1: \def\lae{\mathrel{<\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
2: \def\gae{\mathrel{>\kern-1.0em\lower0.9ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
3: \font\fsmall=cmr8
4: \newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
5: \newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
6:
7:
8: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
9: \documentclass{emulateapj}
10:
11: %\usepackage{apjfonts}
12:
13: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in ApJ Letters}
14: \lefthead{JORD\'AN }
15: \righthead{GC HALF-LIGHT RADII}
16:
17: \begin{document}
18:
19:
20: \title{
21: A Possible Explanation for the Size Difference
22: of Red and Blue Globular Clusters}
23:
24: \author{Andr\'es Jord\'an\altaffilmark{1,2,3}}
25:
26: \begin{abstract}
27: Most observations of the projected half-light radii of
28: metal-rich globular clusters in a variety of galaxies
29: have shown them to be $\sim 20\%$
30: smaller than those of their metal-poor counterparts.
31: We show using multi-mass isotropic Michie-King models
32: that the combined effects of mass segregation
33: and the dependence of main sequence lifetimes on metallicity
34: can account for this difference, under the assumption
35: that clusters with similar central potentials
36: have the same distribution of half {\it mass} radii.
37: If confirmed, this would represent a new constraint
38: on theories of globular cluster formation and evolution.
39: \end{abstract}
40:
41: \keywords{galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD ---
42: galaxies: star clusters ---
43: globular clusters: general}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University,
46: 136 Frelinghuysen Rd, Piscataway, NJ 08854, USA}
47: \altaffiltext{2}{Claudio Anguita Fellow}
48: \altaffiltext{3}{Astrophysics, Denys Wilkinson Building, University of Oxford,
49: 1 Keble Road, Oxford, OX1 3RH, UK; andresj@astro.ox.ac.uk}
50:
51: \section{Introduction}
52:
53: The last decade has seen rapid progress in the
54: characterization of globular cluster (hereafter GC)
55: systems in external galaxies.
56: %
57: An important task is to disentangle the properties of GCs
58: which are universal form those that are correlated
59: with other of their properties or those of their host galaxies.
60: The {\it Hubble Space Telescope} can partially resolve
61: the spatial profiles of GCs well beyond the Local Group,
62: and thus study their structural parameters.
63: The recovery of these parameters
64: requires modeling of the point-spread function,
65: and this has been carried out using different methods
66: and instruments by various groups, using a range
67: of galaxies including spirals and ellipticals
68: (Kundu \& Whitmore 1998; Kundu et~al. 1999; Puzia et~al.
69: 1999; Larsen, Forbes \& Brodie 2001; Barmby, Holland \&
70: Huchra 2002; Larsen et~al. 2001; Harris et~al. 2002;
71: Jord\'an et~al. 2004). Most of these studies have revealed
72: that metal-rich (red) GCs appear to have half-light radii
73: $\sim 20\%$ smaller than their metal-poor (blue) counterparts.
74:
75: Larsen \& Brodie (2003) have advanced the only plausible
76: explanation so far for this size difference. They argue
77: that the observed difference can arise as a projection effect,
78: resulting from combination
79: of a correlation between galactocentric distance
80: and size
81: and the differing spatial
82: distributions of the GC subpopulations. Assuming that
83: GCs in all galaxies follow a relation between galactocentric
84: distance and size similar to that of Galactic GCs, they find
85: that this mechanism is able produce the observed size
86: difference, albeit
87: with some fine tuning.
88:
89: In this Letter we propose a simple explanation for
90: the observed difference. We propose that the difference
91: is a consequence of mass segregation and
92: the fact that lower metallicity stars
93: have longer lifetimes for a given mass.
94: Assuming that the average half {\it mass} radius
95: does not depend on metallicity,
96: we model the observed light profiles
97: with Michie-King multi-mass models and stellar isochrones,
98: and show that a size difference of the observed
99: magnitude arises naturally.
100:
101:
102: \section{Models}
103:
104: We model GCs using Michie-King multi-mass isotropic models.
105: The formalism is described in Gunn \& Griffin (1979). In what
106: follows, we repeat some of their expressions restricted to the
107: isotropic case to set the notation.
108:
109: %
110: Each mass class is labeled by an integer $j$ and is assumed
111: to have a distribution function of the form $f(E) = e^{A_jE}-1$,
112: where $E=\frac{1}{2}v^2+\psi$ and $\psi$ is the potential energy. Due
113: to the short relaxation times at the core, we assume thermal
114: equilibrium there, which demands that $A_j = \beta \bar{m}_j$,
115: where $\beta$ is a constant and $\bar{m}_j$ is
116: the mean mass of the $j$-th class. Choosing a characteristic
117: radius $r_c$ and velocity variance $v_0^2$,
118: and letting $W=-\psi/v_0^2$ and $\xi=r/r_c$, the Poisson
119: equation reads $\nabla_{\xi}^2 W = -9\sigma$,
120: where $\sigma = \rho/\rho_0$, $\rho=\sum_j \rho_j$ is the
121: mass density and $\rho_0 \equiv \rho(0)$.
122:
123: If we define $\alpha_j=\rho_{0j}/\rho_0$ to be the fractional
124: density contribution of mass class $j$ at the center, a model
125: is completely specified by a value for $W$ at the center, $W_0$,
126: and the $\{\alpha_j\}$. With these quantities specified,
127: the Poisson equation is integrated until $W=0$,
128: at which point the tidal limit is reached. %%.
129: The normalized mass densities for class $j$,
130: $\sigma_j(r)$, are then calculated.
131: The models have mass segregation, and there is
132: no expression relating the $\{\alpha_j\}$ to the {\it total}
133: mass in class $j$, which is the quantity we would like to specify
134: via a global initial mass function $\zeta(m)$, defined
135: such that the total number of stars in the GC with initial masses
136: between $m$ and $m+dm$ is $\zeta(m)dm$,
137: and a relation between initial
138: and present mass, $m_f(m)$.
139: The problem is solved by
140: iteration until the $\{\alpha_j\}$ and the total mass
141: in class $j$, $M_j = \int_j m_f(m) \zeta(m)\,dm / (\sum_i M_i)$,
142: are self-consistent.
143: The space densities are finally projected to obtain the
144: observed mass densities.
145:
146:
147: Determining the initial mass function in GCs is a difficult task
148: because of the need to take into account the effects of mass
149: segregation. Using Michie-King
150: multi-mass models to account for dynamical effects,
151: Paresce \& De Marchi (2000)
152: find that the mass functions of a dozen globulars
153: are well described by a lognormal distribution with a mean
154: $m_c=0.33$ and dispersion $\sigma=0.34$. We will adopt this
155: as the mass function for GCs for $m \le 0.9M_{\odot}$. At higher masses,
156: it is found that the IMF is well described by a power law
157: with an exponent close to Salpeter (Chabrier 2003). Thus, we adopt
158: $\zeta (m) \propto m^{-x}$ for $m > 0.9M_{\odot}$. In what follows
159: we assume $x=2$, as this allows us to obtain a good match to the
160: observed size difference in M87. While this value is certainly
161: consistent with the observations, there is otherwise
162: no fundamental reason for our choice. Below we comment
163: the effect of varying $x$.
164:
165: We construct the mass classes as follows. We take the minimum
166: mass in the initial mass function
167: to be $0.1 M_{\odot}$ and the maximum to be $30 M_{\odot}$.
168: If $m_{to}$ is the mass at the main sequence turnoff, $m_{trgb}$ the
169: mass at the tip of the red giant branch and
170: $N = \lceil (m_{to}-0.4)/0.1 \rceil \equiv (m_{to}-0.4)/\Delta m $,
171: the limits of the mass classes are
172: $(0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.4+\Delta m,\ldots,0.4+(N-1)\Delta m,
173: m_{to},m_{trgb},2,3,4,5,6,7,8,30)$.
174: The masses in each class are obtained differently depending on
175: whether the value of the mass is greater than $m_{trgb}$. We ignore
176: in what follows the evolutionary stages between the tip
177: of the red giant branch and a white dwarf. This should not
178: affect greatly the derived light profiles, as those stars will
179: have density profiles close to that of stars with $m_{to}$, and thus will
180: just add light to the already dominating component.
181: For $m < m_{trgb}$, we have simply
182: $M_j \propto \int_j m \zeta(m) dm$. We assume that stars with
183: $m_{trgb} < m < 8$ end their lives as white dwarfs and that stars
184: with $8<m<30$ end as neutron stars with a mass of $1.4M_{\odot}$.
185: For the masses $m_{trgb} < m < 8$,
186: we determine the relation between the white dwarf mass and the star's
187: initial mass, $m_{wd}(m)$, by interpolating linearly the data
188: presented in Table~3 of Weidemann (2000).
189: The mass of the white dwarf bins are given then by
190: $M_j \propto \int_j m_{wd}(m) \zeta(m) dm$. Neutron stars
191: are observed to be born with velocity kicks of hundreds of
192: km $s^{-1}$ (e.g. Lyne \& Lorimer 1994), and so most of them should escape
193: from their host GCs.
194: Of course, the presence of millisecond pulsars and low mass X-ray binaries in
195: GCs means that some
196: of the neutron stars must be retained.
197: Here we will
198: assume that a fraction $f_{ns}=0.05$ of neutron stars are retained
199: by a typical GC.
200: The mass in the neutron star mass class is then
201: $M_{ns}\propto 1.4 f_{ns} \int_8^{30} \zeta(m) dm$.
202: The adopted value for $f_{ns}$ is consistent with the results
203: of a comprehensive study of neutron star retention in GCs by Pfhal,
204: Rappaport \& Podsiadlowski (2002).
205: Our results are
206: not very sensitive to the precise value adopted for $f_{ns}$
207: and remain
208: essentially unchanged when varying $f_{ns}$ in the range $0.01-0.1$.
209:
210: The final ingredient to obtain the observed light profiles
211: is stellar isochrones, from which we obtain the mass-luminosity
212: function $L(m)$. We used the Y$^2$ isochrones
213: (Yi et~al. 2003). Observational evidence
214: points to most GCs in early-type galaxies being an old and
215: coeval population (see, {\it e.g.}, Jord\'an et~al. 2002).
216: We will thus assume that GCs have an age of 13 Gyr, the mean age
217: inferred for the GC system of M87 using spectroscopic line
218: indices (Cohen, Blakeslee \& Ryzhov 1998).
219: We interpolated stellar
220: populations with [Fe/H] in $\{-2,-1.75,-1.5,-1.25,-1,-0.75,-0.5,-0.25,0\}$,
221: an age of 13 Gyr and alpha enhancement $\alpha=0.3$. Note that
222: the stellar
223: isochrones have a minimum mass of $0.4 M_{\odot}$. To obtain
224: the luminosities of lower mass stars we used the zero-age
225: main sequence mass-luminosity relation of Tout et~al. (1996),
226: ensuring continuity with the luminosity given in the Y$^2$ isochrones
227: for $m=0.4 M_{\odot}$. With a given isochrone in hand, we determined
228: $m_{to}$, $m_{trgb}$ and constructed the corresponding Michie-King
229: multi mass model. The projected densities of each of the mass classes
230: with $m < m_{trgb}$were then multiplied by the mean $V$-band luminosity
231: $L_{Vj}$ obtained from the isochrones as
232: $L_{Vj} = \int_j L(m)\zeta(m) \,dm / \int_j \zeta(m)\,dm$.
233:
234: \begin{figure}
235: \plotone{f1.eps}
236: \caption[]{Projected mass and light profiles for models
237: with $W_0=9$ and [Fe/H]$=-1.5$ and [Fe/H]$=-0.5$, typical
238: of metal-poor and metal-rich GCs respectively in
239: early-type galaxies. The vertical lines indicate the half
240: light radii $r_{hl}$ in units of the half mass radius of the respective
241: model, showing
242: that the metal-rich model has a half light radius which
243: is $\sim 14\%$ smaller than that of its metal-poor counterpart.
244: \label{fig:models}
245: }
246: \end{figure}
247:
248:
249: As described above, the models constructed are specified
250: by a value of $W_0$ and the set of $\{\alpha_j\}$. There remain
251: two arbitrary scale factors, which correspond to setting the
252: scale for the spatial coordinates and the overall mass of the
253: system. In order to compare the models against each other, we set
254: the half {\it mass} radius $r_{hm}$ to the same physical length for
255: all models.
256: This assumption would follow
257: if the overall structure of young GCs is determined
258: by processes mostly independent of metallicity, and
259: if GCs were subjected afterwards on average to the same dynamical
260: effects.
261: For each model, we then recorded the projected half {\it light}
262: radius $r_{hl}$ in units of $r_{hm}$ (for each metallicity and
263: $W_0$).
264:
265: \begin{figure}
266: \plotone{f2.eps}
267: \caption[]{ ({\it Top}) Projected half light radius $r_{hl}$ in units of
268: the half
269: mass radius as a function of [Fe/H]. The different curves
270: correspond to different values of the central potential $W_0$,
271: ranging from $W_0=5$ (upper curve) to $W_0=13$ (lower curve)
272: in steps of $\Delta W = 1$.
273: ({\it Bottom}) This panel shows the same set of curves normalized
274: to their value at [Fe/H]$=-1.5$, a typical metallicity for a metal-poor
275: GC.
276: \label{fig:rh_feh}
277: }
278: \end{figure}
279:
280: \section{Results and Discussion}
281:
282: In Figure~\ref{fig:models} we show mass and light profiles
283: for two models with $W_0=9$ and [Fe/H] equal to $-1.5$ and $-0.5$. The half
284: light radii are indicated in the figure, and it can be seen that
285: $r_{hl}$ is smaller for the metal-rich model by $14\%$.
286: This is because the mass of the most luminous stars becomes
287: larger as the metallicity increases, and thus their density profile
288: is more concentrated.
289: In Figure~\ref{fig:rh_feh} we show $r_{hl}$ as a function
290: of [Fe/H] for various values of $W_0$. It is evident
291: from the figure that for a given value
292: of $W_0$, $r_{hl}$ gets smaller as the metallicity
293: increases. Note that the half light radii
294: are roughly half the corresponding half-mass radii.
295: In order to see directly the size of the effect,
296: we also plot the same curves normalized to their values
297: at [Fe/H]$=-1.5$, typical of metal-poor GCs.
298: A typical metal-rich GC in early-type galaxies will have
299: [Fe/H] $\sim -0.3$. The size of the effect at that metallicity
300: is in the range $\sim 5-25\%$, the exact value depending on the value
301: of $W_0$. We will take a $W_0=9$ model to be representative
302: of a typical GC, as the light profile of such a model will have
303: $\log (r_t/r_{cl})\sim 1.58$, where $r_t$ is the tidal radius and
304: we have defined the
305: core radius of the projected light profiles $r_{cl}$ in a way
306: akin to single mass King models, which for a concentration
307: $c\sim 1.5$ is $1.05$ times the radius at which the luminosity
308: is half the central value.
309: Thus, this concentration measure is comparable to a typical
310: concentration of a Galactic GC (Harris 1996).
311: %
312: From Figure~\ref{fig:rh_feh} we see that a typical metal-rich
313: GC in an early-type galaxy will be observed to be $\sim 20\%$ smaller than a
314: corresponding metal-poor GC. This is consistent with the
315: observations, and thus our models can explain them
316: by assuming
317: that GCs have universal physical properties and the combined effects
318: of mass segregation and stellar evolution.
319:
320: We can go beyond the mean difference in size, as our procedure
321: gives a definite prediction for the behavior of the
322: half light radius as a function of [Fe/H]. The proper way of comparing
323: with the observations would be to input the distribution of $W_0$,
324: and then get the predicted behavior for $r_{hl}$.
325: As we don't have the distribution
326: of central potentials available to us, we will assume as above that
327: the population of GCs is well represented by a model with $W_0=9$.
328: In Figure~\ref{fig:m87} we show the measured half light radii
329: (average of $g_{475}$ and $z_{475}$ measurements) with uncertainties less
330: than 0.5 pc for GCs in M87,
331: using data from the ACS Virgo Cluster Survey
332: (C\^ot\'e et~al. 2004). These measurements form part of a systematic
333: investigation of structural parameters for GCs in Virgo galaxies
334: (Jord\'an et~al., in preparation).
335: The solid line is a robust
336: smoothing of the data done with the Lowess (Cleveland 1979) method.
337: While we show in the figure only GC candidates with $1$ pc $<r_{hl}<4$ pc,
338: there was no restriction in $r_{hl}$ for the analysis.
339: The values of [Fe/H] are obtained
340: from ($g_{475}-z_{475}$) as described in Jord\'an et~al. (2004).
341: The dashed line is the predicted behavior of our models for $W_0=9$,
342: where we have set the normalization such that the curves coincide at
343: [Fe/H]$=-1.5$. The agreement is very good, especially when considering
344: the crudeness of comparing with a single value of $W_0$.
345:
346: \begin{figure}
347: \plotone{f3.eps}
348: \caption[]{
349: The dots are the projected half light radius for a sample of GCs in
350: M87 measured using ACS images. The solid curve represents a robust estimate
351: of the mean half light radius as a function of [Fe/H], and the dashed
352: line is the predicted behavior of this quantity for a model
353: with $W_0=9$ which is normalized to the observed value at [Fe/H]$=-1.5$.
354: \label{fig:m87}
355: }
356: \end{figure}
357:
358:
359: The results above depend on the assumption that, given a value of $W_0$,
360: the average half mass radius does not depend on [Fe/H].
361: This assumption
362: is appealing in that it points to a universality in the
363: formation and evolution process of GCs.
364: If clusters observed today with a certain central potential
365: were formed with the same average half mass radius and were subjected,
366: {\it on average}, to the same dynamical effects from
367: the potential field of their galaxy and internal mass loss
368: processes, they should have on average the same
369: half mass radii. Individual GCs might of course been subjected
370: to quite different histories.
371: The process of GC formation is yet to be fully understood,
372: and thus there are few theoretical handles that would let us
373: assess the plausibility of assuming a constant average
374: half-mass radii with metallicity.
375: Some proposed formation mechanisms
376: determine the overall scale of the proto-GCs by mechanisms
377: that should be largely independent of the metal content,
378: such as cosmological reionization compression
379: of subgalactic halos (Cen 2001), formation out of dense
380: cores of supergiant molecular clouds (Harris \& Pudritz 1994)
381: or on the high mass and pressure clouds of gas
382: partitioned by supersonic turbulence (Elmegreen \& Efremov 1997).
383: Observationally, Larsen (2004) finds no evidence for
384: variations on the average sizes of young stellar clusters in a sample
385: of nearby spirals. Overall, the assumption seems certainly plausible
386: in light of our current understanding of GC formation.
387:
388: There are a number of factors that can affect the predicted behavior
389: of our models. An obvious one is the shape of the mass function,
390: as this will change the derived $\{\alpha_j\}$. As an example,
391: changing the power law exponent for the high mass part of
392: our assumed mass function to $x=2.35$ reduces the magnitude of the difference
393: by a factor of $\sim 0.86$. Another factor which should have an effect
394: insofar as it will
395: change the evolutionary state of the stellar populations is age.
396: If the populations are coeval, changing the age from 13 to 11 Gyr
397: reduces the magnitude of the difference by a factor of $\sim 0.86$.
398: If there is an age difference between the subpopulations
399: they would have evolved dynamically for a different
400: total time and the assumption of them having the same half mass radius
401: would be less warranted.
402: Predicting the effect of varying the age properly would thus require knowledge
403: of how the average half mass radii evolves through dynamical effects.
404: This caveat notwithstanding, the fact that most models show $r_{hm}$
405: to be a rather stable quantity over the cluster's evolution
406: (e.g., Aarseth \& Heggie 1998)
407: make it reasonable to use the present models and the assumption
408: of constant half-mass radius to get an estimate of the effect
409: of an age difference. If clusters with [Fe/H]$>-1$ are
410: 3 Gyr younger than their metal-poor counterparts, the magnitude
411: of the difference would be increased by a factor of $\sim 1.5$.
412: %
413: At any rate, most determinations
414: of the relative ages of GCs in early-type galaxies, where most of the size
415: difference observations have been made,
416: are consistent with the GCs being roughly coeval
417: (see, e.g., Jord\'an et~al. 2002 and references therein).
418: %
419: The relation
420: $m_{wd}(m)$ for white dwarf remnants also plays an important
421: role in determining the magnitude of the difference as they
422: contribute an appreciable fraction ($\sim 20\%$) to the cluster mass.
423:
424: Variations of the distributions of $r_{hm}$ and $W_0$
425: with [Fe/H] or galactocentric radius can potentially be important,
426: but the main point
427: to be made from our results is that the
428: observations can comfortably be reproduced without
429: resorting to intrinsic differences in the sizes of the
430: GCs as a function of metallicity. The use
431: of Michie-King multi mass models is well-suited
432: to this task, but for a more precise determination
433: of the expected size difference, and the dependence of
434: it with variations in the input ingredients,
435: it would be very useful that this effect be
436: followed with N-body simulations
437: that take into account the effects of stellar evolution and
438: of the gravitational potential of the host galaxy
439: (e.g., Baumgardt \& Makino 2003).
440: With more detailed models in hand,
441: the dependencies of the predicted half light
442: radii could perhaps be used with other
443: observed properties to simultaneously constraint
444: factors such as age and the form of the initial mass
445: function.
446:
447: Our models let us predict that if the GCs
448: are roughly coeval, then the size of the observed average half light
449: radius difference should scale with the mean metallicity
450: of the metal-rich GCs. This is known to correlate with
451: galaxy luminosity (Brodie \& Huchra 1991),
452: so the average size difference should
453: scale with it.
454: In contrast with the proposal of Larsen \& Brodie (2003)
455: our models do not predict a change in the size difference
456: with projected radius. Larsen \& Brodie (2003)
457: argue that some pointings away from the central
458: regions in M87 do not show a significant size difference
459: between the GC subpopulations.
460: Although a dilution of the size difference with radius
461: could be introduced in our models by radial variations in
462: other factor such as the mean [Fe/H] of the metal-rich
463: subpopulation, it is unlikely that the effect will
464: disappear at large radii without some fine tuning. Thus,
465: a larger number of observations
466: of size difference at large galactocentric radii will be very useful
467: in discriminating between the models. It is possible
468: that the overall effect results as a combination
469: of projection and mass segregation effects, the former
470: disappearing at large galactocentric radius.
471: We stress that large samples of GCs
472: are needed to investigate this issue, as GCs will have
473: a distribution of intrinsic radii and we need an accurate
474: determination of the {\it average} behavior. So while
475: no size difference was reported in NGC~5128 by
476: Harris et~al. 2002, the low number of clusters
477: they observed, as they note, precludes the drawing
478: of strong constraints.
479:
480: We suggest in light of the models
481: presented here that the size differences observed so far
482: are consistent with GCs having half mass radii distributions
483: that do not depend on metallicity.
484: If true, GCs would present us with another universal property,
485: such as the shape of their luminosity function (Harris 2001)
486: or their formation efficiencies (Blakeslee et~al. 1997; McLaughlin 1999),
487: which can hold an important clue to their
488: formation and subsequent evolution.
489: And even if the effects
490: of mass segregation do not account entirely for the observed
491: size difference,
492: it is clear that its contribution must be included
493: when interpreting the observations and their implications
494: for GC formation and evolution.
495:
496:
497: \acknowledgements
498: The author thanks Pat C\^ot\'e and Tad Pryor for useful
499: discussions and comments
500: on the manuscript and the ACSVCS team for granting use of the M87
501: data in advance of publication. Support for program GO-9401 was provided
502: through a grant from the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is
503: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
504: under NASA contract NAS5-26555.
505: Additional support was provided by the National Science
506: Foundation
507: through a grant from the Association of Universities for Research in
508: Astronomy, Inc., under NSF
509: cooperative agreement AST-9613615 and by Fundaci\'on Andes under project
510: No.C-13442.
511:
512: \begin{thebibliography}{00}
513: \bibitem[Aarseth \& Heggie 1998]{ah98} Aarseth, S.J., \&
514: Heggie, D.C. 1998, \mnras, 297, 794
515: \bibitem[Barmby, Holland \& Huchra 2002]{bhh_02} Barmby, P.,
516: Holland, S.T., Huchra, J.P. 2002, \aj, 123, 1937
517: \bibitem[Baumgardt \& Makino 2003]{bm_03} Baumgardt, H., \&
518: Makino, J. 2003, \mnras, 340, 227
519: \bibitem[Blakeslee et~al. 1997]{btm97} Blakeslee, J.P.,
520: Tonry, J.L., \& Metzger, M.R. 1997, \aj, 114, 482
521: \bibitem[Brodie \& Huchra 1991]{brodie_huchra} Brodie, J.P.,
522: \& Huchra, J.P. 1991, \apj, 379, 157
523: \bibitem[Cen 2001]{cen_01} Cen, R. 2001, \apj, 560, 592
524: \bibitem[Chabrier 2003]{chabrier03} Chabrier, G. 2003, \pasp, 115, 763
525: \bibitem[Cleveland 1979]{clev79} Cleveland, W.S. 1979, J. Amer.
526: Statist. Assoc. 74, 829
527: \bibitem[Cohen et~al. 1998]{cbr98} Cohen, J.G., Blakeslee, J.P., \& Ryzhov, A. 1998, \apj, 496, 808
528: \bibitem[C\^ot\'e et~al. 2004]{acsvcs_i} C\^ot\'e, P., et~al.
529: 2004, \apjs, 153, 223
530: \bibitem[Elmegreen \& Efremov 1997]{elmefr_97} Elmegreen, B.G., \&
531: Efremov, Y.N. 1997, \apj, 480, 235
532: \bibitem[Gunn \& Griffin 1979]{gg79} Gunn, J.E., \& Griffin, R.F. 1979,
533: \aj, 84, 752
534: \bibitem[Harris 1996]{harriscat} Harris, W.E. 1996, \aj, 112, 1487
535: \bibitem[Harris 2001]{464} Harris, W.E. 2001, in Star Clusters, Saas-Fee Advanced School 28,
536: ed. L. Labhardt \& B. Binggeli (Berlin:Springer), 223
537: \bibitem[Harris \& Pudritz 1994]{hpud_94} Harris, W.E., \&
538: Pudritz, R.E. 1994, \apj, 429, 177
539: \bibitem[Harris et~al. 2002]{weh_etal02} Harris, W.E.,
540: Harris, G.L.H., Holland, S.T., \& McLaughlin, D.E. 2002,
541: \aj, 124, 1435
542: \bibitem[Jord\'an et~al. 2002]{joretal02} Jord\'an, A., C\^ot\'e, P., West, M.J., \& Marzke, R.O. 2002, \apj, 576, L113
543: \bibitem[Jord\'an et~al. 2004]{jetal04} Jord\'an, A., et~al.
544: 2004, \apj, in press
545: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore 1998]{kw_98} Kundu, A., \& Whitmore, B.C. 1998,
546: \aj, 116, 2841
547: \bibitem[Kundu \& Whitmore 2001]{kw_01} Kundu, A., \& Whitmore, B.C. 2001,
548: \aj, 121, 2950
549: \bibitem[Kundu et~al. 1999]{k_etal99}Kundu, A., Whitmore, B.C.,
550: Sparks, W.B., Macchetto, F.D., Zepf, S.E., \& Ashman, K.M. 1999, \apj,
551: 513, 733
552: \bibitem[Larsen 2004]{larsen_04} Larsen, S.S. 2004,
553: \aap, 416, 537
554: \bibitem[Larsen et~al. 2001]{l_etal01} Larsen, S.S., Brodie, J.P.,
555: Huchra, J.P., Forbes, D.A., Grillmair, C. 2001, \aj, 121, 2974
556: \bibitem[Larsen et~al. 2001b]{l_etal01b} Larsen, S.S., Forbes, D.A.,
557: \& Brodie, J.P., 2001, \mnras, 327, 1116
558: \bibitem[Larsen \& Brodie 2003]{lb03} Larsen, S.S., \&
559: Brodie, J. 2003, \apj, 593, 340
560: \bibitem[Lyne \& Lorimer 1994]{ll_94} Lyne, A.G., \& Lorimer, D.R. 1994,
561: \nat, 369, 127
562: \bibitem[McLaughlin 1999a]{491} McLaughlin, D.E. 1999, \aj, 117, 2398
563: \bibitem[Paresce \& De Marchi 2000]{pdm00} Paresce, F.,
564: \& De Marchi, G. 2000, \apj, 534, 870
565: \bibitem[Pfahl, Rapaport \& Podsiadlowski 2002]{prp_02}
566: Pfahl, E., Rappaport, S., \& Podsiadlowski, P. 2002,
567: \apj, 573, 283
568: \bibitem[Puzia et~al. 1999]{puzia_etal99} Puzia, T.H.,
569: Kissler-Patig, M., Brodie, J.P., \& Huchra, J.P. 1999, \aj, 118,2734
570: \bibitem[Tout et~al. 1996]{tout_etal96} Tout, C.A.,
571: Pols, O.R., Eggleton, P.P., \& Han, Z. 1996, \mnras, 281, 257
572: \bibitem[Weidemann 2000]{weid_00} Weidemann, V. 2000,
573: \aap, 363, 647
574: \bibitem[Yi et~al. 2003]{yi_etal03} Yi, S.K., Kim, Y.-C., \&
575: Demarque, P. 2003, \apjs, 144, 259
576: \end{thebibliography}
577:
578: \end{document}
579: