\begin{table}%t2 \par \caption{\label{7:tab:source}The sample of sources observed with CHAMP+.} \small %\centerline { \begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline Source & RA & Dec & D & $L_{\rm{bol}}$ & $T_{\rm{bol}}$ & Class \\ & (J2000) & (J2000) & (pc)& ($L_{\rm{\odot}}$) & (K) & \\ \hline NGC 1333 IRAS 2 & 03:28:55.2& +31:14:35 & 250 & 12.7 & 62 & 0 \\ % in PERS L1551 IRS 5 & 04:31:34.1&+18:08:05.0 & 160 & 20 & 75 & 1 \\ TMR 1 & 04:39:13.7& +25:53:21 & 140 & 3.1 & 133 & 1 \\ % HH 46 & 08:25:43.8& --51:00:35.6& 450 & 16 & 102 & 1 \\ % done as DC267.4-7.5 Ced 110 IRS 4 & 11:06:47.0& --77:22:32.4& 130 & 0.8 & 55 & 1 \\ %in CHAM BHR 71 & 12:01:36.3& --65:08:44 & 200 & 11 & 60 & 0 \\ % done as DC297.7-2.8 IRAS 12496-7650 & 12:53:17.2& --77:07:10.6& 250 & 24 &326$^b$& 1 \\ % in CHAM RCrA IRS 7A$^c$ & 19:01:55.2& --36:57:21.0& 170 & -- & -- & 0 \\% SMM 1C(nutter)/VLA10B \hline & Sett.$^{a}$ & \multicolumn{2}{l}{Ref. Cont.} & \multicolumn{3}{l}{Ref. CO} \\ NGC 1333 IRAS 2 & A & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7} & vii \\ L1551 IRS 5 & A & \multicolumn{2}{l}{2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12} & i \\ TMR 1 & AB & \multicolumn{2}{l}{13, 14, 15, 16} & i \\ HH 46 & ABC & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1, 17, 18} & ii, iii \\ Ced 110 IRS 4 & AB & \multicolumn{2}{l}{7,19,20,21,22} & iii, iv \\ BHR 71 & AB & \multicolumn{2}{l}{17, 23, 24, 25} & v \\ IRAS 12496-7650 & AB & \multicolumn{2}{l}{26, this work} & iii, viii\\ RCrA IRS 7A$^c$ & A & \multicolumn{2}{l}{1, 7, 27, 28} & iii, viii\\ \hline \end{tabular}} \par \medskip $^a$ Observed settings with CHAMP+. See Table \ref{7:tab:settings}. \\ $^b$ IRAS~12496-7650 is likely to be viewed face-on and thus has strong IR emission and a high $T_{\rm{bol}}$. See van Kempen et~al. (2009, submitted).\\ $^c$ RCrA IRS 7 is a binary. Pointing was chosen to be on RCrA IRS 7A, believed to be the main embedded source, following results from van~Kempen et~al. (2009, submitted) and \citet{Groppi07}. RCrA IRS 7B is located 15\arcsec\ to the east. At mid- and far-IR wavelengths, the source is heavily confused with RCrA. Therefore, no reliable $T_{\rm{bol}}$ and $L_{\rm{bol}}$ could be derived. \\ {Continuum References: } 1: \citet{diFrancesco08} 2: \citet{Motte01} 3: \citet{Gutermuth08} 4: \citet{Enoch06} 5: \citet{Hatchell07} 6: \citet{Sandell01} 7: \citet{Froebrich05} 8: \citet{Chandler00} 9: \citet{Reipurth02} 10: \citet{Osorio03} 11: \citet{Liu96} 12: \citet{Butner91} 13: \citet{Kenyon94} 14: \citet{Hogerheijde99} 15: \citet{Furlan08} 16: \citet{Terebey93} 17: \citet{Henning98} 18: \citet{vanKempen09} 19: \citet{Reipurth93} 20: \citet{Luhman08} 21: \citet{Lehtinen01} 22: \citet{Lehtinen03} 23: \citet{Evans07} 24: \citet{Bourke97} 25: \citet{Bourke01} 26: \citet{Henning93} 27: \citet{Nutter05} 28: \citet{Groppi07}\\ {CO references: } i: \citet{Hogerheijde98}, ii: van~Kempen et~al. (2009, submitted), iii: Paper I, iv: \citet{Hiramatsu07}, v: \citet{Parise06}, vi: \citet{Knee00}, vii: \citet{Giannini01}, viii: \citet{Giannini99}. \vspace*{4mm}\end{table}