24 
SIR J. F. TV. HEESCHEL'S CATALOGUE 
No. 
2054] 
2055 jin Lord Eosse’s diagram, a=No. 2058=h. 692=11. 44; /3=No. 2061=h. 693 
2057 j- =11.45; y=No. 2055=692, b; S=No. 2054=DArr. 61; s=No. 2057=692, c, 
2058 1 not lettered in the diagram. 
2061 J 
20881 II. 28, 29. Both D’ Arrest and Secchi agree in placing this double nebula more 
2089 J to the south than W.H. by 15'+, and D’ Arrest supposes the P.D. to have been 
misread to that extent. As so great a proper motion is most improbable, and 
the identity is indisputable, I have adopted this supposition and made the neces- 
sary correction. 
2094 h. 706. Not seen by Lord Eosse in 6 observations. Ee-examined the record of 
the original obs. Sweep 115 (h.), No. 68, and the reductions. The entries are 
all clear and perfectly legible. Seduction in P.D. correct; reduction in E.A. 
erroneous by — 0 m 26 s, 6. This, however, could not have caused its non-obser- 
vation by E. This then was a comet, or is a lost nebula. The error of reduction 
is corrected in the present Catalogue. 
2111 III. 316. C.H.’s reduction of this nebula being affected with a considerable error, 
Auwers’s E.A. is adopted, after verification. 
2144 h. 3276. Place approximate, by equatoreal zone review. 
2189 h. 745 =Y. 52. Not seen by Lord Eosse when once looked for (see note on 
No. 132, See.). 
2192 h. 3294. The minute in E.A. doubtful. 
2197 h. 3295. The great nebula about 77 Argus. According to a letter from Mr. Eyre 
B. Powell of Madras, a most extraordinary change has taken place in this nebula 
since my figure of it was delineated. He states that the southern end of the 
curious oval vacuity close to the great star, which was decidedly closed when I 
depicted it, is now decidedly open. Should this be established, it will be the 
most extraordinary fact that has yet appeared in the history of a nebula. 
2201 h. 754=11. 99. M. D’Arrest found this nebula in the Leipzig refractor, bright 
enough to be ranked in the first class. And it is marked as “very bright ” in 
this Catalogue by a mean of 5 observations. It must have been ill seen in the 
earlier observation when classed as II. 
22311IY. 6=11. 131 and h. 777=111. 88. I adopt, on due consideration, the opinion 
2234) of Auwers, that III. 88 and II. 131 are not the same. Their having been 
successively observed in the same sweep is decisive. Also, that IV. 6 is not 
III. 88, but in reality identical with II. 131. The descriptions are made out 
in conformity with this. 
2233|I. 118 and h. 779. The degree of P.D. is probably mistaken in I. 118. Marth, 
2236) according to Auw., suggests that the determining star 46 Ursee (which though 
