NGC 2442

NGC 2442 = ESO 059-008 = N2443 = Meathook Galaxy = PGC 21373
07 36 23.9 -69 31 48
V = 10.4;  Size 5.5x4.9;  SB = 13.9

20" f/5 (7/8/02 - Magellan Observatory, Australia): at 127x (20 Nagler), the 
main body of this unusual galaxy appeared as a fairly faint, large, thick "bar" 
of just of weak concentration except for an extremely small bright core. On the 
NE end of the bar, a faint "arm" emerged at a sharp angle towards the NW.  The 
contrast was improved at 212x and the brighter arm was easier to view, extending 
at nearly a right angle to the main body and curving towards the east on the N 
side.  On the SW end, a broad, short, low surface brightness extension was 
visible bending towards the SE.  The main bar was elongated 2:1 SW-NE, roughly 
3'x1.5', but the thick outer arm significantly increased the size to ~4.5'x2'.

- by Steve Gottlieb

NGC 2442 and NGC 2443 are the southwest and northeast parts of a large bright
galaxy observed four times by JH.  The last three times, he described it as a
single large nebula, and measured a position for it that agrees very well with
the modern position.  His first observation, however, makes it "A double 
nebula, vF, vL, PA of centers = 40 deg, diameters 4' and 3' running together,
and having a star 13 mag at their junction."  This is the interpretation that
he adopted for the GC, and that Dreyer used in the NGC.  The "double star" 
that JH noted during one observation is the nucleus and a superposed star (or
a compact HII region).

In the main table, I've given the position of the nucleus under both numbers,
and have also given positions for the approximate centers of the two halves of
the galaxy. - Dr. Harold G. Corwin, Jr.

As with all corrections to the NGC and IC Catalogues, there is a certain margin
for error, even though the evidence supporting the correction may be strong and
compelling. It is with this in mind that we ask the user to use this information
as 'Most Probable', but never to assume the correction is 'Absolute'.  All
published corrections are based on an exhaustive 'paper chase' of the historical
record back to the original discoverer's published notes/papers, and are
therefore based upon the historical accuracy (or inaccuracy) of those particular
notes/papers. In short, Caveat Emptor! - Robert E. Erdmann, Jr.