1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass[preprint2]{aastex}
3:
4: \newcommand{\etal}{{et al.}}
5: \newcommand{\eg}{{e.g.,}}
6: \newcommand{\ie}{{i.e.,}}
7: \newcommand{\kms}{km~s$^{-1}$~}
8:
9: \shorttitle{Spectacular Shells in MC2\,1635+119}
10: \shortauthors{Canalizo et al.}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Spectacular Shells in the Host Galaxy of the QSO
15: MC2\,1635+119\altaffilmark{1}}
16:
17: \author{Gabriela Canalizo\altaffilmark{2,3}, Nicola Bennert\altaffilmark{3},
18: Bruno Jungwiert\altaffilmark{3,4},
19: Alan Stockton\altaffilmark{5}, Fran\c{c}ois Schweizer\altaffilmark{6},
20: Mark Lacy\altaffilmark{7}, Chien Peng\altaffilmark{8}}
21:
22: \altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations made with the NASA/ESA Hubble Space
23: Telescope, obtained at the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is
24: operated by the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc.,
25: under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. These observations are associated with
26: program \# GO-10421.}
27:
28: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Physics and Astronomy,
29: University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA;
30: email: gabriela.canalizo@ucr.edu}
31:
32: \altaffiltext{3}{Institute of Geophysics and
33: Planetary Physics, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA;
34: email: nicola.bennert@ucr.edu, bruno.jungwiert@ucr.edu}
35:
36: \altaffiltext{4}{Astronomical Institute, Academy of Sciences of the Czech
37: Republic, Bo{\v c}n\'\i\ II 1401, 141 31 Prague 4, Czech Republic}
38:
39: \altaffiltext{5}{Institute for Astronomy, University of Hawaii, 2680
40: Woodlawn Drive, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA; email: stockton@ifa.hawaii.edu}
41:
42: \altaffiltext{6}{Carnegie Observatories,
43: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA; email: schweizer@ociw.edu}
44:
45: \altaffiltext{7}{Spitzer Science Center,
46: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125, USA;
47: email: mlacy@ipac.caltech.edu}
48:
49: \altaffiltext{8}{Space Telescope Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive,
50: Baltimore, MD 21218, USA; email: cyp@stsci.edu}
51:
52:
53: \begin{abstract}
54: We present deep $HST$/ACS images and Keck spectroscopy of
55: MC2\,1635+119, a QSO hosted by a galaxy previously classified as
56: an undisturbed elliptical. Our new images reveal
57: dramatic shell structure indicative of a merger event in the relatively
58: recent past.
59: The brightest shells in the central regions of the host are distributed
60: alternately in radius, with at least two distinct shells on one side of the
61: nucleus and three on the other, out to a distance of $\sim$13 kpc.
62: The light within the five shells comprises $\sim$6\% of the total galaxy
63: light.
64: Lower surface brightness ripples or tails and other debris extend out to a
65: distance of $\sim$65 kpc.
66: A simple N-body model for a merger reproduces the inner shell
67: structure and gives an estimate for the age of the merger between
68: $\sim$30 Myr and $\sim$1.7 Gyr, depending on a range of reasonable assumptions.
69: While the inner shell structure is suggestive of a minor merger,
70: the total light contribution from the shells and extended
71: structures are more indicative of a major merger.
72: The spectrum of the host galaxy is dominated by a population of
73: intermediate age ($\sim$1.4 Gyr), indicating a strong starburst episode
74: that may have occurred at the time of the merger event. We speculate that
75: the current QSO
76: activity may have been triggered in the recent past by either a minor merger,
77: or by debris from an older ($\sim$Gyr) major merger that is currently
78: ``raining'' back into the central regions of the merger remnant.
79: \end{abstract}
80:
81: \keywords{galaxies: active -- galaxies: interactions --- galaxies: evolution --- quasars: general --- quasars: individual (MC2\,1635+119)}
82:
83: \section{Introduction}
84:
85: The nature of QSO host galaxies has been debated for over four decades.
86: Although the terms of the debate have gradually evolved during this time,
87: there has been some progress. We now know, for example, that the
88: majority of luminous low-redshift QSOs, whether radio loud or radio quiet,
89: reside in the centers of galaxies that have relaxed light distributions like
90: ellipticals \citep[\eg][]{dis95,bah97,dun03,flo04}. This result ties in
91: nicely with the strong correlation,
92: determined from galaxies with inactive black holes, between supermassive
93: black hole mass and spheroid velocity dispersion \citep{fer00,geb00}:
94: QSOs occur in the sorts of galaxies
95: known to have the most massive central black holes.
96:
97: At the present epoch, only a tiny fraction of galaxies with
98: massive spheroids shows luminous QSO activity. The very steep evolution of
99: QSO activity with redshift indicates that some additional
100: ingredient besides the mere presence of a supermassive black hole is
101: necessary to produce QSO activity, and that this ingredient was much
102: more common in the early history of the Universe. It has often been
103: speculated that the mechanism underlying this evolution is the
104: sudden inflow of
105: gas to the center brought about by strong interactions or mergers. There
106: has long been a fair amount of circumstantial evidence to support this
107: idea \citep[see, \eg][and references therein]{sto99}, yet
108: such arguments are by no means conclusive.
109:
110: The debate about the nature of QSO host galaxies presently centers on the
111: question of how significant tidal interactions are for QSOs generally:
112: Do {\it most} QSOs at the current epoch begin their lives as mergers,
113: or do most QSOs simply occur in old ellipticals to which nothing very
114: interesting has happened recently?
115:
116: We are conducting a coordinated study with Keck spectroscopy and Hubble
117: Space Telescope ($HST$) imaging of classical QSO host galaxies to investigate
118: whether such hosts are truly quiescent ellipticals with ancient stellar
119: populations, or whether they are the results of mergers in the more recent
120: past and have assumed elliptical morphologies only as a result of violent
121: relaxation due to the mergers.
122:
123: Elliptical hosts formed through mergers would be expected to
124: show fine structure indicative of past tidal interactions, such as
125: shells and ripples.
126: Studies of nearby merger remnants \citep[\eg][]{sch92,sch90}
127: indicate that such structure can in general be detected
128: even a few Gyr after the last major merger event.
129:
130: To look for any potential fine structure,
131: we recently obtained very deep $HST$ Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS) images
132: in a pilot study of five classical QSO host galaxies. In this paper,
133: we present results for the first object, MC2\,1635+119. The remaining four
134: objects will be discussed in a subsequent paper
135: (Bennert et al., in preparation).
136:
137: The host galaxy of MC2\,1635+119 ($z = 0.146$;
138: 1\arcsec $\simeq$ 2520 pc for $\Omega_{\Lambda}$ = 0.7,
139: $\Omega_{\rm matter}$ = 0.3, and
140: H$_0$ = 71 km\,s$^{-1}$\, Mpc$^{-1}$) was first described
141: by \citet{hut88} as having ``slightly elliptical amorphous structure''
142: with a luminosity profile that does not follow a simple exponential
143: or $r^{1/4}$ law.
144: Several companions are seen in the optical images \citep{hut88, mal84} as
145: well as in the IR \citep{dun93}, without
146: any clear signs of interaction \citep{hut88}. \citet{mcl99}
147: compare fits to the host galaxy using an exponential disk and a de
148: Vaucouleurs spheroid model, and conclude that the host resembles more
149: closely an elliptical.
150: Regarding the stellar contents,
151: \citet{nol01} estimate an age of 12 Gyr for the dominant stellar population
152: in the host galaxy from off-nuclear spectra.
153:
154: Thus, previous studies seem to indicate that the galaxy hosting
155: MC2\,1635+119 is an elliptical with an old stellar population. We now
156: present new $HST$ and Keck observations that are in stark contrast with
157: any such conclusions.
158:
159:
160:
161: \section{Observations and Data Reduction}\label{observations}
162: Spectroscopic observations and their analysis are described in detail elsewhere
163: (Canalizo \& Stockton, in preparation). Briefly, we obtained a
164: spectrum of the host galaxy of MC2\,1635+119 with
165: a total exposure time of 1.5 hours using the Low-Resolution
166: Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS; \citealt{oke95}) on the
167: Keck I telescope on 2002 March 4.
168: We used the 400 groove mm$^{-1}$ grism blazed at 3400\,\AA\ for the blue
169: side (LRIS-B), and the 300 groove mm$^{-1}$ grating blazed at 5000\,\AA\
170: for the red side (LRIS-R), yielding dispersions of 1.09\,\AA\ pixel$^{-1}$
171: and 2.55\,\AA\ pixel$^{-1}$ respectively.
172: The slit was 1\arcsec\ wide, projecting to $\sim$7 pixels on the UV- and
173: blue-optimized CCD of LRIS-B and $\sim$5 pixels on the Tektronix
174: 2048$\times$2048 CCD of LRIS-R. The slit position angle (PA) was 57$\degr$,
175: placed roughly along the semi-major axis of the host galaxy and going
176: through the QSO nucleus. The object was observed near transit, so that the
177: effects of differential atmospheric refraction were minimized.
178:
179: The host galaxy spectrum was reduced using standard procedures. A scaled
180: version of the QSO spectrum was subtracted from that of the host galaxy; the
181: spectrum was scaled by measuring the amount of flux in broad lines in the
182: spectrum of the host. The final spectrum corresponds roughly
183: to a region 2$-$5$\arcsec$ from the nucleus on either side of the QSO and
184: has a signal-to-noise ratio $\sim$20.
185: The spectrum was then modeled by performing least-squares fits to the
186: data using preliminary \citet{cb07} and \citet{mar05}
187: population synthesis models as described in \S~\ref{pops}. Both the models
188: and the observed spectrum were rebinned to the same spectral resolution.
189:
190:
191: Imaging observations were obtained using
192: ACS/WFC onboard the $HST$
193: with the broad V-band F606W filter ($\Delta \lambda$ = 2342\AA; 1 pixel
194: corresponds to 0.05\arcsec). We obtained
195: five sets of dithered images, each with four subsets of 550-586 s exposures,
196: yielding a total integration time of 11432~s.
197:
198: We re-calibrated the data manually, starting from the pipeline flat-fielded
199: individual exposures to improve the bias subtraction,
200: i.e., to correct the offset (of a few DNs) between the adjacent quadrants
201: that is still present in the final product of CALACS \citep{pav04}.
202: We then used MultiDrizzle \citep{koe02} to combine the individual images,
203: using the default values, bits=8578, as well as a deltashift-file
204: containing the offsets between the images as determined from stars
205: within the field-of-view (FOV). The final distortion-corrected image is
206: shown in Fig.~\ref{final}, where the host galaxy shows clear shell structure.
207:
208: %\vspace{0.45in}
209:
210: \begin{figure}[bht]
211: \onecolumn
212: \epsscale{1}
213: \plotone{f1_small.eps}
214: \caption{ACS/WFC image of MC2\,1635+119, shown at different scales. Fine
215: structure consisting of shells,
216: arcs, and other debris is clearly seen at small and large scales. The images
217: have been Gaussian smoothed with a sigma of either 0.5 pixels (left
218: and central panels) or 2 pixels (right panel). In this
219: and the following figures, north is up and east is to the left.}\label{final}
220: \twocolumn
221: \end{figure}
222:
223:
224: \section{Image Processing}
225:
226: To enhance and analyze any fine structure that might be present,
227: we applied various methods such as
228: unsharp masking, creating a so-called structure map
229: \citep{pog02}, as well as subtracting a central point spread function
230: (PSF) for the QSO and a host galaxy model
231: making use of GALFIT \citep{pen02}.
232: All different approaches confirm the existence
233: of distinctive shells in the host galaxy (Fig.~\ref{methods}),
234: and we discuss each of them in turn.
235:
236:
237: To create an unsharp-masked image, we divided the final image $f$
238: by the $f$ convolved with a Gaussian function
239: of $\sigma$ = 5 pixel ($G$):
240: \begin{eqnarray*}
241: f_{\rm unsharp} = \frac{f}{f \otimes G}
242: \end{eqnarray*}
243:
244:
245: The structure map was derived by dividing $f$
246: by the PSF-smoothed image ($f$ $\otimes$ $P$)
247: and then convolving this ratio with the transpose of the PSF ($P^t$):
248: \begin{eqnarray*}
249: f_{\rm structure} = \left[\frac{f}{f \otimes P} \right] \otimes P^t
250: \end{eqnarray*}
251: This process enhances unresolved or slightly resolved structures
252: on the scale of the PSF by removing the smooth light distribution
253: on larger scales \citep{pog02}.
254:
255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% FIGURE 2 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
256:
257: \onecolumn
258: \begin{figure}
259: \epsscale{0.85}
260: \plotone{f2_small.eps}
261: \caption{Different methods used to detect fine structure in MC2\,1635+119,
262: as described in the text. {\em Top left:} an unsharp-masked image,
263: $f_{\rm unsharp}$. {\em Top middle:} a structure map, $f_{\rm structure}$.
264: {\em Top right:} a residual image using GALFIT, where the model used for the
265: host galaxy consists of a de Vaucouleurs profile only.
266: {\em Bottom:} a residual image using GALFIT, where the model used for the
267: host galaxy consists of a de Vaucouleurs and a S{\'e}rsic profile of
268: index n$\sim$1.
269: }\label{methods}
270: \end{figure}
271: \twocolumn
272:
273:
274:
275: A PSF image is needed for both the structure map and for modeling with
276: GALFIT. Therefore, we created an artificial PSF from
277: TinyTim (Version 6.3) at the same position as our object as well
278: as a ``real'' PSF using a star on an ACS/WFC F606W image.
279: This image was obtained by searching the $HST$
280: archive for a suitable star
281: at roughly the same chip position as the QSO and
282: with a high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N). We found a star at
283: $<$ 30 pixels away from the position corresponding to the QSO
284: with a S/N of 20000
285: that was observed on 20 dithered images
286: with a total exposure time of $\sim$8100s
287: (GO-9433, datasets j6mf19* and j6mf21*).
288: We processed these images
289: in the same manner as described
290: above for our data.
291:
292: In order to minimize introducing additional noise into the PSF
293: subtraction and convolution operations, we first eliminated a few
294: faint objects surrounding the PSF. Then,
295: depending on the data values compared to the standard deviation $s$
296: of the surrounding sky, we modified the PSF image as follows:
297: (1) for data values $>7s$, we retained the unmodified PSF; (2) for data
298: values between $3s$ and $7s$, we smoothed the image with a Gaussian
299: kernel with $\sigma = 0.5$ pixel; (3) for smaller data values, we
300: smoothed with a Gaussian kernel with $\sigma = 2.0$ pixel; finally, (4)
301: for data values that were $<s$ after this last operation, we replaced
302: the value with 0.
303:
304:
305: To probe the quality of the two different PSFs,
306: we subtracted them from both saturated and unsaturated
307: stars within our FOV using GALFIT: the
308: real PSF star gave significantly better results than
309: the TinyTim PSF. From this exercise, we also determined
310: the central region with a radius of $\sim$1\farcs7 is
311: strongly affected by the PSF
312: subtraction because the QSO nucleus was saturated; any structure
313: seen within this region is likely an artifact.
314:
315: The best enhancement of the shell structure was obtained
316: using GALFIT (Fig.~\ref{methods}), a 2-dimensional galaxy fitting program
317: capable of fitting simultaneously
318: one or more objects in an image with
319: different model light distributions \citep[such as \citet{ser68},
320: \citet{deV48},
321: exponential, etc.;][]{pen02}.
322: Briefly, our adopted procedure was as follows:
323: First, we created a mask to exclude the saturated pixels in the center,
324: the diffraction spikes, any surrounding bright
325: objects, and the shells themselves, in order to fit only
326: the smooth underlying host galaxy light distribution.
327: Then, a (``real'') PSF as well as several
328: S{\'e}rsic functions were fitted.
329: In GALFIT, the S{\'e}rsic power law is defined as
330: \begin{eqnarray*}
331: \Sigma (r) = \Sigma_e \exp \left[- \kappa \left(\left(\frac{r}{r_e}\right)^{1/n}-1\right)\right] \hspace{0.2cm}
332: \end{eqnarray*}
333: where $\Sigma_e$ is the pixel surface brightness at the effective radius $r_e$ \citep{pen02},
334: and $n$ is the S{\'e}rsic index ($n=4$ de Vaucouleurs, $n=1$ exponential
335: profile).
336: In addition, we fitted
337: the bright neighbor to the south of the QSO with a S{\'e}rsic function.
338: In all steps, the background sky was fitted simultaneously.
339: This least-squares fit was then subtracted
340: from the original image to gain the residual image, enhancing all structure
341: that lies on top of the smooth host galaxy light distribution.
342:
343: When we used a single component for the host galaxy, the best fit was
344: achieved with
345: a S{\'e}rsic function of index n = 8.8. This fit was marginally better
346: (only a few percent in $\chi^2$) than the fit achieved using a de
347: Vaucouleurs profile. On the other hand, the fit resulting from an
348: exponential profile was much worse (roughly 50\% in $\chi^2$). This
349: finding is in agreement with
350: the results by \citet{mcl99}, who determined that the host
351: galaxy of MC2\,1635+119 is better fit
352: by a de Vaucouleurs than an exponential profile.
353:
354: The fit improved substantially, however, when two components were included
355: instead of one. Using two S{\'e}rsic functions, the best result was
356: achieved when one had an index n=4,
357: which corresponds to a de Vaucouleurs profile, and the other an index n=0.91,
358: which corresponds nearly to an exponential disk; this fit is shown in
359: Fig.~\ref{methods} and listed in Table~\ref{results}. If, instead, the
360: index of one of the S{\'e}rsic
361: components was fixed to n=1 (exponential), the best fit was achieved when
362: the other component was close to a de Vaucouleurs profile (with index n=4.6;
363: Table~\ref{results}).
364: Therefore, we conclude that the host galaxy is well modeled by a de
365: Vaucouleurs spheroid plus an exponential disk that makes up roughly one
366: fourth of the light in the surface brightness profile, as detailed
367: in Table~\ref{results}. In that table, we also list results for the fit
368: using a de Vaucouleurs profile only in order to compare our results
369: with those of \citet{dun03}, and we find that our results are
370: very
371: similar to theirs.
372: However, as Fig.~\ref{methods} shows, the resulting
373: model-subtracted image using only a de Vaucouleurs profile has residuals
374: that are significantly larger than those obtained when we use a
375: two-component model.
376:
377: \begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
378: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
379: \tablecolumns{6}
380: \tablewidth{0pc}
381: \tablecaption{Results of modeling the QSO host galaxy using GALFIT}
382: \tablehead{
383: \colhead {fit type} &
384: \colhead{function} & \colhead{$\Delta$($\alpha$,$\delta$) (arcsec)} & \colhead{$m_{\rm F606W}$ (mag)} & \colhead{$r_e$ (kpc)} & \colhead{S{\'e}rsic index} & \colhead{$b/a$} &
385: \colhead{PA (deg)}\\
386: \colhead{(1)} & \colhead{(2)} & \colhead{(3)} & \colhead{(4)} & \colhead{(5)}
387: & \colhead{(6)} & \colhead{(7)} & \colhead{(8)}}
388: \startdata
389: de Vauc+S{\'e}rsic & S1 & ($-$0.03,0.04) & 17.46 & 2.74 & 4 (fixed) & 0.74 & 57.3\\
390: & S2 & (0.72,0.26) & 18.80 & 15.89 & 0.91 (free) & 0.79 & 28.8\\
391: \hline
392: S{\'e}rsic+Exp & S1 &($-$0.03,0.04) & 17.39 & 2.75 & 4.6 (free) & 0.75 & 57.3\\
393: & S2 & (0.85,0.29) & 18.83 & 16.5 & 1 (fixed) & 0.79 & 26.9\\
394: \hline
395: de Vauc+Exp & S1 & ($-$0.03,0.04) & 17.45 & 2.68 & 4 (fixed) & 0.74 & 57.4\\
396: & S2 & (0.72,0.26) & 18.71 & 16.03 & 1 (fixed) & 0.8 & 29.3\\
397: \hline
398: %de Vauc only & PSF & (0,0) & 17.02 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata\\
399: de Vauc only & S1 & ($-$0.03,0.04) & 17.26 & 5.74 & 4 (fixed) & 0.75 & 52.3\\
400: \hline
401: \citet{dun03} & S1 & \nodata & \nodata & 5.73 & 4 (fixed) & 0.69 & 56
402: \enddata
403: \tablecomments{
404: Column (1) lists the GALFIT model, (2) the individual components used
405: (S = S{\'e}rsic), (3) the offsets with respect to the PSF,
406: (4) the integrated apparent magnitude in the F606W filter,
407: (5) the effective radius, (6) the S{\'e}rsic index, (7) the
408: axis ratio, and (8) the position angle (east of north).
409: Results from \citet{dun03} are listed for comparison.
410: %Note that the PA given here for the \citet{dun03}
411: %results was estimated from their Fig.\ A18 \citep{mcl99} as the PA given
412: %in their Table 3 \citep{dun03} is apparently
413: %not corrected for the orientation of the spacecraft.
414: Note that the PA given here for the \citet{dun03} results was derived by
415: adding the orientation of the spacecraft to the PA given in their Table 3,
416: which was apparently not corrected for this orientation.
417: }
418: \label{results}
419: \end{deluxetable}
420:
421:
422:
423: \section{Shell Structure and Luminosity}\label{shells}
424:
425: In Fig.~\ref{shell_labels} we show a residual image of MC2 1639+119 indicating
426: the position of the different tidal features that we identify. The central
427: circle with a radius of 1\farcs7, corresponds to the area most affected by the
428: saturated PSF; any features within this area may be artifacts of the
429: PSF subtraction. Unfortunately, this prevents us from reliably
430: detecting any shells or other structure that may be present in that region.
431:
432: The arcs labeled $a$ through $e$ in Fig.~\ref{shell_labels} are all segments
433: of circles centered on the galaxy, emphasizing the regularity of the
434: interleaved shells. The projected radii of these shells are roughly 6.6,
435: 7.6, 8.3, 10.0, and 12.5 kpc, respectively. This set of bright shells
436: is closely aligned with the semi-major axis of the host galaxy,
437: at PA $\sim$54$\degr$. The shell system shows roughly a
438: biconical structure, although the edges of this putative bicone do not
439: \begin{figure}[bht]
440: \onecolumn
441: \epsscale{1}
442: \plotone{f3_small.eps}
443: \caption{Model-subtracted images of MC2\,1635+119, where the most prominent
444: fine-structure features are labeled.
445: }\label{shell_labels}
446: \twocolumn
447: \end{figure}
448: intersect at the center of the
449: host galaxy. Shell $e$ shows a discontinuity west of the QSO that may be
450: due to obscuration by dust, or the shell may be made of two or more
451: components.
452:
453: A set of lower surface-brightness shells or ripples ($f$, $g$ and $h$) with
454: seemingly different (greater) ellipticities are seen roughly perpendicular to
455: the first set, both north-west and south-east of the nucleus.
456:
457: Further
458: out to the north-east, there is an arc-like feature ($i$) extending out to
459: a projected distance of $\sim$32 kpc. Other faint tails or wisps are seen
460: in that same
461: region ($j$). Finally, a much larger, faint and diffuse feature resembling
462: either a shell or some tidal tail ($k$) is visible $\sim$65 kpc west of the
463: nucleus. While this feature is very faint, we are
464: confident it is real, particularly as this feature is also visible in a WFPC2
465: archival image (GO-6776) when the image is median filtered and
466: Gaussian smoothed.
467:
468: To estimate the luminosity within the shells compared
469: to the total luminosity of the galaxy, we
470: created a mask that includes all the light
471: within an annulus of inner radius of 1\farcs7
472: and outer radius of 6\farcs8, but that at the same time excludes
473: \vspace{4.5in}
474: the diffraction spikes as well as several additional light sources
475: from apparent companions.
476: Note that the outer radius was chosen to be 3 $\times$ $r_{\rm eff}$
477: with $r_{\rm eff}$ determined from a single de Vaucouleurs fit
478: (see Table~\ref{results}).
479: This mask (good=1, bad=0) was multiplied by the image and the total
480: counts in the product were summed. This was done for both
481: the GALFIT residual image
482: ($f_{\rm shells}$) obtained subtracting the GALFIT model
483: of a de Vaucouleurs + exponential profile,
484: and the GALFIT model itself ($f_{\rm galaxy}$).
485: Finally, we computed the ratio $f_{\rm shells}$/$f_{\rm galaxy}$.
486: This yields the fractional luminosity of the shells between
487: 1\farcs7 and 6\farcs8 radius as $\sim$ 6\% of the host galaxy
488: light (within the same annulus). This estimated percentage may be smaller
489: or larger than the true percentage
490: depending on whether there are any shells within the radius affected by the PSF subtraction or not.
491:
492:
493:
494:
495: Note that the percentage given refers to the total flux within the shells
496: out to 13 kpc.
497: However, the local contrast between the shells
498: and the galaxy (as estimated by
499: dividing the residual image by the GALFIT model)
500: varies between 5 and 20\% and reaches 50\%
501: in Shell $e$.
502:
503:
504: \section{Time Constraints from Tidal Structure}\label{timescales}
505:
506: As described above, the host galaxy of MC2 1635+119 reveals spectacular
507: structure of regular and aligned shells on projected radii of 5-13
508: kpc. Similar shells are observed in some local giant ellipticals
509: \citep[\eg][]{mal83,sch80,sik07} and are interpreted as remnants of a
510: merger event. It has been shown that the mergers that produce shell-like
511: structure can be either minor \citep[][hereafter Q84]{q84} or major
512: \citep[\eg][]{her92}. In this
513: section, we discuss both scenarios in the context of the morphology and
514: physical size of the shells and structure we detect, with the aim of placing
515: constraints on the age of the tidal interaction that formed them.
516:
517: \subsection{Minor Merger}\label{minor}
518:
519: We first consider the case of a minor merger since it allows for the simplest
520: physical interpretation of the data. In this scenario, the system of regular
521: concentric shells, confined within a finite range in azimuth, can result from
522: the merger of a smaller galaxy (either spiral or elliptical) with a large
523: elliptical along a nearly radial orbit
524: \citep[Q84;][hereafter HQ88 and HQ89]{dup86,hq88,hq89}.
525:
526: The shell formation mechanism works as follows: during the merger,
527: stars from the smaller galaxy are captured by the massive galaxy
528: and start to oscillate in its potential well. Since stars spend most
529: of the time near the apocenters of their orbits (where their radial
530: velocities go
531: to zero), a relative enhancement of the stellar density (a shell) forms
532: there. The first shell is formed by captured stars that were initially in
533: orbits with the
534: smallest oscillation period, \ie\ those with the smallest apocenter distance.
535:
536: As time goes on, the shortest-period stars move away from apocenter,
537: while stars with slightly longer periods reach their apocenter at a
538: slightly larger galactocentric distance. Due to a
539: continuous range of oscillation periods, the first shell appears to
540: propagate radially outward while its stellar content progressively changes:
541: it is thus a radially propagating stellar density wave. A new traveling
542: shell appears every time the shortest-period stars complete another
543: oscillation period. After several oscillations, the massive elliptical
544: galaxy reveals a system of shells where the outermost shell is the oldest,
545: since this is the shell that formed first.
546: This scenario gives a simple relation between the radius of this shell
547: and the time of its formation.
548:
549:
550: We have constructed a simple N-body model that reproduces, at least
551: qualitatively, the brightest shells observed in MC2\,1635+119. The N-body
552: model uses the same technique as that used by Q84 and HQ88.
553: In this model, the secondary (smaller galaxy) moves on a radial orbit and
554: is assumed to be
555: disrupted instantaneously by the tidal forces of the primary
556: (massive elliptical) after the first
557: passage through the center of the primary.
558: This corresponds to
559: abruptly lowering the secondary's mass to zero, after which the test particles
560: move in the potential of the primary alone.
561: Thus, dynamical friction is assumed to be unimportant, and the model should
562: only be considered as a zero-order description of the collision.
563:
564: We assumed a radial orbit with an initial separation between galaxies
565: arbitrarily chosen to be 90 kpc (5-18 times the scale-length of the primary).
566: The initial infall velocity of the secondary was set equal to the
567: escape velocity for the potential of the primary.
568:
569: We simulated the merger using (1) a de
570: Vaucouleurs profile, and (2) a Plummer sphere (corresponding to a
571: Moffat's n=2 surface brightness profile).
572: Since the goal of these simulations
573: was to provide only a first order estimate of the merger
574: timescale, we did not attempt to use more realistic composite
575: density profiles of luminous and dark matter.
576: We used effective radii
577: ranging from 5 to 20 kpc; this range spans values for $r_{\rm eff}$
578: found by \citet{dun03},
579: \citet{tay96}, and our own work (all corrected to the cosmology used in this
580: paper).
581: The mass of the giant elliptical was taken to be
582: 3.2$\times$10$^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$
583: \citep{dun03}, although we allowed for a range of masses up to
584: 3.2$\times$10$^{12}$~M$_{\odot}$ in order to account for a dark matter halo.
585: The secondary-to-primary mass ratio and scale-length ratio were both fixed
586: to 0.1; we note that while the precise choice of these two ratios is
587: arbitrary, they affect mainly the contrast of the shells, and not the
588: timescales, as long as the primary dominates the potential.
589:
590: Figure \ref{numerical} shows our results for simulations
591: using a Plummer surface brightness profile.
592: The de Vaucouleurs model, which leads to lower contrast and more spherical
593: shells, will be discussed in
594: more detail in a subsequent paper (Jungwiert et al., in preparation).
595: Table~\ref{modeltable} lists the timescales for two outermost shells
596: (see below) to reach their observed radii in models with the
597: range of parameters for the primary given above. We measure this timescale
598: from the moment when the centers of mass of the two galaxies pass by each other
599: (hereafter ``merger timescale'').
600: We do not attempt to use the sizes or separations of inner shells to constrain
601: the timescale since inner shells are more sensitive to the exact shape of
602: the central density profile of the primary and are also more likely to be
603: influenced by dynamical friction, which is not implemented in our model.
604:
605:
606:
607: \begin{figure}
608: \epsscale{0.9}
609: \plotone{f4_small.eps}
610: \caption{Shell structure in a restricted N-body simulation of a minor merger
611: of two ellipticals (gE+dE). The masses of the galaxies
612: are, respectively, $3.2\times10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ and
613: $3.2\times10^{10}$~M$_{\odot}$, and their
614: effective radii 5 and 0.5 kpc. Both galaxies are modeled as Plummer spheres.
615: The smaller galaxy came from the right on a radial orbit.
616: The box is 16$\times$16 kpc. Only the particles belonging to the smaller
617: galaxy are shown, to allow for comparison with images where a model of the
618: host galaxy has been subtracted.
619: }\label{numerical}
620: \end{figure}
621:
622:
623:
624: \begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
625: \tablecolumns{4}
626: \tablewidth{0pc}
627: \tablecaption{Shell Formation Timescales from Numerical Simulations}
628: \tablehead{
629: \colhead {$R_{shell}$} & {$M_{primary}$} & {$T_{deVauc}$} & {$T_{Plummer}$} \\
630: \colhead{(kpc)} & {(M$_{\odot}$)} & \colhead{(Myr)} & \colhead{(Myr)}
631: }
632: \startdata
633: 12.5 & 3.2$\times$10$^{11}$ & 100 $-$ 245 & 145 $-$ 400 \\
634: & 3.2$\times$10$^{12}$ & \phn30 $-$ \phn60 & \phn45 $-$ 135\\
635: \hline
636: 65 & 3.2$\times$10$^{11}$ & \phn360 $-$ 1720 & 1380 $-$ 1620 \\
637: & 3.2$\times$10$^{12}$ & \phn100 $-$ \phn400 & \phn440 $-$ \phn510\\
638: \enddata
639: \tablecomments{The time range given for each model corresponds to a range of
640: effective radii for the giant elliptical of 5 to 20 kpc. The time is measured
641: from the moment when the centers of mass of the two galaxies pass through
642: each other.}
643: \label{modeltable}
644: \end{deluxetable}
645:
646:
647:
648: Table 2 shows that, allowing for an uncertainty in the type of profile, for
649: a rather large uncertainty in the effective radius, and for a considerable
650: amount of dark matter, the time for Shell~$e$ to reach its present distance
651: of 12.5 kpc appears to be confined to a range of $\sim$30$-$400 Myr after
652: the centers of the two galaxies passed through each other.
653:
654: These ages are calculated assuming that Shell~$e$ is the outermost shell.
655: However, we might consider the possibility that the tidal feature $k$ may be
656: a much older, fainter shell formed during the same encounter. This ``shell'',
657: at a projected distance of $\sim$65 kpc from the center of the host galaxy,
658: would then give a merger timescale ranging from 100 Myr to 1.7 Gyr
659: (see Table~\ref{modeltable}), given the assumptions considered above.
660:
661: We emphasize that our simulations model the simplest plausible case, and
662: at this point we cannot exclude more complicated scenarios. In a subsequent
663: paper (Jungwiert et al., in preparation) we will consider N-body simulations
664: of this galaxy and of shell galaxies in general in more detail, focusing
665: on different gravitational potentials, various mass ratios
666: of colliding galaxies, dynamical friction,
667: tidal stripping and the fate of gas.
668:
669:
670:
671: \subsection{Major Merger}
672:
673: While the numerical simulations described above can reproduce the
674: morphology of the brightest shells in MC2\,1635+119, they do not rule out the
675: possibility that the shells might have been created by a major merger.
676: Further, the
677: model-subtracted images (Figs.~\ref{methods} and \ref{shell_labels}) show
678: features ($f$, $g$, $h$) that are off-axis from the direction of the
679: encounter implied by the inner shells.
680: Additional tidal debris at different
681: position angles is seen on much larger scales (features $i$, $j$, $k$).
682: It is difficult to explain how all this structure might have formed
683: as a result of a minor merger,
684: provided a single interaction is responsible for all the features.
685:
686:
687: The fact that the inner shells appear to be closely aligned with the major
688: axis of the host would also argue against a minor merger
689: \citep[see][and references therein]{her92}. Using numerical simulations,
690: \citet{her92} show that mergers between two disk galaxies of similar mass
691: can form shells, loops, and ripples. In particular, their simulations are
692: compared to NGC\,3923, one of the best examples of a nearby
693: elliptical galaxy with shells \citep{mal83}.
694: The system of shells of NGC\,3923 ($z=0.005801$)
695: extends from distances close to the center ($<$2 kpc)
696: out to $\simeq$100 kpc \citep{pri88}. The shells are distributed roughly in
697: an hour-glass shape with an opening angle of $\simeq$ 60$\degr$. While most
698: of the shells appear aligned with the major axis of the galaxy, the outermost
699: shell does not, a feature that is nicely reproduced by the
700: simulations by Hernquist and Spergel. These characteristics are
701: similar to those
702: observed in MC2\,1635+119, although it should be noted that the structure
703: of the inner shells in MC2\,1635+119 is significantly more regular
704: (non-intersecting and aligned) than
705: that of the NGC\,3923 shells or of the numerical simulations by
706: \citet{her92}. However,
707: the comparison does point out that a major merger
708: could also have formed the shells seen in MC2\,1635+119.
709:
710: The amount of light observed in the shells may yield further clues to the
711: nature of the merger. As mentioned in \S\ref{shells}, the system
712: of five bright shells comprises $\sim$6\% of the total luminosity of the
713: galaxy. However, the shells contain only a fraction of the total number of
714: stars that were originally part of the merging galaxy, \ie\ those whose
715: orbital velocities are near zero. Our numerical simulations and those of
716: \citet{her92} indicate that the stars in shells make up only one fourth or
717: less of the total mass of the companion. Therefore, assuming that the
718: mass-to-light
719: ratio is similar in both galaxies, the intruder may make up about 24\% of
720: the total mass. If we add to that the mass implied by the more extended
721: ``shell'', the fraction may be closer to 30\%. Thus, by this argument alone,
722: the mass ratio of the original galaxies may have been close to 7:3 which
723: may be considered a borderline major merger.
724:
725: Our simple N-body model produces shells up to a mass
726: ratio of 3:1 for the parent galaxies. We did not investigate smaller mass
727: ratios due to the increased complexity of such encounters. If we assume
728: that the ``shell'' at 65 kpc (Shell $k$) formed through a similar mechanism
729: as that outlined in \S\ref{minor}, then the range of timescales of 100 Myr
730: to 1.7 Gyr would still hold for a major merger. If, however, this feature
731: was formed through the spatial wrapping of, \eg\ a tidal tail, then estimating
732: a timescale becomes more complex since timescales become more
733: heavily dependent on
734: initial conditions. As a reference, we note that simulations of the
735: major merger in ``The Mice'' by \citet{bar04} produce a merger remnant
736: somewhat similar to MC2\,1635+119 at a time close to 1 Gyr from the beginning
737: of the merger event.
738:
739:
740: \section{Stellar Populations}\label{pops}
741:
742: Figure~\ref{spectrum} shows the Keck LRIS spectrum of the host galaxy of
743: MC2\,1635+119 in rest frame, representing its integrated light from 2\arcsec\
744: to 5\arcsec\ radius along the slit on either side of the nucleus
745: (see \S\ref{observations}). Since the slit was placed roughly in the
746: direction of the major axis of the host galaxy, the spectrum includes
747: the brightest shells in the host (Fig.~\ref{shell_labels}, $a$ through $e$).
748:
749: The stellar component has a redshift
750: $z_{\rm abs}=0.1474$ (measured from absorption lines), equal to the redshift
751: we measure from narrow
752: emission lines, but slightly higher than that of the broad emission lines
753: ($z\sim0.146$).
754:
755: In order to model the spectrum, we used population synthesis models by
756: \citet{mar05} and the preliminary models by \citet{cb07}.
757: \begin{figure}[bh]
758: \epsscale{0.9}
759: \plotone{f5.eps}
760: \caption{Keck LRIS spectrum of the host galaxy of MC2\,1635+119 in rest frame.
761: The black trace is the observed spectrum. The red trace is the best fit
762: \citet{cb07}
763: model to the data. The model consists of 52\% (by mass) of a 1.4 Gyr old
764: population and 48\% of a 12 Gyr population. In the bottom panel we show the
765: residuals obtained by subtracting the model from the observed spectrum.
766: }\label{spectrum}
767: \end{figure}
768: We chose these two sets of models because they provide the best
769: match to our spectral resolution and they both include contributions
770: from thermally pulsating asymptotic giant branch stars, which are known to be
771: particularly important in intermediate-age ($\sim$1 Gyr) stellar populations
772: \citep{mar05}.
773: Our original approach to analyzing the spectrum was
774: to assume a dominant old stellar population ($\sim$12 Gyr) representing
775: the population of the giant elliptical galaxy, with a smaller fraction of more
776: recent star formation possibly triggered by the merger that formed
777: the shells. Models that include a very small fraction
778: ($<$ 0.3\%) of a young ($<$ 50 Myr) starburst and a dominant ancient
779: population can produce a rough fit to the continuum, but the fit to
780: individual features such as Ca\,II~H\&K and the CN band is rather poor.
781: We tested spectral fits using different metallicities ranging from 0.02 to
782: 2 solar, and found that solar metallicity models consistently yielded the
783: lowest $\chi^2$. The choice of initial mass function
784: \citep{cha03,kro01,sal55} made little or no difference.
785:
786: However, the best fit to the observed spectrum, including both the continuum
787: and stellar features, was achieved by adding a large contribution
788: from an intermediate-age starburst population to the 12 Gyr model.
789: A better fit was
790: achieved with \citet{cb07} than with \citet{mar05} models, but both sets of
791: models
792: yielded similar results. In the case of \citet{cb07} models, the best fit
793: (shown in Fig.~\ref{spectrum}) corresponds
794: to an intermediate-age population of 1.4 Gyr contributing 52\% of the total
795: mass along the line of sight. The best fit using \citet{mar05} models is
796: for an intermediate-age population of 1.0 Gyr contributing 45\% of the total
797: mass along the line of sight. The real difference between the two models
798: may be
799: even smaller, considering that the Maraston models provide a coarser age grid
800: (with steps in age at 1.0 and 1.5 Gyr)
801: than the Charlot \& Bruzual models and the fact that the $\chi^2$ for
802: the latter
803: shows a shallow minimum from $\sim$1.2 to 1.9 Gyr (although the mass
804: contribution from the starburst increases steeply with age). In both cases,
805: $\chi^2$ increases rapidly beyond 2.0 Gyr.
806:
807: The determination of these intermediate-age components is robust with
808: respect to the
809: choice of the model for the older population: the same intermediate-age
810: populations are obtained when the older population is varied from 6 to 14 Gyr.
811: If we use models of metallicities lower than solar, a single population can be
812: used to fit the data, although the overall fit is significantly worse.
813: In this case, the
814: oldest population that yields a reasonable fit is less than 3 Gyr old.
815: Single populations older than 4 Gyr yield poor fits regardless of
816: their metallicity or initial mass function. Although it is
817: possible that the spectrum may be somewhat reddened by dust, it is unlikely
818: that the age of the starburst component would be significantly younger than
819: one Gyr, given the absorption features that we observe.
820: Finally, an inaccurate subtraction of the QSO contribution could affect the
821: shape of the continuum. We tested the effects of this by fitting spectra that
822: were slightly over-subtracted and under-subtracted. While the $\chi^2$ for
823: these cases was somewhat larger, the age of the starburst for the best fit
824: remained the same.
825:
826: Naturally, the number of possible combinations of populations to model the
827: spectrum of the host is large. We have kept our analysis simple by
828: testing only a limited number of possibilities corresponding to physically
829: plausible scenarios. Therefore, while we cannot exclude more complex
830: star-formation histories, we are fairly certain that:
831: (1) The dominant component of the stellar population in the host of
832: MC2\,1635+119 is {\it not} ancient, and
833: (2) A small percentage by mass of recent (less than a few hundred Myr) star
834: formation superposed on an old ($>6$ Gyr) population can be ruled out,
835: regardless of the age of the dominant population.
836: Instead, the spectrum of the host of MC2\,1635+119 is dominated (at least in
837: flux) by an intermediate age population of 1--2 Gyr.
838:
839:
840:
841: \section{Discussion}
842:
843: In agreement with previous observations, we have found that the surface
844: brightness profile of the galaxy hosting MC2\,1635+119 is closer to a
845: de Vaucouleurs than an exponential profile. However, our new ACS image reveals
846: that a fainter exponential profile is also present, comprising up to one
847: forth of the total luminosity. Moreover, our observations have uncovered a
848: spectacular system of shells and other faint structure in the host galaxy
849: at small and large scales, showing that the host is far from being undisturbed.
850: We have also found that the stellar populations in the host galaxy seem to
851: have a substantial contribution ($\sim$50\% by mass) of an
852: intermediate-age stellar population from a 1--2 Gyr old starburst.
853:
854: While the large contribution of an intermediate-age population
855: to the spectrum of the host galaxy of MC2\,1635+119 is intriguing, it is by
856: no means unusual. Recent studies of AGN host galaxies \citep[e.g.,][]
857: {jan04,san04,kau03,can06} indicate that galaxies hosting the most luminous
858: AGN are often dominated by bulges whose colors
859: are significantly bluer than those of inactive elliptical galaxies and
860: are consistent with the presence of intermediate-age starbursts. Based on
861: positions of the hosts in the $D_{n}$(4000)/H$\delta_A$ plane,
862: \citet{kau03} suggest that these AGN hosts have had significant bursts of
863: star formation in the past 1--2~Gyr.
864:
865: Why do AGN host galaxies show these strong intermediate-age populations?
866: And, what is the physical connection, if any, between the putative $\sim$Gyr
867: old starburst and the nuclear activity? Understanding the nature of this
868: relation is important because it could have implications for the triggering
869: mechanisms and duty cycles of AGN. Our study of MC2\,1635+119 provides some
870: clues that may be applicable to a larger population.
871:
872: We now know that the host galaxy of MC2 1635+119 was unequivocally
873: involved in a tidal encounter. Our rough estimates discussed in
874: \S~\ref{timescales} place the timescale for this encounter at less than
875: $\sim$1.7 Gyr, which could be compatible with the age of the major starburst.
876: However, the large uncertainty in our estimate does not rule out the
877: possibility of a substantially more recent event. We are also unable to
878: discriminate between a major and a minor merger as the culprit for the
879: shell structure that we observe. Our results give us enough information,
880: however, to speculate on a couple of likely scenarios.
881:
882: First, consider the case where the inner shell structure was formed through
883: the accretion of a low-mass companion (one tenth or less of the mass of
884: the primary). The overall morphology that we observe would have to be
885: caused by more than one event, and the fact that there was a dramatic
886: episode of star formation more than one Gyr ago would argue for a past (major?)
887: merger connected to the large-scale tidal debris. In that case, it is
888: possible that the giant elliptical possessed a higher gas content as a result
889: of the past merger event, and so the QSO activity was more readily triggered
890: (or rejuvenated) in it
891: by a minor merger than it would have been in a gas-poor elliptical would.
892: This may well be the
893: case in Cygnus\,A, where an ongoing minor merger appears to be responsible for
894: triggering the nuclear activity \citep{can03}.
895:
896: Consider now the alternative case where a major merger is responsible for
897: both the
898: starburst and all of the structure that we observe. This merger event would
899: have occurred over one Gyr ago and would have likely (though not necessarily)
900: triggered a first episode of accretion onto the black hole(s). Feedback
901: from the QSO quenched any further star formation. Assuming theoretical
902: estimates for the duration of QSO activity are correct
903: \citep[\eg\ 10$^{7} - 10^{8}$ yr;][]{yu02},
904: the QSO activity would have ceased as the merger continued
905: its course and the morphology of the newly merged galaxies began to relax
906: into the shape of an elliptical. Eventually, the extended tidal debris would
907: ``rain'' back into the central regions of the galaxy, triggering a
908: new episode of QSO activity.
909: A time delay in the onset of QSO activity would be in agreement with
910: predictions by hydrodynamical simulations of merging galaxies
911: \citep[see \eg][]{bar98,spr05,hop07}. These models frequently predict a
912: second peak in star formation that also occurs much later in the merger.
913: Since our spectroscopic observations exclude a radius of $\sim$5 kpc around
914: the nucleus, we would not have detected any recent star formation that may
915: be present in the central regions of the host galaxy.
916:
917: While these are interesting scenarios, they are, for the moment, no more
918: than ``guided'' speculation. More complete N-body models as well as high
919: angular-resolution spectroscopy to measure the kinematics of the stellar
920: component are needed to get a better handle on the kind of encounter
921: that formed the observed structure. However, we will also need to study
922: larger samples to attempt to answer more complex questions, such as the precise
923: timing of the triggering of the QSO activity, which in turn should help
924: answer questions regarding duty cycles and feedback.
925:
926:
927: \acknowledgments
928: We thank S.~Charlot and G.~Bruzual for providing access to their
929: models prior to publication and the referee for helpful comments.
930: Support for Program \# GO-10421 was provided by NASA through a grant from
931: the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by the Association
932: of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Incorporated, under NASA contract
933: NAS5-26555.
934: Additional support was provided by the
935: National Science Foundation, under grant number AST 0507450.
936: B.J. acknowledges support by the Grant No.~LC06014 of the Czech Ministry
937: of Education and by the Research Plan No.~AV0Z10030501 of the Academy
938: of Sciences of the Czech Republic.
939: Some of the data presented herein were obtained at the W.M. Keck Observatory,
940: which is operated as a scientific partnership among the California Institute
941: of Technology, the University of California and the National Aeronautics and
942: Space Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
943: financial support of the W.M. Keck Foundation.
944: The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.
945:
946: {\it Facilities:} \facility{HST (ACS)}, \facility{Keck:I (LRIS)}
947:
948: \begin{thebibliography}{}
949: %\bibitem[Bruzual \& Charlot(2003)]{bc03} Bruzual, G., Charlot, S.\ 2003, \mnras, 1000
950: \bibitem[Bahcall et al.(1997)]{bah97} Bahcall, J., Kirhakos, S., Saxe, D. H., Schneider, D. P.\ 1997, \apj, 479, 642
951: \bibitem[Barnes(1998)]{bar98} Barnes, J.E. 1998, in Galaxies: Interactions and Induced Star Formation, ed. D. Friedli, L. Martinet, \& D. Pfenniger (Berlin: Springer), 275
952: \bibitem[Barnes(2004)]{bar04} Barnes, J.E. 2004, \mnras, 350, 798
953: \bibitem[Canalizo et al.(2003)]{can03} Canalizo, G., Max, C., Whysong, D., Antonucci, R., Dahm, S.E. 2003, \apj, 597, 823
954: \bibitem[Canalizo et al.(2006)]{can06} Canalizo, G., Stockton, A., Brotherton, M. S., Lacy, M. 2006, NewAR, 50, 650
955: \bibitem[Chabrier(2003)]{cha03} Chabrier, G.\ 2003, \pasp, 115, 763
956: \bibitem[Charlot \& Bruzual(2007)]{cb07} Charlot, S., Bruzual, A. G. 2007, \mnras, in preparation
957: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1948)]{deV48} de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d'Astrophys., 11, 247
958: \bibitem[Disney et al.(1995)]{dis95} Disney, M.~J., et al. 1995, Nature, 376, 150
959: \bibitem[Dunlop et al.(1993)]{dun93}
960: Dunlop, J. S., Taylor, G. L., Hughes, D. H., Robson, E. I. 1993,
961: \mnras, 264, 455
962: \bibitem[Dunlop et al.(2003)]{dun03}
963: Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Baum, S. A.,
964: O'Dea, C. P., Hughes, D. H. 2003, \mnras, 340, 1095
965: \bibitem[Dupraz \& Combes(1986)]{dup86} Dupraz, C., Combes, F. 1986, A\&A, 166,53
966: \bibitem[Dupraz \& Combes(1986)]{dup87} Dupraz C., Combes, F., 1987, A\&A 185, L1
967: \bibitem[Ferrarese \& Merrit(2000)]{fer00} Ferrarese, L., Merritt, D. 2000, \apj, 539, L9
968: \bibitem[Floyd et al.(2004)]{flo04} Floyd, D.J.E., Kukula, M.J., Dunlop, J.S., Mclure, R.J., Miller, L., Percival, W.J., Baum, S.A., O'Dea, C.P. 2004, \mnras, 355, 196
969: \bibitem[Gebhardt et al.(2000)]{geb00} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, \apj, 539, L13
970: \bibitem[Grogin et al.(2005)]{gro05} Grogin, N. A., et al. 2005, \apj, 627, L97
971: \bibitem[Hernquist \& Quinn(1988)]{hq88} Hernquist, L., Quinn, P.J. 1988, \apj, 331, 682
972: \bibitem[Hernquist \& Quinn(1989)]{hq89} Hernquist, L., Quinn, P.J. 1989, \apj, 342, 1
973: \bibitem[Hernquist \& Spergel(1992)]{her92} Hernquist, L., Spergel D. N. 1992, \apjl, 399, L117
974: \bibitem[Hopkins et al.(2007)]{hop07} Hopkins, P.F., Hernquist, L., Cox, T.J., Keres, D.\ 2007, submitted to ApJ, arXiv:0706.1234v1
975: \bibitem[Hutchings et al.(1988)]{hut88} Hutchings, J. B., Johnson, I., Pyke, R. 1988, \apjs, 66, 361
976: \bibitem[Jahnke et al.(2004)]{jan04} Jahnke, K., Kuhlbrodt, B., Wisotzki, L. 2004, \mnras, 352, 399
977: \bibitem[Kauffmann et al.(2003)]{kau03} Kauffmann, G., et al. 2003, \mnras, 346, 1055
978: \bibitem[Kroupa(2001)]{kro01} Kroupa, P., 2001, \mnras, 322, 231
979: \bibitem[Koekemoer et al.(2002)]{koe02}
980: Koekemoer A. M., Fruchter, A. S., Hook, R. N., Hack, W.
981: 2002, HST Calibration Workshop, p. 337
982: \bibitem[Malin \& Carter(1983)]{mal83} Malin, D.F., Carter, D. 1983, \apj, 274, 534
983: \bibitem[Malkan(1984)]{mal84} Malkan, M. A. 1984, ApJ, 287, 555
984: \bibitem[Maraston(2005)]{mar05} Maraston, C.\ 2005, \mnras, 362, 799
985: \bibitem[McLure et al.(1999)]{mcl99} McLure, R. J., Kukula, M. J., Dunlop, J. S., Baum, S. A., O'Dea, C. P., Hughes, D. H. 1999, \mnras, 308, 377
986: \bibitem[McLure \& Dunlop(2001)]{mcl01} McLure, R. J., Dunlop, J. S.
987: 2001, \mnras, 327, 199
988: \bibitem[Nolan et al.(2001)]{nol01} Nolan, L. A., Dunlop, J. S., Kukula, M. J.,
989: Hughes, D. H., Boroson, T., Jimenez, R. 2001, \mnras, 323, 308
990: \bibitem[Oke et al.(1995)]{oke95} Oke, J. B., et al. 1995, \pasp, 107, 375
991: \bibitem[Pavlovsky et al.(2005)]{pav04} Pavlovsky, C., et al. 2005, "ACS Data Handbook", Version 4.0, (Baltimore: STScI)
992: \bibitem[Peng et al.(2002)]{pen02}
993: Peng, C. Y., Ho, L. C., Impey, C. D., Rix, H.-W. 2002, AJ, 124, 266
994: \bibitem[Pierce et al.(2007)]{pie07} Pierce, C.M., et al. 2007, \aj, 660, L19
995: \bibitem[Pogge \& Martini(2002)]{pog02}
996: Pogge, R. W., Martini, P. 2002, ApJ, 569, 640
997: \bibitem[Prieur(1988)]{pri88} Prieur, J.-L.\ 1988, \apj, 326, 596
998: \bibitem[Quinn(1984)]{q84} Quinn, P.J. 1984, \apj, 279, 596
999: \bibitem[Salpeter(1955)]{sal55} Salpeter, E.E., 1955, \apj, 121, 161
1000: \bibitem[Sanchez et al.(2004)]{san04} Sanchez, S.~F., et al. 2004, \apj, 614, 586
1001: \bibitem[Schweizer(1980)]{sch80} Schweizer, F. 1980, \apj, 237, 303
1002: \bibitem[Schweizer \& Seitzer(1992)]{sch92} Schweizer, F., Seitzer, P. 1992,
1003: \aj, 104, 1039
1004: \bibitem[Schweizer et al.(1990)]{sch90} Schweizer, F., Seitzer, P., Faber,
1005: S. M., Burstein, D., Dalle Ore, C. M., Gonzalez, J. J. 1990, \apj, 364, L33
1006: \bibitem[S{\'e}rsic(1968)]{ser68} S{\'e}rsic, J. L. 1968, Atlas de Galaxias Australes (C{\'o}rdoba: Obs. Astron., Univ. Nac. C{\'o}rdoba)
1007: \bibitem[Sikkema et al.(2007)]{sik07} Sikkema, G., Carter, D., Peletier, R.F., Balcells, M., del Burgo, C., Valentijn, E.A.\ 2007, A\&A, 467, 1011
1008: \bibitem[Springel et al.(2005)]{spr05} Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., Hernquist, L.\ 2005, \mnras, 361, 776
1009: \bibitem[Stockton(1999)]{sto99} Stockton, A. 1999, in Galaxy Interactions at
1010: Low and High Redshift, IAU Symp. 186, eds. D. Sanders \& J. Barnes
1011: (San Francisco: Astron. Soc. Pac.), p.~311
1012: \bibitem[Taylor et al.(1996)]{tay96} Taylor, G. L., Dunlop, J. S., Hughes, D. H., Robson, E. I.\ 1996, \mnras, 283, 930
1013: \bibitem[Yu \& Tremaine(2002)]{yu02} Yu, Q., Tremaine, S. 2002, MNRAS, 335, 96
1014: \bibitem[Wu et al.(2002)]{wu02} Wu, X.-B., Liu, F. K., Zhang, T. Z. 2002, A\&A, 389, 742
1015: \end{thebibliography}
1016:
1017: \end{document}
1018: