1: %%
2: %% Beginning of file 'sample.tex'
3: %%
4: %% Modified 03 Jan 01
5: %%
6: %% This is a sample manuscript marked up using the
7: %% AASTeX v5.x LaTeX 2e macros.
8:
9: %% The first piece of markup in an AASTeX v5.x document
10: %% is the \documentclass command. LaTeX will ignore
11: %% any data that comes before this command.
12:
13: %% The command below calls the preprint style
14: %% which will produce a one-column, single-spaced document.
15: %% Examples of commands for other substyles follow. Use
16: %% whichever is most appropriate for your purposes.
17:
18: \documentclass[epsf]{aastex}
19:
20: %\documentstyle[emulate_apj,apjfonts,epsf]{article}
21:
22: %% manuscript produces a one-column, double-spaced document:
23:
24: % \documentclass[manuscript]{aastex}
25:
26: %% preprint2 produces a double-column, single-spaced document:
27:
28: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
29: %% If you want to create your own macros, you can do so
30: %% using \newcommand. Your macros should appear before
31: %% the \begin{document} command.
32: %%
33: %% If you are submitting to a journal that translates manuscripts
34: %% into SGML, you need to follow certain guidelines when preparing
35: %% your macros. See the AASTeX v5.x Author Guide
36: %% for information.
37: \include{epsf}
38: \usepackage{emulateapj5}
39:
40: \newcommand{\vdag}{(v)^\dagger}
41: \newcommand{\myemail}{skywalker@galaxy.far.far.away}
42:
43: %% You can insert a short comment on the title page using the command below.
44:
45: %\slugcomment{Not to appear in Nonlearned J., 45.}
46:
47:
48: %% If you wish, you may supply running head information, although
49: %% this information may be modified by the editorial offices.
50: %% The left head contains a list of authors,
51: %% usually a maximum of three (otherwise use et al.). The right
52: %% head is a modified title of up to roughly 44 characters. Running heads
53: %% will not print in the manuscript style.
54:
55: \shorttitle{Globular Clusters in NGC 1399}
56: \shortauthors{Forbes, Beasley, Brodie \& Kissler-Patig}
57:
58: %% This is the end of the preamble. Indicate the beginning of the
59: %% paper itself with \begin{document}.
60:
61: \def\etal{{\it et al. }}
62:
63: \begin{document}
64:
65: %% LaTeX will automatically break titles if they run longer than
66: %% one line. However, you may use \\ to force a line break if
67: %% you desire.
68:
69: \title{Age Estimates for Globular Clusters in NGC 1399}
70:
71: %% Use \author, \affil, and the \and command to format
72: %% author and affiliation information.
73: %% Note that \email has replaced the old \authoremail command
74: %% from AASTeX v4.0. You can use \email to mark an email address
75: %% anywhere in the paper, not just in the front matter.
76: %% As in the title, you can use \\ to force line breaks.
77:
78: \author{Duncan A. Forbes and Michael A. Beasley}
79: \affil{Astrophysics \& Supercomputing, Swinburne University,
80: Hawthorn, VIC 3122, Australia}
81: \email{dforbes, mbeasley@swin.edu.au}
82:
83: \author{Jean P. Brodie}
84: \affil{Lick Observatory, University of California,
85: Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA}
86: \email{brodie, soeren@ucolick.org}
87:
88: \author{Markus Kissler-Patig}
89: \affil{ESO, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 2, 85748 Garching, Germany}
90: \email{mkissler@eso.org}
91:
92:
93: %% Notice that each of these authors has alternate affiliations, which
94: %% are identified by the \altaffilmark after each name. Specify alternate
95: %% affiliation information with \altaffiltext, with one command per each
96: %% affiliation.
97:
98: %ApJL paid 1/3 by Swinburne, 1/3 Lick, 1/3 ESO ?\\
99:
100: \begin{abstract}
101: We present high signal-to-noise Keck spectra for 10 globular
102: clusters associated with the giant Fornax elliptical NGC~1399,
103: and compare measured line indices with current stellar population
104: models.
105: Our data convincingly demonstrate, for the first time,
106: that at least some of the
107: clusters in a giant elliptical galaxy
108: have super-solar abundance ratios, similar to the host galaxy.
109: From H$\beta$ line-strengths the majority of
110: clusters have ages of $\sim$11 Gyrs (within 2$\sigma$), which is
111: similar to the luminosity-weighted stellar age of
112: NGC~1399.
113: Two of the clusters
114: (which also reveal enhanced abundance ratios)
115: show significantly higher H$\beta$ values than the
116: others. It remains unclear whether this is due to
117: young ($\sim$ 2 Gyr) ages, or extremely old ($>$ 15
118: Gyr) ages with a warm blue horizontal branch. However a conflict with
119: current cosmological parameters is avoided if the young age is
120: favored.
121: Either alternative indicates a complicated age distribution among
122: the metal-rich clusters and sets interesting
123: constraints on their chemical enrichment
124: at late epochs.
125:
126: \end{abstract}
127:
128: \keywords{
129: globular clusters: general -- galaxies: individual (NGC 1399) --
130: galaxies: star clusters.
131: }
132:
133: \section{Introduction}\label{sec_intro}
134:
135: The metal-rich and metal-poor Globular Clusters (GCs) in our
136: Galaxy, are thought to be both very old, i.e. $\sim$13 Gyrs (e.g.
137: Carretta \etal 2000) and enhanced in $\alpha$ elements, i.e.
138: [$\alpha$/Fe] $\sim$ +0.3 (Carney 1996). However the amount, and even the
139: existence of a relative age difference between these two
140: subpopulations is a matter of current debate.
141:
142: %Age-dating of Globular Clusters (GCs) in our Galaxy is
143: %problematic because both the metal-rich and metal-poor
144: %subpopulations appear to be very old ($\sim$13 Gyrs). Even
145: %assigning relative ages for the two subpopulations is difficult
146: %and the subject of current debate (e.g. Carretta 2000).
147: %Similarly, the metal-rich and metal-poor GCs in M31 appear uniformly old
148: %(Beasley \etal 2001).
149:
150: Giant ellipticals also reveal two subpopulations of GCs (e.g.
151: Larsen \etal 2001),
152: with mean metallicities similar to those seen in spirals
153: (Forbes, Brodie \& Larsen 2001). Very little is currently
154: known about the ages and abundance ratios of such GCs.
155: The spectroscopic (Kissler-Patig \etal 1998; Cohen
156: \etal 1998; Beasley \etal 2000) and recent photometric (Puzia \etal
157: 1999; Kundu \etal 1999) studies suggest that both
158: subpopulations are very old but the red (metal-rich) GCs could be
159: up to as much as 5 Gyrs younger than the blue (metal-poor) ones.
160: Abundance ratios for GCs in the giant ellipticals studied to date are
161: consistent with Galactic GCs but individual errors are large.
162: In the case of the merger remnant NGC 7252, Maraston \etal (2001)
163: found GCs that had both young ($\sim$ 1 Gyr) ages and {\it solar}
164: abundance ratios.
165: Accurate measurements of individual GC ages and abundance ratios
166: in elliptical
167: galaxies will provide key constraints on the possible GC formation
168: mechanisms (Ashman \& Zepf 1992; Forbes, Brodie \&
169: Grillmair 1997).
170:
171:
172: %Determining the age of the two GC subpopulations in ellipticals
173: %is crucial to discriminating between the different GC formation
174: %models. The merger model (Ashman \& Zepf 1992) would predict that
175: %the red (metal-rich) GCs have an age of the last gaseous merger,
176: %whereas in the multi-phase collapse model (Forbes, Brodie \&
177: %Grillmair 1997) all old ellipticals should reveal an age
178: %difference between the two subpopulations of 2-4 Gyrs (with the
179: %red ones being younger).
180:
181: In our previous spectroscopic study of NGC 1399 we
182: obtained spectra of 18 GCs with the LRIS spectrograph on the
183: Keck telescope (Kissler-Patig \etal 1998).
184: These spectra indicated that the two subpopulations were old and
185: coeval within the errors (i.e. $\pm$ 0.5~\AA~ in H$\beta$ Lick line
186: index). Such errors were too large to clearly
187: distinguish a relative
188: age difference between the two subpopulations but
189: they were generally consistent with old ages similar to
190: those found in the Milky Way GC system. We also identified two
191: metal-rich GCs with potentially super-solar abundance ratios.
192:
193: Here we present higher S/N spectra (i.e. errors on H$\beta$ are
194: about $\pm$ 0.25~\AA~) for 10 GCs. These data are perhaps
195: the highest quality spectra published for GCs beyond the Local
196: Group and are comparable to the best spectra in the literature
197: for M31 (Huchra \etal 1996) and Milky Way GCs (Trager \etal 2000).
198: Errors in spectral line indices
199: have a huge impact on our ability to estimate GC
200: ages. For our previous dataset these errors translated into
201: a relative age uncertainty of about $\pm$ 10 Gyrs for a 15 Gyr old GC. The
202: data presented here have a corresponding error of $\pm$ 5
203: Gyrs.
204: This allows us to better estimate the relative age of individual
205: GCs and in particular identify GCs with young inferred ages in a giant
206: elliptical galaxy for the first time.
207: Here we confirm that the
208: metal-poor GCs have [Fe/H] $\sim$ --1.5 and are very old.
209: We also identify two metal-rich GCs
210: with super-solar abundance ratios (i.e. [$\alpha$/Fe] $>$ 0) --
211: such ratios are generally unexpected in late epoch mergers of
212: spiral disks (Goudfrooij \etal 2001).
213:
214: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}
215:
216: Candidate GCs were selected from the list of
217: Grillmair (1992) and observed on 1997 Sept. 30th
218: and Oct. 1st using the LRIS spectrograph (Oke \etal 1995) on the
219: Keck I telescope. The observational
220: setup was the same as used by Kissler-Patig \etal (1998) except
221: integrations were longer at 13,200 sec. The 600~l/mm grating gave a
222: resolution of 5.6\AA~.
223:
224: Data reduction was carried out using the {\tt REDUX} software
225: package developed by A. Phillips. Using a series of scripts this
226: package subtracts the bias, flatfields the data, removes the
227: $x-$ and $y-$distortions, and produces optimal
228: sky subtracted 1-D spectra. Comparison lamp spectra of Hg, Ar, Ne
229: and Kr were used for wavelength calibration. Spectra from the
230: different nights were combined. Flux calibration was
231: provided by the flux standard BD284211 observed on the first
232: night. To correct the GCs onto the Lick/IDS system,
233: we convolved our spectra with a wavelength-dependent
234: Gaussian kernel and then applied
235: small offsets obtained from observations of several Lick
236: standard stars (see Beasley \etal in prep.).
237:
238: Lick indices (Trager \etal 2000)
239: were measured from our flux-calibrated spectra.
240: Due to the variable nature
241: of the wavelength ranges in multi-slit spectra, the same set
242: of indices were not measured for all spectra.
243: Uncertainties in the indices were derived from the
244: photon noise in the unfluxed spectra.
245: We have obtained spectra with S/N = 30--45 \AA$^{-1}$,
246: giving errors in the H$\beta$ index of 0.34--0.22 \AA.
247:
248:
249: Of the 17 usable spectra we confirm that
250: 11 are {\it bona fide} GCs.
251: We found objects \#43 and \#164 (IDs from Grillmair 1992)
252: to be Galactic stars.
253: Background galaxies (and their redshifts) are \#40 (z$\sim$0.11),
254: \#163 (z$\sim$0.07), \#167 (z$\sim$0.14) and \#169 (z$\sim$0.13).
255: Our sample of GCs have
256: an average galactocentric distance of 20 kpc and cover the
257: observed range of C--T$_1$ colors for the GC system (Ostrov,
258: Geisler \& Forte 1993).
259: Velocities have been measured from the spectra via cross-correlation
260: with high S/N spectra of two
261: M31 GCs (158-213; $v_{\rm helio}$ = --180 km/s
262: and 225-280; $v_{\rm helio}$ = --164 km/s).
263: The 11 GCs have a mean velocity of 1551 $\pm$ 74 km/s and
264: velocity dispersion of 246 $\pm$ 57 km/s. NGC 1399 itself has a
265: velocity of 1447 $\pm$ 12 km/s.
266: One GC, \#41 with velocity 1619$\pm$68 km/s,
267: has been excluded from our
268: line-strength analysis due to suspect sky-subtraction.
269:
270:
271:
272: \section{Ages and Abundances}
273:
274: To investigate the properties of our GC sample,
275: we primarily
276: use the stellar population models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000)
277: which predict line-strength indices
278: using the Lick/IDS-based fitting functions of Worthey (1994).
279: It is important to check that we have adequately corrected
280: the data onto the Lick system. To this end, we have compared
281: index-index plots of our data with the models, and generally
282: find good agreement.
283: The strongest (and best measured)
284: features in the GC spectra, which we use in this
285: study, are the primarily metallicity-sensitive
286: Mg$_2$, Mg~$b$ and $\langle$Fe$\rangle$ indices
287: (the mean of the Fe5270 and Fe5335), and the more age-sensitive
288: H$\beta$ and H$\gamma_{\rm A}$ (the broader of the two
289: H$\gamma$ indices defined by Worthey \& Ottaviani 1997).
290: Our line index measurements for the 10 GCs in NGC 1399 are
291: listed in Table 1. We also include T$_1$ magnitudes
292: (similar to Johnson R) and C--T$_1$ colors
293: from Geisler, Forte \& Dirsch (in prep.).
294:
295:
296: In Fig.~1 we
297: plot the magnesium and iron indices of the GCs,
298: and for the
299: central line-strength of NGC~1399 itself (taken from Kuntschner 2000).
300: At low metallicities, the GCs follow the models
301: reasonably well.
302: However, at higher metallicities, the NGC~1399 GCs
303: deviate significantly from the grids.
304: The metal-rich GCs seemingly show an enhancement of
305: magnesium with respect to iron, $and$ an enhancement of
306: Mg $b$ with respect to Mg$_2$.
307:
308: This behavior is also exhibited by NGC~1399
309: itself, which lies to the right of the population models.
310: The fact that these magnesium lines do not vary in the same
311: fashion does not indicate that we are unable
312: to measure these indices. Rather, these indices (i.e. the
313: bandpasses) have different
314: contributions from elements other than magnesium (e.g. Tripicco
315: \& Bell 1995; Trager \etal 2000).
316: Since the models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000) use
317: scaled-solar isochrones, we conclude that this offset arises
318: because the metal-rich GCs in our sample have non-solar abundance ratios,
319: i.e. [Mg/Fe] $>$ 0. This result is consistent with high-resolution
320: spectroscopy of bright giants in Galactic GCs, which typically
321: exhibit [$\alpha$/Fe] $\sim$ + 0.3 (Carney 1996).
322: Due to the small difference between
323: solar and $\alpha$-enhanced isochrones at low metallicities
324: (e.g. Salaris \& Weiss 1998) it is
325: possibile that the metal-poor GCs also possess super-solar abundance
326: ratios.
327:
328:
329: \vbox{
330: \begin{center}
331: \leavevmode
332: \hbox{%
333: \epsfxsize=9.2cm
334: %\epsffile{./figures/index.1.ps}}
335: \epsffile{f1.eps}}
336: \figcaption{\small
337: Comparison of primarily metallicity-sensitive Lick/IDS indices.
338: Filled, numbered circles with error bars are the NGC~1399 GCs.
339: Symbol size is roughly proportional to the S/N of the
340: spectra. The open square indicates the position of NGC~1399
341: (Kuntschner 2000). Over-plotted are the stellar
342: population models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000) for ages
343: between 1 and 15 Gyrs (left to right), and --2.25 $<$ [Fe/H] $<$
344: +0.67 (lower left to upper right).
345: \label{grids}}
346: \end{center}}
347:
348:
349: The stellar population models can be used to
350: disentangle age and metallicity, albeit in a model
351: dependent way, and derive {\it relative} ages and metallicities
352: for the NGC 1399 GCs. In particular we use the
353: hydrogen Balmer lines which are strongly
354: age sensitive combined with magnesium and iron
355: which are largely metal sensitive.
356:
357: In Fig.~2 we show our GC data compared
358: to the stellar population models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000)
359: extended to younger ages (Maraston 2001, private
360: comm.).
361: To complement Mg$_2$, our most robust measure of metallicity,
362: we use [MgFe] ([Mg $b$ $\times$ $\langle$Fe$\rangle$]$^{0.5}$),
363: which minimizes the effects of the overabundance seen in
364: Mg $b$, whilst increasing measurement accuracy (Gonzalez 1993).
365: We have chosen to derive ages and metallicities for
366: the GCs using the Maraston grids,
367: since these are calibrated on Galactic GCs.
368: In Table 1, we list the derived ages and metallicities
369: of the GCs, obtained from the mean of the values
370: predicted in the upper two panels of Fig.~2.
371: Uncertainties are obtained by perturbing the line-strengths by
372: their errors and re-deriving their ages and metallicities.
373: We emphasize that these uncertainties represent the random
374: measurement errors, and do
375: not include possible systematic errors in the models themselves.
376:
377:
378: \vbox{
379: \begin{center}
380: \leavevmode
381: \hbox{%
382: \epsfxsize=9.2cm
383: %\epsffile{./figures/index.2.ps}}
384: \epsffile{f2.eps}}
385: \figcaption{\small
386: Index measurements of NGC~1399 GCs compared
387: to the stellar population models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000).
388: The open square indicates the position of NGC~1399,
389: from Kuntschner (2000). For the final ages and metallicities we
390: use the upper two grids.
391: {\it Top left:} H$\beta$--[MgFe] grid.
392: {\it Top right:} H$\beta$--Mg$_2$ grid.
393: {\it Bottom left:} H$\beta$--$\langle$Fe$\rangle$ grid.
394: {\it Bottom right:} H$\gamma_{\rm A}$--[MgFe] grid. The spectrum of GC
395: \#55 does not include H$\gamma_{\rm A}$.
396: \label{grids1}}
397: \end{center}}
398:
399:
400:
401: In Fig.~3 we show integrated spectra of three GCs associated
402: with NGC~1399. As described below, two of the GCs (\#161, \#159)
403: exhibit Balmer and metal line-stengths consistent with very young ages
404: (notice in particular the strong H$\beta$ and Mg features in the
405: spectrum of \#161).
406: Cluster \#49 represents our highest S/N spectrum (H$\beta$ error
407: is $\pm$ 0.22~\AA) and is an example of an old
408: metal--poor GC.
409:
410: The majority of the GCs are old (as found by Kissler-Patig \etal 1998)
411: and are consistent with the 11 Gyr isochrone, within 2$\sigma$ of
412: their individual measurement errors.
413: This age is consistent with the luminosity weighted
414: age for the central stellar population of NGC~1399, i.e.
415: %11.5$\pm$2.4 Gyrs derived by Trager \etal (2000).
416: 10 $\pm$ 2 Gyr using the line index measurement of Kuntschner
417: (2000).
418: %(note that this value is $\sim$ 1.0 Gyr younger than that obtained by
419: %Kuntschner 2000, who used a combination of the $\langle$Fe$\rangle$
420: %+ Fe4383 and H$\gamma_{\rm A}$ indices).
421: One metal-poor GC (
422: \#149) falls $below$ the oldest model isochrones, possibly
423: reflecting the uncertainties in modelling horizontal-branches
424: in the models.
425:
426: Interestingly, two of the GCs (\#159 and \#161)
427: have very young inferred ages of $\sim$2 Gyrs. Such young ages
428: are consistent in all four model grids of Fig.~2, including
429: H$\gamma_{\rm A}$. Worthey (1994) models also indicate young ages.
430: Significantly,
431: the age estimates from H$\beta$--[MgFe] and
432: H$\beta$--$\langle$Fe$\rangle$
433: are both consistent indicating that the
434: non-solar [$\alpha$/Fe] ratios of the GCs are $not$ responsible.
435: It is important however to recognise that
436: the population models are somewhat uncertain
437: at very young ages, because they
438: use fitting-functions derived only from
439: old stars.
440:
441:
442: \vbox{
443: \begin{center}
444: \leavevmode
445: \hbox{%
446: \epsfxsize=8.0cm
447: %\epsffile{./figures/spectra.ps}}
448: \epsffile{f3.eps}}
449: \figcaption{\small
450: Keck spectra of three globular clusters around NGC 1399.
451: The spectra have been convolved with a wavelength-dependent
452: Gaussian kernel to match the Lick/IDS resolution (8--11 \AA).
453: Clusters \#159, 161 are inferred to be metal-rich and young
454: whereas \#49 is an example of a metal-poor old
455: cluster.
456: \label{spectra}}
457: \end{center}}
458:
459:
460: Kissler-Patig \etal (1998) also identified two GCs (\#83 and
461: \#102 from Grillmair 1992) with
462: strong Balmer and metal lines, and potentially very young ages
463: albeit with large errors.
464: One possibility raised by these authors was that their
465: enhanced Balmer lines were due to the presence of
466: blue horizontal branches (BHBs).
467:
468: de Freitas Pacheco \& Barbuy (1995), Maraston \& Thomas (2000) and Lee
469: \etal (2000) have investigated the potential influence of a BHB
470: on the H$\beta$ line index. According to Lee \etal a warm BHB can
471: raise the H$\beta$ EW in metal-rich GCs by up to 0.75~\AA,
472: without significantly affecting the metallicity, {\it if} those GCs are
473: $\sim$ 4 Gyrs older than Galactic ones.
474: For metal-rich Galactic GCs, with estimated ages $\sim$ 13 Gyrs, the
475: increase in H$\beta$ from a BHB is minimal. Thus assuming that
476: GCs \#159 and \#161 are truely metal-rich with [Fe/H] $\ge$ 0,
477: then they must be $\ge$ 4 Gyr older than typical Galactic GCs
478: in order for BHBs to explain their H$\beta$ EW. If we accept
479: current estimates for the oldest Galactic GCs to be 12.5
480: Gyrs, then 16.5 Gyr GCs would be incompatible with the current
481: best estimates for the age
482: of the Universe (Gnedin, Lahav \& Rees 2001).
483: We note that future far-UV photometry may help to distinguish
484: between the presence of a BHB and a young age (Lee 2001, private
485: comm.)
486:
487: So although we can not conclusively choose between these two
488: alternatives, both have interesting implications.
489: If the BHB interpretation is correct, it would be the first
490: detection of BHBs in metal-rich GCs of an elliptical galaxy
491: since the initial discovery in two metal-rich Galactic GCs by
492: Rich \etal (1997). It also implies that at least some
493: GCs in NGC 1399 are
494: systemically older than their Galactic counterparts by at least 4
495: Gyrs, and hence in conflict with the age of the Universe under
496: certain cosmologies.
497: The alternative is that these
498: GCs, which are both metal-rich and have
499: super-solar [Mg/Fe] abundance ratios,
500: formed only $\sim$ 2 Gyrs ago. Whether these
501: GCs formed in an accreted satellite or {\it in situ} is not
502: clear, but to attain the enhanced abundance ratios would require
503: that they formed very soon after the first type II SNe.
504: According to Thomas, Greggio \& Bender
505: (1999), a recent merger would require
506: an extremely flat IMF to reproduce the observed $\alpha$ enhancement.
507: However late epoch mergers of spiral disks, like the Milky Way,
508: would {\it not} be expected to form $\alpha$ enhanced metal-rich
509: GCs (Goudfrooij \etal 2001).
510:
511: \section{Concluding Remarks}
512:
513: From high S/N spectra and the stellar population
514: models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000) we find that the majority of globular
515: clusters in NGC~1399 are old, similar to the luminosity-weighted
516: age of NGC~1399 itself.
517: At least two clusters have super-solar
518: abundance ratios, again like the host galaxy.
519: A super-solar abundance ratio for metal-rich stellar
520: populations is a natural
521: outcome from a fast, clumpy collapse but may also be produced
522: by mergers if star formation has a sufficiently flat IMF (Thomas,
523: Greggio \& Bender 1999).
524: Two metal-rich GCs are reported with unusually
525: high H$\beta$ line strengths. It remains unclear whether this is
526: due to a young ($\sim$ 2 Gyr) age, or extremely old ($>$ 15
527: Gyr) age with a blue horizontal branch. However a conflict with
528: current cosmological parameters is avoided if the young age is
529: favoured.
530:
531: \section{Acknowledgments}\label{sec_ack}
532:
533: We thank T. Bridges for the cluster photometry,
534: A. Phillips for the use of his software, L. Schroder for help
535: with initial data reduction, and C. Maraston for providing
536: her model grids ahead of publication. We also thank S. Larsen,
537: B. Gibson and C. Maraston for useful discussions.
538: Part of this research was funded by NSF grant AST 9900732 and an ARC
539: grant. MB thanks the Royal Society.
540: The data presented herein were obtained at the
541: W.M. Keck Observatory, which is operated jointly by
542: the California Institute of Technology and
543: the University of California.
544:
545: \begin{thebibliography}{}
546:
547: %{\bibitem{1} Ashman, K. A., Bird, C. M., Zepf, S. E.,
548: %1994, AJ, 108, 2348}
549:
550: %{\bibitem{2} Ashman K. M., Conti A., Zepf S. E., 1995, AJ, 110, 1164}
551:
552: {\bibitem{3} Ashman, K. M., Zepf S. E., 1992, ApJ, 384, 50}
553:
554: %{\bibitem{4} Bahcall, J. N., Soneira, R. M., 1980, ApJS, 44, 73}
555:
556:
557: %{\bibitem{8} Barmby, P., Huchra, J., Brodie, J., Forbes, D.,
558: %Schroder, L., Grillmair, C., 2000, AJ, 119, 727}
559:
560: {\bibitem{2} Beasley, M., Sharples, R., Bridges, T.,
561: Hanes, D., Zepf, S., Ashman, K., Geisler, D., 2000, MNRAS, 318, 1249}
562:
563: {\bibitem{5} Bruzual, G., Charlot, S., 1993, ApJ, 405, 538}
564:
565: %{\bibitem{6} Bothun, G., 1992, AJ, 103, 104}
566:
567: %{\bibitem{10} Bender, R., Burtsein, D., Faber, S., 1992, ApJ,
568: %399, 462}
569:
570: %{\bibitem{7} Bertin, E., Arnouts, S., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393}
571:
572: %{\bibitem{9} Binney J., Tremaine S., 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton:
573: %Princeton Uviversity Press)}
574:
575: %{\bibitem{98} Braatz, J. A., Wilson, A. S., Henkel, C., 1994, ApJ,
576: %437, L99}
577:
578: {\bibitem{11} Carney, B., 1996, PASP, 108, 900}
579:
580: %{\bibitem{12} Burstein, D., Heiles, C., 1984, ApJS, 54, 33}
581:
582: {\bibitem{2} Carretta , E., Gratton, R., Clementini, G.,
583: Fusi~Pecci, F., 2000, ApJ, 533, 215}
584:
585: %{\bibitem{10} Cen, R., 2001, astro-ph/0101197}
586:
587: %{\bibitem{13} Cote, P., Marzke, R. O., West, M. J., 1998, ApJ,
588: %501, 554}
589:
590: {\bibitem{201} Cohen, J., Blakeslee, J., Ryzhov, A., 1998, ApJ, 496, 808}
591:
592: %{\bibitem{14} Cote, P., 1999, AJ, 118, 406}
593:
594: %{\bibitem{16} Couture, J., Harris, W. E., Allwright, J. W. B.,
595: %1990, ApJS, 73, 671}
596:
597: {\bibitem{15} de Freitas Pacheco, J., Barbuy, B., 1995, A\&A,
598: 302, 718}
599:
600: %{\bibitem{20} Forbes D., Masters, K., Minniti, D., Barmby, P.,
601: %2000, A\&A, 358, 471}
602:
603: %{\bibitem{21} Forbes, D., Georgakakis, A., Brodie, J., 2001,
604: %MNRAS, in press}
605:
606: {\bibitem{22} Forbes, D., Brodie, J., Grillmair, C.,
607: 1997, AJ, 113, 1652}
608:
609: %{\bibitem{23} Forbes, D. A., Grillmair, C. J., Williger, G. M.,
610: %Elson, R. A. W., Brodie, J. P., 1998, MNRAS, 293, 325}
611:
612: {\bibitem{81} Forbes, D., Forte, J., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 257}
613:
614: {\bibitem{82} Forbes, D., Brodie, J., Larsen, S., 2001, ApJ, 556,
615: L83}
616:
617: %{\bibitem{97} Fosbury, R.A.E., Melbold, U., Goss, W.M., Dopita,
618: %M.A., 1978, MNRAS, 183, 549}
619:
620: %{\bibitem{78} Geisler, D., Forte, J., 1990, ApJ, 350, 5}
621:
622: {\bibitem{24} Gonzalez, J., 1993, PhD Thesis, UC Santa Cruz}
623:
624: {\bibitem{23} Goudfrooij, P., Victoria Alonso, M., Maraston, C.,
625: Minniti, D., 2001, MNRAS, in press}
626:
627: {\bibitem{77} Gnedin, O., Lahav, O., Rees, M., 2001, submitted to
628: Nature}
629:
630: %{\bibitem{9696} Gibson, B., Madgwick, D., Jones, L., Da Costa, G.,
631: %Norris, J., 1999, AJ, 118, 1268}
632:
633: {\bibitem{25} Grillmair, C., 1992, PhD Thesis, Australia National
634: University}
635:
636: %{\bibitem{26} Harris, W. E., 1976, AJ, 81, 1095}
637:
638: %{\bibitem{28} Harris, W. E., 1991, ARA\&A, 29, 543}
639:
640: %{\bibitem{29} Harris, W. E., Hanes, D. A., 1985, ApJ, 291, 147}
641:
642: {\bibitem{40} Huchra, J., Brodie, J., Caldwell, N., Christian,
643: C., Schommer, R., 1996, ApJS, 102, 29}
644:
645: %{\bibitem{42} Hurt, R., \etal 2000, astro-ph/0006262}
646:
647: %{\bibitem{36} Kent, S., 1988, AJ, 96, 514}
648:
649: %{\bibitem{35} Kissler-Patig, M., Richtler, T., Storm, J.,
650: %della Valle, M., 1997, A\&A, 327, 503}
651:
652: {\bibitem{40} Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J., Schroder, L.,
653: Forbes, D., Grillmair, C., Huchra, J., 1998, AJ, 115, 105}
654:
655: %{\bibitem{42} Kundu, K., Whitmore, B., 2001, AJ, in press}
656:
657: {\bibitem{99} Kundu, A., Whitmore, B., Sparks, W., Macchetto, F.,
658: Zepf, S., Ashman, K, 1999, ApJ, 513, 733 }
659:
660: {\bibitem{102} Kuntschner, H., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 184}
661:
662: %{\bibitem{103} Kuntschner, H., Lucey, J., Smith, R., Hudson, M., Davies, R., 2001, MNRAS, 323, 615}
663:
664:
665: %{\bibitem{38} Larsen, S., Forbes, D., Brodie, J., 2001, MNRAS,}
666:
667: %{\bibitem{39} Larsen, S., Brodie, J., Huchra, J., Forbes, D.,
668: %Grillmair, C., 2001, AJ, in press}
669:
670: {\bibitem{35} Lee, H., Yoon, S., Lee, Y., 2000, AJ, 120, 998}
671:
672: {\bibitem{100} Maraston, C., Thomas, D., 2000, ApJ, 541, 126}
673:
674: {\bibitem{101} Maraston, C., Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J.,
675: Barmby, P., Huchra, J., 2001, A\&A, 370, 176}
676:
677:
678: %{\bibitem{41} Minniti, D., 1995, AJ, 109, 1663}
679:
680: {\bibitem{45} Oke, J. B., et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375}
681: %Cohen, J. G., Carr, M., Cromer, J., Dingizian, A.,
682: %Harris, F., H. Labrecque, S., Lucinio, R., Schaal, W., Epps,
683: %H., Miller, J., 1995, PASP, 107, 375}
684:
685: {\bibitem{98} Ostrov, P., Geisler, D., Forte, J., 1993, AJ, 105, 1762}
686:
687: %{\bibitem{99} Perret, K., \etal 2001, in preparation}
688:
689: %{\bibitem{47} Plana, H., Boulesteix, J., 1996, A\&A, 307, 391}
690:
691: {\bibitem{46} Puzia, T., Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J., Huchra,
692: J., 2000, AJ, 118, 2734}
693:
694: %{\bibitem{49} Rubin, V., Ford, W., 1970, ApJ, 159, 379}
695:
696: {\bibitem{1200} Rich, M., \etal, 1997, ApJ, 484, L25}
697:
698: %{\bibitem{88} Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., Davis, M.,
699: %1998, ApJ, 500, 525}
700:
701: %{\bibitem{48} Schweizer, F., 1987, in Nearly Normal Galaxies, ed. S. Faber
702: %(Springer: New York), 18}
703:
704: {\bibitem{49} Salaris, M., Weiss, A., 1998, A\&A, 335, 943}
705:
706: %{\bibitem{50} Schweizer, F., Seitzer, P., 1992, AJ, 104, 1039}
707:
708: {\bibitem{51} Thomas, D., Greggio, L., Bender, R., 1999, MNRAS,
709: 302, 537}
710:
711: %{\bibitem{52} Tonry, J., Davis, ** 1979 }
712:
713: {\bibitem{49} Trager, S., Faber, S., Worthey, G., Gonzalez, J.,
714: 2000, AJ, 120, 165}
715:
716: {\bibitem{53} Tripicco, M., Bell, R., 1995, AJ, 110, 3035}
717:
718: %{\bibitem{54} van den Bergh, S., 1999, A\&AR, 9, 273}
719:
720: {\bibitem{61} Worthey, G., 1994, ApJS, 95, 107}
721:
722: {\bibitem{62} Worthey, G., Ottaviani, D., 1997, ApJS, 111, 377}
723:
724: %{\bibitem{62} Whitmore, B. C., Miller, B. W.,
725: % Schweizer, F., Fall, S. M., 1997, AJ, 114. 1797}
726:
727: %{\bibitem{63} Wyse, R., Gilmore, G., Franx, M., 1997, ARAA, 35, 637}
728:
729: %{\bibitem{64} Zinn, R., 1985, ApJ, 293, 424}
730:
731: \end{thebibliography}
732:
733: \begin{table}
734: \begin{scriptsize}
735: \begin{center}
736: \renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
737: \begin{tabular}{lcccccccccc}
738: \multicolumn{11}{c}{\scriptsize TABLE 1. CANDIDATE GLOBULAR CLUSTERS
739: AROUND NGC 1399}\\
740: %\multicolumn{6}{c}{\scriptsize CANDIDATE GLOBULAR CLUSTERS
741: %AROUND NGC 1399}\\
742: \hline
743: \hline
744: ID$^a$ & H$\gamma$ & H$\beta$ & Mg~$b$ & Mg$_2$ & $<$Fe$>$
745: & T$_1$ & C--T$_1$ &
746: [Fe/H]$^{b}$ & Age$^{b}$ & V$_{helio}$ \\
747: & (\AA) & (\AA) & (\AA) & (mag) & (\AA)
748: & (mag) & (mag) & (dex) & (Gyr) & (km/s)\\
749: \hline
750: %41 & ... & 1.00$^c$ & -2.04 & ...$^d$ & ... & 1619$\pm$68\\
751: 44 & -3.96$\pm$0.65 & 1.88$\pm$0.31 & 3.14$\pm$0.32 &
752: 0.204$\pm$0.008 & 2.33$\pm$0.40
753: & 21.19$\pm$0.01 & 1.75$\pm$0.02 &
754: -0.3$\pm$0.3 & 10$^{+6}_{-5}$ & 1127$\pm$41\\
755: 48 & -1.57$\pm$0.45 & 2.19$\pm$0.24 & 2.38$\pm$0.25 &
756: 0.139$\pm$0.006 & 1.85$\pm$0.33
757: & 20.58$\pm$0.01 & 1.43$\pm$0.01 &
758: -0.8$\pm$0.2 & 10$^{+4}_{-4}$ & 1831$\pm$48\\
759: 49 & 1.60$\pm$0.37 & 2.18$\pm$0.22 & 1.11$\pm$0.24 &
760: 0.063$\pm$0.006 & 0.88$\pm$0.32
761: & 20.48$\pm$0.01 & 1.22$\pm$0.01 &
762: -1.7$\pm$0.2 & $\sim$ 15 & 1618$\pm$64\\
763: 55 & ...& 3.29$\pm$0.32 & 0.81$\pm$0.39 & 0.051$\pm$0.009 &
764: 1.03$\pm$0.51
765: & 20.87$\pm$0.01 & 1.14$\pm$0.01 &
766: -1.9$\pm$0.3 & 7$^{+3}_{-3}$ & 1364$\pm$65\\
767: 149 & -0.75$\pm$0.62 & 1.66$\pm$0.28 & 0.74$\pm$0.27 &
768: 0.019$\pm$0.007 & 0.75$\pm$0.35
769: & 20.84$\pm$0.01 & 1.14$\pm$0.01 &
770: -2.2$\pm$0.3 & $\geq$ 15 & 1361$\pm$107\\
771: 156 & 1.88$\pm$0.78 & 2.03$\pm$0.33 & 2.97$\pm$0.32 &
772: 0.163$\pm$0.008 & 1.41$\pm$0.42
773: & 21.12$\pm$0.01 & 1.50$\pm$0.02 &
774: -0.7$\pm$0.4 & 11$^{+7}_{-7}$ & 1662$\pm$43\\
775: 159 & -2.73$\pm$0.65 & 2.66$\pm$0.29 & 3.97$\pm$0.30 &
776: 0.180$\pm$0.008 & 2.28$\pm$0.41
777: & 21.08$\pm$0.01 & 1.47$\pm$0.02 &
778: 0.1$\pm$0.3 & 2.3$^{+1}_{-1}$ & 1579$\pm$41\\
779: 160 & -7.61$\pm$0.58 & 1.94$\pm$0.27 & 5.45$\pm$0.27 &
780: 0.227$\pm$0.007 & 2.38$\pm$0.37 & 20.75$\pm$0.01 &
781: 1.72$\pm$0.01 &
782: 0.2$\pm$0.3 & 7$^{+6}_{-4}$ & 1378$\pm$32\\
783: 161 & -1.51$\pm$0.59 & 3.15$\pm$0.31 & 4.23$\pm$0.36 &
784: 0.212$\pm$0.009 & 1.99$\pm$0.47
785: & 20.89$\pm$0.01 & 1.45$\pm$0.01 &
786: 0.3$\pm$0.3 & 1.6$^{+1}_{-1}$ & 1506$\pm$45\\
787: 165 & 0.67$\pm$0.56 & 2.30$\pm$0.34 & 1.89$\pm$0.38 &
788: 0.105$\pm$0.009 & 1.86$\pm$0.50
789: & 20.82$\pm$0.01 & 1.43$\pm$0.01 &
790: -1.0$\pm$0.3 & 11$^{+7}_{-5}$ & 2020$\pm$38\\
791: \hline
792: \end{tabular}
793: \end{center}
794: \tablenotetext{a}{\scriptsize
795: globular cluster ID number from Grillmair (1992).
796: }
797: \tablenotetext{b}{\scriptsize
798: metallicity and age are derived using the single stellar population
799: models of Maraston \& Thomas (2000).
800: }
801: \end{scriptsize}
802: \end{table}
803:
804:
805: \end{document}
806:
807:
808:
809:
810:
811: