1: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{aastex}
3:
4: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
5:
6: %\documentclass{emulateapj}
7:
8: %\slugcomment{Submitted to The Astrophysical Journal}
9: \slugcomment{Accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal}
10:
11: \shorttitle{Diameter of $\lambda$~Boo}
12:
13: \shortauthors{Ciardi et al.}
14:
15: \begin{document}
16:
17: \title{
18: The Angular Diameter of $\lambda$ Bo\"{o}tis}
19:
20: \author{David R. Ciardi, Gerard T. van Belle, Andrew F. Boden}
21: \affil{Michelson Science Center/Caltech\\
22: 770 South Wilson Avenue, M/S 100-22
23: Pasadena, CA 91125}
24: \email{ciardi@ipac.caltech.edu}
25:
26: \author{T. ten Brummelaar, H. A. McAlister, W.G. Bagnuolo, Jr.\\
27: P. J. Goldfinger, J. Sturmann, L. Sturmann, N. Turner, } \affil{Center for
28: High Angular Resolution Astronomy, Department of Physics and Astronomy,
29: Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302-4106}
30:
31: \author{D. H. Berger}
32:
33: \affil{University of Michigan, Dept.~of Astronomy,\\ Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1042}
34:
35: \author{R. R. Thompson}
36: \affil{Michelson Science Center/Caltech\\
37: 770 South Wilson Avenue, M/S 100-22
38: Pasadena, CA 91125}
39:
40: \and
41:
42: \author{S. T. Ridgway}
43: \affil{National Optical Astronomy Observatories\\
44: P.O. Box 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726-6732}
45:
46:
47: \begin{abstract}
48:
49: Using the CHARA Array and the Palomar Testbed Interferometer, the chemically
50: peculiar star $\lambda$ Bo\"{o}tis has been spatially resolved. We have
51: measured the limb darkened angular diameter to be $\theta_{LD} =
52: 0.533\pm0.029$ mas, corresponding to a linear radius of $R_{\star} =
53: 1.70\pm0.10$~$R_\odot$. The measured angular diameter yields an effective
54: temperature for $\lambda$~Boo of $T_{eff} = 8887 \pm 242$~K. Based upon
55: literature surface gravity estimates spanning $\log{(g)} = 4.0-4.2$ $[\rm{cm\
56: s}^{-\rm{2}}]$, we have derived a stellar mass range of $M_{\star} = 1.1 -
57: 1.7$ $M_\odot$. For a given surface gravity, the linear radius uncertainty
58: contributes approximately $\sigma(M_\star) = 0.1-0.2\ M_\odot$ to the total
59: mass uncertainty. The uncertainty in the mass (i.e., the range of derived
60: masses) is primarily a result of the uncertainty in the surface gravity. The
61: upper bound of our derived mass range ($\log(g)=4.2,\ M_\star = 1.7\pm0.2\
62: M_\odot$) is consistent with $100-300$ MYr solar-metallicity evolutionary
63: models. The mid-range of our derived masses ($\log(g)=4.1,\ M_\star =
64: 1.3\pm0.2\ M_\odot$) is consistent with $2-3$ GYr metal-poor evolutionary
65: models. A more definitive surface gravity determination is required to
66: determine a more precise mass for $\lambda$~Boo.
67:
68: \end{abstract}
69:
70: \keywords{stars -- stars: individual ($\lambda$ Bo\"{o}tis) -- stars:
71: fundamental parameters -- techniques: interferometric: circumstellar material
72: -- infrared}
73:
74: \section{Introduction \label{intro-sec}}
75:
76: $\lambda$~Bo\"otis stars are a chemically peculiar class of late-B to mid-F
77: stars \citep{mkk43}. The stars are depleted of heavy elements like Mg and Fe
78: ($[{\rm M}/{\rm H}] = -2.0$), but exhibit solar abundances for light elements
79: such as C, N, O, and S \citep[e.g.,][]{hs83,gray88,vl90}. Approximately 2\%
80: of the known A-stars in the field have been classified as $\lambda$ Boo-type
81: stars \citep{gc02}. On an HR diagram the $\lambda$ Boo stars appear to lie
82: between the zero-age and terminal age main sequences clouding the nature and
83: evolutionary status of these stars \citep{pg97,gc02}. \citet{solano01}
84: provides an introduction into the competing theories for the nature of the
85: $\lambda$ Boo stars, briefly summarized here.
86:
87: The first hypothesis is that $\lambda$~Boo stars are young main sequence stars
88: which are still surrounded by a shell or disk of gas and dust \citep{vl90}.
89: The heavy, refractory elements are locked within the surrounding dust grains.
90: The volatile elements remain in the gas and accrete onto the star, while the
91: dust grains are blown away by the stellar radiation pressure taking the heavy
92: elements with them, requiring the presence of circumstellar dust. All four of
93: the known $\lambda$ Boo stars within 40 pc have detected infrared excesses
94: \citep{gc02,jura05,rieke05,chen06} indicative of circumstellar dust. A
95: continual accretion of the light gases at a rate of $\approx10^{-13}\ M_\odot\
96: yr^{-1}$ \citep{charbonneau93} is needed. Once the accretion stops, the
97: observed metal deficiencies fade within a million years. It is unclear if the
98: surrounding disks contain enough light element gases to sustain the needed
99: accretion rate over the main sequence lifetime of the star.
100:
101: In this model, $\lambda$ Boo stars would be relatively young (tens to
102: hundreds of MYr) with solar-metallicity but with metal-deficient
103: photospheres. \citet{gc98} obtained spectra of 60 Herbig Ae and pre-main
104: sequence A-stars, which, in this scenario, would be expected to contain a
105: higher fraction of $\lambda$~Boo stars than the general field, but found only
106: one $\lambda$ Boo star and one marginal $\lambda$ Boo star, a rate comparable
107: to the field star rate.
108:
109: A variation of this hypothesis places the $\lambda$~Boo stars at the end of
110: their main sequence lifetimes, and the shell is the result of mass loss.
111: After $10^9$ years of mass loss, diffusion in the atmosphere produces
112: underabundances of the heavier elements \citep{mc86}. However, it is not
113: clear if this mechanism can produce the strong underabundances of heavy
114: elements that is observed in the $\lambda$ Boo stars. In this hypothesis,
115: $\lambda$ Boo stars would be relatively old (a few GYr). At these ages, the
116: $\lambda$ Boo stars may be intrinsically more metal-poor than comparable
117: A-stars which are younger.
118:
119: Interestingly, \citet{paunzen02} concluded that the field $\lambda$ Boo stars
120: are located relatively homogeneously throughout their main sequence
121: evolution. Based upon comparison to solar-metallicity isochrones, they find
122: a uniform distribution of ages for $\lambda$ Boo stars between 10 Myr to 500
123: Myr. This is followed by a rise in the number of $\lambda$ Boo stars at an
124: age of 0.6-1 Gyr, at which point the fraction of $\lambda$ Boo stars relative
125: to normal A-stars is higher than at younger ages.
126:
127: An alternative hypothesis is that $\lambda$~Boo stars are binary stars with
128: both stars being of similar spectral type. The composite spectrum produces
129: an apparent under-abundance of heavy elements \citep[e.g.,][]{fb99,gfl03}. A
130: complementary proposal is that $\lambda$~Boo stars are actually contact
131: binary stars \citep{andrievsky97}. The composite colors of the star would
132: look normal, but the spectral abundances would appear ``metal-poor''
133: \citep{fb05}.
134:
135: Nearly all of the work on $\lambda$~Boo stars has involved detailed color
136: and/or spectral analysis of the stars to determine effective temperatures,
137: surface gravities, and elemental abundances. Determinations of basic stellar
138: parameters, such as the stellar radii and masses, have been made indirectly
139: from photometric fitting and comparison to evolutionary models. Optical
140: interferometry, which is capable of resolving the stellar disk can add
141: crucial and independent information to the debate on $\lambda$~Boo stars.
142:
143: We have made the first direct measurements of the angular diameter of the
144: prototype for the class, $\lambda$~Bo\"otis \citep[HD 125162, A3 V
145: kB9.5mB9.5;][]{gray03}, using the Georgia State University's (GSU) Center for
146: High Angular Resolution Astronomy (CHARA) Array and the Palomar Testbed
147: Interfometer (PTI). The CHARA Array with its long baselines ($200 - 300$ m)
148: is uniquely suited for observations of absolute diameters of main sequence
149: stars, thereby, providing a unique perspective on the evolutionary status of
150: $\lambda$~Boo.
151:
152: \section{Observations and Data Reduction \label{obs-sec}}
153:
154: $\lambda$~Boo was observed, in conjunction with two calibration stars, with
155: the CHARA Array at 2.2~$\mu$m on 4 nights between 2004 Jun 17 and 2004 Jun 29,
156: utilizing the W1-E1 and E1-S1 baselines. It was then observed two years later
157: on 2006 Jun 29 and 2006 Jun 30 with the E1-S1 baseline at 1.67 \micron.
158: $\lambda$~Boo, along with the calibration stars HD 125349 and HD 129002, was
159: observed multiple times during each of these nights, and each observation, or
160: scan, was approximately 200 s long. Observations of both calibrators bracketed
161: each observation of $\lambda$~Boo.
162:
163: For each scan, we computed a mean $V^2$-value from the scan data, and the
164: error in the $V^2$ estimate from the rms internal scatter \citep{ten05}.
165: $\lambda$~Boo was always observed in combination with its calibration sources
166: HD 125349 and HD 129002. The calibrators (see Table \ref{calib-tab}) are
167: expected to be unresolved by the interferometer with estimated angular sizes
168: of $0.198\pm0.012$ mas and $0.286\pm0.018$ mas, respectively. These angular
169: size estimates were based upon fitting template spectral energy distributions
170: (SED) of the proper spectral type from \citet{pic98} to available broadband
171: photometry available from IRSA\footnote{NASA's Infrared Science Archive} and
172: SIMBAD. These objects were additionally selected to be slow apparent rotators,
173: with $v \sin i <$ 30 km s$^{-1}$ to ensure the stars are circularly symmetric
174: \citep{ues82,henry00}.
175:
176: The calibration of the $\lambda$~Boo $V^2$ data is performed by estimating
177: the interferometer system visibility ($V_{sys}^2$) using the calibration
178: source with model angular diameters and then normalizing the raw
179: $\lambda$~Boo visibility by $V_{sys}^2$ to estimate the $V^2$ measured by an
180: ideal interferometer at that epoch \citep{moz91,boden98}. Uncertainties in
181: the system visibility and the calibrated target visibility are inferred from
182: internal scatter among the data in a scan and standard error-propagation
183: calculations. More detail on the CHARA target and calibrator selection, data
184: reduction, and technical aspects for the CHARA Array is available in the
185: literature \citep{mca05,ten05,vanbelle06}.
186:
187: In addition to the CHARA Array data, observations of $\lambda$~Boo were
188: obtained from the Palomar Testbed Interferometer \citep[PTI;][]{colavita99}
189: archive\footnote{The archive is available at the Michelson Science Center
190: (http://msc.caltech.edu).}. $\lambda$~Boo was observed with PTI in 2000,
191: 2003, and 2004 with the N-S, N-W, and S-W baselines (85-100~m) at both K and
192: H bands. The PTI observations utilized the same calibrators as the CHARA
193: observations.
194:
195: Keeping the CHARA and PTI data separate, the data were grouped by baseline.
196: The CHARA data were binned such that the bin widths were $<2\%$ of the central
197: baseline length. The PTI data were binned by baseline configuration (e.g.,
198: N-S) and by wavelength (K-band vs. H-band). For each bin, the mean baseline
199: lengths, position angles, and effective wavelengths were calculated, weighted
200: by the quality of the $V^2$ measurements. An error-weighted mean $V^2$ was
201: calculated for each bin. The resulting data are presented in Table
202: \ref{meanv2-tab}, and the resulting visibility plot is shown in Figure
203: \ref{v2-fig}.
204:
205: \section{Discussion \label{disc-sec}}
206: The primary result of this paper is the measurement of the apparent angular
207: diameter for $\lambda$~Boo. In the following sections, we discuss the angular
208: diameter determination and the associated linear radius of $\lambda$~Boo. We
209: then relate these measurements to the effective temperature and mass,
210: comparing $\lambda$~Boo to other A-stars.
211:
212: \subsection{Angular Diameter \label{angd-subsec}}
213:
214: We have modelled the observed mean visibilities as listed in Table
215: \ref{meanv2-tab} with a uniform disk of angular size $\Theta_{UD} $ of the
216: form:
217: \begin{equation}
218: V^2 = \left[\frac{2J_1(\pi\Theta_{UD}(B/\lambda))} {\pi\Theta_{UD}(B/\lambda)
219: }\right]^2
220: \end{equation}
221: where $J_1$ is the first order Bessel function, $B$ is the projected baseline
222: length, $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the observations, and $\Theta_{UD}$ is
223: the apparent uniform disk angular diameter. The best fit uniform disk diameter
224: was found to be $ \Theta_{UD}= 0.527 \pm 0.028$ mas, ($\chi^2_\nu \sim 0.4$).
225:
226: Limb darkening in A stars in the near-infrared is expected to be relatively
227: low \citep[e.g.][]{cdg95}; however, assuming that the star is a simple uniform
228: disk will cause an underestimation of the true, limb-darkened disk size of the
229: star by approximately 1\%. Assuming a linear limb darkening law, the
230: visibility function for a linear limb darkened stellar disk model can be
231: parameterized as:
232: \begin{equation}
233: V^2 = \left[\frac{1-\mu_{\lambda}}{2} + \frac{\mu_{\lambda}}{3}\right]^{-2}
234: \left[\frac{(1-\mu_{\lambda})J_1[\pi(B/\lambda)\Theta_{LD}]} {
235: \pi(B/\lambda)\Theta_{LD}} + \frac{(\mu_{\lambda})j_1[\pi(B/\lambda)
236: \Theta_{LD}]} {\pi(B/\lambda)\Theta_{LD}}\right]^2
237: \end{equation}
238: where $\mu_\lambda$ is the linear limb darkening coefficient($\mu \approx
239: 0.16$ for $\lambda$~Boo; \citet{cdg95}), $j_1$ is the first order spherical
240: Bessel function, and $\Theta_{LD}$ is the apparent stellar limb darkened disk
241: angular diameter \citep{hb74}. The limb-darkening in the infrared for A-stars
242: is sufficiently small that a large change in $\mu_\lambda$ (25\%) results in a
243: very small change in the derived angular diameter ($\lesssim 0.5\%$). The best
244: fit limb darkened stellar disk diameter was determined to be $\Theta_{LD} =
245: 0.533\pm0.029$ mas. In Figure \ref{v2-fig}, we present the visibility curve
246: for $\lambda$~Boo with the best fit limb-darkened stellar disk model
247: overlayed, along with the 1-$\sigma$ model fitting boundaries.
248:
249: The measured angular diameter is in agreement with the angular diameter as
250: predicted from interferometrically calibrated radius-color relationships for
251: single stars \citep[$\Theta_{predict}\approx 0.54-0.56$ mas;
252: ][]{vanbelle99,kervella04}. Speckle observations of $\lambda$~Boo
253: \citep{mca89} detected no companion brighter than $\Delta m \lesssim 2$ mag,
254: with a minimum separation of $0\farcs03$ ($30\ {\rm mas} \approx 1$ AU at the
255: distance of $\lambda$~Boo). Further, Hipparcos observations of $\lambda$~Boo
256: display no signatures of a companion star or higher-order acceleration terms
257: in the parallactic solutions \citep{perryman97}. Finally, the interferometric
258: data presented here, spanning of nearly six years, are all consistent with a
259: single-star model (see Figure \ref{v2-fig}).
260:
261: The interferometric data do not represent a definitive null result for the
262: existence of a companion star to $\lambda$~Boo. However, if $\lambda$~Boo
263: contains an unrecognized (i.e., unknowingly detected) binary companion
264: ($\Delta\rm{K} \gtrsim 1.5-2$), the presence of a companion in the
265: interferometric data would {\em lower} the observed visibility amplitudes (as
266: compared to a single star) and lead to an {\em over-estimation} of the stellar
267: angular diameter. That, in turn, would imply that the true stellar radius is
268: {\em smaller} than observed. Thus, the single-star assumption leads to an
269: upper limit (within the measurement uncertainties) of the stellar radius.
270:
271: \subsection{Radius and Mass \label{radmass-subsec}}
272:
273: The parallax of $\lambda$~Boo, as measured by Hipparcos, is $\pi =
274: 33.58\pm0.61$ mas \citep[$d = 29.78_{-0.53}^{+0.55}$
275: pc;][]{perryman97,hwp02}. Taking the limb darkened stellar radius
276: as the Rosseland (photospheric) angular diameter, we derive a linear
277: radius for $\lambda$~Boo of $R_\star = 1.70\pm0.10\ R_\odot$.
278:
279: If we combine the linear radius with a surface gravity, we can derive an
280: estimate for the mass of $\lambda$ Boo. \citet{ck01} fit the IUE spectrum of
281: $\lambda$ Boo with an atmosphere model that is metal-poor in all the heavy
282: elements (${\rm[M/H]}=0.0$) except for C, N, \& O. They found the best fit
283: model to have a temperature of 8500-8600 K and a surface gravity of $\log{(g)}
284: = 4.0$ $[\rm{cm\ s}^{-\rm{2}}]$. They note that \citet{breger76}, by fitting
285: to only the visible part of the spectrum, determined a best fit temperature
286: and surface gravity of 8550 K and $\log{(g)} = 4.1$ $[\rm{cm\ s}^{-\rm{2}}]$.
287: Using photometric relationships, \citet{chen06} derive a surface gravity of
288: $\log{(g)} = 4.198$ $[\rm{cm\ s}^{-\rm{2}}]$.
289:
290: From this surface gravity range, we infer a stellar mass range for
291: $\lambda$~Boo of $M_\star = 1.1-1.7 M_\odot$. For a given surface gravity,
292: the linear radius uncertainty contributes approximately $\sigma(M_\star) =
293: 0.1-0.2\ M_\odot$ to the total mass uncertainty. Thus, the uncertainty in the
294: mass (i.e., the range of masses derived) is primarily a result of the
295: uncertainty in the surface gravity.
296:
297: In comparison, we have derived the masses for $\beta$ Leo (A3V), Sirius (A1V),
298: and Vega (A0V), three well-studied early A-type main sequence stars that have
299: had their diameters measured directly. Of these three A-stars, $\beta$~Leo is
300: the closest to $\lambda$~Boo in spectral type (A3V {\it vs.} A3V kB9.5mB9.5),
301: and provides the best comparison to $\lambda$~Boo.
302:
303: $\beta$ Leo and Sirius have limb darkened angular diameters of
304: $\Theta_{\beta\rm{Leo}} = 1.45\pm0.03$ mas \citep{difolco04} and
305: $\Theta_{\rm{Sirius}} = 6.01\pm0.02$ mas \citep{kervella03}. Combined with the
306: parallaxes $(\pi = 90.16\pm0.89\ \&\ 379.21\pm1.58$ mas), we derive linear
307: radii of $R_{\beta\rm{Leo}} = 1.72\pm0.04\ R_\odot$ and $R_{\rm{Sirius}} =
308: 1.71\pm0.01\ R_\odot$ -- very similar to the radius measured for
309: $\lambda$~Boo. With respective surface gravities of $\log{(g)} = 4.26$
310: $[\rm{cm\ s}^{-\rm{2}}]$ \citep{en03} and $\log{(g)} = 4.31$ $[\rm{cm\
311: s}^{-\rm{2}}]$ \citep{su89}, the derived masses of $\beta$ Leo and Sirius are
312: $M_{\beta\rm{Leo}} = 1.97\pm0.09\ M_\odot$ and $M_{\rm{Sirius}} = 2.01\pm0.05\
313: M_\odot$. Vega is larger ($R \approx 2.5\ R_\odot$) and more massive
314: ($M_{\rm{Vega}} = 2.3\pm0.2\ M_\odot$) than $\lambda$~Boo, $\beta$~Leo, and
315: Sirius \citep{aufdenberg06}.
316:
317: The distribution of derived stellar mass as a function of surface gravity for
318: $\lambda$~Boo is shown in Figure \ref{mass-fig}. The figure demonstrates that
319: the mass for $\lambda$~Boo is in rough agreement (within $1\sigma$) with the
320: mass of $\beta$~Leo and Sirius if the surface gravity for $\lambda$~Boo is
321: $\log{(g)} \approx 4.2$. If the surface gravity is nearer to $\log{(g)} = 4.0$
322: or $\log{(g)} = 4.1$ as indicated by the detailed UV and optical spectral
323: fitting, then the derived mass for $\lambda$~Boo is $2-3\sigma$ below that
324: found for the three young A-stars $\beta$~Leo, Sirius, and Vega.
325:
326: We note here that the known debris disk surrounding Vega was likely detected
327: with the interferometric observations at PTI \citep{ciardi01} and
328: independently with observations at the CHARA Array \citep{absil06}.
329: $\lambda$~Boo has a stronger mid-infrared excess than Vega, indicative of
330: circumstellar material surrounding the star which is the primary reason for
331: the conjectured association of $\lambda$~Boo stars with Vega-like stars
332: \citep[e.g.,][]{jura05,rieke05,chen06}. There is no evidence in our data that
333: the circumstellar material has been detected by the CHARA Array. However, {\em
334: if} the surrounding shell and/or disk indeed had been detected, the
335: circumstellar material would serve to make $\lambda$~Boo appear {\em larger}
336: than it actually is, yielding an upper limit to the stellar radius and mass.
337:
338: \subsection{Evolutionary Status and Age \label{age-subsec}}
339:
340: Previous estimates of the mass of $\lambda$~Boo have been made by placing it
341: on a luminosity-temperature HR diagram \citep{ib95, paunzen97, paunzen02} and
342: comparing its position to that of solar-metallicity stellar evolutionary
343: models \citep{schaller92, claret95, morel97}. These works report a $\lambda$
344: Boo effective temperature range of $T_{eff} \approx 8600 - 8900$ K and a
345: luminosity range of $L_{\star} \approx 15 - 24$ $L_\odot$ (see Table 4 in
346: \citet{paunzen02} for a summary). The inferred mass range, from comparison to
347: the solar metallicity stellar evolutionary models, of these works is
348: $M_{\star} \approx 2.0 - 2.1$ $M_\odot$. We wish to place $\lambda$~Boo on a
349: luminosity-temperature HR diagram to explore the differences between our {\em
350: derived} mass for $\lambda$~Boo and the {\em inferred} mass by previous works.
351:
352: The measured angular diameter allows us to derive the effective temperature of
353: $\lambda$~Boo via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation:
354: \begin{equation}
355: T_{eff} = \left[\frac{L_{\star}}{4\pi\sigma R_\star^2}\right]^{1/4} =
356: \left[\frac{F_{bol}D_\star^2}{\sigma R_\star^2}\right]^{1/4}
357: \end{equation}
358: where $L_\star$ is the luminosity, $R_\star$ is the stellar radius, $\sigma$
359: is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, $F_{bol}$ is the bolometric flux and
360: $D_\star$ is the is the distance to the star. In terms of the angular diameter
361: in milli-arcsec ($\Theta$) and in units of $10^{-10}$~W~m$^{-2}$ for
362: $F_{bol}$, equation (3) may be written as
363: \begin{equation}
364: T_{eff} = 4163\left[\frac{F_{bol}}{\Theta^2}\right]^{1/4}.
365: \end{equation}
366:
367: The bolometric flux for $\lambda$~Boo was estimated by fitting the
368: ultra-violet (IUE) to near-infrared (2MASS) spectral energy distribution with
369: templates from \citet{lcb97} (Figure \ref{sed-fig}). The bolometric flux is
370: $F_{bol} = 5.901\pm0.041 \times 10^{-10}$~W~m$^{-2}$. At a distance of $d =
371: 29.78_{-0.53}^{+0.55}$ pc, this corresponds to a luminosity of $L_\star = 16.3
372: \pm 0.6$~$L_\odot$. Combined with the limb darkened angular diameter, we
373: derive an effective temperature of $T_{eff} = 8887\pm242$~K. Our temperature
374: estimate is in good agreement with temperatures reported in the literature
375: which range from 8550~K \citep{ck01} to 8920~K \citep{hhk99}.
376:
377: Using the interpolator provided with the the Yonsei-Yale (Y$^2$) stellar
378: evolutionary models \citep{demarque04}, we have generated isochrones and
379: evolutionary tracks for solar metallicity (z=0.02, ${\rm[M/H]}\approx 0.0$)
380: and sub-solar metallicity (z=0.0002, ${\rm[M/H]}\approx -2.0$). For the mass
381: tracks, the stellar masses span $0.8 - 2.7\ M_\odot$ in steps of $0.1\
382: M_\odot$, evolved across both the pre-main sequence and post-main sequence.
383: The HR diagrams, in terms of stellar luminosity vs. effective temperature as
384: represented by the Y$^2$ models, are shown in Figure \ref{lumtemp-fig}. The
385: position of $\lambda$~Boo, as measured by the interferometers, is marked in
386: each of the HR diagrams.
387:
388: The position of $\lambda$~Boo on the solar-metallicity diagram ({\em top}
389: Figure \ref{lumtemp-fig}) implies that $\lambda$~Boo should have a stellar
390: mass of $M_\star = 1.9-2.1\ M_\odot$, in agreement with the upper bound
391: derived for the mass of $\lambda$~Boo ($\log(g)=4.2,\ M_\star = 1.7\pm0.2\
392: M_\odot$). If $\lambda$~Boo is represented by the solar metallicity models,
393: the star is fairly young with an age of $8 - 300$ Myr. This age would be
394: consistent with $\lambda$~Boo being related to the Vega-like stars (i.e.,
395: stars with dusty debris disks), but being younger than Vega itself
396: \citep{jura05,rieke05}.
397:
398: In contrast, placing $\lambda$~Boo on a set of sub-solar metallicity models
399: ({\em bottom} Figure \ref{lumtemp-fig}), the (post)-main sequence models imply
400: a stellar mass of $M_\star = 1.2-1.4\ M_\odot$, in agreement with the
401: mid-range for the mass derived from our observations ($\log(g)=4.1,\ M_\star =
402: 1.3\pm0.2\ M_\odot$). The pre-main sequence tracks imply a slightly larger
403: stellar mass of $M_\star = 1.5-1.6\ M_\odot$.
404:
405: The ages associated with the sub-solar metallicity pre- and post-main sequence
406: tracks are quite different from each other. For these models, if $\lambda$~Boo
407: is a pre-main sequence star, it would need to be extremely young ($3-4$ Myr).
408: At such a young age, the star should be associated with the Herbig AeBe
409: (HAeBe) stars. Yet, $\lambda$~Boo shows no Balmer emission lines
410: \citep[e.g.,][]{ib98}, an observational requirement of the HAeBe stars
411: \citep{the94}. Additionally, at a galactic position of $l=86^\circ,
412: b=65^\circ, d=29.8\ {\rm pc}$, $\lambda$~Boo is not directly associated with
413: any molecular clouds or regions of high extinction \citep{lucke78,gvb93}.
414: These discrepancies suggest that $\lambda$~Boo, if best described by the
415: sub-solar metallicity evolutionary tracks, is not $3-4$ Myr old.
416:
417: If $\lambda$~Boo is a post-main sequence star, the sub-solar metallicity
418: models place it at an age of $2-3$ Gyr, and the star is at (or past) the
419: terminal age for the main sequence. We note here that this independent
420: assessment of the age of $\lambda$~Boo is in general agreement with the
421: results of \citet{paunzen02} who found that the $\lambda$~Boo stars span an
422: age range of 10 Myr to 1.5 Gyr with a strong peak near 1.0 Gyr.
423:
424: \section{Summary \label{sum-sec}}
425:
426: We have presented the first direct determination of the angular size of the
427: chemically peculiar star $\lambda$ Bo\"otis. The infrared interferometric
428: observations made use of the longest baselines on the CHARA Array and the
429: Palomar Testbed Interferometer. The primary result of this work is the direct
430: determination of the limb darkened angular diameter of $\lambda$~Boo, which
431: was measured to be $\Theta_{LD} = 0.533\pm0.029$ mas. A full summary of the
432: stellar parameters derived from the spatially resolved interferometric
433: observations are presented in Table \ref{starparam-tab}.
434:
435: In combining our independently determined stellar radius with previous
436: determinations of the surface gravity, we have calculated a stellar mass range
437: for $\lambda$~Boo of $M_\star = 1.1-1.7\ M_\odot$. The radius determination
438: contributes $0.1-0.2\ M_\odot$ to the uncertainty. The remainder of the mass
439: uncertainty is contributed entirely by the uncertainty in surface gravity
440: ($\log{(g)} = 4.0-4.2$).
441:
442: Solar-metallicity (z=0.02, ${\rm[M/H]}\approx 0.0$) stellar evolutionary
443: models predict that $\lambda$~Boo should have a mass nearer to $1.9-2.1\
444: M_\odot$, in agreement with the upper bound of our mass determination
445: ($\log(g)=4.2,\ M_\star = 1.7\pm0.2\ M_\odot$). Metal-poor (z=0.0002,
446: ${\rm[M/H]}\approx -2.0$) stellar evolutionary models predict a mass $1.2-1.4\
447: M_\odot$ in agreement with the mid-range of our interferometrically derived
448: mass ($\log(g)=4.1,\ M_\star = 1.3\pm0.2\ M_\odot$). A more definitive
449: surface gravity determination is required to distinguish between these two
450: sets of models.
451:
452: \acknowledgments
453:
454: The authors would like to thank the entire staff at the CHARA Array for
455: without them this work would not have been possible. Portions of this work
456: were performed at the California Institute of Technology under contract with
457: the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. This research has been
458: supported by National Science Foundation grants AST-0307562 and AST-0606958 to
459: Georgia State University. Additional support has been received from the
460: Research Program Enhancement program administered by the Vice President for
461: Research at Georgia State University. Work done with the Palomar Testbed
462: Interferometer was performed at the Michelson Science Center, California
463: Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and
464: Space Administration. Interferometer data were obtained at Palomar Observatory
465: using the NASA PTI, supported by NASA contracts to the Jet Propulsion
466: Laboratory. Science operations with PTI are conducted through the efforts of
467: the PTI Collaboration, and we acknowledge the invaluable contributions of our
468: PTI colleagues.
469:
470: This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive, which
471: is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of
472: Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space
473: Administration. This research has made use of data obtained from the High
474: Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), provided by
475: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. This research has made use of the SIMBAD
476: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France.
477:
478: \begin{thebibliography}{500}
479:
480: \bibitem[Absil et al.(2006)]{absil06} Absil, O., et al.\ 2006,
481: \aap, 452, 237
482:
483: \bibitem[Andrievsky(1997)]{andrievsky97}Andrievsky, S. M. 1997, \aap, 321, 838
484:
485: \bibitem[Aufdenberg et al.(2006)]{aufdenberg06} Aufdenberg, J.~P.,
486: et al.\ 2006, \apj, 645, 664
487:
488: \bibitem[Baschek \& Searle(1969)]{bs69} Baschek, B. \& Searle, L. 1969, \apj,
489: 155, 537
490:
491: \bibitem[Boden et al.(1998)]{boden98}Boden, A.F, et al., 1998, \apjl, 504, L39
492:
493: \bibitem[Breger(1976)]{breger76} Breger, M. 1976, \apjs, 32, 7
494:
495: \bibitem[Castelli \& Kurucz(1994)]{ck94} Castelli, F., \&
496: Kurucz, R.~L.\ 1994, \aap, 281, 817
497:
498: \bibitem[Castelli \& Kurucz(2001)]{ck01} Castelli, F., \&
499: Kurucz, R.~L.\ 2001, \aap, 372, 260
500:
501: \bibitem[Charbonneau(1993)]{charbonneau93} Charbonneau, P. 1993, \apj, 405,
502: 720
503:
504: \bibitem[Chen et al.(2006)]{chen06} Chen, C. H. et al. 2006, \apjs, 166, 351
505:
506: \bibitem[Ciardi et al.(2001)]{ciardi01} Ciardi, D.~R., et al.
507: 2001, \apj, 559, 1147
508:
509: \bibitem[Claret(1995)]{claret95} Claret, A.\ 1995, \aaps, 109,
510: 441
511:
512: \bibitem[Claret, D\'{i}az-Cordov\'{e}s, \& Gim\'{e}nez(1995)]{cdg95}
513: Claret, A., D\'{i}az-Cordov\'{e}s, J., \& Gim\'{e}nez, A. 1995, \aap, 114, 247
514:
515: \bibitem[Colavita(1999)]{colavita99} Colavita, M. M. et al. 1999, \apj,
516: 510, 505
517:
518: \bibitem[Cowley et al.(1969)]{cowley69} Cowley, A., Cowley, C., Jaschek, M.,
519: \& Jaschek, C.\ 1969, \aj, 74, 375
520:
521: \bibitem[Demarque et al.(2004)]{demarque04}Demarque, P., Woo,
522: J.-H., Kim, Y.-C., \& Yi, S.~K.\ 2004, \apjs, 155, 667
523:
524: \bibitem[Di Folco et al.(2004)]{difolco04} Di Folco, E.,
525: Th{\'e}venin, F., Kervella, P., Domiciano de Souza, A., Coud{\'e} du Foresto,
526: V., S{\'e}gransan, D., \& Morel, P.\ 2004, \aap, 426, 601
527:
528: \bibitem[Erspamer \& North(2003)]{en03} Erspamer, D., \& North, P. 2003, \aap 398, 1121
529:
530: \bibitem[Faraggiana \& Bonifacio(1999)]{fb99} Faraggiana, R. \& Bonifacio, P.
531: 1999, \aap, 349, 521
532:
533: \bibitem[Faraggiana \& Bonifacio(2005)]{fb05} Faraggiana, R. \& Bonifacio, P.
534: 2005, \aap, 436, 697
535:
536: \bibitem[Gaustad \& van Buren(1993)]{gvb93} Gaustad, J.~E.,
537: \& van Buren, D.\ 1993, \pasp, 105, 1127
538:
539: \bibitem[Gerbaldi, Faraggiana, \& Lai(2003)]{gfl03}
540: Gerbaldi, M., Faraggiana, R., \& Lai, O. 2003, \aap, 412, 447
541:
542: \bibitem[Gray(1988)]{gray88} Gray, R. O. 1988, \aj, 95, 220
543:
544: \bibitem[Gray \& Corbally(1998)]{gc98} Gray, R. O. \& Corbally, C. J. 1998,
545: \aj, 116, 2993
546:
547: \bibitem[Gray \& Corbally(2002)]{gc02} Gray, R. O. \& Corbally, C. J. 2002,
548: \apj, 124, 989
549:
550: \bibitem[Gray et al.(2003)]{gray03}Gray, R.~O., Corbally,
551: C.~J., Garrison, R.~F., McFadden, M.~T., \& Robinson, P.~E.\ 2003, \aj, 126,
552: 2048
553:
554: \bibitem[Hanbury Brown et al.(1974)]{hb74}Hanbury Brown, R., Davis, J.,
555: Lake, R. J. W., \& Thompson, R. J. 1974, \mnras, 167, 475
556:
557: \bibitem[Hauck \& Slettebak(1983)]{hs83}Hauck, B., \& Slettebak, A. 1983,
558: \aap, 127, 231
559:
560: \bibitem[Heiter, Weiss, \& Paunzen(2002)]{hwp02}Heiter, U., Weiss, W. W., \&
561: Paunzen, E., 2002, \aap, 381, 971
562:
563: \bibitem[Henry et al.(2000)]{henry00} Henry, G.~W., Fekel,
564: F.~C., Henry, S.~M., \& Hall, D.~S.\ 2000, \apjs, 130, 201
565:
566: \bibitem[Holweger, Hempel, \& Kamp(1999)]{hhk99}Holweger, H.,
567: Hempel, M. \& Kamp, I. 1999, \aap, 350, 603
568:
569: \bibitem[Iliev \& Barzova(1995)]{ib95} Iliev, I. Kh. \& Barzova, I. S. 1995,
570: \aap, 302, 735
571:
572: \bibitem[Iliev \& Barzova(1998)]{ib98} Iliev, I.~K., \&
573: Barzova, S.~I.\ 1998, Contributions of the Astronomical Observatory Skalnate
574: Pleso, 27, 441
575:
576: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2003)]{kervella03} Kervella, P.,
577: Th{\'e}venin, F., Morel, P., Bord{\'e}, P., \& Di Folco, E.\ 2003, \aap, 408,
578: 681
579:
580: \bibitem[Kervella et al.(2004)]{kervella04} Kervella, P.,
581: Th{\'e}venin, F., Di Folco, E., \& S{\'e}gransan, D.\ 2004, \aap, 426, 297
582:
583: \bibitem[Jura et al.(2005)]{jura05} Jura, M. et al. 2005, \apjs, 153, 453
584:
585: \bibitem[Lejeune et al.(1997)]{lcb97} Lejeune, T., Cuisinier,
586: F., \& Buser, R.\ 1997, \aaps, 125, 229
587:
588: \bibitem[Lucke(1978)]{lucke78} Lucke, P.~B.\ 1978, \aap, 64,
589: 367
590:
591: \bibitem[McAlister et al.(1989)]{mca89}McAlister, H.A., et al. 1989, \aj, 97, 510
592:
593: \bibitem[McAlister et al.(2005)]{mca05}McAlister, H.A., et al. 2005, \apj, 628, 439
594:
595: \bibitem[Michaud \& Charland(1986)]{mc86} Michaud, G. \& Charland, Y. 1986,
596: \apj, 311, 326
597:
598: \bibitem[Morel(1997)]{morel97} Morel, P.\ 1997, \aaps, 124, 597
599:
600: \bibitem[Morgan, Keenan, \& Kellman(1943)]{mkk43} Morgan,W.W.,Keenan, P. C., \&
601: Kellman, E. 1943, An Atlas of Stellar Spectra (University of Chicago Press)
602:
603: \bibitem[Mozurkewich et al.(1991)]{moz91}Mozurkewich, D., et al., 1991, \aj, 101, 2207
604:
605: \bibitem[Paunzen(1997)]{paunzen97} Paunzen, E. 1997, \aap, 326, L29
606:
607: \bibitem[Paunzen \& Gray(1997)]{pg97} Paunzen, E. \& Gray, R. O. 1997, \aaps,
608: 126, 407
609:
610: \bibitem[Paunzen et al.(2002)]{paunzen02} Paunzen, E., Iliev,
611: I.~Kh., Kamp, I., \& Barzova, I.~S.\ 2002, \mnras, 336, 1030
612:
613: \bibitem[Perryman(1997)]{perryman97}Perryman, M. A. C. 1997, The HIPPARCOS and
614: TYCHO catalogues. Astrometric and photometric star catalogues derived from the
615: ESA HIPPARCOS Space Astrometry Mission (ESA SP Ser. 1200)
616:
617: \bibitem[Pickles(1998)]{pic98} Pickles, A.~J.\ 1998, \pasp, 110, 863
618:
619: \bibitem[Rieke et al.(2005)]{rieke05} Rieke, G. H. et al. 2005, \apj,
620: 620, 1010
621:
622: \bibitem[Sadakane \& Ueta(1989)]{su89} Sadakane, K., \& Ueta, M.\ 1989, \pasj, 41, 279
623:
624: \bibitem[Schaller et al.(1992)]{schaller92} Schaller, G.,
625: Schaerer, D., Meynet, G., \& Maeder, A.\ 1992, \aaps, 96, 269
626:
627: \bibitem[Solano et al.(2001)]{solano01} Solano, E., Paunzen, E., Pintado, O.
628: I., \& Varela, J. 2001, \aap, 374, 957
629:
630: \bibitem[Slettebak(1954)]{slettebak54}Slettebak, A.\ 1954, \apj, 119, 146
631:
632: \bibitem[ten Brummelaar et al.(2005)]{ten05}ten Brummelaar, T., et al., 2005,
633: \apj, 628, 453
634:
635: \bibitem[Th\'{e} et al.(1994)]{the94} Th\'{e}, P.~S., de Winter, D.,
636: \& Perez, M.~R.\ 1994, \aaps, 104, 315
637:
638: \bibitem[Uesugi \& Fukuda(1982)]{ues82}Uesugi, A., Fukuda, I., 1982,
639: Revised Catalogue of Stellar Rotational Velocities
640:
641: \bibitem[van Belle(1999)]{vanbelle99} van Belle, G.~T. 1999, \pasp, 11, 1515
642:
643: \bibitem[van Belle et al.(2006)]{vanbelle06} van Belle, G.~T., et
644: al.\ 2006, \apj, 637, 494
645:
646: \bibitem[Venn \& Lambert(1990)]{vl90}Venn, K. A. \& Lambert, D. L. 1990, \apj,
647: 363, 234
648:
649: \end{thebibliography}
650:
651:
652: \newpage
653:
654: %**********
655: % Table 1
656: %**********
657: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
658: \tablecolumns{4}
659: \tablewidth{0pc}
660: \tablecaption{Calibration Stars \label{calib-tab} }
661: \tablehead{ \colhead{Star} & \colhead{$\theta_{EST}$\tablenotemark{a}} &
662: \colhead{Distance from} & \colhead{Spectral}\\
663: \colhead{} & \colhead{(mas)} & \colhead{$\lambda$~Boo (deg)} & \colhead{Type}
664: } \startdata
665: HD 129002 & $0.198 \pm 0.012$ & 4.3 & A1 V \\
666: HD 125349 & $0.286 \pm 0.018$ & 5.3 & A1 IV \\
667: \enddata
668: \tablenotetext{a}{Estimated angular diameters derived from spectral
669: energy distribution modeling.}
670: \end{deluxetable}
671:
672: %**********
673: % Table 2
674: %**********
675:
676: \begin{deluxetable}{ccrccc}
677: \tablecolumns{5} \tablecaption{Weighted Mean Visibilities
678: \label{meanv2-tab}}
679: \tablewidth{0pt}
680: \tablehead{ & \colhead{Number of} & \colhead{Mean\tablenotemark{a}} &
681: \colhead{Mean\tablenotemark{a}}
682: & \colhead{Mean\tablenotemark{a}} & \colhead{Mean\tablenotemark{b}}\\
683: \colhead{Array} & \colhead{Points in} & \colhead{Projected} &
684: \colhead{Position Angle} & \colhead{Effective} & \colhead{Normalized}\\
685: & \colhead{Average} & \colhead{Baseline} & \colhead{E. of N.} &
686: \colhead{Wavelength} & \colhead{V$^2$}
687: \\
688: & & \colhead{$(\rm{m})$} & \colhead{$(\rm{deg})$} & \colhead{($\mu$m)}
689: }
690: \startdata
691: CHARA & 3 & 226.7 (3.7) & 291.0 (1.1) & 2.133 & $0.803\pm0.057$\\
692: CHARA & 4 & 241.0 (1.1) & 295.6 (1.0) & 2.133 & $0.897\pm0.051$\\
693: CHARA & 3 & 251.5 (1.8) & 299.8 (0.8) & 2.133 & $0.753\pm0.050$\\
694: CHARA & 3 & 258.6 (3.3) & 303.3 (2.6) & 2.133 & $0.824\pm0.066$\\
695: CHARA & 3 & 328.1 (2.0) & 191.8 (4.0) & 1.673 & $0.573\pm0.081$\\
696: PTI & 20 & 85.8 (0.9) & 241.9 (7.7) & 2.217 (0.005) & $0.999\pm0.020$\\
697: PTI & 11 & 85.0 (1.0) & 325.7 (7.6) & 2.214 (0.002) & $0.962\pm0.036$\\
698: PTI & 25 & 108.5 (0.6) & 191.3 (6.6) & 2.242 (0.008) & $0.965\pm0.040$\\
699: PTI & 6 & 109.0 (0.1) & 179.6 (6.1) & 1.641 (0.001) & $0.911\pm0.040$\\
700: \enddata
701: \tablenotetext{a}{Values in parentheses represent the rms
702: dispersions.}
703: \tablenotetext{b}{Uncertainties derived from the
704: weighted mean.}
705: \end{deluxetable}
706:
707:
708: %**********
709: % Table 3
710: %**********
711: \begin{deluxetable}{ccccc}
712: \tablecolumns{3}
713: \tablewidth{0pc}
714: \tablecaption{$\lambda$ Bo\"otis Stellar Properties \label{starparam-tab} }
715: \tablehead{
716: \colhead{Parameter} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Value Using} & Units & Reference\\
717: & \colhead{$[{\rm M}/{\rm H}]=0.0$ } & \colhead{$[{\rm M}/{\rm
718: H}]=-2.0$} }
719: \startdata
720: Parallax & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$33.58\pm0.61$} & mas & 5 \\
721: Limb Darkened Diameter & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$0.533\pm0.029$} & mas & 1 \\
722: Linear Radius & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.70\pm0.10$} & R$_\odot$ & 1 \\
723: $v \sin{(i)}$ & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$100\pm10$} & km s$^{-1}$ & 4\\
724: Bolometric Flux & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$5.901\pm0.041$} & $10^{-10}$ W
725: m$^{-2}$ & 1 \\
726: Luminosity & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$16.3\pm0.6 $} & L$_\odot$ & 1\\
727: Effective Temperature &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$8887\pm242$}& K & 1 \\
728: Surface Gravity & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$4.0 - 4.2$} & $\log{[{\rm cm\ s}^{-1}}]$ & 2,3 \\
729: Mass & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1.1 - 1.7$\tablenotemark{a}} & M$_\odot$ & 1 \\
730: Pre-MS Age & $8-30$ & $3-4$ & Myr & 1\\
731: Post-MS Age & $0.08-0.3$ & $2-3$ & Gyr & 1\\
732: Model Mass Range & $1.9-2.0$ & $1.3-1.6$ & M$_\odot$ & 1
733: \enddata
734: \tablenotetext{a}{The radius uncertainty contributes approximately an
735: uncertainty of 0.1-0.2 $M_\odot$ for a given value of the surface gravity.
736: The range in mass represents the range in surface gravity.} \tablerefs{ 1.
737: This Work; 2. \citet{ck01}; 3. \citet{chen06}; 4. \citet{hwp02}; 5.
738: \citet{perryman97} }
739:
740: \end{deluxetable}
741:
742: \clearpage
743:
744:
745: \begin{figure}[ht]
746:
747: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7,keepaspectratio=true]{f1.eps}
748:
749: \figcaption{Normalized visibility vs. spatial frequency for $\lambda$ Boo
750: as listed in Table \ref{meanv2-tab}. Data obtained with the CHARA Array
751: are shown with the filled circles; data obtained with PTI are shown with
752: the open squares. Error bars represent 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties. The
753: solid line represents the best-fit limb-darkened stellar disk model fit.
754: The dashed lines represent the 1-$\sigma$ fitting uncertainties.
755: \label{v2-fig} }
756:
757: \end{figure}
758:
759: \begin{figure}[ht]
760:
761: \includegraphics[angle=90,scale=0.7,keepaspectratio=true]{f2.eps}
762:
763: \figcaption{Model spectral energy distribution and flux density data for
764: $\lambda$ Boo. The horizontal error-bars represent the bandwidths
765: associated with the observations. The data have been fit with a 8750 K
766: ${\rm[M/H]}=-2.0$ template from \citet{lcb97}. \label{sed-fig} }
767:
768:
769: \end{figure}
770:
771: \begin{figure}[ht]
772:
773: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.9,keepaspectratio=true]{f3.eps}
774:
775: \figcaption{A plot of the derived stellar mass for $\lambda$~Boo as a
776: function of surface gravity. The solid line represents the linear radius
777: ($R_\star = 1.7~R_\odot$) as derived from the measured angular diameter.
778: The dashed lines represent the $1\sigma$ uncertainty limits for
779: $\lambda$~Boo. The vertical dotted lines delineate the range of surface
780: gravity $(\log{(g)} = 4.0-4.2)$ for $\lambda$~Boo, as discussed in the
781: text. For comparison, the light gray region marks the derived mass of
782: Vega; the dark gray region marks the derived mass for Sirius, and the
783: hatched region marks the derived mass for $\beta$~Leo. \label{mass-fig} }
784:
785:
786: \end{figure}
787:
788: \begin{figure}[ht]
789: %\vspace*{0.5in}
790: \epsscale{0.7}
791:
792: \plotone{f4.eps}
793:
794: \figcaption{The derived linear radius and effective temperature for
795: $\lambda$~Boo are shown versus the pre-main sequence evolutionary tracks
796: (dashed black lines) and (post-)main sequence evolutionary tracks (solid
797: black lines) for the Y$^2$ stellar evolutionary models. {\em Top}: Models
798: for a metallicity of $[{\rm M}/{\rm H}] \approx 0.0$. {\em Bottom}: Models
799: for a metallicity of $[{\rm M}/{\rm H}] \approx -2.0$. The stellar mass
800: for each track is labelled in solar masses. The solid blue and solid red
801: lines in each panel represent pre- and post-main sequence isochrones,
802: respectively. For the solar metallicity models ({\em top}), the two
803: pre-main sequence isochrones (blue) correspond to 8 Myr and 30 Myr, and
804: the two post-main sequence isochrones (red) correspond to 80 Myr and 300
805: Myr. For the metal-poor models ({\em bottom}), the pre-main sequence
806: (blue) and post-main sequence (red) isochrones correspond to 3 \& 4 Myr
807: and 2.6 \& 2.8 Gyr, respectively. \label{lumtemp-fig} }
808:
809: \end{figure}
810:
811:
812: \end{document}
813: