This file was provided by David Bishop (dbishop at vhdl.org): Rev 1.0 8/3/95 Notes: H113-1: NGC 2830 has been equated to H113-1 in many places (eg, Burnhams, Nortons 2000, both following the original NGC). However there seems little doubt that the identification is actually with NGC 2832. The latter is now assigned to the brightest member of the group and is very close to NGC 2830 which is much fainter. H only found one object here and he described it as "pB. cL" so it is reasonable to assume that he found the brightest member which is the object now called NGC 2832. There is a description of the field in DeepSky, Winter 90/91,p. 20. On the same night H found NGC 2964 and also described it as "pB. cL", in NGC 2000 this object has very similar modern magnitude and size to NGC 2832. H118-2 is non-existent, Herschel thought he saw a faint neb close to M88 in poor conditions. Tempel thought it was two faint stars. R. Hook H570-2 is 4277. There is confusion here as Herschel saw four objects of a group of six and the identifications are not clear. In Dreyers 1912 notes he gives: H568-71 = NGC 4270,73,77,81 H601-2 NGC 1123 is non-existent but H601-2 is probably identical to NGC 1122 which is very close. NGC 2000.0 agrees with this identification. I think that H601-2 should be identified with NGC 1122 and the previous identification removed. H603-2 NGC 1278 is quite probably H603-2, as marked, but I have a lingering doubt whether the H object may in fact be the famous peculiar galaxy and radio source NGC 1275 (Perseus A). The logic of this is as follows. Firstly H only found one object here when he swept over this field (on October 17th 1786) so it is most likely that he found the most conspicuous which is NGC 1275. He described it as "pB. stellar. or pcst. with S. vF chev.". Soon afterwards on the same night he found NGC 1293/4=H574/5-3 for which the positions and descriptions match well. I have checked the position of H 603-2 as follows: H gives the position as 11m 27s following and 35' north of Algol which is (in 2000 coordinates) at 3h 8.2m 40deg 57'. Hence the object is at 3h 19.65m 41deg 32' Modern measurements of NGC 1275 give its position as 3h 19.8m 41deg 31' and NGC 1278 as 3h 19.9m 41deg 34'. Hence NGC 1275 is closer to H's position in both coordinates. H2-3 H 2-3 is an interesting case. It is one of the earliest of Herschel's discoveries and the position is rather rough - it just says that it is 13min following 60 Cet and north of it. The only non-stellar object close to this point is NGC 875 (see Uranometria 2000 chart 219). This object has a (photographic) magnitude of 14 so it could easily have been seen by Herschel. In the NGC Dreyer puts "(? H 2-3)" next to NGC 875 as well as giving NGC 867 a more definite identification with H 2-3. In the NGC 2000.0 the identification is confirmed (with a reference to a private communication from Brian Skiff). So, to sum up, I think that NGC 867 shouldn't be mentioned and H 2-3 should be identified with NGC 875 although at this stage one can't be certain. H752-3 NGC 2530/29/31. There are three NGC objects very close together here and only one object on the sky. Two were found by Bigourdan and described as vF or eF. H's object is between the two. This object is now called NGC 2529 so I think that it should be now identified with H 752-3. Today I looked up the field of this object on the Palomar Sky Survey. There is just one galaxy at this place, a small spiral with a fairly bright nuclear region. There is a faint star just to the North which confirms my identification as H's original description is: "eF. lE. s of a vSst.". H969-3 is most puzzling. Dreyer expresses no doubts that he correctly identified it on the photos. It is not in any major catalogue of galaxies. When I searched the "Master List of Non-Stellar Objects" I found a good match in the object called AR37. After a bit of a search I found that "AR" just means "Astronomer Royal" and it refers to the same list of objects in the 1911 MN identification paper. I then looked in SIMBAD, the Strasbourg on-line astronomical database system, and found to my surprise that the AR position matches very well (4' error) an IRAS point source (IRAS 11294+7439)! I looked on the Palomar Sky Survey plates and found merely a very small, but quite bright, elongated object which I think was unlikely to have been seen by Herschel or indeed spotted on the 1910 plates. So this is a bit of a mystery which I will pursue. It is most likely a mistake or a faint galaxy which is bright in the IR but just possibly it is something more interesting. R. Hook H968-3 H968-3 is interesting as being a Herschel object which exists but is not in either the NGC or the IC and had to await the mid-twentieth century before it was correctly catalogued. However the position match is quite good (about 1arcmin error) and the magnitude (mb=14.69, for a galaxy of type S2) is reasonable for an object originally described as "eF. vS". H25-5: Dreyer doesn't give this an NGC number. It is a very large area of faint diffuse emission in Orion. Dreyer gives extensive notes on this and it is possible that some of it corresponds to IC434, south of Zeta Ori and where the Horsehead is. Another section could be the brightest part of Barnard's Loop. However some sections don't seem to match up with any nebulosity. If you have a FAX I could send you the Dreyer notes, they are interesting and based on Herschel's original observing notes. R. Hook H6-7: NGC 2356 (H6-7) could be the same object as NGC 2355 (H6-6), they are close together and neither place agrees well with the modern NGC 2355. The descriptions from the original paper are similar: H6-6: "A Cl. of st. of various sizes pm. [pretty much] com.. M. p. rich" H6-7: "A p. rich and com. Cl. of st." There is only the one cluster near this place and it fits the descriptions. However as no one else has made this suggestion I am reluctant to commit myself to it. H1B-8 = NGC 2319 definitely. This is the only "B" identifier I know of. It was not in the original paper but was added by Caroline Herschel later when she was compiling her "Zone Catalogue". It is 11min following 18 Mon, dec not known. I don't think anyone has a clear identification for this early object. H206-3 = NGC 473 Dreyer says "not found three times from Birr", probably doesn't exist H26-1 = M95 =NGC3397?, something of a mystery. However, I think that any object which Herschel called a "bright nebula" was definitely NOT a single star or double. Dreyer thinks that it was probably actually M95 and I think this is the most likely explanation. R. Hook