1: % v1 MHS
2: % v2 MHS
3: % v3 MHS Jun 08, 2007
4: % v4 SRM Jun 10, 2007
5: % v4.1 MHS Jun 11, 2007
6: % v6 SRM Jun 11, 2007
7: % v7 MHS Jun 12, 2007
8: % v8 SRM Jun 12, 2007
9: % v9 MHS Jun 13, 2007
10: % v10
11: % v11 SRM Jun 19, 2007 Trim further, add more comments for Mike.
12:
13: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
14: %\documentclass[apjl]{emulateapj}
15:
16: \def\lea{\mathrel{<\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
17: \def\gea{\mathrel{>\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
18:
19:
20: \newcommand{\myemail}{siegel@astro.as.utexas.edu}
21:
22:
23: \slugcomment{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal Letters}
24:
25:
26: \shorttitle{ACS Globular Clusters: M54}
27: \shortauthors{Siegel et al.}
28:
29:
30: \begin{document}
31:
32:
33: \title{The ACS Survey of Galactic Globular Clusters\footnotemark[1]:
34: M54 and Young Populations in the Sagittarius Dwarf
35: Spheroidal Galaxy}
36: \footnotetext[1]{The fourth paper in the series based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space Telescope},
37: obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated
38: by AURA, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555, under programs
39: GO-10775 (PI: Sarajedini).
40: %
41: }
42: \author{Michael H. Siegel\altaffilmark{2}, Aaron Dotter\altaffilmark{3},
43: Steven R. Majewski\altaffilmark{4}, Ata Sarajedini\altaffilmark{5},
44: Brian Chaboyer\altaffilmark{3}, David L. Nidever\altaffilmark{4}, Jay Anderson\altaffilmark{6},
45: Antonio Mar\' \i n-Franch\altaffilmark{5,7}, Alfred Rosenberg\altaffilmark{7},
46: Luigi R. Bedin\altaffilmark{8},
47: Antonio Aparicio\altaffilmark{7}, Ivan King\altaffilmark{9},
48: Giampaolo Piotto\altaffilmark{10}, I. Neill Reid\altaffilmark{8}}
49:
50: \altaffiltext{2}{University of Texas, McDonald Observatory, 1 University Station, C1402, Austin TX, 78712
51: (siegel@astro.as.utexas.edu)}
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Dartmouth College,\\
53: 6127 Wilder Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755 \\ (Aaron.L.Dotter@dartmouth.edu,
54: chaboyer@heather.dartmouth.edu)}
55: \altaffiltext{4}{Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia,
56: P.O. Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA 22904-4325 (srm4n@virginia.edu, dln5q@virginia.edu)}
57: \altaffiltext{5}{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, 211 Bryant Space Science
58: Center, Gainesville, FL 32611 (ata@astro.ufl.edu, amarin@astro.ufl.edu)}
59: \altaffiltext{6}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rice University MS-108, Houston, TX 77005 (jay@eeyore.rice.edu)}
60: \altaffiltext{7}{Instituto de Astrof\'\i sica de Canarias, V\'\i a L\'{a}ctea s/n, E-38200 La Laguna,
61: Spain (alf@iac.es,antapaj@iac.es,amarin@iac.es)}
62: %\altaffiltext{8}{European Southern Observatory, Garching,
63: %Karl-Schwarzschild-Str.\ 2, D-85748, D, EU (bedin@stsci.edu)}
64: %\author{Maren Hempel}
65: %\affil{Department of Astronomy, University of Florida, 211 Bryant Space Science
66: %Center, Gainesville, FL 32611
67: %\email{hempel@astro.ufl.edu} }
68: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore MD 21218
69: (bedin@stsci.edu, inr@stsci.edu)}
70: \altaffiltext{9}{Dept. of Astronomy, Univ. of Washington, Box 351580, Seattle, WA 98195-1580
71: (king@astro.washington.edu)}
72: %\author{Antonino Milone}
73: %\affil{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`{a} di Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy
74: %\email{milone@pd.astro.it}}
75: %\author{Nathaniel Paust}
76: %\affil{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore MD 21218
77: %\email{paust@stsci.edu} }
78: \altaffiltext{10}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`{a} di Padova, 35122 Padova, Italy
79: (piotto@pd.astro.it)}
80:
81: \begin{abstract}
82: We present new {\sl Hubble Space Telescope} photometry of the massive globular cluster M54 (NGC~6715) and
83: the superposed core of the tidally disrupted Sagittarius (Sgr) dSph galaxy
84: as part of the ACS Survey of Galactic Globular Clusters.
85: Our deep ($F606W$$\sim$$26.5$), high-precision photometry yields an unprecedentedly
86: detailed color-magnitude diagram showing the extended blue
87: horizontal branch and multiple main sequences of the M54+Sgr system.
88: The distance and reddening to M54 are revised using
89: both isochrone and main-sequence fitting
90: to $(m$$-$$M)_0$$=$$17.27$ and $E(B$$-$$V)$$=$$0.15$. Preliminary assessment
91: finds the M54+Sgr field to be dominated
92: by the old metal-poor populations of Sgr and the globular cluster.
93: Multiple turnoffs indicate the presence of
94: at least two intermediate-aged star formation epochs with 4 and 6 Gyr ages
95: and [Fe/H]=-0.4 to -0.6. We also clearly show, for the first time, a prominent,
96: $\sim$2.3 Gyr old Sgr population of near-solar abundance.
97: A trace population of even younger ($\sim$0.1-0.8 Gyr old), more metal-rich
98: ([Fe/H]$\sim0.6$) stars is also indicated.
99: The Sgr age-metallicity relation is consistent with a closed-box model and
100: multiple (4-5) star formation bursts
101: over the entire life of the satellite, including the time since
102: Sgr began disrupting.
103: \end{abstract}
104:
105: \keywords{globular clusters: individual (M54); galaxies: individual (Sagittarius); galaxies: star clusters;
106: galaxies: stellar content}
107:
108: \section{Introduction}
109: M54 (NGC~6715) is the second most massive Galactic globular cluster and, at first blush, a
110: canonical ``old halo'' cluster: ancient, metal poor and with a very extended
111: blue horizontal branch (HB; Harris 1996). However, M54 has been shown (Ibata et al. 1994;
112: Sarajedini \& Layden 1995, hereafter ``SL95"; Majewski et al. 2003; Monaco et al. 2005a;
113: Siegel et al. 2007)
114: to lie at the photometric center and distance of the Sagittarius (Sgr) dwarf
115: spheroidal (dSph) galaxy, which is merging with the Milky Way (Ibata et al. 1994), with tidal
116: arms encircling the Galaxy (e.g., Ibata et al. 2001b, Newberg et al. 2002; Majewski et al. 2003).
117: This has prompted discussion of whether M54 may be the nucleus of the Sgr dSph
118: (e.g., SL95; DaCosta \& Armandroff 1995; Bassino \& Muzzio 1995; Layden \& Sarajedini 2000, hereafter
119: ``LS00") around which later star formation occurred. However, based on
120: the existence of two distinct ancient, metal-poor populations (MPPs) with different
121: radial profiles (SL95), and the observation that Sgr would be nucleated
122: even if M54 were ignored (Monaco et al. 2005a), it seems likely that M54 formed
123: separately from Sgr and was pulled
124: into the dSph center through dynamical friction.
125:
126: Photometric studies of M54 provide information on both the cluster and
127: the Sgr core (SL95, Layden \& Sarajedini 1997; LS00), and,
128: in combination with spectroscopic efforts, have confirmed the metal-poverty and
129: ancient age of both the cluster ([Fe/H]=-1.5 to -1.8, 14-15 Gyr; Brown et al. 1999, LS00)
130: and Sgr's distinct MPP ([Fe/H]=-1.3, age=10-11 Gyr, LS00).
131: Large surveys of
132: Sgr's core are dominated by intermediate stellar populations
133: ([Fe/H]=-0.4 to -0.7, 5-8 Gyr; SL95, LS00, Bellazzini et al. 2006a; hereafter B06),
134: though this is likely due to Sgr's MPPs having been
135: selectively stripped into tidal tails (Chou et al.
136: 2007). There have also been hints of a young metal-rich population (2.5 Gyr,
137: -0.4 dex; SL95, LS00),
138: including stars of solar-abundance (Smecker-Hane \& McWilliam 2002; Monaco et al. 2005b,
139: Chou et al. 2007).
140: When the properties of stellar populations in and around M54 are combined with
141: Sgr clusters near the core (Terzan 7, Terzan 8, Arp 2; Ibata et al. 1994) or
142: in the Sgr tidal stream (Pal 12, Dinescu et al. 2000; Pal 2, Majewski et al. 2004; Whiting 1,
143: Carraro et al. 2006), Sgr has an age-metallicity relation
144: (AMR) consistent with a simple closed-box model (see Fig.\ 18 of LS00).
145:
146: Because Sgr has been disrupting for
147: at least 2.5-3.0 Gyr (Law et al. 2005), and likely longer,
148: it is a unique laboratory for exploring star formation
149: in the context of hierarchical galaxy formation.
150: Not only can we potentially connect the star formation
151: and enrichment history of a specific satellite galaxy with relevant
152: timescales and events in its interaction, but also
153: ascertain in detail the populations this
154: disintegrating system has donated and is still donating to the Galaxy.
155: We contribute to this effort by clarifying the
156: Sgr+M54 stellar populations with new {\sl HST/ACS/WFC} photometry
157: from the {\it ACS} Survey of Galactic Globular Clusters
158: (Sarajedini et al. 2007, hereafter Paper I).
159:
160: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
161:
162: The $ACS$ survey observed 65 globulars
163: in the $F606W$ ($\sim$$V$) and $F814W$ ($\sim$$I$) filters
164: with {\sl HST/ACS/WFC}.
165: PSF photometry (Anderson et al., 2007, {\it in prep}) is Vega-calibrated using
166: the charge-transfer efficiency corrections of Reiss \& Mack (2004), calibration
167: procedures in Bedin et al. (2005) and zero points of Sirianni et al. (2005).
168: This is supplemented by photometry of isolated saturated stars from short exposures
169: salvaged by summing all associated charge --- a procedure
170: previously applied by Gilliland (2004).
171: For M54, the observation and reduction pipeline produces twelve magnitudes of precise
172: photometry from nearly the
173: tip of the red giant branch (RGB) to several magnitudes below the main sequence turnoff (MSTO).
174: Our extraction of
175: nearly 390,000 detections in the {\sl ACS/WFC} field leaves a star-subtracted image nearly
176: devoid of flux. However, many of the detections do not provide
177: precise photometry due to source faintness, charge bleeding, cosmic rays and close neighbors.
178: For this initial examination of the color-magnitude diagram (CMD)
179: we used the trend of quality-of-fit against
180: magnitude to select 60,000 sources with the most star-like profiles and
181: $<10$\% of the flux in their PSF aperture from other stars.
182: %fix this
183:
184: \section{Color-Magnitude Diagram Features}
185:
186: The CMD of the M54 field (Fig.\ 1a) shows an
187: extraordinary array of features: an extended blue and red HB, at least two red RGBs, multiple MSTOs and multiple
188: MSs. Fig.\ 1b shows a Hess diagram overlayed with a schematic description of
189: the features seen in the complex M54+Sgr CMD, which we now detail:
190:
191: \begin{figure*}[t!]
192: \epsscale{1.0}
193: %\plotone{f1.eps}
194: \caption{ACS photometry of the M54 field. Panel (a) shows the CMD of 60,000 stars
195: selected to be PSF-like
196: and to have less than 10\% contribution of neighbor stars to their integrated light.
197: Panel (b) shows a Hess
198: diagram of the field with an overlayed schematic describing the various populations in
199: the M54+Sgr field. The dotted line is the Sgr MPP as defined in LS00. Panel (d) shows the
200: Hess diagram overlayed with theoretical isochrones
201: describing the inferred stellar populations
202: while Panel (c) shows the simulated CMD described in the text.}
203: \end{figure*}
204:
205: {\it The Old M54 Population:}
206: The most prominent feature in Fig.\ 1a is the strong MS and RGB from the
207: combined M54 and
208: Sgr MPPs (shown to have slightly different RGBs by SL95 and LS00).
209: The red line in Fig.\ 1b is a fiducial through the MS and RGB centers for the
210: MPPs determined using techniques described in
211: Rosenberg et al. (2006) that interactively fit Gaussians to the top 20\% of the
212: magnitude-color distribution orthogonal to the cluster sequence in 0.4 mag wide
213: overlapping bins stepped every 0.04 mag
214: between $F814W$=15 and 25.\footnote{The metal-poor SGB shows evidence of
215: bifurcation from the overlapping MPPs of M54 and Sgr.
216: However, our Gaussian fits follow the center of the dominant M54 sequence.}
217: The Gaussian widths provide
218: weights for $\chi^2$ fits of main-sequence fiducials and isochrones.
219: The MPPs are also reflected in
220: the asymptotic giant branch and lengthy
221: HB running from a prominent red HB through the RR Lyrae gap to an extended blue HB.
222: The latter also includes the ``blue hook" population of extremely hot HB stars
223: identified by Rosenberg et al. (2004).
224: The extreme HB stars are centrally concentrated in the field, consistent with membership in the
225: old, metal-poor cluster.
226: Similar ``blue hook" stars have also been identified in the massive
227: clusters $\omega$ Centauri and NGC~2808 (Moehler et al. 2002, 2004).
228:
229: The narrowness of the MPP sequence allows a straight-forward measurement of
230: the distance and reddening to M54 using MS and isochrone fitting. To minimize any
231: confusing effect of Sgr's old MS, we fit distance and reddening both by eye and with a $\chi^2$ minimization
232: routine to the fiducial line shown in Fig.\ 1b, which is defined by the dominant M54 MS and RGB.
233: Metal-poor isochrones were taken from Dotter et al. (2007, Paper II)
234: with [$\alpha$/Fe]=+0.2 in agreement
235: with Brown et al. (1999) and [Fe/H] allowed to vary from -2 to -1.5 (in 0.1 dex steps).
236: The optimal fit uses an isochrone of 13 Gyr with [Fe/H]=-1.8 at $(m-M)_0$=17.23 and
237: $E(B-V)$=0.17. The Hess diagram (Fig.\ 1d)
238: indicates good agreement between the theoretical isochrone (red line) and the observed MPP sequence.
239: Empirical MS-fitting used the fiducials defined in Paper I for the NGC~6752 and M92 clusters
240: weighted heaviest near $M_{F606W}$$\sim$$+4.0$. Interpolating between the two clusters to the
241: isochrone abundance of M54
242: ([Fe/H]$=$$-1.8$) yields $E(B$$-$$V)$=0.14 and $(m$$-$$M)_0$=17.31.
243: The mean of the MS and isochrone measures --- $(m$$-$$M)_0$$=$17.27, $E(B$$-$$V)$=0.15\footnote{We checked
244: the data for indications of differential reddening using methods outlined in Paper I. The results indicate
245: minimal differential reddening.} ---
246: is in reasonable agreement with
247: the RGB tip distance of Monaco et al. (2004) and the RR Lyrae distance of LS00.
248:
249: Our subsequent analysis assumes that M54 and Sgr have the same reddening and distance
250: because M54 appears to lie at the center of Sgr (\S1) and
251: the distance uncertainty ($\sim0.05$ mag or 0.6 kpc) is large enough to mask any
252: small discrepancy. A small difference in distance modulus could
253: slightly alter the inferred ages of the Sgr populations, as shown in B06.
254:
255: {\it The Intermediate Population(s): }
256: The intermediate Sgr population (``SInt"),
257: described in detail by
258: LS00 and B06 (as ``Population A"), dominates wide-field surveys of Sgr.
259: The SInt features in Fig.\ 1b (orange) include a prominent red clump, a redder RGB and a
260: redder MS that begins to diverge from the MPP MS below $F606W=24$.
261: Monaco et al. (2005b) and Sbordone et al. (2006) determined the abundances of the primary intermediate
262: Sgr population
263: to be [Fe/H]=-0.4 and [$\alpha$/Fe]=-0.2. While B06 suggest an age for this population of
264: 8$\pm$1.5 Gyr, at $(m$$-$$M)_0$$=$$17.2$ their SInt age is 5-6 Gyr.
265: Isochrones corresponding to
266: the measured abundances and younger B06 age match
267: the SInt RGB and the bluer MSTO emerging just beyond the MPP MSTO.
268: However, the CMD appears to have a broad (or perhaps two distinct) MSTOs between the old and
269: ``young" MSTOs, which indicates multiple bursts.
270: [Fe/H]=-0.6, 6 Gyr and [Fe/H]=-0.5, 4.5 Gyr isochrones (orange lines, Fig.\ 1d) seem to best
271: reproduce the most apparent intermediate MSTO features.
272:
273: {\it The Young Population(s): }
274: The bluest strong MSTO (``SYng", green line in Fig.\ 1b)
275: corresponds to a significantly younger population than SInt.
276: Though hinted at before
277: (Mateo et al. 1995; Bellazzini et al. 1999a,b; LS97; LS00), only weak constraints
278: could be applied to what was previously an indistinct CMD feature.
279: The superior $ACS$ photometry of the M54+Sgr core, however, clearly reveals this
280: as a young metal-rich MSTO with a convective hook at $F606W$$=$$19.5$.
281: The best fit to SYng is a 2.3 Gyr isochrone with
282: [Fe/H]=-0.1 and [$\alpha$/Fe]=-0.2 (green line, Fig.\ 1d),\footnote{A satisfactory
283: fit can also be obtained with a 1.75 Gyr, solar abundance isochrone with $Y$=0.33.
284: At this time, however, we have no reason to suspect an enhanced He abundance in Sgr.}
285: similar to, but more metal-rich
286: than, the youngest Sgr population described in LS00.
287: SYng is younger than the minimum interval over which
288: Sgr
289: has been disrupting ($\sim$2.5-3 Gyr ago, Law et al. 2005).
290:
291: Finally, a sparse, bright MS can be seen
292: above the other MSs in the CMD and extending blueward as a ``spray" of
293: stars extending above the 2.3 Gyr MSTO through the blue HB (blue features in Fig.\ 1b). While the latter
294: could be blue straggler stars, a very young, metal-rich population (``SVYng")
295: is also hinted at by the
296: clump of stars below the Sgr red clump
297: which are too blue to be a metal-rich or intermediate RGB
298: bump but faint enough to be a young red HB clump.
299: The lack of a distinct MSTO or RGB associated with SVYng and the potential confusing contribution of binaries
300: and blue stragglers
301: makes further statements regarding its age/composition speculative. However,
302: the SVYng stars could represent the youngest, most metal rich M54+Sgr population. The bright MS
303: extends beyond the sample isochrones at [Fe/H]=$+0.56$, 100 and 800 Myr (blue lines)
304: overlayed in Fig.\ 1d, suggesting protracted, recent star formation in Sgr.
305:
306: \begin{figure}[h]
307: \epsscale{1.0}
308: \plotone{f2.eps}
309: \caption{The simulated SFH of the M54 field. Distinct contributions are from the metal-poor M54
310: population (M54 MPP), Sgr's metal-poor (Sgr MPP), and Sgr's young (SYng) populations
311: The intermediate Sgr population (SInt) is broad and composed of
312: multiple bursts or continuous star formation. There appears to be
313: some contribution from a very young Sgr population (SVYng).
314: The dotted line is the AMR from LS00 using a simple closed-box model; the solid line an updated model
315: with faster enrichment.}
316: \end{figure}
317:
318: \section{The Star Formation History of the M54 Field}
319:
320: Untangling the multiple stellar populations of Sgr, including the contribution of binaries, can be
321: aided by population synthesis.
322: Using the isochrones fit in \S3, we reconstructed the star formation
323: history (SFH) of the M54 field using the StarFISH population synthesis code
324: (Harris \& Zaritsky 2001). StarFISH uses a set of isochrones, an error
325: model (in this case, an analytical one) and fixed $(m-M)$, $E(B-V)$ and IMF
326: to construct a library of CMD probability functions. It then iteratively finds
327: which combination of synthetic CMDs reproduces the observed CMD, varying the amplitude of the
328: input populations by downhill simplex until convergence. The result
329: is an age-metallicity-amplitude SFH of the field.
330:
331: We set the distance and reddening to the values derived in \S3 and used a Salpeter IMF.
332: After some initial variation, we fixed the
333: well-defined MPP and SYng populations while allowing
334: SVYng to vary in age from 0.1 to 0.9 Gyr. The SInt populations
335: were allowed to initially vary
336: from [Fe/H]$=$$-0.3$, [$\alpha$/Fe]$=$$-0.2$ to [Fe/H]=$-1.5$, [$\alpha$/Fe]=$+0.2$ and over 2-15 Gyr.
337: This window was gradually narrowed and a final fit was composed by hand to provide better age
338: definition and reproduction of the MSTO region
339:
340: %\lastpagefootnotes
341:
342: The derived M54+Sgr SFH (Fig.\ 2)\footnote{Isochrones of similar age-abundance combinations
343: create degenerate solutions in StarFISH. This is accounted for by ``locking" together degenerate groups of isochrones
344: into single CMD probability functions. The points in Figure 2 are Gaussians set to the center and range of
345: each locked isochrone group.} is dominated by the M54 MPP, which contributes $\sim75$\% of the simulated
346: stars. Sgr contributes
347: a small MPP and a broad range of SInt stars. SYng is strong and distinct while SVYng is weak and tenuous
348: in the CMD (Fig.\ 1c).
349: The populations follow a closed-box AMR model similar to that of LS00 (dotted line) but with
350: faster enrichment (solid line).
351:
352: We supplemented the StarFISH-simulated
353: MSs and RGBs with synthetic HBs constructed with the He-burning tracks and modeling code from
354: Paper II. Mass distributions were constructed with an upper limit supplied by the fitted isochrones with
355: an average mass loss of 0.1 $M_{\odot}$ for the M54 MPP, 0.05 $M_{\odot}$ for the Sgr MPP and SInt,
356: and no mass loss for SYng. The amount of mass loss for each population was set to best reproduce
357: the observed HB. All models used a mass loss dispersion of 0.05 $M_{\odot}$. The number
358: of HB stars for each population was set by the
359: appropriate R-ratio given the assumed He abundance.
360:
361: Fig.\ 1c shows the simulated CMD. Our relatively simple simulations recreate the salient features
362: of the M54+Sgr field, including the
363: broad MS, the complex MSTO, the bifurcated SGB\footnote{Our analysis of NGC~1851 (Piotto et al. 2007)
364: also shows a bifurcated SGB, which we ascribe to a 1 Gyr age spread.}, the doubled RGB and
365: the long blue HB. The simulated HB has a
366: steeper slope than the real HB, which could be corrected if the M54 abundance
367: were raised by a few 0.1 dex.
368:
369: While SYng and SVYng are stronger than the SInt population(s) in our $ACS$ field,
370: this does not apply to Sgr over larger scales, where other studies
371: (e.g., LS00 and B06) show SInt dominating. Surveys of Sgr's tidal arms have
372: shown that the stars it is contributing to the halo are, on average, even more metal-poor
373: (Bellazzini et al. 2006b;
374: Chou et al. 2007). Our analysis reveals the presence of recently formed stars in
375: the center of Sgr, further affirming the strong metallicity gradient in the system.
376:
377: \begin{thebibliography}{}
378:
379: \bibitem[Bassino \& Muzzio(1995)]{1995Obs...115..256B} Bassino, L.~P., \&
380: Muzzio, J.~C.\ 1995, The Observatory, 115, 256
381:
382: \bibitem[()]{} Bedin, L., et al.
383: 2005, \mnras, 357, 1038
384:
385: \bibitem[()]{} Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., \& Buonanno, R., 1999a,\mnras, 304, 633
386:
387: \bibitem[()]{} Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R., \& Buonanno, R., 1999b,\mnras, 307, 619
388:
389: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2006)]{bellazzini}Bellazzini, M., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F. R.,
390: Monaco, L., \& Montegriffo, P. 2006a, \aap, 446, 1 [B06]
391:
392: \bibitem[()]{} Bellazzini, M., Newberg, H. J., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F. R. \& Monaco, L., 2006b,
393: \aap, 457, 21
394:
395: \bibitem[Brown et al.(1999)]{brown} Brown, J.~A.,
396: Wallerstein, G., \& Gonzalez, G.\ 1999, \aj, 118, 1245
397:
398: \bibitem[()]{} Carraro, G., Zinn, R. \& Moni Bidin, C., 2006, \aap, 466, 181
399:
400: \bibitem[chou]{chou} Chou, M., et al.
401: 2007, \apj, {\it submitted}, astro-ph/0605101
402:
403: \bibitem[Da Costa \& Armandroff(1995)]{1995AJ....109.2533D} Da Costa,
404: G.~S., \& Armandroff, T.~E.\ 1995, \aj, 109, 2533
405:
406: \bibitem[Dinescu et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....120.1892D} Dinescu, D.~I.,
407: Majewski, S.~R., Girard, T.~M., \& Cudworth, K.~M.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 1892
408:
409: \bibitem[Dotter et al.(2007)]{dotter}Dotter, A., Chaboyer, B., Jevremovi\'c, D.,
410: Baron, E., Ferguson, J. W., Sarajedini, A., Anderson, J. 2007, \aj, 134, 376
411:
412: \bibitem[()]{} Gilliland, R. L. 2004, STScI Inst. Sci. Rep. ACS 2004-001
413: (Baltimore: STScI)
414:
415: \bibitem[starfish]{starfish} Harris, J. \& Zaritsky, D.,2001, \apj, 136, 25
416:
417: \bibitem[Harris]{harris} Harris, W. E., 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
418:
419: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(1994)]{} Ibata, R.~A., Gilmore,
420: G., \& Irwin, M.~J.\ 1994, \nat, 370, 194
421:
422: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...551..294I} Ibata, R., Lewis, G.~F.,
423: Irwin, M., Totten, E., \& Quinn, T.\ 2001, \apj, 551, 294
424:
425: \bibitem[Law et al.(2005)]{2005ApJ...619..807L} Law, D.~R., Johnston,
426: K.~V., \& Majewski, S.~R.\ 2005, \apj, 619, 807
427:
428: \bibitem[Layden \& Sarajedini(1997)]{1997ApJ...486L.107L} Layden, A.~C., \&
429: Sarajedini, A.\ 1997, \apjl, 486, L107
430:
431: \bibitem[Layden \& Sarajedini(2000)]{2000AJ....119.1760L} Layden, A.~C., \&
432: Sarajedini, A.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 1760 [LS00]
433:
434: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2003)]{2003ApJ...599.1082M} Majewski, S.~R.,
435: Skrutskie, M.~F., Weinberg, M.~D., \& Ostheimer, J.~C.\ 2003, \apj, 599,
436: 1082
437:
438: \bibitem[Majewski et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128..245M} Majewski, S.~R., et
439: al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 245
440:
441: \bibitem[()]{}Mateo, M., Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., \& Krzeminski, W.,
442: 1995a, \aj, 109, 588
443:
444: \bibitem[Moehler et al.(2002)]{2002A&A...395...37M} Moehler, S., Sweigart,
445: A.~V., Landsman, W.~B., \& Dreizler, S.\ 2002, \aap, 395, 37
446:
447: \bibitem[Moehler et al.(2004)]{2004A&A...415..313M} Moehler, S., Sweigart,
448: A.~V., Landsman, W.~B., Hammer, N.~J., \& Dreizler, S.\ 2004, \aap, 415,
449: 313
450:
451: \bibitem[()]{} Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R. \& Pancino, E., 2004, \mnras, 353, 874
452:
453: \bibitem[()]{} Monaco, L., Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F. R. \& Pancino, E., 2005a, \mnras, 356, 1396
454:
455: \bibitem[Monaco et al.(2005)]{monaco} Monaco, L., Bonifacio, P., Ferraro, F. R., Marconi, G.,
456: Pancino, E., Sbordone, L, \& Zaggia, S. 2005b, \aap, 441, 141
457:
458: \bibitem[()]{} Piotto, G., et al. 2007, \apj, {\it submitted}
459:
460: \bibitem[RM04]{} Reiss, A., \& Mack, J. 2004, STScI Inst. Sci. Rep. ACS 2004-006
461: (Baltimore: STScI)
462:
463: \bibitem[Rosenberg et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...603..135R} Rosenberg, A.,
464: Recio-Blanco, A., \& Garc{\'{\i}}a-Mar{\'{\i}}n, M.\ 2004, \apj, 603, 135
465:
466: \bibitem[()]{} Rosenberg, A., Marin-Franch, A., Aparicio, A., Piotto, G., Chaboyer, B.
467: \& Sarajedini, A., 2006, \baas, 209, 100.13
468:
469: \bibitem[Sarajedini \& Layden(1995)]{1995AJ....109.1086S} Sarajedini, A.,
470: \& Layden, A.~C.\ 1995, \aj, 109, 1086
471:
472: \bibitem[Paper I]{Paper I} Sarajedini, A. et al., 2007, \aj, 133, 1658 (Paper I)
473:
474: \bibitem[()]{} Siegel, M., Majewski, S. R., Sarajedini, A., Chaboyer, B. \&
475: Rosenberg, A., 2006, \baas, 209, 100.12
476:
477: \bibitem[()]{} Sirianni, M. et al. 2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
478:
479: \bibitem[()]{} Smecker-Hane, T. \& McWilliam, A., 2002, \aj, {\it submitted}, astro-ph/0205411
480:
481: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2007)]{2007ApJ...654..915S} Sollima, A., Ferraro,
482: F.~R., Bellazzini, M., Origlia, L., Straniero, O., \& Pancino, E.\ 2007,
483: \apj, 654, 915
484:
485: \end{thebibliography}
486:
487:
488: \end{document}
489:
490: