28 
SIR J. F. W. HERSCIIEL’S CATALOGUE 
No. 
no error, either of printing, registry, or reduction in any part of the older work. 
The determining star is rightly set down as 5 Canum, whose P.D. for 1800 (the 
epoch of C.H.’s catalogue) is 37° 19' 42", and III. 814 is declared to be 1° 32' 
north of it, so that 35° 48', the P.D. of C.H., is correct, and reduced to 1830 
(=35° 58') agrees with my place within 2'. Neither is there any error of the 
press or of reduction, or any apparent mistake of a clerical nature in all the 
process of h. 1103, and the nebula observed is set down in the sweeping book 
(of course from the working list) as III. 814. I consider their identity there- 
fore as fully established. 
2771) h. 1211=11. 372. II. says, the most northerly of the pair II. 372, III. 360 the 
2773J largest: h., “by diagram,” makes the following nebula, III. 360=No. 2773, 
the larger of the two. 
2814 II. 109. The reductions of the sweep 187 (H.)in which this occurs are somewhat 
precarious, and in C.H.’s revision of the sweep the A. P.D. from 6 Comae is set 
down at 1° 50', that in the P.T. at 1° 54' (these changes are never made without 
good reason), and this accounts for 4' out of the 5' difference between her P.D. 
and that of M. Auwers. 
2846 III. 535. In a sweep two years subsequent to the obs. of this nebula by H. it 
was looked for again but not found. 1 if a comet. 
2849 D’Arr. 89. M. D’Arrest makes mention in a letter which he has done me the 
honour to address to me, of a nebula having the same R.A. as this, but a P.D, 
(1860)=83° 46' 42". He does not include it in his final list. It should, how- 
ever, be looked for. 
2852 1 h. 1183, 7, 9,1190, 4; II. 568, 9, 570, 1, 2, 
3. There cannot be a doubt that 
2856 II. 568, 569, 570, 571, are in 82° P.D., and II. 572, 3, in 83°. It is equally 
2857 certain that h. 1183, 1189, 1190, 1194 are in 83°. They were observed in two 
2862 distinct sweeps (sw. Ill and 238); I observed also II. 572 in sw. 238, and III. 
2865 573 in sw. 250. There must be a set of nebulae, at least 8 in number, hereabouts. 
2869; N.B. W.H. makes II. 568, 569, 570, 571, 34' n. of 11 Virginis. If n. be a 
mistake for s, these agree with h. 1187, 1189, 1190, 1194. 
2855 h. 1186 = 1. 90=11. 322. Marth’s conjecture is right (see Auwers’snote on I. 90) 
as regards II. 322, but not so his conclusion that II. 322=11. 377. 
2878 h. 1202=1. 139=M. 61. Discovered by Oriani. N.B. The first discoverers of 
the nebulae in Messier’s list, when not Messier himself, are mentioned by 
M. Auwers in his catalogue of those nebulae (pp. 66-71), except in the cases of 
Oriani’s nebulae, M. 141, 181, 351, 61, 67. 
2884 1202, a. Under h. 1196 and 1202, two nebulae, unidentifiable, are described as 
companions, but there must be some great error in Lord Rosse’s account of 
them, as the place of one is referred to a scarlet star “10' south of a scarlet 
star 11. A. 12 h 25'.” Now h. 1202 is in It. A. 12 h 14 m . To afford a fair chance 
