LIST OF CORRECTIONS AND OMISSIONS. Format. LINE 1. This gives the IC identity. LINE 2. Lists the particular Palomar print used by the author for the IC identity. LINE 3. Gives the name of the observer credited with the objects discovery and the number as it appears in his lists. Followed by his Nominal or Corrected Nominal positional data precessed to 1950 and 2000 epochs LINE 4. Consists in the first sentence of my personal findings regarding identity. Followed by how the modern catalogues view the identity and any additional information which pertains to the errors or omissions. The terms NOVA or NOVAE refers to its historical meaning (New discovery), also all coordinates listed, other than when specifically noted, have been precessed to epoch 1950 using NED's Coordinate and Extinction Calculator. The term OMISSION refers to those instances in which a catalogue or other source lists a particular galaxy but fails to give it the appropriate IC identity. It should be remembered that for those IC identities shown to be either stars or nonexistent, no listing, unless by error, would be expected in the majority of the modern galaxy catalogues, however, in the case of both the NGC 2000 and the MOL they list all of the original IC identities which does not necessarily mean that the authors of both these catalogues considered them all to exist. Also it should be understood that the term "Nonstellar object" or "NSO" when given by the MOL can mean Unknown or Unverified. References to Carlson are for a particular paper concerning catalogue errors, (Carlson 1940.) The 3 letters APL refer to the ACCURATE POSITIONS LIST of Dr. Harold Corwin, also known as NGC/ICPOS (Version Dated January 16th 2004). Finally I wish to state although such an identity survey will inevitably turn up errors in the works of others I hope that I never get to the point where I consider my own conclusions to be beyond challenge. What I do hope to accomplish is to place before the reader one person's findings and conclusions based upon those findings. Naturally as one who investigates certain types of errors I would like to think that I always arrive at the correct solutions, however, all such previous lists contain errors and it will be for others to examine my claims and where necessary, correct those which are deemed to be flawed. It should always be remembered that although this type of survey points out what the author considers to be the erroneous data of certain historical and modern authorities, the majority of the IC identities have the correct data and rightfully reflect the abilities and renown of those many outstanding nineteenth century astronomers whose names are associated with the IC identities. CORRECTIONS. IC 1. POSS. 0-779. Bigourdan #103. 00hr 05m 52.734s + 27 26' 32.020" (1950). 00hr 08m 27.589s +27 43' 13.968" (2000). This is a double star : Carlson, NGC 2000, APL, Steinicke and MOL all correctly describe it as such. CGCG, PGC, UGC, MCG and RC3 have no listing for it as would be expected as these four catalogues are based upon only existing galaxies. NED gives "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database. IC 5. POSS. O-1193. Javelle #3. 00hr 15m 02.167s - 09 49' 16.131" (1950). 00hr 17m 35.109s - 09 32' 36.120" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The MCG lists 3 closely associated galaxies, -2-1-45 = Anon. 00hr 14.7m -09 47'.0, -2-1-46 = Anon 00hr 14.8m -09 49'.0 and -2-1-47 = IC 5 at 00hr 14.85m -09 50'.0, thus making IC 5 the most following and the most southern of the three, however, when Javelle's separation values are measured from his reference star DM-10 034 they show that IC 5 is the most following but that it is the middle one in declination and NED confirms this positioning. The MCG gives the correct order of RA, however, it would appear that their order of declination is a typo error and MCG -2-1-47 should have its declination changed to read - 09 48'.0 Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, MOL (NSO) and APL each give the correct identity and order of declination. The NGC 2000 gives the declination as -09 49'.7 using the MCG as its reference. The PGC (#1145), equates it with MCG -2-1-47 and incorrectly gives it a declination that makes it the most southern of the 3 galaxies. IC 14. POSS. O-823. Bigourdan #104 : 00hr 19m 56.709s + 10 12 10.909" (1950). 00hr 22m 31.593s +10 28' 49.072" (2000). Not found : Bigourdan made three observations and on the last two was unable to see any nebula. His reference star is equal to AC #202062 and when his offsets (+0 tmin 11.60 tsec RA and -2.0 arcmin) are applied to this star they land on a blank space, the closest object being a very faint star with an extremely faint companion off it's following edge, which lie about 30 arcsec north of his nominal position. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (Not found), APL = ** and MOL (NSO). NOTE : Corwin has identified as IC 14 a faint double star which lies at almost the same declination following the galaxy NGC 95. Now Bigourdan's reference star for his observations of both NGC 95 and IC 14 (made on the same night) is equal to AC #202062 and Bigourdan's separation in declination from this star for NGC 95 is - 1 arcmin 20.4 arcsec and results in an excellent declination for NGC 95, therefore if this double star is what Bigourdan is claiming as being his Object #104 why would he then make its declination separation from this same reference star be -2 arcmin, or some 39.6 arcsec further south, especially as NGC 95 would have been easily visible to him at the time he was estimating the position for his Object # 104 ? IC 17. POSS. O-591. Javelle #10. 00hr 25m 55.563s + 02 22' 23.892" (1950). 00hr 28m 29.663s + 02 38' 59.384" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The UGC, PGC and MCG have incorrectly identified the Anon. ZWG 383.021, 00hr 25.4m + 2 14'.0 as being IC 17. However, the PGC (Corrections) note this error. Correctly identified in the CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). IC 20. POSS. O-1203. Javelle #13. 00hr 26m 07.784s - 13 17' 08.894" (1950). 00hr 28m 39.674s - 13 00' 33.483" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's reference star DM-13, 81 is given as 00hr 26m 08.033s - 13 24' 29.599s (1950), however it is equal to GSC 5268-897 which would have coordinates of 00hr 26m 13.846s - 13 24' 04.888" (1950), thus the small error in Javelle's coordinates The NGC 2000 gives as its reference source the MCG and both of these have incorrectly assigned a RA to IC 20 that would result in making it have a Right Ascension preceding what they give for both IC 18 and IC 19. The PGC commits this same error. The correct order is to be found in the IC I, MOL, APL, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke. IC 24. POSS. O-1244. Bigourdan #105. 00hr 28m 38.124s + 30 33' 39.072" (1950). 00hr 31m 17.056s + 30 50' 12.858" (2000). This is a double star : Bigourdan described it as (A small cluster with perhaps some associated nebulosity), however, examination of the Palomar print shows only a double star whose components are aligned north preceding south following. Dreyer also listed it as "Small cluster, 30-40 arcsec, Nebs?" which probably accounts for both the NGC 2000 and MOL typing it as Open Cluster. APL lists as = **, Steinicke (=*2). NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 26. POSS. O-1203. Javelle #18. 00hr 29m 13.987s - 13 36' 47.653" (1950). 00hr 31m 45.613s - 13 20' 13.949" (2000). Confirmed galaxy. Possibly equal to NGC 135 (Leavenworth #5. A.J. No.146 : Leavenworth gave coordinates for his NGC 135 of 00hr 28m 03s - 13 38'.1 which if it is equal to IC 26 would mean that Leavenworth's RA has an error of ~ 1 tmin 10 tsec and he has other credited discoveries with errors of similar amount, therefore the prospect is good that IC 26 is indeed a duplicate observation of NGC 135. The NGC 2000, APL, PGC, NED and Steinicke all equate the two identities while the MOL (NSO) gives no equivalency SIMBAD dies not equate both identities, but gives them both comparable coordinates. IC 31. POSS. O-823. Javelle #508. 0Ohr 31m 48.767s + 11 59' 42.845" (1950). 00hr 34m 24.948s + 12 16' 14.881" (2000). (Part 1 Data). 00hr 31m 48.842s + 12 53' 40.242" (1950). 00hr 34m 24.824s + 13 10' 12.445" (2000). (Part 2 Data). The only discrepancy involved here is purely of historical interest in that there is almost a 1 degree difference in the declination data found between Parts 1 and 2 of Javelle's catalogue. Fortunately Dreyer used only the coordinate values found in Part 1 which in this case are correct therefore the modern coordinates are the proper ones. Correctly listed in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, RC3, NED, SIMBAD, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NGC 2000 and MOL. IC 39. POSS. O-1203. Javelle #28. 00hr 36m 37.224s - 14 26' 44.436" (1950). 00hr 39m 08.170s - 14 10' 15.526" (2000). This is equal to NGC 178 (Stone). Stone's given coordinates for NGC 178 are 00hr 35m 01s - 14 37'.2 which indicate a difference in RA from IC 39 of about 1 tmin 35 tsec. and about 11 arcmin dec. Stone describes NGC 178 as "F, S, mE PA 0 degrees, bM." and this matches the appearance of IC 39 on the DSS print. NGC 178 was discovered and measured at the Leander-McCormick Observatory and many of their NGC discoveries have large positional errors, therefore it is most probable that the two identities are for the same object. The MCG, NGC 2000, MOL, PGC, APL, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke all correctly give the equivalency. IC 41. POSS. O-884. Javelle #29. 00hr 37m 09.776s - 14 26' 54.960" (1950). 00hr 39m 40.682s - 14 10' 26.443" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This is a galaxy lying about 4 arcmin north of NGC 207. The MCG incorrectly identifies its -3-2-35 as being IC 41, however, this is NGC 207. The PGC is wrong in equating IC 41 with NGC 207, they are separate galaxies. The NGC 2000 has used the MCG as its reference authority and therefore is also incorrect. As an additional error the RNGC has incorrectly placed (R)NGC 207 as having a declination of -15 26'.2 (1950) and types it as Class 7 (Non-existent) and this has resulted in the MOL also giving an incorrect declination value of -15 26'.0 (Non-existent). Steinicke, NED and the APL have the correct identity. SIMBAD has the correct object, but equates it with MCG-03-02-035, which is equal to NGC 207 not IC 41. IC 44. POSS. O-591. Swift List X, #1. 00hr 39m 44.464s + 00 36' 10.028" (1950). 00hr 42m 18.368s + 00 52' 36.579" (2000). This is equal to NGC 223 : The CGCG, UGC, APL, Steinicke, MCG, NGC 2000 (Gx), NED SIMBAD and PGC correctly give the equivalency. The MOL (NSO) gives each identity without any equivalency. IC 45. POSS O-1244. Bigourdan #107. 00hr 39m 56.108s + 29 22' 51.953" (1950). 00hr 42m 36.643s + 29 39' 18.144" (2000). This is a double star : Examination of the Palomar print clearly shows two galaxies with almost the same right ascension and separated by ~ 3 arcmins in declination. The southern galaxy is IC 43, however, the northern one is not IC 45 as it is identified in a number of the modern publications. Bigourdan employed as his reference star BD +29 111 to measure positions for both IC 43 and IC 45. His separation values for IC 43 are -10s RA and + 2 arcmin 37arcsec Declination and these confirm that the southern object is IC 43. His separation values for his #107 (IC 45) are + 5s RA and + 3arcmin 26arcsec, thus it would lie ~ 15s following and 49sec of arc north of IC 43 at which position there is only a double star. Bigourdan gives two observations for his #107. The first on November 15th, 1889 in which he states that he only supposes its existence and that his reference star lies at a position angle of 210 and a separation of 5 arcmins from it. He also states that the sky was less than ideal and that later he could not see it. His second observation was on November 8th, 1899 when he now measures a position for B.107 and describes it as like a small cluster, adding that at the exact position he referred to in his 1889 observation he was now unable to see anything. The UGC 00449, MCG +5-2-39, PGC #2537, SIMBAD and RC3 all have incorrectly identified the galaxy (ZWG. 500.073) immediately north of IC 43 as being IC 45, although the UGC does list it as IC 45?, but this galaxy lies 0.6s following and 3arcmin 21arcsec north of IC 43, which does not in anyway reflect the separations as measured by Bigourdan. The APL, NED and Steinicke list as (= two stars). The CGCG correctly does not identify any IC 45. The NGC 2000 lists (No Type) and MOL (NSO). IC 47. POSS. O-1203. Javelle #31. 00hr 40m 24.582s - 14 00' 54.150" (1950). 00hr 42m 55.347s - 13 44' 28.105" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Carlson in her CORRECTIONS states "Not found, Helwan." and this has probably influenced both the NGC 2000 (?) and MOL (May not exist). Correctly identified in the APL, NED and by Steinicke. Not listed in PGC. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but lists it as LEDA 3093693. IC 48. POSS. O-1206. Barnard. 00hr 41m 04.060s - 08 27' 42.116" (1950). 00hr 43m 36.011s - 08 11' 16.600" (2000). Confirmed galaxy. Probably = IC 1577 : The above coordinates are those furnished by Barnard in a paper published in the MNRAS LV, 8. page 452. and which details his suspicion that the object was subject to brightness variations. Dreyer's IC I coordinates for this identity are 00hr 41m 03s - 08 09'.2 but in his Corrections NGC/IC page 377 Dreyer refers to this paper. Dr. Corwin in his IC Bugs List give a solid argument that IC 1577 is equal to IC 48 and he is probably correct. The PGC, NED and Steinicke also make the same equivalency. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both have the incorrect declination value as given originally by Dreyer. SIMBAD has the correct object IC 48, however, it lists IC 1577 as "Not present in the database." (See IC 1577). IC 53. POSS. O-1274. Swift List X, No.3. 00hr 47m 52.253s + 10 20' 50.229" (1950). 00hr 50m 28.638s + 10 37' 09.758" (2000). This is a confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-5. Correctly listed in the CGCG, UGC (Notes), RC3, NGC 2000 (GX.), APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO). IC 54. POSS. O-1206. Spitaler. 00hr 48m 13.389s - 02 33' 49.845" (1950). 00hr 50m 46.531s - 02 17' 30.564" (2000). This is a close double star : The components are almost touching and are aligned north preceding south following. Listed in the MOL as (Open cluster). The NGC 2000, APL and Steinicke correctly list it as a double star. NED has "!**" SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 60. POSS. O-1204.Javelle #37. 00hr 53m 34.357s - 13 37' 41.713" (1950). 00hr 56m 04.306s - 13 21' 27.692" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as -2-3-49, this is confirmed by Steinicke. The PGC also identifies this galaxy only as MCG -2-3-49. Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), NED, SIMBAD and APL. IC 62. POSS. O-1274. Javelle #515. 00hr 56m 06.725s + 11 32' 16.524" (1950). 00hr 58m 43.900s + 11 48' 27.712" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-21 (This noted in the PGC Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). IC 64. POSS.O-857. Javelle #516. 00hr 56m 41.720s + 26 47' 24.247" (1950). 00hr 59m 23.981s + 27 03' 34.664" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in CGCG only as ZWG 480.030. Correctly identified in UGC, MCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO). Not listed in RC3. IC 67. POSS. O-1206. Bigourdan #109. 00hr 57m 46.151s - 07 10' 37.692" (1950). 01hr 00m 17.795s - 06 54' 28.193" (2000). Not found : Bigourdan was not certain of its nebular character and indeed only suspected that it existed at all. Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO). The APL gives (Not found). NED and Steinicke state "Not found." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 68. POSS. O-1206. Bigourdan #110. 00hr 57m 49.938s - 07 12' 23.773" (1950). 01hr 00m 21.570s - 06 56' 14.345" (2000). Not found : Here again Bigourdan reports that he only suspects its existence. NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL, NED and Steinicke correctly state "Not found." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 71. POSS. O-1206. Bigourdan #111. 00hr 58m 46.641s - 07 03' 23.935" (1950). 01hr 01m 18.286s - 06 47' 15.569" (2000). Not found : Here once more it would appear that Bigourdan was working at the level of limitation because he again states "Only suspected." Bigourdan's reference star was BD -7 159 (8.0 mag.) and he places his #111 at a position north preceding this star where nothing exists. The only possible candidate is a faint star which has an extremely faint star just off its preceding edge, however, this is not at Bigourdan's nominal position. The MCG has identified its -1-3-63, which lies close south preceding this star, as being IC 71 but this is an Anon. SIMBAD also incorrectly makes this IC 71. Meanwhile the PGC appears to have incorrectly identified this same Anon. as being IC 71 = NGC 347, however, NGC 347 lies north of the reference star, exactly where its discoverer Marth placed it. Also Bigourdan correctly observed NGC 347 on the same night he made his observation for his #111 and correctly stated that NGC 347 lay at a PA of 3 degrees and a separation of 4 arcmin from the reference star. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) have the correct coordinates while the APL gives (Probably a star) and Steinicke (Not found). NED has (Type !*), and states "ID as IC 0071 is not certain" SIMBAD equates with MCG-01-03-063. IC 72. POSS O-1206. Bigourdan #112. 00hr 58' 58.104s - 07 02' 09.551" (1950). 01hr 01m 29.749s - 06 46' 01.401" (2000). Nothing at nominal position : The only possible candidate is a faint star which lies between the reference star BD -7 159 and the correct NGC 347, however, this is about 50 arcsecs south of Bigourdan's stated position. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give Bigourdan's coordinates. The APL (=*?) and Steinicke (Not found). NED has "!*" SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 75. POSS. O-1274. Javelle #517. 01hr 04m 34.446s + 10 34' 06.792" (1950). 01hr 07m 11.777s + 10 50' 08.156" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as +2-3-35. Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 (GX), APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO). IC 77 and IC 80. Javelle #41. 01hr 06m 14.871s -15 41' 19.508" (1950). 01hr 08m 43.220s -15 25' 20.068" (2000). Both existing galaxies at Javelle's positions: The confusion concerning these two associated galaxies is found in the modern catalogues. Beginning with the MCG who equates its -03-04-08/09 with the identity IC 77, this is actually IC 80. This same error is repeated by SIMBAD. The PGC equates MCG -3-4-08/09 with both the identities (IC 77) and (IC 80). NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, NED and APL have the correct identification for IC 77. Now as for IC 80 the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and NED have the correct identity, while SIMBAD has slected another galaxy lying south following the correct IC 80, equal to LEDA 4070 at 01hr 08m 52.42s -15 25' 19.0" (2000) as being IC 80. IC 81. POSS. O-1259. Swift List VII, #2. 01hr 06m 38.535s - 01 56' 51.513" (1950). 01hr 09m 11.663s - 01 40' 52.632" (2000). Historical description error : Swift's description "*8 close nf." should be corrected to read "*8 close sf." This error pointed out by Howe (NGC/IC page 377). Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), CGCG, MCG, Steinicke, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL. IC 85. POSS. O-1259. Bigourdan #113. 01hr 09m 12.930s - 00 44' 12.207" (1950). 01hr 11m 46.456s - 00 28' 16.533" (2000). (Comptes Rendus). Not found : This is a strange case as it would appear that Bigourdan gives two separate positions for this identity and at both there is no nebular object. To begin, Bigourdan gives the above coordinates in the Comptes Rendus for March 31st 1891, describing it as "Mag. 13.5, trace of nebulosity, near BD -1 156 and when these coordinates are examined on the DSS no nebular image is to be found. His second publication for this object is in his OBSERVATIONS (1919), in which he gives no coordinates but states that in relation to the galaxy NGC 430 there is a 13.5 Mv star which lies at a PA of 125 degrees and a distance of 2.7 arcmin and that immediately preceding this star there appears to be exceedingly faint nebulosity, while the star itself also seems a little nebulous. He measured a number of galaxies in the field on this same night, December 6th 1888, describing the conditions of the sky as being a little hazy or foggy and the field of view a little bright. Now he measures very good coordinates for NGC 430 of 01hr 10m 25.2s - 00 31' 14" (NED gives 01hr 10m 26.5s - 00 31' 05") and correctly describes two associated stars, the first of mag.13.5, PA 125 degrees, Dist. 2.7 arcmin and the second of mag. 13.4, PA 190 degrees, Dist.0'.9 arcmin and these are clearly visible on the DSS, therefore according to his 1919 observation for his #113 it should lie close south following NGC 430, however, there is no nebular object there. Comparison of his positions as given in the Comptes Rendus and the 1919 Observations are in no manner compatible, however, regardless of which position one examines neither result in producing any nonstellar image. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), APL (=*) NED "!*", SIMBAD and Steinicke (Not found). IC 86. POSS. O-1194. Javelle #48. 01hr 11m 21.615s - 16 30' 10.527" (1950). 01hr 13m 49.277s - 16 14' 18.175" (2000). Based on Dreyer's incorrect precession rate. Confirmed galaxy : The historical error here concerns the Right Ascension annual precession rate found in Dreyer's IC I catalogue in which he gives it as 3.19 tsec when the correct rate would be 2.96 tsec. When the correct rate is applied to Javelle's data it proves the correct coordinates for IC 86 at 01hr 11m 00.411s - 16 30' 18.668" (1950) or 01hr 13m 28.071s - 16 14' 25.461" (2000). NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (Galaxy), APL and Steinicke have the correct coordinates. No listing for this galaxy in the PGC. NED has correct identity. SIMBAD gives its IC 86 coordinates that land on a blank space north following the correct galaxy and identifies the correct IC 86 as GSC 05851-01764. IC 89. POSS. O-1201. Javelle #49. 01hr 13m 28.400s + 04 01' 47.967" (1950). 01hr 16m 03.706s + 04 17' 37.634" (2000). Probably equal to NGC 446 (Marth #38) : Marth's given coordinates for his #38 are 01hr 12m 26s + 04 2'.8 and at this position no nebular image exists, however, the difference between Marth's position and that given by Javelle for his #49 is essentially only 1 tmin and Steven Gottlieb has suggested that the two identities are probably for the same galaxy, a proposal with which I am now in agreement. Earlier I had thought that the Marth object was the candidate identified as NGC 446 by the CGCG, UGC, PGC, SIMBAD and DSFG which lies about 1.1 tmins preceding and 6.2 arcmins south of IC 89, but if this was Marth #38 it is very likely he would have also seen Javelle #49 which is a full magnitude brighter and therefore he would have discovered both galaxies, but as both Marth and Javelle report only a single object in the field it is more likely that they are both referring to the same object and that the Marth RA has a 1 tmin error. The CGCG, UGC, PGC and DSFG by making both identities separate objects are in error. The MCG correctly identifies IC 89 but does not give any equivalency while it also correctly identifies the south preceding galaxy only as M +1-4-6. The RC3 lists only the identity IC 89. Carlson in her CORRECTIONS correctly notes the equivalency, crediting Reinmuth (Die Herschel-Nebel). The MOL correctly equates IC 89 with NGC 446 as does the APL and NED. Steinicke also gives equivalency. NOTE : I wish to thank Steve Gottlieb who questioned my original conclusions regarding these identities and convinced me that they are both for the same object. IC 92. POSS. O-30. Bigourdan #115. 01hr 17m 00.473s + 32 30' 32.445" (1950). 01hr 19m 48.585s + 32 46' 16.662" (2000). This is equivalent to NGC 468 (h 98) : Bigourdan in his observation of the field thought he had made an observation of NGC 468 but it turns out that he was actually confusing it for a double star about 0.1 tmin preceding the true NGC 468. Unfortunately he then proceeded to believe that the true NGC 468 was a nova which he listed as B.115. The MCG, MOL, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly note the equivalency. The NGC 2000 lists it as a galaxy with the query (different from NGC 468?) while the CGCG gives only the identity IC 92. The UGC has no listing. IC 93. POSS. O-1194. Swift List IX, #2. 01hr 16m 31.237s - 17 19' 49.214" (1950). 01hr 18m 58.099s - 17 04' 03.736" (2000). This is equal to IC 1671 (Swift List XI, #18) : The NGC 2000,and MOL (NSO) list both identities as separate objects. The MCG, and RC 3 give only the identity IC 93. SIMBAD Gives the identity IC 93, but lists the identity IC 1671 as "Not present in the database." The APL, NED, Steinicke and PGC have correctly given the equivalency. Note : Both Dreyer and the NGC 2000 incorrectly give Swift's description as "* 8 follows 14 s and 1' north ", but Swift correctly states "* 8 follows 46s, 1' north." IC 94. POSS. O-30. Bigourdan #116. 01hr 17m 17.143s + 32 27' 22.112" (1950). 01hr 20m 05.275s + 32 43' 05.921" (2000). This is a single star which suggested possible associated nebulosity to Bigourdan : The NGC 2000 does not give any Type while the MOL lists it as (Nonstellar Object) however, it should be remembered that both of these catalogues list all of the IC identities regardless of whether they exist as nonstellar objects or not. The CGCG, MCG, UGC and RC3 have no listing. The APL and Steinicke correctly list this as = *. NED has"!*" SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 96 and IC 1672. POSS. 0-30. Safford #69. 01hr 17m 32.087s + 29 24' 29.820" (1950). 01hr 20m 18.625s + 29 40' 13.455" (2000). (IC 96). Javelle #857. 01hr 17m 50.747s + 29 26' 01.974" (1950). 01hr 20m 37.346s + 29 41' 45.005" (2000). (IC 1672). Unable to confirm : IC 96 is possibly equal to IC 1672 discovered by Javelle (J. 857) If this evaluation is correct then by historical precedent the correct identity would be IC 96. There are definitely 2 galaxies in the immediate field which would suggest that one, the south preceding is IC 96 and the other is IC 1672. Javelle's coordinates are very good and clearly establish that the north following object is the one he recorded as his #857 (IC 1672). Meanwhile Safford's coordinates are not very good and could be for either of the two field galaxies. As Safford observed the field some thirty years prior to Javelle and reported on only one object it may be reasonably assumed that he would have seen the brighter galaxy, in this case the north following of the pair, Javelle's #857, which is almost one magnitude brighter than the south preceding galaxy and the CGCG, UGC (Notes) and MCG have each identified the brighter as IC 1672, while making the other an Anon. (ZWG 502. 035 and MCG + 5-4-23). Javelle in his observation also does not mention the south preceding galaxy, but this could be due to his considering it to be Safford's IC 96, which is what the APL has concluded as they do list the south preceding of the pair as being IC 96. According to Safford's coordinates the separation values between the two objects would amount to 19s RA and 1.6 arcmins dec. while the correct separation values are about 5s RA and 5.2 arcmins dec. however, it must be pointed out that Safford's coordinates are usually not very precise. Whether IC 96 and IC 1672 are separate galaxies or duplicate identities is difficult to resolve. At this time I would favor the equivalency because of the magnitude factor. The RC3 and PGC give only IC 1672, while the NGC 2000, Steinicke and MOL list IC 96 and IC 1672 as separate objects with different coordinates without mention of any equivalency. The NED lists the identity IC 96 and the identity IC 1672 as separate galaxies. SIMBAD has IC 96 "Object of unknown nature," and IC 1672 "Galaxy in Pair of Galaxies." IC 97. POSS. O-635. Bigourdan #117. 01hr 17m 22.234s + 14 36' 03.357" (1950). 01hr 20m 01.902s + 14 51' 47.290" (2000). This is equal to NGC 475 (Marth) : Marth discovered a Nova which he measured to be at 01hr 17m 24s + 14 36'.5, however, Peters who later examined the field stated that Marth's RA was too small by about 15 tsec and when Dreyer listed Marth's object as NGC 475 he gave it the coordinates given by Peters. Bigourdan in his NGC survey looked for NGC 475 at the corrected coordinates and found what is only a faint star but he thought that perhaps it did suggest extremely faint traces of nebulosity, thus having found what he believed was NGC 475 he also reported the existence in the field of a nova, (IC 97) at the coordinates shown above. Comparison of Marth and Bigourdan's coordinates show that they are the same object and that Marth's original coordinates are, contrary to Peters and Dreyer, the correct ones for NGC 475. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL give both the same coordinates but without any reference to their identities being equal. Steinicke has (= NGC 475). PGC has no listing for IC 97 giving only the identity NGC 475. NED gives correct equivalency. SIMBAD has IC 97 "Not present in the database," but does list NGC 475 without IC equivalency. NOTE : Dr. Corwin in his APL and NGC/IC Bugs List is to my knowledge the first person to solve this problem. IC 104. POSS. O-1259. Bigourdan #118. 01hr 22m 00.370s - 01 42' 59.359" (1950). 01hr 24m 33.457s - 01 27' 22.281" (2000). This is a double star : Bigourdan describes it as "Strongly stellar in appearance, looks like a 13.3 mag. star faintly nebulous." Its appearance on the DSS is a double star whose two components are almost in contact and aligned north preceding south following. Correctly listed as a double star in the NGC 2000, MOL, APL and Steinicke. NED Gives "!**" SIMBAD "Double or multiple star." IC 106. POSS. O-1259. Bigourdan #119. 01hr 22m 08.695s - 01 50' 48.760" (1950) 01hr 24m 41.725s - 01 35' 11.846" (2000). Equal to NGC 530 (Swift List VI, #9) : Swift's coordinates for his NGC 530 are 01hr 22m 23s - 01 51' 09" and due to the 15 tsec difference Bigourdan probably thought that his #119 was an entirely separate object, however, it should be pointed out that although Bigourdan discovered his #119 on Nov. 16th 1887 his observation for NGC 530 is dated Oct. 26th 1897, or almost 10 years later at which time he measured a position for NGC 530 of 01hr 22m 06s - 01 51' 27" and this should have alerted him to the strong possibility that NGC 530 and IC 106 were the same object, yet he never indicates this in his OBSERVATIONS. Furthermore, he employed exactly the same reference star for both identities, a 10th mag. star he called "Anon. (4)" and his separation values for both identities are almost identical. The MCG incorrectly identifies its -0-4-122 as being NGC 530 = IC 1696 (which see), this error noted in the PGC The RC3 gives only the identity NGC 530. The equivalency IC 106/NGC 530 is correctly listed in the NGC 2000, MOL, CGCG, UGC, APL, PGC. NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke. IC 107. POSS. O-635. Swift List X, #5. 01hr 22m 25.505s + 14 37' 06.672 (1950). 01hr 25m 05.545s + 14 52' 42.928" (2000). This is equal to IC 1700 (Javelle #879) : Examination of the Palomar print shows 3 galaxies in close association to each other. I shall call them in order of right ascension Objects A, B and C. Close to Swift's coordinates we find that Object A is located (1hr 22m 33.3s + 14 36' 40" Corwin's coordinates in the APL) and it is because of this that the modern catalogues, CGCG, UGC, MCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL all make Object A = IC 107, however, Dr. Corwin in his APL and NGC/Bugs List states that this is in error and that IC 107 is equal to IC 1700 (Object C) and I am convinced that he is correct. Steinicke also makes this equivalency. Corwin confirms his selection by pointing out that Swift in his description of IC 107 stated "Star close preceding" and that this is what one finds for Object C not Object A, additionally Corwin refers to the fact that the difference between Swift's RA and IC 1700 is about 20 tsecs, not an unusual error in measurement with Swift, and I believe that there is also more evidence to back up this choice. Swift made his observation almost 6 years prior to Javelle's "discovery" of IC 1700 and if we accept that Object A is Swift's IC 107 (as the modern catalogues list it) then it would be certain that he would have also seen and discovered Javelle's IC 1700, Object C, as it is more than a magnitude brighter than Object A, therefore I believe that Swift never saw Object A and that the fact that his coordinates would suggest that he did is only a coincidence based upon there being a galaxy (A) located close. As Swift saw only one object in the field it would most likely have been the brightest, (Object C). This plus Corwin's findings convinces me that IC 107 is equal to IC 1700 and that by historical precedence the correct identification of Object C is IC 107 as Swift was the first to see this galaxy. The second by right ascension of the three is IC 1698 (Object B) and the CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC, RC3, NGC 2000 and MOL correctly identify it as such. however, there is an additional problem when it comes to the other IC identity in the group, namely IC 1699. IC 1699 was credited to Javelle (his #878). He placed it at 1hr 22m 44s + 14 41'.6 or at a separation from his reference star BD =14 215 (Mv 9.5) of 0 tmin 22.98s following and 5 arcmin 49.6arcsec north, (This star is also GSC 620-340) and when these separations are measured on the Palomar print the position shows only a blank space lying about 0.3 tmin preceding and ~1 arcmin south of the galaxy U00999 or at an RA between Object B and C and about 6 arcmins. north, however, Dr. Corwin in both his APL selects Object A, the preceding of the three, as being Javelle's #878 = IC 1699. Javelle's coordinates for his 3 objects , all measured from the same star, BD +14 215, are #877 = IC 1698. 1hr 22m 43s + 14 35'.1 #878 = IC 1699. 1hr 22m 44s + 14 41'.6 #879 = IC 1700. 1hr 22m 46s + 14 36'.7 Dr. Corwin's coordinates for these same identities as given in the APL are IC 1698. 1hr 22m 41.9s + 14 34' 36" (Corwin). IC 1699. 1hr 22m 33.3s + 14 36' 40" (Corwin). IC 1700. 1hr 22m 44.7s + 14 36' 13" (Dressel and Condon). This then means that Dr. Corwin has selected Object A ( the same object incorrectly identified in the modern catalogues as IC 107) as being IC 1699 with which at this time I am in disagreement as I cannot determine from the historical data how this could possibly be what Javelle was referring to as his #878. It does appear that Javelle did see Object A but that he also identified it as being Swift's IC 107 for in his description of IC 1698 he adds a Note stating "On a mesuré INDEX CAT.107." Therefore I would suggest that IC 1699 is Not found and that Object A is an Anon. as even if Javelle saw Object A he cannot receive credit for it as an IC identity. The only other modern sources to list the identity IC 1699 are Steinicke (Not found). The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both give coordinates consistent with Javelle's data. The PGC shows IC 107 and IC 1700 as two separate galaxies. For the identity IC 1699 NED has "There is no object with this name in NED." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NOTE: Dr. Corwin in his latest version of the APL (November 19th 2004), states "IC 1699 is probably a second observation of IC 1698." IC 110. POSS. O-30. Bigourdan #120. 01hr 22m 59.999s + 33 15' 40.997" (1950). 01hr 25m 49.611s + 33 31' 16.072" (2000). Not found : No nebular image at the precise position given by Bigourdan's data. The only other possible candidate in the vicinity would appear to be below 17.0 Mp which suggests that it would be too faint for Bigourdan to have seen. CGCG, UGC, MCG and RC3 have no listing. The NGC 2000 gives no Type, while the MOL gives (Nonstellar Object). Carlson questions whether it might be a duplicate observation of NGC 552. "NGC 552 ?" The APL gives "Nothing at nominal position " and also (=**). Steinicke has (NF). NED types it as "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 111. POSS. O-30. Bigourdan #121. 01hr 23m 10.361s + 33 14' 16.181" (1950). 01hr 25m 59.989s +33 29' 50.981" (2000). Not found : The CGCG, UGC, MCG, PGC and RC3 as would be expected do not have any listing for this identity. The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) while the MOL lists as (Nonstellar Object). The APL has "Nothing at nominal position" and "Group of six stars." NED shows as "Other ." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke has (Not found). IC 115. POSS. O-1251. Burnham. 01hr 24m 11.757s + 18 57' 22.522" (1950). 01hr 26m 53.943s + 19 12' 56.041" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in the MCG only as + 3-4-39, this being pointed out in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly identified in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, PGC, RC3, APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO). IC 117. POSS. O-1259. Javelle #58. 01hr 24m 48.084s - 02 07' 25.186" (1950). 01hr 27m 20.974s - 01 51' 52.489" (2000). Not found : At the nominal position no nebular image is present, however, the closest object would be a star and the APL, MOL and NGC 2000 each identify IC 117 as being a star, while Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have (Not found).. There is a rather curious situation concerning the NGC 2000 as it also identifies the galaxy NGC 558 as being equal to IC 117 and this makes for some interesting speculation. The immediate field contains a number of galaxies including NGC 558, NGC 560 and IC 564 and in Part 1 of Javelle's Catalogue he states as a footnote to his observation for his #58 = IC 117, that he saw these 3 NGC galaxies. Now Javelle would most likely have had his positional data for NGC 560 from Dreyer who gives it excellent coordinates of 01hr 24m 52s - 02 10'.6, thus Javelle's IC 117 would have separation values of - 0 tmin 5.4 tsec and - 03.3 arcmin, but supposing the declination offset was + 03.3 arcmin then IC 117 would lie at 01hr 24m 46.6s -02 13'.9 and we now find that the galaxy NGC 558 has coordinates of 01hr 24m 42.9s - 02 13' 53", (APL), which certainly is an excellent positional match. It must be cautioned that all of this is totally based upon playing with positional data and that one of the strongest arguments to be made against this equivalency is that none of it fits when we apply Javelle's offsets from his reference star the 8.6 Mv. DM -2 220, also there is the fact that Javelle claims that he saw NGC 558 at the time he was observing the field and therefore it is hardly likely that he would have confused it with his #58. IC 124. POSS. O-1259. Javelle #62. 01hr 26m 36.256s - 02 11' 36.828" (1950). 01hr 29m 09.098s - 01 56' 07.058" (2000). This is a single star : Only modern listings found are the NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke and APL and all of these make it equal to a star. NED has "!*." SIMBAD "= star." IC 126. POSS. O-1259. Javelle #64. 01hr 27m 15.304s - 02 14' 27.686" (1950). 01hr 29m 48.119s - 01 58' 58.980" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The only error involved has nothing to do with the identity but an error in the description as it appears in the NGC 2000 in which they give "557 f." this should be corrected to read "577 f." IC 128. POSS. O-439. Javelle #65. 01hr 28m 55.718s - 12 52' 54.696" (1950). 01hr 31m 23.663s - 12 37' 28.716" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The MCG incorrectly equates its -2-4-62 with IC 128, it should be MCG -2-4-63. This error pointed out in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly listed in all the other modern catalogues. IC 134. POSS. O-30. Bigourdan #125. 01hr 30m 35.975s + 30 37' 52.559" (1950). 01hr 33m 25.267s + 30 53' 15.361" (2000). This is a single star superimposed upon the spiral structure of NGC 598 : This is one of Bigourdan's Missing objects (Not found in his 1919 work but included in his Comptes Rendus publications). Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (= star), APL = *, Steinicke (=*) and MOL (Single star). NED gives "!*" SIMBAD (= star). IC 146. POSS. O-349. Javelle #70. 01hr 36m 15.662s - 18 05' 05.498" (1950).01hr 38m 40.469s - 17 49' 52.194" (2000). Equivalent with NGC 648 (Leavenworth) : It is quite understandable why Javelle might have considered his # 70 to be a new object as Leavenworth's RA for NGC 648 has an error of about 1 tmin 40 tsec. The MOL gives both identities without any indication of equivalency. The MCG gives only the identity NGC 648. The NGC 2000, PGC, APL, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke each correctly make IC 146 = NGC 648. IC 148. POSS. O-15. Swift List X, No.6. 01hr 39m 42.196s + 13 23' 44.189" (1950). 01hr 42m 22.802s + 13 38' 50.811" (2000). Not found. Possible candidate? : At Swift's given coordinates no nebular object exists, however, when the Palomar print is examined there is a 13.9 Mp galaxy at about 20 arcmins north of Swift's declination and it does north-precede NGC 660, something Swift stated in his description. The Accurate Positions List (APL), NED and SIMBAD identify this galaxy as being IC 148 giving positions measured by Skiff, Dressel and Condon and equating it with U01195, however, it should be pointed out that neither Dressel and Condon, PGC or the UGC give this object an IC identity, nor does the CGCG (ZWG 437.010) or MCG ( +2-5-11), identify it as IC 148. The only other modern sources to list the identity IC 148 are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) and both give coordinates consistent with Swift. Steinicke has (Not found). In support of the APL's selected candidate there is the Swift description, also an error of 20 arcmins in declination would not be unexpected in Swift's positional data. IC 149. POSS. O-349. Javelle #533. 01hr 39m 58.479s - 16 33' 03.939" (1950). 01hr 42m 23.803s - 16 17' 57.484" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the PGC and MCG only as -3-5-15. NED has correct identity. SIMBAD list it as "Not present in the database," while listing the galaxy as MCG-3-5-015. NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke have correct identity. IC 151. POSS. O-15. Swift List X, No.7. 01hr 41m 17.039s + 12 57' 10.717" (1950). 01hr 43m 57.509s + 13 12' 14.379" (2000). Not found at nominal position: Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), APL (Nominal position only), Steinicke (Not found) and MOL (NSO). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 153. POSS. O-15. Swift List X, No.9. 01hr 41m 56.729s + 12 22' 39.244" (1950). 01hr 44m 36.931s + 12 37' 41.658" (2000). Unable to confirm : At the coordinates as given by Swift no object exists, however, at about 16 arcmins south there is the galaxy ZWG 437.018, Mp 15.2. Whether this is Swift's No.9 I am unable to say, although the difference in declination in itself is not excessive when dealing with Swift's positional data. Other modern listings for the identity IC 153 are the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both giving Swift's coordinates. Steinicke (Not found). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." APL (IC 153 is lost). IC 157 POSS. O-15. Swift List X, No.10. 01hr 43m 01.958s + 12 37' 24.817" (1950). 01hr 45m 42.356s + 12 52' 25.145" (2000). Unable to confirm : Certainly once again no nebular image is to be found at Swift's coordinates, however, Swift gave a position for IC 152 of 1hr 41m 27s + 12 47'.3 and the CGCG identifies IC 152 at 1hr 41.3m + 12 49'.0 Now when the separation values (1m 34s RA, 09.8 arcsec dec.) between Swift's positions for IC 152 and IC 157 are applied to the CGCG's coordinates for IC 152 there is quite close to this position a galaxy image. Again whether this could possibly be what Swift was referring to I cannot say with conviction, therefore I shall leave it as Unconfirmed. Modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both reflecting Swift's coordinates. Steinicke (Not found). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." APL (Lost). IC 161 and IC 162. POSS. O-15. Swift List IX, No.3 and List X, Nos. 11 & 12. This is an interesting problem and the credit for its solution is due to DR. Harold Corwin who points out the errors in both his APL and NGC/Bugs List. Swift first observed the field on October 3rd 1889 and saw only one object, his No.3, which he placed at 1hr 46m 15.677s +10 16' 29.428 (1950) and describing it as "eeF; S; cE; bet.2 distant st. in meridian." The second time he examined the field, January 7th 1891 he measured coordinates for an object, No.12, at 1hr 46m 07s + 10 16'.9 "eeF; pS; R." He also on January 8th 1891, recorded the existence of a second object, his No.11, at 1hr 46m 05.564s + 10 06' 41.816" (1950). "eeeF; S; R." When the Palomar print is consulted there is a galaxy (A), the south preceding of two, which fits Swift's description as given for his object No.3, however, Swift's RA is too large by about 11 tseconds, meanwhile Swift's data for his No.12 observation is also consistent with Palomar galaxy (A), having a more accurate RA and it is Dr. Corwin's position, which I fully support, that Swift's Nos. 3 and 12 are for Object (A). Corwin additionally points out that Object (A) is the brighter of the two galaxies and that in the 1889 observation Swift only saw one galaxy which would most likely be the brighter one (Object A), yet Dreyer in his IC I has made the combined observations for Swift's No.3 and No.12 equal to the north following Palomar galaxy, Object (B) identifying it as IC 162 Now as for Swift's object No.11. From his description it would appear that he was referring to Palomar object (B) but that there is a 8 tsec RA error and a 10 arcmin error in the declination value he gives and that it should be corrected to read 1hr 46m 12s + 10 16'.8. Thus Object (A) is IC 161 and Object (B) is IC 162, however, because of the misleading Dreyer data the CGCG (ZWG 437.033), UGC (U01266), MCG (+ 2-5-38) and PGC (6643) have all incorrectly identified Object (A) as being IC 162 while making Object (B) an Anon. = ZWG 437.034, U01267, PGC #6644 and MCG +2-5-39. The NGC 2000 incorrectly gives IC 161 the declination value of + 10 07.1 but correctly makes Object (B) = IC 162. The MOL gives the correct identities and coordinates while the RC3 correctly selects Object (B) as being IC 162. Steinicke, SIMBAD and NED have the correct identities. NOTE : Dr. Corwin (APL) also shows that Dressel and Condon plus Kojoian, Elliott & Tovmassian (Astron J. 86, 811, 1981.-Markarian 798-1095.) have incorrectly identified Object (A) as being IC 162. IC 165. POSS. O-896. Swift List 9, No. 6. 01hr 47m 22.722s + 27 22' 45.064" (1950). 01hr 50m 12.375s + 27 37' 36.625" (2000). This is equal to NGC 684 (H 612-2) : All the modern authorities correctly equate these two identities. IC 172. POSS.O-362. Javelle #541. 01hr 52m 20.079s + 00 34' 02.148" (1950). 01hr 54m 54.204s + 00 48' 44.006" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The NGC 2000 types this as "Nebula" while the MOL makes it "Bright Nebula." Correctly identified in the CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, MCG, Steinicke, PGC and APL. IC 173. POSS. O-852. Javelle #542. 01hr 53m 21.805s + 01 02' 30.994" (1950). 01hr 55m 56.199s + 01 17' 10.695" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Described in the MOL as a "Faint Nebula." Correctly listed as a galaxy in the CGCG,UGC, MCG, RC3, NGC 2000, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL. IC 175. POSS. O-852. Javelle #543. 01hr 53m 43.765s + 01 05' 14.021" (1950). 01hr 56m 18.186s + 01 19' 52.958" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Typed in both the NGC 2000 and MOL as a "Faint nebula." Correctly listed as a galaxy in CGCG, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL. IC 177. POSS. O-852. Javelle #75. 01hr 54m 26.699s - 00 20' 05.864" (1950). 01hr 57m 00.320s - 00 05' 28.413" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Javelle's coordinates are not very accurate due to the inaccurate position he gives for his reference star DM -0,296 (equal to GSC 4686- 002) which he gives as 01hr 48m 59.50s 00 45' 00.0 1860 Epoch, when it should be 01hr 48m 53.5s 00 41' 35.0" (1860). The APL gives IC 177 01hr 54m 27.1 - 00 20'.0 (1950) and these reflect much greater precision. The MCG has incorrectly identified MCG 0-6-03 as being IC 177, this is an "Anon." Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) base their coordinates upon Dreyer which in turn reflects Javelle's data. The CGCG, RC3, APL, PGC, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke have the correct identity and coordinates. IC 181. POSS. O-896. Javelle #545. 01hr 57m 14.232s + 23 24' 58.696" (1950). 02hr 00m 02.387s + 23 39' 29.770" (2000). Confirmed galaxy at the coordinates given by Javelle : It is most likely equal to the CGCG galaxy ZWG 482.040. Mentioned, but not identified in the Notes section of the UGC for NGC 776 as a comp. 1hr 57.2m + 23 25'.0 at a distance of 2.8 arcmin, PA 150, Mp 15.7 The Notes confuse the position angles (63 degrees and 150 degrees) for the identities IC 180 and IC 181. The MCG due to its very general coordinate values (10th of a minute in both RA and Dec), can be confusing, as when its position for its +4-5-30 = IC 181 is entered into the DSS it lands directly on the middle one of the three field galaxies, namely NGC 776, however, the relative order of Declination it gives for the 3 listed objects are correct therefore its numbers 28, 29 and 30 are the correct NGC and IC identities. It is listed in both the NGC 2000 and MOL. Identified by PGC as = ZWG 482.039 = MCG +04-05-030, but ZWG 482.039 is IC 180 not IC 181 NED equates it with ZWG 482.040. APL has correct identity, as does Steinicke and SIMBAD. IC 187. POSS. O-896. Swift List IX, No.7. 01hr 59m 01.593s + 26 13' 52.504" (1950). 02hr 01m 51.950s + 26 28' 19.638" (2000). This is almost certainly the CGCG ZWG 482.048, also listed as only U 01507 in the UGC and only as +4-5-37 in the MCG Listed in both the NGC 2000 and MOL. RC3, Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, and APL give correct identity. IC 188. POSS. O-896. Swift List IX, No.8. 01hr 59m 07.081s + 26 47' 16.280" (1950). 02hr 01m 57.857s + 27 01' 43.197" (2000). Unable to find. Possibly a faint star : This identification is actually based upon a observation by Lewis Swift's son Edward, who made this observation on the same night he discovered IC 187 and he described it as "eeef, vS; R; 2 stars point to it. Found searching for Swift's Comet." The APL has two entries for what they identify as being IC 188, the first referenced to Dressel and Condon at 1hr 58m 56.0s + 26 18' 15" (and which it should be pointed out that they do not identify this as being IC 188) and the second by Dr. Corwin at 1hr 58m 54s + 26 18'.2 offset from SAO 075099 and at these coordinates there is the image of a galaxy, listed in the CGCG as ZWG 482.049, the UGC as U 01510, PGC 7706 and MCG + 4-5-38, however, with the exception of the APL none of these other sources identify this object as being IC 188. The NED has identified as IC 187 the galaxy UGC 01507 which is one of the two associated galaxies south preceding APL's second candidate. SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." Swift's declination separations for IC 187 (for which he measured a very good declination) and IC 188 are about 33.4 arcmin, whereas the APL's would be less than 4 arcmins, a considerable difference. Now one can credibly argue that such a discrepancy in coordinates is not in itself impossible in Swift's given data, however, I have a problem in that on the same night in which IC 187 was found and measured the discoverer would have so badly measured a declination for IC 188 if it was only about 15s of RA following and 3.5 arcmin north of IC 187 as the APL's selection requires. The only reason I can see that would support the APL candidate being IC 188 is that north preceding it there are 2 stars pointing towards it, however, at Swift's nominal position, where no nebular image exists, I can find on the Palomar print 2 field stars fitting that requirement, something I dare say is applicable to almost any position on the prints. Now if Swift had indicated that the 2 stars were north preceding his object then this would be more supportive of the APL candidate, but he never stated this. Additionally I searched through all of Swift's lists and in those cases in which he claims more than one discovery in the same field of view (remembering that the field of view he employed was unusually large) he always described them in his lists as NP or SP of 2, or NF or SF of 2, many at much larger separations than the APL's separations, yet in the case of IC 187 and IC 188 he does not state this. Finally, consider Swift's reference to the brightness factor. His description eeeF, stresses that what he was referring to was more than excessively faint, yet the APL's IC 188 candidate is according to the CGCG and UGC of Mp 14.4 and its Mv is probably brighter. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) identify IC 188, however, both of these catalogues list all the IC identities and it should be pointed out that they list it at coordinates consistent with the Swift data. Steinicke has (Not found). IC 189. POSS. O- 896. Javelle #550. 01hr 59m 04.652s + 23 18' 35.955" (1950). 02hr 01m 52.936s + 23 33' 03.014" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : It was found at Javelle's coordinates. Listed in the MCG only as +4-5-39. CGCG, DSFG (NOTES to NGC776), NGC 2000 and MOL correctly list it. No listing in UGC. Correctly listed in the APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and Steinicke. IC 191. POSS. O-1202. Swift List IX, No.9. 01hr 59m 42.184s + 18 07' 38.622' (1950). 02hr 02m 27.040s + 18 22' 04.386" (2000). It is equal to NGC 794 (H 207-3) : This equivalency was suspected by Dreyer and so entered in his description in the IC I. The RC3 and MGC give only the identity NGC 794. The CGCG, UGC, Steinicke, APL, NGC 2000, MOL, Carlson, NED, SIMBAD and PGC each have the correct equivalency. IC 199. (See IC 1778). IC 203. POSS. O-1282. Javelle #558. 02hr 04m 51.050s + 08 53' 06.011" (1950). 02hr 07m 30.333s + 09 07' 20.394" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The UGC mentions this galaxy in its NOTES for U01610 = IC 202, however, it does not identify it as an IC object. Only modern listings are APL, Steinicke, NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED has correct identity SIMBAD "Not present in the database," but lists it as 212915. IC 206. POSS. O-1281. Javelle #77. 02hr 07m 01.636s -07 12' 14.964" (1950). 02hr 09m 30.963s - 06 58' 05.376" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This is the first of two Javelle discoveries in the same field, the other being IC 207, however it is not at the coordinates as given in his catalogue. Javelle states that his reference star is DM-7 364 (Mv 9.8) at 02hr 05m 53.5s -07 17'.7 (1950) and when his separation values (-00m 52.7s and -01'.9) are applied to this star no nebular image is found. The correct star (AC #2114784) is also of 9th magnitude and has a 2000 position of about 02hr 10m 23.602s - 07 00' 01.85". When his separation values are applied to this star they show the correct IC 206 to be located at 02hr 07m 01.636s - 07 12' 14.954" (1950) or 02hr 09m 30.963s - 06 58' 05.376" (2000). The MCG identifies IC 206 as an "Anon" -1-6-53. The NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) both incorrectly give it the incorrect coordinates based upon Dreyer. The APL, NED, PGC, SIMBAD and Steinicke have the correct identification. IC 207. POSS. O-1281. Javelle #78. 02hr 07m 10.583s - 07 09' 31.658" (1950). 02hr 09m 39.934s - 06 55' 22.416" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This is the companion to IC 206 and Javelle again gives the incorrect reference star DM.-7 364. When his separation values (-00m 43.8s and - 04'.6) are applied to the correct star (AC #2114784) they land exactly on the companion to IC 206 which further proves that Javelle's stated reference star is incorrect. The corrected nominal coordinates for IC 207 are 02hr 07m 10.583s - 07 09' 31.658" (1950) or 02hr 09m 39.934s - 06 55' 22.416" (2000). Identified in the MCG as "Anon" -1-6-54. Again the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL have the incorrect coordinates. SIMBAD has "Not present in the database," but list it as An Infra-Red source (IRAS 02071-0709). The APL, NED PGC and Steinicke are correct. Note: (See Corwin's Corrections to IC Puzzles). IC 211. POSS.O-1282. Javelle #559. 02hr 08m 31.151s + 03 36' 59.821" (1950). 02hr 11m 07.233s + 03 51' 05.783" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, MCG, SIMBAD, APL, PGC, Steinicke, RC3, NED and NGC 2000 (GX). The error is the RA given by the MOL (NSO) which is 2hr 07m 33s. IC 216. POSS. O-852. Javelle #81. 02hr 13m 23.437s - 02 14' 43.876" (1950). 02hr 15m 55.797s - 02 00' 49.435" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the CGCG and PGC only as ZWG 387.061. Correctly identified in the NGC 2000 (Gx), MOL (NSO), APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD and NED have correct object. IC 217. POSS. O-1183. Javelle #563. 02hr 13m 45.888s - 12 09' 26.524" (1950). 02hr 16m 11.705s - 11 55' 32.883" (2000). Equal to IC 1787 (Swift XI #37) : There can be no doubt that Swift made a duplicate observation of IC 217. Comparison of his description matches exactly the appearance of IC 217. The MCG gives the single identity IC 217 while both the NGC 2000 and MOL give both identities as having separate coordinates. The PGC, APL, Simbad, NED and Steinicke have the correct equivalency. SIMBAD lists the identity IC 217 but without any equivalency. IC 219. POSS. O-1281. Javelle #82. and Stone #67. (discovered by Muller). 02hr 16m 09.587s - 07 07' 59.994s (1950). 02hr 18m 38.682s - 06 54' 12.280 (2000). Javelle. 02hr 16m 09.812s - 07 08' 00.236" (1950). 02hr 18m 38.905s - 06 54' 12.517" (2000). Stone. Confirmed galaxy : The only errors here are the incorrect annual RA precession rate as given by Dreyer ( + 3.97 tsec), this should be corrected to + 2.97, and Stone's RA which is about 44 tsec too large. All of the modern authorities have the correct coordinates. IC 228. POSS. O-440. Javelle #85. 02hr 24m 17.810s - 14 44' 21.199" (1950). 02hr 26m 41.202s - 14 30' 53.948" (2000). This is equal to NGC 944. (Leavenworth) : In this particular case Leavenworth had given his NGC 944 a RA of 02hr 25m 43s or about 1 tmin 25 tsec larger than Javelle gave for his #85, thus the confusion. The MOL lists both identities as separate entries. The equivalency is correctly given in the MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, NED, APL and Steinicke. SIMBAD curiously, gives the galaxy the identity NGC 944 and omits the IC identity, which historically had the correct coordinates. IC 229. POSS. O-1287. Thome. 02hr 25m 06.856s - 24 02' 36.134" (1950). 02hr 27m 22.920s - 23 49' 10.654" (2000). Not found : There is no nebular image at the nominal position. The closest galaxy (ESO 479-G007) lies about 7 arcmin south, however, it is about 15.6 Mp and therefore would have been beyond the capability of Thome's small telescope. Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Both the APL and Steinicke have (Not found) as does SIMBAD. NED types as "Other." IC 233. POSS O-1233. Javelle #568. 02hr 29m 04.374s + 02 35'22.438" (1950). 02hr 31m 40.036s + 02 48' 36.825" (2000). Confirmed galaxy: There is absolutely no doubt that it is the brighter of two field associated galaxies that is Javelle's object and has the faint star he describes as 1 arcmin south. The CGCG's coordinates are hardly precise, however, their magnitude (14.9) indicates the correct object. Not listed in the UGC or MCG. NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have the correct identity, as do Steinicke, PGC, NED and the APL. SIMBAD incorrectly make IC 233 the fainter, south following galaxy. IC 240. POSS. O- 449. Bigourdan #136. 02hr 35m 48.085s + 41 30 34.434" (1950). 02hr 38m 59.464s +41 43' 29.515" (2000). Equal to a line of 4 faint stars : The solution to this problem is solely due to Dr. Corwin who in researching the identity discovered that in an appendix (Appendix #9) given by Bigourdan he corrected his original position of his #136 in relation to his reference star, which is equal to AC 2000.2 #1427128, by changing the PA from 30 degrees to 210 degrees, which in turn reverses the directions of his measured offsets so that they both should read as + and not -, which then places his #136 at 2hr 35m 48.085s +41 30" 34.434" (1950), where there is only a line of 4 faint stars The CGCG, PGC, SIMBAD and UGC are wrong in equating it with NGC 999. Bigourdan measured both identities during the same observation, describing IC 240 as excessively faint and only suspected to be nebulous. He used the same reference star for each measurement placing IC 240 ~ 4 tsec of RA preceding and 1 tmin 58 tsec south of NGC 999. which although he later corrected indicates that he was not confusing his #136 for NGC 999. The NGC 2000 gives no Type while the MOL lists it as (Nonstellar Object). It is not listed in the MCG. The APL correctly states "(HCo) = line of 3-4 sts. Offset from NGC 999." Steinicke has (* group). NED types as "Other." IC 242. POSS. O-1292. Javelle #88. 02hr 35m 55.612s - 07 08' 56.730" (1950). 02hr 38m 24.119s - 06 56' 00.806" (2000). This is a double star : The MCG has misidentified its -1-7-26 as being IC 242 as has SIMBAD, but this is actually IC 243. When Javelle's separation values are measured from his reference star, the 9.4 Mp DM -7 464, they confirm that IC 242 is a double star. The NGC 2000 types IC 242 as (Gx), but they are using the MCG as their source and the DSFG also makes the same mistake. The MOL gives (NSO). Correctly typed as a double star in the APL, NED and by Steinicke. The PGC incorrectly equates IC 242 with IC 243 IC 246. POSS. O-1283. Swift List VII, No.6. 02hr 37m 30.250s + 02 16' 19.832" (1950). 02hr 40m 05.761s + 02 29' 11.210" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Howe gave a correction in RA for this object (See NGC/IC. page 377.) enlarging it by some 22 tsec. The only other error involved is that Dreyer in his description states "eeF, vF, R, 2 eeF st. nr." This should read "eeF, vS, R, 2 eeF st nr." IC 249. POSS. O-1292. Javelle #92. 02hr 38m 33.586s - 07 08' 56.314" (1950). 02hr 41m 02.120s - 06 56' 07.740" (2000). Equal to NGC 961 (O.Stone II,#338) = NGC 1051 (Stephan List XI, #5). To begin, Javelle stated that his object was "distinct from NGC 1051" yet his coordinates differ from Stephan's by only 02 tsec and 13 arcsec, furthermore his description for IC 249 "Pretty bright, small, 20 tsec in size and of uniform surface brightness" can only be for IC 1051. As for the other equivalency with NGC 961 this was established by Corwin (APL) and results from the very poor RA position as given by Stone which would place NGC 961 at a RA of 02hr 28.7m. The MOL gives all three identities separate coordinates. The MCG, NGC 2000, PGC, and NED each give the equivalency with NGC 1051 while the RC3 and DSFG give only a single identity (NGC 1051). The APL, SIMBAD, NED and Steinicke are the only sources to make the double equivalency. Note : (See Corwin. APL). IC 254. POSS. O-440. Javelle #97. 02hr 39m 42.670s - 15 19' 09.460" (1950). 02hr 42m 04.668s - 15 06' 23.953" (2000). Confirmed galaxy ; This is not equal to NGC 1065 as listed in the MCG, NGC 2000 and PGC. IC 254 is a separate galaxy located close south preceding NGC 1065, exactly where Javelle's offsets from his reference star DM -15 477 (Mv 7.5) places it and it can be distinguished by having a faint star attached to its north preceding edge. Also Javelle states in a footnote to his description that it is different from NGC 1065 which he also measured at the same time. The MOL (NSO), Steinicke, NED and APL correctly list it as a separate identity. Simbad incorrectly equates it with NGC 1065. IC 256. POSS O-845. Swift List VIII.#2. 02hr 46m 25.198s + 46 46' 24,250" (1950). 02hr 49m 46.700s + 46 58' 48.806" (2000). Confirmed Galaxy : Incorrectly identified in MCG as +8-6-11 which is actually IC 257. This error detected by the PGC (Corrections). Not listed in CGCG, UGC or RC3. Correctly listed in the APL, Steinicke, NED NGC 2000 (GX.) and MOL (NSO). SIMBAD equates it with IC 257. IC 258 & IC 259. POSS. 0-449. Burnham. 02hr 46m 33.200s + 40 51' 13.242" (1950). 02hr 49m 45.778s + 41 03' 37.742" (2000). (IC 258). 02hr 46m 56.334s + 40 51' 17.258" (1950). 02hr 50m 08.986" + 41 03' 40.625" (2000). (IC 259). Confirmed galaxies : The error here consists in the order of Right Ascension and Declination as given to these two identities by the majority of sources both historical and modern. Burnham describes his discovery as "Both in the field with a 9.5-m star, DM +40 608, and I have measured directly from this star. The following nebula of the two is double. The nuclei are small and fairly well defined. The other is only a little brighter in the center, and considerably diffused. I have called the magnitudes of the nuclei of the double nebula each 14." (Publications of the Lick Observatory. Vol 2 ). From his star he measured the PA and Separation to his Nebula #1 as 288.8 and 110.27 tsec and that to his Nebula #2 as 285.5 and 169.26 tsec. and from this he derived his coordinates as given above. When the Palomar print is consulted the following discrepancies are apparent. Firstly, it is the preceding, not the following object which is the double system. Secondly, the following of the two lies a few arcsecs south, not north of the preceding one. Because of these errors in Burnham's relative positions Dreyer was misled and therefore the order of identification should be reversed so that the north preceding galaxy is IC 259 and the south following one IC 258. The CGCG, UGC, DSFG, NGC 2000, RC3, PGC, SIMBAD and MOL each have the identities incorrectly reversed. Not listed in the MCG. Steinicke and NED have the correct identities. NOTE : Dr. H. Corwin was the first to discover this error (See his APL). Also thanks to an immediate response by Steve Gottlieb to my request for a copy of Burnham's original paper and his input provided in the letter which accompanied it, I was able to verify Corwin's conclusion making IC 259 the preceding of the two. IC 261. POSS. O-911. Javelle #88. 02hr 46m 41.784s - 14 40' 42.690" (1950). 02hr 49m 03.896s - 14 28' 17.279" (2000). Confirmed galaxy. Probably equal to NGC 1120 (Leavenworth). Here again as in the case of IC 1840 we have Leavenworth giving NGC 1120 coordinates of 02hr 47m 50s - 14 40'.0, a difference of 01 tmin 08 tsec in RA and at his position no object exists. The PGC, APL , NGC 2000, NED and Steinicke have all equated IC 261 with NGC 1120 while the RC3 and SIMBAD give the single identification NGC 1120. The MCG lists these identifications as being -3-8-28 = IC 261 and -3-8-30 as NGC 1120? IC 263. POSS. O-1453. Javelle #99. 02hr 47m 06.328s - 00 16' 35.699" (1950). 02hr 49m 39.928s - 00 04' 11.767" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : At Javelle's given nominal position no nebular image is present. Javelle gives as his reference star the 9.5 Mv DM -00 438 whose 1860 coordinates he lists as 02hr 43m 08.4s - 00 39'.1 and measured offsets of + 00m 16.58s RA and + 02'.52".6 What he actually was using as his reference star was DM -00 436 equal to GSC 4699-221. Only modern listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO), both at the historical coordinates. APL, NED and Steinicke (= CGCG 389.027). The star that Javelle identifies as being his reference star is also GSC 4700-109, Mp 11.71. Now at 00 tmin 52.49 tsec preceding and 3' 30" north of this star is the 10.46 Mp star GSC 4699-221 and by applying Javelle's offsets exactly as he gives them they land right on a 14.7 Mp galaxy identified in the CGCG as Zwicky 389.027 at 02hr 47m 04.31s -00 16' 53.5"and this I now believe is Javelle's #99 = IC 263. This is also PGC # 10716 which is identified in the PGC only as CGCG 389- 27. I reported my findings to Dr. Corwin and after examining my argument he is in agreement that this is the correct IC 263, furthermore, Corwin found that by reversing the direction of RA for Javelle's #100 = IC 264 to preceed the reference star GSC 4699-221 instead of following it, it also landed upon a galaxy (NPMIG -00.0109) at 02hr 46m 14.014s - 00 18' 59.46", therefore, the two identities, IC 263 and IC 264 have been established and the Corrected Nominal coordinates are as given above following the discoverer's name. The PGC identifies IC 264 only as MK 1401. Steinicke has correct identity. NGC 2000 give (No Type) at the historical coordinates. The MOL has (NSO) at the historical coordinates. Simbad incorrectly lists the identity IC 263 as "Not present in database," however, the correct IC 263 is, being listed as Leda 10716. SIMBAD also has for IC 264 "Not present in the database," but list the same galaxy as mrk 1401. IC 264. POSS. O-1453. Javelle #100. 02hr 46m 13.913s - 00 18' 58.625" (1950). 02hr 48m 47.483s - 00 06' 32.136" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : (See IC 263). IC 265. POSS. O- 449. Swift List VIII, #6. 02hr 51m 33.926s + 41 27' 30.027" (1950). 02hr 54m 48.293s + 41 39' 39.520" (2000). Confirmed galaxy: Listed in MCG only as +7-7-6 Correctly identified in CGCG, NGC 2000, MOL, Steinicke, APL, DSFG (Notes to NGC1129), NED, SIMBAD and PGC. Not listed in UGC. IC 266. POSS. O-449. Swift List VIII, #7. 02hr 51m 47.992s + 42 03' 29.228" (1950). 02hr 55m 03.270s + 42 15' 37.997" (2000) Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-10. CGCG, Steinicke, APL, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 and MOL give correct identity. Not listed in UGC. IC 267. POSS. O-16. Swift List VII, #7. 02hr 51m 41.372s + 12 37' 12.536" (1950). 02hr 54m 25.452s + 12 49' 22.566" (2000). Bigourdan #138. 2hr 51m 07.075s + 12 40' 33.537" (1950). (Historical position) 02hr 53m 51.175s +12 52'45.273" (2000). (Historical position). Even though Swift observed this galaxy about year prior to Bigourdan Dreyer gave both credit od discovery, probably because he was unsure as to whether it was indeed the same object. Swift's coordinates are not very good but still within the normal range of his expected error and his description makes it clear that he has the correct object. Meanwhile, Bigourdan measured its position from a star he calls (Anon 2, giving this star a position determined from its estimated offset from the galaxy NGC 1134 (whose coordinates he had measured very accurately). Due to his estimated coordinates for this star his offsets for his #138 come up about 1 arcmin 48 arcsec north of the actual galaxy, but there is no doubt that he is describing the correct object. Bigourdan's (Anon 2) is equal to the star AC2000.2 #1463359 at 2hr 53m 44.655s +12 40' 44.05" (2000) and when his offsets (+0 tmin 5.345 tsec RA and + 10 arcmin 13.950 arcsec Dec.) are applied they land right on the galaxy in question at 02hr 53m 50.326s +12 50' 57.388" (2000). NGC 2000 (GX) and MOL (NSO) have coordinates based upon the Dreyer historical data. ALL of the modern catalogues have the correct coordinates. IC 274. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#8. 02hr 56m 45.655s + 44 00' 53.586" (1950). 03hr 00m 04.886s + 44 12' 47.194" (2000). I am unable to confirm the validity of this identity : The only galaxy in the immediate vicinity to Swift's given coordinates lies about 30s of RA following, however it is extremely faint and does not appear to be a valid candidate although Swift did describe IC 274 as "Extremely faint, exceedingly difficult. The most difficult object yet seen here." The only modern catalogues to list this identity are the APL, which gives 5 possible listings and positions, each with question marks. Steinicke (Not found), the NGC 2000 (No Type), NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and the MOL (Nonstellar Object). IC 280. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#10. 03hr 00m 03.058s + 42 09' 35.490" (1950). 03hr 03m 20.042s + 42 21' 18.972" (2000). Not found: CGCG, UGC, PGC and MCG have no listing for this identity. NGC 2000 lists as an asterism. MOL lists as "Group of stars." Carlson states "Group of stars on Mt. Wilson plate." Corwin (APL) states "4 stars only." Steinicke has (* Group). NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NOTE: There is about 19 tsec preceding Swift's nominal RA a small group of faint stars which is the group referred to by the modern authorities. This may well be what Swift saw, however, without additional evidence I shall still go with Not found. IC 281. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#11. 03hr 01m 15.326s + 42 09' 31.054" (1950). 03hr 04m 32.532s + 42 21' 10.769" (2000). This is equal to NGC 1177 (Rosse): CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, UGC (Notes), NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Carlson and the PGC all correctly equate the two identities. The MCG lists the single identity NGC 1177. IC 282. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#12. 03hr 01m 54.589s + 41 39' 40.607" (1950). 03hr 05m 11.160s + 41 51' 18.285" (2000). Equal to NGC 1198 (Stephan XI, #7) : There is a 1.0 tmin error in Swift's RA and the correction makes his corrected RA to read 03hr 02m 54s which is in agreement with that for NGC 1198. Both the NGC 2000 and the MOL give coordinates based upon Swift's incorrect RA. Steinicke, APL and NED make IC 282 (= NGC 1198). Simbad has "Not present in database," but gives the identity NGC 1198. IC 286. POSS. O-1452. Bigourdan #139. (Coordinates given below). Not found at nominal positions : This is a rather complex problem in that the historical data appears to be subject to various inconsistencies. Firstly, Bigourdan gives the position of his Nova first in the COMPTES RENDUS at the March 31st 1891 meeting of the Academie des Sciences as 03hr 02m 19.360s - 06 40' 44.835" (1950), however, when this position is examined on the DSS no nebular image is found. Secondly, Bigourdan in his OBSERVATIONS (1919) gives the position as being 03hr 02m 09.461s - 06 40' 25.430" (1950), offsetting from a 9th mag. star he called "Anonyme" which from his data would have a 1950 position of 03hr 01m 54.061s - 06 39' 13.430", yet when these coordinates are applied to the DSS there is no 9th magnitude star, also at the coordinates he now gives his Nova no nebular image exists. Additional listings are Steinicke (Not found), APL (not found?), NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 288. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#14. 03hr 04m 11.006s + 42 10' 26.175" (1950). 03hr 07m 28.772s + 42 21' 56.648" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-27. DSFG (Notes to IC 284), CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and UGC have correct identity. Both NGC 2000 and MOL list as an "Open Cluster." IC 290. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#16. 03hr 06m 25.033s + 40 47' 41.704" (1950). 03hr 09m 41.099s + 40 59' 05.104" (2000). Equal to IC 1884 (Barnard) : Swift has the earlier discovery date and therefore by historical precedent the correct identity is IC 290. The CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly list IC 290 = IC 1884. NGC 2000 list both as separate galaxies, while the MOL describes both as (Nonstellar Objects) with slightly different coordinates. The UGC lists its U02560 as IC 290 ? and gives the correct IC 290 the single identity IC 1884. The MCG has no listing. RC3 gives the single identity IC 290. IC 292. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#17. 03hr 06m 59.765s + 40 34' 21.503" (1950). 03hr 10m 15.598s + 40 45' 43.054" (2000). Equal to IC 1887 (Barnard) : Again as in the case of IC 290 Swift was the original discoverer and the correct identity is IC 292. CGCG, UCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, RC2 (Notes) and PGC make IC 1887 = IC 292. Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list as separate galaxies. The MCG gives the single identity IC 292. IC 293. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#18. 03hr 07m 35.555s + 40 57' 07.264" (1950). 03hr 10m 52.058s + 41 08' 26.883" (2000). Equal to IC 1888 (Barnard) : As with the previous two corrections Swift was the original discoverer and the correct identity is IC 293. The only possibilities for Barnard's seemingly disregard for the earlier IC identities is that due to the relatively small differences between his coordinates and those given by Swift he considered his discoveries to be different objects or perhaps, as in the strange case discussed in my evaluation of IC 1441, Barnard had made his observations prior to Swift. (See IC 1441). CGCG, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and PGC correctly list IC 1888 = IC 293. MCG gives the single identity IC 293. UGC has no listing while both the NGC 2000 and MOL list both as separate galaxies. IC 294, IC 295 and IC 296. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII,#19, #20 and #21. 03hr 07m 39.678s + 40 26' 36.975" (1950). 03hr 10m 55.431s + 40 37' 56.392" (2000) (IC 294). 03hr 07m 44.666s + 40 25' 36.658" (1950). 03hr 11m 00.408s + 40 36' 55.808" (2000). (IC 295). 03hr 07m 48.700s + 40 26 18.403" (1950). 03hr 11m 04.471s + 40 37' 37.336" (2000). (IC 296). These three identities are based upon claims by Swift of three nebulae he supposedly discovered. The first two on September 11th 1888 and the third on September 14th 1888. Each have essentially the same description and they are given coordinates which would place them within boundaries of 9 tsec RA and 1 arcmin Dec. and when the immediate area is examined on the DSS it shows only a single galaxy which is identified in Index Catalogue II as IC 1889 (Barnard). If Swift was actually seeing a nebulous image on both the nights of September 11th and 14th then he could only have been seeing the same one (IC 1889), therefore, IC 294, IC 295 and IC 296 would all be equivalent identities and additionally equivalent to Barnard's IC 1889. Alternatively, if Swift was confusing associated field stars as being nonstellar images for two of the three objects he recorded then the one he measured closest to the single existing galaxy would be his # 21 = IC 296, which would result in IC 296 being equal to IC 1889 and IC 294 and IC 295 being equal to stars. CGCG gives only the single identity IC 296 while the MCG and RC3 identify it as IC 294. UGC gives the identity as IC 294 and in its NOTES for U02574 refers to the conflicting identities between the CGCG and MCG. PGC and SIMBAD equate the identities IC 294 and IC 296 and SIMBAD has for IC 295 "Not present in the database." while both the NGC 2000 and MOL list each of the identities as separate galaxies. The APL equates the identity IC 294 with IC 1889 and then queries whether the two identities IC 295 and IC 296 are equal to IC 294. NED equates the two identities IC 294 and IC 296. Steinicke identifies the galaxy as IC 296 = IC 294 = IC 295 = IC 1889. NOTE: Swift's nominal position for his IC 294 lies close north of a closely associated group of 3 faint stars and this could be what he considered to be the "Irregularly round" he gives in his description for IC 294. IC 297. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII, No.22. 03hr 09m 56.798s + 41 55' 10.344" (1950). 03hr 13m 15.198s + 42 06' 22.313" (2000). Not found : The CGCG, UGC and MCG have no listings for IC 297. NGC 2000 and MOL describe as "Double star" and "Two stars." The APL gives 03hr 09m 58.5s + 41 55' 37" HC. Steinicke and SIMBAD have (Not found). NED has "!**." IC 311. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII, No.27. 03hr 13m 23.745s + 39 49' 26.917" (1950). 03hr 16m 39.519s + 40 00' 27.681" (2000). The only discrepancy here concerns the original description as given by Swift and published by Dreyer in the IC I in which the "very faint star very close preceding" should be changed to read very close following. IC 312. POSS. O-1618. Swift List VIII, No.29. 03hr 14m 49.160s + 41 33' 39.473" (1950). 03hr 18m 07.835s + 41 44' 35.469" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Listed in MCG only as +7-7-51. CGCG, UGC, NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke, DSFG (Notes to NGC 1257), NED, SIMBAD and PGC have correct identity. IC 314. POSS. O-363. Bigourdan #140. 03hr 16m 17.876s - 02 09' 15.208" (1950). 03hr 18m 49.781s - 01 58' 22.943" (2000). This is equal to NGC 1289 (Swift List IV, #13) : Bigourdan himself came to realize that his #140 was indeed equal to NGC 1289 as he clearly states this in an observation made in 1897, "NGC 1289 lies 11 tsec after the NGC position and that therefore it is equal to his #140." The MOL gives both identities with separate coordinates while the DSFG gives only the single identity NGC 1289. The MCG, PGC, CGCG, NED, SIMBAD, UGC, APL and Steinicke have all correctly given the equivalency. IC 319. POSS. O-1618. Bigourdan #141. 03hr 20m 10.021s + 41 14' 21.273" (1950). 03hr 23m 29.072s + 41 24' 59.409" (2000). This is a star : For a long time I was of the opinion that this was the galaxy identified by the NGC 2000 (GX), and MOL (Galaxy. SBO) as IC 319, and which is visible on the Palomar print closely north preceding a 13 mag. star, however, Bigourdan gives some important and crucial information regarding associated stars, (13.2 star PA 185, Dist 1 arcmin, 13.3 star PA 210, Dist 2 arcmin and a double star components of 11 mag. which are at PA 0, Dist 1 arcmin at a position relative to the nebula of + 0m 20s and same dec.) and when these are measured on the Palomar print they point exactly to a faint star which lies north following the visible galaxy. NED lists as "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." The APL, NED and Steinicke are the only sources that I am aware of that correctly give (=*). IC 323. POSS. O-643. Swift List VIII, #36. 03hr 26m 09.588s + 41 41' 24.217" (1950). 03hr 29m 30.439s + 41 51' 41.860" (2000). Not found at nominal position. Probably an asterism of 3 faint stars : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = ***, NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." Steinicke (= *3) and MOL (NSO). NOTE: After again looking at the nominal position it lands very close to a small asterism mainly consisting of three faint stars in the form of a closely formed triangle and this asterism does have a star of about 10.5 Mp just off its north preceding edge. This would support Swift's description "eF, S, R, * v nr, p of 2." as following this asterism at almost the exact separations as given by Swift there is the galaxy NGC 1334 (D'Arrest). Another interesting finding is that Swift must have considered that the following object was a "nova" as he identifies it in his Discovery List VIII, No.37 as "eF, pS, R, f of 2" at a position of 03hr 26m 39.721s + 41 39' 22.174" (1950), yet Dreyer makes no mention of Swift's claim in the NGC or IC Notes. IC 324. POSS. O-908. Bigourdan #142. 03hr 24m 14.902s - 21 31' 41.866" (1950). 03hr 26m 28.137s - 21 21' 15.495" (2000). This is equal to NGC 1331 (H 959-3). Bigourdan does note that his #142 was measured at the Leander McCormick Observatory where it was identified as being NGC 1331 and this is correct and was also published in the MNRAS 73,37. 1912 by Dreyer in a series of corrections. All of the modern catalogues that list the identity IC 324 correctly equate it with NGC 1331. IC 333. POSS. O-1485. Bigourdan #143. 03hr 31m 33.290s - 05 16' 33.325" (1950). 03hr 34m 02.156s - 05 06' 32.734" (2000). Not found : Bigourdan states that it was only suspected. The closest object to the nominal position is a very, very faint star. Only modern listings are NGC 2000 No Type), MOL (NSO), APL (Not found), SIMBAD "Not found." and Steinicke (Not found). NED types as "Other." NOTE: The APL and NED give a 1950 declination of - 04 45.1' (Hcnf) Nominal Position. IC 335. (See IC 1963). IC 337. POSS. O-1485. Swift List IX, #12. 03hr 34m 36.486s - 06 53' 12.971" (1950). 03hr 37m 03.766s - 06 43' 23.087" (2000). Not found at nominal position : The APL tentatively list this identity as IC 337? 03hr 35m 06s - 06 41'.2, however, there is an alternative candidate which I feel better fits Swift's description "eeF, pL, R, trap. with 3 stars." and it is the MCG "Anon" -01-10-09 at 3hr 34.0m - 06 54'.0 Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL have coordinates based upon those of Swift. Steinicke list the MCG "Anon." as being IC 337. The PGC #13308, gives the MCG identity -01-10-09 but does not equate it with any IC identity. NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 338. POSS. O-932. Javelle #588. 03hr 35m 01.078s + 02 57' 18.016" (1950). 03hr 37m 37.683s + 03 07' 06.166" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG incorrectly identifies its ZWG 391.019 as being IC 338 at 3hr 35.0m +3 06' 0. The correct identity should be ZWG 391.018 at 3hr 35.0m + 2 58'.0 This error is noted in the PGC (Corrections). Correctly identified in the APL, Steinicke, MCG, NGC 2000 (GX), RC3, NED, SIMBAD and MOL (NSO). IC 339. Stone #144. 03hr 35m 50.843s - 18 32' 37.210" (1950). 03hr 38m 06.465s - 18 22' 51.345" (2000). Not found : No nebular image at or close to the nominal position. Listed in the NGC 2000, MOL, APL, Steinicke and Carlson as being a star. NED has "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 344. POSS. O-1485. Swift List IX, #13. 03hr 39m 04.730s - 04 50' 25.833" (1950). 03hr 41m 33.895s - 04 40' 51.925" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This is not a regular error in identity , however, it does have historical significance and is also a fascinating case. Swift published a paper (Astr. & Astrophys No. 103),sometime after publication of his List IX in which he gives a lengthy and extremely interesting account of this identity stating that he discovered this object on December 23rd 1889 but that he was unable to recover it in subsequent observations. He had described it as "Exceedingly, exceedingly faint, pretty large, round, first of three. In line with NGC 1417-18. Cometary. Unable to re-find it. Seeing good. Failed also at Harvard College Observatory." He reports that in the MNRAS of December, 1891, Dr Dreyer says that he had observed it several times at Lord Rosse's Observatory and that on other occasions had been unable to see it. Swift then goes on to say that on January 31st 1892 he tried again and at 132x he failed to see it, however, while employing a magnification of 195x he had two momentary glimpses of it and that it was not exactly in line with the other two NGC objects but rather it was a little north. Meanwhile a search of John Herschel's Slough Observations (1833), reveals that he also saw this object describing it as the 1st of 3, however, he misidentified it as being his father's H 569-3 = NGC 1397 but this object lies almost 2 tmin preceding IC 344, as W. Herschel's given position correctly shows. Examination of the field on the DSS clearly shows IC 344 north preceding NGC 1417 very close to Swift's coordinates and John Herschel's measured coordinates for what he incorrectly identified as being H 569-3 (03hr 39m 00s - 04 49'.0), clearly establishes that he was the first person ever to see what later became IC 344 and therefore historically John Herschel should be the credited discoverer. IC 346. Stone #151. 03hr 39m 09.223s - 18 31' 50.160" (1950). 03hr 41m 24.670s - 18 22' 16.088" (2000). Not Found: This is a complex problem and the credit for first realizing that any problem existed belongs entirely to Wolfgang Steinicke who brought it to my attention through personal correspondence. The Leander McCormick Observatory published a list (SOUTHERN NEBULAE), detailing observations made with its 26 inch telescope by Stone, Levenworth, Muller and Parrish. This list contains observations of 5 separate "Novae" which were identified in the list as #144, 151, 160, 168 and 171, the first two being credited to Stone, the other three to Muller, however, when Dreyer later assigned them IC identities he only listed 4 objects. Three of these, IC 339 = List #144, IC 343 = #List 160, IC 345 = List #168 present no problem as IC 339 is "Not Found" while both IC 343 and IC 345 exist as galaxies at the positions measured by Muller. Now the problem concerns which of the two remaining original identities (#151 and #171) should be equated with the identity IC 346, as #151 is "Not Found" while #171 does exist as a galaxy. In order to sort this conflict out it was necessary to take each of the 5 McCormick identities and precess their given coordinates back to epoch 1860 and then compare these positions to those as given by Dreyer in the IC I and when this is done it is obvious that Dreyer employed Stone's Object #151 and gave it the identity IC 346. As for Muller's # 171, Dreyer has no coordinate values that in any way match those as measured by Muller and it is clear that he never considered, (or ignored), the data for #171, thus my conclusions are that IC 346 is "Not Found" and Muller's discovery, the galaxy # 171 is an "Anonymous Galaxy" at 03hr 41m 44.86s - 18 16' 14.6" (2000) and cannot be considered as being IC 346 as historically it was never considered as such by Dreyer. All of the modern sources that I have examined who list the identity IC 346 make it to be Muller's Object # 171, thus disagreeing with the above conclusions, however, Wolfgang Steinicke, the discoverer of the problem and I are in favour of the above given solution which is in keeping with the historical data. Both NED and SIMBAD equate the Muller galaxy wirh the identity IC 346. IC 359. POSS O-1468. Swift List X.#14. 04hr 10m 22.253s + 27 34' 22.191" (1950). 04hr 13m 27.162s + 27 41' 57.591" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The CGCG and UGC correctly identify and give better RA coordinates (4hr 9.4m). The MOL gives Swift's original coordinates while the NGC 2000 somehow confuses the identity IC 359 with a reflection nebula at 4hr 15.9m + 28 4'.8. The MCG gives only the identity +5-10-9. The RC3, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and PGC identity is correct as is the APL. IC 371. POSS. O-1524. Bigourdan #145. 04hr 27m 39.122s - 00 40' 04.642" (1950). 04hr 30m 12.191s - 00 33' 36.643" (2000). Unable to confirm. Probably a star at Bigourdan's nominal position: I was unable to find any image that I could establish as being nebular, rather it appears to be completely stellar. NGC 2000 gives its listing No Type, while the MOL states (Nonstellar Object). The APL lists it as = *. Steinicke also identifies it as (*). The NED has "!*. " SIMBAD "Not present in the database." During my investigation of this identity I came across some interesting disagreements regarding coordinates. Bigourdan carried out his observation of what he thought was a nebula (B.145) on the same night that he made an observation of what he also thought was NGC 1586 (D'Arrest), in fact he measured NGC 1586 to be - 17 .36 tsec and + 2 arcmin 26.7 arcsec from his reference star BD -0 709 while from this same star he measured B.145 (IC 371) to be - 14.94 tsec and + 2 arcmin 45.4 arcsec thus making them to be very close companions. His coordinates for NGC 1586 compute to 4hr 27m 35s - 00 39' 56"(1950), D'Arrest had given 4hr 27m 39s - 00 37'.8 (1950), however the modern catalogues give NGC 1586 4hr 28m.1 - 00 25'.0 (1950), so the question is was Bigourdan actually searching in the position he gives, in which case both his assumed NGC 1586 and IC 371 are stars, or was he seeing two nebulae at the position given for NGC 1586 by the modern catalogues, as in this case there are two galaxies, NGC 1586 and an Anon. companion at about the PA and distance separation required by Bigourdan's measurements ? It must be stated that based upon Bigourdan's data there is absolutely no indication that he was possibly searching anywhere else other than the positions he gives. It would appear that the candidate for NGC 1586 as listed in the modern catalogue is D'Arrest's object as his description of the associated 3 stars matches completely, however, it should be pointed out that Bigourdan's description of what he considered to be NGC 1586 does not, indeed he refers to this difference with D'Arrest's description. IC 372. POSS. O-918. Javelle #594. 04hr 27m 36.081s - 05 07' 02.174" (1950). 04hr 30m 04.348s - 05 00' 33.804" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The only error here is that in the NGC 2000 they type this identity as (?) quoting as their source Reinmuth. Correctly identified by MOL (NSO), Steinicke, NED and APL. SIMBAD has no listing for this galaxy. IC 376. POSS. O-941. Javelle #126. 04hr 28m 53.923s - 12 32' 21.649" (1950). 04hr 31m 13.972s - 12 25' 58.258" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This galaxy lies north preceding IC 377 which is the brightest in the field and is a face-on spiral. The MCG (-02-12-031) combines this identity with IC 377 which is misleading as both identities are for entirely separate galaxies. The PGC equates it with MCG -2-12-31. SIMBAD makes the bright spiral equal to IC 376, however, Corwin in his APL gives IC 376 coordinates of 04hr 28m 53.47s - 12 32' 24".9 and IC 377 coordinates of 04hr 28m 56.28s - 12 33' 42".6 and these I believe correctly identify Javelle's two nebulae. NED, NGC 2000 (Gx) and MOL (NSO) give the correct identities. Steinicke has the correct identities. IC 377. POSS. O-941. Javelle #127. 04hr 28m 56.267s - 12 33' 42.940" (1950). 04hr 31m 16.290s - 12 27' 19.708" (2000). (See IC 376). IC 386. POSS. O-941. Javelle #601. 04hr 37m 35.115s - 09 33' 10.931" (1950). 04hr 39m 58.346s - 09 27' 23.029" (2000). Confirmed galaxy. Probably equal to NGC 1632 (Muller). Muller was one of the observers at the Leander McCormick Observatory and he with O.Stone and F.P. Leavenworth published in the ASTRONOMICAL JOURNAL two sets of observations (Vol.VII. No.146 and VOL VII. No.152). with very imprecise coordinates. His #399 in Vol. 152 is for NGC 1632 and he gives it a position of 04hr 36.8m - 09 32'.6 which if it is equal to IC 386 would mean that Muller has a positional error of about 0.8 tmin in RA which is by no means excessive when it comes to the positions published from this source. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) list both identities as being separate objects. while the PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the APL all equate it with NGC 1632. IC 392. POSS. O-974. Javelle #604. 04hr 43m 48.585s + 03 24' 54.845" (1950). 04hr 46m 26.141s + 03 30' 16.613" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the UGC only as U03158. Correctly identified in the CGCG, PGC, APL, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Gx), RC3 and MOL (NSO). IC 394. POSS. O-1519. Bigourdan #146. 04hr 46m 25.869s - 06 21' 58.161" (1950). 04hr 48m 52.553s - 06 16' 46.906" (2000).0 Nothing found at nominal position : Listed in the NGC 2000 as (?) and in the MOL as (May not exist). The APL, Carlson and Steinicke have (Not found). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 395. POSS. O-969. Swift List IX, No.15. 04hr 46m 49.506s + 00 09' 43.167" (1950). 04hr 49m 23.461s + 00 14' 52.555" (2000). Confirmed galaxy, but may be equal to NGC 1671 : At Swift's coordinates for IC 395 there is found the image of a galaxy, whereas at Swift's nominal position for NGC 1671 no nonstellar object exists. The APL equates it with NGC 1671 (Swift List V, No.63) stating that Dreyer's NGC 1671 coordinates are off by 50 tsec RA too large and his declination off by about 1 degree too far south. NED also make this same equivalency. There is support for this equivalency in that Swift's description for NGC 1671 states "pB * nr, sp." and there is such a star south preceding IC 395. The CGCG, PGC, MCG, SIMBAD and UGC give only the identity IC 395 while the NGC 2000 give no type to both identities but lists them at the Dreyer coordinates. The MOL lists IC 395 as (NSO) and for NGC 1671 states "Non existent object " The APL and Steinicke are the only sources to suggest the equivalency. IC 397. POSS O-668. Spitaler #5. 04hr 57m 38.508s + 40 21' 26.815" (1950). 05hr 01m 07.115s + 40 25' 48.809" (2000). This identity is equal to 3 faint stars : No modern listings for it other than NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = line of 3 sts. and MOL (NSO). Steinicke (* Group). NED types as "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 399. POSS. O-1519. Spitaler Nova #35. 04hr 59m 15.576s - 04 21' 31.127" (1950). 05hr 01m 44.419s - 04 17' 13.749" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : It is not equal to NGC 1741, being a separate galaxy located south following the NGC object. Spitaler made two separate measurements of both IC 399 and NGC 1741 on the same night and he gave NGC 1741 coordinates of 04hr 59m 09.144s - 04 19' 58.212", thus separation values of 0 tmin 6.426 tsec and 01' 32.788" of arc from IC 399 and at these separations one finds a galaxy which although stellar in appearance is definitely a galaxy being equal to Markarian 1090. The MCG and NGC 2000 incorrectly equate IC 399 with NGC 1741. The MOL gives both identities as separate objects and lists IC 399 as (EO). Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and the PGC correctly equates it with MK 1090 and the APL correctly states (= KET2 = Mark 1090). IC 400. POSS. O-1323. O.Stone. 05hr 01m 27.899 - 15 52' 37.973" (1950). 05hr 03m 43.247s - 15 48' 29.460" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : This galaxy exists but not at the historical coordinates. Stone list his discovery in a paper titled SOUTHERN NEBULAE and gives it the identity #209 Nova. He gives his reference star as C.C.O. 228, 04hr 57m 45.5s - 15 49' 39".3 (1950) and separation values only for RA of + 03 tmin 42.14 tsec which would result in a 1950 position of 05hr 01m 27.6s - 15 49' 39.3 and at these exact coordinates no nebular image exists. Stone also used the same reference star to measure a position for his listed # 208 which is NGC 1730, however, the coordinates he gives for the star C.C.O.228 are different in that his 1950 declination is given as -15 52' 23".3 or 02' 44".0 farther south, this star is also AC #2340489 at 05hr 00m 01.297s - 15 47' 55.09" (2000) and when his separation values for his # 209 = IC 400 are applied to this correction it results in being about 02 tsec from a faint extended galaxy which has a companion very close south. Why Stone omitted giving any separation value in declination I am unable to say for sure, however, perhaps that as both the declination of the reference star and this galaxy is less than 1 arcmin apart he may have reasoned that such a difference would not hinder anyone from finding it. He also omitted any declination separation value for NGC 1730. Dr. Corwin has IC 400 listed in his APL three times and states that he is uncertain as to its identity. His major points of uncertainty are based upon the 02 tsec difference in Stone's RA and the existing candidate, also that this galaxy is perhaps too faint for Stone to have visually seen with the Leader McCormick 26 inch telescope, however, it must be remembered that Stone gives his object a visual magnitude of 16.0, which even allowing for estimation errors still implies that it appeared exceedingly faint. NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give the declination based upon the historical data which as published by Stone would have the reference star error. APL (identity uncertain). Steinicke has the correct object. SIMBAD has "Not present in database." NED has "Identity very uncertain." For an excellent alternative opinion see Dr. Corwin's SOLUTIONS TO IC PROBLEMS. NOTE: The galaxy I give as the candidate for the identity IC 400 is listed in the GSC as 059-989, Mp 15.26 Type 3 (Nonstellar Object) at 05hr 01m 29.96s - 15 53' 15.2" (1950), or 05hr 03m 45.322s - 15 49' 06.816" (2000). IC 403. POSS O-668. Spitaler #6. 05hr 11m 47.613s + 39 55' 01.971" (1950). 05hr 15m 16.161s + 39 58' 23.762" (2000). This is equal to 2 stars : It was described by Spitaler as "Extremely faint, round nebula,of about 5 arcsecs diameter." Only modern listings are Steinicke (* 2), NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = 2-3 stars and MOL (NSO). NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 406. POSS. O-668. Spitaler #7. 05hr 14m 20.529s + 39 49' 54.918" (1950). 05hr 17m 49.030s + 39 53' 05.780" (2000). This is a small group of 3 stars in line north preceding south following : Only listings in the modern catalogues are NGC 2000 (Open Cluster). MOL (Open Cluster) and APL = line of 4 sts and Steinicke (*group). NED has "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 408. POSS. O-1462. Swift List VIII, #38. 05hr 15m 51.414s - 25 08' 27.451" (1950). 05hr 17m 54.359s - 25 05' 19.888" (2000). Unable to confirm. Quite possibly equal to IC 2121 : At Swift's nominal position no nebular object exists. Swift's description is "Very faint, pretty small, elongated, 5 arcmin north of a 8.5 mag. star." The NGC 2000 gives (No Type) and the MOL (NSO). APL (=**). The ESO has 486-?050 = IC 408? Steinicke has it equated with IC 2121. SIMBAD equates the identity IC 408 with IC 2121 and this has considerable merit as there is an 8th magnitude star lying south of this galaxy and this galaxy has a Mp of 13.78 which would make it bright enough for Swift to have seen at such a southern declination. NED has "**." IC 412. POSS. O-1270. Javelle #608. 05hr 19m 18.834s + 03 26' 17.892" (1950). 05hr 21m 56.547s + 03 29' 09.295" (2000). Equal to IC 2123 (Barnard) : Correctly noted as equivalent in the CGCG, UGC, NED, PGC, SIMBAD, Steinicke and APL. The NGC 2000 lists both identities as separate galaxies as does the MOL. The MCG gives only the identity IC 412. NOTE : Both IC 412 and the following error IC 413 are credited by Dreyer to both Barnard and Javelle in the IC I while the two identities IC 2123 and IC 2124 were credited by Dreyer to Barnard in the later published IC II and comparison of Dreyer's coordinates as given in the two IC catalogues would seem to me to suggest that the four identities were for 2 objects, something Dreyer often queried with other such cases yet he did not do so here. In investigating these identities I came across a statement published in a paper (OBSERVATIONS OF NEBULAE WITH THE 36- INCH REFRACTOR OF THE LICK OBSERVATORY. Publications of the Lick Observatory. vol ii, p.177), by F. Burnham which reads "This double nebula was discovered in 1888 by Barnard with the 12 inch telescope." Now the discovery date given by Javelle for both IC 412 and IC 413 is January 12th 1894, which means that Barnard would have been the original discoverer. This of course is only important in that it establishes which of the two observers was the first to see these two galaxies and therefore for historical accuracy Barnard is the rightful one to be credited with discovery. IC 413. POSS. O-1270. Javelle #609. 05hr 19m 21.510s + 03 26' 04.277" (1950). 05hr 21m 59.218s + 03 28' 55.488" (2000). Equal to IC 2124 (Barnard): Part of the double system with IC 412 = IC 2123. Correctly identified in the CGCG, UGC, PGC, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke and APL. Both the NGC 2000 and MOL list both identities as separate galaxies and the MCG and RC3 give the single identity IC 413. (See IC 412). IC 421. POSS. O-1477. Pickering 05hr 29m 49.470s - 08 06' 46.274" (1950). 05hr 32m 13.749s - 08 04' 39.894" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Dreyer's declination is off by about 9.0 arcmin too far south and this has influenced the declination as given in the NGC 2000 and MOL. The APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and RC3 have the correct 1950 declination (- 07 57' 12"). Identified in the MCG only as -1-15-001. IC 422. POSS. O-1482. Javelle #611. 05hr 30m 05.440s - 17 15' 28.614" (1950). 05hr 32m 18.586s - 17 13' 22.959" (2000). This is a duplicate identity of IC 2131 (Swift List XI, #80) : Swift gave it coordinates of 05hr 29m 52s - 17 17'.7, however, his discovery date is October 16th 1896 whereas Javelle observed it on February 18th 1893 and therefore is the correct discoverer. Both the NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO) give both identities without equivalency. The equivalency is correctly given in the APL, NED MCG, SIMBAD, Steinicke and PGC. IC 436. POSS O-1290. Spitaler #8. 05hr 50m 13.197s + 38 37' 11.771" (1950). 05hr 53m 40.287s + 38 37' 46.931" (2000). Equal to 3 stars : Spitaler's description reads "Very clear air, looks like a faint nebula." Its appearance on the Palomar print is of three closely associated stars forming a triangle, with two of the components being considerably fainter than the primary. Only modern listings are APL 4-5 vF sts only; no neb., NGC 2000 (No Type) and MOL (NSO). Steinicke (=*3), SIMBAD "Not present in the database." NED has identified as IC 436 (Type Galaxy) at 05hr 53m 40.1s 38 37' 29" (2000), however, I am unable to see any nonstellar object at this position on the DSS. IC 452. POSS. O-1343. Bigourdan #147. 06hr 46m 25.311s - 16 50' 38.286" (1950). 06hr 48m 39.198s - 16 54' 04.761" (2000). This is equal to NGC 2296 (Swift List VI, #28) : To begin. Swift gave coordinates for his nova (NGC 2296) of 06hr 47m 03.971s - 16 51' 48.626" (1950) at which no nonstellar object exists. On March 9th 1890 Bigourdan, as part of his survey of NGC objects visible from Paris, searched for NGC 2296 in the area suggested by Swift and Dreyer's coordinates and suspected a nebular image at a position he measured as 06hr 46m 55.277s - 16 51' 05.123" (1950), or about 09 tsec preceding Swift's RA. Bigourdan described this supposed object as "Object strongly stellar, which appears to be formed by 2 or 3 very close unequal stars, or by a 13.4 to 13.5 mag. star surrounded by a small nebulosity, the envelope being of 10 arcsec extent." Offsetting from his reference star shows that what he listed as NGC 2296 is in fact a star. ( It should be remembered that this comes from his 1919 OBSERVATIONS). At the March 31st 1891 meeting of L'Acadamie Des Sciences there was presented and published in the COMPTES RENDUS a list of 50 new discoveries by Bigourdan which he numbers 103 through 152. His #147 is given coordinates of 06hr 46m 23s - 16 50'.7 (1950) and described as "Star of 12.8 mag. which appears to have surrounding nebulosity of 25 to 30 arcsec extent." This later received the identity IC 452. His #148 is given coordinates of 06hr 46m 54s - 16 58'.7 (1950) and described as "Star 13.4 to 13.5 mag. which is accompanied by a little nebulosity; appears to be a small cluster of 2 or 3 very close and unequal stars." This later received the identity IC 453. In 1919 when Bigourdan published his completed work, OBSERVATIONS, we find that he refers only to the identity B.147 (IC 452) and there is no reference or data attributed by him for his B.148. He measures what he identifies as his B147 to have a position of 06hr 46m 24.300s - 16 50' 34.767" (1950) and then adds a footnote stating "This object may be Swift's (NGC 2296) but in that case the RA of the NGC is too large by 30 tsec." Something here is definitely wrong concerning his statement that the RA difference would be 30 tsec because Swift had given NGC 2296 a RA of 6hr 47m 03.971s (which is the same as given in the NGC),which would be different from Bigourdan's RA for his #147 by about 40 tsec, not 30 tsec. however, the RA difference between Bigourdan's #147 and what Bigourdan thought he had observed as being NGC 2296 is about 31 tsec, therefore his reference to the NGC RA should be interpreted as being for the positions as given by Bigourdan and not by either Swift or Dreyer. Additionally, there is no reference in the 1919 publication to any B.148 = IC 453, however, if we compare the COMPTES RENDUS data for B.148 the description he gives reads almost word for word the same as appears in the 1919 OBSERVATIONS for his NGC 2296 and the RA's are also almost a match. It must be stated that the declinations involved here are different by about 7 arcmin but two out of three of these facts bear a striking similarity and as there is no reference to any B.148 in the 1919 OBSERVATIONS one must wonder if Bigourdan considered the possibility of equivalency between his NGC 2296 and his B.148 which prompted him to not include B.148 in his completed works. There is absolutely no dispute that at the coordinates as given by Bigourdan for his B.147 = IC 452 there does exist a nebular object and as this object is about 40 tsec from the RA as given by Swift, something not unusual for him, I am willing to accept that this is probably the object seen by Swift and given the identity NGC 2296, therefore, IC 452 is equivalent to NGC 2296 and IC 453 is a star, the same star that Bigourdan identified incorrectly as being NGC 2296. The other fact about this object is that there is evidence that it is not a galaxy but rather a diffuse, galactic nebula. Corwin in his IC PUZZLES points out that Clemens et al have published a paper in which they have measured the radial velocity of this object as being almost zero, which if correct would indicate that it cannot be an extragalactic object. The MOL gives separate identities to NGC 2296 and IC 452 while for IC 453 it states "May not exist." NED gives the equivalency between IC 452 and NGC 2296 but types it as a galaxy, however, they do add "Claimed to be a galactic object by Takata et al (1994, A & AJ, 104, 529). " SIMBAD equates the identities IC 452 and NGC 2296, making it a "Reflection Nebula." The DSFG makes the correct equivalency but types NGC 2296 as a galaxy as does the PGC and NGC 2000, the NGC 2000 making IC 453 = * The MCG, APL and Steinicke correctly make the equivalency between IC 452 and NGC 2296 and in the case of the APL and Steinicke they type NGC 2296 as being a galactic nebula while making IC 453 a star. NED equates IC 452 with IC 2296, typing it as a galaxy, however in its NOTES it does refer to the object as possibly being galactic. SIMBAD for IC 453 has "Not present in the database." IC 453. (See IC 452). IC 454. POSS. O-428. Swift List IX, N0.16. 06hr 48m 26.489s + 12 57' 56.343" (1950). 06hr 51m 15.209s + 12 54' 20.007" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : Incorrect RA in MCG (+2-18-002) given as 6hr 43.8m Region not covered in the CGCG. The UGC, RC3, NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke, PGC, NED, SIMBAD and APL have the correct identity. IC 457. POSS. O-691. Rosse, Kobold. 07hr 05m 38.201s + 50 13' 59.257" (1950). 07hr 09m 28.646s + 50 09' 08.030" (2000). (Kobold). Confirmed galaxy equal to NGC 2330. : There is considerable confusion associated with this identity, both in the historical and modern data. The identity IC 457 was given by Dreyer for a nebula that exists close south preceding NGC 2332. Dreyer coordinates and description is based primarily upon Kobold's observation, however, Dreyer also was aware that Rosse in his 3rd of 3 field sketches had indicated that an object existed there, thus we have in the IC I Dreyer crediting both Rosse and Kobold with the discovery. Meanwhile in Rosse's Sketch #1 he had also indicated that there was a nebula which Dreyer seems to have interpreted as being positioned close north of NGC 2332 as Dreyer gives it a declination 2.4 arcmin north of NGC 2332 and gave it the identity NGC 2330. Bigourdan therefore searched and thought he had found a nonstellar object at this position which thus appeared to confirm the Dreyer identity and position and Dreyer credited it to Rosse ? and Bigourdan, however, examination of the POSS and DSS shows that this object is actually a faint star. Rosse's Sketch 3 when compared with the modern field photographs clearly depicts the relative positions for 9 nebulae and the comparison also confirms that Rosse never indicated that there was any nebulae close north of NGC 2332, instead he shows one close south which is Kobold's IC 457, therefore the identity NGC 2330 belongs to this galaxy and thus IC 457 is equal to NGC 2330. The MCG list the south preceding of the two existing galaxies as NGC 2332, but this is actually NGC 2330/IC 457, and then they identify the north following of the pair as NGC 2330, but this is the correct NGC 2332. The NGC 2000, MOL and DSFG have each identified NGC 2330 as a galaxy at the Dreyer (Bigourdan) position north of NGC 2332, but this is a star. The CGCG and UGC (notes to U03699) list the identity only as IC 457. Carlson states "NGC 2330 = IC 458.?, Reinmuth'' which is incorrect. The PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD and APL correctly make IC 457 = NGC 2330, although the APL add a ? to the equivalency and NED has "Uncertain.". The RC3 has no listing for either of the identities NGC 2330 or IC 457. NOTE: The precise nominal positions given for IC 457, 458, 461, 462 and 465 are derived from Kobold's paper STRASSBURG ANNALEN, VOL.III, 1909. He previously had published positions in AN #3184 which are only slightly different in positional data. IC 458. POSS. O-691. Rosse, Swift List VIII.#44 and Kobold. 07hr 06m 44.049s + 50 12' 04.738" (1950). 07hr 10m 34.293s + 50 07' 08.929" (2000). (Kobold). Confirmed galaxy : Correctly identified in the modern catalogues with the exception of the MCG which incorrectly identifies its + 8-13-89 as IC 458 (this is actually IC 460). The correct IC 458 is MCG + 8-13-85 and this error is pointed out by the PGC. APL has in its NOTES "IC 458 may be(or maybe not!) NGC 2330, which see." IC 461. POSS. O-691. Rosse, Swift List VIII.#45 and Kobold. 07hr 06m 55.600s + 50 09' 39.825" (1950). 07hr 10m 45.715s + 50 04' 43.217" (2000). (Kobold). Confirmed galaxy : Identified in the MCG only as +8-13-88. The CGCG, APL, PGC, Steinicke, NED, SIMBAD, NGC 2000 (Galaxy) and MOL (NSO) correctly identify IC 461. The DSFG because it confuses the identities of NGC 2330 and NGC 2332 gives in its data incorrect separation values (13 arcmins ESE of NGC 2332). Not listed in RC3. IC 462. POSS. O-691. Kobold. 07hr 07m 05.956s + 50 15' 50.810" (1950). 07hr 10m 56.333s + 50 10' 53.471" (2000). Either a double star or a star + galaxy? : At Kobold's nominal position there is the image of a faint star with what may be an even fainter galaxy off its north preceding edge. Based upon the fact that Kobold described NGC 2340 which follows about 14 tsec as faint I would assume that he would have had difficulty seeing this object. Not listed in CGCG or UGC. The MCG identifies its +8-13-92 as IC 462, however, this is IC 464. The PGC also incorrectly makes this equivalency, as has SIMBAD. APL gives 3 separate listings. The first two. make it a star. Only other listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*2) and MOL (NSO). NED has (Galactic star). NOTE : The image on the new Second Generation of the DSS clearly shows that the north preceding component is definitely a galaxy. IC 465. POSS. 0-61 Rosse, Kobold. 07hr 07 43.242s + 50 19' 55.207" (1950). 07hr 11m 33.737s + 50 14' 55.270" (2000). One of the galaxies in the NGC 2332/NGC2340 group : There is considerable confusion and some mystery in both the historical and modern literature concerning the 4 NGC and 10 IC identities associated with this group. Firstly, in addition to the 4 NGC identities (NGC 2330, 2332, 2334 and 2340), given by Dreyer, he had access at the time he was compiling the observational data for his NGC Catalogue (1888) to a sketch (No. III) by Lord Rosse made in 1851, which clearly and accurately shows a total of 9 nebulae, yet for some unknown reason Dreyer omitted in his NGC to include 7 of these objects. Secondly, Bigourdan evidently made observations of the field as early as November 15th and 16th 1885 during which observations he correctly makes observations of NGC 2332 and NGC 2340 and additionally claims discovery of 8 other new nebulae, NGC 2330, nothing at nominal position 07hr 05 44.375s +50 18' 57.307 (1950) other than a very faint star and NGC 2334, equal to a faint star at 07hr 06m 01.929s +50 16' 32.808 (1950).and an additional 6 nebulae which turn out to be IC 457, IC 458, IC459, IC 461, IC 464 and IC 465, each existing galaxies, yet it is not until 1919 that he publishes these IC galaxy discoveries, therefore, not only did Bigourdan miss having these 6 IC identities credited to him in the NGC Catalogue with NGC numbers, but he also reported them too late to be credited as co- discoverer by Dreyer in the IC Catalogue I. Kobold examined the field in 1893 (Astronomische Nachrichten #3184 and Strassburg Annalen, Vol. III, 1909) and gives coordinates (slightly offset to the north following of the precise positions), for a total of 11 nebulae of which he only identifies NGC 2332 and IC 2340. Later Dreyer gave the other 9 objects the following IC identities. IC 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 463, 464 and 465. (Index Catalogue I). By the time Dreyer was ready to publish his IC Catalogue I he realized that 7 of Kobold's objects were also those depicted in Rosse's sketch No. III, therefore, he credited these 7 to both Rosse and Kobold and the remaining 2 , IC 460 and IC 462, to Kobold alone. Now concerning the identity IC 465. This galaxy definitely exists at 07hr 11m 33.82s +50 14' 51".15 (2000) and is clearly shown on Rosse's sketch No. III, identified as (theta) north following NGC 2340. It was also seen by Bigourdan and Kobold. Dr. Harold Corwin, NED and Wolfgang Steinicke both equate this identity with the identity NGC 2334 (Corwin IC 465 = NGC 2334? APL), whereas I can see no justification for any equivalency, rather I identify IC 465 as an existing galaxy and the identity NGC 2334 as being a faint star. Harold and I have discussed this problem by e-mail and have failed to come to any agreement (See Corwin's data files). SIMBAD gives the identity IC 465 and for NGC 2334 has "Not present in the database." Following are my arguments: Dreyer gave the identity NGC 2334 to a supposed nonstellar object which he places in his NGC Catalogue at a 1950 position of 07hr 06m 03.303s +50 17' 17.413" thus placing it to be fairly close north following the galaxy NGC 2332. He credits it to Lord Rosse ? and Bigourdan who placed it at 07hr 06m 01.929s +50 16' 32.808" (1950). (corrected by offset from his reference star which is GSC 3400-1171).and at this position there is only a faint star lying between two 12th Mv stars, which is exactly as described by Bigourdan. IC 465 lies north following the galaxy NGC 2340 at a position of 07hr 07m 43.242s +50 19' 55.207" (1950). (Kobold) and is credited by Dreyer to Lord Rosse and Kobold and therefore would be distant from NGC 2334 by 1 tmin 41.008tsec RA and 3 arcmin 17.189 arcsec Dec. (based upon Bigourdan's coordinates). In the Rosse observations there are 3 sketches. Sketch No. I shows 2 nebulae, a faint double star (a) and an arrow which is supposed to indicate the direction of field movement (preceding to following). The larger nebula is identified as GC 1491 (equal to NGC 2332) and the smaller nebula (b), is placed close preceding one end of the larger nebula. Sketch No. II also shows 2 nebulae, a star and a directional arrow. The larger is identified as h 433 (equal to NGC 2340) with a smaller nebula at a much greater distance. Rosse's descriptions pertaining to these two sketches are. "(a) is, I think a double star and (b) a S neb. h 430 (NGC 2332),is E np sf. h 433 (NGC 2340), is followed by a *10m at 1 arcmin distant, a second neb 6 arcmin sf [Diag. II] " The problem with these two sketches concerns just where the directions north and south lie, as based upon the descriptions the suggested north and south do not comply in regards to the relative positions of the smaller nebulae with what one finds in either Rosse's sketch No. III or with the field as seen on the POSS or DSS. The object (b) would appear in sketch I to lie to the north of NGC 2332 and the smaller nebula in sketch II would be south following NGC 3240 and if I interpret correctly Harold's argument this is part of his basis for equating the identities NGC 2334 and IC 465., but then we come to Rosse's sketch No. III in which all of his depicted objects can be shown to be single existing galaxies and he places none of his objects close north following NGC 2332 where both Bigourdan and Dreyer have the object identified as being NGC 2334. I believe that Bigourdan consulted Rosse's 3 sketches and as with Dreyer he concluded that based upon sketches Nos. I and II there might be a nebula close north of NGC 2332, therefore he searched that area and thought he had indeed located a nonstellar object in a position relative to that suggested by sketch No. I This then became what Dreyer identified as NGC 2334, but it has no affiliation with the galaxy IC 465. When Sketch I is aligned correctly it greatly suggests that object (b) should lie south preceding NGC 2332 and would be equal to IC 457 which is in turn equal to NGC 2330 (SEE IC 457)., and that the smaller galaxy on sketch II is the single galaxy IC 465 which lies north following NGC 2340, not south following as stated in Rosse's description. The NGC 2000 gives both identities as separate objects at Dreyer's coordinates while the MOL also gives the Dreyer coordinates making IC 465 (NSO) and NGC 2334 (Non existing object). Steinicke and the APL both equate the identities NGC 2334 and IC 465, the APL qualifying the equivalency with a question mark (?). PGC gives the single identity IC 465. NOTE: It is also my opinion that Dreyer was not fully convinced as to whether Bigourdan's nova (NGC 2334) was also one of Rosse's objects and that when he assigned the identity NGC 2334 it was entirely based upon the fact that according to Bigourdan there was a nebula relatively close to where Rosse's sketch No.I suggested, close north of NGC 2332 and that it was this doubt that prompted Dreyer to place the question mark following the name Lord Rosse as co-discoverer of NGC 2334. Certainly by the time Dreyer had access to Kobold's observations (prior to publication of the IC Catalogue I), he should have been able to compare the relative positions given in the Kobold data with those shown in Rosse'e Third sketch, which in both cases invalidate the existence of any nonstellar objects at the required position for any NGC 2334, but evidently he never questioned this. IC 467. POSS. O-1256. Denning. 07hr 19m 10.708s + 80 01' 02.217" (1950). 07hr 27m 37.408s + 79 55' 05.415" (2000). Confirmed galaxy : The error would appear to be only in the coordinate data and due to the very high declination of this galaxy. The MOL gives 7hr 19m 10s + 80 01' 5" which is in good agreement with Denning, however, the CGCG, NGC 2000, UGC, PGC, DSFG, RC3 and MCG all give coordinates around 7hr 21.6m + 79 58'.0 and these reflect better positional accuracy. The APL and Steinicke have the most precise coordinates at 7hr 21m 54.4s + 79 58' 27". (1950). Correctly identified in NED and SIMBAD. IC 468. POSS. 0-1619. Bigourdan # 149. 07hr 15m 01.172s - 13 07' 44.178" (1950). 07hr 19m 20.103s - 13 13' 11.367" (2000). Bigourdan made two separate observation, both times employing as his reference star (Anon) = AC 2000.2 #2387706 and his separation values as applied to this star by his first observation would give the above coordinates, while for his second observation the result would differ only by -4.54 tsec RA and 9.5 arcsec farther north. The former coordinates land very close to a faint double star, while the second coordinates land close to a faint star preceding the double star. Thus at neither do we find any evidence of any nonstellar image, only faint stars. Bigourdan points out in his description for his second observation that he doubts that it exists as any type of nebula. NED has "Other." NGC 2000 lists it as "Neb." MOL has "May not exist." APL gives it as ***, as does Steinicke. SIMBAD identifies it as an HII Region at coordinates that have nothing to do with Bigourdan's data. IC 470. POSS. O-670. Swift List X. #17. 07hr 19m 53.292s + 46 10' 20.042" (1950). 07hr 23m 32.141s + 46 04' 30.176" (2000). Not found : Only modern listings are NGC 2000 (No Type), MOL (NSO), Steinicke (* 2) and APL which gives (= **) as does NED. SIMBAD "Object of unknown nature." IC 473. POSS. O-1003. Spitaler 9. 07hr 39m 41.171s + 09 22' 27.506" 07hr 42m 24.815s + 09 15' 19.692" (2000). Equal to 3 stars : It lies at 4 tsec following the star BD +9 1746 equal to AC #287004 as stated by Spitaler. Correctly listed in the APL (=***). Listed in NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (=*3) and MOL (NSO). NED "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 483. POSS O-226. Spitaler #10. 07hr 56m 50.166s + 26 03' 38.133" (1950). 07hr 59m 52.237s + 25 55' 23.173" (2000). This is equal to 2 stars : Only listings found are NGC 2000 (No Type), APL = **, Steinicke (* 2). MOL (NSO). NED has "!**." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." IC 487. POSS. O-1298. Swift List VII, #10. 07hr 56m 38.818s - 00 31' 28.015" (1950). 07hr 59m 11.943s - 00 39' 41.374" (2000). This is equal to NGC 2494 (Marth #110) : Marth's RA has an error of ~ 01 tmin but there can be little doubt that Swift's Nova is the same object first seen by Marth. The MCG gives only the identity IC 487. The equivalency is correctly noted in the NGC 2000, NED, MOL, APL, NED, SIMBAD, Steinicke, PGC, and Carlson. IC 488. POSS O-226. Spitaler #13. See below for coordinates. There are two possible images either of which might be Spitaler's object : If the stated coordinates are updated, 07hr 57m 46.848s +26 02' 45.960" (1950), 08hr 00m 48.834s + 25 54' 27.414" (2000), then what Spitaler was seeing is a faint double star whose components are aligned south preceding north following. However, Spitaler shows in his description that there is a 13 mag. star preceding his nova and that the nova's separation from this star is 16.84 tsec RA and 20.4 arcsec north following, which then would give coordinates of 07hr 57m 48.718s + 26 02' 14.282" (1950), 08hr 00m 50.689s + 25 53' 55.618" (2000), which lands on the brightest and preceding star of a compact trio very closely south following the faint double star. Due to this seemingly conflicting data it is difficult to know exactly which of these two possibilities is correct. Therefore, like Dr. Corwin, I am leaving this identity open. Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), Steinicke (* 2), APL (= 3 F sts and = ** ?), NED "Other." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." and MOL (NSO). IC 489. POSS O-226. Spitaler #14. 07hr 58m 35.987s + 26 08 14.347" (1950). 08hr 01m 38.028s + 25 59' 52.695" (2000). Equal to a single star : Only listings found were NGC 2000 (No Type), NED "!*." SIMBAD "Not present in the database." APL = * , MOL has (NSO). Steinicke has (= *). IC 496. POSS O-226 Javelle #152. 08hr 06m 42.650s + 26 01' 49.861" (1950). 08hr 09m 43.959s + 25 52' 57.843" (2000). Javelle's Corrected Nominal Position lands right on the preceding of two galaxies that line up preceding and following, being less than 2 tsec apart, therefore its identity is secure. During his observation of his #152 he makes no direct mention of the following galaxy, other than a personal reference to the fact that #152 appears to be extended in an east-west direction. Whether this impression results from glimpsing