ===== NGC 5236 = M83. See NGC 6634. ===== NGC 5240 may be IC 895 (which see), but is probably not. ===== NGC 5242 probably never existed. JH saw it only once, and seemed unsure about its reality. His description reads, "eF, vL; fills the whole field. Strongly suspected; yet a doubt remains." His declination is followed by a double colon which further suggests a problem with the observation. However, under his entry for NGC 4808, seen during the same sweep, he says, "Sky perfectly clear." Also, his measured declination, though marked uncertain, is appropriate for the sweep. Since there are no galaxies in the area matching JH's description (all are too small), nor are there any one hour preceding or following, or within two+- degrees of the nominal declination, this may well be a visual illusion of some sort, perhaps caused by scattered light in his telescope. ===== NGC 5244. See NGC 5219. ===== NGC 5264. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 5268 is a star at the catalogued position. Included in the Markree Catalogue as a nebula, there is only a hint on the DSS of a very faint galaxy behind the much brighter star. I do not think that it could be seen in the 12.4-inch refractor at Markree, and suspect that the southern declination -- thus, a low altitude in Ireland -- might have played a role in the classification. ===== NGC 5284. There is a Milky Way star cloud, about 30 arcmin by 20 arcmin, centered about 45 seconds of time following JH's position. It also more or less matches his description, so I've adopted the identification. ===== NGC 5292. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 5298. Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the traditional identification of N5298 with ESO 445- G039 may be wrong. Is it possible, he asks, that ESO 445- G035 is the galaxy that JH saw? His reasoning is that, relative to JH's observation of N5302, N5298's position is closer to G035 than it is to G039. This is probably also the source of the RC1, GHD2, and RNGC identifications: they, too, choose G035. It looks to me like the most likely explanation is a simple +30 second error in JH's RA for N5302, and that his position for N5298 is good. Here is my thinking. JH found 34 nebulae during Sweep 564 on 30 March 1835. Comparing his data for that night with those for the same objects from other nights, he seems to have had about his usual problem rate (5-10 percent) -- missed nebulae that he could have picked up, nebulae referred to nearby objects rather than being measured themselves, etc. Seven of the objects from sweep 564 are in what became ESO/SRC field 445, so I looked at the offsets from the ESO positions in that field. I found, as Steve did, that NGC 5302 is off the modern position by +31.3 seconds of time, and that JH's position for N5298 is +26.0 seconds off if he saw G035 rather than G039. Looking at the offsets for the other nearby objects, though, I don't see any other large offsets: NGC Delta RA Delta Dec 5264 +0.5s -16" 5292 -0.1s +1'08" 5328 -1.7s +17" 5357 -0.6s +15" 5393 -0.4s +19" 5298 +1.0s -40" if = G039 5298 +26.0s +44" if = G035 5302 +31.3s +1'24" If we assume that JH saw G035 and made the same 30 second error in the position of N5298 that he did for N5302, then the offset would be 5298 -5.3s +44" That much larger negative error suggests to me that the "standard" identification is more likely to be correct since there are no other large RA errors in the positions for the five nearby galaxies. On the other hand, N5298 and N5302 are close enough that JH could have seen both in the same field, and could have made the same mistake for each. Steve then says, "I've observed both ESO 445-35 and ESO 445-39 and they appear similar in the eyepiece with perhaps ESO 445-39 a bit brighter. I don't understand, though, how he [JH] would picked up one of these galaxies and not the other." He clearly had problems in this field. He missed the brightest galaxy here (IC 4329), and there are several other galaxies in the cluster that he could have picked up, but didn't. I also did not see anything unusual in his notes about the field, simply descriptions of the nebulae. In contrast, earlier in the same night, he made several comments about the NGC 3308/09/11/etc group in Abell 1060, noting double objects, other objects in the group, and so forth. For the N5298 area, these comments are missing. So, there are some unresolvable problems here. Perhaps this is a case where he fell asleep at the eyepiece. John Stone, his mechanic and observing assistant, is reported to have commented about this happening several times. There are certainly some bright nebulae and doubles in the south that JH should have swept up, but did not. Some additional notes: the magnitudes of G035 and G039 are virtually identical (B = 14.0), and the diameters are not too different, either, so I don't see an easy way to use the data to choose between the two. Again, JH could/should have picked up both, but didn't. So, we're stuck with the ambiguity. In the end, I'm going to put a colon on the N5298 identification, and put G035 in with a question mark. ===== NGC 5299. There is a +30 arcmin error in the GC and NGC declination, but JH's original CGH observation is correct. Once we look in the right spot, we find a large (roughly 25 arcmin across) Milky Way star cloud that matches JH's description. I've adopted the identification. ===== NGC 5302. There is a 30 second error in JH's RA. See NGC 5298 for more. ===== NGC 5309. This was found the night of 27 April 1887 by Edward Swift, Lewis's teenaged son. He calls it "vF, pS, R, between a star and a coarse double star following." There is nothing in the position given in Swift's list, and I do not find reasonable candidates at big digit errors (1 hour in RA, 1 degree in Dec, etc), but there is a possible 10 arcmin digit error (more below). Wolfgang's candidate is probably too faint for either Swift (father or son) to have seen, and the flanking stars are very faint, too. My own candidate, while brighter, is further from Swift's position, though the declination offset (-9 arcmin 10 arcsec) suggests a digit error. The RA offset (+18 sec) is also in line with the other RA offsets of galaxies found that same night by Edward (see NGC 4740 for more on this), so the position at least is suggestive. However, the "coarse double star following" is as much south as east, and is also quite faint. So, I've put question marks on both objects in the position table. ===== NGC 5310 is a star, as are several other NGC objects found early in the career of the "Great Refractor" at Harvard (see e.g. NGC 5200, NGC 5404, and NGC 5632 for others). This one was found by Sidney Coolidge in 1859 (tragically, he was killed during the American Civil War). There is a much fainter star just 17 arcsec to the southeast; perhaps this added some appearance of nebulosity at the eyepiece. Coolidge's position is very good and allows no mistaking the object he measured. ===== NGC 5312. See NGC 5319. ===== NGC 5314. Swift's position is nearly a minute of time off, but the galaxy is clearly identified by the double star 4 arcmin to the south. Swift comments, "... the 2 components of a D* point to it." The "double" star is actually triple, but the third star is faint enough that it would probably be missed by Swift. Swift also mentions "An eF * v close; ...," but I do not see any star "very close" that he could have seen. In particular, the * 27 arcsec south of the galaxy is too faint for Swift's telescope. This, however, is the only unresolved puzzle about the object. ===== NGC 5317 = NGC 5364 with a 5 minute correction to its RA. JH's descriptions of the objects are identical, and he did not record N5364 in the sweep in which he found N5317. Nor did he record N5317 more than once. The identity is therefore almost certain. ===== NGC 5318. See NGC 5319. ===== NGC 5319. Lord Rosse's sketch and description are exact. They unambiguously point to the faint galaxy north following NGC 5318 as the nova; this is "C" in the sketch. "B" -- NGC 5318 -- is shown as three separate nebulae, all of which exist just where Lord Rosse places them. So, the three galaxies are given suffixes in the order of brightness. The RNGC is incorrect in equating N5319 with N5318b. Note, too, that Holmberg only saw one of the companions on the Heidelberg plates that he used for his 1937 double galaxy study. Lord Rosse's sketch also shows NGC 5312 ("A"), but curiously, not NGC 5321 which is actually closer to N5318 than is N5312. This might suggest that there is a problem with N5321's identification, too, but John Herschel's position and description closely match the galaxy. ===== NGC 5321. See NGC 5319. ===== NGC 5328. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 5334 = IC 4338, which see. ===== NGC 5344. The NGC RA -- but not Swift's original RA -- is a minute of time too small. Nevertheless, the galaxy is far enough north that none of the cataloguers have had any trouble assigning the number to the right object. ===== NGC 5357. See NGC 5298 and IC 953. ===== NGC 5360 is probably IC 958, which see. ===== NGC 5364 = NGC 5317, which see. Also see IC 958. ===== NGC 5367 = IC 4347, which see. ===== NGC 5371 probably also carries the designation NGC 5390, which see. ===== NGC 5375 = NGC 5396, which see. ===== NGC 5385 is an asterism of about a dozen stars scattered over an area about five by three arcmin. Villanova et al (A&A 428, 67, 2004) have found that it is not a real cluster, but the group is eyecatching, nonetheless. JH's position and description, "A cluster of 11 stars 11m, and 2 of 15m," is accurate for the apparent group. ===== NGC 5388 is lost. Found by Frank Muller on 4 May 1886, he made a clean copy of his sketch the next day; that has survived in the group of about 180 sketches still extant at the University of Virginia. Muller (or another of the Leander McCormick observers; the handwriting is different) made a note above the typically rough position, "Not corrected for instrument." This probably explains my inability to find a galaxy in the area that matches his description and sketch. He describes it as "Mag = 12.0, S, R, vgbM" and observed it only the one night. Until we can get a copy of the sketch online, here is a description of it: The galaxy is in the center with two stars just to its right. These point to another star near the top of the field about 3/4 of the way from the galaxy to the field's edge. Near the left edge of the field are three brighter stars in a small, flattened triangle. The brightest star is nearest the galaxy with the second brightest at PA ~30 degrees from the brightest. The faintest is at PA ~90 degrees from the brightest, and 2.5 times as far from the brightest as the second brightest. I searched at reasonable offsets suggested by digit errors in Muller's nominal position, but found nothing. Perhaps others might have more luck. ===== NGC 5390 is probably a reobservation of NGC 5371. JH saw the objects in different sweeps, and marked the RA and Dec of N5390 uncertain. His description of N5390, "F, L, vgbM; has a * 9m, nf, 4 arcmin dist.," would match N5371 but for one detail: the star is only 2 arcmin distant, and there is another star, nearly as bright, 5 arcmin north-northeast. Unfortunately, he did not attach a description to his correct position for N5371, so the identity is not absolutely sure. But it is a suggestion from Reinmuth, carried over by Carlson, so has been in the literature for some time. ===== NGC 5391 is probably not MCG +08-25-054 though taken as such by RNGC and Wolfgang Steinicke. It is the faintest of the candidates in the area. The others -- in order of decreasing brightness -- are NGC 5439, UGC 8876, and CGCG 246-029. However, Swift saw a star "very close" to the object. None of the galaxies has stars nearby that could be described that way, and the positions are well off Swift's nominal position. So, this object is probably lost. ===== NGC 5393. See NGC 5298. ===== NGC 5396 = NGC 5375. JH searched for his father's nebula (III 125) at WH's position, but could find only NGC 5375 (h 1771) in the area. Dreyer notes "In the sweep, there is before III 125 a * 8 mag 2deg 49min more north than III 125, no transit ..." The star is there, about 30 seconds preceding. So, we can be pretty confident about the identity. Curiously, JH equated the two nebulae in his 1833 catalogue, but separated them for GC. This is probably just caution on his part, given his comment in the 1833 list, "If this be III 125, my Father's place is much out in RA." ===== NGC 5404. Found by Sidney Coolidge, one of the early Harvard observers, this is a double star. Coolidge gave an accurate position for the object which pinpoints it. Remarkably, nearly all of the so-called "nebulae" listed in the discovery paper (in AN 1453), are simply stars or double stars. I wonder if the Harvard telescope was put to the discovery and observation of nebulae only on less than perfect nights. The other possibility (that the telescope was optically poor or was poorly aligned) is too horrible to contemplate. ===== NGC 5415. Swift's position is between two faint galaxies, but he notes that his nebula forms a triangle with two faint stars nearby. This makes his object the preceding and brighter of the two. ===== NGC 5426. See NGC 5428. ===== NGC 5427. See NGC 5428. ===== NGC 5428, NGC 5429, NGC 5432, and NGC 5435 are multiple stars (N5432 is a triple, the others double) north and east of the interacting pair NGC 5426 and NGC 5427. As with many other of the "nebulae" which were found by Tempel near brighter nebulae, these can be identified by his published descriptions, or by the positions that he later sent to Dreyer. In this case, the identities of N5432 and N5435 are clear from the descriptions and positions, N5428 is pretty clear from the description ("... in line with N5426 and N5427"), and N5429 merely probable from its similarity to the others. ===== NGC 5429 is a double star. See NGC 5428. ===== NGC 5432 is a triple star. See NGC 5428. ===== NGC 5435 is a double star. See NGC 5428. ===== NGC 5436 is one of a line of three nebulae found by Temple (N5437 = I4365 and 5438 = N5446 are the others). It's likely that WH saw at least one of these objects, the northern-most and brightest of the group, N5438; see N5446 for more on this. Except for N5438, Bigourdan mangled the names here; he mistook a nearby star as a nebula as well. So, N5437 has ended up with "IC 4365" (which see) on it in addition to the NGC number. ===== NGC 5437 = IC 4365, which see. ===== NGC 5438 = NGC 5446, which see. Also see NGC 5436. ===== NGC 5439. See NGC 5391. ===== NGC 5441 is probably a second observation of NGC 5440 -- in spite of what JH has to say. "Taken for II.416, which it cannot be if the last obs be correct. vF, S. [Sweep] 131." The position he gives is telling, too: "13 56+-, 54 31 57" (RA and NPD for 1830.0). The date of the sweep is 11 March 1828. The "last obs" he refers to is that of NGC 5440 (= H II 416) itself, seen during sweep 72 on 27 April 1827. For this, JH has "13 55 39.5, 54 24 48. F, S, R, bM; has a * 11m sp 1[arcmin] dist." The object entered the catalogues as h1740 and GC 3755, and finally as NGC 5441 where it languished until Vorontsov-Velyaminov applied it to a faint galaxy southeast of NGC 5440. Though this galaxy is approximately at JH's position (11 seconds and 2.3 arcmin off), it is less than 30 arcsec in diameter, and has a total B magnitude of 15.8. Even more telling, there are other, brighter galaxies in the area that JH did not record, including another close to N5440 itself (UGC 8955 about 6 arcmin to the northwest). Since JH did not see N5440 in sweep 131, nor N5441 in sweep 72, and since his position for N5441 is only approximate, I am going to suggest that h1740 is actually a second observation of h1739 = N5440. The situation was not helped by JH when he compiled the GC. The position there is given to his normal full precision of 0.1 seconds of time, though the accuracy in his 1833 list is only 1 minute of time. Furthermore, he has the "Total No. of times Obs. by h. and H." in the GC as "3", yet there is only the single entry in his 1833 list. While this is not overwhelming evidence, I am still pretty sure that JH saw only the brighter galaxy here, so have revised the main table accordingly. ===== NGC 5446 is probably identical to NGC 5438. This is another of WH's earlier discoveries (19 March 1784). Many of the nebulae found in the spring of 1784 have larger position errors than later observations. In this case, the difference in RA is 30 seconds, and the Dec's are close. The descriptions are similar enough to make the identity almost certain. ===== NGC 5447, 5449, 5450, 5451, 5453, 5455, 5458, 5461, 5462, and NGC 5471 are HII regions and/or star clouds in M101. Most were discovered by LdR, though WH found three of the brightest, and d'Arrest noticed the outlier, N5471. Unfortunately, only the identifications of WH's and d'A's objects are unambiguous. The positions of the others turn out to have been determined by JH for GC. He used the sketch of M101 that appeared in LdR's 1861 paper to estimate offsets from stars with known positions. This must have been a hurried chore, since his resulting positions for the knots are not very good. Without additional observations, Dreyer simply adopted JH's GC positions. There has thus been some confusion over the identifications of the objects found by LdR. Only in two cases, N5461 and N5462 (both found by WH), did LdR provide offsets from a nearby star. D'A's object, N5471, not only has a good position, but is isolated enough from the main body of the galaxy that its identification is also certain. To identify the other objects, I have gone back to the published 1861 sketch where they are clearly shown. I have easily identified the knots which JH saw in the same sketch. With those identifications in hand, I remeasured the positions, and have also been able to sort out most of the identifications used in earlier papers on M101. The correct identifications and new positions are in the main Table. ===== NGC 5449. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5450. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5451. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5453. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5455. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5457 = Messier 101, and is also Messier 102. The identification with M102 has been controversial, however, and rests on a letter that Mechain (who discovered M101) wrote to Bernoulli, then the editor of the Berliner Jahrbuch, claiming that the object is nothing more than a reobservation of M101. This letter was republished in 1947 by Helen Sawyer Hogg, and is usually taken as proof of the identity. Here is the relevant paragraph extracted from Mechain's letter, first in the original German as published in the Jahrbuch, then in Hogg's English translation: "Seite 267 der Connoissance des tems f. 1784 zeigt Herr Messier unter No. 102 einen Nebelfleck an, den ich zwischen [omicron] Bootes und [iota] Drachen entdeckt habe; dies is aber ein Fehler. Diest Nebel fleck ist mit dem vorhergehenden No. 101 ein und derselbe. Herr Messier hat durch einen Fehler in den Himmelscharten veranlasst, denselben nach dem ihm mitgeheilten Verseichnisse meiner Nebelsterne verwechselt." "On page 267 of the Connaissance des temps for 1784 M. Messier lists under No. 102 a nebula which I have discovered between [omicron] Bootes and [iota] Draconis; this is, however, an error. This nebula is one and the same as the preceding No. 101. M. Messier confused the same as the result of an error in the sky chart, in the list of my nebulous stars communicated to him." (I am grateful to Ashraf Shaker -- at the time he sent it in the mid-1980's -- a student at the Helwan Institute in Egypt, for sending a copy of Hogg's paper "Catalogues of Nebulous Objects in the Eighteenth Century" published in the "Journal" of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 41, pp. 265-273, 1947; and reprinted in the "Communications" from the David Dunlop Observatory, Vol. 1, No. 14. The paper is now -- June 2006 -- available at ADS; the URL is "http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?1947JRASC..41..265S".) However, some observers are still trying to make the case that M102 is actually NGC 5866 (which see). The evidence points almost unequivocally to NGC 5457, but there is some marginal evidence for NGC 5866. Occam's Razor, however, points to a simple mistake on Messier's part. Steve O'Meara's "Eye on the Sky" column in the March 2005 issue of "Sky and Telescope" has the full story. There Steve gives his own translation of Mechain's letter, and points out that Messier probably mistakenly plotted M102 east of theta Bootis instead of west, leading to the erroneous description published in the 1781 list. If so, this is far from the only case of an observer confusing directions from a comparison star. ===== NGC 5458. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5461. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5462. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5463. Though there is no problem with the identity of this object, the NGC position, adopted from two micrometric observation by Tempel (published in his 8th list) is 16 seconds west of the true position. I've not been able to find why Tempel's reduced position is wrong (even if he used the BD position for his comparison star, his position would only be 1-2 seconds of time off), but re-reducing his offsets using the GSC position for his comparison star (BD +10 2619) leads to a position much closer to the modern position. However, Tempel's position is still 12-14 arcsec off, further than I would have expected. Either the comparison star has a large proper motion, or Tempel's measurements are somehow in error. Other micrometric positions of his that I've re-reduced have had larger-than-expected offsets from modern positions, so I suspect that his measurements simply have larger standard deviations than would be normal for state-of-the-art work in the mid-1880s. ===== NGC 5465 and NGC 5467 = IC 973 are both stars southwest of NGC 5468. Tempel does not give positions for either in his fifth list, so the NGC positions are probably from private communications to Dreyer. While looking at the field, Bigourdan found and measured stars near the NGC positions. It is those stars that I've taken to be Tempel's "nebulae" -- both share a common offset of +30 arcsec from Tempel's positions, so seem likely to be the objects that Tempel saw. Not able to easily see Tempel's nebulae in the field, Bigourdan nevertheless turned up two new "nebulae" (IC 973 and IC 974, which see) but later realized that one of them (IC 973) was identical to the object he had taken for NGC 5467. By that time, however, the first IC had been published, and included Bigourdan's "novae" from his first Comptes Rendus list of discoveries. So, the star has an IC number as well as an NGC number. ===== NGC 5467 = IC 973 is a star. See NGC 5465. ===== NGC 5468. See NGC 5465 and IC 974. ===== NGC 5469 may be CGCG 074-136. [There has been considerable confusion about this object, so I'm scratching my original note and starting over.] Tempel does not list this object in his table of novae in his 8th list, but instead describes it in the text. Here is the full account, translated by Wolfgang Steinicke: "III 59 [= NGC 5482] is 9s preceeding, 2 1/2' south of a faint star 11m; the nebula is small and has in its center a faint star with very little nebular matter. Following the star 11m, there is at 15s, parallel to it [the star or N5482?] a nice round nebula, III, without a faint star [in the center]. This nebula is also new." Tempel's text seems to suggest that his new nebula follows the 11th magnitude star by 15 seconds, but Wolfgang questions this, suggesting that it may be NGC 5482 which is on the parallel. There is, in any case, no group of two galaxies and a star in the area of NGC 5482 that could possibly match Tempel's description. He has certainly misidentified NGC 5482. Nor is there anything at the NGC position for N5469 (the position probably comes from one of Tempel's letters to Dreyer). Furthermore, NGC 5482 (which is CGCG 074-115; WH's position is too close to that galaxy for any doubt) is another 2.5 minutes of time on east, and half a degree south. So, it cannot be the nebula that Tempel observed: the NGC position is at odds with Tempel's text. Given Tempel's confusion in this area (see e.g. NGC 5562, also well off the nominal position), I suspect that he mistook CGCG 074-134 as NGC 5482. It has a star of about the right magnitude, 7.7 seconds following and 3.6 arcmin north, not unreasonably far off Tempel's estimates of 9 sec and 2.5 arcmin. CGCG 074-136 is 17.1 sec following CGCG 074-134, and 50 arcsec south, again not unreasonably off Tempel's description of the nova being 15 seconds following and on the parallel. I'm not convinced that this is the correct solution, but there is nothing else in the area that comes as close to matching. So, for now, I'm putting NGC 5469 on CGCG 074-136 with a question mark. ===== NGC 5471. See NGC 5447. ===== NGC 5472 is a galaxy just where LdR's and Tempel's observations puts it. However, it was not seen by Bigourdan which may have contributed to his confusion about the field around NGC 5468 (see NGC 5465 and IC 974 for more). ===== NGC 5482. See NGC 5469. ===== NGC 5488 = IC 4375. JH's position in the CGH Observations is crude (14 01+-, 122 50+- for 1830.0), yet he gave it in GC to his usual precision of 0.1 seconds and 0.1 arcseconds. He did list the number of observations as "1::", but this did not make it to the NGC. Dreyer did his usual rounding, too, so the NGC position is apparently a nomally accurate one of one or two arcminutes. The only reason we can be fairly sure about the identification is JH's note "near and to the north of a * 8 m." The star is there, and Stewart also comments on it: "cB,[sic] * sp" (I think the comma is a typo). In any event, there is nothing at JH's position, and the identity with the IC object is pretty sure. ===== NGC 5494 appears in Swift's big 11th AN list of new nebulae. Dreyer caught this, so Swift's rediscovery was not given an IC number. See IC 2595 for more about the nebulae that Swift found on the night of 22 February 1898. ===== NGC 5502 = NGC 5503. These were found by Edward and Lewis Swift, son and father, on 9 and 11 May 1885, respectively. Their descriptions of the galaxy are nearly the same, and the identity is clinched because both father and son carefully describe the surrounding star field (for NGC 5502, the description is "between two stars, one a wide double," while for N5503, it reads "forms with two stars a right triangle"). Neither position is very good, but that for N5503 is closer to the true position. I suspect that the difference in position and description of the stars was enough to convince both of the Swifts -- and Dreyer, too -- that the observations referred to different nebulae. ===== NGC 5503. See NGC 5502. ===== NGC 5504. See IC 4383. ===== NGC 5509 = CGCG 133-010. Bigourdan's declination, as published in his first list of new nebulae in Comptes Rendus, is 16.3 arcmin off the position derived from his micrometric offsets. This may be a simple mistake, or it could be the result of confusion over his comparison star. He lists it twice (once for each of the nights he observed N5509), but at different magnitudes (8.5 and 11.5) and declination offsets from BD +21 2625 (-19 arcmin and -17.2 arcmin). GSC has m = 11.6 from two measurements with the offset being -18 arcmin. Whatever the cause of the error, the correct identity is clear when the reductions are redone using the modern position for the comparison star. ===== NGC 5511 is probably CGCG 074-141, but might possibly be CGCG 074-142. The southeastern galaxy is a low surface brightness late-type spiral, while the western object is an S0 of normal surface brightness. The S0, though fainter in total magnitude, is more likely to be seen in a long-focus 18.5-inch refractor (Hough's telescope at Dearborn Observatory, the same Clark refractor used by Safford nearly two decades earlier). However, Hough's published description reads, "Small, very faint. * 10m, * 10m [sic] preceding." This is a typographical error of some sort. There is no star of 10th magnitude preceding the galaxy (I also checked the possibility that a star might be 10 minutes of time or 10 arcmin preceding, but none are in either place). The only fairly bright star in the area is an 11th magnitude double star following CGCG 074-141 by 14.2 seconds. This casts doubt on the identity with either CGCG galaxy, but Hough's position precesses to within 2 arcmin of the galaxies. Thus, I'm going to give the confused description fairly low weight. Tempel certainly did not see CGCG 074-142. His description of Hough's nebula reads (in a translation by Wolfgang Steinicke): "I also searched for the last of Hough's nebulae at 14h 07.5m +9d 10.0' and found at this place a faint star of 12m with very little nebular matter." I think this is a description of the double star following the galaxies. The fainter star is merged with the image of the brighter, and is southwest. It probably lent just a trace of the appearance of nebulosity to the brighter star as Tempel observed it. ===== NGC 5519 is probably also NGC 5570, which see. ===== NGC 5524 is probably the double star at the position noted in the Table. See NGC 5527 for the discussion. ===== NGC 5527 is probably the object called "NGC 5524" by virtually everybody. Found by LdR on 19 April 1855, it has just the one observation recorded under LdR's entry for NGC 5529. That observation reads, "[NGC 5529], long narrow ray with a S, R, vF neb sf; another vF about 15' np [5529]; and another eeF about 6' p and 1' n of this last." Dreyer adds the note, "The positions given in the G.C. for 2 R. novae, [5524] and [5527], are not in accordance with this." In the observation, it's clear that there are four nebulae in the field. One of these, the "S, R, vF neb sf" is neither in GC nor NGC (it is one of several nebulae known to Dreyer that he did not include in NGC). The other three nebulae, N5524, N5527, and N5529 are arranged along a curve according to LdR's description. It is also clear that the new objects can have only approximate positions as no micrometric positions for them were measured at Birr Castle. An additional problem concerns the adopted positions and descriptions. The positions are by JH for GC and, as Dreyer noted, do not correspond with the description given by LdR. Dreyer switched the positions for NGC, but still got LdR's descriptions of brightness reversed -- the faintest object is clearly the western most of the objects, i.e. NGC 5524. Given all this, it is reasonable to suppose that the brightest object northwest of NGC 5529 is NGC 5527, and that a still fainter object is west- northwest of it. This makes N5527 = CGCG 191-067 (it is 17.2 arcmin from N5529), but leaves the position for NGC 5524 vacant. The object was taken to be a star by Carlson, and was noted in MCG as "Not found." There is a very faint galaxy in the right direction from N5527 that LdR might have seen, but it is almost 13 arcmin away, not 6+ arcmin as in the observation. There is also a somewhat brighter triple star on to the northwest of N5527 (14 11 42.2, +36 43 48; B1950.0, mean of the three DSS positions), but it is 9.5 arcmin from the galaxy, and is probably too bright to be called "eeF." The stars are also pretty well separated: the northern star is 30 arcsec away from the southern. The final possibility, the one I've adopted, is the double star 7.9 arcmin west-southwest of N5527. This is a reasonable choice if LdR's description reads "... another eeF about 6' p and 1' s ...." The second star of this pair is much fainter than the brighter, but may have added just a hint of nebulosity to the object. While this identity is a (reasonable) guess, it is still the best of the available options. ===== NGC 5529. See NGC 5527. ===== NGC 5541. See IC 4394. ===== NGC 5547. See IC 4404. ===== NGC 5552 = NGC 5558, which see. ===== NGC 5554 = NGC 5564. See NGC 5558. ===== NGC 5558 = NGC 5552, and NGC 5564 = NGC 5554. Swift has an accurate description of the star field near these two galaxies. For the first, he notes "2 F st. point to it," and for the second "sf of 2; a * midway between them." His positions, though, are a minute of time too far east, putting both of these near NGC 5563. This led Dreyer to suggest that the two are both equal to N5563, found by Marth, as were N5552 and N5554. In this case, Marth's positions are quite good enough for positive identification, as are Swift's descriptions (but see NGC 5565). ===== NGC 5561. LEDA took UGC 9151 as Swift's object despite the fact that it is further off his position, is fainter with a much lower surface brightness, and has no "F * nr west" as Swift notes. Swift's object is a high surface brightness compact galaxy, perhaps one of the blue irregulars. In any event, he got it pinned down very well, while LEDA -- misled by the big splashy dwarf spiral 3.5 arcmin southwest -- got it wrong. ===== NGC 5562 is CGCG 075-011, even though it is nearly 20 arcmin north of Tempel's nominal position. Here is his description (translated by Wolfgang Steinicke): "Two degrees north of it [NGC 5511], I found on June 28th a new nebula and have seen it several times. At this time I can specify its position only from Argelander's atlas [the BD]: 14h 13m Os +10d 39'. It is small, III; 3' south-preceding the nebula is a star 11m, and 3s following is a very faint star." Both stars are just where Tempel puts them, and the description of the nebula as small and very faint (WH's class III) is correct. The actual distance north of NGC 5511 (which see) is closer to 1.5 degrees rather than 2 as Tempel states. ===== NGC 5563. See NGC 5558 = NGC 5552, and NGC 5565. ===== NGC 5564 = NGC 5554. See NGC 5558 = NGC 5552, and NGC 5565. ===== NGC 5565 -- is this a star? Swift claims this is just 30 arcsec south of NGC 5564, but there is nothing there. Just a bit further on to the southeast, though, is a star at V = 15.5. Swift could just possibly have seen this, and he may have thought it a third nebula since there are two others near (see NGC 5558). However, he claims to have found all three objects on the same night. So, I find it curious that he describes the star field around the other two carefully, and mentions in their descriptions "np of 2" and "sf of 2" with only a casual reference to this object "two others nr" in his description of NGC 5558 = NGC 5552. This leaves open the possibility that N5565 is the same as N5563, about a minute of time following. The declinations of N5565 and N5563, however, are four arcmin different, while the declinations of the other two nebulae that Swift found on this night are very good. The most likely hypothesis remains that Swift saw a star, but we cannot now be sure. ===== NGC 5567. See NGC 5579. ===== NGC 5568. See NGC 5579. ===== NGC 5570 is probably WH's first observation of NGC 5519. His description reads, "vF, forming an arch with 3 sts." NGC 5519 indeed forms an arch with two stars west and southwest, and a third is superposed on the galaxy. WH's observation puts N5570 21m 15s p, 0d 34' s of 31 Bootis. This is 6 minutes of time off the position of N5519. I think that the "21m" is a transcription error and should read "27m." In that case, the RA as well as the Dec and the description would match N5519. ===== NGC 5571 is a group of 4 stars. Bigourdan's second observation of it describes it exactly, though his first -- in the NGC -- attributes some nebulosity to it that is not there. RNGC incorrectly equates it to NGC 5579. ===== NGC 5575 = NGC 5578. N5578 was found by Marth, and his position is close enough to clearly identify the galaxy. Swift's position, though, is about 14 seconds on to the east. There is nothing there that he could have mistaken for a nebula, though, and his declination and description fits NGC 5575. The identity is almost certain. ===== NGC 5578. See NGC 5575. ===== NGC 5579 and NGC 5580. N5579 was first seen by WH who described it as simply "eF, pL." JH saw it twice, first in April 1827, and again in March 1831. N5580 was picked up by him only on the first occasion. Here are his data: NGC H h/Sweep RA (1950) Dec Desc 5579 III.415 1784/72 14 18 21.1 +35 25 08 F, pL, the preceding of 2 " " " /331 18.4 47 eF, L, 30 or 40''. 5580 --- 1785/72 14 18 33.5 +35 26 13 Not vF; 20''; the following of 2 There five other NGC objects in the area, all but one seen or discovered by WH and/or JH. The Herschels' data (all precessed to 1950.0) 5567 --- 1780/337 14 17 09.6 +35 21 03 pF, R 5588 --- 1789/28 14 19 18.8 +35 21 11 eF 5589 III.416 1788/71 14 19 18.9 +35 30 13 vF, S, R " " " /337 14 19 18.2 +35 29 37 The np of 2. Pos with other = 330.0 deg by micrometer. 5590 III.417 1791/28 14 19 31.5 +35 26 12 vF, a stellar nucleus " " " /71 14 19 32.0 +35 25 54 pF, R, 20'' " " " /337 14 19 29.8 +35 25 31 pB, R, psbM; 15''; the sf of 2. Moon above horizon. The other object was found by Bigourdan: 5568 = Big. 72 14 17 14.2 +35 19 18 vF, S, v dif There is little question about the identities of NGC 5567, 5568, 5579, 5589, and 5590. The GSC positions (B1950.0) are 5567 14 17 10.63 +35 22 01.7 5568 14 17 14.27 +35 19 16.9 5579 14 18 19.82 +35 25 00.2 5589 14 19 18.63 +35 29 54.1 5590 14 19 31.84 +35 25 56.5 However, as Glen Deen points out -- that's it. Nothing else in the area except stars and very faint galaxies that the visual observers would not have seen. The only other observations in the area before the NGC were by Lord Rosse; he and/or his observer looked twice for N5588, 5589, and 5590, and saw only two nebulae in the area both times. In spite of JH's rather emphatic statement in the GC notes, there are indeed only those two near JH's three positions. Looking at all of this, I noticed some peculiarities in the positions, descriptions, and sweeps. 1) First, N5580 was seen only during one sweep, and exactly precedes N5590 by one minute of time (the declinations are the same to within JH's usual standard deviation -- 2 arcmin give or take). 2) The description for N5580 is consistent with its being N5590. It also follows N5579 by the same amount that N5590 follows N5589, and is noted as the following of two. 3) Neither N5589 or N5590 were seen on the two sweeps when N5579 and N5580 were seen -- nor were N5579/80 seen on any of the sweeps when the others were seen. N5590 is also the brightest of the five objects, and is therefore the most likely to be seen during a sweep. So, I'm going to suggest that N5580 is actually N5590. This is not certain, of course, because N5579 is noted as the preceding of two in the same sweep in which N5580 was noted as the following of two. This would suggest that N5579 and N5589 are also identical -- but the positions and descriptions of those two fit very well with what we know is in the sky. Nevertheless, the idea that N5580 = N5590 is a plausible one, so I'll throw it out for discussion. ===== NGC 5580 may be = NGC 5590. See NGC 5579. ===== NGC 5583. See NGC 5586. ===== NGC 5586 may be = NGC 5587, but Swift's description ("eF, vS, R; nearly bet 2 B sts") doesn't match -- the galaxy is very elongated and there is only one bright star near to the southeast -- and his nominal declination is 44 arcmin off. Another possibility is CGCG 075-022, but that is too faint, and has no flanking bright stars. The other two candidate galaxies in the area, NGC 5583 and NGC 5591, were both found the same night as N5586, so are not likely to be the missing galaxy. There is no significant systematic offset in their positions, either. I searched at reasonable digit errors (+- 1 deg and +- 1 minute) with no luck, so the best we can do with this object for the time being is "Not found." ===== NGC 5587 may also be NGC 5586, which see. ===== NGC 5588 = NGC 5589. This was seen during a sweep with N5590 -- but N5589 was not picked up on that sweep. JH put it just about as far south of N5590 as N5589 is north, the RA's are identical (to within the errors, of course), and the descriptions are consistent (notice that JH called N5590 "vF" that night). It looks to me like N5588 is the same as N5589. ===== NGC 5589 = NGC 5588, which see. Also see NGC 5579 for more on the field. ===== NGC 5590 may also be NGC 5580. See NGC 5579. ===== NGC 5591. See NGC 5586. ===== NGC 5594 = IC 4412. Dreyer has noted that CH and JH have introduced an 11 arcmin error in WH's north polar distance offset from his comparison star. Even when the offset is corrected, the galaxy is still several arcmin from WH's position. But as there is no other bright galaxy near, this is the most likely candidate. Because of the error in the NGC position, Bigourdan did not find the galaxy, and Javelle rediscovered it in 1895. It made its way into the second IC from his third list. Javelle's position is good, though I find it odd that neither he nor WH mentioned the brighter star just to the southeast of the galaxy. Reinmuth was apparently the first to suggest the identity of the two numbers. ===== NGC 5607 = IC 1005, which see. ===== NGC 5609, NGC 5613, and NGC 5615 are all companions of NGC 5614 found by LdR. In spite of the good positions in NGC, there has been some confusion over the identifications. Even if the positions were not reliable, LdR's sketch of the field, and micrometric measurements of two of the novae, would be enough to clearly identify them. NGC 5614 and NGC 5615 have attracted recent attention as an interacting pair of galaxies. N5615 has a tidal plume streaming away from it and N5614, the clear result of the gravitational interaction. ===== NGC 5613. See NGC 5609. ===== NGC 5614. See NGC 5609. ===== NGC 5615. See NGC 5609. ===== NGC 5619B = IC 1016 (which see) = IC 4424. The NGC designation is from RNGC which pulled the galaxy out of Holmberg's 1937 thesis on double and multiple galaxies (this is Holmberg 645b). Holmberg apparently did not check the IC identifications as there are none given in his thesis. ===== NGC 5621 is two 16th magnitude stars with a 19th magnitude star just to the north. There is nothing in WH's position, but JH's position -- used in the GC and NGC -- is within his usual errors of the double star. ===== NGC 5632, NGC 5651, and NGC 5658 are more of the stars mistaken by the early Harvard observers (in this case, Harvard's then-director G. P. Bond) for nebulae. Bond's positions are good enough that Auwers picked up the correct stars in all three cases -- but still described them as nebulae. For NGC 5632, Auwers also noted an 11th magnitude star following the "nebula" on the parallel by 2 minutes 30 seconds of time. That star is GSC 4984-0094 at 14 29 15.66, -00 12 49.6 (n = 2, B1950.0). ===== NGC 5634. See NGC 5897. ===== NGC 5640. Dreyer has a note in the Scientific Papers that WH's offsets from another comparison star in the sweep, Kasan 2528, are probably to be preferred to those from 4 UMi which were used to reduce the NGC position of the galaxy. Neither position, in fact, is very good. The NGC places the object over a minute of time too far west, while Dreyer's new position places it too far east by about a minute. Both positions are about 3 arcmin too far south. All this assumes that CGCG 353-035 is indeed the object that WH found. In particular, his description "little extended near parallel" (i.e. extended in RA) is much more apt for the brighter component of CGCG 353-034. However, this object is yet another minute of time further to the west from the NGC position. So, I've preferred to stay with the "traditional" identification, though CGCG did not put the number on either galaxy. RNGC, however, got the correct object. ===== NGC 5648 = NGC 5649. There are only two "bright" galaxies in this area. The slightly brighter, northwestern of the two was found by WH, the southeastern by JH who also remeasured his father's nebula. During his first set of observations of the area in 1887, Bigourdan mistook NGC 5649 for a new nebula and published it in his first list of "novae." The correct position measured by Bigourdan is about 2 arcmin from JH's (used in GC and NGC), so Dreyer also assumed it was a new object and assigned it its own number in the NGC, 5648. Bigourdan remeasured the object in 1894 (his later position is within 2 arcsec of the earlier), and realized his mistake. He says, "This, which was mistaken for a new nebula [in 1887], is evidently III 645 [= NGC 5649]; the position is slightly erroneous in GC and NGC." Unfortunately, the modern catalogues have been confused by the extra number and by JH's positions (which are off 2-3 arcmin to the southeast), assigning NGC 5648 to the northwestern object, and using NGC 5649 for the southeastern. This second object of the pair is actually NGC 5655 (which see for its own problems in the modern catalogues). ===== NGC 5649 = NGC 5648, which see. ===== NGC 5650 = NGC 5652. Swift's description and position match NGC 5652, found a century earlier by William Herschel. Also observed by JH, the NGC position is pretty good -- as is Swift's. The mystery here is why neither Swift nor Dreyer caught the match. The RA's are only 8 seconds of time different, and the declinations even closer at 0.5 arcmin. Well, there are many other matching objects with even closer coordinates that Dreyer did not catch, either. Perhaps he was giving the benefit of doubt to the observers. ===== NGC 5651 is a star. See NGC 5632 and NGC 5658. ===== NGC 5652 = NGC 5650, which see. ===== NGC 5653 = IC 1026, which see. ===== NGC 5655 is not the very faint little smudge of a galaxy to which RNGC assigns the number. Rather, it is the southeastern of a pair seen by John Herschel, the brighter northwestern having also been seen by his father. Unfortunately, JH's positions for both are off by about 2-3 arcmin to the southeast of the true positions. This has led the modern catalogues to give the NGC number 5648 to the preceding of the pair, and 5649 to the following. Left with NGC 5655 unattached to any object, RNGC arbitrarily put it on the faint object that JH could not have seen. See NGC 5648 = NGC 5649, for more. ===== NGC 5658. Discovered in 1853 by the then director of Harvard Observatory, George P. Bond, the nominal position is 14 29 22 -00 08 50. There is only a faint star at this position, and there are no galaxies nearby that would match Bond's description ("An elongated nebula, fainter than the above [NGC 5651], seen 1853 May 9." See NGC 5632 for more. ===== NGC 5664 = IC 4455. Here is one which neither the NGC nor the IC get right (see the brief discussion under the IC number for that problem). The NGC observation comes from the first Leander McCormick list of nebulae: the RA is given to a whole minute of time only, and is 42 seconds off; the declination is off by more than 2 arcmin as well. But we do have a sketch showing the galaxy with four nearby field stars. These, along with a moderately useful description ("pF, S, E, gbM") positively identify the object. Since the position is fairly close (for a Leander McCormick position, anyway), Howe was able to find the right galaxy and give a corrected position in one of his MNRAS articles. Dreyer quotes this in the IC2 Notes, but also repeats the IC1 Note giving a corrected RA from Ormond Stone's 1893 paper "Southern Nebulae". This paper has three micrometric measurements of the object made on two different nights by Muller (one measurement) and Leavenworth (two measurements from about 10 months earlier). They used three different stars, so we are able to intercompare the resulting positions: they all agree with the value given in the IC Notes, and that RA is a minute of time larger than Howe's. Yet Howe is correct. The approximate positions for two of the Leander McCormick comparison stars are exactly one minute of time too large, while the RA offset (derived from 6 settings!) is one minute of time too small for the other star (for which an accurate and precise position is given). There are too many problems here to be simple typos or transcription errors, and I suspect that the numbers were "adjusted" to agree among themselves. In any event, the identity is secure. ===== NGC 5672 = IC 1030, which see. ===== NGC 5673 and IC 1029. It's clear that -- in spite of Dreyer's note (in his 1912 edition of William Herschel's papers) to the contrary (he was misled by John Herschel's position for the north-preceding galaxy) -- WH saw the south- following object of the pair. His position is very good, and his description "pB, S, E" leaves no doubt that it was the brighter of the two galaxies that he picked up in his sweep. It is also clear that John Herschel saw the north- preceding object. Again, his position is good, and his description "vF, pmE, sf a * 15m" is spot-on for the object. Faced with the problem of whether to use William or John's position for N5673, Dreyer simply followed the GC. For this, Sir John adopted his own position, believing (correctly) that it is statistically more reliable than his father's. Also believing that there was only one nebula in the field, Sir John (and Dreyer after him) did exactly what I would have done in the same situation: place the GC number (to be followed by the NGC number), on the fainter of the two galaxies. Bigourdan saw and measured both, though there is a typo in his 8 June 1899 description for NGC 5673: his comparison star is -1 min 48 sec -- not -1 min 58 sec -- away from BD +50 2091. Once this is corrected, his positions (re-reduced with respect to the Guide Star Catalogue positions for his comparison stars) agree very well with modern values from Dressel and Condon (used in RC3), and from the GSC. It's interesting to read his first description of IC 1029: "... the star near [N5673] mentioned in the GC description was not seen" (a very free translation by yrs trly). I think that he must have believed when he observed it that this object, quite the brighter of the two, was the GC (and NGC) galaxy. His estimates of the magnitude (12 and 12.8) of the star in his descriptions of N5673, by the way, are much more in line with today's magnitude scale than is Sir John's single estimate of 15. But we know that the scale was considerably stretched in Sir John's day, and was not rationalized until Pogson did his work in the mid-1800's. In any event, we end up with the number NGC 5673 = h1838 on the fainter galaxy, and the brighter galaxy is IC 1029 = H II 696 = B 185. As I said, I believe that we should leave things this way. We have, after all, the authority of the GC, the NGC, and the IC behind the numbering. And I see no reason to introduce confusion if we don't have to (though I have done it in other cases). In addition, if we adopt the other point of view and give Sir William historical precedence, then the north-preceding galaxy looses its GC and NGC numbers (though not its number in Sir John's 1833 list) altogether, and the south-following nebula becomes N5673 = I1029. There is no justification at all for transfering the number I1029 to the north-preceding object; this number was given to the south-following nebula by Dreyer, and there is no confusion of position or nomenclature for it in Bigourdan's observations, or in the IC. ===== NGC 5679 is the brightest of a triple system. WH called it merely faint and small, while JH noted the double star nearby to the west-northwest. Neither apparently noticed the fainter galaxies; these may have simply added a bit to the nebulous appearance of the brightest galaxy. ===== NGC 5696. See NGC 5697. ===== NGC 5697 = IC 4471, which see. There are two numbers on this galaxy because the Herschel's positions differ by 43 seconds of time (WH is closer, but keep reading), and their declinations are five arcmin off the real declinations. So, Bigourdan was understandably confused by the field. IC 4471 has that part of the story. However, an NGC note reflects another confusion between NGC 5696 and N5697 that arises when comparing the Herschels' positions. WH's relative positions place the galaxies southwest-northeast (this is correct), while JH's put them northwest-southeast. JH's RA's are at fault, and he marks both of them with plus-minus signs. His declination for N5697 is also so marked, while that for N5696 is flagged with a colon. He also notes that the "RA [for N5696] is by working list", but there is some error in the reduction (CH's?) for that list as that RA is 20 seconds smaller than WH's, and 28 seconds smaller than the GC's and NGC's. Where did this RA come from? Whatever the answer, WH's reduced positions (from his discovery observations) are closer in both cases, but are still five arcmin off in declination. In the Scientific Papers, Dreyer notes that WH saw both objects in Sweep 725 on 9 April 1787. Here, WH has N5696 (II 648) 36 seconds preceding, 10 arcmin south of N5697 (II 675). This is reasonably close to the real offsets (in 1787) of 26.3 seconds and 8 arcmin 27 arcsec. JH made the best of the situation he could, and Dreyer faithfully copied it into the NGC. Fortunately, the positions are not too far off the real values, and there are no other galaxies nearby to further confuse the issue. So, the identities in the NGC can be adopted pretty much as they are. The 1860 NGC positions should read 14 31 32, 47 33.7 for N5696, and 14 31 06, 47 42.3 for N5697. ===== NGC 5699 = NGC 5706 and NGC 5703 = NGC 5709. Dreyer notes that a mistake in CH's reduction of her brother's observations placed III 127 and III 128 one degree too far south. JH did not catch the mistake for the GC, nor did Dreyer while preparing the NGC -- but he did notice it while working on his 1912 edition of WH's complete papers. Since he notes that Auwers has the correctly reduced positions, I suspect the discrepancy came to light when Dreyer was comparing CH's list to Auwers's. Once the correction is made, WH's positions are very close to two nebulae found by Stephan, NGC 5706 and NGC 5709. Stephan's micrometrically measured positions are excellent. ===== NGC 5703 = NGC 5709. See NGC 5699. ===== NGC 5704 is probably = NGC 5708. There is no doubt that WH's object (II 649) is NGC 5708; his description matches, and his position is just about 1.6 arcmin north-northeast of the galaxy. JH, however, has the number on the one observation of his in the area that does not apply to the galaxy. That one night, JH's position ends up almost exactly on the preceding star of a wide double (the position angle is about 100 degrees) -- is it possible that he mistook it for a nebula? His description, "F, S, R," supports this notion, with the shape being at variance with his father's "F, S, E nearly mer., r." Note, in particular, that WH has the galaxy extended north-south (as it actually is), not nearly east-west as the orientation of the double star would have it. His final comment ("r" = mottled) is probably due to the star superposed on the south- east edge of the galaxy, as well as the rather patchy nature of the object itself. On that same night, JH has another observation of what he calls a "nova" which is nevertheless clearly the galaxy. The position agrees, and his description "F, pL, E nearly in merid.; gbM" does, too. JH has one other observation that he credits to the first of these two objects, but he comments that the position is bad. He apparently did not notice that that "bad" position is identical to his two positions for NGC 5708 (the mean of his three positions is only 15 arcsec off the galaxy). So, the only puzzle is the position of the object found by JH which received the NGC number 5704. This is the position given in GC and NGC, and as I noted above, is close to the western component of a double star. However, since there is only one galaxy here, and since it is clear that both Herschel's saw it, I am going to put both NGC numbers on the object. But we do have to keep in mind that JH claimed to have seen two nebulae here on one night, so it is still possible that we could claim NGC 5704 as the star. ===== NGC 5706 = NGC 5699, which see. ===== NGC 5708 is probably also = NGC 5704, which see. ===== NGC 5709 = NGC 5703. See NGC 5699. ===== NGC 5721, 5722, 5723, and 5724. The brightest three of this small group of six galaxies were found by William and John Herschel, the other three by Lord Rosse and his observer at the time, Johnstone Birney. Fortunately, the Birr Castle observers provide a diagram, so the galaxies can be positively identified, even though Dreyer's estimated NGC postions are not quite correct. MCG got all the numbers right, but the double nebula, CGCG 248-016, is incorrectly labeled as NGC 5721 + NGC 5723; it should be NGC 5721 + NGC 5722. Is NGC 5724 the faintest positively identified NGC galaxy? It looks to be about 18th magnitude on the blue POSS1 print. There may be other such faint objects lurking among Lord Rosse's observations, but I don't recall seeing them. ===== NGC 5722. See NGC 5721. ===== NGC 5723. See NGC 5721. ===== NGC 5724. See NGC 5721. ===== NGC 5730 and NGC 5731. Here is another pair found by WH to which he gave only one position. John Herschel states explicitly that he estimated the position of the preceding of the two with respect to the following object. His position for N5731 = H III 658 = h 1868 is good, but that for N5730 = H III 657 = h 1867 is off in declination: his offset places it north-preceding N5731, not south-preceding as it really is. This has led to confusion only in CGCG which has the identifications reversed. All other major catalogues have this pair named correctly, though UGC placed colons on the names, indicating some uncertainty on Nilson's part about the identifications. There is a small mystery, though: where did the position angle notation in GC and NGC come from? It is correct (90 deg, which helps pin down the identification), but neither of the Herschel's published catalogues give a measurement. It is probably buried in Sir John's unpublished papers, as are the details for other of his observations (see e.g. NGC 980 and NGC 982). ===== NGC 5731; is it IC 1045? See NGC 5730 for a CGCG confusion. See IC 1045 for a Swift confusion. The identity with NGC 5731 is not in doubt, but there is some concerning IC 1045. ===== NGC 5736. This is one of Swift's sixth list objects which he communicated to Dreyer before publication. In this case, the NGC position is virtually spot on the modern position -- but Swift's published position is over 4 arcmin away. Still, the identification is certain as this is the brightest of the three galaxies in the area (the largest is UGC 09490, an edgewise spiral with a rather low surface brightness). This tinkering by Swift with his positions was almost a hallmark in his lists. In another case (NGC 6039 = NGC 6042, NGC 6040, and NGC 6041 in the Hercules Cluster; see these for more), Swift's revised positions are very good and agree well with Stephan's (who found them independently). Yet in the rest of the cluster, Swift's positions are as poor as ever. Is it possible that he fudged his data a bit to make them look better than they really were? Possibly, possibly ... ===== NGC 5747 = IC 4493. WH's single discovery observation is about 50 seconds of time too far east. Bigourdan looked for NGC 5747 at WH's position and of course saw nothing. He did find the object, however, and measured it twice. He included it in his 4th list of new nebulae, so it received a number in the second IC. Herschel's note on the object, quoted by Dreyer in the 1912 reprinting of Herschel's papers, reads, "An extremely faint nebula, it is small and required some time to look at before it could be well seen." This helps to explain the position error, but errors of this size are not unknown in others of WH's observations. ===== NGC 5758 is the brighter of two nearly equal galaxies. It can be identified by Swift's note, "B * f 22 seconds". There is indeed a star about that far from the galaxy (actually about 19 seconds; the distance is only 12 seconds for the fainter galaxy). CGCG picked the correct galaxy, but Wolfgang did not, at least for his first edition. I suspect he will correct that for later editions of his catalogue. ===== NGC 5761 carries in the NGC another of the notoriously poor early Leander McCormick positions. Nevertheless, I am almost certain that this is one or the other of ESO 580-G039 or ESO 580-G040. Since the LM positions are more likely to be off in RA than in Dec, and since the nominal declination is close to that of -G040, this suggests that the RC3 identification with G39 is incorrect. However, -G039 is nearly a magnitude brighter than -G040 in ESO-LV, it is larger, and it is also more face-on -- all factors that suggest that it, and not -G040, is N5761. Unfortunately, there is no discovery sketch, so we can only guess at this point. Forced to a decision, I would say that the RC3 identification is perhaps correct -- but I certainly wouldn't bet any of my cats on it! ===== NGC 5744. There are two candidates for this, each roughly the same distance from the nominal position. Since the Leander McCormick RAs are usually too far east, my inclination is to take the SBc galaxy to the west as the one that Ormond Stone saw. This also has the slight additional advantage of being at exactly the declination as that recorded by Stone. However, the galaxy to the east has a higher surface brightness (it is a compact and slightly distorted S0), and seems that it would be more likely to be seen during a sweep. It is, however, further off in both RA and Dec, so I am less inclined, on purely positional grounds, to take it as Stone's object. So, given the skimpiness of Stone's description (m = 15.5, D = 0.2 arcmin, and the note "neb?") along with the usual poor RA, I'm simply listing both objects and letting you choose whichever one you think is correct. If you could drop me a line letting me know which one you can see most easily, I'd appreciate it. This clearly needs some visual work. ===== NGC 5778 may also be NGC 5825, which see. ===== NGC 5782 was described by Swift as "eF, vS, E, * nr sf." His position is poor and lands on an empty patch of sky. 35 seconds preceding his position, though, there is a faint spindle that CGCG (076-094), MCG (+02-38-021), and RNGC all chose as the galaxy Swift saw. It fits his description, down to the star south-following -- except that there are two brighter stars closer to the galaxy north-preceding. Why didn't Swift mention them as well? There is, in fact, a better candidate for N5782. Steve Gottlieb points out that UGC 09602 and its fainter companion match exactly the revised position that Bigourdan provided in 1894 (and confirmed in 1899). Dreyer reported this position in the IC2 notes, and there is every reason to adopt U9602 as N5782. There is a star -- brighter than any of the three around the other galaxy -- within an arcminute of the nucleus of U9602. Also, the galaxy is significantly brighter, and has a higher surface brightness, than CGCG 076-094. The companion is nearly in contact with U9602, and would probably appear as part of it in a smaller telescope, making it appear "extended," just as Swift described it. ===== NGC 5783 = NGC 5785. Both objects are nominally from Swift's 6th list, but we need to note that he sent that 6th list bit by bit to Dreyer in several letters during 1886 and 1887 before he later published it. NGC 5785 appeared in the published version of the list, but NGC 5783 did not. The position for N5783 is closer to the true position of the galaxy, but the description for N5785 is mostly appropriate, and the RA is just 30 seconds out. The part of the description that is not accurate is Swift's note "np of 2." The galaxy is actually the north-following of the pair (the other is NGC 5788, which see). ===== NGC 5785 = NGC 5783, which see. ===== NGC 5788 is actually the south-preceding of a pair of galaxies, not the south- following (the other, brighter galaxy is NGC 5783 = NGC 5785, which see). At least this is the obvious solution to the mess in Swift's 6th list and the NGC. It requires Swift to have confused his positions and orientations, something that happened more than once in his observations of nebulae. ===== NGC 5794 is UGC 09610; the NGC position is good. RNGC, however, struck again, getting the wrong position for this as well as for NGC 5797, 5804, and 5805 (all of which see). ===== NGC 5795. Once again, Swift's description in his original paper provides the correct identification: "vF; pS; eE; spindle; pB * close to p end; [N5794, N5797, N5804, N5805] in field." This pinpoints the galaxy 1 deg, 10' north of Swift's position. The description is correct in every respect except that the star is superposed on the following end. The position of the galaxy, (which is MCG +08-27-035 = UGC 09617 = CGCG 248-029) is 14 54 39.5 +49 35 58 (measured with respect to SAO 045288). ===== NGC 5797 is UGC 09619. RNGC has got the wrong position for this as well as for NGC 5794, 5804, and 5805 -- in spite of good positions in NGC. See NGC 5805 for more. ===== NGC 5804 is UGC 09627. In spite of a good position in the NGC, RNGC has managed to mangle the identifications of not just this, but also N5794, N5797, and N5805 (which see), also in the area. N5804 has a bright Seyfert nucleus, easily visible on the Sky Survey prints as well as visually. ===== NGC 5805. Bob Erdmann points out that this is MCG +08-27-039 (with its declination corrected), a faint double galaxy also mentioned in the UGC Note for N5804, though not called N5805 there. Nor is it noted as a double object in either catalogue, though all the surveys clearly show the fainter companion just to the southeast. This was discovered by Lord Rosse east-southeast of N5804. His sketch shows N5805 as well as N5794, N5797, and N5804 clearly in relation to the 6th mag star mentioned in JH's descriptions for the three brighter galaxies. In spite of the good NGC positions for all four objects, RNGC has unfortunately put the numbers on the wrong galaxies in this field. ===== NGC 5808 = NGC 5819. In spite of what Dreyer says in his notes to WH's Papers, the galaxy is very nearly between two stars about 6 arcmin apart, just as WH claims. D'Arrest's description ("Forms a triangle with two stars") is also correct -- the triangle is quite flat. D'A's position is pretty good, WH's less so: it is out by a minute of time in RA, and 6.5 arcmin in Dec. But there is no doubt concerning the identity; the stars nail it down. ===== NGC 5816 and NGC 5817 are two more of the nebulae found at Leander McCormick in the mid-1880s for which only approximate RAs were given. There are no sketches to help with the identifications. Herbert Howe searched for at least one of the nebulae from Chamberlain Observatory at Denver, but has only this to say about N5817, "The position is 14 54 07, -15 46.9." (The equinox is 1900.0.) This position falls on one of two galaxies 2.5 minutes west of Stone's RA, an offset common among many other of the Leander McCormick nebulae. Howe says nothing at all about N5816. Howe's declination falls between Stone's two, so I'm not convinced that the object Howe observed should actually be called NGC 5817. It is, in fact, the brighter of the pair. That would suggest it is really NGC 5816, which Stone puts at m = 11.0, compared to N5817 which he has at m = 14.0. However, Stone also puts the brighter object to the north, while the real brightest galaxy is the southern of the pair. Given this confusion, I'm going to keep Howe's identity for the brighter object as NGC 5817. The galaxy already appears in several catalogues under that number, and Dreyer included the corrected RA in the notes to IC2 under the same number. ===== NGC 5817. See NGC 5816. ===== NGC 5819 = NGC 5808, which see. ===== NGC 5824 = NGC 5834. Here is an interesting case in which Dreyer reveals his bias for his senior colleague from Great Britian, and against a younger one from Tennessee. But the younger persisted, and proved himself correct. JH's position (from his Slough sweep number 353 on 9 May 1831; curiously, there is no trace of this in his Cape Observations) is out by 2.4 minutes of time, and 3.5 arcmin; the position is not marked uncertain in any way. His description is also unusual in that it says only, "A very strongly suspected nebula; but I cannot be quite sure (from the low situation) it is not a star." He translated this to "eeF(?)" for the GC, and Dreyer went along with that in the NGC, too. Barnard first observed this object in 1882, and had four micrometric measurements for it by 1886 when he published a note about it in AN 2756 (he has another earlier note in Sidereal Messenger correcting the description, but quoting JH's incorrect position). The resulting position agrees with the modern positions to within a few arcseconds. Barnard also noted the brief incorrect description in the GC, saying that "The nebula is small and very bright with a decided nucleus." Dreyer rejected Barnard's identification of the object as GC 4036, listing both it and JH's observation, giving both objects NGC numbers. Another oddity is Dreyer's parenthetical inclusion of Marth's brief note that JH's object is "B, stellar" (I've not yet traced Marth's note). Unfortunately, Dreyer has no other note in the NGC about the two entries, so Barnard's object stands there as a "new" one, while JH's continues on with the wrong coordinates. Barnard was evidently annoyed by this, and published a second note in AN 2995 (1890) with yet more micrometric measurements, this time from Lick Observatory where he had just taken a job as one of the resident astronomers. This second position is accordant with his first to within a few arcsec, but Barnard gives more details here, noting that the object is probably a globular cluster of 10th magnitude about 3/4 to 1 arcmin in diameter. He also notes that the object must have been quite bright if JH was to have swept it up in the southern sky just six degrees above his horizon at Slough. This time, Dreyer got the point. So, in the IC1 Notes, he asks that NGC 5834 "be struck out" as it is identical to NGC 5824. Since there is nothing at JH's position, and nothing else in the area that he might have seen, the identity is assured. Finally, Glen Cozens has suggested that the cluster may have been seen by James Dunlop, too. If Dunlop's RA for his number 611 is corrected by 1.8 minutes of time (21 arcmin) it would match that for the cluster. ===== NGC 5825 may be identical to NGC 5778. The descriptions fit -- especially the "pB star close following" -- and the declinations are close. However, the RA's are 7 min 40 sec apart, and Swift found both objects on the same night. There are no other galaxies in the area that might be NGC 5825, though, so I'm going to keep the possibility of the identity in the table. ===== NGC 5826 is almost certainly identical to NGC 5870, in spite of the large difference in RA (7.0 minutes of time). In addition to the NGC description, Swift's original description in his first list adds these comments: "Star near; [GC] 4058 [= NGC 5866] in field." These additional notes make it pretty certain that Swift was looking at NGC 5870 (which he rediscovered two nights later). In particular, NGC 5866 is too far from his nominal position for N5826 to be in even his 32 arcmin field. N5870 is close enough, though, and it has the star nearby. ===== NGC 5834 = NGC 5824, which see. ===== NGC 5840. Unless this is IC 4533 1 deg 43 arcmin south of Swift's nominal position, the object is probably lost. There is nothing else nearby that Swift could have seen, and he leaves us nothing to go on in the way of other clues. His description reads only "eeeF, pS, lE, ee diff[icult]." IC 4533 is also unlikely to be the object Swift saw because there is a brighter star just a couple of arcminutes northeast of the galaxy; Swift would probably have mentioned the star in his description, as Javelle in fact did. ===== NGC 5856 = ADS 9505 = SAO 101379 is a double star. WH described the object this way: "A star 7.6m enveloped in extensive milky nebulosity. Another star 7m is perfectly free from such appearance." JH on the other hand, noted "A star of fully 6m, with a supposed nebulous appearance about it, but of whose reality I cannot satisfy myself, as it `blinks' with the star behind the wire." D'Arrest made three observations of the star, but only suspected the nebulosity twice. Finally, Bigourdan saw no nebulosity around the star on two different nights. It is hard to reconcile WH's observation with a close double star. But there is certainly no nebulosity around the star now. The spectrum of the brighter component is that of a normal A2 V star with no emission noted. So, N5856 goes into the table as just a close double star. ===== NGC 5861. While preparing images for the NGC/IC Project's web pages, Bob Erdmann ran across a splendid edgewise galaxy in the DSS image of NGC 5861 just west-northwest of the bright spiral. Wondering what it was, Bob tried to find it in NED -- no luck, though it of course appears in the DSS images of N5861 there. He had better luck with HyperLeda where the object carries the number LEDA 3xxxxxx. So why wasn't this in NED? It is a big object, with a major axis diameter nearly that of N5861 itself -- it should be there. Digging further, I found that not only was it not in NED, I had not included it in ESGC, and I had not even made a note about it under the entry for the NGC galaxy! "Was I blind?!" I facetiously asked Bob in an email. Well, it's clearly time to try another plate: the object does not appear on the DSS2 red plate, nor is it on the NEAT/SkyMorph plate. It also does not appear on the POSS1 red or blue prints, nor in any of the 2MASS scans. (It does appear on the "DSS2" blue images, but that is because HEASARC's SkyView uses DSS1 blue images for any part of the sky that does not yet have DSS2 blue coverage). So, the spindle "galaxy" is a defect on the IIIa-J plate. Just to be accurate about this, the equatorial position is 15 09 07.06, -11 18 41.4 (J2000.0) or 15 06 23.60, -11 07 17.1 (B1950.0). Others have probably already stumbled across this -- or if they haven't, they certainly will. One last note: it has a LEDA number because the LEDA group has included over a million non-stellar objects from GSC in HyperLeda. Most are galaxies, but the HyperLeda group has not been able to check them all. So, there are undoubtedly many more "galaxies" like this in HyperLeda. This demonstrates a larger problem with all of the automated galaxy catalogues and surveys. All are "polluted" to a greater or lesser extent with non-galaxies. There are no sure methods for cleaning out the interlopers. Their percentage in any given catalogue is nevertheless small, ranging from about 10% in the APM galaxy catalogue, to less than 1% in the SDSS list with redshifts. Nevertheless, they are there, so we need to approach these big catalogues with some caution and considerable preparation. ===== NGC 5865 = NGC 5868. Here, RC3 followed Dreyer (1912) who writes that NGC 5865 should be deleted since NGC 5868 is = H II 684 (WH's position is enough off that JH thought N5868 a "nova"). Dreyer is right -- there are only two bright galaxies in the area, not three (or four as Tempel claims; see NGC 5871 for more on this). So, I will let RC3 stand as is. However, since both NGC numbers clearly refer to the same object, there can be no confusion if N5865 is adopted. ===== NGC 5866 is not Messier 102, though there is a long history of taking this galaxy to be one of those found by Mechain (in 1781 in this case), and included by Messier in his 1781 list. For M102, however, Messier did not have time to visually verify the object, so his "work" on it is limited to a penciled-in position in his own copy of his list published in Connaissance des Temps for 1783/4. That position is "14.40" and "56", i.e. 14h 40m, +56d. There is no equinox given, but we can assume it to be 1780 without too much error. For comparison, the accurate position for N5866 precesses back to 15 00.5, +56 37 for 1780. For M101 (= NGC 5457, which see), the actual M102, the precessed accurate position is 13 55.4, +55 25. It's clear than neither galaxy fits the written-in position in Messier's list. But some evidence in favor of NGC 5866 has been found. This has been collected in a Web document by Hartmut Frommert on the SEDS site: http://www.seds.org/messier/m/m102d.html To summarize Hartmut's case for NGC 5866: Messier's working maps were laid out in grids of five degrees in both RA and Dec. This makes it possible that the written-in position was hastily read off his map with a 20 minute and 1 degree error for "15.00" and "57"; this would make the object NGC 5866. However, Steve O'Meara points out in his "Eye on the Sky" column for the March 2005 issue of "Sky and Telescope" that the incorrect position is about as far east of theta Bootis as M101 is west. It seems more likely then that Messier made a simple plotting mistake, flipping the offset from theta Bootis, and therefore wrote down the incorrect position because of that. I think it is worth pointing out here that the same kind of mistake may possibly account for Messier's poor position for M47 (= NGC 2478). The case for M102 being M101 is made virtually certain by a letter that Mechain wrote in 1783 to the editor of the Berliner Jahrbuch. In it he says that the entry for No. 102 is nothing more than a repeated observation of M101, included in Messier's list due to his (Messier's) confusion over the position. The German translation of this letter was published in the Jahrbuch for 1786. This still exists and was reprinted in 1947 by Helen Sawyer Hogg; I've copied it into the note for M101 (= NGC 5457, which see). The letter was, however, pointed to as early as 1877 by Edward Holden in his "Index Catalogue of Books and Memoirs Relating to Nebulae and Clusters." Bigourdan also discusses this in the Introduction to his extensive Observations. Also see Steve O'Meara's article for a thorough discussion of M102 and its true identity. Much of what I've had to say here and in the note for N5457 is abstracted from his article. On a different puzzle, see NGC 5826 where Swift has confused NGC 5866 with another galaxy, and NGC 5867 where N5866 helps in the identity of that object. ===== NGC 5867 is a compact galaxy just a few arcminutes south-southwest of NGC 5866. It was seen twice by LdR, and the sketch on which he shows it is an accurate depiction of the field around NGC 5866. Also, the position that Dreyer gives in the NGC is quite good (though he notes in LdR's monograph that the GC position is somewhat off). I suspect that the near-stellar appearance of the galaxy has led other modern cataloguers to mistake it for a star. ===== NGC 5868 = NGC 5865, which see. ===== NGC 5869. See NGC 5871. ===== NGC 5870 is almost certainly also equal to NGC 5826, which see. ===== NGC 5871 is a star. Tempel claims to have seen four nebulae here, the other three being N5865, N5868, and N5869, all included in the GC. He has them in the form of a trapezium, and made a sketch, though he unfortunately did not publish it. There are, in fact, only two nebulae in the area (see N5865 = N5868 for more on the identity). So, two of Tempel's objects are almost certainly stars (he has many other stars among his novae). Given the trapezium layout, and the NGC position (probably sent to Dreyer directly as it does not appear in Tempel's fifth paper), the star I've measured on the DSS is probably the correct one for NGC 5871. But there are other stars in the area that Tempel could have seen, so I don't want to insist that this is certainly his object. After all, I chose a different star while working on ESGC. Perhaps we can find Tempel's sketches some day and definitively locate some of his new "nebulae." ===== NGC 5876 = IC 1111, which see. ===== NGC 5877 is a double star with a third star close to the north. The two southern stars are a bit fainter than the northern one, and are a bit closer together than they are to the northern. These facts apparently made all the difference in Schmidt's observation -- he saw them as a faint, small nebula with a 12th magnitude star attached to the north. Interestingly, his observation is not in any of the published papers of his that I have (including the two referenced in the NGC), nor does Dreyer give the reference in his GC Supplement. This is one case where I have not seen the original publication. Fortunately, Schmidt's position is very good and points right at the asterism. ===== NGC 5881 = IC 1100. Dreyer notes that the minute of the 1860 RA should be 4, not 6. This still leaves the NGC position about a minute of time off IC 1100 at 15 05 22.5 +63 10 19, but there is no other reasonable match. The IC position is not too good (Swift again), but the galaxy is a high surface brightness spiral, and the identification is reasonably secure. RC3 and RNGC are incorrect. ===== NGC 5884 is a double star. This is one of the "nebulae" found by J. G. Lohse, communicated directly to Dreyer. Like several others in the list, it turns out to be only a double star. Lohse's position and description is good, however, and clearly identifies the object. ===== NGC 5886. See NGC 5889. ===== NGC 5888. See NGC 5889. ===== NGC 5889. Lord Rosse's description suggests that NGC 5889 is as far north- following N5888 as N5888 is north-following N5886. The identity is thus clear and RC3 is just as clearly wrong (the RC3 listing is probably a duplicate of NGC 5888). The correct position for N5889 is 15 11 25.9 +41 30 51. ===== NGC 5897 is H VI 8 as well as H VI 19. JH noted the identification problem with the stars observed in WH's Sweep 209 on 25 April 1784 (see CGH, p. 109), and Auwers and Dreyer have notes about the field [Dreyer's are in the NGC, p. 223; IC1, p. 284 (combined NGC/IC edition of 1962); WH's Scientific Papers, Volume 1, p. 302; and MNRAS 73, 37, 1912]. (Marth apparently also published a note on VI 8 in 1864, but I have not seen that.) None of these folks positively identified VI 8, the only non-stellar object seen in the sweep, though Dreyer mentioned the possibility of N5897 and was leaning toward N5634 in 1912. The confusion arose simply because 25 April was a poor night; WH noted "flying clouds and hazy" at the beginning of the sweep. Nevertheless he, hoping to see more of the great "stratum" of nebulae that he'd found the previous months, swept for just over half an hour until he was completely clouded out. The entire sweep consists of four stars and one cluster. Dreyer reproduces the sweep in the Scientific Papers: 13h 57m .. .. flying clouds and hazy 14 01} } 62 1d19' 7.8m -0.5} 10.7 89 1 45 7m 12.5 0 19 cluster ... 25.2 59 1 16 star 25.4 -16 4 6.7m 31 .. .. cloudy The first column is the clock reading. Dreyer notes that WH reset the clock after the previous sweep, and that there is an uncertainty of 11 or 12 minutes in the readings. The second column is not explained, but is apparently a raw reading, approximately in arcminutes, of the relative north polar distance. The third column is reduced to relative north polar distance in degrees and arcminutes, and the fourth gives notes and object descriptions. So, the sweep consists of relative positions of four stars and one cluster. WH's full description of the cluster clearly makes it a globular: "A very close, compressed cluster of stars, 8 or 9' in diameter, extremely rich, of an irregular round figure, a little extended. The stars are so small as hardly to be visible, and so accumulated in the middle as to look nebulous." There are only three globular clusters in the right RA (14h to 16h) and Dec (+5d to -25d) ranges: NGC 5634, NGC 5897, and NGC 5904 (M 5). None of the historical sources mention NGC 5904, probably assuming it is too large and bright to have been WH's mystery object. As I've noted, Dreyer seemed to favor N5634 over N5897. However, N5634 is only half the size noted by WH, and has a bright star near to the southeast, and another even brighter star fairly close to the south-southwest. WH would have noted these in any description that he made of the object (as he, in fact, did; see the GC and NGC descriptions for N5634). This leaves NGC 5897 as the most likely candidate. That it is indeed the correct object can be shown by reducing the relative clock times and polar distances for the stars to absolute values, using the equinox 1784.32 position of the cluster as the origin. That gives the following positions for equinoxes 1784.32 and (precessed to) J2000: RA (1784.32) Dec RA (J2000) Dec RA (ICRS) Dec V BD 14 53.6 -21 12 15 06.0 -22 03 15 06 27.14 -22 01 54.6 6.14 -21 4030 15 03.2 -21 38 15 15.7 -22 27 15 16 23.01 -22 23 57.9 5.52 -21 4065 15 17.7 -21 09 15 30.2 -21 54 15 30 42.81 -21 52 42.8 7.80 -21 4128 15 17.9 -19 57 15 30.3 -20 42 15 30 36.25 -20 43 42.8 6.21 -20 4246 I've added the Tycho-2 positions, the V magnitudes, and the BD identifications to the table. It's easy to see that WH's positions are systematically too small in RA and too far south in Dec. But if the systematic differences are removed, the stars match the modern positions to within WH's usual errors (3-4 arcmin). It's also easy to see the effect of the clouds on WH's magnitude estimates, too. Going through the exercise using NGC 5634 and M 5 as the origins shows that they could not have been WH's cluster -- there are no stars near them matching the relative positions and magnitudes noted in the sweep. Dreyer could have performed this same exercise with the BD (I used SAO and the version of Tycho-2 online at CDS), but for some reason did not. Since it is an obvious check, and could easily have been done using the BD data, I wonder if anyone else has thought to do this over the years. In any event, there is no doubt that NGC 5897 is the mystery object H VI 8. ===== NGC 5904 = M 5. See NGC 5897 and IC 4540. ===== NGC 5919. Swift found two objects in this area. One, NGC 5920, can be clearly identified as the brightest galaxy in a poor cluster (MKW 3s). N5919, however, could be any of four or five other objects in the core of the cluster north preceding N5920. It is probably the brightest of these, CGCG 049-142e, but neither is Swift's position good enough, nor his description detailed enough, to be completely sure. Nevertheless, I have taken this object as N5919. ===== NGC 5920. See NGC 5919. ===== NGC 5931 is not IC 1122 as is sometimes assumed from the NGC and IC data and descriptions. N5931 was found by Swift whose position for it is quite good. This is the brightest galaxy in the area, one of the so-called "cD" galaxies in a cluster. These objects average one to two magnitudes brighter than the second brightest galaxy in the clusters, so they are often quite outstanding from their several faint companions. This is certainly the case here since N5931 is at least a magnitude brighter than I1122, the second brightest in the cluster. Next, Barnard, who was following an asteroid, ran across the brighter galaxy a few years after Swift. Barnard made a micrometric measurement of it and published it as a new object. His paper gives the position of his reference star as well as the offsets to the galaxy. The star's position is good, but the Dec offset is in error by 47 arcsec. This must reflect some sort of reduction error in Barnard's calculations as it appears to be a random number, not a clean digit error as we often see in the NGC and ICs. Fortunately, Barnard's description of the object mentions an 11th magnitude star 1 arcmin preceding. If we take the distance and magnitude of this star to be estimates (the actual separation is 2 arcmin and the magnitude is 13), then the object which Barnard saw is Swift's galaxy. Finally, Bigourdan found a "nova" while measuring NGC 5931 (which he had no trouble identifying; his position is within an arcsecond of the GSC position). While Bigourdan's position for the new object is off by about 15 arcsec, he comments that because the nebula is so faint, it was difficult to measure. Even so, it is clearly a different object than NGC 5931, and so is not the same "new" object that Barnard saw. Dreyer, however, faced with a micrometric measurement from Barnard, and an estimated position from Bigourdan (whose comparison star was not measured until GSC), agreeing to within about two arcmin, did the logical thing and adopted the micrometric measurement. So, the first IC includes the wrong position for IC 1122, credits its discovery to Barnard as well as to Bigourdan, and also includes Barnard's comment about the preceding star in the description. In actuality, IC 1122 is a separate galaxy found by Bigourdan and given a pretty good position and description by him. I've adopted his object here. ===== NGC 5934. See NGC 5935. ===== NGC 5935 is misidentified in the UGC Notes (for N5934 = UGC 9862) as "NGC 5934." Aside from that, the identifications in the various catalogues are correct. ===== NGC 5940. See NGC 5941. ===== NGC 5941, 5942, and 5944. These are three of a group of four nebulae found by Lewis Swift on 19 April 1887 (the brightest of the four is NGC 5940, about which there is no identity question). Bigourdan observed these two years later, but found that N5941 was north-following N5942, rather than north- preceding as Swift's positions would suggest. Confusingly, CGCG and MCG call Bigourdan's N5942 "N5941," and point to yet another galaxy as "N5942." RNGC and Hickson followed CGCG in their NGC identifications, but Steve Gottlieb also questions their choice of N5941. The problems have arisen because of Swift's poor positions which are systematically north-preceding the true positions of the galaxies. In addition, the galaxies are in the core of the rich cluster Abell 2085. Hickson catalogued them -- and several fainter ones in the area -- as his compact group number 76. Among these are four that Swift could conceiveably have seen. Steve's observations suggest that Hickson 076b (the brightest) is NGC 5941, 076d (the second brightest) is N5942, and 076a is N5944. Bigourdan used the same identifications except for N5942; he put this number on Hickson 076c. Since this object is half a magnitude brighter than d, this seems a more plausible choice. Swift's descriptions provide little help except that he notes N5941 as "ee dif(ficult)" and N5942 as "eee dif." This would suggest that N5941 is the brighter of the two (as noted by Bigourdan) -- but that would make it the 3rd of 4, rather than the 2nd as Swift notes. I'm inclined to follow Bigourdan's suggestion, however, even if it places the objects out of Swift's order. The first brightest is enough brighter than the others that both Steve and I would be very surprised if it were not among the galaxies that Swift observed here. So, with some uncertainty, I am going to call NGC 5941 = Hickson 76b, NGC 5942 = Hickson 76c, and NGC 5944 = Hickson 76a. This leaves Hickson 76d without an NGC number; while it is not the faintest of the four, it does have a lower surface brightness which -- combined with its relatively faint magnitude -- would make it the least visible of the four objects in question. ===== NGC 5942. See NGC 5941. ===== NGC 5944. See NGC 5941. ===== NGC 5952 is not IC 1126 (which is a star; see its note for more). Bigourdan observed both objects the same night (12 April 1886) and measured both with respect to the same star. Though his position (from a single measurement) for NGC 5952 is about 20 arcsec south of the galaxy, the object is so faint that I'm surprised he saw it. After all, Marth, using a 48-inch reflector when he found the galaxy, described it as "eF, vS, alm stell." Bigourdan, trying to dig it out with a 12-inch was doing well to even detect it, let alone measure it. It is vaguely possible that this galaxy is also IC 4552 (which see), but that is very unlikely. ===== NGC 5955, like NGC 5952 (which see) is not at all likely to also be IC 4552 (also which see). ===== NGC 5964 = IC 4551, which see. There is nothing wrong with d'A's observation of this large, nearby galaxy. But Swift's position, from over a third of a century later, is well off. His description, though, is as appropriate as d'A's. ===== NGC 5998 is probably not a cluster, but it is close to WH's position, and matches his description. It is so clearly seen on the IIIa-J film that I'm a bit surprised that both RNGC and ESO list it as not found. Still, the relevant information is not in NGC; WH's description reads, in full, "A cluster of very small stars, pretty rich, 6 arcmin long, 4 arcmin broad; in the form of a parallelogram." The parallelogram encloses about two dozen stars, half of which are in GSC. The center of the figure is about 2 arcmin northeast of WH's place, but that is well within his usual error for clusters. =====