1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %Submitted ApJL 09/25/02; revised 10/03/02
3: %\usepackage{emulateapj5}
4:
5: \shorttitle{WRs in IC10}
6: \shortauthors{Massey \& Holmes}
7:
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11:
12: \title{Wolf-Rayets in IC10: Probing the Nearest Starburst\altaffilmark{1}}
13:
14: \author{Philip Massey, Shadrian Holmes\altaffilmark{2}}
15:
16: \affil{Lowell Observatory, 1400 W. Mars Hill Road, Flagstaff, AZ 86001}
17: \email{Phil.Massey@lowell.edu, sholmes@astro.as.utexas.edu}
18:
19: \altaffiltext{1}{Observations reported here were obtained at (1) the MMT Observatory, a joint facility of the University of Arizona and the
20: Smithsonian Institution, and (2) Kitt Peak National Observatory,
21: a division of the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is
22: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,
23: Inc., under cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation.}
24: \altaffiltext{2}{Current address: Department of Astronomy,
25: University of Texas at Austin, RLM 16.318 Austin, TX 78712-1083}
26:
27:
28: \begin{abstract}
29: IC10 is the nearest starburst galaxy, as revealed both by its H$\alpha$
30: surface brightness and the large number of Wolf-Rayet stars (WRs) per unit area.
31: The relative number of known WC- to WN-type WRs has been thought to be
32: unusually high ($\sim 2$), unexpected for IC10's metallicity. In this
33: {\it Letter} we report the first results of a new and deeper survey for
34: WRs in IC10. We sucessfully detected all of the spectroscopically known WRs,
35: and based upon comparisons with a neighboring control field, estimate that
36: the total number of WRs in IC10 is about 100. We present spectroscopic
37: confirmation of two of our WR candidates, both of which are of WN type.
38: Our photometric survey predicts that the actual WC/WN ratio is $\sim 0.3$.
39: This makes the WC/WN ratio of IC 10
40: consistent with that expected for its metallicity,
41: but greatly increases the already unusually high number of WRs, resulting
42: in a surface density that is about 20 times higher than in the LMC. If the
43: majority of these candidates are spectroscopically confirmed, IC10 must
44: have an exceptional population of high mass stars.
45:
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48:
49: \keywords{galaxies: individual (IC10) -- galaxies: starburst --
50: galaxies: stellar content -- stars: Wolf-Rayet -- stars: evolution}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: Mayall (1935) first recognized IC10 as an extragalactic object, and, in
55: {\it The Realm of the Nebula,} Hubble (1936) proposed that it was likely
56: a member of the Local Group. Its location just 3 degrees out of the
57: Galactic plane has hampered investigations, but Hubble's description of it as
58: ``one of the most curious objects in the sky" has proven prophetic.
59: Today IC10 is understood to be an irregular galaxy undergoing an
60: intense burst of star formation likely triggered by infalling gas
61: from an extended cloud which is counter-rotating with respect to the
62: galaxy proper, as discussed by Wilcots \& Miller (1998), who conclude
63: that IC10 is a galaxy that is still forming.
64:
65: The starburst nature of IC10 was revealed primarily from the high number of
66: Wolf-Rayet stars (WRs) found by Massey, Conti \& Armandroff (1992) and
67: Massey \& Armandroff (1995). Hodge \& Lee (1990) had motivated these
68: studies by their discovery of 144 H~II regions, the brightest
69: of which were known to be comparable to the brightest seen in the SMC
70: (Hunter \& Gallagher 1985; Kennicutt 1988),
71: a galaxy known to contain a substantial massive star population.
72: Massey et al.\ (1992) used
73: interference imaging to identify 22 WR candidates, of which 15 were
74: confirmed spectroscopically (Massey \& Armandroff 1995).
75: This number was quite unexpectly high. IC 10 is about half the size
76: of the SMC (van den Bergh 2000), which
77: contains 11 WRs (Massey \& Duffy 2001); thus the overall surface density
78: of WRs in IC10 is at least 5 times greater than in the SMC.
79: The galaxy-wide surface density of WRs in IC10 is in fact comparable to
80: that of the most active OB associations in M~33
81: (Massey \& Armandroff 1995). The distribution of WRs across IC10 shows
82: that this high star-formation activity is not confined to a few regions
83: (which would simply be the result of statistical fluctuations or ``graininess"
84: in the star formation rate), but
85: rather is characteristic of a the galaxy as a whole.
86: This is the classic definition of a starburst galaxy
87: (Hunter 1986; Searle \& Sargent 1972).
88:
89: However, one of the very peculiar results of these WR
90: studies was the abnormally
91: large ratio of WC to WN stars given IC10's metallicity (log O/H+12=8.25,
92: Skillman, Kennicutt \& Hodge 1989; Garnett 1990). Figure~\ref{fig:wcwn}
93: shows the relative number of WC and WN stars plotted for different galaxies
94: of the Local Group. The interpretation of the strong trend with metallicity
95: is straightforward: since the stellar winds of massive stars are driven
96: by radiation pressure in highly ionized metal lines, stars of a given
97: luminosity (and mass) will have a lower mass-loss rate in a lower metallicity
98: system, and hence will lose less mass during their lifetime. In the
99: ``Conti scenario" (Conti 1976, Maeder \& Conti 1994) a massive star
100: peels down like an onion due to mass-loss, revealing first the equilibrium
101: products of the CNO cycle at its surface (WN stars), and then the He-burning
102: products (WC stars). Very massive stars will therefore evolve first to
103: the WN stage and subsequently to the WC stage, while a less massive star
104: might evolve only through WN. At low metallicities the WCs should come
105: only from the very highest mass stars (Massey 2003).
106:
107:
108: The peculiar WC/WN ratio may be telling us something important about
109: the star formation process in this, the nearest starburst galaxy. If the IMF
110: was top-heavy (or inverted),
111: with an overabundance of the very highest mass stars, this
112: could explain the results. However, Hunter (2001) finds a normal IMF
113: slope for the intermediate mass stars in IC10. It would be very odd for the
114: IMF of the highest mass stars to be decoupled from that of the
115: intermediate-mass stars. Alternatively, if the burst that produced the
116: Wolf-Rayet progenitors had been extremely coeval, then an abnormal
117: WC/WN population could certainly result (Schaerer \& Vacca 1998). However,
118: that would require a burst of duration less than 200,000 years over a scale
119: of a kpc. Instead, a third, more prosaic possibility, is that
120: the WC/WN ratio is strongly affected by incompleteness. WN stars are
121: much harder to detect than WC stars as their strongest emission lines
122: are considerably weaker (see Massey \& Johnson 1998).
123: Massey \& Armandroff (1995) argued against this possibility on the basis
124: that they had detected one WN star with lines as weak as commonly
125: associated with WNs. However, since that time Royer et al.\ (2001, hereafter
126: RSMV) have
127: reported the discovery of 13 new
128: WR candidates in IC10. (One of these,
129: their number 9, is actually
130: identical to star 6 in Massey et al.\ 1992.)
131: Taken at face value, the additional stars would actually increase the WC/WN
132: ratio rather than decrease it.
133: Spectroscopy of this sample by Crowther et al.\ (2002a)
134: confirmed 9, leaving the WC/WN ratio little changed.
135: Nevertheless, the study certainly calls into
136: question the completeness of the original Massey et al.\ (1992) sample.
137:
138: The purpose of this {\it Letter} is to report on the first results of a new,
139: much deeper search for Wolf-Rayet stars in IC10,
140: along with spectroscopic confirmation
141: of two of these stars. Complete details will be reported when
142: the spectroscopic followup is complete. However, the number of good
143: WR candidates found is striking, and probably resolves the issue of
144: the peculiar WC/WN ratio.
145:
146: \section{The New Survey}
147: IC10 was imaged through three interference filters with the 4-m Mayall
148: telescope and Mosaic CCD camera (8k x 8k). The data were obtained on
149: UT 19 and 20 Sept 2001. The filter system is based upon that described by
150: Armandroff \& Massey (1985) and Massey \& Johnson (1998), but in large,
151: 5.75~in by 5.75~in (146~mm $\times$ 146~mm)
152: format. The {\it WC} filter is centered at
153: C~III $\lambda 4650$, the strongest
154: optical line in WC stars. The {\it WN} filter is centered on
155: He~II $\lambda 4686$, the strongest emission line in WN stars (although it
156: is also present in WCs; see Smith 1968).
157: The continuum filter {\it CT} is centered at
158: $\lambda 4750$. The central wavelengths were designed for use in the fast,
159: f/3 beam of the 4-m prime focus camera, and are roughly 50\AA\ in width.
160: The exposure time was 1.5 hrs in each filter, with the exposures broken
161: into three 1800 sec exposures with the telescope dithered by 150 arcsecs
162: NS and EW between exposures.
163: The scale is 0.27 arcsec pixel$^{-1}$, and the seeing
164: on the nine images ranged from 0.85 to 0.97 arcsec, with an average of
165: 0.92 arcsec. The transparency was excellent. (For comparison,
166: the Massey et al.\ 1992 survey for WRs in IC10
167: used 1 hr exposures through each filter under 2.0-2.6 arcsec seeing with
168: drifting clouds interrupting the exposures.) Exposures of spectrophotometric
169: standards through the {\it CT} filter were used to determine the continuum
170: magnitudes m$_{\lambda 4750}$, and are accurate to 0.1~mag.
171:
172: The Mosaic camera consists of 8 separate chips, each covering 18.4 arcmin (EW)
173: by 9.2 arcmin (NS), each large compared to the optical extent of IC10
174: (half-light radius 2 arcmins). IC10 had been centered on one of the chips,
175: and it and a neighboring chip were reduced in the identical manner. The
176: latter was intended to serve as a control.
177: The data were processed through the IRAF Mosaic pipeline with
178: refinements from the \anchor{http://www.lowell.edu/~massey/lgsurvey/}
179: {Local Group Survey project.} Instrumental
180: magnitudes were obtained using the point-spread-function fitting routine
181: ``daophot", as implemented under IRAF. All together, 114,000 stellar images
182: were photometered. On average, 5300 stars were measured on each frame of
183: the control chip, and 7400 stars were measured on each frame of the galaxy
184: chip.
185:
186: Candidate WRs were selected by comparing the magnitude differences {\it WC-CT}
187: and {\it WN-CT} to the uncertainty in the magnitudes based upon photon
188: statistics and read-noise, after a zero-point magnitude adjustment was
189: made based upon the full ensemble of stars.
190: Stars with magnitude differences more negative
191: than $-0.10$~mag and whose significance level was $>3\sigma$ were considered
192: valid candidates. The 9 frames were treated as 3 independent sets, grouped
193: by the three dithered telescope positions. Each candidate was examined on
194: an image display by eye and checked for problems. Altogether the search
195: revealed 238 unique
196: candidates on the galaxy field, and 135 unique
197: candidates for the control field; many of the candidates were found multiple
198: times. We expect that none of the ``WR candidates" in the control field
199: are real, given their location $\sim 10$ arcmin from IC10. Such spurious
200: detections are expected given the small magnitude differences we are looking
201: for, and the possible presence of absorption features in the {\it CT}
202: filter with non-WRs. It is for this reason that we used a control field.
203:
204: \section{Results}
205:
206: The search found {\it all} 24 of the spectroscopically confirmed WRs
207: Massey \& Armandroff 1995; Crowther et al.\ 2002a) with
208: significance levels ranging from $5.6\sigma$ to $83\sigma$. The weakest-lined
209: star had a magnitude difference of $-0.5$~mag, and the strongest-lined
210: star $-2.9$~mag between the WR filter ({\it WC} or {\it WN}) and the continuum
211: filter {\it CT}. P. Crowther (private communication) kindly conveyed the
212: specifics of which RSMV stars he had been able to confirm
213: spectroscopically, and their spectral types in advance of publication.
214: We therefore note that our survey
215: successfully distinguishes all of the known WCs from the known WNs if we adopt
216: a dividing line of {\it WC-WN}=$-0.1$. Late-type WNs will have strong
217: N~III 4634,42 in the {\it WC} filter, while early-type WCs will have
218: very broad C~III $\lambda 4650$ spilling over into the {\it WN} filter,
219: so stars with a small absolute magnitude difference {\it WC-WN} are hard
220: to classify just based upon our filter photometry.
221:
222: The Royer, Vreux, \& Manfroid (1998)
223: WR filter system uses five filters to help
224: classify WR candidates to excitation subtype (WN2, WN3 ... WN9;
225: WC4, WC5 ... WC9).
226: Thus on the basis of their photometry alone, Royer et al.\ (2001) announced
227: the detection of very late-type WC (WC9) stars in IC10. This result was highly
228: surprising, as WC9 stars have previously been found only in much higher
229: metallicity environments, for reasons thought to be well understood from
230: stellar evolution: late-type WCs are thought to result from more enriched
231: surface material, and the star can only peel down far enough to
232: reveal these layers if the metallicity is high and mass-loss rates during
233: the O-type stages are therefore high (Smith \& Maeder 1991).
234: Crowther et al.\ (2002b)
235: has recently called that into question, suggesting instead that the
236: late-type WCs are the result of
237: stronger stellar winds in the WR phase itself, but in either event WC9s
238: are not expected in low metallicity environments. This too was felt to be
239: part of the puzzle of star formation in IC10 (Royer et al.\ 2001).
240: However, our survey detected
241: {\it none} of these WC9 candidates.
242: An attempt to perform a quantitative spectroscopic analysis of these stars
243: by Crowther et al.\ (2002a) using GEMINI failed
244: to detect any emission. We can probably conclude that these stars are not
245: real WRs.
246:
247: Although the detection of all the known IC10 WRs, and the lack of
248: detection of the spectroscopically rejected WR candidates gives us strong
249: confidence in our survey, there is no substitute for spectroscopic confirmation.
250: During a period of poor seeing at the MMT 6.5-m (14 Sept 2002)
251: we took time from our
252: main program and observed two of our new candidates using a single
253: slit setting. We used the 800 line/mm grating on the Blue Channel
254: with a 2~arcsec slit to obtain 3.8\AA\ resolution spectra in the blue;
255: the exposure time was 2700 secs.
256: The spectra are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:spectra}: both are Wolf-Rayet
257: stars of WN type. The coordinates are given in Table~1, along with the
258: equivalent width (ew) and full-width-at-half-maximum (fwhm)
259: of the He~II $\lambda 4686$ line.
260: The lines are sufficiently broad to rule out the
261: possibility that either star
262: is an Of star, which might also show He~II and/or N~III emission.
263: IC10-WR24 is by far the brightest WR found in IC10, and is
264: likely a blend of a WR star and another star. A blend would also explain
265: the very weak emission (Table~1) combined with a normal line width.
266:
267: In Figure~\ref{fig:compare} we show a comparison of the photometry of WR
268: candidates in the galaxy field with that from the control field. We expect
269: that none of the 135 candidates in the latter are real.
270: Given that both the galaxy field (238 candidates) and control field
271: covered an equal area, we calculate that IC10 may
272: contain $\sim 100$ Wolf-Rayet stars in total. Although this number seems
273: fantastically large, we note that 26 have now been confirmed spectroscopically:
274: 15 by Massey \& Armandroff (1995), 9 by Crowther et al.\ (2002a),
275: and 2 here\footnote{This tally does not include the WN star reported by
276: Richer et al.\ (2001), as it may be coincident with RSMV~12; without better
277: identification it is impossible to tell. Including it would further lower
278: the WC/WN ratio and strengthen the argument presented here.}.
279:
280: What then can we conclude about the statistics of WCs and WNs in IC10?
281: First, for the spectroscopically confirmed WRs the WC/WN ratio is
282: now 1.2 rather than 2.0. If we simply take all of the WR candidates in the
283: IC10 field, and correct by the number of ``WC" and ``WN" detections in the
284: control field, we would expect to find a ratio of 0.3. This ratio is only
285: slightly higher than that of the outer region of M~33, of similar metallicity
286: (Figure~\ref{fig:wcwn2}). It is true that this result is somewhat dependent
287: upon our choice of the dividing line between ``WC" and ``WN" in our photometry.
288: While our choice is consistent with our knowledge of the IC10 WR spectral
289: types, spectroscopy of the remaining
290: candidates will be needed to confirm this result.
291:
292: \section{Discussion}
293:
294: If our statistical correction of the number of new candidates is correct,
295: then spectroscopy should be able to confirm an aditional
296: $\sim 2$ WCs and $\sim 66$ WNs in IC10. Even
297: so, this may not represent the complete number, given the high reddening.
298: Thus the mystery of the high WC/WN ratio in IC10 may be solved.
299:
300: However, spectroscopic confirmation of such large additional
301: number of WRs in IC10
302: would certainly make this galaxy even more unique in terms of its massive
303: star population. Two pieces of evidence suggest that this may well be
304: the case.
305: First, of the spectroscopically confirmed WNs, two are
306: of WN7-8 type.
307: At low metallicities the only similar late-type WNs are found in the 30~Dor
308: region of the LMC, where very high mass stars abound.
309: Studies of coeval regions containing these stars in the Milky Way suggest
310: that they come from only the highest mass stars (Massey, DeGioia-Eastwood,
311: \& Waterhouse 2001), and we would expect the progenitors to be even more
312: massive in a low metallicity environment (Massey 2003).
313: This is consistent then with IC10 having a normal IMF
314: but an exceptionally large
315: population of massive stars. Secondly, the integrated H$\alpha$ emission
316: suggests that IC10 has one of the two highest rates of star formation per
317: unit area known of a representative sample of non-interacting irregular
318: galaxies (Hunter 1997 and private communication).
319:
320: The ``active" area of IC10 is approximately 8 arcmin $\times$ 8 arcmin
321: in angular extent; at a distance of 660 kpc (Sakai, Madore, \& Freedman 1999),
322: this correspond to an area of 2.2 kpc$^{2}$. Thus if our estimate is correct,
323: IC10 would contain roughly 45 Wolf-Rayet stars kpc$^{-2}$. For comparison,
324: the LMC contains $\sim 2$ WRs kpc$^{-2}$ (Massey \& Johnson 1998). A typical
325: Galactic OB association might contain several WRs, and be 100~pc in
326: diameter, i.e., with a surface density of a couple of hundred WRs kpc$^{-2}$---
327: only several times larger than what we see {\it globally} in IC10. Thus,
328: if confirmed, the high number of WR stars would suggest
329: that IC10 has a population of massive stars similar
330: to that of an OB association but on a kpc scale.
331:
332:
333: \acknowledgments
334: We are thankful to Deidre Hunter for useful discussions, and to Paul Crowther
335: for communicating the results of his spectroscopy.
336: This work has been supported by the NSF through grant AST-0093060.
337:
338: \clearpage
339:
340: \begin{references}
341:
342: \reference {} Armandroff, T. E., \& Massey, P. 1985, ApJ, 291, 685
343:
344: \reference {} Conti, P. S. 1976, Mem. Soc. R. Sci. Liege 9, 193
345:
346: \reference {} Crowther, P. A., Abbott, J. B., Drissen, L., Schild, H.,
347: Schmutz, W., Royer, P., \& Smartt, S. J. 2002a in A Massive Star Odyssey,
348: from Main Sequence to Supernova, IAU Symp. 212, ed. K. A. vand der Hucht,
349: A. Herrero, and C. Esteban, (San Francisco: ASP), in press
350:
351: \reference {} Crowther, P. A., Dessart, L., Hillier, D. J., Abbott, D. B.,
352: Fullerton, A. W. 2002b, A\&A, in press
353:
354: \reference {} Garnett, D. R. 1990, ApJ, 363, 142
355:
356: \reference {} Hodge, P., \& Lee, M. G. 1990, PASP, 102, 26
357:
358: \reference {} Hubble, E. W. 1936, The Realm of the Nebulae, (New Haven:
359: Yale University Press), 147
360:
361: \reference {} Hunter, D. A. 1986, Highlights of Astronomy, 7, 539
362:
363: \reference {} Hunter, D. A. 1997, PASP, 109, 937
364:
365: \reference {} Hunter, D. A. 2001, ApJ, 559, 225
366:
367: \reference {} Hunter, D. A., \& Gallagher, J. S. 1985, ApJS, 58, 533
368:
369: \reference {} Kennicutt, R. C. 1988, ApJ, 334, 144
370:
371: \reference {} Maeder, A., \& Conti, P. S. 1994, ARAA, 32, 227
372:
373: \reference {} Massey, P. 2003, ARAA, 41, in press
374:
375: \reference {} Massey, P., \& Armandroff, T. E. 1995, AJ, 109, 2470
376:
377: \reference {} Massey, P., Conti, P. S., \& Armandroff, T. E. 1992, AJ,
378: 103, 1159
379:
380: \reference {} Massey, P., DeGioia-Eastwood, K., \& Waterhouse, E. 2001,
381: AJ, 121, 1050
382:
383: \reference {} Massey, P., \& Duffy, A. S. 2001. ApJ, 550, 713
384:
385: \reference {} Massey, P., \& Johnson, O. 1998, ApJ, 505, 793
386:
387: \reference {} Mayall, N. U. 1935, PASP 47, 317
388:
389: \reference {} Richer, M G., et al.\ 2001, A\&A 370, 34
390:
391: \reference {} Royer, P., Smartt, S. J., Manfroid, J., \& Vreux, J.-M. (RSMV) 2001,
392: A\&A 366, L1
393:
394: \reference {} Royer, P., Vreux, J.-M., \& Manfroid, J. 1998, A\&AS, 130, 407
395:
396: \reference {} Sakai, S., Madore, B. F., \& Freedman, W. L. 1999, ApJ, 511, 671
397:
398: \reference {} Schaerer, D., \& Vacca, W. D. 1998, ApJ, 497, 618
399:
400: \reference {} Searle, L, Sargent, W. L. W. 1973, ApJ, 173, 25
401:
402: \reference {} Skillman, E. D., Kennicutt, R. C., \& Hodge, P. W. 1989, ApJ, 347, 875
403:
404: \reference {} Smith, L. F. 1968, MNRAS, 138, 109
405:
406: \reference {} Smith, L. F., \& Maeder, A. 1991, A\&A, 241, 77
407:
408: \reference {} van den Bergh, S. 2000, The Galaxies of the Local Group
409: (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
410:
411: \reference {} Wilcots, E. M., \& Miller, B. W. 1998, AJ, 116, 2363
412: \end{references}
413:
414:
415: \clearpage
416:
417: \begin{figure}
418: \epsscale{1.0}
419: \plotone{f1.eps}
420: \caption{\label{fig:wcwn} The
421: WC/WN number ratio is shown as a function of the oxygen
422: abundance. The data are from Massey \& Johnson (1998) and references
423: therein, updated for the
424: SMC from Massey \& Duffy (2001). The error bars are simply statistical; i.e.,
425: $\sigma_{\rm WC/WN}=\sqrt{({\rm WC/WN})^2 (1/{\rm WC} + 1/{\rm WN})}$,
426: except for NGC~6822 which contains no WCs.}
427: \end{figure}
428:
429: \clearpage
430:
431: \begin{figure}
432: \epsscale{0.7}
433: \plotone{f2.eps}
434: \caption{\label{fig:spectra} The region around He~II $\lambda 4686$ is
435: shown for our two newly confirmed WR stars. Both are of WN type. The
436: data have been slighly smoothed. The normalized spectrum of WR24 has been
437: scaled by a factor of 10; zero intensity is at the bottom of the figure.}
438: \end{figure}
439:
440: \clearpage
441:
442: \begin{figure}
443: \epsscale{0.7}
444: \plotone{f3a.eps}
445: \plotone{f3b.eps}
446: \caption{\label{fig:compare} The results are our survey are shown both
447: for the IC10 field (upper) and control field (lower). Crosses denote
448: new candidates; the filled circles are the stars that were previously
449: spectroscopically confirmed as WRs, and the two open circles denote
450: the stars newly confirmed here. The magnitude difference {\it WC-CT}
451: or {\it WN-CT} (whichever was more negative) is shown as {\it WR-CT},
452: and is proportional to emission-line strength. Stars above the line
453: (i.e., {\it WC-WN} $>-0.1$) are expected to be of WN type (if confirmed);
454: those below the line are expected to be of WC type. Note the lack
455: of strong-lined candidates in the control field.}
456: \end{figure}
457:
458: \clearpage
459:
460: \begin{figure}
461: \epsscale{0.7}
462: \plotone{f4.eps}
463: \caption{\label{fig:wcwn2} The current WC/WN ratio of IC10 is still unusually
464: high based upon the newly confirmed WRs (Crowther et al.\ 2002a) and those
465: reported here. However, if the number of new WRs found by our survey
466: is correct (when corrected for the number of false detections based upon
467: our control field) then the ratio becomes much more consistent with what
468: is expected on the basis of metallicity. The dotted line is the least-squares
469: fit using the survey data for IC10, and ignoring the Milky Way,
470: for which the data are probably incomplete, as discussed by Massey \&
471: Johnson (1998).}
472: \end{figure}
473:
474: \clearpage
475: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccl}
476: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
477: \tablecolumns{8}
478: \tablenum{1}
479: \tablecaption{Spectrophotometry of Newly Confirmed IC10 WRs}
480: \tablehead{
481: \colhead{} &
482: \colhead{} &
483: \colhead{} &
484: \colhead{} &
485: \colhead{} &
486: \multicolumn{2}{c}{He~II $\lambda 4686$} &
487: \colhead {} \\ \cline{6-7}
488: \colhead{Star\tablenotemark{a}} &
489: \colhead{$\alpha_{\rm 2000}$} &
490: \colhead{$\delta_{\rm 2000}$} &
491: \colhead{$m_{\lambda 4750}$} &
492: \colhead{Type} &
493: \colhead{EW (\AA)} &
494: \colhead{FWHM (\AA)} &
495: \colhead{Comment}
496: }
497: \startdata
498: 23 & 00:20:32.79 & 59:17:16.4 & 22.3 & WN7-8 & -40 & 13 & hydrogen, strong NIII\\
499: 24 & 00:20:27.73 & 59:17:37.2 & 18.8 & WN & -4 & 21 & \\
500: \enddata
501: \tablenotetext{a}{The numbering is a continuation of those of Massey et al. 1992
502: and Massey \& Johnson 1998. Revised designations including the ``RMSV" stars
503: will be included once spectroscopy of the new candidates is completed.}
504: \end{deluxetable}
505:
506:
507:
508: \end{document}
509: