1: \documentclass[manuscript]{emulateapj}
2: \usepackage{natbib,graphicx,amssymb,epsfig}
3:
4: % New commands...
5: \newcommand{\etal}{et~al.}
6:
7: \slugcomment{ApJ Letters, in press}
8:
9: \shorttitle{Ram pressure stripping in Pegasus}
10: \shortauthors{McConnachie et al.}
11:
12: \begin{document}
13:
14: \title{Ram Pressure Stripping of an isolated Local Group dwarf galaxy: evidence for an intra-group medium}
15: \author{Alan W. McConnachie$^1$, Kim A. Venn$^1$, Mike J. Irwin$^2$, Lisa M. Young$^3$, Jonathan J. Geehan$^1$}
16: \affil{$^1$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., V8P 1A1, Canada}
17: \affil{$^2$Institute of Astronomy, Madingley Road, Cambridge, CB3 0HA, U.K.}
18: \affil{$^3$Physics Department, New Mexico Tech., 801 Leroy Place, Socorro, NM 87801}
19:
20: \begin{abstract}
21: We compare the stellar structure of the isolated, Local Group dwarf
22: galaxy Pegasus (DDO\,216) with low resolution HI maps from
23: \cite{young2003}. Our comparison reveals that Pegasus displays the
24: characteristic morphology of ram pressure stripping; in particular,
25: the HI has a ``cometary'' appearance which is not reflected in the
26: regular, elliptical distribution of the stars. This is the first time
27: this phenomenon has been observed in an isolated Local Group
28: galaxy. The density of the medium required to ram pressure strip
29: Pegasus is at least $10^{-5} - 10^{-6}$\,cm$^{-3}$. We conclude that
30: this is strong evidence for an inter-galactic medium associated with
31: the Local Group.
32:
33: \end{abstract}
34:
35: \keywords{galaxies: dwarf --- galaxies: individual (Pegasus, DDO216) --- galaxies: interactions --- intergalactic medium --- Local Group --- galaxies: structure }
36:
37: \section{Introduction}
38:
39: \cite{einasto1974} first highlighted that dwarf satellites of large
40: galaxies tend to be gas deficient compared to isolated dwarfs. The
41: former generally have little or no ongoing star formation and the
42: stars are pressure supported (dwarf spheroidal, dSph). The latter
43: generally have ongoing star formation and the gas dynamics show that
44: rotational support is important (dwarf irregular,
45: dIrr). ``Transition'' dwarfs are gas-rich and, unlike dIrr galaxies,
46: have little or no detectable HII regions, although they usually show
47: indications of recent star formation.
48:
49: The processes by which dwarf galaxies loose their gas are not fully
50: understood. Internal feedback, particularly winds from supernovae, are
51: likely important (\citealt{dekel1986}) and the existence of the
52: position-morphology relation clearly indicates that environmental
53: influences are significant. \cite{mayer2006} show that it is possible
54: for dwarf galaxies to be ram pressure stripped of some of their
55: gaseous component in a hot halo of the Milky Way or M31. This idea was
56: originally proposed by \cite{lin1983}, who calculated the density of
57: the medium required to be of order $10^{-6}$\,cm$^{-3}$. There
58: have been no direct detections of such a medium, although recently
59: \cite{nicastro2002,nicastro2003} and \cite{sembach2003} have detected
60: OVI absorption which they attribute to hot gas associated with either
61: a Milky Way corona or a Local Group medium.
62:
63: In this {\it Letter}, we compare the stellar and gaseous structure of
64: the isolated, transition-type, dwarf galaxy Pegasus (DDO216). We show
65: that it displays the characteristic signature of ram pressure
66: stripping and conclude that this is strong evidence for hot gas
67: associated with the Local Group. Table~1 summarises some of the
68: observed properties of Pegasus. We adopt the distance estimate by
69: \cite{mcconnachie2005a}, $D \simeq 919$\,kpc, derived from the same
70: photometry used in this Letter.
71:
72: \begin{table}[htdp]
73: \begin{center}
74: \caption{Summary of observed parameters for the Pegasus (DDO216) dwarf galaxy}
75: \begin{tabular}{lll}
76: Parameter & Value & Reference \\
77: \hline
78: $\alpha$ (J2000) & 23h 28m 36.2s& --- \\
79: $\delta$ (J2000) & +14$^\circ$ 44$^\prime$ 35$^{\prime\prime}$& --- \\
80: $(l, b)$ & $(94.8^\circ, -43.6^\circ)$ & --- \\
81: $M_V~{\it(L_V)}$ & -12.9~$(1.24 \times 10^7\,L_\odot)$ & \cite{mateo1998a} \\
82: $M_{HI}$ & $4.06 \times 10^6\,M_\odot$ & \cite{young2003}\\
83: $v_\odot$ & -183\,km\,s$^{-1}$ & \cite{young2003} \\
84: $v_r/\sigma$ & $1.7$ & \cite{mateo1998a} \\
85: Distance & 24.82 $\pm$ 0.07 (919\,kpc) & \cite{mcconnachie2005a} \\
86: & 24.4 $\pm$ 0.2 & \cite{gallagher1998} \\
87: & 24.9 $\pm$ 0.1 & \cite{aparicio1994} \\
88: \hline
89: \end{tabular}
90: \end{center}
91: \label{distances}
92: \end{table}
93:
94: \section{Data}
95:
96: On the night of 8 August 2003, we obtained Johnson V ($V^\prime$) and
97: Gunn i ($i^\prime$) photometry of Pegasus with the Wide Field Camera
98: (WFC) on the 2.5\,meter Isaac Newton Telescope (INT), a mosaic of four
99: CCDs with a total field of view of $27 \times 34$\,arcmins. This is
100: large enough that the entire dwarf galaxy is contained within a single
101: pointing. The seeing was typically $\lesssim 1.2"$ and exposure times
102: of 1000 seconds in each filter allowed us to reach $i^\prime \sim
103: 23.5$\,mags and $V^\prime \sim 24.5$ with a signal-to-noise $\simeq
104: 5$. These data were previously presented in \cite{mcconnachie2005a},
105: to which we refer the reader for more details. In the central regions
106: of Pegasus, crowding is severe and the photometry is very incomplete;
107: however, this makes no difference to any of the results in this {\it
108: Letter}.
109:
110: The top-left panel of Figure~1 shows the reduced $V^\prime$ image of
111: Pegasus taken with the INT\,WFC. Also shown are the fields of view of
112: previous studies of Pegasus. In particular, the WIYN and HST WFPC2
113: fields analysed in \cite{gallagher1998} are shown in green as the
114: largest rectangular field and the small WFPC2 footprint; the NOT field
115: analysed by \cite{aparicio1994} is shown in blue as the smallest
116: rectangular field, and the field studied by \cite{hoessel1982} using
117: the 1.5m Palomar telescope is shown in red as the medium sized
118: rectangle. As we show below, the extent of Pegasus is significantly
119: larger than has previously been recognised.
120:
121: Low resolution HI data for Pegasus was presented in \cite{young2003}
122: and was obtained using the Very Large Array (VLA) with 2.2 hours in
123: the D array on 13 March 1995 and 12.7 hours in the C array on 24
124: January 1999. We refer the reader to \cite{young2003} for details of
125: the data reduction procedures.
126:
127: \section{Analysis and Discussion}
128:
129: \subsection{Comparison of stellar and HI contours}
130:
131: The top-right panel of Figure~1 shows the tangent-plane projection of
132: the spatial distribution of objects identified as stellar from our
133: INT~WFC observations of Pegasus. The dotted lines in this panel (and
134: the remaining panels of Figure~1) correspond to the approximate edges
135: of each CCD of the INT~WFC. Only objects which lie within $1-\sigma$
136: of the stellar locus in both the $V^\prime$ and $i^\prime-$band
137: observations are shown. The hole at the center of the main body of
138: Pegasus is due to severe crowding which causes incompleteness. The
139: bottom-left panel of Figure~1 shows a contour map of the density
140: distribution of stars. The first contour is $2-\sigma$ above the
141: background, and the contours correspond to $2.2, 5.0, 8.6, 13.2, 19,0,
142: 26.3, 35.7, 47.5$ and $62.5$\,stars\,arcmin$^{-2}$. The contour map
143: was made in the standard way and follows exactly the methodology
144: described in \cite{mcconnachie2006b}. This panel shows that Pegasus is
145: significantly more extended than suggested by the image in the first
146: panel.
147:
148: The bottom-right panel of Figure~1 shows the stellar density
149: distribution as a grey-scale with square-root scaling. The red
150: contours are the low-resolution HI distribution from
151: \cite{young2003}. The contours correspond to column densities of
152: $0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8, 1.6, 3.2, 6.4$ and $12.8 \times
153: 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$. Whereas the stars are distributed in a
154: regular ellipse (typical of a flattened spheroid or an inclined disk)
155: the HI has a ``cometary'' appearance; the contours in the south-east
156: are more closely packed and do not extend as far as in the north-west.
157:
158: \subsection{Is Pegasus being ram pressure stripped?}
159:
160: \begin{figure*}
161: \begin{center}
162: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=8.9cm]{f1a.eps}
163: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=8.9cm]{f1b.ps}
164: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=8.9cm]{f1c.ps}
165: \includegraphics[angle=270, width=8.9cm]{f1d.ps}
166: \caption{Projections in the tangent plane $\left(\xi, \eta\right)$
167: of the structure of the Pegasus dwarf galaxy (DDO216) with the
168: orientation of the field indicated. The dotted lines trace the
169: approximate edges of the four CCDs of the INT~WFC. Top-left panel:
170: The reduced $V^\prime-$band image of Pegasus taken with the
171: INT~WFC. Also marked are the positions of fields analysed in
172: previous studies of this galaxy; the fields analysed by
173: \cite{gallagher1998} are shown in green as the largest rectangular
174: field and the small WFPC2 footprint, the field analysed by
175: \cite{aparicio1994} is shown in blue as the smallest rectangular
176: field, and the field studied by \cite{hoessel1982} is shown in red
177: as the medium sized rectangle. Top-right panel: The distribution
178: of all sources confidently identified as stellar in both the
179: $V^\prime$ and $i^\prime-$bands. The hole at the center of Pegasus
180: is due to severe crowding causing the photometry to become
181: seriously incomplete. Bottom-left panel: The stellar density
182: distribution of Pegasus shown as a contour map. The first contour
183: is $2-\sigma$ above the background and the 9 contours correspond
184: to $2.2, 5.0, 8.6, 13.2, 19,0, 26.3, 35.7, 47.5$ and
185: $62.5$\,stars\,arcmin$^{-2}$. Bottom-right panel: the stellar
186: density distribution is shown as a grey-scale with square-root
187: scaling. The red contours show the low resultion HI distribution
188: from \cite{young2003}. Contours correspond to $0.1, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8,
189: 1.6, 3.2, 6.4$ and $12.8 \times 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$. Also
190: shown are the projected directions to all galaxies within $\sim
191: 500$\,kpc of Pegasus which have a significant gaseous
192: content. Pegasus displays the characteristic morphology of ram
193: pressure stripping.}
194: \label{fig}
195: \end{center}
196: \end{figure*}
197:
198: The shape of the low resolution HI contours in Pegasus - the smooth,
199: compressed contours in the south-east and the ``tail'' to the
200: north-west - is very similar to the simulated morphology of gas
201: undergoing ram pressure striping (e.g.,
202: \citealt{stevens1999,mori2000,marcolini2003,roediger2005,mayer2006}).
203: Observationally, the M81 group dwarf galaxy Holmberg~II is observed to
204: have a similar morphology (\citealt{bureau2002}), interpreted as
205: evidence of an intra-group medium. In clusters of galaxies, ram
206: pressure stripping of galaxies by an intra-cluster medium is used to
207: explain various observations, including the deficit of HI in cluster
208: spiral galaxies compared to field spirals (e.g.,
209: \citealt{giovanelli1985}). Indeed, several individual galaxies in the
210: Virgo Cluster have been shown to display gaseous morphologies
211: indicative of ram-pressure stripping
212: (\citealt{vollmer2000,vollmer2004,vollmer2005}).
213:
214: What else could explain the peculiar appearance of Pegasus? While
215: tidal stripping by large galaxies can affect the structure of dwarf
216: galaxies (e.g., \citealt{penarrubia2007b}), the closest large galaxy
217: to Pegasus is M31 at $\sim 470$\,kpc (all the distance estimates in
218: Table~1 place Pegasus at $> 400\,$kpc from M31). Even if we assume
219: Pegasus is a weakly-bound satellite of M31, tidal effects at this
220: distance are minimal. If Pegasus was disrupted at pericenter, it is
221: unlikely that the gas would still show signs of current
222: disturbance. Further, tidal stripping tends to produce symmetrical
223: distortions and both gas and stars should be affected. However, these
224: are inconsistent with the structure of Pegasus that we observe.
225:
226: Could the appearance of Pegasus be due to internal effects rather than
227: external influences? Enhanced star formation in the south-east of
228: Pegasus could produce winds which remove gas from this
229: region. However, if this is the case then the densely packed contours
230: in the south-east should have a more concave, rather than convex,
231: shape. For example, \cite{young2007} discuss a gas cloud associated
232: with the Phoenix dwarf galaxy and conclude that it was blown out by
233: supernovae winds based in part on the concave shape of its contours.
234:
235: An alternative explanation for the HI morphology of Pegasus is that it
236: consists of multiple HI clouds, the sum total of which has a cometary
237: appearance. Figure~6 of \cite{young2003} is a position-velocity
238: diagram of Pegasus along its major axis. It shows a gradient in
239: velocity and two main concentrations of HI which \cite{young2003}
240: interpret as two distinct HI clouds. The strength of the secondary
241: feature ($v \sim -200$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) is weaker than the main feature
242: ($v \sim -180$\,km\,s$^{-1}$) and they join at relatively high column
243: density (between the $8 - 16 - \sigma$ contour levels). An alternative
244: explanation of the data is that the overall velocity gradient is a
245: result of ram-pressure stripping. The velocity difference between the
246: two features may be due to stripped gas leaving a ``hole'' in the
247: distribution, making the secondary feature appear at a higher density
248: than its immediate surroundings (we do not necessarily expect that the
249: column density should smoothly vary over the entire cloud).
250:
251: Henceforth, we adopt the hypothesis that Pegasus is being ram pressure
252: stripped. Following \cite{gunn1972}, material will be ram pressure
253: stripped from a galaxy if the density of the surrounding medium,
254: $n_{IGM} \gtrsim
255: \left(2\,\pi\,G\,\Sigma_{T}\,\Sigma_{HI}\right)/\left(\mu v^2\right)$.
256: $\Sigma_{T}$ is the total surface density (stars plus gas),
257: $\Sigma_{HI}$ is the column density of HI and $v$ is the relative
258: velocity of the galaxy to the medium. Thus,
259:
260: \begin{eqnarray}
261: n_{IGM} &\simeq& 3.7 \times 10^{-6}\,\rm{cm}^{-3}
262: \left(\frac{\rm{100\,km\,s^{-1}}}{v}\right)^2 \nonumber\\
263: &&\left(\frac{\Sigma_{HI}}{0.1 \times 10^{20}\,\rm{cm}^{-2}}\right)^2~,
264: \end{eqnarray}
265:
266: \noindent where we take the mean particle mass $\mu = 0.75\,m_p$ for
267: fully ionized media. We approximate the Local Group space velocity of
268: Pegasus as $v \sim \sqrt{3}\,\sigma_{LG} \sim 100$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ where
269: $\sigma_{LG} \sim 60$\,km\,s$^{-1}$ is the Local Group line-of-sight
270: velocity dispersion (\citealt{sandage1986}). HI at a column density
271: much lower than $\Sigma_{HI} \sim 0.1 \times 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$ has
272: been stripped from Pegasus, implying that this is a reasonable lower
273: limit for use in this calculation. We adopt $\Sigma_T = \Sigma_{HI}
274: \left(1 + M_\star/M_{HI}\right)$, where $M_\star \sim 1.24 \times
275: 10^7\,M_\odot$ is the stellar mass of Pegasus (Table~1). This seems
276: reasonable; the surface brightness of Pegasus is
277: $25$\,mags\,arcsec$^{-2}$ at a radius of $r = 1.5^\prime$ on the minor
278: axis (\citealt{nilson1973,devaucouleurs1991}), corresponding to a
279: stellar surface density of $\Sigma_\star \sim 4 \times
280: 10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$. This is approximately equivalent to the
281: stellar-to-gas mass ratio multiplied by the gas surface density
282: ($M_\star/M_{HI} \times \Sigma_{HI}$) at $r = 1.5^\prime$.
283:
284: These values yield $n_{IGM} \sim 3.7 \times
285: 10^{-6}$\,cm$^{-3}$. However, given the uncertainties involved, it is
286: entirely plausible that the value of $n_{IGM}$ could be at least an
287: order of magnitude larger than in Equation~1.
288:
289: \subsection{Consequences}
290:
291: What is the source of the material that is stripping Pegasus? The
292: bottom right panel of Figure~1 shows the distances of Pegasus to its
293: nearest gas-rich neighbours. The dwarf neighbours are unlikely to be
294: the source of the stripping medium; not only is the required mass of
295: gas unrealistically large (an ejected spherical shell $\sim 1$\,kpc
296: thick with a radius of $\sim 300$\,kpc would have a mass $> 3 \times
297: 10^6\,M_\odot$ at a density of $n_{IGM}$) but the energy required is
298: too large for a dwarf galaxy to reasonably provide.
299:
300: Alternatively, the gas could be associated with M31. From observations
301: of the Magellanic stream, \cite{murali2000} estimate that the density
302: of the Milky Way halo at the stream must be $\lesssim
303: 10^{-5}$cm$^{-3}$, although \cite{stanimirovic2002} estimate $\sim
304: 10^{-4}$ cm$^{-3}$. If the gas density in the halo of M31 is
305: similar, then not only would M31 need to have a very extended corona,
306: but its density would need to decrease very slowly with
307: radius. Indeed, if the Milky Way has a similarly extended corona, then
308: the two will overlap and the result may be observationally
309: indistinguishable from a Local Group medium.
310:
311: The isolation of Pegasus raises the strong possibility that the
312: stripping medium is associated with the Local Group, rather than
313: individual galaxies within the group. Clusters of galaxies have such
314: media, and observations of Holmberg~II imply the presence of an
315: intra-group medium in the M81 group (\citealt{bureau2002}). The
316: density of the intra-group medium implied in Equation~1 is of the same
317: order as the density of the medium responsible for local OVI
318: absorption detected by \cite{nicastro2002,nicastro2003} and
319: \cite{sembach2003}, which they suggest is associated with either a
320: Milky Way corona or a Local Group medium. Our result favors the
321: latter interpretation. Theoretically, $\sim 30\,\%$ of baryons in the
322: Local Volume are expected to be in a warm/hot phase ($T \sim 10^5 -
323: 10^6\,$K; \citealt{kravtsov2002}); this is likely concentrated around
324: galaxies and galaxy groups as an intra-group medium.
325:
326: If the stripping medium pervades the Local Group, why do more dwarf
327: galaxies not show evidence of ram pressure stripping? \cite{lin1983}
328: suggest that all the dSphs have been stripped in this fashion,
329: (although \cite{mayer2006} show that ram-pressure stripping by itself
330: is insufficient to remove all the gas from a dIrr). It is possible
331: that the Local Group medium will be clumpy and perhaps Pegasus is
332: passing through a region of higher density compared to other
333: dIrrs. Alternatively, Pegasus could be falling into and interacting
334: with the Local Group for the first time, as has recently been
335: speculated for two dSph galaxies at large radii from M31 (And~XII,
336: \citealt{chapman2007}; AndXIV, \citealt{majewski2007}). However, the
337: reason why only Pegasus currently shows signs of ram-pressure
338: stripping is unlikely to be known until such time as the masses and
339: orbits of the dIrrs have been determined. Given the distances of these
340: galaxies, this will be some time yet.
341:
342: \section{Summary}
343:
344: We show that the isolated, transition-type, Local Group dwarf galaxy,
345: Pegasus (DDO216) is undergoing ram pressure stripping. We calculate
346: that the density of the medium required to strip Pegasus is at least $n_{IGM}
347: \sim 10^{-5} - 10^{-6}$\,cm$^3$, of the same order as the medium
348: recently identified by \cite{nicastro2002,nicastro2003} and
349: \cite{sembach2003} through OVI absorption. Given the large distance of
350: Pegasus from either the Milky Way or M31, we conclude that Pegasus
351: presents strong evidence for the existence of a Local Group
352: inter-galactic medium.
353:
354: \acknowledgements{We thank Mary Putman, Stephanie C{\^o}t{\'e}, Evan
355: Skillman, Andi Mahdavi, Arif Babul, and Chris Bildfell for valuable
356: conversations. AWM is supported by a Research Fellowship from the
357: Royal Commission for the Exhibition of 1851, and thanks J.~Navarro and
358: S.~Ellison for additional financial assistance. KAV and JG thank NSERC
359: for support through a Discovery grant.}
360:
361: \begin{thebibliography}{34}
362: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
363:
364: \bibitem[{{Aparicio}(1994)}]{aparicio1994}
365: {Aparicio}, A. 1994, \apjl, 437, L27
366:
367: \bibitem[{{Bureau} \& {Carignan}(2002)}]{bureau2002}
368: {Bureau}, M. \& {Carignan}, C. 2002, \aj, 123, 1316
369:
370: \bibitem[{{Chapman} {et~al.}(2007){Chapman}, {Pe{\~n}arrubia}, {Ibata},
371: {McConnachie}, {Martin}, {Irwin}, {Blain}, {Lewis}, {Letarte}, {Lo},
372: {Ludlow}, \& {O'neil}}]{chapman2007}
373: {Chapman}, S.~C., {Pe{\~n}arrubia}, J., {Ibata}, R., {McConnachie}, A.,
374: {Martin}, N., {Irwin}, M., {Blain}, A., {Lewis}, G.~F., {Letarte}, B., {Lo},
375: K., {Ludlow}, A., \& {O'neil}, K. 2007, \apjl, 662, L79
376:
377: \bibitem[{{de Vaucouleurs} {et~al.}(1991){de Vaucouleurs}, {de Vaucouleurs},
378: {Corwin}, {Buta}, {Paturel}, \& {Fouque}}]{devaucouleurs1991}
379: {de Vaucouleurs}, G., {de Vaucouleurs}, A., {Corwin}, Jr., H.~G., {Buta},
380: R.~J., {Paturel}, G., \& {Fouque}, P. 1991, {Third Reference Catalogue of
381: Bright Galaxies} (Volume 1-3, XII, 2069 pp.~7 figs..~ Springer-Verlag Berlin
382: Heidelberg New York)
383:
384: \bibitem[{{Dekel} \& {Silk}(1986)}]{dekel1986}
385: {Dekel}, A. \& {Silk}, J. 1986, \apj, 303, 39
386:
387: \bibitem[{{Einasto} {et~al.}(1974){Einasto}, {Saar}, {Kaasik}, \&
388: {Chernin}}]{einasto1974}
389: {Einasto}, J., {Saar}, E., {Kaasik}, A., \& {Chernin}, A.~D. 1974, \nat, 252,
390: 111
391:
392: \bibitem[{{Gallagher} {et~al.}(1998){Gallagher}, {Tolstoy}, {Dohm-Palmer},
393: {Skillman}, {Cole}, {Hoessel}, {Saha}, \& {Mateo}}]{gallagher1998}
394: {Gallagher}, J.~S., {Tolstoy}, E., {Dohm-Palmer}, R.~C., {Skillman}, E.~D.,
395: {Cole}, A.~A., {Hoessel}, J.~G., {Saha}, A., \& {Mateo}, M. 1998, \aj, 115,
396: 1869
397:
398: \bibitem[{{Giovanelli} \& {Haynes}(1985)}]{giovanelli1985}
399: {Giovanelli}, R. \& {Haynes}, M.~P. 1985, \apj, 292, 404
400:
401: \bibitem[{{Gunn} \& {Gott}(1972)}]{gunn1972}
402: {Gunn}, J.~E. \& {Gott}, J.~R.~I. 1972, \apj, 176, 1
403:
404: \bibitem[{{Hoessel} \& {Mould}(1982)}]{hoessel1982}
405: {Hoessel}, J.~G. \& {Mould}, J.~R. 1982, \apj, 254, 38
406:
407: \bibitem[{{Kravtsov} {et~al.}(2002){Kravtsov}, {Klypin}, \&
408: {Hoffman}}]{kravtsov2002}
409: {Kravtsov}, A.~V., {Klypin}, A., \& {Hoffman}, Y. 2002, \apj, 571, 563
410:
411: \bibitem[{{Lin} \& {Faber}(1983)}]{lin1983}
412: {Lin}, D.~N.~C. \& {Faber}, S.~M. 1983, \apjl, 266, L21
413:
414: \bibitem[{{Majewski} {et~al.}(2007){Majewski}, {Beaton}, {Patterson},
415: {Kalirai}, {Geha}, {Mu{\~n}oz}, {Seigar}, {Guhathakurta}, {Bullock}, {Rich},
416: {Gilbert}, \& {Reitzel}}]{majewski2007}
417: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Beaton}, R.~L., {Patterson}, R.~J., {Kalirai}, J.~S.,
418: {Geha}, M.~C., {Mu{\~n}oz}, R.~R., {Seigar}, M.~S., {Guhathakurta}, P.,
419: {Bullock}, J., {Rich}, R.~M., {Gilbert}, K.~M., \& {Reitzel}, D.~B. 2007,
420: ArXiv Astrophysics e-prints
421:
422: \bibitem[{{Marcolini} {et~al.}(2003){Marcolini}, {Brighenti}, \&
423: {D'Ercole}}]{marcolini2003}
424: {Marcolini}, A., {Brighenti}, F., \& {D'Ercole}, A. 2003, \mnras, 345, 1329
425:
426: \bibitem[{{Mateo}(1998)}]{mateo1998a}
427: {Mateo}, M.~L. 1998, \araa, 36, 435
428:
429: \bibitem[{{Mayer} {et~al.}(2006){Mayer}, {Mastropietro}, {Wadsley}, {Stadel},
430: \& {Moore}}]{mayer2006}
431: {Mayer}, L., {Mastropietro}, C., {Wadsley}, J., {Stadel}, J., \& {Moore}, B.
432: 2006, \mnras, 369, 1021
433:
434: \bibitem[{{McConnachie} \& {Irwin}(2006)}]{mcconnachie2006b}
435: {McConnachie}, A.~W. \& {Irwin}, M.~J. 2006, \mnras, 365, 1263
436:
437: \bibitem[{{McConnachie} {et~al.}(2005){McConnachie}, {Irwin}, {Ferguson},
438: {Ibata}, {Lewis}, \& {Tanvir}}]{mcconnachie2005a}
439: {McConnachie}, A.~W., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Ibata}, R.~A.,
440: {Lewis}, G.~F., \& {Tanvir}, N. 2005, \mnras, 356, 979
441:
442: \bibitem[{{Mori} \& {Burkert}(2000)}]{mori2000}
443: {Mori}, M. \& {Burkert}, A. 2000, \apj, 538, 559
444:
445: \bibitem[{{Murali}(2000)}]{murali2000}
446: {Murali}, C. 2000, \apjl, 529, L81
447:
448: \bibitem[{{Nicastro} {et~al.}(2002){Nicastro}, {Zezas}, {Drake}, {Elvis},
449: {Fiore}, {Fruscione}, {Marengo}, {Mathur}, \& {Bianchi}}]{nicastro2002}
450: {Nicastro}, F., {Zezas}, A., {Drake}, J., {Elvis}, M., {Fiore}, F.,
451: {Fruscione}, A., {Marengo}, M., {Mathur}, S., \& {Bianchi}, S. 2002, \apj,
452: 573, 157
453:
454: \bibitem[{{Nicastro} {et~al.}(2003){Nicastro}, {Zezas}, {Elvis}, {Mathur},
455: {Fiore}, {Cecchi-Pestellini}, {Burke}, {Drake}, \& {Casella}}]{nicastro2003}
456: {Nicastro}, F., {Zezas}, A., {Elvis}, M., {Mathur}, S., {Fiore}, F.,
457: {Cecchi-Pestellini}, C., {Burke}, D., {Drake}, J., \& {Casella}, P. 2003,
458: \nat, 421, 719
459:
460: \bibitem[{{Nilson}(1973)}]{nilson1973}
461: {Nilson}, P. 1973, {Uppsala general catalogue of galaxies} (Acta Universitatis
462: Upsaliensis.~Nova Acta Regiae Societatis Scientiarum Upsaliensis - Uppsala
463: Astronomiska Observatoriums Annaler, Uppsala: Astronomiska Observatorium,
464: 1973)
465:
466: \bibitem[{{Penarrubia} {et~al.}(2007){Penarrubia}, {Navarro}, \&
467: {McConnachie}}]{penarrubia2007b}
468: {Penarrubia}, J., {Navarro}, J.~F., \& {McConnachie}, A.~W. 2007, ArXiv
469: e-prints, 708
470:
471: \bibitem[{{Roediger} \& {Hensler}(2005)}]{roediger2005}
472: {Roediger}, E. \& {Hensler}, G. 2005, \aap, 433, 875
473:
474: \bibitem[{{Sandage}(1986)}]{sandage1986}
475: {Sandage}, A. 1986, \apj, 307, 1
476:
477: \bibitem[{{Sembach} {et~al.}(2003){Sembach}, {Wakker}, {Savage}, {Richter},
478: {Meade}, {Shull}, {Jenkins}, {Sonneborn}, \& {Moos}}]{sembach2003}
479: {Sembach}, K.~R., {Wakker}, B.~P., {Savage}, B.~D., {Richter}, P., {Meade}, M.,
480: {Shull}, J.~M., {Jenkins}, E.~B., {Sonneborn}, G., \& {Moos}, H.~W. 2003,
481: \apjs, 146, 165
482:
483: \bibitem[{{Stanimirovi{\'c}} {et~al.}(2002){Stanimirovi{\'c}}, {Dickey}, {Kr{\v
484: c}o}, \& {Brooks}}]{stanimirovic2002}
485: {Stanimirovi{\'c}}, S., {Dickey}, J.~M., {Kr{\v c}o}, M., \& {Brooks}, A.~M.
486: 2002, \apj, 576, 773
487:
488: \bibitem[{{Stevens} {et~al.}(1999){Stevens}, {Acreman}, \&
489: {Ponman}}]{stevens1999}
490: {Stevens}, I.~R., {Acreman}, D.~M., \& {Ponman}, T.~J. 1999, \mnras, 310, 663
491:
492: \bibitem[{{Vollmer} {et~al.}(2004){Vollmer}, {Balkowski}, {Cayatte}, {van
493: Driel}, \& {Huchtmeier}}]{vollmer2004}
494: {Vollmer}, B., {Balkowski}, C., {Cayatte}, V., {van Driel}, W., \&
495: {Huchtmeier}, W. 2004, \aap, 419, 35
496:
497: \bibitem[{{Vollmer} {et~al.}(2005){Vollmer}, {Huchtmeier}, \& {van
498: Driel}}]{vollmer2005}
499: {Vollmer}, B., {Huchtmeier}, W., \& {van Driel}, W. 2005, \aap, 439, 921
500:
501: \bibitem[{{Vollmer} {et~al.}(2000){Vollmer}, {Marcelin}, {Amram}, {Balkowski},
502: {Cayatte}, \& {Garrido}}]{vollmer2000}
503: {Vollmer}, B., {Marcelin}, M., {Amram}, P., {Balkowski}, C., {Cayatte}, V., \&
504: {Garrido}, O. 2000, \aap, 364, 532
505:
506: \bibitem[{{Young} {et~al.}(2007){Young}, {Skillman}, {Weisz}, \&
507: {Dolphin}}]{young2007}
508: {Young}, L.~M., {Skillman}, E.~D., {Weisz}, D.~R., \& {Dolphin}, A.~E. 2007,
509: \apj, 659, 331
510:
511: \bibitem[{{Young} {et~al.}(2003){Young}, {van Zee}, {Lo}, {Dohm-Palmer}, \&
512: {Beierle}}]{young2003}
513: {Young}, L.~M., {van Zee}, L., {Lo}, K.~Y., {Dohm-Palmer}, R.~C., \& {Beierle},
514: M.~E. 2003, \apj, 592, 111
515:
516: \end{thebibliography}
517:
518: \end{document}
519: