1: \documentclass[numberedappendix]{emulateapj}

2: \shorttitle{Luminosity Function of Abell Clusters}

3: \shortauthors{Barkhouse et al.}

4: \submitted{Accepted for publication in ApJ}

5: \begin{document}

6: \title{The Luminosity Function of Low-Redshift Abell Galaxy Clusters}

7: \author{Wayne A. Barkhouse,\altaffilmark{1,2,4} H.K.C. Yee,

8: \altaffilmark{2,4} and Omar L\'{o}pez-Cruz\altaffilmark{3,4}}

9: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 

10: 61801; email: wbark@astro.uiuc.edu}

11: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, University 

12: of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, M5S 3H4; email: hyee@astro.utoronto.ca}

13: \altaffiltext{3}{Instituto Nacional de Astrof\'{i}sica, Optica y 

14: Electr\'{o}nica, Tonantzintla, Pue., M\'{e}xico; email: omarlx@inaoep.mx}

15: \altaffiltext{4}{Visiting Astronomer, Kitt Peak National Observatory. 

16: KPNO is operated by AURA, Inc.\ under contract to the National Science

17: Foundation.}

18: 

19: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

20: \begin{abstract}

21: 

22: We present the results from a survey of 57 low-redshift Abell galaxy 

23: clusters to study the radial dependence of the luminosity function (LF). 

24: The dynamical radius of each cluster, $r_{200}$, was estimated from the 

25: photometric measurement of cluster richness, $B_{gc}$. The shape of the 

26: LFs are found to correlate with radius such that the 

27: faint-end slope, $\alpha$, is generally steeper on the cluster outskirts. 

28: The sum of two Schechter functions provides a more adequate fit to 

29: the composite LFs than a single Schechter function. LFs based on the 

30: selection of red and blue galaxies are bimodal in appearance. The red LFs 

31: are generally flat for $-22\leq M_{R_{c}}\leq -18$, with a radius-dependent 

32: steepening of $\alpha$ for $M_{R_{c}}> -18$. The blue LFs contain a larger 

33: contribution from faint galaxies than the red LFs. The 

34: blue LFs have a rising faint-end component ($\alpha\sim -1.7$) for 

35: $M_{R_{c}}> -21$, with a weaker dependence on radius than the red LFs. 

36: The dispersion of $M^{\ast}$ was determined to be 0.31 mag, which is 

37: comparable to the median measurement uncertainty of 0.38 mag. This suggests 

38: that the bright-end of the LF is universal in shape at the 0.3 mag level. 

39: We find that $M^{\ast}$ is not correlated with cluster richness when using 

40: a common dynamical radius. Also, we find that $M^{\ast}$ is weakly 

41: correlated with BM-type such that later BM-type clusters have a brighter 

42: $M^{\ast}$. A correlation between $M^{\ast}$ and radius was found for 

43: the red and blue galaxies such that $M^{\ast}$ fades towards the cluster 

44: center.

45: 

46: \end{abstract}

47: 

48: 

49: \keywords{Galaxies: clusters: general --- Galaxies: luminosity function --- 

50: Galaxies: formation --- Galaxies: evolution}

51: 

52: 

53: \section{Introduction}

54: 

55: The study of the formation and evolution of galaxies is a fundamental 

56: avenue of research in the process of understanding astrophysical and 

57: cosmological issues. How galaxies form and evolve can be studied using 

58: a variety of techniques, one of those being the galaxy luminosity 

59: function (LF). The galaxy LF, assuming that galaxy 

60: mass-to-light ratios are nearly constant for similar types of galaxies, 

61: can potentially provide a direct link to the initial mass function and 

62: hence the distribution of density perturbations that are thought to 

63: give rise to galaxies \citep{Press74}. Since most galaxies are not 

64: isolated entities, evolutionary processes, in addition to those 

65: expected for an aging stellar population, can occur as galaxies 

66: interact with their environment. 

67: 

68: The galaxy LF --- the number of galaxies per unit volume 

69: in the luminosity interval $L$ to $L+dL$ --- can be used as a diagnostic 

70: tool to search for changes in the galaxy population. In particular, the 

71: LF for cluster galaxies can help ascertain the influence of the cluster 

72: environment on the galaxy population. For example, a change in the shape 

73: of the LF with respect to cluster-centric radius provides important 

74: insight into the dynamical processes at work in the cluster environment. 

75: 

76: A central theme in the early studies of the galaxy cluster LF 

77: has been to determine whether the LF is universal in shape 

78: \citep[e.g.,][]{Hubble36,Abell62,Oemler74}. While introducing the modern 

79: form of the LF, the so-called ``Schechter Function'', \citet{Schechter76} 

80: suggested that the cluster LF is universal in shape, and can be characterized 

81: with a turnover of $M_{B}^{\ast}=-20.6+5\,\mbox{log}\,h_{50}$ and a 

82: faint-end slope of 

83: $\alpha=-1.25$. Further support for a universal LF has been provided by 

84: several studies such as \citet{Lugger86}, \citet{Colless89}, 

85: \citet{Gaidos97}, \citet{Yagi02}, and \citet{DePropris03}. In contrast, 

86: several studies have shown that the shape of the cluster LF is not universal 

87: \citep[e.g.,][]{Godwin77,Dressler78,Lopez97b,Piranomonte01,Hansen05,

88: Popesso06}. One expects that the LF depends on cluster-centric radius since 

89: the mixture of galaxy morphological types should vary with radius, as implied 

90: by the morphology--density relation \citep{Dressler80}. Since different 

91: morphological types are characterized by different LFs \citep{Binggeli88} 

92: the cluster LF (integrated over all galaxy types) should 

93: not be universal. Indeed, some studies have provided evidence that the 

94: cluster LF does vary with cluster-centric radius 

95: \citep[e.g.,][]{Beijersbergen02a,Goto05,Hansen05,Popesso06}.

96: 

97: The main goal of this paper is to investigate the change in the cluster 

98: $R_c$-band LF as a function of cluster-centric radius. To avoid the inherent 

99: bias that has plagued numerous studies, the cluster LF will be compared 

100: based on scaling relative to the dynamical radius, $r_{200}$. The use of 

101: a dynamical radius for comparing galaxy populations for a sample of 

102: clusters, provides one of the most robust, least-biased, photometric 

103: survey yet published on the LF of Abell clusters. Directly comparing LFs 

104: that sample only the cluster core region with other cluster LFs that 

105: extend to the outskirts, will suffer from radial sampling bias given 

106: that the shape of the LF has been shown to depend on cluster-centric radius 

107: \citep[e.g.,][]{Christlein03,Hansen05,Popesso06}. A direct comparison of 

108: the galaxy population with respect to cluster-centric radius based on 

109: $r_{200}$, will help to accurately measure the change in the properties 

110: of cluster galaxies as a function of global environment. These data will 

111: also provide information to help settle the long-standing debate regarding 

112: the universality of the cluster galaxy LF and the properties of the faint 

113: dwarf galaxy component. 

114: 

115: This paper is the third in a series resulting from a multi-color imaging 

116: survey of low-redshift ($0.02\leq z \leq 0.2$) Abell clusters. The paper 

117: is organized as follows. In \S 2 we present a brief overview of the sample 

118: selection and data reduction procedure. In \S 3 we describe the methodology 

119: for generating the galaxy cluster LF. In \S 4 we examine the LF for 

120: different color-selected galaxy populations of our cluster sample. 

121: Discussion and conclusions are presented in \S 5. Finally, various selection 

122: effects and biases are explored in the Appendix. Further details regarding 

123: sample selection, observations, image preprocessing, catalogs, and 

124: finding charts can be found in \citet{Lopez97}, \citet{Barkhouse03}, and 

125: Barkhouse et al. (2007a; in preparation, Paper I of this series). 

126: A detailed discussion of the color-magnitude relation (CMR) of early-type 

127: galaxies using this survey can be found in Paper II \citep{Lopez04}. 

128: Paper IV characteristics the cluster galaxy luminosity and color distribution 

129: by examining the dwarf-to-giant ratio and the galaxy red-to-blue count ratio 

130: (Barkhouse et al. 2007b, in preparation). Recent observations suggest 

131: that the best cosmological model is characterized by $\Omega_{M}\simeq 0.3$, 

132: $\Omega_{\lambda}\simeq 0.7$, and 

133: $H_{0}\simeq 70~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}~\mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$ 

134: \citep[e.g.,][]{Spergel03}. Since the effects of curvature and dark energy 

135: are negligible at low-redshifts ($z< 0.2$) and to allow direct comparisons 

136: with previous studies, we have set for convenience, unless otherwise 

137: indicated, $H_{0}=50~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}~\mbox{Mpc}^{-1}$ and 

138: $q_{0}=0$ throughout this paper.

139: 

140: \section{Observations and Data Reductions}

141: 

142: The galaxy cluster sample utilized for this paper is identical to that 

143: described in Paper II of this series \citep{Lopez04}. We summarize the 

144: observations and data reductions below.

145: 

146: The galaxy cluster sample is composed of Abell clusters selected mainly 

147: from the X-ray compilation of \citet{Jones99}. The primary cluster sample 

148: was selected 

149: based on the following criteria; (1) clusters should be at high galactic 

150: latitude, $|b| \geq 30\degr$; (2) their redshifts should lie within the 

151: range $0.04\leq z\leq 0.20$; (3) the Abell richness class (ARC) should, 

152: preferably, be $> 0$; and (4) the declination $\delta\geq -20\degr$. 

153: Some $\mbox{ARC}=0$ clusters were included in the final sample due to 

154: the lack of suitable clusters at certain right ascensions during the 

155: observations. This sample includes 47 clusters of galaxies observed in 

156: $B$, and Kron-Cousins $R_c$ and $I$ at KPNO with the 0.9 m telescope using the 

157: $2048 \times 2048$ pixel T2KA CCD ($0.68\arcsec~\mbox{pixel}^{-1}$) 

158: \citep[hereafter the LOCOS sample; L\'opez-Cruz et al. 2007, in 

159: preparation]{Lopez97,Yee99,Lopez01}.

160: 

161: A sub-sample of eight clusters from \citet{Barkhouse03} is included to 

162: complement our 47-cluster sample by covering the low-redshift interval 

163: from $0.02\leq z\leq 0.04$. These data were obtained at KPNO with the 0.9 m 

164: telescope using the 8K MOSAIC camera ($8192\times 8192$ pixels; 

165: $0.423\arcsec~\mbox{pixel}^{-1}$). The clusters for this sample were 

166: selected using the previous criteria except that $\mbox{ARC}=0$ clusters 

167: were not preferentially excluded. In addition, two clusters imaged in $B$ 

168: and $R_c$ are included from \citet{Brown97} using the same instrumental 

169: setup as the LOCOS sample and selection criteria as the MOSAIC data. All 

170: clusters in the sample are detected in X-rays and are found to have a 

171: prominent CMR \citep{Lopez04}. 

172: 

173: The integration times for our 57-cluster sample varies from 250 to 9900 s, 

174: depending on the filter and the redshift of the cluster (only the $B$- and 

175: $R_c$-band data are considered here). Control fields are also an integral 

176: part of this survey. For this study we use a total of six control fields 

177: in both the $B$ and $R_c$ filters. The control fields were chosen at random 

178: positions on the sky at least $5\degr$ away from the clusters in our sample. 

179: These control fields were observed using the MOSAIC camera to a comparable 

180: depth and reduced in the same manner as the cluster data. All observations 

181: included in this study were carried out during 1992-1993 and 1996-1998. 

182: 

183: Processing of the 8k mosaic images were done using the {\tt mscred} package 

184: within the IRAF environment. The photometric reduction was carried out using 

185: the program PPP \citep[Picture Processing Package;][]{Yee91}, which includes 

186: algorithms for performing automatic object finding, star/galaxy 

187: classification, and total magnitude determination. A series of improvements 

188: to PPP described in \citet{Yee96} that decreases the detection of false 

189: objects and allows star/galaxy classification in images with a variable 

190: point-spread-function (PSF) was utilized.

191: 

192: The object list for each cluster is compiled from the $R_c$ frames. The $R_c$ 

193: frames are chosen because they are deeper than the images from the other 

194: filters. Galaxy {\it total magnitudes} are measured with PPP using a 

195: curve-of-growth analysis. The maximum aperture size ranged from 

196: $20\arcsec$ for faint galaxies ($R_c> 18.5$) to as large as $120\arcsec$ for 

197: cD galaxies in $z\sim 0.02$ clusters. An optimal aperture size for each 

198: object is determined based on the shape of the curve-of-growth using 

199: criteria described in \citet{Yee91}. The photometry of galaxies near the 

200: cluster core was carried out after the cD and bright early-type galaxies 

201: had been removed using profile-modeling techniques developed by 

202: \citet{Brown97}. 

203: 

204: Galaxy colors were determined using fixed apertures of 

205: $11.0\,h^{-1}_{50}\,\mbox{kpc}$ on the images of each filter at the redshift 

206: of the cluster, sampling identical regions of galaxies in different filters, 

207: while imposing a minimum color aperture of $\sim 3$ times the 

208: full-width-half-maximum (FWHM) in order to 

209: avoid seeing effects (average seeing $\sim 1.5\arcsec$). The overall 

210: internal accuracy in the color determinations is $\sim 0.005$ mag in $B-R_c$ 

211: for bright objects. The errors for faint objects can be as large as 

212: 0.5 mag in $B-R_c$. We note that the total magnitude of a galaxy 

213: is determined using the growth curve from the $R_c$ image, while the total 

214: magnitude in the $B$ image is determined using the color difference with 

215: respect to the $R_c$ image \citep[for more details, see][]{Yee91}.

216:  

217: Star/galaxy classification was performed within PPP using a classifier 

218: that is based on the comparison of the growth curve of a given object to 

219: that of a reference PSF. The reference PSF is generated as the average of 

220: the growth curves of high signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), non-saturated stars 

221: within the frame. The classifier measures the ``compactness'' of an object 

222: by effectively comparing the ratio of the fluxes of inner and outer parts 

223: of an object with respect to the reference PSF.

224: 

225: Instrumental magnitudes are calibrated to the Kron-Cousins system by 

226: observing standard stars from \citet{Landolt92}. Due to the large field, 

227: up to 45 standard stars can be accommodated in a single frame. The color 

228: properties of the standard stars cover a large color range that encompasses 

229: those of elliptical and spiral galaxies. The standard stars are measured 

230: using a fixed aperture of 30 pixels for the LOCOS frames and 32 pixels for 

231: the MOSAIC data. These aperture sizes are selected as being the most 

232: stable after measuring the magnitudes using a series of diameters. We 

233: adopt the average extinction coefficients for KPNO and fit for the 

234: zero points and color terms. The rms in the residuals of individual 

235: fittings is in the range $0.020-0.040$ mag, which is comparable to the 

236: night-to-night scatter in the zero points. This can be considered as the 

237: systematic calibration uncertainty of the data.

238: 

239: The final galaxy catalogs were generated using the information and 

240: corrections derived previously. For data obtained under non-photometric 

241: conditions, single cluster images were obtained during photometric nights 

242: in order to calibrate the photometry (three clusters in total). The 

243: completeness limit for each field is based on a fiducial $5\sigma$ limit 

244: determined by calculating the magnitude of a stellar object with a brightness 

245: equivalent to having a $\mbox{S/N}=5$ in an aperture of $2\arcsec$. This 

246: is done by scaling a bright unsaturated star in the field to the $5\sigma$ 

247: level. Since the $5\sigma$ limit is fainter than the peak of the galaxy 

248: count curve, and hence below the $100\%$ completeness limit for 

249: galaxies, a conservative $100\%$ completeness limit is in general 

250: reached at $0.6-1.0$ mag brighter than the $5\sigma$ detection. See 

251: \citet{Yee91} for a detailed discussion of the completeness limit relative 

252: to the $5\sigma$ detection limit. 

253: 

254: Galaxy colors and magnitudes were corrected for the extinction produced by 

255: our Galaxy. The values of the Galactic extinction coefficients were 

256: calculated from the \citet{Burstein82} maps using the reported $E(B-V)$ 

257: values, or directly from the $A_{B}$ tabulations for bright galaxies 

258: \citep{Burstein84} with coordinates in the vicinity of our pointed 

259: observations using NED. Extinction values used for each cluster are provided 

260: in Paper I.

261: 

262: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

263: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

264: \section{The Luminosity Function}

265: \subsection{Fitting the Schechter Function}

266: 

267: The galaxy cluster LF in modern times has mainly been 

268: parameterized using the Schechter function \citep{Schechter76}. This 

269: function has the form

270: \begin{equation}

271: \phi(L)\,dL = \phi^{\ast}(L/L^{\ast})^{\alpha}\,\exp(-L/L^{\ast})\,

272: d(L/L^{\ast}),

273: \end{equation}

274: where $\phi(L)\,dL$ is the number of galaxies per unit volume in the 

275: luminosity interval $L$ to $L + dL$, $\phi^{\ast}$ is the number per 

276: unit volume, and $L^{\ast}$ is the ``characteristic'' luminosity. 

277: This function 

278: is characterized by having an exponential shape at the bright-end and 

279: a power-law like feature, whose slope is measured by $\alpha$, at the 

280: faint-end (for example, see Figure 1). By introducing the change of 

281: variables $M-M^{\ast}=-2.5\log(L/L^{\ast})$, equation 1 can 

282: be written in terms of absolute magnitude as

283: \begin{equation}

284: n(M)\,dM = kN^{\ast}e^{[k(\alpha +1)(M^{\ast}-M)-

285: \exp\{k(M^{\ast}-M)\}]}dM,

286: \end{equation} 

287: where $k=0.4\ln 10$ \citep[cf.,][]{Colless89}.

288: 

289: The Schechter function is fit to the cluster galaxy counts following 

290: the procedure in \citet{Lopez97}. In summary, the function parameters 

291: $M^{\ast}$, $N^{\ast}$, and $\alpha$ are estimated by performing a 

292: $\chi^{2}$ minimization of the form

293: \begin{equation}

294: \chi^{2}=\sum_{i}\frac{(N_{i}-N_{i}^{e})^{2}}{\sigma^{2}_{i}},

295: \end{equation}

296: where $N_{i}$ is the net galaxy counts in the $i^{th}$ bin of the 

297: observed LF, $N_{i}^{e}$ is the expected number 

298: of counts in the $i^{th}$ bin of width $\Delta M$, and $\sigma_{i}$ 

299: is the uncertainty of the counts in the $i^{th}$ data bin. The 

300: expected number of counts in the $i^{th}$ bin, corrected for the loss 

301: of information due to the finite bin size, is given by \citep{Schechter76}

302: \begin{equation}

303: N_{i}^{e}=n(M_{i})\,\Delta M +n_{i}^{''}(M_{i})\,\Delta M^{3}/24,

304: \end{equation}

305: where the derivative is with respect to absolute magnitude, and 

306: $\Delta M$ is the bin width. This correction is derived by Taylor-expanding 

307: $n(M)$ to a third order about the bin's center and integrating 

308: $N_{i}^{e}=\int_{\scriptscriptstyle M-\frac{1}{2}{\Delta}M}^

309: {\scriptscriptstyle M+\frac{1}{2}{\Delta}M}n(M)dM$. The uncertainty, 

310: $\sigma_{i}$, is taken to be \citep[cf.,][]{Lugger86}

311: \begin{equation}

312: \sigma_{i}=[(N_{i}^{e}+N_{bi})+1.69\,N_{bi}^{2}]^{1/2},

313: \end{equation} 

314: where $N_{bi}$ is the background counts in the $i^{th}$ bin, 

315: $(N_{i}^{e}+N_{bi})^{1/2}$ is the Poisson uncertainty in the uncorrected LF 

316: counts, and the second term in the square root expression is the 

317: measured field-to-field variation per bin in the background field 

318: counts (see \S 3.2). The uncertainty of the observed net galaxy counts 

319: due to cosmic variance is thus taken into account when fitting the Schechter 

320: function. For a single Schechter function fit, $N^{\ast}$ is fixed so that 

321: the total number of observed galaxies in the data set is equal to the 

322: number predicted by the Schechter function. The parameters $M^{\ast}$ 

323: and $\alpha$ are obtained by minimizing equation 3 using the 

324: Levenberg-Marquardt method \citep{Press92}.

325: 

326: \subsection{Background Galaxy Correction}

327: 

328: The $R_c$-band LF is constructed statistically by subtracting a background 

329: galaxy population from the cluster galaxy counts. This method, in contrast to 

330: measuring the redshift of individual galaxies in the cluster field, relies 

331: on an accurate determination of the background field population. This 

332: statistical approach has been used in numerous studies to date 

333: \citep[e.g.,][]{Oemler74,Schechter76,Colless89,Driver98,Yagi02,Andreon04}. 

334: The modal field-to-field variation per magnitude bin has been measured to be 

335: $\sim 30\%$ above Poisson statistics among the six background fields. We 

336: use this value to approximately account for the additional uncertainty in 

337: the background counts due to field-to-field variations in equation 5. 

338: Although the use of galaxy redshifts would provide a more robust 

339: determination of the cluster LF, the relatively modest variation of the 

340: background counts, with respect 

341: to the cluster counts, makes the statistically derived cluster LF valid. A 

342: similar conclusion has also been reached by a number of independent 

343: studies \citep[e.g.,][]{Driver98}.

344: 

345: Several studies have examined the effect on the derived cluster LF using a 

346: global background galaxy field correction versus one measured locally for 

347: each cluster \citep[e.g.,][]{Goto02,Hansen05,Popesso05,Gonzalez06}. For 

348: example, \citet{Popesso05} has shown for a study of 69 clusters based on 

349: SDSS DR2 data, that there is no significant difference in the measured 

350: cluster LF using either a global or local background subtraction technique.

351: 

352: Contamination from the 2-d projection on the sky of a distant cluster in the 

353: field-of-view of the target cluster can prove to be problematic by skewing 

354: the LF, especially at the faint-end where galaxies from the background 

355: cluster directly add to the desired LF. Fortunately, the CMR can help 

356: minimize this contamination by identifying the early-type 

357: red sequence of the target cluster \citep{Lopez04}. The effect of 

358: background clusters on the desired LF can thus be reduced by selecting an 

359: appropriate color cut, thus eliminating objects redder than the cluster 

360: red sequence. This method can also help to locate foreground clusters which, 

361: given the low redshift of our cluster sample, are not a significant concern 

362: for this study.

363: 

364: To minimize contamination from background galaxies, we cull galaxies 

365: that are 0.22 mag redward of the CMR (i.e., $\geq 3.0$ times the average 

366: $B-R_{c}$ dispersion of the cluster red sequence). The dispersion of the 

367: cluster red sequences are tabulated in Table 1 of \citet{Lopez04} and 

368: histogram representations of the rectified $B-R_c$ color distributions are 

369: presented in Paper I \citep[see also Figure 1 from][]{Lopez04}. In several 

370: cases (e.g., A2152), a color cut $< 3\sigma$ is used if a second red sequence 

371: from a more distant cluster (and hence at a redder $B-R_c$) is apparent in 

372: the color-magnitude diagram (CMD) of the target cluster. For faint 

373: magnitudes, we cull galaxies redder than $2.5\sigma_{B-R_{c}}$ if 2.5 times 

374: the average uncertainty in the galaxy $B-R_{c}$ is redder than 3.0 times 

375: the dispersion of the cluster red sequence.

376: 

377: \subsection{K-Correction}

378: 

379: K-corrections are applied using a single parametrization based on early-type 

380: galaxies, which dominant the cluster galaxy population \citet{Dressler80}. 

381: At the low redshift of our sample, the difference between early- and 

382: late-type galaxies is minimal for the $R_c$-band. In general, the maximum 

383: K-correction applied was $\sim0.2$ mag. The K-correction adopted for each 

384: cluster is tabulated in Paper I. All LFs presented in this paper 

385: have been extinction- and K-corrected, and no attempt has been made to correct 

386: for individual internal galaxy absorption.

387: 

388: \subsection{Cluster Dynamical Radius}

389: 

390: Studies of the properties of galaxy clusters, such as the CMR and LF, have 

391: been routinely compared on a 

392: cluster-by-cluster basis. Nearly all of these studies define a ``cluster'' 

393: based on the total area covered by the telescope detector 

394: \citep[e.g.,][]{Dressler78,Lopez97} or by using a specific physical 

395: length \citep[e.g., $1\,h^{-1}_{100}$ Mpc;][]{Yagi02}. The large variation in 

396: cluster richness \citep{Yee99} inhibits the usefulness of the above 

397: techniques for robustly comparing cluster properties. Some authors have 

398: attempted to ``normalize'' clusters by directly comparing only clusters of 

399: comparable class (e.g., Bautz-Morgan type) or by weighting each cluster 

400: according to richness \citep{Garilli99,Piranomonte01,DePropris03}. The 

401: use of a variety of different methods have certainly contributed to 

402: conflicting results that have emerged from past investigations regarding 

403: measurements such as the universality of the LF \citep{Lugger86,Driver98,

404: Popesso06}.   

405: 

406: As a means of computing a ``dynamical'' radius within which cluster 

407: characteristics can be robustly compared, the $r_{200}$ radius was 

408: calculated for each cluster. The $r_{200}$ radius marks the size of 

409: a cluster within which the average density is 200 times the critical 

410: density, and follows from the definition used in \citet{Carlberg97} and 

411: \citet{Yee03}. The $r_{200}$ radius is expected to contain the bulk of 

412: the virialized mass of a cluster \citep[e.g.,][]{Cole96} and is used in 

413: this study as a scaling factor to compare cluster features. The use of 

414: this type of ``normalization'' allows 

415: us to compare galaxy cluster populations in a less biased fashion, 

416: especially those properties which are a function of cluster richness and 

417: cluster-centric radius. This approach has recently been implemented 

418: by \citet{Hansen05} and \citet{Popesso06} to study the properties of a 

419: sample of clusters/groups from the SDSS.

420: 

421: The procedure for determining $r_{200}$ involves the calculation of the 

422: velocity dispersion, which requires redshift measurements for a number of 

423: cluster galaxies. The data available for this study do not include 

424: redshift information for cluster members, thus an alternative method was 

425: employed to estimate $r_{200}$ for each cluster.\footnote{Only 

426: approximately 30\% of the 57 clusters have published robust 

427: velocity dispersions.} This method relies on the correlation between 

428: $B_{gc}$ and $r_{200}$ as measured for the CNOC1 sample \citep{Yee03}. The 

429: $B_{gc}$ parameter is a measure of the cluster-center galaxy correlation 

430: amplitude, and has been shown to be a robust estimator of cluster 

431: richness \citep{Yee99,Yee03}. The measured values of $B_{gc}$ for our 

432: cluster sample are calculated using the method outlined in \citet{Yee99}. 

433: Figure~\ref{Bgc-r200} depicts the relationship 

434: between $r_{200}$ and $B_{gc}$ for 15 clusters from the CNOC1 survey 

435: \citep{Yee96}, adopted from \citet{Yee03}. We note that the $r_{200}$ vs. 

436: $B_{gc}$ figure in Yee \& Ellingson (see their Figure 5) used the less 

437: well-determined $r^{\prime}_{200}$ from \citet[see their Table 1]{Carlberg97}. 

438: This explains the decrease in the scatter of $r_{200}$ vs. $B_{gc}$ for our 

439: Figure~\ref{Bgc-r200} compared to the corresponding figure in Yee \& 

440: Ellingson. A fit to these data yields 

441: \begin{equation}

442: \mbox{log}~r_{200}=(0.48\pm 0.10)~\mbox{log}~B_{gc}-(1.10\pm 0.31), 

443: \end{equation}  

444: where $r_{200}$ has units of Mpc, and $B_{gc}$ units of $\mbox{Mpc}^{1.8}$. 

445: The rms scatter in the derived values of $r_{200}$ is on the 

446: order of 15\%. The fit was performed using the bisector bivariate correlated 

447: errors and intrinsic scatter (BCES) estimator \citep{Akritas96} since this 

448: algorithm accounts for uncertainties in both variables. The cluster 

449: MS 1455+22 (open circle in Figure~\ref{Bgc-r200}) was excluded from the 

450: fit since it is $\sim3\sigma$ from the expected relation (see 

451: Yee \& Ellingson 2003 for a detailed discussion of MS 1455+22). 

452: 

453: The estimation of $r_{200}$ for each cluster is accomplished by 

454: calculating the value of $B_{gc}$ directly from the galaxy cluster 

455: photometric catalog and then applying equation 6 to determine $r_{200}$. 

456: Table 1 lists the values of $B_{gc}$ and $r_{200}$ for each cluster used 

457: in this study. The tabulated uncertainty in the value of $r_{200}$ is 

458: calculated directly from the 15\% rms scatter. 

459: 

460: \citet{Yee99} showed that a subset of our Abell cluster sample has a 

461: similar relationship between cluster velocity dispersion ($\sigma_{v}$) 

462: and $B_{gc}$ as the CNOC1 sample, and since $r_{200}$ is estimated from 

463: $\sigma_{v}$, the $r_{200}$--$B_{gc}$ relation for the Abell clusters 

464: should be similar to that of the CNOC1 sample.

465: 

466: To test the validity of our results, we compare the values of $r_{200}$ from 

467: Table 1 for those clusters in common with \citet{Rines03}, \citet{Miller05}, 

468: \citet{Popesso07}, and \citet{Aguerri07}. For the 3 clusters in 

469: common with Rines et al., we find a mean difference in $r_{200}$ 

470: of $-0.17\pm 0.17$ Mpc (all physical length scales have been converted to 

471: our distance scale), where our values are greater on average (the rms is 

472: given as the uncertainty). For the 10 clusters in common with Miller et al., 

473: we find a mean difference of $0.73\pm 0.73$ Mpc. The mean difference for 

474: the 9 clusters in common with Popesso et al. is $0.25\pm 0.32$ Mpc, while 

475: the average difference for the 12 clusters in common with Aguerri et al. is 

476: $-0.26\pm 0.62$ Mpc. The larger discrepancy with the Miller et al. sample is 

477: due to the uncommonly large $r_{200}$ values ($r_{200}>4$ Mpc) for the three 

478: richest clusters. In fact, Miller et al. cautions that the radius within 

479: which the density measurements have been made to determine $r_{200}$ may be 

480: inaccurate. We believe that the Miller et al. $r_{200}$ values are 

481: biased-high for the more massive clusters in our comparison sample. If we 

482: restrict our analysis to the combined Rines et al., Popesso et al. and 

483: Aguerri et al. samples, we find a mean $r_{200}$ difference of 

484: $-0.07\pm 0.53$ Mpc. Thus, the values of $r_{200}$ derived via equation 7 

485: are reasonable. (See the discussion in \S A.5 regarding the effect on the 

486: derived LF for a 15\% scatter in $r_{200}$.)

487:  

488: \section{Results}

489: 

490: \subsection{Individual Cluster Luminosity Functions}

491: 

492: The $R_c$-band LFs for the 57 clusters presented in this 

493: paper are depicted in Figure 1 for galaxies brighter than the 100\% 

494: completeness limit. To help facilitate the comparison between clusters, 

495: the LFs are generated using galaxy counts within a radius of 

496: $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ from each cluster center. The cluster center is 

497: normally selected using the brightest cluster galaxy (BCG) or, when 

498: some doubt exists, the brightest early-type galaxy that is closest to the 

499: X-ray centroid as given, for example, by \citet{Jones99}. Figure 1 

500: includes the $R_c$-band LF for A496 and A1142 from data obtained by 

501: \citet{Brown97}. The small size of the detector (2k$\times$2k) and the 

502: low redshift, limits the LF coverage to within a cluster-centric radius 

503: of $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ for Abell 496 and $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.3$ for 

504: Abell 1142.

505: 

506: The cluster LFs presented in Figure 1 have each been fit with a Schechter 

507: function in the range $-24\leq M_{R_c}\leq -20$, with the faint-end slope 

508: fixed 

509: at $\alpha=-1$. This has been done to help serve as a reference point for 

510: comparing individual clusters. The fitted value of $M^{\ast}$ for each 

511: cluster is tabulated in Table 1 and the best-fit Schechter function is 

512: represented by the solid line in Figure 1. The fitting of the LFs does not 

513: include the BCG. The presence of these galaxies is easily noticed by their 

514: affect on the brightest magnitude bin, whose value is usually offset from 

515: the best-fit Schechter function. \citet{Schechter76} remarked that BCGs do 

516: not seem to be a natural extension of the cluster LF 

517: \citep[see also,][]{Sandage76,Dressler78,Loh06}. A fit to his composite LF 

518: for a sample of 13 clusters was more robust when the BCG was excluded from 

519: each cluster. This has led to numerous debates on the formation mechanism 

520: of BCGs \citep[e.g.,][]{Geller76,Bhavsar89,Bernstein01}. Since most studies 

521: of cluster LFs exclude the BCG from the LF fit, BCGs will not be included 

522: in subsequent LF analysis unless otherwise noted (see additional discussion 

523: in \S A.6).

524:  

525: Visual inspection of the individual cluster LFs in Figure 1 indicates 

526: that, in general, the bright-end appears to be well-fit by a Schechter 

527: function, with a rising faint-end ($M_{R_c}\gtrsim -19$) of various strength. 

528: The presence of a ``flat'' LF ($\alpha=-1.0$) at the faint-end usually 

529: occurs for clusters in which the uncertainty in the net galaxy counts at 

530: the faint-end is large, or the LF has not been sampled to a sufficient 

531: depth to reveal a rising faint-end component, although we can not rule 

532: out intrinsically flat LF clusters.

533: 

534: An additional feature, visible for several cluster LFs, is a ``dip'' in 

535: the galaxy counts at $-20\lesssim M_{R_c}\lesssim -19$. This characteristic is 

536: most-prominent for A84, A154, A634, A690, A1291, A1569, A1656, A1795, A2384, 

537: and A2556. A possible cause of this feature is the variation in the ratio of 

538: galaxy types that comprise the individual cluster galaxy population. This may 

539: result from the fact that the elliptical and spiral galaxy LF is better 

540: described using a Gaussian function, while the dwarf galaxy LF is 

541: ``Schechter-like'' in shape \citep{Binggeli88}.

542: 

543: \subsection{Composite Luminosity Function}

544: 

545: \subsubsection{Total Luminosity Function}

546: 

547: The statistical subtraction of a background galaxy population can drastically 

548: affect the accuracy of determining the shape of the cluster LF when the 

549: net number of cluster galaxies is small. Generally, this will be an 

550: important factor for galaxies located in the outskirts of clusters. To 

551: reduce the uncertainty in the shape of the LF at large cluster-centric 

552: radii, cluster galaxy counts have been combined to form a composite LF. 

553: This also averages out any apparent variations in the shape of the 

554: individual LFs due to cosmic variance in the background counts. To 

555: provide an adequate coverage of the faint-end of the LF, we have selected a 

556: sub-sample of 29 clusters for the composite LF that are 100\% complete to 

557: $M_{R_c}=-16.5$ (absolute $R_c$-band completeness limits, $M_{R_c}^{Com}$, are 

558: tabulated in Table 1). Following the procedure for combining cluster counts 

559: in adjacent magnitude bins \citep{Schechter76}, clusters complete to 

560: $M_{R_c}=-17.0$ (13 additional ones) are also included in our composite LF. 

561: This has been accomplished by scaling the number of net galaxy counts in the 

562: faintest magnitude bin ($-17.0\leq M_{R_c}\leq -16.5$) by the ratio 

563: $(N_{2}/N_{1})$; where $N_{1}$ is the total net galaxy count to 

564: $M_{R_c}=-17.0$ for the 29 clusters complete to 

565: at least $M_{R_c}=-16.5$, and $N_{2}$ is the total net galaxy count to 

566: $M_{R_c}=-17.0$ for the 42 clusters complete to at least $M_{R_c}=-17.0$. 

567: By following this method, we are able to construct a composite LF which is 

568: complete to $M_{R_c}=-16.5$ and contains galaxy counts from 42 individual 

569: clusters.

570: 

571: To search for differences in the LF which may correlate with cluster 

572: properties, we present the composite $R_c$-band LF in 

573: Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF} for four different radial bins, centered on the 

574: BCG, extending out to $(r/r_{200})=1$. Examination of 

575: Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF} clearly shows that a single Schechter function 

576: is inadequate to fully describe the shape of the composite LF at any 

577: radius. The sum of two Schechter functions has therefore been used to 

578: model the shape of the LF, with the resultant fit given by the solid line 

579: in Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}. 

580: 

581: Several recent studies have determined 

582: that the sum of two Schechter functions provides a more adequate fit to 

583: the cluster LF than a single Schechter function 

584: \citep[e.g.,][]{Driver94,Hilker03,Gonzalez06,Popesso06}. Alternative 

585: LF fitting functions include a Gaussian for the bright-end and a single 

586: Schechter function for the faint-end 

587: \citep[e.g.,][]{Thompson93,Biviano95,Parolin03}, a single power-law fit 

588: to the faint-end \citep[e.g.,][]{Trentham01}, and an Erlang plus a Schechter 

589: function \citep{Biviano95}.

590: 

591: For Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}, a single Schechter function was first fit 

592: to the bright-end from $-24\le M_{R_c}\le -20$, and a second Schechter 

593: function from $-24\le M_{R_c}\le -16.5$. Due to the degeneracy involved in 

594: fitting two Schechter functions, the faint-end slope of the first 

595: Schechter function (for the bright-end) was fixed at $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$. 

596: This procedure is justified since a fit to all 57 clusters for 

597: $-24\le M_{R_c}\le -20$ yields $\alpha=-0.96\pm 0.04$. Limiting the 

598: analysis to the 42 clusters used to form the composite LF gives 

599: $\alpha=-0.95\pm 0.05$. In addition, we imposed a second constraint 

600: that $N^{*}_{2}=2N^{*}_{1}$, where $N^{*}_{1}$ and $N^{*}_{2}$ are the scale 

601: factors of the Schechter function fit to the bright- and faint-end of the 

602: LFs, respectively. When $N^{*}_{1}$ and $N^{*}_{2}$ are free to vary, we 

603: find that the geometric mean of the ratio ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})=2.12$ when 

604: measured over the four radial bins from $(r/r_{200})=0.0$ to 1.0. Due to the 

605: relatively bright absolute magnitude limits ($-16.5$) and the strong 

606: coupling of the Schechter function parameters, we have chosen to derive the 

607: faint-end slope $\alpha$ as the primary parameter of interest and thus 

608: set ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})=2$.

609: 

610: The resultant Schechter function fit parameters for the composite LFs are 

611: tabulated in Table 2, along with the $1\sigma$ uncertainties, where 

612: $M_{1}^{\ast}$ and $M_{2}^{\ast}$ are the turnover in the bright and faint 

613: Schechter functions, respectively. Since the faint-end slope of the first 

614: function has been fixed at $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$, only $\alpha_{2}$ is presented. 

615: The individual clusters that comprise the sample of 42 clusters used to 

616: construct the composite LF cover various fractions of $(r/r_{200})$. This 

617: results in a different number of clusters contributing to the LF counts in 

618: each of the four separate radial bins (see column 7 from Table 2). 

619: 

620: Examination of Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF} and Table 2 clearly indicates that 

621: the faint-end slope tends to become steeper as cluster-centric distance 

622: increases. The faint-end slope is significantly steeper, as measured out 

623: to $(r/r_{200})=1$, than the traditional value of $\alpha=-1.25$ 

624: \citep{Schechter76}. To facilitate the comparison between the different LFs, 

625: the LF for each of the four radial bins has been plotted 

626: together in Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF-Scale}. The outer three LFs, 

627: $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$, have been scaled to match the counts 

628: of the inner-most LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range. This 

629: figure clearly demonstrates the trend of a steepening of the faint-end 

630: slope with increasing cluster-centric radius.

631: 

632: To determine what effect imposing the constraint 

633:  ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})=2$ has on the robustness of the measured 

634: radial-dependent change in the faint-end slope, 

635: we refit our LFs by allowing $N^{*}_{1}$ and $N^{*}_{2}$ to vary. Due 

636: to the degenerate nature of fitting for $N^{*}$, $M^{\ast}$ and 

637: $\alpha$ simultaneously, we measure the ratio $(N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})$ for 

638: the total cluster sample from four annuli by; 

639: i) fixing $\alpha_{2}=-2.01$, $M_{1}^{\ast}=-22.31$ 

640: (mean values averaged over radial bins) and $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$, and then 

641: solving for $N^{*}_{1}$, $N^{*}_{2}$ and 

642: $M_{2}^{\ast}$, and ii) fixing $M_{2}^{\ast}=-18.04$, $M_{1}^{\ast}=-22.31$ 

643: (mean values averaged over radial bins) and $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$, and 

644: then solving for $N^{*}_{1}$, $N^{*}_{2}$ and 

645: $\alpha_{2}$. The increase in the steepness of the faint-end slope with 

646: increasing cluster-centric radius will be manifest by an increase in the 

647: $(N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})$ ratio with increasing radius.

648: 

649: For case (i) we find that the ratio 

650: $(N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})=(0.49,0.50,5.10,13.00)$ for 

651: $(r/r_{200})=(0.0-0.2,0.2-0.4,0.4-0.6,0.6-1.0)$. For case (ii) we 

652: measure $(N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1})=(0.85,2.76,2.60,4.19)$ for 

653: $(r/r_{200})=(0.0-0.2,0.2-0.4,0.4-0.6,0.6-1.0)$. These results are 

654: consistent with the increase in the steepness of the faint-end slope 

655: with increasing radius. Due to the degeneracy in fitting the LF, the 

656: relative fraction of bright and faint cluster galaxies can be best 

657: studied by integrating over the respective LFs. This will be discussed in 

658: detail in the context of the dwarf-to-giant ratio of red- and blue-selected 

659: galaxies in Paper IV of this series.

660: 

661: We compare our composite LF with two recent studies by converting to 

662: $R_{c}$ using \citet{Fukugita95} and adopting our distance scale. 

663: \citet{Gonzalez06} used a double Schechter function to characterize the 

664: composite LF of 728 groups/clusters selected from SDSS DR3. They find 

665: $M^{\ast}=-23.12\pm 0.12$ with $\alpha=-1.89\pm 0.04$ for galaxies 

666: selected within 1.0 Mpc of the group center. Dividing their sample into 

667: two radial bins (0.0--0.6 and 0.6--1.2 Mpc), Gonz\'alez et al. determined 

668: that $M^{\ast}$ gets brighter with increasing radius ($-22.9\pm 0.2$ to 

669: $-23.5\pm 0.2$), while the faint-end slope becomes steeper 

670: ($\alpha=-1.80\pm 0.03$ to $\alpha=-1.99\pm 0.03$). The measured range in 

671: $M^{\ast}$ for this study is significantly brighter ($\sim0.6-1.1$ mag) 

672: than our results tabulated in Table 2. This may be related to the fact that 

673: the Gonz\'alez et al. sample consists predominately of group systems. 

674: For the faint-end, the measured slope values are consistent with our 

675: results, including the trend for a steepening of $\alpha$ with increasing 

676: radius. 

677:  

678: \citet{Popesso06} studied the composite LF of 69 clusters from the 

679: $ROSAT$ All Sky Survey/SDSS galaxy cluster catalog (RASS-SDSS) using the 

680: sum of two Schechter functions. The faint-end slope was found to increase 

681: from $\alpha=-2.02\pm 0.06$ to $-2.19\pm 0.09$ when the sampling radius 

682: increased from $r_{500}$ to $r_{200}$. This compares well with 

683: our measured range in $\alpha$ even though we use annuli to 

684: determine $\alpha$ rather than a circular region with a changing radius. 

685: For the bright-end LF, Popesso et al. finds $\alpha$ varies from 

686: $-1.05\pm 0.07$ for $r_{500}$ to $-1.09\pm 0.09$ for $r_{200}$. This 

687: result is consistent with our use of a fixed $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$. Also, 

688: $M^{\ast}$ of the bright-end was found to brighten slightly from 

689: $M_{R_{c}}=-22.54\pm 0.13$ at $r_{500}$ to $M_{R_{c}}=-22.64\pm 0.16$ 

690: for $r_{200}$. These results are consistent within $1\sigma$ of our measured 

691: values of $-22.26\pm 0.06$ and $-22.38\pm 0.15$ for the inner- and outer-most  

692: radial bin, respectively. In addition, we also detect a slight brightening 

693: of $M^{\ast}$ with increasing cluster-centric radius as reported by 

694: Popesso et al. for their sample.

695: 

696: \subsubsection{Red Sequence Luminosity Function}

697: 

698: To explore the dependency of the composite LF on the physical properties 

699: of cluster galaxies such as color, the cluster galaxy catalogs have been 

700: divided into various sub-samples that populate different regions of the 

701: CMD.

702: 

703: The composite LF of galaxies located on the red sequence of the CMR was 

704: constructed by selecting galaxies using the following criteria: 1) galaxies 

705: are selected if they are within $\pm 3.0$ times the average dispersion 

706: of the Gaussian fit to the CMR \citep[i.e., $\pm 0.22$ mag;][]{Lopez04} 

707: or, depending on which is greater, 2) within 2.5 times the average 

708: uncertainty in the galaxy $B-R_c$ color redward of the red sequence fit 

709: (see Figure~\ref{redseq-region}). In practice, galaxies at the bright-end 

710: of the red sequence will be selected according to the first criterion; 

711: as fainter galaxies are chosen, the uncertainty in the $B-R_c$ color will 

712: increase to a value where galaxies will be selected via criterion 2. 

713: 

714: The first criterion defines the loci of the red sequence in the 

715: CMD. The second criterion helps insure that faint red sequence galaxies near 

716: the completeness limit are selected, even though they will be scattered 

717: further from the CMR than the limit imposed by criterion 1 due to the 

718: increased uncertainty in the measured color. As stated in the second 

719: criterion, only galaxies redward of the CMR were chosen. This was 

720: implemented to minimize the inclusion of galaxies blueward of 

721: the red sequence (what we refer to as the ``blue'' galaxy population), 

722: which are scattered into the red sequence region due to the color 

723: uncertainty at faint magnitudes. To compensate for the ``missing'' members 

724: of the red galaxy population that are located blueward of the 

725: red sequence, the net galaxy counts for those galaxies fainter than the 

726: magnitude at which objects are culled based on criterion 2, have been 

727: increased by a factor of two, since in the absence of a blue galaxy 

728: population one might expect the red sequence members to be symmetrically 

729: distributed on either side of the CMR.

730: 

731: Figure~\ref{redseq-region} illustrates the region of the CMD where 

732: red sequence galaxies have been selected for Abell 260. For 

733: galaxies brighter than $R_c=18.8$ (indicated by the vertical dashed line), 

734: the $2.5\sigma_{B-R_c}$ is less than 3.0 times the average dispersion of the 

735: red sequence (0.22 mag), thus galaxies are chosen according to criterion 1. 

736: For galaxies fainter than $R_c=18.8$, the uncertainty in the color 

737: measurement invokes selection by criterion 2. As depicted in 

738: Figure~\ref{redseq-region}, only galaxies redder than the red sequence are 

739: selected for magnitudes fainter than $R_c=18.8$ mag.

740: 

741: The net red sequence galaxy counts were calculated by subtracting the 

742: background field counts from the ``raw'' red galaxy counts. The background 

743: field galaxies were selected using identical color cuts as imposed on 

744: the red sequence galaxy sample.

745:   

746: The composite red sequence galaxy LF for four different 

747: radial bins (same annuli as that used for the total composite LF) is 

748: depicted in Figure~\ref{Comp-Red-LF}. The LFs have been constructed by 

749: scaling and combining clusters, complete to $M_{R_c}=-16.5$, using the same 

750: method as that described for the total composite LF (\S 4.2.1). Visual 

751: inspection of the red sequence LFs shows that a single Schechter function, 

752: in general, would provide a reasonable fit to the overall shape of the LF 

753: except for the faintest magnitude bins. To compare the red sequence LF 

754: to the total LF, we fit the sum of two Schechter functions to the red 

755: sequence LFs. By allowing $N^{*}_{1}$ and $N^{*}_{2}$ to vary, we find 

756: that the geometric mean of the ratio ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$)=0.4, averaged 

757: over the four radial bins. We thus impose that ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$)=0.4 

758: and fit for $M_{1}^{\ast}$, $M_{2}^{\ast}$, and $\alpha_{2}$. These fits 

759: are depicted in Figure~\ref{Comp-Red-LF} and the best-fit parameters 

760: tabulated in Table 3. We note that the LF fit to the faint component for 

761: the inner-most region is poorly constrained due to the lack of data points 

762: from the rising faint-end slope. We also find that when holding 

763: $M_{2}^{\ast}$ fixed and allowing ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$) and $\alpha_{2}$ 

764: to vary, ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$) increases with increasing cluster-centric 

765: radius.

766: 

767: In Figure~\ref{Scale-Comp-Red-LF} the four red sequence LFs have been 

768: superimposed by scaling the outer three LFs to match the inner-most LF 

769: in the magnitude range $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$. All four LFs appear to be 

770: equivalent to each other for magnitudes brighter than $M_{R_c}\simeq -18$. 

771: For magnitudes fainter than $M_{R_c}\simeq -18$, the inner-most LF appears to 

772: contain the smallest contribution from the faint galaxy component. In 

773: addition, a dip in the LF at $M_{R_c}\sim -18$ is apparent for all 

774: four radial bins (see also Figure~\ref{Comp-Red-LF}). 

775: 

776: The red sequence LFs depicted in 

777: Figure~\ref{Scale-Comp-Red-LF} are remarkably similar in shape to the 

778: composite LF for galaxies selected as having an $r^{1/4}$-like surface 

779: brightness profile given in \citet{Yagi02} (see their Figure 7). This is 

780: not unexpected since the red sequence is dominated by early-type galaxies 

781: whose surface brightness distribution can be approximated by an 

782: $r^{1/4}$-like profile. The Yagi et al. composite LF is sampled to 

783: $M_{R_c}\sim -16.5$, for our adopted cosmology, and thus compares directly 

784: with the red sequence LFs presented in this paper. An upturn in the red 

785: sequence LF at the faint-end is present in our sample 

786: (see Figure~\ref{Comp-Red-LF} and \ref{Scale-Comp-Red-LF}) and 

787: in the composite $r^{1/4}$ LF from Yagi et al. This upturn may be the 

788: result of scattering from the blue galaxy population; however, if this 

789: is the case, the scattered galaxies must also contaminate the sample 

790: of $r^{1/4}$-like surface brightness profiles measured by Yagi et al., 

791: which seems unlikely.

792: 

793: In addition to \citet{Yagi02}, we also compare our red sequence LFs with the 

794: 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey cluster sample from \citet{DePropris03}. This study 

795: presents composite LFs for a sample of 60 clusters based on the selection 

796: of galaxies relative to a classification parameter derived from the principal 

797: component analysis of spectra from \citet{Madgwick02}. LFs are constructed 

798: for early-, mid-, and late-type classes, with spectral classification based 

799: on star formation rates rather than morphological type. Assuming that the 

800: early-type spectral class is associated with red sequence cluster 

801: galaxies, we compare our results from Table 3 with De Propris et al. 

802: A single Schechter function fit to the early-type LF yields 

803: $M^{\ast}_{b_{J}}=-20.04\pm 0.09$ and $\alpha=-1.05\pm 0.04$ for 

804: $M_{b_{J}}<-15$. Converting to $R_{c}$ and using our distance scale, we find 

805: $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.92\pm 0.09$ for $M_{R_{c}}\lesssim -18$. Since 

806: De Propris et al. samples galaxies out to 3.0 Mpc, we compare our 

807: value for $M^{\ast}$ measured in the outer-most radial bin. From Table 3 

808: we have $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.61\pm 0.19$, which is within $1.5\sigma$ of the 

809: De Propris et al. result. The De Propris et al. faint-end slope, 

810: $\alpha=-1.05\pm 0.04$, is consistent with the value of $\alpha=-1.0$ that 

811: we assume for the bright-end Schechter function given that De Propris et al. 

812: only samples to $M_{R_{c}}\sim -18$. Examination of our 

813: Figure~\ref{Scale-Comp-Red-LF} indicates that $\alpha$ becomes steeper for 

814: magnitudes fainter than $-18$. Thus, De Propris et al. does not probe faint 

815: enough to sample the increasing faint galaxy component.

816: 

817: In \S 4.2.1 we compared our total composite LF with \citet{Popesso06}. That 

818: study also presents the composite LF for early-type cluster galaxies based 

819: on selecting galaxies with $2.22\leq u-r\leq 3$. Converting 

820: to $R_{c}$ and our distance scale, Popesso et al. finds 

821: $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.27\pm 0.14$, with a faint-end slope of 

822: $\alpha=-2.01\pm 0.11$ for galaxies measured within $r_{200}$. Our 

823: $M^{\ast}$ values range from $-22.28\pm 0.07$ to $-22.61\pm 0.19$, thus 

824: we are in good agreement with Popesso et al. given that we measure LFs in 

825: a series of concentric annuli. The faint-end slope of Popesso et al. is 

826: flatter than our values tabulated in Table 3 ($-5.26\leq \alpha\leq -2.83$). 

827: This discrepancy is most-likely due to the poor fit at the faint-end of 

828: our LFs as indicated by the large reduced-$\chi^{2}$ values in Table 3. 

829: In fact, Popesso et al. samples $\gtrsim 1$ mag deeper than our data set, 

830: and thus is able to place a better constraint on the faint-end slope. 

831: We also note that the rise in the faint-end slope of the early-type LF 

832: from Popesso et al. occurs at approximately the same magnitude as our study 

833: ($M_{R_{c}}\sim-18.5$).

834: 

835: 

836: \subsubsection{Blue Galaxy Luminosity Function}

837: 

838: We construct the LF of blue cluster galaxies by selecting galaxies in the 

839: CMD blueward of the red galaxy sample. The selection of the galaxies is 

840: illustrated in Figure~\ref{Blue-region}, using Abell 260 as an example. 

841: Here, galaxies brighter than $R_c=18.8$ are designated as blue galaxies 

842: if their $B-R_c$ color is bluer than the blueward limit used to select the 

843: red sequence population. The color criterion for blue galaxies at $M^{\ast}$ 

844: is $B-R_c=1.4$ for Abell 260.  This corresponds to an Sab-type galaxy using 

845: $B-R_c$ galaxy colors tabulated in \citet{Fukugita95}. Galaxies fainter 

846: than $R_c=18.8$ mag are selected if they are located in the region of the 

847: CMD that is bluer than the area used to select the red sequence galaxies and 

848: brighter than the completeness magnitude. An additional correction to the 

849: galaxy counts is made by subtracting the net red sequence galaxy counts 

850: (measured from the region of the CMD fainter than $R_c=18.8$) from the net 

851: blue cluster galaxy counts.\footnote{The 

852: net blue cluster galaxy counts were calculated by subtracting background 

853: field galaxies, selected using the same color criteria as the blue 

854: cluster galaxy population, from the raw blue cluster galaxy counts.}

855: This correction is necessary to account for the red sequence galaxies 

856: that inhabit the region in the CMD that is bluer than the area used to 

857: select the red galaxy population at the faint-end. 

858: 

859: The blue galaxy LF for four different annuli (same radial 

860: bins as that used for the total and red composite LFs) is depicted in 

861: Figure~\ref{Comp-Blue-LF}. The LFs have been constructed by scaling and 

862: combining clusters, complete to $M_{R_c}=-16.5$, as described previously 

863: for the total and red sequence LFs. As determined for the total and 

864: red sequence LFs, a single Schechter function is unable to adequately 

865: describe the shape of the blue galaxy LF. A sum of two 

866: Schechter functions (solid line in Figure~\ref{Comp-Blue-LF}) is fit to 

867: the blue LFs, with the best-fit Schechter parameters given in Table 4. 

868: For the LF fit procedure we set ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$)=3, which is equal 

869: to the geometric mean of the ratio averaged over all four radial bins when 

870: $N^{*}_{1}$ and $N^{*}_{2}$ are allowed to vary. 

871: 

872: In Figure~\ref{Scale-Comp-Blue-LF} the blue LFs have been superimposed 

873: by scaling the outer three LFs to match the inner-most LF in the magnitude 

874: range $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$. In general, all four LFs appear to be very 

875: similar in shape, with a slight tendency for a steeper faint-end slope 

876: at a larger cluster-centric distance. This trend can be ascertained 

877: by examining the value of $\alpha_{2}$ measured for the four LFs 

878: (see Table 4). We note that if we fix $M_{2}^{\ast}$ and solve for 

879: ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$) and $\alpha_{2}$, ($N^{*}_{2}/N^{*}_{1}$) decreases 

880: slightly with increasing cluster-centric radius. We also note that the 

881: blue LFs are similar in shape to the composite LF composed of galaxies 

882: having an exponential-like surface brightness profile from 

883: \citet{Yagi02} (see their Figure 9). 

884: 

885: Analogous to the comparison of our red sequence LF with \citet{DePropris03} 

886: and \citet{Popesso06} in \S 4.2.2, we also compare our blue LF with the 

887: late-type LFs presented in these studies. Correcting 

888: for filter and cosmology difference, the single Schechter function fit 

889: to the late-type LF (Type 3+4) from De Propris et al. yields 

890: $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.02\pm 0.19$ with $\alpha=-1.30\pm 0.10$. This value 

891: for $M^{\ast}$ agrees well with our measured range 

892: ($-21.96\leq M^{\ast}\leq -21.81$), while our faint-end slope is much steeper 

893: ($-1.62\leq \alpha\leq -1.82$). As described in \S 4.2.2, the De Propris 

894: et al. study does not probe the faint-end of the LF to the same depth 

895: as our study ($\Delta M\sim1.5$ mag). The fit of the 

896: faint-end slope is further complicated by the large completeness corrections 

897: required for the faintest two magnitude bins. Thus, it is not surprising that 

898: the faint-end slope of the late-type LF from De Propris et al. is flatter 

899: than our value tabulated in Table 4. The trend of a steeper $\alpha$ for 

900: late-type galaxies compared to early-type systems, is consistent with our 

901: results for blue versus red galaxies.

902: 

903: \citet{Popesso06} presents the late-type composite LF constructed by selecting 

904: galaxies with $u-r\leq 2.22$ for a sampling radius of $r_{200}$. Unlike our 

905: results for the blue LF, a single Schechter function is found to be an 

906: adequate fit to the late-type LF. Converting the SDSS $r$-band to $R_{c}$ 

907: and employing our distance scale, the late-type LF from Popesso et al. 

908: has $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-23.41\pm 0.52$ and $\alpha=-1.87\pm 0.04$. The value 

909: of $M^{\ast}$ from Popesso et al. is significantly brighter ($\sim 1.5$ mag; 

910: $2.7\sigma$ level) than the average value measured for our blue LF. 

911: The Popesso et al. result is also $\sim 1.4$ mag brighter ($2.5\sigma$ 

912: level) then De Propris et al. for their late-type LF, and $\sim0.8$ mag 

913: brighter than the exponential composite LF from \citet{Yagi02}. We also 

914: note, based on De Propris et al., Yagi et al., and this study, that 

915: $M^{\ast}$ is brighter for the red (early-type, $r^{1/4}$-like) LF than 

916: for the blue (late-type, exp-like) LF. This is not the case for Popesso 

917: et al., where the early-type LF has a fainter $M^{\ast}$ ($\sim 1.1$ mag) 

918: than the late-type LF. We do not understand this discrepancy, but 

919: speculate that it may be due to the selection of galaxy types by Popesso 

920: et al. based on $u-r$ color. The faint-end slope of the Popesso et al. 

921: late-type LF ($\alpha=-1.87\pm 0.04$) is consistent with the range in 

922: slope values measured for our blue LF ($-1.62\pm 0.05$ to $-1.82\pm 0.10$).

923: 

924: In Figure~\ref{Scale-Compare-LF} the total, red sequence, and blue 

925: LFs for the four radial bins are directly compared. 

926: To aid this comparison, the red sequence and blue LFs have been matched to 

927: the total LF in each radial bin by scaling the red and blue galaxy counts 

928: such that the number of galaxies between $-24\leq M_{R_c}\leq -16.5$ is equal 

929: to the total LF in the same magnitude range. Inspection of 

930: Figure~\ref{Scale-Compare-LF} shows that the total and red sequence LFs 

931: are composed of a bright galaxy component that is much more significant 

932: than the contribution from the blue LFs. For the faint-end, the blue 

933: galaxy sample appears to contribute the greatest fraction of the faint 

934: dwarf galaxy population, with the largest difference apparent for the 

935: inner-most radial bin where $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$. 

936: 

937: It is also interesting to observe that $M^{\ast}$ for the faint LF component 

938: gets brighter with increasing cluster-centric radius for the red galaxy 

939: population and fainter for the blue galaxies. We will fully discuss this 

940: feature in the context of color-selected giant and dwarf galaxies in Paper IV 

941: of this series.

942: 

943: \subsection{Bright-End of the Luminosity Function}

944: 

945: \subsubsection{The Distribution of $M^{\ast}$}

946: 

947: The variation in the value of $M^{\ast}$ of the cluster LF can be used to 

948: gauge whether the LF is universal in shape at the bright-end, or whether 

949: luminosity segregation takes place (i.e., bright galaxies occupy 

950: preferentially the central regions of clusters). The measurement of 

951: $M^{\ast}$ has been important, historically, for potential use as a 

952: ``standard candle'' \citep[e.g.,][]{Schechter76,Dressler78,Colless89} and 

953: quantifying any variation in its value is important. We adopt the premise 

954: that the bright-end of the LF is universal if the median uncertainty of 

955: $M^{\ast}$ is comparable to the measured dispersion of the distribution.

956: 

957: To measure the variation in the bright-end of the LF, the value of 

958: $M^{\ast}$ was determined for our sample by fitting each 

959: cluster with a single Schechter function as described in \S 4.1; 

960: i.e., fitting the net galaxy counts 

961: in the magnitude range $-24\leq M_{R_c}\leq -20$, with the faint-end slope 

962: fixed at $\alpha=-1$. Only galaxies measured within a cluster-centric 

963: radius of $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ were selected. This allows us to maximize the 

964: number of clusters in our sample while normalizing each one to the same 

965: dynamical radius without being adversely affected by small number 

966: statistics. Values for $M^{\ast}$ for 55 clusters satisfying the magnitude 

967: and radius criteria are tabulated in Table 1.

968: 

969: In Figure~\ref{Mstar-Gauss} we plot the distribution of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$, 

970: which appears approximately Gaussian with a mean 

971: $\langle M_{R_c}^{\ast}\rangle=-22.24\pm 0.06$ and a dispersion of 

972: $\sigma=0.31$ mag. The median uncertainty in the measurement of 

973: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ for all 55 clusters is 0.38 mag, thus supporting the 

974: universality of $M^{\ast}$ within the measured range of 

975: $\Delta M^{\ast}\sim 0.3$ magnitude. 

976: \citet{Popesso05} presents the histogram distribution of $M^{\ast}$ for 

977: LFs measured within a radius of $2h^{-1}_{50}$ Mpc. Their distribution is 

978: Gaussian-like in shape with an estimated mean of $\sim -22.6$ and a 

979: dispersion of $\sim 0.5$ mag (transformed to our filter and distance scale). 

980: Given that the Popesso et al. LFs are measured with a fixed aperture, and 

981: at a larger radius than ours, it is not unexpected that they obtain a 

982: somewhat larger dispersion and a brighter mean $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ than our 

983: results, which may arise from a mild dependence of $M^{\ast}$ on 

984: cluster-centric radius (see \S 4.3.2).

985: 

986: Given the size of the dispersion, our results are not too dissimilar 

987: even though Popesso et al. used a fixed physical length scale for the 

988: counting aperture size rather than scaling relative to a 

989: dynamical radius like $r_{200}$.

990: 

991: Since the uncertainty in $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ is expected to be a function 

992: of cluster richness (assuming Poisson statistics), we measure the median 

993: uncertainty and dispersion of $M^{\ast}$ for three bins based on cluster 

994: richness; i) $B_{gc}>1500$, ii) $1000<B_{gc}<1500$, and iii) $B_{gc}<1000$. 

995: The dividing $B_{gc}$ values are equivalent to line-of-sight velocity 

996: dispersions of $\sigma_{v}\sim 960~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$ for 

997: $B_{gc}=1500$ and $\sigma_{v}\sim 750~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$ for 

998: $B_{gc}=1000$ \citep{Yee03}.

999: 

1000: For clusters with $B_{gc}>1500$, we find a median uncertainty in 

1001: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ of 0.22 mag with a corresponding dispersion of 0.25 mag. 

1002: For the cluster sample with $1000<B_{gc}<1500$, we obtain a median 

1003: uncertainty of 0.35 mag and a dispersion of 0.35 mag. Finally, for the 

1004: poorest group we measure a median uncertainty of 0.51 mag and a dispersion 

1005: of 0.32 mag. A comparison of the median uncertainty and dispersion of 

1006: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ for our three cluster sub-samples supports the 

1007: hypothesis that the bright-end of the cluster LF is universal at the 

1008: $\sim 0.3$ mag level.

1009: 

1010: A direct comparison of $\langle M_{R_c}^{\ast}\rangle$ with other published 

1011: values is 

1012: problematic given that $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ is not independent of $\alpha$ 

1013: \citep{Schechter76}. \citet{Piranomonte01} finds 

1014: $M_{r}^{\ast}=-22.02\pm 0.16$ for the combined 

1015: LF from a sample of 80 clusters using a Schechter function fit with 

1016: $\alpha=-1.01$. The composite LF for this study was constructed by weighting 

1017: clusters according to their richness. Transforming $M_{r}^{\ast}$ to the 

1018: $R_c$ passband \citep{Fukugita95} and our adopted cosmology, we find 

1019: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}= -22.39\pm 0.16$, which is in very good agreement with our 

1020: result. From a sample of 69 clusters extracted from the RASS-SDSS, 

1021: \citet{Popesso06} found 

1022: $M_{r}^{\ast}=-20.94\pm 0.16$ and $\alpha=-1.09$. The cluster galaxies 

1023: were measured within a cluster-centric radius of $r_{200}$. Transforming 

1024: to our cosmology and passband yields $M_{R_c}^{\ast}=-22.64\pm 0.16$, which 

1025: is consistent with our measurement. 

1026: 

1027: \citet{Hansen05} presents $M_{r}^{\ast}$ for a sample of clusters/groups 

1028: selected from the SDSS Early Data Release. The Hansen et al. study tabulates 

1029: $M_{r}^{\ast}$ for several cluster samples of various richness with a 

1030: faint-end slope fixed at $\alpha=-1.0$ (see their Table 2). The value of 

1031: $M^{\ast}$ for their richest sub-sample, which compares more directly with our 

1032: Abell clusters, was determined to be $M_{r}^{\ast}=-20.86\pm 0.05$. 

1033: Transforming to our adopted cosmology and $R_c$-band filter, we find 

1034: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}=-22.53\pm 0.05$. This result is based on cluster galaxies 

1035: measured within $r_{200}$ and is in excellent agreement with our results. 

1036: Hansen et al. also suggests that $M^{\ast}$ is correlated with 

1037: cluster richness in the sense that richer clusters have a brighter 

1038: $M_{r}^{\ast}$. For their three richest bins, $M_{r}^{\ast}$ differs by 

1039: $\sim 4\sigma$ between the poorest and richest sub-samples. To search for a 

1040: similar correlation in our Abell sample, we have divided our clusters into 

1041: three bins based on $B_{gc}$; i) $B_{gc} < 1000$, ii) $1000\leq B_{gc}<1500$, 

1042: and iii) $B_{gc}>1500$. For these three sub-samples we find  

1043: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}=(-22.36\pm 0.08, -22.25\pm 0.07, -22.28\pm 0.05)$ for 

1044: $B_{gc}=(< 1000, 1000-1500,>1500)$. No correlation between $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ 

1045: and cluster richness (as measured by $B_{gc}$) is evident.

1046: 

1047: To search for a possible correlation with richness for individual 

1048: clusters, we plot in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc} the distribution of 

1049: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ as a function of $B_{gc}$. A Spearman rank-order correlation 

1050: coefficient \citep{Press92} indicates that a correlation between 

1051: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ and $B_{gc}$ is not significant ($r_{s}=-0.08$), with a 

1052: 45\% probability that the variables are correlated. It is not too surprising 

1053: that cluster richness, as measured by $B_{gc}$, does not have a strong 

1054: influence on $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ since we have normalized our cluster sample in 

1055: terms of $r_{200}$. In Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc} we do see a trend where the 

1056: spread in the measured value of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ decreases with increasing 

1057: $B_{gc}$. This is most-likely due to the increased uncertainty in the 

1058: measurement of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ for poorer clusters. For the ten clusters with 

1059: the smallest value of $B_{gc}$, the average uncertainty in $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ is 

1060: $0.69$ mag, while for the ten clusters with the largest value of $B_{gc}$, 

1061: the mean uncertainty is $0.22$ mag. 

1062: 

1063: \citet{Hilton05} finds a correlation between $M^{\ast}_{b_{j}}$ and X-ray 

1064: luminosity such that low-$L_{X}$ clusters have a brighter $M^{\ast}$ than 

1065: high-$L_{X}$ systems ($\Delta M\sim 0.51$ mag). To compare our results, we 

1066: use $L_{X}$ measurements from \citet{Ebeling96,Ebeling00} for a sub-sample of 

1067: 41 clusters in common and construct composite LFs for a low-$L_{X}$ 

1068: ($L_{X}<3\times 10^{44}~\mbox{ergs}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$; 22 clusters) and a 

1069: high-$L_{X}$ sample ($L_{X}\geq3\times 10^{44}~\mbox{ergs}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$; 

1070: 19 clusters). Fitting a single Schechter function to the LFs yields 

1071: $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.25\pm 0.06$ for the low-$L_{X}$ sample and 

1072: $M^{\ast}_{R_{c}}=-22.22\pm 0.05$ for the high-$L_{X}$ group. Thus, there 

1073: is no significant difference in $M^{\ast}$ when dividing our sample in terms 

1074: of $L_{X}$. The discrepancy between our result and Hilton et al. may be 

1075: due to the higher fraction of low-mass systems in their sample. For 

1076: example, using the same dividing $L_{X}$ as Hilton et al. 

1077: ($0.36\times 10^{44}~\mbox{erg}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$), our low-$L_{X}$ sample 

1078: contains only 3 clusters (7\% of the total), while the corresponding 

1079: Hilton et al. sample contains 49 clusters (72\% of the total).

1080: 

1081: To search for a correlation of LF parameters with cluster mass, 

1082: \citet{DePropris03} divided their sample into two groups based on 

1083: velocity dispersion ($\sigma \gtrless 800~\mbox{km}~\mbox{s}^{-1}$). A 

1084: Schechter function fit to the low- and high-$\sigma$ group yields the 

1085: same $M^{\ast}$ at the $1\sigma$ level. This is consistent with our 

1086: findings that $M^{\ast}$ is not correlated with cluster mass.

1087: 

1088: The characterization of clusters based on the relative contrast of the 

1089: brightest cluster galaxy defines the Bautz-Morgan type (BM-type) 

1090: classification scheme \citep{BM70}. The evolutionary state of a cluster, as 

1091: characterized by its BM-type, is expected to be correlated with 

1092: $M^{\ast}$ if the BCGs are created via the merger of giant galaxies through 

1093: a cannibalism-like process \citep[e.g.,][]{Dressler78}. Galactic cannibalism 

1094: would reduce the number of bright galaxies and therefore shift 

1095: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ to a fainter value. To test this scenario, we plot in 

1096: Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc-BM} 

1097: $M^{\ast}$ versus BM-type for 54 clusters (A1569 has no published BM-type). 

1098: The solid line in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc-BM} depicts a 

1099: least-squares fit to the data and suggests that a weak correlation exits in 

1100: the sense that early BM-type clusters have a fainter $M^{\ast}$ than later 

1101: BM-types. A Spearman rank-order test gives a correlation coefficient 

1102: of $r_{s}=-0.28$, with a 96\% probability that these two variables are 

1103: correlated. This result lends support to the theoretical study of 

1104: \citet{merritt84} in which the formation of the BCG occurs while the 

1105: cluster is collapsing. It is expected that relatively little evolution 

1106: of the BCG happens after the cluster is virialized. If we associate the 

1107: early BM-type clusters with fully relaxed virialized systems and late 

1108: BM-types with unrelaxed systems in the process of collapsing, the trend 

1109: of the correlation between $M^{\ast}$ and BM-type from 

1110: Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc-BM} can be explained.

1111: 

1112: Since $M^{\ast}$ is correlated with BM-type, we correct the values 

1113: of $M^{\ast}$ for this correlation and find that the dispersion in 

1114: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ decreases from 0.31 mag to 0.24 mag. This result 

1115: is consistent with the universality of $M^{\ast}$ within the 0.3 mag 

1116: range.

1117: 

1118: To investigate the possible correlation between $M^{\ast}$ and $B_{gc}$ for 

1119: selected BM-types, we divide our 54 clusters into early BM-types 

1120: (I and I-II) and late BM-types (II, II-III, and III). A Spearman rank-order 

1121: correlation analysis for the early BM-type sample yields $r_{s}=-0.27$, 

1122: with a 72\% probability that $M^{\ast}$ and $B_{gc}$ are correlated. For 

1123: the late BM-type clusters we find $r_{s}=-0.08$ with only a 39\% probability 

1124: that $M^{\ast}$ and $B_{gc}$ are correlated. These results indicate that 

1125: no significant correlation exists between $M^{\ast}$ and cluster richness 

1126: among similar BM-type clusters when measuring galaxies within an equivalent 

1127: dynamical radius and thus further supports the notion that $M^{\ast}$ is 

1128: universal within the measured uncertainty.

1129: 

1130: \citet{DePropris03} compares their composite LF fit parameters for two 

1131: sub-samples divided according to BM-type. The difference in $M^{\ast}$ 

1132: between the early BM-type group (I, II-II, II) and the late BM-type sample 

1133: (II-III, III) is $0.06\pm 0.22$ mag, where the uncertainties in $M^{\ast}$ 

1134: are added in quadrature. The difference in $M^{\ast}$ between our BM-type I 

1135: and III systems is $\Delta M=0.3$ mag, which is significant at the $3\sigma$ 

1136: level. Using identical BM-type bins as De Propris et al., we find 

1137: $\Delta M=0.2$ mag at the $3\sigma$ level. The discrepancy between our 

1138: result and De Propris et al. may be related to differences in the 

1139: technique used to construct the composite LFs. For example, De Propris 

1140: et al. includes the BCG in their LFs. In addition, instead of using a 

1141: dynamically scaled radius, De Propis et al. used all galaxies within a 

1142: fixed aperture of $1.5h^{-1}_{100}$ Mpc, which may add to the dispersion 

1143: of $M^{\ast}$. Also, galaxy magnitudes from 

1144: De Propris et al. are based on $m_{b_{j}}$ magnitudes, which are more 

1145: susceptible to recent star formation and dust attenuation than $R_{c}$ 

1146: magnitudes. In addition, De Propris et al. fits for the value of $\alpha$ 

1147: while we impose the constraint that $\alpha=-1$. Since $M^{\ast}$ and 

1148: $\alpha$ are correlated, a steeper $\alpha$ will in general yield a fainter 

1149: $M^{\ast}$. The faint-end slope of the early BM-type LF from 

1150: De Propris et al. is flatter than the slope of the late BM-type LF. 

1151: Forcing $\alpha$ to be the same will increase $\Delta M$ between these 

1152: two samples. Although the difference in $M^{\ast}$ between the BM-type 

1153: samples in De Propris et al. is not significant, it is interesting to note 

1154: that the late BM-type sample has a slightly brighter $M^{\ast}$, 

1155: equivalent to the trend we measure.

1156: 

1157: \subsubsection{The Cluster-Centric Radial Dependence of $M^{\ast}$}

1158: 

1159: The variation of $M^{\ast}$ as a function of cluster-centric radius was 

1160: examined by measuring the bright-end of the composite LF constructed from 

1161: our entire 57 cluster sample. These clusters are 100\% photometrically 

1162: complete to $M_{R_c}=-20$, and thus maximize the number of clusters used to 

1163: determine $M^{\ast}$ in order to minimize its measured uncertainty. 

1164: (Recall that the $M^{\ast}$ values tabulated in Tables 2--4 are 

1165: measured for a sample of 42 clusters that are complete to $M_{R_c}=-16.5$.) 

1166: 

1167: The dependence of $M^{\ast}$ on cluster-centric radius was determined by 

1168: fitting a single Schechter function to the net galaxy counts from 

1169: $-24\leq M_{R_c}\leq -20$ for the four radial bins used previously (for 

1170: example, see Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}). The faint-end slope of the 

1171: Schechter function was fixed at $\alpha=-1.0$ as was done when measuring 

1172: $M^{\ast}$ for the individual cluster LFs. Since different clusters 

1173: cover various fractions of $r_{200}$, the total number of clusters 

1174: contributing to the composite sample will vary with cluster-centric radius. 

1175: 

1176: In Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius} we plot $M^{\ast}$ as a function of 

1177: $(r/r_{200})$ for the total composite cluster sample, as well as 

1178: samples compiled by selecting red and blue galaxies from our 

1179: 57-cluster sample (see \S 4.2 for color selection criteria). Inspection 

1180: of Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius} reveals that for the red and blue composite 

1181: samples, $M^{\ast}$ gets brighter with increasing cluster-centric radius. 

1182: For the total composite sample, we find a similar correlation, although the 

1183: trend is much weaker. This weaker trend is due to the interplay between the 

1184: relative dominance of the red and blue galaxies as a function of 

1185: cluster-centric radius. $M^{\ast}$ near the center is dominated by red 

1186: galaxies; whereas at larger radii, blue galaxies with a fainter $M_{R_c}$ 

1187: become an increasingly more important component, flattening the 

1188: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ dependence on radius. 

1189: The difference in $M^{\ast}$ between the inner- and outer-most radial bin 

1190: is $\Delta M=0.48$ mag for the red sequence LF ($3.3\sigma$ level) and 

1191: $\Delta M=0.27$ mag for the blue LF ($1.2\sigma$ level).

1192: 

1193: To quantify the correlation for each of our three composite cluster 

1194: samples, we calculate the linear correlation coefficient $r$ 

1195: statistic \citep{Press92}. For the total composite cluster sample, we find 

1196: that the linear correlation coefficient is $r=-0.91$, with a 92\% 

1197: probability that $M^{\ast}$ and radius are correlated. The red sequence 

1198: composite cluster sample yields $r=-0.98$, with a 98\% probability of a 

1199: correlation. For the blue galaxy cluster sample, the linear correlation 

1200: coefficient is $r=-0.98$ and a 98\% probability of a correlation. 

1201: 

1202: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1203: 

1204: \section{Discussion and Conclusions}

1205: \subsection{Universality of the Luminosity Function}

1206: 

1207: We have examined the distribution of $M^{\ast}$ for the bright-end of 

1208: the LF in the core of Abell clusters. We found that the dispersion in 

1209: $M^{\ast}$ is comparable to the average measured uncertainty, even when 

1210: dividing the cluster sample into different richness groups based on 

1211: $B_{gc}$. We use this result to indicate that $M^{\ast}$ is universal 

1212: at the 0.3 mag level for a restricted magnitude range and when measured 

1213: within a specific dynamical radius. In addition, we find a weak trend 

1214: in which early BM-type clusters have a fainter $M^{\ast}$ than late 

1215: BM-types.

1216: 

1217: One of the primary goals of this paper is to explore the change in the cluster 

1218: $R_c$-band LF as a function of cluster-centric radius. From a sample of 

1219: 57 low-$z$ Abell clusters, we have measured LFs covering various fractions 

1220: of $r_{200}$ for both the red sequence and blue cluster galaxy populations. 

1221: Our results indicate that the overall shape of the LF is dependent 

1222: upon distance from the cluster center. In general, the LFs exhibit an 

1223: increase in the steepness of the faint-end slope with increasing 

1224: radius. The radial dependence of the rate-of-change in $\alpha$ is greatest 

1225: for the total cluster sample (i.e., red plus blue galaxies), while the blue 

1226: LF is less dependent. The red sequence LF is mostly flat ($\alpha\sim -1$) 

1227: over a span of $\sim 5$ magnitudes ($-23<M_{R_c}<-18$), with a rising 

1228: faint-end for $M_{R_{c}}> -18$. In contrast, the blue 

1229: galaxy LF is much steeper ($\alpha\sim -1.8$) over this same luminosity 

1230: range, with minimal change in shape out to $r_{200}$. The very rapid 

1231: increase in $\alpha$ for the total LF is likely due to a combination of 

1232: steepening slope for both red and blue LFs and the increasing 

1233: dominance of the blue population at large cluster-centric radii. In addition, 

1234: the red sequence LF has a much brighter characteristic magnitude 

1235: ($\sim 0.6$ mag) over all radii than the blue galaxy luminosity distribution. 

1236: These results lend support to several recent studies that have observed 

1237: similar characteristics for red and blue galaxy LFs drawn from low- to 

1238: high-density environments \citep[e.g.,][]{Beijersbergen02a,Goto02,Baldry04}.

1239: 

1240: The general trend for the LF to become flatter with decreasing 

1241: cluster-centric radius supports the hypothesis that dwarf galaxies are 

1242: tidally disrupted near the cluster center. This idea has been 

1243: used by \citet{Lopez97b} to help explain the formation of BCG halos and 

1244: the origin of a large fraction of the gas content in the intracluster medium.

1245: 

1246: The dependence of the shape of the LF on cluster-centric radius provides 

1247: strong evidence that the relative mixture of giant and dwarf galaxies 

1248: depends on the fraction of the virial radius that is measured. This argues 

1249: against the global universality of the cluster LF for the magnitude interval 

1250: $-26\leq M_{R_c}\leq -16.5$ and suggests an environmental influence. The 

1251: non-parametric galaxy dwarf-to-giant ratio will be explored in Paper IV 

1252: of this series.

1253: 

1254: In Figure~\ref{CompareLF} we plot composite cluster LFs from several published 

1255: sources \citep{Colless89,Piranomonte01,Goto02,DePropris03,Hansen05,

1256: Popesso06}. These LFs have been transformed to $M_{R_c}$ using 

1257: \citet{Fukugita95} and our adopted cosmology. Also depicted in 

1258: Figure~\ref{CompareLF} are the total composite LFs from this study for the 

1259: inner- and outer-most radial bin. In addition, the SDSS field galaxy LF 

1260: from \citet{Blanton03} is included for comparison purposes. 

1261: 

1262: Figure~\ref{CompareLF} illustrates that the slope of the LFs are very similar 

1263: at bright magnitudes where the giant galaxies have the greatest 

1264: influence on the shape of the LF. The main difference in the slope arises 

1265: at the faint-end where the influence of the dwarf galaxies tends to increase 

1266: the steepness of $\alpha$. The sampling depth and effective cluster-centric 

1267: radius thus has a major influence on the measured shape of the cluster LF 

1268: since the inclusion of different amounts of the dwarf galaxy population will 

1269: directly impact the faint-end slope. Thus, the evidence supports the notion 

1270: that the cluster LF is not universal in shape in a global sense. In 

1271: addition, we measure a dispersion of 0.3 mag in the value of $M^{\ast}$ for 

1272: the depicted cluster LFs; the faintest value is $M_{R_c}^{\ast}=-22.26$ 

1273: for the inner-most annuli from this study and the brightest is 

1274: $M_{R_c}^{\ast}=-23.14$ from \citet{Goto02}. 

1275: 

1276: \subsection{Cluster Galaxy Population Gradients}

1277: 

1278: As discussed in \S4.3.2, Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius} shows that the 

1279: bright-end $M^{\ast}$ becomes brighter with increasing cluster-centric 

1280: radius for both the red, and with a lesser significance, the blue cluster 

1281: galaxies. The observed dimming of 

1282: $M^{\ast}$ toward the 

1283: cluster center can be explained as a simple fading of the galaxy population. 

1284: For the blue cluster galaxies, the truncation of star formation as field 

1285: galaxies fall into the cluster environment 

1286: \citep[e.g.,][]{Abraham96,Ellingson03} would lead to a fading of 

1287: $M^{\ast}$ with decreasing cluster-centric radius. Since clusters are 

1288: believed to have formed via the infall of galaxies along filamentary-like 

1289: structures \citep[e.g.,][]{Dubinski98}, it is expected that a population of 

1290: infalling field galaxies can be detected in addition to the older, 

1291: mainly early-type red galaxies. If star formation for infalling spiral 

1292: galaxies, which 

1293: dominate the field galaxy population \citep[e.g.,][]{Binggeli88}, is 

1294: truncated via some type of dynamical mechanism \citep[e.g., ram pressure 

1295: stripping, galaxy harassment, etc.;][]{Moore98,Goto05a,Roediger06}, then 

1296: a roughly continuous infall (but with an allowed variable rate) would be 

1297: observed as a fading of the population toward the cluster center. Given 

1298: enough time, infalling spiral galaxies may acquire characteristics that 

1299: are similar to S0 galaxies. In fact, this type of mechanism for S0 formation 

1300: has been proposed by numerous authors 

1301: \citep[see][and references therein]{Dressler99}, although the formation of 

1302: field S0s has remained problematic for these models.

1303: 

1304: The dimming of $M^{\ast}_{2}$, or the decrease of 

1305: ($N_{2}^{\ast}/N_{1}^{\ast}$) for the faint-end of the red sequence LF for 

1306: decreasing cluster-centric radii, places constraints on the evolutionary path 

1307: of the faint blue galaxies. If these galaxies simply fade and turn red, we 

1308: would expect them to contribute to the red sequence LF by increasing the 

1309: number of faint red galaxies in the central cluster region. We thus suggest 

1310: that the faint blue cluster galaxies are destroyed in the central cluster 

1311: region. This is not a far-fetched hypothesis since the faint blue galaxies are 

1312: very similar to the low-mass dwarf spheroidal galaxies, which are expected 

1313: to undergo tidal disruption in the central cluster environment 

1314: \citep{Thompson93,Gallagher94,Hilker03}. These low luminosity blue galaxies 

1315: could also be the source of the dwarf galaxies that get tidally disrupted 

1316: and form the halo of BCGs as proposed in a model by \citet{Lopez97b}. 

1317: We will explore this possibility further in Paper IV of this series.

1318: 

1319: The fading of the bright-end $M^{\ast}$ for the red sequence galaxy 

1320: population may be the result of two separate processes; the continuous 

1321: fading of infalling red 

1322: galaxies (which may have turned red relatively recently due to the 

1323: truncation of star formation) and galactic cannibalism in the high-density 

1324: central cluster region. 

1325: For the infall scenario, red galaxies are expected to originate from a 

1326: population that had arrived in the cluster environment early in its history. 

1327: The observed dispersion of the CMR for the cluster red sequence places 

1328: constraints both on the formation timescale of the early-type galaxy 

1329: population \citep[i.e., $z>2$; e.g.,][]

1330: {Stanford98,dePropris99,Gladders99,Holden04,Lopez04} and any episodes 

1331: of recent star formation \citep[e.g.,][]{Bower98}. Red galaxies which 

1332: have entered the cluster environment during the earliest part of the 

1333: cluster lifetime, would be expected to be the faintest since the time 

1334: between the last phase of major star formation and today would be the 

1335: greatest for these galaxies (after the truncation of star formation, 

1336: galaxies would evolve passively with an associated reddening and dimming 

1337: of their starlight). Under this scenario, we would expect that the blue 

1338: galaxy population would show a greater rate-of-change in $M^{\ast}$ with 

1339: radius due to the more recent decline in the star formation rate. The red 

1340: galaxies would be expected to exhibit a more gradual change in $M^{\ast}$, 

1341: as compared to the blue galaxy population, since the red galaxies are just 

1342: a passively evolving old galaxy population. 

1343: 

1344: As depicted in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius} the bright-end $M^{\ast}$ for the 

1345: red sequence galaxies fades more rapidly toward the cluster center than for 

1346: the blue galaxy population. Since a simple infall scenario as described 

1347: predicts that the blue galaxy population should exhibit the more rapid 

1348: decline in $M^{\ast}$, we hypothesize that an additional mechanism may 

1349: affect the rate-of-change of $M^{\ast}$ with radius for the red galaxy 

1350: population. A clue to this additional effect is gleamed from 

1351: Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc-BM} where the correlation between $M^{\ast}$ 

1352: and BM-type is depicted for the total cluster sample. As described in 

1353: \S 4.3.1, the trend for a brightening of $M^{\ast}$ with later BM-type 

1354: can be explained by galactic cannibalism. As first theorized by 

1355: \citet{Ostriker77} and \citet{Hausman78}, as bright galaxies fall into 

1356: the cluster center they will be swallowed by the giant central galaxy, thus 

1357: resulting in the fading of $M^{\ast}$ as bright galaxies are depleted from 

1358: the LF. Since early BM-type clusters have, by definition, a bright central 

1359: dominant galaxy, the correlation depicted in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius} 

1360: is expected. Galactic cannibalism will also result in the fading of 

1361: $M^{\ast}$ with decreasing cluster-centric radius, as illustrated in 

1362: Figure~\ref{Mstar-Radius}. We performed a simple test of this hypothesis 

1363: by calculating $M^{\ast}$ for our red cluster galaxy sample for early BM-type 

1364: clusters (I and I-II) and late BM-type clusters (II, II-III, and III). We 

1365: assume that the effect of galactic cannibalism on the radial dependence of 

1366: $M^{\ast}$ will be greatest for the early BM-type sample. Comparing 

1367: $M^{\ast}$ between the inner- and outer-most radial bin shows that for 

1368: the early BM-type sample, $\Delta M=0.71$ mag with the two measurements 

1369: different at the $2\sigma$ level. For the late BM-type sample, we find 

1370: $\Delta M=0.36$ mag at the $2\sigma$ level. Although the significance of the 

1371: difference in $M^{\ast}$ for a given BM-type group is not high (partly due 

1372: to the fact that only four clusters comprise the outer-most radial bin for 

1373: the early BM-type clusters), the larger difference in $M^{\ast}$ for the 

1374: early BM-type sample suggests that the infall and galactic cannibalism 

1375: scenarios may help to explain the observed rate-of-change of $M^{\ast}$ 

1376: with radius for the red sequence galaxy population.

1377: 

1378: In Paper IV of this series we will further elucidate the nature of the 

1379: cluster galaxy population by examining the radial-dependence of the 

1380: dwarf-to-giant ratio and the blue-to-red galaxy count ratio. These results 

1381: will complement the observations presented in this paper and provide 

1382: additional constraints on the composition of the galaxy population in 

1383: low-redshift Abell clusters.

1384: 

1385: \acknowledgments

1386: 

1387: We thank the anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions. 

1388: Research by W. A. B. at the University of Toronto was supported by the 

1389: Carl Reinhardt Fund, the Walter C. Sumner Fellowship, and NSERC through 

1390: the Discovery grant of H. K. C. Y. W. A. B. also acknowledges support from 

1391: NASA LTSA award NAG5-11415, NASA Chandra X-ray Center archival research 

1392: grant AR7-8015B, and a University of Illinois seed funding award to the 

1393: Dark Energy Survey. Research by H. K. C. Y. is supported by an NSERC 

1394: Discovery grant. O. L.-C research is supported by INAOE and a CONACyT grant 

1395: for Ciencia B{\'a}sica P45952-F. O. L.-C. also acknowledges support from 

1396: a research grant from the Academia Mexicana de Ciencias-Royal Society 

1397: during 2006-2007, taken to the Univesity of Bristol. We thank Huan Lin for 

1398: providing photometric catalogs for five control fields, and James Brown 

1399: for the use of his galaxy profile fitting software and photometric data 

1400: for A496 and A1142.

1401: 

1402: The Image Reduction and Analysis Facility (IRAF) is distributed by the 

1403: National Optical Astronomy Observatory, which is operated by AURA, Inc., 

1404: under contract to the National Science Foundation. This research has made 

1405: use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the 

1406: Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under 

1407: contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

1408: 

1409: \appendix

1410: 

1411: \section{Quantifying Selection Effects and Biases}

1412: 

1413: A major challenge when conducting any observational study is 

1414: the ability to quantify the impact of selection effects and biases 

1415: on the robustness of the results. In this appendix we explore several 

1416: of these potential sources of systematic errors and quantify their affect 

1417: on the derived galaxy cluster LF.  

1418: 

1419: \subsection{Chance Projections}

1420: 

1421: A main concern in interpreting the results of a study based on the 

1422: LF constructed from the statistical subtraction 

1423: of background galaxies is the possible influence of projection effects. 

1424: The chance projection of field galaxies, or unrelated groups, can 

1425: appear as clusters when redshift information is not available 

1426: \citep{val01}. Selection of cluster members using 

1427: color information (see \S 3.2) helps to alleviate some of this concern. 

1428: To determine 

1429: what impact chance projections may have on our LFs, 

1430: we have divided our cluster sample into two groups according to the number of 

1431: published redshifts \citep[e.g.,][]{struble99}. The first group contains 

1432: only those clusters which have at least 25 spectroscopically-confirmed 

1433: cluster members. The second group contains clusters in which the number 

1434: of redshift-confirmed members is $\le 10$. In this comparison it is assumed 

1435: that clusters with a small number of confirmed members may still suffer from 

1436: unknown projection effects.

1437: 

1438: In Figure~\ref{Redshift10-25} we present LFs for the total composite cluster 

1439: sample for four different radial bins. The cluster sample has been divided 

1440: into two groups according to the number of confirmed cluster members based 

1441: on the number of redshifts (i.e., 20 clusters with $\leq 10$ galaxy redshifts 

1442: and 32 clusters with $\geq 25$ galaxy redshifts). The LFs for each radial 

1443: bin have been scaled to match the LF for that particular cluster-centric 

1444: radius from the total composite LFs depicted in Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}. 

1445: The overall shape of the LFs generated for the two redshift-selected cluster 

1446: groups are very similar in shape for all four annuli. Hence, this test 

1447: indicates that the chance projection of background clusters/galaxy groups 

1448: does not have a significant effect on our results.

1449: 

1450: \subsection{Deprojecting the Luminosity Function}

1451: 

1452: The LFs presented in this paper are derived from the two-dimensional 

1453: projected distribution of cluster galaxies. Since the full three-dimensional 

1454: galaxy spatial positions cannot be resolved, the presence of contaminating 

1455: galaxies from {\it within} the cluster can adversely affect the accuracy in 

1456: determining the shape of the central cluster LF. Note that in this context, 

1457: the projected galaxies are those which lie in the outskirts of the 

1458: cluster and are projected onto the central region. This is in addition to 

1459: the presence of fore/background galaxies that are unrelated to the 

1460: target cluster, and are corrected using background corrections. The 

1461: projection of galaxies located in the outskirts of clusters onto the central 

1462: region will have its greatest impact on the faint-end of the central LF. 

1463: This is due to the increase in the relative fraction of dwarf galaxies with 

1464: increasing cluster-centric radius, as implied by the steepening of the 

1465: faint-end slope with radius (see Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}).

1466: 

1467: Simulations by \citet{val01} indicate that projection effects can severely 

1468: affect the shape of the LF by artificially producing a steeper 

1469: faint-end slope. Some of this steepening is due to the fact that cluster 

1470: galaxies were not selected in terms of color 

1471: (i.e., using the CMR), thus resulting in contamination 

1472: by projected field galaxies. A certain portion can also be attributed to the 

1473: inclusion of galaxies in cluster outskirts that are projected onto the 

1474: central region. \citet{Beijersbergen02a} published a study of the LF of the 

1475: Coma cluster in which they corrected the LF for 

1476: projection effects by subtracting the contribution of the outer Coma LF that 

1477: is projected onto the central region. The resulting ``deprojected'' LF was 

1478: measured to be marginally flatter than the projected 2-d LF.

1479: 

1480: To determine the extent to which our LFs are affected by projection 

1481: effects from the galaxy population in the cluster outskirts, we have 

1482: measured the deprojected composite LF for the total, red sequence, and 

1483: blue galaxy samples. We assume that the cluster galaxies are distributed 

1484: symmetrically in a sphere about the cluster center with the method of 

1485: deprojecting the LF depicted in Figure~\ref{Deproject-Draw}. As shown, any 

1486: sight-line to the central 

1487: area of the cluster (region A) must pass through regions B1 and B2. Thus, 

1488: the observed central LF will include galaxies that are located in regions 

1489: B1 and B2. To correct for this effect, the LF determined from region C is 

1490: subtracted from the LF calculated for the regions B1+B2+A. Before subtracting 

1491: the two LFs, the LF measured for region C must be 

1492: normalized to the same volume as that included in regions B1+B2. This 

1493: ``correction'' factor is given by $(V_{1}-V_{2})/(V_{3}-V_{1})$, 

1494: where $V_{1}$ is the combined volume of regions B1+B2+A, $V_{2}$ is the 

1495: volume of the inner region A ($V_{2}=(4\pi/3)R_{1}^{3}$), and 

1496: $V_{3}$ is the volume of the outer-most sphere ($V_{3}=(4\pi/3)R_{2}^{3}$). 

1497: The volume $V_{1}$ can be calculated from 

1498: $V_{1}=(4\pi/3)\left[R_{2}^{3}-(R_{2}^{2}-R_{1}^{2})^{3/2}\right]$, where 

1499: $R_{1}$ is the radius of the inner sphere, and $R_{2}$ is the radius of 

1500: the outer sphere.

1501: 

1502: Using this procedure, the deprojected composite LF for the 

1503: total, red sequence, and blue galaxy samples were constructed for two radial 

1504: bins, $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ and $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$. The large 

1505: uncertainty in the net galaxy counts from the deprojection process limits 

1506: our analysis of the LF to these two inner-most radial bins. In 

1507: Figures~\ref{All-Deproj}$-$\ref{Blue-Deproj} comparisons between the 

1508: projected and deprojected LFs for the three cluster galaxy 

1509: samples are presented. For each figure the LFs have been scaled to match in 

1510: the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range to facilitate the 

1511: comparison. The top panel for each of the three figures depicts the 

1512: deprojected LF for the two inner-most radial bins. For 

1513: all three galaxy samples, the LF for the $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ radial bin 

1514: (open triangles) has a flatter faint-end slope than for the 

1515: $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ radial bin (solid triangles). Thus, the 

1516: trend of a steepening faint-end slope with increasing 

1517: cluster-centric radius is valid for the deprojected LFs for the total, 

1518: red sequence, and blue galaxy samples.

1519: 

1520: In the middle panel of Figures~\ref{All-Deproj}$-$\ref{Blue-Deproj}, the 

1521: deprojected and projected LFs are compared for the $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ 

1522: radial bin. For all three galaxy samples, the deprojected LF has a flatter 

1523: faint-end slope than the projected LF. This 

1524: demonstrates that galaxies from the cluster outskirts that are projected 

1525: onto the central cluster region will result in an artificial steepening of 

1526: the faint-end of the central LF.  

1527: 

1528: The bottom panel of Figures~\ref{All-Deproj}$-$\ref{Blue-Deproj} presents the 

1529: deprojected and projected LFs for the $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ radial 

1530: bin. In general, the shape of the LFs are very similar given the size of 

1531: the uncertainties in the net galaxy counts. No statistically significant 

1532: difference in the shape of the deprojected and projected LFs can be 

1533: discerned for either the total, red sequence, or blue galaxy cluster samples.

1534: 

1535: The deprojection of the cluster LF indicates that the presence of galaxies 

1536: from the outer cluster region can affect the slope of the faint-end, 

1537: especially for the central region. The basic trend of a steepening faint-end 

1538: slope with increasing cluster-centric radius is still evident from the 

1539: deprojected LF data. 

1540: 

1541: \subsection{Faint Source Correction}

1542: 

1543: The shape of the faint-end of the cluster LF can be 

1544: affected by bias as a result of counting galaxies in the faintest 

1545: magnitude bin. The faint galaxy correction \citep[also known as the Eddington 

1546: bias or correction;][]{edd40} is due to the fact that each observed galaxy 

1547: has an associated magnitude uncertainty, causing galaxies to be scattered 

1548: below and above our observed magnitude limit. If the number distribution of 

1549: galaxies is identical over all magnitudes, the number of galaxies scattered 

1550: above and below our magnitude threshold will be statistically equal. A cluster 

1551: LF having a faint-end slope steeper than $\alpha=-1$, 

1552: will have a net number of galaxies scattered brighter than the observed 

1553: magnitude limit. This will artificially enhance the number of detected 

1554: galaxies at the faint-end of the LF. Since our galaxy counts are binned to 

1555: produce the LF, the magnitude bin size relative to the uncertainty of the 

1556: measured galaxy magnitudes will have a direct impact on the importance of 

1557: this bias.

1558: 

1559: To investigate the impact of the faint source correction on our measured 

1560: LFs, simulated LFs using the shape parameters tabulated in Table 2 for the 

1561: total composite LF were constructed. For each galaxy magnitude we include 

1562: an offset calculated from the observed distribution of magnitude uncertainty 

1563: $\sigma_{R_c}$ as a function of $M_{R_c}$, assuming Gaussian statistics. 

1564: The magnitude offset applied to each simulated galaxy was randomly chosen 

1565: from a Gaussian distribution with a dispersion of $1\sigma_{R_c}$. Simulated 

1566: LFs were assembled using the same selection criteria as that used for the 

1567: observed LFs. The fractional change in the number of galaxies detected in 

1568: the faintest magnitude bin ($-17.0\leq M_{R_c}\leq -16.5$) depends directly 

1569: on the value of $\alpha_{2}$. Comparing simulated LFs to those tabulated  

1570: in Table 2 yields an increase from 0.0\% to +0.4\% in the number of 

1571: detected galaxies in the faintest magnitude bin as the value of $\alpha_{2}$ 

1572: changed from $-1.18$ to $-2.43$. This demonstrates that the increase in the 

1573: number of detected galaxies due to the scattering of faint galaxies into 

1574: the faintest magnitude bin, is insignificant given the measured range in 

1575: $\alpha_{2}$. This result is reasonable given the relatively large width of 

1576: our magnitude bins (0.5 mag) and the average magnitude uncertainty 

1577: ($\sim 0.1$ mag) at our imposed faint-end magnitude limit.

1578: 

1579: \subsection{Color Selection Bias}

1580: 

1581: The study of the LF of galaxies selected according to their position in the 

1582: color-magnitude plane could be affected by a color bias. This bias is a 

1583: result of scattering in $B-R_c$ and $R_c$ of galaxies due to photometric 

1584: uncertainties. To understand the extent of this effect, an artificial 

1585: galaxy catalog for Abell 260 was constructed by taking the original galaxy 

1586: catalog and adding a small, random magnitude offset based on the measured 

1587: $R_c$ magnitude and its uncertainty for each galaxy, assuming Gaussian 

1588: statistics. By tracking the relative offset in position on the CMD between the 

1589: original cluster galaxies and their simulated counterparts, the impact of the 

1590: color bias can be measured. 

1591: 

1592: In Figure~\ref{ColorBias} a vector-type CMD for Abell 260 is presented for 

1593: galaxies brighter than the cluster completeness limit ($R_c=20.7$). The 

1594: vectors trace the scattering path of a galaxy from its initial position in 

1595: the observed color-magnitude plane to its position in the artificial catalog. 

1596: For bright galaxies, the change in position is minimal compared to the size 

1597: of the region from where the galaxies are selected 

1598: (see Figures~\ref{redseq-region} and \ref{Blue-region} for selection of 

1599: red sequence and blue galaxies). The largest displacement in the 

1600: color-magnitude plane occurs for the faint red galaxies where the relatively 

1601: large uncertainties in $B-R_c$ produce a larger change in color. The magnitude 

1602: of this displacement is not significant compared to the size of the regions 

1603: used to select red and blue galaxies. This exercise justifies the method used 

1604: to select faint red sequence galaxies (see \S 4.2.2, criterion 2). By 

1605: restricting the selection of faint red sequence galaxies from a region 

1606: redward of the CMR (see Figure~\ref{redseq-region}), 

1607: the contamination from blue galaxies scattered into the red sequence 

1608: region is minimized.

1609: 

1610: \subsection{Dynamical Radius Variation}

1611: 

1612: As stated in Section 3.4, the value of $r_{200}$ determined from $B_{gc}$ 

1613: (via equation 7) has an associated rms scatter of $\sim 15\%$. To determine 

1614: whether a 15\% scatter in $r_{200}$ will have a significant influence on our 

1615: conclusions, a simulated composite LF was derived by randomly changing 

1616: $r_{200}$ by $\pm 15\%$. A comparison of the observed LF with the simulated 

1617: LF is presented in Figure~\ref{Allr200} for the four cluster-centric radial 

1618: bins used previously. Inspection of Figure~\ref{Allr200} shows that the 

1619: two LFs are equivalent for each radial bin depicted. Thus, 

1620: the 15\% scatter in the value of $r_{200}$ is expected to have minimal 

1621: impact on our results. This is at least in part due to the expected 

1622: gradual change in the properties of the LF as a function of $r_{200}$.

1623: 

1624: \subsection{Exclusion of the Brightest Cluster Galaxy}

1625: 

1626: In \S 4.1 it was noted that the BCG was not included in the construction 

1627: of the cluster LF since they do not appear, statistically, to be a natural 

1628: extension of the LF. In Figure~\ref{CompAll-BCG} the composite LF 

1629: for the inner-most radial bin, $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, is depicted for 

1630: clusters (complete to $M_{R_c}=-20$) with and without the inclusion of the 

1631: BCG. As this figure demonstrates, the BCGs are not a simple extension of 

1632: the Schechter function, which may indicate that BCGs are formed by a 

1633: different process \citep[e.g., mergers, cannibalism, 

1634: etc.;][]{Dressler78} than the fainter cluster galaxy population. 

1635: 

1636: %%Facilities: \facility{KPNO(0.9m)}.

1637: \clearpage

1638: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1639:  

1640: \bibitem[Abell(1962)]{Abell62} Abell, G. O. 1962, in IAU Symp. 15, Problems 

1641: of Extra-Galactic Research, ed. G. C. McVittie (New York: Macmillan 

1642: Press), 213

1643: 

1644: \bibitem[Abraham et~al.(1996)]{Abraham96} Abraham, R. G., et al. 1996, 

1645: \apj, 471, 694

1646: 

1647: \bibitem[Akritas \& Bershady(1996)]{Akritas96} Akritas, M. G., \& Bershady, 

1648: M. 1996, \apj, 470, 706

1649: 

1650: \bibitem[Akritas \& Siebert(1996)]{Akritas96b} Akritas, M. G., \& Siebert, 

1651: J. 1996, \mnras, 278, 919

1652: 

1653: \bibitem[Andreon et~al.(2004)]{Andreon04} Andreon, S., Willis, J., 

1654: Quintana, H., Valtchanov, I., Pierre, M., \& Pacaud, F. 2004, \mnras, 

1655: 353, 353

1656: 

1657: \bibitem[Aguerri et~al.(2007)]{Aguerri07} Aguerri, J. A. L., 

1658: S\'anchez-Janssen, R., \& Mu\~noz-Tu\~n\'on, C. 2007, preprint 

1659: (astro-ph/0704.1579)

1660: 

1661: \bibitem[Baldry et~al.(2004)]{Baldry04} Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., 

1662: Brinkmann, J. Ivezi\'{c}, \v{Z}., Lupton, R. H., Nichol, R. C., \& 

1663: Szalay, A. S. 2004, \apj, 600, 681

1664: 

1665: \bibitem[Barkhouse(2003)]{Barkhouse03} Barkhouse, W. A. 2003, Ph.D. thesis, 

1666: Univ. Toronto

1667: 

1668: \bibitem[Bautz \& Morgan(1970)]{BM70} Bautz, L. P., \& Morgan, W. W. 

1669: 1971, \apj, 162, L149

1670: 

1671: \bibitem[Beijersbergen et~al.(2002a)]{Beijersbergen02a} Beijersbergen, M., 

1672: Hoekstra, H., van Dokkum, P. G., \& van der Hulst, T. 2002a, \mnras, 329, 385

1673: 

1674: \bibitem[Beijersbergen et~al.(2002b)]{Beijersbergen02b} Beijersbergen, M., 

1675: Schaap, W. E., \& van der Hulst, J. M. 2002, \aap, 390, 817

1676: 

1677: \bibitem[Bernstein \& Bhavsar(2001)]{Bernstein01} Bernstein, J. P., \& 

1678: Bhavsar, S. P. 2001, \mnras, 322, 625

1679: 

1680: \bibitem[Bhavsar(1989)]{Bhavsar89} Bhavsar, S. P. 1989, \apj, 338, 718

1681: 

1682: \bibitem[Binggeli et~al.(1988)]{Binggeli88} Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., \& 

1683: Tammann, G. A. 1988, \araa, 26, 509

1684: 

1685: \bibitem[Biviano et~al.(1995)]{Biviano95} Biviano, A., Durret, F., 

1686: Gerbal, D., Le F\'{e}vre, O., Lobo, C., Mazure, A., \& Slezak, E. 1995, 

1687: \aap, 297, 610

1688: 

1689: \bibitem[Blanton et~al.(2003)]{Blanton03} Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003, 

1690: \apj, 592, 819

1691: 

1692: \bibitem[Bower et~al.(1998)]{Bower98} Bower, R. G., Kodama, T., Terlevich, A. 

1693: 1998, \mnras, 299, 1193

1694: 

1695: \bibitem[Brown(1997)]{Brown97} Brown, J. P. 1997, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. Toronto

1696: 

1697: \bibitem[Burstein \& Heiles(1982)]{Burstein82} Burstein, D., \&  Heiles, C. 

1698: 1982, \aj, 87, 1165

1699: 

1700: \bibitem[Burstein \& Heiles(1984)]{Burstein84} Burstein, D., \& Heiles, C. 

1701: 1984, \apjs, 54, 33

1702: 

1703: \bibitem[Carlberg et~al.(1997)]{Carlberg97} Carlberg, R. G., Yee, H. K. C., 

1704: \& Ellingson, E. 1997, \apj, 478, 462

1705: 

1706: \bibitem[Christlein \& Zabludoff(2003)]{Christlein03} Christlein, D., \& 

1707: Zabludoff, A. I. 2003, \apj, 591, 764

1708: 

1709: \bibitem[Cole \& Lacey(1996)]{Cole96} Cole, S., \& Lacey, C. 1996, 

1710: \mnras, 281, 716

1711: 

1712: \bibitem[Coleman et~al.(1980)]{Coleman80} Coleman, G. D., Wu, C. C., 

1713: \& Weedman, D. W. 1980, \apjs, 43, 393

1714: 

1715: \bibitem[Colless(1989)]{Colless89} Colless, M. 1989, \mnras, 237, 799

1716: 

1717: \bibitem[De~Propris et~al.(2003)]{DePropris03} De Propris, R., et al. 

1718: 2003, \mnras, 342, 725

1719: 

1720: \bibitem[De~Propris et~al.(2004)]{dePropris99} De Propris, R., Stanford, 

1721: S. A., Eisenhardt, P. R., Dickinson, M., \& Elston, R. 2004, \aj, 118, 719

1722: 

1723: \bibitem[Dressler(1978)]{Dressler78} Dressler, A. 1978, \apj, 223, 765

1724: 

1725: \bibitem[Dressler(1980)]{Dressler80} Dressler, A. 1980, \apj, 236, 351

1726: 

1727: \bibitem[Dressler et~al.(1999)]{Dressler99} Dressler, A., Smail, I., 

1728: Poggianti, B. M., Butcher, H., Couch, W. J., Ellis, R. S., \& Oemler, 

1729: A. 1999, \apjs, 122, 52

1730: 

1731: \bibitem[Driver et~al.(1994)]{Driver94} Driver, S. P., Phillipps, S., 

1732: Davies, J. I., Morgan, I., \& Disney, M. J. 1994, \mnras, 268, 393

1733: 

1734: \bibitem[Driver et~al.(1998)]{Driver98} Driver, S. P., Couch, W. J., \& 

1735: Phillipps, S. 1998, \mnras, 301, 369

1736: 

1737: \bibitem[Dubinski(1998)]{Dubinski98} Dubinski, J. 1998, \apj, 502, 141

1738: 

1739: \bibitem[Ebeling et~al.(1996)]{Ebeling96} Ebeling, H., Voges, W., 

1740: B\"{o}hringer, H., Edges, A. C., Huchra, J. P., \& Briel, U. G. 1996, 

1741: \mnras, 281, 799

1742: 

1743: \bibitem[Ebeling et~al.(2000)]{Ebeling00} Ebeling, H., Edges, A. C., 

1744: Allen, S. W., Crawford, C. S., Fabian, A. C., \& Huchra, J. P. 2000, 

1745: \mnras, 318, 333

1746: 

1747: \bibitem[Eddington(1940)]{edd40} Eddington, A. S. 1940, \mnras, 100, 354

1748: 

1749: \bibitem[Ellingson et~al.(2001)]{Ellingson01} Ellingson, E., Lin, H., 

1750: Yee, H. K. C., \& Carlberg, R. G. 2001, \apj, 547, 609

1751: 

1752: \bibitem[Ellingson(2003)]{Ellingson03} Ellingson, E. 2003, \apss, 285, 9

1753: 

1754: \bibitem[Ferguson \& Binggeli(1994)]{Ferguson94} Ferguson, H. C., \& 

1755: Binggeli, B. 1994, \aapr, 6, 67

1756: 

1757: \bibitem[Frei \& Gunn(1994)]{Frei94} Frei, Z., \& Gunn, J. E. 1994, \aj, 

1758: 108, 1476

1759: 

1760: \bibitem[Fukugita et~al.(1995)]{Fukugita95} Fukugita, M., Shimasaku, K., 

1761: \& Ichikawa, T. 1995, \pasp, 107, 945

1762: 

1763: \bibitem[Gaidos(1997)]{Gaidos97} Gaidos, E. J. 1997, \aj, 113, 117

1764: 

1765: \bibitem[Gallagher \& Wyse(1994)]{Gallagher94} Gallagher, J. S., \& 

1766: Wyse, R. F. G. 1994, \pasp, 106, 1225

1767: 

1768: \bibitem[Garilli et~al.(1999)]{Garilli99} Garilli, B., Maccagni, D., \& 

1769: Andreon, S. 1999, \aap, 342, 408

1770: 

1771: \bibitem[Geller \& Peebles(1976)]{Geller76} Geller, M. J., \& Peebles, 

1772: P. J. E. 1976, \apj, 206, 939

1773: 

1774: \bibitem[Gladders et~al.(1999)]{Gladders99} Gladders, M. J., 

1775: L\'opez-Cruz, O., Yee, H. K. C., \& Kodama, T. 1999, \apj, 501, 571

1776: 

1777: \bibitem[Godwin \& Peach(1977)]{Godwin77} Godwin, J. G., \& Peach, 

1778: J. V. 1977, \mnras, 181, 323

1779: 

1780: \bibitem[Gonz\'alez et~al.(2006)]{Gonzalez06} Gonz\'alez, R. E., Lares, M., 

1781: Lambas, D. G., \& Valotto, C. 2006, \aap, 445, 51

1782: 

1783: \bibitem[Goto(2005)]{Goto05a} Goto, T. 2005, \mnras, 359, 1415

1784: 

1785: \bibitem[Goto et~al.(2002)]{Goto02} Goto, T., et al. 2002, \pasj, 54, 515

1786: 

1787: \bibitem[Goto et~al.(2005)]{Goto05} Goto, T., et al. 2005, \apj, 621, 188

1788: 

1789: \bibitem[Hansen et~al.(2005)]{Hansen05} Hansen, S. M., McKay, T. A., 

1790: Wechsler, R. H., Annis, J., Sheldon, E. S., \& Kimball, A. 2005, 

1791: \apj, 633, 122

1792: 

1793: \bibitem[Hausman \& Ostriker(1978)]{Hausman78} Hausman, M. A., \& Ostriker, 

1794: J. P. 1978, \apj, 224, 320

1795: 

1796: \bibitem[Hilker et~al.(2003)]{Hilker03} Hilker, M., Mieske, S., \& 

1797: Infante, L. 2003, \aap, 397, L9

1798: 

1799: \bibitem[Hilton et~al.(2005)]{Hilton05} Hilton, M., et al. 2005, \mnras, 

1800: 363, 661

1801: 

1802: \bibitem[Holden et~al.(2004)]{Holden04} Holden, B. P., Stanford, S. A., 

1803: Eisenhardt, P., \& Dickinson, M. 2004, \aj, 127, 2484

1804: 

1805: \bibitem[Hubble(1936)]{Hubble36} Hubble, E. P. 1936, \apj, 84, 158

1806: 

1807: \bibitem[Humason et~al.(1956)]{Humason56} Humason, M. L., 

1808: Mayall, N. U., \& Sandage, A. R. 1956, \aj, 61, 97

1809: 

1810: \bibitem[Jones \& Forman(1999)]{Jones99} Jones, C., \& Forman, W. 1999, 

1811: \apj, 511, 65

1812: 

1813: \bibitem[Landolt(1992)]{Landolt92} Landolt, A. U. 1992, \aj, 104, 372

1814: 

1815: \bibitem[Loh \& Strauss(2006)]{Loh06} Loh, Y. -S., \& Strauss, M. A. 

1816: 2006, \mnras, 366, 373

1817: 

1818: \bibitem[L\'opez-Cruz(1997)]{Lopez97} L\'opez-Cruz O. 1997, Ph.D. thesis 

1819: Univ. Toronto

1820: 

1821: \bibitem[L\'opez-Cruz(2001)]{Lopez01} L\'opez-Cruz, O. 2001, Rev. Mex. 

1822: AA Conf. Ser., 11, 183

1823: 

1824: \bibitem[L\'opez-Cruz et~al.(1997)]{Lopez97b} L\'opez-Cruz, O., Yee, H. K. C., 

1825: Brown, J. P., Jones. C., \& Forman, W. 1997, \apj, 475, L97

1826: 

1827: \bibitem[L\'opez-Cruz et~al.(2004)]{Lopez04} L\'opez-Cruz, O., Barkhouse, 

1828: W. A., \& Yee, H. K. C. 2004, \apj, 614, 679 

1829: 

1830: \bibitem[Lugger(1986)]{Lugger86} Lugger, P. M. 1986, \apj, 303, 535

1831: 

1832: \bibitem[Madgwick et~al.(2002)]{Madgwick02} Madgwick,D. S. et al. 2002, 

1833: \mnras, 333, 133

1834: 

1835: \bibitem[Mercurio et~al.(2003)]{Mercurio03} Mercurio, A., Massarotti, 

1836: M., Merluzzi, P., Girardi, M., La Barbera, F., \& Busarello, G. 2003, 

1837: \aap, 408, 57

1838: 

1839: \bibitem[Merritt(1984)]{merritt84} Merritt, D. 1984, \apj, 276, 26 

1840: 

1841: \bibitem[Miller et~al.(2005)]{Miller05} Miller, C. J., et al. 2005, \aj, 

1842: 130, 968

1843: 

1844: \bibitem[Molinari et~al.(1998)]{Molinari98} Molinari, E., Chincarini, G., 

1845: Moretti, A., \& De Grandi, S. 1998, \aap, 338, 874

1846: 

1847: \bibitem[Moore et~al.(1998)]{Moore98} Moore, B, Lake, G., \& Katz, N. 1998,

1848: \apj, 495, 139

1849: 

1850: \bibitem[N\"{a}slund et~al.(2000)]{Naslund00} N\"{a}slund, 

1851: M., Fransson, C., \& Huldtgren, M. 2000, \aap, 356, 435

1852: 

1853: \bibitem[Oemler(1974)]{Oemler74} Oemler, A. 1974, \apj, 194, 1

1854: 

1855: \bibitem[Oke \& Sandage(1968)]{Oke68} Oke, J. B., \& Sandage, A. 1968, 

1856: \apj, 154, 21

1857: 

1858: \bibitem[Ostriker \& Hausman(1977)]{Ostriker77} Ostriker, J. P., \& 

1859: Hausman, M. A. 1977, \apj, 217, 125

1860: 

1861: \bibitem[Parolin et~al.(2003)]{Parolin03} Parolin, I., 

1862: Molinari, E., \& Chincarini, G. 2003, \aap, 407, 823 

1863: 

1864: \bibitem[Piranomonte et~al.(2001)]{Piranomonte01} Piranomonte, S., Longo, G., 

1865: Andreon, S., Puddu, E., Paolillo, M., Scaramella, R., Gal, R., \& 

1866: Djorgovski, S. G. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 225, Virtual Observatories of the 

1867: Future, ed. R. J. Brunner, S. G. Djorgovski, \& A. S. Szalay 

1868: (San Francisco: ASP), 73

1869: 

1870: \bibitem[Popesso et~al.(2005)]{Popesso05} Popesso, P., B\"{o}hringer, 

1871: H., Romaniello, M., \& Voges, W. 2005, \aap, 433, 415

1872: 

1873: \bibitem[Popesso et~al.(2006)]{Popesso06} Popesso, P., Biviano, A., 

1874: B\"{o}hringer, H., \& Romaniello, M. 2006, \aap, 445, 29

1875: 

1876: \bibitem[Popesso et~al.(2007)]{Popesso07} Popesso, P., Biviano, A., 

1877: B\"{o}hringer, H., \& Romaniello, M. 2007, \aap, 461, 397

1878: 

1879: \bibitem[Press \& Schecter(1974)]{Press74} Press, W. H., \& Schechter, P. 

1880: 1974, \apj, 187, 425

1881: 

1882: \bibitem[Press et~al.(1992)]{Press92} Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., 

1883: Vetterling, W. T., \& Flannery, B. P. 1992, Numerical Recipes, The 

1884: Art of Scientific Computing, (2d ed.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

1885: 

1886: \bibitem[Rines et~al.(2003)]{Rines03} Rines, K., Geller, M. J., Kurtz, M. J., 

1887: \& Diaferio, A. 2003, \apj, 126, 2152

1888: 

1889: \bibitem[Roediger et~al.(2006)]{Roediger06} Roediger, E., Br\"{u}ggen, M., 

1890: \& Hoeft, M. 2006, \mnras, 371, 609

1891: 

1892: \bibitem[Sandage(1976)]{Sandage76} Sandage, A. 1976, \apj, 205, 6

1893: 

1894: \bibitem[Schechter(1976)]{Schechter76} Schechter, P. 1976, \apj, 203, 297

1895: 

1896: \bibitem[Spergel et~al.(2003)]{Spergel03} Spergel, D. N., et al., 2003, 

1897: \apjs, 148, 175

1898: 

1899: \bibitem[Stanford et~al.(1998)]{Stanford98} Stanford, S. A., Eisenhardt, 

1900: P. R., \& Dickinson, M. 1998, \apj, 492, 461

1901: 

1902: \bibitem[Struble \& Rood(1999)]{struble99} Struble, M. F., \& Rood, H. J. 

1903: 1999, \apj, 125, 35

1904: 

1905: \bibitem[Thompson \& Gregory(1993)]{Thompson93} Thompson, L. A., \&  Gregory, 

1906: S. A. 1993, \aj, 106, 2197

1907: 

1908: \bibitem[Trentham et~al.(2001)]{Trentham01} Trentham, N., Tully, R. B., \& 

1909: Verheijen, M. A. W. 2001, \mnras, 325, 385

1910: 

1911: \bibitem[Valotto et~al.(2001)]{val01} Valotto, C. A., Moore, B., \& 

1912: Lambas, D. G. 2001, \apj, 546, 157

1913: 

1914: \bibitem[Yagi et~al.(2002)]{Yagi02} Yagi, M., Kashikawa, N., Sekiguchi, M., 

1915: Doi, M., Yasuda, N., Shimasaku, K., \& Okamura, S. 2002, \aj, 123, 87

1916: 

1917: \bibitem[Yang et~al.(2004)]{Yang04} Yang, Y., Zhou, X., Yuan, Q., 

1918: Jiang, Z., Ma, J., Wu, H., \& Chen, J. 2004, \apj, 600, 141

1919: 

1920: \bibitem[Yee(1991)]{Yee91} Yee, H. K. C. 1991, \pasp, 103, 396

1921: 

1922: \bibitem[Yee et~al.(1996)]{Yee96} Yee, H. K. C., Ellingson, E., \& 

1923: Carlberg, R. G. 1996, \apjs, 102, 269

1924: 

1925: \bibitem[Yee \& L\'opez-Cruz(1999)]{Yee99} Yee, H. K. C., \& L\'opez-Cruz, 

1926: O. 1999, \aj, 117, 1985

1927: 

1928: \bibitem[Yee \& Ellingson(2003)]{Yee03} Yee, H. K. C. \&  Ellingson, E. 

1929: 2003, \apj, 585, 215

1930: 

1931: \end{thebibliography}

1932: 

1933: \clearpage

1934: 

1935: \begin{deluxetable}{lcccccccc}

1936: \tablecaption{CLUSTER PROPERTIES}

1937: \tablewidth{0pt}

1938: \tablehead{\colhead{Cluster} &\colhead{Redshift} &\colhead{$M_{R_c}^{\ast}$} 

1939: &\colhead{$\Delta M_{R_c}^{\ast}$} &\colhead{$B_{gc}$} 

1940: &\colhead{$\Delta B_{gc}$} &\colhead{$r_{200}$}&\colhead{$\Delta r_{200}$} 

1941: &\colhead{$M_{R_c}^{Com}$}\\ & & & &($\mbox{Mpc}^{1.8}$) 

1942: & & (Mpc) & &}

1943: \startdata

1944: A21 & 0.0946 & $-22.28$ & 0.29 & 1480 & 229 & 2.641 & 0.396 & $-17.5$\tablenotemark{a} \\

1945: A84 & 0.1030 & $-22.46$ & 0.38 & 917 & 184 & 2.098 & 0.315 & $-17.5$ \\

1946: A85 & 0.0518 & $-22.34$ & 0.42 & 780 & 168 & 1.942 & 0.291 & $-16.0$ \\

1947: A98 & 0.1043 & $-22.37$ & 0.24 & 1657 & 243 & 2.788 & 0.418 & $-18.0$ \\

1948: A154 & 0.0638 & $-22.11$ & 0.32 & 1462 & 227 & 2.626 & 0.394 & $-16.5$ \\

1949: A168 & 0.0452 & $-22.56$ & 0.41 & 992 & 187 & 2.179 & 0.327 & $-16.0$ \\

1950: A260 & 0.0363 & $-22.04$ & 0.44 & 855 & 176 & 2.029 & 0.304 & $-16.0$ \\

1951: A399 & 0.0715 & $-21.87$ & 0.26 & 1427 & 224 & 2.595 & 0.389 & $-17.5$ \\

1952: A401 & 0.0748 & $-22.25$ & 0.19 & 2242 & 279 & 3.224 & 0.484 & $-17.0$ \\

1953: A407 & 0.0472 & $-22.39$ & 0.37 & 1327 & 216 & 2.506 & 0.376 & $-16.5$ \\

1954: A415 & 0.0788 & $-21.84$ & 0.59 & 500 & 141 & 1.568 & 0.235 & $-17.0$ \\

1955: A496 & 0.0329 & $-21.45$ & 0.49 & 1114 & 228 & 2.304 & 0.346 & $-15.0$ \\

1956: A514 & 0.0731 & $-22.20$ & 0.40 & 920 & 183 & 2.102 & 0.315 & $-17.0$ \\

1957: A629 & 0.1380 & $-22.80$ & 0.44 & 1154 & 207 & 2.344 & 0.352 & $-18.0$ \\

1958: A634 & 0.0265 & $-22.28$ & 0.80 & 360 & 117 & 1.340 & 0.201 & $-16.5$ \\

1959: A646 & 0.1303 & $-22.62$ & 0.51 & 859 & 182 & 2.034 & 0.305 & $-18.0$ \\

1960: A665 & 0.1816 & $-22.64$ & 0.20 & 2068 & 272 & 3.101 & 0.465 & $-19.0$ \\

1961: A671 & 0.0491 & $-22.32$ & 0.35 & 1253 & 210 & 2.438 & 0.366 & $-16.0$ \\

1962: A690 & 0.0788 & $-21.72$ & 0.58 & 566 & 149 & 1.664 & 0.250 & $-17.0$ \\

1963: A779 & 0.0229 & $-22.82$ & 0.80 & 468 & 131 & 1.519 & 0.228 & $-16.0$ \\

1964: A957 & 0.0437 & $-21.58$ & 0.37 & 1037 & 191 & 2.226 & 0.334 & $-15.5$ \\

1965: A999 & 0.0323 & $-22.22$ & 1.01 & 357 & 117 & 1.334 & 0.200 & $-16.0$ \\

1966: A1142 & 0.0349 & $-22.66$ & 1.24 & 469 & 148 & 1.521 & 0.228 & $-15.0$ \\

1967: A1213 & 0.0469 & $-23.06$ & 0.59 & 966 & 184 & 2.151 & 0.323 & $-16.5$ \\

1968: A1291 & 0.0530 & $-21.35$ & 0.37 & 1146 & 202 & 2.336 & 0.350 & $-16.5$ \\

1969: A1413 & 0.1427 & $-22.36$ & 0.21 & 1737 & 249 & 2.852 & 0.428 & $-18.5$ \\

1970: A1569 & 0.0784 & $-22.76$ & 0.56 & 803 & 173 & 1.969 & 0.295 & $-17.0$ \\

1971: A1650 & 0.0845 & $-21.88$ & 0.26 & 1912 & 257 & 2.986 & 0.448 & $-17.0$ \\

1972: A1656 & 0.0232 & $-22.04$ & 0.31 & 2167 & 292 & 3.171 & 0.476 & $-14.50$ \\

1973: A1775 & 0.0700 & $-21.59$ & 0.38 & 1025 & 192 & 2.214 & 0.332 & $-16.5$ \\

1974: A1795 & 0.0621 & $-21.50$ & 0.28 & 1531 & 232 & 2.684 & 0.403 & $-16.5$ \\

1975: A1913 & 0.0530 & $-22.54$ & 0.40 & 980 & 187 & 2.166 & 0.325 & $-16.5$ \\

1976: A1983 & 0.0430 & $-22.10$ & 0.40 & 903 & 178 & 2.084 & 0.312 & $-16.0$ \\

1977: A2022 & 0.0578 & $-22.91$ & 0.56 & 1061 & 196 & 2.251 & 0.338 & $-17.0$ \\

1978: A2029 & 0.0768 & $-22.07$ & 0.20 & 1777 & 249 & 2.883 & 0.432 & $-17.0$ \\

1979: A2152 & 0.0410 & $-21.92$ & 0.40 & 801 & 169 & 1.967 & 0.295 & $-16.0$ \\

1980: A2244 & 0.0997 & $-22.14$ & 0.22 & 1674 & 243 & 2.802 & 0.420 & $-17.5$ \\

1981: A2247 & 0.0385 & $-23.07$ & 0.78 & 639 & 151 & 1.765 & 0.265 & $-16.5$ \\

1982: A2255 & 0.0800 & $-22.60$ & 0.21 & 2278 & 280 & 3.248 & 0.487 & $-17.0$ \\

1983: A2256 & 0.0601 & $-22.51$ & 0.21 & 2187 & 274 & 3.185 & 0.478 & $-16.5$ \\

1984: A2271 & 0.0568 & $-21.46$ & 0.51 & 669 & 157 & 1.804 & 0.270 & $-16.5$ \\

1985: A2328 & 0.1470 & $-22.01$ & 0.20 & 1935 & 263 & 3.004 & 0.450 & $-18.5$ \\

1986: A2356 & 0.1161 & $-22.25$ & 0.36 & 964 & 189 & 2.150 & 0.322 & $-18.0$ \\

1987: A2384 & 0.0943 & $-22.38$ & 0.29 & 1514 & 232 & 2.670 & 0.400 & $-17.5$ \\

1988: A2399 & 0.0587 & $-22.16$ & 0.54 & 676 & 157 & 1.813 & 0.272 & $-16.5$ \\

1989: A2410 & 0.0806 & $-22.24$ & 0.71 & 546 & 145 & 1.636 & 0.245 & $-17.0$ \\

1990: A2415 & 0.0597 & $-21.74$ & 0.44 & 940 & 184 & 2.123 & 0.318 & $-16.5$ \\

1991: A2420 & 0.0838 & $-21.94$ & 0.27 & 1239 & 210 & 2.425 & 0.364 & $-17.5$ \\

1992: A2440 & 0.0904 & $-22.34$ & 0.35 & 1050 & 196 & 2.240 & 0.336 & $-17.5$ \\

1993: A2554 & 0.1108 & $-22.61$ & 0.35 & 1221 & 211 & 2.408 & 0.361 & $-18.0$ \\

1994: A2556 & 0.0865 & $-22.47$ & 0.49 & 796 & 172 & 1.961 & 0.294 & $-17.0$ \\

1995: A2593 & 0.0421 & $-22.25$ & 0.40 & 1133 & 200 & 2.323 & 0.348 & $-16.0$ \\

1996: A2597 & 0.0825 & $-21.56$ & 0.58 & 696 & 163 & 1.839 & 0.276 & $-17.0$ \\

1997: A2626 & 0.0573 & $-22.65$ & 0.50 & 911 & 181 & 2.092 & 0.314 & $-16.5$ \\

1998: A2634 & 0.0310 & $-22.30$ & 0.32 & 1109 & 197 & 2.299 & 0.345 & $-16.5$ \\

1999: A2657 & 0.0414 & $-22.44$ & 0.51 & 723 & 162 & 1.872 & 0.281 & $-16.0$ \\

2000: A2670 & 0.0761 & $-22.52$ & 0.26 & 1783 & 249 & 2.888 & 0.433 & $-17.0$ \\

2001: \enddata

2002: \tablenotetext{a}{The absolute $R_c$ magnitude represents our adopted 100\% 

2003: completeness limit.}

2004: \end{deluxetable}

2005: 

2006: \clearpage

2007: 

2008: 

2009: 

2010: 

2011: 

2012: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccr}

2013: \tablecaption{COMPOSITE LUMINOSITY FUNCTION}

2014: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2015: \tablewidth{0pt}

2016: \tablehead{

2017: \colhead{Radius} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{1}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{2}$} &\colhead{$\alpha_{2}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{No. of}&\colhead{$<B_{gc}>$}\\

2018: ($r/r_{200}$)&($R_c$ mag)& &($R_c$ mag)& & & Clusters & ($\mbox{Mpc}^{1.8}$)}

2019: \startdata

2020: 0.0--0.2 & $-22.26\pm 0.06$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.64 & $-17.43\pm 0.07$\tablenotemark{b} & $-1.45\pm 0.10$ & 0.94 & 42 & $1066\pm 397$\tablenotemark{c} \\

2021: 0.2--0.4 & $-22.26\pm 0.07$ & 1.04 & $-18.22\pm 0.05$ & $-1.81\pm 0.04$ & 4.50 & 39 & $1052\pm 378$ \\

2022: 0.4--0.6 & $-22.36\pm 0.10$ & 0.58 & $-18.14\pm 0.05$ & $-2.32\pm 0.05$ & 3.24 & 28 & $961\pm 347$ \\

2023: 0.6--1.0 & $-22.38\pm 0.15$ & 0.67 & $-18.39\pm 0.06$ & $-2.46\pm 0.05$ & 2.99 & 11 & $683\pm 205$ \\

2024: \enddata

2025: \tablenotetext{a}{$M_{1}^{\ast}$ is derived from a Schechter function fit 

2026: to the bright-end of the LF with $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$.}

2027: \tablenotetext{b}{$M_{2}^{\ast}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are obtained from a 

2028: Schechter function fit to the faint-end of the composite LF.}

2029: \tablenotetext{c}{The uncertainty is calculated from the dispersion of the mean.}

2030: \end{deluxetable}

2031: 

2032: 

2033: \clearpage

2034: 

2035: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccr}

2036: \tablecaption{COMPOSITE RED SEQUENCE LUMINOSITY FUNCTION}

2037: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2038: \tablewidth{0pt}

2039: \tablehead{

2040: \colhead{Radius} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{1}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{2}$} &\colhead{$\alpha_{2}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{No. of}&\colhead{$<B_{gc}>$}\\

2041: ($r/r_{200}$)&($R_c$ mag)& &($R_c$ mag)& & & Clusters & ($\mbox{Mpc}^{1.8}$)}

2042: \startdata

2043: 0.0--0.2 & $-22.28\pm 0.07$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.69 & $-16.95\pm 0.58$\tablenotemark{b} & $-5.26\pm 15.51$ & 3.96 & 42 & $1066\pm 397$\tablenotemark{c} \\

2044: 0.2--0.4 & $-22.36\pm 0.08$ & 1.29 & $-17.81\pm 0.22$ & $-3.30\pm 0.64$ & 1.45 & 39 & $1052\pm 378$ \\

2045: 0.4--0.6 & $-22.50\pm 0.12$ & 0.72 & $-18.18\pm 0.24$ & $-3.16\pm 0.51$ & 1.16 & 28 & $961\pm 347$ \\

2046: 0.6--1.0 & $-22.61\pm 0.19$ & 1.14 & $-18.60\pm 0.36$ & $-2.83\pm 0.53$ & 1.06 & 11 & $683\pm 205$ \\

2047: \enddata

2048: \tablenotetext{a}{$M_{1}^{\ast}$ is derived from a Schechter function fit 

2049: to the bright-end of the LF with $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$.}

2050: \tablenotetext{b}{$M_{2}^{\ast}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are obtained from a 

2051: Schechter function fit to the faint-end of the red sequence LF.}

2052: \tablenotetext{c}{The uncertainty is calculated from the dispersion of the mean.}

2053: \end{deluxetable}

2054: 

2055: 

2056: 

2057: 

2058: \clearpage

2059: 

2060: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccr}

2061: \tablecaption{COMPOSITE BLUE LUMINOSITY FUNCTION}

2062: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}

2063: \tablewidth{0pt}

2064: \tablehead{

2065: \colhead{Radius} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{1}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{$M^{\ast}_{2}$} &\colhead{$\alpha_{2}$} &\colhead{$\chi^{2}_{\nu}$} &\colhead{No. of}&\colhead{$<B_{gc}>$}\\

2066: ($r/r_{200}$)&($R_c$ mag)& &($R_c$ mag)& & & Clusters & ($\mbox{Mpc}^{1.8}$)}

2067: \startdata

2068: 0.0--0.2 & $-21.96\pm 0.26$\tablenotemark{a} & 0.28 & $-19.30\pm 0.10$\tablenotemark{b} & $-1.62\pm 0.05$ & 0.61 & 42 & $1066\pm 397$\tablenotemark{c} \\

2069: 0.2--0.4 & $-21.84\pm 0.17$ & 0.36 & $-19.28\pm 0.09$ & $-1.64\pm 0.05$ & 0.93 & 39 & $1052\pm 378$ \\

2070: 0.4--0.6 & $-21.81\pm 0.21$ & 1.21 & $-19.01\pm 0.12$ & $-1.69\pm 0.09$ & 1.05 & 28 & $961\pm 347$ \\

2071: 0.6--1.0 & $-21.87\pm 0.27$ & 0.74 & $-18.79\pm 0.12$ & $-1.82\pm 0.10$ & 0.61 & 11 & $683\pm 205$ \\

2072: \enddata

2073: \tablenotetext{a}{$M_{1}^{\ast}$ is derived from a Schechter function fit 

2074: to the bright-end of the LF with $\alpha_{1}=-1.0$.}

2075: \tablenotetext{b}{$M_{2}^{\ast}$ and $\alpha_{2}$ are obtained from a 

2076: Schechter function fit to the faint-end of the blue galaxy LF.}

2077: \tablenotetext{c}{The uncertainty is calculated from the dispersion of the mean.}

2078: \end{deluxetable}

2079: 

2080: 

2081: \clearpage

2082: 

2083: \begin{figure}

2084: \figurenum{1a}

2085: \epsscale{0.8}

2086: \plotone{f1a.eps}

2087: \caption{Solid points depict the $R_c$-band luminosity function for 57 Abell 

2088: clusters. The solid line represents the best-fit Schechter function with 

2089: a fixed faint-end slope of $\alpha=-1$. The galaxy counts are measured from 

2090: within a cluster-centric radius of $(r/r_{200})= 0.4$, except for A496 and 

2091: A1142 due to the lack of adequate radial coverage. The brightest cluster 

2092: galaxy has been omitted from each LF.}

2093: \label{single-LFa}

2094: \end{figure}

2095: 

2096: 

2097: \begin{figure}

2098: \figurenum{1b}

2099: \epsscale{0.9}

2100: \plotone{f1b.eps}

2101: \caption{Continued}

2102: \label{single-LFb}

2103: \end{figure}

2104: 

2105: 

2106: \begin{figure}

2107: \figurenum{1c}

2108: \epsscale{0.9}

2109: \plotone{f1c.eps}

2110: \caption{Continued}

2111: \label{single-LFc}

2112: \end{figure}

2113: 

2114: 

2115: \begin{figure}

2116: \figurenum{1d}

2117: \epsscale{0.9}

2118: \plotone{f1d.eps}

2119: \caption{Continued}

2120: \label{single-LFd}

2121: \end{figure}

2122: 

2123: \begin{figure}

2124: \figurenum{2}

2125: \epsscale{1.0}

2126: \plotone{f2.eps}

2127: \caption{Logarithmic correlation between $r_{200}$ and $B_{gc}$ for 

2128: 15 clusters from the CNOC1 cluster sample. The solid line is a fit using 

2129: the BCES estimator to the 14 clusters depicted by the solid circles. The 

2130: open circle represents the outlier cluster MS 1455+22, which was not used 

2131: in the fitting process. The rms scatter in the derived values of $r_{200}$ 

2132: is on the order of 15\%.} 

2133: \label{Bgc-r200}

2134: \end{figure}

2135: 

2136: \clearpage

2137: 

2138: \begin{figure}

2139: \figurenum{3}

2140: \epsscale{1.0}

2141: \plotone{f3.eps}

2142: \caption{Composite total $R_c$-band luminosity function for four cluster-centric 

2143: annuli: A) $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, B) $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$, C) 

2144: $0.4\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.6$, and D) $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$. The 

2145: short dashed line represents a Schechter function fit to bright-end with 

2146: a fixed faint-end slope, $\alpha=-1$. The solid circles depict the combined 

2147: net galaxy counts for all contributing clusters. The long dashed line is a 

2148: Schechter function fit to the faint-end, while the solid line is the sum of 

2149: the two Schechter functions.}

2150: \label{Comp-All-LF}

2151: \end{figure}

2152: 

2153: \clearpage

2154: 

2155: \begin{figure}

2156: \figurenum{4}

2157: \epsscale{1.0}

2158: \plotone{f4.eps}

2159: \caption{Superposition of the total composite LF measured for four 

2160: cluster-centric radial bins. The outer three LFs have been scaled to match 

2161: the inner-most LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range. The plot 

2162: symbols depict the following: solid circles --- the net galaxy counts in 

2163: the $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ annulus; open squares --- the counts in the 

2164: $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ annulus; open triangles --- the galaxy 

2165: counts in the $0.4\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.6$ radial bin; and the solid 

2166: triangles --- the $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$ annulus.}

2167: \label{Comp-All-LF-Scale}

2168: \end{figure}

2169: 

2170: \clearpage

2171: 

2172: \begin{figure}

2173: \figurenum{5}

2174: \epsscale{1.0}

2175: \plotone{f5.eps}

2176: \caption{Color-magnitude diagram for A260, depicting the region where 

2177: red sequence galaxies were selected. For galaxies brighter than $R_c=18.8$ 

2178: (dashed vertical line), red sequence galaxies are designated as those 

2179: within $\pm 0.22$ mag ($\pm 3\sigma$) of the cluster red sequence relation 

2180: (nearly horizontal solid line). Galaxies fainter than $R_c=18.8$ are selected 

2181: if they lie within the region $2.5\sigma_{B-R_c}$ redward of the 

2182: red sequence and brighter than the magnitude completeness limit (solid 

2183: short vertical line).}

2184: \label{redseq-region}

2185: \end{figure}

2186: 

2187: \clearpage

2188: 

2189: \begin{figure}

2190: \figurenum{6}

2191: \epsscale{1.0}

2192: \plotone{f6.eps}

2193: \caption{Composite red sequence $R_c$-band LF for four cluster-centric annuli: 

2194: A) $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, B) $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$, C) $0.4\leq 

2195: (r/r_{200})\leq 0.6$, and D) $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$. The short dashed 

2196: line represents a Schechter function fit to bright-end with a fixed 

2197: faint-end slope, $\alpha=-1$. The solid circles depict the combined net 

2198: galaxy counts for all contributing clusters in each annulus. The long dashed 

2199: line is a Schechter function fit to the faint-end, while the solid line is 

2200: the sum of the two Schechter functions.}

2201: \label{Comp-Red-LF}

2202: \end{figure}

2203: 

2204: \clearpage

2205: 

2206: \begin{figure}

2207: \figurenum{7}

2208: \epsscale{1.0}

2209: \plotone{f7.eps}

2210: \caption{Superposition of the red sequence composite LF measured for four 

2211: cluster-centric radial bins. The outer three LFs have been scaled to match 

2212: the inner-most LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range. Plot 

2213: symbols are equivalent to those defined in Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF-Scale}.}

2214: \label{Scale-Comp-Red-LF}

2215: \end{figure}

2216: 

2217: \clearpage

2218: 

2219: \begin{figure}

2220: \figurenum{8}

2221: \epsscale{1.0}

2222: \plotone{f8.eps}

2223: \caption{Color-magnitude diagram for A260, depicting the region used to 

2224: select the blue cluster galaxy population. For galaxies brighter than 

2225: $R_c=18.8$ (dashed vertical line), blue galaxies are designed as those with 

2226: $B-R_c$ color bluer than the lower envelope used to select the red sequence 

2227: galaxies. Galaxies fainter than $R_c=18.8$ and brighter than the completeness 

2228: limit ($R_c=20.7$, short vertical line), are selected if they are located in 

2229: the region bluer than the lower envelope (blueward of the CMR) defining 

2230: the boundary of the region used to select red sequence galaxies.}

2231: \label{Blue-region}

2232: \end{figure}

2233: 

2234: \clearpage

2235: 

2236: \begin{figure}

2237: \figurenum{9}

2238: \epsscale{1.0}

2239: \plotone{f9.eps}

2240: \caption{Composite blue galaxy $R_c$-band LF for four 

2241: cluster-centric annuli: A) $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, 

2242: B) $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$, C) $0.4\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.6$, and 

2243: D) $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$. The short dashed line represents a 

2244: Schechter function fit to bright-end with a fixed faint-end slope, 

2245: $\alpha=-1$. The solid circles depict the combined net galaxy counts for all 

2246: contributing clusters in each annulus. The long dashed line is a Schechter 

2247: function fit to the faint-end, while the solid line is the sum of the two 

2248: Schechter functions.}

2249: \label{Comp-Blue-LF}

2250: \end{figure}

2251: 

2252: \clearpage

2253: 

2254: \begin{figure}

2255: \figurenum{10}

2256: \epsscale{1.0}

2257: \plotone{f10.eps}

2258: \caption{Superimposed composite blue galaxy LFs measured for four 

2259: cluster-centric radial bins. The outer three LFs have been scaled to match 

2260: the inner-most LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range. Plot 

2261: symbols are equivalent to those defined in Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF-Scale}.}

2262: \label{Scale-Comp-Blue-LF}

2263: \end{figure}

2264: 

2265: \clearpage

2266: 

2267: \begin{figure}

2268: \figurenum{11}

2269: \epsscale{1.0}

2270: \plotone{f11.eps}

2271: \caption{Composite LF for the total, red sequence, and blue galaxy 

2272: populations for four radial bins depicted in previous figures (e.g., see 

2273: Figure~\ref{Comp-Blue-LF}). The red sequence and blue LFs (represented by 

2274: open squares and solid triangles, respectively) have been scaled to have the 

2275: same net galaxy counts as the total LF (solid circles) in the 

2276: $-24.0\leq M_{R_c}\leq -16.5$ magnitude range.}

2277: \label{Scale-Compare-LF}

2278: \end{figure}

2279: 

2280: \clearpage

2281: 

2282: \begin{figure}

2283: \figurenum{12}

2284: \epsscale{1.0}

2285: \plotone{f12.eps}

2286: \caption{Histogram distribution of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ measured for 55 clusters 

2287: photometrically complete to $M_{R_c}=-20$ and covering a cluster-centric 

2288: radius of $(r/r_{200})=0.4$. The distribution of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ is 

2289: approximately Gaussian with $\langle M_{R_c}^{\ast}\rangle=-22.24\pm 0.06$ and 

2290: a dispersion of $\sigma=0.31$ mag (dashed line).}

2291: \label{Mstar-Gauss}

2292: \end{figure}

2293: 

2294: \clearpage

2295: 

2296: \begin{figure}

2297: \figurenum{13}

2298: \epsscale{1.0}

2299: \plotone{f13.eps}

2300: \caption{Distribution of $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ with cluster richness $B_{gc}$ for 

2301: the 55 clusters depicted in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Gauss}. No significant 

2302: correlation between $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ and $B_{gc}$ was found for our sample.}

2303: \label{Mstar-Bgc}

2304: \end{figure}

2305: 

2306: \clearpage

2307: 

2308: \begin{figure}

2309: \figurenum{14}

2310: \epsscale{1.0}

2311: \plotone{f14.eps}

2312: \caption{$M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ as a function of BM-type for 54 of the 

2313: 55 clusters depicted in Figure~\ref{Mstar-Bgc}. The solid line represents 

2314: a least-squares fit to the data and indicates that $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ brightens 

2315: for later BM-type. A Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient test yields 

2316: that the two measurements are correlated at the 96\% significance level.}

2317: \label{Mstar-Bgc-BM}

2318: \end{figure}

2319: 

2320: \clearpage

2321: 

2322: \begin{figure}

2323: \figurenum{15}

2324: \epsscale{1.0}

2325: \plotone{f15.eps}

2326: \caption{Variation in $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ with cluster-centric radius for the 

2327: total (open squares), red sequence (solid circles), and blue galaxy 

2328: populations (solid triangles). $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ is measured for a composite 

2329: sample of 57 clusters complete to $M_{R_c}=-20$. The red sequence and blue 

2330: galaxy samples exhibit a trend in which $M_{R_c}^{\ast}$ becomes brighter 

2331: with increasing cluster-centric radius.}

2332: \label{Mstar-Radius}

2333: \end{figure}

2334: 

2335: \clearpage

2336: 

2337: \begin{figure}

2338: \figurenum{16}

2339: \epsscale{1.0}

2340: \plotone{f16.eps}

2341: \caption{Comparison of cluster LFs with published 

2342: sources: P06 -- Popesso et al. 2006, Outer --- this paper, 

2343: composite total LF for $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$, Inner -- this paper, 

2344: composite total LF for $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, H05 -- Hansen et al. 

2345: 2005, P01 -- Piranomonte et al. 2001, C89 -- Colless 1989, D03 -- De Propris 

2346: et al. 2003, G02 -- Goto et al. 2002, and B03 -- Blanton et al. 2003 

2347: (SDSS field LF; dashed line). The LFs have been scaled by 0.3 dex relative 

2348: to each other for comparison purposes.}

2349: \label{CompareLF}

2350: \end{figure}

2351: 

2352: 

2353: 

2354: 

2355: \clearpage

2356: 

2357: \begin{figure}

2358: \figurenum{17}

2359: \epsscale{1.0}

2360: \plotone{f17.eps}

2361: \caption{Composite total $R_c$-band LF for two groups of 

2362: clusters containing $\leq 10$ redshift-confirmed galaxies (open squares) and 

2363: $\geq 25$ redshift-confirmed galaxies (solid circles). The LFs have 

2364: been scaled to match the total composite LF in the $-24\leq M_{R_c}\leq -17$ 

2365: magnitude range. The four radial bins are equivalent to those used in 

2366: Figure~\ref{Comp-All-LF}.}

2367: \label{Redshift10-25}

2368: \end{figure}

2369: 

2370: 

2371: \clearpage

2372: 

2373: \begin{figure}

2374: \figurenum{18}

2375: \epsscale{1.0}

2376: \plotone{f18.eps}

2377: \caption{Schematic diagram illustrating the geometry used to convert the 

2378: projected LF to the deprojected LF. The projected central 

2379: LF from region A will be contaminated by projected galaxies from regions B1 

2380: and B2 that lie in the cluster outskirts. The LF in region C can be utilized 

2381: to deproject the central LF and thus minimize the influence of the 

2382: contaminating galaxies.}

2383: \label{Deproject-Draw}

2384: \end{figure}

2385: 

2386: 

2387: \clearpage

2388: 

2389: \begin{figure}

2390: \figurenum{19}

2391: \epsscale{0.56}

2392: \plotone{f19.eps}

2393: \caption{{\bf Top Panel:} Deprojected total composite LFs are compared for the 

2394: inner-most radial bin $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ (open triangles) with the 

2395: $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ radial bin (solid triangles). The outer 

2396: deprojected LF has been scaled to match the inner LF in the 

2397: $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude range. {\bf Middle Panel:} The deprojected 

2398: total composite LF (open squares) is compared to the projected LF (solid 

2399: circles) for the $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ annulus. The deprojected LF has been 

2400: scaled to match the projected LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude 

2401: interval. {\bf Bottom Panel:} The deprojected total composite LF 

2402: (open squares) is compared to the projected LF (solid circles) for the 

2403: $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$ annulus. The deprojected LF has been 

2404: scaled to match the projected LF in the $-22\leq M_{R_c}\leq -21$ magnitude 

2405: range.}

2406: \label{All-Deproj}

2407: \end{figure}

2408: 

2409: \clearpage

2410: 

2411: \begin{figure}

2412: \figurenum{20}

2413: \epsscale{0.60}

2414: \plotone{f20.eps}

2415: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{All-Deproj}, but for the red sequence composite 

2416: LF.}

2417: \label{Red-Deproj}

2418: \end{figure}

2419: 

2420: \clearpage

2421: 

2422: \begin{figure}

2423: \figurenum{21}

2424: \epsscale{0.60}

2425: \plotone{f21.eps}

2426: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{All-Deproj}, but for the blue composite LF.}

2427: \label{Blue-Deproj}

2428: \end{figure}

2429: 

2430: 

2431: \clearpage

2432: 

2433: \begin{figure}

2434: \figurenum{22}

2435: \epsscale{1.0}

2436: \plotone{f22.eps}

2437: \caption{Vector-style color-magnitude diagram for A260. The vectors define 

2438: the relative change in $B-R_c$ color and $R_c$-mag for the position of the 

2439: observed galaxies to the location of the simulated galaxies. The cluster 

2440: CMR is depicted by the horizontal solid line and the $\pm 3\sigma$ limit by 

2441: the dashed line. For clarity, only a fraction of the cluster galaxies 

2442: brighter than the magnitude completeness limit for this cluster are 

2443: displayed.}

2444: \label{ColorBias}

2445: \end{figure}

2446: 

2447: 

2448: \clearpage

2449: 

2450: \begin{figure}

2451: \figurenum{23}

2452: \epsscale{1.0}

2453: \plotone{f23.eps}

2454: \caption{Composite total observed LF (solid circles) is compared to the 

2455: simulated LF (open squares) for the four radial bins used previously: 

2456: A) $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$, B) $0.2\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.4$, 

2457: C) $0.4\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 0.6$, and D) $0.6\leq (r/r_{200})\leq 1.0$. 

2458: The simulated LF is constructed by randomly changing $r_{200}$ by 

2459: $\pm 15\%$. The simulated LFs have been offset by $0.3$ mag in order to 

2460: assist the comparison.} 

2461: \label{Allr200}

2462: \end{figure}

2463: 

2464: \clearpage

2465: 

2466: \begin{figure}

2467: \figurenum{24}

2468: \epsscale{1.0}

2469: \plotone{f24.eps}

2470: \caption{Comparison of the total composite LF for 57 clusters that are 

2471: photometrically complete to $M_{R_c}=-20$ and cover the $(r/r_{200})\leq 0.2$ 

2472: annulus. The solid points represent the LF comprised by excluding the 

2473: BCGs from the net galaxy counts. The inclusion of the 

2474: BCGs in the LF is depicted by the open squares.}

2475: \label{CompAll-BCG}

2476: \end{figure}

2477: 

2478: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

2479: \end{document}

2480: 

2481: