Talk:IAU designated constellations

Misc

Constellations are recognized not only by their patterns, but also by the bright stars in them. Is there any page that lists both the constellations and their prominent stars (or vice versa). I found individual stars and constellations lists, but not a page that has got both lists, maybe as a table. Jay 20:50, Sep 17, 2003 (UTC)

---

Would it be better to alphabetize Carina, Puppis, Pyxis, and Vela in the second group, and maybe make Argo italic? - Jeandré, 2004-03-31t11:11z

the constellations are named after heroines ar heroes.what people say its greek mythology.

[i hope you use my message]

Boundaries

_ _ The article says

precise boundaries for each constellation, so that every point in the sky belonged to exactly one constellation

Well, as every careful high-school geometry student knows, boundaries alone can't do that. For each pair of adjacent two constellations, you would have to know which of the two owns the boundary itself. And for many points (half, or a third of them, i guess) where 3 or more meet, you need to know which constellation owns that single point.
_ _ I'm not suggesting the article say that, just that something a little vaguer be said. (In practice, it must be the case that occasionally a nova falls close to a boundary, and two observers may describe it as being in different constellations, unless actual practice is more pragmatic and uses something like "within X micro-degrees of the boundary between J and K". I.e., it's worth discussing why anyone but pedants would want to have such a scheme as Delporte's. All i have to offer on that is original research, so i offer no edit. It's also likely that constellations are mentioned only in the abstracts of professional articles, with coordinates and their experimental errors, and of course the magnitude of the star, actually specifying how to identify it.)
--Jerzy•t 15:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Intro

The introduction ("From the dawn of time...") is quite unnecessary. Information about what constellations are shouldn't be found on a list page, IMHO. --203.122.211.204 03:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ursa Major family??

Why? The so called families seems to have no common point. Said: Rursus (☻) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I've finally removed them! Skeptic2 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This article is biased towards Western culture

Native American, African and Asian cultures have been stargazing for years. Why are their constellations neglected in this article? 76.104.28.221 (talk) 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This article is about the IAU's list of standard constellations (including their history, so the mention of Greek astronomy is appropriate), and the only thing that's wrong is that the article title doesn't say so. So I'm deleting the "Not a worldwide view" tag and adding a "requested move" tag instead. --142.205.241.254 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 21:56, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

---

List of constellations → List of standard constellations – See preceding section alleging the article was biased, when it's only the title that was misleading. (As an unregistered user, I can't do the actual move myself; someone else can do that when there's consensus.) --142.205.241.254 (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, the title seems appropriate. The term "constellation", unqualified with any adjective, means one of the modern constellations universally recognized by astronomers. This is similar to, say, List of sovereign states, with a separate List of former sovereign states article. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 02:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a List of IAU constellations. "standard constellation" fails the nominator's concerns about the current title as well. -- 76.65.131.160 (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Petrus Plancius

In the list it is claimed that shortly before 1600 twelve southern constellations were created by Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman. These constellations were actually created by Petrus Plancius who used the stellar observations of Keyser and De Houtman. I propose that we give credit to the person who actually formed these constellations and first put them on a celestial globe. AstroLynx (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Plancius left no direct evidence that he created these southern constellations (unlike Columba, Camelopardalis, and Monoceros). The ideas may well have come from Keyser or (more likely) de Houtman. Our unqualified attribution to Keyser and de Houtman does overstate the case, however. I'd be happy with attributing them to Plancius, with a footnote indicating that he may have gotten some or all of them from Keyser and de Houtman, on whose observations they are based. Elphion (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

In late 1597 (or early 1598) the Amsterdam globe maker Jodocus Hondius the Elder published, in collaboration with Petrus Plancius, a 35-cm celestial globe which first depicted these constellations. They were based on the observations of Pieter Dirckszoon Keyser (and possibly also by Frederick de Houtman). The former died before returning to Holland and there is no evidence that he had arranged his stellar observations into new constellations. Plancius was the "constellation maker" -- he had already added Columba and Triangulum Australe on an earlier celestial globe and some 15 years later he again added several new constellations such as Monoceros and Camelopardalis on a celestial globe.

Best would be to credit Plancius with the formation of the 12 southernmost constellations but add in a footnote that the stellar observations were made by Pieter Dirckszoon Keyser and possibly also by Frederick de Houtman. The role of the latter is actually not clear -- he did make a second voyage to the East Indies during which he made a second survey of which the results were published in a star catalogue in 1603. I would also remove (or at least modify) the reference to Bayer's Uranometria as his atlas is not the earliest cartographic medium on which they first appeared -- they were clearly copied from the Hondius/Plancius globe (or from another pre-1603 celestial globe based on that of Hondius/Plancius) AstroLynx (talk) 12:03, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above, with the proviso that the footnote should indicate that while it is likely that Plancius himself devised the southern constellations, Keyser or de Houtman may deserve some of the credit. Allen's account (under Apus, p. 44–45) is worth reading; he sums up by quoting Ideler: [the 12 southern constellations'] origin "is involved in an obscurity that it is scarcely possible to penetrate." (Added:) Our discussion of this at Petrus Plancius also overstates the case, implying that they are due to Plancius -- but the source provided is Ridpath, who is somewhat more circumspect. -- Elphion (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Note that Allen's Star Names is now rather out-dated and preference should be given to Ridpath's publications -- he is perhaps circumspect but he does not make claims which cannot be verified. Again, there is no evidence that Keyser -- about whom we know nearly nothing -- did anything more than provide the raw stellar data. When De Houtman published his star catalogue in 1603 he used the constellation names found on the Hondius/Plancius globe, he did not add any new constellations. AstroLynx (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

None of that is evidence that Plancius invented the constellations. Yes, Allen is an older source, but he is quoting witnesses from the time, and that doesn't go out of date. Bayer himself credited de Houtman (among others). Neither Ridpath nor any other historically rigorous source I've seen gives Plancius complete credit. We just don't have the evidence. -- Elphion (talk) 00:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Bayer doesn't mention De Houtman, nor was he aware of his star catalogue. Bayer does refer to Keyser as "Petrus Theodori" who is mentioned as thus on the Hondius/Plancius globes. Given Plancius's earlier and later constellation forming activities while there is absolutely no evidence that Keyser (before his death) or De Houtman ever engaged in constellation formation argues in favour of Plancius as their creator. I am not attempting to belittle the contributions of Keyser or De Houtman -- these are of course vital, without their observations Plancius could never have produced his improved celestial globes, but credit should be given where credit is due. AstroLynx (talk) 08:15, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake: I meant Blaeu, not Bayer. Unfortunately I'm away from my books for a while, so can't check much of this. The problem I see is that no modern historian seems willing to say flatly that they are due to Plancius. It seems reasonable, but the historical trail is so clouded that I'd be uncomfortable with an claim without hedges. See in particular Thayer's note at the bottom of [1] -- Elphion (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Elly Dekker, a noted historian of celestial cartography, provides clear evidence in her publications cited on the talk page of Petrus Plancius that it was Plancius who created the constellations from the raw stellar data of PDK (and possibly FdH). If we cite her paper(s) there should be no problem of inadequate sourcing. AstroLynx (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting what Dekker says, as well as the discussion at talk:Petrus Plancius, which concludes (correctly, I think) that the credit cannot be assigned wholly to Plancius without some measure of doubt. Plancius deserves credit for publicizing the constellation on the celestial globe, but it's impossible to say at this point just who contributed what. Even using Dekker to support Plancius, there are sufficient other sources who are reluctant, and they should also be taken into account. The weight of the sources says pretty clearly that Plancius deserves much of the credit, but that observations and ideas of Keyser and De Houtman were part of the mix. -- Elphion (talk) 19:55, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I see that differently, Elly Dekker is quite clear. On p. 467 of her 1987 paper ("Early Explorations of the Southern Celestial Sky", Annals of Science, vol. 44, pp. 439-470) she writes "Summing up, we conclude that Petrus Plancius was, more than anybody else, inclined to and capable of forming new constellations from the newly recorded stars. Since he alone had access to the data gathered by Keyser and the other lovers of astronomy, he alone had the opportunity to do so. It is hard to believe that he would have refrained from it under the circumstances. Therefore, Petrus Plancius and no one else deserves the credit for having introduced and named the twelve new constellations of the southern sky." Her paper is the most detailed study of all the sources related this subject and her conclusion should not dismissed lightheartedly. Many of the other recent publications on this topic which argue otherwise still seem to base their conclusions on rather outdated sources such as Allen or Knobel. AstroLynx (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as you say, I see that differently. Your snippet from Dekker shows her dealing in probabilities, not clearly documented facts. As I said above, I don't currently have access to source material, so I can't really pursue this further. However, the question is not really "Did Plancius create the constellations?" Rather it involves whether he was influenced by ideas from Keyser and De Houtman, as other sources suggest. -- Elphion (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Elly Dekker argues convincingly that Plancius was not influenced by Keyser and De Houtman in his choice of forming the constellations, he only used their star observations. You should try to read her paper before you bluntly dismiss it as "dealing in probabilities" -- it really sounds lame when you criticize a source when you have actually never read it. She used the same (and more) primary sources as the other authors you prefer to follow -- so how is her research less reliable?

In order to wrap up this discussion we could perhaps compromise by tentatively attributing the creation of the constellations to Plancius but mention in a footnote that opinion is divided whether Plancius created these constellations or that they were created by Keyser and De Houtman. AstroLynx (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I've been suggesting all along: the likelihood is that Plancius formed the constellations, but that it's not entirely clear whose the original ideas were. I will look up Dekker's article when I have a chance, but what I was criticizing was not the article but the snippet posted above. If that is indeed the crux of her argument, I don't find it convincing. -- Elphion (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I was away from WP during the past few days. If you have problems in accessing Elly Dekker's paper from the Annals of Science website, you can always download a digital copy of her paper from Sci-Hub. AstroLynx (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

More on Plancius

Apologies for not getting back to this sooner; but I have now studied Dekker's paper above in detail, and find that it does not significantly change my position. The chief value of the paper is in establishing that de Houtman's observations on the second voyage were in fact independent of observations made on the first voyage – that de Houtman's 1603 catalog honestly represents observations he himself made, and that they were not cribbed from positions observed on the first voyage (with the possible exception of Indus), and that they are generally (but not entirely) more accurate than the earlier observations.

Dekker's arguments for attributing the constellations to Plancius, however, are not nearly as solid. She relies on two principles: first that we should not assume that the observer is necessarily responsible for the constellation, and second that Plancius was an inveterate inventor of constellations ("Evidently, Plancius could not withstand the temptation to make new constellations, whenever he had the opportunity to do so.", p. 466). (I trust it is clear that this quote seriously overstates the case!)

The first principle is certainly sound, but so is the reverse: we should not assume that when a constellation shows up on a chart by Plancius that he in fact invented it. The non-Ptolemaic southern items on his first 1589 globe are all things that have been reported by earlier mariners: the Southern Cross, the Southern Triangle, and the Magellanic Clouds – and they are all shown by Plancius in erroneous positions. Clearly he does not yet have hard data, and is simply reporting hearsay. The maps of 1592/4 add Polophilax and Columba – but the previous items are still in erroneous positions, so he still obviously does not have hard data. I think it is reasonable to assume that the two new items are again items he has heard about but has no good observations for. Columba, after all, is an obvious asterism in the blank reach between Canopus and Sirius, and the theme of Noah's Dove is quite different than the tack taken by any of the later constellations – while one can easily imagine navigators thinking of Noah's Dove as they desperately hope to find land.

These early charts show Plancius being quite conservative, hardly eager to create constellations just for their own sake. What he really wants at this stage is simply to chart the unknown stars – which will naturally mean forming them into constellations, since that's how navigators of the time expected charts to show them. But until he gets hard data from the first voyage (from both Keyser and de Houtman), his hands are tied.

Forming constellations involves several steps: observing the stars, grouping them into asterisms, naming the groups, and matching the individual stars to specific positions in the figure that represents them. The first three at least are natural steps for navigators. Dekker acknowledges that Keyser would probably have performed the first two; but then opines that "it is unlikely" that Keyser (and presumably also de Houtman) would come up with names. Why ever not?? It would certainly have facilitated keeping track of the observations, and navigators routinely come up with names for asterisms. So I am not convinced. Plancius may well have named them, but so may also the two navigators (working together, as they probably did, despite Dekker's suspicion to the contrary), since (with the exception of Phoenix) the new names are for things they would have seen on this and earlier voyages.

In sum, since the data from the first voyage have almost all been lost, the responsibility for the names (and the constellations in general) seems to be still quite murky, and crediting all three men with these constellations (as we agreed at the end of the previous section, and as most modern sources do) is indeed the reasonable solution. (I do suspect, as indicated above, that TrA and Col predate the Dutch. The former clearly predates Plancius, and the latter may do so as well.)

-- Elphion (talk) 19:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow-up: In particular in this WP article I propose replacing "1603, Uranometria, created by Keyser and de Houtman" with "1597, Keyser, de Houtman, Plancius" for all of "Bayer's Dozen" except TrA. For Crux, TrA and Col I would propose something like "charted by Plancius in 1589" (or 1592 for Col). -- Elphion (talk) 19:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

For the moment this is fine with me. Here are some notes on your posting. Columba was formed in 1592 from the 'unformed' stars between Canis Major and Argo Navis. The data was already present in Ptolemy's star list, there was no need to perform new observations. Plancius did the same again in 1612/13 when he formed eight more constellations from the 'unformed' stars which Ptolemy listed elsewhere between several (mainly northern) constellations. The reason why Crux and TrA are so wrongly placed on the 1589 globe is probably due to the fact that Plancius only had the crude map which Andrea Corsali published in 1517 which showed Crux, the Magellanic Clouds and some other bright unlabelled stars but without any indication how to link them with the already known Ptolemaic stars. The bright stars of Crux had already been listed (though with large errors) by Ptolemy as part of Centaurus but this was not recognized until Plancius had received Keyser's data in 1597. AstroLynx (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware of all that. And a southern triangle had already been mentioned before Plancius. (TrA is perhaps the most obvious asterism in the deep southern sky beyond Crux, after all.) But when you say without qualification that Columba was formed in 1592 from informes, all we actually know is that Plancius showed it then on his map in a period when he is being fairly cautious. There's no real evidence that he in fact created it, and a reasonable case to be made that he did not. He may have realized that the stars were Ptolemaic, though the figure is not placed very precisely in relation to CMa and Nav. But the precedent for carving new constellations from Ptolemaic informes wasn't really set until Keyser and de Houtman brought back solid observations showing that Ptolemy's catalog already included the stars of the universally recognized Crux -- and only several years after that did Plancius really begin to use informes for new constellations. And as a stickler for accuracy, he evidently stuck with informes he could actually see, for his new 1613 constellations are all above the Dutch horizon.

The main point I'm making here is that we need to be careful about drawing firm conclusions when reasonable alternative explanations exist -- that Plancius was carving out new constellations as early as 1592, or that Keyser and de Houtman did not have a significant role in developing and naming Bayer's Dozen. While it is reasonable to assign Columba to Plancius, it is not a slam dunk, and definitely not a solid reason to think that Plancius must have taken the lead in forming the constellations of 1598.

Elphion (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Remember no original research. Right or wrong, if it takes a thousand words to justify it, it probably shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article. Find a source that states something fairly clearly, then you only need to argue if sources conflict. Again, right or wrong, secondary and tertiary sources will provide a "consensus position" and that's what the article should say. Lithopsian (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Most sources I'm aware of assign Bayer's dozen to some combination of Plancius, Keyser, and de Houtman. Dekker's opinion that Plancius deserves most of the credit is only one voice in that chorus. That's why I'm suggesting crediting all three in the table, perhaps with a note somewhere acknowledging that precise credit at this point is hard to determine. Most sources award Col to Plancius, and I'm OK with that. (Ptolemy, after all, did not create most of the Ptolemaic constellations either.) I think TrA deserves a reffed note saying that "a southern triangle" had already been reported in the southern sky before it appeared on the globes of 1589 and 1598. -- Elphion (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Genitives

It wouldn't hurt if this article explained why the genitive form of the constellation names is important. Not all of us speak latin, these days.--82.29.136.2 (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I wikilinked it, which is a start. More detailed explanations might be better somewhere else, for example Bayer designation, although the genitive form is also used in Flamsteed designations and variable star designations. Perhaps a mention here that the genitive is used in such designations. Lithopsian (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Moved

This was previously moved, with no discussion, to 88 modern constellations; that broke MOS:NUMNOTES, and invited one to answer in what way a constellation can be "modern": there are no new stars visible to the human eye, and those on the list have all been named since at least 1765. No source in the article uses the name without inverted commas, and the phrase is absent from the article. I trust the current title is acceptable. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I support the move to this title (i.e. IAU designated constellations). Agree with issues with the word "modern" etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hyphenation? Lithopsian (talk) 21:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

'NASA' list

Isn't the NASA list of names now obsolete? It's the same as the IAU four-letter abbreviations from 1932, repealed in 1955. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

If I may return to this point, since no one else has commented: The so-called 'NASA abbreviations' in the table are actually the IAU four-letter abbreviations of 1932 which were dropped in 1955. The NASA Dictionary of Technical Terms for Aerospace Use (NASA SP-7), given as the reference for this column, was published in 1965 and never updated. The only abbreviations now used are the three-letter ones. Since these four-letter abbreviations are now obsolete (and have been for over 50 years), do we need them in this table? Skeptic2 (talk) 09:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Obsolescence doesn't mean we should just bury it. An encyclopedia talks about a lot of old stuff (e.g., old constellations). It's worth including the old 4-letter abbreviations precisely because there are historical sources (like NASA) that refer to them. But I agree that "IAU" vs "NASA" is the wrong way to present them. What you just said above ought to be added to the "Abbreviations" section in the article: that IAU originally published 2 sets, that one was abandoned in the 50s, but nevertheless was picked up by NASA in the 60s. -- Elphion (talk) 10:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I finally got round to doing what you suggested! Skeptic2 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Constellation families

User Tsan.kuang.lee (talk · contribs) has twice now added Menzel's "constellation family" as a column in the table. Though this was once a thing, owing to Menzel's widely circulated field guide, no one uses these any more, as they are not particularly well designed and are in addition historically inaccurate. Even the field guide has dropped them. This column should be deleted. I have no objection to a link to Donald Howard Menzel#Menzel's ''Field Guide'', which lists the various families and their constituent constellations. But that information should not be duplicated here. -- Elphion (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the above. The column should go, and never return. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree with their removal/deletion - I remember trying (and failing) to find any references for them. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I too would support the removal/deletion of the historically inaccurate Menzel "constellation-family" column. AstroLynx (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I am the one who tried to add this, unaware that this is obsolete. I am OK with remove them. Thanks for the clarification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsan.kuang.lee (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for removing them. Skeptic2 (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Plancius, again

After that long discussion above about the "Bayer" constellations, we still list the source as Uranometria. I propose replacing

1603, Uranometria, created by Keyser and de Houtman

with

1598, Plancius et al.[ref to footnote]

and the following footnote:

With the exception of Triangulum Australe (which was mentioned but not precisely charted earlier), these southern constellations first appeared on a globe engraved by Jodocus Hondius and published by Petrus Plancius in 1598. The constellations were based on observations by Dutch navigators Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman, who were commissioned by Plancius to chart the southern sky on a voyage to what is now Indonesia. It is no longer clear who formed the observations into the constellations shown on the globe, and modern authors generally give credit to some combination of Kaiser, de Houtmann, and Plancius. The constellations are also widely but incorrectly attributed to Johann Bayer, since they first became widely known from his star atlas Uranometria, published in 1603.

-- Elphion (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Chart

I’ve added a chart to this page but it keeps getting removed with unhelpful comments. The first version of the chart was removed by User:Skeptic2 because it used coloring based on Menzel families. So I replaced it with a fixed version, but now it’s being removed again, this time by User:Lithopsian, for no discernible reason. Please either elaborate or fix the chart appropriately, but stop deleting meaningful contributions. Thank you. — Timwi (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I suspect Lithopsian assumed it was the Menzel family image again. I've seen no discussion about this particular image, and I have no particular objection to it. -- Elphion (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Since you are the one who wishes to add it, I would respectfully suggest that it is up to you to make it acceptable, i.e. by removing the coloring which groups the constellations into the so-called Menzel families. Skeptic2 (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. The filenames are very similar and I mistakenly thought the offending image was being added again. The current one looks OK, although I can't help thinking there must be a better image out there somewhere. Lot of information to fit into one rectangle though, so maybe this is as clear as it gets. Lithopsian (talk)

In addition to the present version with apparently random coloring it may also be useful to have a more informative one in four colors indicating the constellations known in antiquity and described by Claudius Ptolemy in the Almagest, the constellations added (or first correctly placed) by Petrus Plancius, the constellations added by Johannes Hevelius and the constellations added by Nicolas-Louis de Lacaille. AstroLynx (talk) 13:46, 16 December 2022 (UTC)