1: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{times}
3: \usepackage{amsmath}
4: \usepackage{amssymb,amsfonts}
5: \usepackage{graphicx}
6: \usepackage{verbatim}
7: \usepackage{psfig}
8: \usepackage{epsf}
9:
10: \def\ltsima{$\; \buildrel < \over \sim \;$}
11: \def\simlt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\ltsima}}
12: \def\gtsima{$\; \buildrel > \over \sim \;$}
13: \def\simgt{\lower.5ex\hbox{\gtsima}}
14: %
15: % MATH FUNCTIONS:
16: \def\erf{\mathop{\rm erf}\nolimits} %error function
17: \def\sech{ \mathop{\rm sech}\nolimits} %hyperbolic sec
18: \def\csch{ \mathop{\rm csch}\nolimits} %hyperbolic csc
19: \def\arcsinh{\mathop{\rm arcsinh}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic sin
20: \def\arccosh{\mathop{\rm arccosh}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic cos
21: \def\arctanh{\mathop{\rm arctanh}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic tan
22: \def\arccoth{\mathop{\rm arccoth}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic cot
23: \def\arcsech{\mathop{\rm arcsech}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic sec
24: \def\arccsch{\mathop{\rm arccsch}\nolimits} %arc hyperbolic csc
25: \def\arccot{\mathop{\rm arccot}\nolimits} %arc cot
26: \def\arcsec{\mathop{\rm arcsec}\nolimits} %arc sec
27: \def\arccsc{\mathop{\rm arccsc}\nolimits} %arc csc
28: \def\ylm{\mathop{\rm Y}_l^m\nolimits} %spherical harmonic
29: \def\ylmp{\mathop{\rm Y}_{l'}^{m'}\nolimits} %spherical harmonic primed
30: \def\real{\Re e} %real part
31: \def\imag{\Im m} %imaginary part
32:
33: % UNITS:
34: \def\km{{\rm\,km}}
35: \def\kms{{\rm\,km\,s^{-1}}}
36: \def\mas{{\rm\,mas}}
37: \def\masyr{{\rm\,mas/yr}}
38: \def\kpc{{\rm\,kpc}}
39: \def\mpc{{\rm\,Mpc}}
40: \def\msun{{\rm\,M_\odot}}
41: \def\lsun{{\rm\,L_\odot}}
42: \def\rsun{{\rm\,R_\odot}}
43: \def\pc{{\rm\,pc}}
44: \def\cm{{\rm\,cm}}
45: \def\yr{{\rm\,yr}}
46: \def\au{{\rm\,AU}}
47: \def\g{{\rm\,g}}
48: \def\om{\Omega_0}
49: \def \ca {{\it ca.\/}}
50: %\def \r {r$^{1/4}$ }
51: \def \magnitude {$^{\rm m}$}
52: \def\kr{${\cal K}_r$}
53: \def\kz{${\cal K}_z$}
54: \def\kzz{${\cal K}_z(z)$}
55: \def\mss{{\rm M}_\odot \rm pc^{-2}}
56: \def\msss{{\rm M}_\odot \rm pc^{-3}}
57: \newcommand{\fmmm}[1]{\mbox{$#1$}}
58: \newcommand{\scnd}{\mbox{\fmmm{''}\hskip-0.3em .}}
59: \newcommand{\scnp}{\mbox{\fmmm{''}}}
60: \newcommand{\mcnd}{\mbox{\fmmm{'}\hskip-0.3em .}}
61: %\def\Aa{\; \buildrel \circ \over {\rm A}}
62: %\def\AA{$\; \buildrel \circ \over {\rm A}$}
63: \def\yr{{\rm yr}}
64:
65: \def\CompactFigs{0}
66: \def\UseFigs{1}
67:
68: % MISCELLANEOUS:
69: % angles in degrees
70: \def\deg{^\circ}
71: %\degg produces degree symbol so that 3\sec5 produces 3.`5 with the degree
72: %symbol and the period aligned.
73: \def\degg{\hbox{$\null^\circ$\hskip-3pt .}}
74: %\sec produces arcsec symbol so that 3\sec5 produces 3."5 with the second
75: %symbol and the period aligned.
76: \def\sec{\hbox{"\hskip-3pt .}}
77: \def\half{{\scriptstyle{1\over2}}}
78: %\s produces tilde in mathmode or horizontal mode.
79: \def\s{\ifmmode \widetilde \else \~\fi}
80: \def\={\overline}
81: \def\scre{{\cal E}}
82: \def\spose#1{\hbox to 0pt{#1\hss}}
83: \def\larrow{\leftarrow}
84: \def\rarrow{\rightarrow}
85: \def\llangle{\langle\langle}
86: \def\rrangle{\rangle\rangle}
87: \def\etal{{\it et al.\ }}
88: \def\cf{{\it cf.\ }}
89: \def\eg{{ e.g.,\ }}
90: \def\ie{{ i.e.,\ }}
91: %\lta and \gta produce > and < signs with twiddle underneath
92: \def\lta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
93: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13C$}}}
94: \def\gta{\mathrel{\spose{\lower 3pt\hbox{$\mathchar"218$}}
95: \raise 2.0pt\hbox{$\mathchar"13E$}}}
96: %\Dt and \dt put Newton's notation dots above upper and lower case chars
97: \def\Dt{\spose{\raise 1.5ex\hbox{\hskip3pt$\mathchar"201$}}} % upper case
98: \def\dt{\spose{\raise 1.0ex\hbox{\hskip2pt$\mathchar"201$}}} % lower case
99: \def\del{\nabla}
100: \def\delv{\bb\nabla}
101: %\def\r{${\rm r^{1/4}}$}
102:
103: \def\jla{J_{\lambda}}
104: \def\jmu{J_{\mu}}
105: \def\jnu{J_{\nu}}
106: \def\pomega{\varpi}
107: \def\sigla{\sigma_{\lambda}}
108: \def\sigmu{\sigma_{\mu}}
109: \def\signu{\sigma_{\nu}}
110: \def\dotsfill{\leaders\hbox to 1em{\hss.\hss}\hfill}
111: \def\sun{\odot}
112: \def\earth{\oplus}
113:
114: \def\Gyr{{\rm\,Gyr}}
115: \def\kmsd{{\rm\,km/s/degree}}
116:
117: \def\Ger#1{\noindent{\bf[$\diamondsuit$ #1]}}
118: \def\Rod#1{\noindent{\bf[$\heartsuit$ #1]}}
119: \def\Chris#1{\noindent{\bf[$\clubsuit$ #1]}}
120: \def\Mike#1{\noindent{\bf[$\spadesuit$ #1]}}
121: \def\Nick#1{\noindent{\bf[$\dag$ #1]}}
122:
123:
124: \title
125: [The AAT/WFI survey of the Monoceros Ring and Canis Major Dwarf galaxy: II. from {\it l} = (280 - 025)$\deg$]
126: {The AAT/WFI survey of the Monoceros Ring and Canis Major Dwarf galaxy: II. from {\it l} = (280 - 025)$\deg$}
127: \author[Blair Conn et al.]
128: {Blair C. Conn$^{1,2}$, Richard R. Lane$^1$, Geraint F. Lewis$^1$, Mike J. Irwin$^3$,
129: \newauthor Rodrigo A. Ibata$^4$, Nicolas F. Martin$^4$, Michele Bellazzini$^5$,
130: \newauthor \& Artem V. Tuntsov$^{1,7}$\\
131: $^{1}$Institute of Astronomy, School of Physics, A29, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia:\\
132: Email \tt{bconn@eso.org}\\
133: $^{2}$European Southern Observatory, Alonso de Cordova 3107, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile\\
134: $^{3}$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, U.K.\\
135: $^{4}$Observatoire de Strasbourg, 11, rue de l'Universit\'e, F-67000, Strasbourg, France\\
136: $^{5}$INAF - Osservatorio Astronomico di Bologna, Via Ranzani 1, 40127, Bologna, Italy\\
137: $^{6}$Anglo-Australian Observatory, Epping, NSW, 1710, Australia\\
138: $^{7}$Sterberg Astronomical Institute, Moscow, Russia\\
139: $^{8}$Institute for Astronomy, University of Edinburgh, Royal Observatory, Blackford Hill, Edinburgh, EH9 3HJ, U.K.}
140:
141: \begin{document}
142:
143: \date{\today \hspace{10pt}(Version 3.0)}
144:
145:
146: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2008}
147:
148: \def\LaTeX{L\kern-.36em\raise.3ex\hbox{a}\kern-.15em
149: T\kern-.1667em\lower.7ex\hbox{E}\kern-.125emX}
150:
151: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
152:
153: \label{firstpage}
154:
155: \maketitle
156:
157: \begin{abstract}
158: This paper concludes a systematic search for evidence of the Monoceros
159: Ring and Canis Major dwarf galaxy around the Galactic Plane. Presented
160: here are the results for the Galactic longitude range of {\it l} =
161: (280 - 025)$\deg$. Testing the claim that the Monoceros Ring encircles
162: the entire Galaxy, this survey attempts to document the position of
163: the Monoceros Ring with increasing Galactic longitude. Additionally,
164: with the discovery of the purported Canis Major dwarf galaxy,
165: searching for more evidence of its interaction is imperative to
166: tracing its path through the Galaxy and understanding its role in the
167: evolution of the Milky Way. Two new detections of the Monoceros Ring
168: have been found at ({\it l, b}) = (280,$+$15)$\deg$ and
169: (300,$+$10)$\deg$. Interestingly, in general there seem to be more
170: detections above the Plane than below it; in this survey
171: around $\frac{2}{3}$ of the firm Monoceros Ring detections are in the
172: North. This coincides with the Northern detections appearing to be
173: qualitatively denser and broader than their Southern counterparts. The
174: maximum of the Galactic Warp in the South is also probed in this
175: survey. It is found that these fields do not resemble those in the
176: Canis Major region suggesting that the Warp does not change
177: the shape of the CMD as is witnessed around Canis Major. The origins
178: and morphology of the Monoceros Ring is still elusive primarily due to its
179: enormous extent on the sky. Continued probing of the Galactic Outer
180: Disc is needed before a consensus can be reached on its nature.
181:
182: \end{abstract}
183:
184:
185: \begin{keywords}
186: Galaxy:\hspace{2pt}formation -- Galaxy:\hspace{2pt}structure -- galaxies:\hspace{2pt}interactions
187: \end{keywords}
188:
189: \begin{table*}
190: \centering
191: %\begin{minipage}{70mm}
192: \caption{Summary of the observations of Monoceros Ring/Canis Major Tidal Stream with
193: the AAT/WFI, ordered in ascending Galactic longitude ({\it l}). The
194: number of CCDs available during the different runs varies and thus
195: has effected the total area or Field of View observed.}
196: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccl} \hline \hline
197: Fields ({\it l,b})$\deg$ & Regions per field & Average Seeing (arcsec)
198: & Total Area ($deg^2$) & Monoceros Ring & Average E(B-V) &
199: Date (dd/mm/yy)\\ \hline
200: (280,$-$15)$\deg$ & 4 & 1.3 & 1.21 & No & 0.128 & 01/02/04\\
201: (280,$+$15)$\deg$ & 3 & 1.0 & 0.93 & Yes & 0.083 & 25,30/01/04\\
202: (300,$-$20)$\deg$ & 1 & 1.3 & 0.3 & No & 0.109 & 31/01/04\\
203: (300,$+$10)$\deg$ & 3 & 1.2 & 0.93 & Yes & 0.171 & 25/01/04\\
204: (340,$+$20)$\deg$ & 4 & 2.8,1.6 &0.91 & No & 0.095 & 15-16/08/05\\
205: (350,$-$20)$\deg$ & 4 & 2.2 & 0.91 & No & 0.055 & 15/08/05\\
206: (350,$+$20)$\deg$ & 4 & 1.4 & 0.91 & No & 0.112 & 16/08/05\\
207: (025,$-$20)$\deg$ & 5 & 2.0 & 1.14 & No & 0.137 & 15-16/08/05\\
208: (025,$+$20)$\deg$ & 5 & 2.0 & 1.14 & No & 0.098 & 15-16/08/05\\
209: \hline\hline
210: \end{tabular}
211: %\end{minipage}
212: \label{ObsTable}
213: \end{table*}
214:
215: \section{Introduction}
216: The Monoceros Ring (MRi), discovered in 2002
217: \citep{2002ApJ...569..245N} has now been traced around the Galaxy from
218: {\it l} = 75 - 260$\deg$, as shown through the Sloan Digital Sky
219: Survey \citep{2002ApJ...569..245N}, Two-micron All Sky Survey
220: \citep{2003ApJ...594L.115R}, Isaac Newton Telescope Wide Field Camera
221: Survey \citep{2003MNRAS.340L..21I} and the Anglo-Australian Telescope
222: Wide Field Imager Survey \citep{2005MNRAS.362..475C}. Continuing
223: around the Galactic plane, this survey extends these previous results
224: to complete the first Wide Field Imager survey of the MRi around the
225: Galaxy that began with the INT/WFC in
226: \citet{2005MNRAS.362..475C}. Studies into this structure have been
227: discussed in Paper I of this series, \citep[][]{2007MNRAS.376..939C},
228: and references therein. Additional to this, an RR-Lyrae survey of the
229: Galactic Halo using QUEST data has also revealed the presence of the
230: MRi and investigated the overdensity in Canis Major
231: \citep[][]{2006AJ....132..714V,2007IAUS..241..359M}.
232:
233: Residing in the Thick Disc of the Milky Way (MW), the MRi is revealed
234: only by obtaining deep photometry of large patches of sky, typically
235: greater than 1 square degree. In this preliminary first pass of the
236: MW, the Thick Disc was sampled at Galactic latitudes nominally between
237: {\it b} = $\pm$10$\deg$-20$\deg$ and about every 20 degrees in
238: Galactic longitude. To date, the entire survey has strong detections
239: of the MRi in 14 regions with 3 additional tentative detections out of
240: 25 regions observed. It has been found on both sides of the Galactic
241: plane at Galactic latitudes from 4$\deg$ - 20$\deg$ and its extent
242: away from the plane is as yet undetermined although SDSS results
243: suggest that it could be as high as +30$\deg$
244: \citep{2007ApJ...658..337B}. Numerical simulations of the MRi as a
245: tidal stream predict it to have multiple wraps around MW, although the
246: current dataset cannot distinguish between different aspects of the
247: stream nor whether the different detections are part of a coherent
248: structure. Figure~\ref{figmonster} shows the previous detections of
249: the MRi as reported in \citet{2005MNRAS.362..475C} and
250: \citet{2007MNRAS.376..939C}. Figure 2 of Paper I shows how these CMDs
251: can be interpreted by showing the approximate location of the Thin,
252: Thick and Halo stars in the field. Figure 5 of Paper I illustrates
253: which components are being referenced when discussed in the text. Each
254: of the fields in this figure are pixelated Colour-Magnitude
255: diagrams. The pixel values represent the square-root of the number of
256: stars in that pixel. Ordered by increasing Galactic Longitude,
257: Figure~\ref{figmonster} tentatively shows the changing strength and thickness of
258: the MRi around the Plane. Qualitatively, the strength of the MRi can
259: be seen in comparison with the MW components. Additionally, the only
260: apparent difference between Northern and Southern detections is
261: perhaps that the Southern MRi features appear qualitatively narrower than their
262: Northern counterparts. There is no clear explanation as to why
263: this is the case.
264:
265: While there is more and more evidence regarding the true extent of
266: this structure, there is very little information concerning many of
267: its generic properties. As such, no direct measurement of the density
268: profile of any part of the stream around the sky has been made, nor a
269: complete understanding of its true extent on the sky. In the region
270: covered by the SDSS, \citet{2008ApJ...673..864J} and
271: \citet{2008arXiv0804.3850I}, report on the presence of the MRi with
272: regard to its number density, metallicity and kinematics. A clear
273: overdensity of stars can be seen at a distance of 16 kpc
274: \citep{2008ApJ...673..864J} and \citet{2008arXiv0804.3850I} reports a
275: mean metallicity of [Fe/H] = -0.95 with a scatter of around 0.15
276: dex. Kinematically, they show a spread of velocities rotating
277: consistently faster than the Local Standard of Rest and in accordance
278: with the predictions of ~\citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}.
279:
280: The only possible candidate for the stream's progenitor is an
281: overdensity of stars found in Canis Major but possible confusion with
282: the Galactic Warp has created doubts on this detection. Numerical
283: simulations created using the properties of these stars have predicted
284: the location and extent of the MRi with good accuracy and so adds
285: support to the dwarf galaxy scenario. This on-going debate centres on
286: whether observations of the Canis Major overdensity conform to known
287: Galactic structure, such as the Warp, or can be considered truly
288: additional. Paper I of this series outlines some of the possible
289: inconsistencies between predicted properties of the Galactic Warp and
290: direct observations of these structures. In response to this
291: \citet{2007arXiv0707.4440L} have presented an explanation relying on
292: only first order Galactic structure. Further refinement of the
293: properties of the MRi are needed to determine whether CMa is the most
294: likely candidate as its progenitor.
295:
296:
297: \begin{figure}
298: \centerline{
299: %\includegraphics[width=80mm, angle=270]{cmd_breakdown3.eps}}
300: \psfig{figure=Fig01.ps}}
301: \caption[]{Visual summary of all the previous Monoceros Ring detections from
302: the INT/WFC survey \citep{2005MNRAS.362..475C} and AAT/WFI survey (Paper I) of the outer Disc. The
303: Colour-Magnitude diagrams are of two types {\it V,i} and {\it
304: g,r}. For more detailed analysis of these fields and the reported
305: detections see the relevant articles.
306: \label{figmonster}}
307: \end{figure}
308:
309:
310: \section{Observations and Reduction}\label{obs}
311: The Anglo-Australian Telescope Wide Field Imager (AAT/WFI)
312: at Siding Spring Observatory in New South Wales, Australia was used to
313: conduct the current survey. The AAT/WFI is mounted at prime focus with a field
314: of view of approximately 33 arcminutes on a side. It consists of eight
315: 4k$\times$2k CCDs with a pixel scale of 0.2295 arcsec per pixel.
316:
317: The observations were taken over three observing runs, the first on
318: the 22-25 January 2004, the second on 30, 31st of January and 01
319: February 2004 with the third on the 14, 15 and 16th of August 2004. To
320: minimise the fringing effects that are present when observing with
321: other filters we employed the {\it g} (WFI SDSS \#90)
322: and {\it r} (WFI SDSS \#91) filters. Exposure times used were a single 600
323: second exposure in {\it g} and two 450 second exposures in {\it r}. Twilight flats along with
324: bias and dark frames were used for calibration, and Landolt Standard Star
325: fields were observed roughly every two hours. Data reduction was
326: performed using the Cambridge Astronomical Survey Unit (CASU) Pipeline
327: ~\citep{2001NewAR..45..105I}, a thorough description of this process
328: and the necessary calibrations are outlined in Paper I of this series.
329:
330: This paper presents the final section of the survey using the AAT/WFI
331: which observed fields from {\it l} = (280 - 25)$\deg$
332: across the Galactic bulge. This is in addition to Paper I which
333: covered fields in the regions {\it l} = (195 - 276)$\deg$. Nine fields have been observed, and in
334: general each field is approximately one square degree or four WFI
335: pointings. A summary of the results of this survey is shown in
336: Table~\ref{ObsTable}.
337:
338: \section{Analysis}\label{analysis}
339:
340: The magnitude completeness of the data has been estimated in the same manner as described
341: in Paper I. In essence, this involves using overlapping regions of the
342: observed fields to determine the completeness. The field at ({\it l,b}) = (300,-20)$\deg$ has only
343: one pointing and so with this approach no completeness estimate is
344: possible. Table~\ref{CompTable} presents the completeness profiles
345: of each field based on the equation
346: \begin{equation}\label{eqncomplete}
347: CF = \frac{1}{1 + e^{(m - m_c)/ \lambda}}\\
348: \end{equation}
349:
350: \begin{table}
351: \centering
352: %\begin{minipage}{70mm}
353: \caption{Parameters used to model the completeness of each field,
354: ordered in ascending Galactic longitude ({\it l}). $m_c$ is the
355: estimated 50\% completeness level for each filter with $\lambda$ describing the
356: width of the rollover function (see Equation~\ref{eqncomplete} and
357: further details in Paper I). }
358: \begin{tabular}{||l|c|c|c||} \hline \hline
359: Fields \it{(l,b)$\deg$} & m$_c$ ($g_\circ$) & m$_c$ ($r_\circ$) & $\lambda$ \\ \hline
360: (280, $-$15)$\deg$ & 22.40 & 21.40 & 0.55\\
361: (280, $+$15)$\deg$ & 23.85 & 22.60 & 0.60\\
362: (300, $-$20)$\deg$ &\multicolumn{3}{c}{no estimate possible}\\
363: (300, $+$10)$\deg$ & 23.30 & 22.40 & 0.30\\
364: (340, $+$20)$\deg$ & 21.80 & 20.70 & 0.45\\
365: (350, $-$20)$\deg$ & 23.10 & 22.30 & 0.30\\
366: (350, $+$20)$\deg$ & 23.40 & 22.40 & 0.75\\
367: (025, $-$20)$\deg$ & 22.60 & 21.70 & 0.60\\
368: (025, $+$20)$\deg$ & 22.60 & 21.70 & 0.60\\
369: \hline
370: \end{tabular}%\end{minipage}
371: \label{CompTable}
372: \end{table}
373:
374: Estimating the completeness provides a way to evaluate the quality of
375: the data and helps to determine the reliability of the detections in
376: the faint end of the Colour-Magnitude diagram (CMD). While in Paper I the completeness profile
377: was used when making signal-to-noise estimates of the stream, the data here are not
378: of sufficient quality to allow such a measurement. This is because
379: many of these fields only have two or three pointings per region (fewer stars)
380: coupled with poor seeing leading to a relatively bright limiting
381: magnitude. With these factors, the MRi is not as clearly above the
382: noise as in Paper I.
383:
384: Following the method employed by \citet{2003MNRAS.340L..21I},
385: \citet{2005MNRAS.362..475C} and Paper I, we have used a main sequence
386: fiducial to estimate the distance to the features seen in the
387: CMDs. For a complete explanation of the process
388: and errors involved see $\S$4.1.2 of Paper I. The furthest distance to
389: which this method can find the MRi is difficult to
390: estimate. The number density of MRi stars per field and the distance to
391: the MRi are obviously important to whether a detection is
392: made. Additionally, the quality of the data in those fields will again
393: directly influence the likelihood of a detection. Poor seeing and
394: insufficient sky coverage could easily effect the ability of this
395: method to make a successful detection. The findings of this survey
396: suggest that if the MRi is within $\sim$20 kpc it will be
397: detectable. Beyond this, it is highly dependent on the strength of MRi
398: in the CMD and only one field has the MRi placed greater than 20
399: kpc. A possible reason for this is that a detection at a distance of
400: 20 - 30 kpc involves a shift of 1.5 - 2.2 magnitudes from the base
401: position at 11 kpc ({\it g} = 19.5). The turn-off of the shifted main
402: sequence is now located at $\sim$22 magnitude where the photometric
403: errors are starting to increase and thereby spread out the main
404: sequence. In the absence of very deep or wide surveys this apparent
405: limit of $\sim$20 kpc may remain the practical limit for finding the MRi.
406:
407: \subsection{Comparisons with the Besan\c{c}on Model}\label{comparisons}
408: The basic methodology we have employed when searching for additional structures in
409: the outer Disc of the Galaxy is to make direct comparisons with the
410: Besan\c{c}on model which purports to predict its properties. While
411: this approach is not favoured by some it has a few
412: advantages. Firstly, and quite importantly it allowed the survey to be
413: completed in a reasonable time frame. Adding an extra filter, such as
414: a U band or i band filter, would have dramatically increased the time
415: needed. Secondly, the dynamic range of the survey means that the
416: brighter end of the survey can test the predicted properties of the
417: bulk Milky Way components while the fainter end tests the outer Disc
418: region. Since the MRi is only distinguishable in the Thick Disc/Halo
419: part of the CMD, searching for its presence relies on looking at the
420: fainter end of the CMD. The Canis Major dwarf galaxy feature as
421: discussed in Paper I, is located more or less in the Thin Disc
422: component. Indeed, since most of the debate concerning CMa revolves around
423: whether the CMDs observed in the CMa region are explainable in terms
424: of purely Disc components or whether an extra component exists in the
425: same Colour-Magnitude space. It is for the latter possibility that the
426: distance to the edge of the Thin Disc component has been determined for the
427: fields in this part of the survey. Checking their position with respect
428: to the model provides an opportunity to assess whether it is different
429: and perhaps could be related to the CMa overdensity. For some fields, measuring the faint
430: edge of the Thin disc cut-off has not been possible due to the CMDs
431: not showing a clear edge. For these fields, the distance to the bright edge of the Thin
432: Disc region has been found. So for each field there are three
433: possible structures to be examined: the faint MRi component, which may
434: represent additional MW substructure; the faint edge
435: of the Thin Disc, which may represent a mis-identified CMa-type population as per Paper I;
436: or the upper edge of the Thin Disc, which tests the model in these
437: directions. The results of these parameters are presented in Table~\ref{ResultsTable}.
438:
439: \subsection{Survey Fields}\label{Survey Fields}
440:
441: \begin{figure}
442: \centerline{
443: %\includegraphics[width=80mm, angle=270]{cmd_breakdown3.eps}}
444: \psfig{figure=Fig02.ps,angle=270,width=9cm}}
445: \caption[]{This figure shows the location of the survey fields
446: presented in this paper. The symbols denote the number
447: of pointings per field. The circles with plus signs represent five
448: pointings; the empty circles, four pointings; the triangles, three
449: pointings; the square, two pointings; and the cross one
450: pointing. Each field was intended to have four-five pointings,
451: however, weather and time constraints have resulted in many fields containing
452: less. The survey was originally designed to contain a more complete
453: coverage of the Galactic plane, however, weather again significantly
454: limited the number of photometric or near-photometric fields with
455: useful data. The resultant fields have been selected based on data
456: quality and information content. While ideally four pointings would
457: correspond to about 1 square degree of sky, observations undertaken
458: during August 2004 had only 6 of 8 CCDs available, and those taken
459: during February 2006 had only 7 of 8 CCDs available. This has
460: limited the amount of sky surveyed, despite attempts to reduce its
461: impact. The actual Field of View observed can be found in
462: Table~\ref{ObsTable} under the Total Area column.
463: \label{figsurvey}}
464: \end{figure}
465:
466: \begin{table}
467: %\centering
468: %\begin{minipage}{70mm}
469: \caption{\small Summary of the observations of Monoceros Ring/Canis Major Tidal Stream with
470: the AAT/WFI, ordered in ascending Galactic longitude ({\it l}). The offset is measured in magnitudes from the zero offset position of the \citet{2002ApJ...569..245N} detections at 11 kpc.}
471: \begin{tabular}{lcccccc} \hline \hline
472: Fields ({\it l,b})$\deg$ & MRi offset & MRi dist & MW/CMa offset & MW/CMa dist \\
473: & (mag) & (kpc) & (mag) & (kpc) \\ \hline
474: (280,$-$15)$\deg$& - & - & - & - \\
475: (280,$+$15)$\deg$& 0.0 & 11.0 & - & - \\
476: (300,$-$20)$\deg$& - & - & $-$0.8 & 7.6 \\
477: (300,$+$10)$\deg$& 0.8 & 15.9 & $-$0.8 & 7.6 \\
478: (340,$+$20)$\deg$& - & - & $-$0.2 & 10.0\\
479: (350,$-$20)$\deg$& - & - & $-$0.5 & 8.7 \\
480: (350,$+$20)$\deg$& - & - & $+$0.2 & 12.1\\
481: (025,$-$20)$\deg$& - & - & $-$2.0 & 4.4 \\
482: (025,$+$20)$\deg$& - & - & $-$2.2 & 4.0 \\
483: \hline\hline
484: \end{tabular}
485: %\end{minipage}
486: \label{ResultsTable}
487: \end{table}
488:
489: The location of each field, in Galactic coordinates, is shown graphically in Figure~\ref{figsurvey}.
490: Each field is presented in the following sections showing the CMDs
491: with the appropriate main sequence type overlay as taken from the
492: original \citet{2002ApJ...569..245N} detection and described in Paper
493: I. All magnitude offsets of the main sequence overlay are with respect
494: to this \citet{2002ApJ...569..245N} detection at 11.0
495: kpc. Table~\ref{ResultsTable} summarizes the outcome of this study and
496: uses the same formatting as in Paper I. It should be noted though that
497: this paper does not find evidence of the Canis Major dwarf and the
498: final column of Table~\ref{ResultsTable} simply presents where the
499: fiducial main sequence has been placed. In general, for this part of
500: the survey, the Besan\c{c}on model is well matched to the
501: data and as such the dominant main sequence is easily attributed to
502: known Galactic structure. The
503: CMDs that we have used are density maps of the
504: underlying distribution. Each pixel is the square root of the number
505: of stars in that part of the CMD. This method provides better contrast of the structures
506: especially in regions if high stellar density. A presentation of all the
507: fields from previous AAT and INT surveys in which the Monoceros Ring is present can be seen in
508: Figure~\ref{figmonster}. In the following sections we will provide the
509: distance estimates to the major features present in each CMD from this
510: part of the survey with an analysis of these results being presented
511: in the Discussion ($\S$\ref{discussion}).
512:
513:
514: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(280,-15)^\circ$}\label{280m15des}
515: The (280,-15)$\deg$ field (Figure~\ref{fig280m15}) is approximately 40 degrees from the
516: purported dwarf galaxy in Canis Major and the features here seem less
517: defined than in nearer fields. This is perhaps due to slight
518: differences in the photometric solution for each frame combined with
519: the brighter limiting magnitude. The strong main sequence seen in
520: ({\it l,b}) = (273,-9)$\deg$ (Figure 20 of Paper I) is
521: not seen here although the increase in latitude away from the Galactic
522: plane could account for this change. Deeper imaging of this region is necessary to
523: confirm the lack of the CMa feature and to investigate the slight excess of stars in
524: the region {\it g$_{\circ}$} $>$ 21 and ({\it g - r})$_{\circ}$ $<$ 1.0.
525:
526: \begin{figure}\centering
527: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig03.ps}
528: \caption[]{Hess plot of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (280,-15)$\deg$ and the
529: corresponding Besan\c{c}on model. A Hess plot is created by
530: pixelating the Colour-Magnitude diagram and generating a grayscale
531: on the basis of the square root of the pixel number density. The
532: same process is applied to both the data (Left panel) and
533: model (Right panel). The synthetic galaxy model was generated via
534: the Besan\c{c}on online galaxy model
535: website (http://bison.obs-besancon.fr/modele/). The distance
536: interval applied to the model is a line-of-sight from the Sun out to
537: 100 kpc. This ensures that no artificial cuts can enter into the
538: CMDs via distance effects. The model is selected
539: in $g,r$ in the CFHTLS system and the converted to $g,r$ of the
540: AAT/WFI via the colour conversions discussed in Section 4.1 of Paper
541: I.
542: \label{fig280m15}}
543: \end{figure}
544:
545: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(280,+15)^\circ$}\label{280p15des}
546: The (280,+15)$\deg$ field (Figure~\ref{fig280p15}) is similar to its corresponding field
547: below the plane at (280,-15)$\deg$. The comparison field from
548: the Besan\c{c}on model is presented here with the fiducial main
549: sequence at the location of the additional main sequence present in
550: the data. This main sequence has been interpreted as the Monoceros
551: Ring. Interestingly, the MRi feature in this field is more extended
552: than in others. The stream is perhaps extended or wrapped in this part
553: of the sky or the MW components here have different strengths than the
554: Besan\c{c}on model predicts. A mix of the two is also possible. The
555: fiducial shown marks the brighter edge of this feature. With only a small shift from the
556: nearby detection at (276,+12)$\deg$ (see Figure~\ref{figmonster}, the offset used for this feature is 0.8
557: magnitudes corresponding to 15.9 \kpc\ heliocentrically. In comparison
558: to the detection at (276,+12)$\deg$, this is about 4 \kpc\ further
559: away. The lower edge of this feature is approximately 0.5 magnitudes
560: fainter and thus would be estimated at around 20 \kpc. No attempt has been made to estimate the width of this feature.
561:
562: \begin{figure}\centering
563: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig04.ps}
564: \caption[]{Hess plot of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (280,+15)$\deg$ and the
565: corresponding Besan\c{c}on model. The figure is otherwise the same
566: as Figure~\ref{fig280m15}. The main sequence fitted here for the
567: Monoceros Ring is offset by 0.8 magnitudes. The heliocentric
568: distance related to this offset is then 15.9 \kpc. No error or
569: signal to noise estimate has been derived for this feature.
570: \label{fig280p15}}
571: \end{figure}
572:
573:
574: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(300,-20)^\circ$}\label{300m20des}
575: At (300,-20)$\deg$ (Figure~\ref{fig300m20}), the main sequence crossing the middle of the CMD
576: is well matched by the synthetic CMD and corresponds to the location of
577: the Disc stars seen in the model. The overlay is offset at
578: -0.8 magnitudes or $\sim$7.6 \kpc. There is perhaps a main sequence
579: belonging to the MRi at the faint blue end of the CMD however the
580: model does indicate that some stars should be expected in that
581: location. Given the overall noisy quality of the CMD, no attempt is
582: made to identify whether those stars may belong to the MRi. The strong
583: main sequence defined by the fiducial is a good match with
584: the model and thus is most likely of Galactic origin.
585:
586: \begin{figure}\centering
587: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig05.ps}
588: \caption[]{Hess plot of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (300,-20)$\deg$ and the
589: corresponding Besan\c{c}on model. The figure is in the same format
590: as Figure~\ref{fig280m15}. The main sequences fitted here are offset
591: by -0.8 magnitudes. The heliocentric distance of this offset is 7.6
592: \kpc. The similarity with the synthetic CMD suggests this main
593: sequence in the data is associated with Galactic disc.
594: \label{fig300m20}}
595: \end{figure}
596:
597: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(300,+10)^\circ$}\label{300p10des}
598: The (300,+10)$\deg$ field (Figure~\ref{fig300p10}) contains an obvious additional main
599: sequence more distant than the expected Milky Way component. The
600: original data for this field was slightly misaligned in colour after
601: all the photometric calibrations were applied. To try to
602: ensure the smallest shift possible when correcting this, the r magnitudes
603: have all been shifted by $+$0.1 magnitudes. Taking the field
604: without any differential extinction and shifting the others to match
605: aligns the final CMD in the correct colour range and allows the main sequence overlay to be used
606: to estimate the distance. Of course, shifting the data in this manner
607: weakens the accuracy to which we can determine the distance. While the
608: shift was small, all the distances reported for this field can only be
609: seen as indicative and do not have the accuracy as reported in the
610: other fields of the survey. The two overlays are offset by -0.8
611: magnitudes for the brighter main sequence and 0.8 for the fainter main
612: sequence. These result in distance estimates of $\sim$7.6\kpc\ and
613: $\sim$15.9 \kpc\ respectively. The stronger main sequence is clearly
614: related to the Galaxy given the good correlation with the model.
615: \begin{figure}\centering
616: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig06.ps}
617: \caption[]{Hess plot of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (300,+10)$\deg$ and the
618: corresponding Besan\c{c}on model. The figure is otherwise the same
619: as Figure~\ref{fig280m15}. The main sequences fitted here are offset
620: by -0.8 and 0.8 magnitudes. The heliocentric distance of these
621: offsets are 7.6 and 15.9 \kpc. The Galaxy component is related to
622: the closer feature and the MRi to the more distant feature. Due to the data having been shifted
623: by 0.1 magnitudes in {\it r} to align the CMD in colour, the
624: distances have an additional source of uncertainty.
625: \label{fig300p10}}
626: \end{figure}
627:
628: \subsubsection{Fields {\bf$(340,+20)^\circ$}}\label{340p20des}
629: The data in this field (Figure~\ref{fig340p20}) is a combination of two pointings which
630: resulted in different limiting magnitude when calibrated. This could
631: partly contribute to the lack of coherence in the data toward the
632: limiting magnitude of the shallower sample ({\it g$_\circ$}$\sim$22.5). When combining the two
633: datasets the selection criteria has been tightened; in the other
634: fields, if the object is classified a star in one filter and only possibly
635: a star in the other it is accepted. With this CMD, only if in both
636: filters the object is classified as a star has it been plotted. This
637: was done to try and remove some of the additional noise in the CMD. Additionally however, an
638: alignment in colour by $\sim$0.1 magnitudes redward was also required. This will impact on the accuracy of any distance estimates
639: of structures within this field. The overlay is fitted to the lower
640: extreme of the Milky Way main sequence and is a good match to the
641: predictions of the model.
642:
643: \begin{figure}\centering
644: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig07.ps}
645: \caption[]{ As for Figure~\ref{fig280m15}, Hess plot of ({\it l},{\it
646: b}) = (340,+20)$\deg$. The offset is placed at -0.2 magnitudes, or
647: 10.0 \kpc\ heliocentrically and is clearly associated with the MW
648: component in the model. The original CMD was slightly offset in
649: colour and this has been corrected with a small shift of 0.1
650: magnitudes in {\it r} towards the red. The distance estimates
651: becomes less accurate due to this shift.
652: \label{fig340p20}}
653: \end{figure}
654:
655:
656: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(350,-20)^\circ$}\label{350m20des}
657: This field (Figure~\ref{fig350m20}) shows a broad main sequence with an overlay placed with an
658: offset of -0.5 magnitudes (8.7 \kpc\ heliocentric distance). There is an
659: obvious problem with the predictions of the model. In the following
660: field, this problem was avoided by locating a field nearby which
661: reproduced an acceptable CMD. Unfortunately, there was no nearby field in the
662: model which resembled the data here and so was left as is. Indeed,
663: comparing with the results of the Northern field it suggests that the data
664: here consists solely of Galactic components.
665:
666: \begin{figure}\centering
667: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig08.ps}
668: \caption[]{Hess plots of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (350,-20)$\deg$. The
669: overlay is placed at -0.5 magnitudes or 8.7 \kpc\ heliocentric. The
670: model clearly has problems with this direction on the sky and any
671: differences are not expected to be real. The data does not seem to
672: have an MRi-like component.
673: \label{fig350m20}}
674: \end{figure}
675:
676: \subsubsection{Fields \bf$(350,+20)^\circ$}\label{350p20des}
677: As for the Southern field at this Galactic longitude, this field also
678: had a problematic model CMD. However, it was noticed that a slight change
679: in coordinates in the model produced a CMD much more similar to the
680: data. So for this field, the comparison field is (347.5,+20)$\deg$
681: rather than (350,+20)$\deg$ (Figure~\ref{fig350p20}). The (347.5,+20)$\deg$ synthetic field is used
682: here due to its similarity with the data. The contrast between the
683: data and the model for the field in the South is deemed a glitch rather than a flaw in the entire model. The overlay here is
684: placed at 0.2 magnitudes and corresponds to the fainter edge of the
685: main sequence. It can be found at a heliocentric distance of 12.1
686: \kpc, although, as with the Southern field, the main sequence in
687: the model does seem to be stronger than the data. On the whole though, they are much more
688: similar here than in previous fields.
689: \begin{figure}\centering
690: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig09.ps}
691: \caption[]{Hess plots of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (350,+20)$\deg$ and its
692: counterpart synthetic CMD. The synthetic CMD used here is actually
693: (347.5,+20)$\deg$, the model field with the same coordinates is
694: very similar to that seen in Figure~\ref{fig350m20}. It was found
695: though that with a small shift in longitude, the model retrieves a
696: CMD similar to the data. Since there is no reason to account for
697: such a drastic change in the CMD in this direction, the
698: (347.5,+20)$\deg$ field is used instead. The overlay here is at
699: 0.2 magnitudes of offset or 12.1 \kpc\ heliocentric distance. The
700: overlay is fitted ``by-eye'' to the lower extremity of the dominant
701: main sequence and is a good match to the model.
702: \label{fig350p20}}
703: \end{figure}
704:
705:
706: \subsubsection{Fields {\bf$(025,-20)^\circ$}}\label{025m20des}
707: This field (Figure~\ref{fig025m20}) completes the Monoceros Ring survey below the Galactic
708: plane which began with the INT/WFC survey. Despite having seeing of
709: typically 2$''$, the limiting magnitude of the data is still relatively
710: deep. In comparison with the model, the strong main sequence is
711: conspicuously missing from the data. In an attempt to compare the
712: features, the bright end of the weak Milky Way main sequence in the data
713: has been fit with an offset of -2.0 magnitudes. This converts to a
714: distance estimate of 4.4 \kpc\ which is reasonable match with the
715: model. It is uncertain why this field lacks a strong Thin Disc
716: presence in the data.
717:
718: \begin{figure}\centering
719: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig10.ps}
720: \caption[]{Hess plots of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (025,-20)$\deg$ and its
721: counterpart synthetic CMD. As for Figure~\ref{fig280m15}. The
722: overlay is placed at an offset of -2.0, aligning with the bright end
723: of the Milky Way main sequence feature in the data. The D$_{\odot}$
724: is 4.4 \kpc.
725: \label{fig025m20}}
726: \end{figure}
727:
728: \subsubsection{Fields {\bf$(025,+20)^\circ$}}\label{025p20des}
729: The final field of the survey on the Northern side of the plane (Figure~\ref{fig025p20}) is
730: remarkably similar to its Southern counterpart. Again the model
731: predicts strong main sequence for the Thin Disc component which is not
732: present in the data. To provide some point of comparison the
733: approximate bright end of the weak Milky Way main sequence has been
734: estimated and is found at an offset of -2.2 magnitudes or 4.0
735: \kpc. The model predicts this edge here too. There is no evidence of the
736: Monoceros Ring in this field.
737:
738: \begin{figure}[!h]\centering
739: \includegraphics[width=82mm,angle=270]{Fig11.ps}
740: \caption[]{ Hess plots of ({\it l},{\it b}) = (025,+20)$\deg$
741: (Left) and its counterpart synthetic CMD (Right). As for
742: Figure~\ref{fig280m15}. Despite the lack of a strong main sequence
743: in the data, a main sequence overlay is fitted to what is estimated
744: as the bright end of the Milky Way main sequence. This is at a
745: magnitude offset of -2.2 or D$_{\odot} \sim$4.0 \kpc, in rough
746: accordance with the model.
747: \label{fig025p20}}
748: \end{figure}
749:
750:
751: \section{Discussion}\label{discussion}
752:
753: To date there are only two numerical simulations of the Monoceros Ring
754: and Canis Major structures, these are from \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M}
755: and \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}. The primary difference between these
756: two models is that the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model uses the properties
757: of the Canis Major overdensity as its constraints and the
758: \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model uses the data collected on the Monoceros Ring
759: up to that time. The following two sections compare the findings of this paper,
760: Paper I and the INT/WFC paper \citep{2005MNRAS.362..475C} with these
761: models. To make the comparison meaningful, in the next
762: sections the MRi is assumed to be a tidal stream.
763:
764: \subsection{Comparing the observations with the
765: \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model}
766: \begin{figure*}\centering
767: \includegraphics[width=135mm,angle=270]{Fig12.ps}
768: \caption[]{Comparison of the \citep{2005MNRAS.362..906M} numerical simulation of the Monoceros
769: Ring/Canis Major streams and the locations and distances of the
770: detections (including tentative ones) arising from the survey. The top panel shows the
771: simulation in Galactic coordinates, the centre panel shows only
772: those fields and points from the model above the Galactic Plane
773: against Heliocentric distance and the lower
774: panel is for those points below the Galactic Plane. In the centre
775: and lower panels, the points with the opposite colour (\ie green
776: instead of red or vice versa) are the
777: predicted distance of the model in the direction of the observed
778: fields. The filled stars show fields with detections of the MRi and
779: empty stars show fields in which the MRi was not detected. Empty
780: squares show the location of the proposed CMa feature at that longitude as per the findings of Paper I.
781: \label{figmartincomp}}
782: \end{figure*}
783:
784:
785: The numerical simulation of \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} has been plotted
786: with the results from the entire survey (this paper, Paper I and
787: \citep{2005MNRAS.362..475C}) in Figure~\ref{figmartincomp}. The top panel shows the model in ({\it
788: l,b}) space dividing the points, by colour, for those above and
789: below the Galactic Plane. All of the fields from the three papers have
790: been overplotted as either full or open stars. Full stars represent
791: fields with a Monoceros Ring detection and open stars are fields
792: without a Monoceros Ring detection. Tentative detections have been
793: included in this figure.
794:
795: The middle panel contains only the points above the Plane plotted
796: against Heliocentric distance. For each field, the prediction of the
797: model for that location ({\it l,b}), is shown in green. This then
798: allows direct comparison between the finding of the survey with the
799: prediction of the model. To avoid clutter, the top panel only showed
800: MRi detections but for completeness the CMa detections from Paper I,
801: which reside in the same fields, are plotted as open squares. The
802: fields between {\it l} = (200 - 300)$\deg$ do seem to correspond well
803: to the model although there are a spread of distances which are
804: possible. The fields at ({\it l,b}) = (118,+16)$\deg$ and
805: (150,+15)$\deg$ are at distances greater than the predicted location
806: but they do vary in-step with the model and so could just represent
807: the model stream being too close heliocentrically. At ({\it l,b}) =
808: (90,+10)$\deg$ there is a conspicuous absence of the MRi. While in
809: other fields the overall data quality or area covered could be a
810: reason for a non-detection, but here there is no such problem. It is
811: unclear why the feature is absent. For the ({\it l,b}) =
812: (75,+15)$\deg$ field the detection again matches the model while the detection at ({\it
813: l,b}) = (61,+15)$\deg$ does not correspond well. The reasons for this is also uncertain.
814:
815: The lower panel shows the predictions for the stream model below the
816: Plane. Around {\it l} = (240 - 276)$\deg$ the detections do roughly
817: correspond with the model and from {\it l} = (60 - 240)$\deg$ the
818: connection is more or less correlated with the general direction of
819: the stream. The two interesting omissions in
820: the South are ({\it l,b}) = (90,-10)$\deg$ and ({\it l,b}) =
821: (280,-15)$\deg$ as both these fields were expected to have MRi
822: components. As per the Northern field at {\it l} = 90$\deg$, the data
823: quality in its Southern counterpart field is sufficiently high to
824: robustly conclude no MRi feature is present here. For the {\it l} =
825: 280$\deg$ field, the limiting magnitude is the second worst in the
826: sample but given that the predicted distance is more or less that of
827: the original detection by \citep{2002ApJ...569..245N} it should be
828: visible. The stream therefore does not pass through this field at the
829: distances suggested by the model.
830:
831: Non-detections of the stream also provide an opportunity to test the
832: model. In all but a few cases the non-detections in the data are
833: supported as non-detection regions in the model. The survey is
834: too sparse to draw conclusions as to a potential path for the stream
835: but it does serve as a basis for future studies and models.
836:
837:
838: \subsection{Comparing the observations with the
839: \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model}
840: \begin{figure*}\centering
841: \includegraphics[width=135mm,angle=270]{Fig13.ps}
842: \caption[]{As for Figure~\ref{figmartincomp}, but using the numerical
843: simulation of \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}. This model is useful for
844: comparison as it uses the Monoceros Ring detections known at that
845: time as
846: constraints, rather than the overdensity of stars in the Canis Major
847: region as used by \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M}.
848: \label{figpenacomp}}
849: \end{figure*}
850:
851: Interpreting the predictions of the \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model
852: has been done in the same way as for the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M}
853: model, primarily by comparing the locations and distances of the
854: observed structures with the distances and locations as predicted by
855: the model (Figure~\ref{figpenacomp}). The lower two panels show the
856: predicted stream locations from the model in each of the regions
857: surveyed. Given that the \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model uses fewer particles
858: than the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model; a slightly bigger
859: area has been chosen around each field to sample enough model data
860: points. The correspondence with data is seemingly poorer for the
861: \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model and several non-detection regions
862: are supposedly populated by the stream.
863:
864: For the Northern fields, many of the distances do seem to match the
865: predictions of the model. Close inspection of the model shows that the
866: detections are located on the wrong arm. Most of the fields observed
867: are located in sparsely populated regions of the model and do not
868: probe the predicted path of the model to higher
869: latitudes. The field at {\it l} = 25$\deg$ is possibly undetected due
870: to the predicted distance of the stream here. As discussed in $\S$~
871: \ref{analysis}, it is estimated that the technique used is only
872: sensitive to objects less than 20 kpc distant. The fields at ({\it
873: l,b}) = (61 - 75)$\deg$ could be seen as confirmation of the stream
874: however the non-detection at ({\it l,b})) = (90,$+$10)$\deg$ is
875: difficult to explain. At ({\it l,b})) = (118,$+$16)$\deg$, the detection
876: is at least 5 kpc closer than the distance estimate from the
877: model. For the field centred on ({\it l,b})) = (150,$+$15)$\deg$, it
878: resides in an almost empty region of the model but seemingly the
879: detected stream here corresponds with the tidal arm at higher
880: latitudes. The discrepancy for this model around the {\it l} = 240$\deg$ region
881: is known and has been commented on by other authors. The fields at
882: longitudes {\it l} = (260 - 360)$\deg$ are simply unable to observe
883: the stream according to the model. The latitude for these fields is
884: not so much a problem and detections reported in this paper do not
885: match the model at all.
886:
887: In the South, the match with the model is good around {\it l} =
888: 60$\deg$, 123$\deg$ and close to the Plane around 250$\deg$. The
889: remaining fields occupy regions of low density in the model. A few
890: fields, like those at {\it l} = 90$\deg$ present real discrepancies
891: with the model. The main difference between the Northern
892: fields is that most of the predicted stream locations in the South
893: should have been detectable by the technique used here. In favour of
894: the model though, a significant proportion of the model is not sampled
895: in the survey as it is above a latitude of 20$\deg$. Finally, in
896: comparison to the original data used to create the model (see Figure
897: 2, \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}), most of the data points there reside
898: between {\it l} = (110 - 240)$\deg$. This corresponds to a relatively
899: sparse sampling in this survey. Another comparison of
900: this model against the available data is presented in
901: \citet{2007astro.ph..3601M}.
902:
903:
904: \subsection{Key locations to test the models}\label{locations}
905: Each model predicts that in key areas of the Galaxy there are
906: significant changes in the stream which could be used to both test the
907: model and provide further support to the tidal stream scenario as a
908: whole. In particular, these are the regions south of the purported
909: Canis Major dwarf galaxy over the longitude range {\it l} = (200 -
910: 250)$\deg$ since in this location the two models predict different
911: approaches for the stream into the core. The region {\it l} = (130 -
912: 220)$\deg$ is where the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model predicts the
913: leading tidal arm of the dwarf galaxy should decrease in latitude and
914: enter into the Disc. Finally the region {\it l} = (025 - 050)$\deg$:
915: here the stream is predicted to be close to the Plane ({\it b} =
916: $\pm$10$\deg$) in the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model and away from
917: the Plane ({\it b} = $\pm$20$\deg$) in the \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}
918: model. Knowledge of the stream around the Bulge is needed to constrain
919: its position in all four quadrants of the Galaxy. The Bulge presents
920: an additional challenge in that the distance of the targets and the
921: high density of foreground stars will make the MRi difficult to
922: detect. The current dataset is unable to detect the MRi at the
923: distances predicted by the \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P}
924: model (25 - 30 kpc) and the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model
925: predictions of 15 - 25 kpc are yet to be tested so close the Plane.
926:
927: \subsection{Insights into the nature of the Galactic Warp}
928: One of the key properties of the Galactic Disc is the Warp. Around
929: {\it l} = 90$\deg$ the Disc curves up from the {\it b} = 0$\deg$
930: position and around {\it l} = 270$\deg$ it curves down. Studies into
931: the putative Canis Major dwarf galaxy have had to contend with the
932: close proximity of the Warp and much debate has centred on whether the
933: CMDs in this region can be fully explained by the Warp or require an
934: additional source of stars. This part of the survey provides an
935: opportunity to understand the impact of the Galactic Warp on CMDs,
936: through a closer inspection of fields ({\it l,b}) =
937: (280,$\pm$15)$\deg$
938: (Figures~\ref{fig280m15},\ref{fig280p15}). At {\it l} = 280$\deg$
939: these fields are very near the maxima of the Southern Warp. Firstly,
940: both these fields are well matched by the model and the Warp is seen clearly as an
941: excess of stars in the Southern field. This manifest as both as a
942: general increase in star counts and an obvious thickening of the Thin
943: and Thick Disc components as seen in the Southern field. How to identify
944: the different components of the Galaxy in the CMDs is shown in
945: Figure~2 of Paper I. Secondly, we see that the influence of the
946: Galactic Warp does not change the shape of the CMD. The Northern field
947: at {\it l} = 280$\deg$ is essentially a shifted version of its
948: Southern counterpart. This is important because a comparison of the
949: almost symmetric fields ({\it l,b}) = (240,+10)$\deg$ and ({\it l,b})
950: = (240,-9)$\deg$ (See Figure~\ref{figmonster} or Figures~10 and 17 from Paper
951: I.) is remarkably different. While the fields at {\it l}
952: = 280$\deg$ have more of a sharp edge to Thin-Thick Disc boundary the Canis
953: Major field shows a true curving Main Sequence which is unmatched in
954: the Northern field. Since the {\it l} = 280$\deg$ fields show that the
955: Warp does not seem to have an impact on the shape of the CMD, the
956: fields in Canis Major must be considered anomalous to the usual
957: Galactic Warp scenario. Whether this anomaly is caused by a dwarf galaxy is
958: uncertain, however these qualitative differences in the CMDs should be
959: investigated so that our understanding of this region is more complete.
960:
961: \section{Conclusion}\label{conclusion}
962: This paper reports on 2 new detections and 7 non-detections of the
963: Monoceros Ring tidal stream. The results presented here conclude a
964: survey tracing this feature around the entire Galactic plane. The
965: previously reported detections of the survey are presented in
966: Figure~\ref{figmonster}. Comparing the relative strengths of the MRi
967: and the main MW population it appears qualitatively that the stream is
968: denser and broader above the Plane than below but as such there is no explanation why this
969: would be the case. The part of the overall survey presented here shows
970: no evidence of the strong Canis Major dwarf main sequence in the
971: CMDs. The CMa sequence is historically identified as a shift in the
972: position and shape of the strongest main sequence in the CMD. For the
973: fields presented here, the dominant main sequence feature in the CMDs
974: is easily attributed to the Thin and Thick Discs. In each instance
975: where the distance has been determined to these structures it is in
976: accordance with the Besan\c{c}on synthetic galaxy model
977: predictions. Therefore they can be confidentially associated with the
978: MW. The only field which might be expected, from the
979: \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model, to contain the CMa
980: signature is ({\it l,b}) = (280,-15)$\deg$. This field does not show
981: this CMa-style sequence in the CMD (Figure~\ref{fig280m15}).
982:
983: Comparing these new MRi detections with the two current numerical
984: simulations of the stream and putative dwarf galaxy progenitor, has
985: led to inconclusive results. The \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model
986: north of the Galactic Plane roughly traces the locations of the
987: detections. In the South the correspondence
988: between the model and the detections is adequate with some noted
989: exceptions. Several detections presented in this survey indicate, with
990: reasonable certainty, the locations in which the model is incorrect. For the
991: \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model, there is less correlation
992: between the data points and the predicted stream locations than is
993: seen with the \citet{2005MNRAS.362..906M} model. Although some points
994: do seem to represent a better fit it is important to note though that
995: a significant proportion of the \citet{2005ApJ...626..128P} model does
996: reside outside of a Galactic latitude of {\it b} = $\pm$20$\deg$. So
997: much of the model has not been sampled by this survey. Indeed, it is easy to see that this
998: survey is too narrow in Galactic latitude in comparison with the data
999: used to construct the model and the predictions it makes. Drawing a conclusion based on
1000: these results in inadvisable but there is little here to strongly support this
1001: model. Both models obviously will require reworking to include the new
1002: information available along with more observations to test their predictions.
1003:
1004: With regard to the Besan\c{c}on synthetic galaxy model, there is no
1005: presence of the MRi as part of natural Galactic structure. In almost
1006: all fields in this survey, the bulk Milky Way components of Thin,
1007: Thick Disc have been accurately modelled. There is no systematic
1008: discrepancy between the model and data even in regions containing the
1009: Galactic Warp. Only the regions around Canis Major, as discussed in
1010: Paper I, show a definite shift from the observational data. Given the
1011: data supports the predictions of the Besan\c{c}on model in all but the
1012: MRi detections, it is reasonable to assume this structure is indeed
1013: additional to the usual Galactic components.
1014:
1015: Determining the density profile of this feature around the Galaxy and
1016: indeed connecting detections is an important next step in resolving its origins. To
1017: date, targeted deep surveys, such as this, have resolved many important questions
1018: surrounding this structure. This survey sheds some light on
1019: the impact of the Galactic Warp on the Colour-Magnitude Diagrams
1020: showing it does not effect its morphology significantly and that the
1021: Besan\c{c}on model is adequate for most fields. This has implications with
1022: regard how the fields in the Canis Major region are to be interpreted
1023: as the fields there have obviously different characteristics. While
1024: the nature of the Monoceros Ring still remains quite elusive, this is primarily due
1025: to its large extent on the sky and its location close to the
1026: Plane. For the time being, both the Galactic origin scenario and the
1027: tidal stream hypothesis are still possibilities for this
1028: structure. The completed survey, presented here, has shown that a
1029: targeted campaign of observations can provide insights on not only this
1030: structure but also generic Galactic structures as well.
1031:
1032: \section{Acknowledgments}
1033: M.B. acknowledges the financial support of INAF to this research through the
1034: grants PRIN05 - CRA 1.06.08.02 and PRIN07 - CRA 1.06.10.04. RRL would like to thank LKN for her on-going support.
1035: BCC thanks the referee for their constructive comments and B. Carry
1036: for his work with the lighting.
1037:
1038: \newcommand{\aap}{A\&A}
1039: \newcommand{\apj}{ApJ}
1040: \newcommand{\apjl}{ApJ}
1041: \newcommand{\aaps}{AAPS}
1042: \newcommand{\aj}{AJ}
1043: \newcommand{\mnras}{MNRAS}
1044: \newcommand{\nat}{Nature}
1045:
1046: \begin{thebibliography}{DUM}
1047:
1048: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Belokurov et al.}{2007}]{2007ApJ...658..337B} Belokurov, V., et al.\ 2007, \apj, 658, 337
1049: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Conn et al.}{2005a}]{2005MNRAS.362..475C} Conn B.~C., Lewis G.~F., Irwin M.~J., Ibata R.~A., Ferguson A.~M.~N., Tanvir N., Irwin J.~M., 2005a, MNRAS, 362, 475
1050: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Conn et al.}{2007}]{2007MNRAS.376..939C} Conn, B.~C., et al.\ 2007, \mnras, 376, 939
1051: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ibata et al.}{2003}]{2003MNRAS.340L..21I} Ibata R.~A., Irwin M.~J., Lewis G.~F., Ferguson A.~M.~N., Tanvir N., 2003, MNRAS, 340, L21
1052: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Irwin \& Lewis}{2001}]{2001NewAR..45..105I} Irwin M., Lewis J., 2001, NewAR, 45, 105
1053: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ivezic et al.}{2008}]{2008arXiv0804.3850I} Ivezic, Z., et al.\ 2008, ArXiv e-prints, 804, arXiv:0804.3850
1054: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Juri{\'c} et al.}{2008}]{2008ApJ...673..864J} Juri{\'c}, M., et al.\ 2008, \apj, 673, 864
1055: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{L{\'o}pez-Corredoira et al.}{2007}]{2007arXiv0707.4440L} L{\'o}pez-Corredoira, M., Momany, Y., Zaggia, S., \& Cabrera-Lavers, A.\ 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 707, arXiv:0707.4440
1056: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Martin et al.}{2005}]{2005MNRAS.362..906M} Martin N.~F., Ibata R.~A., Conn B.~C., Lewis G.~F., Bellazzini M., Irwin M.~J., 2005a, MNRAS, 362, 906
1057: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pe{\~n}arrubia et al.}{2007}]{2007astro.ph..3601M} Pe{\~n}arrubia, J., Martinez-Delgado, D., Rix, H.W. \ 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0703601
1058: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mateu et al.}{2007}]{2007IAUS..241..359M} Mateu, C., Vivas, K., Zinn, R., \& Miller, L.\ 2007, IAU Symposium, 241, 359
1059: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Newberg et al.}{2002}]{2002ApJ...569..245N} Newberg H.~J., et al., 2002, ApJ, 569, 245
1060: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Pe{\~n}arrubia et al.}{2005}]{2005ApJ...626..128P} Pe{\~n}arrubia, J., et al.\ 2005, \apj, 626, 128
1061: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rocha-Pinto et al.}{2003}]{2003ApJ...594L.115R} Rocha-Pinto H.~J., Majewski S.~R., Skrutskie M.~F., Crane J.~D., 2003, ApJ, 594, L115
1062: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vivas \& Zinn}{2006}]{2006AJ....132..714V} Vivas, A.~K., \& Zinn, R.\ 2006, \aj, 132, 714
1063:
1064: \end{thebibliography}
1065: \bsp
1066:
1067: \label{lastpage}
1068:
1069: \end{document}
1070: