Based on recessional velocity of 5275 km/sec, about 235 million light years away, the same as a redshift-independent distance estimate of 235 million light years. Given that and apparent size of 2.2 by 1.5 arcmin, about 150 thousand light years in diameter. (Note: HyperLeda incorrectly lists IC 200 as being PGC 8064. Wikisky follows this incorrect identification, so entering IC 200 in Wikisky brings up PGC 8064, which is not an NGC/IC object; enter PGC 7967 to see IC 200.)

Based on recessional velocity of 3845 km/sec, about 170 million light years away. Given that and apparent size of 0.6 by 0.5 arcmin, about 30 thousand light years in diameter.

Apparent size 0.6 by 0.6 arcmin; apparently nothing else available

Based on recessional velocity of 9120 km/sec, about 410 million light years away, in fair agreement with redshift-independent distance estimates of 340 to 355 Mpc. Given that and apparent size of 1.4 by 0.2 arcmin, about 160 thousand light years across.

Apparent size of 0.6 by 0.5 arcmin; apparently nothing else available

Based on recessional velocity of 11865 km/sec, about 530 million light years. Given that and apparent size of 0.5 by 0.5 arcmin, about 75 thousand light years across. (HyperLeda lists the galaxy as a spiral, type Sab; Steinicke lists it as an elliptical, type E3. The images are too poor to be sure which is correct.)

Corwin feels that the positions and descriptions by Javelle and Swift are sufficiently similar that either Swift or Dreyer should have realized that the two objects were the same, but neither did, so the galaxy has two IC numbers.

See NGC 867 for a discussion of the possibility that it may be the same as IC 225

Per Corwin, Leavenworth's position was nearly half a degree to the east of the correct value (a common problem with early measurements with the new Leander McCormick telescope), but his diagram and notes on the object make it clear that it was the same object that Javelle accurately measured.

Thomé's "discoveries" were made with a very small (only 5-inch aperture) telescope, and are mostly stellar objects mistaken for nebulae, or as in this case, nonexistent.

There are multiple misidentifications of this galaxy. HyperLeda identifies it as the fainter, southern galaxy of a pair, but it is actually the brighter, northern one (NED apparently made the same mistake at some time, but now shows the correct identification). Wikisky also identifies the fainter (wrong) one as IC 233, which is actually PGC 9610, and the brighter (correct) one as PGC 9622; but a Wikisky search for PGC 9622 shows a completely different galaxy, PGC 622 (this "dropping" of a leading number seems to be a common error in Wikisky searches). Based on recessional velocity of 8245 km/sec, about 370 million light years away. Given that and apparent size of 0.45 by 0.25 arcmins, about 50 thousand light years across. Since about the same distance and direction as PGC 9610, they may be a gravitationally bound pair.

Often misidentified as IC 233, which see for images. Based on recessional velocity of 8240 km/sec about 370 million light years away. Given that and apparent size of 0.3 by 0.25 arcmin, about 30 thousand light years across. Since about the same distance and direction as IC 233, they may be a gravitationally bound pair.

Per Corwin: Stephan and Javelle's positions are nearly identical, but there is a superposed star near the galaxy which Javelle apparently thought was Stephan's NGC 1051, and he therefore stated that his "new" object was definitely not the previously discovered galaxy. However, there is no doubt that they both observed the same object. Stone undoubtedly observed the same object as well, but made a 10 minute error (presumably a transcription error) in its position, so his observation was also recorded as a different NGC/IC object.