1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{emulateapj5}

3: 

4: 

5: %\usepackage{natbib}

6: %\usepackage{psfig}

7: %\usepackage{epsfig}

8: %\usepackage{rotating}

9: %\usepackage{latexsym}

10: %\usepackage{graphicx}

11: %\usepackage{amssymb}

12: %\usepackage{longtable}

13: %\def\gta{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$>$}}}}

14: 

15: %% epsf

16: 

17: %\typeout{Prints "DRAFT" on each page; does not show in TeXView}

18: %\special{!userdict begin /bop-hook{gsave 200 30 translate

19: % 65 rotate /Times-Roman findfont 216 scalefont setfont

20: % 0 0 moveto 0.90 setgray (DRAFT) show grestore}def end}

21: 

22: 

23: \shorttitle{ICL}

24: \shortauthors{Krick, Bernstein}

25: 

26: 

27: \begin{document}

28: \newcommand\msun{\hbox{M$_{\odot}$}}

29: \newcommand\lsun{\hbox{L$_{\odot}$}}

30: \newcommand\magarc{mag arcsec$^{-2}$}

31: \newcommand\h{$h_{70}^{-1}$}

32: 

33: \bibliographystyle{myapj}

34: 

35: \title{\bf Diffuse Optical Light in Galaxy Clusters II: \\ Correlations

36: with Cluster Properties}

37: 

38: \author{J.E. Krick \altaffilmark{1,2} and R.A. Bernstein \altaffilmark{1}}

39: \altaffiltext {1}{ Astronomy Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109}

40: \altaffiltext {2}{ Spitzer Science Center, Caltech, Pasadena, CA 91125}

41: \email{jkrick@caltech.edu, rabernst@umich.edu}

42: 

43: 

44: 

45: \begin{abstract} 

46: 

47:   We have measured the flux, profile, color, and substructure in the

48:   diffuse intracluster light (ICL) in a sample of ten galaxy clusters

49:   with a range of mass, morphology, redshift, and density.  Deep,

50:   wide-field observations for this project were made in two bands at

51:   the one meter Swope and 2.5 meter du Pont telescope at Las Campanas

52:   Observatory.  Careful attention in reduction and analysis was paid

53:   to the illumination correction, background subtraction, point spread

54:   function determination, and galaxy subtraction.  ICL flux is

55:   detected in both bands in all ten clusters ranging from $7.6\times

56:   10^{10}$ to $7.0\times 10^{11}$ \h \lsun in $r$ and $1.4\times

57:   10^{10}$ to $1.2\times 10^{11}$ \h \lsun in the $B-$band.  These

58:   fluxes account for 6 to 22\% of the total cluster light within one

59:   quarter of the virial radius in $r$ and 4 to 21\% in the $B-$band.

60:   Average ICL $B-r$ colors range from 1.5 to 2.8 mags when k and

61:   evolution corrected to the present epoch.  In several clusters we

62:   also detect ICL in group environments near the cluster center and up

63:   to ~1\h Mpc distant from the cluster center.  Our sample, having

64:   been selected from the Abell sample, is incomplete in that it does

65:   not include high redshift clusters with low density, low flux, or

66:   low mass, and it does not include low redshift clusters with high

67:   flux, mass, or density.  This bias makes it difficult to interpret

68:   correlations between ICL flux and cluster properties.  Despite this

69:   selection bias, we do find that the presence of a cD galaxy

70:   corresponds to both centrally concentrated galaxy profiles and

71:   centrally concentrated ICL profiles.  This is consistent with ICL

72:   either forming from galaxy interactions at the center, or forming at

73:   earlier times in groups and later combining in the center.

74: \end{abstract}

75: 

76: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: individual

77:   (A4059, A3880, A2734, A2556, A4010, A3888, A3984, A0141, AC114, AC118) ---

78:   galaxies: evolution --- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies:

79:   photometry --- cosmology: observations}

80: 

81: 

82: 

83: 

84: \section{Introduction} 

85: 

86: A significant stellar component of galaxy clusters is found outside of

87: the galaxies.  The standard theory of cluster evolution is one of

88: hierarchical collapse, as time proceeds, clusters grow in mass through

89: the merging with other clusters and groups.  These mergers as well as

90: interactions within groups and within clusters strip stars out of

91: their progenitor galaxies.  The study of these intracluster stars can

92: inform hierarchical formation models as well as tell us something

93: about physical mechanisms involved in galaxy evolution within

94: clusters.

95: 

96: Paper I of this series \citep{krick2006} discusses the methods of ICL

97: detection and measurement as well as the results garnered from one

98: cluster in our sample.  We refer the reader to that paper and the

99: references therein for a summary of the history and current status of

100: the field.  This paper presents the remaining nine clusters in the

101: sample and seeks to answer when and how intracluster stars are formed

102: by studying the total flux, profile shape, color, and substructure in

103: the ICL as a function of cluster mass, redshift, morphology, and

104: density in the sample of 10 clusters.  The advantage to having an

105: entire sample of clusters is to be able to follow evolution in the ICL

106: and use that as an indicator of cluster evolution.

107: 

108: Strong evolution in the ICL fraction with mass of the cluster has been

109: predicted in simulations by both \citet{lin2004} and

110: \citet{murante2004}. If ongoing stripping processes are dominant, ram

111: pressure stripping \citep{abadi1999} or harassment \citep{moore1996},

112: then high mass clusters should have a higher ICL fraction than

113: low-mass clusters .  If, however, most of the galaxy evolution happens

114: early on in cluster collapse by galaxy-galaxy merging, then the ICL

115: should not correlate directly with current cluster mass.

116: 

117: Because an increase in mass is tied to the age of the cluster under

118: hierarchical formation, evolution has also been predicted in the ICL

119: fraction as a function of redshift \citep{willman2004,rudick2006}.

120: Again, if ICL formation is an ongoing process then high redshift

121: clusters will have a lower ICL fraction than low redshift clusters.

122: Conversely, if ICL formation happened early on in cluster formation

123: there will be no correlation of ICL with redshift.

124: 

125: 

126: The stripping of stars (or even the gas to make stars) to create an

127: intracluster stellar population requires an interaction between their

128: original host galaxy and either another galaxy, the cluster potential,

129: or possibly the hot gas in the cluster.  Because all of these

130: processes require an interaction, we expect cluster density to be a

131: predictor of ICL fraction.  Cluster density is linked to cluster

132: morphology, which implies morphology should also be a predictor of ICL

133: fraction.  Specifically we measure morphology by the presence or

134: absence of a cD galaxy.  cD galaxies are the results of 2 - 5 times

135: more mergers than the average cluster galaxy \citep{dubinski1998}.

136: The added number of interactions that went into forming the cD galaxy

137: will also mean an increased disruption rate in galaxies therefore

138: morphological relaxed (dynamically old) clusters should have a higher

139: ICL flux than dynamically young clusters.  

140: 

141: Observations of the color and fractional flux in the ICL over a sample

142: of clusters with varying redshift and dynamical state will allow us to

143: identify the timescales involved in ICL formation.  If the ICL is the

144: same color as the cluster galaxies, it is likely to be a remnant from

145: ongoing interactions in the cluster.  If the ICL is redder than the

146: galaxies it is likely to have been stripped from galaxies at early

147: times.  Stripped stars will passively evolve toward red colors while

148: the galaxies continue to form stars.  If the ICL is bluer than the

149: galaxies, then some recent star formation has made its way into the

150: ICL, either from ellipticals with low metallicity or spirals with

151: younger stellar populations, or from in situ formation.

152: 

153: While multiple mechanisms are likely to play a role in the complicated

154: process of formation and evolution of clusters, important constraints

155: can come from ICL measurement in clusters with a wide range of

156: properties.  In addition to directly constraining galaxy evolution

157: mechanisms, the ICL flux and color is a testable prediction of

158: cosmological models.  As such it can indirectly be used to examine the

159: accuracy of the physical inputs to these models.

160: 

161: 

162: %------------------------

163: 

164: 

165: This paper is structured in the following manner.  In \S2 we discuss

166: the characteristics of the entire sample.  Details of the observations

167: and reduction are presented in \S3 and \S4 including flat-fielding,

168: sky background subtraction methods, object detection, and object

169: removal and masking.  In \S5 we lists the results for both cluster and

170: ICL properties including a discussion of each individual

171: cluster. Accuracy limits are discussed in \S6.  A discussion of the

172: interesting correlations can be found in \S7 followed by a summary of

173: the conclusions in \S8.

174: 

175: 

176: Throughout this paper we use $H_0=70$km/s/Mpc, $\Omega_M$ = 0.3,

177: $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.7.

178: 

179: 

180: 

181: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%5

182: 

183: \section{The Sample}

184: \label{sample2}

185: 

186: 

187: 

188: The general properties of our sample of ten galaxy clusters have been

189: outlined in paper I; for completeness we summarize them briefly here.

190: Our choice of the 10 clusters both minimizes the observational hazards

191: of the galactic and ecliptic plane, and maximizes the amount of

192: information in the literature.  All clusters were chosen to have

193: published X--ray luminosities which guarantees the presence of a

194: cluster and provides an estimate of the cluster's mass.  The ten

195: chosen clusters are representative of a wide range in cluster

196: characteristics, namely redshift ($0.05 < z < 0.3$), morphology (3

197: with no clear central dominant galaxy, and 7 with a central dominant

198: galaxy as determined from this survey, \S \ref{morphology2}, and not

199: from Bautz Morgan morphological classifications), spatial projected density

200: (richness class 0 - 3), and X--ray luminosity ($1.9\times10^{44}$

201: ergs/s $< Lx < 22\times10^{44}$ ergs/s).  We discuss results from the

202: literature and this survey for each individual cluster in order of

203: ascending redshift in \S \ref{results2}.

204: 

205: 

206: \section{Observations}

207: \label{observations2}

208: 

209: 

210: The sample is divided into a ``low'' ($0.05<z<0.1$) and ``high''

211: ($0.15 < z< 0.3$) redshift range which we have observed with the 1

212: meter Swope and 2.5 meter du Pont telescope respectively.  The du Pont

213: observations were discussed in detail in paper I.  The Swope

214: observations follow a similar observational strategy and data

215: reduction process which we outline below.  Observational parameters

216: are listed in Table \ref{tab:obspars2}.

217: 

218: 

219: We used the $2048\times3150$ ``Site\#5'' CCD with a $3 e^-/$count gain

220: and $7e^-$ readnoise on the Swope telescope.  The pixel scale is

221: 0.435\arcsec/pixel ($15\mu$ pixels), so that the full field of view

222: per exposure is $14.8\arcmin \times 22.8\arcmin$.  Data was taken in

223: two filters, Gunn-$r$ ($\lambda_0 = 6550$ \AA) and $B$ ($\lambda_0 =

224: 4300$ \AA). These filters were selected to provide some color

225: constraint on the stellar populations in the ICL by spanning the

226: 4000\AA\ break at the relevant redshifts, while avoiding flat-fielding

227: difficulties at longer wavelengths and prohibitive sky brightness at

228: shorter wavelengths.

229: 

230: 

231: 

232: Observing runs occurred on October 20-26, 1998, September 2-11, 1999,

233: and September 19-30, 2000.  All observing runs took place within eight

234: days of new moon.  A majority of the data were taken under photometric

235: conditions.  Those images taken under non-photometric conditions were

236: individually tied to the photometric data (see discussion in

237: \S\ref{reduction2}.  Across all three runs, each cluster was observed

238: for an average of 5 hours in each band. In addition to the cluster

239: frames, night sky flats were obtained in nearby, off-cluster,

240: ``blank'' regions of the sky with total exposure times roughly equal

241: to one third of the integration times on cluster targets.  Night sky

242: flats were taken in all moon conditions.  Typical $B-$ and $r-$band

243: sky levels during the run were $22.7$ and $21.0$ \magarc,

244: respectively.

245: 

246: 

247: Cluster images were dithered by one third of the field of view between

248: exposures.  The large overlap from the dithering pattern gives us

249: ample area for linking background values from the neighboring cluster

250: images.  Observing the cluster in multiple positions on the chip

251: reduces large-scale flat-fielding fluctuations upon combination.

252: Integration times were typically 900 seconds in $r$ and 1200 seconds

253: in $B$.

254: 

255: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

256: 

257: \section{Reduction}

258: \label{reduction2}

259: 

260: In order to create mosaiced images of the clusters with a uniform

261: background level and accurate resolved--source fluxes, the images were

262: bias and dark subtracted, flat--fielded, flux calibrated,

263: background--subtracted, extinction corrected, and registered before

264: combining. Methods for this are discussed in detail in paper I and

265: summarized below.

266: 

267: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

268: 

269: %\subsection{Bias and Dark Subtraction}

270: 

271: The bias level is roughly 270 counts which changed by approximately

272: 8\% throughout the night.  This, along with the large-scale ramping

273: effect in the first 500 columns of every row was removed in the

274: standard manner using IRAF tasks.  The mean dark level is 1.6

275: counts/900s, and there is some vertical structure in the dark which

276: amounts to 1.4 counts/900s over the whole image.  To remove this

277: large-scale structure from the data images, a combined dark frame from

278: the whole run was median smoothed over $9\times9$ pixels

279: ($3.9\arcsec$), scaled by the exposure time, and subtracted from the

280: program frames.  Small scale variations were not present in the dark.

281: %\subsection{Flat Fielding}

282: Pixel--to--pixel sensitivity variations were corrected in all cluster

283: and night-sky flat images using nightly, high S/N, median-combined

284: dome flats with 70,000 -- 90,000 total counts.  After this step, a

285: large-scale illumination pattern remains across the chip.  This was

286: removed using night-sky flats of ``blank'' regions of the sky, which,

287: when combined using masking and rejection, produced an image with no

288: evident residual flux from sources but has the large scale

289: illumination pattern intact.  The illumination pattern was stable

290: among images taken during the same moon phase.  Program images were

291: corrected only with night sky flats taken in conditions of similar

292: moon.

293: 

294: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

295: 

296: %\subsection{Non-linearity}

297: 

298: We find that the Site\#3 CCD does have an approximately $7\%$

299: non-linearity over the full range of counts, which we fit with a

300: second order polynomial and corrected for in all the data.  The same

301: functional fit was found for both the 1998 and 1999 data, and also

302: applied to the 2000 data.  The uncertainty in the linearity correction

303: is incorporated in the total photometric uncertainty.

304: 

305: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

306: 

307: 

308: %\subsection{Photometric Calibration}

309: %\label{photometry}

310: 

311: Photometric calibration was performed in the usual manner using

312: Landolt standards at a range of airmasses.  Extinction was monitored

313: on stars in repeat cluster images throughout the night.  Photometric

314: nights were analyzed together; solutions were found in each filter for

315: an extinction coefficient and common magnitude zero-point with a $r-$

316: and $B-$band {\sc RMS} of 0.04 \& 0.03 magnitudes in October 1998,

317: 0.03 \& 0.03 magnitudes in September 1999, and 0.05 \& 0.05 magnitudes

318: in September 2000.  These uncertainties are a small contribution to

319: our final error budget (\S\ref{noise2}).  Those exposures taken in

320: non-photometric conditions were individually tied to the photometric

321: data using roughly 10 stars well distributed around each frame to find

322: the effective extinction for that frame.  Among those non-photometric

323: images we find a standard deviation of 0.03 magnitudes within each

324: frame.  Two further problems with using non-photometric data for low

325: surface brightness measurements are the scattering of light off of

326: clouds causing a changing background illumination across the field and

327: secondly the smoothing out of the PSF.  We find no spatial gradient

328: over the individual frame to the limit discussed in \S \ref{noise2}.

329: The change in PSF is on small scales and will have no effect on the

330: ICL measurement (see \ref{star2}).

331: 

332: 

333: 

334: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

335: 

336: %\subsection{Sky Background Subtraction}

337: 

338: 

339: Due to the temporal variations in the background, it is necessary to

340: link the off-cluster backgrounds from adjacent frames to create one

341: single background of zero counts for the entire cluster mosaic before

342: averaging together frames. To determine the background on each

343: individual frame we measure average counts in approximately twenty

344: $20\times20$ pixel regions across the frame.  Regions are chosen

345: individually by hand to be a representative sample of all areas of the

346: frame that are more distant than $0.8 h_{70}^{-1}$Mpc from the center

347: of the cluster.  This is well beyond the radius at which ICL

348: components have been identified in other clusters \citep{krick2006,

349:   feldmeier2002, gonzalez2005, zibetti2005}.  The average of these background

350: regions for each frame is subtracted from the data, bringing every

351: frame to a zero background.  The accuracy of the background

352: subtraction is discussed in \S \ref{noise2}.

353: 

354: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

355: 

356: %\subsection{Extinction Correction}

357: 

358: The remaining flux in the cluster images after background subtraction

359: is corrected for atmospheric extinction by multiplying each individual

360: image by $10^{\tau\chi/2.5}$, where $\chi$ is the airmass and $\tau$

361: is the fitted extinction in magnitudes from the photometric solution.

362: This multiplicative correction is between 1.04 and 2.0 for an airmass

363: range of 1.04 to 1.9.

364: 

365: %$$ m = m_{o} - 2.5\log(F) -\tau\chi  $$

366: 

367: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

368: 

369: 

370: %\subsection{Registration \& Distortion}

371: 

372: The IRAF tasks {\sc geomap} and {\sc geotran} were used to find and

373: apply x and y shifts and rotations between all images of a single

374: cluster.  The {\sc geotran} solution is accurate on average to 0.03

375: pixels (RMS).  Details of the final combined image after

376: pre-processing, background subtraction, extinction correction, and

377: registration are included in Table \ref{tab:obspars2}.

378: 

379: 

380: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

381: \subsection{Object Detection}

382: \label{detection2}

383: 

384: Object detection follows the same methods as Paper I.  We use

385: SExtractor to both find all objects in the combined frames, and to

386: determine their shape parameters.  The detection threshold in the $V$,

387: $B$, and $r$ images was defined such that objects have a minimum of 6

388: contiguous pixels, each of which are greater than $1.5\sigma$ above

389: the background sky level.  We choose these parameters as a compromise

390: between detecting faint objects in high signal-to-noise regions and

391: rejecting noise fluctuations in low signal-to-noise regions.  This

392: corresponds to minimum surface brightnesses which range from of 25.2

393: to 25.8 \magarc\ in $B$, 25.9 to 26.9 \magarc\ in $V$, and 24.7 to

394: 26.4 \magarc\ in $r$ (see Table \ref{tab:obspars2}).  This range in

395: surface brightness is due to varying cumulative exposure time in the

396: combined frames.  Shape parameters are determined in SExtractor using

397: only those pixels above the detection threshold.

398: 

399: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

400: 

401: 

402: \subsection{Object Removal \& Masking}

403: \label{remove_obj2}

404: 

405: To measure the ICL we remove all detected objects from the frame by

406: either subtraction of an analytical profile or masking. Details of

407: this process are described below.

408: 

409: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

410: 

411: \subsubsection{Stars}

412: \label{star2}

413: Scattered light in the telescope and atmosphere produce an extended

414: point spread function (PSF) for all objects.  To correct for this

415: effect, we determine the extended PSF using the profiles of a

416: collection of stars from super-saturated 4th mag stars to unsaturated

417: 14th magnitude stars.  The radial profiles of these stars were fit

418: together to form one PSF such that the extremely saturated star was

419: used to create the profile at large radii and the unsaturated stars

420: were used for the inner portion of the profile.  This allows us to

421: create an accurate PSF to a radius of $7$\arcmin, shown in Figure

422: \ref{fig:psf2}.

423: 

424: The inner region of the PSF is well fit by a Moffat function.  The

425: outer region is well fit by $r^{-2.0}$ in the $r-$band and $r^{-1.6}$

426: in the $B-$band.  In the $r-$band there is a small additional halo of

427: light at roughly 50 - 100\arcsec (200-400pix) around stars imaged on

428: the CCD.  The newer, higher quality, anti-reflection coated

429: interference $B-$band filter does not show this halo, which implies

430: that the halo is caused by reflections in the filter.  To test the

431: effect of clouds on the shape of the PSF we create a second deep PSF

432: from stars in cluster fields taken under non-photometric conditions.

433: There is a slight shift of flux in the inner 10 arcseconds of the PSF

434: profile, which will have no impact on our ICL measurement.

435: 

436: For each individual, non-saturated star, we subtract a scaled

437: band--specific profile from the frame in addition to masking the inner

438: $30$\arcsec\ of the profile (the region which follows a Moffat

439: profile).  For each individual saturated star, to be as cautious as

440: possible with the PSF wings, we have subtracted a stellar profile

441: given the USNO magnitude of that star, and produced a large mask to

442: cover the inner regions and any bleeding.  The mask size is chosen to

443: be twice the radius at which the star goes below 30\magarc, and

444: therefore goes well beyond the surface brightness limit at which we

445: measure the ICL.  We can afford to be liberal with our saturated star

446: masking since most clusters have very few saturated stars which are

447: not near the center of the cluster where we need the unmasked area to

448: measure any possible ICL.

449: 

450: In the specific case of A3880 there are two saturated stars (9th and

451: 10th $r-$band magnitude) within two arcminutes of the core region of

452: the cluster.  If we used the same method of conservatively masking

453: (twice the radius of the 30 \magarc\ aperture), the entire central

454: region of the image where we expect to find ICL would be lost.  We

455: therefore consider a less extreme method of removing the stellar

456: profile by iteratively matching the saturated stars' profiles with the

457: known PSF shape.  We measure the saturated star profiles on an image

458: which has had every object except for those two saturated stars

459: masked, as described in \S \ref{galaxies2}.  We can then scale our

460: measured PSF to the star's profile, at radii where there is expected

461: to be no contamination from the ICL, and the star's flux is not

462: saturated.  Since the two stars are within an arcminute of each other,

463: the scaled profiles of the stars are iteratively subtracted from the

464: masked cluster image until the process converges on solutions for the

465: scaling of each star.  We still use a mask for the inner region ($\sim

466: 75\arcsec$) where saturation and seeing effect the profile shape.

467: 

468: 

469: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

470: 

471: 

472: \subsubsection{Galaxies}

473: \label{galaxies2}

474: 

475: 

476: We want to remove all the flux in our images associated with galaxies.

477: Although some galaxies might follow deVaucouleurs, Sersic, or

478: exponential profiles, those galaxies which are near the centers of

479: clusters can not be fit with these or other models either because of

480: the overcrowding in the center or because their profiles really are

481: different due to their location in a dense environment.  A variety of

482: strategies for modeling galaxies within the centers of clusters were

483: explored in Paper 1 and were found to be inadequate for these

484: purposes.  Since we can not fit and subtract the galaxies to remove

485: their light, we instead mask all galaxies in our cluster images.

486: 

487: By masking, we remove from our ICL measurements all pixels above a

488: surface brightness limit which are centered on a galaxy as detected by

489: SExtractor.  For paper I, we chose to mask inside of 2 - 2.3 times the

490: radius at which the galaxy light dropped below 26.4 \magarc\ in $r$,

491: akin to 2-2.3 times a Holmberg radius \citep{holmberg1958}.  Holmberg

492: radii are typically used to denote the outermost radii of the stellar

493: populations in galaxies.

494: 

495: Galaxy profiles will also have the characteristic underlying shape of

496: the PSF, including the extended halo.  However for a 20th magnitude

497: galaxy, the PSF is below 30 \magarc by a radius of 10\arcsec.

498: 

499: Each of the clusters has a different native surface brightness

500: detection threshold based on the illumination correction and

501: background subtraction, and they are all at different redshifts.

502: However we want to mask galaxies at all redshifts to the same physical

503: surface brightness to allow for a meaningful comparison between

504: clusters at different redshifts.  To do this we make a correction for

505: $(1+z)^4$ surface brightness dimming and a $k$ correction for each

506: cluster when calculating mask sizes.  The masks sizes change by an

507: average of 10\% and at most 22\% from what they would have been given

508: the native detection threshold. Both the native and corrected surface

509: brightness detection thresholds are listed in Table

510: \ref{tab:obspars2}. To test the effect of mask size on the ICL profile

511: and total flux, we also create masks which are $30\%$ larger and

512: $30\%$ smaller in area than the calculated mask size.  The flux within

513: the masked areas for these galaxies is on average 25\% more than the

514: flux identified by SExtractor as the corrected isophotal magnitude for

515: each object.

516: 

517: 

518: 

519: 

520: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------\

521: \section{Results}

522: \label{results2}

523: Here we discuss our methods for measuring both cluster and ICL

524: properties as well as a discussion of each individual cluster in our

525: sample.

526: 

527: \subsection{Cluster Properties}

528: 

529: Cluster redshift, mass, and velocity dispersion are taken from the

530: literature, where available, as listed in table

531: \ref{tab:characteristics2}.  Additional properties that can be

532: identified in our data, particularly those which may correlate with

533: ICL properties (cluster membership, flux, dynamical state, and global

534: density), are discussed below and also summarized in Table

535: \ref{tab:characteristics2}.

536: 

537: \subsubsection{Cluster Membership \& Flux}

538: \label{member2}

539: 

540: Cluster membership and galaxy flux are both determined using a color

541: magnitude diagram (CMD) of either $B - r$ vs. $r$ (clusters with $z <

542: 0.1$) or $V - r$ vs. $r$ (clusters with $z > 0.1$).  We create color

543: magnitude diagrams for all clusters using corrected isophotal

544: magnitudes as determined by SExtractor.  Membership is then assigned

545: based on a galaxy's position in the diagram.  If a given galaxy is

546: within $1 \sigma$ of the red cluster sequence (RCS) determined with a

547: biweight fit, then it is considered a member (fits are shown in Figure

548: \ref{fig:allcmd}).  All others are considered to be

549: non-member foreground or background galaxies.  This method selects the

550: red elliptical galaxies as members.  The benefits of this method are

551: that membership can easily be calculated with 2 band photometry.  The

552: drawbacks are that it both does not include some of the bluer true

553: members and does include some of the redder non-members.  An

554: alternative method of determining cluster flux without spectroscopy by

555: integrating under a background subtracted luminosity function is

556: discussed in detail in \S5.3 of paper I.  Due to the large

557: uncertainties involved in both methods ($\sim30\%$), the choice of

558: procedure will not greatly effect the conclusions. 

559: 

560: To determine the total flux in galaxies, we sum the flux of all member

561: galaxies within the same cluster radius.  The image size of our

562: low-redshift clusters restricts that radius to one quarter of the

563: virial radius of the cluster where virial radii are taken from the

564: literature or calculated from X--ray temperatures as described in

565: \S\ref{A4059}-\ref{AC118}.  From tests with those clusters where we do

566: have some spectroscopic membership information from the literature

567: (see \S\ref{A2734} \& \S\ref{A38882}), we expect the uncertainty in

568: flux from using the CMD for membership to be $\sim30\%$.  

569: 

570: 

571: Fits to the CMDs produce the mean color of the red ellipticals, the

572: slope of the color versus magnitude relation (CMR) for each cluster,

573: and the width of that distribution.  Among our 10 clusters, the color

574: of the red sequence is correlated with redshift whereas the slopes of

575: the relations are roughly the same across redshift, consistent with

576: \citet{lopezcruz2004}.  The widths of the CMRs vary from 0.1 to 0.4

577: magnitudes.  This is expected if these clusters are made up of

578: multiple clumps of galaxies all at similar, but not exactly the same,

579: redshifts.  True background and foreground groups and clusters can

580: also add to the width of the RCS.

581: 

582: 

583: In order to compare fluxes from all clusters, we consider two

584: correction factors.  First, galaxies below the detection threshold

585: will not be counted in the cluster flux as we have measured it, and

586: will instead contribute to the ICL flux.  Since each cluster has a

587: different detection threshold based mainly on the quality of the

588: illumination correction (see Table \ref{tab:obspars2}), we calculate

589: individually for each cluster the flux contribution from galaxies

590: below the detection threshold.  Without luminosity functions for each

591: cluster, we adopt the \citet{goto2002} luminosity function based on

592: 200 Sloan clusters ($\alpha_r'=-0.85\pm0.03$). The flux from dwarf

593: galaxies below the detection threshold ( $M=-11$ in $r$) is less than

594: or equal to 0.1\% of the flux from sources above the detection

595: threshold (our assumed value of total flux).  This is an extremely

596: small contribution due to the faint end slope, and our deep, uniform

597: images with detection thresholds in all cases more than 7 magnitudes

598: dimmer than $M_*$.  Our surface brightness detection thresholds are

599: low enough that we don't expect to miss galaxies of normal surface

600: brightness below our detection threshold at any redshift assuming that

601: all galaxies at all redshifts have similar central surface

602: brightnesses. 

603: 

604: Second, we apply k and evolutionary corrections to account for the

605: shifting of the bandpasses through which we are observing, and the

606: evolution of the galaxy spectra due to the range in redshifts we

607: observe.  We use \citet{poggianti1997} for both of these corrections

608: as calculated for simple stellar population of elliptical galaxies in

609: $B$, $V$, and $r$.

610: 

611: 

612: 

613: 

614: 

615: \subsubsection{Dynamical Age}

616: \label{morphology2}

617: 

618: Dynamical age is an important cluster characteristic for this work as

619: dynamical age is tied to the number of past interactions among the

620: galaxies.  We discuss four methods for estimating cluster dynamical

621: age based on optical and X--ray imaging. The first two methods are

622: based on cluster morphology using Bautz Morgan type and an indication

623: of the presence of a cD galaxy.  We use morphology as a proxy for

624: dynamical age since clusters with single large elliptical galaxies at

625: their centers (cD) have presumably been through more mergers and

626: interactions than clusters that have multiple clumps of galaxies where

627: none have settled to the center of the potential.  Those clusters with

628: more mergers are dynamically older, therefore clusters with cD

629: galaxies should be dynamically older.  Specifically Bautz Morgan type is a

630: measure of cluster morphology defined such that type I clusters have

631: cD galaxies, type III clusters do not have cD galaxies, and type II

632: clusters may show cD-like galaxies which are not centrally located.

633: Bautz Morgan type is not reliable as Abell did not have membership

634: information.  To this we add our own binary indicator of cluster

635: morphology; clusters which have single galaxy peaks in the centers of

636: their ICL distributions (cD galaxies) versus clusters which have

637: multiple galaxy peaks in the centers of their ICL distributions (no

638: cD).

639: 

640: 

641: We have more information about the dynamical age of the cluster beyond

642: just the presence or absence of a cD galaxy, namely the difference in

643: brightness of the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) relative to the next

644: few brightest galaxies in the cluster \citep[the luminosity gap

645: statistic][]{milosavljevic2005}, which is our third estimate of

646: dynamical age.  Clusters with one bright galaxy that is much brighter

647: than any of the other cluster galaxies imply an old dynamic age

648: because it takes time to form that bright galaxy through multiple

649: mergers.  Conversely, multiple evenly bright galaxies imply a cluster

650: that is dynamically young.  For our sample we measure the magnitude

651: differences between the first (M1) and second (M2) brightest galaxies

652: that are considered members based on color.  We run the additional

653: test of comparing M2-M1 with M3-M1, where consistency between these

654: values insures a lack of foreground or background contamination.

655: Values of M3-M1 range from 0.24 to 1.1 magnitudes and are listed in

656: Table \ref{tab:characteristics2}.  This is the most reliable measure

657: of dynamic age available to us in this dataset. In a sample of 12

658: galaxy groups from N-body hydrodynamical simulations,

659: \citet{donghia2005} find a clear, strong correlation between the

660: luminosity gap statistic and formation time of the group (spearman

661: rank coefficient of 0.91) such that $\delta$mag increases by $0.69 \pm

662: 0.41(1\sigma)$ magnitudes for every one billion years of formation.

663: We assume this simulation is also an accurate reflection of the evolution

664: of clusters and therefore that M3-M1 is well correlated with formation

665: time and therefore dynamical age of the clusters.

666: 

667: The fourth method for measuring dynamical state is based on the X--ray

668: observations of the clusters.  In a simulation of 9 cluster mergers

669: with mass ratios ranging from 1:1 to 10:1 with a range of orbital

670: properties, \citet{poole2006} show that clusters are virialized at or

671: shortly after they visually appear relaxed through the absence of

672: structures (clumps, shocks, cavities) or centroid shifts (X--ray peak

673: vs. center of the X--ray gas distribution).  We then assume that

674: spherically distributed hot gas as evidenced by the X--ray

675: morphologies of the clusters free from those structures and centroid

676: shifts implies relaxed clusters which are therefore dynamically older

677: clusters that have already been through significant mergers.  With

678: enough photons, X--ray spectroscopy can trace the metallicity of

679: different populations to determine progenitor groups or clusters.

680: X--ray observations are summarized in \S \ref{A4059} - \S \ref{AC118}.

681: 

682: 

683: \subsubsection{Global Density}

684: 

685: Current global cluster density is an important cluster characteristic for this

686: work as density is correlated with the past interaction rate among

687: galaxies.  We would like a measure of the number of galaxies in each

688: of the clusters within some well defined radius which encompasses the

689: potentially dynamically active regions of the cluster.  Abell chose to

690: calculate global density as the number of galaxies with magnitudes

691: between that of the third ranked member, M3, and M3+2 within 1.5

692: Mpc of the cluster, statistically correcting for foreground and

693: background galaxy contamination with galaxy densities outside of

694: 1.5Mpc \citep{abell1989}. The cluster galaxy densities are then binned

695: into richness classes with values of zero to three, where richness

696: three clusters are higher density than richness zero clusters.

697: Cluster richnesses are listed in Table

698: \ref{tab:characteristics2}.

699: 

700: In addition to richness class we use a measure of global density which

701: has not been binned into coarse values and is not affected by sample

702: completeness.  To do this we count the number of member galaxies

703: inside of 0.8 \h Mpc to the same absolute magnitude limit for all

704: clusters.  Membership is assigned to those galaxies within $1\sigma$

705: of the color magnitude relation (CMR).  The density may be affected by

706: the width of the CMR if the CMR has been artificially widened due to

707: foreground and background contamination.  We choose a magnitude limit

708: of $M_{r}$ = -18.5 which is deep enough to get many tens of galaxies

709: at all clusters, but is shallow enough that our photometry is still

710: complete.  At the most distant clusters (z=0.31), an $M_{r}$ = -18.5

711: galaxy is a $125\sigma$ detection.  The numbers of galaxies in each

712: cluster that meet these criteria range from 62 - 288, and are in good

713: agreement with the broader Abell richness determination.  These

714: density estimates are listed in Table \ref{tab:characteristics2}.

715: 

716: 

717: 

718: 

719: 

720: %------------------------------------------------------------------------------

721: \subsection{ICL properties}

722: 

723: We detect an ICL component in all ten clusters of our sample.  We

724: describe below our methods for measuring the surface brightness

725: profile, color, flux, and substructure in that component.

726: 

727: \subsubsection{Surface brightness profile}

728: \label{profile2}

729: 

730: In eight out of 10 clusters the ICL component is centralized enough to

731: fit with a single set of elliptical isophotes.  The exceptions are

732: A0141 and AC118.  We use the IRAF routine {\sc ellipse} to fit

733: isophotes to the diffuse light which gives us a surface brightness

734: profile as a function of semi--major axis.  The masked pixels are

735: completely excluded from the fits.  There are 3 free parameters in the

736: isophote fitting: center, position angle (PA), and ellipticity.  We

737: fix the center and let the PA and ellipticity vary as a function of

738: radius.  Average ICL ellipticities range from 0.3 to 0.7 and vary

739: smoothly if at all within each cluster.  The PA is notably coincident

740: with that of the cD galaxy where present (discussed in \S \ref{A4059}

741: - \ref{AC118}).

742: 

743: We identify the surface brightness profile of the total cluster light

744: (ie., including resolved galaxies) for comparison with the ICL within

745: the same radial extent. To do this, we make a new ``cluster'' image by

746: masking non-member galaxies as determined from the color magnitude

747: relation (\S \ref{member2}).  A surface brightness profile of the

748: cluster light is then measured from this image using the same

749: elliptical isophotes as were used in the ICL profile measurement.

750: 

751: Figure \ref{fig:predict} shows the surface brightness profiles of all

752: eight clusters for which we can measure an ICL profile.  Individual

753: ICL profiles in both $r-$ and $V-$ or $B-$bands are shown in Figures

754: \ref{fig:A4059} - \ref{fig:A118}.  Results based on all three versions

755: of mask size (as discussed in \S \ref{galaxies2}) are shown via

756: shading on those plots.  Note that we are not able to directly measure

757: the ICL at small radii ($< \sim 70kpc$) in any of the clusters because

758: greater than 75\% of those pixels are masked.  The uncertainty in the

759: ICL surface brightness is dominated by the accuracy with which the

760: background level can be identified, while the error on the mean within

761: each elliptical isophote is negligible, as discussed in \S

762: \ref{noise2}.  Error bars in Figures \ref{fig:predict} and

763: \ref{fig:A4059} - \ref{fig:A118} show the $1\sigma$ uncertainty based

764: on the error budget for each cluster (see representative error budget in Table

765: \ref{tab:error2}).

766: 

767: 

768: The ICL surface brightness profiles have two interesting

769: characteristics.  First, in all cases they can be fit by both

770: exponential and deVaucouleurs profiles.  Both appear to perform

771: equally well given the large error bars at low surface

772: brightness. These profiles, in contrast to the galaxy profiles, are

773: relatively smooth, only occasionally reflecting the clustering of

774: galaxies. Second, the ICL is more concentrated than the galaxies,

775: which is to say that the ICL falls off more rapidly with increased

776: radius than the galaxy light.  In all cases the ICL light is

777: decreasing rapidly enough at large radii such that the additional flux

778: beyond the radius at which we can reliable measure the surface

779: brightness is at most 10\% of the flux inside of that radius based on

780: an extrapolation of the exponential fit.

781: 

782: 

783: There are 2 clusters (A0141, Figure \ref{fig:A141} \& AC118, Figure

784: \ref{fig:A118}) for which there is no single centralized ICL profile.

785: These clusters do not have a cD galaxy, and their giant ellipticals

786: are distant enough from each other that the ICL is not a continuous

787: centralized structure.  We therefore have no surface brightness

788: profile for those clusters although we are still able to measure an

789: ICL flux, as discussed below.

790: 

791: We attempt to measure the profile of the cD galaxy where present in

792: our sample. To do this we remove the mask of that galaxy and allow

793: ellipse to fit isophotes all the way into the center.  In 5 out of 7

794: clusters with a cD galaxy, the density of galaxies at the center is so

795: great that just removing the mask for the cD galaxy is not enough to

796: reveal the center of the cluster due to the other overlapping

797: galaxies.  Only for A4059 and A2734 are we able to connect the ICL

798: profile to the cD profile at small radii.  These are shown in Figures

799: \ref{fig:A4059} \& \ref{fig:A2734}.

800: 

801: In both cases the entire profile of the cD plus ICL is well fit by a

802: single DeVaucouleurs profile, although it can also be fit by 2

803: DeVaucouleurs profiles.  The profiles can not be fit with single

804: exponential functions.  We do not see a break between the cD and ICL

805: profiles as seen by \citet{gonzalez2005}.  While those authors find

806: that breaks in the extended BCG profile are common in their sample,

807: $\sim 25\%$ of the BCG's in that sample did not show a clear

808: preference for a double deVaucouleurs model over the single

809: deVaucouleurs model.  In both clusters where we measure a cD profile,

810: the color appears to start out with a blue color gradient, and then

811: turn around and become increasingly redder at large radii as the ICL

812: component becomes dominant (see Figures \ref{fig:A4059} \&

813: \ref{fig:A2734}).

814: 

815: \subsubsection{ ICL Flux }

816: 

817: The total amount of light in the ICL and the ratio of ICL flux to

818: total cluster flux can help constrain the importance of galaxy

819: disruption in the evolution of clusters.  As some clusters have cD

820: galaxies in the centers of their ICL distribution, we need a

821: consistent, physically motivated method of measuring ICL flux in the

822: centers of those clusters as compared to the clusters without a single

823: centralized galaxy.  The key difference here is that in cD clusters

824: the ICL stars will blend smoothly into the galaxy occupying the center

825: of the potential well, whereas with non-cD clusters the ICL stars in

826: the center are unambiguous.  Since our physical motivation is to

827: understand galaxy interactions, we consider ICL to be all stars which

828: were at some point stripped from their original host galaxies,

829: regardless of where they are now.

830: 

831: In the case of clusters with cD galaxies, although we cannot separate

832: the ICL from the galaxy flux in the center of the cluster, we can

833: measure the ICL profile outside of the cD galaxy.

834: \citet{gonzalez2005} have shown for a sample of 24 clusters that a BCG

835: with ICL halo can be well fit with two deVaucouleurs profiles.  The

836: two profiles imply two populations of stars which follow different

837: orbits. We assume stars on the inner profile are cD galaxy stars and

838: those stars on the outer profile are ICL stars.  \citet{gonzalez2005}

839: find that the outer profile on average accounts for 80\% of the

840: combined flux and becomes dominant at 40-100kpc from the center which

841: is at surface brightness levels of 24 - 25 \magarc\ in $r$.  Since all

842: of our profiles are well beyond this radius and well below this

843: surface brightness level, we conclude that the ICL profile we identify

844: is not contaminated by cD galaxy stars.  Assuming that the stars on

845: the outer profile have different orbits than the stars on the inner

846: profile, we calculate ICL flux by summing all the light in the outer

847: profile from a radius of zero to the radius at which the ICL becomes

848: undetectable.  Note that this method identifies ICL stars regardless

849: of their current state as bound or unbound from the cD galaxy.

850: 

851: 

852: We therefore calculate ICL flux by first finding the mean surface

853: brightness in each elliptical annuli where all masked pixels are not

854: included.  This mean flux is then summed over all pixels within that

855: annulus including the ones which were masked.  This represents a

856: difference from paper I where we performed an integration on the fit

857: to the ICL profile; here we sum the profile values themselves.  We are

858: justified in using the area under the galaxy masks for the ICL sum

859: since the galaxies only account for less than 3\% of the volume of the

860: cluster regardless of projected area.

861: 

862: There are two non-cD clusters (A141 \& A118) for which we could not

863: recover a profile.  We calculate ICL flux for those clusters by

864: measuring a mean flux within three concentric, manually--placed,

865: elliptical annuli (again not utilizing masked pixels) in the mean, and

866: then summing that flux over all pixels in those annuli.  All ICL

867: fluxes are subject to the same k and evolutionary corrections as

868: discussed in \S \ref{member2}.

869: 

870: \subsubsection{ ICL Fraction }

871: \label{iclfraction}

872: In addition to fluxes, we present the ratio of ICL flux to total

873: cluster flux, where total cluster flux includes ICL plus galaxy flux.

874: Galaxy flux is taken from the CMDs out to $0.25r_{virial}$, as

875: discussed in \S \ref{member2}.  ICL fractions range from 6 to 22\% in

876: the $r-$band and 4 to 21\% in the $B-$band where the smallest fraction

877: comes from A2556 and the largest from A4059.  All fluxes and fractions

878: are listed in Table \ref{tab:characteristics2}.  As mentioned in \S

879: \ref{member2}, there is no perfect way of measuring cluster flux

880: without a complete spectroscopic survey.  Based on those clusters

881: where we do have some spectroscopic information, we estimate the

882: uncertainty in the cluster flux to be $\sim30\%$ .  This includes both

883: the absence from the calculation of true member galaxies, and the

884: false inclusion of non-member galaxies.  

885: 

886: All cluster fluxes as measured from the RCS do not include blue member

887: galaxies so those fluxes are potentially lower limits to the true

888: cluster flux, implying that the ICL fractions are potentially biased

889: high.  This possible bias is made more complicated by the known fact

890: that not all clusters have the same amount of blue member galaxies

891: \citep{butcher1984}.  Less evolved clusters (at higher redshifts) will

892: have higher fractions of blue galaxies than more evolved clusters (at

893: lower redshifts).  Therefore ICL fractions in the higher redshift

894: clusters will be systematically higher than in the lower redshift

895: clusters since their fluxes will be systematically underestimated.  We

896: estimate the impact of this effect using blue fractions from

897: \citet{couch1998} who find maximal blue fractions of $60\%$ of all

898: cluster galaxies at $z=0.3$ as compared to $\sim20\%$ at the present

899: epoch.  If none of those blue galaxies were included in our flux

900: measurement for AC114 and AC118 (the two highest z clusters), this

901: implies a drop in ICL fraction of $\sim 40\%$ as compared to $\sim

902: 10\%$ at the lowest redshifts.  This effect will strengthen the

903: relations discussed below.

904: 

905: Most simulations use a theoretically motivated definition of ICL which

906: determine its fractional flux within $r_{200}$ or $r_{vir}$.  It is

907: not straightforward to compare our data to those simulated values

908: since our images do not extend to the virial radius nor do they extend

909: to infinitely low surface brightness which keeps us from measuring

910: both galaxy and ICL flux at those large radii. The change in

911: fractional flux from $0.25r_{vir}$ to $r_{vir}$ will be related to the

912: relative slopes of the galaxies versus ICL.  As the ICL is more

913: centrally concentrated than the galaxies we expect the fractional flux

914: to decrease from $0.25r_{vir}$ to $r_{vir}$ since the galaxies will

915: contribute an ever larger fraction to the total cluster flux at large

916: radii.  We estimate what the fraction at $r_{vir}$ would be for 2

917: clusters in our sample, A4059 and A3984 (steep profile and shallow

918: profile respectively), by extrapolating the exponential fits to both the ICL and

919: galaxy profiles.  Using the extrapolated flux values, the fractional

920: flux decreases by 10\% where ICL and galaxy profiles are steep and up

921: to 90\% where profiles are shallower.

922: 

923: %---------------------------------------------------------------------

924: 

925: \subsubsection{Color}

926: 

927: For those clusters with an ICL surface brightness profile we measure a

928: color profile as a function of radius by binning together three to

929: four points from the surface brightness profile.  All colors are k

930: corrected and evolution corrected assuming a simple stellar population

931: \citep{poggianti1997}.  Color profiles range from flat to increasingly

932: red or increasingly blue color gradients (see Figures

933: \ref{fig:allcolor}).  We fit simple linear functions to the color

934: profiles with their corresponding errors.  To determine if the color

935: gradients are statistically significant we look at the $\pm2\sigma$

936: values on the slope of the linear fit.  If those values do not include

937: zero slope, then we assume the color gradient is real.  Color error

938: bars are quite large, so in most cases $2\sigma$ does include a flat

939: profile.  The significant color gradients (A4010, A3888, A3984) are

940: discussed in \S \ref{A4059} - \ref{AC118}.

941: 

942: For all clusters an average ICL color is used to compare with cluster

943: properties.  In the case where there is a color gradient, that average

944: color is taken as an average of all points with error bars less than

945: one magnitude.

946: 

947: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

948: 

949: 

950: 

951: 

952: \subsubsection{ICL Substructure}

953: \label{iclsub2}

954: 

955: Using the technique of unsharp masking (subtracting a smoothed version

956: of the image from itself) we scan each cluster for low surface

957: brightness (LSB) tidal features as evidence of ongoing galaxy

958: interactions and thus possible ongoing contribution to the ICL .  All

959: 10 clusters do have multiple LSB features which are likely from tidal

960: interactions between galaxies, although some are possibly LSB galaxies

961: seen edge on.  For example we see multiple interacting galaxies and

962: warped galaxies, as well as one shell galaxy.  For further discussion

963: see \S6.5 of paper I.  From the literature we know that the two

964: highest redshift clusters in the sample (AC114 and AC118, z=0.31) have

965: a higher fraction of interacting galaxies than other clusters

966: \citep[$\sim 12\%$ of galaxies, ][]{couch1998}.  In two of our

967: clusters, A3984 and A141, there appears to be plume-like structure in

968: the diffuse ICL, which is to say that the ICL stretches from the BCG

969: towards another set of galaxies.  Of this sample, only A3888 has a

970: large, hundred kpc scale, arc type feature, see Figure 9 and Table 2

971: of paper I.  There are $\sim 4$ examples of these large features in

972: the literature \citep{gregg1998,

973:   calcaneo2000,feldmeier2004,mihos2005}.  These structures are not

974: expected to last longer than a few cluster crossing times, so we don't

975: expect that they must exist in our sample.  Furthermore, it is

976: possible that there is significant ICL substructure below our surface

977: brightness limits \citep{rudick2006}.

978: 

979: 

980: 

981: 

982: 

983: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

984: \subsubsection{Groups}

985: \label{groups2}

986: In seven out of 10 clusters the diffuse ICL is determined by eye to be

987: multi-peaked \\(A4059,A2734,A3888,A3984,A141,AC114,AC118).  In some

988: cases those excesses surround the clumps of galaxies which appear to

989: all be part of the same cluster, ie the clumps are within a few

990: hundred kpc from the center but have obvious separations, and there is

991: no central dominant galaxy (eg., A118). In other cases, the secondary

992: diffuse components are at least a Mpc from the cluster center (eg.,

993: A3888).  In these cases, the secondary diffuse light component is

994: likely associated with groups of galaxies which are falling in toward

995: the center of the cluster, and may be at various different stages of

996: merging at the center.  This is strong evidence for ICL creation in

997: group environments, which is consistent with recent measurements of a

998: small amount of ICL in isolated galaxy groups \citep{castro2003,

999:   durrell2004, rocha2005}.  This is also consistent with current

1000: simulations \citep[][and references therein]{willman2004, fujita2004,

1001:   gnedin2003a, rudick2006, sommer-larsen2006}. From the theory, we

1002: expect ICL formation to be linked with the number density of galaxies.

1003: Since group environments can have high densities at their centers and

1004: have lower velocity dispersions, it is not surprising that groups have

1005: ICL flux associated with them.  \citet{sommer-larsen2006} find the

1006: intra-group light to have very similar properties to the ICL making up

1007: $12-45\%$ of the group light, having roughly deVaucouleurs profiles,

1008: and in general varying in flux from group to group where groups with

1009: older dynamic ages \citep[fossil groups][]{donghia2005} have a larger

1010: amount of ICL.  Groups in individual clusters are discussed in

1011: \S\ref{A4059} - \ref{AC118}.

1012: 

1013: 

1014: %--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1015: \subsection{Accuracy Limits}

1016: \label{noise2}

1017: 

1018: The accuracy of the ICL surface brightness is limited on small scales

1019: ($<10\arcsec$) by photon noise.  On larger scales ($>10\arcsec$),

1020: structure in the background level (be it intrinsic or instrumental)

1021: will dominate the error budget.  We determine the stability of the

1022: background level in each cluster image on large scales by first median

1023: smoothing the masked image by 20\arcsec.  We then measure the mean

1024: flux in thousands of random 1\arcsec\ regions more distant than 0.8

1025: Mpc from the center of the cluster.  The standard deviation of these

1026: regions represents the accuracy with which we can measure the

1027: background on $20\arcsec$ scales.  We tested the accuracy of this

1028: measure for even larger-scale uncertainties on two clusters (A3880

1029: from the 40'' data and A3888 from the 100'' data).  We find that

1030: the uncertainty remains roughly constant on scales equal to, or larger

1031: than, $20\arcsec$.  These accuracies are listed for each cluster in

1032: Table \ref{tab:obspars2}.  Regions from all around the frame are used

1033: to check that this estimate of standard deviation is universal across

1034: the image and not affected by location in the frame.  This empirical

1035: measurement of the large-scale fluctuations across the image is

1036: dominated by the instrumental flat-fielding accuracy, but includes

1037: contributions from the bias and dark subtraction, physical variations

1038: in the sky level, and the statistical uncertainties mentioned above.

1039:  

1040: We examine the effect of including data taken under non-photometric

1041: conditions on the large-scale background illumination.  This noise is

1042: fully accounted for in the measurement described above.  All $B-$ and

1043: $V-$ band data were taken on photometric nights.  Five clusters

1044: include varying fractions of non-photometric $r-$ band data; $47\%$ of

1045: A3880, $12\%$ of A3888, $15\%$ of A3984, $48\%$ of A141, and $14\%$ of

1046: A114 are non-photometric.  For A3880, the cluster with one of the

1047: largest fractions of non-photometric data, we compare the measured

1048: accuracy on the combined image which includes the non-photometric data

1049: with accuracy measured from a combined image which includes only

1050: photometric frames.  The resulting large-scale accuracy is 0.3

1051: \magarc better on the frame which includes only photometric data.

1052: Although this does imply that the non-photometric frames are noisier,

1053: the added signal strength gained from having 4.5 more hours on source

1054: outweighs the extra noise.

1055: 

1056: This empirical measurement of the large--scale background fluctuations

1057: is likely to be a conservative estimate of the accuracy with which we

1058: can measure surface brightness on large scales because it is derived

1059: from the outer regions of the image where compared to the central

1060: regions on average a factor of $\sim 2$ fewer individual exposures

1061: have been combined for the 100'' data and a factor of $~1.5$ for the

1062: 40'' (which has a larger field of view and requires less dithering).

1063: A larger number of dithered exposures at a range of airmass, lunar

1064: phase, photometric conditions, time of year, time of night, and

1065: distance to the moon has the effect of smoothing out large-scale

1066: fluctuations in the illumination pattern.  We therefore expect greater

1067: accuracy in the center of the image where the ICL is being measured.

1068: 

1069: We include a list all sources of uncertainty for one cluster in our

1070: sample (A3888) in Table \ref{tab:error2} (reproduced here from Paper

1071: I).  In addition to the dominant uncertainty due to the large-scale

1072: fluctuations on the background as discussed above, we quantify the

1073: contributions from the photometry, masking, and the accuracy with

1074: which we can measure the mean in the individual elliptical isophotes.

1075: Errors for the other clusters are similarly dominated by background

1076: fluctuations, which are listed in Table \ref{tab:obspars2}.  The errors

1077: on the total ICL fluxes in all bands range from 17\% to 70\% with an

1078: average of 39\%.  The exception is A2556 which reaches a flux error of

1079: 100\% in the $B-$band due to its extremely faint profile (see \S

1080: \ref{A2556}).  Assuming a 30\% error in the galaxy flux (see \S

1081: \ref{member2}), the errors on the ICL fraction are on average 48\%.

1082: The errors plotted on the surface brightness profiles are the

1083: $1\sigma$ errors.

1084: 

1085: 

1086: %-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1087: \section{Discussion}

1088: \label{discuss2}

1089: 

1090: We measure a diffuse intracluster component in all ten clusters in our

1091: sample.  Clues to the physical mechanisms driving galaxy evolution

1092: come from comparing ICL properties with cluster properties.  We have

1093: searched for correlations between the entire set of properties.  Pairs

1094: of properties not explicitly discussed below showed no correlations.

1095: Limited by a small sample and non-parametric data, we use a Spearman

1096: rank test to determine the strength of any possible correlations where

1097: 1.0 or -1.0 indicate a definite correlation or anti--correlation

1098: respectively, and 0 indicates no correlation.  Note that this test

1099: does not take into account the errors in the parameters, and instead

1100: only depends on their rank among the sample.  Where a correlation is

1101: indicated we show the fit as well as $\pm2\sigma$ in both y-intercept

1102: and slope to graphically show the ranges of the fit, and give some

1103: estimate of the strength of the correlation.

1104: 

1105: 

1106: There are selection biases in our data between cluster parameters

1107: due to our use of an Abell selected sample.  The Abell

1108: cluster sample is incomplete at high redshifts; it does not include

1109: low-mass, low-luminosity, low-density, high-redshift clusters because

1110: of the difficulty in obtaining the required sensitivity with

1111: increasing redshift.  Although our 5 low-redshift clusters are not

1112: affected by this selection effect, and should be a random sampling,

1113: small numbers prevent those clusters from being fully representative

1114: of the entire range of cluster properties.

1115: 

1116: Specifically we discuss the possibility that there is a real trend

1117: underlying the selection bias in the cases of lower luminosity (Figure

1118: \ref{fig:clusterz}) and lower density clusters (Figure

1119: \ref{fig:ngalsz}) being preferentially found at lower redshift.

1120: Clusters in our sample with less total galaxy flux are preferentially

1121: found at low redshifts, however hierarchical formation predicts the

1122: opposite trend; clusters should be gaining mass over time and hence

1123: light over time.  Note that on size scales much larger than the virial

1124: radius mass does not change with time and therefore those systems can

1125: be considered as closed boxes; but on the size scales of our data, a

1126: quarter of a virial radius, clusters are not closed boxes.

1127: 

1128: 

1129: We might expect a slight trend, as was found, such that lower density

1130: clusters are found at lower redshifts. As a cluster ages, it

1131: converts a larger number of galaxies into a smaller number of galaxies

1132: via merging and therefore has a lower density at lower redshifts

1133: despite being more massive than high redshift clusters.  The infall of

1134: galaxies works against this trend.  The sum total of merger and infall

1135: rates will control this evolution of density with redshift.  The

1136: observed density redshift relation for this sample is strong; over the

1137: range z=0.3 - 0.05 (elapsed time of 3Gyr assuming standard $\Lambda

1138: CDM$) the projected number density of galaxies has to change by a

1139: factor of 5.5, implying that every 5.5 galaxies in the cluster must

1140: have merged into 1 galaxy in the last 3 Gyr.  This is well above a

1141: realistic merger rate for this timescale and this time period

1142: \citep{gnedin2003b}.  Instead it is likely that we are seeing the

1143: result of a selection effect.

1144: 

1145: 

1146: An interesting correlation which may be indirectly due to the

1147: selection bias is that clusters with less total galaxy flux tend to

1148: have lower densities (Figure \ref{fig:ngalsicl}).  While we expect a

1149: smaller number of average galaxies to emit a smaller amount of total

1150: light, it is possible that the low density clusters are actually made

1151: up of a few very bright galaxies.  So although the trend might be

1152: real, it is also likely that the redshift selection effect of both

1153: density and cluster flux is causing these two parameters to be

1154: correlated.

1155: 

1156: 

1157: A correlation which does not appear to be affected by sample

1158: selection is that lower density clusters in our sample are weakly

1159: correlated with the presence of a cD galaxy, see Figure

1160: \ref{fig:ngalsm3m1}. A possible explanation for this is that as a

1161: cluster ages it will have made a cD galaxy out of many smaller

1162: galaxies, so the density will actually be lower for dynamically older

1163: clusters.  \citet{loh2006} find the same correlation by looking at a

1164: sample of environments around 2000 SDSS luminous red galaxies.

1165: 

1166:  

1167: 

1168: In the remainder of this section we examine the interesting physics

1169: that can be gleaned from the combination of cluster properties and ICL

1170: properties given the above biases.  The interpretation of ICL

1171: correlations with cluster properties is highly complicated due not

1172: only to small number statistics and the selection bias, but to the

1173: direction of the selection bias.  Biases in mass, density, and total

1174: galaxy flux with redshift will destructively combine to cancel the

1175: trends which we expect to find in the ICL (as described in the

1176: introduction).  An added level of complication is due to the fact that

1177: we expect the ICL flux to be evolving with time.  We examine below

1178: each ICL property in turn, including how the selection bias will

1179: effect any conclusions drawn from the observed trends.

1180: %-------------

1181: 

1182: \subsection{ICL flux}

1183: We see a range in ICL flux likely caused by the differing interaction

1184: rates and therefore differing production of tidal tails, streams,

1185: plumes, etc. in different clusters.  Clusters include a large amount

1186: of tidal features at low surface brightness as evidenced by their

1187: discovery at low redshift where they are not as affected by surface

1188: brightness dimming \citep{mihos2005}.  It is therefore not surprising

1189: that we see a variation of flux levels in our own sample.

1190: 

1191: ICL flux is apparently correlated with three cluster parameters;

1192: M3-M1, density, and total galaxy flux (Figures \ref{fig:m3m1icl},

1193: \ref{fig:ngalsicl}, \& \ref{fig:clustericl}).  There is no direct,

1194: significant correlation between ICL flux and redshift.  As discussed

1195: above, the selection effects of density and mass with redshift will

1196: tend to cancel any expected trends in either density, mass, or

1197: redshift.  We therefore are unable to draw conclusions from these

1198: correlations.  \citet{zibetti2005}, who have a sample of 680 SDSS

1199: clusters, are able to split their sample on both richness and

1200: magnitude of the BCG (as a proxy for mass). They find that both richer

1201: clusters and brighter BCG clusters have brighter ICL than poor or

1202: faint clusters.

1203: 

1204: 

1205: 

1206: 

1207: %-----------------------------

1208: \subsubsection{ICL Flux vs. M3-M1}

1209: \label{m3m1}

1210: Figure \ref{fig:m3m1icl} shows the moderate correlation between ICL

1211: flux and M3-M1 such that clusters with cD galaxies have less ICL than

1212: clusters without cD galaxies (Spearman coefficient of -0.50). Although

1213: we choose M3-M1 to be cautious about interlopers, M2-M1 shows the same

1214: trend with a slightly more significant spearman coefficient of -0.61.

1215: Our simple binary indicator of the presence of a cD galaxy gives the

1216: same result.  Clusters with cD galaxies (7) have an average flux of

1217: $2.3\pm0.96\times10^{11} (1\sigma)$ whereas clusters without cD

1218: galaxies (3) have an average flux of $5.0\pm0.18\times10^{11}

1219: (1\sigma)$.

1220: 

1221: 

1222: Although density is correlated with M3-M1, and density is affected by

1223: incompleteness, this trend of ICL flux with M3-M1 is not necessarily

1224: caused by that selection effect.  Furthermore, the correlation of

1225: M3-M1 with redshift is much weaker (if there at all) than trends of

1226: either density or cluster flux with redshift.  If the observed

1227: relation is due to the selection effect then we are prevented from

1228: drawing conclusions from this relation.  Otherwise, if this relation

1229: between ICL flux and the presence of a cD galaxy is not caused by a

1230: selection effect, then we conclude that the lower levels of measured

1231: ICL are a result of the ICL stars being indistinguishable form the cD

1232: galaxy and therefore the ICL is evolving in a similar way to a cD

1233: galaxy.

1234: 

1235: By which physical mechanism can the ICL stars

1236: end up in the center of the cluster and therefore overlap with cD

1237: stars?  cD galaxies indicate multiple major mergers of galaxies which

1238: have lost enough energy or angular momentum to now reside in the

1239: center of the cluster potential well. ICL stars on their own will not

1240: be able to migrate to the center over any physically reasonable

1241: timescales unless they were stripped at the center, or are formed in

1242: groups and get pulled into the center along with their original

1243: groups\citep{merritt1984}.

1244: 

1245: 

1246: 

1247: Assuming the ICL is observationally inseparable from the cD galaxy, we

1248: investigate how much ICL light the measured relation implies is hidden

1249: amongst the stars of the cD galaxy.  If 20\% of the total cD + ICL

1250: light is added to the value of the ICL flux in the outer profile, then

1251: the observed trend of ICL flux with M3-M1 is weakened (Spearman

1252: coefficient drops from 0.5 to 0.4).  If 30\% of the total cD + ICL

1253: light is hidden in the inner profile then the relation disappears

1254: (Spearman coefficient of 0.22).  The measured relation between ICL

1255: $r-$band flux and dynamical age of the clusters may then imply that

1256: 25-40\% of the ICL is coincident with the cD galaxy in dynamically

1257: relaxed clusters.

1258: 

1259: 

1260: 

1261: %--------------------------------------------------------

1262: \subsection{ICL fraction}

1263: \label{iclfrac}

1264: We focus now on the fraction of total cluster light which is in the

1265: diffuse ICL.  If ICL and galaxy flux do scale together (not just due

1266: to the selection effect), then the ICL fraction is the physically

1267: meaningful parameter in comparison to cluster properties.

1268: 

1269: ICL fraction is apparently correlated with both mass and redshift

1270: (Figure \ref{fig:massratio} \& \ref{fig:zratio}) and not with density

1271: or total galaxy flux.  The selection

1272: effect will again work against the predicted trend of ICL fraction to

1273: increase with increasing mass \citep{murante2004,lin2004} and

1274: increasing density.  Therefore the lack of trends of ICL fraction with

1275: mass and density could be attributable to the selection bias.

1276: 

1277: 

1278: \subsubsection{ICL fraction vs. Mass}

1279: \label{mass2}

1280: 

1281: 

1282: We find no trend in ICL fraction with mass.  Our data for ICL fraction

1283: as a function of mass is inconsistent with the theoretical predictions

1284: of \citet{murante2004}, \citet{murante07} (based on a cosmological

1285: hydrodynamical simulation including radiative cooling, star formation,

1286: and supernova feedback), and \citet{lin2004}(based on a model of

1287: cluster mass and the luminosity of the BCG).  However

1288: \citet{murante07} show a large scatter of ICL fractions within each

1289: mass bin.  They also discuss the dependence of a simulations mass

1290: resolution on the ICL fraction.  These theoretical predictions are

1291: over-plotted on Figure \ref{fig:massratio}. Note that the simulations

1292: generally report the fractional light in the ICL out to much larger

1293: radii ($r_{virial}$ or $r_{200}$) than its surface brightness can be

1294: measured observationally.  To compare the theoretical predictions at

1295: $r_{virial}$ to our measurement at $0.25r_{virial}$, the predicted

1296: values should be raised by some significant amount which depends on

1297: the ICL and galaxy light profiles at large radii.  This makes the

1298: predictions and the data even more inconsistent than it first appears.

1299: As an example of the differences, a cluster with the measured ICL

1300: fraction of A3888 would require a factor of greater than 100 lower

1301: mass than the literature values to fall along the predicted trend.

1302: Although these clusters are not dynamically relaxed, such large errors

1303: in mass are not expected.  As an upper limit on the ICL flux, if we

1304: assumed the entire cD galaxy was made of intracluster stars, that flux

1305: plus the measured ICL flux would still not be enough to raise the ICL

1306: fractions to the levels predicted by these authors.

1307: 

1308: There are no evident correlations between velocity dispersion and ICL

1309: characteristics, although velocity dispersion is a mass estimator.

1310: Large uncertainties are presumably responsible for the lack of

1311: correlation.

1312: 

1313: %-------------------------------------

1314: \subsubsection{ICL fraction vs. Redshift}

1315: 

1316: Figure \ref{fig:zratio} is a plot of redshift versus ICL fraction for

1317: both the $r-$ and $B- $or $V-$bands.  We find a marginal

1318: anti--correlation between ICL fraction and redshift with a very

1319: shallow slope, if at all, in the direction that low redshift clusters

1320: have higher ICL fractions (Spearman rank coefficient of -0.43). This

1321: relation is strengthened when assuming fractions of blue galaxies are

1322: higher in the higher redshift clusters(spearman rank of -0.6) (see \S

1323: \ref{iclfraction}).  A trend of ICL fraction with redshift tells us about

1324: the timescales of the mechanisms involved in stripping stars from

1325: galaxies.  This relation is possibly affected by the same redshift

1326: selection effects as discussed above.

1327: 

1328: 

1329: Over the redshift range of our clusters, $0.31 > z > 0.05$, a

1330: chi--squared fit to our data gives a range of fractional flux of 11 to

1331: 14\%.  \citet{willman2004} find the ICL fraction grows from 14 to

1332: 19\%.  over that same redshift range.  \citet{willman2004} measure the

1333: ICL fraction at $r_{200}$ which means these values would need to be

1334: increased in order to directly compare with our values.  While their

1335: normalization of the relation is not consistent with our data, the

1336: slopes are roughly consistent, with the caveat of the selection

1337: effect.  The discrepancy is likely, at least in part, caused by

1338: different definitions of ICL.  Simulations tag those particles which

1339: become unbound from galaxies whereas in practice we do not have that

1340: information and instead use surface brightness cutoffs and ICL profile

1341: shapes.  \citet{rudick2006} do use a surface brightness cutoff in

1342: their simulations to tag ICL stars which is very similar to our

1343: measurement.  They find on average from their 3 simulated clusters a

1344: change of ICL fraction of approximately 2\% over this redshift range.

1345: We are not able to observationally measure such a small change in

1346: fraction.  \citet{rudick2006} predict that in order to grow the ICL

1347: fraction by 10\%, on average, we would need to track clusters as they

1348: evolve from a redshift of 2 to the present.  However, both

1349: \citet{willman2004} and \citet{rudick2006} find that the ICL fraction

1350: makes small changes over short timescales (as major mergers or

1351: collisions occur).

1352: 

1353: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

1354: \subsection{ICL color}

1355: The average color of the ICL, is roughly the same as the color of the

1356: red ellipticals in each of the clusters. In \S8.1 of paper I we

1357: discuss the implications of this on ICL formation redshift and

1358: metallicity.  \citet{zibetti2005} have summed $g-$, $r-$, and $i-$

1359: band imaging of 680 clusters in a redshift range of 0.2 - 0.3.

1360: Similar to our results, they find that the summed ICL component has

1361: roughly the same $g-r$ color at all radii as the summed cluster

1362: population including the galaxies.  Since we have applied an

1363: evolutionary correction to the ICL colors, if there is only passive

1364: color evolution, the ICL will show no trend with redshift.  Indeed we

1365: find no correlation between $B-r$ color and the redshift of the

1366: cluster, as shown in Figure \ref{fig:zcolor} ($B-r = 2.3 \pm 0.2

1367: (1\sigma)$).  ICL color may have the ability to broadly constrain the

1368: epoch at which these stars were stripped.  In principle, as mentioned

1369: in the introduction, we could learn at which epoch the ICL had been

1370: stripped from the galaxies based on its color relative to the galaxies

1371: assuming passively evolving ICL and ongoing star formation in

1372: galaxies.  While this simple theory should be true, the color

1373: difference between passively evolving stars and low star forming

1374: galaxies may not be large enough to detect since clusters are not made

1375: up of galaxies which were all formed at a single epoch and we don't

1376: know the star formation rates of galaxies once they enter a cluster.

1377: 

1378: ICL color may have the ability to determine the types of galaxies from

1379: which the stars are being stripped. Unfortunately the difference in

1380: color between stars stripped from ellipticals, and for example stars

1381: stripped from low surface brightness dwarfs is not large enough to

1382: confirm in our data given the large amount of scatter in the color of

1383: the ICL (see paper I for a more complete discussion).

1384: 

1385: There is no correlation in our sample between the presence or

1386: direction of ICL color gradients and any cluster properties.  This is

1387: very curious since we see both blue-ward and red-ward color gradients.

1388: A larger sample with more accurate colors and without a selection bias

1389: might be able to determine the origin of the color gradients.

1390: 

1391: 

1392: %----------------------------------------------------------

1393: \subsection{Profile Shape}

1394: \label{profshape2}

1395: 

1396: Figure \ref{fig:predict} shows all eight surface brightness profiles

1397: for clusters that have central ICL components.  To facilitate

1398: comparison, we have shifted all surface brightnesses to a redshift of

1399: zero, including a correction for surface brightness dimming, a

1400: k--correction, and an evolution correction.  We see a range in ICL

1401: profile shape from cluster to cluster.  This is consistent with the

1402: range of scale-lengths found in other surveys \citep[][find a range of

1403: scale lengths from 18 - 480 kpc, fairly evenly distributed between 30

1404: and 250 kpc]{gonzalez2005} .

1405: 

1406: 

1407: The profiles are equally well fit with the empirically motivated

1408: deVaucouleurs profiles and simple exponential profiles which are shown

1409: in the individual profile plots in Figures \ref{fig:A4059} -

1410: \ref{fig:A118}.  The profiles can also be fit with a Hubble--Reynolds

1411: profile which is a good substitute for the more complicated surface

1412: brightness profile of an NFW density profile \citep{lokas2001}.  An

1413: example of this profile shape is shown in Figure \ref{fig:predict}

1414: with a 100 kpc scale length defined as the radius inside of which the

1415: profile contains 25\% of the luminosity.  This profile shape is what

1416: you would predict given a simple spherical collapse model.  The

1417: physically motivated Hubble--Reynolds profile gives acceptable fits to

1418: the ICL profiles with the exception of A4059, A2734, \& A2556 which

1419: have steeper profiles.  We explore causes of the differing profile

1420: shapes for these three clusters.

1421: 

1422: A steeper profile is correlated with M3-M1, density, total cluster

1423: flux, and redshift.  These three clusters have an average M3-M1 value

1424: of $0.93 \pm 0.27$ as compared to the average of $0.49 \pm 0.20$ for

1425: the remaining 7 clusters.  These three clusters are also three of the

1426: four lowest redshift clusters, have an average of 93 galaxies which is

1427: 45\% smaller than the value for the remaining sample, and have an

1428: average cluster flux of $12.3\times10^{11}$\lsun which is 47\% smaller

1429: than the value for the remaining sample.

1430: 

1431: 

1432: We have the same difficulties here in distinguishing between the

1433: selection effects and the true physical correlations.  The key

1434: difference is that the three clusters with the steepest profiles are

1435: the most relaxed clusters (which is not a redshift selection effect).

1436: We use ``most relaxed'' to describe the three clusters with the most

1437: symmetric X--ray isophotes that have single, central, smooth ICL

1438: profiles.  This is consistent with our finding that M3-M1 is a key

1439: indicator of ICL flux in \S\ref{m3m1} and that ICL can form either in

1440: groups at early times or at later times through galaxy interactions in

1441: the dense part of the cluster.  If galaxy groups in which the ICL

1442: formed are able to get to the cluster center then their ICL will also

1443: be found in the cluster center, and can be hiding in the cD galaxy.

1444: If the galaxy groups in which the ICL formed have not coalesced in the

1445: center then the ICL will be less centrally distributed and therefore

1446: have a shallower profile.  This is consistent with the recent

1447: numerical work by \citet{murante07} who find that the majority of the

1448: ICL is formed by the merging processes which create the BCG's in

1449: clusters.  This process leads o the ICL having a steeper profile shape

1450: than the galaxies and having greater than half of the ICL be located

1451: inside of $250$\h kpc, approaching radii where we do not measure the

1452: ICL due to the presence of the BCG.  Their simulations also confirm

1453: that different clusters with different dynamical histories will have

1454: differing amounts and locations of ICL.

1455: 

1456: 

1457: 

1458: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1459: 

1460: %centers

1461: 

1462: \section{Conclusion}

1463: \label{conclude2}

1464: 

1465: We have identified an intracluster light component in all 10 clusters

1466: which has fluxes ranging from $0.76\times 10^{11}$ to $7.0\times

1467: 10^{11}$ \h \lsun in $r$ and $0.14\times 10^{11}$ to $1.2\times

1468: 10^{11}$ \h \lsun in the $B-$band, ICL fractions of 6 to 22\% of the

1469: total cluster light within one quarter of the virial radius in $r$

1470: and 4 to 21\% in the $B-$band, and $B-r$ colors ranging from 1.49 to

1471: 2.75 magnitudes.  This work shows that there is detectable ICL in

1472: clusters and groups out to redshifts of at least 0.3, and in two bands

1473: including the shorter wavelength $B-$ or $V-$band.

1474: 

1475: The interpretation of our results is complicated by small number

1476: statistics, redshift selection effects of Abell clusters, and the fact

1477: that the ICL is evolving with time.  Of the cluster properties (M3-M1,

1478: density, redshift, and cluster flux), only M3-M1 and redshift are not

1479: correlated.  As a result of these selection effects ICL flux is

1480: apparently correlated with density and total galaxy flux but not with

1481: redshift or mass and ICL fraction is apparently correlated with

1482: redshift but not with M3-M1, density, total galaxy flux, or mass.

1483: However, we do draw conclusions from the ICL color, average values of

1484: the ICL fractions, the relation between ICL flux and M3-M1, and the

1485: ICL profile shape.

1486: 

1487: We find a passively evolving ICL color which is similar to the color

1488: of the RCS at the redshift of each cluster. The relations between ICL

1489: fraction with redshift and ICL fraction with mass show the

1490: disagreement of our data with simulations since our fractional fluxes

1491: are lower than those predictions.  These discrepancies do not seem to

1492: be caused by the details of our measurement.

1493: 

1494: 

1495: Furthermore we find evidence that clusters with symmetric X--ray

1496: profiles and cD galaxies have both less ICL flux and significantly

1497: steeper profiles.  The lower amount of flux can be explained if ICL

1498: stars have become indistinguishable from cD stars.  As the cluster

1499: formed a cD galaxy any groups which participated in the merging

1500: brought their ICL stars with them, as well as created more ICL through

1501: interactions.  If a cD does not form, then the ICL already in groups

1502: or actively forming is also prevented from becoming very centralized

1503: as it has no way of loosing energy or angular momentum on its own.

1504: While the galaxies or groups are subject to tidal forces and dynamical

1505: friction, the ICL, once stripped, will not be able to loose energy

1506: and/or angular momentum to these forces, and instead will stay on the

1507: orbit on which it formed.

1508: 

1509: 

1510: Observed density may not be a good predictor of ICL properties since

1511: it does not directly indicate the density at the time in which the ICL

1512: was formed.  We do indeed expect density at any one epoch to be linked

1513: to ICL production at that epoch through the interaction rates.

1514: 

1515: 

1516: The picture that is emerging from this work is that ICL is ubiquitous,

1517: not only in cD clusters, but in all clusters, and in group

1518: environments.  The amount of light in the ICL is dependent upon

1519: cluster morphology.  ICL forms from ongoing processes including

1520: galaxy--galaxy interactions and tidal interactions with the cluster

1521: potential \citep{moore1996,gnedin2003a} as well as in groups

1522: \citep{rudick2006}.  With time, as multiple interactions and

1523: dissipation of angular momentum and energy lead groups already

1524: containing ICL to the center of the cluster, the ICL moves with the

1525: galaxies to the center and becomes indistinguishable from the cD's

1526: stellar population.  Any ICL forming from galaxy interactions stays on

1527: the orbit where it was formed.

1528: 

1529: A large, complete sample of clusters, including a proportionate amount

1530: with high redshift and low density, will be able to break the

1531: degeneracies present in this work.  Shifting to a lower redshift range

1532: will not be as beneficial because a shorter range than presented here

1533: will not be large enough to see the predicted evolution in the ICL

1534: fraction.

1535: 

1536: In addition to large numbers of clusters it would be beneficial to go

1537: to extremely low surface brightness levels ($< \sim 30$ \magarc) to reduce

1538: significantly the error bars on the color measurement and thereby

1539: learn about the progenitor galaxies of the ICL and the timescales for

1540: stripping.  It will not be easy to achieve these surface brightness

1541: limits for a large sample which includes high-redshift low-density

1542: clusters since those clusters will have very dim ICL due to both an

1543: expected lower amount as correlated with density, and due to surface

1544: brightness dimming.

1545: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1546: 

1547: \acknowledgments

1548: 

1549: 

1550: 

1551: We acknowledge J. Dalcanton and V. Desai for observing support and

1552: R. Dupke, E. De Filippis, and J. Kempner for help with X--ray data.  We

1553: thank the anonymous referee for useful suggestions on the manuscript.

1554: Partial support for J.E.K. was provided by the National Science

1555: Foundation (NSF) through UM's NSF ADVANCE program.  Partial support

1556: for R.A.B. was provided by a NASA Hubble Fellowship grant

1557: HF-01088.01-97A awarded by Space Telescope Science Institute, which is

1558: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy,

1559: Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-2655.  This research has made use

1560: of data from the following sources: USNOFS Image and Catalogue Archive

1561: operated by the United States Naval Observatory, Flagstaff Station

1562: (http://www.nofs.navy.mil/data/fchpix/); NASA/IPAC Extragalactic

1563: Database (NED), which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,

1564: California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National

1565: Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Two Micron All Sky Survey,

1566: which is a joint project of the University of Massachusetts and the

1567: Infrared Processing and Analysis Center/California Institute of

1568: Technology, funded by the National Aeronautics and Space

1569: Administration and the National Science Foundation; the SIMBAD

1570: database, operated at CDS, Strasbourg, France; and the High Energy

1571: Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center Online Service, provided

1572: by the NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center.

1573: 

1574: 

1575: 

1576: 

1577: 

1578: %------------------------------------------------------------------------

1579: \bibliography{ms.bbl}  

1580: %\bibliography{jkrick}  

1581: 

1582: 

1583: %============================================

1584: \clearpage

1585: 

1586: %\begin{sidewaystable*}[htbp]

1587: %\scriptsize

1588: %\begin{center}

1589: 

1590: %\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c }

1591: %\hfil & \hfil  & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil & \hfil \\

1592: %\tableline

1593: %\tableline

1594: %\\

1595: 

1596: \begin{deluxetable}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c c c}

1597: \tabletypesize{\tiny}

1598: \rotate

1599: \tablewidth{0pc}

1600: \tablecolumns{15}

1601: \tablecaption{Cluster characteristics\label{tab:characteristics2}}

1602: 

1603: %Column heading definitions:

1604: 

1605: \tablehead{

1606: \colhead{Cluster} & 

1607: \colhead{$z$} 		 & 

1608: %\colhead{B/M} 	  &

1609: \colhead{$M_3-M_1$}  &

1610: \colhead{Richness} 	& 

1611: \colhead{ngals} 	& 

1612: \colhead{$\sigma_v$} 	& 

1613: \colhead{$r_{virial}$} &

1614: \colhead{Mass} &

1615: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cluster Flux} &

1616: \multicolumn{2}{c}{ICL Flux} &

1617: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Ratio} &

1618: \colhead{ICL} 

1619: \\

1620: \colhead{name}    & 

1621: \colhead{ }     &

1622: %\colhead{ } 	  &

1623: \colhead{mag} 	  &

1624: \colhead{Class}	& 

1625: \colhead{ }     &

1626: \colhead{km/s} 	    & 

1627: \colhead{Mpc}	& 

1628: \colhead{$10^{14}$ \msun} &	

1629: \colhead{B $10^{11}$ \lsun} &

1630: \colhead{r $10^{11}$ \lsun} &

1631: \colhead{B $10^{11}$ \lsun} &

1632: \colhead{r $10^{11}$ \lsun} &

1633: \colhead{B\%} &

1634: \colhead{r\%} &

1635: \colhead{color} 

1636: }

1637: 

1638: %\\

1639: %\tableline

1640: 

1641: 

1642: 

1643: \startdata

1644: \hfil 	& \hfil    & \hfil    & \hfil	 & \hfil    & \hfil   & \hfil  & \hfil	 & \hfil   & \hfil    & \hfil 	\\

1645: A4059$^{\dag}$ & 0.048$^{\rm r}$  & $1.05\pm.05$  & 1 & 76 & 845$^{\rm +280}_{\rm -140}$$^{\rm t}$ & 2.6$^{\rm i}$  & 2.82 $^{\rm +0.37}_{\rm -0.34}$$^{\rm i}$  & $4.2\pm1.3$ & $12\pm3.5$ & $1.2\pm.24$ & $3.4\pm1.7$ & $21\pm8$ & $22\pm12$ & 1.89\\

1646: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1647: A3880$^{\dag}$ & 0.058$^{\rm r}$  & $0.55\pm.05$  & 0 & 62 & 827$^{\rm +120}_{\rm -79}$$^{\rm m}$  & 2.5$^{\rm e}$ & 8.3 $^{\rm +2.8}_{\rm -2.1}$$^{\rm f}$  & $3.8\pm1.1$ & $8.6\pm2.6$ & $0.44\pm0.23$ & $1.4\pm0.46$ & $10\pm6$ & $14\pm6$ & 2.63\\

1648: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1649: A2734$^{\dag}$ 	& 0.062$^{\rm r}$  & $0.62\pm.05$ & 1 & 99 & 628$^{\rm +61}_{\rm -57}$$^{\rm m}$   & 2.4$^{\rm i}$ & 2.49 $^{\rm +0.89}_{\rm -0.63}$$^{\rm i}$  & $3.4\pm1.0$ & $12\pm3.6$ & $0.7\pm0.47$ & $2.8\pm0.47$ & $17\pm13$ & $19\pm6$ & 2.54\\

1650: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1651: A2556$^{\dag}$	& 0.087$^{\rm r}$  & $1.11\pm.05$ & 1 & 104 & 1247$^{\rm +249}_{\rm -249}$$^{\rm t}$ & 2.6$^{\rm e}$ & $25\pm1$$^{\rm g}$ & $3.3\pm0.99$ & $13\pm3.8$ & $0.14\pm0.14$ & $0.76\pm0.66$ & $4\pm4$ & $6\pm5$ & 2.48\\

1652: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1653: A4010$^{\dag}$	& 0.096$^{\rm r}$  & $0.72\pm.05$	& 1 & 93 & 625$^{\rm +127}_{\rm -95}$$^{\rm m}$  & 3.1$^{\rm e}$ & 3.8 $^{\rm +1.6}_{\rm -1.2}$$^{\rm f}$ & $3.5\pm1.0$ & $12\pm3.7$ & $0.77\pm0.28$ & $3.2\pm0.70$ & $18\pm8$ & $21\pm8$ & 2.54\\

1654: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1655: A3888	& 0.151$^{\rm r}$         & $0.17\pm.04$ & 2 & 189 & 1102$^{\rm +137}_{\rm -107}$$^{\rm n}$ & 3.7$^{\rm i}$ & 25.5 $^{\rm +10.5}_{\rm -7.4}$$^{\rm i}$ & $7.2\pm2.2$ & $30\pm9.0$ & $0.86\pm.25$ & $4.4\pm2.1$ & $11\pm3$ & $13\pm5$ & 1.97 \\

1656: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1657: A3984$^{\dag}$	& 0.181$^{\rm r}$  & $0.64\pm.04$ & 2 & 151	& \nodata      			   & 3.5$^{\rm e}$ & $31\pm10$$^{\rm c}$   & $4.4\pm1.3$ & $20\pm6.0$ & $0.62\pm0.21$ & $2.2\pm1.0$ & $12\pm6$ & $10\pm6$ & 1.49\\

1658: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1659: A0141$^{\dag}$	& 0.23$^{\rm r}$   & $0.56\pm.04$	& 3 & 185 & \nodata      			  & 3.7$^{\rm e}$ & 18.9 $^{\rm +11.1}_{\rm -8.7}$$^{\rm d}$ & $5.4\pm1.6$ & $32\pm9.5$ & $0.34\pm0.11$ & $3.5\pm0.88$ & $6\pm3$ & $10\pm4$ & 2.72\\

1660: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1661: AC114 & 0.31$^{\rm a}$ & $0.45\pm.04$ &2 & 220 & 1388$^{\rm +128}_{\rm-71}$$^{\rm n}$ & 3.5$^{\rm b}$ & 26.3$^{\rm+8.2}_{\rm-7.1}$$^{\rm n}$   & $2.3\pm0.70$ & $18\pm5.3$ & $0.38\pm0.08$ & $2.2\pm0.4$ & $14\pm3$ & $11\pm2$ & 2.15\\

1662: %\hfil 	       & \hfil          & \hfil & \hfil	& \hfil & \hfil  		 & \hfil  & \hfil	\\

1663: AC118 	& 0.308$^{\rm r}$         & $0.24\pm.04$   & 3 & 288 & 1947$^{\rm +292}_{\rm -201}$$^{\rm h}$ & 3.4$^{\rm b}$ & $38\pm37$$^{\rm n}$   & $5.4\pm1.6$ & $44\pm1.3$ & $0.67\pm0.17$ &$ 7.0\pm0.97$ & $11\pm5$ & $14\pm5$ & 2.75\\

1664: \enddata

1665: %\\

1666: %\tableline

1667: %\\

1668: %\end{tabular}

1669: 

1670: {\footnotesize \addtolength{\baselineskip}{-5pt} {\bf Notes:} Sources

1671: for the virial radii and mass are discussed in

1672: \S\ref{A4059}-\ref{AC118} and generally come from X--ray data.  $\dag$:

1673: We have obtained additional photometric and spectroscopic data for

1674: these cluster to be published in a forthcoming paper) 

1675: a: \citet{abell1989}.

1676: b: \citet{allen1998}.

1677: c: \citet{cypriano2004}.

1678: d: \citet{dahle2002}.

1679: e: \citet{ebeling1996}.

1680: f: \citet{girardi1998a}.

1681: g:\citet{reimers1996}.

1682: %b: \citet{batuski1999}.

1683: %c: \citet{busarello2002} 

1684: %d: \citet{chen1998}.

1685: %e: \citet{ciardullo1985}.

1686: %f: \citet{collins1995}.

1687: %g: \citet{couch1984}.

1688: h: \citet{couch1987}.

1689: i: \citet{reiprich2002}.

1690: %i: \citet{couch2001}.

1691: %j: \citet{denHartog1995}.

1692: %k: \citet{DePropris2002}.

1693: %l: \citet{ebeling1996} 

1694: m: \citet{Girardi1998b}.

1695: n: \citet{girardi2001}.

1696: %o: \citet{Kowalski1983}.

1697: %p: \citet{Mazure1996}.

1698: %q: \citet{Stein1996}.

1699: r: \citet{struble1999}.

1700: %s: \citet{teague1990}.

1701: t: \citet{Wu1999}.

1702: %u: \citet{filippis2004}.

1703: }

1704:  

1705: 

1706: %\end{center}

1707: %\end{sidewaystable*}

1708: \end{deluxetable}

1709: 

1710: %----------------------------------------------------------------

1711: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}

1712: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1713: %\tabletypesize{\normalsize} 

1714: \rotate

1715: \tablewidth{0pt}

1716: \tablecaption{Observational Parameters

1717:      \label{tab:obspars2}}

1718: \tablehead{ \colhead{Cluster} & \colhead{redshift} & \colhead{exposure

1719: time} & \colhead{average seeing}& \colhead{field of view} &

1720: \colhead{native det. tresh.} & \colhead{corrected det. thresh} &

1721: \colhead{back. accuracy}\\ \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \colhead{r, B/V hrs} &

1722: \colhead{r,B/V arcsecs} & \colhead{\h Mpc} & \colhead{r,B/V\magarc} &

1723: \colhead{r,B/V\magarc} & \colhead{r,B/V\magarc} }

1724: 

1725: \startdata

1726: A4059 & 0.048  & 3.8,4.3  & 1.1,1.7  &  $1.2\times1.4$  & 24.9,25.8 & 26.25,26.04  & 27.7,29.9 \\

1727: A3880 & 0.058  & 9.5,4.3  & 1.5,1.5  &  $1.7\times2.2$  & 25.1,25.2 & 26.22,26.04  & 28.0,29.2 \\

1728: A2734 & 0.062  & 4.6,4.1  & 1.3,1.7  &  $1.7\times1.9$  & 24.8,25.2 & 26.21,26.05  & 28.7,29.3 \\

1729: A2556 & 0.087  & 3.8,3.7  & 1.3,1.4  &  $2.0\times2.4$  & 24.7,25.4 & 26.13,26.11  & 27.7,29.4 \\

1730: A4010 & 0.096  & 5.5,6.9  & 1.7,1.3  &  $2.3\times2.5$  & 25.0,25.7 & 26.10,26.09  & 28.4,29.9 \\ \\

1731: \hline \\

1732: A3888 & 0.151  & 6.3,4.0  & 1.1,0.9  &  $2.3\times2.2$  & 26.4,26.0 & 25.94,25.67  & 28.8,29.5 \\

1733: A3984 & 0.181  & 6.8,4.3  & 1.0,1.0  &  $2.3\times2.5$  & 26.4,25.9 & 25.89,25.65  & 28.9,29.0 \\

1734: A0141 & 0.23   & 6.8,4.0  & 0.9,1.0  &  $2.8\times2.7$  & 26.3,26.0 & 25.75,25.63  & 29.2,29.8 \\

1735: AC118 & 0.31   & 6.0,3.0  & 1.4,1.0  &  $2.7\times2.9$  & 26.3,26.9 & 25.62,25.70  & 29.7,29.9 \\

1736: AC114 & 0.31   & 5.5,4.3  & 1.1,1.8  &  $2.4\times2.5$  & 26.4,26.1 & 25.63,25.70  & 29.8,29.8 \\

1737: \enddata

1738: 

1739: \tablecomments{ The first five clusters in the table were imaged with

1740: the 1m Swope telescope in the $r-$ and $B-$bands.  The five clusters under

1741: the middle line were imaged with the 2.5m DuPont telescope in the $r-$

1742: and $V-$bands. Native detection threshold refers to the measured

1743: detection threshold of the cluster at its appropriate redshift.

1744: Corrected surface brightness detection threshold refers to the actual

1745: detection threshold to which we mask at the redshift of each cluster.

1746: This detection threshold has been surface brightness dimming and

1747: k-corrected to a redshift of zero, as discussed in \S

1748: \ref{galaxies2}.}

1749: \end{deluxetable}

1750: 

1751: 

1752: 

1753: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

1754: %-----------------------------------------------------------------

1755: 

1756: \newcommand\magarcs{mag arcsec$^{-2}$}

1757: 

1758: 

1759: \clearpage

1760: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}

1761: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}

1762: %\tabletypesize{\normalsize} 

1763: \tablewidth{0pt}

1764: \tablecaption{Error Budget

1765:      \label{tab:error2}}

1766: \tablehead{

1767: \colhead{Source} & \colhead{} & \colhead{} & \multicolumn{6}{c}{contribution to ICL uncertainty (\%)} \\

1768: \colhead{} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{$1\sigma$ uncertainty} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mu$(0\arcsec - 100\arcsec)} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{$\mu$(100\arcsec - 200\arcsec)} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{total ICL flux} \\

1769: %\cline{2-3} \cline{4-5} \cline{6-7} \cline{8-9} \\

1770: \colhead{} & \colhead{($V$)} & \colhead{($r$)} & \colhead{($V$)} & \colhead{($r$)} & \colhead{($V$)} & \colhead{($r$)} & \colhead{($V$)} & \colhead{($r$)}

1771: }

1772: 

1773: \startdata

1774: 

1775: background level$^a$    & 29.5 \magarcs & 28.8 \magarcs & 14  & 18 & 39 & 45 & 24  & 31  \\

1776: photometry              &  0.02 mag   & 0.03 mag    & 2   & 3  &  2 &  3 &  2  &  3  \\ 

1777: masking$^b$             & \multicolumn{2}{c}{variation in mask area $\pm30$} & 5  & 5 & 14 & 19 & 9  & 12   \\

1778: std.\ dev.\ in mean$^c$  &  32.7 \magarcs & 32.7 \magarcs & 3  & 2 & 2 & 1 & 3  & 1 \\ 

1779: (total)                 & &                & 15 & 19 & 41 & 50 & 26 & 33\\ 

1780: \\

1781: \hline \\

1782: cluster flux$^d$ &  16\% & 16\%  & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata  & \nodata  \\

1783: \enddata

1784: 

1785: \tablecomments{ 

1786: a: Large scale fluctuations in background level are measured

1787: empirically and include instrumental calibration uncertainties 

1788: as well as and true variations in background level (see \S \ref{noise2}).

1789: b: Object masks were scaled by $\pm30\%$ in area to test the impact on

1790: ICL measurement (see \S\ref{galaxies2}).

1791: c: The statistical uncertainty in the mean surface brightness

1792: of the ICL in each isophote.

1793: d: Errors on the total cluster flux are based on errors in the fit to

1794: the luminosity function (see \S \ref{member2}). 

1795: }

1796: 

1797: 

1798: 

1799: \end{deluxetable}

1800: 

1801: %\clearpage

1802: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1803: \begin{figure}

1804: %\centering{\psfig{file=f2.jpg,width=3in}}

1805: \centering

1806: %%\epsscale{.45}

1807: %\includegraphics{f1.jpg}

1808: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f1.jpg}

1809: \caption[The PSF of the 40-inch Swope telescope at Las Campanas

1810: Observatory]{The PSF of the 40-inch Swope telescope at Las Campanas

1811: Observatory.  The y-axis shows surface brightness scaled to correspond

1812: to the total flux of a zero magnitude star.  The profile within

1813: 5\arcsec\ was measured from unsaturated stars and can be affected by

1814: seeing. The outer profile was measured from two stars with

1815: super-saturated cores imaged in two different bands.  The profile with

1816: the bump in it at 100\arcsec\ is the $r-$band profile, that without

1817: the bump is the $B-$band PSF.  The bump in the profile at 100\arcsec\

1818: is due to a reflection off the CCD which then bounces off of the

1819: filter, and back down onto the CCD.  The outer surface brightness

1820: profile decreases as $r^{-2}$ in the $r-$band and $r^{-1.6}$ in the

1821: $B$, shown by the dashed lines.  An $r^{-3.9}$ profile is plotted to

1822: show the range in slopes.}

1823: \label{fig:psf2}

1824: \end{figure}

1825: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1826: \begin{figure}

1827: %%\epsscale{.45}

1828: %centering

1829: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2a.jpg}

1830: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2b.jpg}

1831: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2c.jpg}

1832: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2d.jpg}

1833: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2e.jpg}

1834: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2f.jpg}

1835: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2g.jpg}

1836: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2h.jpg}

1837: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2i.jpg}

1838: \includegraphics[scale=0.45]{f2j.jpg}

1839: \caption[allcmd]{The color magnitude diagrams for all ten clusters in

1840:   increasing redshift order from let to right, top to bottom; A4059,

1841:   A3880, A2734, A2556, A4010, A3888, A3984, A014, AC114, AC118.  All

1842:   galaxies detected in our image are denoted with a gray star.  Those

1843:   galaxies which have membership information in the literature are

1844:   over--plotted with open black triangles (members) or squares

1845:   (non--members)(membership references are given in \S \ref{A4059}-

1846:   \ref{AC118}).  Solid lines indicate a biweight fit to the red

1847:   sequence with $1\sigma$ uncertainties. }

1848: \label{fig:allcmd}

1849: %\epsscale{1}

1850: \end{figure}

1851: %----------------------------------------------------------------

1852: 

1853: \begin{figure}

1854: %%\epsscale{1.0}

1855: \includegraphics{f3.jpg}

1856: \caption[Surface brightness profiles for the eight clusters with a

1857: measurable profile]{Surface brightness profiles for the eight clusters

1858:   with a measurable profile.  Profiles are listed on the plot in order

1859:   of ascending redshift.  To avoid crowding, error bars are only

1860:   plotted on one of the profiles.  Errors on the other profiles are

1861:   similar at similar surface brightnesses.  All surface brightnesses

1862:   have been shifted to $z = 0$ using surface brightness dimming, k,

1863:   and evolutionary corrections. The x-axis remains in arcseconds and

1864:   not in Mpc since the y-axis is in reference to arcseconds.  Physical

1865:   scales are noted on the individual plots (\ref{fig:A4059} -

1866:   \ref{fig:A118}).  In addition marks have been placed on each profile

1867:   at the distances corresponding to 200kpc and 300kpc.  Also included

1868:   as the solid black line near the bottom of the plot is a Hubble

1869:   Reynolds surface brightness profile as a proxy for an NFW density

1870:   profile with a scale length of 100kpc.  The ICL does not have a

1871:   single uniform amount of flux or profile shape.  Profile shape does

1872:   correlate with dynamical age where those clusters with steeper

1873:   profiles are dynamically more relaxed (see \S \ref{profshape2}). }

1874: \label{fig:predict}

1875: %\epsscale{1}

1876: \end{figure}

1877: %-----------------------------------------------------------------

1878: 

1879: \begin{figure}

1880: %%\epsscale{.40}

1881: \includegraphics[scale=0.60]{f4a.jpg}

1882: %\includegraphics{f3b.jpg}

1883: \includegraphics[scale=0.78]{f4b.jpg}

1884: \includegraphics[scale=1.2]{f4c.jpg}

1885: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f4d.jpg}

1886: %\includegraphics{f3f.jpg}

1887: \caption[A4059]{\footnotesize{A4059.  The plots moving left to right

1888:     and top to bottom are as follows.  The first is our final combined

1889:     $r-$band image zoomed in on the central cluster region.  The

1890:     second plot shows X--ray isophotes where available.  Some clusters

1891:     were observed during the ROSAT all sky survey, and so have X--ray

1892:     luminosities, but have not had targeted observations to allow

1893:     isophote fitting.  Isophote levels are derived from quick-look

1894:     images taken from HEASARC.  X-ray luminosities of these clusters

1895:     are listed in Table 1 of paper I and are discussed in the

1896:     appendix.  The third plot shows our background subtracted, fully

1897:     masked $r-$band image of the central region of the cluster,

1898:     smoothed to aid in visual identification of the surface brightness

1899:     levels.  Masks are shown in their intermediate levels which are

1900:     listed in column 7 of Table \ref{tab:obspars2}.  The six

1901:     gray-scale levels show surface brightness levels of up to 28.5,

1902:     27.7,27.2,26.7 \magarc.  The fourth plot shows the surface

1903:     brightness profiles of the ICL (surrounded by shading;$r-$band on

1904:     top, $V-$ or $B-$band on the bottom) and cluster galaxies as a

1905:     function of semi-major axis.  The bottom axis is in arcseconds and

1906:     the top axis corresponds to physical scale in Mpc.  Error bars

1907:     represent the $1\sigma$ background identification errors as

1908:     discussed in \S \ref{noise2}.  DeVaucouleurs fits to the entire cD

1909:     plus ICL profile are over-plotted.  }}

1910: \label{fig:A4059}

1911: %\epsscale{1}

1912: \end{figure}

1913: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1914: 

1915: \begin{figure}

1916: %%\epsscale{.45}

1917: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f5a.jpg}

1918: %\includegraphics{f4b.jpg}

1919: %\epsscale{0.42}

1920: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{f5b.jpg}

1921: %\epsscale{0.6}

1922: \centering

1923: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f5c.jpg}

1924: %\includegraphics{f4e.jpg}

1925: \caption[A3880]{A3880, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

1926: \label{fig:A3880}

1927: %\epsscale{1}

1928: \end{figure}

1929: 

1930: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1931: 

1932: \begin{figure}

1933: %\epsscale{.45}

1934: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f6a.jpg}

1935: %\includegraphics{f5b.jpg}

1936: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f6b.jpg}

1937: \includegraphics{f6c.jpg}

1938: \includegraphics[scale=0.70]{f6d.jpg}

1939: %\includegraphics{f5f.jpg}

1940: \caption[A2734]{A2734, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

1941: \label{fig:A2734}

1942: %\epsscale{1}

1943: \end{figure}

1944: 

1945: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1946: 

1947: \begin{figure}

1948: %\epsscale{.55}

1949: \centering

1950: \includegraphics[scale=0.48]{f7a.jpg}

1951: %\includegraphics{f6b.jpg}

1952: %\epsscale{0.44}

1953: \includegraphics[scale=0.71]{f7b.jpg}

1954: %\epsscale{0.45}

1955: \includegraphics{f7c.jpg}

1956: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{f7d.jpg}

1957: %\includegraphics{f6f.jpg}

1958: \caption[A2556]{A2556, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

1959: \label{fig:A2556}

1960: %\epsscale{1}

1961: \end{figure}

1962: 

1963: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1964: 

1965: \begin{figure}

1966: %\epsscale{.45}

1967: 

1968: \includegraphics[scale=0.68]{f8a.jpg}

1969: %\includegraphics{f7b.jpg}

1970: %\epsscale{0.5}

1971: \includegraphics[scale=0.96]{f8b.jpg}

1972: \centering

1973: \includegraphics{f8c.jpg}

1974: %\includegraphics{f7e.jpg}

1975: \caption[A4010]{A4010, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

1976: \label{fig:A4010}

1977: %\epsscale{1}

1978: \end{figure}

1979: 

1980: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1981: 

1982: \begin{figure}

1983: %\epsscale{.45}

1984: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f9a.jpg}

1985: %\includegraphics{f8b.jpg}

1986: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f9b.jpg}

1987: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{f9c.jpg}

1988: \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{f9d.jpg}

1989: %\includegraphics{f8f.jpg}

1990: \caption[A3888]{A3888, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}, except here we

1991:   show the elliptical isophotes of the ICL over-plotted on the surface

1992:   brightness image.}

1993: \label{fig:A3888}

1994: %\epsscale{1}

1995: \end{figure}

1996: 

1997: %-------------------------------------------------------------

1998: 

1999: \begin{figure}

2000: %\epsscale{.45}

2001: \centering

2002: \includegraphics[scale=0.81]{f10a.jpg}

2003: %\includegraphics{f9b.jpg}

2004: %\epsscale{0.405}

2005: \includegraphics[scale=1.15]{f10b.jpg}

2006: %\epsscale{0.6}

2007: \includegraphics{f10c.jpg}

2008: %\includegraphics{f9e.jpg}

2009: \caption[A3984]{A3984, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

2010: \label{fig:A3984}

2011: %\epsscale{1}

2012: \end{figure}

2013: 

2014: %-------------------------------------------------------------

2015: 

2016: \begin{figure}

2017: %\epsscale{.4}

2018: \centering

2019: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f11a.jpg}

2020: %\includegraphics{f10b.jpg}

2021: \includegraphics[scale=0.6]{f11b.jpg}

2022: \includegraphics{f11c.jpg}

2023: \caption[A141]{A141, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}, except we are not

2024: able to measure a surface brightness profile or consequently a color

2025: profile.}

2026: \label{fig:A141}

2027: %\epsscale{1}

2028: \end{figure}

2029: 

2030: %-------------------------------------------------------------

2031: 

2032: \begin{figure}

2033: %\epsscale{.45}

2034: \centering

2035: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f12a.jpg}

2036: %\includegraphics{f11b.jpg}

2037: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f12b.jpg}

2038: \includegraphics[scale=0.99]{f12c.jpg}

2039: \includegraphics[scale=0.62]{f12d.jpg}

2040: %\includegraphics{f11f.jpg}

2041: \caption[A114]{A114, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}}

2042: \label{fig:A114}

2043: %\epsscale{1}

2044: \end{figure}

2045: 

2046: %-------------------------------------------------------------

2047: 

2048: \begin{figure}

2049: %\epsscale{.45}

2050: \centering

2051: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f13a.jpg}

2052: %\includegraphics{f12b.jpg}

2053: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f13b.jpg}

2054: \includegraphics[scale=0.9]{f13c.jpg}

2055: \caption[A118]{A118, same as Figure \ref{fig:A4059}, except we are not

2056: able to measure a surface brightness profile or consequently a color

2057: profile.}

2058: \label{fig:A118}

2059: %\epsscale{1}

2060: \end{figure}

2061: 

2062: 

2063: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2064: 

2065: \clearpage

2066: 

2067: 

2068: 

2069: 

2070: \begin{figure}

2071: %\epsscale{.4}

2072: \centering

2073: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14a.jpg}

2074: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14b.jpg}

2075: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14c.jpg}

2076: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14d.jpg}

2077: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14e.jpg}

2078: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14f.jpg}

2079: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14g.jpg}

2080: \includegraphics[scale=0.5]{f14h.jpg}

2081: \caption[allcolor]{The color profile of the eight clusters where

2082:   measurement was possible plotted as a function of semi-major axis in

2083:   arcseconds on the bottom and Mpc on the top. The average color of

2084:   the red cluster sequence is shown for comparison, as well as the

2085:   best fit linear function to the data.}

2086: \label{fig:allcolor}

2087: %\epsscale{1}

2088: \end{figure}

2089: 

2090: 

2091: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2092: \clearpage

2093: 

2094: \begin{figure}

2095: \centering

2096: %\epsscale{0.8}

2097: \includegraphics{f15.jpg}

2098: \caption[Redshift versus total galaxy flux within one quarter of a

2099:   virial radius]{Redshift versus total galaxy flux within one quarter

2100:   of a virial radius. The Spearman rank coefficient is printed in the

2101:   upper right corner.  The best fit linear function as well as the

2102:   lines representing $\pm 2 \sigma$ in both slope and y intercept are

2103:   also plotted.  The strong correlation between redshift and total

2104:   galaxy flux shows the incompleteness of the Abell sample which does

2105:   not include high-redshift, low-flux clusters}

2106: \label{fig:clusterz}

2107: %\epsscale{1}

2108: \end{figure}

2109: 

2110: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2111: \begin{figure}

2112: \centering

2113: %\epsscale{0.8}

2114: \includegraphics{f16.jpg}

2115: \caption[Projected number of galaxies versus redshift]{Projected

2116: number of galaxies versus redshift.  Galaxies brighter than $M_r =

2117: -18.5$ within 800 \h kpc are included in this count, which is used as

2118: a proxy for density.  The Spearman rank coefficient is printed in the

2119: upper left corner.  There is a strong correlation between density and

2120: redshift.  The best fit linear function is included.  While we do

2121: expect clusters to become less dense over time, this strong

2122: correlation is not expected.  Instead this is due to an incompleteness

2123: at high redshift.  See \S \ref{discuss2} for a discussion of the

2124: effects of this selection effect.}

2125: \label{fig:ngalsz}

2126: %\epsscale{1}

2127: \end{figure}

2128: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2129: \begin{figure}

2130: \centering

2131: %\epsscale{0.8}

2132: \includegraphics{f17.jpg}

2133: \caption[Projected number of galaxies versus ICL luminosity]{Projected

2134: number of galaxies versus ICL luminosity.  ICL luminosity shows

2135: $1\sigma$ error bars and has been K and evolution corrected.  Galaxies

2136: brighter than $M_r = -18.5$ within 800 \h kpc are included in this

2137: count, which is used as a proxy for density.  The Spearman rank

2138: coefficient is printed in the upper left corner. The best fit linear

2139: function as well as the lines representing $\pm 2 \sigma$ in both

2140: slope and y intercept are also plotted. There is a mild correlation

2141: between density and ICL luminosity such that higher density clusters

2142: have a larger amount of ICL flux.  }

2143: \label{fig:ngalsicl}

2144: %\epsscale{1}

2145: \end{figure}

2146: 

2147: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2148: \begin{figure}

2149: \centering

2150: %\epsscale{0.8}

2151: \includegraphics{f18.jpg}

2152: \caption[The difference in magnitude between the first and third

2153: ranked galaxy versus projected number of galaxies brighter than $M_r =

2154: -18.5$ within 800 \h kpc]{The difference in magnitude between the

2155: first and third ranked galaxy versus projected number of galaxies

2156: brighter than $M_r = -18.5$ within 800 \h kpc, which is used as a

2157: proxy for density. Clusters with cD galaxies will have larger M3-M1

2158: values.  This plot implies that over time galaxies merge in clusters

2159: to make a cD galaxy, and by the time the cD galaxy has formed, the

2160: global density is lower.  As discussed in the \S \ref{discuss2}, we

2161: assume this is not a selection bias.}

2162: \label{fig:ngalsm3m1}

2163: %\epsscale{1}

2164: \end{figure}

2165: 

2166: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2167: 

2168: 

2169: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2170: \begin{figure}

2171: \centering

2172: %\epsscale{0.8}

2173: \includegraphics{f19.jpg}

2174: \caption[The difference in magnitude between the first and third

2175: ranked galaxy versus ICL luminosity]{The difference in magnitude

2176: between the first and third ranked galaxy versus ICL luminosity. ICL

2177: luminosity shows $1\sigma$ error bars and has been K and evolution

2178: corrected.  Clusters which have cD galaxies have larger M3 - M1 values

2179: and are dynamically older clusters.  There is a mild correlation

2180: between dynamic age and ICL luminosity indicating that the ICL evolves

2181: at roughly the same rate as the cluster.}

2182: \label{fig:m3m1icl}

2183: %\epsscale{1}

2184: \end{figure}

2185: 

2186: 

2187: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2188: \begin{figure}

2189: \centering

2190: %\epsscale{0.8}

2191: \includegraphics{f20.jpg}

2192: \caption[The flux in galaxies versus the flux in ICL in units of solar

2193:   luminosities]{The flux in galaxies versus the flux in ICL in units

2194:   of solar luminosities.  Errors on ICL luminosity are $1\sigma$.

2195:   Errors on galaxy luminosity are 30\% as estimated in \S

2196:   \ref{member2}.  Over-plotted is the best fit linear function as well

2197:   as two lines which represent $2\sigma$ errors in both y-intercept

2198:   and slope.  The Spearman rank coefficient is printed in the upper

2199:   right.  Here galaxy luminosity is assumed to be a proxy for mass, so

2200:   we find a significant correlation between mass and ICL flux such

2201:   that more massive clusters have a larger amount of ICL flux.}

2202: \label{fig:clustericl}

2203: %\epsscale{1}

2204: \end{figure}

2205: 

2206: \clearpage

2207: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2208: 

2209: 

2210: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2211: \begin{figure}

2212: \centering

2213: %\epsscale{0.8}

2214: \includegraphics{f21.jpg}

2215: \caption[Cluster mass versus the ICL fraction measured at one quarter

2216: of the virial radius]{Cluster mass versus the ICL fraction measured at

2217:   one quarter of the virial radius.  Stars denote the $r-$band while

2218:   squares show $B-$ and diamonds show $V-$band.  Errors on ICL

2219:   fraction are $1\sigma$ as discussed in \S \ref{noise2}.  Mass

2220:   estimates and errors are taken from the literature as discussed in

2221:   \S \ref{A4059} - \S \ref{AC118}.  The predictions of \citet{lin2004}

2222:   and \citet{murante2004} at the virial radius are shown for

2223:   comparison.  These represent extrapolations beyond roughly $1\times

2224:   10^{15}$ \msun\ in both cases (as marked by the crosses).  The

2225:   roughly constant ICL fraction with mass can be explained using

2226:   hierarchical formation by the in-fall of groups with a similar ICL

2227:   fraction as the main cluster, or by increased interaction rates with

2228:   the infall of the groups, or both.}

2229: \label{fig:massratio}

2230: %\epsscale{1}

2231: \end{figure}

2232: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2233: 

2234: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2235: \begin{figure}

2236: \centering

2237: %\epsscale{0.8}

2238: \includegraphics{f22.jpg}

2239: \caption[Cluster redshift versus ICL fraction measured at one quarter

2240:   of the virial radius]{Cluster redshift versus ICL fraction measured

2241:   at one quarter of the virial radius. As in Figure

2242:   \ref{fig:massratio}, starred symbols denote the $r-$band, squares

2243:   show $B-$band, and diamonds show $V-$band fractions. The prediction of

2244:   \citet{willman2004} for the ICL fraction as measured at $r_{200}$ is

2245:   shown for comparison. This prediction would increase if measured at

2246:   smaller radii, such as was used in our measurement.  There is mild

2247:   evidence for a correlation between redshift and ICL fraction such

2248:   that ICL fraction grows with decreasing redshift.  This trend is

2249:   consistent with ongoing ICL formation.}

2250: \label{fig:zratio}

2251: %\epsscale{1}

2252: \end{figure}

2253: 

2254: 

2255: \clearpage

2256: 

2257: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2258: \begin{figure}

2259: \centering

2260: %\epsscale{0.8}

2261: \includegraphics{f23.jpg}

2262: \caption[Cluster redshift versus ICL color in $B-r$ which has been k

2263:   corrected and had simple passive evolution applied to it]{Cluster

2264:   redshift versus ICL color in $B-r$ which has been k corrected and

2265:   had simple passive evolution applied to it. If a color gradient is

2266:   detected in a given cluster then the mean color plotted here is that

2267:   measured near the center of the profile, weighted slightly toward

2268:   the center. There is no trend in redshift with ICL color which leads

2269:   to the conclusion that the ICL is simply passively reddening. }

2270: \label{fig:zcolor}

2271: %\epsscale{1}

2272: \end{figure}

2273: %-------------------------------------------------------------------

2274: \clearpage

2275: 

2276: %-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2277: \appendix

2278: 

2279: 

2280: \section{The Clusters}

2281: In order of increasing redshift we discuss interesting characteristics

2282: of the clusters and their ICL components.  Relevant papers are listed

2283: in Table \ref{tab:characteristics2}.  Relevant figures are

2284: \ref{fig:A4059} - \ref{fig:A118}.

2285: 

2286: \subsection{A4059}

2287: \label{A4059}

2288: A4059 is a richness class 1, Bautz Morgan type I cluster at a redshift

2289: of 0.048.  There is a clear cD galaxy which is however offset from the

2290: Abell center, likely due to the presence of at least two other bright

2291: elliptical galaxies.  The cD galaxy is $0.91\pm.05$ magnitudes

2292: brighter than the second ranked cluster galaxy.  The cD galaxy is at

2293: the center of the Chandra and ASCA mass distributions.  Those

2294: telescopes detect no hot gas around the other bright ellipticals.

2295: This cluster shows interesting features in it's X--ray morphology.

2296: There appear to be large bubbles, or cavities in the hot gas, which is

2297: likely evidence of past radio galaxy interactions with the ICM

2298: \citep{choi2004}.  As additional evidence of past activity in this

2299: cluster, the cD galaxy contains a large dust lane

2300: \citep{choi2004}. $M_{500}$ (the mass within the radius where the mean

2301: mass density is equal to 500 times the critical density) is calculated

2302: by \citet{reiprich2002} for A4059 to be $2.82\pm_{0.34}^{0.37} \times

2303: 10^{14} h_{70}^{-1}$ \msun.

2304: 

2305: The color magnitude diagram shows a very tight red sequence.

2306: Membership information is taken from \citet{collins1995},

2307: \citet{colless2001}, and \citet{smith2004}.  Using the CMD as an

2308: indication of membership, we estimate the flux in cluster galaxies to

2309: be $1.2 \pm .35\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2310: $4.2\pm1.3\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.65\h Mpc, which is

2311: one quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.  In this particular

2312: cluster, since the Abell center is not at the true cluster center, and

2313: it is the nearest cluster in our sample, our image does not uniformly

2314: cover the entire one quarter of the virial radius.  This estimate is

2315: therefore below the true flux in galaxies because we are missing area

2316: on the cluster.

2317: 

2318: Figure \ref{fig:A4059} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2319: There is a strong ICL component ranging from 26 - 29 \magarc\ in $r$

2320: centered on the cD galaxy.  The total flux in the ICL is

2321: $3.4\pm1.7\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $1.2\pm.24\times10^{11}$\lsun

2322: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $22\pm12\%$ in $r$ and

2323: $21\pm8\%$ in $B$.  The ICL has a flat color profile with $B-r \simeq

2324: 1.7\pm.08$, which is marginally bluer (0.2 magnitudes) than the RCS.

2325: One of the two other bright ellipticals at 0.7\h Mpc from the center

2326: has a diffuse component, the other bright elliptical is too close to a

2327: saturated star to detect a diffuse component.

2328: 

2329: \subsection{A3880}

2330: \label{A3880}

2331: 

2332: A3880 is a richness class 0, Bautz Morgan type II cluster at a

2333: redshift of 0.058.  There is a clear cD galaxy in the center of this

2334: cluster, which is $0.52\pm.05$ magnitudes brighter than the second

2335: ranked galaxy. This cluster is detected in the ROSAT All Sky Survey,

2336: however that survey is not deep enough to show us the shape of the

2337: mass distribution.  \citet{girardi1998a} find a mass for this cluster

2338: based on its velocity dispersion of $8.3_{-2.1}^{+2.8}\times10^{14}

2339: h_{70}^{-1}\msun$.

2340: 

2341: The color magnitude diagram shows a clear red sequence.  There is

2342: possibly another red sequence at lower redshift adding to the width of

2343: the red sequence.  Membership information is provided by

2344: \citet{collins1995}, \citet{colless2001}, and \citet{smith2004}.

2345: Using the CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in

2346: cluster galaxies to be $8.6\pm2.6\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and

2347: $3.8\pm1.1\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.62\h Mpc, which is one

2348: quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2349: 

2350: Figure \ref{fig:A3880} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2351: Unfortunately this cluster has larger illumination problems than the

2352: other clusters which can be seen in the greyscale masked image.

2353: Nonetheless, there is clearly an $r-$band ICL component, although the

2354: $B-$band ICL is extremely faint.  The total flux in the ICL is

2355: $1.4\pm2.3\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $4.4\pm1.5\times10^{10}$\lsun

2356: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $14\pm6\%$ in $r$ and

2357: $10\pm6\%$ in $B$.  The ICL has a flat color profile with $B-r \simeq

2358: 2.4\pm1.1$, which is 0.8 magnitudes redder than the RCS.

2359: 

2360: 

2361: 

2362: \subsection{A2734}

2363: \label{A2734}

2364: A2734 is a richness class 1, Bautz Morgan type III cluster at a

2365: redshift of 0.062.  The BCG by $0.51\pm.05$ magnitudes is in the center of

2366: this cluster, however there are 2 other large elliptical galaxies

2367: 0.55\h Mpc and 0.85\h Mpc distant from the BCG. The X--ray gas does

2368: confirm the BCG as being at the center of the mass distribution.

2369: Those 2 other elliptical galaxies are not seen in the 44ks ASCA GIS

2370: observation of this cluster, however they are confirmed members based

2371: on spectroscopy \citep{collins1995,colless2001, smith2004}. $M_{500}$

2372: is calculated by \citet{reiprich2002} for A2734 to be

2373: $2.49\pm_{0.63}^{0.89} \times 10^{14} h_{70}^{-1}$ \msun.

2374: 

2375: The color magnitude diagram shows a clear red sequence, which includes

2376: the 3 bright elliptical galaxies.  2df spectroscopy gives us roughly

2377: 80 galaxies in our field of view which we can use to estimate the

2378: effectiveness of the biweight fit to the RCS in finding true cluster

2379: members.  Of those galaxies with confirmed membership, 94\% are

2380: determined members with this method, however 86\% of the confirmed

2381: non-members are also considered members.  This is likely due to how

2382: galaxies were selected for spectroscopy in the 2df catalog.  Using the

2383: CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in cluster

2384: galaxies to be $1.2\pm.36\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2385: $3.4\pm1.0\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.60\h Mpc, which is one

2386: quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2387: 

2388: Figure \ref{fig:A2734} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2389: There is a strong ICL component ranging from 26 - 29 \magarc\ in $r$

2390: centered on the BCG.  The total flux in the ICL is

2391: $2.8\pm.47\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $7.0\pm4.7\times10^{10}$\lsun

2392: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $19\pm6\%$ in $r$ and

2393: $17\pm13\%$ in $B$.  The ICL has a flat to red-ward color profile with

2394: $B-r \simeq 2.3\pm.03$, which is marginally redder than the RCS (0.3

2395: magnitudes).  The cluster has a second diffuse light component around

2396: one of the giant elliptical galaxies, .55 \h Mpc from the center of

2397: the cD galaxy.  The third bright elliptical has a saturated star just

2398: 40\arcsec away, so we do not have a diffuse light map of that galaxy.

2399: 

2400: 

2401: \subsection{A2556}

2402: \label{A2556}

2403: A2556 is a richness class 1, Bautz Morgan type II-III cluster at a

2404: redshift of 0.087.  Despite the Bautz Morgan classification, this

2405: cluster has a clear cD galaxy in the center of the X--ray distribution

2406: which is $0.93\pm.05$ magnitudes brighter than any other galaxy in the

2407: cluster.  The Chandra derived X--ray distribution is slightly

2408: elongated toward the NE where a second cluster, A2554, resides, 1.4\h

2409: Mpc from the center of A2556.  The cD galaxy of A2554 is just on the

2410: edge of our images so we have no information about its low surface

2411: brightness component. A2556 and A2554 are a part of the Aquarius

2412: supercluster\citep{batuski1999}, so they clearly reside in an

2413: overdense region of the universe.  Given an X--ray luminosity from

2414: \citet{ebeling1996} and a velocity dispersion from

2415: \citet{reimers1996}, we calculate the virial mass of A2556 to be

2416: $2.5\pm1.1\times10^{15} h_{70}^{-1}\msun$.

2417: 

2418: The red sequence for this cluster is a bit wider than in other

2419: clusters.  The one sigma width to a biweight fit is 0.38 magnitudes in

2420: B-r which is approximately 30\% larger than in the rest of the low-z

2421: sample.  This extra width is not caused by only a few galaxies,

2422: instead the entire red sequence appears to be inflated.  This is

2423: probably caused by the nearby A2554 which is at z=0.11

2424: \citep{struble1999}.  This is close enough in redshift space that we

2425: cannot separate out the 2 red sequences in our CMD.  We have roughly

2426: 30 redshifts for A2556 from \citet{smith2004}, \citet{caretta2004},

2427: and \citet{batuski1999} which are also unable to differentiate between

2428: the clusters.  Using the CMD as an indication of membership, we

2429: estimate the flux in cluster galaxies to be $1.3\pm.38\times10^{12}$\lsun in

2430: $r$ and $3.3\pm1.0\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.65\h Mpc, which is

2431: one quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2432: 

2433: Figure \ref{fig:A2556} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2434: There is an $r-$band ICL component ranging from 27 - 29 \magarc\ in

2435: $r$ centered on the cD galaxy.  The $B-$band ICL is extremely faint,

2436: barely above or detection threshold.  Although we were able to fit a

2437: profile to the $B-$band diffuse light, all points on the medium sized

2438: mask are below 29 \magarc. The total flux in the ICL is

2439: $7.6\pm6.6\times10^{10}$\lsun in $r$ and $1.4\pm1.4\times10^{10}$\lsun

2440: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $6\pm5\%$ in $r$ and

2441: $4\pm4\%$ in $B$.  Although Figure \ref{fig:A2556} shows a color

2442: profile, we do not assume anything about the profile shape due to the

2443: low SB level of the $B-$band.  We take the $B-r$ color from the

2444: innermost point to be $2.1\pm0.4$, which is fully consistent with the

2445: color of the RCS.

2446: 

2447: \subsection{A4010}

2448: \label{A4010}

2449: 

2450: A4010 is a richness class 1, Bautz Morgan type I-II cluster at a

2451: redshift of 0.096.  This cluster has a cD galaxy in the center of the

2452: galaxy distribution, which is $0.7\pm.05$ magnitudes brighter than the second

2453: ranked galaxy.  There is only ROSAT All Sky Survey data for this

2454: cluster and no other sufficiently deep X--ray observations to show us

2455: the shape of the mass distribution.  There are weak lensing maps which

2456: put the center of mass of the cluster at the same position as the cD

2457: galaxy, and elongated along the same position angle as the cD galaxy

2458: \citep{cypriano2004}.  \citet{muriel2002} find a velocity dispersion

2459: of $743\pm140$ for this cluster which is $15\%$ larger than found by

2460: \citet{girardi1998a}, where those authors find a virial mass of

2461: $3.8\pm_{1.2}^{1.6} \times 10^{14} h_{70}^{-1}$ \msun.

2462: 

2463: 

2464: The color magnitude diagram for A4010 is typical among the sample with

2465: a clear red sequence.  A few redshifts exist in the literature which

2466: help define the red sequence \citep{collins1995, katgert1998}.  Using

2467: the CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in

2468: cluster galaxies to be $1.2\pm.4\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2469: $3.5\pm1.0\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.75\h Mpc, which is

2470: one quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2471: 

2472: Figure \ref{fig:A4010} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2473: There is an elongated ICL component ranging from 25.5 - 28 \magarc\ in

2474: $r$ centered on the cD galaxy.  The total flux in the ICL is

2475: $3.2\pm0.7\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $7.7\pm2.8\times10^{10}$\lsun

2476: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $21\pm8\%$ in $r$ and

2477: $18\pm8\%$ in $B$.  The ICL has a significant red-ward trend in its

2478: color profile with an average color of $B-r \simeq 2.1\pm0.1$, which

2479: is marginally redder (0.2 magnitudes) than the RCS.

2480: 

2481: \subsection{A3888}

2482: \label{A38882}

2483: A3888 is discussed in great detail in paper I. In review, A3888 is a

2484: richness class 2, Bautz Morgan type I-II cluster at a redshift of

2485: 0.151.  This cluster has no cD galaxy; instead the core is comprised

2486: of 3 distinct sub-clumps of multiple galaxies each.  At least 2

2487: galaxies in each of the subclumps are confirmed members based on

2488: velocities \citep{teague1990, pimbblet2002}.  The brightest cluster

2489: galaxy is only $0.12\pm.04$ magnitudes brighter than the second ranked

2490: galaxy. XMM contours show an elongated distribution centered roughly

2491: in the middle of the three clumps of galaxies.  \citet{reiprich2002}

2492: estimate mass from the X--ray luminosity to be $M_{200}$ = 25.5$\pm

2493: ^{10.5} _{7.4}\times10^{14} h_{70}^{-1}$ \msun, where $r_{200}$ =

2494: 2.8$h^{-1}_{70}$Mpc.  This is consistent with the mass estimate from

2495: the published velocity dispersion of $1102\pm^{137}_{107}$

2496: \citep{girardi2001}.

2497: 

2498: There is a clear red sequence of galaxies in the CMD of A3888. Using

2499: the CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in

2500: cluster galaxies to be $3.0\pm0.9\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2501: $7.2\pm2.2\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.92\h Mpc.  We also

2502: determine galaxy flux using the \citet{driver1998} luminosity

2503: distribution, which is based on the statistical background subtraction

2504: of non-cluster galaxies, to be $4.3\pm0.7\times10^{12}$\lsun in the

2505: $r-$band and $3.4\pm0.6\times10^{12}$\lsun in $V$ .  The difference in

2506: these two estimates is likely due to uncertainties in our membership

2507: identification (of order $30\%$) and difference in detection

2508: thresholds of the two surveys.

2509: 

2510: Figure \ref{fig:A3888} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2511: There is a centralized ICL component ranging from 26 - 29 \magarc\ in

2512: $r$ despite the fact that there is no cD galaxy.  The total flux in

2513: the ICL is $4.4\pm2.1\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and

2514: $8.6\pm2.5\times10^{10}$\lsun in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of

2515: $13\pm5\%$ in $r$ and $11\pm3\%$ in $B$.  The ICL has a red color

2516: profile with an average color of $V-r \simeq 0.5\pm0.1$, which is

2517: marginally redder (0.2 magnitudes) than the RCS.  There is also a

2518: diffuse light component surrounding a group of galaxies that is 1.4 \h

2519: Mpc from the cluster center which totals $1.7\pm0.5\times10^{10}$\lsun

2520: in V and $2.6\pm1.2\times10^{10}$\lsun in r and has a color consistent

2521: with the main ICL component.

2522: 

2523: 

2524: \subsection{A3984}

2525: \label{A3984}

2526: 

2527: A3984 is an interesting richness class 2, Bautz Morgan type II-III

2528: cluster at a redshift of 0.181.  There appear to be 2 centers of the

2529: galaxy distribution.  One around the BCG, and one around a semi-circle

2530: of $\sim5$ bright ellipticals which are 1\h Mpc north of the BCG.  The

2531: BCG and at least one of the other bright ellipticals are at the same

2532: redshift \citep{collins1995}. To determine if these 2 centers are part

2533: of the same redshift structure, we split the image in half

2534: perpendicular to the line bisecting the 2 regions, and plot the

2535: cumulative distributions of $V-r$ galaxy colors.  A KS test reveals

2536: that these 2 regions have an 89\% probability of being drawn from the

2537: same distribution.  Without X--ray observations we do not know where

2538: the mass in this cluster resides.  There is a weak lensing map of just

2539: the northern region of the cluster which does show a centralized mass

2540: distribution, but does not include the southern clump

2541: \citep{cypriano2004}. The BCG is $0.57\pm.04$ magnitudes brighter than the

2542: second ranked galaxy.  We use a velocity dispersion from the lensing

2543: measurement to determine a mass of $31\pm10\times10^{14}

2544: h_{70}^{-1}\msun$.

2545: 

2546: There is a clear red sequence of galaxies in the CMD of A3984. Using

2547: the CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in

2548: cluster galaxies to be $2.0\pm0.6\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2549: $4.4\pm1.3\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.87\h Mpc, which is

2550: one quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2551: 

2552: Figure \ref{fig:A3984} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2553: There are 2 clear groupings of diffuse light.  We can only fit a

2554: profile to the ICL which is centered on the BCG.  We stop fitting that

2555: profile before it extends into the other ICL group ($\sim 600kpc$) in

2556: an attempt to keep the fluxes separate.  The total flux in the ICL is

2557: $2.2\pm1.0\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $6.2\pm2.1\times10^{10}$\lsun

2558: in $B$, which makes for ICL fractions of $10\pm6\%$ in $r$ and

2559: $12\pm6\%$ in $B$.  The ICL becomes distinctly bluer with radius and

2560: is bluer at all radii than the RCS with an average color of $V-r

2561: \simeq -0.2\pm0.4$ (0.5 magnitudes bluer than the RCS).

2562: 

2563: \subsection{A0141}

2564: \label{A0141}

2565: A0141 is a richness class 3, Bautz Morgan type III cluster at a

2566: redshift of 0.23.  True to its morphological type, this cluster has no

2567: cD galaxy, instead it has 4 bright elliptical galaxies, each at the

2568: center of a clump of galaxies, the brightest one of which is $0.42\pm.04$

2569: magnitudes brighter than the second brightest.  The center of the

2570: cluster, as defined by ASCA observations and a weak lensing map

2571: \citep{dahle2002}, is near the northernmost clumps of galaxies.  The

2572: distribution is clearly elongated north-south, it is therefore possible

2573: that the other bright ellipticals are in-falling groups along a

2574: filament.  $M_{200}$ from the lensing map is

2575: $18.9\pm^{1.1}_{0.9}\times10^{14}$ \h \msun.

2576: 

2577: There is a clear red sequence of galaxies in the CMD of A0141. Using

2578: the CMD as an indication of membership, we estimate the flux in

2579: cluster galaxies to be $3.2\pm1.0\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and

2580: $5.4\pm1.6\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ inside of 0.94 \h Mpc, which is one

2581: quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2582: 

2583: Figure \ref{fig:A141} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2584: There are 3 clear groupings of diffuse light which do not have a

2585: common center, although 1 of these ICL peaks does include 2 clumps of

2586: galaxies.  We are unable to fit a single centralized profile to this

2587: ICL as the three clumps are too far separated.  The total flux in the

2588: ICL as measured in manually placed elliptical annuli is

2589: $3.5\pm.9\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $3.4\pm1.1\times10^{10}$\lsun in $B$,

2590: which makes for ICL fractions of $10\pm4\%$ in $r$ and $6\pm3\%$ in

2591: $B$.  We estimate the color of the ICL to be $V-r \simeq 1.0\pm0.8$, which

2592: is significantly redder (0.6 magnitudes) than the RCS.  We have no

2593: color profile information.

2594: 

2595: 

2596: 

2597: \subsection{AC114}

2598: \label{AC114}

2599: AC114 (AS1077) is a richness class 2, Bautz Morgan type II-III cluster

2600: at a redshift of 0.31.  The brightest galaxy is only $0.28\pm.04$

2601: magnitudes brighter than the second ranked galaxy.  The galaxy

2602: distribution is elongated southeast to northwest \citep{couch2001} as

2603: is the Chandra derived X--ray distribution.  The X--ray gas shows a

2604: very irregular morphology, with a soft X--ray tail stretching toward a

2605: mass clump in the southeast which is also detected in a lensing map

2606: \citep{defilippis2004,campusano2001}. The X--ray gas is roughly

2607: centered on a bright elliptical galaxy, however the tail is an

2608: indication of a recent interaction.  There is a clump of galaxies,

2609: 1.6\h Mpc northwest of the BCG, which looks like a group or cluster

2610: with its own cD-like galaxy which is not targeted in either the X--ray

2611: or lensing (strong) observations.  Only one of these galaxies has

2612: redshifts in the literature, and it is a member of AC114.  Without

2613: redshifts, we cannot know definitively if these galaxies are a part of

2614: the same structure, however their location along the probable filament

2615: might be evidence that they are part of the same velocity structure.

2616: As this cluster is not in dynamical equilibrium, mass estimates from

2617: the X--ray gas come from B-model fits to the surface brightness

2618: distribution.  \citet{defilippis2004} find a mass within 1\h Mpc of

2619: $4.5\pm1.1 \times 10^{14}$\h \msun.  A composite strong and weak

2620: lensing analysis agree with the X--ray analysis within 500\h kpc, but

2621: they do not extend out to larger radii \citep{campusano2001}.  Within

2622: the virial radius, \citep{girardi2001} find a mass of

2623: $26.3^{+8.2}_{-7.1} \times 10^{14}$\h \msun.

2624: 

2625: This cluster, in relation to lower-z clusters, is a prototypical

2626: example of the Butcher-Oemler effect.  There is a higher fraction of

2627: blue, late-type galaxies at this redshift, than in our lower-z

2628: clusters, rising to 60\% outside of the core region \citep{couch1998}.

2629: This is not only evidenced in the morphologies, but in the CMD, which

2630: nicely shows these blue member galaxies.  We adopt the

2631: \citet{andreon2005} luminosity function for this cluster based on an

2632: extended likelihood distribution for background galaxies.  Integrating

2633: the luminosity distribution from very dim dwarf galaxies

2634: ($M_{R}=-11.6$) to infinity gives a total luminosity for AC114 of

2635: $1.5\pm0.2\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and $1.9\pm1.2\times10^{11}$\lsun

2636: in $B$ inside of 0.9\h Mpc, which is one quarter of the virial radius

2637: of this cluster.  For the purpose of comparison with other clusters,

2638: we adopt the cluster flux from the CMD, which gives

2639: $1.8\pm0.5\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$ and $2.3\pm0.7\times10^{11}$\lsun

2640: in $B$ inside of one quarter of the virial radius of this cluster.

2641: The differences in these estimates are likely due to uncertainties in

2642: membership identification and differing detection thresholds of the

2643: two surveys.

2644: 

2645: Figure \ref{fig:A114} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2646: There is a centralized ICL component ranging from 27.5 - 29 \magarc\ in

2647: $r$, in addition to a diffuse component around the group of galaxies

2648: to the northwest of the BCG.  The total flux in the ICL is

2649: $2.2\pm0.4\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $3.8\pm7.9\times10^{10}$\lsun in $B$,

2650: which includes the flux from the group as measured in elliptical

2651: annuli. The ICL fraction is $11\pm2\%$ in $r$ and $14\pm3\%$ in $B$.

2652: The ICL has a flat color profile with $V-r \simeq 0.1\pm0.1$, which is

2653: marginally bluer (0.4 magnitudes) than the RCS.

2654: 

2655: 

2656: \subsection{AC118 (A2744)}

2657: \label{AC118}

2658: 

2659: AC118 (A2744) is a richness class 3, Bautz Morgan type III cluster at

2660: a redshift of 0.31.  This cluster has 2 main clumps of galaxies

2661: separated by 1\h Mpc, with a third bright elliptical in a small group

2662: which is 1.2\h Mpc distant from the center of the other clumps.  The

2663: BCG is $0.23\pm.04$ magnitudes brighter than the second ranked galaxy.

2664: The Chandra X--ray data suggests that there are probably 3 clusters here, at

2665: least 2 of which are interacting.  The gas distribution, along with

2666: abundance ratios, suggests that the third, smaller group might be the

2667: core of one of the interacting clusters which has moved beyond the

2668: scene of the interaction where the hot gas is detected.  From velocity

2669: measurements \citet{girardi2001} also find 2 populations of galaxies

2670: with distinctly different velocity dispersions.  The presence of a

2671: large radio halo and radio relic are yet more evidence for dynamical

2672: activity in this cluster \citep{govoni2001}.  Mass estimates for this

2673: cluster range from $\sim3\times10^{13}\msun$ from X--ray data to

2674: $\sim3\times10^{15}\msun$ from the velocity dispersion data.  This

2675: cluster clearly violates assumptions of sphericity and hydrostatic

2676: equilibrium, which is leading to the large variations.  The two

2677: velocity dispersion peaks have a total mass of $38\pm37\times10^{14}$

2678: \h \msun; we adopt this mass throughout the paper.

2679: 

2680: AC118, at the same redshift as AC114, also shows a significant

2681: fraction of blue galaxies, which leads to a wider red cluster

2682: sequence($1\sigma = 0.3$ magnitudes), than at lower redshifts. We

2683: adopt the \citet{busarello2002} $R$ and $V-$band luminosity

2684: distributions based on photometric redshifts and background counts

2685: from a nearby, large area survey.  Integrating the luminosity

2686: distribution from very dim dwarf galaxies ($M_{R}=-11.6$) to infinity

2687: gives a total luminosity for AC118 of $4.5\pm.2\times10^{11}\lsun$

2688: in $V$ and $4.2\pm.4\times10^{12}\lsun$ in the $r-$band inside of

2689: $0.25r_{virial}$.  For the purpose of comparison with other clusters,

2690: we adopt the cluster flux from the CMD, which gives

2691: $5.4\pm1.6\times10^{11}$\lsun in $B$ and $4.4\pm0.1\times10^{12}$\lsun in $r$

2692: inside of 0.94\h Mpc, which is one quarter of the virial radius of

2693: this cluster.

2694: 

2695: Figure \ref{fig:A118} shows the relevant plots for this cluster.

2696: There are at least two, if not three groupings of diffuse light which

2697: do not have a common center.  The possible third is mostly obscured

2698: behind the mask of a saturated star.  We are unable to fit a

2699: centralized profile to this ICL.  The total flux in the ICL as

2700: measured in manually placed elliptical annuli is

2701: $7.0\pm1.0\times10^{11}$\lsun in $r$ and $6.7\pm1.7\times10^{10}$\lsun in $B$,

2702: which makes for ICL fractions of $14\pm5\%$ in $r$ and $11\pm5\%$ in $B$.

2703: We estimate the color of the ICL to be $V-r \simeq 1.0\pm0.8$, which is

2704: significantly redder (0.6 magnitudes) than the RCS.  We have no color

2705: profile information.

2706: 

2707: 

2708: 

2709: %---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2710: 

2711: 

2712: 

2713: \end{document}

2714: 

2715: 

2716: % LocalWords:  arcsec Krick Pimbblet QLD intracluster ICL kpc Gyr metallicity

2717: % LocalWords:  Mpc cD feldmeier gonzalez kelson lin willman baryonic allen ICM

2718: % LocalWords:  ICSP zaritsky domainko SNe ICSNe arcsecond IMACS Baade Swope XMM

2719: % LocalWords:  Pont abell Bautz teague pimbblet Girardi struble reimers ROSAT

2720: % LocalWords:  reiprich PSPC ASCA Lx Tx markevitch girardi du Campanas Tek CCD

2721: % LocalWords:  readnoise gunn arcseconds mosaiced Pre overscan IRAF SExtractor

2722: % LocalWords:  bertin landolt jorgensen airmasses fwhm AAT LARCS airglow geomap

2723: % LocalWords:  leinert geotran ellipticities pre imcombine CRs PSF Moffat USNO

2724: % LocalWords:  trujillo deVaucouleurs dev Sersic sersic tran deblending peng de

2725: % LocalWords:  GIM Simard Galfit Jedrzejewski Sersics deblend isophotal exptime

2726: % LocalWords:  deblended biweight bernstein broadhurst Schechter LF fukugita ie

2727: % LocalWords:  isophote isophotes NFW bruzual starburst Salpeter CDM Padova Myr

2728: % LocalWords:  instantaneity metallicities virial unsharp gregg calcaneo LSB IC

2729: % LocalWords:  dalcanton oneil KeV jordan bassino hilker marinfranch fujita SPH

2730: % LocalWords:  castro durrell schombert mackie dubinski murante sommer larsen

2731: % LocalWords:  moore gnedin bekki HII gerhard ryan kniazev trentham BCG gudehus

2732: % LocalWords:  theuns uson vg arnaboldi ferguson unrelaxed zibetti deVauc UM's

2733: % LocalWords:  NAS USNOFS Catalogue IPAC SIMBAD CDS gaussians gaussian ra dec

2734: % LocalWords:  Dahle al Smail ps arcmin psf galfit cmd icl eps Vexp rexp SDSS

2735: % LocalWords:  unmerged cortese jkrick pc Batuski Busarello Ciardullo denHartog

2736: % LocalWords:  DePropris ebeling Mazure filippis lcccccccc asec aguerri icl RMS

2737: % LocalWords:  ellipticals situ krick krick pre krick th arcminutes arcminute

2738: % LocalWords:  Holmberg holmberg bandpasses poggianti CMDs lopezcruz CMRs CMR

2739: % LocalWords:  milosavljevic mihos choi collins colless greyscale GIS df muriel

2740: % LocalWords:  supercluster batuski caretta cypriano katgert subclumps dahle sb

2741: % LocalWords:  defilippis campusano Oemler andreon govoni sphericity busarello

2742: % LocalWords:  Spearman spearman infall BCG's Dupke Kempner chen ciardullo det

2743: % LocalWords:  lcccccc tresh arcsecs predicticl ratiovmass clustervicl zvratio

2744: % LocalWords:  zvcolor loh abadi rocha lokas overdense ngals vicl richvicl eg

2745: % LocalWords:  ngalsvicl ngalsvz lccccccc zvmass vngals vcluster ngalsvcluster

2746: % LocalWords:  zvcluster zvicl clustervratio ngalsvratio MI redshift rudick obj

2747: % LocalWords:  timescales ergs redshifts pix moduli binned richnesses AC annuli

2748: % LocalWords:  DeVaucouleurs binning Chandra ks NE degeneracies timescale chi

2749: % LocalWords:  interlopers hydrodynamical cD's Desai HF Extragalactic NED ms Wu

2750: % LocalWords:  bbl htbp Kowalski pt std xray vz mag Spitzer CA mags virialized

2751: 

2752: % LocalWords:  merritt Goddard allcmd HEASARC allcolor

2753: