1: \documentclass[usenatbib,usegraphicx]{mn2e}
2: \usepackage{times}
3:
4: \newcommand{\kms}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{km\,s^{-1}}}}
5: \newcommand{\fe}{\ensuremath{\langle\mathrm{Fe}\rangle}}
6: \newcommand{\mgb}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Mg}\,b}}
7: \newcommand{\mgfe}{\ensuremath{[\mathrm{MgFe}]}}
8: \newcommand{\mgone}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Mg}_1}}
9: \newcommand{\mgtwo}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{Mg}_2}}
10: \newcommand{\cnone}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CN}_1}}
11: \newcommand{\cntwo}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{CN}_2}}
12: \newcommand{\hbeta}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\beta}}
13: \newcommand{\hbetag}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\beta_G}}
14: \newcommand{\ctwo}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{C}_2 4668}}
15: \newcommand{\hga}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\gamma_A}}
16: \newcommand{\hda}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\delta_A}}
17: \newcommand{\hgf}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\gamma_F}}
18: \newcommand{\hdf}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{H}\delta_F}}
19: \newcommand{\logt}{\ensuremath{\log t}}
20: \newcommand{\z}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[Z/H]}}}
21: \newcommand{\feh}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[Fe/H]}}}
22: \newcommand{\enh}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[E/Fe]}}}
23: \newcommand{\afe}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[\alpha/Fe]}}}
24: \newcommand{\cfe}{\ensuremath{\mathrm{[C/Fe]}}}
25: \newcommand{\reo}[1]{\ensuremath{r_{e}/#1}}
26:
27: \newcommand\phn{\phantom{0}}
28: \newcommand\phd{\phantom{.}}
29: \newcommand\phm[1]{\phantom{#1}}
30:
31: \begin{document}
32:
33: \pubyear{2008}
34: \pagerange{1--37}
35:
36: \title[Stellar population histories of ETGs. III. Coma]{The stellar
37: population histories of early-type galaxies. III. The Coma
38: Cluster\thanks{The data presented herein were obtained at the
39: W.M.~Keck Observatory, which is operated as a scientific partnership
40: among the California Institute of Technology, the University of
41: California and the National Aeronautics and Space
42: Administration. The Observatory was made possible by the generous
43: financial support of the W.M.~Keck Foundation.}}
44:
45: \author[S.~C. Trager, S.~M. Faber \&
46: A. Dressler]{S. C. Trager$^1$\thanks{email: sctrager@astro.rug.nl},
47: S. M. Faber$^2$ and Alan Dressler$^3$\\
48: $^1$Kapteyn Astronomical Institute, University of Groningen, Postbus
49: 800, NL-9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands\\
50: $^2$UCO/Lick Observatory and Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
51: University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA\\
52: $^3$The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813
53: Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA}
54:
55: \maketitle
56:
57: \begin{abstract}
58: We present stellar population parameters of twelve elliptical and S0
59: galaxies in the Coma Cluster around and including the cD galaxy NGC
60: 4874, based on spectra obtained using the Low Resolution Imaging
61: Spectrograph on the Keck II Telescope. Our data are among the most
62: precise and accurate absorption-line strengths yet obtained for
63: cluster galaxies, allowing us to examine in detail the zero-point and
64: scatter in the stellar population properties of Coma Cluster
65: early-type galaxies (ETGs). Recent observations of red-sequence
66: galaxies in the high-redshift Universe and generic hierarchical
67: galaxy-formation models lead to the following expectations for the
68: stellar populations of local ETGs. (1) In all environments, bigger
69: ETGs should have older stellar populations than smaller ETGs
70: (`downsizing'); (2) ETGs at fixed stellar mass form stars earlier and
71: thus should have older stellar population ages in the highest-density
72: environments than those in lower-density environments; and (3) the
73: most-massive ETGs in the densest environments should have a small
74: spread in stellar population ages. We find the following surprising
75: results using our sample. (1) Our ETGs have
76: single-stellar-population-equivalent (SSP-equivalent) ages of on
77: average 5--8 Gyr with the models used here, with the oldest galaxies
78: having SSP-equivalent ages of $\la10$ Gyr old. This average age is
79: identical to the mean age of field ETGs. (2) The ETGs in our sample
80: span a large range in velocity dispersion (mass) but are consistent
81: with being drawn from a population with a single age. Specifically,
82: ten of the twelve ETGs in our sample are consistent within their
83: formal errors of having the same SSP-equivalent age, $5.2\pm0.2$ Gyr,
84: over a factor of more than 750 in mass. We therefore find no evidence
85: for downsizing of the stellar populations of ETGs in the core of the
86: Coma Cluster. We confirm the lack of a trend of SSP-equivalent age
87: with mass in the core of the Coma Cluster from \emph{all} other
88: samples of Coma Cluster ETG absorption-line strengths available in the
89: literature, but we do find from the largest samples that the
90: dispersion in age increases with decreasing mass. These conclusions
91: stand in stark contrast to the expectations from observations of
92: high-redshift red-sequence galaxies and model predictions. We suggest
93: that Coma Cluster ETGs may have formed the majority of their mass at
94: high redshifts but suffered small but detectable star formation events
95: at $z\approx0.1$--0.3. In this case, previous detections of
96: `downsizing' from stellar populations of local ETGs may not reflect
97: the same downsizing seen in lookback studies of RSGs, as the young
98: ages of the local ETGs represent only a small fraction of their total
99: masses.
100: \end{abstract}
101:
102: \begin{keywords}
103: galaxies: stellar content -- galaxies: ellipticals and lenticulars --
104: galaxies: evolution -- galaxies: clusters: individual (Coma=Abell
105: 1656)
106: \end{keywords}
107:
108: \section{Introduction}
109: \label{sec:introduction}
110:
111: Our understanding of the stellar populations of early-type galaxies --
112: elliptical and S0 galaxies, hereafter called ETGs -- once thought to
113: be simple, static, and old \citep{Baade}, has undergone a revolution
114: in the past decades \citep[cf.][for two different views of this
115: revolution]{Renzini06,Faber05}. We now understand that ETGs are a
116: complex, mutable population of objects with a variety of stellar
117: population histories. This revolution has arisen from many different,
118: convergent lines of evidence: detailed studies of local ETGs,
119: large-area surveys of the local and distant Universe, and
120: semi-analytic and numerical simulations of galaxy formation.
121:
122: The recent explosion of data from large-area, high-quality galaxy
123: surveys, from the local Universe (e.g., the Sloan Digital Sky Survey,
124: \citealt{SDSS}, and the 2dF Survey, \citealt{2dF}) to $z\ga1$ (e.g.,
125: COMBO-17: \citealt{COMBO17}; DEEP-2: \citealt{DEEP2}; VVDS:
126: \citealt{VVDS}; and COSMOS: \citealt{COSMOS}), has allowed us to study
127: the cosmic evolution of the star-formation and mass-accretion
128: histories of galaxies.
129:
130: A fundamental discovery of these surveys has been that there exists a
131: strong bi-modality in the colour distribution of galaxies
132: \citep{Strateva01}, which take the form in the colour-magnitude or
133: colour-mass diagrams as a `red sequence' -- a sequence because the
134: distribution is narrow in colour -- and a `blue cloud' -- a cloud
135: because the colour dispersion is large. This bi-modality persists out
136: to $z\sim1.3$ or beyond (e.g.,
137: \citealt{Bell04,Weiner05,Willmer06,Bundy06,Cooper06}). Hereafter, we
138: call galaxies on the red-sequence RSGs (for `red-sequence galaxies').
139: We want to impress upon the reader that these objects are defined only
140: by their \emph{red colours}, not by their morphologies.
141:
142: \citet{Bell04}, using data from COMBO-17, and \citet{Faber05}, using
143: data from DEEP2, have analysed the colour-magnitude diagrams and
144: luminosity functions of RSGs from $z\sim1$ to the present and found
145: that the stellar mass of galaxies in this sequence has increased by a
146: factor of 2--5 since $z\sim1$. This result has been confirmed by many
147: other authors using these and other surveys (e.g.,
148: \citealt{Ferreras05,Bundy06,CDR06,Cooper06,Ilbert06,Zucca06,Brown07}).
149: This growth in mass can arise from either the growth of mass of
150: objects already on the red sequence and/or by the addition of
151: once-blue galaxies which have become red by ceasing to form stars
152: \citep[see e.g.,][for many references to past work relating to these
153: ideas]{Bell04,Faber05}.
154:
155: This growth of stellar mass on the red-sequence is not distributed
156: uniformly along this sequence. \citet{Bundy06}, \citet*{CDR06}, and
157: \citet{Brown07} have claimed that the luminosity density of the
158: most-massive RSGs (galaxies with $L\ga4L_*$ or
159: $M\ga10^{11}\,M_{\odot}$) has not evolved significantly since
160: $z\sim0.8$ \citep[although see][]{Faber05}. At lower and lower
161: masses, the red sequence is fully populated (compared with today's red
162: sequence) as the Universe ages. This appears to be confirmed by the
163: evolution of the Fundamental Plane (FP) of early-type galaxies (ETGs),
164: galaxies selected to have elliptical or S0 morphologies \citet{Treu05}
165: find that massive ETGs appear on the FP first, followed by the later
166: arrival of smaller ETGs. In the current work we call this process --
167: the increasing appearance of lower-mass galaxies on the red-sequence
168: (and its FP) with decreasing redshift -- `downsizing' by analogy to
169: the decrease in specific star formation rate with decreasing redshift
170: \citep[e.g.,][]{Cowie96,Drory04,Juneau05,Noeske07,Zheng07}.
171:
172: The growth of stellar mass on the red sequence also depends on
173: environment. The earliest observational evidence for the growth of
174: the red sequence was the Butcher-Oemler effect \citep{BO78,BO84}, the
175: systematic increase of the fraction of blue galaxies relative to red
176: galaxies in rich clusters with increasing redshift out to $z\sim0.5$.
177: \citet{Cooper06} and \citet{Bundy06} have shown that the speed of
178: galaxies joining the red sequence is faster in higher density
179: environments, so that at a given mass, red-sequence galaxies in denser
180: environments have ceased their star formation earlier -- and thus have
181: older stars -- than those in less-dense environments. It is worth
182: pointing out here that the DEEP2 survey, as noted by both
183: \citet{Bundy06} and \citet{Cooper06}, contains no rich clusters, so
184: the evolution of red-sequence galaxies in the densest environments
185: have not been probed in the same way as `field' galaxies, but FP
186: studies have shown that ETGs in the densest environments have reached
187: the FP more quickly than those in lower-density environments (e.g.,
188: \citealt{Gebhardt03,Treu05}, although selection effects and neglect of
189: rotation may play a significant r\^ole: \citealt{vdW04,vdM06b}).
190:
191: In order for a blue galaxy to become red, it must stop forming stars.
192: This can be accomplished by consumption or removal of (cold) gas in
193: the galaxy. Slow consumption of gas can turn a blue, star-forming
194: disc galaxy into a red S0 \citep*{LTC80}. Early-type disc galaxies
195: like M31 are becoming RSGs (in fact, M31's bulge already is an RSG,
196: and its stellar population parameters are tabulated in
197: \citealt{G93,T00a}) and perhaps even ETGs by moving to earlier type in
198: the Hubble sequence. \citet{RT05} and \citet{Ball06} have shown that
199: more than half of ETGs at the knee of the galaxy luminosity function
200: (i.e., at $L_{\ast}$) in SDSS are S0s. Perhaps many S0s were once
201: star-formating disc galaxies -- an idea that dates back at least as
202: far as \citet{BO78}, if not earlier.
203:
204: If the removal of gas is rapid, we call the removal process
205: `quenching' and say that the galaxy has `quenched' its star formation
206: (this is the sense used by \citealt{Faber05}; \citealt{Bell04} refer
207: to this as `truncation'). Quenching can be the result of different
208: processes: for example, the truncation of cold flows onto galaxies in
209: high-mass halos \citep[e.g.,][]{Cattaneo06}, explicit AGN feedback
210: \citep[e.g.,][]{Croton06}, or mergers that consume all the
211: projenitors' gas resevoirs in a large starburst
212: \citep[e.g.,][]{MH94a,MH94b}; a more complete list can be found in
213: \citet{Faber05}. Unfortunately, quenching may be any and all of these
214: things. We use `quenching' in this paper to mean \emph{rapid}
215: cessation of star formation to distinguish it from more gradual gas
216: consumption.
217:
218: A heuristic model in which blue galaxies `quench', and thus end up on
219: the red sequence, at an epoch that depends on mass and environment
220: serves to provide a framework to explain these results
221: \citep{Bell04,Faber05}. To be precise, if the quenching redshift of a
222: galaxy increases with increasing mass and increasing environmental
223: density, the observations described above are naturally explained. It
224: is important to note however that the quenching time is \emph{not} the
225: stellar age of the galaxy (as will be shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:ages}
226: below). In fact, the quenching time, the dominant star formation
227: epoch, and the mass assembly epoch are likely to be different for
228: red-sequence galaxies \citep{Faber05,deLucia06}. A clear
229: demonstration of this effect is given by \citet{deLucia06}, who follow
230: the evolution of ETGs in the (to date) largest simulations of
231: structure formation in the Universe. In these simulations, the most
232: massive galaxies in the densest environments form their stars
233: \emph{earlier}, but assemble \emph{later}, than lower-mass galaxies in
234: lower-density environments. This is simply because the
235: highest-density environments are at the sites of the highest-$\sigma$
236: fluctuations in the primordial density field, and therefore collapse
237: first and merge more rapidly \citep[see, e.g.,][]{BFPR84,deLucia06};
238: the stars in these dark matter haloes form early and quickly but
239: assemble over a longer period as the haloes themselves accrete more
240: (sub)haloes. Therefore, the most massive galaxies should have the
241: oldest stellar ages even though they assembled more recently
242: \citep{Kaviraj06,Faber05}; this is a generic prediction of all
243: hierarchical galaxy formation models. Note however that without some
244: form of suppression of star formation (by whatever method), the
245: galaxies in the most massive haloes will continue to form stars for
246: far too long and will be too blue \citep{Croton06,deLucia06}.
247:
248: These results suggest three predictions for red-sequence galaxies in
249: the local Universe:
250: \begin{enumerate}
251: \item In all environments, lower-mass galaxies form their stars
252: later -- or at least have a much larger dispersion in quenching
253: redshift -- than more-massive galaxies in the same environment
254: (downsizing). In other words, the typical quenching redshift is
255: higher in high-mass galaxies than in low-mass galaxies.
256: \item Red-sequence galaxies of a given mass in the highest-density
257: environments form their stars earlier and thus have older stars than
258: galaxies of the same mass in lower-density environments. In other
259: words, the quenching redshift is higher in high-density environments
260: than in low-density environments.
261: \item The most-massive red-sequence galaxies in high-density
262: environments should have a small spread in stellar population ages.
263: \end{enumerate}
264:
265: In order to test these predictions for the stellar population of local
266: RSGs using currently available data, we need to make a crucial
267: assumption: that local RSGs are represented by ETGs, that is, galaxies
268: that have been morphologically classified as elliptical and S0
269: galaxies. This is only required because local samples of galaxy
270: absorption-line strengths are largely restricted to galaxies selected
271: (primarily) by morphology, with the notable exception of the NOAO
272: Fundamental Plane Survey \citep{Smith04,Smith06,Nelan05}\footnote{We
273: note that although it is possible to select true RSG samples from
274: SDSS, to date only the line strengths of ETG samples drawn from SDSS
275: have been studied, as far as we are aware
276: \citep[e.g.,][]{Bernardi06}.}. That this is a reasonable assumption
277: in the local Universe can be seen in \citet{Blanton05}, who show that
278: the local red sequence is dominated by galaxies with large S\'ersic
279: index $n$. This is even true at $z\approx0.8$, where
280: \citet{BellGEMS04} find that 85 per cent of red-sequence galaxies at
281: this redshift are ETGs \citep[but see][who find a lower estimate of 62
282: per cent]{vdW07}. On the other hand, \citet{Renzini06} states that 70
283: per cent of an ETG sample selected by M.~Bernardi from the SDSS are
284: RSGs, while only 58 per cent of RSGs are ETGs \citep[see also the
285: Appendix of][]{Mitchell05}. One should therefore keep in mind that
286: red-sequence galaxies are \emph{not necessarily} ETGs and that
287: \emph{not all} ETGs are red-sequence galaxies -- as can be seen in
288: \S\ref{sec:downsizing} -- but the differences ought to be small. With
289: this assumption and its caveat in mind, we make three predictions for
290: the stellar populations of local ETGs.
291:
292: Prediction (i): \emph{Lower-mass ETGs in all environments have younger
293: stellar population ages than high-mass ETGs.} Downsizing of stellar
294: population ages of ETGs appears to have been first suggested by
295: \citet[although hints of the effect were also briefly discussed by
296: \citealt{G93}]{TFGW93}, who examined the highest-quality spectra of
297: ETGs available in the Lick/IDS galaxy database \citep{TWFBG98} and
298: found that low-$\sigma$ (low-mass) elliptical galaxies, in both the
299: Virgo Cluster and the general field, have younger ages on average than
300: high-$\sigma$ (high-mass) ellipticals. Given the large uncertainties
301: in the Lick/IDS galaxy line strengths \citep[cf.][]{T00b}, further
302: probing of this result was difficult from that sample. Suggestions of
303: downsizing can be seen from the high-quality data in the small dataset
304: of Paper II (Fig.~7a). The clearest indications of downsizing in the
305: stellar populations of ETGs come from \citet{TMBO05} and from the NOAO
306: Fundamental Plane Survey, as shown in \citet{Nelan05}. \citet{TMBO05}
307: find $t\propto\sigma^{0.24}$ for high-density environments and
308: $t\propto\sigma^{0.32}$ for low-density environments, while
309: \citet{Nelan05} find the very strong relation $t\propto\sigma^{0.59}$
310: for their (high-density) sample. \citet{Clemens06} find a somewhat
311: more complicated pattern, with age increasing with $\sigma$ until the
312: relation saturates at moderate $\sigma$. These studies all point
313: towards downsizing (as defined above) occurring in the stellar
314: populations of ETGs in all environments. On the contrary,
315: \citet{SB06b} in the Coma Cluster and \citet{KIFvD06} in a cluster at
316: $z=0.33$ find \emph{no} evidence for an age--$\sigma$ relation in ETGs
317: using similar techniques, casting some doubt on the universality of
318: downsizing, at least in ETGs with $\sigma>125\,\kms$. We return this
319: point in \S\ref{sec:downsizing}.
320:
321: Prediction (ii): \emph{ETGs in high-density environments are older than
322: those in low-density environments.} \cite{TMBO05} were the first to
323: claim that galaxies in high-density environments are $\sim2$ Gyr older
324: than those of the same mass in low-density environments.
325: \citet{Bernardi06}, \citet{Clemens06}, and \citet{SB06b} have all
326: claimed that field ETGs are on average 1--2 Gyr younger than cluster
327: galaxies, as expected from recent galaxy formation models
328: \citep[e.g.,][]{deLucia06}.
329:
330: Prediction (iii): \emph{Massive ETGs in high-density environments have
331: a small stellar population age spread compared with lower-mass ETGs
332: and those in lower-density environments.} Models
333: \citep[e.g.,][]{deLucia06} imply that these galaxies should have
334: formed their stars most quickly of all ETGs. It is unclear with the
335: current samples if this is the case. \citet[hereafter Paper II]{T00b}
336: seem to see a hint of a smaller spread in the ages of the most-massive
337: `cluster' ellipticals (in that sample, `cluster' refers to galaxies in
338: the Fornax and Virgo Clusters). On the other hand, \citet{TMBO05},
339: who combined the Coma Cluster data of \citet{Mehlert00,Mehlert03} with
340: cluster galaxies from \citet{G93} and \citet{Beuing02} to create a
341: high-density sample and used field galaxies from \citet{G93} and
342: \citet{Beuing02} to create a low-density sample, find a smaller
343: scatter in the ages of their high-density sample galaxies than in
344: their low-density sample galaxies, although they do not report a
345: narrowing of the age--$\sigma$ relation with increasing velocity
346: dispersion $\sigma$ in their data. \citet{Nelan05} show a convincing
347: narrowing of the age--$\sigma$ relation with increasing $\sigma$ in
348: the NOAO Fundamental Plane Survey cluster galaxies, but they do not
349: present a comparison field sample. Further, it is not clear if the
350: enhancement ratios of cluster galaxies are convincingly higher than
351: those of field galaxies \citep{TMBO05,Bernardi06}.
352:
353: In the current paper, we test the predictions presented above for ETGs
354: in the Coma Cluster. We present and analyse very high signal-to-noise
355: spectra of twelve elliptical and S0 galaxies in the centre of the Coma
356: Cluster (\S\ref{sec:data}). We combine these data with high-quality
357: data from the literature to explore the stellar populations of ETGs in
358: the high-density environment of the Coma Cluster using newly-modified
359: stellar population models and a new grid-inversion method described in
360: \S\ref{sec:parammethod}. In \S\ref{sec:results} we find (1) the mean
361: single-stellar-population-equivalent (SSP-equivalent) age of Coma
362: Cluster galaxies in the LRIS sample is 5--7 Gyr, depending on
363: calibration and emission-line fill-in correction, and (2) ten of the
364: twelve ETGs in the LRIS sample are consistent with having the same age
365: of $5.2\pm0.2$ Gyr within their formal errors (ignoring systematic
366: calibration, emission-line correction, and stellar-population
367: modelling uncertainties, which amount to roughly 25 per cent). This
368: age is identical within the formal errors of that of field ETGs
369: ($5.0\pm0.1$ Gyr). Futhermore, we see no evidence of downsizing in
370: the LRIS sample, but the sample is admittedly very small. But we find
371: no evidence of downsizing in any sample of ETGs in the Coma Cluster
372: \emph{except} the red-sequence selected sample of \citet{Nelan05},
373: which is likely to be due a difference in emission-line corrections of
374: the Balmer lines. These results imply that predictions (i) and (ii)
375: are violated in the stellar populations of ETGs in the Coma Cluster.
376: Finally, we also find that the stellar population hyperplane -- the
377: $Z$-plane, a correlation between age, metallicity, and velocity
378: dispersion; and the \enh--$\sigma$ relation, a correlation between
379: $\log\sigma$ and \enh\ \citep{T00b} -- exists in the Coma Cluster. We
380: discuss these results, their implications, and their connection to the
381: formation of ETGs in general in \S\ref{sec:discussion}. In
382: particular, we find that models in which stars have formed
383: continuously in the galaxies from high redshift and then recently
384: quenched to be a poor explanation of our results, as such models
385: violate the known fraction of red galaxies in intermediate-redshift
386: clusters and the present-day mass-to-light ratios of our sample
387: galaxies. Instead, models with small, recent bursts (or `frostings')
388: of star formation on top of massive, old populations are more tenable.
389: We summarise our findings in \S\ref{sec:conclusions}. Finally, two
390: appendixes discuss the calibration of the data and comparison of the
391: LRIS data with literature data.
392:
393: \section{Data}
394: \label{sec:data}
395:
396: Our intent is to determine the stellar population parameters -- ages,
397: metallicities, and abundance ratios -- of ETGs in the Coma cluster.
398: For this purpose, we have observed twelve ETGs in the core of the Coma
399: cluster and have also collected high-quality line-strength data from
400: the literature. In this section, we discuss the acquisition and
401: reduction of Keck/LRIS spectroscopy, the derivation of systemic
402: velocities and velocity dispersion, and the extraction of Lick/IDS
403: line strengths. A full description of the calibration of the line
404: strengths is deferred to Appendix~\ref{sec:appcal}. At the end of
405: this section we briefly discuss data taken from the literature; a full
406: comparison with the LRIS data and presentation of the data is deferred
407: to Appendix~\ref{sec:others}.
408:
409: \subsection{LRIS spectroscopy}
410: \label{sec:selection}
411:
412: \begin{figure}
413: %\includegraphics[width=89mm]{coma_mask.eps}
414: \caption{Field around NGC 4874, with the positions of the slitlets
415: overlaid. This is a 15 second `white light' exposure taken with
416: LRIS directly before the spectral data described in the text. North
417: is at the top, and east is to the left. Seeing in this image is
418: approximately $0\farcs8$.\label{fig:coma}}
419: \end{figure}
420:
421: \begin{table*}
422: \begin{minipage}{178mm}
423: \caption{Observed Coma galaxies}
424: \label{tbl:sample}
425: \begin{tabular}{rlccrrccccl}
426: \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{GMP}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Other name}&
427: \multicolumn{1}{c}{RA}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{DEC}&
428: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$cz_{hel}$}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_0$}&
429: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log(r_e/\arcsec)$}&
430: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\langle\mu_e\rangle$}&
431: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$B$}& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$B-R_c$}&
432: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Morph.}\\
433: &&\multicolumn{2}{c}{(J2000.0)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(\kms)}&
434: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\kms)}&& \multicolumn{1}{c}{($r$
435: mag/$\sq\arcsec$)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}&
436: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(mag)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{type}\\
437: \hline
438: 3254&D127, RB042&12:59:40.3&$+$27:58:06&$7531\pm2$&$117\pm\phn3$&0.54&20.20&17.01&1.36&S0\\
439: 3269&D128, RB040&12:59:39.7&$+$27:57:14&$8029\pm2$&$111\pm\phn4$&0.40&19.30&16.71&1.31&S0\\
440: 3291&D154, RB038&12:59:38.3&$+$27:59:15&$6776\pm2$&$\phn67^\mathrm{a}\pm\phn6$&1.08&22.25&16.77&1.28&S0\\
441: 3329&NGC 4874&12:59:35.9&$+$27:57:33&$7176\pm3$&$270\pm\phn4$&1.85&22.13&13.48&1.42&D\\
442: 3352&NGC 4872&12:59:34.2&$+$27:56:48&$7193\pm2$&$209\pm\phn3$&0.48&18.53&15.32&1.38&SB0\\
443: 3367&NGC 4873&12:59:32.7&$+$27:59:01&$5789\pm2$&$179\pm\phn3$&0.87&20.09&15.12&1.33&S0\\
444: 3414&NGC 4871&12:59:30.0&$+$27:57:22&$6729\pm2$&$164\pm\phn3$&0.92&20.24&15.02&1.38&S0\\
445: 3484&D157, RB014&12:59:25.5&$+$27:58:23&$6112\pm2$&$115\pm\phn3$&0.49&19.48&16.43&1.32&S0\\
446: 3534&D158, RB007&12:59:21.5&$+$27:58:25&$6020\pm2$&$\phn58^\mathrm{a}\pm\phn6$&0.64$^\mathrm{b}$&20.48$^\mathrm{b}$&17.25&1.22&SA0\\
447: 3565&&12:59:19.8&$+$27:58:26&$7206\pm3$&$\phn41^\mathrm{a}\pm10$&0.60$^\mathrm{b}$&21.67$^\mathrm{b}$&18.32&1.26&E/S0$^\mathrm{c}$\\
448: 3639&NGC 4867&12:59:15.2&$+$27:58:16&$4786\pm3$&$224\pm\phn3$&0.49&18.53&15.10&1.28&E\\
449: 3664&NGC 4864&12:59:13.1&$+$27:58:38&$6755\pm2$&$221\pm\phn3$&0.89&19.78&14.91&1.42&E\\
450: \hline
451: \end{tabular}
452:
453: Col.\ 1: \citet{GMP83} ID. Col.\ 2: other names (NGC,
454: \citealt{D80}, and/or \citealt{RB67} ID). Cols.\ 3 and 4:
455: Coordinates. Cols.\ 5 and 6: Heliocentric velocity and velocity
456: dispersion measured through synthesised $2\farcs7$-diameter
457: circular aperture (see text). Cols.\ 7 and 8: Effective radius
458: $r_e$ and mean surface brightness within $r_e$ in Gunn $r$ from
459: \citet{JF94}, except as noted. Cols.\ 9 and 10: $B$ magnitude and
460: $B-R_c$ colour from \citet{Eisenhardt07}. Col.\ 11: Morphology
461: from \citet{D80}, except as noted.
462:
463: $^\mathrm{a}$Significantly below instrumental resolution
464: limit; see \S\ref{sec:sigma}.
465:
466: $^\mathrm{b}$Derived from images described in
467: \citet{Beijersbergen} using GALFIT \citep{GALFIT}
468:
469: $^\mathrm{c}$Morphology from \citet{Beijersbergen}
470: \end{minipage}
471: \end{table*}
472:
473:
474: The spectra were collected with the Low-Resolution Imaging
475: Spectrograph \citep[LRIS:][]{LRIS} on the Keck II Telescope, which has
476: a $7\farcm7$ long slit. We selected galaxies from Palomar Observatory
477: Sky Survey\footnote{The National Geographic Society--Palomar
478: Observatory Sky Atlas (POSS-I) was made by the California Institute of
479: Technology with grants from the National Geographic Society.} prints
480: of the centre of the Coma Cluster. Galaxies were determined to be
481: morphologically ETGs by SMF directly from the plate material. Several
482: multislit mask designs were generated using software kindly provided
483: by Dr.~A. Phillips at Lick Observatory. The design that preserved the
484: preferred east-west orientation of the slit (to minimise atmospheric
485: refraction effects) and also maximised the number of ETGs along the
486: slit length covered a region around the cD galaxy GMP 3329 (=NGC
487: 4874).
488:
489: \begin{figure}
490: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{sdss_etgs_umr.eps}
491: \caption{Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) DR6 \citep{DR6}
492: colour--magnitude diagram of the central 1\fdg5-diameter region of
493: the Coma Cluster. Large black circles are the LRIS sample of
494: galaxies presented here; red circles are early-type galaxies with
495: line strengths analysed in the current work from several different
496: samples (\S\ref{sec:literature}), some of which are outside the
497: central region; black dots are galaxies with redshifts from DR6
498: placing them at the distance of the Coma Cluster; and small grey
499: points are other galaxies in the same field without DR6 redshifts,
500: assuming that they are also in the cluster. The dashed vertical
501: line is the magnitude limit of SDSS spectroscopy; the dot-dashed
502: green line demarcates the blue-red galaxy division of
503: \citet{Baldry04}; and the red solid line is a fit to the brighter
504: ($-23<M_r<-18$ mag), red, redshift-selected cluster members to guide
505: the eye as to the location of the red sequence.}
506: \label{fig:comacmd}
507: \end{figure}
508:
509: Twelve ETGs with $-22\la M_{b_J}\la-16$ (assuming a cluster velocity
510: of $cz_{hel}=7007\;\kms$, \citealt{Hudson02}, and
511: $H_0=72\;\kms\mathrm{Mpc^{-1}}$, \citealt{F01}) were observed
512: (Fig.~\ref{fig:coma}; Table~\ref{tbl:sample}). Eight objects are
513: typed as `S0', two are typed as `E', and one (GMP 3329=NGC 4874) is
514: typed as `D' by \citet{D80}; the twelfth object, GMP 3565, is typed as
515: `E/S0' by P.~van Dokkum in \citet{Beijersbergen}. We therefore have
516: observed an ETG sample, albeit one dominated by S0
517: galaxies\footnote{Note that the Coma Cluster is particularly rich in
518: S0's \citep{D80a}.}. All of these galaxies lie on the cluster red
519: sequence (Fig.~\ref{fig:comacmd}).
520:
521: Spectra were obtained in three consecutive 30-minute exposures on 1997
522: April 7 UT with the red side of LRIS (LRIS-B was not yet available),
523: with seeing $\mathrm{FWHM}\approx0\farcs8$ (as determined from the
524: image in Fig.~\ref{fig:coma}, taken directly before the spectrographic
525: exposures), through clouds. A slit width of 1\arcsec\ was used in
526: conjunction with the 600 line $\mathrm{mm^{-1}}$ grating blazed at
527: 5000 \AA, giving a resolution of 4.4 \AA\ FWHM ($\sigma=1.9$ \AA,
528: corresponding to a velocity dispersion resolution of
529: $\sigma\sim125\;\kms$) and a wavelength coverage of typically
530: 3500--6000 \AA, depending on slit placement. Stellar spectra of five
531: Lick/IDS standard G and K giant stars (HR 6018, HR 6770, HR 6872, HR
532: 7429, and HR 7576) and four F9--G0 dwarfs (HD 157089, HD 160693, HR
533: 5968, and HR 6458) also from the Lick/IDS stellar sample
534: \citep{WFGB94} were observed on the same and subsequent nights through
535: the LRIS 1\arcsec\ long slit using the same grating. However, the
536: wavelength coverage of the stellar spectra was restricted to the
537: region 3500--5530 \AA, preventing the calibration of indexes redder
538: than Fe5406 present in the galaxy spectra (such as NaD).
