1: %19/06/07: Barbara
2: %14/06/07: Barbara
3: %13/06 RTR + comments from bl & frf
4: %12/06/07: RTR
5: %08/06/07: Barbara
6: %-------------------------------------------------------
7: % modulo di distanza: \mu=13.82 (F99) ==> dist=5.81 Kpc
8: % best-fit mono-mass King core radius: 114 arcsec
9: % ==> core radius in pc: 3.21 pc
10: %-------------------------------------------------------
11: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
12: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
13: %\documentstyle[emulateapj,apjfonts,epsf,versioncopy]{article}
14: \newcommand{\gras}[1]{\mbox{\boldmath $#1$}}
15: \def\etal{{et al.~}}
16: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
17: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
18: \def\lsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
19: \def\gsim{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
20: \def\lapp{\ifmmode\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}\else$\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}$\fi}
21: \def\gapp{\ifmmode\stackrel{>}{_{\sim}}\else$\stackrel{<}{_{\sim}}$\fi}
22:
23: \newdimen\minuswidth %define @ width of minus sign for tables
24: \setbox0=\hbox{$-$}
25: \minuswidth=\wd0
26: \catcode`@=\active
27: \def@{\kern\minuswidth}
28: %\newdimen\digitwidth %define ! a one digit width for tables
29: \setbox0=\hbox{\rm0}
30: %\digitwidth=\wd0
31: %\catcode`!=\active
32: %\def!{\kern\digitwidth}
33:
34: \shorttitle{Blue Stragglers in M55}
35: \shortauthors{Lanzoni et al.}
36:
37: \begin{document}
38:
39: \title{The surprising external upturn of the Blue Straggler radial
40: distribution in M55\altaffilmark{1}}
41:
42: \author{
43: %
44: B. Lanzoni\altaffilmark{2},
45: %
46: E. Dalessandro\altaffilmark{2,3},
47: %
48: S. Perina\altaffilmark{2,4},
49: %
50: F.R. Ferraro\altaffilmark{2},
51: %
52: R.T. Rood\altaffilmark{5},
53: %
54: A. Sollima\altaffilmark{2}
55: }
56: %
57: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations with the NASA/ESA {\it HST}, obtained at the
58: Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by AURA, Inc., under
59: NASA contract NAS5-26555. Also based on WFI observations collected
60: at the European Southern Observatory, La Silla, Chile.}
61: %
62: \altaffiltext{2}{Dipartimento di Astronomia, Universit\`a degli Studi
63: di Bologna, I--40127 Bologna, Italy}
64: %
65: \altaffiltext{3}{Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, Centro di Geodesia
66: Spaziale, I--75100 Matera, Italy}
67: %
68: \altaffiltext{4}{INAF--Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, I--40127
69: Bologna, Italy}
70: %
71: \altaffiltext{5}{Astronomy Department, University of Virginia,
72: P.O. Box 400325, Charlottesville, VA, 22904}
73: %
74: \date{ApJ accepted, 8 August, 07}
75:
76:
77: \begin{abstract}
78: By combining high-resolution {\it HST} and wide-field ground based
79: observations, in ultraviolet and optical bands, we study the Blue Straggler
80: Star (BSS) population of the low density galactic globular cluster M55
81: (NGC~6809) over its entire radial extent. The BSS projected radial distribution is
82: found to be bimodal, with a central peak, a broad minimum at intermediate
83: radii, and an upturn at large radii. Similar bimodal distributions have been
84: found in other globular clusters (M3, 47~Tucanae, NGC~6752, M5), but the
85: external upturn in M55 is the largest found to date. This might indicate a
86: large fraction of primordial binaries in the outer regions of M55, which
87: seems somehow in contrast with the relatively low ($\sim 10\%$) binary
88: fraction recently measured in the core of this cluster.
89: \end{abstract}
90:
91: \keywords{Globular clusters: individual (M55); stars: evolution -- binaries:
92: general - blue stragglers}
93:
94: \section{INTRODUCTION}
95: Blue straggler stars (BSS) are objects that the single mass stellar evolution
96: theory is unable to explain. In the color-magnitude diagrams (CMDs) of
97: evolved stellar populations, like globular clusters (GCs), they lie along an
98: extension of the Main Sequence (MS), in a region which is brighter and bluer
99: than the Turn-Off (TO), where no stars are expected to be found. Their
100: position in the CMD indicates that BSS are rejuvenated stars, with masses
101: larger than the normal cluster stars \citep[this is also confirmed by direct
102: mass measurements; e.g.][]{sha97}. Thus, they are thought to have increased
103: their initial mass during their evolution, and two main scenarios have been
104: proposed for their formation: the {\it collisional scenario} \citep{colbss}
105: suggests that BSS are the end-products of stellar mergers induced by
106: collisions (COL-BSS), while in the \emph{mass-transfer} \citep{mtbss1,
107: mtbss2} scenario BSS form by the mass-transfer activity between two
108: companions in a binary system (MT-BSS), possibly up to the complete
109: coalescence of the two stars. Hence, understanding the origin of BSS in
110: stellar clusters provides valuable insight both on the binary evolution
111: processes, and on the effects of dynamical interactions on the (otherwise
112: normal) stellar evolution.
113:
114: The two formation mechanisms are likely to be at work
115: simultaneously in every GC \citep[see the case of M3 as an
116: example;][1997]{fe93}, with a relative efficiency that probably
117: depends on the local density \citep{fp92, fe99a, bel02, fe03}. In
118: fact, since stellar collisions are most probable in high-density
119: environments, COL-BSS are expected to be formed preferentially in
120: the cluster cores, while MT-BSS can populate both the centre and the
121: peripheries. Primordial binaries can in fact sink to the core due to
122: dynamical friction and mass segregation processes, and ``new''
123: binaries can be formed in the cluster centers by gravitational
124: encounters. To be completely clear with our terminology, a
125: primordial binary which has sunk to the cluster center and is then
126: driven to merge by stellar interactions (rather than by evolution of
127: the more massive member of the binary or by magnetic braking as in
128: the case of W Uma systems) is classified as a COL-BSS. Of course,
129: in the case of a low-density cluster a fraction of primordial
130: binaries evolving in isolation (hence classified as MT-BSS in our
131: terminology) can well be present even in the cluster center.
132:
133: One possibility for distinguishing between the two types of BSS is offered by
134: high-resolution spectroscopic studies. In fact, anomalous chemical abundances
135: are expected at the surface of BSS resulting from MT activity
136: \citep{sarna96}, while they are not predicted in case of a collisional
137: formation \citep{lomb95}. Such studies have just become feasible, and the
138: results found in the case of 47~Tucanae \citep[47~Tuc;][]{COdep} are
139: encouraging.
140: %
141: The detection of unexpected properties of stars along standard evolutionary
142: sequences (e.g., variability, anomalous population fractions, peculiar radial
143: distributions, or a secondary MS) can help to estimate the fraction of
144: binaries within a cluster \citep[see, e.g.,][]{bail94, albr01, bel02, bec06b,
145: sollima07}, but such evidence does not directly allow the determination of
146: the relative efficiency of the two BSS formation processes.
147: %
148: Instead, the observational study of the BSS radial distribution within the
149: host clusters, complemented with suitable dynamical simulations, has proved
150: to be a more widely applicable and powerful tool \citep[see][for a
151: review]{fe06}. Observations have shown that BSS are generally highly
152: concentrated in the cluster cores, and in some cases, specifically in M3
153: \citep{fe97}, 47~Tuc \citep{fe04}, NGC~6752 \citep{sab04}, and M5 \citep{w06,
154: lan07a}, their projected radial distribution is bimodal, i.e., their fraction with
155: respect to the normal cluster populations (like horizontal branch or red
156: giant branch stars) decreases to a minimum, and then rises again to larger
157: values for increasing radii. Dynamical simulations suggest that the external
158: rising branch cannot be due to COL-BSS generated in the core and kicked out
159: by dynamical interactions \citep{ma04}. Instead, the bimodality of the radial
160: distribution can be explained \citep[Mapelli et al. 2004, 2006;][]{lan07a} by
161: assuming that a non-negligible fraction ($\gsim 20\%-40\%$) of the BSS
162: population is made of MT-BSS (responsible for the external rising branch),
163: with the balance being COL-BSS (mainly contributing to the central peak).
164: The atypical case of $\omega~$Centauri \citep[where the BSS radial
165: distribution has been found to be flat;][]{fe06b} can be explained if
166: the mass segregation processes have not yet played a major role in this
167: system, thus implying that it is populated by a vast majority of MT-BSS
168: \citep{ma06}. These results demonstrate that detailed studies of the BSS
169: radial distribution within GCs are powerful tools for better understanding
170: the complex interplay between dynamics and stellar evolution in dense stellar
171: systems. Extending this kind of investigation to a larger sample of GCs,
172: with different structural and dynamical characteristics, is crucial for
173: identifying the cluster properties that mainly affect the BSS formation
174: mechanisms and their relative efficiency.
175:
176: The present paper is devoted to the study of the BSS projected radial distribution in
177: M55 (NGC~6809). Previous works have suggested that BSS in this cluster are
178: more centrally concentrated than MS and sub-giant branch (SGB) stars
179: \citep[Mandushev et al. 1997;][hereafter Z97]{zag97}, and that the BSS radial
180: distribution is bimodal (Z97). These studies, however, were based only on
181: partial coverage of the cluster area, while the wide-field observations used
182: in this paper cover almost all of the entire cluster extension. In addition,
183: we have sampled the core region with {\it HST} high-resolution observations
184: both in the ultraviolet and in the optical bands, thus getting a more
185: reliable and efficient detection of the BSS and of the normal cluster
186: populations. In the following we present the observational data sets and the
187: results obtained. We postpone to a forthcoming paper the theoretical
188: interpretation of the BSS radial distribution by means of dynamical
189: simulations, and a detailed comparison with all the other GCs studied with
190: the same technique.
191:
192: \section{OBSERVATIONS AND DATA ANALYSIS}
193: \subsection{The Data Sets}
194: The present study is based on a combination of two different photometric data
195: sets:
196:
197: \emph{1. The high-resolution set} -- It consists of a series of {\it
198: HST}-WFPC2 images of the cluster center (Prop. 10524, P.I. Ferraro), obtained
199: through filter F255W (medium UV, for a total exposure time $t_{exp}=2000$ s)
200: and F336W (approximately corresponding to an $U$ filter, with $t_{exp}=1600$
201: s). To efficiently resolve the stars in the highly crowded central regions,
202: the Planetary Camera has been pointed approximately on the cluster
203: center, while the three Wide Field Cameras (WFC) have been used to sample the
204: surrounding regions. The photometric reduction of the images was carried out
205: using ROMAFOT \citep{buon83}, a package developed to perform accurate
206: photometry in crowded fields and specifically optimized to handle
207: under-sampled point spread functions \citep[PSFs;][]{buon89}, as in the case
208: of the WFC chips.
209: %
210: Additional {\it HST} images of the cluster center, obtained with the ACS-Wide
211: Field Channel (Prop. 10775, P.I. Sarajedini) have been retrieved from the
212: ESO-STECF Science Archive. Only the short exposures (10 sec each) in filters
213: F606W ($V$) and F814W ($I$) have been used in the present work. The adopted
214: data reduction procedure is described in detail in \citet{sollima07}. The
215: map of the ACS data set is shown in Figure \ref{fig:HST}, together with the
216: WFPC2 and ACS fields of view (FoVs).
217:
218: \emph{2. The wide-field set} - A complementary set of public wide-field $B$
219: and $V$ images obtained with the Wide Field Imager (WFI) at the 2.2m ESO-MPI
220: telescope was retrieved from the ESO Science Archive. Thanks to the wide
221: ($34\arcmin\times 34\arcmin$) FoV of WFI,
222: these data almost cover the entire cluster extension (see Fig.
223: \ref{fig:WFI}, where the cluster is roughly centered on CCD $\# 7$).
224: %
225: The raw WFI images were corrected for bias and flat field, and the overscan
226: regions were trimmed using IRAF\footnote{IRAF is distributed by the National
227: Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
228: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under cooperative agreement
229: with the National Science Foundation.} tools. The PSF fitting procedure was
230: then performed independently on each image using DoPhot \citep{dophot}.
231:
232: \subsection{Astrometry and Photometric Calibration}
233: %
234: The {\it HST} and WFI catalogs have been placed on the absolute astrometric
235: system by adopting the procedure described in \citet[][2003]{fe01}. The new
236: astrometric Guide Star Catalog (GSC-II\footnote{Available at {\tt
237: http://www-gsss.stsci.edu/Catalogs/GSC/GSC2/GSC2.htm}.}) was used to search
238: for astrometric standard stars in the WFI FoV, and a specific
239: cross-correlation tool has been employed to obtain an astrometric solution
240: for each of the 8 CCDs. Several hundred GSC-II reference stars were found in
241: each chip, thus allowing an accurate absolute positioning. Then, a few
242: hundred stars in common between the WFI and the {\it HST} FoVs have been used
243: as secondary standards to place the {\it HST} catalogs on the same absolute
244: astrometric system. At the end of the procedure the global uncertainties in
245: the astrometric solution are of the order of $\sim 0\farcs 2$, both in right
246: ascension ($\alpha$) and declination ($\delta$).
247:
248: The photometric calibration of the optical ($B$ and $V$) magnitudes has been
249: performed by using the Stetson Photometric Standard
250: catalog\footnote{Available at {\tt
251: http://www1.cadc-ccda.hia-iha.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/community/STETSON/standards/}.}.
252: After cross correlating the WFI and Stetson catalogs, we have used the stars
253: in common for the calibration of the WFI $B$ and $V$ magnitudes. Then, the
254: ACS $V$ magnitudes have been converted to the WFI system by using the stars
255: in common. Since the Stetson standard field does not overlap with the ACS
256: FoV, the calibration of the ACS $I$ magnitudes has been performed by using
257: the stars in common with the catalog of \citet{desidera}, after converting
258: the latter to the Stetson photometric system. Finally, the WFPC2 $m_{255}$
259: and $U$ magnitudes have been calibrated to the \citet{holtz95} zero-points.
260: The resulting CMDs, both in the UV and optical bands, are shown in Figures
261: \ref{fig:uvCMD} and \ref{fig:optCMD}, respectively.
262:
263: Unless otherwise specified, in the following analysis we adopt the combined
264: {\it HST} catalog (ACS and WFPC2 data) for the cluster central regions (see
265: Fig. \ref{fig:HST}), and the complementary WFI sample for the external parts
266: (see Fig. \ref{fig:WFI}).
267:
268: \subsection{Center of Gravity, and Density Profile}
269: \label{sec:prof}
270: Given the absolute positions and the magnitudes of individual stars, the
271: center of gravity $C_{\rm grav}$ has been determined by averaging the
272: coordinates $\alpha$ and $\delta$ of all stars brighter than $V = 19$ lying
273: in the FoV of WFI CCD $\# 7$. We have chosen to use the WFI (instead of the
274: {\it HST}) data, because in such a loose cluster the FoV of the WFPC2
275: planetary camera is too small to provide an adequately large sample for the
276: accurate determination of the center of gravity, while the ACS FoV is crossed
277: by the gap between the two chips. Following the iterative procedure
278: described in \citet{mont95}, we have determined $C_{\rm grav}$ to be
279: $\alpha({\rm J2000}) = 19^{\rm h}\, 39^{\rm m}\, 59\fs 54$, $\delta ({\rm
280: J2000})= -30^{\rm o}\, 57\arcmin\, 45\farcs 14$, with a 1$\sigma$ uncertainty
281: of $0\farcs 5$ in both $\alpha$ and $\delta$. This value of $C_{\rm grav}$
282: is located $\sim 2\arcsec$ south-east ($\Delta\alpha = 2\farcs 1$,
283: $\Delta\delta=-1\farcs 1$) from that previously derived by \citet{har96} on
284: the basis of the surface brightness distribution.
285:
286: By exploiting the optimal combination of high-resolution and wide-field
287: sampling provided by our observations, we have determined the projected
288: density profile by direct star counts over the entire cluster radial extent,
289: from $C_{\rm grav}$ out to $\sim 1400\arcsec\sim23\arcmin$. To avoid biases
290: due to incompleteness, we have considered only stars brighter than $V= 19$
291: from the ACS and the complementary WFI catalogs (see Fig. \ref{fig:optCMD}).
292: The brightest red giant branch (RGB) stars that are strongly saturated in the
293: ACS data set have been excluded from the analysis, but since they are few in
294: number and the ACS pixel scale is only of $0.05\arcsec/pixel$, the effect on
295: the resulting density profile is negligible. Following the procedure
296: described in \citet[][2004]{fe99a}, we have divided the entire {\it HST}+WFI
297: sample in 26 concentric annuli, each centered on $C_{\rm grav}$ and split in
298: an adequate number of sub-sectors. The number of stars lying within each
299: sub-sector was counted, and the star density was obtained by dividing these
300: values by the corresponding sub-sector areas. The stellar density in each
301: annulus was then obtained as the average of the sub-sector densities, and its
302: standard deviation was estimated from the variance among the sub-sectors.
303: %
304: The radial density profile thus derived is shown in Figure \ref{fig:prof},
305: and the average of the three outermost ($r\gsim 17\arcmin$) measures has been
306: used to estimate the background contribution (corresponding to $\sim 3$ stars
307: arcmin$^{-2}$). Figure \ref{fig:prof} also shows the best-fit mono-mass King
308: model and the corresponding values of the core radius and concentration:
309: $r_c=114\arcsec$ (with a typical error of $\sim \pm 2\arcsec$) and $c=1$,
310: respectively. These values are in agreement with those quoted by
311: \citet[][$r_c=126\farcs 4$ and $c=0.93$]{mcL05}, and by \citet[][$r_c\sim
312: 120\arcsec$ and $c\sim 1$]{irwtrim84}. Concentration parameters as low as
313: $\sim 0.8$ \citep[as quoted, e.g., by][Z97] {har96} provide significantly
314: worse fits to the observed profile. The difference with respect to (Z97, who
315: also computed the surface density profile by direct star counts) is probably
316: due to the fact that their ground-based observations are saturated at $V\lsim
317: 14$, and have a pixel scale much larger than that of ACS, so they have lost a
318: number of faint stars in the central regions of the cluster. Assuming the
319: distance modulus $(m-M)_0=13.82$ \citep[$d\sim 5.8$ Kpc,][]{fe99b}, our value
320: of $r_c$ corresponds to $\sim 3.2$ pc. These values can then be used to
321: redetermine the other structure parameters of the cluster. By assuming
322: $\mu_0=19.13$ mag/arcsec$^2$ as the central surface brightness \citep{har96},
323: and $E(B-V)=0.07$ as reddening \citep{fe99b}, we estimate that the
324: extinction-corrected central surface brightness of the cluster is
325: $\mu_{V,0}(0)\simeq 18.91$ mag/arcsec$^2$. Following the procedure described
326: in \citet[][see also Beccari et al. 2006a]{djorg93}, we derive $\log\nu_0
327: \simeq 2.23$, where $\nu_0$ is the central luminosity density in units of
328: $L_\odot\,{\rm pc}^{-3}$. By assuming a mass-to-light ratio $M/L_V=3$, the
329: derived central mass density measured in $M_\odot/$pc$^3$ is
330: $\log\rho_0=2.7$, which is a factor $\sim 1.6$ higher than that quoted by
331: \citet{pry93}. This value corresponds to $n_0\simeq 1000$ stars pc$^{-3}$ if
332: a mean stellar mass of $0.5\,M_\odot$ is assumed.
333:
334:
335: \section{CLUSTER POPULATION SELECTION}
336: \label{sec:samples}
337:
338: \subsection{The BSS Population}
339: At UV wavelengths BSS are among the brightest objects in a GC, and RGB stars
340: are particularly faint. By combining these advantages with the
341: high-resolution capability of {\it HST}, the usual problems associated with
342: photometric blends and stellar crowding
343: %in the high density central regions of GCs
344: are minimized, and BSS can be most reliably recognized and separated from the
345: other populations in the UV CMDs \citep[see also][]{fe04}.
346: %
347: For these reasons our primary criterion for the definition of the BSS sample
348: is based on the position of stars in the ($m_{255},~m_{255}-U$) plane. In
349: order to avoid incompleteness bias and to limit the possible contamination
350: from TO and SGB stars, we have chosen a limiting magnitude of $m_{255}=18.5$
351: (roughly 1 magnitude brighter than the cluster TO). The adopted selection box
352: and the resulting 12 BSS identified in the UV plane are shown in Figure
353: \ref{fig:uvCMD}.
354: %
355: Once selected in the UV CMD, the BSS lying in the field in common with the
356: ACS sample have been used to define the selection box and the limiting
357: magnitude in the ($V,~V-I$) plane. The latter is $V\simeq
358: 17.5$, and the adopted selection box is shown in the left-hand panel of
359: Figure \ref{fig:optCMD}. One of the BSS candidates (that lies close to the
360: reddest edge of the box) has been rejected from the sample on the basis of
361: its position in the UV plane, where it is $\sim 0.2$ magnitudes fainter than
362: the adopted $m_{255}$ limit and has a color of $m_{255}-U = 1$, thus clearly
363: belonging to the SGB star population. A total of 24 BSS have been identified
364: within the ACS selection box, of which 11 are in common with the WFPC2
365: sample.
366: %
367: Finally, in order to select the BSS population in the complementary
368: WFI data set, we have adopted the same $V$ magnitude limits as for the
369: ACS sample. Since field star contamination is critical in M55,
370: particularly in the external regions of the cluster, the definition of
371: the $B-V$ color edges of the selection box has required a detailed
372: study of the color-magnitude distribution of field stars. To do this,
373: we have exploited both the outermost portion of the WFI observations
374: (beyond the tidal radius), and the Galaxy model of \citet{robin03} in
375: the direction of the cluster. In order to limit both the risk of
376: field star and SGB blend contamination, we pick $B-V\simeq 0.41$ as a
377: conservative value for the red-edge of the BSS selection box. As blue
378: limit, we have chosen $B-V\simeq 0.08$. The adopted selection box in
379: the ($V,~B-V$) plane is shown in the right-hand panel of Figure
380: \ref{fig:optCMD}, and the number of enclosed BSS is 38.
381:
382: Since M55 is known to harbor a large population of SX Phoenicis (SX Phe)
383: variables in the BSS region \citep{pych01}, we have cross-correlated the SX
384: Phe catalog with our data set. All of the 24 SX Phe identified by
385: \citet{pych01} are contained in our sample (see {\it triangles} in
386: Figs. \ref{fig:uvCMD} and \ref{fig:optCMD}), and all but two lie within our
387: BSS selection boxes. The two outliers (V21 and V26 in their catalog) are
388: indeed only slightly redder than the adopted limits, and most likely are
389: genuine BSS \citep [in fact, BSS frequently show the pulsating properties of
390: SX Phe stars; see, e.g.,][]{mateo96}. Thus, they have been also included in
391: our BSS sample.
392: %
393: The SX~Phe population of M55 is truly remarkable, second only to the always
394: weird $\omega$ Centauri \citep{kalu04}. Considering that we have identified
395: 56 BSS within the FoV in common with \citet{pych01} and that 24 of them are SX Phe
396: variables, we see that almost half ($43\%$) of the BSS in M55 are
397: pulsating.
398:
399: The coordinates and magnitudes of all the selected BSS (65) are listed in
400: Table \ref{tab:BSS}, and their projected spatial distribution is shown in
401: Figures \ref{fig:HST} and \ref{fig:WFI}. Two candidate BSS (namely, BSS 64
402: and 65 in Table \ref{tab:BSS}) lie at $r>r_t$. Since Z97 suggest that there
403: is tidal distortion in the north-east direction, these BSS could be part of a
404: cluster tidal tail. However, our observations do not indicate any significant
405: distortion in the cluster stellar distribution (although a more extended
406: mapping of the surrounding regions might be needed), and we therefore
407: conclude that they probably are field stars. Thus, they are not encircled in
408: the right-hand panel of Figure \ref{fig:optCMD}, and have not been considered
409: in the following analysis.
410:
411: No quantitative comparison between our selected BSS population and that
412: presented in Z97 is possible, since they provide neither selection criteria
413: nor the coordinates of the identified BSS. Within the FoV (the inner
414: $4\arcmin\times 4\arcmin$) in common with \citet{mandu97}, we find 33 BSS;
415: for comparison, by using the published BSS magnitudes, we have verified that
416: 30 of their stars are included in our BSS selection boxes, thus showing a
417: very good agreement between the two studies. The remaining 44 BSS identified
418: by these authors are fainter and/or redder than the limits adopted in the
419: present work.
420:
421: \section{The Reference Populations}
422: To study the BSS projected radial distribution and detect possible peculiarities, a
423: reference population which is representative of the normal cluster stars must
424: be properly defined. For this purpose we have chosen the horizontal branch
425: (HB) and the RGB populations, both of which are expected to have a
426: non-peculiar radial distribution within the cluster.
427:
428: The adopted HB selection boxes in the optical CMDs are shown in Figure
429: \ref{fig:optCMD}, and are designed to include the bulk of this population.
430: The box in the UV plane defined by the stars in common between the ACS and
431: the WFPC2 samples is shown in Figure \ref{fig:uvCMD}, and confirms the
432: suitability of the adopted selection. By cross-correlating the coordinates of our
433: catalog with
434: the catalog of RR Lyrae variables detected by \citet{olech99} we have
435: identified 10 stars ({\it filled squares} in Fig. \ref{fig:optCMD}) out of a
436: total of 13, the remaining three falling in the gaps of the WFI chips. The
437: few RR Lyrae that lie outside the selection boxes have been also included in
438: our HB sample. Thus, the total number of
439: selected HB stars is 237 (78 in the ACS data set, and 159 in the WFI sample)
440: \footnote{Only one object lying in the HB box has been excluded because
441: it is located at $r>r_t$}
442:
443: In selecting the RGB sample, we have considered only the magnitude range
444: $15.8\le V\le 17.5$ (the same adopted for the BSS), since the brightest RGB
445: stars are saturated in the ACS observations. We have drawn narrow selection
446: boxes around the RGB mean ridge line in the CMDs, in order to limit the
447: contamination by field stars. The adopted boxes are shown in Figure
448: \ref{fig:optCMD}, and the resulting number of RGB stars found at $r\le r_t$
449: is 1504.
450:
451: \subsection{Field Contamination}
452: \label{sec:deco}
453: As apparent from the right-hand panel of Figure \ref{fig:optCMD}, field star
454: contamination is a critical issue in the study of M55, particularly for the
455: cluster outer regions. In order to estimate the impact of the field
456: contamination on the cluster population selections, we have considered the
457: CMD in the outermost ($r>r_t$) portion of the WFI data set. By considering
458: that the sampled area is of $\sim 252\,{\rm arcmin}^2$, counts of stars
459: within the adopted BSS, HB, and RGB selection boxes yield the number
460: densities of field stars contaminating the selected cluster populations. As a
461: further check, we have performed the same analysis on the synthetic data
462: Galaxy model of \citet{robin03} in the $B$ and $V$ bands, considering a much
463: larger area (1 square degree) in the direction of M55. The number densities
464: derived from the two methods agree within a factor of $\sim 2$--3, and we
465: have finally adopted densities obtained from the Galaxy model, because of the
466: much larger sampled area. The estimated contamination is roughly 8, 4, and
467: 550 field stars per square degree for the selected populations of BSS, HB,
468: and RGB stars, respectively. By using the $V$ and $I$ data of the synthetic
469: Galaxy model, we have verified that the same values are also appropriate for
470: decontaminating the cluster populations in the inner $202\arcsec\times
471: 202\arcsec$ (the ACS FoV) of our sample, where the selection has been
472: performed in these photometric bands. The quoted values have been adopted in
473: the following analysis to statistically decontaminate the star counts.
474:
475:
476: \section{THE BSS PROJECTED RADIAL DISTRIBUTION}
477: \label{sec:radist}
478: As for other clusters studied in a similar way \citep[see references
479: in][]{lan07b}, we have searched for possible peculiarities in the BSS radial
480: distribution by comparing it with that of HB and RGB stars, that are expected
481: to be distributed as "normal" cluster stars.
482:
483: We have used the Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test to search for statistical
484: differences between the cumulative projected radial distributions of BSS and HB stars
485: (the comparison with the RGB population has not been performed because of the
486: non-negligible degree of field star contamination). As shown in Figure
487: \ref{fig:KS}, BSS appear to be more concentrated than normal cluster stars
488: within $\sim 300\arcsec$ from the center, and less concentrated outward. The
489: statistical significance of this result, however, is rather poor: the overall
490: KS probability that BSS and HB stars are not extracted from the same parent
491: population is $\sim 0.90$ (corresponding to $\sim 1.6\,\sigma$ significance
492: level). If the analysis is restricted to the inner $300\arcsec$, BSS are more
493: concentrated than HB stars at $\sim 1.9\,\sigma$ level. For $r>300\arcsec$,
494: where less than 20\% of the total BSS and HB populations are located, the BSS
495: are less concentrated at the $3\,\sigma$. A similar trend, with a similar
496: statistical significance, was also found by Z97, who, however, performed the
497: comparison with the RGB population.
498:
499: For a more quantitative analysis, the surveyed area has been divided into 5
500: concentric annuli (see Figs. \ref{fig:HST} and \ref{fig:WFI}), and the number
501: of BSS, HB, and RGB stars ($N_{\rm BSS}$, $N_{\rm HB}$, and $N_{\rm RGB}$,
502: respectively) within each annulus has been counted. The resulting number
503: counts have then been corrected for field contamination by taking into
504: account the fraction of annulus area effectively sampled by our observations,
505: and the estimated density of contaminating field stars for each population
506: (see previous section). The values thus obtained are listed in Table
507: \ref{tab:annuli} and have been used to compute the specific frequencies
508: $N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm HB}$, $N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm RGB}$, and $N_{\rm HB}/N_{\rm
509: RGB}$. Since the number of stars in any post-MS stage is proportional to the
510: duration of the evolutionary phase itself \citep{renbuz86}, the specific
511: frequencies $N_{\rm HB}/N_{\rm RGB}$ is expected to be constant and equal to
512: the ratio between the evolutionary time scales of the HB phase and of the RGB
513: portion in the magnitude range $15.8\le V\le 17.5$, where the stars have been
514: counted. In order to verify this, we have used the BASTi\footnote{Available
515: at {\tt http://www.te.astro.it/BASTI/index.php}} evolutionary model library
516: \citep[][and reference therein]{pietri06}, selecting the $\alpha-$enhanced
517: low-temperature opacities tracks computed for metallicities $\rm
518: [Fe/H]=-1.84$ and $\rm [M/H]=-1.49$ (the closest to the observed values $\rm
519: [Fe/H]=-1.61$ and $\rm [M/H]=-1.41$; Ferraro et al. 1999b). From these models
520: we have estimated that the time spent by a 0.8\,$M_\odot$ star along the RGB
521: sequence in the range $15.8\le V\le 17.5$ is $t_{\rm RGB}\sim 0.6$ Gyr, while
522: the duration of the HB phase for a 0.63 $M_\odot$ is $t_{\rm HB}\sim 0.09$
523: Gyr; thus, $t_{\rm HB}/t_{\rm RGB}\simeq 0.15$, in good agreement with the
524: observed value of the $N_{\rm HB}/N_{\rm RGB}$ ratio (see the {\it dotted
525: line} in the lower panel of Figure \ref{fig:Npop}). A very similar result is
526: also found by using the theoretical stellar tracks of the Pisa Evolutionary
527: Library\footnote{Available at {\tt http://astro.df.unipi.it/SAA/PEL/Z0.html}}
528: \citep[see references in] []{cariu04}, and it ensures that the selected (and
529: decontaminated) HB and RGB populations are indeed representative of the
530: normal cluster stars. As for the BSS, the specific frequency $N_{\rm
531: BSS}/N_{\rm HB}$ shows a completely different projected radial distribution, with a
532: clearly bimodal behavior: from a central value of $\sim 0.4$, the BSS
533: specific frequency decreases to a minimum at about $4\, r_c$, and rises again
534: at larger radii. A very similar trend (with the central peak at $\sim 0.07$)
535: is also found for $N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm RGB}$, in agreement with Z97.
536:
537: By integrating the density profile from the best-fit King model (see
538: Sect.\ref{sec:prof}), and assuming the values of central surface brightness,
539: reddening and distance modulus quoted in Sect. \ref{sec:prof}, we have also
540: computed the luminosity sampled in each annulus ($L^{\rm samp}$), and the
541: total sampled luminosity ($L^{\rm samp}_{\rm tot}$) taking into account the
542: incomplete spatial coverage of the most external annulus (see
543: Fig. \ref{fig:WFI}). The resulting ratios between these two quantities in
544: each annulus are listed in Table \ref{tab:annuli}, and have been used to
545: compute the double normalized ratio \citep[see][]{fe93}:
546: \begin{equation}
547: R_{\rm pop}=\frac{(N_{\rm pop}/N_{\rm pop}^{\rm tot})}{(L^{\rm samp}/L_{\rm
548: tot}^{\rm samp})},
549: \label{eq:spec_freq}
550: \end{equation}
551: where ${\rm pop} =$ BSS, HB, RGB.
552:
553: The radial trend of $R_{\rm HB}$ (as well as that of $R_{\rm RGB}$) is
554: essentially constant, with a value close to unity (see Fig.
555: \ref{fig:Rpop}). This is just what expected on the basis of the stellar
556: evolution theory, which predicts that the fraction of stars in any post-MS
557: evolutionary stage is strictly proportional to the fraction of the sampled
558: luminosity \citep{renfusi88}. Conversely,
559: %BSS follow a completely different radial distribution. As shown in Figure
560: %\ref{fig:Rpop} the specific frequency
561: the trend of $R_{\rm BSS}$ is bimodal and indicates that, with respect to the
562: sampled luminosity, the fraction of BSS is higher in the central regions and
563: (particularly) in the cluster outskirts, and smaller at intermediate radii,
564: with respect to the fraction of normal cluster stars
565:
566:
567: \section{DISCUSSION}
568: \label{sec:discussion}
569: We have found that the BSS projected radial distribution in M55 is bimodal, i.e.,
570: peaked in the center, decreasing at intermediate radii, and rising again in
571: the exterior. This is in agreement with the findings of Z97 from the analysis
572: of a much smaller fraction of the cluster, and puts their result on much more
573: solid statistical basis.
574:
575: Such a bimodality is similar to that found in M3 \citep{fe97}, 47~Tuc
576: \citep{fe04}, NGC~6752 \citep{sab04}, and M5 \citep{w06,lan07a}. As in those
577: GCs, also in M55 the position of the observed minimum approximately
578: corresponds to the radius of avoidance $r_{\rm avoid}$ of the system, i.e.,
579: the radius within which all the stars as massive as $1.2\,M_\odot$ (which is
580: assumed to be the typical BSS mass) are expected to have already sunk to the
581: core due to dynamical friction and mass segregation processes. In fact, by
582: using the dynamical friction timescale formula \citep[from, e.g.,][]{ma06}
583: with the best-fit King model and the central stellar density presented in
584: Sect. \ref{sec:prof}, and assuming $\sigma\simeq 4.9\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}$ as
585: the central velocity dispersion \citep{pry93}, and 12 Gyr as the cluster age,
586: we estimate that $r_{\rm avoid}\simeq 4.5\, r_c$, in reasonable agreement
587: with the position of the observed minimum.
588:
589: The BSS specific frequency in the center of M55 ($N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm
590: HB}\simeq 0.4$) is also similar to that measured in the other bimodal GCs
591: \citep[cfr. Fig.\ref{fig:Npop}, with Fig. 12 of][and see also Lanzoni et
592: al. 2007b]{lan07a}, where the central peak of the distribution is found to be
593: mainly generated by COL-BSS \citep[see also][]{ma06}. However, the central
594: density in M55 is much lower (by a factor of 100 or more), and stellar
595: collisions are expected to be less important in this system. Indeed, the
596: cluster central density is quite similar to that of NGC~288 (only a factor of
597: two higher), where most of the central BSS are thought to be MT-BSS
598: \citep{bel02}. A remarkable difference in the central value of $N_{\rm
599: BSS}/N_{\rm HB}$ in these two low density clusters is however apparent. In
600: fact, by considering only the brightest portion of the BSS population in
601: NGC~288, \citet{fe03} measured $N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm HB}\simeq 1$, which is the
602: highest BSS frequency ever found in a GC, together with that of M80
603: \citep{fe99a}, and is more than twice that of M55. What is the origin of
604: this difference? One possibility is a different primordial binary
605: fraction. However, \citet{sollima07} have recently estimated that the binary
606: fractions in the core of the two clusters are the same ($\sim 10\%$).
607: Another possibility is a substantial difference in the collision rate. By
608: using equation (14) from \citet{leon89}, we estimate that the central
609: binary-binary collision rate in M55 is only a factor of $\sim 2$ higher than
610: that in NGC~288. Moreover, the binary survival rate \citep[defined as the
611: ratio between the formation and destruction rates; see][]{verb03} is about
612: twice as high in M55 than in NGC~288. Thus, our results indicate that two
613: clusters with similar environments (and collision rates) and similar
614: primordial binary content can produce quite different central BSS
615: populations. Unfortunately, the BSS study in NGC~288 was restricted to two
616: WFPC2 frames, and an investigation covering the entire cluster extension is
617: urged in order to compare the global BSS population and its radial
618: distribution in the two systems.
619:
620: Compared to the other bimodal GCs, the external rising branch in M55 is much
621: more prominent. It is the largest upturn found to date ($N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm
622: HB}\simeq 0.8\pm 0.4$ compared to the previous maximum value of $\simeq
623: 0.25\pm 0.11$, found in 47~Tuc). This is even more surprising if we consider
624: that only 10\% of the total cluster light is contained between $r_{\rm
625: avoid}$ and $r_t$ in M55, while it amounts to 32\% in the case of 47~Tuc. As
626: discussed in \citet[][see also Lanzoni et al. 2007a]{ma06}, the external
627: rising branch is thought to be made of MT-BSS, generated in binary systems
628: evolving in isolation in the cluster outskirts \citep[this finding is also
629: confirmed by the recent N-body simulations of][]{hurley07}. Thus, such a
630: prominent upturn of the BSS distribution would imply a significantly higher
631: primordial binary fraction in M55, compared to the other GCs. This seems in
632: contrast with the results of \citet{sollima07}, who measured the binary
633: fractions in the core of 13 galactic GCs and found that M55 has one of the
634: lowest fractions ($\sim 10\%$), with respect to the others, which range up to
635: $\sim 50\%$ (in Terzan 7). However a better understanding of the evolution of
636: the binary fraction in the core, as a function of the cluster dynamical age,
637: is needed to better address this point. In fact, the theoretical expectations
638: for the time evolution of the core binary fraction are still controversial:
639: while \citet{ivanova05} suggest that such a fraction significantly decreases
640: in time, the opposite trend is found by \citet{hurley07}. Moreover, since a
641: careful investigation of the BSS radial distribution has not yet been
642: performed in any of the other remaining clusters studied by
643: \citet{sollima07}, a comprehensive comparison of the BSS population
644: properties in these systems is not yet possible.
645:
646: The nature of the central BSS and of those producing the external rising
647: branch in M55 is thus an open question. Appropriate dynamical simulations
648: and detailed spectroscopic studies \citep[see, e.g.,][]{COdep} are therefore
649: urged. We defer such studies to a forthcoming paper, where the results of
650: our entire sample of clusters will be compared and discussed.
651:
652: \acknowledgements
653: This research was supported by Agenzia Spaziale Italiana
654: under contract ASI-INAF I/023/05/0, by the Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica
655: under contract PRIN/INAF 2006, and by the Ministero dell'Istruzione,
656: dell'Universit\`a e della Ricerca. RTR is partially funded by NASA through
657: grant number GO-10524 from the Space Telescope Science Institute. ED is
658: supported by a grant financed by ASI. We also acknowledge J. Kaluzny for
659: having provided us with the information about the FoV used in \citet{pych01}
660: and \citet{olech99}. This research used the facilities of the Canadian
661: Astronomy Data Centre operated by the National Research Council of Canada
662: with the support of the Canadian Space Agency.
663:
664: \begin{thebibliography}{}
665:
666: \bibitem[Albrow et al.(2001)]{albr01} Albrow, M.~D., et al. \ 2001, \apj, 559,
667: 1060
668:
669: \bibitem[Bailyn (1994)]{bail94} Bailyn, C.~D.\ 1994, \aj, 107, 1073
670:
671: \bibitem[Beccari et al.(2006a)]{bec06a} Beccari, G., Ferraro, F.~R.,
672: Possenti, A., Valenti, E., Origlia, L., \& Rood, R.~T.\ 2006a, \aj, 131, 2551
673:
674: \bibitem[Beccari et al.(2006b)]{bec06b} Beccari, G., Ferraro, F.~R., Lanzoni,
675: B., \& Bellazzini, M., 2006b, \apj, 652, L121
676:
677: % \bibitem[Bedin et al.(2005)]{bed05} Bedin, L.~R., Cassisi, S., Castelli, F.,
678: % Piotto, G., Anderson, J., Salaris, M., Momany, Y., \& Pietrinferni, A.\ 2005,
679: % \mnras, 357, 1038
680:
681: \bibitem[Bellazzini et al.(2002)]{bel02} Bellazzini, M., Fusi
682: Pecci, F., Messineo, M., Monaco, L., \& Rood, R.~T.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 1509
683:
684: %\bibitem[Bertin \& Arnouts(1996)]{be96} Bertin, E., \&
685: %Arnouts, S.\ 1996, \aaps, 117, 393
686:
687: \bibitem[Buonanno et al. (1983)]{buon83} Buonanno, R., Buscema, G., Corsi,
688: C.~E., Ferraro, I., \& Iannicola, G.\ 1983, A\&A, 126, 278
689:
690: \bibitem[Buonanno \& Iannicola (1989)]{buon89}Buonanno, R., \& Iannicola,
691: G. \ 1989, PASP, 101, 294
692:
693: %\bibitem[Camilo et al. (2000)]{cam00} Camilo, F., Lorimer, D.~R., Freire, P.,
694: %Lyne, A.~G., \& Manchester, R.~N.\ 2000, \apj, 535, 975
695:
696: \bibitem[Cariulo et al.(2004)]{cariu04} Cariulo, P., Degl'Innocenti, S., \&
697: Castellani, V.\ 2004, \aap, 421, 1121
698:
699: %\bibitem[Castellani et al. (1991)]{cast91}Castellani, V.,
700: %Chieffi, A., \& Pulone, L.\ 1991, \apjs, 76, 911
701:
702: %\bibitem[Cool \& Bolton (2002)]{co02}Cool A. M., Bolton A. S., 2002, in ASP Conf.
703: %Ser. 263, Stellar Collisions, Mergers and their Consequences. Astron. Soc. Pac.,
704: %San Francisco, p. 163
705:
706: %\bibitem[Cordier et al. (2007)]{corider07} Cordier D., Pietrinferni A., Cassisi
707: %S., Salaris M. \ 2007, \aj, 133, 468
708:
709: \bibitem[Desidera et al. (1998)]{desidera} Desidera, S. 1998, Master's
710: thesis, Padua Univ.
711:
712: \bibitem[Djorgovski (1993)]{djorg93} Djorgovski, S.\ 1993, in ASPC
713: Conf. Ser. 50, Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters,
714: ed. S.~G. Djorgovski \& G. Meylan (San Francisco: ASP), 373D
715:
716: %\bibitem[Dolphin (2000)]{dolph00}Dolphin, A.~E.\ 2000, PASP, 112, 1383
717:
718: %\bibitem[Drissen \& Shara (1998)]{dris98} Drissen, L., \& Shara, M.~M. \
719: %1998, AJ, 115, 725
720:
721: %\bibitem[Dubath et al. (1997)]{dub97} Dubath P., Meylan G., Mayor M., 1997,
722: %A\&A, 324, 505
723:
724: %\bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1992)]{fe92} Ferraro, F.~R., Clementini, G., Fusi
725: %Pecci, F., Sortino, R., Buonanno, R.\ 1992, \mnras 256, 391
726:
727: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1993)]{fe93} Ferraro, F.~R., Fusi Pecci, F.,
728: Cacciari, C., Corsi, C., Buonanno, R., Fahlman, G.~G., \& Richer, H.~B.\
729: 1993, \aj, 106, 2324
730:
731: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1997)]{fe97} Ferraro, F.~R., Paltrinieri, B., Fusi
732: Pecci, F., Cacciari, C., Dorman, B., Rood, R.~T., Buonanno, R., Corsi, C.~E.,
733: Burgarella, D., \& Laget, M., 1997, A\&A, 324, 915
734:
735: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1999a)]{fe99a} Ferraro, F.~R., Paltrinieri, B., Rood,
736: R.~T., \& Dorman, B.\ 1999a, ApJ 522, 983
737:
738: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(1999b)]{fe99b} Ferraro F. R., Messineo M., Fusi Pecci
739: F., De Palo M. A., Straniero O., Chieffi A.,\& Limongi M.\ 1999b, \aj, 118, 1738
740:
741: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2001)]{fe01} Ferraro, F.~R., D'Amico, N., Possenti,
742: A., Mignani, R.~P., \& Paltrinieri, B.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 337
743:
744: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2003)]{fe03} Ferraro, F.~R., Sills, A., Rood, R.~T.,
745: Paltrinieri, B., \& Buonanno, R. \ 2003, \apj, 588, 464
746:
747: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2004)]{fe04} Ferraro, F.~R.,
748: Beccari, G., Rood, R.~T., Bellazzini, M., Sills, A., \& Sabbi, E.\ 2004,
749: \apj, 603, 127
750:
751: \bibitem[Ferraro (2006)]{fe06} Ferraro, F.~R., 2006, in Resolved Stellar
752: Populations, ASP Conference Series, D. Valls-Gabaud \& M. Chaves Eds.,
753: astro-ph/0601217
754:
755: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2006a)]{COdep} Ferraro, F.~R., et al.\ 2006a, \apj,
756: 647, L53
757: %Sabbi, E., Gratton, R., Piotto, G., Lanzoni, B., Carretta, E., Rood, R.~T.,
758: %Sills, A., Fusi Pecci, F., Moehler, S., \& 3 coauthors
759:
760: \bibitem[Ferraro et al.(2006b)]{fe06b} Ferraro, F.~R., Sollima, A., Rood,
761: R.~T., Origlia, L., Pancino, E., \& Bellazzini, M. \ 2006b, \apj, 638, 433
762:
763: \bibitem[Fusi Pecci et al. (1992)]{fp92}Fusi Pecci, F., Ferraro, F.~R.,
764: Corsi, C.~E., Cacciari, C., \& Buonanno, R.\ 1992, AJ, 104, 1831
765:
766: %\bibitem[Guhathakurta et al.(1992)]{gu92} Guhathakurta, P., Yanny, B,,
767: %Schneider, D.~P., \& Bahcall, J.~N.\ 1992, \aj, 104, 1790
768:
769: %\bibitem[Grindlay et al.(2001)]{g01} Grindlay, J.~E.,
770: %Heinke, C., Edmonds, P.~D., \& Murray, S.~S.\ 2001, Science, 292, 2290
771:
772: \bibitem[Harris (1996)]{har96} Harris, W.E. 1996, AJ, 112, 1487
773:
774: \bibitem[Hills \& Day (1976)]{colbss} Hills, J.~G., \& Day, C.~A.\ 1976,
775: \aplett, 17, 87
776:
777: \bibitem[Holtzman et al. (1995)]{holtz95} Holtzman, J.~A., Burrows, C.~J.,
778: Casertano, S., Hester, J.~J., Trauger, J.~T., Watson, A.~M., \& Worthey, G. \
779: 1995, PASP, 107, 1065
780:
781: \bibitem[Hurley et al. (2007)]{hurley07} Hurley, J.~R., Aarseth,
782: S.~J., \& Shara, M.~M.\ 2007, in press on \apj (astro-ph/0704.0290)
783:
784: \bibitem[Irwin \& Trimble (1984)]{irwtrim84}Irwin, M.~J., \& Trimble, V. \ 1984,
785: \aj, 89, 83
786:
787: \bibitem[Ivanova et al.(2005)]{ivanova05} Ivanova, N.,
788: Belczynski, K., Fregeau, J.~M., \& Rasio, F.~A.\ 2005, \mnras, 358, 572
789:
790: \bibitem[Kaluzny et al. (2004)]{kalu04} Kaluzny J., Olech A., Thompson I.~B.,
791: Pych W., Krzemi\'nski W., \& Schwarzenberg-Czerny A.\ 2004, A\&A, 424, 1101
792:
793: %\bibitem[Knigge et al.(2002)]{k02} Knigge, C., Zurek,
794: %D.~R., Shara, M.~M., \& Long, K.~S.\ 2002, \apj, 579, 752
795:
796: \bibitem[Lanzoni et al. (2007a)]{lan07a} Lanzoni, B., Dalessandro, E.,
797: Ferraro, F.~R., Mancini, C., Beccari, G., Rood, R.~T., Mapelli, M., \&
798: Sigurdsson, S. \ 2007a, in press on \apj (astro-ph/0704.0139)
799:
800: \bibitem[Lanzoni et al. (2007b)]{lan07b} Lanzoni, B., et al. \ 2007b, \apj,
801: 663, 1040
802: %(astro-ph/0704.1393)
803: %Sanna, N., Ferraro, F.~R., Valenti, E., Beccari, G., Schiavon, R.~P., Rood,
804: %R.~T., Mapelli, M., \& Sigurdsson, S. \ 2007, in press on \apj
805: %(astro-ph/0704.1393)
806:
807: \bibitem[Leonard(1989)]{leon89} Leonard, P.~J.~T.\ 1989, \aj, 98, 217
808:
809: \bibitem[Lombardi et al. (1995)]{lomb95} Lombardi, J.~C.~Jr., Rasio, F.~A., \&
810: Shapiro, S.~L.\ 1995, ApJ, 445, L117
811:
812: \bibitem[Mandushev et al.(1997)]{mandu97} Mandushev, G.~I., Fahlman, G.~G.,
813: Richer, H.~B., \& Thompson, I.~B.\ 1997, \aj, 114, 1060
814:
815: \bibitem[Mapelli et al.(2004)]{ma04} Mapelli, M.,
816: Sigurdsson, S., Colpi, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Possenti, A., Rood, R.~T.,
817: Sills, A., \& Beccari, G.\ 2004, \apj, 605, L29
818:
819: \bibitem[Mapelli et al.(2006)]{ma06} Mapelli, M., Sigurdsson, S., Ferraro,
820: F.~R., Colpi, M., Possenti, A., \& Lanzoni, B.\ 2006, \mnras, 373, 361
821:
822: \bibitem[Mateo (1996)]{mateo96} Mateo M., in "The origins, evolution, and
823: destinies of binary stars in clusters", E.~F. Milone \& J.~C. Mermilliod
824: Eds.\ 1996, ASPC, 90, 346
825:
826: \bibitem[McLaughlin \& van der Marel(2005)]{mcL05} McLaughlin, D.~E., \& van
827: der Marel, R.~P. \ 2005, \apjs, 161, 304
828:
829: \bibitem[McCrea (1964)]{mtbss1} McCrea, W.~H.\ 1964, \mnras, 128, 147
830:
831: \bibitem[Montegriffo et al. (1995)]{mont95}Montegriffo, P., Ferraro, F.~R.,
832: Fusi Pecci, F., \& Origlia, L.\ 1995, \mnras, 276, 739
833:
834: \bibitem[Olech et al.(1999)]{olech99} Olech, A., Kaluzny, J., Thompson,
835: I.~B., Pych, W., Krzeminski, W., \& Shwarzenberg-Czerny, A.\ 1999, \aj, 118,
836: 442
837:
838: %\bibitem[Paresce et al.(1991)]{par91} Paresce, F., Meylan, G., Shara, M.,
839: %Baxter, D., \& Greenfield, P.\ 1991, Nature, 352, 297
840:
841: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et al.(2006)]{pietri06} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S.,
842: Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F.\ 2006, \apj, 642, 797
843:
844: %\bibitem[Piotto et al. (2002)]{pio02} Piotto, G.,
845: %King, I. R.; Djorgovski, S. G.; Sosin, C.; Zoccali, M.; Saviane, I.; De
846: %Angeli, F.; Riello, M.; Recio-Blanco, A.; Rich, R. M.; and 2 coauthors
847: %et al.\ 2002, A\&A, 391, 945
848:
849: \bibitem[Pryor \& Meylan (1993)]{pry93} Pryor C., \& Meylan G., 1993,
850: Structure and Dynamics of Globular Clusters. Proceedings of a Workshop held
851: in Berkeley, California, July 15-17, 1992, to Honor the 65th Birthday of Ivan
852: King. Editors, S.G. Djorgovski and G. Meylan; Publisher, Astronomical Society
853: of the Pacific, Vol. 50, 357
854:
855: \bibitem[Pych et al.(2001)]{pych01} Pych, W., Kaluzny, J., Krzeminski, W.,
856: Schwarzenberg-Czerny, A., \& Thompson, I.~B.\ 2001, \aap, 367, 148
857:
858: \bibitem[Renzini \& Buzzoni(1986)]{renbuz86} Renzini, A., \&
859: Buzzoni, A.\ 1986, ASSL Vol.~122: Spectral Evolution of Galaxies, 195
860:
861: \bibitem[Renzini \& Fusi Pecci(1988)]{renfusi88} Renzini, A., \& Fusi Pecci, F.\
862: 1988, ARA\&A, 26, 199
863:
864: \bibitem[Robin et al.(2003)]{robin03} Robin, A.~C., Reyl{\'e},
865: C., Derri{\`e}re, S., \& Picaud, S.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 523
866:
867: %\bibitem[Rubenstein \& Bailyn(1997)]{ru97} Rubenstein,
868: %E.~P., \& Bailyn, C.~D.\ 1997, \apj, 474, 701
869:
870: \bibitem[Sabbi et al.(2004)]{sab04} Sabbi, E., Ferraro, F.~R., Sills, A., \&
871: Rood, R.~T., 2004, ApJ 617, 1296
872:
873: %\bibitem[Sandquist et al. (1996)]{sand96} Sandquist, E.~L., Bolte, M.,
874: %Stetson, P.~B.; Hesser, J.~E. \ 1996, \apj, 470, 910
875:
876: \bibitem[Sarna \& de Greve (1996)]{sarna96} Sarna, M.~J., \& de Greve, J.~P.\
877: 1996, QJRAS, 37, 11
878:
879: \bibitem[Schechter et al. (1993)]{dophot} Schechter, P. L., Mateo, M., \&
880: Saha, A.\ 1993, PASP, 105, 1342
881:
882: \bibitem[Shara et al. (1997)]{sha97} Shara, M.~M., Saffer, R.~A., \& Livio,
883: M.\ 1997, \apj, 489, L59
884:
885: %\bibitem[Sigurdsson \& Phinney (1995)]{sigu95} Sigurdsson S., \& Phinney, E.~S.,
886: %1995, ApJS, 99, 609
887:
888: %\bibitem[Sirianni et al.(2005)]{si05} Sirianni, M., et al.\
889: %2005, \pasp, 117, 1049
890:
891: \bibitem[Sollima et al.(2007)]{sollima07} Sollima, A., Beccari., G., Ferraro,
892: F.~R., Fusi Pecci, F., \& Sarajedini, A., 2007, in press on MNRAS
893: (astro-ph/0706.2288)
894:
895: \bibitem[Verbunt (2003)]{verb03} Verbunt, F.\ 2003, in ASP Conf. Ser. 296,
896: New Horizons in Globular Cluster Astronomy, ed. G. Piotto et al. (San
897: Francisco: ASP), 245
898:
899: \bibitem[Warren et al. (2006)]{w06} Warren, S.~R., Sandquist, E.~L., \&
900: Bolte, M., 2006, ApJ 648, 1026 (W06)
901:
902: %\bibitem[Wylie et al.(2006)]{wy06} Wylie, E.~C., Cottrell,
903: %P.~L., Sneden, C.~A., \& Lattanzio, J.~C.\ 2006, astro-ph/0605538
904:
905: \bibitem[Zaggia et al.(1997)]{zag97} Zaggia, S.~R., Piotto, G., \&
906: Capaccioli, M., 1997, A\&A, 327, 1004 (Z97)
907:
908: \bibitem[Zinn \& Searle (1976)]{mtbss2} Zinn, R., \& Searle, L.\ 1976, \apj,
909: 209, 734
910:
911: \end{thebibliography}
912:
913: \clearpage
914:
915:
916: %--Table 1
917: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
918: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
919: \tablewidth{15.5cm}
920: \tablecaption{The BSS Population of M55}
921: \tablehead{
922: \colhead{Name} &
923: \colhead{RA} &
924: \colhead{DEC} &
925: \colhead{$m_{255}$} &
926: \colhead{U} &
927: \colhead{B} &
928: \colhead{V} &
929: \colhead{I} &
930: \colhead{SX Phe}\\
931: \colhead{ } &
932: \colhead{[degree]} &
933: \colhead{[degree]} &
934: \colhead{ } &
935: \colhead{ } &
936: \colhead{ } &
937: \colhead{ } &
938: \colhead{ } &
939: \colhead{ }
940: }
941: \startdata
942: %
943: BSS 1 & 294.9998920 & -30.9667245 & 18.26 & 17.47 & - & - & - & - \\
944: BSS 2 & 294.9954953 & -30.9396261 & 18.08 & 17.18 & - & 16.85 & 16.26 & - \\
945: BSS 3 & 295.0121689 & -30.9581611 & 17.05 & 16.57 & - & 16.14 & 15.71 & - \\
946: BSS 4 & 294.9982015 & -30.9483228 & 17.56 & 17.05 & - & 16.66 & 16.28 & - \\
947: BSS 5 & 295.0166912 & -30.9704646 & 17.62 & 17.14 & - & 16.69 & 16.33 & - \\
948: BSS 6 & 295.0193344 & -30.9660591 & 17.84 & 17.28 & - & 16.81 & 16.45 & - \\
949: BSS 7 & 295.0045478 & -30.9669382 & 18.01 & 17.55 & - & 16.91 & 16.70 & - \\
950: BSS 8 & 295.0033265 & -30.9834341 & 18.43 & 17.64 & - & 17.19 & 16.77 & - \\
951: BSS 9 & 295.0104327 & -30.9803687 & 18.41 & 17.82 & - & 17.42 & 16.93 & - \\
952: BSS 10 & 295.0122305 & -30.9747912 & 17.62 & 17.13 & - & 16.61 & 16.15 & V41 \\
953: BSS 11 & 295.0040550 & -30.9659563 & 18.29 & 17.73 & - & 17.30 & 16.81 & V31 \\
954: BSS 12 & 294.9902115 & -30.9506018 & 18.17 & 17.60 & - & 17.37 & 16.90 & V19 \\
955: BSS 13 & 294.9849393 & -30.9719486 & - & - & - & 15.87 & 15.76 & - \\
956: BSS 14 & 294.9748793 & -30.9741471 & - & - & - & 16.41 & 16.09 & - \\
957: BSS 15 & 294.9858796 & -30.9600404 & - & - & - & 16.85 & 16.60 & - \\
958: BSS 16 & 294.9702800 & -30.9607749 & - & - & - & 17.08 & 16.68 & - \\
959: BSS 17 & 295.0254214 & -30.9727945 & - & - & - & 16.78 & 16.30 & - \\
960: BSS 18 & 295.0100545 & -30.9422429 & - & - & - & 16.75 & 16.41 & - \\
961: BSS 19 & 295.0214094 & -30.9804905 & - & - & - & 17.31 & 16.82 & - \\
962: BSS 20 & 294.9951572 & -30.9710352 & - & - & - & 16.78 & 16.31 & V38 \\
963: BSS 21 & 294.9921499 & -30.9759958 & - & - & - & 17.04 & 16.62 & V32 \\
964: BSS 22 & 295.0285621 & -30.9424951 & - & - & - & 17.05 & 16.58 & V18 \\
965: BSS 23 & 294.9788871 & -30.9728224 & - & - & - & 17.12 & 16.65 & V20 \\
966: BSS 24 & 294.9751258 & -30.9689860 & - & - & - & 17.14 & 16.69 & V27 \\
967: BSS 25 & 294.9941390 & -30.9568945 & - & - & - & 17.20 & 16.78 & V42 \\
968: BSS 26 & 294.9927055 & -30.9852788 & - & - & - & 15.84 & 15.20 & V21 \\
969: BSS 27 & 294.9793701 & -31.0208092 & - & - & 16.17 & 15.92 & - & - \\
970: BSS 28 & 294.7966919 & -31.0010357 & - & - & 16.21 & 16.11 & - & - \\
971: BSS 29 & 295.0544434 & -30.8069954 & - & - & 16.23 & 16.10 & - & - \\
972: BSS 30 & 295.0268860 & -30.9911098 & - & - & 16.30 & 16.01 & - & - \\
973: BSS 31 & 295.0368652 & -30.9847641 & - & - & 16.60 & 16.47 & - & - \\
974: BSS 32 & 295.0367126 & -30.9545650 & - & - & 16.60 & 16.35 & - & - \\
975: BSS 33 & 295.0966492 & -30.9473000 & - & - & 16.61 & 16.21 & - & - \\
976: BSS 34 & 294.9940796 & -30.9063625 & - & - & 16.63 & 16.36 & - & - \\
977: BSS 35 & 294.9552917 & -30.9421539 & - & - & 16.77 & 16.43 & - & - \\
978: BSS 36 & 295.0687561 & -30.9846306 & - & - & 16.81 & 16.52 & - & - \\
979: BSS 37 & 295.0217285 & -30.9895248 & - & - & 16.87 & 16.58 & - & - \\
980: BSS 38 & 294.7169495 & -30.9712677 & - & - & 16.93 & 16.76 & - & - \\
981: BSS 39 & 294.9458923 & -30.8814220 & - & - & 17.04 & 16.76 & - & - \\
982: BSS 40 & 294.9922485 & -30.6695671 & - & - & 17.07 & 16.78 & - & - \\
983: BSS 41 & 295.0174561 & -30.9149532 & - & - & 17.22 & 16.86 & - & - \\
984: BSS 42 & 294.7818298 & -31.0331841 & - & - & 17.32 & 16.97 & - & - \\
985: BSS 43 & 294.7232361 & -31.0292740 & - & - & 17.34 & 17.15 & - & - \\
986: BSS 44 & 294.9502563 & -30.7848854 & - & - & 17.39 & 16.98 & - & - \\
987: BSS 45 & 294.9739380 & -31.0131721 & - & - & 17.41 & 17.09 & - & - \\
988: BSS 46 & 295.0329895 & -30.9473553 & - & - & 17.62 & 17.30 & - & - \\
989: BSS 47 & 294.6565247 & -31.0778027 & - & - & 17.64 & 17.43 & - & - \\
990: BSS 48 & 294.9787292 & -30.9204979 & - & - & 17.72 & 17.38 & - & - \\
991: BSS 49 & 294.9926758 & -30.9187489 & - & - & 17.81 & 17.47 & - & - \\
992: BSS 50 & 294.9646912 & -30.9394836 & - & - & 16.42 & 16.13 & - & V25 \\
993: BSS 51 & 294.9772644 & -30.9996738 & - & - & 16.69 & 16.39 & - & V33 \\
994: BSS 52 & 294.9597473 & -30.9203262 & - & - & 16.97 & 16.64 & - & V35 \\
995: BSS 53 & 294.9522705 & -30.9460793 & - & - & 17.02 & 16.77 & - & V36 \\
996: BSS 54 & 295.0324402 & -31.0037651 & - & - & 17.24 & 16.94 & - & V22 \\
997: BSS 55 & 294.9576721 & -30.9620571 & - & - & 17.22 & 16.98 & - & V37 \\
998: BSS 56 & 295.0382690 & -30.9452572 & - & - & 17.35 & 17.00 & - & V16 \\
999: BSS 57 & 294.9394226 & -30.9343033 & - & - & 17.41 & 17.09 & - & V24 \\
1000: BSS 58 & 295.0471497 & -30.9905624 & - & - & 17.49 & 17.15 & - & V17 \\
1001: BSS 59 & 295.0498962 & -31.0348148 & - & - & 17.49 & 17.18 & - & V39 \\
1002: BSS 60 & 295.0078125 & -30.9275074 & - & - & 17.54 & 17.23 & - & V40 \\
1003: BSS 61 & 295.0041809 & -31.0107975 & - & - & 17.58 & 17.25 & - & V34 \\
1004: BSS 62 & 294.9658203 & -30.9315720 & - & - & 17.65 & 17.26 & - & V23 \\
1005: BSS 63 & 294.9459534 & -30.9596825 & - & - & 16.49 & 16.04 & - & V26 \\
1006: BSS 64 & 295.2062378 & -30.6464367 & - & - & 17.82 & 17.41 & - & - \\
1007: BSS 65 & 295.1806946 & -30.6018009 & - & - & 16.53 & 16.34 & - & -
1008: %
1009: \enddata
1010: %
1011: \tablecomments{The first 12 BSS have been identified in the WFPC2; BSS 2--26
1012: are from the ACS observations, the first 11 being in common with the WFPC2
1013: sample; BSS 27--65 are from the complementary WFI data set. BSS 64 and 65
1014: lie beyond the cluster tidal radius, at $\sim 22\arcmin$ and $24\arcmin$ from
1015: the center, respectively, and have not been considered in the analysis of the
1016: BSS radial distribution. The last column list the corresponding SX Phe stars
1017: identified by \citet{pych01}.}
1018: \label{tab:BSS}
1019: \end{deluxetable}
1020:
1021: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrrrrrc}
1022: \tablecaption{Number Counts of BSS, HB, and RGB Stars, and Fraction of
1023: Sampled Luminosity}
1024: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
1025: \tablewidth{0cm}
1026: %
1027: \tablehead{
1028: \colhead{$r_i\arcsec$} &
1029: \colhead{$r_e\arcsec$} &
1030: \colhead{ } &
1031: \colhead{$N_{\rm BSS}$} &
1032: \colhead{$N_{\rm HB}$} &
1033: \colhead{ } &
1034: \colhead{$N_{\rm RGB}$} &
1035: \colhead{$L^{\rm samp}/L_{\rm tot}^{\rm samp}$}
1036: }
1037: \startdata
1038: 0 & 90 && 23 ~~~ & 56 ~~~ && 297~$\,$(1) & 0.23 \\
1039: 90 & 160 && 17 ~~~ & 56 ~~~ && 337~$\,$(2) & 0.25 \\
1040: 160 & 250 && 12 ~~~ & 56 ~~~ && 325~$\,$(5) & 0.22 \\
1041: 250 & 560 && 3 ~~~$\,$& 59 ~~~ && 362$\,$(33) & 0.26 \\
1042: 560 & 1160 && 7$\,$(1)& 9$\,$(1) && 58$\,$(84) & 0.04 \\
1043: \hline
1044: \enddata
1045: %
1046: \tablecomments{The values listed out of the parenthesis correspond to the
1047: number of stars assumed to belong to the cluster (and thus used in the analysis),
1048: while those in the parenthesis are estimated to be contaminating field
1049: stars (see Sect. \ref{sec:deco}).}
1050: \label{tab:annuli}
1051: \end{deluxetable}
1052:
1053: \clearpage
1054:
1055: %--Fig.1
1056: \begin{figure}[!hp]
1057: \begin{center}
1058: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f1.ps}
1059: \caption{Map of the {\it HST} sample, with coordinates referred to the
1060: derived center of gravity $C_{\rm grav}$: RA$_{\rm c}= 19^{\rm h}\, 39^{\rm
1061: m}\, 59\fs 54$, DEC$_{\rm c}= -30^{\rm o}\, 57\arcmin\, 45\farcs 14$. The
1062: solid and dashed thin lines delimit the {\it HST}-WFPC2 and {\it HST}-ACS
1063: fields of view, respectively. The selected BSS (heavy dots) and the annulus
1064: with radius $r=90\arcsec$ used to study their projected radial distribution (cfr. Table
1065: \ref{tab:annuli}) are also shown.}
1066: \label{fig:HST}
1067: \end{center}
1068: \end{figure}
1069:
1070: %--Fig.2
1071: \begin{center}
1072: \begin{figure}[!p]
1073: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f2.ps}
1074: \caption{Map of the complementary WFI sample, with coordinates referred to
1075: $C_{\rm grav}$. The empty central region corresponds to the {\it HST}-ACS FoV
1076: (dashed line in Fig. \ref{fig:HST}). All the detected BSS are marked as heavy
1077: dots, and the concentric annuli used to study their projected radial distribution
1078: (cfr. Table \ref{tab:annuli}) are shown as solid circles, with the inner
1079: annulus corresponding to $r=90\arcsec$, and the outer one corresponding to
1080: the tidal radius $r_t=1160\arcsec$. The two candidate BSS lying beyond $r_t$
1081: most probably are field stars.}
1082: \label{fig:WFI}
1083: \end{figure}
1084: \end{center}
1085:
1086: %--Fig.3
1087: \begin{center}
1088: \begin{figure}[!p]
1089: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f3.ps}
1090: \caption{Ultraviolet CMD of the {\it HST}-WFPC2 sample. The adopted BSS and
1091: HB selection boxes are shown. The resulting fiducial BSS are marked with
1092: {\it empty circles}. {\it Triangles} correspond to the SX Phoenicis variables
1093: identified by \citet{pych01}, while the {\it squares} mark the RRLyrae
1094: identified by \citet{olech99} and included in our HB sample.}
1095: \label{fig:uvCMD}
1096: \end{figure}
1097: \end{center}
1098:
1099: %--Fig.4
1100: \begin{figure}[!p]
1101: \begin{center}
1102: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f4.ps}
1103: \caption{Optical CMDs of the {\it HST}-ACS and of the complementary WFI
1104: samples. The adopted BSS, HB, and RGB selection boxes are shown. Symbols are
1105: as in Figure \ref{fig:uvCMD}. The hatched regions indicate the magnitude
1106: limit ($V\le 19$) adopted for the computation of the cluster surface density
1107: profile.}
1108: \label{fig:optCMD}
1109: \end{center}
1110: \end{figure}
1111:
1112: %--Fig.5
1113: \begin{figure}[!p]
1114: \begin{center}
1115: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f5.ps}
1116: \caption{Observed surface density profile ({\it dots and error bars}) and
1117: best-fit King model ({\it solid line}). The radial profile is in units of
1118: number of stars per square arcseconds. The {\it dotted line} indicates the
1119: adopted level of the background, and the model characteristic parameters
1120: (core radius $r_c$, concentration $c$, dimensionless central potential $W_0$)
1121: are marked in the figure. The lower panel shows the residuals between the
1122: observations and the fitted profile at each radial coordinate.}
1123: \label{fig:prof}
1124: \end{center}
1125: \end{figure}
1126:
1127: %--Fig.6
1128: \begin{figure}[!p]
1129: \begin{center}
1130: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f6.ps}
1131: \caption{Cumulative projected radial distribution of BSS ({\it solid line}) and HB
1132: stars ({\it dotted line}).}
1133: \label{fig:KS}
1134: \end{center}
1135: \end{figure}
1136:
1137: %--Fig.7
1138: \begin{figure}[!p]
1139: \begin{center}
1140: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f7.ps}
1141: \caption{{\it Upper panel:} Projected radial distribution of the specific
1142: frequency $N_{\rm BSS}/N_{\rm HB}$, as a function the radial distance from
1143: the cluster center, expressed in units of the core radius. {\it Lower
1144: panel:} The same as above, for the specific frequency $N_{\rm HB}/N_{\rm
1145: RGB}$. The {\it dotted line} corresponds to the value ($\sim 0.15$) predicted
1146: by the population synthesis models of \citet{pietri06} for the ratio between
1147: the evolutionary time-scales of the HB and RGB (in the range $15.8\le V\le
1148: 17.5$) phases.}
1149: \label{fig:Npop}
1150: \end{center}
1151: \end{figure}
1152:
1153: %--Fig.8
1154: \begin{figure}[!p]
1155: \begin{center}
1156: \includegraphics[scale=0.7]{f8.ps}
1157: \caption{Projected radial distribution of the double normalized ratios of BSS
1158: ({\it dots}) and HB stars ({\it gray rectangles}), as defined in
1159: equation~(\ref{eq:spec_freq}). The error bars (represented by the vertical
1160: sizes of the rectangles in the case of $R_{\rm HB}$) are computed as
1161: described in \citet{sab04}. The {\it dotted line} corresponds to the value
1162: ($R_{\rm pop}=1$) expected for any normal post-MS population in the cluster
1163: (see Sect.\ref{sec:radist}).}
1164: \label{fig:Rpop}
1165: \end{center}
1166: \end{figure}
1167:
1168: \end{document}
1169: