1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\usepackage{color}
3:
4: %\documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
5:
6: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}}
7: \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}
8: \newcommand{\beqa}{\begin{eqnarray}}
9: \newcommand{\eeqa}{\end{eqnarray}}
10: \newcommand{\gam}{\langle\sqrt{1 - v^2}\rangle}
11: \newcommand{\xv}{{\bf x}}
12: \newcommand{\rv}{{\bf r}}
13: \newcommand{\vv}{{\bf v}}
14: \newcommand{\kv}{{\bf k}}
15:
16: \title{A Catalogue of Morphologically Classified Galaxies from the
17: Sloan Digital Sky Survey: North Equatorial Region }
18: \author{Masataka Fukugita$^{(a,b)}$, Osamu Nakamura$^{(c)}$,
19: Sadanori Okamura$^{(d)}$, Naoki Yasuda$^{(a)}$,\\
20: John C. Barentine$^{(e)}$, Jon Brinkmann$^{(e)}$,
21: James E. Gunn$^{(f)}$, Mike Harvanek$^{(e)}$,\\
22: Takashi Ichikawa$^{(g)}$, Robert H. Lupton$^{(f)}$,
23: Donald P. Schneider$^{(h)}$, Michael A. Strauss$^{(e)}$,
24: Donald G. York$^{(i)}$ }
25: \affil{$^{(a)}$Institute for Cosmic Ray Research,
26: University of Tokyo,\\ Kashiwa 277 8582, Japan}
27: \affil{$^{(b)}$Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ 08540, USA}
28: \affil{$^{(c)}$Graduate School of Political Science, Waseda
29: University, Shinjiku, Tokyo 169 8050, Japan}
30: \affil{$^{(d)}$Department of Astronomy, University of Tokyo, Hongo,
31: Tokyo 113, Japan}
32: \affil{$^{(e)}$Apache Point Observatory, Sunspot, NM 88349, USA}
33: \affil{$^{(f)}$Princeton University Observatory, Princeton University,
34: Princeton, NJ 08544, U. S. A.}
35: \affil{$^{(g)}$Astronomical
36: Institute, Tohoku University, Sendai 980 8578, Japan}
37: \affil{$^{(h)}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Pennsylvania
38: State University. University Park, PA 6802, USA}
39: \affil{$^{(i)}$Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University of
40: Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA}
41: \begin{document}
42: %\maketitle
43:
44: \begin{abstract}
45:
46: We present a catalogue of morphologically classified bright galaxies
47: in the north equatorial stripe (230 deg$^2$) derived from the Third
48: Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). Morphological
49: classification is performed by visual inspection of images in the $g$
50: band. The catalogue contains 2253 galaxies complete to a magnitude
51: limit of $r=16$ after Galactic extinction correction, selected from
52: 2658 objects that are judged as extended in the photometric catalogue
53: in the same magnitude limit. 1866 galaxies in our catalogue have
54: spectroscopic information. A brief statistical analysis is presented
55: for the frequency of morphological types and mean colours in the
56: catalogue. A visual inspection of the images reveals that the rate of
57: interacting galaxies in the local Universe is approximately 1.5\%
58: in the $r\le16$ sample.
59: A verification is made for the photometric catalogue generated by the
60: SDSS, especially as to its bright end completeness.
61:
62: \end{abstract}
63:
64: \keywords{galaxies: fundamental parameters (classification) -- catalogs}
65:
66: \section{Introduction}
67:
68: This paper presents a catalogue of morphologically classified galaxies
69: from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS: York et al. 2000), Data
70: Release Three (DR3; Abazajian et al. 2005).
71: We limit our sample to a rectangular region of the equatorial area
72: in the Northern sky (R.A.$\approx 9^h.7-15^h.7$) of 230 square degrees
73: that comprises 2658 objects brighter than the $r$ band Petrosian
74: magnitude $r_P\leq 16$ that are listed as extended in the DR3
75: photometric catalogue. The classification is performed by visual
76: inspection by three people independently, and the final classification
77: is obtained from the mean. We obtain a sample of 2253 galaxies, of
78: which 1866 have spectroscopic information in the SDSS.
79:
80: Visual classification is a labourious and somewhat subjective
81: procedure. Nevertheless, this remains the best approach to classify
82: each galaxy into a Hubble type with high confidence, at least for
83: bright galaxies. There are a number of methods that use
84: photometric and/or spectroscopic parameters developed for large scale
85: samples to classify galaxies. Those classifications are correlated
86: reasonably well with visual Hubble types, but are substantially
87: contaminated by galaxies that belong to obviously wrong classes if
88: visual inspection is made. The identification of Sa galaxies is
89: particularly subtle. The classification of Sa galaxies often scatters
90: across elliptical to late spiral galaxies, if one uses photometric
91: and/or spectroscopic parameters as indicators. On the other hand, it
92: is not difficult to identify disks of Sa galaxies with visual
93: inspection. Colour or spectroscopic parameters are sensitive to the
94: star formation activity, so galaxies that show such activities are
95: typically classified as a late type if those parameters would be used.
96: For the moment it is difficult to replace the classification with a
97: quantitative measure.
98:
99:
100: Our work follows the traditional line of the Revised Shapley Ames
101: Catalogue (Sandage \& Tammann 1980), the Reference Catalogue of Bright
102: Galaxies (de Vaucouleurs \& de Vaucouleurs 1964, RC1; de Vaucouleurs et
103: al. 1995, RC3), the Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies (Nilson 1973) and
104: several others (e.g., Marzke et al. 1994; Kochanek et al. 2001; see
105: also Blanton et al. 2005; Driver et al. 2006, which carried out
106: rudimentary visual classifications). The size of our sample is
107: moderate, but it is based on accurate photometric criteria to define
108: the basic catalogue and provides a photometrically homogeneous sample
109: that can be used for a variety of galaxy studies. We have
110: endeavoured to alleviate subjectivity of visual classification by
111: taking a mean of three independent classifiers.
112:
113:
114: This catalogue also allows us to verify the quality of the SDSS
115: photometric catalogue at the bright end. Definite photometric criteria
116: are applied to produce a galaxy sample that is to be targeted for
117: spectroscopic observations (Strauss et al. 2002). The problem is that
118: we are not able to produce a genuine galaxy catalogue with simple
119: numerical criteria. The catalogue obtained may thus contain objects
120: that are not genuine galaxies, such as double stars, stars with
121: somewhat deformed images, ghosts, satellite images and `shredded'
122: objects (caused by failures in deblending of large bright galaxies).
123: On the contrary, an application of stricter criteria would miss many
124: true galaxies, so that a compromise is needed. We visually inspect all
125: objects that are selected with a rather loose criterion for extended
126: objects, which permits quantification of the contamination and
127: completeness of the photometric catalogue produced by the SDSS target
128: selection on the bright end.
129:
130:
131: We also give a subsidiary catalogue of $r'_P\le 15.9$ galaxies that
132: were contained in the Early Data Release (EDR: Stoughton et al. 2002),
133: since a number of scientific publications
134: (Nakamura et al. 2003; Ohama 2003 (TBC:2002?);
135: Fukugita et al. 2004; Ball et al. 2004; Nakamura et al. 2004;
136: Yamauchi et al. 2005; Tasca \& White 2005)
137: have used this earlier
138: version of morphologically classified galaxy cataloge.
139: Identification of all objects in both
140: catalogues is also given.
141: We note that the revision in the estimate of morphological
142: type is small, if any, for individual galaxies and
143: the results given in the earlier papers will
144: change little with the use of the present catalogue.
145:
146: We refer the reader to the other publications for detailed
147: descriptions of the SDSS related to our study: Gunn et al (2006) for
148: the telescope, Gunn et al. (1998) for the photometric camera, Fukugita
149: et al. (1996) for the photometric system, Hogg et al. (2001) and Smith
150: et al. (2002) for external photometric calibrations, and Pier et al.
151: (2003) for astrometric calibrations. We also refer to Abazajian et
152: al. (2003; 2004) and Adelman-McCarthy et al. (2006) for other data
153: releases from the SDSS, which discuss the successive improvement of
154: the pipelines used to derive the basic catalogues.
155:
156: \section{Procedures}
157:
158: Our rectangular region is defined by $145^\circ<\alpha_{\rm
159: J2000}<236^\circ$ and $-1^\circ.26<\delta_{\rm J2000}<1^\circ.26$,
160: covering an area of 230 deg$^2$. This area fully encompasses SDSS
161: survey stripe 10 but the region of primary observations that takes
162: account of overlaps between stripes is somewhat rounded towards its
163: corners. So we supplement the missed part from neighbouring stripes
164: (stripes 9 and 11) to make the area strictly rectangular in celestrial
165: coordinates. We take photometry from DR3, and select all extended
166: objects\footnote{Technically, the selection is made using flag {\tt
167: type}=3 (galaxy), not {\tt saturated}, and not {\tt satur\_center} for
168: all colour bands. Objects that are flagged as {\tt type}=3, and not
169: {\tt satur\_center} but flagged as {\tt saturated} are visually
170: inspected and included into the catalog when appropriate. } that are
171: brighter than Petrosian magnitude $r_P=16$ (see EDR and Strauss et al.
172: 2002 for the precise definition) after the Galactic extinction
173: correction (Schlegel et al. 1998). There are 2658 such objects in the
174: DR3 catalogue that are produced from Version 5.4 of the photometric
175: pipeline.
176:
177: We note that there are some gaps (0.03 deg$^2$ altogether) within the
178: region that concerns us. There are five fields ($13.'5\times 9.'0$)
179: for which the photometric pipeline did not process the data (the
180: actual gap is somewhat smaller due to overlaps with adjacent
181: fields). This happens when the field contains very bright galaxies or
182: stars with conspicuous spikes, and the completion of deblending
183: required more time than the pipeline limit. Any galaxies located in
184: these fields are not included in our sample.
185:
186: All objects are visually inspected by three classifiers (MF, ON, SO)
187: independently. This sample is contaminated by non-galactic objects.
188: Our initial sample of 2658 objects includes a number of sources that
189: are not galaxies (stars, satellite trails, optical defects) as well as
190: multiple entries for a single object (primarily due to deblending
191: failures). Removal of these objects produces a final sample of 2253
192: galaxies.
193:
194:
195: Morphological classification is carried out in reference to {\it The
196: Hubble Atlas of Galaxies} by Sandage (1961; Hubble Atlas hereafter) by
197: three classifiers using the SAOimage viewer. We use the monochromatic
198: $g$ band image, which is similar to the commonly-used $B$ band image
199: for classification, and is sensitive to HII regions and arm
200: structures. It is important to inspect images with both linear and
201: logarithmic scales in the viewer with varying contrast levels. This
202: occasionally produces a systematic difference from classifications
203: based on photographic materials. We intentionally avoid using colour
204: information so that morphology is solely determined by the
205: appearance, as has been done traditionally. This allows us to
206: consider the correlation between morphology and colours in an
207: unbiased way.
208:
209: We consider classification into 7 classes, $T=0$ (E), 1 (S0), 2(Sa),
210: 3(Sb), 4(Sc), 5(Sd) and 6(Im), allowing for half-integer classes. We
211: do not adopt more detailed classes such as those defined in RC3 (which
212: has 16 classes in $T$), since our experience with the SDSS data
213: (comparing results from the three classifiers) is that a finer
214: division is unwarranted. The Hubble Atlas does not define Sd and Sdm.
215: We assign the latest of the Sc galaxies in the Hubble Atlas as
216: Sd$-$Sdm so that our classification scheme matches with that in
217: RC3. Irr I of the Hubble Atlas is denoted as Im in this paper, also in
218: agreement with RC3. We assign $T=-1$ when we are unable to classify a
219: galaxy into a conventional Hubble type. We indicate by a symbol ``p''
220: when some peculiarity is noted in a galaxy (such as somewhat disturbed
221: shapes, rings, dust lanes etc. as in the Hubble Atlas)
222: even though it can be classified into a regular, $T\ne -1$, Hubble type. The
223: relation between our $T$ and $T({\rm RC3})$ is shown in Table 1. We
224: note slight biases in our classification towards integer $T$. We are
225: not concerned with whether galaxies have bars or not.
226:
227: During the classification we noticed that not all galaxies fell
228: nicely into the Hubble sequence, but whenever reasonable
229: we classified a galaxy into the $T=0$ to 6 scale. This leads to
230: a number of cases where the appearance of the galaxy may not match well
231: with the appearance of the Hubble Atlas prototype, but we view this
232: as preferable to a catalogue containing a large number of
233: unclassifiable ($T=-1$) objects. Our catalogue contains 33 galaxies
234: with $T=-1$.
235:
236: We noted that some galaxies, notably among those with $T=-1$, show a
237: common feature, characterised by a high surface brightness and a
238: smooth light distribution, but their appearance is definitely not that
239: of E or S0 galaxies. These objects frequently have more irregular
240: shapes than early-type galaxies, but the light distribution is too
241: smooth and/or surface brightness too high to be classified as Im. They
242: appear to be reminiscent of Irr II in the Hubble Atlas or `amorphous'
243: galaxies introduced by Sandage and Brucato (1979), who characterised
244: them as `not E, S0, or any type of spiral no matter how peculiar, but
245: rather have an amorphous appearance to the unresolved
246: light'. Gallagher \& Hunter (1987) used the term amorphous to
247: represent `all galaxies with E/S0-like morphologies whose other global
248: properties resemble irregular galaxies.' These definitions, however,
249: are not quite clear. These galaxies tend to show a red colour. We
250: confirmed that most of the galaxies of this type in our sample
251: show red colours, although we did not use the colour
252: information when we classified galaxies. We indicate by ``am'' when we
253: encounter those galaxies, whether they are left unclassified or
254: classified into regular types (see a figure given at the end of
255: Section 3).
256:
257:
258:
259: If the SDSS photometric pipeline determines that an image is actually
260: composed of more than one component, the `parent' image is deblended into
261: `child' images (Lupton 2006). The child images may be
262: further deblended if they are judged to be formed of more than one
263: component. When confronted with a large, complex surface brightness
264: pattern, the deblender `shreds' a bright extended galaxy into a
265: multitude of components, which can obviously affect the morphology of
266: the galaxy (and also photometric measurements). (An extreme example
267: is the separation of a nucleus, which may look as S0, from a spiral
268: galaxy.) For this reason it is important to inspect both parent and
269: child images for all objects to ensure correct classifications.
270:
271:
272:
273: Each classifier independently carries out the classification of each
274: galaxy at least twice. The results are then compared, and when the
275: results for an individual galaxy differ by more than 1.5 units in $T$,
276: all classifiers reinspect the galaxy in question and make a final,
277: independent assessment. The adopted morphological classification is
278: the mean of the measurements of the three classifiers.
279:
280:
281: The panels in Figure 1 display the correlation in $T$ among the three
282: classifiers. The dispersion is 0.4, or $\approx$1 in the RC3 $T$
283: scale. This is probably as good as can be expected for visual
284: classification; for example, $\delta T({\rm RC3})=1.8$ in Lahav et al.
285: (1995), a study that used photographic prints.
286:
287: The final SDSS sample contains 218 galaxies that have assigned
288: $T$(RC3) in the RC3 catalogue. Figure 2 shows the correlation of
289: T(RC3) versus those from our classification for those common galaxies.
290: The correlation is generally good; however, there is a systematic
291: difference in the classifications in that S0/a to Sa(Sab) galaxies in
292: RC3 are classified somewhat later to Sa to Sb (occasionally to Sc) in
293: our catalogue. On the other hand, our E and S0 galaxy samples do not
294: contain any galaxies that are classified as S0/a or later in RC3. We
295: suspect the main reason of the discrepancy to be that our
296: classification is based on high dynamic range and high contrast CCD
297: images, which allows detection of arm structure and detailed texture
298: that could not be apparent in a single photometric image. This will
299: drive our classification of disc galaxies towards later types,
300: compared to those in the RC3 catalogues.
301:
302:
303: The quality of the photometry is also examined by visual inspection of
304: images, to check whether the SDSS atlas image contains the entire
305: image of the galaxy. If these data contain extra objects or parts of
306: the galaxy are erroneously removed by the deblender, flags are
307: attached. The position of spectroscopic fibre, which has a diameter of
308: $3''$, is also inspected. When the fibre is not centred on the
309: nucleus, but is assigned to a region of the galaxy (e.g., a bright HII
310: region), the spectroscopic information is accepted but flagged.
311:
312:
313: \section{Catalogue}
314:
315: Table 2 presents our final catalogue from DR3 ($r_P\le 16$) in the
316: order of right ascension, but only the top 20 lines are shown in the
317: printed version of the paper. The entire catalogue is available in an
318: electronically readable format. The catalogue contains 15 columns
319: with the following information:
320:
321: \begin{itemize}
322: \item
323: Column 1: %1-4
324: catalogue number;
325: \item
326: Column 2: %6-21
327: photometric identification number in DR3. The numbers
328: mean run (observation) $-$ rerun (photometric
329: data reduction) $-$ camcol (camera column) $-$ field $-$ object id
330: (see DR3 for details);
331: \item
332: Column 3: %23-31
333: right ascension (J2000), in decimal degrees;
334: \item
335: Column 4: %33-40
336: declination (J2000), in decimal degrees;
337: \item
338: Column 5: %42-58
339: photometric identification number in EDR (see explanation for Column 2);
340: \item
341: Column 6: %60
342: $I_{\rm sample}$ flag for catalogue inclusions: [3]
343: in both DR3 ($r_P\le 16$) and
344: EDR ($r_P\le 15.9$); [2] only in DR3 ($r_P\le 16$);
345: \item
346: Column 7: %62
347: $I_{\rm target}$ flag for spectroscopic target selection: [0] not targeted;
348: [1] targeted but not observed; [2] observed; [2:] fibre positioned off-nucleus,
349: but on some other part of the object carrying the
350: specified photometric identification;
351: \item
352: Column 8: %64
353: morphological index $T$: the mean of three classifiers
354: rounded to the nearest integer or half-integer;
355: \item
356: Column 9: %65
357: standard deviation of morphological indices among three classifiers;
358: \item
359: Column 10: %66
360: $I_{\rm ph}$ photometry quality: [0] good photometry
361: (typical error expected to be smaller than approximately 0.1 mag based
362: on visual estimates); [1] photometry is accurate if one uses the
363: magnitude given to the parent image; [2] some errors, say 0.3 mag
364: (with visual estimates), is suspected in photometry; [3] poor
365: photometry. (Note that these flags are somewhat subjective.) Flags 2
366: and 3 are occasionally appended by p or c, which means that more
367: accurate magnitudes may easily be obtained by applying aperture
368: photometry centred on the designated object using parent or child
369: atlas image frames, respectively.
370: \item
371: Column 11: %68-74
372: Petrosian $r$ magnitude (of the child image) after correcting for
373: Galactic extinction;
374: \item
375: Column 12: %76-88
376: spectroscopic identification number:
377: spectroscopic plate number$-$ mjd $-$fibre number;
378: \item
379: Column 13: %90-94
380: heliocentric redshift;
381: \item
382: Column 14: %96-100
383: confidence level of redshift measurements;
384: \item
385: Column 15: %101-120
386: remarks: `p' stands for peculiar, and this flag is
387: given only when galaxies are classified into normal types. `am' is
388: given to galaxies with an amorphous appearance. `int' stands for
389: interacting, and 'd-nucl' for double nuclei within a single galaxy.
390: `double' and `multiple' stand for more than one galaxy in the child
391: field, while interactions among them are not apparent. The PGC number
392: is provided when the galaxy is identified with that listed in RC3.
393:
394: \end{itemize}
395:
396: In the bottom of Table 2 we append a
397: similar catalogue for 22 objects that are included only in our EDR
398: sample ($r_P\le 15.9$). All of the galaxies have Galactic-extinction
399: corrected $r_P>16$ in DR3; This change from the EDR measurement is due
400: to reprocessing the EDR data with the improved DR3 photometric
401: pipeline. Flag [1] is assigned to Column 6, `flag for catalogue
402: inclusions'. We carried out reclassifications for the EDR sample, but
403: the change compared to the earlier catalogue is insignificant.
404:
405: Figures 3$-$7 display examples of $gri$ colour synthetic images of
406: galaxies (20 each) that are classified as $T=0-4$, taken from Catalog
407: Archive Server (CAS). Figure 8 shows images for $T=5$ (8 galaxies in
408: the top) and $T=6$ (12 galaxies in the bottom). Note that detailed textures
409: are not quite visible on these pictures and the contrast is not always
410: well represented, so that these printed images are not always appropriate
411: for the purpose of classification. Figure 9 shows 12 galaxies, which
412: we classified as interacting; the four galaxies in the bottom row have
413: double (multiple) nuclei. Figure 10 shows 16 galaxies to which we
414: give amorphous (``am'') flags. The size of pictures are all $1'\times
415: 1'$.
416:
417: \section{Verification of the photometric catalogue of DR3}
418:
419: We have adopted a set of inclusive selection criteria so that few
420: galaxies are missed in our initial sample. This selection is
421: substantially looser than that adopted in the operational
422: spectroscopic target selection for galaxies (Strauss et al. 2002).
423:
424: Among 2658 extended objects in our sample, 2253 are unique
425: galaxies. There are 27 examples of galaxies that are included two or
426: more times in the initial list; this primarily arises from deblending
427: difficulties. Also included in our original set are 211 stars
428: (approximately 80\% of which are double stars) and 167 spurious
429: objects, such as satellite trails, diffraction spikes of bright stars,
430: ghosts, failures of deblending or of removal of bright stars that
431: saturate the CCD, and empty fields with no designated object (which
432: happen typically when imaging of the same fields with other colour
433: bands was hit by satellite trails). Nearly all stars (206 out of 211)
434: can be rejected if one imposes the condition $g({\rm PSF})-g({\rm
435: model})>0.5$ for the selection of galaxies, which is tighter
436: than the one used in target selection, $r({\rm PSF})-r({\rm
437: model})>0.3$. The former condition rejects six true galaxies (one
438: among them looks like an AGN); 61 spurious objects, however, escape the
439: rejection and contaminate the galaxy sample.
440:
441:
442: Among the 2253 galaxies, 2213 (98.2 \%) are chosen by SDSS target
443: selection, and 1866 (82.8\% of the entire galaxy sample) are actually
444: spectroscopically observed\footnote{Note that stripe 10 was observed
445: in early days of the SDSS observation, when the tuning of
446: spectroscopic observations was still immature. We suspect a higher
447: rate of spectroscopic observations for stripes observed in later
448: times.}.
449: The completeness of the spectroscopic observation in our sample
450: is essentially uniform from early- to late-types within Poissonian error.
451: One reason for missing spectroscopy is the fibre separation
452: constraint (fibres on a given plate must be separated by at least
453: $55''$, Blanton et al. 2003b). In cases where a galaxy and a quasar
454: candidate conflict, the fibre is assigned to the latter. We found a
455: few patches for which spectroscopic observations were not carried out
456: for unknown reasons. We also found that 168 more targets are set by
457: target selection on non-galactic objects, of which 18 are
458: observed\footnote{We suspect that these rather large numbers are
459: likely due to deblending errors of the early immature version of
460: photometric pipeline used for spectroscopic target selection, since
461: spectroscopic observations are carried out in early stages of
462: SDSS operations for the region that concerns us in this paper.}
463:
464: The survey samples are summarised in Table 3. The spectroscopic
465: sample is quite clean even for bright galaxies of our smaple,
466: but with a completeness of
467: 83\%. We wish to inject a note of caution to the use of SDSS
468: photometric galaxy catalogues. The target-selection algorithm of
469: Strauss et al. yields a sample of galaxies with good completeness,
470: only 2\% of galaxies missed, but suffers a 7\% contamination by stars
471: and spurious objects.
472:
473: In order to examine the statistical completeness, we show in Figure 11
474: the number of galaxies as a function of $r$ magnitude. The solid line
475: shows $N\sim 10^{0.6r}$ expected for Euclidean geometry. The data
476: indicate that the galaxy number count deviates little from this line
477: from 10 to 16 mag. A slight excess at bright magnitudes is consistent
478: with the Poisson statistics. This implies that we have not missed too
479: many galaxies even in the bright end of the sample at 10$-$10.5 mag.
480: The spectroscopic sample is indicated by shading, which shows that the
481: spectroscopic completeness stays nearly constant for $r>12.5$. The
482: thick shades indicates galaxies that carry a flag for
483: photometric errors, which increases towards brighter magnitudes,
484: from 5\% at $r=15.5$ to 20\% at $r=13$.
485: The number count for each morphological type
486: is shown in Figure 12. All curves are consistent with
487: $N\sim 10^{0.6r}$ up to statistical errors, indicating
488: homogeneity in morphological compositions, and therefore
489: morphological fractions change little as a function of
490: magnitude to $r=16$.
491: We note, however, that the region considered has some
492: over-density at $z\sim0.8$ where more early-type
493: galaxies are included (see Figure 2 of Nakamura et al.). This may cause a
494: slight deviation from the smooth $10^{0.6r}$ growth.
495:
496: An additional test is carried out for the completeness
497: by comparing galaxies in our sample
498: with those in RC3 and Updated Zwicky
499: Catalogues (Falco et al. 1999). The RC3 contains 269 galaxies in our
500: survey area; 15 of these are not in our catalogue. Nine of the 15 are
501: too faint to us ($r>16$), and 2 are omitted because they lie too close
502: to the edge of our area. Three (PGC33550, PGC39695; PGC39705) are in
503: the field for which the SDSS photometric pipeline could not process
504: the frame due to the presence of the excessively bright stars (for the
505: first two) or the bright galaxy itself (PG33550, $B_T=9.8$). The one
506: (PGC53499=NGC5792) is a bright galaxy but lies too close to a very
507: bright star. In summary, only 4 of 258 RC3 galaxies that should have
508: been included in our catalogue were missed.
509:
510: A similar result was obtained in a comparison of the 394 updated
511: Zwicky Catalogue objects in our survey area; 14 of these objects were
512: missed. One Zwicky galaxy (one of a pair of interacting galaxies) was
513: shredded by the deblender into components that all had $r>16$, and
514: hence dropped from our catalogue. In total, four bright Zwicky
515: galaxies (there are three in common to those we found for the case
516: of RC3) that should have been in our catalogue were missed by the SDSS
517: photometric pipeline.
518:
519: From these tests we conclude that galaxies are well sampled to as
520: bright as 10 mag, unless they are accidentally located close to very
521: bright stars. The most important cause of missing bright galaxies is
522: failures of deblending in the presence of vary bright
523: stars or galaxies themselves; we missed the fraction of the region,
524: $\approx1.3\times10^{-4}$. We expect that the incompleteness will
525: become an important issue for $r \lesssim 10$.
526: A comparison with the RC3 catalogue (which includes
527: all Zwicky galaxies) shows that
528: incompleteness for low-surface brightness galaxies
529: is no more than that in RC3.
530:
531:
532: \section{Statistics}
533:
534: Figure 13 shows histograms of the morphological type
535: distribution of
536: galaxies for both photometric and spectroscopic samples. We use only
537: seven classes, grouping half those classified into half-integer $T$
538: into each adjoining integer bins. The fractional morphological
539: composition of our catalogue breaks down to E: E/S0$-$S0: S0a$-$Sab:
540: Sb$-$Sc: Scd$-$Sdm: Im = 0.14: 0.26: 0.25: 0.28: 0.038: 0.014. A $B$
541: band study summarised by Fukugita, Hogan \& Peebles (1998) gives a
542: relative frequency of E: S0: Sab: Sbc: Scd: Im = 0.11: 0.21: 0.28:
543: 0.29: 0.045: 0.061.
544: A somewhat higher fraction of early type galaxies in our sample
545: is ascribed to our galaxy selection in the $r$ magnitude, which
546: will select a larger fraction of early-type galaxies than would be
547: present in a volume-limited sample. Our small fraction of Im galaxies
548: arises from the intrinsical small luminosity of these sources that
549: makes the sampling volume small. These issues are discussed in
550: Nakamura et al. (2003), where the morphologically classified
551: luminosity function is derived.
552:
553: We identified 25 galaxies which are interacting, and an additional six
554: that display features that suggest interacting. Of this set of 31, 16
555: have such disturbed morphologies that they are assigned $T=-1$
556: (unclassified). In our galaxy sample 12 galaxies have double
557: (or multiple) nuclei, and four of these are also counted as
558: ``interacting'' and 1 suspected interacting. Adding double-nucleus
559: galaxies, we arrive at 33$-$38 interacting galaxies in our catalogue,
560: i.e., the rate of interacting galaxies in a nearby magnitude-limited
561: galaxy sample is 1.5-1.7\%.
562:
563: The mean colours of galaxies after K corrections (Blanton et
564: al. 2003a) are given in Table 4. We have rejected galaxies for which
565: poor photometry is suspected ($I_{\rm ph}\ge 2$). This information
566: supersedes the mean colours given in Shimasaku et
567: al. (2001)\footnote{Shimasaku et al. (2001) do not include K
568: corrections due to a lack of redshift at that time. Although the
569: galaxies are all at low redshift, the absence of K corrections make
570: galaxies, especially those of early types, redder by a non-negligible
571: amount. Without the K correction the colours quoted below in this
572: paragraph will be 1.85, 0.89, 0.41 and 0.28 for the sample used in the
573: present paper.}. The colours, except for $i-z$, form monotonic
574: sequences from red to blue with increasing $T$, including half integer
575: types that are not shown in this table. The scatter of colours among
576: different galaxies at given $T$ is larger than the difference between
577: the mean colours of the neighbouring types. For example, the mean
578: colours of E galaxies for $u-g$, $g-r$ and $r-i$ are within one
579: standard deviation of those of Sa galaxies. The $i-z$ colours stay
580: essentially constant from E to Sab. For later types, some bluing trend
581: is present in $i-z$, but the scatter widens and is larger than the
582: variation.
583: %
584: The mean colours of E galaxies are $u-g=1.73\pm0.18$ (1.99),
585: $g-r=0.77\pm0.04$ (0.77), $r-i=0.39\pm0.03$ (0.43), $i-z=0.18\pm0.04$
586: (0.36), where the numbers in parentheses are the spectrosynthetic
587: calculation of Fukugita et al. (1995). There is a significant
588: disagreement in the reddest colours, as was noted by Shimasaku et al.
589: (2001).
590:
591: \acknowledgments
592:
593: This work was supported in Japan by Grant-in-Aid of the Ministry of
594: Education. MF received support from the Monell Foundation at the
595: Institute for Advanced Study.
596:
597: Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan
598: Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation,
599: the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
600: Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and
601: the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is
602: http://www.sdss.org/.
603: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the
604: Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the
605: American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam,
606: University of Basel, Cambridge University, Case Western Reserve University,
607: University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for
608: Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University,
609: the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for
610: Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the
611: Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory,
612: the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute
613: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University,
614: University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University,
615: the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
616:
617:
618: \begin{thebibliography}{}
619:
620: \bibitem[Adelman-McCarthy et al.(2006)]{2006ApJS..162...38A}
621: Adelman-McCarthy, J.~K., et al.\ 2006, \apjs, 162, 38
622:
623: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....126.2081A} Abazajian, K., et
624: al.\ 2003, \aj, 126, 2081
625:
626: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....128..502A} Abazajian, K., et
627: al.\ 2004, \aj, 128, 502
628:
629:
630:
631: \bibitem[Abazajian et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.1755A} Abazajian, K., et
632: al.\ 2005, \aj, 129, 1755
633:
634: \bibitem[Ball et al.(2004)]{2004MNRAS.348.1038B} Ball, N.~M., Loveday, J.,
635: Fukugita, M., Nakamura, O., Okamura, S., Brinkmann, J., \& Brunner, R.~J.\
636: 2004, \mnras, 348, 1038
637:
638: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.2348B} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
639: 2003a, \aj, 125, 2348
640:
641:
642: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.2276B} Blanton, M.~R., Lin,
643: H., Lupton, R.~H., Maley, F.~M., Young, N., Zehavi, I., \& Loveday, J.\
644: 2003b, \aj, 125, 2276
645:
646: \bibitem[Blanton et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....129.2562B} Blanton, M.~R., et al.\
647: 2005, \aj, 129, 2562
648:
649: \bibitem[Driver et al.(2006)]{} Driver, S.~P., et al.\
650: 2006, arXiv:astro-ph/0602240
651:
652: \bibitem[Falco et al.(1999)]{1999PASP..111..438F} Falco, E.~E., et al.\
653: 1999, \pasp, 111, 438
654:
655: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1995)]{1995PASP..107..945F} Fukugita, M.,
656: Shimasaku, K., \& Ichikawa, T.\ 1995, \pasp, 107, 945
657:
658: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1996)]{1996AJ....111.1748F} Fukugita, M.,
659: Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J.~E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., \& Schneider, D.~P.\
660: 1996, \aj, 111, 1748
661:
662: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...503..518F} Fukugita, M., Hogan,
663: C.~J., \& Peebles, P.~J.~E.\ 1998, \apj, 503, 518
664:
665: \bibitem[Fukugita et al.(2004)]{2004ApJ...601L.127F} Fukugita, M.,
666: Nakamura, O., Turner, E.~L., Helmboldt, J., \& Nichol, R.~C.\ 2004, \apjl,
667: 601, L127
668:
669: \bibitem[Gallagher \& Hunter(1987)]{1987AJ.....94...43G} Gallagher, J.~S.,
670: \& Hunter, D.~A.\ 1987, \aj, 94, 43
671:
672: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(1998)]{1998AJ....116.3040G} Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 1998,
673: \aj, 116, 3040
674:
675: \bibitem[Gunn et al.(2006)]{} Gunn, J.~E., et al.\ 2006, astro-ph/0602326
676:
677: \bibitem[Hogg et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.2129H} Hogg, D.~W., Finkbeiner,
678: D.~P., Schlegel, D.~J., \& Gunn, J.~E.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 2129
679:
680: \bibitem[Kochanek et al.(2001)]{2001ApJ...560..566K} Kochanek, C.~S., et
681: al.\ 2001, \apj, 560, 566
682:
683: \bibitem[Lahav et al.(1995)]{1995Sci...267..859L} Lahav, O., et al.\ 1995,
684: Science, 267, 859
685:
686: \bibitem[Lupton et al.(1995)]{} Lupton, R. H.\ 2006,
687: AJ, submitted
688:
689: \bibitem[Marzke et al.(1994)]{1994AJ....108..437M} Marzke, R.~O., Geller,
690: M.~J., Huchra, J.~P., \& Corwin, H.~G.\ 1994, \aj, 108, 437
691:
692: \bibitem[Nakamura et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.1682N} Nakamura, O.,
693: Fukugita, M., Yasuda, N., Loveday, J., Brinkmann, J., Schneider, D.~P.,
694: Shimasaku, K., \& SubbaRao, M.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1682
695:
696: \bibitem[Nakamura et al.(2004)]{2004AJ....127.2511N} Nakamura, O.,
697: Fukugita, M., Brinkmann, J., \& Schneider, D.~P.\ 2004, \aj, 127, 2511
698:
699: \bibitem[Nilson(1973)]{1973ugcg.book.....N} Nilson, P.\ 1973,
700: Uppsala General Catalogue of Galaxies
701: %Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis.~Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum
702: %Upsaliensis - Uppsala Astronomiska Observatoriums Annaler,
703: (Uppsala: Astronomiska Observatorium, 1973)
704:
705: \bibitem[Ohama et al.(2003)]{} Ohama, N. 2003, Master thesis, University of Tokyo
706:
707: \bibitem[Pier et al.(2003)]{2003AJ....125.1559P} Pier, J.~R., Munn, J.~A.,
708: Hindsley, R.~B., Hennessy, G.~S., Kent, S.~M., Lupton, R.~H., \&
709: Ivezi{\'c}, {\v Z}.\ 2003, \aj, 125, 1559
710:
711: \bibitem[Sandage(1961)]{1961hag..book.....S} Sandage, A.\ 1961,
712: The Hubble Atlas of Galaxies, Washington:
713: Carnegie Institution, 1961,
714:
715: \bibitem[Sandage \& Brucato(1979)]{1979AJ.....84..472S} Sandage, A., \&
716: Brucato, R.\ 1979, \aj, 84, 472
717:
718:
719: \bibitem[Sandage \& Tammann(1980)]{1980rsac.book.....S} Sandage, A., \&
720: Tammann, G.~A.\ 1980, A Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog of Bright Galaxies,
721: Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1980
722:
723:
724: \bibitem[Schlegel et al.(1998)]{1998ApJ...500..525S} Schlegel, D.~J.,
725: Finkbeiner, D.~P., \& Davis, M.\ 1998, \apj, 500, 525
726:
727:
728: \bibitem[Shimasaku et al.(2001)]{2001AJ....122.1238S} Shimasaku, K., et
729: al.\ 2001, \aj, 122, 1238
730:
731: \bibitem[Smith et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....123.2121S} Smith, J.~A., et al.\
732: 2002, \aj, 123, 2121
733:
734: \bibitem[Stoughton et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....123..485S} Stoughton, C., et
735: al.\ 2002, \aj, 123, 485
736:
737: \bibitem[Strauss et al.(2002)]{2002AJ....124.1810S} Strauss, M.~A., et al.\
738: 2002, \aj, 124, 1810
739:
740: \bibitem[Tasca \& White(2005)]{2005astro.ph..7249D} Tasca, L.~A.~M., \&
741: White, S.~D.~M.\ 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints, arXiv:astro-ph/0507249
742:
743: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs \& de Vaucouleurs(1964)]{} de
744: Vaucouleurs, G., \& de Vaucouleurs, A.\ 1964, Reference Catalogue of
745: Bright Galaxies (Austin: University of Texas Press) (RC1)
746:
747:
748: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et al.(1995)]{1995yCat.7155....0D} de Vaucouleurs,
749: G., de Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.~G., Buta, R.~J., Paturel, G., \& Fouqu\'e,
750: P.\ 1995, Third Reference Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York:
751: Springer-Verlag) (RC3)
752:
753: \bibitem[Yamauchi et al.(2005)]{2005AJ....130.1545Y} Yamauchi, C., et al.\
754: 2005, \aj, 130, 1545
755:
756: \bibitem[York et al.(2000)]{2000AJ....120.1579Y} York, D.~G., et al.\ 2000,
757: \aj, 120, 1579
758:
759: \end{thebibliography}
760:
761: \newpage
762:
763: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
764: %\tablenum{\tabnum}
765: \tablecolumns{7}
766: \tablewidth{0pc}
767: \tablecaption{Morphological index $T$}
768: \tablehead{
769: \colhead{Hubble type} & \colhead{E} & \colhead{S0} & \colhead{Sa} &\colhead{Sb}&\colhead{Sc}&\colhead{Sd}&\colhead{Im}&\colhead{unclass.}}
770: \startdata
771: $T$(ours)&0&1&2&3&4&5&6&$-$1\cr
772: $T$(RC3)&$-$6 to $-$4&$-$3 to $-$1&1&3&5&7 to 8&10& \cr
773: \enddata
774: %\tablenotetext{a}{}
775: %\tablenotetext{b, c}{}
776: \label{table:counts}
777: \end{deluxetable}
778:
779:
780:
781: \begin{deluxetable}{rcccccccccccccl}
782: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
783: \rotate
784: \tablecaption{Catalogue of Morphologically Classified Galaxies \label{tab:cat}}
785: \tablewidth{0pt}
786: \tablehead{
787: \colhead{ID} &
788: \colhead{DR3 photo-ID} &
789: \colhead{$\alpha_{\rm J2000}(^\circ)$} &
790: \colhead{$\delta_{\rm J2000}(^\circ)$} &
791: \colhead{EDR photo-ID} &
792: \colhead{$I_{\rm sample}$} & %Cat.} &
793: \colhead{$I_{\rm target}$} & % Tgt sel.} &
794: \colhead{$T$} &
795: \colhead{$\sigma(T)$} &
796: \colhead{$I_{\rm ph}$} & %photom qty} &
797: \colhead{$r_P$} &
798: \colhead{Spectro-ID}&
799: \colhead{$z$}&
800: \colhead{CL($z$)}&
801: \colhead{remarks}
802: }
803: \startdata
804: 1&0756-44-6-0195-0158& 145.00014 & 1.10623 & - & 2 & 2 &
805: 0.5 & 0.4 & 0 & 15.64 & 477-52026-100 & 0.0605 & 0.999 \\[0.4em]
806: 2&0756-44-4-0195-0158& 145.04410 & 0.22011 & - & 2 & 2 &
807: 3.0 & 0.0 & 0 & 15.49 & 476-52314-587 & 0.0621 & 0.998 \\[0.4em]
808: 3&0756-44-4-0195-0165& 145.04752 & 0.23774 & - & 2 & 2 &
809: 1.0 & 0.4 & 0 & 15.25 & 476-52314-585 & 0.0622 & 0.999 \\[0.4em]
810: 4&0756-44-5-0195-0208& 145.06132 & 0.70924 & - & 2 & 2 &
811: 3.5 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.61 & 477-52026-98 & 0.0260 & 0.958 \\[0.4em]
812: 5&0756-44-4-0196-0172& 145.22040 & 0.41082 & 756-4-8-0196-0174 & 3 & 2 &
813: 3.5 & 0.6 & 0 & 15.89 & 266-51630-350 & 0.0982 & 1.000 \\[0.4em]
814: 6&1239-40-1-0167-0166& 145.37412 &-1.24928 & 752-1-8-0012-0078 & 3 & 1 &
815: 0.0 & 0.4 & 0 & 14.89 & - & 0.000 & 0.000 \\[0.4em]
816: 7&0756-44-4-0198-0055& 145.51373 & 0.33644 & - & 2 & 1 &
817: 4.0 & 0.0 & 2p & 11.77 & - & 0.000 & 0.000 & PGC2773\\[0.4em]
818: 8&1239-40-2-0169-0142& 145.64788 & -0.77173& 752-2-8-0014-0175 & 3 & 2 &
819: 3.0 & 0.8 & 0 & 15.75 & 266-51630-215 & 0.0218 & 0.992 \\[0.4em]
820: 9&0756-44-1-0199-0259& 145.68110 & -0.86723 & 756-1-8-0199-0148 & 3 & 2 &
821: 2.0 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.60 & 266-51630-207 & 0.0676 & 0.999 \\[0.4em]
822: 10&1239-40-2-0170-0139& 145.75971 & -0.81389 & - & 2 & 2 &
823: 2.5 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.96 & 266-51630-216 & 0.0676 & 0.946 \\[0.4em]
824: 11&1239-40-1-0170-0201& 145.76792 & -1.07472 & 752-1-8-0015-0167 & 3 & 1 &
825: 3.5 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.84 & - & 0.000 & 0.000 \\[0.4em]
826: 12&0756-44-4-0200-0098& 145.80018 & 0.41417& 756-4-8-0200-0158 & 3 & 2 &
827: 4.0 & 0.4 & 0 & 14.18 & 266-51630-430 & 0.0252 & 0.996 & PGC27803\\[0.4em]
828: 13&0756-44-5-0200-0211& 145.84750 & 0.67573 & 0756-5-8-0200-0131 & 3 & 2 &
829: 2.5 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.87 & 266-51630-422 & 0.0266 &1.000 \\[0.4em]
830: 14&0756-44-6-0200-0100& 145.85049 & 1.20353 & 756-6-8-0200-0063 & 3 & 2 &
831: 1.5 & 0.5 & 0 & 15.60 & 480-51989-272 & 0.0618 & 1.000 \\[0.4em]
832: 15&1239-40-4-0170-0202& 145.87328 & 0.05683 & 752-4-8-0015-0058 & 3 & 1 &
833: 1.0 & 0.4 & 0 & 15.88 & - & 0.000 & 0.000 \\[0.4em]
834: 16&0756-44-2-0201-0130& 145.87445 & -0.60876 & 756-2-8-0201-0156 & 3 & 2 &
835: 4.0 & 0.0 & 0 & 15.89 & 266-51630-138 & 0.0715 & 0.999 \\[0.4em]
836: 17&0756-44-6-0201-0022& 145.89254 & 1.11773 & - & 2 & 2 &
837: -1.0 & 0.0 & 0 & 15.93 & 480-51989-266 & 0.0512 & 0.986 & int, am \\[0.4em]
838: 18&1239-40-5-0171-0179& 145.94781 & 0.46530 & 752-5-8-0016-0090 & 3 & 2 &
839: 1.0 & 0.8 & 0 & 15.17 & 266-51630-467 & 0.0304 & 0.997 \\[0.4em]
840: 19&1239-40-2-0171-0091& 146.00780 & -0.64227 & 752-2-8-0016-0100 & 3 & 2 &
841: -1.0 & 0.0 & 2p & 15.89 & 266-51630-100 & 0.0051 & 0.938 & \\[0.4em]
842: 20&0756-44-5-0202-0018& 146.02092 & 0.73355 & 756-5-8-0202-0009 & 3 & 2 &
843: 0.5 & 0.6 & 0 & 14.10 & 266-51630-461 & 0.0362 & 0.999 \\[0.4em]
844: \enddata
845: %\tablecomments{}
846: \end{deluxetable}
847:
848:
849:
850: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
851: %\tablenum{\tabnum}
852: \tablecolumns{7}
853: \tablewidth{0pc}
854: \tablecaption{Numbers of objects}
855: \tablehead{
856: \colhead{Galaxy sample} & \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Double counted} & \colhead{Star/spurious} &\colhead{Initial sample}}
857: \startdata
858: Photometric sample......................... & 2253 & 27 & 378 & 2658 \cr
859: Targetted spectroscopic sample....... & 2213 & 20 & 168 & 2401 \cr
860: Observed spectroscopic sample......... & 1866 & 0 & 18 & 1884 \cr
861: \enddata
862: %\tablenotetext{a}{}
863: %\tablenotetext{b, c}{}
864: \label{table:counts}
865: \end{deluxetable}
866:
867:
868:
869: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}
870: %\tablenum{\tabnum}
871: \tablecolumns{7}
872: \tablewidth{0pc}
873: \tablecaption{Statistical properties of galaxies}
874: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
875: \tablehead{
876: \colhead{Hubble type} & \colhead{E} & \colhead{S0} & \colhead{Sa} &\colhead{Sb}&\colhead{Sc}&\colhead{Sd}&\colhead{Im}}
877: \startdata
878: Number & 265 & 255 & 139 & 188 & 166 & 9 & 18 \cr
879: $u-g$&1.73$\pm$0.18&1.65$\pm$0.21&1.50$\pm$0.29&1.33$\pm$0.28&1.35$\pm$0.26&
880: 1.18$\pm$0.10&1.15$\pm$0.34\cr
881: $g-r$&0.77$\pm$0.04&0.74$\pm$0.07&0.68$\pm$0.10&0.60$\pm$0.13&0.54$\pm$0.10&
882: 0.47$\pm$0.09&0.36$\pm$0.13 \cr
883: $r-i$&0.39$\pm$0.03&0.38$\pm$0.04&0.35$\pm$0.05&0.31$\pm$0.09&0.26$\pm$0.08&
884: 0.16$\pm$0.08&0.09$\pm$0.11\cr
885: $i-z$&0.18$\pm$0.04&0.19$\pm$0.05&0.18$\pm$0.07&0.15$\pm$0.09&0.06$\pm$0.13&
886: 0.01$\pm$0.15&$-$0.06$\pm$0.21\cr
887: %L$_{\rm disc}$&0\%&4\%&22\%&59\%&88\%&100\%&100\%\cr
888: %L$_{\rm deV}$&100\%&96\%&78\%&41\%&12\%&0\%&0\%\cr
889: \enddata
890: %\tablenotetext{a}{}
891: \tablecomments{Those galaxies that are classified as a half-integer type
892: are omitted from these statistics. The error stands for the dispersion. }
893: \label{table:counts}
894: \end{deluxetable}
895:
896:
897:
898: \begin{figure}
899: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{classcorr.eps}
900: \plotone{f1.eps}
901: \caption{Correlation of visually inferred morphological types
902: among three classifiers. The area of the circle represents the
903: number of galaxies in the grid. \label{fig1}}
904: \end{figure}
905:
906: \begin{figure}
907: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{rc3type.ps}
908: \plotone{f2.ps}
909: \caption{Correlation of our $T$ with those of RC3 for 218 galaxies
910: common to the two samples. The area of the circle represents the
911: number of galaxies in the grid. \label{fig2}}
912: \end{figure}
913:
914:
915: \begin{figure}
916: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T0.ps}
917: \epsscale{0.9}
918: %\plotone{f3.eps}
919: %\vskip-25mm
920: \caption{Sample of E ($T=0$) galaxies with synthetic $gri$ colour. The size is $1'\times 1'$ for all
921: pictures. \label{fig3}}
922: \end{figure}
923:
924:
925:
926: \begin{figure}
927: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T1.ps}
928: %\plotone{f4.eps}
929: %\vskip-25mm
930: \caption{Sample of S0 ($T=1$) galaxies. The format is the same as for
931: Figure \ref{fig3}. \label{fig4}}
932: \end{figure}
933:
934: \begin{figure}
935: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T2.ps}
936: %\plotone{f5.eps}
937: %\vskip-25mm
938: \caption{Sample of Sa ($T=2$) galaxies. The format is the same as for
939: Figure \ref{fig3}.\label{fig5}}
940: \end{figure}
941:
942: \begin{figure}
943: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T3.ps}
944: %\plotone{f6.eps}
945: %\vskip-25mm
946: \caption{Sample of Sb ($T=3$) galaxies. The format is the same as for
947: Figure \ref{fig3}.\label{fig6}}
948: \end{figure}
949:
950:
951: \begin{figure}
952: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T4.ps}
953: %\plotone{f7.eps}
954: %\vskip-25mm
955: \caption{Sample of Sc ($T=4)$ galaxies. The format is the same as for
956: Figure \ref{fig3}.\label{fig7}}
957: \end{figure}
958:
959:
960: \begin{figure}
961: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T5.ps}
962: %\plotone{f8.eps}
963: %\vskip-25mm
964: \caption{Sample of Sd ($T=5$) and Im ($T=6$) galaxies. The top two
965: rows display Sd galaxies, and the bottom three Im galaxies. The other
966: format is the same as for Figure \ref{fig3}.
967: \label{fig8}}
968: \end{figure}
969:
970:
971: \begin{figure}
972: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{T-1.ps}
973: %\plotone{f9.eps}
974: %\vskip-25mm
975: \caption{Sample of interacting galaxies. The 4 galaxies in the bottom
976: row are galaxies with double nuclei. The format is the same as for
977: Figure \ref{fig3}.\label{fig9}}
978: \end{figure}
979:
980: \begin{figure}
981: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{Tam.ps}
982: %\plotone{f10.eps}
983: %\vskip-25mm
984: \caption{Sample of galaxies with ``amorphous'' appearance. The format
985: is the same as for Figure \ref{fig3}.
986: \label{fig10}}
987: \end{figure}
988:
989: \begin{figure}
990: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{rc3type.ps}
991: \epsscale{1.0}
992: \plotone{f11.ps}
993: \caption{Number of galaxies in our catalogue
994: per 0.5 mag as a function of $r$ mag.
995: The spectroscopic sample is shown with light shading.
996: Galaxies that carry a flag for photometric errors are indicated by
997: thick shading. The curve shows the Euclidean growth, $N\sim 10^{0.6r}$.
998: \label{fig11}}
999: \end{figure}
1000:
1001: \begin{figure}
1002: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{nakamura's figure}
1003: \plotone{f12.ps}
1004: \caption{
1005: The same as Figure 11 but for each type. Points with $N\ge2$
1006: are plotted. Circles, open triangles, filled triangles, squares indicate
1007: $T=0-1$, $1.5-3$, $3.5-5$, and $5.5-6$, respectively.
1008: The thick solid line denotes the line of $N\sim 10^{0.6r}$
1009: shown in Figure 11.
1010: \label{fig12}}
1011: \end{figure}
1012:
1013: \begin{figure}
1014: %\includegraphics[scale=.70]{rc3type.ps}
1015: \plotone{f13.ps}
1016: \caption{Distribution of the morphological types in the galaxy sample
1017: selected with $r\le 16$. Galaxies with half-integer $T$ indices are
1018: grouped into each adjoining integer bins. Shading represents the
1019: spectroscopic sample. \label{fig13}}
1020: \end{figure}
1021:
1022:
1023:
1024: \end{document}
1025:
1026:
1027:
1028:
1029:
1030:
1031:
1032:
1033:
1034:
1035:
1036:
1037: