1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: %\documentclass{article}
3: \usepackage{emulateapj5,apjfonts}
4: %\usepackage{psfig}
5: \input psfig.tex
6:
7: %\voffset -1.0cm
8:
9: \newcommand{\etal}{{et~al.}}
10: \newcommand{\eg}{{\it e.g.}}
11: \newcommand{\ie}{{i.e.}}
12: \newcommand{\Msun}{M_\odot}
13: \newcommand{\mbh}{$M_\bullet$}
14: \newcommand{\Lsun}{L_\odot}
15: \newcommand{\kms}{$\rm {km}~\rm s^{-1}$}
16: \newcommand{\mtl}{{\it M/L}}
17: \newcommand{\vdm}{van~der~Marel}
18: %\newcommand{\degr}{$^\circ$}
19: \newcommand{\ts}{\thinspace}
20:
21: \begin{document}
22:
23: \lefthead{NGC~1399}
24: \righthead{Gebhardt~\etal}
25: %\submitted{ApJL}
26:
27: \title{The Black Hole Mass and Extreme Orbital Structure in NGC~1399}
28:
29: \author{Karl Gebhardt\altaffilmark{1},
30: Tod R. Lauer\altaffilmark{2},
31: Jason Pinkney\altaffilmark{3},
32: Ralf Bender\altaffilmark{4},
33: Douglas Richstone\altaffilmark{5},
34: Monique Aller\altaffilmark{5},
35: Gary Bower\altaffilmark{6},
36: Alan Dressler\altaffilmark{7},
37: S.M.~Faber\altaffilmark{8},
38: Alexei V. Filippenko\altaffilmark{9},
39: Richard Green\altaffilmark{2},
40: Luis C. Ho\altaffilmark{7},
41: John Kormendy\altaffilmark{1},
42: %John Magorrian\altaffilmark{10},
43: Christos Siopis\altaffilmark{5}, and
44: Scott Tremaine\altaffilmark{10}}
45:
46: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Texas, Austin,
47: Texas 78712; gebhardt@astro.as.utexas.edu, kormendy@astro.as.utexas.edu}
48:
49: \altaffiltext{2}{National Optical Astronomy Observatories, P. O. Box
50: 26732, Tucson, AZ 85726; lauer@noao.edu, green@noao.edu}
51:
52: \altaffiltext{3}{Ohio Northern University; j-pinkney@onu.edu}
53:
54: \altaffiltext{4}{Universit\"ats-Sternwarte, Scheinerstrasse 1,
55: M\"unchen 81679, Germany; bender@usm.uni-muenchen.de}
56:
57: \altaffiltext{5}{Dept. of Astronomy, Dennison Bldg., Univ. of
58: Michigan, Ann Arbor 48109; dor@astro.lsa.umich.edu,
59: jpinkney@astro.lsa.umich.edu}
60:
61: \altaffiltext{6}{Computer Sciences Corporation, Space Telescope
62: Science Institute, 3700 San Martin Drive, Baltimore, MD 21218;
63: bower@stsci.edu}
64:
65: \altaffiltext{7}{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of
66: Washington, 813 Santa Barbara St., Pasadena, CA 91101;
67: dressler@ociw.edu, lho@ociw.edu}
68:
69: \altaffiltext{8}{UCO/Lick Observatories, University of California,
70: Santa Cruz, CA 95064; faber@ucolick.org}
71:
72: \altaffiltext{9}{Department of Astronomy, University of California,
73: Berkeley, CA 94720-3411; alex@astro.berkeley.edu}
74:
75: %\altaffiltext{10}{University of Oxford, 1 Keble Road, OX1 3RH;
76: %magog@thphys.ox.ac.uk}
77:
78: \altaffiltext{10}{Princeton University Observatory, Peyton Hall,
79: Princeton, NJ 08544; tremaine@astro.princeton.edu}
80:
81: \begin{abstract}
82:
83: The largest galaxies, and in particular central galaxies in clusters,
84: offer unique insight into understanding the mechanism for the growth
85: of nuclear black holes. We present {\it Hubble Space Telescope} kinematics
86: for NGC~1399, the central galaxy in Fornax. We find the best-fit model
87: contains a black hole of $(5.1 \pm 0.7)\times 10^8~\Msun$ (at a distance
88: of 21.1 Mpc), a factor of over 2 below the correlation of black hole mass
89: and velocity dispersion. We also find a dramatic signature for central
90: tangential anisotropy. The velocity profiles on adjacent sides
91: 0.5\arcsec\ away from the nucleus show strong bimodality, and the
92: central spectrum shows a large drop in the dispersion. Both of these
93: observations point to an orbital distribution that is tangentially
94: biased. The best-fit orbital model suggests a ratio of the tangential
95: to radial internal velocity dispersions of three. This ratio is the
96: largest seen in any galaxy to date and will provide an important
97: measure for the mode by which the central black hole has grown.
98:
99: \end{abstract}
100:
101: \keywords{galaxies: nuclei --- galaxies: statistics --- galaxies: general}
102:
103: \section{Introduction}
104:
105: It is clear that the mass of the central black hole is related to its
106: host galaxy in a fundamental way. Dressler (1989), Kormendy (1993),
107: Kormendy \& Richstone (1995), and Magorrian (1998) were the first to
108: highlight a correlation between the black hole mass and the bulge
109: light. Subsequently, many other correlations have been found, with the
110: tightest being that between black hole mass and velocity dispersion
111: (Gebhardt et al. 2000, Ferrarese \& Merritt 2000). Numerous
112: theoretical models have been proposed to explain these correlations,
113: and the most compelling to date are those that work through active
114: galactic nucleus (AGN) feedback mechanisms (Silk \& Rees 1998; Fabian
115: 1999; Springel et al. 2005; Robertson et al. 2006). To push further
116: requires more secure observations. The problem is that the
117: uncertainties in the black hole mass estimates are still large (around
118: 30-50\%) and, more importantly, the extremes of the correlations are
119: not well explored. We have been targetting the largest galaxies in
120: order to study their central black hole mass. There is only a handful
121: of objects studied with velocity dispersions above 300~\kms.
122:
123: In this paper we study the giant elliptical NGC~1399, the dominant
124: galaxy in the Fornax cluster. In addition to providing information on
125: the upper end of black hole correlations, central galaxies in clusters
126: offer unique insight. These galaxies are subject to significant
127: accretion and mergers, and it is important to understand whether the
128: black hole grows as the galaxy grows. Houghton et al. (2006) study
129: NGC~1399 using adaptive optics observations on the VLT; they find a
130: black hole mass of $(1.2 \pm 0.6) \times 10^9~\Msun$ (for a distance
131: of 19.9 Mpc). We find a black hole mass of $(5.1 \pm 0.7) \times
132: 10^8~\Msun$ (for a distance of 21.1 Mpc as used in Lauer et
133: al. 2005). While over a factor of two different, we are consistent
134: within $1\sigma$ (the Houghton et al. result is only a $2\sigma$
135: significance for a black hole detection). Furthermore, we find
136: similar results in terms of the central orbital structure. We use a
137: distance of 21.1 Mpc to NGC~1399 from Tonry et al. (2001), but scaled
138: to H$_0$=70 as in Lauer et al. 2005.
139:
140: \section{Data}
141:
142: \subsection{HST Observations}
143:
144: The surface brightness profile comes from WFPC2 observations for {\it
145: Hubble Space Telescope (HST)} programs GO-5990 and GO-8214 (PI:
146: Grillmair). NGC~1399 was observed for 4000~s in F606W and for 5200~s
147: in F450W, with the galaxy centered on the PC. The surface brightness,
148: ellipticity, and color gradient profiles are shown in Fig 1. Due to
149: NGC~1399 being nearly round, the position angle is very uncertain and
150: we do not include discussion of it. The reductions are discussed by
151: Lauer et al. (2005). From its surface brightness profile, NGC~1399 is
152: classified as a core galaxy with a break radius 3.2\arcsec\ and
153: $\gamma=0.12$ (approximately the central projected density slope),
154: from a Nuker Law fit (Lauer et al. 2005). For the surface brightness
155: beyond the {\it HST} image, we use ground-based imaging from Saglia et
156: al. (2000). We match the ground-based $R$-band data to the {\it HST}
157: surface brightness in the overlap region.
158:
159: Figure 1 shows a variation in the ellipticity inside of 0.3\arcsec.
160: However, since the surface brightness is not steep in the central
161: regions and the isophotes are nearly round, there are large
162: uncertainties in the ellipticities. Thus, the variation could be due
163: to noise and a constant ellipticity model provides nearly identical
164: residuals. In the models that follow, we use a constant ellipticity
165: of 0.1, but the results do not change much when using an ellipticity
166: of zero. This is also consistent with the surface brightness at larger
167: radii. The position angle is $110^\circ$ (measured N to E), and we
168: assume it to be constant. With both a constant PA and ellipticity, we
169: deproject NGC~1399 as in Gebhardt et al. (1996). This deprojection is
170: used in the dynamical models. From the bottom panel in Fig. 1, there
171: is essentially no color gradient in NGC~1399. Thus, we use a constant
172: mass-to-light ratio for the stellar potential. In addition, the color
173: map is also constant as a function of position angle.
174:
175: We have checked whether the isophotal centers change as a function of
176: radius. This check is important for the discussion in Section 4. We
177: find that the center from isophotes at 10\arcsec\ compared to that
178: derived from the isophotes in the central regions is consistent to
179: within 0.2 pixels, or better than 0.01\arcsec. Thus, there appears to
180: be no deviation in the galaxy center. In addition, we find no evidence
181: in the residual map (Lauer et al. 2005) for any second
182: component. Houghton et al. (2006) see an elongation in the central
183: 0.5\arcsec, suggesting a possible eccentric disk. We find no such
184: structure in our images; furthermore, the {\it HST} images have been
185: subsampled and deconvolved, giving a FWHM around 0.05\arcsec, better
186: than the 0.078\arcsec\ as reported for the adaptive optics K-band
187: image of Houghton et al. (2006). Still, it is difficult to reconcile
188: the differences; we attribute them to either different structure in
189: $K$ band versus the $R$ band (however, this is unlikely) or an
190: adaptive optics artifact. Higher signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) and
191: repeat adaptive optics observations will likely help determine the
192: cause.
193:
194: The central surface brightness of NGC~1399 is $V = 16.0$ mag
195: arcsec$^{-2}$, making it one of the faintest targets we have observed
196: with {\it HST}/STIS (Pinkney et al. 2003). For our previous
197: observations, however, we have used a high-resolution grating centered
198: on the Ca~II triplet region at 8500~\AA. This region is the best to
199: use since it is not greatly influenced by stellar template mismatch
200: and continuum estimation, as are the bluer regions (Barth et
201: al. 2002). However, the exposure times become prohibitive for targets
202: fainter than $V = 16.0$ mag, since it typically requires exposure
203: times of longer than 17 hours to obtain adequate signal. Complicating
204: the kinematic estimate is that these large galaxies tend to have large
205: black hole masses, and therefore large central dispersions. The
206: dispersion of the central STIS pixel for NGC~4649 is over 600~\kms;
207: given the relatively small equivalent widths of the Ca~II triplet
208: lines, the large dispersion makes the lines almost disappear into the
209: continuum. Our strategy for NGC~1399 is to use a lower resolution
210: grating over the Ca~II H\&K region, where the lines remain clear even
211: when the dispersion is that high (Dressler 1984).
212:
213: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
214: \vskip 10pt \psfig{file=f1.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
215: \figcaption[gebhardt.fig1.ps]
216: %\clearpage
217: %\begin{figure}
218: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm, angle=0]{f1.ps}
219: %\caption[f1.ps]
220: {{\it HST} photometry of NGC~1399. The
221: top panel is the F606W (close to $R$ band) surface brightness profile.
222: We only show the radial region included in {\it HST} images. The
223: middle panel is the ellipticity profile. The bottom panel is the
224: difference in surface brightness between F450W (close to the $B$ band)
225: and F606W. The spatial resolution is about 0.05\arcsec, so the two
226: central points are within the resolution element; given the shallow
227: gradient of NGC~1399, we expect the central two points to not be
228: biased. There are large ellipticity changes inside of 1\arcsec, which is
229: a result of the shallow gradient of the surface brightness and relatively
230: low ellipticity.
231: \label{fig1}}
232: \vskip 10pt
233: %\end{figure}
234: %\clearpage
235:
236: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
237:
238: We obtained 6.67 hours of observations on STIS (Woodgate et al. 1998)
239: using the G430L grating with $52\times0.2$\arcsec\ slit align at
240: $117^\circ$ (along the major axis, see Figure 3 of Lauer et
241: al. 2005). The wavelength range is 2880--5690~\AA, with 2.746~\AA\ per
242: pixel. We binned on chip by two, providing 0.1\arcsec\ per pixel in
243: the spatial direction. This setup gave us S/N $\approx 20$ per pixel
244: in the central regions, and the same S/N at a radius of 1.6\arcsec\ by
245: binning over 10 pixels (1.0\arcsec).
246:
247: With the low spectral resolution and the wide slit, we have to pay
248: special attention to the change in the instrumental resolution when
249: observing a point source compared to observing a diffuse source. We
250: observed three different template stars with this setup:
251: HD141680 (a G8III star), HD165760 (G8III), and HD188056 (K3III). We
252: stepped each star perpendicularly across the slit to monitor
253: the change in velocity centroid. The goal was to create a template
254: star that represents the actual surface brightness of the galaxy
255: across the slit. Figure 2 shows the shift in the velocity centroid as
256: a function of position in the 0.2\arcsec\ and the 0.1\arcsec\ slit.
257: The peak to peak variation is about 700~\kms\ for the 0.2\arcsec\
258: slit, which is expected given the 2.746~\AA\ per 0.05\arcsec\ pixel.
259: Figure 3 plots the relative intensity variation across the slit. This
260: intensity variation must be taken into account as well when creating a
261: proper template; at the edges of either slit, there is almost a 50\%
262: drop in intensity compared to the center.
263:
264: As a first step, we need to know the actual spectral resolution for
265: our setup and galaxy. Fortunately, for two of the stars, HD141680 and
266: HD165760, high-resolution ground-based spectra exist over
267: our spectral range (Leitherer et al. 1996). Therefore, we can
268: compare the high-resolution spectra with
269: our spectra to obtain the instrumental
270: resolution. Since our wavelength region of interest is
271: 3900--4500~\AA, we concentrate on this region only. We do this in three
272: different ways to demonstrate the extremes of the results. First,
273: before summing the stepped template, we remove the velocity shift
274: across the slit which corresponds to a point source. In this case we
275: find that the instrumental $\sigma_i= 207$~\kms, which is roughly what we
276: would expect given this setup. Second, we sum the light for the
277: templates without removing the velocity shift. This case corresponds
278: to a flat source across the slit, and here we find an instrumental
279: $\sigma_i = 272$~\kms. In the third case, we include the surface
280: brightness profile for NGC~1399. There, the light at the edges drops
281: by 20\%, and we find an instrumental $\sigma_i = 275$~\kms, consistent within
282: the uncertainties with the flat profile. We can also use the lamp
283: lines to get an estimate of the instrumental dispersion. For lines in
284: this wavelength region, we measure an instrumental $\sigma_i =
285: 298$~\kms. However, in the regions of interest, finding isolated lines
286: is difficult, and $\sigma$ is somewhat overestimated; also, the
287: lamp lines are a completely flat source unlike NGC~1399. Thus, we use
288: 275~\kms\ as our instrumental $\sigma_i$ (implying a FHWM of 646~\kms).
289: Given the instrumental resolution of 275~\kms\ for this setup, it is
290: difficult to obtain an accurate estimate of the galaxy dispersion if
291: it is below this.
292:
293: The spectra cover the range 2880--5690~\AA; however, for the kinematics we
294: use only the region 3850--4400~\AA, covering the Ca~II H\&K lines and
295: the G-band at 4300~\AA. Below 3850~\AA, the lines are weak and the
296: continuum drops, making the S/N too low to be
297: useful. The Mg region around 5100~\AA\ still has good signal, but
298: there are issues with template mismatch that are difficult to
299: overcome. Since NGC~1399 has one of the largest dispersions, it will
300: also have one of the largest equivalent widths for Mg, making it
301: difficult to find templates that accurately reflect the galaxy. This
302: is a longstanding problem, and the traditional method for handling
303: this is to either fit the kinematics in Fourier space (which removes
304: the equivalent width difference), or dilute the galaxy equivalent
305: width by adding a constant to the continuum. Unfortunately, both of
306: these seek to simply match the equivalent width, and any shape
307: difference between the galaxy and the template may manifest itself by
308: biasing the kinematics. We therefore choose to exclude the Mg region
309: during the fits. Barth et al. (2002) find a similar result when
310: comparing kinematic result from different spectral regions.
311:
312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
313:
314: \psfig{file=f2.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
315: \figcaption[gebhardt.fig2.ps]
316: %\clearpage
317: %\begin{figure}
318: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f2.ps}
319: %\caption[f2.ps]
320: {The velocity offset as a function of
321: position across the 0.2\arcsec\ slit (top set of points) and across
322: the 0.1\arcsec\ slit (bottom set of points). The overall velocity
323: offset is arbitrary and has been set so that the two sets of points do
324: not overlap. Each color corresponds to a different star, and each star
325: was stepped two times across the slit. The slight velocity
326: differences at a given spatial position are a function of both the
327: accuracy in centroiding the velocity and the accuracy in pointing the
328: telescope. The total velocity shift from end to end is as expected,
329: given the 2.746~\AA\ per pixel and 0.05\arcsec\ pixels.
330: \label{fig2}}
331: %\end{figure}
332:
333: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
334:
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336:
337: \psfig{file=f3.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
338: \figcaption[gebhardt.fig3.ps]
339: %\begin{figure}
340: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f3.ps}
341: %\caption[f3.ps]
342: {The relative intensity as a function of
343: position across the 0.2\arcsec\ slit (top set of points) and across
344: the 0.1\arcsec\ slit (bottom set of points). Each color corresponds
345: to the same star as in Figure 1.
346: \label{fig3}}
347: \vskip 10pt
348: %\end{figure}
349: %\clearpage
350:
351: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
352:
353: Figure 4 plots the spectra of the central pixel and at a radius of
354: 0.8\arcsec\ for NGC~1399. The two obvious features are the Ca~II H\&K lines
355: at 3900~\AA\ and the G-band at 4300~\AA. The template that we use is a
356: result of the procedure described above. For each of the three
357: template stars, we sum the light as it was stepped across the slit
358: with a weight that corresponds to the light profile for NGC~1399. The
359: fit to the galaxy spectrum then involves a convolution with a velocity
360: profile and a linear combination of the three templates. We use the
361: fit as described by Gebhardt et al. (2000) and Pinkney et al. (2003),
362: where we estimate a non-parametric line-of-sight velocity profile. The
363: red lines in Figure 4 represents the best-fit velocity profiles
364: convolved with the template.
365:
366: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
367: \vskip 10pt
368: \psfig{file=f4.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
369: \figcaption
370: %\clearpage
371: %\begin{figure}
372: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f4.ps}
373: %\caption
374: [f4.ps]{The central and radius=0.8\arcsec\
375: spectra for NGC~1399 (the two upper black lines) and the template
376: convolved with the best-fit velocity profiles (the two red lines).
377: The bottom spectrum is the template.
378: \label{fig4}}
379: \vskip 10pt
380: %\end{figure}
381: %\clearpage
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383:
384: We then extract spectra at different spatial positions. The radii of
385: the extractions (in arcseconds) are 0.0, 0.10, 0.20, 0.30, 0.46,
386: 0.81, and 1.62. Figure 5 plots the first and second moments as a function
387: of position along the slit. We have extracted the kinematics using
388: both the maximum penalized likelihood and using a Fourier
389: cross-correlation quotient technique (FCQ; Bender 1990). Both sets of
390: points are shown in Figure 5 and the results are similar. There are a
391: few positions where the differences are larger than statistical. For
392: example, at $+0.8$\arcsec, we find significant differences in the
393: dispersion measured between both techniques. This difference is
394: understandable given the double-peaked nature of the line-of-sight
395: velocity distribution (LOSVD) that we discuss in Section 3. When the
396: LOSVD is not unimodal, the way in which the velocity centroid is
397: measured can be very sensitive to fitting procedure. For those
398: positions where the velocity profile is unimodal, the two techniques
399: agree well. In Fig.~ 5, we also include a symmetrized set of points
400: (the red line). Since the galaxy models that we use are axisymmetric,
401: in order to provide the highest S/N we symmetrize the fit
402: to the velocity profile. Details of this symmetrization are given in
403: Pinkney et al. (2003). We use the symmetrized values in the dynamical
404: models.
405:
406: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
407: \vskip 10pt
408: \psfig{file=f5.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
409: \figcaption
410: %\clearpage
411: %\begin{figure}
412: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f5.ps}
413: %\caption
414: [f5.ps]{The first two moments of the velocity
415: profile as a function of position along the slit for NGC~1399. The
416: points with uncertainties are unsymmetrized. The filled black circles
417: come from the non-parametric estimate of the velocity profile, and the
418: open blue circles come from FCQ (Bender 1990). The red line is a
419: symmetrized version of the kinematic measurements which are
420: used in the dynamical modeling.
421: \label{fig5}}
422: \vskip 10pt
423: %\end{figure}
424: %\clearpage
425: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
426:
427: One sees a dramatic increase in the dispersion to about 500~\kms\ at
428: 0.5\arcsec\ on both sides of the galaxy. The dispersion then drops
429: toward the center to about 270~\kms, which is around the instrumental
430: sigma. However, by just using the dispersion alone, one does not get
431: the complete picture. At 0.5\arcsec, the velocity profile shows a
432: dramatic double peak. Figure 6 shows the velocity profiles as
433: determined by a symmetrized fit to opposite sides of the galaxy at the
434: labelled radii. As one moves to larger or smaller radii, the
435: double-hump feature at $r=0.5$\arcsec\ slowly goes away until one gets a
436: nearly Gaussian profile. Furthermore, the double hump appears on both
437: sides of the center at $r=0.5$\arcsec. Thus, the feature appears to be
438: robust.
439:
440: This feature and the drop in the dispersion toward the center suggest
441: an orbital distribution strongly dominated by tangential orbits. If
442: the orbital distribution consisted of stars only on circular orbits
443: (but with random orientations), then as one gets closer to the center,
444: the measured projected dispersion would drop to zero since all orbits
445: would have no radial component. Obviously, a disk is one mechanism
446: that would cause a drop in the central dispersion; but if the disk is
447: seen edge-on, there would be an obvious signature in the rotation
448: which is not seen. If the disk is face-on, it would be nearly
449: impossible for that configuration to cause the double-humped nature
450: seen in the LOSVDs. We are left to conclude that a stellar disk cannot
451: be the cause for the central dispersion drop. However, one can also
452: obtain a drop in the dispersion depending on the shape of the mass
453: density profile. But given the double-humped nature of the velocity
454: profile further out, it is likely that NGC~1399 is dominated by
455: tangential orbits near the center. In fact, the dynamical models
456: discussed below show the need for tangential orbits. Gebhardt et
457: al. (2003) discuss the signature of tangential orbits seen in other
458: galaxies. Thus, it appears that the largest galaxies, and hence those
459: with the flattest central density profiles, show the strongest amount
460: of tangential bias in the orbital distribution, with NGC~1399 being an
461: extreme example of this phenomenon.
462:
463: Detailed inspections of the {\it HST} image and residual image (Lauer
464: et al. 2005) show nothing at $r=0.5$\arcsec. As stated previously,
465: Houghton et al. (2006) find a flattened component in their adaptive
466: optics $K$-band image, with a similar radial extent. Clearly,
467: additional high-quality images would be worthwhile.
468:
469: \subsection{Ground-Based Spectra}
470:
471: There are ground-based spectra from two sources. Saglia et al. (2000)
472: published detailed models of NGC~1399 based on long-slit data and
473: include Gauss-Hermite polynomial expansion up to h4. Graham et
474: al. (1998) also provide long-slit data with measures of the first two
475: moments only. The comparison between the two datasets is excellent and
476: there is little difference in which one is used for the dynamical
477: models. However, Saglia et al. report additional information on the
478: shape of the velocity profile (4 moments compared to the 2 moments of
479: Graham et al.). Since part of our goal is to constrain the stellar
480: orbital structure, it is better to use as much velocity profile shape
481: information as possible. Thus, for the following analysis, we use only
482: the Saglia et al. dataset.
483:
484: \section{Dynamical Models}
485:
486: The dynamical models that we use are based on orbit superpositions.
487: These are described in detail by Gebhardt et al. (2003), Thomas et
488: al. (2004), and Thomas et al. (2005). We will therefore not discuss
489: these models here, other than to provide our model parameters for
490: NGC~1399. Complete discussions of similar models are also given by
491: Cretton et al. (1999), Verolme et al. (2002), Valluri et al. (2004),
492: and Cappellari et al. (2006).
493:
494: The models that we use for NGC~1399 have 20 radial and 5 angular
495: bins. Our orbit sampling has 20 energy bins, 40 angular momentum bins
496: (in the $z$ direction), and at least 15 bins for the third integral (see
497: Thomas et al. 2005 for a full description of the orbit sampling). We
498: only need to run models with one sign of angular momentum and then
499: double the number of orbits by flipping the individual velocity
500: profiles about zero velocity. The total number of orbits we have for
501: each orbit library is around 10000. This orbit library is two times
502: higher than we generally use. However, we see no difference in the
503: results when using the smaller library.
504:
505: The free parameters in the models are black hole mass, mass-to-light
506: ratio profile, and inclination. We use an edge-on projection for the
507: models shown below. Previous analysis (Gebhardt et al. 2003) shows that
508: different projections have little effect on the black hole
509: mass. Furthermore, since NGC~1399 is nearly round, one could even
510: consider spherical models (as in Houghton et al. 2006), which would
511: minimize projection effects. Figure 7 plots the $\chi^2$ versus black
512: hole mass, marginalized over the mass-to-light ratio. There is a
513: well-defined minimum and we exclude the zero black hole mass with a
514: $\Delta\chi^2=20$ (or $>99$\%). Since we marginalize over
515: mass-to-light ratio, our $1\sigma$ (68\%) confidence limit corresponds to
516: $\Delta\chi^2=1.0$. Thus, we find a best-fit black hole mass of
517: $(5.1 \pm 0.7) \times 10^8$~$\Msun$ (marginalized over $M/L$)
518: and the best-fit $M/L_R$ of
519: $5.2\pm0.4$ (marginalized over black hole mass). In Figure 8 we plot
520: the two-dimensional $\chi^2$ contours for black hole mass and
521: mass-to-light ratio.
522:
523: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
524: \vskip 10pt
525: \psfig{file=f6.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
526: \figcaption
527: %\clearpage
528: %\begin{figure}
529: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f6.ps}
530: %\caption
531: [f6.ps]{Line-of-sight velocity distributions
532: from STIS. These LOSVDs are the fit to both sides of the galaxy at the
533: specified radii; however, the LOSVD is flipped about the systemic
534: velocity, for the opposite side (i.e., this uses the axisymmetric
535: assumption). From 0.3\arcsec\ to 0.5\arcsec, the velocity profile becomes
536: double-peaked, which is the reason for the increase in the
537: measured second moment at this location in Fig. 5.
538: \label{fig6}}
539: \vskip 10pt
540: %\end{figure}
541: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
542:
543: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
544: \vskip 10pt
545: \psfig{file=f7.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=-90}
546: \figcaption
547: %\begin{figure}
548: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=-90]{f7.ps}
549: %\caption
550: [f7.ps]{$\chi^2$ versus black hole mass
551: marginalized over $M/L$ (left), and versus M/L marginalized over black
552: hole mass (right). The total number of parameters used in the fit is
553: 131, but due to correlation between LOSVD bins, the effective number
554: is smaller.
555: \label{fig7}}
556: \vskip 10pt
557: %\end{figure}
558: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
559:
560: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
561: \vskip 10pt
562: \psfig{file=f8.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
563: \figcaption
564: %\begin{figure}
565: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f8.ps}
566: %\caption
567: [f8.ps]{Contours of $\chi^2$ as a function of
568: black hole mass and mass-to-light ratio. Each point represents a
569: particular model. The contours represent the 68, 90, 95, and 99\%
570: confidence for one degree-of-freedom, implying $\Delta\chi^2=1.0, 2.7,
571: 4.0,$ and 6.6. The circled point is the model that has the minimum value.
572: \label{fig8}}
573: \vskip 10pt
574: %\end{figure}
575: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
576:
577: Figure 9 plots the comparison between the first four Gauss-Hermite
578: coefficients of the data and the models. This plot can only be used
579: for a visual examination of how well the data are fitted, and a
580: statistical evaluation requires comparison with $\Delta\chi^2$, as inf
581: Figs 7 and 8. Furthermore, the models are fitted using more
582: information than shown in Fig.~9 since we fit the full LOSVDs as
583: opposed to Gauss-Hermite coefficients. This fitting is especially
584: important for NGC~1399 since the LOSVDs are significantly
585: non-Gaussian. In Figure 9 we plot three models: our best-fit model, a
586: model with no black hole, and a model with twice the best-fit mass (so
587: at $10^9~\Msun$). The $\chi^2$ difference of the two models compared to
588: the best fitted model is 10--12.
589:
590: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
591: \vskip 10pt
592: \psfig{file=f9.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
593: \figcaption
594: %\clearpage
595: %\begin{figure}
596: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f9.ps}
597: %\caption
598: [f9.ps]{Comparison of data and models for the
599: first four Gauss-Hermite coefficients. The solid points represent the
600: STIS data, and the open points are ground-based measurements. The
601: lines are from three different models, with solid line for the STIS
602: data and the dashed line for ground-based. The black lines are from
603: the best-fit model, the green line is for the no black hole case, and
604: the blue line is for a mass that is twice the best-fit mass. The
605: dynamical models are fitted to the LOSVDs directly, so the comparison
606: with the Gauss-Hermite is only to provide a visual inspection of how
607: well we fit the data.
608: \label{fig9}}
609: \vskip 10pt
610: %\end{figure}
611: %\clearpage
612: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
613:
614: Using the integrated dispersion along the major axis out to an
615: effective radius (from the Saglia et al. 2000 data) provides a
616: dispersion of 337~\kms. The black hole mass in NGC~1399 is about a
617: factor of 2.5 below that expected from the BH/$\sigma$ correlation.
618:
619: The strong tangential anisotropy seen in NGC~1399 is among the most
620: extreme seen in any galaxy to date. It is already clear in Fig. 5 that
621: tangential orbits dominate, but we also have a measure from the
622: dynamical models. Fig.~10 plots the radial to tangential dispersions
623: as a function of radius for all position angles in the galaxy. From
624: radii 0.1\arcsec--0.5\arcsec, the model becomes highly tangential,
625: with the ratio of the internal dispersions of the radial and
626: tangential components $\sigma_r/\sigma_t$ around 0.3. We can compare
627: the NGC~1399 orbital structure to those presented in Gebhardt et
628: al. (2003). There are many galaxies that have this amount of
629: tangential anisotropy in the central region, but none have such a
630: large radial extent. In fact, NGC~1399 is unique in that the central
631: bin is isotropic---which is rare in the Gebhardt et al. sample---but
632: then quickly becomes tangential outside the center.
633:
634: There is important information from the position angles where we do
635: not have data. Even though there are no kinematic constraints there,
636: these offset axes have an effect in projection on the major-axis
637: kinematics, in particular near the center. Thus, there are indirect
638: kinematic constraints. Fig.~10 shows that the orbital structure along
639: these offset axes show a structure very similar to that along the
640: major axis.
641:
642: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
643: \vskip 10pt
644: \psfig{file=f10.ps,width=8.5cm,angle=0}
645: \figcaption
646: %\clearpage
647: %\begin{figure}
648: %\includegraphics[width=8.5cm,angle=0]{f10.ps}
649: %\caption
650: [f10.ps]{Ratio of the radial to tangential second
651: moment of the velocity distribution for the best-fit BH model (top)
652: and the zero BH model (bottom). The solid line is along the major
653: axis, for which we have data. The dotted lines are along the other
654: four position angles in the model, for which we do not have data. We
655: have defined $\sigma_t = \sqrt{(\sigma_\theta^2+\sigma_\phi^2)/2}$,
656: where $\theta$ and $\phi$ are the standard spherical coordinates. Our
657: best-fit model is the top panel. The solid red line is the ratio from
658: Houghton et al. (2006) for their best-fit model with a black hole of
659: $1.2 \times 10^9~\Msun$.
660: \label{fig10}}
661: \vskip 10pt
662: %\end{figure}
663: %\clearpage
664: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
665:
666: Houghton et al. (2006) find similar results for the orbital
667: structure. Their ratio of radial to tangential dispersions is plotted
668: as the red line in Fig.~10. In both panels, we only plot the ratio for
669: their best-fit model, which has a black hole of $1.2\times10^9\Msun$.
670: While they do not find the extreme amount of tangential anisotropy
671: that we find for our best-fit model, the trend is very similar. Given
672: the better spatial information for the kinematics in our data, it is
673: not a surprise that we find a stronger change in the anisotropy.
674:
675: \section{Uncertainties from the Orbit-Based Models}
676:
677: For NGC~1399, we measure the black hole mass with 14\% accuracy.
678: Houghton et al. (2006) present dynamical models for NGC~1399 based on
679: kinematics obtained on the VLT with adaptive optics. Using
680: orbit-superposition models, they find a black hole mass of
681: $1.2(+0.5,-0.6)\times10^9~\Msun$, a 50\% accuracy. They also find
682: strong tangentially biased orbits in the central regions, which is
683: very similar to what we find (as plotted in Fig.~9). Statistically,
684: there is no concern since the two black hole masses are different by
685: only $1\sigma$. In fact, the Houghton et al. mass is consistent with
686: zero at $2\sigma$, so any black hole mass that we measure would be
687: consistent. The question, however, is why we provide an uncertainty
688: that is nearly ten times smaller than what they find. The answer is
689: most likely a combination of the data quality and differences in the
690: dynamical modeling, which we describe below.
691:
692: A similar comparison of the uncertainties can be made for other
693: galaxies with black hole mass estimates. The published uncertainties
694: range from 10\% to over 50\% (e.g., Tremaine et al. 2002), with most
695: of these based on orbit-based models from two groups (the Nuker and
696: the Leiden groups). However, Valluri et al. (2004) and Houghton et
697: al. (2006) both use orbit-based models and find substantially larger
698: uncertainties for the particular galaxies they model. Some of this is
699: due to the data that is being used but part of it is in the details of
700: the dynamical models. The most rigorous tests for recovery of the
701: black hole mass and uncertainties is in Siopis et al. (2007), where
702: they find that when using proper observational uncertainties, the
703: orbit-based models provide robust estimate of the black hole mass and
704: the uncertainties (also shown in Gebhardt 2003). As an example, one
705: can compare the black hole mass uncertainty for two of the best
706: measured stellar dynamical cases, our Galaxy and M32. Summarized in
707: Ghez et al. (2005) and Schodel et al. (2003), the black hole mass in
708: our Galaxy is known to 3--6\%, just over a factor of two better than
709: what we find in NGC~1399. Even though the Galaxy black hole is
710: significantly more spatially-resolved compared to NGC~1399, the
711: uncertainty is driven by the small number of stars with either radial
712: velocities or proper motions, whereas the signal-to-noise of the
713: central NGC~1399 is high enough that the uncertainty is driven mainly
714: by the spatial resolution. Thus, the relative accuracy of the black
715: hole masses is consistent. For M32, Verolme et al. (2002) measure the
716: black hole mass to 20\% accuracy for three degrees of freedom, and
717: about 10\% when using similar statistics as used for NGC~1399 (one
718: degree of freedom and marginalizing over the other parameters). Given
719: the relative distances, black hole masses and velocity dispersions,
720: the on-sky black hole sphere of influence in M32 is about $2\times$
721: smaller than in NGC~1399. Thus, the relative accuracies of the black
722: hole masses in this case is consistent as well.
723:
724: However, there is a significant inconsistency with the uncertainty
725: measured here and in Houghton et al. (2006) for NGC~1399. For our
726: observations, the point spread function (PSF) of STIS is well
727: represented by an Airy function with most of the power in a single
728: Gaussian with FWHM=0.07\arcsec. Our central spectral element for
729: NGC~1399 is a $0.2\times0.1$\arcsec\ box. The PSF of the AO data from
730: Houghton et al. is complicated and they represent it as a double
731: Gaussian, with a strehl ratio of 30\% and
732: FHWM=0.15\arcsec. Furthermore, their PSF is simulated since the star
733: they use to provide the AO correction is 18\arcsec\ away from the
734: center of NGC~1399, but this is probably only adds a small additional
735: uncertainty on the PSF. Their slit is 0.17\arcsec\ wide. Convolving
736: both central spectral elements with the PSF shows that the STIS data
737: is about 50\% better than the AO data in terms of spatial resolution.
738: However, the main difference is due to the low strehl ratio of the AO
739: data. Since NGC~1399 has a relatively flat core, the 30\% strehl
740: causes light from larger radii to have a significant contribution to
741: the central spectral element. This effect is taken into account in
742: their modelling. Given the better PSF and strehl of STIS, the
743: uncertainties on the black hole are better by an appreciable
744: amount. The other main observational difference is the spectral
745: range. The STIS data uses the H+K and G-band regions, and Houghton et
746: al. use the CO-bandhead at 2.3~$\mu$m. Silge \& Gebhardt (2003) show
747: the complication that arise when using the bandhead and that the main
748: effect is to limit the accuracy of the LOSVD. Whether this effect is
749: part of the difference in the black hole accuracy is difficult to
750: ascertain, but could potentially be important.
751:
752: The other important difference is the approach of the dynamical
753: models. We both use orbit-based models, but we fit the LOSVD bins and
754: they fit basis functions as a representation of the LOSVD. The
755: advantage of the basis function is that they are mathematically
756: uncorrelated, and the LOSVD bins are correlated. This may have some
757: effect on the uncertainties as discussed in Magorrian (2006). The
758: correlation of the LOSVD bins---and the similar correlation of
759: Gaussian-Hermite polynomial coefficients---would effect all black hole
760: mass uncertainties from stellar dynamics that have been
761: published. However, Gebhardt (2003) find that the uncertainties
762: estimated from the orbit-based models are accurate, based on bootstrap
763: simulations. Given the intrinsic scatter in black hole mass
764: correlations to host properties is close to zero, increasing the mass
765: uncertainties will push the intrinsic scatter to yet smaller
766: values. For NGC~1399, the differences in data quality appear to be
767: responsible for the difference in black hole mass
768: uncertainty. However, resolution of this difference in the modeling
769: approach will likely require a re-analysis of some of the data and
770: models.
771:
772: \section{Discussion}
773:
774: We have carefully examined the morphology around the radius where the
775: tangential orbits dominate, but we find no obvious feature. There are
776: no changes in the surface brightness profile, the color profile, and
777: the ellipticity profile. A possible explanation for the tangential
778: orbits could have been a torus of material, as has been proposed to
779: explain hollow core galaxies (Lauer et al. 2002). A torus would also
780: manifest itself in the orbital structure in the offset axes. Since the
781: orbital structure appears to be similar along all position angles, we
782: argue that the tangential structure is independent of
783: angle. Furthermore, there is no net streaming motion measured in the
784: LOSVD, which argues that a disk is not the explanation. More likely,
785: the cause could simply be a lack of radial orbits or an enhancement of
786: tangential orbits.
787:
788: Using an integrated velocity dispersion of 337~\kms, the black hole
789: mass in NGC~1399 is a factor of 2.5 below that expected from the
790: BH/$\sigma$ correlation, and a factor of 2.0 below that expected from
791: the correlation with luminosity (Lauer et al. 2007). Saglia et
792: al. (2000), with much worse spatial resolution, find an upper limit on
793: the black hole mass that is consistent with our mass. It is possible
794: that the tangential orbits and the low black hole mass are related.
795: NGC~1399 does inhabit a special environment by being at the center of
796: the Fornax cluster. Whether more frequent accretion and mergers play a
797: role in shaping its black hole mass is unknown, and it would be
798: worthwhile to test whether binary black hole interactions could cause
799: both the tangential orbits and relatively low black hole
800: mass. However, the low black hole mass could reflect the intrinsic
801: scatter in the BH/$\sigma$ correlation, with NGC~1399 being near the
802: bottom edge of the observed scatter.
803:
804: A possible scenario is to have a stellar cluster fall into NGC~1399 on
805: essentially a purely radial orbit. In this case the cluster hits the
806: black hole head-on and an equal number of stars pass to one side
807: and the other side, causing no net rotation. However, this would cause
808: there to be a preferred axis for the tangential orbits, and we see it
809: independent of angle. If, however, the stellar cluster is quite large
810: (i.e., around the size of the region of tangential anisotropy), then
811: the stars should distribute themselves in a spherical pattern. Those
812: stars that get near to the black hole --- the ones on radial orbits ---
813: tend to be ejected or accreted, leaving dominance of tangential
814: orbits. However, the extreme amount of tangential orbits in NGC~1399
815: needs to be compared to a detailed simulation.
816:
817: \acknowledgements
818:
819: We are grateful for the hospitality provided by the Observatories of
820: the Carnegie Institute of Washington. KG is grateful to Andreas
821: Burkert for discussions on the nature of the tangential orbits, to
822: Jens Thomas for numerous discussion of the modelling code, and to John
823: Magorrian for many stimulating discussions. KG gratefully acknowledges
824: NSF CAREER grant AST 03-49095. This publication is based on
825: observations made with the NASA/ESA {\it Hubble Space Telescope},
826: which is operated by the Association of Universities for Research in
827: Astronomy, Inc., under NASA contract NAS 5-26555. Financial support
828: was provided by NASA grants GO-5990 and GO-8214 from the Space
829: Telescope Science Institute.
830:
831: \begin{references}
832:
833: \reference{} Barth, A., Ho, L.C., Sargent, W. 2002, \apjl, 566, L13
834: \reference{} Bender, R. 1990, A\&A, 229, 441
835: \reference{} Cappellari, M., et al. 2006, \mnras, 366, 1126
836: \reference{} Cretton, N., de Zeeuw, P. T., van~der~Marel, R. P., \&
837: Rix, H.-W. 1999, \apjs, 124, 383
838: \reference{} Dressler, A. 1984, \apj, 281, 512
839: \reference{} Dressler, A. 1989, IAU Symposium, 134, 217
840: \reference{} Fabian, A. 1999, \mnras, 398, L6
841: \reference{} Ferrarese, L., \& Merritt, D. 2000, \apjl, 539, L9
842: \reference{} Gebhardt, K., et al. 1996, \aj, 112, 105
843: \reference{} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2000, \apj, 539, L13
844: \reference{} Gebhardt, K., et al. 2003, \apj, 583, 92
845: \reference{} Gebhardt, K. 2003, in ``Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics
846: Series, Vol. 1: Coevolution of Black Holes and Galaxies, ed. L.C. Ho
847: (Pasadena: Carnegie Observatories)
848: \reference{} Ghez, A. et al. 200
849: \reference{} Graham, A., Colless, M., Busarello, G., Zaggia, S., \& Longo, G.
850: 1998, A\&AS, 133, 325
851: \reference{} Houghton, R., Magorrian, J., Sarzi, M., Thatte, N., Davies, R.,
852: Krajnovic, D. 2006, \mnras, 367, 2
853: \reference{} Kormendy, J. 1993, in The Nearest Active Galaxies, ed. J. Beckman,
854: L. Colina, \& H. Netzer (Madrid:CSIC), 197
855: \reference{} Kormendy, J., \& Richstone, D. 1995, \araa, 33, 581
856: \reference{} Lauer, T., et al. 2002, \aj, 124, 1975
857: \reference{} Lauer, T., et al. 2005, \aj, 129, 2138
858: \reference{} Lauer, T., et al. 2007, \apj, 662, 808
859: \reference{} Leitherer et al. 1996, PASP, 108, 996
860: \reference{} Magorrian, J.,~\etal\ 1998, \aj, 115, 2285
861: \reference{} Magorrian, J. 2006, \mnras, 373, 425
862: \reference{} Pinkney, J. et al. 2003, \apj, 596, 903
863: \reference{} Robertson, B., Hernquist, L., Cox, T., Di Matteo, T., Hopkins, P.,
864: Martini, P., \& Springel, V. 2006, \apj, 641, 90
865: \reference{} Saglia, R.P., Kronawitter, A., Gerhard, O., \&
866: Bender, R. 2000, \aj, 119, 153
867: \reference{} Schodel, R, Ott, T., Genzel, R., Eckart, A., Mouawad, N.,
868: \& Alexander, T. 2003, \apj, 596, 1015
869: \reference{} Silge, J. \& Gebhardt, K. 2003, \aj, 125, 2809
870: \reference{} Silk, J., \& Rees, M. J. 1998 A\&A, 331, L1
871: \reference{} Siopis, C. et al. 2007, submitted.
872: \reference{} Springel, V., Di Matteo, T., \& Hernquist, L. 2005, \mnras, 361, 776
873: \reference{} Thomas, J., Saglia, R., Bender, R., Thomas, D., Gebhardt, K.,
874: Magorrian, J., \& Richstone, D. 2004, \mnras, 353, 391
875: \reference{} Thomas, J., Saglia, R., Bender, R., Thomas, D., Gebhardt, K.,
876: Magorrian, J., Corsini, E., \& Wegner, G. 2005, \mnras, 360, 1355
877: \reference{} Tonry, J. L., Dressler, A., Blakeslee, J. P., Ajhar,
878: E. A., Fletcher, A. B., Luppino, G. A., Metzger, M. R., \& Moore,
879: C. B. 2001, \apj, 546, 681
880: \reference{} Tremaine, S.,~\etal\ 2002, \apj, 574, 740
881: \reference{} Valluri, M., Merritt, D., \& Emsellem, E. 2004, \apj, 602, 66
882: \reference{} Verolme, E.,~\etal\ 2002, \mnras, 335, 517
883: \reference{} Woodgate, B. et al. 1998, \pasp, 110, 1183
884:
885: \end{references}
886:
887: \end{document}
888:
889:
890: