1: \documentclass[]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{natbib}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: \usepackage{amsmath}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \begin{document}
8: \shorttitle{Axis Ratio Distribution of Early-type galaxies}
9: \shortauthors{Taysun Kimm \& Sukyoung K. Yi}
10:
11: \title{Intrinsic Axis Ratio Distribution of Early-type galaxies from Sloan Digital Sky Survey}
12:
13: \author{Taysun Kimm and Sukyoung K. Yi}
14: \affil{Department of Astronomy, Yonsei University, Seoul 120-749, Korea}
15: \email{E-mail:yi@yonsei.ac.kr}
16:
17: \slugcomment{Resubmitted to ApJS: \today}
18:
19: \begin{abstract}
20: Using Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data Release 5, we have investigated the
21: intrinsic axis ratio distribution (ARD) for early-type galaxies.
22: We have constructed a volume-limited sample of 3,922 visually-inspected
23: early-type galaxies
24: at $0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$ carefully considering sampling biases caused
25: by the galaxy isophotal size and luminosity.
26: We attempt to de-project the observed ARD into three-dimensional types
27: (oblate, prolate, and triaxial), which are classified in terms of triaxiality.
28: We confirm that no linear combination of $randomly$-distributed axis ratios
29: of the three types can reproduce the observed ARD.
30: However, using Gaussian intrinsic distributions,
31: we have found reasonable fits to the data with preferred mean axis ratios for
32: oblate, prolate, and triaxial (triaxials in two axis ratios),
33: $\mu_o=0.44, \mu_p=0.72, \mu_{t,\beta}=0.92, \mu_{t,\gamma}=0.78$
34: where the fractions of oblate, prolate and triaxial types are
35: $\textrm{O:P:T}=0.29^{\pm0.09}:0.26^{\pm0.11}:0.45^{\pm0.13}$.
36: We have also found that the luminous sample ($-23.3 < M_r \leq -21.2$)
37: tends to have more triaxials than the less luminous ($-21.2 < M_r <-19.3$)
38: sample does.
39: Oblate is relatively more abundant among the less luminous galaxies.
40: Interestingly, the preferences of axis ratios for triaxial types in the two
41: luminosity classes are remarkably similar.
42: We have not found any significant influence of the local galaxy number density
43: on ARD. We show that the results can be seriously affected by
44: the details in the data selection and type classification scheme.
45: Caveats and implications on galaxy formation are discussed.
46: \end{abstract}
47:
48: \keywords{
49: surveys --- method: statistical --- galaxies: elliptical and lenticular, cD --- galaxies: formation --- galaxies: kinematics and dynamics
50: }
51:
52: \section{INTRODUCTION}
53:
54: Ever since Hubble (1926) investigated the apparent flattenings of early-type galaxies,
55: numerous studies have attempted to pin down their intrinsic shapes.
56: Such efforts mainly focused on the apparent axis ratio not only because
57: it is easy to measure but also its distribution can be used to extract
58: the kinematics and may
59: even constrain the general formation history of galaxies.
60:
61: Early studies using apparent axis ratio distribution (ARD)
62: were made on the assumption that early-type galaxies are composed of one type.
63: Assuming oblateness alone, Sandage, Freeman, \& Stokes (1970) suggested
64: the possibility of Gaussian or skewed binomial distribution of intrinsic ARD
65: using Reference Catalog of Bright Galaxies (RC1, de Vaucouleurs \& de Vaucouleurs 1964).
66: Binney (1978)'s approach assuming prolateness also successfully reproduced
67: the apparent ARD from RC1. The existence of triaxial galaxies
68: (Bertola \& Capaccioli 1975; Illingworth 1977) opened up a better chance to
69: reproduce the observed ARD.
70: Binggeli (1980) and Benacchio \& Bertola (1980) showed that the
71: apparent ARDs for 160 ellipticals from Revised-Shapley-Ames catalog of
72: bright galaxies (Sandage \& Tammann 1979) and 348 ellipticals from Strom \&
73: Strom (1978a,b,c) were well represented as a group of triaxial galaxies
74: assuming a fixed case of $\beta=(1+\gamma)/2$ where $\beta$ is the
75: ratio between the second longest to the longest axis and $\gamma$ is
76: the shortest to the longest axis.
77: In particular, Binney \& de Vaucouleurs (1981) aimed to reconstruct
78: the apparent ARD for RC2 (de Vaucouleurs et al. 1976) using Lucy's inversion
79: technique (Lucy 1974, see also Noerdinger 1979).
80: They considered oblate, prolate and triaxial (O,P,T) separately and still
81: found acceptable fits to the observed ARD.
82: The limitation of this technique, however,
83: is that it is difficult to constrain the ratios between O, P, T galaxies.
84:
85: More recently, Fasano \& Vio (1991) concluded that a purely-biaxial model
86: cannot reproduce the small number of apparently-round galaxies.
87: This paucity however looks significantly different when samples are drawn
88: from different catalogs (e.g., RC1, RC2, or Revised-Shapley-Ames
89: Catalog of Galaxies).
90: This obviously results in disparate intrinsic distributions.
91: Furthermore, Lambas et al. (1992) found a reasonable fit to the sample
92: of 2,135 galaxies from the APM Bright Galaxy Survey (Maddox 1990)
93: assuming all ellipticals are triaxial
94: whose intrinsic distributions are two dimensional Gaussian.
95: The similar work done by Ryden (1992) presents consistent results.
96: These results support the assertion that the paucity of round galaxies
97: can be reproduced by a dominantly-triaxial galaxy population.
98: Considering its usefulness, it is important to accurately sample
99: the observed ARD.
100:
101: Fortunately, Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (Adelman-McCarthy et al. 2005)
102: allows us to study the apparent flattenings for a large number of galaxies.
103: Our effort to make a complete volume-limited sample
104: is one of the main factors distinguishing our work from previous studies.
105:
106: We also note the interesting result of Davies et al. (1983)
107: that bright ellipticals may be more slowly rotating than faint ones.
108: Tremblay \& Merritt (1996) found that the apparent ARD is markedly
109: different for two luminosity classes ; the ellipticals brighter than
110: $M_B \simeq -20 $ are rounder than less luminous ones.
111: In particular, recent observations show that the division clearly
112: occurs at $M_B=-20.5$ (Rest \& van den Bosch 2001) and also support
113: previous works suggesting that bright galaxies show a core profile and
114: boxy isophotes while faint galaxies have a power-law profile and disky
115: isophotes (Bender 1988, Kormendy \& Bender 1996, Faber et al 1997).
116: Therefore we investigate on the effect of the galaxy luminosity on the ARD.
117:
118:
119: Another factor we should note for intrinsic shape of early-type
120: galaxies is an environmental dependence.
121: Dressler (1980) pointed out a density-morphology relation
122: which reflects the importance on the formation process.
123: We thus search for the connection between intrinsic shape and environment
124: for early types.
125:
126: In this paper, we propose two simplifying assumptions;
127: (i) early-type galaxies are geometrically perfect ellipsoid,
128: (ii) they are randomly oriented.
129: We assume that early types consist of oblate, prolate and triaxial.
130: We believe this assumption makes our approach more realistic
131: than the previous models composed of only one or limited types.
132: On this basis we investigate the projection effect on the apparent ARD.
133: We simply describe the model distribution for oblate, prolate and triaxial in \S 2.
134: We introduce our sample selection with completeness tests in \S 3.
135: In \S 4, we investigate the intrinsic ARD for volume-limited samples.
136: In \S 5, we analyze the intrinsic shape of two different luminosity samples.
137: Dependence of environment on ARD is investigated in \S 6.
138: In \S 7, we discuss the limitations of our approach.
139: Finally, we discuss results and their implication in \S 8.
140:
141:
142:
143:
144: \section{Analytic Apparent Axis Ratio Distribution}
145:
146: We use an analytical description to calculate the probability distribution
147: (Franx et al. 1991; Binney \& Merrifield, 1998).
148: The probability of finding the apparent ellipticity ($\epsilon$) in the
149: interval ($\epsilon$, $\epsilon+d\epsilon$) is
150: \begin{equation}
151: p(\epsilon) d\epsilon = \left \{ \begin{array}{ll}
152: \frac{(1-e)\sqrt{e}} {\pi} \int_{\mu_2}^{\mu_1} \frac{\mu^2}{\sqrt{-h(\mu) h(e\mu)}}
153: d\mu d\epsilon & \mathrm{for}~0\leq \epsilon \leq \epsilon_1,\\
154: 0 & \mathrm{for}~\epsilon_1 \leq \epsilon \leq 1,
155: \end{array} \right.
156: \end{equation}
157: where $e=(1-\epsilon)^2$, $h(\tau)=(\tau - a^2)(\tau-b^2)(\tau -c^2)$ and
158: $\epsilon_1 = 1-b/a$.
159: $a$, $b$ and $c$ indicate three axes of an ellipsoid, respectively.
160: For galaxies with $b/a > c/b$ (oblate-triaxial),
161: $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$, which depend on the galaxy shape, are
162: \begin{equation}
163: (\mu_1, \mu_2) = \left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
164: (b^2, b^2/e) & \mathrm{for} & 0 \le \epsilon \le \epsilon_2,\\
165: (b^2, a^2) & \mathrm{for} & \epsilon_2 < \epsilon \le \epsilon_3,\\
166: (c^2/e, a^2) & \mathrm{for} & \epsilon_3 < \epsilon \le \epsilon_1
167: \end{array}\right.
168: \end{equation}
169: where $\epsilon_3 = 1 - c/b$. For galaxies with $b/a \le c/b$ (prolate-triaxial),
170: $\mu_1$ and $\mu_2$ can be written as
171: \begin{equation}
172: (\mu_1, \mu_2) = \left \{ \begin{array}{lll}
173: (b^2, b^2/e) & \mathrm{for} & 0 \le \epsilon \le \epsilon_3,\\
174: (c^2/e, b^2/e) & \mathrm{for} & \epsilon_3 < \epsilon \le \epsilon_2,\\
175: (c^2/e, a^2) & \mathrm{for} & \epsilon_2 < \epsilon \le \epsilon_1
176: \end{array} \right.
177: \end{equation}
178: In order to illustrate the type (OPT)-dependence of the apparent ARD,
179: we adopt the classification scheme of Franx et al. (1991).
180: To classify the early-type systems, we use triaxiality (T),
181: \begin{equation}
182: T = \frac{1 - {\beta}^2}{1 - {\gamma}^2}
183: \end{equation}
184: and each type can be expressed as
185: \begin{displaymath}
186: \left\{\begin{array}{lll}
187: \mathrm{oblate} &:& 0 \leq T < 0.25 \\
188: \mathrm{triaxial} &:& 0.25\leq T < 0.75\\
189: \mathrm{prolate} &:&0.75 \leq T \leq 1.0
190: \end{array} \right.
191: \end{displaymath}
192:
193: In this study, we assume that there is no early-type galaxy with axis ratios
194: smaller than 0.2 because such systems are rarely observed.
195: In Fig. \ref{fig1} we display the classification scheme.
196: Fig. \ref{fig2} shows the simplest special case of the apparent ARD,
197: that is based on ({\it uniformly-distributed} intrinsic axis
198: ratios. We mean {\it no preferred values of the intrinsic ratios} by ``uniformly-
199: distributed''.
200: The numbers of the samples of three (OPT) types simulated are
201: normalised to be the same, hence unbiased by the area difference between the types
202: in Fig.\ref{fig1}. If an observed ARD has a large number of round galaxies near 1, we can
203: deduce that oblate is the main component, for example.
204:
205: \begin{figure}
206: \begin{center}
207: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f1.ps}
208: \caption{Scheme of galaxy classification. In this study, we adopt Franx(1991)'s scheme.
209: Shaded area : Based on the observational constraints, we use axis ratios greater than 0.2.} \label{fig1}
210: \end{center}
211: \end{figure}
212:
213: \begin{figure}
214: \begin{center}
215: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f2.ps}
216: \caption{
217: Apparent axis ratio distribution, $\Phi$ (i.e., the probability density
218: of the projected shapes of a group of galaxies)
219: for each type assuming a uniform intrinsic ARD.
220: Solid, dotted, and dashed lines correspond to oblate, prolate, and
221: triaxial, respectively.} \label{fig2}
222: \end{center}
223: \end{figure}
224:
225: \section{SDSS SAMPLE SELECTION AND DATA ANALYSIS}
226:
227: The SDSS provides a large homogeneous database. There are approximately
228: 28,000 galaxies within $0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$, an excellent sample
229: for studying ARD statistically.
230: In this section, we describe our data selection scheme and completeness tests.
231:
232: \subsection{Morphological Classification}
233:
234: A well-defined criterion for morphological classification is necessary
235: to study the ARD of early-type galaxies.
236: Because visual inspection of all galaxies is
237: extremely time-consuming and still subjective,
238: we adopted the SDSS pipeline parameter
239: $fracDev$, which indicates the fraction of the brightness profile that
240: can be explained by the de Vaucouleurs profile (de Vaucouleurs 1948)
241: as follows:
242: \begin{equation}
243: f_{composite} = fracDev f_{deV} + (1-fracDev) f_{exp}
244: \end{equation}
245: where $f_{deV}$ indicates de Vaucouleurs fluxes. We assume that
246: a conservative sample of early-type galaxies have $fracDev\geq0.95$
247: in all 3 bands, $g'r'i'$, following the practice of Yi et al. (2005).
248: Using this $fracDev$ parameter,
249: we compile 4,994 galaxies within $0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$.
250:
251:
252: \subsection{Data analysis}
253:
254: \subsubsection{Luminosity Dependence}
255: A complete volume-limited sample is crucial for this study because
256: it has a direct effect on the intrinsic shapes of galaxies.
257: But SDSS provides spectroscopic information only for the galaxies of
258: $r<17.77$ ; hence, our sample cannot be free from luminosity bias.
259: To investigate this, we need to know how the ARD varies with the size
260: of major axis.
261: Fig. \ref{fig3} shows the trend that the luminosity gradually
262: increases with increasing minor axis for a fixed major axis size.
263: This effect is clearer for the larger galaxies (red and blue dots)
264: but less clear for smaller galaxies (black dots) probably because of the
265: magnitude limit. We also denote the general trends of the three different
266: luminosity classes with three lines.
267: It is clear that small faint flat early types are more easily missed,
268: and so the luminosity limit biases the apparent ARD.
269: We have decided to exclude galaxies with major axis radius $\mathrm{IsoA_r}$
270: smaller than 16.2''. This however has a tendency of removing distant
271: faint galaxies from the sample. In order to alleviate this problem,
272: we construct a volume-limited sample by selecting close galaxies within
273: $0.05\leq z \leq 0.06$.
274: Obviously, no redshift dependence is considered important here.
275: Note that Odewahn et al. (1997) already reported that there is no
276: significant difference in the apparent ARD between distant and nearby samples.
277: Constraining the absolute magnitude range, statistical
278: Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test confirms that distant
279: ($0.097 \leq z\leq 0.1$) and close ($0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$) galaxies share
280: the same parent ARD with a 99\%-level confidence.
281: Therefore, the results from the analysis on our close
282: ($0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$) sample likely holds for a larger redshift range.
283:
284:
285: \begin{figure}
286: \begin{center}
287: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.ps}
288: \caption{The sample bias caused by the optical brightness criterion.
289: Gray dots in the background indicate all galaxies within
290: $0.05\leq z \leq 0.06$. Galaxies of different apparent isophotal major-axis
291: sizes are grouped into 3 bins: orange dots denote the largest galaxies.
292: Three dashed lines show the trend that rounder galaxies are brighter for a
293: fixed apparent axis ratio. Faint flat small galaxies
294: ($\mathrm{IsoA_r} \lesssim 16.2''$), near black dotted line,
295: are missed in this kind of survey (see text).} \label{fig3}
296: \end{center}
297: \end{figure}
298:
299: \subsubsection{fracDev Dependence}
300:
301: It is also of interest whether our main selection criterion
302: {\it fracDev} $\geq 0.95$ influences the ARD.
303: S. Joo (priv. comm.) performed an independent classification of
304: early types using {\it fracDev} and visual inspection, for two different
305: {\it fracDev} limits, {\it fracDev} $ \geq 0.95$ and
306: $0.50 \leq ${\it fracDev} $\leq 0.95$.
307: He pointed out to us that the higher {\it fracDev} criterion misses some
308: early types, mainly flatter galaxies.
309: For example, if one uses lower {\it Fracdev} limit,
310: the fraction of relatively flatter (b/a $<$ 0.6) galaxies with $M_r >-20.5$
311: would be 5.9\%, while the fraction for higher {\it fracDev} limit is 3.9\%.
312: In this regard, our sample does
313: not represent the entire early-type galaxy population but is
314: slightly biased towards rounder galaxies.
315: We decided, however, not to worry about this,
316: first because the exact {\it fracDev} criterion for early types is unclear,
317: and second because we are for the moment more interested in the methodology.
318:
319: \subsection{Test Sample}
320:
321: Our final sample of 3,922 galaxies is chosen with redshift criterion
322: ($0.05 \leq z \leq 0.06$) and major axis criterion
323: ($\mathrm{IsoA_r} > 16.16''$).
324: We remove a small number of relatively faint outliers of $r > 17.5$
325: to ensure reasonable image quality.
326: But this has no impact on our results at all.
327: We also exclude 1,072 galaxies from the 4,994 galaxy sample because
328: they appear
329: to be spiral contaminants or severely-distorted in the visual inspection.
330: The ARD for final sample is shown in Fig. \ref{fig4}.
331: For the purpose of comparison, we also plot the apparent ARD from
332: APMBGS data (Loveday 1996).
333: We bin the data by the size roughly drawn from the Izenman method
334: (1991), $aIQRn^{-1/3}$, based on the total number $n$ and interquartile
335: range (IQR) where $2.0\leq a\leq2.5$ (Izenman 1991).
336: The peak around $p=0.8$ is noteworthy.
337:
338:
339: \begin{figure}
340: \begin{center}
341: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f4.ps}
342: \caption{Our final SDSS sample compared to the previous APM sample of Loveday (1996)
343: (Gray dots).
344: We derive a relatively-complete sample concerning luminosity and major axis radius.
345: } \label{fig4}. \end{center}
346: \end{figure}
347:
348:
349: \section{INTRINSIC AXIS RATIO DISTRIBUTION FOR VOLUME-LIMITED SAMPLE}
350:
351: It was demonstrated in Fig. \ref{fig2} that the apparent ARD is not uniform
352: even though the intrinsic distribution is uniform.
353: To extract the intrinsic shapes of our galaxies,
354: we use composite models of O, P, T types based on the
355: Franx et al. (1991) classification scheme (Fig. \ref{fig1}).
356: In this section, we compare the observation with model distributions using two strategies.
357:
358: \subsection{Uniform distribution of intrinsic axis ratio}
359: We investigate the possibility of uniform intrinsic distribution.
360: To measure the goodness of the fit, we use reduced $\chi^2$,
361: and this is constructed by considering Poisson error.
362: Using the volume-limited sample from \S 3,
363: we try to derive the fractions of the O, P, T types in the combination
364: that best reproduces the observed ARD.
365: We can express this with weight($W$) of each type.
366:
367: \begin{equation}
368: \Phi_{o}W_{o}+\Phi_{p} W_{p} + \Phi_{t} W_{t} = \Phi_{obs}
369: \label{eq5}
370: \end{equation}
371: \begin{equation}
372: \textrm{where}~~\textrm{apparent ARD}~~ \Phi_{i}= \sum_{\beta}\sum_{\gamma}\Psi_i(\beta,\gamma)\nonumber
373: \end{equation}
374: Index $i$ indicates each type, and $\Psi$ is the apparent ARD
375: for certain axis ratio $(\beta,\gamma)$.
376: Weight directly reflects the frequency of each type.
377: The best solution that makes a minimum $\chi^2$ is $W_o:W_p:W_t=0.09:0.00:0.91$
378: but for a very poor statistic ($\chi_{red}^2\sim50$).
379: Hence, {\em no linear combination of OPT types with random
380: ARD reproduces the observed ARD of our sample!.}
381:
382: \subsection{Gaussian distribution of intrinsic axis ratio}
383:
384: Since the random intrinsic ARD fails to reproduce the observed data,
385: we adopt Gaussian distribution.
386: Although previous studies, which allow arbitrary distribution, could
387: estimate the preference of axis ratio, it is nearly impossible to quantify
388: the fraction of oblate, prolate and triaxial type.
389: In this respect, Gaussian is the best distribution to test the fraction
390: and perference of axis ratios.
391: The Gaussian distribution can be written as
392: \begin{equation}
393: F_{gau}(x;\mu, \sigma)=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2\pi}\sigma} \exp{[-\frac{(x-\mu)^2}{2\sigma^2}]}
394: \end{equation}
395: where $\mu$, $\sigma$ correspond to the mean position and width of Gaussian distribution.
396: Then preferences for oblate and prolate galaxies can be expressed as
397: \begin{eqnarray}
398: \Phi_{o}= \sum_{\beta}\sum_{\gamma}F_{gau}(\gamma;\mu_o, \sigma_o)\Psi_o(\beta,\gamma) \\
399: \Phi_{p}= \sum_{\beta}\sum_{\gamma}F_{gau}(\beta;\mu_p, \sigma_p)\Psi_p(\beta,\gamma)\nonumber
400: \end{eqnarray}
401:
402: For triaixal galaxies, we use two Gaussian weights following the Lambas et al. (1992) approach.
403: \begin{equation}
404: \Phi_{t}= \sum_{\beta}\sum_{\gamma}F_{gau}(\beta;\mu_{t,\beta}, \sigma_{t,\beta})F_{gau}(\gamma;\mu_{t,\gamma}, \sigma_{\gamma})\Psi_t(\beta,\gamma)
405: \end{equation}
406: for $\{(\beta,\gamma)~|~T_{i,min} \leq (\frac{1-\beta^2}{1-\gamma^2})< T_{i,max}\}$ where $0.2 \leq \gamma \leq \beta \leq 1.0$.
407:
408: To reproduce the observed ARD above, we imposed specific intrinsic axis ratios and
409: sum over three probability distributions after multiplying their weight factors.
410: We should note that these weight factors are different from Gaussian weight in Eqn. \ref{eq5},
411: and recall that this provides a simple framework
412: where we can investigate the fraction of each type.
413:
414: With this approach we find good matches.
415: The best-fit model that yields minimum $\chi^2 \approx 1$ is
416: $(\mu_o,~\mu_p,~\mu_{t,\beta},~\mu_{t,\gamma})=(0.46,~0.72,~0.92,~0.74)$, and
417: $(\sigma_o,~\sigma_p,~\sigma_{t,\beta},~\sigma_{t,\gamma})=(0.1,~0.05,~0.1,~0.3)$.
418: For this case, we found that the fraction of each type is
419: $\textrm{O:P:T}=0.35:0.18:0.47$.
420: However, our parameter space is so complicated that
421: the minimum $\chi^2$ model may not represent the most meaningful result.
422: Instead, the statistical properties of all possible models with reduced
423: $\chi^2$ values within 1$\sigma$ range
424: ( $\Delta \chi^2 = \chi^2_\nu - \chi^2_{min} \leq 1$) are
425: more meaningful because they all show good agreements with the observation
426: (Fig. \ref{fig5}).
427: Our results show that the triaxial component is dominant around the
428: high axis ratio, while oblate also plays an important role in the low axis
429: ratio region. Statistically, the total fraction of each type is
430: $\textrm{O:P:T}=0.29^{\pm0.09}:0.26^{\pm0.11}:0.45^{\pm0.13}$ in 1 $\sigma$ range,
431: which suggests that triaxial early-types are most common.
432: For comparison to the ``best-fit model'', the $\chi^2$ space of the
433: ``good models'' ($\Delta \chi^2 <1$) show a convergence at
434: a slightly different configuration
435: ($\mu_o$, $\mu_p$, $\mu_{t,\beta}$, $\mu_{t,\gamma}$)
436: = (0.44, 0.72, 0.92, 0.78) as shown in Fig. \ref{fig6}.
437: We believe that this is a more statistically-representative result.
438:
439: In the similar simulation of Lambas et al. (1992),
440: the optimal solution for fitting the apparent ARD from APMBGS data
441: with two-dimensional Gaussian had $\mu_{t,\beta}=0.95$, $\mu_{t,\gamma}=0.55$,
442: $\sigma_{t,\beta}=0.35$, $\sigma_{t,\gamma}=0.2$.
443: Likely reasons for the difference between their results and ours are:
444: (1) they considered only triaxial and used different classification scheme;
445: and (2) the observed ARDs are slightly
446: different. They used smaller values of $\mu_{t,\gamma}$ (i.e., flatter)
447: than ours probably in order to fit the low axis ratio
448: regions without considering oblate and prolate elements.
449: On the other hand, Ryden's (1992) results that produce the best-fit model
450: with $\mu_{t,\beta}=0.98$, $\mu_{t,\gamma}=0.69$ and $\sigma_{t}=0.11$ are
451: closer to our results; but, since their observed ARD was suppressed in the
452: low axis ratio region, their best-fit triaxials were rounder than those
453: in the Lambas et al. fit.
454:
455: \begin{figure}
456: \begin{center}
457: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f5.ps}
458: \caption{Apparent axis ratio distributions based on our Gaussian weight
459: scheme. The OPT-combined best fit is shown by the dashed line, and the
460: corresponding component fits (O, P, T) are shown.
461: We exhibit the average value with the dotted line and 1$\sigma$ deviation of
462: each model that satisfies $\Delta \chi^2 \leq 1$ as shaded region.
463: Note that triaxial galaxies are the dominant component.
464: } \label{fig5}
465: \end{center}
466: \end{figure}
467:
468: \begin{figure}
469: \begin{center}
470: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6_1.ps}
471: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f6_2.ps}
472: \caption{{\it Left:} Preferred intrinsic axis ratio within a 1 $\sigma$ range.
473: We confirm that the preferred axis ratio of each type converges at some axis
474: ratio.
475: {\it Right:} Same as top, but for 1$\sigma$ width of Gaussian weight.
476: $\sigma_o$, $\sigma_p$ and $\sigma_{t,\gamma}$ shows good convergence
477: while $\sigma_{t,\beta}$ is widely accepted.
478: } \label{fig6}
479: \end{center}
480: \end{figure}
481:
482:
483:
484:
485:
486: \section{INTRINSIC ARD FOR DIFFERENT LUMINOSITIES}
487:
488: We investigate whether two luminosity classes mentioned in \S 1
489: (Bender 1988, Kormendy \& Bender 1996) have different intrinsic shapes
490: by comparing their best-fit (within 1 $\sigma$) model OPT ratios.
491: First, we divide galaxies into ``luminous'' ($M_r \leq -21.2$) and
492: ``less luminous'' ($M_r > -21.2)$) groups.
493: Rest \& van den Bosch (2001) found a division at $M_B\sim-20$,
494: which corresponds to $M_r\sim -21.2$ using the transformation of Smith et al.
495: (2002) and the typical color for early-types ($B-V\sim0.9$).
496: As seen in Fig. \ref{fig7}, the ``luminous'' sample exhibits a larger
497: number of round galaxies.
498: We derive the weight and preference of intrinsic axis ratio for each type.
499:
500: We first focus on the weight of each type between the two groups.
501: Averaged over the region of the 1$\sigma$ range ($\Delta \chi^2 \leq 1$),
502: the OPT weights for the ``luminous'' and ``less luminous'' samples are as
503: follows.
504: \begin{eqnarray}
505: \textrm{O:P:T}&=&0.13^{\pm0.08} : 0.20^{\pm0.13} : 0.67^{\pm 0.13} {\rm (luminous)}\nonumber\\
506: \textrm{O:P:T}&=&0.38^{\pm 0.08} : 0.18^{\pm0.10} : 0.43^{\pm0.11} {\rm (less~luminous)}\nonumber
507: \end{eqnarray}
508: This implies that luminous early-types are likely triaxial,
509: while there still exists a large amount of oblate galaxies in the
510: ``less luminous'' sample. We display in Fig. \ref{fig8}
511: how each type can be viewed in the sky.
512: Note that the galaxies with a high apparent axis ratio are likely
513: triaxial regardless of their luminosity, and oblate galaxies are
514: more common in the ``less luminous'' sample. This may indicate that
515: different formation process between the two samples. We will discuss this
516: in greater detail in \S 8. The dichotomy, if real, might be explained
517: by the argument presented by Valluri \& Merritt (1998) involving
518: the central supermassive black hole and the crossing time difference between
519: the bright and faint ellipticals.
520: \begin{figure}
521: \begin{center}
522: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f7.ps}
523: \caption{Apparent ARDs for the two different luminosity samples.
524: The solid line and dashed line correspond to ``luminous'', and
525: ``less luminous'' samples, respectively.
526: The ``luminous'' sample is rounder than ``the less luminous'' sample
527: in general. }
528: \label{fig7}
529: \end{center}
530: \end{figure}
531:
532: However, regarding preferences of intrinsic axis ratio ($\mu$) and
533: Gaussian widths ($\sigma$), there is no clear disparity between the two
534: samples.
535: The ``luminous'' sample shows a preference for $\mu_{t,\beta}=0.90$,
536: $\mu_{t,\gamma}=0.70$, $\mu_p = 0.75$, while $\mu_o$ cannot be constrained
537: because of the minimal contribution from oblates.
538: Similarly, for the ``less luminous'' sample, $\mu_o=0.45$, $\mu_p = 0.70$,
539: $\mu_{t,\beta}=0.90$ and $\mu_{t,\gamma}=0.70$ -- 0.75 are derived.
540:
541: McMillan et al. (2007) pointed out that the axis ratios of equal-mass
542: merger remnants can be different for differing merging conditions.
543: Then, our result (no significant difference between the two samples
544: in terms of the axis ratios preferred) could be interpreted as
545: a lack of significant difference in the merger history between the samples.
546: However, if it takes numerous merging events to build elliptical galaxies,
547: the memory of the past merger history could easily be buried.
548: The last major/minor merger event on the other hand could still be important.
549:
550: \begin{figure}
551: \begin{center}
552: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f8.ps}
553: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig5} but for two different luminosity groups (see text).
554: Upper panels show the ARDs for the ``luminous'' sample and lower panels are for the
555: ``less luminous'' samples. The majority of the ``luminous'' sample are likely triaxial,
556: while a large amount of oblate types still exist in the ``less luminous'' sample.}
557: \label{fig8}
558: \end{center}
559: \end{figure}
560:
561:
562:
563: \section{DEPENDENCE ON ENVIRONMENT}
564:
565:
566: Within the context of $\Lambda$CDM scenario, galaxies build up
567: hierarchically via galaxy mergers and interactions.
568: In this regard, the density-morphology relation (Dressler 1980)
569: may reveal the significance of environment for galaxy formation and
570: evolution.
571: We investigate whether the intrinsic shapes of early-types are also
572: related to environment. We used Joo Heon Yoon's density parameter
573: ($\rho$) for the local density of early-type galaxies
574: (priv. comm.).
575: Yoon's density parameter ($\rho$) is a measurement of crowdedness counting all
576: the neighboring galaxies with a Gaussian-weighting scheme in proportion to the
577: distance between the galaxies. Yoon's measurements are improved over
578: Schawinski et al.'s
579: primarily by including more candidate member galaxies assuming that early-type
580: galaxies obey optical color-magnitude relations.
581: Surprisingly,
582: we did not find any notable impact of the density parameter on the
583: apparent ARD. Even between the two extreme sub-samples
584: (representing fields and dense clusters), the apparent ARDs are found to
585: share the same parent distribution via a K-S test.
586: It should be noted that Ryden (1993) reported a similar result, finding
587: no significant difference in the ARD in her sample of brightest cluster
588: galaxies (BCGs).
589:
590: It is interesting to note that semi-analytic models also show
591: consistent results.
592: Khochfar \& Silk (2006) assert that the stellar
593: properties of merging remnants of massive galaxies above the
594: characteristic mass ($\sim 3\times10^{10} \mathrm{M}_{\odot}$;
595: Kauffmann et al. 2003) are not much different between the field and
596: cluster environments.
597: Considering the brightness of our sample galaxies $M_r = -19$ through $-23$,
598: and assuming a stellar mass-to-light ratio 5,
599: most of our galaxies would exceed the characteristic mass.
600:
601:
602:
603:
604: \section{Limitations}
605:
606: In this section we investigate the limitations of our approach
607: by comparing our results with different classification schemes.
608: A robust result that does not strongly depend on the choice of schemes
609: would ensure the usefulness of the method.
610: Table 1 and Fig. \ref{fig10} show the three cases defined as
611: M1, M2, and M3, where M2 is the Franx et al. classification scheme we used
612: in this study.
613:
614: In Fig. \ref{fig9} we show the apparent ARDs for the three cases
615: assuming a uniform intrinsic ARD.
616: The peak of each type can change slightly with the classification scheme,
617: but the overall behavior is still retained.
618: In addition, the goodness of fit assuming uniformly-distributed axis ratios
619: is still poor for other cases ($\chi^2_{red} \sim 50$; see \S 4.1).
620:
621: To further constrain the Gaussian parameters, we tested the volume-limited
622: sample using three different classification schemes.
623: If the dispersion of the preferred axis ratio is too large,
624: no fitting distribution can maintain its full information of the
625: assumed distribution.
626: For example, a Gaussian distribution of oblate galaxies parameterized
627: with $\mu$ and $\sigma$ (in the $\gamma$ direction)
628: would inevitably have galaxies lying outside the
629: oblate territory by the classification scheme (Figure 1): mostly into
630: triaxial. This is particularly so
631: when $\sigma$ is large and for triaxial ellipticals due to the type definition.
632: Nevertheless, our exercise showed that the preferred axis ratios and
633: type weights are robustly derived by assuming Gaussian distribution.
634:
635: In Table 2, we present the preferred axis ratios ($\mu$) corresponding to
636: the most probable case showing reliable convergence and the Gaussian width
637: ($\sigma$) for three different classification schemes.
638: The results on $\mu$ and $\sigma$ appear to be reasonably consistent
639: between M1 and M2, but M3 shows a larger difference.
640: The slight difference in the OPT fractions derived is easy to understand.
641: For example, the fractions of oblate and prolate in the M3 case are
642: greater than those in M1; this is natural because there are more
643: possible oblate or prolate configurations in M3 than in M1.
644: In Fig. \ref{fig10}, we show a mock intrinsic ARD for a sample of
645: 4000 galaxies simulated with the values in Table 2.
646: We first populate the $4000 \times W_{\rm type}$ galaxies for each type using
647: Gaussian distribution. Note that oblate and prolate populations have
648: Gaussian distribution along only one (shortest) axis;
649: oblates (prolates) have Gaussianity on $\gamma$ ($\beta$).
650: Fig. \ref{fig10} demonstrates how the intrinsic shapes of galaxies derived
651: change with classification scheme.
652: Once again, M1 and M2 are similar, but not M3.
653: This demonstrates the currently unsatisfying situation that
654: the results of our OPT analysis can be sensitive to the choice of the
655: OPT classification scheme.
656: In this sense, it is critical to use a classification scheme that
657: is more physically motivated from kinematic requirements.
658: If numeric divisions on axis ratios are still the easiest scheme,
659: the OPT classification could be determined from models.
660: For example, an ensemble of stellar orbits dominated (by a certain value)
661: by oblate stellar orbits may have a characteristic range in $c/b/a$ axis
662: ratios which can then serve as the unique criterion for ``oblate''.
663:
664:
665: \begin{table}
666: \begin{center}
667: \caption{ Three different classification schemes to test the robustness of our OPT analysis}
668: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c}\hline \hline
669: Model & Oblate & Prolate & Triaxial \\
670: \hline
671: M1 & 0 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.15 & 0.85 $\leq$ T $\leq$ 1.0 & 0.15 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.85 \\
672: M2 & 0 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.25 & 0.75 $\leq$ T $\leq$ 1.0 & 0.25 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.75 \\
673: M3 & 0 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.35 & 0.65 $\leq$ T $\leq$ 1.0 & 0.35 $\leq$ T $<$ 0.65 \\
674: \hline
675: \end{tabular}
676: \end{center}
677: \end{table}
678:
679: \begin{table}
680: \begin{center}
681: \caption{The preferred axis ratios and fractions of OPT types derived}
682: \begin{tabular}{ c c c c c c c c c c}\hline \hline
683: Model & $\mu_o$ & $\sigma_o$ & $\mu_p$ & $\sigma_p$ & $\mu_{t,\beta}$ & $\sigma_{t,\beta}$ & $\mu_{t,\gamma}$ & $\sigma_{t,\gamma}$\\
684: \hline
685: M1 & 0.44 & 0.1 & 0.70 & 0.1 & 0.92 & (0.3)\footnote{poorly constrained} & 0.74&0.2 \\
686: M2 & 0.44 & 0.1 & 0.72 & 0.1 & 0.92 & (0.25)\footnote{poorly constrained}& 0.78&0.2 \\
687: M3 & 0.44 & 0.1 & 0.72 & 0.05 & 0.96 & 0.1 & 0.86&0.25\\
688: \hline
689: \end{tabular}
690:
691: \begin{tabular}{c c c c}\hline\hline
692: Model & $ W_o $ & $ W_p $ & $ W_t $\\
693: \hline
694: M1 & 0.24 $^{\pm 0.10}$ & 0.15 $^{\pm 0.09}$ & 0.61 $^{\pm 0.11}$ \\
695: M2 & 0.29 $^{\pm 0.09}$ & 0.26 $^{\pm 0.11}$ & 0.45 $^{\pm 0.13}$ \\
696: M3 & 0.32 $^{\pm 0.07}$ & 0.31 $^{\pm 0.11}$ & 0.37 $^{\pm 0.12}$ \\
697: \hline
698: \end{tabular}
699: \end{center}
700: \end{table}
701:
702:
703: \begin{figure}
704: \begin{center}
705: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f9.ps}
706: \caption{Same as Fig. \ref{fig2} but for different classification schemes.
707: The oblate and prolate types are shifted towards the triaxial peak as
708: the classification scheme becomes more generous for oblate and prolate.}
709: \label{fig9}
710: \end{center}
711: \end{figure}
712:
713: \begin{figure}
714: \begin{center}
715: \includegraphics[width=8cm]{f10.ps}
716: \caption{A mock intrinsic distribution for a sample of 4000 galaxies
717: based on the values in Table 2. This figure shows how intrinsic ARD
718: changes with classification scheme (see text).}
719: \label{fig10}
720: \end{center}
721: \end{figure}
722:
723:
724: \section{CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION}
725:
726: We have investigated on the intrinsic shape distribution of early-type
727: galaxies. We show that the de-projection results can be
728: affected by the details of the selection criteria of the observed data.
729: We use isophotal major radius, luminosity, redshift and $fracDev$ combined
730: in order to minimize sample biases.
731: We have constructed a volume-limited sample of 4,994 early-type galaxies.
732: In addition, since even the high $fracDev$ criterion ($>0.95$) does not
733: completely remove the contamination of non-early-type galaxies,
734: we performed visual inspection on the galaxies and finally selected 3,922.
735:
736: We use the projection probabilities analytically calculated to
737: determine the ratios of oblate, prolate and triaxial (OPT) types.
738: We found no combination of randomly-distributed OPT types
739: matches the observed ARD!
740:
741: We have tested a hypothesis of Gaussian distribution in axis ratios.
742: The results show excellent fits to the observed ARD from our volume-limited
743: sample.
744: In particular, our results show that triaxial is the most common type
745: ($W_t=45\%\pm12$), and they are round in general
746: ($\mu_{t,\beta}=0.92,~ \mu_{t,\gamma}=0.78$).
747: On the other hand, oblate prefers a more flattened axis ratio
748: ($\mu_o=0.44$) and accounts for approximately 29\% of all early-types.
749: The prolate show a peak at $\mu_p=0.72$ with a comparable fraction to
750: that of oblate (26\%).
751:
752: Recent numerical N-body simulations suggest that the shapes of
753: dark matter halos favor triaxial or prolate over oblate
754: (Dubinski \& Carlberg 1991, Barnes 1992, Jing \& Suto 2002,
755: Bailin \& Steinmetz 2005, Novak et al. 2006).
756: This is consistent with our result at least in the sense
757: that triaxial is favored, while a small discrepancy is found in the
758: values of the preferred intrinsic axis ratios.
759: Dubinski \& Carlberg (1991) proposed that
760: dark matter halos are triaxial with $<\beta> = 0.71$
761: and $<\gamma> = 0.50$, respectively, which is somewhat more flattened
762: than we derived.
763: In order to reproduce the observed ARD using these preferences for triaxial
764: type, specifically-designed distributions for oblate and prolate types
765: would be needed. This is obviously contrived.
766: Interestingly, our results are more comparable with the simulation results of
767: Bailin \& Steinmetz (2005) that suggested
768: $\gamma=0.6\pm0.1$ and $\beta=0.75\pm0.15$ for dark matter haloes.
769: It should however be noted that the mass distribution of halos with
770: cooled baryon can be different from those of pure dark matter halos
771: (Gnedin et al. 2004). Novak et al. (2006) also pointed out the
772: disparity in the halo shape between the stellar and dark matter components.
773: If this is true, the apparent agreement between the axis ratios derived
774: in our study and those from the dark matter simulations may not be
775: significant. Further investigations are called for.
776:
777: In the context of merging, merger remnants are mainly affected not only by
778: initial orientation but also by the mass ratio of the
779: merging galaxies (Naab \& Burkert 2003; Khochfar \& Burkert 2006).
780: Bright early-type galaxies are often supposed to be formed via numerous
781: merging events in the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.
782: Hence, we should investigate all possible parameter space in order to make
783: a realistic comparison with observation.
784: In addition, because elliptical-elliptical mergers, as well as spiral-spiral
785: mergers, can lead to form an elliptical galaxy, the parameter space is large.
786: Furthermore, there appear to be two distinct classes of early-type
787: galaxies separated by their luminosity (Bender 1988, Kormendy \& Bender 1996).
788: These studies indicate that luminous galaxies are typically supported by
789: anisotropic velocity and have boxy isophotes while faint early-types
790: show disky isophotes. On this basis, we search for a clue on their
791: formation history using the OPT parameters we derived.
792: Our results indicate that the
793: ``luminous'' sample ($M_r < -21.2$) are mostly triaxial ($W_t=67\%\pm13$)
794: while the ``less luminous'' sample have a large number of oblate types
795: ($38\%\pm8$). Interestingly, no clear difference in the
796: preferred axis ratios of OPT types between the two samples.
797:
798: Khochfar \& Burkert (2003; 2005) suggest that the origin of the two classes
799: could come from the different types of progenitor being merged (c.f., Valluri
800: \& Merritt, 1998). Their semi-analytic models suggest that
801: bright early types tend to form from elliptical-elliptical mergers.
802: Naab et al. (2006) also pointed out that spiral-spiral mergers cannot
803: reproduce the observed fraction of anisotropic early-types, and that
804: boxy, anisotropic system can form by binary mergers of early-type galaxies.
805: If early-type mergers are the main channels to form bright anisotropic
806: galaxies, and if our triaxial galaxies correspond to anisotropic
807: early-types while oblate types are rotationally-supported systems,
808: our results show reasonable agreement with Naab et al. (2006) in terms of
809: the ratio of anisotropic to the total number of early-type galaxies.
810: The fraction of the anisotropic galaxies in the ``luminous'' and the
811: ``less luminous'' samples are around 0.8 and 0.4, respectively (Naab et al.
812: 2006), which are arguably similar to our results $W_t=0.67\pm0.13$ and
813: $W_t=0.43\pm0.11$.
814:
815: Since different merging events are proposed to
816: result in different configurations for
817: early-type galaxies, it is also of interest to investigate
818: whether there is connection between environment and galaxy shape.
819: We do not find a clear dependence on the local galaxy density.
820: Considering that the galaxy number density parameter generally represents
821: the dark matter halo potential for the galaxy cluster,
822: this may imply that such a cluster-scale environment might have little
823: effect to the intrinsic shapes of individual galaxies.
824: This is consistent with the results from the semi-analytic study of
825: Khochfar \& Silk (2006).
826:
827: Our analysis has caveats. The quantitative aspects of our simulation
828: results depend on the OPT classification scheme. Besides,
829: when the fraction of a type (oblate, prolate, or triaxial) is small,
830: our method fails to constrain the preferred values of mean axis ratios and
831: Gaussian widths. With the improvement on these caveats and detailed study
832: of N-body simulations, we hope our work can provide a simple framework
833: to investigate the formation history of early-type galaxies.
834:
835: \acknowledgements
836:
837: We are very grateful to Seok-Joo Joo who kindly provided advice on the
838: galaxy morphology, and Chang H. Ree for many useful comments on the
839: data selection.
840: This work could not have been the same without their help.
841: We thank Sadegh Khochfar, Tim de Zeeuw and James Binney for constructive comments
842: in the early stage. We are greatly indebted to the anonymous referee for
843: numerous constructive criticisms and clarification.
844: This work was supported by grant No. R01-2006-000-10716-0 from the Basic
845: Research Program of the Korea Science \& Engineering Foundation.
846:
847:
848: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
849: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Adelman-McCarthy, J. K. et al. 2006, ApJS, 162, 38
850: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Barnes, J. 1992, ApJ, 393, 484
851: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Bailin, J., \& Steinmetz, M. 2005, ApJ, 627, 647
852: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Benacchio, L., \& Galleta, G. 1980, MNRAS, 193, 885
853: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Bender, R. 1988, A\&A, 193, L7
854: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Bertola, F., \& Capaccioli, M. 1975, ApJ, 200, 439
855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Binggeli, B. 1980, A\&A, 82, 289
856: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Binney, J. 1978, MNRAS, 183, 501
857: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Binney, J., \& de Vaucouleur, G. 1981, MNRAS, 194, 679
858: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Binney, J., \& Merrifield, D. 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton University Press: Princeton), 194
859: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Davies, R. L., Efstathiou, G., Fall, S. M., Illingworth, G., \& Schecter, P. L. 1983, ApJ, 266, 41
860: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Dressler, A. 1980, ApJ, 236, 351
861: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Dubinski, J, \& Carlberg, R. G. 1991, ApJ, 378, 496
862: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} de Vaucouleurs, G. 1948, Ann. d'Astrophys., 11, 247
863: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} de Vaucouleurs, G., \& de Vaucouluers, A. 1964, {\it Reference Catalog of Bright Galaxies}, (University of Texas Press: Austin)
864: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} de Vaucouleurs, G., de Vaucouluers, A., \& Corwin, H. G. 1976, {\it Second Reference Catalog of Bright Galaxies}, University of Texas Press, Austin
865: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Faber, S. M. et al. 1997, AJ, 114, 1771
866: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Fasano, G., \& Vio, R. 1991, MNRAS, 249, 629
867: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Franx, M., Illingworth, G. D., \& de Zeeuw, P. T. 1991, ApJ, 383, 112
868: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Gnedin, O. Y., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A. A., \& Nagai, D. 2004, ApJ, 616, 16
869: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Hubble, E. 1926, ApJ, 64, 321
870: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Illingworth, G. 1977, ApJ, 218, L43
871: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Izenman, A. J. 1991, {\it J. Am. Stat. Assoc}, 86, 205
872: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Jing, Y. P., \& Suto, Y. 2002, ApJ, 574, 538
873: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Jorgensen, I., Franx, M., \& Kjaergaard, P. 1995, MNRAS, 276, 1341
874: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Kormendy, J., \& Bender, R. 1996, ApJ, 464, L119
875: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A. 2003, ApJ, 597, L117
876: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A. 2005, MNRAS, 359, 1379
877: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A. 2006, A\&A, 445, 403
878: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Khochfar, S., \& Silk, J. 2006, MNRAS, 370, 902
879: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Kauffmann, G. et al, 2003, MNRAS, 341, 54
880: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Lambas, D. G., Maddox, S. J. \& Loveday, J. 1992, MNRAS, 258, 404
881: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Loveday, J. 1996, MNRAS, 278, 1025
882: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Lucy, L. B. 1974, AJ, 79, 745
883: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., Sutherland, W. J.,\& Loveday, J. 1990, MNRAS, 243, 692
884: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Merritt, D., \& Tremblay, B. 1996, AJ, 111, 2243
885: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Naab, T., \& Burkert, A. 2003, ApJ, 597, 893
886: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Naab, T., Khochfar, S., \& Burkert, A. 2006, ApJ, 636, L81
887: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Novak, G. S., Cox, T. J., Primack, J. R., Jonsson, P, \& Dekel, A. 2006, ApJ, 646, L9
888: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Noerdlinger, AP. D. 1979, ApJ, 234, 802
889: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Odewahn, S. C., Burstein, D., \& Windhorst, R. A. 1997, AJ, 114, 2219
890: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Rest, A., \& van den Bosch, F. C. 2001, AJ, 121, 2431
891: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Ryden, B. S. 1992, ApJ, 396, 445
892: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Ryden, B. S., Lauer. T.R., \& Postman, M. 1993, ApJ, 410, 515
893: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Sandage, A., Freeman, K. C., \& Stokes, N. R. 1970, ApJ, 160, 831
894: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G. A. 1979, {\it Revised Shapley-Ames Catalog of Galaxies}, (Carnegie Institution of Washington: Washington D.C.)
895: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Schawinski, K. et al. ApJ, 2006, in press
896: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Strom, K. M., \& Strom, S. E. 1978b, AJ, 83, 732
897: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Strom, K. M., \& Strom, S. E. 1978c, AJ, 83, 1239
898: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Stark, A. A. 1977, ApJ, 213, 368
899: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Valluri, M., \& Merritt, D. 1998, ApJ, 506, 686
900: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{}{}]{} Yi, S. K. et al. 2005, ApJ, 619, L111
901: \end{thebibliography}
902:
903:
904: \end{document}
905:
906:
907: