1: %\documentstyle[12pt,aasms4]{article}
2: %\documentstyle[emulateapj]{article}
3: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
4: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
5: %\documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
6: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
7:
8: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{0} % nicht unbedingt Text
9: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.} % don't move fullsize floats
10: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.} % at end of document
11: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{1.}
12:
13: %\renewcommand{\textfraction}{1.} % nicht unbedingt Text
14: %\renewcommand{\topfraction}{1.} % don't move fullsize floats
15: %\renewcommand{\bottomfraction}{1.} % at end of document
16: %\renewcommand{\floatpagefraction}{0.}
17:
18: \shorttitle{The Horizontal Branch of NGC~1851}
19: \shortauthors{Salaris et al.}
20:
21: %\lefthead{Salaris et al.}
22:
23: %\righthead{The Horizontal Branch of NGC~1851}
24:
25: \begin{document}
26: \title{The Horizontal Branch of NGC~1851: constraints on the cluster subpopulations}
27:
28: \author{M. Salaris}
29: \affil{Astrophysics Research Institute, Liverpool John Moores University,
30: Twelve Quays House, Egerton Wharf, Birkenhead CH41 1LD, UK}
31: \email{ms@astro.livjm.ac.uk}
32:
33: \author{S. Cassisi and A. Pietrinferni}
34: \affil{INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Collurania, Via M.\ Maggini,
35: I-64100 Teramo, Italy}
36: \email{cassisi,pietrinferni@oa-teramo.inaf.it}
37:
38:
39: \begin{abstract}
40: We investigate the distribution of stars along the Horizontal Branch of the Galactic globular cluster
41: NGC~1851, to shed light on the progeny of the two distinct Subgiant Branch
42: populations harbored by this cluster. On the basis of detailed synthetic Horizontal Branch
43: modelling, we conclude that the two subpopulations
44: are distributed in different regions of the observed Horizontal Branch:
45: the evolved stars belonging to the bright Subgiant branch component are confined
46: in the red portion of the observed sequence, whereas the ones belonging
47: to the faint Subgiant branch component are distributed from the blue to the red, populating also
48: the RR Lyrae instability strip. Our simulations strongly suggest that it is not possible
49: to reproduce the observations assuming that the two subpopulations lose the
50: same amount of mass along the Red Giant Branch. We warmly encourage empirical estimates
51: of mass loss rates in Red Giant stars belonging to this cluster.
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54:
55: \keywords{globular clusters: individual (NGC~1851) --- Hertzsprung-Russell diagram --
56: stars: horizontal branch -- stars: mass loss}
57:
58:
59: \section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
60:
61: A recent $HST$~ACS photometry of the Galactic globular cluster NGC1851 (Milone et al.~2008 -- hereafter M08)
62: has disclosed the existence of two distinct Subgiant branches (SGBs) in its Color-Magnitude-Diagram (CMD).
63: With this discovery, NGC1851 joins NGC2808 and $\omega$~Centauri in the group of
64: globular clusters with a clear photometric signature of multiple stellar populations.
65: M08 estimated an age difference of about 1~Gyr between the two subpopulations, in the
66: assumption that they share the same initial [Fe/H] (spectroscopy of a few Red Giant Branch
67: stars by Yong \& Grundahl~2008, together with the narrow RGB sequence in the CMD confirm this assumption),
68: He mass fraction $Y$ and the same metal mixture. Cassisi et al.~(2008 -- hereafter Paper~I)
69: have explored the possibility that one of the two sub-populations
70: was born with a different heavy element mixture (hereafter denoted as extreme)
71: characterized by strong anticorrelations among the CNONa abundances, with a total
72: CNO abundance increased by a factor of 2, compared to the normal
73: $\alpha$-enhanced metal distribution of the other component (see Sect.~1 and 4 in Paper~I
74: for a brief discussion about this choice).
75: Both initial chemical compositions share the same [Fe/H] and $Y$ values.
76: If the faint SGB component (hereafter SGBf subpopulation) has formed with the extreme metal mixture,
77: it results to be coeval with the bright SGB component (hereafter SGBb subpopulation).
78: If the reverse is true, the SGBb (extreme)
79: subpopulation has to be about 2~Gyr younger than the SGBf (normal) one.
80: Following the considerations in Paper~I and M08 about the width of Main Sequence and Red Giant Branch (RGB),
81: the slope of the Horizontal Branch (HB) in the cluster CMD, plus
82: the [Fe/H] estimates by Yong and Grundahl~(2008), one can
83: also conclude that appreciable variations of the initial He abundance in the two subpopulations are ruled out.
84:
85: In this paper we have gone a step further, focusing our attention on the HB.
86: Based on the similarity of the number ratio of the
87: SGBb to the SGBf components, with the ratio of stars at the red of the instability strip to stars
88: at the blue side of the strip, M08 hypothesized that the progeny of the two SGBs occupy separate locations
89: along the HB. Here we have addressed this issue in much more detail, analyzing the distribution of
90: stars along the HB by means of synthetic HB models,
91: to determine whether and for which choice of RGB mass loss, the progeny of the SGBb and SGBf subpopulations
92: is able to reproduce the observed HB stellar distribution. We will also readdress the issue, from the point
93: of view of HB modeling,
94: of whether the extreme metal mixture of Paper~I is compatible with the observed stellar distribution along the
95: HB. Section~\ref{models} describes briefly the HB evolutionary tracks and the HB synthetic modeling, while
96: Sect.~\ref{results} presents and discusses the results of our analysis.
97:
98: \section{Synthetic HB modeling}\label{models}
99:
100: We employed three grids of 39 HB evolutionary tracks each (covering the range between 0.47 and 0.80$M_{\odot}$)
101: all with [Fe/H]=$-$1.31 (appropriate for
102: NGC1851) calculated by Pietrinferni et al.~(2006) for the normal $\alpha$-enhanced metal mixture,
103: and from Paper~I for the extreme mixture, respectively. For the latter models, two different He abundances
104: have been adopted, namely: $Y$=0.248 and $Y$=0.280. The models
105: have been computed using initial He-core masses
106: derived from the evolution of a progenitor with an age of about 12-13~Gyr at the RGB tip.
107: All tracks have been normalized to the same number (450 from the start
108: to the end of central He-burning) of equivalent points \footnote{See Pietrinferni et al.~(2004) for a discussion on this issue};
109: this simplifies the interpolation to obtain tracks for masses not included in the grid.
110:
111: Figure~\ref{fig1} displays the Zero Age Horizontal Branch (ZAHB) and selected HB tracks
112: for the three chemical compositions considered. The ZAHB for the extreme mixture
113: with enhanced He is much brighter than the case of the normal $\alpha$-enhanced composition. This makes very difficult the
114: coexistence of sub-populations with these two compositions along the observed HB. The extreme population with
115: the same He abundance of the normal one has a much closer ZAHB brightness, a consequence of similar He-core masses
116: and surface He abundances of their progenitors at the He-flash. Comparisons of HB tracks for selected
117: values of mass display some interesting features. As already shown in Paper~I, models for the extreme
118: compositions have a ZAHB location systematically redder than their counterpart
119: with the same mass and a normal composition, but the
120: blue loops during the He-burning phase are more extended (for a given mass). The
121: effect of these differences in terms of mass distribution along the observed HB can be thoroughly assessed only
122: by means of synthetic HB modeling.
123:
124: Synthetic HBs have been calculated as pioneered by Rood (1973).
125: The observed HB is simulated by a distribution of stars with different mass, that has
126: to be specified as input parameter, together with the time $t$ since each star has first
127: arrived on the HB (and the photometric error, obtained from the photometry).
128: It is assumed that stars are being fed onto the HB at a constant rate.
129: Once the stellar mass and $t$ are specified, a quadratic interpolation in mass among the available
130: tracks and a linear interpolation in time along the track determine the location
131: of the object on the synthetic HB.
132: The large number of points along each of our HB tracks ensures that a linear interpolation in
133: time is adequate. The magnitudes of the synthetic star are then perturbed by a random value for the
134: photometric error in both $F606W$ and $F814W$, according to a Gaussian distribution with dispersion provided by
135: the photometric analysis (the typical value in our case is $\sim$0.01~mag).
136: Either a Gaussian -- the standard assumption, see, e.g. Rood~(1973), Catelan~(1993), Lee et al.~(1990) --
137: or a uniform mass distribution is assumed for the objects fed onto the HB, with mean value $\overline{M}$ and
138: dispersion $\sigma$ as free parameters. This is equivalent to assume that the amount of mass lost
139: along the previous RGB phase is stochastic, with a specified unimodal distribution.
140:
141: Previous analyses of NGC1851, that considered only one
142: stellar population in the cluster, have reached different conclusions about
143: the unimodality of the RGB mass loss. Lee,
144: Demarque \& Zinn~(1988) were able to reproduce the $B:V:R$ number ratio between
145: stars located at the blue side of the
146: RR~Lyrae instability strip, within the strip and at its red side, using a Gaussian mass distribution.
147: Catelan et al.~(1998) also
148: conclude that the HB morphology of the cluster can be reproduced with a unimodal (Gaussian) mass distribution,
149: assuming a large 1 $\sigma$ dispersion (0.055 $M_{\odot}$).
150: On the other hand, Saviane et al.~(1998) conclude that a bimodal mass loss is needed to reproduce
151: both the red and blue tails of the observed HB.
152:
153: In our simulations, we consider two separate components coexisting on the HB,
154: originated from either the SGBb or the SGBf subpopulations.
155: The pairs of values ($\overline{M}$, $\sigma$) are left free to vary between the two subpopulations.
156: As a consequence -- once the chemical composition of the SGBf and SGBb subpopulations is fixed --
157: one synthetic HB realization is determined by the two pairs
158: of ($\overline{M}$, $\sigma$) values chosen for the two components.
159: The reference HB photometry is the $HST$/ACS ($F606W,F814W$) data by M08. Due to the
160: small number of exposures, M08 could not determine appropriate mean magnitudes for the RR Lyrae population;
161: therefore only stars detected at the blue (143 objects) and red (242 objects) side of the instability strip are taken
162: into account in our comparisons, plus the values of the $B:V:R$ ratios taken from independent data.
163: We assume as reference the values
164: $30:10:60$, obtained from the number counts provided by Catelan et al.~(1998), extracted
165: from Walker~(1992) photometry. They are consistent
166: with analogous estimates by Lee et al.~(1988), Walker~(1998) and Saviane et al.~(1998).
167: Poisson statistics introduce uncertainties by, respectively,
168: $\pm$5\%, $\pm$3\% and $\pm$8\% in the $B:V:R$ values.
169: These ratios also agree with the $B:R$ ratio of $(37\pm9):(63\pm7)$
170: determined by M08 from their CMD.
171:
172: To be considered a match to the observations, a synthetic HB model is required to satisfy the following
173: constraints: (i) the empirical values of the ratios $B:V:R$;
174: (ii) the $F606W$ and $F814W$ magnitude distribution of the HB stars at the blue
175: and red side of the instability strip; (iii) the number ratio of the progeny of the SGBb to the progeny of the SGBf
176: subpopulations has to satisfy the 55:45 ratio observed along the SGB. In case the two subpopulations
177: share the same age (extreme SGBf component and normal SGBb component) evolutionary times along SGB and RGB
178: are such that the 55:45 ratio is conserved also at the beginning of the HB phase. If the extreme component is
179: 2~Gyr younger (belongs to the SGBb) or both components share the normal composition, population
180: ratios at the beginning of the HB phase are altered by only a few percent, and this
181: is taken into account in our simulations.
182:
183: In practice, we have first corrected the observed magnitudes and colors of HB stars by the values of reddening
184: ($E(F606W-F814W)$=0.04) and distance modulus ($(m-M)_{F606W}$=15.52) determined in Paper~I.
185: The resulting magnitudes have then been used for the comparison with our synthetic models.
186: After selecting the chemical compositions of the two subpopulations -- for each SGB component we considered
187: alternatively either a normal or an extreme metal mixture -- we calibrated $\overline{M}$ and
188: $\sigma$ (adopting either a Gaussian or a
189: uniform mass distribution) for their progenies
190: by reproducing the observed $B:V:R$ values, with the additional constraint posed by the
191: ratio between the SGBb and SGBf components. All synthetic stars falling in the gap between the red and
192: blue HB stars selected by M08 are considered to be RR Lyrae variables.
193: We wish to stress that we did not make any a priori choice of where the SGBb and SGBf
194: progenies should be located along the observed HB.
195:
196: If the $B:V:R$ constraint was satisfied, we finally compared the magnitude distributions of the synthetic
197: red and blue HB, with their observational counterparts, by means of a
198: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (hereafter KS) test, as applied by Salaris et al.~(2007)
199: to the analysis of the HB of 47~Tuc.
200: The synthetic HB is considered to be consistent with observations if the KS-test gives a probability
201: below 95\% that the observed and synthetic magnitude distributions (in both $F606W$ and $F814W$)
202: for both red and blue HB stars are different.
203: The number of HB stars in the simulations is typically 20 times larger than the observed value
204: in M08 photometry. In this way we minimize, in the synthetic HB model,
205: the effect of statistical fluctuations in the number of objects at a given magnitude and color.
206: %We verified that increasing the synthetic samples by an additional factor of 10 does not modify the results
207: %of our analysis.
208:
209:
210: \section{Results and discussion}\label{results}
211:
212: We obtain only one solution for the case
213: where both subpopulations have a normal metal mixture (Model~1) as assumed by M08, and
214: one solution for the case where one the two subpopulations is characterized by the extreme metal mixture
215: (Model~2), i.e. the scenario proposed in Paper~I.
216: Figure~\ref{fig2} shows a qualitative comparison between the synthetic HB of Model~2 and the observed one,
217: plus the synthetic star counts of the same simulation
218: (normalized to the observed number of HB stars in M08 photometry) against the
219: observational counterpart. A similar agreement is achieved also for Model 1.
220: The relevant parameters of the two solutions are summarized in Table~\ref{HBdat}.
221:
222: Some important conclusions can be drawn from our synthetic HB analysis.
223: First of all, the progeny of the SGBb subpopulation must be restricted to the
224: red part of the HB, whereas the progeny of the
225: SGBf component has to be distributed from the
226: blue to the red, including the whole instability strip, otherwise the
227: KS-test and $B:V:R$ ratios cannot be simultaneously satisfied.
228: As a consequence, it is not possible to reproduce the observed
229: HB by assuming that RGB stars belonging to the
230: two subpopulations lose on average the same amount of mass.
231: In Model~1 the mass evolving at the RGB tip (in absence of mass loss) for the
232: SGBf component is 0.023$M_{\odot}$ smaller than for the SGBb
233: one (following the age estimates in Paper~I), whereas the HB modeling
234: requires an upper mass limit smaller by more than
235: 0.035$M_{\odot}$ for its progeny.
236: In Model~2 the mass evolving at the RGB tip (in absence of mass loss)
237: for the SGBf sub-population
238: is only 0.003$M_{\odot}$ smaller than for the SGBb one,
239: whereas the HB modeling requires a maximum mass 0.054$M_{\odot}$ smaller.
240: The observed $B:V:R$ ratios and the KS-analysis impose two further
241: constraints on the model parameters. The mass spread for the red HB
242: stars (the progeny of the SGBb sub-population) has to be small, $\sigma < 0.005 M_{\odot}$.
243: On the other hand, a uniform distribution spanning a large mass range
244: is required to reproduce the stellar distributions along the blue part of
245: the observed HB (due to the progeny of
246: the SGBf subpopulation). Although $B:V:R$ ratios can still be reproduced in
247: Model~1 and Model~2 with a Gaussian
248: distribution for the SGBf component
249: ($\overline{M}=0.605M_\odot$ and $\sigma=0.01M_\odot$ for an SGBf population
250: with normal metal mixture, and $\overline{M}=0.585M_\odot$ and $\sigma=0.01M_\odot$
251: for an extreme metal mixture), the resulting magnitude distributions are at odds with observations.
252:
253: The results in Table~\ref{HBdat} constrain also the relative ages of the SGBb
254: and SGBf subpopulations for the scenario of Paper~I.
255: In Model~2 it is the SGBf population that is characterized by the extreme composition; this
256: corresponds to the case discussed in Paper~I, where SGBb and SGBf
257: subpopulations share the same age. A SGBb subpopulation with
258: the extreme mixture cannot be accommodated on the HB while at the same time satisfying
259: all empirical constraints described above.
260:
261: We also considered the case of a 50:50 ratio
262: between the SGBb and SGBf subpopulations, that is still allowed
263: -- within the errors on the measured ratio -- by M08 data.
264: Synthetic models with the
265: parameter choices of Model~1 and ~2 still match the
266: observations (the predicted $B:V:R$ ratios are altered within the
267: errors on the reference values). The mass loss necessary to
268: reproduce the HB must still differ between the two sub-populations.
269: It is also obvious that in this 50:50 scenario an extreme subpopulation can be
270: either the SGBf or the SGBb one (therefore being
271: either coeval or 2~Gyr younger than the normal component) but its progeny
272: has still to populate the extended region from the blue tail of the HB to the red side,
273: otherwise the KS-test is not satisfied.
274:
275: We have also tested the possibility of having a subpopulation with a mild
276: He-enhanced ($Y$=0.28) extreme mixture, but no match to the magnitude distribution
277: along the observed HB in the CMD of M08 can ever be achieved.
278:
279: A different efficiency of mass loss in stars belonging to the same cluster seems difficult to justify,
280: especially if both subpopulations are assumed to share the same metal mixture, but given
281: the lack of an established theory for the RGB mass loss, we can only use the constraints posed by the HB modeling.
282: If different populations in the same cluster lose different amounts
283: of mass, the second parameter phenomenon in Galactic globulars may well be at least partly due simply to
284: different mass loss efficiencies in different clusters.
285: These conclusions can in principle change if one hypothesizes a multimodal mass loss, or unimodal probability distributions
286: more complex than the standard Gaussian or uniform cases.
287: But more free parameters will have to be included and the
288: predictive power of synthetic HB modeling would be greatly weakened.
289: %It is also not obvious, especially in case
290: %of two subpopulations with different metal mixtures, whether
291: %extremely fine tuned choices of the mass loss law exist, that allow to have equal
292: %amounts of mass lost along the RGB.
293: Overall, our analysis points out that the RGB mass loss in NGC1851 is not simple.
294: Either differential mass loss processes are efficient in stars in the same
295: cluster, or much more complicated probability distributions for the RGB mass loss may
296: have to be employed.
297: Empirical determinations of mass loss rates in NGC1851 stars
298: (see, e.g., the results by Origlia et al.~2007 for 47~Tuc) are badly needed.
299: On this issue, we also wish to note Caloi \& D'Antona~(2008) recent suggestion that a dispersion
300: in the initial Helium content among the subpopulations within a single cluster can produce
301: the observed HB morphologies, without
302: invoking a large dispersion in the RGB mass loss, or a different mass loss efficiency among the various
303: components. In case of NGC~1851 this scenario seems to be disfavored, raising the intriguing possibility that
304: different processes affecting the early chemical enrichment and RGB mass loss are at work in different clusters.
305:
306: Before closing we mention an additional test, involving the cluster pulsators.
307: We did not use the constraint posed by their period distribution in our main analysis, because we verified that recent
308: theoretical pulsational models of RR Lyrae stars (Di Criscienzo, Marconi \& Caputo~2004 -- see also their discussion about
309: uncertainties on the strip boundaries due to the value of the mixing length parameter) predict an instability strip
310: for NGC1851 too red by $\sim$ 0.03-0.04 mag in $(F606W-F814W)$ compared to M08 data.
311: We have made however the following test, considering the periods determined by Walker~(1998) for 29 cluster RR Lyraes
312: (all first overtone pulsators have been fundamentalized by adding 0.13 to the logarithm of their periods in days).
313: For all synthetic objects of Model~1 and 2 falling in the observed (not theoretical) RR Lyrae gap we determined the pulsation
314: period from the fundamental pulsation equation by Di Criscienzo et al.~(2004 -- their Equation~1).
315: The period distribution of the synthetic RR Lyrae stars has been then compared to the observed
316: one by means of a KS-test. Interestingly, we found that
317: Model~1 gives a period distribution inconsistent with observations with a probability larger than 95\%, whereas in case
318: of Model~2 this probability is well below the 95\% threshold, and we consider this model to have periods statistically
319: in agreement with observations.
320:
321: \acknowledgments{We warmly thank A. Sarajedini for allowing us the use - in this paper as well as in Paper I - of his
322: photometric data, and G. Piotto for reading a preliminary draft of this paper and useful suggestions.}
323:
324:
325: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
326: % REFERENCES %
327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
328: \begin{thebibliography}{}
329:
330: \bibitem[]{324} Caloi, V., \& D'Antona, F. \ 2008, \apj, 673, 847
331: \bibitem[]{325} Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., Pietrinferni, A., Piotto, G., Milone, A.P., Bedin, L.R., \& Anderson, J. \ 2008, \apj, 672, L115
332: \bibitem[]{326} Catelan, M. \ 1993, \aaps, 98, 547
333: \bibitem[]{327} Catelan, M., Borissova, J., Sweigart, A.V., \& Spassova, N. \ 1998, \apj, 494, 265
334: \bibitem[]{328} Di Criscienzo, M., Marconi, M., \& Caputo, F. \ 2004, \apj, 612, 1092
335: \bibitem[]{329} Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. \ 1988, in The Harlow-Shapley Symposium on Globular Cluster Systems in Galaxies.
336: IAU Symposium 126, Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers, p.505
337: \bibitem[]{331} Lee, Y.-W., Demarque, P., \& Zinn, R. \ 1990, \apj, 350, 155
338: \bibitem[]{332} Milone, A.P., Bedin, L.R., Piotto, G., Anderson, J., King, I.R.,
339: Sarajedini A., Dotter, A., et al. \ 2008, \apj, 673, 241
340: \bibitem[]{334} Origlia, L., Rood, R.T., Fabbri, S., Ferraro, F.R., Fusi Pecci, F., \& Rich, R.M. \ 2007, \apj, 667, L85
341: \bibitem[]{335} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F. \ 2004, \apj, 612, 168
342: \bibitem[]{336} Pietrinferni, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., \& Castelli, F. \ 2006, \apj, 642, 797
343: \bibitem[]{337} Rood, R.T. \ 1973, \apj, 184, 815
344: \bibitem[]{338} Salaris, M., Held, E. V., Ortolani, S., Gullieuszik, M., \& Momany, Y. \ 2007, \aap, 476, 243
345: \bibitem[]{339} Saviane, I., Piotto, G., Fagotto, F., Zaggia, S., Capaccioli, M., \& Aparicio, A. \ 1998, \aap, 333, 479
346: \bibitem[]{340} Walker, A.~R. \ 1992, \pasp, 104, 1063
347: \bibitem[]{341} Walker, A.~R. \ 1998, \aj, 116, 220
348: \bibitem[]{342} Yong, D., \& Grundahl, F. \ 2008, \apj, 672, L29
349:
350: \end{thebibliography}
351:
352:
353:
354: %\end{document}
355:
356: \clearpage
357: \begin{deluxetable}{lllll}
358: \tablewidth{0pt}
359: \tablecaption{Properties of the synthetic models that match the observed HB of NGC~1851\label{HBdat}}
360: \tablehead{\colhead{Subpopulation} & \colhead{Mixture} & HB coverage & \colhead{Mass distribution}
361: & \colhead{$B:V:R$}}
362: \startdata
363: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Model 1}\\
364: \hline
365: SGBf & normal & $B+V+R$ & Uniform, 0.570 to 0.625 $M_{\odot}$ & 31:11:58\\
366: SGBb & normal & $R$ & Gaussian, $\overline{M}$=0.66 $M_{\odot}$ ($\sigma <$ 0.005 $M_{\odot}$) & \\
367: \hline
368: \multicolumn{5}{c}{Model 2}\\
369: \hline
370: SGBf & extreme & $B+V+R$ & Uniform, 0.554 to 0.606 $M_{\odot}$ & 30:10:60\\
371: SGBb & normal & $R$ & Gaussian, $\overline{M}$=0.66 $M_{\odot}$ ($\sigma <$ 0.005 $M_{\odot}$) & \\
372: \enddata
373: %\tablenotetext{a}{Hot end of canonical HB}
374: \end{deluxetable}
375:
376: \clearpage
377: \begin{figure}[t]
378: %\epsscale{1.90}
379: \plotone{f1.eps}
380: \caption{Upper panel: ZAHB location in the $F606W - (F606W-F814W)$ plane for, respectively, normal $\alpha$-enhanced
381: metal mixture with $Y$=0.248 and [Fe/H]=$-$1.31 (solid line), extreme mixture with $Y$=0.248 and [Fe/H]=$-$1.31 (dashed line),
382: extreme mixture with $Y$=0.280 and [Fe/H]=$-$1.31 (dotted line -- see text for details).
383: Lower panel: HB evolutionary tracks for masses equal to 0.57, 0.61 and 0.72 $M_{\odot}$, respectively, and the same three
384: chemical compositions as in the upper panel.}
385: \label{fig1}
386: \end{figure}
387:
388:
389:
390: \clearpage
391: \begin{figure}[t]
392: %\epsscale{1.90}
393: \plotone{f2.eps}
394: \caption{Qualitative comparison of the synthetic (Model~2) and observed CMDs of the HB of NGC1851. Observed colors have been
395: corrected for the effect of reddening, whereas the $F606W$ and $F814W$ magnitudes have been shifted arbitrarily for
396: the sake of clarity. A comparison of star counts along the HB is also shown. Model (dashed lines) counts have been
397: rescaled to the same number of observed HB objects. The drop to zero around $F814W$=0 corresponds
398: to the gap at the RR Lyrae instability strip in the $F814W$-($F606W-F814W$) CMD.
399: }
400: \label{fig2}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403:
404: \end{document}
405: