6 Notes on individual objects

0936-853: No optical identification was available for this object. Figure 1 shows the optical counterpart we propose. In wide-field photographic plates, this object has an elongated image due to a very close star.

  

Table 3: Comparison in the ICRS with the VLBI radio positions given by Ma et al. (1998). See Sect. 7 for details

CT and LC stand for Cerro Tolo and Las Campanas
respectively.
Phot. indicates a comparison with a position derived from direct photography.

On the CCD images it is clearly resolved.
1048-313: Drinkwater et al. (1997) independently identified the same optical counterpart for this source. Here we present an improved finding chart (Fig. 2).
1213-172: A bright star near the source prevented CCD imaging. No optical counterpart is known for this source.
1221-829: The provisional $m\sim22.5$ optical identification proposed by Jauncey et al. (1989) is incorrect. The correct optical counterpart is an object of similar brightness that lies to the NE, as shown by Fig. 3.
1313-333: Large inconsistencies detected in the value assigned to its magnitude suggest that this source is grossly variable in the optical.
1443-162: Same situation as 1048-313. See Fig. 4.
1555-140: The optical counterpart of this object is a bright and diffuse galaxy. Although different integration times were tested during CCD imaging, none of them produced a point-like nucleus appropriate for astrometry.
1604-333: No optical counterpart was known for this source. Figure 5 shows the identification we are proposing. On account of the fairly large RA radio-optical residual derived (see Table 3) it should be considered provisional. In any case, we found no evidence of an alternative fainter counterpart.
1647-296: No optical identification was known of this source. Figure 6 shows the identification we propose. The optical object is a close pair. It is just resolved on the CCD frames, but it looks like a single image in the wide-field photographic plates. The faintest (in B) of the pair is the correct optical counterpart.
1706-174: The $m\sim 17.5$ QSO proposed by Johnston et al. (1995) as optical identification of this source is incorrect (no finding chart was published). Here we propose a much fainter optical counterpart ($B\sim22$), as shown in Fig. 7.
1706+006: Differences detected in the magnitude assigned to this object suggest that it is optically variable.
1740-517: Empty field? At the limit of detection an object seems to be present in the radio source position.
1815-553: Optically variable. This object was roughly two magnitudes brighter when observed by Jauncey et al. (1989).
1908-201: Not the $m\sim22$ optical identification proposed by Johnston et al. (1995). Torres & Wroblewski (1987) identified a much brighter object as the optical counterpart, but gave a wrong value for its magnitude. Here we confirm this latter identification and give a new estimation of its magnitude.
1925-610: Optically variable. This object brightened roughly two magnitudes in the timespan (4 months) between our CCD and photographic observations. The magnitude given is an average of both estimations.