1: % ******************************************************************
2: % *********** start of ms.tex ***********
3: % ******************************************************************
4: % TITLE: Comparison of distances from RR Lyrae stars, the tip
5: % of the red-giant branch and classical Cepheids
6: %
7: % AUTHOR: G. A. Tammann (1),
8: % A. Sandage (2),
9: % B. Reindl (1),
10: % (1) Astr. Inst. Univ. Basel
11: % (2) Obs. Carnegie Inst. Washington
12: %
13: % 55 pages, 9 figures (*.eps), 9 tables
14: % ******************************************************************
15: % DATE: 13.12.2007 *** final *** Version 2.00 ***
16: % ******************************************************************
17: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
18: % **************************************************************
19: % local defs
20: \newcommand{\kms}{{\,\rm km\,s}^{-1}}
21: \newcommand{\ksm}{{\,\rm km}\ {\rm~s}^{-1}\ {\rm~Mpc}^{-1}}
22: \newcommand{\nodatr}{\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\cdots$}~~}
23: \newcommand{\nodatl}{\multicolumn{1}{l}{~~~$\cdots$}}
24: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
25: \def\sun{\hbox{$\odot$}}
26: \renewcommand{\mag}{\mbox{$\;$mag}}
27: % **************************************************************
28:
29:
30: \begin{document}
31: % ******************************************************************
32: \title{COMPARISON OF DISTANCES FROM RR LYRAE STARS, THE TIP
33: OF THE RED-GIANT BRANCH AND CLASSICAL CEPHEIDS}
34: \author{G. A. Tammann}
35: \affil{Astronomisches Institut der Universit\"at Basel,\\
36: Venusstrasse 7, CH-4102 Binningen, Switzerland}
37: \email{g-a.tammann@unibas.ch}
38: \author{Allan Sandage}
39: \affil{Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,\\
40: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101}
41: \author{B. Reindl}
42: \affil{Astronomisches Institut der Universit\"at Basel,\\
43: Venusstrasse 7, CH-4102 Binningen, Switzerland}
44: \email{reindl@astro.unibas.ch}
45:
46:
47: % ******************************************************************
48: % Abstract
49: % ******************************************************************
50: \begin{abstract}
51: The extragalactic distance scale relies heavily on Cepheids. However,
52: it has become clear from observations and pulsation models that the
53: slope and zero point of their P-L relations differ from galaxy to
54: galaxy.
55: This makes the determination of Cepheid distances complex and calls
56: for an independent test of their differences.
57: The test is provided by RR\,Lyrae star distances of 24 galaxies which
58: calibrate the tip of the red-giant branch
59: (TRGB; $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB} = -4.05$), which in turn confirms the adopted
60: Cepheids distances on our 2006 distance scale in 18 cases to within
61: $0.1\mag$ on average.
62: Relative SN\,Ia and velocity distances deny a remaining significant
63: metallicity effect of the adopted distances. The new support for these
64: Cepheid distances increases the weight of our previous calibration of
65: the SN\,Ia luminosity and of the 21cm line width - luminosity (TF)
66: relation. The value of $H_{0} = 62.3 \;(\pm5)$ is confirmed on all
67: scales.
68: \end{abstract}
69: \keywords{distance scale --- galaxies: distances and
70: redshifts}
71: % ******************************************************************
72:
73:
74:
75:
76: % ******************************************************************
77: % 1. INTRODUCTION
78: % ******************************************************************
79: \section{INTRODUCTION: BAADE'S EARLY ATTEMPT TO COMPARE RR LYRAE
80: VARIABLES AND CLASSICAL CEPHEIDS IN M\,31}
81: \label{sec:01}
82: %
83: In the late 1940s and early 1950s Walter \citet{Baade:48} and
84: Edwin \citet{Hubble:51} had formulated their research plans for
85: observational cosmology using the new Palomar 200-inch telescope.
86: At various times in the 1930s Hubble had described his early
87: Cepheid distance scale to
88: NGC\,6822 \citeyearpar{Hubble:25},
89: M\,33 \citeyearpar{Hubble:26}, and
90: M\,31 \citeyearpar{Hubble:29}
91: in the local group as only ``reconnaissance'' studies.
92: He had put the distance moduli of these galaxies all at about
93: $\mu=(m - M) = 22.2$ ($D = 0.27\;$Mpc). Hubble then took the scale
94: outward using "brightest stars" (later shown to be HII regions) to the
95: M\,81/NGC\,2403 and M\,101 groups, both with
96: $\mu = 24.0$ ($D = 0.63\;$Mpc) on his scale,
97: and ultimately to the Virgo cluster where he adopted
98: $\mu = 26.8$ ($D = 2.3\;$Mpc).
99: Although he was fully aware of the time-scale difficulties given by
100: this distance scale that gave a redshift-distance ratio (the Hubble
101: constant) of about $530\kms$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ (the units are assumed in the
102: rest of this paper) with its small expansion age of
103: $1/H_{0} = 1.8\;$Gyr, he nevertheless believed in this scale as late
104: as 1952. This can be seen in Holmberg's \citeyearpar{Holmberg:50} use
105: of Hubble's distances in his survey of the groups centered on M\,81,
106: M\,101, and the Virgo cluster, distances that had been recommended by
107: Hubble to him during his Mount Wilson stay to obtain observations
108: of galaxian magnitudes with the 60-inch telescope.
109: It is also seen in Hubble's reluctance in 1952 to fully accept Baade's
110: revision by about $1.5\mag$ for the distance moduli of M\,31 and M\,33,
111: shown by the use of his scale in the study
112: \citep{Hubble:Sandage:53} of the bright blue super-giant variables in
113: each, with only a footnote to the new scale by Baade. (That footnote
114: was inserted into the manuscript by one of us who, at the time, was
115: Baade's student and Hubble's assistant. Hubble only gave his hesitant
116: approval to the footnote in the late drafts of that paper).
117:
118: Baade had been working in the 1930s on extending the
119: magnitude scales of \citet{Seares:etal:30} in the Mount Wilson
120: Catalogue of Selected Areas, particularly for SA 68, to the faintness
121: required by Hubble's Cepheids in the three local group galaxies of
122: NGC\,6822, M\,31, and M\,33. By the time Baade had resolved the bulge
123: of M\,31, the face of NGC\,205, and the two dwarf companions of M\,31,
124: NGC\,147, and NGC\,185, into stars \citep{Baade:44a,Baade:44b}
125: and had identified these stars as the tip of the red-giant branch in
126: globular clusters (often named the Baade Sheet in external galaxies
127: and now called the TRGB), he had corrected Hubble's magnitude scales
128: (which he often called Hubble's ``enthusiastic'' magnitudes), and
129: changed Hubble's M\,31 distance modulus \citep{Baade:44a} to be
130: $\mu = 22.4$, which however was only $0.2\mag$ larger than Hubble's
131: value of 22.2.
132:
133: By 1948 Baade had anticipated that he should have detected
134: RR\,Lyr stars in M\,31 with the 200-inch telescope starting near
135: $V = 22.2$ because he believed the mean absolute magnitude
136: of these variables was $M_{\rm pv} = -0.23$. This value had been
137: determined by \citet{Shapley:18} using the method of comparing the
138: apparent magnitudes of two distance-indicators (long period
139: Cepheids and RR\,Lyrae stars in this case) in aggregates of stars
140: (here the globular clusters) where they appear together, the
141: absolute magnitude calibration of one of which was taken to be
142: known. Shapley had used the method by assuming the Cepheids in
143: globular clusters were the same as the field Galactic Cepheids whose
144: absolute magnitudes had been calibrated by \citet{Hertzsprung:13},
145: \citet{Russell:13}, and \citet{Shapley:18} by the method of
146: statistical parallaxes.
147: Although the theory of the comparison method is correct, the result
148: turned out to be wrong for the Galactic Cepheids but, remarkably,
149: almost correct for the RR\,Lyrae stars. It was 30 years later that
150: Baade made the distinction between the globular cluster Cepheids (of
151: his population II) and the population I Galactic Cepheids. It has
152: turned out that the statistical parallax calibration of the
153: Galactic Cepheids by Hertzsprung, Russell, and Shapley was too
154: faint by about 2 magnitudes, but Shapley's calibration
155: of the globular cluster Cepheids was close to what we know now to
156: be the correct calibration of the Population II Cepheids,
157: leaving Shapley's value of $\langle M_{V}\rangle = -0.23$ for the
158: RR Lyrae stars reasonably correct for the purposes of the argument
159: made by \citet{Baade:54} at the Rome 1952 meeting (we adopt
160: $\langle M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})\rangle = +0.52$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$
161: in \S~\ref{sec:02}).
162:
163: When Baade did not find the M\,31 RR\,Lyrae variables at
164: $V = 22.2$ he had two choices. Either the absolute magnitude
165: calibration of the classical (population I) Cepheids was wrong, and
166: M\,31 was more distant than Hubble's modulus of 22.2, or Shapley's
167: calibration of the RR\,Lyrae variables near $M_{V} = 0$ was much too
168: bright. \citet{Behr:51} had suggested the error was in the Cepheid
169: calibration by nearly 2 magnitudes. Behr's paper was not cited by
170: Baade (although surely he knew of it because he was a voracious
171: devourer of the literature), probably because Baade believed his own
172: arguments to be decisive as he gave them at the 1952 Rome IAU meeting
173: rather than relying on the tricky method of statistical parallaxes of
174: Cepheids, sensitive as the result is to Galactic absorption.
175:
176: Hence, the method of comparing the apparent magnitudes of various
177: distance indicators with each other where they appear together began
178: with \citet{Shapley:18} in the globular clusters, and continued with
179: Baade's spectacular failure to find the M\,31 RR\,Lyraes at Hubble's
180: distance. The method was successful in the LMC and SMC with
181: the discovery by \citet{Thackery:54,Thackery:58} of RR\,Lyrae stars
182: near $V=19$ which he had also reported in the summary report of
183: Commission 28 at the 1952 Rome IAU meeting.
184: It was Thackery's discovery of RR\,Lyrae stars in the LMC and SMC at
185: this faint magnitude, about two magnitudes fainter than predicted by
186: the then adopted zero point of the Cepheid P-L relation, that cemented
187: the truth of Baade's assertion that a change in the calibration of the
188: P-L relation was needed, and therefore that Hubble's distance to M\,31
189: must be too short.
190:
191: The method of comparisons of Cepheids and RR\,Lyrae stars in
192: individual galaxies lay dormant until it was taken up again
193: by \citet{Walker:Mack:88}, and was also greatly stimulated by the
194: arrival of powerful telescopes including {\em HST}.
195: But the comparison of Cepheids and RR\,Lyrae stars remained confined to
196: LMC, SMC, and one or two additional galaxies
197: \citep{Smith:etal:92,vandenBergh:95,Fusi-Pecci:etal:96,Sandage:etal:99}.
198: \citet{Lee:etal:93}, \citet{Udalski:00}, and \citet{Dolphin:etal:01}
199: included also the TRGB for comparison \citep[see also][]{Sandage:71}
200: and the magnitude of the red clump.
201: \citet{Sakai:etal:04} extended the comparison of TRGB and Cepheid
202: distances to 17 galaxies \citep[see also][]{Rizzi:etal:07}.
203:
204: The importance of comparing different distance indicators -- i.e.\
205: mainly Cepheids, RR Lyrae stars and TRGB -- to the level of
206: $\sim\!0.05\mag$ lies in the new developments which show that the P-L
207: relation of classical Cepheids differs from galaxy to galaxy.
208: It has been argued
209: (\citealt*{TSR:03}, hereafter TSR\,03;
210: \citealt*{STR:04}, hereafter STR\,04)
211: that the slope and zero point of the Cepheid P-L relation differs
212: between the Galaxy and LMC, and that the difference is likely to be a
213: metallicity effect, and may depend on helium as well according to
214: pulsational models \citep{Marconi:etal:05}.
215:
216: The inequality of Cepheids in different galaxies should not come as a
217: surprise. It was known since \citet{Gascoigne:Kron:65} that SMC
218: Cepheids are bluer than others, which alone precludes identical P-L
219: relations. The color difference is not only caused by Fraunhofer
220: blanketing of the metal lines, but it is also due to a real
221: temperature difference of Cepheids at given period as was shown already
222: by \citet{Laney:Stobie:86}. Galaxy-specific differences of Cepheids
223: were also demonstrated by differences in their light curves at given
224: period \citep{Tanvir:etal:05,Koen:Siluyele:07}. But it took a wealth
225: of good data to study galaxy-to-galaxy differences of the P-L relations
226: themselves, for instance photometry of large numbers of Cepheids in
227: the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC
228: \citep{Berdnikov:etal:00,Udalski:etal:99a,Udalski:etal:99b},
229: independently determined reddenings
230: \citep{Fernie:etal:95,Udalski:etal:99a,Udalski:etal:99b}, and
231: distances (\citealt{Feast:99}, for Cepheids in Galactic clusters,
232: \citealt{Fouque:etal:03} and \citealt{Barnes:etal:03} for
233: moving-atmosphere Baade-Becker-Wesselink [BBW] distances and distances
234: of LMC and SMC [as compiled from many authors in Tables~\ref{tab:06}
235: and \ref{tab:07} here]).
236: These data show that the P-L relation of Cepheids cannot be
237: universal. The reason is that the metal-poor LMC Cepheids are shifted
238: in the luminosity - $T_{e}$ diagram (i.e.\ the instability strip
239: in the HR diagram) to higher temperatures at constant $L$ as compared
240: to metal-rich Galactic Cepheids (\citeauthor{STR:04}).
241: The different slopes, which the Cepheids define in the instability
242: strip causes also the {\em slopes\/} of the P-L relations to be
243: different.
244:
245: The {\em slope\/} difference of the P-L relations of the Galaxy
246: and LMC (and of short and long-period Cepheids in LMC; see
247: \citeauthor{STR:04}) is particularly troublesome because the
248: difference of the absolute magnitude of the Cepheids in the two
249: galaxies becomes a function of period. While the blue LMC Cepheids are
250: {\em brighter\/} than their relatively red Galactic counterparts by as
251: much as $\Delta M_{V}=0.36\mag$ at $\log~P=0.5$, the difference
252: diminishes with increasing period and changes sign at $\log~P=1.38$.
253: From this follows that if the luminosity difference is interpreted as
254: a metallicity effect, {\em any metallicity correction must depend on
255: period}.
256:
257: It is a coincidence that the new P-L relations and the
258: period-dependent metallicity corrections lead to distances, which
259: {\em on average\/} agree reasonably well with earlier Cepheid
260: distances, although the latter were based on the unjustified
261: assumption that the LMC P-L relation of \citet{Madore:Freedman:91} was
262: universal. As an example, the early Cepheid distances of eight or more
263: galaxies by \citet{Ferrarese:etal:00}, \citet[][Table~3,
264: col.~2]{Freedman:etal:01}, and \citet{Tammann:etal:02} agree with
265: those adopted here and by \citeauthor{STS:06} to within less
266: than $0.1\mag$, -- regardless whether some kind of bulk metallicity
267: correction, irrespective of period, is applied and independent of the
268: adopted LMC zero point (for details see
269: \citeauthor{STS:06}).
270:
271: However, the near agreement of the old and new Cepheid distances
272: collapses if Cepheids with non-average properties are considered. For
273: instance, \citet{Freedman:etal:01} and \citet{Riess:etal:05}, using
274: the LMC P-L relation of \citet{Udalski:etal:99c} or
275: \citet{Thim:etal:03}, have based their luminosity calibration of
276: SNe\,Ia on only six and four galaxies, respectively, whose Cepheids
277: happen to be particularly metal-rich and to have quite long periods.
278: Correspondingly, the new period-dependent metallicity corrections
279: become important and are the main reason why our present distances
280: of these galaxies are longer by $\sim\!0.3\mag$ on average than
281: adopted by these authors (\citealt*{STT:06};
282: \citeauthor{STT:06} hereafter).
283: The ensuing discrepancy in $H_{0}$ as derived from Cepheid-calibrated
284: SNe\,Ia is in the order of 15\%, our scale being longer.
285:
286: The purpose of this paper is to construct an independent distance
287: scale based on Pop.~II stars in order to test our Cepheid
288: distances. RR\,Lyr magnitudes of 24 galaxies are compiled from the
289: literature and uniformly reduced (\S~\ref{sec:02:1}). They are
290: used to calibrate the absolute magnitude $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ of the
291: TRGB and to test its dependence on metallicity (\S~\ref{sec:02:2}).
292: The different P-L relations and their calibration are discussed
293: in \S~\ref{sec:03}. The (satisfactory) comparison of the Cepheid and
294: TRGB distances of 18 galaxies is in \S~\ref{sec:04}.
295: The Hubble diagrams with increasing outreach from TRGB, Cepheid,
296: Cepheid-calibrated TF and SN\,Ia distances and the resulting value of
297: $H_{0}$ are discussed in \S~\ref{sec:05}. The conclusions are in
298: \S~\ref{sec:06}.
299:
300:
301:
302:
303: % ******************************************************************
304: % 2. POPULATION II DISTANCE INDICATORS
305: % ******************************************************************
306: \section{POPULATION II DISTANCE INDICATORS}
307: \label{sec:02}
308: %
309: % ********************************************************
310: % 2.1 RR Lyrae Stars
311: % ********************************************************
312: \subsection{RR Lyrae Stars}
313: \label{sec:02:1}
314: %
315: % **********************************************
316: % 2.1.1. The Calibration of RR Lyrae
317: % **********************************************
318: \subsubsection{The calibration of RR Lyrae stars}
319: \label{sec:02:1:1}
320: %
321: A summary of many calibration studies of the absolute
322: magnitude of RR Lyrae stars as function of metallicity has been
323: given elsewhere \citep*[][hereafter ST\,06]{Sandage:Tammann:06}, the
324: details of which are not repeated here. However the results are
325: these.
326:
327: (1). It is almost certain that the relation between $M_{V}^{\rm RR}$
328: and [Fe/H] is non-linear. Most {\em theoretical\/} models of the zero-age
329: horizontal branch (ZAHB) made after about 1990 predict the
330: non-linearity. Although the $M_{V}$ luminosity of the level part of
331: the zero-age HB is a function of [Fe/H] (higher metallicity models
332: have fainter ZAHB), the variation of $M_{V}$ with [Fe/H] becomes
333: progressively smaller as [Fe/H] is decreased
334: \citep[see Fig.~3 of][reproduced as Fig.~9 of ST\,06]{VandenBerg:etal:00}.
335: This non-linearity, of course, applies also to that part of the HB
336: that contains the RR Lyrae variables.
337: Representative theoretical zero-age models are by
338: \citet{Lee:etal:90},
339: \citet{Castellani:etal:91},
340: \citet{Bencivenni:etal:91},
341: \citet{Dorman:92},
342: \citet{Caputo:etal:93},
343: \citet{Caloi:etal:97},
344: \citet{Salaris:etal:97},
345: \citet{Cassisi:etal:99},
346: \citet{Ferraro:etal:99},
347: \citet{Demarque:etal:00},
348: \citet{VandenBerg:etal:00}, and
349: \citet{Catelan:etal:04}.
350:
351: The non-linearity also carries over to the HB that
352: has evolved away from the ZAHB.
353:
354: (2). There are many {\em observational\/} data that also suggest
355: that the calibration of $M_{V}^{\rm RR}$ with [Fe/H] is non-linear,
356: many of which are summarized by \citeauthor{Sandage:Tammann:06}.
357: Important among these is the analyses of RR\,Lyrae data in many
358: globular clusters by \citet{Caputo:etal:00}. These authors combine a
359: pulsation equation that relates period, luminosity, temperature, and
360: mass with observational data for globular cluster RR\,Lyraes at the
361: blue edge of the instability strip for overtone pulsators and at the
362: red edge for fundamental mode pulsators. Their obvious non-linear
363: $M_{V}$ calibration, shown in their Figure~3, is reproduced as
364: Figures~11 \& 12 of \citeauthor{Sandage:Tammann:06}.
365: Their study using observational data follows earlier non-linear
366: analyses of $M_{V}^{\rm RR}$ as function of [Fe/H] by
367: \citet{Caputo:97},
368: \citet{Gratton:etal:97},
369: \citet[][their Fig.~15]{DeSantis:Cassisi:99},
370: \citet{McNamara:etal:04}, and undoubtedly others.
371: The most recent is the study by \citet{Bono:etal:07} where they show
372: the non-linearity over the entire range of [Fe/H] from 0 to $-25$
373: (their Fig.~16).
374:
375: (3). The zero point of the resulting non-linear $M_{V}^{\rm RR}$
376: $-$ [Fe/H] relation can be found by several methods, some leading to
377: the so-called long RR\,Lyrae scale that gives $\langle M_{V}\rangle$
378: near $+0.52$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$, and the short scale that gives
379: $\langle M_{V}\rangle$ near $+0.72$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$.
380:
381: There are three calibration methods of high weight that
382: lead to the long scale. In the order that we assign their
383: reliability they are these.
384:
385: (a) The discovery of Delta Scuti stars in globular
386: clusters, which are ultra short period dwarf Cepheids whose
387: population~II prototype is the low metallicity pulsator
388: SX\,Phoenicis
389: (\citealt{Nemec:89}; \citealt{Nemec:Mateo:90a,Nemec:Mateo:90b};
390: \citealt{McNamara:97} for reviews),
391: opened the way for a potentially definitive calibration
392: of RR\,Lyrae luminosities in globular clusters. There are also a
393: number of such population~II stars in the nearby field with high-weight
394: Hipparcos trigonometric parallaxes. Using these as absolute
395: magnitude calibrators for the globular cluster SX\,Phoenicis stars
396: gives the distances to globular clusters that contain them, and
397: hence also the absolute magnitude of the RR Lyrae stars in these
398: clusters. In this way \citet{McNamara:97} has derived an RR\,Lyrae
399: calibration that gives
400: $\langle M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})\rangle = +0.52$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$.
401:
402: (b) Main sequence fitting of a globular cluster CM diagram to
403: the Hipparcos trigonometric parallax data for field subdwarfs of
404: the appropriate metallicity gives the distance to the cluster. An
405: extensive literature of the complications of the method exists
406: (correction for reddening of the main sequences of the globular
407: clusters, the requirement for precision measurements of [Fe/H]
408: both for the globular clusters and for the appropriate Hipparcos
409: subdwarfs, whether the Lutz-Kelker bias correction should be
410: applied to the Hipparcos parallaxes, etc.), include papers by
411: \citet{Gratton:etal:97}, \citet{Reid:97,Reid:99},
412: \citet{Carretta:etal:00},
413: and \citet{VandenBerg:etal:00}.
414: Representative studies leading to the long distance scale are by
415: \citet{Gratton:etal:97}, \citet{Carretta:etal:00},
416: and \citet{McNamara:etal:04}, among others cited therein. These
417: calibrations are all consistent with $M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})=+0.52$
418: at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$ to generally better than $0.05\mag$. A summary by
419: \citet{Gratton:98} to 1998 is important.
420:
421: (c) Several recent models of the ZAHB give $M_{V} = 0.65$
422: \citep{VandenBerg:etal:00} and $0.60$ \citep{Catelan:etal:04} at
423: [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$. These must be made $0.09\mag$ brighter to account for
424: the average evolution away from the ZAHB, which gives a mean $M_{V} =
425: 0.53$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$ for the average RR\,Lyr state.
426: Both of these studies give non-linear $M_{V}$(Fe/H) relations.
427:
428: $M_{V} = 0.52$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$ is adopted here. This is in
429: excellent agreement with the RR\,Lyr stars in LMC observed by
430: \citet{Clementini:etal:03a} at $\langle m^{0}_{V}\rangle=19.06$ after
431: correction for absorption and an LMC distance modulus of $18.54$
432: (\citeauthor{TSR:03}, Table~6 with the RR\,Lyr entry removed;
433: see also Table~\ref{tab:06} below). But it is emphasized that the
434: RR\,Lyr calibration does not depend primarily on the adopted LMC
435: distance, which is used in \S~\ref{sec:03:2:2} to calibrate the P-L
436: relation of the Cepheids in LMC. It is our aim to keep the Pop.~I and
437: Pop.~II distance scales as independent of each other as possible.
438:
439: Combining the parabolic form of the $M^{\rm RR}_{V} - $[Fe/H]
440: relation of \citet{Sandage:06}, using the pulsation equation together
441: with the observed $\log P - $[Fe/H] relation for cluster RR\,Lyr
442: stars, with the adopted value of $M_{V} = 0.52$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$
443: gives the calibration of
444: \begin{equation}
445: M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved}) = 1.109 + 0.600(\mbox{[Fe/H]})
446: + 0.140(\mbox{[Fe/H]})^{2}
447: \label{eq:01}
448: \end{equation}
449: over the metallicity range $0>\mbox{[Fe/H]}>-2.5$.
450: From the way it is derived using the mean evolved level of the
451: RR\,Lyrae variables in the LMC, equation~(\ref{eq:01}) refers to the
452: mean evolved absolute magnitude of the variables, not the level of the
453: zero-age HB at the RR\,Lyrae position on the HB.
454:
455: Other methods and analyses lead to a fainter
456: RR\,Lyrae calibration. A comprehensive review to 1999 is by
457: \citet{Popowski:Gould:99}.
458: In addition to the methods discussed above, these authors analyze
459: two methods; (a) globular cluster kinematics where
460: proper motions are compared with observed radial velocities of
461: individual cluster stars, and (b), where an observed cluster white
462: dwarf sequence is fitted to a calibrated HR diagram. Altogether
463: they discuss seven methods for an RR\,Lyrae calibration keeping the
464: three that they consider the most robust to be statistical
465: parallaxes of field RR\,Lyrae, trigonometric parallaxes of field
466: RR\,Lyrae, and internal cluster kinematics. From these they conclude
467: that $\langle M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})\rangle = +0.71$ at
468: [Fe/H]$ = -1.6$.
469: This is $0.20\mag$ fainter than equation~(\ref{eq:01}) which gives
470: $\langle M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})\rangle = +0.51$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.6$.
471: Among the consequences of this faint calibration is that,
472: using the observations of the mean level of the RR\,Lyrae in the LMC
473: similar to but earlier than those of \citet{Clementini:etal:03a},
474: \citeauthor{Popowski:Gould:99} derive a distance modulus of the LMC as
475: $\mu^{0}=18.33\pm0.08$. This is $0.21\mag$ smaller than 18.54 which
476: we take to be correct as shown by Table~6 of
477: \citeauthor{TSR:03} and Table~\ref{tab:06} here,
478: supporting the calibration of equation~(\ref{eq:01}), which we adopt
479: as our scale in the remainder of this paper.
480:
481: The intermediate RR\,Lyrae calibration by \citet{Bono:etal:07}
482: confirms the non-linear dependence on [Fe/H]. It is based on
483: convective mixing-length models that give absolute magnitudes averaging
484: $0.1\mag$ fainter than equation~(\ref{eq:01}) here. Their
485: equation~(10) gives
486: $M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved}) = +0.64$ at [Fe/H]$ = -1.5$,
487: that -- with $\langle V^{0\,{\rm RR}}\rangle =19.06$ for LMC from
488: sources in Table~\ref{tab:01} -- gives $\mu^{0}(\mbox{LMC})=18.44$,
489: which is only $0.1\mag$ less than the adopted value in
490: Table~\ref{tab:06} below.
491:
492: We have not discussed the many calibrations of
493: $\langle M_{V}^{\rm RR}\rangle$ for individual stars using the
494: moving-atmosphere method (BBW) for which
495: there is a large literature. In the hands of a dozen investigators,
496: these RR\,Lyr calibrations cover the range of the short and long
497: scale values from $\langle M_{V}^{\rm RR}\rangle$ of $+0.7$ to
498: $+0.5\mag$ at [Fe/H]$=-1.5$, and therefore are of no help here to
499: decide between them at the $0.2\mag$ level.
500:
501:
502: % **********************************************
503: % 2.1.2. Twenty-four RR Lyr distances to nearby galaxies
504: % **********************************************
505: \subsubsection{Twenty-four RR Lyr distances to nearby galaxies}
506: \label{sec:02:1:2}
507: %
508: The purpose of this section is to summarize the recent data
509: on detection and measurement of the RR\,Lyr variables in nearby
510: galaxies and to use equation~(\ref{eq:01}) to determine RR\,Lyr star
511: distances to them.
512:
513: The literature has been surveyed up to the end of 2006. The
514: results are given in Table~\ref{tab:01} ordered by right ascension.
515: Column~(2) shows the number of RR\,Lyr in the particular study. The
516: metallicity given by the original authors is in column~(3).
517: Columns~(4) and (5) list the measured $\langle V\rangle$ and the
518: $E(B\!-\!V)$ reddenings from \citet{Schlegel:etal:98}. A few of the
519: papers used the $g$ photometric band \citep{Thuan:Gunn:76} rather
520: than $V$. These were transformed to $V$ by $\langle V\rangle - \langle
521: g\rangle = +0.04$ \citep{Saha:etal:90}.
522: Column~(6) is the assumed $A_{V}$ absorption
523: calculated from $3.1 \times E(B\!-\!V)$. The absorption-free $V^{0}$
524: values, found by combining columns~(4) and (6) are in column~(7). The
525: calculated absolute $\langle M_{V}({\rm RR\,evolved})\rangle$
526: magnitude of the RR\,Lyr stars using equation~(\ref{eq:01}) is in
527: column~(8).
528: The value used by the original authors based on their various
529: adopted RR\,Lyr calibrations is in column~(9). Column~(8)
530: combined with column~(7) gives the adopted distance modulus in
531: column~(10). The distance from the original authors in column~(11) is
532: not necessarily the difference of columns~(7) and (9) mainly because
533: of differences of the adopted absorption. The telescope used for the
534: literature study is in column~(12). The literature reference is in
535: column~(13), identified as a footnote to the Table, with the details
536: in the References.
537:
538: Our adopted $\mu^{0}_{\rm new}$ values in column~(10) are the
539: basis for the distance scale to which all other scales are compared in
540: the remainder of this paper.
541: These adopted RR~Lyrae distances agree to $0.04\pm0.08$ with those
542: published by the original authors, or $0.02\pm0.01$ if the early
543: determinations for NGC\,147 and NGC\,185 are neglected. We take this
544: good agreement as a broad consensus with our equation~(\ref{eq:01})
545: and our adopted RR~Lyrae distance scale.
546:
547: % **********************************************
548: % ---> Table 1: Twenty-five RR Lyr star distances (in order of RA)
549: % **********************************************
550:
551:
552: % ********************************************************
553: % 2.2. The Tip of the Red-Giant Branch (TRGB)
554: % ********************************************************
555: \subsection{The Tip of the Red-Giant Branch (TRGB)}
556: \label{sec:02:2}
557: %
558: The potential of the infrared TRGB magnitude as a distance indicator
559: has been pioneered by \citet{DaCosta:Armandroff:90}. The basis of
560: their work is that the cores of red giants with initial masses
561: $\la2\,{\mathfrak M}_{\sun}$ are fully degenerate at the moment when
562: the helium flash occurs and with nearly constant core masses their
563: luminosity increases only mildly with increasing $Z$
564: \citep{Rood:72,Sweigart:Gross:78}. This increase of $M_{\rm bol}$ is
565: compensated in the $I$-band by the increasing effect of line
566: blanketing such that $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ becomes a useful standard
567: candle for old, {\em metal-poor\/} populations.
568: The importance of this is that $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ extends the Pop.~II
569: distance scale by a factor of $\sim\!10$ beyond the reach of RR\,Lyr
570: stars. Moreover a great wealth of apparent $m^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$
571: magnitudes has since been accumulated by many authors.
572:
573: The method of the TRGB is generally employed only in the range
574: $-2.3< \mbox{[Fe/H]}<-0.7$ because more metal-rich red giants have an
575: increasingly fainter tip magnitude (see below). If it is restricted to
576: populations older than $7\;$Gyr the effect of age is negligible
577: \citep{Lee:etal:93,Rejkuba:etal:05}.
578:
579:
580: % **********************************************
581: % 2.2.1. The calibration of M^TRGB_I
582: % **********************************************
583: \subsubsection{The calibration of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$}
584: \label{sec:02:2:1}
585: %
586: The 24 galaxies with RR\,Lyr distances in Table~\ref{tab:01} are
587: repeated in Table~\ref{tab:02}, where also the corresponding apparent
588: $m^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ magnitudes (column~4) and their references
589: (column~6) are given. The resulting absolute values\footnote{The
590: values of $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB}$ and $m_{I}^{\rm TRGB}$ are corrected
591: for Galactic absorption throughout.} of
592: $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I} = m^{\rm TRGB}_{I} - \mu^{0}_{\rm RR}$ are given in
593: column~(5). The mean of the absolute magnitudes $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$,
594: omitting Sag dSph whose TRGB is not well defined, and Phoenix whose
595: RR\,Lyr distance is uncertain, is
596: \begin{equation}
597: M^{\rm TRGB}_{I} = -4.05 \pm 0.02,
598: \label{eq:02}
599: \end{equation}
600: which we adopt. The value holds for a mean TRGB color of
601: $(V\!-\!I)^{\rm TRGB}=1.6$ (see Table~\ref{tab:02}, col.~2), which
602: translates into [Fe/H]$\,\sim\!-1.5$ (see below).
603: The standard deviation of the individual determinations of
604: $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ is $\sigma=0.08\mag$. This is smaller than expected
605: from observational errors alone. It follows from this that the random
606: error of a single RR\,Lyr star {\em or\/} TRGB distance is in any
607: case smaller than $0.1\mag$ even if metallicity corrections of the
608: TRGB are neglected (see \S~\ref{sec:02:2:3}).
609:
610: % **********************************************
611: % ---> Table 2:Calibration of the TRGB by means of RR Lyr stars
612: % **********************************************
613:
614: The six late-type galaxies in Figure~\ref{fig:01} deviate
615: from the zero-line by $0.04\pm0.03\mag$, being brighter.
616: The near agreement of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ for late-type galaxies
617: and for dwarf spheroidals indicates that internal absorption in the
618: parent galaxy is negligible for all practical purposes.
619:
620:
621: % **********************************************
622: % 2.2.2. Other calibrations of M^TRGB_I
623: % **********************************************
624: \subsubsection{Other calibrations of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$}
625: \label{sec:02:2:2}
626: %
627: \citet{DaCosta:Armandroff:90} have based their TRGB calibration on
628: globular clusters with RR\,Lyr distances; they have obtained
629: $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}=-3.98$. From the same method \citet{Sakai:etal:04}
630: have adopted $-4.05$.
631: The value of $-4.06$ of \citet{Ferrarese:etal:00b} was calibrated by
632: Cepheids.
633: The luminosity of $-4.07$ by \citet{Bellazzini:etal:04a} rests on the
634: distances of $\omega$ Cen and 47 Tuc.
635: \citet{Salaris:Cassisi:97} have determined the TRGB magnitude from
636: theoretical stellar evolution models and found $-4.16$, which however
637: includes also very short-lived stars.
638: They have revised \citeyearpar{Salaris:Cassisi:98} their result to
639: $-4.27$ and $-4.24$,
640: respectively, depending on the adopted bolometric correction. The
641: result was closely confirmed by \citet{Rejkuba:etal:05} based on
642: the stellar evolution database of \citet{Pietrinferni:etal:04}.
643: \citet[][Fig.~15]{Bergbusch:VandenBerg:01} imply a value close to
644: $-4.05$ based on the models of \citet{VandenBerg:etal:00}.
645: \citet{Rizzi:etal:07} have fitted the HB of five galaxies to
646: the metal-dependent HB of \citet{Carretta:etal:00} whose zero point
647: rests on trigonometric parallaxes; their result is $-4.05\pm0.02$. All
648: values of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ quoted in the Section refer to a
649: metallicity of [Fe/H]$=-1.5$. The calibration with RR\,Lyr stars in
650: \S~\ref{sec:02:2:1}, which refers to the same metallicity, is in good
651: to excellent agreement with the values quoted here.
652:
653:
654: % **********************************************
655: % 2.2.3. The dependence of M^TRGB_I on metallicity
656: % **********************************************
657: \subsubsection{The dependence of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ on metallicity}
658: \label{sec:02:2:3}
659: %
660: The absolute magnitudes $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ of Table~\ref{tab:02} are
661: plotted against the color $(V\!-\!I)$ of the TRGB in
662: Figure~\ref{fig:01}. The colors are taken from the original
663: literature. They are converted into metallicities [Fe/H]$_{\rm ZW}$ on
664: the scale of \citet{Zinn:West:84} following \citet{Bellazzini:etal:01}
665: and shown at the upper edge of Figure~\ref{fig:01}. The metallicities
666: [Fe/H]$_{\rm CG}$ in the system of \citet{Carretta:Gratton:97} are
667: also shown.
668: % **********************************************
669: % ---> Figure 1: M_I^TRGB versus [Fe/H]
670: % **********************************************
671:
672: The calibrators in Figure~\ref{fig:01} suggest an increase of the
673: TRGB luminosity with increasing metallicity, the reality of which we
674: doubt however. The five calibrators of \citet{Rizzi:etal:07} give a
675: flat calibration, although for a narrower metallicity rang of
676: $-1.8<\mbox{[Fe/H]}_{\rm ZW}<-1.3$. Also the models of
677: \citet{VandenBerg:etal:00} do not show a systematic change of the
678: TRGB with metallicity
679: \citep[][Fig.~13]{Bergbusch:VandenBerg:01,Rejkuba:etal:05}; the tip
680: becomes {\em fainter\/} only for the most metal-rich red giants with
681: $(V\!-\!I)>2.0$. The strong decline of the tip magnitude redwards of
682: this limit has been directly observed in rich populations with a wide
683: metallicity spread as in the Galactic bulge \citep{Zoccali:etal:03}
684: and in the halo of NGC\,5128 \citep{Rejkuba:etal:05}.
685:
686: Model-dependent variations of the TRGB magnitude with metallicity
687: have also been determined by \citet{Salaris:Cassisi:98},
688: \citet{Bellazzini:etal:04a}, and \citet{Rizzi:etal:07}. Their results
689: are displayed in Figure~\ref{fig:01}, after they are normalized to
690: $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}=-4.05$ at $(V\!-\!I)=1.6$. The authors agree that
691: the TRGB magnitude does not change by more than $0.05\mag$ over the
692: interval $1.4<(V\!-\!I)\la1.9$ or $-2.0<\mbox{[Fe/H]}_{\rm
693: ZW}<-1.2$. For the most metal-poor red giants the results
694: diverge. For the metal-rich red giants with [Fe/H]$_{\rm ZW}>-1.2$ the
695: results agree on a progressive dimming of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$.
696:
697: The near constancy of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$ over a wide metallicity
698: interval is fortunate because no metallicities or colors
699: $(V\!-\!I)^{\rm TRGB}$ are available for most galaxies with known TRGB
700: magnitudes.
701:
702: In the following a constant value of $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}=-4.05$
703: will be adopted irrespective of metallicity, as
704: \citet{Ferrarese:etal:00b} as well as
705: \citet{Karachentsev:etal:04,Karachentsev:etal:06,Karachentsev:etal:07}
706: in their extensive work on the TRGB have done. Since metal-rich giant
707: branches are unfrequent in old populations the mean distance error
708: incurred will hardly be larger than $0.05\mag$.
709: If one compares the distances of 22 galaxies,
710: for which \citet{Rizzi:etal:07} give metal-corrected TRGB distances
711: with those one obtains from a fixed calibration of
712: $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB}=-4.05$ they differ by only $0.03\mag$ with a
713: small standard deviation of $0.06\mag$. A similar conclusion is
714: reached below where TRGB distances with and without metallicity
715: corrections are compared with (metallicity-corrected) Cepheid
716: distances (Table~\ref{tab:09}).
717:
718:
719: % **********************************************
720: % 2.2.4. TRGB distances of field galaxies
721: % **********************************************
722: \subsubsection{TRGB distances of field galaxies}
723: \label{sec:02:2:4}
724: %
725: \citet{Karachentsev:etal:04} have compiled many $m_{I}^{\rm TRGB}$
726: magnitudes and have provided additional ones in
727: \citet{Karachentsev:etal:06,Karachentsev:etal:07}.
728: Other authors have observed the TRGB in many additional galaxies.
729: Altogether, $m_{I}^{\rm TRGB}$ magnitudes are available for
730: 218 (mostly dwarf) galaxies. Since \citeauthor{Karachentsev:etal:04}
731: have used the same TRGB calibration as adopted here, their listed
732: distances remain unchanged.
733: For consistency all distances have been slightly adjusted,
734: where necessary, to the present calibration of $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB}=-4.05$.
735:
736:
737: % **********************************************
738: % 2.2.5. TRGB, the Virgo cluster, and the cosmic distance scale
739: % **********************************************
740: \subsubsection{ TRGB, the Virgo cluster, and the cosmic distance scale}
741: \label{sec:02:2:5}
742: %
743: \citet{Caldwell:06} has observed the TRGB in the Virgo galaxy NGC\,4407
744: and in five small dwarf galaxies in its vicinity and obtains -- with
745: our calibration -- a mean distance of $\mu^{0}=31.08\pm0.05$. An
746: anonymous Virgo dwarf away from other galaxies yields $31.22$ with a
747: more realistic error of $\pm0.17$ \citep{Durrell:etal:07}. In view of
748: the depth effect of the Virgo cluster, which amounts to 2-3$\;$Mpc
749: \citep[eg.][]{Mei:etal:07} even on the assumption of sphericity,
750: these first distances to individual cluster members cannot be taken as
751: giving the mean cluster distance. TRGB distances of a statistically
752: fair sample of Virgo cluster members will be most valuable as a test
753: for the entire distance scale.
754:
755: TRGB stars have also been detected in the intracluster medium of
756: the Virgo cluster. \citet{Durrell:etal:02} and \citet{Caldwell:06}
757: quote distances of $31.36^{+0.27}_{-0.17}$ and $31.2\pm0.09$,
758: respectively.\footnote{\citeauthor{Durrell:etal:02} do not actually
759: quote a distance to their Virgo cluster fields. The value
760: $\mu^{0}=31.36$ follows from their $I^{\rm TRGB}=27.31$ and the
761: calibration of $M_{I}=-4.05$ used here.}
762: However, these are only {\em lower\/} limits to the
763: distance of the cluster core, because only the nearest TRGB stars can
764: be detected in the cluster field, while the more distant ones are
765: drowned among the red-giant stars on the {\em near\/} side.
766:
767: Information on the TRGB distances is available for four SNe\,Ia at
768: present. Their relevant data are set out in Table~\ref{tab:03}.
769: The corrected $m_{V}(\max)$ magnitudes of the SNe\,Ia in column~(2)
770: are from \citet*[][Table~2, column~9, in the following
771: RTS\,05]{RTS:05}.
772: The TRGB distances of the individual parent galaxies (column~4) and of
773: the mean TRGB distances of their respective groups (column~6),
774: together with the number of group members involved (column~7), are
775: from the sources identified in column~(8).
776: All distances are based on $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB}=-4.05$.
777: The resulting absolute magnitude of the four SNe\,Ia, based on the
778: group distances, is given in column~(9). The mean absolute magnitude
779: of $M_{V}(\mbox{SNe\,Ia})=-19.37\pm0.06$ is statistical the same as
780: $-19.46\pm0.04$, which is based on 10 SNe\,Ia with Cepheid distances
781: (\citeauthor{STS:06}) and which has much higher weight.
782: The latter value is also close to various values derived by others, as
783: summarized by \citet{Gibson:etal:00} in the $B$-band. (Note that
784: $B^{0}_{\max}-V^{0}_{\max}=-0.03$; \citeauthor{STS:06}).
785: When the TRGB method can be pushed to yield reliable
786: distances out to $\sim\!31.5$, seven presently known SNe\,Ia will come
787: into its reach and will yield an {\em independent\/} calibration of
788: $H_{0}$ through the TRGB-calibrated Hubble diagram of SNe\,Ia.
789:
790: % **********************************************
791: % ---> Table 3: A tentative TRGB calibration of the SNIa luminosity
792: % **********************************************
793:
794:
795:
796:
797: % ******************************************************************
798: % 3. POPULATION I DISTANCES
799: % ******************************************************************
800: \section{POPULATION~I DISTANCES}
801: \label{sec:03}
802: %
803: The foundation of the Population~I distance scale is classical
804: Cepheids. Their metallicity-dependent period-luminosity (P-L)
805: relations in $B$, $V$, and $I$ have been derived in
806: \citeauthor{TSR:03} and \citeauthor{STR:04}. It was
807: found that the relatively metal-rich Cepheids in the Solar neighborhood
808: ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.50$ in the $T_{e}$-based scale of
809: \citet{Kennicutt:etal:03} and \citet{Sakai:etal:04}) define a P-L
810: relation that differs in slope and shape from the P-L relation of LMC
811: ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.34$). It is therefore not possible to determine a
812: LMC distance from a P-L relation that is based on {\em Galactic\/}
813: Cepheids. The P-L relations of the two galaxies must be independently
814: be zero-pointed. A more general discussion of the problem follows.
815:
816:
817: % ********************************************************
818: % 3.1. The forms of the P-L relation
819: % ********************************************************
820: \subsection{The forms of the P-L relation}
821: \label{sec:03:1}
822: %
823: The only rational to assume that the P-L relation is universal is
824: convenience since the time in which it was known that Cepheids in
825: different galaxies have different colors, temperatures, light curves,
826: and slopes of their P-L relations (see \S~\ref{sec:01}).
827: Also the break of the P-C and P-L relations of LMC at $P=10^{\rm d}$,
828: not yet seen in other galaxies, is alarming (see below).
829: However, the investigation of the shape of the P-L relation of
830: individual galaxies is difficult because the intrinsic width of the
831: instability strip requires {\em very\/} large Cepheid samples
832: distributed over a wide period interval.
833: Such samples are available only for LMC and SMC; they will never
834: become attainable in dwarf galaxies. One has therefore to assume, in
835: first approximation, that the P-L relations are {\em linear}.
836:
837: Even on the assumption of linearity the determination of the
838: {\em slope\/} is demanding for several reasons.
839: (a) The Cepheids in many galaxies, particularly the distant ones, are
840: often restricted to $P\ga10^{\rm d}$.
841: (b) Selection bias in favor of Cepheids with short periods near to the
842: detection limit \citep{Sandage:88} tends to flatten the slope.
843: (c) The slope is independent of the reddening only as long as it does
844: not depend on the period, which is not warranted a priori.
845:
846: The reddening values $E(B\!-\!V)$ of the Cepheids in all galaxies
847: considered are derived from $(V\!-\!I)$ and in some cases $(B\!-\!V)$
848: colors and an {\em adopted\/} template P-C relation with the exception
849: of only three galaxies, viz. the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC.
850: The individual reddenings of the Galactic Cepheids have been derived
851: {\em ab initio\/} by \citet{Fernie:90}, \citet{Fernie:etal:95}, and
852: other authors. They have been homogenized and slightly revised by
853: \citeauthor{TSR:03}. The reddenings of the Cepheids in LMC
854: and SMC have been determined from adjacent red-clump stars by
855: \citet{Udalski:etal:99a,Udalski:etal:99b}.
856:
857:
858: % **********************************************
859: % 3.1.1. The shape of the Galactic P-L relation
860: % **********************************************
861: \subsubsection{The shape of the Galactic P-L relation}
862: \label{sec:03:1:1}
863: %
864: The shape of the P-L relation of the metal-rich Galactic
865: Cepheids ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.50$) is determined from two independent
866: methods both covering a wide period interval.
867:
868: (a) Thirty-three Cepheids in clusters are taken from the revised list
869: of \citep[][see STR\,04]{Feast:99}. Their distances are known from
870: main-sequence fitting relative to the Pleiades whose distance modulus
871: of $\mu^{0}=5.61\pm0.02$ is well determined from different
872: methods, including trigonometric parallaxes
873: (\citeauthor{STR:04}).
874:
875: (b) BBW distances are
876: available for 33 partially overlapping Galactic Cepheids
877: from \citet{Fouque:etal:03} and \citet{Barnes:etal:03}. Also
878: included are three additional Cepheids with distances from
879: interferometric diameter measurements
880: \citep{Benedict:etal:02,Nordgren:etal:02,Lane:etal:02,Kervella:etal:04}.
881:
882: The Cepheids under (a) and (b) are corrected for Galactic
883: absorption. The absorption-free magnitudes of
884: the two sets of Cepheids define P-L relations in $B$, $V$ and $I$ with
885: very similar slopes. While they agree at $\log P = 0.5$ to within
886: $0.01\mag$, they diverge in all three colors by not more than
887: $0.2\mag$ at $\log P=1.5$. The adopted mean linear P-L relations in
888: \citeauthor{TSR:03}, equations~(16)--(18),
889: should therefore be good to within $\pm0.1\mag$ over a wide period
890: interval.
891:
892: The Galactic P-L relation with slope $-3.087\pm0.085$ is as
893: linear in all three colors as can be determined from a sample of only
894: 69 Cepheids. Provided that the values of $E(B\!-\!V)$
895: from \citeauthor{Fernie:etal:95} do not systematically overestimate the
896: reddening of long-period Cepheids -- a possibility which has been
897: discarded in \citeauthor{TSR:03} -- the Galactic P-L relation
898: does not have the break at $\log P=1.0$ as is observed in LMC (see
899: below). The Galactic P-L relation in $B$, $V$, and $I$ is steeper than
900: observed in most other galaxies, but the slope is about equally steep
901: in the metal-rich galaxies NGC\,3351 and NGC\,4321 (Fig.~\ref{fig:02})
902: as well as in NGC\,224 (M\,31; \S~\ref{sec:03:3} and \S~\ref{sec:03:1:5}).
903:
904: % **********************************************
905: % ---> Figure 2: P-L relation - NGC 4321 + 3351 (+ Galaxy)
906: % **********************************************
907:
908: From trigonometric parallaxes with the fine guidance sensor on
909: {\em HST\/} \citet{Benedict:etal:07} have derived a very flat slope of
910: the Galactic P-L relation of $-2.46$ in $V$, but of their 10 Cepheids
911: only l~Car has a period significantly larger than 10 days. The flat
912: relation raises several questions. (1) The authors discuss the
913: possibility of a break of the Galactic P-L relation. But this creates
914: more problems than it solves. (2) The flat P-L relation predicts 18
915: Cepheids in Galactic clusters with periods $0.6<\log P<1.0$ to be
916: brighter by $0.16\pm0.05$ than listed in Table~1 of
917: \citeauthor{TSR:03}. These Cepheids lie all in well defined
918: clusters (not in less reliable associations!), and an {\em upward\/}
919: revision of the cluster distance scale by this amount is difficult to
920: accept, particularly since \citet{An:etal:07} have concluded from
921: refined photometry of 7 of the 18 clusters that their distances, if
922: anything, should be shifted {\em downwards\/} by $0.12\pm0.06$. (3)
923: The luminosity difference between the 10 Cepheids by
924: \citet{Benedict:etal:07} and the P-L relation adopted here is not
925: only a function of period, but also a function of {\em apparent\/}
926: magnitude. This opens the possibility of astrometric errors in
927: function of magnitude. Finally the 10 parallax Cepheids define a P-L
928: relation in $V$ with a random scatter of only $0.11\mag$ as compared
929: to $0.22\mag$ in LMC. This confirms the prediction that the intrinsic
930: half-width of the Galactic P-L relation is only 0.08 on the basis of
931: the flat constant-period lines in the Galaxy
932: (\citeauthor{STR:04}). Alone the slope difference of the
933: constant-period lines between the Galaxy and LMC constitutes an
934: important difference between the Cepheids of these two galaxies.
935:
936: The {\em HST\/} parallaxes by \citet{Benedict:etal:07} have been
937: augmented by Hipparcos parallaxes including four additional
938: Cepheids by \citet{vanLeeuwen:etal:07}. These authors have derived a
939: P-L relation from a combination of $V$ and $I$ magnitudes. Since this
940: may conceal differences of the separate P-L relations, the relation in
941: $V$ was derived from their data after correcting for absorption. Not
942: surprisingly the resulting relation is essentially the same as by
943: \citet{Benedict:etal:07} because most of the weight lies on the
944: {\em HST\/} parallaxes.
945:
946: \citet{Fouque:etal:07} rely for the slope of the Galactic P-L
947: relation on 49 BBW infrared surface brightness distances, augmented by
948: the 10 trigonometric parallaxes of \citet{Benedict:etal:07}; they
949: exclude Cepheid distances from open clusters. In this way they derive
950: a slope in $V$ of $-2.678$, significantly flatter than our value of
951: $-3.087$ and close to the slope one obtains if the LMC Cepheids are
952: (unjustifiedly) fitted with a {\em single\/} slope. The authors admit
953: that the crux of the BBW method is the correct choice of the $p$-factor
954: that converts observed radial velocities into pulsational
955: velocities. They have taken $p$ from the model of
956: \citet{Nardetto:etal:04}, where $p$ depends on the period $P$. This is
957: unfortunate because any error of the dependence of $p(P)$ translates
958: into an error of the slope of the P-L relation. A weaker $p(P)$
959: dependence yields steeper P-L relations.
960:
961: The slope difference between \citet{Fouque:etal:07} and us
962: (\citeauthor{STR:04}) is caused by their almost exclusive
963: reliance on the BBW method, while we rely on cluster distances which
964: agreed impressively well with the BBW distances available at the time
965: from \citet{Fouque:etal:03} and \citet{Barnes:etal:03}. Our steep
966: slope finds support in metal-rich Cepheids of other galaxies with
967: define, as discussed in \S~\ref{sec:03:1:5}, an equally steep slope.
968:
969: If \citet{Benedict:etal:07} and \citet{Fouque:etal:07} claim that
970: the Galactic and LMC P-L relations are undistinguishable, they
971: fail to acknowledge the {\em break\/} of the LMC relation at $\log
972: P=1.0$ (see \S~\ref{sec:03:1:2}) and its absence in the Galactic
973: Cepheids. In addition the inequality of the Galactic and LMC P-L
974: relations will be shown in \ref{sec:03:1:4}, independent of any
975: adopted distances, only on the basis of the Cepheid colors.
976:
977: The pulsation models of \citet{Marconi:etal:05} for
978: high-metallicity Cepheids ($Z=0.02$) do not give as steep a slope as
979: we observe in the Galaxy. They obtain the steepest slope for $Y=0.26$
980: with flatter slopes for higher $Y$ (0.28, 0.31) {\em and\/} lower $Y$
981: (0.25), but even in the first case the slope is significantly flatter
982: than observed. Surprisingly, lower-metallicity models with $Z=0.01$,
983: $Y=0.26$, a composition actually favored for $\delta\;$Cep by
984: \citet{Natale:etal:07}, come close to the observed slope for the Galaxy.
985: Yet the model slopes are not yet definitive because they depend on the
986: position of the red edge of the instability strip, where the treatment
987: of convection is necessary. Also the uneven population of the strip
988: due to temperature-dependent crossing times should be accounted for.
989: Furthermore, the pulsation models show that the P-L relation depends
990: not only on $Z$ but on $Y$ as well.
991: The point is that the models of \citet{Marconi:etal:05} do show that
992: the P-L slopes should vary from galaxy to galaxy.
993:
994:
995: % **********************************************
996: % 3.1.2. The shape of the LMC P-L relation
997: % **********************************************
998: \subsubsection{The shape of the LMC P-L relation}
999: \label{sec:03:1:2}
1000: %
1001: The shape of the P-L relation in $B$, $V$, and $I$ of the
1002: low-metallicity Cepheids of LMC ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.36$) is unusually
1003: well determined by about 680 Cepheids from the OGLE program
1004: \citep{Udalski:etal:99a} and several other sources
1005: (\citeauthor{STR:04}). A linear fit over the entire period
1006: interval with slope $-2.702$ in $V$ is not the optimum fit. A
1007: significantly better fit is achieved by two linear lines breaking at
1008: $P=10^{\rm d}$ \citep{Tammann:Reindl:02,Tammann:etal:02,Ngeow:etal:05}.
1009: The break, also clearly seen in the P-C relations for $(B\!-\!V)$ and
1010: $(V\!-\!I)$ (\citeauthor{STR:04}, Fig.~1a, 1b), withstands
1011: several statistical tests
1012: \citep{Ngeow:etal:05,Kanbur:etal:07,Koen:etal:07}.
1013: The break becomes particularly striking if the Cepheids are reduced to
1014: the P-L ridge line by shifting them along constant period lines.
1015: The shift is determined by the difference between the observed color
1016: $(V\!-\!I)^{0}_{\rm obs}$ of a Cepheid with fixed period and the color
1017: $(V\!-\!I)^{0}_{\rm PC}$ required by the appropriate P-C relation for
1018: this period, i.e.\
1019: \begin{equation}
1020: M_{V}({\rm Ridge}) = M^{0}_{V} - \beta_{V,V\!-\!I}[(V\!-\!I)^{0}_{\rm
1021: obs} - (V\!-\!I)^{0}_{\rm PC}].
1022: \label{eq:03}
1023: \end{equation}
1024: The coefficient $\beta_{V,V\!-\!I}$ is the slope of the
1025: constant-period lines in the CMD for $M_{V}$ versus $(V\!-\!I)$. For
1026: LMC it was found $\beta_{V,V\!-\!I}=2.43$
1027: (\citeauthor{STR:04}, eq.~[29]).
1028: The resulting P-L relation with its clear break is shown in
1029: Figure~\ref{fig:03}.
1030:
1031: % **********************************************
1032: % ---> Figure 3: LMC+SMC ridge line P-L relation
1033: % **********************************************
1034:
1035: The pulsational models for $Z=0.004$, $Y=0.25$ of
1036: \citet{Marconi:etal:05} fit the observed P-L relation of LMC
1037: well, {\em including\/} the break at $10^{\rm d}$. The theoretical
1038: break is even more pronounced than observed.
1039:
1040:
1041: % **********************************************
1042: % 3.1.3. The shape of the SMC P-L relation
1043: % **********************************************
1044: \subsubsection{The shape of the SMC P-L relation}
1045: \label{sec:03:1:3}
1046: %
1047: Linear regressions to 459 SMC Cepheids of
1048: \citet{Udalski:etal:99b} in the range $0.4 < \log P < 1.7$ give
1049: \begin{eqnarray}
1050: \label{eq:05}
1051: M^{0}_{B} & = & -(2.222\pm0.054)\log P - (1.182\pm0.041), \\
1052: \label{eq:06}
1053: M^{0}_{V} & = & -(2.588\pm0.045)\log P - (1.400\pm0.035),
1054: \quad \mbox{and} \\
1055: \label{eq:07}
1056: M^{0}_{I} & = & -(2.862\pm0.035)\log P - (1.847\pm0.027).
1057: \end{eqnarray}
1058: The constant terms in equations~(\ref{eq:05})--(\ref{eq:07})
1059: are based on the distance of $\mu^{0}_{\rm SMC}=18.93$ from
1060: Table~\ref{tab:07} below. The determination of the exact shape of the
1061: SMC P-L relations, however, is subtle. It is known that they turn
1062: downwards for the many SMC Cepheids with very short periods ($\log
1063: P<0.4$; \citealt{EROS:99}). It is difficult to decide whether this
1064: should be interpreted as a break at $\log P \sim 0.4$ or as curvature
1065: of the P-L relations. The P-C relations in $(B\!-\!V)$ and $(V\!-\!I)$
1066: clearly suggest an additional break at $\log P =1.0$ like in LMC.
1067: The ridge line P-L relation in $V$, constructed with
1068: $\beta_{V,V\!-\!I}=2.82$ appropriate for SMC
1069: (\citeauthor{STR:04}, Table~4), also suggests the break at
1070: $\log P=1.0$ (at only a $2\sigma$ level), but -- contrary to LMC --
1071: with the slope increasing above the break point (Fig.~\ref{fig:03}b).
1072: The single-slope SMC P-L relations of
1073: equations~(\ref{eq:05})--(\ref{eq:07}), however, were deemed to be
1074: adequate for the following application to very metal-poor Cepheids
1075: (see \S~\ref{sec:03:3} below).
1076:
1077:
1078: % **********************************************
1079: % 3.1.4. The interplay of the P-L and P-C relations
1080: % **********************************************
1081: \subsubsection{The interplay of the P-L and P-C relations}
1082: \label{sec:03:1:4}
1083: %
1084: The ongoing discussion on the slope of the Galactic P-L relation could
1085: still nourish the hope that the P-L relations of classical Cepheids
1086: were universal. This hope is unfounded in view of the
1087: period-{\em color} (P-C) relations. Because if the $B,V,I$ P-L
1088: relations are to be invariable, so must be the P-C relations in (B-V)
1089: and (V-I), which are simply the differences of the corresponding P-L
1090: relations.
1091:
1092: Yet the metal-poor LMC and even more metal-poor SMC Cepheids are
1093: on average {\em significantly\/} bluer in $(B\!-\!V)^{0}$ than the
1094: Galactic Cepheids by 0.07 and $0.14\mag$, respectively. The
1095: corresponding number for $(V\!-\!I)^{0}$ is $0.05\mag$ for both
1096: galaxies. Thus the zero points of the $B,V,I$ P-L relations must
1097: differ by at least this amount, but the shift could be larger by any
1098: additional constant amount. The color behavior of the Cepheids in a
1099: two-color diagram $(B\!-\!V)^{0}$ versus $(V\!-\!I)^{0}$ can be
1100: explained -- neglecting their periods -- by atmospheric models
1101: \citep{Sandage:etal:99} as the blanketing effect of the metal lines
1102: (see \citeauthor{TSR:03}, Fig.~7a).
1103:
1104: {\em But\/} in addition the same models show LMC Cepheids to be
1105: hotter than Galactic Cepheids {\em at given period\/} by roughly
1106: 200$\;$K \citep[see also][]{Laney:Stobie:86} and to be also hotter at
1107: constant luminosity (\citeauthor{STR:04}, Fig.~20). This is, as has
1108: been shown, an even stronger luminosity effect than the line
1109: blanketing.
1110:
1111: If the size of the blanketing effect and of the temperature
1112: difference were independent of period, the {\em slopes\/} of the P-L
1113: relations could still be the same everywhere, and only their
1114: zero points were shifted. However, it is clear that the blanketing
1115: effect depends on color and hence on period. Moreover it was shown in
1116: \citeauthor{STR:04} that also the temperature difference at
1117: constant luminosity increases with period. These effects {\em must\/}
1118: reflect on the slopes of the P-C relations. In Table~\ref{tab:04} the
1119: observed slopes of the P-C relations in $(B\!-\!V)^{0}$ and
1120: $(V\!-\!I)^{0}$ of the Galaxy, LMC, and SMC are compiled. To avoid
1121: further complications with the break at 10d of at least the LMC
1122: relations, the slopes in the interval $0.4\le\log P\le 1.0$ are only
1123: considered. The slope differences in Table~\ref{tab:04} between the
1124: three galaxies are highly significant at the 2-5$\sigma$ level.
1125:
1126: % **********************************************
1127: % ---> Table 4: Slopes of P-C relations in Galaxy, LMC, and SMC
1128: % **********************************************
1129:
1130: The conclusion is that since the P-C relations have different
1131: slopes in galaxies with different metallicity, the slopes of the
1132: $B,V,I$ P-L relations must also vary. It is therefore not anymore the
1133: question whether the P-L relations are universal, but only by how much
1134: they vary.
1135:
1136: A word of warning may here be in place. There are indications
1137: that the P-L relations in the near infrared ($JHK$) have closely the
1138: same slope independent of metallicity. If this is the case, this still
1139: does not mean, as discussed above, that they have the same
1140: zero point. It will therefore be necessary to independently zero point
1141: the near infrared P-L relations for Cepheids with different chemical
1142: composition.
1143:
1144:
1145: % **********************************************
1146: % 3.1.5. The slope of the P-L relation in function of metallicity
1147: % **********************************************
1148: \subsubsection{The slope of the P-L relation in function of metallicity}
1149: \label{sec:03:1:5}
1150: %
1151: The metallicities (from \citealt{Sakai:etal:04}) and slopes of the
1152: $B$, $V$, and $I$ P-L relations of nine galaxies are compiled in
1153: Table~\ref{tab:05}. Only galaxies with well or reasonably well
1154: determined slopes are considered. The original sources of the Cepheid
1155: data are listed in the last column.
1156:
1157: % **********************************************
1158: % ---> Table 5: Metallicities and P-L slopes of nine galaxies
1159: % **********************************************
1160:
1161: The Cepheids in Sextans A and B are combined to a single P-L relation
1162: because they have nearly the same (very low) metallicity and almost
1163: identical TRGB distances ($\mu^{0}=25.78,25.79$; \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07}).
1164:
1165: The decrease of the P-L slope with decreasing metallicity in
1166: Figure~\ref{fig:04} is striking. The extreme case of Sextans A and B
1167: deserves special emphasis.
1168: Confirmatory work would be interesting, although the
1169: two small galaxies may not have many more Cepheids than already known
1170: (17 over a wide period interval). It is likely that some of the
1171: scatter in Figure~\ref{fig:04} is intrinsic. The available data for
1172: several metal-rich galaxies admittedly suggest that their P-L relations
1173: are flatter than in the Galaxy (see \S~\ref{sec:03:4:4}). But
1174: Figure~\ref{fig:04} leaves no doubt that the P-L slope {\em is\/}
1175: correlated with [O/H]. Hence, the P-L relation cannot be universal but
1176: must vary from galaxy-to-galaxy, primarily as a function of [O/H].
1177:
1178: % **********************************************
1179: % ---> Figure 4: The slope of the P-L relation in function of [O/H]
1180: % **********************************************
1181:
1182:
1183: % ********************************************************
1184: % 3.2. The zero-point calibration of the P-L relation of Cepheids
1185: % ********************************************************
1186: \subsection{The zero-point calibration of the P-L relation of Cepheids}
1187: \label{sec:03:2}
1188: %
1189: % **********************************************
1190: % 3.2.1. The zero point of the Galactic P-L relation
1191: % **********************************************
1192: \subsubsection{The zero point of the Galactic P-L relation}
1193: \label{sec:03:2:1}
1194: %
1195: The zero point of the Galactic P-L relation for an adopted metallicity
1196: of [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.62$ rests on 33 cluster distances
1197: (\citeauthor{STR:04}) and 36 BBW distances from
1198: \citet{Fouque:etal:03} and \citet{Barnes:etal:03}. The two
1199: calibrations agree to $0.07\mag$ in $V$ at an intermediate period of
1200: $P=10\;$days (\citeauthor{STR:04}). New distances of seven
1201: clusters by \citet{An:etal:07} suggest smaller distances by
1202: $\sim\!0.1$, which brings the two systems to even better
1203: agreement. The BBW distances have been revised twice since 2003
1204: \citep{Gieren:etal:05b,Fouque:etal:07}, but the effect on the
1205: zero point at $P=10\;$days is negligible. The adopted zero point is
1206: $M_{V}=-4.00$. The independent zero point from {\em HST\/} parallaxes
1207: by \citet{Benedict:etal:07} is brighter by 0.05, the one of
1208: \citet{vanLeeuwen:etal:07} by only 0.01.
1209:
1210:
1211: % **********************************************
1212: % 3.2.2. The zero point of the P-L relation of LMC
1213: % **********************************************
1214: \subsubsection{The zero point of the P-L relation of LMC}
1215: \label{sec:03:2:2}
1216: %
1217: The zero point of the LMC P-L relations , which holds for a
1218: metallicity of [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.34$ \citep{Sakai:etal:04}, is given
1219: by an {\em adopted\/} distance of LMC. Thirteen determinations from
1220: 1997 to 2002 gave a mean modulus of $\mu^{0}=18.54\pm0.02$
1221: (\citeauthor{STR:04}). Sixteen newer determinations are
1222: compiled in Table~\ref{tab:06}. The listed errors of the individual
1223: distance determinations are from the literature, but since they are
1224: incommensurable, a straight mean of $18.53\pm0.01$ has been
1225: derived. The value of $18.54$ is maintained here. Note that none of
1226: the listed distances involves any assumption on the P-L relation,
1227: which would make the calibration circular.
1228:
1229: % **********************************************
1230: % ---> Table 6: The distance of LMC
1231: % **********************************************
1232:
1233: If the model P-L relation in $V$ for $Z=0.004, Y=0.25$ of
1234: \citet{Marconi:etal:05} are taken at face value and if they are
1235: combined with the observed Cepheids in LMC one obtains a distance
1236: modulus of $\mu^{0}_{\rm LMC}=18.51\pm0.01$. The result is lower in
1237: $B$ and higher in $I$, because the model colors are still redder than
1238: observed. The distance becomes smaller by $\sim\!0.1\mag$ if the more
1239: realistic model with $Z=0.008, Y=0.25$ are used for LMC.
1240:
1241: An LMC Cepheid at $P=10\;$days is brighter than its Galactic
1242: counterpart by $0.25\mag$. The assumption is devious that this could
1243: be remedied by decreasing the distance of LMC because the zero-point
1244: difference is wavelength-dependent (0.35 in $B$, 0.15 in $I$). The
1245: erroneous assumption of equal zero points has notoriously led to too
1246: small an LMC distance if based on Cepheids.
1247:
1248:
1249: % **********************************************
1250: % 3.2.3. The zero point of the P-L relation of SMC
1251: % **********************************************
1252: \subsubsection{The zero point of the P-L relation of SMC}
1253: \label{sec:03:2:3}
1254: %
1255: The constant terms in equations~(\ref{eq:05})--(\ref{eq:07}) are
1256: calibrated with an adopted SMC modulus of 18.93 (Table~\ref{tab:07})
1257: as mentioned before.
1258:
1259: In \S~\ref{sec:04} the Cepheid distances shall be compared
1260: with the Pop.~II distance indicators. The calibration of the Cepheids
1261: should therefore be as free of Pop.~II data as possible. In spite of
1262: this, an RR\,Lyr star and a TRGB distance are included for the
1263: zero-point calibration of each of the P-L relations of LMC and SMC
1264: (see Tables~\ref{tab:06} \& \ref{tab:07}). However, their omission
1265: would change the calibration by only $0.02\mag$. In case of LMC such a
1266: change is negligible because the LMC P-L relation is always used in
1267: combination with the independently calibrated Galactic P-L
1268: relation. The SMC P-L relation is used for only three galaxies, which
1269: follow below.
1270:
1271: % **********************************************
1272: % ---> Table 7: The distance of SMC
1273: % **********************************************
1274:
1275:
1276: % **********************************************
1277: % 3.2.4. Metallicity corrections
1278: % **********************************************
1279: \subsubsection{Metallicity corrections}
1280: \label{sec:03:2:4}
1281: %
1282: There is a large literature on metallicity corrections to Cepheid
1283: distances (i.e.\ due to differences in the Cepheid P-L relation for
1284: different $Y$ and $Z$ values), and we do not review that literature
1285: here. A fine review is by \citet{Romaniello:etal:05}. For the present
1286: paper we use the formulations by \citeauthor{STT:06}.
1287:
1288: Cepheid distances derived from $V$ and $I$ magnitudes and the
1289: corresponding P-L relations of the {\em Galaxy\/} differ from those
1290: using the P-L relations of LMC. Up to periods of $P\la10{\rm d}$ the
1291: LMC relations yield larger, above this period limit smaller
1292: distances. This was ascribed in \citeauthor{STT:06} to the
1293: metallicity difference of the Cepheids in the
1294: Galaxy ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.60$) and in LMC ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.34$).
1295: Correspondingly Cepheids with Galactic metallicity are reduced with
1296: the P-L relations of the Galaxy, and those with the LMC metallicity
1297: with the LMC relations. For the distances of Cepheids with
1298: intermediate and slightly extrapolated metallicities an interpolation
1299: formula was derived in \citeauthor{STT:06} (eq.~10).
1300:
1301: The interpolation formula is given here in tabular form for every
1302: increment of $\Delta$[O/H]$_{\rm Te}=+0.1$ from [O/H]$=8.34$
1303: (Table~\ref{tab:08}). The entries give the distance modulus change
1304: $\Delta\mu$ in function of period which must be applied to a distance
1305: derived from $V,I$ photometry and based on the LMC P-L relations.
1306: The Table can be read with opposite sign if distances from the
1307: Galactic P-L relations are to be corrected to lower metallicities.
1308:
1309: % **********************************************
1310: % ---> Table 8: Distance modulus corrections
1311: % **********************************************
1312:
1313: For a few galaxies outside the range $8.2<\mbox{[O/H]}_{\rm Te}<8.7$,
1314: the limiting values of 8.2 and 8.7, respectively, have been adopted by
1315: \citeauthor{STT:06}.
1316:
1317: It may seem paradoxical that metal-rich Cepheids with $\log
1318: P>1.0$ (actually $\log P>0.933$) yield {\em larger\/} distances than
1319: LMC Cepheids although the latter are {\em brighter\/} in $V$ up to
1320: $\log P=1.38$. The reason is that the $V$ and $I$ magnitudes are used
1321: not only to derive a true distance but also the reddening. The
1322: metal-poor Cepheids being blue yield large reddenings leading to large
1323: absorption corrections and hence to small distances. The effect of
1324: metallicity changes on the distance of Cepheids is therefore a
1325: combination of their effect on the luminosities {\em and\/} on the
1326: inferred absorption corrections.
1327:
1328:
1329: % ********************************************************
1330: % 3.3. A Summary of Available Cepheid Distances
1331: % ********************************************************
1332: \subsection{A Summary of Available Cepheid Distances}
1333: \label{sec:03:3}
1334: %
1335: Metallicity-corrected Cepheid distances of 37 galaxies have been
1336: derived in \citeauthor{STT:06} from the Galactic and LMC P-L
1337: relations as given in \citeauthor{STR:04}.
1338: Six additional Cepheid distances have since become available.
1339:
1340: \noindent
1341: NGC\,55. \citet{Pietrzynski:etal:06a} have observed 143 Cepheids in $V$
1342: and $I$ in NGC\,55 with a metallicity of [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.35$, i.e.\
1343: close to LMC. Using \citet*{Udalski:etal:99c} LMC P-L relation they
1344: have obtained a modulus of $\mu^{0}=26.45\pm0.05$ if $\mu^{0}_{\rm LMC}$
1345: is at 18.54. From the best 110 Cepheids and the LMC P-L relation of
1346: \citeauthor{STR:04} we obtain $\mu^{0}=26.42$ using
1347: $\langle E(V\!-\!I)\rangle=0.12$ and a small metallicity
1348: correction of $0.01\mag$. If one applies the Galactic P-L relation
1349: instead, which stands for a metallicity of [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.60$, one
1350: finds $\mu^{0}(\mbox{Gal})=26.56$ and a metallicity correction of
1351: $-0.16\mag$ from equation~(10) in \citeauthor{STT:06}, resulting
1352: in a corrected modulus of $\mu^{0}=26.40$. We adopt $26.41\pm0.05$ for
1353: NGC\,55.
1354:
1355: \noindent
1356: M\,31 (NGC\,224). \citet{Vilardell:etal:07} have observed hundreds of
1357: badly needed Cepheids in this galaxy, 281 of which the authors
1358: identify as fundamental pulsators. Unfortunately the $B,V$ photometry
1359: of these variables with the 2.5m Isaac Newton Telescope is affected by
1360: blends. \citeauthor{Vilardell:etal:07} have found that Cepheids with
1361: large amplitudes, i.e.\ ${\cal A}_{V}>0.8\mag$, are least blemished by
1362: blends and they have kindly provided to us the subset of the 64 such
1363: fundamental pulsators with $0.4< \log P < 1.6$. Their mean metallicity
1364: is [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.66$ from their galactocentric distances and the
1365: metallicity gradients of \citet{Zaritsky:etal:94}. Since this is only
1366: slightly more than the adopted value of Galactic values (8.6), it is
1367: assumed that the M\,31 Cepheids follow the Galactic P-C relation. With
1368: this assumption individual reddenings $E(B\!-\!V)$ were determined,
1369: which turn out to increase with period, the mean value being
1370: $\langle E(B\!-\!V)\rangle=0.21$. The ensuing absorption-corrected P-L
1371: relations are virtually as {\em steep} ($-2.916\pm0.144$ in $V$) as in
1372: the Galaxy. Comparing these relations with the adopted Galactic P-L
1373: relations yields in $B$ and $V$ $\mu^{0}=24.32\pm0.06$. Had we
1374: compared with LMC at $\mu^{0}=18.54$ the modulus would become $24.18$,
1375: which is still to be increased by $0.11\mag$ for the metallicity
1376: difference to give $\mu^{0}=24.29$ (see \citeauthor{STT:06},
1377: eq.~[10]). However, the distances are still to be corrected for the
1378: amplitude restriction. The largest amplitudes occur in general on the
1379: blue side of the instability strip (\citeauthor{STR:04},
1380: Fig.~11). In the Galaxy the 123 Cepheids with ${\cal A}_{V}>0.8\mag$
1381: from \citet{Berdnikov:etal:00} are bluer in $(B\!-\!V)$ than the total
1382: of 321 Cepheids by $0.02\mag$. If the same value holds for M\,31, the
1383: above reddenings were underestimated by the same amount and the
1384: absorption by $0.06\mag$. The distance becomes then 24.26. On the
1385: other hand blue Cepheids are intrinsically brighter than average
1386: because of the slope $\beta$ of the constant-period lines. Yet, since
1387: $\beta$ is quite flat ($\beta_{V,B-V}=0.6$,
1388: \citeauthor{STR:04}) in the Galaxy and presumably in M\,31
1389: this effect increases the distance by only 0.01, which becomes then
1390: $\mu^{0}=24.27$ for M\,31. -- The Cepheid distance of M\,31 is
1391: significantly smaller than from RR\,Lyr stars (24.53) and the TRGB
1392: (24.47). This may be due to remaining blend effects or to an
1393: overestimate of the reddening, if the metal-rich M\,31 Cepheids are
1394: intrinsically redder than Galactic Cepheids.
1395:
1396: \noindent
1397: NGC\,4258. \citet{Macri:etal:06} have observed Cepheids in $B$, $V$,
1398: and $I$ in an outer field of NGC\,4258. They have the same
1399: metallicity as LMC ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.36$) according to the
1400: metallicity gradient of \citet{Zaritsky:etal:94}. The 36 best Cepheids
1401: in the field yield $\mu^{0}=29.50\pm0.03$ using the LMC P-L relation
1402: of \citeauthor{STR:04} and $\langle E(B\!-\!V)\rangle = 0.042$.
1403: The Galactic P-L relation yields, after a proper metallicity
1404: correction, the same value. The P-L relation in $B$ shows possibly a
1405: break at $P=10^{\rm d}$, but even if real this has no effect on the
1406: distance determination. For the Cepheids in the inner, metal-rich
1407: field of NGC\,4258 see \S~\ref{sec:03:4:4}.
1408:
1409: \noindent
1410: NGC\,5128 (Cen\,A). Forty-five heavily absorbed Cepheids with $V$ and
1411: $I$ magnitudes from \citet{Ferrarese:etal:07} in the highly peculiar
1412: Galaxy NGC\,5128 yield
1413: $\langle E(\!V-\!I)\rangle=0.50$, $\mu^{0}=27.62\pm0.04$ and
1414: $\langle E(\!V-\!I)\rangle=0.42$, $27.71\pm0.04$, respectively,
1415: using the P-L relations of LMC and the Galaxy.
1416: Since the metallicity of the Cepheids is unknown, a mean of
1417: $\mu^{0}=27.67\pm0.04$ is adopted. Following \citet{Ferrarese:etal:07}
1418: an absorption-to-reddening factor of $R_{V}=2.4$ has been used as
1419: measured for NGC\,5128 by \citet{Hough:etal:87}. Had we assumed the
1420: standard absorption factor of $R_{V}=3.23$ the mean distance would
1421: become $\mu^{0}=27.54$ which is hardly compatible with the TRGB
1422: distance 27.82 \citep{Karachentsev:etal:04} or 27.72
1423: \citep{Rizzi:etal:07}.
1424:
1425: Two more galaxies with known Cepheids have quite low
1426: metallicities, i.e.\ NGC\,3109 and IC\,1613 with [O/H]$_{\rm Te}=8.06$
1427: and 7.86, respectively, from \citet{Sakai:etal:04}, which are close to
1428: SMC ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=7.98$). In order not to over-extrapolate the
1429: metallicity corrections of \citeauthor{STT:06}, the two galaxies
1430: are tied to the P-L relation of SMC without further metallicity
1431: corrections.
1432:
1433: \noindent
1434: NGC 3109. One-hundred-and-two Cepheids from \citet{Pietrzynski:etal:06b}
1435: define, after $2\sigma$ clipping, P-L relations with a slope that is
1436: even flatter than observed in SMC (Table~\ref{tab:05}), but with
1437: the large scatter of $\sigma=0.39$. They indicate, if
1438: compared with SMC, an internal reddening of $E(V\!-\!I)=-0.01\pm0.01$,
1439: which we take as zero,
1440: and a distance modulus of $\mu^{0}=25.41\pm0.04$.
1441: If the sample is cut at $\log P=0.75$ to
1442: guard against the shortest-period Cepheids being possibly overluminous
1443: in the mean \citep{Sandage:88} yields $\mu^{0}=25.45\pm0.04$, which we
1444: adopt. The small reddening may suggest that the Cepheids are even
1445: bluer than those of SMC. If the restricted sample of Cepheids had been
1446: reduced with the P-L relation of LMC one would have obtained
1447: 25.57. \citet{Soszynski:etal:06} have derived $\mu^{0}=25.61$
1448: (if $\mu^{0}_{\rm LMC}=18.54$) from additional magnitudes in $J$ and
1449: $K$ and by comparing with LMC. Earlier work on the Cepheids in
1450: NGC\,3109 is cited by \citet{Pietrzynski:etal:06b}.
1451:
1452: \noindent
1453: IC\,1613. Forty-two Cepheids from \citet{Antonello:etal:06} fill
1454: exceedingly well the strip in the two-color diagram
1455: $(B\!-\!V)$ vs. $(V\!-\!I)$ defined by SMC Cepheids. Six
1456: additional Cepheids lie clearly outside that strip and are
1457: omitted. The 42 Cepheids are bluer on average by only
1458: $-0.01\pm0.01\mag$ than SMC Cepheids, which we interprete as zero
1459: reddening. They define P-L relations in $B$, $V$, and $I$ with no
1460: indication of a break and with slopes that are the same within the
1461: errors as the overall slopes in SMC. A comparison of the two sets of
1462: Cepheids yields a distance modulus of $\mu^{0}=24.32\pm0.02$, somewhat
1463: less than $24.50\pm0.12$ from \citeauthor{Antonello:etal:06} who
1464: compared with LMC.
1465:
1466: \noindent
1467: WLM may tentatively be compared with the P-L relation of
1468: SMC, although it is very metal-deficient
1469: ([O/H]$_{\rm Te}=7.74$, \citealt{Sakai:etal:04}).
1470: \citet{Pietrzynski:etal:07} have observed 60 Cepheids, of which three
1471: can be excluded as bright outlyers and one for lack of complete
1472: data. The remaining 56 Cepheids are quite blue and give, if compared
1473: with SMC, $E(V\!-\!I)=-0.03\pm05$, which we take as zero. They define
1474: P-L relations ($\sigma=0.38\mag$) which are even flatter (by
1475: $1\sigma$) than in SMC and significantly flatter than the single-fit
1476: P-L relations of LMC (\citeauthor{STR:04}, eqs. [8\,\&\,9]). No bias
1477: towards bright Cepheids \citep{Sandage:88} is seen at short
1478: periods. Tied to the $V$ and $I$ P-L relations of SMC the Cepheids
1479: give $\mu^{0}=24.80$ and $\mu^{0}=24.83$, respectively. These values
1480: are noticeably smaller than \citet*{Pietrzynski:etal:07} value of
1481: $25.18$ (if LMC at $18.54$), but the adopted value of $\mu^{0}=24.82$
1482: here compares well with the TRGB distance of the galaxy ($24.90$,
1483: Table~\ref{tab:09}), the fit of the entire CMD ($24.88\pm0.09$;
1484: \citealt{Dolphin:00}), and the position of the HB
1485: ($24.95\pm0.15$; \citealt{Rejkuba:etal:00}).
1486:
1487:
1488: % ********************************************************
1489: % 3.4. Are the Metallicity Corrections to Cepheid Distances Reliable?
1490: % ********************************************************
1491: \subsection{Are the Metallicity Corrections to Cepheid Distances Reliable?}
1492: \label{sec:03:4}
1493: %
1494: Any systematic errors of the adopted metallicity corrections must show
1495: by comparing the Cepheid distances with independent distance
1496: indicators. The test is independent of zero-point differences because
1497: we seek only the {\em slope\/} of the function
1498: $\Delta\mu^{0}=f(\mbox{[O/H]})$.
1499:
1500:
1501: % **********************************************
1502: % 3.4.1. Comparison of Cepheid distances with TRGB distances
1503: % **********************************************
1504: \subsubsection{Comparison of Cepheid distances with TRGB distances}
1505: \label{sec:03:4:1}
1506: %
1507: Cepheid distances as well as TRGB distances are available for 18
1508: galaxies. The low- and high-metallicity Cepheids in the outer and
1509: inner field of NGC\,5457 are counted twice (Table~\ref{tab:09}). In
1510: case of NGC\,4258 only the Cepheids in the outer field are plotted for
1511: reasons given in \S~\ref{sec:03:3}. The differences of the respective
1512: distances are plotted against the metallicity [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ of the
1513: {\em Cepheids\/} in Figure~\ref{fig:05}. The absence of any significant
1514: metallicity dependence on [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ is striking.
1515:
1516: % **********************************************
1517: % ---> Figure 5: Delta mu=mu_Cep - mu_TRGB versus [O/H]
1518: % **********************************************
1519:
1520:
1521: % **********************************************
1522: % 3.4.2. Comparison with SNeIa magnitudes
1523: % **********************************************
1524: \subsubsection{Comparison with SNe\,Ia magnitudes}
1525: \label{sec:03:4:2}
1526: %
1527: Metallicity-corrected Cepheid distances of 10 galaxies were used in
1528: \citeauthor{STS:06} to calibrate the maximum absolute
1529: magnitude of their SNe\,Ia. Any remaining errors
1530: of the metallicity correction will show as an incorrect dependence of
1531: the SN\,Ia luminosities on the Cepheid metallicity [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$. The
1532: test is performed in Figure~\ref{fig:06}. The formal dependence is
1533: statistically insignificant.
1534:
1535: % **********************************************
1536: % ---> Figure 6: M_SN versus [O/H]
1537: % **********************************************
1538:
1539:
1540: % **********************************************
1541: % 3.4.3. Comparison of Cepheid distances with velocity distances
1542: % **********************************************
1543: \subsubsection{Comparison of Cepheid distances with velocity distances}
1544: \label{sec:03:4:3}
1545: %
1546: The difference between the Cepheid distances and velocity distances of
1547: their parent galaxies are not supposed to be a function of the Cepheid
1548: metallicity [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$. The test is difficult because the galaxies
1549: with Cepheid distances are nearby and have small recession velocities
1550: which are substantially influenced by peculiar velocities. Galaxies
1551: with $\mu^{0}<28.2$ are therefore omitted, as are cluster galaxies and
1552: galaxies within $25^{\circ}$ from the Virgo cluster center.
1553: The distance differences of the remaining 17 galaxies from Table~8 in
1554: \citeauthor{STT:06} and from \S~\ref{sec:03:3} are plotted
1555: against [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ in Figure~\ref{fig:07}. As in \S~\ref{sec:03:4:1}
1556: the outer- and inner-field Cepheids of NGC\,5457 are plotted
1557: separately and only those of the outer field of NGC\,4258 are
1558: considered. A least-squares-fit to the data results in some dependence
1559: on [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ (dashed line), but the statistical error is even larger.
1560:
1561: % **********************************************
1562: % ---> Figure 7: The difference of DeltaM = mu_Cep - mu_velocity
1563: % **********************************************
1564:
1565: If the evidence of Figures~\ref{fig:05}--\ref{fig:07} is combined, the
1566: remaining metal-dependent error of the Cepheid distances amounts to
1567: only $\Delta\mu=(0.05\pm0.10)\,\Delta$[O/H]$_{\rm Te}$. Since $\Delta$[O/H]
1568: is in order of unity the relative distance error between the most
1569: metal-poor and most metal-rich galaxies may in fact be zero, and, in any
1570: case is likely to be $<0.1\mag$. This speaks in favor of the present
1571: metallicity corrections.
1572:
1573: {\em If\/} all Cepheid distances entering
1574: Figures~\ref{fig:05}--\ref{fig:07} had been based on the P-L relation
1575: of LMC and if {\em no\/} metallicity corrections had been applied, one
1576: would have found $\Delta\mu=(0.53\pm0.17)\,\Delta$[O/H]$_{\rm Te}$.
1577: This {\em demonstrates the necessity of metallicity corrections}.
1578: (It may be noted that the [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ scale of
1579: \citet{Kennicutt:etal:03} and \citet{Sakai:etal:04} is compressed by a
1580: factor of $\sim\!1.5$ as compared to the old [O/H] scale which has
1581: been widely used in the present context. Therefore the above relation
1582: translates into $ \Delta\mu\sim 0.35\Delta$[O/H]$_{\rm old}$).
1583:
1584:
1585: % **********************************************
1586: % 3.4.4. Comparison with the Cepheids in the inner field of NGC 4258
1587: % **********************************************
1588: \subsubsection{Comparison with the Cepheids in the inner field of NGC\,4258}
1589: \label{sec:03:4:4}
1590: %
1591: From the water masers moving on Keplerian orbits about the center of
1592: NGC\,4258 \citet{Herrnstein:etal:99, Herrnstein:etal:05} have derived
1593: a modulus of $29.29\pm0.08\pm0.07$. Both the Cepheid distance
1594: ($29.50$; see \S~\ref{sec:03:3}) and TRGB distance ($29.44$; see
1595: \S~\ref{sec:03:3}) are larger, but a mean of $\mu^{0}=29.38$
1596: agrees within $\le0.12\mag$ with all three determinations.
1597: Cepheids have also been observed in an {\em inner\/} field of
1598: NGC\,4258 by \citet{Macri:etal:06}. Their position in the galaxy with
1599: its chemical gradient \citep{Zaritsky:etal:94} suggest that these
1600: Cepheids are as metal-rich as Galactic Cepheids on average. The
1601: Cepheids are therefore expected to share the P-L relation of the
1602: Galaxy, not the LMC. The 81 Cepheids, complying with the typical
1603: position in the $(B\!-\!V)$ vs. $(V\!-\!I)$ diagram of classical
1604: Cepheids, cover a wide period interval of $0.6<\log P<1.7$.
1605: Their absorption-corrected P-L relation can be derived by adopting the
1606: above distance of NGC\,4258 using an appropriate P-C relation.
1607: \citeauthor{Macri:etal:06} have adopted the blue P-C relation of LMC
1608: which, however, is incorrect for the metal-rich and necessarily redder
1609: Cepheids. If one assumes that these Cepheids follow the same P-C
1610: relation {\em as in the Galaxy}, one obtains color excesses
1611: $E(B\!-\!V)$ which are nearly independent of period.
1612: This lends support to the assumption that the P-C relations of the
1613: inner field and of the Galaxy have the same slope. The resulting P-L
1614: relations in $B$, $V$, and $I$ are very flat, in fact in spite of the
1615: high metallicity as flat as in LMC (not considering the break at
1616: $P=10^{\rm d}$) {\em and as flat as in the outer field}. The
1617: observation that the inner-field Cepheids agree with the
1618: LMC Cepheids to within $0.1\mag$ at all periods depends on the
1619: additional {\em assumption\/} that the P-C relations of the inner
1620: field and of the Galaxy do not have only the same slope, but also the
1621: same zero point.
1622:
1623: This is not to suggest that the above combination of a Galactic
1624: P-C relation (for high-metallicity Cepheids) and an LMC P-L relation
1625: (for low-metallicity Cepheids) could give a consistent
1626: solution. Rather it is likely that the flat slope of the
1627: {\em metal-rich\/} Cepheids in the inner field of NGC\,4258, in
1628: contrast to Figure~\ref{fig:04}, is caused by a second parameter other
1629: than [O/H], possibly by $Y$ as mentioned before.
1630:
1631: It is fortunate that the P-L relation of the inner field, as
1632: derived here, crosses the Galactic P-L relation at $\log P\sim1.5$,
1633: which happens to be the median period of the known Cepheids in most
1634: galaxies outside the Local Group. It makes therefore little difference
1635: for the derived distances which of the two P-L relations applies to a
1636: given set of high-metallicity Cepheids.
1637:
1638:
1639:
1640:
1641: % ******************************************************************
1642: % 4. Comparison of the zero points of the Pop.~II and Pop.~I distances
1643: % ******************************************************************
1644: \section{COMPARISON OF THE ZERO POINTS OF THE POP.~I AND POP.~II DISTANCES}
1645: \label{sec:04}
1646: %
1647: The Cepheid distances of 18 galaxies introduced in
1648: \S~\ref{sec:03:3} can be compared with their corresponding TRGB
1649: distances (Table~\ref{tab:09}). The comparison is equivalent to a
1650: comparison of Cepheid with RR\,Lyr star distances because the TRGB
1651: distances are so tightly linked with the RR\,Lyr stars through
1652: Table~\ref{tab:02}. On average the Cepheid distances are {\em
1653: smaller\/} than the TRGB distances by only $0.04\pm0.03$. If instead
1654: the 13 galaxies are compared, for which {\em metal-corrected\/} TRGB
1655: distances are given in the literature, the difference
1656: $\mu^{0}_{\rm Ceph}-\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}$ becomes $-0.02\pm0.03$.
1657: This agreement of the Pop.~I and Pop.~II distances of nearby
1658: galaxies is as good as can possibly be expected.
1659:
1660: % **********************************************
1661: % ---> Table 9: Comparison of Cepheid and TRGB distances
1662: % **********************************************
1663:
1664: \citet{Rizzi:etal:07} have compared the TRGB distances of 15
1665: galaxies with their Cepheid distances, but the latter are derived from
1666: the old P-L relation of \citet{Madore:Freedman:91} without
1667: corrections for metallicity. \citeauthor{Rizzi:etal:07} find
1668: $\langle\mu^{0}_{\rm Ceph}-\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB} \rangle=0.01\pm0.03$.
1669: The good agreement is no surprise because it was stated already in
1670: \S~\ref{sec:01} that several old Cepheid distance scales, prior to the
1671: one adopted by \citet{Freedman:etal:01}, agree {\em on average\/} well
1672: with those adopted here.
1673:
1674: Only 10 galaxies used for the comparison by \citet{Rizzi:etal:07}
1675: are also contained in Table~\ref{tab:09}. LMC and SMC are omitted,
1676: because they are used here to calibrate the P-L relation of their
1677: specific metallicity. We do not have a reliable template P-L relation
1678: for the most metal-poor galaxies of \citeauthor{Rizzi:etal:07}
1679: (Sextans A/B).
1680:
1681:
1682:
1683:
1684: % ******************************************************************
1685: % 5. THE LOCAL HUBBLE DIAGRAM
1686: % ******************************************************************
1687: \section{THE LOCAL AND NOT SO LOCAL HUBBLE DIAGRAMS}
1688: \label{sec:05}
1689: %
1690: The TRGB and Cepheid distances as well as the Cepheid-calibrated
1691: 21cm line width (TF) and SN\,Ia distances can be used to construct
1692: distance-calibrated Hubble diagrams which reach progressively deeper
1693: into the cosmic expansion field.
1694:
1695: The various distances are transformed to the barycenter of the
1696: Local Group which is assumed to lie at the distance of $0.53\;$Mpc in
1697: the direction of M\,31, i.e.\ at two thirds of the way to this galaxy,
1698: because the galaxies outside the Local Group expand presumably away
1699: from the barycenter and not away from the observer. The barycentric
1700: distances are designated with $r^{00}$ and $\mu^{00}$,
1701: respectively.
1702:
1703: The heliocentric velocities are corrected to the barycenter of
1704: the Local Group following \citet{Yahil:etal:77} and for a
1705: self-consistent Virgocentric infall model assuming a local infall
1706: vector of $220\kms$ and a density profile of the Virgo complex of
1707: $r^{-2}$
1708: \citep{Yahil:etal:80,Dressler:84,Kraan-Korteweg:86,deFreitasPacheco:86,Giraud:90,Jerjen:Tammann:93}.
1709: The choice of these particular corrections among others proposed in
1710: the literature is justified because they give the smallest scatter in
1711: the Hubble diagrams (see \citeauthor{STS:06}). -- The
1712: velocities are not corrected for the projection angle between the
1713: observer and the Local Group barycenter as seen from the galaxy
1714: because it affects the velocities by less than 2\% for all galaxies
1715: beyond $3\;$Mpc.
1716:
1717:
1718: % ********************************************************
1719: % 5.1. from TRGB
1720: % ********************************************************
1721: \subsection{The Hubble Diagram from TRGB}
1722: \label{sec:05:1}
1723: %
1724: The galaxies outside the Local Group, for which TRGB distances are
1725: available (\S~\ref{sec:02:2:4}), are plotted in a Hubble diagram
1726: (Fig.~\ref{fig:09}a).
1727: The nearest galaxies reflect clearly the effect
1728: of the gravitational pull of the Local Group, suggesting that the
1729: zero-velocity surface lies at a distance of $\la\!1.6\;$Mpc from the
1730: barycenter of the Local Group. The 59 galaxies with
1731: $\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}>28.2$ ($4.4\;$Mpc) define a value of
1732: $H_{0}=61.7\pm1.5\ksm$. This is a very local value extending to only
1733: $\mu^{0}=30.4$ ($12\;$Mpc).
1734: The scatter about the Hubble line of $\sigma_{\rm m}=0.39\mag$ cannot
1735: be caused by distance errors, but is explained by (one-dimensional)
1736: peculiar motions of $\sim\!90\kms$ on average
1737: (\citeauthor{STS:06}).
1738:
1739:
1740: % ********************************************************
1741: % 5.2. from Cepheids
1742: % ********************************************************
1743: \subsection{The Hubble Diagram from Cepheids}
1744: \label{sec:05:2}
1745: %
1746: There are 34 galaxies in \citeauthor{STS:06} outside the
1747: Local Group whose Cepheid distances have been derived following the
1748: precepts given in \S\S~\ref{sec:03:1} and \ref{sec:03:2}. Three
1749: additional Cepheid distances are given in \S~\ref{sec:03:3}. The
1750: velocities of the total of 37 galaxies are plotted against $v_{220}$
1751: in Figure~\ref{fig:09}b. The 30 galaxies with
1752: $\mu^{0}_{\rm Ceph}>28.2$, and excluding the deviating case of
1753: NGC\,3627, define a Hubble line with
1754: $H_{0}=63.1\pm1.8$ out to $\mu^{0}_{\rm Ceph}\sim 32.0$ ($25\;$Mpc).
1755: As in the case of the TRGB distances the scatter of
1756: $\sigma_{\rm m}=0.33$ must be caused mainly by peculiar velocities in
1757: the order of $150\kms$ at a median velocity of about $1000\kms$
1758: (assuming a random error of the Cepheid distances of $0.15\mag$).
1759:
1760: The agreement of the local value of $H_{0}$ from TRGB magnitudes
1761: and from Cepheids to within 2\% suggests that the zero-point errors of
1762: the two independent methods do not accumulate to more than
1763: $0.04\mag$.
1764:
1765:
1766: % ********************************************************
1767: % 5.3. from TF
1768: % ********************************************************
1769: \subsection{The Hubble Diagram from TF}
1770: \label{sec:05:3}
1771: %
1772: A complete sample of 104 inclined spiral galaxies with
1773: $v_{220}<1000\kms$ with known 21cm line widths was discussed in
1774: \citeauthor{STS:06}. This small distance limit was
1775: chosen to define as complete a distance-limited sample as
1776: possible. The zero point of the TF distances was calibrated with 31
1777: galaxies for which also Cepheid distances are available from
1778: \citeauthor{STT:06}. The Hubble diagram of the sample galaxies
1779: is repeated in Figure~\ref{fig:09}c from \citeauthor{STS:06},
1780: but added is the mean TF distance of $\mu^{00}=31.61$ of a complete
1781: sample of 49 Virgo cluster spirals plotted at the mean cluster
1782: velocity of $\langle v_{220}\rangle=1152\kms$. Also added is the UMa
1783: cluster with $\mu^{00}=31.45$ and $\langle v_{220}\rangle=1270\kms$.
1784: The TF distance of UMa is taken from \citet{Tully:Pierce:00} who
1785: obtained $\mu^{0}=31.35\pm0.06$ from 38 cluster members with $B,R,I,$
1786: and $K'$ photometry.
1787: After recalibrating their 24 calibrators with the present Cepheid
1788: distances (\citeauthor{STT:06}) one obtains
1789: $\mu^{0}=\mu^{00}=31.45$. The value is adopted here, although the UMa
1790: sample may not be strictly complete as to the faintest cluster spirals.
1791:
1792: The TF distances in Figure~\ref{fig:09}c give a Hubble constant
1793: of $H_{0}=59.0\pm1.9$ out to $\sim\!16\;$Mpc. This agrees well with
1794: $H_{0}$ from TRGB distances (Fig.~\ref{fig:09}a), but it is
1795: $1.6\sigma$ less than determined in Figure~\ref{fig:09}b from
1796: Cepheids. This difference, however, cannot be real because the TF
1797: distances depend entirely on the calibration through Cepheids.
1798: Rather it reflects on the reliability of the TF method.
1799: In any case the scatter in Figure~\ref{fig:09}c is very large
1800: ($0.69\mag$). This
1801: cannot be attributed to peculiar motions which contribute only
1802: $\sigma_{m}\sim0.3\mag$ in Figures~\ref{fig:09}a \& b. Even if
1803: some of the scatter is caused by observational errors of the input
1804: parameters, the intrinsic dispersion is large. This makes the TF
1805: method vulnerable to Malmquist bias if magnitude-limited samples are
1806: used instead of complete distance-limited samples. This is the reason
1807: why the more distant clusters of \citet{Tully:Pierce:00}, which are
1808: expected to suffer at least some magnitude bias, are not considered
1809: here.
1810:
1811: \citet{Masters:etal:06} have measured $I$-band TF distances for
1812: an average of 25 galaxies in 31 clusters between
1813: $1100<v_{\rm CMB}\la10,000\kms$. The clusters define an impressively
1814: tight Hubble diagram with a scatter of $\sigma_{m}\approx0.15\mag$,
1815: comparable only to distant SNe\,Ia
1816: (\citeauthor{RTS:05}). However the diagram has no zero-point
1817: calibration and does not per se define a value of $H_{0}$. The authors
1818: propose to calibrate their TF relation by local galaxies with Cepheid
1819: distances. Yet, however fair their selection criteria may be for the
1820: galaxies in the different clusters, the same criteria cannot be
1821: applied to a distance-limited, yet highly incomplete sample of field
1822: galaxies with Cepheid distances.
1823: This would be decisive in view of the large intrinsic scatter of the
1824: TF relation. Therefore any value of $H_{0}$ derived from the two sets
1825: of differently selected galaxies remains unreliable.
1826: A safer way would be to calibrate the Hubble diagram with the nearest
1827: two clusters of their sample with independently known distances, i.e.\
1828: the Fornax and UMa clusters. However, as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:08}
1829: their relative distances do not put the nearest clusters with
1830: $v_{220}<2000\kms$ on the same Hubble line as the more distant
1831: clusters. The latter are shifted by $\Delta\log v =0.08$
1832: or $\Delta\mu =0.40$, as compared to the nearest clusters. The
1833: corresponding increase of $H_{0}$ by $\sim\!20\%$ at $\sim2000\kms$ is
1834: denied by the Hubble diagram of SNe\,Ia (see e.g.\ Fig.~\ref{fig:09}d;
1835: \citeauthor{RTS:05}, Fig.~15). The break of the Hubble line
1836: suggests that the selection criteria for the individual galaxies in
1837: the near and distant clusters resulted in two incompatible cluster
1838: samples. The unrealistic break of the Hubble line is not caused by
1839: corrections of the velocities for the CMB motion. It persists whether
1840: the nearest clusters are corrected for CMB motion or not. In
1841: Figure~\ref{fig:08} the nearest clusters are {\em not\/} corrected for
1842: this motion because the co-moving volume extends to at least
1843: $3000\kms$ (\citealt{Federspiel:etal:94}, Figs. 17--19;
1844: \citealt{Dale:Giovanelli:00}).
1845:
1846: % **********************************************
1847: % ---> Figure 8: Masters. etal. 2006 [Fornax]
1848: % **********************************************
1849:
1850:
1851: % ********************************************************
1852: % 5.4. from SN Ia distances
1853: % ********************************************************
1854: \subsection{The Hubble Diagram from SN\,Ia Distances}
1855: \label{sec:05:4}
1856: %
1857: Figure~\ref{fig:09}d shows the Hubble diagram of local SNe\,Ia with
1858: $v_{220}<2000\kms$. The SNe\,Ia are drawn from the homogeneously
1859: reduced list of SN\,Ia magnitudes (\citeauthor{RTS:05}). Their
1860: mean Cepheid-calibrated absolute magnitude is adopted as
1861: $M^{0}_{V}(\max)=-19.46$ (\citeauthor{STS:06}). Of the 22
1862: SNe\,Ia, one has $\mu^{0}<28.2$ and SN\,1989B in NGC\,3627 is an
1863: outlyer. Three SNe\,Ia each in the Virgo and Fornax cluster are
1864: plotted at their mean cluster velocity. The 20 adopted SNe\,Ia give
1865: $H_{0}=60.2\pm2.7$ with a scatter of $\sigma_{m}=0.43$. Both
1866: values are statistical the same as those derived from Cepheids in
1867: Figure~\ref{fig:09}b. The statistical agreement in $H_{0}$ must be
1868: expected because the zero point of the SNe\,Ia depends entirely on the
1869: Cepheids, but the SNe\,Ia extend the Hubble diagram to $30\;$Mpc and
1870: beyond (see below). The similar scatter of the SNe\,Ia and Cepheids in
1871: their respective Hubble diagrams suggests that they are equally
1872: good distance indicators.
1873:
1874: The weighted mean of $H_{0}$ from TRGB distances, Cepheids, TF
1875: distances, and SNe\,Ia is $61.3\pm1.0$.
1876: There is no hint that the mean value of $H_{0}$ varies significantly
1877: from about $4$ to $30\;$Mpc. Clear deviations from a steady Hubble
1878: flow are detected only from the pull of the Local Group and from the
1879: Virgocentric flow. Other deviations near local mass concentrations are
1880: expected to exist \citep[e.g.][their Figs. 5--7]{Klypin:etal:03}, but
1881: the present method considering relatively few
1882: galaxies is not suitable to detect them. The distance independence of
1883: the {\em mean\/} value of $H_{0}$, however, is the more significant as
1884: the distant SNe\,Ia with $3000<v_{\rm CMB}<20,000\kms$ yield the same
1885: value of $H_{0}=62.3$. In spite of all mass clusterings the overall
1886: value of $H_{0}$ does not depend on distance.
1887:
1888: % **********************************************
1889: % ---> Figure 9: Local Hubble diagram (4x)
1890: % **********************************************
1891:
1892:
1893:
1894:
1895: % ******************************************************************
1896: % 6. CONCLUSIONS
1897: % ******************************************************************
1898: \section{CONCLUSIONS AND OUTLOOK}
1899: \label{sec:06}
1900: %
1901: The local agreement of the Pop.~I and Pop.~II distance scales is
1902: encouraging. Pop.~I Cepheids as well as SNe\,Ia and the TF relation,
1903: both calibrated through Cepheids, on the one hand and Pop.~II
1904: RR\,Lyr stars and the magnitude of the TRGB, based on these stars,
1905: on the other, yield highly consistent distances for many
1906: individual galaxies.
1907: Moreover they all agree with a local value of the Hubble constant of
1908: $H_{0}=62.3$. Finally the SNe\,Ia carry the distance scale into the
1909: cosmic expansion field out to $\sim\!20,000\kms$ and prove that
1910: $H_{0}$ is virtually unchanged in the free field.
1911:
1912: The Pop.~II distance scale alone leads through RR\,Lyr stars and
1913: the TRGB to a {\em minimum\/} distance of the Virgo cluster of
1914: $\mu^{0}\ge31.3$. If one wants to drive the Pop.~II distances to
1915: cosmic scales, one may note that the four SNe\,Ia discussed in
1916: \S~\ref{sec:02:2:5} give a preliminary mean TRGB-calibrated luminosity
1917: of $M_{V}=-19.37\pm0.06$. Yet the value of $M_{V}=-19.46\pm0.04$ from
1918: 10 Cepheid-calibrated SNe\,Ia (\citeauthor{STS:06}) has still much
1919: higher weight. Nevertheless the agreement is encouraging at this
1920: stage. Other TRGB-calibrated SNe\,Ia will become available in the
1921: future.
1922:
1923: Even if the agreement of $H_{0}$ from independent distances of
1924: Population~I and II objects is accidental, it is now unlikely that the
1925: systematic error of $H_{0}$ is as large as 10\%. If the systematic
1926: error is in fact as high as $0.2\mag$, or 10\% in distance, this
1927: translates to $\pm5$ units in $H_{0}$, as stated in the Abstract.
1928:
1929: If the value of $H_{0}=62$ is taken at face value and combined
1930: with WMAP data of the CMB fluctuation spectrum it poses constraints on
1931: the equation of state $w=p/\rho$ of the dark energy. According to
1932: \citet{Spergel:etal:07} the WMAP3 data give
1933: $\Omega_{m}h^{2}=0.128\pm0.008$, ($h\equiv H_{0}/100$),
1934: from which follows then a rather high matter density parameter of
1935: $\Omega_{m}=0.33$. This value disfavors a Universe with $w=-1$ at
1936: the $2\sigma$ level \citep[see Figs.~15 and 16 of][]{Spergel:etal:07}
1937: and suggests a quintessence model with $w>-1$.
1938: The high matter density $\Omega_{m}$ is not favored, however, by
1939: the large-scale distribution of the luminous red galaxies in the Sloan
1940: Digital Sky Survey if it is combined with the WMAP3 data. In that case
1941: a closed Universe with $\Omega_{\rm total}\sim1.02$ is compatible with
1942: $H_{0}=62$ \citep[][Fig.~13]{Tegmark:etal:06}. This illustrates that a
1943: reliable value of $H_{0}$ imposes stringent constraints on any
1944: cosmological models.
1945:
1946:
1947:
1948:
1949: % ***********************************************
1950: % Acknowledgments
1951: % ***********************************************
1952: \acknowledgments
1953: We thank Dres.\ Abhijit Saha and Norbert Straumann for helpful
1954: discussions.
1955: Dr. Francesc Vilardell has kindly made available the selected sample
1956: of Cepheids in M\,31.
1957: A.\,S. thanks the Observatories of the Carnegie Institution for
1958: post-retirement facilities.
1959: We thankfully acknowledge the helpful comments of an anonymous
1960: referee.
1961:
1962:
1963:
1964:
1965: % ******************************************************************
1966: % Bibliography
1967: % ******************************************************************
1968: % more than 8 authors -> et~al.
1969: % *********************************
1970: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1971: %
1972: \bibitem[Alcock et~al.(2004)]{Alcock:etal:04}
1973: Alcock, C., et~al. 2004, % + 23 coauthors
1974: % The MACHO Project Large Magellanic Cloud Variable-Star
1975: % Inventory. XIII. Fourier Parameters for the First-Overtone RR Lyrae
1976: % Variables and the LMC Distance
1977: AJ, 127, 334 (LMC)
1978: %
1979: \bibitem[Alves(2004)]{Alves:04}
1980: Alves, D.~R. 2004,
1981: % A review of the distance and structure of the Large Magellanic Cloud
1982: New Astron. Rev., 48, 659
1983: %
1984: \bibitem[An et~al.(2007)]{An:etal:07}
1985: An, D., Terndrup, D.~M., \& Pinsonneault, M.~H. 2007,
1986: % The Distances to Open Clusters from Main-Sequence
1987: % Fitting. IV. Galactic Cepheids, the LMC, and the Local Distance
1988: % Scale
1989: ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0707.3144) % astro-ph gives in comments ApJ, 671, 1640
1990: %
1991: \bibitem[Antonello et~al.(2006)]{Antonello:etal:06}
1992: Antonello, E., Fossati, L., Fugazza, D., Mantegazza, L., \& Gieren,
1993: W. 2006,
1994: % Variable stars in nearby galaxies. VII. P-L relation in the BVRI
1995: % bands of Cepheids in IC 1613
1996: A\&A, 445, 901 (IC\,1613)
1997: %
1998: \bibitem[Aparicio et~al.(2001)]{Aparicio:etal:01}
1999: Aparicio, A., Carrera, R., \& Mart{\'i}nez-Delgado, D. 2001,
2000: % The Star Formation History and Morphological Evolution of the
2001: % Draco Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
2002: AJ, 122, 2524 (Draco)
2003: %
2004: \bibitem[Baade(1944a)]{Baade:44a}
2005: Baade, W. 1944a,
2006: % The Resolution of Messier 32, NGC 205, and the Central Region of
2007: % the Andromeda Nebula.
2008: ApJ, 100, 137
2009: %
2010: \bibitem[Baade(1944b)]{Baade:44b}
2011: Baade, W. 1944b,
2012: % NGC 147 and NGC 185, Two New Members of the Local Group of Galaxies
2013: ApJ, 100, 147
2014: %
2015: \bibitem[Baade(1948)]{Baade:48}
2016: Baade, W. 1948,
2017: % A Program of Extragalactic Research for the 200-inch Hale Telescope
2018: PASP, 60, 230
2019: %
2020: \bibitem[Baade(1954)]{Baade:54}
2021: Baade, W. 1954,
2022: %
2023: in Trans. IAU, VIII (Rome 1952 meeting),
2024: Report of Commission 28,
2025: Cambridge Univ. Press.
2026: %
2027: \bibitem[Barnes et~al.(2003)]{Barnes:etal:03}
2028: Barnes, T., Jeffreys, W., Berger, J., Mueller, P., Orr, K., \&
2029: Rodriguez, R. 2003,
2030: % A Bayesian Analysis of the Cepheid Distance Scale
2031: ApJ, 592, 539
2032: %
2033: \bibitem[Bauer et~al.(1999)]{EROS:99}
2034: Bauer, F., et~al. (EROS Collaboration) 1999,
2035: % A slope variation in the period-luminosity relation for short
2036: % period SMC Cepheids
2037: A\&A, 348, 175
2038: %
2039: \bibitem[Behr(1951)]{Behr:51}
2040: Behr, A. 1951,
2041: % Zur Entfernungsskala der extragalaktischen Nebel
2042: AN, 279, 97
2043: %
2044: \bibitem[Bellazzini et~al.(2002)]{Bellazzini:etal:02}
2045: Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Origlia, L., Pancino, E.,
2046: Monaco, L., \& Oliva, E. 2002,
2047: % The Draco and Ursa Minor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxies:
2048: % A Comparative Study
2049: AJ, 124, 3222 (UMi)
2050: %
2051: \bibitem[Bellazzini et~al.(2001)]{Bellazzini:etal:01}
2052: Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.~R., \& Pancino, E. 2001,
2053: % A Step toward the Calibration of the Red Giant Branch Tip as a
2054: % Standard Candle
2055: ApJ, 556, 635
2056: %
2057: \bibitem[Bellazzini et~al.(2004a)]{Bellazzini:etal:04a}
2058: Bellazzini, M., Ferraro, F.~R., Sollima, A., Pancino, E., \&
2059: Origlia, L. 2004a,
2060: % The calibration of the RGB Tip as a Standard Candle. Extension to
2061: % Near Infrared colors and higher metallicity
2062: A\&A, 424, 199
2063: %
2064: \bibitem[Bellazzini et~al.(2004b)]{Bellazzini:etal:04b}
2065: Bellazzini, M., Gennari, N., Ferraro, F.~R., Sollima, A. 2004b,
2066: % The distance to the Leo I dwarf spheroidal galaxy from the red
2067: % giant branch tip
2068: MNRAS, 354, 708
2069: %
2070: \bibitem[Bencivenni et~al.(1991)]{Bencivenni:etal:91}
2071: Bencivenni, D., Caputo, F., Manteign, M., \& Quarta, M.~L. 1991,
2072: % The Galactic globular cluster system - Theoretical constraints
2073: % for alpha-enhanced compositions
2074: ApJ, 380, 484
2075: %
2076: \bibitem[Benedict et~al.(2002)]{Benedict:etal:02} % + 19 coauthors
2077: Benedict, G.~F., et~al. 2002,
2078: % Astrometry with the Hubble Space Telescope: A Parallax of the
2079: % Fundamental Distance Calibrator d Cephei
2080: AJ, 124, 1695
2081: %
2082: \bibitem[Benedict et~al.(2007)]{Benedict:etal:07} % + 8 coauthors
2083: Benedict, G.~F., et~al. 2007,
2084: % Benedict, G. F., McArthur, B. E., Feast, M. W.,
2085: % Barnes, T. G., Harrison, T. E., Patterson, R. J.,
2086: % Menzies, J. W., Bean, J. L., Freedman, W. L.
2087: % Hubble Space Telescope Fine Guidance Sensor Parallaxes of
2088: % Galactic Cepheid Variable Stars: Period-Luminosity Relations
2089: AJ, 133, 1810 % was astro-ph/0612465
2090: %
2091: \bibitem[Berdnikov et~al.(2000)]{Berdnikov:etal:00}
2092: Berdnikov, L.~N., Dambis, A.~K., \& Voziakova, O.~V. 2000,
2093: % Galactic Cepheids. Catalogue of light-curve parameters and
2094: % distances
2095: A\&AS, 143, 211
2096: %
2097: \bibitem[Bergbusch \& VandenBerg(2001)]{Bergbusch:VandenBerg:01}
2098: Bergbusch, P.~A., \& VandenBerg, D.~A. 2001,
2099: % Models for Old, Metal-poor Stars with Enhanced a-Element
2100: % Abundances. III. Isochrones and Isochrone Population Functions
2101: ApJ, 556, 322
2102: %
2103: \bibitem[Bersier(2000)]{Bersier:00}
2104: Bersier, D. 2000,
2105: % The Distance to the Fornax Dwarf Galaxy Using Red Clump Stars and
2106: % the Discrepancy between Red Clump and Tip of the Red Giant Branch
2107: % Distances
2108: ApJ, 543, L23
2109: %
2110: \bibitem[Bersier \& Wood(2002)]{Bersier:Wood:02}
2111: Bersier, D., \& Wood, P.~R. 2002,
2112: % Variable Stars in the Fornax Dwarf Galaxy
2113: AJ, 123, 840 (Fornax)
2114: %
2115: \bibitem[Bonanos et~al.(2004)]{Bonanos:etal:04}
2116: Bonanos, A.~Z., Stanek, K.~Z., Szentgyorgyi, A.~H., Sasselov, D.~D., \&
2117: Bakos, G.~A. 2004,
2118: % The RR Lyrae Distance to the Draco Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
2119: AJ, 127, 861 (Draco)
2120: %
2121: \bibitem[Bonanos et~al.(2006)]{Bonanos:etal:06}
2122: Bonanos, A.~Z., et~al. 2006, % + 14 coauthors
2123: % The First DIRECT Distance Determination to a Detached Eclipsing
2124: % Binary in M33
2125: ApJ, 652, 313
2126: %
2127: \bibitem[Bono et~al.(2007)]{Bono:etal:07}
2128: Bono, G., Caputo, F., \& di~Criscienzo, M. 2007,
2129: % RR Lyrae stars in Galactic globular clusters. VI. The
2130: % Period-Amplitude relation
2131: A\&A, 476, 779 % was (astro-ph/0709.3177)
2132: %
2133: \bibitem[Borissova et~al.(2004)]{Borissova:etal:04}
2134: Borissova, J., Minniti, D., Rejkuba, M., Alves, D., Cook, K.~H., \&
2135: Freeman, K.~C. 2004,
2136: % Properties of RR Lyrae stars in the inner regions of the
2137: % Large Magellanic Cloud
2138: A\&A, 423, 97 (LMC)
2139: %
2140: \bibitem[Brown et~al.(2004)]{Brown:etal:04}
2141: Brown, T.~M., Ferguson, H.~C., Smith, E., Kimble, R.~A., Sweigart,
2142: A.~V., Renzini, A., \& Rich, R.~M. 2004,
2143: % RR Lyrae Stars in the Andromeda Halo from Deep Imaging with the
2144: % Advanced Camera for Surveys
2145: AJ, 127, 2738 (NGC\,224)
2146: %
2147: \bibitem[Caldwell(2006)]{Caldwell:06}
2148: Caldwell, N. 2006,
2149: % Color-Magnitude Diagrams of Resolved Stars in Virgo Cluster Dwarf
2150: % Galaxies
2151: ApJ, 651, 822
2152: %
2153: \bibitem[Caloi et~al.(1997)]{Caloi:etal:97}
2154: Caloi, V., D'Antona, F., \& Mazzitelli, I. 1997,
2155: % The distance scale to globular clusters through new horizontal
2156: % branch models
2157: A\&A, 320, 823
2158: %
2159: \bibitem[Caputo(1997)]{Caputo:97}
2160: Caputo, F. 1997,
2161: % The period-magnitude diagram of RR Lyrae stars - I. The
2162: % controversy about the distance scale
2163: MNRAS, 284, 994
2164: %
2165: \bibitem[Caputo et~al.(2000)]{Caputo:etal:00}
2166: Caputo, F., Castellani, V., Marconi, M., \& Ripepi, V. 2000,
2167: % Pulsational MV versus [Fe/H] relation(s) for globular cluster RR
2168: % Lyrae variables
2169: MNRAS, 316, 819
2170: %
2171: \bibitem[Caputo et~al.(1993)]{Caputo:etal:93}
2172: Caputo, F., de Rinaldis, A., Manteiga, M.,
2173: Pulone, L., \& Quarta, M.~L. 1993,
2174: % An Atlas of Theoretical Constraints for Horizontal Branch Stars
2175: A\&A, 276, 41
2176: %
2177: \bibitem[Carrera et~al.(2002)]{Carrera:etal:02}
2178: Carrera, R., Aparicio, A., Mart{\'i}nez-Delgado, D., \&
2179: Alonso-Garc{\'i}a, J. 2002,
2180: % The Star Formation History and Spatial Distribution of Stellar
2181: % Populations in the Ursa Minor Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
2182: AJ, 123, 3199 (UMi)
2183: %
2184: \bibitem[Carretta \& Gratton(1997)]{Carretta:Gratton:97}
2185: Carretta, E., \& Gratton, R.~G. 2000,
2186: % Abundances for globular cluster giants. I. Homogeneous
2187: % metallicities for 24 clusters
2188: A\&AS, 121, 95
2189: %
2190: \bibitem[Carretta et~al.(2000)]{Carretta:etal:00}
2191: Carretta, E., Gratton, R.~G., Clementini, G., \& Fusi Peci, F. 2000,
2192: % Distances, Ages, and Epoch of Formation of Globular Clusters
2193: ApJ, 533, 215
2194: %
2195: \bibitem[Cassisi et~al.(1999)]{Cassisi:etal:99}
2196: Cassisi, S., Castellani, V., degl'Innocenti, S.,
2197: Salaris, M., \& Weiss, A. 1999,
2198: % Galactic globular cluster stars: From theory to observation
2199: A\&AS, 134, 103
2200: %
2201: \bibitem[Castellani et~al.(1991)]{Castellani:etal:91}
2202: Castellani, V., Chieffi, S., \& Pulone, L. 1991,
2203: % The evolution of He-burning stars - Horizontal and asymptotic
2204: % branches in Galactic globulars
2205: ApJS, 76, 911
2206: %
2207: \bibitem[Catelan et~al.(2004)Catelan, Pritzl, \& Smith]{Catelan:etal:04}
2208: Catelan, M., Pritzl, B.~J., \& Smith, H.~A. 2004,
2209: % The RR Lyrae Period-Luminosity Relation. I. Theoretical
2210: % Calibration
2211: ApJS, 154, 633
2212: %
2213: \bibitem[Cioni et~al.(2000)]{Cioni:etal:00}
2214: Cioni, M.-R.~L., van der Marel, R.~P., Loup, C., \& Habing, H.~J. 2000,
2215: % The tip of the red giant branch and distance of the Magellanic
2216: % Clouds: results from the DENIS survey
2217: A\&A, 359, 601
2218: %
2219: \bibitem[Clausen et~al.(2003)]{Clausen:etal:03}
2220: Clausen, J.~V., Storm, J., Larsen, S.~S., \& Gim{\'e}nez, A. 2003,
2221: % Eclipsing binaries in the Magellanic Clouds. uvby CCD light
2222: % curves and photometric analyses for HV 982 (LMC), HV 12578 (LMC),
2223: % HV 1433 (SMC), and HV 11284 (SMC)
2224: A\&A, 402, 509
2225: %
2226: \bibitem[Clementini et~al.(2003a)]{Clementini:etal:03a}
2227: Clementini, G., Gratton, R., Bragaglia, A., Carretta, E., Di
2228: Fabrizio, L., \& Maio, M. 2003a,
2229: % Distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud: The RR Lyrae Stars
2230: AJ, 125, 1309 (LMC)
2231: %
2232: \bibitem[Clementini et~al.(2003b)]{Clementini:etal:03b}
2233: Clementini, G., Held, E.~V., Baldacci, L., \& Rizzi, L. 2003b,
2234: % RR Lyrae and Short-Period Variable Stars in the Dwarf Irregular
2235: % Galaxy NGC 6822
2236: ApJ, 588, L85 (NGC\,6822)
2237: %
2238: \bibitem[Da~Costa \& Armandroff(1990)]{DaCosta:Armandroff:90}
2239: Da Costa, G.~S., \& Armandroff, T.~E. 1990,
2240: % Standard globular cluster giant branches in the (MI,/V-I/sub O)
2241: % plane
2242: AJ, 100, 162
2243: %
2244: \bibitem[Dale \& Giovanelli(2000)]{Dale:Giovanelli:00}
2245: Dale, D.~A., \& Giovanelli, R. 2000,
2246: % The Convergence Depth of the Local Peculiar Velocity Field
2247: in Cosmic Flows Workshop, eds. S. Courteau \& J. Willick, ASP
2248: Conf. Ser. 201, 25
2249: %
2250: \bibitem[Dall'Ora et~al.(2004)]{Dall'Ora:etal:04}
2251: Dall'Ora, M., et~al. 2004, % + 14 co-authors
2252: % The Distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud Cluster Reticulum from
2253: % the K-Band Period-Luminosity-Metallicity Relation of RR Lyrae Stars
2254: ApJ, 610, 269
2255: %
2256: \bibitem[de Freitas Pacheco(1986)]{deFreitasPacheco:86}
2257: de Freitas Pacheco, J.~A. 1986,
2258: % The relative motion of the local group of galaxies towards the
2259: % Virgo cluster
2260: Rev. Mex. Astron. Astrofis., 12, 74
2261: %
2262: \bibitem[Demarque et~al.(2000)]{Demarque:etal:00}
2263: Demarque, P., Zinn, R., Lee, Y.~W., \& Yi, S. 2000,
2264: % The Metallicity Dependence of RR Lyrae Absolute Magnitudes from
2265: % Synthetic Horizontal-Branch Models
2266: AJ, 119, 1398
2267: %
2268: \bibitem[Demers \& Irwin(1993)]{Demers:Irwin:93}
2269: Demers, S., \& Irwin, M.~J. 1993,
2270: % Deep CCD photometry of the dwarf spheroidal galaxy Leo II
2271: MNRAS, 261, 657 (Leo~II)
2272: %
2273: \bibitem[De~Santis \& Cassisi(1999)]{DeSantis:Cassisi:99}
2274: De~Santis, R., \& Cassisi, S. 1999,
2275: % A pulsational approach to the luminosity of horizontal branch
2276: % stellar structures
2277: MNRAS, 308, 97
2278: %
2279: \bibitem[Dolphin(2000)]{Dolphin:00}
2280: Dolphin, A.~E. 2000,
2281: % Hubble Space Telescope Studies of the WLM Galaxy. II. The Star
2282: % Formation History from Field Stars
2283: ApJ, 531, 804
2284: %
2285: \bibitem[Dolphin et~al.(2001)]{Dolphin:etal:01}
2286: Dolphin, A.~E., et~al. 2001, % + 8 coauthors
2287: % Deep Hubble Space Telescope Imaging of IC 1613.
2288: % I. Variable Stars and Distance
2289: ApJ, 550, 554 (IC\,1613)
2290: %
2291: \bibitem[Dolphin et~al.(2002)]{Dolphin:etal:02}
2292: Dolphin, A.~E., et~al. 2002, % + 8 coauthors
2293: % Variable Stars in Leo A: RR Lyrae Stars, Short-Period Cepheids,
2294: % and Implications for Stellar Content
2295: AJ, 123, 3154 (Leo~A)
2296: %
2297: \bibitem[Dolphin et~al.(2003)]{Dolphin:etal:03}
2298: Dolphin, A.~E., et~al. 2003, % + 8 coauthors
2299: % Deep Hubble Space Telescope Imaging of Sextans A. II. Cepheids
2300: % and Distance
2301: AJ, 125, 1261
2302: %
2303: \bibitem[Dorman(1992)]{Dorman:92}
2304: Dorman, B. 1992,
2305: % Oxygen-enhanced models for globular cluster stars. III -
2306: % Horizontal-branch sequences
2307: ApJS, 81, 221
2308: %
2309: \bibitem[Dressler(1984)]{Dressler:84}
2310: Dressler, A. 1984,
2311: % Internal kinematics of galaxies in clusters. I - Velocity
2312: % dispersions for elliptical galaxies in Coma and Virgo
2313: ApJ, 281, 512
2314: %
2315: \bibitem[Durrell et~al.(2002)]{Durrell:etal:02}
2316: Durrell, P.~R., Ciardullo, R., Feldmeier, J.~J., Jacoby, G.~H., \&
2317: Sigurdsson, S. 2002,
2318: % Intracluster Red Giant Stars in the Virgo Cluster
2319: ApJ, 570, 119
2320: %
2321: \bibitem[Durrell et~al.(2007)]{Durrell:etal:07}
2322: Durrell, P.~R., et~al. 2007, % + 13 coauthors
2323: % The Resolved Stellar Populations of a Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy in
2324: % the Virgo Cluster
2325: ApJ, 656, 746
2326: %
2327: \bibitem[Feast(1999)]{Feast:99}
2328: Feast, M.~W. 1999,
2329: % Cepheids as Distance Indicators
2330: PASP, 111, 775
2331: %
2332: \bibitem[Feast(2004)]{Feast:04}
2333: Feast, M.~W. 2004,
2334: % AGB Variables as Distance Indicators
2335: in Variable Stars in the Local Group,
2336: eds. D.~W. Kurtz \& K.~R. Pollard
2337: % ASP Conf. Ser. 310, 304
2338: (San Francisco: ASP), 304
2339: %
2340: \bibitem[Federspiel et~al.(1994)]{Federspiel:etal:94}
2341: Federspiel, M., Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1994,
2342: % Bias properties of extragalactic distance indicators. 3: Analysis
2343: % of Tully-Fisher distances for the Mathewson-Ford-Buchhorn sample of
2344: % 1355 galaxies
2345: ApJ, 430, 29
2346: %
2347: \bibitem[Fernie(1990)]{Fernie:90}
2348: Fernie, J.~D. 1990,
2349: % Color Excesses on a Uniform Scale for 328 Cepheids
2350: ApJS, 72, 153
2351: %
2352: \bibitem[Fernie et~al.(1995)]{Fernie:etal:95}
2353: Fernie, J.~D., Beattie, B., Evans, N.~R., \& Seager, S. 1995,
2354: % A Database of Galactic Classical Cepheids
2355: IBVS, 4148 (http://ddo.astro.utoronto.ca/cepheids.html)
2356: %
2357: \bibitem[Ferrarese et~al.(2007)]{Ferrarese:etal:07}
2358: Ferrarese, L., Mould, J.~R., Stetson, P.~B., Tonry, J.~L., Blakeslee,
2359: J.~P., \& Ajhar, E.~A. 2007,
2360: % The Discovery of Cepheids and a Distance to NGC 5128
2361: ApJ, 654, 186
2362: %
2363: \bibitem[Ferrarese et~al.(1996)]{Ferrarese:etal:96}
2364: Ferrarese, L., et~al. 1996, % +19 coauthors
2365: % The Extragalactic Distance Scale Key Project. IV. The Discovery
2366: % of Cepheids and a New Distance to M100 Using the Hubble Space
2367: % Telescope
2368: ApJ, 464, 568 (NGC\,4321)
2369: %
2370: \bibitem[Ferrarese et~al.(2000a)]{Ferrarese:etal:00}
2371: Ferrarese, L., et~al. 2000a, % +16 coauthors
2372: % A Database of Cepheid Distance Moduli and Tip of the Red Giant
2373: % Branch, Globular Cluster Luminosity Function, Planetary Nebula
2374: % Luminosity Function, and Surface Brightness Fluctuation Data Useful
2375: % for Distance Determinations
2376: ApJS, 128, 431
2377: %
2378: \bibitem[Ferrarese et~al.(2000b)]{Ferrarese:etal:00b}
2379: Ferrarese, L., et~al. 2000b, % +16 coauthors
2380: % The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic
2381: % Distance Scale. XXVI. The Calibration of Population II Secondary
2382: % Distance Indicators and the Value of the Hubble Constant
2383: ApJ, 529, 745
2384: %
2385: \bibitem[Ferraro et~al.(1999)]{Ferraro:etal:99}
2386: Ferraro, F.~R., Messineo, M., Fusi Pecci, F., de~Palo, M.~A.,
2387: Stranieero, O., Chieffi, A., \& Limongi, M. 1999,
2388: % The Giant, Horizontal, and Asymptotic Branches of Galactic
2389: % Globular Clusters. I. The Catalog, Photometric Observables, and
2390: % Features
2391: AJ, 118, 1738
2392: %
2393: \bibitem[Fitzpatrick et~al.(2002)]{Fitzpatrick:etal:02}
2394: Fitzpatrick, E.~L., Ribas, I., Guinan, E.~F., De Warf, L.~E., Maloney,
2395: F.~P., \& Massa, D. 2002,
2396: % Fundamental Properties and Distances of the Large Magellanic
2397: % Cloud from Eclipsing Binaries. II. HV 982
2398: ApJ, 564, 260
2399: %
2400: \bibitem[Fouqu{\'e} et~al.(2003)]{Fouque:etal:03}
2401: Fouqu{\'e}, P., Storm, J., \& Gieren, W. 2003,
2402: % Calibration of the Distance Scale from Cepheids
2403: Lect. Notes Phys., 635, 21
2404: %
2405: \bibitem[Fouqu{\'e} et~al.(2007)]{Fouque:etal:07}
2406: Fouqu{\'e}, P., et~al. 2007,
2407: %% Fouqu{\'e}, P., Arriagada, P., Storm, J., Barnes, T.~G., Nardetto, N.,
2408: %% M{\'e}rand, A., Kervella, P., Gieren, W., Bersier, D., Benedict, G.~F.,
2409: %% McArthur, B.~E. 2007,
2410: % A new calibration of Galactic Cepheid period-luminosity relations
2411: % from B to K bands, and a comparison to LMC relations
2412: A\&A, 476, 73 % (was astro-ph/0709.3255)
2413: %
2414: \bibitem[Freedman et~al.(2001)]{Freedman:etal:01}
2415: Freedman, W.~L., et~al. 2001, % +14 coauthors
2416: % Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to
2417: % Measure the Hubble Constant
2418: ApJ, 553, 47
2419: %
2420: \bibitem[Fusi~Pecci et~al.(1996)]{Fusi-Pecci:etal:96}
2421: Fusi~Pecci, F., et~al. 1996,
2422: %% Fusi Pecci, F., Buonanno, R.~M., Cacciari, C., Corsi, C.~E.,
2423: %% Djorgovski, S.~G., Federici, L., Ferraro, F.~R., Parmeggiani,
2424: %% G., Rich, R.~M. 1996 ,
2425: % The M(v)^HB Verses [Fe/H] Calibration. I. HST Color-Magnitude
2426: % Diagrams of Eight Globular Clusters in M31
2427: AJ, 112, 1461
2428: %
2429: \bibitem[Gallart et~al.(1996)]{Gallart:etal:96}
2430: Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Vilchez, J.~M. 1996,
2431: % The Local Group Dwarf Irregular Galaxy NGC 6822.I.The Stellar Content
2432: AJ, 112, 1928
2433: %
2434: \bibitem[Gallart et~al.(2004)]{Gallart:etal:04}
2435: Gallart, C., Aparicio, A., Freedman, W.~L., Madore, B.~F.,
2436: Mart{\'i}nez-Delgado, D., \& Stetson, P.~B. 2004,
2437: % The Variable-Star Population in Phoenix: Coexistence of Anomalous
2438: % and Short-Period Classical Cepheids and Detection of RR Lyrae
2439: % Variables
2440: AJ, 127, 1486 (Phoenix)
2441: %
2442: \bibitem[Galleti et~al.(2004)]{Galleti:etal:04}
2443: Galleti, S., Bellazzini, M., \& Ferraro, F.~R. 2004,
2444: % The distance of M 33 and the stellar population in its outskirts
2445: A\&A, 423, 925
2446: %
2447: \bibitem[Gascoigne \& Kron(1965)]{Gascoigne:Kron:65}
2448: Gascoigne, S.~C.~B., \& Kron, G.~E. 1965,
2449: % Photoelectric observations of Magellanic Cloud cepheids
2450: MNRAS, 130, 933
2451: %
2452: \bibitem[Gibson et~al.(2000)]{Gibson:etal:00}
2453: Gibson, B.~K., et~al. 2000, % + 16 coauthors
2454: % The Hubble Space Telescope Key Project on the Extragalactic
2455: % Distance Scale. XXV. A Recalibration of Cepheid Distances to Type
2456: % Ia Supernovae and the Value of the Hubble Constant
2457: ApJ, 529, 723
2458: %
2459: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2005a)]{Gieren:etal:05a}
2460: Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Soszynski, I., Bresolin, F.,
2461: Kudritzki, R.-P., Minniti, D., \& Storm, J. 2005a,
2462: % The Araucaria Project: Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheid
2463: % Variables in the Sculptor Galaxy NGC 300
2464: ApJ, 628, 695
2465: %
2466: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2005b)]{Gieren:etal:05b}
2467: Gieren, W., Storm, J., Barnes, T.~G., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Pietrzynski,
2468: G., \& Kienzle, F. 2005b,
2469: % Direct Distances to Cepheids in the Large Magellanic Cloud:
2470: % Evidence for a Universal Slope of the Period-Luminosity Relation
2471: % up to Solar Abundance
2472: ApJ, 627, 224
2473: %
2474: \bibitem[Gieren et~al.(2006)]{Gieren:etal:06}
2475: Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Nalewajko, K., Soszynski, I.,
2476: Bresolin, F., Kudritzki, R.-P., Minniti, D., \& Romanowsky, A. 2006,
2477: % The Araucaria Project: An Accurate Distance to the Local Group
2478: % Galaxy NGC 6822 from Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheid Variables
2479: ApJ, 647, 1056
2480: %
2481: \bibitem[Giraud(1990)]{Giraud:90}
2482: Giraud, E. 1990,
2483: % The local anomaly of the extragalactic velocity field
2484: A\&A, 231, 1
2485: %
2486: \bibitem[Graham et~al.(1997)]{Graham:etal:97}
2487: Graham, J.~A., et~al. 1997, % + 22 coauthors
2488: % The Hubble Space Telescope Extragalactic Distance Scale Key
2489: % Project. VII. The Discovery of Cepheids in the Leo I Group Galaxy
2490: % NGC 3351
2491: ApJ, 477, 535 (NGC\,3351)
2492: %
2493: \bibitem[Gratton et~al.(1997)]{Gratton:etal:97}
2494: Gratton, R.~G., Fusi Pecci, F., Carretta, E., Clementini, G.,
2495: Corsi, C.~E., \& Lattanzi, M. 1997,
2496: % Ages of Globular Clusters from HIPPARCOS Parallaxes of Local
2497: % Subdwarfs
2498: ApJ, 491, 749
2499: %
2500: \bibitem[Gratton(1998)]{Gratton:98}
2501: Gratton, R.~G. 1998,
2502: % The absolute magnitude of field metal-poor horizontal branch stars
2503: MNRAS, 296, 739
2504: %
2505: \bibitem[Greco et~al.(2005)]{Greco:etal:05}
2506: Greco, C., et~al. 2005,
2507: % Variable stars in Fornax dwarf spheroidal galaxy
2508: in Resolved Stellar Populations,
2509: eds. M.~Chavez \& D.~Valls-Gabaud
2510: (San Francisco: ASP), (astro-ph/0507244) (Fornax)
2511: % ASP Conf. Ser.
2512: %
2513: \bibitem[Grillmair et~al.(1998)]{Grillmair:etal:98}
2514: Grillmair, C.~J., et~al. 1998, % + 17 coauthors
2515: % Hubble Space Telescope observations of the Draco dwarf spheroidal
2516: % galaxy
2517: AJ, 115, 144 (Draco)
2518: %
2519: \bibitem[Groenewegen \& Salaris(2003)]{Groenewegen:Salaris:03}
2520: Groenewegen, M.~A.~T., \& Salaris, M. 2003,
2521: % The distance to the LMC cluster NGC 1866; clues from the cluster
2522: % Cepheid population
2523: A\&A, 410, 887
2524: %
2525: \bibitem[Han et~al.(1997)]{Han:etal:97}
2526: Han, H., Hoessel, J.~G., Gallagher, J.~S., Holtsman, J., \&
2527: Stetson, P.~B. 1997,
2528: % Stellar Populations in the Dwarf Elliptical Galaxy NGC 147
2529: AJ, 113, 1001
2530: %
2531: \bibitem[Held et~al.(2001)]{Held:etal:01}
2532: Held, E.~V., Clementini, G., Rizzi, L., Momany, Y., Saviane, I., \&
2533: Di Fabrizio, L. 2001,
2534: % RR Lyrae Variable Stars in the Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Leo I
2535: ApJ, 562, L39 (Leo~I)
2536: %
2537: \bibitem[Held et~al.(2000)]{Held:etal:00}
2538: Held, E.~V., Saviane, I., Momany, Y., \& Carraro, G. 2000,
2539: % The Elusive Old Population of the Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy Leo I
2540: ApJ, 530, L85 (Leo~I)
2541: %
2542: \bibitem[Herrnstein et~al.(2005)]{Herrnstein:etal:05}
2543: Herrnstein, J.~R., Moran, J.~M., Greenhill, L.~J., \& Trotter, A.~S. 2005,
2544: % The Geometry of and Mass Accretion Rate through the Maser
2545: % Accretion Disk in NGC 4258
2546: ApJ, 629, 719
2547: %
2548: \bibitem[Herrnstein et~al.(1999)]{Herrnstein:etal:99}
2549: Herrnstein, J.~R., et~al. 1999, % +8 coauthors
2550: % A geometric distance to the galaxy NGC 4258 from orbital
2551: % motions in a nuclear gas disk.
2552: Nature, 400, 539
2553: %
2554: \bibitem[Hertzsprung(1913)]{Hertzsprung:13}
2555: Hertzsprung, E. 1913,
2556: % Über die räumliche Verteilung der Veränderlichen vom delta Cephei-Typus
2557: AN, 196, 201
2558: %
2559: \bibitem[Hilditch et~al.(2005)]{Hilditch:etal:05}
2560: Hilditch, R.~W., Howarth, I.~D., \& Harries, T.~J. 2005,
2561: % Forty eclipsing binaries in the Small Magellanic Cloud:
2562: % fundamental parameters and Cloud distance
2563: MNRAS, 357, 304
2564: %
2565: \bibitem[Holmberg(1950)]{Holmberg:50}
2566: Holmberg, E. 1950,
2567: % A photometric study of nearby galaxies
2568: Medd. Lunds Obs. 128, 1
2569: %
2570: \bibitem[Hough et~al.(1987)]{Hough:etal:87}
2571: Hough, J.~H., Bailey, J.~A., Rouse, M.~F., \& Whittet, D.~C.~B. 1987,
2572: % Interstellar polarization in the dust lane of Centaurus A (NGC 5128)
2573: MNRAS, 227, 1
2574: %
2575: \bibitem[Hubble(1925)]{Hubble:25}
2576: Hubble, E. 1925,
2577: % NGC 6822, a remote stellar system
2578: ApJ, 62, 409 (NGC\,6822)
2579: %
2580: \bibitem[Hubble(1926)]{Hubble:26}
2581: Hubble, E. 1926,
2582: % A spiral nebula as a stellar system: Messier 33
2583: ApJ, 63, 236 (M\,33)
2584: %
2585: \bibitem[Hubble(1929)]{Hubble:29}
2586: Hubble, E. 1929,
2587: % A spiral nebula as a stellar system, Messier 31
2588: ApJ, 69, 103 (M\,31)
2589: %
2590: \bibitem[Hubble(1951)]{Hubble:51}
2591: Hubble, E. 1951,
2592: %
2593: Trans. Am. Phil. Soc. 51, 461 (The Penrose Lecture)
2594: %
2595: \bibitem[Hubble \& Sandage(1953)]{Hubble:Sandage:53}
2596: Hubble, E., \& Sandage, A. 1953,
2597: % The Brightest Variable Stars in Extragalactic Nebulae.
2598: % I. M31 and M33
2599: ApJ, 118, 353
2600: %
2601: \bibitem[Jerjen \& Tammann(1993)]{Jerjen:Tammann:93}
2602: Jerjen, H., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1993,
2603: % The Local Group Motion Towards Virgo and the Microwave
2604: % Background
2605: A\&A, 276, 1
2606: %
2607: \bibitem[Kaluzny et~al.(1995)]{Kaluzny:etal:95}
2608: Kaluzny, J., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M., Udalski, A., Krzeminski,
2609: W., \& Mateo, M. 1995,
2610: % OGLE catalogue of variable stars in the Sculptor dwarf spheroidal
2611: % Galaxy.
2612: ApJS, 112, 407 (Sculptor)
2613: %
2614: \bibitem[Kanbur et~al.(2007)]{Kanbur:etal:07}
2615: Kanbur, S.~M., Ngeow, C., Nanthakumar, A., \& Stevens, R. 2007,
2616: % Investigations of the Nonlinear LMC Cepheid Period-Luminosity
2617: % Relation with Testimator and Schwarz Information Criterion
2618: % Methods
2619: PASP, 119, 512 % was astro-ph/0704.3601
2620: %
2621: \bibitem[Karachentsev(2005)]{Karachentsev:05}
2622: Karachentsev, I.~D. 2005,
2623: % The Local Group and Other Neighboring Galaxy Groups
2624: AJ, 129, 178
2625: %
2626: \bibitem[Karachentsev et~al.(2004)]{Karachentsev:etal:04}
2627: Karachentsev, I.~D., Karachentseva, V.~E., Huchtmeier, W.~K.,
2628: \& Makarov, D.~I. 2004,
2629: % A Catalog of Neighboring Galaxies
2630: AJ, 127, 2031
2631: %
2632: \bibitem[Karachentsev et~al.(2003)]{Karachentsev:etal:03}
2633: Karachentsev, I.~D., et~al. 2003, % +10 coauthors
2634: % Galaxy flow in the Canes Venatici I cloud
2635: A\&A, 398, 467
2636: %
2637: \bibitem[Karachentsev et~al.(2006)]{Karachentsev:etal:06}
2638: Karachentsev, I.~D., et~al. 2006, % 8 Coauthors
2639: % Advanced Camera for Surveys Imaging of 25 Galaxies in Nearby
2640: % Groups and in the Field
2641: AJ, 131, 1361 % was astro-ph/0511648
2642: %
2643: \bibitem[Karachentsev et~al.(2007)]{Karachentsev:etal:07}
2644: Karachentsev, I.~D., et~al. 2007, % 10 Coauthors
2645: % The Hubble Flow around the Centaurus A/M83 Galaxy Complex
2646: AJ, 133, 504 % was astro-ph/0603091
2647: %
2648: \bibitem[Karataeva et~al.(2006)]{Karataeva:etal:06}
2649: Karataeva, G.~M., Tikhonov, N.~A., Galazutdinova, O.~A.,
2650: \& Hagen-Thorn, V.~A. 2006,
2651: % Stellar population of the central regions of NGC 5128
2652: Astron. Letters 32, 236
2653: %
2654: \bibitem[Keller \& Wood(2006)]{Keller:Wood:06}
2655: Keller, S.~C., \& Wood, P.~R. 2006,
2656: % Bump Cepheids in the Magellanic Clouds: Metallicities, the
2657: % Distances to the LMC and SMC, and the Pulsation-Evolution Mass
2658: % Discrepancy
2659: ApJ, 642, 834
2660: %
2661: \bibitem[Kennicutt et~al.(2003)]{Kennicutt:etal:03}
2662: Kennicutt, R.~C., Bresolin, F., \& Garnett, D.~R. 2003,
2663: % The Composition Gradient in M101 Revisited. II. Electron
2664: % Temperatures and Implications for the Nebular Abundance Scale
2665: ApJ, 591, 801
2666: %
2667: \bibitem[Kervella et~al.(2004)]{Kervella:etal:04}
2668: Kervella, P., Nardetto, N., Bersier, D., Mourard, D., \& Coud{\'e}
2669: du Foresto, V. 2004,
2670: % Cepheid distances from infrared long-baseline interferometry.
2671: % I. VINCI/VLTI observations of seven Galactic Cepheids
2672: A\&A, 416, 941
2673: %
2674: \bibitem[Klypin et~al.(2003)]{Klypin:etal:03}
2675: Klypin, A., Hoffman, Y., Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Gottl{\"o}ber, S. 2003,
2676: % Constrained Simulations of the Real Universe: The Local
2677: % Supercluster
2678: ApJ, 596, 19
2679: %
2680: \bibitem[Koen et~al.(2007)]{Koen:etal:07}
2681: Koen, C., Kanbur, S., \& Ngeow, C. 2007,
2682: % The detailed forms of the LMC Cepheid PL and PLC relations
2683: MNRAS, 380, 1440
2684: %
2685: \bibitem[Koen \& Siluyele(2007)]{Koen:Siluyele:07}
2686: Koen, C., \& Siluyele, I. 2007,
2687: % Multivariate comparisons of the period-light-curve shape
2688: % distributions of Cepheids in five galaxies
2689: MNRAS, 377, 1281
2690: %
2691: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg(1986)]{Kraan-Korteweg:86}
2692: Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C. 1986,
2693: % A catalog of 2810 nearby galaxies - The effect of the
2694: % Virgocentric flow model on their observed velocities
2695: A\&AS, 66, 255
2696: %
2697: \bibitem[Lane et~al.(2002)]{Lane:etal:02}
2698: Lane, B., Creech-Eakman, M., \& Nordgren, T. 2002,
2699: % Long-Baseline Interferometric Observations of Cepheids
2700: ApJ, 573, 330
2701: %
2702: \bibitem[Laney \& Stobie(1986)]{Laney:Stobie:86}
2703: Laney, C.~D., \& Stobie, R.~S. 1986,
2704: % Infrared photometry of Magellanic Cloud Cepheids - Intrinsic
2705: % properties of Cepheids and the spatial structure of Clouds
2706: MNRAS, 222, 449
2707: %
2708: \bibitem[Layden \& Sarajedini(2000)]{Layden:Sarajedini:00}
2709: Layden, A.~C., \& Sarajedini, A. 2000,
2710: % Photometry of the Globular Cluster M54 and the Sagittarius Dwarf
2711: % Galaxy: The Age-Metallicity Relation
2712: AJ, 119, 1760 (Sag dSph)
2713: %
2714: \bibitem[Lee et~al.(1993)]{Lee:etal:93}
2715: Lee, M.~G., Freedman, W.~L., \& Madore, B.~F. 1993,
2716: % The Tip of the Red Giant Branch as a Distance Indicator for
2717: % Resolved Galaxies
2718: ApJ, 417, 553
2719: %
2720: \bibitem[Lee et~al.(2003)]{Lee:etal:03}
2721: Lee, M.~G., et~al. 2003, % + 14 coauthors
2722: % Deep Wide-Field BVI CCD Photometry of the Sextans Dwarf
2723: % Spheroidal Galaxy
2724: AJ, 126, 2840
2725: %
2726: \bibitem[Lee et~al.(1990)]{Lee:etal:90}
2727: Lee, Y.~W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. 1990,
2728: % The horizontal-branch stars in globular clusters. I - The
2729: % period-shift effect, the luminosity of the horizontal branch, and
2730: % the age-metallicity relation
2731: ApJ, 350, 155
2732: %
2733: \bibitem[Macri et~al.(2006)]{Macri:etal:06}
2734: Macri, L.~M., Stanek, K.~Z., Bersier, D., Greenhill, L.~J., \&
2735: Reid, M.~J. 2006,
2736: % A New Cepheid Distance to the Maser-Host Galaxy NGC 4258 and Its
2737: % Implications for the Hubble Constant
2738: ApJ, 652, 1133
2739: %
2740: \bibitem[Mackey \& Gilmore(2003)]{Mackey:Gilmore:03}
2741: Mackey, A.~D., \& Gilmore, G.~F. 2003,
2742: % RR Lyrae stars in four globular clusters in the Fornax dwarf galaxy
2743: MNRAS, 345, 747 (Fornax)
2744: %
2745: \bibitem[Madore \& Freedman(1991)]{Madore:Freedman:91}
2746: Madore, B.~F., \& Freedman, W.~L. 1991,
2747: % The Cepheid distance scale
2748: PASP, 103, 933
2749: %
2750: \bibitem[Marconi et~al.(2005)]{Marconi:etal:05}
2751: Marconi, M., Musella, I., \& Fiorentino, G. 2005,
2752: % Cepheid Pulsation Models at Varying Metallicity and DeltaY/DeltaZ
2753: ApJ, 632, 590
2754: %
2755: \bibitem[Masters et~al.(2006)]{Masters:etal:06}
2756: Masters, K.~L., Springob, C.~M., Haynes, M.~P., \& Giovanelli, R. 2006,
2757: % SFI++ I: A New I-Band Tully-Fisher Template, the Cluster Peculiar
2758: % Velocity Dispersion, and H0
2759: ApJ, 653, 861
2760: %
2761: \bibitem[Mateo et~al.(1995a)]{Mateo:etal:95a}
2762: Mateo, M., Fischer, P., \& Krzeminski, W. 1995a,
2763: % Variable Stars in the Sextans Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
2764: AJ, 110, 2166 (Sextans)
2765: %
2766: \bibitem[Mateo et~al.(1995b)]{Mateo:etal:95b}
2767: Mateo, M., Kubiak, M., Szymanski, M., Kaluzny, J., Krzeminski, W.,
2768: \& Udalski, A. 1995b,
2769: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment: Variable Stars in
2770: % the Sagittarius Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy
2771: AJ, 110, 1141 (Sag dSph)
2772: %
2773: \bibitem[McAlary et~al.(1983)]{McAlary:etal:83}
2774: McAlary, C.~W., Madore, B.~F., McGonegal, R., McLaren, R.~A., \&
2775: Welch, D.~L. 1983,
2776: % The distance to NGC 6822 from infrared photometry of Cepheids
2777: ApJ, 273, 539 (NGC\,6822)
2778: %
2779: \bibitem[McConnachie et~al.(2004)]{McConnachie:etal:04}
2780: McConnachie, A.~W., Irwin, M.~J., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Ibata, R.~A.,
2781: Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N. 2004,
2782: % Determining the location of the tip of the red giant branch in
2783: % old stellar populations: M33, Andromeda I and II
2784: MNRAS, 350, 243
2785: %
2786: \bibitem[McConnachie et~al.(2005)]{McConnachie:etal:05}
2787: McConnachie, A.~W., Irwin, M.~J., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Ibata, R.~A.,
2788: Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N. 2005,
2789: % Distances and metallicities for 17 Local Group galaxies
2790: MNRAS, 356, 979
2791: %
2792: \bibitem[McNamara(1997)]{McNamara:97}
2793: McNamara, D.~H. 1997,
2794: % Luminosities of SX Phoenicis, Large-Amplitude Delta Scuti, and RR
2795: % Lyrae Stars
2796: PASP, 109, 1221
2797: %
2798: \bibitem[McNamara et~al.(2004)]{McNamara:etal:04}
2799: McNamara, D.~H., Rose, M.~B., Brown, P.~J., Ketcheson, D.~I.,
2800: Maxwell, J.~E., Smith, K.~M., \& Wooley, R.~C. 2004,
2801: % The luminosities of horizontal branches and RR Lyrae stars in
2802: % globular clusters
2803: in Variable Stars in the Local Group,
2804: eds. D.~W. Kurtz \& K.~R. Pollard
2805: % ASP Conf. Ser. 310, 525
2806: (San Francisco: ASP), 525
2807: %
2808: \bibitem[Mei et~al.(2007)]{Mei:etal:07}
2809: Mei, S., et~al. 2007,
2810: %Mei, S., Blakeslee, J.~P., Cote, P., Tonry, J.~L., West, M.~J.,
2811: %Ferrarese, L., Jordan, A., Peng, E.~W., Anthony, A., Merritt, D.
2812: % The ACS Virgo Cluster Survey. XIII. SBF Distance Catalog and the
2813: % Three-dimensional Structure of the Virgo Cluster
2814: ApJ, 655, 144
2815: %
2816: \bibitem[Mouhcine et~al.(2005)]{Mouhcine:etal:05}
2817: Mouhcine, M., Ferguson, H.~C., Rich, R.~M., Brown, T.~M., \&
2818: Smith, T.~E. 2005,
2819: % Halos of Spiral Galaxies. I. The Tip of the Red Giant Branch as a
2820: % Distance Indicator
2821: ApJ, 633, 810
2822: %
2823: \bibitem[Nardetto et~al.(2004)]{Nardetto:etal:04}
2824: Nardetto, N., Fokin, A., Mourard, D., Mathias, P., Kervella, P.,
2825: \& Bersier, D. 2004,
2826: % Self consistent modelling of the projection factor for
2827: % interferometric distance determination
2828: A\&A, 428, 131
2829: %
2830: \bibitem[Natale et~al.(2007)]{Natale:etal:07}
2831: Natale, G., Marconi, M., \& Bono, G. 2007,
2832: % Theoretical fits of the delta Cephei light, radius and radial
2833: % velocity curves
2834: preprint, astro-ph/0711.2857
2835: %
2836: \bibitem[Nemec(1985)]{Nemec:85}
2837: Nemec, J.~M. 1985,
2838: % Double-mode RR Lyrae stars in the Draco dwarf galaxy
2839: AJ, 90, 204 (Draco)
2840: %
2841: \bibitem[Nemec(1989)]{Nemec:89}
2842: Nemec, J.~M. 1989,
2843: % Anomalous Cepheids and population II blue stragglers
2844: in The Use of Variable Stars in Fundamental Problems of Astronomy,
2845: ed. E.~P. Schmidt
2846: % IAU Symp. 111.
2847: (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 215
2848: %
2849: \bibitem[Nemec \& Mateo(1990a)]{Nemec:Mateo:90a}
2850: Nemec, J.~M., \& Mateo, M. 1990a,
2851: % Dwarf Cepheids in the Carina dwarf galaxy
2852: in The Evolution of the Universe of Galaxies,
2853: % ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 10,
2854: ed. R.~G. Kron
2855: (San Francisco: ASP), 134
2856: %
2857: \bibitem[Nemec \& Mateo(1990b)]{Nemec:Mateo:90b}
2858: Nemec, J.~M., \& Mateo, M. 1990b,
2859: % SX Phoenicis stars
2860: in Confrontation between stellar pulsation and evolution,
2861: % ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 11,
2862: (San Francisco: ASP), 64
2863: %
2864: \bibitem[Nemec et~al.(1988)]{Nemec:etal:88}
2865: Nemec, J.~M., Wehlau, A., \& Mendes de Oliveira, C. 1988,
2866: % Variable stars in the Ursa Minor dwarf galaxy
2867: AJ, 96, 528 (UMi)
2868: %
2869: \bibitem[Ngeow et~al.(2005)]{Ngeow:etal:05}
2870: Ngeow, C.-C., Kanbur, S.~M., Nokolaev, S., Buonacorsi, J., Cook, K.~H.,
2871: \& Welch, D.~L. 2005,
2872: % Further empirical evidence for the non-linearity of the
2873: % period-luminosity relations as seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud
2874: % Cepheids
2875: MNRAS, 363, 831
2876: %
2877: \bibitem[Nordgren et~al.(2002)]{Nordgren:etal:02}
2878: Nordgren, T.~E., Lane, B.~F., Hindsley, R.~B., \& Kervella, P. 2002,
2879: % Calibration of the Barnes-Evans Relation Using Interferometric
2880: % Observations of Cepheids
2881: AJ, 123, 3380
2882: %
2883: \bibitem[Panagia(2005)]{Panagia:05}
2884: Panagia, N. 2005,
2885: % A Geometric Determination of the Distance to SN 1987A and the LMC
2886: in Cosmic Explosions,
2887: eds. J.~M. Marcaide \& K.~W. Weiler
2888: % IAU Coll. 192, 585
2889: %Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 99
2890: (Berlin: Springer), 585
2891: %
2892: \bibitem[Pietrinferni et~al.(2004)]{Pietrinferni:etal:04}
2893: Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F. 2004,
2894: % A Large Stellar Evolution Database for Population Synthesis
2895: % Studies. I. Scaled Solar Models and Isochrones
2896: ApJ, 612, 168
2897: %
2898: \bibitem[Pietrzynski et~al.(2004)]{Pietrzynski:etal:04}
2899: Pietrzynski, G., Gieren, W., Udalski, A., Bresolin, F.,
2900: Kudritzki, R.-P., Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M., \& Kubiak, M. 2004,
2901: % The Araucaria Project: The Distance to the Local Group Galaxy NGC
2902: % 6822 from Cepheid Variables Discovered in a Wide-Field Imaging
2903: % Survey
2904: AJ, 128, 2815 (NGC\,6822)
2905: %
2906: \bibitem[Pietrzynski et~al.(2006a)]{Pietrzynski:etal:06a}
2907: Pietrzynski, G., et~al. 2006a, % + 13 coauthors
2908: % The Araucaria Project: The Distance to the Sculptor Group Galaxy
2909: % NGC 55 from a Newly Discovered Abundant Cepheid Population
2910: AJ, 132, 2556 (NGC\,55)
2911: %
2912: \bibitem[Pietrzynski et~al.(2006b)]{Pietrzynski:etal:06b}
2913: Pietrzynski, G., et~al. 2006b, % + 9 coauthors
2914: % The Araucaria Project: A Wide-field photometric survey for
2915: % Cepheid variables in NGC 3109
2916: ApJ, 648, 366 (NGC\,3109)
2917: %
2918: \bibitem[Pietrzynski et~al.(2007)Pietrzynski's et~al.]{Pietrzynski:etal:07}
2919: Pietrzynski, G., et~al. 2007, % + 12 coauthors
2920: % The Araucaria Project: The Distance to the Local Group Galaxy WLM
2921: % from Cepheid Variables discovered in a Wide-Field Imaging Survey
2922: AJ, 134, 594 (WLM) % astro-ph/0704.2075
2923: %
2924: \bibitem[Piotto et~al.(1994)]{Piotto:etal:94}
2925: Piotto, G., Capaccioli, M., \& Pellegrini, C. 1994,
2926: % On the Cepheid variables of nearby galaxies
2927: A\&A, 287, 371 (Sextans A+B)
2928: %
2929: \bibitem[Popowski \& Gould(1999)]{Popowski:Gould:99}
2930: Popowski, P., \& Gould, A. 1999,
2931: % The RR Lyrae Distance Scale
2932: in Post Hipparcos Standard Candles,
2933: eds. A.~Heck, \& F.~Caputo
2934: (Dordrecht: Kluwer), 53
2935: %
2936: \bibitem[Pritzl et~al.(2002)]{Pritzl:etal:02}
2937: Pritzl, B.~J., Armandroff, T.~E., Jacoby, G.~H., \& Da Costa, G.~S. 2002,
2938: % The Dwarf Spheroidal Companions to M31: Variable Stars in Andromeda VI
2939: AJ, 124, 1464 (And~VI)
2940: %
2941: \bibitem[Pritzl et~al.(2004)]{Pritzl:etal:04}
2942: Pritzl, B.~J., Armandroff, T.~E., Jacoby, G.~H., \& Da~Costa, G.~S. 2004,
2943: % The Dwarf Spheroidal Companions to M31: Variable Stars in
2944: % Andromeda II
2945: AJ, 127, 318 (And~II)
2946: %
2947: \bibitem[Pritzl et~al.(2005)]{Pritzl:etal:05}
2948: Pritzl, B.~J., Armandroff, T.~E., Jacoby, G.~H., \& Da Costa, G.~S. 2005,
2949: % The Dwarf Spheroidal Companions to M31: Variable Stars in
2950: % Andromeda I and Andromeda III
2951: AJ, 129, 2232 (And (I\&III)
2952: %
2953: \bibitem[Reid(1997)]{Reid:97}
2954: Reid, I.~N. 1997,
2955: % Younger and Brighter - New Distances to Globular Clusters Based
2956: % on HIPPARCOS Parallax Measurements of Local Subdwarfs
2957: AJ, 114, 161
2958: %
2959: \bibitem[Reid(1999)]{Reid:99}
2960: Reid, I.~N. 1999,
2961: % The HR Diagram and the Galactic Distance Scale After HIPPARCOS
2962: ARA\&A, 37, 191
2963: %
2964: \bibitem[RTS\,05(2005)Reindl et~al.]{RTS:05}
2965: Reindl, B., Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Saha, A. 2005,
2966: % Reddening, Absorption, and Decline Rate Corrections for a
2967: % Complete Sample of Type Ia Supernovae leading to a Fully Corrected
2968: % Hubble Diagram to v<30,000kms-1
2969: ApJ, 624, 532 (RTS\,05)
2970: %
2971: \bibitem[Rejkuba et~al.(2005)]{Rejkuba:etal:05}
2972: Rejkuba, M., Greggio, L., Harris, W.~E., Harris, G.~L.~H., \&
2973: Peng, E.~W. 2005,
2974: % Deep ACS Imaging of the Halo of NGC 5128: Reaching the Horizontal
2975: % Branch
2976: ApJ, 631, 262
2977: %
2978: \bibitem[Rejkuba et~al.(2000)]{Rejkuba:etal:00}
2979: Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., Gregg, M.~D., Zijlstra, A.~A., Alonso,
2980: M.~V., \& Goudfrooij, P. 2000,
2981: % Deep Hubble Space Telescope STIS Color-Magnitude Diagrams of the
2982: % Dwarf Irregular Galaxy WLM: Detection of the Horizontal Branch
2983: AJ, 120, 801
2984: %
2985: \bibitem[Ribas et~al.(2005)]{Ribas:etal:05}
2986: Ribas, I., Jordi, C., Vilardell, F., Fitzpatrick, E.~L.,
2987: Hilditch, R.~W., \& Guinan, E.~F. 2005,
2988: % First Determination of the Distance and Fundamental Properties of
2989: % an Eclipsing Binary in the Andromeda Galaxy
2990: ApJ, 635, 37
2991: %
2992: \bibitem[Riess et~al.(2005)]{Riess:etal:05}
2993: Riess, A.~G., et~al. 2005,
2994: % Cepheid Calibrations from the Hubble Space Telescope of the
2995: % Luminosity of Two Recent Type Ia Supernovae and a Re-determination
2996: % of the Hubble Constant
2997: ApJ, 627, 579
2998: %
2999: \bibitem[Rizzi et~al.(2007)]{Rizzi:etal:07}
3000: Rizzi, L., Tully, R.~B., Makarov, D., Makarova, L., Dolphin, A.~E.,
3001: Sakai, S., \& Shaya, E.~J. 2007,
3002: % Tip of the Red Giant Branch Distances. II. Zero-Point Calibration
3003: ApJ, 661, 815 % was astro-ph/0701518
3004: %
3005: \bibitem[Romaniello et~al.(2005)]{Romaniello:etal:05}
3006: Romaniello, M., Primas, F., Mottini, M., Groenewegen, M., Bono, G.,
3007: \& Francois, P. 2005,
3008: % The influence of chemical composition on the properties of
3009: % Cepheid stars. I. Period-Luminosity relation vs. iron abundance
3010: A\&A, 429, L37
3011: %
3012: \bibitem[Rood(1972)]{Rood:72}
3013: Rood, R.~T. 1972,
3014: % Metal-Poor Stars. IV. The Evolution of Red Giants
3015: ApJ, 177, 681
3016: %
3017: \bibitem[Russell(1913)]{Russell:13}
3018: Russell, H.~N. 1913,
3019: % Notes on the Real Brightness of Variable Stars
3020: Science, 37, 651
3021: %
3022: \bibitem[Saha \& Hoessel(1990)]{Saha:Hoessel:90}
3023: Saha, A., \& Hoessel, J.~G. 1990,
3024: % RR Lyrae stars in local group galaxies. I - NGC 185
3025: AJ, 99, 97 (NGC\,185)
3026: %
3027: \bibitem[Saha et~al.(1992)]{Saha:etal:92}
3028: Saha, A., Hoessel, J.~G., \& Krist, J. 1992,
3029: % RR Lyrae Stars in Local Group Galaxies. III. NGC 205
3030: AJ, 103, 84 (NGC\,205)
3031: %
3032: \bibitem[Saha et~al.(1990)]{Saha:etal:90}
3033: Saha, A., Hoessel, J.~G., \& Mossman, A.~E. 1990,
3034: % RR Lyrae stars in local group galaxies. II - NGC 147
3035: AJ, 100, 108 (NGC\,147)
3036: %
3037: \bibitem[Saha et~al.(1986)]{Saha:etal:86}
3038: Saha, A., Monet, D.~G., \& Seitzer, P. 1986,
3039: % RR Lyrae stars in the Carina dwarf galaxy
3040: AJ, 92, 302 (Carina)
3041: %
3042: \bibitem[STT\,06(2006)Saha et~al.]{STT:06}
3043: Saha, A., Thim, F., Tammann, G.~A., Reindl, B., \& Sandage, A. 2006,
3044: % Cepheid Distances to SNe Ia Host Galaxies based
3045: % on a Revised Photometric Zero Point of the HST-WFPC2
3046: % and New P-L Relations and Metallicity Corrections
3047: ApJS, 165, 108 (STT\,06)
3048: %
3049: \bibitem[Sakai et~al.(2004)]{Sakai:etal:04}
3050: Sakai, S., Ferrarese, L., Kennicutt, R.~C., \& Saha, A. 2004,
3051: % The Effect of Metallicity on Cepheid-based Distances
3052: ApJ, 608, 42
3053: %
3054: \bibitem[Sakai et~al.(1997)]{Sakai:etal:97}
3055: Sakai, S., Madore, B.~F., Freedman, W.~L., Lauer, T.~R.,
3056: Ajhar, E.~A., \& Baum, W.~A. 1997,
3057: % Detection of the Tip of the Red Giant Branch in NGC 3379 (M105)
3058: % in the Leo I Group Using the Hubble Space Telescope
3059: ApJ, 478, 49
3060: %
3061: \bibitem[Salaris \& Cassisi(1997)]{Salaris:Cassisi:97}
3062: Salaris, M., \& Cassisi, S. 1997,
3063: % The `tip' of the red giant branch as a distance indicator:
3064: % results from evolutionary models
3065: MNRAS, 289, 406
3066: %
3067: \bibitem[Salaris \& Cassisi(1998)]{Salaris:Cassisi:98}
3068: Salaris, M., \& Cassisi, S. 1998,
3069: % A new analysis of the red giant branch `tip' distance scale and
3070: % the value of the Hubble constant
3071: MNRAS, 298, 166
3072: %
3073: \bibitem[Salaris et~al.(1997)]{Salaris:etal:97}
3074: Salaris, M., degl'Innocenti, S., \& Weiss, A. 1997,
3075: % The Age of the Oldest Globular Clusters
3076: ApJ, 479, 665
3077: %
3078: \bibitem[Salaris et~al.(2003)]{Salaris:etal:03}
3079: Salaris, M., Percival, S., \& Girardi, L. 2003,
3080: % A theoretical analysis of the systematic errors in the red clump
3081: % distance to the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC)
3082: MNRAS, 345, 1030
3083: %
3084: \bibitem[Sandage(1971)]{Sandage:71}
3085: Sandage, A. 1971,
3086: % The Age of the Galaxies and Globular Clusters: Problems of
3087: % Finding the Hubble Constant and Deceleration Parameter
3088: in Pont. Acad. Scient. Scripta Varia No. 35, Nuclei of Galaxies,
3089: ed. D.~J.~K. O'Connell,
3090: (Amsterdam: North Holland), 601
3091: %
3092: \bibitem[Sandage(1988)]{Sandage:88}
3093: Sandage, A. 1988,
3094: % Cepheids as distance indicators when used near their detection
3095: % limit
3096: PASP, 100, 935
3097: %
3098: \bibitem[Sandage(2006)]{Sandage:06}
3099: Sandage, A., 2006,
3100: % On the Predicted and Observed Color Boundaries of the RR Lyrae
3101: % Instability Strip as a Function of Metallicity
3102: AJ, 131, 1750
3103: %
3104: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(1999)]{Sandage:etal:99}
3105: Sandage, A., Bell, R.~A., \& Tripicco, M.~J. 1999,
3106: % On the Sensitivity of the Cepheid Period-Luminosity Relation to
3107: % Variations of Metallicity
3108: ApJ, 522, 250
3109: %
3110: \bibitem[ST\,06(2006)Sandage \& Tammann]{Sandage:Tammann:06}
3111: Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 2006,
3112: % Absolute Magnitude Calibrations of Population I and II Cepheids
3113: % and Other Pulsating Variables in the Instability Strip of the
3114: % Hertzsprung-Russell Diagram
3115: ARA\&A, 44, 93 (ST\,06)
3116: %
3117: \bibitem[STR\,04(2004)Sandage et~al.]{STR:04}
3118: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Reindl, B. 2004,
3119: % New Period-Luminosity and Period-Color relations of classical
3120: % Cepheids: II. Cepheids in LMC
3121: A\&A, 424, 43 (STR\,04)
3122: %
3123: \bibitem[STS\,06(2006)Sandage et~al.]{STS:06}
3124: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., Saha, A., Reindl, B., Macchetto,
3125: F.~D., \& Panagia, N. 2006,
3126: % The Hubble Constant, A Summary of the Hubble Space Telescope
3127: % Program for the Luminosity Calibration of Type Ia Supernovae by
3128: % Means of Cepheids
3129: ApJ, 653, 843 (STS\,06)
3130: %
3131: \bibitem[Sarajedini et~al.(2006)]{Sarajedini:etal:06}
3132: Sarajedini, A., Barker, M.~K., Geisler, D., Harding, P., \&
3133: Schommer, R. 2006,
3134: % RR Lyrae Variables in M33. I. Evidence for a Field Halo Population
3135: AJ, 132, 1361 (NGC\,598)
3136: %
3137: \bibitem[Schlegel et~al.(1998)]{Schlegel:etal:98}
3138: Schlegel, D., Finkbeiner, D., \& Davis, M. 1998,
3139: % Maps of Dust Infrared Emission for Use in Estimation of Reddening
3140: % and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Foregrounds
3141: ApJ, 500, 525
3142: %
3143: \bibitem[Seares et~al.(1930)]{Seares:etal:30}
3144: Seares, F.~H., Kapteyn, J.~C., \& van Rhijn P.~J. 1930,
3145: Mount Wilson Catalogue of Photographic Magnitudes in Selected Areas 1-139,
3146: Carnegie Institution of Washington Pub. 402
3147: %
3148: \bibitem[Seth et~al.(2005)]{Seth:etal:05}
3149: Seth, A.~C., Dalcanton, J.~J., \& de~Jong, R.~S. 2005,
3150: % A Study of Edge-On Galaxies with the Hubble Space Telescope
3151: % Advanced Camera for Surveys. I. Initial Results
3152: AJ, 129, 1331
3153: %
3154: \bibitem[Shapley(1918)]{Shapley:18}
3155: Shapley, H. 1918,
3156: % Studies based on the colors and magnitudes in stellar
3157: % clusters. VI. On the determination of the distances of globular
3158: % clusters.
3159: ApJ, 48, 89 (Paper VI of his series)
3160: %
3161: \bibitem[Siegel \& Majewski(2000)]{Siegel:Majewski:00}
3162: Siegel, M.~H., \& Majewski, S.~R. 2000,
3163: % Exploring the Leo II Dwarf Spheroidal Galaxy.
3164: % I. The Variable Star Content
3165: AJ, 120, 284 (Leo~II)
3166: %
3167: \bibitem[Smecker-Hane et~al.(1994)]{Smecker-Hane:etal:94}
3168: Smecker-Hane, T.~A., Stetson, P.~B., Hesser, J.~E., \& Lehnert, M.~D. 1994,
3169: % The stellar populations of the Carina dwarf spheroidal Galaxy. 1:
3170: % A new color-magnitude diagram for the giant and horizontal branches
3171: AJ, 108, 507
3172: %
3173: \bibitem[Smith et~al.(1992)]{Smith:etal:92}
3174: Smith, H.~A., Silbermann, N.~A., Baird, S.~R., \& Graham, J.~A. 1992,
3175: % Variable stars in the northeast arm/inner halo region of the
3176: % Small Magellanic Cloud
3177: AJ, 104, 1430
3178: %
3179: \bibitem[Sollima et~al.(2006)]{Sollima:etal:06}
3180: Sollima, A., Cacciari, C., \& Valenti, E. 2006,
3181: % The RR Lyrae period-K-luminosity relation for globular clusters:
3182: % an observational approach
3183: MNRAS, 372, 1675
3184: %
3185: \bibitem[Soszynski et~al.(2006)]{Soszynski:etal:06}
3186: Soszynski, I., Gieren, W., Pietrzynski, G., Bresolin, F.,
3187: Kudritzki, R.-P., \& Storm, J. 2006,
3188: % The Araucaria Project: Distance to the Local Group Galaxy NGC
3189: % 3109 from Near-Infrared Photometry of Cepheids
3190: ApJ, 648, 375 (NGC\,3109)
3191: %
3192: \bibitem[Soszynski et~al.(2002)]{Soszynski:etal:02}
3193: Soszynski, I., et~al. 2002, % + 8 coauthors
3194: % Udalski, A.; Szymanski, M.; Kubiak, M.; Pietrzynski, G.; Wozniak,
3195: % P.; Zebrun, K.; Szewczyk, O.; Wyrzykowski, L.
3196: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Catalog of RRLyr
3197: % Stars from the Small Magellanic Cloud
3198: AcA, 52, 369 (SMC)
3199: %
3200: \bibitem[Soszynski et~al.(2003)]{Soszynski:etal:03}
3201: Soszynski, I., et~al. 2003, % + 8 coauthors
3202: %% Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., Wozniak,
3203: %% P., Zebrun, K., Szewczyk, O., Wyrzykowski, L.
3204: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Catalog of RR Lyr
3205: % Stars in the Large Magellanic Cloud
3206: AcA, 53, 93 (LMC)
3207: %
3208: \bibitem[Spergel et~al.(2007)]{Spergel:etal:07}
3209: Spergel, D.~N., et~al. 2007, % + 20 coauthors
3210: % Three-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
3211: % Observations: Implications for Cosmology
3212: ApJS, 170, 377
3213: %
3214: \bibitem[Storm et~al.(2004)]{Storm:etal:04}
3215: Storm, J., Carney, B.~W., Gieren, W.~P., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Latham,
3216: D.~W., \& Fry, A.~M. 2004,
3217: % The effect of metallicity on the Cepheid Period-Luminosity
3218: % relation from a Baade-Wesselink analysis of Cepheids in the Galaxy
3219: % and in the Small Magellanic Cloud
3220: A\&A, 415, 531
3221: %
3222: \bibitem[Sweigart \& Gross(1978)]{Sweigart:Gross:78}
3223: Sweigart, A.~V., \& Gross, R.~G. 1978,
3224: % Evolutionary sequences for red giant stars
3225: ApJS, 36, 405
3226: %
3227: \bibitem[Tammann \& Reindl(2002)]{Tammann:Reindl:02}
3228: Tammann, G.~A., \& Reindl, B. 2002,
3229: % GAIA and the Extragalactic Distance Scale
3230: Ap \& Space Sci., 280, 165
3231: %
3232: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2002)]{Tammann:etal:02}
3233: Tammann, G.~A., Reindl, B., Thim, F., Saha, A., \& Sandage, A. 2002,
3234: % Cepheids, Supernovae, Ho, and the Age of the Universe
3235: in A New Era in Cosmology,
3236: eds. T.~Shanks, \& N.~Metcalfe
3237: (San Francisco: ASP), 258
3238: %
3239: \bibitem[TSR\,03(2003)Tammann et~al.]{TSR:03}
3240: Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Reindl, B. 2003,
3241: % New Period-Luminosity and Period-Color relations of classical
3242: % Cepheids: I. Cepheids in the Galaxy
3243: A\&A, 404, 423 (TSR\,03)
3244: %
3245: \bibitem[Tanvir et~al.(2005)]{Tanvir:etal:05}
3246: Tanvir, N.~R., Hendry, M.~A., Watkins, A., Kanbur, S.~M.,
3247: Berdnikov, L.~N., \& Ngeow, C.~C. 2005,
3248: % Determination of Cepheid parameters by light-curve template
3249: % fitting
3250: MNRAS, 363, 749
3251: %
3252: \bibitem[Tegmark et~al.(2006)]{Tegmark:etal:06}
3253: Tegmark, M., et~al. 2006, % > 20 coauthors
3254: % Cosmological constraints from the SDSS luminous red galaxies
3255: Phys. Rev. D, 74, 123507 % astro-ph/0608632
3256: %
3257: \bibitem[Thackery(1954)]{Thackery:54}
3258: Thackery, A.~D. 1954,
3259: %
3260: in Trans. IAU, VIII (Rome 1952 meeting),
3261: Report of Commission 28, (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 397
3262: %
3263: \bibitem[Thackery(1958)]{Thackery:58}
3264: Thackery, A.~D. 1958,
3265: %
3266: report to the 1957 Vatican Conference on Stellar Populations,
3267: Specola Vaticana, Vol. 5, ed. D.~J.~K. O'Connell, 195
3268: %
3269: \bibitem[Thim et~al.(2003)]{Thim:etal:03}
3270: Thim, F., Tammann, G.~A., Saha, A., Dolphin, A., Sandage, A.,
3271: Tolstoy, E., \& Labhardt, L. 2003,
3272: % The Cepheid Distance to NGC 5236 (M83) with the ESO Very Large
3273: % Telescope
3274: ApJ, 590, 256
3275: %
3276: \bibitem[Thuan \& Gunn(1976)]{Thuan:Gunn:76}
3277: Thuan, T.~X., \& Gunn, J.~E. 1976,
3278: % A new four-color intermediate-band photometric system
3279: PASP, 88, 543
3280: %
3281: \bibitem[Tully \& Pierce(2000)]{Tully:Pierce:00}
3282: Tully, R.~B., \& Pierce, M.~J. 2000,
3283: % Distances to Galaxies from the Correlation between Luminosities
3284: % and Line Widths. III. Cluster Template and Global Measurement of H0
3285: ApJ, 533, 744
3286: %
3287: \bibitem[Tully et~al.(2006)]{Tully:etal:06}
3288: Tully, R.~B., et~al. 2006,
3289: %% Tully, R.~B., Rizzi, L., Dolphin, A.~E., Karachentsev, I.~D.,
3290: %% Karachentseva, V.~E., Makarov, D.~I., Makarova, L., Sakai, S., &
3291: %% Shaya, E.~J. 2006,
3292: % Associations of Dwarf Galaxies
3293: AJ, 132, 729
3294: %
3295: \bibitem[Udalski(1998)]{Udalski:98}
3296: Udalski, A. 1998,
3297: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. The Distance Scale:
3298: % Galactic Bulge -- LMC -- SMC.
3299: AcA, 48, 113
3300: %
3301: \bibitem[Udalski(2000)]{Udalski:00}
3302: Udalski, A. 2000,
3303: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Stellar Distance
3304: % Indicators in the Magellanic Clouds and Constraints on the
3305: % Magellanic Cloud Distance Scale
3306: AcA, 50, 279 (Carina)
3307: %
3308: \bibitem[Udalski et~al.(1999a)]{Udalski:etal:99a}
3309: Udalski, A., Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski,
3310: G., Wozniak, P., \& Zebrun, K. 1999a,
3311: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Cepheids in the
3312: % Magellanic Clouds. IV. Catalog of Cepheids from the
3313: % Large Magellanic Cloud
3314: AcA, 49, 223
3315: %
3316: \bibitem[Udalski et~al.(1999b)]{Udalski:etal:99b}
3317: Udalski, A., Soszynski, I., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski,
3318: G., Wozniak, P., \& Zebrun, K. 1999b,
3319: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Cepheids in the
3320: % Magellanic Clouds. V. Catalog of Cepheids from the
3321: % Small Magellanic Cloud
3322: AcA, 49, 437
3323: %
3324: \bibitem[Udalski et~al.(1999c)Udalski's et~al.]{Udalski:etal:99c}
3325: Udalski, A., Szymanski, M., Kubiak, M., Pietrzynski, G., Szymanski,
3326: M., Wozniak, P., \& Zebrun, K. 1999c,
3327: % The Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment. Cepheids in the
3328: % Magellanic Clouds. III. Period-Luminosity-Color and
3329: % Period-Luminosity Relations of Classical Cepheids
3330: AcA, 49, 201
3331: %
3332: \bibitem[VandenBerg et~al.(2000)]{VandenBerg:etal:00}
3333: VandenBerg, D.~A., Swenson, E.~J., Rogers, F.~J., Iglesias,
3334: C.~A., \& Alxander, D.~R. 2000,
3335: % Models for Old, Metal-poor Stars with Enhanced a-Element
3336: % Abundances. I. Evolutionary Tracks and ZAHB Loci; Observational
3337: % Constraints
3338: ApJ, 532, 430
3339: %
3340: \bibitem[van den Bergh(1995)]{vandenBergh:95}
3341: van den Bergh, S. 1995,
3342: % On the Discrepancy between the Cepheid and RR Lyrae Distance Scales
3343: ApJ, 446, 39
3344: %
3345: \bibitem[van Leeuwen et~al.(2007)]{vanLeeuwen:etal:07}
3346: van Leeuwen, F., Feast, M.~W., Whitelock, P.~A., \& Laney,
3347: C.~D. 2007,
3348: % Cepheid Parallaxes and the Hubble Constant
3349: MNRAS, 379, 723 % was astro-ph/0705.1592
3350: %
3351: \bibitem[Vilardell et~al.(2007)]{Vilardell:etal:07}
3352: Vilardell, F., Jordi, C., \& Ribas, I. 2007,
3353: % A comprehensive study of Cepheid variables in the Andromeda
3354: % galaxy. Period distribution, blending, and distance determination
3355: A\&A, 473, 847
3356: %
3357: \bibitem[Walker \& Mack(1988)]{Walker:Mack:88}
3358: Walker, A., \& Mack, A.~R. 1988,
3359: % CCD photometry of the RR Lyrae stars in NGC 121 and the distance
3360: % to the Small Magellanic Cloud
3361: AJ, 96, 872
3362: %
3363: \bibitem[Yahil et~al.(1980)]{Yahil:etal:80}
3364: Yahil, A., Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1980,
3365: % The deceleration of nearby galaxies
3366: in Physical Cosmology, eds. E.~Balian, J.~Audouze, \& D.~N.~Schramm
3367: (Amsterdam: North-Holland), 127
3368: %
3369: \bibitem[Yahil et~al.(1977)]{Yahil:etal:77}
3370: Yahil, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Sandage, A. 1977,
3371: % The Local Group - The solar motion relative to its centroid
3372: ApJ, 217, 903
3373: %
3374: \bibitem[Zaritsky et~al.(1994)]{Zaritsky:etal:94}
3375: Zaritsky, D., Kennicutt, R.~C., \& Huchra, J.~P. 1994,
3376: % H II regions and the abundance properties of spiral galaxies
3377: ApJ, 420, 87
3378: %
3379: \bibitem[Zinn \& West(1984)]{Zinn:West:84}
3380: Zinn, R., \& West, M.~J. 1984,
3381: % The globular cluster system of the galaxy.
3382: % III - Measurements of radial velocity and metall icity for 60
3383: % clusters and a compilation of metallicities for 121 clusters
3384: ApJS, 55, 45
3385: %
3386: \bibitem[Zoccali et~al.(2003)]{Zoccali:etal:03}
3387: Zoccali, M., et~al. 2003, % + 9 coauthors
3388: % Age and metallicity distribution of the Galactic bulge from
3389: % extensive optical and near-IR stellar photometry
3390: A\&A, 399, 931
3391: % ******************************************************************
3392: \end{thebibliography}
3393: % ******************************************************************
3394:
3395:
3396: % ******************************************************************
3397: % greater textheight for Table 9 to fit on one page
3398: \setlength\textheight{9.0in}%
3399: % ******************************************************************
3400:
3401: \clearpage
3402:
3403:
3404: % ******************************************************************
3405: % *********** Tables ***********
3406: % ******************************************************************
3407:
3408:
3409: % ******************************************************************
3410: % Table 1: Twenty-five RR Lyr star distances (in order of RA)
3411: % ******************************************************************
3412: \begin{deluxetable}{lcclccccclclc}
3413: \tablewidth{0pt}
3414: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3415: \tablecaption{RR Lyr star distances of 24 galaxies (in order of RA).\label{tab:01}}
3416: % ***********************************************
3417: \tablehead{
3418: % ***********************************************
3419: \colhead{Name} &
3420: \colhead{$N_{\rm RR}$} &
3421: \colhead{[Fe/H]} &
3422: \colhead{$\langle V\rangle$} &
3423: \colhead{$E(B\!-\!V)$} &
3424: \colhead{$A_{V}$} &
3425: \colhead{$V^{0}$} &
3426: \colhead{$M^{V}_{\rm San}$} &
3427: \colhead{$M^{V}_{\rm Lit}$} &
3428: \colhead{$\mu^0_{\rm new}$} &
3429: \colhead{$\mu^0_{\rm Lit}$} &
3430: \colhead{Tel.} &
3431: \colhead{Ref}
3432: \\
3433: \colhead{(1)} &
3434: \colhead{(2)} &
3435: \colhead{(3)} &
3436: \colhead{(4)} &
3437: \colhead{(5)} &
3438: \colhead{(6)} &
3439: \colhead{(7)} &
3440: \colhead{(8)} &
3441: \colhead{(9)} &
3442: \colhead{(10)} &
3443: \colhead{(11)} &
3444: \colhead{(12)} &
3445: \colhead{(13)}
3446: }
3447: % ***********************************************
3448: \startdata
3449: % ***********************************************
3450: NGC\,147 & 36 & -1.37 & 25.29 & 0.173 & 0.54 & 24.75 & 0.55 & 0.77 & 24.20 & 23.92 & 200'' & 1 \\
3451: And III & 39 & -1.88 & 25.01 & 0.057 & 0.18 & 24.83 & 0.47 & 0.50 & 24.36 & 24.33 & HST & 2 \\
3452: NGC\,185 & 151 & -1.37 & 25.24 & 0.182 & 0.56 & 24.68 & 0.55 & 0.77 & 24.13 & 23.79 & 200'' & 3 \\
3453: NGC\,205 & 30 & -0.85 & 25.54 & 0.062 & 0.19 & 25.35 & 0.70 & 0.77 & 24.65 & 24.65 & 200'' & 4 \\
3454: NGC\,224 & 54 & -1.60 & 25.30 & 0.062 & 0.19 & 25.11 & 0.51 & 0.55 & 24.60 & 24.55 & HST & 5 \\
3455: And I & 72 & -1.46 & 25.14 & 0.054 & 0.17 & 24.97 & 0.53 & 0.57 & 24.44 & 24.40 & HST & 6 \\
3456: SMC & 514 & -1.70 & 19.74 & 0.087 & 0.27 & 19.47 & 0.49 & \nodata & 18.98 & \nodata & 1.3m & 7 \\
3457: Sculptor & 226 & -1.70 & 20.14 & 0.018 & 0.06 & 20.08 & 0.49 & 0.43 & 19.59 & 19.65 & 40'' & 8 \\
3458: IC\,1613 & 13 & -1.30 & 25.00 & 0.025 & 0.08 & 24.92 & 0.57 & 0.60 & 24.35 & 24.32 & HST & 9 \\
3459: And II & 72 & -1.49 & 24.87 & 0.062 & 0.19 & 24.68 & 0.53 & 0.57 & 24.15 & 24.06 & HST & 10 \\
3460: NGC\,598 & 43 & -1.30 & 25.12 & var & var & 25.34 & 0.57 & 0.67 & 24.77 & 24.67 & HST & 11 \\
3461: Phoenix & 4 & -1.40 & 23.64: & 0.016 & 0.05 & 23.59 & 0.54 & \nodata & 23.05: & \nodata & 4m & 12 \\
3462: Fornax & 197 & -1.95 & 21.27 & 0.042 & 0.13 & 21.14 & 0.47 & 0.48 & 20.67 & 20.66 & HST & 13a \\
3463: Fornax & 72 & -1.78 & 21.28 & 0.042 & 0.13 & 21.15 & 0.48 & 0.44 & 20.67 & 20.72 & 6.5m & 13b \\
3464: Fornax & 500 & -1.81 & 21.38 & 0.042 & 0.13 & 21.25 & 0.48 & \nodata & 20.77 & 20.75 & 1.3m & 13c \\
3465: LMC & 108 & -1.46 & 19.37 & 0.101 & 0.31 & 19.06 & 0.53 & 0.61 & 18.53 & 18.45 & 1.54m & 14 \\
3466: Carina & 58 & -1.90 & 20.76 & 0.063 & 0.20 & 20.56 & 0.47 & 0.58 & 20.09 & 20.10 & 4m & 15a \\
3467: Carina & 33 & -2.2: & 20.69 & 0.063 & 0.20 & 20.49 & 0.40 & 0.57 & 20.09 & 19.93 & 1.3m & 15b \\
3468: Leo A & 8 & -1.70 & 25.10 & 0.021 & 0.07 & 25.03 & 0.49 & 0.53 & 24.54 & 24.51 & 3.8m & 16 \\
3469: Leo I & 74 & -1.82 & 22.60 & 0.036 & 0.11 & 22.49 & 0.48 & 0.44 & 22.01 & 22.04 & 2.2m & 17 \\
3470: Sextans & 36 & -1.60 & 20.36 & 0.050 & 0.16 & 20.20 & 0.51 & 0.57 & 19.69 & 19.67 & 1m & 18 \\
3471: Leo II & 80 & -1.90 & 22.10 & 0.017 & 0.05 & 22.05 & 0.47 & 0.44 & 21.58 & 21.66 & 3.6m & 19 \\
3472: UMi & 82 & -1.90 & 19.86 & 0.032 & 0.10 & 19.76 & 0.47 & 0.60 & 19.29 & 19.35 & 3.52m & 20 \\
3473: Draco & 94 & -1.60 & 20.18 & 0.027 & 0.08 & 20.10 & 0.51 & 0.69 & 19.59 & 19.61 & 1.2m & 21 \\
3474: Sag dSph & 63 & -1.79 & 18.17 & 0.153 & 0.47 & 17.70 & 0.48 & 0.52 & 17.22 & 17.19 & 0.9m & 22 \\
3475: NGC\,6822 & 15 & -1.92 & 24.63 & 0.236 & 0.73 & 23.90 & 0.47 & 0.50 & 23.43 & 23.41 & VLT & 23 \\
3476: And VI & 91 & -1.58 & 25.30 & 0.064 & 0.20 & 25.10 & 0.51 & 0.55 & 24.59 & 24.56 & 2.5m & 24 \\
3477: % ***********************************************
3478: \enddata
3479: % ***********************************************
3480: \tablenotetext{\,}{References. ---
3481: %\tablerefs{
3482: (1) \citealt{Saha:etal:90};
3483: (2) \citealt{Pritzl:etal:05};
3484: (3) \citealt{Saha:Hoessel:90};
3485: (4) \citealt{Saha:etal:92};
3486: (5) \citealt{Brown:etal:04};
3487: (6) \citealt{Pritzl:etal:05};
3488: (7) \citealt{Soszynski:etal:02};
3489: (8) \citealt{Kaluzny:etal:95};
3490: (9) \citealt{Dolphin:etal:01};
3491: (10) \citealt{Pritzl:etal:04};
3492: (11) \citealt{Sarajedini:etal:06};
3493: (12) \citealt{Gallart:etal:04};
3494: (13a) \citealt{Mackey:Gilmore:03};
3495: (13b) \citealt{Greco:etal:05};
3496: (13c) \citealt{Bersier:Wood:02};
3497: (14) \citealt{Clementini:etal:03a,Soszynski:etal:03,Alcock:etal:04,Borissova:etal:04};
3498: (15a) \citealt{Saha:etal:86};
3499: (15b) \citealt{Udalski:00};
3500: (16) \citealt{Dolphin:etal:02};
3501: (17) \citealt{Held:etal:00,Held:etal:01};
3502: (18) \citealt{Mateo:etal:95a};
3503: (19) \citealt{Demers:Irwin:93,Siegel:Majewski:00};
3504: (20) \citealt{Nemec:etal:88,Bellazzini:etal:02,Carrera:etal:02};
3505: (21) \citealt{Bonanos:etal:04,Grillmair:etal:98,Nemec:85,Aparicio:etal:01};
3506: (22) \citealt{Layden:Sarajedini:00,Mateo:etal:95b};
3507: (23) \citealt{Clementini:etal:03b,McAlary:etal:83};
3508: (24) \citealt{Pritzl:etal:02}.
3509: }
3510: % ***********************************************
3511: \end{deluxetable}
3512: % ******************************************************************
3513: % ******************************************************************
3514: % RESET greater textheight
3515: \setlength\textheight{8.4in}%
3516: % ******************************************************************
3517:
3518:
3519:
3520:
3521: % ******************************************************************
3522: % Table 2:Calibration of the TRGB by means of RR Lyr stars
3523: % ******************************************************************
3524: \begin{deluxetable}{lcclcc}
3525: \tablewidth{0pt}
3526: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3527: \tablecaption{Calibration of the TRGB by means of RR Lyr stars.\label{tab:02}}
3528: % ***********************************************
3529: \tablehead{
3530: % ***********************************************
3531: \colhead{Name} &
3532: \colhead{$(V\!-\!I)^{\rm TRGB}$} &
3533: \colhead{$\mu^{0}_{\rm RR}$} &
3534: \colhead{$m^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$} &
3535: \colhead{$M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$} &
3536: \colhead{Ref}
3537: \\
3538: \colhead{(1)} &
3539: \colhead{(2)} &
3540: \colhead{(3)} &
3541: \colhead{(4)} &
3542: \colhead{(5)} &
3543: \colhead{(6)}
3544: }
3545: % ***********************************************
3546: \startdata
3547: % ***********************************************
3548: Leo A & 1.33 & 24.54 & 20.53 & -4.01 & 1 \\
3549: Sex dSph & 1.35 & 19.69 & 15.78 & -3.91 & 2,3 \\
3550: And I & 1.40 & 24.44 & 20.49 & -3.95 & 4 \\
3551: UMi & 1.40 & 19.29 & 15.20 & -4.09 & 5 \\
3552: SMC & 1.45 & 18.98 & 14.95 & -4.03 & 6 \\
3553: Sculptor & 1.47 & 19.59 & 15.57 & -4.02 & 7 \\
3554: Draco & 1.48 & 19.59 & 15.62 & -3.97 & 5 \\
3555: And II & 1.51 & 24.15 & 20.11 & -4.04 & 4 \\
3556: Carina & 1.54 & 20.09 & 16.03 & -4.06 & 8 \\
3557: Leo I & 1.55 & 22.01 & 17.95 & -4.06 & 9 \\
3558: IC\,1613 & 1.56 & 24.35 & 20.24 & -4.11 & 7 \\
3559: Leo II & 1.60 & 21.58 & 17.56 & -4.02 & 2 \\
3560: Phoenix & 1.60 & 23.05: & 19.17 & (-3.88) & 2 \\
3561: Fornax & 1.61 & 20.67 & 16.68 & -3.99 & 10 \\
3562: NGC\,598 & 1.65 & 24.77 & 20.65 & -4.12 & 4,7,11 \\
3563: NGC\,6822 & 1.65 & 23.43 & 19.35 & -4.08 & 12 \\
3564: And III & 1.69 & 24.36 & 20.35 & -4.01 & 13 \\
3565: LMC & 1.70 & 18.53 & 14.54 & -3.99 & 7 \\
3566: NGC\,147 & 1.70 & 24.20 & 20.20 & -4.00 & 13,14 \\
3567: And VI & 1.71 & 24.59 & 20.45 & -4.14 & 13 \\
3568: NGC\,205 & 1.71 & 24.65 & 20.53 & -4.12 & 13 \\
3569: NGC\,185 & 1.76 & 24.13 & 19.98 & -4.15 & 7,13 \\
3570: NGC\,224 & 1.89 & 24.60 & 20.46 & -4.14 & 7,13 \\
3571: Sag dSph & \nodata & 17.22 & 12.46$^{1)}$ & (-4.76) & 2 \\
3572: \tableline
3573: {\bf mean} & & & &
3574: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\boldmath{$-4.05\pm0.02$}}\\
3575: & & & &
3576: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\sigma=0.08, N=22$}
3577:
3578: % ***********************************************
3579: \enddata
3580: % ***********************************************
3581: \tablenotetext{1)}{Poorly defined}
3582: \tablerefs{References to $m^{\rm TRGB}_{I}$:
3583: (1) \citealt{Dolphin:etal:03};
3584: (2) \citealt{Karachentsev:etal:04};
3585: (3) \citealt{Lee:etal:03};
3586: (4) \citealt{McConnachie:etal:04};
3587: (5) \citealt{Bellazzini:etal:02};
3588: (6) \citealt{Udalski:00}; \citealt{Cioni:etal:00};
3589: (7) \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07};
3590: (8) \citealt{Smecker-Hane:etal:94,Udalski:98};
3591: (9) \citealt{Bellazzini:etal:04b};
3592: (10) \citealt{Bersier:00};
3593: (11) \citealt{Galleti:etal:04};
3594: (12) \citealt{Gallart:etal:96};
3595: (13) \citealt{McConnachie:etal:05};
3596: (14) \citealt{Han:etal:97}.
3597: }
3598: % ***********************************************
3599: \end{deluxetable}
3600: % ******************************************************************
3601:
3602:
3603:
3604:
3605: % ******************************************************************
3606: % Table 3: A tentative TRGB calibration of the SNIa luminosity
3607: % ******************************************************************
3608: \begin{deluxetable}{lrlclcccl}
3609: \tablewidth{0pt}
3610: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3611: \tablecaption{A tentative TRGB calibration of the SN\,Ia luminosity.\label{tab:03}}
3612: % ***********************************************
3613: \tablehead{
3614: % ***********************************************
3615: \colhead{SN} &
3616: \colhead{$m_{V}^{0}$} &
3617: \colhead{galaxy} &
3618: \colhead{$\mu_{\rm TRGB}^{0}$} &
3619: \colhead{group} &
3620: \colhead{$\langle \mu_{\rm TRGB}^{0}\rangle$} &
3621: \colhead{n} &
3622: \colhead{Ref.} &
3623: \colhead{$M_{V}^{0}$(SN\,Ia)}
3624: \\
3625: \colhead{(1)} &
3626: \colhead{(2)} &
3627: \colhead{(3)} &
3628: \colhead{(4)} &
3629: \colhead{(5)} &
3630: \colhead{(6)} &
3631: \colhead{(7)} &
3632: \colhead{(8)} &
3633: \colhead{(9)}
3634: }
3635: % ***********************************************
3636: \startdata
3637: % ***********************************************
3638: 1937C & 8.99 & IC\,4182 & 28.21 & CnV~II & 28.26 & 16 & 1 & $-19.22$ \\
3639: 1972E & 8.49 & NGC\,5253 & 27.89 & Cen\,A & 27.89 & 24 & 2 & $-19.40$ \\
3640: 1989B & 10.95 & NGC\,3627 & \nodata & Leo~I & 30.43 & 2 & 3 & $-19.48$ \\
3641: 1998bu & 11.04 & NGC\,3368 & \nodata & Leo~I & 30.43 & 2 & 3 & $-19.39$ \\
3642: \tableline
3643: \multicolumn{8}{l}{\bf mean} & \boldmath{$-19.37\pm0.06$}
3644: % ***********************************************
3645: \enddata
3646: % ***********************************************
3647: %
3648: \vspace*{-0.4cm}
3649: %
3650: \tablerefs{
3651: (1) \citealt{Sakai:etal:04}; \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07},
3652: (2) \citealt{Sakai:etal:04},
3653: (3) \citealt{Sakai:etal:04} for NGC\,3351; \citealt{Sakai:etal:97}
3654: for NGC\,3379.
3655: }
3656: % ***********************************************
3657: \end{deluxetable}
3658: % ******************************************************************
3659:
3660:
3661:
3662:
3663: % ******************************************************************
3664: % Table 4: Slopes of P-C relations in Galaxy, LMC, and SMC
3665: % ******************************************************************
3666: \begin{deluxetable}{cclcclcc}
3667: \tablewidth{0pt}
3668: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3669: \tablecaption{Slopes of P-C relations in Galaxy, LMC, and SMC. (Fits
3670: for $0.4\le \mbox{log} P \le 1.0$)\label{tab:04}}
3671: % ***********************************************
3672: \tablehead{
3673: % ***********************************************
3674: \colhead{} &
3675: \colhead{Galaxy} &
3676: \colhead{} &
3677: \colhead{LMC} &
3678: \colhead{$\Delta$} &
3679: \colhead{} &
3680: \colhead{SMC} &
3681: \colhead{$\Delta$}
3682: \\
3683: \cline{4-5}
3684: \cline{7-8}
3685: \colhead{(1)} &
3686: \colhead{(2)} &
3687: \colhead{} &
3688: \colhead{(3)} &
3689: \colhead{(4)} &
3690: \colhead{} &
3691: \colhead{(5)} &
3692: \colhead{(6)}
3693: }
3694: % ***********************************************
3695: \startdata
3696: % ***********************************************
3697: $(B\!-\!V)^{0}$ & $0.366\pm0.15$ && $0.273\pm0.024$ & $0.093\pm0.028$ &
3698: & $0.198\pm0.024$ & $0.168\pm0.028$ \\
3699: $(V\!-\!I)^{0}$ & $0.256\pm0.15$ && $0.160\pm0.022$ & $0.096\pm0.027$ &
3700: & $0.199\pm0.024$ & $0.057\pm0.027$ \\
3701: % ***********************************************
3702: \enddata
3703: % ***********************************************
3704: %
3705: % ***********************************************
3706: \end{deluxetable}
3707: % ******************************************************************
3708:
3709:
3710: \clearpage
3711:
3712: % ******************************************************************
3713: % Table 5: Metallicities and P-L slopes of nine galaxies
3714: % ******************************************************************
3715: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccl}
3716: \tablewidth{0pt}
3717: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3718: \tablecaption{Metallicities and P-L slopes of nine galaxies.\label{tab:05}}
3719: % **********************************************
3720: \tablehead{
3721: % **********************************************
3722: \colhead{Galaxy} &
3723: \colhead{[O/H]$_{\rm Te}$} &
3724: \colhead{slope $B$} &
3725: \colhead{slope $V$} &
3726: \colhead{slope $I$} &
3727: \colhead{error $V$} &
3728: \colhead{original source}
3729: }
3730: % **********************************************
3731: \startdata
3732: % **********************************************
3733: NGC\,3351 & 8.85 & \nodata & $-3.12$ & $-3.38$ & 0.39 & \citealt{Graham:etal:97} \\
3734: NGC\,4321 & 8.74 & \nodata & $-3.17$ & $-3.43$ & 0.34 & \citealt{Ferrarese:etal:96} \\
3735: M\,31 & 8.66 & $-2.55$ & $-2.92$ & \nodata & 0.21 & \citealt{Vilardell:etal:07} \\
3736: Galaxy & 8.60 & $-2.69$ & $-3.09$ & $-3.35$ & 0.09 & \citeauthor{STR:04} \\
3737: LMC\tablenotemark{1)} & 8.34 & $-2.34$ & $-2.70$ & $-2.94$ & 0.03 & \citealt{Udalski:etal:99a} \\
3738: NGC\,6822\tablenotemark{2)} & 8.14 & \nodata & $-2.49$ & $-2.81$ & 0.10 & \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:04} \\
3739: NGC\,3109 & 8.06 & \nodata & $-2.13$ & $-2.40$ & 0.18 & \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:06b} \\
3740: SMC$^{3)}$ & 7.98 & $-2.22$ & $-2.59$ & $-2.86$ & 0.05 & \citealt{Udalski:etal:99b} \\
3741: IC\,1613 & 7.86 & $-2.36$ & $-2.67$ & $-2.80$ & 0.12 & \citealt{Antonello:etal:06} \\
3742: WLM & 7.74 & \nodata & $-2.52$ & $-2.74$ & 0.15 & \citealt{Pietrzynski:etal:07} \\
3743: Sextans A+B & 7.52 & $-1.43$ & $-1.59$ & $-1.47$ & 0.39 & \citealt{Piotto:etal:94}
3744: % **********************************************
3745: \enddata
3746: % **********************************************
3747: %
3748: \vspace*{-0.3cm}
3749: %
3750: {\tablenotetext{1)}{Single-fit slope, neglecting the break at
3751: $P=10^{\rm d}$.}
3752: \tablenotetext{2)}{Because of large scatter the slope depends
3753: somewhat on the period cut-off; here $P\ge5.5^{\rm d}$.}
3754: \tablenotetext{3)}{Omitting Cepheids {\em below\/} $P=2.5^{\rm
3755: d}$.}}
3756: % **********************************************
3757: \end{deluxetable}
3758: % ******************************************************************
3759:
3760:
3761:
3762:
3763: % ******************************************************************
3764: % Table 6: The distance of LMC
3765: % ******************************************************************
3766: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}
3767: \tablewidth{0pt}
3768: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3769: \tablecaption{Distance of LMC from literature since 2002.\label{tab:06}}
3770: % **********************************************
3771: \tablehead{
3772: % **********************************************
3773: \colhead{Author(s)} &
3774: \colhead{$(m-M)^{0}$} &
3775: \colhead{Method}
3776: }
3777: % **********************************************
3778: \startdata
3779: % **********************************************
3780: \citealt{Fitzpatrick:etal:02} & $18.50\pm0.05$ & eclipsing binary HV982\\
3781: \citealt{Fouque:etal:03} & $18.55\pm0.04$ & BBW\\
3782: \citealt{Clausen:etal:03} & $18.63\pm0.08$ & eclipsing binaries\\
3783: \citealt{Clementini:etal:03a} & $18.52\pm0.09$ & review\\
3784: \citealt{Groenewegen:Salaris:03} & $18.58\pm0.08$ & main sequence of NGC1866\\
3785: \citealt{Salaris:etal:03} & $18.47\pm0.01$ & red-clump stars\\
3786: \citealt{Storm:etal:04} & $18.48\pm0.07$ & BBW\\
3787: \citealt{Feast:04} & $18.48\pm0.08$ & Miras\\
3788: \citealt{Dall'Ora:etal:04} & $18.52\pm0.03$ & semi-theoretical\\
3789: \citealt{Sakai:etal:04} & $18.59\pm0.09$ & TRGB\\
3790: \citealt{Alves:04} & $18.50\pm0.02$ & review\\
3791: \citealt{Panagia:05} & $18.56\pm0.05$ & SN1987A light echo\\
3792: \citealt{Gieren:etal:05b} & $18.53\pm0.06$ & BBW\\
3793: \citealt*{Sandage:Tammann:06} & $18.55\pm0.10$ & RR Lyr\\
3794: \citealt{Keller:Wood:06} & $18.54\pm0.02$ & bump Cepheids\\
3795: \citealt{Sollima:etal:06} & $18.54\pm0.15$ & RR Lyr in $K$ band\\
3796: \tableline
3797: {\bf mean} & \boldmath{$18.53_{4}\pm0.01_{1}$} &
3798: % **********************************************
3799: \enddata
3800: % **********************************************
3801: \end{deluxetable}
3802: % ******************************************************************
3803:
3804:
3805:
3806:
3807: % ******************************************************************
3808: % Table 7: The distance of SMC
3809: % ******************************************************************
3810: \begin{deluxetable}{lcl}
3811: \tablewidth{0pt}
3812: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3813: \tablecaption{The distance of SMC from literature since 2004.\label{tab:07}}
3814: % **********************************************
3815: \tablehead{
3816: % **********************************************
3817: \colhead{Author(s)} &
3818: \colhead{$(m-M)^{0}$} &
3819: \colhead{Method}
3820: }
3821: % **********************************************
3822: \startdata
3823: % **********************************************
3824: \citealt{Sakai:etal:04} & $18.96\pm0.10$ & TRGB\\
3825: \citealt{Storm:etal:04} & $18.88\pm0.14$ & BBW\\
3826: \citealt{Hilditch:etal:05} & $18.91\pm0.03$ & eclipsing binary\\
3827: \citealt*{Sandage:Tammann:06} & $18.96\pm0.10$ & RR Lyr\\
3828: \citealt{Keller:Wood:06} & $18.93\pm0.02$ & bump Cepheids\\
3829: \tableline
3830: {\bf mean} & \boldmath{$18.93\pm0.02$} &
3831: % **********************************************
3832: \enddata
3833: % **********************************************
3834: \end{deluxetable}
3835: % ******************************************************************
3836:
3837:
3838:
3839:
3840: % ******************************************************************
3841: % Table 8: Distance modulus corrections
3842: % ******************************************************************
3843: \begin{deluxetable}{clccccc}
3844: \tablewidth{0pt}
3845: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3846: \tablecaption{Distance modulus corrections to be applied to distances
3847: derived from the LMC P-L relations in $V$ and $I$ for any increase
3848: of the metallicity by $\Delta\mbox{[O/H]}=0.1$ from [O/H]$^{\rm
3849: LMC}_{\rm Te}=8.34$.\label{tab:08}}
3850: % **********************************************
3851: \tablehead{$\log P$ & & $0.50$ & $0.75$ & $1.00$ & $1.25$ & $1.50$}
3852: % **********************************************
3853: \startdata
3854: % **********************************************
3855: $\Delta\mu$ & & $-0.07$ & $-0.03$ & $+0.01$ & $+0.05$ & $+0.09$
3856: % **********************************************
3857: \enddata
3858: % **********************************************
3859: \end{deluxetable}
3860: % ******************************************************************
3861:
3862:
3863:
3864:
3865: % ******************************************************************
3866: % greater textheight for Table 9 to fit on one page
3867: \setlength\textheight{9.2in}%
3868: % ******************************************************************
3869: \clearpage
3870:
3871: % ******************************************************************
3872: % Table 9: Comparison of Cepheid and TRGB distances
3873: % ******************************************************************
3874: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
3875: \tablewidth{0pt}
3876: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
3877: \tablecaption{Comparison of the \citeauthor{STT:06} Cepheid
3878: distances$^{1)}$ with TRGB distances.\label{tab:09}}
3879: % ***********************************************
3880: \tablehead{
3881: % ***********************************************
3882: \colhead{Name} &
3883: \colhead{$\mu^{0}_{\rm Cep}$} &
3884: \colhead{$\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}$} &
3885: \colhead{Source} &
3886: \colhead{$\Delta$} &
3887: \colhead{$\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}$} &
3888: \colhead{$\Delta$} &
3889: \colhead{Source}
3890: \\
3891: & & \colhead{$M_{I}=-4.05$} & & & \colhead{(met. corr.)} & &
3892: \\
3893: \colhead{(1)} &
3894: \colhead{(2)} &
3895: \colhead{(3)} &
3896: \colhead{(4)} &
3897: \colhead{(5)} &
3898: \colhead{(6)} &
3899: \colhead{(7)} &
3900: \colhead{(8)}
3901: }
3902: % ***********************************************
3903: \startdata
3904: % ***********************************************
3905: NGC\,55 & 26.41 & 26.64 & a,b & $-0.23$ & \nodata & \nodata & \\
3906: NGC\,224 & 24.54 & 24.46 & c,d & $+0.08$ & 24.37 & $+0.17$ & 1 \\
3907: NGC\,300 & 26.48 & 26.56 & d & $-0.08$ & 26.48 & $+0.00$ & 1 \\
3908: NGC\,598 & 24.64 & 24.66 & c,d & $-0.02$ & 24.71 & $-0.07$ & 1 \\
3909: NGC\,2403 & 27.43 &(27.62)& e &($-0.19$)& \nodata & \nodata & \\
3910: NGC\,3031 & 27.80 & 27.80 & d & $+0.00$ & 27.70 & $+0.10$ & 1 \\
3911: NGC\,3109 & 25.45 & 25.54 & d & $-0.09$ & 25.57 & $-0.12$ & 1 \\
3912: NGC\,3351 & 30.10 & 30.23 & d,f & $-0.13$ & 29.92 & $+0.18$ & 1 \\
3913: NGC\,3621 & 29.30 & 29.27 & d & $+0.03$ & 29.26 & $+0.04$ & 1 \\
3914: NGC\,4258 & 29.50 & 29.32 & g,h & $+0.18$ & 29.37 & $+0.13$ & 2,3 \\
3915: NGC\,5128 & 27.67 & 27.89 & i,j & $-0.22$ & 27.90 & $-0.23$ & 4 \\
3916: NGC\,5236 & 28.32 & 28.56 & k & $-0.24$ & \nodata & \nodata & \\
3917: NGC\,5253 & 28.05 & 27.89 & f & $+0.16$ & \nodata & \nodata & \\
3918: NGC\,5457 & 29.17 & 29.39 & d,f & $-0.22$ & 29.34 & $-0.17$ & 1 \\
3919: NGC\,6822 & 23.31 & 23.37 & f & $-0.09$ & 23.37 & $-0.06$ & 5 \\
3920: IC\,1613 & 24.32 & 24.33 & d & $-0.01$ & 24.38 & $-0.06$ & 1 \\
3921: IC\,4182 & 28.21 & 28.19 & d & $+0.02$ & 28.23 & $-0.02$ & 1 \\
3922: WLM & 24.82 & 24.87 & c,d & $-0.05$ & 24.93 & $-0.11$ & 1 \\
3923: \tableline
3924: {\bf mean} & & & &
3925: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\boldmath{$-0.05\pm0.03$}} &
3926: \multicolumn{2}{l}{\boldmath{$-0.02\pm0.03$}} \\
3927: & & & &
3928: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\sigma=0.13,\,N=17$} &
3929: \multicolumn{2}{l}{$\sigma=0.13,\,N=14$}
3930: % ***********************************************
3931: \enddata
3932: % ***********************************************
3933: \tablenotetext{1)}{Added are here NGC\,55, IC\,1613, and WLM from \S~\ref{sec:03:3}.}
3934: \tablenotetext{\,}{References to $\mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}$:
3935: (a) \citealt{Seth:etal:05};
3936: (b) \citealt{Tully:etal:06};
3937: (c) \citealt{McConnachie:etal:05};
3938: (d) \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07};
3939: (e) mean distance of 6 group members;
3940: (f) \citealt{Sakai:etal:04};
3941: (g) \citealt{Mouhcine:etal:05};
3942: (h) \citealt{Macri:etal:06};
3943: (i) \citealt{Rejkuba:etal:05};
3944: (j) \citealt{Karataeva:etal:06}
3945: (k) \citealt{Karachentsev:etal:07}
3946: }
3947: \tablenotetext{\,}{References to metallicity-corrected $\mu^{0}_{\rm
3948: TRGB}$:
3949: (1) \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07};
3950: (2) \citealt{Macri:etal:06};
3951: (3) \citealt{Mouhcine:etal:05};
3952: (4) \citealt{Ferrarese:etal:07};
3953: (5) \citealt{Sakai:etal:04}.
3954: Some additional distances:} % TODO: newline
3955: % \tablenotetext{\,}{Some additional distances:}
3956: \tablenotetext{\,}{
3957: NGC\,224 ~~ $\mu^{0}=24.44\pm0.12$ from an eclipsing binary
3958: \citep{Ribas:etal:05}}
3959: \tablenotetext{\,}{
3960: NGC\,300 ~~ $\mu^{0}=26.41$ from $VIJK$ photometry of Cepheids and
3961: assuming $\mu^{0}_{\rm LMC}=18.54$ \citep{Gieren:etal:05a}}
3962: \tablenotetext{\,}{
3963: NGC\,598 ~~ $\mu^{0}=24.92\pm0.12$ from an eclipsing binary
3964: \citep{Bonanos:etal:06}}
3965: \tablenotetext{\,}{
3966: NGC\,4258 ~ $\mu^{0}=29.29\pm0.08\pm0.07$ from water maser
3967: \citep{Herrnstein:etal:99}}
3968: \tablenotetext{\,}{
3969: NGC\,6822 ~ $\mu^{0}=23.35$ from $VIJK$ photometry of Cepheids and
3970: assuming $\mu^{0}_{\rm LMC}=18.54$
3971: \citep{Gieren:etal:06}}
3972: % ***********************************************
3973: \end{deluxetable}
3974: % ******************************************************************
3975: % ******************************************************************
3976: % RESET greater textheight
3977: \setlength\textheight{8.4in}%
3978: % ******************************************************************
3979:
3980:
3981: \clearpage
3982:
3983: % ******************************************************************
3984: % *********** Figures ***********
3985: % ******************************************************************
3986:
3987:
3988: % ******************************************************************
3989: % Figure 1: M_I^TRGB versus [Fe/H]
3990: % ******************************************************************
3991: \begin{figure}[t]
3992: \epsscale{0.6}
3993: \plotone{f1.eps}
3994: \caption{Absolute TRGB magnitudes $M_{I}^{\rm TRGB}$, as
3995: determined from the difference of the apparent TRGB magnitude and
3996: the RR\,Lyr star distance, in function of the color $(V\!-\!I)$ and
3997: metallicities of the TRGB. The corresponding metallicities are
3998: given at the upper edge of the figure (see text).
3999: Note that bluewards of $(V\!-\!I)=1.4$ the color becomes
4000: insensitive to metallicity. The six late-type galaxies are shown as
4001: triangles. The five independent calibrators of
4002: \citet{Rizzi:etal:07} are shown as open symbols.
4003: Semi-theoretical predictions of the dependence of $M^{\rm
4004: TRGB}_{I}$ on metallicity of three different groups are
4005: drawn; they are normalized to $M^{\rm TRGB}_{I}=-4.05$ at
4006: $(V\!-\!I)=1.6$
4007: (\citealt{Salaris:Cassisi:98}, eq.~(5): dashed;
4008: \citealt{Bellazzini:etal:04a}: dashed-dotted;
4009: \citealt{Rizzi:etal:07}: dotted).}
4010: \label{fig:01}
4011: \end{figure}
4012: % ******************************************************************
4013:
4014:
4015: % ******************************************************************
4016: % Figure 2: P-L relation - NGC 4321 + 3351 (+ Galaxy)
4017: % ******************************************************************
4018: \begin{figure}[t]
4019: \plotone{f2.eps}
4020: \caption{P-L relation in $V$ of metal-rich Cepheids in the
4021: Galaxy ({\em circles}), NGC\,4321 ($\times$), and NGC\,3351
4022: ({\em crosses}). The latter two galaxies define a slope in good
4023: agreement with the Galaxy ({\em dotted line}). For comparison the
4024: LMC P-L relation for $\log P>1.0$ is shown as a dashed line.}
4025: \label{fig:02}
4026: \end{figure}
4027: % ******************************************************************
4028:
4029:
4030: % ******************************************************************
4031: % Figure 3: LMC+SMC ridge line P-L relation
4032: % ******************************************************************
4033: \begin{figure}[t]
4034: \epsscale{0.9}
4035: \plotone{f3.eps}
4036: \caption{Left panel: Ridge line P-L relation in $V$ for
4037: LMC. The break at $\log P=1.0$ is highly significant.
4038: Right panel: Ridge line P-L relation in $V$ for SMC
4039: omitting Cepheids with $\log P<0.4$. The dashed lines are the
4040: extrapolations of the P-L relation of the Cepheids with
4041: $\log P<1.0$.}
4042: \label{fig:03}
4043: \end{figure}
4044: % ******************************************************************
4045:
4046:
4047: % ******************************************************************
4048: % Figure 4: The slope of the P-L relation in function of [O/H]
4049: % ******************************************************************
4050: \begin{figure}[t]
4051: \epsscale{0.6}
4052: \plotone{f4.eps}
4053: \caption{Slope of various P-L relations in $V$ in function of the
4054: metallicity [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$. Open circles are the
4055: means of seven galaxies each from \citeauthor{STT:06} (Fig.~10).}
4056: \label{fig:04}
4057: \end{figure}
4058: % ******************************************************************
4059:
4060:
4061: % ******************************************************************
4062: % Figure 5: Delta mu=mu_Cep - mu_TRGB versus [O/H]
4063: % ******************************************************************
4064: \begin{figure}[t]
4065: \plotone{f5.eps}
4066: \caption{Difference $\Delta\mu^{0}=\mu^{0}_{\rm Cep} -
4067: \mu^{0}_{\rm TRGB}$ in function of [O/H]$_{\rm Te}$ for the Cepheids.}
4068: \label{fig:05}
4069: \end{figure}
4070: % ******************************************************************
4071:
4072:
4073: % ******************************************************************
4074: % Figure 6: M_SN versus [O/H]
4075: % ******************************************************************
4076: \begin{figure}[t]
4077: \plotone{f6.eps}
4078: \caption{Luminosity of SNe\,Ia in function of the metallicity of
4079: the Cepheids which led to the distance of the parent galaxy.}
4080: \label{fig:06}
4081: \end{figure}
4082: % ******************************************************************
4083:
4084:
4085: % ******************************************************************
4086: % Figure 7: The difference of DeltaM = mu_Cep - mu_velocity
4087: % ******************************************************************
4088: \begin{figure}[t]
4089: \plotone{f7.eps}
4090: \caption{Difference of $\Delta \mu = \mu^{0}_{\rm Cep} -
4091: \mu^{0}_{\rm velocity}$.}
4092: \label{fig:07}
4093: \end{figure}
4094: % ******************************************************************
4095:
4096:
4097: % ******************************************************************
4098: % Figure 8: Masters et al. 2006 [Fornax]
4099: % ******************************************************************
4100: \begin{figure}[t]
4101: \plotone{f8.eps}
4102: \caption{Hubble diagram of 32 clusters with {\em relative\/}
4103: 21cm line width distances from \citet{Masters:etal:06}. The
4104: zero point is arbitrarily set at the Fornax cluster. Note the
4105: spurious break of the Hubble line (see text).}
4106: \label{fig:08}
4107: \end{figure}
4108: % ******************************************************************
4109:
4110:
4111: % ******************************************************************
4112: % Figure 9: Local Hubble diagram (4x)
4113: % ******************************************************************
4114: \begin{figure}[t]
4115: \epsscale{0.75}
4116: \plotone{f9.eps}
4117: \caption{Distance-calibrated Hubble diagrams for a) TRGB distances;
4118: the M\,81, Cen\,A, and IC\,342 groups are shown as squares at their
4119: mean position;
4120: b) Cepheid distances (the Virgo und Fornax cluster members are
4121: plotted at $v_{220}=1152$ and $1371\kms$, respectively); c)
4122: 21cm line width distances of a complete sample of field galaxies
4123: with $v_{220}<1000\kms$; the Virgo cluster and the UMa cluster (at
4124: $v_{220}=1236\kms$) are also shown; d) SN\,Ia distances with
4125: $v_{220}<2000\kms$; the dashed line is the downwards extension of
4126: the Hubble line defined by 62 SNe\,Ia with $3000<v_{\rm
4127: CMB}<20,000\kms$ and reflecting the large-scale value of $H_{0}$
4128: (from \citeauthor{STS:06}). Triangles denote cluster
4129: members. Open symbols are objects with
4130: $\mu^{0}<28.2$ or in c) with $v_{220}<200\kms$ and a few deviating
4131: objects (identified); open symbols are not considered for the
4132: solution.}
4133: \label{fig:09}
4134: \end{figure}
4135: % ******************************************************************
4136:
4137:
4138: % ******************************************************************
4139: \end{document}
4140: % ******************************************************************
4141: % *********** end of ms.tex ***********
4142: % ******************************************************************
4143:
4144: