1: %%
2: %%\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
3:
4: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
5:
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
9:
10: %% \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
11:
12: \received{2007 May 24}
13: \begin{document}
14:
15: \title{Mass segregation in very young open clusters
16: -- A case study of NGC 2244 and NGC 6530}
17:
18:
19: \author{L. Chen}
20: \affil{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of
21: Sciences, 80 Nandan Road, Shanghai 200030, P.R. China}
22: \email{chenli@shao.ac.cn}
23:
24: \author{R. de Grijs}
25: \affil{Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of
26: Sheffield, Hicks Building, Hounsfield Road, Sheffield S3 7RH, U.K.;
27: and National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences,
28: 20A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing 100012, P.R. China}
29: \email{R.deGrijs@sheffield.ac.uk}
30:
31: \and
32:
33: \author{J. L. Zhao}
34: \affil{Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of
35: Sciences, 80 Nandan Road, Shanghai 200030, P.R. China}
36:
37: \begin{abstract}
38: We derive the proper motions, membership probabilities, and
39: velocity dispersions of stars in the regions of the young ($\sim
40: 2-4$ Myr-old) open clusters NGC 2244 (the central cluster in the
41: Monoceros R2 association) and NGC 6530 (the dominant cluster in
42: the Sgr OB1 association) from photographic plate material obtained
43: at Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, with time baselines of 34
44: and 87 years, respectively. Both clusters show clear evidence of
45: mass segregation, but they do not exhibit any significant
46: velocity-mass (or, equivalently, a velocity-luminosity)
47: dependence. This provides strong support for the suggestion that
48: the observed mass segregation is -- at least partially -- due to
49: the way in which star formation has proceeded in these complex
50: star-forming regions (``primordial'' mass segregation). Based on
51: arguments related to the clusters' published initial mass
52: functions, in conjunction with our new measurements of their
53: internal velocity dispersions ($\sim 35$ and 8 km s$^{-1}$ for NGC
54: 2244 and NGC 6530, respectively), we provide strong arguments in
55: favor of the dissolution of NGC 2244 on very short time-scales,
56: while we speculate that NGC 6530 may be more stable against the
57: effects of internal two-body relaxation. However, this latter
58: object may well be destroyed by the strong tidal field prevalent
59: at its location in the Galactic plane in the direction of the
60: Galactic Center.
61: \end{abstract}
62:
63: \keywords{astrometry --- stellar dynamics --- open clusters: general
64: --- open clusters: individual (NGC 2244, NGC 6530)}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: Open clusters are considered excellent laboratories for studies of
69: stellar evolution and the dynamics of stellar systems. A large
70: fraction of Galactic open clusters are situated close to the Galactic
71: plane, thus potentially making them appropriate objects for probing
72: the structure and evolution of the Galactic disc -- although the
73: presence of dust in the Galactic plane restricts their usefulness in
74: this sense.
75:
76: One of many important aspects in open cluster studies is related to
77: the effects of mass segregation; that is, the more massive member
78: stars in the cluster will be more centrally concentrated and/or have a
79: distinct distribution in velocity space compared to the lower-mass
80: members. The key observational questions of interest in open star
81: cluster research include whether or not mass segregation exists in a
82: given star cluster and, if so, what the extent of this effect is in
83: relation to the cluster's age. For cluster samples as a whole, the
84: similarities and differences of the effects of mass segregation for
85: clusters of various ages, abundances and galactocentric distances are
86: of great interest. All of these properties are related to the
87: formation process as well as the dynamical evolution of clusters. They
88: are also (sometimes significantly) influenced by the Galactic tidal
89: fields, in particular in the outer regions of a given cluster.
90:
91: Young open clusters are important stellar systems for our
92: understanding of the star-formation process. In very young
93: clusters, most of the low-mass stars will still be in their
94: pre-main-sequence (PMS) evolutionary stage, and one may expect to
95: derive global stellar initial mass functions (IMFs) that are not
96: yet significantly affected by the effects of stellar and dynamical
97: evolution. However, if a significant amount of ``primordial'' mass
98: segregation (i.e., mass segregation intrinsic to the
99: star-formation process itself) is present, this would seriously
100: complicate the interpretation of an observed stellar luminosity
101: function (LF) at a given position within a star cluster in terms
102: of its IMF \citep{gri02a,gri02b}.
103:
104: In this paper, we use photographic plate material with longer time
105: baselines than published previously, in order to determine the proper
106: motions and membership probabilities of stars in the regions of two
107: very young Galactic open clusters NGC 2244 and NGC 6530. We aim to
108: quantify the possible effects of mass segregation and place these
109: objects in the context of their expected future evolution.
110:
111: \subsection{NGC 2244}
112:
113: NGC 2244 (also referred to as NGC 2239) is the core OB cluster of
114: the Monoceros OB2 (Mon OB2) association, embedded in the Rosette
115: Nebula (NGC 2237/2246), a well-developed ``blister'' H{\sc ii}
116: region. This system is located in the northwest quadrant of the
117: Rosette Molecular Cloud complex, which itself is one of the most
118: massive giant molecular cloud (GMC) complexes in the Milky Way
119: (see \citet{li05b}); such GMC complexes are particularly conducive
120: to the formation of massive OB stars. Because of the strong
121: ionizing radiation from the massive OB stars in the core of NGC
122: 2244 (see, e.g., \citet{per87} for a census of the OB stars in the
123: cluster), the cluster has excavated the GMC complex, allowing us a
124: deeper look into the cloud than otherwise possible. NGC 2244
125: represents the youngest of two or three subgroups of OB stars and
126: stellar aggregates in the Mon OB2 association \citep{li05,li05b}.
127:
128: Since NGC 2244 is one of the youngest star-forming open clusters
129: in the Milky Way, and relatively nearby, it has been the subject
130: of a number of detailed studies. Using the WEBDA open cluster
131: database \citep{merm03} as our guide, the equatorial coordinates
132: of the cluster center are $(\alpha,\delta)_{2000} = (06^{\rm
133: h}31^{\rm m}55^{\rm s}, +04^{\circ}56'30'')$, and the Galactic
134: coordinates $(l,b) = (206^{\circ}.31, -2^{\circ}.07)$, i.e., the
135: cluster is located quite close to the direction of the Galactic
136: anticenter.
137:
138: \citet{li05}, using near-infrared imaging from the Two Micron
139: All-Sky Survey (2MASS), estimated a mean visual extinction, $A_V
140: \simeq 1.5$ mag within a radius of 10 arcmin centered on the
141: apparent center of the H{\sc ii} region. They pointed out that
142: this independent low near-infrared extinction estimate was
143: consistent with previous estimates in the optical, which is also
144: supported by results from CO and C$^{13}$O maps (e.g.,
145: \citet{bli86}; \citet{wil95}). In the optical, the most
146: comprehensive extinction analysis for the cluster was published by
147: \citet{mas95}, who reported a mean reddening of $E(B-V)=0.48$ mag,
148: with a non-negligible amount of differential reddening across the
149: cluster: their reddening values for individual cluster stars range
150: from $E(B-V)=0.08$ to 0.98 mag. This is fully consistent with the
151: results of \citet{par02}; and references therein), who found
152: $\langle E(B-V)\rangle = 0.47 \pm 0.04$ mag from the individual
153: reddening values for 28 cluster member stars brighter than $V =
154: 14$ mag, and a smaller amount of differential reddening, ranging
155: from $E(B-V) = 0.40$ to 0.56 mag. They also found that NGC 2244 is
156: most likely characterized by a ``standard'' reddening law, with a
157: total-to-selective extinction ratio of $R_V = 3.1 \pm 0.2$. As
158: such, we adopt a foregound reddening of $E(B-V)=0.48$ mag in this
159: paper.
160:
161: The distance to NGC 2244 is reasonably well established, at $1.4
162: \la D \la 1.7$ kpc, and generally consistent among different
163: distance indicators used in the literature (see also \citet{par02}
164: for a review). For instance, \citet{per87} obtained $D = 1670 \pm
165: 125$ pc from the distance moduli of the individual OB-type stars
166: in the cluster. More recently, \citet{hen00} derived a distance of
167: $D = 1.39 \pm 0.1$ kpc to the cluster based on spectroscopic
168: observations of one of the cluster member stars, the eclipsing
169: binary V578 Mon (HD259135). \citet{par02} derived a distance
170: modulus of $(m-M)_{V,0} = 11.1$ based on $UBVI$ photometry,
171: corresponding to $D = 1.7$ kpc. This larger distance value seems
172: to be favoured by many authors in the field (e.g.,
173: \citet{ogu81,sab01}), and as such we will adopt it here as well.
174:
175: For the age of NGC 2244, most authors agree on a value of 2--4 Myr
176: for the main sequence (MS) turn-off age
177: (\citet{tur76,ogu81,mar82,per89,per91,mas95,par02} and references
178: therein). In addition, recently an age estimate of $2.3 \pm 0.2$
179: Myr was derived from the age of the eclipsing binary V578 Mon
180: \citep{hen00}. Based on high spatial resolution multi-filter
181: photometry of NGC 2244, \citet{berg02} concluded that while most
182: of the cluster stars are aged up to 3 Myr, significantly younger
183: low-mass stars (5\% or more of the cluster stars) exist in the
184: cluster as well, indicating that star formation is still in
185: progress in the Rosette Nebula/NGC 2244 region (see also
186: \citet{per87,per89,par02}, the latter authors found a MS turn-off
187: age of 1.9 Myr, but a pre-MS age spread of about 6 Myr). However,
188: they also note that up to 45\% of the cluster stars may be older
189: than 3 Myr, thus suggesting an earlier star-forming episode in the
190: region. Moreover, the dynamical age of the nebula is just $0.2 -
191: 0.6$ Myr \citep{mat67}, while the dynamical age of the H{\sc i}
192: shell is as old as 4 Myr (see \citet{li05a}).
193:
194: The first proper motion study of this cluster \citep{sch58}
195: identified 22 probable members. Subsequently, \citet{mar82}
196: performed more precise proper motion measurements of 287 stars
197: down to $V=14$ mag and selected 89 stars with membership
198: probabilities, $p\geq0.7$, and data quality, $q \ge 0.9$, in an
199: area of $35\times44$ arcmin$^2$. However, \citet{par02} cautioned
200: that their ``member'' sample may contain several non-cluster
201: members of the Mon OB2 association because of the large
202: rectangular field of view employed by the \citet{mar82} study
203: compared to the cluster's angular size of $\sim 24$ arcmin and the
204: roughly spherical shape described by \citet{per91}. Using the
205: \citet{mar82} astrometric membership determinations, combined with
206: spectroscopically determined stellar MK classifications of 193
207: stars by \citet{ver91}, \citet{par02} redetermined the membership
208: probabilities of the brightest cluster stars (30 OB stars and 21
209: pre-MS members and candidates brighter than $V=18$ mag).
210:
211: \citet{sab01} and \citet{hig02} redetermined the cluster's stellar
212: membership probabilities based on the early astrometric data first
213: analyzed by \citet{mar82}. They confirmed 92 (out of 202) stars as
214: physical members of the cluster, with $p > 0.5$. In this paper, we
215: will analyze high-quality, wide-field photographic plates of
216: Shanghai Astronomical Observatory, with an maximum likelihood
217: algorithm involving careful assessment of the distributions of
218: both the proper motions and the positions, thus allowing us to
219: arrive at a valuable, independent estimation of membership
220: probabilities.
221:
222: \subsection{NGC 6530}
223:
224: NGC 6530 is another prime example of an extremely young open
225: cluster that has been the subject of a number of previous studies.
226: As the core cluster of the Sgr OB1 association, it is projected
227: onto the eastern part of the Lagoon Nebula (M8), which is one of
228: the brightest nearby nebulae and H{\sc ii} regions \citep{rau02}.
229: The Lagoon Nebula is the illuminated part of the GMC from which
230: the cluster formed by generating a ``blister'' H{\sc ii} region
231: due to the ionizing radiation from its hot massive stars (e.g.,
232: \citet{lad76}. Once again, this allows us to probe into the depths
233: of this GMC region much better than would have been possible
234: otherwise.
235:
236: The equatorial coordinates of NGC 6530 are $(\alpha,
237: \delta)_{2000}=(18^{\rm h}04^{\rm m}31^{\rm s},
238: -24^{\circ}21'30'')$ and the Galactic coordinates
239: $(l,b)=(6^{\circ}.083, -1^{\circ}.331)$, i.e., the cluster is
240: located in the direction not far from that of the Galactic Center.
241: This implies that one has to be very careful in disentangling
242: cluster members from field interlopers (see also \citet{sun00}. As
243: a case in point, in early work on this cluster, \citet{wal57}
244: obtained photo-electric magnitudes and colors for 118 stars in the
245: NGC 6530 region and proposed that a band of its low-mass members
246: above the MS in color-magnitude space may be PMS stars that are
247: still in the stage of gravitational contraction. It has since been
248: shown (e.g., \citet{the60,alt72,chi81}) that many of these PMS
249: candidates are, in fact, foregound or background field stars (see
250: the discussions in \citet{anc97}, and \citet{sun00}).
251:
252: Subsequently, the properties of this very young cluster have been
253: studied extensively by different authors, leading to an age estimate
254: of 1.5--3.0 Myr \citep{alt72,sag78,sun00}, and the cluster's distance
255: to the Sun has been estimated to be in the range from 0.6--2.0 kpc
256: \citep{wal57,alt72,sag78,ste95,sun00,lok01,pri05}.
257:
258: The most recent median age estimate for the cluster, based on
259: ground-based $BVI$ photometry down to $V=22$ mag \citep{pri05} is
260: 2.3 Myr, i.e., well inside the range quoted by previous authors,
261: although the same team also derived a much younger median age of
262: 0.8 Myr (\citet{dam04}; see also \citet{sun00} for the pre-MS
263: stars; \citet{dam06}). Both estimates are not necessarily in
264: conflict with each other, because the cluster appears to host
265: stars formed over a significant length of time. While
266: \citet{anc97} argued that star formation in the cluster may have
267: been ongoing since a few $\times 10^7$ ago, until the present,
268: \citet{sun00} -- based on their detailed study of low-mass PMS
269: stars -- argue that the time-scale for star formation in NGC 6530
270: must have been much shorter, starting only a few $\times 10^6$ yr
271: ago. Nevertheless, this clearly implies that the cluster
272: environment has been an active star-forming environment for a
273: significant period (see also \citet{sun00}).
274:
275: More specifically, \citet{dam06} conclude, based on a detailed
276: analysis of the distribution of optical/infrared-excess stars
277: throughout the region, that star formation has proceeded rather
278: undisturbed and for a longer period in the northern cluster region
279: than near the cluster center. This is in support of suggestions by
280: \citet{lad76} and \citet{dam06} that the star-formation activity
281: may have proceeded from north to south in the cluster region,
282: which is further supported by a spatial age segregation analysis
283: by \citet{pri05}.
284:
285: The most recent distance estimate to NGC 6530, based on $BVI$
286: photometry, was derived by \citet{pri05}, $D = 1250$ pc,
287: corresponding to a distance modulus $(m-M)_{V,0} \simeq 10.48$
288: mag. This is towards the bottom end of the range in possible
289: distances quoted by a variety of authors, $1300 \la D \la 2000$ pc
290: (\citet{pri05}, their table 1), generally obtained photometrically
291: from the brightest cluster member stars. In contrast, it is
292: significantly larger than the distance obtained from Hipparcos
293: parallaxes of seven member stars, $D = 560 - 711$ pc
294: \citep{lok01}. In other recent studies, both \citet{anc97} and
295: \citet{sun00} determined a best distance estimate to NGC 6530 of
296: $D = 1.8 \pm 0.1$ kpc [$(m-M)_{V,0} = 11.25 \pm 0.1$ mag, based on
297: optical photometry and a detailed consideration of the extinction
298: across the cluster (see also \citet{mcc90}). In this paper, we opt
299: to use the \citet{pri05} distance determination, $D = 1250$ pc.
300:
301: Following the WEBDA compilation of cluster parameters, we adopt a mean
302: reddening $E(B-V)=0.35$ mag (\citet{sun00}; see also \citet{chi81}),
303: in addition to a foreground reddening of $E(B-V)=0.17$ to 0.20 mag
304: \citep{mcc90,anc97,sun00,pri05}. There is significant variation in
305: reddening across the NGC 6530 region, as is evident from both the
306: distribution of stars in color-magnitude space and from the spatial
307: variation of stellar density (\citet{dam04}, and references
308: therein). In fact, the amount of differential reddening ranges from
309: $E(B-V)=0.25$ to 0.50 mag across the cluster (\citet{sun00}; also
310: \citet{sag78}, but see \citet{anc97}), although \citet{dam04} also
311: uncovered evidence for the presence of a large number of heavily
312: reddened objects, characterized by $A_V \la 20$ mag.
313:
314: \citet{alt72} were the first to determine the membership
315: probabilities of 363 stars in a $60'\times32'$ region centered on
316: NGC 6530 from relative proper motion data with a time baseline of
317: 34 years. They found 76 stars with membership probabilities, $p$,
318: greater than 0.5 with $V \le 13.6$ mag. More recent studies
319: resulted in firm membership determinations for 451 stars with $p
320: \ge 0.9$ \citep{zha06}, and 237 stars \citep{pri07}, the latter
321: study based on spectroscopic observations around the lithium and
322: H$\alpha$ lines. \citet{dam06} has suggested that the cluster may
323: contain $\ge 1100$ members.
324:
325: It should be noted that a reliable stellar membership determination is
326: crucial for resolved star cluster studies. The Shanghai Astronomical
327: Observatory has in its archives wide-field photographic plates with a
328: long time baseline of these two open clusters, thus providing
329: valuable, independent observational materials for high-accuracy
330: measurements of stellar proper motions, and for the determination of
331: cluster membership. This constitutes a strong starting point for
332: further detailed cluster studies, including those dealing with the
333: effects of mass segregation, as we show in this paper.
334:
335: In this paper, we use photographic plate material with longer time
336: baselines or higher quality than published previously, in order to
337: determine the proper motions and membership probabilities of stars
338: in the regions of both clusters (Sect. \ref{obs.sec}). We present
339: a new, detailed investigation of these two clusters based on our
340: membership determination (Sect. \ref{members.sec}), of their
341: stellar luminosity functions and the observed effects of mass
342: segregation (Sect. \ref{results.sec}). In Sect.
343: \ref{discussion.sec} we discuss the clusters in the context of
344: their evolutionary state and summarize the main results obtained
345: in this paper.
346:
347: \section{Observations}
348: \label{obs.sec}
349:
350: For the open clusters NGC 2244 and NGC 6530, all photographic plates
351: used for the proper motion reduction were taken by the 40-cm refractor
352: telescope (with a focal length of 6895 mm) at the Sheshan
353: (Z\^{o}--S\`{e}) Station of the Shanghai Astronomical Observatory,
354: operated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences. For NGC 2244, four plates
355: for each of the first and second epochs were taken in 1963--1964, and
356: 1998--1999, respectively, spanning a time baseline of 35 years. For
357: NGC 6530, two first epoch plates and four second plates were taken in
358: 1912 and 1999, respectively, spanning 87 years. The field of view
359: achieved is $2^{\circ}\times2.5^{\circ}$ and
360: $1.5^{\circ}\times1.5^{\circ}$, for the first and second epoch plates,
361: respectively. No filter was used to obtain these plates; their
362: sensitive wavelength region is close to the $B$ band and the 30 min
363: exposure time resulted in a brightness limit of about 16 mag.
364:
365: The stellar coordinates on the plates of both clusters were
366: measured with the Photometrics Data Systems (PDS)
367: microdensitometer \citep{stil92} at the Dominion Astrophysical
368: Observatory (DAO) in Canada. For each plate, raster scanning was
369: performed over the full $60\arcmin \times 60\arcmin$ central
370: regions of the clusters. The scanning diaphragm used had a size of
371: $20.5\mu$m squared, with both a step length and line separation of
372: $20\mu$m; a speed of 15 mm s$^{-1}$ was used. In the region where
373: we performed the full scan, stellar images were extracted and
374: their rectangular coordinates, $(x, y)$, obtained using the
375: processing software provided by DAO. After the preliminary
376: identification, the measured coordinates on each plate were
377: transformed linearly to a unified system using six plate
378: constants, and those with residual errors $\ge 15\mu$m were
379: excluded. The cross-identification resulted in a final set of 498
380: stars for NGC 2244 and 365 stars for NGC 6530, respectively, with
381: each star appearing on at least one plate of both the early {\it
382: and} later epochs.
383:
384: \section{Proper motion reduction and membership estimates}
385: \label{members.sec}
386:
387: In the reduction of our proper motion data, an iterative
388: central-overlap technique \citep{rus76,wan96} was used. For NGC 2244,
389: 78 Tycho-2 stars were selected as reference stars; their reference
390: positions and proper motions were adopted based on the Tycho-2
391: Catalogue \citep{hog00}. During the iterative solution, three stars
392: with extraordinarily large residual errors were removed. The final
393: solution provided us with robust position and proper motion data of
394: 495 stars in the cluster region. Similarly, 79 Tycho-2 catalogue stars
395: were used as reference stars for NGC 6530, and only 1 star with an
396: extremely large residual error in the iterative solution was
397: removed. This resulted in a total of 364 stars with final position and
398: proper motion values. The internal levels of uncertainty on the
399: position and proper motion of the individual stars are given in Table
400: 1.
401:
402: Estimating the membership probability of the observed cluster
403: stars involves a careful assessment of the distributions of both
404: the proper motions and the positions. We assume that in position
405: space the surface number density of the field stars follows a
406: uniform distribution, $\psi_{\rm f}$, while the cluster members
407: approximately follow a Gaussian profile (see, e.g., \citet{wen06},
408: for a preliminary analysis of the stars in the NGC 6530 region
409: with membership probabilities $p \ge 0.9$), $\psi_{\rm c}$, with a
410: central density, $n_{0}$, and a dispersion, $\alpha$. Then,
411: \begin{eqnarray}
412: \psi_{\rm f} = n_{\rm f}, &
413: \psi_{\rm c}(r_{i})=n_{0}\exp(-\frac{r_{i}^{2}}{2\alpha^{2}} ) \quad , \nonumber
414: \end{eqnarray}
415: where $r_i$ denotes the distance of the $i^{\rm th}$ star to the
416: cluster center. Let $\Psi_{\rm f}$ and $\Psi_{\rm c}$ be the
417: normalized $\psi_{\rm f}$ and $\psi_{\rm c}$, respectively, and
418: \(g=n_{0}/n_{\rm f}\). Then we have \(\Psi_{\rm f} + \Psi_{\rm c} =
419: 1\) (by definition), and
420: \begin{mathletters}
421: \begin{eqnarray}
422: \Psi_{\rm f}(r_i)=\frac{1}{1+g
423: \exp^{-1}(-\frac{r_{i}^{2}}{2\sigma_{\alpha}^{2}})} ,\\
424: \Psi_c(r_i)=\frac{1}{1+g^{-1}
425: \exp(-\frac{r_{i}^{2}}{2\sigma_{\alpha}^{2}})}
426: \end{eqnarray}
427: \end{mathletters}
428:
429: Both the field stars and the cluster members have independent proper
430: motion and position distributions. We assume that the field star
431: proper motion is characterized by an elliptical Gaussian distribution,
432: and that of the cluster stars is a circular Gaussian function. The
433: overall distribution function for the field stars, $\Phi_{\rm f}$, and
434: for the cluster stars, $\Phi_{\rm c}$, can then be written as:
435: \begin{eqnarray}
436: \Phi_{\rm f} &=& \Psi_{\rm
437: f}(r_{i})\times\frac{1}{2\pi(1-\rho^{2})^{1/2}(\sigma_{x0}^{2}+\varepsilon_{xi}^{2})^{1/2}(\sigma_{y0}^{2}+\varepsilon_{yi}^{2})^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
438: &
439: &\times\exp\{-\frac{1}{2(1-\rho^{2})}[\frac{(\mu_{xi}-\mu_{x{\rm
440: f}})^2}{\sigma_{x0}^2+\varepsilon_{xi}^2} \nonumber\\&
441: &-\frac{2\rho(\mu_{xi}-\mu_{x{\rm f}})(\mu_{xi}-\mu_{x{\rm f}})}
442: {(\sigma_{x0}^{2}+\epsilon_{xi}^{2})^{1/2}(\sigma_{y0}^{2}+\epsilon_{yi}^{2})^{1/2}}
443: +\frac{(\mu_{yi}-\mu_{y{\rm
444: f}})^2}{\sigma_{y0}^2+\varepsilon_{yi}^2}]\},
445: \end{eqnarray}
446: and
447: \begin{eqnarray}
448: \Phi_{\rm c} &=& \Psi_{\rm c}(r_{i})\times
449: \frac{1}{2\pi(\sigma_{0}^{2}+\varepsilon_{xi}^{2})^{1/2}(\sigma_{0}^{2}+\varepsilon_{yi}^{2})^{1/2}}\nonumber\\
450: & & \times\exp\{-\frac{1}{2}[\frac{(\mu_{xi}-\mu_{x{\rm
451: c}})^2}{\sigma_{0}^2+\varepsilon_{xi}^{2}}+
452: \frac{(\mu_{yi}-\mu_{y{\rm
453: c}})^2}{\sigma_{0}^2+\varepsilon_{yi}^{2}}]\}
454: \end{eqnarray}
455:
456: Here, $(\mu_{xi},\mu_{yi})$ is the reduced proper motion of the
457: $i^{\rm th}$ star and $(\varepsilon_{xi}, \varepsilon_{yi})$ are the
458: estimated observational errors. $(\mu_{x{\rm f}},\mu_{y{\rm f}})$ and
459: $(\mu_{x{\rm c}},\mu_{y{\rm c}})$ are the distribution centers of the
460: field stars and cluster members in the vector point diagram (VPD),
461: respectively, whereas $(\sigma_{x0},\sigma_{y0})$ and $\sigma_{0}$ are
462: the intrinsic proper motion dispersions of the field stars and the
463: cluster members respectively, and $\rho$ is the correlation
464: coefficient. Together with the parameters $\alpha$ and $g$, there are
465: 10 parameters awaiting determination. These parameters were estimated
466: by means of a maximum likelihood method. When searching for the
467: maximum of the likelihood function, a bipartition algorithm was
468: adopted \citep{wan97}, and the (internal) uncertainty of the parameter
469: estimation was evaluated based on the second derivatives of the
470: likelihood function \citep{zha87}. In order to get a handle on the
471: external uncertainty of our proper motion determinations, we compared
472: our derived proper motion values to those derived from the Tycho-2
473: Catalogue, for the 78 stars in NGC 2244 and the 79 stars in NGC 6530
474: in common in both data sets. This resulted in a mean deviation of
475: $\sim 2$ mas yr$^{-1}$, with a dispersion of $\sim 3$ mas yr$^{-1}$,
476: in very good agreement with the internal level of accuracy of the
477: Tycho-2 Catalogue.
478:
479: After the distribution parameters are determined, the membership
480: probability of the $i^{\rm th}$ star can be calculated as:
481: \begin{equation}
482: p_i=\frac{\Phi_{\rm c}(i)}{\Phi(i)}=\frac{\Phi_{\rm c}(i)}{\Phi_{\rm
483: f}(i)+\Phi_{\rm c}(i)}
484: \end{equation}
485:
486: Table 2 gives the maximum likelihood estimates of the distribution
487: parameters, and the corresponding uncertainties, for both
488: clusters. We used the distribution parameters to calculate the
489: membership probabilities of the individual stars in the NGC 2244
490: and NGC 6530 regions. Figure 1 shows the VPD for both NGC 2244 and
491: NGC 6530 (see also the preliminary analysis \footnote{We note that
492: whereas \citet{wen06} published a preliminary analysis based on
493: the photographic plates also used in the present paper, we
494: emphasize that the results in the present paper are based on a
495: thorough and significantly improved re-analysis of the entire data
496: set (e.g., in terms of the statistical treatment of the
497: uncertainties and membership probabilities, as well as the
498: determination of the basic cluster parameters).} by \citet{wen06};
499: the solid points represent the stars with membership
500: probabilities, $p \ge 0.9$, whereas the crosses indicate the $p
501: \le 0.5$. The open circles have $p$ values in between these
502: boundaries. The VPDs already show that our membership
503: determination appears to be quite effective. To underscore this
504: point, Fig. 2 shows the histograms of the membership
505: probabilities; the left-hand panel is for NGC 2244 and the
506: right-hand panel for NGC 6530. Returning to the clusters' VPDs,
507: both \citet{sab01} and \citet{hig02} published VPDs for NGC 2244
508: based on independent proper motion analyses. Although their
509: samples of cluster members are much smaller than ours (of order
510: 100 member stars), the VPDs are qualitatively similar in extent as
511: well as morphology. We note, however, that in particular the
512: \citet{hig02} VPD appears somewhat more elongated in the $y$
513: direction than our VPD in Fig. 1. We will return to this issue
514: below.
515:
516: From Fig. 2, one can deduce {\it quantitatively} that the
517: discrimination of membership for NGC 2244 is quite effective. Of
518: the total of 495 stars, about 16\%, or 78 stars, have
519: probabilities in the range of $0.3<p<0.7$. As an aside, we note
520: that a comparison of the membership histograms in \citet{sab01}
521: and Fig. 2 shows that our membership determination is more
522: efficient than theirs. Meanwhile, for NGC 6530, the separation of
523: members from the field stars is even more effective, with only a
524: few stars having probabilities around $p=0.5$, i.e., only 4.4\%
525: (or 16 stars) have $0.3<p<0.7$; 451 stars have $p \ge 0.9$ (see
526: also \citet{zha06} for a discussion of the results in relation to
527: the earlier work by \citet{alt72}). We note that in the context of
528: NGC 6530, the \citet{pri05,pri07} and \citet{dam06} studies cover
529: a much smaller field of view (diameter $\sim 20$ arcmin) than our
530: observations presented here (Sect. \ref{obs.sec}), although at a
531: higher spatial resolution. Secondly, the \citet{pri07} sample,
532: which -- in essence -- only covers the cluster core, is fainter
533: ($B \ga 15$ mag) than ours ($B \la 14$ mag). As such there is
534: virtually no overlap between both data sets.
535:
536: \section{Luminosity functions and the effects of mass segregation}
537: \label{results.sec}
538:
539: \subsection{Star counts and the cluster sizes}
540:
541: Star counts allow us to statistically determine the properties of
542: clusters with respect to the surrounding stellar background. The
543: cluster radius itself is one of the most important cluster
544: parameters, and particularly useful for dynamical studies. From
545: our results, the member stars of both NGC 2244 and NGC 6530 show
546: an obvious concentration on the sky, while this is clearly not the
547: case for field stars. In essence, this supports the result for NGC
548: 2244 by \citet{sab01} based on the cluster's VPD. They determined
549: robust membership probabilities for 92 stars in the area using
550: both the cluster's VPD and its membership probability histogram,
551: akin to our Fig. 2. In the VPD they clearly showed the
552: (elliptical) distribution of the proper motions of the cluster
553: members around a centroid, and the very small dispersion of stars
554: with $p \ga 0.7$, clearly setting them apart from the field stars,
555: with $p \la 0.6$ (see also \citet{hig02}). As regards NGC 6530,
556: \citet{wen06} and \citet{zha06} provided compelling evidence for
557: the superiority of the membership determinations in the present
558: data set compared to that presented by \citet{alt72}.
559:
560: In order to derive the radial stellar surface density, we first
561: chose the cluster center as the median coordinates of all the
562: member stars with $p\geq0.9$. The adopted centers are at the
563: (J2000.0) equatorial coordinates of $(06^{\rm h}32^{\rm m}04^{\rm
564: s},+4^{\circ}55'00'')$ for NGC 2244 and $(18^{\rm h}04^{\rm
565: m}24^{\rm s},-24^{\circ}21'12'')$ for NGC 6530, respectively.
566: These updated center positions are slightly different from the
567: values provided by WEBDA, although the displacements between our
568: new center coordinates and those provided by WEBDA are well inside
569: the respective cluster core radii (see below). For comparison,
570: \citet{li05} determined the 2MASS center position of NGC 2244 as
571: being very close to the centroid determined from our proper
572: motions, resulting in J2000.0 equatorial coordinates of $(06^{\rm
573: h}31^{\rm m}59.9^{\rm s},+4^{\circ}55'36'')$. The radial number
574: density profile, shown in Fig. 3, was constructed by performing
575: star counts inside increasing concentric annuli around the cluster
576: center and normalized by the surface areas covered by the
577: respective annuli.
578:
579: Figure 3 shows the radial surface number density profiles of the
580: cluster members $(p\geq0.9)$ and the field stars $(p\leq0.1)$ in
581: our observational fields of view, on the left-hand side for NGC
582: 2244 and on the right-hand side for NGC 6530. In each panel, the
583: profiles for the cluster members and the field stars are
584: completely different, with the field star distributions
585: essentially flat, whereas the cluster members exhibit obvious
586: concentrations towards the cluster centers. This result shows once
587: again that our membership determinations are reasonably robust and
588: reliable. The basic structural parameters were derived by fitting
589: the two-parameter surface density \citet{kin66} profile to our
590: observational data in a least-squares sense. We used fitting radii
591: of 32 and 33 arcmin for NGC 2244 and NGC 6530, respectively. The
592: core radii thus obtained are $9.43 \pm 1.48$ arcmin for NGC 2244
593: and $4.29 \pm 0.90$ arcmin for NGC 6530, corresponding to $4.7 \pm
594: 0.7$ and $1.6 \pm 0.3$ pc, respectively. Meanwhile, the
595: half-number radii (i.e., the radii on either side of which half of
596: the member stars are located) of the clusters were also
597: determined, as 14 arcmin for NGC 2244 and 21 arcmin for NGC 6530,
598: or $\sim 6.9$ and $\sim 7.6$ pc, respectively. Our main reason for
599: using the clusters' half-number radii instead of their half-light
600: radii is practical: the position and proper motion information,
601: eventually leading to membership probabilities, is based on the
602: results from the PDS scans. During this process, some of the
603: brightest stars had to be avoided because of saturation effects on
604: the photographic plates (which would lead to unacceptably large
605: positional uncertainties for our analysis). In other words, our
606: sample of cluster members is incomplete at bright magnitudes, and
607: the membership probabilities of the (few) brightest stars are
608: unknown. The half-number radii are not significantly affected by
609: the omission of these few stars, which would have an
610: extraordinarily large contribution to the clusters' total fluxes,
611: however.
612:
613: Although \citet{li05} found that the radial profile in the
614: near-infrared of the NGC 2244 member stars disappears into the
615: background field star population at a radius of about 20 arcmin
616: \footnote{See also \citet{li05b}, who claim that the total extent
617: of the cluster is about 20 pc, which -- at a distance of 1.4 kpc
618: -- translates into a linear diameter of about 49 arcmin. Similar
619: size estimates were obtained in the optical by \citet{tow03}, and
620: in X-rays by \citet{berg02} and \citet{che04}.}, our radial
621: profile in Fig. 3 clearly shows that we can follow the cluster's
622: profile out to almost 30 arcmin. This is in keeping with the
623: cluster radius of 11.8 pc derived by \citet{sab01}, which -- at an
624: assumed distance of 1.4 kpc -- corresponds to about 29 arcmin. Our
625: size determination for NGC 6530 is less clear-cut, as Fig. 3
626: shows: the radial profile composed by its member stars appears to
627: merge with the field star population at a radius of around 20
628: arcmin, although this value is rather uncertain. We believe,
629: therefore, that our result is in reasonable agreement with the
630: diameter of roughly 35 arcmin quoted by \citet{anc97}.
631:
632: For both clusters, the model profiles tend to roughly follow the
633: observational data points in the outer regions, but not in detail.
634: This suggests that both clusters do not have well-defined outer
635: radii, but are instead characterized by a significant amount of
636: substructure. There is, in fact, strong evidence that NGC 2244
637: possesses distinct substructures. \citet{li05}, using 2MASS
638: near-infrared imaging, found that the cluster is resolved into an
639: extended distribution of stellar sources associated with its
640: compact core in the south center of the blister H{\sc ii} region,
641: but also into a clear elongated density enhancement in the west.
642: NGC 6530 also exhibit distinct substructures: in a region towards
643: the northwest of the actual cluster center there appears to be a
644: density enhancement of slightly older stars than in the rest of
645: the cluster (e.g., \citet{dam06}). In addition, the VPDs of both
646: clusters (Fig. 1; see also \citet{hig02}, in particular) appear to
647: have axial ratios significantly deviating from unity.
648:
649: Finally, \citet{li05} and \citet{li05b} point out that instead of
650: using a \citet{kin66} profile, a more appropriate radial density
651: profile might be represented by a $R^{-1}$ profile, following
652: suggestions by \citet{bab04} regarding the radial density
653: distributions of embedded star clusters. In Fig. 3, we show the
654: best-fitting $R^{-1}$ profiles for both clusters. For NGC 2244,
655: the best-fitting profile follows $n(R) = 0.046 + 0.615 R^{-1}$,
656: while the equivalent profile for NGC 6530 is $n(R) = 0.020 + 0.791
657: R^{-1}$. We note that whereas the fit to the NGC 6530 radial
658: profile is statistically good, the NGC 2244 distribution is better
659: approximated by a King profile.
660:
661: \subsection{Luminosity distributions}
662:
663: \citet{mas95} provided their $UBV$ observations centered on NGC 2244
664: with the KPNO 0.9m telescope and a Tektronix 2048$\times$2048 CCD,
665: covering a 2800 arcmin$^2$ area. This resulted in accurate photometric
666: data for a total of 773 stars in the cluster region, down to
667: $B\approx18$ mag. By matching our photographic plate observations to
668: the \citet{mas95} sample using a conservative matching tolerance of
669: 0.3 arcsec, 323 stars in common were identified. Furthermore, using a
670: quadratic function, our initial instrumental magnitudes, $B_p$, were
671: converted to the $B$ magnitudes in the \citet{mas95} system.
672:
673: As regards NGC 6530, \citet{pri05} performed $BVI$ observations of the
674: NGC 6530 region using the ESO 2.2m telescope at La Silla,
675: characterized by a field of view of $34\times33$ arcmin$^2$. The
676: limiting magnitude of their work is $V\approx17.5$ mag. We compared
677: our $B_p$ instrumental magnitudes with the $B$ magnitudes of 62 stars
678: in common with \citet{pri05}'s sample. Except for a few stars, we
679: found an obvious linear correlation between the magnitudes, which we
680: used to convert our $B_p$ photometry to the B magnitudes in the $UBV$
681: system.
682:
683: Figure 4 shows the comparison between our instrumental $B_p$
684: photometry and the $B$ magnitudes of $UBV$ system, for both
685: clusters. The photometric uncertainties in both our own data and those
686: taken from the literature are small: \citet{mas95} state that their
687: uncertainties are $< 0.02$ mag for stars brighter than $V=14.5$ mag,
688: and ``do not become appreciable until $V=16$ mag''. The photometric
689: uncertainties in the \citet{pri05} data have a mean value of 0.02 mag,
690: with a maximum error $< 0.2$ mag.
691:
692: For member stars in a given open cluster, all at roughly the same
693: distance, the range in visual magnitudes corresponds to that in
694: luminosity. In addition, when only main-sequence stars are
695: considered, the stellar luminosity is a proxy for the stellar
696: mass. In order to assess the effects of mass segregation, we first
697: examined the luminosity functions of the member stars in different
698: (radial) ranges of the clusters. Figures 5 and 6 show the $M_B$
699: luminosity functions of stars with membership probabilities $p \ge
700: 0.9$ in the two cluster regions.
701:
702: Figures 5a (top) and b (middle) show the luminosity functions of the
703: NGC 2244 cluster members in the inner $(R\leq R_{\rm h})$ and outer
704: $(R> R_{\rm h})$ areas of NGC 2244, where $R_{\rm h}=14$ arcmin is the
705: half-number radius derived from our full sample of 216 member
706: stars. Fig. 5c (bottom) shows the cumulative distributions for both
707: radial regions.
708:
709: Figures 6a (top), b (middle), and c (bottom) show the equivalent
710: results for NGC 6530 (see also \citet{zha06}). Here, we derived a
711: half-number radius of $R_{\rm h}=21$ arcmin from our total sample of
712: 250 member stars.
713:
714: From these two figures, the effects of mass segregation are
715: evident: the relative fraction of brighter stars (or,
716: equivalently, more massive stars) is higher in the inner than in
717: the outer regions. As an alternative approach to investigate these
718: mass segregation effects, we calculated the half-number radii for
719: member stars in different absolute magnitude ranges, i.e., for
720: $M_{B}\leq 0$ and $M_{B}> 0$ mag. The results of this exercise are
721: listed in Table 5 (see \citet{zha06} for a complementary
722: discussion related to NGC 6530; in particular their table 6). It
723: can be seen that for both clusters, the brighter members are
724: characterized by smaller half-number radii -- another indication
725: of the existence of mass segregation in these clusters.
726:
727: To further examine the mass segregation effects, we also investigated
728: the radial density distributions of member stars ($p\geq0.9$) in
729: different luminosity ranges in the clusters, which are shown in Figs.
730: 7 (for NGC 2244) and 8 (for NGC 6530). In each cluster, a
731: position-dependent LF is found. In essence, the fainter (i.e.,
732: lower-mass) stars are spread throughout the entire cluster in both
733: objects, while the brighter (massive) stars are predominantly located
734: in the inner region.
735:
736: \subsection{Velocity-luminosity relation}
737:
738: If the mass segregation effects solely result from the process of
739: two-body relaxation and the associated energy equipartition, one
740: should find some evidence for this effect not only in the spatial
741: distribution of the cluster members, but also in their velocity
742: distribution: the more massive members will have a smaller velocity
743: dispersion than the less massive stars.
744:
745: Accordingly, for true cluster members (with $p\geq0.95$) in
746: different magnitude ranges, the intrinsic proper motion
747: dispersions $\sigma_{\rm int}$ as derived from the observed
748: dispersions $\sigma_{\rm obs}$, and the mean errors intrinsic to
749: the stellar proper motions were investigated. The final results
750: are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. It can be seen from these figures
751: that the intrinsic proper motion dispersions are not significantly
752: different for various magnitude groups. Thus, our data do not
753: support any significant velocity (dispersion)-mass correlation,
754: neither in NGC 2244, nor in NGC 6530 (see also \citet{zha06}).
755:
756: \section{Discussion and Summary}
757: \label{discussion.sec}
758:
759: The traditional explanation for (position dependent) mass
760: segregation in an open cluster is that it results from a situation
761: in which all cluster stars approach energy equipartition. However,
762: this is unlikely the case for NGC 2244 and NGC 6530, since both
763: clusters are very young, low-density objects (but see
764: \citet{por07} for counterarguments). With ages of only around 2--3
765: Myr, their ages are comparable to the time-scale of about only one
766: or two crossing times.
767:
768: Theoretically, the nature and degree of ``primordial'' mass
769: segregation, i.e., mass segregation intrinsic to the
770: star-formation process itself, is presumably determined by the
771: properties of the interactions of protostellar material during the
772: star-forming episode in a cluster. More massive stars are subject
773: to more mergers, hence accrete even more mass (cf.
774: \citet{lar91,bon01a,bon01b} and references therein), and therefore
775: dissipate more kinetic energy. In addition, they tend to form near
776: the cluster center, in the highest-density region, where the
777: encounter-rate is highest
778: \citep{lar91,bon97,bon98b,bon01a,bon01b,bon98a}. This will lead to
779: an observed position-dependent stellar mass function containing
780: more low-mass stars at larger radii compared to the mass function
781: in the cluster center (although low-mass stars are still present
782: at small radii, see also the discussions in \citet{gri02a,gri02b};
783: but see \citet{por07} for arguments in favor of excluding
784: primordial mass segregation to explain recent observations of the
785: Arches cluster near the Galactic Center).
786:
787: From an observational point of view, the study of very young star
788: clusters still embedded in the molecular clouds from which they
789: originated might give us a handle to constrain the degree of
790: primordial mass segregation. In the Milky Way, in three such young
791: star clusters mass segregation effects have been studied in great
792: detail in the past two decades.
793:
794: While \citet{lad91} suggested, based on ground-based observations,
795: that the brighter stars in NGC 2024 (and the Mon R2 complex at
796: large) seem to be more centrally concentrated than the fainter
797: cluster members, this evidence was deemed inconclusive by
798: \citet{car97}. They argued that this result was based on an
799: incomplete sample of cluster members, although mass segregation
800: might be limited to the massive, bright OB stars forming in the
801: very center. These same authors argued that for masses below $2
802: M_\odot$, mass segregation effects in the Mon R2 complex amount to
803: only a $\sim 2 \sigma$ result.
804:
805: Secondly, a combination of both ground-based (e.g., \citet{hil97}
806: and {\sl Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} observations (e.g.,
807: \citet{hil98}) of the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC), and in
808: particular of its very core, the Trapezium stars, have presented
809: clear evidence for mass segregation for the $m > 5 M_\odot$
810: component, with some evidence for general mass segregation down to
811: $m \simeq 1$--$2 M_\odot$ (\citet{hil98}; see also the review by
812: \citet{lar93}).
813:
814: Finally, R136, the central cluster in 30 Doradus in the Large
815: Magellanic Cloud (LMC; age $\lesssim$ 3--4 Myr; cf.
816: \citet{hun95}), has been studied extensively, both from the ground
817: and with the {\sl HST}. A variety of techniques have revealed a
818: significant overabundance of high-mass stars in its very center,
819: thus supporting strong mass segregation (e.g.,
820: \citet{cam92,lar93,mal94,bra96}).
821:
822: Thus, in most of the (still partially embedded) young star clusters
823: that can be resolved in individual stars, mass segregation effects are
824: observed, although to varying degrees. This underlines the importance
825: of our understanding of the physical processes involved in the
826: formation and evolution of star clusters, and in particular of the
827: IMF, which will ultimately determine the time-scale on which a young
828: star cluster will eventually be destroyed.
829:
830: We may conclude from the above discussion that the observed
831: spatial mass segregation in the young open clusters NGC 2244 and
832: NGC 6530 might have resulted from a combination of both initial
833: conditions in the early stages of evolution and, possibly,
834: two-body relaxation process. The latter process will lead to a
835: manifestation of cluster-wide mass segregation on the half-mass
836: relaxation time-scale. However, it will proceed much faster in
837: higher-density regions in the cluster, and among the more massive
838: stars -- both of these conditions favor an decreased time-scale in
839: the cluster center.
840:
841: Finally, we will consider the long-term fate of the two young clusters
842: discussed in this paper in relation to their (observed) IMF and
843: velocity dispersion. Both clusters have been scrutinized with the aim
844: of determining their stellar make-up. Because of their very young
845: ages, the stellar content in essence reflects the mass distribution at
846: the time of their birth, as insufficient time has passed for any
847: significant number of stars to have undergone a full cycle of stellar
848: evolution (and neither for significant dynamical evolution to have
849: occurred, as argued above).
850:
851: \citet{par02} determined the IMF of NGC 2244 in the mass range
852: $-0.5 \le \log (m_\ast / M_\odot) \le 2.0$. They found a flat IMF
853: slope, with $\Gamma = -0.7 \pm 0.1$, where the equivalent slope of
854: the \citet{sal55} IMF would be $\Gamma = -1.35$. Their result is
855: in close agreement both with that of \citet{mas95} in the range
856: from $\sim 7$ to $15 M_\odot$, and with that of \citet{per91} for
857: stars with masses in excess of $4 M_\odot$, $\Gamma = -0.7$.
858:
859: Such a flat IMF implies that the cluster's stellar population contains
860: too many massive stars with respect to their lower-mass counterparts
861: for it to survive the dynamical effects leading to cluster dissolution
862: for any significant amount of time (see, e.g., \citet{smi01} in the
863: context of the young massive cluster M82-F; and
864: \citet{che87,che90,goo97} for theoretical arguments in support of this
865: notion). The precise dissolution time-scale depends sensitively on the
866: IMF mass range (Kouwenhoven et al., in prep.). This conclusion is
867: supported by arguments related to the cluster's velocity
868: dispersion. Its intrinsic overall velocity dispersion is $\sigma_{\rm
869: tot}^{\rm int} = 4.45 \pm 0.15$ mas yr$^{-1}$; at the adopted
870: distance, $D = 1.7$ kpc, this is equivalent to $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\rm
871: int} \simeq 35$ km s$^{-1}$. \footnote{We note that if we assume that
872: this is the cluster's expansion velocity, the dynamical age of the
873: star-forming region centered on the cluster is of order 0.4 Myr. This
874: is remarkably close to the dynamical age of the nebula, estimated at
875: $0.2 - 0.6$ Myr by \citet{mat67}.} This large linear velocity
876: dispersion is significantly in excess of the ``typical'' velocity
877: dispersions older open clusters in the Milky Way characterized by a
878: Salpeter-type IMF, or equivalent (de Grijs et al., in prep.). Thus,
879: the combination of these arguments leads us to conclude that NGC 2244
880: will most likely dissolve on a short time-scale (see also
881: \citet{li05b} for a more conservative back-of-the-envelope calculation
882: supporting our conclusion). -- if not due to internal two-body
883: relaxation effects, then most likely because of external shocks
884: expected to operate near its location in, or close to, the Galactic
885: disk (although we note that these effects may not be very significant
886: in the Galactic anticenter direction)
887:
888: NGC 6530, on the other hand, exhibits a power-law IMF slope of
889: $\Gamma = -1.22 \pm 0.17$ for stellar masses between 0.6 and $4
890: M_\odot$ \citep{pri05}, fully consistent with the \citet{sal55}
891: IMF. They note that the cluster IMF peaks towards smaller masses
892: and then declines. This is in keeping with the detailed
893: photometric study of \citet{sun00}, who quote an IMF slope of
894: $\Gamma = -1.3 \pm 0.1$, largely independent of the mass to
895: luminosity conversion employed. Its intrinsic velocity dispersion
896: is $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\rm int} = 1.48 \pm 0.14$ mas yr$^{-1}$; at
897: the adopted distance, $D = 1250$ pc, this is equivalent to
898: $\sigma_{\rm tot}^{\rm int} \simeq 8$ km s$^{-1}$, i.e., much
899: closer to the dynamical state required for longer-term survival,
900: although still fairly large (de Grijs et al., in prep.). In the
901: absence of sizeable external perturbations, we speculate,
902: therefore, that NGC 6530 has the potential to survive for a
903: significant length of time, possibly of order a few $\times 10^8$
904: yr. However, we also note that the cluster is situated very close
905: to the Galactic plane in the direction of the Galactic Center,
906: such that external perturbations are unlikely to remain
907: insignificant for any length of time.
908:
909: Finally, we point out that the large velocity dispersions obtained
910: for both young clusters imply that these objects are unlikely to
911: survive for any significant length of time. The velocity
912: dispersions of `classical' old ($\ga 10^8$ yr) bound open clusters
913: are of order $\la 1.5$ km s$^{-1}$ as shown by, e.g.,
914: \citet{loh72} in what is probably the most comprehensive study of
915: open cluster velocity dispersions available to date. A small
916: subset of these measurements have since been confirmed in more
917: recent studies of individual objects (de Grijs et al., in prep.).
918: For instance, the velocity dispersion of the $522 \pm 82$ Myr-old
919: \citep{pau06} central cluster in Coma Berenices is $\sigma_{\rm
920: 1D} = 0.27 \pm 0.07$ km s$^{-1}$ (\citet{loh72}; cf. $\sigma_{\rm
921: 1D} \sim 0.3$ km s$^{-1}$ measured in the cluster core by
922: \citet{ode98}); that of M67 (at an age of $\sim 4.0$ Gyr;
923: \citet{pau06}) ranges from $0.49 - 1.28$ km s$^{-1}$, with a best
924: estimate of $0.81 \pm 0.10$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep[see][de Grijs et
925: al., in prep.]{gir89}, while the velocity dispersion of Praesepe
926: (M44) is $0.46 \pm 0.2$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{jon71}, at an age of
927: $753 \pm 201$ Myr \citep{pau06}. M35 ($\log( {\rm Age/yr} ) =
928: 8.26^{+0.05}_{-0.30}$; \citet{kal03}) is characterized by
929: $\sigma_{\rm 1D}$ from $0.76 \pm 0.19$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{loh72}
930: to $1.00 \pm 0.10$ km s$^{-1}$ \citep{mcn86}. Although we refer
931: the reader for further details on the kinematic structure and
932: long-term stability of Galactic open clusters to a forthcoming
933: paper (de Grijs et al., in prep.), these examples show that in
934: order for an open cluster to survive for a few $\times 10^8$ yr,
935: its velocity dispersion needs to be sufficiently small so as to
936: prevent early dissolution of the cluster due to internal kinematic
937: effects. Neither of the clusters discussed in this paper satisfies
938: this empirical condition. The only old ($\log( {\rm Age/yr} ) =
939: 8.4 \pm 0.1$; \citet{sun99}) Galactic open cluster with a measured
940: velocity dispersion in excess of the range indicated above is M11,
941: with $\sigma_{\rm 1D}$ from $1.21 \pm 0.35$ km s$^{-1}$
942: \citep{mat84} to 2.9 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{mcn77}; the latter
943: measurement was later reduced to 2.0 km s$^{-1}$ \citep{mcn86}.
944: This high velocity dispersion, for an ostensibly stable {\it
945: massive} open cluster, is still more than a factor of two below
946: that of NGC 6530, which is both significantly less massive and
947: less compact than M11, and thus less stable to kinematic
948: dissolution.
949:
950: The main points of the present study can be summarized as follows:
951:
952: \begin{enumerate}
953: \item From the photographic plate data of the Shanghai Astronomical
954: Observatory, the proper motions of stars in the region of the open
955: clusters NGC 2244 and NGC 6530 were reduced by means of a
956: central-overlapping technique, and the distribution parameters of the
957: clusters as well as the membership probabilities of the individual
958: stars in the cluster region were determined using a maximum likelihood
959: principle.
960:
961: \item Both clusters show clear evidence of mass segregation, but there
962: is no definite evidence for a velocity (dispersion)-mass (or,
963: equivalently, a velocity-luminosity) dependence in these clusters. The
964: observed mass segregation might be due to a combination of both
965: initial conditions and relaxation processes.
966:
967: \item Based on arguments related to the clusters' IMFs, in conjunction
968: with our new measurements of their internal velocity dispersions, we
969: provide strong arguments in favor of the dissolution of NGC 2244 on
970: very short time-scales, while we speculate that NGC 6530 may be more
971: stable against the effects of internal two-body relaxation.
972:
973: \end{enumerate}
974:
975: \acknowledgments
976:
977: RdG was partially supported by an ``International Joint Project''
978: grant, jointly funded by the Royal Society in the UK and the
979: Chinese National Science Foundation (NSFC). LC \& JLZ want to
980: thank Dr. Peter Stetson of DAO for his kind help in measuring
981: plates with the PDS machine. LC and JLZ are supported by the NSFC
982: (Grant Nos. 10333050, 10333020).This research has made use of the
983: WEBDA database, operated at the Institute for Astronomy of the
984: University of Vienna.
985:
986: \begin{thebibliography}{}
987: \bibitem[Baba et al.(2004)]{bab04} Baba, D., et al. 2004, ApJ, 614, 818
988: \bibitem[Bergh\"{o}fer \& Christian(2002)]{berg02} Bergh\"ofer,T. W., \& Christian, D. J. 2002, A\&A, 384, 890
989: \bibitem[Blitz \& Stark(1986)]{bli86} Blitz, L., \& Stark,A. A. 1986, ApJ, 300, L89
990: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(1997)]{bon97} Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., Clarke, C. J., \& Pringle,J. E. 1997, MNRAS, 285, 201
991: \bibitem[Bonnell \& Davies(1998)]{bon98a} Bonnell, I. A., \& Davies, M. B. 1998, MNRAS, 295, 691
992: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(1998)]{bon98b} Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R., \& Zinnecker, H. 1998,MNRAS, 298, 93
993: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2001a)]{bon01a} Bonnell, I. A., Bate, M. R.,Clarke, C. J., \& Pringle, J. E. 2001a, MNRAS, 323, 785
994: \bibitem[Bonnell et al.(2001b)]{bon01b} Bonnell, I. A., Clarke, C. J., Bate, M. R., \& Pringle,J. E. 2001b, MNRAS, 324, 573
995: \bibitem[Brandl et al.(1996)]{bra96} Brandl, B., Sams, B. J., Bertoldi, F., Eckart, A.,Genzel, R., Drapatz, S., Hofmann, R., L\"owe, M., \& Quirrenbach, A. 1996, ApJ, 466, 254
996: \bibitem[Cambell et al.(1992)]{cam92} Campbell, B., et al. 1992, AJ, 104, 1721
997: \bibitem[Carpenter et al.(1997)]{car97} Carpenter, J. M., Meyer, M. R., Dougados, C., Strom,S. E., \& Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 198
998: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2004)]{che04}Chen, W. P., Chiang, P.S. \& Li, J.Z. 2004, ChJAA, 4, 153
999: \bibitem[Chernoff \& Shapiro(1987)]{che87} Chernoff, D. F., \& Shapiro, S. L. 1987, ApJ, 322, 113
1000: \bibitem[Chernoff \& Weinberg(1990)]{che90} Chernoff, D. F., \& Weinberg, M. D. 1990, ApJ, 351, 121
1001: \bibitem[Chini \& Neckel(1981)]{chi81} Chini, R., \& Neckel, T. 1981, A\&A, 102, 171
1002: \bibitem[Cudworth(1976)]{cud76} Cudworth, K. 1976, AJ, 81, 519
1003: \bibitem[Damiani et al.(2004)]{dam04} Damiani, F., et al. 2004, \apj, 608, 781
1004: \bibitem[Damiani et al.(2006)]{dam06} Damiani, F., Prisinzano, L., Micela, G., \& Sciortino, S. 2006, A\&A, 459, 477
1005: \bibitem[de Grijs et al.(2002a)]{gri02a} de Grijs, R., Gilmore, G. F., Johnson, R. A., \& Mackey, A. D. 2002a, \mnras, 331, 245
1006: \bibitem[de Grijs et al.(2002b)]{gri02b} de Grijs, R., Gilmore, G. F., Mackey, A. D., Wilkinson, M. I., Beaulieu, S. F., Johnson, R. A., \& Santiago, B. X. 2002b, \mnras, 337, 597
1007: \bibitem[Girard et al.(1989)]{gir89} Girard, T. M., Grundy, W. M., L\'opez, C. E., \& van Altena, W. F. 1989, AJ, 98, 227
1008: \bibitem[Goodwin(1997)]{goo97} Goodwin, S. P. 1997, MNRAS, 284, 785
1009: \bibitem[Hensberge et al.(2000)]{hen00} Hensberge, H., Pavlovski, K., \& Verschueren, W. 2000, A\&A, 358, 553
1010: \bibitem[Higuera et al.(2002)]{hig02} Higuera G., M. A., Uribe, A., \& Barrera, R. S. 2002, Rev. Mex. A\&A (Ser. de Conf.), 14, 33
1011: \bibitem[Hillenbrand(1997)]{hil97} Hillenbrand, L. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 1733
1012: \bibitem[Hillenbrand \& Hartmann(1998)]{hil98} Hillenbrand, L. A., \& Hartmann, L. E. 1998, ApJ, 492, 540
1013: \bibitem[H{\o}g et al.(2000)]{hog00} H{\o}g E., Fabricius C., Makarov V.V., Urban S., Corbin T., Wycoff G., Bastian U., Schwekendiek P. \& Wicenec A. 2000, A\&A, 355, L27
1014: \bibitem[Hunter et al.(1995)]{hun95} Hunter, D. A., Shaya, E. J., Holtzman, J. A., Light, R. M., O'Neil, E. J., \& Lynds, R. 1995, ApJ, 448, 179
1015: \bibitem[Jones(1971)]{jon71} Jones, B. 1971, AJ, 76, 470
1016: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2003)]{kal03} Kalirai, J. S., Fahlman, G. G., Richer, H. B., \& Ventura, P. 2003, AJ, 126, 1402
1017: \bibitem[King(1966)]{kin66} King, I. 1966, AJ, 71, 64
1018: \bibitem[Lada et al.(1976)]{lad76} Lada, C. J., Gottlieb, C. A., Gottlieb, E. W., \& Gull, T. R. 1976, ApJ, 203, 159
1019: \bibitem[Lada et al.(1991)]{lad91} Lada, E. A., DePoy, D. L., Evans, N. J., \& Gatley, I. 1991, ApJ, 371, 171
1020: \bibitem[Larson(1991)]{lar91} Larson, R. B. 1991, in: Fragmentation of Molecular Clouds and Star Formation, IAU Symp. 147, Falgarone, E., Boulanger, F., \& Duvert, G., eds., Dordrecht: Kluwer, p. 261
1021: \bibitem[Larson(1993)]{lar93} Larson, R. B. 1993, in: The Globular Cluster--Galaxy Connection, Smith, G. H., \& Brodie, J. P., eds., ASP Conf. Ser. 48, (ASP: San Francisco), p. 675
1022: \bibitem[Larson(2003)]{lar03} Larson, R. B. 2003, ASP Conf. Ser., 287, 65
1023: \bibitem[Li(2005)]{li05} Li, J. Z. 2005, ApJ, 625, 242
1024: \bibitem[Li \& Smith(2005a)]{li05a} Li, J. Z., \& Smith, M. D. 2005a, A\&A, 431, 925
1025: \bibitem[Li \& Smith(2005b)]{li05b} Li, J. Z., \& Smith, M. D. 2005b, AJ, 130, 721
1026: \bibitem[Lohman(1972)]{loh72} Lohman, W. 1972, Astron. Nachr., 293, 259
1027: \bibitem[Loktin \& Beshenov(2001)]{lok01} Loktin, A. V., \& Beshenov, G. V. 2001, Astr. Lett., 27, 386
1028: \bibitem[Malumuth \& Heap(1994)]{mal94} Malumuth, E. M., \& Heap, S. R. 1994, AJ, 107, 1054
1029: \bibitem[Marschall et al.(1982)]{mar82} Marschall, L. A., van Altena, W. F., \& Chiu, L.-T. 1982, AJ, 87, 1497
1030: \bibitem[Massey et al.(1995)]{mas95} Massey, P., Johnson, K. E., \& Degioia-Eastwood, K. 1995, ApJ, 454, 151
1031: \bibitem[Mathieu(1984)]{mat84} Mathieu, R. D. 1984, ApJ, 284, 643
1032: \bibitem[Matthews(1967)]{mat67} Matthews, W. G. 1967, ApJ, 147, 965
1033: \bibitem[McCall et al.(1990)]{mcc90} McCall, M. L., Richer, M. G., \& Visvanathan, N. 1990, ApJ, 357, 502
1034: \bibitem[McNamara \& Sanders(1977)]{mcn77} McNamara, B. J., \& Sanders, W. L. 1977, A\&A, 54, 569
1035: \bibitem[McNamara \& Sekiguchi(1986)]{mcn86} McNamara, B. J., \& Sekiguchi, K. 1986, AJ, 310, 613
1036: \bibitem[Mermilliod \& Paunzen(2003)]{merm03} Mermilliod, J.-C., \& Paunzen, E. 2003, A\&A, 410, 511
1037: \bibitem[Odenkirchen et al.(1998)]{ode98} Odenkirchen, M., Soubiran, C., \& Colin, J. 1998, NewA, 3, 583
1038: \bibitem[Ogura \& Ishida(1981)]{ogu81} Ogura, K., \& Ishida, K. 1981, PASJ, 33, 149
1039: \bibitem[Park \& Sung(2002)]{par02} Park, B.-G., \& Sung, H., 2002, AJ, 123, 892
1040: \bibitem[Paunzen \& Netopil(2006)]{pau06} Paunzen, E., \& Netopil, M. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1641
1041: \bibitem[P\'erez(1987)]{per87} P\'erez, M. R., The, P. S., \& Westerlund, B. E., 1987, PASP, 99, 1050
1042: \bibitem[P\'erez et al.(1989)]{per89} P\'erez, M. R., Jones, M. D., The, P. S., \& Westerlund, B. E. 1989, PASP, 101,195
1043: \bibitem[P\'erez(1991)]{per91} P\'erez, M. R. 1991, Rev. Mex. A\&A, 22, 99
1044: \bibitem[Portegies Zwart et al.(2007)]{por07} Portegies Zwart, S. F., Gaburov, E., Chen, H.-C., \& G\"urkan, M. A. 2007, MNRAS (letters), in press (astro-ph/0702693)
1045: \bibitem[Prisinzano et al.(2005)]{pri05} Prisinzano, L., Damiani, F., Micela, G., \& Sciortino, S. 2005, A\&A, 430, 941
1046: \bibitem[Prisinzano et al.(2007)]{pri07} Prisinzano, L., Damiani, F., Micela, G., \& Pillitteri, I. 2007, A\&A, 462, 123
1047: \bibitem[Rauw et al.(2002)]{rau02} Rauw, G., Naz{\'e}, Y., Gosset, E., Stevens, I. R., Blomme, R., Corcoran, M. F., Pittard, J. M., \& Runacres, M. C. 2002, A\&A, 395, 499
1048: \bibitem[Russell(1976)]{rus76} Russell, J. L. 1976, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pittsburgh
1049: \bibitem[Sabogal-Mart\'\i nez et al.(2001)]{sab01} Sabogal-Mart\'\i nez, B. E., Garc\'\i a-Varela, J. A., Higuera G., M. A., Uribe, A., \& Brieva, E. 2001, Rev. Mex. A\&A, 37, 105
1050: \bibitem[Sagar(1978)]{sag78} Sagar, R., \& Joshi, U. C. 1978, MNRAS, 184, 467
1051: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{sal55} Salpeter, E. E. 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
1052: \bibitem[Smith \& Gallagher(2001)]{smi01} Smith, L. J., \& Gallagher, J. S. {\sc iii} 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1027
1053: \bibitem[Sterzik et al.(1995)]{ste95} Sterzik, M. F., Alcala, J. M., Neuh\"auser, R., \& Schmitt, J. H. M. M. 1995, A\&A, 297, 418
1054: \bibitem[Stilburn et al.(1992)]{stil92} Stilburn, J. R., Stetson, P. B., \& Fisher, W. A. 1992, JRASC, 86, 140
1055: \bibitem[Sung et al.(1999)]{sun99} Sung, H., Bessell, M. S., Lee H.-W., Kang, Y. H., \& Lee, S.-W. 1999, MNRAS, 310, 982
1056: \bibitem[Sung et al.(2000)]{sun00} Sung, H., Chun, M.-Y., \& Bessell, M. S. 2000, AJ, 120, 333
1057: \bibitem[The(1960)]{the60} The, P.-S. 1960, ApJ, 132, 40
1058: \bibitem[Townsley et al.(2003)]{tow03} Townsley, L. K., Feigelson, E. D., Montmerle, T., Broos, P. S., Chu, Y.-H., \& Garmire, G. P. 2003, ApJ, 593, 874
1059: \bibitem[Turner(1976)]{tur76} Turner, D. G. 1976, ApJ, 210, 65
1060: \bibitem[van Altena \& Jones(1972)]{alt72} van Altena, W. F., \& Jones, B. F. 1972, A\&A, 20, 425
1061: \bibitem[van den Ancker et al.(1997)]{anc97} van den Ancker, M. E., The, P. S., Feinstein, A., V\'azquez, R. A., de Winter, D., \& P\'erez, M. R. 1997, A\&AS, 123, 63
1062: \bibitem[van Schewick(1958)]{sch58} van Schewick, H. 1958, Veroff. Univ. Sternwarte, No. 51
1063: \bibitem[Verschueren(1991)]{ver91} Verschueren, W. 1991, Ph.D. Thesis, Vrije Univ. Brussels (VUB)
1064: \bibitem[Walker(1957)]{wal57} Walker, M. F. 1957, ApJ, 125, 636
1065: \bibitem[Wang et al.(1996)]{wan96} Wang, J. J., Chen, L., \& Zhao, J. H. 1996, Acta Astr. Sin., 37, 68
1066: \bibitem[Wang et al.(1997)]{wan97} Wang, J. J. 1997, Annals of Shanghai Observatory, Acad. Sinica, 18, 45
1067: \bibitem[Wen et al.(2006)]{wen06} Wen, W., Zhao, J.-L., \& Chen, L. 2006, Chin. A\&A, 30, 274
1068: \bibitem[Williams et al.(1995)]{wil95} Williams, J. P., Blitz, L., \& Stark, A. A. 1995, ApJ, 451, 252
1069: \bibitem[Zhao et al.(2006)]{zha06} Zhao, J.-L., Chen, L., \& Wen W. 2006, ChJA\&A, 4, 435
1070: \bibitem[Zhao \& He(1987)]{zha87} Zhao, J. L., \& He, Y. P. 1987, Acta Astr. Sin., 28, 374
1071:
1072: \end{thebibliography}
1073:
1074: \clearpage
1075:
1076: % figure 1
1077: \begin{figure}
1078: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps} \caption{Vector-point diagrams for both
1079: NGC 2244 (left) and NGC 6530 (right); the solid points represent
1080: the stars with membership probabilities $p \ge 0.9$, whereas the
1081: crosses indicate the $p \le 0.5$. The open circles have $p$ values
1082: in between these boundaries.\label{fig1}}
1083: \end{figure}
1084:
1085: % figure 2!!
1086: \begin{figure}
1087: \plottwo{f2a.eps}{f2b.eps} \caption{Histogram of the stellar
1088: membership probabilities. {\it Left panel:} 495 stars in the
1089: region of NGC 2244; {\it Right panel:} 364 stars in region of NGC
1090: 6530.\label{fig2}}
1091: \end{figure}
1092:
1093: % figure 3
1094: \begin{figure}
1095: \plottwo{f3a.eps}{f3b.eps} \caption{Radial number density profiles
1096: of the stars in the open cluster regions. {\it Left:} NGC 2244;
1097: {\it Right:} NGC 6530. $\ast$: field stars with membership
1098: probabilities $p\leq0.5$; $\cdot$: member stars with $p\geq0.9$.
1099: Solid lines: Gaussian profiles; dashed lines: $R^{-1}$ profiles.
1100: \label{fig3}}
1101: \end{figure}
1102:
1103: % figure 4
1104: \begin{figure}
1105: \plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps} \caption{Comparison between our
1106: instrumental $B_p$ photometry and the $B$ magnitudes of the $UBV$
1107: system. {\it Left:} 323 stars in common with Massey et al. (1995);
1108: {\it Right:} 58 stars in common with \citet{pri05} \label{fig4}}
1109: \end{figure}
1110:
1111: % figure 5
1112: \begin{figure}
1113: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f5.eps} \caption{Luminosity function of NGC
1114: 2244. {\it Top:} 110 member stars in the inner area $(r\leq 14')$;
1115: {\it middle:} 106 member stars in the outer region $(r> 14')$; {\it
1116: bottom:} cumulative luminosity functions for both radial regions
1117: \label{fig5}}
1118: \end{figure}
1119:
1120: % figure 6
1121: \begin{figure}
1122: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f6.eps} \caption{Luminosity function of NGC
1123: 6530. {\it Top:} 125 member stars in the inner area $(r\leq 21')$;
1124: {\it middle:} 125 member stars in the outer region $(r> 21')$; {\it
1125: bottom:} cumulative luminosity functions for both radial regions
1126: \label{fig6}}
1127: \end{figure}
1128:
1129: % figure 7
1130: \begin{figure}
1131: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f7.eps} \caption{Normalized cumulative
1132: radial number density profile for NGC 2244 members with $m_B \leq
1133: 13$ (o) and $m_B > 13$ ($\ast$) \label{fig7}}
1134: \end{figure}
1135:
1136: % figure 8
1137: \begin{figure}
1138: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f8.eps} \caption{Normalized cumulative
1139: radial number density profile for NGC 6530 members with $m_B \leq
1140: 12$ (o) and $m_B > 12$ ($\ast$) \label{fig8}}
1141: \end{figure}
1142:
1143: % figure 9
1144: \begin{figure}
1145: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f9.eps} \caption{Proper motion dispersion
1146: of NGC 2244 members as a function of $m_B$ magnitude.
1147: \label{fig9}}
1148: \end{figure}
1149:
1150: % figure 10
1151: \begin{figure}
1152: \epsscale{.80} \plotone{f10.eps} \caption{Proper motion dispersion
1153: of NGC 6530 members as a function of $m_B$ magnitude.
1154: \label{fig10}}
1155: \end{figure}
1156:
1157:
1158: \clearpage
1159:
1160: %% Our tables
1161: % table 1
1162: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1163: \label{tab1}
1164: \tablecolumns{6} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Internal levels of uncertainty on the stellar positions
1165: and proper motions} \tablehead{ \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{NGC 2244} & \colhead{} &
1166: \multicolumn{2}{c}{NGC 6530} \\
1167: \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6} \\
1168: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Median error} & \colhead{Maximum
1169: error} & \colhead{} & \colhead{Median error} &
1170: \colhead{Maximum error} }
1171: \startdata
1172: $\alpha$ & $0^{\rm s}.003$ & $0^{\rm s}.017$ & & $0^{\rm s}.003$& $0^{\rm s}.014$ \\
1173: $\delta$ & $0''.043$ & $0''.33$ & & $0''.06$& $0''.16$ \\
1174: $\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta$ & 1.39 mas yr$^{-1}$ & 8.88 mas yr$^{-1}$ & & 0.95 mas yr$^{-1}$ & 2.74 mas yr$^{-1}$ \\
1175: $\mu_{\delta}$ & 1.56 mas yr$^{-1}$ & 9.54 mas yr$^{-1}$ & & 1.21 mas yr$^{-1}$ & 4.05 mas yr$^{-1}$ \\
1176: \enddata
1177: \end{deluxetable}
1178:
1179: \clearpage
1180:
1181: % table 2
1182: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
1183: \tablecolumns{4} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Estimates of
1184: the distribution parameters} \tablehead{ \colhead{} &
1185: \colhead{NGC 2244} & \colhead{} &
1186: \colhead{NGC 6530} \\
1187: \cline{2-2} \cline{4-4} \\
1188: \colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Estimate and uncertainty} &
1189: \colhead{} & \colhead{Estimate and uncertainty} } \startdata
1190: $\mu_{x{\rm c}}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $-2.51\pm0.23$ & & $2.59\pm0.16$ \\
1191: $\mu_{y{\rm c}}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $-3.02\pm0.25$ & & $-3.48\pm0.17$ \\
1192: $\mu_{x{\rm f}}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $-0.41\pm0.38$ & & $3.62\pm0.34$ \\
1193: $\mu_{y{\rm f}}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $-2.81\pm0.28$ & & $-7.69\pm0.88$ \\
1194: $\sigma_{0} $(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $1.48\pm0.14$ & & $2.41\pm0.40$ \\
1195: $\sigma_{x0}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $2.99\pm0.25$ & & $9.19\pm0.17$ \\
1196: $\sigma_{y0}$(mas yr$^{-1}$) & $4.81\pm0.23$ & & $8.71\pm0.36$ \\
1197: $\rho $ & $-0.59\pm0.04$ & & $0.22\pm0.07$ \\
1198: $\alpha(')$ & $13.24\pm0.14$ & & $24.45\pm0.70$ \\
1199: $ g $ & $19.56\pm0.79$ & & $8.84\pm0.21$ \\
1200: \enddata
1201: \end{deluxetable}
1202:
1203: \clearpage
1204:
1205: % table 3
1206:
1207: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrr}
1208: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \rotate \tablecaption{Proper motions,
1209: membership probabilities and $B$ magnitude of 495 stars in the
1210: region of NGC 2244} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{ \colhead{No.} &
1211: \colhead{R.A. (J2000.0)} & \colhead{Dec (J2000.0)} &
1212: \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm PA}$} &
1213: \colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$} &
1214: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm PD}$} & \colhead{$B$ (mag)} & \colhead{$p$} \\
1215: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} &
1216: \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} &
1217: \colhead{} & \colhead{}
1218: }
1219: \startdata
1220: 1 & 06 31 35.826 & +04 30 51.70 & $-$6.142 & 0.919 & 4.685 & 0.405 & 8.720 & 0.62 \\
1221: 2 & 06 32 10.470 & +04 57 59.75 & $-$1.600 & 1.486 & $-$0.421 & 2.184 & 8.350 & 0.92 \\
1222: 3 & 06 31 36.322 & +04 55 59.53 & 0.336 & 0.464 & $-$4.710 & 1.008 & 8.830 & 0.89 \\
1223: 4 & 06 31 38.396 & +05 01 36.38 & $-$1.673 & 0.639 & $-$0.232 & 1.303 & 8.110 & 0.89 \\
1224: 5 & 06 31 16.839 & +04 37 25.92 & $-$0.074 & 0.425 & $-$3.398 & 1.127 & 9.039 & 0.73 \\
1225:
1226: \enddata
1227: \tablecomments{This table is published in its entirety in the
1228: electronic edition. A portion is shown here for guidance
1229: regarding its form and content.}
1230: \end{deluxetable}
1231:
1232: \clearpage
1233: % table 4
1234:
1235: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrrr}
1236: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize} \rotate \tablecaption{Proper motions,
1237: membership probabilities and $B$ magnitude of 364 stars in the
1238: region of NGC 6530} \tablewidth{0pt} \tablehead{ \colhead{No} &
1239: \colhead{R.A. (J2000.0)} & \colhead{Dec (J2000.0)} &
1240: \colhead{$\mu_{\alpha}\cos\delta$} & \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm PA}$} &
1241: \colhead{$\mu_{\delta}$} &
1242: \colhead{$\sigma_{\rm PD}$} & \colhead{$B$ (mag)} & \colhead{$p$} \\
1243: \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} &
1244: \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} & \colhead{mas yr$^{-1}$} &
1245: \colhead{} & \colhead{}
1246: }
1247: \startdata
1248: 1 & 18 04 25.848 & $-$24 23 08.27 & 6.469 & 0.815 & $-$6.376 & 2.249 & 8.55 &
1249: 0.94 \\
1250: 2 & 18 06 04.702 & $-$24 11 43.84 & 5.989 & 0.591 & $-$8.649 & 1.670 & 8.64 &
1251: 0.83 \\
1252: 3 & 18 04 15.222 & $-$24 11 00.07 & 2.958 & 0.877 & $-$2.713 & 1.067 & 9.12 &
1253: 0.99 \\
1254: 4 & 18 02 39.798 & $-$24 14 47.40 & 7.732 & 0.405 & 0.474 & 3.538 & 9.22 &
1255: 0.74 \\
1256: 5 & 18 04 14.538 & $-$24 14 36.31 & 8.511 & 0.853 & 9.241 & 1.665 & 9.35 &
1257: 0.00 \\
1258:
1259: \enddata
1260: \tablecomments{This table is published in its entirety in the
1261: electronic edition. A portion is shown here for guidance
1262: regarding its form and content.}
1263: \end{deluxetable}
1264:
1265:
1266: \clearpage
1267: % table 5
1268: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
1269: \tablecolumns{6} \tablewidth{0pc} \tablecaption{Half-number radii
1270: of cluster members for different magnitude ranges} \tablehead{
1271: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{NGC 2244} & \colhead{} &
1272: \multicolumn{2}{c}{NGC 6530} \\
1273: \cline{2-3} \cline{5-6} \\
1274: \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$N$ (stars)} & \colhead{Half-number
1275: radius} & \colhead{} & \colhead{$N$ (stars)} &
1276: \colhead{Half-number radius} } \startdata
1277: All member stars & 216 & $13.5'$ & & 250 & $20.7'$ \\
1278: $M_{B}\leq0$ mag & 38 & $9.2'$ & & 62 & $9.8'$ \\
1279: $M_{B}>0$ mag & 178 & $14.3'$ & & 188 & $23.2'$ \\
1280: \enddata
1281: \end{deluxetable}
1282:
1283: \end{document}
1284: