the distance estimates of the authors who provided the abundance and radial velocity information), listed as $D_{BSL}$ in column (5) of Table 1B. For the stars with ambiguous luminosity classifications, we list two alternative distances in column (2).

The small number of stars with uncertain type classifications (either due to the FHB/TO ambiguity noted above, or for the TO stars that appear too blue for their adopted type designation when compared with an old isochrone) are noted as such in column 12 of Table 1B, and are ultimately excluded from further analyses.

### [*Comparison of Photometric and Astrometric Distance Scales*]{}

There are 508 stars in our present catalog which were observed with the [*Hipparcos*]{} astrometric satellite (ESA 1997). To assess the reliability of our photometric distances, $D_{pho}$, obtained above, we plot in Figure 3 the [*Hipparcos*]{} trigonometric parallaxes, $\pi_{HIP}$, versus our photometric parallaxes, $\pi_{pho}=1/D_{pho}$, for 508 stars with available photometric distances. Plotting parallaxes, rather than distances, in Figure 3 has several advantages. All the trigonometric parallaxes, even small or negative values, can be used in an unbiased way (see the discussion on pp. 27–28 of Arenou & Luri 1999). Systematic errors in the data can be detected; an incorrect photometric 