1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 2005 December 5
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17: %%
18:
19: %% \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
20:
21: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
22:
23: %% \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
24:
25: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
26:
27: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
28:
29: %% Il vecchio emulate
30:
31: %\documentclass{aastex}
32: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
33:
34: %% Il nuovo emulate, non funziona bene:
35:
36: \documentclass{emulateapj}
37:
38: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
39: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
40: %% use the longabstract style option.
41:
42: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
43:
44: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
45: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
46: %% the \begin{document} command.
47: %%
48: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
49: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
50: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
51: %% for information.
52:
53: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
54: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
55:
56: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
57:
58: %\slugcomment{Primo draft con le figure e basta}
59:
60: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
61: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
62: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
63: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
64: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
65: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
66:
67: \shorttitle{The Rotation of sub-populations in $\omega$~Cen}
68: \shortauthors{Pancino et al.}
69:
70: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
71: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
72:
73: \begin{document}
74:
75: \title{The Rotation of sub-populations in $\omega$~Centauri\footnote{Based on
76: data obtained with the Giraffe-FLAMES facility of ESO Very Large Telescope
77: during the Ital-FLAMES GTO programme 71.D-0217(A). Also based on data from the
78: VALD and GEISA databases.}}
79:
80: \author{E. Pancino\footnote{e-mail: elena.pancino@oabo.inaf.it}}
81: \affil{INAF - Bologna Observatory, via Ranzani 1 I-40127 Bologna, Italy}
82:
83: \author{A. Galfo and F.R. Ferraro}
84: \affil{Astronomy Department, Bologna University, via Ranzani 1 I-40127 Bologna, Italy}
85:
86: \and
87:
88: \author{M. Bellazzini}
89: \affil{INAF - Bologna Observatory, via Ranzani 1 I-40127 Bologna, Italy}
90:
91: \begin{abstract}
92:
93: We present the first result of the Ital-FLAMES survey of red giant branch (RGB)
94: stars in $\omega$~Cen. Radial velocities with a precision of
95: $\sim$0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ are presented for 650 members of $\omega$~Cen observed with
96: FLAMES-Giraffe at the Very Large Telescope. We found that stars belonging to the
97: metal-poor (RGB-MP), metal-intemediate (RGB-MInt) and metal-rich (RGB-a)
98: sub-populations of $\omega$~Cen are all compatible with having the same
99: rotational pattern. Our results appear to contradict past findings by Norris et
100: al., who could not detect any rotational signature for metal-rich stars. The
101: slightly higher precision of the present measurements and the much larger sample
102: size, especially for the metal-richer stars, appear as the most likely
103: explanation for this discrepancy. The result presented here weakens the body of
104: evidence in favour of a merger event in the past history of $\omega$~Cen.
105:
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: \keywords{globular clusters: individual (NGC 5139) -- techniques:
109: radial velocities}
110:
111: \section{Introduction}
112:
113: The giant globular cluster (GC) $\omega$~Centauri is one of the most studied
114: objects in the Milky Way since the 60s, thanks to its many peculiar properties.
115: As its main anomaly, $\omega$~Cen shows a wide abundance spread ($\sim$1~dex)
116: not only in the light elements, but also in the iron-peak elements
117: \citep{n95,n96,sk96,s00}, pointing towards a chemical evolution history more
118: reminiscent of a dwarf galaxy than a genuine GC. Moreover, its structural,
119: kinematical and dynamical properties appear atypical for a Galactic GC, having
120: properties more similar to Dwarf Elliptical galactic nuclei \citep{mv05}, and
121: being also an elongated \citep{g83,p03}, rotating system \citep{mer97} that is
122: not completely relaxed dynamically \citep{jay,f06}.
123:
124: Among the most recent, puzzling results we list the detection of complex
125: substructures in all evolutionary sequences, including the red giant branch
126: \citep[RGB,][]{l99,p00,s05a}, the subgiant branch and turn-off region
127: \citep[SGB,][]{f04,s05b} and the main sequence \citep[MS,][]{b04,p05}. These
128: studies have raised new questions that need to be answered, such as the debated
129: age differences among sub-populations \citep{hk00,hw00,s05b}, the possibility
130: that some sub-populations possess an extremely high Helium content
131: \citep{n04,p05} and others.
132:
133: More related with the present paper, we point out a very interesting study on
134: the correlations between chemical and kinematical properties of $\omega$~Cen
135: carried out by \cite{n97}, where stars in the cluster were divided in two groups
136: based on their Ca abundance. They showed that metal-poorer stars rotate as the
137: majority of the cluster does, while metal-richer stars do not show any sign of
138: rotation. They also showed that the radial velocity dispersion appears to
139: decrease with metallicity, a very strange behaviour since metal-richer stars
140: tend to be concentrated to the cluster center, which is dynamically hotter.
141:
142:
143: \section{Observations and Data Treatment}
144: \label{pop}
145:
146:
147: A sample of $\sim$700 red giants was selected from the wide field photometry
148: originally published by \citet{p00} and \citet{tesi}, to derive accurate
149: chemical abundances of stars spanning the whole metallicity range of
150: $\omega$~Cen. Special care was taken to include a large fraction of
151: high-metallicity stars, which are the less studied up to now. All program stars
152: are distributed within 15~arcmin from the cluster center. Figure~\ref{cmd} shows
153: the program stars, marked on the B, (B--I) color magnitude diagram (CMD) of
154: \citet{p00}. Following the classification scheme of \citet{p00} and \citet{p03},
155: stars are divided in three groups: the metal-poor population (RGB-MP) comprising
156: 75\% of the cluster giants, with [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.6; the metal-intermediate
157: population (RGB-MInt) comprising 20\% of the cluster giants, with
158: [Fe/H]$\sim$--1.2 and the metal-rich or anomalous stars (RGB-a), 5\% of the
159: cluster giants, with [Fe/H]$\simeq$--0.6 \citep{p02}. Sample sizes are shown in
160: Table~\ref{medie}.
161:
162:
163: \begin{figure}
164: \epsscale{1.22}
165: \plotone{f1.eps}
166: \caption{Wide Field CMD of $\omega$~Cen from \citet{p00}. Stars observed with
167: Giraffe are highlighted: RGB-MP stars with dark grey circles, RGB-MInt with
168: light grey diamonds and RGB-a stars with white triangles.}
169: \label{cmd}
170: \end{figure}
171:
172: Observations were done with FLAMES \citep{flames} at the ESO VLT in Paranal,
173: Chile, between the 22nd and 28th of May 2003, within the Guaranteed Observing
174: Time of the Ital-FLAMES Consortium. FLAMES was used in Medusa combined mode,
175: feeding 8 fibers to UVES and 132 fibers to Giraffe. To ensure the maximum
176: homogeneity in data quality and treatment, here we present the first results
177: obtained with Giraffe only, using the high-resolution (R$\simeq$22500) grating
178: HR13 (6120--6395\AA) and reaching a S/N$\simeq$50-100 per pixel, depending on
179: the star magnitude.
180:
181: Data were reduced with the Giraffe BLDRS (Base-Line Data Reduction
182: Software)\footnote{\tt http://girbldrs.sourceforge.net}, that includes cosmic
183: rays removal, bias subtraction, flat field correction, wavelength calibration
184: and pixel resampling. The version of the pipeline we used does not include
185: inter-order background and sky subtraction, but these have no significant effect
186: on radial velocity determinations.
187:
188: Radial velocities were determined using DAOSPEC\footnote{\tt
189: http://cadcwww.hia.nrc.ca/stetson/daospec/;
190: \\ http://www.bo.astro.it/~pancino/projects/daospec.html} (Stetson \&
191: Pancino, in preparation), a program that automatically measures
192: equivalent widths of absorption lines in high-resolution spectra. Radial
193: velocities are determined by cross-correlation of the measured line
194: centers and a set of laboratory wavelengths. We used 150 clean and
195: unblended lines of the most common species obtained from the
196: VALD\footnote{\tt http://www.astro.uu.se/$\sim$vald/} \citep[Vienna
197: Atomic Line Database,][]{vald}. Observed radial velocities are the
198: average of the velocity obtained for each line after a 3$\sigma$
199: clipping, and the associated uncertainty is $\sigma /\sqrt n$, where $n$
200: is the number of lines used. Typical uncertainties are of the order of
201: 0.13~km~s$^{-1}$.
202:
203:
204: \begin{table}
205: \caption{Radial Velocity Measurements}
206: \begin{tiny}
207: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc}
208: \tableline \tableline
209: WFI\tablenotemark{a} & RA\tablenotemark{b} & Dec\tablenotemark{b} &
210: B\tablenotemark{a} & I$^{a}$ & V$_r$ & Pop\tablenotemark{c} \\
211: --- & (deg) & (deg) & (mag) & (mag) & (km~s$^{-1}$) &
212: --- \\
213: \tableline
214: 100981 & 201.81686 & -47.59584 & 13.20 & 10.48 & 247.377$\pm$0.226 & 1 \\
215: 102141 & 201.97864 & -47.58834 & 14.51 & 12.36 & 237.910$\pm$0.382 & 1 \\
216: 102242 & 201.84398 & -47.58797 & 14.53 & 12.35 & 258.894$\pm$0.455 & 1 \\
217: 103979 & 201.82367 & -47.57775 & 14.43 & 12.25 & 234.816$\pm$0.197 & 1 \\
218: 104113 & 201.83088 & -47.57697 & 15.35 & 13.32 & 239.967$\pm$0.781 & 2 \\
219: \tableline \tableline
220: \end{tabular}
221: \end{tiny}
222: \tablecomments{Table \ref{dati} is published in its entirety in the
223: electronic edition of the {\it Astrophysical Journal Letters}. A portion is
224: shown here for guidance regarding its form and content.}
225: \tablenotetext{a}{WFI star number and B, I magnitudes from \citet{p00}.}
226: \tablenotetext{b}{Coordinates obtained using the astrometric catalog by
227: \citet{v00}.}
228: \tablenotetext{c}{Population classification according to \citet{p00} and
229: \citet{p03}; 1 stands for RGB-MP, 2 for RGB-MInt and 3 for RGB-a (see text for
230: details).}
231: \label{dati}
232: \end{table}
233:
234:
235: Since radial velocities were not the main goal of the observing programme,
236: simultaneous calibration lamps were not taken during the observations. We used
237: laboratory wavelengths of the telluric lines of the 6300\AA\ O$_2$ absorption
238: band from the GEISA\footnote{\tt
239: http://ara.lmd.polytechnique.fr/htdocs-public/products\-/GEISA/HTML-GEISA/}
240: database \citep[Gestion et Etude des Informations Spectroscopique
241: Atmospheriques,][]{geisa} to find a common zeropoint to our observed velocities.
242: The typical correction is less than $\pm$1~km~s$^{-1}$, with an uncertainty of
243: $\sim$0.45~km~s$^{-1}$, but we found that for some exposures there were larger
244: offsets, up to 3~km~s$^{-1}$. Finally, we applied the heliocentric correction
245: using the {\em rvcorrect} task within IRAF\footnote{Image Reduction and Analysis
246: Facility. IRAF is distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories,
247: which is operated by the association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
248: Inc., under contract with the National Science Foundation.}. The resulting
249: heliocentric radial velocities have a typical uncertainty of 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ and
250: are reported in Table~\ref{dati}.
251:
252: Contaminating field stars were easily eliminated since their average velocity is
253: --4.0$\pm$38.5~km~s$^{-1}$, in very good agreement with Galactic model
254: predictions for Disk stars \citep{disk} and very different from the typical
255: velocity of $\omega$~Cen. After removing all stars with V$_r\leq$190~km~s$^{-1}$,
256: the final sample contains 649 cluster members, with an average V$_r$=233.4 and
257: $\sigma_r$=13.2~km~s$^{-1}$. Star by star comparisons with other catalogues yield
258: a very good agreement. For instance, the average radial velocity difference of
259: the 136 stars in common with \citet{may97} is
260: $\Delta$V$_r$=0.4$\pm$1.4~km~s$^{-1}$, while for the 53 stars in common with
261: \citet{sk96} it is $\Delta$V$_r$=--0.5$\pm$1.8~km~s$^{-1}$ and for the 382 stars
262: in common with \citet{rei06} it is $\Delta$V$_r$=--2.4$\pm$4.6~km~s$^{-1}$.
263:
264:
265:
266: \section{Results}
267: \label{res}
268:
269: We used the photometric definition of populations described in
270: Section~\ref{pop}, together with our radial velocity measurements, to construct
271: rotation curves for sub-populations in $\omega$~Centauri. To this aim, we first
272: de-projected RA and Dec into $X'$ and $Y'$ coordinates with the following
273: relations \citep[see also][]{v06}, suited for extended objects that are not
274: close to the celestial equator:
275:
276: \begin{displaymath}
277: X' = -r_0 \cos \delta \sin (\alpha - \alpha_0)
278: \end{displaymath}
279: \begin{displaymath}
280: Y' = r_0 (\sin \delta \cos \delta_0 - \cos \delta \sin \delta_0 \cos
281: (\alpha - \alpha_0))
282: \end{displaymath}
283:
284: \noindent where $r_0$=10800/$\pi$ is the scale factor to have X' and Y' in
285: arcminutes.
286:
287: As a second step, we searched for the orientation of the rotation axis $\theta$
288: that maximizes the amplitude of the rotation signal. We found a relatively broad
289: maximum around $\theta=0$ and thus, for simplicity, we adopt a rotation axis
290: aligned with the North-South direction, which corresponds to the Y' axis and to
291: the minor isophotal axis \citep{g83,p03}. We therefore plotted radial velocities
292: of each sub-population against $X'$ (Figure~\ref{curva}) and found a clear
293: signature of rotation not only for the RGB-MP, as was expected, but also for the
294: RGB-MInt and the RGB-a. The numbers of stars in the four quadrants of each
295: rotation curve show that the rotational signature is strong even for the most
296: sparse population, i.e., the RGB-a. Assuming that the rotation curves are
297: symmetrical around the minor axis, we estimated the rotation velocity V$_{rot}$
298: near the maximum \citep[as found by][]{mer97,v06} as the average of V$_r$
299: between $6'$ and $8'$ from the center (see Table~\ref{medie}). As can be seen,
300: the values of V$_{rot}$ are comparable to each other, within the uncertainties,
301: and are compatible with previous literature estimates.
302:
303:
304: \begin{figure}
305: \epsscale{1.42}
306: \plotone{f2.eps}
307: \caption{Rotation curve for the RGB-MP (top panel), RGB-MInt (middle panel) and
308: RGB-a (bottom panel) samples. The typical rotation pattern of $\omega$~Cen can
309: be clearly seen not only for the RGB-MP population, but also for the RGB-MInt
310: and the RGB-a. Each panel is divided in four quadrants by dotted lines passing
311: through the cluster center and the cluster average radial velocity. Each
312: quadrant is labelled with the number of stars it contains.}
313: \label{curva}
314: \end{figure}
315:
316:
317: If the three samples were non-rotating, the histogram of radial velocities on
318: the Eastern half of the cluster would be identical to the Western half (see
319: Figure~2). A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test shows instead that the radial velocity
320: distribution of stars on the Eastern side of the cluster has a very low
321: probability of being extracted from the same parent distribution of the Western
322: side. More quantitatively, the probabilities P$_{KS}$ derived from the
323: cumulative distributions are: 10$^{-5}$ for the RGB-MP, 5$\times$10$^{-6}$ for
324: the RGB-MInt and 5$\times$10$^{-3}$ for the RGB-a.
325:
326:
327:
328: \subsection{Literature comparison}
329:
330: A correlation between kinematic properties and chemical abundances in
331: $\omega$~Cen has been attempted, to our knowledge, only by \citet{n97} and
332: \citet{s05b}. \citet{n97} correlated the Calcium IR triplet abundances by
333: \citet{n96} with the radial velocity measurements by \citet{may97}, for a
334: global sample of $\sim$400 RGB stars. The sample was split in a metal-poor
335: group with [Ca/H]$\leq$--1.2 and a metal-rich group with [Ca/H]$>$--1.2. The
336: metal-poor group contains mainly stars that we classify as RGB-MP, with some
337: contamination by RGB-MInt stars, while the metal-rich group contains mainly
338: RGB-MInt and a handful of RGB-a stars, with very little contamination by RGB-MP
339: stars.
340:
341:
342: \begin{figure}
343: \epsscale{1.42}
344: \plotone{f3.eps}
345: \caption{Radial velocity measurements are plotted against the position angle
346: (P.A., counted from North towards East) for the RGB-MP (top panel), the RGB-MInt
347: (middle panel) and the RGB-a (bottom panel). Sinusoids with an amplitude of
348: $\sim$8~km~s$^{-1}$ \citep{mer97} are overplotted for reference.}
349: \label{noi}
350: \end{figure}
351:
352:
353: The two main results presented by \citet{n97} are {\em (i)} metal-poor stars
354: rotate, while the metal-rich population does not show any sign of rotation (at
355: a 2~$\sigma$ level of confidence) and {\em (ii)} the radial velocity dispersion
356: decreases as metallicity increases, i.e. the metal-rich population is
357: kinematically cooler than the metal-poor one, even if it is concentrated in the
358: central, hotter regions of the cluster\footnote{This was referred to as the
359: radial velocity dipersion paradox in $\omega$~Cen, and a possible explanation,
360: involving the presence of a face-on metal-rich disk, was presented by
361: \citet{v99}. Some support to this hypothesis comes from the possible presence
362: of a small disc-like structure in the center of $\omega$~Cen pointed out by
363: \citet{v06}.}. A correlation between radial velocity dispersion and metallicity
364: was also reported by \citet{s05b}, who found a similar trend as in \citet{n97},
365: except that the dispersion increases again for the most metal rich stars in
366: their sample.
367:
368:
369: \begin{table}[t]
370: \caption{Sample sizes, radial velocity and rotation velocity.}
371: \begin{tiny}
372: \begin{tabular}{lrcccccc}
373: \tableline\tableline
374: Population & $n$ & V$_r$ & $\sigma_r$ & A$_{rot}$ &
375: V$_{rot}~(6'$--$8')$ & $n~(6'$--$8')$ \\
376: --- & --- & $(km/s)$ & $(km/s)$ & $(km/s)$ & $(km/s)$ & --- \\
377: \tableline
378: Whole & 649 & 233.4 & 13.2 & $\sim$6 & 6.8$\pm$1.0 & 87 \\
379: RGB-MP & 313 & 232.5 & 13.3 & $\sim$7 & 8.1$\pm$1.5 & 46 \\
380: RGB-MInt & 266 & 234.2 & 13.1 & $\sim$6 & 5.3$\pm$1.7 & 33 \\
381: RGB-a & 70 & 234.0 & 13.4 & $\sim$4 & 6.0$\pm$3.0 & 8 \\
382: \tableline
383: \end{tabular}
384: \end{tiny}
385: \label{medie}
386: \end{table}
387:
388:
389: Velocity dispersions may be quite sensitive to outliers and to the radial
390: distribution of the chosen samples, and a detailed analysis would greatly benefit
391: from the metallicity estimates of individual stars that are not yet available.
392: Here we simply note that there appears to be no difference in the global velocity
393: dispersions of the three subsamples (Table~\ref{medie}). However, the present
394: photometric classification is probably too coarse to reveal subtle effects such
395: as the ones presented by \citet{n97} and \citet{s05b}, hence we postpone any
396: conclusion on radial velocity dispersions to a future paper. On the other hand,
397: strong coordinate motions like the rotation patterns shown in Figure~\ref{curva}
398: are clearly very robust to the effect of a few outliers and can be profitably
399: studied with the available information. Even in the absence of individual
400: metallicity estimates, Figure~\ref{curva} leaves very little room for a
401: non-rotating sub-population within $\omega$~Cen. To facilitate a comparison with
402: Figure~3 by \citet{n97}, Figure~\ref{noi} shows the run of V$_r$ with the
403: position angle (P.A.) for the three populations of $\omega$~Cen. As before, all
404: populations show the well known rotation along the East-West direction
405: \citep{n97,mer97}. Even the RGB-a, despite the smaller sample, is still
406: compatible with the same rotational pattern. The amplitude A$_{rot}$ of the
407: rotation signal in Figure~\ref{noi}, obtained with a $\chi^2$ minimization, is
408: reported in Table~\ref{medie}. However, A$_{rot}$ can only be considered as an
409: indicative value since it contains contributions from stars at very different
410: radii, and the systemic rotation is highly radius dependent.
411:
412: We considered two possible reasons why the rotational signature\footnote{As
413: stated before, the data presented in this paper do not allow to reach a firm
414: conclusion on the velocity dispersion, so we will only consider the rotation
415: patterns in the following discussion.} was not found before: sample size and
416: measurement precision. The size of the entire sample is not so different:
417: \citet{n97} had $\sim$400 stars, we have $\sim$650. However our sample contains
418: more metal-rich stars: we have 313 stars in the RGB-MP, and 336 stars in the
419: RGB-MInt and RGB-a together, while \citet{n97} had $\sim$300 metal-poor stars
420: and less than 100 metal-rich stars. Also, the precision of the radial velocity
421: measurements could play a role, although we have an uncertainty of
422: $\sim$0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ and \citet{may97} have an uncertainty which is only
423: slightly higher and still below 1~km~s$^{-1}$. However, as \citet{n97} made
424: clear, the absence of rotation for the metal-rich group was confirmed only at
425: the 2~$\sigma$ level, therefore the combination of a slightly higher precision
426: and a much larger sample size are probably enough to explain why we were able
427: to reveal such a signature with our dataset.
428:
429:
430: \section{Conclusions}
431:
432: We presented the first results from the Ital-FLAMES survey of the RGB of
433: $\omega$~Cen. Radial velocities with uncertainties of 0.5~km~s$^{-1}$ are derived
434: for 650 radial velocity members of $\omega$~Cen, and are in very good agreement
435: with previous literature measurements. The main result obtained is that all the
436: three sub-populations of $\omega$~Cen show the same rotation pattern. These
437: findings appear in contradiction with the results presented by \citet{n97}. We
438: show that a combination of higher precision in the V$_r$ measurements and of a
439: larger sample size, especially for metal-rich stars (RGB-MInt and RGB-a), is the
440: most likely cause for the discrepancy.
441:
442: The results by \citet{n97} were the main piece of evidence in support of a
443: merger event in the past evolution of $\omega$~Cen. The evidence presented here
444: suggests that there is no rotational anomaly in $\omega$~Centauri. The only
445: other remaining evidence, apart from the radial velocity dispersion paradox
446: mentioned above, that still points towards a complicated dynamical history is
447: the structural difference among populations found by \citet{p03} and the
448: somewhat debated differential proper motion for the RGB-a found by \citet{f02},
449: questioned by \citet{pl03} but supported by \citet{hw04}. Clearly, a deeper
450: investigation into these aspects is now needed to finally settle the issue.
451:
452: \acknowledgments
453:
454: We thank P.~B. Stetson, A.~Sollima and C.~Cacciari. We also thank J.~E.~Norris,
455: the referee of this paper, for his constructive comments. The financial support
456: from the PRIN-INAF 2005, PRIN-INAF2006 and ASI-INAF I/023/05/0 grants is
457: acknowledged.
458:
459: \begin{thebibliography}{}
460:
461: \bibitem[Anderson(1997)]{jay} Anderson, J., 1997, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ.
462: California, Berkeley
463:
464: \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2004)]{b04} Bedin, L.~R., Piotto, G., Anderson,
465: J., Cassisi, S., King, I.~R., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G.\ 2004, \apjl,
466: 605, L125
467:
468: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2002)]{f02} Ferraro, F.~R., Bellazzini, M., \&
469: Pancino, E.\ 2002, \apjl, 573, L95
470:
471: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2004)]{f04} Ferraro, F.~R., Sollima, A.,
472: Pancino, E., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., Origlia, L., \& Cool,
473: A.~M.\ 2004, \apjl, 603, L81
474:
475: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2006)]{f06} Ferraro, F.~R., Sollima, A., Rood, R.~T.,
476: Origlia, L., Pancino, E., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2006, \apj, 638, 433
477:
478: \bibitem[Geyer et al.(1983)]{g83} Geyer, E.~H., Nelles, B., \& Hopp, U.
479: \ 1983, \aap, 125, 359
480:
481: \bibitem[Hilker \& Richtler(2000)]{hk00} Hilker, M., \& Richtler, T.\
482: 2000, \aap, 362, 895
483:
484: \bibitem[Hughes \& Wallerstein(2000)]{hw00} Hughes, J., \& Wallerstein,
485: G.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 1225
486:
487: \bibitem[Hughes et al.(2004)]{hw04} Hughes, J., Wallerstein, G., van Leeuwen,
488: F., \& Hilker, M.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 980
489:
490: \bibitem[Jaquinet-Husson et al.(2003)]{geisa} Jaquinet-Husson, N.,
491: Scott, N.~A., Chedin, A., \& Chursin, A.~A. 2003, Atmospheric and
492: Oceanic Optics. 3, 256
493:
494: \bibitem[Kupka et al.(1999)]{vald} Kupka, F., Piskunov, N., Ryabchikova,
495: T.~A., Stempels, H.~C., \& Weiss, W.~W.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 119
496:
497: \bibitem[Lee et al.(1999)]{l99} Lee, Y.-W., Joo, J.-M., Sohn, Y.-J.,
498: Rey, S.-C., Lee, H.-C., \& Walker, A.~R.\ 1999, \nat, 402, 55
499:
500: \bibitem[Lupton(1993)]{jack} Lupton, R.\ 1993, Princeton, N.J.:
501: Princeton University Press, |c1993,
502:
503: \bibitem[Mackey \& van den Bergh(2005)]{mv05} Mackey, A.~D., \& van den Bergh,
504: S.\ 2005, \mnras, 360, 631
505:
506: \bibitem[Mayor et al.(1997)]{may97} Mayor, M., et al.\ 1997, \aj, 114,
507: 1087
508:
509: \bibitem[Merritt et al.(1997)]{mer97} Merritt, D., Meylan, G., \&
510: Mayor, M.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1074
511:
512: \bibitem[Meylan et al.(1995)]{mey95} Meylan, G., Mayor, M., Duquennoy,
513: A., \& Dubath, P.\ 1995, \aap, 303, 761
514:
515: \bibitem[Norris \& Da Costa(1995)]{n95} Norris, J.~E., \&
516: Da Costa, G.~S.\ 1995, \apj, 447, 680
517:
518: \bibitem[Norris et al.(1996)]{n96} Norris, J.~E., Freeman, K.~C., \&
519: Mighell, K.~J.\ 1996, \apj, 462, 241
520:
521: \bibitem[Norris et al.(1997)]{n97} Norris, J.~E., Freeman, K.~C.,
522: Mayor, M., \& Seitzer, P.\ 1997, \apjl, 487, L187
523:
524: \bibitem[Norris(2004)]{n04} Norris, J.~E.\ 2004, \apjl, 612, L25
525:
526: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2000)]{p00} Pancino, E., Ferraro, F.~R.,
527: Bellazzini, M., Piotto, G., \& Zoccali, M.\ 2000, \apjl, 534, L83
528:
529: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2002)]{p02} Pancino, E., Pasquini, L., Hill,
530: V., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2002, \apjl, 568, L101
531:
532: \bibitem[Pancino et al.(2003)]{p03} Pancino, E., Seleznev, A., Ferraro,
533: F.~R., Bellazzini, M., \& Piotto, G.\ 2003, \mnras, 345, 683
534:
535: \bibitem[Pancino(2003)]{tesi} Pancino, E.\ 2003, Ph.D.~Thesis, Bologna
536: University
537:
538: \bibitem[Pasquini et al.(2002)]{flames} Pasquini, L. et al. 2002, The
539: Messenger 110, 1
540:
541: \bibitem[Piotto et al.(2005)]{p05} Piotto, G., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 621,
542: 777
543:
544: \bibitem[Platais et al.(2003)]{pl03} Platais, I., Wyse, R.~F.~G., Hebb,
545: L., Lee, Y.-W., \& Rey, S.-C.\ 2003, \apjl, 591, L127
546:
547: \bibitem[Reijns et al.(2006)]{rei06} Reijns, R.~A., Seitzer, P.,
548: Arnold, R., Freeman, K.~C., Ingerson, T., van den Bosch, R.~C.~E., van
549: de Ven, G., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 503
550:
551: \bibitem[Robin et al.(2003)]{disk} Robin, A.~C., Reyl{\'e}, C.,
552: Derri{\`e}re, S., \& Picaud, S.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 523
553:
554: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2000)]{s00} Smith, V.~V., Suntzeff, N.~B., Cunha,
555: K., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Lambert, D.~L., \& Straniero, O.\ 2000,
556: \aj, 119, 1239
557:
558: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2005a)]{s05a} Sollima, A., Ferraro, F.~R.,
559: Pancino, E., \& Bellazzini, M.\ 2005a, \mnras, 357, 265
560:
561: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2005b)]{s05b} Sollima, A., Pancino, E.,
562: Ferraro, F.~R., Bellazzini, M., Straniero, O., \& Pasquini, L.\ 2005b,
563: \apj, 634, 332
564:
565: \bibitem[Suntzeff \& Kraft(1996)]{sk96} Suntzeff, N.~B., \& Kraft,
566: R.~P.\ 1996, \aj, 111, 1913
567:
568: \bibitem[van de Ven et al.(2006)]{v06} van de Ven, G., van den Bosch,
569: R.~C.~E., Verolme, E.~K., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2006, \aap, 445, 513
570:
571: \bibitem[van den Bosch et al.(1999)]{v99} van den Bosch, F.~C., Lewis,
572: G.~F., Lake, G., \& Stadel, J.\ 1999, \apj, 515, 50
573:
574: \bibitem[van Leeuwen et al.(2000)]{v00} van Leeuwen, F., Le Poole,
575: R.~S., Reijns, R.~A., Freeman, K.~C., \& de Zeeuw, P.~T.\ 2000, \aap,
576: 360, 472
577:
578: \end{thebibliography}
579:
580: \end{document}
581: