h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Constellations: Telescopium 'the Telescope' - A39294813
Author: Gnomon [151] - U151503

Now that Lacerta has been picked, I think it is time for this constellations entry to go into Peer Review. I don't want PR swamped with stars, so I'm putting my ones in one at a time.

I've seen this comment on one of the earlier 'Constellations' Entries, but can't recall what the answer was.

Isn't there a better word that one can use for 'inventing' constellations It doesn't look/sound right IMO

I remember Bel objected to the word "invent", but I think it is the correct word. The stars are there already, but the constellations are purely artificial groupings of them.

Yes, I just looked up 'Invent' in my Roget's Thesaurus, and the first word that it directed me to was 'imagine'. I wondered whether 'imagined' might be a better word? Also in the list of words with the same meaning was 'ideate'. I like that better than 'invent' (because, to me, an 'invention' is something that you can create and holds physically). However, I guess 'ideate' is a bit pompous

I could use devise or imagine.

In your opinion, can you invent a theory, a mathematical model or an explanation?

Well, I guess it's not incorrect , but personally I would 'devise' a theory etc.

... but 'devise' doesn't seem to be the correct word for a constellation because, to me, to devise something implies that one can manipulate it .

Postulate?

I think I would still go with 'imagine'

I've been using "delineate" - "to trace the outline of"; "to depict in words"; "to draw".

I'll go read the Entry now

OK, I've changed it from "invented by the French astronomer" to "first imagined by the French astronomer". But I'm not convinced by this, so if anyone has a better suggestion, I'll consider it.

Are you not convinced by "delineated"?


Corona Austrina (twice) = Corona Australis

postumously = posthumously

Abbé should be Abbé

<>
That shouldn't be in the "History" section, it should be in the opening description.

*NGC 6868* and *epsilon, alpha and zeta Telescopii*, should be in bold tags to match your other constellation components.

Love the update on Voyager 2 - I was just wondering where that was now, the other day

Thanks for writing this, Gnomon

GB

Thanks, GB. I've rejigged the first section and the History section so that the description of the constellation is in the first bit and the history is in the history section.

I'm unsure whether it should be Corona Austrina or Corona Australis, as both names seem to be used.

I see your point

http://www.dibonsmith.com/cra_con.htm
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/C/CrA.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/space/myspace/constellationguide/corona_australis.shtml
http://www.ianridpath.com/startales/coronaaustralis.htm
= Corona Australis

http://www.astro.wisc.edu/~dolan/constellations/constellations/Corona_Austrina.html
= Corona Austrina

Wiki goes with both...

...but the diagram of the original here: http://www.ianridpath.com/startales/coronaaustralis.htm
shows (quote) <>

I'll go by whatever it says in the Norton Star Atlas, which I'll check when I get home, unless you've a copy to hand.

Another good one, Gnomon.

I like the 'imagine' instead of 'invent', but then you'll not be surprised by that.

The Norton's 2000.0 gives it as Corona Australis.

With regard to the constellation's originator, I believe that La Caille’s name should be written 'de la' with a space after 'la' and a capital C.

Convention seems to have brought in the capital L and the space being missed. From your text Abbé Nicolas Louis de Lacaille should be:

Abbé Nicolas Louis de la Caille.

When using the surname only, it is 'La Caille'.

Deke

I took it to be Nicolas Louis de Lacaille from his SEDS bio:

http://seds.org/messier/xtra/Bios/lacaille.html