Closed meawoppl closed 1 year ago
Further inspection has revealed that entry #118329 is also missing.
This is looking like a simple error in the numbering, not missing data.
The two catalog entries on either side of the missing ID are:
HYG 118139 = NN 3153 HYG 118141 = NN 3156
where "NN" is an obsolete label for an addition to the Gliese catalog (later versions of HYG use "GJ" for these).
These two entries occur in a block of data that came entirely from the Gliese catalog (no HIP or HR numbers) in RA order. As a result, I checked the Gliese catalog for the nearby catalog entries in RA to see if one of them was missing, a sign that a row had been accidentally deleted at some point. They are, in order:
NN 3153 = HYG 118139 NN 3154 Gl 96 Wo 9079 NN 3155 Gl 97 Gl 97.1 NN 3156 = HYG 118141
All entries between NN 3153 and NN 3156 are accounted for elsewhere in the catalog (specifically, they all corresponded to a star with a HIP ID).
A similar analysis for the stars adjacent to the ID 118329 also shows all Gliese stars in the appropriate RA range are accounted for.
I don't know exactly what happened here, but there appears to be no data loss.
No sign of data loss with the missing IDs. It's possible that at some point, there was an erroneous row (e.g., a duplicate) that was deleted.
Renumbering the catalog would break continuity with existing data references, so I am leaving these gaps in the ID sequence alone for now.
The catalogue
hygdata_v3.csv
skips between entries 118139 and 118141 omitting one entry.I suspect this is unintentional, as the sequence of ID's is otherwise unbroken.