Cited by 505Stellar, planetary, and galactic studiesGalaxies: Formation, Evolution, PhenomenaAstrophysics and Star Formation Studies

Evidence for two early accretion events that built the Milky Way stellar halo

Open access
Myeong, G C, Vasiliev, E, Iorio, G, Evans, N W, Belokurov, V·2019·Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society

Abstract

The Gaia Sausage is the major accretion event that built the stellar halo of the Milky Way galaxy. Here, we provide dynamical and chemical evidence for a second substantial accretion episode, distinct from the Gaia Sausage. The Sequoia Event provided the bulk of the high-energy retrograde stars in the stellar halo, as well as the recently discovered globular cluster FSR 1758. There are up to six further globular clusters, including ω Centauri, as well as many of the retrograde substructures in Myeong et al., associated with the progenitor dwarf galaxy, named the Sequoia. The stellar mass in the Sequoia galaxy is ∼5 × 10 M⊙ , whilst the total mass is ∼1010 M⊙ , as judged from abundance matching or from the total sum of the globular cluster mass. Although clearly less massive than the Sausage, the Sequoia has a distinct chemodynamical signature. The strongly retrograde Sequoia stars have a typical eccentricity of ∼0.6, whereas the Sausage stars have no clear net rotation and move on predominantly radial orbits. On average, the Sequoia stars have lower metallicity by ∼0.3 dex and higher abundance ratios as compared to the Sausage. We conjecture that the Sausage and the Sequoia galaxies may have been associated and accreted at a comparable epoch.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/mnras/stz1770

Cites

102 of 102 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A possible scenario is that Sequoia exists as a clump of high-energy retrograde stars truly distinct from Gaia-Enceladus, but with a smaller extent than originally proposed.

    “A possible scenario to explain the findings reported in this section is the existence of (a bonsai) Sequoia, as embodied by a clump of high-energy retrograde stars that is truly distinct from Gaia-Enceladus (because of the differing [Na/Fe] abundances reported by Matsuno et al. 2019), but whose extent is smaller than that originally proposed by Myeong et al. (2019).”

    From Streams, Substructures, and the Early History of the Milky Way (2020) · cites this paper as Myeong et al. (2019)

  • Sequoia has been proposed to have been accreted 9-11 Gyr ago by Myeong et al. (2019).

    “Sequoia, which has been proposed to have been accreted 9 11 Gyr ago (Myeong et al. 2019)”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Malhan K., Ibata R. A., Carlberg R. G., Valluri M., Freese K., 2019, arXiv:1903.08141, · arXiv
  2. Simpson J. D., 2019, arXiv:1902.00447, · arXiv
  3. Vasiliev E., 2018, arXiv:1811.05345, · arXiv
  4. Vincenzo F., Spitoni E., Calura F., Matteucci F., Aguirre V. S., Miglio A., Cescutti G., 2019, arXiv:1903.03465, · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myeong, G. C., Vasiliev, E., Iorio, G., Evans, N. W., & Belokurov, V
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • P.N. Lebedev Physical Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RU)
Corresponding author
  • Myeong, G C
  • Evans, N W
Venue
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society
Published
2019-07-01
Volume
488
Issue
1
Pages
1235-1247
ISSN
  • 0035-8711 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2966
OpenAlex
W2930623218
Cited by
505
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 41 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 71 · 2021: 102 · 2020: 84 · 2019: 26
FWCI
37.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • Science and Technology Facilities Council
  • Royal Society
  • European Research Council (308024)
  • Seventh Framework Programme (FP/2007–2013)
  • European Space Agency
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Stellar, planetary, and galactic studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Galaxies: Formation, Evolution, Phenomena
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Astrophysics and Star Formation Studies
Keywords
Milky Way stellar halo, globular clusters, Omega Centauri, chemodynamics, orbital eccentricity, metallicity, abundance ratios, dwarf galaxy accretion, halo substructure

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review