Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ngcles
As for the NGC/IC etc etc, I believe Dryer in compiling the NGC set out with the intention of consolidating all discoveries into one catalogue. He leaned heavily on Herschel's "general catalogue". I think Dryer tried to make one "be-all-and-end-all" master list that would include everything that guys like Messier, Lacaille, Dunlop, Herschel(s) etc etc.
|
Yes Les, I think Dreyer was trying to do the "right thing". And in most, I think he succeeded. But who started the IC catalogue? why couldn't they continue adding onto the end of the NGC.
I guess everyone who comes along in history believes
their catalogue and
nomenclature will be the definitive in their time, and presumably into the future. (mmm, I might start my own catalogue!!)
I agree with naming such as Omega Centauri, but I can stare at images of the 'Eagle Nebula' for hours and I still cannot see an eagle! My point is that naming an object by what shape it depicts can be very subjective, from the point of view of the observer. If sombrero hats were not as popular outside the Americas, would we feel as comfortable with the 'alternative' name for M104?
hoo roo, Steve