1: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex} % Double-spaced format for submission
2: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex} % Nice 2-col format for preprints
4: %\documentclass{emulateapj} % Nice 2-col format for preprints
5:
6:
7: %\usepackage{rotcapt}
8:
9: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DEFINITIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
10: \newcommand{\myemail}{gtrancho@gemini.edu}
11: \newcommand{\av}{\mbox{$A_V$}} % Visual absorption
12: \newcommand{\czhel}{\mbox{$cz_{\rm hel}$}} % Heliocentric radial velocity
13: \newcommand{\dvlos}{\mbox{$\Delta v$}} % Relative LOS velocity diff.
14: \newcommand{\etal}{et al.} % Present AJ style
15: \newcommand{\gprime}{\mbox{$g^\prime$}} % g' magnitude
16: \newcommand{\hi}{\ion{H}{1} } % Symbol for neutral hydrogen
17: \newcommand{\hii}{\ion{H}{2} } % Symbol for H~II region
18: \newcommand{\hst}{{\it HST}} % Abbrev. for Hubble Space Tel.
19: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$} % kilometers per second
20: \newcommand{\mass}{\mbox{${\cal M}$}} % Mass
21: \newcommand{\msun}{\mbox{${\cal M}_{\odot}$}} % Solar mass
22: \newcommand{\n}{NGC~} % NGC = New General Catalogue
23: \newcommand{\rprime}{\mbox{$r^\prime$}} % r' magnitude
24: \newcommand{\zo}{\mbox{$Z_{\odot}$}} % Solar metallicity
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
26:
27:
28: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
29:
30: \shorttitle{NGC~3256 Clusters}
31: \shortauthors{Trancho et al.}
32:
33: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
34: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
35:
36: \begin{document}
37:
38: \title{Gemini Spectroscopic Survey of Young Star Clusters in
39: Merging/Interacting Galaxies. II. NGC~3256 Clusters}
40:
41: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
42: %% author and affiliation information.
43: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
44: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
45: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
46: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
47:
48: \author{Gelys Trancho}
49: \affil{Universidad de La Laguna, Tenerife, Canary Island, Spain}
50: \affil{Gemini Observatory, 670 N. A'ohoku Place, Hilo, HI 96720, USA}
51: \email{gtrancho@gemini.edu}
52: \author{Nate Bastian}
53: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, University College London,
54: Gower Street, London, WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom}
55: \author{Bryan W. Miller}
56: \affil{Gemini Observatory, Casilla 603, La Serena, Chile}
57: \and
58:
59: \author{Fran\c{c}ois Schweizer}
60: \affil{Carnegie Observatories, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena,
61: CA 91101-1292, USA}
62:
63:
64: \begin{abstract}
65:
66: We present Gemini optical spectroscopy of 23 young star
67: clusters in \n3256. We find that the cluster ages range
68: are from few Myr to $\sim\,$150 Myr. All these clusters are relatively
69: massive (2--40) $\times 10^{5}~\msun$ and appear to be of roughly 1.5~ \zo
70: metallicity. The majority of the clusters in our sample follow the same rotation curve
71: as the gas and hence were presumably formed in the molecular-gas disk. However, a
72: western subsample of five clusters has velocities that deviate significantly from the gas
73: rotation curve. These clusters may either belong to the second spiral galaxy of the
74: merger or may have formed in tidal-tail gas falling back into the system. We discuss our observations in light of other known cluster populations in merging galaxies, and suggest that NGC~3256 is similar to Arp~220, and hence may become an Ultra-luminous Infrared Galaxy as the merger progresses and the star-formation rate increases.
75:
76: Some of the clusters which appeared as isolated in our ground-based images are clearly
77: resolved into multiple sub-components in the HST-ACS images. The same effect has
78: been observed in the Antennae galaxies, showing that clusters are often not formed in
79: isolation, but instead tend to form in larger groups or cluster complexes
80:
81: \end{abstract}
82:
83: \keywords{globular clusters: general ---
84: globular clusters: individual (\objectname{NGC 3256})}
85:
86:
87:
88: \section{Introduction}
89:
90: In the prevailing picture of hierarchical early-type-galaxy formation,
91: small fragments form first and then merge into larger and larger pieces
92: until the system resembles a large, smooth, anisotropically supported
93: elliptical galaxy. The study of globular clusters has an important
94: role to play in testing the predictions of this theory and in
95: answering the question about if and when the bulk of this merging took
96: place. Studies of the Galactic globular cluster system have been
97: fundamental to the development of ideas on how the Galactic halo, and
98: perhaps the entire galaxy, has been assembled from merging fragments
99: (Searle \& Zinn 1978; Da Costa \& Armandroff 1995). Studies of
100: extragalactic cluster systems have revealed evidence for multiple
101: populations of clusters and allow us to use them to connect the
102: various phases of galaxy evolution.
103:
104: GCs in galaxies more distant than about a megaparsec cannot be
105: resolved into stars, even with HST. However, the fact that they
106: contain simple stellar populations means that their integrated
107: properties can be used to determine metallicities and ages.
108: Surveys of large numbers of globular cluster systems reveals that $>$90\% of all Es
109: have bimodal color distributions, and only 10-20\% in S0s (Kundu \& Whitmore (2001a, 2001b)).
110: Almost all galaxies host a GC population with a peak in their color distribution at (V-I)=0.95.
111: Available metallicity measurements suggest that these are old,
112: metal-poor clusters like the Galactic halo GCs (Geisler, Lee, \& Kim
113: 1996). The second peak is redder than the first and implies that the
114: red GCs are more metal-rich. In general, these GCs are also old, but
115: the age-metallicity degeneracy in broad-band colors makes age
116: differences hard to determine unless the GCs are rather young (see
117: Whitmore et al. 1997).
118:
119: There are several competing scenarios for how the globular cluster
120: systems of galaxies formed. \cite{ashan92} predicted that the
121: merger of two disk galaxies would produce an elliptical with a bimodal
122: GC color distribution. The blue clusters are Galactic-halo like
123: clusters from the progenitor galaxies. These clusters would have
124: formed like those in the Galaxy, perhaps from the accretion of dwarf
125: galaxies with large numbers of GCs. Dwarf elliptical galaxies were
126: efficient at forming clusters and these clusters resemble those in the
127: Galactic halo (Miller et al. 1998). In the Ashman \& Zepf scenario,
128: the red population is formed during the merger process from the
129: metal-enriched gas in the disks. The formation of new clusters also
130: alleviates the problem that ellipticals have specific globular cluster
131: frequencies (number per unit luminosity) about a factor of two higher
132: than spirals do (Schweizer 1987). An alternative scenario is that all
133: the clusters
134: were formed ``in situ,'' in a multi-phase collapse of a single potential
135: well (Forbes et al. 1997) similar to the early monolithic collapse
136: picture of the formation of the Galaxy (Eggen, Lynden-Bell, \& Sandage
137: 1962). In this case, the metal-poor clusters form first in the halo
138: and and metal-rich clusters form later during the final collapse, or
139: recollapse, stages from metal-enriched gas. Both these scenarios fit
140: into the overall picture of hierarchical galaxy formation, but they
141: differ in when the bulk of the merging takes place.
142:
143: An important result of the merger scenario is that
144: the merger of two spiral galaxies can cause the formation of many
145: young star clusters in the starburst resulting from the collision of the
146: two gas disks (Schweizer 1987; Ashman \& Zepf 1992).
147: The creation of star clusters may alleviate the
148: problem that elliptical galaxies have specific globular cluster
149: frequencies (S$_N$, the luminosity-weighted number of GCs) about a
150: factor of two higher than in spirals. The evidence is growing that
151: significant numbers of star clusters are formed during galaxy mergers.
152: Hubble Space Telescope observations of NGC1275 (Holtzman et al. 1992;
153: Carlson et al. 1998) were some of the first to find very luminous blue
154: objects with the properties of young GCs in a galaxy that may
155: have had a recent merger. Large young cluster populations with ages
156: between 10 and 500 Myr were soon found in obvious merger remnants like
157: NGC7252 (Whitmore et al. 1993; Miller et al. 1997), NGC3921 (Schweizer
158: et al. 1996), NGC3256 \citep{zepf99}, NGC4038/4039 (Whitmore \&
159: Schweizer 1995; Whitmore et al. 1999). Spectra of the brightest young
160: clusters in NGC1275 (Zepf et al. 1995) and NGC7252 (Schweizer \&
161: Seitzer 1993,1998) confirmed that the clusters were between 0.5 and 1
162: Gyr old with roughly solar metallicities (Figure 2). Since these
163: clusters are many internal crossing times old, they would seem likely to
164: survive to become the red GC populations of the faded merger remnants
165: (e.g., Whitmore et al.\ 1997; Goudfrooij et al.\ 2001a).
166:
167: These observations allow us to proceed to the next level of
168: understanding the evolution of globular cluster systems; we must
169: understand in more detail how star clusters form and how systems of
170: star clusters evolve. It is thought that star clusters are formed in
171: high-pressure environments (Harris \& Pudritz 1994; Elmegreen \& Efrimov
172: 1997), be they caused by the collisions of giant molecular clouds
173: or by a general pressure increase in the gas surrounding molecular clouds.
174: Observations of
175: the Antennae can now provide some key parameters about the state of
176: the ISM during clusters formation and the feedback produced by the
177: young clusters. Zhang, Fall, \& Whitmore (2001) compared the
178: locations of different cluster populations with emission from the ISM
179: at wavelength from X-rays to radio and found that the youngest
180: clusters are associated with molecular cloud complexes and may lie in regions
181: of high HI velocity dispersion. However, the small velocity dispersion
182: of the clusters among themselves strongly suggest that it is not
183: high-velocity cloud-cloud collisions that drive cluster formation, but
184: the general pressure increase experienced by gas during the merger
185: (Whitmore et al.\ 2005).
186: Feedback, seen in the form of H$\alpha$ bubbles around young-cluster
187: complexes, may enhance this process.
188:
189: An interesting question is how globular cluster systems evolve.
190: Most very young star-cluster systems studied in merging galaxies have
191: power-law luminosity functions of the form M$^{-2}$ (e.g. Schweizer et
192: al. 1996; Miller et al. 1997; Whitmore et al. 1999; Zhang \& Fall
193: 1999). However, the luminosity (or mass) function of old globular
194: clusters has a log-normal shape with a peak at $M_V^0 \sim -7.3$
195: ($\sim10^5$ M$_{\odot}$; Harris 1991). Therefore, either the initial
196: mass function of star clusters was different in the past, perhaps due
197: to low metallicity, or a substantial fraction of the young clusters
198: must be destroyed for the young mass functions to evolve into what we
199: see in older systems. A great deal of theoretical work has gone into
200: globular cluster destruction processes (e.g. Fall \& Rees 1977; Gnedin
201: \& Ostriker 1997; Vesperini 1997/98; Fall \& Zhang 2001). The main
202: processes that can destroy globular clusters are stellar evolution,
203: 2-body relaxation, dynamical friction, and disk shocking, or if the clusters
204: formed in gas rich environments, interactions with GMCs can play
205: a significant role (Gieles et al.~2006). The models
206: of Fall \& Zhang (2001) predict that there may be radial variations in
207: the peak of the mass function within a galaxy and that the peak will
208: shift to higher masses with time. Many of these processes depend on
209: the relative velocities of the clusters and field stars and on the
210: cluster orbits.
211:
212: In this paper we present some first results of a large spectroscopic survey of
213: star clusters in merging and interacting galaxies. We focus on 23
214: bright star-cluster candidates in the main body of \n3256 observed
215: with GMOS on Gemini South. Other targets in our survey, to be
216: presented in future papers, include NGC~4038/39 (The Antennae),
217: \n6872, Stephan's Quintet, and M82.
218:
219:
220: \n3256 was classified as an intermediate-stage merger in Toomre's list
221: of nearby merging systems \citep{toomre77}. The merger is more
222: advanced than systems like NGC 4038/39, in which the two original disks
223: are still distinct, but the two nuclei (Moorwood \& Oliva 1994;
224: Norris \& Forbes 1995; Lira et al.\ 2002; Neff et al.\ 2004) have not
225: merged yet either. They have a separation in projection by 5", or
226: $\sim900$~pc. Hence, \n3256 is not as relaxed a system as \n7252 is.
227: The outer parts of the system are characterized by shell-like features
228: and two
229: extended tidal tails that are typical of merging galaxies. The body
230: of the system is criss-crossed by dust lanes that enshroud an on-going
231: starburst: the far-infared luminosity, X-ray luminosity, and star
232: formation rate are the highest of all the systems in the Toomre
233: sequence. This starburst has created over 1000 star clusters in the
234: central region \citep{zepf99} as well as in the tidal tails
235: \citep{knier03, trancho07a}.
236:
237: The current paper is organized as follows: Section~\ref{sec:obs}
238: describes the observations. In \S~\ref{sec:results} and
239: \S~\ref{sec:kinematics} we derive the ages, masses, extinctions,
240: metallicities, and line-of-sight velocities of the 23 clusters.
241: Finally, \S~\ref{sec:disc} discusses and summarizes the results.
242:
243:
244: \n3256 is located at $\alpha_{\rm J2000}=10^{\rm h}27^{\rm m}51\fs3$,
245: $\delta_{{\rm J}2000}=-43\degr54\arcmin14\arcsec$ and has a recession
246: velocity relative to the Local Group of $cz_{_{\rm Helio}} = +2804\pm 6$
247: \kms\ , which places it at a distance of
248: 36.1 Mpc for $H_0 = 70$ \kms\ Mpc$^{-1}$.
249: At that distance, adopted throughout the present paper, $1\arcsec = 175$ pc.
250: The corresponding true distance modulus is $(m-M)_0 = 32.79$.
251: Because of the low galactic latitude of \n3256, $b = +11\fdg7$, the
252: Milky Way foreground extinction is relatively high, $A_V=0.403$ (Schlegel
253: et al.~1998), whence the apparent visual distance modulus is $V-M_V = 33.19$.
254:
255:
256: \section{Observations and Reductions}
257: \label{sec:obs}
258:
259: Imaging and spectroscopic observations of star clusters in \n3256 were
260: made with GMOS-S in semesters 2003A and 2004A.
261: The data were obtained as part of two Director's Discretionary Time
262: programs, GS-2003A-DD-1 and GS-2004A-DD-3.
263: Our images cover the typical GMOS-S field, which measures approximately
264: $5\farcm5\times 5\farcm5$.
265: They were obtained through the \gprime\ and \rprime\ filters.
266: Four GMOS masks with slitlets were used for the spectroscopic observations.
267: We used the B600 grating and a slitlet width of $0\farcs75$, resulting in
268: an instrumental resolution of 110 km/s at 5100 \AA.
269: The spectroscopic observations were obtained as 8 individual exposures
270: with exposure times of 3600 sec each.
271: Our spectroscopy of 70 cluster candidates yielded only 26 objects that
272: were bonafied star clusters in \n3256.
273: Of these, three are located in the western tidal tail and have been
274: described in Trancho et al.\ (2007).
275: In the present paper we focus on the 23 star clusters located in or near
276: the main body of NGC~3256.
277: Table~\ref{table:properties1} lists these star clusters.
278: Column (1) gives the adopted cluster ID, columns (3)--(4) the coordinates,
279: and columns (5) and (6) the absolute magnitudes $M_{g'}$ and $M_{r'}$ and
280: their errors.
281: The magnitudes have been corrected for Galactic extinction, but not for
282: any internal extinction.
283:
284: Figure~\ref{fig:image} shows an {\em HST}/ACS image of the main body of
285: \n3256, with the observed candidate clusters marked by their ID numbers.
286:
287: The basic reductions of the data were done using a combination of the
288: Gemini IRAF package and custom reduction techniques, as described in
289: Appendix A.
290:
291:
292:
293: \section{Derivation of Cluster Properties}
294: \label{sec:results}
295:
296: The derivation of cluster properties (such as age and metallicity) based on the strengths of
297: stellar absorption lines through optical spectroscopy is not straightforward, due to
298: degeneracies between age, metallicity, and extinction.
299: Multiple studies have addressed this problem (e.g., Schweizer \& Seitzer
300: 1998; Schweizer, Seitzer, \& Brodie 2004; Puzia et al.\ 2005), and here we extend previous studies.
301:
302: Although in some of our cluster spectra the strengths of stellar absorption lines cannot be measured due to strong emission lines, the
303: fluxes/equivalents width(EW) of the emission lines of the surrounding \hii region can be
304: measured. In these cases a chemical abundance can be estimated for the \hii
305: region, in which the cluster has recently formed, from line-emission measurements (e.g., Kobulnicky \& Kewley
306: 2004; Kobulnicky \& Phillips 2003; Vacca \& Conti 1992).
307: This abundance is expected to be the same as that of the young stellar cluster itself, and
308: hence complements abundance measurements of the absorption-line
309: dominated clusters.
310:
311: Below, we outline the method adopted in the present study.
312:
313: \subsection{Extinction, Age, and Metallicity}
314: \label{sec:ages}
315:
316: \subsubsection{Absorption-Line Clusters}
317: We first select the model spectra by Bruzual \&
318: Charlot (2003, hereafter BC03) and by Gonz\'alez-Delgado et al.\ (2005,
319: hereafter GD05) . Then we smooth the model spectra to the same resolution
320: as the observed spectra. Then we compare the cluster spectra with the models
321: for clusters of solar metallicity, to which we have applied
322: various amounts of extinction (using de Galactic extinction law for Savage \& Mathis 1979) , $A_V = 0$--10 in steps of 0.1 mag.
323: We select the best fitting model via minimized $\chi^2$,
324: Model$_{\rm best}$(age,\av), and correct the observed spectrum for the
325: derived extinction $\av$ to yield Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$.
326:
327:
328: %We first attempt to estimate the extinction for each cluster.
329: %To that end, we first smooth the model spectra to the same resolution
330: %as the observed spectra.
331: %We then compare the cluster spectra with model spectra by Bruzual \&
332: %Charlot (2003, hereafter BC03) and by Gonz\'alez-Delgado et al.\ (2005,
333: %hereafter GD05) for clusters of solar metallicity, to which we have applied
334: %various amounts of extinction, $A_V = 0$--10 in steps of 0.1 mag.
335: %We select the best fitting model via minimized $\chi^2$,
336: %Model$_{\rm best}$(age,\av), and correct the observed spectrum for the
337: %derived extinction $\av$ to yield Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$.
338: This procedure was carried out for the BC03 and GD05 models independently,
339: and we note that for individual clusters the results are very similar.
340: Due to the finer grid of young ages in the GD05 cluster models we adopted
341: these for our further analysis.
342:
343: We then inserted the extinction-corrected spectra into the IDL
344: implementation of the Penalized Pixel Fitting routine (pPxF) of
345: Cappellari \& Emsellem(2004)\footnote{We used the GD05 spectra which have a resolution of 0.3 \AA ~at 5100\AA
346: , corresponds to $\sigma \sim 0.3/5100*3e5/2.35 = 7.5$ km/s and
347: our spectra have a $\sigma \sim 3.96/5100*3e5/2.35 = 99.12$ km/s.
348: The quadratic difference is sigma necessary to use in ppxf is $\sigma =\sqrt(99.12^2-7.5^2)= $ 98.83 km/s
349: }.
350: This routine determines the best linear combination of template spectra
351: plus an analytic polynomial to reproduce the observed spectra and returns,
352: in addition, the radial velocity of each cluster.
353: For template spectra we used all available models (both in age and
354: metallicity) of GD05.
355: We suppressed the use of any additional polynomial in order to preserve the continuum
356: shape of each observed cluster.
357: Emission lines and regions of the spectra affected by artifacts were masked
358: during the fits, though care was taken to minimize the number of such areas.
359: Via this procedure we obtained a template spectrum for each of our clusters,
360: Cluster$_{\rm temp}$, as well as an emission spectrum (the difference between
361: Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$ and Cluster$_{\rm temp}$).
362:
363: In order to find the age and metallicity of each cluster, we measured
364: the line strengths of the hydrogen Balmer lines as well as of prominent
365: metal lines (See Table 2).
366: For this we used the Lick indices (Faber et al.\ 1985; Gonz\'alez 1993;
367: Trager et al.\ 1998) as well as the indices defined by Schweizer \& Seitzer
368: (1998) for young stellar populations.
369: To make the measurements, we used the routine {\em Indexf} (Cardiel et
370: al.\ 1998), which finds the line strengths and errors by performing
371: Monte-Carlo simulations on the spectra, using information derived from
372: the error spectra (i.e., the placement of the continuum bands and noise
373: in the data).
374: {\em Indexf} was run on Cluster$_{\rm temp}$ instead of
375: Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$.
376: The reason for this is that we found that the measured index strengths of
377: the Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$ depended on the S/N ratio of the spectrum.
378: This is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:test-ppxf-obs}, where we plot the nine
379: measured indices of an observed cluster (T130 in The Antennae, which is our best S/N cluster and
380: has identical setup and was observed in the same way) degraded to various S/N ratios.
381: The open symbols represent the measurement of the line strength for each
382: index when {\em Indexf} is run on Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$, while the filled
383: symbols represent the measurements carried out on Cluster$_{\rm temp}$.
384: The lines show the average index strength for the five highest S/N
385: measurements.
386: From this numerical experiment we conclude that the measurements on
387: Cluster$_{\rm temp}$ reproduce those of Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$ for
388: high S/N, but remain accurate to S/N $<$10, while measurements on
389: Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$ begin to show significant scatter below
390: S/N $\approx$ 15.
391:
392: However, we note that with this adopted procedure the measured H$\beta$
393: index is always systematically off.
394: The models never reproduce an absorption
395: feature on the red side of the line.
396: Additionally, similar tests were performed where we inserted the model
397: spectrum (i.e. treating the models as observations, degrading
398: them in S/N and finding the indices). These tests showed a systematic offset
399: in the H$\delta_A$ measurements although the other lines were well reproduced.
400: Therefore, we removed both the H$\beta$ and H$\delta_A$ indices from
401: our list for further analysis.
402:
403: Using {\em Indexf}\,\ we also measured the line strengths of the GD05 models,
404: for all model ages and metallicities.
405: The age and metallicity of each observed cluster was then determined
406: by comparing its line indices to that of models, weighted by the respective
407: errors, in a least $\chi^2$ sense.
408: In order to test the robustness of this technique we added random errors
409: to the measured indices (using a normal distribution with a dispersion
410: corresponding to the 1-$\sigma$ measurement error) and re-did the analysis.
411: This was done 5000 times for each cluster.
412: The final age was then determined by creating a histogram of the derived
413: ages and fitting a gaussian to it (in logarithmic space), where the adopted
414: age is the peak age of the gaussian and its error is the standard deviation.
415: The cluster metallicity was found by simply averaging the derived
416: metallicity of the 5000 runs.
417: Examples of this process are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ages}.
418:
419:
420: Finally, to check the consistency of our results, we plotted the spectra
421: of Cluster$_{\rm obs, ext}$ and the best fitting model (i.e., the
422: model closest in age and metallicity).
423: If the fit was not satisfactory, then we began the entire process again,
424: eliminating the initially derived extinction from the options.
425: This was the case for only a handful of young clusters that were initially
426: fit with low extinctions and higher ages.
427: Two examples of cluster spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:examples}.
428:
429: The black lines are the Cluster$_{\rm obs, ext}$ spectra, while the red
430: and green lines represent the best fitting model (age, metallicity) and
431: the residual (Cluster$_{\rm obs, ext}$ $-$ template $-$ constant).
432: T1002 in the right panel is clearly very young and has, as such, still
433: ionized gas associated with it.
434: In the observed and residual spectra, we clearly see emission lines from
435: H$\gamma$, H$\beta$ and [OIII]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007.
436:
437: As a further test of the derived cluster ages, we chose a subset of
438: indices that are good at distinguishing between the age and metallicity
439: of a cluster.
440: For illustrative purposes, Fig.~\ref{fig:indices} shows the [MgFe] index
441: (Thomas et al. 2003) plotted versus the H$\gamma$ index for both the GD05 and BC03
442: models. The indices from the models are also shown. From these
443: diagrams we check for consistency in the derived ages and
444: metallicities of the clusters.
445:
446: The derived ages, extinctions, and metallicities are given in
447: Table~\ref{table:properties1}.
448:
449:
450: \subsubsection{Emission-Line Clusters}
451:
452: For the youngest clusters with little or no absorption features in their
453: spectra the task is much easier.
454: First, we assign ages to these clusters of less than 10~Myr, due to the
455: presence of large amounts of ionized gas around the cluster.
456: Age dating can be refined to some degree by the presence or absence of
457: Wolf-Rayet features (e.g., Cluster T2005, see Fig~\ref{fig:wr}); however,
458: that is beyond the scope of the present paper.
459: The extinction of these cluster is calculated from the H$\gamma$ to H$\beta$
460: emission-line ratio.
461:
462: We adopt the chemical analysis method from Kobulnicky \& Kewley 2004 (hereafter KK04) to determine
463: the metallicity.
464: We measure the EW ratio of the collisionally excited
465: [OII]$\lambda$3727 and [OIII]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 emission lines relative to the H$\beta$
466: recombination line (known as R$_{23}$) and [OIII]$\lambda\lambda$4959,5007 relative to [OII]$\lambda$3727
467: (knows as O$_{32}$) , along with the calibrations on KK04 (their Fig. 7 - upper brach) and
468: the solar abundances by Edmunds \& Pagel (1984).
469: Instead of the traditional flux ratio, the KK04 method uses EW ratios that have the
470: advantage of being reddening independent.
471:
472: As can be seen in Table~\ref{table:properties1} the metallicites found
473: for absorption-line and emission-line clusters agree well, giving us
474: confidence in the robustness of the diagnostic methods and results.
475:
476: \subsection{Masses}
477:
478: In order to calculate the mass of each cluster we compared the photometry
479: (\gprime\ and \rprime) with the BC03 SSP models, assuming a Chabrier (2003)
480: stellar initial mass function and solar metallicity.
481: We then used the age dependent mass-to-light ratio from the models to
482: convert our derived absolute magnitudes (observed magnitudes corrected for
483: Galactic extinction, internal extinction, and the assumed distance modulus)
484: to mass.
485: Errors on the mass were estimated from the derived errors on the age and
486: photometric errors.
487: Systematic errors (e.g., errors associated with the distance to \n3256) are
488: not included.
489: Table~\ref{table:properties2} gives the derived masses of the clusters.
490:
491: \subsection{Velocities}
492:
493: In the case of absorption-line clusters, we used the IRAF task
494: {\em rvsao.xcsao} for the determination of the redshift from the
495: individual spectra, using three different type (A, O, B) radial-velocity standard stars (HD~100953,
496: HD~126248, and HD~133955) observed at the same resolution as the clusters.
497: The three template stars were employed to reduce the
498: systematic errors introduced by the effect of template mismatch when
499: computing the redshift using the cross-correlation technique.
500:
501:
502: For the emission-line clusters, velocities were measured from the observed
503: emission lines using the IRAF task {\em rvsao.emsao}.
504:
505: In both cases the velocities were corrected to heliocentric (see Table 3).
506:
507: Figure~\ref{fig:positions} shows the positions of the observed clusters
508: within \n3256 (shown in contours to highlight its main features), marked
509: with the cluster metallicities, extinctions, ages, and velocities,
510: respectively.
511:
512:
513:
514: \section{Cluster Kinematics: Two Populations?}
515: \label{sec:kinematics}
516:
517:
518:
519: There is strong evidence that the molecular gas in the central region
520: of \n3256 lies in a disk that rotates (Sakamoto et al.\ 2006).
521: The rotation axis of this gas disk lies approximately along the
522: north-south direction, which is also the apparent minor axis of the main
523: optical disk.
524: It is interesting to compare the observed cluster radial velocities to
525: the molecular-gas velocities at each cluster's position.
526:
527: Figure~\ref{fig:rot-vel} shows the measured radial velocities of the clusters
528: plotted versus the cluster right ascension (RA), corresponding roughly
529: to their projected position along the major axis.
530: Superimposed is the rotation curve for the molecular gas measured by
531: Sakamoto et al.\ (2006).
532: The figure suggests that the majority of the clusters are still associated
533: with the gas from which they formed (see Table~\ref{table:properties2}).
534: At least 15 of the 23 observed clusters show clear evidence of corotating
535: with the molecular-gas disk. Hence, we will refer to these clusters as ``disk clusters.''
536:
537:
538: \subsection{Origin of the Disk}
539:
540: Sakamoto et al.\ (2006) suggest that the molecular-gas disk may have
541: formed during the merger of the parental spiral galaxies.
542: By using the ages of the disk clusters we can put a lower limit on the
543: longevity of the disk. These ages range from recently formed (e.g., T761: $<$10~Myr) to 100~Myr
544: old (T112). Thus the molecular-gas disk must have existed for at least 100~Myr.
545:
546: The \n3256 merger probably began approximately $\sim500$ Myr ago (English et al 2003).
547: It is not yet completed, as the two nuclei have yet to merge (Moorwood \&
548: Oliva 1994; Norris \& Forbes 1995; English \& Freeman 2003).
549: Therefore, {\em if}\, the observed molecular-gas disk and clusters formed
550: during the merger, the disk must have begun forming early in the merger.
551: Sakamoto et al.\ (2006) compare the \n3256 system to that of \n7252, a
552: recently formed merger remnant which also hosts a molecular-gas disk.
553: However, in contrast to the situation in \n7252 the two nuclei of \n3256
554: have yet to merge, which may disrupt any current large-scale gaseous
555: disk (Barnes 2002).
556: Hence, the two merger systems may not presently be comparable.
557: An alternative hypothesis, however, is that the observed gas disk belongs
558: to one of the two original spiral galaxies, so that the observed disk
559: clusters simply formed in that disk as part of the enhanced star-formation
560: activity caused by the gravitational interaction.
561:
562: In either scenario, we would expect older star clusters to be present as
563: well. The fact that they are not detected in the present study is readily
564: explained by selection bias: we selected the brightest clusters, which
565: tend to be young, for spectroscopy.
566:
567:
568: \subsection{Non-Disk Clusters}
569:
570: In the western section of the galaxy we find five clusters which have
571: velocities apparently inconsistent with an extrapolation of the
572: molecular-gas disk velocities. The clusters have ages
573: between $<7$~Myr (e.g. T96) and $\sim150$~Myr (e.g. T1078). These clusters may belong
574: either to the other spiral disk (which may lie behind the observed disk
575: in projection) or to material which has become dissociated from the
576: original disks due to the interaction/merger. These clusters are also located spatially near the
577: beginning of the western tail (see Fig.~1 in Paper~I).
578: A detailed comparison with the HI position-velocity diagram of English et
579: al.~(2003) shows that the HI tail begins approximately $45\arcsec$ to the
580: west of the observed clusters. However, as Fig.~\ref{fig:english-himap}
581: shows, these clusters are coincident spatially and kinematically with
582: HI gas that has a very different radial-velocity distribution from that of
583: the molecular gas. The H I radial velocities reach a minimum near the
584: CO rotating disk and a maximum at the kinematic center of \n3256, whereupon
585: they begin dropping again inside the western tidal tail.
586: One possible interpretation is that the gas-velocity anomaly, noted already
587: by English et al.\ (2003), is caused by gas falling back into the central
588: parts of \n3256 from one of the tidal tails (perhaps the eastern one).
589:
590: Two other clusters located closer to the observed galactic center stand out in terms of their
591: kinematics. These clusters (T779 and T343) have velocities larger than that expected
592: if they were part of the rotating molecular-gas disk (although T343 is only incompatible with the disk velocity at the
593: 1.5$\sigma$ level). Both clusters are very young and have only modest extinction (\av = 0.4--0.8).
594: We note that these two clusters are located in a part of the galaxy where there is a rather large
595: scatter in the measured velocities of the clusters (e.g. T201, T343, T356, T779) and thus their
596: deviation may be part of a larger trend. It is possible that we are seeing a heating or beginning destruction of the disk
597: due to the interaction/merger, and that star-formation is proceeding from an ordered phase, i.e.
598: in a disk, to that of a more chaotic phase where dispersion dominates over rotation.
599:
600:
601: \section{Discussion}
602: \label{sec:disc}
603:
604: \subsection{Environment of the Clusters}
605: Some of the emission line clusters that appeared isolated in our ground based images
606: are clearly resolved into multiple subcomponents in the {\em HST}/ACS
607: images.
608: The same phenomenon has been observed in the Antennae galaxies (e.g.,
609: Whitmore \& Schweizer 1995; Bastian et al.~2006), showing that clusters
610: are often not formed in isolation but instead tend to form in larger
611: groupings, or cluster complexes.
612: These complexes are thought to be a short-lived phenomenon as they
613: disperse on short timescales, although merging within the central parts
614: of the groupings is possible (e.g., Fellhauer \& Kroupa 2002).
615: The remnants of such cluster-cluster mergers are an attractive means to
616: form extremely large clusters, such as W3 and W30 in NGC~7252
617: (Kissler-Patig et al.\ 2006).
618:
619: Hence, it is possible that in a few cases (which are in very crowded
620: regions, e.g. T2005 and T116) we may be over-estimating the mass of an apparent ``cluster''
621: if, in fact, it is made up of several clusters.
622:
623:
624:
625: \subsection{Star/Cluster Formation Rates}
626:
627: \n3256 contains the most molecular gas among the merging galaxies and merger
628: remnants of the Toomre sequence ($1.5\times 10^{10}$~\msun: Casoli et al.\
629: 1991; Aalto et al.\ 1991; Mirabel et al.\ 1990, from Zepf et al.\ 1999).
630: Thus, there will be plenty of gas left to fuel a massive starburst when the
631: nuclei merge (e.g., Mihos \& Hernquist 1996).
632: At that time, one may expect the star/cluster formation rate to increase
633: substantially (between 3 and 10 times depending on the encounter parameters
634: and the time to nuclear coalescence) (Cox et al.~2006).
635: The present star-formation rate in \n3256 is estimated to be 33 \msun/yr
636: from the far-infrared luminosity (Knierman et al.\ 2003).
637: It is known that a tight relation between the most massive star cluster
638: in a galaxy and the galaxy's star-formation rate exists (e.g., Larsen 2004).
639: In \n3256 we find about 10 clusters with masses in excess of $10^6 M_{\odot}$.
640: If the star (cluster) formation rate does increase substantially as the
641: nuclei merge, we may expect the \n3256 system to create clusters
642: with masses significantly above 10$^7$\,\msun, such as those found in
643: \n7252 and \n1316 (e.g., Schweizer \& Seitzer 1998; Maraston et al.\ 2004;
644: Bastian et al.\ 2006).
645:
646: Arp 220 is comparable to NGC~3256, as it also has an extremely high infrared luminosity,
647: is thought to have formed through a merger, and has two distinct nuclei separated by only 300~pc in projection
648: (Scoville et al.~1998, Wilson et al. 2006). The nuclei in NGC~3256 are separated (in projection)
649: by $\sim900$~pc indicating that it is possibly slightly younger (in terms of merger stage) than Arp 220.
650: The star-formation rate in Arp~220 ($240~M_{\odot}$/yr; Wilson et al.~2006)
651: is approximately seven times higher than that in NGC~3256. It is then
652: possible that NGC~3256 is currently
653: poised to enter the regime of ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) as its star-formation
654: rate increases due to the merging of the two nuclei. Arp 220 also closely follows the relation
655: between global star-formation rate in the galaxy and the magnitude of the most massive cluster
656: (Wilson et al.~2006), arguing further that NGC~3256 is going to form clusters in excess of $10^7 M_{\odot}$.
657:
658: \subsection{Metallicities}
659:
660: As Figure~\ref{fig:hist} shows the young clusters in the NGC~3256 system appear to
661: have rather high metallicities, with the average being $\sim1.5 \zo$.
662: This was also found for the clusters in the tidal tails described in Paper~I.
663: We do not see any major spread in metallicities among our clusters and,
664: specifically, no differences coming from ages or emission
665: versus absorption. The fact that the majority of these young clusters formed in a
666: disk and their age spread is small fits in nicely with the notion of a normal starbust process.
667:
668:
669: \section{Comparison of NGC~3256 with Other Merging Galaxies}
670:
671:
672: Many of the clusters observed to be associated with the molecular gas
673: are quite massive ($>10^5 \msun$), have survived for many internal
674: crossing times ($t_{\rm cr} \approx 2$--4 Myr), and are therefore
675: gravitationally bound.
676: This justifies calling them young globular clusters. Such young globulars
677: have been found in many merging galaxies, from beginning mergers (e.g.,
678: \n4038/39: Whitmore \& Schweizer 1995) to completed mergers (e.g., \n1316:
679: Goudfrooij et al.\ 2001a). The formation of these clusters is
680: thought to trace the major star-formation events in these galaxies and they must form with approximately
681: the same kinematics as the gas out of which they form. It is therefore interesting to compare the \n3256
682: cluster population to those of younger (in terms of dynamical stage) and older merging systems.
683:
684: The majority of the cluster population of the beginning merger \n4038/39
685: is still unambiguously confined to the disks of the two progenitor galaxies
686: (Whitmore et al.~2005; Bastian et al.~2006; Trancho et al.~2007).
687: Therefore, \n3256 appears to predominately fall into this category (see
688: \S~\ref{sec:kinematics}).
689:
690: Older systems, on the other hand, such as \n3921 (Schweizer, Seitzer, \&
691: Brodie~2004), \n7252 (Schweizer \& Seitzer 1998), and \n1316 (Goudfrooij
692: et al.~2001b) are all characterized by the kinematics of their clusters
693: being dominated by non-circular, halo-type orbits.
694: When does the transition happen? It will be interesting to determine
695: whether the majority of the star formation happens in the disks of the
696: progenitors and their orbits are subsequently randomized (i.e., turned
697: into pressure supported systems rather than rotational supported systems),
698: or whether the star-formation events which precede the destruction of the
699: galactic disks pale in comparison with the star-formation rate during and
700: after the destruction.
701:
702: Note that shortly after the merger a gaseous disk can reform around the
703: nucleus of the merger remnant, which can harbor subsequent star formation
704: (e.g., \n7252: Miller et al.\ 1997; Wang, Schweizer, \& Scoville 1992),
705: although such star formation appears to occur at a much lower intensity
706: than previous star-forming episodes during the merger.
707:
708:
709:
710: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
711:
712: We have studied the ages, metallicities, masses, extinctions, and velocities
713: of 23 clusters in \n3256 based on the Lick index system in conjunction
714: with CO and HI maps.
715: The main results are:
716: \begin{itemize}
717: \item The clusters have rather high metallicities, with the average being $\sim1.5$\zo\ (Fig.\ 9) and are massive, with masses in the range (2--40) $\times 10^{5}~\msun$.
718: The ages of the clusters are between a few Myr and $\sim\,$150 Myr.
719:
720: \item There is strong evidence for a rotating molecular-gas disk in
721: \n3256 (Sakamoto et al.~2006).
722: The majority of the clusters in our sample follow the same rotation curve
723: as the gas and hence were presumably formed in the molecular-gas disk.
724: However, a western subsample of five clusters has velocities that deviate
725: significantly from the gas rotation curve. These clusters may either
726: belong to the second spiral galaxy of the merger or may have formed in
727: tidal-tail gas falling back into the system.
728:
729: \item Although the merger began $\sim\,$500 Myr ago (English et al.\ 2003),
730: we found the clusters to be $\lesssim150$ Myr old. Since there are still
731: two distinct nuclei marking the presence of two galaxies, we conclude that
732: the gas disk probably belongs to one of the galaxies and is not yet a disk
733: of pooled gas
734: produced in the merger itself. Presumably clusters older than the ones
735: present in our sample do exist in \n3256. However, these older clusters
736: would not have been selected as spectroscopic candidates due their fainter
737: magnitudes (i.e., only the brightest candidates were selected).
738:
739: \item By comparing of the NGC~3256 cluster population with other known galactic mergers, we suggest that this system is akin to Arp~220, although slightly dynamically younger. If this is the case, the we may expect the star/cluster formation rate to increase significantly as the two galactic nuclei merge. This in turn may push \n3256 into the category of ULIRGs (it is currently a LIRG). Due to the expected large increase the in the star/cluster formation rate, a few clusters above $10^7$~\msun are predicted to form before this merger is through.
740:
741: \item Some of the clusters which appeared as isolated in our ground-based
742: images are clearly resolved into multiple sub-components in the HST-ACS
743: images. The same effect has been observed in the Antennae galaxies,
744: showing that clusters are often not formed in isolation, but instead tend
745: to form in larger groups or cluster complexes.
746:
747: With these new results, i.e.~cluster ages, metallicities, extinctions and kinematics, as well as recent CO and HI maps, N-body simulations of this merger would be the best way to fully understand this wealth of data. The models would have important implications for (globular) cluster formation and destruction as well as the star-formation history of the merger (through the age/metallicity of the clusters) with respect to other mergers like the Antennae, \n7252 and Arp 220. Finally, the details of the models may present important implications of the formation of ellipticals galaxies through the major mergers of spiral galaxies.
748:
749:
750:
751:
752: \end{itemize}
753:
754:
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756:
757: \begin{figure}
758: \begin{center}
759: \epsscale{1.0}
760: % \plotone{f1.eps}
761: \caption{ ACS F555W image of \n3256 (central region) with the
762: observed candidate cluster ID numbers. Green labels denote clusters with spectra dominated by emission lines,
763: while red labels denote absorption line dominated cluster spectra. The line with an arrow points north, while the line
764: without one points east.}
765: \label{fig:image}
766: \end{center}
767: \end{figure}
768:
769:
770: \begin{figure}
771: \epsscale{1.1}
772: \plotone{f2a.eps}
773: \plotone{f2b.eps}
774: \caption{Top: Histograms of ages derived by simulating the
775: effect of errors on the age-fitting routine. The derived age and
776: error (in logarithmic units) is given in each panel. Bottom:
777: Same as top, except now for metallicity. See text for details of
778: the simulations.}
779: \label{fig:ages}
780: \end{figure}
781:
782:
783: \begin{figure}
784: \epsscale{1.0}
785: \plotone{f3.eps}
786: \caption{Tests showing the effect of the S/N ratio on the measured
787: line indices. We used a high-S/N cluster spectrum, degraded its S/N
788: ratio, and then measured line indices. Open symbols mark measurements
789: made from the observed spectrum (corrected for extinction) directly,
790: while solid symbols represent measurements made from a template
791: spectrum derived for the cluster using the pPxF technique. Solid
792: lines represent averages of the highest S/N experiments on the
793: observed cluster spectrum (Cluster$_{\rm obs,ext}$). For further
794: details, see text.}
795: \label{fig:test-ppxf-obs}
796: \end{figure}
797:
798:
799: \begin{figure}
800: \epsscale{1.10}
801: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
802: \caption{Determination of cluster ages and metallicities.
803: (left) H$\gamma$ vs. [MgFe] from the Gonz\'alez-Delgado et al.\
804: (2005) SSP models for four different metallicities are shown.
805: Data points with error bars mark observed clusters and their
806: 1-$\sigma$ errors. In addition, we show the position of the
807: massive cluster W3 in NGC~7252 and the three tidal tail cluster in NGC~3256 from previous studies.
808: (right) Same, but for Bruzual-Charlot (2003) models.}
809: \label{fig:indices}
810: \end{figure}
811:
812:
813: \begin{figure}
814: \epsscale{1.10}
815: \plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
816: \caption{Examples of spectra for two clusters in our sample.
817: The observed spectra have been corrected for the estimated
818: interstellar extinction. The red lines represent the best
819: fitting (see \S~\ref{sec:ages} for a discussion of the method)
820: model template (age and metallicity). The green lines represent
821: the residual (observed cluster $-$ best fitting template $-$ constant).
822: The parameters for the best fitting template are given in each panel.}
823: \label{fig:examples}
824: \end{figure}
825:
826:
827: \begin{figure}
828: \epsscale{0.80}
829: \plotone{f6.eps}
830: \caption{Example spectrum of an emission-line cluster, T2005, which
831: also shows strong Wolf-Rayet features.}
832: \label{fig:wr}
833: \end{figure}
834:
835:
836: \begin{figure}
837: \begin{center}
838: \epsscale{1.0}
839: \plotone{f7.eps}
840: \caption{ The position of the clusters in NGC 3256 for different
841: velocities (top left), ages(top right,where the ages are given in logarithmic units in years), extinctions (bottom left),
842: and metallicities (bottom right). The contours are shown to highlight the main features
843: of the galaxy. The upper and lower (magenta) circles mark the nucleus
844: and the second brightest optical source in the galaxy, respectively.
845: Triangles (red) mark clusters whose spectra are dominated by absorption
846: lines while blue marks emission line clusters (see also
847: Table~\ref{table:properties1}).}
848: \label{fig:positions}
849: \end{center}
850: \end{figure}
851:
852:
853: \begin{figure}
854: \epsscale{1.10}
855: \plotone{f8.eps}
856: \caption{A position--velocity diagram for the observed clusters in
857: \n3256. The dotted line shows the rotation curve of the molecular gas,
858: as measured by Sakamoto et al.~(2006).}
859: \label{fig:rot-vel}
860: \end{figure}
861:
862: \begin{figure}
863: \epsscale{1.0}
864: %\plotone{f9.eps}
865: \caption{ Metallicity distribution of the clusters in NGC3256. The figure includes the
866: metallicities derived from both the absorption and emission line clusters. Note that all the
867: clusters are fairly metal rich, with a mean around 1.5 \zo}
868: \label{fig:hist}
869: \end{figure}
870:
871: \begin{figure}
872: \epsscale{1.0}
873: % \plotone{f10.eps}
874: \caption{HI position--velocity plot by English et al. (2003), with
875: the observed clusters superposed. Open red circles mark the clusters that
876: kinematically follow the rotating CO disk, while filled blue circles mark those that
877: do not follow the CO disk, but follow the HI velocities instead.}
878: \label{fig:english-himap}
879: \end{figure}
880:
881:
882:
883:
884:
885: %#################################
886: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
887:
888: \def\psn{\phs\phn}
889: \def\pnn{\phn\phn}
890: \tablecolumns{10}
891: \tablewidth{-20pt}
892: \tablecaption{Cluster properties. (The magnitudes have been only corrected for Galactic extinction)}
893: \tablehead{
894: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{A/E\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{$\Delta$RA\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$\Delta$DEC\tablenotemark{b}} & \colhead{$M_{g'}$} & \colhead{$M_{r'}$} & \colhead{A$_V$\tablenotemark{c} }& \colhead{Z}& \colhead{Log(age)}\\
895: \colhead{ } & \colhead{ } & \colhead{(sec) } & \colhead{(arcsec) } & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(mag)} & \colhead{(\zo) }& \colhead{(year)}
896: }
897:
898: \startdata
899: T88 &0 & 49.13 & 22.04 &-12.8$\pm$0.1 &-12.6$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.5$\pm$0.5 &7.5$\pm$0.1 \\
900: T96 &1 & 49.92 & 32.90 &-13.1$\pm$0.1 &-12.4$\pm$0.1 &1.30 &1.7$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
901: T99 &0 & 49.72 & 21.03 &-14.8$\pm$0.1 &-14.5$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.7$\pm$0.4 &7.5$\pm$0.1 \\
902: T112 &0 & 50.56 & 28.61 &-14.0$\pm$0.1 &-13.1$\pm$0.1 &1.70 &1.9$\pm$0.1 &7.96$\pm$0.08 \\
903: T116\tablenotemark{e} &1 & 50.41 & 22.51 &-15.4$\pm$0.1 &-14.7$\pm$0.1 &1.09 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
904: T141 &1 & 50.82 & 17.22 &-14.6$\pm$0.1 &-13.7$\pm$0.1 &3.31 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
905: T161 &1 & 50.94 & 8.01 &-15.1$\pm$0.1 &-14.2$\pm$0.1 &0.58 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
906: T199 &0 & 51.43 & -4.44 &-14.3$\pm$0.1 &-14.1$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.6$\pm$0.3 &6.5$\pm$0.1 \\
907: T201 &0 & 52.28 & 29.03 &-12.5$\pm$0.1 &-12.4$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.2$\pm$0.2 &7.0$\pm$0.1 \\
908: T306 &1 & 51.50 & 10.62 &-15.8$\pm$0.1 &-15.3$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
909: T343 &0 & 51.83 & 10.91 &-16.1$\pm$0.1 &-16.0$\pm$0.1 &0.40 &1.5$\pm$0.5 &6.6$\pm$0.1 \\
910: T356 &1 & 52.26 &10.38 &-15.2$\pm$0.1 &-14.9$\pm$0.1 &0.80 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
911: T374 &1 & 52.77 & 7.60 &-12.8$\pm$0.1 &-12.5$\pm$0.1 &0.43 &1.5$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
912: T492 &0 & 48.96 & 30.92 &-12.4$\pm$0.1 &-11.3$\pm$0.1 &1.70 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &6.5$\pm$0.1 \\
913: T654 &1 & 51.61 & 3.67 &-12.8$\pm$0.1 &-12.3$\pm$0.1 &2.70 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
914: T661 &0 & 51.37 & 9.22 &-15.2$\pm$0.1 &-14.8$\pm$0.1 &0.20 &1.2$\pm$0.2 &7.7$\pm$0.1 \\
915: T744 &0 & 51.84 & 21.17 &-12.4$\pm$0.1 &-12.0$\pm$0.1 &0.50 &1.1$\pm$0.2 &6.8$\pm$0.1 \\
916: T761 &2 & 52.63 & 3.53 &-14.2$\pm$0.1 &-13.6$\pm$0.1 &2.20 &1.5$\pm$0.2 &5.9$-$6.7 \tablenotemark{d} \\
917: T779 &1 & 52.53 & 14.00 &-12.9$\pm$0.1 &-12.6$\pm$0.1 &0.80 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
918: T799 &1 & 53.05 & 7.78 &-13.0$\pm$0.1 &-12.9$\pm$0.1 & 4.20 & 1.6$\pm$0.2 &$<$6.8 \\
919: T1002 &0 & 54.74 & 12.46 &-10.6$\pm$0.1 &-10.2$\pm$0.1 &0.30 &1.3$\pm$0.1 &6.9$\pm$0.1 \\
920: T1078 &0 & 48.96 & 21.17 &-12.9$\pm$0.1 &-12.7$\pm$0.1 &0.50 &1.6$\pm$0.3 &8.2$\pm$0.1 \\
921: T2005 \tablenotemark{e} &2 & 53.08 & 13.20 &-15.4$\pm$0.1 &-14.8$\pm$0.1 &0.00 &1.4$\pm$0.2 &5.9$-$6.7 \tablenotemark{d} \\
922:
923:
924:
925: \enddata
926: \tablenotetext{a}{\,0=absorption, 1=emission, 2=emission with WR features}
927: \tablenotetext{b}{\,From Base position RA=10:27:00 DEC=$-$43:54:00 (J2000)}
928: \tablenotetext{c}{\,These extinction have been calculated on spectra already corrected by Galactic extinction ($A_V=0.403$) }
929: \tablenotetext{d}{\,Ages calculated using the Starburst 99 models}
930:
931: \label{table:properties1}
932:
933:
934: \end{deluxetable}
935:
936:
937: %#############################
938: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
939: \def\psn{\phs\phn}
940: \def\pnn{\phn\phn}
941: \tablecolumns{8}
942: \tablewidth{0pt}
943: \tablecaption{Measured indices for the absorption line clusters.}
944: \tablehead{
945: \colhead{ID} &\colhead{ $H+He$\tablenotemark{a} } &\colhead{ $K$\tablenotemark{a} } &\colhead{ $H8 $\tablenotemark{a} } &\colhead{$H\gamma_A$\tablenotemark{b}} &\colhead{ $Mgb5177$\tablenotemark{b}} &\colhead{ $Fe5270$\tablenotemark{b}} &\colhead{ $Fe5335$\tablenotemark{b}} \\
946: \colhead{} & \colhead{ (\AA) } & \colhead{ (\AA) } & \colhead{ (\AA) } & \colhead{( \AA)}& \colhead{( \AA)}& \colhead{( \AA)}& \colhead{( \AA)}
947: }
948: \startdata
949: T88 &6.45$\pm$0.31 &0.34$\pm$0.25 &5.75$\pm$0.31 &6.26$\pm$0.31 &0.22$\pm$0.17 &0.84$\pm$0.22 &1.48$\pm$0.28 \\
950: T99 &6.40$\pm$0.44 &0.35$\pm$0.26 &5.64$\pm$0.43 &6.25$\pm$0.28 &0.25$\pm$0.17 &0.88$\pm$0.20 &1.59$\pm$0.28 \\
951: T112 &8.53$\pm$0.40 &0.79$\pm$0.23 &7.52$\pm$0.42 &7.88$\pm$0.22 &0.41$\pm$0.10 &1.18$\pm$0.12 &1.81$\pm$0.18 \\
952: T199 &3.09$\pm$0.31 &0.03$\pm$0.17 &2.40$\pm$0.31 &3.18$\pm$0.21 &0.16$\pm$0.12 &0.50$\pm$0.16 &0.99$\pm$0.23 \\
953: T201 &4.21$\pm$1.51 &0.11$\pm$0.85 &3.39$\pm$1.49 &4.19$\pm$1.01 &0.45$\pm$0.11 &0.81$\pm$0.26 &1.08$\pm$1.09 \\
954: T343 &2.96$\pm$0.44 &0.40$\pm$0.24 &2.17$\pm$0.41 &3.33$\pm$0.33 &0.43$\pm$0.18 &0.61$\pm$0.23 &0.77$\pm$0.34 \\
955: T492 &2.31$\pm$0.21 &0.57$\pm$0.21 &2.62$\pm$0.41 &2.87$\pm$0.34 &0.35$\pm$0.08 &0.54$\pm$0.10 &0.71$\pm$0.15 \\
956: T661 &7.29$\pm$0.49 &0.63$\pm$0.29 &6.44$\pm$0.48 &7.00$\pm$0.36 &0.39$\pm$0.21 &0.96$\pm$0.26 &1.40$\pm$0.38 \\
957: T744 &4.24$\pm$0.46 &0.52$\pm$0.24 &3.10$\pm$0.52 &3.27$\pm$0.30 &0.41$\pm$0.18 &0.75$\pm$0.22 &0.92$\pm$0.33 \\
958: T1002 &4.26$\pm$1.60 &0.87$\pm$0.23 &3.55$\pm$0.73 &3.44$\pm$0.47 &0.36$\pm$0.03 &0.65$\pm$0.14 &0.79$\pm$0.17 \\
959: T1078 &9.16$\pm$0.33 &0.94$\pm$0.19 &8.23$\pm$0.33 &8.55$\pm$0.22 &0.53$\pm$0.14 &1.20$\pm$0.17 &1.66$\pm$0.26 \\
960:
961:
962: \enddata
963: \tablenotetext{a}{\,Index definition by Schweizer \& Seitzer (1998).}
964: \tablenotetext{b}{\,Lick index.}
965: \label{table:indices}
966: \end{deluxetable}
967:
968:
969: %#####################################################
970:
971:
972: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccc}
973: \tablecaption{Kinematics and Masses of the clusters.}
974: \tablewidth{-10pt}
975:
976: \tablehead{
977: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$cz$(CO)} & \colhead{$cz_{\rm hel}$} & \colhead{$\Delta cz$} & \colhead{Mass} \\
978: \colhead{ID} & \colhead{D\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{(km/s)} & \colhead{(km/s)} & \colhead{(km/s)} & \colhead{10$^{5}$\msun} }
979:
980: \startdata
981: T88 & 1 & ... & 2821.1$\pm$17.9 &... & 8.3$\pm$2.6\\
982: T96 & 1 & 2725: & 2845.7$\pm$17.4 &+120: & 1.7$\pm$0.9\\
983: T99\tablenotemark{b} & 1 & 2660 & 2786.9$\pm$23.7 &+126 &49.5$\pm$1.8\\
984: T112\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2735 & 2711.4$\pm$56.2 &-23 &45.0$\pm$2.4\\
985: T116\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2715 & 2741.4$\pm$15.9 &+26 &13.8$\pm$7.3\\
986: T141 & 0 & 2740 & 2736.4$\pm$14.2 &-4 & 6.7$\pm$3.5\\
987: T161 & 0 & 2740 & 2743.6$\pm$17.0 &+3 &11.0$\pm$5.8\\
988: T199 & 1 & 2820: & 2865.5$\pm$10.2 &+45: & 3.4$\pm$0.3\\
989: T201 & 1 &... & 2840.2$\pm$26.1 &... & 2.3$\pm$0.7\\
990: T306\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2815 & 2813.2$\pm$14.1 &-2 &19.9$\pm$0.1\\
991: T343 & 1 & 2865 & 2993.2$\pm$45.8 &+128 &18.6$\pm$1.6\\
992: T356\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2895 & 2914.2$\pm$7.6 &+19 &12.1$\pm$6.4\\
993: T374 & 0 & ... & 2882.4$\pm$24.1 &... & 1.2$\pm$0.6\\
994: T492 & 1 & ... & 2910.3$\pm$95.9 &... & 2.2$\pm$0.0\\
995: T654 & 0 & 2795 & 2812.8$\pm$25.6 &+22 & 1.3$\pm$0.7\\
996: T661\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2785 & 2802.8$\pm$25.9 &+17 &35.5$\pm$8.3\\
997: T744 & 0 & 2850 & 2911.7$\pm$77.1 &+61 &2.1$\pm$0.5\\
998: T761 & 0 & 2860 & 2884.2$\pm$25.6 &+25 &4.6$\pm$2.4\\
999: T779 & 1 & 2880 & 2959.0$\pm$10.3 &+79 &1.4$\pm$0.7\\
1000: T799 & 0 & ... & 2883.9$\pm$41.2 &... &1.6$\pm$0.8\\
1001: T1002 & 0 & ... & 2857.5$\pm$91.8 &... &0.2$\pm$0.1\\
1002: T1078 & 1 & ... & 2772.7$\pm$9.1 &... &15.9$\pm$0.6\\
1003: T2005\tablenotemark{b} & 0 & 2865 & 2871.3$\pm$5.8 & +4 &14.0$\pm$7.4\\
1004:
1005:
1006: \enddata
1007: \tablenotetext{a}{\,0=disk, 1=not disk}
1008: \tablenotetext{b}{\,Complexes}
1009:
1010: \label{table:properties2}
1011: \end{deluxetable}
1012:
1013: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1014:
1015:
1016:
1017: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% APPENDIX %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1018: \clearpage
1019: \appendix
1020:
1021: \section{Appendix A: Reduction of GMOS Data}
1022:
1023: The data were reduced using the Gemini {\sc IRAF} package.
1024: The individual tasks used at each of the reduction steps are listed below in parentheses.
1025: The raw GMOS images (3 CCDs read out using one amplifier each) are multi-extension
1026: FITS (MEF) files with one primary
1027: header unit, containing all the usual header information, and three pixel
1028: extensions, one for each of the detectors.
1029:
1030:
1031: \subsection{Imaging Data}
1032:
1033: Mean bias frames were created combining all the available bias frames
1034: taken during each of the GMOS-S observing runs (task {\tt gbias}).
1035:
1036: Twilight flat fields were created from all the available twilight frames
1037: taken during each of the GMOS-S observing runs ({\tt giflat}).
1038: The overscan section of the images was trimmed off, and the images were
1039: bias-subtracted and flat-fielded using the task {\tt gireduce}.
1040: The three image extensions in each exposure were then mosaiced into a
1041: single image extension in which the shifts and rotations between the
1042: three CCDs have been removed ({\tt gmosaic}).
1043:
1044: The images were registered and co-added using the task {\tt imcoadd}, and they
1045: have been calibrated using the science exposures taken under photometric
1046: conditions.
1047:
1048:
1049: \subsection{ Spectroscopic Data}
1050:
1051: We are using the MOS mode with approximately 25 spectra
1052: per mask. Each set of data include an arc
1053: and flat taken along with each science exposure and spectral dithers.
1054: Bryan Miller developed our own script-driven pipeline {\sc MOSPROC}, based on Gemini
1055: {\sc IRAF} scripts and customs IDL routines.
1056: The Gemini package scripts have been modified,
1057: mainly to improve the propagation of data quality planes.
1058:
1059: \begin{itemize}
1060:
1061: \item{ MOSPROC}
1062:
1063: \begin{itemize}
1064: \item{ Bias substraction for spectra, flats and arcs }
1065:
1066: The bias subtraction for the spectroscopic data was done in the same way
1067: as for the imaging.
1068: Quartz-halogen flat fields exposures were taken during the night, either
1069: after or before the science exposures.
1070: To run through {\sc mosproc}, the science, arcs, and flats frames
1071: were first bias subtracted using the task {\tt gsreduce}.
1072:
1073: \item{ Bad Pixel Mask}
1074:
1075: A bad pixel mask was constructed from the quartz-halogen flats, taking
1076: into account the known bad pixels in each CCD, and masking the existing
1077: emission lines in the spectral QH lamps that came from
1078: the IR diffuser.
1079:
1080: \item{ Flat-Field Correction}
1081:
1082: The quartz-halogen flats were overscan trimmed and bias-subtracted
1083: like the imaging data and the mask definition file (MDF) was added as
1084: a table extension to the MEF. The MEF contains the locations of the
1085: slits in the focal plane and is used for bookkeeping during the
1086: remaining reduction. The flats were normalized by fitting a high
1087: order polynomial to each line to remove the shape of the quartz lamp
1088: but leaving the fringe pattern at the red end of the spectra
1089: {\tt gsflat}. The task {\tt gsreduce} was then used to divide the science data
1090: by the flat fields.
1091:
1092: The resulting science exposures still have three extensions, but now
1093: trimmed, bias-subtracted, and flat-fielded.
1094:
1095: \item{Wavelength Calibration and Distortion Correction }
1096:
1097: The wavelength calibration was determined from CuAr lamp spectra taken
1098: either before or after the science exposures. The dispersion function
1099: was fit with a sixth-order polynomial that gave a typical rms error of
1100: 0.3 Angstroms ({\tt gswavelength}). Within each slitlet the position of each
1101: arc line with spatial position is used to rectify and wavelength
1102: calibrate each 2D spectrum ({\tt gstransform}).
1103:
1104: \item{ Cosmic Rays Removal}
1105:
1106: Cosmic rays were identified and removed using a Laplacian edge
1107: detection algorithm \citep{2001PASP..113.1420V}. The locations of the cosmic
1108: rays are recorded in the 2D data quality image for each slitlet.
1109:
1110: The spectra were then traced, background-subtracted, and extracted
1111: using {\tt gsextract}, a wrapper for {\tt twodspec.apall}, to allow the handling
1112: of MEF files. The spectra were traced using a 5 order polynomial
1113: and averaging every 50 pixels in the dispersion direction. Background
1114: subtraction was done by fitting a second-order polynomial with 3$\sigma$\
1115: rejection to a region perpendicular to the trace. The variance and
1116: background spectra were saved to help with the error estimation.
1117:
1118:
1119: \item{Quantum Efficiency (QE) Correction}
1120:
1121: The quantum efficiency (QE) as a function of wavelength for the three GMOS
1122: CCDs can differ by up to about five percent at the given wavelength.
1123: If this difference is not corrected then spectra can have noticable
1124: jumps at the gaps between the CCDs. We have measured the relative QE
1125: of CCD1 and CCD3 with wavelengh compared with CCD2 using QH flats
1126: taken at 25nm intervals from 350nm to 700nm. The corrections are
1127: applied to the data using an IRAF script called {\tt qecorr}.
1128:
1129: \end{itemize}
1130:
1131:
1132:
1133: \item{Correction for Slit Losses}
1134:
1135: The GMOS instruments do not have atmospheric dispersion correctors and
1136: in general the MOS spectra were not taken with the slits parallel to
1137: the parallactic angle. Therefore, there are wavelength-dependent slit
1138: losses due to the difference between the parallactic angle of each
1139: exposure and the position angle of the slits. In order to combine the
1140: spectra from different exposures properly these difference must be
1141: corrected. We calculate the slit losses based on measured image
1142: quality, slit width (0.75 arcsec), and the PA-parallactic angle
1143: difference using the method of \cite{1982PASP..94.715V}.
1144:
1145:
1146:
1147: \item{ Relative Flux Calibration and Reddening}
1148:
1149: \begin{itemize}
1150:
1151: \item{Relative Flux Calibration}
1152:
1153: The relative instrument spectral response function was determined
1154: using observations of a flux standard star. Spectra were taken at
1155: central wavelengths of 400, 500, and 600nm so that the combined
1156: sensitivity function covered the full wavelength range of the MOS
1157: spectra. The standard spectra were reduced in exactly the same way as
1158: the MOS spectra. The sensitivity function was computed using the IRAF
1159: task gssensfunc and this was applied to the MOS spectra using the task
1160: {\tt gscalibrate}.
1161:
1162: As the last step, we combined the individual spectra of the same
1163: sources using our IRAF task called gscombine. This uses the final
1164: data quality planes to mask the chip gaps and other bad pixels and
1165: then scales and averages the spectra using {\tt scombine}.
1166:
1167: \item{Reddening}
1168:
1169: The interstellar extinction along the line of sight towards \n3256 is
1170: $A_V=0.403$.
1171: The final calibrated spectra were corrected using the empirical selective
1172: extinction function from \cite{1989ApJ...345..245C} included in the
1173: task {\tt noao.onedspec.deredden}.
1174:
1175: \end{itemize}
1176: \end{itemize}
1177: \begin{acknowledgements}
1178:
1179: G.T. would like to thank to Matt Mountain and Phil Puxley for the tremendous support throughout this project.
1180:
1181: Based on observations obtained at the Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the
1182: Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative agreement
1183: with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the National Science Foundation (United
1184: States), the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the
1185: National Research Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
1186: (Australia), CNPq (Brazil) and CONICET (Argentina)
1187: \end{acknowledgements}
1188:
1189:
1190:
1191: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% REFERENCES %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1192:
1193: \newpage
1194:
1195: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1196:
1197: \bibitem[Aalto et al.(1991)]{1991A&A...247..291A} Aalto, S., Booth, R.~S.,
1198: Johansson, L.~E.~B., \& Black, J.~H.\ 1991, \aap, 247, 291
1199:
1200: \bibitem[Ashman \& Zepf (1992)]{ashan92} Ashman, K.M. \& Zepf, S.E. 1992,
1201: ApJ, 384, 50
1202: \bibitem[Barnes(2002)]{2002MNRAS.333..481B} Barnes, J.~E.\ 2002, \mnras,
1203: 333, 481
1204:
1205: \bibitem[Bastian et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...445..471B} Bastian, N., Emsellem,
1206: E., Kissler-Patig, M., \& Maraston, C.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 471
1207: \bibitem[Bastian et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...448..881B} Bastian, N., Saglia,
1208: R.~P., Goudfrooij, P., Kissler-Patig, M., Maraston, C., Schweizer, F., \&
1209: Zoccali, M.\ 2006, \aap, 448, 881
1210:
1211: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot (2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G. \& Charlot, S. 2003,
1212: MNRAS, 344, 1000 (BC03)
1213:
1214: \bibitem[Cardiel et al.~(1998)]{cardiel98} Cardiel, N., Gorgas, J.,
1215: Cenarro, J., Gonzalez, J.J. 1998, A\&AS, 127, 597
1216:
1217: \bibitem[Carlson et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....115.1778C} Carlson, M.~N., et al.\
1218: 1998, \aj, 115, 1778
1219: \bibitem[Cardelli et al.(1989)]{1989ApJ...345..245C} Cardelli, J.~A.,
1220: Clayton, G.~C., \& Mathis, J.~S.\ 1989, \apj, 345, 245
1221:
1222: \bibitem[Cappellari \& Emsellem(2004)]{2004PASP..116..138C} Cappellari, M.,
1223: \& Emsellem, E.\ 2004, \pasp, 116, 138
1224: \bibitem[Casoli et al.(1991)]{1991A&A...251....1C} Casoli, F., Dupraz, C.,
1225: Combes, F., \& Kazes, I.\ 1991, \aap, 251, 1
1226:
1227: \bibitem[Chabrier (2003)]{chabrier} Chabrier, G. 2003, PASP, 115, 763
1228:
1229:
1230: \bibitem[Cox et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.373.1013C} Cox, T.~J., Jonsson, P.,
1231: Primack, J.~R., \& Somerville, R.~S.\ 2006, MNRAS, 373, 1013
1232:
1233: \bibitem[Da Costa \& Armandroff(1995)]{1995AJ....109.2533D} Da Costa,
1234: G.~S., \& Armandroff, T.~E.\ 1995, \aj, 109, 2533
1235:
1236:
1237: \bibitem[Delgado et al.(2005)]{2005MNRAS.357..945G} Delgado, R.~M.~Gonz\'alez,
1238: Cervi{\~n}o, M., Martins, L.~P., Leitherer, C., \& Hauschildt, P.~H.\ 2005,
1239: \mnras, 357, 945 (GD05)
1240:
1241: \bibitem[Edmunds \& Pagel(1984)]{1984MNRAS.211..507E} Edmunds, M.~G., \&
1242: Pagel, B.~E.~J.\ 1984, \mnras, 211, 507
1243:
1244: \bibitem[Eggen et al.(1962)]{1962ApJ...136..748E} Eggen, O.~J.,
1245: Lynden-Bell, D., \& Sandage, A.~R.\ 1962, \apj, 136, 748
1246:
1247: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Efremov(1997)]{ee97} Elmegreen, B.~G., \&
1248: Efremov, Y.~N. 1997, \apj, 480, 235
1249:
1250: \bibitem[English \& Freeman(2003)]{engl03a} English, J., \& Freeman, K.\ C.
1251: 2003, \aj, 125, 1124
1252:
1253: \bibitem[English et al.(2003)]{engl03b} English, J., Norris, R.\ P.,
1254: Freeman, K.\ C., \& Booth, R.\ S. 2003, \aj, 125, 1134
1255:
1256: \bibitem[Faber et al.~(1985)]{faber85} Faber, S.M., Friel, E.D., Burstein, D.,
1257: Gaskell, C.M. 1985, ApJS, 57, 711
1258:
1259: \bibitem[Fall \& Rees(1977)]{1977MNRAS.181P..37F} Fall, S.~M., \& Rees,
1260: M.~J.\ 1977, \mnras, 181, 37P
1261: \bibitem[Fall \& Zhang(2001)]{2001ApJ...561..751F} Fall, S.~M., \& Zhang,
1262: Q.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 751
1263:
1264: \bibitem[Fellhauer \& Kroupa(2002)]{2002MNRAS.330..642F} Fellhauer, M., \&
1265: Kroupa, P.\ 2002, \mnras, 330, 642
1266:
1267: \bibitem[Filippenko(1982)]{1982PASP..94.715V} Filippenko, A.~V. 1982, \pasp,
1268: 94, 715
1269:
1270: \bibitem[Forbes et al.(1997)]{1997AJ....113.1652F} Forbes, D.~A., Brodie,
1271: J.~P., \& Grillmair, C.~J.\ 1997, \aj, 113, 1652
1272:
1273: \bibitem[Geisler et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....111.1529G} Geisler, D., Lee,
1274: M.~G., \& Kim, E.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1529
1275:
1276: \bibitem[Gieles et al.(2006)]{2006MNRAS.371..793G} Gieles, M., Portegies
1277: Zwart, S.~F., Baumgardt, H., Athanassoula, E., Lamers, H.~J.~G.~L.~M.,
1278: Sipior, M., \& Leenaarts, J.\ 2006, \mnras, 371, 793
1279:
1280: \bibitem[Gnedin \& Ostriker(1997)]{1997ApJ...486..581G} Gnedin, N.~Y., \&
1281: Ostriker, J.~P.\ 1997, \apj, 486, 581
1282:
1283:
1284: \bibitem[Gonzalez (1993)]{gonzalez93} Gonz\'alez, J.J. 1993, Ph.D. thesis,
1285: Univ.\ of California, Santa Cruz
1286:
1287:
1288: \bibitem[Goudfrooij et al.(2001a)]{Goudfrooij01a} Goudfrooij, P., Alonso,
1289: M.\ V., Maraston, C., \& Minniti, D. 2001a, \mnras, 328, 237
1290:
1291: \bibitem[Goudfrooij et al.(2001b)]{2001MNRAS.322..643G} Goudfrooij, P.,
1292: Mack, J., Kissler-Patig, M., Meylan, G., \& Minniti, D.\ 2001b, \mnras, 322,
1293: 643
1294:
1295: \bibitem[Harris \& Pudritz(1994)]{1994ApJ...429..177H} Harris, W.~E., \&
1296: Pudritz, R.~E.\ 1994, \apj, 429, 177
1297: \bibitem[Harris(1999)]{1999Ap&SS.267...95H} Harris, W.~E.\ 1999, \apss,
1298: 267, 95
1299: \bibitem[Holtzman et al.(1992)]{1992AJ....103..691H} Holtzman, J.~A., et
1300: al.\ 1992, \aj, 103, 691
1301:
1302: \bibitem[Kissler-Patig et al.(2006)]{2006A&A...448.1031K} Kissler-Patig,
1303: M., Jord{\'a}n, A., \& Bastian, N.\ 2006, \aap, 448, 1031
1304: \bibitem[Kobulnicky \& Phillips(2003)]{2003ApJ...599.1031K} Kobulnicky,
1305: H.~A., \& Phillips, A.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 599, 1031
1306:
1307: \bibitem[Kobulnicky \& Kewley(2004)]{2004ApJ...617..240K} Kobulnicky,
1308: H.~A., \& Kewley, L.~J.\ 2004, \apj, 617, 240
1309:
1310: \bibitem[Knierman et al.(2003)]{knier03} Knierman, K.A., Gallagher, S.C.,
1311: Charlton, J.C. et al. 2003, \aj, 126, 1227
1312:
1313: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore(2001a)]{2001AJ....121.2950K} Kundu, A., \&
1314: Whitmore, B.~C.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2950
1315: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore(2001b)]{2001AJ....122.1251K} Kundu, A., \&
1316: Whitmore, B.~C.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1251
1317:
1318:
1319: \bibitem[Larsen et al.(2004)]{lar04} Larsen S.S. 2004, A\&A, 416, 537
1320:
1321: \bibitem[L\'{\i}pari et al.(2000)]{lipa00} L\'{\i}pari, S., D\'{\i}az, R.,
1322: Taniguchi, Y., Terlevich, R, Dottori, H., \& Carranza, G. 2000, \aj,
1323: 120, 645
1324:
1325: \bibitem[Lira et al.(2002)]{lira02} Lira, P., Ward, M., Zezas, A.,
1326: Alonso-Herrero, A., \& Ueno, S. 2002, \mnras, 330, 259
1327:
1328: \bibitem[Maraston et al.(2004)]{mara04} Maraston, C., Bastian, N.,
1329: Saglia, R.P., Kissler-Patig, M., Schweizer, F., Goudfrooij, P. 2004,
1330: A\&A, 416, 467
1331:
1332: \bibitem[Mihos \& Hernquist(1996)]{1996ApJ...464..641M} Mihos, J.~C., \&
1333: Hernquist, L.\ 1996, \apj, 464, 641
1334:
1335: \bibitem[Miller et al. (1997)]{miller97} Miller, B., Whitmore, B.C.,
1336: Schweizer, F., Fall, S.M. 1997, AJ, 114, 2381
1337:
1338: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...508L.133M} Miller, B.~W., Lotz,
1339: J.~M., Ferguson, H.~C., Stiavelli, M., \& Whitmore, B.~C.\ 1998, \apjl,
1340: 508, L133
1341: \bibitem[Mirabel et al.(1990)]{1990A&A...236..327M} Mirabel, I.~F., Booth,
1342: R.~S., Johansson, L.~E.~B., Garay, G., \& Sanders, D.~B.\ 1990, \aap, 236,
1343: 327
1344:
1345: \bibitem[Moorwood \& Oliva(1994)]{moorwood91} Moorwood A. F. M. \& Oliva E., 1994, ApJ, 330, 602
1346:
1347:
1348: \bibitem[Neff et al.(2004)]{neff04} Neff, S.\ G., Ulvestad, J.\ S., \&
1349: Campion, S.\ D. 2003, \apj, 599, 1043
1350:
1351: \bibitem[Norris \& Forbes(1995)]{norris05} Norris, R.\ P., \& Forbes, D.\ A.
1352: 1995, \apj, 446, 594
1353:
1354: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2005)]{2005A&A...439..997P} Puzia, T.~H.,
1355: Kissler-Patig, M., Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Saglia, R.~P., Bender, R.,
1356: Goudfrooij, P., \& Hempel, M.\ 2005, \aap, 439, 997
1357:
1358: \bibitem[Savage \& Mathis(1979)]{1979ARA&A..17...73S} Savage, B.~D., \&
1359: Mathis, J.~S.\ 1979, \araa, 17, 73
1360:
1361: \bibitem[Sakamoto et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...644..862S} Sakamoto, K., Ho,
1362: P.~T.~P., \& Peck, A.~B.\ 2006, \apj, 644, 862
1363:
1364:
1365: \bibitem[Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \& Davis(1998)]{schl98} Schlegel, D.\ J.,
1366: Finkbeiner, D.\ P., \& Davis, M. 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1367:
1368: \bibitem[Schweizer (1987)]{schweizer87} Schweizer, F. 1987, in Nearly
1369: Normal Galaxies, ed.\ S.\ M.\ Faber (Springer: New York), 18
1370:
1371: \bibitem[Schweizer et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128..202S} Schweizer, F.,
1372: Seitzer, P., \& Brodie, J.~P.\ 2004, AJ, 128, 202
1373:
1374: \bibitem[Schweizer \& Seitzer(1993)]{1993ApJ...417L..29S} Schweizer, F., \&
1375: Seitzer, P.\ 1993, \apjl, 417, L29
1376:
1377: \bibitem[Schweizer et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....112.1839S} Schweizer, F.,
1378: Miller, B.~W., Whitmore, B.~C., \& Fall, S.~M.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 1839
1379:
1380:
1381: \bibitem[Schweizer \& Seitzer (1998)]{schweizer98} Schweizer, F., \&
1382: Seitzer, P. 1998, AJ, 116, 2206
1383:
1384: \bibitem[Scoville et al.(1998)]{scoville98} Scoville, N., Evans, A., Thompson, R., Rieke, M.,
1385: Schneider, G., Low, F., Hines, D., \& Stobbie, B. 1998, ApJ, 492, L107
1386:
1387: \bibitem[Searle \& Zinn(1978)]{1978ApJ...225..357S} Searle, L., \& Zinn,
1388: R.\ 1978, \apj, 225, 357
1389:
1390:
1391: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2003)]{2003MNRAS.343..279T} Thomas, D., Maraston, C.,
1392: \& Bender, R. 2003, \mnras, 343, 279
1393:
1394: \bibitem[Toomre (1977)]{toomre77} Toomre, A. 1977, in Evolution of
1395: Galaxies and Stellar Populations, ed. B. Tinsley \& R. Larson (New
1396: Haven: Yale Univ. Press), 401
1397: \bibitem[Trager et al. (1998)]{trager98} Trager, S.C., Worthey, G.,
1398: Faber, S.M., Burstein, D., Gonzalez, J.J. 1998, ApJS, 116, 1
1399:
1400: \bibitem[Trancho et al.(2007)]{trancho07a} Trancho, G., Bastian, N.,
1401: Schweizer, F., \& Miller, B. W.~2007A, \apj, in press
1402:
1403: \bibitem[Vacca \& Conti(1992)]{1992ApJ...401..543V} Vacca, W.~D., \& Conti,
1404: P.~S.\ 1992, \apj, 401, 543
1405: \bibitem[van Dokkum(2001)]{2001PASP..113.1420V} van Dokkum, P.~G. 2001, \pasp,
1406: 113, 1420
1407:
1408: \bibitem[Vesperini(1997)]{1997MNRAS.287..915V} Vesperini, E.\ 1997, \mnras,
1409: 287, 915
1410:
1411: \bibitem[Vesperini(1998)]{1998MNRAS.299.1019V} Vesperini, E.\ 1998, \mnras,
1412: 299, 1019
1413:
1414:
1415: \bibitem[Wang et al.(1992)]{1992ApJ...396..510W} Wang, Z., Schweizer, F.,
1416: \& Scoville, N.~Z.\ 1992, \apj, 396, 510
1417: \bibitem[Whitmore et al. (1993)]{whitmore93} Whitmore, B.C., Schweizer, F.,
1418: Leitherer, C., Borne, K., Robert, C. 1993, AJ, 106, 1354
1419:
1420: \bibitem[Whitmore \& Schweizer(1995)]{whitmore95} Whitmore, B.C., \&
1421: Schweizer, F. 1995, AJ, 109, 960
1422:
1423: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(1997)]{1997AJ....114.1797W} Whitmore, B.~C.,
1424: Miller, B.~W., Schweizer, F., \& Fall, S.~M.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1797
1425:
1426: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(1999)]{1999AJ....118.1551W} Whitmore, B.~C.,
1427: Zhang, Q., Leitherer, C., Fall, S.~M., Schweizer, F., \& Miller, B.~W.\
1428: 1999, \aj, 118, 1551
1429: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130.2104W} Whitmore, B.~C., et
1430: al.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2104
1431: \bibitem[Wilson et al.(2006)]{2006ApJ...641..763W} Wilson, C.~D., Harris,
1432: W.~E., Longden, R., \& Scoville, N.~Z.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 763
1433: \bibitem[Zhang \& Fall(1999)]{1999ApJ...527L..81Z} Zhang, Q., \& Fall,
1434: S.~M.\ 1999, \apjl, 527, L81
1435: \bibitem[Zhang et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...561..727Z} Zhang, Q., Fall, S.~M.,
1436: \& Whitmore, B.~C.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 727
1437:
1438: \bibitem[Zepf et al.(1995)]{1995ApJ...445L..19Z} Zepf, S.~E., Carter, D.,
1439: Sharples, R.~M., \& Ashman, K.\ 1995, \apjl, 445, L19
1440: \bibitem[Zepf et al.(1999)]{zepf99} Zepf, S.\ E., Ashman, K.\ M., English,
1441: J., Freeman, K.\ C., \& Sharples, R.\ M. 1999, \aj, 118, 752
1442:
1443: \end{thebibliography}
1444:
1445:
1446:
1447:
1448:
1449:
1450:
1451:
1452:
1453:
1454:
1455:
1456:
1457:
1458:
1459: \end{document}
1460:
1461:
1462:
1463:
1464:
1465:
1466:
1467:
1468:
1469:
1470:
1471:
1472:
1473:
1474:
1475:
1476:
1477:
1478:
1479:
1480: