OF NEBULAE AND CLUSTEES OF STAES. 
31 
No. 
two following stars. H. says, “ Between two Bright stars, making, a triangle 
with them.” No one now, looking at those diagrams, would call the situation 
of the nebula between the stars. A suspicion of proper motion arises in such 
a case. 
3148 h. 1884=11. 148. In my Catalogue of 1833 this nebula is identified with II. 20, 
and in the Register Sheets (H. 320), under the head of II. 148, there is a memo- 
randum, “ Probably the same as II. 20 (H. 47).” But on examining all the 
observations of both nebulae, I arrive at the conclusion that they are different, 
II. 20 being nearly 2 m later in R.A. 
3170 h. 1401. Query if not =11. 38, with one degree mistaken in P.D. 
3174 See note on 3148, above. 
3177) h. 1406,1407=11. 794 (1 & 2), III. 778; h. 1428, 1435=11. 795, 796. Auwers 
3179 1 remarks, and justly, on the great apparent discordance of the observations of h. 
3206 i- and his places of II. 794, 5, 6, and those of W.H. The fact is that the places 
3216 J of these in the P.T. all rest on comparisons with e Ursae in sweeps 921 and 
3224 ) 1001 (H.) ; and the observation of that star has been erroneous or mistaken in 
sw. 921 by about 11' in P.D., as appears from an obs. of 73 Ursae in the same 
sweep. The nebulae affected by this error are those here enumerated, and it 
requires very careful consideration to disentangle all the observations of each 
nebula by both stars, and to decide on their identities. My final conclusions 
are, — 1st, that in these sweeps two distinct nebulae, II. 794, 1 and II. 794, 2, 
were observed, and confounded together under one number (=H. 2079 register). 
These are my h. 1406, 1407. 2ndly, that h. 1407 and III. 778, II. 795, 796 
are correctly determined in sw. 1001 (H.). Srdly, that in sw. 921 (H.) the 
nebula set down as II. 794 was not the same as that called II. 794 in the 
reduction of sw. 1001 ; i. e. that it was in fact h. 1406, and that in this obser- 
vation there is also an error of 6' in P.D., or that, if not, there must be still 
another nebula in P.D. 33° 54' (1860). Finally, that the plane of III. 778 
given in Phil. Tr., which is affected by the same general cause of error, requires 
a correction of +9' in P.D. 
3180 h. 1405=111. 44. This is the companion of M. 60, and is placed by M. D’Arrest 
in the first class, even with the 4^-inch Leipzig refractor. Perhaps the very 
superior light of M. 60 may have led both H. and h. to under-estimate that of 
its, anyhow, much fainter companion. 
3189 )h. 1414, 1415=1. 176, 177. These two, according to Lord Posse, are connected 
3190J by faint nebulosity. 
3206 III. 778. See note on 3174. 
3214 h. 1426=11. 181. Auwers points out a discordance of 19' in P.D. between my 
observation and that of II. 181. This is owing mainly, however, to a misprint 
in Phil. Trans. (See list of Errata.) 
