NGC 4845

NGC 4845 = UGC 08078 = MCG +00-33-025 = CGCG 015-049 = N4910?? = PGC 44392
12 58 01.3 +01 34 33
V = 11.2;  Size 5.0x1.3;  SB = 13.1;  PA = 89d

17.5": very bright, very large, very elongated 3:1 E-W, bright core, mottled and 
dusty appearance (due to equatorial dust lane).  A mag 11.5 star is N of the E 
edge 2.0' from center and a mag 13 star is 1.3' SSE of center.  Located 12' NE 
of mag 7.0 SAO 11968.

- by Steve Gottlieb

=================================================================
NGC 4910 = N4845? = U08078 = MCG +00-33-025 = CGCG 015-049 = PGC 44392
12 58 01.3 +01 34 33

See observing notes for N4845.  Identification very uncertain.

Discovered by WH (V 3) and placed 104 min following 75 Leonis!  The position was 
not determined with accuracy according to Dreyer and there were no subsequent 
sightings by other observers.  This object was not recovered by Reinmuth and 
Carlson and it is listed as nonexistent in RNGC.  Corwin suggest that N910 may 
possibly be a duplicate observation of N4845 with a poor RA as it is the "only 
reasonable candidate."  See NGCBUGS.

- by Steve Gottlieb

NGC 4910 may possibly be NGC 4845.  There is nothing in WH's place, and Dreyer
quotes WH's note in the Scientific Papers:  "The place of this neb. is not
determined with accuracy."  Dreyer adds, "No modern observations known."

WH refered two other nebulae -- NGC 4420 and NGC 4772 -- to the same 
comparison star (75 Leo).  For N4772, Dreyer notes, "RA 40 seconds too 
great."  This suggests that WH's RA for N4910 might also be too large.  In
that case, NGC 4845 would be a candidate for WH's object.  It is a large 
galaxy at about the right declination.  However, WH describes his nebula as
"eF, vL, er, R.  7 or 8 arcmin d[iameter]."  N4845 is not quite that large,
nor is it round.  It is, however, the only reasonable candidate, so I've
adopted the identity, though with a query. - 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.