Hartung Vs Ridpath!

[mikerr (Michael)]

I received my copy of "Stars And Planets" last Friday.

You were right Suzy, it is great!

Now the confusion. In the entries for Carina, Puppis and Vela,Ridpath states that they were created from Argo Navis, by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in 1763.

In "Astronomical objects for southern telescopes" by E J Hartung, he states Carina, Puppis and Vela were created by Gould in 1877-1879.

No doubt I have the bull by the horns, but I do find it confusing.

Michael.

[IanT]

Good point you make. It is confusing. Maybe, Hartung was using the widespread scientific convention of using the latest classification accepted by peers? So, after Lacaille published his classification it was updated for the southern sky by Gould in his 'Uranometria Argentina' in 1879 (with it's Gould designations for southern stars) and this update was subsequently accepted by Hartung as being the latest and most authoritative version. This might mean that Ridpath either doesn't accept the Gould scheme or he doesn't know about it or he wants to emphasise the original and probably more historically significant classification by Lacaille? I'm sure someone else will know the real story.
Ian

[Blue Skies (Jacquie)]

I noticed that Ridpath has updated parts of Stars and Planets over the years as new information has come to light, so I would put some trust in Ridpath as being the more historically correct. Keep in mind when Hartung wrote his book and what might have been the level of knowledge at the time, or the political sway of thinking (eg lingering british imperial superiority thoughts) - things have changed greatly over the years. I'm not saying he was biased, but you don't know what he had at hand at the time.

[mikerr (Michael)]

Ian, Jacquie thanks for your input.

Maybe Gould "Rubber Stamped" Lacille's work by including the new constellations in the Uranometria.

I am going to have a look at the Bibliography in Hartung to see if there are any clues to the source he used.

After all it is still raining here.

Michael.

[gary]

Nicolas Louis de Lacaille died 21 March 1762 and his book of southern stars and
nebulae, Coelum Australe Stelliferum, was published posthumously in 1763.

It's included "Stallarum Australium Catalogus" is dated 1750.

When you look at the tables in Stallarum Australium Catalogus, you will see that
Lacaille still uses the constellation name Argûs for RA/Decs in some parts of the
sky and perhaps more specifically, Argûs in carinâ, Argûs in velis and
Argûs in puppi for others.

So though he does not appear to be calling them Carina (the keel), Vela (the sails)
and Puppis (the poop deck) outright, he certainly is starting to head in that direction.

See
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=...page&q&f=false

By the time we get to American-born Gould, he certainly seems to have purged the constellation
name Argo Navis altogether in Uranometria Argentina (published 1879) and uses Carina, Vela and Puppis.

See http://www.uranometriaargentina.com/

So perhaps the truth might end up being somewhere between the two accounts.

It would be interesting to find a reference to Carina, Vela and Puppis pre-dating Lacaille.

[Blue Skies (Jacquie)]

Originally Posted by mikerr

Ian, Jacquie thanks for your input.

Maybe Gould "Rubber Stamped" Lacille's work by including the new constellations in the Uranometria.

I am going to have a look at the Bibliography in Hartung to see if there are any clues to the source he used.

After all it is still raining here.

Michael.

I think you're on the right track there. A lot of people forget that the constellations we use today were only 'fixed'in 1930. Before that anyone could make one up, and if other astronomers accepted it, well and good. The constellation Robur Carolinum, Charles' Oak, was still in charts in the late 19th century, but I don't recall seeing it in any 20th century charts. This is just an example of a constellation falling out of fashion, so to speak. I would take the example you give as Gould accepting Lacaille's work, and perhaps Gould's book was the best reference Hartung could find at the time. Just idle thoughts on my part - might be good to note that the Messier catalogue was virtually unknown in the early 20th century, it wasn't until it went through a revival in the 1950's bought about by a historian (?Gingrich) that it attained the popularity it has today. Hope you see what I'm trying to get at.