1: \documentclass{aa}
2: %\documentclass[referee]{aa}
3: \usepackage{epsfig}
4: \begin{document}
5: \title{Cool carbon stars in the halo: a new survey based on 2MASS
6: \thanks{Based on observations made at the European Southern Observatory, Chile
7: (programs 67.B~0085AB, 69.B~0186A)
8: and at the Haute Provence Observatory (France) operated
9: by the Centre National de Recherche Scientifique, together with data from the
10: 2MASS project (University of Massachusetts and IPAC/Caltech, USA).}}
11: %\subtitle{first results}
12: \author{N. Mauron\inst{1} \and M. Azzopardi\inst{2} \and K. Gigoyan\inst{3}
13: \and T.R. Kendall\inst{4}}
14: \offprints{N.Mauron}
15: \institute{ Groupe d'Astrophysique, UMR 5024 CNRS, Case CC72,
16: Place Bataillon, F-34095 Montpellier Cedex 5, France\\
17: \email{mauron@graal.univ-montp2.fr}
18: \and
19: IAM, Observatoire de Marseille, 2 Place Le Verrier,
20: F-13248 Marseille Cedex 4, France
21: \and
22: 378433 Byurakan Astrophysical Observatory \& Isaac
23: Newton Institute of Chile, Armenian Branch, Ashtarak d-ct, Armenia
24: \and
25: Laboratoire d'Astrophysique, Observatoire de Grenoble, Universit\'e
26: Joseph Fourier, BP 53, 38041 Grenoble Cedex 9, France}
27:
28:
29:
30: \date{Received xxx/ Accepted xxx}
31: % +=================================================================
32:
33: \abstract{We present the first results
34: of a new survey for finding cool N-type carbon (C) stars in the
35: halo of the Galaxy. Candidates were first selected in the
36: 2MASS Second Incremental Release database
37: with $JHK_s$ colours typical of red AGB C stars and $K_s < 13$, and
38: subsequently checked through medium resolution slit spectroscopy.
39: We discovered 27 new C stars $plus$ one known previously and
40: two similar objects in the Fornax and
41: Sculptor dwarf galaxies. We determine and discuss the properties of our sample,
42: including optical and near-infrared colours, radial velocities, as well as
43: $H\alpha$ emission and variability that are frequent, all these characteristics
44: being compatible with an AGB C-type
45: classification. Surprisingly, of the 30 studied objects, 8
46: were found to have small but measurable
47: proper motions ($\mu$) in the USNO-B1.0 catalogue,
48: ranging over $8 < \mu < 21$ mas\,yr$^{-1}$ and
49: opening the possibility that some objects could perhaps be dwarf carbon stars. Yet,
50: a detailed analysis based on comparison with the sample of known carbon dwarfs
51: leads us to consider these $\mu$ as incompatible with the broader picture suggested by
52: the other data taken as a whole. So, we adopt the view that all
53: objects are of AGB type, i.e. luminous and distant.
54: Because the stream of Sagittarius dwarf galaxy is known to
55: be the dominant source of luminous C stars in the halo, we chose to determine
56: distances for our sample by scaling them on the 26 known AGB C stars of the Sgr galaxy
57: itself, which are found to be, in the $K_s$-band, $\sim$ 0.5\,mag. less luminous than
58: the average LMC C stars for a given $J-K_s$ colour. The obtained distances of our halo stars
59: range from 8 to 80\,kpc from the Sun. Then, examination of position and radial
60: velocities show that about half belong to the Sgr stream.
61: Our findings suggest that numerous AGB C stars remain to be discovered in the halo.
62: Long term K$_s$-band monitoring would be of great value to ascertain distance
63: estimates through the period-luminosity relation, because a large fraction
64: of our sample is probably made of Mira variables.
65: %Five of them
66: %are not in the APM or the USNOC catalog either because B is too faint, or because
67: %they are simply too faint inboth B and R, suggesting that previous surveys like the
68: % APM ones (based on B-R color selection) may have missed a significant number of
69: % cool halo C stars.
70: % It is shown that in a 2MASS J-H H-K K color-color diagram, the cool halo
71: % C stars are located in a very narrow lane. By adopting a distance calibration
72: %based on LMC carbon stars, we derive typical distance of .....
73: % The distances to the Galactic Center are ... and hight above the plane ...
74: \keywords{Stars: carbon, surveys, galactic halo; Galaxy: stellar content}
75: }
76: \titlerunning{Halo carbon stars}
77: \authorrunning{ N.Mauron, M. Azzopardi, K. Gigoyan, T.R. Kendall}
78: \maketitle
79: % ------------------------------------------------------------------
80: \section{Introduction}
81:
82: Surveys of stellar populations located at high galactic latitude are
83: important to characterize the halo and to understand how the Galaxy
84: formed (see for example Majewski 1993, and references therein).
85: Among the various types of stars that have been investigated
86: with this goal, the case of carbon (C) stars has been the subject of
87: much attention for some years. If such a C star is proven
88: to be in the asymptotic giant branch (AGB) evolutionary phase
89: (as is often the case for cool C stars
90: in the galactic disk), with an $R$-band magnitude of the order of 15, its
91: high luminosity ($M_{R} \sim -3.5$) puts it as far as
92: 50\,kpc from the Sun. Therefore, the luminous C stars constitute valuable
93: probes of the distant halo (e.g. Bothun et al. 1991).
94: Considerable efforts have been accomplished, and are still
95: in progress, in order to find such faint high latitude carbon stars (FHLCs).
96: These rare objects have been discovered using two main methods. The first is
97: by exploiting Schmidt objective-prism plates where C stars have a conspicuous
98: spectral appearance (MacAlpine \& Lewis 1978, Sanduleak \& Pesch 1988,
99: Gigoyan et al. 2001, Christlieb et al. 2001). The second method uses a
100: preliminary selection of candidates
101: with suitable photometric criteria, such as a very red $B$$-$$R$ colour index,
102: as in the
103: APM (Irwin 2000) survey of Totten \& Irwin (1998; hereafter TI98), or
104: multicolour properties as in the SLOAN carbon star survey of
105: Margon et al. (2002), with subsequent verification the of the carbon star nature
106: of these candidates by follow-up spectroscopy.
107:
108: One of the most striking results derived from these FHLC surveys,
109: especially from the APM one, was the fact that the tidal stream of the
110: Sagittarius dwarf spheroidal galaxy
111: (Sgr) orbiting the Galaxy could be traced for the first time by
112: considering the spatial and kinematical properties of the distant cool
113: C stars (Ibata et al. 2001a).
114: The Sgr stream has now been detected through a number of other
115: methods, such as deep mapping in limited portions of sky of specific populations,
116: e.g., blue horizontal branch stars, metal poor K giants, turnoff stars,
117: RR Lyr variables (Dinescu et al. 2002, Dohm-Palmer et al. 2001,
118: Kundu et al. 2002, Vivas et al. 2001, Martinez-Delgado et al. 2001,
119: Newberg et al. 2002), or with 2MASS selected M giants over the whole
120: sky (Majewski et al. 2003). Yet, there are several reasons to pursue the
121: search for cool luminous C stars all over
122: the high latitude sky. Firstly, the detection of this stream
123: with cool FHLCs currently involves only $\sim$ 40 stars, so that enlarging the sample
124: is naturally desirable. Secondly, cool AGB C stars are
125: a population of intermediate age, and consequently their spatial distribution
126: in the Sgr orbits might provide some interesting information on the history of the
127: merging process. A fraction of these AGB C stars may also be Mira
128: variables, and help to determine distances of these orbits through the
129: period-luminosity relation. Finally, roughly
130: half of the cool FHLC stars do not belong to the Sgr stream; their origin
131: has to be investigated and increasing the size of the sample studied may
132: possibly reveal other streams.
133:
134: However, in the search for FHLCs, one has to take into account that
135: the C stars in general are of various types and with diverse
136: evolutionary origins (see Wallerstein \& Knapp 1998 for a review).
137: %use of inappropriate selection
138: %criteria might reveal a minority of objects which do **not**
139: %have the luminosity of true AGB stars.
140: Compared to the bright AGB stars,
141: one family consists of less luminous, warmer carbon-rich objects presently evolving as
142: clump giants or located along the red giant branch, having accreted carbon
143: from a more evolved companion (Knapp et al. 2001, Christlieb et al. 2001).
144: Moreover, it is now well
145: established that a class of dwarf carbon stars exists (dCs; see e.g.,
146: Dahn et al. 1977, Green 2000, Margon et al. 2002, Lowrance et al. 2003, and
147: references therein).
148: These dCs have very low luminosity, are located
149: within a few hundred parsecs, have generally measurable proper
150: motions, and in fact are expected to outnumber the C stars of giant
151: type as observations
152: probe successively fainter magnitudes (Margon 2003).
153:
154:
155: In this context, we report here on the first results of a new systematic search for
156: faint, red AGB C stars at high galactic latitude. Our survey is essentially
157: a near-infrared based survey, since our candidates have been selected from the 2MASS
158: Second Incremental Data Release point-source catalogue.
159: About half of our $\sim$ 200 best candidates
160: have now been observed spectroscopically, resulting in the discovery of 27 new
161: cool FHLCs
162: which are presented and analysed in this work.
163: After describing our selection method (Sect.~2), the spectroscopic observations
164: are reported in Sect.~3. In Sect.~4, we examine the various properties
165: of the sample, including radial velocities, variability and proper
166: motions. These results are analysed in Sect.~5 together with a determination of
167: distances and examination of membership to the Sgr stream.
168: The main conclusions are finally summarized in Sect.~6.
169:
170:
171: \section{Selection of candidates}
172:
173:
174: In order to find new FHLC stars, we first considered all
175: the FHLCs published in the literature and located at
176: %$|b| > 30^{\circ}$.
177: $|b| > 30\degr$.
178: After retrieving their $JHK_s$ photometry from the 2MASS Second Incremental
179: Data Release point-source catalogue (available when this work started and
180: covering about half of the sky), we plotted them in a colour-colour $JHK_s$
181: diagram (Fig~1). Very similar diagrams, which inspired our search method,
182: have been published
183: by Totten, Irwin and Whitelock (2000; TIW), and Liebert et al. (2000).
184: It can be seen in Fig.~1 that the large majority of FHLCs have an $H-K_s$ colour
185: of about 0.2.
186: These stars are relatively warm, presumably CH-type objects and come mainly
187: from the Hamburg/ESO sample of Christlieb et al. (2001). The cool N-type stars
188: which we seek are located at $H-K_s$ larger than $\sim$ 0.3, and
189: appear to form a relatively well defined locus up to $H-K_s \sim 1.1$,
190: although the number of objects is progressively decreasing. The width of this
191: locus is typically $\sim$ 0.25 mag. This plot also suggests that
192: the C star locus extends up to the two objects at
193: $H-K_s \sim 1.6$, and such an extension is supported when one considers a similar
194: diagram showing the LMC C stars listed the catalogue of Kontizas et al. (2001)
195: (see also e.g., Nikolaev \& Weinberg 2000, their Fig.~2).
196: At still redder colours, Fig.~1 also shows also two exceptionally cool N-type stars with
197: $H-K_s \sim 2.0$. These are the very dusty C stars IRAS\,0846+1732, found by
198: Cutri et al. (1989), for which $l=210^{\circ}$, $b=+35^{\circ}$, $J-H=2.37$,
199: $H-K_s =2.01$
200: and $K_s=10.71$, and IRAS\,03582+1819, found by Liebert et al. (2000), with
201: $l=210^{\circ}$, $b=-25^{\circ}$, $J-H=2.59$, $H-K_s=2.07$, and $K_s=9.26$.
202: The latter object is plotted in Fig.~1
203: despite having $|b| < 30^{\circ}$ because its height above the galactic plane is
204: estimated by Liebert et al. to be in the range 6--15\,kpc.
205:
206:
207: Our method for searching for cool C stars was therefore
208: to select in 2MASS objects lying within a distance of $\sim$ 0.15\,mag
209: to the median line formed by these template cases. In order to avoid
210: a large number of ordinary (M-type) stars in our selection, we had also to set
211: a limit on colours, e.g. $H-K_s > 0.4$, $J-H > 0.95$, meaning that
212: we naturally miss the numerous warm but less luminous giant C stars
213: that are much better selected by other techniques, e.g. through
214: the SLOAN multicolour criteria. Concerning the limits in galactic latitude,
215: our nominal goal was to limit our search to $|b| > 30^{\circ}$. However,
216: we also considered with a lower priority candidates located down
217: to $|b| \sim 25^{\circ}$, especially if they showed an additional
218: favourable property such as very red $B-R$ or $J-K_s$ colours, and 6
219: new C stars were found at these low latitudes (more details in Sect.~4).
220:
221: % , as sample
222: %pollution by disk stars and young stellar objects increasingly affects
223: %the selection efficiency.
224:
225: Concerning the limit in brightness, our
226: nominal limit was set by $K_s < 13$, which corresponds to the
227: rather large distance of $\sim$ 150\,kpc from the Sun, if one adopts as a basis
228: the typical not too red LMC C stars
229: with $J-K_s = 1.6$, which have a mean $K_s$ of $10.7$ ($\sigma = 0.4$).
230:
231: After selection in 2MASS which yielded $\sim$ 1200 objects, we
232: excluded the objects that were already known and catalogued
233: in the SIMBAD database as M or C stars,
234: young stellar objects, L dwarfs, galaxies or QSOs. We also excluded
235: objects with USNOC-A2.0 colour
236: $B-R$ bluer than 1.5, when these $B$ and $R$ magnitudes are provided by
237: the 2MASS database. This is justified by the fact that many M stars and galaxies
238: are excluded by this criterion, while N-type stars are
239: expected to be much redder than this limit and have generally $B-R \sim 3$.
240: Eventually, we found 6 new C stars with $2 <B-R < 3$ and 2 with $B-R$ = 1.9
241: and 1.6 (see below).
242: Inspection of POSS plates was also systematically used for further sample cleaning,
243: and numerous supplementary cases of faint, contaminating galaxies were discarded.
244: In addition, the objective-prism plates of the First Byurakan Survey were
245: examined by one of us (K.G.) for relatively bright candidates located in the
246: zones covered by this survey, and this allowed the elimination of a number of further
247: M-type stars. This process resulted in a list of $\sim$ 200 best
248: candidates for which slit spectroscopy follow-up was begun.
249:
250:
251:
252: \section{Observations}
253: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% JOURNAL OF OBSERVATIONS %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
254:
255:
256: \begin{table}
257: \caption[]{Journal of Observations }
258: \begin{center}
259: % \begin{flushleft}
260: \begin{tabular}{lll}
261: \noalign{\smallskip}
262: \hline
263: \hline
264: \noalign{\smallskip}
265: Run \# and dates & Site & \# of observed Objects\\
266: \noalign{\smallskip}
267: \hline
268: \noalign{\smallskip}
269: 1~~ 2001 Mar 26 - Mar 30 & OHP & 2, 3, 5 to 10, 14\\
270: 2~~ 2001 Mar 31 - Apr 01 & ESO &4, 7, 11, 12, 13\\
271: 3~~ 2001 Sep 09 - Sep 13 & ESO &1, 16, 17, 19, 22 to 28\\
272: 4~~ 2001 Oct 17 - Oct 22 & OHP &15\\
273: 5~~ 2002 Fev 14 - Fev 18 & OHP &no observations (clouds)\\
274: 6~~ 2002 Aug 29 - Sep 03 & ESO &17, 18, 20, 21, 29, 30\\
275: \noalign{\smallskip}
276: \hline
277: \end{tabular}
278: %\end{flushleft}
279: \end{center}
280: \end{table}
281:
282: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
283:
284:
285: The observations were carried out with the
286: 193\,cm telescope at Haute-Provence Observatory in France (OHP) and with
287: the Danish 1.54\,m telescope at the European Southern Observatory (ESO)
288: in Chile. A journal of observations is given in Table 1, indicating the
289: dates of the observing runs and the objects observed in each run.
290: Because of clouds, no observations were done during Run 5,
291: mentioned here for completeness.
292:
293: At OHP we used the CARELEC spectrograph and its 1200 lines\,mm$^{-1}$ grating
294: blazed in the red to obtain a dispersion of 0.45\,\AA\,pixel$^{-1}$ and
295: to cover the 5700\,\AA -- 6600\,\AA~ region.
296: The detector is an EEV 42-20 CCD chip with 2048$\times$1024 pixels of 13.5\,$\mu$m.
297: Due to poor seeing, the slit width had to be set to 2$''$, and the resulting velocity
298: resolution of the spectra is $\sim$ 90\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
299:
300: At ESO, we used the DFOSC focal reducer which permits both
301: direct imaging and slit spectroscopy. After a 2\,min image generally taken
302: in the R Bessel filter for source identification, the spectrum was
303: obtained through grism \#8 which provides a range of 5800 to 8400\,\AA~ and
304: a dispersion of 1.2\,\AA\,pixel$^{-1}$ on the detector, a
305: 2148$\times$4096 EEV/MAT CCD with 15\,$\mu$m pixels (half of the CCD area
306: is not used due to the reducer design).
307: The slit width was 1.5$''$ and the velocity resolution $\sim$ 120\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
308:
309:
310:
311:
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 1 sample
313: \begin{figure*}
314: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
315: {\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vfig01-a.ps}}}
316: {\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vfig01-b.ps}}}
317: }
318:
319: \caption[]{{\it Left panel}: Colour-colour diagram of known carbon stars with 2MASS photometry and
320: located at high galactic latitude ($|b| > 30^{\circ}$);
321: {\it Right panel}: Colour-colour diagram of the targets for which
322: slit spectroscopy have been obtained (circles). The new carbon stars
323: found in this work are indicated by an overplotted $+$ sign. Note that the abscissa and
324: ordinate scales differ in the two panels.}
325: \label{fig1.ps}
326: \end{figure*}
327: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
328:
329:
330:
331:
332:
333:
334: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% table des coordonees ... et Notes %%%%%%%%%%%%
336: \begin{table*}
337: \caption[]{List of discovered faint cool halo carbon stars. Coordinates
338: $\alpha$ (in h., min., sec.) and $\delta$ (in deg., min, sec.) are from 2MASS.
339: $l$, $b$ are in degrees. $B$ \& $R$ in mag. are from USNO-A2.0
340: ($\pm$ 0.4 mag. approximatively),
341: except for objects with a Note. $J H K_s$ are from the 2MASS 2nd Incr. Release
342: database (in mag.; errors $\pm$ 0.02-0.03 mag. or better)}
343: \begin{flushleft}
344: \begin{tabular}{lccrrrrrrrrrr}
345: \noalign{\smallskip}
346: \hline
347: \hline
348: \noalign{\smallskip}
349: %(1)& (2) & (3) & (4)& (5) &(6) &(7)&(8)& (9) &(10)& (11)&(12)\\
350: No.& $\alpha$(J2000) & $\delta$(J2000) & $l$~~~~ & $b$~~ & $B$ & $R$~~ & $B$-$R$ & $J$~~ & $H$~~ & $K_s$~~ & $J$-$K_s$&Notes\\
351: \noalign{\smallskip}
352: \hline
353: \noalign{\smallskip}
354:
355: 01& 02 11 30.866& $-$03 49 43.85& 165.80& $-$59.86& 18.5 & 14.9 & 3.6 & 12.034 & 11.007 & 10.449 & 1.585&\\
356: 02& 09 13 31.865& $+$19 34 22.64& 209.31& $+$39.79& 16.9 & 11.5 & 5.4 & 9.043 & 7.953 & 7.363 & 1.680&\\
357: 03& 09 15 05.206& $+$19 17 37.89& 209.81& $+$40.04& 16.8 & 12.6 & 4.2 & 10.203 & 9.186 & 8.476 & 1.727&\\
358: 04& 10 15 25.934& $-$02 04 31.84& 244.49& $+$42.43& 20.9 & 16.3 & 4.6 & 14.045 & 12.861 & 11.987 & 2.058&(1)\\
359: 05& 10 59 23.839& $+$39 44 05.60& 177.25& $+$63.60& 16.9 & 13.3 & 3.6 & 11.082 & 10.080 & 9.442 & 1.640&\\
360: 06& 11 09 59.686& $-$21 22 01.15& 273.53& $+$35.65& 14.2 & 10.5 & 3.7 & 8.390 & 7.482 & 7.001 & 1.389&\\
361: 07& 11 17 19.005& $-$17 29 15.39& 273.18& $+$39.88& 19.4 & 16.5 & 2.9 & 13.464 & 12.403 & 11.632 & 1.832&\\
362: 08& 12 09 25.022& $+$15 16 18.49& 261.33& $+$74.64& 17.8 & 14.2 & 3.6 & 11.185 & 10.277 & 9.822 & 1.363&\\
363: 09& 12 49 04.767& $+$13 20 35.51& 300.53& $+$76.20& 19.3 & 14.5 & 4.8 & 12.606 & 11.604 & 11.136 & 1.470&\\
364: 10& 13 56 02.371& $-$01 36 26.20& 333.93& $+$57.32& 19.4 & 15.5 & 3.9 & 12.915 & 11.860 & 11.327 & 1.588&\\
365: 11& 13 59 20.636& $-$30 23 39.48& 319.88& $+$30.23& - & 19.8 & - & 14.577 & 13.072 & 11.798 & 2.779&(2)\\
366: 12& 15 01 06.923& $-$05 31 38.70& 351.63& $+$44.74& 20.4 & 16.8 & 3.6 & 13.571 & 12.348 & 11.506 & 2.065&(3)\\
367: 13& 15 15 11.063& $-$13 32 27.93& 348.10& $+$36.43& 18.7 & 17.1 & 1.6 & 12.594 & 11.516 & 10.785 & 1.809&(4)\\
368: 14& 15 58 42.227& $+$18 52 46.86& 32.33& $+$46.37& 17.5 & 14.6 & 2.9 & 12.269 & 11.387 & 10.966 & 1.303&\\
369: 15& 17 28 25.766& $+$70 08 29.93& 100.83& $+$32.41& 18.1 & 13.9 & 4.2 & 11.551 & 10.111 & 9.048 & 2.503&\\
370: 16& 19 42 19.018& $-$35 19 37.69& 4.40& $-$25.06& 18.6 & 16.7 & 1.9 & 12.633 & 11.142 & 10.068 & 2.565&\\
371: 17& 19 42 21.315& $-$32 11 04.19& 7.70& $-$24.13& 19.0 & 14.7 & 4.3 & 11.967 & 10.817 & 9.981 & 1.986&\\
372: 18& 19 48 50.653& $-$30 58 31.92& 9.43& $-$25.08& - & 17.7 & - & 12.998 & 11.215 & 9.862 & 3.136&(5)\\
373: 19& 19 53 30.172& $-$38 35 59.40& 1.52& $-$28.07& 19.2 & 13.9 & 5.3 & 11.292 & 10.088 & 9.244 & 2.048&\\
374: 20& 20 13 19.435& $-$23 41 44.26& 19.07& $-$27.92& 14.4 & 11.7 & 2.7 & 9.541 & 8.591 & 8.109 & 1.432&\\
375: 21& 20 20 27.661& $-$14 49 27.10& 29.05& $-$26.26& 19.4 & 14.7 & 3.7 & 11.849 & 10.162 & 8.711 & 3.138&(6)\\
376: 22& 20 54 54.551& $-$28 28 56.73& 16.76& $-$38.23& 18.6 & 14.3 & 4.3 & 12.407 & 11.451 & 10.858 & 1.549&\\
377: 23& 22 05 14.590& $+$00 08 46.06& 60.31& $-$41.67& 18.1 & 14.3 & 3.8 & 10.709 & 9.503 & 8.714 & 1.995&\\
378: 24& 22 06 53.669& $-$25 06 28.28& 26.55& $-$53.17& 18.0 & 15.1 & 2.9 & 10.934 & 9.756 & 8.922 & 2.012&\\
379: 25& 22 17 09.923& $-$26 07 03.35& 25.64& $-$55.64& 18.4 & 15.4 & 3.0 & 11.056 & 9.823 & 8.882 & 2.174&\\
380: 26& 23 17 21.087& $-$24 11 42.41& 35.54& $-$68.63& 17.8 & 15.5 & 2.3 & 13.750 & 12.750 & 12.280 & 1.470&\\
381: 27& 23 19 35.533& $-$18 56 23.79& 49.28& $-$67.38& 17.5 & 14.8 & 2.7 & 11.477 & 10.473 & 9.958 & 1.519&\\
382: 28& 23 25 31.394& $-$30 10 56.06& 18.64& $-$70.94& 18.4 & 14.6 & 3.8 & 13.409 & 12.028 & 11.029 & 2.380&\\
383: \multicolumn{13}{c}{Two carbon stars in the direction of Sculptor (\#29) and in Fornax (\#30)}\\
384: 29& 00 59 53.680& $-$33 38 30.77& 287.82& $-$83.24& - & 20.2 & - & 14.877 & 13.144 & 11.591 & 3.286&(7)\\
385: 30& 02 41 03.550& $-$34 48 05.34& 237.84& $-$65.37& 23.3 & 18.3 & 5.0 & 14.445 & 13.397 & 12.682 & 1.763&(8)\\
386: \noalign{\smallskip}
387: \hline
388: \end{tabular}
389: \end{flushleft}
390:
391: {\small Notes:
392:
393: (1) $B$ \& $R$ are $B_2$ \& $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=18.5; in the APM
394: catalogue, one finds $R$=18.3 and no data for $B$
395:
396: (2) $R$ is $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which no other data in $R$ or $B$ are given;
397: in APM, $R$=20.25 and no data in $B$
398:
399: (3) $B$ \& $R$ are $B_2$ \& $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=16.0;
400: in APM, the object is blended with neighbours
401:
402: (4) $B$ \& $R$ are $B_2$ \& $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=16.7; in APM,
403: $R$=17.1 $B$=18.35
404:
405: (5) $R$ is $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=15.8 but no data in $B$ is given; in APM,
406: $R=18.2$ and no data in $B$
407:
408: (6) $B$ \& $R$ are $B_2$ \& $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=16.2; no data
409: in the APM catalogue for this position ($|b|$ is too low)
410:
411: (7) $R$ is $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which no other data in $R$ or $B$ are given; in APM,
412: $R$=20.3 and no data in $B$; membership to Sculptor requires supplementary
413: observations and radial velocity determination.
414:
415: (8) $B$ \& $R$ are $B_2$ \& $R_2$ from USNOC-B1.0 in which $R_1$=16.9; in APM,
416: $R=18.3$ and no data in $B$; this star was previously identified as probable C star
417: by Demers et al (2002) on the basis of its near-infrared photometry
418: (\#25 in their Table 1)}
419:
420: \end{table*}
421:
422:
423: \section{Results}
424:
425:
426: In our list of $\sim 200$ best candidates, slit
427: spectroscopy has so far been secured for 97 of them: 30 were found to be C stars,
428: including one that is member of the Fornax dwarf galaxy (\#30) and one located
429: in the direction of the Sculptor dwarf galaxy (\#29) (see Table 2). The 67 other objects
430: (not C stars) were found to be mainly M-type giants and will be
431: the subject of future work.
432:
433:
434: The last two objects (\#29 and \#30) were
435: under consideration as interesting comparison objects. No radial velocity could be
436: determined by us for \#29, and its membership to Sculptor needs further observations to be
437: proven. This object is considerably redder ($J-K_s$ = 3.3) than the other C stars
438: known in Sculptor (Azzopardi et al. 1986, Aaronson \& Olszewski 1987) for which
439: $J-K_s$ is between 0.8 and 1.12. It appears very faint in the R-band POSS-II image, is
440: invisible on blue plates, but is well seen in the I-band UKST digitized image.
441: Concerning Object \#30, this star was already noted by Demers et al. (2002) as a probable
442: Fornax carbon star based on its 2MASS near-infrared magnitudes and colors: our spectrum
443: confirms its carbon nature and proves its membership through radial velocity determination.
444:
445:
446: All of the C stars found have $ K_s < 12.3$,
447: with the exception of the Fornax C star at $K_s = 12.68$. We also observed a small
448: supplementary list of 9 faint ($13 < K_s < 14$) objects, none of which
449: were found to be C stars. The $JHK_s$ colour-colour diagram of the observed targets
450: is shown in Fig.~1 (right panel). During our survey, we also found ten L-type dwarfs,
451: all with $12 < K_s < 14$, including seven which were not previously known (the three known
452: cases had escaped our attention in the selection process).
453: The discovery of these new L-dwarfs is reported in Kendall et al. (2003),
454: and in the following, we focus on the new C stars and their properties.
455:
456: \subsection{General properties of the sample}
457:
458:
459: Table 2 lists the 30 C stars found, their coordinates and some photometric data.
460: Finding charts are not presented here, because all stars are near-infrared (NIR)
461: bright and very red,
462: and can be identified unambiguously in the 2MASS survey images,
463: and also in the POSS, ESO or UKST digitized images
464: (note that the very red Object\#29 is clearly visible only in the IV-N SERC-I
465: digitized plate).
466:
467: Here we shall ignore the last two C stars (\#29 and \#30) which are in the Fornax and
468: Sculptor galaxies respectively. It can be seen that of the 28 remaining
469: objects, 22 have been found
470: at $|b| > 30^{\circ}$. One star, \#5, was erroneously rediscovered and was known as
471: FBS 1056+399 or APM 1056+4000 (Gigoyan et al. 2001, TI98). Its 7500--8000\,\AA\, spectrum
472: is in Gigoyan et al. (2001), and a 5700--6600\,\AA\, spectrum has been
473: obtained here: it shows H$\alpha$ in emission and this new
474: spectrum was used to derive an independent radial velocity
475: measurement which is in very good agreement with that of Gigoyan et al. (2001).
476:
477: %Another star, \# XXXXX, was found to be in common with the Hamburg/ESO sample.
478: %This work brings C-type spectral confirmation, radial velocity and further analysis.
479:
480: In Table~2, the columns $B$ and $R$, and corresponding $B-R$ index
481: are from the USNO A2.0 catalogue, except
482: for 8 objects which are not present in this catalogue, in
483: which case the data from USNO-B1.0 are
484: given (see the Notes of Table 2 for details). These $B$ and $R$ magnitudes
485: provide only approximate optical photometry with probable errors of $\sim$\,0.4\,\,mag,
486: and should also be considered with caution since many objects are clearly variable,
487: and objects at $|b| < 30^{\circ}$ may also suffer some interstellar absorption (see below).
488: However it is interesting to note that the magnitude range in $R$ is between
489: 10.5 and 19.8, and the median in $R$ is 14.7. For comparison, the carbon stars of
490: the APM survey (see Table 3 of TI98, with 41 stars labelled ``APM'')
491: have an $R$ range 10.0--18.0 and a median of 13.6\,mag. The median of our sample
492: 14.7 corresponds to a distance of $\sim$ 44\,kpc if one adopts the absolute magnitude
493: of $M_R$ = $-$3.5 considered by TI98, and if no circumstellar or interstellar
494: absorption in the red ($A_R$) is assumed (if $A_R$=1 mag., one finds 27\,kpc).
495:
496: The columns $J, H, K_s, J-K_s $ are from the 2MASS Second Incremental release.
497: %and rounded to 0.01\,mag.
498: The typical errors on this photometry are $\sim$ 0.03\,mag or better.
499: All C stars of our sample
500: have $J-K_s > 1.3$, which is largely due to our selection criteria excluding
501: objects with $J-H < 0.95$ and $H-K_s < 0.4$. Therefore, they are distinctly
502: redder in $J-K_s$ than most of the numerous warm C stars of the Hamburg-ESO survey.
503: %, andalso redder than the faint C stars automatically selected with the SLOAN $gri$
504: %multicolour criteria
505: %of Margon et al. (2002) (one object of their Table 2, SDSS J122740.0-002751,
506: %has $J-K_s$=2.21
507: The colour-colour diagram
508: of Fig.~1 also shows that no candidate redder than $J-K_s \sim 3.4$ was observed,
509: essentially because C stars or candidates
510: redder than this are very rare at high $b$.
511:
512:
513: \subsection {Spectra}
514:
515: For clarity of the text, the atlas of all the spectra is shown in Appendix A.
516: A detailed study of these spectra will be performed in a future paper,
517: and only a few remarks will be made here.
518:
519:
520: First, all ESO spectra display a strong rising flux between 6000 and 7800\,\AA\,
521: with a flux ratio of about 2 to 15. The OHP spectra have a too small
522: domain to be considered similarly. This slope is clearly larger for our
523: objects than for the warmer giant or dwarf SLOAN C stars shown by Margon et al.
524: (2002), for which
525: the 6000--7800\,\AA\, flux distribution is nearly flat. The cool APM stars and the two
526: N-type C stars SDSS J144631.1-005500 and J1227400-002751
527: (previously known as APM\,1225-0011) shown in
528: Margon et al. have spectra very similar with ours.
529:
530: One notes also that H$\alpha$ is in emission in 13 of our 28 halo objects,
531: i.e., 46\%. This fraction is higher but comparable to the result of Maizels \& Morris
532: (1990) who surveyed 37 galactic ``bright C stars'' (presumably of AGB type, but no
533: details are given on the observed stars or their selection method)
534: and found H$\alpha$ emission
535: in 14 of them (38\%). In the APM survey, examination of the spectra in Fig. 5 of
536: TI98 indicates that 6 of 20 N-type stars have H$\alpha$ emission (30\%),
537: and 1 of 8 CH-type stars (12\%). In contrast, among Margon et al.'s warm C stars,
538: 5 out of 39 have H$\alpha$ emission (13\%). Therefore the high fraction of
539: H$\alpha$ emission in our sample and the above comparisons suggest that
540: most of our stars are
541: pulsating AGB stars (with a shock wave being the cause of the H$\alpha$ emission).
542:
543:
544: %One can note H$\alpha$ in emission in 13 of the 28 halo objects;
545: %****WHAT TO SAY ???
546: %a few features characteristic of C stars; no CaH found in dwarfs;
547: %the star in Sculptor is noisy and almost featureless for lambda $<$****,
548: %but there is clearly the break at 8000 due to CN.****
549:
550: \subsection{Radial velocities}
551:
552: During each run, we observed several times a small number of template
553: carbon stars with known radial velocities (see Table 3). In the
554: following, we shall call these stars ``radial velocity standard'',
555: although, for several reasons, they cannot be considered as classical
556: standard stars with stable and accurately established
557: velocities. Firstly, it is well known that the photospheric radial velocity
558: of cool carbon stars may vary with amplitudes of the order
559: of $\sim$ 10\,km\,s$^{-1}$. Secondly, the number of independent radial velocities
560: available in the literature for a given star is often small.
561: Thirdly, the literature values are occasionally very discrepant:
562: for example, in Table 4 of TI98, it is found that APM\,0102-0556 \&
563: APM\,0911+3341 have published values differing by as much as 50\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
564:
565: Therefore, the published radial velocities of these standards have been
566: considered as a first approximation. For each run considered separately,
567: we have cross-correlated the spectra of each standard with all the other
568: standards observed during the run, and determined best fit radial
569: velocities by minimizing the differences between our data and the published
570: values. The results, listed in Table 3, appear fairly consistent, especially
571: when comparing the velocities of the standards common to several runs and
572: taking into account the velocity resolution of our experiments.
573: The global rms scatter ($1\sigma$) of the residuals between fitted and
574: published values is 12\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
575:
576:
577: \begin{table*}
578: \caption[]{Heliocentric radial velocities for template carbon stars.
579: In columns labelled Run~1, Run~2, ..., Run~6 are listed
580: the best fitted radial velocities determined for each run, $v_{\rm fit}$, in
581: km\,s$^{-1}$. The column $v_{\rm pub}$ is the value taken from the literature and
582: adopted as a first approximation for the fits (see text and Notes).
583: The column $ < v_{\rm fit} - v_{\rm pub} >$ gives the average difference over the runs
584: (in km\,s$^{-1}$). }
585:
586: \begin{center}
587:
588: \begin{tabular}{lrrrrrrcc}
589: \noalign{\smallskip}
590: \hline
591: \hline
592: \noalign{\smallskip}
593: Star & Run 1 & Run 2 & Run 3& Run 4& Run 6 & $v_{\rm pub}$ & $ < v_{\rm fit} - v_{\rm pub} >$ &
594: Note on $v_{\rm pub}$\\
595: \noalign{\smallskip}
596: \hline
597: \noalign{\smallskip}
598: TW\,Oph & +21 & +28 & +10 & & & +14 & \,\,$+$6 & (1)\\
599: APM\,1406+0520 & $-$25 & $-$37& & & & $-$21& $-$10 & (2)\\
600: HR\,3541 = X\,Cnc & $-$4 & & & & & $-$3 & \,\,$-$1 & (3)\\
601: APM\,0915$-$0327 & & +95 & & & & +79 & $+$16 & (2)\\
602: APM\,0123+1233 & & &$-$324 & & & $-$302& $-$22 & (2)\\
603: APM\,0418+0122 & & & +19 & +27& & +33 & $-$10 & (2)\\
604: APM\,2225$-$1401 & & &$-103$ & & $-118$& $-113$& \,\,$+$3 & (2)\\
605: APM\,0222$-$1337 & & &$ -7$ & & $-24$ & $-27$ & $+$11 & (2)\\
606: RV\,Aqr & & &$ +6$ & $-4$& & $-10 $& $+$11 & (2)\\
607: HD\,16115 & & &$ -6$ & & +11 & $+4$ & \,\,$-$1 & (4)\\
608: APM\,2213$-$0017 & & & & & $-49$ & $-44$ & \,\,$-$5 & (2)\\
609: APM\,2111+0010 & & & & & $-195$& $-208$& $+$13 & (2)\\
610: \noalign{\smallskip}
611: \hline
612: \end{tabular}
613: \end{center}
614:
615: Notes:
616:
617: (1) $v_{\rm pub}$ is from the SIMBAD database;
618: from the CO millimeter observations listed by Loup et al. (1993), a center of mass
619: heliocentric velocity of +15\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is derived and is in very good agreement.
620:
621: (2) $v_{\rm pub}$ are from TI98; quoted
622: uncertainties are $\leq$ 7\,km\,s$^{-1}$;
623:
624: (3) TI98 indicate $v_{\rm pub}$= $-$1\,km\,s$^{-1}$ with
625: $\sigma$ = 12\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (2 measurements);
626: from the data in Loup et al. catalogue, one derives $-$6\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (heliocentric), and
627: $v_{\rm pub}$ = $-$3\,km\,s$^{-1}$ was adopted;
628:
629: (4) we adopted $v_{\rm pub}$ = +4\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from TI98, who give
630: $\sigma$ = 1\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (3 measurements), but
631: $v = +16 \pm 5$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is given in SIMBAD.
632:
633: \end{table*}
634: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
635:
636: Then, the spectrum of each program carbon star was correlated with
637: the spectra of the standards observed for the same run, and the velocities
638: so obtained were averaged (details on the cross-correlation technique
639: can be found in, e.g., TI98). In addition to the internal consistency
640: provided by the standards, a further check is provided by two objects
641: that were observed during two runs: for Object \#7, we found
642: $v_{\rm helio} = +339$ and $+$345\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from Run 1 and 2 respectively;
643: for Object \#17, we found $v_{\rm helio} = +135$ and $+$127\,km\,s$^{-1}$ from Run 2 and 6,
644: respectively. A final independent check on our velocity scale
645: is provided by Object \#29 in Fornax, for which
646: we find $v_{\rm helio} = +$40\,km\,s$^{-1}$, in fair agreement with
647: the mean velocity of this galaxy $v_{\rm helio} = +$53\,km\,s$^{-1}$
648: (van den Bergh 2002), since the difference of 13\,km\,s$^{-1}$ represents
649: 1.1$\sigma$. In conclusion, we estimate that the uncertainty
650: on our radial velocities is $\sim$~12\,km\,s$^{-1}$ (1$\sigma$).
651: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
652:
653: \subsection {Proper motions}
654:
655: Thanks for the recent release of the USNO-B1.0 catalogue (Monet et al. 2003),
656: information on proper motions is available for all the objects.
657: For 22 objects, the proper motion is found to be null, while
658: for 8 objects, a measurable proper motion is provided. For these 8 objects,
659: details are listed in Table 4, including the time interval between first and last plates
660: on which the objects were detected, and the total motion probability as provided
661: by USNO-B1.0.
662:
663: We checked whether the objects for which a zero proper motion is given
664: have been correctly observed in the scanned surveys. Because most of
665: the objects are at a declination larger than $\sim -30^{\circ}$ and
666: bright enough ($R$ in the range 14 to 18),
667: they have been well imaged in the first POSS-I survey: they are generally
668: well detected in red plates and very often also in blue plates of POSS-I, and they
669: are also well detected in subsequent red or near-infrared surveys
670: (POSS-II, SERC, AAO, ESO), ensuring time baselines which are of the order of
671: 30 to 50 years.
672:
673: \begin{table}
674: \caption[]{Data from the USNO-B1.0 database
675: for objects with not null proper motions, where $\Delta t$ is
676: the epoch interval, N is the number of detections on the scanned plates, and
677: Probab. is the total motion probability}
678: \begin{center}
679: % \begin{flushleft}
680: \begin{tabular}{crrrrrr}
681: \noalign{\smallskip}
682: \hline
683: \hline
684: \noalign{\smallskip}
685: Object & $\mu_{\alpha}$ cos $\delta$ & $\mu_{\delta}$ & $\Delta t$ & N & Probab. \\
686: \# &(mas/yr) & (mas/yr) & (yrs) & & \\
687: \noalign{\smallskip}
688: \hline
689: \noalign{\smallskip}
690: 10 & $+24\pm3 $ & $2\pm3$ & 45 & 5 &0.9 & \\
691: 17 & $-12\pm10$ & $6\pm1$ & 35 & 5 &0.7 & \\
692: 18 & $-6\pm3$ & $-4\pm0$ & 33 & 3 &0.7 & \\
693: 20 & $ -6\pm3 $ & $14\pm5$ & 38 & 5 &0.8 & \\
694: 22 & $-16\pm2 $ & $0\pm3 $ & 36 & 4 &0.9 & \\
695: 24 & $-8\pm2 $ & $6\pm4$ & 37 & 5 &0.9 & \\
696: 25 & $-12\pm2$ & $2\pm5$ & 41 & 4 &0.9 &\\
697: 26 & $-2\pm3$ & $8\pm3$ & 41 & 5 &0.9 &\\
698:
699: \noalign{\smallskip}
700: \hline
701: \end{tabular}
702: %\end{flushleft}
703: \end{center}
704: \end{table}
705: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5
706:
707: \subsection{Variability}
708: All objects were examined for variability in available digitized sky
709: surveys with 5$'$ size images retrieved from the
710: USNO web site\footnote{www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix}.
711: Practically, we compared by eye the appearance of our C stars with
712: neighbouring stars of similar brightness on these survey images and on our ESO
713: CCD Bessel-R band images, when possible. One difficulty in doing so is
714: that the photographic survey plates have been exposed
715: with a variety of emulsions and filters. This complicates the comparison,
716: especially because the C stars are very red and have relatively steep
717: spectra compared to neighbouring field stars. For example, the
718: available red plates for a given field may have the following various emulsions
719: and filters: 103aE + RP2444 (POSS I), IIIaF + RG 610-3 (POSS II), IIIaF + OG590 (AAO-R)
720: or IIIaF + RG 630 (ESO-R). Consequently, when examining these plates, we
721: kept in mind possible bandpass effects and concluded the existence of variability
722: only when the evidence was very strong. For several objects, there are pairs
723: of plates with identical emulsion/filter combinations with exposures
724: taken at quite different dates, in which case variability is much better
725: assessed. In such cases, we noted 'var 2r' or 'var 2b', corresponding
726: to a pair of red or blue plates, respectively. In one case (Object \#17),
727: two CCD Bessel $R$ images were obtained during 2 different runs,
728: and differential photometric analysis
729: of the frames very clearly establishes variability, by 0.28 $\pm$ 0.02\,mag over
730: a period of $\sim$ 1\,year.
731:
732: As can be seen in Table 5, of the 28 FHLC stars in our sample,
733: variability is found for 11 objects. Since our method is sensible to only
734: large variations, it is most probable that a larger fraction of
735: objects is actually variable. The Sculptor C star (\#29) is also found to be
736: variable. Concerning the Fornax C star(\#30), the evidence for variability was
737: not conclusive from the examined plates, but variability has
738: been proven by the CCD optical imaging survey
739: of Bersier \& Wood (2002).
740:
741:
742:
743:
744:
745:
746:
747:
748: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% table des proprietes ... et Notes %%%%%%%%%%%%
749: \begin{table*}
750: \caption[]{Properties of the halo carbon stars. Quantities $l$, $b$, $R$, $K_s$, $J-K_s$ are
751: repeated from Table 2 for information. Variability derived from examination of various
752: plate surveys is indicated by ``var'' (see text). ``H$\alpha$'' means H$\alpha$ in emission. $\mu$ is
753: the USNO-B1.0 proper motion in mas\,yr$^{-1}$. $A_R$ is the adopted
754: R-band galactic extinction as given by Schlegel et al. maps, in mag. $M_{Ks}$ is the
755: adopted $K_s$-band absolute magnitude (see text). The distances $d_R$ and $d_K$ are
756: in kpc. $g^*_{\rm A-type}$ is the Sloan $g$ mag. of an imaginary ``A-type'' population with
757: $M_{g}$=1.0 if it was at the distance $d_K$ from the Sun; $g^*_{\rm A-type}$ is used
758: to evaluate the membership of the sample C star to the Sgr steam. This membership
759: is given in the last column by $yes$ or $no$ (see text). For objects \#29 and \#30,
760: $M_{Ks}$ and distances based on Sgr C stars templates are provided here only for information
761: (see text)}
762: \begin{flushleft}
763: \begin{tabular}{lccrrrlrrrrrrrrrr}
764: \noalign{\smallskip}
765: \hline
766: \hline
767: \noalign{\smallskip}
768: No.& $l$ & $b$ & $R$ & $K_s$ & $J-K_s$ & var & H$\alpha$& $\mu$ & $v_{\rm helio}$& $A_R$ & $M_{Ks}$ &
769: $d_R$ & $d_K$& $g^*_{\rm A-type}$ & Sgr~?\\
770: \noalign{\smallskip}
771: \hline
772: \noalign{\smallskip}
773:
774: 01& 165.80& $-$59.86& 14.9 & 10.449 & 1.585& & & 0 & $-$104 & 0.06 &$-7.35$& 39 & 36&18.8&yes :&\\
775: 02& 209.31& $+$39.79& 11.5 & 7.363 & 1.680& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & $-$46 & 0.12 &$-7.45$& 8 & 9&15.8& no&\\
776: 03& 209.81& $+$40.04& 12.6 & 8.476 & 1.727& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & $-$14 & 0.11 &$-7.50$& 13 & 16&17.0& no&\\
777: 04& 244.49& $+$42.43& 16.3 & 11.987 & 2.058& var & & 0 & +202 & 0.09 &$-7.55$& 73 & 81&20.4& no&\\
778: 05& 177.25& $+$63.60& 13.3 & 9.442 & 1.640& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & $-$162 & 0.04 &$-7.40$& 19 & 23&17.8& no :&\\
779: 06& 273.53& $+$35.65& 10.5 & 7.001 & 1.389& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & +124 & 0.11 &$-7.05$& 5 & 6&14.9& no&\\
780: 07& 273.18& $+$39.88& 16.5 & 11.632 & 1.832& var 2b & H$\alpha$ & 0 & +342 & 0.12 &$-7.60$& 79 & 71&20.3& no&\\
781: 08& 261.33& $+$74.64& 14.2 & 9.822 & 1.363& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & $-$27 & 0.09 &$-7.00$& 28 & 23&17.8& yes&\\
782: 09& 300.53& $+$76.20& 14.5 & 11.136 & 1.470& & & 0 & $-$22 & 0.08 &$-7.15$& 32 & 45&19.3& yes&\\
783: 10& 333.93& $+$57.32& 15.5 & 11.327 & 1.588& var 2r & &24 & +43 & 0.14 &$-7.35$& 49 & 54&19.7& yes&\\
784: 11& 319.88& $+$30.23& 19.8 & 11.798 & 2.779& var & & 0 & +145 & 0.13 &$-7.30$& - & 66&20.1& no&\\
785: 12& 351.63& $+$44.74& 16.8 & 11.506 & 2.065& & & 0 & +85 & 0.22 &$-7.60$& 86 & 65&20.1& yes&\\
786: 13& 348.10& $+$36.43& 17.1 & 10.785 & 1.809& & H$\alpha$ & 0 & +108 & 0.23 &$-7.60$& 99 & 47&19.4& yes&\\
787: 14& 32.33& $+$46.37& 14.6 & 10.966 & 1.303& & & 0 & +68 & 0.11 &$-6.75$& 33 & 35&18.7& no&\\
788: 15& 100.83& $+$32.41& 13.9 & 9.048 & 2.503& & & 0 & +158 & 0.10 &$-7.35$& 24 & 19&17.4& no&\\
789: 16& 4.40& $-$25.06& 16.7 & 10.068 & 2.565& var & H$\alpha$ & 0 & +135 & 0.71 &$-7.35$& 66 & 29&18.4& yes&\\
790: 17& 7.70& $-$24.13& 14.7 & 9.981 & 1.986& var 2r & H$\alpha$ &13 & +129 & 0.38 &$-7.65$& 30 & 33&18.6& yes&\\
791: 18& 9.43& $-$25.08& 17.7 & 9.862 & 3.136& & & 7 & +132 & 0.46 &$-7.15$&117 & 25&18.0& yes&\\
792: 19& 1.52& $-$28.07& 13.9 & 9.244 & 2.048& var 2r & H$\alpha$ & 0 & +165 & 0.21 &$-7.60$& 23 & 23&17.8& yes&\\
793: 20& 19.07& $-$27.92& 11.7 & 8.109 & 1.432& & &15 & $-$177 & 0.36 &$-7.00$& 8 & 10&16.0& no :&\\
794: 21& 29.05& $-$26.26& 14.7 & 8.711 & 3.138& & & 0 & +55 & 0.21 &$-7.10$& 33 & 14&16.7& no&\\
795: 22& 16.76& $-$38.23& 14.3 & 10.858 & 1.549& var & &16 & +56 & 0.28 &$-7.25$& 27 & 41&19.1& yes&\\
796: 23& 60.31& $-$41.67& 14.3 & 8.714 & 1.995& var & & 0 & $-$34 & 0.19 &$-7.60$& 28 & 18&17.3& no&\\
797: 24& 26.55& $-$53.17& 15.1 & 8.922 & 2.012& & H$\alpha$ &10 & +9 & 0.10 &$-7.55$& 42 & 20&17.5& yes&\\
798: 25& 25.64& $-$55.64& 15.4 & 8.882 & 2.174& & H$\alpha$ &12 & +9 & 0.06 &$-7.50$& 48 & 19&17.4& yes&\\
799: 26& 35.54& $-$68.63& 15.5 & 12.280 & 1.470& var 2r & H$\alpha$ & 8 & $-$4 & 0.07 &$-7.15$& 51 & 78&20.5& yes :&\\
800: 27& 49.28& $-$67.38& 14.8 & 9.958 & 1.519& var 2r & & 0 & $-$27 & 0.08 &$-7.25$& 37 & 27&18.2& no :&\\
801: 28& 18.64& $-$70.94& 14.6 & 11.029 & 2.380& & & 0 & +94 & 0.05 &$-7.40$& 34 & 48&19.4& yes&\\
802: \noalign{\smallskip}
803: 29& 287.82& $-$83.24& 20.1 & 11.591 & 3.286& var & & 0 & - & 0.05 &$-6.90$& - & 50&-& Scu&\\
804: 30& 237.84& $-$65.37& 18.3 & 12.682 & 1.763& var & & 0 & +40 & 0.06 &$-7.55$& 185&112&-& For&\\
805:
806: \noalign{\smallskip}
807: \hline
808: \end{tabular}
809: \end{flushleft}
810: \end{table*}
811: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
812:
813:
814:
815:
816:
817:
818:
819: \section{Discussion}
820:
821: \subsection{ Are there dwarf carbon stars in our sample?}
822:
823: One of the major issues is to estimate distances for our C stars, and
824: the main problem is to know whether they are the distant evolved AGB
825: stars which were targeted when defining our selection criteria, or if some
826: of them are cool dwarf carbon stars with much lower luminosity,
827: as is suggested at first sight by
828: the surprising fact that 8 have measurable proper motions.
829:
830: Therefore, it is first useful to compare the properties of our sample to the
831: population of dwarf carbon (dC) stars. Lowrance et al. (2003) gives an exhaustive
832: list of the 31 dCs presently known and considers their 2MASS $JHK_s$ data (from the
833: all sky release). They found that 20 dCs out of a total of 31 are detected
834: by 2MASS, the undetected ones being too faint. Considering the $K_s$ magnitude,
835: one finds that the majority (15 dCs over 20 detected) have $K_s > 12$, and
836: the brightest one is at $K_s=10.48$. As for the $J-K_s$ colour, all have
837: $J-K_s < 1.5$, and only 4 of 20 have $1.3 < J-K_s < 1.45$. In contrast,
838: all our new C stars have $K_s < 12$ with the
839: exception of Object \#26 (we ignore \#30 in Fornax) and more than half
840: of the objects (17 over 28) are brighter than $K_s=10.5$; concerning the colour,
841: only 4 of our total of 28 are bluer than $J-K_s = 1.45$. Therefore, when one
842: considers the photometric properties, the sample of our C stars is
843: globally very different from the sample of known dCs.
844:
845: Concerning the proper motions, we can also compare known dCs and our C
846: star sample. We retrieved the USNO-B1.0 data for the 31 dCs, and plotted them in
847: Fig.~2. For 2 dCs (PG\,0824+289B and WIE93 2048-348), USNO-B1.0
848: gives null proper motions. For the first object, we adopted
849: $\mu_{\alpha} = -28.2 \pm 1.4$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$, $\mu_{\delta}= 0$ from Heber et al.
850: (1993), and for the second we adopted $\mu_{\alpha} = 15 \pm 24$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$,
851: $\mu_{\delta}= -3 \pm 24$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$ from Warren et al. (1993). More
852: importantly, {\it there are 7 dCs which lie outside of the diagram},
853: because their $\mu_{\alpha}$ or $\mu_{\delta}$ are larger than 100\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$ in
854: absolute value. We also plotted the USNO-B1.0 data
855: for our C stars, with 20 lying at the (0,0) coordinates (null proper motion)
856: and 8 at not null proper motion. It can be seen that all dCs known have
857: a larger $\mu$ than all our C stars except \#10 . If these C stars were in majority
858: dCs, one would expect larger proper motions, since they are
859: in majority brighter than the known ones and would be statistically
860: closer to us.
861:
862: In a complementary way, instead of a statistical approach, one
863: can examine in detail the
864: 8 objects with measurable USNO-B1.0 proper motion. Three
865: (\#10, \#22 and \#26) have $J-K_s \sim 1.5$ and $K_s$ in the range
866: 10.8 to 12.3. These parameters are not atypical of dCs (see above) although marginally so.
867: A very rough estimate of their distances is possible.
868: Following Lowrance et al. (2003; their Table 1, footnote), only
869: three carbon dwarfs have determined parallaxes from which one derives
870: $M_{K_s} \approx 6.3 \pm 0.3$. Although those dCs are warm and have
871: $J-K_s \approx 0.95$ within 0.05 mag., let us adopt this luminosity for
872: the moderately cooler Objects \#10, \#22 and \#26; thus, we
873: obtain distances of 100, 80 and 160\,pc. Then, their proper motions
874: (24, 16 and 8\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$) imply transverse velocities of 11, 6 and
875: 6\,km\,s$^{-1}$ which, when compared to radial velocities of +43,+56 and
876: $-$4\,km\,s$^{-1}$, seem plausible. These data are marginally
877: compatible with expected usual disk dCs kinematics, but one has to note
878: that none of these 3 stars show the strong Na\,{\sc i} lines
879: or the C$_2$ $\lambda$\,6192 bandhead, as seen in some
880: cool dCs (Green et al. 1992).
881:
882: If one similarly considers Objects \#17, \#18 and \#20, they are
883: either significantly brighter and/or redder than most known dCs
884: ($J-K_s = 1.99,~ 3.14$ \& $1.43$ and $K_s = 9.98,~ 9.86$ \& $8.11$ for these
885: 3 objects respectively). Adopting again $M_{K_s} \approx 6.3$ leads
886: to distance of 55, 52 and 23\,pc, and to transverse velocities of
887: 3.4, 1.7 and 1.6\,km\,s$^{-1}$. The latter are found to be
888: much too small compared to the radial velocities of +129, +132 and $-$177\,km\,s$^{-1}$,
889: a situation which is very improbable. This casts some doubt on
890: the reliability of their proper motions, which are not large
891: (13, 7 \& 15\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$) and have a probability of only 0.7--0.8.
892: One could argue that the $M_Ks$ value of 6.3 adopted above might
893: be in error, but if cooler C dwarfs (redder in $J-K_s$) have lower
894: luminosity as for M-type dwarfs, distances and transverse velocities
895: would be found even smaller, worsening the case for dCs. One could also
896: think to simply adjust the distance of these objects in such a way that
897: transverse and radial velocities be roughly equal. This is obtained by boosting
898: the distances by a factor of $\sim$ 50, corresponding to $M_{K_s} \sim -1.2$:
899: this luminosity is typically that of clump giants (Knapp et al. 2001), but
900: this solution has to be rejected because the $J-K_s$ colours of
901: our 3 objects ($> 1.4$) are much too red to be R-type clump giants (see Table 1 of
902: Knapp et al. 2001, and Ivanov \& Borissova 2002)
903:
904:
905: Finally the two remaining objects \# 24 and \#25 form an astonishing
906: pair of close twin objects, with all their parameters
907: being almost equal: $J-K_s = $2.01 \& 2.18, $K_s = $ 8.92 \& 8.88, $R= $ 15.1
908: \& 15.4, $B-R$ = 2.9 \& 3.0, $v_{\rm helio} = $ +9 \& +9\,km\,s$^{-1}$.
909: In addition, their angular separation in the sky is as low as 2.5$^{\circ}$. These
910: stars are exactly the kind of kinematically and spatially coherent objects which are tracers of
911: halo streams! With these characteristics, especially the $K_s$ magnitude
912: and the colours, it is extremely improbable that they are dCs, despite
913: their proper motion ($\mu \approx 11$\,mas\,yr$^{-1}$ {\it with a probability
914: of 0.9 and $> 3 \sigma$ significance}).
915:
916: The above remarks, together with consideration of $H\alpha$ emission and/or
917: variability being seen in 6 of the 8 objects with non zero $\mu$, lead
918: us to have some doubts on these $\mu$ measurements. These proper motions are
919: quite small ($< 25$ mas yr$^{-1}$) and supplementary, independant measurements
920: of $\mu$ are obviously needed to confirm them. We defer to a future work a deeper
921: investigation of the question whether distant, very red, possibly variable
922: stars might have
923: inaccurate $\mu$ measurements in USNO-B1.0.
924:
925: We tentatively conclude that our sample
926: does not contain C dwarfs. Our stars are also too red in $J-K_s$
927: to be clump giants or stars on the
928: first ascending giant branch like the Hamburg/ESO objects.
929: Therefore, in the following sections, we shall adopt the view that
930: all our stars are genuine distant AGB C stars, and examine their location with respect to
931: the Sgr stream.
932:
933: \subsection{Distances}
934:
935: In order to estimate distances, we have assumed here that our C stars
936: are similar to AGB C stars located in the Sgr dwarf galaxy. This working hypothesis
937: can certainly be criticized, but it is suggested by the fact that
938: half of the high latitude cool C stars previously known belong to the
939: tidal debris of this dwarf galaxy (Ibata et al. 2001a; see also Sect.\,1).
940: Therefore, we adopt the AGB C stars of the Sgr galaxy as templates, and
941: analyse their properties below to determine absolute magnitudes.
942:
943: A first estimate of distances can be based on $R$-band magnitudes.
944: % by comparing them with those of the known C stars in Sgr}.
945: Whitelock et al. (1999)
946: published a list of 26 spectroscopically confirmed C stars in Sgr with
947: membership established on the basis of radial velocities.
948: For all of them, we retrieved the 2MASS data together with the USNO-A2.0
949: $B$ and $R$ magnitudes. These 26 $R$ magnitudes range from 13.0 to 16.7,
950: with an average of 14.4. An estimate of the extinction to each star
951: was obtained from the Schegel et al. (1998) tables, and the
952: extinctions in the $R$ band, called $A_R$, range from 0.23 to 0.48\,mag.
953: Then the mean absolute magnitude in $R$ can be obtained. For this purpose,
954: we adopt for Sgr a distance modulus $(m-M)_0$= 17.0, which is intermediate between
955: the value of 16.9 taken by Majewski et al. (2003) and 17.18 considered
956: by Whitelock et al. (1999). If one outlier star (the faintest in $R$) is excluded,
957: one finds for the C stars of Sgr $M_{R} = -3.1$ with 25 objects, $\sigma = 0.64$
958: (if all 26 stars are considered $M_{R} = -3.0$ and $\sigma = 0.79$).
959: It can be noted that our $M_{R} = -3.1$ is 0.4 mag less luminous than $M_{R} = -3.5$
960: adopted by Totten and Irwin (1998), and this last value would have implied
961: distances 20\% larger.
962:
963: For each halo C star, extinction in the $R$ band was
964: again found from the Schlegel et al.
965: maps, and distances derived with $M_{R} = -3.1$ called $d_R$ are listed in Table\,5.
966: These distances are admittedly very crude, due to the low accuracy of
967: USNO photometry ($\sim$ 0.5\,mag. error), possible variability, uncertainty
968: in $M_R$, and especially the effect of circumstellar dust for the reddest
969: stars with $J-K_s$ larger than $\sim$ 2.0. For information, Table 5 indicates
970: the result of this distance scale for the Fornax C star (\#30),
971: which is not too red in $J-K_s$. No
972: $R$ is available in USNO-A2.0, but two $R$ magnitudes are given in USNO B1.0:
973: with $R_2 = 18.2$, one finds 180\,kpc, while for $R_1 = 16.9$, one finds 96\,kpc.
974: These estimates are within 30\% of the true distance, 135\,kpc. In conclusion,
975: the distances derived with $R$ magnitudes, called $d_R$ and listed in Table\,5,
976: are probably not better than $\sim$ 30\% in relative accuracy.
977:
978:
979: A second and probably surer estimate of distances is obtainable with 2MASS photometry.
980: Considering again the 26 Sgr C stars of Whitelock et al. (1999) which
981: all have 2MASS data, we compared their $K_s$ magnitudes to the averaged
982: $K_s$ magnitudes of LMC C stars, this averaging being done over
983: several different bins in $J-K_s$. The Sgr
984: and LMC have similar mean reddening, $E_{\rm (B-V)} \sim 0.15$, which can be ignored
985: in this comparison. We find that, for a given $J-K_s$, the C stars are fainter in
986: $apparent$ $K_s$ magnitudes in Sgr than in LMC by an average of 0.98 mag.
987: (26 objects, $\sigma = 0.41$). By adopting $(m-M)_0$ = 18.5 and 17.0 for LMC and
988: Sgr respectively, it is derived that, on average, the C stars of Sgr are less
989: luminous by 0.50 mag in the $K_s$ band than the C stars in the LMC.
990: [this shift increases to 0.67 mag is one adopts, as Majewski et al. (2003),
991: distance moduli of 18.55 and 16.9 for LMC and Sgr, and is roughly consistent
992: with their Figure 20 where $candidate$ Sgr C stars are compared to $candidate$
993: LMC C stars mean locus.]
994:
995: We then used for template $K_s$-band luminosity the averaged $K_s$
996: magnitudes of the LMC C stars corrected
997: by the above 0.50 mag. In Table\,5 are explicitly listed the adopted $M_{Ks}$ for each
998: program star, and the inferred distances called $d_K$.
999: These distances based on $JK_s$ are presumably more accurate than those based
1000: on $R$ magnitudes, because of better photometric quality,
1001: smaller amplitude in $K$ due to variability and reduced sensitivity to
1002: dust effects. However, for a given $J-K_s$, the scatter in $K_s$ for LMC C stars is
1003: of the order of 0.4 to 0.5 mag (1$\sigma$). Although part of this
1004: dispersion is due to LMC depth and inclination effects that fairly
1005: cancel out when an average is taken, a natural dispersion
1006: $\sim$ 0.2-0.3 mag is probably present in the LMC C stars' $K_s$ luminosities
1007: (Weinberg \& Nikolaev 2001). Taking into account possible
1008: variability effects for our stars (maybe $\sim$ $\pm$0.2 mag. in $Ks$)
1009: and the uncertainty on the
1010: C stars luminosity shift between LMC and Sgr, one finds that the distances of
1011: our program stars derived from $JK_s$ data are probably not better than
1012: $\pm 25$ percent ($\pm$ 1$\sigma$).
1013:
1014: % XXXXXXXXXX ADDED TEXT XXXX
1015:
1016: Looking at Table 5, it can be seen that distances derived from $R$ and from
1017: near-infrared are often in fair agreement. There are a number of cases where $d_R$ is
1018: obviously too large compared to $d_K$ because the star is particularly red
1019: and is presumably embedded in dust: for stars \#13 \#16 \#18 \#21 \#24 \& \#25,
1020: the ratio $d_R$/$d_K$ is larger than a factor of 2 and their $J-K_s$ colours
1021: are 1.81, 2.56, 3.14, 3.14, 2.012 \& 2.174, respectively. For object \#11,
1022: no value of $d_R$ is given because $R=19.8$ would lead to an exceedingly large distance (360\,kpc):
1023: its $d_K$ = 66\,kpc is clearly more plausible.
1024:
1025: In the case of \#29 (in Sculptor) and \#30 (in Fornax),
1026: the scale adopted above is not necessarily applicable, but remains interesting
1027: to consider. It leads to distances $d_K$ of 50 kpc and 112 kpc, which are
1028: 0.57 and 0.83 times smaller than the generally adopted distances of Sculptor and
1029: Fornax, $\sim$ 87 and 135 kpc, respectively. While $d_K$ for \#30 is acceptable,
1030: the small value of $d_K$ for \#29 suggests that our rule for NIR distances
1031: based on Sgr templates underestimates the $K$-band luminosity of this star
1032: by $\sim$ 1.2\,mag. Its membership to Sculptor remains to be definitively established
1033: through a radial velocity determination that our spectrum unfortunately
1034: could not provide. If it actually is member, its $M_{K_s}$ is $-$8.11, which is similar to
1035: the most luminous C stars in LMC for the same $J-K_s$ colour: in LMC with $(m-M)_0 = 18.5$,
1036: we find $< M_{K_s} > = -7.42 $, $\sigma = 0.53$ for $J-K_s$= 3.3,
1037: and the star's $M_{K_s}$ is $+ 1.3\,\sigma$ above the mean.
1038:
1039: Finally, if we exclude the 7 stars discussed above for which $d_R/d_K > 2$
1040: and the two Sculptor and Fornax objects, one finds that the log ratio
1041: $x = log_{10} (d_R/d_K) $ has
1042: a mean of -0.025 and a dispersion of $\sigma_x$= 0.108 (N=21 objects).
1043: Adopting $d_K$ as a reference, a discrepancy of $2 \sigma$ means that
1044: $R$ has a typical ``error'' by $\sim 1.1$ mag., which seems in reasonable agreement with
1045: the fact that USNO photometry is poor and $R$ may also be variable with a comparable
1046: amount. In the following, the NIR-based distances $d_K$ will be adopted as
1047: the surest estimates, which we recall are based on the Sgr C stars templates.
1048:
1049:
1050:
1051:
1052:
1053:
1054: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 2 proper motions
1055: \begin{figure}
1056: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
1057: {\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vfig02.ps}}}}
1058: \caption[]{Proper motions of our C stars (filled octagons) as given in the
1059: USNO-B1.0 catalogue. Twenty objects are located at the (0,0) coordinates with
1060: no motion. Empty octagons represent the dCs presently known (USNO-B1.0 data),
1061: but 7 dCs have too large a proper motion to be located within the limits of
1062: this diagram. The circle represents a motion of 21 mas\,yr$^{-1}$, that was the
1063: 3$\sigma$ upper limit of TIW, enclosing 48 of the 50 APM C stars studied
1064: by these authors.
1065: }
1066: \label{vfig02}
1067: \end{figure}
1068: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1069:
1070: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figure 3
1071: \begin{figure*}
1072: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{
1073: {\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vfig03.ps}}}}
1074: \caption[]{Aitoff map showing the location of objects in the sky. The
1075: dashed line is a great circle with pole at galactic
1076: coordinates $l$ = 274$^{\circ}$, $b=-14^{\circ}$.
1077: (Majewski et al. 2003) and this very schematically represents the Sgr orbit
1078: (see Fig.\,8 of Ibata et al. 2001b for a much more detailed view).
1079: All halo C stars have been
1080: labelled with their ranks as in Table 2. The last two objects (\#29 and \#30)
1081: in the direction of Sculptor and in Fornax are the small squares with labels
1082: S and F, respectively, seen at lower right of the map.}
1083: \label{vfig03}
1084: \end{figure*}
1085: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1086:
1087:
1088: \subsection{ Location with respect to the Sagittarius Stream}
1089:
1090: With positions, heliocentric radial velocities and distance estimates in hand,
1091: we can examine the likelihood of association of each star with the Sgr steam. Whereas
1092: the path in the sky is relatively well known, especially thanks to the
1093: recent analysis of Majewski et al. (2003) who employ 2MASS M-type giants as tracers,
1094: an accurate determination of the distances and kinematics of
1095: this stream and its multiple wrapped components is not yet available.
1096: Therefore, we have simply compared here our data with predictions
1097: of the model by Ibata et al. (2001a) that already accounts for several observed
1098: aspects of the Sgr stream and has a (dark matter) halo density flattening
1099: parameter $q_m$=0.9.
1100:
1101: The Fig.~1 of Ibata et al. (2001a) displays in two Aitoff
1102: projection maps the colour-coded heliocentric velocities and distances of
1103: a Sgr stream simulation. Their distances are coded as the SLOAN apparent $g^{*}$
1104: magnitudes of A-type stars, for which they adopted
1105: $M_{g^*}$= 1.0 (these A stars are a mixture of blue horizontal branch
1106: and blue stragglers; see
1107: Ibata et al. 2001b for more details).
1108: Using this absolute magnitude and the NIR distances of Table 5, we derived
1109: a corresponding $g^{*}_{\rm A-type}$ for each of our program stars. This $g^{*}_{\rm A-type}$
1110: is the apparent
1111: magnitude of an imaginary A-type population if it were present at the distance of the C star.
1112: We then compared for each star $\alpha$, $\delta$, $v_{\rm helio}$ and $g^{*}_{\rm A-type}$
1113: with those of the model stream in Fig.~1 of Ibata et al. (2001a).
1114: This comparison, and therefore establishing the membership to the stream, is difficult
1115: for several objects, especially when i) uncertainties on distance or, equivalently, on
1116: $g^{*}_{\rm A-type}$ are taken into account; and/or ii) the object is located
1117: in a region where the model stream presents a relatively low density of particles
1118: (in the $\alpha$, $\delta$, $v_{\rm helio}$ and $g^{*}_{\rm A-type}$ space).
1119: As a check, we also used the more recent work of Martinez-Delgado et al. (2003) by
1120: considering their diagrams showing $\delta$, $v_{\rm helio}$, and $d$ as a function of
1121: $\alpha$. Our final best
1122: estimates for membership are indicated in Table 5 by ``yes'' or ``no'', with a ``:''
1123: sign for particularly uncertain cases.
1124:
1125:
1126: The result is that of the 28 FHLC found in this survey, 15 are found
1127: in the Sgr Stream, as indicated by ``yes'' in Table 5. It is also found
1128: that several distant C stars are not in the Sgr Stream, like \#4,
1129: \#7 and \#11. Finding about half of our sample in the Sgr stream is
1130: comparable to the results of Ibata et al. (2001b) based on the APM and
1131: previously known C stars. The same fraction is derived if only objects
1132: with $|b| > 30^{\circ}$ are considered. Fig.\,3 shows indeed that our stars are not
1133: randomly distributed in the high latitude caps, with for example
1134: no case at $\delta < -40$ degrees.
1135:
1136: An interesting question is whether
1137: calculating distances of these high latitude C stars with the
1138: 0.5-mag more luminous LMC C star templates
1139: (instead of the Sgr C templates that we assumed here)
1140: would change the number of stars found in the Stream.
1141: The exercise described above provided us with a weak indication
1142: that a smaller number of stars would be found to be Stream members.
1143: But this question should advantageously be reconsidered with a larger sample, e.g.
1144: at least all presently known distant FHLC stars, and not only
1145: the new objects presented here.
1146: Settling this question properly, i.e. by taking into account quantitatively and
1147: statistically the various experimental and model errors,
1148: is beyond the goal of this paper.
1149:
1150: Our spectroscopic survey is
1151: not yet complete and only involved candidates originating from the 2MASS 2nd Incremental
1152: Release which covers $\sim$ half of the sky (see e.g. Ibata et al. 2002), so that
1153: only supplementary observations will permit
1154: a complete census and a more detailed view of the spatial location of these
1155: near-infrared selected AGB C stars
1156: in the halo.
1157:
1158:
1159: \section{Summary and concluding remarks}
1160:
1161: In this work, we have described the first results of a survey for
1162: discovering new cool C stars in the
1163: high latitude sky. The survey is based on the exploitation of the 2MASS
1164: catalogue in its Second Incremental release.
1165: Candidates were first selected by requiring their $J-H$, $H-K_s$ colours
1166: to be similar to those of already known N-type C stars in the halo, and
1167: further examined by sample cleaning, e.g. through apparence on the POSS plates
1168: and presence in existing catalogues of galactic and extragalactic objects.
1169: This selection process gave us a list of $\sim$ 200 best candidates, and for about
1170: half of them spectroscopy could be secured at ESO and OHP. We found 28 cool
1171: halo C stars: 27 objects are new; one was rediscovered erroneously (FBS\,1056+399).
1172: In addition, we also found one new C star in Fornax, and one in Sculptor.
1173:
1174: The spectra of these C stars show in half of the cases H$\alpha$ in emission.
1175: Also, about 2/3 of our objects could be observed between 6000 and 7000\AA\, (at ESO),
1176: and for all of them, the spectral energy distribution is clearly rising toward
1177: the red. These properties suggest that we are finding,
1178: at least in a large proportion, C stars with a N-type classification, i.e.
1179: {\it luminous} pulsating AGB objects.
1180:
1181:
1182: Radial velocities could be determined by cross-correlation with
1183: templates observed with the same instrumentation, yielding velocities
1184: accurate to $\sim$ 12 km\,s$^{-1}$ (1$\sigma$).
1185:
1186: A surprising fact was to find that 8 of these presumably N-type distant
1187: stars had small but measurable proper motion measurements in the recent USNO B1.0 catalogue.
1188: After analysing the properties of our sample, with either a statistical
1189: approach or through consideration of individual objects, we came to the conclusion
1190: that these proper motion measurements are very intriguing and that the
1191: studied objects are much more probably true distant AGB stars than close dCs
1192: with unusual brightnesses, colours and kinematics. Yet, this point
1193: clearly deserves further study.
1194:
1195:
1196: Under the assumption of AGB type for the totality of our sample,
1197: the analysis of photometric data have allowed us to estimate distances
1198: in the range 10 to 80\,kpc from the Sun, the distance scale being
1199: based on the 26 Sgr C stars of Whitelock et al. (1999). Then, consideration
1200: of position and radial velocities resulted in ultimately finding about
1201: half of our sample in the Sagittarius stream.
1202:
1203: In the future, it would be extremely valuable
1204: to monitor all these stars in the NIR, as has been achieved by Feast, Whitelock
1205: and collaborators for various galactic or Local Group AGB samples
1206: (e.g. Whitelock et al. 2003 and refs. therein). This would permit
1207: the AGB classification
1208: of variable objects to be ascertained, and to infer very accurate distances
1209: for most objects by using the period-luminosity relation.
1210:
1211: Our survey is also far from complete: only half of our 200 best candidates were
1212: confirmed spectroscopically, and the 2MASS 2nd Incremental Release which we utilised
1213: only covers about half of the sky at $|b|$ larger than $\sim$ 25$^{\circ}$,
1214: and we found 27 new halo C stars.
1215: It will be interesting to see if, with the same criteria, an additional
1216: $\sim$\,80 of these cool objects can still be discovered despite the continuing
1217: succession of systematic surveys.
1218: Enlarging the sample of distant C stars may help to further clarify
1219: the characteristics the Sgr stream, but also to gain a clearer view
1220: of the ``background'' C stars population (not in Sgr stream) and its origin.
1221: It will also be a challenge to search for cases at fainter magnitudes
1222: and/or lower galactic latitudes. Exploring the
1223: invaluable 2MASS database for these luminous tracers will
1224: increase our knowledge on the halo properties, its stellar populations and the
1225: merging history of our Galaxy.
1226:
1227:
1228: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1229: %\pagebreak
1230:
1231: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1232:
1233: \appendix
1234:
1235: \section{Spectra}
1236: Spectra obtained at ESO have a domain of $5800--8400$\,\AA\,, and those made at OHP
1237: have a domain of $5700--6600$\,\AA\,. The ordinates are fluxes in
1238: erg\,s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\AA$^{-1}$, after dividing these fluxes by convenient factors
1239: given in the captions. Photometric calibration was achieved with at least
1240: one spectrophotometric standard star observed for each run. No correction
1241: was made for atmospheric extinction or slit losses. The absolute scale of these fluxes
1242: is therefore of poor accuracy, $\sim$ a factor of 2 (note also that probably
1243: all objects are variable), but the flux scale
1244: from wavelength to wavelength was found to be much better ($\sim$ 20\%)
1245: by comparing spectra of stars observed several times. The strong feature at $\sim$
1246: 7600\,\AA\, is the O$_2$ telluric absorption band. Some ESO spectra are affected
1247: by imperfect correction of CCD fringes above $\sim$ 8000\,\AA\,.
1248:
1249:
1250:
1251: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% figures avec les spectres ESO
1252: \begin{figure*}
1253: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject01.ps}}}
1254: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject04.ps}}}
1255: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject07.ps}}}
1256: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject11.ps}}}
1257: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 01, 04, 07 \& 11. In all these graphs,
1258: fluxes in ordinates are in erg\,s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\AA$^{-1}$. Fluxes were divided by factors
1259: 1.5 10$^{-14}$, 1.4 10$^{-15}$, 0.9 10$^{-14}$ \& 0.6 10$^{-15}$
1260: for objects 01, 04, 07 \& 11, respectively. }
1261: \label{spe1}
1262: \end{figure*}
1263:
1264: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1265: \begin{figure*}
1266: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject12.ps}}}
1267: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject13.ps}}}
1268: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject16.ps}}}
1269: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject17.ps}}}
1270: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 12, 13, 16, \& 17, for which
1271: fluxes were divided by factors
1272: 0.23 10$^{-14}$, 0.4 10$^{-14}$, 0.47 10$^{-14}$ \& 0.35 10$^{-14}$,
1273: respectively. }
1274: \label{spe2}
1275: \end{figure*}
1276: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1277: \begin{figure*}
1278: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject18.ps}}}
1279: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject19.ps}}}
1280: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject20.ps}}}
1281: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject21.ps}}}
1282: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 18, 19, 20, \& 21, for which fluxes were divided by factors
1283: 0.22 10$^{-15}$, 0.30 10$^{-14}$, 0.60 10$^{-13}$ \& 0.27 10$^{-14}$,
1284: respectively. }
1285: \label{spe3}
1286: \end{figure*}
1287: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1288: \begin{figure*}
1289: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject22.ps}}}
1290: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject23.ps}}}
1291: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject24.ps}}}
1292: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject25.ps}}}
1293: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 22, 23, 24, \& 25, for which fluxes were divided by factors
1294: 5.5 10$^{-15}$, 6.5 10$^{-15}$, 4.5 10$^{-14}$ \& 1.1 10$^{-14}$,
1295: respectively. }
1296: \label{spe4}
1297: \end{figure*}
1298: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1299: \begin{figure*}
1300: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject26.ps}}}
1301: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject27.ps}}}
1302: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject28.ps}}}
1303: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 26, 27 \& 28, for which
1304: fluxes were divided by factors
1305: 0.32 10$^{-14}$, 0.23 10$^{-13}$ \& 0.45 10$^{-14}$, respectively. }
1306: \label{spe5}
1307: \end{figure*}
1308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1309:
1310: \begin{figure*}
1311: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject29.ps}}}
1312: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject30.ps}}}
1313: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 29 \& 30, for which
1314: fluxes were divided by factors
1315: 0.55 10$^{-15}$, 0.40 10$^{-15}$, respectively. }
1316: \label{spe5b}
1317: \end{figure*}
1318:
1319:
1320:
1321:
1322:
1323: %########################### OHP SPECTRA #############################
1324:
1325: \begin{figure*}
1326: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject02.ps}}}
1327: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject03.ps}}}
1328: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject05.ps}}}
1329: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject06.ps}}}
1330: \caption[]{Spectra obtained at OHP of objects 02, 03, 05 \& 06, for which
1331: fluxes in ordinates in erg\,s$^{-1}$cm$^{-2}$\AA$^{-1}$ were divided by factors
1332: 4.7 10$^{-14}$, 0.90 10$^{-14}$ , 0.57 10$^{-13}$ \& 0.10 10$^{-12}$,
1333: respectively. }
1334: %\label{spe6}
1335: \end{figure*}
1336:
1337: \begin{figure*}
1338: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject07ohp.ps}}}
1339: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject08.ps}}}
1340: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject09.ps}}}
1341: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject10.ps}}}
1342: \caption[]{Spectra obtained of objects 07, 08, 09 \& 10, for which
1343: fluxes were divided by factors
1344: 0.65 10$^{-14}$, 1.90 10$^{-14}$ , 0.70 10$^{-14}$ \& 1.2 10$^{-15}$,
1345: respectively. }
1346: \label{spe6}
1347: \end{figure*}
1348:
1349: \begin{figure*}
1350: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject14.ps}}}
1351: \resizebox{\hsize}{!}{\rotatebox{-90}{\includegraphics{vcutobject15.ps}}}
1352: \caption[]{Spectra of objects 14 \& 15, for which
1353: fluxes were divided by factors
1354: 1.30 10$^{-14}$ \& 0.55 10$^{-14}$, respectively. }
1355: \label{spe7}
1356: \end{figure*}
1357: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% END OG OHP SPECTRA %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1358:
1359:
1360:
1361:
1362:
1363:
1364:
1365: \begin{acknowledgements}
1366:
1367: The use of data products from the Two Micron All Sky Survey
1368: (2MASS), which is a joint project of the Univ. of Massachusetts and the Infrared
1369: Processing and Analysis Center / California Institute of Technology, funded
1370: by NASA and NSF, is greatly appreciated; this program could not have been
1371: performed, or even started, without the rapid, extensive and public distribution
1372: of 2MASS data.
1373: This work also benefitted from using
1374: the CDS database of Strasbourg, and the impressive US Naval Observatory
1375: astrometric and image database. We also used the POSS-UKST
1376: Digitized Sky Survey made available by the Canadian Astronomical Data Center and
1377: by the ESO/ST-ECF Center in Garching. We thank the anonymous referee for
1378: suggestions that helped to clarify several points. We would like also to thank
1379: the staff at OHP and ESO, and particularly John Pritchard at La Silla.
1380: This research was supported by CNRS ``Programme National Galaxies''
1381: (N.M.) and through
1382: the Jumelage 18 ``Astrophysique France-Arm\'enie'' (K.G. and M.A.).
1383:
1384: \end{acknowledgements}
1385:
1386: %-------------------BIBLIOGRAPHY------------
1387: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1388:
1389:
1390:
1391: \bibitem[1987]{aaron87}
1392: Aaronson, M., Olszewski E.W. 1987, AJ 94, 657
1393:
1394: \bibitem[1985]{azzo85}
1395: Azzopardi M., Lequeux J., Westerlund B.E. 1985, A\&A 144, 388
1396:
1397: \bibitem[2002]{ber02}
1398: Bersier D., Wood P.R., 2002, AJ 123, 840
1399:
1400: \bibitem[1991]{bothun91}
1401: Bothun G.L., Elias J.H., MacAlpine G., et al., 1991, AJ 101, 2220
1402:
1403: \bibitem[2001]{chr01}
1404: Christlieb N., Green P.J., Wisotzki L., \& Reimers D., 2001, A\&A 375, 366
1405:
1406: \bibitem[1989]{cut89}
1407: Cutri R.M., Low F.J., Kleinmann S.G., et al., 1989, AJ 97, 866
1408:
1409: \bibitem[1977]{dah77}
1410: Dahn C.C., Liebert J., Kron R.G., Spinrad H., \& Hintzen P.M., 1977, ApJ 216, 757
1411:
1412: \bibitem[2002]{demers02}
1413: Demers S., Dallaire M., Battinelli P. 2002, ApJ 123, 3428
1414:
1415: %%\bibitem[1987]{claussen87}
1416: %%Claussen M.J., Kleinmann S.G., Joyce R.R., Jura M.,1987, ApJSS 65, 385
1417:
1418: \bibitem[2002]{dinescu02}
1419: Dinescu D.I., Majewski S.R., Girard T.M. et al., 2002, ApJ 575, L67
1420:
1421: \bibitem[2001]{dohm01}
1422: Dohm-Palmer R.C., Helmi A., Morrison H., et al., 2001, ApJ 555, L37
1423:
1424: \bibitem[2001]{gig01}
1425: Gigoyan K., Mauron N., Azzopardi M., Muratorio G.,
1426: \& Abrahamyaan H.V., 2001, A\&A 371, 560
1427:
1428:
1429: \bibitem[1992]{green92}
1430: Green P.J., Margon B., \& Anderson S.F. 1992, ApJ 400, 659
1431:
1432: \bibitem[2000]{gre00}
1433: Green P.J., 2000, in 'The Carbon Star Phenomenon',
1434: Proceedings of the 177th IAU Symposium, ed. R.F. Wing, Kluwer: Dordecht, p. 27
1435:
1436:
1437:
1438: %%\bibitem[1994]{green94}
1439: %%Green P.J., Margon B., Anderson S.F., MacConnell D.J., 1994, ApJ 434, 319
1440:
1441: %%\bibitem[1999]{groen99}
1442: %%Groenewegen M.A.T., 1999, Carbon Stars in populations of
1443: %%different metallicity. In: Le Bertre T., L\`ebre A., Waelkens C.
1444: %%(eds) Proc IAU Symp.~191, Asymptotic Giant Branch Stars. IAU
1445: %%\& Astr. Soc. of the Pacific, p.~535
1446:
1447:
1448: %%\bibitem[1992]{groenetal92}
1449: %%Groenewegen M.A.T., de Jong T., Van der Bliek N.S., et al. 1992,
1450: %%AA 253, 150
1451:
1452:
1453: \bibitem[1993]{heb93}
1454: Heber U., Bade N., Jordan S., et al., 1993, A\&A 267, L31
1455:
1456: \bibitem[2001]{iba00}
1457: Ibata R.A., Irwin M., Lewis G.F., \& Stolte A., 2001a, ApJ 547, L133
1458:
1459: \bibitem[2001]{iba01}
1460: Ibata R.A., Lewis G.F., Irwin M.J., et al., 2001b, ApJ 551, 294
1461:
1462: \bibitem[2002]{iba02}
1463: Ibata R.A., Lewis G.F., Irwin M.J., \& Cambr\'{e}sy L., 2002, MNRAS 332, 921
1464:
1465: \bibitem[2000]{irwin2000}
1466: Irwin M.J., 2000, The APM Catalogue (the Web site is
1467: http://www.ast.cam.ac.uk/$\sim$apmcat/)
1468:
1469: \bibitem[2002]{ivanov02}
1470: Ivanov V.D., \& Borissova J. 2002, A\&A 390, 937
1471:
1472: %%\bibitem[1977]{kingraff77}
1473: %%King I.R., Raff M., 1977, PASP 89, 120
1474:
1475: %%\bibitem[1997]{kwok97}
1476: %%Kwok S., Volk K., Bidelman W.P., 1997, ApJSS 112, 557
1477:
1478: \bibitem[2001]{kna01}
1479: Knapp G.R., Pourbaix D., \& Jorissen A., 2001, A\&A 371, 222
1480:
1481: \bibitem[2003]{ken03}
1482:
1483: Kendall T.R., Mauron N., Azzopardi M., \& Gigoyan K., 2003, A\&A 403, 929
1484:
1485: \bibitem[2001]{kon01}
1486: Kontizas E., Dapergolas A., Morgan D.H., \& Kontizas M., 2001, A\&A 369, 932
1487:
1488: \bibitem[2003]{kundu03}
1489: Kundu A., Majewski S.R., Rhee J., et al., 2002, ApJ 576, L125
1490:
1491: \bibitem[2000]{lie00}
1492: Liebert J., Cutri R.M., Nelson B., et al., 2000, PASP 112, 1315
1493:
1494: \bibitem[2003]{low03}
1495: Lowrance P.J., Kirkpatrick J.D., Reid I.N., Cruz K.L.,
1496: \& Liebert J., 2003, ApJ 584, L95
1497:
1498: \bibitem[1993]{loup93}
1499: Loup C., Forveille T., Omont A., et al., 1993, A\&AS 99, 291
1500:
1501: \bibitem[1978]{macalp78}
1502: MacAlpine G.M., \& Lewis D., 1978, ApJSS 36, 587
1503:
1504:
1505: \bibitem[1990]{maiz90}
1506: Maizels C, \& Morris, M., 1990 in From Miras to Planetary Nebulae: Which
1507: Path for Stellar Evolution, eds A. Omont \& M-O Mennessier,
1508: Editions Frontieres, Gif-sur-Yvette, France
1509:
1510: \bibitem[1993]{maj93}
1511: Majewski S.R., 1993, ARA\&A 31, 575
1512:
1513: \bibitem[2003]{maj03}
1514: Majewski S.R., Skrutskie M.F., Weinberg M.D., \& Ostheimer J.C. 2003,
1515: ApJ 599, 1082
1516:
1517: \bibitem[2002]{marg02}
1518: Margon B., Anderson S.F., Harris H.C., et al., 2002, AJ 124, 1651
1519:
1520: \bibitem[2003]{marg03}
1521: Margon B. 2003, BAAS, AAS 201st meeting, section 65-06
1522:
1523: \bibitem[2001]{mart01}
1524: Martinez-Delgado D., Aparicio A., M.A. Gomez-Flechoso M.A., \& Carrera R.
1525: 2001, ApJ 549, L199
1526:
1527: \bibitem[2003]{mart03}
1528: Martinez-Delgado D., Gomez-Flechoso M.A., Aparicio A., \& Carrera R., 2003,
1529: preprint, astro-ph/0308009
1530:
1531: \bibitem[2003]{mon03}
1532: Monet D.G., Levine S.E., Canzian B., et al., 2003, AJ 125, 984
1533:
1534:
1535: %\bibitem[1998]{monet98}
1536: %Monet D., Canzain B., Dahn C., et al., 1998, The PMM USNO-A2.0 Catalogue
1537: %(U.S. Naval Observatory \& Univ. Space Research Association)
1538:
1539: %%\bibitem[1986]{noguchi86}
1540: %%Noguchi K., Akiba M., 1986, PASJ 33, 373
1541:
1542: \bibitem[2001]{newberg01}
1543: Newberg H.J., Yanny B., Rockosi C. et al., 2002, ApJ 569, 245
1544:
1545: \bibitem[2000]{nik00}
1546: Nikolaev S., \& Weinberg M.D., 2000, ApJ 542, 804
1547:
1548: \bibitem[1988]{sanduleak88}
1549: Sanduleak N., \& Pesch P., 1988, ApJSS 66, 387
1550:
1551: \bibitem[1998]{schlegel98}
1552: Schlegel D.J., Finkbeiner D.P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ 500, 525
1553: (the IPAC extinction Web calculator site is \linebreak
1554: www.ipac.caltech.edu/forms/calculator.html)
1555:
1556: \bibitem[1998]{ti98}
1557: Totten E.J., \& Irwin M.J., 1998, MNRAS 294, 1 (TI98)
1558:
1559: \bibitem[2000]{tiw2000}
1560: Totten E.J., Irwin M.J., Whitelock P.A., 2000, MNRAS 314, 630 (TIW)
1561:
1562: \bibitem[2002]{vdb02}
1563: van den Bergh S., 2002, The Galaxies of The Local Group, Cambridge
1564: University Press
1565:
1566: \bibitem[2001]{vivas01}
1567: Vivas A., Zinn R., Andrews P., et al., 2001, ApJ 554, L33
1568:
1569: \bibitem[1998]{walknapp98}
1570: Wallerstein G., Knapp G.R., 1998, ARA\&A 36, 369
1571:
1572: \bibitem[1993]{war93}
1573: Warren S.J., Irwin M.J., Evans D.W., et al., 1993, MNRAS 261, 185
1574:
1575: \bibitem[2001]{wein2001}
1576: Weinberg M.D. \& Nikolaev S. 2001, ApJ 548, 712
1577:
1578: \bibitem[1999]{whi99}
1579: Whitelock P.A., Menzies J., Irwin M.J., Feast M.W., 1999, in
1580: 'The Stellar Content of Local Group Galaxies', Proceedings of the 192nd IAU
1581: Symposium, ed. P.A. Whitelock \& R. Cannon, ASP, p. 136
1582:
1583: \bibitem[2003]{whi03}
1584: Whitelock P.A., Feast M.W., van Loon, J. Th., \& Zijlstra A. A., 2003, MNRAS 342, 86
1585:
1586:
1587:
1588: \end{thebibliography}
1589:
1590: \end{document}
1591:
1592:
1593:
1594:
1595:
1596:
1597:
1598:
1599: