1:
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
4:
5: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
6:
7: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
8:
9: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
10:
11: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
12:
13: %% Sometimes a paper's abstract is too long to fit on the
14: %% title page in preprint2 mode. When that is the case,
15: %% use the longabstract style option.
16:
17: %% \documentclass[preprint2,longabstract]{aastex}
18:
19: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
20: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
21: %% the \begin{document} command.
22: %%
23: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
24: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
25: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
26: %% for information.
27:
28: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
29: \newcommand{\myemail}{miki@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp}
30: \newcommand{\gsim}{\hspace{0.3em}\raisebox{0.4ex}{$>$}\hspace{-0.75em}\raisebox{-.7ex}{$\sim$}\hspace{0.3em}}
31:
32: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
33:
34: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
35:
36: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
37: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
38: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
39: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
40: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters.
41: %% Running heads will not print in the manuscript style.
42:
43: \shorttitle{A Subaru/Suprime-Cam Survey of M31's spheroid along the South-East minor axis}
44: \shortauthors{Tanaka et al.}
45:
46: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
47: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
48:
49: \begin{document}
50:
51: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
52: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
53: %% you desire.
54:
55: \title{A Subaru/Suprime-Cam Survey of M31's spheroid along the South-East minor axis\altaffilmark{1}}
56:
57: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
58: %% author and affiliation information.
59: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
60: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
61: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
62: %% As in the title, use \\ to force line breaks.
63:
64: \author{Mikito~Tanaka\altaffilmark{2,3},
65: Masashi~Chiba\altaffilmark{4},
66: Yutaka~Komiyama\altaffilmark{2},
67: Masanori~Iye\altaffilmark{2},
68: and
69: Puragra~Guhathakurta\altaffilmark{5}}
70:
71: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
72: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
73: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
74: %% affiliation.
75:
76: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on data collected at the Subaru Telescope, which is
77: operated by the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan.}
78: \altaffiltext{2}{National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa,
79: Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan; miki@optik.mtk.nao.ac.jp}
80: \altaffiltext{3}{University of Tokyo, 7-3-1 Hongo, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo 113-0033,
81: Japan}
82: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomical Institute, Tohoku University, Aoba-ku, Sendai
83: 980-8578, Japan}
84: \altaffiltext{5}{University of California Observatories/Lick Observatory,
85: University of California
86: Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, California 95064, USA}
87:
88: %% Mark off your abstract in the ``abstract'' environment. In the manuscript
89: %% style, abstract will output a Received/Accepted line after the
90: %% title and affiliation information. No date will appear since the author
91: %% does not have this information. The dates will be filled in by the
92: %% editorial office after submission.
93:
94: \begin{abstract}
95: We have used Suprime-Cam on the Subaru Telescope to conduct a $V$- and
96: $I$-band imaging survey of fields sampling the spheroid of the Andromeda
97: galaxy along its south-east minor axis. Our photometric data are deep enough
98: to resolve stars down to the red clump. Based on a large and reliable sample
99: of red giant stars available from this deep wide-field imager, we have
100: derived metallicity distributions vs.\ radius and a surface brightness profile
101: over projected distances of $R=23$--66~kpc from the galaxy's center.
102: The metallicity distributions across this region shows a clear high mean
103: metallicity and a broad distribution ([Fe/H]$ \sim -0.6 \pm 0.5$), and
104: indicates no metallicity gradient within our observed range. The surface
105: brightness profile at $R>40$~kpc is found to be flatter than
106: previously thought.
107: It is conceivable that this part of the halo
108: samples as yet unidentified, metal-rich substructure.
109: \end{abstract}
110:
111: %% Keywords should appear after the \end{abstract} command. The uncommented
112: %% example has been keyed in ApJ style. See the instructions to authors
113: %% for the journal to which you are submitting your paper to determine
114: %% what keyword punctuation is appropriate.
115:
116: \keywords{galaxies: individual (M31) --- galaxies: halos --- galaxies:
117: structure}
118:
119: %%% Section 1 %%%
120: \section{Introduction}
121:
122: Our understanding of how disk galaxies like our own or the Andromeda galaxy
123: (M31) formed plays a key role in near-field cosmology \citep{Freeman2002},
124: because such nearby galaxies offer us detailed views of galactic structures
125: through their resolved stars. In particular, the components of the extended
126: low surface brightness stellar halo, old field stars and globular clusters,
127: provide invaluable information on early chemo-dynamical evolution of disk
128: galaxies over the past $\gtrsim10$~Gyr (i.e., well before thin disk
129: components appeared). The spatial distribution of galactic halos suggests
130: that proto-galaxies were much larger than the sizes of currently bright
131: galactic disks, possibly a result of hierarchical assembly of subgalactic
132: systems orbiting at larger radii \citep{SZ1978}.
133: The importance of accretion and merging of small
134: systems in the galaxy formation process is also evident in the spatial and
135: kinematic substructures in the Galaxy's stellar halo
136: \citep[e.g.,][]{Yanny2003,Helmi1999}.
137:
138: The volume density profile of the Milky Way halo is characterized by an
139: $r^{-3.5}$ power-law of Galactocentric radius, based on
140: direct counts of halo tracers or their orbital motions
141: \citep[e.g.,][]{Harris1976}.
142: By contrast, Andromeda's spheroid appears to have a complex structure.
143: In their imaging study \citet{Pritchet1994} found that the surface
144: brightness (SB) profile along the minor axis is characterized by a
145: de~Vaucouleurs $R^{1/4}$ law over projected distances $R$ of
146: $1\arcsec$ to $1\fdg5$ (few pc to 20~kpc) from the M31 center.
147: Later, \citet{Guhathakurta2005} reported, based on spectroscopic selection
148: of red giant branch (RGB) candidates in several halo fields, that
149: the SB beyond $R\simeq20$~kpc shows a flatter profile with $R^{-2.3}$,
150: and that the halo may extend to $R\gtrsim150$~kpc.
151: \citet{Irwin2005} also found, from their photometry of RGB stars over
152: $R=20$--55~kpc along the minor axis, a comparably
153: flat SB profile that is fit by an $R^{-2.3}$ power law or an exponential law
154: with a scalelength of 14~kpc.
155: It remains to be seen whether this flat portion of
156: the halo profile is affected by substructure, and if it is dominated
157: by either metal-rich or metal-poor populations. The latter issue is especially
158: important since spectroscopic studies suggest that M31's inner spheroid/halo
159: has a radial gradient in mean metallicity, whereby metal-poor stars
160: dominate at $R\gtrsim50$~kpc \citep[e.g.,][]{Kalirai2006}. Detailed studies
161: based on large numbers of stars (say from wide-field imagers) are
162: required to investigate the fundamental nature of M31's halo along
163: its minor axis.
164:
165: In this Letter, we report on our Subaru/Suprime-Cam wide-field photometric
166: observations of M31's halo aimed at obtaining statistically significant
167: SB and metallicity distribution (MD) profiles along the south-east (SE)
168: minor axis of the galaxy. Our imaging survey is optimized to extract halo
169: profiles in a region that is well outside
170: the bright disk component and beyond the inner spheroid with
171: the $R^{1/4}$ brightness law.
172:
173:
174: %%% Section 2 %%%
175: \section{Observations and Data Reductions}\label{sec:obs}
176: Using the Suprime-Cam \citep{Miyazaki2002} imager on the Subaru Telescope
177: \citep{Iye2004}, which consists of ten $2000\times4000$ CCDs with a
178: resolution of $0\farcs202$ per pixel and covers a total field-of-view
179: $34\arcmin \times 27\arcmin$, we have carried out a wide-field imaging survey
180: of M31's spheroid. Our targeted fields are located between 23 and
181: 66~kpc from the M31 center (Fig.~\ref{map}).
182:
183: \begin{figure}
184: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f1.eps}
185: \caption{
186: Locations of our Subaru/Suprime-Cam fields (rectangular areas), overlaid
187: on the surface density map of M31's red RGB stars from the INT/WFC survey of
188: \citet{Ferguson2002} and adapted from Figure~1 of \citet{Irwin2005}.
189: Adjacent Suprime-Cam fields overlap by about 25~\% to ensure photometric
190: calibration.
191: In addition, the fields used by \citet{Irwin2005} for their surface
192: brightness profile are delineated by the dashed lines.}
193: \label{map}
194: \end{figure}
195:
196: During four nights in August 2004, we obtained images of seven spheroid
197: fields (hereafter referred to as Fields~1--7) and a control field in
198: Johnson $V$ and Cousins $I$ bands with
199: typical seeing FWHM of $0\farcs9-1\farcs3$.
200: These observations were obtained in non-photometric conditions.
201: We carried out additional imaging of the same fields on a photometric night
202: in August 2005 in order to calibrate the data.
203: The data were reduced with the software package SDFRED, a useful
204: pipeline developed to optimally deal with Suprime-Cam images
205: \citep{Yagi2002,Ouchi2004}.
206: Photometry of our co-added images was calibrated through \citet{Landolt1992}
207: standards, correcting for an airmass term and a color term in each field.
208:
209: We then conducted PSF-fitting photometry using the IRAF version of
210: the DAOPHOT-I\hspace{-.1em}I software \citep{Stetson1987}.
211: We adopted a 3~$\sigma$ detection threshold for the initial object
212: detection/photometry pass and iterated the PSF-fitting photometry twice with
213: 5~$\sigma$ and 7~$\sigma$ detection thresholds, respectively, in order to
214: account for blended stars.
215: A stellar PSF template was derived from about 100 bright, isolated stars per
216: image. Finally, we merged two independent $V$- and $I$-band catalogs into
217: a combined catalog using a 1-pixel matching radius.
218:
219: It is worth noting that the morphological segregation method cannot
220: distinguish between M31 halo stars and and other point sources such as
221: Galactic foreground dwarf stars, and compact extragalactic objects.
222: To statistically remove these contaminations from the targeted fields,
223: we adopted a control field located at a Galactic latitude comparable to that
224: of our targeted fields, on the assumption that it has the same abundance
225: of foreground and background objects as that in the M31 spheroid fields.
226:
227: Reddening corrections are applied in each field
228: based on the extinction maps of \citet*{Schlegel1998},
229: and the \citet{Dean1978} reddening law $E(V-I)=1.34E(B-V)$ and
230: $A_I=1.31E(V-I)$. We adopt the M31 Cepheid distance
231: modulus of $(m-M)_0 = 24.43 \pm 0.06$ ($\sim$ 770 kpc) from
232: \citet{Madore1995}.
233: We also note that our analysis
234: of the SB and MD profiles below is unaffected by photometric
235: incompleteness: we target RGB stars brighter than $I \sim$ 22.5 (mag), while
236: our data are more than 90\% complete down to $I \sim$ 23 (mag). As an
237: example, even if we count stars down to the 50\% completeness for the $V$
238: band, the hitherto missing faintest and reddest stars are included in the
239: analysis but the SB and MD profiles are changed by less than a few percent.
240:
241: \section{Results}\label{sec:results}
242: %%% 3.1 %%%
243: \subsection{Metallicity Distributions}\label{sec:mdf}
244:
245: Taking advantage of the large stellar samples available with the wide field
246: of view of Suprime-Cam, we derive MDs of RGB stars in M31's spheroid,
247: by comparing them to RGB fiducials defined by
248: Galactic globular clusters in the same manner as \citet{Bellazzini2003}.
249: For a reliable secure determination of MDs using these templates, we select
250: RGB stars with
251: $-3.8 < M_I < -2.0$ and $0.9 < (V-I)_0 < 4.0$.
252: These selection criteria allow us to remove a number of contaminants,
253: such as M31 asymptotic giant branch (AGB) stars, AGB bump stars, and young
254: stars, along with foreground and background objects.
255: We perform an interpolation procedure to obtain metallicities of
256: objects in the spheroid and control fields, and subtract the derived
257: MD of the control field from that of the spheroid
258: field in order to statistically remove the effects of the foreground and
259: background contaminants.
260: For more detailed description, see \citet{Tanaka2007}.
261:
262: \begin{figure}
263: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f2.eps}
264: \caption{Histograms of the metallicity distributions, in the \citet{CG97} scale,
265: for the SE minor axis fields of M31's spheroid.
266: In the upper left corner of each panel, we show the name of the field,
267: the number of stars used to derive the MD, the average metallicity
268: ([Fe/H]$_{\rm ave}$) together with the associated standard deviation, and
269: the median metallicity together with the associated semiinterquartile interval.
270: }
271: \label{fig:mdf}
272: \end{figure}
273:
274:
275: Figure~\ref{fig:mdf} shows the MDs in Fields 1 to 7 of M31's spheroid.
276: The vertical error bars denote a nominal uncertainty
277: in each metallicity bin, yielding from the Poisson errors equal to
278: $\pm \sqrt{N({\rm spheroid} + {\rm control})}$.
279: It is worth noting that because of a large number of the RGB stars
280: available from our Suprime-Cam data,
281: the MDs obtained here have significantly small errors and thus are expected
282: to be most likely compared with the results of the previous studies, which
283: examined more inner parts of the spheroid than ours
284: \citep{Durrell2001,Bellazzini2003,Durrell2004}.
285:
286:
287: It follows that the MDs have a broad distribution ranging from
288: [Fe/H] $\sim -3$ to the near solar metallicity.
289: The average metallicity ([Fe/H]$_{\rm ave}$) with a standard deviation
290: and median metallicity ([Fe/H]$_{\rm med}$)
291: with a quartile deviation are shown in each panel.
292: In addition, our Field 2 includes the field observed by \citet{Durrell2004},
293: and the MD of Field 2 is almost consistent with their MD.
294:
295:
296: The most striking feature of the MDs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:mdf}
297: is their overall similarity. For the sake of comparison of them,
298: we show their average metallicities as a function of distance
299: from the M31 center in Figure~\ref{fig:mdg}. Seven filled red circles
300: present the average values of metallicity in our targeted fields,
301: while many open circles are those in the subfields, which are obtained by
302: dividing a single Suprime-Cam field into six fields
303: (4000 pixels $\times$ 3000 pixels per divided field).
304: These subfields help us to examine the fine spatial variation
305: in a Suprime-Cam field. Conversely, a filled red circle reflects the mean value
306: of metallicities of six subfields.
307: Vertical error bars show standard deviation of the mean.
308: These plot suggests that the stellar content of the spheroid
309: has no metallicity gradient within our observational range.
310: This may be consistent with the idea of chaotic merging of small building blocks
311: first proposed by \citet{SZ1978} for understanding the lack of a metallicity
312: gradient in the globular cluster system of the Milky Way halo.
313:
314:
315: \begin{figure}
316: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f3.eps}
317: \caption{The average metallicity plotted as a function of distance from
318: the M31 center.
319: Filled red circles present the average values of metallicity in the seven
320: targeted fields, while open circles denote those in each subfield
321: inside a Suprime-Cam field (see text).
322: }
323: \label{fig:mdg}
324: \end{figure}
325:
326:
327: %%% 3.2 %%%
328: \subsection{Surface Brightness Profiles}\label{sec:sb}
329:
330: We estimate the SB profiles of M31's spheroid along the SE minor axis using
331: the RGB stars, which are brighter than the AGB bump ($I \sim$ 23.3 mag). After extracting
332: the secure RGB stars on which are imposed the same magnitude
333: and color criteria as in preceding section,
334: we divide them into the following two groups using the RGB templates
335: of Galactic globular clusters \citep{Bellazzini2003}:
336: {\it Metal-Poor group} (MP) defined as $-2.16<$[Fe/H]$<-1.11$
337: and {\it Metal-Rich group} (MR) defined as
338: $-1.11<$[Fe/H]$<0.07$.
339: The values of $-2.16$ and $0.07$ are both ends of the templates, and
340: the template having a value of $-1.11$ is chosen because it nearly
341: marks a discontinuity in the MDs obtained here.
342:
343: In contrast to the inner dense parts of the halo in M31, it is possible to
344: resolve the individual stars in its outer parts, because of their sparse
345: density and of the sufficiently close distance of M31 to us.
346: Thus the SB profiles in spheroid's outer part are available by directly
347: counting individual stars. The sources of noise in this method of estimating
348: the SBs arise from the Poisson statistics from the finite number of stars observed
349: and contamination from Galactic stars along the line of sight to the spheroid.
350: The contribution from unrelated Galactic stars can be estimated by observing
351: other nearby fields: we use our control field at $\sim$ 90 kpc to this end.
352:
353: \begin{figure}
354: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f4.eps}
355: \caption{The left panel shows the $V$- and $I$-band minor-axis profiles
356: for RGB stars as derived from the MP and MR group, while the right panel shows
357: those based on the selection method of RGB stars by \citet{Irwin2005}.
358: The $V$-band and $I$-band profiles are illustrated with blue and red points,
359: respectively, which are derived from star counts in the magnitude and
360: color selection boxes as described in the text.
361: The error bars reflect a combination of Poissonian and background uncertainties.
362: The dashed lines show an exponential profile with a scalelength of $s=21.9$ kpc
363: for MP and $s=70.0$ kpc for MR (left panel),
364: and $s=46.4$ kpc for blue RGB stars and $s=58.5$ kpc for red RGB stars (right panel).
365: The dot-dashed line in the right panel shows an exponential profile
366: with $s = 13.7$ kpc by \citet{Irwin2005}, for the sake of comparison.
367: }
368: \label{fig:sb}
369: \end{figure}
370:
371: The left panel of Figure~\ref{fig:sb} shows the SB profiles
372: of the MP (blue) and MR (red) group, which are used to derive the $V$- and
373: $I$-band profiles, respectively. The dashed lines show an exponential SB profile,
374: $\exp( - R / s )$, with a scale length $s$ of 21.9 kpc for MP and 70.0 kpc for MR.
375: We note that at large distances $R$, the number of RGB stars is just slightly larger
376: than that of background objects, so we can determine only the upper limit for
377: the most of their errors. It is remarkable that the SB in the MP group decreases
378: more steeply with $R$ than that in the MR group, suggesting
379: that as above stated there may exist a metal-rich substructure at $R = 50 \sim 60$ kpc.
380:
381: The right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sb} shows the SB profiles based on the
382: different star selection by \citet{Irwin2005}: using $V$-band and Gunn $i$-band
383: systems, they selected blue RGB stars with $20.5<i<22.5$ and $24.85 - 2.85(V-i) <
384: i < 26.85 - 2.85(V-i)$ and red RGB stars with $21<i<22$ and $i > 26.85 -2.85(V-i)$,
385: and derived the $V$- and $I$-band profiles from these categorized stars,
386: respectively. We shift $I$-band magnitude criterion about 0.02~mag toward
387: the fainter side in order to match the Gunn $i$-band system.
388: We note that our selection criteria for MP and MR are more advantageous
389: than this fixed magnitude and color selection of blue and red RGB stars
390: for investigating the effects of the MDs on the SBs.
391: To compare with the blue RGB star count profile in \citet{Irwin2005},
392: which is fitted to an exponential profile with $s = 13.7$ kpc, we shift
393: it vertically to roughly overlap with our blue RGB surface brightness profile
394: in the radial range $1\fdg6-3\fdg0$. This result shows that stellar density
395: at around 45 kpc and 60 kpc significantly exceeds a mean halo profile
396: obtained by \citet{Irwin2005}. Hence, it is possible that
397: two as-yet-unknown substructures consist of bright metal-rich stars.
398:
399: We note that the details of the SB profiles obtained here are found to be pretty
400: insensitive even if we adopt much fainter $V$- and $I$-band magnitude limits,
401: say down to $V = 25$ mag and $I = 24$ mag. Thus, the current results are
402: real and robust against the effects of any contaminations over the fields;
403: our deep Suprime-Cam data enable us to assess the minor effects of these errors.
404:
405:
406: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}\label{sec:summary}
407:
408: As fossil records of galaxy formation, M31's spheroid offers us a global
409: perspective about its spatial structures as well as stellar populations.
410: Based on a wide-field imager of Subaru, we have confirmed the previous
411: results \citep{Guhathakurta2005,Irwin2005} that the SB profile in the SE minor
412: axis is much flatter at $R > 23$ kpc than the innermost part of the spheroid
413: described by the $R^{1/4}$ law. Our finding of no metallicity gradient in this
414: outer part over $R = 23 \sim 66$ kpc implies that dissipationless processes,
415: such as accretion and merging of collisionless stellar systems, may have been
416: at work for the formation of this spheroidal part, thereby erasing any metallicity
417: nonuniformity. We note here that our control field at $R = 90$ kpc of the SE
418: minor axis, which shows no substructures \citep{Ibata2007},
419: may still contain some spheroidal stars, because M31's spheroid may
420: extend up to $R \sim 150$ kpc \citep{Guhathakurta2005}. However, even so, the
421: relative MD and SB profiles obtained here remain unaltered.
422:
423: Intriguingly, our finding of the possible overdensity regions at around 45 and
424: 60 kpc is in agreement with the recent work by
425: \citet{Ibata2007} (having appeared in astro-ph while
426: preparing for the submission of our paper), who also found the stream-like
427: features at similar locations, referred to as stream D and C, respectively.
428: Our metallicity analysis suggests that their stream D appears to be slightly
429: more metal-poor than stream C. Also, the MDs of stream C (our Field 6 and 7)
430: have a high-metallicity peak similar to those of
431: the Giant Stream \citep{Tanaka2007}. However, it is yet uncertain if stream C
432: is indeed related to the Giant Stream because of the lack of the information
433: on the distance to stream C as well as its internal kinematics.
434: Deeper photometry down to horizontal-branch magnitude and/or multi-object
435: spectroscopy of stars will be important for clarifying the origin of
436: the newly detected substructures.
437:
438: Our results reported here are not totally inconsistent with the finding
439: by \citet{Kalirai2006} and \citet{Chapman2006}, who argue for the presence
440: of metallicity gradient obtained from their kinematical studies of the bright
441: RGB stars using Keck/DEIMOS. Indeed, only our Field 2 overlaps Field a0 of
442: \citet{Kalirai2006}, where both fields yield basically similar metallicity, and
443: other fields of Field 2 to 7 along the minor axis do not overlap their survey
444: regions (see their Figures 1 and 12). It is interesting to remark that their
445: Field m6 at $R \simeq 87$ kpc along the minor axis shows rather high
446: metallicity of [Fe/H]$\sim -0.85$, being similar to that of their Field a0
447: as well as ours. In contrast, other fields deviated from the minor axis (such as
448: their a13, a19, and b15) show low metallicities, which basically
449: give rise to the reported metallicity gradient. Thus, this implies that
450: the MDs along the minor axis fields in concern may be somewhat different from
451: other outer halo fields, i.e., more higher surface density and more metal-rich
452: than previously thought as reported here. A tempting view for these
453: properties of our observed fields is that there exists a metal-rich
454: substructure at $R$ of 50-60 kpc, corresponding to a faint tail of
455: the giant stellar stream \citep{Ferguson2002} or a part of another stream.
456: More extensive studies by observing large halo areas of Andromeda, e.g., using
457: much wider HyperSuprime camera under construction, will be necessary
458: to arrive at more decisive conclusions and thus obtain the accurate
459: formation picture of this typical disk galaxy.
460:
461:
462: \acknowledgments
463:
464: We thank the Subaru Telescope staff for the excellent support during
465: our observing runs. Data reduction/analysis was carried out on ``sb'' computer
466: system operated by the Astronomical Data Analysis Center of the National
467: Astronomical Observatory of Japan.
468:
469:
470: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
471: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2003)]{Bellazzini2003}
472: Bellazzini, M., et al.\ 2003, \aap, 405, 867
473: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton(1997)]{CG97}
474: Carretta, E. \& Gratton, R.\ 1997, \aaps, 121, 95
475: \bibitem[Chapman et al.(2006)]{Chapman2006}
476: Chapman, S.~C., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 653, 255
477: \bibitem[Dean et al.(1978)]{Dean1978}
478: Dean, J.~F., Warren, P.~R., \& Cousins, A.~W.~J.\ 1978, \mnras, 183, 569
479: \bibitem[Durrell et al.(2001)]{Durrell2001}
480: Durrell, P.~R., Harris, W.~E., \& Pritchet, C.~J.\ 2001, \aj, 121, 2557
481: \bibitem[Durrell et al.(2004)]{Durrell2004}
482: Durrell, P.~R., Harris, W.~E., \& Pritchet, C.~J.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 260
483: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(2002)]{Ferguson2002}
484: Ferguson, A.~M.~N., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 1452
485: \bibitem[Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn(2002)]{Freeman2002}
486: Freeman, K., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J.\ 2002, \araa, 40, 487
487: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et al.(2005)]{Guhathakurta2005}
488: Guhathakurta, P., et al.\ 2005, astro-ph/0502366
489: \bibitem[Harris (1976)]{Harris1976}
490: Harris, W. E. 1976, \aj, 81, 1095
491: \bibitem[Helmi et al.(1999)]{Helmi1999}
492: Helmi, A., et al.\ 1999, \nat, 402, 53
493: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2007)]{Ibata2007}
494: Ibata, R., et al.\ 2007, astro-ph/0704.1318
495: \bibitem[Irwin et al.(2005)]{Irwin2005}
496: Irwin, M., et al.\ 2005, \apjl, 628, L105
497: \bibitem[Iye et al.(2004)]{Iye2004}
498: Iye, M., et al.\ 2004, \pasj, 54, 833
499: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2006)]{Kalirai2006}
500: Kalirai, J.~S., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 389
501: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{Landolt1992}
502: Landolt, Arlo U.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 340
503: \bibitem[Madore \& Freedman(1995)]{Madore1995}
504: Madore, B.~F., \& Freedman, W.~L.\ 1995, \aj, 109, 1645
505: \bibitem[Miyazaki et al.(2002)]{Miyazaki2002}
506: Miyazaki, S., et al.\ 2002, \pasj, 54, 833
507: \bibitem[Ouchi et al.(2004)]{Ouchi2004}
508: Ouchi et al.\ 2004, \apj, 611, 660
509: \bibitem[Pritchet \& van~den~Bergh(1994)]{Pritchet1994}
510: Pritchet, C.~J., \& van~den~Bergh, S.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1730
511: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{Schlegel1998}
512: Schlegel, D.~J., Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
513: \bibitem[Searle \& Zinn(1978)]{SZ1978}
514: Searle, L., \& Zinn, R.\ 1978, \apj, 225, 357
515: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{Stetson1987}
516: Stetson, P.\ 1987, \pasp, 99, 191
517: \bibitem[Tanaka et al.(2007)]{Tanaka2007}
518: Tanaka, M., et al.\ 2007, preprint (to be submitted to \aj)
519: \bibitem[Yagi et al.(2002)]{Yagi2002}
520: Yagi, M., et al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 66
521: \bibitem[Yanny et al.(2003)]{Yanny2003}
522: Yanny, B., et al.\ 2003, \apj, 588, 824
523: \end{thebibliography}
524:
525: \end{document}
526: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
527:
528: %%
529: %% End of file `sample.tex'.
530:
531: