A&A 453, 101–119 (2006) Astronomy DOI: 10.1051/0004-6361:20053894 & c ESO 2006 Astrophysics On the difference between nuclear and contraction ages, W. Lyra1,2,3,A.Moitinho4,N.S.vanderBliek1,andJ.Alves5 1 Cerro Tololo Interamerican Observatory, Casilla 603 La Serena, Chile 2 Observatório do Valongo/UFRJ, Ladeira do Pedro Antônio 43, 20080-090 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 3 Department of Astronomy and Space Physics, Uppsala Astronomical Observatory, Box 515, 751 20 Uppsala, Sweden e-mail:
[email protected] 4 Observatório Astronómico de Lisboa, Tapada da Ajuda, 1349-018 Lisbon, Portugal 5 European Southern Observatory, Karl-Schwarzschild 2, 85748 Garching, Germany Received 23 July 2005 / Accepted 20 February 2006 ABSTRACT Context. Ages derived from low mass stars still contracting onto the main sequence often differ from ages derived from the high mass ones that have already evolved away from it. Aims. We investigate the general claim of disagreement between these two independent age determinations by presenting UBVRI pho- tometry for the young galactic open clusters NGC 2232, NGC 2516, NGC 2547 and NGC 4755, spanning the age range ∼10–150 Myr Methods. We derived reddenings, distances, and nuclear ages by fitting ZAMS and isochrones to color–magnitudes and color–color di- agrams. To derive contraction ages, we used four different pre-main sequence models, with an empirically calibrated color-temperature relation to match the Pleiades cluster sequence. Results. When exclusively using the V vs. V − I color–magnitude diagram and empirically calibrated isochrones, there is consistency between nuclear and contraction ages for the studied clusters.