Tip of the red giant branch distance to the nearby dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25 in the NGC 891 group

Lorenzo Posti; Marina Rejkuba; Oliver M\"uller; Rodrigo Ibata

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Tip of the red giant branch distance to the nearby dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25 in the NGC 891 group

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 This paper measures a tip-of-the-red-giant-branch distance of $10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73}$ Mpc for [TT2009] 25, confirming it as a satellite of NGC 891.

desk verdict A routine but solid TRGB distance to one new dwarf; the differential offset between the two Subaru fields is under-tested and the membership claim is over-confident, but the distance and structural parameters are still useful for the NGC 891 census. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03073 v1 pith:VHGXAEL2 submitted 2019-08-08 astro-ph.GA

Oliver Müller , Rodrigo Ibata , Marina Rejkuba , Lorenzo Posti This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.GA

keywords dwarfgalaxiestipoftheredgiantbranchdistancemeasurementNGC891groupsatellitegalaxyscalingrelationsSubaruSuprimeCamphotometryabundance

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 sets out to pin down the distance to [TT2009] 25, a faint dwarf galaxy discovered in the field of the Milky Way-analog spiral NGC 891, and to decide whether it is a true satellite. Using deep ground-based Subaru imaging that resolves the dwarf's red giant stars, the authors measure the brightness jump at the tip of the red giant branch and convert it into a distance of $10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73}$ Mpc. The measurement is made differentially against NGC 891 and anchored to that galaxy's Hubble Space Telescope distance, which keeps the result tied to a well-calibrated standard. Because the dwarf's distance is consistent with NGC 891 and its radial velocity also matches, the paper concludes it is unambiguously a member of the NGC 891 group. That membership turns [TT2009] 25 into a calibrated data point for comparing dwarf-galaxy populations around Milky Way analogs with cosmological predictions.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB), the sharp cutoff in the brightness of old low-mass stars at the end of their red-giant evolution, which serves as a standard candle. The paper locates this cutoff in the $i$-band luminosity function with a Bayesian Markov Chain Monte Carlo fitting routine that models the RGB as a power law and uses a large reference field to subtract foreground and background contamination. The distance is computed differentially: the TRGB of [TT2009] 25 is measured against the TRGB of NGC 891's outer halo in the same Subaru field, a difference of 0.12 mag, and the result is anchored to the Hubble Space Telescope distance of NGC 891 ($D = 9.73$ Mpc). This anchoring is what transfers the superior space-based calibration onto the ground-based measurement.

What would settle it

Deep space-based photometry that resolves the crowded central region of [TT2009] 25 and measures its tip of the red giant branch directly would settle the distance: if that tip is not at $i \approx 26.45$ mag, the value from the ground-based outskirts sample, the 0.12 mag offset between dwarf and host is biased and the 10.28 Mpc distance would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that [TT2009] 25 lies at $10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73}$ Mpc, with distance modulus $(m-M)_0 = 30.06^{+0.23}_{-0.40}$ mag, consistent with the HST-anchored distance of NGC 891 and confirming the dwarf as a member of that galaxy's system. With the distance fixed, the paper derives structural parameters from archival CFHT data: absolute magnitude $M_r = -13.18^{+0.24}_{-0.40}$ mag, effective radius $649^{+76}_{-111}$ pc, S\'ersic index $n = 1.01$, and ellipticity $0.52$. These place it on the scaling relations defined by Local Group dwarfs, with a morphology reminiscent of Fornax but with FUV emission that makes it a transition-type dwarf rather than a purely quiescent spheroidal. The star map shows a sharp cutoff in the dwarf's stellar profile, so no extended stellar halo is detected around it. In the roughly 100 kpc field surveyed, only this one bright dwarf and the giant stream are resolved, a census the authors compare with the bright-satellite population within 50 kpc of the Milky Way.

Load-bearing premise

The distance estimate assumes that the two stellar-brightness measurements being compared, one from the clean outer parts of NGC 891 and one from the crowded vicinity of [TT2009] 25, carry no systematic offset from crowding or background contamination; if the 0.12 magnitude difference between them is biased, the final distance shifts even though it is anchored to the Hubble Space Telescope distance of NGC 891.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

[TT2009] 25 is physically associated with NGC 891 at roughly 10 Mpc, giving an extragalactic satellite system around a Milky Way analog outside the Local Group.
With the distance fixed, the dwarf's absolute magnitude, effective radius, and S\'ersic index can be compared with Local Group scaling relations, and it falls where a Fornax-like transition-type dwarf should.
The lack of a detected extended stellar halo implies that any such envelope around [TT2009] 25 is either absent or fainter than the foreground contamination from NGC 891 allows these data to see.
The survey's 100 kpc field contains only one resolved bright dwarf and a giant stream, so a wider, deeper survey around NGC 891 is needed before the dwarf abundance can be compared with the Milky Way's satellite population.

Reading between the lines

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

If this result holds, the NGC 891 field currently has an incomplete faint-satellite census: the Milky Way hosts at least ten dwarfs fainter than its classical bright satellites within similar radii, so a comparable survey around NGC 891 would need to be much wider and deeper to see them.
The Fornax-like structural parameters plus FUV-detected star formation make [TT2009] 25 a plausible host of globular clusters; resolving them would allow dark-matter cusp-versus-core tests in a dwarf outside the Local Group.
A future space-based observation resolving the dwarf's crowded center and measuring its own tip of the red giant branch would test whether the 0.12 magnitude offset is real or an artifact of crowding, and hence whether the 10.28 Mpc distance is robust.
Matching the survey's one 100 kpc field to the Milky Way's satellites within 50 kpc is not a like-for-like census, since projected line-of-sight satellites of NGC 891 also appear in the field; a fair abundance comparison needs a radius- and luminosity-matched sample around both hosts.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Straight up: this is a routine TRGB distance measurement, but it is a useful one. The genuinely new items are the first distance for [TT2009] 25 (10.28 +1.17/-1.73 Mpc), the structural parameters from a Galfit fit, and membership in the NGC 891 group. The methods are established Bayesian MCMC; the paper is clear and honest about most uncertainties. Since the radial velocity already made group membership likely, the distance is a confirmation, not a surprise.

What is done well: the photometry is deep (i=27 completeness), the crowded centre is excluded, the reference field avoids the stellar loop, and the quoted errors are 68% MCMC intervals that include photometric scatter. The structural parameters follow known scaling relations, and the Fornax comparison is reasonable. The citation pattern is normal; method papers and the HST data are cited where they should be. No self-citations do hidden work.

The soft spot is the differential distance in Section 3. The authors measure the TRGB of NGC 891's outskirts at i=26.32, which gives a ground-based distance of 8.97 Mpc, about 8% closer than the adopted HST value of 9.73 Mpc. They then measure a 0.12 mag offset between [TT2009] 25 and NGC 891 in the same Subaru field and anchor that offset to the HST distance. That works only if the two TRGB measurements are comparably affected by crowding and contamination. The paper avoids the crowded dwarf centre but does not test whether the offset is robust to that choice or to the different stellar environments. Since the ground-based NGC 891 tip is 0.18 mag brighter than the HST value implies, field-dependent blending in the NGC 891 annulus could plausibly bias the differential offset. The quoted uncertainties do not include this effect. My judgment: the membership conclusion survives, but the central distance should be treated as less secure than the abstract implies.

The phrase 'confirm beyond doubt' in Section 4.1 is too strong for a 68% interval of +1.17/-1.73 Mpc. 'Consistent with' is all the data support. No code or data files are released; that is normal for an A&A Letter, but it does limit reproducibility.

Who is this for: people building nearby-group dwarf inventories and small-scale cosmological tests who need one more anchor around NGC 891. It is not a methodological advance. It deserves a serious referee; I would send it out and ask for a robustness test on the differential offset and a toned-down membership claim.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This Letter presents a tip of the red giant branch (TRGB) distance measurement for the dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25, located in the field of the Milky Way analog NGC 891. Using deep Subaru Suprime Cam V and i photometry, the authors measure the TRGB in the outskirts of NGC 891 and in the dwarf galaxy in the same field. They obtain a differential distance modulus offset of 0.12 mag, anchor the offset to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) distance of NGC 891 (D = 9.73 Mpc), and derive a final distance of D = 10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73} Mpc for [TT2009] 25, which they interpret as confirmation of its physical association with NGC 891. The paper also derives structural parameters of the dwarf from archival CFHT/MegaCam data and discusses the dwarf satellite abundance in the surveyed field.

Significance. If correct, the measurement places [TT2009] 25 as a confirmed satellite of NGC 891 at approximately 10 Mpc, adding a valuable data point for studies of dwarf galaxy scaling relations and satellite abundances around a Milky Way analog. The manuscript uses deep, well-calibrated ground-based photometry and a standard Bayesian MCMC TRGB approach, and the differential anchoring to an HST distance is a sensible way to reduce external zero-point errors. The structural parameter analysis and the comparative discussion with the Milky Way satellite population are useful contributions. However, the central distance relies on the robustness of a 0.12 mag differential offset measured under different crowding and contamination conditions, and the paper's own ground-based TRGB distance to NGC 891 differs from the adopted HST anchor by 0.18 mag. These internal consistency concerns are not adequately addressed, and the claim that membership is confirmed beyond doubt overstates the strength of the evidence.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 3 (TRGB distance measurement)] The differential offset of 0.12 mag between the TRGB of NGC 891 and that of [TT2009] 25 is the load-bearing quantity for the final distance, but its robustness is not tested. The authors note that the inner regions of the dwarf suffer blending and brightening of order 0.4 mag and exclude those regions, while the NGC 891 measurement uses an outer annulus; yet no artificial star tests, no variation of the annulus or reference field geometry, and no test of the contamination-model sensitivity are presented. Since any field-dependent bias in the offset propagates directly into the anchored distance, this is a critical gap for the paper's central claim.
[Sec. 3 (internal consistency)] The text reports i_TRGB = 26.32 for NGC 891, corresponding to D = 8.97 Mpc using the Bellazzini calibration, and yet adopts the HST distance D = 9.73 Mpc as the anchor. The 0.18 mag discrepancy is comparable to the measured dwarf-host offset (0.12 mag) and to the quoted uncertainties. The paper dismisses this as slightly different, but it is actually a significant internal inconsistency. The authors should either identify and quantify the source of this discrepancy (for example, photometric zero-point offsets between Pan-STARRS-calibrated Subaru photometry and HST photometry, or crowding bias in the NGC 891 annulus) or add it as a systematic uncertainty in the final distance. Without this, the differential measurement may be comparing two quantities that are not on the same system.
[Sec. 4.1] The statement that the distance estimation confirms beyond doubt that [TT2009] 25 is a dwarf galaxy associated with NGC 891 is stronger than the evidence supports. The quoted distance uncertainty is large (10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73} Mpc), and the 0.18 mag internal inconsistency between the ground-based and HST TRGB measurements shows that systematic errors of that magnitude are plausible. The membership conclusion is likely robust to these shifts, but beyond doubt is not justified. A more measured claim, such as strongly supports membership, would be appropriate.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract] The phrase 'where one bright dwarfs reside' is grammatically incorrect; it should be 'where one bright dwarf resides.'
[Sec. 4.1] The word 'seperated' is misspelled; it should be 'separated.'
[Fig. 2 caption] The sentence 'One side is 100 arcsec' is ambiguous; it would be clearer as 'Each side is 100 arcsec.'
[Sec. 3] The quoted TRGB uncertainty for [TT2009] 25 is asymmetric (+0.12/-0.35 mag), but the source of this asymmetry is not explained. A brief note on whether it arises from contamination, low star counts, or the MCMC posterior shape would be helpful.
[Sec. 3] The final distance uncertainty is described as coming from the Subaru TRGB errors and the HST TRGB detection uncertainty (plus or minus 0.2 mag), but the 0.1 mag calibration uncertainty of the TRGB absolute magnitude (Bellazzini 2008) is not mentioned. If the HST anchor makes this term irrelevant, the authors should state so explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the dwarf distance is a differential TRGB offset measured from the data, anchored to an independent HST distance of NGC 891.

full rationale

The central measurement chain is self-contained. The TRGB magnitudes of NGC 891 and [TT2009] 25 are fit independently from the same Subaru data using the Conn et al. MCMC scheme, the differential offset of 0.12 mag is measured rather than imposed, and the final distance is obtained by adding that offset to the independent HST distance of NGC 891 from Mouhcine et al. (2007) and Rejkuba et al. (2009). Nothing in the derivation defines the dwarf distance as the NGC 891 distance: a substantially larger offset would have failed the consistency test. The self-citations to the authors' earlier data, HST distance, and method descriptions are independent evidence, not fit parameters renamed as predictions; the HST distance is an external measurement, and the MCMC method originates in Conn et al. (2011, 2012). The noted 0.18 mag discrepancy between the ground-based and HST TRGB zero points is a systematic-error concern, not a circular step, because the final result does not require the ground-based absolute tip to equal the HST zero point. No equation reduces to its own input, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No invented entities are introduced. The central claim rests on fitted TRGB magnitudes, an external HST anchor, an empirical TRGB calibration, and standard assumptions about contamination and crowding, all listed above.

free parameters (2)

TRGB magnitude of [TT2009] 25 = i_TRGB = 26.45^{+0.09}_{-0.34} mag
Central measured quantity; the distance estimate is derived directly from it.
TRGB magnitude of NGC 891 in the same field = i_TRGB = 26.32^{+0.09}_{-0.09} mag
Used as the differential anchor; the 0.12 magnitude offset sets the final distance relative to the adopted HST distance.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Bellazzini (2008) TRGB calibration, M_I = -3.44 +/- 0.1 mag, transformed to AB, is valid for the stellar populations of both galaxies.
Used in Section 3 to convert the NGC 891 TRGB magnitude to a distance, producing 8.97 Mpc; the method relies on this empirical standard candle.
domain assumption The adopted HST distance to NGC 891, D = 9.73^{+0.94}_{-0.86} Mpc, is correct and is used as the zero point for the final distance.
Section 3: using a distance of D = 9.73 Mpc for NGC 891 yields the final extinction corrected distance estimate of D = 10.28 Mpc for [TT2009] 25. The paper's final distance inherits any error in this anchor.
domain assumption The MCMC reference field accurately represents the foreground and background contamination toward [TT2009] 25.
Section 3: contamination is modeled using several patches avoiding the stellar loop and the inner halo of NGC 891; if the reference field is not representative, the fitted TRGB is biased.
domain assumption Stars in the selected elliptical annulus are representative of the dwarf's RGB population after excluding the crowded center.
Section 3: the inner region is excluded because blending raised magnitudes by about 0.4 mag; the annulus selection assumes this removes the crowding bias.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tip of the red giant branch distance to the nearby dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25 in the NGC 891 group." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VHGXAEL2

@misc{pith2026190803073,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tip of the red giant branch distance to the nearby dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25 in the NGC 891 group},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VHGXAEL2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03073}
}

abstract

Dwarf galaxies are key objects for small-scale cosmological tests like the abundance problems or the planes-of-satellites problem. It is therefore a crucial task to get accurate information for as many nearby dwarf galaxies as possible. Using extremely deep, ground-based $V$ and $i$-band Subaru Suprime Cam photometry with a completeness of $i=27$ mag, we measure the tip of the red giant branch distance for the dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25. This dwarf resides in the field around the Milky Way-analog NGC 891. By using a Bayesian approach, we measure a distance of $10.28^{+1.17}_{-1.73}$ Mpc, which is consistent with the distance of NGC 891, thus we confirm it as a member of NGC 891. The dwarf galaxy follows the scaling relations defined by the Local Group dwarfs. We do not find an extended stellar halo around [TT2009] 25. In the small field of view of 100 kpc covered by the survey, only one bright dwarf galaxy and the giant stream are apparent. This is comparable to the Milky Way, where one bright dwarfs reside in the same volume, as well as the Sagittarius stream - excluding satellites which are farther away but would be projected in the line-of-sight. It is thus imperative to survey for additional dwarf galaxies in a larger area around NGC 891 to test the abundance of dwarf galaxies and compare it to the number of satellites around the Milky Way.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03073 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The field around NGC 891 from our deep, stacked i-band Subaru Suprime Cam image. The box highlighting the dwarf galaxy [TT2009] 25 has a side of 1 arcmin. The scale indicates 10 kpc at 10 Mpc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The color magnitude diagram of NGC 891 (left) and [TT2009] 25 (right). The gray lines denote the best estimated TRGB magnitude and the corresponding uncertainties. Way analog in size and mass. When we take the dwarf galaxy satellites around the Milky Way within a sphere of 50 kpc and brighter than −10 mag (McConnachie 2012; Pawlowski et al. 2013), we find only the Sagittarius dSph and the Large Magellanic Cloud, i.… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

[1]

Peculiar Velocities of Galaxies Just Beyond the Local Group

Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.11416

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[2]

2016, ApJ, 826, L27

Annibali, F., Nipoti, C., Ciotti, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L27

work page 2016
[3]

2008, Mem

Bellazzini, M. 2008, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 79, 440

work page 2008
[4]

The M101 Satellite Luminosity Function and the Halo to Halo Scatter Among Local Volume Hosts

Bennet, P., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi ´c, D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.03230

work page Pith review arXiv 2019
[5]

2019, MNRAS, 485, 2546

Boldrini, P., Mohayaee, R., & Silk, J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2546

work page 2019
[6]

S., & Kaplinghat, M

Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40

work page 2011
[7]

C., Magnier, E

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

arXiv 2016
[8]

2018, ApJ, 868, 96

Cohen, Y ., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 96

work page 2018

Show all 62 references

[9]

R., Dehnen, W., Read, J

Cole, D. R., Dehnen, W., Read, J. I., & Wilkinson, M. I. 2012, MNRAS, 426, 601

2012
[10]

R., Ibata, R

Conn, A. R., Ibata, R. A., Lewis, G. F., et al. 2012, ApJ, 758, 11

2012
[11]

R., Lewis, G

Conn, A. R., Lewis, G. F., Ibata, R. A., et al. 2011, ApJ, 740, 69 Da Costa, G. S. & Armandroﬀ, T. E. 1990, AJ, 100, 162 de Blok, W. J. G. 2010, Advances in Astronomy, 2010, 789293

2011
[12]

Frenk, C. S. & White, S. D. M. 2012, Annalen der Physik, 524, 507

2012
[13]

B., Hardy, E., Pont, F., & Zinn, R

Gallart, C., Stetson, P. B., Hardy, E., Pont, F., & Zinn, R. 2004, ApJ, 614, L109

2004
[14]

H., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al

Geha, M., Wechsler, R. H., Mao, Y .-Y ., et al. 2017, ApJ, 847, 4

2017
[15]

2018, ApJ, 861, 81

Greggio, L., Falomo, R., & Scarpa, R. 2018, ApJ, 861, 81

2018
[16]

2019, MNRAS, 487, 2441

Haghi, H., Kroupa, P., Banik, I., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 2441

2019
[17]

L., Aparicio, A., Martínez-Delgado, D., & Gallart, C

Hidalgo, S. L., Aparicio, A., Martínez-Delgado, D., & Gallart, C. 2009, ApJ, 705, 704

2009
[18]

G., Ibata, R

Ibata, N. G., Ibata, R. A., Famaey, B., & Lewis, G. F. 2014, Nature, 511, 563

2014
[19]

2009, MNRAS, 395, 126

Ibata, R., Mouhcine, M., & Rejkuba, M. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 126

2009
[20]

& Hatzidimitriou, D

Irwin, M. & Hatzidimitriou, D. 1995, MNRAS, 277, 1354

1995
[21]

2016, A&A, 588, A89

Javanmardi, B., Martinez-Delgado, D., Kroupa, P., et al. 2016, A&A, 588, A89

2016
[22]

G., et al

Javanmardi, B., Raouf, M., Khosroshahi, H. G., et al. 2019, ApJ, 870, 50

2019
[23]

D., Karachentseva, V

Karachentsev, I. D., Karachentseva, V . E., Huchtmeier, W. K., & Makarov, D. I. 2004, AJ, 127, 2031

2004
[24]

D., Makarov, D

Karachentsev, I. D., Makarov, D. I., & Kaisina, E. I. 2013, AJ, 145, 101

2013
[25]

2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 925

Kroupa, P., Banik, I., Haghi, H., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 925

2018
[26]

S., et al

Kroupa, P., Famaey, B., de Boer, K. S., et al. 2010, A&A, 523, A32

2010
[27]

2018, Nature, 561, E4

Kroupa, P., Haghi, H., Javanmardi, B., et al. 2018, Nature, 561, E4

2018
[28]

G., Freedman, W

Lee, M. G., Freedman, W. L., & Madore, B. F. 1993, ApJ, 417, 553

1993
[29]

I., Hoﬀman, Y ., Tully, R

Libeskind, N. I., Hoﬀman, Y ., Tully, R. B., et al. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 1052 López-Corredoira, M. & Kroupa, P. 2016, ApJ, 817, 75

2015
[30]

2005, Transformations between SDSS magnitudes and other systems https://www.sdss3.org/dr10/algorithms/sdssUBVRITransform.php/

Lupton, R. 2005, Transformations between SDSS magnitudes and other systems https://www.sdss3.org/dr10/algorithms/sdssUBVRITransform.php/

2005
[31]

A., Schlaﬂy, E

Magnier, E. A., Schlaﬂy, E. F., Finkbeiner, D. P., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints [arXiv:1612.05242]

2016 arXiv
[32]

C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al

Martin, D. C., Fanson, J., Schiminovich, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L1

2005
[33]

F., de Jong, J

Martin, N. F., de Jong, J. T. A., & Rix, H.-W. 2008, ApJ, 684, 1075

2008
[34]

McConnachie, A. W. 2012, AJ, 144, 4

2012
[35]

2003, Science, 301, 1508

Minniti, D., Borissova, J., Rejkuba, M., et al. 2003, Science, 301, 1508

2003
[36]

& Zijlstra, A

Minniti, D. & Zijlstra, A. A. 1996, ApJ, 467, L13

1996
[37]

2002, PASJ, 54, 833

Miyazaki, S., Komiyama, Y ., Sekiguchi, M., et al. 2002, PASJ, 54, 833

2002
[38]

& Trujillo, I

Monelli, M. & Trujillo, I. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1907.03761

2019 arXiv
[39]

1999, ApJ, 524, L19

Moore, B., Ghigna, S., Governato, F., et al. 1999, ApJ, 524, L19

1999
[40]

2010, ApJ, 714, L12

Mouhcine, M., Ibata, R., & Rejkuba, M. 2010, ApJ, 714, L12

2010
[41]

2007, MNRAS, 381, 873 Müller, O., Famaey, B., & Zhao, H

Mouhcine, M., Rejkuba, M., & Ibata, R. 2007, MNRAS, 381, 873 Müller, O., Famaey, B., & Zhao, H. 2019a, A&A, 623, A36 Müller, O., Jerjen, H., & Binggeli, B. 2017, A&A, 597, A7 Müller, O., Jerjen, H., & Binggeli, B. 2018a, A&A, 615, A105 Müller, O., Pawlowski, M. S., Jerjen, H.,...

2007 arXiv
[42]

2007, AJ, 134, 1019

Oosterloo, T., Fraternali, F., & Sancisi, R. 2007, AJ, 134, 1019

2007
[43]

Orkney, M. D. A., Read, J. I., Petts, J. A., & Gieles, M. 2019, MNRAS, 1624

2019
[44]

Pawlowski, M. S. 2018, Modern Physics Letters A, 33, 1830004

2018
[45]

S., Famaey, B., Merritt, D., & Kroupa, P

Pawlowski, M. S., Famaey, B., Merritt, D., & Kroupa, P. 2015, ApJ, 815, 19

2015
[46]

S., Kroupa, P., & Jerjen, H

Pawlowski, M. S., Kroupa, P., & Jerjen, H. 2013, MNRAS, 435, 1928

2013
[47]

Y ., Ho, L

Peng, C. Y ., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., & Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266

2002
[48]

I., Walker, M

Read, J. I., Walker, M. G., & Steger, P. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 860

2018
[49]

I., Walker, M

Read, J. I., Walker, M. G., & Steger, P. 2019, MNRAS, 484, 1401

2019
[50]

D., et al

Rejkuba, M., Minniti, D., Gregg, M. D., et al. 2000, AJ, 120, 801

2000
[51]

2009, MNRAS, 396, 1231

Rejkuba, M., Mouhcine, M., & Ibata, R. 2009, MNRAS, 396, 1231

2009
[52]

S., Fattahi, A., et al

Sawala, T., Frenk, C. S., Fattahi, A., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 1931

2016
[53]

2017, A&A, 606, A33

Serenelli, A., Weiss, A., Cassisi, S., Salaris, M., & Pietrinferni, A. 2017, A&A, 606, A33

2017
[54]

Sersic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de galaxias australes

1968
[55]

Simon, J. D. & Geha, M. 2007, ApJ, 670, 313

2007
[56]

S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J

Spekkens, K., Urbancic, N., Mason, B. S., Willman, B., & Aguirre, J. E. 2014, ApJ, 795, L5

2014
[57]

& Davies, R

Staveley-Smith, L. & Davies, R. D. 1987, MNRAS, 224, 953

1987
[58]

Stetson, P. B. 1987, PASP, 99, 191

1987
[59]

& Tully, R

Trentham, N. & Tully, R. B. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 722

2009
[60]

A., Borlaﬀ, A., et al

Trujillo, I., Beasley, M. A., Borlaﬀ, A., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 486, 1192

2019
[61]

B., Libeskind, N

Tully, R. B., Libeskind, N. I., Karachentsev, I. D., et al. 2015, ApJ, 802, L25 van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., Cohen, Y ., et al. 2018, Nature, 555, 629

2015
[62]

2017, A&A, 608, A142 Article number, page 5 of 5

Venhola, A., Peletier, R., Laurikainen, E., et al. 2017, A&A, 608, A142 Article number, page 5 of 5

2017

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Peculiar Velocities of Galaxies Just Beyond the Local Group

Anand, G. S., Tully, R. B., Rizzi, L., Shaya, E. J., & Karachentsev, I. D. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1905.11416

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

2016, ApJ, 826, L27

Annibali, F., Nipoti, C., Ciotti, L., et al. 2016, ApJ, 826, L27

work page 2016

[3] [3]

2008, Mem

Bellazzini, M. 2008, Mem. Soc. Astron. Italiana, 79, 440

work page 2008

[4] [4]

The M101 Satellite Luminosity Function and the Halo to Halo Scatter Among Local Volume Hosts

Bennet, P., Sand, D. J., Crnojevi ´c, D., et al. 2019, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1906.03230

work page Pith review arXiv 2019

[5] [5]

2019, MNRAS, 485, 2546

Boldrini, P., Mohayaee, R., & Silk, J. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 2546

work page 2019

[6] [6]

S., & Kaplinghat, M

Boylan-Kolchin, M., Bullock, J. S., & Kaplinghat, M. 2011, MNRAS, 415, L40

work page 2011

[7] [7]

C., Magnier, E

Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2016, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1612.05560

arXiv 2016

[8] [8]

2018, ApJ, 868, 96

Cohen, Y ., van Dokkum, P., Danieli, S., et al. 2018, ApJ, 868, 96

work page 2018