Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Tidal-locking-induced stellar rotation dichotomy in the open cluster NGC 2287?

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rotation, not age, splits NGC 2287's main sequence in two.

desk verdict A careful v sin i measurement that supports rotation as the driver of NGC 2287's split main sequence, but the claimed dichotomy relies on excluding three unconfirmed binaries and the abstract overstates the case. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06530 v1 pith:FCUHT4FU submitted 2019-08-18 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.GA

Weijia Sun , Chengyuan Li , Licai Deng , Richard de Grijs This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.GA
keywords openclustersstellarrotationsplitmainsequencevsinitidallockingNGC2287spectroscopycolor-magnitudediagram
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

In the ~200 Myr-old open cluster NGC 2287, the main sequence splits into a blue branch and a red branch. The paper shows that the two branches are locked to stellar rotation: blue main-sequence stars rotate slowly, red main-sequence stars rapidly, with projected velocities that separate cleanly. Forward modeling of the observed $v\sin i$ distribution rejects uniform rotation or spin-aligned explanations and favors a bimodal equatorial velocity distribution peaking near 100 km/s and 280 km/s. The authors argue that the slow rotators were once fast stars braked by tidal locking with low-mass-ratio binary companions, linking the split to binarity. If correct, this makes stellar rotation, not age spread, the cause of split main sequences in young clusters.

What carries the argument

The central machinery pairs measurements of projected rotational velocities $v\sin i$ from synthetic-spectrum fits to the Mg I triplet with a three-case forward model that separates inclination effects from the underlying equatorial velocity distribution. The decisive test is Case 3: a bimodal $v_{\rm eq}$ distribution with uniformly random inclinations, which fits the observed cumulative $v\sin i$ distribution far better than a uniform rotation distribution (Case 1) or a spin-aligned distribution (Case 2). The tidal-locking interpretation leans on the synchronization timescale formula of Hurley et al. (2002) with the Zahn (1975) tidal coefficient $E_2$, which shows that close binaries with $a\lesssim 7\,R_\odot$ synchronize in a few million years, well below the cluster age.

What would settle it

Time-domain photometry of the four slow-rotating red main-sequence stars: if the three without confirmed companions show no eclipses or radial-velocity variations over several nights, they are likely single low-inclination stars, weakening the claimed dichotomy. Independently, a search for short-period, low-mass-ratio binaries in NGC 2287 that finds far fewer than the tidal-locking scenario requires would falsify the braking origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the double main sequence in NGC 2287 is a rotation effect, not an age effect or differential reddening. Using high-resolution spectra of 53 bright members, the authors measure projected rotational velocities from the Mg I triplet and find that blue main-sequence stars have a mean $\langle v\sin i\rangle = 111 \pm 13$ km/s while red main-sequence stars (excluding four probable binaries) average $255 \pm 10$ km/s. A forward model that allows a bimodal distribution of true equatorial velocities $v_{\rm eq}$ with uniformly random inclinations reproduces the data (K-S test $p=0.99$) with peaks at $v_s = 100$ km/s and $v_r = 280$ km/s and a 1:1 number ratio; uniform-velocity or spin-aligned models fail. The interpretation is that the slow rotators were born fast and were tidally locked by short-period, low-mass-ratio companions, since the synchronization timescale for a $2\,M_\odot$ primary with separation $a \lesssim 7\,R_\odot$ is short compared with the cluster age. This is presented as the first evidence for a dichotomous true-rotation-velocity distribution in a star cluster.

Load-bearing premise

The clean separation between fast and slow rotators rests on treating four slow-rotating red main-sequence stars as unresolved binaries; if even one of the three unconfirmed cases is a single star viewed at low inclination, the velocity gap between the two sequences shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Split main sequences seen in young clusters in the Magellanic Clouds and the Milky Way are rotation-driven; apparent age spreads inferred from extended main-sequence turn-offs may be artifacts of rotation.
  • Rotational-velocity distributions in clusters can be genuinely bimodal, with a fast population near a few hundred km/s and a slow population near 100 km/s, in roughly equal numbers in NGC 2287.
  • Tidal locking in short-period, low-mass-ratio binaries is an efficient braking mechanism that can create a slow-rotating population within about 10% of a cluster's age.
  • The scenario implies that NGC 2287 should host a large population of short-period binaries with low-mass companions; time-domain observations of the blue main-sequence stars can test this directly.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the slow rotators are tidally locked binaries, their spin axes should be aligned with their orbital axes; measuring spin-orbit alignment in NGC 2287 could independently confirm or refute the braking mechanism.
  • The 1:1 ratio of fast to slow rotators may be a fingerprint of the cluster's binary fraction and period distribution, so comparing young clusters with different binary fractions could predict which ones display split main sequences.
  • The assumption that three low-$v\sin i$ red-sequence stars are unresolved binaries is testable with time-domain photometry; if any of them is single, the clean velocity gap between the two sequences would narrow, though the bimodal fit to the full sample might survive.
  • The bimodal peaks at 100 and 280 km/s may evolve with cluster age if tidal braking continues or if rotational mixing changes surface velocities, so older clusters could show a different gap or a merged distribution.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports projected rotational velocities (v sin i) for 53 bright member stars in the young open cluster NGC 2287, measured from archival FLAMES/GIRAFFE spectra by fitting synthetic Mg I triplet profiles. The authors find that the blue and red main sequences defined in the Gaia CMD are populated by slow and fast rotators, with mean projected velocities of about 111 and 255 km/s after excluding four slow-rotating rMS stars as presumed binaries. Forward modeling of the v sin i distribution rejects uniform rotation and a spin-aligned configuration and favors, in Case 3, a bimodal equatorial-velocity distribution with peaks near 100 and 280 km/s and a number ratio nr/ns = 1. The paper interprets the slow rotators as initially rapid rotators that were tidally locked by low-mass-ratio binary companions and concludes that stellar rotation drives the split main sequence.

Significance. If correct, this would be one of the first direct spectroscopic demonstrations that a split main sequence in a Galactic open cluster corresponds to a dichotomous rotation distribution, materially strengthening the rotation-based interpretation of split MSs and providing a concrete testbed for tidal-locking models. The v sin i measurements are described carefully, with uncertainties calibrated through mock spectra; the Gaia DR2 membership selection and pseudo-color construction are appropriate; and the tidal-locking timescale calculation yields an explicit, falsifiable prediction. The main caveats are the small sample (33 split-MS stars), the unconfirmed binary nature of three slow rMS stars, and the model-dependence of the bimodal veq inference. The CMD-position versus v sin i correlation itself is independent evidence and not circular, but the derived bimodal veq distribution is partly assumption-driven.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Figure 5 and Table 1] The central dichotomy claim rests on excising four slow-rotating rMS stars from the rMS sample. Only Gaia ID 2927008980887462400 is a confirmed double-lined spectroscopic binary; the other three (2926994824683234944, 2926916175231589888, 2927008431139550080) are assumed to be binaries without time-domain photometry, as the text acknowledges. If any of these are single stars viewed at low inclination, the bMS/rMS velocity separation weakens and the Case 3 fit parameters (vs, vr, nr/ns) will shift. Please present the analysis with these three stars included, and either confirm their binarity with time-series photometry or explicitly reframe the headline conclusion as conditional on the binary assumption.
  2. [§4, Case 3 and Figure 6] The claim of a dichotomous true equatorial-velocity distribution is the output of a maximum-p search over a grid of free parameters (vs, vr, velocity dispersion, nr/ns, maximum veq), and the reported p = 0.99 is the best median p over that grid. This is an in-sample model-selection procedure, so the p-value is not a valid significance level for the bimodal model against the unimodal alternatives. A calibrated comparison (for example, a likelihood-ratio test with a null distribution obtained from simulations, or a posterior-predictive check) is needed before the word 'dichotomous' can be asserted as an empirical result.
  3. [§3, Spearman coefficient] The Spearman correlation of 0.68 between pseudo-color and v sin i is computed for the bMS and rMS samples after the four slow rMS stars have been excluded. Those are precisely the stars that bridge the two velocity groups, so the correlation may be inflated by the selection. Please report the correlation and p-value for the full split-MS sample, and for the sample with the confirmed binary removed but the three unconfirmed stars retained, so the reader can judge how much of the claimed correlation depends on the binary assumption.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3, mean rMS velocity] The mean rMS velocity is labeled '⟨v sin i⟩bMS = 255 ± 10 km/s'; this should be ⟨v sin i⟩rMS.
  2. [§2.1, parallax selection] The parallax selection interval is written '1.2215 mas yr−1 ≤ ϖ ≤ 1.5060 mas yr−1'; the units should be mas, not mas yr−1, since ϖ is a parallax.
  3. [§2.3 and Abstract] The isochrone fitting adopts a best age of 150 Myr, while the abstract describes the cluster as roughly 200 Myr old; please clarify which age is used for the rotation models and whether the 150–350 Myr isochrone range is meant to bracket the split MS rather than the cluster age.
  4. [§4, first evidence claim] The sentence 'This represents the first evidence in support of a dichotomous distribution of real rotational velocities in star clusters' is too strong given the prior field-star bimodality results of Royer et al. (2007) and Zorec & Royer (2012); suggest wording such as 'first direct evidence in a split-MS open-cluster context'.
  5. [§4, Figure 8] The tidal-locking discussion would benefit from stating explicitly that the synchronization timescale estimate assumes a 2 M⊙, 2 R⊙ primary and a radiative envelope, and from noting how the result changes for the mass range at the faint end of the split MS.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the v sin i measurements and the CMD-based classification are independent, and the bimodal veq claim is a model-comparison result rather than an input assumption.

full rationale

The paper's central observational claim is a direct correlation between CMD position (bMS/rMS classification based on Gaia photometry) and projected rotational velocity (v sin i measured from FLAMES/GIRAFFE spectra). These two measurements are independent: classification is based on locus in the color-magnitude diagram, and v sin i is derived from spectral line broadening. The conclusion of a dichotomous equatorial-velocity distribution comes from a forward-model comparison: Case 3 explicitly assumes a bimodal veq distribution, but it is tested against Case 1 (uniform veq and i) and Case 2 (uniform veq with aligned i) using two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests; the KS test rejects the unimodal cases, so the dichotomy is not forced by definition. The peak velocities (vs = 100 km/s, vr = 280 km/s) and number ratio are free parameters of the fit, not prior inputs. The exclusion of four slow-rotating rMS stars is presented as an assumption about unresolved binarity, with one confirmed double-lined system and three requiring time-domain photometry; this is an acknowledged data-selection limitation, not a circular step, because the bMS/rMS classification was not defined using v sin i. Self-citations (Sun et al. 2019, Li et al. 2013) are used as contextual or modeling references and do not carry the derivation; the tidal-locking scenario is tested with an independent synchronization-timescale calculation (Hurley et al. 2002). No equation or fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard stellar models (PARSEC, SYCLIST, ATLAS12/SYNSPEC), a fitted bimodal velocity distribution, and a tidal-locking formula. There are five free parameters in the forward model. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • vs (slow rotator peak veq) = 100 km/s
    Fitted in Case 3 to match the observed v sin i distribution (Section 4).
  • vr (fast rotator peak veq) = 280 km/s
    Fitted in Case 3 to match the observed v sin i distribution (Section 4).
  • velocity dispersion = 30 km/s
    Fixed by hand; the paper states that changing it did not significantly affect results (Section 4).
  • number ratio nr/ns = 1
    Fitted in Case 3; the best-fitting model has equal numbers of slow and fast rotators (Section 4).
  • maximum veq = 414 km/s
    Set to the critical velocity from SYCLIST models at t=150 Myr (Section 4).
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption PARSEC isochrones with Z=0.0152 and AV=0.217 mag describe the cluster's single-star population.
    Used for the blue ridge line and pseudo-color definition (Section 2.3).
  • domain assumption SYCLIST rotating models with omega=0.8 omega_crit reproduce the CMD of the rMS.
    Used to argue that rotation reproduces the split (Section 3, Figure 4).
  • domain assumption The Mg I triplet line formation is adequately modeled by ATLAS12/SYNSPEC in LTE.
    Basis of all v sin i measurements (Section 3).
  • domain assumption The Hurley et al. (2002) synchronization timescale formula applies to these stars.
    Used to argue that close binaries can slow rotators within the cluster age (Section 4, Equation 1).
  • domain assumption The E2 tidal coefficient from Zahn (1975) is valid.
    Used in Equation (2) for the synchronization timescale.
  • domain assumption The cluster is a single-age population with negligible differential extinction.
    The split is interpreted as rotation, not age spread or reddening (Section 2.3).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tidal-locking-induced stellar rotation dichotomy in the open cluster NGC 2287?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCUHT4FU

@misc{pith2026190806530,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tidal-locking-induced stellar rotation dichotomy in the open cluster NGC 2287?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCUHT4FU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06530}
}
abstract

Stars spend most of their lifetimes on the `main sequence' (MS) in the Hertzsprung--Russell diagram. The obvious double MSs seen in the equivalent color--magnitude diagrams characteristic of Milky Way open clusters pose a fundamental challenge to our traditional understanding of star clusters as `single stellar populations.' The clear MS bifurcation of early-type stars with masses greater than $\sim1.6 M_\odot$ is thought to result from a range in the stellar rotation rates. However, direct evidence connecting double MSs to stellar rotation properties has yet to emerge. Here, we show through analysis of the projected stellar rotational velocities ($v\sin i$, where $i$ represents the star's inclination angle) that the well-separated double MS in the young, $\sim200Myr$-old Milky Way open cluster NGC 2287 is tightly correlated with a dichotomous distribution of stellar rotation rates. We discuss whether our observations may reflect the effects of tidal locking affecting a fraction of the cluster's member stars in stellar binary systems. We show that the slow rotators could potentially be initially rapidly rotating stars that have been slowed down by tidal locking by a low mass-ratio companion in a cluster containing a large fraction of short-period, low-mass-ratio binaries. This demonstrates that stellar rotation drives the split MSs in young, $\lessapprox 300$Myr-old star clusters. However, special conditions, e.g., as regards the mass-ratio distribution, might be required for this scenario to hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06530 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (left) Vector-point diagram of the proper motions of stars brighter than G = 16 mag located within 2◦ of the NGC 2287 center. The red circle shows the primary selection area (0.6 mas yr−1 ). (middle) G-band photometry versus stellar parallaxes. The parallax-selected members are marked as red dots. The vertical dashed lines represent the parallax selection boundaries. (right) CMD of all stars in the field (grey dots)… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. CMD of the OC NGC 2287 in the Gaia passbands. Grey dots represent all stars in the cluster field. Black dots represent cluster member stars selected based on Gaia DR2. The best-fitting (leftmost) PARSEC isochrone (Bressan et al. 2012) to the bluest edge of the bulk stellar population has an age of 150 Myr, a metallicity Z = 0.0152, and a distance of ∼ 734 pc. Isochrones for ages from 150 Myr to 350 Myr (in steps of … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. CMD of the OC NGC 2287 around its eMSTO and split-MS regions. bMS, rMS, MSTO, and binary stars are represented by blue triangles, red circles, green squares, and yellow diamonds, respectively. Spectroscopically analyzed stars are marked with solid markers. The black solid and dashed lines represent the best-fitting PARSEC isochrone (Bressan et al. 2012) and the corresponding equal-mass binary sequence, respectively.… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (left) CMD of NGC 2287 with stars color-coded according to their projected rotational velocities. Squares represent spectroscopic binaries. Gaia ID 2927008980887462400 is indicated by the red square. (right) Synthetic clusters of slowly (blue) and rapidly rotating popu…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Correlation between stellar rotation rates (v sin i) and their CMD loci (represented by pseudo-color, ∆GBP − GRP) for split-MS and MSTO stars. The rMS, bMS, and MSTO stars are represented by red solid circles, blue triangles, and green squares, respectively. The top an…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Cumulative v sin i distribution and best-fitting theoretical models. The observational data are represented by blue triangles. We adopted a maximum veq = 414 km s−1 . Case 1 (orange): Uniform distributions of both veq and i. Case 2 (green): Uniform distribution of veq,…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Example of best-fitting veq and i distributions for Case 3. The bimodal distribution of velocities peaks at both 100 km s−1 and 280 km s−1 . The velocity dispersion is 30 km s−1 and the number ratio of the slowly and rapidly rotating populations is unity. NGC 2287 coul…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Synchronization timescale of a 2 M primary star for various mass ratios (q) and binary separations (a). The color represents the synchronization timescale (in logarithmic units, yr). The three contour lines represent 1.5 Myr, 15 Myr and 150 Myr (1%, 10%, and 100% of th…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    2018, A&A, 616, A8 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille,T

    Andrae, R., Fouesneau, M., Creevey, O., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A8 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille,T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    2017, MNRAS, 465, 4795

    Bastian, N., Cabrera-Ziri, I., Niederhofer, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4795

    2017

  3. [3]

    2018, MNRAS, 480, 3739

    Bastian, N., Kamann, S., Cabrera-Ziri, I., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 480, 3739

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    2018, A&A Rv, 56, 83

    Bastian, N., & Lardo, C. 2018, A&A Rv, 56, 83

    work page 2018

  5. [5]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    Bressan, A., Marigo, P., Girardi, L., et al. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 127

    2012

  6. [6]

    A., Clayton, G

    Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., & Mathis, J. S. 1989, ApJ, 345, 245

    1989

  7. [7]

    2000, A&A, 359, 289

    Claret, A. 2000, A&A, 359, 289

    2000

  8. [8]

    P., Marino, A

    Cordoni, G., Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., et al. 2018, ApJ, 869, 139

    2018

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    2017, MNRAS, 467, 3628

    Correnti, M., Goudfrooij, P., Bellini, A., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 3628

    2017

  2. [10]

    A., et al

    Corsaro, E., Lee, Y.-N., Garc´ ıa, R. A., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 64 D’Antona, F., Di Criscienzo, M., Decressin, T., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2637 D’Antona, F., Milone, A. P., Tailo, M., et al. 2017, Nat. Astron., 1, 186 de Mink, S. E., Langer, N., Izzard, R. G., et al. ...

    2017

  3. [11]

    K., Dotter, A., Johnson, C

    Dupree, A. K., Dotter, A., Johnson, C. I., et al. 2017, ApJL, 846, L1

    2017

  4. [12]

    2010, A&A, 509, A72 Espinosa Lara, F., & Rieutord, M

    Eggenberger, P., Miglio, A., Montalban, J., et al. 2010, A&A, 509, A72 Espinosa Lara, F., & Rieutord, M. 2011, A&A, 533, A43 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2016, A&A, 595, A2 Gaia Collaboration, Brown, A. G. A., Vallenari, A., et al. 2018, A&A, 616, A1

    2010

  5. [13]

    2013, A&A, 553, A24

    Georgy, C., Ekstr¨ om, S., Granada, A., et al. 2013, A&A, 553, A24

    2013

  6. [14]

    2014, A&A, 566, A21

    Georgy, C., Granada, A., Ekstr¨ om, S., et al. 2014, A&A, 566, A21

    2014

  7. [15]

    2011, MNRAS, 412, L103

    Girardi, L., Eggenberger, P., & Miglio, A. 2011, MNRAS, 412, L103

    2011

  8. [16]

    H., Kozhurina-Platais, V., et al

    Goudfrooij, P., Puzia, T. H., Kozhurina-Platais, V., et al. 2011, ApJ, 737, 3

    2011

  9. [17]

    Huang, W., & Gies, D. R. 2006, ApJ, 648, 580

    2006

  10. [18]

    R., & McSwain, M

    Huang, W., Gies, D. R., & McSwain, M. V. 2010, ApJ, 722, 605

    2010

  11. [19]

    1992, A&A, 262, 501

    Hubeny, I., & Lanz, T. 1992, A&A, 262, 501

    1992

  12. [20]

    Hunter, J. D. 2007, Comput. Sci. Eng., 9, 90

    2007

  13. [21]

    R., Tout, C

    Hurley, J. R., Tout, C. A., & Pols, O. R. 2002, MNRAS, 329, 897

    2002

  14. [22]

    J., Deliyannis, C

    Jackson, R. J., Deliyannis, C. P., & Jeffries, R. D. 2018, MNRAS, 476, 3245

    2018

  15. [23]

    J., & Jeffries, R

    Jackson, R. J., & Jeffries, R. D. 2010, MNRAS, 402, 1380

    2010

  16. [24]

    2018, MNRAS, 479, 391

    Kamiaka, S., Benomar, O., & Suto, Y. 2018, MNRAS, 479, 391

    2018

  17. [25]

    V., Piskunov, A

    Kharchenko, N. V., Piskunov, A. E., R¨ oser, S., et al. 2005, A&A, 438, 1163

    2005

  18. [26]

    Kurucz, R. L. 2005, Mem. Soc. Astron. It. Suppl., 8, 189

    2005

  19. [27]

    2013, MNRAS, 436, 1497

    Li, C., de Grijs, R., & Deng, L. 2013, MNRAS, 436, 1497

    2013

  20. [28]

    2014, Nature, 516, 367

    Li, C., de Grijs, R., & Deng, L. 2014, Nature, 516, 367

    2014

  21. [29]

    2017, ApJ, 844, 119

    Li, C., de Grijs, R., Deng, L., et al. 2017, ApJ, 844, 119

    2017

  22. [30]

    2019, Nat

    Lim, B., Rauw, G., Naz´ e, Y., et al. 2019, Nat. Astron., 3, 76

    2019

  23. [31]

    D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A

    Mackey, A. D., Broby Nielsen, P., Ferguson, A. M. N., et al. 2008, ApJL, 681, L17

    2008

  24. [32]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Cassisi, S., et al. 2013, A&A, 555, A143

    2013

  25. [33]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., et al. 2009, A&A, 497, 755

    2009

  26. [34]

    P., Bedin, L

    Milone, A. P., Bedin, L. R., Piotto, G., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 3750

    2015

  27. [35]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., D’Antona, F., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 4368

    2016

  28. [36]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., D’Antona, F., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 465, 4363

    2017

  29. [37]

    P., Marino, A

    Milone, A. P., Marino, A. F., Di Criscienzo, M., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 477, 2640 15

    2018

  30. [38]

    2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    Moe, M., & Di Stefano, R. 2017, ApJS, 230, 15

    2017

  31. [39]

    2018, A&A, 618, A109

    Mosser, B., Gehan, C., Belkacem, K., et al. 2018, A&A, 618, A109

    2018

  32. [40]

    2015, MNRAS, 453, 2070 O’Donnell, J

    Niederhofer, F., Georgy, C., Bastian, N., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 453, 2070 O’Donnell, J. E. 1994, ApJ, 422, 158

    2015

  33. [41]

    2010, A&A, 516, A13

    Palacios, A., Gebran, M., Josselin, E., et al. 2010, A&A, 516, A13

    2010

  34. [42]

    2002, Msngr, 110, 1

    Pasquini, L., Avila, G., Blecha, A., et al. 2002, Msngr, 110, 1

    2002

  35. [43]

    N., et al

    Platais, I., Melo, C., Quinn, S. N., et al. 2012, ApJL, 751, L8

    2012

  36. [44]

    C., & Martayan, C

    Rivinius, T., Carciofi, A. C., & Martayan, C. 2013, A&A Rv, 21, 69

    2013

  37. [45]

    Royer, F., Zorec, J., & G´ omez, A. E. 2007, A&A, 463, 671

    2007

  38. [46]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 113 von Zeipel, H

    Sun, W., de Grijs, R., Deng, L., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, 113 von Zeipel, H. 1924, MNRAS, 84, 665

    2019

  39. [47]

    1975, A&A, 41, 329

    Zahn, J.-P. 1975, A&A, 41, 329

    1975

  40. [48]

    2012, A&A, 537, A120

    Zorec, J., & Royer, F. 2012, A&A, 537, A120

    2012

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.