1: %\documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib,referee]{mn2e}
2: \documentclass[useAMS,usenatbib]{mn2e}
3: \usepackage{graphicx}
4: %\usepackage{supertabular,lscape,epsfig}
5: \usepackage{amssymb}
6:
7: \newcommand{\mc}{\multicolumn}
8: \def\tablenotemark#1{{$^#1$}}
9:
10: \def\kms{\,{\rm km\,s^{-1}}}
11: \def\mpc{\,{\rm Mpc}}
12: \def\kpc{\,{\rm kpc}}
13: \def\pc{\,{\rm pc}}
14: \def\Mbh{\,{M_{\rm BH}}}
15: \def\msun{\,{M_{\rm \odot}}}
16: \def\magsec{\,{\rm mag\,arcsec^{-2}}}
17: \def\Dmin{{\,D_{\rm min}}}
18: \def\rmin{{\,R_{\rm min}}}
19:
20: \def\smao#1{{\bf smao: #1}}
21: \def\liu#1{{\bf F. S. Liu: #1}}
22: \def\xia#1{{\bf xia: #1}}
23:
24: \begin{document}
25:
26: \title[Photometric Properties and Scaling Relations of BCGs]
27: {Photometric Properties and Scaling Relations of Early Type Brightest Cluster Galaxies}
28: \author[F. S. Liu et al.]{
29: F. S. Liu$^{1,2,3}$\thanks{E-mail: lfs@bao.ac.cn},
30: X. Y. Xia$^{3}$,
31: Shude Mao$^{4,3}$,
32: Hong Wu$^{1}$,
33: Z. G. Deng$^{2}$\\
34: $^{1}$National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese
35: Academy of Sciences, A20 Datun Road, Beijing, 100012, P.R.China\\
36: $^{2}$Graduate School of the Chinese Academy of Sciences,
37: Beijing, 100049, P.R.China\\
38: $^{3}$Department of Physics, Tianjin Normal University,
39: Tianjin, 300074, P.R.China\\
40: $^{4}$Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, Alan Turing Building, University of Manchester,
41: Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
42: %$^{5}$ Max-Planck Instit\"ut f\"ur Astrophysik, 85741 Garching, Germany}
43: }
44:
45: \date{Accepted 23 November 2007, Received 23 November 2007; in original form of 6 August 2007
46: }
47:
48: \pagerange{\pageref{firstpage}--\pageref{lastpage}} \pubyear{2007}
49:
50: \maketitle
51:
52: \label{firstpage}
53:
54:
55: \begin{abstract}
56: We investigate the photometric properties of the early type
57: Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) using a carefully selected
58: sample of 85 BCGs from the C4 cluster catalogue with redshift less
59: than 0.1. We perform accurate background subtractions, and surface
60: photometry for these BCGs to 25 $\magsec$ in the Sloan $r$-band. By quantitatively
61: analysing the gradient of the Petrosian profiles of BCGs, we find
62: that a large fraction of BCGs have extended stellar envelopes in
63: their outskirts; more luminous BCGs tend to have more extended
64: stellar halos that are likely connected with mergers. A comparison
65: sample of elliptical galaxies was chosen with similar apparent
66: magnitude and redshift ranges, for which the same photometric
67: analysis procedure is applied. We find that BCGs have steeper
68: size-luminosity ($R \propto L^\alpha$) and Faber-Jackson ($L
69: \propto \sigma^\beta$) relations than the bulk of early type galaxies.
70: Furthermore, the power-law indices ($\alpha$ and
71: $\beta$) in these relations increase as the isophotal limits
72: become deeper. For isophotal limits from 22 to 25 $\magsec$, BCGs
73: are usually larger than the bulk of early type galaxies,
74: and a large fraction ($\sim 49\%$) of BCGs
75: have disky isophotal shapes. The differences in the scaling
76: relations are consistent with a scenario where the dynamical structure and formation route
77: of BCGs may be different from the bulk of early type galaxies, in
78: particular dry (dissipationless) mergers may play a more important
79: role in their formation; we highlight several possible dry merger
80: candidates in our sample.
81:
82: \end{abstract}
83: \begin{keywords}
84: galaxies : E/S0s --- galaxies: cD --- galaxies: cluster of galaxies --- galaxies :
85: photometry --- galaxies
86: \end{keywords}
87:
88: \section{INTRODUCTION}
89:
90: The Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) are the most luminous and
91: most massive galaxies in the universe. BCGs are located close to
92: the centre of the clusters of galaxies based on the X-ray
93: observations or gravitational lensing observations (e.g., Jones \&
94: Forman 1984; Smith et al. 2005). It was noted very early on that
95: some BCGs show an excess of light (`envelopes') over the de
96: Vaucouleurs ($r^{1/4}$) profile at large radii (Matthews et al.
97: 1964; Oemler 1973, 1976; Schombert 1986, 1987, 1988; Graham et al.
98: 1996), and a large fraction of BCGs are termed as cD galaxies
99: (e.g., Patel et al. 2006). Although the origin of such extended
100: envelopes is still not completely clear (e.g., Patel et al. 2006), the extended
101: stellar halos of BCGs to surface brightness $\mu(r)<25 \magsec$
102: are likely from BCGs themselves: the intra-cluster light
103: has much lower surface brightness and only dominates at large
104: radius ($r \ga 80 \kpc$; for detailed discussions, see
105: Zibetti et al. 2005; Bernardi et al. 2007; Lauer et al. 2007).
106:
107: There has been debate on the formation mechanisms for BCGs and cD
108: galaxies. Several mechanisms have been proposed, such as galactic
109: cannibalism (the merging or capture of cluster satellites due to
110: dynamical friction, Ostriker \& Tremaine 1975; White 1976;
111: Ostriker \& Hausman 1977), tidal stripping from cluster galaxies
112: (Gallagher \& Ostriker 1972; Richstone 1975, 1976; Merritt 1985),
113: and star formation on BCGs by cooling flows (e.g., Fabian 1994).
114: Therefore, it is important to study the photometric properties of
115: BCGs using large and homogeneous BCG samples, which has now become
116: available due to large surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky
117: Survey (SDSS; for earlier studies, e.g. Postman \& Lauer 1995, see references
118: below). Moreover, the statistical properties of the
119: extended envelopes of BCGs may also help to understand how the
120: BCGs form and evolve, especially when combined with high-redshift
121: cluster samples such as EdisCS (White et al. 2005).
122:
123: Recently, there has been much progress in this area from both
124: observational and theoretical fronts. Observations show that BCGs
125: have distinct properties from the bulk of elliptical galaxies. The
126: size-luminosity relation and Faber-Jackson relation ($L-\sigma$
127: relation) for BCGs are significantly steeper than those of non-BCG
128: elliptical galaxies (Lauer et al. 2007; Bernardi et al. 2007;
129: Desroches et al. 2007; von der Linden et al. 2007). It implies that BCGs are larger and have
130: lower velocity dispersions than non-BCG elliptical galaxies,
131: % at same luminosity
132: which confirms the pioneering work based on a small BCG sample by
133: Oegerle \& Hoessel (1991). The differences between BCGs and
134: non-BCG elliptical galaxies demonstrate that the BCGs may form in a
135: qualitatively different way from non-BCG elliptical galaxies (De
136: Lucia \& Blaizot 2007). Furthermore, the steeper $L-\sigma$
137: relation for BCGs than those of non-BCG elliptical galaxies leads
138: to a contradiction in the prediction of black hole (BH) masses
139: using the $\Mbh-\sigma$ or $\Mbh-L$ relationships. The usual $\Mbh-\sigma$
140: relation cannot predict black hole masses larger than $3 \times 10^{9}$ $\msun$ in the universe,
141: which is inconsistent with values estimated by other means (Lauer et al. 2007).
142:
143: Recent simulations and semi-analytic works in
144: the cold dark matter hierarchical structure formation framework
145: provide a plausible picture for the formation of BCGs: they tend
146: to form at high-density peaks when their inhabited dark matter
147: halos collapse at high redshift, and then X-ray driven cooling
148: flows allow a rapid collapse and the formation of a stellar
149: component (Cowie \& Binney 1977; Fabian \& Nulsen
150: 1977; Fabian 1994). While more than half of the stellar mass in
151: the BCGs may have formed before redshift three, BCGs still grow
152: substantially through dry (dissipationless) mergers when their
153: host massive halos accrete and merge with other halos since
154: redshift one (Gao et al. 2004; De Lucia \& Blaizot 2007). This
155: picture is largely consistent with observations, which does not
156: require cooling flows to provide the cold gas if BCGs form late;
157: it also overcomes a potential problem that the merger rate in
158: clusters may be too low due to the high velocity dispersion in
159: dynamically relaxed clusters. Furthermore, dry mergers have been
160: directly observed in cluster environments as well as in the field
161: (e.g., Lauer 1988; van Dokkum 2005; Tran et al.
162: 2005; Bell et al. 2006). However, there are still no systematic
163: investigations on the formation of cD-like BCGs galaxies,
164: especially how the extended stellar halos of cD galaxies form:
165: whether they appear during the dry merger phase, and whether
166: they are the primary cause of the distinct properties of BCGs.
167: There is also no agreement about the contributions of the
168: intra-cluster light (e.g., Gonzalez et al. 2005; Zebetti et al.
169: 2005; Lauer et al. 2007).
170:
171: The C4 cluster catalogue (Miller et al. 2005) with 748 cluster of
172: galaxies was constructed from the spectroscopic data of Second
173: Data Release (DR2) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). This is
174: one of the largest published homogeneous database of nearby
175: clusters and groups ($z<0.17$). In principle, it is suitable for
176: statistical studies of BCGs (see also the more recent, much
177: larger maxBCG catalogue of 13,823 clusters of Koester et al. 2007).
178: Based on BCGs from this published cluster catalogue, or
179: the un-published C4 cluster catalogue selected from SDSS DR3,
180: Bernardi et al. (2007) and von der Linden et al. (2007) find that
181: BCGs have different properties, in particular their scaling laws,
182: from non-BCG early type galaxies. Their results are, however, not
183: entirely consistent with each other, which could be due to
184: different sample selections or photometry methods. In fact, the
185: slope indices in the size-luminosity and Faber-Jackson ($L-\sigma$) relations
186: found by Bernardi et al. (2007) are also significantly different from
187: those of Lauer et al. (2007), although the trends are the same and
188: these two groups use similar methods to measure luminosities and
189: effective radius $R_{e}$; both are based on fitting the $r^{1/4}$ law
190: to the $R-$band surface brightness profiles within 50\kpc\ or to some
191: surface brightness limit of the BCGs. However, the
192: samples they used are different. Lauer et al. (2007) use their own
193: all sky, volume limited (z$<$0.05) survey of 119 BCGs with
194: precise ground-based surface photometry (Postman \& Lauer 1995).
195: Therefore, it is worth investigating whether sample selections and photometry can lead
196: to inconsistencies on scaling laws.
197: %
198: In this paper, we construct a different, nearby (with redshift
199: $z<0.1$) BCG sample based on the C4 cluster catalogue, and perform
200: our own photometry. In particular, we examine how the scaling
201: relations change when different isophotal limits are applied, and
202: compare the results with those of Bernardi et al. (2007), Lauer et
203: al. (2007) and von der Linden et al. (2007).
204:
205: The outline of the paper is as follows. In \S2 and \S3 we describe
206: the selection of our local BCG sample and photometric data
207: reduction. We present our main results in \S4 and finish with a
208: discussion \& summary in \S5.
209: %
210: Throughout this paper we adopt a cosmology with
211: a matter density parameter $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$, a cosmological constant
212: $\Omega_{\rm \Lambda}=0.7$ and
213: a Hubble constant of ${\rm H}_{\rm 0}=70\,{\rm km \, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}$
214: ($h \equiv H_0/100\,{\rm km \, s^{-1} Mpc^{-1}}=0.7$).
215:
216: \section{SAMPLE} \label{sec:sample}
217:
218: Our early type BCG sample is drawn from the early version of the
219: C4 cluster catalogue (Miller et al. 2005). Given that BCGs are
220: located near the centre of clusters of galaxies which is often
221: crowded with galaxies and contaminated by intra-cluster light, to
222: ensure the reliable photometric measurement with high enough S$/$N
223: ratio for each sample BCG to $\mu(r)$$< 25$ mag/arcsec$^2$ that is
224: significantly higher than the intra-cluster light (Zibetti et al.
225: 2005; Lauer et al. 2007; Bernardi et al. 2007), we restrict our
226: BCG sample to be brighter than 14.5 mag in the SDSS $r$-band model
227: magnitude. After we exclude 10 duplicated objects (Bernardi et al.
228: 2007), there are 114 galaxies selected out of a total of 748 BCGs
229: in the C4 cluster catalogue.
230:
231: Due to fiber collisions in the spectroscopic data, it is necessary
232: to incorporate the SDSS photometric catalogue to avoid missing
233: BCGs using the C4 algorithm. The DR2 version of the C4 catalogue
234: tried to correct for this by selecting the brightest cluster galaxy
235: based on the photometric catalog. However, as several works (e.g.,
236: Bernardi et al. 2007; von der Linden et al. 2007) noticed, some
237: stars or spiral galaxies (some of these are located at the edge of
238: clusters) have been mis-classified as BCGs. we thus performed
239: visual inspections of two-colour images in the $g$-band and
240: $r$-band for all the 114 BCG candidates and their
241: clusters in a region of $200\kpc \times 200\kpc$ and $2\mpc \times
242: 2\mpc$, respectively. We found that C4 1024, C4 2092, C4 2097, C4
243: 2031, C4 2109, C4 3021 and C4 3268 are seriously contaminated by
244: adjacent bright stars or foreground galaxies; C4 3047 is located
245: at the edge of the corrected frame (Stoughton et al. 2002); C4
246: 3235 is a star; C4 2178 and C4 3257 are nearly edge-on galaxies
247: with dust lanes. In addition, there are 5 objects (C4 1265, C4
248: 1332, C4 2130, C4 3098, and C4 3205) whose parent cluster
249: richness, defined as the number of galaxies within 1 $h^{-1}\mpc$,
250: is less than 10, and hence they may be wrong
251: identifications. In the remaining 98 objects, there are 10 BCGs
252: that are late type galaxies with obvious spiral arms (C4 1023, C4
253: 1053, C4 1324, C4 1366, C4 2001, C4 3016, C4 3143, C4 3246, C4
254: 3282, and C4 3286). These are also excluded from our early type BCG
255: sample, leaving us with 88 possible early-type BCGs. We further
256: excluded 3 objects (C4 1048, C4 1186 and C4 3285) with $M_{r, 25}
257: > -21$ that are fainter than $L^{\ast}$ galaxies ($M^{\ast}_r \sim
258: -21.12$ for $h=0.7$, see Blanton et al. 2003a) and they are
259: unlikely BCGs (Bernardi et al. 2007). The detailed information for
260: all 29 rejected objects are listed in Table 1. Our final sample
261: consists of 85 BCGs that are in the redshift mange of
262: 0.03$\leq$z$\leq$0.09 and $r-$band (model) apparent magnitude in
263: $\sim 13.5< {\rm mag} \leq 14.5$.
264:
265: Furthermore, we carefully searched for the second ranked cluster
266: galaxies in the 85 C4 clusters and found that the BCGs are about 1.6 mag brighter on
267: average than the second ranked cluster galaxies for the $r-$band absolute magnitude
268: at $25\magsec$. Only 6 BCGs have absolute magnitudes within 0.5 mag of the second ranked cluster galaxies.
269: During this process, we found one mis-identified BCG for C4 2020 (Abell 0119), the brightest galaxy
270: in this cluster is UGC 00579, instead of ARK 021 as listed in the C4
271: catalog. We caution that such cases may also exist in the
272: unpublished C4 catalogue based on the DR3 of the SDSS
273: (see von der Linden et al. 2007).
274:
275: Notice that there are 4 BCGs (C4 2049, C4 1176, C4 3311 and C4
276: 1035) in our BCG sample described above with obvious merger
277: features. C4 2049, 1176 and 1035 are merger galaxies with two
278: close nuclei and C4 3311 is with clear asymmetrical shapes. We
279: will discuss these four objects in more detail in
280: \S\ref{sec:merger}.
281:
282: \begin{figure}
283: \centering
284: \includegraphics[width = 8cm]{f1.eps}
285: \caption{Distributions of corrected redshifts (top panel),
286: (m$_{g,25}- m_{r,25}$) colour (middle panel), and absolute
287: magnitudes at $25\magsec$ (bottom panel) in the $r$-band for 85 sample BCGs
288: (solid) and 244 control galaxies (dotted) respectively. Two
289: vertical dashed lines in bottom panel show $-23.5 \leq M_{r,25}
290: \leq -22.5$, where the two samples have a significant overlap. We
291: will compare scaling relations for these two subsamples in
292: \S\ref{sec:scaling}. } \label{redz_col.eps}
293: \end{figure}
294:
295: In order to perform direct comparisons with non-BCGs, we construct
296: a control sample of normal early-type galaxies from the SDSS DR2
297: spectroscopic catalogue with galaxy velocity dispersion
298: measurement in the MPA {\tt gal$\_$info} catalogue
299: \footnote{http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/SDSS/DR4/raw$\_$data.html}.
300: These control galaxies are chosen to be in the same redshift and
301: apparent magnitude ranges as sample BCGs, i.e.,
302: 0.03$\leq$z$\leq$0.09 and 13.5$\leq$mag$\leq$14.5. 244 early-type
303: galaxies are selected as the control sample after excluding nearly
304: edge-on objects (most of them have dust features), contaminated
305: sources, and objects identified as C4 BCGs. The distributions of
306: the corrected redshifts relative to the Local Group (see Blanton
307: et al. 2005), (m$_{g,25}- m_{r,25}$) colour, and absolute
308: magnitudes at $25\magsec$ for these two samples are shown in
309: Fig.~\ref{redz_col.eps}. It can be seen that the control sample
310: has a lower redshift range than those of BCGs. This is because
311: non-BCGs are intrinsically fainter than the BCGs\footnote{
312: Bernardi et al. (2007) found that all galaxies brighter than $-$24 in the $r$-band are
313: BCGs. Lin $\&$ Mohr (2004) found that BCGs are about one magnitude (0.83) brighter on
314: average than the second ranked cluster galaxies even within a
315: small metric radius of $13.7h^{-1}$ kpc. This does not contradict
316: with the larger difference (1.6 mag on average) we found for our BCG sample because we measure the magnitudes to
317: $25\magsec$, which corresponds to a larger physical size than the radius used by them.
318: }
319: (see the bottom panel), so for the same magnitude limit, they reside more locally.
320: Therefore, it is difficult to construct a control sample in the same
321: luminosity range as that of BCGs. Instead we attempt a
322: comparison in a narrow luminosity range,
323: $-23.5 \leq M_{r,25} \leq -22.5$ (indicated by two vertical
324: dashed lines at the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{redz_col.eps}) where
325: there are sufficient overlaps between the control sample and BCGs (see
326: \S\ref{sec:scaling} for comparisons).
327: %
328: Furthermore, both samples have colour $(m_{g,25}- m_{r, 25})\ge
329: 0.7$, implying that all of them are early type galaxies
330: colour-wise (see Blanton et al. 2003b; Shen et al. 2003 and
331: reference therein). Also the concentration
332: index $C=R_{90}/R_{50}$ for virtually all our
333: galaxies is larger than 2.6, again consistent with their being early-type
334: galaxies (Shimasaku et al. 2001; Strateva et al. 2001).
335: All the basic parameters for these 85 BCGs are listed in Table 2.
336:
337: \begin{table*}
338: \caption[]{Reasons for the rejection of 29 out of 114 C4 BCGs.}
339: \begin{center}
340: \begin{tabular}{cccl}
341: \hline
342: \mc{1}{c}{C4 ID} & \mc{1}{l}{R.A.(J2000)} & \mc{1}{l}{Dec.(J2000)} & \mc{1}{c}{reason for rejection} \\
343: \mc{1}{c}{(1)} & \mc{1}{c}{(2)} & \mc{1}{c}{(3)} & \mc{1}{c}{(4)} \\
344:
345: \hline
346: 1023& 153.664827& -0.830910& late type \\
347: 1053& 228.307961& 4.287565 & late type \\
348: 1324& 223.045968& -0.256108& late type \\
349: 1366& 223.396096& 0.010394 & late type \\
350: 2001& 350.862674& 14.325841& late type \\
351: 3016& 187.452774& 64.033013& late type \\
352: 3143& 247.104069& 41.168463& late type \\
353: 3246& 136.572283& 50.089290& late type \\
354: 3282& 249.318427& 44.418227& late type \\
355: 3286& 184.232511& 63.409922& late type \\
356: 1024& 226.688031& -1.231709& contaminated by bright star \\
357: 2031& 324.773334& -0.706191& contaminated by bright star \\
358: 2092& 24.225138 & -0.533071 & contaminated by bright star \\
359: 2097& 338.797166& -1.049529& contaminated by bright star \\
360: 2109& 24.314061 & -9.197611 & contaminated by bright star \\
361: 3268& 239.339150& 54.671105& contaminated by bright star \\
362: 3021& 247.489689& 40.630707& contaminated by foreground spiral \\
363: 2178& 351.297310& 15.199853& edge-on galaxy with dust lane \\
364: 3257& 249.074493& 44.135700& edge-on galaxy with dust lane \\
365: 3235& 119.610850& 37.732302& a star \\
366: 3047& 158.245415& 56.748148& at the edge of the frame \\
367: 1265& 168.680626& 4.024536 & richness $<$ 10 \\
368: 1332& 167.820450& -0.824176& richness $<$ 10 \\
369: 2130& 50.701678 & -6.694635 & richness $<$ 10 \\
370: 3098& 246.907102& 42.638233& richness $<$ 10 \\
371: 3205& 135.367430& 55.044549& richness $<$ 10 \\
372: 1048& 147.895859& 1.112059 & $L < L^{\ast}$ \\
373: 1186& 183.990581& 3.305910 & $L < L^{\ast}$ \\
374: 3285& 259.895020& 56.630066& $L < L^{\ast}$ \\
375:
376: \hline
377: \end{tabular}
378: \end{center}
379: \end{table*}
380:
381: \begin{figure*}
382: \begin{center}
383: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.71\textwidth]{table2a.eps}
384: \end{center}
385: \end{figure*}
386:
387: \begin{figure*}
388: \begin{center}
389: \includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.65\textwidth]{table2b.eps}
390: \end{center}
391: \end{figure*}
392:
393: \section{DATA REDUCTION} \label{sec:data}
394:
395: \subsection{Estimation of the Sky Background} \label{sec:image}
396:
397: Given that the SDSS image survey in the $u-$ and $z-$bands are
398: relatively shallow and the $i-$band images suffer from the `red
399: halo' effect (e.g., Michard 2002; Wu et al. 2005), we use the $g-$
400: and $r-$band images in this work. The corrected frames have
401: already been processed by the SDSS photometric pipeline ({\tt
402: PHOTO}), including bias-subtraction, flat-fielding, cosmic ray
403: removal and corrections for pixel defects. We use the astrometry
404: for these two bands obtained by the SDSS astrometry pipeline ({\tt
405: ASTROM}), which has a typical error of less than $0.1^{''}$
406: (Stoughton et al. 2002). On the other hand, for reasons we will
407: discuss below we perform our own photometry.
408:
409: Although the images from the SDSS archive were processed with
410: photometric corrections, as Wu et al. (2005) pointed out, some
411: spurious features still exist in some images. The spatial
412: variation of these features was about 1-2 ADU. Without
413: corrections, target galaxies that happen to be located within such
414: features will have inaccurate background subtraction and poor
415: surface brightness profiles, especially in the outskirts of the
416: images. We thus first correct for these structures following Wu et
417: al. (2005) before constructing the sky background model below.
418:
419: As Lauer et al. (2007) pointed out that the SDSS photometric
420: reduction systematically under-estimates the
421: luminosities and half-light radius of BCGs. This arises because
422: the {\tt PHOTO} pipeline often over-estimates the sky background
423: for galaxies with large size and/or in crowded fields. Both
424: problems are present for BCGs. As a result, Bernardi et al. (2007)
425: performed their own photometric reductions for their sample.
426: %
427: On the other hand, von der Linden et al. (2007) address this
428: problem by adding up to 70\% of the difference between the local
429: (256 $\times$ 256 pixels) and the global (2048 $\times$ 1498
430: pixels) sky background (both are available from {\tt PHOTO})
431: around the BCGs to the radial surface brightness profiles and the
432: photometry.
433: %
434: However, the sky background in the SDSS frames often shows spatial
435: gradients and asymmetry (see the third row of
436: Fig.~\ref{sky_estimate.eps} for an example). Therefore, adding a
437: constant background value to the radial surface brightness
438: profiles may not yield the most accurate photometry, at least on
439: one-to-one basis (see Fig. \ref{sbp_comparison.eps} for
440: comparisons). Therefore, we performed our own photometry following
441: the method of Zheng et al. (1999) and Wu et al. (2002), which was
442: developed to perform deep photometry for nearby large spiral
443: galaxies. This method has been applied to NGC 5907 and NGC 4565,
444: which achieved accurate photometry down to an isophotal limit of
445: $\sim 29\magsec$ in the intermediate bands of the BATC system (Fan
446: et al. 1996).
447:
448: To obtain accurate information of the sky background, we first
449: generate a 2048 $\times$ 1498 pixels ($13.5\arcmin \times
450: 9.8\arcmin$) background-only image using {\tt SExtractor} (Bertin
451: $\&$ Amounts 1996) by masking all the detected objects with counts
452: above 1$\sigma$ noise (of the whole frame) in a frame smoothed by
453: a circular Gaussian with a standard deviation $\sigma$ = 3 pixels.
454: As most of sample BCGs have sizes of a few square arcminutes, there
455: are sufficient regions in the masked image to determine the sky
456: background. A median filter with $51 \times 51$ pixels is then
457: convolved with the unmasked pixels, after which second-order
458: Legendre polynomials are used to fit both rows and columns
459: respectively (see Zheng et al. 1999 and Wu et al. 2002). The
460: fitted Legendre polynomials are then further smoothed using a
461: circular Gaussian filter with $\sigma$ = 9 pixels to obtain our
462: final sky background model. For most BCGs, we find that the sky
463: background is tilted with a spatial variation about 1 $-$ 2 ADU
464: across the whole frame. We can subtract this model from the frame
465: to obtain the sky-free image. Our sky subtraction procedure is
466: similar to that in Gonzalez et al. (2005). Furthermore, the sky
467: background subtracted not only includes the contributions of the
468: intra-cluster light (which is at a much lower level), but also
469: from other astrophysical sources (dust emission etc., see Gonzalez
470: et al. 2005 for a discussion).
471:
472: \begin{figure}
473: \centering
474: \includegraphics[width = 8cm]{f2.eps}
475: \caption{ An example of sky subtraction (for target BCG C4 3086)
476: in the $r-$band. The first row shows the SDSS corrected frame
477: ($2048 \times 1498$ pixels; $13.5\arcmin \times 9.8\arcmin$), the
478: second row shows the masked frame, and the third row shows the
479: fitted sky frame. The inner box in each frame has $501 \times 501$
480: pixels ($3.\arcmin3 \times 3.\arcmin3 $), and the outer box has
481: $751 \times 751$ pixels ($4.\arcmin7 \times 4.\arcmin7$). The
482: bottom panels show the normalised distributions of flux in the
483: unmasked region after the sky background subtraction, for the
484: whole frame (left) and the local region between the two boxes
485: (right) in the $r-$band. The solid lines in the two panels are the
486: best-fit Gaussians to the distributions. }
487: \label{sky_estimate.eps}
488: \end{figure}
489:
490:
491: Our procedure is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{sky_estimate.eps} for C4
492: 3086. The first, second and third rows of
493: Fig.~\ref{sky_estimate.eps} show the frame, the masked frame and
494: the smoothed sky background in the $r-$band. Notice that the sky
495: background shows a gradient across the frame.
496: %
497: The bottom panels show the distributions of counts in the
498: sky-subtracted frame for all unmasked pixels and for the local
499: vicinity around the target BCG.
500: %
501: If the sky background model is successful, then we expect the
502: background counts to follow a Gaussian distribution with a mean
503: close to zero. This is indeed the case, as can be seen from the
504: bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{sky_estimate.eps}. The distributions in
505: the $r-$band for the whole image and the local region are well-fit
506: by Gaussians with dispersion of 5.52\,ADU and a mean value of
507: about $-2\times 10^{-2}$ ADU.
508:
509: After background subtraction, we geometrically align the
510: two-colour frames, and then trim the corrected frames to
511: 501$\times$501 pixels centred on the target. We run {\tt
512: SExtractor} again on the trimmed frame to generate a {\tt
513: `SEGMENTATION'} image, which identifies all objects with flags in
514: the frames. A mask image with all the detected objects except the
515: galaxy of interest flagged can then be obtained from the {\tt
516: `SEGMENTATION'} image. We carefully examined all the mask images
517: in two colours and corrected a few bad images manually to create
518: good mask images for all galaxies. Photometry is then
519: performed on the trimmed images with the masked areas excluded
520: from the reduction; we discuss the details below.
521:
522: \subsection{Isophotal photometry} \label{sec:photometry}
523:
524: To compare the scaling relations, such as the size-luminosity
525: relation and Faber-Jackson relation, of BCGs with those of the
526: bulk of elliptical galaxies, we need to perform accurate surface
527: photometry. In this work, we measure the isophotal magnitudes
528: within a certain radius, instead of magnitudes based on a model
529: (e.g., a de Vaucouleurs [1948] model or a S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic
530: [1968] model) as a large fraction of BCGs is not well described by
531: such simple models. Furthermore, to see how the scaling relations
532: vary as a function of isophotal limits, we measure the photometric
533: parameters to four different surface brightness limits, 22, 23,
534: 24, and 25 mag/arcsec$^2$. We emphasize that the photometry for
535: the control sample has been performed in the same manner as that for BCGs.
536:
537: The surface photometry analysis is performed following Wu et al.
538: (2005). We briefly outline the procedures below; the readers are
539: referred to that paper for more details. The {\tt
540: ISOPHOTE/ELLIPSE} task in IRAF is used to fit each of the trimmed
541: background-subtracted images with a series of elliptical annuli
542: from the centre to the outskirts.
543: %
544: The width of annuli is chosen to increase uniformly in logarithmic
545: steps, with the semi-major axis radius increasing by 10\% between
546: two adjacent annuli. The size of the annuli in the outer parts is
547: therefore larger, which suppresses the shot noise in the outer
548: regions where the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is lower.
549: %
550: The ellipticity, position angle, and other quantities are also
551: fitted simultaneously.
552: %
553: The $r-$band images are first used to define the isophotal annuli,
554: which are then applied to the $g-$band images. The coordinates of
555: the photometric peak in both $r-$band and $g-$band are obtained by
556: the DAOPHOT package and are fixed during fitting.
557:
558: We estimate the seeing of our galaxies in two colours by
559: averaging the star profiles in the corresponding frames
560: respectively. The average values of the FWHMs of the seeings in
561: both colours are $\sim1.6''$, which are similar to the measurements
562: by the SDSS collaboration. We integrate the observed surface brightness profiles
563: directly to estimate the isophotal apparent magnitudes and
564: half-light radius $R_{50}$, within which half of the integrated
565: flux of galaxies is contained, under each isophotal limit. The
566: absolute magnitude ($M$) is derived from the obtained isophotal
567: apparent magnitude ($m$) by $M=m-5 \log(D_L/10\,{\rm pc})-A-k$,
568: taking into account the extinction ($A$) in each filter by the
569: SDSS, and the k-correction (using the {\tt KCORRECT} algorithm of
570: Blanton \& Roweis 2007). Other photometric parameters, such as
571: ellipticities, coefficients of lowest order deviations from
572: perfect ellipse $a_4$ and $b_4$ (see Bender et al. 1988), are
573: derived following Hao et al. (2006). Notice that the $a_4/a$
574: parameters are weighted by the intensity between twice the seeing
575: radius and the radius where the surface brightness is $25\magsec$
576: in the $r-$band. We discuss the isophotal shapes in Sect.
577: \ref{sec:isophotalShapes}.
578:
579: \begin{figure}
580: \centering
581: \includegraphics[width = 8.3cm]{f3.eps}
582: \caption{
583: Comparison between our measured Petrosian half-light radii to
584: those provided by the SDSS for our BCG sample.
