1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint,psfig]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \newcommand{\etal}{{\it et al.\ }}
4: \newcommand{\grados}{^\circ}
5: \newcommand{\umi}{Canis Majoris }
6: \lefthead{Mart\'\i nez-Delgado \etal}
7: \righthead{Canis Majoris}
8:
9: \begin{document}
10:
11: \title{The closest view of a dwarf galaxy: new evidence on the nature of the Canis Major over-density}
12:
13: \author{David Mart\'\i nez-Delgado\altaffilmark{1,2}, David J. Butler\altaffilmark{1}, Hans-Walter Rix\altaffilmark{1}, Y. Isabel Franco\altaffilmark{1}, Jorge Pe\~narrubia\altaffilmark{1}, Emilio J. Alfaro\altaffilmark{2} and Dana I. Dinescu\altaffilmark{3}}
14: \altaffiltext{1}{Max-Planck Institut fur Astronomie,
15: K\"onigstuhl, 17 D-69117 Heidelberg, Germany}
16: \altaffiltext{2}{Instituto de Astrof\'\i sica de Andaluc\'\i a (CSIC), Granada, Spain}
17: \altaffiltext{3}{Astronomy Department, Yale University, New Haven, USA}
18:
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We present a first deep colour-magnitude diagram of the putative central
22: region (0.5$\arcdeg \times$ 0.5$\arcdeg$) of the Canis Major stellar over-density $(l,b)=(240,-8)$ found by Martin et al. (2004), which
23: has been proposed as the remnant of a dwarf satellite accreted onto
24: the Milky Way on a near-equatorial orbit. We find a narrow (in apparent magnitude) main-sequence,
25: extending 6 magnitudes below the turn-off to our limiting magnitude of B$\sim$ 24.5\,mag.
26: This main sequence has very high constrast ($>$3)
27: with respect to the thin/thick disk/halo background; its narrowness at brighter magnitudes clearly
28: implies the presence of a distinct and possibly still bound stellar system. We derived the line-of-sight size (r$_{1/2}$) of this system
29: based on the B-band width of the lower main sequence, obtaining 0.94 $\pm$ 0.18 (random) $\pm$ 0.18 (systematic)\,kpc.
30: That size matches a model prediction for the main body of the parent galaxy of the Monoceros
31: tidal stream. The high density contrast and limited spatial extent in the radial direction are very
32: hard to reconcile with the
33: alternative explanation put forward to explain the Canis Major stellar-overdensity:
34: a flared or warped Galactic disk viewed in projection (Momamy et al. 2004). We also derived a central surface brightness of $\mu_{V,0}= 23.3 \pm 0.1$\,mag arcsec$^{-2}$ and an absolute magnitude of $M_{V}=-14.5 \pm 0.1$\,mag.
35: These values place the Canis Major object in the category of
36: dwarf galaxy in the the $L_{V}$--size and $M_V -\mu_{\rm V}$ planes for such
37: objects. However, like the Sagittarius dwarf, it is an outlier in the
38: $[\rm Fe/H] -M_V$ plane in the sense that it is
39: too metal rich for its estimated absolute magnitude. This suggests
40: that the main mechanism driving its recent and current star formation
41: history (possibly tidal stripping) is different to that of isolated
42: dwarfs.
43:
44:
45:
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf ---
49: galaxies: individual (Canis Major) --- Galaxy: structure ---
50: galaxies: stellar content --- galaxies: structure}
51:
52: \section{Introduction}
53:
54: The Milky Way offers a unique laboratory for testing the hierarchical galaxy
55: formation scenario through direct evidence of past merging and
56: tidal disruption events, which result in extensive
57: stellar streams or large scale substructures in the
58: Galactic halo or even in the disk (Navarro 2004, and references
59: therein). Resolving
60: such tidal streams into stars and measuring the
61: phase-space coordinates for these stars, provides a fossil dynamical accretion record of
62: unparalleled accuracy. These can be directly compared with N-body simulations
63: in order to reconstruct their dynamical history and their impact on the Milky
64: Way at the present and recent epochs.
65:
66:
67:
68: Recently, the Sloan Digitized Sky Survey (SDSS) team reported the discovery of a coherent
69: giant stellar structure at low galactic latitudes (Newberg et al. 2002; Yanny et al. 2003), which
70: appears to form a ring around the Milky Way. Since then, there has been a tremendous amount of
71: follow-up observational effort probing its structure and kinematics in order to understand its origin (see Majewski 2004
72: and references therein). N-body simulations (Martin et al. 2004a;
73: Pe\~narrubia et al. 2004) shows that this ring structure can be naturally attributed to the
74: tidal stream of a dwarf galaxy (named the Monoceros tidal stream, or the Galactic Anticenter
75: tidal stream). If this stellar overdensity ring is a tidal tail feature, it must have
76: had a ``parent'' galaxy, which may or may not be completely disrupted by now.
77: The existence and location of such a parent galaxy is still controversial;
78: the best candidate is the Canis Major
79: (CMa) dwarf galaxy candidate, a strong, ellipsoidal overdensity of red giant stars,
80: discovered in the namesake constellation by Martin et al. (2004a) from an analysis of
81: the 2MASS survey. Bellazzini et al. (2004) presented a color-magnitude diagram (CMD)
82: in the surroundings of the candidate CMa dwarf, concluding that the system is
83: situated at 8$\pm$ 1 kpc from the Sun and that it is composed of a metal-rich, intermediate-age
84: stellar population. As CMa is only $\sim 8$ degrees from the Galactic plane,
85: Momany et al. (2004) suggested an alternative interpretation, namely that
86: this over-density is the signature of the Galactic warp in this direction of the sky,
87: and not a distinct satellite. However, Martin et al. (2004b) reported a narrow
88: distribution of radial velocities for the center of
89: this structure, and argued on this basis for the interpretation of
90: CMa as an accreted dwarf satellite remnant, in an orbit near the Galactic plane.
91:
92: To help discriminate between these two hypothesis -- accreted dwarf galaxy, or stellar warp -- ,
93: we present here deep broad-band photometry of the CMa center. As our results confirm
94: and greatly strengthen the case that the stellar over-density towards CMa is part of a distinct dwarf galaxy, we refer to it as 'CMa dwarf'
95: throughout.
96:
97:
98: \section{Observations and data reduction}
99:
100: Our observations were carried out in $B$ and $R$
101: Johnson-Cousins filters with the 2.2m ESO/MPG telescope at the La Silla Observatory (Chile) in service
102: mode during December 14-17th, 2003. We used the Wide-Field Imager (WFI) installed at the prime focus, which holds eight
103: $2046 \times 4098$ pixel
104: EEV chips, with a scale of $0.238''$ pixel$^{-1}$. Our field covers a total area of about $0.25$ deg$^2$ and is centered at galactic
105: coordinates (l,b)=(240.15, -8.07), which is,
106: within the uncertainties, the nominal center of the CMa over-density given by
107: Martin et al. (2004a). The total
108: exposure times were 3700s and 2700s in $B$ and $R$ respectively. A shorter
109: exposure of 100s in both bands was also taken to recover the brighter part
110: of the CMD.
111:
112: Bias and flat-field corrections were done with IRAF. DAOPHOT and ALLSTAR (Stetson 1994) were used to
113: obtain the photometry of the resolved stars. Aperture corrections were estimated using a set
114: of about 50 isolated, bright stars in the CMa frame, with a variance of $\sigma\sim 0.001$. Transformation of the instrumental magnitudes
115: into the
116: standard photometric system were obtained from observations of the Landolt standard field SA95 taking during two photometric
117: nights bracketing our
118: observations and using the atmospheric extinction coefficients estimated on November 8th, 2003 taken from the WFI homepage.
119: Putting all the errors together, the
120: total zero-point uncertainty of our photometry can be estimated to be about
121: $\sigma=0.05$ for $(B-R)$ and $\sigma=0.07$ for individual bands. The resulting catalogue of stars was filtered using the error parameters given
122: by ALLSTAR, retaining only stars with acceptable CHI and SHARP parameters and $\sigma_{B} <$ 0.2 and $\sigma_{R}< $0.2.
123:
124: Artificial star tests were performed in the usual way (see Aparicio, Carrera
125: \& Mart\'\i nez-Delgado 2001) using a total of 20000 artificial stars to check the observational effects and estimate the completeness
126: factor as a function of magnitude.
127:
128: \section{The color--magnitude diagram }\label{cmdsec}
129:
130: Fig.~\ref{fig1}a shows the [$B-R$,$R$] CMD of the center of the possible
131: CMa dwarf based our $t_{exp}=100s$ data. The stellar densities in this CMD confirm inmediately that the distribution of stars in the Milky
132: Way in this
133: low-latitude direction grossly deviate from the expectations of a smooth
134: thin/thick/halo distribution: there is a conspicuous main-sequence (MS) feature
135: (labelled MS in Fig 1b), with a possible arc-shape turnoff at $R$= 18.48 $\pm$ 0.11 mag . The $B-R$ colour used on our CMD provides the separation of the redder plume populated by thick disk stars (the parallel sequence running from
136: $[R,(B-R)]\sim$ (15,1.0) to $[R,(B-R)]\sim$ (19,1.6)) from this MS feature, which is about $\sim$ 0.2\,mag bluer
137: at $R\sim 18$. Secondly, a second plume of possible MS stars (labelled {\it BP} in Fig. 1b) is observed
138: extending brighter and bluer than the MS-turnoff and reaching $R\simeq 16.0$, avoiding the Galactic star
139: contamination. This blue extension cannot be reproduced by any star-count models of the Milky Way (see also
140: Bellazzini et al. 2004) and is similar to those observed in the CMD of
141: Local Group (LG) dwarf spheroidal (dSph) galaxies (Draco:Aparicio et al. 2001; Ursa Minor: Carrera, Aparicio \& Mart\'\i nez-Delgado 2002). Although it could be produced by blue straggler stars rather than by MS stars of the dwarf galaxy (see discussion in Carrera et al. 2002), the fact that it departs from the MS at $R\sim$ 19.0 (fainter than the MS turnoff) is more compatible with the star formation burst hypothesis than the blue stragglers one, suggesting that the CMa system has had at least two distinct epoch of star formation. The narrow
142: distribution of these blue stars strongly suggests that they are all at a
143: similar distance, which would not expected if the Galactic warp/flare were the origin of this stellar population.
144: Our diagram also shows
145: evidence of a possible red clump (labelled {\it}RC in Fig. 1b) at $(B-R)\sim$ 1.5 and $R\sim 15$, but a suitable control
146: field or radial velocity follow-up is necessary to confirm this over-density as part of the CMa dwarf. All the CMD features
147: described above can be easier identified in Fig~\ref{fig1}b, that shows a synthetic CMD of one of the possible solutions for the stellar population of the
148: CMa dwarf (see Sec. 4.1) overplotted in our observed [$B-R$,$B$] CMD.\footnote {This synthetic CMD is used here for a qualitative understanding of the expected features in
149: the CMD of the galaxy population rather than a quantitative comparison with the
150: data, that is out of the scope of this paper.} The remarkable similarity of the morphology of this model CMD with the observed one also supports the dwarf nature of CMa.
151:
152: Fig.~\ref{fig2} shows the [$B-R$, $B$] CMD based on our long exposure
153: data. This CMD reveals a prominent, high contrast, and well-populated MS
154: feature extending beyond our limiting magnitude ($B\sim 24.5$). The colour width of this MS feature remains roughly
155: constant along a large magnitude range and is comparable to those observed in the CMD of LG dwarf galaxies
156: or massive globular clusters. This evidence strongly confirms the presence of a
157: limited range in distance, and therefore associated with a possibly still
158: bound stellar system whose distance line-of-sight size and stellar density
159: are investigated in the next section.
160:
161:
162: \section{Properties of the Canis Majoris dwarf galaxy}\label{CMa_size}
163:
164: %\subsection{Distance and Stellar Population}
165: \subsection{Distance}\label{dist}
166:
167: Our CMD does not show any unambiguous, convincing signature of the bright, post-MS populations
168: -- the red clump (RC), horizontal branch, RR Lyrae stars, red giant branch stars -- that must accompany
169: the clearly detected MS stars. Those post-MS classes of stars have been
170: extensively used to constrain the distance and stellar population properties of LG dwarf galaxies.
171: Consequently, our data are not well suited for a reliable distance estimate to CMa,
172: as there are degeneracies between stellar population assumptions, the reddening and
173: the distance, when considering only the MS in the CMD. In spite of this degeneracy, we try here to set some limits on the distance to CMa dwarf
174: by fitting the observed MS with synthetic CMDs, assuming some
175: different evolutionary scenarios for the galaxy. However, it is important to stress that these are not the only possible solutions and than more data from alternative distance indicators are necessary to confirm the distance reported in
176: this paper.
177:
178: Adopting E(B-V) = 0.213$\pm$0.029 mag for our field from the Schlegel,
179: Finkbeiner \& Davis(1998; SFD98) dust map, our best model CMD fitting
180: for an old population (age $>$11\,Gyr, with mean Z=0.006 ) provides an upper limit on the distance modulus of $(m-M)_o=13.6\pm 0.2$ ($d_{\sun}= 5.3 \pm 0.2$ kpc).
181: For a younger stellar population similar to those reported by Bellazzini et
182: al. (2004) (age 4--10\,Gyr, with mean Z=0.006 ), one gets $(m-M)_o=14.2\pm 0.2$
183: ($d_{\sun}= 6.9 \pm 0.3$ kpc). However, it has been suggested that the SFD98 dust maps could overestimate
184: the actual reddening of our field (Bonifacio, Monai \& Beers 2000). To check this, we have obtained E(B-V) data
185: for individual stars in the WFI field from a star-by-star interpolation of the SFD98 dust maps. We find that the E(B-V) distribution
186: is skewed, with about 27\% of the stars across our CMD are affected by E(B-V) $>$ 0.2. Therefore, we ignore stars assigned
187: E(B-V) $>$ 0.3 because they cannot have a significant effect on our distance
188: and line-of-sight size estimates. \footnote{Choosing a smaller cut-off threshold does not have a significant effect on the results presented in this paper.}
189: For the mean $\pm$ standard deviation of the remaining
190: stars, we obtain E(B-V) = 0.08$\pm$0.07\,mag. This lower reddening value does not permit an acceptable MS fitting for the two former model CMDs, as both produce MS features than are bluer than observed. An acceptable fitting is obtained by increasing the mean metallicity of the galaxy (mean Z=0.01), yielding a distance modulus of $(m-M)_o=14.5\pm 0.2$ ($d_{\sun}= 7.9 \pm 0.3$ kpc).
191: This last value is in very good agreement with previous estimates
192: based on different CMD indicators (Bellazzini et al. 2004; Martin et al. 2004b) and it is
193: adopted as the distance to CMa throughout.
194:
195:
196: \subsection{The Line-of-Sight ``Depth'' of CMa}\label{CMa_size2}
197:
198: To estimate the line-of-sight extent (or ``depth'') of CMa analyse the observed width
199: of the MS, $\sigma_{\rm MS,total,B}$. Near the MS turn-off the MS is steep, and at the faintest
200: magnitudes measurement errors may dominate the width. Hence, we consider
201: the B-band apparent magnitude distribution
202: of stars in the ($B-R$) color range of 1.50-1.55\,mag, using the
203: long exposure data (see Fig.~\ref{fig2}). We modelled this distribution
204: as the linear sum of two components: 1) the smooth distribution of
205: underlying stars due to the Galactic
206: warp and thin disk, by a linear function; 2) the CMa MS, by
207: a Gaussian function, characterized by a standard deviation $\sigma_{\rm MS,total,B}$.
208: Even if all CMa stars were at the same distance, $\sigma_{\rm MS,total,B}^2$
209: would be non-zero, and could be described by the quadrature sum of three components: the
210: intrinsic MS size due to a range of stellar population
211: ages and metallicities,\footnote{This was obtained from a synthetic CMD computed for
212: a constant and arbitrary star formation rate between 4 and 10\,Gyr and Z =
213: 0.006 ([Fe/H] = -0.48\,dex).} plus the contribution to the MS width
214: from observational effects ($\sigma_{\rm MS,int, B}$);
215: and the differential reddening of the field ($\sigma_{\rm diff.red.,B}$), estimated from the SFD98 dust maps.
216: We then attribute the remaining width of the MS to the distance distribution
217: of the CMa stars ($\sigma_{\rm CMa,depth,B}$).
218: In brief, we fitted the distribution in Fig. 3
219: (in a $\chi^2$ sense) to a linear function
220: at B=20-20.5 and 23.5-24\,mag and
221: fitted a Gaussian function in a
222: non-linear least squares way after subtracting the linear fit.
223: The fitting was repeated for two adjacent colour intervals in order to obtain a statistical uncertainty in the MS width.
224: Their mean and standard deviation data are given in Table~\ref{tbl-1}, together with the rest of the budget used to determine the
225: line-of-sight size of CMa.
226:
227: Our best fitting $\sigma_{MS,total,B}$, converted into kilo-parsecs, yields $\sigma_{\rm CMa, depth,B}$=0.8$\pm$0.15\,kpc
228: or FWHM = 1.95\,kpc (see Table~\ref{tbl-1}). Based on 2MASS data, Martin et al. (2004b) report that angular extent of the
229: over-density corresponds to a
230: FWHM of about $\sim$ 4.2\,kpc (at a helio-centric distance of
231: 7.1$\pm$1.3\,kpc), significantly larger than the
232: line-of-sight value estimated here. This is not necessarily
233: inconsistent, because severe tidal perturbations may cause a tangential streching of the CMa dwarf. In addition, the estimated size of CMa dwarf can provide a reliable estimation of its mass under the assumption that bound stellar systems undergoing disruption have a spatial extension similar or larger than the Jacobi limit, as Pe\~narrubia et al (2004) find for the Monoceros stream progenitor. In that case (Binney \& Tremaine 1986; equation 7-84), $$M_s \sim 3 M(<R_{gal}) (R_{t} / R_{gal})^3 $$
234: where $M(<R_{gal})$ is the Galaxy mass within $R_{gal}$ and $R_t$ is the
235: Jacobi limit (also called tidal radius). Adopting $R_t\simeq 1.6$ (which
236: accounts approximately for 96\% of the dwarf mass) and
237: the mass profile used by Pe\~narrubia et al. (2004) we find
238: $M_s> 5\times 10^8 M_\odot$, indicating that the present mass of the CMa
239: dwarf should be similar to those predicted by our model of the Monoceros
240: stream progenitor ($3\times 10^8 M_\odot$: Pe\~narrubia et al. 2004).
241:
242: Finally, in order to compare the size of CMa with those of known dwarf galaxies, we estimate the
243: line-of-sight half-brightness radius, r$_{\rm 1/2}$, from the Gaussian model of the line-of-sight profile given
244: in Fig.3. We obtain r$_{\rm 1/2}$=0.94 $\pm$ 0.18 (random) $\pm$ 0.18
245: (systematic)\,kpc. This size is in agreement with the model prediction (Pe\~narrubia et al. 2004); but is
246: significantly bigger than that of several dwarf galaxies in the LG (Irwin \& Hatzidimitriou 1995; their Table 4).
247:
248: \subsection {Surface brightness and absolute magnitude}
249:
250:
251:
252: We estimate the central surface brightness (SB) of the
253: CMa dwarf by matching the observed surface density of MS stars to scale
254: those derived from a (candidate) synthetic CMD for the CMa galaxy (2.5-15\,Gyr; Z=0.006) for which the
255: integrated magnitude is known. We used the short exposure data
256: and counted stars on the upper MS in a small box such that
257: 1$< B-R <$ 1.5 and 18 $< R <$19;
258: the position of this CMD box allows a significant sample of the dominant CMa stellar population. To correct
259: the MS star-counts for contamination of Milky Way stars, we use the CMD of a control field obtained at
260: the galactic position (l,b)=(240,+15), taken from our recent survey to investigate the extent and
261: stellar population of the CMa dwarf (Butler et al., in preparation). We used star counts from the red plume
262: region of thick disk MS stars (where 0.5 $<$ B-R $<$ 1.5 and 15 $<$ R $<$ 16.5) in the control and CMa fields
263: to subtract a scaled contamination level from the CMa MS star
264: selection box mentioned above. We find $\mu_{\rm V, 0}$ = 23.3
265: $\pm$ 0.1\,mag\,arcsec$^{-2}$ (taken as the intensity-weighted
266: average of $\mu_{\rm B, 0}$ and $\mu_{\rm R, 0}$),
267: where the SB uncertainty was estimated by taking Poisson statistical errors in the star counts. That
268: value is very similar to those of Milky dSph satellites (Mateo 1998), and provides a further evidence
269: that we have detected a part of the main body of a dwarf galaxy and not a piece of a possible
270: tidal stream, whose typical SB would be expected to lie in the range of 30.0 to
271: 31.5 mag\,arcsec$^{-2}$ (Johnston et al. 1999).
272:
273:
274: To estimate the total V-band luminosity, we use an exponential SB
275: profile with a (near-IR)
276: scale length of 0.73$\pm$0.05\,kpc (Martin et al. 2004a) with the mean
277: heliocentric distance taken to be 7.1\,kpc. We obtained
278: $M_{V}$= -14.5$\pm$0.1\,mag, corresponding to a total V-band intensity log
279: (I$_{V}/I_{V, \odot}$) =7.7$\pm$0.1. This yields a total mass for the satellite of $M/M_{\odot}$ =5
280: $\times$ 10$^{7}$$\Gamma$ (where $\Gamma=(M/M_{\odot})/(L/L_{\odot}$)). Assuming the mass-to-light ratio of CMa is in the range $4 < \Gamma < 22 $,
281: in solar units, (which contains the majority of
282: the LG dSphs), the present remnant of the CMa dwarf would have a total mass of
283: $2.0\times 10^8 <M/M_{\odot} < 1.1 \times 10^9$, consistent with the value obtained from the observational
284: extension of the satellite and from the prediction of our theoretical
285: simulations (see Sec.~\ref{CMa_size2}). The combination of this luminosity with the size
286: derived in Sec.~\ref{CMa_size}
287: places this stellar system among the dwarf galaxies
288: in the the $L_{V}$--size plane (see Pasquali et al. 2004; their Fig. 5).
289: In addition, CMa follows the well-defined
290: $M_V -\mu_{\rm V}$ relationship shown by Caldwell et al. (1999) for dwarf galaxies. However, assuming the stellar component
291: of the galaxy has an average metallicity of $[Fe/H]\sim -0.4$ (Bellazzini et al. 2004), this galaxy is,
292: like the Sgr dSph, an outlier of the
293: well-known $[Fe/H] -M_V$ relation, since it is too metal rich for its estimated absolute magnitude. This suggests, as in the
294: case of Sgr, that a different mechanism (possibly tidal stripping) is predominantly driving its star formation history.
295:
296: % the caveats on the density profile of the CMa over-density prevent any reliable estimate of the total
297: % luminosity of this stellar system. Martin et al. (2004a) suggested an exponential SB profile with a (near-IR)
298: %scale height of 0.73$\pm$0.05\,kpc (for a mean heliocentric distance of 7.1\,kpc). However, our subsequent wide-field survey
299: %in this area during the revision of this manuscript revealed that the stellar density of the MS-turnoff feature reported in Sec. 3
300: % increases well outside the limits of the CMa over-density (Butler et al. 2005, in preparation). This result suggests that the CMa
301: %over-density is not the center
302: %but an outer part of a more extended, more massive stellar system which central position should be situated at larger galactic longitude
303: %(see also Rocha-Pinto et al. 2005).
304:
305:
306: Derived parameters for the CMa overdensity are given in Table~\ref{tbl-2}.
307:
308:
309: \section{CONCLUSIONS}
310:
311: From our data we have established that the putative center of CMa is a very high
312: contrast density feature that as has very narrow radial extent, $r_{1/2}/R_{G.C.} < 0.1$.
313: These results strongly support the interpretation of a distinct, possibly still bound stellar system whose properties
314: are consistent with those expected for the remnant of a partially disrupted dwarf satellite.
315: In turn, the high density contrast and the limited line-of-sight extent of
316: the CMa would be very difficult to be reconciled (if at all) with a
317: flared or warped Galactic disk viewed in projection (Momamy et al. 2004). Although the obtained properties for this satellite (Table 2) in this study
318: are subject to considerable uncertainties (stellar population, Galactic contamination, radial profile), they
319: are in agreement with those of the known Milky Way dSph satellites (Mateo 1998) and with the known size-luminosity relation followed by Milky Way dwarf spheroidals.
320:
321: At a distance of 8 kpc, CMa is the closest dwarf galaxy known. It may not only be the parent of the Galactic low-latitude stellar stream, but also a unique laboratory for
322: testing galaxy evolution theories. In particular, our CMD shows the
323: availability for first time of thousands of MS
324: stars of different ages in a magnitude range suited to high resolution
325: spectroscopy-based abundance studies using 4-meter class telescopes. This
326: will allow one to study the SFH of a dwarf galaxy with
327: unprecedented spectral
328: resolution, and is therefore a top candidate for chemo-dynamical
329: modelling of dwarf galaxy evolution in the Galaxy.
330:
331:
332:
333: \acknowledgements
334:
335: We thank A. Robin, E. D. Skillman and the referee H. Rocha-Pinto for their useful comments. DMD devotes this work
336: to the memory of his grandfather Manuel Delgado-Membrives.
337:
338: \begin{thebibliography}{}
339:
340: \bibitem[Aparicio]{Aparicio} Aparicio, A., Gallart, C. 2004, \aj, 128, 1465
341:
342: \bibitem[Aparicio]{Aparicio} Aparicio, A., Carrera, R., Mart\'\i nez-Delgado, D. 2001, \aj, 122, 2524
343:
344: \bibitem[Bellazzini]{Bellazzini} Bellazzini, M., Ibata, R., Monaco, L., Martin, N., Irwin, M. J., Lewis, G. F. 2004, MNRAS, 354,1263
345:
346: \bibitem[Binney]{Binney} Binney, J, Tremaine, S., Galactic Dynamics,Princeton
347: University Press, Princeton, New Jersey
348:
349: \bibitem[Bonifacio(2004)]{bonifacio04} Bonifacio, P., Monai, S., Beers, T. C., 2000, AJ, 120,2065
350:
351: \bibitem[Caldwell(1999)]{caldwell, N.} Caldwel, 1999, AJ, 118, 1230
352:
353:
354: \bibitem[Cardelli(1989)]{cardelli89}Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C.,
355: Mathis, J. S., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245
356: \bibitem[Carrera]{carrera} Carrera, R., Aparicio, A., Mart\'\i nez-Delgado, D., Alonso-Garc\'\i a, J. 2002, AJ, 123, 3199
357: \bibitem[girardi]{girardi} Girardi, L., Bressan, A., Bertelli, G., Chiosi, C. 2000, A\&AS, 141,371
358:
359: \bibitem[irwin]{irwin} Irwin, M. \& Hatzidimitriou, D. 1995, MNRAS, 317, 831
360:
361: \bibitem[johnston]{irwin} Johnston, K. V., Zhao, H., Spergel, D. N., Hernquist, L. 1999,\apj, 512, 109
362:
363: \bibitem[Navarro]{navarro} Navarro, J. F. 2004, in {\it Penetrating Bars through
364: Marks of Cosmic Dust'}, in press (astro-ph/0405947)
365: \bibitem[Majewski]{majewski} Majewski S. R. 2004, in {\it Satellites and Tidal Streams}, Prada, Mart\'\i nez-Delgado \&
366: Mahoney eds., San Francisco, ASP, ASP. Conference Series vol. 327, 63
367:
368: \bibitem[Martin(2004)]{martin04}Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Bellazzini, M.,
369: Irwin, M. J., Lewis, G. F., Dehnen, W., 2004a, MNRAS, 348, 12
370:
371: \bibitem[Martin(2004)]{martin04} Martin, N. F., Ibata, R. A., Conn,
372: B. C., Lewis, G. F., Bellazzini, M., Irwin, M. J., McConnachie, W., 2004b, MNRAS, 355, 33
373:
374: %\bibitem[Martinez(2004)]{martiney} Mart\'\i nez-Delgado, D., G\'omez-Flechoso, M. A., Aparicio, A., Carrera, R. 2004, ApJ, 601, 242
375:
376: \bibitem[Mateo(1998)]{mateo98} Mateo, M. L., 1998, ARAA, 36, 435
377: \bibitem[Momany]{momany} Momany, Y., Zaggia, S. R., Bonifacio, P., Piotto, G., De Anfeli, F., Bedin, L. R.,
378: Carraro, G. 2004, A\&A, 421, L29
379: \bibitem[Newberg]{newberg} Newberg, H. J. et al. 2002, ApJ, 596, L191
380:
381:
382: \bibitem[pasqualy]{pasqualy} Pasquali, A., Larsen, S., Ferreras, I., Gnedin, O. Y., Malhotra, S., Rhoads, J. E., Pirzkal, N., Walsh, J. R. 2005, AJ, 129, 148
383: \bibitem[Penarrubia et al. 2004]{pietr04} Pe\~narrubia, J., Mart\'\i nez-Delgado, D., Rix, H.-W., G\'omez-Flechoso, M. A., Munn, J., Newberg, H. J., Bell, E. F., Yanny, B., Zucker, D., Grebel, E. K. 2004, ApJ, in press (astro-ph/0410448)
384:
385: \bibitem[SFD98]{sfd98} Schlegel D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., Davis, M., 1998, ApJ,
386: 500, 525 (SFD98)
387: \bibitem[Stetson]{stetson} Stetson, P. B. 1994, PASP,106, 205
388: \bibitem[Yanny et al. 2003]{Yanny} Yanny, B. et al. 2003, ApJ, 588, 824
389:
390: \end{thebibliography}
391:
392: \newpage
393:
394:
395: \begin{figure}
396: \epsscale{1.0}
397: \plotone{f1.eps}
398: \caption{(a) $(B-R)$ vs. $R$ colour-magnitude diagrams of the center of the
399: CMa overdensity based on our short exposure data (see Sec. 3 for discussion). (b)A synthetic CMD (red points) for a metal rich population (see Sec.4.1) as a possible solution for the CMa stellar population is overplotted in the observed $(B-R)$ vs. $B$ CMD (black points). This diagram is only presented here with illustrative purpose in order to provide a better identification of those regions of the diagram populated by the brightest stars (red clump (RC), main-sequence (MS) and upper MS (BP) of the putative dwarf galaxy againts the
400: Galactic foreground and background contamination. \label{fig1}}
401: \end{figure}
402:
403: \begin{figure}
404: \epsscale{1.0}
405: \plotone{f2.eps}
406: \caption{ $(B-R)$ vs. $B$ colour-magnitude diagrams of the center of the
407: CMa dwarf galaxy based in our long exposure data. Photometry of stars brighter than $B\sim 20$ mag. suffers larger errors due to
408: CCD saturation, but they were included in the diagram as a guide for matching the MS feature in this figure and Fig.~\ref{fig1}b.
409: \label{fig2}}
410: \end{figure}
411:
412:
413: \begin{figure}
414: \epsscale{0.9}
415: \plotone{f3.eps}
416: %\plotone{figura3}
417: \caption{B-band histogram derived for the $B-R$ range 1.50-1.55\,mag in
418: the long exposure data. The corresponding histogram from a
419: synthetic CMD (4-10\,Gyr; Z = 0.006), is overlaid (dashed).
420: This synthetic CMD was computed by means of the IAC-STAR interface (Aparicio \& Gallart
421: 2004) using the evolutionary library from Girardi et al. (2000);
422: and considered a binary fraction (f) of 0.2
423: and 0.4 with a flat probability distribution of
424: mass ratios (q) between 0.1 and 1.
425: The model distributions are indistinguishable.
426: The overplotted bell-shaped curve (solid line) is the linear sum of a linear fit to the
427: underlying Milky Way stars (dotted line) and a Gaussian fit to the
428: remaining (i.e. CMa MS) histogram. See the text
429: in Section~\ref{CMa_size2} for
430: further details on data fitting and the MS width. \label{fig3}}
431: \end{figure}
432:
433:
434:
435: \clearpage
436:
437: \begin{table}
438: \begin{center}
439: \caption{Budget used to determine the thickness of the CMa MS and an MS model
440: with Z=0.006 and age of 4 to 10\,Gyr\label{tbl-1}}
441: \begin{tabular}{lr}
442: \tableline\tableline
443: Total observed main sequence width \\
444: $\sigma$$_{\rm MS,total,B}$ (mag) & 0.57 $\pm$ 0.06 \\
445: \tableline
446: Random errors \\
447: $\sigma_{\rm MS,int,B}$ (mag) & 0.19$^a$ \\
448: $\sigma_{\rm diff. red., B}$ (mag) & 0.29$^b$ \\
449: \tableline
450: Systematic error\\
451: model MSTO (adopted error) & 0.1 \\
452: Photometry calibration & 0.07 \\
453: \tableline
454: \end{tabular}
455: \tablenotetext{a}{Observational effect estimated from artificial star tests, based on a single age population,
456: and determined at B$\sim$22.1\,mag and B-R = 1.5 to 1.55\,mag.}
457: \tablenotetext{b}{Adopted the Cardelli, Mathis \& Clayton. (1989) reddening law and E(B-V)=0.08\,mag (see Sec.4.1)}
458: \end{center}
459: \end{table}
460:
461:
462:
463: \begin{table}
464: \begin{center}
465: \caption{Relevant properties of the CMa field. \label{tbl-2}}
466: \begin{tabular}{lc}
467: \tableline\tableline
468: l (deg) & 240.15 \\
469: b (deg) & -08.07 \\
470: E(B-V) (mag) & 0.08$\pm$0.07 \\
471: d (kpc) & 7.9 $\pm$ 0.3$^a$ \\
472: \tableline
473: $\Delta $d (kpc) & 1.60$\pm$ 0.30$^b$\\
474: r$_{1/2}$ (kpc) & 0.9$\pm$ 0.3 \\
475: \tableline
476: $\mu_{V, 0}$ (mag\,\,arcsec$^{-2}$) & 23.3$ \pm$ 0.1$^c$ \\
477: % M$_{V}$$^{e}$ (mag) & -14.5 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
478: % log\,(I$_{V}$/I$_{V,\odot}$)$^f$ & $<$ 7.7 $\pm$ 0.1 \\
479: \tableline
480: \end{tabular}
481: %\tablenotetext{a}{From stars in the WFI field of view assigned }
482: %\tablenotetext{b}{2$\times$$\sigma$ line-of-sight size}
483:
484: \tablenotetext{a}{Model used: Z=0.001, 4-10\,Gyr, f=0.2, q=0.1-1}
485: \tablenotetext{b}{2$\times$$\sigma$ line-of-sight size}
486: \tablenotetext{c}{Model used: Z=0.006, 4-10\,Gyr, f=0.2, q=0.1-1}
487: %\tablenotetext{b}{2$\times$$\sigma$ line-of-sight size}
488: %\tablenotetext{e}{ Logarithm of the estimated R-band intensity of CMa,
489: %log\,(I$_{\rm R}$) = 0.4(4.31 - M$_{\rm R}$)}
490: %\tablenotetext{e}{Model used: Z=0.006, 2.5-15\,Gyr. Adopted an exponential
491: % density profie for CMa (taken from Martin et al. 2004).}
492: %%\tablenotetext{f}{(M$_{\rm B}$+M$_{\rm R}$)/2}
493: %\tablenotetext{f}{ Logarithm of the estimated V-band intensity of CMa,
494: %log\,(I$_{\rm V}$) = 0.4(4.83 - M$_{\rm V}$)}
495: \end{center}
496: \end{table}
497:
498:
499: \end{document}
500: