1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{rotating}
3: \newcommand{\feh}{\mbox{[Fe/H]}}
4: \newcommand{\zh}{\mbox{[Z/H]}}
5: \newcommand{\afe}{\mbox{[$\alpha$/Fe]}}
6:
7: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ}
8:
9: \shorttitle{VLT Spectroscopy of Globular Clusters in Low-Surface Brightness Dwarf Galaxies}
10: \shortauthors{Puzia \& Sharina}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13: \title{VLT Spectroscopy of Globular Clusters in Low Surface Brightness Dwarf
14: Galaxies\altaffilmark{\mbox{$\star$}}}
15: \altaffiltext{$\star$}{Based on observations made with ESO Telescopes at the Paranal Observatory under program ID P76.AB-0137.}
16: \author{Thomas H. Puzia\altaffilmark{1,2} \& Margarita E. Sharina\altaffilmark{3,4}}
17: \altaffiltext{1}{Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada}
18: \altaffiltext{2}{Plaskett Fellow}
19: \altaffiltext{3}{Special Astrophysical Observatory, Russian Academy of Sciences, N.Arkhyz, KChR, 369167, Russia}
20: \altaffiltext{4}{Isaac Newton Institute of Chile, SAO Branch}
21:
22: \begin{abstract}
23: We present VLT/FORS2 spectroscopic observations of globular clusters (GCs)
in five low surface brightness (LSB) dwarf galaxies: KK211 and KK221,
which are both dwarf spheroidal satellites (dSph) of NGC~5128, dSph KK84
located close to the isolated S0 galaxy NGC~3115, and two isolated dwarf
irregular (dIrr) galaxies UGC~3755 and ESO~490-17.~Our sample is selected
from the Sharina et al. (2005) database of Hubble Space Telescope WFPC2
photometry of GC candidates in dwarf galaxies. For objects with accurate
radial velocity measurements we confirm 26 as genuine GCs out of the 27
selected candidates from our WFPC2 survey.~One candidate appears to be a
distant galaxy.~Our measurements of the Lick absorption line indices in
the spectra of confirmed GCs and the subsequent comparison with SSP model
predictions show that all confirmed GCs in dSphs are old, except GC
KK211-3-149 ($6 \pm$2 Gyr), which we consider to be the nucleus of KK211.
GCs in UGC~3755 and ESO~490-17 show a large spread in ages ranging from
old objects ($t>10$ Gyr) to clusters with ages around 1 Gyr. Most of our
sample GCs have low metallicities $\zh \le -1$. Two relatively metal-rich
clusters with $\zh \approx -0.3$ are likely to be associated with
NGC~3115. Our sample GCs show in general a complex distribution of
$\alpha$-element enhancement with a mean
$\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.19\pm0.04$ derived with the $\chi^{2}$
minimization technique and $0.18\pm0.12$ dex computed with the iterative
approach. These values are slightly lower than the mean
$\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.29\pm0.01$ for typical Milky Way GCs. We
compare other abundance ratios with those of Local Group GCs and find
indications for systematic differences in N and Ca abundance. The specific
frequencies, $S_N$, of our sample galaxies are in line with the
predictions of a simple mass-loss model for dwarf galaxies and compare
well with $S_N$ values found for dwarf galaxies in nearby galaxy clusters.
24: \end{abstract}
25: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf - galaxies: star clusters - globular clusters}
26: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
27:
28: \section{Introduction}
29: \label{intro}
30: The hierarchical structure formation scenario predicts that dwarf galaxies
31: are the first systems to form in the Universe \citep{peebles68}, and that
32: more massive galaxies form through dissipative processes from these
33: smaller sub-units. The involved physical mechanisms of this sequence
34: depend on the density and mass of the parent dark matter halo, in the
35: sense that more massive halos initiate star formation at earlier epochs
36: and form their stars at a faster rate \citep[e.g.][]{peebles02, renzini06,
37: ellis07}. Because of this environmental gradient, we expect that dwarf
38: galaxies in the field formed the first stellar population relatively late
39: and at a lower pace compared to their counterparts in dense galaxy
40: clusters. In other words, the difference in age and chemical composition
41: between the oldest stellar populations in cluster and field dwarf galaxies
42: should reflect the delay in the onset of structure formation in these two
43: environments.
44:
45: The task of measuring the age and chemical composition of the oldest
stellar populations in distant dwarf galaxies from their integrated light
is very challenging. An alternative approach is to investigate the oldest
globular clusters (GCs) that are found in dwarf galaxies. Several
photometric surveys of extragalactic GCs in dwarf galaxies outside the
Local Group have been performed in the past decade \citep[see review
by][]{miller06}. However, only a handful of those were followed up with
8--10m-class telescopes to derive spectroscopic ages and chemical
composition. Observations of galaxies in groups and clusters provide more
and more evidence that environment is a major factor influencing the
process of GC formation \citep[e.g.][]{west93, tully02, grebel03,
miller98}.~Recent progress in modeling the assembly history of GC systems
in massive elliptical galaxies suggests that a significant fraction of
metal-poor GCs were accreted from dwarf satellites at later times compared
to the number of GCs initially formed in the parent galaxy halo
\citep{ppm07}. These results underline the ideas put forward in the work
of \cite{forte82} and \cite{muzzio87} as well as the models of
\cite{cote98, cote02, hilker99}, who suggested that the rich GC systems of
massive galaxies may be the result of significant GC accretion through
tidal stripping of less massive systems.
46:
47: Spectroscopic studies of a few GCs in cluster and field dwarf galaxies
showed that most of these systems host at least some old GCs with ages
$t\ga10$ Gyr \citep{puzia00, sharina03, strader03a, strader03b, beasley06,
conselice06}.~Although today's accuracy of relative spectroscopic age
determinations ($\Delta t/t \approx 0.2-0.3$) is not sufficient to resolve
the expected delay of $\sim\!0.5-4$ Gyr in the onset of star-formation
between cluster and field environment \citep[depending on cosmology,
ionizing source population, ionization feedback efficiency, etc.,
see][]{kauffmann96, treu05, thomas05, delucia06, clemens06}, the old ages
combined with information on abundance ratios can provide a powerful tool
to decide whether stellar populations in field dwarf galaxies followed the
same early enrichment history as their analogs in denser environments.
Furthermore, any difference in GC chemical composition between dwarf and
more massive galaxies opens an attractive way of chemically tagging
accreted sub-populations in massive halos and, therefore, enables us to
quantify the mass accretion history of galaxies, a task that for old
galaxies is infeasible from studies of the diffuse galaxy light alone.
Similar ideas have been formulated for stellar populations that make up
the diffuse component of the most nearby galaxies, which are close enough
for high-resolution spectroscopy of individual stars \citep{fh02,
geisler07}. The obvious advantage of GC systems is that their spectra can
be observed out to about 10 times greater distances.
48:
49: In this work we analyze spectroscopic observations of GCs in dwarf
irregular (dIrr) and dwarf spheroidal galaxies (dSph) in the field/group
environment. Our sample consists of systems that are representatives of
the lowest-mass bin of the Local Volume (LV) galaxy population, limited to
distances $D<10$ Mpc. We refer to \cite{karachentseva85} and
\cite{grebel99} for a morphological type definition of our sample
galaxies. The paper is organised as follows. In Section~\ref{observations}
we describe our observations and data reduction as well as the methods of
measuring radial velocities. Section~\ref{analysis} summarizes the
measurement of Lick line indices, their calibration, and the determination
of spectroscopic ages, metallicities, and abundance ratios.
Section~\ref{discussion} is devoted to the discussion of our results.
Conclusions are presented in section~\ref{conclusion}.
50:
51: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccclcr}[!ht]
52: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
53: %\rotate
54: \tablecaption{Properties of sample dwarf galaxies \label{dwgprop}}
55: \tablewidth{0pt}
56: \tablehead{
57: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{RA (J2000)}& \colhead{DEC (J2000)} &
58: \colhead{$ \mu_0$} & \colhead{$D_{\rm MD}$} &
59: \colhead{$A_{B}$} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$B-I$} &
60: \colhead{$M_V$} & \colhead{$N_{\rm GC}$} & \colhead{$S_{N}$}
61: }
62: \startdata
63: KK211, AM1339-445 & 13 42 06 & $-$45 13 18& 27.77 & 0.25 & 0.477 & 16.3$\pm$0.2 & 1.8$\pm$0.2 & $-$12.58& 2 & 18.6\\
64: KK221 & 13 48 46 & $-$46 59 49& 28.00 & 0.50 & 0.596 & 17.3$\pm$0.4 & 2.0$\pm$0.4 & $-$11.96& 6 & 95.1\\
65: KK084, UA200, KDG65 & 10 05 34 & $-$07 44 57& 29.93 & 0.03 & 0.205 & 16.4$\pm$0.2 & 1.7$\pm$0.2 & $-$14.40& 7 & 10.4\\
66: UGC3755, PGC020445 & 07 13 52 & $+$10 31 19& 29.35 &$\sim5$ & 0.384 & 14.1$\pm$0.2 & 1.1$\pm$0.2 & $-$16.12& 32 & 11.4\\\smallskip
67: E490-017, PGC019337 & 06 37 57 & $-$25 59 59& 28.13 & 4.50 & 0.377 & 14.1$\pm$0.2 & 1.1$\pm$0.2 & $-$14.90& 5 & 5.4 \\
68: \enddata
69: \tablecomments{Columns contain the following data: (1) galaxy name, (2) equatorial
70: coordinates, (3) and (4) are the distance modulus and distance from the
71: nearest bright galaxy in Mpc from \cite{kara04}, and from \cite{tully05}
72: for UGC3755, (5) reddening from \cite{sch98} in the B-band, (6) is
73: the integrated $B$ magnitude, and (7) the integrated $B-I$ color, derived
74: from surface photometry on the VLT-FORS2 images in this work (see
75: Appendix~\ref{sbprof}), (8) absolute $V$ magnitude from SPM05, (9) number
76: of GCs according to SPM05 and this paper, (10) specific frequency,
77: $S_N=N_{\rm GC}10^{0.4(M_V+15)}$ \citep{harris81}.}
78: \end{deluxetable*}
79:
80: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
81: \section{Observations}
82: \label{observations}
83:
84: \subsection{Sample Selection}
85: \label{obs_data_red}
86: All target galaxies are part of the \cite{sh05} (hereafter: SPM05) sample
for which detailed information on luminosities, colors, and structural
parameters of GC candidates is available from HST data. The targets were
selected based on the number of GC candidates and the optimization of the
observing strategy at the time of scheduled observations. The main
characteristics of our sample galaxies are presented in
Table~\ref{dwgprop}. KK211 and KK221 are two of the faintest dSph galaxies
in the Centaurus~A group. The dSph galaxy KK84 is the nearest satellite of
the giant field S0 galaxy NGC~3115. UGC~3755\footnote{Strictly speaking
UGC~3755 is a borderline low surface brightness galaxy according to the
definition outlined by \cite{impey97}:
$\bar{\mu}_{0,B} \ge 22.5 - 23$ mag/arcsec$^{2}$.}, which hosts one of the
richest GC system among isolated dwarf galaxies (see Table~\ref{dwgprop}),
and ESO490-17 are both highly isolated dIrrs. In general, the specific
frequencies are high for all our sample galaxies. It will be shown in the
last section, that these $S_N$ values correspond to the predictions of
galaxy evolution models that include significant mass loss, which strongly
affects the star formation processes in low-mass galaxies.
87:
88: Detailed CMD studies of the Local Group dwarf galaxies show that each
89: low-mass galaxy has its own complex star formation history (SFH)
90: \citep[e.g.][]{grebel03}. However, in contrast to dIrrs, dSphs are
91: composed mainly of old and intermediate-age stars, and do not contain
92: young stellar populations \citep[e.g.][]{holtzman06}. We will test whether
93: this difference is reflected in the GC populations of our sample
94: field/group dwarfs and investigate the chemical compositions of their GC
95: stellar populations.
96:
97: \begin{figure*}
98: \centering
99: \includegraphics[width=12cm,bb=18 148 597 776]{f1.jpg}
100: \caption{FORS-2 images of our sample dwarf galaxies with marked GCs. North is
101: to the top, East is on the left. The objects are labeled according to Table~\ref{gcprop}.}
102: \label{images}
103: \end{figure*}
104:
105:
106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
107: \subsection{Pre-imaging data}
108: All pre-imaging data were obtained with the FORS2 instrument at UT1 (unit
telescope 1, ANTU) as par of the program 76.B-0137 (see also
Fig.~\ref{images}). A journal of the pre-imaging observations is provided
in Table~\ref{log}. All images were reduced using standard techniques
(bias subtraction and flat fielding). We used the FIMS (FORS Instrumental
masks simulator) task {\it fsmosaic} to merge two files of each image. To
register and combine the six sub-integrations obtained in each filter we
used the tasks {\it ccmap} and {\it imcombine} in IRAF\footnote{IRAF is
distributed by the National Optical Astronomy Observatories, which are
operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}.
Aperture photometry of GC candidates (GCCs) was performed using the PHOT
task of DAOPHOT-II \citep{stetson87} package implemented in MIDAS. The
detection threshold was set to 3-$\sigma$ above the background. The
minimum full width at half maximum (FWHM) input parameter was
$\sim\!0.76$\arcsec, corresponding to a typical stellar FWHM. To convert
instrumental magnitudes into the Johnson-Cousins standard system we
applied the FORS2 photometric
zeropoints\footnote{http://www.eso.org/observing/dfo/quality/FORS2/qc/
\\zeropoints/zeropoints.html}:
109: $B_0 = 27.356 \pm 0.007$ (for chip 1), $B_0 = 27.338 \pm 0.005$ (for chip
110: 2), $I_0 = 27.555 \pm 0.1$ (for chip 1), $I_0 = 27.559 \pm 0.07$ (for chip
111: 2), obtained from data taken during the same nights. Atmospheric extinction
112: coefficients\footnote{http://www.eso.org/observing/dfo/quality/FORS2/qc/
113: \\photcoeff/photcoeffs\_fors2.html} were taken for 2006-01-01, $k_B=0.269
114: \pm 0.016$ (for chip 1), $k_B=0.22 \pm 0.22$ (for chip 2), $k_I=0.150 \pm
115: 0.018$ (for chip 1), $k_I=0.135\pm 0.015$ (for chip 2). Finally, the
116: magnitudes of all GCCs were corrected for Galactic extinction using
117: reddening maps from \cite{sch98}. The accuracy of our photometry
118: depends primarily on the accuracy of the background estimates. The
119: uncertainties grow in the central regions of galaxies where the background
120: is less homogeneous, and the images become increasingly affected by
121: stellar crowding. In general, the errors of $B$ and $I$ magnitudes are
122: less than $0.1$ mag for objects brighter than $21.5$ mag. The budget of
123: errors includes the errors of aperture photometry, and the uncertainties
124: of transformations into the standard $B$ and $I$ system. We consider the
125: internal reddening within our sample galaxies to be $E_{(B-V)}\la0.1$ mag
126: \citep{james05}, given the similarity of these systems to nearby low
127: surface brightness galaxies.
128:
129: For our spectroscopic observations we selected GCCs with integrated colors
130: $0.7\!<\!(B-I)_0\!<\!2.3$, similar to the selection of Puzia et al.~(2004,
131: hereafter: P04). In total we found 96, 74, 14, 19, and 11, objects in and
132: around KK084, UGC3755, ESO490-017, KK221, and KK211, respectively. The
133: full list of GCCs detected on the VLT images with equatorial coordinates,
134: $B$ and $I$ magnitudes, and spectroscopic classification of genuine GCs,
135: foreground stars, and background galaxies is available upon request from
136: the authors (see also Tabs.~\ref{budget} and \ref{gcprop}). We point out that all
137: GCCs that are listed in SPM05 are also included in the final target list
138: and were all selected purely based on their $B\!-\!I$ colours.
139:
140: To obtain accurate estimates of specific frequencies, we also perform
141: surface photometry of our sample galaxies using the {\sc SURPHOT} routine
142: implemented in MIDAS. All steps are identical to those described in
143: \cite{mak99}. Table~\ref{dwgprop} documents the results, which are
144: illustrated in Figure~\ref{surf} and discussed in detail in
145: Appendix~\ref{sbprof}.
146:
147: \begin{deluxetable}{lcclcc}
148: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
149: %\rotate
150: \tablecaption{Journal of pre-imaging observations\label{log}}
151: \tablewidth{0pt}
152: \tablehead{
153: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Date} & \colhead{Filter} &
154: \colhead{$t_{\rm exp}$} & \colhead{Seeing} & \colhead{Airmass}
155: }
156: \startdata
157: KK211 & 25.08.2005 & B & 6x180 & 1.0\arcsec & 1.740 \\
158: & 25.08.2005 & I & 6x90 & 1.0\arcsec & 1.834 \\
159: KK221 & 25.08.2005 & B & 6x180 & 1.1\arcsec & 1.914 \\
160: & 25.08.2005 & I & 6x90 & 1.2\arcsec & 1.997 \\
161: UGC3755 & 01.11.2005 & B & 6x180 & 0.9\arcsec & 1.258 \\
162: & 01.11.2005 & I & 6x90 & 0.9\arcsec & 1.242 \\
163: E490-017 & 28.11.2005 & B & 6x180 & 0.7\arcsec & 1.041 \\
164: & 28.11.2005 & I & 6x90 & 0.7\arcsec & 1.056 \\
165: KK084 & 09.12.2005 & B & 6x215 & 1.2\arcsec & 1.164\\\smallskip
166: & 09.12.2005 & I & 6x120 & 1.2\arcsec & 1.164
167: \enddata
168: \tablecomments{The exposure time is given in seconds.}
169: \end{deluxetable}
170:
171: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
172: \subsection{Spectroscopic data}
173:
174: \begin{figure}
175: \centering
176: \includegraphics[width=8.5cm, bb=15 0 416 792]{f2.jpg}
177: \caption{Flux calibrated spectra of GCs in our sample dwarf galaxies.}
178: \label{spec_all}
179: \end{figure}
180:
181: \begin{deluxetable}{lccc}
182: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
183: %\rotate
184: \tablecaption{Journal of spectroscopic observations \label{splog}}
185: \tablewidth{0pt}
186: \tablehead{
187: \colhead{Object} & \colhead{Date} &
188: \colhead{$t_{\rm exp}$} & \colhead{Seeing}
189: }
190: \startdata
191: E490-017 & 03.01.2006 & 4x1800 & 0.8\arcsec \\
192: & 04.01.2006 & 1800 & 1.6\arcsec \\
193: KK084 & 03.01.2006 & 5x1800 & 1.0\arcsec \\
194: & 04.01.2006 & 8x1800 & 1.5\arcsec \\
195: & 05.01.2006 & 4x1800 & 0.7\arcsec \\
196: KK221 & 03.01.2006 & 5x1800 & 1.0\arcsec \\
197: UGC3755 & 04.01.2006 & 6x1800 & 1.3\arcsec \\
198: & 05.01.2006 & 5x1800 & 0.8\arcsec \\
199: KK211 & 05.01.2006 & 5x1800 & 0.8\arcsec \\
200: & & & \\
201: HD013043 & 03.01.2006 & 4, 1 & 1.8\arcsec \\
202: HR0695 & 03.01.2006 & 2, 1 & 1.8\arcsec \\
203: & 04.01.2006 & 1, 1 & 1.8\arcsec \\
204: HR1506 & 03.01.2006 & 1, 8 & 1.8\arcsec \\
205: & 05.01.2006 & 1 & 0.8\arcsec \\
206: HD64606 & 04.01.2006 & 1, 3 & 1.8\arcsec \\
207: HR3905 & 04.01.2006 & 1, 5 & 1.8\arcsec \\
208: HR2233 & 05.01.2006 & 1, 1 & 1.3\arcsec \\
209: HD36003 & 05.01.2006 & 1, 2 & 1.3\arcsec \\\smallskip
210: HR1015 & 05.01.2006 & 1, 3 & 1.3\arcsec \enddata
211: \tablecomments{The exposure times for GCs ({\it upper part}) are given in
212: multiples of seconds, while the exposure times for Lick standard stars
213: are shown in seconds for each individual integration.}
214: \end{deluxetable}
215:
216: \begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccr}
217: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
218: %\rotate
219: \tablecaption{Resum\'{e} of GC detections. \label{budget}}
220: \tablewidth{0pt}
221: \tablehead{
222: \colhead{Name} & \colhead{GCCs} & \colhead{Obj$_{\rm sel.}$} & \colhead{\#Slits} &
223: \colhead{\#Slits$_{\rm SPM05}$} & \colhead{GCs} & \colhead{Gal.} & \colhead{Stars} &
224: \colhead{Faint} & \colhead{faint GCCs}
225: }
226: \startdata
227: KK211 & 2 & 11 &26 & 2 & 2 & 5 & 12 & 7 & \\
228: KK221 & 5 & 19 &36 & 5 & 6 & 6 & 5 & 19 &KK221-3-1062 \\
229: KK084 & 8 & 96 &39 & 7 & 7 & 13 & 7 & 12 &KK84-2-789 \\
230: UGC3755 & 32 & 74 &39 & 10 & 10 & 8 & 9 & 12 &U3755-3-1963 \\
231: E490-017 & 5 & 14 &28 & 3 & 2 & 9 & 8 & 9 &E490-017-3-1861 \smallskip
232: \enddata
233: \tablecomments{Columns contain numbers of: (2) GCCs in each galaxy listed
234: by SPM05, (3) total number of GCCs selected on the VLT images, (4) slits on GCCs in
235: total, (5) number of slits on SPM05 targets, (6) spectroscopically
236: confirmed GCs, (7) number of background galaxies in slits, (8) Galactic
237: stars, (9) faint object in total, the nature of which is unclear. In the
238: last column we list the names of GCs that are too faint to measure their
239: radial velocities with reliable accuracy from our observations.}
240: \end{deluxetable*}
241:
242: The spectroscopic data were obtained in the MXU mode with FORS2 using
custom slit masks for KK084, UGC~3755, ESO~490-017, KK221, and KK211 that
contain 39, 39, 28, 36, and 26 objects in total, respectively. A journal
of spectroscopic observations is provided in Table~\ref{splog}. The masks
included our primary target GCCs, as well as mask-filler objects that were
mostly stars and background galaxies. In general, due to the concentrated
location of GCCs in the central regions of dwarf galaxies we primarily
targeted GCCs from SPM05 and set slits on:
all two GCCs in KK211, all five GCCs in KK221, 3 of 5 GCCs in ESO490-017,
10 of 32 GCCs in UGC3755, and 7 of 8 GCCs in KK084 (KK084-2-974 was not
observed, see also Tables~\ref{budget} and \ref{gcprop} for details).
243:
244: The reduction of the spectroscopic data and the subsequent analysis were
245: performed with a combination of MIDAS and IRAF tasks. After cosmic-ray
246: removal and bias subtraction all frames were divided by a normalized
247: flat-field image. For each slit a 2-dimensional subsection of the CCD was
248: extracted and then treated separately. To correct the effect of optical
249: field distortions in the FORS field-of-view we applied the method
250: described by P04, which is based on a two-dimensional wavelength solution
251: assembled of 1-D solutions for each pixel row from arclamp spectra. For
252: this task we used the {\sc LONG} package in MIDAS. This procedure requires
253: an accurate wavelength solution for each individual pixel row. To maximize
254: the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) of lines in the comparison arc spectrum we
255: flat-fielded the arc spectrum to correct for small-scale fluctuations and
256: applied a median filter to the frame using a rectangular filter window of
257: one pixel in the dispersion direction and 3 pixels in the spatial
258: direction. A typical accuracy of the 2-dimensional dispersion solution was
259: $\le\!0.2$ \AA.~The extraction region was defined by tracing the GC
260: spectrum along the wavelength dimension. The window width for the traced
261: extraction was set so that the boundaries of spectra were at $\sim\!15$\%
262: of the peak flux in all cases, except for GCs 1182 and 2123 in UGC~3755
263: where the extraction window was set to a width of $\sim\!20$\% of the peak
264: flux, because of their location near regions of $H\alpha$ emission.
265:
266: To ensure that the dispersion solution was determined correctly we
267: extracted the 1-dimensional spectra using the method described above
268: without subtracting the sky spectrum and determined the wavelengths of the
269: telluric lines \citep{ost1996, ost2000}.~For few spectra we found
270: systematic shifts of the order of $\la\!1$\AA\ equal for all lines. Such
271: shifts were corrected by adding of the corresponding correction term to
272: the dispersion solution. The GC spectra are then cross-correlated with
273: spectra of radial-velocity standard stars observed in the same night using
274: the {\sl xcorrelate/image} procedure in MIDAS, which yields radial
275: velocities according to the method of \cite{tonry79}. Table~\ref{gcprop}
276: summarizes the measured heliocentric radial velocities.
277:
278: \begin{figure}
279: \centering
280: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.pdf}
281: \caption{Color-magnitude diagram of confirmed GCs in LSB dwarf galaxies
282: ({\it large circles}). Overplotted are also Milky Way ({\it small squares}) and M31
283: GCs ({\it small trinalges}). The photometry for Milky Way GC was taken
284: from the McMaster catalog \citep{harris91}, while the M31 data was adopted
285: from \cite{barmby00}. The two vertical lines indicate the location of the
286: blue and red GC sub-populations in giant elliptical galaxies
287: \citep[e.g.][]{p04}.}
288: \label{gcphotcmd}
289: \end{figure}
290:
291: \begin{deluxetable*}{lcccccr}
292: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
293: %\rotate
294: \tablecaption{Properties of spectroscopically confirmed GCs
295: in our sample LSB dwarf galaxies\label{gcprop}}
296: \tablewidth{0pt}
297: \tablehead{
298: \colhead{GC} & \colhead{RA (J2000) DEC} & \colhead{$B$} & \colhead{$M_B$} &
299: \colhead{$B-V$} & \colhead{$B-I$} & \colhead{$V_h$}
300: }
301: \startdata
302: KK211-3-149 & 13 42 05.6 $-$45 12 18 & 20.64 & $-7.13$ & 0.69 & 1.51 & 580$\pm$23 \\
303: KK211-3-917 & 13 42 08.0 $-$45 12 28 & 21.84 & $-5.93$ & 0.93 & 1.64 & 620$\pm$39 \\
304: KK221-2-608 & 13 48 55.1 $-$47 00 07 & 21.08 & $-6.92$ & 1.12 & 1.85 & 541$\pm$32 \\
305: KK221-2-883 & 13 48 53.0 $-$47 00 16 & 22.07 & $-5.93$ & 1.14 & 1.89 & 546$\pm$46 \\
306: KK221-2-966 & 13 48 50.5 $-$47 00 07 & 19.20 & $-8.80$ & 1.00 & 1.78 & 509$\pm$25 \\
307: KK221-2-1090 & 13 48 49.6 $-$47 00 11 & 21.20 & $-6.80$ & 0.97 & 1.63 & 478$\pm$29 \\
308: KK221-24n & 13 48 43.6 $-$46 58 59 & 20.70 & $-7.30$ & \nodata& 1.63 & 512$\pm$31 \\
309: KK221-27n & 13 48 39.0 $-$46 59 49 & 22.26 & $-5.44$ & \nodata& 1.74 & 466$\pm$35 \\
310: KK084-2-785 & 10 05 35.8 $-$07 44 06 & 23.31 & $-6.62$ & 0.68 & 1.68 & 856$\pm$24 \\
311: KK084-3-705 & 10 05 35.7 $-$07 44 25 & 22.28 & $-7.65$ & 0.73 & 1.87 & 670$\pm$31 \\
312: KK084-3-830 & 10 05 35.0 $-$07 44 59 & 20.82 & $-9.11$ & 0.57 & 1.74 & 594$\pm$32 \\
313: KK084-3-917 & 10 05 36.5 $-$07 45 16 & 22.94 & $-6.99$ & 0.53 & 1.63 & 619$\pm$28 \\
314: KK084-4-666 & 10 05 31.5 $-$07 45 03 & 22.47 & $-7.46$ & 0.91 & 2.10 & 678$\pm$21 \\
315: KK084-12n & 10 05 36.8 $-$07 45 54 & 23.00 & $-6.93$ & \nodata& 1.49 & 911$\pm$40 \\
316: KK084-36n & 10 05 25.6 $-$07 42 33 & 23.02 & $-6.91$ & \nodata& 2.28 & 1210$\pm$27\\
317: UGC3755-2-652 & 07 13 50.1 +10 32 15 & 21.48 & $-7.87$ & 1.11 & 1.82 & 323$\pm$21 \\
318: UGC3755-2-675 & 07 13 50.4 +10 31 49 & 23.65 & $-5.70$ & 0.81 & 1.53 & 367$\pm$21 \\
319: UGC3755-2-863 & 07 13 51.3 +10 31 45 & 22.79 & $-6.56$ & 1.13 & 1.89 & 290$\pm$33 \\
320: UGC3755-3-914 & 07 13 51.4 +10 31 35 & 21.74 & $-7.61$ & 0.75 & 1.31 & 284$\pm$24 \\
321: UGC3755-3-1182 & 07 13 51.5 +10 31 26 & 20.61 & $-8.74$ & 0.56 & 0.88 & 335$\pm$32 \\
322: UGC3755-3-1257 & 07 13 52.3 +10 31 24 & 20.98 & $-8.37$ & 1.10 & 1.76 & 327$\pm$31 \\
323: UGC3755-3-2123 & 07 13 52.5 +10 31 01 & 21.36 & $-7.99$ & 0.53 & 0.70 & 329$\pm$22 \\
324: UGC3755-3-2363 & 07 13 52.2 +10 30 45 & 21.60 & $-7.75$ & 0.76 & 1.00 & 312$\pm$18 \\
325: UGC3755-3-2168 & 07 13 51.4 +10 30 58 & 21.84 & $-7.51$ & 0.88 & 1.56 & 324$\pm$28 \\
326: UGC3755-3-2459 & 07 13 52.2 +10 30 35 & 20.93 & $-8.42$ & 0.32 & 0.81 & 333$\pm$32 \\
327: E490-017-3-2035 & 06 37 57.3 $-$25 59 59 & 21.16 & $-6.97$ & 0.33 & 0.74 & 529$\pm$34 \\
328: E490-017-3-1861 & 06 37 57.3 $-$26 00 13 & 21.45 & $-6.68$ & 0.50 & 1.57 & 522$\pm$9 \smallskip
329: \enddata
330: \tablecomments{Columns contain the following data: (2), (3) equatorial
331: coordinates, (4) integrated $B$ magnitude from our FORS2 photometry
332: corrected for Galactic extinction \citep{sch98}, (5) absolute magnitude computed
333: with the distances from Table~\ref{dwgprop}, (6),(7) integrated
334: $B\!-\!V$ and $B\!-\!I$ colours corrected for Galactic extinction
335: \citep{sch98}, (8) heliocentric radial velocities measured in this study.}
336: \end{deluxetable*}
337:
338: \subsection{Detection Efficiencies}
339:
340: \begin{figure*}
341: \centering
342: \includegraphics[width=14cm,bb=47 204 612 657]{f4.pdf}
343: \caption{Comparison of passband measurements of our spectra and original Lick
344: data for 10 Lick standard stars. The dashed line shows the one-to-one relation.
345: The grey line shows the relation from P04.}
346: \label{compar}
347: \end{figure*}
348:
349: We present a resum\'{e} of GC detection efficiencies for our spectroscopic
350: observations in Table~\ref{budget}. Numbers of detected GCCs within the
351: FORS2 field-of-view with colors resembling those of GCCs, prepared masks
352: for a part of them, confirmed genuine globular clusters, distant galaxies
353: with radial velocities $\ge\!1000$ km s$^{-1}$ , and Galactic stars with
354: radial velocities $\sim\!0$ km s$^{-1}$ are given for each galaxy,
355: correspondingly. All observed GCCs from SPM05 appear to be genuine
356: globular clusters, except a distant galaxy KK084--4--967. Heliocentric
357: radial velocities of spectroscopically confirmed GCs are similar to the
358: system velocities of Cen~A and NGC3115 in the cases of KK211, KK221, and
359: KK84, and to the velocities of the host galaxies measured using indendent
360: methods in the cases of UGC3755 and E490-017 (Table~\ref{gcprop}). The
361: radial velocity dispersion of the UGC~3755 sample is small $\sim\!10$ km
362: s$^{-1}$, and the mean is consistent with the systemic value $V_h=315$ km
363: s$^{-1}$ measured by \cite{bicay86}. UGC~3755 is the only galaxy in our
364: sample with a low-enough systemic radial velocity so that a test of
365: contamination likelihood by Galactic foreground stars is indicated. An
366: evaluation of this likelihood with the stellar population synthesis models
367: of the Milky Way \citep{robin03} shows that the expected radial velocities
368: of the thick disk, spheroid, and bulge component in the direction of
369: UGC~3755 are significantly below $200$ km/s. Combined with their diffuse
370: (i.e. non-stellar) PSFs in the HST images and their color information all
371: our GCCs in UGC~3755 with accurate radial velocity measurements (see
372: Tab.~\ref{gcprop}) are highly unlikely to be foreground stars. We
373: discovered three new GCs: KK84-36n and KK84-12n, and KK221-12n (see
374: Fig.1). The equatorial coordinates, total $B$ magnitudes, absolute $B$
375: magnitudes, $B-V$, $B-I$ colors and radial velocities for all GCs
376: confirmed or detected in this work are given in Table~\ref{gcprop}.
377: In summary, our GCC selection efficiency based on the HST imaging survey
378: presented in SPM05 is higher than 96\% for the observed sample.
379:
380: The distribution of confirmed GCs in the color-magnitude diagram is
illustrated in Figure~\ref{gcphotcmd} where we compare our sample with the
distribution of Milky Way and M31 GCs.~The bulk of our sample has
$B\!-\!I$ colors very similar to the Local Group GCs.~A few GC have
relatively blue colors which suggests younger ages. Our sample GCs probe
the luminosity range around the turn-over magnitude of the GC luminosity
function (GCLF: The turn-over for old GC populations is expected at
$M_B\approx-7.1$, assuming $M_{V}\simeq-7.66\pm0.11$ from Di Criscienzo et
al. [2006] for metal-poor Milky Way GCs and a typical
$B\!-\!V\approx0.5-0.7$ for metal-poor stellar populations from Bruzual \&
Charlot [2003] SSP models) down to about a factor $2-3$ fainter clusters.
We recall that SPM05 found indications for an excess cluster population in
this magnitude range \citep[see also][]{vdb07, jordan07} and we point out
that a significant number of GC candidates from the SPM05 sample are being
confirmed as genuine GCs at these faint magnitudes. However, a larger
sample is required to robustly quantify the excess of clusters with
respect to GC systems of more massive galaxies, such as the two Local
Group spirals.
381:
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
384: \section{Analysis}
385: \label{analysis}
386: \subsection{Lick Index Measurement and Calibration}
387: \label{calibr_Lick}
388:
389: \begin{figure*}
390: \centering
391: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f5a.pdf}
392: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f5b.pdf}
393: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f5c.pdf}
394: \includegraphics[width=7.5cm]{f5d.pdf}
395: \caption{Diagnostic plots for globular clusters in KK084 (squares), GC
396: 149 KK211 (diamond), GCs 966 and 24n in KK221 (circles), GCs 2035 and 1861
in E490-17 (hexagons), and GCs in UGC~3755 (inverted tirangles). We use
SSP model predictions from Thomas et al.~(2003, 2004). The Balmer line
index diagnostic plots (both upper panels and the lower left panel) show
the grids for \afe=0.3 dex. The cross in the corner of each panel
indicates the systematic calibration uncertainty to the Lick index system.
The error bars of individual GCs are the total statistical uncertainties.
Overplotted are Lick index measurements for GCs in the Milky Way
\citep[{\it small squares};][]{p02, schiavon05}, M31 \citep[{\it small
triangles};][]{p05a}, the Large Magellanic Cloud \citep[{\it small 4-prong
stars};][]{beasley02}, and the Fornax dSph galaxy in the Local Group
397: \citep[{\it small 5-prong stars};][]{strader03a}.}
398: \label{diagd}
399: \end{figure*}
400:
401: \begin{table}
402: \centering
403: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
404: \caption{Correction terms of the transformation to the Lick/IDS
405: standard system \citep{worthey94, worthey97}.}
406: \label{correction}
407: \begin{tabular}{lrcc} \\ \hline \hline
408: Index & c & rms error & Units \\ \hline
409: CN$_1$ & $-$0.067 & 0.028 & mag \\
410: CN$_2$ & $-$0.050 & 0.039 & mag \\
411: Ca4227 & 0.487 & 0.247 & \AA \\
412: G4300 & 0.049 & 0.608 & \AA \\
413: Fe4384 & 0.041 & 0.542 & \AA \\
414: Ca4455 & 0.419 & 0.380 & \AA \\
415: Fe4531 & 0.322 & 0.762 & \AA \\
416: Fe4668 & 0.685 & 0.782 & \AA \\
417: H$\beta$ & $-$0.183 & 0.277 & \AA \\
418: Fe5015 & 0.460 & 0.640 & \AA \\
419: Mg$_1$ & 0.010 & 0.007 & mag \\
420: Mg$_2$ & 0.027 & 0.010 & mag \\
421: Mgb & 0.351 & 0.134 & \AA \\
422: Fe5270 & 0.345 & 0.203 & \AA \\
423: Fe5335 & $-$0.156 & 0.230 & \AA \\
424: Fe5406 & $-$0.208 & 0.124 & \AA \\
425: H$_{\delta A}$& $-$0.109 & 0.772 & \AA \\
426: H$_{\gamma A}$& $-$0.000 & 0.129 & \AA \\
427: H$_{\delta F}$& 0.013 & 0.229 & \AA \\
428: H$_{\gamma F}$& 0.491 & 0.148 & \AA \\
429: \hline
430: \end{tabular}
431: \end{table}
432:
433: We measure Lick indices with the routine described in \cite{p02} and P04
for GCs with spectra with S/N$\ge\!30$ per \AA.~In general, we select
high-quality spectra for the subsequent analysis of evolutionary
parameters, but include in some interesting cases a few lower-S/N spectra.
434:
435: P04 calibrated the instrumental FORS/MXU system of Lick line indices into
436: the standard one using a set of 31 Lick standard stars. The correction
437: functions were calculated in the form $$ I_{cal} = I_{raw}+ \alpha,$$
438: where $ I_{cal}$ and $I_{raw}$ are the calibrated and the measured
439: indices, respectively. To check the correspondence of our index
440: measurements to the Lick standard system we performed the same analysis
441: using 10 stars observed together with our target sample. It should be
442: noted that all standard star spectra were observed with the same slit size
443: (1\arcsec) and were extracted and smoothed in the same way as the GCs of
444: our study and as it was done by P04. We show comparison of passband
445: measurements of our spectra and original Lick data for our sample Lick
446: standard stars in Figure~\ref{compar}. The dashed line shows the
447: one-to-one relation. The dotted line shows the relation from P04.
448: Table~\ref{correction} summarises the coefficients of transformation into
449: the Lick standard system and the rms of the calibration. Comparison of our
450: calibration coefficients with the ones form P04 shows that in all cases
451: but one the transformations agree well within the errors. A large
452: difference exists for the index G4300. However, P04 noticed that this
453: index is very noisy and its calibration uncertain. It is worth to note
454: that the rms errors of transformations into the Lick system are large for
455: some other indices (e.g. Ca4455, see Table~\ref{correction} this paper and
456: Table~8 in P04). However, the most important indices for our analysis,
457: such as H${\beta}$, H$_{\gamma A}$, H$_{\delta A}$, Mg$_1$, Mg$_2$, and
458: Mg$b$, Fe5270, and Fe5335 have all very robust Lick system calibrations
459: which agree well with previous work. The calibrated Lick indices for all
460: confirmed GCs in our sample are summarized in Table~\ref{lickind1}.
461:
462: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
463: \subsection{Ages and Metallicities}
464: \label{evol_par_GCs}
465:
466: It was shown in series of papers \citep[see e.g.~P04,][]{p05a, p05b} that
467: age-metallicity diagnos\-tic plots which make use of different Balmer
468: indices and the composite metallicity index [MgFe]\arcmin\footnote{This
469: composite Lick index is defined to be \afe-insensitive,
470: [MgFe]\arcmin$=\left\{\mbox{Mg}b \cdot (0.72 \cdot \mbox{Fe5270} + 0.28
471: \cdot \mbox{Fe5335})\right\}^{1/2}$, see \cite{thomas03} for details.}
472: represent a powerful tool to estimate ages and metallicities of globular
473: clusters. For data with S/N~$\ga25$ per \AA\ the Balmer index H$\gamma_A$
474: is most sensitive to age and least sensitive to metallicity and \afe\
475: variations, as well as the degeneracy between these parameters
476: \citep{p05b}.~The SSP model predictions of \cite{thomas03, thomas04} for
477: stellar populations with well-defined \afe\ ratios provide us with the
478: option to estimate \afe\ ratio from Mg$_2$ versus $ \langle \mbox{Fe}
479: \rangle = (\mbox{Fe5270} + \mbox{Fe5335})/2$ diagnostic plots.
480:
481: In Figure~\ref{diagd} we show age-metallicity diagnostic plots for our
482: sample globular clusters with the highest-S/N spectra. Almost all clusters
483: have indices consistent with low metallicities, typically [Z/H]~$\le -1$,
484: and a wide range of ages and \afe\ ratios. We compare the index
485: measurements of our sample GCs with those of GCs in the Milky Way
486: \citep{p02, schiavon05}, M31 \citep{p05a}, and the Large Magellanic Cloud
487: \citep{beasley02}, and find that most objects in our sample have Balmer
488: line indices, at a given [MgFe]\arcmin, that are comparable with
489: metal-poor GCs in the Milky Way and M31 in all diagnostic plots of
490: Figure~\ref{diagd}. Several GCs in UGC~3755, which show stronger Balmer
491: indices, resemble the sub-population of young star clusters in the LMC
492: \citep[e.g.][]{kerber07}.
493:
494: Iterating between the diagnostic plots in Figure~\ref{diagd} converges to
495: give accurate metallicity and \afe\ estimates, as well as robust relative
496: ages that allow one to distinguish between old, intermediate-age, and
497: young stellar populations.~We refer to this approach as the iterative
498: technique.~Another way to obtain age, metallicity, and \afe\ estimates is
499: by means of linear interpolation within this three-dimensional space
500: defined in the models and the subsequent $\chi^2$ minimization of the
501: difference between observed and predicted indices \citep{sh06}.~This
502: technique makes use of multiple Lick indices.
503:
504: We apply both techniques to our dataset and summarize the results in
505: Table~\ref{ssp}. We show a comparison of the output results of the two
506: techniques in Figure~\ref{amacomp} and find good agreement for age and
507: metallicity estimates with a scatter about the one-to-one relation that is
508: consistent with the measurement uncertainties. The $\chi^2$ minimization
509: technique appears to deliver a limited range of \afe\ values compared to
510: the iterative approach, which provides results more consistent with the
511: general distribution of data in diagnostic plots of Figure~\ref{diagd}.
512: The $\chi^2$ technique works entirely within the parameter space defined
513: by the model grids. The fact that it does not make use of extrapolations
514: in the \afe\ grid is likely the reason for the reduced \afe\ dynamic
515: range.
516:
517: \begin{figure*}[!t]
518: \centering
519: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f6a.pdf}
520: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f6b.pdf}
521: \includegraphics[width=5.5cm]{f6c.pdf}
522: \caption{Comparison of ages, \zh\, and \afe\ values for our sample GCs
523: that were derived using the iterative and $\chi^2$ minimization technique.
524: All measurements are summarized in Table~\ref{ssp}.}
525: \label{amacomp}
526: \end{figure*}
527:
528: \subsubsection{GCs in KK084}
529: \label{agekk84}
530: All observed globular clusters in this galaxy are old with ages $>8$ Gyr.
531: The central GC in KK84, KK084-3-830, has the lowest metallicity and the
532: oldest age among all GCs in this galaxy. We find two metal-poor
533: [Z/H]~$\approx-1.4$) and two metal-rich clusters [Z/H]~$\approx-0.3$).
534: Both metal-rich clusters (KK84-36n and KK84-666) are located near NGC~3115
535: (see Figure~\ref{images}) and have elevated radial velocities, which
536: grants the possibility that they might be associated with the disk
537: component of NGC~3115 rather than KK084. Our results for these two GCs are
538: also in line with the VLT study of GCs in NGC~3115 by \cite{kunt02} and
539: GMOS spectroscopy data for the diffuse light of NGC~3115 by
540: \cite{norris06}. \citeauthor{kunt02} found two GC sub-populations with
541: mean metallicities $\feh \simeq -0.37$ and $-1.36$ dex. The absolute age
542: was found $11-12$ Gyr for all observed GCs. The long-slit spectroscopy of
543: the diffuse light in NGC~3115 by \citeauthor{norris06} shows a
544: luminosity-weighted age of $\sim$6 Gyr for the disk component and a
545: luminosity-weighted age of $\sim$12 Gyr for the spheroid.
546:
547: \subsubsection{GCs in UGC~3755}
548: GCs 1182, 2363, 2459, and 914 in the isolated dwarf irregular galaxy
549: UGC~3755 appear to be the youngest objects in our sample with ages in
550: the range $1-4$ Gyr. The other clusters in UGC~3755 are significantly
551: older. One noteworthy case is U3755-3-1257, which shows an intermediate
552: age and metallicity. The youngest GC in our sample has the smallest
553: projected distance relative to the photometric center of the host galaxy.
554:
555: \subsubsection{GCs in ESO490-17}
556: The two GCs in our sample that are associated with ESO490-17 are both
557: metal-poor. Although our data for this galaxy has the lowest S/N, the age
558: difference between the two GCs with high-quality spectra is seen clearly
559: in the diagnostic plots of Figure~\ref{diagd}. This difference is
560: reflected in the integrated colors (see Table~\ref{gcprop}). In terms of
561: projected distance, the young cluster GC 2035 is located closer to the
562: galaxy center.
563:
564: \subsubsection{GCs in KK211}
565: We find another intermediate-age GCs ($6\pm 2$ Gyr) in KK211, which
566: appears to be the central star cluster of this dSph galaxy. The cluster
567: age and metallicity estimates are consistent with the brightest
568: intermediate-age AGB stars in this galaxy, 4$\pm$1 Gyr, $\feh = -1.4 \pm
569: 0.2$, measured by \cite{rejkuba05}.
570:
571: \subsubsection{GCs in KK221}
572: The two brightest GCs in KK221 are old ($t>10$ Gyr) and metal-poor
573: [Z/H]~$\la-1.5$). It is difficult to assess whether these objects are
574: associated with the center of K221 due to the very faint surface
575: brightness profile of the host galaxy. However, both seem to be
576: gravitationally bound judging from their radial velocities.
577:
578: A mean radial velocity of all GCs in KK221 coincides well with the radial
579: velocity of the brightest GC. We find a radial velocity anisotropy
580: (rotation) among the GCs at the 95\%\ confidence level, in the sense that
581: the radial velocities of GCs 608, 883, and 966 located in the western edge
582: of KK221 differ systematically from the radial velocities of GCs 1090,
583: 24n, and 27n located in the eastern edge of the galaxy.
584:
585: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
586: \subsection{\afe\ Ratios}
587: \label{ln:afe}
588: Because of different progenitor lifetimes type-II and type-Ia supernovae
589: enrich their ambient medium on different timescales. In consequence the
590: chemical composition of stellar populations, together with their ages and
591: metallicities, can be used to constrain their formation timescales. One
592: good way to do so is to measure the \afe\ ratios of stellar populations.
593: Massive stars that live up to a few 100 Myr enrich the interstellar medium
594: predominantly with $\alpha$-elements \citep{ww02}, while type-Ia
595: supernovae are delayed by $1\!-\!3$ Gyr and eject mainly iron-peak
596: elements \citep{nomoto97}.
597:
598: Besides ages and metallicities our fitting routines simultaneously
determine \afe\ ratios for all sample clusters. However, the resolution of
the \afe\ diagnostic grid decreases towards lower metallicities. Most of
our sample GCs have relatively low \zh\ values and the accuracy of \afe\
values is reflected by the range of uncertainties, typically
$\sim\!0.1\!-\!0.3$ dex (see Figure~\ref{diagd} and Table~\ref{ssp}). Our
sample covers a wide range in \afe\ much broader than what is expected
from the average measurement uncertainty and, thus, implies significant
chemical variance in the GC systems of dwarf galaxies. The mean \afe\ for
our sample is consistent with enhanced values with
$\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.19\pm0.04$ for the $\chi^{2}$ technique
and $0.18\pm0.12$ for the iterative approach. This compares well with
values of GCs in the Fornax dSph galaxy in the outskirts of the Milky Way
\citep{strader03a}.
599:
600: \begin{table*}
601: \begin{center}
602: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
603: \caption{Ages, \zh\ and \afe\ for our sample globular clusters determined using our
604: $\chi^2$ minimization code and the iterative interpolation routine. The bottom of the table shows the statistics of our sample, i.e. the mean and its error, standard deviation, weighted mean and the corresponding standard deviation, as well as the median and its 25\%-ile margin. See text for details.}
605: \label{ssp}
606: \vskip 10pt
607: \begin{tabular}{lcccrrr}
608: \hline \hline
609: Object & Age$_{\chi^2}$ & \zh$_{\chi^2}$& \afe$_{\chi^2}$ & Age$_{\rm I}$ & \zh$_{\rm I}$ & \afe$_{\rm I}$ \\
610: & (Gyr) & (dex) & (dex) & (Gyr) & (dex) & (dex) \\
611: \hline
612: KK211-3-149 & 6$\pm$2 & $-1.4\pm$0.3 & 0.1$\pm$0.3 & $7.4^{3.1}_{1.4}$ & $-1.45^{0.15}_{0.13}$ & $-0.27^{0.20}_{0.23}$\\
613: KK221-2-966 & 10$\pm$2 & $-1.6\pm$0.1 & 0.1$\pm$0.3 & $11.7^{0.2}_{0.1}$ & $-1.47^{0.04}_{0.02}$ & $ 0.51^{0.08}_{0.08}$\\
614: KK221-24n & 9$\pm$2 & $-1.7\pm$0.3 & 0.3$\pm$0.4 & $11.4^{1.1}_{1.0}$ & $-1.58^{0.16}_{0.02}$ & $ 0.28^{0.21}_{0.22}$\\
615: KK084-3-705 & 9$\pm$1 & $-1.2\pm$0.1 & 0.3$\pm$0.2 & $12.1^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $-1.16^{0.07}_{0.06}$ & $ 0.99^{0.02}_{0.02}$\\
616: KK084-3-830 & 10$\pm$4 & $-1.6\pm$0.1 & 0.3$\pm$0.2 & $10.2^{0.9}_{0.1}$ & $-1.45^{0.02}_{0.24}$ & $ 0.25^{0.07}_{0.07}$\\
617: KK084-4-666 & 8$\pm$3 & $-0.1\pm$0.2 & 0.3$\pm$0.2 & $14.4^{0.6}_{0.6}$ & $-0.31^{0.03}_{0.03}$ & $ 0.52^{0.07}_{0.06}$\\
618: KK084-36n & 8$\pm$2 & $-0.5\pm$0.2 & 0.1$\pm$0.2 & $10.7^{1.7}_{1.2}$ & $-0.30^{0.05}_{0.05}$ & $-0.05^{0.05}_{0.04}$\\
619: U3755-2-652 & 8$\pm$2 & $-1.3\pm$0.2 & 0.1$\pm$0.1 & $10.6^{0.9}_{0.4}$ & $-0.94^{0.03}_{0.02}$ & $ 0.32^{0.09}_{0.09}$\\
620: U3755-3-914 & 4$\pm$1 & $-1.3\pm$0.1 & 0.0: & $ 1.1^{0.2}_{0.2}$ & $-0.48^{0.03}_{0.07}$ & $ 0.17^{0.07}_{0.08}$\\
621: U3755-3-1182 & 2$\pm$1 & $-1.8\pm$0.4 & 0.1$\pm$0.4 & $ 2.3^{0.2}_{1.2}$ & $-2.07^{0.58}_{0.09}$ & $ 0.69^{0.09}_{0.10}$\\
622: U3755-3-1257 & 7$\pm$2 & $-1.2\pm$0.2 & 0.1$\pm$0.1 & $ 3.2^{0.9}_{0.6}$ & $-0.55^{0.07}_{0.10}$ & $-0.55^{0.08}_{0.08}$\\
623: U3755-3-2123 & 6$\pm$2 & $-1.8\pm$0.3 & 0.1$\pm$0.4 & $14.0^{0.3}_{2.6}$ & $-2.24^{0.18}_{0.02}$ & $-0.41^{0.06}_{0.02}$\\
624: U3755-3-2363 & 2$\pm$2 & $-1.3\pm$0.2 & 0.1$\pm$0.1 & $ 0.9^{0.2}_{0.6}$ & $-0.90^{0.31}_{0.07}$ & $-0.11^{0.06}_{0.06}$\\
625: U3755-3-2459 & 1$\pm$1 & $-1.3\pm$0.1 & 0.4$\pm$0.2 & $ 0.6^{0.1}_{0.1}$ & $-0.36^{0.02}_{0.02}$ & $-0.04^{0.03}_{0.03}$\\
626: E490-17-2035 & 4$\pm$2 & $-1.4\pm$0.2 & 0.1$\pm$0.1 & $ 7.2^{1.0}_{3.7}$ & $-1.73^{0.89}_{0.29}$ & $-0.34^{0.37}_{0.14}$\\
627: E490-17-1861 & 9$\pm$4 & $-1.7\pm$0.3 & 0.5: & $11.7^{0.7}_{1.0}$ & $-1.53^{0.11}_{0.04}$ & $ 0.99^{0.02}_{0.45}$\\ \hline
628: mean $\pm$ error & 6.4$\pm$0.7 &$-1.33\pm$0.11 & 0.19$\pm$0.04 & 8.1$\pm1.2$ &$-1.16\pm0.16$ & 0.18$\pm$0.12 \\
629: std. deviation $\sigma$ & 3.0 & 0.46 & 0.14 & 4.9 & 0.63 & 0.47 \\
630: median$\pm$25\%ile
631: & 8.0$\pm$2.5 & $-1.3\pm0.2$ & 0.1$\pm$0.1
632: & 10.6$\pm$4.3 & $-1.16\pm0.53$ & 0.25$\pm0.32$ \\
633: \hline \hline
634: \end{tabular}
635: \end{center}
636: \end{table*}
637:
638: Interestingly, the mean \afe\ of GCs in UGC~3755 is systematically lower
than that of the rest of the sample. For the mean \afe\ of UGC~3755 we
find $\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.13\pm0.05$ using the $\chi^{2}$
technique and $0.01\pm0.16$ with the iterative approach, while the rest of
the sample has $\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.23\pm0.05$ using the
$\chi^{2}$ technique and $0.32\pm0.16$ using the iterative approach. In
each case, this is a $\sim\!2\sigma$ offset. In particular, the youngest
GCs in UGC~3755 have the lowest \afe\ ratios, but the small number
statistics of this sub-sample makes the age-\afe\ correlation marginally
significant and we do not attempt to quantify this trend.
639:
640: The two most metal-rich GCs, KK84-666 and KK84-36n, are an interesting
641: pair in terms of their \afe\ ratios. Although KK84-666 has roughly solar
642: metallicity (see Table~\ref{ssp}) its $\alpha$-element enhancement is
643: relatively high, and comparable to those of Local Group GCs. KK84-36n, on
644: the other hand, which has the second highest metallicity in our sample
645: shows almost no $\alpha$-element enhancement, and clearly stands out
646: compared with the rest of GCs in KK84. Together with its location, which
647: puts it closer to NGC~3115 than KK84 (in terms of projected distance), its
648: low \afe\ ratio is yet another piece of evidence that this GCs is likely a
649: member of the extended disk of NGC~3115 (see also Sect.~\ref{agekk84}).
650:
651: We observe a relatively large fraction of low-\afe\ GCs which are less
frequent in the GC systems of Local Group spirals. In our sample
$44\pm17\%$ of GCs have sub-solar \afe\ ratios. In comparison, only
$\sim20\!-\!30$\% of GCs in the two Local Group spirals Milky Way and M31
which had their \afe\ determined with the same technique have sub-solar
\afe\ values \citep{p06}. We point out that the sampled age, metallicity,
and luminosity ranges for GCs in nearby LSB dwarf galaxies and Local Group
spirals are not the same and that correlations between the \afe\ and any
of these parameters will likely alter the observed fraction of sub-solar
\afe\ clusters. If we restrict the Local Group spiral GC sample to
intermediate and faint luminosity ($M_B \ga - 8$), old ($t > 8$ Gyr), and
metal-poor GCs ([Z/H]~$<-1$) - the typical regime of our observed sample -
the fraction of sub-solar \afe\ clusters drops to $\sim\!15\%$, which is
about 1.7 $\sigma$ off compared to the fraction in our sample. The work of
\cite{pritzl05} which derives mean \afe\ ratios for Milky Way GCs from
high-resolution spectroscopy of individual member stars shows an even
lower fraction of $\sim\!2$\%. Although this is the most representative
comparison we can perform at the current state (given the limited sample
statistics), we stress that GCs in dwarf and spiral galaxies are likely to
have experienced different dynamical evolution histories. Star clusters of
similar luminosity (mass) we observe today may have started off with very
different initial masses. However, since only the most massive GCs are
prone to self-enrichment \citep[such as $\omega$Cen, e.g.][]{recchi05,
villanova07}, the GCs in our sample should reflect the global chemical
composition at the time of their formation, independent of their
mass.~Hence, we speculate that the somewhat lower fraction of Milky Way
GCs with sub-solar \afe\ may be an indication for significantly shorter
star-formation and enrichment timescales compared to those in field dwarf
galaxies.
652:
653: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
654:
655: \subsection{Other Abundances}
656:
657: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
658: \centering
659: \includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{f7a.pdf}
660: \includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{f7b.pdf}
661: \includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{f7c.pdf}
662: \includegraphics[width=7.7cm]{f7d.pdf}
663: \caption{Diagnostic plot of [MgFe]\arcmin\ versus indices primarily sensitive
664: to C, N, and Ca abundances. We plot two model grid for \afe=0.0 and 0.5 dex,
665: and all ages and metallicities as in Figure~\ref{diagd}. Note the offset in CN
666: between younger UGC~3755 GCs and other GCs.}
667: \label{cn_mgfe}
668: \end{figure*}
669:
670: We conducted a detailed investigation of numerous other Lick index
671: diagnostic diagrams. In Figure~\ref{cn_mgfe} we show diagnostic plots for
672: indices that are sensitive to the abundance of carbon, nitrogen, and
673: calcium \citep{tripicco95}. Because a strict quantitative analysis is not
674: possible due to a lack of corresponding model predictions, we focus the
675: following discussion on qualitative trends.
676:
677: \subsubsection{Carbon and Nitrogen}
678: The CN$_2$ versus [MgFe]\arcmin\ diagram (upper left panel) shows
679: significant scatter in CN index strength for our sample GCs, mostly
680: "below" the model grid towards lower CN$_2$ index values. At metallicities
681: typical for our sample GCs, this scatter cannot be accounted for by \afe\
682: variations alone as it is demonstrated in the Figure by the two grid of
683: population synthesis models for \afe\ ratios of 0.0 and $+0.5$ dex. It
684: requires additional variance in, at least, one other element abundance to
685: which the CN$_2$ index is sensitive to match the observed distribution. To
686: qualitatively test this hypothesis we explore the influence of carbon and
687: nitrogen enhancement on the model grid using the predictions for C and
688: N-enhanced models from \cite{thomas03}. We overplot two isochrones for
689: factor 3 enhanced C and N abundance at \afe$=0.5$ for a 5 Gyr old stellar
690: population. We recall that the corresponding predictions for non-enhanced
691: populations are plotted as thick lines in the two grids. The shape of the
692: C/N-enhanced model grid is very similar to that of the non-enhanced
693: predictions and for clarity reasons we avoid plotting the entire grid for
694: the C/N-enhanced populations, and note that age and metallicity are highly
695: degenerate in these grids and that both parameters have no impact on the
696: following discussion.
697:
698: The comparison of the enhanced models with our data in the CN$_2$
699: vs.~[MgFe]\arcmin\ diagram shows that some GCs in dwarf galaxies appear to
700: be highly under-abundant in C and/or N. This is particularly the case for
701: GCs in UGC~3755, which exhibit on average significantly lower CN$_2$ index
702: values. However, from the variations in CN$_2$ index strength alone we
703: cannot decide whether chemical variance in carbon and/or nitrogen is
704: responsible for the offsets.
705:
706: A sanity check is provided by the C$_2$4668 and G4300 vs.~[MgFe]\arcmin\
707: diagrams which are both mildly sensitive to C abundance but not sensitive
708: to N variations \citep{tripicco95}. Most GCs in the C$_2$4668 and G4300
709: vs. [MgFe]\arcmin\ diagrams show relatively little deviations from the
710: general trend of model predictions, and we infer that the abundance of
711: carbon is less likely to change with respect to predictions of standard
712: population synthesis models than the nitrogen abundance, which implies
713: that the nitrogen abundance appears to vary significantly in GC systems of
714: dwarf galaxies. We suggest that this pure qualitative result is being
715: confirmed with higher resolution spectroscopic observations.
716:
717: \subsubsection{Calcium}
718: In the Ca4227 vs. [MgFe]\arcmin\ diagram we add a model which describes a
719: stellar population with a factor 3 calcium under-abundance relative to the
720: other $\alpha$-elements. In the Ca4227 vs. [MgFe]\arcmin\ plot (lower
721: right panel in Figure~\ref{cn_mgfe}) many GCs in our sample show excess in
722: Ca4227 index strength. The overplotted model for [$\alpha$/Ca]~$=0.5$
723: indicates that this offset may be due to a Ca enhancement in some GCs.~As
724: the absolute calibration of Ca abundance model predictions is still
725: uncertain \citep[see][]{cenarro04, prochaska05}, we merely point out this
726: rather intriguing abundance pattern should be checked with higher
727: resolution spectra.
728:
729: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
730: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
731:
732: \section{Discussion}
733: \label{discussion}
734:
735: \subsection{Chemical Tagging of GCs in LSB Dwarf Galaxies}
736:
737: The variance of GC chemical compositions in and outside the Local Group
738: reveals complex enrichment histories.~The {\it old} GCs in our sample
739: with ages $t\ga8$ Gyr show marginally different \afe\
740: ratios\footnote{$\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.21\pm0.04$ using the
741: $\chi^{2}$ technique and $0.25\pm0.15$ dex for the iterative approach.}
742: compared to the typical old GCs in the Local Group, which are
743: $\alpha$-enhanced at $0.29\pm0.01$ dex \citep[leaving out Pal12, Ter7,
744: Rup106, and M68, see][for details]{pritzl05}. The younger GCs in our
745: sample with ages $t\la8$ Gyr have significantly lower \afe\
746: ratios\footnote{$\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$rangle=0.14\pm0.07$ using the
747: $\chi^{2}$ technique and $0.03\pm0.20$ dex for the iterative approach.}
748: and are comparable to Milky Way GCs associated with the Sagittarius
749: remnant and other distinct GCs such as Ruprecht 106, $\omega$ Centauri,
750: NCG~2419, which have $\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.06\pm0.05$
751: \citep{pritzl05}.
752:
753: Solar-type \afe\ ratios are consistent with star formation timescales
754: longer than $\sim\!1\!-\!3$ Gyr, when ejecta of type-II {\it and} type-Ia
755: supernovae are fully mixed in the interstellar medium \citep{greggio05}.
756: \afe\ ratios at $\sim\!0.3$ dex indicate shorter and more intense
757: cluster formation, on timescales of the order of a few hundred million
758: years. This, in turn, suggest that some of the oldest GCs in our sample
759: were formed relatively early, at similar epochs as the typical Milky Way
760: GC. Less $\alpha$-enhanced GCs, on the other hand, likely formed $\ga\!1$
761: Gyr after the Big Bang at $z\!\approx\!5.7$ or later, which would place
762: their formation period at the end of reionization or thereafter
763: \citep[e.g.][]{kashikawa06, benson06}.
764:
765: The characteristic chemical compositions limit the fraction of accreted
766: GCs from satellite LSB-type galaxies during the assembly process of Local
767: Group spirals galaxies. Given the difference in $\alpha$-enhanced to
768: non-$\alpha$-enhanced GCs between our sample and the Local Group spirals
769: (see Sect.~\ref{ln:afe}), our results imply that to qualify as potential
770: building block for the two massive Local Group spirals in the hierarchical
771: picture of galaxy formation, LSB dwarf galaxies would either have to {\it
772: i)} cease forming star clusters long before the beginning of enrichment by
773: type-Ia supernovae before being accreted much later by a more massive halo
774: or {\it ii)} being accreted when the gas out of which star clusters were
775: forming was still not polluted by type-Ia supernovae.
776:
777: Other element abundance ratios provide us with the opportunity to
778: chemically tag GCs that were formed in the field environment and later
779: accreted by more massive galaxy halos, much like the chemical tagging of
780: accreted stellar sub-populations that are part of the diffuse-light
781: component in nearby galaxies \citep{fh02, geisler07}. For instance, at a
782: given [MgFe]\arcmin\ index (i.e. total metallicity) the carbon and
783: nitrogen enhancement of our sample GCs is consistent with that of Galactic
784: GCs, but fails to match the chemical composition of M31 GCs which have
785: excess CN$_2$ indices (see Fig.~\ref{cn_mgfe}).~It was shown in a series
786: of studies that the higher CN$_2$ index values for old M31 GCs are due to
787: a nitrogen enhancement by at least a factor of three compared to the
788: younger cluster population \citep{li03, burstein04, beasley05, p05a}.~We
789: remind the reader that the comparison sample of M31 GCs is biased towards
790: disk clusters and samples only poorly the halo GC population \citep[see
791: Fig.~1 in][]{p05a}, where accreted objects are more likely to
792: reside.~Interestingly, although the CN$_2$ indices of the N-enriched M31
793: GCs do not match our sample GCs, similar N-enhancement can be suspected in
794: GCs of the Fornax dSph galaxy (see Fig.~\ref{cn_mgfe}).~We conclude that
795: it is relatively unlikely that M31 accreted a significant amount GCs from
796: satellite dwarfs similar to those in our sample on orbits close to the
797: plane of the M31 disk. On the other hand, judging from Figure~\ref{cn_mgfe}
798: the average C/Fe and N/Fe chemistry of our sample
799: GCs appears to be similar to the one of metal-poor Milky Way GCs. We currently
800: lack the spectroscopic database of outer-halo GCs in the two Local Group
801: spirals to further constrain the selective accretion history of these
802: massive spiral galaxies.
803:
804:
805: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
806:
807: \subsection{Specific Frequencies of GCs in LSB Dwarf Galaxies}
808:
809: \begin{figure}
810: \centering
811: \includegraphics[width=6cm,angle=-90,bb=60 60 567 732]{f8.pdf}
812: \caption{Specific frequency, $S_{N}$, versus luminosity for
813: galaxies from the samples of \cite{durrell96} and \cite{harris91} ({\it
814: open symbols}), and for our sample of five galaxies ({\it solid circles}).
815: The dark solid line shows $S_{N}$ predictions which assume that GCs were
816: formed in galaxies in direct proportion to the initial gas mass. The light
817: solid line shows the Dekel and Silk model of mass loss.}
818: \label{ushape}
819: \end{figure}
820:
821: The specific frequency, $S_N$, (Harris \& van den Bergh 1981) is defined
822: as the number of globular clusters per unit $M_V\!=\!-15$ mag of host
823: galaxy light: $S_{N}\!=\!N_{\rm GC} \cdot 10^{0.4(M_V+15)}$.~It is tightly
824: related to cluster formation efficiency, which is varying as a function of
825: host galaxy's morphological type, mass, and local environmental density
826: \citep[e.g.][]{harris91, richtler95}. \cite{kumai93} and \cite{west93}
827: found a significant trend of increasing $S_{N}$ with increasing
828: environmental density. Another observational fact is that $S_{N}$ values
829: grow for nucleated dwarf galaxies with decreasing galactic mass
830: \citep[e.g.][]{miller98}.
831:
832: Figure~\ref{ushape} illustrates the $M_V - S_{N}$ diagram, where the
833: galaxy luminosity is plotted against the GC specific frequency. Our five
834: sample LSB galaxies are shown as solid circles, while data for dwarf
835: galaxies in the Virgo cluster \citep{durrell96} and more massive
836: early-type galaxies \citep{harris91} are shown as open symbols. The solid
837: line is a model for which $S_{N} \sim 0.0025\, L_{\rm gal}^{0.3}$
838: \citep{mclaughlin99}, where a constant number of GCs per unit mass is
839: formed with an efficiency $e=0.0025$, and the mass of gas is much lower
840: than the stellar mass. This thin line shows the mass-loss model $S_{N}
841: \sim M^{-5/3}$, which follows from $ M/L_V \sim M^{2/3}$ \citep{dekel03}
842: or $M/L \sim L^{-0.37}$ \citep{dekel86}. The vertical normalization of
843: this model is arbitrary and was chosen to fit the dwarf galaxy data.
844:
845: We point out the similarity of $S_{N}$ values for field and cluster dwarf
846: galaxies at a given galaxy luminosity, especially for faint galaxies.
847: Provided not a size-of-sample effect, this result implies that environment
848: is not the driving parameter for the $M_V - S_{N}$ correlation for dwarf
849: galaxies. Less massive galaxies lose gas more efficiently because objects
850: with shallower potential wells develop galactic winds more easily (e.g.,
851: Arimoto \& Yoshii 1987; Matteucci 1994), and it seems plausible that
852: internal factors, such as galactic winds, are shaping the $M_V - S_{N}$
853: relation of dwarf galaxies. These results require further testing with
854: larger galaxy samples.
855:
856: A particularly interesting fact is that dIrr and dSph galaxies seem to
857: follow the same $M_V - S_{N}$ trend. At face value, this appears to be in
858: contrast with chemical evolution models and observations of abundance
859: ratios in low-mass galaxies. For instance, \cite{lanfranchi03} concluded
860: that one or two long starbursts with very efficient winds well describe
861: the chemical evolution of dSphs. On the other hand, blue compact galaxies
862: are characterized by a star formation history proceeding in several short
863: bursts separated by long quiescent periods. Given varying star formation
864: histories, similar $M_V - S_{N}$ relations for both dIrr and dSph galaxies
865: require that the fading of the galaxy light and the dynamical evolution of
866: the globular cluster system are tightly related.
867:
868: Passive evolution of dIrr galaxies leads to a fading of up to $\sim\!2$
869: mag of their integrated magnitudes if they were to abruptly stop forming
870: stars \citep{hunter85}. Assuming a non-changing $S_{N}$, this requires the
871: disruption of $\sim\!80\!-\!90\%$ of all formed star clusters, and is in
872: line with observations of the so-called cluster ``infant mortality'' in
873: nearby young star cluster systems \citep{chandar06, whitmore07}. This also
874: suggests that the effects of tidal forces acting in group and cluster
875: environments are linked in disrupting star clusters and their host
876: dIrr LSB galaxies \citep{gnedin03, georgiev06}. We suggest a detailed
877: study of globular cluster systems in low-mass galaxies sampling galaxy
878: mass, morphology, and environmental density to test our findings.
879:
880:
881: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
882:
883: \subsection{Nuclei of Dwarf Galaxies}
884: Our spectroscopic study shows that some of the lowest mass galaxies ($M_V
885: \approx -12$ mag) can have nuclear star clusters, i.e.~the brightest GC is
886: located near the optical center of a galaxy. The two most prominent cases
887: in our data set are KK211-149, and KK84-830. Both have low metallicities
888: [Z/H]~$\approx-1.5$, see Tab.~\ref{ssp}). KK211-149 is an intermediate-age
889: GC, while KK84-830 is old. Both nuclear clusters are found in dwarf
890: galaxies located in close vicinity to massive galaxies, NGC~5128 and
891: NGC~3115, respectively.
892:
893: \cite{mclaughlin06} have shown that the limiting mass of a central massive
object in dwarf galaxies is defined as follows:
\begin{equation} M_{\rm CMO} = 3.67\times 10^8 \ M_\odot\ \lambda^{-1}\,
\sigma_{200}^4\, (f_g/0.16)\ , \end{equation} where $\lambda$ is the
massive-star feedback equal to $\sim\!0.03-0.1$ for a nuclear star
cluster, $\sigma_{200}\equiv \sigma/200\ {\rm km\,s}^{-1}$, and the baryon
fraction $f_g = \Omega_b/\Omega_m = 0.16$ \citep{SpergelEtal03}. So, a
limiting mass of a nucleus in dSph galaxies with $ \sigma \approx 10$
$km\,s^{-1}$ is in the range $\sim\!10^4\! -\! 10^5 M_\odot$, the mass
range of Local Group globular clusters. We compute the total masses for
both our nuclear clusters from the photometric information in
Tables~\ref{gcprop} and \ref{ssp} using the population synthesis
prediction of \cite{bc03} assuming a Salpeter IMF. We find $2.5\times10^5
M_\odot$ for KK211-149 and $2\times10^6 M_\odot$ for KK84-830. A more
"top-heavy" IMF compared to the Salpeter IMF would bring both mass
estimates in better agreement. Indications for a "top-heavy" IMF are found
in the central stellar populations of the Milky Way \citep{nayakshin06,
nayakshin07}. Heated molecular clouds are suspected to produce "top-heavy"
IMFs due to a simultaneous increase in the thermal Jeans mass and the
collisional destruction of low-mass stellar cores \citep{elmegreen03}.
894:
895: The two nuclear star clusters are massive and compact enough to survive a
896: Hubble time in isolated galaxies in the absence of dynamical factors, such
897: as tidal interactions, galaxy-galaxy encounters, interaction with ISM,
898: etc.~Using the structural parameters determined in \cite{sh05} and the
899: evolution models of \cite{fz01} we compute a mass-loss of 7\% for
900: KK211-149 and 3\% for KK84-830 over the next 12 Gyr due to two-body
901: relaxation. Including tidal interactions on orbits typical for Milky Way
902: GCs, as adopted by \citeauthor{fz01}, these fractions increase by a factor
903: $\la\!2$. So far we know of only one nucleated early-type dwarf galaxy
904: (Sagittarius dSph) in the Milky Way subgroup, a few in the M31 subgroup,
905: and none in the Canes Venatici Cloud, and among isolated nearby LV
906: galaxies \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{grebel06}. The absolute
907: number of nucleated early-type dwarf galaxies is higher in denser
908: environments, such as the Fornax and Virgo galaxy clusters
909: \citep[e.g.][]{bin85, miller98, cote06, lisker07}. Although this suggests
910: that the process of nucleation in cluster dwarf galaxies is likely driven
911: by dynamical factors that depend on the local environmental density, the
912: nucleation fraction among dwarf galaxies in different environments appears
913: to be roughly constant. Compared to the few nucleated dwarfs in the Local
914: Group with a total mass of ${\cal M}_{\rm total}\approx2\cdot10^{12}
915: M_{\odot}$ \citep{kara05, vdb06}, the Virgo galaxy cluster holds
916: $\sim\!300$ nucleated dwarfs \citep{sandage85} and has a total dynamical
917: mass of ${\cal M}_{\rm total}\approx1.2\cdot10^{15} M_{\odot}$
918: \citep{fouque01}. Hence, our back of the envelope calculation suggests
919: similar nucleation fractions as a function of the total group/cluster
920: mass. But, of course, these numbers are very rough, especially for the
921: Virgo cluster, where the number of galaxies with nuclear star clusters
922: grows with higher spatial resolution \citep{cote06}. Clearly, a larger
923: sample is necessary to assess the frequency of nuclear clusters among
924: field dwarf galaxies.
925:
926: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
927: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
928:
929: \section{Conclusions}
930: \label{conclusion}
931:
932: Numerous photometric and spectroscopic studies of globular clusters in
Virgo and Fornax cluster dwarf galaxies have been undertaken in the last
years, which targeted bright dwarf galaxies down to $M_V\approx-15$ mag
\citep[see][]{miller06}. Due to observational selection effects dwarf
galaxies fainter than this are missed at distances of $D \approx 17$ Mpc.
Faint LSB dwarf galaxies down to $M_V \approx -12$ mag have long been
thought to be free of globular clusters, because they have insufficient
mass. Our HST/WFPC2 survey of low-mass dwarf galaxies (SPM05), situated at
distances $2-6$ Mpc in the Local Volume, revealed a rich population of
globular cluster candidates (GCCs). In this work, we observed five of
these galaxies with the VLT/FORS2 spectrograph in MXU mode and found that
all targeted GCCs except one are genuine globular clusters. We could also
confirm five additional globular clusters in our sample galaxies. Two
clusters appear to be the nuclei of KK84 and KK211. The confirmed globular
clusters are in general old and metal-poor, and show a range of \afe\
ratios. The mean $\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.19\pm0.04$ that was
determined with the $\chi^{2}$ minimization technique and $0.18\pm0.12$
dex which was computed using the iterative approach appears slightly lower
than the mean $\langle$[$\alpha$/Fe]$\rangle=0.29\pm0.01$ for typical
Milky Way clusters. Globular clusters in the two isolated, relatively
bright dwarf galaxies UGC~3755 and ESO~490-17 show a wide range of ages
from 1 to 9 Gyr, and imply extended star formation histories in these
galaxies. This goes in hand with the measured low \afe\ ratios for the
younger clusters and is consistent with low intensity star bursts. The
oldest clusters with the highest \afe\ are found in KK84, a companion of
NGC~3115. Other chemical abundances indicate potentially interesting
differences between globular clusters in dwarf and more massive galaxies
and, if confirmed, would facilitate the quantification of the accreted
mass in rich GC systems of massive early-type galaxies.
933:
934:
935: \acknowledgments
936:
937: We thank the referee for a constructive report that helped to improve the
938: paper. THP gratefully acknowledges support in form of a Plaskett
939: Fellowship at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics. MES thanks
940: D.I.~Makarov for his help with programming in Matlab. We are grateful to
941: Ricardo Schiavon for providing his spectroscopic Milky Way GC data in
942: electronic form. This work is based on observations made with ESO
943: Telescopes at the Paranal Observatory under program ID P76.A-0137 and
944: P76.B-0137.
945:
946: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
947: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
948: \newpage
949: \appendix
950:
951: \section{Surface Brightness Profiles}
952: \label{sbprof}
953:
954: Fundamental structural parameters of galaxies determined from their
955: surface brightness (SB) profiles provide valuable information about
956: processes of galaxy formation \citep[e.g][]{kormendy85, dekel86}. In
957: Tables~\ref{dwgprop} and \ref{dwgprop1} we show fundamental photometric
958: parameters obtained for our sample galaxies using our SB profiles. The $B$
959: and $I$ SB profiles and the corresponding $B-I$ distributions are
960: presented in Figure~\ref{surf}. The errors of SB profile determination
961: depend primarily on the accuracy of the background estimates and the
962: position of the galactic center. The background estimates are relatively
963: uncertain in cases where bright stars are projected on top of the SB
964: profile. That is why our surface photometry results should be taken as
965: rough estimates for this extremely low surface brightness dwarf galaxy
966: KK221. The choice of a center is complicated for dwarf irregular galaxies
967: with multiple, bright star-forming regions. Given all uncertainties we
968: estimate typical error of the integrated visual magnitude of the order of
969: $\sim\!0.2$ mag. The errors of the SB profiles are oveplotted in the
970: distributions of colors in Figure~\ref{surf}.
971:
972: The solid lines overplotted on the SB profiles show the Sersic law
973: approximation. The Sersic model \citep{sersic68} describes SB profiles of
974: the form: $$ I(r)=I_0 \exp[-\nu_n(r/r_e)^n] $$ where $I(r)$ is the SB (in
975: intensity) at radius $r$, $I_0$ is the central surface brightness, $r_e$
976: is the effective half-intensity radius, $\nu_n \simeq 2n - 1/3
977: +4/(405n)+46/(25515n^2)$, and $n$ is the dimensionless shape parameter
978: that determines the curvature of the profile. For $1/n > 1$ the profiles
979: become flat in the central part, while for $1/n< 1$ they are cuspy. The
980: best-fitting parameters of the Sersic profile are presented in
981: Table~\ref{dwgprop1}. It should be noted that central bright objects such
982: as GCs or star forming regions were excluded from the fit.
983:
984: Table~\ref{dwgprop2} summarizes the literature data on the fundamental
985: photometric parameters of our sample galaxies. One can see, that in
986: general our photometric results agree fairly well with the literature
987: data. However, the shape parameter $n$ determined by \cite{jerjen00} for
988: KK211 implies a flatter profile than ours. The color profile is irregular
989: for our sample dIrrs and for KK221, for which the sky subtraction is
990: difficult.
991:
992: The Sersic index $n$ appears to be similar for all our sample dwarf
993: galaxies, except KK221, which may be tidally disrupted. The SB profile for
994: KK221 is two times flatter than for the other sample galaxies. Similarity
995: of fundamental parameters for rotating and non-rotating dwarf galaxies of
996: different morphological type and situated in different environments may
997: indicate that the internal structure of such faint galaxies is primarily
998: defined by their mass.
999:
1000: \begin{figure*}[!ht]
1001: \centering
1002: \includegraphics[width=11cm]{f9.pdf}
1003: \caption{Azimuthally averaged surface brightness profiles and $B\!-\!I$ color
1004: profiles for our sample dwarf galaxies. In all panels, the upper surface
1005: brightness curve belongs to the $B$-band measurement.}
1006: \label{surf}
1007: \end{figure*}
1008:
1009:
1010: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1011: \section{Mass estimate for KK221}
1012:
1013: To derive the mass of KK221 we use the mass estimator for tracer
1014: populations \citep{evans03}:
1015: \begin{equation}
1016: M_{\rm press}=\frac{C}{GN}\sum_i (v_{i, {\rm los}}-\langle v\rangle)^2 R_i,
1017: \end{equation}
1018: where
1019: \begin{equation}
1020: C=\frac{16(\gamma-2\beta)}{\pi
1021: (4-3\beta)}\cdot\frac{4-\gamma}{3-\gamma} \cdot\frac{1-(r_{\rm
1022: in}/r_{\rm out})^{3-\gamma}}{1-(r_{\rm in}/r_{\rm out})^{4-\gamma}}.
1023: \end{equation}
1024: Here, $\langle v\rangle$ is the system's mean radial velocity and $\beta$
1025: the anisotropy parameter $1-\sigma_t^2/\sigma_r^2$ which is unity for
1026: purely radial orbits and $-\infty$ for a system with solely tangential
1027: orbits \citep{binney81}.
1028:
1029: Using the power-law rule $\gamma 1+d\log\Sigma / d\log R$
1030: \citep{gebhardt96} to derive the three-dimensional density profile of the
1031: GC population, we obtain $\gamma = 1.4$ from the Sersic index $n$ of KK221
1032: SB distribution (see Table~\ref{dwgprop}), and $M_{\rm press} \approx 3
1033: \cdot 10^8 M_{\sun}$. We use here the anisotropy parameter $\beta=0.5$ for
1034: randomly oriented orbits, and radii of orbits of the nearest and most
1035: distant GC $r_{\rm in}=0.9$ kpc and $r_{\rm out}=1.8$ kpc \citep{sh05},
1036: correspondingly. The statistically unbiased estimate of the mass value is
1037: $M_{\rm press}^c= M_{\rm press}[1-(2 \sigma_v^2)/3 s_v^2]$, where
1038: $\sigma_v$ is the rms error of the radial velocity measurements, and $s_v$
1039: is the rms velocity of GCs relative to the mean velocity of GC system,
1040: $s_v^2= (1/k)\sum{(v_k-\langle v \rangle)^2}$ with a number of GCs equal k
1041: \citep{kara99}. $M_{\rm press}^c= 0.2 M_{\rm press}$ in our case. So, we
1042: obtain the statistically unbiased estimate of the mass for KK221 $M_{\rm
1043: press}^c \sim 6 \cdot 10^7 M_{\sun}$, and the corresponding mass-to-light
1044: ratio $M/L_v \approx 15$. Corrected for the effect of radial velocity
1045: anisotropy (Sec.~\ref{evol_par_GCs}), the mass-to-light ratio $M/L_v$
1046: appears to be $\sim 9 M/L_{v, \sun}$.~The expected uncertainty of the
1047: total mass estimate is $\sim\!50$\% taking into account the small number
1048: of GCs. In our case where the number of GCs is six, the error of the
1049: velocity dispersion measurement is $\sim\!33$\% of the value of the
1050: velocity dispersion itself.
1051:
1052: \begin{table}
1053: \begin{center}
1054: \scriptsize
1055: \caption{Fundamental photometric parameters for our sample galaxies from literature
1056: sources.}
1057: \label{dwgprop2}
1058: \vskip 10pt
1059: \begin{tabular}{lllccll}
1060: \hline \hline
1061: Galaxy & B & $B-R$ & $R_e(B)$ & $\mu_0(B)$ & h(\arcsec) & Reference \\
1062: \hline
1063: KK211 & 16.32 & 1.56 & 21.1 & 24.48 & $1.72^{(1/n)}$ & \cite{jerjen00} \\
1064: KK84 & 16.16 & 1.38 & 17.99 & 23.19 & 10.59 & \cite{parodi02} \\
1065: U3755 & 14.07 & $0.55^{(B-V)}$ & \nodata & 21.64 & 12.62 & \cite{mak99} \\
1066: E490-017 & 13.67 & 0.83 & 22.83 & 21.30 & 13.28 & \cite{parodi02} \\
1067: \hline \hline
1068: \end{tabular}
1069: \end{center}
1070: \tablecomments{ Columns contain the following data:
1071: (2), (3) total B magnitude and ($B\!-\!R$) color (for UGC3755 ($B\!-\!V$) is given),
1072: (4) effective radius, (5) central surface brightness, (6) exponential
1073: scale length (for KK211 the Sersic profile shape parameter is given), (7)
1074: reference.}
1075: \end{table}
1076:
1077: \begin{table}[!ht]
1078: \begin{center}
1079: \scriptsize
1080: \caption{Fundamental parameters of our sample dwarf galaxies derived from the
1081: surface photometry on the VLT/FORS2 images.}
1082: \label{dwgprop1}
1083: \vskip 10pt
1084: \begin{tabular}{lrcccll}
1085: \hline \hline
1086: Galaxy & $\mu_0(B)$ & $\mu_0(I)$ & $R_e(B)(\arcsec)$& n & $R_c(\arcsec)$ & $R_t(\arcsec)$ \\
1087: \hline
1088: KK221 & 26.00$\pm$0.20 & 24.20$\pm$0.20 & 32.3$\pm$0.5 & 0.40$\pm$0.20 & 78$\pm$19 & 85$\pm$9 \\
1089: KK211 & 24.51$\pm$0.12 & 22.60$\pm$0.15 & 24.1$\pm$0.1 & 0.85$\pm$0.15 & 24$\pm$1 & 89$\pm$1 \\
1090: KK084 & 24.04$\pm$0.07 & 22.40$\pm$0.07 & 19.4$\pm$0.4 & 0.79$\pm$0.01 & 17$\pm$1 & 75$\pm$1 \\
1091: U3755 & 22.01$\pm$0.05 & 20.98$\pm$0.10 & 22.6$\pm$0.1 & 0.85$\pm$0.05 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1092: E490-17 & 22.45$\pm$0.20 & 21.29$\pm$0.05 & 26.4$\pm$1.2 & 0.76$\pm$0.04 & \nodata & \nodata \\
1093: \hline \hline
1094: \end{tabular}
1095: \end{center}
1096: \tablecomments{Columns contain the following data:
1097: (2) central surface brightness in B band with the corresponding error (a
1098: mean value between the corresponding best-fitting parameters of Sersic and
1099: King profiles), (3), (4) best-fitting parameters of the Sersic profile,
1100: effective radius and degree with corresponding errors, (5), (6) the King
1101: law approximation parameters, core radius and effective radius with
1102: corresponding errors.}
1103: \end{table}
1104:
1105:
1106: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1107:
1108: \section{Lick Index Measurements}
1109:
1110: We provide the calibrated Lick index measurements of all confirmed GCs in Table~\ref{lickind1}.
1111:
1112: \begin{table}[!h]
1113: \begin{center}
1114: \caption{Globular cluster indices (first line) corrected for zeropoints of transformation to the standard Lick system and errors determined from bootstrapping of the object spectrum (second line).}
1115: \label{lickind1}
1116: \tiny
1117: %\scriptsize
1118: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr} \\
1119: \hline \hline
1120: ID &H$\delta_{\rm A}$ &H$\gamma_{\rm A}$& H$\delta_{\rm F}$ &H$\gamma_{\rm F}$&CN$_1$ & CN$_2$ & Ca4227 & G4300 & Fe4383 & Ca4455 & Fe4531 & Fe4668 & H$\beta$ & Fe5015 & Mg1 & Mg2 & Mgb & Fe5270 & Fe5335 & Fe5406 \\
1121: (S/N) &(\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) &(mag) & (mag) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA)& (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (mag)& (mag) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) \\ \hline
1122: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1123: {\bf KK211} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1124: {\bf 149} & 4.19 & 1.41 & 2.98 & 2.69 &-0.1272 & -0.0867 & 0.12 & 1.34 & 1.93 & 0.07 & 1.19 & 1.28 & 3.33 & 2.56 & -0.0142 & 0.0538 & 1.05 & 0.93 & 1.03 & 0.21 \\
1125: (40) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.22 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.23 & 0.0021 & 0.0031 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.19 & 0.0050 & 0.0050 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.21 \\
1126: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1127: {\bf KK221} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1128: {\bf 966} & 2.42 & 0.67 & 2.21 & 2.25 &-0.1319 & -0.1006 & 0.61 & 1.44 & 1.05 & 0.39 & 1.79 & -0.12 & 1.97 & 1.93 & 0.0065 & 0.0566 & 0.85 & 0.86 & 0.48 & 0.14 \\
1129: (85) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.0007 & 0.0011 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.0020 & 0.0020 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.09 \\
1130: {\bf 24n} & 3.16 & 1.46 & 3.30 & 2.43 &-0.0963 & -0.1251 & 0.88 & 1.60 & -0.73 & 0.27 & 1.20 & 2.29 & 2.49 & 1.74 & 0.0119 & 0.0581 & 0.66 & 1.36 & 0.20 & -0.18 \\
1131: (35) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.24 & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.0019 & 0.0029 & 0.11 & 0.12 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.17 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.0054 & 0.0055 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.22 \\
1132: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1133: {\bf KK084} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1134: {\bf 705} & 1.10 &-0.90 & 2.00 & 1.97 &-0.1074 & -0.0493 & 0.68 & 3.12 & 0.57 & 0.83 & 1.42 & 2.71 & 2.15 & 1.35 & 0.0333 & 0.1000 & 1.36 & 0.62 & -0.26 & 1.02 \\
1135: (31) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.21 & 0.21 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.0018 & 0.0027 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.14 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.18 & 0.0047 & 0.0047 & 0.18 & 0.19 & 0.19 & 0.19 \\
1136: {\bf 830} & 3.82 & 0.96 & 2.81 & 2.06 &-0.1075 & -0.0693 & 0.60 & 1.93 & 1.38 & 0.80 & 0.01 & -0.58 & 1.90 & 1.83 & 0.0182 & 0.0536 & 0.80 & 1.15 & 0.35 & -0.21 \\
1137: (47) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.0006 & 0.0009 & 0.03 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.0016 & 0.0016 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.07 \\
1138: {\bf 666} &-2.06 &-6.21 & 0.07 &-1.40 & 0.0343 & 0.0736 & 1.93 & 6.98 & 4.65 & 2.25 & 3.02 & 6.38 & 1.56 & 2.95 & 0.0643 & 0.1977 & 2.58 & 1.73 & 1.61 & 1.28 \\
1139: (24) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.28 & 0.29 & 0.30 & 0.30 & 0.0025 & 0.0041 & 0.13 & 0.15 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.19 & 0.22 & 0.22 & 0.24 & 0.0072 & 0.0073 & 0.24 & 0.25 & 0.25 & 0.25 \\
1140: {\bf 36n} &-1.23 &-4.00 & -0.45 &-0.23 &-0.0374 & 0.0087 & 0.45 & 2.35 & -0.08 & 0.62 & 2.22 & 1.16 & 1.23 & 5.91 & 0.0592 & 0.1589 & 2.60 & 2.58 & 1.97 & -0.21 \\
1141: (23) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.19 & 0.19 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.0018 & 0.0026 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.15 & 0.15 & 0.16 & 0.0044 & 0.0044 & 0.17 & 0.17 & 0.17 & 0.00 \\
1142: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1143: {\bf U3755} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1144: {\bf 652} & 3.76 &-2.35 & 3.15 & 0.83 &-0.0868 & -0.0420 & 0.73 & 2.30 & 3.12 & 0.85 & 1.85 & 1.17 & 1.83 & 1.94 & 0.0194 & 0.0665 & 1.16 & 1.02 & 0.68 & 0.24 \\
1145: (42) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.0011 & 0.0017 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.0028 & 0.0029 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.11 \\
1146: {\bf 914} & 6.72 & 4.57 & 4.47 & 4.03 &-0.1930 & -0.1193 & 0.38 & 0.35 & -1.28 & 0.83 & 0.26 & -1.05 & 4.31 & 0.08 & -0.0001 & 0.0661 & 1.47 & 1.28 & 0.66 & 0.36 \\
1147: (23) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.0012 & 0.0017 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.09 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.13 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 0.0036 & 0.0037 & 0.16 & 0.17 & 0.17 & 0.17 \\
1148: {\bf 1182} & 8.48 & 6.78 & 6.49 & 5.38 &-0.2120 & -0.1678 & 0.59 & -1.98 & -0.41 & -0.17 & 1.13 & -0.34 & 5.89 & 2.17 & -0.0153 & 0.0232 & 0.25 & 0.86 & -0.30 & -0.27 \\
1149: (49) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.0006 & 0.0009 & 0.03 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.0017 & 0.0017 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.08 \\
1150: {\bf 1257} & 3.26 & 1.05 & 2.84 & 2.30 &-0.0894 & -0.0769 & 0.89 & 3.08 & -0.10 & 0.51 & 0.73 & 0.23 & 2.78 & 3.00 & 0.0197 & 0.0667 & 1.25 & 2.26 & 1.11 & 1.02 \\
1151: (25) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.0019 & 0.0026 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.12 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.16 & 0.16 & 0.17 & 0.0045 & 0.0046 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.18 & 0.18 \\
1152: {\bf 2123} & 4.94 & 2.87 & 3.41 & 3.16 &-0.1327 & -0.1067 & 0.81 & -0.72 & 1.50 & 1.31 & 2.31 & -0.06 & 2.59 & 0.25 & -0.0020 & 0.0167 & 0.24 & 0.88 & 0.89 & 0.26 \\
1153: (31) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.14 & 0.0010 & 0.0014 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.11 & 0.0028 & 0.0029 & 0.12 & 0.13 & 0.13 & 0.13 \\
1154: {\bf 2363} & 9.32 & 6.76 & 6.03 & 6.02 &-0.1690 & -0.1133 & 0.60 & -1.07 & 0.93 & 0.31 & 1.66 & 0.04 & 5.43 & 1.20 & 0.0091 & 0.0330 & 0.47 & 0.90 & 0.66 & -0.52 \\
1155: (38) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.10 & 0.12 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 0.0007 & 0.0012 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.07 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.09 & 0.0023 & 0.0023 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 \\
1156: {\bf 2459} & 7.58 & 7.39 & 5.88 & 5.54 &-0.2170 & -0.1784 & 0.57 & -1.55 & -1.01 & 0.30 & 1.37 & -0.38 & 4.92 & 1.18 & 0.0048 & 0.0442 & 1.03 & 1.27 & 0.63 & -0.13 \\
1157: (44) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.0007 & 0.0011 & 0.04 & 0.04 & 0.05 & 0.06 & 0.06 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.08 & 0.0022 & 0.0022 & 0.09 & 0.10 & 0.10 & 0.10 \\
1158: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1159: {\bf E490-17} & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1160: {\bf 2035} & 4.63 & 4.94 & 4.84 & 4.94 &-0.1082 & -0.0853 & 1.18 & 0.26 & 0.21 & 0.33 & 0.11 & -1.76 & 4.50 & 0.64 & 0.0084 & 0.0426 & 0.47 & 0.63 & 1.61 & 0.38 \\
1161: (13) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.55 & 0.56 & 0.56 & 0.57 & 0.0035 & 0.0055 & 0.20 & 0.21 & 0.26 & 0.27 & 0.30 & 0.40 & 0.41 & 0.45 & 0.0111 & 0.0113 & 0.49 & 0.51 & 0.52 & 0.53 \\
1162: {\bf 1861} & 2.60 & 1.10 & 2.93 & 1.90 &-0.0666 & -0.0611 & 0.32 & 1.06 & -0.40 & 1.25 & 0.07 & -0.38 & 1.42 & 1.17 & 0.0224 & 0.0413 & 1.10 & 0.34 & 0.16 & 0.36 \\
1163: (17) \hskip 9pt $\pm$& 0.47 & 0.48 & 0.49 & 0.49 & 0.0038 & 0.0055 & 0.19 & 0.22 & 0.27 & 0.27 & 0.31 & 0.37 & 0.37 & 0.40 & 0.0105 & 0.0106 & 0.42 & 0.43 & 0.44 & 0.44 \\
1164: & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\
1165: \hline
1166: \hline
1167: \end{tabular}
1168: \end{center}
1169: \tablecomments{Approximate S/N ratios per \AA\ measured at 5000 \AA\ are listed in parentheses in the first column (second line).}
1170: \end{table}
1171:
1172: \clearpage
1173:
1174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1175: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1176: \bibitem[Barmby et al.(2000)]{barmby00} Barmby, P., Huchra, J.~P., Brodie, J.~P., Forbes, D.~A., Schroder, L.~L., \& Grillmair, C.~J.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 727
1177: \bibitem[Beasley et al.(2002)]{beasley02} Beasley, M.~A., Hoyle, F., \& Sharples, R.~M.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 168
1178: \bibitem[Beasley et al.(2005)]{beasley05} Beasley, M.~A., Brodie, J.~P., Strader, J., Forbes, D.~A., Proctor, R.~N., Barmby, P., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1412
1179: \bibitem[Beasley et al.(2006)]{beasley06} Beasley M.A., Strader J., Brodie J.P, Cenarro A.J., Geha M.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 814
1180: \bibitem[Benson et al.(2006)]{benson06} Benson, A.~J., Sugiyama, N., Nusser, A., \& Lacey, C.~G.\ 2006, \mnras, 369, 1055
1181: \bibitem[Bicay \& Giovanelli (1986)]{bicay86} Bicay M.D., Giovanelli R.\ 1986, \aj, 91, 732
1182: \bibitem[Binggeli et al.(1985)]{bin85} Binggeli, B.; Sandage, A.; Tammann, G. A.\ 1985, \aj, 90, 1681
1183: \bibitem[Binney(1981)]{binney81} Binney, J.\ 1981, Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, eds. D. Lynden-Bell \& S.M. Fall, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1184: \bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., \& Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1000
1185: \bibitem[Burstein et al.(2004)]{burstein04} Burstein, D., et al.\ 2004, \apj, 614, 158
1186: \bibitem[Cenarro et al.(2004)]{cenarro04} Cenarro, A.~J., S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez, P., Cardiel, N., \& Gorgas, J.\ 2004, \apjl, 614, L101
1187: \bibitem[Chandar et al.(2006)]{chandar06} Chandar, R., Fall, S.~M., \& Whitmore, B.~C.\ 2006, \apjl, 650, L111
1188: \bibitem[Clemens et al.(2006)]{clemens06} Clemens, M.~S., Bressan, A., Nikolic, B., Alexander, P., Annibali, F., \& Rampazzo, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 370, 702
1189: \bibitem[Conselice(2006)]{conselice06} Conselice, C.~J.\ 2006, \apj, 639, 120
1190: \bibitem[C{\^o}t{\'e} et al.(1998)]{cote98} C{\^o}t{\'e}, P., Marzke, R.~O., \& West, M.~J.\ 1998, \apj, 501, 554
1191: \bibitem[C{\^o}t{\'e} et al.(2002)]{cote02} C{\^o}t{\'e}, P., West, M.~J., \& Marzke, R.~O.\ 2002, \apj, 567, 853
1192: \bibitem[C{\^o}t{\'e} et al.(2006)]{cote06} C{\^o}t{\'e}, P.,
1193: et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 165, 57
1194: \bibitem[Dekel \& Woo(2003)]{dekel03} Dekel A. \& Woo J.\ 2003, \mnras, 344, 1131
1195: \bibitem[Dekel \& Silk(1986)]{dekel86} Dekel A., Silk J. 1986, \apj, 303, 39
1196: \bibitem[De Lucia et al.(2006)]{delucia06} De Lucia, G., Springel, V., White, S.~D.~M., Croton, D., \& Kauffmann, G.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 499
1197: \bibitem[Di Criscienzo et al.(2006)]{dc06} Di Criscienzo,
1198: M., Caputo, F., Marconi, M., \& Musella, I.\ 2006, \mnras, 365, 1357
1199: \bibitem[Durrell et al.(1996)]{durrell96} Durrel P., Harris W., Geisler D., Pudritz\ 1996, \aj, 112, 972
1200: \bibitem[Ellis(2007)]{ellis07} Ellis, R.~S 2007, in `First Light in Universe', Saas-Fee Advanced Course 36, (arXiv:astro-ph/0701024)
1201: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Shadmehri(2003)]{elmegreen03} Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Shadmehri, M.\ 2003, \mnras, 338, 817
1202: \bibitem[Evans et al.(2003)]{evans03} Evans N.W., Wilkinson M.I., Perrett K.M., Bridges T.J.\ 2003, \apj, 583, 752
1203: \bibitem[Fall \& Zhang(2001)]{fz01} Fall, S.~M., \& Zhang,
1204: Q.\ 2001, \apj, 561, 751
1205: \bibitem[Forte et al.(1982)]{forte82} Forte, J.~C., Martinez, R.~E., \& Muzzio, J.~C.\ 1982, \aj, 87, 1465
1206: \bibitem[Fouqu{\'e} et al.(2001)]{fouque01} Fouqu{\'e}, P.,
1207: Solanes, J.~M., Sanchis, T., \& Balkowski, C.\ 2001, \aap, 375, 770
1208: \bibitem[Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn(2002)]{fh02} Freeman, K., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J.\ 2002, \araa, 40, 487
1209: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(1996)]{gebhardt96} Gebhardt et al.\ 1996, \aj, 112, 105
1210: \bibitem[Geisler et al.(2007)]{geisler07} Geisler, D., Wallerstein, G., Smith, V.~V., \& Casetti-Dinescu, D.~I.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708, arXiv:0708.0570
1211: \bibitem[Georgiev et al.(2006)]{georgiev06} Georgiev, I.~Y., Hilker, M., Puzia, T.~H., Chanam{\'e}, J., Mieske, S., Goudfrooij, P., Reisenegger, A., \& Infante, L.\ 2006, \aap, 452, 141
1212: \bibitem[Gnedin(2003)]{gnedin03} Gnedin O.Y.\ 2003, \apj, 589, 752
1213: \bibitem[Grebel(1999)]{grebel99} Grebel E.K.\ 1999 IAU Symp. 192, eds. P. Whitelock and R. Cannon ASP Conf. Ser., 17
1214: \bibitem[Grebel(2006)]{grebel06} Grebel, E.~K.\ 2006, ArXiv
1215: Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0605564
1216: \bibitem[Grebel et al.(2003)]{grebel03} Grebel E.K., Gallagher III J.S., Harbeck D.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1926
1217: \bibitem[Greggio(2005)]{greggio05} Greggio, L.\ 2005, \aap, 441, 1055
1218: \bibitem[Harris \& van den Bergh(1981)]{harris81} Harris, W.~E., \& van den Bergh, S.\ 1981, \aj, 86, 1627
1219: \bibitem[Harris (1991)]{harris91} Harris, W. E.\ 1991, \araa, 29, 543
1220: \bibitem[Hilker et al.(1999)]{hilker99} Hilker, M., Infante, L.,
1221: \& Richtler, T.\ 1999, \aaps, 138, 55
1222: \bibitem[Holtzman et al.(2006)]{holtzman06} Holtzman J.A., Afonso C., Dolphin A.\ 2006, \apj, 166, 534
1223: \bibitem[Hunter \& Gallagher (1985)]{hunter85} Hunter D. A., Gallagher J. S.\ 1985, ApJS, 58, 533
1224: \bibitem[Impey \& Bothun(1997)]{impey97} Impey, C., \& Bothun,
1225: G.\ 1997, \araa, 35, 267
1226: \bibitem[James et al.(2005)]{james05} James, P.~A., Shane,N.~S., Knapen, J.~H., Etherton, J., Percival, S.~M.\ 2005, \aap, 429, 851
1227: \bibitem[Jerjen et al.(2000)]{jerjen00} Jerjen H., Binggeli B., Freeman K.C.\ 2000, \aj, 119, 593
1228: \bibitem[Jord{\'a}n et al.(2007)]{jordan07} Jord{\'a}n, A., et al.\ 2007, \apjs, 171, 101
1229: \bibitem[Karachentseva et al.(1985)]{karachentseva85} Karachentseva, V.~E., Karachentsev, I.~D., \& Boerngen, F.\ 1985, \aaps, 60, 213
1230: \bibitem[Karachentsev et al.(1999)]{kara99} Karachentsev, I.~D.\ 1999
1231: \bibitem[Karachentsev et al.(2004)]{kara04} Karachentsev, I.~D., Karachentseva, V.~E., Huchtmeier, W.~K., Makarov, D.~I.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2031
1232: \bibitem[Karachentsev \& Kashibadze(2005)]{kara05}
1233: Karachentsev, I.~D., \& Kashibadze, O.~G.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics
1234: e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0509207
1235: \bibitem[Kashikawa et al.(2006)]{kashikawa06} Kashikawa, N., et al.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 7
1236: \bibitem[Kauffmann(1996)]{kauffmann96} Kauffmann, G.\ 1996, \mnras, 281, 487
1237: \bibitem[Kerber et al.(2007)]{kerber07} Kerber, L.~O., Santiago, B.~X., \& Brocato, E.\ 2007, \aap, 462, 139
1238: \bibitem[Kormendy (1985)]{kormendy85} Kormendy J.\ 1985, \apj, 218, 333
1239: \bibitem[Kumai et al.(1993)]{kumai93} Kumai, Y., Hashi, Y., \& Fujimoto, M.\ 1993, \apj, 416, 576
1240: \bibitem[Kuntschner et al.(2002)]{kunt02} Kuntschner H., Ziegler B.L., Sharples R.M., Worthey G., Fricke K.J.\ 2002, \aap, 395, 761
1241: \bibitem[Lanfranchi \& Matteucci(2003)]{lanfranchi03} Lanfranchi, G.~A., \& Matteucci, F.\ 2003, \mnras, 345, 71
1242: \bibitem[Li \& Burstein(2003)]{li03} Li, Y., \& Burstein, D.\ 2003, \apjl, 598, L103
1243: \bibitem[Lisker et al.(2007)]{lisker07} Lisker, T., Grebel,
1244: E.~K., Binggeli, B., \& Glatt, K.\ 2007, \apj, 660, 1186
1245: \bibitem[Makarova(1999)]{mak99} Makarova L.N.\ 1999, \aap, 139, 491
1246: \bibitem[McLaughlin(1999)]{mclaughlin99} McLaughlin D.E.\ 1999, \aj, 117, 2398
1247: \bibitem[McLaughlin et al.(2006)]{mclaughlin06} McLaughlin, D.~E., King, A.~R., \& Nayakshin, S.\ 2006, \apjl, 650, L37
1248: \bibitem[Miller et al.(1998)]{miller98} Miller B.W., Lotz J.M., Ferguson H.C., Stiavelli M., Whitmore B.C.\ 1998, \apj, 508, L133
1249: \bibitem[Miller(2006)]{miller06} Miller, B.~W.\ 2006, in ''Globular Clusters: Guides to Galaxies", eds. T. Richtler \& S. Larsen, see also astro-ph/0606062
1250: \bibitem[Muzzio(1987)]{muzzio87} Muzzio, J.~C.\ 1987, \pasp, 99, 245
1251: \bibitem[Nayakshin et al.(2006)]{nayakshin06} Nayakshin, S., Dehnen, W., Cuadra, J., \& Genzel, R.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 1410
1252: \bibitem[Nayakshin et al.(2007)]{nayakshin07} Nayakshin, S., Cuadra, J., \& Springel, V.\ 2007, \mnras, 379, 21
1253: \bibitem[Nomoto et al.(1997)]{nomoto97} Nomoto, K., Iwamoto, K., Nakasato, N., Thielemann, F.-K., Brachwitz, F., Tsujimoto, T., Kubo, Y., \& Kishimoto, N.\ 1997, Nuclear Physics A, 621, 467
1254: \bibitem[Norris et al.(2006)]{norris06} Norris, M.~A., Sharples, R.~M., \& Kuntschner, H.\ 2006, \mnras, 367, 815
1255: \bibitem[Osterbrock et al.(1996)]{ost1996} Osterbrock D.E., Fulbright J.P., Martel A.R., Keane M.J., Trager S.C., Basri G.\ 1996, \pasp, 108, 277
1256: \bibitem[Osterbrock et al.(2000)]{ost2000} Osterbrock D.E., Waters R.T., Barlow T.A., Slanger T.G., Cosby P.C.\ 2000, \pasp, 112, 733
1257: \bibitem[Parodi et al.(2002)]{parodi02} Parodi B.R., Barazza F.D., B. Binggeli B.\ 2002, \aap, 388, 29
1258: \bibitem[Peebles(2002)]{peebles02} Peebles, P.~J.~E.\ 2002, ASP
1259: Conf.~Ser.~283: A New Era in Cosmology, 283, 351
1260: \bibitem[Peebles \& Dicke(1968)]{peebles68} Peebles P.J.E. \& Dicke R.H.\ 1968, \apj, 154, 891
1261: \bibitem[Pipino et al.(2007)]{ppm07} Pipino, A., Puzia, T.H. \& Matteucci, F.\ 2007, ApJ {\it in press}
1262: \bibitem[Pritzl et al.(2005)]{pritzl05} Pritzl, B.~J., Venn, K.~A., \& Irwin, M.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2140
1263: \bibitem[Prochaska et al.(2005)]{prochaska05} Prochaska, L.~C., Rose, J.~A., \& Schiavon, R.~P.\ 2005, \aj, 130, 2666
1264: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2000)]{puzia00} Puzia, T.~H., Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J.~P., \& Schroder, L.~L.\ 2000, \aj, 120, 777
1265: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2002)]{p02} Puzia, T.H., Saglia, R.~P., Kissler-Patig, M., Maraston, C., Greggio, L., Renzini, A., \& Ortolani, S.\ 2002, \aap, 395, 45
1266: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2004)]{p04} Puzia T.H., Kissler-Patig M., Thomas D., Maraston C., Saglia R.P., Bender R., Richtler T., Goudfrooij P., Hempel M.\ 2004, \aap, 415, 123 (P04)
1267: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2005a)]{p05a} Puzia T.H., Perrett K.M., Bridges T.J.\ 2005a, \aap, 434, 909
1268: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2005b)]{p05b} Puzia T.H., Kissler-Patig M., Thomas D., Maraston C., Saglia R.P., Bender R., Richtler T., Goudfrooij P., Hempel M.\ 2005b, \aap, 439, 997
1269: \bibitem[Puzia et al.(2006)]{p06} Puzia, T.~H., Kissler-Patig, M., \& Goudfrooij, P.\ 2006, \apj, 648, 383
1270: \bibitem[Recchi \& Danziger(2005)]{recchi05} Recchi, S., \& Danziger, I.~J.\ 2005, \aap, 436, 145
1271: \bibitem[Rejkuba et al.(2005)]{rejkuba05} Rejkuba, M., Greggio, L., Harris, W.~E., Harris, G.~L.~H., \& Peng, E.~W.\ 2005, \apj, 631, 262
1272: \bibitem[Renzini(2006)]{renzini06} Renzini, A.\ 2006, \araa, 44, 141
1273: \bibitem[Richtler (1995)]{richtler95} Richtler T.\ 1995, RvMA, 8, 163
1274: \bibitem[Robin et al.(2003)]{robin03} Robin, A.~C., Reyl{\'e}, C., Derri{\`e}re, S., \& Picaud, S.\ 2003, \aap, 409, 523
1275: \bibitem[Sandage et al.(1985)]{sandage85} Sandage, A., Binggeli,
1276: B., \& Tammann, G.~A.\ 1985, \aj, 90, 1759
1277: \bibitem[Schiavon et al.(2005)]{schiavon05} Schiavon, R.~P., Rose, J.~A., Courteau, S., \& MacArthur, L.~A.\ 2005, \apjs, 160, 163
1278: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{sch98} Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
1279: \bibitem[Sersic(1968)]{sersic68} Sersic L.-J., Atlas de Galaxias Australes, Observatorio Astronomico, Cordova, 1968
1280: \bibitem[Sharina et al.(2003)]{sharina03} Sharina, M.~E., Sil'chenko, O.~K., \& Burenkov, A.~N.\ 2003, \aap, 397, 831
1281: \bibitem[Sharina et al.(2006)]{sh06} Sharina, M.~E., Afanasiev, V.~L., \& Puzia, T.~H.\ 2006, \mnras, 372, 1259
1282: \bibitem[Sharina et al.(2005)]{sh05} Sharina M.E., Puzia T.H., Makarov D.I.\ 2005, \aap, 442, 85, (SPM05)
1283: \bibitem[Spergel et al.(2003)]{SpergelEtal03} Spergel, D. N., et al.\ 2003, \apjs, 148, 175
1284: \bibitem[Stetson(1987)]{stetson87} Stetson, P.~B.\ 1987, PASP, 99, 191
1285: \bibitem[Strader et al.(2003a)]{strader03a} Strader, J., Brodie, J.~P., Forbes, D.~A., Beasley, M.~A., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 2003a, \aj, 125, 1291
1286: \bibitem[Strader et al.(2003b)]{strader03b} Strader, J., Brodie, J.~P., \& Huchra, J.~P.\ 2003b, \mnras, 339, 707
1287: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2003)]{thomas03} Thomas, D., Maraston, C., \& Bender, R.\ 2003, \mnras, 339, 897
1288: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2004)]{thomas04} Thomas, D., Maraston, C., \& Korn, A.\ 2004, \mnras, 351, L19
1289: \bibitem[Thomas et al.(2005)]{thomas05} Thomas, D., Maraston, C., Bender, R., \& Mendes de Oliveira, C.\ 2005, \apj, 621, 673
1290: \bibitem[Tonry \& Davis(1979)]{tonry79} Tonry, J., \& Davis, M.\ 1979, \aj, 84, 1511
1291: \bibitem[Treu et al.(2005)]{treu05} Treu, T., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 633, 174
1292: \bibitem[Tripicco \& Bell(1995)]{tripicco95} Tripicco, M.~J., \& Bell, R.~A.\ 1995, \aj, 110, 3035
1293: \bibitem[Tully et al.(2005)]{tully05} Tully R.B., Rizzi L., Dolphin A.E. Karachentsev I.D., Karachentseva V.E., Makarov D.I., Makarova L.N., Sakai S., Shaya E.J.\ 2006, AJ, 132, 729
1294: \bibitem[Tully et al.(2002)]{tully02} Tully R.B., Somerville R.S., Trentham N., Verheijen M.A.W.\ 2002, \apj, 569, 573
1295: \bibitem[van den Bergh(2006)]{vdb06} van den Bergh, S.\ 2006,
1296: The Local Group as an Astrophysical Laboratory, 1
1297: \bibitem[van den Bergh(2007)]{vdb07} van den Bergh, S.\ 2007, \aj, 134, 344
1298: \bibitem[Villanova et al.(2007)]{villanova07} Villanova, S., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 663, 296
1299: \bibitem[West(1993)]{west93} West M.J.\ 1993, \mnras, 265, 755
1300: \bibitem[Whitmore et al.(2007)]{whitmore07} Whitmore, B.~C., Chandar, R., \& Fall, S.~M.\ 2007, \aj, 133, 1067
1301: \bibitem[Woosley et al.(2002)]{ww02} Woosley, S.~E., Heger, A., \& Weaver, T.~A.\ 2002, Reviews of Modern Physics, 74, 1015
1302: \bibitem[Worthey(1994)]{worthey94} Worthey, G.\ 1994, \apjs, 95, 107
1303: \bibitem[Worthey \& Ottaviani(1997)]{worthey97} Worthey, G., \& Ottaviani, D.~L.\ 1997, \apjs, 111, 377
1304: \end{thebibliography}
1305:
1306: \end{document}
1307: