1: 

2: %\documentclass[preprint]{aastex}

3: \documentclass[apj]{emulateapj}

4: \usepackage{epsfig}

5: 

6: %units

7: \newcommand{\erg}{\,\mbox{erg}}

8: \newcommand{\cm}{\,\mbox{cm}}

9: \newcommand{\s}{\,\mbox{s}}

10: \newcommand{\yr}{\,\mbox{yr}}

11: \newcommand{\Myr}{\,\mbox{Myr}}

12: \newcommand{\Gyr}{\,\mbox{Gyr}}

13: \newcommand{\Mpc}{\,\mbox{Mpc}}

14: \newcommand{\kpc}{\,\mbox{kpc}}

15: \newcommand{\kms}{\,\mbox{km}\,\mbox{s}^{-1}}

16: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\,L_{\sun}}

17: \newcommand{\Msun}{\,M_{\sun}}

18: \newcommand{\msun}{\,M_{\sun}}

19: \newcommand{\degree}{^\circ}

20: \newcommand{\amin}{\,\mbox{arcmin}}

21: \newcommand{\dex}{\,\mbox{dex}}

22: %other commands

23: \newcommand{\tsim}{\sim\!}

24: \newcommand{\ea}{et al.}

25: \newcommand{\metals}{[\mbox{Fe}/\mbox{H}]}

26: %for emulateapj

27: \slugcomment{Submitted to Astrophysical Journal Letters}

28: \shorttitle{Was the Andromeda Stream Produced by a Disk Galaxy?}

29: \shortauthors{Fardal et al.}

30: 

31: \defcitealias{fardal06}{F06}

32: \defcitealias{fardal07}{F07}

33: \defcitealias{gilbert07}{G07}

34: \defcitealias{ibata07}{I07}

35: 

36: \begin{document}

37: \title

38:   {Was the Andromeda Stream Produced by a Disk Galaxy?}

39: \author{Mark A. Fardal\altaffilmark{1,2,3},

40: Arif Babul\altaffilmark{3},

41: Puragra Guhathakurta\altaffilmark{2},

42: Karoline M. Gilbert\altaffilmark{2},

43: Cara Dodge\altaffilmark{1,4}}

44: \altaffiltext{1}{

45:   Dept.\ of Astronomy, University of Massachusetts, 

46:   Amherst, MA 01003, USA}

47: \altaffiltext{2}{

48:   UCO/Lick Observatory, Dept.\ of Astronomy \& Astrophysics,

49:   Univ.\ of California, 1156 High St., Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA}

50: \altaffiltext{3}{

51:   Dept.\ of Physics \& Astronomy, University of Victoria, 

52:   Elliott Building, 3800 Finnerty Rd., Victoria, BC, V8P 1A1, Canada}

53: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomy Department, Smith College, Clark Science Center,

54:         Northampton, MA 01060, USA}

55: \email{fardal@astro.umass.edu}

56: 

57: \begin{abstract}

58: The halo region of M31 exhibits a startling level of stellar

59: inhomogeneities, the most prominent of which is the ``giant southern

60: stream''.  Our previous analysis indicates that this stream, as well

61: as several other observed features, are products of the tidal

62: disruption of a {\it single\/} satellite galaxy with stellar mass $\tsim

63: 10^9 \msun$ less than 1~Gyr ago.  Here we show that the specific

64: observed morphology of the stream and halo debris favors

65: a cold, rotating, disk-like progenitor over a dynamically hot,

66: non-rotating one.  These observed characteristics include the

67: asymmetric distribution of stars along the stream cross-section and

68: its metal-rich core/metal-poor sheath structure.  We

69: find that a disk-like progenitor can also give rise to arc-like

70: features on the minor axis at certain orbital phases that resemble

71: the recently discovered minor-axis ``streams'', even

72: reproducing the lower observed metallicity of these streams.  Though

73: interpreted by the discoverers as new, independent tidal streams,

74: our analysis suggests 

75: that these minor-axis streams may alternatively arise from the progenitor

76: of the giant southern stream.  

77: Overall, our study points the way to a more complete reconstruction of

78: the stream progenitor and its merger with M31, based on the emerging

79: picture that most of the major inhomogeneities observed in the M31

80: halo share a common origin with the giant stream.

81: \end{abstract}

82: \keywords{galaxies: M31 -- galaxies: interactions -- 

83: galaxies: kinematics and dynamics}  %apj

84: 

85: \section{INTRODUCTION}

86: The relative proximity of the Andromeda galaxy (M31) and the global perspective

87: from our external vantage point 

88: make M31 an excellent laboratory for studying the

89: stellar halos of large galaxies.  Resolved

90: stellar maps of M31's halo, assembled over the past decade, have revealed

91: highly complex inhomogeneities, the most striking

92: %

93: of which is the Giant Southern Stream (GSS), extending

94: $\tsim 150 \kpc$ away from

95: M31's center in the southeast direction \citep[][hereafter I07]{ibata01,

96: ferguson02,mcconnachie03,ibata07} and falling towards M31's center

97: with relative radial velocities as high as $\tsim 250 \kms$

98: \citep{ibata04,raja06,kalirai06}.

99: Other significant morphological and kinematic features

100: in the M31 halo include stellar shelves \citep[][hereafter

101: \citetalias{fardal07}/\citetalias{gilbert07}]{ferguson02,fardal07,gilbert07}

102: as well as the recently discovered minor axis ``streams''

103: \citepalias{ibata07}.  The GSS is

104: especially notable because it offers an opportunity to

105: precisely measure M31's potential

106: \citep[][hereafter \citetalias{fardal06}]{ibata04,fardal06} and provides a view

107: into the most significant Local Group galaxy disruption in the last Gyr.

108: 

109: %\begin{figure*}[h!]

110: \begin{figure*}[t!]

111: \begin{center}

112: \includegraphics[bb=5 0 535 348, width=6.5in]{f1.eps}   %emulateapj

113: %\plotone{f1.eps}  %aastex

114: \caption{

115: \label{fig.skymaps}

116: (a): Stellar surface density/metallicity map of M31 from

117: \citetalias{ibata07}.

118: The shallower INT/WFC survey is used inside the large ellipse,

119: and the deeper CFHT/MegaCam survey outside it.

120: The minor-axis ``streams'' C and D are visible at the lower left,

121: projecting from the larger plume of the GSS.

122: %

123: These streams (green) and the GSS cocoon (red) are observed to be more

124: metal poor than the GSS core (yellow).

125: (b): Mass surface density map from model Disk~A,

126: 840~Myr into the run.  The map is 160~kpc on a side, and a

127: dotted contour indicates M31's disk orientation.

128: The square indicates the region shown in Figure~\ref{fig.fieldbars}.

129: (c): Same for model Disk~B, at 680~Myr.

130: (d): Same for the Plummer model, at 840~Myr.

131: (e): Map of the metallicity as a function of position

132: in Disk~A (at 840~Myr), with red denoting the highest metallicity,

133: dark blue intermediate, and light blue the lowest (see 

134: Figure~\ref{fig.metals}a for a quantitative scale).

135: Boxes indicate the regions used for the metallicity

136: histograms in Figure~\ref{fig.metals}. 

137: (f): Same for Disk~B (at 680~Myr).

138: }

139: \end{center}

140: \end{figure*}

141: 

142: Models detailing the formation of the GSS agree remarkably well 

143: with most aspects of the observations, and suggest

144: the progenitor had a stellar mass of

145: %

146: $\tsim 2 \times 10^9 \msun$ \citep[][\citetalias{fardal06};

147: \citetalias{fardal07}]{font06}.  

148: Our kinematic analysis in F07 finds that seemingly unrelated features 

149: like the ``Northeast Shelf'' and less prominent ``Western Shelf'' are also the

150: result of the same disruption process \citepalias{fardal07}, a conclusion

151: supported by independent studies of their stellar populations 

152: \citep{ferguson05,richardson08}.  The observed

153: GSS's most striking point of contrast with the models is its

154: asymmetry in the transverse direction.  As shown both with photometric

155: samples \citep{mcconnachie03} and spectroscopic surveys

156: \citepalias{gilbert07}, its stellar distribution is sharply truncated on

157: the NE side and falls off much more slowly on the SW side.  In

158: addition, the current models do not address the

159: observed stellar population gradients within the GSS

160: \citep[][I07]{ferguson02,mcconthesis06}.

161: 

162: In this letter, we show that this structure in the GSS can be

163: accounted for if the progenitor hosted a cold, rotating stellar disk,

164: unlike the simple spherical progenitors used in previous simulations.

165: Surprisingly, we find that the disruption of a disk galaxy can also

166: give rise to features similar to the recently discovered arc-like

167: minor-axis ``streams'', leading to the tantalizing

168: possibility that most of the major inhomogeneities observed in the M31

169: halo are tidal debris from the same galaxy that caused the GSS.

170: In Section 2, we briefly describe our model for the progenitor and

171: our $N$-body study of its tidal disruption.  In Section 3, we

172: show results from these simulations, focusing on the transverse

173: density profile of the GSS, the metallicity gradient, and arc-like

174: structures that overlap the minor axis.  Section 4 summarizes our

175: conclusions.

176: 

177: \section{SIMULATION METHOD}

178: Our simulations are based on the methods worked out in our earlier papers:

179: \citet{geehan06}, \citetalias{fardal06}, and \citetalias{fardal07}.  We use

180: the orbit and potential from Table~1 of \citetalias{fardal07} and their

181: spherical Plummer model to represent a non-rotating

182: progenitor.  For runs with a disk progenitor, we use the same initial

183: position and velocity, but substitute a different initial structure

184: of the satellite.

185: 

186: Briefly, our disk models assume the satellite is composed of a bulge

187: and rotating disk of stars.  For simplicity we assume that the dark

188: matter associated with the galaxy has been tidally stripped before the

189: encounter modeled here.  We use a hot exponential $\mbox{sech}^2$ disk

190: with mass $1.8 \times 10^9 \msun$, radial scale length $0.8 \kpc$, and

191: vertical scale height $0.4 \kpc$.  We add to this a Hernquist bulge of

192: mass $4 \times 10^8 \msun$ and scale length $0.4 \kpc$.  We initialize

193: both components with the package ZENO written by Josh Barnes.  We

194: evolve the satellite in M31's potential starting from 12 evenly spaced

195: orientations of the disk.  From this we select two models displaying

196: particularly good agreement with observational features, referred to

197: here as Disks~A and B.  In a forthcoming paper we will conduct a more

198: systematic survey of possible initial conditions and quantify the

199: debris structure in detail (Fardal \ea, in preparation).

200: 

201: The remaining details of the simulations are the same as those in

202: \citetalias{fardal06} and \citetalias{fardal07}.  We set the satellite

203: in motion inbound and slightly past apocenter, minimizing initial

204: transients from M31's tidal forces.  We run the simulations with the

205: multistepping tree code PKDGRAV \citep{stadel01}.  Our simulations

206: include the self-gravity of the progenitor satellite, but ignore

207: dynamical friction, perturbations from the other M31 satellites,

208: and the history of the progenitor prior to the orbit that produces the

209: GSS, as justified in our earlier papers.  We stop

210: the simulations 840~Myr into the run, which is

211: approximately 650~Myr past the initial pericenter.  This time was

212: chosen in \citetalias{fardal07} to give a reasonable match to the

213: debris structure around M31, including the radii of the ``shells'' on

214: the E and W sides.

215: 

216: \section{RESULTS}

217: \subsection{Stream morphology}

218: Figures~\ref{fig.skymaps}b,d show surface density maps based

219: on the Disk~A and Plummer models, respectively.

220: %and the observed surface density of red RGB stars in M31.

221: Both models reproduce the main feature of a stream extending

222: to the SE.  They also reproduce the observed line-of-sight distances and

223: velocities along the GSS.

224: However, the transverse distribution of GSS stars is strikingly different

225: between the two models---Disk~A displays a much sharper NE edge.

226: %

227: The observed star-count maps \citep[][\citetalias{ibata07}]{ferguson02} 

228: are not directly comparable since they contain both non-GSS-related 

229: M31 components and non-M31 contaminants and are not explicitly calibrated 

230: to stellar surface density, but the morphology of the GSS in these 

231: maps appears much closer to our disk model.

232: 

233: \begin{figure}[ht!]

234: \includegraphics[width=3.0in]{f2.eps}   %emulateapj

235: %\epsscale{0.6}  %aastex

236: %\plotone{f2.eps}  %aastex

237: \caption{

238: \label{fig.fieldbars}

239: Comparison of the minor-axis contamination to the observations of 

240: \citetalias{gilbert07}.

241: The \citetalias{gilbert07} DEIMOS masks (rectangles) are grouped into

242: inner minor-axis masks, outer minor-axis masks, and a single

243: mask (f135) offset from the minor axis.  

244: M31's center is at (0,\,0).

245: The inset plots for each group show the 

246: ratio $R_m$ of the strength of the GSS component 

247: to the peak of the GSS at the same $R_{\rm proj}$.  

248: $R_m$ is measured as discussed in the text

249: for Disks A and B and the Plummer model 840~Myr into the runs.  The observational 

250: estimates and $\pm2\sigma$ error bars from Gilbert \ea\ (in preparation) are 

251: plotted as horizontal solid and dotted lines.  The Plummer model 

252: clearly contributes too much debris on the minor axis.

253: }

254: %\epsscale{1.0}  %aastex

255: \end{figure}

256: 

257: Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}d shows that the Plummer model results in a

258: large amount of stars spilling over as far as the SE minor axis,

259: located to the NE of the GSS.  When \citetalias{gilbert07} compared

260: their Keck/DEIMOS spectroscopic data near M31's SE minor axis to this model,

261: they noted much less spillover from the GSS than predicted by

262: the model.  Gilbert \ea\ (in preparation) has quantified this by dividing the

263: number of stars moving with GSS-like velocities on the minor axis to

264: those in the GSS core at the same projected radius $R_{\rm proj}$.  For the nine

265: innermost DEIMOS masks on the minor axis combined, 

266: this ratio $R_m = 0.01 \pm 0.02$; for

267: the three outermost masks on the minor axis, $R_m = 0.05 \pm 0.02$; and

268: for the mask f135 located somewhat nearer the GSS, they find a

269: likely detection of GSS material with $R_m = 0.17 \pm 0.06$.  

270: 

271: In Figure~\ref{fig.fieldbars}, we compare the density of GSS

272: stars in all three $N$-body models to these results.  We have selected

273: ``GSS'' particles by defining the trend of radial velocity $v$ with

274: $R_{\rm proj}$ and then taking stars that fall within

275: $\pm 80 \kms$ of this velocity in the given field.  We also restrict

276: the particles to those actually in the GSS's ``shell''. 

277: We then repeat the procedure for a control field

278: located at the peak of the GSS at the same $R_{\rm proj}$, using

279: a smaller interval $\pm 40 \kms$ as the GSS core has a sharper

280: velocity distribution.  Clearly

281: the two disk models are in better accord with the observations than the

282: Plummer model.

283: 

284: The sharper NE edge and smaller minor-axis contamination of the disk

285: models thus imply that the progenitor was rapidly rotating.  We will

286: explore this argument in more detail in Fardal \ea\ (2008, in preparation).

287: 

288: \subsection{Metallicity pattern}

289: \begin{figure*}[ht!]

290: \begin{center}

291: \includegraphics[bb=10 0 537 177, width=6.5in]{f3.eps}   %emulateapj

292: %\plotone{f3.eps}  %aastex

293: \caption{

294: \label{fig.metals}

295: (a): Metallicity values in the original disk prior to disruption

296: are shown by black dots, where the radius is plotted in units 

297: of disk scale length.

298: For comparison, observed results for M33's disk stars are plotted as 

299: symbols and lines: 

300: \citet{stephens02} (square);

301: linear approximation to points of \citet{kim02} (straight line);

302: \citet{galleti04} (diamonds);

303: \citet{mcconnachie06} (cross);

304: \citet{barker07} (triangles).

305: The colorbar translates $\metals$ to the color scale of 

306: Figures~\ref{fig.skymaps}ef.

307: (b): Histogram of particle metallicity values in model Disk~A within the 

308: ``core'' and ``cocoon'' regions marked in Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}e.  

309: (c): Histogram of particle metallicity values in model Disk~B within the 

310: ``core'', ``cocoon'', ``N arc'', and ``S arc'' regions

311: marked in Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}f.  

312: }

313: \end{center}

314: \end{figure*}

315: 

316: The mean color of GSS RGB stars is observed to vary

317: in the transverse direction: the GSS is significantly broader

318: in blue than in red stars \citep{ferguson02,mcconthesis06}.  This

319: is probably due to a metallicity gradient.  \citetalias{ibata07} quantified

320: the metallicity distribution in two GSS-dominated regions, one in

321: the center of the GSS and one in a less dense ``cocoon'' region to

322: the SW, and showed that the latter has a lower mean

323: metallicity.

324: 

325: Disk galaxies, of course, tend to

326: have metallicity gradients.  Therefore it is interesting to see how a

327: plausible gradient in our disk progenitor translates to the

328: metallicity pattern on the sky.

329: 

330: We use a simple parametric model to produce a plausible metallicity

331: gradient in our initial disk model.  We first find the specific

332: orbital energy $E_i$ of each particle.  We then assign it

333: a metallicity using

334: %\begin{equation}

335: $\metals = A_Z + B_Z \, \log_{10} \left[ -E_i/(50 \kms)^2 \right]$,

336: %\end{equation}.  

337: setting $A_Z$ and $B_Z$ to agree with the results of \citetalias{ibata07}

338: as explained below.  This produces the metallicity gradient seen in

339: Figure~\ref{fig.metals}a.  Observational results for the stars in the

340: small disk galaxy M33 are also plotted, with the radius for both

341: galaxies normalized by the disk scale length; the metallicity pattern

342: of our disk model agrees quite well.  The GSS progenitor should

343: perhaps be lower in metallicity than M33 by a few tenths of dex due to

344: its lower inferred mass, but the photometric metallicity measurements

345: probably have systematic uncertainties at this level in any case.

346: 

347: Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}e shows the sky view of the resulting

348: model metallicity pattern.  The gradient along the stream

349: is very weak, but the mean metallicity along the denser central part

350: is clearly higher than in the broad wing to the SW, similar to the

351: pattern seen in M31's GSS.  Using

352: \citetalias{ibata07}'s Figure~27,

353: we estimate the ``core'' and ``cocoon'' regions (at $R_{\rm proj}\sim60$~kpc)

354: have mean

355: metallicities of $\metals = -0.54$ and $-0.71$, respectively (mean

356: $\metals=-0.51$ was obtained at the GSS' sharp NE edge

357: by \citealp{raja06}).  Figure \ref{fig.skymaps}e shows ``broad wing''

358: and ``central GSS'' boxes chosen at a similar radius, but better

359: matching the slightly different model stream position.  Once we set $A_Z =

360: -0.70$ and $B_Z = 1.06$, the metallicities in these boxes are also

361: $-0.54$ and $-0.71$.  

362: The bare fact we can match two metallicities with two parameters is

363: not in itself meaningful, but it is significant that the magnitude

364: {\em and sign} of our initial metal gradient are very reasonable

365: (Fig.~\ref{fig.metals}a).

366: Figure~\ref{fig.metals}b shows that within each box there is a wide

367: range of metallicities; the distributions in \citetalias{ibata07}

368: appear somewhat broader, but given measurement errors and the

369: contributions from other halo components this is not surprising.

370: 

371: \subsection{Minor-axis arcs}

372: Using their MegaCam photometric survey of M31's halo, \citetalias{ibata07}

373: found multiple surface density ridges 

374: along the minor axis which they called ``streams''.

375: Streams C and D (the two closest to M31) form a pair

376: of curving ridges at slightly different orientations, which appear to

377: merge as they approach the survey boundary (see their Fig.~22).

378: Stream C appears to be slightly broader than stream D, and slightly

379: more metal-rich, though not as metal-rich as the GSS core/cocoon.

380: From I07's Figure~33 we estimate the mean metallicity of

381: streams C and D to be $-0.82$ and $-0.91$ respectively.

382: \citet{mori08} suggested these ``streams'' might be shell features 

383: from a satellite disruption, similar to the event

384: that created the GSS but from a different progenitor.

385: 

386: While studying our overall sample of runs based on 12 disk orientations, we

387: noticed one (Disk~B) containing two curious ``arcs'' crossing the minor axis.

388: These arcs are clearest at the step 680~Myr into the

389: run shown in Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}c.  Morphologically, the two arcs somewhat

390: resemble streams C and D, with a fatter southern arc nearly merging

391: into a sharper northern arc.  Like the observed ``streams'', neither

392: arc crosses the GSS to the SW.  Compared to the observed arcs, the

393: simulated arcs are significantly further from M31's center.  

394: 

395: As Figure~\ref{fig.skymaps}f shows, the simulated arcs are significantly

396: less rich in metals than the GSS.  Using the same metallicity

397: model as for Disk~A and the regions defined by boxes in this figure,

398: the mean $\metals$ is $-0.78$ for the southern arc and $-0.90$ for the

399: northern arc.  Thus there is considerable if inconclusive evidence

400: that these arcs are close analogues of the ``streams'' in

401: \citetalias{ibata07}.

402: 

403: In our model, these two arcs originate from the outer regions of

404: the disk, and are sharp mainly because of the relatively cold velocity

405: field of the disk.  Both arcs consist of material that takes a path

406: around M31's center nearly opposite to the bulk of the progenitor,

407: explaining why they lie so far from the GSS.  The large size

408: of our disk is thus crucial; a compact progenitor

409: resembling M32, for example, would be unable to produce similar arcs.

410: The southern arc consists of a group of particles sharing nearly the same

411: energy, and come from fairly far out in the progenitor's disk.  The

412: northern arc consists of particles that lie even further out (explaining

413: its lower metallicity on average), which form a tidal tail during the

414: interaction with M31.

415: 

416: We cannot yet explore the full parameter space of the collision for

417: the presence and properties of these arc-like features. However, we

418: did conduct a few additional runs with changes to the disk mass,

419: radius, and orientation of Disk B, finding the arcs were sensitive to

420: the exact input parameters.  Thus we will require more theoretical

421: investigation as well as more observational constraints to determine

422: whether the arcs explain some of the \citetalias{ibata07} minor-axis

423: streams, or are merely a fortuitous similarity.

424: If the arcs are shown to be related

425: to the GSS, they will be a very solid argument for the disk nature of

426: the progenitor, and will place strong constraints on the parameters of

427: the collision.

428: 

429: \section{CONCLUSIONS}

430: In summary, several strands of observational evidence suggest that the

431: GSS originated from a progenitor with a strong sense of rotation, such

432: as a disk galaxy.  The transverse density

433: profile of the GSS is more easily produced by a rotating

434: satellite.  The observed decline in mean metallicity from the central core

435: of the GSS to its ``cocoon'' to the SW suggests that the progenitor had a

436: strong radial metallicity gradient, of the sort found mainly in disk

437: galaxies.

438: Furthermore, several observed arcs lying across the minor axis in M31

439: have very suggestive analogues in one of our runs.  If shown to be

440: related to the GSS in the manner suggested by our model, these

441: features would be definite confirmation of a disk-like progenitor.

442: 

443: The notion of a disk galaxy progenitor is somewhat at odds with age

444: measurements of the GSS, which suggests little star formation

445: during the last 4 Gyr \citep{brown06a,brown06b}.  However,

446: the fields used to infer this were placed in the central, metal-rich part of the

447: GSS; it is possible that the progenitor had an age gradient as well

448: as a metallicity gradient, with the older stars on the inside.

449: Age measurements in the GSS cocoon would therefore be

450: interesting.  It is also possible that the GSS progenitor was more similar 

451: to an S0 galaxy than a spiral, perhaps due to stripping of its

452: gas in an earlier phase of its encounter with M31.

453: 

454: Many papers have used metallicity to assess

455: the relationship among various M31 disk and halo features.  Our

456: suggestion that the GSS progenitor had a strong metallicity gradient

457: means that metallicity can no longer be used as a

458: reliable fingerprint of origin.  This obviously complicates the forensic

459: reconstruction of M31's merger history.  Despite this, the rapidly

460: growing database on M31 halo structure is a fascinating

461: puzzle, offering unique insight into the life of a typical disk

462: galaxy and the death of its unfortunate former companions.

463: 

464: \vskip+2mm

465: 

466: We thank Tom Quinn and Joachim Stadel for the use of PKDGRAV, Josh

467: Barnes for the use of ZENO, and Alan McConnachie and Roger Davies for

468: helpful conversations.

469: \begin{thebibliography}{}

470: 

471: \bibitem[Barker et al.(2007)]{barker07} Barker, M.~K., 

472:   Sarajedini, A., Geisler, D., Harding, P., \& Schommer, R.\ 

473:   2007, \aj, 133, 1125 

474: 

475: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2006a)]{brown06a} Brown, T.~M., Smith, E., 

476: Guhathakurta, P., Rich, R.~M., Ferguson, H.~C., Renzini, A., Sweigart, 

477: A.~V., \& Kimble, R.~A.\ 2006a, \apjl, 636, L89 

478: 

479: \bibitem[Brown et al.(2006b)]{brown06b} Brown, T.~M., Smith, E., 

480: Ferguson, H.~C., Rich, R.~M., Guhathakurta, P., Renzini, A., Sweigart, 

481: A.~V., \& Kimble, R.~A.\ 2006b, \apj, 652, 323 

482: 

483: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(2006)]{fardal06} Fardal, M.~A., Babul, 

484: A., Geehan, J.~J., \& Guhathakurta, P.\ 2006, \mnras, 366, 1012 (F06)

485: %(Paper II)

486: 

487: \bibitem[Fardal et al.(2007)]{fardal07} Fardal, M.~A., 

488: Guhathakurta, P., Babul, A., \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2007, \mnras, 380, 15

489: (F07)

490: 

491: \bibitem[Ferguson et~al.(2002)]{ferguson02} Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M.~J.,

492:     Ibata, R.~A., Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2002, AJ, 124, 1452

493: 

494: \bibitem[Ferguson et al.(2005)]{ferguson05} Ferguson, A.~M.~N., 

495: Johnson, R.~A., Faria, D.~C., Irwin, M.~J., Ibata, R.~A., Johnston, K.~V., 

496: Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.~R.\ 2005, \apjl, 622, L109 

497: 

498: \bibitem[Font et~al.(2006)]{font06} Font, A., Johnston, K.~V., Guhathakurta,

499:     P., Majewski, S.~R., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 2006, \aj, 131, 1436

500: 

501: \bibitem[Galleti et al.(2004)]{galleti04} Galleti, S., Bellazzini, M., 

502: \& Ferraro, F.~R.\ 2004, \aap, 423, 925 

503: 

504: \bibitem[Geehan et al.(2006)]{geehan06}

505: Geehan, J. J., Fardal, M. A., Babul, A., Guhathakurta, P.

506: 2006, MNRAS, 366, 996  %(Paper I)

507: 

508: \bibitem[Gilbert et al.(2007)]{gilbert07} Gilbert, K.~M., et al.\ 

509: 2007, \apj, 668, 245 (G07)

510: 

511: % \bibitem[Gilbert et al.(2008)]{gilbert08} Gilbert, K.~M., et al.\ 

512: % 2008, in preparation

513: 

514: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et~al.(2005)]{raja05} 

515: Guhathakurta, P., et al.\

516: 2005, arXiv preprint (astro-ph/0502366)

517: %M31 halo discovery paper

518: 

519: \bibitem[Guhathakurta et~al.(2006)]{raja06}

520: Guhathakurta, P., et al.\

521: 2006, AJ, 131, 2497

522: %M31 stream field, velocity and metallicity

523: 

524: \bibitem[Ibata et~al.(2001)]{ibata01} Ibata, R., Irwin, M.~J., Ferguson,

525:     A.~M.~N., Lewis, G., \& Tanvir, N.\ 2001, Nature, 412, 49

526: %m31 southern stream discovery

527: 

528: \bibitem[Ibata et~al.(2004)]{ibata04} Ibata, R., Chapman, S., Ferguson,

529:     A.~M.~N., Irwin, M., Lewis, G., \& McConnachie, A.\ 

530:     2004, MNRAS, 351, 117

531: %M31 southern stream velocities

532: 

533: \bibitem[Ibata et al.(2007)]{ibata07} Ibata, R., Martin, N.~F., 

534: Irwin, M., Chapman, S., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Lewis, G.~F., 

535: \& McConnachie, A.~W.\ 2007, \apj, 671, 1591 (I07)

536: 

537: \bibitem[Kalirai et al.(2006)]{kalirai06} Kalirai, J.~S., 

538: Guhathakurta, P., Gilbert, K.~M., Reitzel, D.~B., Majewski, S.~R., Rich, 

539: R.~M., \& Cooper, M.~C.\ 2006, \apj, 641, 268 

540: 

541: \bibitem[Kim et al.(2002)]{kim02} Kim, M., Kim, E., Lee, 

542: M.~G., Sarajedini, A., \& Geisler, D.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 244 

543: 

544: \bibitem[McConnachie et~al.(2003)]{mcconnachie03} McConnachie, A.~W., 

545:  Irwin, M.~J., Ibata, R.~A., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Lewis, G.~F., \& Tanvir, N.\ 

546:  2003, MNRAS, 343, 1335

547: 

548: \bibitem[McConnachie(2006)]{mcconthesis06} McConnachie, A.\ 2006, 

549: The Observatory, 126, 144, available at 

550:  \verb=http://www.astro.uvic.ca/~alan/thesis.pdf=

551: 

552: \bibitem[McConnachie et al.(2006)]{mcconnachie06} McConnachie, A.~W., 

553: Chapman, S.~C., Ibata, R.~A., Ferguson, A.~M.~N., Irwin, M.~J., Lewis, 

554: G.~F., Tanvir, N.~R., \& Martin, N.\ 2006, \apjl, 647, L25 

555: 

556: \bibitem[Mori \& Rich(2008)]{mori08} Mori, M., \& Rich, R.~M.\ 

557: 2008, \apjl, 674, L77 

558: 

559: \bibitem[Richardson et al.(2008)]{richardson08} Richardson, J.~C., 

560: et al.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 803, arXiv:0803.2614 

561: 

562: \bibitem[Stadel(2001)]{stadel01}

563: Stadel, J. 2001, Ph.D.\ thesis, University of Washington

564: 

565: \bibitem[Stephens \& Frogel(2002)]{stephens02} Stephens, A.~W., \& 

566: Frogel, J.~A.\ 2002, \aj, 124, 2023 

567: \end{thebibliography}{}

568: 

569: \end{document}

570: 

571: