V410 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 2.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
This paper by Claudio et al. apparently used
inadequate data source for analysis and this paper
gives virtually no improvements for known variables.
V409 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 4 mag. The period may be
longer (~490 d) than 468 d.
V408 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 3.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V406 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 2.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V404 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 3.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V403 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 2.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V401 Sct: Mira
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira-type variation with
an amplitude more than 2.5 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V400 Sct: Mira/SR
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira/SR-type variation with
an amplitude about 2 mag. The original period
appears correct.
V399 Sct: Mira/SR
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.07229.pdf
ZTF data clearly show Mira/SR-type variation with
an amplitude more than 2 mag. The original period
appears correct.