IC 1001, IC 1002, and IC 1003. Javelle had trouble in this field on the one night he observed it, 29 June 1892; he misidentified his two comparison stars. Once those are found, however -- the correct stars are BD +6deg 2873 for I1001 and I1002, and +5deg 2873 for I1003 -- his reduced positions fall within 5-6 arcsec of the modern positions for the galaxies. He also notes a "very small" star attached to I1003; this is correct for his galaxy, UGC 09190 = CGCG 047-024. For the record, I1001 = CGCG 047-014, and I1002 = CGCG 047-015. ===== IC 1002. See IC 1001. ===== IC 1003. See IC 1001. ===== IC 1004. MCG incorrectly assigned this number to MCG +03-37-007 = Ho 634a (Ho 634b is a star). Unfortunately, this bug has been picked up in a number of more recent sources. The real IC 1004 is about 3-4 arcmin southwest, and is the brightest of a double or triple system. It's position is very close to Javelle's micrometric position, re-reduced with respect to the GSC position for his comparison star. This is another of Malcolm's catches. ===== IC 1005 = NGC 5607. Swift's position is a minute of time too small. Otherwise, his description and place matches NGC 5607 to within his usual, rather large, observational error. The fact that he called it "F" means that it is one of the brightest objects he discovered; this makes the identity all the more certain. ===== IC 1008 = IC 4414. This is one of the 52 objects found by Safford that Dreyer put into the Appendix to the NGC. Later, Dreyer merged them into IC1 so that they would not be overlooked. As with IC 200, there appears to be a rather large error in RA, in this case, +1.5 minutes of time. There are no other galaxies nearby that Safford could have reasonably seen with the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn. Given that, and the expectation of a relatively poor position, the identity is pretty secure. ===== IC 1012 = IC 4431. This was found by T. H. Safford in 1866 using the 18.5-inch Clark refractor at Dearborn Observatory (while testing this telescope, Clark found Sirius B). Safford's position is +2 arcmin off in declination, and +4 seconds of time off in RA -- not too bad, especially given that there are no other nebulae nearby to confuse an observer. Javelle found the galaxy 31 years later. When reduced with respect to the Tycho-2 position for his comparison star, his measurement of the galaxy is off in RA by just about a second, and is spot-on in declination. All in all, there is no doubt about the identity. So why are there two IC numbers? Javelle's published position was reduced from the BD position for his comparison star. The BD position is off by about an arcminute to the south. Safford's position is north of the galaxy, so Dreyer saw a published difference (assuming he checked) of nearly three arcminutes. This was enough that he must have thought that there were two nebulae here. By the way, this is one of the few nebulae for which Javelle has more than one measurement. His two observations differ by 0.78 seconds of time, and 1.3 arcseconds. This gives an idea of the internal accuracy of his data -- not too bad, but not the best that was done visually using micrometers. ===== IC 1016 = IC 4424 = NGC 5619B. Swift found IC 1016 on 28 April 1891, a peculiarly unfortunate night for him. Only two -- IC 872 and I1016 -- of the five nebulae that he found that night are identifiable, and both of those were poorly measured by Swift (see IC 872 for more). IC 1016 is recoverable only because Swift's declination is fairly accurate, as is his description ("vF, vS, R; f of [NGC] 5619"); the RA is 1m 18s too large. Bigourdan found and first measured the object the next year; he remeasured it seven years later. His micrometric observations put the faint galaxy within five arcsec of its true position. Thus, it ended up in IC2 with a pretty good position, compromised only by the imprecise position that Bigourdan adopted for his comparison star. The NGC designation came along nearly four decades later when Holmberg included N5619 and two of its companions in his list of multiple galaxies. RNGC then immortalized it for us as "5619B". ===== IC 1023. This is the only one of five "nebulae" that Juan Thome found while assembling the Cordoba Durchmusterung that may be an actual deep sky object. The others (IC 229, 1203, 1207, and 1290, which see) are either asterisms or do not exist. I1023 may be a small cluster of about 20 stars, but it could also be just a chance superposition of unrelated stars. Proper motions, spectra, and photometry will be needed to determine the true character of the grouping. In any event, Thome's position is good. ===== IC 1026 = NGC 5653 is another of the nebulae found by Truman Henry Safford with the 18.5 inch Clark refractor at Dearborn in the late 1860's. It's RA is just one minute of time too large, and Safford's terse description "pB" makes the identity pretty certain. See IC 200, IC 1008, and IC 1030 for other examples of digit errors in RA in Safford's list. ===== IC 1027. Swift comments "... another or a few F sts nr." Howe noted only one star of 13th magnitude 0.7 arcmin southwest of the galaxy, but there are several other faint galaxies in the area. The closest and brightest is 1.7 arcmin north-northeast; is this the other nebula that Swift suspected? ===== IC 1028, assuming that the identification (first suggested by CGCG) is correct, is well off its nominal position: +45 seconds in RA and +10.7 arcmin in declination. There is a "F * close nf", but I would hardly describe the galaxy as "pB, S, R". "Small" it is, but it is faint and elongated. I've saved the identity since the galaxy is the only one in the area that comes even close to fitting both Swift's position and description. For more about Swift's unfortunate night -- one among many -- of 1 September 1888, see IC 895. ===== IC 1029. This galaxy is correctly positioned, named, and described in the first IC -- but see the discussion of it under NGC 5673. ===== IC 1030 = NGC 5672 with a +1 minute error in the RA. This position shares the RA offset in common with several other of Safford's discoveries; see e.g. IC 200, IC 1008, and IC 1026. In this case, Safford's description "pF" is appropriate for the galaxy. ===== IC 1045 may be NGC 5731 (which is -37 seconds and +2.3 arcmin from Swift's position) -- but that is far from certain: if Swift could see N5731, why could he not see its near-twin, N5730, only a few arcmin distant? Nevertheless, Swift's comments about neighboring stars -- "nearly bet 2 sts, forms triangle with 2 sts" -- are accurate. Since this is the best candidate we have, I've listed it, though with colons. See IC 895 and IC 1028 for more about the other nebulae Swift found this night. ===== IC 1055 = IC 4491, which see. ===== IC 1056 = IC 1057. Swift found I1057 on 8 April 1888 and described it as "eF, pS, R; bet a pB * and a coarse D *, nearer the latter." Sweeping across the same area three months later on 4 July 1888, he found I1056: "eeF, L, R; forms an arc of a small circle with 2 sts; 3 pB sts nr sf in form of arc of a large circle." His positions (14 42 20, +50 50 05 and 14 42 03, +50 51 45, respectively; both for equinox 1890) are far enough apart, and the descriptions different enough that he thought the nebulae different objects. However, both descriptions are correct. The "pB *" about five arcmin south- southeast of the galaxy, is the western-most of the "3 pB sts nr sf" forming an arc. Similarly, the "coarse D *" about three arcmin west, is the two stars with which the nebula forms a smaller arc. ===== IC 1057 = IC 1056, which see. ===== IC 1063 = IC 1064. Javelle found the galaxy twice in 1892, first on 18 May, next on 15 July. His measurements, refered to different stars agree to within seven arcsec. The identity, first suggested by Glen Deen during his work on MicroSky, is not in doubt. ===== IC 1087 is the brighter, but smaller, of a pair of galaxies separated by about 30 arcsec. It is northwest of the larger, UGC 9710. Javelle's measurement from a BD star about five arcmin northeast is very good, and the identity is not in doubt. Also see IC 1088. ===== IC 1088 is a faint star about 1.5 arcmin northeast of IC 1087. Javelle's offsets land within five arcsec of the star, and his measurement of I1087 on the same night is just as good. There is no doubt about the identity. ===== IC 1090 does not exist -- or if it does, it is a very faint star. Bigourdan found the object on 18 June 1887, saying "At the measured position, I suspected a possibly nebulous object at the extreme limit of visibility." He has only one micrometric position for it from the same night, but there is nothing there. About an arcminute to the northwest is a 17th magnitude star. I doubt that Bigourdan could have seen it with the 12.2-inch refractor that he was using, so I favor the nonexistent idea for this observation. Several catalogues have put this number on CGCG 221-022, but that is 1 min 54 sec west of Bigourdan's position, and nowhere near his nominal offsets from any star that Bigourdan would have used as a comparison star. Malcolm caught this mistake, and I'm grateful, as always, for his careful work. ===== IC 1095 is the brighter component of CGCG 077-019, though since Swift notes it as "lE", it may well be both objects. Swift's position is +20 arcmin in error, but his observation is otherwise not too bad. He also notes a "* 9 mag in field sf"; this star is SAO 101405, and helps to positively identify Swift's object. ===== IC 1096 is one of three galaxies interspersed with several stars, one rather bright. Another of the galaxies is IC 1097, about which there are no identification problems. IC 1096 is usually taken as the brightest of the three. However, Javelle's single observation on 20 July 1892 points directly to the faintest of the three galaxies. He made an observation of IC 1097 a few minutes later on the same night using the same comparison star. That observation points directly at the second-brightest galaxy. So, there is no mistaking the objects that Javelle saw. How did he miss the brightest galaxy? Perhaps it has a lower surface brightness, or perhaps it has a stellar nucleus. Perhaps he did see it, but did not have time to measure it. Whatever happened, we can put IC numbers on only two of the three galaxies -- but not on the brightest one. ===== IC 1097. See IC 1096. ===== IC 1098 is, as Bigourdan suspected, simply a star. Even though his measurement is rounded off to the nearest second in RA as well as in Dec, the star is close enough, and isolated enough, to make it clear that it is indeed his object. ===== IC 1100 = NGC 5881, which see. ===== IC 1104 is a star, as I first suspected while assembling ESGC. Bigourdan's single measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the star, so there is no doubt about the identification. ===== IC 1111 = NGC 5876 with a +5 minute error in the RA. Swift calls the object "pB" and notes that it makes a "triangle with 2 stars." The stars are 2 arcmin northwest and 2.5 arcmin southwest. Interestingly, NGC 5876 was one of Swift's earliest discoveries, and was included by him in his first list of new nebulae. CGCG chose a considerably fainter galaxy (UGC 09800 = CGCG 274-037) as IC 1111. This galaxy is indeed closer to Swift's position, but the differences are not simple digits -- 1m 38s, and 2.7 arcmin. There are also no stars nearby that Swift would have noted as a triangle with the galaxy. Unfortunately, this error has propagated through the catalogues, so UZC, LEDA, and Wolfgang (in his first edition) have incorrectly put the IC number on the fainter object. ===== IC 1114 is probably a star. Bigourdan has no measurement of it, simply a note in his description that it is at PA = 255 deg, d = 6 arcmin from BD +76 557. There is nothing at that "exact" location, but about an arcminute southeast, there is a star that Bigourdan could have picked up. This is probably his object. ===== IC 1115 is a double star, identified by its proximity to a considerably brighter star about 5 arcmin to the southeast. Otherwise, we might be tempted to take MCG -01-39-005 as the IC object. It, however, has no brighter star to the southeast which would have been in Swift's field of view. The identity, first suggested by Herbert Howe (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) who measured and described the double as we see it today on the sky surveys, is therefore pretty certain. There is coincidentally a very faint background galaxy close to the stars, but even Howe, careful observer that he was, could not have dug it out: it is around 17th magnitude. ===== IC 1118 = IC 4543, which see. ===== IC 1120 is a very faint double or triple galaxy found by Javelle. He noted a star near to the northeast -- this star may actually be a compact galaxy; it appears to be slightly nebulous. But I suspect it really is a star, superposed on a plume or maybe a third galaxy in the faint system. ===== IC 1122 is not NGC 5931 as is sometimes stated, nor was it seen by Barnard whose position and comment (about a star preceding the galaxy) are adopted by Dreyer for the first IC. Barnard's data apply to NGC 5931. The IC object is a separate galaxy found by Bigourdan about 3 arcmin northwest of NGC 5931. His position, though about 15 arcsec off, is good enough to unambiguously identify the galaxy. See NGC 5931 for more details. ===== IC 1123 is a star. Bigourdan has two observations of this on 15 May 1890 which -- when reduced using the GSC position of his comparison star -- point exactly at the star. ===== IC 1125 is probably also IC 1128, which see. ===== IC 1126 is also a star. Bigourdan has only one observation of it, but his position falls within two arcseconds of the DSS position. Reinmuth has this number equal to NGC 5952, but Malcolm Thompson points out that Bigourdan observed that on the same night as he found IC 1126, and he used the same comparison star for both. Thus, the two cannot be the same. ===== IC 1127 = IC 4553. Just one minute of time east of IC 4553 (which see), and an arcmin south, lies the IC position for I1127. There is nothing at all in this position, though there are 2 or 3 very faint stars just to the north. I1127 was found in 1866 by Safford at Dearborn Observatory, and was first listed in an appendix to the NGC as Safford 7. Dreyer later included these appended objects in the first IC, where this one received the number 1127. Safford's positions are only approximate, having been determined simply by centering the object in the field, then reading the setting circles. Thus, they are often merely indicative and also seem to suffer from digit errors now and then (IC 200 is another example, with its RA being 2 minutes of time off). Since Safford's description (pF) is correct, IC 4553 is almost certainly the object which he saw. ===== IC 1128 is probably IC 1125 with a 5 minute error in RA and a 5 arcmin error in declination. IC 1125 is about a magnitude brighter, and considerably larger, than the galaxy that CGCG took (CGCG 022-018 = UGC 09939). That is close to Swift's RA, but is 12 arcmin to the north, an unusual error for Swift to make. In addition, UGC 09939 has a fairly close companion of nearly the same brightness just a couple of arcmin southwest. If Swift could see UGC 09939 and call it "pF, pS, R", he almost certainly could have seen CGCG 022-017 just as easily. But he makes no mention of it. In addition, there are to the south of this pair two fairly bright stars in the field that Swift might well have put into his description, too. All in all, it seems considerably more likely to me that I1125 is also I1128. I've left it and UGC 09939 in the main table, however, on the off chance that Swift might have picked up the fainter galaxy. For an example where he almost surely did find a fainter object rather than a brighter one, see IC 997 and IC 998. ===== IC 1130. There is nothing wrong with Bigourdan's single observation of this object on 29 May 1889. His micrometrically measured position is within three arcsec of the nucleus of the galaxy, and his description "vF" is surely appropriate. The "* 8.7 f" mentioned in the IC is his comparison star. What caught my eye here is his note, "... I suspect another still fainter at [PA] = 220 degrees, d = 1.5 - 2 arcmin." There isn't anything at all there aside from some 19th magnitude chaff. He has another observation of I1130 five nights later, but does not mention any accompanying object this time. In fact, he says of I1130 (this is his complete observation, freely translated by me), "I intermittently see this object, which could be nebulous, and which is now at the extreme limit of visibility." ===== IC 1137 has a +30 second error in its IC RA, apparently one of the few errors made by Dreyer in compiling the catalogue. Swift's original paper (his 9th list) has an RA about 8 seconds preceding a galaxy that matches his brief description: "vF, S, R; 9 m * close np". In particular, the star is there. The object was not picked up again until 1983 when it made it into the IRAS lists (it is IRAS 15461+0844). ===== IC 1140. The IC1 position falls on an empty patch of sky. There are stars and asterisms in the area, but nothing leaps out as a "vF (? S Cl)" as Dreyer characterizes this in the IC. The "* 9.5 close" is indeed near the nominal position, but this does not help in identifying Bigourdan's object. Could this be another case like NGC 2529 and 2531 (which see), imaginary nebulae beyond the limit of detection? Checking his big table, we find that Bigourdan saw the object twice. He estimated its position on both nights with respect to a nearby star, which he called "An. b", to be PA = 120 degrees, distance = 1.3 arcmin. He tells us that "An. b" is +8.5 seconds and +2.5 arcmin from BD +19d 3021. There is a star there, so I've reduced his estimated position using a position for the star that I measured on DSS. This leads directly to an asterism of three stars that match Bigourdan's description perfectly. So what went wrong? Checking the list of new nebulae in CR 112, 703, 1891 in which this object appears, we find that his position (copied faithfully into IC1 by Dreyer) does not agree with the correctly reduced position. Further, his description reads, "... [the new object] is situated near BD +19d 3021 at p = 120 degrees, d = 1.3 arcmin." He must have confused his observing records and used the position of the BD star for his reduction. (He did, in fact, use the BD star, but only to estimate the position of "An. b".) As I found, when we use his correct comparison star, his estimated position falls almost exactly in the asterism. When Bigourdan prepared his vast set of observations for publication in 1912, he must have re-reduced the positions of all of his new nebulae. I1140 has its correct position in the tables of new nebulae. I suspect that the reason Bigourdan did not notice the mistake is that the position was precessed to equinox 1860 for the 1891 CR list, while the 1912 list is for equinox 1900. ===== IC 1142 has a -1 minute error in its RA. This goes right back to Javelle's listed RA offset from his comparison star -- it should read "+1m 41.95s" instead of "+0m 41.95s". Once the correction is made, Javelle's object is clearly identical to UGC 10055 = CGCG 107-055. ===== IC 1148 = NGC 6020. IC 1148 is another of the about 100 nebulae found by T. H. Safford at Dearborn in the mid-1860s. It, and the other 51 nebulae not found previously by other observers, was first listed in an appendix to the NGC. It's approximate position is only about 15 seconds west of NGC 6020 -- there is nothing in Safford's place -- and his brief description ("neb. *") is appropriate for the galaxy. The galaxy was found again about a decade later by Stephan who provided a micrometric measurement of its position. ===== IC 1150 may be a reobservation of NGC 6018. As Malcolm notes, the description -- including the superposed star -- and the declination are good matches to Javelle's single observation in July of 1891. However, Javelle's RA is off by 48.7 seconds of time, an unusual error to make. I searched the field for a star-galaxy pair with his observed separation (-20.90 seconds, -8.4 arcsec in north polar distance), but found none. Nor is there such a pair at -16 degrees, -6 degrees, +6 degrees, or +26 degrees as there would be if he made a digit error in his comparison star name (it is BD +16 2854). The only other galaxy Javelle found on the same night (IC 1155) is just where he observed it, so we are left with a mystery. Whatever happened, I've included the identity with a question mark on the IC number. I'm obviously not completely satisfied with the identification, but certainly think it is possible. ===== IC 1155. See IC 1150. ===== IC 1164 is a star. It is one of seven "nebulae" discovered by Bigourdan for which he gives no detailed measurements in his big tables. However, he does list a measurement in his Appendix 8, Supplementary Observations. This points exactly at the star. See IC 532 for more on these seven objects. ===== IC 1166. There are two galaxies here. Javelle calls his object "ill- defined", so I suspect he saw both. His single measurement falls between the two, so I've put the IC number on both objects with directional suffixes. ===== IC 1171 is a star. Bigourdan's estimated position is pretty good. While there is an asterism of three or four stars a couple of arcminutes to the south, there is no way to stretch his position to fit it. His RA and Dec offsets are consistent with his estimated position angle and distance, too; this rules out a typo in the declination. ===== IC 1172 = NGC 6044. This object is not listed in Bigourdan's detailed observations, but appears only in his list of new objects. Since the position and description are exactly that of NGC 6044, the identity is certain. ===== IC 1175 is a double star. Bigourdan's observation, referred to NGC 6053 (which he called NGC 6055), pinpoints the double exactly. ===== IC 1176 = NGC 6056. Swift's description, "2 pretty bright stars near south" points exactly at the NGC object as the one that he rediscovered. ===== IC 1177. Bigourdan's position is an estimate, but refers unambiguously to this galaxy and the 2-3 faint stars nearby. ===== IC 1178 is usually taken as the northwestern, brighter galaxy of the pair -- IC 1181 is the other. However, Swift's position is not very good, and the fact that he does not mention either object in his description of the other, casts some doubt on the identification. If, for example, his declination is 10 arcmin too far south, then IC 1178 could be the object at 16 03 15.6, +17 54 13 (often incorrectly called NGC 6054). This particular mistake is unlikely, however, as the galaxy to the north is a full magnitude fainter. It's possible that IC 1178 is identical to IC 1181, though since Swift claims that he found the two on the same night, this seems unlikely. So, 1) having nothing to go on but Swift's observations, 2) since there is no other object near his position that could be IC 1178, and 3) since the identification is in common use in the current astronomical literature, I retain the identification, though note that it is uncertain. ===== IC 1179 is almost certainly = NGC 6050. Together, the two objects are just visible in the 30-inch at McDonald. I found it impossible to separate them, even knowing that both existed. So, I think it is unlikely that Swift could have seen these as separate objects. ===== IC 1180 is a star. Again, Bigourdan's rough position, estimated with respect to NGC 6053 (which he calls NGC 6055), certainly refers to the star. ===== IC 1181. See IC 1178. ===== IC 1183 = NGC 6054, which see. ===== IC 1184 is a double -- or perhaps triple -- star. Bigourdan's estimated position, though rough, unambiguously points at the stars. The brightest star is the southeastern one, with the western and northern stars being about the same, very faint, magnitude. They may not have been involved in Bigourdan's image at all. But both are easily visible on the sky surveys. The northern is about twice as far from the brightest star as the western, so even if the western star is part of the asterism, the northern might not be. It was not until I looked at the 2MASS image of this in spring of 2005 that it occured to me that the northern star might be involved, so for years I had this listed as just a double star. All three are now in the table. ===== IC 1190 = CGCG 108-136 = MCG +03-41-113. Swift's position is bad, but his description "... another [= IC 1191] and [NGC] 6061 near in line" point to this galaxy (rather than to the fainter, smaller object, MCG +03-41-115 at 16 03 45.6, +18 19 48) as the one he saw. My earlier identification of I1190 as a star is incorrect. ===== IC 1191. See IC 1190. ===== IC 1193. Javelle's reduced position is about 1 second of time and 1 arcmin too large, but his description fits the galaxy. In addition, there is no other galaxy nearby that he could have mistaken for this one. Do his printed offsets have digit typos? ===== IC 1194. Javelle's offsets point exactly at the fainter lenticular, rather than at the brighter elliptical nearby. Perhaps he mistook the brighter object as a star, though it should have been clearly nebulous in the Nice 28-inch. ===== IC 1200 = NGC 6079. Swift's description and position are very good. He can be excused (in this case) for not realizing that William Herschel had found this object a century earlier since Herschel's position is well off the galaxy. Swift does refer (in his list VII) to this as the "south-preceding" of two objects (IC 1201 is the other), though it is actually north-preceding. See NGC 6071 and NGC 6079 for more discussion about WH's positions. This object is not, by the way, the same as B.207 = IC 1204 as Dreyer speculates in the description. See IC 1204 for a bit more on this. ===== IC 1201. See IC 1200. ===== IC 1202 = NGC 6081. For a change, Swift's position is good -- it agrees with Stephan's to within about 10 arcsec. Why, then, didn't he or Dreyer catch the identity? I suspect Swift did not catch the identity because he found the galaxy on 7 April 1888, and published his 7th list in August of the same year. That was the year, of course, when the NGC appeared. But Dreyer had plenty of time to at least note the identity, and didn't. Well, there are plenty of other cases like that, too. No one's perfect. ===== IC 1203 may be an asterism of 6 to 8 stars. Though his position -- at least as transcribed into the first IC by Dreyer, and as plotted on the 1929 edition of the CD charts -- is good, I'm not sure that the scattered group of 6-8 stars there is compact enough that Thome would have mistaken it for a nebula in his small telescope (12.5 cm aperture). IC 1207 (which see) has a much better candidate asterism; I think this one is too large (3.5 x 2.0 arcmin) and its stars too bright to be taken for a nebula. Nevertheless, I am retaining the identification, though with a colon, since there is nothing else there. Perhaps an experienced observer can poke at this with a similarly sized refractor to see what it looks like. ===== IC 1204 is not the same object as IC 1200 as Dreyer speculates in the description for IC 1200. In this particular case, the NGC position is wrong (see the IC2 Notes for the corrected declination), but once it is corrected, it is clear that this is a galaxy 3-4 arcmin northwest of NGC 6091. Bigourdan's precise position agrees well with GSC, and his comment (as summarized in the IC description) concerning the 11th magnitude star following by 3 arcmin is correct. Finally, Swift's position for IC 1200 = NGC 6079 is quite good in this case and pinpoints the other galaxy. See IC 1200, and NGC 6071 and NGC 6079 for more on this field. ===== IC 1206 is one of seven nebulae found by Bigourdan for which he provides no detailed observations in his big tables of differential measurements (see IC 532 for other notes on these objects). In spite of the fact that there are also no data for this object -- not even a date of observation -- in his Appendix VII devoted to new objects, this is also the only one of the seven which actually is a galaxy. His position is within 30 arcsec of that measured by Lewis Swift who called the object "eF, S, R." This is the description adopted by Dreyer for the IC. ===== IC 1207. Here is another asterism (2.0 x 0.5 arcmin) of 6 or 8 stars, fainter than those in IC 1203 (which see). This is a more believable object for a candidate nebula in a small telescope. Thome's position is good. ===== IC 1210 is not NGC 6111, which see. ===== IC 1213 = NGC 6172, which see. ===== IC 1216. See IC 1217. ===== IC 1217 is lost. Swift found it the same night, 2 August 1888, as several other nebulae (IC 1200, I1201, and I1216 are among them), and like most of them, it is one of his "eeeF, S, R, eee diff" nebulae. Unlike the others, there is no trace of it near his position. I1216 is, in Swift's 7th list, 30 seconds preceding, and 1deg 19.5 arcmin south of his position for I1217. Since that galaxy is close to his nominal position (just 10 seconds off in RA, not a large error at the large declination), we would expect I1217 to be within 10 seconds of its position, too. But there is nothing there aside from a few single stars. I suppose it is possible that I1217 is one of these, but there is no way to tell which; Swift's description has no notes about neighboring stars that would help pin it down. Finally, a search of the area on the POSS1 prints turned up no other galaxies in the area that might be I1217 with digit errors in their positions. So, another of Swift's nebulae is lost. ===== IC 1220. The NGC RA is 10 seconds of time off. This makes it most likely that the brighter CGCG 052-030 is the galaxy that Swift saw rather than the fainter CGCG 052-028. ===== IC 1226 may also be IC 1232, which see. ===== IC 1227 = NGC 6206. The identity was first suggested by Bigourdan himself in an italicized note in his big table. He puts the note under his second observation (1891) of the galaxy: "This nebula has in its neighborhood four stars, while Swift notes only three near NGC 6206, so I had thought at first that the two objects were distinct; but today it seems probable that NGC 6206 and Bigourdan 210 are identical." Indeed they are. Swift's RA is 20 seconds of time off. This misled Bigourdan to a faint star coincidentally close to the three stars that Swift mentions in his description: "pF, eS, R, stellar; 3 vF sts nr n point to it." In his first observation of "NGC 6206", Bigourdan carefully notes the distances and position angles of the same three stars -- but the object that he took to be N6206 is actually a fourth star that Swift apparently did not see (is it variable?). Bigourdan realized his mistake in 1891. By the time he returned to the field for a final measurement of the galaxy (in 1895), his description for N6206 is that of a single star, and he does not bother to make a third measurement of it. However, he does make four more measurements of his "new" nebula. Altogether, he has ten measurements of the galaxy. The average of the ten positions falls within two arcsec of the modern position. ===== IC 1229 and IC 1230 are probably the brightest two galaxies in a group scattered around Swift's position. He makes the separation between the galaxies more than twice the actual separation, but his descriptions are more or less OK. He mentions a double star between the objects. This may be the pair of compact "galaxies" that I've noted in the table as companions north of I1230. One of these is certainly a galaxy -- is the other a star? If they are galaxies, I'm surprised that Swift could see them. ===== IC 1230 is the brightest galaxy in a small group. It has a large and somewhat distorted corona, and is apparently interacting with a much smaller, fainter galaxy just to the south. Is the IC galaxy a cD in the making, swallowing up its fainter neighbor? ===== IC 1232 is probably IC 1226. Swift gives the RA only to a full minute of time with a question mark appended (his position is "16 46? +46 16.7" for 1890.0). He adds a note of explanation to his description: "Driving clock failed." Given the rest of his description, "eeeF, S, iR; B * with distant companion nr sf", however, we can scour the area for objects that he might have seen. The most obvious candidate is IC 1226, eight minutes preceding Swift's nominal RA. The stars, however, are southwest, not southeast as Swift would have them. The declination is appropriate, though (just 4 arcmin out), as is the description. So, I'm going to suggest that Swift made a simple mistake in his placement of the neighboring stars. He's confused his directions before, so I'm not surprised at the probability here -- especially given the broken clock which must have disconcerted him a bit. It certainly would have me! ===== IC 1233 = NGC 6247 as suggested by Dreyer in IC1. There is a 10 arcmin error in Swift's published position. Otherwise his position fits to within his usual errors, and his description "eF, vS, vE; bet 2 sts" also fits. There are no other galaxies in the area that match the description and have simple digit offsets from Swift's position. The galaxy itself looks like an interacting pair on the DSS. I've given separate positions for the components, though everyone else has taken it as a single, peculiar galaxy. ===== IC 1234 is a star -- though it does not match Bigourdan's description very well. He says (roughly translated by me; pardon my French!): "Object of doubtful appearance, which could be formed from stars 13.5 with a little nebulosity; it is completely insensible and a little elongated toward the position indicated for NGC 6262." He has two observations of it on the night of 5 Sept 1888. They do not agree very well, with differences of 0.95 seconds in RA, and 12.7 arcsec in Dec. Nevertheless, the mean of the two leads us unambiguously to the star. I should note that the identity of Bigourdan's comparison star is not quite secure. He places it -6 seconds and -7 arcmin from BD +57 1713; there is no star there. However, there are several stars scattered around including a noticeably brighter one 3 arcmin to the south. The identity of I1234 rests on our accepting this as Bigourdan's comparison star for his two measurements. ===== IC 1238 is a double star. See the discussion under NGC 6276. ===== IC 1239 = NGC 6276, which see. ===== IC 1240 is probably one of Bigourdan's imaginary objects. He describes it briefly as an "Object suspected [only for] an instant. The sky is beautiful." His position is not measured, only estimated at position angle 240 degrees, distance 3 arcmin from a star he calls "Arg. OE, 16761". The position he gives for the star is 2 arcmin south of the real position. I get the impression that he was not tremendously interested in this object. For a few minutes, I thought that the star an arcmin north of his position might be the object he saw. But the position angle and distance Bigourdan estimated probably rule this out. He correctly reduced them to offsets in RA and Dec, and I see no way to squeeze the extra arcminute out of the reduced position. So, another twinkle in the eye just beyond the limit of visibility. ===== IC 1243 is a line of five stars. It was first seen this way by Herbert Howe whose description (in MNRAS 58, 515, 1898) is so accurate that I can do no better than to quote it in full. "This was examined on two nights. It consists of five 12-14 mag. stars in a line, at an angle of 0 degrees, the length of the line being 45 arcsec. A star of mag. 14 immediately precedes the northern end of the row." Swift's position is adequate (10 seconds too large in RA, 1.3 arcmin too large in Dec) for a positive identification. ===== IC 1246 is a star. Bigourdan estimated its position only once, but his estimate still falls within a few arcsec of the star. His description makes it clear that Bigourdan was not much interested in the object: "Very faint object, maybe nebulous, only suspected." He also got the direction of his "comparison" star wrong (it is the "* 10 n 1 arcmin" in the NGC description) -- it is actually south of his suspected nebula. ===== IC 1247 is, like I1246 and so many other of Bigourdan's "novae", also a star. But he actually took the time to measure it once, the night he discovered it (21 June 1887). He describes it then as "A star 13.3-13.4 around which I suspect a few traces of nebulosity. A * 13.3 is at PA = 27 deg, distance = 0.7 arcmin." Bigourdan's measurement falls within 2 arcsec of the position found from the DSS. When he examined this object again on 9 June 1891, he calls it "A star 13.4 without a trace of nebulosity." A third and final examination yielded this description: "The object measured in 1887 is a star 13.5 or 13.4-13.5 without nebulosity." Herbert Howe also examined the area in the late 1890's and came to the same conclusion in one of his Monthly Notices papers. Dreyer put Howe's observation into an IC2 note, so there is no excuse for missing on this one. One other curious coincidence: I did the debugging of this object on 21 June 2002, exactly 115 years after Bigourdan found and measured it. ===== IC 1251 and IC 1254 are the two brightest galaxies in a group north and east of NGC 6340. Swift's positions are not too bad, and the galaxies are enough brighter than their companions that the identifications are secure. ===== IC 1252 = IC 4649. This identity was recognized by Bigourdan himself, and apparently stems from some error in his record keeping. He has the two as being identical in his Table II of new nebulae (Table II has the "novae" in RA order), but has them at different positions in Table I (this lists them in order of Bigourdan's own number). He attempted to measure a position for the object on only one of the three nights on which he saw it -- there is a considerably brighter star only 30 arcsec to the southeast. His single position falls between the star and the galaxy. ===== IC 1253 = NGC 6347. Safford's original position is very good, falling within 20 arcsec of the galaxy. Unfortunately, when Dreyer precessed the position, he made a +2 degree error in the declination. So, the IC position has nothing near it. This is one of the very few errors that Dreyer himself made in assembling his catalogues. ===== IC 1254. Carlson has a "correction" to the IC position of this galaxy -- it is not an improvement. Swift's position is actually closer to the galaxy. Also see IC 1251. ===== IC 1271. Swift's original description reads "eeeF, vL, N6523 nr p, ee diff; B * inv or is a neb *; discovered 2 years ago." He gives a position of 18 02 26 -24 27.2 (precessed to 1950) which falls about 5 arcmin southeast of the star at 18 02 06.48, -24 24 10.9 (B1950.0, GSC). His position is still well within the brighter part of the nebulosity, but I have given a position that is much closer to the star and corresponds to the brightest part of the nebula to the east of M8 on the POSS and SSS prints/films (18 02 09 -24 24.9). If Swift meant to give the position of the star, it is well off, but not unreasonably so for him, especially given the size of the object. This is not, by the way, = NGC 6526 = H V 9. That number applies to the much brighter southeastern portion of M8 that curves around to the northeast to eventually encompass NGC 6530. See N6526 for more. Swift's note "... discovered 2 years ago" deserves a comment. JH's sketch of M8 in the Cape of Good Hope Observations shows this entire area, including all of the nebulosity included in IC 1271, as well as Swift's star. So, I don't think that we can credit Swift with the discovery of this "object." JH clearly regarded it as a part of the M8 complex, and we can now see on photographs that his interpretation was correct. Herbert Howe came to the same conclusion through visual examination of the field a few years after Swift's observation. See NGC 6523, N6526, and N6533 for more discussion about the early observations of the M8 area. ===== IC 1272 is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan's one estimated position is about 10 arcsec preceding the geometric center of the asterism, but is good enough to allow unambiguous identification of the object. IC 1273 (which see) is a double star about 2.5 arcmin to the northeast observed the same nights. ===== IC 1273 is a double star -- actually a triple as the southwestern star is itself double -- close northeast of IC 1272 (which see). Bigourdan has one measurement of the object which clearly identifies it. ===== IC 1274 and IC 1275 are both reflection nebulae sketched by Barnard from a plate he took at Lick in the 1890's. The published sketch (in AN 3111), with BD stars identified on it, is accurate and identifies the nebulae exactly. ===== IC 1275. See IC 1274. ===== IC 1277 is a faint galaxy. Bigourdan has four observations of it; they do not agree very well, but his mean position is only 12 arcsec south of the nucleus. The identity is secure. ===== IC 1278 is an asterism of 4-5 stars. Bigourdan observed it on the same nights as I1277 (which see), but his five measurements are much more accordant than for the galaxy. Again, the identification is secure. ===== IC 1280 = NGC 6581, which see. ===== IC 1282 is an asterism of four faint stars. It is faint enough that Wolfgang overlooked it in favor of a brighter asterism to the southwest. But Bigourdan's single measurement unambiguously points to the fainter object. ===== IC 1283 is a part of IC 1284. In AN 3111, Barnard gives the name (BD -19d 4948) and correct position of the nebulous star that he found on one of his plates. He continues, "The nebulosity is very small and principally noticeable on the southern side of the star." This is an accurate description as far as it goes. Later, in AN 4239, he describes the entire area as having a "large bed of diffused nebulosity" stretching between I1284 and BD -20d 5055 nearly a degree to the southwest. The Palomar and Siding Spring survey plates show Barnard's nebulosity and large swaths of Milky Way stars throughout the entire area. See NGC 6589 and NGC 6590 for more discussion of Barnard's and Swift's observations here. ===== IC 1284. See IC 1283, and NGC 6590 = NGC 6595 = IC 4700. ===== IC 1285 is an asterism of 5 stars. Bigourdan's position points to the two brightest on the northwestern corner, but his description suggests that he saw at least two of the other three. Wolfgang and I have estimated the center of the entire group. ===== IC 1290. As with I1203 and I1207 (which see), this is an asterism of 6 to 8 faint stars at Thome's position. ===== IC 1292 is lost. Pickering announced it in AN 137, 71, 1895 (which I've not seen), and listed it in HA 60 as the 74th nebula found at Harvard. It was found on an objective prism plate by Wilhelmina Fleming, and is credited to her in the IC. She adds the note "* 9.6 south following". There is indeed a star (GSC 6867 1486, V = 10.6) southeast of the nominal position, but there are only very faint stars in the immediate area of that position. Wolfgang has selected one of these for his list, but I don't think it likely that the Harvard plate went deep enough to pick it up. Was this object possibly a nova (or just a defect?) seen on a single plate of the area? Pickering's original AN article might shed some light on this notion. The other obvious possibility is that there is a typo or other error in the position. However, the IC position comes from the AN paper, and I suspect that the position given in HA 60 was simply copied from the same paper. So, any error would predate the AN paper. ===== IC 1293 is a small asterism of 5 or 6 stars. There is a brighter star less than an arcmin to the northwest. Swift suspected another "nebula" near to the southeast; this may be the fainter asterism at 18 40 54.5, +56 13 32 (B1950). Howe was the first to suggest that this was not a nebula, but his description is a good match for a line of three stars well to the south at 18 40 35.4, +56 09 31. He says "It appears to consist of three stars of mag 14, of which the following one is nebulous." The east-northeastern of the line of three stars is actually a blended double; it could well appear nebulous at the eyepiece. But it is unusual for one of Howe's objects to be so far off the catalogued position without his mentioning it. ===== IC 1294 is probably the asterism of 3 or 4 stars listed in the table of positions. Swift is unusually voluble about this object. In addition to the usual description of the object itself ("eeeF, S, iR, eee diff") he adds, "F * close nf both in line with 3 vF sts in form of arc of circle. The F * is in the middle. Not [NGC] 6695." The arc of three stars that Swift mentions is about 2 arcmin northeast. This is a clear match to his note. However, that would make his "F * ... in the middle" a considerably fainter double star a bit closer to his "nebula". In order for his "F *" to be brighter than the three "vF sts" in his arc, as his note suggests, we have to suppose that one or both of the pair is variable, and that he saw it near its maximum. This makes it less likely that the identification of I1294 that I suggest is actually the right one. But I don't see anything else nearby that matches Swift's note as well. Wolfgang has chosen a faint galaxy about 30 arcsec northwest of a considerably brighter star. I think it is too faint for Swift to have dug out, and is too far from his position. It would probably be overwhelmed by the star at the eyepiece. We have to keep in mind, too, Swift's propensity for mangling his positions. See IC 1300 and IC 1301 for two examples. So, I've put a colon on this IC number in the table. Sigh. ===== IC 1298. This one is so obvious that I got it for ESGC. The IC description reads simply "vS Cl, [NGC] 6778 p 3 [arcmin]." This is just where Bigourdan's three micrometric measurements made on two nights place his "cluster." It is probably a random grouping of 8-9 stars at Bigourdan's place -- but it certainly does look like small cluster. Once we have proper motions for the stars, we'll know better whether they might be associated. In the meantime, I suspect this would be an interesting object in a moderate size (say 15- to 20-inch) telescope. And it is indeed just three arcmin east of NGC 6778 = NGC 6785 (which has its own story). ===== IC 1299, et al. The Reverend Thomas Espin, an avid amateur astronomer active for nearly 50 years beginning in the late 1880's, published a list of 15 new "nebulae" in MNRAS 54, 327, 1894. He provides no-more-than-adequate positions for them (estimated from the BD charts), and his descriptions are generally minimal. Though he does not say so, he presumably swept them up during his searches for double stars. Taken altogether, his brief notes suggest that several of these are no more than enhancements of the stellar background of the Milky Way. Some are real clusters, and at least one is an asterism. I've written out my usual comments for the questionable objects; these notes are folded into the list in numerical order. See 1304, 1305, 1306, 1307, 1310, 1311, 1314, 1363, 1369, 1378, 1400, 1402, and 1442. IC 1299 itself is a clump of stars that may or may not be a real cluster. Espin's position is very good and pins down this group of about a dozen stars scattered across an area 4 arcmin by 2.5 arcmin. ===== IC 1300 = NGC 6798. According to Swift himself in a letter to Herbert Howe, there is a one degree error in Swift's declination published in his 10th list. Howe cites Swift's letter in his long paper of observations of nebulae and clusters in MNRAS 61, 29, 1900. Curiously, Dreyer printed the correction in the IC2 Notes, but did not indicate the source. Swift's position is otherwise good. Another curiosity: NGC 6798 is also one of Swift's discoveries. It comes from his second list; the position there is very good. ===== IC 1301 is almost certainly equal to IC 4867. Dreyer has copied into the IC2 Notes a comment of Howe's to the effect that the north polar distance of I1301 may be 36 arcmin too large. Dreyer goes on to suggest that the nebula is therefore probably I4867 -- which, however, is still nearly fifteen arcmin away from Swift's "corrected" position. Howe's comment was made in the same note in which he commented on IC 1300 (which see), and had its as its source the same letter from Lewis Swift. Howe says, "In the same letter, Swift states that the declination of (1301) is about +49 40, which is 35 arcmin greater than the declination (for 1900.0) computed from the Index Catalogue." This would make the position for 1950.0 19 25 21, +49 47.2. As I suggested above, this is still about 15 arcmin from I4867, found by Burnham while he was observing a double star. How did Dreyer make the connection? I think he probably realized that two bright stars mentioned in both Swift's and Burnham's descriptions were identical, especially since one of these is Burnham's double. Swift's description reads: "eeF, vS, R; 2B and 1F * in line nr f, nearest * nf close D with 300." Burnham's description as abbreviated for the 2nd IC is: "S; 2 sts 7 nf 3 arcmin." Swift did not know that the double was the star later observed by Burnham, but Dreyer certainly suspected it. So, this chain of reasoning makes IC 1301 = IC 4867 = CGCG 256-017sw (the northeastern component, about an arcminute away, is fainter). CGCG suggests that IC 1301 is CGCG 256-018; this is probably not the case as the galaxy is near neither Swift's original position, nor his "corrected" position quoted by Howe. It does have three stars following, but all are faint and none of them is double. ===== IC 1304 may be a clump of field stars a few arcmin to the northeast of Espin's position. It may also be UGC 11460, but this would require an error in RA of 2 min 24 sec which would make it unique among his objects. His declination is just 2 arcmin off the galaxy's, within his nominal accuracy of 3 arcmin. Espin says nothing more than "Faint nebulosity." Without some notion of size, any attempt at identification is only speculation. At least we have a couple of candidates. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1305 is a more-or-less linear asterism of 4-5 stars stretching northwest of BD +19 4103. The identification is pretty secure as Espin's position is just 1.3 arcmin north and less than 2 seconds preceding the asterism. His note clinches the identity: "Very faint, extending N.P. from a 9.5 mag star." See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1306 may be the group of stars centered 2 seconds preceding and 2.5 arcmin north of Espin's position, though without the nebulosity that he claims: "Nebula round a group of faint stars." See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1307 has the most extensive note of any of Espin's discoveries: "While sweeping on September 14 [1893] I suddenly came upon a dark space. On carefully examining the field there is evidently a large faint nebulosity, mixed up with stars, sharply defined on f side, stretching N. and S. Max Wolf's photograph shows this nebulosity." Even so, there is no nebulosity here. There is, however, a fairly well- defined Milky Way star cloud. Espin's "dark space" marks its southern edge, while the eastern edge is not as clear as his description indicates. The position I give is well to the north of Espin's. His is close to his "dark space", well off the center of the star cloud -- assuming that this is indeed what he saw. The area is near the center of Barnard's plate 70 in his Milky Way Atlas (taken with a 6-inch lens); it is no more nebulous than any other area on the plate. Wolf used a similar lens for some of his early plates. Espin may be referring to one of these. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1310. Close to Espin's position is a small cluster or pretty rich asterism about 1.5 x 1 arcmin in size. This is probably Espin's object as it is the only outstanding object in the area. There is some extremely low surface brightness nebulosity around, but it is too faint to have been visible to Espin. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1311. Though Espin describes this as an "Extremely faint nebula within a circle of stars", it is actually a fine cluster about 5 arcmin across. It is indeed within the circle of stars, and makes an interesting object at the eyepiece (it was just barely visible in a 6-inch F7 reflector at about 150X). See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1312 is an asterism of about a dozen faint field stars covering an area of around 1.7 x 1.0 arcmin. Bigourdan himself suspected that the object might consist of stars "at the extreme limit of visibility," and notes that it was difficult to measure. In fact, his first two measurements on 20 Sept 1884 are quite discordant, being more than 20 arcsec apart. His third measurement twelve years later on 29 Oct 1896 is not even of the same clump of stars, but is a smaller and fainter asterism of four stars over three arcmin away. I've taken the first set of stars as the IC object as that is the one published in Bigourdan's Comptes Rendus list that Dreyer incorporated into the first IC. Reinmuth could not find the object on the Heidelberg plates that he examined, so questioned if it might be the same as NGC 6892. It isn't; N6892 is a different clump of four stars. Bigourdan's measurements under the NGC number refer to the right asterism. Since he found and measured I1312 on two of the same nights as N6892, the objects must be different. ===== IC 1314 is another star cloud in the Milky Way. There is no nebulosity associated with it. Espin describes it as a "Large misty patch, partly resolved." Though it is not the most prominent star cloud in the area, it is of an appropriate size (about 15-20 arcmin across) that it would be easily noticed during a sweep. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1315 is an asterism of five or six stars at Bigourdan's position. Though he has only one measurement of it, it points exactly at the stars, so there is no question about the identification. ===== IC 1316 does not exist. Bigourdan has two observations differing by 2.3 seconds of time and 6 arcsec; the first position is the one given in the IC. Neither position, however, refers to any object on POSS1, not even stars. There is no possibility that this is the same as NGC 6901 or IC 5000, since Bigourdan observed these other objects on the same nights as IC 1316. My statement in RC2 that this is = N6901 and I5000 (which see) is therefore wrong. ===== IC 1318. Gamma Cygni is apparently near the center of an extended region of very faint nebulosity. Barnard discovered this photographically, and comments in his Milky Way atlas that most of the nebulae do not show in the printed version of the plate. It is, however, well-seen on the prints from the Palomar Schmidt. Rather than try to locate the center of this extended nebulae, I've simply adopted the position of gamma Cyg itself. ===== IC 1323. Javelle noted this as a very small star immersed in nebulosity. It is actually nothing more than a faint double star. Javelle's position is about 9 arcsec northeast of the center point, but is still good enough to let us know exactly what object he was looking at. ===== IC 1324. Howe's correction to the RA of this galaxy, found by Swift, is quoted by Dreyer in the Notes appended to the Second IC. ===== IC 1325 = NGC 6928 and IC 1326 = NGC 6930. Swift's RA's are correct, but he has his declinations reversed. He apparently changed his descriptions to match his positions, because the fainter of the two objects is in fact south- east of the brighter. Howe was the first to suggest the correct identifications with Marth's NGC objects. Reinmuth, however, made I1325 = N6927 and I1326 = N6928. These mistaken identities were copied by Carlson, and are sometimes still quoted today. Swift's detailed notes about the stars neighboring N6930 clearly identify it, though, and his RA of N6928 does the same for the brightest object in the group. Howe correctly notes that Swift saw the two brightest in the group, and Reinmuth is just as clearly wrong. ===== IC 1326 = NGC 6930. See IC 1325 = NGC 6928. ===== IC 1329 is an asterism of about ten faint stars located in the middle of a "trapezium" of four pretty bright stars. Swift saw the asterism as a low surface brightness nebula, but otherwise described the field correctly. ===== IC 1333 is almost certainly = IC 1334. Javelle's declination offset is 2.5 arcmin off the galaxy for his measurement of IC 1333. This offset depends on a different comparison star than the measurement for IC 1334; I wonder if the difference represents one turn (or an integer multiple of one turn) of the micrometer screw. The RA's agree to within 3 arcsec, and J's descriptions are similar. There are also no other galaxies or stars near his position for I1333 that he might have taken for a nebula. ===== IC 1334 = IC 1333, which see. ===== IC 1340 is a knot in the Veil Nebula, probably involving a star, though it is overexposed on the POSS1, so I can't say for sure. It is indeed, as Safford supposed, connected with NGC 6995 (which see), and is probably a part of that larger object found and sketched by JH. See NGC 6960 for more on the Veil and its various pieces. ===== IC 1343. Javelle's RA offset is 10 seconds of time in error. His printed position for the comparison star (BD -15 5863) is correct, as is his arithmetic, so he must have recorded the incorrect offset when he reduced the observation. ===== IC 1346 and IC 1354 = IC 1350. Javelle found these two galaxies on 7 August 1891. His positions with respect to a star that he called "BD -14deg 5910," however, refer to blank patches of sky. He went over the area again on 26 July 1892, finding only one object, IC 1350. Again, he used the "same" BD star as his comparison star -- but this time, his position for the galaxy falls within 2 arcsec of the GSC position for MCG -02-53-021. Where are his first two galaxies? If we look at their relative positions, we find that the relative GSC positions of MCG -02-53-021 and MCG -02-53-019 are exactly the same. If we assume that these are in fact I1346 and I1354, then the offsets Javelle gives should point to the same star. In fact, they do: the star is GSC 5782-1182, about 5.5 sec preceding and 5.5 arcmin south of BD -14deg 5910. The position for the southern star, combined with Javelle's offsets, point to the MCG galaxies as the ones which he actually found. Since his "third" object in the area, I1350, is also one of the galaxies, it is clear that it is a repeat observation of I1354. ===== IC 1350 = IC 1354. See IC 1346. ===== IC 1354 = IC 1350. See IC 1346. ===== IC 1363 is another of Espin's asterisms which he took to be a nebula. He describes this one as "Faint, extending N. from DM +46 3214, 9.4 mag." The magnitude applies to the star, not the "nebula." The densest part of the asterism is actually a bit northeast of the BD star, but stretching on north as Espin notes. Coincidentally, there is another star, just a bit fainter than the BD star, at the south end of the asterism. I make the asterism's size about 2 x 1.5 arcmin. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1369. Though credited only to Pechule in the IC, this object was independently found by Espin as well. Both observers called it nebulous with many faint stars involved. It is actually a small, not too sparse, cluster about 5 x 3.5 arcmin in size. There is no nebulosity in the immediate vicinity of the cluster, but the rich Milky Way background may have lent that sort of appearance to the object. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1370. Though I have labeled only the brightest galaxy in this compact group as IC 1370, it's possible that all the objects here (at least six are galaxies and two others are probably stars) contributed to the visual image that Javelle found and measured. Three of the galaxies are very faint, though. While they make the photographic image quite spectacular, they don't add much to the total light of the system. ===== IC 1376 may be one of the faint double stars near Safford's nominal position. But without a description -- there is none in the annual report where Safford's list originally appears -- we really don't have a way to tell for sure. The one other nebula that Safford found on the same night (NGC 7416) is placed by Safford near its true position, so there is no systematic offset that we can invoke. Digit errors are fairly common in Safford's positions (see e.g. IC 1030). So, I checked at reasonable small digit offsets from the nominal position but don't find any nebula at any of them. Larger errors in the 10's digits are still possible; I haven't checked them yet. So, without more evidence, we really can't do much with this. Another lost nebula, I'm afraid. ===== IC 1378 may be the apparent cluster of stars that I've listed in the table. There is nothing else near that fits Espin's position, and his note that there are "some faint stars" is appropriate. However, there is not the background of dense a Milky Way star field to reinforce the illusion of nebulosity (in fact, the "cluster" seems to sit in a void between Milky Way star clouds), so I'm not entirely convinced by the identification. Maybe there is a larger error of some sort in the position. Showing that, however, will have to wait until someone can look into Espin's original observing records. See IC 1299 for more. ===== IC 1382 = NGC 7056. There is a five minute error in Safford's RA. Once that is corrected, the RA falls within 15 seconds of NGC 7056, and the description fits well enough. ===== IC 1396 is unmistakable in spite of the sparse description in the IC. This may have been sent to Dreyer as a private communication; the IC gives no reference aside from "Barnard." Nor is there a reference to it in Barnard's Milky Way atlas, though he does discuss it quite a bit in his notes to Plate 82. The HII region itself is spectacular on the POSS1 prints, covering an area of about 3 deg x 2 deg. It has a pretty low surface brightness, but is bright enough that the many dark cometary globules superposed on it show up very well. There is a cluster of stars near its center; I've used the position of the brightest member (BD +56 2617 = SAO 033626) as that of the entire complex. This is a wonderful object. ===== IC 1400. Like several other of Espin's objects, there is no nebulosity associated with this small collection of about two dozen stars. They are probably nothing more than a random sprinkling of Milky Way field stars scattered over an area of 5 arcmin x 3 arcmin. This and IC 1402 are immersed in the northeastern end of a large Milky Way star cloud, probably defined more by the bordering dark nebulae than by being a true stellar association. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's short list. ===== IC 1402 is very similar to IC 1400 (which see), but at 2.5 arcmin x 2 arcmin is even smaller and has about half the number of stars as I1400. These may be small clusters, but proper motions and photometry will be needed. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's short list. ===== IC 1414. Spitaler has among his novae this object which he places 58.10 seconds of time west, and 2 arcmin 43.5 arcsec south of "BD +7deg 4775 pr. bor." Since he did not have a good position for the star (he apparently adopted the BD position), the position for the nebula in IC1 is not too precise, either. Is the nova CGCG 403-007, or is it CGCG 403-008 as taken by CGCG? A more distant possibility is CGCG 403-010, adopted by MCG. Precessing Spitaler's position for his comparison star, I found that it falls close to BD +7deg 4775, which is in Tycho-2. Applying his offsets to the star leads directly to CGCG 403-008 as the correct galaxy. Curiously, however, his declination offset is about 20 arcsec too large -- is there a typo in his published table? ===== IC 1415 and IC 1416. These novae were found and measured once by Bigourdan during his first search for NGC 7164 (which see). Since that galaxy is about two minutes of time west of its nominal position, he did not succeed in his quest. The object he took to be N7164 is, in fact, illusory. He describes four stars near his nominal position perfectly, but there is only blank sky where he measured a "nebula." Unfortunately, the two novae are also illusions, though there are faint stars near the places he measured. In the case of IC 1415, his distances and position angles to two neighboring stars suggest that the faint star is indeed the object he saw. However, he specifically mentions the star as being involved on one side of the nebula: it is at 21 56 09.4, +01 07 04 (B1950.0) 25 arcsec to the north of his position for the nebula, so is almost certainly not the IC object. Bigourdan similarly pinpoints IC 1416 with respect to one of the stars near his phantom NGC 7164, 0.7 arcmin distant at PA = 340 degrees (though his measured position puts it 0.9 arcmin distant, given the GSC position for the star). The faint star in this case is 0.8 arcmin distant at PA = 5 degrees (the B1950 position is 21 56 17.1, +01 12 37). This is only 8-10 arcsec away from Bigourdan's measured position for the nova, close enough that the star might have been the object he saw. Given his lack of success with the other two objects, however, I doubt that this identification is correct. So, in the end, we are left with two more non-existent IC objects. ===== IC 1416 does not exist. See IC 1415. ===== IC 1419. See IC 1426. ===== IC 1421. See IC 1426. ===== IC 1424 is a star about 0.7 arcmin southeast of the nucleus of NGC 7190. Bigourdan has only one measurement of it, and complains that it is very difficult to see because of its proximity to the NGC galaxy. The two objects are clear on the DSS. The galaxy chosen by Wolfgang is much too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. In any case, his measurement of the star with respect to N7190 leaves no doubt about the identification. ===== IC 1426 is lost. Javelle's one measurement lands in empty space, though there is a faint, wide double star about 25 arcsec to the southwest that might possibly be his object. I doubt it, however -- he found and measured I1419 and I1421 on the same night, and he puts them both in their correct places. There may be a transcription error of some sort. Javelle's published offset is +2m 02.62s in RA and +2' 26.6" in Dec -- there are an awful lot of twos and sixes in there. Unfortunately, if he identified his comparison star correctly, there are no galaxies at reasonable offsets that digit errors in the offsets could lead to. I also looked at other star/galaxy pairs in the area, but none match the offsets, either. So, another lost nebula. ===== IC 1429 is a star. In addition, Bigourdan published his single estimated RA offset from his comparison star with the wrong sign. This is clear from his note that "... some time after the measures (sic), I noted, from memory, that a star of 11th magnitude is toward PA = 330 deg, d = 1' +-". That brighter star is there if the sign is in fact opposite from the printed minus sign. As with IC 1424, Wolfgang has picked up a galaxy that is much too faint for Bigourdan to have seen with his 30-cm refractor. ===== IC 1442 is a real cluster centered about 5 arcmin southwest of Espin's place. It stands out well on the POSS1 prints. Though Espin noted some nebulosity in the field, there is none. This is apparently another case where the rich Milky Way background gave the appearance of nebulosity in his eyepiece. Espin also saw only about a dozen stars. He gives no indication of how large the group is, but the cluster that exists on the sky has apparent diameters of 5 arcmin by 4 arcmin. There are roughly 30 stars included. See IC 1299 for more about Espin's new objects. ===== IC 1448 = NGC 7308, which see. ===== IC 1450 is a double star found by Bigourdan. His offsets from his comparison star unequivocally identify the double, and the NGC position is correctly transcribed from his published lists of new objects, so the identification is sure. ===== IC 1452 = "NGC 7374B". There is a six-degree error in the IC NPD, one of Dreyer's rare transcription errors. The Comptes Rendus list has the 1860 NPD printed correctly as "79 53". Once the six-degree error is corrected, IC 1452 is the high-surface-brightness companion to NGC 7374. Bigourdan's position is within two arcsec of the modern ones, and his notes mention not being able to see the 10th magnitude star nearby that Lord Rosse records at PA = 25deg, d = 5 arcmin from N7374; was this an asteroid? ===== IC 1457 may be a star. Bigourdan places this 2.6 seconds preceding and 46 arcsec north (not a measurement, only an estimate) of BD -06 6097 -- there is nothing there. About an arcmin southwest is a 13th magnitude star that I suggested in ESGC might be the object. Wolfgang's suggestion is a somewhat fainter star about 2 arcmin northwest of the nominal position. Carlson chooses a star, too, but does not give a position; I suspect it is one of these two. Neither of these impresses me much, so I've put question marks on both. ===== IC 1458 is probably NGC 7441 (which see). The IC identification is not in doubt. ===== IC 1459 = IC 5265. This identity was, surprisingly, first suggested by Swift in his list reporting the discovery of IC 5265 and about 40 other nebulae. Nevertheless, Dreyer did not report this, but suggested instead that it might be NGC 7418 (that is about half a degree south, however). Swift's notes about the nebula being "... bet 2 sts p & f; nf of 2" make the identity clear. Barnard is credited with discovering I1459, but there is no publication given. I don't see the object in any of Barnard's articles in my collection, so I assume that this was a private communication to Dreyer. Thus, I've had no way to check Barnard's position. Whatever the case, that position is 10 seconds too large in RA and 2 arcmin too far north. This may have helped lead Swift and Dreyer somewhat astray -- though Swift's own position is even further off the mark. The southwestern nebula, by the way, is IC 5264 (which see). These make a striking pair with IC 1459 being one of the brightest objects in the southern sky that JH missed. He could have also easily picked up I5264, so he either missed sweeping the area, or he had one of his very few observing lapses. His observing assistant, John Stone, tells of a time that JH fell asleep and awoke to find the field absolutely blank -- Stone had continued to faithfully move the telescope with the stars until it was pointed at Table Mountain! Perhaps this is a similar incident. ===== IC 1462 is a star. Bigourdan misidentified his comparison star's comparison star as BD +07 4995 -- it is actually BD +07 4955. Once that change is made, his comparison star can be identified and his single measurement reduced. His position is within an arcsec of the position measured on DSS for the star, so there is no question about the identification. Bigourdan himself suggested that the object might be nothing more than a star. The DSS image is slightly elongated, while other star images in the field are more nearly round. It's possible that this is in fact a very close double. ===== IC 1463 is probably the southwestern of a pair of stars separated by about 20 arcsec. Howe suggested that the pair itself is Baron d'Engelhardt's object, but the original micrometric position is within 2-3 arcsec of the one star. Unfortunately, I do not have Engelhardt's description or his offsets from his comparison star, so can't really judge this very well. Consequently, I've left the double as the IC object, but give the individual stars in the position table, too. ===== IC 1464 is indeed double as suspected by Javelle. Both objects are included in the Lick catalog, and it is those positions that I've adopted for the position table. I've taken a simple mean of those for the IC number itself. ===== IC 1465, like so many of Bigourdan's "novae," is actually an asterism. In this case, it is a linear triple star about two arcmin southwest of NGC 7468. Bigourdan actually used N7468 as his comparison object on one of the two nights that he measured I1465. So, Wolfgang's suggestion in his earliest list that I1465 = N7468 is wrong. ===== IC 1470 is an HII region exactly at its discovery position. It was found nearly simultaneously by Spitaler (20 March 1892), Pechule, and Barnard (both 21 March 1892) while they were observing Comet Dennison (1892 II). The nebula has been incorrectly called a planetary nebula, and the IC number has also been incorrectly assigned to a much larger, much lower surface brightness diffuse nebula nearby. ===== IC 1475 is lost, at least for now. It does not appear in any of Barnard's published papers that I have in my files, so is apparently one of the nebulae sent directly to Dreyer. There is nothing at the IC position, nor is there any obvious candidate star in the UK Schmidt field of the area. I suppose it is possible that this is either NGC 7507 or NGC 7513. The declinations bracket Barnard's nominal Dec, and the RA's are roughly 2 and 1 minutes of time too small, respectively. NGC 7507, a fairly bright elliptical galaxy, might look something like a "nebulous star" in a small telescope or on a photographic plate taken with a similarly small telescope. But I'm not willing to stretch to either NGC number without more information. So, until we can turn up that additional information, there just isn't much more to be said about this entry -- at least for now. ===== IC 1477 = NGC 7596 (which see). ===== IC 1478 = NGC 7594 (which see). Bigourdan recorded IC 5307 (which also see) as NGC 7594, and called N7594 a nova. In spite of the confusion of the names, his positions are good (as are Kobold's), so we can easily sort out the field. ===== IC 1480 = NGC 7607 is a double star within seven arcsec of Bigourdan's measured position. His description reads "Small cluster 20 arcsec in diameter in which I can distinguish at least two stars, perhaps accompanied by a little nebulosity." Many of Bigourdan's "novae" which are nothing more than single or double stars carry that same note: "accompanied by a little nebulosity." There is almost always no trace of nebulosity around these stars and asterisms on the sky, so there may be some systematic problem with his observations at the limit of his vision. Perhaps he was just pushing that limit too hard, or perhaps he did much of his observing on poor nights (but that is not borne out by his notes about seeing and transparency). Whatever the case, it happened a lot. The NGC number, which see, comes from Tempel, who independently discovered the "nebula" some years before Bigourdan. Tempel's position is also micrometrically measured, so there is doubt neither about the identity with the double, nor with Bigourdan's object. It was not until I was putting the IC into NED in the spring and summer of 2005 that I tripped across the identity with the NGC object. Working through the catalogues over the previous years, I had measured the positions for the stars twice, once for the NGC number, then again for the IC, without noticing that the numbers pointed to the same objects. Perhaps there are more to be found. If so, I will find them as I continue loading the IC. ===== IC 1483 = NGC 7638 (which see). ===== IC 1484. See NGC 7638. ===== IC 1485 = NGC 7639. See NGC 7638. ===== IC 1486 = NGC 7648. There is no problem with the NGC position of this, nor with the IC position, at least to within the usual errors of the sources. Bigourdan, in fact, found the identity before he prepared his big table for publication, so there he has Big. 241 = NGC 7648. Since he does not comment about it, I suspect that he simply overlooked the NGC entry until after he had reduced his data. ===== IC 1487 = NGC 7649. Swift's position for NGC 7649 falls close to the brightest galaxy in the cluster Abell 2593, so there is no mistaking that identity. However, his position for IC 1487, which he found two years later, is very close to a fainter galaxy in the cluster. Just an arcminute or so to the southeast of this object is the second brightest cluster member, a double galaxy taken by Herbert Howe as IC 1487. He clearly described the two stars close to it, but makes no mention of the fainter galaxy at Swift's position. Swift's description of I1487, however, says, "8 m * f, F * nr nf" (he goes on to say "not [GC] 4659" = NGC 7653, some distance away from the cluster, so that turns out to be irrelevant to the discussion). Keeping in mind Swift's 32-arcmin field, his two stars are easy to pick out. They point to NGC 7649 as the most likely candidate as Swift's second object. There is the possibility that Howe's galaxy is in fact Swift's object, but that would require that Swift's "F * nr nf" actually be a "F * nr np." While there are a lot of errors of this sort in Swift's lists (e.g. NGC 6039, which see), it's easier to accept his observation at face value and think that he simply picked up the brightest cluster galaxy a second time. ===== IC 1488. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Not only that, but he gave the misidentified star the wrong BD number! Instead of BD +14 4982 -- for which he gives the position -- he has BD +14 4992. This occurs in both of his tables, so is not a printer's typo. The actual comparison star was BD +14 4986. When that is used, Javelle's offsets point exactly to a faint galaxy that matches his description perfectly. However, the IC position, based on BD +14 4982, is just a few arcmin north of NGC 7653 (which Javelle mentions in a footnote as being distinct from his new nebula). This has led some of the modern catalogues to suggest that IC 1488 is a reobservation of NGC 7653. They are all incorrect. ===== IC 1490 = I1524. Neither discovery position is very good; Swift's is, in fact, 30 minutes of time too small, a clear typo or transcription error. Safford's RA is 20 seconds too large, and 1.7 arcmin too far south. The RA error would be easily correctable as the galaxy is a fairly large and bright object -- but it has a somewhat fainter edge-on companion 4 arcmin south. MCG put "IC 1524" on the spindle instead of the brighter spiral. This in spite of the fact that the nominal position is closer to the brighter galaxy. Oh, well. We're sure of the identity of Swift's object as he mentions a "vF * close n" as well as "6 pB = Mag. sts p" in his notes. All these stars are there. Safford's object is missing its description. He complains in a footnote that the last 20 or so objects have no descriptions in the copy of his list that was sent to him after he left Dearborn. However, the position is similar to many others in his list in that it carries a digit error in RA. ===== IC 1493. Javelle mentions in his description of this faint galaxy that he suspects another object seven seconds preceding and an arcminute north. That suspected object is a star. ===== IC 1495 = IC 5327, which see. Also see IC 1499 for some possible confusion within Javelle's list. ===== IC 1497 does not exist. Bigourdan's single micrometric observation of it falls in empty space a little over an arcminute southwest of a faint galaxy. Wolfgang picked the galaxy as the IC object, but it is too faint to have been seen by Bigourdan. Bigourdan also made some error in his first publication of this object. The position that he attaches to it is for a pretty bright star (probably one of his comparison stars) 2.5 minutes following and 18 arcmin north of the micrometric position. He corrected this in one of his later Comptes Rendus articles, and Dreyer picked it up for the notes to the second IC. Not that it helped ... ===== IC 1498. See IC 1490. ===== IC 1499 is probably the double star listed in the position table. However, as Malcolm Thomson has pointed out, the faintness of the stars is at odds with Javelle's description "pB, pE [not pL as the IC has it], iF." His position (re-reduced) is also off the double by 9-10 arcsec, so we have some doubts about the identity. Javelle found IC 1495 the same night, and compared it to the same star. Is it possible that he interchanged the descriptions of the two objects? They might fit the sky a bit better if that were so. In the end, however, that is speculation. So, as there are no other uncatalogued nebulae nearby, or at a reasonable digit error, that he might have seen, I'll keep the IC number on the double for the time being. ===== IC 1505. There is no possibility of mistaking the identification of this galaxy as Howe has provided a micrometrically measured correction to Swift's discovery position (which is 13 seconds of time off in RA, but very close in Dec). This clearly shows that the galaxy is MCG -1-60-20. Steve Gottlieb has suggested that the number might apply to the RC1 and RC2 galaxies A2339-03A and B. These two objects are a lovely interacting pair of spirals first noted by Zwicky, later observed at Mt. Wilson. The RC1 Notes identify them specifically as being south-following IC 1505, and they indeed are. They are illustrated in Arp's Atlas (Arp 295), and in Vorontsov- Velyaminov's Atlas (VV 34), as well as being included in MCG (MCG -1-60-21 and -22) and ESGC. On the POSS 1 prints, they appear to be further connected with a faint uncatalogued galaxy about two arcmin northeast of M-1-60-22. While there is no apparent connection with I1505, Arp 295 is probably in the same group with the IC object. Unfortunately, the redshift for I1505 is still unknown. ===== IC 1511 and IC 1512 are both stars just south of the NGC 7768 group. Bigourdan's offsets -- estimated in the case of I1511, measured twice for I1512 -- point almost exactly at the stars, and his descriptions are consistent with this. Both Reinmuth and CGCG suggest that I1511 is identical to N7767, but this is not the case. Bigourdan has measurements of the star superposed on N7767 that place it over an arcmin northwest of I1511. ===== IC 1512. See IC 1511. ===== IC 1514 = NGC 7776. Also see NGC 7761 = IC 5361, another Leander-McCormick mess, for more of the story. ===== IC 1512. See IC 1511. ===== IC 1523 = IC 5368, which see. ===== IC 1524 = IC 1490, which see. ===== IC 1528. The IC1 NPD is four degrees in error. This is either a typo that Dreyer did not catch during proof reading, or it is his own transcription error in copying the NGC Appendix objects into the IC: the NPD is correct in the Appendix (but "... not many people think of looking in an appendix."). When Safford's original position is used, it is clear that he saw MCG -01-01-028 = A0002-07 in RC2. In a footnote, Safford tells us that this object and four others (IC 138, IC 210, NGC 577, and NGC 7416) were "... found by A. N. Skinner, then [1867] assistant at Dearborn Observatory." This means that Skinner was actually the first to see all but NGC 7416; that was found just 2-3 years earlier by Marth. ===== IC 1530 = NGC 7831, which see. ===== IC 1537 is the east-southeast arm of NGC 55. It was first seen, described, and sketched by James Dunlop in the 1820s. JH provided a more detailed description and sketch a decade later. Both clearly noted that the south- following end of the nebula was much fainter than the north-preceding, and their estimated sizes (note the typo in Dunlop's paper: in place of 25 arcsec, read 25 arcmin) include the whole galaxy, not just the brighter portion. Furthermore, the fainter following part is clearly shown in both published sketches. In spite of these published observations, Swift claimed this part of N55 as his own discovery: "As Sir John Herschel does not mark it [N55] with a sign as being a remarkable object, lends [sic] plausibility to the idea that it [I1537] was not seen even by him." And this after implying that Dunlop had certainly not seen the fainter eastern end. Ahem. ===== IC 1538 does not exist. Bigourdan noted that he saw it only fleetingly on one night. He gave it an estimated position 17 seconds west, 2' 30" south of NGC 68 -- there is nothing there. There are a few 17th magnitude stars scattered around within 5-10 arcmin of his position, but all are too faint for him to have seen. This is most likely another of his "fausse images" (see e.g. N2529 and N2531). ===== IC 1539 = NGC 70. Bigourdan apparently did not take the time to look at LdR's published sketch of the field around NGC 68. If he had, he would have seen that LdR put an object just where he (Bigourdan) saw it half a century later, situated between two slightly brighter stars, a bit closer to the southern star. The object that Bigourdan called NGC 70 is a star. In fairness to Bigourdan, the NGC positions in the group are not too good (see NGC 67 for more), so he is not the only one to have misidentified galaxies here. ===== IC 1546 is the galaxy that MCG (and unfortunately others since) has called "N85B". There is no confusion in the historical literature about NGC 85 (which see), nor about I1546. But it's still worth noting here that the N85 suffixes are in use, and that the eastern of the two galaxies is in fact IC 1546. I clearly recommend dropping the suffixes on the NGC numbers, and only retain them for clarity when dealing with the modern catalogues. ===== IC 1547 is probably lost, even though Bigourdan gives us offsets from his star "j" (-4.0 seconds, and -2m 32s). This ends up in the neighborhood of IC 1546 (found by Javelle) but is well over a minute of arc east of that galaxy. Given that Bigourdan's position is only estimated, Javelle's object is still a distinct possibility, but the evidence is not overwhelming. ===== IC 1564. See IC 1567 and IC 5385. ===== IC 1565 is probably also IC 1567, which see. ===== IC 1567 is probably IC 1565. At the end of his first list of "novae", Howe has four nebulae (IC 1564, 5278, and 5385 are the others) for which he did not measure good positions. There is nothing at any of the positions, but expecting that, we can cast about the fields, checking for objects that he might have seen. In this case, the obvious choice is IC 1565. It is the brightest in a sub- group of Abell 0076. While there are other galaxies nearer Howe's crude position, this one is by far the brightest in the area and almost certainly the one he picked up. ===== IC 1572 is one of Bigourdan's imaginary nebulae. He has only one estimated position of it one night in 1888. There is no problem with his reduction of his position angle and distance to the comparison star (the same star he used for his first observations of NGC 213, which is just where he says it is) -- but there is nothing, not even a faint star, at his reduced position. I expect he was pushing his optics again. He looked for the object again nine years later in 1897, but did not measure it. This second observation may refer to another object as he says, "Stellar object, seen a little preceding NGC 213." (I can't come up with a reasonable candidate for this object, either.) His first observation puts it 1.5 seconds following N213 and 14 arcmin south. So, even if the first object is a "fausse image", it is probably a different one than this second. In any case, I1572 is lost. ===== IC 1577 = IC 48, which see. ===== IC 1589 is a double star, probably the one at the position given in the main table. It is some distance off Swift's place, but his positions determined after the move to Lowe Observatory are notoriously bad. His description clearly matches that of a double star seen through some rather thick layers of air. This is plausible as the object has a zenith distance of almost 70 degrees from the latitude of Echo Mountain (+34 deg). See IC 1740 for a similar double star that Swift found just over a month later in September of 1897. ===== IC 1590 is a star cluster involved in NGC 281 = IC 11. Bigourdan says of it, "In the region of NGC 281, there is in addition to the nebulosity suspected near BD +55 191, a large number of stars forming a very large cluster, without concentration." He gives no position in his big tables, but does have one in his tables of new objects, and in the CR article from which Dreyer took the IC position. That position is about 3 arcmin southeast of the center of a group of stars that Brian Skiff and I independently chose as IC 1590. I make the diameters 6 arcmin by 4 arcmin, so am not convinced that this is Bigourdan's object. Without better evidence from Bigourdan's published material, though, there is not much point in trying too hard to find this object. It sits in the middle of a large region of star formation, and any position we take in the area will get us some hot, young stars. ===== IC 1591 = NGC 276, which see. ===== IC 1604 is lost, probably forever, thanks to Swift's exceedingly crude published position: "00 53 00, -17?". His description "pF, vS, 7 1/2m * np, F * near sp" fits no galaxies in the area. Wolfgang takes a faint galaxy near NGC 333, while MCG puts the number -- with a question mark -- on MCG -03-03-009. Neither can be Swift's object; the stars are just not there. This object, by the way, is from Swift's last list. If we take his discovery date at face value, this is the very last object that Swift "discovered" -- his listed date is 19 November 1898. However, that makes it the last by 5.5 months; his previous discoveries are from 2 June 1898 and are preceded by an unbroken string of discoveries going back to 1895, soon after he established his observatory on Echo Mountain. So, I think that he put the year into his table at the incorrect spot, and that this object, along with six others, was actually found on 19 Nov 1897. But that is a supposition. See IC 4550 for more on this. ===== IC 1609 is not NGC 324, which see. ===== IC 1614. For some time, I questioned the identity of this galaxy, thinking it might be too faint for Javelle to have seen. I was wrong, of course; his micrometrically measured position is within a few arcseconds of the galaxy, and his description -- aside from the position angle -- is appropriate. The 15th magnitude star that he notes as being near the galaxy is about an arcminute to the southeast. ===== IC 1642 = IC 1645. Javelle found I1642 = J842 on 29 Jan 1897, and used BD +14 188 as his comparison star. Unfortunately, the BD position of this star is in error by about 1.5 arcmin. Therefore, so is the calculated position of I1642. Using the GSC position of the star, however, and Javelle's offsets, the object's position is within 6 arcsec of IC 1645 = J844. Javelle measured this on two nights at the end of 1897 (24 Nov and 17 Dec) along with IC 1646 = J845. He used BD +14 175 as his comparison star for both of these galaxies. Since the position for that star is pretty close in BD, Javelle's calculated positions for the galaxies are similarly good and there is no mistaking their identities. ===== IC 1645 = IC 1642, which see. ===== IC 1646. See IC 1642. ===== IC 1653 = NGC 443, which see. ===== IC 1656 = NGC 447, which see. ===== IC 1657 = IC 1663. Here is another case where Swift has rediscovered one of his own galaxies -- just seven weeks later. On 4 Sept 1897, he found a nebula which he described as "eeF, S, eeE, a ray; no sts near." There is such an object about 20 seconds preceding, and 0.7 arcmin north of his position; we can confidently assign the number IC 1657 to this. 20 second RA errors are common in Swift's lists. His second position, from 30 Oct 1897, is not as good. It is 2 minutes of time too large, and 2 degrees too far north. But he provides us with a more detailed description: "eeF, vE 350 deg; 5 sts sf, 3 have distant companions." This fits the nebula and the neighboring stars very well, too. Since there are no other galaxies in the area that fit this description, and since the position errors are digit errors, the identity is all but certain. Dreyer has another possible declination (30 arcmin south) for IC 1663 in the summary description. This comes from Swift's "5th Catalogue" of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory. Swift published these in several different places, and collected them all in a long list -- which Dreyer called "Swift XI" -- in AN. The shorter lists sometimes have more detailed descriptions, while the longer one occasionally has slightly revised positions (not that they help much ...). In this case, the declination published in the fifth list is a probably a typo as the long list position is just two degrees off (rather than 1.5 deg). This is, in fact, what caught my eye as I first tracked down IC 1663 during preparation of SGC: the minutes of declination are almost identical for both entries in the long list. A final comment: Swift's 11th and 12th "catalogues" (his final two lists), those with the nebulae that he found at Echo Mountain, contain more errors than his earlier lists assembled at Warner Observatory in Rochester, NY. By the time he made these observations, his eyesight was beginning to fail, and he was often distracted by having to show tourists around the observatory. I suspect that these two factors alone contributed to his increased error rate. ===== IC 1658 = NGC 444, which see. ===== IC 1661 = NGC 451, which see. ===== IC 1663 = IC 1657, which see. ===== IC 1664 is only two stars, roughly equal in magnitude, oriented southwest- northeast, and separated by about 30 arcsec. They are not "... inv in eeF neb" as Stewart describes them, unless he is talking about the SMC background on which the stars are superposed. This is the outskirts of the SMC, though, not the rich inner region, so I suspect a plate defect was involved as well. Andris Lauberts picked a faint galaxy some distance from the nominal position for the ESO catalogue, while Wolfgang Steinicke has only the southwestern star in his earlier lists. This star does have a faint companion less than 2 seconds of time preceding, so Wolfgang may have thought that these were the two stars that Stewart described. ===== IC 1665 is a close triple star at Javelle's position. He mentions in his description that he saw two or three stars surrounded by nebulosity. Aside from the fact that there is no nebulosity involved with the stars, Javelle's observation is accurate, so the identity is not in question. ===== IC 1667. See IC 1671 = IC 93. ===== IC 1670. See IC 1671 = IC 93. ===== IC 1671 = IC 93. Here is a galaxy that Swift found twice, once in September of 1889, and again in December of 1895. His positions are far enough apart (35 seconds of time, and 1.8 arcmin) that he and Dreyer thought that the two objects were different. On the second night, Swift also found two other galaxies nearby (I1667 and I1670), reinforcing his belief that he had not seen I1671 before. However, both of his descriptions mention the 7th or 8th magnitude star 47 seconds following and an arcmin north (the first IC has this as 14 seconds, but Swift's 9th list has it correctly printed as "46 seconds"). This star alone secures the identity of Swift's two objects. Swift has some further confusion in his description, however. He calls this the "p of 2", while it is clearly the "f of 2" by the numbering and RA's in his 9th list. He calls IC 1670 the other member of the pair, but that is 15 arcmin north. I think that he meant to have IC 1667 as the actual preceding of the pair, as that is just 5 arcmin west-northwest of I1671. ===== IC 1674 is probably a defect on the 24-inch Bruce plate that Stewart examined. There is nothing at his position on the modern sky survey plates, and the galaxy chosen by ESO as a possible candidate is 17 seconds in RA and 19 arcmin in Dec off the nominal position. ===== IC 1682. The sign on Javelle's NPD offset is incorrect. When the correct sign is used to re-reduce his position, his observation falls within 2-3 arcsec of the modern positions. ===== IC 1686 = NGC 499. Dreyer has pretty well sorted out the NGC identifications in the NGC 507 cluster, so I'm a bit surprised that Javelle blundered on his identification for N499. There is no question that he measured N499 -- his position falls within two arcsec of the modern position for the galaxy, and his description is perfect for the galaxy. Yet he has a footnote on his listing for I1686 that states that he "also measured NGC 499." So, we can only shrug and say that he blundered on this one. See NGC 499 for a bit more on the earlier observations in the area. ===== IC 1693. There is no question about the identity of this galaxy: it is the southeastern of a line of three. Howe's micrometrically measured position was copied correctly into the IC, and is accurate. The interesting thing about the object is that it has a star or compact galaxy superposed on the northern end. Zwicky included the compact object in his first list as "I Zw 6", but later withdrew it so that it does not appear in his "Red Book" (Catalogue of Selected Compact and Post-Eruptive Galaxies). A note on the back of his finding chart for the object shows that he thought it might be a star rather than a galaxy. This pair of objects has also been confused with the middle (brightest) galaxy in the line, CGCG 385-099. It is clearly not that object, however, as both are included with their correct positions in a 1964 ApJ paper by Zwicky and Humason. Zwicky also refers on his finding chart to IC 1693 (though without the IC number) by the running number (32) from that paper. CGCG 385-099 is number 31, and it is not IC 1693. ===== IC 1696 is not the same galaxy as NGC 530 = IC 106 (which see). It was found by Howe in 1900 who specifically noted the difference in positions in a note to his table. ===== IC 1698 has the wrong comparison star name, but the correct position, listed in Javelle's table. The star is actually BD +14 215, not BD -0 217 (that is the comparison star for IC 1697). Note that IC 1699 (which see) is probably a second observation of this galaxy. ===== IC 1699 is probably a second observation of IC 1698 (which see). There is no nebula at the offsets Javelle has published, nor are there any at the offsets implied by changing their signs. However, if the north polar distance offset is changed to read +0 arcmin 49.6 arcsec (from +5 arcmin 49.6 arcsec), then IC 1699 would fall within Javelle's usual error range of IC 1698. The two observations of I1700 show this pretty well -- his offsets for that differ in RA by 1.13 seconds and in NPD by 5.9 arcsec. IC 1699 is sometimes taken to be UGC 978. However, that has a lower surface brightness, so would have been more difficult to see with a long-focus refractor. Also, Javelle's published offsets would have been around +13.8 seconds, and -1 arcmin 22 arcsec (NPD), nowhere near the numbers that he gives. ===== IC 1700 = IC 107 (which see). Javelle claims in a footnote to his table that he also measured IC 107 (it could possibly be UGC 978, sometimes taken for IC 1699, which see). Unfortunately, he does not give that measurement, so we do not know for sure which object he took to be the one seen by Swift. However, the observations that he does give for IC 1700 point unmistakably to the brightest of three in the area, which is in fact the one that Swift picked up. ===== IC 1703 = NGC 557, which see. ===== IC 1704 and IC 1706. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. It is not, as he supposed, BD +13 214, but another (not in the BD) about 5 arcmin northeast. The two galaxies are exactly at the offsets that Javelle measured for them from this star. ===== IC 1706. See IC 1704. ===== IC 1707 does not exist. This is probably another of Bigourdan's "fausse images." There is nothing in his precise position, though he saw and measured the object on only one night when the "sky [was] perfectly clear." He describes it as "a star 13.2--13.3 near which is found a diffuse nebula of which precise observations can't be made." This suggests that I1707 might be one of the two double stars about 2 arcmin following Bigourdan's position (01 25 07.8 +36 51 31). The fainter double is at 01 25 15.0 +36 51 26 (HCo); the brighter is at 01 25 20.94 +36 51 16.0 (GSC). If one of these is Bigourdan's nova, then both his position angle and distance from his comparison star must be wrong. An error in one or the other is possible -- errors in both are unlikely. Did he misidentify his comparison star? I don't think so: no other bright star in the area has an object matching Bigourdan's description in his relative position. In addition, he measured NGC 551 four times on the same night, claiming that he used the same comparison star -- which he, in fact, did. Both the galaxy and the star are correctly identified there, and Bigourdan's position for N551 is very close to GSC's. Finally, to confuse us even more, I1707 has a typo in the north polar distance in the IC (for 57, read 54), and a typo in the RA on page 212 of Bigourdan's list of novae (for 23, read 22; the RA on page 215 is correct). ===== IC 1709 = NGC 568. Swift does not mention the NGC object in his observation from 4 September 1897. Since the galaxy is similar to others that he found in his far southern sky surveys from Lowe Observatory, the identity is virtually certain. The much fainter companion object suggested by ESO as I1709 is unlikely to be Swift's object. It is near enough to N568 that Swift would have noted it as a companion to the brighter galaxy. ===== IC 1710 = NGC 575, which see. ===== IC 1712 = NGC 584. The IC object is one of Barnard's discoveries that he sent directly to Dreyer -- it does not appear in any of his published papers. This is a shame since I'd be very interested in knowing why Barnard thought this object was a "nova:" the IC position is identical to the NGC position. And how did Dreyer miss this, too? It's possible that Barnard's object is one of the other galaxies in the area (NGC 586, perhaps?). But we'd need to search his observing logs to know for sure. ===== IC 1713 is a star. CGCG put the number on NGC 587, but Bigourdan measured that galaxy on the same night as he did I1713, so they cannot be identical. In addition, Bigourdan's position is within a quarter of an arcsec of the DSS position of the star, and he was not at all sure about the existence of nebulosity around his object. This is another identification that Malcolm Thomson cleaned up for us. ===== IC 1717 is probably a plate defect. Stewart calls it "eF, eS, vE at 25 deg, *N." It's possible that the notation of a stellar nucleus indicates that a star was involved, but the position is not accurate enough to suggest which one. An examination of the original plate will be necessary to sort this one out. By the way, this was the only new object that he found on the plate (Bruce plate 3974). ===== IC 1723. Javelle misidentified his comparison star. Rather than using BD +8 272, he actually used +8 268. Once this change is made, his micrometric position falls right in line with the modern positions. The galaxy is bright enough that it's a bit surprising that it was not found before the NGC was published. ===== IC 1737 is only two stars. Bigourdan's place falls south of the brighter, western of the pair. He measured it only one night in 1891 (his two measurements on that night disagree by over 10 arcsec), but claimed to have recovered it on another night in 1903. In spite of the agreement with his description, the galaxy (with 3 stars close west) 7 arcmin to the south -- which I had chosen in the early 70s as I1737 -- is almost certainly not his object. He used the same comparison star to measure NGC 687 on the same two nights he saw this; his position for N687 is within an arcsecond of the modern value. This makes a 7 arcmin Dec error highly unlikely, and the RA is also three seconds off. Malcolm caught this one, too. He has sharp eyes, thank goodness! ===== IC 1740 may be the double star at 01 49 21.0, -30 10 10 or it may be the double at 01 46 35.4, -30 20 03. The first is closer to Swift's position, but the second is a pair of nearly equally bright stars. That would fit Swift's description considerably better. Swift makes a great deal of this object (and a near twin, IC 1589, which see) as a close pair of nebulous stars, so Lauberts's suggestion that this one may be NGC 749 is certainly not correct (N749 has no companion, star or galaxy). Swift claims to have seen the object several times at different powers, but given that there is nothing at his position, we can't say for sure just what he did see. I'm leaning toward the second pair noted above, but we may never know for sure. ===== IC 1743 = NGC 716, which see. ===== IC 1744 = NGC 719, which see. ===== IC 1751 = NGC 741, which see. ===== IC 1752 is apparently an unresolved linear conglomerate of two stars with a faint galaxy between them: Javelle noted that the nebula was "merged with a star of mag. 14-15." I've included all three in the table of positions. ===== IC 1758 was found by Herbert Howe who says of it, "[The object] is a star of mag. 11 with very slight outlying nebulosity." There is indeed a star superposed on the galaxy, so I've included both in the position table. ===== IC 1759 = IC 1760, which see. ===== IC 1760 = IC 1759. The position in Swift's 11th collection of new nebulae for AN is one degree too far north. The object originally appeared in his 5th list of nebulae found from Lowe Observatory (it is number 8), and actually has the correct declination in the AN version of that list. Unfortunately, Swift apparently copied it from the AJ version, so its IC position is wrong. Dreyer noted the discrepancy, though he omitted Swift's note "Cordoba 681 sp." That is wrong, too, though -- CD -33 681 is southeast of the galaxy, not southwest. However, the star number clinches the declination, and therefore the identification -- the stars at this RA in the -32 zone have numbers in the range of 740 to 760. The declination of IC 1759 is roughly correct (it is 3 arcmin off), though the RA, like that of I1760, is 25 seconds too small. ===== IC 1765 = NGC 783 and IC 1766 = NGC 785. Barnard's positions -- particularly the RA's -- are poor enough that he was misled into thinking them new nebulae. He must have sent them in a letter to Dreyer as there is no reference to Barnard's published papers in the IC entries, nor can I find them in my copies of Barnard's papers that I've collected. Nevertheless, the identifications are quite certain. The position difference between the galaxies is 33.4 seconds in RA and 3 arcmin 20 arcsec in Dec. Barnard's positions are 33 seconds in RA and 4.1 arcmin in Dec in the correct orientation: IC 1766 is to the southeast of I1765. The differences for the NGC objects is 34 seconds and 3.3 arcmin (from Stephan's observations). Assuming that Barnard observed the galaxies on the same night and measured their positions in the same way, the agreement with the actual differences is compelling evidence that Barnard's "novae" are actually the NGC objects. Reinmuth was the first to suggest the identities. Carlson picked them up for her 1940 ApJ collection, and the CGCG has them both, too. Curiously, Wolfgang has only the I1765/N783 identity in his list. He puts the number IC 1766 on a very faint, low-surface-brightness galaxy that Barnard almost surely could not have seen, even if he found the galaxies with the 36-inch or 40-inch refractors. ===== IC 1766 = NGC 785. See IC 1765. ===== IC 1773 = NGC 804. Swift's position for N804 is far enough off that it misled Bigourdan into measuring a faint star as N804. On the same night, he saw the real NGC 804, but thought it a nova. So, it has ended up with an IC number as well. Bigourdan's positions fall within a few arcsec of the GSC positions, and his notes about neighboring stars further pin down his objects. The identification is firm. ===== IC 1778 = IC 199, which see. ===== IC 1782 = NGC 823. Swift's description, "vF; D* of = mag in nebulosity," is almost identical to JH's, "A vF double * involved in a vF nebula." Given that the positions are just over two arcmin apart, we can only wonder how the identity escaped both Swift and Dreyer. Swift, in addition, was especially taken with the object and added to his description, "Curious object. Note." I find his note revealing of the thinking of observers at the time. It reads in full, This appears like a nebulous double star, but I think it is simply a double star in a nebula. There is a vast difference between a nebulous star, and a star in a nebula. It is the note which strikes us as curious, knowing as we now do that the object is nothing more than a galaxy with a star superposed about 10 arcsec away from the nucleus. But this was obviously an interesting sight to a 19th century observer with only the vaguest ideas of the nature and distances of the nebulae. Curious indeed! ===== IC 1787 = IC 217. As with IC 1782, I'm left wondering how either Swift or Dreyer thought Swift's object to be a "nova". The position is 1.2 arcmin different from Javelle's, and the descriptions (Swift: "eeF, eeE, a ray ..." Javelle: "F, pL, E ns.") are similar enough that a flare should have gone off in one or the other's mind. I suspect that Swift's "eeF" versus Javelle's "F" mislead one or both of them to ignore the near-coincidence of position. Or maybe they just missed this one. Whatever happened, the galaxy has two IC numbers. ===== IC 1795. Barnard's RA is marked +-, but still falls well within a large HII region. The position I've measured is for the brightest knot within Barnard's "Patch of nebulosity." ===== IC 1802, 1803, and 1804 are three nebulae found by Barnard and, as with many others, not published but sent directly to Dreyer. So, the IC positions and descriptions are all that we have to work with to identify these objects. In the case of IC 1802, there is nothing at the nominal position, but 33 seconds of time following and 2.2 arcmin south is a galaxy that has a "* 11 np 1'". We can be fairly confident that this is Barnard's object as none of the other galaxies in the area has a similarly bright star to the northwest. If we apply this same offset to the positions for IC 1803 and IC 1804, we find a pair of galaxies oriented northwest-southeast, not southwest-northeast as Barnard's positions have them. IC 1803 is also sketchily described ("Stell N"), and IC 1804 carries no description at all. But they are the second brightest and brightest, respectively, in a small group of galaxies. So, I am reasonably sure that Barnard saw these two objects. However, which one has which IC number, I am not so sure. I've put the numbers on in RA order, assuming that the declinations are reversed. But it could be the other way, so I've put colons on the numbers. ===== IC 1803. See IC 1802. ===== IC 1804. See IC 1802. ===== IC 1805. Barnard's RA is off by about 50 seconds of time (this seemed to happen a lot with his observations; see e.g. IC 1802). Still, the cluster, immersed in a huge nebula, is too obvious to be missed. Barnard called it "compressed", so I've taken it to be the small cluster centered to the east of HD 15558. Brian Skiff puts the HD star closer to the center, and so takes the cluster to include many more of the surrounding stars. In this case, the group that I include is just the core of the cluster. I suspect Brian is right. Also see IC 1831 for another possible object in the area. ===== IC 1808 = NGC 963, which see. ===== IC 1814 = NGC 964. JH found the galaxy during his years at the Cape of Good Hope, and measured its position pretty well. Swift picked it up 60 years later from Echo Mountain in Southern California -- his RA is 43 seconds too small, so he thought he had a "nova". His brief description "pB, pS, mE" (identical to JH's) makes it clear, though, that he has just rediscovered JH's nebula. ===== IC 1822 is a star. Bigourdan saw this only one night in December of 1894, and called it "Pretty much a stellar object, maybe a little nebulous." He did not measure it, but only estimated its position with respect to BD -09 486. Unfortunately, his big table has a misprint for the sign of the RA offset -- it should be "-" and not "+". The positions in his CR list and in the second IC are correct, so the sign problem is either a typo, or he caught his error before he published the position. ===== IC 1824 is probably NGC 1027, a cluster in the Milky Way. This is one of many objects that Barnard sent notes about directly to Dreyer, so we have only the IC entry to lead us. There, Barnard's description reads "Cl, sts F, perh[aps] F neby p extends to it." There is indeed faint nebulosity west of the cluster, and with nothing at Barnard's nominal position except scattered field stars, NGC 1027 is the only logical choice. It's stars, however, are not "faint," especially taking the superposed SAO 12402 into account. Perhaps Barnard found this near the edge of a plate. ===== IC 1826 = IC 1830. Swift's RA is 40 seconds too small, but his declination and description are good. Stewart's position is good, but he found the object on only one plate so marked it "susp"[ected only]. He also notes the star 1.5 arcmin to the southwest as "eF"; Swift's estimate of 8 is much closer to the truth. In any event, the identity is sure because of Swift's noting the star. ===== IC 1828 = NGC 1036. This is simply a reobservation of NGC 1036. The NGC position for N1036 is 10 seconds of time and about 2 arcmin off. However, since there are no other galaxies in the neighborhood, it is a bit baffling that Javelle thought his "nova" a different object. He must have simply missed the NGC entry. Also note that this is not = IC 1829 (which see). ===== IC 1829. This is often assumed to be equal to IC 1828 = NGC 1036 (which see). This error is caused by a typo in Javelle's declination in the Nice Observations, Vol. XI, page D11 for J940 = IC 1829. The typo (a "76" in place of a "71" for the north polar distance of J940) has put the IC position 5 degrees north of the true position. Re-reducing Javelle's data shows that IC 1829 is CGCG 439-026. This is another of the errors that Malcolm Thomson tracked down years ago. ===== IC 1830 = IC 1826, which see. ===== IC 1831 may be a plume extending northeast from IC 1805. If so, its nominal declination, from a Heidelberg plate by Max Wolf, is one degree too far north. I think it is more likely that the object is a defect on the plate. This could, of course, be checked if the plate still exists. Here is Wolf's complete note from AN 4082, kindly translated by Wolfgang Steinicke: A third [IC 2088 and IC 2177, both of which see, are the first two] extended and pretty structured nebula was found at the border of Cassiopeia and Perseus. It measures many square degrees, too, irregularly covering a NW-SE oriented field, connecting some star groups while being crossed by many canals [dark streaks]. The center is approximately at RA = 2h 33m, Dec = +63d. This nebula is complicated, but unfortunately pretty faint, too. But I hope to reproduce a picture which was taken in December with the Bruce Telescope. We should also search Wolf's papers from 1806 on to see if he actually did publish the photograph. Another possibility is that the "nebula" is nothing more than the unresolved Milky Way, or even simple vignetting on Wolf's early plates. ===== IC 1837 = NGC 1072. Javelle's sign on his north polar distance offset is wrong -- it should be "-", not "+". Once this change is made, his reduced position falls within a few arcsec of the nucleus of NGC 1072. ===== IC 1840 = NGC 1105 = MCG -03-08-004. See NGC 1105 for the story. ===== IC 1845 is a double star. Swift notes another "double star north preceding," and that object is indeed there if Swift's RA is just 1 minute of time too large. This was first suggested as the identity for the IC object in ESO. ESO also suggested, though with a question mark, that ESO 416-G015 40 seconds following Swift's nominal position might be his object. However, the only double star north preceding that object is considerably fainter than other stars nearer the galaxy. The double is also 11 arcmin away from the galaxy; it would have been near the edge of Swift's field where it would not have attracted his attention. Even though Wolfgang adopted this identification, it is just not as attractive an option as the double star that ESO noted. ===== IC 1846; is it also NGC 1109? Javelle went over this field about 40 years after Marth's first reconnaissance of it. He measured only four of the nebulae here, but his positions are good enough to unmistakably identify all four. Would that Marth's positions were as good! See NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1850 may also be NGC 1111. See IC 1846 and NGC 1109 for the story. ===== IC 1852 may also be NGC 1112. See IC 1846 and NGC 1109 for the story. ===== IC 1851. Another of Barnard's "private communications" to Dreyer, there is no nebulosity associated with the star (HD 17581 = SAO 23662). Though the star is a spectroscopic binary, it has no other peculiarities, so the "nebula" that Barnard saw is most likely a plate defect. Carlson's 1940 paper, quoting the Lick collection of errata in the NGC/IC, notes only "Not found" for this object. I wonder if the original errata list has any reference to Barnard's plate. It may be that additional plates taken at Lick, perhaps even by Barnard himself, failed to confirm the object. ===== IC 1850 may also be NGC 1111. See IC 1846 and especially NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1852 may also be NGC 1112. See IC 1846, and especially NGC 1109 for a discussion. ===== IC 1862. I always get concerned when I see that an IC object was found by Lewis Swift. He was an old man by the time he got the Warner Observatory moved to Echo Mountain, and his positions from Lowe Observatory (as it was renamed) are considerably worse than those from Warner. So, when I saw that the RA of this object is out by 41 seconds, and the Dec by 1.7 arcmin, I wondered if I had chosen the right galaxy to carry the IC number in SGC. It didn't help that Andris and Wolfgang had agreed with me -- I may have copied Andris's ESO catalogue and Wolfgang may have copied mine. I checked again. I found that I (or Andris) was probably right. Though there is another candidate galaxy (MCG -05-07-030 = ESO 356-GA011) just a degree north (1 deg 1.1 arcmin, to be fussy about it), the RA is 2min 34sec out, and the star south-following is magnitude 4.5 rather than 7 as Swift made it. These discrepancies seem to rule out the alternate pretty conclusively. So, I've kept the identification as is. (The star near I1862 = ESO 356- G015 has a magnitude of 8.1 in SAO, by the way, much closer to Swift's estimate). ===== IC 1864. Just two numbers on, it happened again! a large RA error by Swift casts doubt on an SGC identification (see IC 1862). So, once again, I went back to the SERC films. This time, there is no alternate candidate galaxy, so even though Swift's RA is off by 29 seconds of time and there is no confirming star mentioned nearby, I'm happy with this identification. And Swift's brief description ("eF, S, R") matches, too. Interestingly, the two objects, close on the sky, are also adjacent in Swift's published lists -- but were not discovered on the same night. IC 1862 is from 25 November 1897, while I1864 is from 19 October of that same year. ===== IC 1867. See IC 1868. ===== IC 1868. Javelle misidentified his comparison star, so the IC position is wrong. When the correct star, BD +08 451, is used, his re-reduced position falls within two arcsec of the modern positions. The star he claimed to have used was BD +08 452. That is the star he used for IC 1867, for which his position is also within two arcsec of the modern positions. ===== IC 1869 is a galaxy plus the superposed star. Even though the galaxy has a nearby companion, that companion would have been too faint for Javelle to see. Instead, he took the neighboring star and the galaxy's nucleus as a double star immersed in nebulosity. There is yet another, brighter star on to the southeast which he did not mention. ===== IC 1871. I think that Barnard got the wrong magnitude 9.3 BD star. Instead of BD +60d 596 which is surrounded by nebulosity, "chiefly following", he listed the position of BD +60d 624. This latter star is completely clear of nebulosity, and is 9 minutes of time east of the nebulosity. But the good match of description and magnitude for the object make the identity fairly certain. The position I assign is for the approximate center of the nebulosity rather than the star. There is a second cloud of nebulosity attached on further south west. Barnard may have seen this one, too, but how well it showed up would depend on its location on his plate. Many of the plates that Barnard took at Lick are strongly affected by coma and vignetting, so the effective exposure time towards the edge of the plate is considerably less than at the center. ===== IC 1872 is not NGC 1174 -- even though no one to my knowledge has equated them. See N1174 for the story. ===== IC 1877. While doing his survey of IC objects, Malcolm noticed that this galaxy was included in IC while its brighter neighbor, ESO 199-IG012, was not. Was there a reason for this? Found by Stewart on a 24-inch Bruce plate, IC 1877 is positively identified by its position and description, especially the position angle 170 deg (the modern value from ESO and ESO-LV is 153 deg). The brighter companion has a position angle of 19 deg, clearly different, and is about two arcmin on to the northeast. There is little possibility that Stewart mistook this for object for I1877. It is important to note that Stewart had only one plate of this area, so could not confirm the three objects he found on it. All are marked "suspected" as a result. Curious about this, Malcolm asked the folks at CfA if they could examine the original plate. They were good enough to make Polaroid copies of the area around IC 1877 and ESO 199-IG012. Both galaxies are well-shown on these copies of the plate, with IC 1877 in Stewart's position angle. However, the brighter object has a peculiar flattened triangular appearance with some apparent halo-like plumes projecting from its north and south ends. It looks similar to a plate defect about 30 arcmin to the east-northeast, so I think that Stewart assumed it to be a flaw. So, while many IC objects discovered on photographs are indeed plate flaws, here is a case of a real galaxy apparently mistaken for a defect, and so NOT included in the IC! ===== IC 1878. ESO applies this number to both IC 1878 and its companion 20 arcsec northeast. However, Stewart's original description, including the position angle (5 degrees), makes it clear that only the brighter galaxy was seen on the Harvard plate. ===== IC 1881 = NGC 1213, which see. ===== IC 1883 = NGC 1212, which see. ===== IC 1884 = IC 290, which see. ===== IC 1887 = IC 292, which see. ===== IC 1888 = IC 293, which see. ===== IC 1889 = IC 294, which see. ===== IC 1905 is probably the triple star that Wolfgang and I have measured -- but may include a fourth star less than an arcminute to the southeast. Bigourdan's position is only an estimate (-23 seconds, +5 minutes 30 seconds) made on a single night. That position falls a few seconds west of the triple, on the "wrong" side of the asterism if Bigourdan meant to include the outlying star. His full description (translated by me) reads, "Small, very faint cluster, around which there could be traces of nebulosity. Impossible to decide with certainty." I suspect that Bigourdan included the fourth star as he usually mentions nearby stars in his descriptions. The fact that it receives no specific mention here suggests that it is part of his "cluster." But given that his position is northwest of the center of the asterism, I find it "Impossible to decide with certainty." In the end, I take the path of least resistance and adopt the triple as IC 1905, but note all four stars as a distinct possibility. ===== IC 1907 = NGC 1278 = GC 675 = Big 375 = d'Arrest 56. Bigourdan has this in his fourth list of new nebulae (= Big 375), but in his final publication, he includes the measurements for it under the number NGC 1278. He has this note for the object: "This nebula has been listed under the number GC 674 by Lord Rosse, and in the NGC. It is this that led me to at first suppose that it was a new nebula." Thus, it is clear that Bigourdan was misled by the typo (or misidentification?) in Lord Rosse's observations and in the NGC. Just as clearly, he found the problem during preparation for publication of his data. The positions for NGC 1278 and IC 1907 are close enough to confirm the identity. ===== IC 1910 is described by Stewart as "2 eF, eS neb. spots, susp." Neither appears on the southern sky survey plates, so these are probably defects. ===== IC 1911 either does not exist, or is a star with a faint companion about 30 arcsec to the northwest. Bigourdan has one estimated position for the object in his Appendix of Supplemental Observations; he described it there as a "Trace of nebulosity, suspected only" from a single night in 1887. In the Comptes Rendu list where he announced his discovery, he adds "Sky mediocre." There is nothing in his position, a fact noted by Bigourdan himself during a second observation in 1902. He did note two stars near his position and gave estimated offsets for them -- they are indeed there. Is it possible that he mistook the fainter of them with its companion as nebulous on his relatively poor night in 1887? I've put it into the position table with a question mark. The brighter star is at 03 17 41.61, +35 08 43.0 (B1950) measured using Skyview and a DSS cutout. ===== IC 1914. Surprisingly, Stewart's position for this wonderful galaxy is about three arcmin to the west of the nucleus. Given that he describes it only as "Sp[iral]?" I wonder if a position error fully explains this object. We'd have to check the original plate to be sure. See IC 1923 for more about this particular plate. ===== IC 1920. Stewart's nominal position falls between two galaxies, but is a bit closer to the brighter, eastern of the candidates (it is 10 seconds of time off). The declination matches, too, though that is a loose constraint as Stewart gives declinations only to a full minute of arc. So, I've taken the eastern galaxy as IC 1920. Wolfgang, however, chose the slightly fainter western object. Since that is a possibility, I've left it in the table, though with question marks. Given the ambiguity, we need to look at the original plate. Stewart's positions on this plate, by the way, are good. See IC 1923 for more. ===== IC 1921 may be the faint star that I've listed in the position table. However, the star is fainter than I'd expect Stewart to be able to pick up on the Bruce plates, so I suspect that the object that he found is actually a plate defect. His description is simply "Stell[ar]", so doesn't help us much. Only an examination of the original plate will tell us for sure. See IC 1923 for more on this particular plate. ===== IC 1923 is most likely the faint double galaxy (or possibly a galaxy and a star) that I've listed in the position table. Unfortunately, Stewart describes it only as "Stell[ar]" -- brief, unhelpful descriptions plague his notes on this plate -- so we won't know for sure that this is his object until we can examine the original plate. However, his positions on this plate -- one of the first he searched for nebulae (this probably accounts for the scanty descriptions) -- are good. There is no significant systematic offset and the standard deviations are 0.67 arcmin in RA and 0.61 arcmin in Dec. Since Stewart's position for the double object I chose is well within the canonical 2-sigma of the true position, I'll take the pair as the object that he saw. ===== IC 1925 is probably a plate defect. It is listed as the first of a pair of nebulae, but there is only one object (IC 1929) on the modern plates. There is a faint possibility that it is identical to I1929 -- the descriptions are nearly the same -- so that is given as an option in the table. Since it was found on the same plate as I1929, however, I think it is unlikely that the two objects are identical. ===== IC 1927 may be the faint double star about an arcminute following the nominal position. But the double is quite faint, and I wonder if it would have shown up on the Bruce plate that Stewart examined. We'll have to look at the plate to be sure. See IC 1923 for more about Stewart's work with this plate. ===== IC 1929 may also be IC 1925, which see. But probably not. ===== IC 1939 is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing in the area but faint stars. However, about 4 arcmin preceding Stewart's nominal position is a double object that is "E p to f" (the extent of Stewart's description, unfortunately). I've put this into the position table as a possibility. However, since Stewart's positions are otherwise pretty good on this plate (see IC 1923 for more), this is only a possibility. ===== IC 1941 is probably the line of three or four stars three arcmin south of Stewart's nominal position. The description, particularly "vmE at 0 deg", fits. Since there is nothing else nearby that matches as well, I've taken the line of stars as his object. ===== IC 1942, described by Stewart as "Stell., E n to s" is actually a double galaxy. I've put both into the position table. ===== IC 1943 may be NGC 1411. Swift's position is about 9 minutes of time too small, but his declination and description fit the NGC galaxy pretty well. I personally suspect that he made a 10 minute digit error in reading his setting circle and combined that with his usual approximate RA. By the time he was observing at Echo Mountain, his ability to measure positions had become quite bad. This seems to be an example. ===== IC 1963 = IC 335. Swift's second position for this, taken 10 years later than the first, is only 8 seconds of time following his first, though both are about 30 seconds west of the galaxy. There is no doubt that he saw the same galaxy twice -- his descriptions match the appearance of this bright spindle exactly. ===== IC 1971 is simply described by Stewart as "E p to f". It is actually "E n to s". Since his position is good, I suspect that this is just a slip of the pen. ===== IC 1979 is a faint, pretty wide double star about two arcmin northwest of IC 1980. It matches Stewart's description quite well, and the position is close, too. Since it was found on the same plate as IC 1980, it is certainly not identical to the galaxy, in spite of the similar descriptions. ===== IC 1980 is not IC 1979. That number, which see, applies to a faint double star about two arcmin northwest of the galaxy. ===== IC 1981 = NGC 1412, which see. ===== IC 1983 is probably identical with NGC 1415. The NGC object is the brightest galaxy in the area, so is the one most likely to have been seen by Swift. He has his usual poor position (10 seconds and 3 arcmin off the correct position) as well as a sketchy description, "vF, pS, R; not [NGC] 1426" in his big 11th list in AN. The name of the galaxy that Swift was pretty sure this was not is not in the IC description. Just as well; it is a distraction at best, an embarrassment at worst as it is over half a degree away from NGC 1415. But it does lead us to a question: Could Swift have meant N1416 rather than N1426? N1416 actually is "vF, pS, R", while N1415 is much brighter. However, N1416 has two bright stars just south pointing at it -- had Swift seen these, he surely would mentioned them, just as he did dozens of other asterisms near his nebulae. I think this is unlikely as N1416 was found by Muller in the mid-1880s and has no GC number (see NGC 1416 for more on its chequered past). In Swift's original paper, the first list of nebulae found at Lowe Observatory, IC 1983 appears as the 20th entry. There, the description reads "vF, pS, R. Not G.C. 765". So, Swift has got the right NGC number for the AN paper. Unfortunately, this means that he overlooked NGC 1415 and 1416 altogether when he was putting his description together. Somehow, Dreyer missed the possible NGC identifications, too. Whatever happened, I think that NGC 1415 is the best candidate for Swift's galaxy. ===== IC 1985 = IC 348. Barnard did not check the first IC before he published this as a new nebula at the end of his paper on the "Exterior Nebulosities of the Pleiades." Dreyer apparently did not, either, so the object now has two IC numbers. See IC 348 for more. The nebulosity that caught Barnard's eye on a photograph of the Pleiades also contains a cluster, though the cluster is not visible on either of Barnard's photographs in his Lick Publications, Vol. 11. (Safford actually did see the cluster, though Dreyer did not put that into the description for IC 348.) Barnard adopted the BD position for the central star in the nebula, and I've done the same. ===== IC 1988 may be NGC 1425 with a 50 second error in RA and a 10 degree digit error in Dec. Swift has made both these errors in other cases, and his description could be made to fit N1425, too (instead of "eF, pL, R; 2 sts near f, wide D* np" it would read "eF, pL, R; wide D* near f, 2 sts np"). He is certainly confused about the date he found this. He gives it as 14 Oct 1897 in the AN summary list, but as 3 Oct 1897 in his shorter List 5 where the nebula is number 14. While I'm fairly confident about the identification with the NGC galaxy, there are enough changes that have to be made that I've put a question mark on the IC number. ===== IC 1992 is probably a defect on the Bruce plate. There is nothing near Stewart's position but a faint star. While it's possible that this is the object that Stewart had in mind (the brief description "Stell[ar]" fits), I doubt it. His other positions on the plate are pretty good -- see IC 1923, for more about this particular plate. =====