34 
SIR J. F. W. HERSCHEL’S CATALOGUE 
No. 
3820 h. 1763=111. 804=111. 835. The identity of these nebulae rests on a memoran- 
dum in MS. in my copy of Ph. Tr., supported by the reductions of all the obs. 
by C.H. in 3 sweeps, each with two determining stars. Auwers makes them 
differ by 14' in P.D. 
3836 III. 551. Place concluded from h. 1772=111. 552 from H.’s description, viz. 
that it precedes that nebula by 3' or 4' (3' 30") =14® of time. 
3844 h. 1777=111. 347. Auwers makes A. P.D. = —59', but observes that there must 
be some misprint. Examining all, I find that such is the case (see List of Errata), 
which recognized, shows that 1° has been mistaken, and the identity is therefore 
proved. 
3846 h. 1779=1. 144. Auwers makes the P.D. (1830)=86° 30', and H. — h.=l° 14'. 
The cause of the discordance is a misprint in P.T. (see List of Errata), in conse- 
quence of which the nebula is 1° 13' north of its printed place, 
h. 1789, 1788, 1791=111. 416, 417. Lord Posse says that of these three only 
3859!- two were found. The obs. in sw. 28 re-examined — 1789 and 1791 were both 
observed. Moreover, in sw. 337, III. 417=h. 1791 and h. 1788 were both 
observed, and 1791 is expressly stated to have been the sf of two seen in moon- 
light. Now the np of these could not be h. 1789, which is eF and not north, 
but south preceding, whereas h. 1788 by its place in sw. 338 is np. All three* 
therefore, really existed at the date of these observations. It was h. 1789 (eF) 
which escaped Lord Posse’s notice, though looked for with greater instrumental 
power. Perhaps it may have changed. 
3863 III. 135. Auwers’sP.D. for 1830 is 63° O'. C.H. reduced to 1830 gives 62° 50' 20". 
Auwers has used (P.T.) 1° 5' n. of d , 12 Bootis; C.H. 1° 16' n. of the same #. 
C.H. is to be preferred on every account to P.T. Her A.P.D.’s are grounded 
on a most complete and searching re-examination and recomputation ( according 
to the then existing star catalogues) of all the data (in the earlier sweeps most 
obscure — -foliis sibyllinis obscuriora ) for determining the degrees and minutes of 
P.D. from the index numbers. In almost every case I find her corrections (or 
rather interpretations) to be justified ; and I have no doubt that in this parti- 
cular instance such will prove the case, though here I confess myself, after con- 
sulting the original sweep, unable to perceive the reason for the deviation. 
3888 III. 319, Auwers, following P.T., which places the nebula 2° 26' north of /3 Ur see 
min., makes the P.D. 1830 =12° 46', and so it stands in the Register sheet 
(H. 864). But it should be 2° 26' south. So C.H. has used it, and so it proves 
to be on reference to the original sweep, sw. 391 (H.), giving for the P.D. 
17° 36' 12". 
3920 h. 1832=11. 695. Not seen by Lord Posse in one observation. See note on 
No. 132. 
3922 h. 3573= A. 342. In Auwers’s list of Lacaille’s nebulse, he sets down for the 
