NGC 2128 (06h 04.6m +57° 38') Discovered by Swift (VI). Not found by Bigourdan. Listed as a dubious object by Hagen. Swft's dec is 29' N of U03392 = M+10-09-010 = CGCG 284-006. Malcolm Thompson feels this difference in declination precludes accepting this gx as N2128. See Catalogue Corrections. Since Swift's position are known to be inaccurate, I've left this ID as acceptable (possibly misread dec circle by 30'). NGC 2253 (06h 43.7m +65° 12') Described by WH (VII 54) as "a vF patch or S. Cl of eS st." There is nothing at WH's recomputed position of 06 41 52 +65 50.3 (J2000). Bigourdan failed to find this object. RNGC and CGCG identify N2253 = M+11-09-007 = CGCG 308-037 at 06 43 14.7 +65 40 39 (2000). A more likely possibility noted by Harold Corwin is N2253 = U03511= M+11-09-008, CGCG 308-038 (brightest in area) at 06 43 42.0 +65 12 23 (2000) although both positions are off in RA and dec. Finally, N2253 may be "a small group of about 10 - 15 stars" (identification suggest by Harold Corwin) at a rough position of 06 42.5 +66 19 (2000). This clump is located 30' N of WH's position. NGC 2347 (07h 16.1m +64° 43') Discovered by WH (III 746). His original discovery position (with respect to his reference star) is 07 16 44 +65 00.7 (2000). In the GC, JH modified his father's position to 07 16 19 +64 48.2 (2000) although he did not reobserve this gx. This latter position is 16s E and 6' N (or 9' NE) of U03759 = M+11-09-039. Bigourdan later observed this field in 1894 and 1900. His original position for B267 = IC 2179 in Comptes Rendus is 07 15 33 +64 57 (2000) which is an excellent match for U03750 = M+11-09-038a at GSC position 07 15 32.2 +64 55 34 (2000). CGCG, UGC, MOL, DSFG, RC3, PGC and U2000 all identify as IC 2179. His listing in the complete Observations, etc. for B267 gives a position of 07 16 06.2 +64 43 01 (2000), which matches U03759, the galaxy identified as N2347 in modern catalogues and his listing for N2347 matches U03750 (HC notes an error in his identification of the reference star). So, apparently Bigourdan has reversed the identifications here. Based on his original position it is possible that WH's original observation refers to U03750 instead (as Bigourdan claimed). |
 |