585: }
586: \label{re_contrast.eps}
587: \end{figure}
588:
589: All our radial profiles in this paper use the equivalent radius of an ellipse, $\sqrt{ab}$, where
590: $a$ and $b$ are the lengths of semi-major and semi-minor axes of the
591: ellipse. The surface brightness profiles in the two bands
592: are performed accounting for the Galactic extinction correction, cosmological
593: dimming, and the k-correction (Blanton \& Roweis 2007). The
594: photometric errors are estimated as in Wu et al. (2005). The
595: observational errors in the surface brightness profiles in each
596: band include random errors (e.g., readout noise, the shot noise of
597: the sky background and BCGs) and the error from the sky
598: subtraction.
599:
600: \begin{figure}
601: \centering
602: \includegraphics[width = 8.5cm]{f4.eps}
603: \caption{ Comparison between the surface brightness profiles
604: obtained using our method (thick solid lines) and those from the
605: SDSS (dotted lines) and von der Linden et al. (2007, thin solid
606: lines) for three example galaxies in the $r-$band. The vertical and
607: horizontal dashed lines indicate twice seeing radius and one
608: percent of the sky brightness respectively. Notice for the left
609: and middle galaxies, our results almost overlap with those from
610: von der Linden et al. (2007). } \label{sbp_comparison.eps}
611: \end{figure}
612:
613:
614: To illustrate the performance of our photometry, we show the comparison
615: of our determined Petrosian parameters with those of SDSS in
616: Fig.~\ref{re_contrast.eps}. One can see that the SDSS pipeline
617: under-estimates the sizes (and thus luminosity) of BCGs, which has
618: been pointed out by other workers (e.g., Lauer et al. 2007). There is a systematic trend: the
619: under-estimation becomes more serious for larger (brighter) BCGs.
620: This is in good agreement with the results of Desroches et al.
621: (2007, see their Fig. 1.).
622:
623: As mentioned before, von der Linden et al. (2007) adopted a simple
624: prescription to correct for the sky subtraction problem. In Fig.
625: \ref{sbp_comparison.eps} we show a comparison between their
626: surface brightness profile, ours and that from the SDSS for three
627: example galaxies. It can be seen that our results are in very
628: good agreement with those of von der Linden et al. (2007). While
629: there are small differences at faint surface brightness
630: ($25\magsec$), such differences have little impact on their
631: results since they adopted a surface brightness of $23\magsec$ to
632: measure the physical quantities. So for statistical purposes,
633: their method can offer an efficient way of performing
634: photometry, particularly at high surface brightness limits.
635:
636: \section{RESULTS}
637:
638: \subsection{The Extended Envelopes of BCGs}
639:
640: As discussed in the introduction, the surface brightness profiles
641: of the majority of cD galaxies show strong deviation from a
642: perfect de Vaucouleurs or S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic profile due to cD
643: galaxies embedded in an extensive luminous stellar halo. In
644: order to quantitatively measure the extended envelope of BCGs, we
645: use an objective method based on the Petrosian $\eta(r)$ profiles
646: (Patel et al. 2006), defined as
647: \begin{equation}
648: \eta(r) \equiv \mu(r) - \langle \mu(r) \rangle,
649: \label{eq:eta}
650: \end{equation}
651: where $\mu(r)$ is the surface brightness in magnitudes at radius
652: $r$ and $\langle \mu(r) \rangle $ is the mean surface brightness
653: within $r$ (Petrosian 1976). There is a distinct signature of a
654: plateau in the Petrosian $\eta(r)$ profiles for cD galaxies with
655: an extended stellar halo (see below). Such a plateau is not
656: present for normal elliptical galaxies which are usually well-fit
657: %by a de Vaucouleurs' or a S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic surface brightness
658: %profiles (e.g., Kj$\ae$rgaard et al. 1993; Brough et al. 2005).
659: by a de Vaucouleurs' surface brightness profile
660: (e.g., Kj$\ae$rgaard et al. 1993; Brough et al. 2005). Furthermore,
661: notice that the plateau is not present for the S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic surface
662: brightness profile that better fits some ellipticals
663: (see Fig. 1a of Graham et al. 1996).
664:
665: \begin{figure}
666: \centering
667: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f5.eps}
668: \caption{Images, surface brightness, $\eta(r)$ and
669: $d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$ profiles for three typical examples BCGs (C4
670: 1187, C4 3034 and C4 3077). The images shown in the top panels are
671: in the $r-$band and have a size of $501 \times 501$ pixels. In
672: each image, north is up and east is to the left. The second row
673: shows the radial surface brightness profiles in the $g-$band
674: (lower curve) and $r-$band (upper curve) respectively. The solid
675: line is the best-fit S$\acute{e}$rsic model for each surface
676: brightness profile that is obtained by fitting intensity
677: profile from twice seeing radius to radius at $25\magsec$ respectively. The
678: vertical and horizontal lines are twice the seeing radius and one
679: percent of the sky brightness in the $g-$band (dashed lines) and
680: $r-$band (dotted lines) respectively. The third row shows the
681: observed (dots) and smoothed (line) Petrosian $\eta(r)$ profiles
682: in the $r-$band. The bottom row shows the corresponding
683: $d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$ profile. The vertical solid line in each panel
684: indicates the minimum position,
685: %$\rmin$ in the $\gamma(r)$ profile, and the two dashed horizontal lines indicate how we measure the depth $\Dmin$.
686: }
687: \label{example_sbp_eta.eps}
688: \end{figure}
689:
690: Fig.~\ref{example_sbp_eta.eps} shows the surface brightness
691: profiles and Petrosian $\eta(r)$ profiles for 3 BCGs. For BCG C4
692: 1187, its profile is well fit by a S$\acute{e}$rsic with $n\approx4.53 $ (in the $g$-band)
693: model, and the $\eta(r)$ profile does not show any distinct
694: feature. In contrast, for C4 3034 and C4 3077, their surface
695: brightness profiles deviate significantly from a single
696: S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic profile (or the $r^{1/n}$ profile,
697: $n=4$ for the de Vaucouleur profile), and the $\eta(r)$ profile shows a
698: plateau. Furthermore, we can see that the more significant the
699: deviation of the surface brightness profile from the a single
700: S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic profile (i.e., the more prominent the
701: stellar halo in the outskirt), the flatter the plateau in the
702: $\eta(r)$ profile becomes.
703:
704: To quantitatively determine how a surface brightness profile
705: deviates from the $r^{1/n}$ profile we calculate the gradient of
706: $\eta(r)$, $\gamma(r) \equiv d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$.
707: As mentioned before, a single $r^{1/n}$ model profile always
708: results in a monotonic $\gamma(r)$ profile for any $n$.
709: The bottom panels of Fig.~\ref{example_sbp_eta.eps} show this quantity as a function
710: of radius. It is clear that galaxies with the most significant
711: deviation from the model profile also have deeper valleys in the
712: $\gamma(r)$ profile.
713: We label the radius of the minimum in
714: $\gamma(r)$ as $\rmin$, and also define a depth, $\Dmin$, as the
715: difference between the minimum and maximum of $\gamma(r)$ outside
716: twice the seeing radius and $\rmin$.
717:
718: \begin{figure}
719: \centering
720: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f6.eps}
721: \caption{
722: Correlation of $\Dmin$ with $\rmin$, $r-$band absolute magnitude,
723: and size for 85 BCGs, measured out to an isophotal limit 25 $\magsec$.
724: The right-most panel shows the histogram of the $\Dmin$ distribution
725: together with the Poisson errors; the
726: median value is $\sim 0.8$ (indicated by a thick dotted line).
727: }
728: \label{rela1.eps}
729: \end{figure}
730:
731: The right histogram in Fig.~\ref{rela1.eps} shows the distribution
732: of $\Dmin$ for our sample BCGs (the median value is $\sim 0.8$).
733: We can see that the distribution of $\Dmin$ shows a weak
734: bi-modality, but is still consistent with a continuous
735: distribution within Poisson error bars. This shows that the
736: deviation of the surface brightness profiles from the a single
737: S$\acute{\rm e}$rsic profile does not have any sharp transitions.
738: Therefore, it is difficult to give an unambiguous criterion to
739: separate cD galaxies from non-cD BCGs.
740:
741: The left panel of Fig.~\ref{rela1.eps} shows the correlations
742: between $\Dmin$ and $\rmin$. The null-hypothesis that there is no
743: correlation between $\Dmin$ vs. $\rmin$ can be rejected at the $7.5 \times 10^{-4}$ level. So
744: statistically the larger the radius $\rmin$, the more significant
745: the extended envelope a BCG appears to have. The middle and right
746: panels in Fig.~\ref{rela1.eps} show the correlations between
747: $\Dmin$ with the $r-$band luminosity and the half-light radius for
748: BCGs. The null-hypothesis that there are no correlations between
749: $\Dmin$ vs. $M_{r,25}$, and $\Dmin$ vs. $R_{50,25}$ can be
750: rejected at the $3.8 \times 10^{-5}$, and $9.6 \times 10^{-6}$
751: confidence levels. These correlations demonstrate that more
752: luminous and larger BCGs tend to have more extended stellar
753: envelopes and therefore the fraction of cD galaxies increases.
754:
755: \subsection{Mergers and Envelopes in BCGs \label{sec:merger}}
756:
757: As mentioned in \S\ref{sec:sample} that there are four galaxies in
758: our BCG sample that have either two close nuclei or other clear
759: merging signatures, such as broad faint fans or asymmetry in the
760: morphology. The top panel of Fig.~\ref{merger_spec.eps} shows the
761: image of C4 1176, from which one can clearly see two nuclei and a
762: broad surrounding fan to the north of the image. The SDSS provides
763: the spectra for both nuclei, which are shown in the bottom panels
764: of Fig.~\ref{merger_spec.eps}. From the spectra the redshifts of
765: the two nuclei are 0.0738 and 0.0736 respectively, corresponding
766: to only 60 $\kms$ difference in the line-of-sight velocity.
767: The angular distance between the two nuclei, $\sim 4.7\arcsec$, implies a projected separation of just
768: $\sim 6.7\kpc$. Therefore, C4 1176 is most likely a merger galaxy
769: with two nuclei. Furthermore, the spectroscopic properties of these two nuclei are
770: similar; both are typical of early type galaxies with weak
771: emission lines of LINER characteristics,
772: %with no emission lines from star formation
773: indicating that BCG C4 1176 may be a dissipationless (dry) merger system.
774:
775: \begin{figure}
776: \begin{center}
777: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
778: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.99\textwidth]{f7a.eps}}
779: \end{minipage}%
780: \vspace{-4mm}
781: \\
782: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
783: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.99\textwidth]{f7b.eps}}
784: \end{minipage}%
785: \begin{minipage}[t]{0.5\linewidth}
786: \centerline{\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.99\textwidth]{f7c.eps}}
787: \end{minipage}%
788: \end{center}
789: \caption{ The image of merging BCG C4 1176 with two nuclei shown
790: in the top panel. North is up and east is to the left. The bottom
791: two panels show the spectra of the two nuclei (the line symbols
792: are from SDSS, see http://www.sdss.org/gallery/gal\_spectra.html);
793: the redshifts of the two nuclei are almost the same, indicating
794: they are merging. Notice the broad low-surface brightness fan to
795: the north of the image. } \label{merger_spec.eps}
796: \end{figure}
797:
798: For the other three BCGs, we can see from the top panel of
799: Fig.~\ref{merger_sbp_eta.eps} that C4 2049 and C4 1035 also have
800: two possible close nuclei. From the SDSS spectra, we find that
801: the projected distance between the two nuclei for C4 1035 is only
802: $\sim 1.7\kpc$ and the relative line-of-sight velocity is 120
803: $\kms$, and thus may be another merging BCG. For C4 2049, the SDSS
804: has only spectrum for one nucleus. The angular distance
805: between these two nuclei is $\sim 5.5\arcsec$. If they are at the
806: same redshift, then the projected distance is $\sim 7.7 \kpc$.
807: Hence C4 2049 is another possible merger BCG. For C4 3311,
808: although one cannot see double nuclei at its centre (down to the
809: SDSS spatial resolution), it shows clear asymmetry in shape, which
810: is indicative of merging activities.
811:
812: \begin{figure}
813: \centering
814: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f8.eps}
815: \caption{ Images, surface brightness, $\eta(r)$ and
816: $d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$ profiles in the $r-$band for four likely
817: merger BCGs in our sample. The format is the same as in Fig.
818: \ref{example_sbp_eta.eps}. In each image, north is up and east is
819: to the left. } \label{merger_sbp_eta.eps}
820: \end{figure}
821:
822: The second, third and bottom rows of
823: Fig.~\ref{merger_sbp_eta.eps} show the surface brightness
824: profiles, $\eta(r)$ profiles and $d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$ profiles for
825: all four merger/possible merger BCGs. As can be seen, there are
826: obvious plateaus in the $\eta(r)$ profiles for 3 out of 4 merger
827: BCGs (C4 2049, 1176, and 3311). The $\Dmin$ values measured from
828: the $d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$ profile are 1.34, 1.34, and 1.04, for C4
829: 2049, 1176, and 3311 respectively, which are much larger than the
830: median $\Dmin$ value ($\sim 0.8$) for the whole BCG sample.
831: Therefore, these three BCGs clearly have extended envelopes in
832: their outskirts and are likely cD galaxies.
833:
834: The high fraction of cD galaxies in merger BCGs and the fans
835: corresponding to cD galaxy envelopes suggest that the
836: extended stellar halos of BCGs are from mergers and they
837: appear shortly after merging takes place.
838: % (see \S\ref{sec:summary}).
839:
840: \begin{figure}
841: \centering
842: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f9.eps}
843: \caption{ The panels in the top row show the images of BCGs with
844: obvious dry merger signatures, such as broad fans or faint
845: asymmetry shapes. In the bottom row, all 5 images of BCGs are
846: surrounded by many possible satellites or are in pair or triple
847: systems; these are possible signatures of interaction and mergers.
848: The values of $\Dmin$ for all these dry merger candidates are
849: larger than the median value (0.8) in the $\Dmin$ distribution for
850: sample BCGs. In each image, north is up and east is to the left. }
851: \label{example_merger.eps}
852: \end{figure}
853:
854: In fact, the role of dry (dissipationless) mergers in the
855: formation of ellipticals has recently received much attention. As pointed
856: out by Bell et al. (2006) and van Dokkum (2005), the typical
857: morphological signatures of dry mergers are broad stellar fans,
858: short tidal tail with similar colour as the galaxy itself, and
859: asymmetries at very faint surface brightness levels. The four
860: examples of merger BCG candidates in our sample shown at
861: Fig.~\ref{merger_sbp_eta.eps} indeed have all
862: these signatures, but they also show even more direct merger
863: signs: in three of these four cases, there are two close nuclei.
864: %Further measurenment indicates that these four BCGs are major dry mergers.
865: %
866: Fig.~\ref{example_merger.eps} shows ten more examples of possible
867: merger systems from our sample. They have broad low-surface brightness
868: fans or distinct asymmetries (top panels); many visually
869: appear to inhabit in environment with multiple small satellites
870: (bottom panels). These images provide strong evidence for the
871: connection of mergers with the formation of stellar halos in BCGs.
872: The 59 BCGs with spectroscopy from SDSS have spectra
873: similar to the examples shown in Fig.~\ref{merger_spec.eps}, indicating
874: our BCG samples are typical early-type galaxies. Their
875: spectra do not show significant star formation at the centre,
876: although one third of our BCGs show weak emission lines with
877: LINER characteristics. Therefore, the mergers appear to be largely
878: dissipationless (dry). We will return to the role of mergers in the formation of BCGs
879: in a future study.
880:
881: \subsection{Isophotal Shapes} \label{sec:isophotalShapes}
882:
883: We also investigated the shapes of isophotes for BCGs and compared
884: with those of the control sample. The isophotes of ellipticals are
885: usually well fit by ellipses. However, small but significant
886: deviations exist, which are usually described by
887: the Fourier components of the deviations. The most significant one
888: is the $a_4/a$ (Lauer et al. 1985; Bender et al. 1989), with a positive (negative)
889: $a_4/a$ indicating a disky (boxy) isophotal shape.
890:
891: \begin{figure}
892: \centering
893: \includegraphics[width = 9cm]{f10.eps}
894: \caption{ Structure parameter $a_4/a$ versus $r-$band absolute
895: isophotal magnitude, $M_{r,25}$, for the BCGs (solid circles) and
896: the control sample (open circles) respectively (left panel). The
897: median error bar in $a_4/a$, and the fractions of galaxies with
898: boxy isophotes for BCGs and the control sample are shown in the
899: inset. The right panel shows the histograms of the $a_4/a$
900: distributions for the BCGs (solid histogram) and the control
901: sample (dotted histogram). The median values are shown as solid
902: and dashed lines respectively. } \label{a4_Mag.eps}
903: \end{figure}
904:
905: Fig.~\ref{a4_Mag.eps} shows how the $a_4/a$ parameter varies with
906: the luminosity of galaxies for both the BCGs and the control
907: sample. It is clear from Fig.~\ref{a4_Mag.eps} that $a_4/a$
908: decreases as the luminosity of galaxies increases, hence the
909: fraction of boxy galaxies increases for both samples; this trend has
910: been pointed out by many authors (e.g., Bender et al. 1989; Hao et
911: al. 2006). However, the boxy fraction for BCGs (51\%) is not much
912: larger than that of the bulk of ellipticals (37\%), even though
913: BCGs are more luminous than the bulk of ellipticals in the control
914: sample. In particular, we can see from Table 2 and
915: Fig.~\ref{a4_Mag.eps} that the boxy fractions of BCGs with
916: luminosities in the range of $-24 \la {\rm mag} \leq -23$ and
917: mag$<-24$ are $\sim 55\%$ and $\sim 65\%$ respectively. So there
918: are still a large fraction of very luminous early type galaxies
919: with disky isophotes ($a_4/a > 0$), which is consistent with the HST
920: image results on BCGs by Laine et al. (2003). Faber et al. (1997)
921: and Lauer et al. (2005) pointed out that galaxies brighter than
922: $M_V=-22$ mag (corresponding to $M_r \approx -22.6$ mag, after
923: correcting the difference in $H_0$, and taking $V-r=0.3 \pm0.1$,
924: Krick et al. 2006) tend to have `cored' luminosity profile,
925: while galaxies fainter than $M_V=-20.5$ mag (corresponding to
926: $M_r \approx -21.1$ mag) tend to have `power-law' luminosity
927: profiles (see also Rest et al. 2001; Lauer et al. 2005).
928: Other works (e.g., Rest et al. 2001) show that bright
929: galaxies are slowly rotating, boxy systems (Davies et al. 1983)
930: while faint elliptical galaxies are fast rotating, disky systems
931: (Bender 1988; Bender et al. 1989; Nieto et al. 1988). However,
932: BCGs appear to somewhat contradict with this trend: some very
933: luminous BCGs still have disky isophotes. The flattening in
934: elliptical galaxies can arise either from an-isotropic motions or
935: from rotation. Faint ellipticals appear to be flattened by
936: rotation (e.g., van den Bosch et al. 1994; Lauer et al. 2005),
937: while the luminous ones may be supported by an-isotropic motions.
938: As we have shown in the last subsection, BCGs may have experienced
939: fairly recent merging events, and thus may still retain some of the
940: orbital angular momentum from merging, and their isophotes may be
941: disky.
942:
943: \subsection{Scaling relations} \label{sec:scaling}
944:
945: There have already been many works on the scaling relation of BCGs
946: based on homogeneous BCG samples (Bernardi et al. 2007; Desroches
947: et al. 2007; von der Linden et al. 2007; Lauer et al. 2007).
948: However, so far no work has investigated how the slopes
949: change with the isophotal limit, which can in principle provide
950: more knowledge of the dynamical structure of BCGs.
951:
952: \begin{figure}
953: \centering
954: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f11.eps}
955: \caption{ Luminosity ($L_{r}$), size ($R_{50}$), mean surface
956: brightness within $R_{50}$ ($\langle\mu_{50}\rangle$) and the
957: concentration factor ($C^{\prime}=R_{90}/R_{50}$) as a function of
958: the isophotal limit. The solid and dotted lines denote the BCG and
959: control samples respectively. Error bars are the 68.3$\%$
960: confidence levels of the median value. } \label{para_contrast.eps}
961: \end{figure}
962:
963: \subsubsection{The size-luminosity relation}
964:
965: The left panels of Fig.~\ref{para_contrast.eps} show how the size
966: ($R_{50}$) and luminosity ($L_{r}$) vary with the isophotal
967: limits. It is clear that the size ($R_{50}$) and luminosity of
968: BCGs increase more sharply than that of the control sample as the
969: isophotal limit becomes deeper. The right panel shows how the mean
970: surface brightness within $R_{50}$ ($\langle\mu_{50}\rangle$) and
971: the concentration factor ($C^{\prime}=R_{90}/R_{50}$) vary with
972: the isophotal limit. We can see
973: that $\langle\mu_{50}\rangle$ of BCGs decreases more sharply than
974: that of control sample, but $C^{\prime}=R_{90}/R_{50}$ of BCGs has
975: the same trend as that of the control sample as the isophotal
976: limit becomes deeper. Therefore, BCGs appear to have significantly
977: larger average sizes and are more diffuse in surface brightness.
978: These trends agree with those found in previous studies (e.g.,
979: Lugger 1984; von der Linden et al. 2007).
980:
981: Fig.~\ref{size_L.eps} shows the size-luminosity relations for our
982: BCGs and the control sample, measured to four isophotal limits,
983: $22$, $23$, $24$ and $25$ mag/arcsec$^2$ respectively. The solid
984: and dotted lines in each panel show the best power-law ($R_{50}
985: \propto L^{\;\alpha}$) fits; the $\alpha$ value is indicated at
986: the top left corner of each panel.\footnote{Notice that the
987: intrinsic scatters in the data points are much larger than the
988: statistical error bars, and so the formal $\chi^2$ per degree of
989: freedom is large, indicating the presence of systematics. To
990: approximately account for these, we renormalised the statistical
991: errors by a constant factor until the $\chi^2$ per degree of
992: freedom is unity. The errors on the power-law indices are obtained
993: using these renormalised errors. A similar procedure was adopted
994: in von der Linden et al. (2007).}
995:
996: \begin{figure}
997: \centering
998: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f12.eps}
999: \caption{ The size-luminosity relation for BCGs (red solid circles) and the
1000: control sample (blue open circles) for four isophotal limits, 22, 23,
1001: 24, and 25 $\magsec$ respectively. The median error bar for the
1002: data points is indicated in the bottom right corner of each panel.
1003: The black solid and dashed lines are the best power-law fits for the
1004: BCGs and control sample respectively. The power-law index $\alpha$
1005: ($R_{50} {\propto} L^{\alpha}$) is shown at the top of each panel.
1006: } \label{size_L.eps}
1007: \end{figure}
1008:
1009: Clearly the size-luminosity relation becomes steeper as the
1010: isophotal limit becomes fainter for both the BCG and the control
1011: sample.
1012: %
1013: However, we can also see that the size-luminosity relation for
1014: BCGs is steeper than that of the control sample at the same
1015: isophotal limit.
1016: %
1017: In particular, the size-luminosity relations for BCGs is already
1018: slightly steeper (but not very statistically significant)
1019: than those of the bulk of ellipticals when the
1020: isophotal limit is $22 \magsec$, corresponding to a physical
1021: half-light radius of about 5\,kpc (see Fig.
1022: \ref{para_contrast.eps}).
1023: %
1024: It indicates that the deviation of size-luminosity relation for
1025: BCGs from that of bulk of ellipticals may already occur for the inner
1026: regions of ellipticals, and thus is not because most BCGs have
1027: extended stellar halos. Rather, this suggests the deviations arise
1028: from different dynamical structures of BCGs from the bulk of
1029: ellipticals. Bernardi et al. (2007) arrived at a similar
1030: conclusion by comparing the size-luminosity relations for BCGs
1031: with and without extended stellar envelopes (see also von der
1032: Linden 2007).
1033:
1034: The power-law index ($0.88 \pm 0.04$) for the size-luminosity
1035: relation we derived for BCGs at an isophotal limits of $25$
1036: mag/arcsec$^2$ is slightly smaller than the value ($0.92$)
1037: obtained by Bernardi et al. (2007), but the power-law index
1038: ($0.74\pm 0.03$) for the control sample at the same isophotal
1039: limit is a bit larger than their value ($0.62$). The difference in
1040: the slope measured by us and by Bernardi et al. (2007) may be
1041: because we measure the isophotal magnitudes by integrating the
1042: observed surface brightness profiles directly, while Bernardi et
1043: al. (2007) measured the magnitude using a de Vaucouleurs or
1044: S$\acute{e}$rsic model for the surface brightness profile.
1045: %
1046: In fact, when we use the same method as Bernardi et al. (2007) to
1047: perform photometry, the power-law index for the
1048: size-luminosity relation we obtain is almost the same ($0.93 \pm 0.03$)
1049: as that of Bernardi et al. (2007), indicating that different
1050: ways of photometry can give different power-law indices in
1051: the size-luminosity relation.
1052:
1053: von der Linden (2007) also derived the size-luminosity relation
1054: down to 23 $\magsec$ for their BCGs. The slope they derived is
1055: $\alpha=0.65\pm 0.02$, similar to that for their control
1056: sample ($\alpha=0.63\pm 0.02$). Our slope for the BCGs ($0.77\pm
1057: 0.04$) is steeper than their value at the same isophotal limit,
1058: while the slope for our control sample ($\alpha=0.65\pm 0.03$)
1059: agrees well with theirs. We have 66 overlapping galaxies with the
1060: BCG samples used by von der Linden et al. (2007). If we use only
1061: these galaxies, we derive a slope similar to theirs. Our steeper
1062: slope appears to arise from the fact that our BCGs are brighter
1063: since their sample includes more fainter BCGs which makes their slope
1064: shallower (von der Linden 2007, private communication). Therefore, the sample construction
1065: also influences the power-law index in the size-luminosity relation.
1066:
1067: The power-law index $\alpha=1.18\pm 0.06$ in the
1068: size-luminosity relation by Lauer et al. (2007) for their core
1069: galaxies with $M_{V} \le -21$ (most core galaxies with $M_{V} \le
1070: -22$ are BCGs) measured in a similar way as Bernardi et al.
1071: (2007) is significantly steeper than those of Bernardi et al.
1072: (2007), von der Linden (2007) and our results. It again
1073: illustrates that how samples are constructed and the methods used to do
1074: the photometry lead to different power-law indices in the size-luminosity relation.
1075: Comparisons between different studies should be aware of this.
1076:
1077: \begin{figure}
1078: \centering
1079: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f13.eps}
1080: \caption{ The Faber-Jackson relation for the 59/85 BCGs and 244
1081: control sample galaxies with spectroscopic information for four
1082: different isophotal limits (22, 23, 24, and 25 $\magsec$)
1083: respectively. The symbols are the same as in
1084: Fig.~\ref{size_L.eps}. The power-law indices ${\beta}$ are shown
1085: at the top of each panel for the BCGs and the control sample. The
1086: median error bar in the velocity dispersion is shown at the bottom
1087: right in each panel. } \label{L_sigma.eps}
1088: \end{figure}
1089:
1090: \subsubsection{The Faber-Jackson relation and Fundamental plane}
1091:
1092: It is well known that the luminosities and velocity dispersions of
1093: many early type galaxies satisfy the Faber-Jackson relation, $L
1094: \propto \sigma^{\;\beta}$, where $\beta \approx 4$ (Faber \&
1095: Jackson 1976). Given that the SDSS spectra were taken within a
1096: 3$\arcsec$ fiber aperture (J$\o$rgensen et al. 1995; Bernardi et
1097: al. 2003a), we correct the velocity dispersions for BCGs and the
1098: control sample following von der Linden et al. (2007, see their
1099: equation 4). The uncorrected value of $\sigma$ for each BCG is
1100: shown in Column 5 of Table 2.
1101:
1102: Fig.~\ref{L_sigma.eps} shows the $L-\sigma$ relation for 59 out of
1103: 85 BCGs and the control sample with SDSS spectral information,
1104: measured to four different isophotal limits, 22, 23, 24, and 25
1105: $\magsec$. Clearly at a given surface brightness limit, the slope
1106: for BCGs in the Fabor-Jackson relation is steeper than that of the
1107: bulk of early type galaxies. The index $\beta$ for both the BCG
1108: and control samples increases as the isophotal limits become
1109: deeper. The $\beta$ value for the control sample is around 4,
1110: consistent with the canonical value for the Faber-Jackson
1111: relation. However, this is not the case for BCGs: only when the
1112: isophotal limit is 22 $\magsec$, corresponding to the inner
1113: region of BCGs, $\beta$ is about 4. For deeper isophotal limits,
1114: the $\beta$ values for BCGs are significantly larger,
1115: approaching 5.6 for a surface brightness limit of $25 \magsec$.
1116: von der Linden (2007) found $\beta=5.32 \pm 0.37$ for their BCGs
1117: at an isophotal limit of $23\magsec$, which is within $2\sigma$ of
1118: our value ($\beta=4.52 \pm 0.41$). For their control samples, they
1119: found $\beta=3.93 \pm 0.21$, within $1\sigma$ of our result
1120: ($\beta=3.98 \pm 0.19$). Lauer found $\beta=6.5 \pm 1.3$ for their
1121: core galaxies with $M_{V}<-21$, which is significantly larger than
1122: those of values mentioned above. Note that the sample Lauer et al.
1123: (2007) used is not a pure BCG sample, although most of their core galaxies with
1124: $M_{V}<-22$ are BCGs.
1125: %\liu{Addtionally, Lauer et al. (2007) find the behavior that
1126: %the slope in the Faber-Jackson relation becomes steeper also appears for
1127: %bright non-BCG ellipticals, which exists for our bright
1128: %control galaxies too (e.g., $M_{r,25}<-22.5$, see Fig.~\ref{L_sigma.eps}).
1129: %But, it appear only weakly in the SDSS study of Bernardi et al. (2003b),
1130: %which can be explained by the fact that SDSS Pipeline trends to
1131: %under-estimates the luminosities of bright galaxies (see Lauer et al.
1132: %2007 for more details).}
1133:
1134:
1135: \begin{figure}
1136: \centering
1137: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f14.eps}
1138: \caption{
1139: The size-luminosity relation (left) and Faber-Jackson
1140: relation (right) for the BCG and control sample galaxies at $-23.5
1141: \leq M_{r,25} \leq -22.5$. The top panels use all 94 control
1142: galaxies and 45 BCGs in this luminosity range. The bottom panels are
1143: the results for one realisation for 45 BCGs and randomly selected 45 control galaxies with the same luminosity distribution.
1144: The symbols are the same as in
1145: Fig.~\ref{size_L.eps}. The power-law indices are shown at the top
1146: of each panel for each sample.
1147: }
1148: \label{scaling_part.eps}
1149: \end{figure}
1150:
1151: The steeper power-law indices
1152: in the size-luminosity and (to a less extent) in the Faber-Jackson relations may arise because
1153: BCGs are brighter than the control sample or because there are intrinsic
1154: differences between BCGs and the bulk of elliptical galaxies.
1155: In order to differentiate these two possibilities, we repeat the above
1156: analysis for our BCG and control samples in the same magnitude
1157: range, $-23.5 \leq M_{r,25} \leq -22.5$ (see \S\ref{sec:sample}).
1158: Fig.~\ref{scaling_part.eps} shows the size-luminosity (left) and Faber-Jackson (right) relations.
1159: The top panels use all the 94 control-sample galaxies and
1160: 45 BCGs within the luminosity range. Since Fig. \ref{redz_col.eps}
1161: shows the control sample is still fainter on average than the BCG
1162: sample within this narrow range, we have randomly selected
1163: 45 out of the 94 control-sample galaxies so they match
1164: well with the luminosity distribution of the 45 BCGs. The statistical
1165: results for different realisations are similar; the bottom panels
1166: shows the results for one realisation. From this figure, we clearly see that
1167: the power-law indices for the size-luminosity relations
1168: for BCGs are steeper than those for bright non-BCG elliptical
1169: galaxies; the power-law indices for the Faber-Jackson relations are also steeper, but only at $\sim 1\sigma$ levels,
1170: and so are not statistically significant.
1171: %shows the results for one realisation. From this figure, we clearly sees that
1172: %the power-law indices for the size-luminosity and Faber-Jackson relations
1173: %for BCGs are both steeper than those for bright non-BCG elliptical
1174: %galaxies, although only the difference in the size-luminosity
1175: %relation is statistically important.
1176: % because bright non-BCG
1177: %ellipticals already show steeper similar to BCGs in Faber-Jackson relation
1178: %as mentioned above.
1179: To summarise, the data are consistent with a scenario where
1180: the cluster environment plays an important role on the BCG formation.
1181: However, the numbers of galaxies in our control and BCG samples are
1182: still too small to differentiate the two possibilities mentioned above.
1183:
1184: %The power-law indices for the
1185: %size-luminosity and Faber-Jackson relations
1186: %for BCGs are both steeper than those for the bulk of elliptical
1187: %galaxies. However, the only the difference in the size-luminosity
1188: %relation is statistically important.
1189: %Therefore, the data are consistent with a scenario where
1190: %the cluster environment plays a role on the BCG formation.
1191: %However, the numbers of galaxies in the control and BCG samples (94 and 45 respectively)
1192: %are too small to see whether the BCGs have a steeper size-luminosity
1193: %relation than a control sample which have similar luminosities.
1194:
1195: \begin{figure}
1196: \centering
1197: \includegraphics[width = 8.4cm]{f15.eps}
1198: \caption{ Fundamental planes for the 59 BCGs with spectra (dots)
1199: and 244 control sample (open circles) for four different isophotal
1200: limits respectively. The solid line in each panel is the
1201: fundamental plane determined by Bernardi et al. (2003b) using a
1202: uniform sample of $\sim$9000 early type galaxies. The median error
1203: bars are shown at the top left. } \label{FP.eps}
1204: \end{figure}
1205:
1206: Fig.~\ref{FP.eps} shows the fundamental plane for our BCGs and the
1207: control sample. While they appear to have different power-law
1208: slopes in the Faber-Jackson relation, both BCGs and the control
1209: sample follow roughly the same fundamental plane, although the
1210: scatters in the BCGs appear smaller. At bright
1211: isophotal limits, $\mu=22$, and $23\magsec$, the fundamental
1212: planes for BCGs and the control samples appear to differ somewhat.
1213: These results are in good agreement with Bernardi et al. (2007).
1214:
1215: \section{SUMMARY} \label{sec:summary}
1216:
1217: In this paper we have studied the properties of 85 BCGs carefully selected
1218: from the C4 cluster catalog (Miller et al. 2005). To address the
1219: problems of the SDSS pipeline {\tt PHOTO} in crowded fields and
1220: for large galaxies, we have performed our own photometry for these
1221: BCGs, as well as for a control sample of galaxies in similar
1222: redshift and apparent magnitude ranges. Particular attention was
1223: paid to accurate extraction of the sky background in clusters using a
1224: method developed for high-precision photometry for large, nearby
1225: spiral galaxies (Zheng et al. 1999; Wu et al. 2002, see
1226: \S\ref{sec:data}). It came as somewhat a surprise to us that the
1227: simple recipe of von der Linden et al. (2007) gives surface
1228: brightness profiles similar to ours, and hence for many
1229: statistical purposes their simple recipe can be adopted as a more
1230: efficient alternative.
1231:
1232: We analysed the surface brightness properties of our BCGs using
1233: the $\eta(r)$ profiles (see eq. \ref{eq:eta}). We demonstrate that
1234: its gradient, $\gamma(r)\equiv d\eta(r)/d\log(r)$, can be used as
1235: an indicator of extended envelopes of cD galaxies (Patel et al.
1236: 2006). Furthermore, we find that the depth of valley, $\Dmin$ in
1237: the $\gamma(r)$ profiles can be used to quantitatively measure the
1238: properties of the plateaus in the surface brightness profiles.
1239: Generally, the deeper the valleys are (corresponding to a larger
1240: value of $\Dmin$), the flatter and wider the plateaus are in the
1241: $\eta(r)$ profiles.
1242: %
1243: However, the $\Dmin$ parameter appears to vary in a continuous way
1244: with the galaxy parameters, such as their size and luminosity.
1245: While there is a clear trend that more luminous and larger BCGs
1246: have larger stellar halos. the continuous variation makes it
1247: difficult to un-ambiguously classify cD or non-cD galaxies based
1248: on the surface brightness profiles alone.
1249:
1250: We measured the photometric properties of galaxies to four
1251: different isophotal limits, $22, 23, 24$, and $25\magsec$, and
1252: used these to investigate the scaling laws and their dependence on
1253: these limits. The latter is of particular relevance as some
1254: previous investigations derived scaling relations for BCGs using
1255: different samples and different isophotal limits (e.g., the study
1256: of von der Linden et al. 2007 used an isophotal limit of
1257: 23$\magsec$). We find that the size-luminosity relation and
1258: Fabor-Jackson ($L-\sigma$) relations of BCGs are consistent with being
1259: steeper than those of the bulk of early type galaxies for a control sample
1260: selected within the same absolute magnitude range ($-23.5<M_{r,
1261: 25}<-22.5$), although the latter is not statistically significant due
1262: to the limited sample sizes.
1263:
1264: Furthermore, as the photometric limit becomes deeper, the size-luminosity relation
1265: for BCGs and the bulk of the ellipticals becomes steeper. However,
1266: there are already (small) differences between BCGs and regular
1267: ellipticals at $22\magsec$, a surface brightness that probes the
1268: inner parts of galaxies. This, together with the relatively small
1269: difference in the scaling relations between $24\magsec$ and
1270: $25\magsec$, suggests that there may be intrinsic differences in
1271: the dynamic structures between BCGs and the bulk of early type
1272: galaxies (Bernardi et al. 2007; Lauer et al. 2007). One
1273: possibility may be that the amount of dark matter in the central
1274: parts of BCGs and regular ellipticals is different (von der Linden
1275: et al. 2007), or perhaps the relative importance of an-isotropy
1276: and rotation may be different. In this context, it is interesting
1277: to note that we find a large fraction of very luminous early type
1278: galaxies with disky isophotes.
1279: %no significant differences in the isophotal shapes between our control sample and the BCGs:
1280: This appears to somewhat contradict with the usual expectation that the
1281: most luminous galaxies should show boxy isophotes. Also notice
1282: that it is difficult to measure high-redshift galaxies to very
1283: faint surface brightness due to the cosmological dimming. Thus a proper comparison between local and
1284: high-redshift samples will need to explicitly account for the
1285: surface brightness dependence we found in the paper.
1286:
1287: %Recently the role of dry (dissipationless) mergers in the
1288: %formation of massive ellipticals has received much attention.
1289: %The connection of stellar halo of cD galaxy with merger process,
1290: %the bimodity of boxy and disky isophotes as well as
1291: %the scaling relations for BCGs may all be connected with
1292: %dry mergers.
1293: In this work we uncovered four strong dry merger candidate BCGs (see
1294: Fig.~\ref{merger_sbp_eta.eps}), three of which have two close nuclei
1295: within $10$\,kpc and with nearly identical radial velocities. We also found
1296: another 10 BCGs in our sample with possible dry merger
1297: signatures (see Fig.~\ref{example_merger.eps}), as advocated by Bell et al. (2006).
1298: This strongly suggests merging at the centre of clusters is an important physical
1299: process that affects a variety of properties of BCGs, both in photometry and
1300: kinematics. An analysis of the statistics for the fraction of
1301: dry mergers in BCGs is ongoing and the results will be reported elsewhere.
1302:
1303: \section*{Acknowledgements}
1304:
1305: We thank C. N. Hao, Simon White for discussions, and in particular
1306: A. von der Linden for sharing data, helpful discussions and comments on a draft.
1307: We acknowledge Dr. Tod Lauer, the referee, for a constructive report that improved the paper.
1308: This project is supported by the NSF of China 10333060, 10273012,
1309: 10640430201, 10773014 and 973 programs No. 2007CB815405 and 2007CB815406. SM acknowledges
1310: %the travel support of the NSFC,
1311: the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Alexander von Humboldt
1312: Foundation.
1313: %
1314: Funding for the creation and distribution of the SDSS Archive has
1315: been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating
1316: Institutions, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
1317: the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy,
1318: the Japanese Monbukagakusho, and the Max Planck Society. The SDSS
1319: Web site is http://www.sdss.org/. The SDSS is managed by the
1320: Astrophysical Research Consortium (ARC) for the Participating
1321: Institutions. The Participating Institutions are The University of
1322: Chicago, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan
1323: Participation Group, The Johns Hopkins University, the Korean
1324: Scientist Group, Los Alamos National Laboratory, the
1325: Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the
1326: Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State
1327: University, University of Pittsburgh, Princeton University, the
1328: United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
1329:
1330: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
1331:
1332: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2006}]{Bell06} Bell E. F. et al., 2006, ApJ, 640, 241
1333: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bender}{1988}]{Ben88} Bender R., 1988, A\&A, 193, L7
1334: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bender et al.}{1988}]{Bender88} Bender R., D\"obereiner S., M\"ollenhoff C., 1988, A\&AS, 74, 385
1335: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bender et al.}{1989}]{Bender89} Bender R., Surma P., Doebereiner S., Moellenhoff C., Madejsky R., 1989, A\&A, 217, 35
1336: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardi et al.}{2003a}]{Bernardi03a} Bernardi M. et al., 2003a, AJ, 125, 1817
1337: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardi et al.}{2003b}]{Bernardi03b} Bernardi M. et al., 2003b, AJ, 125, 1866
1338: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardi et al.}{2007}]{Bernardi07} Bernardi M., Hyde J. B., Sheth R. K., Miller C. J. Nichol R. C., 2007, AJ, 133, 1741
1339: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bertin \& Arnouts}{1996}]{Bertin96} Bertin E., Arnouts S., 1996, A\&AS, 117, 393
1340: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Binney \& Merrifield}{1998}]{Binney98} Binney J., Merrifield M., 1998, Galactic Astronomy (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
1341: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2003a}]{Blanton03a} Blanton M. R. et al., 2003a, ApJ, 592, 819
1342: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2003b}]{Blanton03b} Blanton M. R. et al., 2003b, ApJ, 594, 186
1343: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2005}]{Blanton05} Blanton M. R. et al., 2005, AJ, 129, 2562
1344: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton \& Roweis}{2007}]{Blanton07} Blanton M. R., Roweis S., 2007, AJ, 133, 734
1345: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brough et al.}{2005}]{Brough05} Brough S., Collins C. A., Burke D. J., Lynam P. D., Mann R. G., 2005, MNRAS, 364, 1354
1346: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Capaccioli}{1989}]{Capaccioli89} Capaccioli M., 1989, in The World of Galaxies, ed, H. G. Corwin, \& L. Bottinelli (Berlin: Springer), 208
1347: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cowie \& Binney}{1977}]{Cowie77} Cowie L. L., Binney J., 1977, ApJ, 215, 723
1348: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davies et al.}{1983}]{Davies83} Davies R. L., Efstathiou G., Fall S. M., Illingworth G., Schechter P. L., 1983, ApJ, 266, 41
1349: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{De Lucia \& Blaizot}{2007}]{DeLucia07} De Lucia G., Blaizot J., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 2
1350: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Desroches et al.}{2007}]{Desroches07} Desroches Louis-Benoit, Quataert E., Ma Chung-Pei, West A. A., 2007, MNRAS, 377, 402
1351: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{de Vaucouleurs}{1948}]{deVau48} de Vaucouleurs G., 1948, Ann. Astrophys., 11, 247
1352: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber et al.}{1997}]{Faber97} Faber S. M. et al., 1997, AJ, 114, 1771
1353: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber et al.}{1976}]{Faber76} Faber S. M., Jackson R. E., 1976, ApJ, 204, 668
1354: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fabian}{1994}]{Fabian94} Fabian A. C., 1994, ARA\&A, 32, 277
1355: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fabian \& Nulsen}{1977}]{Fabian77} Fabian A. C., Nulsen P. E. J., 1977, MNRAS, 180, 479
1356: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fan et al.}{1996}]{Fan96} Fan X. et al., 1996, AJ, 112, 628
1357: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gallagher \& Ostriker}{1972}]{Gallagher72} Gallagher J. S., Ostriker J. P., 1972, AJ, 77, 288
1358: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gao et al.}{2004}]{Gao04} Gao L., Loeb A., Peebles P. J. E., White S. D. M., Jenkins A., 2004, ApJ, 614, 17
1359: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gonzalez et al.}{2005}]{Gonzalez05} Gonzalez A. H., Zabludoff A. I., Zaritsky D., 2005, ApJ, 618, 195
1360: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Graham et al.}{1996}]{Graham96} Graham A., Lauer T. R., Colless M., Postman M., 1996, ApJ, 465, 534
1361: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hao et al.}{2006}]{Hao06} Hao C. N., Mao S., Deng Z. G., Xia X. Y., Wu H., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1339; erratum, MNRAS, 373, 1264
1362: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hao et al.}{2006b}]{Hao06b} Hao C. N., Mao S., Deng Z. G., Xia X. Y., Wu H., 2006b,
1363: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jones \& Forman}{1984}]{Jones84} Jones C., Forman W., 1984, ApJ, 276, 38
1364: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Jorgensen et al.}{1995}]{Jorgensen95} J$\o$rgensen I., Franx M., Kj$\ae$rgaard P, 1995, MNRAS, 276, 1341
1365: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kjaergaard et al.}{1993}]{Kjergaard93} Kj$\ae$rgaard P., J$\o$rgensen I., Moles M., 1993, ApJ, 418, 617
1366: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Koester et al.}{2007}]{Koester07} Koester B. P. et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, 239
1367: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Krick et al.}{2006}]{Krick06} Krick J. E., Bernstein R. A., Pimbblet K. A., 2006, AJ, 131, 168
1368: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Laine et al.}{2003}]{Laine03} Laine S., van der Marel R. P., Lauer T. R., Postman M., O'Dea C. P., Owen F. N., 2003, AJ, 125, 478
1369: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lauer}{1985}]{Lauer85} Lauer T. R., 1985, MNRAS, 216, 429
1370: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lauer}{1988}]{Lauer88} Lauer T. R., 1988, ApJ, 325, 49
1371: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lauer et al.}{2005}]{Lauer05} Lauer T. R. et al., 2005, AJ, 129, 2138
1372: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lauer et al.}{2007}]{Lauer07} Lauer T. R. et al., 2007, ApJ, 662, 808
1373: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lin}{2004}]{Lin04} Lin Y.-T., Mohr J. J., 2004, ApJ, 617, 879
1374: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lugger}{1984}]{Lugger84} Lugger P. M., 1984, ApJ, 286, 106
1375: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Matthews}{1964}]{Matthews64} Matthews T. A., Morgan W. W., Schmidt M., 1964, ApJ, 140, 35
1376: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Merritt}{1985}]{Merritt85} Merritt D., 1985, ApJ, 289, 18
1377: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Michard}{2002}]{Michard02} Michard R., 2002, A\&A, 384, 763
1378: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Miller et al.}{2005}]{Miller05} Miller C. J. et al., 2005, AJ, 130, 968
1379: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nieto et al.}{1988}]{Nieto88} Nieto J.-L., Capaccioli M., Held V. E., 1988, A\&A, 195, L1
1380: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oegerle}{1991}]{Oegerle91} Oegerle W. R., Hoessel J. G., 1991, ApJ, 375, 15
1381: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oemler}{1973}]{Oemler73} Oemler A., Jr., 1973, ApJ, 180, 11
1382: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oemler}{1976}]{Oemler76} Oemler A., Jr., 1976, ApJ, 209, 693
1383: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ostriker \& Hausman}{1977}]{Ostriker77} Ostriker J. P., Hausman M. A., 1977, ApJ, 217, L125
1384: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ostriker \& Tremaine}{1975}]{Ostriker75} Ostriker J. P., Tremaine S. D., 1975, ApJ, 202, L113
1385: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Patel et al.}{2006}]{Patel06} Patel P., Maddox S., Pearce F.~R., Arag\'on-Salamanca A., Conway E., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 851
1386: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Petrosian}{1976}]{Petrosian} Petrosian V., 1976, ApJ, 209, L1
1387: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Postman \& Lauer}{1995}]{PL} Postman M., Lauer T. R., 1995, ApJ, 440, 28
1388: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rest et al.}{2001}]{Rest01} Rest A., van den Bosch F. C., Jaffe W., Tran H., Tsvetanov Z., Ford H. C., Davies J., Schafer J., 2001, AJ, 121, 2431
1389: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Richstone}{1975}]{Richstone75} Richstone D., 1975, ApJ, 200, 535
1390: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Richstone}{1976}]{Richstone76} Richstone D., 1976, ApJ, 204, 642
1391: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schombert}{1986}]{Schombert86} Schombert J. M., 1986, ApJS, 60, 603
1392: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schombert}{1987}]{Schombert87} Schombert J. M., 1987, ApJS, 64, 643
1393: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schombert}{1988}]{Schombert88} Schombert J. M., 1988, ApJ, 328, 475
1394: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sersic}{1968}]{Sersic68} S$\acute{e}$rsic J. L., 1968, Atlas de Galaxies Australes (Cordoba: Observatories Astronomica)
1395: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shen et al.}{2003}]{Shen03} Shen S. et al., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 978
1396: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Shimasaku et al.}{2001}]{Shi01} Shimasaku K. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1238
1397: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al.}{2005}]{Smith05} Smith G. P., Kneib J.-P., Smail I., Mazzotta P., Ebeling H., Czoske O., 2005, MNRAS, 359, 417
1398: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Stoughton et al.}{2002}]{Stoughton02} Stoughton C. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 485
1399: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strateva et al.}{2001}]{Str01} Strateva I. et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1861
1400: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tran et al.}{2005}]{Tran05} Tran K.-V., van Dokkum P. G., Franx M., Illingworth G. D., Kelson D. D., Schreiber N. M. F., 2005, ApJ, 627, L25
1401: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van den Bosch et al.}{1994}]{Bosch94} van den Bosch F. C., Ferrarese L., Jaffe W., Ford H. C., O'Connell R. W., 1994, AJ, 108, 1579
1402: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Dokkum}{2005}]{Dokkum05} van Dokkum P. G., 2005, AJ, 130, 2647
1403: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{von der Linden et al.}{2007}]{Linden07} von der Linden A. et al., 2007, MNRAS, 379, 867
1404: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{White}{1976}]{White76} White S. D. M., 1976, MNRAS, 174, 19
1405: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{White}{2005}]{White05} White S. D. M. et al., 2005, AAP, 444, 365
1406: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wu et al.}{2002}]{Wu02} Wu H. et al., 2002, AJ, 123, 1364
1407: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wu et al.}{2005}]{Wu05} Wu H., Shao Z. Y., Mo H. J., Xia X. Y., Deng Z. G., 2005, ApJ, 622, 244
1408: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zebetti et al.}{2005}]{Zebetti05} Zibetti S., White S.~D.~M., Schneider D.~P., Brinkmann J., 2005, MNRAS, 358, 949
1409: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zheng et al.}{1999}]{Zheng99} Zheng Z. Y. et al., 1999, AJ, 117, 2757
1410:
1411: \end{thebibliography}
1412:
1413: \label{lastpage}
1414:
1415: \end{document}
1416:
1417: % LocalWords: cD BCGs Fengshan Liu al Datun Petrosian lke ellipticities kpc Kj
1418: % LocalWords: Thuan Romanishin Schombert Oegerle Tonry Kormendy Djorgovski de
1419: % LocalWords: Ostriker Richstone Malumuth Nulsen Cowie Binney Villumsen SBPs
1420: % LocalWords: Farouki rgaard Brough Vaucouleurs rsic analyse Bautz Bernardi pc
1421: % LocalWords: Vaucouleur analyses SDSS mis Stoughton IPAC Mpc catalogue Xia et
1422: % LocalWords: Deng Shude Tianjin Jodrell Macclesfield SK DL UK redshift halos
1423: % LocalWords: analysing Fabor mag arcsec Zibetti BCG von der isophotal disky
1424: % LocalWords: dissipationless Forman Oemler Patel Tremaine Hausman Merrit Gao
1425: % LocalWords: EdisCS Blaizot accrete Dokkum Tran Zebetti maxBCG Koester un UGC
1426: % LocalWords: html redshifts Shen Michard astrometry ASTROM ADU Lauer Zheng DU
1427: % LocalWords: luminosities NGC BATC SExtractor Bertin arcminutes Guassian IRAF
1428: % LocalWords: Guassians ISOPHOTE DAOPHOT KCORRECT Roweis Hao Desroches FWHMs
1429: % LocalWords: apertures PSF Merrifield outskirt desentangle deepth vs outlier
1430: % LocalWords: isophotes ellipticals isophote Marconi renormalised tlinear FP
1431: % LocalWords: rgensen Bernadi alog blog analysed eq morphologies asymetries TG
1432: % LocalWords: SM NSFC Humbodldt Monbukagakusho Fermilab MPIA MPA bereiner Univ
1433: % LocalWords: llenhoff Surma Doebereiner Moellenhoff Madejsky Sheth Nichol Pei
1434: % LocalWords: Brinkman Arnouts Lynam Benoit Quataert Chung d'Astroph ARA Franx
1435: % LocalWords: Peebles Zabludoff Zaritsky astro ph Arag Salamanca Jaffe Cordoba
1436: % LocalWords: Tsvetanov Australes Astronomica Kneib Smail Mazzotta Ebeling Mo
1437: % LocalWords: Czoske Illingworth Kelson Schreiber Ferrarese Shao Brinkmann col
1438: % LocalWords: redz eps Gaussians sbp rela para rrrlrrrrrrrrrcc pt redshfits BH
1439: % LocalWords: Instit Astrophysik Garching centre indices Hoessel Laine fiber
1440: % LocalWords: ue Mohr Shimasaku Strateva cccl Krick Nieto obereiner ollenhoff
1441: % LocalWords: AJ Efstathiou Astrophys Colless Pimbblet Kjaergaard Marel O'Dea
1442: % LocalWords: Capaccioli ApJS Sersic AAP
1443: