1: \documentclass[10pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: \usepackage{psboxit}

3: 

4: \newcommand{\kms}{\,km~s$^{-1}$} 

5: \def\squig{\sim\!\!}

6: \newcommand{\Msun}{\mbox{\,$M_{\odot}$}}

7: \newcommand{\Lsun}{\mbox{\,$L_{\odot}$}}

8: 

9: \PScommands

10: \newcommand{\graybox}[1]{\psboxit{box 0.7 setgray fill}{\spbox{#1}}}

11: 

12: \newcommand{\mdmlimit}{0.5}

13: \newcommand{\vmaxmean}{56}

14: \newcommand{\mrmean}{-14.7}

15: 

16: \newcommand{\latin}[1]{{#1}}

17: \newcommand{\ie}{\latin{i.e.}}

18: \newcommand{\eg}{\latin{e.g.}}

19: \newcommand{\cf}{\latin{c.f.}}

20: \newcommand{\Sersic}{S\'ersic}

21: \newcommand{\vv}[1]{{\bf #1}}

22: \newcommand{\df}{\delta}

23: \newcommand{\dfft}{{\tilde{\delta}}}

24: \newcommand{\betaft}{{\tilde{\beta}}}

25: \newcommand{\erf}{{\mathrm{erf}}}

26: \newcommand{\erfc}{{\mathrm{erfc}}}

27: \newcommand{\Step}{{\mathrm{Step}}}

28: \newcommand{\ee}[1]{\times 10^{#1}} 

29: \newcommand{\avg}[1]{{\langle{#1}\rangle}}

30: \newcommand{\Avg}[1]{{\left\langle{#1}\right\rangle}}

31: \def\simless{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

32: 	{$\,\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'074$}}\mathchar"7218\,$}}} % < or of order

33: \def\simgreat{\mathbin{\lower 3pt\hbox

34: 	{$\,\rlap{\raise 5pt\hbox{$\char'076$}}\mathchar"7218\,$}}} % > or of order

35: \newcommand{\iras}{{\sl IRAS\/}}

36: \newcommand{\petroratio}{{{\mathcal{R}}_P}}

37: \newcommand{\petroradius}{{{r}_P}}

38: \newcommand{\petronumber}{{{N}_P}}

39: \newcommand{\petroratiolim}{{{\mathcal{R}}_{P,\mathrm{lim}}}}

40: \newcommand{\band}[2]{\ensuremath{^{#1}\!{#2}}}

41: \newcommand{\Vmax}{\ensuremath{V_\mmax}}

42: \newcommand{\mmax}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{max}}}

43: \newcommand{\mmin}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{min}}}

44: \newcommand{\minmax}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{\left\{^{min}_{max}\right\}}}}

45: \newcommand{\fixMr}{\ensuremath{M_\fixr}}

46: \newcommand{\fixr}{\ensuremath{{r}}}

47: \newcommand{\fixredshift}{0.1}

48: \newcommand{\fixmag}[1]{\ensuremath{{^{\fixredshift}\!{#1}}}}

49: 

50: \setlength{\footnotesep}{9.6pt}

51: 

52: \newcounter{thefigs}

53: \newcommand{\fignum}{\arabic{thefigs}}

54: 

55: \newcounter{thetabs}

56: \newcommand{\tabnum}{\arabic{thetabs}}

57: 

58: \newcounter{address}

59: 

60: \shortauthors{Blanton {\it et al.} (2007)}

61: \shorttitle{Galaxy mass function}

62: 

63: \begin{document}

64: 

65: \title{ Testing cold dark matter 

66: with \\

67: the low mass Tully-Fisher relation}

68: 

69: \author{

70: Michael R. Blanton\altaffilmark{\ref{NYU}},

71: Marla Geha\altaffilmark{\ref{NRC}}, and 

72: Andrew A.~West\altaffilmark{\ref{Berkeley}}}

73: 

74: %\altaffiltext{1}{Based on observations obtained with the

75: %Sloan Digital Sky Survey\label{SDSS}} 

76: \setcounter{address}{1}

77: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{

78: 	\stepcounter{address}

79: 	Center for Cosmology and Particle Physics, Department of Physics, New

80: 	York University, 4 Washington Place, New

81: 	York, NY 10003

82: 	\label{NYU}}

83: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{

84: 	\stepcounter{address}

85: 	National Research Council of Canada, Herzberg Institute of

86: 	Astrophysics, 5071 West Saanich Road, Victoria, BC V9E 2E7, Canada

87: 	\label{NRC}}

88: \altaffiltext{\theaddress}{

89: 	\stepcounter{address}

90: 	Astronomy Department, University of

91: California, 601 Campbell Hall, Berkeley, CA 94720

92: 	\label{Berkeley}}

93: 

94: \begin{abstract}

95: In most cosmological theories, the galaxy mass function at

96: small masses is related to the matter power spectrum on

97: small scales. The circular velocity function (a quantity

98: closely related to the mass function) is well-studied for

99: dwarf satellites in the Local Group. However, theoretical

100: predictions and observational measurements are difficult for

101: satellite galaxies, because of ram pressure and tidal

102: stripping. By contrast, isolated dwarf galaxies are less

103: affected by these processes, and almost always have enough

104: 21cm emission to trace their dynamics robustly.  Here, we

105: use isolated low mass dwarf galaxies from the Sloan Digital

106: Sky Survey (SDSS), with measured 21cm widths, to test cold

107: dark matter cosmology.  We find consistency between the

108: predicted and observed number density of isolated galaxies

109: down to $V_{\mathrm{max}} \sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$.  Our

110: technique yields a direct test of small-scale cosmology

111: independent of the Lyman-$\alpha$ forest power spectrum, but

112: our sample is currently statistically less powerful: warm

113: dark matter particles heavier than $\mdmlimit$ keV cannot be

114: ruled out.  Our major systematic uncertainty is the surface

115: brightness limit of the SDSS. Blind HI surveys, such as the

116: ALFALFA survey on Arecibo, are expected to uncover a much

117: larger number of isolated low mass galaxies, will increase

118: the power of our constraints at small scales, and will

119: propel the study of isolated galaxies to low masses

120: previously attainable only in the Local Group. We use our

121: sample to explore dwarf galaxy formation as well, finding

122: that the Tully-Fisher relation for dwarf galaxies is a

123: strong function of environment, and that the baryon (stellar

124: plus neutral gas mass) fraction is only a weak function of

125: galaxy mass. Together with the strong dependence of gas

126: fraction on environment, these results indicate that for

127: dwarf galaxies, gas loss and the end of star-formation are

128: dominated by external, not internal, processes.

129: \end{abstract}

130: 

131: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf --- galaxies: kinematics and

132: 	dynamics --- cosmology: observations }

133: 

134: \section{ Introduction: the mass function and cosmology}

135: \label{intro}

136: 

137: A critical test for any theory of cosmology and structure formation is

138: whether it correctly predicts the galaxy mass function.  The current 

139: Cold Dark Matter model with a cosmological constant ($\Lambda$CDM;

140: \citealt{spergel06a}) makes robust predictions for the number of dark

141: matter halos as a function of mass, finding roughly that $dN/dM

142: \propto M^{-1.8}$ (\citealt{sheth01a,jenkins01a, reed03a,yahagi04a}).

143: A similar mass function describes the distribution of surviving

144: subclumps within the dark matter halos (``subhalos'') that most

145: investigators associate with the sites of galaxy formation

146: (\citealt{colin99a, gao04a, kravtsov04b, reed05a, zentner05a,

147: conroy05b}).  Of course, extending this model to predict the number

148: density of galaxies in the Universe requires including physical

149: effects such as gas cooling, star-formation, supernova feedback, and

150: possibly the formation of supermassive black holes and their feedback,

151: that are too complex to follow exactly in numerical

152: predictions. Nevertheless, in the last three decades numerous

153: approximate approaches to the problem have lent us some understanding

154: of what the correct predictions might be and what physical processes a

155: successful model may involve (e.g.,

156: \citealt{ostriker77a, white78a, white91a, blanton99a, somerville01a,

157: benson03a, robertson05a, croton06a}).

158: 

159: Recently, various investigators have tested the halo mass function at

160: high masses and found consistency with predictions based on Wilkinson

161: Microwave Anisotropy Probe three-year (WMAP3) cosmological parameters

162: (\citealt{bahcall03a, rines06a, eke06a}).  

163: %In fact, these sorts of

164: %studies preferred a low value of $\sigma_8$ ($\sim 0.8$ if $\Omega_m

165: %\sim 0.3$) before the release of the WMAP three-year results

166: %(\citealt{bahcall03a}).  

167: In addition, for individual, high luminosity galaxies one can perform

168: a similar test.  If galaxy luminosity is related monotonically (with

169: some scatter) to halo mass, then $\Lambda$CDM predicts the

170: weak-lensing signal as a function of galaxy

171: abundance. \citet{tasitsiomi04a} have verified this prediction for

172: galaxies with $L_r > L_{r, \ast}$, and \citet{seljak05a} have

173: performed a similar test extending down to about $0.1L_{r, \ast}$.

174: 

175: Below $0.1L_{r,\ast}$, the luminosity function is closer to a power

176: law, with a slope that varies somewhat over luminosity but is never

177: steeper than about $N \propto L^{-1.5}$ at most, significantly

178: shallower than the prediction for the number as a function of halo

179: mass (\citealt{trentham05a, blanton04b}).  If galaxies and subhalos

180: are associated one-to-one, then the mass-to-light ratios of galaxies

181: must increase substantially with decreasing luminosity. However, data

182: on galaxies at the lowest luminosities has in the past been rather

183: scarce. At circular velocities below $L_r \sim 0.1 L_{r_\ast}$ nobody

184: has demonstrated consistency between the $\Lambda$CDM prediction and

185: the galaxy mass function. Some valiant attempts exist, but rely on

186: extrapolating the \citet{tully77a} and \citet{faber76a} relations into

187: the low luminosity regime (\citealt{desai04a, goldberg05a}).

188: 

189: The most extreme example of this issue is the ``substructure problem''

190: in the Local Group (\citealt{klypin99b, kravtsov04a}). $\Lambda$CDM

191: predicts hundreds of low mass satellites of the Milky Way, but only

192: approximately twenty are known (though the number is growing month by

193: month; \citealt{ibata95a, mateo98a, willman05b, willman05a,

194: belokurov06a, zucker06a, zucker06b}). \citet{simon07a} show that

195: although the newly discovered galaxies have eased this discrepancy, a

196: factor of 2--4 difference remains even when reasonable baryonic

197: physics has been taken into account.  This test of cosmology probes

198: the lowest mass galaxies possible, and so is extremely sensitive to

199: differences in the mass function slope.  However, both predictions and

200: observations are quite difficult in the vicinity of a luminous

201: galaxy. From the point of view of theory, a number of processes, such

202: as tidal stripping, ram pressure stripping, dynamical friction, and

203: merging onto the large galaxy, can occur near luminous galaxies

204: (\citealt{kravtsov04a, bullock05a, zentner05a, mayer06a}).  When a

205: dwarf galaxy enters the environment of a large galaxy, tidal stripping

206: can reduce its mass. In addition, the larger dwarf galaxies are

207: preferentially dragged to the center and merge with the large

208: galaxy. All of these processes alter the predicted mass function, but

209: to follow them all requires difficult-to-execute and physically

210: uncertain simulations.  From the point of view of observations, the

211: ram pressure stripping removes any existing neutral gas disks, the

212: component of dwarf galaxies known to extend furthest out into the dark

213: matter halo (\citealt{stoehr02a}). With only the stars, it is

214: difficult to probe any dark halo that might still surround a Local

215: Group dwarf.

216: 

217: On the other hand, isolated dwarf galaxies are possibly much simpler

218: systems. Without a large galaxy nearby, the physical processes

219: described in the previous paragraph cannot occur, simplifying the

220: prediction of their mass function. In addition, as it happens,

221: isolated dwarf galaxies essentially always have intact HI disks

222: (\citealt{geha06b}), allowing us to probe their masses out to large

223: radii with relative ease (\citealt{swaters02a}). The disadvantage of

224: isolated dwarf galaxies is that they are far away, making them

225: difficult to find at the lowest luminosities.

226: 

227: This paper represents a first step at examining the low mass end of

228: the mass function for isolated galaxies.  We use a sample of dwarf

229: galaxies selected from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS;

230: \citealt{york00a}). From the

231: SDSS, we evaluate their number densities, and we estimate their

232: maximum circular velocity using single-beam HI profiles taken using

233: the Arecibo Observatory and the Green Bank Telescope.  We compare

234: these observations to theoretical predictions for the number density

235: of isolated halos of the same circular velocity.  By comparing

236: circular velocities, we avoid the considerable theoretical and

237: observational uncertainties in determining the total mass of halos and

238: galaxies.  While this approach represents a beginning, we discuss in

239: the conclusions how we can improve our observational estimates of the

240: masses and number densities of these objects, and also find lower mass

241: galaxies. With a much larger sample of isolated low mass galaxies, our

242: technique can provide a stringent and unique constraint on the power

243: spectrum at small scales.

244: 

245: In Section \ref{observations}, we describe the optical and radio

246: observations our results are based on.  In Section \ref{tullyfisher},

247: we describe the Tully-Fisher relationship for isolated galaxies. In

248: Section \ref{theory}, we describe our theoretical models.  In Section

249: \ref{comparison}, we compare the observations to the theory.  In

250: Section \ref{robust}, we explore the robustness of our results to our

251: definition of ``isolation'' in this context. In Section

252: \ref{fractions}, we examine the relationships among the baryonic,

253: stellar, and total mass estimates in our sample. In Section

254: \ref{future}, we describe how these results might be improved upon in

255: the future. Finally, in Section \ref{summary}, we summarize our

256: results.

257: 

258: For determining luminosity distances and other derived parameters from

259: observations, we have assumed cosmological parameters $\Omega_0 =

260: 0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda = 0.7$, and $H_0 = 100$ $h$ km s$^{-1}$

261: Mpc$^{-1}$. Where necessary, we have used $h=0.7$; otherwise, we have

262: left the dependence on $h$ explicit. All magnitudes in this paper are

263: $K$-corrected to rest-frame bandpasses using the method of

264: \citet{blanton03b} and {\tt kcorrect} {\tt v4\_1\_4}, unless otherwise

265: specified.  Because of the small range of look-back times in our

266: sample (a maximum of around 700 Myr), we do not evolution-correct any

267: of our magnitudes.

268: 

269: \section{ Observations}

270: \label{observations}

271: 

272: \subsection{ Sloan Digital Sky Survey }

273: 

274: To evaluate the luminosity function of dwarf galaxies, we use a

275: modified version of the SDSS spectroscopic catalog.

276: \citet{blanton04b} describe our sample, which is a subsample of the

277: New York University Value-Added Galaxy Catalog

278: \citep[NYU-VAGC;][]{blanton05a}. We have updated that catalog from

279: SDSS Data Release 2 to Data Release 4

280: \citep[DR4;][]{adelman06a}.  The \citet{blanton04b} catalog represents

281: a significant improvement over na\"ively selecting galaxies from the

282: SDSS catalog, which is not optimized for nearby, low surface

283: brightness galaxies.  It is selected with an optical flux limit of

284: $m_r \sim 17.8$.  For each galaxy, the catalog provides the SDSS

285: redshift, emission line measurements, multi-band photometry,

286: structural measurements and environment estimates (for more catalog

287: details see \citealt{blanton04b}).  Distances are estimated based on a

288: model of the local velocity field \citep{willick97a}.  Distance errors

289: have been folded into error estimates of all distance-dependent

290: quantities such as absolute magnitude and HI mass.

291: 

292: For our purposes, this catalog suffers from one major selection

293: effect, due to the difficulty of detecting low surface brightness

294: galaxies in the optical.  As shown in \citet{blanton04b}, the

295: completeness as a function of half-light surface brightness drops

296: below 50\% at $\mu_{50, r} \sim 23.5$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$.

297: \citet{blanton04b} present a simple model for the effect that surface

298: brightness has on the completeness, which assumes a log-normal surface

299: brightness distribution with a mean that decreases as luminosity

300: decreases. Figure \ref{stupid_sb} shows what this model implies about

301: the missing fraction of galaxies as a function of luminosity in our

302: sample, in terms of the correction factor $c$ we must apply to recover

303: the ``correct'' number density at each luminosity. For comparison, we

304: also show the equivalent factor for dwarf galaxies in the Local Group

305: \citep{mateo98a} given the SDSS surface brightness cutoff, and 

306: in the local catalog of \citet{karachentsev04a}. Note that the

307: \citet{karachentsev04a} curve is complicated by the fact that the

308: quantities in the catalog (Holmberg radius and flux) are not enough to

309: infer a half-light surface brightness (the terms in which we have

310: calculated the completeness) uniquely in general, even if we assume an

311: exponential profile. The \citet{mateo98a} and

312: \citet{karachentsev04a} catalogs bracket our correction factor of

313: $1.7$ at $M_r - 5\log_{10} h \sim 15$, indicating it is roughly

314: correct to within 20\%. Therefore, we use the model of

315: \citet{blanton04b} to correct the luminosity functions we present here

316: --- without any {\it a posteriori} corrections.  Nevertheless, the

317: uncertainty of how many galaxies we are missing due to this effect is

318: the most worrying one affecting our results.

319: 

320: \subsection{ Environments of galaxies }

321: 

322: As argued above, there are advantages to finding {\it isolated}

323: galaxies with which to test the circular velocity and mass functions.

324: We cannot rely on the SDSS alone to determine whether a galaxy is

325: isolated, for several reasons.  First, the angular distances between

326: nearest neighbor galaxies can be large for this nearby sample--- for

327: example, searching a 1\,Mpc region around a galaxy 30\,Mpc away

328: corresponds to 2 degrees on the sky.  Many of our dwarf galaxies are

329: on the SDSS Southern stripes, which are only 2.5 degrees wide.  In

330: addition, because the SDSS reduction software is not optimized for

331: large, extended objects and fails to process them correctly, the SDSS

332: catalog does not contain many of the bright galaxies within 30\,Mpc.

333: Thus, to calculate the environments of our dwarf galaxy sample, we

334: need a supplemental catalog that extends beyond the SDSS area and

335: contains the brightest galaxies.

336: 

337: Both of these considerations drive us to use the The Third Reference

338: Catalog of Galaxies (RC3; \citealt{devaucouleurs91a}), which is a

339: nearly complete catalog of nearby galaxies. To determine environments

340: for our dwarf galaxies, we must determine the distance of each to its

341: nearest ``luminous'' neighbor. In this context, we define galaxies as

342: luminous when $M_r - 5\log_{10} h < -19$, corresponding to circular

343: velocities of $V_c > 140$\kms\ for galaxies on the Tully-Fisher

344: relationship (see Section \ref{tullyfisher}).  From the $B$ and $V$

345: photometry listed in RC3, we infer $M_r$ for each galaxy.  For

346: galaxies which have the relevant entries listed, we call galaxies

347: luminous if $M_r -5 \log_{10} h< -19$. For galaxies which do not have

348: the relevant entries, but do have HI data listed, we call them

349: luminous if $W_{20} > 300$ km s$^{-1}$ (as described in

350: \S\,\ref{radio}, $W_{20}$ is twice the maximum circular velocity of

351: the HI gas).  Finally, there are some galaxies with neither HI data

352: nor optical photometry listed in RC3. For this small set, we extract

353: the ``magnitude'' from NED (which empirically is very similar to the

354: $B$ band RC3 magnitude for galaxies which have both) and guess $M_r$

355: based on that magnitude. We call these galaxies luminous if $M_r -

356: 5\log_{10}h<-19$.  Additionally, we update the coordinates in RC3

357: using the NASA Extragalactic Database (NED) coordinates for each of

358: the catalog objects.  This set of bright galaxies is not perfectly

359: uniform, but is suitable for our purposes.

360: 

361: We combine the SDSS galaxies with $M_r - 5\log_{10} h< -19$ with the

362: RC3 luminous galaxy catalog (removing repeats between the two).  Then,

363: we determine the nearest neighbor distance by asking whether there is

364: a luminous RC3 or SDSS neighbor within 2 $h^{-1}$ Mpc and 400\kms\ in

365: redshift for each galaxy in our sample.  In this paper, we will

366: generally refer to isolated galaxies as those with no such neighbor

367: within $r_{\mathrm{lim}} = 1.0$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc. However, in order to

368: test the robustness of our results, we will vary our procedure below

369: by using alternate limits of $M_r - 5\log_{10} h< -18$ (a ``fainter

370: tracer sample'') and $M_r - 5\log_{10} h< -20$ (a ``brighter tracer

371: sample''). We will also vary the $r_P$ limit, as we describe

372: explicitly below.

373: 

374: We can calculate the number density of galaxies by weighting with the

375: $1/V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values that \citet{blanton05a} describes. Of

376: course, some of the volume actually is not available (e.g. in a

377: cluster a galaxy will never appear isolated) and in principle we might

378: need to account for this fact.  To do so, we can measure the

379: ``isolated fraction,'' the fraction of the volume of our sample which

380: is isolated from luminous galaxies, by randomly placing points within

381: the volume and testing their environment.  This fraction is 0.95, and

382: varies by less than 0.05 when we vary our definition of ``isolated''

383: as noted above, minor compared to our other uncertainties. Thus, we

384: simply ignore this correction, and calculate the number density of

385: isolated galaxies over the entire volume.

386: 

387: The thick line Figure \ref{isovf_clf} shows the cumulative number

388: density of such isolated galaxies as a function of absolute magnitude,

389: corrected for surface brightness incompleteness.  This statistic

390: depends on the definition of ``isolated'' that we use; the two thin

391: lines use the fainter and brighter tracer samples described above. As

392: this comparison shows, a change in magnitude of the tracer by about 1

393: mag is equivalent to a 20\% change in the cumulative number density at

394: $M_r - 5\log_{10} h \sim -15$. 

395: 

396: Taken together these data show that the number density of isolated

397: galaxies with $M_r-5\log_{10} h <\mrmean$ is $(6.83 \pm 2.3)\times

398: 10^{-2}$ $h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$, with the uncertainty dominated by the

399: definition of ``isolated'' and the fraction of galaxies missing due to

400: surface brightness effects.

401: 

402: \subsection{ Radio observations at 21cm }

403: \label{radio}

404: 

405: \citet{geha06b} present the radio observations of dwarf galaxies

406: selected from the SDSS sample described above.  The data were obtained

407: on the Green Bank 100-m Telescope (GBT) and at Arecibo

408: Observatory. Each observation had a velocity resolution better than

409: about 3 km s$^{-1}$. The optical half-light radii of the dwarf

410: galaxies in our sample are typically $\sim 8''$, and should be

411: completely contained with the radio beamsize of $3'$ and $9'$ for

412: Arecibo and GBT, respectively.  Here we will restrict ourselves to

413: galaxies with detected HI (which \citealt{geha06b} showed dominated

414: the isolated galaxy population) and with $b/a< 0.5$ to minimize

415: inclination effects.

416: 

417: We compute the 20\% HI line-width (W20) by finding the peak HI flux

418: within 150\kms\ of the optical radial velocity of each galaxy and

419: computing the difference between the nearest points having 20\% of the

420: peak flux.  The integrated HI flux is calculated by expanding the W20

421: values by 20\kms\ on each side and integrating the flux in this

422: region.  Errors bars on the line widths and integrated fluxes were

423: computed using a Monte Carlo bootstrap method: noise was added to the

424: stacked one-dimensional radio spectra (based on the observed variance

425: in the baseline) and the observed quantities remeasured.  We

426: calculated error bars on the line-width and integrated flux from the

427: scatter in the mean quantities recovered from Monte Carlo simulations.

428: 

429: As \citet{geha06b} showed, the dwarf galaxies in our sample have a

430: significant rotation component. We derive the maximum rotation speeds

431: as follows.  We correct the observed HI line-widths for line

432: broadening due to turbulent velocity dispersion and inclination using

433: the formula first proposed by \citet{bottinelli83a}:

434: \begin{equation}

435: \label{bottinelli}

436: V_{\mathrm{max}} = \frac{\mathrm{W20}-\mathrm{W20}_{\it t}}{\sin{\it

437: 		i}},

438: \end{equation}

439: where W20 is the observed HI line-width, W20$_t$ is the turbulent

440: velocity correction term and $i$ is the inclination angle inferred

441: from the optical images.  We confirm the validity of a linear

442: turbulence correction by modeling the integrated velocity profiles of

443: simulated galaxies constructed from \citet{hernquist93a} model disk

444: galaxies.  For nearby dwarf galaxies with rotation velocities similar

445: to our sample, \citet{begum06a} have measured a velocity dispersion in

446: the gas component of $\sigma_{\rm los} = 8$\kms\ from 2D velocity

447: maps.  Using the Begum et al.~value, this results in a turbulence

448: correction of W20$_t = 16$\kms, which we use here.  Altering this

449: turbulence correction (say to 25 \kms) does not change our results

450: below.

451: 

452: Figure \ref{w20_vs_rp} shows our best estimate of $V_{\mathrm{max}}$

453: for our dwarf galaxies (with $b/a<0.5$) as a function of the distance

454: to the nearest luminous luminous galaxy.  Clearly there is a strong

455: relationship between $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ and projected separation.

456: Within 1 $h^{-1}$ Mpc of luminous galaxies there is a population of

457: objects with $V_{\mathrm{max}} < 40$ km s$^{-1}$, that is much rarer

458: at large separations.  Our galaxies are selected to be distributed

459: roughly evenly in the range $-13.5 > M_r - 5 \log_{10} h > -15.5$,

460: independent of environment.  Thus, at these luminosities the

461: ``forward'' Tully-Fisher relationship --- the circular velocity at a

462: fixed luminosity --- appears to be a strong function of nearest

463: neighbor distance.  This result does not imply that no low circular

464: velocity galaxies exist in the field, simply that any such galaxies

465: are too low luminosity to make it into our sample.

466: 

467: As \citet{geha06b} and others have found, dwarf galaxies near a

468: luminous neighbor also tend to be red and gas poor.  Taken all

469: together, these results suggest that some important physical effects

470: are shaping the gas content, star-formation histories and inferred

471: dynamics of dwarf satellite galaxies relative to isolated dwarfs.  For

472: this reason, we choose to concentrate our attention here on the

473: isolated galaxies, whose $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values have a smaller

474: dispersion, and whose properties in general we expect to be less

475: altered since formation, relative to those dwarfs perturbed by a

476: massive neighbor.

477: 

478: Although it is immaterial to our analysis below, it is interesting to

479: ask what physical effects are causing the trend in Figure

480: \ref{w20_vs_rp}. We can think of three explanations. First, for dwarfs

481: in the vicinity of luminous galaxies, ram pressure stripping could

482: remove gas at the largest galactocentric radii first, reducing the

483: maximum circular velocity traced by HI emission. Second, tidal

484: stripping could reduce the total mass and thus the circular

485: velocities.  Third, interaction-triggered star-formation could either

486: raise the luminosities of satellite galaxies relative to isolated

487: galaxies, bringing lower mass systems into our sample if they are near

488: bright galaxies, or speed up star-formation and use up the gas in the

489: outer disk of the galaxy. To help investigate this question, in Figure

490: \ref{w20_vs_rp} we have distinguished between single-peaked HI

491: profiles (open circles) and double-peaked or flat-topped profiles

492: (filled circles), as classified by \citealt{geha06b}).  Because the

493: dwarfs with low $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ are predominantly single-peaked

494: profiles (and we have enough resolution to see double-peaked profiles

495: if they existed), we favor the explanation that gas has been stripped

496: from the outsides. However, a definitive conclusion awaits a

497: comprehensive analysis, including more detailed dynamics of these

498: galaxies.

499: 

500: \section{ Tully-Fisher relation for isolated galaxies}

501: \label{tullyfisher}

502: 

503: Here we give an estimate of the Tully-Fisher relationship for isolated

504: galaxies. We base our estimate on the sample described in the previous

505: section for low luminosities, plus the recently published samples of

506: \citet{pizagno06a} and \citet{springob05a} for higher luminosities.

507: 

508: \citet{pizagno06a} presented a Tully-Fisher survey of galaxies found

509: in the SDSS, using follow-up H$\alpha$ rotation curves. They have

510: performed model fits to the disk components of these galaxies to

511: inclination-correct their maximum circular velocities.  Unlike

512: previous Tully-Fisher samples (e.g., \citealt{courteau97a}), which

513: were selected to be very homogeneous sets of galaxies, the

514: \citet{pizagno06a} sample spans a large range of galaxy types and

515: colors, resulting in a somewhat larger scatter in the Tully-Fisher

516: relationship than found in other studies.  For each of their galaxies

517: we have determined its environment in the same manner as for our low

518: luminosity sample, and we only consider isolated galaxies here.

519: However, as \citet{pizagno06a} show, and we have confirmed using our

520: own measurements of environment, there is very little dependence of

521: the Tully-Fisher relation on environment at high luminosities. As with

522: the low luminosity sample, we restrict ourselves to galaxies with $b/a

523: < 0.5$, leaving 35 galaxes from \citet{pizagno06a}.

524: 

525: \citet{springob05a} have compiled HI spectra from archival data sets

526: for around 9000 galaxies in the local Universe, observed originally

527: with Arecibo, the 91m and 42m Green Bank telescopes, the Nan\c{c}ay

528: telescope, and the Effelsberg 100m telescope. They have homogeneously

529: analyzed these spectra, measuring their widths and HI fluxes.  All

530: their galaxies have optical data associated with them, including a

531: measure of their axis ratio ($b/a$). We use the turbulence and

532: inclination corrections of Equation (\ref{bottinelli}) to convert the

533: $W_{20}$ values to $V_{\mathrm{max}}$. In addition, in order to get

534: luminosities and environments for these galaxies, we match this list

535: to the full low-redshift catalog from SDSS DR4 (just as for our dwarf

536: sample).  Finally, we restrict this sample to the isolated galaxies

537: with $b/a < 0.5$, leaving 85 galaxies from \citet{springob05a}.

538: 

539: Figure \ref{isotf_dataonly} shows the Tully-Fisher relationship for

540: all three samples of galaxies. The low luminosity points are from our

541: isolated sample.  The crosses in Figure \ref{isotf_dataonly} show the median

542: $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values in several bins centered on $M_r -

543: 5\log_{10} h = -14.7, -18.5$, $-19.5$, and $-20.5$, and 1 magnitude in

544: width. Table \ref{vmaxchoice} lists the median velocity in each bin

545: (and several other bins needed below).

546: 

547: \section{ Theory }

548: \label{theory}

549: 

550: In order to find an appropriate theoretical comparison, we use the

551: $N$-body, pure dark matter simulations of \citet{kravtsov04b}.  They

552: simulated a cubic box $80$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc on a side, with 512$^{3}$

553: particles, each around $3.2\times 10^8$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ in

554: mass. The world model and transfer function for the simulation

555: correspond to $\Omega_{m} = 0.24$, $\Omega_\Lambda =0.76$, $\Omega_b =

556: 0$, $h=0.73$, $n=0.95$, and $\sigma_8 =0.75$. Although this cosmology

557: is not {\it precisely} the current best-fit model, we describe

558: below how we implement small corrections to account for this fact. We used

559: the outputs from $z=0$. 

560: 

561: Dark matter halos were identified using the method described in

562: \citet{kravtsov04b}. They calculated the maximum circular velocity 

563: of each halo by determining the enclosed mass $M(<R)$ as a function of

564: radius, using the spherically symmetric approximation

565: $v=\sqrt{GM(<R)/R}$, and determining the peak in the rotation

566: curve. Strictly speaking, this $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ value is only

567: comparable to our observed galaxies if their 21cm emission probes this

568: peak. However, because most of our galaxies show flat-topped or

569: double-peaked HI profiles, we are probably close to satisfying this

570: condition.

571: 

572: To define ``isolated'' we use tracer halos with $V_{\mathrm{max}}$

573: values corresponding to the Tully-Fisher results listed in Table

574: \ref{vmaxchoice}.  We project the distribution of halos in a random

575: direction, and perturb the ``redshift-space'' positions of the halos

576: to account for their peculiar velocities.  Then we define ``isolated''

577: in the simulation using the same geometrical considerations used in

578: the observations ($|\Delta v| < 400$ km s$^{-1}$ and $r_p < 1$

579: $h^{-1}$ Mpc) but relative to the tracer halo population.  The

580: velocity function of these isolated halos is shown in Figure

581: \ref{isovf_cvf} as the histograms.  Down to 70 km s$^{-1}$ each

582: histogram comes from the simulation, but below that we extrapolate the

583: velocity function as a power law (roughly

584: $\Phi(>V_{\mathrm{max}})\propto V_{\mathrm{max}}^{-2.7}$). The three

585: histograms, as labeled, correspond to tracers with

586: $V_{\mathrm{max}}>110$ km s$^{-1}$ (corresponding to galaxies with

587: $M_r -5 \log_{10} h < -18$), $V_{\mathrm{max}}>140$ km s$^{-1}$

588: (corresponding to galaxies with $M_r -5 \log_{10} h < -19$), and

589: $V_{\mathrm{max}}>180$ km s$^{-1}$ (corresponding to galaxies with

590: $M_r -5 \log_{10} h < -20$). For the bulk of this paper, we will be

591: concerned with the central class, shown as the thick histogram, but

592: will use the other results to quantify how much our results depend on

593: the choice of tracer population.

594: 

595: Because of the complex geometrical definition of ``isolated,'' it is

596: useful to have this $N$-body estimate of the mass function.  However,

597: the cosmology used for the simulation does not correspond precisely to

598: the current best fit cosmology (e.g. \citealt{tegmark06a}); in

599: particular it does not include the effects of baryons on the initial

600: power spectrum.  We adjust for this difference by using the excursion

601: set formalism and the transfer functions of \citet{eisenstein98a},

602: along with the mass function approximation from

603: \citet{warren06a}. These methods are able to predict the mass function

604: for any hierarchical cosmology, as a function of redshift and of

605: large-scale environment. We use a particular implementation provided

606: by Andreas Berlind (private communication). These methods yield the

607: mass function of galaxies, which we convert into a circular velocity

608: function using the methods of \citet{bullock01b}, using $M_\ast =

609: 1.5\times 10^{12}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$ and $\Omega_m = 0.24$.

610: 

611: First, we need to evaluate what large-scale environment our definition

612: of ``isolated'' corresponds to. The smooth line in Figure

613: \ref{isovf_cvf} is the prediction for the mass function of halos in

614: large-scale underdensities of $\delta=-0.4$, for the cosmology used in

615: \citet{kravtsov04b}. From this agreement, we conclude that in the

616: excursion set mass functions, $\delta=-0.4$ is the underdensity that

617: is most comparable to our isolation criterion.

618: 

619: Second, in order to adjust the results of \citet{kravtsov04b} for

620: cosmology, we evaluate the ratio $f_c$ between the velocity function

621: for the cosmology of \citet{kravtsov04b} (listed above) and the best

622: fit of \citet{tegmark06a} (the only differences are that in the latter

623: $\sigma_8=0.76$ and $\Omega_b h^2 = 0.022$).  Figure

624: \ref{isovf_correct} shows this ratio as a function of maximum circular

625: velocity. Over the range we will use here, this correction is never

626: more than about 10\%. In order to compare our results from the

627: \citet{kravtsov04b} simulations to observations, we first apply this

628: correction factor to the predictions from the simulations.

629: 

630: In addition, we have incorporated a ``warm dark matter'' version of

631: the \citet{tegmark06a} cosmology that is identical in its large-scale

632: structure, but includes a light dark matter particle, with $m_{DM} =

633: \mdmlimit$ keV.  The lightness of this particle increases its free streaming

634: length, which smooths fluctuations on small scales.  Here we apply the

635: adjustment required to the transfer function as outlined by

636: \citet{abazajian06a}. We simply input this new transfer function into

637: the excursion set calculation of the mass function.  Of course, on the

638: scales comparable to the free-streaming length, the collapse of

639: structure will cease to be hierarchical, as described by

640: \citet{bode01a}. Thus, almost by definition this prediction will be

641: incorrect; however, we use it as a rough approximation to a more

642: correct prediction which might be available in the future.  Figure

643: \ref{isovf_correct} shows the ``correction'' as a function of

644: $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ as the dashed line. In order to predict the warm

645: dark matter case, we apply this correction factor to the simulations.

646: 

647: Figure \ref{isovf_cvf_corr} shows the resulting $V_{\mathrm{max}}$

648: functions in the cold dark matter and warm dark matter cases. In the

649: next section, we describe how we compare these theoretical predictions

650: to the observations.

651: 

652: \section{ Comparing theory to observations}

653: \label{comparison}

654: 

655: The simplest possible comparison we can make between simulations and

656: the observations is to try to put some observed points on the velocity

657: function. After all, we have measured the number density of galaxies

658: as a function of luminosity, and from the Tully-Fisher measurements,

659: we know the relationship between luminosity and the circular

660: velocities. Given the luminosity function of Figure \ref{isovf_clf}

661: (using the tracers with $M_r -5\log_{10}h < -19$), plus the

662: relationship between luminosity and $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ from Figure

663: \ref{isotf_dataonly}, we also plot the observed number density as a

664: function of $V_\mathrm{max}$ as the four points.  In this comparison,

665: there appear to be slight discrepancies between the cold dark matter

666: model and the observations, particular at the bright end. The warm

667: dark matter model is nearly as good a fit to the data but somewhat

668: underpredicts (at a bit more than 1$\sigma$) the number of isolated

669: low circular velocity galaxies.

670: 

671: However, this method of comparison is sensitive to bias related to

672: scatter in the relationship between luminosity and circular

673: velocity. A more robust comparison can be achieved as follows. For a

674: given predicted circular velocity function and a given observed

675: luminosity function, we can find the relationship between circular

676: velocity and luminosity that makes them consistent with one

677: another. We do so here by parameterizing it as a piecewise linear

678: relationship $M_r(V_{\mathrm{max}})$ between the circular velocity and

679: a mean absolute magnitude, with Gaussian scatter about that mean. We

680: vary the parameters of the piecewise linear relationship to fit the

681: luminosity function (using the Levenberg-Marquardt method implemented

682: in the IDL routine {\tt mpfit} distributed by Craig

683: B.~Markwardt). However, we fix the Gaussian scatter to have $\sigma_M

684: = 2.5$ for $V_{\mathrm{max}}\le 10$ km s$^{-1}$, to have $\sigma_M

685: =0.4$ for $V_{\mathrm{max}}\ge 100$ km s$^{-1}$, and to vary linearly

686: with circular velocity in between.

687: 

688: Figure \ref{isotf} shows the conditional distribution of

689: $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ as a function of $M_r$, given our best fit

690: relationship (using tracers in the simulation with

691: $V_{\mathrm{max}}>155$ km s$^{-1}$ and corresponding tracers in the

692: observations with $M_r - 5\log_{10} h < -19$). The lines are the

693: quartiles of the distribution. The overplotted points are the data

694: from Figure \ref{isotf_dataonly}. Clearly the median values (shown as

695: the boxes) agree rather well with the predictions.  This constitutes a

696: confirmation that the Tully-Fisher relationship and the luminosity

697: function together are consistent with cold dark matter predictions.

698: 

699: How well can these data exclude alternate scenarios? We explore this

700: question by considering the warm dark matter model described above,

701: with a dark matter particle mass of $\mdmlimit$ keV. We perform the same

702: procedure as described above and obtain the predictions shown in

703: Figure \ref{isotf_warm}. Here, the observed circular velocities of low

704: mass galaxies tend to be higher than predicted, but not by significant

705: amounts. The median is about 4$\sigma$ away from the predicted median,

706: which given the systematic uncertainties here we regard as a marginal

707: exclusion of this model.

708: 

709: \section{ Robustness relative to our definition of ``isolated''} 

710: \label{robust}

711: 

712: Here we examine the robustness of our results to our definition of

713: ``isolation,'' and how we relate isolation in the observations to

714: isolation in the simulations.  There are a number of arbitrary

715: decisions we have made here to define ``isolated'' in the

716: observations. In particular, we chose a certain projected distance

717: $r_P$ from galaxies of a certain absolute magnitude

718: $M_{r,\mathrm{bright}}$ (or brighter). We must examine the sensitivity

719: of our results to these arbitrary choices.  In addition, we have also

720: had to define ``isolated'' in the theoretical predictions. To do so,

721: we have had to relate the absolute magnitude $M_r$ used above to a

722: $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ of the halos in the simulation. Of course, we do

723: not know the exact correspondence, and so we need to examine how our

724: results depend on errors in our estimate of it.

725: 

726: Figure \ref{isotf_all} examines the sensitivity of our results to both

727: sets of decisions. The top panels show the ratio of the predicted

728: $\Phi_{\mathrm{iso}}(>V_{\mathrm{max}})$ at $V_{\mathrm{max}} =

729: \vmaxmean$ km s$^{-1}$, to the observed $\Phi_{\mathrm{iso}}(<M_r)$ at

730: $M_r - 5\log_{10} h = \mrmean$. The bottom panels show another

731: comparison of the observations to the theory: the ratio of the

732: observed $V_{\mathrm{max}}=\vmaxmean$ km s$^{-1}$ at $M_r - 5\log_{10}

733: h = \mrmean$ to that predicted by equating the number density of halos

734: larger than a given $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ to the number density of

735: galaxies brighter than $M_r - 5\log_{10} h = \mrmean$. The left panels

736: correspond to our cold dark matter model, and the right panels

737: correspond to our warm dark matter model with $m_{DM} = \mdmlimit$ keV.

738: 

739: There are 27 points shown on each plot, each corresponding to a

740: different definition of ``isolated'' in the observations and the

741: theory.  First, we check three different choices of tracer sample

742: ($M_{r,\mathrm{bright}}-5\log_{10}h = -18$, $-19$, and $-20$), as

743: shown by the rough horizontal position.  Second, for each of these

744: three choices of galaxy sample, we choose three different

745: $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values with which to define our halo sample for

746: comparison. Our choices of predicted circular velocities for each

747: observed sample are listed in Table \ref{vmaxchoice}. In Figure

748: \ref{isotf_all}, the larger symbols correspond to higher circular

749: velocities.  Third, for each of those nine choices, we choose three

750: different choices of $r_P$ (0.7, 1.0, and 1.3 $h^{-1}$ Mpc), using the

751: same radius for theory and observation. These three cases are offset

752: from each other slightly in Figure \ref{isotf_all} (left to right,

753: respectively) for clarity.

754: 

755: From these results, it is clear that our systematic uncertainties are

756: (fractionally) about 0.3 in the comparison of number densities, and

757: 0.1 in the comparison of circular velocities. The difference is at

758: least partly due to the approximate dependence

759: $\Phi(>V_{\mathrm{max}}) \propto V_{\mathrm{max}}^{-2.7}$. In

760: addition, we expect the comparison of circular velocities to be more

761: robust, since it depends less on the scatter in the relationship

762: between luminosity and circular velocity.  While for our sample, these

763: systematics are about equivalent to the systematics associated with

764: our surface brightness completeness selection, the systematics shown

765: in Figure \ref{isotf_all} illustrate what will ultimately be the most

766: difficult uncertainty to overcome, even when much more complete galaxy

767: samples are available.

768: 

769: \section{ Baryonic and stellar content of low mass galaxies }

770: \label{fractions}

771: 

772: In the previous section, we showed that the cold dark matter model

773: reasonably explains the number densities and circular velocities of

774: low luminosity galaxies. Assuming that the relationship between

775: circular velocity and total mass that cold dark matter theory predicts

776: is correct, we can now investigate the baryonic and stellar mass

777: content (relative to the total mass) of these low mass galaxies.  This

778: census of the matter in dwarf galaxies may help us understand their

779: creation and development over time.

780: 

781: To infer the total mass from $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ we use the methods of

782: \citet{bullock01b}, using $M_\ast = 1.5\times 10^{12}$ $h^{-1}$

783: $M_\odot$ and $\Omega_m = 0.24$.  These methods have been calibrated

784: down to masses of $10^{11}$ $h^{-1}$ $M_\odot$, or about $85$ km

785: s$^{-1}$, so our use of them for the lowest luminosity galaxies

786: represents an extrapolation of the current theoretical understanding.

787: At our typical $V_{\mathrm{max}} \sim 56$ km s$^{-1}$, the virial mass

788: of the halo determined by this method is $2.5\times 10^{10}$ $h^{-1}$

789: $M_\odot$.

790: 

791: To infer the stellar mass, we use the optical broadband SDSS data and

792: the methods of \citet{blanton06b}. Any method for inferring the total

793: stellar mass is sensitive to the initial mass function (IMF) of stars,

794: since the lowest mass stars (most of those below 0.5 $M_\odot$)

795: contribute almost no optical light but are a significant fraction of

796: the mass. The differences between different reasonable choices of IMF

797: can be up to 50\%. \citet{blanton06b} have chosen the

798: \citet{chabrier03a} IMF, and find stellar masses within about 30\% of

799: those found for the same galaxies by \citet{kauffmann03a}, using

800: spectroscopic techniques.  The median stellar mass for our isolated

801: dwarf galaxy sample is $2.2\times 10^7$ $h^{-2}$ $M_\odot$.

802: 

803: By ``baryonic mass,'' we mean here the sum of the stellar mass and

804: neutral gas content, which we take to be $M_b = M_\ast + 1.4

805: M_{\mathrm{HI}}$, where $M_{\mathrm{HI}}$ is the neutral hydrogen mass

806: inferred from 21cm observations and the factor $1.4$ accounts for

807: helium, molecular clouds and metals. The median baryonic mass so

808: defined is $2.5\times 10^8$ $h^{-2}$ $M_\odot$ --- much larger than

809: the stellar mass contribution.  Naturally, there may also be ionized

810: hydrogen in the galaxy, which we do not try to account for here. Note

811: for the data from \citet{geha06b} we do not try to correct for

812: self-absorption of HI, because little evidence for any inclination

813: dependence of the HI to stellar mass ratio is found in our

814: sample. However, \citet{springob05a} did make such corrections, which

815: can be up to 20\%.

816: 

817: For the samples of isolated galaxies used in this paper, Figure

818: \ref{isotf_mtobm} shows the ratio of baryonic mass to total mass as a

819: function of $r$-band absolute magnitude (for $h=0.7$).  The dashed

820: line is the cosmic mean based on the results of \citet{tegmark06a}

821: ($\Omega_b/\Omega_m = 0.17$) and the dotted line is the mean for the

822: sample of \citet{springob05a} taken alone. The mean of the low

823: luminosity galaxies from \citet{geha06b} is somewhat less than that of

824: higher luminosity galaxies, about 8\% of the cosmic value rather than

825: 14\%. The difference in the treatment of self-absorption may account

826: for about half of this difference.

827: 

828: The baryonic fraction may continue to decrease at lower

829: masses. However, at $V_{\mathrm{max}} \sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$ isolated

830: low luminosity galaxies do not show much evidence that they have

831: expelled or ionized very much more of their cold gas than have their

832: more massive counterparts. This measurement supports detailed models

833: of the physics of gas blow-out and blow-way due to supernovae, which

834: predict a loss of only a few percent for galaxies in this mass range

835: \citep{maclow99a,ferrara00a,stinson07a}.  However, it disfavors models that

836: prevent star-formation in low mass galaxies through significant

837: baryonic mass loss \citep{dekel86a, cole00a, mori00a, bullock00a,

838: benson03a,dekel03a, tremonti04a, croton06a}. 

839: Of course, reasonable

840: modifications to those models in which feedback prevents the gas from

841: forming stars but keeps it mostly in neutral form and within the

842: galaxy disk are probably tenable.

843: Furthermore, although some 

844: investigators have invoked outflows to explain the mass-metallicity

845: relationship, \citet{dalcanton07a} have shown that

846: alternate models without significant outflow can explain the 

847: observations.  

848: 

849: We can also look at the relationship between the stellar mass of the

850: galaxies and their total mass. Figure \ref{isotf_mtosm} shows the

851: dynamical to stellar mass ratio as a function of stellar mass for the

852: three samples used here. This relationship shows a strong trend,

853: illustrating the strong dependence of star-formation efficiency on

854: mass, at least for disk galaxies. It is, of course, exactly this

855: dependence that causes the luminosity and stellar mass functions to be

856: shallow while the total mass function of galaxies is so steep, as

857: described in Section \ref{intro}.

858: 

859: \section{ Future directions }

860: \label{future}

861: 

862: The analysis of this paper, while consistent with the CDM model, puts

863: only mild constraints on alternative models (for example, a warm dark

864: matter particle as light as $\mdmlimit$ keV is barely ruled out).  How

865: can this analysis be improved in the future? Two paths are possible:

866: first, increasing the depth and completeness of our optical plus HI

867: sample; second, using upcoming blind HI surveys to push to

868: considerably lower masses.  Both paths require improving our

869: understanding of the theoretical predictions at the low mass end.

870: 

871: Our analysis of the current SDSS sample would be substantially

872: improved with more HI follow-up observations. Because \citet{geha06b}

873: were studying the general HI properties of dwarfs, we only targeted

874: about 12 systems edge-on enough and isolated enough to include in the

875: analysis of this paper. Our results could be put on a much firmer

876: footing with an increase in our follow up sample. In DR4 there are 64

877: galaxies with $b/a<0.5$, $M_r-5\log_{10}h>-15$ and $r_P>1$ $h^{-1}$

878: Mpc, and obviously there are still more in later releases.  Additional

879: follow-up or deeper HI sky surveys should fill this gap in the future.

880: 

881: The optical SDSS sample on which our analysis here is based will

882: increase by DR8, the final SDSS release, perhaps by a factor of

883: two. However, this will not substantially reduce the uncertainties in

884: the luminosity function, which are already dominated by the surface

885: brightness completeness correction (Figure

886: \ref{stupid_sb}). \citet{blanton04b} concluded, based on introducing

887: simulated galaxies into raw SDSS imaging data, that the SDSS

888: photometric pipeline (optimized for reasonably high surface brightness

889: galaxies around $z\sim 0.1$) was probably failing at a brighter

890: surface brightness limit than the data required, and that with a

891: differently optimized pipeline it might be possible to push the

892: surface brightness limits to 25 mag or more. Doing so would allow us

893: to probe magnitudes as faint as $M_r - 5\log_{10} h \sim -12$ over

894: cosmological volumes.  Another possibility would be to wait for

895: upcoming, deeper surveys such as the Dark Energy Survey (DES;

896: \citealt{wester05a}), which has first light in late 2010, Pan-STARRS 4

897: (\citealt{hodapp04a}), whose prototype telescope PS1 will probably see

898: first light in 2007, or the Large Scale Synoptic Telescope, which has

899: first light in 2014.  Searches for low surface brightness galaxies

900: (through their diffuse light) tend to be dominated by the scattered

901: light background, so it is difficult to anticipate how well of any of

902: these surveys can do. Any of these possibilities would require

903: spectroscopic follow-up --- probably searching for 21cm emission in

904: the radio or targeting HII regions in the galaxies.

905: 

906: Blind searches for galaxies in 21cm may show even more promise,

907: particularly since isolated dwarf galaxies virtually always exhibit HI

908: (\citealt{geha06b}) and since the dynamics of each galaxy will be

909: measured simultaneously with its detection.  Unfortunately, HIPASS

910: appears to not be deep enough to provide a competitive sample in this

911: respect (many of the SDSS galaxies in our sample are undetectable in

912: HIPASS; \citealt{geha06b}). ALFALFA (\citealt{giovanelli05a}) can

913: detect galaxies with HI masses of $10^7$ $h^{-2}$ $M_\odot$ at

914: distances of 20 $h^{-1}$ Mpc. If the full 7000 deg$^2$ planned survey

915: is completed, the overall volume mapped will be about $6\times 10^3$

916: $h^3$ Mpc$^{-3}$. That large a volume has an expected cosmic variance

917: of around 30\%, though given our restriction to isolated regions the

918: actual cosmic variance uncertainties will be lower.  Assuming a

919: baryonic to total mass fraction of $0.02$ (see Figure

920: \ref{isotf_mtobm}) and using the methods of \citet{bullock01a}, this

921: mass corresponds to $V_{\mathrm{max}} \sim 20$ km s$^{-1}$.  Galaxies

922: of this mass in the preliminary ALFALFA catalog of

923: \citet{giovanelli07a} have a median $W_{50}$ measurement of $\sim 40$

924: km s$^{-1}$, consistent with this estimate. Assuming (conservatively)

925: that 30\% cosmic variance errors dominate the uncertainties, using our

926: techniques here one could marginally exclude a warm dark matter

927: particle of 2 keV in mass. Future surveys such as MIRANDA will

928: contribute a similar volume (of a distinct chunk of the Universe), and

929: increase this precision somewhat. In any case, these new HI surveys

930: will push this technique into a low circular velocity regime that is

931: currently only tested with observations of Local Group satellites.

932: 

933: Even to make use of the current data, however, we probably require a

934: better understanding of the theoretical predictions. For example, as

935: we noted above, the excursion set predictions we are making for ``warm

936: dark matter'' are not entirely self-consistent, since we expect in

937: this regime that the hierarchical picture will start to break

938: down. Under these conditions, \citet{bode01a} found that the number of

939: forming halos was much smaller than the excursion set

940: prediction. Thus, it may be that our observations would put stronger

941: constraints on a correctly calculated prediction.  However, doing so

942: is difficult, since the effective mass resolution for warm dark matter

943: simulations appears to scale much less favorably than for cold dark

944: matter (see \citealt{wang07a}, who indeed argue that even the number

945: of halos predicted by \citealt{bode01a} is an overestimate).

946: 

947: Finally, it is worth noting two possible {\it fundamental} limits to

948: the technique we describe here. First, we rely on the 21cm emission to

949: probe the dynamics in the flat part of the rotation curve. While this

950: appears to be the case for most of our galaxies here (based on their

951: double-peaked morphology), it will not necessarily be true of the

952: typical very low mass galaxy. If so, one would need to resort to

953: comparing to cold dark matter predictions in the very inner parts of

954: halos.  Second, at lower masses, it may happen that reionization

955: evaporates the lowest mass halos, preventing the formation of stars

956: and the existence of any neutral gas at all.  If so, our counting

957: technique will fail.  For the galaxies in the mass range we study

958: here, this appears to be a weak effect, but it may occur at smaller

959: masses.

960: 

961: \section{ Summary }

962: \label{summary}

963: 

964: We demonstrate that the predictions of cold dark matter are consistent

965: with the number density of isolated low circular velocity galaxies

966: ($V_{\mathrm{max}} \sim 50$ km s$^{-1}$), at a precision of about 30\%

967: (Figures \ref{isovf_cvf_corr} and \ref{isotf}). Our major systematic

968: uncertainties (which dominate our error budget) are related to our

969: definition of ``isolated'' and our model of the surface brightness

970: completeness of the SDSS at low luminosities. These results represent

971: a valuable independent check of the small-scale predictions of the

972: cold dark matter model. Our technique avoids many of the systematic

973: uncertainties associated with observations of satellite galaxies in

974: the Local Group, related to the complex physics of ram pressure and

975: tidal stripping. From a statistical point of view, our results are

976: less powerful than the current constraints from the Ly$\alpha$ forest

977: power spectrum (\citealt{narayanan00a, abazajian06a, seljak06a}), and

978: only marginally exclude a dark matter particle with $m_{DM} \sim

979: \mdmlimit$ keV. With an improved sample, this technique will offer a

980: powerful and unique constraint at small scales.

981: 

982: We also find several secondary results that are relevant to the

983: formation of these dwarf galaxies:

984: \begin{enumerate}

985: \item At low luminosities, the Tully-Fisher relationship appears to be

986: 	a function of environment, with dwarf satellite galaxies having

987: 	lower circular velocities than isolated dwarf galaxies, by up to a

988: 	factor of two or more. There is circumstantial evidence from the

989: 	nature of the HI profiles that this effect is due to stripping of

990: 	the outer gas in satellite galaxies, though other processes may be

991: 	at work.

992: \item The baryonic mass fraction of galaxies (counting neutral gas

993: 	plus stars) appears to be a weak function of luminosity down to $M_r

994: 	- 5\log_{10} h \sim -14$, decreasing by 40\% at most (from about

995: 	14\% to at minimum about 8\% the cosmic mean; Figure

996: 	\ref{isotf_mtosm}). This result disfavors models which call for a

997: 	preferentially large amount of baryonic outflow in dwarf galaxies

998: 	(due to internal processes such as feedback).

999: \item The ratio of total to stellar mass is a very strong function of

1000: 	stellar mass, ranging from 50 or so at the highest luminosities to

1001: 	over 1000 at the lowest luminosities.

1002: \end{enumerate}

1003: Taken together with the deficit of neutral gas in dwarf galaxies near

1004: luminous neighbors (\citealt{geha06b}), these results suggest that the

1005: primary effects that remove gas and end star-formation in dwarf

1006: galaxies (with circular velocites of $50$ km s$^{-1}$ or so) are

1007: external interactions with bright neighbors, rather than internal

1008: processes such feedback and outflows.

1009: 

1010: Increasing our sample of isolated dwarf galaxies with HI follow-up (it

1011: is straightforward to increase the current sample by more than a

1012: factor of five) would improve the precision of all of these results,

1013: which are based on a relatively small sample of isolated galaxies.

1014: Upcoming blind HI surveys such as the ALFALFA survey on Arecibo are

1015: going to impose better constraints on cosmological models at small

1016: scales, as well as better explore the issues of dwarf galaxy

1017: formation. They will propel the study of field dwarf galaxies into a

1018: low circular velocity and low mass regime previously studied only in

1019: the Local Group.

1020: 

1021: \acknowledgments

1022: 

1023: We thank Andrey Kravtsov for sharing his simulation results, and

1024: Andreas Berlind for his {\tt haloMF} software. For their interest,

1025: encouragement, and good discussions, we thank Ari Maller, David

1026: W.~Hogg, and Beth Willman. We thank Carl Bignell, Toney Minter, and

1027: Karen O'Neil for help with the GBT observations. Partial support for

1028: this work was provided by NASA-06-GALEX06-0300 and NSF-AST-0428465.

1029: MG acknowledges support from a Plaskett Research Fellowship at the

1030: Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council of

1031: Canada. AAW acknowledges the support of NSF grant 0540567.

1032: 

1033: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has been

1034: provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating

1035: Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the

1036: National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the

1037: Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS Web site

1038: is http://www.sdss.org/.

1039: 

1040: The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for

1041: the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The

1042: University of Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the

1043: Japan Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Korean

1044: Scientist Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the

1045: Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute

1046: for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, University of

1047: Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United

1048: States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.

1049: 

1050: \begin{thebibliography}{86}

1051: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi

1052: 

1053: \bibitem[{{Abazajian}(2006)}]{abazajian06a}

1054: {Abazajian}, K. 2006, \prd, 73, 063513

1055: 

1056: \bibitem[{{Adelman-McCarthy} {et~al.}(2006)}]{adelman06a}

1057: {Adelman-McCarthy}, J.~K. {et~al.} 2006, \apjs, 162, 38

1058: 

1059: \bibitem[{{Bahcall} {et~al.}(2003){Bahcall}, {Dong}, {Bode}, {Kim}, {Annis},

1060:   {McKay}, {Hansen}, {Schroeder}, {Gunn}, {Ostriker}, {Postman}, {Nichol},

1061:   {Miller}, {Goto}, {Brinkmann}, {Knapp}, {Lamb}, {Schneider}, {Vogeley}, \&

1062:   {York}}]{bahcall03a}

1063: {Bahcall}, N.~A., {Dong}, F., {Bode}, P., {Kim}, R., {Annis}, J., {McKay},

1064:   T.~A., {Hansen}, S., {Schroeder}, J., {Gunn}, J., {Ostriker}, J.~P.,

1065:   {Postman}, M., {Nichol}, R.~C., {Miller}, C., {Goto}, T., {Brinkmann}, J.,

1066:   {Knapp}, G.~R., {Lamb}, D.~O., {Schneider}, D.~P., {Vogeley}, M.~S., \&

1067:   {York}, D.~G. 2003, \apj, 585, 182

1068: 

1069: \bibitem[{{Begum} {et~al.}(2006){Begum}, {Chengalur}, {Karachentsev}, {Kaisin},

1070:   \& {Sharina}}]{begum06a}

1071: {Begum}, A., {Chengalur}, J.~N., {Karachentsev}, I.~D., {Kaisin}, S.~S., \&

1072:   {Sharina}, M.~E. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1220

1073: 

1074: \bibitem[{{Belokurov} {et~al.}(2006)}]{belokurov06a}

1075: {Belokurov}, V. {et~al.} 2006, astro-ph/0604355

1076: 

1077: \bibitem[{{Benson} {et~al.}(2003){Benson}, {Bower}, {Frenk}, {Lacey}, {Baugh},

1078:   \& {Cole}}]{benson03a}

1079: {Benson}, A.~J., {Bower}, R.~G., {Frenk}, C.~S., {Lacey}, C.~G., {Baugh},

1080:   C.~M., \& {Cole}, S. 2003, \apj, 599, 38

1081: 

1082: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(1999){Blanton}, {Cen}, {Ostriker}, \&

1083:   {Strauss}}]{blanton99a}

1084: {Blanton}, M., {Cen}, R., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \& {Strauss}, M.~A. 1999, \apj,

1085:   522, 590

1086: 

1087: \bibitem[{Blanton {et~al.}(2003)Blanton, Brinkmann, Csabai, Doi, Eisenstein,

1088:   Fukugita, Gunn, Hogg, \& Schlegel}]{blanton03b}

1089: Blanton, M.~R., Brinkmann, J., Csabai, I., Doi, M., Eisenstein, D.~J.,

1090:   Fukugita, M., Gunn, J.~E., Hogg, D.~W., \& Schlegel, D.~J. 2003, \aj, 125,

1091:   2348

1092: 

1093: \bibitem[{{Blanton} \& {Roweis}(2007)}]{blanton06b}

1094: {Blanton}, M.~R. \& {Roweis}, S. 2007, \aj, 133, 734

1095: 

1096: \bibitem[{{Blanton} {et~al.}(2005)}]{blanton05a}

1097: {Blanton}, M.~R. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 129, 2562

1098: 

1099: \bibitem[{Blanton {et~al.}(2005)}]{blanton04b}

1100: Blanton, M.~R. {et~al.} 2005, \apj, 631, 208

1101: 

1102: \bibitem[{{Bode} {et~al.}(2001){Bode}, {Ostriker}, \& {Turok}}]{bode01a}

1103: {Bode}, P., {Ostriker}, J.~P., \& {Turok}, N. 2001, \apj, 556, 93

1104: 

1105: \bibitem[{{Bottinelli} {et~al.}(1983){Bottinelli}, {Gouguenheim}, {Paturel}, \&

1106:   {de Vaucouleurs}}]{bottinelli83a}

1107: {Bottinelli}, L., {Gouguenheim}, L., {Paturel}, G., \& {de Vaucouleurs}, G.

1108:   1983, \aap, 118, 4

1109: 

1110: \bibitem[{{Bullock} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{a}}){Bullock}, {Dekel}, {Kolatt},

1111:   {Kravtsov}, {Klypin}, {Porciani}, \& {Primack}}]{bullock01a}

1112: {Bullock}, J.~S., {Dekel}, A., {Kolatt}, T.~S., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Klypin},

1113:   A.~A., {Porciani}, C., \& {Primack}, J.~R. 2001{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 555, 240

1114: 

1115: \bibitem[{{Bullock} \& {Johnston}(2005)}]{bullock05a}

1116: {Bullock}, J.~S. \& {Johnston}, K.~V. 2005, \apj, 635, 931

1117: 

1118: \bibitem[{{Bullock} {et~al.}(2001{\natexlab{b}}){Bullock}, {Kolatt}, {Sigad},

1119:   {Somerville}, {Kravtsov}, {Klypin}, {Primack}, \& {Dekel}}]{bullock01b}

1120: {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kolatt}, T.~S., {Sigad}, Y., {Somerville}, R.~S.,

1121:   {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Klypin}, A.~A., {Primack}, J.~R., \& {Dekel}, A.

1122:   2001{\natexlab{b}}, \mnras, 321, 559

1123: 

1124: \bibitem[{{Bullock} {et~al.}(2000){Bullock}, {Kravtsov}, \&

1125:   {Weinberg}}]{bullock00a}

1126: {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \& {Weinberg}, D.~H. 2000, \apj, 539, 517

1127: 

1128: \bibitem[{{Chabrier}(2003)}]{chabrier03a}

1129: {Chabrier}, G. 2003, \pasp, 115, 763

1130: 

1131: \bibitem[{{Cole} {et~al.}(2000){Cole}, {Lacey}, {Baugh}, \& {Frenk}}]{cole00a}

1132: {Cole}, S., {Lacey}, C.~G., {Baugh}, C.~M., \& {Frenk}, C.~S. 2000, \mnras,

1133:   319, 168

1134: 

1135: \bibitem[{{Col{\'{\i}}n} {et~al.}(1999){Col{\'{\i}}n}, {Klypin}, {Kravtsov}, \&

1136:   {Khokhlov}}]{colin99a}

1137: {Col{\'{\i}}n}, P., {Klypin}, A.~A., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \& {Khokhlov}, A.~M.

1138:   1999, \apj, 523, 32

1139: 

1140: \bibitem[{{Conroy} {et~al.}(2005){Conroy}, {Wechsler}, \&

1141:   {Kravtsov}}]{conroy05b}

1142: {Conroy}, C., {Wechsler}, R.~H., \& {Kravtsov}, A.~V. 2005, ArXiv Astrophysics

1143:   e-prints

1144: 

1145: \bibitem[{{Courteau}(1997)}]{courteau97a}

1146: {Courteau}, S. 1997, \aj, 114, 2402

1147: 

1148: \bibitem[{{Croton} {et~al.}(2006)}]{croton06a}

1149: {Croton}, D.~J. {et~al.} 2006, \mnras, 365, 11

1150: 

1151: \bibitem[{{Dalcanton}(2007)}]{dalcanton07a}

1152: {Dalcanton}, J.~J. 2007, \apj, 658, 941

1153: 

1154: \bibitem[{{de Vaucouleurs} {et~al.}(1991){de Vaucouleurs}, {de Vaucouleurs},

1155:   {Corwin}, {Buta}, {Paturel}, \& {Fouque}}]{devaucouleurs91a}

1156: {de Vaucouleurs}, G., {de Vaucouleurs}, A., {Corwin}, H.~G., {Buta}, R.~J.,

1157:   {Paturel}, G., \& {Fouque}, P. 1991, {Third Reference Catalogue of Bright

1158:   Galaxies} (Volume 1-3, XII, 2069 pp.~7 figs..~ Springer-Verlag Berlin

1159:   Heidelberg New York)

1160: 

1161: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Silk}(1986)}]{dekel86a}

1162: {Dekel}, A. \& {Silk}, J. 1986, \apj, 303, 39

1163: 

1164: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Woo}(2003)}]{dekel03a}

1165: {Dekel}, A. \& {Woo}, J. 2003, \mnras, 344, 1131

1166: 

1167: \bibitem[{{Desai} {et~al.}(2004){Desai}, {Dalcanton}, {Mayer}, {Reed}, {Quinn},

1168:   \& {Governato}}]{desai04a}

1169: {Desai}, V., {Dalcanton}, J.~J., {Mayer}, L., {Reed}, D., {Quinn}, T., \&

1170:   {Governato}, F. 2004, \mnras, 351, 265

1171: 

1172: \bibitem[{{Eisenstein} \& {Hu}(1998)}]{eisenstein98a}

1173: {Eisenstein}, D.~J. \& {Hu}, W. 1998, \apj, 496, 605

1174: 

1175: \bibitem[{{Eke} {et~al.}(2006){Eke}, {Baugh}, {Cole}, {Frenk}, \&

1176:   {Navarro}}]{eke06a}

1177: {Eke}, V.~R., {Baugh}, C.~M., {Cole}, S., {Frenk}, C.~S., \& {Navarro}, J.~F.

1178:   2006, \mnras, 370, 1147

1179: 

1180: \bibitem[{{Faber} \& {Jackson}(1976)}]{faber76a}

1181: {Faber}, S.~M. \& {Jackson}, R.~E. 1976, \apj, 204, 668

1182: 

1183: \bibitem[{{Ferrara} \& {Tolstoy}(2000)}]{ferrara00a}

1184: {Ferrara}, A. \& {Tolstoy}, E. 2000, \mnras, 313, 291

1185: 

1186: \bibitem[{{Gao} {et~al.}(2004){Gao}, {White}, {Jenkins}, {Stoehr}, \&

1187:   {Springel}}]{gao04a}

1188: {Gao}, L., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Jenkins}, A., {Stoehr}, F., \& {Springel}, V.

1189:   2004, \mnras, 355, 819

1190: 

1191: \bibitem[{{Geha} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}}){Geha}, {Blanton}, {Masjedi}, \&

1192:   {West}}]{geha06b}

1193: {Geha}, M., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Masjedi}, M., \& {West}, A.~A.

1194:   2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 653, 240

1195: 

1196: \bibitem[{{Geha} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}}){Geha}, {Guhathakurta}, {Rich}, \&

1197:   {Cooper}}]{geha06a}

1198: {Geha}, M., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Rich}, R.~M., \& {Cooper}, M.~C.

1199:   2006{\natexlab{b}}, \aj, 131, 332

1200: 

1201: \bibitem[{{Giovanelli} {et~al.}(2007){Giovanelli}, {Haynes}, {Kent},

1202:   {Saintonge}, {Stierwalt}, {Altaf}, {Balonek}, {Brosch}, {Brown}, {Catinella},

1203:   {Furniss}, {Goldstein}, {Hoffman}, {Koopmann}, {Kornreich}, {Mahmood},

1204:   {Martin}, {Masters}, {Mitschang}, {Momjian}, {Nair}, {Rosenberg}, \&

1205:   {Walsh}}]{giovanelli07a}

1206: {Giovanelli}, R., {Haynes}, M.~P., {Kent}, B.~R., {Saintonge}, A., {Stierwalt},

1207:   S., {Altaf}, A., {Balonek}, T., {Brosch}, N., {Brown}, S., {Catinella}, B.,

1208:   {Furniss}, A., {Goldstein}, J., {Hoffman}, G.~L., {Koopmann}, R.~A.,

1209:   {Kornreich}, D.~A., {Mahmood}, B., {Martin}, A.~M., {Masters}, K.~L.,

1210:   {Mitschang}, A., {Momjian}, E., {Nair}, P.~H., {Rosenberg}, J.~L., \&

1211:   {Walsh}, B. 2007, \aj, 133, 2569

1212: 

1213: \bibitem[{{Giovanelli} {et~al.}(2005)}]{giovanelli05a}

1214: {Giovanelli}, R. {et~al.} 2005, \aj, 130, 2598

1215: 

1216: \bibitem[{{Goldberg} {et~al.}(2005){Goldberg}, {Jones}, {Hoyle}, {Rojas},

1217:   {Vogeley}, \& {Blanton}}]{goldberg05a}

1218: {Goldberg}, D.~M., {Jones}, T.~D., {Hoyle}, F., {Rojas}, R.~R., {Vogeley},

1219:   M.~S., \& {Blanton}, M.~R. 2005, \apj, 621, 643

1220: 

1221: \bibitem[{{Hernquist}(1993)}]{hernquist93a}

1222: {Hernquist}, L. 1993, \apjs, 86, 389

1223: 

1224: \bibitem[{{Hodapp} {et~al.}(2004){Hodapp}, {Kaiser}, {Aussel}, {Burgett},

1225:   {Chambers}, {Chun}, {Dombeck}, {Douglas}, {Hafner}, {Heasley}, {Hoblitt},

1226:   {Hude}, {Isani}, {Jedicke}, {Jewitt}, {Laux}, {Luppino}, {Lupton}, {Maberry},

1227:   {Magnier}, {Mannery}, {Monet}, {Morgan}, {Onaka}, {Price}, {Ryan},

1228:   {Siegmund}, {Szapudi}, {Tonry}, {Wainscoat}, \& {Waterson}}]{hodapp04a}

1229: {Hodapp}, K.~W., {Kaiser}, N., {Aussel}, H., {Burgett}, W., {Chambers}, K.~C.,

1230:   {Chun}, M., {Dombeck}, T., {Douglas}, A., {Hafner}, D., {Heasley}, J.,

1231:   {Hoblitt}, J., {Hude}, C., {Isani}, S., {Jedicke}, R., {Jewitt}, D., {Laux},

1232:   U., {Luppino}, G.~A., {Lupton}, R., {Maberry}, M., {Magnier}, E., {Mannery},

1233:   E., {Monet}, D., {Morgan}, J., {Onaka}, P., {Price}, P., {Ryan}, A.,

1234:   {Siegmund}, W., {Szapudi}, I., {Tonry}, J., {Wainscoat}, R., \& {Waterson},

1235:   M. 2004, Astronomische Nachrichten, 325, 636

1236: 

1237: \bibitem[{{Ibata} {et~al.}(1995){Ibata}, {Gilmore}, \& {Irwin}}]{ibata95a}

1238: {Ibata}, R.~A., {Gilmore}, G., \& {Irwin}, M.~J. 1995, \mnras, 277, 781

1239: 

1240: \bibitem[{{Jenkins} {et~al.}(2001){Jenkins}, {Frenk}, {White}, {Colberg},

1241:   {Cole}, {Evrard}, {Couchman}, \& {Yoshida}}]{jenkins01a}

1242: {Jenkins}, A., {Frenk}, C.~S., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Colberg}, J.~M., {Cole}, S.,

1243:   {Evrard}, A.~E., {Couchman}, H.~M.~P., \& {Yoshida}, N. 2001, \mnras, 321,

1244:   372

1245: 

1246: \bibitem[{{Karachentsev} {et~al.}(2004){Karachentsev}, {Karachentseva},

1247:   {Huchtmeier}, \& {Makarov}}]{karachentsev04a}

1248: {Karachentsev}, I.~D., {Karachentseva}, V.~E., {Huchtmeier}, W.~K., \&

1249:   {Makarov}, D.~I. 2004, \aj, 127, 2031

1250: 

1251: \bibitem[{{Kauffmann} {et~al.}(2003)}]{kauffmann03a}

1252: {Kauffmann}, G. {et~al.} 2003, \mnras, 341, 33

1253: 

1254: \bibitem[{{Klypin} {et~al.}(1999){Klypin}, {Kravtsov}, {Valenzuela}, \&

1255:   {Prada}}]{klypin99b}

1256: {Klypin}, A., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Valenzuela}, O., \& {Prada}, F. 1999, \apj,

1257:   522, 82

1258: 

1259: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{a}}){Kravtsov}, {Berlind},

1260:   {Wechsler}, {Klypin}, {Gottl{\" o}ber}, {Allgood}, \&

1261:   {Primack}}]{kravtsov04b}

1262: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Berlind}, A.~A., {Wechsler}, R.~H., {Klypin}, A.~A.,

1263:   {Gottl{\" o}ber}, S., {Allgood}, B., \& {Primack}, J.~R. 2004{\natexlab{a}},

1264:   \apj, 609, 35

1265: 

1266: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2004{\natexlab{b}}){Kravtsov}, {Gnedin}, \&

1267:   {Klypin}}]{kravtsov04a}

1268: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Gnedin}, O.~Y., \& {Klypin}, A.~A. 2004{\natexlab{b}},

1269:   \apj, 609, 482

1270: 

1271: \bibitem[{{Mac Low} \& {Ferrara}(1999)}]{maclow99a}

1272: {Mac Low}, M.-M. \& {Ferrara}, A. 1999, \apj, 513, 142

1273: 

1274: \bibitem[{{Mateo}(1998)}]{mateo98a}

1275: {Mateo}, M.~L. 1998, \araa, 36, 435

1276: 

1277: \bibitem[{{Mayer} {et~al.}(2006){Mayer}, {Mastropietro}, {Wadsley}, {Stadel},

1278:   \& {Moore}}]{mayer06a}

1279: {Mayer}, L., {Mastropietro}, C., {Wadsley}, J., {Stadel}, J., \& {Moore}, B.

1280:   2006, \mnras, 369, 1021

1281: 

1282: \bibitem[{{Mori} \& {Burkert}(2000)}]{mori00a}

1283: {Mori}, M. \& {Burkert}, A. 2000, \apj, 538, 559

1284: 

1285: \bibitem[{{Narayanan} {et~al.}(2000){Narayanan}, {Spergel}, {Dav{\'e}}, \&

1286:   {Ma}}]{narayanan00a}

1287: {Narayanan}, V.~K., {Spergel}, D.~N., {Dav{\'e}}, R., \& {Ma}, C.-P. 2000,

1288:   \apjl, 543, L103

1289: 

1290: \bibitem[{{Pizagno} {et~al.}(2006){Pizagno}, {Prada}, {Weinberg}, {Rix},

1291:   {Pogge}, {Grebel}, {Harbeck}, {Blanton}, {Brinkmann}, \& {Gunn}}]{pizagno06a}

1292: {Pizagno}, J., {Prada}, F., {Weinberg}, D.~H., {Rix}, H.-W., {Pogge}, R.~W.,

1293:   {Grebel}, E.~K., {Harbeck}, D., {Blanton}, M., {Brinkmann}, J., \& {Gunn},

1294:   J.~E. 2006, \aj, submitted (astro-ph/0608472)

1295: 

1296: \bibitem[{{Reed} {et~al.}(2003){Reed}, {Gardner}, {Quinn}, {Stadel}, {Fardal},

1297:   {Lake}, \& {Governato}}]{reed03a}

1298: {Reed}, D., {Gardner}, J., {Quinn}, T., {Stadel}, J., {Fardal}, M., {Lake}, G.,

1299:   \& {Governato}, F. 2003, \mnras, 346, 565

1300: 

1301: \bibitem[{{Reed} {et~al.}(2005){Reed}, {Governato}, {Quinn}, {Gardner},

1302:   {Stadel}, \& {Lake}}]{reed05a}

1303: {Reed}, D., {Governato}, F., {Quinn}, T., {Gardner}, J., {Stadel}, J., \&

1304:   {Lake}, G. 2005, \mnras, 359, 1537

1305: 

1306: \bibitem[{{Rees} \& {Ostriker}(1977)}]{ostriker77a}

1307: {Rees}, M.~J. \& {Ostriker}, J.~P. 1977, \mnras, 179, 541

1308: 

1309: \bibitem[{{Rines} {et~al.}(2006){Rines}, {Diaferio}, \& {Natarajan}}]{rines06a}

1310: {Rines}, K., {Diaferio}, A., \& {Natarajan}, P. 2006, ArXiv Astrophysics

1311:   e-prints

1312: 

1313: \bibitem[{{Robertson} {et~al.}(2005){Robertson}, {Bullock}, {Font}, {Johnston},

1314:   \& {Hernquist}}]{robertson05a}

1315: {Robertson}, B., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Font}, A.~S., {Johnston}, K.~V., \&

1316:   {Hernquist}, L. 2005, \apj, 632, 872

1317: 

1318: \bibitem[{{Seljak} {et~al.}(2005){Seljak}, {Makarov}, {Mandelbaum}, {Hirata},

1319:   {Padmanabhan}, {McDonald}, {Blanton}, {Tegmark}, {Bahcall}, \&

1320:   {Brinkmann}}]{seljak05a}

1321: {Seljak}, U., {Makarov}, A., {Mandelbaum}, R., {Hirata}, C.~M., {Padmanabhan},

1322:   N., {McDonald}, P., {Blanton}, M.~R., {Tegmark}, M., {Bahcall}, N.~A., \&

1323:   {Brinkmann}, J. 2005, \prd, 71, 043511

1324: 

1325: \bibitem[{Seljak {et~al.}(2006)Seljak, Makarov, McDonald, \& Trac}]{seljak06a}

1326: Seljak, U., Makarov, A., McDonald, P., \& Trac, H. 2006, \prl, submitted,

1327:   (astro-ph/0602430)

1328: 

1329: \bibitem[{{Sheth} {et~al.}(2001){Sheth}, {Mo}, \& {Tormen}}]{sheth01a}

1330: {Sheth}, R.~K., {Mo}, H.~J., \& {Tormen}, G. 2001, \mnras, 323, 1

1331: 

1332: \bibitem[{{Simon} \& {Geha}(2007)}]{simon07a}

1333: {Simon}, J.~D. \& {Geha}, M. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 706

1334: 

1335: \bibitem[{{Somerville} {et~al.}(2001){Somerville}, {Lemson}, {Sigad}, {Dekel},

1336:   {Kauffmann}, \& {White}}]{somerville01a}

1337: {Somerville}, R.~S., {Lemson}, G., {Sigad}, Y., {Dekel}, A., {Kauffmann}, G.,

1338:   \& {White}, S. D.~M. 2001, \mnras, 320, 289

1339: 

1340: \bibitem[{Spergel {et~al.}(2006)}]{spergel06a}

1341: Spergel, D.~N. {et~al.} 2006, astro-ph/0603449

1342: 

1343: \bibitem[{{Springob} {et~al.}(2005){Springob}, {Haynes}, {Giovanelli}, \&

1344:   {Kent}}]{springob05a}

1345: {Springob}, C.~M., {Haynes}, M.~P., {Giovanelli}, R., \& {Kent}, B.~R. 2005,

1346:   \apjs, 160, 149

1347: 

1348: \bibitem[{{Stinson} {et~al.}(2007){Stinson}, {Dalcanton}, {Quinn}, {Kaufmann},

1349:   \& {Wadsley}}]{stinson07a}

1350: {Stinson}, G.~S., {Dalcanton}, J.~J., {Quinn}, T., {Kaufmann}, T., \&

1351:   {Wadsley}, J. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 705

1352: 

1353: \bibitem[{{Stoehr} {et~al.}(2002){Stoehr}, {White}, {Tormen}, \&

1354:   {Springel}}]{stoehr02a}

1355: {Stoehr}, F., {White}, S.~D.~M., {Tormen}, G., \& {Springel}, V. 2002, \mnras,

1356:   335, L84

1357: 

1358: \bibitem[{{Swaters} {et~al.}(2002){Swaters}, {van Albada}, {van der Hulst}, \&

1359:   {Sancisi}}]{swaters02a}

1360: {Swaters}, R.~A., {van Albada}, T.~S., {van der Hulst}, J.~M., \& {Sancisi}, R.

1361:   2002, \aap, 390, 829

1362: 

1363: \bibitem[{{Tasitsiomi} {et~al.}(2004){Tasitsiomi}, {Kravtsov}, {Wechsler}, \&

1364:   {Primack}}]{tasitsiomi04a}

1365: {Tasitsiomi}, A., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Wechsler}, R.~H., \& {Primack}, J.~R.

1366:   2004, \apj, 614, 533

1367: 

1368: \bibitem[{{Tegmark} {et~al.}(2006)}]{tegmark06a}

1369: {Tegmark}, M. {et~al.} 2006, \prd, 74, 123507

1370: 

1371: \bibitem[{Tremonti {et~al.}(2004)}]{tremonti04a}

1372: Tremonti, C.~A. {et~al.} 2004, \apj, 613, 898

1373: 

1374: \bibitem[{{Trentham} {et~al.}(2005){Trentham}, {Sampson}, \&

1375:   {Banerji}}]{trentham05a}

1376: {Trentham}, N., {Sampson}, L., \& {Banerji}, M. 2005, \mnras, 357, 783

1377: 

1378: \bibitem[{{Tully} \& {Fisher}(1977)}]{tully77a}

1379: {Tully}, R.~B. \& {Fisher}, J.~R. 1977, \aap, 54, 661

1380: 

1381: \bibitem[{{Wang} \& {White}(2007)}]{wang07a}

1382: {Wang}, J. \& {White}, S.~D.~M. 2007, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

1383: 

1384: \bibitem[{{Warren} {et~al.}(2006){Warren}, {Abazajian}, {Holz}, \&

1385:   {Teodoro}}]{warren06a}

1386: {Warren}, M.~S., {Abazajian}, K., {Holz}, D.~E., \& {Teodoro}, L. 2006, \apj,

1387:   646, 881

1388: 

1389: \bibitem[{{Wester} {et~al.}(2005)}]{wester05a}

1390: {Wester}, W. {et~al.} 2005, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference

1391:   Series, Vol. 339, Observing Dark Energy, ed. S.~C. {Wolff} \& T.~R. {Lauer},

1392:   152--+

1393: 

1394: \bibitem[{White \& Frenk(1991)}]{white91a}

1395: White, S. D.~M. \& Frenk, C.~S. 1991, \apj, 379, 52

1396: 

1397: \bibitem[{{White} \& {Rees}(1978)}]{white78a}

1398: {White}, S.~D.~M. \& {Rees}, M.~J. 1978, \mnras, 183, 341

1399: 

1400: \bibitem[{{Willick} {et~al.}(1997){Willick}, {Strauss}, {Dekel}, \&

1401:   {Kolatt}}]{willick97a}

1402: {Willick}, J.~A., {Strauss}, M.~A., {Dekel}, A., \& {Kolatt}, T. 1997, \apj,

1403:   486, 629

1404: 

1405: \bibitem[{{Willman} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{a}}){Willman}, {Blanton}, {West},

1406:   {Dalcanton}, {Hogg}, {Schneider}, {Wherry}, {Yanny}, \&

1407:   {Brinkmann}}]{willman05b}

1408: {Willman}, B., {Blanton}, M.~R., {West}, A.~A., {Dalcanton}, J.~J., {Hogg},

1409:   D.~W., {Schneider}, D.~P., {Wherry}, N., {Yanny}, B., \& {Brinkmann}, J.

1410:   2005{\natexlab{a}}, \aj, 129, 2692

1411: 

1412: \bibitem[{{Willman} {et~al.}(2005{\natexlab{b}}){Willman}, {Dalcanton},

1413:   {Martinez-Delgado}, {West}, {Blanton}, {Hogg}, {Barentine}, {Brewington},

1414:   {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long}, {Neilsen}, {Nitta}, \&

1415:   {Snedden}}]{willman05a}

1416: {Willman}, B., {Dalcanton}, J.~J., {Martinez-Delgado}, D., {West}, A.~A.,

1417:   {Blanton}, M.~R., {Hogg}, D.~W., {Barentine}, J.~C., {Brewington}, H.~J.,

1418:   {Harvanek}, M., {Kleinman}, S.~J., {Krzesinski}, J., {Long}, D., {Neilsen},

1419:   E.~H., {Nitta}, A., \& {Snedden}, S.~A. 2005{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 626, L85

1420: 

1421: \bibitem[{{Yahagi} {et~al.}(2004){Yahagi}, {Nagashima}, \&

1422:   {Yoshii}}]{yahagi04a}

1423: {Yahagi}, H., {Nagashima}, M., \& {Yoshii}, Y. 2004, \apj, 605, 709

1424: 

1425: \bibitem[{York {et~al.}(2000)}]{york00a}

1426: York, D. {et~al.} 2000, \aj, 120, 1579

1427: 

1428: \bibitem[{{Zentner} {et~al.}(2005){Zentner}, {Berlind}, {Bullock}, {Kravtsov},

1429:   \& {Wechsler}}]{zentner05a}

1430: {Zentner}, A.~R., {Berlind}, A.~A., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \&

1431:   {Wechsler}, R.~H. 2005, \apj, 624, 505

1432: 

1433: \bibitem[{{Zucker} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})}]{zucker06a}

1434: {Zucker}, D.~B. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{a}}, ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints

1435: 

1436: \bibitem[{{Zucker} {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})}]{zucker06b}

1437: {Zucker}, D.~B. {et~al.} 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apjl, 643, L103

1438: 

1439: \end{thebibliography}

1440: 

1441: \newpage

1442: 

1443: \clearpage

1444: \clearpage

1445: 

1446: \setcounter{thefigs}{0}

1447: 

1448: \clearpage

1449: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1450: \begin{figure}

1451: \figurenum{\fignum}

1452: \plotone{f1.eps}

1453: \caption{\label{stupid_sb} Estimates of necessary correction factors

1454: 	$c$ for surface brightness incompleteness as a function of absolute

1455: 	magnitude. The solid line is the estimate from \citet{blanton04b}

1456: 	using a simple model of surface brightness as a function of absolute

1457: 	magnitude and determinations of the completeness of SDSS as a

1458: 	function of surface brightness.  The dashed line uses the

1459: 	distribution of surface brightnesses as a function of absolute

1460: 	magnitude from the local catalog of \citet{karachentsev04a}. The

1461: 	dotted line uses the distribution from the Local Group according to

1462: 	\citet{mateo98a}. }

1463: \end{figure}

1464: 

1465: 

1466: \clearpage

1467: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1468: \begin{figure}

1469: \figurenum{\fignum}

1470: \plotone{f2.eps}

1471: \caption{\label{isovf_clf} Cumulative luminosity function of isolated

1472: 	galaxies, as defined in the text. The meaning of ``isolated''

1473: 	depends on the tracer galaxies used. The thick histogram represents

1474: 	the median relationship using tracer galaxies with $M_r - 5\log_{10}

1475: 	h < -19$.  The thin histogram represents a change of 1 magnitude in

1476: 	the absolute magnitude limit used for the tracer galaxies; the upper

1477: 	histogram uses brighter galaxies, and the lower histogram uses

1478: 	fainter galaxies. }

1479: \end{figure}

1480: 

1481: 

1482: \clearpage

1483: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1484: \begin{figure}

1485: \figurenum{\fignum}

1486: \plotone{f3.eps}

1487: \caption{\label{w20_vs_rp} Estimate of $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ for dwarf

1488: 	galaxies in our sample as a function of distance to the nearest

1489: 	luminous neighbor galaxy. Filled symbols are galaxies with flat or

1490: 	double-peaked HI profiles, open symbols are galaxies with

1491: 	single-peaked HI profiles. }

1492: \end{figure}

1493: 

1494: \clearpage

1495: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1496: \begin{figure}

1497: \figurenum{\fignum}

1498: \plotone{f4.eps}

1499: \caption{\label{isotf_dataonly} Tully-Fisher relation for isolated

1500: 	galaxies.  Large open symbols are from the optical rotation curves

1501: 	of \citet{pizagno06a}, small open symbols are from the compilation

1502: 	of \citet{springob05a}, and filled symbols are from the HI

1503: 	linewidths of \citet{geha06a}. Crosses show the median

1504: 	$V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values in several bins; the bin centers and

1505: 	median values are listed in Table \ref{vmaxchoice}.}

1506: \end{figure}

1507: 

1508: \clearpage

1509: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1510: \begin{figure}

1511: \figurenum{\fignum}

1512: \plotone{f5.eps}

1513: \caption{\label{isovf_cvf} Cumulative $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ function of

1514: 	isolated halos from $N$-body simulations, for various choices of

1515: 	tracers.  The thick histogram is the abundance of halos in the

1516: 	simulation subject to the isolation criterion described in the text,

1517: 	based on the projected distance and redshift different relative to

1518: 	the nearest, other ``tracer'' halo, for tracers with

1519: 	$V_{\mathrm{max}}>140$ km s$^{-1}$. The thin histograms explore the

1520: 	effect of trying different tracer populations, as labeled.  The smooth

1521: 	line is an approximation based on the mass functions of

1522: 	\citet{warren06a}, described more fully in the text, using a

1523: 	relative large-scale bias of $\delta=-0.4$ for the halos.}

1524: \end{figure}

1525: 

1526: 

1527: \clearpage

1528: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1529: \begin{figure}

1530: \figurenum{\fignum}

1531: \plotone{f6.eps}

1532: \caption{\label{isovf_correct} Correction to the mass function between

1533: 	the cosmology of the $N$-body simulations of \citet{kravtsov04b} and

1534: 	the cosmological models we want to test. The solid line is the

1535: 	correction to the standard cosmology of \citet{tegmark06a} based on

1536: 	WMAP and SDSS large-scale data.  The dashed line is the correction

1537: 	to that same cosmology, but with a light dark matter particle

1538: 	($m_{\mathrm{DM}} = \mdmlimit$ keV). Corrections are based on the ratio

1539: 	between the appropriate cosmologies in the approximations of

1540: 	\citet{warren06a}.}

1541: \end{figure}

1542: 

1543: \clearpage

1544: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1545: \begin{figure}

1546: \figurenum{\fignum}

1547: \plotone{f7.eps}

1548: \caption{\label{isovf_cvf_corr} Cumulative $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ function

1549: 	of isolated halos from Figure \ref{isovf_cvf}, corrected to the

1550: 	\citet{tegmark06a} cosmology (upper histogram) and that same

1551: 	cosmology with a light dark matter particle (lower histogram). }

1552: \end{figure}

1553: 

1554: \clearpage

1555: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1556: \begin{figure}

1557: \figurenum{\fignum}

1558: \plotone{f8.eps}

1559: \caption{\label{isotf} Conditional distribution of circular velocity

1560: 	as a function of absolute magnitude, to make our observed isolated

1561: 	galaxy luminosity function consistent with the predicted isolated

1562: 	halo circular velocity function. Lines are the quartiles of the

1563: 	distribution.  The overplotted points and binned median values are

1564: 	the data from Figure \ref{isotf_dataonly}.}

1565: \end{figure}

1566: 

1567: \clearpage

1568: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1569: \begin{figure}

1570: \figurenum{\fignum}

1571: \plotone{f9.eps}

1572: \caption{\label{isotf_warm} Similar to Figure \ref{isotf} but based on

1573: 	the warm dark matter models.}

1574: \end{figure}

1575: 

1576: \clearpage

1577: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1578: \begin{figure}

1579: \figurenum{\fignum}

1580: \plotone{f10.eps}

1581: \caption{\label{isotf_all} Dependence of our results on our definition

1582: of ``isolated.'' The left panels refer to our cold dark matter model.

1583: The right panels refer to the warm dark matter model with

1584: $m_{DM}=\mdmlimit$ keV. The top panels show the ratio of the observed

1585: number density of isolated galaxies with $M_r -5 \log_{10} h < -14.7$

1586: to the predicted number of isolated halos with $V_{\mathrm{max}}> 56$

1587: km s$^{-1}$ (that is, the vertical offset in Figure

1588: \ref{isovf_cvf_corr}). The bottom panels show the ratio between the

1589: median observed circular velocity at $M_r-5 \log_{10} h < -14.7$ to

1590: that predicted in Figures \ref{isotf} and \ref{isotf_warm}. All of

1591: these results are shown as a function of how we define ``isolated,''

1592: which we do in 27 different ways here. We choose: (a) three different

1593: absolute magnitude limits for the tracers in the observed sample, $M_r

1594: -5\log_{10} h < -18$, $-19$, and $-20$, as shown by the rough

1595: horizontal position; (b) for each sort of observed tracer, three

1596: choices of minimum $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ for tracers in the predicted

1597: sample, as listed in Table \ref{vmaxchoice} and as shown by the size

1598: of the symbols (larger corresponds to higher circular velocity of

1599: tracer); and (c) three different minimum projected radii from the

1600: tracers, $r_P = 0.7$, $1.0$, and $1.3$ $h^{-1}$ Mpc, as shown by small

1601: offsets in the horizontal positions (left to right).}

1602: \end{figure}

1603: 

1604: \clearpage

1605: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1606: \begin{figure}

1607: \figurenum{\fignum}

1608: \plotone{f11.eps}

1609: \caption{\label{isotf_mtobm} ``Baryonic'' mass relative to total mass

1610: 	as a function of luminosity for the samples of isolated galaxies

1611: 	with $b/a<0.5$ in the two HI samples used here, as marked. Baryonic

1612: 	mass is defined as the stellar mass plus the neutral gas mass, as

1613: 	described in the text. The dashed line at $0.17$ is the cosmic mean

1614: 	based on cosmological measurements (\citealt{tegmark06a}). The

1615: 	dotted line at $0.025$ is the mean of the \citet{springob05a}

1616: 	measurements. }

1617: \end{figure}

1618: 

1619: %\clearpage

1620: %\stepcounter{thefigs}

1621: %\begin{figure}

1622: %\figurenum{\fignum}

1623: %\plotone{isotf_mtol.ps}

1624: %\caption{\label{isotf_mtol} blah}

1625: %\end{figure}

1626: 

1627: \clearpage

1628: \stepcounter{thefigs}

1629: \begin{figure}

1630: \figurenum{\fignum}

1631: \plotone{f12.eps}

1632: \caption{\label{isotf_mtosm} Dynamical to stellar mass ratio as a

1633: 	function of stellar mass, for the three samples used in this paper

1634: 	(restricting to isolated galaxies with $b/a<0.5$).}

1635: \end{figure}

1636: 

1637: \newpage

1638: \clearpage

1639: \begin{deluxetable}{rrrr}

1640: \tablewidth{0pt}

1641: \tablecolumns{4}

1642: \tablecaption{\label{vmaxchoice} Comparable circular velocities and

1643: 	absolute magnitudes}

1644: \tablehead{ $M_r - 5\log_{10} h$ & $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ (km s$^{-1}$) &

1645:   $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ (km s$^{-1}$) \cr

1646: \cr

1647: & (from TF) & (used) \cr}

1648: \startdata

1649: $-14.7$ & $56 \pm 3$ & --- \cr

1650: $-18.0$ & $108 \pm 5$ & 95, 110, 125 \cr 

1651: $-18.5$ & $116 \pm 6$ & --- \cr

1652: $-19.0$ & $143 \pm 7$ & 125, 140, 155 \cr

1653: $-19.5$ & $156 \pm 7$ & --- \cr

1654: $-20.0$ & $180 \pm 4$ & 170, 180, 195 \cr

1655: $-20.5$ & $214 \pm 7$ & --- \cr 

1656: \enddata

1657: %\startdata

1658: %-18 & 117 & 97 & 87, 100, 112, 125 \cr

1659: %-19 & 135 & 123 & 112, 125, 137, 150 \cr

1660: %-20 & 182 & 162 & 150, 162, 175, 188 \cr

1661: %\enddata

1662: \tablecomments{ For each choice of $M_r$ (first column), this table

1663: 	yields the comparable $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ resulting from matching to

1664: 	the Tully-Fisher relation in Figure \ref{isotf_dataonly} (second

1665: 	column, ``TF''). It also lists the $V_{\mathrm{max}}$ values we

1666: 	actually tried in Figure \ref{isotf_all} (third column).}

1667: \end{deluxetable}

1668: 

1669: 

1670: \end{document}

1671: