Per Dreyer, IC 3000 (DeLisle Stewart #358, 1860 RA 11 58 57, NPD 118 54) is "faint, indistinct (possible defect)". The position precesses to RA 12 06 08.4, Dec -29 40 46, but there is nothing there, save for a 16th-magnitude spiral galaxy that would have been listed as "extremely faint" or more likely, "most extremely faint", and Stewart and Dreyer's suspicion that #358 was a plate defect is almost certainly correct.

Apparent size 0.8 by 0.3 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.5 by 0.5 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 3003 (Javelle #1212, 1860 RA 11 59 59, NPD 56 22.1) is "faint, small, diffuse, nuclear, mottled but not resolved". The position precesses to RA 12 07 07.4, Dec +32 51 08, several arcmin from any suitable candidate. Per Corwin, the problem is that for this and his #1208 (= IC 2993) Javelle misidentified the comparison star. Using the correct star positively identifies PGC 38490 as the object Javelle observed. Apparent size 0.8 by 0.6 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.0 by 0.9 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.3 by 0.4 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 3006 (Frost #796, 1860 RA 12 00 15, NPD 76 14) is "round, brighter middle, 15th magnitude". The position precesses to RA 12 07 24.6, Dec +12 59 14, about 2 arcmin southeast of a 14th-magnitude star that is sometimes identified as IC 3006. However (per Corwin), Frost's description doesn't really match the appearance of a starlike object, and a nearly 30 years later description by Adelaide Ames based on the same plate is definitely not that of a stellar object; so Frost's #796 was almost certainly a plate defect, and IC 3006 does not correspond to any real object.

Apparent size 0.3 by 0.2 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.4 arcmin.

Per Corwin probably a plate defect, as nothing in the area resembles Schwassmann's description.

Apparent size 1.9 by 1.8 arcmin.

(This entry will only contain historical information; for anything else, see NGC 4119.) Herschel's early observations were not as accurate as his later ones, and a poor position for his initial observation of this galaxy led to its being assigned two NGC numbers and (much later on) an IC number as well. Per Corwin, Schwassmann's position is essentially identical to that of the NGC listing, so it must have just been an oversight on his and Dreyer's part that led to the IC listing.

Based on a recessional velocity of 9715 km/sec, IC 3012 is about 450 million light years away. Given that and its apparent size of 0.8 by 0.4 arcmin, it is about 100 thousand light years across.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.7 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.2 by 0.8 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.9 by 0.7 arcmin.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.6 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 7) of the Virgo Cluster.

Per Dreyer, IC 3017 (Frost #801, 1860 RA 12 02 15, NPD 75 37) is "round, brighter middle, diffuse, magnitude 14.5". The position precesses to RA 12 09 24.1, Dec +13 36 14, between two galaxies, but closer to the fainter northern one. The brighter southern one was also observed by Frost on the same night (as Frost #802 = IC 3018, which see for more about this), and if not for an error in the NPD of that object, the identification of the two galaxies would have been simple. Unfortunately, Frost made a 30 arcmin error in the NPD for the southern nebula, so that instead of being recorded as 2 arcmin to the south of Frost #801, it was listed as 28 arcmin to the north. As a result the fainter northern galaxy is usually incorrectly referred to as IC 3018, and the brighter southern one as IC 3017. A future iteration of this page will discuss the situation in more detail, but for now it suffices to say that the identifications given here, though backwards from the usual ones, are absolutely certain. Apparent size 0.4 by 0.3 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 3018 (Frost #802, 1860 RA 12 02 21, NPD 75 09) is "round, a little brighter middle, magnitude 13.5". There is little doubt that Frost's polar distance should have read "NPD 75 39", as with that 30 arcmin correction his observations of IC 3017 and 3018 agree reasonably well in position and brightness with the two galaxies involved. Unfortunately, due to the positional error most references incorrectly assign the brighter southern galaxy to the entry for IC 3017 and the fainter northern galaxy to the entry for IC 3018 (and some assign both entries to the brighter galaxy). However, per Corwin (referring to Adelaide Ames' later examination of Frost's plate), there is no doubt that the northern object is IC 3017 and the southern IC 3018. (A future iteration of this page will discuss the situation in more detail.) Apparent size 0.6 by 0.2 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 10) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 1.4 by 1.3 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 9) of the Virgo Cluster.

Based on a recessional velocity of 20845 km/sec, a straightforward calculation indicates that IC 3020 is about 970 million light years away. However, for objects at such distances we should take into account the Universal expansion during the time it took their light to reach us. Doing that shows that the galaxy was about 895 million light years away at the time the light by which we see it was emitted, about 925 million years ago (the difference between the two numbers being due to the expansion of the intervening space during the light-travel time). Given that and its apparent size of 0.4 by 0.3 arcmin, IC 3020 is about 100 thousand light years across.

Apparent size 0.9 by 0.6 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 15) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 2.9 by 0.9 arcmin.

Apparent size 1.3 by 0.6 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 17) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 1.0 by 0.4 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 18) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.7 by 0.4 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 21) of the Virgo Cluster.

Per Corwin, this must have been a defect on the plate used to photograph the area. Stewart gives offsets of the supposed object relative to IC 764 in his entries for both objects, and they agree with the position Dreyer recorded in the IC2; so the fact that there is nothing at that position means the observation had nothing to do with any celestial body.

Per Corwin, Adelaide Ames (while compiling her Virgo Cluster catalog) noted that this was a defect on the plate Frost used.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.2 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 24) of the Virgo Cluster. (Note: A Wikisky search for IC 3028 shows an empty area southwest of the galaxy, but the galaxy is properly labeled with its PGC number.)

Apparent size 1.4 by 0.4 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 27) of the Virgo Cluster.

Per Corwin, Frost's position was confirmed by Adelaide Ames, using the same plate; so the IC position must be correct, and the fact that there is nothing there means the "object" must have been a plate defect.

Apparent size 0.7 by 0.1 arcmin. Edge-on, so impossible to determine an accurate type without far better images.

Apparent size 1.0 by 0.9 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 33) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 1.1 by 0.7 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 34) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.2 arcmin. Vr 18880 km/sec, so several hundred million light years away.

Per Dreyer, IC 3035 (Schwassmann #222, 1860 RA 12 05 04, NPD 75 58.4) is "faint, considerably small". The position precesses to RA 12 12 12.6, Dec +13 14 51, right on the galaxy, so the identification is certain. The failure to recognize the equality with NGC 4165 (which see for anything else) is presumably due to the two arcmin error in d'Arrest's position (as discussed at the NGC entry); but there is no doubt that both entries apply to the same galaxy. (Per Corwin, an earlier reference incorrectly equated IC 3035 with the much fainter galaxy to the north of NGC 4165, but Schwassmann's 6-inch telescope couldn't have photographed that with the plates at his disposal.)

Apparent size 1.6 by 1.2 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 48) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.4 by 0.3 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 51) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.8 by 0.5 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 57) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 1.0 by 0.3 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 59) of the Virgo Cluster. An unusually bright nucleus, but not listed as a Seyfert galaxy, so perhaps a chance alignment with a foreground star?

Apparent size 0.7 by 0.6 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 60) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.2 arcmin.

Per Corwin, the duplicate listing was due to a simple oversight on Schwassmann's part. He did not include the NGC number in his table of Virgo Cluster objects, and Dreyer didn't notice the equality with NGC 4178 (which see for anything else).

Apparent size 0.7 by 0.2 arcmin.

Apparent size 2.0 by 0.8 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 67) of the Virgo Cluster.

Per Corwin, this is almost certainly a defect on Schwassmann's plate. There is nothing at his position, let alone anything that matches his description ("pretty bright or pretty faint, considerably small, nucleus south of middle, nucleus equivalent to 10.5 magnitude star, small pointed nucleus"). The eccentrically positioned, bright nucleus especially reminds Corwin of the appearance of blemishes found near the edges of glass plates.

Apparent size 1.3 by 0.3 arcmin. Listed as a member (VCC 76) of the Virgo Cluster.

Apparent size 0.4 by 0.2 arcmin.

Per Dreyer, IC 3048 (Schwassmann #226, 1860 RA 12 06 14, NPG 76 09.1) is "faint, small, possibly a 13th-magnitude star". The position precesses to RA 12 13 22.4, Dec +13 04 10, almost midway between a pair of faint stars. Per Corwin, the 14th-magnitude western star is probably Schwassmann's #226, as his recorded positions are usually a little east of the objects he observed (so I have used the position of that star as the position for IC 3048). But not having seen the original plate (which appears to have gone missing), Corwin supposes that it might have shown a blended image of the brighter star and the 15th magnitude star to its east; so it is barely possible that IC 3048 is the pair (barely possible in that given their separation, a blended image of the two stars should have looked like an extended, less starlike object than what Schwassmann described).

Per Dreyer, IC 3049 (Frost #825, 1860 RA 12 06 28, NPD 74 45) is "round, perhaps a planetary nebula, magnitude 16". The position precesses to RA 12 13 36.1, Dec +14 28 16, less than an arcmin southeast of a pair of faint galaxies. Per Corwin, IC 3049 is probably the closer, more compact, higher-surface brightness member of the pair (PGC 200284), but not having had a chance to look at Frost's plate, supposes that although the larger, lower-surface brightness member of the pair (PGC 30039, which is a member (VCC 83) of the Virgo Cluster) was probably too faint for Frost to photograph, the pair may have appeared as a single extended image (although the description as "round" argues against that possibility). Of course, modern observational tools allow the lower-surface brightness galaxy to be easily observed, and because of its larger size, to appear more impressive; so although PGC 200284 is probably Frost's IC 3049, the designation is usually applied to the pair. However, they are not a real pair, as PGC 200284, with a recessional velocity of 19040 km/sec (z = 0.063503), is hundreds of millions of light years beyond the Virgo Cluster. Apparent size of PGC 200284 = 0.45 by 0.15 arcmin, of PGC 39009 = 0.65 by 0.35 arcmin. Vr of PGC 39009 is 2440 km/sec.