C0021m723|V5 |The period and V magnitude for V5 are from Lebzelter & Wood (2005). C0021m723|V5 |No amplitude is available from their study because Lebzelter et C0021m723|V5 |al. (2005) did not have sufficient usable data to plot a light C0021m723|V5 |curve. V5 was located on a bad area of their CCD. The V amplitude C0021m723|V5 |for V5 is from Lloyd Evans (1974) and is in good agreement with the C0021m723|V5 |value published by Arp et al. (1963). C0021m723|V9 |The period, magnitude and amplitude are from Carney et al. C0021m723|V9 |(1993) who established that the RR Lyrae star V9 is a cluster C0021m723|V9 |member, based on radial velocity measurements. This result was C0021m723|V9 |later confirmed by Storm et al. (1994) who made more extensive C0021m723|V9 |observations. C0021m723|V10 |The photographic magnitude and amplitude listed for V10 are the C0021m723|V10 |values reported by McKibben-Nail (1951). Payne-Gaposchkin & C0021m723|V10 |Gaposchkin (1966) later classified the star as an irregular C0021m723|V10 |variable, based on the original data. V10 was labelled on a C0021m723|V10 |chart by Fourcade et al. (1966) and in the SMC Atlas (Hodge & C0021m723|V10 |Wright 1977 - see chart 20B) but it has not been analysed in any C0021m723|V10 |subsequent investigations. C0021m723|V11, V18 |These two variable stars are separated by about 23 arcsec in C0021m723|V11, V18 |declination and are both close to the published x,y position for C0021m723|V11, V18 |HV 813. It is now accepted that the position of V11 coincides C0021m723|V11, V18 |with Wildey's (1961) star #12 and that V18, star L168 C0021m723|V11, V18 |of Lloyd Evans & Menzies (1973), was a more recently discovered C0021m723|V11, V18 |variable. Lloyd Evans (1974) gave some background information C0021m723|V11, V18 |about this in a note to Table II in his paper. C0021m723|V11, V18 |The data for these stars are from Lebzelter & Wood (2005). C0021m723|V11, V18 |For V11, Lebzelter & Wood (2005) listed a period of 160 days, but C0021m723|V11, V18 |noted that the current periodicity is uncertain. C0021m723|V12 |The period, magnitude and amplitude are from Feast et al. (1960). C0021m723|V12 |Its non-membership status was established by Carney et al. (1993), C0021m723|V12 |based on radial velocity measurements. The star is listed in the C0021m723|V12 |GCVS as CO Tuc. C0021m723|V14 |This variable, which was announced by Fourcade et al. (1966), C0021m723|V14 |has not been included in any subsequent study. C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |These variables were not listed by Lebzelter & Wood (2005). C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |Their periods were derived by Fox (1982). C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |The V magnitudes and amplitudes for V15 (Wildey #300) and V28 (LR5) C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |are from Lloyd Evans (1974). C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |The V magnitude for V17 (Wildey #81) is from Eggen (1972) and the C0021m723|V15, V17, V28 |amplitude is from Lloyd Evans & Menzies (1973). C0021m723|V16 |LW21 C0021m723|V16 |These two variables appear to be the same star according to the C0021m723|V16 |RA and dec listed by Lebzelter & Wood (2005) and both have C0021m723|V16 |irregular light curves that indicate an approximate periodicity C0021m723|V16 |of around 40 days. The reason their light curves differ is because C0021m723|V16 |the data for V16 were obtained at CTIO between August 2003 and C0021m723|V16 |January 2004, while the LW21 data were obtained at Mount Stromlo C0021m723|V16 |from August 2002 until the telescope was destroyed by fire in C0021m723|V16 |early 2003. C0021m723|V19 |Lebzelter & Wood (2005) noted that this might be a star in the C0021m723|V19 |Galactic halo because it is brighter and bluer than the other C0021m723|V19 |long period variables. Another possibility is that it has a bright C0021m723|V19 |blue neighbour that was not resolved in their images. C0021m723|V24, V26 |V24=A8 and V26=A13 were listed as red variables by Lloyd Evans & C0021m723|V24, V26 |Menzies (1973). C0021m723|V24, V26 |However, Lloyd Evans (1974) did not detect any significant variations C0021m723|V24, V26 |in A8 (V24) and pointed out that A13 (V26) was severely crowded. C0021m723|V24, V26 |Variability was not detected in either of these stars in subsequent C0021m723|V24, V26 |studies (e.g. Fox 1982 or Lebzelter & Wood (2005). Therefore they C0021m723|V24, V26 |are no longer considered to be variables. C0021m723|V33 |V5 of Edmonds et al. (1996) = WF2-V07 of Albrow et al. (2001): C0021m723|V33 |This variable was discovered by Edmonds et al. (1996) and the number C0021m723|V33 |V33 was assigned Clement et al. (2001). C0021m723|V33 |Since it is the same star as WF2-V07, the period, magnitude and C0021m723|V33 |amplitude listed above are the values listed by Albrow et al. C0021m723|V33 |(2001) for WF2-V07. C0021m723|V33 |Heinke et al. (2005) determined that this is the optical counterpart C0021m723|V33 |of Chandra X-ray source W257. C0021m723|V39 |V11 of Edmonds et al. (1996) = PC1-V11 of Albrow et al. (2001) C0021m723|V39 |= AKO9 of Knigge et al. (2002) = W36_opt of Edmonds et al. (2003a,b) C0021m723|V39 |The number V39 was assigned by Clement et al. (2001). C0021m723|V39 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009), based on the astrometry C0021m723|V39 |of Geffert et al. (1997). Albrow et al. (2001) derived a lower RA C0021m723|V39 |(00:24:04.65). C0021m723|V39 |The period, mean V magnitude and amplitude in the above table are C0021m723|V39 |from Albrow et al. (2001). A slightly longer period, 1.1091 days, C0021m723|V39 |was derived by Knigge et al. (2003). C0021m723|V39 |Knigge et al. (2008) presented evidence for a dwarf nova eruption in C0021m723|V39 |July 2002 and pointed out that eruptions had been observed previously C0021m723|V39 |in the 1980s and 1990s. Therefore they classified the star as a C0021m723|V39 |confirmed CV. C0021m723|V39 | C0021m723|V40 |V12 of Edmonds et al. (1996) = PC1-V12 of Albrow et al. (2001) C0021m723|V40 |The number V40 was assigned by Clement et al. (2001). C0021m723|V40 |V40 is a blue straggler. Edmonds et al. (1996) had difficulty C0021m723|V40 |classifying it and suggested that it might be a low amplitude SX Phe C0021m723|V40 |variable in a binary system. The image was saturated in the V band. C0021m723|V40 |Albrow et al. (2001) found that its variability amplitude seemed to C0021m723|V40 |grow and then decline during the time they observed. C0021m723|V40 |Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) observed this star. They were unable to C0021m723|V40 |derive a period, but their light curve indicated several possible C0021m723|V40 |eclipses. The data listed above are from Figuera Jaimes et al. C0021m723|V40 |(2016). C0021m723|V40 | C0021m723|V50 |Wel 95 = OGLE 245 = W18 (of Kaluzny et al. 2013): C0021m723|V50 |Liu et al. (2013) analysed the light curves of this star and C0021m723|V50 |conluded that it is a foreground object and not part of the cluster. C0021m723|V50 |Rucinski (2000) reached the same conclusion. C0021m723|V50 |The period, maximum V magnitude and amplitude listed above are from C0021m723|V50 |Kaluzny et al. (2013). C0021m723|Par-V1 |PC1-V47: C0021m723|Par-V1 |The mean V magnitude is from Edmonds et al. (2003a) who noted that C0021m723|Par-V1 |the star exhibited sigmificant non-periodic variability. The period C0021m723|Par-V1 |and classification are from Knigge et al. (2008) based on the study C0021m723|Par-V1 |by Edmonds et al. (2003b). The RA and dec for Par-V1 are from C0021m723|Par-V1 |Geffert et al. (1997). C0021m723|Par-V2 |PC1-V53: C0021m723|Par-V2 |This star is a known CV because dwarf nova eruptions were C0021m723|Par-V2 |observed by Paresce & De Marchi (1994) and by Shara et al. (1996). C0021m723|Par-V2 |Evidence for additional outbursts in 1999 and in 2005 was presented C0021m723|Par-V2 |by Knigge et al. (2008). The V magnitude listed in the above table is C0021m723|Par-V2 |from Edmonds et al. (2003a). C0021m723|Sha-V3 |The RA and dec are the values listed by Grindlay et al. (2001) for C0021m723|Sha-V3 |the X-ray source W27 for which they assumed that Sha-V3 is the optical C0021m723|Sha-V3 |counterpart. The V magnitude and period are from Edmonds et al. C0021m723|Sha-V3 |(2003a), who also published values for the RA and dec in their C0021m723|Sha-V3 |Tables 3 and Table 4. However, the RA they listed in Table 4 was C0021m723|Sha-V3 |0.25 seconds greater that the Table 3 value (a difference that is C0021m723|Sha-V3 |equivalent to 1.15 arcseconds). Their Table 4 RA is closer to C0021m723|Sha-V3 |Grindlay's value (a difference of only 0.23 arcseconds). C0021m723|PC1-V36 |The period and mean magnitude are from Edmonds et al. (2003a) and C0021m723|PC1-V36 |the classification is from Knigge et al. (2008) who noted that the C0021m723|PC1-V36 |star's proper motion indicates that it is a cluster member. C0021m723|PC1-V36 | C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |A careful examination of the HST direct images by Edmonds et al. C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |(2002a) showed that PC1-V46 (V=17.79 mag) was not the true variable. C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |The variable is a faint nearby star with V~22.3 mag which they named C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |W29_opt because they concluded that it is the optical counterpart C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |for the Chandra X-ray source W29. They also concluded that this C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |system is associated with the MSP 47 Tuc W because of the agreement C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt |between period and phase for the two systems. C0021m723|PC1-V46, W29_opt | C0021m723|PC1-V52, WF4-V16 |Edmonds et al. (2003a) that these two "variables" were possible C0021m723|PC1-V52, WF4-V16 |artifacts. Their apparent variabiity was due to a diffraction C0021m723|PC1-V52, WF4-V16 |spike (V52) or bad pixel (V16). C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 |Albrow et al. (2001) classified these stars as red stragglers (RS). C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 |They postulated that they form a distinct class with properties C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 |explained by mass transfer, rapid rotation and enhanced activity. C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 |Three of these stars (PC1-V48, WF2-V31, WF4-V18) are associated with C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 |Chandra X-ray sources (W3, W72, W248 respectively). C0021m723|PC1-V48 (W72), WF2-V31 (W3), WF2-V32, WF4-V17, WF4-V18 | C0021m723|WF2-V09 |This star is W1_opt (Edmonds et al. 2003a,b). The period and V C0021m723|WF2-V09 |amplitude are from the light curve published by Edmonds et al. C0021m723|WF2-V09 |(2003b) and the mean V magnitude was published by Edmonds et al. C0021m723|WF2-V09 |(2003a). C0021m723|WF2-V48, WF4-V26 |Albrow listed these as miscellaneous variables and noted that they C0021m723|WF2-V48, WF4-V26 |could be candidate CVs. However, subsequent studies (e.g. by C0021m723|WF2-V48, WF4-V26 |Edmonds and collaborators) have not confirmed this. Furthermore, C0021m723|WF2-V48, WF4-V26 |Albrow et al. noted that WF2-V48 lies on or close to a diffraction C0021m723|WF2-V48, WF4-V26 |spike from a nearby bright star. C0021m723|W2_opt, W120_opt |The period and V amplitude are from Fig. 7 of Edmonds et al. C0021m723|W2_opt, W120_opt |(2003b). The remaining data are from Edmonds et al. (2003a). C0021m723|W2_opt, W120_opt | C0021m723|W8_opt, W15_opt |The V amplitude is from Fig. 2 pf Edmonds et al. (2003b). The C0021m723|W8_opt, W15_opt |remaining data are from Edmonds et al. (2003a).` C0021m723|W11_opt |U_opt of Edmonds et al. (2001). C0021m723|W11_opt |The data listed above are from their paper. C0021m723|W21_opt |The period and V amplitude are from Fig. 3 of Edmonds et al. C0021m723|W21_opt |(2003b). The remaining data are from Edmonds et al. (2003a). C0021m723|W45_opt |The period is the orbital period based on Fig. 5 of Edmonds et al. C0021m723|W45_opt |(2003b) and the V magnitude is from Edmonds et al. (2003a). C0021m723|W58_opt |Edmonds et al. (2003a) pointed out that this variable is the optical C0021m723|W58_opt |counterpart of X5 (=W58) which was classified as a qLMXB by Edmonds C0021m723|W58_opt |et al. (2002b). C0021m723|LW13, LW14 |Lebzelter & Wood (2005) indicated that there was some uncertainty C0021m723|LW13, LW14 |in the RA and dec they published for these two variables. C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |Wel9, Wel15, Wel28, Wel31 are OGLEC 222, 219, 229 and 220 C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |respectively, variable K subgiants that Kaluzny et al. (1998) C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |suggested might be cluster members. C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |Weldrake et al. (2004) concluded that three additional variables: C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |Wel16, Wel25 and Wel96 might belong to the same category. C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |In addition, WF4-V19 and WF4-V20 of Albrow et al. (2001) and C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |KalE34 = star E34 of Kaluzny et al. (2013) appear to be variables C0021m723|WF4-V19, WF4-V20, KalE34 |of the same type. C0021m723|Wel69 |The period, V magnitude, V amplitude and classification are from C0021m723|Wel69 |Kaluzny et al. (2013). C0021m723|Wel69 |Thompson et al. (2010) carried out an extensive analysis of Wel69, C0021m723|Wel69 |based on photometric and spectroscopic observations and concluded C0021m723|Wel69 |that this binary system is a cluster member. C0021m723|PSR |According to Paulo Freire's website, there are 26 millisecond C0021m723|PSR |pulsars in 47 Tucanae. Two of these have been identified as C0021m723|PSR |optical variables: J0024-7203U (W11_opt) and J0024-7204W C0021m723|PSR |(W29_opt). C0050m268|V1 |The period was derived by Oosterhoff (1943). The V magnitude and C0050m268|V1 |amplitude are from Arellano Ferro et. al (2013). Menzies & C0050m268|V1 |Whitelock (1985) have obtained JHK photometry for V1. C0050m268|V10 |Rucinski (2000) assessed the membership status based on an C0050m268|V10 |Mv-logP-colour relation and concluded it was a "possible" C0050m268|V10 |member. C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |The periods, magnitudes and amplitudes are from Lebzelter & Wood C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |(2011) and the type classifications are from Lloyd Evans (1983) C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |who also derived a radial velocity for V16 and confirmed its C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |cluster membership. C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |R16 observed both stars and confirmed their cluster membership from C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |a proper motion study. C0100m711|V2, V16(Sz51) |The RA and dec listed for these stars is from R16. C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |S07 found that the image of V4 was blended and was composed of C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |two stars separated by 0.16 arcseconds. They concluded that both C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |components were RR Lyrae variables, but were unable to derive a C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |period. C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |R16 disentangled the light curves and found that the components C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |had periods of 0.530366 and 0.558817 days respectively. C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |In the above table, the first component is listed as V4 and the C0100m711|V4(Sz31a), Sz31b |second component is listed as Sz31b. C0100m711|V5(Sz27), V7(Sz71), V9 (Sz7), V11 (Sz23), Sz74 |These stars were observed spectroscopically by Szekely et al. C0100m711|V5(Sz27), V7(Sz71), V9 (Sz7), V11 (Sz23), Sz74 |(2007) and in every case, the radial velocities confirm their C0100m711|V5(Sz27), V7(Sz71), V9 (Sz7), V11 (Sz23), Sz74 |cluster membership. C0100m711|V10(Sz75), V11 (Sz23) |S07 mistakenly designated Sz23 as Sawyer Hogg's V10 (see Table 3). C0100m711|V10(Sz75), V11 (Sz23) |However, Sz23 is V11. Sz75 is Sawyer Hogg's V10, but this C0100m711|V10(Sz75), V11 (Sz23) |designation was not acknowledged by S07 in their Table 6. V10(Sz75) C0100m711|V10(Sz75), V11 (Sz23) |is a Cepheid with a period of 4.2 days, a conclusion reached by both C0100m711|V10(Sz75), V11 (Sz23) |Sawyer (1931) and by S07. C0100m711|V24 |R16 pointed out that V24 coincides with a Chandra X-ray source C0100m711|Sz3 |With r=11.1 arcmin, Sz3 lies beyond the tidal radius, 10.6 arcmin, C0100m711|Sz3 |but its position in the CMD is appropriate for membership in NGC 362. C0100m711|Sz3 |It is a possible member and is therefore included in the table. C0100m711|Sz20 |R16 observed this star and concluded that it was a W UMa-type C0100m711|Sz20 |binary and not an SX variable as suggested by S07. However, they C0100m711|Sz20 |noted that, since their coordinates differed by 1.5 arcsec from the C0100m711|Sz20 |S07 values, they could not exclude a misidentification. They did not C0100m711|Sz20 |find any SX Phe-type variability within 10 pixels of S07's C0100m711|Sz20 |published position for the star. C0100m711|Sz32 |Sz32 is located at ~9 arcmin from the cluster centre and lies in the C0100m711|Sz32 |blue straggler region of the CMD. S07 classified it as an eclipsing C0100m711|Sz32 |binary, but R16 did not confirm this. They derived a sinusoidal light C0100m711|Sz32 |curve whose physical origin was difficult to establish. They were C0100m711|Sz32 |unable to determine its membership status from proper motion, but C0100m711|Sz32 |concluded that it might be a field star. C0100m711|Sz32 |All the data listed for Sz32 in the table are from R16. C0100m711|Sz36 (LW1) |R16 confirmed the cluster membership of this star and found the C0100m711|Sz36 (LW1) |light curve to be multiperiodic. It could be phased with a period C0100m711|Sz36 (LW1) |of 238.1 days, but also with 26.43, 39.62, and 46.5 days C0100m711|Sz36 (LW1) |respectively. C0100m711|Sz37, Sz38, Sz41, Sz48, Sz62 |S07 classified these stars as RR Lyrae but did not derive periods C0100m711|Sz37, Sz38, Sz41, Sz48, Sz62 |or amplitudes. They noted that the image of Sz37 was blended. R16 C0100m711|Sz37, Sz38, Sz41, Sz48, Sz62 |did not detect variability in any of them. Therefore they are all C0100m711|Sz37, Sz38, Sz41, Sz48, Sz62 |classified as "CST?" in the above table. C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |S07 published differential magnitude vs time plots that covered C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |an interval of approximately 8 hours and showed steady changes in C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |brightness. They concluded that both stars were RR Lyrae type C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |and derived tentative periods. However, R16 did not detect C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |variablity in either star. Therefore their classification is C0100m711|Sz42, Sz49 |uncertain. C0100m711|Sz47 |According to S07, the light curve of this star is characteristic of C0100m711|Sz47 |an Algol-type eclisping binary. It is in a crowded field within a C0100m711|Sz47 |few arcseconds of the cluster centre. As a result, reliable C0100m711|Sz47 |photometry could not be obtained. C0100m711|Sz47 |They noted that a radial velocity was listed for this star in the C0100m711|Sz47 |globular cluster catalogue of Monella (1985). However, this is C0100m711|Sz47 |incorrect. The data listed by Monella pertain to the cluster as a C0100m711|Sz47 |whole, not to an individual star. C0100m711|Sz47 |R16 did not detect any variability in this star. C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |These two SX variables stars appeared too bright to be cluster C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |members according to the study of Szekely et al. (2007). However, C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |their excessive brightness is attributed to the effects of crowding. C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |In a subsequent study, Dalessandro et al. (2013) detected both of C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |them. They confirmed that they are SX Phe variables and cluster C0100m711|Sz52, Sz63 |members, based on their proper motion. C0100m711|Sz58 |This star is considered to be a cluster member even though its C0100m711|Sz58 |magnitude seems too bright and its colour too red for an RR Lyrae C0100m711|Sz58 |variable. Sz58 is located near the cluster centre and its observed C0100m711|Sz58 |magnitude and colour are probably the result of a blend with a red C0100m711|Sz58 |giant. C0100m711|Sz61(LW13) |S07 classified Sz61 as a long period variable and based on its C0100m711|Sz61(LW13) |position in the CM diagram, it appears to be a cluster member. C0100m711|Sz61(LW13) |However, R16 did not detect any variability in Sz61. Therefore its C0100m711|Sz61(LW13) |classification is uncertain. C0100m711|Sz69 |S07 classified Sz69 as an SX Phe variable with a V amplitude less C0100m711|Sz69 |than 0.05. In view of the fact that the star is located in a C0100m711|Sz69 |crowded field and R16 did not detected any variablility, it is C0100m711|Sz69 |classified as "CST?" in the above table. C0100m711|LW4, LW5 |R16 observed these stars but did not detect variability. C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |This star is near the cluster centre and was classified as an C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |eclipsing binary by S07. However, Lebzelter & Wood (2011) C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |questioned this classification. They believe that Sz56 is the C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |same star as their LW6 which is a long period variable. C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |Therefore Sz56 is listed as LW6 in the above table. C0100m711|LW6(Sz56) |R16 did not detect any variability in Sz56. C0310m554|V4 |Wehlau et al. (1977) pointed out that the previously published C0310m554|V4 |x,y coordinates for V4 were incorrect and attributed the error to C0310m554|V4 |incorrect identification on the chart published by Laborde & C0310m554|V4 |Fourcade (1966). C0310m554|V15 |According to Wehlau & Demers (1977), this star is near the RG tip. C0310m554|V15 |They found the period to be well determined, with no irregularity, C0310m554|V15 |which they considered to be unusual for a star with a period of C0310m554|V15 |that length. We tentatively classify it as SR because it does not C0310m554|V15 |have the properties of a Mira or a slow irregular variable. There C0310m554|V15 |was a typo in the x coordinate listed for V15 in our earlier on-line C0310m554|V15 |catalogue. The error was pointed out by Samus 2009 - private C0310m554|V15 |communication.) C0310m554|V18, V19 |The CST status for V18 and the period for V19 are from Salinas et C0310m554|V18, V19 |al. (2007). C0310m554|V23 |The light curve that Salinas et al. (2007) plotted for V23 C0310m554|V23 |resembles their curve for V15. We have therefore tentatively C0310m554|V23 |classified this star as SR. C0512m400|V2 |V51: C0512m400|V2 |Wehlau et al. (1978) noted that V2 was badly blended and might not C0512m400|V2 |be variable. Layden et al. (2010) recognized that the southeastern C0512m400|V2 |of the two stars in the blend is variable and that it coincides with C0512m400|V2 |V51, a new variable announced by Sumerel et al. (2004). With the C0512m400|V2 |resolved data of Layden et al., the star still appears brighter and C0512m400|V2 |redder than the other RR Lyrae variables so they suggested that it C0512m400|V2 |must be blended with an unresolved red giant. C0512m400|V2 |The data listed in the above table for V51 are from Layden et al. C0512m400|V2 |(2010). C0512m400|V9 |Wehlau et al. (1978) noted that V9 was badly blended and suspected C0512m400|V9 |that it was not variable. However, the CCD data of Layden et al. (2010) C0512m400|V9 |showed that the star is a long period variable. The magnitude, C0512m400|V9 |amplitude and classification for V9 in the above table are from C0512m400|V9 |Layden et al. C0512m400|V10 |According to Walker (1998), the period is uncertain. P~ 0.50 or C0512m400|V10 |~0.33 are both possibilities. C0512m400|V10 | C0512m400|V24, V25 |The data listed for these two stars are from Wehlau et al. (1982). C0512m400|V24, V25 |V24 was also investigated by Layden et al. (2010) who could not C0512m400|V24, V25 |confirm variations from their data. However, they showed that the C0512m400|V24, V25 |star is near the red giant tip in the CM diagram and concluded that it C0512m400|V24, V25 |must be a low amplitude long period variable. C0512m400|V36, V39, V40, V41, V43, V44 |These variables were independently discovered by Downes et al. C0512m400|V36, V39, V40, V41, V43, V44 |(2004): their RR6, RR2, [either RR9 or RR10], RR8, RR11 and RR4 C0512m400|V36, V39, V40, V41, V43, V44 |respectively. Corwin (2009, private communication) confirmed this. C0512m400|V36, V39, V40, V41, V43, V44 |A further discussion of the Downes et al paper is given at the end C0512m400|V36, V39, V40, V41, V43, V44 |of the section on "Discovery of the Variable stars" below. C0512m400|V51 |See note for V2. C0512m400|X-1 |NGC 1851 was among the first clusters in which an X-ray source was C0512m400|X-1 |detected (Clark et al. 1975) and the source was thought to be part C0512m400|X-1 |of a binary system (Clark 1975). From HST WFPC2 observations, C0512m400|X-1 |Deutsch et al. (1996) identified an ultraviolet-excess candidate C0512m400|X-1 |(their star A) as the optical counterpart, which was confirmed by C0512m400|X-1 |subsequent authors. The first detection of variation in the optical C0512m400|X-1 |component was by Zurek et al. (2009) who derived a period of 17 C0512m400|X-1 |minutes based on FUV observations with HST and confirmed that the C0512m400|X-1 |object was a UCXB. C0512m400|X-1 |The RA and dec listed above refer to the position that Homer et al. C0512m400|X-1 |(2001) derived for the X-ray burster. For star A, they derived C0512m400|X-1 |RA = 5:14:6.41 and dec = -40:02:38.22 based on USNO A-2 and C0512m400|X-1 |RA = 5:14:6.42 and dec = -40:02:38.05 based on Tycho 2. C0522m245|V1 |Rosino (1952) questioned the variability of V1 and its non-variable C0522m245|V1 |status was confirmed by Kains et al. The RA and dec listed aove are C0522m245|V1 |from Samus et al. (2009). C0522m245|V5 |This is the same star as NV6 of Amigo et a. (2011). C0522m245|V5 |According to Samus (2011, private communication), the RA and dec C0522m245|V5 |that Samus et al. (2009) published for V5 pertain to a different C0522m245|V5 |star. It was difficult to identify the correct variable because C0522m245|V5 |of the crowded field on Bailey's (1902) ID chart. C0522m245|V7 |Kain et al. showed that this star shows long term variability. Its C0522m245|V7 |location on their CM diagram indicates that it might be a long C0522m245|V7 |period type II Cepheid. C0734p390|V1, V5, V9, V11, V20, V27, V28, V32, V37, V46, V47, V50 |No amplitudes have been listed in the above table for these stars C0734p390|V1, V5, V9, V11, V20, V27, V28, V32, V37, V46, V47, V50 |because the values derived by Di Criscienzo et al. (2011a) were C0734p390|V1, V5, V9, V11, V20, V27, V28, V32, V37, V46, V47, V50 |minimum values. C0734p390|V27 |The period is difficult to define. Three datasets obtained at C0734p390|V27 |different epochs: Baade (1935), Pinto & Rosino (1977) and Di C0734p390|V27 |Criscienzo et al. (2011a), can not be phased by a single period C0734p390|V27 |because the period changed from P=0.35184 days (Baade), to C0734p390|V27 |P=0.34896 days (Pinto & Rosino) to the value P=0.34519 days C0734p390|V27 |inferred from the data of Di Criscienzo et al. C0734p390|V27 |The y coordinate for V27 was incorrectly listed as +103 in our C0734p390|V27 |earlier electronic catalogues. It should be -103. The correct C0734p390|V27 |y coordinate was listed in Sawyer Hogg's published catalogues and C0734p390|V27 |in the papers by Pinto & Rosino (1976, 1977). C0734p390|V38, V39 |Samus (2009, private communication) pointed out that the y C0734p390|V38, V39 |coordinates listed for these two variables in our previous C0734p390|V38, V39 |electronic catalogues were incorrect. The values that we listed C0734p390|V38, V39 |were the ones published by Pinto & Rosino (1976, 1977) in their C0734p390|V38, V39 |discovery papers, but were not in agreement with the labelled C0734p390|V38, V39 |positions on their ID charts. According to Samus, the correct C0734p390|V38, V39 |coordinates are y(V38) = -48" (instead of -65") and y(V39) = -119" C0734p390|V38, V39 |(instead of -128"). C0734p390|V39 |This is a double-mode RR Lyrae star with period ratio P1/P0= 0.745. C0734p390|V39 |In the above table, the pulsation characteristics of the first- C0734p390|V39 |overtone pulsation are reported; the pulsation characteristics of C0734p390|V39 |the fundamental mode are P0=0.54621 days, A_V=0.347 mag. C0734p390|V39 |The RR01 classification for V39 was originally made by Clement & C0734p390|V39 |Nemec (1990) who derived P1=0.40704, P0=0.5465 and A1/A0= 1.35 C0734p390|V39 |based on the data of Pinto & Rosino (1977). This is in good C0734p390|V39 |agreement with the study by Di Criscienzo et al. (2011a). C0734p390|V83 |This star is in the blue straggler region and is tentatively C0734p390|V83 |classified as an SX Phoenicis variable. However with its period of C0734p390|V83 |about 0.14 days, it deviates significantly from the PL relation C0734p390|V83 |defined by the other SX Phe variables in the cluster. C0911m646|V2, V4 |Evstigneeva et al. (1997) noted that there was a faint component C0911m646|V2, V4 |near V2 and that V4 was clearly separated into two components. C0911m646|V2, V4 |This may account for the apparent variation of these stars on C0911m646|V2, V4 |the discovery plates of Fourcade et al. (1966). Both stars were C0911m646|V2, V4 |considered to be non-variable by Clement & Hazen (1989). C0911m646|V13 |The classification of this star is uncertain. Corwin et al. C0911m646|V13 |(2004) tentatively classified it as RR1, but indicated that it C0911m646|V13 |might be RR2 or EC. C0911m646|V22 |This variable was confirmed by Dieball et al. (2005). It was C0911m646|V22 |their star #358 and they published RA (9:12:3.858) and Dec C0911m646|V22 |(-64:51:55.847). C1003p003| | C1003p003|V4 |Period, magnitude, amplitude and variability type C1003p003|V4 |from Borissova et al. (2000) C1003p003|V11 |Samus et al. (2009) pointed out that the image of V11 was C1003p003|V11 |blended. C1003p003|V12 |This star was classified as a probable RR0 variable by C1003p003|V12 |Borrisova et al. (1998). However, it should have been in the C1003p003|V12 |field of Stetson et al. (1999) and they did not identify it C1003p003|V12 |as an RR Lyrae variable. Therefore its variability is C1003p003|V12 |questioned. C1015m461|V65 |With a distance of 16 arcminutes from the cluster centre, this C1015m461|V65 |star is outside the field of view in most studiesof the cluster. C1015m461|V65 |It is listed as KP Vel in the Moscow GCVS. C1015m461|V65 |The period listed in the above table is from Wright (1941) and the C1015m461|V65 |magnitudes are from the Moscow GCVS, based on observations C1015m461|V65 |published by Kukarkin (1971b). An ID chart was published by C1015m461|V65 |Fourcade et al. (1966). C1015m461|V65 |Because of its distance from the cluster, V65 might be a field star. C1015m461|V65 |However, its membership status is uncertain. C1015m461|V68 |Wright (1941) noted that this star was probably a long period C1015m461|V68 |variable. It was outside Layden & Sarajedini's (2003) field. C1015m461|V68 |Samus et al. (2009) pointed out that V68 is the same stars as C1015m461|V68 |NSV 4810 in the Moscow GCVS and ASAS 101711-4610.8 in the ASAS-3 C1015m461|V68 |catalogue (Pojmanski 2002) at http://www.astrouw.edu.pl/asas C1015m461|V68 |The period and magnitudes listed in the above table are from C1015m461|V68 |the ASAS-3 catalogue and the classification is from Samus et al. C1015m461|V68 |(2009). C1015m461|V79 |Wright (1941) could not confirm the variability of this star, but C1015m461|V79 |both Piersimoni et al. (2002) and Layden & Sarajedini (2003) found C1015m461|V79 |that it was near the RGB tip, exhibited low level variability and C1015m461|V79 |could be a variable. C1015m461|V119 |The data are from Kaluzny et al. (2016) C1015m461|V120-121 |The data are from Arellano Ferro et al. (2014) C1015m461|V144 |Kaluzny et al. (2016) noted that the variable status of this star C1015m461|V144 |needs additional confirmation. C1015m461|V145 |Kaluzny et al. (2016) noted that since this star is a blend, it C1015m461|V145 |might not be variable. C1223m724|V1, V2 |McDonald et al. (2013) made spectroscopic observations of these two C1223m724|V1, V2 |stars and concluded that they are both cluster members associated C1223m724|V1, V2 |with an extended AGB. From ESO archival imagery, they inferred that C1223m724|V1, V2 |both stars are long period variables and estimated lower limits to C1223m724|V1, V2 |their B, V and I amplitudes: 0.67, 0.49 and 0.23 respectively for V1 C1223m724|V1, V2 |and 0.85, 0.81 and 0.46 for V2. C1235m509|V2 |Samus et al. (2009) listed this variable as V0887 Cen. C1236m264|V27 |FI Hya C1236m264|V27 |Shapley (1920) recognized that V27 is a long period variable C1236m264|V27 |and Greenstein et al. (1947) established that is a foreground C1236m264|V27 |star, not a cluster member, based on the radial velocity they C1236m264|V27 |measured. The star is listed in the GCVS as FI Hya and is C1236m264|V27 |classified as a Mira. The period, magnitude and amplitude listed C1236m264|V27 |in the above table are from the ASAS of Pojmanski (2002). C1236m264|V27 |The images of V27 were saturated in Walker's (1994) data and the C1236m264|V27 |observations of Kains et al. (2015) did not extend over a long C1236m264|V27 |enough time frame. C1236m264|V32 |EN Hya: C1236m264|V32 |V32 was outside of the field of view in the studies by Walker C1236m264|V32 |(1994) and by Kains et al. (2015). C1236m264|V32 |The period, V magnitude, amplitude and classification are from C1236m264|V32 |the Southern Catalina Survey (Torrealba et al. 2015). C1236m264|V40, V41, V42 |Kains et al. (2015) observed M68 over an interval of 74 days C1236m264|V40, V41, V42 |in 2013 and did not detect variability in any of these stars C1236m264|V40, V41, V42 |confirming the earlier conclusion of Walker (1994). C1236m264|V53 |The mean magnitude is from Kains et al. (2015) who found that C1236m264|V53 |the star brightened by about 0.1 mag in V over the course of their C1236m264|V53 |observations (80 days). However, they did not detect any variation C1236m264|V53 |in the I band light curve of the star. It lies well to the red of C1236m264|V53 |the cluster sequence on the CM diagram and is thought to be a red C1236m264|V53 |foreground star. C1256m706|V1 |The period is from Wright (1941) and the magnitudes are from C1256m706|V1 |Demers & Wehlau (1977). This star was outside the field of C1256m706|V1 |Darragh & Murphy's images. Although V1 is located at about C1256m706|V1 |9 arcminutes from the cluster centre, well outside the C1256m706|V1 |half-light radius (2.41'), it is inside the tidal radius (17.8') C1256m706|V1 |and is a possible cluster member. The P magnitudes published by C1256m706|V1 |Wright (1941) and the B magnitudes of Demers & Wehlau (1977) C1256m706|V1 |are in the same range as those of the RR Lyrae variables that C1256m706|V1 |belong to the cluster. C1256m706|V2, V11 |These stars are both classified as Mira variables. Neither is C1256m706|V2, V11 |considered to be a cluster member, which is not surprising because C1256m706|V2, V11 |because Mira variables are associated with more metal rich C1256m706|V2, V11 |populations, i.e. [Fe/H] > -1.0, whereas NGC 4833 has [Fe/H]= -1.85 C1256m706|V2, V11 |according to the 2010 revision of the Harris (1996) catalogue. C1256m706|V2, V11 |Feast (1966) determined a radial velocity for V2 and demonstrated C1256m706|V2, V11 |that it is a field star. C1256m706|V2, V11 |The V magnitudes published for V11 by Goossens et al. (1980) are C1256m706|V2, V11 |too faint for cluster membership. C1256m706|V2, V11 | C1256m706|V2, V11 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed for V2 (RZ Mus) are C1256m706|V2, V11 |from Wright (1941). C1256m706|V2, V11 |The period and magnitude listed for V11 (FQ Mus) are from C1256m706|V2, V11 |Goossens et al. (1980) whose observations indicated that its V C1256m706|V2, V11 |amplitude is greater than 2.3 mag. C1256m706|V2, V11 | C1256m706|V8 |Wright (1941) was unsure of the variability of this star and Demers C1256m706|V8 |& Wehlau (1977) concluded that the apparent variability occurred C1256m706|V8 |because the star had a close companion. Darragh & Murphy (2012) C1256m706|V8 |confirmed that V8 does not vary. C1256m706|V9, V16 |These stars are both near the red giant tip and are probably C1256m706|V9, V16 |semi-regular variables that are cluster members. The period for V9 C1256m706|V9, V16 |was derived by Wright (1941) and the V magnitude by Alcaino (1971). C1256m706|V9, V16 |The V magnitude and amplitude for V16 were derived by Menzies C1256m706|V9, V16 |(1972). No period has been determined for V16 because the variable C1256m706|V9, V16 |was discovered after Wright carried out her study. C1256m706|V10 |The V magnitude for V10 is from the photographic study by Demers & C1256m706|V10 |Wehlau (1977) who noted that it is a red variable. It was outside C1256m706|V10 |the field of view in Menzies' (1972) study, but the Demers & Wehlau C1256m706|V10 |magnitudes indicate that it lies redward of the giant branch on C1256m706|V10 |Menzies' CM diagram. It is located at about 7 arcminutes from the C1256m706|V10 |cluster centre, well outside the half-light radius (2.41'), but C1256m706|V10 |inside the tidal radius (17.8') according to the 2010 revision of C1256m706|V10 |the Harris (1996) catalogue. Its membership status is uncertain. C1256m706|V20, V26 |The periods, magnitudes and amplitudes for these two variables are C1256m706|V20, V26 |from Darragh & Murphy (2012). They both appear to be short period C1256m706|V20, V26 |RR1 variables that exhibit changes in amplitude due to non-radial C1256m706|V20, V26 |oscillations. Olech et al. (2001) identified stars with these C1256m706|V20, V26 |properties in several other clusters. C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |van den Hoven van Genderen (1947) stated that the variability of C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |V22, V34 and V39 seemed very doubtful and Cuffey's (1965) analysis C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |confirmed this. However, Dekany & Kovacs (2009) found that V34 C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |was an RR Lyrae with low ampltude and derived a period. Arellano C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |Ferro et al. (2011) verified the RR Lyrae period for V34 and C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |confirmed that V39 is not variable; V22 was outside of their field C1310p184|V22, V34, V39 |of view. C1310p184|V28 |Evstigneeva et al. (1997) noted that the y value (+459.0") listed in C1310p184|V28 |all Sawyer Hogg's catalogs (1939, 1955, 1973) and in our electronic C1310p184|V28 |versions was incorrect. Baade's (1931) discovery paper listed y=+399.0". C1310p184|V43 |typo in the dec listed by Arellano Ferro et al. (2011) C1310p184|V44 |Evstigneeva et al. (1997) noted that the sign of the x coordinate C1310p184|V44 |was incorrect (+53" should be -53") in the discovery paper by C1310p184|V44 |van den Hoven van Genderen (1947) and the incorrect value was listed C1310p184|V44 |in Sawyer Hogg's (1955, 1973) 2nd and 3rd catalogs and again in our C1310p184|V44 |2001 on-line version. C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |Periods and amplitudes for V48-50 are from Cuffey (1966) and the C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |mean magnitudes are from Cuffey (1965). Kopacki (2000) confirmed C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |the variability of V50 and derived a tentative period of C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |approximately 49 days. C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |Kopacki also pointed out that the x,y coordinates listed for these C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |three stars in Helen Hogg's 3rd catalog were incorrect. These errors C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |were repeated in our original electronic catalogs and the RA and dec C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |derived by Evstigneeva et al. (1997) were based on the erroneous C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |coordinates. Samus et al. (2009) published the correct RA and dec for C1310p184|V48, V49, V50 |these three stars. They all correspond to 2MASS positions. C1310p184|V57, V61 |According to Arellano Ferro et al. (2011), these two variables C1310p184|V57, V61 |were misidentified by Kopacki (2000). C1310p184|V84, V85, V86 |The magnitudes are from Arellano Ferro et al. (2011) and the periods C1310p184|V84, V85, V86 |are from Dekany & Kovacs (2009). C1310p184|V84, V85, V86 |Safanova & Stalin (2011) pointed out that V84 and V85 are S1 and C1310p184|V84, V85, V86 |S17 in Stetson's (2000) standard field for NGC 5024. C1313p179|V11 |The star listed as V11 in the above table is blue straggler C1313p179|V11 |#7 of Nemec & Cohen (1989) and called NC7 by Nemec et al. (1995). C1313p179|V11 |The star listed as V11 in Sawyer Hogg's 3rd (1973) catalogue C1313p179|V11 |is a different star. It is Baade's (1928) comparision star c which C1313p179|V11 |Perova (1962) indicated as a possible variable. The number V11 was C1313p179|V11 |assigned by Sawyer Hogg (1973). However, Baryshnikova et al. C1313p179|V11 |(1989) pointed out that this star lies on the giant branch and is C1313p179|V11 |unlikley to be variable because Samus examined Perova's material C1313p179|V11 |and did not confirm its variability. C1313p179|V12 |Nemec et al. (1995) indicated that the V amplitude of this star C1313p179|V12 |varies from 0.15 to 0.25 mag. The V amplitudes that they listed C1313p179|V12 |for the SX PHe variables in Table 17 of their paper were C1313p179|V12 |(Vmin-Vmax) - see page 1210 C1323m472|V19, V21 (Ogle #192, 97) |The possible field status for these two stars was suggested by C1323m472|V19, V21 (Ogle #192, 97) |Clement & Rowe (2001) based on their anomalous Fourier parameters C1323m472|V19, V21 (Ogle #192, 97) |when compared with other variables with similar periods. C1323m472|V19, V21 (Ogle #192, 97) |However, Navarrete et a. (2015) concluded that both were cluster C1323m472|V19, V21 (Ogle #192, 97) |members. C1323m472|V28 |According to van Leeuwen et al. (2000), the star indicated as C1323m472|V28 |V28 by Bailey (1902) is now known as V2 and Bailey's V2 is not C1323m472|V28 |variable. C1323m472|V42 |Dickens et al. (1972) listed this star as a "radial velocity" C1323m472|V42 |member, but according to van Leeuwen, the proper motion does not C1323m472|V42 |indicate cluster membership. C1323m472|V42 |Navarrete (2014, private communication) pointed out that V42 is C1323m472|V42 |the same star as V395 announced by Kaluzny et al. (2004). C1323m472|V52 |van Leeuwen et al. (2000) commented that this star might have an C1323m472|V52 |unresolved companion which would account for the fact that it is C1323m472|V52 |brighter and has a lower amplitude than other RR Lyrae variables C1323m472|V52 |with the same period. C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |These three stars lie on the red giant branch of the CM diagram. C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |Martin (1938) classified V53 and V162 as irregulars and found that C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |V167 exhibited small variations of unknown character. C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |However, Dickens et al. (1972) found that none of these stars C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |exhibited significant variations in their observations. C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |The proper motion study of van Leeuwen et al. (2000) indicated C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |that V167 was not a cluster member. Bellini et al. (2009) derived C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |a 23% membership probability. Kaluzny et al. (2004) pointed C1323m472|V53, V162, V167 |out that V167 lies within an arcsec of the X-ray source XMM-25. C1323m472|V56 |V56 is considered to be a cluster member based on proper motion C1323m472|V56 |studies by van Leeuwen et al. (2000) and by Bellini et al. (2009). C1323m472|V56 |An earlier radial velocity study by Liller & Tokarz (1981) indicated C1323m472|V56 |that V56 was not a cluster member. However, Navarrete et al. (2015) C1323m472|V56 |pointed out that V56 undergoes random period changes, and as a C1323m472|V56 |result, the light-curve phase derived by Liller & Tokarz (1981) C1323m472|V56 |for the time of their radial velocity measurement was incorrect. C1323m472|V65, V78 |The field status for these two variables is based on a radial C1323m472|V65, V78 |velocity study by Geyer & Vogt (1978). This was confirmed by the C1323m472|V65, V78 |proper motion studies of van Leeuwen et al. (2000) and Bellini et C1323m472|V65, V78 |al. (2009). C1323m472|V68 |According to Navarrete et al. (2015), the classification of V68 C1323m472|V68 |is uncertain. It could be an RR Lyrae (RR1) or an anomalous C1323m472|V68 |Cepheid. C1323m472|V80 |Navarrete et al. (2015) pointed out that this is the same star C1323m472|V80 |as #53 of Weldrake et al. (2007). The variabiity of V80 was first C1323m472|V80 |announced by Bailey (1902) who commented that it was difficult C1323m472|V80 |to measure because it was too distant from the comparision stars. C1323m472|V80 |The star was oustide the field of view in subsequent investigations C1323m472|V80 |of Omega Centauri by other authors, until it was recovered by C1323m472|V80 |Weldrake et al. (2007) and later by Navarrete et al. (2015). C1323m472|V84 |The field status for V84 was determined from the proper motion C1323m472|V84 |study of van Leeuwen et al. (2000) who also noted that the C1323m472|V84 |characteristics of its light curve differ from those of other C1323m472|V84 |stars with a similar period. Nemec et al. (1994) classified V84 C1323m472|V84 |as a candidate anomalous Cepheid. C1323m472|V142 |Braga et al. (2016) classified this star as a candidate radial C1323m472|V142 |double-mode pulsator, the first one to be identified in Omega C1323m472|V142 |Centauri. However, no light curve or secondary period was C1323m472|V142 |provided in their paper. They noted that the double-mode variables C1323m472|V142 |found by Olech & Moskalik (2009) are not F+FO pulsators. C1323m472|V151 |The data for V151 are from Martin (1938) because the star was C1323m472|V151 |outside the field in subsequent studies - until Navarrete et al. C1323m472|V151 |(2015). Kaluzny et al. (2004) classified V151 as a fundamental mode C1323m472|V151 |pulsator (RR0), but the near-infrared observations of Navarrete et al. C1323m472|V151 |demonstrated that it pulsates in the first-overtone (RR1), C1323m472|V151 |confirming Martin's original classification. C1323m472|V168 |The field status for V168 was based initially on a radial C1323m472|V168 |velocity study by Liller & Tokarz (1981). This was later confirmed C1323m472|V168 |in proper motion studies by van Leeuwen et al. (2000) and by C1323m472|V168 |Bellini et al. (2009). C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |These three variables, all of which are considered to be RR1 C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |variables according to Kaluzny et al. (2004), were classified C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |as eclipsing variables by Weldrake et al. (2007). They are C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |Weldrake #42, #43 and #121 respectively. Snce they all lie in C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |the RR Lyrae instability strip in the CM diagram, Kaluzny's C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |classification is assumed to be correct. This conclusion was C1323m472|V169, V289, V357 |endorsed by Ed Guinan (2013, private communication). C1323m472|V172 |= Weldrake #18 C1323m472|V172 |V172 was listed as RR Lyrae by Sawyer Hogg (1973), based C1323m472|V172 |on the discovery paper by Wilkens (1965), but no further C1323m472|V172 |information was provided. It was outside of the field of view C1323m472|V172 |in subsequent studies until ti was recovered by Weldrake et al. C1323m472|V172 |(2007), Navarrete et al. (2015) and Torrealba et al. (2015). C1323m472|V172 |The period, V magnitude, V amplitude and classification listed C1323m472|V172 |for V172 are from Torrealba et al. (2015). C1323m472|V175 |The period, V magnitude, V amplitude and classification listed for C1323m472|V175 |V175 are from Fernandez-Trincado et al. (2015) who concluded that C1323m472|V175 |it is probably a foreground variable because it is more that 1 C1323m472|V175 |magnitude brighter than the horizontal branch of Omega Centauri. C1323m472|V175 |Also, with a distance of 66 arcminutes from the cluster centre, C1323m472|V175 |it is well outside the tidal radius which is 48 arcminutes according C1323m472|V175 |to the 2010 update of the Harris (1996) catalogue. C1323m472|V177 |= Weldrake #49 C1323m472|V177 |V177 was listed as RR Lyrae by Sawyer Hogg (1973), based C1323m472|V177 |on the discovery paper by Wilkens (1965), but no further C1323m472|V177 |information was provided. It was outside of the field of view C1323m472|V177 |in subsequent studies until Weldrake et al. (2007) and Navarrete et C1323m472|V177 |al. (2015). The data listed in the above table are from Navarrete C1323m472|V177 |et al. C1323m472|V182, V183 |Shokin & Samus (1996) pointed out that the identification for these C1323m472|V182, V183 |two stars was highly uncertain because they lie far from the region C1323m472|V182, V183 |occupied by most of the variables and no identification chart was C1323m472|V182, V183 |published by the discoverer. However, Navarrete et al. (2015) C1323m472|V182, V183 |recovered V183 at the RA and dec published by Samus et al. (2009). C1323m472|V186 |This star, numbered V184, by Fourcade et al. (1978) in their C1323m472|V186 |discovery paper is the same as RGO 320 discussed by Dickens et al. C1323m472|V186 |(1972). This was pointed out by Shokin & Samus (1996) and is evident C1323m472|V186 |from a comparison of Fourcade's ID chart with the chart published C1323m472|V186 |for star #320 by Woolley (1966 - see Plate IX). C1323m472|V186 |It was confirmed as a radial velocity cluster member (Feast 1973) C1323m472|V186 |and the data listed in the above table are from Dickens et al. C1323m472|V186 |(1972). C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |Kaluzny et al. (1996) showed that these two variables have C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |similar properties, but their classification is uncertain. C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |Initially, they postulated that they might be spotted variables. C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |However, they later (Kaluzny et al. 2004) classified them as long C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |period variables. Both stars have periods in the 20-40 day C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |range and lie on the RG branch in the CM diagram, at a luminosity C1323m472|V216, V224 (Ogle #22, 31) |level lower than SR variables. C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |Kaluzny et al. (2004) noted that this star lies near the X-ray C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |source XMM-29 and also that the proper motion study of van C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |Leeuwen et al. (2001) indicates its probability of membership is C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |in the 0-2% range. The study by Bellini et al. (2009) also C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |indicates a low (0%) membershgip probability. Its position in the C1323m472|V223 (Ogle #30) |CM diagam is also consistent with non-membership in the cluster. C1323m472|V268 |Naverrete et al. (2015) concluded that V268 is a cluster member C1323m472|V268 |based on its observed properties and the proper motion study by C1323m472|V268 |Bellini et al. (2009). van Leeuwen et al. (2000) claimed it had C1323m472|V268 |a membership probability of 0%, but Navarrete et al. provided C1323m472|V268 |evidence that the van Leeuwen result pertained to a different C1323m472|V268 |star. C1323m472|V269 |This star is RGO 4789 (Woolley 1966) and Ogle #123 (Kaluzny et al. C1323m472|V269 |1997b). C1323m472|V269 |It is considered to be a field star. It was one of 5 TiO variables C1323m472|V269 |discussed by Dickens et al. (1972) who noted that they needed to C1323m472|V269 |determine its radial velocity to establish its membership before C1323m472|V269 |discussing it further. In a later paper that included the TiO C1323m472|V269 |variables for which membership was established (Feast 1973), C1323m472|V269 |RGO 4789 was not included. The non-member status of V269 was C1323m472|V269 |confirmed in the proper motion study by van Leeuwen et al. (2000). C1323m472|V282 |Ogle #171 = Weldrake #84: C1323m472|V282 |This star was not in the field of view of Kaluzny et al. (2004). C1323m472|V282 |In their earlier study (Kaluzny et al. 1997b), they derived a C1323m472|V282 |period of 0.5005 days but were unable to assign a classification. C1323m472|V282 |Weldrake et al. (2007) derived a period of 0.664 days and showed C1323m472|V282 |that the star could be an eclipsing binary. C1323m472|V282 |The proper motion study of van Leeuwen et al. indicated that V282 C1323m472|V282 |was not a cluster member. C1323m472|V284 |Ogle #173 = Weldrake #129: C1323m472|V284 |This star was not in the field of view of Kaluzny et al. (2004), C1323m472|V284 |but in their earlier study (Kaluzny et al 1997b), they derived a C1323m472|V284 |period of approximately 3.3 days and classified it as a spotted C1323m472|V284 |variable. Weldrake et al. (1997b) confirmed this period and also C1323m472|V284 |derived a colour index that is more red than expected for a C1323m472|V284 |cluster member at the V=18.5 level. It is therefore considered to C1323m472|V284 |be a field star. C1323m472|V349, V351 |These two RR1 variables were discovered by Kaluzny et al. (2004) C1323m472|V349, V351 |in the crowded central region. As a result, they could not obtain C1323m472|V349, V351 |calibrated photometry. Navarrete et al. (2015) were not able to C1323m472|V349, V351 |recover either of these variables in their investigation. C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |Kaluzny et al. (2004) noted that all of these objects are C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |associated with X-ray sources. The proper motion study of van C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |Leeuwen et al. (2000) indicated that V367, V375, V378 were not C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |cluster members but the other 4 stars were too faint to be included C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |in their investigation. However, based on location in the CM C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |diagram, Kaluzny et al. (2004) concluded that none of these stars C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |are cluster members. The proper motion study by Bellini et al. C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |(2009) supported this conclusion except in the case of V369 and C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |V383 for whch they found membership probabilties greater than 90%. C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |A subsequent spectroscopic study by Rozyczka et al. (2012) showed C1323m472|V367, V369, V375, V376, V377, V378, V383 |that V369 is not a cluster member. C1323m472|V372, V384 |These two stars are labelled f_CM because they are considered to be C1323m472|V372, V384 |field stars based on their location on the CM diagram published by C1323m472|V372, V384 |Kaluzny et al. (2004). The data in the above table are from Kaluzny C1323m472|V372, V384 |et al. (2004). C1323m472|V372, V384 |Weldrake et al. (2007) classified V384 (= Weldrake #104) as a long C1323m472|V372, V384 |period variable. C1323m472|V378 |Weldrake #166: C1323m472|V378 |Kaluzny et al. (2004) noted that this star is an eclipsing binary C1323m472|V378 |with its light curve affected by chromospheric activity. C1323m472|V365, V368, V370, V381, V388, V403, V410 |The field status for these variables is based on the proper motion C1323m472|V365, V368, V370, V381, V388, V403, V410 |study of Bellini et al. (2009). C1323m472|V395 |Navarrete (2014, private communication) pointed out that V395 is C1323m472|V395 |V42. C1323m472|V406, V409 |Weldrake 39, 161: C1323m472|V406, V409 |These stars were classified as possible Algol-like eclipsing C1323m472|V406, V409 |binaries (EA) by Kaluzny et al. (2004), but they did not derive C1323m472|V406, V409 |periods. The periods listed in the above table were determined C1323m472|V406, V409 |by Weldrake et al. (2007). C1323m472|V433 |= Weldrake 74: C1323m472|V433 |Navarrete et al. (2015) confirmed the variablity of this star. C1323m472|V433 |They derived P= 0.6681, similar to Weldrake's value, but could C1323m472|V433 |not determine its variability type. They also noted that the star C1323m472|V433 |was listed as a radial velocity non-member (#12_8_2515) by Da Costa C1323m472|V433 |& Coleman (2008). C1339p286|V2 |Shapley (1914) commented that V2 (star 9 in his Table II) is a C1339p286|V2 |close double and that it is almost certain that both components C1339p286|V2 |are variable. However, Bakos et al. (2000) found that neither C1339p286|V2 |component varied on the CCD images they obtained. We have C1339p286|V2 |therefore classified V2 as non-variable. C1339p286|V13 |The double-mode nature of V13, V200 and V251 was first C1339p286|V13 |recognized by Clementini et al. (2004) C1339p286|V29 |V29 and V155 were interchanged by Evstigneeva et al. (1994) C1339p286|V29 |and by Corwin & Carney (2001). The period we list for V29 is C1339p286|V29 |from Benko et al. (2006) and the mean magnitude and amplitude C1339p286|V29 |are the ones Corwin & Carney (2001) listed for V155. C1339p286|V82 |Benko et al. (2006) did not list a period for V82, V91, C1339p286|V82 |V115 or V192. For these stars, we list the periods, as C1339p286|V82 |well as the mean magnitudes and amplitudes, published C1339p286|V82 |by Corwin & Carney (2001) C1339p286|V91 |See V82. C1339p286|V95 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed for V95 and C1339p286|V95 |V225 are from Russev (1971). Rosino (1978) classified V95, C1339p286|V95 |V138 and V225 as semi-regular variables. C1339p286|V96 |For V96, V139, V168, V188 and V195, we list the magnitudes C1339p286|V96 |from Benko et al. (2006) and amplitudes from Corwin & Carney C1339p286|V96 |(2001). Corwin & Carney did not publish mean magnitudes for C1339p286|V96 |these stars. C1339p286|V112 |Bailey (1913, HA 78, p. 67) commented that the range of C1339p286|V112 |variation was small for V112 so no effort was made to C1339p286|V112 |determine a period. C1339p286|V112 |Sawyer (1939) classified it as non-variable all of her C1339p286|V112 |catalogs. The star was not included in subsequent C1339p286|V112 |investigations by other authors. C1339p286|V113 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed for V113 and C1339p286|V113 |V123 are from Szeidl (1965). According to Samus (2009, private C1339p286|V113 |communication), V113 is XX CVn in the GCVS. C1339p286|V115 |Period, as well as the mean magnitude and amplitude, published C1339p286|V115 |by Corwin & Carney (2001). See V82. C1339p286|V123 |Data from Szeidl. See V113. C1339p286|V127 |Bailey (1913) was unable to derive a period for V127 C1339p286|V127 |because it had two close companions. Muller (1933, Berlin C1339p286|V127 |Babelsberg Veroff 11, 1) subsequently showed that the northern C1339p286|V127 |component, which he designated as V146, was the variable. C1339p286|V127 |Sawyer Hogg (1939) therefore classified V127 as non-variable C1339p286|V127 |in her first and subsequent catalogs. C1339p286|V127 |Later, Kholopov (1963) found that the southwest component (his C1339p286|V127 |X34 = vZ 1198) was also variable. C1339p286|V127 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) designated X34 as V222 in her 3rd catalog. C1339p286|V138 |Period, magnitude and amplitude from Olah and Russev (1979). In C1339p286|V138 |an earlier paper, Russev (1971) derived a longer period. Rosino C1339p286|V138 |(1978) classified V95, V138 and V225 as semi-regular variables. C1339p286|V139 |Magnitudes from Benko et al. and amplitude from Corwin & Carney. C1339p286|V139 |See V96. C1339p286|V140 |When this M3 file was posted in 2009, V140 was incorrectly C1339p286|V140 |listed as an RR0 type. It should be RR1. Marcio Catelan C1339p286|V140 |(2011- private communication) pointed out the error. C1339p286|V141 |V141=RV CVn in the GCVS. Period, magnitude, amplitude and C1339p286|V141 |classification are from Szeidl (1973) who considered it to be a C1339p286|V141 |field star. C1339p286|V141 |However, a proper motion study by Tucholke et al. (1994) C1339p286|V141 |indicates that it is a probable member. C1339p286|V146 |According to Benko et al. (2006), V146 and V222 were C1339p286|V146 |interchanged by Corwin & Carney (2001) and by Clementini et al. C1339p286|V146 |(2004). The magnitude and amplitude that we list for V146 in the C1339p286|V146 |above table are the values listed by Corwin & Carney for V222. C1339p286|V146 |Kholopov (1977) pointed out that the observations that Greenstein C1339p286|V146 |(1935) published for V146 are really for V222. C1339p286|V146 |See also the comment for V127. C1339p286|V154 |Period, magnitude, amplitude and variability type listed C1339p286|V154 |in the above table are from Kholopov (1972) C1339p286|V155 |V29 and V155 were interchanged by Evstigneeva et al. (1994) C1339p286|V155 |and by Corwin & Carney (2001) C1339p286|V155 |The period we list for V155 is from Benko and the mean C1339p286|V155 |magnitude and amplitude are the ones Corwin & Carney (2001) C1339p286|V155 |listed for V29. C1339p286|V157 |Mean magnitude from Benko et al. (2006) because Corwin & C1339p286|V157 |Carney (2001) did not publish a value. Amplitude difficult to C1339p286|V157 |estimate because of Blazhko effect. C1339p286|V158 |Greenstein (1935) derived a period of 0.50809 which was listed C1339p286|V158 |by Sawyer Hogg in her catalogs. However, in her 2nd and 3rd C1339p286|V158 |catalogs, she indicated that the period was uncertain. C1339p286|V158 |Bakos et al. (2000) did not detect any variation. C1339p286|V162 |Greenstein (1935) classified this star as non-variable. He noted C1339p286|V162 |that it was part of a triple system. C1339p286|V162 |Later Kholopov (1963, Per Zvez 14, 275) found that one of C1339p286|V162 |the other stars in the triplet (vZ 950 = X28) was variable. C1339p286|V162 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) designated vZ 950 as V218 in her 3rd catalog. C1339p286|V163 |Greenstein (1935) classified this star as non-variable. Bakos C1339p286|V163 |et al (2000) noted that the x,y position listed in Sawyer Hogg's C1339p286|V163 |catalogs was midway between V180 and a non-variable. According C1339p286|V163 |to Bakos, Kholopov (1977) labelled the non-variable as V163. C1339p286|V163 |Bakos therefore accepted the non-variable as V163 to avoid C1339p286|V163 |confusion. C1339p286|V163 |See also the comments for V180. C1339p286|V164 |Greenstein (1935) noted that this star was badly blended and C1339p286|V164 |and that, if it was variable, its range was les than 0.35 mag. C1339p286|V164 |Benko et al (2006) classified it as non variable. C1339p286|V164 |Corwin & Carney derived a period, but according to Clementini C1339p286|V164 |et al. (2004), the star that they studied was V234, not V164. C1339p286|V165 |Bakos et al. pointed out that there was an error in the sign C1339p286|V165 |of the "y" coordinate listed for this star in Sawyer Hogg's C1339p286|V165 |(1973) 3rd catalog, but it was correct in the 1939 and 1955 C1339p286|V165 |editions. The mean magnitude and amplitude we list for V165 C1339p286|V165 |were derived by Benko et al. because Corwin & Carney did not C1339p286|V165 |publish an amplitude or mean magnitude for it. C1339p286|V168 |Magnitudes from Benko et al. and amplitude from Corwin & Carney. C1339p286|V168 |See V96. C1339p286|V179 |Greenstein (1935) commented that the star was difficult to C1339p286|V179 |measure and that if it was variable, it had a small range. C1339p286|V179 |Sawyer (1939) classified it as non-variable in all 3 of her C1339p286|V179 |catalogs. Bakos et al. (2000) were unable to locate the star C1339p286|V179 |unambiguously on POSS images. The RA and dec listed in the C1339p286|V179 |above table were calculated by Samus (2009, private C1339p286|V179 |communication). He derived a relation between x,y and RA, dec C1339p286|V179 |based on 39 M3 stars and used it to calculate the RA and dec C1339p286|V179 |for V179 from the published x,y coordinates. C1339p286|V179 |There is a 2MASS star in the same location. The RA and dec C1339p286|V179 |listed in the 2001 on-line update to the catalog were C1339p286|V179 |incorrect. C1339p286|V180 |V180 = vZ 676: Shapley (1914) stated that vZ676 was composed C1339p286|V180 |of five distinct stars, of which the variable is the brightest C1339p286|V180 |and most centrally located. Greenstein (1935) could not measure C1339p286|V180 |it because of the crowding. Sawyer (1939) classified it as C1339p286|V180 |non-variable in all three of her catalogs. However, Kholopov C1339p286|V180 |(1977) and Bakos et al. (2000) found that there are two RR Lyrae C1339p286|V180 |variable stars close to (and equidistant from) the position C1339p286|V180 |listed for V180 in Sawyer Hogg's catalogs. The eastern component C1339p286|V180 |was chosen by them to be V180 and the western component, C1339p286|V180 |Kholopov's X13 was designated V239 by Bakos et al. C1339p286|V180 |The period, magnitude, amplitude and classification we list in C1339p286|V180 |the above table are from Bakos et al. (2005). We estimated the C1339p286|V180 |amplitude from their published light curve. C1339p286|V182 |Greenstein could not confirm the variability of this star. C1339p286|V182 |Sawyer (1939) classified it as non variable in all three C1339p286|V182 |of her catalogs and Bakos et al. (2000) and Benko et al. C1339p286|V182 |(2006) confirmed its non-varable status. C1339p286|V183 |Greenstein commented that V183 was blended with V145. C1339p286|V183 |Sawyer (1939) classified it as non-variable in all three C1339p286|V183 |of her catalogs. Bakos et al. (2000) confirmed its non-variable C1339p286|V183 |status. C1339p286|V185 |Greenstein commented that this was a bright star with a small C1339p286|V185 |range. Bakos et al. (2000) did not detect any variation. Corwin & C1339p286|V185 |Carney (2001) and Benko et al (2006) did not study it. C1339p286|V188 |Magnitudes from Benko et al. and amplitude from Corwin & Carney. C1339p286|V188 |See V96. C1339p286|V192 |Period from Corwin & Carney. See V82. C1339p286|V195 |Magnitudes from Benko et al. and amplitude from Corwin & Carney. C1339p286|V195 |See V96. C1339p286|V196 |The variation of V196 was announced by Greenstein. He could C1339p286|V196 |not derive a period because it was a double and difficult C1339p286|V196 |to measure. Bakos et al. (2000) found that both components C1339p286|V196 |are constant. C1339p286|V198 |Bakos et al. did not confirm variation in this star based on C1339p286|V198 |one night of observations. However, Corwin & Carney derived C1339p286|V198 |a period from their observations and commented that the star C1339p286|V198 |appears to be slightly above the HB of the CMD. C1339p286|V199 |The magnitude and amplitude listed above are from C1339p286|V199 |Greenstein's (1935) paper. He derived a period of 0.488, but C1339p286|V199 |noted that it was doubtful. Corwin & Carney derived 0.40891, C1339p286|V199 |but indicated that it was uncertain. They did not publish a C1339p286|V199 |light curve or list a mean magnitude. C1339p286|V200 |The period, magnitude and variability type are from Benko et al. C1339p286|V200 |(2006). The double-mode nature of V200 was first recognized by C1339p286|V200 |Clementini et al. (2004). C1339p286|V204 |This star was incorrectly listed as von Zeipel 390 (instead of C1339p286|V204 |1390) in Sawyer's (1955) 2nd catalog. As a result, its x,y was C1339p286|V204 |incorrect in her 2nd and 3rd catalogs. According to Corwin & C1339p286|V204 |Carney (2001) and Benko et al. (2006), this star is non-variable. C1339p286|V204 |However, Yao (2007) claims that it is a red HB star with a period C1339p286|V204 |of 0.74785 and V amplitude 0.04. C1339p286|V204 | C1339p286|V205, 206 |Evstigneeva et al. (1994) pointed out that V205 and 206 are WY C1339p286|V205, 206 |CVn and VZ CVn in the GCVS. C1339p286|V205, 206 |The periods and magnitudes we list for these two stars are from C1339p286|V205, 206 |Kukarkin (1960, Ast Tsirk 216, 29). C1339p286|V217 |Guhathakurta et al. (1994) classified this star (Gu9023) C1339p286|V217 |as an RR Lyrae. C1339p286|V222 |According to Benko et al. (2006), V146 and V222 were C1339p286|V222 |interchanged by Corwin & Carney (2001) and by Clementini et C1339p286|V222 |al. (2004). The magnitude and amplitude that we list for V222 C1339p286|V222 |in the above table are the values listed by Corwin & Carney for C1339p286|V222 |V146. See the comment for V146. C1339p286|V224 |Bakos et al. (2000) confirmed that this star was variable, but C1339p286|V224 |also commented that its image merges with that of a nearby star. C1339p286|V224 |It was not investigated further in their subsequent paper (Benko C1339p286|V224 |et al. 2006). C1339p286|V225 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed for V95 and C1339p286|V225 |V225 are from Russev (1971). Rosino (1978) classified V95, C1339p286|V225 |V138 and V225 as semi-regular variables. C1339p286|V230 |This was Kholopov's (1977) X41. It was not labelled on his ID C1339p286|V230 |chart because it was too far from the cluster centre. It was not C1339p286|V230 |studied by Corwin & Carney (2001) or by Benko et al. (2006). C1339p286|V234 |According to Corwin & Carney (2001), this star is an RR Lyrae C1339p286|V234 |that might be more distant than the cluster so we have classified C1339p286|V234 |it as a field star. In their investigation, they called the C1339p286|V234 |star V164, but Clementini et al. (2004) later pointed out that it C1339p286|V234 |was V234. C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |Period, magnitude and amplitude in the above table are from C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |Olah (1979) based on 195 Budapest observations obtained between C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |1938 and 1962. A period of 215.8 days also fit the data. The C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |star was also discussed by Welty (1985) who derived periods of C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |32.2 and 60.2 from Yerkes observations obtained between 1978 and C1339p286|V236 (vZ 1397) |1983. He preferred the 60 day period. We classify the star as SR. C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |Benko et al. (2006) pointed out that the dec for V238 and V239 C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |were incorrectly listed in the 2001 on-line version of the C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |catalog. Meanwhile, Hartman et al. (2005) pointed out C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |that the coordinates of V237 and V238 were switched in the C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |discovery paper (Kaluzny) and that this error had propagated C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |through to the catalog of Bakos et al. (2000). The coordinates C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |listed for V237, V238, V239 have all been revised accordingly C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |in the above table. C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |V237: Period, magnitude, amplitude and classification from C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |Hartman et al. (2005). C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |V238: Period, magnitude, amplitude and classification C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |from the discovery paper by Kaluzny et al. (1998) C1339p286|V237, V238, V239 |The non-membership status for V238 is from Rucinski (2000). C1339p286|V240 |Mean magnitude from Corwin & Carney (2001) and amplitude C1339p286|V240 |estimated from the light curve published by Benko et al. (2006) C1339p286|V250n, V250s |Benko et al. (2006) discovered that the image of V250 consisted C1339p286|V250n, V250s |of two close companions, both RR0 variables. They derived a C1339p286|V250n, V250s |period for each star, but it was not possible to derive individual C1339p286|V250n, V250s |magnitudes or amplitudes. C1339p286|V251 |The double-mode nature of V251 was first recognized by C1339p286|V251 |Clementini et al. (2004). C1339p286|V260 |This star (vZ 297) is among the brightest stars on the giant C1339p286|V260 |branch and Walker (1955) suggested that it might be variable. C1339p286|V260 |However, the variation was not confirmed by Olah (1979) nor by C1339p286|V260 |Welty (1985). The mean magnitude we list in the above table is C1339p286|V260 |from Olah's paper. C1339p286|V260 |We classify it as SR? because its colour and magnitude are C1339p286|V260 |comparable to the SR variables in M3: V95, V138, V225 and V236. C1339p286|V262 |Guhathakurta et al. (1994) classified this star (Gu 552) as an C1339p286|V262 |RR Lyrae variable, but Bakos et al. (2000) found no trace of C1339p286|V262 |variation, hence the "CST?" designation. C1339p286|V262 | C1339p286|V265, V267, V268 |V265=Gu 1489, V267=Gu 9016, V268=Gu 9025: These stars all have C1339p286|V265, V267, V268 |close companions. The variability types were assigned by C1339p286|V265, V267, V268 |Guhathakurta et al. (1994, AJ 108, 1786) but they did not derive C1339p286|V265, V267, V268 |precise periods for any of them. C1339p286|V270n, V270s |Benko et al. (2006) discovered that the image of V270 consisted C1339p286|V270n, V270s |of two close companions, both RR0 variables. They derived a C1339p286|V270n, V270s |period for each star, but it was not possible to derive individual C1339p286|V270n, V270s |magnitudes or amplitudes. C1339p286|V272, V273, V274 |Light curves based on the image subtraction method were C1339p286|V272, V273, V274 |published by Bakos et al. (2000). Benko et al. (2006) C1339p286|V272, V273, V274 |published a period for V273. We have classified them all C1339p286|V272, V273, V274 |as SR because Benko et al. indicated that they varied on C1339p286|V272, V273, V274 |"long" time scales. C1339p286|S1-S11 |Strader et al. (2002) announced the discovery of 11 new C1339p286|S1-S11 |suspected variables (S1-11). They derived periods ranging from C1339p286|S1-S11 |7 to 32 hours for 9 of the stars, but the observations of Benko C1339p286|S1-S11 |et al. (2006) did not confirm any of these discoveries. C1339p286|S1-S11 |When Hartmann et al. (2005) set up their numbering system for C1339p286|S1-S11 |V286 to V297, they left a gap from V275 to V285 to accommodate C1339p286|S1-S11 |these 11 variables. C1339p286|S1-S11 |However, we have not assigned numbers to them because of C1339p286|S1-S11 |Benko's result. C1339p286|V298 |This star is N2 in the paper by Benko et al. (2006) and C1339p286|V298 |all of the information listed for it is from their paper. C1339p286|V298 | C1343m511|V16 |The RA and dec for V16 are from Samus et al. (2009) and the C1343m511|V16 |remaining data are from Liller & Lichten (1978). V16 was outside C1343m511|V16 |the field observed by Zorotovic et al. (2010). C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |These stars were selected by Gerashchenko et al. (1997) as C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |possible RR Lyrae variables based only on their position in the C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |CM diagram. Zorotovic et al. (2010) did not detect variability C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |in any of them. They concluded that V19 and V24 were probably C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |blended in the images of Gerashchenko and that V22 and V23 were C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |blue HB stars, close to the instability strip. C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |The RA and dec for these stars are from Samus et al. (2009). C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |It should be noted that there is a systematic difference between C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |the decs derived by Samus and by Zorotovic et al. among the stars C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |common to both studies, in the sense that Zorotovic's values are C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |approximately 6 arcseconds south of the ones derived by Samus. C1343m511|V19, V22, V23, V24 |Their RA values agree to within 1 arcsecond. C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |These stars were later observed by Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016). C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |The periods listed for these stars are from their study. C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |The declinations derived by Figuera Jaimes et al. for these stars C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |were approximately 6 arcseconds south of those derived by Zorotovic C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |et al. (2010). Their RA values agree to within 1 arcsecond. C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |The coordinates derived by Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) for these C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |stars are listed here: C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V37 13:46:27.28 -51:22:51.6 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V39 13:46:25.46 -51:22:46.8 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V40 13:46:26.92 -51:22:44.2 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V41 13:46:26.58 -51:22:42.9 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V43 13:46:26.73 -51:22:38.1 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V46 13:46:27.47 -51:22:33.9 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V50 13:46:25.98 -51:22:30.3 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V55 13:46:25.40 -51:22:25.8 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V56 13:46:25.11 -51:22:24.3 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V57 13:46:27.79 -51:22:20.7 C1343m511|V37, V39, V40, V41, V43, V46, V50, V55, V56, V57, V58 |V58 13:46:26.63 -51:22:19.3 C1403p287|V1 |With x=+858" and y+-95", this variable was outside the field of C1403p287|V1 |view in the CCD studies. The period and magnitudes listed in the C1403p287|V1 |above table are from Gryzunova (1972). C1403p287|V20 |The period derived for V20 by Corwin et al. (1999) did not fit C1403p287|V20 |the data well. The period, magnitude and classification we list C1403p287|V20 |in the above table for this star are from Arellano Ferro et al. C1403p287|V20 |(2008). The amplitude was estimated from their light curve. These C1403p287|V20 |authors published periods and magnitudes for the other RR Lyrae, C1403p287|V20 |but since they did not publish amplitudes, we have listed the C1403p287|V20 |Corwin et al. (1999) data instead. We found that the mean V C1403p287|V20 |magnitudes (A_0 values) published by Arellano Ferro et al. were on C1403p287|V20 |average 0.07 mag fainter than the _int values published by C1403p287|V20 |Corwin et al. C1403p287|V22 |This star (Hopmann 35) was announced as a variable by Gryzunova C1403p287|V22 |(1969) who subsequently derived a period of 0.2321607 days C1403p287|V22 |(Gryzunova 1972). The number V22 was assigned by Sawyer Hogg C1403p287|V22 |(1973) in her 3rd catalog. However, Corwin et al. (1999) could C1403p287|V22 |not locate V22 at the coordinates (-153, -80) reported by Gryzunova C1403p287|V22 |and Sawyer Hogg. They also pointed out that Buonanno et al. (1984) C1403p287|V22 |did not identify this star as a candiate variable even though it C1403p287|V22 |was in their field of view. The star appears to be the star Cuffey C1403p287|V22 |(1961) identified as 1-3-8 with V=16.56 at the blue end of the HB. C1403p287|V22 |In his paper, he also listed a number of candidate variables, but C1403p287|V22 |this star was not one of them. It has a nearby (within 5 arcsec) C1403p287|V22 |fainter companion 1-3-9 with V=17.84. We suspect that this star C1403p287|V22 |was not well resolved on all of the plates investigated by Gryzunova C1403p287|V22 |and this is why it appeared to be variable. In a more recent paper, C1403p287|V22 |Arellano Ferro (2008) applied the image subtraction technique to C1403p287|V22 |NGC 5466 and although they identified some new variables, they did C1403p287|V22 |not mention V22. C1403p287|V22 |We therefore conclude that V22 is not a variable star. C1403p287|V23 |The period originally derived for this variable (0.2321607 days) C1403p287|V23 |by Gryzunova (1972) was unusally short and Cacciari (1974) showed C1403p287|V23 |that a period of 0.302353 days gave a perfectly equivalent light C1403p287|V23 |curve. The period listed in the above table (0.815) is from C1403p287|V23 |Corwin et al. (1999) who stated that Gryzunova's period did not C1403p287|V23 |produce a reasonable light curve, but commented that it was C1403p287|V23 |difficult to determine a period for this star. C1403p287|V26, V27 |Corwin et al. (1999) investigated these two stars which they C1403p287|V26, V27 |referred to as 4-1-22 (Cuffey's 1961 designation) and PV C1403p287|V26, V27 |(the designation by Buonanno et al. 1984) and found that they C1403p287|V26, V27 |did not appear to be variable. Both had nearby companions which C1403p287|V26, V27 |were not resolved in some of the images and this probably caused C1403p287|V26, V27 |their apparent variability. C1403p287|V31 |The dominant frequency that Jeon et al. (2004) derived for this C1403p287|V31 |star corresponded to a period of 2.34 days, which they suggested C1403p287|V31 |might indicate that the variable is in an eclipsing system. C1403p287|V31 | C1427m057|V7 |The non-variable status for this star is based on the fact that C1427m057|V7 |Salinas et al. (2005) did not detect any variation when they applied C1427m057|V7 |the image subtraction technique, even though they recovered the other C1427m057|V7 |six known variables and discovered a number of new ones. Furthermore, C1427m057|V7 |both Baade (1945) and Liller & Sawyer Hogg (1976) noted that they C1427m057|V7 |could not estimate reliable magnitudes for V7 because of its crowded C1427m057|V7 |field. C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |These 3 stars were not detected by DAOphot in the photometry of C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |Salinas et al (2012). Their RA and dec have been calculated by C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |C. Clement (2013) based on the x, y, RA, dec values derived C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |in the studies by Salinas et al. (2005, 2012). For these C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |calculations, the origin for the x,y system was assumed to be C1427m057|V9, V10, V20 |RA=14:29:37.16 and dec=-05:58:38.1. C1436m263|V11 |Rodrigues de Andrade et al. (2012) commented that it was unclear C1436m263|V11 |why this type II Cepheid candidate was not detected in previous C1436m263|V11 |studies. However, their light curve shows a B amplitude less than C1436m263|V11 |0.3 mag which is at the threshold of detection from photographic C1436m263|V11 |studies. Furthermore, V11 has a nearby companion (within 2 C1436m263|V11 |arcseconds) and their images were probably blended on many of the C1436m263|V11 |photographic plates. C1452m820|V4 |The y coordinate listed for this star by Sawyer Hogg (1973) C1452m820|V4 |and in our previous electronic catalog had a minus sign that C1452m820|V4 |was incorrect. (The correct value is y = +14.03 arcsec) C1452m820|V17, V88 |Walker & Nemec (1996) found that Fourcade & Laborde (1969) C1452m820|V17, V88 |had misidentified V17 and V88 which are Sarajedini's RR stars C1452m820|V17, V88 |#2 and #14 respectively. In footnote #4 on page 2034 of their C1452m820|V17, V88 |paper, Walker & Nemec indicated the correct positions of these C1452m820|V17, V88 |two stars. C1452m820|V117, V118, V120, V121, V122, V123, V125, V128 |The CST classification for these stars was made by Clement C1452m820|V117, V118, V120, V121, V122, V123, V125, V128 |et al. (1979) C1452m820|V84 |The sign of the y coordinate (-41.53) listed by Fourcade & C1452m820|V84 |Laborde (1969) was incorrect according to Samus et al. (2009). C1452m820|V84 |It does not agree with the position labelled on their ID chart. C1452m820|V84 |The incorrect sign for y was also listed by Sawyer Hogg (1973) C1452m820|V84 |in her 3rd catalogue and in our previous electronic catalogues; C1452m820|V84 |y for V84 should be +41.53 arcsec. C1452m820|V91 |The CST classification for V91 by Clement et al. (1986). C1452m820|V127 |Variability type (RR) for V127 from Sarajedini (1993) C1452m820|V126, V129 |The CST? classification was assigned because these stars C1452m820|V126, V129 |were in the field observed by Sarajedini (1993) and he C1452m820|V126, V129 |did not detect significant variations. None of these stars C1452m820|V126, V129 |were measured by the other investigators. C1452m820|V152 |CST? for V152 because Clement et al. (1979) could not C1452m820|V152 |derive a period and Sarajedini (1993) did not detect C1452m820|V152 |significant variations. Furthermore, it was not recovered as C1452m820|V152 |a variable star by Walker & Nemec (1996). C1514m208|V5 |The mean magnitude is from Wehlau (1990) and the amplitude, which C1514m208|V5 |might be a lower limit, is from Eggen (1972 - see page 661). C1514m208|V9 |The period, magnitude, amplitude and classification are from C1514m208|V9 |Wehlau et al. (1996) C1514m208|V9 |Various investigators (Sarajedini 1992, Ferraro et al. 1992, Testa C1514m208|V9 |et al. 2001) have shown that NGC 5897 has a well populated blue C1514m208|V9 |straggler sequence. Up to now, V9 is the only known BSS variable in C1514m208|V9 |NGC 5897, but there are probably others. C1516p022|V14 |V14 was incorrectly labelled on the charts published by Bailey C1516p022|V14 |(1902, 1917), but his x,y coordinates were correct. Oosterhoff C1516p022|V14 |(1941) pointed out that the variable was the first star to the C1516p022|V14 |left (i.e. east) of the star that Bailey labelled as V14 on his C1516p022|V14 |chart. The star that Bailey labelled as V14 is star #II-51 (Arp C1516p022|V14 |1955). Evstigneeva et al. (1995) derived its J2000 position C1516p022|V14 |(RA = 15:18:22.596, dec = +2:06:40.09) because Osborn (1971) C1516p022|V14 |classified it as a suspected variable. Its variablility has C1516p022|V14 |not yet been confirmed in any subsequent study. C1516p022|V39 |Sandquist et al. (1996) pointed out that the y coordinate for C1516p022|V39 |this star was incorrectly listed in Sawyer Hogg's second (1955) C1516p022|V39 |and third (1973) catalogues. Two digits were inadvertently C1516p022|V39 |exchanged; y should be -250.2 arcseconds. C1516p022|V104 |This is the same star as HST-V1 of Drissen & Shara (1998) who C1516p022|V104 |tentatively classified it as an eclipsing binary. However, C1516p022|V104 |Caputo et al. (1999) noted that more observations were required C1516p022|V104 |before a firm classification could be made. C1516p022|V104 |Olech et al. (1999) had more extensive data and concluded that it C1516p022|V104 |is a multi-periodic RR1 variable that exhibits non-radial pulsation. C1516p022|V122 |This is HST-V23 of Drissen & Shara (1998) who determined a lower C1516p022|V122 |limit to the period: P=0.47 days. No other period determination C1516p022|V122 |has been made for this star. C1516p022|V155 |This star was originally classified as RR Lyrae by Drissen & Shara C1516p022|V155 |(1998) but Arellano Ferro et al. (2015) showed that it was C1516p022|V155 |more likely an eclipsing binary. The period, magnitude and C1516p022|V155 |classification in the above table are from Arellano et al. (2015). C1516p022|V158 |Although the 0.45 day period seems long for an RR1 classification, C1516p022|V158 |this has been made because of its light curve shape and the fact C1516p022|V158 |that it is brighter than the other RR1 variables in the study by C1516p022|V158 |Drissen & Shara (1998). V158 shares these properties with M5:V76 C1516p022|V158 |and M3:V70. C1542m376|V5 |Liller & Lichten were unable to detect the variability of this C1542m376|V5 |star. Rosino reexamined his plates and confirmed this. Furthermore, C1542m376|V5 |Alves et al. (2001) did not recover this star as variable when they C1542m376|V5 |performed a "difference imaging" analysis. Therefore the star is C1542m376|V5 |now classified as non-variable. C1614m228|V1 |Wehlau et al. (1984) pointed out that the y value that Sawyer Hogg C1614m228|V1 |listed for for V1 in her 2nd and 3rd catalogues (Sawyer 1955, 1973) C1614m228|V1 |was incorrect. It should be y = +79 arcsec (instead of +49). C1614m228|V1 |Wehlau's (1990) period was confirmed by Matsunaga et al. (2006) C1614m228|V1 |who observed V1 in the JHK bands and derived P=16.304 days. C1614m228|V1 |In their paper, Matsunaga listed incorrect values of RA and dec for C1614m228|V1 |V1. The values they listed were the RA and dec for V2. C1614m228|V2 |The V magnitude listed for V2 in the above table is from the CM C1614m228|V2 |diagram published by Kopacki (2013) which shows that the star is C1614m228|V2 |located at the RG tip. He derived the V magnitude by adding 0.61 C1614m228|V2 |to the value published by Alcaino et al. (1998) to match the C1614m228|V2 |photometric system of Stetson (2000). Kopacki did not detect C1614m228|V2 |any variability in V2 but pointed out this might have been due to C1614m228|V2 |the short length of his observing run. C1614m228|V2 |Wehlau et al. (1990) commented that V2 showed very little amplitude C1614m228|V2 |in either B or V and pointed out that the tentative period C1614m228|V2 |(24.9 days) published by Sawyer Hogg (1973) in her 3rd catalog was C1614m228|V2 |not confirmed in subsequent data. C1614m228|V6, V7 |These two stars are S Sco and R Sco respectively. The RA and dec C1614m228|V6, V7 |listed above are from Samus et al. (2009) and the remaining data are C1614m228|V6, V7 |from the ASAS survey (Pojmanski 2002). The listed magnitudes are C1614m228|V6, V7 |maximim V magnitudes. Both stars are considered to be field stars. C1614m228|V11, V12 |The data for V11-12 are from the discovery paper by Shara et al. (2005) C1614m228|V11, V12 | C1614m228|V17, V19 |These two stars were independently detected as variables by C1614m228|V17, V19 |Thomson et al. (2010) who designated them as TDK1 (V19) and TDK3 (V17). C1614m228|V17, V19 |Dieball et al (2010) designated them as #2324 and #2817. They were C1614m228|V17, V19 |also observed by Figuera Jaimes wt al. (2016) whose periods are C1614m228|V17, V19 |listed in the above table. C1614m228|V25 |Kopacki tentatively classified this star as SX Phe, but pointed out C1614m228|V25 |that it could also be a W UMa or ellipsoidal binary system. If V25 C1614m228|V25 |in an SX Phe variable, it is probably not a cluster member since C1614m228|V25 |it is about 3 magnitudes fainter than the SX Phe variables, V22, V23 C1614m228|V25 |and V24. C1614m228|V33 |The period and classification for V33 are from Thomson et al. C1614m228|V33 |(2010). It was their variable TDK#2. C1614m228|V34 |Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) detected a brighening in this star C1614m228|V34 |which is located at the position that Dieball et al. (2010) C1614m228|V34 |published for the Nova. It has not yet been determined whether or C1614m228|V34 |not this is associated with the Nova. C1620m264|V4, V13 |The mean V magnitudes and amplitudes are from photoelectric C1620m264|V4, V13 |photometry published by Eggen (1972) who concluded that both C1620m264|V4, V13 |appear to be semi-regular variables. He derived P ~ 65 days C1620m264|V4, V13 |for V4 and P ~ 40 days for V13. C1620m264|V4, V13 |Both stars are considered to be cluster members based on radial C1620m264|V4, V13 |velocities derived by Joy (1949) and a mean cluster velocity C1620m264|V4, V13 |derived by Kinman (1959) C1620m264|V4, V13 |The RA and dec listed above are from Samus et al. (2009). C1620m264|V17, V52 |V17 is NOT variable. The star listed as V17 by de Sitter C1620m264|V17, V52 |(1947) and in previous versions of this catalogue, with C1620m264|V17, V52 |P=0.8555, is actually V52. This was recognized by Stetson et C1620m264|V17, V52 |al. (2014). C1620m264|V17, V52 |De Sitter's (1947) paper was written by Oosterhoff after C1620m264|V17, V52 |de Sitter's death, but Oosterhoff did not have access to all C1620m264|V17, V52 |of the original material. He was working from notes. In the C1620m264|V17, V52 |paper, he pointed out that the location of V17 was uncertain. C1620m264|V17, V52 |He was able to make successful matches for the other variables C1620m264|V17, V52 |by referring to the work of Sawyer (1931) and to a preliminary C1620m264|V17, V52 |report by de Sitter (1941). However, Oosterhoff did not know C1620m264|V17, V52 |the position of the variable with a period of 0.8555 days so he C1620m264|V17, V52 |assumed that it might be V17. It is now known as V52. C1620m264|V17, V52 |The non-variable status of V17 was first pointed out by C1620m264|V17, V52 |Sawyer (1931) and confirmed by Stetson et al. (2014). Both C1620m264|V17, V52 |Samus et al. (2009) and Stetson et al. (2014) have noted that C1620m264|V17, V52 |it is a red star. C1620m264|V17, V52 |In the 2009 version of this electronic catalogue, a period of C1620m264|V17, V52 |0.4605 days was listed for V52. This was derived by Yao et al. C1620m264|V17, V52 |(1980a,b), but the light curve plotted in their paper showed a C1620m264|V17, V52 |lot of scatter. The 0.4605 day period is an alias for the true C1620m264|V17, V52 |period, 0.8555 days. C1620m264|V34 |The period was derived by de Sitter (1947) and later confirmed C1620m264|V34 |by Sujarkova & Shugarov (1981). Stetson et al. (2014) did not C1620m264|V34 |have sufficent data to fit a light curve. C1620m264|V38 |The y coordinate published by Sawyer Hogg (1973) for V38 C1620m264|V38 |was incorrect. It should have been -92". This was a typing error; C1620m264|V38 |it was listed correctly in the 1955 edition of her catalog. C1620m264|V40/V92 |De Sitter (1947) had difficulty deriving a period for this star C1620m264|V40/V92 |because its image was blended with a nearby star on some of his C1620m264|V40/V92 |plates. Nascimbeni et al. (2014) and Stetson et al. (2014) C1620m264|V40/V92 |discovered that the nearby star was also an RR Lyrae variable. C1620m264|V40/V92 |It was Nascimbeni's N31 and Stetson's C1. C1620m264|V40/V92 |The nearby companion to V40 has been assigned the number V92 in C1620m264|V40/V92 |this catalogue. C1620m264|V43 |This star was outside the field observed by Stetson et al. C1620m264|V43 |(2014). The period, V magnitude and amplitude are from the C1620m264|V43 |study by Cacciari (1979). C1620m264|V44-47 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009), the V magnitudes C1620m264|V44-47 |are from Alcaino (1975). Alcaino stated that these stars might C1620m264|V44-47 |be RR Lyrae variables. However, Stetson et al. (2014) observed C1620m264|V44-47 |them and did not detect variability in any of them. They are C1620m264|V44-47 |therefore classified as "CST". C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009) and the mean V C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |magnitudes are from Lee (1977). Lee stated that these stars C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |might be RR Lyrae variables. However, Stetson et al. (2014) C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |observed them and did not detect variability in any of them. C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |They are therefore classified as "CST". C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |Yao (1993) showed that V48 (= Lee 1717 = Greenstein 172 = C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 |Alcaino 522) is a blue HB star. C1620m264|V48, V50, V51 | C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009) and the V magnitudes C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |are from Stetson et al. (2014). C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |Yao (1981a,b) plotted light curves based on about 2 hours of C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |observations. These stars show low level variations (0.1 mag or C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |less). Thus it is not certain that the stars actually vary. C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |They are therefore listed as "CST?" in the above table. Later, C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |Yao (1991) showed that V55 is a blue HB star and derived C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |provisional periods, but the V amplitudes were very low (0.01 C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |mag or less). C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |Stetson et al. (2014) noted that V53 showed some evidence for C1620m264|V53, V54, V55 |variabiity on time scales of minutes to hours. C1620m264|V57 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009). They differ from C1620m264|V57 |the coordinates listed by Stetson et al. (2014) because there C1620m264|V57 |was a transcription error in the x,y coordinates listed for this C1620m264|V57 |star in the 2009 version of this electronic catalogue. C1620m264|V57 |The V magnitude is from Cudworth & Rees (1990). C1620m264|V57 |Yao (1986) showed that one of the red giant stars G265 (V56) or C1620m264|V57 |G266 (V57) is variable, but in a subsequent paper (Yao 1987), C1620m264|V57 |V56 was listed as the variable. C1620m264|V57 |V57 is no longer considered to be variable. C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009). C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |V magnitudes, amplitudes and location on the CM diagram are C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |from Yao (1987). The observations spanned a period of C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |approximately 2 hours. During that interval, the light curves C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |for all of these stars had a similar shape. Given that the C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |amplitudes were all low, their variable status is is called into C1620m264|V56, V58, V59, V60 |question and they are listed a "CST?". C1620m264|V65/K46 |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014) and the remaining C1620m264|V65/K46 |data are from Kaluzny et al (2013b) who noted that the star C1620m264|V65/K46 |is an sdB star that is an ellipsoidal variable, supporting a C1620m264|V65/K46 |conclusion reached by O'Toole et al. (2006) in an earlier paper. C1620m264|V71/K52 |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014). C1620m264|V71/K52 |The period and magnitudes are from Kaluzny et al. (2013b) C1620m264|V71/K52 |who conclude that this is a binary star that exhibits C1620m264|V71/K52 |ellipsoidal variations and, on one occasion, a flare. Its C1620m264|V71/K52 |average luminosity varies from season to season. C1620m264|V75 |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014) C1620m264|V75 |The period and magnitudes are from Yao (1988). C1620m264|V75 |Stetson et al. derived B=14.31, V=13.37 but did not have C1620m264|V75 |sufficient data to derive a period. C1620m264|V76 |The RA, dec and V magnitude are from Stetson et al. (2014) C1620m264|V76 |The period was derived by Yao (1977,1878). Stetson et al. C1620m264|V76 |(2014) did not have sufficient data to derive a period. C1620m264|V77/K56 |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014). C1620m264|V77/K56 |This star is on the RGB and its average luminosity varies from C1620m264|V77/K56 |season to season. However, Kaluzny et al. (2013b) showed that C1620m264|V77/K56 |it also exhibits a low amplitude variability on a time scale of C1620m264|V77/K56 |about 10 days which might indicate it is in a binary system. C1620m264|V77/K56 |They pointed out that the star may be associated with a nearby C1620m264|V77/K56 |X-ray source. C1620m264|V78/K57 |This star is on the RGB and the RA, dec and V magnitude listed C1620m264|V78/K57 |aboveare from Stetson et al. (2014). According to Kaluzny et C1620m264|V78/K57 |al. (2013), it is no longer considered to be variable, a C1620m264|V78/K57 |conclusion confirmed by Stetson et al. (2014). C1620m264|V79 |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014). This variable C1620m264|V79 |star was identified as Greenstein #302 and Lee #3107 in the C1620m264|V79 |discovery paper by Yao et al. (2004a,b). The period, mean V C1620m264|V79 |magnitude and amplitude are from their discovery paper. Lee's C1620m264|V79 |(1977) magnitude was too bright because the star had an C1620m264|V79 |unresolved companion. C1620m264|V79 |Stetson et al. (2014) were not able to discern star #302 on C1620m264|V79 |Greenstein's chart. However, they located a blended pair of C1620m264|V79 |stars nearby and noted that the southeastern star of the pair C1620m264|V79 |showed strong evidence of variability. They identified this C1620m264|V79 |star as V79, but did not have enough data to make a C1620m264|V79 |classification. They derived V=15.07 which is comparable to C1620m264|V79 |Yao's result. C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |The RA and dec are from Stetson et al. (2014). The remaining C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |data are from the discovery paper by Yao et al. (2006). They C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |concluded that the star must an eclipsing variable or a C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |rotating spotted star, if it is a cluster member. They C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |derived a period of 0.948997, but there is a lot of scatter on C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |the light curve. Stetson et al. (2014) did not detect any C1620m264|V80 (Alcaino 66) |variability in this star. C1620m264|V81/K58 |All of the data are from Kaluzny et al. (2013b) who concluded C1620m264|V81/K58 |in a earlier study (Kaluzny et al. 2012) that it is the optical C1620m264|V81/K58 |counterpart of the X-ray source CX1 and probably a binary. C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |These are stars (K61, K64, K68) that Kaluzny et al. (2013b) C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |classified as SX PHe variables. They listed V amplitudes of C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |0.01, 0l05 and 0.01 mag respectively, but no light curves were C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |plotted in their paper. Stetson et al. (2014) did not detect C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |variabiity in any of them. Therefore, they are listed as C1620m264|V84, V87, V90 |"CST?" C1620m264|V92 |See the note for V40. C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|The V magnitudes that these authors listed were obtained by C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|cross-matching their catalogue with that of Sarajedini et al. C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|(2007) and do not represent the intensity-weighted averages C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|derived from light curves. For the detached eclipsing binaries, C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|e.g. V94, it is assumed that these magnitudes probably represent C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|the V mgnitude at maximum light. C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|The V amplitudes listed for these variables in the above table C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|were read from the light curves plotted in Figures 4 and 5 of the C1620m264|V93, V94 and the other variables announced by Nascimbeni et al. (2014)|Nascimbeni et al. paper. C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |These are N8, N21, N29, N32, all detached eclipsing binaries C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |discovered by Nascimbeni et al. (2014) and the data listed in the C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |above table are from their paper. These stars are expected to C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |have two eclipses of similar depth. As a result, the period C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |finding algorithm might find periods of half the true duration. C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |Therefore the periods they published, which are listed in the C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |above table for these stars, were doubled with respect to the C1620m264|V96, V104, V105, V106 |best-fitting periodogram solution. C1620m264|PSR |The data listed for PSR B1620-26 are from Thorsett et al. (1993). C1620m264|PSR |Other investigations of this object are reported on Paulo C1620m264|PSR |Freire's website (www.naic.edu/~pfreire/GCpsr.html). C1620m720|V5, V6 |Fitzgerald et al. (2012) derived periods that were significantly C1620m720|V5, V6 |different from the ones derived by Cohen et al. Cohen's periods C1620m720|V5, V6 |did not fit Fitzgerald's observations, but Fitzgerald's periods C1620m720|V5, V6 |(our adopted periods) gave a satisfactory fit to Cohen's C1620m720|V5, V6 |observations. C1620m720|V11-15 |These variables are considered to be field stars. They are all C1620m720|V11-15 |located more than 10 arcmin from the cluster centre, well beyond C1620m720|V11-15 |the tidal radius (which is 6.1 arcmin, according to the 2010 C1620m720|V11-15 |edition of Harris's catalogue). The tidal radius had not been C1620m720|V11-15 |derived at the time of the Liller (1981) study. C1620m720|V11-15 |V12-15 are NSV 20592, 20587, 20591, 20604 in the Moscow GCVS. C1629m129|V1 |V1 = V720 Oph in the GCVS C1629m129|V1 |Period, magnitude and classification by Coutts & Sawyer Hogg, C1629m129|V1 |(1971). A radial velocty spectrum by Feast (private communication C1629m129|V1 |to Sawyer Hogg) demonstrated that V1 is not a cluster member. C1629m129|V1 |NB: The star Dickens (1970) listed as V1 is V23 in the above table. C1629m129|V21 |The "f" status for V21 was assigned by Dickens (1970) and C1629m129|V21 |confirmed by the proper motion study of Cudworth et al. (1992). C1629m129|V22 |V22 = NSV 07824 in the GCVS = SSS_J163059.3-130633 C1629m129|V22 |Oosterhoff (1938) did not list any magnitudes for V22, C1629m129|V22 |but he commented that it was fainter than the other variables. C1629m129|V22 |It was located near the edge of his plates and not in C1629m129|V22 |the field of the finder chart he published. C1629m129|V22 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) classified it as a probable field star C1629m129|V22 |because it is outside the tidal radius which is 18.98 according C1629m129|V22 |to the 2010 version of the Harris (1996) cataogue. C1629m129|V22 |Torrealba et al. (2015) identified V22 as SSS_J163059.3-130633 C1629m129|V22 |in the southern Catalina surveys and the period, magnitude, C1629m129|V22 |amplitude and classification in the above table are from their C1629m129|V22 |catalogue. It is considerably fainter than the other RR Lyrae C1629m129|V22 |variables in the cluster thus comfirming Sawyer Hogg's C1629m129|V22 |conclusion that it is a field star. C1629m129|V25 |Magnitude and amplitude from Lloyd Evans & Menzies (1977). C1629m129|V25 |They classified V25 as a red variable, but we have classified C1629m129|V25 |it as Lb because the GCVS does not use the term, red variable. C1629m129|V26 |The data for V26 are from the discovery paper by McCombs et C1629m129|V26 |al. (2012). However, the amplitude they listed appeared to be C1629m129|V26 |the half amplitude (0.046 mag) so that value was doubled in C1629m129|V26 |the above table. C1639p365|V14 |CST classification for V14 (Ludendorff 527) is from C1639p365|V14 |Sawyer (1955, DDO Pub. 2, 33). C1639p365|V14 |The RA and dec are from Osborn (2000, AJ 119, 2902) C1639p365|V16 |CST classification for V16 (Ludendorff 1079) is from C1639p365|V16 |Osborn & Ibanez (1973, IBVS 798) and from Cudworth & C1639p365|V16 |Monet (1979, AJ 84, 774). The RA and dec are from the C1639p365|V16 |2MASS catalog (Osborn 2008, private communication). C1639p365|V16 |Samus et al. (2009) published RA, dec for V16, but their C1639p365|V16 |values pertain to a different star. C1639p365|V20 |The RA and Dec are from Osborn (2000) and the remaining data are C1639p365|V20 |from Osborn et al. (2017). C1639p365|V32 |The RA and dec for V32 are from Osborn (2008, private C1639p365|V32 |communication) based on the 2MASS catalog and the remaining C1639p365|V32 |data are from Osborn et al. (2017). C1639p365|V33 |The RA and Dec are from Osborn (2000, AJ 119, 2902) and the remaining C1639p365|V33 |data are from Osborn et al. (2017). C1639p365|V37 |The data are from Kopacki (2005) C1639p365|V46, V47 |The data are from Kopacki (2005) who showed that V46 is C1639p365|V46, V47 |multiperiodic. C1639p365|V48, V49 |The data are from the discovery paper by Pietrukowicz & C1639p365|V48, V49 |Kaluzny (2004) who listed these stars as M13_03 and M13_04. C1639p365|V50 |The data are from the discovery paper by Kopacki (2005). C1639p365|V51 |This star was announced as star c, a suspected variable by C1639p365|V51 |Meinunger (1978). It was later observed by Kopacki et al. C1639p365|V51 |(2003) who did not detect any variability. They identified C1639p365|V51 |it as Ludendorff (1905) #993 and derived its RA and dec (J2000). C1639p365|V51 |They also pointed out that it had been identified as a C1639p365|V51 |UV-bright object by Zinn et al. (1972). C1639p365|V51 |Servillat et al. (2011) later detected U band variability in C1639p365|V51 |star c on timescales of a few days. The Kopacki observations C1639p365|V51 |were made in the V and I bands. C1639p365|V51 |The RA and dec listed above are from Servillat et al. (2011). C1639p365|V51 |The classification is uncertain. C1639p365|V52, V53 |The data are from the discovery paper by Servillat et al. (2011). C1645p476|V27, V73 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2015) found that these two variables were C1645p476|V27, V73 |located in the region of the CMD where type II Cepheids are located C1645p476|V27, V73 |but they were unable to derive satisfactory periods. A period of C1645p476|V27, V73 |1.13827 days derived by Borissova et al. (2001) for V27 did not C1645p476|V27, V73 |fit their data. C1645p476|V63 |This RR1 variable is brighter and redder than the other RR Lyrae C1645p476|V63 |variables in the cluster. Also, its amplitude is low for its C1645p476|V63 |period. These facts indicate that the image of V63 is blended with C1645p476|V63 |that of a brighter star on the red giant branch. For example, if C1645p476|V63 |the red giant has V=17.15, then the actual mean magnitude and C1645p476|V63 |amplitude of V63 would be V ~ 18.1 and Vamp ~ 0.4 in good agreement C1645p476|V63 |with the other RR1 variables in the cluster. C1645p476|V63 |V58 is another RR Lyrae variable that appears to be affected by C1645p476|V63 |blending. C1645p476|V72 |According to Ochsenbein (2016, private communication), this is star C1645p476|V72 |IV-12 of Searle & Zinn (1978). Carney et al. (1991) suggested C1645p476|V72 |that it appeared to be variable. They listed its x,y pixel C1645p476|V72 |coordinates in section 2.4 of their paper. C1650m220|V3 |This star has two possible periods: 0.14188 or 0.16541 days. Its C1650m220|V3 |classification is uncertain. It could be a close binary or an SX Phe C1650m220|V3 |and is not considered to be a cluster member. C1654m040|V1 |Period, magnitude, amplitude and variablility type for V1 C1654m040|V1 |by Clement et al. (1985, AJ 90, 1238) C1654m040|V2 |Period from Clement et al. (1985), magnitude, amplitude C1654m040|V2 |and variablility type from Arp (1955, AJ 60, 1). C1654m040|V3 |Period from Clement et al. (1985), magnitude, amplitude C1654m040|V3 |and variability type from Arp (1955, AJ 60, 1) C1654m040|V4 |variability type for V4 from Voroshilov (1971, C1654m040|V4 |Astron Tsirk 623, 7) C1658m300|V5 |This star appears to be the same as V222. The period (0.46049) C1658m300|V5 |that van Agt and Oosterhoff (1959) derived for V5 is in good C1658m300|V5 |agreement with the period (0.460) that Contreras et al. derived C1658m300|V5 |for V222. The RA and dec listed above for V5 are from Samus et al. C1658m300|V5 |(2009) and are also in good agreement with the values Contreras et C1658m300|V5 |al. (2010) derived for V222. The RA values differ by only 0.08 sec. C1658m300|V5 |There is a greater discrepancy between the dec values (approximately C1658m300|V5 |4 arcsec). However, a close comparison of the declinations derived for C1658m300|V5 |the other variables in the two studies indicates a systematic C1658m300|V5 |difference, in the sense that the declinations derived by Contreras et C1658m300|V5 |al. (2010) are all approximately 4 arcsec south of the Samus et al. C1658m300|V5 |(2009) values. C1658m300|V26, V224, V227 |The membership status of these stars is based on a discussion by C1658m300|V26, V224, V227 |Contreras et al. (2010) on page 1778 of their paper. C1658m300|PSR |There are six millisecond pulsars in M62: PSR J1701-3006A to 3006F. C1658m300|PSR |All of them are in binary systems. Their properties are listed in C1658m300|PSR |a table on Paulo Freire's website at C1658m300|PSR |http://www.naic.edu/~pfreire/GCpsr.html C1658m300|PSR |An optical identification of the companion to PSR J1701-3006B C1658m300|PSR |was reported by Cocozza et al. (2008). C1659m262|V2 |Samus (1984) published observations of FK Oph and pointed out C1659m262|V2 |that FK Oph = V2 (NGC 6273) C1707m265|V2, V7, F1,F2, HV3943, HV 4409 |These stars are listed in the Moscow GCVS as V2137 Oph, V2145 Oph, C1707m265|V2, V7, F1,F2, HV3943, HV 4409 |NSV21001, V2136 Oph, V2102 Oph and IW Oph respectively. C1711m294|V4 |De Lee et al. (2006) pointed out that this star might be an C1711m294|V4 |anomalous Cepheid because its light curve does not have the C1711m294|V4 |characteristic shape expected for an RR Lyrae with a such a long C1711m294|V4 |period. C1711m294|V14 |This star might be a cluster member. The magnitudes published C1711m294|V14 |by Hartwock et al. (1981) are in the appropriate range for cluster C1711m294|V14 |membership. C1715p432|V12 |Some confusion about the identity of this star arose because C1715p432|V12 |there was an error in the sign of the x coordinate published by C1715p432|V12 |Hachenberg (1939). It should have been +29.9" instead of -29.9". C1715p432|V12 |The incorrect value was published by Sawyer in her three catalogues C1715p432|V12 |(Sawyer 1939, 1955; Sawyer Hogg 1973). C1715p432|V12 |Bartolini et al. (1968) discovered the error and recognized that C1715p432|V12 |V12 was the same star as Nassau's V10 which had been designated as C1715p432|V12 |V15 by Sawyer (1939, 1955) in her first two catalogues. C1715p432|V14 |This star was classified as W Ursae Majoris by Hachenberg (1939) C1715p432|V14 |who derived a period of 0.346178 days and noted that it did not C1715p432|V14 |belong to the cluster. The non-member status was later confirmed C1715p432|V14 |in proper motion studies by Rees (1992) and by Tucholke et al. C1715p432|V14 |(1996). C1715p432|V14 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed above are from Bartolini C1715p432|V14 |et al. (1968) C1715p432|V16 |This was Nassau's suspected variable V15. It was subsequently C1715p432|V16 |established by Arp et al. (1953) that it was not variable and this C1715p432|V16 |result was confirmed by Walker (1955). C1716m184|V8 |The period was derived by Clement et al. (1984) based on Sawyer's C1716m184|V8 |(1951) data. A period of 1.00027 days also fit the observations. C1716m184|V8 |However, in a later study, Clement & Shelton (1996) ruled out the one C1716m184|V8 |day period because the star did not vary during their 4-night observing C1716m184|V8 |run, even with observations that spanned more than 7 hours on one C1716m184|V8 |of the nights. It was therefore classified as a long period variable. C1716m184|V8 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2013) did not have enough observations to C1716m184|V8 |derive a period, but observed two minima that were separated by about C1716m184|V8 |400 days. They concluded that V8 is not a cluster member, based on C1716m184|V8 |its extreme red colour compared with the other long period variables. C1716m184|V8 | C1716m184|V19 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2013) noted that this star is a possible C1716m184|V19 |double mode RR Lyrae variable with the first overtone as the C1716m184|V19 |dominant mode. It appears that the fundamental mode oscillations are C1716m184|V19 |strong at some epochs and weak or non-existent at others, i.e. C1716m184|V19 |sometimes it is a double-mode pulsator and sometimes it is not. C1716m184|V19 |This conclusion is based on the fact that their secondary light curve, C1716m184|V19 |the plot of the residuals with the fundamental period, has a great C1716m184|V19 |deal of scatter. C1716m184|V26, V27 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2013) found that these two stars vary on a long C1716m184|V26, V27 |time scale, but their classification is uncertain. On the CM C1716m184|V26, V27 |diagram, they are both located on the subgiant branch and not near the C1716m184|V26, V27 |RG tip where one usually expects to observe longer period variables. C1716m184|V26, V27 |Their properties are similar to the Omega Cen variables OGLE #22 and C1716m184|V26, V27 |31 (Kaluzny et al. 1996), later listed as V216 and V224 by Kaluzny et C1716m184|V26, V27 |al. (2004). Kaluzny et al. derived periods in the 20-40 day range for C1716m184|V26, V27 |these two stars. In their 1996 paper, they classified them as spotted C1716m184|V26, V27 |variables and in 2004, they listed them as "LT". C1725m050|V1 |The period, mean V magnitude, amplitude and RR0 classification C1725m050|V1 |are from Arellano Ferro et al. (2008) who argued that the star C1725m050|V1 |might be a field star, more distant than the cluster. C1725m050|V2 |The V magnitude is from Harris (1993) who also derived C1725m050|V2 |(B-V) = 2.218. The SR classification is from Lloyd et al. C1725m050|V2 |(2008) who analysed the Sawyer Hogg data. They thought it C1725m050|V2 |likely that the star lies below the giant branch and therefore C1725m050|V2 |might not be a cluster member. V2 was outside the field of view C1725m050|V2 |in the Arellano Ferro et al. (2008) study. C1725m050|V3 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2008) noted that this variable could be C1725m050|V3 |either a type II Cepheid or an anomalous Cepheid, but also C1725m050|V3 |commented that the possibility that V3 is not a cluster member C1725m050|V3 |can not be ruled out. C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |These 3 stars, all on the RGB, have properties similar to C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |Omega Centauri variables V216 and V234 (Ogle #22 and #31) which C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |were initially classified as probable RS CVn type variables by C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |Kaluzny et al. (1996) in their discovery paper. However, in a C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |later paper (Kaluzny et al. 2004), they revised the C1725m050|V4, V5, V7 |classification to "LT". C1726m670|V4, V9 |The non-variable status of these variables was first noted by van C1726m670|V4, V9 |Agt (1961) and confirmed by Clement et al. (1995). Mazur et al. C1726m670|V4, V9 |(1999) concurred that V4 was probably constant, but V9 was outside C1726m670|V4, V9 |of their field. C1726m670|V32 |Clement et al. (1995) classified this star as non-variable, but C1726m670|V32 |Mazur et al. (1999) showed that it was an RR0 variable. They C1726m670|V32 |concluded that Clement et al. must have measured the wrong star. C1726m670|V45 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009) who stated that the RA C1726m670|V45 |that Mazur et al. (1999) derived (17:32:52.7) was off by 2 minutes. C1726m670|V45 |Samus et al. identified the star with a 2MASS source. C1732m304|V2 |The y coordinate that Terzan & Rutily (1975) listed for V2 does not C1732m304|V2 |correspond to the position labelled on their ID chart. The dec C1732m304|V2 |listed in the above table is based on the position on the ID chart. C1732m304|V2 |The Vista survey (Minniti et al. 2014) reports two variables located C1732m304|V2 |near our published RA and dec for V2: C1732m304|V2 |at 17:35:47.161 -30:27:50.24 and 17:35:47.422 -30:27:45.40 C1732m304|V2 |respectively. No periods have been published for these stars. C1732m304|V2 |On the CM diagram published by Valenti et al. (2010), V2 lies to the C1732m304|V2 |red of the RG tip. It might not be a cluster member. C1732m304|V2 | C1732m304|V4 |According to Samus et al. (2009), V4 is NSV 22828 in the GCVS. C1732m304|V4 |V4 is located 1.83 arcminutes from the cluster centre, based on C1732m304|V4 |Harris's 2003 coordinates. C1732m304|V4 |The magnitude and amplitude listed in the above table are the C1732m304|V4 |values reported in the GCVS and are from Terzan & Ounnas (1988) C1732m304|V4 |who listed it as V1812. C1732m304|V4 |The star appears to be a Mira variable, based on its amplitude. C1732m304|V4 |It is near the RG tip in the (K, J-K) CM diagram published by C1732m304|V4 |Valenti et al. (2010). C1732m304|V6, V13, V17 |These three variables were not included in the Soszynski et al. C1732m304|V6, V13, V17 |(2014) list of RR Lyrae in Terzan 1, but they are all less than C1732m304|V6, V13, V17 |1.4 arcminutes from the cluster centre when the calculation is based C1732m304|V6, V13, V17 |on the corrected (Harris's 2003) coordinates. Their distances are C1732m304|V6, V13, V17 |1.17, 0.60 and 1.25 arcminutes respectively. C1732m304|V15 |When the coordinates from the 2010 update to the Harris (1996) C1732m304|V15 |catalogue are used to calculate the distance from the cluster centre, C1732m304|V15 |V15 is at a distance of 0.68 arcminutes. However, the 2010 C1732m304|V15 |coordinates are incorrect. Based on the correct values, V15 is at a C1732m304|V15 |distance 1.38 arcminutes from the cluster centre. C1732m447|V4 |Samus et al. (2009) pointed out that V4 is MU Sco in the GCVS and C1732m447|V4 |HV 6570. Its variability was announced by Shapley & Swope (1940). C1732m447|V14, V16 |There is a difference of 6 arcsec between the y coordinates C1732m447|V14, V16 |derived by Hazen & Hesser (1986) and by Pritzl et al. (2002) for C1732m447|V14, V16 |these two stars. However, it appears that they indicate the same stars C1732m447|V14, V16 |on their ID charts. The RA and dec in the above table were derived C1732m447|V14, V16 |by Samus et al. (2009) who matched both stars with 2MASS sources. C1732m447|V19 |It appears unlikely that this star is variable because Corwin et C1732m447|V19 |al. (2006) did not detect any variability when they applied image C1732m447|V19 |subtraction to their observations. Furthermore, when Hazen & Hesser C1732m447|V19 |(1986) "discovered" its variability, they noted that it was part of C1732m447|V19 |a close pair and indicated that the star varied on a time scale of C1732m447|V19 |less than 2 days. Variability on such a short time scale should have C1732m447|V19 |been detected by Pritzl et al. (2002) or by Corwin et al. (2006). C1735m032|V1, V51 |The ID charts published by Wehlau & Froelich (1994) have 2 stars C1735m032|V1, V51 |labelled as V1. The star at position x=+104", y=-305" in Fig. 1a C1735m032|V1, V51 |should be V51. V1 is located at x=+17", y=+47" in Fig. 1b. C1735m032|V23, V149 |The star that Wehlau & Froelich labelled as V23 is listed as C1735m032|V23, V149 |V149 in Conroy's table and both sets of authors derived the same C1735m032|V23, V149 |period for this star. In the above table, Wehlau's numbering C1735m032|V23, V149 |system is used for V23 and V149 is the star that Conroy listed C1735m032|V23, V149 |as V23. C1735m032|V25 |Conroy et al. did not detect variations in this star. It is hard C1735m032|V25 |to account for this, but perhaps it was at the edge of their C1735m032|V25 |frames. The light curve published by Sawyer Hogg & Wehlau C1735m032|V25 |(1966) indicates that V25 must certainly be variable and, C1735m032|V25 |according to Catelan (2014, private communication), V25 shows up C1735m032|V25 |clearly in the investigation that is currently being undertaken C1735m032|V25 |by Contreras Pena and collaborators. C1735m032|V25 |The RA and dec listed above were derived by Samus et al. C1735m032|V25 |(2009). C1735m032|V27, V45 |Conroy et al. did not confirm the variability of these two long C1735m032|V27, V45 |period (red) variables. C1735m032|V27, V45 |V27 was outside their field of view. However, it is considered C1735m032|V27, V45 |a possible cluster member because the magnitude and colour that C1735m032|V27, V45 |Wehlau & Froelich (1994) published for it are comparable to C1735m032|V27, V45 |those of the other long period variables in the cluster, and with C1735m032|V27, V45 |a distance of ~7.5 arcmin from the cluster centre, it is inside C1735m032|V27, V45 |the tidal radius (7.7 arcmin). C1735m032|V27, V45 |V45 was in the field observed by Conroy, but they did not detect C1735m032|V27, V45 |its variation. In view of the fact that all the other known long C1735m032|V27, V45 |period variables in their field were readily recovered in their C1735m032|V27, V45 |study, the variability of V45 is called into question. C1735m032|V28 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) listed V28 as an eclipsing binary, probably C1735m032|V28 |located in the field around the cluster. This was confirmed by C1735m032|V28 |Wehlau & Froelich (1994) who noted that it is a 16th magnitude C1735m032|V28 |field eclipsing binary which is almost 10 arcminutes from the C1735m032|V28 |cluster centre, well outside the tidal radius. C1735m032|V35 and V71 |These two stars are separated by about 4 arcsec. Wehlau & C1735m032|V35 and V71 |Froelich derived a period (0.5259) for V71, but could not derive C1735m032|V35 and V71 |a period for V35. On the other hand Conroy derived a period C1735m032|V35 and V71 |(0.5266) for V35 and did not detect variability in V71. An C1735m032|V35 and V71 |examination of the RA and dec values that Samus listed for these C1735m032|V35 and V71 |stars indicates that the star Conroy listed as V35 is V71 and C1735m032|V35 and V71 |that V35 is ot variable.. C1735m032|V35 and V71 | C1735m032|V35 and V71 | C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |V43 and V86 are separated by approximatey 2.5 arcsec on the C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |photographic chart published by Wehlau & Froelich (1994). C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |These authors also pointed out that there had been some previous C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |confusion between V43 and V86 because they listed the wrong C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |coordinates for V86 in their discovery paper (Wehlau & Potts 1972). C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |Their V86 coordinates indicated a position southwest of V43 when C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |it should have been northeast. C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |Conroy et al. (2012) subsequently announced a new variable V151 C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |with position approximately 4 arcsec northeast of 43. It appears C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |that their V151 might actually be V86 because the period they C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |derived for this star, 0.3198, differs by 0.02 from the value C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |that Wehlau & Froelich (1994) derived for V86. Given that C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |Wehlau & Froelich noted that there was considerable scatter in C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |their V86 data, this agreement is reasonable. C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |In the above table, it is assumed that V151 of Conroy et al. is C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 |V86. C1735m032|V43, V86, V151 | C1735m032|Nova |The maximum B magnitude for the Nova is from Sawyer Hogg & C1735m032|Nova |Wehlau (1964). C1735m238|V1 |The chart published by Terzan & Rutily (1975) indicates that V1 C1735m238|V1 |has a nearby companion and its image is not resolved. C1735m238|V1 |Since its variability was not detected by Soszynski et al. (2014) C1735m238|V1 |or by Tsapras et al. (2017), it is unlikely that it is variable. C1735m238|V1 |The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009). C1735m238|V12 |This star has two periods, 0.291 and 0.2575 days, respectively. C1735m238|V12 | Soszynski et al. (2014 - OGLE IV) interpreted this as two C1735m238|V12 |first overtone RR Lyrae variables along the line of sight. C1735m238|V12 |On the other hand, Tsapras et al. (2017) concluded that it is a C1735m238|V12 |single star pulsating in two modes, at least one of which is C1735m238|V12 |non-radial. C1735m238|V20 |The chart published by Terzan & Rutily (1975) indicates that the C1735m238|V20 |star is located in the crowded central region where its image is C1735m238|V20 |not resolved. Since its variability was not detected by Soszynski C1735m238|V20 |et al. (2014) or by Tsapras et al. (2017), it is unlikely that C1735m238|V20 |V20 is variable. The RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009). C1736m536|V1 |The membership status of V1 is uncertain. Sawyer (1931), Swope & C1736m536|V1 |Greenbaum (1952) and El-Worfaly & Budding (1983) all pointed out C1736m536|V1 |that it might belong to the rich field around the cluster and a C1736m536|V1 |radial velocity by Feast (1996) indicated that V1 is unlikely to C1736m536|V1 |be a cluster member. C1736m536|V1 |However, a proper motion study by Cudworth & Benensohn (1994) C1736m536|V1 |indicated a fairly high membership probability. C1736m536|V1 |The period listed for V1 was published by Sawyer (1931). According C1736m536|V1 |to El-Worfaly & Budding (1983), the period might be slightly longer C1736m536|V1 |(315.3 days). The V magnitude and ampltude in the above table are C1736m536|V1 |from Woolley et al. (1961). C1736m536|V1 |V1 is listed in the Moscow GCVS as V639 Ara. C1736m536|V2 |The period, magnitudes and classification are from the ASAS survey C1736m536|V2 |(Pojmanski & Maciejewski 2004). C1736m536|V2 |V2 is considered to be a field star and is listed as V825 Ara in C1736m536|V2 |the Moscow GCVS. C1736m536|V12, V13 |These are CV1 and CV6 in the list of possible cataclysmic variables C1736m536|V12, V13 |detected by Grindlay et al. (2001) with the Chandra telescope. C1736m536|V12, V13 |Kaluzny & Thompson (2003) detected periodic variability for these C1736m536|V12, V13 |stars in the V band. They attributed this variability to the C1736m536|V12, V13 |ellipsoidal effect in a binary system. C1736m536|V12, V13 |No outbursts have been observed in either of these variables. C1736m536|V16 |This ellipsoidal variable is the optical component of the C1736m536|V16 |millisecond pulsar J1740-5340. Photometric variations of this star C1736m536|V16 |have been discussed by Kaluzny et al. (2003) and by Orosz & van C1736m536|V16 |Kerkwijk (2003). Kaluzny et al. also derived its radial veloctiy C1736m536|V16 |and concluded that it is a cluster member. C1736m536|V16 |According to Paulo Freire's website, this is the only millisecond C1736m536|V16 |pulsar in NGC 6397. (www.naic.edu/~pfreire/GCpsr.html) C1736m536|V33, V34 |These are CV3 and CV2 in the list of possible cataclysmic variables C1736m536|V33, V34 |detected by Grindlay et al. (2001) with the Chandra telescope. C1736m536|V33, V34 |Kaluzny et al. (2006) detected non-periodic variability for these C1736m536|V33, V34 |stars in the V band. C1736m536|V33, V34 |In V33 (CV3), non-period changes of V exceeding 0.8 mag were observed C1736m536|V33, V34 |on some nights. C1736m536|V33, V34 |V34 (CV2) exhibited a probable dwarf nova outburst in May 2003 and C1736m536|V33, V34 |has therefore been listed as a U Gem star. C1736m536|V33, V34 | C1742p031|V2 |According to Grubissich (1958), V2 has an alternate period of C1742p031|V2 |0.262 days. C1742p031|V3 |The double mode classification for V3 is from Clement & Nemec C1742p031|V3 |(1990) who derived a secondary (fundamental mode) period of C1742p031|V3 |0.5419 days. C1742p031|V11 |This star is listed in the Moscow GCVS as V979 Oph. and C1742p031|V11 |HV 11037. C1742p031|V16 |The period is from Clement et al. (2001) and the magnitudes C1742p031|V16 |are from Papadakis et al. (2000). C1742p031|V16 |When Clement et al. (2001) set up the catalogue, they conducted C1742p031|V16 |a period search of the Papadakis et al. (2000) observations C1742p031|V16 |of V16 and concluded that the period should be revised from C1742p031|V16 |0.4275 to 0.7480 days. They found that the revised period gave C1742p031|V16 |a light curve with less scatter and agreed better with the colour C1742p031|V16 |and amplitude of the star. C1746m370|V1, V2 |The periods, magnitudes, amplitudes and classifications for C1746m370|V1, V2 |these stars are from Sloan et al. (2010). They published C1746m370|V1, V2 |K-band light curves. C1746m370|V4 |The variability status of V4 is uncertain. It showed no C1746m370|V4 |significant variations in the observations of Layden et al. C1746m370|V4 |(1999): C1746m370|V4 |mean V = 15.88, mean I =13.00 in May 1996 and C1746m370|V4 |mean V = 15.90, mean I = 13.00 in June 1996, while the other C1746m370|V4 |previously known variables showed variations of more than 0.5 mag C1746m370|V4 |in V. C1746m370|V4 |V4 was outside the field of view in subsequent studies. C1746m370|V6 |The period, magnitude, amplitude and classification are from C1746m370|V6 |Pritzl et al. (2003). C1746m370|V7, V8 |These two variables are considered to be field stars. Both lie C1746m370|V7, V8 |outside the tidal radius which is 7.14 arcminutes according to C1746m370|V7, V8 |the 2010 update to the Harris (1996) catalogue. C1746m370|V7, V8 |V7 is Ogle #92539 and the period, magnitude and classification C1746m370|V7, V8 |in the above table are from Soszynski et al. (2013). C1746m370|V47, V48, V50 |Layden et al. (1999) concluded that these binary systems C1746m370|V47, V48, V50 |probably belonged to the foreground stellar populations. C1746m370|V47, V48, V50 |Rucinski (2000) deduced that the contact binaries V48 and V50 C1746m370|V47, V48, V50 |were not cluster members. C1746m370|V105 |The period and classification are from Skottfelt et al. (2015). C1746m370|V118 |The RR0 classification is from Skottfelt et al. (2015). In C1746m370|V118 |earlier studies, its classification was uncertain (either C1746m370|V118 |RR0 or CW). C1746m370|V118 | C1746m370|V130 |The period is from Skottfelt et al. (2015) because the 48.90 C1746m370|V130 |day period of Pritzl et al. (2003) did not fit their data. C1746m370|V130 |The classification is uncertain V130 might be L or Sr. C1746m370|V133, V137 |Pritzl et al. (2003) derived periods of 122.9 and 51.2 days C1746m370|V133, V137 |respectively for these two variables, but they did not fit the C1746m370|V133, V137 |observations of Skottfelt et al. (2015). C1746m370|V140 |The 0.616 day period was derived by Corwin et al. (2006). C1746m370|V140 |They found that the 0.3518 period derived in their earlier C1746m370|V140 |study (Pritzl et al. 2003) did not fit their observations. C1746m370|V145 |The RR01 (double mode) classification is from Skottfelt et al. C1746m370|V145 |(2015). C1746m370|V149, V150 |The periods for these two stars were derived by Corwin et al. C1746m370|V149, V150 |(2006). They were unable to establish unequivocally the C1746m370|V149, V150 |Bailey types for these stars. Based on a plot of skewness C1746m370|V149, V150 |versus phi21, they concluded that V140 and V149 might be RR1 and C1746m370|V149, V150 |V150 might be RR0. C1755m442|V3 |Abbas et al. (2015) noted that this star shows a short-period, C1755m442|V3 |low-amplitude variation on top of a much longer periodicity C1755m442|V3 |(340 days). C1758m278| |The numbers in the remarks column are the numbers assigned by C1758m278| |Soszynski et al. (2011): OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-NNNNN. C1800m260|V14, V16, V17, V18, V19, V31, V39, V47; |Alonso-Garcia et al. (2015) concluded that most of the Cepheids are C1800m260|V14, V16, V17, V18, V19, V31, V39, V47; |too faint to be cluster members, based on the period luminosity C1800m260|V14, V16, V17, V18, V19, V31, V39, V47; |relations derived by Matsunaga et al. (2013) for type I and II C1800m260|V14, V16, V17, V18, V19, V31, V39, V47; |Cepheids. The only exception is V17 which appears to be a type II C1800m260|V14, V16, V17, V18, V19, V31, V39, V47; |Cepheid in the cluster foreground in the Galactic bulge. C1800m260|V48 |Alonso-Garcia et al. (2015) derived a mean K magnitude of 13.2 and C1800m260|V48 |K amplitude of 0.2 mag, but noted that these parameters should be C1800m260|V48 |considered with caution because the light curve was not well C1800m260|V48 |defined yet. Their observations indicated that the period must be C1800m260|V48 |more than 500 days. C1800m300|V4 |There has been confusion about the variability status of V4 C1800m300|V4 |because of an identification error. It was one of the variables C1800m300|V4 |discovered by Baade (1946, 1951) and its elements were later C1800m300|V4 |published by Gaposchkin (1955) who listed the star as #170. C1800m300|V4 |Unfortunately, the star was incorrectly labelled on his 1955 C1800m300|V4 |plate. V4 is located about 20 arcsecs southwest of the star he C1800m300|V4 |labelled as G#170. C1800m300|V4 |As a result, subsequent investigators (Clube 1965, Blanco 1984, C1800m300|V4 |Walker & Mack 1986) did not detect the variability of "V4" because C1800m300|V4 |it was in a crowded field and they were looking at the wrong star. C1800m300|V4 |In a later paper, Gaposchkin (1956) published a hand-drawn finder C1800m300|V4 |chart that showed the correct position for G#170 relative to nearby C1800m300|V4 |stars within approximately 15 arcseconds. Unfortunately, the star he C1800m300|V4 |identified as #170 in the earlier paper did not appear on the chart C1800m300|V4 |and this made his chart hard to decipher. C1800m300|V4 |In the meantime, Clube (1965) announced a new RR Lyrae variable C1800m300|V4 |which he numbered V7 and identified on a plate obtained with the C1800m300|V4 |Radcliffe 74-inch reflector. Sawyer Hogg (1973) designated this C1800m300|V4 |"new" variable as V10 in her 3rd catalogue. However, it turns out C1800m300|V4 |that Clube's new variable was Baade's original V4. Its location C1800m300|V4 |matches the position published on Gaposchkin's (1956) finder chart C1800m300|V4 |and the (Baade) x,y coordinates that Sawyer (1955) listed for V4. C1800m300|V4 |Furthermore, the period Clube derived for his new variable, 0.564 C1800m300|V4 |days, agrees with 0.56383 days, the period that Gaposchkin (1955) C1800m300|V4 |published for his star #170. C1800m300|V4 |V4 has also been observed by the Ogle group (Soszynski et al. 2014) C1800m300|V4 |who listed it as OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-12132 and derived a perod of C1800m300|V4 |0.56383333 days. C1800m300|V6 |This star is Gaposchkin (1955) #247, Blanco (1984) #64 and BWC V82 C1800m300|V6 |of Udalski et al. (1994). According to McNamara et al. (2000), C1800m300|V6 |BWC V82 is a high amplitude Delta Scuti variable (HADS) in the C1800m300|V6 |Galactic bulge. Its period is too long for an SX Phe variable and C1800m300|V6 |thus it is unlikely that it belongs to the cluster. C1800m300|V6 |All of the data listed in the above table are from Udalski et al. C1800m300|V6 |(1994). Walker & Mack (1986) also observed this star and derived a C1800m300|V6 |period of 0.16282 days and =17.51 mag. C1800m300|V7 |This star is Gaposchkin #172 (V3900 Sgr). The RA and dec are from C1800m300|V7 |Samus et al. (2009). The remaining data are from Gaposchkin (1955). C1800m300|V7 |Sawyer (1955) stated that Baade considered V7 to be a field star and C1800m300|V7 |as a result, it was designated as V3900 Sgr in the Moscow GCVS. It C1800m300|V7 |is located at a distance of about 1.2 arcminutes from the cluster C1800m300|V7 |centre. The variability of V7 has not been confirmed in the OGLE C1800m300|V7 |study of long period variables in the Galactic Bulge (Soszynski 2013). C1800m300|V7 |However, according to Alard et al. (2001), the MACHO collaboration C1800m300|V7 |detected a semi-regular variable at J180331.3-300101 which is less C1800m300|V7 |than 2 arcsec from the published position of V7. C1800m300|V8, V15 |The data for these stars are from the Ogle III Catalogue of Type II C1800m300|V8, V15 |Cepheids in the Galactic Bulge (Soszynski et al. 2011b) where they C1800m300|V8, V15 |are listed as OGLE-BLG-T2CEP-283 and 284 respectively. C1800m300|V8, V15 |V8 (= Gaposchkin #27 = V1437 Sgr) was also observed by Walker & Mack C1800m300|V8, V15 |(1986) who derived a mean V magnitude (15.60) and V amplitude C1800m300|V8, V15 |(1.1 mag). C1801m300|V2 |Skottfelt et al. (2015) derived a tentative period of 0.8165 for C1801m300|V2 |this star, but noted that the light curve was "noisy". C1804m250|V2 |This variable was also recovered in the OGLE III survey of C1804m250|V2 |RR Lyrae Star in the Galactic Bulge (Soszynski et al. 2011) where C1804m250|V2 |it is listed as OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-13867. The period listed in the C1804m250|V2 |above table is from the OGLE IV study (Soszynski et al 2014). The C1804m250|V2 |remaining data are from Hazen (1993). C1804m250|V2 |According to Hazen, the star's membership status is uncertain. C1804m250|V2 |At r ~ 2.7 arcminutes from the cluster centre, it is beyond the C1804m250|V2 |tidal radius which is ~ 2.15 arcminutes according to the 2010 update C1804m250|V2 |to the Harris (1996) catalogue. C1804m437|V1 |V1 = SS Cra = Casparie (1960) V10. C1804m437|V1 |The period, magnitude, amplitude and classification listed above C1804m437|V1 |are from the GCVS (Moscow) and are based on V magnitudes derived C1804m437|V1 |by Alcaino (1979) and a period derived by Casparie (1960). C1804m437|V1 |V1 was listed as star #127 by Alcaino (1971) and star #42 by C1804m437|V1 |Alcaino (1979). C1804m437|V3 |Hazen (1994) noted two possible periods for this star: 0.650 or C1804m437|V3 |0.394 days. C1804m437|V5 |Hazen (1994) noted that maximum brightness might have been missed. C1804m437|V14 |The period listed above is from Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016). C1804m437|V14 |The remaining data are from Fiorentino et al. (2014). C1806m259|V1-3 |These stars are Ogle III #35097, #202433 and #27160 respectively. C1806m259|V1-3 |Their membership status is based on the fact that the cluster is C1806m259|V1-3 |located in a crowded field in the Galactic bulge and their V C1806m259|V1-3 |magnitudes are all fainter than the level of the horizontal branch C1806m259|V1-3 |(V=16.6) established by Zoccali et al. (2001). C1806m259|Nova |V1148 Sgr = Nova Sgr 1943: C1806m259|Nova |The magnitudes listed in the above table are from the Moscow GCVS C1806m259|Nova |where the nova is listed as V1148 Sgr. C1807m317|V2, V7 |Hazen (1996) could not confirm the variability of either of C1807m317|V2, V7 |these stars and noted that both of them were seriously blended C1807m317|V2, V7 |with nearby stars. Furthermore, neither of them has been C1807m317|V2, V7 |detected in other surveys of variable stars in the region, C1807m317|V2, V7 |e.g. Blanco & Blanco (1997) or the OGLE surveys. C1807m317|V5 |On the basis of the apparent B magnitude, Hazen (1996) C1807m317|V5 |concluded that V5 is not a cluster member and Rich et al. C1807m317|V5 |(1998) reached the same conclusion. It is fainter than the C1807m317|V5 |other RR Lyrae variables. In the Ogle IV data (Soszynski C1807m317|V5 |et al. 2014), the mean V mag of V5 (16.810 mag) is fainter than C1807m317|V5 |that of the other RR Lyrae variables which have mean V C1807m317|V5 |magnitudes ranging from 16.2 to 16.6 mag and mean =16.446 C1807m317|V5 |+/-0.131. With a distance of 2.6 arcminutes from the cluster C1807m317|V5 |centre, it is beyond the 2.1 arcminute cluster radius published C1807m317|V5 |by Soszynski et al. (2014). C1807m317|V5 |It therefore seems probable that V5 is part of the rich field C1807m317|V5 |surrounding the cluster. C1810m318|V4, V6, V15 |According to Samus et al. (2009), these stars are V2711 Sgr, C1810m318|V4, V6, V15 |NSV 10364 and V2698 Sgr respectively. C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |These stars were all outside the field investigated by Toddy et al. C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |(2012). Their distances from the cluster centre are 9.3, 10.6, 6.4, C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |9.2 and 8.8 arcminutes respectively. The tidal radius of NGC 6584 C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |is 7.7 arcminutes according to the 2010 update to the Harris (1996) C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |catalogue. Thus four of these stars are well outside that limit. C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |V24 and V27 are considered to be field stars. V43 and V44 are C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |probably field stars as well, but since their magnitudes and C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |amplitudes are comparable to those of the RR Lyrae cluster members, C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 |they are listed as possible field stars. C1814m522|V24, V27, V40, V43, V44 | C1814m522|V33, V34 |The RA and dec that Toddy listed for these two stars do not C1814m522|V33, V34 |correspond to the positions published by Millis & Liller, even C1814m522|V33, V34 |though the periods they derived were the same, within the expected C1814m522|V33, V34 |uncertainties. The RA and dec listed above are from Samus et al. C1814m522|V33, V34 |(2009). C1814m522|V45 |Millis & Liller mislabelled this star on their ID chart. According C1814m522|V45 |to their x,y coordinates, V45 is the star that is directly above the C1814m522|V45 |number "45", not the one to the right. As a result of this error, C1814m522|V45 |Samus et al. derived the RA and dec for the wrong star, but Toddy's C1814m522|V45 |values are correct and are listed in the above table. C1820m303|V1 |According to Vizier, this star is listed as a variable in the C1820m303|V1 |AAVSO International variable star index (Watson et al. 2006) where C1820m303|V1 |it is classified as a Mira variable with a possible period of 276 C1820m303|V1 |days, and R_C magnitude ranging from 11.3 to 15.3, based on MACHO C1820m303|V1 |data. However, the period is uncertain. C1820m303|V2 |The magnitudes published by Liller & Liller (1976) indicate that C1820m303|V2 |this star lies well to the red of the cluster's CM diagram at a V C1820m303|V2 |magnitude level comparable to the HB stars. C1820m303|V2 |It has a spectral type of M7 according to Skiff's (2014) Catalogue C1820m303|V2 |of spectral classifications reported by the VizieR service. C1820m303|V2 |Therefore V2 is considered to be a field star. C1820m303|V2 | C1820m303|V3 |Liller & Carney (1978) confirmed the variability of V3 and C1820m303|V3 |showed that it lies near the RG tip in the CM diagram. C1820m303|V3 |Thus it is considered to be a cluster member, but no period C1820m303|V3 |has been derived. C1820m303|V4 |Liller & Liller (1976) noted that this star is part of a close C1820m303|V4 |pair and questioned its variable status. They did not list C1820m303|V4 |any magnitudes. C1820m303|V5 |The magnitude and colour derived by Liller & Liller (1976) for V5 C1820m303|V5 |are appropriate for cluster membership. However, they also C1820m303|V5 |pointed out that the star was outside the cluster's tidal radius. C1820m303|V5 |It is therefore possible that the star belongs to the rich field C1820m303|V5 |surrounding the cluster. C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |In a proper motion study of M28, Rees & Cudworth (1991) found C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |membership probabilities for V1 (90%), V3 (57%), V10 (90%) and C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |V17 (94%). C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |V17 was classified as an RV Tauri variable by Wehlau & C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |Sawyer Hogg (1984) who derived a period of approximately 92 days C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |for the full cycle. In contrast to this, Prieto et al. (2012) C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |derived a period of 62 days and their light curve has very C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |little scatter. On the other hand, Sloan et al. (2010) C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |classified it as a type II Cepheid and derived P=48.6, C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |but their light curve had more scatter than that of Prieto et C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |al. Thus the classification for V17 is uncertain. It could be C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 |an SR. C1821m249|V1, V3, V10, V17 | C1821m249|V7 |The RA and dec refer to the SE component of a close pair. C1821m249|V7 |Wehlau & Sawyer Hogg (1984) postulated that V7 might be a U Gem C1821m249|V7 |variable because, on many of their photographs, it was fainter C1821m249|V7 |than the plate limit. This motivated Margon & Anderson (1985) C1821m249|V7 |to obtain a spectrum which showed an M5 spectral type with TiO C1821m249|V7 |bands. This is a characteristic of Mira variables. The 320 day C1821m249|V7 |period subsequently derived by Wehlau & Clement (1990) and the large C1821m249|V7 |amplitude confirmed that V7 is a Mira variable. It is considered to C1821m249|V7 |be a field star because it is too faint to be a cluster member. C1821m249|V7 |Furthermore, it would be unsusual to find a Mira variable in such a C1821m249|V7 |metal poor cluster. [Fe/H]= -1.32 according to the 2010 version of C1821m249|V7 |the Harris (1996) catalogue. C1821m249|V14 |This star is no longer considered to be variable. Although Wehlau & C1821m249|V14 |Sawyer Hogg (1984) derived a period, Wehlau & Butterworth (1990) C1821m249|V14 |questioned its variability and Prieto et al. (2012) did not detect C1821m249|V14 |any variation in their image subtraction study, even though the C1821m249|V14 |star was in their field of view. C1821m249|V21 |This star was classified as a type II Cepheid by Wehlau & Sawyer C1821m249|V21 |Hogg (1984) who derived a period of 29.93 days. However, C1821m249|V21 |Prieto et al. (2012) made CCD observations over an interval of C1821m249|V21 |approximately 50 days and their light curve indicates that the C1821m249|V21 |period must be longer than 50 days. C1821m249|PSR |A number of millisecond pulsars have been discovered in M28. C1821m249|PSR |Further information about these is given at the end of the C1821m249|PSR |"Discovery of the variable stars" section. C1832m330|V4 |Hazen (1989) could not derive any period in the range 0.2 to 3 days C1832m330|V4 |that gave a good fit. There was a suggestion of periodicity at 0.47 C1832m330|V4 |and 1.2 days. C1832m330|V7, V9 |According to Samus et al. (2009), these are V3616 Sgr and V3641 Sgr C1832m330|V7, V9 |in the GCVS. They were previously studied by Plaut (1971) and were C1832m330|V7, V9 |#1243 and #1272 in the Plaut catalogue. Plaut classified #1243 as SR. C1832m330|V7, V9 |and derived P=0.62644 for the RR Lyrae variable #1272. C1832m330|V7, V9 |The data in the above table are from Hazen (1989). C1832m330|V11 |Heinke et al. (2001) classified this system as a qLMXB, but Stacey C1832m330|V11 |et al. (2012) suggested it might a VFXT (very faint X-ray C1832m330|V11 |transient). The magnitude and amplitude are from Skottfelt et al. C1832m330|V11 |(2015). Engel et al. (2012) found a highly variable light curve in C1832m330|V11 |the V band with strong magnitude fluctuations (up to 1 mag) on time C1832m330|V11 |scales of 5 to 20 minutes. C1833m239| | C1833m239|V9 |The observations of Wehlau & Sawyer Hogg (1977) were made over C1833m239|V9 |an interval of more than 80 years (1893-1975) and they found that C1833m239|V9 |the amplitude of light variation of V9 changed from time to C1833m239|V9 |time. In fact, in 1968-1969, the star's magnitude was almost C1833m239|V9 |constant, but then the amplitude increased again. Sahay et al. C1833m239|V9 |(2014) did not detect significant variation in V9 when they C1833m239|V9 |observed it for six months in 2002 and concluded that it must be C1833m239|V9 |in a quiescent phase. C1833m239|V12 |According to Sawyer (1944), Bailey doubted the variability of C1833m239|V12 |V12. Sawyer also found that its variability was not confirmed C1833m239|V12 |on her plates. Wehlau & Sawyer Hogg (1978) measured V12 on C1833m239|V12 |many of their plates but the data were not good enough to C1833m239|V12 |confirm variability. C1833m239|V12 |However, Kravtsov et al. (1994) questioned the non-variable C1833m239|V12 |status of V12 and Kunder et al. (2013) found that it is an RR1 C1833m239|V12 |variable with a V amplitude of 0.44 mag. C1833m239|V14, V17, V28 |The variability type listed for these stars is from C1833m239|V14, V17, V28 |Marinchev (1983). C1833m239|V14, V17, V28 |V14 is V1311 Sgr in the Moscow GCVS. It is a Mira variable in C1833m239|V14, V17, V28 |the field. C1833m239|V14, V17, V28 | C1833m239|V24 |Kunder et al. (2013) stated that V24 is not variable. However, C1833m239|V24 |the coordinates that they listed for V24 pertain to a different C1833m239|V24 |star. According to Rozyczka and his collaborators (2017, private C1833m239|V24 |communication) the star listed as V24 in the above table is C1833m239|V24 |variable. Their results will soon be published. C1833m239|V29 |The projected radial distance of V29 from the cluster centre is C1833m239|V29 |13.3 arcmin. Based on the proper motion study of Zloczewski et C1833m239|V29 |al. (2013), Kunder et al. (2013) concluded it is unlikely that a C1833m239|V29 |star with such a large radial distance is a cluster member. C1833m239|V29 |The period of V29 is not well established. Kunder et al. C1833m239|V29 |derived P=0.47, but the data were very sparse and Wehlau & C1833m239|V29 |Sawyer Hogg (1978) derived P=0.30. C1833m239|V30, 31 |The periods, magnitudes, amplitudes and variability C1833m239|V30, 31 |types are from Marinchev (1983) and membership status from C1833m239|V30, 31 |Wehlau & Sawyer Hogg (1977). Peterson & Cudworth (1994) C1833m239|V30, 31 |confirmed that V30 is a cluster member based on its radial C1833m239|V30, 31 |velocity. C1833m239|V34, V35 |The magnitudes and amplitudes listed for these two stars are C1833m239|V34, V35 |from Sahay et al. (2014). They derived provisional periods of C1833m239|V34, V35 |63 and 56 days respectively. Both stars are near the RG tip on C1833m239|V34, V35 |the K-(J-K) CM diagram they published. C1833m239|V34, V35 |Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) observed V35 and did not confirm C1833m239|V34, V35 |the 56 day period. They derived a longer period, 141 days. C1833m239|KT-08, KT-18 |The mean magnitude and amplitude for these stars are C1833m239|KT-08, KT-18 |uncertain because Kaluzny & Thompson's (2001) maximum C1833m239|KT-08, KT-18 |magnitude is a lower limit and/or their minimum magnitude is C1833m239|KT-08, KT-18 |an upper limit. C1833m239|KT-13, KT-27 and KT-43 |The magnitudes, amplitudes and variability types for C1833m239|KT-13, KT-27 and KT-43 |these 3 stars are from Kaluzny & Thompson (2001). Their C1833m239|KT-13, KT-27 and KT-43 |periods are from Pietrukowicz & Kaluzny (2003) who listed C1833m239|KT-13, KT-27 and KT-43 |them as #2, #1 and #3, respectively. C1833m239|PK-6 |Figuera Jaimes et a. (2016) observed this star and found that C1833m239|PK-6 |the period derived by Pietrukowicz & Kaluzny (2003), 0.239431 C1833m239|PK-6 |days, did not produce a good light curve in their data. C1833m239|CV1 |The V magnitude and amplitude for CV1 are from Pietrukowicz et C1833m239|CV1 |al. (2005). An outburst was also observed in the near-infrared C1833m239|CV1 |(an increment of more than 1 mag in the K_s band) in the summer C1833m239|CV1 |of 2014 in the VVV survey (Minniti et al. 2010). It was C1833m239|CV1 |reported by Alonso-Garcia et al. (2015). Figuera Jaimes et al. C1833m239|CV1 |(2016) detected a 3 mag outburst in the I-band. C1850m087|V10 |Sandage et al. (1966) derived a period of 174 days and Russev C1850m087|V10 |(1975) found that P=71.2 days gave a better fit. However, Rosino C1850m087|V10 |(1966) found that the star showed irregular fluctuations and was C1850m087|V10 |unable to derive a period. The classification in the above table C1850m087|V10 |is from Rosino. Whitelock (1986) commented that V10 is probably C1850m087|V10 |a mode switching star. C1850m087|V17 |Although Harwood (1962) classified this star as a possible C1850m087|V17 |variable, neither Sandage et al. (1966) or Rosino (1966) detected C1850m087|V17 |any variability. The proper motion study of Cudworth (1988) C1850m087|V17 |indicates that it is a field star. C1851m305|V10, V13 |These two variables were considered to be field stars by H16 C1851m305|V10, V13 |on the basis of their distances from the cluster centre: 9.0 and C1851m305|V10, V13 |8.5 arcminutes respectively, both outside their assumed tidal C1851m305|V10, V13 |radius of 7.5 arcminutes. However, the tidal radius, derived from C1851m305|V10, V13 |the data published by Harris (2010) is 9.47 arcminutes. Thus, since C1851m305|V10, V13 |their mean magnitudes are appropriate for cluster membership, they C1851m305|V10, V13 |might be cluster members. C1851m305|V12 |This is a double mode RR Lyrae variable (RR01) with the first C1851m305|V12 |overtone mode dominant. The period and I amplitude of the C1851m305|V12 |fundamental mode are 0.4357 days and 0.068 mag. Thus the period C1851m305|V12 |ratio P1/P0 is 0.7405 and the amplitude ratio A1/A0 is 4.1. C1851m305|V12 |Rosino & Nobili (1958) concluded that this was probably a field C1851m305|V12 |star. However, H16 considered it to be a cluster member, probably C1851m305|V12 |based on the fact that, with r=5.5 arcmin, it is well inside the C1851m305|V12 |cluster tidal radius. However, since V12 is more than 1 magnitude C1851m305|V12 |brighter than the cluster RR Lyrae variables, it probably belongs C1851m305|V12 |to the rich field in which the cluster is located. C1851m305|V14 |This star is a confirmed RR Lyrae variable, but there is some C1851m305|V14 |uncertainty concerning its period. Rosino & Nobili (1958) C1851m305|V14 |derived P=0.6892 days and published a good light curve. However, C1851m305|V14 |according to Sollima et al. (2010), this period was in clear C1851m305|V14 |disagreement with their observations and claimed that 0.4807214 C1851m305|V14 |was a better value. Unfortunately, they did not publish a light C1851m305|V14 |curve for V14 because they did not have calibrated photometry. C1851m305|V14 |No data are available from H16 because V14 was located in the gap C1851m305|V14 |between CCDs in the OGLE IV investigation and Layden & Sarajedini C1851m305|V14 |(2000) did not have enough observations to derive a period. C1851m305|V14 |The apparent magnitudes published by Rosino & Nobili and by Layden C1851m305|V14 |& Sarajedini are appropriate for cluster membership. C1851m305|V18 |The data are from the OGLE investigation of Bulge eclipsing binary C1851m305|V18 |systems by Sos16 where the star is listed as OGLE-BLG-ECL-424738. C1851m305|V18 |Since r=10.6 arcmin from the cluster centre, this star probably C1851m305|V18 |belongs to the rich field around the cluster. C1851m305|V18 |H16 also published data for V18, based on OGLE IV observations, but C1851m305|V18 |their magnitudes and amplitudes were different from the ones listed C1851m305|V18 |by Sos16. C1851m305|V20, V22, V27, V53, V72 |The non-variable status of these five stars was first noted by C1851m305|V20, V22, V27, V53, V72 |Layden & Sarajedini (2000) and later confirmed by both Sollima C1851m305|V20, V22, V27, V53, V72 |et al. (2010) and by H16. Rosino & Nobili (1958) had suggested C1851m305|V20, V22, V27, V53, V72 |that V72 might be an eclipsing variable that was not part of the C1851m305|V20, V22, V27, V53, V72 |cluster. C1851m305|V21, V26 |Layden & Sarajedini (2000) found that the positions of these C1851m305|V21, V26 |stars on Rosino & Nobili's finder charts did not match their C1851m305|V21, V26 |published x,y coordinates which were later listed by Sawyer C1851m305|V21, V26 |Hogg (1973) in her 3rd catalog. They checked several candidate C1851m305|V21, V26 |variables in the regions in question and found no evidence for C1851m305|V21, V26 |variability. Rosino & Nobili had already noted that V21 might not C1851m305|V21, V26 |be variable. The non-variable status of both V21 and V26 was C1851m305|V21, V26 |subsequently confirmed by Sollima et al. (2010) and by H16. C1851m305|V24 |Rosino & Nobili (1958) concluded that V24 might not be variable C1851m305|V24 |and its non-variability was confirmed by H16. It was outside the C1851m305|V24 |field observed by Layden & Sarajedini (2000) and by Sollima et al. C1851m305|V24 |(2010). C1851m305|V66 |The photometry for V66 is from Layden & Sarajedini (2000). No C1851m305|V66 |data are available from H16 because the star was located near the C1851m305|V66 |edge of the CCD in the OGLE IV investigation. Furthermore, its C1851m305|V66 |image was saturated. Sollima et al. (2010) confirmed its status as C1851m305|V66 |a long period variable, but did not publish any photometry. C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |Rosino & Nobili (1958) noted that it was difficult to estimate the C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |magnitudes for these three stars, but nevertheless concluded that C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |they were all variable. Layden & Sarajedini (2000) had difficulty C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |locating them from the x,y coordinates that were published by C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |Rosino & Nobili and later listed by Sawyer Hogg (1973) in her 3rd C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |catalog. However, they checked several candidate stars in the C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |regions in question and in each case they detected one candidate C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |variable, but were unable to derive any acceptable periods. They C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |marked the positions of each of these candidate variables on a C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |finder chart. However, no variability was detected in any of C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |these stars in the subsequent investigations of Sollima et al. C1851m305|V73, V79, V81 |(2010) and H16. Therefore they are classified as CST. C1851m305|V75 |This variable was announced by Rosino & Nobili (1958) who derived C1851m305|V75 |a period: 0.5797 days, but did not publish a light curve. They C1851m305|V75 |commented that there was a lot of scatter, particularly at minimum C1851m305|V75 |light because its image was blended with that of a nearby star. C1851m305|V75 |Because of this image blending, Layden & Sarajedini (2000) could not C1851m305|V75 |confirm the variability of V75 and unfortunately it fell in a gap C1851m305|V75 |between the chips in the OGLE IV investigation. Consequently, it C1851m305|V75 |was not studied by H16. The period listed for this variable C1851m305|V75 |(0.5846 days) was derived by Sollima et al. (2010) who published a C1851m305|V75 |satisfactory light curve, but were unable to obtain reliable C1851m305|V75 |calibrated photometry C1851m305|V80, V86, V330 |There has been some confusion concerning the identification of C1851m305|V80, V86, V330 |these three variables. C1851m305|V80 |V80 is OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37621 (P=0.6309 days) C1851m305|V86 |V86 is OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37624 (P=0.5837 days) C1851m305|V330 |V330 is OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37621 and therefore the same star as V80. C1851m305|V80 |V80 was announced by Rosino & Nobili (1958) with x,y coordinates C1851m305|V80 |(arcsec) and an ID chart. C1851m305|V86, V80 |V86 was discovered by Layden & Sarajedini (2000) who published C1851m305|V86, V80 |pixel positions, finder charts and periods for both V80 and V86. C1851m305|V80, V86 |A close comparison of the pixel postions and periods that Layden C1851m305|V80, V86 |& Sarajedini published for V80 and V86 with the OGLE IV data C1851m305|V80, V86 |(Sos14) indicates that V80 = OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37621 and C1851m305|V80, V86 |V86 = OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37624. C1851m305|V80, V86 |However, both Sos14 and H16 indicated that V80 was C1851m305|V80, V86 |OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37624. This mis-identification arose C1851m305|V80, V86 |because of an error by Sollima et al. (2010) who confused V80 C1851m305|V80, V86 |with V86. The RA and dec they published for V80 were the C1851m305|V80, V86 |coordinates of V86 and they did not publish a position for V86. C1851m305|V80, V86 |Furthermore, the period they derived for their V80 (0.6394 days) C1851m305|V80, V86 |was not the correct period for either star. Sollima's data for C1851m305|V80, V86 |V80 were listed in the 2010 and 2014 updates to this (Clement) C1851m305|V80, V86 |electronic catalogue and that is why Sos14 and H16 both adopted C1851m305|V80, V86 |their ID for V80. C1851m305|V80, V86 |The RA and dec that were listed for V86 in the 2010, 2014 updates C1851m305|V80, V86 |of this (Clement) catalogue were derived by Samus et al. (2009) C1851m305|V80, V86 |and are in good agreement (less than 2 arcsec) with the coordinates C1851m305|V80, V86 |listed by Sos14 and H16 for OGLE-BLG-RRLYR-37624. C1851m305|V91 |Layden & Sarajedini (2000) classified this star as a detached C1851m305|V91 |binary and derived a period of 0.4098 days. However, H16 did not C1851m305|V91 |confirm its variability nor was it on the list of OGLE IV C1851m305|V91 |eclipsing binaries (Sos16). It might be a binary that was not C1851m305|V91 |observed in eclipse in the OGLE IV investigation. However, its C1851m305|V91 |position in the CM diagram indicates that it is probably not a C1851m305|V91 |cluster member. C1851m305|V99 |This is OGLE-BLG-ECL-424691. There are significant differences C1851m305|V99 |between the magnitudes listed by Sos16 and H16 for this star, C1851m305|V99 |particularly in V. The values listed in the above table are C1851m305|V99 |from Sos16. The location of V99 in the CM diagram indicates that C1851m305|V99 |it is probably not a cluster member. C1851m305|V100 |Layden & Sarajedini derived a period of 0.96473. However, they C1851m305|V100 |pointed out that their light curve had large scatter and poor C1851m305|V100 |phase coverage so that the period and photometry were uncertain. C1851m305|V100 |No variability was detected in subsequent studies by Sollima et al. C1851m305|V100 |(2010) or by H16. Therefore V100 is classified as CST. C1851m305|V107 |Layden & Sarajedini (2000) listed this star as a probable long C1851m305|V107 |period variable, but noted that it was in a crowded field. C1851m305|V107 |H16 did not detect any variation. It is therefore classified as C1851m305|V107 |CST. C1851m305|V108 |The photometry for V108 is from Layden & Sarajedini (2000). No C1851m305|V108 |data are available from H16 because the star was located in the C1851m305|V108 |gap between CCDs in the OGLE IV investigation. Furthermore, it C1851m305|V108 |was not studied by Sollima et al. (2010) because it was located C1851m305|V108 |near a bright (saturated) star on their CCD and its image had to C1851m305|V108 |be masked. The VI magnitudes published by Layden & Sarajedini C1851m305|V108 |indicate that V108 is located near the RG tip in the CM diagram C1851m305|V108 |published by H16 where the SR variables are located. C1851m305|V112 |The data listed for this SR variable are from H16. They derived C1851m305|V112 |a period of 90 days based on approximately 150 observations made C1851m305|V112 |between March and November 2011. Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) C1851m305|V112 |derived a slightly longer period (100 days) from observations made C1851m305|V112 |on 44 nights between May 2013 and September 2015. C1851m305|V157 |This star was not observed in the OGLE IV investigation because it C1851m305|V157 |fell in the gap between the CCDs. The only available data for V157 C1851m305|V157 |are from the discovery paper by Sollima et al. (2010). They C1851m305|V157 |derived a period of 0.4556 days and classified it as an RR1 C1851m305|V157 |variable, but did not publish a light curve. This period is longer C1851m305|V157 |than any of the other RR1 variables and shorter than any of the RR0 C1851m305|V157 |variables. Thus the classification is uncertain. C1851m305|V160 |The period that H16 derived for this star was independently C1851m305|V160 |confirmed by Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016). It is ~0.01 day greater C1851m305|V160 |than the period announced by So10 in their discovery paper. C1851m305|V160 |The H16 values are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V173 |V173 was discovered by Sol10 and its variablity was confirmed by C1851m305|V173 |both FJ16 and H16. However, its variability was not announced by C1851m305|V173 |Sos14 when they reported their results for RR Lyrae variables in C1851m305|V173 |the OGLE IV Galactic bulge survey. FJ16 and H16 derived the same C1851m305|V173 |period (0.3603 days), which was a bit shorter than the one C1851m305|V173 |derived by Sol10 (0.3616 days) in their discovery paper. C1851m305|V173 |The H16 I magnitude was brighter and the amplitude smaller than C1851m305|V173 |the values pubished by FJ16, possibly because the star's image C1851m305|V173 |was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. Therefore the FJ16 magnitude C1851m305|V173 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V181 |V181 was discovered by Sol10 who derived a period of 0.5071515 C1851m305|V181 |days, which is close to half a day. They did not publish a light C1851m305|V181 |curve or any magnitudes. Their period was not confirmed in the C1851m305|V181 |subsequent studies and is unlikely to be correct. C1851m305|V181 |The period published by H16 (~0.467 days) is an alias of the period C1851m305|V181 |published by FJ16 (~0.877 days). C1851m305|V181 |In the above table, the H16 period and the FJ16 magnitude and C1851m305|V181 |amplitude have been adopted because they fit the period amplitude C1851m305|V181 |relation published by H16. C1851m305|V192 |V192 was discovered by Sol10 who derived a period of ~0.399 days, C1851m305|V192 |but did not publish a light curve or any magnitudes. Its variablity C1851m305|V192 |was confirmed in subsequent investigations by Sos14, H16 and FJ16, C1851m305|V192 |but they did not confirm the Sol10 period. They all derived a C1851m305|V192 |period of 0.6004 days. The OGLE IV (Sos14 and H16) I magnitude C1851m305|V192 |was brighter and the amplitude smaller than the values published C1851m305|V192 |by FJ16, probably because the star's image was unresolved in the C1851m305|V192 |OGLE IV data. Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are C1851m305|V192 |listed in the above table. C1851m305|V213 |V213 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V213 |period (0.2861 days). The H16 I magnitude was brighter and the C1851m305|V213 |amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V213 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V213 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V213 |above table. C1851m305|V214 |V214 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16, but they derived C1851m305|V214 |different periods. Since the light curve of FJ16 (P=0.3054) has a C1851m305|V214 |lot of scatter, the H16 period (0.6239 days), mean magnitude and C1851m305|V214 |amplitude have been adopted in the above table. Their values C1851m305|V214 |fit well on their period-amplitude relation. However, we note that C1851m305|V214 |the magnitudes labelled on their light curve for V214 do not C1851m305|V214 |correspond to the values they listed in their table. C1851m305|V215 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V215 and their results are in good C1851m305|V215 |agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V215 |are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V217 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V217 and their results are in good C1851m305|V217 |agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V217 |are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V219 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V219 and their results are in good C1851m305|V219 |agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V219 |are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V220 |V220 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16, but they derived C1851m305|V220 |different periods. Since the light curve of FJ16 (P=0.3389) has a C1851m305|V220 |lot of scatter, the H16 period (0.6026 days), mean magnitude and C1851m305|V220 |amplitude have been adopted in the above table. Their phase C1851m305|V220 |coverage is more extensive and their values fit well on their C1851m305|V220 |period-amplitude relation. C1851m305|V221 |FJ16 derived two periods for V221: 0.459608 (fundamental mode) C1851m305|V221 |and 0.343828 (first overtone). The period ratio is typical for C1851m305|V221 |a double mode RR Lyrae variable and therefore the star is classified C1851m305|V221 |as a double mode RR Lyrae. The data listed in the above table C1851m305|V221 |correspond to the fundamental mode. V221 was not investigated by C1851m305|V221 |H16. C1851m305|V223 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V223 and their results are in good C1851m305|V223 |agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V223 |are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V229 |Although FJ16 discovered V229, the data they published were from C1851m305|V229 |the OGLE IV survey (Sos14 and H16). The magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V229 |have not been listed above because the published values indicate C1851m305|V229 |that the star has an unresolved companion. FJ16 also pointed out C1851m305|V229 |McDonald et al. (2014) identified V229 as short period variable C1851m305|V229 |#SPVSgr18550405-3028580 in the VISTA survey of variables in the C1851m305|V229 |Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. C1851m305|V230 |V230 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16, but they derived C1851m305|V230 |different periods and classifications. Since the light curve of C1851m305|V230 |FJ16 (P=0.5326) has a lot of scatter and the H16 phase coverage is C1851m305|V230 |more extensive, the H16 period (1.1431 days), has been adopted. C1851m305|V230 |The star is located in a crowded field near the cluster centre C1851m305|V230 |and the magnitudes published by both FJ16 and H16 (I=16.04 and C1851m305|V230 |15.669) seem too bright and the amplitudes (0.29 and 0.127) seem C1851m305|V230 |too small for a star of this type so these quantities have not C1851m305|V230 |been listed in the above table. C1851m305|V231 |V231 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V231 |period (0.5342 days). The H16 I magnitude was brighter and the C1851m305|V231 |amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V231 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V231 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V231 |above table. C1851m305|V233 |V233 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V233 |period (0.5575 days). The H16 I magnitude was brighter and the C1851m305|V233 |amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V233 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V233 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and an amplitude (derived from their C1851m305|V233 |published light curve) are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V234 |V234 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V234 |period (0.5598 days). The H16 I magnitude was brighter and the C1851m305|V234 |amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V234 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V234 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V234 |above table. C1851m305|V236 |V236 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V236 |period (0.5685 days). The star is located in a crowded field C1851m305|V236 |near the cluster centre and the magnitudes published by both FJ16 C1851m305|V236 |and H16 (I=16.53 and 15.526) seem too bright and the amplitudes C1851m305|V236 |(0.28 and 0.099) seem too small for a star of this type so these C1851m305|V236 |quantities have not been listed in the above table. C1851m305|V237 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V237 and their results are in C1851m305|V237 |reasonable agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude C1851m305|V237 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V238 |FJ16 derived a period for this star but the light curve has a C1851m305|V238 |great deal of scatter. Based on its mean magnitude the star is C1851m305|V238 |tentatively classified as an RR Lyrae variable. It was not C1851m305|V238 |investigated by H16. C1851m305|V239 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V239 and their results are in C1851m305|V239 |reasonable agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude C1851m305|V239 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V240 |V240 was investigated by Sos14, FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V240 |period (0.5963 days). However, the FJ16 and Sos14 mean I magnitudes C1851m305|V240 |were brighter and their amplitudes smaller than the values published C1851m305|V240 |by H16 probably due to the effects of crowding. Therefore the H16 C1851m305|V240 |magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V241 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V241 and their results are in C1851m305|V241 |reasonable agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude C1851m305|V241 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V242 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V242 and derived the same C1851m305|V242 |period (0.6048 days). However, the FJ16 mean I magnitude C1851m305|V242 |was brighter and their amplitude smaller than the values published C1851m305|V242 |by H16 probably due to the effects of crowding. Therefore the H16 C1851m305|V242 |magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. V242 was not C1851m305|V242 |investigated by Sos14. C1851m305|V244 |The period for V244 is from H16. Although FJ16 discovered V244, C1851m305|V244 |the data they published were from the OGLE IV survey (Sos14 and C1851m305|V244 |H16). The magnitude and amplitude have not been listed above C1851m305|V244 |because the published values indicate that the star has an C1851m305|V244 |unresolved companion. C1851m305|V246 |The period for V246 is from H16. Although FJ16 discovered V246, C1851m305|V246 |the data they published were from the OGLE IV survey (Sos14 and C1851m305|V246 |H16). The magnitude and amplitude have not been listed above C1851m305|V246 |because the published values indicate that the star has an C1851m305|V246 |unresolved companion. C1851m305|V247 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V247 and derived the same C1851m305|V247 |period (0.6509 days). However, the FJ16 mean I magnitude was C1851m305|V247 |brighter probably due to the effects of crowding. Therefore the C1851m305|V247 |H16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. V247 C1851m305|V247 |was not investigated by Sos14. C1851m305|V250 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V247 and derived the same C1851m305|V250 |period (0.6806 days). The H16 values for magnitude and amplitude C1851m305|V250 |have been listed in the above table. C1851m305|V251 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V251 and their results are in C1851m305|V251 |reasonable agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude C1851m305|V251 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V252 |V252 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V252 |period (0.7287 days). The H16 I magnitude was a bit brighter and C1851m305|V252 |the amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V252 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V252 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V252 |above table. C1851m305|V253 |V253 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V253 |period (0.7439 days). The H16 I magnitude was brighter and C1851m305|V253 |the amplitude smaller than the values pubished by FJ16, probably C1851m305|V253 |because the star's image was unresolved in the OGLE IV data. C1851m305|V253 |Therefore the FJ16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V253 |above table. C1851m305|V254 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V254 and their results are in C1851m305|V254 |reasonable agreement. The H16 values for period, mean magnitude C1851m305|V254 |and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V255 |V255 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V255 |period (0.7601 days). However, the FJ16 mean I magnitude was C1851m305|V255 |brighter probably due to the effects of crowding. Therefore the C1851m305|V255 |H16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. V255 C1851m305|V255 |was not investigated by Sos14. C1851m305|V256 |V256 was investigated by both FJ16 and H16 who derived the same C1851m305|V256 |period (14.8 days). However, the FJ16 mean I magnitude was C1851m305|V256 |brighter probably due to the effects of crowding. Therefore the C1851m305|V256 |H16 magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. V256 C1851m305|V256 |was not investigated by Sos14. C1851m305|V262 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V262 and their results are in C1851m305|V262 |reasonable agreement. Neither group derived a period. The H16 C1851m305|V262 |values for mean magnitude and amplitude are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V263 |Both FJ16 and H16 investigated V263, but obtained different C1851m305|V263 |results. H16 classified it as an RR Lyrae, while FJ16 concluded C1851m305|V263 |that it was a slow variable. However, the FJ16 light curve is C1851m305|V263 |consistent with the possibility of short term variation. The H16 C1851m305|V263 |values for period, mean magnitude and amplitude are listed in the C1851m305|V263 |above table. FJ16 pointed out that McDonald et al. (2014) C1851m305|V263 |identified V263 as short period variable #SPVSgr18550386-3028593 C1851m305|V263 |in the VISTA survey of variables in the Sagittarius dwarf galaxy. C1851m305|V270 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V270 |results. The mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been listed C1851m305|V270 |in the above table. C1851m305|V271 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V271 |results. The mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been listed C1851m305|V271 |in the above table. C1851m305|V273 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V273 |results. The period, mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been C1851m305|V273 |listed in the above table. C1851m305|V274 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V274 |results. The period, mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been C1851m305|V274 |listed in the above table. C1851m305|V275 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V275 |results. The period, mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been C1851m305|V275 |listed in the above table. C1851m305|V279 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V279 |results. The mean magnitude and amplitude of H16 have been listed C1851m305|V279 |in the above table. C1851m305|V280 |Both FJ16 and H16 observed this slow variable and obtained similar C1851m305|V280 |results. In the above table, the period and classification of H16 C1851m305|V280 |and the mean magnitude and amplitude of FJ16 have been listed. C1851m305|V284, V285, V287, V289, V290 V291 |All of these variables were dicovered by FJ16 but they were unable C1851m305|V284, V285, V287, V289, V290 V291 |to classify any of them. Since they were also observed by H16, C1851m305|V284, V285, V287, V289, V290 V291 |the H16 data are listed in the above table. C1851m305|V286 |V286 was discovered by FJ16. They could not derive a mean C1851m305|V286 |magnitude or amplitude because the star disappeared below C1851m305|V286 |their detection limit at minimum light. Therefore they published C1851m305|V286 |the magnitude at maximum light (I=15.04) instead. H16 derived a C1851m305|V286 |period (473 days), but it appears that the star's image was C1851m305|V286 |blended in their data. According to Bramich (2017, private C1851m305|V286 |communication), I > 18.3 mag at minimum light. Thus the I amplitude C1851m305|V286 |is greater than 3.25 mag. The period and large amplitude of C1851m305|V286 |V286 are characteristic of a Mira variable. If it is a Mira C1851m305|V286 |variable, it seems too faint to be a cluster member. C1851m305|V321 |This is a double mode RR Lyrae variable (RR01) with the first C1851m305|V321 |overtone mode dominant. The I magnitude, period and amplitude C1851m305|V321 |in the above table are the values Sos14 listed for the first C1851m305|V321 |overtone. The period and I amplitude of the fundamental mode C1851m305|V321 |are 0.4767 days and 0.080 mag. Thus the period ratio P1/P0 is C1851m305|V321 |0.7420 and the amplitude ratio A1/A0 is 3. C1856m367|V18 |The x coordinate listed in the 2001 version of this electronic C1856m367|V18 |catalogue was incorrect. This was pointed out by J.-W. Lee in C1856m367|V18 |private correspondence in 2003 and by Samus et al. (2009). C1856m367|V18 |The correct x,y coordinates: -137.8", -18.2" were listed by C1856m367|V18 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) in her 3rd catalogue. C1856m367|V25, V26 |The magnitudes and amplitudes are from Lloyd Evans & Menzies C1856m367|V25, V26 |(1977) based on the earlier work of Menzies (1974). They derived C1856m367|V25, V26 |a tentative period of 140 days for V25, but this was not confirmed C1856m367|V25, V26 |by Lee et al. (2014). Both stars are considered to be SR. C1856m367|V25, V26 |In Table 3 of Lee et al. (2014), the coordinates of V25 and V26 C1856m367|V25, V26 |have been interchanged. The RA and dec listed in the above table C1856m367|V25, V26 |for these two stars are from Samus et al. (2009). C1856m367|V30 |Menzies (1974) concluded that this star "almost certainly" has no C1856m367|V30 |connection with the cluster. It is listed as NSV 24641 in the C1856m367|V30 |Moscow GCVS where it is classified as a T Tauri (IT) and is C1856m367|V30 |thought to be associated with the R CrA dark cloud, a region of C1856m367|V30 |star formation located near NGC 6723 in the sky. In the above C1856m367|V30 |table, the RA and dec are from Samus et al. (2009). The mean C1856m367|V30 |magnitude and amplitude are from Lee et al. (2014). C1856m367|V33 |NV1: C1856m367|V33 |Lee et al. (2014) noted that this star was considerably brighter C1856m367|V33 |than the other RR1 variables and concluded that it is probably C1856m367|V33 |a foreground star. However, they did not rule out the possibility C1856m367|V33 |that it might be a member of a binary system. C1906m600|V7, V8, V9, V12 |The data for these stars are from Kaluzny & Thompson (2009). C1906m600|V8 |Classification by Kaluzny et al. (2009) C1906m600|V17 |Kaluzny & Thompson (2009) suggested that this star might be a C1906m600|V17 |binary composed of a hot EHB star and red companion, based on its C1906m600|V17 |location on the CMD. However, Lovisi et al. (2013) concluded that C1906m600|V17 |it is probably a BSS in a binary system with a low-mass MS C1906m600|V17 |companion, based on its location in the UV plane. C1906m600|V18 |Kaluzny & Thompson (2009) showed that this star is located on the C1906m600|V18 |faint extension of the EHB and suggested that it may be a degenerate C1906m600|V18 |binary hosting a low-mass helium white dwarf. Based on the fact C1906m600|V18 |that there was no long term change in the average V luminosity, C1906m600|V18 |they concluded that it is not a dwarf nova. C1906m600|V21 |Gamma Doradus variables are early F dwarf stars that were first C1906m600|V21 |identified as a new class of pulsating stars by Balona et al. C1906m600|V21 |(1994). They pulsate in multiple non-radial g modes with periods C1906m600|V21 |in the range 0.3 to 3 days. In the CMD, they partly overlap the C1906m600|V21 |cool edge of the delta Scuti instability strip. Kaluzny & Thompson C1906m600|V21 |(2009) pointed out that, if the Gamma Dor classification for V21 C1906m600|V21 |is confirmed, it would be the first variable of this type detected C1906m600|V21 |in a globular cluster. C1906m600|V26 |Figuera Jaimes et al. (2016) detected an outburst in 2014, but the C1906m600|V26 |star was in its quiescent phase when they observed the cluster in C1906m600|V26 |2013. They did not detect any variabiity in the other two CVs C1906m600|V26 |(V25 and V27). C1908p009|V1 |Prosser (1988) commented that V1 could be a possible Mira because C1908p009|V1 |it has a late type spectrum. In Sawyer's (1953) study, V1 was C1908p009|V1 |the same brightness as the two Mira variables, V3 and V4, at C1908p009|V1 |maximum light. However, its light amplitude is smaller than that C1908p009|V1 |expected for a Mira. C1914p300|V2 |In his discovery paper, Shapley (1920) listed this star as a C1914p300|V2 |suspected variable, but no one has confirmed its variability since C1914p300|V2 |then. Rosino (1944) was unable to estimate its magnitudes because C1914p300|V2 |it was in a crowded region near the cluster centre and not resolved C1914p300|V2 |on his plates. Wehlau and Sawyer Hogg (1985) noted that its range in C1914p300|V2 |their data was smaller than the other SR/irregular variables. C1914p300|V2 |Russeva (1999) and Pietrukowicz et al. (2008) did not detect any C1914p300|V2 |variability. On the other hand, Horne (2005) found some variability C1914p300|V2 |but could not derive a period. V2 is tentatively classified as C1914p300|V2 |non-variable. C1914p300|V3,V5 |These stars were classified as SR variables by Rosino C1914p300|V3,V5 |(1949) and by Wehlau & Sawyer Hogg (1990). Later, Russeva (1999) C1914p300|V3,V5 |derived periods of 42.12 (or 34.86) for V3 and 31.33 days for V5, C1914p300|V3,V5 |but different periods were derived by Horne (2005) and by C1914p300|V3,V5 |Pietrukowicz et al. (2008). C1936m310|V9, V10, V12 |Olech et al. (1999) found evidence for non-radial pulsations in C1936m310|V9, V10, V12 |these three variables. C1936m310|V26 |Kaluzny et al. (2010) showed that the V-band amplitude of this star C1936m310|V26 |decreased significantly between 2004 and 2008. C1936m310|V38 |The period listed is the longer period, but the amplitude C1936m310|V38 |corresponds to the shorter period. C1936m310|V41 |Pych et al. (2001) tentatively concluded that this star is C1936m310|V41 |pulsating in the first and second radial overtone modes. C1936m310|V44, V54 |These stars were the subject of an intensive investigation by C1936m310|V44, V54 |Kaluzny et al (2014). They found that both are cluster members based C1936m310|V44, V54 |on their radial velocities, confirming the result of the proper C1936m310|V44, V54 |motion study by Zloczewski et al. (2011). C1936m310|V60 |This binary system was the subject of an intensive investigation by C1936m310|V60 |Rozyczka et al. (2013) because it is undergoing mass change. They C1936m310|V60 |derived a mean radial velocity which indicated cluster membership, C1936m310|V60 |confirming the result of the proper motion study by Zloczewski et C1936m310|V60 |al. (2011). C1936m310|V64, V65, V67, V71 |Kaluzny et al. (2010) concluded that V64 and V65 are probably C1936m310|V64, V65, V67, V71 |binaries and that V67 is either a binary at low inclination or an C1936m310|V64, V65, V67, V71 |ellipsoidal variable. C1936m310|V64, V65, V67, V71 |They also noted that V65 and V71 might be the optical counterparts C1936m310|V64, V65, V67, V71 |of Bassa et al.'s Chandra X-ray sources CX7 and CX8 respectively. C1951p186|V1 |Z Sge: C1951p186|V1 |The period, mean magnitude and amplitude are from Mantegazza (1988). C1951p186|V1 |Pogossiantz (1983) derived two periods for this star: 175.3 days C1951p186|V1 |before JD 2438700 and 190.8 days afterwards. C1951p186|V1 |However, Mantegazza concluded that a better interpretation of the C1951p186|V1 |data was that the light variations resulted from the superimposition C1951p186|V1 |of two modes with periods 190.3 and 176.4 respectively. A K-band C1951p186|V1 |light curve plotted by Sloan et al. (2010) with a period of C1951p186|V1 |179 days shows considerable scatter, which supports this conclusion. C1951p186|V1 | C1951p186|V3 |QU Sge: C1951p186|V3 |On the basis of a radial velocity study, Liller & Tokarz (1981) C1951p186|V3 |concluded that V3 is not a cluster member. However, Jeon et al. (2006) C1951p186|V3 |questioned this conclusion. They also presented evidence that the C1951p186|V3 |binary star has an SXPhe component with P~0.03 days and a V C1951p186|V3 |amplitude of 0.024 mag. Cudworth (1985) derived 51% probability of C1951p186|V3 |membership based on proper motion. C1951p186|V4 |NSV 24932 C1951p186|V4 |Sawyer Hogg (1973) classified this star as a possible RR Lyrae C1951p186|V4 |variable. Cudworth (1985) derived its BV magnitudes and concluded C1951p186|V4 |that it was a field star, based on its proper motion. C2003m220|V8,V27 |The x,y coordinates (-14, -40) that Corwin et al. listed for their NV10 C2003m220|V8,V27 |are very close to the values Shapley (1920) published for V8 C2003m220|V8,V27 |(-13.5, -41.4), but Corwin et al. listed (-29, -53) for V8. C2003m220|V8,V27 |Thus in the above table, Corwin's NV10 is V8 and the star that Corwin C2003m220|V8,V27 |et al. listed as V8 is V27. C2031p072|V15 |This star was not studied by Kaluzny et al. (2001). The RA and dec C2031p072|V15 |are from Samus et al. (2009). Harris & Racine (1973) showed that V15 C2031p072|V15 |is located near the RG tip in the CM diagram and classified it as a C2031p072|V15 |possible semi-regular or long period variable. The magnitudes in C2031p072|V15 |the above table are from Sawyer Hogg & Wehlau (1980). C2031p072|V45, V74 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) listed coordinates for these two strs that C2031p072|V45, V74 |indicated a difference of only 0.1 seconds in RA (less than 2 C2031p072|V45, V74 |arcseconds). However, their finder charts indicate that the C2031p072|V45, V74 |separation is about 10 seconds of arc. C2031p072|V55 |Samus et al. (2009) commented that the chart publsihed for V55 by C2031p072|V55 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) was discrepant. C2031p072|V61 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) derived a period of 0.528 days for this star C2031p072|V61 |but noted that it was very uncertain. There was a lot of scatter on C2031p072|V61 |the light curve. Its magnitude and colour are similar to those of C2031p072|V61 |the RR Lyrae variables. It could be a star that manifests a strong C2031p072|V61 |Blazhko effect or even double mode pulsation. C2031p072|V75, V76 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) applied a technique devised by Rucinski C2031p072|V75, V76 |(2000) for establishing the membership status of EW variables. C2031p072|V75, V76 |They concluded that neither of these stars is a cluster member. C2031p072|V75, V76 |Samus et al. (2009) noted that they have been listed in the C2031p072|V75, V76 |Moscow GCVS as OP Del and OO Del respectively. They also pointed out C2031p072|V75, V76 |that the chart for V76 published by Kaluzny et al. (2001) was C2031p072|V75, V76 |discrepant. C2031p072|V77, V79 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) published exactly the same coordinates for C2031p072|V77, V79 |these two stars. However, their finder charts do not indicate that C2031p072|V77, V79 |the stars lie at the same position. C2031p072|V77, V79 |If the published magnitudes for the long period variable V77 are C2031p072|V77, V79 |correct, the location on the CM diagram indicates that V77 is not a C2031p072|V77, V79 |cluster member. Another puzzling feature of these two stars is that C2031p072|V77, V79 |Kaluzny et al. (2001) were able to derive magnitudes and colours for C2031p072|V77, V79 |V77, but not for V79. C2050m127|V42 |Dickens & Flinn (1973) noted that this star was a red variable, C2050m127|V42 |but did not provide further data. Amigo et al. (2013) showed that C2050m127|V42 |it varies and that it lies near the red giant tip on the CM C2050m127|V42 |diagram. However, they were unsuccessful in deriving a period in C2050m127|V42 |the range expected for stars of this type. (Their best period was C2050m127|V42 |close to one day.) C2050m127|V56, V58 |The data for these variables are from Bramich et al. (2011) and C2050m127|V56, V58 |by Skottfelt et al. (2013), respectively. Their variability was C2050m127|V56, V58 |at too low a level for Amigo et al. to obtain reliable results. C2050m127|V56, V58 | C2059p160|V30 |Wehlau et al. (1999) questioned the variability of this star because C2059p160|V30 |it lies in a crowded region. They suggested that its image might be C2059p160|V30 |blended with that of a red giant. C2059p160|V34, V59 |Gerashchenko (2006) noted that the x,y coordinates listed for these C2059p160|V34, V59 |two stars in the electronic catalogue (Clement et al. 2001) and C2059p160|V34, V59 |in Sawyer Hogg's (1973) catalogue were practically the same. He C2059p160|V34, V59 |pointed out that the x,y coordinates for V34 were incorrect because C2059p160|V34, V59 |they did not correspond to the chart position published by Wehlau et C2059p160|V34, V59 |al. (1992). C2059p160|V34, V59 |The source of this problem can be traced to the paper that Sandage C2059p160|V34, V59 |(1954) prepared, based on notes made by Hubble. The location of V34 C2059p160|V34, V59 |on the chart Sandage published does not agree with the x,y C2059p160|V34, V59 |coordinates he published. C2059p160|V34, V59 |In subsequent investigations, authors assumed that V34 was the star C2059p160|V34, V59 |labelled on Sandage's (1954) chart and it was considered to be C2059p160|V34, V59 |non-variable. Consequently, Rosino & Ciatti (1967) announced V59 C2059p160|V34, V59 |as a new variable. In the above table, the numbering system of Rosino C2059p160|V34, V59 |& Ciatti is used. C2059p160|V40 |Wehlau et al. (1999) were unable to obtain many good measures for C2059p160|V40 |this star, but comment that it is too red to be an RR Lyrae star. C2059p160|V40 |Rosino & Ciatti (1967) also noted that V40 is not an RR Lyrae C2059p160|V40 |variable. C2059p160|V41, V74 |V41 and V74 are the same star. This was recognized by Wehlau et C2059p160|V41, V74 |al. (1992). They consulted Rosino (who discovered V74) and he C2059p160|V41, V74 |confirmed this in a private communication in 1991. C2059p160|V42 |According to Wehlau et al. (1999), no data have ever been published C2059p160|V42 |for this star which is situated in a very crowded region of the C2059p160|V42 |cluster. C2059p160|V49 |Gerashchenko pointed out that x,y should be +8.62,+41.85. They C2059p160|V49 |were previously listed as +4.8,+40.5. C2059p160|V54 |Rosino & Ciatti (1967) and Wehlau et al. (1999) confirmed the C2059p160|V54 |classification of Sandage & Wildey (1967) for this star. It lies C2059p160|V54 |near the RG tip in the CM diagram and its variations appear to be C2059p160|V54 |irregular. No one has been able to detrive a period. C2059p160|V65 |Wehlau et al. (1999) could not obtain accurate magnitudes. Pinto & C2059p160|V65 |Rosino listed two possible periods: 0.544081 and 0.515043 days. C2059p160|V70 |This star is very close to the cluster centre. According to Pinto & C2059p160|V70 |Rosino (1973), it is probably not an RR Lyrae variable. C2059p160|V72 |Wehlau et al. (1999) could not obtain accurate magnitudes. Pinto & C2059p160|V72 |Rosino listed two possible periods: 0.2610439 and 0.318936 days. C2059p160|V75 |Wehlau et al. (1999) did not detect any short term variations in C2059p160|V75 |this star, but found that it varied from year to year with B C2059p160|V75 |magnitudes ranging from 18.74 to 19.25. They noted that it is C2059p160|V75 |farther from the cluster centre than most of the other variables C2059p160|V75 |and might be a field star. C2059p160|V75 |Rosino & Ciatti (1967) also concluded that V75 is probably not an C2059p160|V75 |RR Lyrae variable. C2127p119|V27 |The "CST" status for V27 is from Rosino (1950) C2127p119|V34 |The magnitude and amplitude for V34 is from C2127p119|V34 |Arellano Ferro et al. (2006) and the RA, dec, period and C2127p119|V34 |variability type are from Corwin et al. (2008) C2127p119|V46 |This appears to be the same star as V112. See the comment C2127p119|V46 |for V112. C2127p119|V72 |Period, magnitude, amplitude and variability type are C2127p119|V72 |from Notni & Oleak (1958). They pointed out that an alternate C2127p119|V72 |period is 0.5984. They classified the star as a Bailey type a C2127p119|V72 |RR Lyrae, but if the 1 day period is correct, this is unlikely. C2127p119|V77, V92 |Tuairisg et al. (2003) published data for V77 and V92, but C2127p119|V77, V92 |according to their ID chart, the stars they labelled as V77 C2127p119|V77, V92 |and V92 are not the same stars that Rosino (1950) identified C2127p119|V77, V92 |as V77 and V92. A comparison of their RA & dec with the ones C2127p119|V77, V92 |listed by Corwin et al. (2008) indicates that Tuairisg C2127p119|V77, V92 |interchanged the coordinates for these two stars. C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |Rosino (1950) announced these variables, but no elements C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |have been published. Zheleznyak & Kravtsov (2003) C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |confirmed that they vary, but none of them were discussed by C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |Corwin et al. (2008), even though all were in their field. C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |Tuairisg et al. (2003) noted that they did not detect C2127p119|V79, V85, V95 |variability in V85, even though it was in their field. C2127p119|V86 |The period, magnitude and amplitude listed for V86 are C2127p119|V86 |from Fusi Pecci et al. (1980). The RA and dec are from Corwin C2127p119|V86 |et al. (2008). C2127p119|V98 |Period, magnitude, amplitude and variability type are C2127p119|V98 |from Notni & Oleak (1958). C2127p119|V104, V105 |All the data listed for V104 and V105 are from the paper by C2127p119|V104, V105 |Tsoo (1961), except the RR01 classification for V104 which C2127p119|V104, V105 |is from Barlai (1989) C2127p119|V112 |Kadla et al. (1988) noted that this star might be V46. C2127p119|V112 |According to Sawyer Hogg's (1973) 3rd catalog, their max and C2127p119|V112 |min magnitudes and x, y postions are similar: C2127p119|V112 |15.40-16.32, +56.0, +33.2 for V46 and C2127p119|V112 |15.3-16.3, +55.5, +35.0 for V112. C2127p119|V112 |Thus we conclude that they are the same star. C2127p119|V112 |Kadla et al. also suggested that V47 and V111 might be one C2127p119|V112 |star, but that seems unlikely. Corwin et al. (2008) found a C2127p119|V112 |separation of about 4 arcsec and derived periods for both. C2127p119|V122 |Chu (1977) derived a 2 hour period for V122, but this was not C2127p119|V122 |confirmed in subsequent investigations. Smith et al. (1979) C2127p119|V122 |did not detect significant short-period variations. Liller & C2127p119|V122 |Schommer (1980) commented that there might be a significant C2127p119|V122 |difference in mean magnitude on different nights, but found no C2127p119|V122 |evidence for variations on the 2 hour time scale. C2127p119|V122 |In the CMD, the star is located about V ~ 0.8 mag brighter than C2127p119|V122 |the HB at the blue end of the instability strip. Smith et al. C2127p119|V122 |(1979) noted that radial velocity and proper motion C2127p119|V122 |investigations indicate that the stars is a cluster member. C2127p119|V122 | C2127p119|V125 (AC 211 or X-1) |The RA & Dec are Kulkarni's values for AC 211, reported by C2127p119|V125 (AC 211 or X-1) |White & Angelini (2001). The remaining data listed for V125 C2127p119|V125 (AC 211 or X-1) |are from page 148-149 of the paper by Ilovaisky (1993). C2127p119|V127 |Yao & Qin (1993) derived two possible periods (0.51 and 0.09 C2127p119|V127 |days, repsectively) and showed that the star is located on the C2127p119|V127 |CMD at a position B-V ~0.15 redward of the GB, indicating that C2127p119|V127 |it might be a field star. C2127p119|V128, V129, 132, V134, V136, V137, V138, V142, V161, V165, V174, V175 |The positions, periods and classifications for these stars C2127p119|V128, V129, 132, V134, V136, V137, V138, V142, V161, V165, V174, V175 |are from Corwin et al. (2008). Their V magnitudes and C2127p119|V128, V129, 132, V134, V136, V137, V138, V142, V161, V165, V174, V175 |amplitudes are from Tuairisg et al. (2003). C2127p119|V140, V155; |These two stars were classified as variables by Butler et al. C2127p119|V140, V155; |(1998), but were not detected as variables in the follow up C2127p119|V140, V155; |paper by Tuairisg et al. (2003) who noted that there were a C2127p119|V140, V155; |number of errors in the analysis of Butler et al. Furthermore, C2127p119|V140, V155; |they were not recovered by Corwin et al. (2008) even though C2127p119|V140, V155; |they were in their field of view. Therefore the variability C2127p119|V140, V155; |of these two stars is doubtful. C2127p119|V143, V146, V147, V148, V149, V150, V151, V153, V154 |The RA and dec for these stars were derived by Samus et al. C2127p119|V143, V146, V147, V148, V149, V150, V151, V153, V154 |(2009). Zheleznyak & Kravtsov (2003) derived their x,y C2127p119|V143, V146, V147, V148, V149, V150, V151, V153, V154 |coordinates, but also noted (see page 604 in their paper) that C2127p119|V143, V146, V147, V148, V149, V150, V151, V153, V154 |they did not detect light variations in any of them. Their C2127p119|V143, V146, V147, V148, V149, V150, V151, V153, V154 |non-variable status was confirmed by Tuairisg et al. (2003). C2127p119|V156 |The period, mean magnitude and (maximum) amplitude listed above C2127p119|V156 |are from Jeon et al. (2001a). C2127p119|V164 |Corwin et al. (2008) concluded that this is the same variable C2127p119|V164 |as ZK37, but were unable to derive a period that phased the data C2127p119|V164 |well so the data listed above are from Tuairisg et al. (2003). C2127p119|ZK47 |Zheleznyak & Kravtsov (2003) were unable to classify this C2127p119|ZK47 |variable. The RA and dec listed above were derived from their C2127p119|ZK47 |published values for the star's x,y coordinates and RA and dec C2127p119|ZK47 |of the cluster centre. They indicate that the star is located C2127p119|ZK47 |less than 1 arcsec from CV1. Thus it is possible that ZK47 is C2127p119|ZK47 |the same star as CV1. C2127p119|ZK47 | C2127p119|ZK62, ZK68 |RA, dec, period, amplitude and variability type are from C2127p119|ZK62, ZK68 |Kravtsov & Zheleznyak (2003) C2127p119|X-2 |The RA, dec and classification are from White & Angelini (2001) C2127p119|X-2 |who identified a blue U=18.6 magnitude stars as the optical C2127p119|X-2 |counterpart. The orbital period was derived by Dieball et al. C2127p119|X-2 |(2005) from HST FUV observations. The FUV amplitude was 0.124 mag. C2127p119|CV1 and CV2, the cataclysmic variables |RA, dec, magnitude and variability type is from Hannikainen C2127p119|CV1 and CV2, the cataclysmic variables |et al. (2005). CV1 is their source A and CV2 is source C. C2130m010|V1, V5, V6, V11 |Periods, magnitudes, amplitudes and variability types C2130m010|V1, V5, V6, V11 |are from Demers (1969) who published an ID chart. For V11, C2130m010|V1, V5, V6, V11 |he listed the half period (33.5 days), but noted that the C2130m010|V1, V5, V6, V11 |star is probably an RV Tauri variable. C2130m010|V16 |Lazaro et al. (2006) did not detect any star at the previously C2130m010|V16 |reported position for V16 and did not detect variablity in C2130m010|V16 |nearby stars. However, Lee & Carney (1999) derived a V amplitude C2130m010|V16 |of more than 1 mag for the star and confirmed the period that C2130m010|V16 |Sawyer (1935) derived in her discovery paper. C2130m010|V2, V26, V32 |Periods are from Lazaro et al. (2006) and magnitudes, C2130m010|V2, V26, V32 |amplitudes and variability types are from Lee & Carney (1999) C2137m234|V4 |Rosino (1961) commented that V4 was unlikely to be a cluster member C2137m234|V4 |and this conclusion was later confirmed by Machin et al. (1991) based C2137m234|V4 |on the radial velocity they derived. It is considered to be a C2137m234|V4 |foreground star. C2137m234|V4 |Pietrukowicz et al (2008) pointed out that V4 has a likely X-ray C2137m234|V4 |counterpart. These latter authors easily recovered the variable and C2137m234|V4 |plotted a light curve. The magnitudes listed in the above table were C2137m234|V4 |read from their light curve. Kains et al. (2013) made extensive C2137m234|V4 |observations of V4 and derived a period of 2.22 hours from their C2137m234|V4 |quiescent phase data. C2304p124|V4 |Although V4 is located at a distance of approximately 5 C2304p124|V4 |arcminutes from the cluster centre, well beyond the tidal C2304p124|V4 |radius (2.2 arcmin) derived from the 2010 update to the Harris C2304p124|V4 |(1996) catalog, Siegel et al. (2001) concluded that it is a C2304p124|V4 |probable cluster member, based on its proper motion.