1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2:
3: %\usepackage{epsfig}
4: %\usepackage{amsmath}
5: %\usepackage{color}
6: %\usepackage{subfigure}
7: %\usepackage{textcomp}
8: %\pagestyle{plain}
9: %\topmargin=-.5in %0cm
10: %\textheight=9in %24.1cm
11: %\evensidemargin=0in %0cm
12: %\oddsidemargin=0in %-.3cm
13: %\textwidth=6.5in %16.5cm
14: %\renewcommand{\theequation}{{\rm\thesection.\arabic{equation}}}
15: %\newcommand{\bm}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath$#1$}}
16: %\def\baselinestretch{1.5}
17: %\def\N{I\negthinspace\negthinspace N}
18: %\def\R{I\negthinspace\negthinspace R}
19: %\def\qed{\hfill$\diamondsuit$}
20: %\def\ed{\end{document}}
21: %\def\cb{\color{blue}}
22: %\def\eqalign#1{\null\,\vcenter{\openup\jot\ialign
23: % {\strut\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$\displaystyle{{}##}$
24: % \hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
25: %\def \kms {km s$^{-1}$}
26: %\setcounter{page}{1}
27: %\pagenumbering{arabic}
28:
29: \begin{document}
30:
31: \title{The Velocity Dispersion Profile of the Remote Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Leo~I: A Tidal Hit and Run?}
32:
33: \author{Mario Mateo\altaffilmark{1}, Edward W. Olszewski\altaffilmark{2}, and Matthew G. Walker\altaffilmark{3}}
34: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 830 Dennison Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042; {\tt mmateo@umich.edu}}
35: \altaffiltext{2}{Steward Observatory, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721; {\tt edo@as.arizona.edu}}
36: \altaffiltext{3}{Department of Astronomy, University of Michigan, 830 Dennison Building, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042; {\tt mgwalker@umich.edu}}
37:
38: \begin{abstract}
39:
40: We present new kinematic results for a sample of 387 stars located in
41: and around the Milky Way satellite dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo~I.
42: These spectra were obtained with the Hectochelle multi-object echelle
43: spectrograph on the MMT, and cover the MgI/Mgb lines at about 5200\AA.
44: Based on 297 repeat measurements of 108 stars, we estimate the mean
45: velocity error ($1\sigma$) of our sample to be 2.4 km/s, with a
46: systematic error of $\leq 1$ km/s. Combined with earlier results, we
47: identify a final sample of 328 Leo~I red giant members, from which we
48: measure a mean heliocentric radial velocity of $282.9 \pm 0.5$ km/s,
49: and a mean radial velocity dispersion of $9.2 \pm 0.4$ km/s for Leo~I.
50: The dispersion profile of Leo~I is essentially flat from the center of
51: the galaxy to beyond its classical `tidal' radius, a result that is
52: unaffected by contamination from field stars or binaries within our
53: kinematic sample. We have fit the profile to a variety of equilibrium
54: dynamical models and can strongly rule out models where mass follows
55: light. Two-component Sersic+NFW models with tangentially anisotropic
56: velocity distributions fit the dispersion profile well, with isotropic
57: models ruled out at a 95\%\ confidence level. Within the projected
58: radius sampled by our data ($\sim$ 1040 pc), the mass and V-band
59: mass-to-light ratio of Leo~I estimated from equilibrium models are in
60: the ranges 5-7 $\times 10^7 M_\odot$ and 9-14 (solar units),
61: respectively. We find that Leo~I members located outside a `break
62: radius' at $R_b \sim 400$ arcsec (500 pc) exhibit significant velocity
63: anisotropy, whereas stars interior of this radius appear consistent
64: with an isotropic velocity distribution. We propose a heuristic model
65: in which the break radius represents the location of the tidal radius
66: of Leo~I at perigalacticon of a highly elliptical orbit. Our scenario
67: can account for the complex star formation history of Leo~I, the
68: presence of population segregation within the galaxy, and Leo~I's
69: large outward velocity from the Milky Way. Within the framework of
70: our model, the lack of extended tidal arms in Leo~I -- both
71: perpendicular to and along the line of sight -- suggests the galaxy
72: has experienced only one perigalactic passage with the Milky Way;
73: thus, Leo~I may have been injected into its present orbit by a third
74: body a few Gyr before perigalacticon. We discuss the plausibility of
75: this idea within the context of hierarchical models and conclude that
76: such an interaction is entirely possible. We also report the possible
77: detection of a distinct kinematic structure in the Leo~I field at
78: about a $2\sigma$ significance level.
79:
80: \end{abstract}
81:
82: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics ---
83: (galaxies:) Local Group --- techniques: radial velocities}
84:
85: \section{Introduction}
86:
87: An understanding of how external and internal dynamical effects
88: combine to produce the observed kinematic properties of dwarf galaxies
89: is fundamental to probing the nature of these systems. Since dwarfs
90: may represent the smallest dark-matter (DM) halos that have survived
91: to the present epoch -- or simply the smallest that have retained
92: baryons (Ferrara and Tolstoy 2000; Benson et al. 2002; Grebel and
93: Gallagher 2004; Susa and Umemura 2004) -- they represent an important
94: link to broader structure formation models. As we learn more about the
95: dynamical state of the Galactic halo, however, is has become clear
96: that complex interactions of the components within the halo --
97: including local dwarfs -- may be common (Taylor and Babul 2004, 2005;
98: Coleman et al. 2004). Detailed $n$-body models hint at the frequency
99: of interactions (Moore et al. 1999; Kravtsov et al. 2004), while
100: hybrid $n$-body+hydrodynamical models reveal the richness of the
101: baryonic phenomena -- episodic star formation, gas streaming -- that
102: may result (Mayer et al. 2001a,b, 2005, 2007; Kravtsov et al. 2004).
103: Observational evidence in the halo of the Milky Way (Sagittarius:
104: Ibata et al. 1994, Majewski et al. 2003, Belokurov et al. 2006; The
105: Magellanic Stream: Putman et al. 1998, Connors et al. 2006; The Fornax
106: dwarf spheroidal galaxy: Coleman and Da Costa 2004, 2005, Olszewski et
107: al. 2006; The halo of M31: Ibata et al. 2001; Brown et al. 2006)
108: broadly confirms model expectations that tides/encounters strongly
109: alter the structural features of satellite dwarf systems.
110:
111: To describe the halo and its interaction history fully, we need to
112: know the nature of the DM subhalos. Nearby dwarfs and their DM halos
113: represent the best local proxies for the original DM seeds that built
114: up the Milky Way (Read et al. 2006a). But to probe the satellites and
115: study their DM halos in detail, we need to account for the effects of
116: interactions, since these can strongly alter our conclusions regarding
117: the properties of the halos (Klessen and Kroupa 1998; Fleck and Kuhn
118: 2003; Metz et al. 2007). Moreover, understanding the tidal history of
119: dwarfs depends on the knowledge of the total mass and structure of the
120: DM halo of the Milky Way in which these interactions occur. The
121: problem is deliciously interconnected and devilishly hard to solve,
122: particularly in the absence of a secure description of the small halos
123: comprising the Milky Way's extended halo. We have embarked on an
124: effort to address part of this riddle by systematically studying the
125: kinematic properties of many of satellites of the Milky Way (Walker et
126: al. 2007a,b). The present paper focuses on the Leo~I dwarf spheroidal
127: (dSph) galaxy.
128:
129: Two general cases arise when we consider the dynamical state of a
130: galaxy such as Leo~I\footnote{We restrict ourselves here to cases in
131: which Newtonian gravity applies. We will address the interpretation
132: of dSph kinematics in cases assuming non-Newtonian gravity in a later
133: paper.}. First, a galaxy can be considered to be in dynamical
134: equilibrium if it is sufficiently isolated from outside
135: perturbations. This case is well-understood theoretically though it
136: does admit to various degeneracies (e.g. anisotropy and the mass
137: distribution) and other complications (deprojections of possibly
138: non-spherical mass or tracer distributions). Nonetheless, one can,
139: with enough data, close in on the mass distribution from the
140: kinematics and distribution of baryonic tracers. However, given the
141: hierarchical nature of galaxy formation noted above, the second, more
142: realistic expectation is that galaxies, particularly dwarf satellites,
143: can never be in true dynamical equilibrium. The question then becomes
144: one of degree: How far out of equilibrium is a given galaxy and how do
145: deviations from equilibrium affect our interpretation of its
146: kinematics?
147:
148: The motions of stars in a satellite galaxy are governed by its
149: underlying mass distribution and the external potential in which the
150: galaxy orbits. To complicate matters, the external potential may be
151: asymmetric, or significantly time-dependent, particularly for orbits
152: with periods that span a significant fraction of the age over which
153: the parent galaxy formed. But even if the external potential is
154: highly symmetric, a dwarf galaxy in a non-circular orbit will
155: necessarily experience a time-variable potential as it traces its
156: orbital path (Pinchardo et al. 2005). Clearly, many factors dictate
157: the tidal history of any given galaxy, and, by implication, the degree
158: to which a given system's kinematics are affected by tidal influences.
159:
160: We know that in extreme cases these processes can have a
161: transformative effect, converting dwarf galaxies into streams that
162: encircle their parent galaxies (Ibata et al. 1994, 2001; Majewski et
163: al. 2003). Whether less severe effects have been seen in other
164: systems remains a matter of debate (e.g., Ursa Minor:
165: Mart\'inez-Delgado et al. 2001, Palma et al. 2003, Mu\~noz et
166: al. 2005; Carina: Kuhn et al. 1996, Monelli et al. 2004;
167: Majewski et al. 2005). As a population, local dwarfs exhibit trends,
168: such as decreasing mass-to-light (M/L) ratio with increasing
169: Galactocentric distance ($R_G$) for Milky Way and M31 satellites
170: (Mateo et al. 1998a; hereafter M98) and correlations of stellar ages
171: in dwarf systems as a function of $R_G$ (van den Bergh 1994; Mayer et
172: al. 2007), that provide circumstantial evidence tides do influence
173: satellite properties to varying degrees.
174:
175: Since our goal is to characterize the DM halos dwarf galaxies, it is
176: clearly advantageous to try to identify galaxies that best exemplify
177: systems in dynamical equilibrium. It is for this reason we (and
178: others: M98; Sohn et al. 2007; Koch et al. 2007) have chosen to focus
179: on the Leo~I dSph galaxy. Located 255 kpc from the Milky Way (Caputo
180: et al. 1999; Held et al. 2001; Bellazzini et al. 2004), Leo~I seems to
181: be a good candidate as a truly isolated dwarf that is close enough for
182: detailed kinematic study. This reasoning motivated M98 to obtain
183: radial velocities for 33 red giants in Leo~I from which they derived a
184: central velocity dispersion. Under the assumptions of dynamical
185: equilibrium and mass follows light, they argued that Leo~I does
186: contain a DM halo of comparable mass to those inferred in other,
187: closer dSph galaxies. This result implied that tides are not the sole
188: cause of the observed kinematic properties of dSph galaxies.
189:
190: However, Leo~I has two puzzling properties that suggest it may not be
191: the ideal, dynamically-isolated system we would hope it to be. First,
192: the heliocentric radial velocity, $v_h$ of Leo~I is extreme (282.9
193: km/s; see Section 4.3.1). Relative to the Galactic Center rest frame,
194: it has a recessional velocity of 174.9 km/s as observed from the Sun,
195: very high for a remote satellite of the Milky Way. Indeed, Leo~I can
196: singlehandedly inflate the inferred mass of our Galaxy by nearly a
197: factor of five compared to dynamical analyses of kinematic samples
198: that exclude it (Zaritsky et al. 1989; Fich and Tremaine 1991;
199: Kochanek 1996; Wilkinson and Evans 1999; Sakamoto et al. 2003). But
200: the large velocity also has an important implication for Leo~I itself.
201: Standard cold DM (CDM) hierarchical formation models of the Milky Way
202: tend to produce outward-streaming dwarfs at late times as the smaller
203: galaxies begin to interact strongly with the dominant, massive central
204: halo (Taylor et al. 2005) or other dark halos (Taylor and Babul 2004,
205: 2005; Sales et al. 2007a,b). Is the high systemic velocity of Leo~I
206: direct evidence of a strong past interaction with the Milky Way or,
207: possibly, some third body?
208:
209: The second enigma is that Leo~I has a complex star-formation (SF)
210: history (Gallart et al. 1999b; Hernandez et al. 2000; Dolphin 2002),
211: with the latest significant episode ending about 1 Gyr ago. Within
212: the framework of the tidal-stirring models of Mayer et al. (2001a,b,
213: 2005), periods of enhanced star formation represent times when the
214: gas in a dwarf is compressed toward the center of its DM halo during
215: strong interactions with the parent halo. Does the complex star
216: formation history of Leo~I reveal evidence of such an event --
217: presumably an interaction with the Milky Way -- about 1 Gyr ago?
218:
219: This paper presents new high-precision kinematic observations of over
220: 300 individual member red giants in the Leo~I dSph galaxy,
221: significantly extending both the quantity, quality, and spatial
222: coverage of earlier samples. With these new data it is possible to
223: address whether Leo~I represents an example of an isolated,
224: equilibrium system, or if its dynamics are significantly influenced by
225: external tidal effects.
226:
227: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
228:
229: The principal data of this paper consist of new radial velocity
230: measurements derived from spectra obtained using the multi-fiber
231: Hectochelle spectrograph on the MMT telescope (Szentgyorgyi et
232: al. 1998; Szentgyorgyi 2006). The observations were carried out
233: during two nights dedicated to this project (March 31/April 1 and
234: April 2/3, 2005), and during parts of six separate nights of two
235: Hectochelle `queue runs' in April, 2006 and March/April 2007 (see
236: Table 1 for details). Seven different fiber configurations were used,
237: denoted chronologically as `c1' through `c7'. We purposely allowed
238: for considerable target overlap in the various configurations to allow
239: us to use repeat measurements to quantify the velocity uncertainties
240: (Section 3.2). The spatial distribution of the targets is shown in
241: Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}, along with all of the Leo~I red giant (RG)
242: candidates.
243:
244: Candidates stars to be observed with Hectochelle were selected from
245: the ($I$, $V$--$I$) color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of Leo~I derived
246: from CCD data obtained with the Hiltner 2.4m Telescope at MDM
247: Observatory in February, 2004, and for the outermost candidates, from
248: data we obtained with the 90Prime camera on the Steward 2.3m telescope
249: at Kitt Peak in Feb 2006 (Williams et al. 2004). The locations of the
250: all candidate stars in the CMD are shown in Figure~\ref{figs:cmd}.
251: The photometric calibration was carried out using 22 stars in the
252: field that have calibrated photometry from M98. The rms scatter of
253: the adopted transformations is about 0.02 mag in both $I$ and $(V-I)$.
254: The astrometry for these stars was determined by transforming of the
255: CCD coordinates to standard coordinates, $(\xi,\eta)$ using 200-400
256: USNOB/NOMAD (Monet et al. 2003) coordinates of stars in the field.
257:
258: We chose regions devoid of detectable stars in our deep imaging to be
259: used for spectroscopic 'sky' measurements. These sky fiber locations
260: span the full radial extent of the target fibers relative to the
261: center of Leo~I. Additional 'sky' fibers were also randomly assigned
262: by the Hectochelle fiber robot software at the time of observation to
263: utilize otherwise idle fibers. Since these could, by chance, land on
264: an astronomical source, no automatically-assigned sky fibers were used
265: in our analysis. We also observed the radial velocity standard
266: HD171232, as standards in the SA57 field (Stefanik et al. 2006). The
267: Hectochelle fiber robot software generally assigned different fibers
268: to these stars on separate visits. Further details of our Leo~I and
269: standard-star observations are provided in Table~1.
270:
271: Hectochelle employs two $2048 \times 4096$ CCDs, illuminated by 244
272: fibers and read out through 4 amplifiers (2 on each CCD). Fibers are
273: assigned to targets to avoid mechanical overlaps and collisions, while
274: maximizing user-specified priorities, and can be positioned anywhere
275: within a 1-degree diameter field. The fibers terminate at the focal
276: plane of the collimator of an echelle spectrograph located on an
277: optical bench near the telescope. To increase the packing factor on
278: the CCD, the fibers are mounted in a zigzag pattern at the slit plane.
279: Thus, consecutive spectra are offset in both the spatial and
280: dispersion directions from one another. The entire pattern also
281: exhibits slight curvature along the `spatial' axis due to anamorphic
282: effects in the spectrograph optics. To avoid order overlap, an
283: interference filter was used to isolate the wavelength region of
284: interest. We observed our targets through the `RV52' filter which
285: covers the region of the Mg~I/Mgb features around 5200\AA. Further
286: technical information on Hectochelle is available at (Szentgyorgyi
287: 2006) and from the user's manual\footnote{{\tt
288: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/mmti/hectospec/Hectochelle\_Observers\_Manual.pdf}}.
289:
290: IRAF\footnote{IRAF was distributed by the National Optical Astronomy
291: Observatories, which are operated by the Association of Universities
292: for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement with the
293: National Science Foundation.} routines were used to process the raw
294: images, extract and wavelength-calibrate the individual spectra, and
295: to measure the final heliocentric velocities. The procedures are
296: broadly similar to ones we have employed in the past for single-object
297: slit spectroscopy (e.g. Vogt et al. 1998) and for multi-fiber
298: spectroscopy of Southern dwarf galaxies (Walker et al. 2007a). We
299: briefly summarize them here.
300:
301: All data were processed by first subtracting the overscan, trimming
302: the images, then combining the data from the two amplifiers for both
303: CCDs. Individual exposures were combined to form single deep images
304: and to remove the brightest point-like cosmic rays in the raw data
305: using a conservative sigma-clipping algorithm. Hectochelle had a
306: source of significant scattered light within the spectrograph chamber
307: during the 2005 run (configurations c1 and c2 in Table 1). This
308: problem made it impossible to flatfield these data or to perform
309: background subtraction. We estimate the scattered light cost us about
310: one magnitude in depth compared to the 2006/2007 observations, all of
311: which were unaffected by this problem.
312:
313: For the 2006 and 2007 observations (configurations c3 through c7 in
314: Table 1), we determined relative fiber throughputs from observations
315: of the twilight sky. Quartz lamp spectra were inadequate for this as
316: the light sources on the telescope do not illuminate the fibers
317: uniformly. After extraction, wavelength calibration (see below) and
318: dividing by the relative throughputs, we then combined all the sky
319: fiber spectra to make a master sky for each configuration. This
320: combined sky spectrum was subtracted this from the spectrum of each
321: target and each individual sky spectrum. The master sky spectrum was
322: typically produced by averaging 40-60 individual spectra, so it adds
323: little variance to the final sky-subtracted spectra. Overall, this
324: procedure appears to have worked well: Individual sky fibers had
325: little mean residual flux after subtraction (typically $\leq 5$\%\ of
326: the original sky flux). In contrast to the 2005 data,
327: cross-correlations of both target and sky fibers rarely produced a
328: signal at the expected velocity of scattered sunlight at the time of
329: observations (see Figure~\ref{figs:ccf1}).
330:
331: We established the locations of the individual spectra on the
332: detectors by tracing and extracting spectra of quartz lamps obtained
333: just before or after each set of observations for a given
334: configuration. The spectral traces from the quartz images were then
335: shifted spatially {\it en masse} to best match the fainter spectra of
336: the corresponding target exposures. The shifts of the quartz spectra
337: to the target spectra were stable to about 0.01 pixel, as determined
338: by comparing results for individual target exposures of a given
339: configuration. ThAr calibration emission spectra were extracted using
340: the same traces used for the corresponding target spectra. A
341: dispersion solution for each arc spectrum was determined by fitting
342: the centroids of 35-40 lines with known wavelengths to a fifth-order
343: polynomial. The fits had a typical RMS scatter of about 0.3-0.5 km/s.
344: The resulting dispersion solutions were then applied to all spectra,
345: producing wavelength-calibrated, one-dimensional spectra for every
346: fiber. The spectra are defined from 5150\AA\ to 5300\AA, with an
347: effective dispersion of 0.01 \AA/pix ($R \sim 25,000$). Spectra of
348: the standard stars were processed in essentially the same way except
349: that these were sufficiently bright to be traced without need of a
350: quartz exposure.
351:
352: \section{Velocity Measurements}
353:
354: \subsection{Velocity Standards}
355:
356: We constructed a high signal-to-noise master template spectrum from
357: individual spectra of radial velocity standard stars observed during
358: the 2005 MMT run (see Table 1). We chose HD171232 to act as a
359: `master' template, then used the Fourier cross-correlation routine
360: {\bf fxcor} in the {\it rv} package of IRAF to measure relative shifts
361: of this template and all the standard-star spectra. Our results for
362: each standard-star observation spectrum are listed in Table 2, based
363: on an assumed heliocentric velocity of HD171232 of $V_{h,HD171232} =
364: -37.3 \pm 0.8$ km/s (Udry et al. 1999). We also list the heliocentric
365: velocities for the standard stars from SA57 (Stefanik et al. 2006).
366: The individual standard-star spectra were Doppler-shifted by their
367: observed velocity shift relative to HD171232, then summed to make a
368: master template with a mean signal-to-noise ratio of about 400:1 per
369: resolution element. At this stage, the final template was tied to the
370: velocity scale defined by HD171232 given the Udry et al. (1999)
371: velocity.
372:
373: A problem became evident when we found that the SA57 standards
374: (Stefanik et al. 2006) from all runs exhibit an offset of
375: $\Delta_{SA57} = -3.4 \pm 1.3$ km/s when tied to HD171232 (see Table
376: 2). We suspect this offset is not associated with the SA57 standards
377: for the following reasons. First, the mean heliocentric velocity of
378: sky fiber spectra with a Tonry-Davis (1979) index, $R_{TD}$, greater
379: than 2.8 (see section 3.2) was $-4.1 \pm 0.8$ km/s, consistent with
380: $\Delta_{SA57}$, though not with zero. Second, during the 2006 run,
381: three sets of twilight exposures were obtained. These data gave a
382: mean heliocentric velocity of $-3.4 \pm 0.2$ km/s for the twilight
383: spectra using the HD171232 velocity zeropoint; again consistent with
384: $\Delta_{SA57}$ but not with zero. Third, velocity measurements from
385: other configurations where the spectra of faint stars are overwhelmed
386: by moonlight were found to be offset by $-3.7$ km/s using the HD171232
387: zeropoint. Finally, Udry et al. (1999) remark that the velocity of
388: HD171232 appears to 'drift', a result we appear to confirm.
389:
390: We can reconcile HD171232, the SA57 standards and the night-sky and
391: twilight spectra by simply shifting our adopted velocity scale by
392: $-\Delta_{SA57} = +3.4$ km/s. We did this by amending the
393: heliocentric velocity in the master template spectrum by $+3.4$ km/s,
394: effectively adopting $v_{helio} = -33.9$ km/s for HD171232. With this
395: change, the heliocentric twilight and night-sky velocities all
396: averaged to within $\pm 1$ km/s of zero, and the velocities of the
397: SA57 standards came into excellent agreement to their published values
398: (Stefanik et al. 2006; Table 2). We believe that our final
399: heliocentric velocity zeropoint is systematically accurate to $\leq 1$
400: km/s.
401:
402: \subsection{Velocities of Leo~I Candidates}
403:
404: We used {\bf fxcor} in IRAF to measure the velocities of Leo~I
405: candidates relative to the template. Typical cross-correlation
406: functions are shown in Figure~\ref{figs:ccf1}. Tonry and Davis (1979)
407: defined a parameter, $R_{TD}$, which measures the height of the
408: cross-correlation peak relative to the amplitude of the noise in the
409: cross correlation function near the peak. The {\bf fxcor} task
410: reports $R_{TD}$ for all spectra for which it estimates a velocity.
411: All of the spectra used here have $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$. This cutoff
412: represents the value of $R_{TD}$ where it became difficult to identify
413: consistently a correlation peak, and where quantitative comparisons of
414: independent measurements of individual stars revealed that our
415: velocity measurements were becoming unreliable (see below).
416:
417: Some statistics for our MMT/Hectochelle fiber observations are
418: provided in Table 3. Of the 749 fibers assigned to astronomical
419: (i.e., non-sky) targets in the five Leo~I configurations, we obtained
420: 543 spectra (72\%) of 371 different targets that produced
421: cross-correlations with $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$. About 59\%\ of our
422: assigned fibers (440 spectra) produced good velocities for the final
423: sample of 312 likely Leo~I members observed with Hectochelle
424: (membership is quite clear-cut in the case of Leo~I as described
425: below). If we add the 33 targets from M98 (we justify this below),
426: our final sample consists of 387 stars, 328 of which are likely Leo~I
427: members (17 of the M98 stars were reobserved with Hectochelle). A
428: total of 108 stars (297 spectra) were observed multiply, with 51 stars
429: twice, 38 three times, 15 four times, and 3 five times. One star
430: (number 359 in Table 5) was observed on six separate occasions. Table
431: 4 gives a complete listing of all the repeat measurements within the
432: combined MMT/Keck dataset.
433:
434: We have used the repeat observations to assess the quality of our
435: velocity measurements. Figure~\ref{figs:mmtdiffs} plots the histogram
436: of the velocity differences in our dataset, along with plots of the
437: velocity differences as a function of position, velocity, and
438: brightness. There are no significant correlations apparent, nor do we
439: see evidence that different configurations are offset relative to one
440: another.
441:
442: Repeat measurements can also be used to estimate the individual
443: velocity errors as described by Walker et al. (2006a). We assume a
444: relation between the velocity error, $\sigma_i$, and $R_{TD,i}$ for
445: star $i$, of the form
446: $$\sigma_i^2 (R_{TD,i}) = \left({{\alpha}\over{(1 +
447: R_{TD,i})^x}}\right)^2 + \sigma_0^2.$$ The best-fit parameters
448: $\alpha$, $x$ and $\sigma_0$ are determined via a least-squares
449: minimization process (Walker et al. 2006a; 2007) from which we
450: obtained $\alpha = 2.60$ km/s, $x = 0.16$, and $\sigma_0 = 0.14$ km/s.
451: In calculating these parameters, we did not vet the sample in any
452: way. Astrophysical sources of velocity variations (e.g. atmospheric or
453: binary motions) will contribute to our estimates of the individual
454: velocity errors. Our data do indeed reveal evidence of possible
455: binaries (Section 3.4), but neither the magnitude of the velocity
456: variations nor the frequency of detectable binaries significantly
457: alter our results (Section 4.1). The distribution of $\sigma(R_{TD})$
458: from repeat measurements, is quite flat, probably owing to systematic
459: run-to-run velocity errors at the 1-2 km/s level. These represent a
460: negligible contribution to our final error budget since, even with a
461: catalog of 300+ Leo~I members, our kinematic results are still
462: dominated by sampling uncertainties (Sections 3.3, 4.2).
463:
464: For the stars with multiple observations, we used these error
465: estimates to determine the mean velocity for each star. We assumed
466: that the $n$ multiple, independent velocity measurements
467: $\{v_1,...,v_n\}$ of a star with true velocity $u$ follow a Gaussian
468: distribution centered on $u$. From maximum likelihood statistics
469: (Rice 1995), the estimate of $u$ is given by the weighted mean: $\hat
470: {u}=\sum_{i=1}^n(v_i\sigma_i^{-2})/\sum_{i=1}^n(\sigma_i^{-2})$. The
471: velocity range that includes $u$ with probability $1-\gamma$ is then
472: given by $\hat{u} \pm n^{1/2}t_{n-1}(\gamma/2)S$, where $t_{n-1}$ is
473: the $t$ distribution with $n-1$ degrees of freedom and $S^2 \equiv
474: (n-1)^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n(v_i-\hat{u})^2$. For each star with multiple
475: measurements, we calculate $\hat{u}$ and its $1\sigma$ ($\gamma=0.32$)
476: confidence interval. Figure~\ref{figs:hists} is a histogram of the
477: the velocity differences of repeat measurements ($\Delta_2 \equiv v_i
478: - \langle v\rangle$) plotted in bins of km/s and in units of the
479: velocity error, $\sigma$ ($\Delta_3 \equiv \Delta_2/\left(\sqrt{2}\
480: \langle \sigma\rangle\right)$. The Gaussian profile in the lower
481: histogram is the expected distribution for $n = 2$ and $\sigma_i =
482: \sigma_j$, which is reasonably valid for about 70\%\ of the cases
483: plotted in the histogram.
484:
485: The final adopted velocities for 387 stars in our Leo~I dataset are
486: listed in Table 5, excluding velocities from sky fibers and for any
487: spectra with $R_{TD} < 2.8$. This table includes results for stars
488: from M98, adopting the velocity uncertainties tabulated in that paper.
489: Table 5 also lists positions and photometric data for each star and
490: the configurations used to determine their velocities. For stars with
491: a single observations (and a known value of $R_{TD,i}$), velocity
492: uncertainties are $\sigma_{TD,i}$ from the equation above. For stars
493: with multiple observations, the velocity uncertainties are obtained
494: from the 68\%\ ($1\sigma$) confidence limits as described in the
495: previous paragraph.
496:
497: Sohn et al. (2007; hereafter S07) carried out an independent kinematic
498: study of Leo~I based on near-IR spectra of resolution $R \sim 3000$
499: obtained with DEIMOS on the Keck telescope. Using a 0.5 arcsec
500: matching radius, we find 26 stars from S07 in common to our sample.
501: Figure~\ref{figs:sohndiffs} summarizes the velocity differences,
502: $\Delta$ in the same format as Figure~\ref{figs:mmtdiffs}. The
503: lower-left panel of Figure~\ref{figs:sohndiffs} reveals a strong
504: systematic trend of $\Delta$ with velocity. The coefficients of the
505: fitted line are given in the figure caption. The correlation
506: coefficient indicates that a better linear fit could occur by chance
507: less than 0.02\%\ of the time for a sample this size. The slope of
508: this trend ($-$0.31 km/s {\it per} km/s) is a significant contributor
509: to the width of the histogram of $\Delta$ in the upper-left panel of
510: Figure~\ref{figs:sohndiffs}. The standard deviation of $\Delta$ about
511: the fitted line is 3.5 km/s while the standard deviation of the data
512: in the histogram is 4.8 km/s. We find no significant correlation of
513: velocity difference between our data and that of S07 as a function of
514: position or $I$-band brightness.
515:
516: Since the comparisons of our MMT and Keck datasets reveal no
517: systematic trends, we tentatively conclude that the source of the
518: systematic trend lies in S07 measurements. Many authors have noted
519: special complications with velocity measurements using near-IR spectra
520: due to telluric contamination (a summary of this is given in Walker et
521: al. 2007). If the near-IR spectra are indeed the principal source of
522: the trend in Figure~\ref{figs:sohndiffs}, the S07 velocities are
523: offset by about $+$10 km/s at the low end of the Leo~I velocity range
524: (approximately $250$--$310$ km/s on the MMT velocity scale) and by
525: about $-$2 km/s at the upper end of the range. Given the
526: complications and uncertainties involved with dealing with this trend,
527: the unusual spatial coverage of targets observed by S07 (due to
528: constraints associated with DEIMOS slit masks), and the modest number
529: of new Leo~I members we would gain from the S07 sample (an additional
530: 15\%\ at most to our sample), we have chosen not to include the S07
531: results in our analysis.
532:
533: Koch et al. (2007; hereafter K07) have also recently published a
534: kinematic study of Leo~I based also on moderate-dispersion, near-IR
535: spectroscopy. Using a 5 arcsec matching radius (K07 report their
536: coordinates to a precision of only 1 arcsec) and requiring 10\%\
537: photometric matching, we find 17 stars in common to the two samples.
538: Figure~\ref{figs:kochdiffs} summarizes the velocity differences,
539: $\Delta$, plotted in the same format as Figure~\ref{figs:mmtdiffs}.
540: Apart from a systemic offset (see upper left panel), we find no
541: significant trend in the comparison of these velocities, nor as a
542: function of stellar brightness. In part because of this systematic
543: offset, but mostly since the typical velocity uncertainties of the K07
544: sample are about twice those of our new measurements, we have chosen
545: not to merge the datasets here.
546:
547: Figure~\ref{figs:rpa} is a plot of all velocities measured from our
548: sample for spectra with $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$, as a function of radial
549: distance from the adopted center of Leo~I (Mateo 1998; see
550: Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}). The results in Table 5 are plotted as
551: filled points, while velocities measured from sky fibers (but still
552: with $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$) are shown as open symbols. There is a clear
553: concentration of stars around the mean systemic heliocentric radial
554: velocity of Leo~I (282.9 km/s, Section 4.3.1; Zaritsky et al. 1989;
555: M98). The stars in this velocity range also exhibit a clear
556: concentration toward the center of Leo~I. When we also consider the
557: expected velocity distribution of field stars in this direction (Robin
558: et al. 2003), it is clear that all stars with $V_{helio}$ in the range
559: 250-320 km/s are highly probable Leo~I members (the range 200-400 km/s
560: would have identified precisely the same sample of likely members).
561: Stars with velocities outside this range are uniformly distributed
562: spatially in the field, consistent with non-membership (see
563: Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}).
564:
565: Sky fibers with $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$ tend to exhibit a mean velocity of
566: about $-19.7 \pm 0.8$ km/s when plotted in Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}
567: because {\tt fxcor} assumes the target is an astronomical object and
568: applies a heliocentric correction. For our Leo~I observations, the
569: heliocentric correction for a Leo~I field was always about $-19 \pm 2$
570: km/s. Although only non-sky fiber results are plotted in
571: Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}, many velocities cluster around $-19$ km/s.
572: These are likely `false positives' where the target stars were too
573: faint to produce usable spectra, but for which the sky velocity could
574: be measured. We somewhat arbitrarily define false positives as cases
575: where we observe a heliocentric velocity in the range $-10$ to $-28$
576: km/s and $R_{TD} \leq 4.2$. There are 14 such cases in
577: Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}, all of which are noted in Table 5. Each has
578: data from only the 2005 dataset (which we could not sky-subtract).
579: Moreover, many false positives based on 2005 spectra alone turned out
580: to have well-determined, non-sky velocities obtained from spectra from
581: the 2006 or 2007 runs, or from the M98 sample. The converse of this
582: effect -- sky spectra that scatter into the acceptance range for Leo~I
583: members (250-320 km/s) -- never occurred in multiply-observed data
584: with 2005 observations. Given the narrow distribution of velocities
585: we observe in the sky fibers, such scatter is statistically extremely
586: unlikely.
587:
588: \subsection{Velocity Dispersion Profiles}
589:
590: Merritt and Saha (1993) and Wang et al. (2005) have described
591: non-parametric approaches that produce dispersion profiles without
592: binning. These methods are marginally appropriate for the present
593: Leo~I data set because the sample size ($N = 328$ members) remains
594: rather small. We will describe a non-parametric analysis for Leo~I
595: and other dSph galaxies in a separate paper (Walker et al. 2007, in
596: preparation).
597:
598: For now, we adopt here the more standard approach of using binned
599: profiles in our analysis. The bins in our profiles contain (nearly)
600: equal numbers of stars as dictated by the sample size and number of
601: bins, $N_{bin}$. Profiles for $N_{bin} = 15, 20$ and 25 are shown in
602: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin}. The horizontal `error bars' in the
603: profiles show the standard deviation in $R$ for the stars in each bin.
604: A common problem with binning is the possibility that false structures
605: may be produced in the profiles. Walker et al. (2006b) have
606: investigated this problem and find that bins contain $10$ or more
607: stars seem to be systematically stable to within the calculated
608: Poisson uncertainties. From top to bottom in
609: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin}, the three binning options correspond to
610: 21/22 ($N_{bin} = 15$), 19/20 ($N_{bin} = 20$) and 13/14 ($N_{bin} =
611: 25$) stars per bin. There are no significant features in any of the
612: profiles that are not visible in the other (this remains true if we
613: offset the bins), so these binning options appear to be fairly robust.
614: Since our aim is to model the Leo~I dispersion profile with simple
615: dynamical models, we will take advantage of the higher S/N per bin of
616: the $N_{bin} = 15$ profile and use this one exclusively in our
617: subsequent analysis. The smaller, downward error bars on the
618: dispersions in Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin} are based on the method
619: described by Kleyna et al. (2004), while the larger, symmetric error
620: bars are calculated using the method described by Walker et
621: al. (2006a, 2007a).
622:
623:
624: \subsection{Temporal Stability}
625:
626: With the inclusion of the M98 results, the subset of stars in Table 5
627: with multiple observations spans slightly over 11 years of temporal
628: coverage. The possibility of kinematic variability in our sample is
629: suggested by the outliers apparent in the lower panel of
630: Figure~\ref{figs:hists}. To explore this further, we produced
631: Figure~\ref{figs:chi2}, a plot of the reduced chi-squared,
632: $\chi_\nu^2$ for all stars with multiple measurements for $\nu$
633: degrees of freedom. The lines show the values of $\chi^2_\nu$
634: corresponding to a 0.5\%\ probability of exceeding the value of
635: $\chi^2_\nu$ by chance for $\nu = 1$ (2 observations) to 4. Seven
636: stars, including five Leo~I members, exhibit values of $\chi^2_\nu$
637: that suggest they may be binaries. In every case, the stars have only
638: two observations and exhibit $\Delta V \leq 13.3$ km/s. These stars
639: are noted in Tables 4 and 5.
640:
641: The two stars with the smallest heliocentric velocities have
642: $\chi^2_\nu \sim 9$, and, in both cases, the observations were
643: obtained only a few days apart. As neither are members of Leo~I, they
644: can plausibly have short orbital periods. In the other cases (all
645: Leo~I members; see Tables 4 and 5), the time intervals between
646: observations range from as little as 1 to at most 10 years. For a
647: sample of 102 stars with repeat measurements, we might reasonably
648: expect 1-2 stars to exceed the 0.5\%\ line in Figure~\ref{figs:chi2}
649: by chance. The presence of five outliers suggests we have detected at
650: least a few physical binaries in Leo~I.
651:
652: We can look for more subtle evidence of binarity by splitting the
653: sample of multiply-observed stars into subsamples with different time
654: intervals between the individual observations. One subsample consists
655: of stars observed multiply in a single run. We take these to have a
656: time interval between observations, $\Delta t$, of zero since
657: plausible red giant binaries in Leo~I must have orbital periods long
658: compared to the length of a single run. The second subgroup contains
659: stars observed either one or two years apart (that is, during
660: different MMT/Hectochelle runs; see Table 1) $\Delta t \sim 1$-2 yr.
661: Finally, stars observed with the MMT in 2005-07 and during the 1996
662: Keck observations published by M98 have $\Delta t$ of 9 or 10 years
663: and comprise a final subgroup (there are no Keck repeats from the 2007
664: MMT run). For the $\Delta t = 0$ subgroup we find a mean velocity
665: difference of $\langle \Delta v_{(0\ yr)}\rangle = 0.58 \pm 0.37$
666: km/s, with rms of $\sigma_{(0\ yr)} = 3.4$ km/s, and $N=87$. For the
667: $\Delta t = 1$ yr subgroup the values are $\langle \Delta_{(1\
668: yr)}\rangle = 0.10 \pm 0.37$, $\sigma_{(1\ yr)} = 4.2$ km/s, and $N =
669: 138$. Finally, for the long-interval subgroup we find $\langle
670: \Delta_{(10\ yr)}\rangle = -0.29 \pm 0.66$, $\sigma_{(10\ yr)} = 3.8$
671: km/s, and $N = 33$. These values are consistent with no discernable
672: change in $\sigma_{(\Delta t)}$ as time interval increases.
673:
674: \section{The Dynamics of Leo~I}
675:
676: In this section, we explore two cases that serve as frameworks to
677: interpret our new kinematic data for Leo~I. The first corresponds to
678: the case where the stellar and dark components of Leo~I are in
679: dynamical equilibrium, while the second explores the possibility that
680: some or none of the dynamical components that comprise Leo~I are in
681: dynamical equilibrium. For convenience, various parameters for Leo~I
682: that we use or derive in this section are summarized in Table~6.
683:
684: \subsection{Binary Stars}
685:
686: Before we can discuss dynamical models for Leo~I, we must address the
687: potential contamination by spectroscopic binaries. In general,
688: orbital motions in binaries will enhance the velocity dispersion of a
689: kinematic sample. We found above that our dataset reveals at most
690: seven possible binaries (5 Leo~I members) among the 108 stars (84
691: Leo~I members) with multiple observations. Are these binaries present
692: in sufficiently large numbers and with sufficiently large velocity
693: excursions to significantly affect our interpretation of the galaxy's
694: kinematics?
695:
696: Red giants in Leo~I that reside in binaries with periods up to a few
697: hundred years will exhibit maximum velocity amplitudes comparable to
698: the internal dispersion we measure for the galaxy ($\sim 9$ km/s).
699: Projection (inclination) effects, a spread in binary mass ratios, and
700: a range of orbital separations all tend to reduce the velocity
701: amplitudes one actually observes in a realistic sample. A hint that
702: suggests binaries are unimportant in our Leo~I data is our evidence
703: (Section 3.4 above) that the sample dispersion does not change with
704: increasing time baseline interval. Our observations are consistent
705: with a population of binaries that contributes a `dispersion'
706: comparable to or smaller than the mean measurement errors, about 2--3
707: km/s.
708:
709: Previous studies have addressed the issue of binary contamination in
710: kinematic samples of dSph galaxies (Hargreaves et al 1996; Olszewski
711: et al. 1996), taking into account plausible period, inclination and
712: mass distributions for binary populations that amount to some
713: fraction, $f_b$, of the total sample. Here, $f_b$ is defined here as
714: the total number of apparently single stars that are actually
715: unresolved binaries, divided by the total number of apparently single
716: stars. The simulations of Olszewski et al. (1996) for the case of $N
717: = 17$ and a population with an intrinsic dispersion of about 7 km/s
718: are, remarkably, appropriate for {\it single bins} in our Leo~I
719: dispersion profile (Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin}). From their results
720: (Table 9 of Olszewski et al. 1996) we find that even for an extreme
721: case with $f_b = 0.7$ and all binaries distributed within the shortest
722: period (highest velocity amplitude) range of 0.5-100 yrs, a
723: single-epoch measurement will typically overestimate the true
724: dispersion by only about 10\%, with the 95\%\ confidence interval
725: ranging between about 4.5-10 km/s for an assumed sample dispersion of 7
726: km/s.
727:
728: In Leo~I, we observe a lower limit to the binary frequency of $f_b
729: \geq 5/84 \sim 0.06$ for a set of observations that was sensitive to
730: binaries a period range of a few days to few decades. The lack of an
731: increase in dispersion with time baseline suggests there is no
732: significant population of longer-period binaries lurking under the
733: radar. Thus, for Leo~I the likely binary frequency appears to be much
734: lower than the 70\%\ frequency assumed in the simulation from
735: Olszewski et al. (1996) we cited above. We conclude that binaries
736: have inflated the dispersions of single bins in
737: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin} by at most $\sim 10$\%. Given that the
738: typical error bars on these individual dispersions are around 15-20\%,
739: the effects of binaries are negligible for any given bin. To be safe,
740: we use the larger symmetric error bars from Walker et al. (2006a,
741: 2007a; see Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin}) to calculate goodness-of-fit in
742: all subsequent analyses.
743:
744: \subsection{Equilibrium Models}
745:
746: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits} shows a comparison of the velocity
747: dispersion profile of Leo~I (for the $N_{bin} = 15$ profile) with an
748: isothermal model ($\sigma = 9.2 \pm 0.4$ km/s; see Section. 4.3.1 and
749: Table 6), a single-component King (1966) dynamical model, and a
750: two-component Sersic+NFW (Sersic 1968; Navarro et al. 1997; {\L}okas
751: 2002) model. The core radii of the isothermal and King models is
752: taken to be that of the visible stellar distribution ($R_{core} = 245$
753: pc for an assumed distance of $255$ kpc) and a concentration parameter
754: of $c \equiv \log(R_{tidal}/R_{core}) = 0.6$ (Irwin and Hatzidimitriou
755: 1995; hereafter IH95). The Sersic profile used with the NFW model is
756: assumed to be concentric with the DM halo. We followed the recipe of
757: {\L}okas (2002), adopting a Sersic profile index of $m_S = 0.6$ and a
758: Sersic radius of $r_{Sersic} = 370 \pm 30$ pc (see
759: Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}). We assumed $M/L = 1.0$ for the visible
760: matter, implying $M_{visible} = 5.6 \pm 1.8 \times 10^6 M_\odot$).
761: Models with anisotropy parameter, $\beta$ (see Binney and Tremaine
762: 1987), ranging from 0.0 (isotropic) to $-3.0$ (moderately tangentially
763: aniostropic) are compared to the observations in
764: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits}. For a given model, $\beta$ is
765: constant.
766:
767: Because the observed dispersion profile of Leo~I is so flat, the
768: isothermal sphere (top panel of Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits})
769: provides a good fit to the kinematic data. For our assumption that
770: the mass distribution has the same core radius as the visible matter,
771: the central density for the isothermal case is $0.23 \pm 0.04\ M_\odot {\rm
772: pc}^{-3}$ (Richstone and Tremaine 1986; M98). The baryonic central
773: density is considerably lower, $\rho_b \sim 0.02$-0.05 $M_\odot {\rm
774: pc}^{-3}$ for $\left(M/L\right)_{V,baryons} = 0.3$-0.7 (M98; below),
775: where we have converted the projected surface density assuming a King
776: profile with parameters from IH95 corrected to an adopted distance of
777: 255 kpc. The mass of the best-fitting spherical, isothermal sphere
778: out to 1040 pc ($\sim 840$ arcsec, the location of the outermost
779: kinematic member of Leo~I in our sample) is $5.2 \pm 1.2 \times 10^7
780: M_\odot$, implying $M/L = 9.3 \pm 4.0$ (in Solar units) interior to
781: this radius. The projected mass density of the isotropic model does
782: not resemble the visible mass density (see
783: Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}), but this just means that mass does not
784: follow light. In particular, $\rho_{DM} >> \rho_{vis}$ everywhere in
785: Leo~I, with the DM distribution considerably more extended than the
786: visible matter.
787:
788: It has long been known that King (1966) models provide a good fit to
789: the visible matter distribution in Leo~I and other dSph
790: galaxies(IH95). However, a single-component King model in which mass
791: follows light (middle panel of Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits}) fails
792: spectacularly to fit the observed dispersion profile. For any King
793: model that fits the light distribution, the predicted dispersion
794: begins to decrease steadily outside the core radius, falling well
795: below the observed profile, reaching zero at the tidal radius (by
796: design, of course). Through its failure to fit the kinematics of
797: Leo~I, the King model also implies that, in equilibrium, the mass
798: distribution of the galaxy must be considerably more extended than
799: that of the visible matter.
800:
801: A two-component Sersic+NFW model does considerably better at
802: accounting for the dispersion profile and the visible matter
803: distribution, particularly if we allow for some (radially constant)
804: kinematic anisotropy (lower panel, Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits}).
805: The isotropic case, $\beta = 0$, cannot simultaneously fit the inner
806: and outer parts of the dispersion profile for any assumed Leo~I mass.
807: The best fit is for $\beta = -1.5$ and $M_{vir} = 7 \pm 1
808: \times 10^8 M_\odot$, where $M_{vir}$ is the mass interior to the
809: virial radius (defined here as the radius where $\rho(R_{vir}) = 200
810: \rho_{crit}$). The 95\%\ confidence interval on $\beta$ ranges from
811: $-0.4$ to $-3.2$. The best-fit Sersic+NFW model implies a mass of
812: $8.1 \pm 2.0 \times 10^7 M_\odot$ interior to 1040 pc, the radius of
813: the outermost Leo~I member in our kinematic sample. This mass is
814: about 60\%\ higher than the mass obtained from the isothermal model
815: (above; see Table 6). At this radius, $M/L = 14.4 \pm 5.8$ (in Solar
816: units) for the Sersic+NFW case.
817:
818: % Checked to here.
819:
820: \subsection{Are Equilibrium Models Valid for Leo~I?}
821:
822: The large heliocentric velocity of Leo~I and its unusual star
823: formation history suggest that the galaxy may have experienced a
824: strong encounter with the Milky Way in the not-too-distant past. Here
825: we explore the interpretation of our new kinematic results in the
826: context of such an interaction.
827:
828: \subsubsection{The Radial Velocity of Leo~I}
829:
830: From the entire sample of 328 Leo~I members, we find a weighted ($w_i
831: = 1/\sigma_i^2$) mean heliocentric velocity of $282.9 \pm 0.5$ km/s
832: and a sample dispersion of $\sigma = 9.2 \pm 0.4$ km/s. For an
833: assumed motion of the Local Standard of Rest (LSR) of 220 km/s toward
834: an apex at $(l,b) = (90,0)$ and a peculiar solar motion relative to
835: the LSR of 16.6 km/s toward $(l,b) = (53,25)$, Leo~I has a velocity of
836: $174.9 \pm 0.5$ km/s for an observer located at the Sun but stationary
837: with respect to the Galactic Center (we refer to this as the
838: 'Galactostationary', or 'GS', reference frame). The angular
839: separation of the Sun and Galactic Center as seen from Leo~I is only
840: 1.7 deg, so the GS radial velocity of Leo~I must be very close to the
841: Galactocentric radial velocity component of Leo~I for any tangential
842: velocity that keeps Leo~I bound to the Milky Way. Leo~I is fairly
843: compact on the sky, so the sample dispersion is unaffected by this
844: change of reference frame. Hence, $\sigma_{GS} = \sigma_{helio} = 9.2
845: \pm 0.4$ km/s.
846:
847: The large outward velocity of Leo~I has long been problematic and
848: puzzling. Analyses of the total mass of the Milky Way using halo
849: tracers (e.g. Zaritsky et al. 1989; Kochanek 1996; Wilkinson and
850: Evans 1999; Sakamoto et al. 2003) are often strongly affected by the
851: inclusion of Leo~I. Taylor et al. (2005) pointed out that a system
852: with kinematics similar to Leo~I is rarely seen in CDM simulations of
853: the formation and late-time evolution of the Local Group. Byrd et
854: al. (1994) suggested that Leo~I is unbound to the Milky Way (but bound
855: to the Local Group), postulating that the dwarf originated closer to
856: the Andromeda galaxy than the Milky Way. In this scenario, Leo~I
857: follows a hyperbolic trajectory relative to our Galaxy, exceeding the
858: local escape velocity of the Milky Way at its current position.
859:
860: Whether bound or unbound, the sign of Leo~I's radial velocity means
861: the galaxy was much closer to the Galactic Center in the past. In the
862: preferred model of Byrd et al. (1994), $R_{peri, LeoI} = 70$ kpc,
863: similar to the distances of the closest present-day dSph galaxies from
864: the Galactic Center. Orbits for which Leo~I is bound to the Milky Way
865: imply even smaller perigalactica. This result is remarkable in that
866: it implies Leo~I entered the `no-fly zone' ($R \leq 60$-70 kpc; Mayer et
867: al. 2001a,b) of the Milky Way, a volume in which we find no
868: internally bound dSph systems (Mateo 1998; Grillmair 2006; Belokurov
869: et al. 2006). If Leo~I passed through this no-fly zone, it would have
870: experienced tidal forces of sufficient strength that, given enough
871: time, are able to destroy dwarf systems of comparable luminosity.
872:
873: To explore this further, Dr. C. Pryor kindly calculated a series of
874: simple bound orbits for a point-like Leo~I model in a logarithmic
875: Galactic potential. These models suggest that Leo~I passed closest to
876: the Galactic Center 0.5-2 Gyr ago for $v_{tan} \leq 100$ km/s in a
877: Galactocentric rest frame. One such model, based on the orbital pole
878: suggested by S07, is shown in Cartesian projection in
879: Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit}, while $R(t)$ is plotted in
880: Figure~\ref{figs:leoirorbit}. Within the framework of tidal stirring
881: models (Mayer et al. 2001a,b; 2005), this most recent close passage to
882: the Galactic Center would have been responsible for Leo~I's latest
883: significant episode of star formation (which ended about 1 Gyr ago;
884: Gallart et al. 1999b; Hernandez et al. 2000; Dolphin 2002), and
885: possibly may have stripped the galaxy of gas, completing its
886: transformation into a spheroidal system. The important issue this
887: raises is whether tidal interactions have left an imprint on Leo~I.
888: If so, what is the nature of the imprint and how does it affect our
889: dynamical analysis?
890:
891: \subsubsection{Tidal Imprints in Leo~I: Structural Properties}
892:
893: It is well established that encounters between dwarf spheroidal
894: galaxies and the Milky Way can raise strong tides in the smaller
895: systems (Oh et al. 1995; Piatek and Pryor 1995; Read et al. 2006b;
896: Klimentowski et al. 2006). One result is that debris from the dwarf
897: is spread along the galaxy's past and future orbit. In the case of
898: Leo~I, its large distance and likely highly eccentric orbit (see
899: below) would cause tidally-stripped matter -- which we refer to
900: loosely as `tidal arms' -- to project closely onto the main body of
901: the dwarf.
902:
903: The extent and structure of tidal arms depends sensitively on the
904: dwarf mass. At one extreme, Kuhn and Miller (1989), Kuhn et
905: al. (1996), Klessen and Kroupa (1998) and Fleck and Kuhn (2003), among
906: others, have explored the effects of tides on interacting dwarfs that
907: contain no dark matter at all. In such cases, prominent tidal arms
908: are produced that create clear structural and line-of-sight kinematic
909: signatures (e.g. Klessen and Kroupa 1998; Klessen et al. 2003; Read et
910: al. 2006b). For example, systems with significant tangential
911: velocities may produce tidal extensions visible along the projected
912: orbital path on the sky. These may be seen as S-distortions in the
913: projected stellar distribution (Odenkirchen et al. 2002; Grillmair and
914: Dionatos 2006), or as `breaks' in the light profiles (Read et
915: al. 2006b). If the tangential velocity is small compared to the radial
916: velocity component (as is likely the case for Leo~I), the geometry of
917: the orbit may cause arms to project mostly onto the main body of the
918: disrupting dwarf. For this case, an observer may fail to notice
919: striking structural anomalies (Read et al 2006b), even though
920: significant line-of-sight extension is present. For Leo~I,
921: observations of the red giant branch and red clump (Gallart et
922: al. 1999a; Bellazzini et al. 2004) and of RR~Lyr stars (Held et
923: al. 2000, 2001) reveal no compelling evidence that a significant
924: fraction of the galaxy extends more than $\pm 15$\%\ (or about $\pm$
925: 40 kpc) from its main body. Similar observations have ruled out
926: significant line-of-sight extensions in other local dwarfs (Klessen et
927: al. 2003).
928:
929: We conclude that if Leo~I had a close encounter with the MW (say, as
930: implied by the orbit shown in Figures~\ref{figs:leoiorbit} and
931: \ref{figs:leoirorbit}), then the lack of observable depth in Leo~I and
932: the absence of {\it prominent} structural anomalies require the
933: presence of dark matter in Leo~I. Otherwise, the galaxy would have
934: been disrupted or greatly distorted in the encounter given its deep
935: incursion into the Milky Way's `no-fly zone' (Mayer et al. 2001b).
936: But the presence of DM does not mean Leo~I would have been {\it
937: unaffected} by the encounter, just that tidal effects may be
938: considerably subdued compared to the no-DM cases considered above.
939:
940: To search for subtle structural tidal features, we have used our
941: photometric observations to try to identify distortions in the
942: projected geometry of Leo~I. Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour} shows
943: contours fit to a greyscale representation of the star counts of 12630
944: stars chosen within the boundary shown in the Leo~I CMD
945: (Figure~\ref{figs:cmd}), and smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with
946: $\sigma = 2$ arcmin. By selecting stars from the CMD, we reduce field
947: star contamination to about 1-2\%\ of the sample. The contours are
948: independent fits to different isopleths of the stellar distribution
949: for ellipses with semi-major axes ranging from 2-12 arcmin, in 1
950: arcmin intervals. These contours reveal no striking distortions or
951: asymmetries, though possibly a slight centroid shift to the NE with
952: decreasing surface brightness.
953:
954: Figure~\ref{figs:centers} quantifies this by plotting the locations of
955: the fitted ellipse centers for successive contours. The ellipse
956: centroids shift about 10 arcsec to the NE as we map fainter contours,
957: consistent with the visual impression from
958: Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour}. This shift is quite modest: the
959: centroid offsets in Figure~\ref{figs:centers} are never larger than
960: about 5\%\ of the King core radius of Leo~I (IH95).
961: Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape} plots some of the other parameters we
962: derive from the fitted ellipse contours. Neither the position angles
963: of the fitted ellipses nor their ellipticities vary more than
964: 1-2$\sigma$ about the observed means, though the trend in ellipticity
965: (increasing outward) appears to be systematic. The properties of the
966: contours in Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour} do not rule out weak tidal
967: features in Leo~I, but they do indicate that Leo~I lacks prominent
968: tidal distortions in its projected structure. Models of dSph galaxies
969: that lack DM but are optimally aligned to conceal structural
970: anomalies, still tend to exhibit larger centroid shifts and isophot
971: variations than we observe in Leo~I (Klessen and Kroupa 1998; Klessen
972: and Zhao 2002; Fleck and Kuhn 2003; Read et al. 2006b).
973:
974: \subsubsection{Tidal Imprints in Leo~I: Kinematic Properties}
975:
976: Tides should produce observable kinematic signatures, including
977: large-scale streaming motions that mimic rotation (Piatek and Pryor
978: 1995; Oh et al. 1995; Klessen and Zhao 2002) or that produce
979: distinctive, rising dispersion profiles (Read et al. 2006b). This
980: pseudo-rotation signal may be seen as a coherent velocity gradient
981: across the galaxy roughly oriented along the projected orbital path.
982: A persistent motivation for exploring dSph models that lack DM has
983: been to determine if tidal effects alone can account for the observed
984: dispersions and dispersion profiles. We have already shown that the
985: mildly distorted structural properties of Leo~I imply the galaxy
986: contains a significant DM content. Our discussion here aims to
987: explore the extent to which tides may have affected the kinematics of
988: Leo~I given the presence of a DM halo.
989:
990: To search for streaming, we calculate the mean velocity differences,
991: $\Delta v$, within of our entire sample of kinematic members of Leo~I
992: on either side of a bisector passing through the galaxy center (see
993: Walker et al. 2006a). We repeat this for a range of bisectors, each
994: oriented at different position angles, $\theta$, producing a function
995: $\Delta v(\theta)$ (Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}; see Figure~\ref{figs:xieta2} for a graphical
996: description of this procedure). When we apply this test to the full
997: kinematic sample of Leo~I members, we find a maximum $\Delta v$ of
998: $1.8 \pm 1.2$ km/s. Monte-Carlo simulations (described in detail
999: below) indicate that this observed maximum value of $\Delta v$ occur
1000: by chance about 30\%\ of the time when we consider all 328 Leo~I
1001: kinematic members in our dataset. Thus, we find no compelling
1002: evidence for a velocity gradient in Leo~I from the full kinematic
1003: sample or from the stars located within.
1004:
1005: We can split the Leo~I sample into two radial groups corresponding to
1006: an `inner' subsample ($R \leq 400$ arcsec; $N = 264$) and an `outer'
1007: subsample ($R > 400$ arcsec; $N = 64$). The motivation for this
1008: division comes from Figure~\ref{figs:leoibreak}. All stars (members
1009: and nonmembers) in the inner subsample are uniformly distributed about
1010: the center of Leo~I. In the outer subsample, non-members remain
1011: uniformly distributed, but the kinematic members appear elongated
1012: along a position angle of about $90/270$ deg. This effect does not
1013: evidently result from any selection effect in our sample or fiber
1014: assignments.
1015:
1016: The spatial differences of the inner/outer subsamples can also be
1017: illustrated by comparing the frequency of members and nonmembers as a
1018: function of position angle. Figure~\ref{figs:memfrac} shows that
1019: along a position angle of about $90 \pm 10$ deg, a significantly
1020: higher proportion of members make up the full outer kinematic
1021: subsample. For the inner subsample, no such trend is seen. This behavior
1022: is evident from inspection in the spatial distribution of kinematic
1023: members and non-members plotted in Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}, more
1024: plainly illustrated in Figure~\ref{figs:xieta2}. We conclude that
1025: stars of the outer sample of Leo~I follow a distribution that is
1026: elongated along an axis that is similar to, but possibly slightly
1027: offset from the axis corresponding to the maximum velocity gradient of
1028: Leo~I members in the outer subsample.
1029:
1030: We have applied the streaming test described above for Leo~I members
1031: in both the inner and outer subsamples separately
1032: (Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}). The inner subsample alone still shows no
1033: convincing evidence of streaming. However, the further out we sample
1034: Leo~I members, the stronger the streaming signal becomes in terms of
1035: $\Delta v$ (Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}) and, generally, significance
1036: (see below). Moreover, the bahavior of $\Delta v(\theta)$ is highly
1037: coherent, consistent with streaming motion along the PA $\sim$ 90/270
1038: axis. We have fit the outer subsample (Leo~I members only) to a
1039: linear velocity gradient model as a function of position angle. The
1040: strongest velocity gradient corresponds to $PA \sim 108 \pm 10$ deg.
1041: The fitted slope is $-0.34 \pm 0.15$ km/s/arcmin or $-0.0046 \pm
1042: 0.0020$ km/s/pc (for $D = 255$ kpc). The sign of the gradient is such
1043: that outer subsample Leo~I members to the west of the center of Leo~I
1044: have on average positive velocities relative to the systemic velocity
1045: of the galaxy, while outer subsample members to the east have on
1046: average negative relative velocities (see Figure~\ref{figs:xieta2}).
1047:
1048: To determine the significance of this result, we ran Monte-Carlo
1049: simulations where we assigned the observed velocities to permutations
1050: of the stellar positions (each MC experiment consisted of 10000
1051: trials). We then calculated $\Delta v$ as above for each simulated
1052: sample. The probabilities of seeing a value of $\Delta v$ as large or
1053: larger than the observed maximum $\Delta v$ at {\it any position
1054: angle} are given in Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}. The observed maximum
1055: value of $\Delta v$ is exceeded about 10\%\ of the time for our
1056: simulations of the inner subsample (top panel,
1057: Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}), while for the outer subsamples (for $R >
1058: 400,\ 455$, and 600 arcsec), the probability of exceeding $\Delta
1059: v_{max}$ is (0.03, 0.006, 0.014), respectively. If we add the
1060: requirement that the simulations exhibit the coherence apparent in
1061: Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}, then virtually none of the simulations
1062: ($\leq 5$ out of 30000) for the three outer subsamples. We conclude
1063: that Leo~I exhibits a statistically highly significant velocity
1064: gradient along an axis very close to its apparent major axis, but only
1065: among stars with projected radii $\geq 400$ arcsec. We shall refer to
1066: this radial distance at which the galaxy's kinematics change as the
1067: `break radius', $R_b$, of Leo~I.
1068:
1069: \subsubsection{Tidal Imprints in Leo~I: Population Segregation}
1070:
1071: Our data also reveal evidence of a change in the stellar populations
1072: of Leo~I at the break radius. To illustrate
1073: this, we have taken our photometry from Figure~\ref{figs:cmd} and
1074: plotted it for the inner and outer subsample regions separately
1075: (Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}). Four regions in the CMD were identified that
1076: correspond to red giant branch stars (RGB; Region 1), asymptotic giant
1077: branch stars (AGB; Region 2), field stars (Region 3), and blue-loop
1078: stars (Region 4). Regions 1 and 2 correspond, roughly, to our
1079: kinematic selection region (see Figure 2). Table~7 lists the numbers
1080: of stars in each region from direct counts in the CMD, along with
1081: kinematic results for stars in each CMD region where available.
1082:
1083: Consider first the RGB and AGB regions (Regions 1 and 2, respectively;
1084: the data used here are listed in Table 7). The ratio of RGB
1085: candidates in the inner and outer samples is $732/91 = 8.0$, and
1086: $72/18 = 4.0$ for the AGB candidates. If we only consider the
1087: kinematic sample and assign membership to stars based on their
1088: velocities, the RGB kinematic members in the inner and outer samples
1089: becomes $209/52 = 4.0$, while for the AGB stars the ratio is $42/1 =
1090: 42$. That is, the intermediate-age population traced by the AGB stars
1091: (Gallart et al. 1999a; Hernandez et al. 2000; Dolphin 2002) is almost
1092: exclusively located within with the break radius, $R_b = 400$ arcsec.
1093: RGB stars, which arise from both the intermediate and older
1094: populations, extend over both the inner and outer regions.
1095:
1096: This analysis underscores the value of the kinematic data to search
1097: for population gradients. Field stars, almost all certain non-members
1098: of Leo~I based on their location in the CMD (Region 3 of
1099: Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}) exhibit a ratio of
1100: ${{N_{outer}}\over{N_{inner}}} = 2.1 \pm 0.5$, consistent with the
1101: ratio of the areas of the inner and outer regions
1102: (${A_{outer}\over{A_{inner}}} = 2.6$). This contamination explains
1103: the relatively small ratio of inner/outer AGB stars in the
1104: non-kinematic sample. Blue-loop stars (Region 4 in
1105: Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}) exhibit an inner/outer ratio of about 6.0,
1106: and, like the AGB, are intermediate-age stars (Dohm-Palmer and
1107: Skillman 2002). The actual ratio of inner/outer blue-loop stars is
1108: likely considerably larger since non-members preferentially
1109: contaminate the outer sample.
1110:
1111: These points are presented graphically in
1112: Figure~\ref{figs:rcumulative} where we plot cumulative radial
1113: distributions of various subsets of stars from the Leo~I CMD
1114: (Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}). The left panel shows that, among
1115: radial-velocity members, stars selected in the AGB region of
1116: Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2} (Region 2) are more centrally distributed than
1117: the RGB stars (Region 1). This holds even if we only consider
1118: kinematically-selected RGB stars (which are biased in radius due to
1119: fiber restrictions and science aims), or the full sample of RGB
1120: candidates (thick and thin solid lines in
1121: Figure~\ref{figs:rcumulative}, respectively) noting that the counts of
1122: photometrically-selected RGB candidates are essentially complete at
1123: all radii. Virtually all (44 of 45) of the AGB members are inside
1124: $R_b$ despite the fact that we observed 10 stars from this region in
1125: the CMD outside the break radius. A KS test comparing the observed
1126: radial distributions of the AGB and RGB kinematic members reveals a
1127: low probability of $< 0.01$\% that the two are drawn from a common
1128: parent distribution.
1129:
1130: The right panel of Figure~\ref{figs:rcumulative} addresses the
1131: possible segregation of AGB and blue-loop stars from the older stars
1132: in Leo~I and each other. The cumulative distribution of
1133: photometrically-selected AGB stars exhibits a change in slope near
1134: $R_b$. We know from the kinematic sample of AGB stars that this is
1135: where field contamination begins to dominate those counts. The
1136: blue-loop stars show a similar slope change, but at about $0.75 R_b$.
1137: If this break in slope is due to contamination by blue disk and halo
1138: stars, and background quasars and galaxies, the radial profile
1139: suggests that the blue-loop stars may be even more centrally
1140: concentrated than the AGB in Leo~I. A KS test suggests that there is
1141: a 0.1\%\ probability the radial profiles of the AGB and blue-loop
1142: photometric candidates are drawn from the same parent distribution,
1143: suggesting some difference in the distributions of these two
1144: populations.
1145:
1146: We conclude that the Leo~I stellar populations segregate by age such
1147: that the younger populations (AGB and blue-loop stars) are
1148: preferentially near the galaxy center relative to the older (RGB)
1149: population. Moreover, this segregation appears to occur at the break
1150: radius, $R_b = 400$ arcsec, where we see kinematic segregation
1151: (Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}) and (possibly) structural changes in Leo~I
1152: (Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}).
1153:
1154: \subsection{A Heuristic Model for Leo~I}
1155:
1156: We present here a descriptive model that aims to account for all the
1157: features we have identified in our study of Leo~I, as well as many
1158: long-standing enigmas of this galaxy. We assume Leo~I is bound to the
1159: Milky Way and is currently on a highly elliptical orbit;
1160: Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit} shows a representative example. The
1161: period for the orbit in Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit} is about 5.5 Gyr;
1162: one orbit (defined here as one complete cycle in $R$) is shown in
1163: Figure~\ref{figs:leoirorbit}. The other orbits that we consider in this
1164: discussion have similar periods. It is important to appreciate that
1165: these orbital periods are sufficiently long that it may not be valid
1166: to assume a static Milky Way potential or that Leo~I has remained
1167: isolated from other objects in the halo. We begin our
1168: discussion considering only the effects of the last perigalactic
1169: passage of Leo~I, about 1 Gyr ago for all cases considered here.
1170:
1171: One aspect of an elliptical orbit that is well known (see King 1962;
1172: Allen and Richstone 1988; Read et al. 2006b; Choi et al. 2007) is that
1173: the instantaneous tidal radius of a dwarf galaxy in such an orbit
1174: varies with Galactocentric distance. When closest to the Galactic
1175: Center, for example, Leo~I's true tidal radius (in the Roche sense)
1176: will be smallest, while far from the Galactic Center, the tidal radius
1177: will be large. For any assumed orbit, we can calculate the tidal
1178: radius crudely in a two-body approximation as $R_t = D (M_{Leo\ I}/2
1179: M_{MW})^{(1/3)}$ (we assume $M_{MW} >> M_{Leo\ I}$; King 1962). We
1180: can then ask, at what perigalactic distance does the minimum tidal
1181: radius, $R_{t,min}$, equal the kinematic break radius, $R_b$, that we
1182: identified in Section 4.3.3? Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi} is a plot of
1183: $R_{t,min}$ as a function of perigalacticon for orbits of Leo~I in a
1184: logarithmic Milky Way potential with total mass (to the Virial radius)
1185: of $10^{12} M_\odot$ for a range of assumed Leo~I mass, and for
1186: various assumed present-day Galactocentric tangential velocities for
1187: Leo~I. Further details of these orbits are listed in Table~8. Our
1188: assumption that Leo~I is bound to the Milky Way implies that the
1189: galaxy's present tangential velocity is less than about 100 km/s, so
1190: only results from models with $v_{tan} \leq 100$ km/s (Table 8) are
1191: plotted in Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi}. The horizontal dashed line in
1192: Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi} corresponds to $R_b = 500$ pc, equal to
1193: the physical size of the observed break radius ($R_b = 400$ arcsec) at
1194: the current distance of Leo~I.
1195:
1196: For $M_{Leo\ I} = 5 \times 10^8 M_\odot$, we find that Leo~I had to
1197: pass within about 4 kpc from the Galactic Center for $R_{t,min} =
1198: R_b$. Lower masses imply larger perigalactica, up to $\sim 20$ kpc
1199: for $M_{Leo\ I} = 2 \times 10^7 M_\odot$. The latter mass, the lowest
1200: considered in Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi}, corresponds to a global
1201: mass-to-light ratio of $\sim 4$ for Leo~I and is reasonable for a
1202: purely baryonic case. For a lower limit of $M/L = 0.8$ (appropriate
1203: for the comparatively young central populations of Leo~I; see M98s),
1204: we estimate that perigalacticon may have been as large as about 35 kpc.
1205:
1206: One implication of this scenario is that many stars initially bound to
1207: Leo~I prior to perigalactic passage, would have found themselves
1208: outside the galaxy's tidal radius as it passed by the Milky Way.
1209: Stars with radially-outbound orbits relative to the center of the
1210: dwarf would have begun to drift away at a relative speed comparable to
1211: the internal velocity dispersion, and in the process initiating the
1212: formation of tidal arms (Piatek and Pryor 1995; Oh et al. 1995; S07).
1213: Over the time interval, $t_p$, since perigalacticon, stars will drift
1214: a distance of order $\sigma t_p$ from the center of Leo~I, or about
1215: 10-30 kpc for $\sigma = 10$ km/s for the orbits listed in Table~8. As
1216: Leo~I continues to orbit away from the Milky Way, its tidal radius
1217: grows so that, at present, it is about 20 kpc. Consequently, some of
1218: the stars that were formally unbound at perigalacticon will be
1219: recaptured, but because the stars on rapid, radial orbits remain
1220: unbound, the velocity distribution will become progressively more
1221: tangentially anisotropic in the outer parts of the galaxy.
1222:
1223: The key point is that for a satellite in an elliptical orbit,
1224: variations in $R_t$ will preferentially affect the kinematics of the
1225: outermost stars of the system, while leaving the kinematics internal
1226: to this radius comparatively unaffected (this just reiterates the
1227: conclusions of Piatek and Pryor 1995; Oh et al. 1995). We contend
1228: that our observation of a radius at which the internal kinematics of
1229: Leo~I change suddenly may represent this incursion of $R_t$ into the
1230: main body of Leo~I. This behavior is reflected in some of the models
1231: of Mayer et al. (2001a,b; 2005) though these authors did not explore
1232: orbits quite as eccentric as we are considering for Leo~I.
1233:
1234: It is reasonable to suppose that this simple model can plausibly
1235: account for the fairly mild structural anomalies we see in Leo~I,
1236: including the small shift in its photocenter as a function of surface
1237: brightness and the elongation of the distribution of kinematic members
1238: at large radii. The timing of the last perigalactic passage is also
1239: very similar to the age of the end of the last prolonged burst in the
1240: star-formation history of Leo~I (Gallart et al. 1999b; Hernandez et
1241: al. 2000; Dolphin 2002), while the spatial segregation of the stellar
1242: populations suggest that this event was largely confined to the inner
1243: regions of the galaxy. Hybrid $n$-body/hydro models (such as Mayer et
1244: al. 2005) predict that tidal stirring can result in a strong gaseous
1245: inflow in dwarf systems and centralized, bursty star formation,
1246: consistent with what we see in Leo~I. The fact that population and/or
1247: chemical gradients are commonly seen in other local dwarfs (Harbeck et
1248: al. 2001; Tolstoy et al. 2004; Battaglia et al. 2006) suggests that
1249: tidal stirring could be a common process.
1250:
1251: If we adopt $M/L \geq 0.8$ for Leo~I and retain our interpretation of
1252: $R_b$ as $R_{t,min}$, then $R_{apo} \leq 400$ kpc for any reasonable
1253: Leo~I mass and present-day tangential velocity. Defining the orbital
1254: eccentricity as $e = (1 - R_{peri}/R_{apo})/(1 + R_{peri}/R_{apo})$
1255: for perigalactic and apogalactic distances $R_{peri}$ and $R_{apo}$,
1256: respectively, we conclude from the results in Table 8 and
1257: Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi} that $e \geq 0.74$ for $R_{apo} > 255$
1258: kpc, the current distance of Leo~I. For $M/L = 20$, $R_{peri} = 9$
1259: kpc and $e \geq 0.93$. To the extent that equilibrium models are
1260: still valid near the core of Leo~I (Read et al. 2006b; Klimentowsky et
1261: al. 2007), we can carry out a classic `core fitting' analysis
1262: (Richstone and Tremaine 1986; M98) using the dispersion of only the
1263: inner subsample of Leo~I members. From this we derive $M_{Leo\ I} =
1264: 3.0 \times 10^7 M_\odot \times (\sigma_0/9.2)^2$, and infer $R_{peri}
1265: \sim 18$ kpc (Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi}) and $e \geq 0.87$. These
1266: large eccentricities are consistent with the lack of strong spatial
1267: distortions in Leo~I (Section~4.3.2; IH95) since it implies we are
1268: looking almost directly along the projected orbital path of the
1269: galaxy. If our interpretation of the fundamental physical origin of
1270: $R_b$ is correct, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Leo~I
1271: passed very close to the Galactic center about 1 Gyr ago, regardless
1272: of its dark matter content.
1273:
1274: This tidal history of Leo~I implies that stars with positive
1275: velocities relative to the center of Leo~I are in its leading
1276: (western) arm, while those with negative relative velocities are
1277: trailing (to the east). S07, whose model is broadly similar to the
1278: one we propose, came to the opposite conclusion. This appears to
1279: reflect the fact that the S07 $n$-body models include the results of
1280: {\it two} perigalactic passages. Since we consider only the effects
1281: of the last perigalactic passage in our description, we ignore stars
1282: that may be projected onto Leo~I from portions of its orbit extremely
1283: far ahead or behind the main body of the galaxy. It may be that these
1284: stars -- the ones from the perigalacticon some 7-9 Gyr ago -- are the
1285: ones that contribute to the kinematic asymmetry S07 identify and
1286: interpret in their dataset.
1287:
1288: S07 adopt a static Milky Way potential during the entire timespan
1289: between the present epoch and the last two perigalactica of Leo~I (7-9
1290: Gyr ago). It is conceivable that the Milky Way's gravitational potential may have
1291: changed significantly over that timespan (Bullock et al. 2001; Taylor
1292: and Babul 2004, 2005; Bell et al. 2006; though see Hammer et al. 2007)
1293: undermining the reliability of models in which Leo~I orbits in a
1294: static potential (e.g. S07). On the other hand, we have so far adopted the seemingly
1295: {\it ad hoc} assumption that Leo~I has had only one perigalactic
1296: passage with the Milky Way. This implies that Leo~I was somehow injected into
1297: its present orbit sometime between the time of
1298: its last perigalactic passage (about 1 Gyr ago) and the time of its
1299: earlier putative perigalacticon 7-9 Gyr ago. Is this plausible?
1300:
1301: There are two aspects to this question: First, is such an orbital
1302: change -- presumably the result of an interaction with a third body --
1303: reasonably probable? If so, could such an interaction alter Leo~I's
1304: orbit significantly without destroying the galaxy? For our purposes, 'significant'
1305: implies any change that causes Leo~I to transition from an orbit with
1306: $R_{peri} \geq 50$ kpc, to one that brings it in as close as 10 kpc or
1307: so from the Galactic Center. From the data in Table~8, we estimate
1308: that the required change of orbital energy is as large as about 6\%.
1309: In the impulse approximation (Binney and Tremaine 1987), the energy
1310: change is approximately $\Delta E \sim G M_p/b$, for a perturber of
1311: mass $M_p$ and an encounter impact parameters $b$. Solving for $b$
1312: and taking $\Delta E$ to be 6\%\ of the total energy of Leo~I for an
1313: orbit that gives it $(v_r,v_t) = (180, 80)$ km/s at $R = 250$ kpc
1314: (Table~8), we find that for $M_p = (10^8, 10^9, 10^{10}) M_\odot$, $b
1315: \sim (0.15, 1.5, 15)$ kpc assuming that the energy change goes
1316: entirely into altering Leo~I's orbit. If we consider a population of
1317: $N$ subhalos within the volume of the Milky Way's overall halo
1318: ($R_{MW} \sim 250$ kpc), then the instantaneous filling factor of
1319: those subhalos is $f = N (R_{sh}/R_{MW})^3$. For the
1320: intermediate case above ($M_p = 10^9 M_\odot$ for which $R_{sh} \sim b =
1321: 1.5$ kpc) and assuming $N = 100$, $f \sim 9 \times 10^{-6}$ implying a
1322: very low probability of interaction.
1323:
1324: But this calculation may be misleading. In hierarchical models,
1325: subhalos necessarily inhabit regions of comparatively high density
1326: right from the start, so they invariably have considerably more
1327: neighbors than in a uniform-density model. Moreover, the interactions
1328: may be 'slow' (relative velocities between subhalos comparable to the
1329: circular velocities of individual subhalos), contrary to a basic
1330: assumption of the impulse approximation where the relative velocity is
1331: taken to be comparable to the (large) dispersion of the overall halo
1332: in which the subhalos reside. Indeed, subhalo interactions are a
1333: common feature in CDM simulations of hierarchical structure formation
1334: (see web sites for: The Center of Theoretical Physics, Univ. of
1335: Zurich; The Center for Cosmological Physics, Univ. of Chicago; The
1336: $n$-body Shop, Univ. of Washington, Seattle). Qualitative inspection
1337: of these simulations seem to reveal that subhalos with large outward
1338: velocities become increasingly common, and that some of these cases
1339: are due to interactions with other subhalos and not the most central,
1340: parent halo.
1341:
1342: Taylor and Babul (2004, 2005) explored this more quantitatively and
1343: confirmed work by Tormen et al. (1998) and Knebe et al. (2004) that
1344: showed that `significant' encounters between subhalos are indeed quite
1345: common in systems forming hierarchically. In about 5\%\ of the
1346: subhalo encounters, these interactions are transformative, in the
1347: sense that either or both halos disrupt or they merge together (Taylor
1348: and Babul 2004, 2005). But there is also a class of much weaker
1349: interactions that alter orbits but not raise destructive tides ($x >
1350: 1$ in the nomenclature of Taylor and Babul, 2005, where $x$ is the
1351: ratio $b/r_{c,p}$, and $r_{c,p}$ is the radius of the peak of the
1352: rotation curve of a given subhalo). These are much more common than
1353: the transformative encounters, occurring at least once for 30-60\%\ of
1354: all subhalos during the formation of a Milky Way-sized galaxy. Most
1355: of these encounters (about 70\%; see Figure 19 of Taylor and Babul,
1356: 2005) occur over the first half of the formation process of a massive
1357: galaxy, compatible with our requirement that a third-body encounter
1358: altered Leo~I's orbit up to 7-9 Gyr ago. More recently, Sales et
1359: al. (2007b) have confirmed these basic results from independent
1360: hierarchical models. They speculate that objects such as Leo~I and
1361: some other odd Local Group galaxies (Cetus, Tucana) may have
1362: experienced third-body encounters that could account for their unusual
1363: orbital characteristics.
1364:
1365: Zhao (1998) proposed a specific interaction between the Sgr dSph
1366: galaxy and the Magellanic Clouds 2-3 Gyr ago to inject Sgr into its
1367: current orbit. This model provides an elegant solution to the puzzle
1368: of the long-term survivability of Sgr (Zhao 1998; Bellazzini et
1369: al. 2006), and is consistent with its detailed orbital characteristics
1370: (Majewski et al. 2004). Perhaps something similar has occurred to
1371: Leo~I, boosting the star formation rate and initiating its
1372: transformation into a spheroidal system (Mayer et al. 2001a,b) 7-9 Gyr
1373: ago while simultaneously injecting it into its present orbit. This
1374: picture also addresses Leo~I's survival: two close encounters with the
1375: Milky Way should have stripped most of its initial mass (Mayer et
1376: al. 2001a,b; Taylor and Babul 2004, 2005; Read and Gilmore 2005),
1377: making it difficult for the galaxy to have survived as relatively
1378: unscathed as we observe today.
1379:
1380: Detailed photometric studies of Leo~I reveal low-level star formation
1381: for the first third of the galaxy's existence (Gallart et al. 1999b;
1382: Hernandez et al. 2000; Dolphin 2002) when Leo~I may have resembled
1383: dIrr system. This was followed by an increase in star formation some
1384: 5-8 Gyr ago which ended, possibly after a final peak, about 1 Gyr
1385: ago. The event that first caused the star formation rate to rise
1386: evidently did not clear the gas from Leo~I since star formation
1387: continued after that epoch. Nor did the event induce tidal features
1388: that we can see today in the distribution of stars in and around Leo~I
1389: or in its internal kinematics. If it had, such features would by now
1390: extend over a very long arc of Leo~I's present orbit and be seen as
1391: obvious photometric depth that is not observed (Section 4.3.2; Held et
1392: al. 2001). In our model, we identify this event as an interaction
1393: with another subhalo, specifically {\it not} with the Galactic Center.
1394: We obviously require a better idea of the orbit of Leo~I before we can
1395: hope to identify the third body that Leo~I may have scattered off of,
1396: assuming of course that that body exists as an identifiable
1397: entity today (Taylor and Babul 2004, 2005; Sales et al. 2007b).
1398:
1399: The kinematic basis of the S07 model is their detection of a strong
1400: asymmetry in the velocity distribution of Leo~I. We do not confirm
1401: this feature in our data. The velocity distribution of all Leo~I
1402: members (Figure~\ref{figs:velhist}; $N = 328$) has a skew of $0.08 \pm
1403: 0.14$ and a kurtosis of $-0.34 \pm 0.27$, both consistent with a
1404: Gaussian distribution. If we select stars from our sample that are
1405: spatially distributed in the same manner as those in the S07 sample
1406: (dashed histogram in Figure~\ref{figs:velhist}), we find no
1407: significant skew or kurtosis ($0.10 \pm 0.21$ and $-0.23 \pm 0.41$,
1408: respectively). It is unclear to what extent the systematic errors of
1409: the S07 velocities relative to our measurements (see Section~3.2)
1410: contribute to their observation of an asymmetric velocity
1411: distribution. What is clear is that we see no such effect in our
1412: larger sample of more precise velocities. In the detailed $n$-body
1413: models by S07, the asymmetry of the velocity distribution from their
1414: model appears to result entirely from stars that have migrated along
1415: the orbit since the penultimate perigalacticon (about 5-7 Gyr). Based on
1416: S07's reasoning, our data (Figure~\ref{figs:velhist}) argue that this
1417: earlier perigalactic passage did not occur and adds weight to the idea
1418: that Leo~I's orbit has evolved.
1419:
1420: The extent of Leo~I along the line of sight offers another way of
1421: distinguishing these models. S07 predict that Leo~I should exhibit a
1422: full depth of about 30\%, defined here as ${{\Delta D}\over{D}}$. In
1423: our description, this extent is much less, about 10-15\%, which we
1424: estimate from the distance stars have traveled relative to the center
1425: of Leo~I at a velocity of 10 km/s (characteristic of the internal
1426: dispersion) since perigalacticon. Proper simulations are needed to
1427: determine the tidal extent reliably, but we note that this rough
1428: estimate agrees with distance range of stars extracted from Leo~I
1429: during its last perigalactic passage in the S07 models. Though the
1430: horizontal branch of Leo~I is extended in luminosity, this seems to
1431: result mostly from its unusual star-formation history and not a
1432: distance spread (Gallart et al. 1999b). As we summarized in Section
1433: 4.3.2, observations of RR~Lyr stars in Leo~I appear to rule out a
1434: depth greater than about 15\%\ (Held et al. 2001), arguing against the
1435: existence of significant tidal arms as predicted by S07. Distance
1436: tracers accurate to 5\% are needed if we hope to detect the much more
1437: modest tidal arms hypothesized in our scenario.
1438:
1439: We predict that Leo~I's proper motion should be from east to west in a
1440: heliocentric reference frame; specific predictions are given in
1441: Table~8. These values differ significantly from the predicted proper
1442: motion reported by S07 for several reasons. First, S07 report their
1443: prediction in units of marcsec/yr, though the values appear more
1444: consistent with units of arcsec/yr. Also, the predicted proper motion
1445: in S07 is stated to be heliocentric, but the signs of the two
1446: components are inconsistent with this and suggest that the values
1447: reported by S07 correspond to a Galactostationary frame. Note that
1448: our predicted proper motions assume the orbital pole given by S07 and
1449: rely on our interpretation that the leading side of Leo~I (west)
1450: exhibits a net positive velocity relative to the systemic velocity of
1451: the galaxy (see Figures~\ref{figs:gradient} and \ref{figs:xieta2}).
1452:
1453: One final issue has to do with why we see streaming in the outer parts
1454: of Leo~I (outside the break radius, $R_b = 400$ arcsec) while Koch et
1455: al. (2007; K07) do not. To explore this, we carried out simulations
1456: in which the velocities of stars in our sample were assumed to have
1457: (normal) errors 2.0 times as large as in Table 5, mimicking the mean
1458: uncertainty of the K07 measurements. For our full dataset, only 29\%\
1459: of our simulations produce by chance a larger value of $\Delta v$ than
1460: we observe (Figure~\ref{figs:deltav}). When we select stars to
1461: approximate the spatial distribution of stars in the K07 sample, 30\%\
1462: of the simulations produce a stronger streaming signal by chance.
1463: Interestingly, our data still reveal streaming outside $R_b \sim 400$
1464: arcsec even when we double the velocity uncertainties or mimic the K07
1465: spatial distribution. It will be of useful to expand the size of the
1466: Leo~I kinematic sample, particularly at and outside $R_b$, to explore
1467: the nature of the streaming signal in Leo~I further.
1468:
1469: \subsection{Halo Substructure?}
1470:
1471: Figure~\ref{figs:rpa} reveals the presence of some stars with
1472: velocities in the fairly narrow range $88$ to $105$ km/s. The mean
1473: heliocentric velocity of this group (14 measurements of 6 stars) is
1474: $95.8 \pm 2.4$ km/s with a `dispersion' of $5.8 \pm 1.9$ km/s. These
1475: stars appear uniformly distributed over the field and are
1476: kinematically distinct from Leo~I. The expected distribution of field
1477: stars predicted by the Besancon Galaxy model (Robin et al. 2003)
1478: toward Leo~I is shown in the Gaussian-smoothed histogram in the right
1479: panel of Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}. This model agrees reasonably well
1480: with the distribution of velocities of other non-Leo~I stars plotted
1481: in Figure~\ref{figs:rpa} and does very well in other dSph fields
1482: (Walker et al. 2007b). By counting stars in velocity intevals $< 85$
1483: km/s and between 85-110 km/s in both our dataset and the model, we
1484: find that these 6 stars represent a modest $\sim$2$\sigma$ excess
1485: relative to this model, which predicts $1.2 \pm 0.2$ stars in this
1486: velocity interval given the number of field stars we observe at lower
1487: velocities. Other kinematic studies based on relatively
1488: high-resolution observations have identified possible evidence of cold
1489: kinematic groups in other halo fields (Cote et al 1992; Ibata et
1490: al. 1994; Odenkirchen et al. 2002; Mu\~noz et al. 2006). Given the
1491: complex and rich distribution of streams being discovered in
1492: wide-field surveys (Belakurov et al. 2006; Grillmair and Dionatos
1493: 2006), serendipitous kinematic detection of streams may not be
1494: surprising. We may be seeing a similar feature near Leo~I, but the
1495: statistics are obviously poor and further members of this putative
1496: kinematic group need to be identified.
1497:
1498: \section{Summary and Conclusions}
1499:
1500: We have presented new kinematic results of stars located in and near
1501: the Milky Way satellite dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo~I. Our sample
1502: includes velocities of 328 likely Leo~I red giant members based on new
1503: observations with the Hectochelle multi-object echelle spectrograph,
1504: plus published kinematic results obtained by M98 obtained with HIRES
1505: at the Keck Observatory. These results are based on measurements of
1506: spectra obtained around 5180\AA, a region virtually uncontaminated by
1507: telluric emission or absorption features.
1508:
1509: Repeat measurements of many stars in our sample allow us to estimate
1510: the typical errors of the velocities of these stars to be 2.4 km/s.
1511: Our results give a systemic heliocentric velocity for Leo~I of $282.9
1512: \pm 0.5$ km/s, and a radial velocity dispersion for the full sample of
1513: $9.2 \pm 0.4$ km/s, both in agreement with previous measurements. The
1514: large areal coverage and significant number of stars in the present
1515: sample (see Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}) allow us to measure the radial
1516: velocity dispersion profile to slightly beyond the formal King tidal
1517: radius of Leo~I (IH95; Table 6). As we find in other dSph systems
1518: (Walker et al. 2007b), this profile is flat to large projected radius
1519: (see Figures~\ref{figs:leoibin} and \ref{figs:leoibinfits}).
1520:
1521: We have fit the dispersion profile to a variety of equilibrium
1522: dynamical models. The observed profile is strongly inconsistent with
1523: an isotropic King model in which mass follows light, but can be fit
1524: reasonably well with an isothermal sphere. In this latter case, we
1525: still infer that the mass distribution is much more extended than the
1526: visible light. We have also fit the dispersion profile two-component
1527: Sersic+NFW model ({\L}okas 2002). The isothermal model implies a mass
1528: of $5.2 \pm 1.2 \times 10^7 M_\odot$ within a radius of $1040$ pc and
1529: a central density of $\rho_0 = 0.23 \pm 0.04 M_\odot {\rm pc}^{-3}$
1530: for a core radius equal to the King core radius. The best fit to a
1531: Sersic+NFW model gives a total mass of $7 \pm 1 \times 10^8 M_\odot$
1532: to a virial radius of 18.3 kpc for $M_{tot}/M_{vis} = 129 \pm 45$, and
1533: a tangentially anisotropic velocity distribution ($\beta = -1.5$). An
1534: isotropic Sersic+NFW model can be excluded at $> 95$\%\ confidence.
1535: These results are summarized in Table 6 and illustrated in
1536: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibinfits}. All models that provide acceptable
1537: fits to the dispersion profile of Leo~I demand that the DM profile is
1538: much more extended than the visible matter.
1539:
1540: One motivation to study Leo~I has been to determine the
1541: characteristics of a plausibly isolated dark halo. Ironically, our
1542: observations reveal evidence that tidal effects may actually have
1543: significantly affected the properties of the galaxy. We find evidence
1544: of a `break' radius, $R_b$, at about $R = 400$ arcsec (500 pc), where
1545: the internal kinematics of Leo~I change from apparently isotropic
1546: inside this radius, to a distribution consistent with rotation or
1547: streaming along the major axis. Monte-Carlo simulations reveal that
1548: the statistical significance of the kinematic change is high
1549: ($> 97$\%). We interpret this in the framework of a heuristic model in
1550: which Leo~I passed very close to the center of the Milky Way about 1
1551: Gyr ago. The break radius corresponds to the instantaneous tidal
1552: radius of Leo~I at perigalacticon (Table~8 and
1553: Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi}).
1554:
1555: This simple model accounts for the observed kinematic and population
1556: segregation in Leo~I, the mildly distorted structural properties of
1557: the galaxy, the age and duration of the last prominent burst of star
1558: formation, and the large outward radial velocity of Leo~I
1559: relative to the Galactic Center. The lack of gas today in the galaxy
1560: presumably reflects the fact that the ISM was largely consumed by star
1561: formation in the inner part of Leo~I (inside $R_b$), and stripped via
1562: ram pressure near the Galactic disk outside that radius. This is
1563: consistent with our detection of population segregation in Leo~I, such
1564: that younger stars predominate inside $R_b$, while older
1565: populations are found at all radii.
1566:
1567: Tidal arms would have formed in Leo~I during its perigalactic
1568: passage(s). Because of the high ellipticity of the galaxy's orbit and
1569: its large distance, we predict that these arms are projected close to
1570: the main body of the galaxy, and that they exhibit a full extent of
1571: about 10-15\%\ the distance to Leo~I (25-35 kpc). In this picture,
1572: the leading (more distant) arm is associated with stars with positive
1573: velocities relative to the center of Leo~I, corresponding to the west
1574: side of the galaxy. Existing observations of RR~Lyr stars in Leo~I
1575: appear to rule out arms that extend 20-30\%\ of the distance to the
1576: galaxy along the line of sight (Held et al. 2001). Shoerter arms
1577: cannot be excluded with existing observations, but could be detectable
1578: with a distance indicator capable of distance resolution of $\sim$5\%,
1579: such as dwarf Cepheids (Mateo et al. 1998b).
1580:
1581: The lack of long tidal arms is inconsistent with the simulations of
1582: S07 who argue Leo~I has suffered at least two perigalactic passages in
1583: its lifetime. We speculate that Leo~I may have instead been injected
1584: into its highly elliptical orbit via an interaction with a third body,
1585: similar to a more specific model in which Sgr was injected into its
1586: present orbit after interacting with the LMC (Zhao 1998). Within the
1587: context of hierarchical models, such an interaction for Leo~I is not
1588: only possible, but probable (Taylor and Babul 2005, 2005; Sales et
1589: al. 2007b). This scattering event had to have occurred between about
1590: 2-9 Gyr ago to exclude as second close perigalactic passage of Leo~I.
1591: The lack of asymmetry in the velocity distribution of our kinematic
1592: sample of Leo~I members (Figure~\ref{figs:velhist}) is also consistent
1593: with only one close perigalactic passage during Leo~I's
1594: lifetime (S07).
1595:
1596: It would be of interest to look for a similar effect in other
1597: satellite systems. Our kinematic observations of nearly 1000 stars in
1598: Carina suggest that we may see evidence of a break radius in that
1599: galaxy at comparable significance (97\% ; Walker et al. 2007c). Other
1600: dwarfs for which we have extensive kinematic data also show possible
1601: break radii, but at lower significance than in Leo~I. This may not be
1602: entirely surprising. Leo~I's exceptionally large radial velocity
1603: makes the galaxy unique, and demands a highly elliptical orbit if it
1604: is bound to the Milky Way (Byrd et al. 1994; Taylor et al. 2005).
1605: Most other dSph systems appear to be on less extreme elliptical orbits
1606: (Piatek et al. 2005, 2006, 2007; Dinescu et al. 2004), so the break
1607: radius may not be as well-defined as in Leo~I. Carina may have the
1608: next most extreme orbital eccentricity after Leo~I ($e_{Car} = 0.67$;
1609: Piatek et al. 2003). It has long been discussed as a system with an
1610: extended pseudo-stream of stars (Majewski et al. 2000; Mu\~noz et
1611: al. 2006), and we may have already detected a break radius in its
1612: kinematics. Carina contains dwarf Cepheids (e.g. Mateo et al. 1998b)
1613: which, if identified in greater numbers and over a larger fraction of
1614: the galaxy, could be used to explore the galaxy's line-of-sight
1615: extent.
1616:
1617: Finally, it is worth noting here that the possibility that Leo~I has
1618: been affected significantly by tides does not necessarily contradict
1619: our conclusion from equilibrium models that the system is dominated by
1620: dark matter. For the larger masses we derive from the NFW models,
1621: Leo~I would have had to pass within 10 kpc or so of the Galactic
1622: Center. Indeed, as long as we adopt Newtonian gravity, its survival
1623: in this orbit {\it demands} the existence of dark matter. If Leo~I
1624: has no dark matter at all, then it could not have passed closer than
1625: about 40 kpc of the Galactic Center and survive. Such a large
1626: perigalacticon may be problematic for models that account for the gas
1627: loss via ram-pressure stripping and consumption in tidally-induced
1628: star formation (Mayer et al. 2001a,b, 2005). Measurements of precise
1629: proper motions can help settle this issue, though Table 8 suggests it
1630: may prove difficult to make fine distinctions within a broad range of
1631: plausible Leo~I orbits. In the meantime, our observations suggest
1632: some obvious $n$-body simulations that could be designed to recreate
1633: our detailed observations of the dispersion profile and break radius
1634: in the enigmatic dwarf galaxy, Leo~I (Klimentowski et al. 2007).
1635:
1636:
1637:
1638: \acknowledgements
1639:
1640: We thank Carlton Pryor for calculating a range of orbits for Leo~I.
1641: Nelson Caldwell, Gabor Furesz and John Roll helped immensely in
1642: planning, scheduling and implementing our MMT observations, and we are
1643: grateful for their efforts. Andy Szentgyorgyi and Dan Fabricant
1644: helped to address occasional problems with Hectochelle promptly and
1645: expertly. We are grateful to the entire Hectochelle team for their
1646: impressive efforts in building and supporting this complex instrument.
1647: At the telescope, we were expertly helped by Hectochelle robot
1648: operators, Perry Berlind and Michael Calkins, and the MMT operators
1649: Mike Alegria, John McAfee, and Alejandra Milone. We thank them for
1650: ensuring that our runs were successful and pleasureable. We are
1651: grateful to the referee for an insightful and thorough report. This
1652: work has been supported by NSF grants AST~02-06081 and AST~05-07453
1653: (to MM) and AST~02-05790 and AST~05-07511 (to EO).
1654:
1655:
1656: \begin{references}
1657:
1658: \reference{}Allen, A.~J., \& Richstone, D.~O.\ 1988, ApJ, 325, 583 %New
1659:
1660: \reference{}Battaglia, G., et al.\ 2006, A\&Ap, 459, 423 %New
1661:
1662: \reference{}Bekenstein, J.~D.\ 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 70, 083509 %New
1663:
1664: \reference{}Bell, E.~F., Phleps, S., Somerville, R.~S., Wolf, C., Borch,
1665: A., \& Meisenheimer, K.\ 2006, ApJ, 652, 270 %New
1666:
1667: \reference{}Bellazzini, M., Correnti, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Monaco, L., \&
1668: Montegriffo, P.\ 2006, A\&A, 446, L1 %New
1669:
1670: \reference{}Bellazzini, M., Gennari, N., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Sollima, A.
1671: 2004, MNRAS, 354, 708 %New
1672:
1673: \reference{}Belokurov, V. et al. 2006, ApJ, 642, L137 %New
1674:
1675: \reference{}Benson, A.~J., Frenk, C.~S., Lacey, C.~G., Baugh, C.~M., \&
1676: Cole, S.\ 2002, MNRAS, 333, 177 %New
1677:
1678: \reference{} Binney, J., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1987, {\it Galactic
1679: Dynamics}, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ) %New
1680:
1681: \reference{}Brown, T.~M., Smith, E., Guhathakurta, P., Rich, R.~M.,
1682: Ferguson, H.~C., Renzini, A., Sweigart, A.~V., \& Kimble, R.~A.\ 2006,
1683: ApJ, 636, L89 %New
1684:
1685: \reference {} Bullock, J.~S., Kolatt,
1686: T.~S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R.~S., Kravtsov, A.~V., Klypin, A.~A.,
1687: Primack, J.~R., \& Dekel, A.\ 2001, MNRAS, 321, 559 %New
1688:
1689: \reference{}Byrd, G., Valtonen, M., McCall, M., Innanen, K. 1994, AJ, 107, 2055 %New
1690:
1691: \reference{}Caputo, F., Cassisi, S., Castellani, M., Marconi, G., \&
1692: Santolamazza, P.\ 1999, AJ, 117, 2199 %New
1693:
1694: \reference{}Choi, J.-H., Weinberg, M.~D., \& Katz, N.\ 2007, ArXiv
1695: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702353 %New
1696:
1697: \reference{}Coleman, M.~G., Da Costa, G.~S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., \&
1698: Freeman, K.~C.\ 2005, AJ, 129, 1443 %New
1699:
1700: \reference{}Coleman, M., Da Costa, G.~S., Bland-Hawthorn, J., Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado, D., Freeman, K.~C., \& Malin, D.\ 2004, AJ, 127, 832 %New
1701:
1702: \reference{}Cote, P., Welch, D.~L., Fischer, P., \& Irwin, M.~J.\ 1993,
1703: ApJ, 406, L59 %New
1704:
1705: \reference{}Connors, T.~W., Kawata, D., \& Gibson, B.~K.\ 2006, MNRAS,
1706: 371, 108 %New
1707:
1708: \reference{}Demers, S., \& Kunkel, W.~E.\ 1979, PASP, 91, 761 %New
1709:
1710: \reference{}Demers, S., Battinelli, P., Irwin, M.~J., \& Kunkel, W.~E.\
1711: 1995, MNRAS, 274, 491 %New
1712:
1713: \reference{}Dinescu, D.~I., Keeney, B.~A., Majewski, S.~R., \& Girard,
1714: T.~M.\ 2004, AJ, 128, 687 %New
1715:
1716: \reference{}Dohm-Palmer, R.~C., \& Skillman, E.~D.\ 2002, AJ, 123, 1433 %New
1717:
1718: \reference{}Dolphin, A.~E.\ 2002, MNRAS, 332, 91 %New
1719:
1720: \reference{}Ferrara, A., \& Tolstoy, E.\ 2000, MNRAS, 313, 291 %New
1721:
1722: \reference{}Fich, M., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1991, \araa, 29, 409 %New
1723:
1724: \reference{}Fleck, J.-J., \& Kuhn, J.~R.\ 2003, ApJ, 592, 147 %New
1725:
1726: \reference{}Gallart, C., Freedman, W.L., Mateo, M., Chiosi, C., Thompson, I.B., Aparicio, A., Bertelli, G., Hodge, P.W., Lee, M.G., Olszewski, E.W., Saha, A., Stetson, P.B., Suntzeff, N.B. 1999a, ApJ, 514, 665
1727:
1728: \reference{}Gallart, C., Freedman, W.~L., Aparicio, A., Bertelli, G., \& Chiosi, C.\ 1999b, AJ, 118, 2245 %New
1729:
1730: \reference{}Girardi, L., Bertelli,
1731: G., Bressan, A., Chiosi, C., Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., Marigo, P., Salasnich,
1732: B., \& Weiss, A.\ 2002, A\&A, 391, 195 %New
1733:
1734: \reference{}Grebel, E.~K., \& Gallagher, J.~S., III 2004, ApJ, 610, L89 %New
1735:
1736: \reference{}Grillmair, C.~J.\ 2006, ApJ, 645, L37
1737:
1738: \reference{}Grillmair, C.~J., \& Dionatos, O.\ 2006, ApJ, 643, L17 %New
1739:
1740: \reference{}Hammer, F., Puech, M., Chemin, L., Flores, H., \& Lehnert,
1741: M.\ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0702585
1742:
1743: \reference{}Harbeck, D., et al.\ 2001, AJ, 122, 3092 %New
1744:
1745: \reference{}Hargreaves, J.~C., Gilmore, G., \& Annan, J.~D.\ 1996,
1746: MNRAS, 279, 108 %New
1747:
1748: \reference{}Held, E.~V., Clementini, G., Rizzi, L., Momany, Y., Saviane,
1749: I., \& Di Fabrizio, L.\ 2001, ApJ, 562, L39 %New
1750:
1751: \reference{}Held, E.~V., Saviane, I., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G.\ 2000,
1752: ApJ, 530, L85 %New
1753:
1754: \reference{}Hernandez, X., Gilmore, G., \& Valls-Gabaud, D.\ 2000,
1755: MNRAS, 317, 831 %New
1756:
1757: \reference{}Ibata, R.~A., Gilmore, G., \& Irwin, M.~J.\ 1994, Nature,
1758: 370, 194 %New
1759:
1760: \reference{}Ibata, R., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., \&
1761: Tanvir, N.\ 2001, Nature, 412, 49 %New
1762:
1763: \reference{}Irwin, M., \& Hatzidimitriou, D.\ 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1354
1764: (IH95) %New
1765:
1766: \reference{}Johnston, K.~V., Spergel, D.~N., \& Hernquist, L.\ 1995,
1767: ApJ, 451, 598 %New
1768:
1769: \reference{}King, I.\ 1962, AJ, 67, 471 %New
1770:
1771: \reference{}King, I.~R.\ 1966, AJ, 71, 64 %New
1772:
1773: \reference{}Klessen, R.~S., Grebel, E.~K., \& Harbeck, D.\ 2003, ApJ,
1774: 589, 798 %New
1775:
1776: \reference{}Klessen, R.~S., \& Kroupa, P.\ 1998, ApJ, 498, 143 %New
1777:
1778: \reference{}Klessen, R.~S., \& Zhao, H.\ 2002, ApJ, 566, 838 %New
1779:
1780: \reference{}Kleyna, J.~T., Wilkinson, M.~I., Evans, N.~W., \& Gilmore,
1781: G.\ 2004, MNRAS, 354, L66 %New
1782:
1783: \reference{}Klimentowski, J., {\L}okas, E.~L., Kazantzidis, S., Prada,
1784: F., Mayer, L., \& Mamon, G.~A.\ 2007, MNRAS, 378, 353 %New
1785:
1786: \reference{}Koch, A., Wilkinson, M.~I., Kleyna, J.~T., Gilmore, G.~F.,
1787: Grebel, E.~K., Mackey, A.~D., Evans, N.~W., \& Wyse, R.~F.~G.\ 2007,
1788: ApJ, 657, 241 (K07) %New
1789:
1790: \reference{}Kuhn, J.~R., \& Miller, R.~H.\ 1989, ApJ, 341, L41 %New
1791:
1792: \reference{}Kuhn, J.~R., Smith, H.~A., \& Hawley, S.~L.\ 1996, ApJ,
1793: 469, L93 %New
1794:
1795: \reference{}Kormendy, J., \& Kennicutt, R.~C., Jr.\ 2004, ARAA, 42, 603 %New
1796:
1797: \reference{}Knapp, G.~R., Kerr, F.~J., \& Bowers, P.~F.\ 1978, AJ, 83, 360 %New
1798:
1799: \reference{} Knebe, A., Gill, S.~P.~D., Gibson, B.~K., Lewis, G.~F.,
1800: Ibata, R.~A., \& Dopita, M.~A.\ 2004, ApJ, 603, 7 %New
1801:
1802: \reference{}Kochanek, C.~S.\ 1996, ApJ, 457, 228 %New
1803:
1804: \reference{}Kravtsov, A.~V., Gnedin, O.~Y., \& Klypin, A.~A.\ 2004,
1805: ApJ, 609, 482 %New
1806:
1807: \reference{}Landolt, A.~U.\ 1983, AJ, 88, 439 %New
1808:
1809: \reference{}Landolt, A.~U.\ 1992, AJ, 104, 340 %New
1810:
1811: \reference{}{\L}okas, E.~L.\ 2002, MNRAS, 333, 697 %New
1812:
1813: \reference{}Majewski, S.~R., et al.\ 2004, AJ, 128, 245 %New
1814:
1815: \reference{}Majewski, S.~R., Ostheimer, J.~C., Patterson, R.~J., Kunkel,
1816: W.~E., Johnston, K.~V., \& Geisler, D.\ 2000, AJ, 119, 760 %New
1817:
1818: \reference{}Majewski, S.~R., et al.\ 2005, AJ, 130, 2677 %New
1819:
1820: \reference{}Majewski, S.R., Skrutskie, M.F., Weinberg, M.D., Ostheimer, J.C. 2003, ApJ, 599, 1082 %New
1821:
1822: \reference{}Mart{\'{\i}}nez-Delgado, D., Alonso-Garc{\'{\i}}a, J.,
1823: Aparicio, A., \& G{\'o}mez-Flechoso, M.~A.\ 2001, ApJ, 549, L63 %New
1824:
1825: \reference{}Mashchenko, S., Carignan, C., \& Bouchard, A.\ 2004, MNRAS, 352, 168 %New
1826:
1827: \reference{}Mateo, M. 1998, AR\&A, 36, 435 %New
1828:
1829: \reference{}Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.W., Vogt, S.S., Keane, M.J. 1998a, AJ, 116, 231 (M98) %New
1830:
1831: \reference{}Mateo, M., Hurley-Keller, D., Nemec, J. 1998b, AJ, 115, 1856 %New
1832:
1833: \reference{}Mayer, L. 2005, IAUC 198, ``Near-field Cosmology with Dwarf
1834: Elliptical Galaxies,'' eds.\ Jerjen \& Bingelli %New
1835:
1836: \reference{}Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., Moore, B., Quinn, T., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 2001a, ApJ, 547, L123 %New
1837:
1838: \reference{}Mayer, L., Governato, F., Colpi, M., Moore, B., Quinn, T.,
1839: Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., Lake, G. 2001b, ApJ, 559, 754 %New
1840:
1841: \reference{}Mayer, L., Kazantzidis, S., Mastropietro, C., \& Wadsley,
1842: J.\ 2007, Nature, 445, 738 %New
1843:
1844: \reference{}Mayer, L., Mastropietro, C., Wadsley, J., Stadel, J., \&
1845: Moore, B.\ 2006, MNRAS, 369, 1021 %New
1846:
1847: \reference{}Merritt, D., \& Saha, P.\ 1993, ApJ, 409, 75 %New
1848:
1849: \reference{}Menzies, J., Feast, M., Tanabe, T., Whitelock, P., Nakada, Y. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 923 %New
1850:
1851: \reference{}Metz, M., Kroupa, P., \& Jerjen, H.\ 2007, MNRAS, 374, 1125 %New
1852:
1853: \reference{}Milgrom, M.\ 1983a, ApJ, 270, 371 %New
1854:
1855: \reference{}Milgrom, M.\ 1983b, ApJ, 270, 384 %New
1856:
1857: \reference{}Monelli, M., et al.\ 2004, Mem. della Soc. Astr. It. Supp.,
1858: 5, 65 %New
1859:
1860: \reference{}Monet, D.~G., et al.\ 2003, AJ, 125, 984 %New
1861:
1862: \reference{}Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., Lake, G., Quinn, T.,
1863: Stadel, J., \& Tozzi, P.\ 1999, ApJ, 524, L19 %New
1864:
1865: \reference{}Mu{\~n}oz, R.~R., et al.\ 2005, ApJ, 631, L137 %New
1866:
1867: \reference{}Mu{\~n}oz, R.~R., et al.\ 2006, ApJ, 649, 201 %New
1868:
1869: \reference{}Navarro, J.~F., Frenk, C.~S., \& White, S.~D.~M.\ 1997,
1870: ApJ, 490, 493 %New
1871:
1872: \reference{}Nemec, J.~M., Nemec, A.~F.~L., \& Lutz, T.~E.\ 1994, AJ, 108, 222 %New
1873:
1874: \reference{}Odenkirchen, M., Grebel, E.~K., Dehnen, W., Rix, H.-W., \&
1875: Cudworth, K.~M.\ 2002, AJ, 124, 1497 %New
1876:
1877: \reference{}Oh, K.~S., Lin, D.~N.~C., \& Aarseth, S.~J.\ 1995, ApJ, 442, 142 %New
1878:
1879: \reference{}Olsen, K.~A.~G., \& Massey, P.\ 2007, ApJ, 656, L61 %New
1880:
1881: \reference{}Olszewski, E.~W., Mateo, M., Harris, J., Walker, M.~G.,
1882: Coleman, M.~G., \& Da Costa, G.~S.\ 2006, AJ, 131, 912 %New
1883:
1884: \reference{}Olszewski, E.~W., Pryor, C., \& Armandroff, T.~E.\ 1996,
1885: AJ, 111, 750 %New
1886:
1887: \reference{}Palma, C., Majewski, S.~R., Siegel, M.~H., Patterson, R.~J.,
1888: Ostheimer, J.~C., \& Link, R.\ 2003, AJ, 125, 1352 %New
1889:
1890: \reference{}Piatek, S., \& Pryor, C.\ 1995, AJ, 109, 1071 %New
1891:
1892: \reference{}Piatek, S., Pryor, C.,
1893: Olszewski, E.~W., Harris, H.~C., Mateo, M., Minniti, D., \& Tinney, C.~G.\
1894: 2003, AJ, 126, 2346 %New
1895:
1896: \reference{}Piatek, S., Pryor, C., Bristow, P., Olszewski, E.~W.,
1897: Harris, H.~C., Mateo, M., Minniti, D., \& Tinney, C.~G.\ 2005, AJ,
1898: 130, 95 %New
1899:
1900: \reference{}Piatek, S., Pryor, C., Bristow, P., Olszewski, E.~W., Harris, H.~C.,
1901: Mateo, M., Minniti, D., \& Tinney, C.~G.\ 2006, AJ, 131, 1445 %New
1902:
1903: \reference{}Piatek, S., Pryor, C., Bristow, P., Olszewski, E.~W.,
1904: Harris, H.~C., Mateo, M., Minniti, D., \& Tinney, C.~G.\ 2007, AJ,
1905: 133, 818 %New
1906:
1907: \reference{}Pichardo, B., Sparke, L.~S., \& Aguilar, L.~A.\ 2005,
1908: MNRAS, 359, 521 %New
1909:
1910: \reference{}Putman, M.~E., et al.\ 1998, Nature, 394, 752 %New
1911:
1912: \reference{}Read, J. I. \& Gilmore, G. 2005, 356, 107 %New
1913:
1914: \reference{}Read, J.~I., Pontzen, A.~P., \& Viel, M.\ 2006a, MNRAS, 371, 885 %New
1915:
1916: \reference{}Read, J.~I., Wilkinson, M.~I., Evans, N.~W., Gilmore, G., \&
1917: Kleyna, J.~T.\ 2006b, MNRAS, 367, 387 %New
1918:
1919: \reference{}Rice, J. A., {\it Mathematical Statistics and Data
1920: Analysis}, 2nd ed. 1995, Wadsworth Publ. Co. %Ne
1921:
1922: \reference{}Richstone, D.~O., \& Tremaine, S.\ 1986, AJ, 92, 72 %New
1923:
1924: \reference{}Robin, A.~C., Reyl{\'e}, C., Derri{\`e}re, S., \& Picaud,
1925: S.\ 2003, A\&Ap, 409, 523 %New
1926:
1927: \reference{}Sakamoto, T., Chiba, M., \& Beers, T.~C.\ 2003, A\&A, 397, 899 %New
1928:
1929: \reference{}Sales, L.~V., Navarro, J.~F., Abadi, M.~G., \& Steinmetz,
1930: M.\ 2007a, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.1770
1931:
1932: \reference{}Sales, L.~V., Navarro, J.~F., Abadi, M.~G., \& Steinmetz,
1933: M.\ 2007b, ArXiv e-prints, 704, arXiv:0704.1773
1934:
1935: \reference{}Schechter, P.~L., Mateo, M., \& Saha, A.\ 1993, PASP, 105, 1342 %New
1936:
1937: \reference{}Sersic, J.~L.\ 1968, Cordoba, Argentina: Observatorio
1938: Astronomico %New
1939:
1940: \reference{}Sohn, S.~T., et al.\ 2007, ApJ, in press %New
1941:
1942: \reference{}Stefanik, R.~P., Latham, D.~W., \& Davis, R.~J.\ 2006,
1943: \pasp, 118, 1656 %New
1944:
1945: \reference{}Sung, H., \& Bessell, M.~S.\ 2000, Publications of the
1946: Astronomical Society of Australia, 17, 244 %New
1947:
1948: \reference{}Susa, H., \& Umemura, M.\ 2004, ApJ, 600, 1 %New
1949:
1950: \reference{}Szentgyorgyi, A.\ 2006, New Astronomy Review, 50, 326 %New
1951:
1952: \reference{}Szentgyorgyi, A.~H., Cheimets, P., Eng, R., Fabricant,
1953: D.~G., Geary, J.~C., Hartmann, L., Pieri, M.~R., \& Roll, J.~B.\ 1998,
1954: Proc. SPIE, 3355, 242 %New
1955:
1956: \reference{} Taylor, J.~E., \& Babul, A.\ 2004, MNRAS, 348, 811 %New
1957:
1958: \reference{} Taylor, J.~E., \& Babul, A.\ 2005, MNRAS, 364, 515 %New
1959:
1960: \reference{}Taylor, J.~E., Silk, J., \& Babul, A.\ 2005, IAU
1961: Colloq.~198: Near-fields cosmology with dwarf elliptical galaxies, 185 %New
1962:
1963: \reference{}Tolstoy, E., et al.\ 2004, ApJ, 617, L119 %New
1964:
1965: \reference{}Tonry, J., \& Davis, M.\ 1979, AJ, 84, 1511 %New
1966:
1967: \reference{} Tormen, G, Diaferio, A., \& Syer, D. 1998, MNRAS, 299, 728 %New
1968:
1969: \reference{}Udry, S., et al.\ 1999, ASP Conf.~Ser.~185: IAU
1970: Colloq.~170: Precise Stellar Radial Velocities, 185, 383 %New
1971:
1972: \reference{}van den Bergh, S.\ 1994, ApJ, 428, 617 %New
1973:
1974: \reference{}Walker, M.~G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.~W., Bernstein, R.,
1975: Wang, X., \& Woodroofe, M.\ 2006a, AJ, 131, 2114 %New
1976:
1977: \reference{}Walker, M.~G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E.~W., Pal, J.~K., Sen,
1978: B., \& Woodroofe, M.\ 2006b, ApJ, 642, L41 %New
1979:
1980: \reference{}Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., Bernstein, R., Sen, B.,
1981: \& Woodroofe, M. 2007a, ApJS, in press %New
1982:
1983: \reference{}Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., Olszewski, E. W., Gnedin, O., Wang, X.,
1984: Sen, B., \& Woodroofe, M. 2007b, ApJL, submitted %New
1985:
1986: \reference{}Walker, M. G., Mateo, M., \& Olszewski, E. W. 2007c, in preparation %New
1987:
1988: \reference{}Wang, X., Woodroofe, M., Walker, M.~G., Mateo, M., \&
1989: Olszewski, E.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 145 %New
1990:
1991: \reference{}Wilkinson, M.~I., \& Evans, N.~W.\ 1999, MNRAS, 310, 645 %New
1992:
1993: \reference{}Williams, G.~G.,Olszewski, E., Lesser, M.~P., \& Burge,J.~H.\ 2004, Proc. SPIE, 5492, 787 %New
1994:
1995: \reference{}Young, L.~M.\ 1999, AJ, 117, 1758 %New
1996:
1997: \reference{}Zaritsky, D., Olszewski, E.W., Schommer, R.A., Peterson, R.C., Aaronson, M. 1989, ApJ, 345, 759 %New
1998:
1999: \reference{}Zhao, H.\ 1998, ApJ, 500, L149 %New
2000:
2001: \end{references}
2002:
2003: \clearpage
2004:
2005: \begin{table}
2006: \begin{center}
2007: \caption{Log of Hectochelle Observations\tablenotemark{a}}
2008: \vskip1em
2009: \begin{tabular}{lccrccc}
2010: \hline
2011: Configuration & UT~Date & UT~Start/End & \multicolumn{1}{c}{ET} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N_{exp}$}
2012: & $\alpha_{J2000}$ & $\delta_{J2000}$ \\
2013: & & & \multicolumn{1}{c}{(sec)} & & & \\
2014: \hline
2015: SA57-n1 & Mar 31, 2005 & 08:35/08:46 & 900 & 3 & 13:05:09.9 & +30:06:32 \\
2016: HD~171232 & Mar 31, 2005 & 12:05/12:11 & 180 & 3 & 18:32:35.9 & +25:32:05 \\
2017: SA57-n3 & Apr 2, 2005 & 07:34/07:40 & 600 & 2 & 13:05:09.9 & +30:06:32 \\
2018: SA57-2006 & Apr 19, 2006 & 08:12/08:28 & 900 & 2 & 13:05:09.9 & +30:06:32 \\
2019: \\
2020: Leo~I/c1 & Mar 31, 2005 & 03:03/07:18 & 16200 & 6 & 10:08:35.7 & +12:16:49 \\
2021: Leo~I/c2 & Apr 2, 2005 & 02:56/06:13 & 14400 & 4 & 10:08:15.5 & +12:20:57 \\
2022: Leo~I/c3 & Apr 19, 2006 & 04:57/07:45 & 10000 & 4 & 10:08:23.2 & +12:21:32 \\
2023: Leo~I/c4 & Apr 20, 2006 & 04:29/06:35 & 7500 & 3 & 10:08:40.0 & +12:16:29 \\
2024: Leo~I/c5 & Apr 24, 2006 & 03:34/05:52 & 8100 & 3 & 10:08:25.9 & +12:18:36 \\
2025: Leo~I/c6 & Mar 12, 2007 & 06:44/09:00 & 8100 & 3 & 10:08:24.5 & +12:18:24 \\
2026: Leo~I/c7 & Apr 22, 2007 & 03:53/06:20 & 8100 & 3 & 10:08:24.5 & +12:18:24 \\
2027: \hline
2028: \end{tabular}
2029:
2030: \tablenotetext{a}{ET is the total exposure time. $N_{exp}$
2031: is the number of individual exposures obtained for each target.}
2032:
2033: \end{center}
2034: \end{table}
2035:
2036: \clearpage
2037:
2038:
2039: \begin{table}
2040: \begin{center}
2041: \caption{Summary Standard-Star Observations\tablenotemark{a}}
2042: \vskip1em
2043:
2044: \begin{tabular}{lccccccccc}
2045: \hline
2046: \ \ \ Star\tablenotemark{b} & $v_{obs,n1}$ & $v_{obs,n3}$ & $v_{obs,06}$ & $v_{obs,07}$ & $v_h$ & \multicolumn{4}{c}{$\Delta v = v_{obs} - v_h$} \\
2047: & & & & & & n1 & n3 & 06 & 07 \\
2048: \hline
2049: W22942 &\hfill --11.00 &\hfill --14.23 &\hfill --12.42 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --16.35 & \hfill 5.35 &\hfill 2.12 &\hfill 3.93 & $\ldots$ \\
2050: W23082 &\hfill --17.51 &\hfill --20.76 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill --21.69 & \hfill 4.18 &\hfill 0.93 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2051: W23108 &\hfill --10.91 &\hfill --14.33 &\hfill --12.25 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --16.49 & \hfill 5.58 &\hfill 2.16 &\hfill 4.24 & $\ldots$ \\
2052: W23131 &\hfill --1.53 &\hfill --4.80 &\hfill --2.69 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --6.02 & \hfill 4.49 &\hfill 1.22 &\hfill 3.33 & $\ldots$ \\
2053: W23833 &\hfill --0.36 &\hfill --1.93 &\hfill --1.66 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --4.95 & \hfill 4.59 &\hfill 3.02 &\hfill 3.29 & $\ldots$ \\
2054: W23870 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --11.60 &\hfill --11.49 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --14.89 & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.29 &\hfill 3.40 & $\ldots$ \\
2055: W23961 &\hfill --2.88 &\hfill --4.42 &\hfill --3.91 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --7.10 & \hfill 4.22 &\hfill 2.68 &\hfill 3.19 & $\ldots$ \\
2056: W24128 &\hfill 8.16 &\hfill 4.32 &\hfill 5.93 & $\ldots$ &\hfill 2.11 & \hfill 6.05 &\hfill 2.21 &\hfill 3.82 & $\ldots$ \\
2057: W24226 &\hfill 16.58 &\hfill 14.86 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 11.62 & \hfill 4.96 &\hfill 3.24 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2058: W25209 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill --13.35 &\hfill --16.73 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.38 \\
2059: W33245 &\hfill --16.36 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --17.68 & $\ldots$ &\hfill --20.97 & \hfill 4.61 & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.29 & $\ldots$ \\
2060: W50001 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill --68.71 &\hfill --71.91 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.20 \\
2061: W50325 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 35.90 &\hfill 33.34 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 2.56 \\
2062: W50747 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 57.29 &\hfill 54.24 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.05 \\
2063: W50806 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill --41.73 &\hfill --45.37 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.64 \\
2064: W50807 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 2.36 &\hfill --0.78 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ &\hfill 3.14 \\
2065: % W25030 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --42.98 & & & & \\
2066: % W25140 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --17.81 & & & & \\
2067: % W50257 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --2.17 & & & & \\
2068: % W50647 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 3.62 & & & & \\
2069: % W50769 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --7.70 & & & & \\
2070: % W50892 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --4.71 & & & & \\
2071: % W50994 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & --22.22 & & & & \\
2072: \\
2073: Average\tablenotemark{c} \hfill & & & & & &\hfill 4.89 &\hfill 2.22 &\hfill 3.56 &\hfill 3.16 \\
2074: Corrected\tablenotemark{c}\hfill & & & & & &\hfill 1.49 &\hfill --1.18 &\hfill 0.16 &\hfill --0.24 \\
2075: Stand. Dev. \hfill & & & & & &\hfill 0.61 &\hfill 1.00 &\hfill 0.36 &\hfill 0.36 \\
2076: \\
2077: \hline
2078: \end{tabular}
2079: \tablenotetext{a}{The subscripts $n1$ and $n3$ refer to results
2080: obtained on the first and third nights of our 2005 run. The
2081: subscripts `06' and `07' refer to SA57 observations during the 2006
2082: and 2007 queue runs, respectively. See Section 2 and Table 1 for
2083: further details.}
2084:
2085: \tablenotetext{b}{Star designations and heliocentric velocities,
2086: $v_h$, are from Stefanik et al. (2006) for velocity standards near the
2087: North Galactic Pole (SA57).}
2088:
2089: \tablenotetext{c}{`Average' refers to the straight average $\Delta v$
2090: for a given run/night. `Corrected' refers to this average value minus
2091: $3.4$ km/s to account for the zero-point offset we found for our
2092: adopted template, HD171232 (see Section 3.1).}
2093: \end{center}
2094: \end{table}
2095:
2096: \clearpage
2097:
2098: \begin{table}
2099: \begin{center}
2100: \caption{Statistics of Leo I Hectochelle Fiber Configurations\tablenotemark{a}}
2101: \vskip1em
2102: \begin{tabular}{lccc}
2103: \hline
2104: Configuration & $N_{assigned}$ & $N_{2.8}$ & $N_{Leo I}$ \\
2105: \hline
2106: c1/2005 & 109 & 82 & 54 \\
2107: c2/2005 & \phantom{0}99 & 78 & 58 \\
2108: c3/2006 & 105 & 87 & 71 \\
2109: c4/2006 & 115 & 65 & 51 \\
2110: c5/2006 & 107 & 68 & 57 \\
2111: c6/2007 & 114 & 72 & 63 \\
2112: c7/2007 & 100 & 91 & 86 \\
2113: \\
2114: Total/2005 & 208 & 160 & 112 \\
2115: Total/2006 & 327 & 220 & 179 \\
2116: Total/2007 & 214 & 163 & 149 \\
2117: Total & 749 & 543 & 440 \\
2118: \\
2119: Efficiency/2005\tablenotemark{b} & $\ldots$ & 0.77 & 0.54 \\
2120: Efficiency/2006\tablenotemark{b} & $\ldots$ & 0.67 & 0.55 \\
2121: Efficiency/2007\tablenotemark{b} & $\ldots$ & 0.76 & 0.70 \\
2122: Total Efficiency\tablenotemark{b} & $\ldots$ & 0.72 & 0.59 \\
2123: \hline
2124: \\
2125: \end{tabular}
2126:
2127: \tablenotetext{a}{The counts in this table are, for each fiber
2128: configuration, the total number of fibers assigned to a target
2129: ($N_{assigned}$), the total number of spectra that produce cross
2130: correlations with $R_{TD} \geq 2.8$ ($N_{2.8}$), and the number of
2131: Leo~I velocity members ($N_{Leo I}$, where membership is defined by
2132: whether a star has a heliocentric velocity in the range $+250$ to
2133: $+320$ km/s; Section 3.2 and Figure~\ref{figs:rpa}). Configuration
2134: numbers are defined in Table 1.}
2135:
2136: \tablenotetext{b}{Efficiencies are defined as $N_i/N_{assigned}$,
2137: where $i$ refers to the various counts listed in this table.}
2138:
2139: \end{center}
2140: \end{table}
2141:
2142: \clearpage
2143:
2144: \begin{deluxetable}{rccccccccr}
2145: \rotate
2146: \tablewidth{0pt}
2147: \tablecaption{Summary of Repeat Observations of Leo~I Targets\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:repeats}}
2148: \tablehead{\colhead{ID} &
2149: \colhead{$v_{h,1}$,\ $\sigma_1$} &
2150: \colhead{$v_{h,2}$,\ $\sigma_2$} &
2151: \colhead{$v_{h,3}$,\ $\sigma_3$} &
2152: \colhead{$v_{h,4}$,\ $\sigma_4$} &
2153: \colhead{$v_{h,5}$,\ $\sigma_5$} &
2154: \colhead{$v_{h,6}$,\ $\sigma_6$} &
2155: \colhead{$v_{h,7}$,\ $\sigma_7$} &
2156: \colhead{$v_{h,8}$,\ $\sigma_8$} &
2157: \colhead{$v_{avg}$,\ $\sigma_{avg}$} \\
2158:
2159: \colhead{} &
2160: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2161: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2162: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2163: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2164: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2165: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2166: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2167: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2168: \colhead{(km/s)} }
2169: \startdata
2170: 5 & 286.8, 1.8 & 287.8, 1.7 & 288.6, 1.7 & 286.3, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.4, 2.0 \\
2171: 12 & 294.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 298.9, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 295.3, 1.8 & 295.9, 2.8 \\
2172: 16 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 284.7, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 282.5, 1.8 & 283.6, 2.1 \\
2173: 23 & $\ldots$ & 281.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 281.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.2, 1.9 \\
2174: 25 & $\ldots$ & 287.1, 1.7 & 284.6, 1.8 & 283.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.2, 2.3 \\
2175: 28 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 284.7, 1.8 & 282.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 284.2, 1.8 & 283.9, 2.0 \\
2176: 31 & 287.4, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 291.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 289.4, 1.8 & 289.3, 2.4 \\
2177: 36 & 280.9, 2.0 & 280.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 282.2, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 282.6, 1.8 & 281.6, 2.1 \\
2178: 38 & 273.7, 1.9 & 275.8, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 274.6, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 276.8, 1.8 & 275.2, 2.2 \\
2179: {\bf 40} & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 294.6, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 305.8, 1.8 & 300.3, 6.5 \\
2180: 44 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 285.5, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.7, 1.8 & 286.8, 2.0 \\
2181: 47 & 280.0, 1.9 & 282.3, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 280.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 280.9, 2.1 \\
2182: 48 & $\ldots$ & 298.2, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 300.3, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 299.3, 2.3 \\
2183: 49 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 293.5, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 289.6, 1.8 & 291.5, 2.9 \\
2184: 57 & 291.7, 1.8 & 291.5, 1.9 & 292.5, 1.7 & 293.1, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 290.1, 1.8 & 291.8, 2.1 \\
2185: 62 & $\ldots$ & 311.5, 1.8 & 308.6, 1.8 & 307.3, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 306.8, 1.8 & 308.3, 2.6 \\
2186: 65 & 296.1, 1.9 & 295.2, 1.8 & 299.4, 1.7 & 299.2, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 297.6, 2.7 \\
2187: 66 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.9, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.6, 1.8 & 286.8, 2.0 \\
2188: 68 & 312.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 311.9, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 306.3, 1.8 & 311.1, 3.7 \\
2189: 77 & 283.8, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 279.7, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.7, 2.9 \\
2190: 85 & 290.5, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 294.3, 1.8 & 292.5, 2.8 \\
2191: 89 & 280.9, 1.8 & 281.3, 1.8 & 281.1, 1.8 & 279.6, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 280.7, 1.9 \\
2192: 91 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 295.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 297.4, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 293.4, 1.8 & 295.6, 2.5 \\
2193: 92 & 292.1, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 293.8, 1.8 & 293.8, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 293.3, 2.0 \\
2194: 95 & 289.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 288.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 289.1, 2.1 \\
2195: {\bf 102} & $\ldots$ & 275.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 266.9, 1.8 & 271.0, 4.9 \\
2196: 107 & 299.4, 1.9 & 301.4, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 301.6, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 300.8, 2.1 \\
2197: 109 & 291.4, 2.0 & 296.6, 1.9 & 298.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 296.2, 3.9 \\
2198: 113 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 286.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 287.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 286.1, 1.8 & 286.9, 2.0 \\
2199: 116 & 274.4, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 273.0, 1.8 & 272.7, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 273.3, 2.0 \\
2200: 119 & $\ldots$ & 276.7, 2.0 & 274.4, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 275.6, 2.4 \\
2201: 122 & $\ldots$ & 283.9, 1.9 & 287.0, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.5, 2.5 \\
2202: 124 & 282.6, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 276.5, 1.6 & 276.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 277.5, 3.6 \\
2203: 128 & 286.0, 2.0 & 288.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 291.7, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 288.6, 3.2 \\
2204: 135 & $\ldots$ & 277.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 277.0, 1.8 & 278.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 277.9, 2.0 \\
2205: 139 & -8.2, 1.7 & -4.1, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -4.6, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -5.4, 2.6 \\
2206: 150 & -9.0, 1.9 & -7.5, 1.9 & -7.2, 1.8 & -6.1, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -7.4, 2.1 \\
2207: 153 & 271.7, 1.9 & 272.2, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 265.9, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 270.7, 3.7 \\
2208: 157 & 276.7, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 270.0, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 273.4, 4.3 \\
2209: 161 & 284.1, 1.8 & 285.6, 1.7 & 280.7, 1.7 & 278.3, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 282.3, 3.7 \\
2210: 170 & $\ldots$ & 281.1, 2.0 & 285.9, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 283.6, 3.3 \\
2211: 171 & $\ldots$ & 296.6, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 301.1, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 298.8, 3.2 \\
2212: 179 & 288.7, 2.0 & 290.6, 1.8 & 288.4, 1.9 & 291.2, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 289.7, 2.3 \\
2213: 185 & 284.4, 2.0 & 286.0, 1.9 & 287.2, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.2, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 286.3, 2.1 \\
2214: 192 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 300.4, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 298.5, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 299.4, 2.1 \\
2215: 195 & 279.7, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & 277.2, 2.0 & 272.0, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 276.8, 4.1 \\
2216: 202 & 97.7, 2.0 & 99.2, 2.0 & 94.2, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 97.2, 3.0 \\
2217: 213 & $\ldots$ & 277.8, 2.0 & 285.0, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.6, 4.5 \\
2218: 214 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 263.0, 2.0 & 259.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 261.5, 2.6 \\
2219: 216 & 278.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 279.3, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 279.1, 2.0 \\
2220: 221 & 272.9, 2.1 & 274.7, 1.9 & 272.6, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 273.3, 2.1 \\
2221: 222 & $\ldots$ & 270.1, 1.9 & 265.2, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 267.5, 3.3 \\
2222: 239 & 279.4, 2.1 & 280.9, 1.9 & 283.7, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 282.4, 1.6 & $\ldots$ & 281.7, 2.5 \\
2223: 244 & 89.0, 2.0 & 90.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 89.7, 2.0 \\
2224: 248 & 35.8, 2.0 & 37.0, 1.9 & 34.8, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 35.8, 2.1 \\
2225: 253 & $\ldots$ & 290.3, 1.8 & 288.5, 1.7 & 289.0, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 289.2, 1.9 \\
2226: 260 & $\ldots$ & 296.2, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 299.1, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 297.7, 2.5 \\
2227: 262 & $\ldots$ & -12.7, 1.9 & -12.8, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -12.8, 1.8 \\
2228: 269 & $\ldots$ & 299.4, 2.0 & 298.6, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 302.7, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 300.0, 2.6 \\
2229: 272 & 289.7, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.3, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.4, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 286.4, 2.8 \\
2230: 276 & $\ldots$ & 289.1, 1.9 & 291.3, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 290.3, 2.1 \\
2231: 278 & $\ldots$ & 276.2, 2.0 & 277.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 277.0, 2.1 \\
2232: 279 & 265.2, 2.1 & 267.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 266.3, 2.3 \\
2233: 289 & $\ldots$ & 280.0, 1.8 & 281.7, 1.8 & 279.5, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 280.4, 2.1 \\
2234: 295 & $\ldots$ & 309.2, 1.9 & 305.4, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 307.2, 2.8 \\
2235: {\bf 302} & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 256.8, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 264.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 260.9, 5.0 \\
2236: 308 & $\ldots$ & 286.8, 2.0 & 287.0, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 286.9, 2.0 \\
2237: 311 & 97.6, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 96.5, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 97.0, 2.1 \\
2238: 312 & $\ldots$ & 281.3, 2.0 & 286.8, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 284.1, 3.7 \\
2239: 313 & $\ldots$ & 275.4, 2.1 & 271.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 273.1, 3.1 \\
2240: 319 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 273.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 273.7, 2.0 & 272.2, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 273.2, 2.0 \\
2241: {\bf 322} & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 301.7, 2.0 & 288.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 295.2, 7.6 \\
2242: 324 & 280.5, 1.8 & 280.8, 1.8 & 285.0, 1.8 & 281.5, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.7, 2.6 \\
2243: 333 & $\ldots$ & 264.9, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & 267.6, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 266.2, 2.5 \\
2244: 334 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 120.5, 1.9 & 119.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 120.2, 2.0 \\
2245: {\bf 335} & 26.4, 2.1 & 16.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 21.6, 5.7 \\
2246: 336 & 270.6, 2.1 & 273.5, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 272.1, 2.5 \\
2247: 342 & $\ldots$ & 283.1, 1.8 & 286.6, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 284.8, 2.7 \\
2248: 343 & 282.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 287.2, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 285.0, 3.1 \\
2249: {\bf 344} & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 268.8, 1.9 & 277.0, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 273.1, 5.0 \\
2250: 346 & $\ldots$ & 52.1, 1.9 & 52.8, 1.7 & 52.2, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 52.4, 1.8 \\
2251: 347 & $\ldots$ & 285.4, 1.9 & 286.4, 1.8 & 287.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 286.4, 2.0 \\
2252: 350 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 296.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 296.5, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 296.4, 1.9 \\
2253: 351 & 91.5, 2.0 & 91.9, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 91.7, 2.0 \\
2254: 353 & $\ldots$ & 95.3, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 97.0, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 96.1, 2.2 \\
2255: 354 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 295.6, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 296.5, 2.0 & 297.2, 2.0 & 294.0, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 295.8, 2.2 \\
2256: 355 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -52.2, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -50.4, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -51.3, 2.2 \\
2257: 356 & $\ldots$ & 293.0, 2.0 & 297.6, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 294.3, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & 294.8, 2.8 \\
2258: 357 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 276.3, 1.9 & 272.0, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & 278.3, 2.0 & 277.0, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 276.3, 3.0 \\
2259: 358 & -18.6, 1.9 & -22.3, 1.9 & -24.1, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -21.9, 3.1 \\
2260: 359 & -20.9, 1.9 & -19.1, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & -21.8, 1.8 & -23.6, 2.0 & -22.6, 1.8 & -22.6, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & -21.9, 2.3 \\
2261: 360 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 294.3, 2.0 & 297.4, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 293.2, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 294.8, 2.8 \\
2262: 361 & 260.0, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 261.5, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 260.8, 2.0 \\
2263: 363 & -13.2, 2.0 & -13.4, 1.8 & -14.1, 1.8 & -13.0, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -13.4, 1.9 \\
2264: 366 & 274.8, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 270.8, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 272.8, 3.0 \\
2265: 367 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 55.6, 2.0 & 51.9, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 53.8, 2.8 \\
2266: 368 & $\ldots$ & 280.1, 1.9 & 281.7, 1.8 & 280.4, 2.0 & 280.3, 1.8 & 282.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.0, 2.1 \\
2267: 371 & $\ldots$ & 104.7, 1.9 & 103.2, 1.8 & 103.6, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 103.8, 2.0 \\
2268: 373 & $\ldots$ & 41.2, 1.9 & 40.0, 1.7 & 38.7, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 40.0, 2.1 \\
2269: 374 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 292.4, 1.9 & 287.8, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 290.2, 3.2 \\
2270: 376 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 269.1, 1.8 & 263.5, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 269.7, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 268.2, 3.4 \\
2271: 377 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 283.4, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 281.2, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 282.3, 2.2 \\
2272: 378 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 297.1, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 298.2, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 298.8, 1.8 & $\ldots$ & 298.0, 2.0 \\
2273: 379 & -3.5, 2.0 & 1.5, 1.9 & 5.4, 1.9 & 2.7, 2.1 & 2.3, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 2.1, 3.5 \\
2274: 384 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 28.6, 1.9 & $\ldots$ & 26.8, 2.1 & 25.1, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 26.9, 2.5 \\
2275: {\bf 385} & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 144.7, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & 135.7, 2.0 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 140.2, 5.5 \\
2276: 386 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 19.3, 1.9 & 18.3, 2.1 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & 18.8, 2.0 \\
2277: 387 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -6.2, 1.9 & -2.8, 1.9 & -7.1, 1.7 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & -5.6, 2.7
2278: \enddata
2279: \tablenotetext{a}{The subscripts used in
2280: the headings of columns 2-7 refer to the configurations listed in Table 1:
2281: 1 = Leo~I/c1; 2 = Leo~I/c2; 3 = Leo~I/c3; 4 = Leo~I/c4; 5 =
2282: Leo~I/c5; 6 = Leo~I/c6; 7 = Leo~I/c7; 8 = Keck velocities from M98.}
2283: \end{deluxetable}
2284:
2285: \clearpage
2286:
2287: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrccccclr}
2288: \tablewidth{0pt}
2289: \setlength{\tabcolsep}{0.065in}
2290: \tablecaption{Summary of Observations of Leo~I Targets\tablenotemark{a}\label{tab:alldata}}
2291: \ \tablehead{\colhead{ID}\tablenotemark{b} &
2292: \colhead{$R$\tablenotemark{c}} &
2293: \colhead{$PA$\tablenotemark{c}} &
2294: \colhead{$v_h$} &
2295: \colhead{$\sigma_{v_h}$} &
2296: \colhead{$\alpha_{J2000}$} &
2297: \colhead{$\delta_{J2000}$} &
2298: \colhead{I} &
2299: \colhead{V--I} &
2300: \colhead{SRC\tablenotemark{d}} &
2301: \colhead{M98} \\ %& \colhead{Mem$^d$} \\ % Int# TIME Nobs,RejIter,Nruns
2302:
2303: \colhead{} &
2304: \colhead{($''$)} &
2305: \colhead{(deg)} &
2306: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2307: \colhead{(km/s)} &
2308: \colhead{} &
2309: \colhead{} &
2310: \colhead{} &
2311: \colhead{} &
2312: \colhead{} &
2313: \colhead{No.\tablenotemark{e}} } \\ %& \colhead{} }
2314:
2315: \startdata
2316: 1 & 2.3 & 77.2 & 283.3 & 1.6 & 10:08:27.15 & 12:18:30.5 & 18.34 & 1.27 & 7 & \\
2317: 2 & 6.6 & 358.7 & 294.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:26.99 & 12:18:36.6 & 18.34 & 1.28 & 6 & \\
2318: 3 & 11.6 & 329.6 & 274.1 & 1.8 & 10:08:26.60 & 12:18:40.0 & 17.99 & 1.43 & 8 & 13 \\
2319: 4 & 28.4 & 48.0 & 281.4 & 1.8 & 10:08:28.44 & 12:18:49.0 & 17.89 & 1.40 & 8 & 12 \\
2320: 5 & 32.9 & 86.7 & 287.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:29.24 & 12:18:31.9 & 17.51 & 1.58 & 1234 & \\
2321: 6 & 35.4 & 158.2 & 264.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:27.90 & 12:17:57.1 & 18.19 & 1.50 & 6 & \\
2322: 7 & 36.7 & 160.1 & 287.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:27.85 & 12:17:55.5 & 17.89 & 1.63 & 7 & \\
2323: 8 & 43.3 & 143.7 & 288.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:28.75 & 12:17:55.1 & 18.55 & 1.26 & 5 & \\
2324: 9 & 46.9 & 299.3 & 280.8 & 1.8 & 10:08:24.21 & 12:18:52.9 & 18.67 & 1.35 & 7 & \\
2325: 10 & 51.1 & 15.5 & 291.6 & 1.7 & 10:08:27.93 & 12:19:19.2 & 18.31 & 1.35 & 7 & \\
2326: 11 & 52.2 & 226.4 & 292.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:24.42 & 12:17:54.0 & 18.30 & 1.39 & 8 & 19 \\
2327: 12 & 55.4 & 278.3 & 295.9 & 2.8 & 10:08:23.26 & 12:18:38.0 & 17.74 & 1.62 & 148 & 15 \\
2328: 13 & 58.5 & 170.6 & 293.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:27.65 & 12:17:32.3 & 17.73 & 1.72 & 5 & \\
2329: 14 & 58.6 & 176.4 & 285.2 & 1.8 & 10:08:27.25 & 12:17:31.5 & 18.30 & 1.37 & 6 & \\
2330: 15 & 60.1 & 84.5 & 271.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:31.08 & 12:18:35.8 & 18.52 & 1.37 & 6 & \\
2331: 16 & 60.2 & 279.4 & 283.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:22.95 & 12:18:39.8 & 18.32 & 1.34 & 58 & 14 \\
2332: 17 & 62.0 & 298.4 & 263.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:23.28 & 12:18:59.5 & 18.29 & 1.43 & 6 & \\
2333: 18 & 63.1 & 247.2 & 278.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:23.03 & 12:18:05.6 & 18.42 & 1.27 & 5 & \\
2334: 19 & 64.6 & 356.2 & 278.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:26.71 & 12:19:34.5 & 18.28 & 1.46 & 6 & \\
2335: 20 & 65.5 & 244.8 & 297.6 & 1.9 & 10:08:22.96 & 12:18:02.1 & 18.53 & 1.24 & 6 & \\
2336: 21 & 67.4 & 327.4 & 278.6 & 2.0 & 10:08:24.52 & 12:19:26.8 & 18.72 & 1.32 & 6 & \\
2337: 22 & 67.8 & 44.1 & 285.4 & 1.8 & 10:08:30.22 & 12:19:18.7 & 18.19 & 1.43 & 8 & 10 \\
2338: 23 & 69.8 & 168.2 & 281.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:27.97 & 12:17:21.7 & 18.06 & 1.35 & 24 & \\
2339: 24 & 69.8 & 221.4 & 286.4 & 1.8 & 10:08:23.85 & 12:17:37.7 & 18.50 & 1.34 & 6 & \\
2340: 25 & 71.3 & 70.0 & 285.2 & 2.3 & 10:08:31.57 & 12:18:54.4 & 17.85 & 1.46 & 234 & \\
2341: 26 & 75.6 & 188.6 & 277.2 & 1.8 & 10:08:26.23 & 12:17:15.2 & 18.26 & 1.36 & 7 & \\
2342: 27 & 75.9 & 52.2 & 303.6 & 1.6 & 10:08:31.09 & 12:19:16.5 & 18.22 & 1.50 & 7 & \\
2343: 28 & 77.9 & 302.2 & 283.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.50 & 12:19:11.5 & 18.21 & 1.41 & 348 & 11 \\
2344: 29 & 82.2 & 348.9 & 284.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:25.92 & 12:19:50.7 & 18.61 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2345: 30 & 85.6 & 106.3 & 277.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:32.61 & 12:18:06.0 & 17.76 & 1.47 & 8 & 17 \\
2346: 31 & 86.8 & 109.9 & 289.3 & 2.4 & 10:08:32.57 & 12:18:00.5 & 18.03 & 1.38 & 138 & 18 \\
2347: 32 & 87.8 & 6.5 & 277.0 & 1.7 & 10:08:27.68 & 12:19:57.2 & 18.42 & 1.32 & 7 & \\
2348: 33 & 87.9 & 212.6 & 279.5 & 1.7 & 10:08:23.77 & 12:17:15.9 & 18.36 & 1.43 & 7 & \\
2349: 34 & 89.0 & 35.2 & 271.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:30.50 & 12:19:42.7 & 18.91 & 1.32 & 5 & \\
2350: 35 & 91.1 & 228.6 & 275.7 & 1.7 & 10:08:22.34 & 12:17:29.7 & 18.89 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2351: 36 & 93.1 & 209.1 & 281.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:23.91 & 12:17:08.7 & 17.67 & 1.57 & 1248 & 23 \\
2352: 37 & 93.5 & 102.4 & 292.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:33.23 & 12:18:09.9 & 18.32 & 1.35 & 5 & \\
2353: 38 & 99.1 & 312.8 & 275.2 & 2.2 & 10:08:22.04 & 12:19:37.4 & 17.76 & 1.57 & 1258 & 9 \\
2354: 39 & 101.1 & 279.2 & 277.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:20.19 & 12:18:46.2 & 18.24 & 1.40 & 6 & \\
2355: {\bf 40} & 101.1 & 344.4 & 300.3 & 6.5 & 10:08:25.14 & 12:20:07.4 & 18.16 & 1.42 & 58 & 6 \\
2356: 41 & 103.6 & 175.5 & 277.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:27.55 & 12:16:46.7 & 18.33 & 1.38 & 8 & 25 \\
2357: 42 & 105.7 & 33.2 & 275.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:30.95 & 12:19:58.4 & 18.17 & 1.41 & 1 & \\
2358: 43 & 105.8 & 245.1 & 273.3 & 1.8 & 10:08:20.45 & 12:17:45.4 & 18.26 & 1.52 & 8 & 20 \\
2359: 44 & 111.1 & 4.2 & 286.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:27.55 & 12:20:20.8 & 18.33 & 1.34 & 358 & 4 \\
2360: 45 & 113.0 & 173.9 & 287.8 & 1.8 & 10:08:27.82 & 12:16:37.6 & 18.39 & 1.39 & 8 & 26 \\
2361: 46 & 113.0 & 310.4 & 289.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:21.13 & 12:19:43.3 & 18.30 & 1.43 & 8 & 7 \\
2362: 47 & 114.2 & 245.1 & 280.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:19.93 & 12:17:41.9 & 17.24 & 1.84 & 124 & \\
2363: 48 & 115.4 & 298.1 & 299.3 & 2.3 & 10:08:20.05 & 12:19:24.3 & 18.35 & 1.37 & 25 & \\
2364: 49 & 115.6 & 128.2 & 291.5 & 2.9 & 10:08:33.20 & 12:17:18.5 & 18.20 & 1.44 & 58 & 22 \\
2365: 50 & 115.9 & 191.5 & 288.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:25.43 & 12:16:36.4 & 18.74 & 1.30 & 6 & \\
2366: 51 & 117.4 & 289.7 & 284.7 & 1.8 & 10:08:19.46 & 12:19:09.6 & 19.12 & 1.17 & 7 & \\
2367: 52 & 120.0 & 10.6 & 289.1 & 1.8 & {\bf 10:08:28.5} & {\bf 12:20:28} & 18.09 & 1.53 & 8 & 3 \\
2368: 53 & 120.3 & 31.9 & 282.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:31.34 & 12:20:12.1 & 18.63 & 1.11 & 6 & \\
2369: 54 & 122.1 & 103.5 & 289.2 & 2.0 & 10:08:35.10 & 12:18:01.4 & 19.20 & 1.21 & 6 & \\
2370: 55 & 123.8 & 326.8 & 281.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.37 & 12:20:13.5 & 19.06 & 1.29 & 6 & \\
2371: 56 & 124.9 & 22.8 & 293.3 & 1.8 & 10:08:30.30 & 12:20:25.2 & 18.82 & 1.20 & 7 & \\
2372: 57 & 127.0 & 168.6 & 291.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:28.71 & 12:16:25.5 & 17.73 & 1.53 & 12348 & 27 \\
2373: 58 & 127.5 & 279.3 & 269.1 & 1.7 & 10:08:18.41 & 12:18:50.5 & 18.19 & 1.46 & 3 & \\
2374: 59 & 130.5 & 247.0 & 284.0 & 1.9 & 10:08:18.80 & 12:17:39.0 & 19.22 & 1.25 & 6 & \\
2375: 60 & 130.6 & 183.3 & 296.1 & 1.8 & 10:08:26.49 & 12:16:19.6 & 18.25 & 1.24 & 8 & 28 \\
2376: 61 & 131.8 & 88.9 & 267.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:35.99 & 12:18:32.5 & 18.36 & 1.37 & 4 & \\
2377: 62 & 132.4 & 326.9 & 308.3 & 2.6 & 10:08:22.06 & 12:20:20.9 & 17.88 & 1.41 & 2348 & 5 \\
2378: 63 & 133.2 & 157.0 & 301.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:30.55 & 12:16:27.4 & 18.64 & 1.21 & 7 & \\
2379: 64 & 134.4 & 19.8 & 289.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:30.11 & 12:20:36.4 & 18.59 & 1.37 & 6 & \\
2380: 65 & 135.0 & 344.5 & 297.6 & 2.7 & 10:08:24.53 & 12:20:40.1 & 17.56 & 1.62 & 1234 & \\
2381: 66 & 135.2 & 59.3 & 286.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:34.93 & 12:19:39.0 & 17.83 & 1.54 & 48 & 8 \\
2382: 67 & 137.6 & 232.1 & 288.5 & 1.7 & 10:08:19.59 & 12:17:05.5 & 18.45 & 1.39 & 7 & \\
2383: 68 & 138.0 & 118.3 & 311.1 & 3.7 & 10:08:35.29 & 12:17:24.5 & 17.67 & 1.72 & 158 & 21 \\
2384: 69 & 138.0 & 233.2 & 284.2 & 1.8 & 10:08:19.46 & 12:17:07.4 & 17.72 & 1.72 & 8 & 24 \\
2385: 70 & 141.6 & 167.0 & 282.0 & 1.9 & 10:08:29.18 & 12:16:12.1 & 18.63 & 1.29 & 6 & \\
2386: 71 & 142.8 & 224.1 & 284.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:20.22 & 12:16:47.4 & 18.34 & 1.42 & 5 & \\
2387: 72 & 142.8 & 228.4 & 299.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:19.72 & 12:16:55.1 & 18.54 & 1.36 & 4 & \\
2388: 73 & 143.3 & 249.7 & 296.5 & 1.7 & 10:08:17.83 & 12:17:40.3 & 18.45 & 1.37 & 7 & \\
2389: 74 & 144.7 & 304.0 & 275.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:18.81 & 12:19:50.8 & 19.01 & 1.28 & 7 & \\
2390: 75 & 145.0 & 275.9 & 283.4 & 1.8 & 10:08:17.16 & 12:18:44.9 & 18.20 & 1.39 & 5 & \\
2391: 76 & 145.4 & 188.6 & 273.7 & 1.8 & 10:08:25.51 & 12:16:06.2 & 19.38 & 1.17 & 7 & \\
2392: 77 & 146.2 & 278.7 & 281.7 & 2.9 & 10:08:17.14 & 12:18:52.0 & 17.77 & 1.49 & 14 & \\
2393: 78 & 146.3 & 264.1 & 286.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:17.07 & 12:18:14.9 & 17.94 & 1.55 & 8 & 16 \\
2394: 79 & 146.4 & 267.9 & 277.6 & 1.6 & 10:08:17.02 & 12:18:24.7 & 18.44 & 1.34 & 7 & \\
2395: 80 & 147.4 & 302.8 & 287.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:18.55 & 12:19:49.9 & 18.34 & 1.39 & 6 & \\
2396: 81 & 148.6 & 353.8 & 269.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:25.91 & 12:20:57.7 & 18.99 & 1.21 & 6 & \\
2397: 82 & 150.3 & 334.4 & 285.2 & 1.7 & 10:08:22.56 & 12:20:45.5 & 18.74 & 1.28 & 7 & \\
2398: 83 & 151.8 & 108.3 & 281.6 & 1.9 & 10:08:36.83 & 12:17:42.3 & 18.32 & 1.35 & 2 & \\
2399: 84 & 151.9 & 213.1 & 278.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:21.34 & 12:16:22.8 & 18.47 & 1.29 & 5 & \\
2400: 85 & 152.6 & 163.1 & 292.5 & 2.8 & 10:08:30.02 & 12:16:04.0 & 18.24 & 1.46 & 18 & 31 \\
2401: 86 & 155.0 & 208.7 & 293.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:21.92 & 12:16:14.0 & 18.23 & 1.44 & 8 & 30 \\
2402: 87 & 157.4 & 172.5 & 276.4 & 1.8 & 10:08:28.41 & 12:15:54.0 & 18.23 & 1.36 & 8 & 32 \\
2403: 88 & 157.4 & 221.0 & 283.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:19.96 & 12:16:31.2 & 19.66 & 1.16 & 6 & \\
2404: 89 & 158.4 & 69.9 & 280.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:37.15 & 12:19:24.4 & 17.82 & 1.46 & 1234 & \\
2405: 90 & 161.0 & 220.1 & 273.9 & 1.6 & 10:08:19.92 & 12:16:26.9 & 18.45 & 1.37 & 7 & \\
2406: 91 & 165.4 & 35.3 & 295.6 & 2.5 & 10:08:33.52 & 12:20:45.0 & 18.11 & 1.37 & 358 & 2 \\
2407: 92 & 167.6 & 3.7 & 293.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:27.74 & 12:21:17.2 & 18.21 & 1.36 & 134 & \\
2408: 93 & 168.7 & 235.1 & 281.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:17.56 & 12:16:53.4 & 18.10 & 1.34 & 5 & \\
2409: 94 & 169.7 & 5.0 & 291.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:28.00 & 12:21:19.1 & 18.71 & 1.40 & 6 & \\
2410: 95 & 173.1 & 98.2 & 289.1 & 2.1 & 10:08:38.69 & 12:18:05.2 & 18.29 & 1.39 & 13 & \\
2411: 96 & 177.1 & 55.0 & 295.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:36.90 & 12:20:11.5 & 17.68 & 1.57 & 3 & \\
2412: 97 & 178.4 & 253.3 & 271.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:15.34 & 12:17:38.6 & 18.22 & 1.54 & 5 & \\
2413: 98 & 179.8 & 98.3 & 278.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:39.14 & 12:18:04.1 & 19.10 & 1.12 & 7 & \\
2414: 99 & 180.2 & 320.3 & 270.7 & 1.7 & 10:08:19.15 & 12:20:48.7 & 18.56 & 1.36 & 7 & \\
2415: 100 & 180.7 & 260.9 & 289.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:14.83 & 12:18:01.3 & 18.41 & 1.36 & 5 & \\
2416: 101 & 180.8 & 302.5 & 282.4 & 1.6 & 10:08:16.59 & 12:20:07.1 & 17.75 & 1.55 & 3 & \\
2417: {\bf 102} & 181.3 & 328.1 & 271.0 & 4.9 & 10:08:20.46 & 12:21:03.9 & 18.00 & 1.49 & 28 & 1 \\
2418: 103 & 183.2 & 19.7 & 291.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:31.22 & 12:21:22.4 & 19.43 & 1.24 & 1 & \\
2419: 104 & 184.8 & 261.4 & 292.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:14.53 & 12:18:02.4 & 17.51 & 1.72 & 2 & \\
2420: 105 & 185.0 & 74.9 & 273.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:39.19 & 12:19:18.1 & 18.34 & 1.34 & 5 & \\
2421: 106 & 187.9 & 349.2 & 285.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:24.60 & 12:21:34.6 & 19.14 & 1.21 & 6 & \\
2422: 107 & 189.5 & 144.5 & 300.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:34.50 & 12:15:55.7 & 17.77 & 1.58 & 124 & \\
2423: 108 & 192.1 & 84.9 & 284.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:40.06 & 12:18:47.0 & 18.28 & 1.40 & 5 & \\
2424: 109 & 192.9 & 37.4 & 296.2 & 3.9 & 10:08:34.99 & 12:21:03.3 & 17.38 & 1.77 & 123 & \\
2425: 110 & 192.9 & 225.9 & 279.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:17.55 & 12:16:15.7 & 18.15 & 1.55 & 8 & 29 \\
2426: 111 & 194.1 & 197.4 & 275.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:23.03 & 12:15:24.8 & 18.54 & 1.48 & 6 & \\
2427: 112 & 194.9 & 48.6 & 272.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:36.97 & 12:20:39.0 & 18.65 & 1.11 & 5 & \\
2428: 113 & 195.3 & 150.0 & 286.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:33.66 & 12:15:40.9 & 17.72 & 1.63 & 358 & 33 \\
2429: 114 & 195.6 & 236.3 & 282.4 & 1.7 & 10:08:15.90 & 12:16:41.4 & 19.17 & 1.19 & 7 & \\
2430: 115 & 195.9 & 254.1 & 302.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:14.14 & 12:17:36.4 & 18.88 & 1.18 & 6 & \\
2431: 116 & 198.0 & 110.8 & 273.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:39.63 & 12:17:19.8 & 18.33 & 1.36 & 134 & \\
2432: 117 & 198.5 & 318.6 & 277.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:18.05 & 12:20:59.0 & 18.68 & 1.36 & 1 & \\
2433: 118 & 200.3 & 62.3 & 282.6 & 1.9 & 10:08:39.10 & 12:20:03.1 & 18.17 & 1.39 & 1 & \\
2434: 119 & 201.7 & 359.8 & 275.6 & 2.4 & 10:08:26.94 & 12:21:51.7 & 18.85 & 1.27 & 23 & \\
2435: 120 & 201.8 & 137.1 & 272.1 & 1.9 & 10:08:36.37 & 12:16:02.1 & 18.64 & 1.28 & 6 & \\
2436: 121 & 202.0 & 339.7 & 280.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.21 & 12:21:39.4 & 18.71 & 1.31 & 2 & \\
2437: 122 & 202.2 & 276.3 & 285.5 & 2.5 & 10:08:13.29 & 12:18:52.3 & 18.35 & 1.40 & 23 & \\
2438: 123 & 203.8 & 301.5 & 269.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:15.15 & 12:20:16.6 & 19.31 & 1.27 & 7 & \\
2439: 124 & 204.2 & 306.9 & 277.5 & 3.6 & 10:08:15.85 & 12:20:32.5 & 17.59 & 1.57 & 134 & \\
2440: 125 & 204.3 & 32.1 & 270.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:34.42 & 12:21:23.0 & 19.02 & 1.30 & 4 & \\
2441: 126 & 204.7 & 317.6 & 268.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:17.58 & 12:21:01.2 & 18.78 & 1.36 & 6 & \\
2442: 127 & 204.8 & 274.7 & 287.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:13.07 & 12:18:46.9 & 19.14 & 1.25 & 7 & \\
2443: 128 & 205.5 & 96.6 & 288.6 & 3.2 & 10:08:40.93 & 12:18:06.4 & 18.23 & 1.43 & 124 & \\
2444: 129 & 208.7 & 16.2 & 288.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:30.98 & 12:21:50.4 & 19.03 & 1.28 & 5 & \\
2445: 130 & 209.6 & 18.2 & 267.5 & 2.1 & 10:08:31.47 & 12:21:49.1 & 19.20 & 1.27 & 2 & \\
2446: 131 & 211.0 & 136.3 & 293.5 & 1.8 & 10:08:36.95 & 12:15:57.5 & 18.58 & 1.29 & 3 & \\
2447: 132 & 214.8 & 178.7 & 273.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:27.34 & 12:14:55.3 & 19.01 & 1.23 & 7 & \\
2448: 133 & 215.3 & 335.3 & 287.1 & 2.1 & 10:08:20.86 & 12:21:45.6 & 18.78 & 1.30 & 5 & \\
2449: 134 & 215.4 & 43.6 & 292.2 & 1.8 & 10:08:37.14 & 12:21:05.9 & 19.03 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2450: 135 & 215.8 & 225.8 & 277.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:16.45 & 12:15:59.4 & 18.28 & 1.40 & 245 & \\
2451: 136 & 217.3 & 344.8 & 291.8 & 1.8 & 10:08:23.12 & 12:21:59.7 & 18.85 & 1.29 & 7 & \\
2452: 137 & 217.7 & 261.6 & 273.6 & 1.7 & 10:08:12.31 & 12:17:58.0 & 18.64 & 1.30 & 7 & \\
2453: 138 & 218.4 & 49.8 & 289.6 & 1.7 & 10:08:38.38 & 12:20:51.0 & 18.70 & 1.35 & 7 & \\
2454: 139 & 218.6 & 187.7 & -5.4 & 2.6 & 10:08:25.00 & 12:14:53.4 & 18.57 & 1.22 & 125 & \\
2455: 140 & 220.5 & 152.5 & 287.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:33.94 & 12:15:14.4 & 18.19 & 1.41 & 4 & \\
2456: 141 & 220.6 & 327.5 & 281.3 & 1.9 & 10:08:18.92 & 12:21:36.1 & 18.95 & 1.29 & 2 & \\
2457: 142 & 221.7 & 145.4 & -10.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:35.59 & 12:15:27.5 & 18.65 & 1.34 & 1 & \\
2458: 143 & 221.8 & 307.1 & 279.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:14.93 & 12:20:43.8 & 18.18 & 1.46 & 5 & \\
2459: 144 & 225.5 & 297.4 & 286.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:13.33 & 12:20:13.6 & 18.38 & 1.38 & 2 & \\
2460: 145 & 226.0 & 134.3 & 282.3 & 1.9 & 10:08:38.04 & 12:15:52.2 & 18.05 & 1.45 & 5 & \\
2461: {\it 146} & 226.1 & 279.5 & -14.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:11.78 & 12:19:07.1 & 19.12 & 1.15 & 1 & \\ %FP
2462: 147 & 226.3 & 163.4 & 279.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:31.40 & 12:14:53.1 & 19.03 & 1.18 & 1 & \\
2463: {\it 148} & 226.6 & 119.7 & -14.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:40.43 & 12:16:37.8 & 18.44 & 1.37 & 1 & \\ %FP
2464: 149 & 227.1 & 184.5 & 289.5 & 1.8 & 10:08:25.79 & 12:14:43.6 & 18.52 & 1.37 & 3 & \\
2465: 150 & 227.6 & 244.0 & -7.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:13.04 & 12:16:50.3 & 17.55 & 1.60 & 1234 & \\
2466: 151 & 228.8 & 54.5 & -379.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:39.71 & 12:20:42.8 & 19.33 & 1.21 & 2 & \\
2467: {\it 152} & 229.4 & 343.6 & -19.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.58 & 12:22:10.1 & 19.36 & 1.19 & 1 & \\ %FP
2468: 153 & 230.7 & 74.2 & 270.7 & 3.7 & 10:08:42.15 & 12:19:32.7 & 17.87 & 1.47 & 124 & \\
2469: 154 & 230.8 & 231.9 & -21.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:14.60 & 12:16:07.7 & 18.21 & 1.31 & 1 & \\
2470: 155 & 233.0 & 356.6 & 28.0 & 1.9 & 10:08:26.05 & 12:22:22.6 & 19.38 & 1.00 & 3 & \\
2471: 156 & 233.9 & 189.2 & 268.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:24.46 & 12:14:39.1 & 18.60 & 1.37 & 6 & \\
2472: 157 & 234.7 & 134.8 & 273.4 & 4.3 & 10:08:38.37 & 12:15:44.7 & 17.83 & 1.57 & 14 & \\
2473: 158 & 239.0 & 32.2 & 285.2 & 1.7 & 10:08:35.70 & 12:21:52.2 & 18.88 & 1.20 & 7 & \\
2474: 159 & 240.0 & 6.9 & 279.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:28.97 & 12:22:28.3 & 19.46 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2475: 160 & 241.1 & 316.3 & 295.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:15.63 & 12:21:24.3 & 19.45 & 1.27 & 7 & \\
2476: 161 & 241.7 & 200.0 & 282.3 & 3.7 & 10:08:21.37 & 12:14:42.8 & 17.43 & 1.70 & 1234 & \\
2477: 162 & 243.0 & 140.7 & 270.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:37.50 & 12:15:21.9 & 19.24 & 1.25 & 6 & \\
2478: 163 & 244.3 & 205.1 & 287.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:19.92 & 12:14:48.8 & 18.24 & 1.38 & 5 & \\
2479: 164 & 244.4 & 134.9 & 272.1 & 1.7 & 10:08:38.81 & 12:15:37.5 & 18.69 & 1.21 & 7 & \\
2480: 165 & 244.9 & 17.2 & 288.2 & 2.0 & 10:08:31.95 & 12:22:23.9 & 19.60 & 1.14 & 7 & \\
2481: 166 & 247.4 & 194.6 & 281.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.74 & 12:14:30.6 & 18.31 & 1.39 & 5 & \\
2482: 167 & 247.4 & 254.6 & 278.8 & 1.8 & 10:08:10.72 & 12:17:24.4 & 17.86 & 1.49 & 3 & \\
2483: 168 & 251.2 & 16.4 & 294.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:31.85 & 12:22:30.9 & 18.89 & 1.30 & 4 & \\
2484: 169 & 253.2 & 154.7 & 280.7 & 1.8 & 10:08:34.37 & 12:14:41.0 & 19.25 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2485: 170 & 254.5 & 338.0 & 283.6 & 3.3 & 10:08:20.49 & 12:22:25.9 & 18.87 & 1.27 & 23 & \\
2486: 171 & 258.4 & 89.4 & 298.8 & 3.2 & 10:08:44.63 & 12:18:32.8 & 18.18 & 1.43 & 24 & \\
2487: 172 & 258.7 & 345.2 & 276.1 & 1.8 & 10:08:22.48 & 12:22:40.1 & 18.86 & 1.28 & 3 & \\
2488: 173 & 259.3 & 162.7 & 287.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:32.25 & 12:14:22.4 & 19.35 & 1.21 & 3 & \\
2489: 174 & 260.3 & 70.3 & 298.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:43.72 & 12:19:57.8 & 18.31 & 1.38 & 5 & \\
2490: 175 & 260.3 & 141.9 & 286.2 & 2.1 & 10:08:37.96 & 12:15:05.2 & 18.64 & 1.33 & 1 & \\
2491: 176 & 263.1 & 159.7 & 289.0 & 1.7 & 10:08:33.24 & 12:14:23.3 & 18.48 & 1.37 & 7 & \\
2492: 177 & 263.5 & 179.7 & 290.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:27.09 & 12:14:06.5 & 18.48 & 1.40 & 1 & \\
2493: 178 & 264.2 & 181.1 & 278.2 & 2.1 & 10:08:26.65 & 12:14:05.8 & 18.80 & 1.33 & 5 & \\
2494: 179 & 266.3 & 104.6 & 289.7 & 2.3 & 10:08:44.58 & 12:17:22.8 & 17.86 & 1.50 & 1234 & \\
2495: 180 & 269.1 & 96.9 & 272.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:45.23 & 12:17:57.6 & 18.74 & 1.34 & 5 & \\
2496: 181 & 269.3 & 201.4 & 277.9 & 1.7 & 10:08:20.30 & 12:14:19.2 & 18.75 & 1.35 & 7 & \\
2497: {\it 182} & 271.0 & 72.3 & -19.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:44.62 & 12:19:52.2 & 18.93 & 1.28 & 1 & \\ %FP
2498: 183 & 274.3 & 221.0 & 296.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:14.72 & 12:15:03.0 & 18.56 & 1.38 & 4 & \\
2499: 184 & 278.5 & 168.8 & 288.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:30.68 & 12:13:56.8 & 18.96 & 1.21 & 5 & \\
2500: 185 & 278.7 & 301.5 & 286.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:10.79 & 12:20:55.7 & 18.21 & 1.50 & 1237 & \\
2501: 186 & 282.0 & 66.8 & 288.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:44.69 & 12:20:20.9 & 18.21 & 1.39 & 4 & \\
2502: 187 & 282.5 & 148.2 & 282.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:37.16 & 12:14:29.9 & 18.39 & 1.36 & 1 & \\
2503: 188 & 283.7 & 281.0 & 281.7 & 2.1 & 10:08:08.00 & 12:19:24.3 & 18.86 & 1.33 & 5 & \\
2504: 189 & 284.8 & 161.4 & 277.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:33.19 & 12:13:60.0 & 18.62 & 1.36 & 6 & \\
2505: 190 & 286.8 & 159.0 & 0.5 & 2.1 & 10:08:34.00 & 12:14:02.2 & 18.23 & 1.45 & 1 & \\
2506: 191 & 288.4 & 171.6 & 298.3 & 1.8 & 10:08:29.86 & 12:13:44.7 & 19.17 & 1.28 & 7 & \\
2507: 192 & 289.6 & 226.6 & 299.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:12.64 & 12:15:11.1 & 19.49 & 1.23 & 57 & \\
2508: 193 & 293.1 & 196.3 & 270.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:21.40 & 12:13:48.6 & 17.69 & 1.68 & 1 & \\
2509: 194 & 293.8 & 153.3 & 198.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:36.00 & 12:14:07.5 & 19.01 & 1.18 & 5 & \\
2510: 195 & 294.5 & 178.3 & 276.8 & 4.1 & 10:08:27.58 & 12:13:35.6 & 18.80 & 1.35 & 134 & \\
2511: 196 & 295.3 & 54.0 & 275.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:43.30 & 12:21:23.6 & 18.52 & 1.37 & 5 & \\
2512: 197 & 295.7 & 211.8 & 283.3 & 1.6 & 10:08:16.37 & 12:14:18.7 & 18.42 & 1.37 & 7 & \\
2513: 198 & 297.1 & 88.6 & 283.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:47.27 & 12:18:37.1 & 18.60 & 1.31 & 1 & \\
2514: {\it 199} & 298.6 & 292.1 & -16.6 & 2.0 & 10:08:08.12 & 12:20:22.3 & 19.34 & 1.24 & 1 & \\ %FP
2515: 200 & 299.0 & 187.1 & 275.0 & 1.7 & 10:08:24.49 & 12:13:33.3 & 18.92 & 1.34 & 7 & \\
2516: 201 & 299.1 & 132.2 & 276.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:42.11 & 12:15:08.9 & 19.18 & 1.25 & 1 & \\
2517: 202 & 299.3 & 213.3 & 97.2 & 3.0 & 10:08:15.80 & 12:14:19.7 & 17.75 & 1.55 & 123 & \\
2518: 203 & 300.0 & 234.0 & 290.1 & 1.9 & 10:08:10.43 & 12:15:33.8 & 18.59 & 1.37 & 6 & \\
2519: 204 & 300.3 & 28.0 & 294.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:36.63 & 12:22:55.1 & 18.55 & 1.39 & 5 & \\
2520: 205 & 301.0 & 262.2 & -5.1 & 2.1 & 10:08:06.65 & 12:17:49.1 & 18.30 & 1.48 & 1 & \\
2521: 206 & 301.5 & 39.8 & 271.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:40.17 & 12:22:21.6 & 18.50 & 1.32 & 1 & \\
2522: 207 & 301.8 & 336.4 & 283.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:18.75 & 12:23:06.5 & 19.20 & 1.23 & 2 & \\
2523: 208 & 301.9 & 119.9 & 276.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:44.86 & 12:15:59.5 & 18.59 & 1.38 & 6 & \\
2524: 209 & 302.2 & 112.7 & 287.5 & 2.1 & 10:08:46.02 & 12:16:33.4 & 19.17 & 1.26 & 6 & \\
2525: 210 & 304.2 & 331.8 & 280.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:17.20 & 12:22:58.2 & 19.60 & 1.20 & 7 & \\
2526: 211 & 304.6 & 19.8 & 292.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:34.04 & 12:23:16.6 & 18.62 & 1.38 & 3 & \\
2527: 212 & 304.6 & 116.9 & 287.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:45.54 & 12:16:12.3 & 18.57 & 1.40 & 5 & \\
2528: 213 & 305.1 & 304.8 & 281.6 & 4.5 & 10:08:09.91 & 12:21:24.2 & 18.70 & 1.34 & 23 & \\
2529: 214 & 305.7 & 90.1 & 261.5 & 2.6 & 10:08:47.86 & 12:18:29.6 & 18.48 & 1.36 & 34 & \\
2530: 215 & 306.7 & 110.3 & 279.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:46.63 & 12:16:43.7 & 19.25 & 1.22 & 7 & \\
2531: 216 & 307.6 & 118.7 & 279.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:45.40 & 12:16:02.1 & 18.46 & 1.40 & 14 & \\
2532: 217 & 307.6 & 261.7 & 276.3 & 1.9 & 10:08:06.23 & 12:17:45.4 & 19.08 & 1.22 & 3 & \\
2533: 218 & 308.6 & 289.6 & 285.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:07.16 & 12:20:13.4 & 19.44 & 1.19 & 6 & \\
2534: 219 & 308.9 & 213.5 & 287.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:15.36 & 12:14:12.5 & 18.29 & 1.36 & 5 & \\
2535: 220 & 309.6 & 208.3 & 293.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:16.98 & 12:13:57.4 & 19.08 & 1.25 & 4 & \\
2536: 221 & 312.5 & 331.7 & 273.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:16.89 & 12:23:05.2 & 18.24 & 1.45 & 123 & \\
2537: 222 & 313.2 & 311.3 & 267.5 & 3.3 & 10:08:10.95 & 12:21:56.8 & 18.18 & 1.45 & 23 & \\
2538: 223 & 314.4 & 244.5 & 278.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:07.64 & 12:16:14.6 & 18.81 & 1.33 & 6 & \\
2539: 224 & 314.5 & 214.5 & 288.2 & 2.0 & 10:08:14.84 & 12:14:10.9 & 18.93 & 1.31 & 6 & \\
2540: 225 & 315.1 & 139.4 & 28.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:40.99 & 12:14:30.8 & 19.27 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2541: 226 & 315.1 & 237.2 & 289.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:08.93 & 12:15:39.2 & 18.40 & 1.41 & 1 & \\
2542: 227 & 318.2 & 284.8 & 276.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:06.01 & 12:19:51.3 & 19.22 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2543: 228 & 318.4 & 298.2 & 491.2 & 2.1 & 10:08:07.85 & 12:21:00.5 & 18.67 & 1.32 & 5 & \\
2544: 229 & 318.5 & 184.4 & 278.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:25.32 & 12:13:12.5 & 19.38 & 1.23 & 6 & \\
2545: 230 & 318.7 & 348.7 & 287.6 & 2.0 & 10:08:22.75 & 12:23:42.6 & 18.93 & 1.33 & 6 & \\
2546: 231 & 319.5 & 243.7 & 274.2 & 1.6 & 10:08:07.45 & 12:16:08.6 & 18.33 & 1.40 & 7 & \\
2547: 232 & 320.1 & 122.3 & 285.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:45.46 & 12:15:38.9 & 19.49 & 1.16 & 7 & \\
2548: 233 & 320.2 & 81.4 & 294.7 & 1.9 & 10:08:48.61 & 12:19:17.6 & 19.49 & 1.19 & 7 & \\
2549: 234 & 320.4 & 275.3 & 290.2 & 2.0 & 10:08:05.23 & 12:18:59.4 & 19.26 & 1.17 & 6 & \\
2550: 235 & 320.6 & 216.3 & 286.2 & 1.8 & 10:08:14.06 & 12:14:11.5 & 19.45 & 1.13 & 7 & \\
2551: 236 & 321.2 & 77.0 & 298.0 & 2.1 & 10:08:48.36 & 12:19:42.2 & 18.09 & 1.49 & 4 & \\
2552: 237 & 322.5 & 285.6 & 283.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:05.80 & 12:19:56.6 & 18.91 & 1.33 & 2 & \\
2553: 238 & 324.7 & 280.0 & 282.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:05.18 & 12:19:26.4 & 19.17 & 1.23 & 7 & \\
2554: 239 & 326.0 & 247.8 & 281.7 & 2.5 & 10:08:06.40 & 12:16:26.9 & 18.19 & 1.47 & 1237 & \\
2555: 240 & 326.1 & 259.7 & 276.0 & 1.9 & 10:08:05.11 & 12:17:31.7 & 18.78 & 1.30 & 6 & \\
2556: 241 & 326.5 & 263.6 & 280.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:04.86 & 12:17:53.6 & 19.01 & 1.28 & 6 & \\
2557: 242 & 327.3 & 117.7 & 271.0 & 1.7 & 10:08:46.77 & 12:15:57.8 & 18.54 & 1.38 & 7 & \\
2558: 243 & 329.0 & 169.7 & 292.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:31.00 & 12:13:06.3 & 19.06 & 1.38 & 6 & \\
2559: 244 & 329.4 & 220.5 & 89.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:12.42 & 12:14:19.3 & 18.64 & 1.26 & 12 & \\
2560: 245 & 329.4 & 311.3 & 279.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:10.11 & 12:22:07.4 & 19.56 & 1.20 & 7 & \\
2561: 246 & 330.6 & 237.1 & 278.3 & 1.7 & 10:08:08.06 & 12:15:30.4 & 19.09 & 1.29 & 7 & \\
2562: 247 & 330.9 & 264.1 & 269.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:04.54 & 12:17:56.1 & 18.73 & 1.30 & 5 & \\
2563: 248 & 331.1 & 354.6 & 35.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:24.87 & 12:23:59.6 & 17.56 & 1.57 & 123 & \\
2564: 249 & 334.8 & 69.0 & 303.3 & 1.8 & 10:08:48.34 & 12:20:29.7 & 19.24 & 1.25 & 7 & \\
2565: 250 & 335.9 & 269.7 & 277.7 & 2.1 & 10:08:04.08 & 12:18:28.4 & 19.24 & 1.23 & 6 & \\
2566: 251 & 336.1 & 95.0 & 282.6 & 1.9 & 10:08:49.85 & 12:18:00.8 & 18.68 & 1.32 & 4 & \\
2567: 252 & 337.1 & 37.0 & 287.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:40.85 & 12:22:59.2 & 18.90 & 1.29 & 5 & \\
2568: 253 & 338.1 & 235.4 & 289.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:08.01 & 12:15:18.0 & 17.58 & 1.62 & 234 & \\
2569: {\it 254} & 339.4 & 15.3 & -22.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:33.10 & 12:23:57.4 & 19.56 & 1.18 & 1 & \\ %FP
2570: 255 & 339.5 & 272.2 & 276.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:03.85 & 12:18:43.2 & 19.44 & 1.25 & 7 & \\
2571: 256 & 340.1 & 95.5 & 270.8 & 1.9 & 10:08:50.10 & 12:17:57.3 & 19.52 & 1.22 & 7 & \\
2572: 257 & 344.1 & 85.5 & 281.6 & 1.7 & 10:08:50.41 & 12:18:57.1 & 18.66 & 1.32 & 7 & \\
2573: 258 & 347.0 & 113.0 & 282.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:48.79 & 12:16:14.3 & 19.03 & 1.30 & 5 & \\
2574: 259 & 347.0 & 291.3 & 277.7 & 1.8 & 10:08:04.94 & 12:20:36.1 & 19.40 & 1.21 & 7 & \\
2575: 260 & 347.8 & 193.2 & 297.7 & 2.5 & 10:08:21.60 & 12:12:51.3 & 18.46 & 1.36 & 26 & \\
2576: 261 & 349.3 & 79.7 & 292.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:50.45 & 12:19:32.6 & 18.98 & 1.30 & 6 & \\
2577: 262 & 350.7 & 277.0 & -12.8 & 1.8 & 10:08:03.25 & 12:19:12.9 & 17.89 & 1.50 & 23 & \\
2578: 263 & 351.2 & 237.2 & 277.8 & 2.1 & 10:08:06.85 & 12:15:19.9 & 19.52 & 1.24 & 6 & \\
2579: 264 & 353.0 & 320.4 & 16.1 & 1.9 & 10:08:11.65 & 12:23:02.1 & 17.59 & 1.72 & 2 & \\
2580: 265 & 353.5 & 58.2 & 276.2 & 2.0 & 10:08:47.50 & 12:21:36.4 & 19.46 & 1.21 & 6 & \\
2581: 266 & 354.7 & 264.7 & 294.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:02.90 & 12:17:57.3 & 19.24 & 1.23 & 7 & \\
2582: 267 & 355.0 & 77.7 & 282.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:50.67 & 12:19:45.4 & 19.33 & 1.22 & 7 & \\
2583: 268 & 356.5 & 208.0 & 288.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:15.58 & 12:13:15.2 & 19.19 & 1.24 & 6 & \\
2584: 269 & 358.3 & 253.2 & 300.0 & 2.6 & 10:08:03.60 & 12:16:46.2 & 18.64 & 1.23 & 235 & \\
2585: 270 & 359.4 & 49.8 & 260.2 & 2.1 & 10:08:45.73 & 12:22:22.1 & 19.03 & 1.23 & 6 & \\
2586: 271 & 361.2 & 258.0 & 263.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:02.90 & 12:17:14.6 & 19.69 & 1.10 & 7 & \\
2587: 272 & 361.3 & 323.3 & 286.4 & 2.8 & 10:08:12.27 & 12:23:19.7 & 17.88 & 1.54 & 147 & \\
2588: 273 & 361.4 & 238.8 & 276.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:05.92 & 12:15:22.6 & 17.65 & 1.69 & 5 & \\
2589: {\it 274} & 362.6 & 120.8 & -22.9 & 2.1 & 10:08:48.26 & 12:15:24.5 & 19.06 & 1.21 & 1 & \\ %FP
2590: 275 & 364.3 & 128.5 & 274.0 & 2.1 & 10:08:46.45 & 12:14:43.2 & 18.96 & 1.26 & 6 & \\
2591: 276 & 364.5 & 287.2 & 290.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:03.24 & 12:20:17.8 & 18.31 & 1.42 & 23 & \\
2592: 277 & 366.0 & 61.0 & 276.0 & 1.8 & 10:08:48.85 & 12:21:27.4 & 18.93 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2593: 278 & 370.6 & 334.4 & 277.0 & 2.1 & 10:08:16.07 & 12:24:04.2 & 19.14 & 1.20 & 23 & \\
2594: 279 & 370.8 & 48.9 & 266.3 & 2.3 & 10:08:46.08 & 12:22:33.5 & 18.20 & 1.47 & 12 & \\
2595: 280 & 372.0 & 301.9 & 300.1 & 1.7 & 10:08:05.45 & 12:21:46.6 & 18.68 & 1.37 & 3 & \\
2596: 281 & 379.4 & 202.4 & -13.6 & 2.0 & 10:08:17.12 & 12:12:39.3 & 19.62 & 1.20 & 1 & \\
2597: 282 & 380.7 & 72.7 & 6.6 & 1.8 & 10:08:51.80 & 12:20:23.3 & 19.20 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2598: 283 & 382.1 & 60.9 & 278.5 & 2.0 & 10:08:49.78 & 12:21:36.0 & 18.50 & 1.40 & 5 & \\
2599: 284 & 382.2 & 126.5 & 273.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:47.96 & 12:14:42.6 & 19.34 & 1.23 & 7 & \\
2600: 285 & 383.4 & 156.8 & 292.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:37.32 & 12:12:37.7 & 19.11 & 1.28 & 6 & \\
2601: 286 & 388.0 & 278.2 & -0.5 & 1.9 & 10:08:00.79 & 12:19:25.2 & 19.08 & 1.22 & 6 & \\
2602: 287 & 388.8 & 65.2 & 286.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:51.08 & 12:21:13.2 & 19.59 & 1.17 & 7 & \\
2603: 288 & 392.0 & 249.4 & 272.5 & 1.8 & 10:08:01.96 & 12:16:12.2 & 19.35 & 1.29 & 7 & \\
2604: 289 & 392.3 & 36.4 & 280.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:42.90 & 12:23:45.6 & 18.17 & 1.51 & 234 & \\
2605: 290 & 393.2 & 252.0 & 260.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:01.49 & 12:16:28.3 & 19.19 & 1.25 & 6 & \\
2606: {\it 291} & 405.4 & 71.2 & -20.3 & 2.1 & 10:08:53.19 & 12:20:40.5 & 19.13 & 1.27 & 1 & \\ %FP
2607: {\it 292} & 407.7 & 266.3 & -14.1 & 2.1 & 10:07:59.24 & 12:18:03.6 & 19.37 & 1.23 & 2 & \\ %FP
2608: 293 & 411.9 & 228.8 & 285.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:05.85 & 12:13:58.8 & 18.72 & 1.30 & 1 & \\
2609: 294 & 413.9 & 294.2 & 279.1 & 2.1 & 10:08:01.24 & 12:21:19.8 & 19.33 & 1.20 & 2 & \\
2610: 295 & 415.1 & 260.0 & 307.2 & 2.8 & 10:07:59.11 & 12:17:17.6 & 18.37 & 1.46 & 23 & \\
2611: {\it 296} & 420.6 & 276.8 & -19.8 & 2.0 & 10:07:58.50 & 12:19:19.6 & 19.47 & 1.21 & 1 & \\ %FP
2612: 297 & 423.1 & 99.4 & -22.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:55.48 & 12:17:21.0 & 18.96 & 1.26 & 1 & \\
2613: 298 & 423.9 & 123.4 & 276.1 & 2.1 & 10:08:51.15 & 12:14:36.8 & 19.10 & 1.30 & 5 & \\
2614: 299 & 424.9 & 103.5 & 283.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:55.19 & 12:16:50.6 & 19.16 & 1.24 & 1 & \\
2615: 300 & 425.7 & 77.6 & 280.4 & 2.1 & 10:08:55.37 & 12:20:01.4 & 18.57 & 1.37 & 1 & \\
2616: 301 & 425.9 & 287.2 & 284.0 & 2.0 & 10:07:59.24 & 12:20:36.1 & 18.54 & 1.39 & 2 & \\
2617: {\bf 302} & 426.5 & 291.9 & 260.9 & 5.0 & 10:07:59.99 & 12:21:09.0 & 18.73 & 1.30 & 46 & \\
2618: {\it 303} & 427.0 & 155.8 & -11.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:38.96 & 12:12:00.6 & 18.79 & 1.32 & 1 & \\ %FP
2619: 304 & 432.9 & 44.0 & 275.0 & 2.1 & 10:08:47.52 & 12:23:41.4 & 19.04 & 1.26 & 5 & \\
2620: 305 & 434.7 & 112.7 & 288.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:54.36 & 12:15:42.2 & 19.22 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2621: 306 & 435.1 & 269.4 & 295.0 & 1.9 & 10:07:57.31 & 12:18:25.2 & 18.44 & 1.39 & 5 & \\
2622: 307 & 442.8 & 105.4 & 290.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:56.12 & 12:16:32.1 & 19.51 & 1.23 & 7 & \\
2623: 308 & 445.1 & 42.7 & 286.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:47.59 & 12:23:57.2 & 19.03 & 1.25 & 23 & \\
2624: 309 & 449.9 & 54.5 & 279.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:51.99 & 12:22:51.4 & 19.02 & 1.30 & 6 & \\
2625: 310 & 451.0 & 98.9 & 298.3 & 1.9 & 10:08:57.40 & 12:17:19.9 & 19.27 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2626: 311 & 458.7 & 55.9 & 97.0 & 2.1 & 10:08:52.93 & 12:22:47.0 & 18.77 & 1.18 & 15 & \\
2627: 312 & 463.2 & 276.1 & 284.1 & 3.7 & 10:07:55.57 & 12:19:19.3 & 19.06 & 1.27 & 23 & \\
2628: 313 & 464.4 & 306.5 & 273.1 & 3.1 & 10:08:01.53 & 12:23:06.4 & 19.09 & 1.31 & 23 & \\
2629: 314 & 465.0 & 89.2 & 276.9 & 2.0 & 10:08:58.73 & 12:18:36.1 & 18.48 & 1.40 & 1 & \\
2630: 315 & 466.8 & 31.5 & 276.3 & 1.7 & 10:08:43.63 & 12:25:08.2 & 18.66 & 1.33 & 7 & \\
2631: 316 & 469.1 & 282.4 & 296.8 & 2.1 & 10:07:55.74 & 12:20:10.9 & 19.15 & 1.27 & 4 & \\
2632: 317 & 470.5 & 49.4 & 292.9 & 1.8 & 10:08:51.40 & 12:23:35.9 & 19.21 & 1.24 & 7 & \\
2633: 318 & 470.5 & 202.0 & 29.9 & 1.9 & 10:08:14.97 & 12:11:13.8 & 18.50 & 1.30 & 6 & \\
2634: 319 & 471.2 & 302.1 & 273.2 & 2.0 & 10:07:59.76 & 12:22:40.4 & 18.69 & 1.35 & 467 & \\
2635: 320 & 475.6 & 127.1 & 266.1 & 2.0 & 10:08:52.88 & 12:13:43.1 & 19.41 & 1.21 & 3 & \\
2636: 321 & 476.4 & 77.4 & 274.0 & 2.0 & 10:08:58.73 & 12:20:13.7 & 19.04 & 1.20 & 6 & \\
2637: {\bf 322} & 481.9 & 313.6 & 295.2 & 7.6 & 10:08:03.19 & 12:24:02.4 & 18.88 & 1.33 & 56 & \\
2638: 323 & 494.9 & 56.8 & 279.8 & 2.0 & 10:08:55.27 & 12:23:00.8 & 18.59 & 1.38 & 1 & \\
2639: 324 & 496.7 & 122.7 & 281.7 & 2.6 & 10:08:55.51 & 12:14:01.5 & 17.93 & 1.42 & 1234 & \\
2640: 325 & 499.3 & 242.9 & 265.7 & 2.0 & 10:07:56.68 & 12:14:42.3 & 19.16 & 1.22 & 7 & \\
2641: 326 & 500.4 & 61.2 & 273.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:56.92 & 12:22:31.3 & 18.60 & 1.36 & 2 & \\
2642: {\it 327} & 501.5 & 318.1 & -16.4 & 2.0 & 10:08:04.13 & 12:24:43.1 & 19.44 & 1.07 & 1 & \\ %FP
2643: 328 & 505.5 & 227.0 & 274.2 & 1.9 & 10:08:01.80 & 12:12:44.9 & 19.63 & 1.12 & 7 & \\
2644: 329 & 511.4 & 282.5 & 295.1 & 2.1 & 10:07:52.93 & 12:20:20.6 & 19.08 & 1.29 & 5 & \\
2645: 330 & 513.3 & 205.6 & 134.4 & 1.9 & 10:08:11.85 & 12:10:47.2 & 18.87 & 1.25 & 6 & \\
2646: {\it 331} & 515.3 & 64.9 & -19.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:58.86 & 12:22:08.1 & 19.50 & 1.20 & 1 & \\ %FP
2647: 332 & 516.7 & 26.5 & 279.6 & 2.1 & 10:08:42.73 & 12:26:12.4 & 19.47 & 1.20 & 1 & \\
2648: 333 & 520.2 & 108.1 & 266.2 & 2.5 & 10:09:00.74 & 12:15:48.6 & 18.58 & 1.35 & 24 & \\
2649: 334 & 527.1 & 105.1 & 120.2 & 2.0 & 10:09:01.72 & 12:16:12.4 & 18.53 & 1.24 & 34 & \\
2650: {\bf 335} & 529.2 & 149.3 & 21.6 & 5.7 & 10:08:45.41 & 12:10:54.8 & 17.07 & 1.89 & 12 & \\
2651: 336 & 540.9 & 69.4 & 272.1 & 2.5 & 10:09:01.55 & 12:21:40.4 & 18.26 & 1.39 & 12 & \\
2652: 337 & 541.3 & 151.6 & 283.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:44.57 & 12:10:33.9 & 18.50 & 1.25 & 3 & \\
2653: 338 & 544.9 & 58.7 & 297.1 & 1.8 & 10:08:58.78 & 12:23:13.0 & 18.71 & 1.30 & 7 & \\
2654: 339 & 547.8 & 255.9 & 294.5 & 2.0 & 10:07:50.76 & 12:16:16.1 & 18.74 & 1.32 & 2 & \\
2655: 340 & 553.9 & 80.7 & 286.6 & 1.8 & 10:09:04.30 & 12:19:59.3 & 18.90 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2656: 341 & 558.1 & 255.5 & 282.3 & 1.8 & 10:07:50.13 & 12:16:10.3 & 19.30 & 1.26 & 7 & \\
2657: 342 & 561.2 & 76.0 & 284.8 & 2.7 & 10:09:04.16 & 12:20:45.8 & 18.55 & 1.35 & 23 & \\
2658: 343 & 566.3 & 81.2 & 285.0 & 3.1 & 10:09:05.19 & 12:19:56.4 & 18.26 & 1.42 & 14 & \\
2659: {\bf 344} & 568.4 & 294.6 & 273.1 & 5.0 & 10:07:51.73 & 12:22:26.5 & 18.90 & 1.38 & 67 & \\
2660: 345 & 568.8 & 79.4 & 283.1 & 2.0 & 10:09:05.16 & 12:20:14.1 & 18.43 & 1.38 & 3 & \\
2661: 346 & 588.8 & 261.7 & 52.4 & 1.8 & 10:07:47.25 & 12:17:04.5 & 17.73 & 1.55 & 234 & \\
2662: 347 & 593.6 & 89.2 & 286.4 & 2.0 & 10:09:07.50 & 12:18:38.2 & 18.29 & 1.43 & 234 & \\
2663: 348 & 608.2 & 115.6 & 274.0 & 2.1 & 10:09:04.43 & 12:14:07.4 & 19.44 & 1.23 & 3 & \\
2664: 349 & 610.0 & 283.8 & 294.7 & 1.7 & 10:07:46.58 & 12:20:55.8 & 18.26 & 1.49 & 3 & \\
2665: 350 & 631.0 & 297.9 & 296.4 & 1.9 & 10:07:48.94 & 12:23:25.3 & 19.04 & 1.30 & 36 & \\
2666: 351 & 632.9 & 343.4 & 91.7 & 2.0 & 10:08:14.67 & 12:28:36.6 & 17.35 & 1.74 & 12 & \\
2667: 352 & 638.6 & 276.6 & 271.3 & 1.9 & 10:07:43.71 & 12:19:42.8 & 19.30 & 1.23 & 3 & \\
2668: 353 & 648.9 & 11.8 & 96.1 & 2.2 & 10:08:36.07 & 12:29:05.2 & 17.91 & 1.61 & 24 & \\
2669: 354 & 650.5 & 293.2 & 295.8 & 2.2 & 10:07:46.19 & 12:22:46.0 & 18.82 & 1.34 & 3567 & \\
2670: 355 & 657.2 & 54.0 & -51.3 & 2.2 & 10:09:03.28 & 12:24:56.4 & 18.18 & 1.52 & 36 & \\
2671: 356 & 688.6 & 95.6 & 294.8 & 2.8 & 10:09:13.76 & 12:17:22.6 & 18.58 & 1.37 & 237 & \\
2672: 357 & 692.1 & 279.5 & 276.3 & 3.0 & 10:07:40.41 & 12:20:23.5 & 18.75 & 1.27 & 3467 & \\
2673: 358 & 695.3 & 145.6 & -21.9 & 3.1 & 10:08:53.78 & 12:08:56.1 & 17.72 & 1.58 & 123 & \\
2674: 359 & 700.6 & 211.3 & -21.9 & 2.3 & 10:08:02.15 & 12:08:31.6 & 17.31 & 1.84 & 124567 & \\
2675: 360 & 702.5 & 262.2 & 294.8 & 2.8 & 10:07:39.51 & 12:16:54.6 & 18.92 & 1.22 & 346 & \\
2676: 361 & 702.7 & 89.6 & 260.8 & 2.0 & 10:09:14.95 & 12:18:34.3 & 18.47 & 1.38 & 13 & \\
2677: 362 & 704.2 & 60.0 & 268.0 & 2.0 & 10:09:08.65 & 12:24:21.4 & 18.53 & 1.40 & 3 & \\
2678: 363 & 705.8 & 227.7 & -13.4 & 1.9 & 10:07:51.39 & 12:10:34.9 & 17.36 & 1.83 & 1234 & \\
2679: 364 & 719.5 & 95.7 & 274.7 & 2.0 & 10:09:15.85 & 12:17:18.2 & 18.60 & 1.40 & 5 & \\
2680: 365 & 720.0 & 266.4 & 284.0 & 1.8 & 10:07:37.97 & 12:17:44.4 & 18.72 & 1.32 & 3 & \\
2681: 366 & 734.3 & 103.0 & 272.8 & 3.0 & 10:09:15.82 & 12:15:45.1 & 18.94 & 1.27 & 13 & \\
2682: 367 & 735.6 & 55.2 & 53.8 & 2.8 & 10:09:08.23 & 12:25:29.7 & 17.87 & 1.50 & 45 & \\
2683: 368 & 750.7 & 244.2 & 281.0 & 2.1 & 10:07:40.89 & 12:13:03.3 & 18.40 & 1.44 & 23456 & \\
2684: 369 & 760.8 & 228.2 & 65.3 & 1.9 & 10:07:48.34 & 12:10:02.4 & 19.91 & 1.01 & 7 & \\
2685: {\it 370} & 770.8 & 141.9 & -12.3 & 2.0 & 10:08:59.47 & 12:08:23.7 & 19.12 & 1.22 & 1 & \\ %FP
2686: 371 & 772.6 & 69.5 & 103.8 & 2.0 & 10:09:16.41 & 12:22:59.8 & 17.19 & 1.75 & 234 & \\
2687: 372 & 789.2 & 77.4 & 274.8 & 2.0 & 10:09:19.56 & 12:21:21.9 & 18.99 & 1.20 & 3 & \\
2688: 373 & 792.4 & 230.3 & 40.0 & 2.1 & 10:07:45.41 & 12:10:03.9 & 18.04 & 1.58 & 234 & \\
2689: 374 & 795.4 & 74.8 & 290.2 & 3.2 & 10:09:19.40 & 12:21:57.7 & 18.30 & 1.43 & 34 & \\
2690: 375 & 823.1 & 92.2 & 275.0 & 2.0 & 10:09:23.12 & 12:17:57.9 & 18.81 & 1.36 & 4 & \\
2691: 376 & 825.5 & 239.3 & 268.2 & 3.4 & 10:07:38.58 & 12:11:28.5 & 19.25 & 1.24 & 347 & \\
2692: 377 & 839.4 & 245.6 & 282.3 & 2.2 & 10:07:34.84 & 12:12:43.6 & 19.32 & 1.20 & 37 & \\
2693: 378 & 848.5 & 282.4 & 298.0 & 2.0 & 10:07:30.45 & 12:21:32.4 & 19.42 & 1.21 & 357 & \\
2694: 379 & 864.7 & 44.5 & 2.1 & 3.5 & 10:09:08.37 & 12:28:46.7 & 17.84 & 1.53 & 12345 & \\
2695: 380 & 883.1 & 45.3 & 25.1 & 2.0 & 10:09:09.88 & 12:28:50.6 & 18.95 & 1.29 & 6 & \\
2696: 381 & 940.9 & 136.3 & 4.5 & 2.0 & 10:09:11.35 & 12:07:09.9 & 19.42 & 1.14 & 2 & \\
2697: 382 & 952.6 & 246.2 & -55.8 & 1.8 & 10:07:27.56 & 12:12:04.9 & 18.30 & 1.41 & 3 & \\
2698: 383 & 957.3 & 45.6 & 84.4 & 1.9 & 10:09:13.67 & 12:29:40.1 & 19.31 & 1.19 & 7 & \\
2699: 384 & 968.5 & 248.5 & 26.9 & 2.5 & 10:07:25.54 & 12:12:34.5 & 18.62 & 1.40 & 356 & \\
2700: {\bf 385} & 1034.6 & 30.4 & 140.2 & 5.5 & 10:09:02.73 & 12:33:22.4 & 18.77 & 1.31 & 35 & \\
2701: 386 & 1056.1 & 244.8 & 18.8 & 2.0 & 10:07:21.82 & 12:11:00.1 & 19.32 & 1.20 & 45 & \\
2702: 387 & 1169.0 & 17.2 & -5.6 & 2.7 & 10:08:50.58 & 12:37:06.8 & 19.00 & 1.26 & 456 & \\
2703: \enddata
2704:
2705: \tablenotetext{a}{Stars with heliocentric velocities (column 4) in the
2706: range 250-320 km/s are treated as members in our analysis. Star 30
2707: in this table was not identified in our new photometry because if fell
2708: in a gap between 90Prime CCDs. Its equatorial coordinates (in {\bf
2709: boldface}) are taken directly from M98 and may be offset by 2-3 arcsec
2710: relative to the coordinates of all other stars in the Table.}
2711:
2712: \tablenotetext{b}{Star identification number, ordered by increasing
2713: radial distance from the center of Leo~I ($R$, column 2). IDs in {\it
2714: italics} are possible `false positives' where we may have obtained the
2715: velocity of the sky at the time of observation rather than an actual
2716: target star (see Figure~\ref{figs:rpa} and Section 3.2). Star IDs in
2717: {\bf boldface} denote possible binary stars based on velocity
2718: variability (see Figure~\ref{figs:chi2} and Sections 3.4 and 4.1).}
2719:
2720: \tablenotetext{c}{$R$ (distance from center in arcsec) and $PA$
2721: (position angle relative to center in degrees with $PA$(North) = 0 deg
2722: and $PA$(East) = 90 deg) are defined relative to the adopted center of
2723: Leo~I: $(\alpha_{c,J2000},delta_{c,2000}) = $ (10:08:27,+12:18:30)
2724: (Mateo 1998). This center position differs somewhat from the one used
2725: by M98 and from the center coordinate given by IH95.}
2726:
2727: \tablenotetext{d}{The sources of the velocities used to estimate the
2728: mean velocity listed in this table are coded as: 1 = Leo~I/c1, 2 =
2729: Leo~I/c2; 3 = Leo~I/c3; 4 = Leo~I/c4; 5 = Leo~I/c5; 6 = Leo~I/c6; 7 =
2730: Leo~I/c7; 8 = M98. See Table 1 for details about each of these
2731: configurations.}
2732:
2733: \tablenotetext{e}{Star number from M98.}
2734: \end{deluxetable}
2735:
2736: \clearpage
2737:
2738: \begin{deluxetable}{lccl}
2739: \tablecolumns{4}
2740: \tablewidth{0pt}
2741: \tablecaption{Summary of Adopted and Derived Properties of Leo~I}
2742: \tablehead{
2743: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Quantity} & Value & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Units} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Reference\tablenotemark{a}}
2744: }
2745: \startdata
2746:
2747: \cutinhead{Adopted Parameters\tablenotemark{b}}\\
2748:
2749: $\alpha_{2000}$ (center) & \phantom{$+$}10 08 27.0 & & M98R \\
2750: $\delta_{2000}$ (center) & $+$12 18 30\phantom{.0} & & M98R \\
2751: Distance & $255 \pm 23$ & kpc & C99; H01; B04\\
2752: $R_{core}$ & $3.3 \pm 0.3$ & arcmin & IH95 \\
2753: $R_{tidal}$ & $12.6 \pm 1.5$ & arcmin & IH95\\
2754: $R_{core}$ & $245 \pm 35$ & pc & IH95+Dist\\
2755: $R_{tidal}$ & $935 \pm 140$ & pc & IH95+Dist\\
2756: $M_{V,tot}$ & $-12.0 \pm 0.3$ & mag & IH95+Dist \\
2757: $L_{V,tot}$ & $5.6 \pm 1.8 \times 10^6$ & $L_\odot$ & IH95+Dist\\
2758: $\Sigma_0$ & $22.6 \pm 0.3$ & V mag arcsec$^{-2}$ & IH95 \\
2759: $S_0$ & $40 \pm 12$ & $L_\odot$ pc$^{-2}$ & IH95+Dist \\
2760: $I_0$ & $0.07 \pm 0.02$ & $L_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ & IH95+Dist \\
2761: $(M/L_V)_{baryons}$ & 0.3-0.7 & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & M98; Sec 4.2\\
2762: $\rho_{0,baryons}$ & 0.02-0.05 & $M_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ & M98; Sec 4.2\\
2763:
2764: \cutinhead{Derived Global Kinematic/Structural Parameters\tablenotemark{c}} \\
2765:
2766: $\langle v_{helio}\rangle$ & 282.9 $\pm$ 0.5 & km/s & Sec 4.3.1 \\
2767: $\langle v_{GS}\rangle$ & 174.9 $\pm$ 0.5 & km/s & Sec 4.3.1 \\
2768: $\sigma_v$ & \phantom{00}9.2 $\pm$ 0.4 & km/s & Sec 4.3.1 \\
2769: $e_{R=0'}$ & $0.21 \pm 0.03$ & $(1-b/a)$ & IH95; Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape} \\
2770: $e_{R=12'}$ & $0.34 \pm 0.02$ & $(1-b/a)$ & Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape}; Sec 4.3.2 \\
2771: $PA_{R=0'}$ & $79 \pm 3$ & degrees & IH95; Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape} \\
2772: $PA_{R=12'}$ & $84 \pm 3$ & degrees & Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape}; Sec 4.3.2 \\
2773: \tablebreak
2774:
2775: \cutinhead{Equilibrium Dynamical Model Results}
2776: \cutinhead{Isothermal Model\tablenotemark{d}}\\
2777:
2778: $\rho_0$ & $0.23 \pm 0.04$ & $M_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2779: $(M/L_V)_0 = \rho_0/I_0$ & $3.3 \pm 1.1$ & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2780: $M(R\leq1040\ {\rm pc})$ & $5.2 \pm 1.2 \times 10^7$ & $M_\odot$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2781: $M/L_V\ (R\leq1040\ {\rm pc})$ & $9.3 \pm 4.0$ & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2782: $\chi^2_r$ & 0.51 & & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoibinfits} \\
2783:
2784: \cutinhead{Sersic+NFW Model\tablenotemark{e}} \\
2785:
2786: $\rho_{0,Sersic}$ & $0.04 \pm 0.01$ & $M_\odot$ pc$^{-3}$ & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape} \\
2787: $r_{Sersic}$ & $370 \pm 30$ & pc & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape} \\
2788: $m_S$ & $0.6 \pm 0.1$ & & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoishape} \\
2789: %$(M/L)_{V,0}$ & 1.2-3 & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & M98; Sec 4.2 \\
2790: $R_{vir}$ & $18.3 \pm 2.7$ & kpc & Sec 4.2 \\
2791: $M_{vir} \equiv M(R_{vir})$ & $7 \pm 1 \times 10^8$ & $M_\odot$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2792: $R_s \equiv R_{vir}/20$ & $916 \pm 140$ & pc & Sec 4.2 \\
2793: $\eta \equiv M_{vir}/M_{vis}$ & $129 \pm 45$ & & Sec 4.2 \\
2794: $M_{vir}/L_V$ & $125 \pm 44$ & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2795: $M(R\leq1040\ {\rm pc})$ & $8.1 \pm 2.0 \times 10^7$ & $M_\odot$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2796: $M/L_V\ (R\leq1040\ {\rm pc})$ & $14.4 \pm 5.8$ & $M_\odot/L_{V,\odot}$ & Sec 4.2 \\
2797: $\beta$ (95\% c.l.) & $-1.5^{+1.1}_{-1.7}$ & & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoibinfits} \\
2798: $\chi^2_r(\beta = -1.5)$ & 0.74 & & Sec 4.2; Fig~\ref{figs:leoibinfits} \\
2799:
2800: \enddata
2801:
2802: \tablenotetext{a}{References: M98R = Mateo 1998; C99 = Caputo et
2803: al. 1999; H01 = Held et al. 2001; B04 = Bellazzini et al. 2004; IH95
2804: = Irwin and Hatzidimitriou 1995; IH95+Dist refers to IH95 results
2805: adjusted for the distance used in this paper; M98 = Mateo et al. 1998.
2806: Figures and Section numbers refer to this paper.}
2807:
2808: \tablenotetext{b}{$\Sigma_0$ and $S_0$ are the central surface
2809: brightness of Leo~I in astronomical and physical units, respectively;
2810: $I_0$ is the central luminosity density, and $\rho_{0,baryons}$ is the
2811: central mass density for the assumed baryonic mass-to-light ratio,
2812: $(M/L)_{V,baryons}$. The quantities $S_0$ and $I_0$ are calculated as
2813: described in M98.}
2814:
2815: \tablenotetext{c}{`GS' refers to the Galactostationary reference frame
2816: (see Section 4.3.1) based on an LSR motion of 220 km/s toward $(l,b) =
2817: (90,0)$, and a solar peculiar motion relative to the LSR of 16.6 km/s
2818: toward $(l,b) = (53,25)$. The position angles ($PA$) and isophotal
2819: ellipticities ($e$) are defined in Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}. See
2820: Section 4.3.1 for details.}
2821:
2822: \tablenotetext{d}{$\rho_0$ is the total central mass density (DM +
2823: baryons).}
2824:
2825: \tablenotetext{e}{The Sersic index, $m_S$, and Sersic radius,
2826: $r_{Sersic}$ are defined as $I_{Sersic} = I_0 \exp \left[
2827: -(r/r_{Sersic})^{1/m_S} \right]$. Values of $r_{Sersic}$ and $m_S$
2828: were derived from fitting our stellar density profile for Leo~I
2829: (Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}). The anisotropy parameter, $\beta$ is
2830: defined such that $\beta = 0$ corresponds to an isotropic
2831: distribution, $\beta = +1$ is a fully radially anisotropic
2832: distribution, and $\beta = -\infty$ is a fully tangentially
2833: anisotropic distribution (Binney and Tremaine 1987). Following
2834: {\L}okas, we set the virial radius, $R_{vir}$, such that
2835: $\rho_{NFW}(R_{vir}) = 200 \rho_{crit}$.}
2836:
2837: \end{deluxetable}
2838:
2839: \clearpage
2840:
2841: \begin{table}
2842: \begin{center}
2843: \caption{Population Segregation in Leo~I}
2844: \vskip1em
2845: \begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
2846: \hline
2847: \hline
2848: \\
2849: Region\tablenotemark{a} & Region Name & $R$ (arcsec) & $N$ & $N_{vel}$ & $N_{mem}$ & $N_{nonmem}$ \\
2850: \\
2851: \hline
2852: \\
2853: 1 & RGB & $R \leq 400$ & 732 & 227 & 209 & 18 \\
2854: 1 & & $400 < R \leq 760$ & \phantom{0}91 & \phantom{0}68 & \phantom{0}52 & 16 \\
2855: \\
2856: 2 & AGB & $R \leq 400$ & 72 & 47 & 42 & 5 \\
2857: 2 & & $400 < R \leq 760$ & 18 & 10 & \phantom{0}1 & 9 \\
2858: \\
2859: 3 & RGB-Control & $R \leq 400$ & 25 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2860: 3 & & $400 < R \leq 760$ & 52 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2861: \\
2862: 4 & Blue-Loop & $R \leq 400$ & 42 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2863: 4 & & $400 < R \leq 760$ & \phantom{0}6 & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ & $\ldots$ \\
2864: \\
2865: \hline
2866: \hline
2867: \\
2868: \end{tabular}
2869: \tablenotetext{a}{The column labeled `Region' corresponds to the
2870: regions of the Leo~I CMD identified in Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}; `Region
2871: Name' identifies the principal component in each region: RGB = Red
2872: Giant Branch stars; AGB = Asymptotic Giant Branch stars; RGB-Control =
2873: Field stars in a similar magnitude range as the RGB stars; Blue-Loop =
2874: intermediate-age core He burning stars in a blue phase of their
2875: post-main sequence evolution (Dohm-Palmer and Skillman 2002). The
2876: other columns in this table are $R$, the radial extent fro the center
2877: of Leo~I, $N$ the total number of stars in a given region, $N_{vel}$
2878: the number of stars in a region with measured velocities, and
2879: $N_{mem}$, $N_{nonmem}$, the number of kinematic members and
2880: non-members in a given region, respectively. The sole AGB star with
2881: $R > 400$ arcsec is located at $R = 497$ arcsec (star 324 in Table
2882: 5).}
2883: \end{center}
2884: \end{table}
2885:
2886: \newpage
2887:
2888: \begin{table}
2889: \begin{center}
2890: \caption{Representative Orbital Parameters for Leo~I\tablenotemark{a}}
2891: \vskip1em
2892:
2893: \begin{tabular}{ccccccccc}
2894: \hline
2895: \hline
2896: \\
2897: $V_{GS,rad}$ & $V_{GS,tan}$ & $R_{peri}$ & $R_{apo}$ & $T_{peri}$ & $P_{orb}$ & $e$ & $\mu_\alpha$ & $\mu_\delta$ \\
2898: (km/s) & (km/s) & (kpc) & (Gyr) & (kpc) & & (Gyr) & (marcsec/cent) & (marcsec/cent) \\
2899: \\
2900: \hline
2901: % tidal radius tidal radius tidal radius
2902: % M=2e7 M_sun M=1e8 M_sun M=5e8 M_sun
2903: % (kpc) (arcmin) (kpc) (arcmin) (kpc) (arcmin)
2904: \\
2905: 181 & \phantom{00}5 & \phantom{0}2.5 & 399 & 0.91 & \phantom{0}5.4 & 0.99 & \phantom{0}$-$4.1 & $-$16.3 \\ % 0.10 1.4 0.17 2.4 0.38 5.4
2906: 181 & \phantom{0}13 & \phantom{0}6.1 & 399 & 0.91 & \phantom{0}5.4 & 0.97 & \phantom{0}$-$3.4 & $-$15.9 \\ % 0.19 2.7 0.33 4.6 0.74 10.3
2907: 180 & \phantom{0}24 & 11.5 & 400 & 0.92 & \phantom{0}5.4 & 0.94 & \phantom{0}$-$2.6 & $-$15.4 \\ % 0.31 4.3 0.53 7.3 1.2 16.
2908: 180 & \phantom{0}34 & 16.9 & 402 & 0.93 & \phantom{0}5.5 & 0.92 & \phantom{0}$-$1.9 & $-$15.0 \\ % 0.41 5.7 0.71 9.7 1.6 22.
2909: 180 & \phantom{0}44 & 23.5 & 404 & 0.94 & \phantom{0}5.6 & 0.89 & \phantom{0}$-$1.1 & $-$14.6 \\ % 0.53 7.3 0.91 12.5 2.0 28.
2910: 180 & \phantom{0}54 & 30.3 & 408 & 0.95 & \phantom{0}5.7 & 0.86 & \phantom{0}$-$0.4 & $-$14.1 \\ % 0.65 8.8 1.1 15. 2.5 34.
2911: 177 & 207 & 159 & 656 & 0.80 & 10.2 & 0.61 & +10.8 & \phantom{0}$-$7.7 \\ % 2.3 31. 3.9 53. 8.7 120.
2912: \\
2913: \hline
2914: \hline
2915: \\
2916: \end{tabular}
2917: \tablenotetext{a}{These results are derived for model orbits using the
2918: Milky Way gravitational potential given by Johnston et al. (1995),
2919: adopting an asymptotic halo circular velocity of 190 km/s. The
2920: results here were calculated for an orbit with an adopted pole of
2921: $(l,b) = (130,0)$, slightly different than the value used to produce
2922: the orbit shown in Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit}. The column headers
2923: are: $V_{GS,rad}$ = Galactostationary radial velocity, $V_{GS,tan}$ =
2924: Galactostationary tangential velocity, $R_{peri}$ = perigalactic
2925: distance, $T_{peri}$ = time of last perigalactic passage, measured
2926: backward in time from the present, $R_{apo}$ = apogalactic distance,
2927: $P_{orb} =$ radial orbital period, and $e = (1 - (R_{peri}/R_{apo})/(1
2928: + (R_{peri}/R_{apo}))$ is the orbital eccentricity. The columns
2929: labeled $\mu_\alpha$ and $\mu_\delta$ are the observed heliocentric
2930: proper motions (in RA and Dec, respectively) in units of
2931: marcsec/century for the current epoch and assuming Leo~I is at its
2932: present location and distance. These orbital parameters are
2933: essentially independent of the mass of Leo~I for the range of masses
2934: explored in Figure~\ref{figs:tidalperi}.}
2935: \end{center}
2936: \end{table}
2937:
2938: \clearpage
2939:
2940: \begin{figure}
2941: \begin{center}
2942: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/leoixieta.ps
2943: \plotone{f1.eps}
2944: \caption{\label{figs:xieta} The spatial distribution of stars in
2945: our Leo~I color-magnitude diagram (Figure~\ref{figs:cmd}).
2946: Candidate Leo~I red giants are denoted as small filled black
2947: squares (see Figure~\ref{figs:cmd} for the candidate selection
2948: definition). Stars with MMT/Hectochelle spectroscopy from
2949: 2005-2007 are shown as open squares (kinematic members) and open
2950: triangles (kinematic non-members). Open circles denote stars
2951: also observed spectroscopically with HIRES on Keck by M98. The
2952: standard coordinates adopt the center of Leo~I at
2953: $(\alpha,\delta)_{2000.0} = $(10:08:27, +12:18:30) (Mateo 1998)
2954: as the tangent point. Each Hectochelle field (see Table~1)
2955: spans an area much larger than the full extent of the region
2956: plotted here.}
2957: \end{center}
2958: \end{figure}
2959:
2960: \clearpage
2961:
2962: \begin{figure}
2963: \epsscale{0.80}
2964: \begin{center}
2965: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/leoicalcmd3.ps
2966: \plotone{f2.eps}
2967: \caption{\label{figs:cmd} The calibrated Leo~I color-magnitude
2968: diagram based on our new 90Prime photometry. The selection region
2969: for spectroscopic candidates can be discerned from the
2970: distribution of the small filled squares, while open squares and
2971: open triangles denote stars we have observed with Hectochelle.
2972: Open circles denote stars from the Keck/HIRES sample of M98. The
2973: dotted lines enclose the stars used to measure the structural
2974: parameters of Leo~I (Section 4.3.2). Though difficult to see here
2975: because of crowding, about 75\%\ of the stars we have observed
2976: with Hectochelle lie along the RGB, below the base of the extended
2977: AGB at $I \sim 18.1$. The dashed line denotes our effective selection
2978: limit at $V = 20.9$. These data have been transformed to the
2979: photometric scale of M98 to a precision of about 0.02 mag.}
2980: \end{center}
2981: \end{figure}
2982:
2983: \clearpage
2984:
2985: \begin{figure}
2986: \begin{center}
2987: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/leoipaper/plotccf2.ps
2988: \plotone{f3.eps}
2989: \caption{\label{figs:ccf1} Raw Hectochelle cross-correlation
2990: functions from the IRAF task {\tt fxcor} are plotted here in the
2991: velocity range $-100$ to $+500$ km/s. Results for three Leo~I
2992: stars observed during 2006 or 2007 are shown. The Tonry-Davis
2993: $R_{TD}$ (1979) values for these cases span much of the range
2994: exhibited by our kinematic sample (see Figure~\ref{figs:ccf2}).
2995: Dotted lines correspond to cross-correlations for spectra for
2996: which we did not do sky subtraction, while the solid lines are
2997: for sky-subtracted spectra. The broad, low-velocity peak in two
2998: of the non-sky-subtracted cases (top and bottom panels) is due
2999: to scattered moonlight (the middle panel is for a spectrum
3000: obtained in dark conditions). The velocity scale of these plots
3001: has not been corrected for the heliocentric velocity of the
3002: template.}
3003: \end{center}
3004: \end{figure}
3005:
3006: \clearpage
3007:
3008: \begin{figure}
3009: \begin{center}
3010: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plothistrtd.ps
3011: \plotone{f4.eps}
3012: \caption{\label{figs:ccf2} {\it Top panel:} The distribution of
3013: the Tonry-Davis $R_{TD}$ values for all stellar spectra in the
3014: Leo~I sample (members and non-members included). The small
3015: tickmarks near the lower x-axis indicate the $R_{TD}$ values of
3016: the three profiles shown in Figure~\ref{figs:ccf1}. The median
3017: value of $R_{TD}$ is 4.9. {\it Lower panel:} A plot of the
3018: absolute value of the velocity differences of individual
3019: measurements ($V_i$) and the weighted mean velocities
3020: ($V_{avg}$) for all stars in our sample with multiple velocity
3021: measurements. The dashed line is our error model, $\sigma_i =
3022: \sigma(R_{TD,i}: \alpha, x, \sigma_0)$ (see Section 3.2). The
3023: weights used to calculate $V_{avg}$ are $w_i =
3024: 1/\sigma_{i,fx}^2$, where $\sigma_{i,fx}$ is the error estimate
3025: on $V_i$ from the IRAF cross-correlation routine {\bf fxcor}.
3026: The weighted means for multiply-observed stars listed in Tables
3027: 4 and 5 are based on the values of $\sigma_i$ from the error
3028: model, so the means listed in the tables differ a bit from the
3029: values used here.}
3030: \end{center}
3031: \end{figure}
3032:
3033: \clearpage
3034:
3035: \begin{figure}
3036: \begin{center}
3037: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/plotmmtdiffs.ps
3038: \plotone{f5.eps}
3039: \caption{\label{figs:mmtdiffs} {\it Upper left: } The histogram
3040: of the velocity differences, $\Delta = v_i - v_j$ for stars with
3041: multiple velocity measurements. The indices $i$ and $j$ refer
3042: to the 2005, 2006 or 2007 Hectochelle data (see Table 1), with
3043: the chronologically earlier observation labeled with index $j$.
3044: The standard deviation, $\sigma$, mean offset, $\langle
3045: \Delta\rangle$, and total number of $\Delta$ values in the
3046: histogram are shown. {\it Upper right:} $\Delta$ as a function
3047: of standard coordinates, $\xi,\eta$, with different symbols
3048: denoting different ranges in $\Delta$ as noted in the legend.
3049: There is no evident trend of $\Delta$ with location on the sky
3050: apparent in this plot. {\it Lower left:} The distribution of
3051: $\Delta = v_i - v_j$ as a function of $v_j$. The crosses
3052: correspond to the case where $v_j = v_{2005}$; the open circles
3053: are for $v_j = v_{2006}$, and the filled squares are for $v_j =
3054: v_{2007}$. This panel reveals no statistically significant
3055: dependence of $\Delta$ on fiber configuration or run. {\it
3056: Lower right:} The distribution of $\Delta$ and $I$ magnitude.
3057: The symbols are the same as in the lower left plot. We find no
3058: dependence of $\Delta$ with $I$ magnitude.}
3059: \end{center}
3060: \end{figure}
3061:
3062: \clearpage
3063:
3064: \begin{figure}
3065: \epsscale{0.8}
3066: \begin{center}
3067: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/results/leoihistboth.ps
3068: \plotone{f6.eps}
3069: \caption{\label{figs:hists} {\it Upper plot:} Histogram of velocity
3070: differences relative to the mean velocity, $\Delta_2 \equiv v_i -
3071: \langle v\rangle$ ({\it not} the same $\Delta$ plotted in
3072: Figure~\ref{figs:mmtdiffs}), for all stars with repeat
3073: measurements within the MMT dataset only (solid line) and for
3074: stars with both Keck and MMT velocity measures (dashed line).
3075: {\it Lower plot:} The same as the upper plot except for the statistic
3076: $\Delta_3 \equiv \Delta v/\langle \sigma\rangle$. The curve is a
3077: Gaussian with unit $\sigma$.}
3078: \end{center}
3079: \end{figure}
3080:
3081: \clearpage
3082:
3083: \begin{figure}
3084: \begin{center}
3085: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/sohndiffs.ps
3086: \plotone{f7.eps}
3087: \caption{\label{figs:sohndiffs} {\it Upper left:} A histogram of
3088: the velocity differences $\Delta = v_{S07} - v_{MMT}$ where
3089: 'S07' refers to the results from Sohn et al. (2007). The
3090: standard deviation, $\sigma$, mean offset $\langle \Delta
3091: \rangle$, and number of $\Delta$ values are shown in the
3092: panel. Values in parentheses are for the sample that excludes
3093: the outlying point at $\Delta \sim -9.5$. {\it Upper right:}
3094: The dependence of $\Delta$ on standard coordinates, $\xi, \eta$.
3095: We find no significant trend of position with $\Delta$. {\it
3096: Lower left:} The distribution of $\Delta$ vs $v_{MMT}$. A
3097: strong trend is apparent. The line corresponds to a
3098: least-squares fit to the data (excluding the one outlier at
3099: $\Delta \sim -10$) of the form $\Delta = -0.31(0.06) v_{MMT} +
3100: 93.4 (18)$ (1-$\sigma$ parameter errors are in parentheses).
3101: The correlation coefficient for this fit is $|R| = 0.72$ for
3102: $N=25$, corresponding to a probability of 0.02\%\ of obtaining a
3103: better linear fit by chance. {\it Lower right:} A plot of
3104: $\Delta$ vs. $I$-band magnitude. A least-squares linear fit
3105: suggests that there is no significant correlation between
3106: $\Delta$ and $I$.}
3107: \end{center}
3108: \end{figure}
3109:
3110: \clearpage
3111:
3112: \begin{figure}
3113: \begin{center}
3114: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/kochdiffs.ps
3115: \plotone{f8.eps}
3116: \caption{\label{figs:kochdiffs} {\it Upper left:} A histogram of
3117: the velocity differences $\Delta = v_{K07} - v_{MMT}$ where
3118: 'K07' refers to the results from Koch et al. (2007). The
3119: standard deviation, $\sigma$, mean offset $\langle \Delta
3120: \rangle$ (dotted line), and number of $\Delta$ values are
3121: plotted in the panel. Values in parentheses exclude the outlier
3122: at $\Delta \sim -18$. {\it Upper right:} The dependence of
3123: $\Delta$ on standard coordinates, $\xi, \eta$. We find no
3124: significant trend of position with $\Delta$. {\it Lower left:}
3125: The distribution of $\Delta$ vs $V_{MMT}$. The dashed line is a
3126: least-squares linear fit to the data (excluding the one outlier
3127: at $\Delta \sim -17$ but is consistent with $\Delta = $\ {\it
3128: constant}\ $= 4.8$ km/s. {\it Lower right:} A plot of $\Delta$
3129: vs. $I$-band magnitude. Apart from the mean offset, we see no
3130: significant trend in this plot.}
3131: \end{center}
3132: \end{figure}
3133:
3134: \clearpage
3135:
3136: \begin{figure}
3137: \begin{center}
3138: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/leoirpa2sky2.ps
3139: \plotone{f9.eps}
3140: \caption{\label{figs:rpa} The radial distribution of
3141: heliocentric radial velocities in Leo~I for all targets with
3142: $R_{td} \geq 2.8$ (Table 5). The filled circles represent stars
3143: we take to be Leo~I kinematic members. The dotted lines
3144: illustrate a crude Leo~I selection region between $v_{helio}$ =
3145: 250 and 320 km/s, but it is clear that the identification of
3146: highly probable Leo~I members is not at all ambiguous in this
3147: sample. The open squares denote likely non-members. The dashed
3148: horizontal line shows the typical heliocentric offset applied to
3149: the spectra; spectra from which we measured reflected
3150: sun/moonlight would have velocities near this line. The open
3151: squares with crosses denoting 'false positives', cases where we
3152: have likely measured the sky velocity ($-29 \leq v_{helio} \leq
3153: -11$ km/s and $R_{td} \leq 4.2$) rather than the velocity of an
3154: actual star in non-sky fibers (see Section 3.2; Table 5). The
3155: vertical dotted line marks the King tidal radius of Leo~I from
3156: IH95 (756 arcsec; Table 6). At the right is the logarithmic
3157: histogram of the velocity distribution where each star denoted
3158: as a solid symbol is represented by a Gaussian of unit area with
3159: $\sigma = 3.0$ km/s. The dashed curve in the histogram is the
3160: predicted field star distribution from the Besancon Galaxy model
3161: (Robin et al. 2003). A marginal ($2\sigma$) excess of stars
3162: relative to the model at $v_{helio} \sim 96$ km/s is marked (see
3163: Section 4.5).}
3164: \end{center}
3165: \end{figure}
3166:
3167: \clearpage
3168:
3169: \begin{figure}
3170: \begin{center}
3171: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plotbinned2.ps
3172: \plotone{f10.eps}
3173: \caption{\label{figs:leoibin} The Leo~I velocity dispersion
3174: profile for all 328 members for three different binnings. For a
3175: given profile, the bins have nearly equal numbers of stars
3176: approximately equal to $328/N_{bin}$. The radius, $R$, of each
3177: bin is the mean radius for all stars in that bin. The
3178: horizontal 'error bars' in $R$ is the standard deviation of the
3179: radius of the stars in each bin. The dispersion values,
3180: $\sigma_v$, have two downward error bars. The smaller errors
3181: are based on the method described by Kleyna et al. (2004), while
3182: larger errorbars correspond to the uncertainties calculated
3183: using the method described by Walker et al. (2006a, 2007a) and
3184: are equal to the upward error bars. The vertical dotted line
3185: shows the location of the `tidal' radius of Leo~I (756 arcsec)
3186: from IH95.}
3187: \end{center}
3188: \end{figure}
3189:
3190: \clearpage
3191:
3192: \begin{figure}
3193: \begin{center}
3194: % /Koolwhip1/mmateo/MMT/bin/chi.ps
3195: \plotone{f11.eps} % Figure 11 eventually
3196: \caption{\label{figs:chi2} Distribution of the reduced
3197: chi-squared statistic, $\chi_\nu^2$, as a function of
3198: heliocentric velocity, $v_h$. The symbols denote the number
3199: of observations per star: $N = 2$, filled squares; $N=3$,
3200: filled circles; $N=4$, open squares; $N=5$, open circles;
3201: $N=6$, cross. The lines denote the values of $\chi_\nu^2$ for
3202: which there is a 0.5\%\ chance to exceed $\chi_\nu^2$ by
3203: chance in a normal distribution for different degrees of
3204: freedom, $\nu = N - 1$. From top to bottom, the lines
3205: correspond to $\nu = 1$ (solid line), 2 (dashed line), 3
3206: (dot-dash line) and 4 (dotted line). The $\nu = 5$ line is far
3207: above the sole 6-observation point and is not shown. The
3208: large symbols denote the seven objects with $p(>\chi^2_\nu) <
3209: 0.005$. These seven stars are noted in Table 5.}
3210: \end{center}
3211: \end{figure}
3212:
3213: \clearpage
3214:
3215: \begin{figure}
3216: \begin{center}
3217: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plotbinfits2.ps
3218: \plotone{f12.eps}
3219: \caption{\label{figs:leoibinfits} Comparisons of the binned
3220: radial velocity dispersion profile for Leo~I ($N_{bin} = 15$; see
3221: Figure~\ref{figs:leoibin}) with equilibrium dynamical models.
3222: {\it Top panel:} The dispersion profile for an isothermal sphere
3223: set to have the dispersion equal to that of the entire sample
3224: (solid line; $\sigma = 9.2 \pm 0.4$ km/s). The uncertainty in
3225: the mean dispersion is denoted by the dotted lines. {\it Middle
3226: panel:} The dispersion profile for a King model with a central
3227: dispersion equal to the sample mean, and a concentration
3228: parameter of $c = 0.58$ (IH95). {\it Bottom panel:} Dispersion
3229: profiles for NFW models assuming an isotropic velocity
3230: distribution ($\beta = 0$; solid line) and two tangentially
3231: anisotropic distributions ($\beta = -0.5$, dashed line, and
3232: $\beta = -1.0$., dotted line). All of these fits include a
3233: visible and dark component, corresponding to a total mass of $9
3234: \times 10^8 M_\odot$. Further model details are given in Section
3235: 4.2. Values of reduced $\chi^2_r$ are shown for each model 'fit'
3236: in each panel.}
3237: \end{center}
3238: \end{figure}
3239:
3240: \clearpage
3241:
3242: \begin{figure}
3243: \begin{center}
3244: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/leoipaper/plotorbit.ps
3245: \plotone{f13.eps}
3246: \caption{\label{figs:leoiorbit} Orthogonal projections of a
3247: plausible Leo~I orbit that has $R_{peri} = 15$ kpc and the
3248: preferred orbital pole of S07 [$(l,b) = (122,13)$] (similar to
3249: the orbits detailed in Table 8). Crosses are separated by 200
3250: million years along the orbit, while filled circles represent
3251: locations along the orbit every 1 Gyr. The large triangle
3252: denotes the present location of Leo~I. The orbit is shown for
3253: the past 12 Gyr in an assumed static Galactic potential. The
3254: large cross in each panel denotes the Galactic Center. These
3255: orbits were calculated using the static, multi-component
3256: potential of Johnston et al. (1995) to represent the Milky Way,
3257: and a halo with an asymptotic rotation velocity of 190 km/s. }
3258: \end{center}
3259: \end{figure}
3260:
3261: \clearpage
3262:
3263: \begin{figure}
3264: \begin{center}
3265: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/leoipaper/plotrorbit.ps
3266: \plotone{f14.eps}
3267: \caption{\label{figs:leoirorbit} The Galactocentric distance of
3268: Leo~I as a function of time (with $T = 0$ corresponding to the
3269: present) for the orbit described in Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit}.
3270: The triangle shows the (assumed) current location of Leo~I. The
3271: galaxy's adopted Galactostationary radial velocity is noted.
3272: Only one orbital period, about 5.5 Gyr, is shown. The assumed
3273: galactostionary velocity used for this calculation differs
3274: somewhat from the value we observe for Leo~I ($v_{GS} = 174.9$,
3275: but this has no significant impact on our analysis.}
3276: \end{center}
3277: \end{figure}
3278:
3279: %\clearpage
3280: %
3281: %\begin{figure}
3282: % \begin{center}
3283: %% /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/leoipaper/leo_contour2arcmin.eps
3284: % \plotone{f14.eps}
3285: % \caption{\label{figs:contour} A contour plot of the star count
3286: % density in Leo~I for objects drawn from the selection region
3287: % shown in Figure~\ref{figs:cmd}. The contour levels are at (from
3288: % outside-in) 0.1, 0.2 $\ldots$ 0.8, 0.9, 0.92, 0.94, 0.96, and
3289: % 0.98 in units of the peak density. The change in contour
3290: % interval at the high end was adopted to highlight the structure
3291: % in the core region of the galaxy. The points show the locations
3292: % of the 12630 objects used to estimate the surface density. The
3293: % small gaps between the CCDs in the mosaic used here are evident.
3294: % Because of the 2 arcmin kernel smoothing length used to calculate
3295: % the stellar density, the gaps do not to significantly affect the
3296: % shapes or locations of the isodensity contours outside the inner
3297: % two. North is up and East to the right.}
3298: % \end{center}
3299: %\end{figure}
3300:
3301: \clearpage
3302:
3303: \begin{figure}
3304: \begin{center}
3305: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/leoi_ell.ps
3306: \plotone{f15.eps}
3307: \caption{\label{figs:greycontour} A greyscale image of the
3308: smoothed star counts of the 12630 objects identified in the
3309: selection region defined in Figure~\ref{figs:cmd} and smoothed
3310: with a Guassian spatial filter with $\sigma = 2$ arcmin.
3311: Superimposed are fitted ellipses to the isopleths. The ellipses
3312: have major axes ranging from 2 arcmin to 12 arcmin in 1 arcmin
3313: steps. This plot is oriented with North to the top, and East to
3314: the right.}
3315: \end{center}
3316: \end{figure}
3317:
3318: \clearpage
3319:
3320: \begin{figure}
3321: \begin{center}
3322: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/center.ps
3323: \plotone{f16.eps}
3324: \caption{\label{figs:centers} The centers of the fitted ellipses
3325: shown in Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour}. The increasing symbol
3326: sizes denote increasingly larger ellipses in
3327: Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour}. Note that the coordinates of the
3328: center of the fitted ellipses remain close to the adopted center
3329: location of Leo~I (see Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}) for the smaller
3330: ellipses corresponding to the inner isopleths, but start to
3331: deviate to the NE for the 4-5 ellipses for the outermost
3332: isopleths. The centroids of the innermost 2-3 ellipses may be
3333: systematically slightly affected by the presence of gaps in the
3334: CCDs apparent in Figure~\ref{figs:xieta}.}
3335: \end{center}
3336: \end{figure}
3337:
3338: \clearpage
3339:
3340: \begin{figure}
3341: \begin{center}
3342: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plot3r.ps
3343: \plotone{f17.eps}
3344: \caption{\label{figs:leoishape} {\it Top panel:} The surface
3345: brightness profile for Leo~I based on the isopleths in
3346: Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour} and measured in the elliptical
3347: annuli shown in that plot. The radii are for the geometric mean
3348: major axes for each annulus. This profile was produced assuming
3349: a constant baryonic $M/L$ ratio and the central surface
3350: brightness from IH95 (see Table 6). The solid line is the
3351: projected density distribution for an isothermal sphere with a
3352: core radius of 270 arcsec (equal to the King core radius; see
3353: Table 6). The dotted line is a Sersic profile with $m=0.6$ and a
3354: Sersic radius, $r_S$, of 300 arcsec. {\it Middle panel:} The
3355: position angle of the major axes of the fitted ellipses in
3356: Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour} as a function of major axis. {\it
3357: Lower panel:} The ellipticity of the fitted ellipses in
3358: Figure~\ref{figs:greycontour} as a function of major axis. The
3359: ellipticity is defined as $e = 1 - b/a$, where $a$ and $b$ are
3360: the major and minor axes, respectively. The horizontal lines in
3361: the lower two panels denote the position angle ($PA = 79 \pm 3$
3362: deg) and ellipticity ($e = 0.21 \pm 0.02$) from IH95, consistent
3363: with the inner values of the profiles shown here. The short
3364: vertical lines in the panels are located at $R = 400$ arcsec, the
3365: radius at which we claim to see a change in the kinematic
3366: properties of the stars in Leo~I (Section 4.3.3).}
3367: \end{center}
3368: \end{figure}
3369:
3370: \clearpage
3371:
3372: \begin{figure}
3373: \begin{center}
3374: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/reduce/rot.ps
3375: \plotone{f18.eps}
3376: \caption{\label{figs:deltav} Plots of the bisector mean velocity
3377: difference, $\Delta v$, defined as the difference of the mean
3378: velocities of Leo~I members on both sides of a bisector oriented
3379: along a given position angle, $PA$ (see Figure~\ref{figs:xieta2}
3380: and Section 4.3.3 for further details). For the data plotted
3381: with error bars, the radial range of the dataset (from top: $R <
3382: 400$ arcsec, $R > 400$ arcsec, $R > 455$ arcsec, and $R > 600$
3383: arcsec), the probability of exceeding $(\Delta v)_{max}$, and
3384: the fraction of all the Leo~I members used to produce each plot
3385: are given in each panel. In the lower three panels the set of
3386: points (open squares) that lack error bars are for the full
3387: distribution of Leo~I members ($N = 328$, and for which the
3388: probability of exceeding $(\Delta v)_{max}$ is 31.3\%). The
3389: line at $\Delta v = 0$ in the top panel is shown for reference.}
3390: \end{center}
3391: \end{figure}
3392:
3393: \clearpage
3394:
3395: \begin{figure}
3396: \begin{center}
3397: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/paplot.ps
3398: \plotone{f19.eps}
3399: \caption{\label{figs:leoibreak} The position angle vs. radial
3400: distance from the center of Leo~I for all stars listed in Table 5
3401: ($R_{TD} \ge 2.8$). The points enclosed in open circles are
3402: likely Leo~I members. Note the transition from a fairly uniform
3403: distribution of members (in $PA$) for $R < 400$ arcsec (denoted
3404: by the vertical dashed line) to a strongly bimodal distribution
3405: for $R > 400$ arcsec. The non-members (small dots) show a
3406: noticeably more uniform distribution in PA regardless of $R$.}
3407: \end{center}
3408: \end{figure}
3409:
3410: \clearpage
3411:
3412: \begin{figure}
3413: \begin{center}
3414: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/plotcounts.ps
3415: \plotone{f20.eps}
3416: \caption{\label{figs:memfrac} Plots of the fraction of members
3417: divided by the total stars observed kinematically (data from
3418: Table~5) as a function of position angle for stars in the inner
3419: sample ($R < 400$ arcsec; {\it left panel}), and for stars of
3420: the outer sample ($R \geq 400$ arcsec; {\it right panel}). The
3421: double sine curve is a fit to the outer sample data. The maxima
3422: occur at $PA = 90$ and 270 degrees (short dotted vertical lines
3423: at the bottom of the plot). The major axis position angle of the
3424: inner regions of Leo~I (see Figure~\ref{figs:leoishape}) is
3425: denoted by the short vertical solid lines at $PA = 78$ and 258
3426: degrees. Bins in the right panel with values of
3427: $N_{mem}/N_{total} = 0$ and a small error bar contain no
3428: kinematic members but $N_{total} \geq 1$. The one bin with
3429: $N_{mem}/N_{total} = 0$ and no error bar has $N_{total} = 0$.}
3430: \end{center}
3431: \end{figure}
3432:
3433: \clearpage
3434:
3435: \begin{figure}
3436: \begin{center}
3437: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/reduce/rcyldata.ps
3438: \plotone{f21.eps}
3439: \caption{\label{figs:gradient} {\it Top panel:} A fit to the
3440: velocities corrected for Galactic rotation versus the $R_{cyl}$
3441: relative to a minor axis with position angle 108 deg (see text
3442: for details) for all stars with $R \leq 400$ arcsec (the inner
3443: sample). {\it Lower panel:} The same for stars with $R > 400$
3444: arcsec. In both panels the open squares are the individual
3445: velocities with their uncertainties. The larger filled squares
3446: are the binned mean velocities. For these larger symbols, the
3447: vertical error bars are the standard deviations of the mean
3448: velocity in each bin, while the horizontal error bars are the
3449: standard deviations of the radial coordinates of the sample of
3450: stars in each bin. The dashed lines show the least squared fit
3451: line to the respective binned mean velocities. Note the change
3452: in scale in the horizontal axes of the two panels. The slope of
3453: the fit in the lower panel is $-0.34 \pm 0.15$ km/s/arcmin, in
3454: the sense that the mean velocity becomes more negative toward
3455: {\it PA} = 90 deg.}
3456: \end{center}
3457: \end{figure}
3458:
3459: \clearpage
3460:
3461: \begin{figure}
3462: \begin{center}
3463: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/leoixieta3.ps
3464: \plotone{f22.eps}
3465: \caption{\label{figs:xieta2} The spatial distribution of Leo~I
3466: kinematic members. The dashed straight line indicates the
3467: position angle of an axis perpendicular to the maximum velocity
3468: gradient observed in Leo~I. The circle (dotted line) corresponds
3469: to $R = 400$ arcsec, the radius where we see a change in the
3470: internal kinematics in Leo~I. This figure also illustrates how
3471: Figure~\ref{figs:deltav} was constructed. The mean velocity of
3472: points on one side of the bisector (solid symbols) minus the mean
3473: velocity of points on the other side of the bisector (open
3474: symbols) represent the data that go into calculating $\Delta v$
3475: for $PA = 0$ degrees. This orientation corresponds to the
3476: maximum velocity gradient in Leo~I along {\it PA} = 90 deg.
3477: Figure~\ref{figs:deltav} plots how $\Delta v$ changes as the
3478: bisector is rotated clockwise in position angle.}
3479: \end{center}
3480: \end{figure}
3481:
3482: \clearpage
3483:
3484: \begin{figure}
3485: \begin{center}
3486: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plot2cmds.ps
3487: \plotone{f23.eps}
3488: \caption{\label{figs:cmd2} {\it Left panel:} The Leo~I CMD
3489: for stars with $R_b \leq 400$ arcsec, where $R_b$ is the break
3490: radius' (Section 4.3.3). The four regions correspond to RGB stars
3491: (1; solid line), AGB stars (2; dashed line), field stars (3;
3492: dotted line) and blue-loop stars (4; dashed line). {\it Right
3493: panel:} The Leo~I CMD for stars with $400 < R \leq 760$ arcsec.
3494: The CMD regions are the same as in the left panel but the areal
3495: coverage in the right panel is 3.2 times that of the left panel.
3496: Star counts for the regions defined in these CMDs are listed in
3497: Table~7.}
3498: \end{center}
3499: \end{figure}
3500:
3501: \clearpage
3502:
3503: \begin{figure}
3504: \begin{center}
3505: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/analysis/plotrcumulative.ps
3506: \plotone{f24.eps}
3507: \caption{\label{figs:rcumulative} {\it Left panel:} The
3508: cumulative radial distributions of kinematically-confirmed member
3509: RGB (Region 1 of Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}; thick solid line;
3510: $N_{tot} = 261$ stars) and AGB (Region 2; thick dashed line; 43
3511: stars) stars of Leo~I. The thin solid line is the distribution
3512: of photometrically-selected RGB stars (from Region 1 of
3513: Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}; 823 stars). The location of the break
3514: radius, $R_b$, is denoted by the dotted vertical line at $R =
3515: 400$ arcsec. {\it Right Panel:} The cumulative radial
3516: distributions of photometrically-selected RGB (Region 1; thick
3517: solid line; 823 stars), AGB (Region 2; thick dashed line; 90
3518: stars), and blue-loop (Region 4; dot-dashed line; 48 stars) stars
3519: identified in the Leo~I CMD (Figure~\ref{figs:cmd2}). Some idea
3520: of the completeness of our counts is given by the cumulative
3521: radial distribution of photometric non-members (Region 3; thin
3522: solid line; 77 stars). This is compared to the parabola $f =
3523: N(<R)/N_{tot} = (R/R_{max})^2$ (thin, long-dashed line) expected
3524: of a constant surface density contaminating population. The good
3525: fit suggests we are counting stars to fairly uniform completeness
3526: at all radii in Leo~I. The break radius at $R = 400$ arcsec is
3527: denoted as the dotted vertical line.}
3528: \end{center}
3529: \end{figure}
3530:
3531: \clearpage
3532:
3533: \begin{figure}
3534: \begin{center}
3535: % /n/Koolwhip3/mmateo/eagle/leoi/MMT/leoipaper/plotrtidal.ps
3536: \plotone{f25.eps}
3537: \caption{\label{figs:tidalperi} The instantaneous tidal radius
3538: ($R_{tidal}$) of Leo~I as a function of perigalactic distance for
3539: a range of assumed total masses (see Table 8 for more details of
3540: the orbits). The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the
3541: observed break radius ($R_b \sim 400$ arcsec $ \sim 500$ pc) at
3542: which the internal kinematics of Leo~I begin to change from
3543: possible isotropy (interior to this radius) to streaming
3544: (exterior). A representative orbit is shown in
3545: Figure~\ref{figs:leoiorbit}.}
3546: \end{center}
3547: \end{figure}
3548:
3549: \clearpage
3550:
3551: \begin{figure}
3552: \begin{center}
3553: % /n/Koolwhip4/mmateo/MMT/hectochelle/Apr06/reduce/plotvelhist.ps
3554: \plotone{f26.eps}
3555: \caption{\label{figs:velhist} The velocity histogram of Leo~I
3556: members. Each star is represented here as a normalized Gaussian
3557: centered at the star's heliocentric velocity and with $\sigma$
3558: equal to the observed 1-$\sigma$ errors listed in Table~5. The
3559: function $\Psi$ plotted here is the sum of the individual
3560: Gaussians sampled every 0.4 km/s. The vertical dashed line shows
3561: the mean heliocentric velocity of Leo~I (282.9 km/s; Section
3562: 4.3.1). The skew of this distribution is $0.08 \pm 0.14$ and the
3563: kurtosis is $-0.34 \pm 0.27$ (for $N = 328$), both consistent
3564: with a Gaussian distribution. The dashed histogram is for stars
3565: from our kinematic sample selected from the regions on the sky
3566: observed by S07 (138 stars). We see no significant skew ($0.10
3567: \pm 0.21$), kurtosis ($-0.23 \pm 0.41$), or velocity shift
3568: ($\langle v\rangle = 283.7 \pm 0.7$\ km/s) for this subsample.
3569: These histograms are for heliocentric velocities, but, apart from
3570: a shift by $\sim -108$ km/s, they would be essentially identical
3571: had we used Galactostationary velocities.}
3572: \end{center}
3573: \end{figure}
3574:
3575:
3576: \end{document}
3577:
3578:
3579:
3580: