Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Evolutionary Map of the Universe: Detection and Analysis of the Shell Surrounding the Runaway Wolf-Rayet Star WR16

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read ASKAP EMU data give the first radio-continuum detection of the shell surrounding Wolf-Rayet star WR16 at 943.5 MHz, with flux density 72.2±7.2 mJy, and place its outburst at roughly 9,500 years ago.

desk verdict First radio detection of WR16's shell is plausible and worth publishing, but the kinematic age, expansion velocity, and LBV conclusion rest on an unquantified center fit that a referee should probe. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.23588 v1 pith:C33NWUMO submitted 2025-06-30 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

A. C. Bradley , M. D. Filipović , Z. J. Smeaton , H. Sano , Y. Fukui , C. Bordiu , S. Cichowolski , N. F. H. Tothill
show 13 more authors
R. Z. E. Alsaberi F. Bufano S. Dai Y. A. Gordon A. M. Hopkins T. H. Jarrett B. S. Koribalski S. Lazarević C. J. Riseley G. Rowell M. Sasaki D. Urošević T. Vernstrom
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords Wolf-RayetstarWR16circumstellarshellradiocontinuumthermalemissionpropermotionLBVphasemass-lossrate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper reports the first radio-continuum detection of the ring-like circumstellar shell around the Wolf-Rayet star WR16 (a massive, late-stage star), made at 943.5 MHz in the ASKAP EMU survey. The shell has a flux density of 72.2±7.2 mJy, and the star's spectral index of $\alpha = +0.74\pm 0.02$ between 943.5 MHz and 8.64 GHz marks its emission as thermal; the authors argue the shell is also thermal because it appears in near-infrared and H$\alpha$ images. Using the Gaia parallax, they place WR16 at 2.28±0.09 kpc, making the 8.42-arcmin shell 5.57±0.22 pc across, and the Gaia proper motions give a north-west peculiar velocity of 50.7±6.9 km s$^{-1}$. Because that velocity vector passes through the shell's geometric centre, the star must have crossed that centre about 9500±1300 years ago, and the shell's radius then implies an average expansion velocity of 280±40 km s$^{-1}$. This expansion speed, between those of typical LBV shells and of Eta Carinae-like ejecta, is used to conclude that the star's preceding transitional phase was a Luminous Blue Variable epoch rather than a red supergiant one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the measured geometry: an extended, nearly circular radio shell fitted with an angular diameter of 8.42 arcmin at 943.5 MHz, overlaid with the Gaia proper-motion vector of the star. The star's peculiar velocity (50.7±6.9 km s$^{-1}$) points north-west and passes through the geometric centre of the circle; the offset between star and centre (44.81 arcsec, or 0.49 pc) divided by that velocity gives the crossing time of about 9500 years, and the shell radius (2.79 pc) divided by that time gives the average expansion speed of 280±40 km s$^{-1}$. The thermal interpretation rests on the spectral index $\alpha = +0.74 \pm 0.02$ computed from the new EMU point plus earlier ATCA points, with the shell's thermal nature inferred from its near-infrared and H$\alpha$ morphology; the Wright-Barlow free-free relations then convert the observed flux into the mass-loss rate and ionising-photon lower limit.

What would settle it

Measure the shell at a second radio frequency near 2 GHz with comparable angular resolution and fit its own spectral index: a value clearly below the flat free-free range would rule out the thermal-shell interpretation. Independently, re-fit the shell's centre with the bright north-west rim masked and compare with the Gaia proper-motion vector; a significantly shifted centre would alter the ~9,500-year age and 280 km s$^{-1}$ expansion velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We present the first radio-continuum detection of the circumstellar shell around the WN8-type Wolf-Rayet star WR16 at 943.5 MHz using ASKAP EMU data. The shell flux is 72.2±7.2 mJy; combined with archival ATCA measurements at 2.4, 4.8, and 8.64 GHz, the star's spectral index is $\alpha = +0.74 \pm 0.02$, indicating thermal free-free emission, and the shell's appearance in near-infrared and H$\alpha$ suggests it shares that thermal origin. From the Gaia DR3 parallax and proper motions we derive a distance of 2.28±0.09 kpc, a shell diameter of 5.57±0.22 pc, and a peculiar tangential velocity of 50.7±6.9 km s$^{-1}$ directed north-west, toward the brighter part of the shell. Because the proper-motion vector passes through the geometric centre of the fitted 8.42-arcmin circle, the shell's origin is placed at that centre, giving an age of roughly 9500±1300 yr and an average expansion velocity of 280±40 km s$^{-1}$, which supports an LBV rather than RSG transitional phase. The 943.5 MHz flux also yields a mass-loss rate of $1.753\times 10^{-5}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ and a lower limit on ionising photons of $N_{\rm UV} > 1.406\times 10^{47}$ s$^{-1}$.

Load-bearing premise

The derived age and expansion velocity assume the shell formed at the geometric centre of the fitted 8.42-arcmin circle and that WR16's current proper-motion velocity has been constant for about 9,500 years; if the bright north-west rim biases the fitted centre or the star's direction or speed changed, both numbers change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the age and expansion velocity hold, WR16's last major eruption occurred about 9,500 years ago and has been expanding at roughly 280 km s$^{-1}$, placing it between canonical LBV shell speeds near 50 km s$^{-1}$ and Eta Carinae-type ejecta near 600 km s$^{-1}$.
  • WR16 is moving toward the bright north-west rim of its shell, so the authors expect that rim to continue brightening as the star compresses it.
  • The derived mass-loss rate of $1.753\times10^{-5}$ $M_\odot$ yr$^{-1}$ is close to the canonical WN8 value, and the implied ionising-photon rate exceeds $1.4\times10^{47}$ s$^{-1}$, consistent with a thermal radio source.
  • The ~30 pc CO bubble expanding at ~7 km s$^{-1}$ with a ~4 Myr dynamical timescale is identified as a wind-blown bubble from WR16's main-sequence progenitor, linking the small inner shell to the star's earlier evolutionary stage.
  • EMU's sensitivity to diffuse, low-surface-brightness radio emission should reveal similar extended thermal shells around other Wolf-Rayet stars that have not been seen at centimetre wavelengths.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An optically thin thermal shell should have a spectral index near zero, so observing the shell alone at a second radio frequency would directly test the thermal-shell claim, which currently rests on the star's index and the shell's IR/H$\alpha$ appearance.
  • The geometric-centre-plus-proper-motion method could be applied to a sample of runaway Wolf-Rayet stars with circular nebulae; a clustering of derived expansion velocities near LBV values would give independent support for the LBV-before-WR interpretation.
  • If WR16 is indeed approaching its bright north-west rim, spatially resolved spectroscopy of that rim should show shocked or broadened H$\alpha$ emission; detecting such emission would confirm the interaction and give a direct, geometry-independent expansion measure.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports a 943.5 MHz ASKAP EMU detection of an extended shell around the Wolf-Rayet star WR16, with a measured shell flux density of 72.2±7.2 mJy and a stellar flux density of 0.35±0.04 mJy. Combining the EMU stellar flux with archival ATCA measurements yields a spectral index α = +0.74±0.02, interpreted as thermal free-free emission. The authors adopt a Gaia-based distance of 2.28±0.09 kpc, derive a shell diameter of 5.57±0.22 pc, use Gaia proper motions to estimate the shell age (~9500±1300 yr) and average expansion velocity (280±40 km/s), and conclude that the shell likely originated in an LBV phase. They also derive a mass-loss rate of 1.753×10^-5 M_sun/yr and a lower limit on ionizing photons N_UV > 1.406×10^47 s^-1, and report a candidate large-scale CO wind-blown bubble around the system.

Significance. If the detection and the kinematic interpretation hold, this is the first radio-continuum detection of the shell around WR16, a useful addition to the small sample of resolved circumstellar shells around Wolf-Rayet stars. The paper combines multi-wavelength archival data (ATCA, WISE, SuperCOSMOS, NANTEN CO, Gaia) with new ASKAP EMU imaging, and the astrometric use of Gaia proper motions to estimate a shell age is a valuable approach. The derived LBV-phase interpretation is physically interesting. However, the central claims rest on two pillars that need strengthening: the shell flux measurement is not described and its uncertainty is adopted rather than measured, and the age/expansion velocity rest on an unquantified geometric-center assumption and a constant-velocity assumption. The thermal nature of the shell is explicitly admitted to be inferred, not spectroscopically confirmed. These limitations do not invalidate the detection, but they require revision before the derived quantities can be considered robust.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, Table 1] The shell flux density measurement is not described. The paper does not state the aperture or integration region used to measure the 72.2±7.2 mJy shell flux, how background emission was subtracted, or how the bright north-west rim and the central point source were treated. The 10% uncertainty is adopted from Smeaton et al. (2024b) and Filipović et al. (2024) rather than derived from the present image noise and systematic effects. Since the shell detection is the central claim, please specify the measurement method and provide a detailed error budget, including the effect of the ~37 µJy/beam rms and possible contamination from the brighter NW rim.
  2. [§3.3] The age (~9500±1300 yr) and average expansion velocity (280±40 km/s) are derived assuming that the shell originated at the geometric center of the fitted 8.42-arcmin circle and that WR16's current transverse peculiar velocity (50.7±6.9 km/s) has been constant over ~10^4 yr. The circular fit is not described and no uncertainty is given for the fitted center. A center displacement of ~10 arcsec, which is plausible given the bright NW rim that the paper itself attributes to the star's motion, changes the age by ~22%, exceeding the quoted 14% uncertainty. The constant-velocity assumption is also untested; a binary kick or cluster ejection could have changed the PM direction over 9500 yr. Please quantify the fit uncertainty and assess the sensitivity of the age and expansion velocity to these assumptions, since the LBV-versus-RSG conclusion depends directly on them.
  3. [§3.1, §3.4] The thermal nature of the shell is inferred only from its morphology in Hα and WISE 22 µm images; the text admits that the shell has not been observed at other radio frequencies and that thermal origin cannot be confirmed from a spectral index. This inference is then used to support the physical interpretation. Please state explicitly that the shell's thermal nature is a working hypothesis, and discuss whether any other emission mechanism (e.g., non-thermal or bremsstrahlung from a shock) could produce the observed morphology. In addition, the mass-loss rate and N_UV lower limit assume that the stellar flux at 943.5 MHz is entirely free-free wind emission; please discuss variability and possible contamination from the shell or from unrelated background sources.
  4. [§3.4] The statement that recalculating Leitherer et al. (1995) mass-loss rate with a distance of 2.28 kpc gives 2.188×10^-5 M_sun/yr is not consistent with the Wright-Barlow scaling used in the same section: if the same observed flux is used, the mass-loss rate scales as d^{3/2}, which would give ≈3.8×10^-5 M_sun/yr for the original value, not 2.19×10^-5. If instead the calculation uses the new 943.5 MHz flux of 0.35 mJy, that should be stated explicitly. Please provide the full calculation with the numerical values substituted so that the comparison is reproducible.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract, §1] There are several typos: 'supported by the its appearance' in the abstract, 'W olf-Rayet' and 'A TCA' spacing in the text, and 'WR16 are released' in Section 3.4 should be 'WR16 releases' or 'WR16 emits'.
  2. [§3.5] The reference to 'Teleios (Filipović et al. submitted)' is incomplete; either provide a full citation or remove the name.
  3. [§3.4] The paper states that N_UV > 1.406×10^47 s^-1 is 'in concordance with the canonical value for WN8 stars of 1.259×10^49 s^-1', but the lower limit is two orders of magnitude below the canonical value and therefore does not actually constrain it. Please rephrase to avoid overinterpretation.
  4. [Table 1] The column headers 'S944', 'S2.40', 'S4.80', and 'S8.64' are not defined in the table caption; please add explicit frequency labels or a note explaining the notation.
  5. [§3.2] The CO bubble association is presented as plausible but the text says only that the objects 'appear to be physically associated'; please mark this clearly as a tentative suggestion and consider adding a quantitative morphological or kinematical test.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the derivation chain is self-contained and the central claims rest on independent measurements and stated assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an observational detection: the shell flux density of 72.2±7.2 mJy at 943.5 MHz is measured directly from EMU images, and the spectral index of the star is fitted to independent EMU and archival ATCA flux measurements. No equation defines a target result in terms of the same target. The shell's thermal nature is inferred from morphology and IR/H-alpha counterparts, not from a spectral index of the shell, so that inference is separate from the radio measurement. The mass-loss rate and ionising-photon lower limit come from standard Wright-Barlow formulae applied to the measured stellar flux and adopted distance; they are not fitted to the conclusions. The age (~9500 yr) and expansion velocity (~280 km/s) are derived in Section 3.3 from the Gaia proper motion and the offset between the star and the fitted geometric centre, under the explicitly stated assumption that the shell originated at that centre. That assumption is a kinematic model, not a circular input: the shell centre is fit to the observed ring, and the proper-motion direction is an independent Gaia measurement. The conclusion that the previous transitional phase was LBV rather than RSG is an output of comparing the derived expansion velocity with literature values, not an input to the age calculation. Self-citations are present (e.g., Smeaton et al. 2024b and Filipović et al. 2024 for the 10% flux error convention; Cichowolski et al. 2020 for comparison and method context), but none is load-bearing in a way that forces the claimed result, and no uniqueness theorem or ansatz is imported from author-only prior work. The skeptical concern about an unquantified centre fit or a constant-velocity assumption is a robustness or modelling limitation, not a circular reduction: it does not make any quoted equation equivalent to its own input. The derivation is therefore self-contained against external data and prior standard results.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced. The central derivation depends on standard astrometric assumptions, a geometric kinematic model for the shell's age, and standard stellar-wind radio models. The only hand-chosen numbers are the electron temperature and mean ionic charge in the mass-loss calculation, plus the adopted 10% flux uncertainty.

free parameters (3)
  • Assumed electron temperature for Gaunt factor = 10^4 K
    Used in Section 3.4 to compute gv=5.99 for the Wright-Barlow mass-loss formula; standard for ionized nebulae but not measured for this wind.
  • Assumed mean ionic charge Z = 1
    Same section; WR winds may be helium-dominated with higher Z, which would change the derived mass-loss rate.
  • Adopted flux uncertainty = 10%
    Section 3.1 assigns 10% error to the shell flux based on prior papers (Smeaton et al. 2024b; Filipović et al. 2024) rather than a measurement of the noise in the extraction region.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gaia DR3 parallax and proper motions are unbiased for this source
    No parallax zero-point correction is applied in Section 3.1; the distance 2.28 kpc is taken as 1/parallax.
  • ad hoc to paper The shell originated at the fitted geometric center and the star's current PM velocity has been constant since ejection
    Section 3.3 bases the 9500 yr age and 280 km/s expansion velocity on this kinematic assumption.
  • domain assumption The shell and star lie at the same distance and the fitted circular boundary is not biased by the bright NW edge
    Section 3.1 and 3.3; the shell size and age depend on this.
  • domain assumption The Wright-Barlow isothermal spherical wind model applies to WR16's radio emission
    Section 3.4 uses the model to convert 943.5 MHz flux into mass-loss rate.
  • domain assumption The CO bubble is physically associated with WR16
    Section 3.2 assumes the CO bubble is WR16's main-sequence wind bubble based on approximate geometric centering.
  • domain assumption Thermal radio emission is inferred from infrared and H-alpha counterparts
    Section 3.1 states the shell has no measured spectral index; the thermal classification relies on morphology and band association.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolutionary Map of the Universe: Detection and Analysis of the Shell Surrounding the Runaway Wolf-Rayet Star WR16." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/C33NWUMO

@misc{pith2026250623588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolutionary Map of the Universe: Detection and Analysis of the Shell Surrounding the Runaway Wolf-Rayet Star WR16},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/C33NWUMO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.23588}
}
abstract

We present the first radio--continuum detection of the circumstellar shell around the well-known WN8 type Wolf-Rayet star WR16 at 943.5\,MHz using the \ac{ASKAP} \ac{EMU} survey. At this frequency, the shell has a measured flux density of 72.2$\pm$7.2\,mJy. Using previous \ac{ATCA} measurements at 2.4, 4.8, and 8.64~GHz, as well as the \ac{EMU} observations of the star itself, we determine a spectral index of $\alpha\,=\,+0.74\pm0.02$, indicating thermal emission. We propose that the shell and star both exhibit thermal emission, supported by the its appearance in near-infrared and H$\alpha$ observations. The latest \textit{Gaia} parallax is used to determine a distance of 2.28$\pm$0.09\,kpc. This star is well-known for its surrounding circular nebulosity, and using the distance and an angular diameter of 8\farcm42, we determine the shell size to be 5.57$\pm$0.22~pc. We use the \textit{Gaia} \acp{PM} of WR16 to determine peculiar velocities of the star as $V_{\alpha}(pec) =$ --45.3$\pm$5.4\,\kms\ and $V_{\delta}(pec) =$ 22.8$\pm$4.7\,\kms, which indicates that the star is moving in a north-west direction, and translates to a peculiar tangential velocity to be 50.7$\pm$6.9\,\kms. We also use these \acp{PM} to determine the shell's origin, estimate an age of $\sim 9500\pm 1300$\,yr, and determine its average expansion velocity to be $280\pm40$\,\kms. This average expansion velocity suggests that the previous transitional phase is a \ac{LBV} phase, rather than a \ac{RSG} phase. We also use the measured flux at 943.5~MHz to determine a mass-loss rate of $1.753\times 10^{-5}~M_\odot~$yr$^{-1}$, and use this to determine a lower-limit on ionising photons of $N_{UV} > 1.406\times 10^{47}~$s$^{-1}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.23588 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. EMU detection of WR16 and its inner shell at 943.5 MHz. The image is linearly scaled and the 15′′ beam size is presented by the small white circle in the bottom-left of the image. The white square indicates the position of WR16, the dashed circle shows the position of the ‘inner’ circular shell. The dashed polygons labelled 1 and 2 indicate the position of ‘outer’ shell remnants (described in (Marston, 1995; Cichowo… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Detection of WR16 and its shell at 22µm from WISE infrared (Left), and SuperCOSMOS Hα (Right). Both sub-images are linearly scaled. 2). We then calculate the peculiar tangential velocity to be 50.7±6.9 km s–1 . We measure the inner WR16 nebula to have a flux density of 72.2±7.2 mJy at 943.5 MHz, taking an error of 10% (as discussed in Smeaton et al., 2024b; Filipović et al., 2024). We also measure the flux density o… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) – Distribution of the NANTEN 12CO(J = 1–0) line emission toward WR16 (Mizuno & Fukui, 2004). The integration velocity range is from –7 to 0 km s–1 . The incomplete circular shell indicates a wind-blown bubble detected in CO (see section 3.2). The dashed circle shows the position of the inner circular shell of WR16. (b,c) – Position–velocity diagrams of CO. The integration range of Right Ascension is from 149. ◦3… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral index plot of WR16 star, using flux density values from [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Measurements of the circular nebulosity surrounding WR16 and peculiar velocity mapped over the EMU image, similar to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    Abdollahi, S., Acero, F., Baldini, L., et al. 2022, ApJS, 260, 53

    2022

  2. [2]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Mantelet, G., & Andrae, R. 2018, AJ, 156, 58

    2018

  3. [3]

    H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LA T collaboration

    Ballet, J., Bruel, P., Burnett, T. H., Lott, B., & The Fermi-LA T collaboration. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2307.12546

    arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    D., Umana, G., et al

    Bordiu, C., Filipović, M. D., Umana, G., et al. 2024, A&A, 690, A53

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    C., Smeaton, Z

    Bradley, A. C., Smeaton, Z. J., Tothill, N. F. H., et al. 2025, PASA, e032

    work page 2025

  6. [6]

    2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 684, A150

    Burger-Scheidlin, C., Brose, R., Mackey, J., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astro- physics, 684, A150

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    M., Leitherer, C., Koribalski, B., Bouter, R., & Storey, M

    Chapman, J. M., Leitherer, C., Koribalski, B., Bouter, R., & Storey, M. 1999, ApJ, 518, 890

    1999

  8. [8]

    U., Suad, L

    Cichowolski, S., Duronea, N. U., Suad, L. A., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 495, 417 Comerón, F., & Pasquali, A. 2007, A&A, 467, L23

    work page 2020

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Crowther, P. A. 2007, ARA&A, 45, 177

    2007

  2. [10]

    M., & Williams, P

    Dougherty, S. M., & Williams, P. M. 2000, MNRAS, 319, 1005 Filipović, M. D., Payne, J. L., Alsaberi, R. Z. E., et al. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 265 Filipović, M. D., Dai, S., Arbutina, B., et al. 2023, The Astronomical Journal, 166, 149 Fili...

    2000

  3. [11]

    2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.003

    Guzman, J., Whiting, M., V oronkov, M., et al. 2019, ASKAPsoft: ASKAP science data processor software, Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1912.003

    2019

  4. [12]

    C., MacGillivray, H

    Hambly, N. C., MacGillivray, H. T., Read, M. A., et al. 2001, MNRAS, 326, 1279

    2001

  5. [13]

    M., Kapinska, A., Marvil, J., et al

    Hopkins, A. M., Kapinska, A., Marvil, J., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2505.08271

    2025

  6. [14]

    W., Bunton, J

    Hotan, A. W., Bunton, J. D., Chippendale, A. P., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astronomical society of Australia, 38, e009

    2021

  7. [15]

    R., Lennon, M., et al

    Langer, N., Hamann, W. R., Lennon, M., et al. 1994, A&A, 290, 819 Lazarević, S., Filipović, M. D., Koribalski, B. S., et al. 2024a, Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society, 8, 107 Lazarević, S., Filipović, M. D., Dai, S., et al. 2024b, Publications of the Astronomi...

    1994

  8. [16]

    M., & Koribalski, B

    Leitherer, C., Chapman, J. M., & Koribalski, B. 1995, ApJ, 450, 289 —. 1997, ApJ, 481, 898

    1995

  9. [17]

    Marston, A. P. 1995, AJ, 109, 1839

    1995

  10. [18]

    A., & Krełowski, J

    Megier, A., Strobel, A., Galazutdinov, G. A., & Krełowski, J. 2009, A&A, 507, 833

    2009

  11. [19]

    2024, A&A, 682, A34

    Merloni, A., Lamer, G., Liu, T., et al. 2024, A&A, 682, A34

    2024

  12. [20]

    2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol

    Mizuno, A., & Fukui, Y. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Confer- ence Series, V ol. 317, Milky Way Surveys: The Structure and Evolution of our Galaxy, ed. D. Clemens, R. Shah, & T. Brainerd, 59

    2004

  13. [21]

    P., Hopkins, A

    Norris, R. P., Hopkins, A. M., Afonso, J., et al. 2011, Publications of the Astronomical society of Australia, 28, 215

    2011

  14. [22]

    P., Marvil, J., Collier, J

    Norris, R. P., Marvil, J., Collier, J. D., et al. 2021, Publications of the Astro- nomical society of Australia, 38, e046

    2021

  15. [23]

    Nugis, T., & Lamers, H. J. G. L. M. 2000, A&A, 360, 227

    2000

  16. [24]

    1975, A&A, 39, 1

    Panagia, N., & Felli, M. 1975, A&A, 39, 1

    1975

  17. [25]

    2025, A&A, 693, L15

    Sasaki, M., Zangrandi, F., Filipović, M., et al. 2025, A&A, 693, L15

    2025

  18. [26]

    J., Teuben, P

    Sault, R. J., Teuben, P. J., & Wright, M. C. H. 1995, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 77, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems IV, ed. R. A. Shaw, H. E. Payne, & J. J. E. Hayes, 433

    1995

  19. [27]

    R., & Wessolowski, U

    Schmutz, W., Hamann, W. R., & Wessolowski, U. 1989, A&A, 210, 236

    1989

  20. [28]

    M., Moffat, A

    Shara, M. M., Moffat, A. F. J., Gerke, J., et al. 2009, AJ, 138, 402

    2009

  21. [29]

    Smith, L. J. 1991, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 143, W olf-Rayet Stars and Interre- lations with Other Massive Stars in Galaxies, ed. K. A. van der Hucht & B. Hidayat, 385

    1991

  22. [30]

    I., et al

    Steffen, W., Teodoro, M., Madura, T. I., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 442, 3316 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18 Toalá, J. A., Guerrero, M. A., Ramos-Larios, G., & Guzmán, V. 2015, A&A, 578, A66

    2014

  23. [31]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27 van der Hucht, K. A. 2001, New A Rev., 45, 135

    2001

  24. [32]

    E., et al

    Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261

    2020

  25. [33]

    2011, in IAU Symposium, V ol

    Weis, K. 2011, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 272, Active OB Stars: Structure, Evo- lution, Mass Loss, and Critical Limits, ed. C. Neiner, G. Wade, G. Meynet, & G. Peters, 372–377

    2011

  26. [34]

    E., & Barlow, M

    Wright, A. E., & Barlow, M. J. 1975, MNRAS, 170, 41

    1975

  27. [35]

    L., Eisenhardt, P

    Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R. M., Mainzer, A. K., et al. 2010, AJ, 140, 1868

    2010

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.