1: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}

2: \documentclass[12pt, preprint]{aastex}

3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{/home/vsmith/AASTEX/aastex}

4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{/Users/vsmith/AASTEX/aastex}

5: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}

6: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}

7: %\received{}

8: %\accepted{}

9: %\journalid{}{}

10: %\articleid{}{}

11: %\slugcomment{}

12: 

13: \shortauthors{Geisler     et al.}

14: \shorttitle{\lq Extragalactic Abundances}

15: 

16: \def\feh{\ {[Fe/H]}\ }

17: \def\met{\ {metallicity}\ }

18: \def\mets{\ {metallicities}\ }

19: \def\cl{\ {cluster}\ }

20: \def\cls{\ {clusters}\ }

21: \def\mp{\ {metal-poor}\ }

22: \def\mr{\ {metal-rich}\ }

23: \def\pop{\ {population}\ }

24: \def\pops{\ {populations}\ }

25: \def\gtsim{\ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel>\over\sim$}}\ }

26: \def\ltsim{\ {\raise-0.5ex\hbox{$\buildrel<\over\sim$}}\ }

27: \def\alp{\ {$\alpha$}\ }

28: \def\alps{\ {$\alpha$'s}\ }

29: \def\Glx{\ {Galaxy}\ }

30: \def\Gal{\ {Galactic}\ }

31: \def\gal{\ {galactic}\ }

32: \def\gals{\ {galaxies}\ }

33: \def\abu{\ {abundance}\ }

34: \def\abus{\ {abundances}\ }

35: \def\MW{\ {Milky Way}\ }

36: \def\form{\ {formation}\ }

37: \def\oh{\ {outer halo}\ }

38: %\def\HR{\ {highresolution\ }

39: 

40: \begin{document}

41: 

42: \title{Chemical     Abundances and Kinematics in Globular Clusters and

43: Local Group Dwarf Galaxies and \\

44: Their Implications for 

45: %Formation Theories of the Galactic Halo \altaffilmark{1}}

46: Formation Theories of the Galactic Halo }

47: 

48: \author{Doug Geisler}

49: \affil{Grupo de Astronomia, Departamento de Fisica, Universidad de Concepci\'on, Casilla 160-C,

50: Concepci\'on, Chile; dgeisler@astro-udec.cl}

51: 

52: \author{George Wallerstein, \altaffilmark{1}}

53: \affil{Astronomy Department, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

54: USA; wall@orca.astro.washington.edu}

55: 

56: \author{Verne V. Smith}

57: \affil{National Optical Astronomy Observtory, P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ  

58: 85726 USA; vsmith@noao.edu}

59: 

60: \author{Dana I. Casetti-Dinescu}

61: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Yale University, P.O. Box 208101, New

62: Haven, CT 06520 USA; dana@astro.yale.edu}

63: 

64: 

65: %\altaffiltext{1}{Invited Review}

66: 

67: \altaffiltext{1}{derived in part from the Henry Norris Russell Lecture delivered at the

68: Seattle Meeting of the American Astronomical Society in January 2003}

69: 

70: \begin{abstract}

71: We review Galactic halo \form

72: theories and supporting evidence,  in particular  kinematics

73: and detailed chemical abundances of stars in some relevant

74: globular clusters

75: as well as Local Group dwarf galaxies.

76: Outer halo red HB \cls tend to have large eccentricities and inhabit  the area

77: of the Lee diagram populated by dwarf spheroidal stars,

78: favoring an extraGalactic origin.

79: Old globulars show the full range of

80: eccentricities, while younger ones seem to have preferentially high

81: eccentricities, again hinting at their extraGalactic origin.

82: However, the three outer halo 2nd parameter

83: clusters with well-determined orbits indicate they come from three 

84: independent systems.

85: We compare detailed \abus of a variety of elements between the halo and all

86: dwarf galaxies studied to date, including both dwarf spheroidals and irregulars.

87: The salient feature is that halo \abus are

88: essentially unique. In particular,

89: the general \alp vs.

90: \feh pattern of 12 of the 13 \gals studied are similar to

91: each other and very different from the \MW. Sgr appears to be the only possible

92: exception.

93: At the \mp end the extraGalactic sample is only slightly deficient compared to

94: the halo 

95: but begins to diverge by \feh$\sim -2$

96: and the difference is  particularly striking for stars with

97: \feh$\sim -1$.

98: Only Sgr, the most massive dSph, has some

99: stars similar in \alp    \abu to \Gal stars at intermediate \mets, even the most extreme low \alp subset most likely to have

100: been accreted. It appears

101: very unlikely that a significant fraction of the \mr halo could have come

102: from disrupted dSphs of low mass.

103:  However, 

104: at least some of the \mp halo  may have come from

105: typical dSphs, and a portion of the

106: intermediate \met and \mr halo

107: may have come from very massive systems like Sgr.

108: This argues against

109: the standard hierarchical

110: galaxy formation scenario and

111: the Searle-Zinn paradigm for the formation of the \Gal halo via accretion

112: of ``fragments" composed of stars like those we see in

113: typical present-day dSphs.

114: The chemical differences between the dwarfs and the halo are

115: due to a combination of

116: a low star formation efficiency 

117: and  a high galactic wind efficiency in the former.

118: AGB stars are also more important in the

119: chemical evolution of the dwarfs.

120: The  \form problem may be solved if

121: the majority of halo stars formed within a few, very massive

122: satellites accreted very early.

123: However, any such satellites

124: must either be accreted MUCH earlier than postulated, before the onset of SNe Ia,

125: or star formation must be prevented 

126: to occur in them 

127: until only shortly before they are accreted. 

128: The intrinsic

129: scatter in many elements, particularly the \alps, indicates that

130: the halo was also     mixed on a surprisingly 

131: short timescale, a further problem for hierarchical \form theories.

132: 

133: \end{abstract}

134: 

135: \keywords{Invited Review}

136: %\keywords{galaxies: dwarf; galaxies: individual 

137: %(Sculptor); galaxies: abundances; galaxies: Local Group; globular clusters

138: %} 

139: 

140: \clearpage

141: 

142: \section{Introduction}

143:  

144: To terribly distort a famous phrase: our Galaxy exists, therefore it formed. 

145: But how? When?  What fossils can we find that might yield clues to this 

146: process and what means do we have at our disposal to interpret these clues?

147: What theories have been formulated to explain these clues and how do these

148: theories hold up to current evidence? We review current Galactic halo \form

149: theories and supporting evidence,  in particular   clues derived from kinematics

150: and detailed chemical abundances of individual stars in some relevant

151: globular clusters

152: as well as Local Group dwarf galaxies.

153: 

154: Let us first look at formation theories. 

155: There are two major Grand Design scenarios for the formation of the halo of our \Glx. 

156: These models    can apply to the \Glx as a whole but we will concentrate

157: on their application to the \Gal halo.

158: 

159: %The mean density of a large spiral is roughly      times the mean

160: %density of the Universe. That is a large factor to be explained. If that density enhancement had not occurred we would not be here. 

161: %There had to be density perturbations rather early in the Universe or else

162: %there could not have been any form of gravitational clumping. Since dark

163: %matter outweighs barionic matter by at least a factor of 20 the clumping of

164: %dark matter must have been the key to the origin of galaxies. Most theories

165: %suggest that there were vast numbers of small clumps roughly the size of

166: %globular clusters or small galaxies; i.e. 10$^{5}$ or 10$^{6}$ Msun. 

167: %In that case

168: %it would be necessary for 10$^{6}$ or 10$^{7}$ clumps to coagulate into a large

169: %galaxy. If all the clumps were of about the same size, say with a gaussian

170: %distribution around some mean value this would very difficult to

171: %accomplish. However a distribution characterized by a power law such as

172: %the Salpeter mass function for stars would include a low frequency of

173: %massive clumps which might merge and attract their small mass neightbors.

174: %o as the rich got richer and the poor disappeared (as some politicians would like to see happen in the United States) massive galaxies might have formed. 

175: 

176: \subsection{The Monolithic Collapse Model} 

177: 

178: In 1962 Eggen, Lyndon-Bell and Sandage (ELS) proposed a model of the \form

179: of the Galaxy

180: in which a general monolithic gravitational collapse of matter brought together 

181: the baryons

182: now observed as a spherical halo, and continued on to form the disk.

183: Since the infalling material had never (or

184: hardly ever) been processed through stars it must have been extremely

185: metal-poor, at least initially. They argued that the

186: time-scale for the collapse was short compared to a \Gal

187: rotation  time ($\sim 2\times 10^8$ yr), allowing for the orbital eccentricities

188: to vary in a potential not yet in equilibium,

189: but suffiently long on an evolutionary

190: timescale 

191: so that massive stars forming in the collapsing gas could live out their lives

192: and enrich the gas with heavy elements. 

193: Subsequent generations of stars had different chemical compositions, in particular

194: enhanced metallicity,  and 

195: different kinematics, as the orbits changed from very elliptical with high

196: energy to nearly circular, confined to the developing plane.

197: Hence they predicted a

198: gradient in metallicity and kinematics in the halo. Evidence supporting this was given     

199: by the correlation of orbital eccentricity, total angular momentum and

200: velocity perpendicular to the disk with metallicity of halo field stars.

201: In addition, included in the halo are especially dense stellar concentrations:

202: the globular clusters (GCs). If they continued to form during the collapse, then the

203: ELS  scenario predicts that they  should also show a metallicity gradient, 

204: and that they should be coeval (to within the timescale of the collapse). 

205: However, such  data were beyond the observational limits available at that time.

206: %This prediction seemed to be at least partially

207: %confirmed by the relatively high

208: %metallicity of the globular clusters in the vicinity of the Galactic Bulge

209: %known at that time, e.g. a \met of \gtsim solar was then accepted for NGC 

210: %6352 (van den Bergh 1967, Hartwick \& Hesser 1972).

211: 

212: \subsection{The Merger/Hierarchical Accretion Model}

213: 

214: Searle \& Zinn (1978 - hereafter SZ) measured and compiled the most up-to-date

215: and reliable Fe \abus and horizontal branch morphologies

216: available at the time for some 50 GCs

217: and investigated these properties as a function of

218: galactocentric distance, $R_{GC}$. Surprisingly, they found no radial

219: \abu gradient in the cluster system in the outer halo, with the dividing

220: line at about the solar $R_{GC}\sim 8$kpc. They also found

221: significant differences in HB morphology between

222: inner and outer halo GCs.

223: 

224: It is of interest to revisit their work with current data.

225: The \met scale has subsequently changed dramatically as has our ability to

226: measure \met and the number of clusters with reliable \mets and color-magnitude

227: diagrams from which to derive HB morphology now includes almost

228: all of the $\sim 150$ known Galactic

229: GCs. In addition, distances are much more robust.

230: In Figure 1 we plot cluster metallicity against  Galactocentric radius

231:  and in Figure 2

232: we duplicate the SZ plot of HB morphology vs. \feh for their same 4 radial

233: bins, using the data base maintained by Harris (2003). Here we use the 

234: modern quantitative definition of HB morphology:   $(B-R)/(B+V+R)$, where B,V,and R

235: are the number of blue, variable and red stars on the horizontal branch.

236: The modern data bear out the same conclusions drawn by SZ: 

237: beyond $R_{GC}\sim8$kpc, there is no \met gradient in the GC system. 

238: Secondly, the inner halo GCs show a very tight relation between \met and

239: HB type while the outermost halo GCs have a broad range of HB type at a given

240: \feh (e.g. -1.5).

241: 

242: %the clusters in the Galactic bulge are now considered to be of a different

243: %population from the halo clusters (e.g. Minniti 1995).

244: %Omitting those clusters there now appears

245: %Beyond that there are 6 clusters at distances comparable to the

246: %nearer dSph systems. The

247: %outer clusters show several characteristics that differ from the inner clusters.

248: 

249: There are a number of GCs in the outermost bin in Figure 2 that 

250: have unusually red horizontal branches despite their low metallicities,

251: %(with the conspicuous exception of the massive cluster, NGC 2419, at a distance

252: %of about 100 kpc), 

253: a long-standing conundrum referred to as the ``second parameter

254: problem" (Sandage \& Wildey      1967).  The large spread in horizontal branch 

255: type is best understood,

256: as suggested by SZ,

257: as a difference in age with the red HB outer halo globulars several Gyr younger than

258: their blue HB cousins at large radii as well as the inner halo clusters, although the solution to the second parameter

259: problem is still controversial  and may involve other factors such as He

260: \abu, internal dynamics or mass loss (e.g. Chaboyer et al. 1996, Stetson et al. 1996,

261: Catelan et al. 2001). Note that the inner/outer halo dichotomy now finally

262: appears to be well-supported by field stars as well (Carollo et al. 2007).

263: 

264: The lack of an outer halo GC \met gradient and the differences in HB morphology between

265: inner and outer halo GCs, which they interpreted as a larger age spread in the 

266: latter ($>1$ Gyr) than the former, led  SZ

267: to suggest a model in which the outer halo formed

268: over a longer time via the capture or accretion of external systems.

269: They coined the term ``fragments' for these postulated \Gal building blocks.

270: Zinn (1993) developed this concept further, finding that dividing the halo

271: GCs into 2 groups according to their HB morphology also yielded distinct

272: spatial distributions, rotational velocities and velocity dispersions, thus

273: leading to the distinction of ``old" vs ``younger" halo. 

274: One also speaks now of the ``dissipative" vs. ``accreted" halo in which 

275: the former component was formed along the lines suggested by ELS and the 

276: latter a la SZ (e.g. Gratton et al. 2003). These 

277: ideas have been thoroughly reviewed 

278: by Freeman and Bland-Hawthorne (2002). 

279: Note that

280: the clusters in the Galactic bulge are now considered to be of a different, 

281: bulge, population from the halo clusters (e.g. Minniti 1995).

282: 

283: %    Once the word "capture" is invoked the question is immediately raised

284: %as to how much of the Galactic halo may have been

285: %aquired by the capture of dwarf

286: %galaxies and/or globular clusters. The globulars could hold themselves

287: %together when captured (at least initially)

288: %but the dwarf systems would be pulled apart into individual

289: %stars by gradients in the gravitational field of the protoGalaxy.

290: %SZ noted the requirement that a large

291: %central mass was necessary to attract small neighboring systems.

292: 

293: The SZ scenario has been given a firm   cosmological footing in recent years. 

294: Modern cosmological theories based on the currently favored

295: $\Lambda$ Cold Dark Matter ($\Lambda$CDM) paradigm

296: posit hierarchical structure formation on all physical scales (e.g. White

297: \&  Rees 1978, Navarro, Frenk \& White 1997). 

298: They predict that all \gals,

299: including the \MW, form as part of a local over-density in the primordial

300: matter distribution and grow

301: via the accretion of numerous smaller building blocks

302: (SZ ``fragments') which themselves formed similarly. 

303: 

304: As originally noted by SZ and later by Zinn (1980), 

305: obvious candidates for these building blocks are the present day dwarf

306: spheroidal (dSph) and dwarf irregular (dIrr) \gals. Such \gals are the 

307: most numerous in the Universe and the dSphs in particular

308: are found to surround both the \MW 

309: and M31 in large numbers (although their numbers fail by an order of magnitude

310: or more to match those predicted by $\Lambda$CDM theories (Klypin et al.

311: 1999). There are undoubtedly other faint dwarfs left to be found -- e.g. 

312: the Sloan Digital Sky Survey has turned up 

313: very recently a number of new dSph companions to the \MW 

314: (Willman et al. 2005, Kleyna et al. 2005, Belokurov 2006b, Zucker et al. 2006a,b,c) -- but it is

315: unlikely that the numbers required by $\Lambda$CDM theories really exist, 

316: although the most recent estimate (Simon \& Geha 2007) suggests that there are

317: only a factor of $\sim4$ too few dwarf galaxies currently known). 

318: Many of them are known to contain at least a sizeable fraction of

319: stars that are similar to those in the halo - namely old and \mp.

320: Graphic proof that accretion of such \gals

321: does indeed occur has existed ever since the 

322: discovery of the Sagittarius dSph (Sgr -- Ibata et al. 1994), 

323: which is clearly being assimilated

324: by the \Glx along with its coterie of GCs. Not only 

325: are Sgr field stars now forming part of the MW halo, but its several

326: GCs are also now becoming part of the Milky Way's GC system.

327: It is also theorized

328: that a significant fraction of halo field stars were once members of a GC.

329: Indeed, we now know that GCs do indeed disrupt - the most beautiful example

330: being that of Pal 5 (Odenkirchen et al. 2003). 

331: 

332: \subsection{The Search for Bulding Blocks: \\

333: Comparing Observations with Theory}

334: 

335: One can think of a number of observational tests to probe the predictions

336: of different \gal \form  theories. An obvious test is to directly compare

337: the stellar \pops of the surviving dSph or dIrr systems with that of the halo. 

338: If the halo is indeed made

339: up in large part by dissolved systems initially

340: like the dSphs or dIrrs we see today, one would expect

341: to find many similarities in their stellar \pops. 

342: 

343: One  way to do this is 

344: to compare the CMDs in detail and try to  set limits on the

345: percentage of present day

346: dSph populations that may have contributed to the halo. By

347: comparing the turnoff colors in these systems, Unavane, Wyse \& Gilmore (1996)

348: first set a surprisingly low upper limit of $\sim 10\%$ on this contribution, as the

349: intermediate-age stars generally found in dSphs are lacking in the halo.

350: This was the first strong 

351: hint that at least the present day

352: dSphs may not be the generic galactic building blocks they are

353: often imagined to be.

354: 

355: Another more stringent but observationally more difficult approach is a direct

356: comparison of the detailed chemical compositions of

357: stars  from the two environments, based on high resolution spectroscopy.

358: Clearly, if the halo formed from dSphs or dIrrs

359: or objects like them, their chemical

360: makeups should be similar. Such a study      has been dubbed ``chemical

361: tagging" by Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn (2002). The catchphrase ``near field

362: cosmology" also applies as we are probing     cosmological galaxy \form theories using

363: the nearest \gals as our testbeds.

364: The value of such a comparison was

365: recognized long ago and served as one of the key science drivers

366: for the installation of high resolution spectrographs on the new generation

367: of 6-10m telescopes, as even the brightest stars in the older \pops in

368: even the 

369: nearest \gals were really beyond the reach

370: of high resolution spectrographs on 4m telescopes.

371: In the context of this review, when referring to \abus of individual elements

372: other than simply ``\feh'', we restrict ourselves to data with a resolution

373: R$\gtsim20,000$

374: in which the chemical abundances of individual elements in a single star have

375: been derived from a detailed model atmosphere analysis. 

376: (NB - for historical purposes, ``\met" refers to the Fe \abu,  i.e. \feh  and

377: we will adhere to this).

378: For this purpose, high S/N data ($\gtsim 50$) is certainly preferable.

379: Of course, spatial and kinematic as well as chemical data are needed to

380: really disentangle the predictions of different theories (e.g. Venn et al. 2004,

381: Font et al.

382: 2006a,b). In this review we will mainly focus on high resolution \abu results

383: but will also discuss some recent kinematic evidence.

384: 

385: In addition to providing a key observational test for \gal \form models,

386: detailed chemical \abus of our nearest galactic neighbors also allow us

387: to reconstruct their own chemical evolution history, investigating the 

388: relative contributions over time to different elements by

389: SNe Ia, SNe II, AGB stars, etc.,

390: as well as to help constrain their

391: star \form history. dSphs are also believed to be local analogs to 

392: damped Ly$\alpha$ \gals and/or the 

393: many distant faint blue \gals seen in very deep images.

394: 

395: After the installation of instruments like UVES on the VLT and HiRes on

396: Keck, the field of extraGalactic chemical \abus has really taken off. 

397: Detailed \abus now exist for at least a few stars in each

398: of the dSphs associated with the \MW (except for Leo II)

399: as well as for several of the nearest

400: dIrrs, thanks in large part to the efforts of M. Shetrone, K. Venn, E. Tolstoy,

401: V. Hill, J. Johnson, P. Bonifacio, T. Smecker-Hane, A. McWilliam  and 

402: collaborators,  and of course the Magellanic Clouds, although, surprisingly,

403: the amount of high quality data for older

404: LMC stars is very limited and indeed virtually

405: non-existant for the SMC. 

406: We note that this is still very hard work: the brightest target stars are

407: typically $V\sim 17$ and even with good seeing on an 8m telescope and an

408: efficient spectrograph they require several hours to achieve adequate S/N at

409: high resolution.

410: In addition, many new studies

411: have been carried out on major samples of halo stars which provide  a 

412: much better sample of our own \Glx to compare to.

413: The results have had major implications on our  understanding of how our

414: \Glx, as well as other \gals, might have formed. 

415: This field will continue to expand rapidly  in the near future, especially with

416: the recent implementation of  multiplexing spectrographs

417: like FLAMES on the VLT and MOE+IMACS on Magellan.

418: These new instruments will further revolutionize this field yielding orders

419: of magnitude more stars per galaxy. Nevertheless, we feel a summary of our current

420: knowledge in this field is timely and hence this Review, although we fully

421: expect many of the details will be outdated in short order.

422: We generally restrict ourselves to papers published or in preprint form

423: by  mid 2007.

424: 

425: The paper is organized as follows: We start by investigating outer

426: halo GCs in the 

427: context of their possible extraGalactic origin. We next discuss 

428: the first galaxy known to have been (or is being) captured by the \Glx - the Sgr

429: dSph. We then compare detailed \abus of a variety of important elements, including

430: O, Mg, Si, Ca, Ti, Na, Fe, Ba and Eu in several different galaxies. We follow

431: with   a long discussion of the implications for \form  scenarios

432: of the particularly important\alp element

433: \abus in nearby galaxies compared to those in the halo. We close by 

434: enumerating some of the problems associated with the latest galaxy \form

435: theories as applied to our halo.

436: 

437: \section{Globular Clusters of the Outer Halo}

438: 

439: In order to test the SZ/hierarchical merger idea that at least the outer halo

440: was accreted from fragments, by comparing \abus in the halo with those in

441: potential building block \gals, we need to not only examine \abus in other

442: \gals but also representatives of the outer halo. We take the same working 

443: definition of the ``\oh" as SZ: $R_{GC}>8kpc$. Several recent studies have

444: explored \abus in halo field stars and GCs, e.g. Venn et al. (2004),

445: Beers \& Christlieb (2005). We present

446: a brief review of the properties of \oh GCs, including not only \abus but also

447: orbital eccentricities which are now available for some of these objects.

448: 

449: Let us first return to Figure 1 and focus on the more distant \cls. The bulk

450: of the \oh globulars have [Fe/H] between -1.2 and -2.3.

451: %show no noticable gradient. There is also a clump of clusters with [Fe/H]

452: %between -0.4 and -0.7 and logRg$<$1.2. They probably belong to the thick disk. We

453: %omit Pal 12 and Ter 7 since they are now being captured along with the

454: %Sagittarius Galaxy. 

455: Note the significant gap in the GC radial distribution in which no \cls are 

456: found between $\sim 40-70$ kpc (Zinn 1985).

457: In the far halo, beyond the gap,

458:  there are 6 clusters, with Galactocentric distances 

459: extending to more than

460: 100 kpc, entering 

461: the realm  of the nearest dSphs, which (excepting Sgr) have $R_{GC}\sim 70-

462: 90$ kpc (Mateo 1998). Five of these \cls have 

463: [Fe/H] between -1.4 and -1.8 while a single cluster, NGC 2419, has [Fe/H]

464: $= -2.14$. 

465: A glance at Figure 2 reveals that, of these 6 very distant \oh \cls, all

466: except NGC 2419 have very red HBs.

467: 

468: These 5 outer halo, RHB \cls -- Pal 3, 4, 14, Eridanus and AM1 -- are then excellent candidates

469: for accreted \cls, especially if age is the second parameter.

470: In order to investigate this further, it would be of great

471: interest to determine their kinematics and orbits.

472: Unfortunately, because of their great distances their proper motions are

473: not yet known so we do not know their orbital eccentricities, but it is 

474: likely that they do not have penetrating orbits or they would have lost 

475: sufficient members so as to no longer be recognizable, except possibly by their debris streams.

476:   

477: However, with the galactic orbits of many other

478: globular clusters in hand (Dinescu et al. 1999,

479: and further updates) we can prepare plots like Figure 2 but now 

480: including eccentricity.

481: In Fig 3 we plot the metallicity against HB type in what has been called a

482:  Lee  diagram (Lee et al. 1994) for GCs with known eccentricities, 

483: with the symbol size proportional to the eccentricity.

484: Two disk clusters --- 47 Tuc and NGC 6838 --- are marked with crosses, and Pal 12

485: is labeled.  For comparison, we also plot Sgr and its 4 main-body clusters

486: (filled circles) and the Fornax clusters (star symbols; for these clusters the symbol

487: size is not related to the eccentricity, which is unknown). In addition, we include known mean

488: values for the field \pops of dSphs (small triangles), with values taken from Grebel et al.

489: (2003) and Harbeck et al. (2001). Again, eccentricity values are not known for these

490: \gals. According to Lee et al. (1994), lines of equal age may be drawn

491: in this diagram. We have done this, using the isochrones from Lee et al. (2002).

492: The full range in age is about $\pm2$ Gyrs, some of which may be due to the

493: uncertainties in the whole process. Blue HB clusters at a given low metallicity

494: (or `first parameter' clusters) appear to have the full range of eccentricities, while

495: red HB clusters at a given low metallicity (or 2nd parameter clusters) seem to have

496: preferentially large eccentricities. These latter \cls also fall in the

497: same general region of the diagram as the general \pops of the dSphs. Both of

498: these facts are evidence in favor of an extraGalactic origin for the 

499: 2nd parameter clusters.

500: 

501: The GCs               of Fornax range from HB = -0.4 to 

502: +0.5 though their apparent [Fe/H] range is only from -2.1 to -1.8. Fornax appears

503: to have its own second parameter problem (Smith et al. 1996)! 

504: For the  dSph companions of

505: M31 the HB values are all near -0.7 with [Fe/H] ranging from -1.5 to -2.0 which

506: is within the uncertainties of photometric metallicities. Why they should all be

507: so similar while the dSph systems surrounding our \Glx and their associated globulars are so different is an intriguing question.

508: 

509: The large range in age and metallicity of the globulars and dSph systems shows

510: the large range of conditions that must have been present as these systems 

511: formed. We should remember, however, that the globulars and dSph systems that we see

512: today are the ones that, if they were captured, have not yet been totally

513: assimilated into the halo. Their

514: stellar content as well as their orbits may differ from those that were captured

515: earlier in the history of our galaxy, and were primarily

516: responsible for contributing their stars to the current halo.   

517: Perhaps it should be no surprise that halo stars have compositions more like

518: dSph systems when their \feh values were close to -2 rather than their present

519: values nearer to \feh of -1 (see Section 5).

520: 

521: De Angeli et al. (2005) derive precise relative GC ages from

522: homogeneous photometric data sets: ground based and HST. We plot

523: the ages determined from this study

524: on the Carretta \& Gratton (1997) metallicity scale

525: as a function of orbital eccentricities in Figure 4.

526: The two disk clusters 47 Tuc and NGC 6838 are indicated with

527: star symbols in this plot. Old clusters show the full range of

528: eccentricities, while younger ones seem to have preferentially high

529: eccentricities. Two well-known 2nd parameter clusters are not present in the

530: age-eccentricity plot: NGC 7006 and Pal 13. These two clusters also have high eccentricities,

531: 0.69 and 0.76 respectively. Finally, Omega Cen --- a system widely accepted to be

532: the nucleus of a captured dwarf elliptical galaxy ---

533: has a high orbital eccentricity (0.57).  More importantly, to match 

534: Omega Cen's  present

535: orbital characteristics, Tsuchyia et al. (2003, 2004) show that its progenitor

536: started with an orbital eccentricity of 0.9.

537: 

538: If indeed the majority of 2nd parameter clusters

539: (or the younger clusters) were

540: born in satellite systems of the Milky Way,

541: their orbit shapes indicate that these systems were rapidly destroyed due to

542: their penetration into the inner, denser regions of the Galaxy. Only satellite systems

543: with low orbital eccentricities could have survived. Fornax is such an example. It

544: has an orbital eccentricity of $0.27\pm 0.16$ (Dinescu et al. 2004, see however Piatek et al.

545: 2002 for a different proper-motion determination which corresponds to an eccentricity= 0.52).

546: The LMC too has a low-eccentricity orbit ($\sim 0.35$), while Sgr's is rather

547: moderate (0.53) (e.g., Dinescu et al. 2001, 2005).

548: 

549: If the assumption that 2nd parameter clusters were captured is correct,

550: one can envision testing the hypothesis that the outer halo was assembled

551: from just a few massive satellites, as recent models predict (Robertson et al.

552: 2005 -- see Section 5).

553: Specifically, by quantifying the amount of phase-space association of distant globular clusters ---

554: once accurate proper motions are determined for a good number of these clusters, e.g. from

555: the SIM/PlanetQuest or GAIA projects --- one can

556: set constraints on the generic number of SZ fragments/satellites that made up

557: the halo. We note here an initial attempt along these lines:

558: There are three 2nd parameter

559: clusters with well-determined orbits: Pal 13, NGC 7006 and NGC 5466. 

560: These 3 clusters have high-energy orbits (i.e. they belong to the outer halo),

561: and their orbits are highly eccentric. They are thus good candidates 

562: to have been produced in the SZ fragments which were later captured and

563: disrupted. Their orbits however indicate that they come from {\bf three independent

564: systems}.  If the \oh was indeed made out of only a few very massive systems,

565: one would expect better phase-space association than demonstrated by these

566: \cls but of course the numbers are still very small.

567: 

568: %\section{Comparison with Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ Systems}

569: 

570: %      As discussed in Section ?? of this review the distribution of various

571: %elements as afunction of [Fe/H] differs among various environments such as

572: %the Halo field, the globular clusters, and the dSph systems. It is interesting

573: %to compare abundance ratios in these systems with ratios observed in the

574: %damped Lyman-alpha (DLA) systems that absorb light from background quasars. The

575: %very nature of the DLAs is uncertain because the actual galaxies are very

576: %diffcult to image, but they must be spirals or irregulars of some sort with

577: %interstellar clouds that are not very different from the clouds in our

578: %Galaxy.  In Table ??  We show the dependence of [O/Fe] in various classes of objects

579: %with the data from DLAs. For the halo stars, dSph systems, and the DLAs there is data

580: %from [Fe/H] = -3.0 to -2.0 while for the other systems the data is covers

581: %different intervals of [Fe/H]. 

582: %      As compared to the halo stars the globular clusters are similar from

583: %[Fe/H] = -2.0 to -0.5. Sgr and its globulars, except for Ter 7, show low values

584: %of [O/Fe] from [Fe/H] = -1.5 to -0.5. The dSph systems show low values of [O/Fe] from

585: %[Fe/H] = -3.0 to the limit of data for the dSph systems at [Fe/H] = -1.0.

586: %The data for the DLAs is very scattered and uncertain because there are very

587: %few oxygen lines in the regions of the available spectra, but there is some

588: %indication that the [O/Fe] values are significantly positive from [Fe/H] = -3.0 to -2.0.

589: %    For [alpha/Fe] the data are more complete and are summarized in Table ???.

590: %These data are more reliable than for [O/Fe] because of the availablilty of

591: %more lines from more stages of ionization than for oxygen. We have introduced a 

592: %separate column for the [S/Zn] ratio because those elements do not condense onto

593: %the grains in the interstellar medium (Nissen et al., 2004). Once again the halo

594: %stars and globulars stick together. Sgr is more difficult to understand because

595: %at [Fe/H] = -1.5 the [alpha/Fe] value is similar to that of the halo and

596: %globulars but [alpha/Fe] drops rapidly from [Fe/H] = -1.5 to -0.5. A similar

597: %drop is seen in the Sculptor galaxy between [Fe/H] = -2.0 to -1.0. In general,

598: %however, the Sgr galaxy, its gobulars, and the dSphs show low values of [alpha/

599: %Fe], averaging about +0.1 at all metallicities from -3.0 to -0.5. On the other

600: %hand the DLAs follow the halo stars and globulars from [Fe/H] = -3.0 to -1.5

601: %beyond which  non-volatile species may be affected by depletion

602: %onto grains. From [Fe/H]= -2.0 to -0.5 the [S/Zn] drops steadily, just as seen 

603: %for the alpha elements in the dSph systems. 

604: 

605: \section{The Sagittarius System}

606: 

607:      Ibata et al. (1994) noted a large number of stars of magnitude about 17 and

608: fainter in a direction towards the Galactic center

609: that appeared to be at about the same distance and radial velocity. 

610: The Sgr system is now known to extend over many degrees and to show multiple

611:  tidal

612: tails that are    extremely long (Belokurov et al. 2006a). In additon to the main

613: body of the Sgr system there are 4 nearby globular clusters that appear to be

614: co-moving with Sgr and at a similar distance. These are M54, Terzan 7, Terzan 8

615: and Arp 2 (Da Costa \& Armandroff 1995). 

616: The relatively young globular cluster Pal 12, somewhat further away, seems also to be co-moving with the 

617: system (Dinescu et al. 2000) and is now generally believed to be a Sgr member

618: (Cohen 2004, Sbordone et al. 2006), as is Whiting 1 (Carraro et al. 2007).

619: M54 is one of the most massive globulars in the Galaxy and was probably

620: the nucleus of Sgr when it was a more independent entity than it is now, 

621: possibly a nucleated dwarf galaxy (Sarajedini \& Layden 1995).

622: Two properties of these globulars are very revealing of the star formation

623: and evolution of small systems -              age and chemical composition.

624: 

625: \subsection{Ages and Overall Metallicities in Sgr and its Globular Clusters}

626: 

627: %     In figures 2-7 we show the color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) for Sgr, M54,

628: %Ter7, Ter8, Arp2,and Pal12. The references from which each figure has been pirated are given in the figure captions. 

629: To first order CMDs        provide

630: information on both the age and metallicity of a globular cluster. Ages can

631: be estimated by the luminosity of the turn-off. The estimate of a system's 

632: age can be complicated by the presence of stars of either several discrete

633: ages or a range of ages and/or compositions.

634: Once an age for a component of a system has been

635: established, a rough idea of its overall metallicity can be estimated from the absolute 

636: magnitude (and color) of the

637: brightest red giants. These procedures have been known for half a century

638: (Sandage, 1953; Hoyle and Schwarzschild, 1955), and greatly refined by many

639: authors over the years. Our best current estimates of the ages and metallicities

640: (based on both photometric and spectroscopic studies) of Sgr and its globular

641: clusters are:

642: Sgr: 1-13 Gyr, -1.6 -- +0.1; M54: 13 Gyr, -1.55; Terzan 8: 13 Gyr, -2.0;

643: Arp 2: 11 Gyr, -1.8; Terzan 7: 7.5 Gyr, -0.6; Pal 12: 6.5 Gyr, -0.8;

644: Whiting 1: 6.5 Gyr, -0.65 (taken mostly from Harris 2003).

645:   The range of ages and metallicities both

646: within Sgr and its clusters is remarkably large. 

647: Sgr itself seems to have stars with a range of ages from 12 or 13 Gyrs

648: down to about 1 Gyr with metallicities that range from [Fe/H]$\sim -1.5$ to

649: solar    (Layden \& Sarajedini 2000, Smecker-Hane \& McWilliam 2002, Bonifacio

650: et al. 2004, Monaco et al. 2005). 

651: The globulars do not show internal spreads of age or metallicity, but

652: show large differences in these quantities when compared with each other. 

653: M54, the likely nucleus of Sgr, is 13 Gyr

654: old with  \feh = --1.55 (Brown, Wallerstein, \&  Gonzalez 1999).

655: Terzan 8 is as old

656: as Sgr and M54 and even more metal-poor. Arp 2 is similarly \mp but likely a

657: few Gyr younger. On the other hand, Terzan 7,    Pal 12 and Whiting 1 are many Gyr 

658: younger and much more \mr.

659: These  are three of the few definitively young globulars of the halo. 

660: The positions of Terzan 7 and Pal 12 in the Lee diagram are shown in Figure 3. 

661: Despite their wide range in ages and \mets, 

662: the Sgr systems appear

663: to fall along the $\Delta t = 0$ Gyr line. However Ter 7 and Pal 12

664: could have any age from 0 to -4

665: Gyr while Arp 2 and Ter 8 could lie anywhere from -2 to +2 Gyr. As Fig 3

666: shows, clusters with (B-R)/(B+V+R) near -1 and +1 cannot have their ages

667: determined from their position in Fig. 3.

668: %all of these systems lie very close to

669: %the $\Delta t=0$ Gyr line, presumably of similar age to the old halo GCs.

670: 

671: %The real mystery is how the Sgr system could give birth to 2 metal-rich

672: %clusters several Gyrs after its own primary star formation period. Arp 2 is

673: %metal-poor with a red horizontal branch. If its horizontal branch indicates  

674: %youth the problem becomes worse because we need to explain how  Sgr could

675: %have assisted in the production of a metal-poor cluster at about the same

676: %time as Pal 12 and Ter 7 were forming. 

677: 

678: These wide ranges of age and metallicity raise significant questions 

679: regarding their past histories. It is unclear how Sgr, a dSph or perhaps

680: originally a nucleated dE

681: galaxy, could have retained sufficient interstellar matter for continuous or

682: intermittent star formation over a period of 10 Gyrs and cluster \form over

683: 6.5 Gyr, half of its lifetime.  Supernova ejecta 

684: cannot be retained by the gravitational field of a small galaxy (although see

685: Marcolini et al. 2006), but perhaps Sgr was above the minimum mass required.

686: The only non-gravitational

687: way to retain such high velocity material is by running it into ambient

688: interstellar matter whereby its kinetic energy can by converted to thermal

689: energy in a shockwave and then radiated away. Even that process will not

690: work for ever as momentum transfer to the interstellar clouds will eventually

691: blow them out of the system. We just do not know how such systems could

692: have ``reinvented themselves" every few Gyrs. This problem pervades the dSph 

693: systems (Mateo 1998, Table 6).

694: %In addition it is very difficult

695: %to imagine how Sgr could either have accumulated or generated globular

696: %clusters with a wide range of ages and metallicities.

697: However, this problem is actually least severe for Sgr, the most massive dSph.

698:       

699: \subsection{Comparing Chemical Abundances in Sagittarius and its Globulars}

700: 

701:                           

702: To treat   Sgr and its globulars as a single evolving system, we plot the mean

703: [X/Fe] values for elements X against [Fe/H] in Figure 5 for M54, Pal 12, Ter 7, and Sgr

704: itself (5, 4, 3 and $\sim 25$ stars, respectively). 

705: There is no high resolution data for Ter 8,   Arp 2 or Whiting 1 as of this writing.

706: The data are from

707: Brown et al (1999), Cohen (2004), Tautvaiseine et al. (2004), Smecker-Hane and 

708: McWilliam (2002) and Bonifacio et al. (2004). 

709: For Na/O     with a likely significant range within one of the systems we use the high end for the O and the low end for the Na to handle possible internal depletion of O and enhancement of Na.

710: 

711:    Most species do not show a \met trend. The mean values of [X/Fe] are approximately

712: --0.25 for Na, +0.1 for O, 0.0 for the 

713: $\alpha$-elements (Mg, Si, Ca and Ti), --0.15 for the light s-process elements

714: Y+Zr, and +0.5 for the r-process element Eu. For the heavy s-process elements 

715: Ba+La there is a well established trend from near 0.0 at [Fe/H]=-1.5 to

716: +0.4 at [Fe/H]=--0.5. A similar though stronger trend in the heavy s-process elements has been seen in Omega Cen 

717: (Vanture, Wallerstein, \& Brown 1994  ; Norris \&  Da Costa 1995 ).

718: %For oxygen there is a downward trend from [O/Fe]=0.25 near [Fe/H] = -1.5 to

719: %-0.2 at [Fe/H]=0.0. That trend is clearly seen in Sgr (McWilliam and Smecker-Hane   ). We discuss this further in the next section. 

720: 

721: In Figure 6 we show the mean abundances of various species in each of the Sgr

722: system's globulars and for the most metal-rich stars in Sgr itself. For the 

723: abscissa we use the age assigned to each system.

724: Starting with oxygen we see that [O/Fe] has remained constant from the time of 

725: star formation in M54 until recent star formation in Sgr. The slightly discrepant

726: value for Ter 7 may well be due to random errors when the O abundance depends

727: on only one line (which must be corrected for atmospheric absorption) in a few

728: stars. Note that Sbordone et al. (2006) have derived a slightly lower mean 

729: value of 0.18 from 4 stars.

730: [\alp/Fe], which is determined more reliably, descends from +0.2 to

731: 0.0 or -0.1 from 13.5 Gyrs to about 2 Gyrs ago. Evidently the ratio of SNe II's

732: to SNe Ia's did not change very much during that interval.

733: For Sgr and  its globular clusters

734: [\alp/Fe] is low compared to the halo and nearly independent of [Fe/H] (but does

735: show an indication of a small age gradient).

736: We will discuss this

737: further in Section 5.

738: Turning to [Na/Fe] we see that it descends from +0.1 to -0.4 as Fe built up more

739: rapidly than did Na. The light s-process elements, represented by Y and Zr

740: do not show a significant trend; but the difference between Ter 7 and Pal 12

741: is intriguing, as it is for Na. The heavy s-process elements, Ba and La, show

742: a strong increase with time, while the r-process species, Eu, has 

743: remained high -- near

744: [Eu/Fe] = +0.5 - for all systems. Both the heavy s and r-process patterns are similar

745: to what is seen in many halo stars.

746: %In Table 2???,  we compare the [\alp/Fe] value in the Sgr system and its globulars

747: %with halo stars, globular clusters, and damped Lyman-alpha (DLA) systems. The

748: %parameter is metallicity rather than age. Of course the halo stars and the 

749: %globular

750: %clusters are in agreement. 

751: %Interestingly the

752: %DLAs from [Fe/H] = -3.0 to -1.5 appear to be similar to the halo stars and the 

753: %globular clusters. However Fe and

754: %all of the \alp elements except S

755: %are subject to depletion onto grains in the interstellar medium. Hence they will

756: %be reduced    in the gas phase of the DLAs but will be incorporated into

757: %stars when the DLA gas condenses into stars. However S and

758: %the iron-peak element, Zn, tend not to be captured onto grains. They have been

759: %observed in DLAs from [Zn/H] = -2.0 to -0.5 and show low values, rather like the

760: %dSph systems and the Sgr system.

761: %It is surprising that the DLAs show little dependence of

762: %metallicity on redshift.

763: 

764:  

765: \section{Detailed Chemical Evidence from Extra-Galactic Systems}

766: 

767: \subsection{Chemical Tagging     }

768: 

769: Detailed abundance distributions containing strategic elements

770: are very useful as a tool for comparing the chemical compositions of the

771: dwarf galaxies with the compositions of Galactic halo, thick disk, and

772: thin disk stars.  The elemental abundances of Galactic populations have

773: been rather well-studied for many key elements; these abundances are

774: available and well-sampled from solar metallicities down to [Fe/H]

775: of about -4.0.  Galactic studies that are used as comparisons

776: here are Edvardsson et al. (1993) and Reddy et al. (2003) for the thin disk,

777: while Prochaska et al. (2000) and Reddy et al. (2006) provide abundance distributions for

778: thick disk stars.  At lower metallicities, recent fairly large surveys

779: of abundances in halo stars include Fulbright (2000), Johnson (2002),

780: Fulbright \& Johnson (2003) and Cayrel et al. (2004).  

781: The work by McWilliam et al. (1995)

782: is useful for including stars having extremely low metallicities

783: ([Fe/H]$<-3.0$).  This section will focus on a comparison of field

784: stars, however there are a number of globular clusters in the metallicity

785: range from [Fe/H] = -1 to -2.

786: Below [Fe/H]= -2 the number of halo stars diminishes steadily toward

787: [Fe/H= -4 with several intriguing objects that shows $[Fe/H] < -5.0$.

788: Only a few globulars have $[Fe/H]<-2$ and none are known below -2.5.

789: 

790: Abundances in some dwarf galaxies of the Local Group

791: will be compared to Galactic abundances from the

792: studies described above.  In particular, the studies by

793: Shetrone et al. (1998, 2001, 2003) and Geisler et al. (2005) of dwarf spheroidals

794: will be used, as well as the LMC studies by Smith et al. (2002),

795: Hill et al. (2000), and Korn et al. (2002), and the Sgr galaxy by

796: Smecker-Hane and McWilliam (1999), 

797: McWilliam et al. (2003) and McWilliam and Smecker-Hane (2005a).

798: Mateo's (1998) Table 6 shows [Fe/H] values for old

799: populations of 28 Local Group \gals   ranging from -2.2 to -1.0. The distribution

800: is similar to that of the Galactic globulars with a median at -1.55.

801: All  of the Local Group

802: galaxies have a range of metallicities and virtually all also have

803: a range of ages, a

804: phenomenon seen for certain amongst the GCs only in $\omega$ Cen,

805: which is a likely capture. Several recent papers have shown

806: that the dwarf systems show significant ranges not only in [Fe/H] but also

807: in the ratios of various elements to Iron (Shetrone et al. 2003; Geisler et

808: al. 2005; ).

809: The comparison of Galactic and dwarf galaxy populations will rely

810: primarily on how the ratios of various elements to iron

811: (expressed as [X/Fe]) depend on the overall metallicity, as defined

812: by [Fe/H]. These ratios reveal details about how different galactic

813: systems enriched themselves as the overall metallicity

814: increased.

815: 

816: Our comparison begins by investigating the behavior of oxygen, a

817: quintessential product of massive star enrichment and dispersal

818: via SNe II that tracks the formation of massive stars.

819: Figure 7 shows the behavior of [O/Fe], as determined from either

820: the 6300\AA\ line, or the infrared vibration-rotation OH lines, for

821: the Milky Way, the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC), the Sagittarius

822: dwarf galaxy, and Sculptor (hereafter Scl).  This first comparison of [O/Fe] is restricted

823: to these three satellite galaxies as these are the ones that have had

824: the largest numbers of member stars analyzed.

825: 

826: The top panel in Figure 7 summarizes results for stellar members

827: of the Milky Way thin disk, thick disk, and halo.  The general

828: structure of [O/Fe] versus [Fe/H] for Milky Way populations

829: is now reasonably well-defined; values of [O/Fe] are larger for the

830: metal-poor halo stars with typical values being +0.5 for

831: [Fe/H]$\le$-1.0.  There may be a slight slope such that [O/Fe]

832: increases with decreasing [Fe/H], but such a slope if present is

833: not large (being less than about 0.10 dex per dex).  At

834: [Fe/H]$\sim$-1.0, [O/Fe] begins to decrease and reaches a value of

835: 0.0 at about solar [Fe/H].  The elevated values of [O/Fe] for \mp stars can be

836: understood as both O and Fe being produced as a result of SNe II

837: with the masses being distributed along a standard IMF (e.g.,

838: yields from Woosley \& Weaver (1995) would predict

839: [O/Fe]$\sim$+0.3 to +0.6, with uncertainty due primarily to

840: the mass cut for Fe production), while the decreasing [O/Fe] for higher 

841: \mets occurs as SNe Ia inject mainly Fe into the ISM.

842: 

843: %The downturn in [O/Fe] starting at $\feh

844: %\sim -1$ is

845: %believed to result from nucleosynthesis from SNe Ia, which produce

846: %large amounts of Fe, but take much longer to evolve than the

847: %massive stars that end as SNe II.  The value of [Fe/H] at which

848: %[O/Fe] begins to decline depends primarily on how efficiently

849: %gas is turned into stars in a particular galactic system; if

850: %star formation is rapid and efficient (that is a large fraction

851: %of gas is turned into stars) then the metallicity as defined

852: %by [Fe/H] increases on timescales short compared to SNe Ia

853: %evolution ($\gtsim10^{9}$ yr).  By the time that SNe Ia

854: %begin to produce iron and drive [O/Fe] to lower values, the

855: %overall metallicity of the system is relatively large.  In

856: 

857: %In addition, loss of processed stellar ejecta (via a galactic wind),

858: %or infall of matter, can influence the shape of the

859: %[O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relation, although the primary effect results

860: %from the star formation efficiency.  

861: The solid curve in the top

862: panel of Figure 7 is a simple model of chemical evolution for

863: the Milky Way in which oxygen and iron from SNe II and SNe Ia are 

864: added to gas.  

865: This model                          is taken from the

866: paper by Smith et al. (2002) in their study of the

867: LMC.  The model is described in their paper, but is

868: simply a numerical model in which yields of O and Fe

869: from SNe II and SNe Ia are added at certain rates into a

870: mass of gas that is undergoing continuous star formation.

871: The numerical model from Smith et al. is similar in its

872: assumptions to the analytical models of Pagel and

873: Tautvaisiene (1995).

874: In this model oxygen yields are taken from

875: Woosley \& Weaver (1995) and convolved with a Salpeter mass

876: function.  Based on results from Timmes, Woosley, \& Weaver (1995),

877: the Fe yield from SNe II was set to 0.15M$_{\odot}$ per event;

878: these numbers produce a value of [O/Fe]=+0.5 from the mass-convolved

879: SNe II.  The downturn in [O/Fe] at [Fe/H]$\sim$-1.0

880: (as is observed) was produced with an average SNe II rate of

881: one per 100 years and SNe Ia beginning after 1.2 Gyr at a rate of

882: 1/3 that of SNe II, with each SNe Ia event producing 0.7M$_{\odot}$

883: of Fe.  Of course such a model is not unique and is an

884: oversimplification; however, it does a fair job of fitting the

885: Galactic trend and this model relation can serve as a fiducial curve

886: in comparison to the dwarf galaxies.

887: 

888: The second, third, and fourth panels of Figure 7 summarize current

889: results for the LMC, the Sgr galaxy, and Scl, respectively.

890: Superimposed on each dwarf galaxy [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relation is the

891: fiducial model constructed for the Milky Way.  There is a consistent

892: trend in each of the dwarf galaxies to exhibit lower values of

893: [O/Fe] relative to the Milky Way as [Fe/H] increases.  Both the

894: LMC and Sgr have quite similar relations, with only moderately

895: low [O/Fe] values compared to the Galactic curve.  Scl, on

896: the other hand, is strikingly different from the Milky Way, with

897: [O/Fe] values beginning a precipitous decline at a low overall

898: metallicity ([Fe/H]$\sim$-1.7).  

899: %As discussed above,

900: %decreasing values of [O/Fe] at lower [Fe/H] can be modelled by

901: %less efficient star formation rates.  Lanfranchi \& Matteucci (2004)

902: %have modelled dwarf galaxies in detail and can reproduce the

903: %behavior observed in Figure X by a combination of much lower

904: %star formation efficiencies coupled with mass loss via galactic

905: %winds.  Thus far [O/Fe]--[Fe/H] relations in dwarf galaxies points

906: %to much less efficient star formation rates over time, with perhaps

907: %galactic winds also playing a role in shaping the chemical evolutionary

908: %patterns.

909: 

910: We next comment on the other commonly studied \alp elements -- Mg, Si, Ca

911: and Ti -- in turn. Here we will concentrate on the 2 \gals with the best

912: existing data: Scl (Shetrone et al. 2003 - S03, Geisler et al. 2005 - G05)

913: and the LMC (Johnson et al. 2006 - J06, Pompeia et al. 2006 - P06). 

914: %In both cases, however, the sample sizes

915: %are still very small  -- only 9 and 10 stars respectively. 

916: The Scl stars were selected to cover as much of the well-known \met spread

917: in that galaxy as possible, and recent results (Tolstoy et al. 2001, 2004)

918: indicate success in this regard. As noted before, good high resolution

919: \abus for a variety of elements for older

920: MC stars are sorely lacking. The best studies to date with such

921: \abus are those of J05, who observed 10 giants in a total of 4 old LMC

922: \cls covering a range of \mets from $\sim -1.2$ to $-2.2$, and the FLAMES

923: study of P06, who investigate \abus of $\sim 60$ giants ranging in \met from

924: -1.7 to -0.3. We include here only the LMC stars that overlap in \met with 

925: the Scl sample.

926: 

927: Figure 8a-d shows the behavior for these 4 elements.

928: Note that typical halo \abus are $\sim +0.4$ for each element over this \met

929: range.

930: In general,                        the Scl and LMC stars are significantly

931: depleted in

932: all four \alps with respect to their \Gal counterparts at similar \met, as 

933: already noted by S03, G05, J06 and P06.

934: The exceptions tend to be the more \mp stars which tend to be very similar

935: to the halo or only slightly depleted. 

936: The depletion is largest for the most \mr stars.

937: The detailed \alp \abu distributions for these 2 very

938: different external \gals (one a dSph and the other a Magellanic irregular)

939: are quite      similar.

940: In addition, one can draw a single line in the Mg

941: and Ca plots that does a good job of fitting both \gals with no

942: evidence for kinks. The slope of this line is very similar to that shown

943: in our \Glx for the transition from the pure halo (at low \feh) to pure

944: disk (at high \feh), but is offset to lower \mets in the dwarfs.

945: However, there are some important differences between the behavior of these two

946: \gals in these diagrams. With the exception of a single star in Mg, the largest

947: enhancements occur in the LMC. In Mg and Si, Scl has several stars that are

948: more depleted than any LMC stars. Thus, the LMC stars are in general less

949: distinct from their halo counterparts than Scl stars.

950: We will return to the \alp elements in more detail in Section 5.

951: 

952: Moving from the \alp elements, the next element considered as a comparison

953: species is sodium.  This element is selected as it is well-represented

954: in the dwarf galaxy results to date and its behavior looks different

955: than in the Milky Way in certain respects (S03).

956: Sodium provides somewhat different insights into chemical evolution

957: than oxygen and the other \alp elements; although it is primarily a product of SNe II in most stellar

958: populations, its yield is metallicity dependent.  The main source of

959: Na is carbon-burning, however it is also both produced and destroyed by proton

960: captures.  The final yield from SNe II then depends on the p/n ratio,

961: which is itself a function of metallicity, decreasing as the overall

962: metallicity increases.  In Figure 9 Na is combined with O and [Na/Fe]

963: is plotted versus [O/Fe].  Galactic results are shown as the small blue

964: symbols, with the disk represented by asterisks, the thick disk by

965: open squares, and the halo by open circles.  The dwarf galaxies are

966: the red and magenta solid points. In this diagram, the dwarf galaxies

967: clearly segregate, on average, from the Milky Way results.  The

968: solid green lines are schematic representations of what sort of

969: chemical evolution would occur in simple, extreme examples.  Starting

970: at an elevated value of [O/Fe] and lower [Na/Fe] (as would be expected

971: in a metal-poor environment that had been dominated chemically by

972: SNe II ejecta) the vertical line is what could be expected approximately

973: from pure SNe II ejecta being instaneously recycled into new massive

974: stars; the oxygen and iron yields are not terribly metallicity sensitive,

975: while the sodium yield increases as the metallicity increases, and p/n

976: decreases.  By-and-large the Milky Way halo stars follow such a pattern.

977: The solid line leading towards equally decreasing values of [O/Fe] and

978: [Na/Fe] would result from the addition of pure Fe and is meant to

979: mimic approximately the contribution from pure SNe Ia ejecta.  Within this

980: diagram, the differences between the dwarf galaxies and the Milky Way

981: populations can again be understood as being dominated by a population

982: of low-metallicity SNe II (where such stars would form from the much slower

983: increase in metallicity due to inefficient star formation) and a higher

984: proportion of SNe Ia.  Very few Galactic halo stars overlap the dwarf galaxy

985: results in Figure 9.

986: 

987: The above illustrated abundance ratios demonstrate that different

988: galactic environments produce distinct behaviors in how [x/Fe] varies from

989: one element to another.  Using iron as a fiducial element,

990: however, can complicate certain comparisons as Fe has

991: substantial contributions from both core-collapse supernovae

992: of Type II and the longer-lived binary supernovae of Type Ia.

993: The differences, as discussed above and below, quite probably are dominated

994: by differing star formation rates, or the efficiency at which

995: a galaxy can convert its gaseous reservoir into stars, as well as the 

996: presence and strength of galactic winds.  It can be

997: useful to also investigate abundance ratios that more nearly isolate

998: elemental yields from a single source.  Such a comparison is attempted in

999: Figure 10 where oxygen, not iron, is used as the main metallicity

1000: indicator.  In this figure values of [Na/O] are plotted versus

1001: [O/H].  In the top panel only field stars from the Milky Way

1002: populations and the dwarf galaxies are shown.  In this case,

1003: unlike Figure 9 (where dwarf galaxies segregate clearly from

1004: the Milky Way populations), the dwarf galaxy points fall within the 

1005: Galactic halo stars.

1006: Predicted model yields (e.g., Woosley \&

1007: Weaver 1995) produce decreasing [Na/O] values as [O/H] (or overall

1008: stellar metallicity) decreases, as is seen in the top panel of

1009: Figure 10.  This demonstrates that in the field star populations of

1010: both the Milky Way and the dwarf galaxies, Na and O production are

1011: dominated by SNe II. In globular \cls, the Na/O ratio varies wildly due

1012: to proton captures that reduce O and enhance Na. The location of these

1013: processes remains uncertain, but possibly occurs in a previous generation

1014: of massive AGB stars (Ventura \& D'Antona 2005). 

1015: 

1016: The bottom panel of Figure 10 plots the same field-star points as in

1017: the top panel, but also includes results for two well-studied globular

1018: clusters: M13 and M4 (with M13 being the lower metallicity cluster).

1019: The abundances for the M13 stars were taken

1020: from the paper by Kraft et al. (1997) and for M4 from

1021: Ivans et al. (1997).

1022: In the case of the globular clusters the well-established Na-O anti-correlation

1023: stands out, with a larger Na-O abundance variation in M13 than in M4.

1024: These abundance variations have been established even in unevolved main-sequence

1025: stars in globular clusters and point to some type of chemical evolution

1026: which occurs in the early environment of these clusters.  The abundance

1027: variations also include F, Al, and Mg and point to a nucleosynthetic site

1028: driven by proton captures at temperatures of roughly 5x10$^{7}K$

1029: (e.g. Kraft et al. 1997).  It

1030: is clear here, however, that globular cluster-like chemical evolution

1031: in stellar populations can be isolated by using only Na and O.

1032: 

1033: The elements heavier than iron that are produced primarily by neutron

1034: captures, either the r- or s-process, can be adequately represented

1035: by two key elements, barium and europium.  Barium is an s-process

1036: product, with about 85\% of its solar system abundance due to the

1037: s-process, while europium is an excellent proxy for measuring

1038: r-process contributions as some 97\% of solar system

1039: Eu nuclei arose from r-process nucleosynthesis (Burris et al. 2000).

1040: Most s-process elements are created as a by-product of neutron

1041: captures that are driven by thermal pulses in AGB stars, while

1042: the r-process neutron captures occur during SNe II (for a review

1043: of the neutron-capture elements and their relation to stellar

1044: evolution, see Wallerstein et al. 1997).  The abundance ratio of

1045: Ba/Eu is thus an approximate measure of the relative importance of

1046: AGB star chemical contributions, relative to SNe II.

1047: 

1048: Figure 11 summarizes results for [Ba/Eu] as a function of [Fe/H]

1049: for various stellar populations from the Milky Way, a sample of

1050: dwarf spheroidals, and the captured system $\omega$ Cen.  The long

1051: dashed horizontal lines represent values for [Ba/Eu] for pure

1052: r-process (bottom line) and pure s-process barium and europium

1053: abundances as set by the solar system r- and s-process fractions.

1054: 

1055: Low-metallicity Milky Way stars exhibit subsolar

1056: [Ba/Eu] values, closer to the pure r-process mixture, and this is

1057: indicative of higher fractions of SNe II material characterizing

1058: the old Galactic halo population.  A significant fraction of

1059: Galactic halo stars show only r-process Ba/Eu ratios in the

1060: interval of [Fe/H]$\sim$ -3 to -2.  As [Fe/H] increases, there

1061: is a gradual increase in [Ba/Eu] up to [Fe/H]$\sim$-1.0 followed

1062: by a steep increase as [Fe/H] approaches the solar value.  This

1063: increase in [Ba/Eu] reflects the increasing contributions from

1064: AGB stars as chemical evolution proceeds in the Milky Way.

1065: 

1066: The dwarf galaxy stars follow a different trend from the Galactic

1067: members.  The extreme system is $\omega$ Cen where [Ba/Eu]

1068: increases by a factor of 20-25 as [Fe/H] increases from -2.0 to

1069: -1.5.  The more metal-rich stars in $\omega$ Cen exhibit a

1070: heavy-element abundance distribution that is dominated by a

1071: pure s-process origin, i.e., chemical evolution dominated by

1072: AGB stars.  The dwarf spheroidal systems shown in Figure 11

1073: follow a trend that is in-between $\omega$ Cen and the Milky

1074: Way, indicating that AGB stars are more important in the

1075: chemical evolution of these small galaxies, but not to the

1076: extreme found in $\omega$ Cen.

1077: 

1078: \section{Discussion}  

1079: 

1080: \subsection{The Problem}

1081: 

1082: We return to a more detailed discussion of the \alp elements, which are

1083: particularly important both observationally and theoretically. For the 

1084: purposes of this discussion,

1085: we will include O as well as Mg,

1086: Si, Ca and Ti, since their nucleosynthetic origins and \abu

1087: behaviors are generally similar (although differences may exist in detail

1088: -- e.g. Shetrone 2004 -- but uncovering clear trends

1089:  will require another level of

1090: observational complexity)

1091: and in order to compare with

1092: previous work, e.g. Nissen and Schuster (1997 - hereafter NS97) and Gratton et al. (2003).

1093: We will refer here

1094: to  the ``[\alp/Fe]'' abundance or simply the \alp \abu 

1095: as the mean of [O/Fe], [Mg/Fe], [Si/Fe], [Ca/Fe]

1096: and [Ti/Fe] (or whichever of these is available if not all are determined, where

1097: we require a minimum of 3 elements).

1098: 

1099: An intriguing trend for dSph stars to have lower \alp abundances than in the halo was

1100: first noted by Shetrone et al. (2001 - hereafter S01) and given more weight by the observations of additional

1101: dSphs by S03. In that work and in Tolstoy et al. (2003 - hereafter T03),

1102: they combined their data for giants in 

1103: seven dSphs  including their sample of 5 Scl stars and found

1104: that over the \met interval from $\sim -1$ to --3, the dSph \alp abundances 

1105: are typically 0.1 -- 0.3 dex lower than in the \Glx at the same \met and use

1106: this as a strong argument against the standard Searle-Zinn scenario for the

1107: formation of the \Gal halo from dSph-like objects. 

1108: G05 added an additional 4 Scl stars which confirmed these results.

1109: 

1110: We can  now

1111: examine this issue in much more detail and with larger samples by adding 

1112: the new data on abundances in giants in the Sgr

1113: dSph from Smecker-Hane

1114: and McWilliam (2002), Bonifacio et al. (2004), and Monaco et al. (2005);

1115: in Ursa Minor (Sadakane et al. 2004),

1116: and the initial results for the first FLAMES dSph study (Tolstoy

1117: 2005 - hereafter T05), who derives \alp \abus for almost 100 stars in Scl.

1118: These latter are still preliminary so we here only refer to her Figure 4.

1119: We also include the

1120: first results from similar

1121: observations of a few stars each in several Local Group dwarf irregular 

1122: galaxies, including NGC 6822 (Venn et al. 2001), WLM (Venn et al. 2003),

1123: Sextans A (Kaufer et al. 2004)  and IC 1613 (Tautvaiseine et al. 2007)    

1124: as well as LMC cluster stars (J06, P06).

1125: We also  average the O, Mg, Si, Ca and Ti abundances,

1126: which yields              a single parameter describing \alp \abus

1127: and  has smaller internal errors, allowing one to see any possible

1128: trends more clearly. Finally, we can utilize new data from 

1129: Fulbright (2002),    Stephens and Boesgaard (2002), Gratton et al.

1130: (2003),

1131: Ivans et al. (2003), Cayrel et al. (2004) and  Jonsell et al. (2005)

1132: to improve on the sample of Galactic comparison stars.

1133: 

1134: In Figure 12 we show the full current dSph, dIrr, LMC and halo datasets.

1135: Green symbols denote the various \Gal samples, described below.

1136: We include the Scl stars from S03 and G05 as the blue asterisks.

1137: %and the Scl FLAMES results from Tolstoy (2005) as the small blue

1138: %asterisks. 

1139: The blue stars are the Fornax dSph and the blue filled circles

1140: are stars in other dSphs studied by S01 and S03.

1141: Red filled circles are the Sgr sample of Smecker-Hane and

1142: McWilliam (2002) and the red stars are the Sgr samples of

1143: Bonifacio et al. (2004),    Monaco et al. (2005) and Sbordone et al. (2006). The cyan triangles are 

1144: from the LMC clusters studied by J06, the cyan squares from the LMC field 

1145: stars of P06 and the yellow

1146: triangles are from the various dIrr studies.

1147: We have also searched the literature to include  high resolution studies

1148: of halo stars, especially those that have attempted to investigate \abus of

1149: stars that are the most likely to have been accreted, based on their kinematics.

1150: We first

1151: utilize the data of NS97.

1152: They studied a

1153: number of stars in the halo and thick disk and found an interesting group  of 

1154: halo stars with

1155: significantly lower [\alp/Fe] than other stars of the same \met. These ``low

1156: \alp" stars also have different kinematics and NS97 suggested they are good

1157: candidates for stars having been accreted from dwarf galaxies with a different

1158: chemical evolution history than that of the general halo. 

1159: We also add data from Gratton et al. (2003) 

1160: who have essentially

1161: repeated the NS97 analysis but with a significantly enlarged sample. They divide their

1162: halo stars  into two kinematic samples: those with significant galactic

1163: rotation which

1164: they term the dissipative collapse component and those without rotation or with

1165: counter-rotation, which they refer to as the accreted  component. They find a 

1166: significantly lower \alp \abu at a given \feh for the second component 

1167: relative to the first. 

1168: Figure 12 includes the Gratton et al. (smoothed) mean for their large sample of dissipative collapse

1169: component stars as the solid green curve, which is meant to represent the 

1170: ``normal" halo, their accreted  component stars as the

1171: green stars and the NS97 low \alp stars as the small green filled circles.

1172: Fulbright (2002 - hereafter

1173: F02) studied a large number of ``\alp - poor" halo stars. F02 found that

1174: the \alp \abus correlated well with kinematics such that the most

1175: extreme \alp -poor stars had the largest \Gal rest-frame velocities, after

1176: dividing his sample into 3 velocity bins, with $\sim$ 60 stars per bin.

1177: The largest velocity stars should be

1178: the closest known \Gal counterparts to the dSph stars. We show the mean

1179: values for his three components as the large green filled circles, plotted

1180: at their mean values, where the

1181: point with the largest \alp \abu is the lowest velocity bin and the smallest

1182: \alp \abu is for the largest velocity stars.

1183: Stephens and Boesgaard (2002) derived detailed \abus for 56 halo stars

1184: kinematically selected to be the most likely candidates for being accreted,

1185: possessing either a very large apogalactic distance,  a very large maximum

1186: distance above the plane, and/or a very large retrograde orbital velocity.

1187: Their mean points for 3 different \met bins, with from 3 to 32 stars per bin,

1188: are given as the large green open circles. Ivans et al. (2003) investigated

1189: \abus in 3 stars known previously to have low \alp \abus - these are shown

1190: as the green triangles. Cayrel et al. (2004) have begun a large-scale study

1191: of \abus in very \mp stars - the First Stars project - and their initial results are

1192: given as the green filled squares.

1193: Jonsell et al.'s (2005) sample

1194: of 43 halo stars are the green open squares. 

1195: 

1196: Let us first look at the Scl sample, as it is by far the largest available

1197: to date for an external system, thanks especially to the FLAMES data.

1198: If there are any differences between \gals, it is best to study them 

1199: individually.

1200: The scatter seen in the Scl stars, including the T05 plot,

1201: is rather small except at the \mp end, where there are only a few

1202: stars. Note that the S03 and G05 small sample of stars nicely delineates the

1203: main features.

1204: There are several striking features about the Scl sample: the first

1205: is the clear trend of decreasing \alp abundance

1206: %with \met for the stars more \mr than --1.5 (although one could also claim

1207: with  \met, with a uniform, $\approx$

1208: continuous decrease.

1209: This is the first time that such a trend has been seen so clearly in a dSph.

1210: A  decrease  also

1211: occurs in the Galaxy but starting only at a \met  $>-1$.

1212: The second striking feature is that all Scl stars except for a handful of the most \mp FLAMES giants

1213: are depleted in their \alp \abu relative to the \Glx. 

1214: At the \mp end the 2 samples merge but begin to diverge by \feh$\sim -2$

1215: and the difference with the \Glx is  particularly striking for the

1216: most \mr stars, which are some 0.5 dex lower in [\alp/Fe]

1217: than their \Gal counterparts. Based on a large-scale Ca triplet study (Tolstoy

1218: et al. 2001), we are confident that the full \met range of this galaxy is

1219: represented. Unfortunately, then, we cannot say whether the \alp \abus

1220: continue to drop at the highest \mets or are higher at the lowest \mets as there

1221: are simply no, or very few, stars at these \mets in Scl.

1222: 

1223: Next we     look at the full ensemble of \gals depicted here.

1224: It was already clear from the work of

1225: S01, S03 and G05      that the dSphs have depleted

1226: \alp abundances compared to the typical halo star

1227: and the present dataset shows this even more clearly.  They also pointed out

1228: the very interesting fact 

1229: that the different dSphs display very similar behavior in this diagram,

1230: despite their widely varied star formation histories. However, we can now

1231: point to the very important exception of Sgr, which does display unique

1232: behavior in this diagram.

1233: 

1234: Are there ANY stars in our halo that have abundances like those in dSphs?

1235: Until now, there was little overlap in the \mets of dSph stars from the samples

1236: of Shetrone and collaborators with those of the low \alp stars of NS97.

1237: But the  G05 and Tolstoy et al. (2004) \mr Scl stars and the Sgr stars, as well as the addition of the Gratton et al. (2003)

1238: sample, now remove this problem and show some 

1239: fascinating trends. Starting at the most \mp end, there are still only 2

1240: stars observed at high resolution

1241: in dSphs with $\feh <-2.4$. These 2 stars have depleted

1242: \alps, although note that there is at least 1 star in the Cayrel ``First Stars'

1243: sample with similar \met and depletion.

1244: For $-2.4 \ltsim \feh \ltsim -1.6$, the bulk of the dSphs stars are slightly

1245: to significantly depleted, although a few Scl FLAMES stars appear similar 

1246: to the halo. There is a very occasional halo star that falls amongst the bulk

1247: of the dSph stars.

1248: One such star         is  the extreme halo star

1249: $BD+80^\circ 245$, which has \feh$=-1.86$

1250: and $[\alpha/Fe]=-0.29$ (Carney et al. 1997, Ivans et al. 2003).

1251: This places it near several of the most extreme low

1252: \alp dSph stars (at slightly higher \mets). However, this star lies one or two orders of magnitude below

1253: dSph stars in its Ba and Eu \abus, arguing against their common origin.

1254: From $-1.6 \ltsim \feh \ltsim -1.0$, the situation is grim indeed - there is

1255: essentially no overlap between the 2 samples, with the difference being very

1256: substantial, with the very notable exception of Sgr. Sgr alone shows actually

1257: quite good agreement (with a slight depletion)

1258: with the halo for the 6 stars for which good \abus exist.

1259: Clearly it would be extremely useful to observe more \mp stars in Sgr to see

1260: if this trend continues. 

1261: What is distinct about Sgr is of course that it is the                          most massive dSph known, with a mass at least several times greater than the    next most massive dSph, Fornax, and many times larger than the other dSphs.     

1262: Finally, only Sgr has stars more \mr than $\feh=-1$

1263: with the exception of a single Fornax giant which is very halo-like.

1264: However, here we have a small problem -- there appears to be an offset of about 0.15 -- 0.2     dex between the

1265: \alp \abus of Sgr stars at a given \met derived by Smecker-Hane and McWilliam

1266: and those of the Italian group (Bonifacio et al. 2004, Monaco et al. 2005, Sbordone 

1267: et al. 2006).

1268: Note that this offset does NOT exist for the (small number) of \mp stars.

1269: We are uncertain as to the origin of this offset (see Monaco et al. for more

1270: details).

1271: We will take the \abus at their face values.

1272: The data of Smecker-Hane and McWilliam suggest there may be some overlap

1273: with the most extreme low-\alp, high \met halo stars, while the Sgr 

1274: stars measured by the Italians     continue the trend shown by the other

1275: dSphs of low relative \alp \abus, although of course by the time we reach

1276: solar \met in the \Glx, the mean \alp \abu is also solar and thus even the

1277: Italian results show only a minor depletion of $\sim 0.15$ dex at this \met.

1278: These results build on those derived by Venn et al. (2004) who carried out

1279: a very detailed comparative study of the chemistry in different \Gal

1280: components, separated by their kinematics, and dSphs.

1281: 

1282: Thus, it appears that only the most massive dSph has stars similar in \alp    \abu to \Gal stars, even the most extreme low \alp subset most likely to have

1283: been accreted.

1284: There appear to be very few stars in the less 

1285: massive, more typical dSphs that overlap in this property with any stars in the \Glx.

1286: This may be due to the likely possibility that Sgr was a dE galaxy rather than

1287: a dSph (Monaco et al. 2005).

1288: The difference in \alp \abu with the \Gal mean for all dSphs except Sgr

1289: is  LARGER at higher \met, i.e. \feh

1290: $\sim -1$, than at the lower \mets previously well

1291: explored by S01 and S03. This 

1292: is contrary to the suggestion by S03 that, although the \mp halo could not be

1293: made up of stars like those seen in dSphs, up to 1/2 of the \mr halo could 

1294: have originated in such objects. Our analysis

1295: allows us to demonstrate that it {\bf appears 

1296: very unlikely that a significant fraction of the \mr halo could have come

1297: from disrupted dSphs of low mass similar to those studied herein}.

1298:  However, it does appear possible

1299: from this diagram that at least some of the \mp halo  may have come from

1300: typical dSphs, and that a portion of the

1301: intermediate \met and \mr halo

1302: may have come from the accretion of very massive systems like Sgr.

1303: %These two \pops also appear similar in their Na and hs \abus, which are the 

1304: %only other elements we are able to compare with the available data.

1305: However, McWilliam et al. (2003) and McWilliam and Smecker-Hane (2005b)

1306: show that Sgr stars have a unique Mn/Fe  and Cu/Fe

1307: signature and also that, at the \mr end, Sgr stars are depleted by $\sim 0.4$

1308: dex in Na and Al with respect to their \Gal counterparts. 

1309: Sbordone et al. (2006) confirm these findings and extend them to other 

1310: elements including Sc, V, Co, Ni, and Zn. It is of paramount

1311: importance to clarify the \abus in Sgr stars already measured and obtain new 

1312: data, especially for its most metal-poor red giants.

1313: 

1314: We can help to fill in this critical \mr zone for comparison 

1315: to the halo by utilizing recent

1316: high resolution \abus derived for a small number of blue or red supergiants in each

1317: of several Local Group dwarf irregular (dIrr) galaxies. It is often assumed 

1318: that the dIrrs are the counterparts of dSphs which have managed to retain their

1319: gas. Venn et al. (2001, 2003) and Kaufer et al. (2004) provide detailed \abus

1320: for several stars in NGC 6822, WLM and Sex A, respectively, and we have included

1321: new results on IC1613 (Tautvaiseine et al. 2007). These stars are shown

1322: as the yellow triangles in Fig. 12.  

1323: We also add the LMC cluster results from J06

1324: as cyan triangles and the LMC field stars from P06 as cyan squares.

1325: We see that the dIrr stars (granted only a

1326: small number) appear to be rather uniform in their behavior. 

1327: The dIrrs, as first noted by Venn et al. (2003), as well as the LMC stars (as 

1328: expected from Fig 8),

1329: follow the general trend of the dSph stars very well, although the 2 most \mp

1330: dIrr stars, at $\feh\sim -1.2$ (in Sex A), are not as \alp depleted as the 

1331: stars from the low mass dSphs,

1332: lying between them and the Sgr stars of comparable \met, but still

1333: depleted with respect to the bulk of the halo.

1334: 

1335: We are led to the rather amazing conclusion that {\bf the general \alp vs.

1336: \feh pattern of 12 of the 13 \gals studied so far besides our own are similar to

1337: each other and very different from the \MW!!} Sgr appears to be the only possible

1338: exception.

1339: 

1340: These comparisons add renewed weight to the arguments first made by S01

1341: and subsequently by F02, S03, T03 and G05

1342: that the {\bf chemical compositions of stars

1343: present now in typical low mass

1344: dSphs are distinct from those in the \Gal halo} and disk.  Our analysis        

1345: adds to this argument by enlarging the sample and 

1346: independently confirming this trend, and extending

1347: the \met regime to which this applies 

1348: to higher \met; viz. we argue against the possibility suggested by

1349: S03 that some 50\% of the \mr halo may have come from disrupted dSphs.

1350: In addition, however, we suggest

1351: that high mass dwarf systems like Sgr may potentially

1352: be the source of some of the halo.

1353: 

1354: A comparison with globular clusters shows that there are a few

1355: $\alpha$-poor systems such as Pal 12 (Cohen 2004) and Ruprecht 106

1356: (Brown, Wallerstein, \& Zucker 1997).  However the strongly retrograde

1357: globular NGC3201 does not show an $\alpha$-deficiency (Gonzalez \& Wallerstein

1358: 1998).  For $\omega$ Cen,

1359: the abundance history is extremely complex (Norris \& Da Costa 1995).

1360: For the globulars associated with the Sgr system, Terzan 7 has a

1361: slightly lower [$\alpha$]/Fe] value at [Fe/H]= -0.6 than the Galactic

1362: field stars.  Similarly, M54 (Brown, Wallerstein, \& Gonzalez 1999)

1363: shows a mean [$\alpha$/Fe] value of +0.2, about half of the value for

1364: field stars of similar metallicity, viz. [Fe/H]= -1.55.

1365: In general, though, GC stars and halo field stars have very similar

1366: chemical properties (except for the notorious Na -- O -- Al behavior in some GCs)

1367: and therefore shared the same chemical evolution history, which was 

1368: different from that of typical dSphs (Pritzl, Venn \& Irwin 2005).

1369: 

1370: The major implication of this of course is that {\bf the standard hierarchical

1371: galaxy formation scenario and 

1372: the Searle-Zinn paradigm for the formation of the outer \Gal halo via accretion

1373: of ``fragments" composed of stars like those we see in

1374: typical present-day dSphs is ruled out by the disjoint chemical signatures.

1375: We refer to this as ``The Problem".}

1376: 

1377: Can we tell if a given star in the halo originated from a dSph?

1378: As emphasized by S01 and S03 and further corroborated by this paper, dSph stars

1379: have broadly similar \abu patterns which are generally quite

1380: different from those found so far

1381: in our \Glx.

1382: The distinct \abu signature of dSph stars, as well as kinematic

1383: differences expected for a disrupted system, suggest that it would be a rather

1384: unambiguous task to determine if a given star or stellar structure may have 

1385: originated from a dSph like those studied here. An obvious first starting 

1386: point is to search for \mp stars ($\feh<-1$) with $[\alpha/Fe]<0.05$, as

1387: also suggested by Font et al. (2006a,b). Sgr stars could still be missed by

1388: this criterion. But

1389: McWilliam  et al. (2003) and McWilliam and Smecker-Hane (2005b) 

1390: suggest even Sgr stars could be distinguished by using their unique [Mn/Fe] 

1391: and Cu/Fe signatures.

1392: %It would be of 

1393: %great interest, e.g., to obtain high resolution spectra of stars found

1394: %in the newly discovered stellar ring surrounding the disk of our

1395: %\Glx (Yanny et al. 2003).

1396: %Bullock and Johnston (2004)  have carried out N-body simulations of the 

1397: %accretion of low mass \gals to form the \Gal halo. They find that stars 

1398: %associated with the halo may be quite different chemically from stars in

1399: %surviving satellites due to distinct chemical evolutionary histories and suggest

1400: %this may account for the differences we find.

1401: 

1402: %\subsection{Comparative Galactic Chemical Evolution}

1403: \subsection{Explaining the Problem}

1404: 

1405: The uniformity of the chemical \abu patterns in dSphs (S01, S03, T03, this work)

1406: suggest a fairly uniform

1407: chemical evolution, despite the rather large range of star formation histories

1408: (e.g. Mateo 1998).

1409: Here we explore chemical evolution scenarios in dSphs

1410: and how their

1411: evolution appears to have differed from that experienced in our \Glx.

1412: We would especially like to understand the reason for the distinct 

1413: chemical \abus seen today between halo and dSph stars, in particular the \alp elements, as described in the previous subsection.

1414: A great deal of progress has been made in very recent years which allows us to

1415: now understand the origin of these \abu differences.

1416: 

1417: The canonical description of \Gal chemical enrichment dates back to Tinsley

1418: (1979). She describes the \abu patterns expected due to the varying ratio 

1419: of SNe II to SNe Ia during the lifetime of the \Glx. SNe II arise from massive stars

1420: with main sequence lifetimes $< 10^8$ yr and have ejecta rich in the

1421: \alp elements as well as Na and probably Eu.

1422: SNe Ia come from mass transfer onto a white dwarf, which explode

1423: after they pass the Chandrasekhar limit, typically at least a Gyr after 

1424: formation. Their primary ejecta are  Fe-peak elements. Thus, in an initial low

1425: \met environment

1426: characterized by a standard IMF, the second

1427: generation of stars will exhibit enhanced \alp \abus (compared to solar), 

1428: with $[\alpha/Fe]\sim 0.4$, the standard SNe II ratio. As

1429: the Fe \abu slowly builds up, the \alp \abus will remain enhanced at about this 

1430: level until the lower mass SNe Ia begin to explode, $\gtsim 1$ Gyr after the first

1431: episode of star formation.

1432: Thereafter [\alp/Fe]

1433: will begin to decrease. This produces a ``knee" in [\alp/Fe] vs. \feh at an \feh

1434: that depends on the chemical evolution rate (basically the star formation rate

1435: and yield). If the star formation rate (herafter SFR)

1436: is rapid, the galaxy will have achieved a

1437: relatively higher \feh within a given time

1438: than would a system like a dSph experiencing a lower SFR or an early burst

1439: followed by a long quiesence (e.g. Gilmore and Wyse 1991).

1440: 

1441: A complication arising in dSphs that is still to be solved is how such a dwarf

1442: galaxy was able to retain the products of powerful SNe II ejecta

1443: so that they could

1444: be incorporated in the next generation of stars, as a \gal wind is expected

1445: to be generated  which could efficiently blow out any remaining gas

1446: (although see Marcolini

1447: et al. 2006).

1448: Clearly, the loss of processed stellar ejecta (via a galactic wind),

1449: or infall of matter, can also influence the shape of the

1450: [\alp/Fe]--[Fe/H] relation and also prevent star formation.

1451: %the primary effect results

1452: %from the star formation efficiency.

1453: 

1454: In the Milky Way, the SFR                 was relatively rapid and the \Glx

1455: produced \alp-enhanced stars and 

1456: enriched itself to \feh$\sim -1$ within the timescale for

1457: the first SNe Ia to go

1458: off, subsequently producing the knee seen in Figure 7. 

1459: In Scl, the best observed dSph, we see a similar process - 

1460: although it is not really clear what is the general behavior for \mp stars,

1461: they are certainly \alp enhanced 

1462: and may have a relatively shallow decrease in \alp with 

1463: \met followed by an apparent

1464: `knee' at higher \met and a subsequent steeper decline of [\alp/Fe].

1465: The main difference with the halo is that 

1466: the `knee' occurs at a much lower  \met than in the \Glx, $\sim -1.7$. 

1467: %Note that Sc also 

1468: %shows the same behavior.

1469: 

1470: %The depressed level of the plateau in the \alp/Fe ratio relative to the halo

1471: %at \mets less than that

1472: %of the knee is intriguing. 

1473: %S01 and S03

1474: %recognized the depressed level of \alp/Fe at {\it all}

1475: % \mets in their dSph samples.

1476: %F02 and S03 noted that this

1477: %could be due either to a lack of SNe II or that a small dSph galaxy in a

1478: %``normal" star formation event simply does not make, or makes only a very

1479: %few of, the most massive stars

1480: %required to manufacture the extra \alp elements, essentially truncating the 

1481: %upper IMF.

1482: %However, note that this is the first time that such a plateau is relatively

1483: %clearly seen - the previous datasets of S01 and S03 only

1484: %indicated an overall depression with no visible \met dependence. But

1485: %note that many of the other dSphs they studied have more

1486: %complicated star formation histories than Scl and indeed they claim to have

1487: %evidence in Carina for the renewed {\it increase}

1488: %in [\alp/Fe] predicted after a new burst of

1489: %star formation occurs, e.g. see Figure 20 of T03. 

1490: %Thus, we see in Scl for the first time 

1491: %evidence for both the plateau and knee,

1492: %thanks to both our larger dataset and Scl's relatively quiescent star formation

1493: %history after the initial burst, mimicing that in the halo. We must then try and

1494: %account for both of these phenomena. As stated above, the knee is most likely

1495: %due to the onset of SNe Ia ejecta, at an \feh lower than that in the \Glx due to

1496: %the lower SFR. We cannot then resort to this explanation to account for the

1497: %depressed plateau at lower \met, since we assume this occured {\it before}

1498: %SNeIa could

1499: %have exploded (unless there was on-going star formation, which may (Monkiewicz

1500: %et al. 1991) or may not (T03) have ocurred).

1501: %We next examine       the possibility of a truncated IMF due

1502: %to the low mass of the gas involved, which made the formation of the most

1503: %massive stars unlikely, as suggested by S03, to explain the depressed plateau.

1504: %The \alp \abu yields of SNeII are

1505: %mass dependent (Woosley and Weaver 1995) and the highest mass stars produce a

1506: %higher yield of at least some of the \alp elements, especially O and Si. 

1507: %Therefore, their absence could account for the depressed plateau. However, the

1508: %Woosley and Weaver models predict that, e.g.,

1509: % a $20M_\odot$ SNeII should yield 10 times

1510: %as much O as a $12M_\odot$ SNeII (their lowest mass model), while both of these

1511: %SNeII yield the {\it same} amount of Ti (the differences for Si and Ca are 

1512: %intermediate to these values). Thus, one would expect in this scenario that O

1513: %should be the most depressed with respect to the \Glx in the plateau and Ti 

1514: %essentially Galactic in the absence of the highest mass SNeII.

1515: %But a comparison of Figures 2 and 5 shows that just the 

1516: %{\it opposite} is true in Scl.  This also appears to be the case for the other

1517: %dSphs studied by S01 and S03.

1518: %This casts some doubt on the S03 explanation.

1519: 

1520: The most straightforward interpretation of

1521: the \feh value of the knee is  that Scl had a lower SFR                 than 

1522: in the \Glx and only achieved an \feh of $\sim-1.7$ before

1523: the onset of SNe Ia explosions.

1524: It is well known qualitatively that dSphs must have a lower SFR (e.g. Gilmore

1525: and Wyse 1991). 

1526: Lanfranchi and Matteucci (2004 - hereafter LF04) have modelled these effects in detail

1527: and find that {\bf the chemical differences between the dSphs and the halo are 

1528: easily and simply understood 

1529: as due to a combination of

1530: a low star formation efficiency ($\sim$ SFR)

1531: and  a high galactic wind efficiency in the former}. They carry out chemical evolution models

1532: with a variety of parameters and try and match the observed \abus, star 

1533: formation histories and age-\met relations for the Local Group dSphs. They

1534: find that in every case except for Sgr, a very good match is derived when

1535: the star formation efficiencies are very low and the wind efficiencies high. 

1536: Sgr requires a substantially higher star formation efficiency.

1537: They predict both a depressed \mp plateau as well as the \mp knee. The knee is

1538: due both to the onset of SNe Ia as well as the occurence of the galactic wind

1539: which blows   out much of the available remaining gas and halts further star

1540: formation and subsequent SNe II.

1541: For example, the O, Mg, Si and Ca \abus of Scl available to them - those of

1542: S03 - are well fit by a star formation efficiency of 0.05 -- 0.5/Gyr and a 

1543: high wind efficiency. We now add the G05 \alp data for Scl

1544: and have combined the predictions for individual elements from the best fit

1545: Scl model of LF04 into

1546: a single \alp curve. The results are shown in Fig. 13. 

1547: Again, we include in our discussion a comparison with the FLAMES results of T05.

1548: The predicted

1549: knee at $\feh=-1.6$

1550: is very pronounced and fits the data reasonably well, especially when the 

1551: FLAMES results are included. The smaller slope at lower \met

1552: is not as clearly defined by the data, which show a larger spread in this

1553: \met regime. The steep slope at higher \met fits                     the data,

1554: although the data show a somewhat shallower decrease. The overall agreement

1555: is reasonable and lends credence to the LF04 analysis.  We note that their

1556: models also do quite well in fitting the sparser data for other dSphs.

1557: However, note that the Scl data could be fit even better by a model producing

1558: a constant decline in [\alp/Fe] with \feh.

1559: 

1560: The success of their model in explaining the \alp \abus prompted Lanfranchi

1561: et al. (2006) to also apply it to the evolution of Ba and Eu in dSphs. Using

1562: the same best fit parameters found for the \alp \abus, i.e. star formation

1563: efficiency and \gal wind efficiency, they find similar

1564: good fits to these important heavier elements in the dSphs with the best 

1565: data available, including Scl. We reproduce here as Figure 14

1566: their figure for Scl but

1567: have included 2 additional stars that they did not which shows an excellent

1568: fit to the data. They find the same kind of knee as for 

1569: the \alp elements, at the same \met and for the same reasons. Again, the roles of SFR and \gal

1570: winds are critical. 

1571: Both elements are produced early on in

1572: the lifetime of a galaxy in relatively constant amounts by SNe II, yielding the

1573: horizontal line at low \met. However, when SNe Ia begin to kick in after about a Gyr

1574: of evolution, a \gal wind is generated which stops further SF and hence SNe II.

1575: Thus, no more Eu is produced but Ba slowly begins to rise as the contribution

1576: from AGB stars becomes important. A similar rise is again seen in the \Glx

1577: but at higher \met (see Fig 11) due to the higher SFR there. 

1578: 

1579: Thus, {\bf we are led to a simple explanation for the differences in \abu behavior

1580: that we see between the halo and its nearest \gal neighbors: the halo

1581: experienced much quicker chemical evolution due to its higher SFR, and the 

1582: dSphs, at least the typical low mass ones, experienced strong \gal winds which

1583: surpressed further massive star formation after SNe Ia began to explode.}

1584: The latest models of Lanfranchi and

1585: collaborators account quite well for the observed differences.

1586:  

1587: However, such models do have at least one glaring failure: their

1588: predicted \met distribution does not mimic             observations.

1589: Both the large samples derived from Ca triplet studies (Tolstoy et al. 2001)

1590: as well as the detailed \feh values based on     FLAMES results

1591: (Tolstoy et al. 2004) for Scl show that the 

1592: observed \met distribution is  essentially bimodal, with \mp and \mr components

1593: with the dividing line  at $\feh=-1.7$. The \mp stars are more spatially

1594: extended and are kinematically hotter than the \mr stars. On the other

1595: hand, Lanfranchi \& Matteucci produce only a single population with a 

1596: peak at $\feh=-1.7$ and a broad dispersion. The discovery of multiple \pops

1597: in even these simplest stellar conglomerates adds a new wrinkle to

1598: this whole area. Clearly, if there are 2 components, \abus need to be derived

1599: separately for each one. However, note that Kawata et al. (2006) find that a

1600: simple system with a continuous, albeit steep, \met gradient can lead to

1601: observations which suggest the system is instead discontinuous and bimodal.

1602: Clearly, more observations are required to investigate this possibility.

1603: In any case, we are now able to theoretically account for the observed 

1604: chemical differences between the halo and dSphs.

1605: 

1606: %A less likely scenario to explain the depressed plateau is preferentddl loss

1607: %of the ejecta from SNe II for some unknown reason (Russell et al. 1988).

1608: 

1609: %???Next we should say something about the relative importance of 

1610: %AGB stars in driving the hs elements towards the s-process line in the most

1611: %\mr stars. VS/GW/CC - you are the experts... The timescale is also $\sim 1$ Gyr,

1612: %right? Which fits in nicely with the apparent upturn seen in Ba/Eu at \feh=--1.5, which is the same \met where the alphas change slope.

1613: %We should check the following

1614: %regarding the 

1615: %Ba enhancement: Smecker-Hane and McWilliam (2002) claim that stars with

1616: %$L/L_\odot>3.1$ could be on the TP-AGB phase and thus could self-pollute,

1617: %enhancing their own

1618: %s-process \abus. I find our stars to have $L/L_\odot\sim 3.07 -

1619: %3.26$ so they indeed could have self-polluted. Comments???

1620: 

1621: %The observed range of

1622: %[Fe/H] from -2 to -1 is very similar to that of the Galactic Halo. While halo

1623: %stars are known down to about [Fe/H]=-4 stars with $[Fe/H]<-2$ are rather rare.

1624: %The upper end of the Fe/H distribution in Sculptor, [Fe/H]=-1, marks the rough

1625: %boundary of the halo and thick disc of our galaxy. The similarity of the

1626: %distribution of [Fe/H] values in Sculptor and the halo makes the Searle

1627: %and Zinn (1978) suggestion quite plausible. Other investigations of the composition

1628: %of dSph systems by Shetrone et al. (2003), Tolstoy et al. (2003) and Shetrone, Cote, and

1629: %Sargent (2001) have found similar ranges of [Fe/H] in a number of dsph

1630: %systems including Sculptor itself. The composition of the captured Sgr

1631: %system and its likely nucleus, M54, is somewhat more metal-rich but that

1632: %system may have been a dwarf elliptical like the companions of M31 rather than

1633: %a loose dSph (Smecker-Hane and McWilliam 2002; Brown, Wallerstein and Gonzalez

1634: %, 1999). 

1635: 

1636: \subsection{Solving the Problem}

1637: 

1638: We are still left with the very

1639: serious Problem - we cannot build the halo out of the obvious dwarf

1640: \gal ``fragments", the objects that otherwise strongly favored cosmological theories

1641: suggest should be the basic building blocks of \gal structure.

1642: Can we solve this Problem?

1643: 

1644: A series of recent papers have made great strides in presenting a very 

1645: viable solution to The Problem. These papers include Robertson et al. (2005 -

1646: R05), Font et al. (2006a,b), and Bullock \& Johnston (2005).

1647: We will mostly focus on the main arguments, presented in R05. They have 

1648: combined chemical evolution models with cosmologically-motivated 

1649: mass accretion histories for the putative \MW dark halo and its satellites.

1650: They begin with representative examples of the type of dark matter haloes 

1651: expected to host a destroyed ``stellar halo progenitor" dwarf, a surviving

1652: dIrr and a surviving dSph. They then include star formation and chemical

1653: evolution allowing for enrichment from SNe Ia and SNe II as well as stellar winds.

1654: Their solution to The Problem relies on the $\Lambda$CDM prediction that

1655: {\bf the majority of halo stars formed within a few ($\sim 5$), very massive

1656: ($\sim 5\times10^{10}M_\odot$) satellites accreted very early in the 

1657: history of the \MW ($\sim 10$ Gyr ago). Being massive, these satellites,

1658: before being assimilated, underwent rapid SF}. For the reasons developed above,

1659: such objects should then show $\sim$ halo \abu patterns. They were subsequently

1660: accreted by the growing \Glx, disrupted and their stars then became the halo

1661: stars we see today. These massive dwarf systems were perhaps

1662: more like dEs than dSphs.

1663: 

1664: What about the dSphs? They argue that {\bf the dSphs we see today are NOT

1665: representative of the type of building block that was responsible for the 

1666: bulk of the halo but instead are a biased \pop. 

1667: They are 'survivors'} - objects which have lived most

1668: of their life in isolation and are only now (in the last few Gyrs) being

1669: slowly assimilated by the \Glx and are still pretty much intact. Thus, they

1670: have undergone the processes noted by LF04 - low SFR and eventual onset

1671: of a \gal wind. They are also generally low mass.

1672: R05 find, as expected, that such \gals end up with depleted

1673: \alp \abus, in good agreement with the results of LF04 and the observations.

1674: 

1675: Let us look in detail at the 3 different objects that R05 model.

1676: The first is designed to represent a dIrr.

1677: It starts with a total dark halo mass of $6\times10^{10}M_\odot$  

1678: and ends with a final mass in stars of $4\times10^{8}M_\odot$. This is

1679: similar to that of a typical dIrr like IC 1613.

1680: This object formed 11.6 Gyr ago and was accreted

1681: by the \Glx 3.1 Gyr ago. It thus had 8.5 Gyr of star formation and chemical

1682: evolution in isolation, allowing the effects of SNe Ia and a \gal wind to

1683: shape its \abus. This object ends up having a relatively low SFR,

1684: forms few stars initially and the majority of its stars form at relatively

1685: high \met ($\sim -0.6<\feh<-1$) with $[\alpha/Fe]\sim$ solar, similar to the

1686: stars observed in present-day dIrrs.

1687: 

1688: Secondly, they study an object designed to mimic those expected to have

1689: formed the bulk of the halo. Its  initial mass is identical to that of the

1690: above dIrr. Being of the same initial mass, it formed at the same time 11.6

1691: Gyr ago. However, this object has two main differences with the dIrr: first

1692: (for reasons not specified by the authors), it forms stars initially

1693: very quickly. Secondly, it is accreted by the proto \Glx also very early --

1694: 9 Gyr ago. Thus, this object had only 2.6 Gyr of independence, at a high

1695: level of star formation. Under these conditions, they posit, or their models

1696: predict, that SNe Ia and \gal winds have little effect on the chemical 

1697: evolution, leading to stars with enhanced \alp \abus. Its gas enriches so

1698: that at the time of accretion               a typical star

1699: has    $\feh=-1.1$ and $[\alpha/Fe]\sim0.2$. This system, with a total

1700: stellar mass very similar to that above, quickly disrupts

1701: after it is accreted and subsequently forms typical halo stars (although 

1702: this is a little low in $[\alpha/Fe]$, which is more like 0.35 at this \met in

1703: the halo).

1704: 

1705: Their final object is modelled after a typical dSph. It has a dark halo mass

1706: of $6\times10^{8}M_\odot$ and thus formed very early, 13.1 Gyr ago. Its

1707: final stellar mass is $1\times10^{6}M_\odot$, an order of magnitude less

1708: than an object like Scl. It was accreted some 5 Gyr ago, so had 8 Gyr of

1709: isolation. As expected, such an object had a low SFR, experienced

1710: \gal winds, injection of SNe Ia and AGB material and thus ends up with

1711: the knee in the $[\alpha/Fe]$ vs. \feh diagram at low          \met

1712: and depressed \alp \abus for \mr stars. The gas just prior to accretion 

1713: has enriched to $\feh\sim -1.5$ and $[\alpha/Fe]\sim-0.1$. This is

1714: similar to what is seen in the low mass dSphs. 

1715: 

1716: Thus, {\bf R05 can successfully account for the \abus that we see in the halo

1717: and in dSphs and dIrrs and appear to have rescued the SZ/hierarchical

1718: formation scenarios.} This is a very important step which certainly requires

1719: further modelling and observational confirmation.

1720: 

1721: \section{Some Problems with Solving The Problem}

1722: 

1723: There are a couple of potential problems in the R05 analysis that we wish to

1724: point out. Note that in order to account for the halo \abus they need to have

1725: their halo progenitor form stars very quickly and efficiently after its

1726: formation. The dIrr progenitor formed at the same time with the same mass

1727:  but did not have this

1728: initial burst of star formation. What is the reason for the different star

1729: formation histories of these otherwise originally identical

1730: objects? Possibly the halo progenitor had its

1731: star formation triggered by a close encounter with the proto\Glx very early.

1732: 

1733: More problematical is the question of timescales. We know from the results

1734: presented above that by an $\feh\sim -2$ a typical low mass dSph like Scl

1735: starts showing The Problem. For stars more \mr than this, The Problem becomes

1736: increasingly severe. How long does The Problem take to develop?  

1737: The models of LF04 suggest VERY QUICKLY -- an object like Scl reaches this

1738: \met in less than 0.5 Gyr after star formation commences. The observational

1739: age-\met relation for Scl of Tolstoy et al. (2003) backs this up. Thus, any

1740: halo building block with a star formation and chemical evolution history

1741: roughly

1742: similar to that of Scl (presumably all of the typical dSphs) will show The

1743: Problem unless they are accreted extremely early in their history, i.e. 

1744: within 0.5 Gyr of their formation, i.e. onset of star formation in them.

1745: Of course, R05 argue that such \gals 

1746: only comprise a small fraction of halo constituents. But we have shown that

1747: this fraction must be {\it very} low given the essentially negligible overlap in

1748: \abus between the halo and low mass dSphs for stars more \mr than $\sim -2$.

1749: If even a relatively small number of typical dSphs were accreted into the

1750: halo one might expect that this discrepancy would not be as pronounced as it is.

1751: 

1752: What about more massive dwarf systems, like Sgr? Observations indicate that 

1753: there is reasonably

1754: good agreement for stars up to $\feh\sim-1$, above which Sgr stars also start

1755: to show The Problem. LF04 again find that Sgr should reach such a \met on a

1756: very short, similar ($<0.5$ Gyr) timescale. So, although more massive dSphs

1757: may be able to make halo-like stars up to a \met of about --1, The Problem

1758: occurs for more \mr stars, and these stars will be present if the object

1759: is accreted more than $\sim 0.5$ Gyr after its \form (although perhaps these

1760: more \mr stars formed later than this,        as suggested by some CMD studies).

1761: In their analysis, R05 found that the Problem did not occur in their stellar

1762: halo progenitor because it `only' had 2.5 Gyr of evolution before being 

1763: accreted and this apparently was not enough time for the effects of SNe Ia 

1764: and \gal winds to be important according to their models.

1765: However, real \gals (at least Scl) and the 

1766: LF04 models suggest otherwise. Note that the usual assumption for the onset

1767: of SNe Ia is $\sim 1$ Gyr so one would indeed expect their effects to be

1768: significant after 2.5 Gyr.               

1769: 

1770: We are thus led to suggest that the R05 scenario, although very promising,

1771: may require some fine tuning, especially with regards to timescales, in

1772: order to prevent The Problem from arising. In particular, satellite \gals

1773: must either be accreted MUCH earlier than postulated in R05 (within 

1774: $\sim 0.5$ Gyr after their \form) or somehow SF must be prevented to occur

1775: in them after their \form

1776: until only shortly before they are accreted. 

1777: However, note that all dSphs and dIrrs had at least some star \form at the very

1778: earliest epochs. The R05 solution relies

1779: on having only a few very massive halos accreted `very early' but in fact

1780: these massive haloes must be accreted within a very short time after their

1781: \form. 

1782: {\bf If dSph-like objects were accreted to form much of the halo, they

1783: must have been accreted very early, before the onset of SNe Ia}. Thus, we may be

1784: left with a hybrid scenario where the \Glx may have collapsed as well as

1785: accreted fragments a la Searle and Zinn but on an ELS-like timecale.

1786: 

1787: %Finally, as remarked by T03, it may still be possible to have \lq Sculptor'-ed

1788: %the halo of our \Glx {\it if} the assimilation 

1789: %ocurred very early, thereby allowing the majority of star formation to have

1790: %occurred in the much larger potential, higher star formation efficiency and

1791: %smaller effect of any galactic wind that are

1792: %required to explain the abundance patterns seen in our Galaxy, but not found in

1793: %dSphs. Note that the closer resemblance of the \alp \abus in Sgr derived by

1794: %Smecker-Hane and McWilliam to those in the

1795: %\Glx support this, although the Bonifacio et al.     data do not. But Scl shows 

1796: %us that some of the \abu differences, viz. the depressed \alp values at the \mp

1797: %end, are already in place before      the first SNe Ia's exploded, shortening

1798: %the time of any potential mergers from the 

1799: %``first few Gyr of structure formation" suggested in T03 to perhaps only a Gyr

1800: %or less. Note that the Lanfranchi and Matteucci models predict that Scl took

1801: %about a Gyr to reach the \met of $\sim -1.5$ where the knee occurs.

1802: %{\it If less massive dSph-like objects were accreted to form much of the halo, they

1803: %must have been accreted very early, before the onset of SNeIa}. Thus, we may be

1804: %left with a hybrid scenario where the \Glx may have collapsed as well as 

1805: %accreted fragments a la Searle and Zinn but on an ELS-like timecale.

1806: 

1807: \subsection{Other Considerations}

1808: 

1809: We close with a few brief remarks about other important factors or results

1810: related to our general topic. First, virtually all of the field stars that have

1811: been observed at high resolution to date to form our knowledge of the 

1812: composition of the halo currently

1813: inhabit only a very small region of the halo centered

1814: on the Sun. 

1815: How representative of the  full halo is this region? 

1816: Much wider area surveys are required to reveal this and are being planned.

1817: Lee \& Carney (2002)

1818: suggested that, although the mean \alp \abus may be uniform, there may be

1819: a gradient in [Si/Ti] in old halo GCs. However, Pritzl et al. (2005) compiled

1820: high resolution \abus for 45 GCs and compared them to halo field stars and

1821: those of dSphs. They found no evidence for any chemical gradients, in 

1822: particular [Si/Ti], and indeed found that the detailed \abus of the GC and

1823: field stars were very similar and that they then must have shared the same

1824: evolutionary history. Cohen \& Melendez (2005) found that the detailed \abus

1825: of stars in the distant outer halo GC NGC 7492 were the same as those in the

1826: inner halo GCs M3 and M13, corroborating the Pritzl et al. result.

1827: 

1828: This raises the general question of the homogeneity of the halo. The early

1829: results of McWilliam et al. (1995) confirmed the general  expectation that at very 

1830: low \mets one should start seeing substantial differences in element ratios

1831: due to stochastic events related to the mixing of one or only a few SNe of

1832: different mass and hence nucleosynthetic output. However, as more and more 

1833: data are acquired, of better resolution, S/N and sample size (e.g. the First

1834: Stars results of Cayrel et al. 2004, Arnone et al. 2005 Beers \& Christlieb 2005), {\bf

1835: the intrinsic

1836: scatter in many elements, particularly the \alps, is approaching the

1837: observational errors, which are reaching very low levels}.

1838: Arnone et al. find that, with a very careful analysis

1839: of very similar stars, that the cosmic scatter in Mg was $<0.06$ dex over a

1840: sample of  23 main sequence halo stars ranging from $-3.4<\feh<-2.2$. This is

1841: truly an amazing result. Standard \Gal chemical evolution models 

1842: (e.g. Argast et al. 2002) predict

1843: that there should be essentially no mixing and therefore substantial scatter 

1844: at $\feh=-3$, with a total range in e.g. the Mg \abu at this \met of 1 dex

1845: and a standard deviation of 0.4 dex, with the scatter decreasing with \met

1846: and disappearing by $\feh=-2$. The real halo however is much more homogeneous than

1847: this, with a cosmic scatter (at least in Mg) an order of magnitude lower than

1848: expected. They find that {\bf the halo must have been very well mixed within $\sim 30$

1849: Myr after its \form}, the estimated time for the \met to reach -3. This is an extremely short

1850: timescale. Andersen et al. (2007) estimate that at least 30 SNe II must have

1851: exploded to produce the homogeneity in the Mg \abus seen at \feh=-3.

1852: Either the mixing time for the halo was much shorter than generally

1853: assumed or the intrinsic variations in \abu ratios of SNe II of different mass

1854: and energy are much smaller than generally assumed. 

1855: Also note that Melendez \& Cohen (2007) have argued that the halo formed on a

1856: timescale of $\sim$0.3 Gyr based on the absence of a contribution from 

1857: intermediate mass AGB stars to halo Mg isotope ratios.

1858: %GCs are OLD - but outer halo GCs are a bit younger in the mean???

1859: 

1860: This point raises an additional problem for SZ/hierarchical \form scenarios.

1861: The halo now not only needed to have accreted but also to have mixed on a 

1862: very short timescale. In fact, as pointed out by Gilmore \& Wyse (2004), 

1863: such a remarkable homogeneity of the halo already seems to rule out a large

1864: number of merger/accretion events. One expects that each fragment/satellite

1865: galaxy should have its own distinct chemical history, albeit similar in many

1866: details, and it seems incredibly contrived to imagine many or even a few

1867: of these coming together on such a short time scale and giving rise to such

1868: a uniform halo, unless of course they were mostly gaseous at the time of

1869: accretion. 

1870: 

1871: Initial results of several ESO Large Programmes devoted to the study of 

1872: kinematics and \abus in dSphs are now appearing and will certainly revolutionize

1873: this field. One of the first has important implications for this Review: Helmi

1874: et al. (2006) report on their Ca triplet \mets for several hundred stars in each

1875: of four dSphs. They find NO stars with \feh$<-3$ and that the \mp tail of the 

1876: dSph \met distribution is thus significantly different from that of the halo. However,

1877: $\lambda$CDM chemical evolution models (Prantzos et al. 2006) generally predict

1878: that the majority of low \met halo stars should come from low mass, dSph-like

1879: progenitors. This adds an extra wrench into halo building block theories.

1880: 

1881: A further argument against the SZ scenario comes from comparing the Oosterhoff

1882: types of RR Lyraes in the halo (field and GCs) and dSphs. While \Gal RR Lyraes

1883: very nicely separate into two classes -- Oo type I and II, with mean periods

1884: of 0.55 and 0.65 days  -- those in the dSphs generally lie inbetween these 2 types (Catelan 2006).

1885: It appears virtually impossible to obtain the clear separation seen in the

1886: halo from the concatenation of a variety of objects with generally intermediate

1887: properties.

1888: 

1889: It seems most likely from the above considerations that if the SZ/hierarchical

1890: \form models are correct, that the bulk of the halo came from the disruption

1891: of only a small number of very massive building blocks very early in the

1892: history of the Universe, as suggested by R05 but much earlier than they envisioned.

1893: Not only should 

1894: such massive fragments contain the chemistry most like that seen now in the

1895: halo but they are also the ones that will host their own GCs. Of the present

1896: day dSphs, only the two most massive -- Fornax and Sgr -- possess GCs. Since

1897: it is often suggested that many of the halo GCs, especially those in the 

1898: outer halo, were accreted, one requires rather massive dwarf \gals  to provide

1899: these GCs, as Sgr is now doing. 

1900: Interestingly, Fornax GCs have \abus very similar to typical halo GCs

1901: (Letarte et al. 2006); however,

1902: as seen in Section 3, the Sgr GCs show The Problem.

1903: Thus, although the \Glx was not

1904: `Sculptor-ed' (see G05), it may well have been `Fornax-ed' or possibly `Sagittarius'ed'.

1905: 

1906: Indeed, perhaps GCs themselves are the missing halo building blocks. They

1907: certainly contain the right stellar \pops, \abus, etc., by definition.

1908:  Many theorists  have

1909: argued that a substantial fraction of halo field stars are the disrupted remnants

1910: of former GCs. E.g. Kroupa \& Boily (2002) studied the dynamical evolution of

1911: \cls and suggested that the halo field stars were the disrupted lower-mass \cls

1912: of an initial \cl \pop and the remaining intact GCs form the massive end.

1913: 

1914: Finally, we note that the classical, tacit assumption that the \MW is a typical

1915: spiral galaxy may indeed not be correct. Recent evidence is beginning to suggest

1916: that the \MW may in fact be quite unrepresentative. For a given mass, the 

1917: Galaxy lies \gtsim $1\sigma$ below the mean of comparable local spirals in 

1918: terms of its angular momentum, disk radius and \met in its outer regions

1919: (Hammer et al. 2007). They suggest that this is because the \MW has had an

1920: exceptionally quiet merger history, while most spirals have undergone

1921: significantly more mergers and that M31 is a much more typical spiral.

1922: Clearly, the suitability of our own Galaxy as a representative prototype is of

1923: utmost importance and needs to be clarified.

1924: Also, we still have much to learn about the nature of our own halo. A very recent

1925: paper (Carollo et al. 2007) presents the clearest evidence to date from studies

1926: of individual stars that the halo is composed of two subcomponents, with

1927: different spatial and metallicity distributions and kinematics, as first

1928: suggested by Zinn (1983) from GC studies. There is certainly much more to

1929: discover about our Milky Way, in which the current and future generations of

1930: surveys will play a leading role. 

1931: 

1932: A quote by Shapley (1943), in announcing the discovery (Shapley 1938) of a new class

1933: of objects called dSphs, is as relevant today, in the context of galaxy

1934: formation ideas, as it was originally regarding the nature of galaxies:

1935: ``the discovery of dSphs (Scl and Fornax) is upsetting,

1936: because it implies that our former knowledge and assumptions concerning

1937: the average galaxy may need serious modification ... 

1938: Two hazy patches on a 

1939: photograph have put us in a fog." We hope this Review has shed a little

1940: light on this fog and suggested some new avenues of research where the fog

1941: persists or has thickened.

1942: 

1943: We would like to thank Marta Mottini for helping to prepare some of the

1944: graphs. D.G. gratefully acknowledges support from the Chilean 

1945: {\sl Centro de Astrof\'\i sica} FONDAP No. 15010003.  V.V.S. acknowledges

1946: support from the NSF through grant AST06-46790.  We would like to

1947: thank E. Tolstoy for sending us data in advance of publication,    G.

1948: Lanfranchi for sending us detailed theoretical models and J. Johnson for 

1949: sending her results in machine-readable form.

1950: M. Shetrone, K. Venn, E. Tolstoy,

1951: V. Hill  and

1952: collaborators are warmly congratulated for pioneering the field of 

1953: extragalactic stellar abundances. 

1954: Any research involving Galactic GCs is aided by the excellent database of B.

1955: Harris who deserves special recognition for this effort.

1956: Finally, D.G. would like to thank M.E.

1957: Barraza for her enduring support, patience and love.

1958: 

1959: \clearpage

1960: 

1961: %\begin{thebibliography}{}

1962: 

1963: \references

1964: 

1965: \noindent

1966: Andersen, J. 2007, IAU Symp. 241, Stellar Populations as Building Blocks of

1967: Galaxies, ed. A. Vazdekis \& R.F. Peletier, in press\\

1968: %Arnett, W.,D. 1996, Supernovae and Nucleosynthesis, Princeton University Press,

1969: %Princeton\\ 

1970: %Arlandini, C., Kappeler, F., Wisshak, K., Gallino, R., Lugaro, M., Busso, M.,

1971: %\& Stariero, O. 1999, ApJ, 525, 886\\

1972: Argast, D., Samland, M., Thielemann, F.-K., \& Gerhard, O.E. 2002, A\&A, 388, 842\\

1973: Arnone, E.; Ryan, S. G.; Argast, D.; Norris, J. E.; Beers, T. C. 2005, A\&A, 430,

1974: 507\\

1975: %Baade, W. 1944, ApJ, 100, 137\\

1976: %Baade, W., \& Swope, H. H. 1961, AJ, 66, 300\\

1977: %Bard, A., Kock, A., \& Kock, M. 1991, A\&A, 248, 315\\

1978: Beers, T.C., \& Christlieb, N. 2005 ARAA 43, 531\\

1979: Belokurov, V.; Zucker, D. B.; Evans, N. W.; Gilmore, G.; Vidrih, S.; Bramich, D. M.; Newberg, H. J.; Wyse, R. F. G.; Irwin, M. J.; Fellhauer, M.; et al. 2006a,

1980: ApJ, 642L, 137\\

1981: Belokurov, V.; Zucker, D. B.; Evans, N. W.; Wilkinson, M. I.; Irwin, M. J.; Hodgkin, S.; Bramich, D. M.; Irwin, J. M.; Gilmore, G.; Willman, B.; et al. 2006b,

1982: ApJ, 647L, 111\\

1983: %Bessell, M. S., \& Brett, J. M. 1988, PASP, 96, 247\\

1984: %Bessell, M. S., Castelli, F., \& Plez, B. 1998, A\&A, 333, 231\\ 

1985: %Bonifacio, P., et al.  2000, A\&A, 359, 663\\

1986: %Bonifacio, P., \& Caffau, E. 2003, A\&A, 399, 1183\\

1987: Bonifacio, P. Sbordone, L., Marconi, G., Pasquini, L. \& Hill, V. 2004, A\&A,

1988: 414, 503\\

1989: %Bouchard, A., Carignan, C., \& Mashchenko, S. 2003, AJ, 126, 1295\\

1990: Brown, J., A., Wallerstein, G. \& Zucker, D. 1997, AJ 114,180\\

1991: Brown, J., A., Wallerstein, G., \& Gonzalez, G. 1999 AJ 118,1245\\ 

1992: Bullock, J.S., \& Johnston, K.V. 2005, ApJ, 635, 931\\

1993: %in Satellites and Tidal Streams, PASP Conf. Series 327, 801. Ed by F.Prada, D. 

1994: %Martinez Delgado, \& T. J. Mahoney\\

1995: Burris, D.L., Pilachowski, C.A., Armandroff, T.E., Sneden, C., Cowan, J.J., 

1996: Roe, H. 2000, ApJ, 544, 302\\

1997: %Carignan, C., Beaulieu, S., Cote, S., Demers, S., \& Mateo, M. 1998, AJ, 116,

1998: %1690\\

1999: Carney, B.W., Wright, J.S., Sneden, C., Laird, J.B., Aguilar, L.A., \& Latham,

2000: D.W. 1997, AJ, 114, 363\\

2001: Carollo, D., Beers, T.C. et al. 2007, Nature, in press (astro-ph/0706.3005)\\

2002: Carraro, G., Zinn, R., \& Moni Bidin, C. 2007, A\&A, 466, 181\\

2003: Carretta, E.; Gratton, R. G. 1997, A\&AS, 121, 95\\

2004: %Carretta, E., Gratton, R., Cohen, J. G., Beers, T. C., Christlieb, N. 2002, AJ,

2005: %124, 481\\

2006: %Carpenter, J. M. 2001, AJ, 121, 2851\\

2007: %CC_Sept5

2008: Catelan, M.; Bellazzini, M.; Landsman, W. B.; Ferraro, F. R.; Fusi Pecci, F.; 

2009: Galleti, S. 2001, AJ, 122, 3171\\

2010: Catelan, M. 2006, RevMexAstAst, 26, 93    \\

2011: Cayrel, R., Depagne, E., Spite, M., Hill, V., Spite, F., Francois, P.,

2012: Plez, B., Beers, T., Primas, F., Andersen, J., Barbuy, B., Bonifacio, P.,

2013: Molaro, P., Nordstrom, B. 2004, A\&A, 416, 1117 \\

2014: Chaboyer, B.; Demarque, P.; Sarajedini, A. 1996, ApJ, 459, 558\\

2015: %Charbonnel, C., Brown, J.A., Wallerstein, G., 1998, A\&A, 332, 204 \\

2016: %Charbonnel, C., do Nascimento, J., 1998, A\&A, 336, 915 \\

2017: %Charbonnel, C., \& Palacios, A., 2003, Proceedings of the IAU Symposium 215 

2018: %on {\sl Stellar Rotation}, Eds A.Maeder \& P.Eenens \\

2019: %Charbonnel, C. \& Weiss, A. in IAU General Assembly, Joint discussion 4, ed F. D'Antona \& R. Gratton\\

2020: %CC_Sept5

2021: Cohen, J.G. 2004, AJ, 127, 1545\\

2022: Cohen J.G. \& Melendez, J. 2005, AJ, 129, 1607\\

2023: %Cole, A.A., Smecker-Hane, T.A., Gallagher, J.S. 2000, AJ, 120, 1808\\

2024: %Cunha, K., Smith, V.V., Suntzeff, N., B., Norris, J.E., Da Costa, G.,S., \&

2025: %Plez, B. 2002 AJ 124,379\\

2026: %Da Costa, G.S. 1984, ApJ, 285, 483\\

2027: %Da Costa, G. S. 1988 in IAU Symp. 126, Harlow Shapley Symposium on 

2028: %Globular Cluster Systems 

2029: %in Galaxies, ed.       J. E. Grindlay \&  A. G. Davis Phillip (Reidel, 

2030: %Dordrecht), p. 191\\

2031: Da Costa, G. S. \& Armandroff, T. E. 1995, AJ 109, 2533\\

2032: De Angeli, F., Piotto, G., Cassisi, S., Busso, G., Recio-Blanco, A.,

2033: Salaris. M., Aparicio, A., Rosenberg, A. 2005, AJ, 130, 116\\

2034: %Demers, S., \& Battinelli, P. 1998, AJ, 115, 154\\

2035: %Dennisenkov, P.A., \& Weiss, A. 2001, ApJ, 559, L115\\

2036: Dinescu, D. I., Girard, T. M., van Altena, W. F. 1999, AJ 117, 1792\\

2037: Dinescu, D. I., Majewski, S. R., Girard, T. M., \& 

2038: Cudworth, K. M., 2000, AJ, 120, 1892\\

2039: Dinescu, D. I., Majewski, S. R., Girard, T. M., Cudworth, K. M., 2001, AJ 122, 19

2040: 16\\

2041: Dinescu, D. I., Keeney, B. A., Majweski, S. R., Girard, T. M. 2004,

2042: AJ 128, 687\\

2043: Dinescu, D. I., Girard, T. M., Van Altena, W. F., Lopez, C. E. 2005, ApJ 618, L28

2044: \\

2045: %Dolphin, A.E. 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91\\

2046: Edvardsson, B., Andersen, J., Gustafsson, B., Lambert, D. L., Nissen, P. E.,

2047: Tomkin, J. 1993, A\&A, 275, 101 \\

2048: Eggen, O.J., Lynden-Bell, D., \& Sandage, A. R. 1962, ApJ, 136, 748 (ELS)\\

2049: Freeman, K., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, ARAA, 40, 487   \\

2050: Font, A., Johnston, K.V., Bullock, J.S., \& Robertson, B.E. 2006a, ApJ, 638, 585\\

2051: Font, A., Johnston, K.V., Bullock, J.S., \& Robertson, B.E. 2006b, ApJ, 646, 886\\

2052: Fulbright, J. P. 2000, AJ, 120, 1841 \\

2053: Fulbright, J.P. 2002, AJ, 123, 404 (F02)\\

2054: Fulbright, J. P. \& Johnson, J. A. 2003, ApJ, 595, 1154 \\

2055: Geisler, D., Smith, V. V., Wallerstein, G., Gonzalez, G., Charbonnel, C.

2056: 2005, AJ, 129, 1428 (G05) \\

2057: %CC_Sept5

2058: %Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., \& van der Marel, R.P. 2003, AJ, 126, 1794\\

2059: Gilmore, G., \& Wyse, R.F.G. 1991, ApJL, 367, 55\\

2060: Gilmore, G., \& Wyse, R.F.G. 2004, astro/ph-0411714\\

2061: %Gilroy, K.K., 1989, ApJ, 347, 835 \\

2062: %Gilroy, K.K., Brown, J.A., 1991, 371, 578 \\

2063: Gonzalez, G., \& Wallerstein, G. 1998, AJ 116, 765\\

2064: %Gratton, R.G., Sneden, C., Carretta, E., Bragaglia, A., 2000, A\&A, 354, 169 \\

2065: %CC_Sept5

2066: Gratton, R.G., Carretta, E., Caludi, R.,   Lucatello, S.,  \& 

2067: Barbieri, M. 2003, A\&A, 404, 187 \\

2068: %Gratton, R.G., Carretta, E., Desidera, S., Lucatello, S., Mazzei, P., \& 

2069: %Barbieri, M. 2003b, A\&A, 406, 131\\

2070: %Grebel, E.K., 1999, in IAU Symp. 192, The Stellar Content of Local Group

2071: %Galaxies, ed. P. Whitelock \& R. Cannon (San Francisco: ASP), 17\\

2072: %Grebel, E. K., Roberts, W. J., \& Van de Rydt, F. 1994, Third ESO/CTIO 

2073: %Workshop, La Serena, Chile\\

2074: Grebel, E.K., Gallagher, J., \& Harbeck, D. 2003, AJ, 125, 1926\\

2075: %Grevesse, N., \&   Sauval, A.J. 1999, A\&A, 347, 348\\

2076: %Gustaffson, B., Bell, R.A., Ericksson, K., \& Nordlund, A., 1975, A\&A, 42, 407\\

2077: Harbeck, D., Grebel, E.K., Holtzman, J., Guhathakurta, P., Brandner, W., 

2078: Dolphin, A., Geisler, D., Sarajedini, A., Hurley-Keller, D., Mateo, M. 2001, AJ,

2079: 122, 3092\\

2080: Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., \& Lehnert, M.D. 2007, ApJ, in 

2081: press\\

2082: Harris, W.E. 2003, Galactic Globular Cluster database\\

2083: Helmi, Amina; Irwin, M. J.; Tolstoy, E.; Battaglia, G.; Hill, V.; Jablonka, P.; Venn, K.; Shetrone, M.; Letarte, B.; Arimoto, N.; et al. 2006, ApJ, 651L, 121\\

2084: %Hilker, M., \& Richtler T. 2000, A\&A, 362, 895\\

2085: %CC_Sept5 

2086: %Hill, V., Barbuy, B., Spite, M., 1997, A\&A, 323, 461 \\

2087: Hill, V., Francois, P., Spite, M., Primas, F., Spite, F. 2000, A\&A, 364,

2088: L19 \\

2089: %CC_Sept5 

2090: %Holweger, H., Bard, A., Kock, M., Kock, A. 1991 A\&A 249, 545\\

2091: Hoyle, F.; \& Schwarzschild, M. 1955, ApJS, 2, 1\\

2092: %Hughes, J., \& Wallerstein, G. 2000, AJ, 119, 1225\\

2093: %Hurley-Keller, D., Mateo, M., Grebel, E. 1999, ApJL, 523, 25\\

2094: Ibata, R.A., Gilmore, G., \& Irwin, M.J. 1994, Nature, 370, 194\\

2095: Ivans, I.,I., Sneden, C., Kraft, R.,P., Suntzeff, N.,B., Smith, V.,V., Langer, E. \& Fulbright, J.P. 1999 AJ 118,1273\\  

2096: %Ivans, I.,I., Kraft, R.,P., Sneden,C., Rich, R., Shetrone, M. 2001 AJ 122,1438\\

2097: Ivans, I.I.; Sneden, C.; James, C. R.; Preston, G.W.; Fulbright, J.P.; Hoflich, P.A.; Carney, B.W.; Wheeler, J.C. 2003, ApJ, 592, 906\\

2098: Johnson, J. A. 2002, ApJS, 139, 219 \\

2099: Johnson, J. A., Ivans, I.I., Stetson, P.B. 2006, ApJ, 640, 801 (J06)\\

2100: Jonsell, K.; Edvardsson, B.; Gustafsson, B.; Magain, P.; Nissen, P. E.; Asplund, M.

2101: 2005, A\&A, 440, 321\\

2102: Kaufer, A., Venn, K.A., Tolstoy, E., Pinte, C., \& Kudritzki, R.P. 2004, AJ,

2103: 127, 2723\\                    

2104: Kawata, D., Arimoto, N., Cen, R., Gibson, B.K. 2006, ApJ, 641, 785\\

2105: %Keller, Pilachowski and Sneden 2001, AJ 122, 2560???\\

2106: Kleyna, J.T.; Wilkinson, M.I.; Evans, N.W.; Gilmore, G. 2005, ApJ, 630L, 141\\

2107: Klypin, A.A., Kravtsov, A.V., Valenzuela, O., \& Prada, F. 1999, ApJ, 522, 82\\

2108: Korn, A. J., Keller, S. C., Kaufer, A., Langer, N., Przybilla, N., Stahl, O.,

2109: Wolf, B. 2002, A\&A, 385, 143 \\

2110: Kraft, R. P., Sneden, C., Smith, G. H., Shetrone, M. D.,

2111:   Langer, G. E., Pilachowski, C. A. 1997, AJ, 113, 279\\

2112: Kroupa, P.; Boily, C. M. 2002, MNRAS, 336, 1188\\

2113: Lanfranchi, G.A., \& Matteucci, F. 2004, MNRAS, 351, 1338 (LF04)\\              

2114: Lanfranchi, G.A., Matteucci, F. Cescutti, G. 2006, MNRAS, 365, 477\\        

2115: Layden, A.C. \& Sarajedini, A. 2000, AJ, 119, 1760\\

2116: Lee, H-c, Lee, Y-W., Gibson, B. K. 2002, AJ 124, 2664\\

2117: Lee, J-W. \& Carney, B.W. 2002, AJ, 124, 1511\\

2118: Lee, Y-W., Demarque, P., Zinn, R. 1994, ApJ, 432, 248\\

2119: Letarte, B.; Hill, V.; Jablonka, P.; Tolstoy, E.; Francois, P.; Meylan, G. 2006,

2120: A\&A, 453, 547\\

2121: %Lloyd Evans, D. 1983, MNRAS 204, 985\\

2122: %Majewski, S.R., Siegel, M.H., Patterson, R.J., Rood, R.T. 1999, ApJL, 520, 33\\

2123: Marcolini, A., D'Ercole, A., Brighenti, F., Recchi, S. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 643\\

2124: %Martin, Fuhr, \& Wiese 1988???\\

2125: Mateo, M. 1998, ARAA, 36, 435\\

2126: %McWilliam, A. 1990, ApJS, 74, 1075\\

2127: McWilliam, A., Preston, G. W., Sneden, C., Searle, L. 1995, AJ, 109, 1428 \\

2128: %McWilliam, A. 1997, ARAA, 35, 503\\

2129: McWilliam, A., Rich, R.M., Smecker-Hane, T.A., 2003, ApJL, 592, 21\\

2130: McWilliam, A. \& Smecker-Hane, T. 2005a, ASP Conf. Ser. 336, p. 221\\

2131: McWilliam, A. \& Smecker-Hane, T. 2005b, ApJ, 622, L29             \\

2132: Melendez, J., \& Cohen, J.G. 2007, astro-ph/0702655\\

2133: Minniti, D. 1995, AJ, 109, 1663\\

2134: %Mishenina, T.,V., Kovtyukh, V.,V., Soubiran, C., Travaglio, C., \& Busso, M., 

2135: %2002 A\&A 396,189\\

2136: Monaco, L.; Bellazzini, M.; Bonifacio, P.; Ferraro, F. R.; Marconi, G.; Pancino, E.; Sbordone, L.; Zaggia, S.

2137: 2005, A\&A, 441, 141\\

2138: %Monkiewicz, J., et al. 1999, PASP, 111, 1392\\

2139: Navarro, J.F.; Frenk, C.S.; White, S.D. M. 1997, ApJ, 490, 493\\

2140: Nissen, P.E., \& Schuster, W.J. 1997, A\&A, 326, 751 (NS97)\\

2141: Norris, J.E. \& Da Costa, G.S. 1995 ApJ 447, 680\\

2142: %Norris, J.E., Freeman, K.C., \& Mighell, K.J. 1996, ApJ, 462, 241\\

2143: Odenkirchen, M.; Grebel, E.K.; Dehnen, W.; Rix, H-W.; Yanny, B.; Newberg, H.J.; Rockosi, C.M.; Martínez-Delgado, D.; Brinkmann, J.; Pier, J.R.

2144: 2003, AJ, 126, 2385\\

2145: %O'Brian et al. (1991???\\

2146: Pagel, B.E.J., \& Tautvaisiene, G. 1995, MNRAS, 276,

2147: 505\\

2148: Piatek, S., Pryor, C., Olszewski, E. W., Harris, H. C., Mateo, M.,

2149: Minniti, D., Monet, D. G., Morrison, H., Tinney, C. G. 2002, AJ 124, 3198\\

2150: Pompeia, L., Hill, V., Spite, M., Cole, A., Primas, F., Romaniello, M., 

2151: Pasquini, L., Cioni, M-R., Smecker-Hane, T. 2006, A\&A, in press (P06)\\

2152: Prantzos, N. 2006, astro-ph/0611476\\

2153: Pritzl, B.J., Venn, K.A. \& Irwin, M. 2005, AJ, 130, 2140\\

2154: Prochaska, J. X., Naumov, S. O., Carney, B. W., McWilliam, A., Wolfe, A.

2155: 2000, AJ, 120, 2513 \\

2156: %Ramirez, S.V., Cohen, J.G., Buss, J., Briley, M.M. 2001, AJ, 122, 1429\\

2157: Reddy, B. E., Tomkin, J., Lambert, D. L., \& Allende Prieto, C. 2003,

2158: MNRAS, 340, 304 \\  

2159: Reddy, B. E., Lambert, D. L., \& Allende Prieto, C. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1329\\

2160: Robertson, B.; Bullock, J.S.; Font, A.S.; Johnston, K.V.; Hernquist, L. 2005, 

2161: ApJ, 632, 872 (R05) \\

2162: %Renzini, A. 1980, Mem. S.A.It., 51, 749\\

2163: %Russell, S.C., Bessell, M.S., \& Dopita, M.A. 1988, 

2164: %Galactic and Extragalactic Star Formation, Proceeings of a NATO Advanced Study Institute, (Dordrecht:Kluwer),

2165: %edited by Ralph E. Pudritz and Michel Fich. NATO Advanced Science Institutes Series C, Volume 232, p.601\\

2166: %Ryan, S.G., Norris, J.E., \& Beers, T.C. 1996, ApJ, 471, 254\\

2167: Sadakane, K.; Arimoto, N.; Ikuta, C.; Aoki, W.; Jablonka, P.; Tajitsu, A. 2004,

2168: PASJ, 56, 1041\\

2169: Sandage, A.R. 1953, AJ, 58, 61\\

2170: Sandage, A., \& Wildey, R. 1967, ApJ 150,469\\

2171: Sarajedini, A. \& Layden, A.C. 1995, AJ, 109, 1086\\

2172: Sbordone, L., Bonifacio, P., Buonanno, R., Marconi, G., Monaco, L. \& Zaggia, S.

2173: 2007, A\&A, 465, 815  \\

2174: %Schweitzer, A. E., Cudworth, K. M., Majewski, S. R., \& Suntzeff, N. B. 

2175: %1995, AJ, 110, 2747\\

2176: Searle, L., \& Zinn, R. 1978, ApJ, 225, 357 (SZ)\\

2177: Shapley, H. 1938, Nature, 142, 715\\

2178: Shapley, H. 1943, Galaxies, Philadelphia: Blakiston\\

2179: %CC_Sept5

2180: Shetrone, M. 2003, ApJL, 585, 45 \\

2181: Shetrone, M. 2004, 

2182: Origin and Evolution of the Elements, from the Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposia. Published by Cambridge University Press, 

2183: Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series. Edited by A. McWilliam and M. Rauch, p. 218\\

2184: %CC_Sept5

2185: Shetrone, M. D., Bolte, M., \& Stetson, P. B. 1998, AJ, 115, 1888\\

2186: Shetrone, M., D., C\^ot\'e, P., \& Sargent, W., L., W. 2001, ApJ, 548, 592 (S01)

2187: \\

2188: Shetrone, M., Venn, K., Tolstoy, E., Primas, F., Hill, V., \& Kaufer, A. 2003,

2189: AJ, 125, 684 (S03) \\ 

2190: Simon, J.D. \& Geha, M. 2007, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0706.0516)\\

2191: Smecker-Hane, T.,A., McWilliam, A., 1999, ASP Conf. Ser. 192, p.150\\

2192: Smecker-Hane, T.,A., McWilliam, A., 2002 astro-ph/0205411\\  

2193: Smith, E.O.; Neill, J.D.; Mighell, K.J.; Rich, R. M. 1996, AJ 111, 1596\\

2194: %Smith, V.V. (1997) Rev. Mod. Phys. 69, 995\\            

2195: %CC_Sept5 

2196: Smith, V.V., Hinkle, K.H., Cunha, K., Plez, B., et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 3241 \\

2197: %Smith, V.V., Suntzeff, N.B., Cunha, K., Gallino, R., Busso, M., Lambert, D.L., 

2198: %Straniero, O., 2000, AJ, 119, 1239 \\

2199: %CC_Sept5 

2200: %Sneden, C. 1973, ApJ, 184, 839\\

2201: %Sneden, C., Pilachowski, C., A,. \& Kraft, R., P. 2000, AJ, 120, 1014\\

2202: Stephens, A., \& Boesgaard, A.M. 2002, AJ, 123, 1647\\

2203: Stetson, P.B., VandenBerg, D.A., \& Bolte, M. 1996, PASP, 108, 560   \\

2204: %Suntzeff, N.B., \& Kraft, R.P. 1996, AJ, 111, 1913\\

2205: Tautvaisiene, G.; Wallerstein, G.; Geisler, D.; Gonzalez, G.; Charbonnel, C. 

2206: 2004, AJ, 127, 373\\

2207: Tautvaisiene, G., Geisler, D., Wallerstein, G., Borissova, J., Bizyaev, D., 

2208: Pagel, B.E.J., Charbonnel, C., Smith V.V. 2007, AJ, submitted \\

2209: %Thevenin \& Idiart (1999), ApJ, 521, 753\\

2210: Timmes, F. X.; Woosley, S. E.; Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJS, 98, 617\\

2211: Tinsley, B.M. 1979, ApJ, 229, 1046\\

2212: Tolstoy, E., Irwin, M.J., Cole, A.A., Pasquini, L., Gillmozzi, R., \& Gallagher,J. S. 2001, MNRAS, 327, 918\\

2213: Tolstoy, E., Venn, K., A., Shetrone, M., Primas, F., Hill, V., Kaufer, A., \& Szeifert, T. 2003, AJ, 125, 707 (T03)\\

2214: Tolstoy, E.; Irwin, M. J.; Helmi, A.; Battaglia, G.; Jablonka, P.; Hill, V.; Venn, K. A.; Shetrone, M. D.; Letarte, B.; Cole, A. A.; et al. 

2215: 2004, ApJ, 617L, 119\\

2216: Tolstoy, E. 2005, IAU Coll. 198, Near Field Cosmology with Dwarf Elliptical

2217: Galaxies, ed. H. Jerjen \& B. Binggeli, p. 118 (T05)\\

2218: Tsuchiya, T., Dinescu, D. I., Korchagin, V. I. 2003, ApJ 598, L29\\

2219: Tsuchiya, T., Korchagin, V. I., Dinescu, D. I. 2004, MNRAS 350, 1141\\

2220: Unavane, M., Wyse, R.F.G., \& Gilmore, G. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 727\\

2221: Vanture A. D., Wallerstein, G., \& Brown, J. A. 1994 PASP 106, 835\\

2222: Venn, K.A., Kaufer, A., McCarthy, J.M., et al. 2001, ApJ, 547, 765\\

2223: Venn, K.A., Tolstoy, E., Kaufer, A., et al. 2003, AJ, 126, 1326\\

2224: Venn, K.A.; Irwin, M.; Shetrone, M.D.; Tout, C.A.; Hill, 

2225: V.; \& Tolstoy, E.  2004 AJ,   128, 1177\\

2226: %Ventura, P., D'Antona, F., Mazzitelli, I., \& Gratton, R. 2001, ApJ, 550, 

2227: %L65\\

2228: Ventura, P., \& D'Antona, F. 2005, ApJ, 635, L149 \\

2229: %Walcher, J., Fried, J.W., Burkert, A., \& Klessen, R.S. 2003, A\&A 406, 847\\  

2230: Wallerstein, G.; Iben, I., Jr.; Parker, P.; Boesgaard, A.M.; Hale, G.M.; Champagne, A.E.; Barnes, C.A.; Kappeler, F.; Smith, V.V.; Hoffman, R.D.; et al.

2231: 1997, RvMp, 69, 995\\

2232: %Weiss,A. \& Charbonnel,C. 2003, in IAU General Assembly, Joint Discussion 04,

2233: %ed. F. D'Antona and R. Gratton, in press \\

2234: White, S. D. M.; Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 341\\

2235: Willman, B. et al. 2005, ApJ 626L, 85\\

2236: Woosley, S.E., \& Weaver, T.A. 1995, ApJS, 101, 181\\

2237: %Yanny, B., et al., 2003, ApJ, 588, 824\\

2238: Zinn, R. 1980, ApJS, 42, 19\\

2239: Zinn, R. 1985, ApJ, 293, 424\\

2240: Zinn, R. 1993, ASP Conf. Ser., 48, 38\\

2241: Zucker, D. B.; Belokurov, V.; Evans, N. W.; Wilkinson, M. I.; Irwin, M. J.; Sivarani, T.; Hodgkin, S.; Bramich, D. M.; Irwin, J. M.; Gilmore, G.; et al.

2242: 2006a, ApJ, 643L, 103\\

2243: Zucker, D. B.; Belokurov, V.; Evans, N. W.; Kleyna, J. T.; Irwin, M. J.; Wilkinson, M. I.; Fellhauer, M.; Bramich, D. M.; Gilmore, G.; Newberg, H. J.; 

2244: 2006b ApJ, 650L, 41\\

2245: Zucker, D.B.; Belokurov, V.; Evans, N. W.; Gilmore, G.; Wilkinson, M. I. 2006c,

2246: AAS, 2091, 7805\\

2247: 

2248: %\end{thebibliography}

2249: 

2250: \clearpage

2251: 

2252: \begin{figure}

2253: \plotone{f1.eps}

2254: \caption{

2255: The metallicity of globular clusters as tabulated by Harris (2003)

2256: plotted against the log of their distances from the Galactic Center in

2257: kiloparecs. The break at 40 kpc is evident followed by 6 very distant

2258: globulars located

2259: at similar distances to the nearer dSph systems.

2260: Various clusters are identified.

2261: }

2262: \end{figure}

2263: 

2264: \clearpage

2265: 

2266: \begin{figure}

2267: \plotone{f2.eps}

2268: \caption{

2269: The dependence of metallicity on the color distribution of

2270: horizontal branch stars for globulars divided into 4 groups according to

2271: their distance from the Galactic Center, following SZ. Beyond 8 kpc there are no

2272: clusters with [Fe/H] > -1.0 except for Ter 7 and Pal 12 which are

2273: associated with the Sgr System. NGC 2419 is located in the bottom right diagram

2274: at (0.86,-2.12).

2275: }

2276: \end{figure}

2277: 

2278: \clearpage

2279: 

2280: \begin{figure}

2281: \includegraphics[scale=.80,angle=-90]{f3.eps}

2282: \caption{

2283: Metallicities as a function of HB type (Lee diagram) for

2284: Galactic globular clusters (circles), Fornax

2285: dwarf spheroidal clusters (star symbols) and

2286: mean values for dwarf spheroidals (triangles). For the Galactic

2287: globular clusters, the symbol size is proportional to the eccentricity.

2288: Sgr's clusters are represented with filled symbols and labeled.

2289: Equal age lines from Lee et al (2002) are also shown.

2290: }

2291: \end{figure}

2292: 

2293: \clearpage

2294: 

2295: \begin{figure}

2296: \plotone{f4.eps}

2297: \caption{

2298: Ages for Galactic GCs from De Angeli et al. (2005) as a function of orbital eccentricity for two age datasets:

2299: ground based (top) and HST (bottom). Two metal rich clusters

2300: ([Fe/H $> -0.8$) are represented with star symbols.

2301: }

2302: \end{figure}

2303: 

2304: \clearpage

2305: 

2306: \begin{figure}

2307: \plotone{f5.eps}

2308: \caption{

2309: Trends of abundance of various elements or element

2310: groups with \feh

2311: in the various systems that are associated with the Sagittarius Galaxy.

2312: }

2313: \end{figure}

2314: 

2315: \clearpage

2316: 

2317: \begin{figure}

2318: \plotone{f6.eps}

2319: \caption{

2320: Trends of abundance of various elements or element

2321: groups with age in the various systems that are associated with the Sagittarius

2322: Galaxy.

2323: }

2324: \end{figure}

2325: 

2326: \clearpage

2327: 

2328: \begin{figure}

2329: \epsscale{.80}

2330: \plotone{f7.eps}

2331: \caption{

2332: [O/Fe] vs. \feh for samples of stars in 4 different \gals. The solid

2333: curve is a model fit described in the text. O \abus in the extraGalactic samples

2334: are generally depleted with respect to their Galactic counterparts.

2335: }

2336: \end{figure}

2337: 

2338: \clearpage

2339: 

2340: \begin{figure}

2341: \plotone{f8.eps}

2342: \caption{

2343: Mg, Si, Ca and Ti \abus vs. \feh for giants in Scl (circles) and 2

2344: LMC samples (J05 clusters - squares, P06 field stars - diamonds).

2345: }

2346: \end{figure}

2347: 

2348: \clearpage

2349: 

2350: \begin{figure}

2351: \plotone{f9.eps}

2352: \caption{

2353: [Na/Fe] vs/ [O/Fe] for stars in the Galaxy (blue symbols) and

2354: various extraGalactic samples (magenta - see key). Solid green lines represent schematic

2355: representations of contributions expected from pure SNe II and SNe Ia.

2356: }

2357: \end{figure}

2358: 

2359: \clearpage

2360: 

2361: \begin{figure}

2362: \plotone{f10.eps}

2363: \caption{

2364: [Na/O] vs. [O/H] for (top) field stars in the Milky Way and dwarf

2365: galaxies (symbols as in Figure 9) and (bottom) as in the top panel but also

2366: including stars from two globular clusters in green: M13 (crosses) and M4

2367: (three-pronged symbol).

2368: }

2369: \end{figure}

2370: 

2371: \clearpage

2372: 

2373: \begin{figure}

2374: \plotone{f11.eps}

2375: \caption{

2376: [Ba/Eu] vs. \feh for Galactic stars (same symbols as Figure 9),

2377: dSph stars, Scl (large magenta circles) and $\Omega$ Cen (red squares). The

2378: dashed lines show expected \abus for pure r-process (bottom) and pure s-process

2379: (top).

2380: }

2381: \end{figure}

2382: 

2383: \clearpage

2384: 

2385: \begin{figure}

2386: \epsscale{1.0}

2387: \plotone{f12.eps}

2388: \caption{

2389: $[\alpha/Fe]$ vs. \feh for a variety of halo and extraGalactic samples (see text for

2390: full explanation). Green symbols represent halo     samples, blue are for low-mass

2391: dSphs, red for Sgr, cyan for the LMC, and yellow for dIrrs.

2392: In detail, 

2393: solid green curve and green stars - Gratton et al. (2003) dissipative collapse 

2394: and accreted halo stars, respectively; small green filled circles - NS97 low \alp stars;

2395: mean values for the three F02 components as the large green filled circles;

2396: mean points for 3 different \met bins from Stephens and Boesgaard (2002) - 

2397: large green open circles;

2398: Ivans et al. (2003) - green triangles; 

2399: Cayrel et al. (2004) - green filled squares;

2400: Jonsell et al. (2005) - green open squares.

2401: The blue stars are the Fornax dSph and the blue filled circles

2402: are stars in other dSphs studied by Shetrone et al.\ (2001) and Shetrone et al.\ (2003).

2403: Blue asterisks are from the Scl dSph studies of S03 and G05.

2404: Red filled circles are the Sgr sample of McWilliam \& Smecker-Hane (2005) and the red stars

2405: are the Sgr samples of Bonifacio et al.\ (2004) and Monaco et al.\ (2005).

2406: The cyan triangles indicate the LMC clusters studied by Johnson et al.\ (2006) and the cyan

2407: squares LMC field  stars from Pompeia et al. (2007).

2408: Observations of stars in dwarf irregular

2409: galaxies, including NGC 6822 (Venn et al.\ 2001), WLM (Venn et al.\ 2003) 

2410: Sextans A (Kaufer et al.\ 2004) and IC 1613 (Tautvai\v{s}ien\.{e} et al.\ 2007),

2411:   are indicated as the yellow filled triangles.

2412: }

2413: \end{figure}

2414: 

2415: \clearpage

2416: 

2417: \begin{figure}

2418: \plotone{f13.eps}

2419: \caption{

2420: Figure 13: $[\alpha/Fe]$ vs. \feh for Scl dSph giants (squares) compared to

2421: the theoretical predictions of LF04 (solid curve).

2422: }

2423: \end{figure}

2424: 

2425: \clearpage

2426: 

2427: \begin{figure}

2428: \plotone{f14.eps}

2429: \caption{

2430: [Ba/Eu] vs. \feh for Scl dSph giants (squares) compared to

2431: the theoretical predictions of Landfranchi et al.  (2006 - solid curve).

2432: }

2433: \end{figure}

2434: 

2435: \end{document}

2436: