I've been to the southern hemisphere twice with the second one being exactly 10 days later because I filled in for someone else for the second trip. The first was to Australia during a full moon, but the second was to New Zealand during a new moon. I was like a giddy little school boy when I took my first picture of the LMC. After getting my bearings on LMC/SMC and Alpha/Beta Centauri, I was able to shoot a few timelapses of the rotation and see how not having a singular "South Star" was still able to see the "center" of the rotation. Unfortunately, these trips were not a night sky viewing event, otherwise, I would have spent much more time checking things out. I did take the time I could though

It's OK to call the LMC "large", because it is. But calling the SMC "small" is decidedly not. And, they're not clouds, either.

This is a unique opportunity to give these two lesser galaxies better names. The nearer one could be the "Lesser Magellanic Nebula". The far one could be the "Cryptic Magellanic Nebula". Then the LMC gets "Greater Magellanic Nebula". Andromeda may stay Andromeda, unless the San people in Botswana have a name for it that we could pronounce.

People living in the southern hemisphere for lo so many millennia knew they were there all along, before Magellan drifted past. Just "Greater Southern Nebula" etc. instead? Maybe ask the San about those too. Or the Yaghan in Tierra Del Fuego. Or Australian aboriginals. All deserve reparations.

The Small Magellenic Cloud was, heretofore, presumed to contain about 3 billion stars, vs. 30 billion for the Large Magellenic Cloud, and 100 billion stars for the Milky Way.

The Small Magellenic Cloud was, heretofore, estimated to be about 18,900 light years in diameter.

Nebula clusters are generally on the order of magnitude of a few thousand stars at most, and only hundreds of lightyears in size.

However the division of the two smaller parts of the SMC works out, I believe both deserve more than simple appelation of "nebulae."

The point is that "cloud" is objectively the wrong name. As is "small".

So as a replacement for the word “cloud” you’re suggesting instead the Latin word “nebula”, meaning “cloud”

Doesn't this level of literalism in taxonomy feel a bit sterile and unnecessary? It sure does to me.

This just in: the Milky Way is not comprised of milk :(

The Milky Way is the only galaxy known to contain milk. It's also the only galaxy known to contain Milky Way bars. The name definitely fits.

THIS is why I love HN!

The Milky Way is also the only known galaxy to have ever contained Magellan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Magellan

Does this suggest an extra-galactic origin for The Moon?

If we're going to rename it, my proposal would be "Two Small Galaxies In A Trenchcoat".

Thank you! Here is the money shot, with the Milky Way (please excuse me Kiwis) upside down and the two Magellanic clouds showing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Panoramic_Large_and_Small...

I just always thought they'd be similar to the Andromeda galaxy - visible just barely if you know where to look under perfect conditions. I had no idea!