Open Cluster Naming

[glenc (Glen)]

The following 20 Open Clusters were seen by James Dunlop in 1826.
They were later given new names by other observers.
Should they be known by their original name or by their new name?
The second observer apparently did not know that the OC had already been seen.

Dunlop 224 Harvard 6
Dunlop 244 Harvard 8
Dunlop 258 Melotte 101
Dunlop 271 Melotte 105
Dunlop 290 Ruprecht 95
Dunlop 299 Ruprecht 164
Dunlop 308 Trumpler 13 uncertain
Dunlop 310 Trumpler 17
Dunlop 325 Loden 372
Dunlop 344 Collinder 299
Dunlop 358 Trumpler 23
Dunlop 372 Ruprecht 78
Dunlop 380 Ruprecht 119
Dunlop 391 Collinder 307
Dunlop 430 Markarian 18
Dunlop 455 Lynga 14
Dunlop 484 Lynga 13 uncertain
Lacaille 2.06 Dunlop 490 Trumpler 10
Dunlop 537 Trumpler 25
Dunlop 596 Ruprecht 128

[Dennis]

Hi Glen

I would personally like to see them referenced by the original discoverer’s designation, in recognition of his achievements and out of respect for the man.

Cheers

Dennis

[[1ponders] (Paul)]

Ditto with Dennis.

There is precedence here in the botanical field. If a plant has been given a name and description by someone and subsequent to that it is found that there is a pre-existing description and name by another botanist (published or not), then the name is normally changed to that originally described, as long as it doesn't contravene present nomenclature rules.