539:
540: \subsubsection{Data reduction}
541: \label{sec:reduction}
542:
543: The spectral data were reduced using a method that combined the
544: geometric rectification procedures described by \citet{KIvDF00} and
545: the sky-subtraction methodology of \citet{Kelson03}. Namely, after
546: basic calibrations (overscan correction, bias removal, dark
547: correction, and flat field correction), a mapping of the geometric
548: distortions and wavelength calibrations were made using a suite of
549: Python scripts written by Dr.~Kelson, following the precepts of
550: \citet{KIvDF00}. Arc lamps were used for wavelength calibration,
551: which was adequate (but not perfect; see Appendix~\ref{sec:appcal})
552: for wavelengths longer than 3900 \AA. No slits were tilted, so
553: geometric rectification was generally simple. However, these mappings
554: were not applied until \emph{after} the sky subtraction, for reasons
555: detailed by \citet{Kelson03}. For nine of the galaxies, sky spectra
556: were interpolated from the slit edges, as the galaxies did not fill
557: the slitlets, using Python scripts written by Dr.~Kelson implementing
558: his sky-subtraction method. However, for NGC 4874, which did fill its
559: slitlet, and for D128 and NGC 4872, whose spectra were contaminated by
560: that of NGC 4874, sky subtraction was performed first using the `sky'
561: information at the edge of their slitlets and then corrected by
562: comparing this sky spectrum to the average sky from all other
563: slitlets.
564:
565: Extraction of one-dimensional spectra from the two-dimensional,
566: sky-subtracted long-slit images involved a simultaneous
567: variance-weighted extraction of the objects in a central aperture from
568: all three images while preserving the best possible spectral
569: resolution \citep{Kelson06}. This involved using the geometric and
570: wavelength mappings and interpolating the spectra to preserve the
571: spectral resolution in the summed spectra. This extraction also
572: serves as an excellent cosmic ray rejection scheme. Variance spectra
573: were computed from the extracted signal and noise spectra. To
574: understand the level of random errors, one-dimensional spectra were
575: also extracted from each image separately (after a separate cosmic-ray
576: cleaning step).
577:
578: Various apertures were used to extract the spectra: apertures with
579: equivalent circular diameters of $2\farcs0$, $2\farcs7$, $3\farcs2$,
580: $3\farcs4$, $3\farcs6$, $3\farcs8$, $4\farcs5$, and a `physical'
581: aperture of \reo{2}\ diameter for all galaxies except GMP 3329 (=NGC
582: 4874). For this galaxy, an aperture of \reo{8}\ diameter was used due
583: its large projected size (note that an aperture of \reo{8}\ is too
584: small to be extracted reliably for many of the galaxies in our sample:
585: for example, $\reo{8}=0\farcs33$ for GMP 3534;
586: Table~\ref{tbl:sample}). These circular-aperture-equivalent
587: extraction apertures were chosen to match closely existing
588: line-strength measurements of these galaxies in the literature (see
589: Appendix~\ref{sec:others}). We use only indexes from the
590: $2\farcs7$-diameter aperture in the analysis in this study, however.
591: At the distance of the Coma Cluster and assuming again
592: $H_0=72\;\kms\mathrm{Mpc^{-1}}$, this corresponds to a physical
593: diameter of 637 pc. We note that the results given here do not change
594: significantly when using the `physical' \reo{2}\ aperture instead of
595: the 2\farcs7 aperture: for example, the mean ages of the LRIS galaxies
596: (ignoring GMP 3329) are $\langle\logt\rangle=0.69\pm0.02$ for the
597: 2\farcs7 aperture and $\langle\logt\rangle=0.67\pm0.02$ for the
598: \reo{2}\ aperture. When comparing other studies to ours in the
599: analysis, we use available gradient information to transform their
600: indexes to an equivalent circular aperture of the same diameter
601: ($2\farcs7$), when possible. We postpone discussion of the gradients
602: in our data to future work.
603:
604: To account for the transformation of the rectangular extraction
605: aperture to an equivalent circular aperture, the extracted spectra
606: were weighted by $|r\,\Delta r|$, where $r$ is the distance from the
607: object centre to the object row being extracted and $\Delta r$ is the
608: pixel width \citep[cf.][]{G93}. Note that the spectra were
609: sub-sampled along the spatial direction during the extraction process
610: to account for the geometric and wavelength distortions, so $\Delta r$
611: was typically less than one in pixel space. The variance spectra were
612: weighted by $|r^2\Delta r|$ in order to preserve the noise properties.
613:
614: \begin{figure}
615: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{coma_spectra2p7.eps}
616: \caption{Spectra of Coma ETGs through a central aperture of diameter
617: $2\farcs7$. Each spectrum has been flux-calibrated and shifted to
618: zero systemic velocity; no smoothing has been applied. The `noise'
619: around 5450 \AA\ is the result of imperfect subtraction of the
620: extremely bright [\mbox{O\,\sc{i}}]$\lambda5577$ night-sky line.
621: The median S/N per $75\,\kms$ pixel in the observed wavelength range
622: 4285--5200 \AA\ is given. See Fig.~\ref{fig:residuals} for an
623: expanded view in the restframe region 4800--5300 \AA.
624: \label{fig:spectra}}
625: \end{figure}
626:
627: In order to remove the instrumental response function from the
628: galaxies, flux standard stars can be used to calibrate the object
629: spectra onto a relative flux scale. As the spectra were taken through
630: clouds, it is not possible to calibrate them to an \emph{absolute}
631: flux scale. However, an absolute flux measurement is unnecessary when
632: our purpose is to measure line-strength indexes, as these are
633: \emph{relative} measurements of the absorption line fluxes with
634: respect to the level of the nearby continuum. The flux standard star
635: BD$+33\degr2642$ \citep{Oke90} was taken through both the longslit
636: setup and slitless at different detector locations through the
637: multislit setup to cover the full wavelength range. The extracted
638: spectrum was first normalised by dividing by the median count level of
639: the spectrum and then smoothed with a wavelet filter to derive a
640: sensitivity curve for each observation of the flux standard. The
641: flux-calibrated spectrum of BD$+33\degr2642$ from \citet{Oke90} was
642: also normalised and smoothed and then divided by the normalised,
643: smoothed LRIS flux standard spectra to create a sensitivity spectrum
644: $\mathcal{F}(\lambda)$. The sensitivity curves derived from slitless
645: spectra taken at the most extreme positions perpendicular to the slit
646: direction (i.e., at the largest wavelength spread) were combined into
647: a single sensitivity spectrum after flat fielding by joining them at a
648: convenient matching point in order to derive a sensitivity curve for
649: the multislit spectra (which covered a larger wavelength span than the
650: longslit spectra). The final fluxed spectra through the central
651: $2\farcs7$-diameter equivalent circular aperture of the twelve
652: galaxies observed are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:spectra}.
653:
654: \subsection{Velocities, velocity dispersions, and line strengths}
655: \label{sec:sigmaindex}
656:
657: To test the predictions made in \S1, we require both the stellar
658: population parameters of ETGs in the Coma cluster and their velocity
659: dispersions. We measure line strengths of the galaxies and compare
660: them with stellar population models such as \citet{W94}. Therefore we
661: must know the systemic velocity of the object to place the bandpasses
662: on the spectra properly and we must know the velocity dispersion of
663: the object \citep[e.g.,][]{G93,TWFBG98} to place line strengths onto
664: the Lick/IDS \emph{stellar} system on which the models are defined
665: (see \S\ref{sec:calibration} and Appendix~\ref{sec:appcal}).
666:
667: \subsubsection{Systemic velocities and velocity dispersions}
668: \label{sec:sigma}
669:
670: We begin with a discussion of the determination of systemic velocities
671: $v$ and velocity dispersions $\sigma$. Following \citet[and earlier
672: work by \citealt{RW92}]{KIvDF00}, we first build a pixel-space model
673: $M$ of the galaxy spectrum $G$ from a stellar or stellar population
674: model template $T$ convolved with a broadening function $B(v,\sigma)$:
675: $M=B(v,\sigma)\circ T$. In its simplest form, we want to minimise the
676: residuals between the galaxy and model $\chi^2=|G-M|^2=|G-B\circ
677: T|^2$. However, as both noise and continuum mismatches (both
678: multiplicative and additive) between the galaxy and model will be
679: present in any practical situation, we instead write
680: \begin{equation}
681: \chi^2=\left|{\left\{G-\left[P_M(B\circ T) +
682: \sum_{j=0}^{K}a_j H_j\right]\right\}\times W}\right| ^2.
683: \end{equation}
684: Here $P_M$ is a multiplicative polynomial used to remove large-scale
685: fluxing differences between the galaxy and template spectra (which
686: here is \emph{not} continuum-subtracted before fitting). In this
687: study, we use a fourth-order Legendre polynomial for $P_M$ to remove
688: the multiplicative continuum mismatch between the galaxy and template.
689: The zeroth order term of $P_M$ is equivalent to $\gamma$, the `line
690: strength parameter', found in the literature \citep{KIvDF00}. The
691: additive continuum mismatch is controlled by the collection of sines
692: and cosines $H_j$ up to order $K$. This is effectively a low-pass
693: filter used to minimise continuum mismatch. We use
694: $K=1.5\Delta\lambda/100\,$\AA\ in the current study, where
695: $\Delta\lambda$ is the wavelength coverage (in the restframe) of the
696: fitting region. $W$ is the pixel-space weight vector, which can be a
697: combination of the variance spectrum and any masking of `bad' regions
698: (e.g., poorly-subtracted strong night sky lines) desired. (Note that
699: we ignore the additive polynomial functions described by
700: \citealt{KIvDF00}.) The coefficients of $P_M$ and $H_j$ as well as
701: the desired quantities $v$ and $\sigma$ are solved for in the fitting
702: process, which is described in detail by \citet{KIvDF00}. Dr.~Kelson
703: has kindly provided us with LOSVD, a Python script that implements
704: this algorithm.
705:
706: For ten galaxies, the K1 giant star HR 6018 proved to be the best
707: velocity dispersion template, as judged by the reduced-$\chi^2$ of the
708: fit. For the galaxies GMP 3534 and GMP 3565, the G0 dwarf HR 6458
709: provided a somewhat better fit. Tests using the \citet{V99} spectral
710: models as templates suggest that the use of an well-matched template
711: never changes the derived velocity dispersion by more than 2 per cent.
712: This is negligible for our purposes of correcting the Lick/IDS line
713: strengths onto the stellar system (below) or for determining
714: correlations of velocity dispersion with stellar population
715: parameters. We fit the galaxy spectra in the observed wavelength
716: region 4285--5200 \AA\ (roughly 4180--5080 \AA\ in the rest frame, and
717: therefore $K=13$), which covers the strong G band feature, H$\gamma$,
718: \hbeta, and many other weaker lines. We do not fit the MgH and
719: \mbox{Mg\,\sc{i}} triplet region at 5100--5300 \AA\ in the rest frame
720: due to the strong but variable continuum depression from the dense
721: forest of MgH lines. In all cases, the template stars were set to
722: zero recessional velocity and derived velocities were corrected to
723: heliocentric velocities.
724:
725: We note that for three galaxies, GMP 3291, GMP 3534, and GMP 3565, the
726: measured velocity dispersions are significantly below the resolution
727: limit of $\sim125\,\kms$ and thus may be significantly in error, even
728: given the high signal-to-noise of the present spectra. Two of these
729: galaxies, GMP 3534 and GMP 3565, were recently observed at
730: $\sim35\,\kms$ resolution by \citet{MG05}, and our measured velocity
731: dispersions match theirs within the $1\sigma$ joint errors for each of
732: these two objects. While this does not guarantee that our velocity
733: dispersion measurement of GMP 3291 is correct, it does suggest that
734: our measurement is not far from the true value (see
735: Appendix~\ref{sec:others} for more detailed comparisons).
736:
737: \subsection{Line strengths on the Lick/IDS system}
738: \label{sec:calibration}
739:
740: Once the systemic velocity of the object is known, the bandpasses can
741: be placed on the spectrum and line strengths can be measured. We give
742: a brief description here and leave a detailed description for
743: Appendix~\ref{sec:appcal}.
744:
745: First, any emission lines in the spectra are corrected using GANDALF
746: \citep{Sarzi06}. These corrections only affect the Fe5015 indexes, as
747: significant \hbeta\ emission is not detected using this procedure in
748: any galaxy, even though significant [O\textsc{iii}] emission is
749: detected in ten of the twelve. We therefore use the uncorrected
750: \hbeta\ strengths throughout this paper; we discuss this further in
751: \S\ref{sec:agecaveats} below. Then the spectra are smoothed to the
752: Lick/IDS resolution, which varies with wavelength \citep{WO97}. Next,
753: the wavelengths of the Lick/IDS index bandpasses are defined using a
754: template star. These bandpasses are then shifted to match the
755: velocity of each object. Corrections for non-zero velocity dispersion
756: are made for each index of each galaxy. Stellar indexes are then
757: compared to those of the same stars in the Lick/IDS stellar library
758: \citep{WFGB94} to determine the offsets required to bring each index
759: onto the Lick/IDS system.
760:
761: \setcounter{table}{1}
762: \begin{table*}
763: \vbox to220mm{\vfil Landscape table to go here
764: \vfil}
765: \caption{}
766: \label{tbl:linestrengths}
767: \end{table*}
768:
769: The fully-corrected (emission-, Lick/IDS system-, and velocity
770: dispersion-corrected) line strengths for the $2\farcs7$-diameter
771: equivalent circular aperture are given in
772: Table~\ref{tbl:linestrengths}. We summarise this subsection (and by
773: extension Appendixes~\ref{sec:appcal} and \ref{sec:others}) by stating
774: that the LRIS data are fully corrected and well-calibrated onto the
775: Lick/IDS system for all indexes of interest to the current study.
776:
777: \subsection{Literature data: Coma and `field' galaxies}
778: \label{sec:literature}
779:
780: We briefly describe other high-quality line strength data of Coma
781: Cluster galaxies available in the literature. A full comparison of
782: these data with our LRIS data is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:others}.
783:
784: \begin{table}
785: \caption{Literature data sources of absorption-line strengths in the
786: Coma Cluster on the Lick/IDS system}
787: \label{tbl:literature}
788: \begin{tabular}{llc}
789: \hline
790: &&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Effective circular}\\
791: Reference&Abbreviation&\multicolumn{1}{c}{aperture diameter}\\
792: \hline
793: \citet{D84}&D84&4\farcs5\\
794: \citet*{FFI95}&FFI&3\farcs2\\
795: \citet{GLCT92}&G92&3\farcs8\\
796: \citet{Hudson02}&H01&2\farcs7\\
797: \citet{J99}&J99&3\farcs4\\
798: \citet{K01}&K01&3\farcs6\\
799: \citet{MG05}&MG05&3\farcs0\\
800: \citet{Mehlert00}&M00&2\farcs7\\
801: \citet{M02}&M02&2\farcs7\\
802: \citet{Nelan05}&NFPS&2\farcs0\\
803: \citet{P01}&P01&2\farcs7\\
804: \citet{SB06a}&SB06&2\farcs7\\
805: \citet{TKBCS99}&T99&2\farcs0\\
806: \citet{TWFBG98};&IDS&2\farcs7\\
807: \quad \citet{LW05}&&\\
808: \hline
809: \end{tabular}
810: \end{table}
811:
812: In Table~\ref{tbl:literature} we list all of the sources of
813: absorption-line strength data calibrated onto the Lick/IDS system (as
814: well as heliocentric velocities and velocity dispersions) for the Coma
815: Cluster that we have found in the literature. For the Lick/IDS (IDS)
816: sample, the higher-order Balmer line strengths of NGC 4864 and NGC
817: 4874 were taken from \citet{LW05}. Most of these line strengths were
818: measured through fibres of various apertures, or in the case of the
819: Lick/IDS sample, a rectangular slit; in those cases where long slit
820: data were obtained, an equivalent circular aperture was synthesised
821: from published gradient data. For the \citet{M02} sample, \hbeta\
822: line strengths were corrected for emission using the equivalent width
823: of the [\mbox{O\,\sc{iii}}]$\lambda5007$ \AA\ line following the
824: procedure detailed in \citet{T00a}; that is, we correct \hbeta\ by
825: adding $-0.6\times\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}$ when [O\textsc{iii}]
826: is in emission (i.e., $\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}<0$). We note
827: that this correction was not made for the \citet{J99},
828: \citet{Mehlert00}, \citet{Nelan05}, or \citet{SB06a} samples, nor even
829: our own LRIS sample; we return this point in \S\ref{sec:downsizing}
830: below. In Table~\ref{tbl:allcoma} in Appendix~\ref{sec:others} we
831: present the line strengths and stellar population parameters for all
832: Coma Cluster galaxies for which line strengths were available in the
833: literature that were taken through or could be synthesised to form a
834: $2\farcs7$-diameter aperture.
835:
836: We also use the samples of \citet[field and Virgo cluster
837: ellipticals]{G93}, \citet*[field and Virgo cluster S0's]{FFI96}, and
838: \citet[Fornax Cluster ETGs]{K00} in our analysis. In each case we
839: computed line strengths through synthesised apertures of diameter
840: $2\farcs7$ \emph{projected to the distance of Coma} using the
841: published gradient data. That is, we measured line strengths through
842: a fixed physical aperture of radius $637\;\mathrm{pc}$ (assuming
843: $H_0=72\;\kms\,\mathrm{Mpc^{-1}}$, as above).We have combined these
844: three samples, excluding ETGs in the Virgo Cluster, to create a
845: low-density environment sample that we refer to as our `field' sample.
846: We can then directly compare the stellar populations of these ETGs in
847: less-dense environments to those of Coma ETGs.
848:
849: \subsection{Galaxy masses and mass-to-light ratios}
850: \label{sec:masses}
851:
852: \begin{table}
853: \caption{Virial $M_{\mathrm{vir}}$ mass-to-light ratios
854: and masses of the LRIS sample galaxies}
855: \label{tbl:masses}
856: \begin{tabular}{lrr}
857: \hline
858: GMP&
859: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log M_{\mathrm{vir}}/L_B$}&
860: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log M_{\mathrm{vir}}$}\\
861: \hline
862: 3254&$0.66\pm0.08$&$10.04\pm0.08$\\
863: 3269&$0.36\pm0.09$&$ 9.86\pm0.09$\\
864: 3291&$0.55\pm0.11$&$10.02\pm0.11$\\
865: 3329&$1.07\pm0.08$&$11.90\pm0.08$\\
866: 3352&$0.44\pm0.08$&$10.49\pm0.08$\\
867: 3367&$0.56\pm0.08$&$10.69\pm0.08$\\
868: 3414&$0.49\pm0.08$&$10.66\pm0.08$\\
869: 3484&$0.37\pm0.08$&$ 9.98\pm0.08$\\
870: 3534&$0.24\pm0.12$&$ 9.52\pm0.12$\\
871: 3565&$0.33\pm0.23$&$ 9.18\pm0.23$\\
872: 3639&$0.41\pm0.08$&$10.56\pm0.08$\\
873: 3664&$0.67\pm0.08$&$10.89\pm0.08$\\
874: \hline
875: \end{tabular}
876: \end{table}
877:
878: We are further interested in the masses and mass-to-light ratios of
879: ETGs in the Coma Cluster to examine the variation of line strengths
880: and stellar population parameters as a function of mass and to probe
881: for complex star-formation histories. We have determined a `virial
882: mass' $M_{\mathrm{vir}}=500\,\sigma_e^2r_e\,\mathrm{M_{\odot}}$
883: \citep{Cappellari06}, where $\sigma_e$ is the light-weighted velocity
884: dispersion within the effective radius in \kms, computed as
885: $\sigma_e=\sigma_{2\farcs7}[r_e(\arcsec)/2\farcs7]^{-0.066}$, and
886: $r_e$ is the effective radius in parsecs derived from \citet[or
887: Table~\ref{tbl:sample} when necessary]{JF94}. The virial
888: mass-to-light $M_{\mathrm{vir}}/L_B$ ratio in the $B$-band is computed
889: from $M_{\mathrm{vir}}$ using $L_B$. We have corrected $B$-band
890: magnitudes for our galaxies from \citet{Eisenhardt07} using
891: $k$-corrections appropriate for a 13 Gyr-old, solar-metallicity SSP
892: \citep{BC03} model\footnote{Using a 4 Gyr-old, solar-metallicity SSP
893: model changes the $k$-corrections by less than $0.02$ mag.} and using
894: extinctions computed using \citet*{SFD98} for the KPNO $B$ filter and
895: finally assumed a distance modulus of 34.94 to the Coma Cluster to
896: determine $L_B$. We do not use the direct scaling of $M/L$ with
897: $\sigma_e$ from \citet[their Eq.~(7)]{Cappellari06}, as the galaxies
898: with the lowest velocity dispersions in our sample have resulting
899: mass-to-light ratios much lower than their stellar populations would
900: suggest, which is unphysical.
901: %We have also computed virial masses for
902: %our field sample using the surface-brightness-fluctuation distances of
903: %\citet{Tonry01} to transform effective radii in arc seconds to parsecs
904: %when possible. When such distances were unavailable, we used
905: %flow-corrected model distances provided by J.~Tonry (1999,
906: %priv.~comm.), suitably adjusted to the system of
907: %\citet{Tonry01}\footnote{Note that these distances and inferred
908: %dynamical masses have been recomputed since Paper II, as those were
909: %based on a pre-publication version of \citet{Tonry01}, which had a
910: %slightly different distance scale than the published version.}.
911:
912: \section{Derivation of stellar population parameters}
913: \label{sec:parammethod}
914:
915: Our methodology for inferring stellar population parameters from
916: absorption-line strengths has changed since \citet{T00a,T00b,TWFD05}
917: due to improvements in the models and to increasing computer
918: speeds\footnote{The SSP-equivalent parameters given in \citet{TWFD05}
919: were based on an earlier version of our models that used the
920: \citet{TB95} response functions as detailed in Paper I. However, the
921: method used for grid inversion is that described in
922: \S\ref{sec:method}. The SSP-equivalent parameters given here
923: supersede those in \citet{TWFD05}.}. We first describe our new models
924: and then the method used to infer SSP-equivalent
925: (single-stellar-population-equivalent) parameters from the observed
926: line strengths. By `SSP-equivalent', we mean that the stellar
927: population parameters we determine are those the object would have
928: \emph{if} formed at a single age with a single chemical composition.
929: As discussed at length in Paper II and in \S\ref{sec:ages}, we do not
930: believe that early-type galaxies are composed of single stellar
931: populations. For convenience and because of the degeneracies
932: discussed in \citet{W94}, Paper II and \citet[among many
933: others]{ST06}, our analysis is however conducted using SSP-equivalent
934: parameters.
935:
936: \subsection{Models}
937: \label{sec:models}
938:
939: In the current paper we follow our past practise and analyse stellar
940: populations with the aid of the \citet{W94} models. We have however
941: improved our previous models and methods in two ways: (1) the
942: treatment of non-solar abundance ratios has been improved, and (2) the
943: `grid inversion' scheme used to infer stellar population parameters in
944: this paper is a significant improvement on our previous scheme.
945:
946: The first major improvement in the method is the improved treatment of
947: the effect of non-solar abundance ratios on the line strengths. In
948: the past, we \citep[hereafter Paper I]{T00a} and others
949: \citep*[e.g.,][hereafter TMB03]{TMB03} used the response functions of
950: \citet{TB95} to account for these effects in the original 21 Lick/IDS
951: indexes \citep{WFGB94}. The \citet{TB95} response functions were
952: computed for only three stars along a 5 Gyr old, solar-metallicity
953: isochrone, leaving some doubt about their applicability to
954: significantly different populations. These were superseded by the
955: response functions of \citet{KMT05}, who used three stars on 5 Gyr
956: isochrones at many different metallicities and also computed the
957: response functions for the higher-order Balmer-line indexes of
958: \citet{WO97}.
959:
960: Recently, Worthey (priv.~comm.) has produced new response functions
961: for non-solar abundance ratios. These are based on newly-computed
962: synthetic spectra of model stellar atmospheres for \emph{all} of the
963: stars in \emph{all} of the isochrones in the `vanilla' W94 (i.e.,
964: using original W94 isochrones) and the `Padova' W94 models (i.e.,
965: using the \citealt{Padova} isochrones). One element at a time is
966: altered in each spectrum, extending the work of \citet{SWB05}. Each
967: new spectrum is subtracted from the synthetic scaled-solar spectrum to
968: compute a response function for each star along the isochrone; these
969: are then summed to alter the model line strengths for each
970: single-stellar-population model. Dr.~Worthey kindly sent us model
971: indexes for an elemental mixture of fixed $\enh=+0.3$ (mixture 4 of
972: Paper I) for the full grids of both the W94 and Padova models.
973: Because of the close similarity of the Padova1994 plus Salpeter IMF
974: version of the \citet[hereafter `BC03']{BC03} models and the Padova
975: W94 models, we can use the deviation of the indexes of the $\enh=+0.3$
976: Padova W94 models from the scaled-solar mixture Padova W94 models to
977: correct the BC03 models for non-solar abundance ratios. We do not
978: give detailed results for stellar populations inferred from the
979: `Padova' W94 and BC03 models in this paper. However, we will point
980: out the ranges in stellar population parameters that result from using
981: different models when necessary, as the entire analysis has been
982: carried out with the Padova W94 and BC03 models in parallel with the
983: vanilla W94 models.
984:
985: \begin{figure*}
986: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{hbmgfe_coma_ap2p7gi_w94newalpha.eps}
987: \caption{Stellar populations of Coma ETGs observed with LRIS in
988: (\hbeta, \mgfe) and (\mgb, \fe) space, where
989: $\mgfe=\sqrt{\mgb\times\fe}$ and
990: $\fe=(\mathrm{Fe5270}+\mathrm{Fe5335})/2$. Line strengths in this
991: figure are measured through the synthesised $2\farcs7$-diameter
992: aperture. Triangles are S0's, squares are ellipticals. Model grids
993: come from the vanilla \citet{W94} models, modified for \enh\ as
994: described in the \S\ref{sec:models}. In both panels, solid lines
995: are isochrones (constant age) and dashed lines are isofers (constant
996: metallicity \z). In the left panels, the models are for solar \enh;
997: models with higher \enh\ have slightly lower \hbeta\ but similar
998: \mgfe. Therefore this an appropriate grid from which to visually
999: assess age and metallicity, although accurate determinations are
1000: made in (\hbeta, \mgb, Fe5270, Fe5335) space (see text). In the
1001: right panel, grids have $\enh=0$, $+0.3$ (upper and lower,
1002: respectively). This is an appropriate diagram from which to
1003: visually asses \enh.
1004: \label{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}}
1005: \end{figure*}
1006:
1007: \begin{figure*}
1008: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{hbmgfe_coma_ap2p7gi_tmb.eps}
1009: \caption{As for Figure~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}, but here the grids
1010: are those of TMB03, as modified using the \afe\ responses of
1011: \citet{KMT05}. Although the inferred metallicities and enhancement
1012: ratios differ in comparison to the models used in the current work,
1013: the ages inferred from the \mgfe--\hbeta\ diagram (left) are very
1014: similar, showing that our preferred model is not the source of the
1015: young average age we find.
1016: \label{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_tmb}}
1017: \end{figure*}
1018:
1019: We show the new models, with our Coma Cluster ETG data superimposed,
1020: in Figure~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}. These new $\enh=+0.3$ grids
1021: fall between the $\enh=+0.3$ and $\enh=+0.5$ grids in, say, \mgb\
1022: \emph{versus} \fe, of older models based on \citet{TB95} or
1023: \citet{KMT05} so that our new results tend to have smaller \enh\ at
1024: high \enh\ than previous studies (compare
1025: Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94} with Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_tmb}).
1026: For the LRIS sample, we find
1027: \begin{eqnarray*}
1028: \logt_{\mathrm{new}}&=&(1.16\pm0.22)\logt_{\mathrm{Paper\ I}}-(0.21\pm0.03)\\
1029: \z_{\mathrm{new}}&=&(1.24\pm0.10)\z_{\mathrm{Paper\ I}}+(0.04\pm0.02)\\
1030: \enh_{\mathrm{new}}&=&(0.87\pm0.08)\enh_{\mathrm{Paper\ I}}+(0.00\pm0.01),\\
1031: \end{eqnarray*}
1032: where the Paper I values were computed using the W94 models and the
1033: \citet{TB95} responses. These relations suggest that, across the
1034: board, our ages are somewhat lower (younger) at all ages,
1035: metallicities are increasingly higher at high \z, and as expected,
1036: enhancement ratios lower at high \enh\ in the new models than in those
1037: presented in Paper I. We also show the models of TMB03 \citep[as
1038: modified using the \afe\ responses of][]{KMT05} and our Coma Cluster
1039: ETG data in Figure~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_tmb} to demonstrate that the
1040: newly-modified W94 models predict \emph{nearly the same ages} as the
1041: TMB03 models, even though they predict lower metallicities and
1042: enhancement ratios\footnote{We have not yet computed stellar
1043: population parameters using the TMB03 models. This is because our
1044: grid-inversion method requires knowing certain internal model
1045: parameters (in particular, the continuum and line fluxes) that are not
1046: available to us in the TMB03 models. We leave such parameter
1047: estimation to future work.}. We use our new models for all comparison
1048: with previous studies. That is, we compute SSP-equivalent parameters
1049: using our present models from the line strengths given in previous
1050: studies when comparisons are made.
1051:
1052: Our method is not self-consistent, as we are manipulating the
1053: atmospheric parameters of the stars of interest and not their interior
1054: parameters, as discussed in Paper I. That is, we are not altering the
1055: isochrones of the \citet{W94} or the \citet{BC03} models to
1056: accommodate changes in \enh\ (or, more generally,
1057: $[X_j/\mathrm{Fe}]$). \citet{PS02} have examined the methodology of
1058: Paper I in light of $\alpha$-enhanced isochrones from the Padova group
1059: \citep{S00}. They note that at high metallicity, the \citet{S00}
1060: isochrones are not significantly changed by increasing \enh\ at fixed
1061: \feh; therefore the isochrones appear to depend on \feh, not \z, as we
1062: have assumed. Proctor \& Sansom therefore choose to enhance
1063: \emph{all} the elements by \enh\ except the Fe-like elements Fe, Ca,
1064: and Cr, which are kept at their original \feh\ level. This is in
1065: contrast to our method described in Paper I, where we assumed that the
1066: isochrones depend on the total metallicity \z, as discussed in \S3.1.2
1067: and \S5.4 in that paper, and thus some elemental abundances are
1068: enhanced and others decreased to keep \z\ in balance. The Proctor \&
1069: Sansom method tends to \emph{increase} the ages of the galaxies with
1070: the highest \enh\ compared with our method -- for galaxies with ages
1071: $\logt\ga0.6$, the increase is $\Delta\logt\sim0.25$ (cf.\ their
1072: Fig.~11) -- but barely affects the other stellar population
1073: parameters. We agree that our assumptions need updating, but we
1074: currently prefer to use our original assumption that isochrone shapes
1075: are governed by \z\ and wait for self-consistent stellar population
1076: models in which indexes and isochrones are corrected for \enh\ in the
1077: same way (see the discussion in TMB03 and attempts by
1078: \citealt*{WPM95}; \citealt{TM03}; \citealt{LW05}; and
1079: \citealt{Schiavon05}). Note moreover the recent suggestion by
1080: \citet{Weiss06} that the \citet{S00} isochrones are untrustworthy
1081: because of errors in the low-temperature opacities; this will
1082: certainly affect the conclusions of \citet{PS02}, \citet{TM03}, and
1083: \citet{Schiavon05}.
1084:
1085: Finally, we have not (yet) corrected the models for the so-called
1086: \afe-bias inherent in the fitting functions (TMB03). This `bias' is
1087: however only strong ($\mathrm{[\alpha/Fe]_{intrinsic}}>0.1$ dex) when
1088: $\feh<-0.33$ dex, uncommon in ETGs. Such a low metallicity is not
1089: seen in the ETGs in LRIS sample (the lowest metallicity is that of GMP
1090: 3565, which has $\z=-0.25$ dex).
1091:
1092: \subsection{Method}
1093: \label{sec:method}
1094:
1095: We have also improved the scheme (`grid inversion') by which line
1096: strengths are fit to models and therefore stellar population
1097: parameters and errors are determined.
1098:
1099: Previously we created large, finely-spaced grids in (\logt, \z, \enh)
1100: space and searched the corresponding (\hbeta, \mgb, \fe) grids using a
1101: minimal-distance statistic to find the best-fitting stellar population
1102: parameters (Paper I). Errors were determined by altering each line
1103: strength by $1\sigma$ in turn and searching the grids again to find
1104: the maximum deviation in each stellar population parameter.
1105:
1106: Given the ever-improving speed and memory of modern computers, such a
1107: method is no longer necessary. We now determine stellar population
1108: parameters directly using a non-linear least-squares code based on the
1109: Levenberg-Marquardt algorithm in which the stellar population models
1110: described above are linearly interpolated in (\logt, \z, \enh) on the
1111: fly. Confidence intervals are computed by taking the dispersion of
1112: stellar population parameters from $10^4$ Monte Carlo trials using the
1113: errors of the observed line strengths (Table~\ref{tbl:linestrengths}),
1114: assuming Gaussian error distributions. At the same time, we have
1115: extended the method from (\hbeta, \mgb, \fe) distributions to any
1116: combination of indexes; for example, determining stellar populations
1117: when \ctwo\ is substituted for \mgb\ or \hda\ for \hbeta. In fact, we
1118: now use Fe5270 and Fe5335 in the fitting process separately rather
1119: than \fe. We display the data in the (\hbeta, \mgfe) and (\mgb, \fe)
1120: planes\footnote{Here $\fe=(\mathrm{Fe5270}+\mathrm{Fe5335})/2$ and
1121: $\mgfe=\sqrt{\mgb\times\fe}$.}, because these planes are respectively
1122: sensitive to age and metallicity (but mostly insensitive to \enh) and
1123: sensitive to \enh\ (e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}; TMB03). We
1124: do \emph{not} determine stellar population parameters from these
1125: planes. We also compute \emph{expected} line strengths and optical
1126: through near-infrared colours (and their errors) based on the computed
1127: stellar population parameters. We have tested this scheme on the
1128: \citet{G93} data presented in Papers I and II and found it to
1129: reproduce very closely the stellar population parameters derived there
1130: when using models similar to those used in those papers.
1131:
1132: \subsection{A check of the models and method}
1133:
1134: As a sanity check of the above changes to the models and method, we
1135: have determined the age, metallicity and enhancement ratio of the
1136: galactic open cluster M67 using the Lick/IDS indexes given by
1137: \citet*{SchiavonM67}. We find $t=4.1\pm0.7$ Gyr, $\z=-0.13\pm0.06$
1138: dex, and $\enh=0.01\pm0.03$ dex (when ignoring blue straggler stars),
1139: in excellent agreement with both the colour-magnitude diagram turnoff
1140: age (3.5 Gyr) and spectroscopic abundances ($\z\approx\enh\approx0$
1141: dex) as well as the model ages and abundances ($t=3.5\pm0.5$ Gyr,
1142: $\z=0.0\pm0.1$ dex, $\mathrm{[Mg/Fe]}=-0.05\pm0.05$) determined by
1143: \citet{SchiavonM67}. We are therefore confident that we can
1144: accurately and precisely recover the stellar population parameters of
1145: intermediate-aged, solar-composition single stellar populations.
1146:
1147: \section{The stellar populations of early-type galaxies in the Coma
1148: Cluster}
1149: \label{sec:results}
1150:
1151: We now explore the resulting stellar population parameters of ETGs in
1152: the Coma Cluster. In the following, except where indicated, the terms
1153: `age' ($t$), `metallicity' (\z), and `enhancement ratio' (\enh) always
1154: refer to the SSP-equivalent parameters.
1155: %To guide our analysis, we
1156: %recall the three predictions for the stellar populations of ETGs from
1157: %\S\ref{sec:introduction}:
1158: %\begin{enumerate}
1159: % \item lower-mass ETGs in all environments have younger stellar
1160: % population ages than high-mass ETGs;
1161: % \item ETGs in high-density environments should be older than those in
1162: % low-density environments; and
1163: % \item massive ETGs in high-density environments should have a small
1164: % stellar population age spread compared with lower-mass ETGs and
1165: % those in lower-density environments.
1166: %\end{enumerate}
1167: We test our three predictions of \S\ref{sec:introduction} using the
1168: stellar population parameters and their correlations with velocity
1169: dispersion and mass.
1170:
1171: \subsection{Line-strength distributions}
1172:
1173: In Figure~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94} we plot the distribution of
1174: \hbeta, \mgb, \fe\ line strengths of our twelve Coma Cluster galaxies.
1175: Before discussing results based on stellar population parameters
1176: determined from the grid inversion, three major points can be read
1177: directly from this diagram. First, these objects span a relatively
1178: narrow range in age (less than a factor of 3, or less than 0.5 in
1179: \logt). At least 8 of the 12 galaxies have \emph{nearly-identical
1180: ages} around 5 Gyr. Note that these ages from this plot will not
1181: precisely agree with the parameters given in
1182: Table~\ref{tbl:lris_parameters} below due to lower \hbeta\ at fixed
1183: age for larger \enh. This means that high-\enh\ galaxies will be
1184: slightly younger when using our age-dating method than ages read
1185: directly from the plot. Second, the galaxies span a large range in
1186: metallicity \z, about 0.5 dex, as can be seen from the left-hand
1187: panel, centred on a value of $\sim1.5$ times the solar value. Third,
1188: the \enh\ ratios vary between the solar value and $+0.15$ dex or so
1189: for the newly-modified W94 models, as can be seen from the right-hand
1190: panel. We note here that differences between models cause subtle
1191: \emph{bulk} changes in age and metallicity, but the overall trends are
1192: not grossly affected by the choice of model.
1193:
1194: \subsection{Stellar population parameter distributions}
1195: \label{sec:parameters}
1196:
1197: %%%%%%%% NOTE: need to adjust line-skip spacing %%%%%%%%
1198: \begin{table}
1199: \caption{SSP-equivalent stellar population parameters of Coma
1200: Cluster galaxies through the 2\farcs7-diameter aperture using
1201: (\hbeta, \mgb, Fe5270, Fe5335)}
1202: \label{tbl:lris_parameters}
1203: \begin{tabular}{lrrrr}
1204: \hline
1205: GMP&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\log(t/\mathrm{Gyr})$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$t$
1206: (Gyr)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\z}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\enh}\\
1207: \hline
1208: 3254&$0.82_{-0.14}^{+0.10}$&$6.6_{-1.9}^{+1.7}$&$0.16_{-0.05}^{+0.07}$&$0.05_{-0.01}^{+0.03}$\\
1209: 3269&$0.96_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$&$9.2_{-1.1}^{+1.2}$&$-0.08_{-0.01}^{+0.04}$&$0.03_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1210: 3291&$0.61_{-0.31}^{+0.17}$&$4.1_{-2.1}^{+2.0}$&$0.07_{-0.10}^{+0.13}$&$0.03_{-0.03}^{+0.04}$\\
1211: 3329&$0.90_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$&$7.9_{-0.7}^{+1.0}$&$0.38_{-0.01}^{+0.04}$&$0.17_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1212: 3352&$0.68_{-0.02}^{+0.04}$&$4.8_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$&$0.36_{-0.02}^{+0.02}$&$0.18_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1213: 3367&$0.66_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$&$4.5_{-0.4}^{+0.4}$&$0.32_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$&$0.19_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1214: 3414&$0.66_{-0.02}^{+0.04}$&$4.5_{-0.2}^{+0.4}$&$0.36_{-0.04}^{+0.04}$&$0.14_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1215: 3484&$0.89_{-0.05}^{+0.08}$&$7.8_{-0.9}^{+1.6}$&$0.07_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$&$0.08_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1216: 3534&$0.66_{-0.07}^{+0.07}$&$4.6_{-0.7}^{+0.8}$&$-0.09_{-0.02}^{+0.05}$&$0.06_{-0.03}^{+0.03}$\\
1217: 3565&$0.70_{-0.22}^{+0.16}$&$5.0_{-2.0}^{+2.2}$&$-0.25_{-0.08}^{+0.17}$&$0.00_{-0.04}^{+0.09}$\\
1218: 3639&$0.48_{-0.02}^{+0.04}$&$3.0_{-0.2}^{+0.3}$&$0.54_{-0.01}^{+0.04}$&$0.20_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1219: 3664&$0.67_{-0.05}^{+0.05}$&$4.7_{-0.5}^{+0.6}$&$0.41_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$&$0.19_{-0.01}^{+0.01}$\\
1220: \hline
1221: \end{tabular}
1222:
1223: Note. -- Errors are 68 per cent confidence intervals marginalised over
1224: the other parameters. Errors are determined from observational
1225: uncertainties only and do not take into account systematic
1226: uncertainties.
1227: \end{table}
1228:
1229: \begin{figure*}
1230: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{tze_prob_hist_w94newalpha.eps}
1231: \caption{The summed and individual probability distributions of
1232: stellar population parameters for galaxies in the centre of the
1233: Coma Cluster, based on the (\hbeta, \mgb, Fe5270, Fe5335) indexes.
1234: Each galaxy's probability distribution in each parameter is shown
1235: in a different colour; the (re-binned) sum is shown in black.
1236: Jagged features in the distributions arise from edge effects in
1237: the models. These summed distributions in these panels can be
1238: thought of as histograms smoothed by the errors in the parameters.
1239: \label{fig:histograms}}
1240: \end{figure*}
1241:
1242: In Table~\ref{tbl:lris_parameters} we present the stellar population
1243: parameters for the twelve Coma Cluster galaxies through the
1244: 2\farcs7-diameter synthesised aperture based on the (\hbeta, \mgb,
1245: Fe5270, Fe5335) indexes. Figure~\ref{fig:histograms} shows the
1246: distribution of stellar population parameters, shown as the
1247: probability distributions of each parameter marginalised over all
1248: other parameters and their sum. Galaxies in this figure are
1249: distributed as expected from Figure~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}.
1250:
1251: Examining these distributions and Table~\ref{tbl:lris_parameters} in
1252: detail, we find that eight to ten of the twelve ETGs in this sample
1253: have nearly the same age. Discarding the two most divergent galaxies
1254: -- GMP 3269 and GMP 3639 -- the mean age of the ten remaining ETGs is
1255: $\mu_{\logt}=0.72\pm0.02$ dex ($5.2\pm0.2$ Gyr). To quantify the age
1256: scatter, we compute a reduced $\chi^2$ for the ETG ages:
1257: \begin{equation}
1258: \chi^2_{\nu} = \frac{1}{N-1}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\left(\frac{\logt_i -
1259: \langle\logt\rangle}{\sigma_i}\right),
1260: \end{equation}
1261: where $\langle\logt\rangle=\mu$ is the weighted mean (logarithmic) age
1262: for the $N=10$ galaxies being considered and the $N-1$ term in the
1263: denominator arises from the fact that the we have computed $\mu$ from
1264: the distribution of $\logt$ itself. We have used the central value
1265: and scale (roughly $\sigma$) of the marginalised age distribution
1266: given by the biweight estimator \citep[see, e.g.,][]{BFG90} to
1267: simplify the calculation. The biweight ages and best-fitting ages are
1268: nearly identical; the biweight scales closely match the half-width of
1269: the (68 per cent) confidence intervals but are assumed to be symmetric
1270: about the biweight age, unlike the confidence intervals. We find a
1271: reduced $\chi^2_{\nu}=2.4$ for the age residuals, or a 1 per cent
1272: chance of being consistent with no age spread (although see below).
1273: To determine the amount of permissible internal age scatter, we
1274: compute $\sigma_{\logt}(\mathrm{int})=\sqrt{V-N\sigma^2_{\mu}}$, where
1275: the sample variance $V=\sum_i (x_i-\mu)^2/(N-1)$. The maximum internal
1276: age scatter is then 0.11 dex (1.3 Gyr). The two deviant ETGs, GMP
1277: 3269 and GMP 3639 are notable for having the largest peculiar motions
1278: of the sample. GMP 3639 has a peculiar motion of
1279: $\approx-2200\,\kms$, more than $2\sigma_{cl}$
1280: [$\sigma_{cl}(\mathrm{Coma})=1021\,\kms$, \citealt{Smith04}] in front
1281: of the cluster, while GMP 3269 has a peculiar motion of
1282: $\approx1000\,\kms$ to the rear of the cluster. If these ETGs are
1283: assumed to be true cluster members, the mean age decreases negligibly
1284: to $\mu_{\logt}=0.71\pm0.02$ dex ($5.1\pm0.2$ Gyr) and the internal
1285: age spread increases to 0.14 dex (1.7 Gyr). We conclude therefore
1286: that ten of the twelve ETGs in this sample have \emph{the same age to
1287: within 1 Gyr} and that including the remaining two (at least one of
1288: which may be an interloper) increases the typical age spread to only
1289: 1.7 Gyr.
1290:
1291: \begin{table*}
1292: \begin{minipage}{178mm}
1293: \caption{Kolmogorov-Smirnov probabilities for single-aged
1294: populations}
1295: \label{tbl:ksprobs}
1296: \begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrrr}
1297: \hline
1298: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\logt$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Age}&
1299: \multicolumn{7}{c}{Sample}\\ \cline{3-9}
1300: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(dex)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&
1301: \multicolumn{1}{c}{LRIS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{J99}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{M00}&
1302: \multicolumn{1}{c}{M02}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{NFPS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{SB06}&
1303: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Field}\\
1304: \hline
1305: 0.1& 1.26&$0.002_{-0.002}^{+0.008}$&&&&&&\\
1306: 0.2& 1.58&&&&&&&\\
1307: 0.3& 2.00&&$0.014_{-0.012}^{+0.032}$&&&&&\\
1308: 0.4& 2.51&&$\mathit{0.253}_{-0.180}^{+0.338}$&&&&&\\
1309: 0.5& 3.16&$0.001_{-0.000}^{+0.002}$&$\mathit{0.499}_{-0.332}^{+0.365}$&$0.002_{-0.002}^{+0.005}$&&&&\\
1310: 0.6& 3.98&$0.011_{-0.008}^{+0.023}$&$0.050_{-0.040}^{+0.116}$&$0.030_{-0.027}^{+0.085}$&&&&\\
1311: 0.7& 5.01&$\mathit{0.614_{-0.365}^{+0.234}}$&$0.001_{-0.001}^{+0.002}$&$\mathit{0.423}_{-0.308}^{+0.260}$&$0.044_{-0.032}^{+0.058}$&&&$0.040_{-0.021}^{+0.037}$\\
1312: 0.8& 6.31&$0.113_{-0.079}^{+0.136}$&&$\mathit{0.652}_{-0.332}^{+0.215}$&$0.006_{-0.005}^{+0.005}$&&$0.001_{-0.001}^{+0.002}$&$0.023_{-0.017}^{+0.026}$\\
1313: 0.9& 7.94&$0.023_{-0.013}^{+0.011}$&&$\mathit{0.399}_{-0.284}^{+0.284}$&&&$0.046_{-0.039}^{+0.069}$&\\
1314: 1.0&10.00&$0.001_{-0.001}^{+0.001}$&&$\mathit{0.126}_{-0.110}^{+0.194}$&&$0.043_{-0.035}^{+0.058}$&$\mathit{0.277}_{-0.162}^{+0.209}$&\\
1315: 1.1&12.59&&&$0.004_{-0.003}^{+0.012}$&&$0.001_{-0.001}^{+0.002}$&$\mathit{0.300}_{-0.185}^{+0.186}$&\\
1316: 1.2&15.85&&&&&&$0.028_{-0.025}^{+0.087}$&\\
1317: \hline
1318: \end{tabular}
1319:
1320: Entries in \emph{italics} are those that are consistent with a
1321: constant age population. Errors are the extrema of the 68 per cent
1322: confidence intervals, determined from 100 realisations at the given
1323: age (see text). Sample names are defined in
1324: Table~\ref{tbl:literature}.
1325: \end{minipage}
1326: \end{table*}
1327:
1328: \begin{figure*}
1329: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{coma_all_sigmalogt.eps}
1330: \caption{The $\log\sigma$--\logt\ distributions for all Coma Cluster
1331: ETG and RSG samples. Top row, from left to right: the LRIS ETG
1332: sample; the \citet{J99} ETG sample; the \citet{Mehlert00} ETG sample
1333: and the \citet{M02} ETG sample. Bottom row, from left to right: the
1334: \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample (Coma Cluster galaxies only); the
1335: \citet{SB06a} ETG sample (Coma Cluster galaxies only); and our field
1336: sample of ETGs. The solid lines in all panels represent the mean
1337: age of the Coma Cluster ETGs after removing the two outliers GMP
1338: 3269 and GMP 3639, and the dashed lines represent the maximum
1339: internal scatter in age permitted by the data. The (red)
1340: dashed-dotted line in the LRIS panel is the mean age of the ETGs
1341: including the outliers, and the (red) dotted lines are the maximum
1342: scatter permitted by all twelve galaxies. The (green) dot-dashed
1343: line in each other panel is the (biweight) mean age of the sample.
1344: Note that many field ETGs are significantly older than the Coma
1345: Cluster ETGs \emph{at all velocity dispersions}; this in itself is
1346: not a contradiction with prediction (ii) \emph{if} the scatter in
1347: the field galaxies is larger at all velocity dispersion than in
1348: clusters. The upper dotted line is the current age of the Universe
1349: \citep[13.7 Gyr,][]{WMAP3} and the upper solid line is the maximum
1350: age of the W94 models (18 Gyr).}
1351: \label{fig:sigmatrels}
1352: \end{figure*}
1353:
1354: In order to test this single age hypothesis, we have performed a Monte
1355: Carlo analysis in which we assume a single age for all of the galaxies
1356: in each sample but allow each galaxy in the sample to have its
1357: measured metallicity and enhancement ratio. We use our models to
1358: predict its line strengths and then perturb these using the
1359: \emph{observed} errors (assuming a normal distribution). We then
1360: measure its \emph{predicted} stellar population parameters. We do
1361: this in total one hundred times for each sample for each assumed age,
1362: in steps of $\Delta\logt=0.1$ dex from 0.1--1.2 dex (1.26--15.8 Gyr).
1363: At each age, we use a Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test to determine
1364: whether the age (and metallicity and enhancement ratio) distributions
1365: of the observed and simulated galaxies are drawn from the same parent
1366: distribution \citep[similar to the approach of][]{Moore01}. We
1367: compute the K-S probability $P_{\mathrm{KS}}$ for each of the 100
1368: realisations at each age and take the average of the central 68 per
1369: cent of the $P_{\mathrm{KS}}$ distribution; we take the extremes of
1370: this central part of the distribution as the confidence limits. We
1371: assume that the null hypothesis, that the two populations are drawn
1372: from the same parent distribution, is strongly ruled out when
1373: $P_{\mathrm{KS}}\leq0.05$ and marginally ruled out when
1374: $0.05<P_{\mathrm{KS}}\leq0.10$; otherwise we assume that the null
1375: hypothesis is valid. Table~\ref{tbl:ksprobs} shows the results of
1376: these tests, and Figure~\ref{fig:sigmatrels} plots the ages as a
1377: function of $\log\sigma$. The results are as follows:
1378: \begin{itemize}
1379: \item Our LRIS sample is completely consistent with a constant age of
1380: $\logt=0.7$ dex and marginally consistent (within the confidence
1381: limits of the K-S probability distribution) with a constant age of
1382: $\logt=0.8$ dex; other mean ages are strongly ruled out.
1383: \item The \citet{J99} sample is completely consistent with a constant
1384: age of $\logt=0.5$ dex and consistent with a constant age of
1385: $\logt=0.4$ dex.
1386: \item The \citet{Mehlert00} sample is completely consistent with
1387: constant ages of $\logt=0.7$, $0.8$, and $0.9$ dex and marginally
1388: consistent with a constant age of $\logt=1.0$ dex (an age of
1389: $\logt=0.6$ is just on the edge of marginal acceptance).
1390: \item The \citet{M02} sample is marginally consistent with a constant
1391: age of $\logt=0.6$ dex. This is in agreement with the findings of
1392: \citet{Moore01}, who found that the \citet{M02} ETG sample was
1393: inconsistent with a constant age when considering the the ellipticals
1394: and S0's taken together; taken separately, however, the ellipticals
1395: and S0's were each consistent with a different constant age. We have
1396: tested this hypothesis and find that \emph{both} the elliptical and S0
1397: galaxies in \citet{M02} are consistent with constant ages of
1398: $\logt=0.7$ or 0.8 dex, and the ellipticals are marginally consistent
1399: with a constant age of $\logt=0.9$ dex. The K-S probabilities suggest
1400: that the S0's are slightly younger (higher probability at $\logt=0.7$
1401: dex than at 0.8 dex) than the ellipticals (higher probability at
1402: $\logt=0.8$ dex than at 0.7 dex). Note however that we have ignored
1403: transition morphologies such as E/S0, S0/E, and S0/a, as well as a few
1404: later-type galaxies in these tests.
1405: \item The \citet{Nelan05} sample is at best marginally consistent with a
1406: constant age of $\logt=1.0$ dex.
1407: \item The \citet{SB06a} sample is consistent with constant ages of
1408: $\logt=1.0$ and $1.1$ dex and marginally consistent with with constant
1409: ages of $\logt=0.9$ and $1.2$ dex. This mean age deviates from all
1410: other Coma ETG samples. We return to this point in
1411: \S\ref{sec:agescatter} below.
1412: \item Finally, our field sample is marginally consistent with a
1413: constant age of $\logt=0.7$ dex, but only at the extreme end of the 68
1414: per cent confidence interval (as expected from Paper II). The average
1415: age of this sample is $\mu_{\logt}=0.70\pm0.01$ dex ($5.0\pm0.1$ Gyr),
1416: with a sizable scatter of 0.29 dex (3.3 Gyr) rms. This is
1417: \emph{identical} within the formal errors to the mean age of the LRIS
1418: galaxies.
1419: \end{itemize}
1420:
1421: We have examined the ages of our field sample (\S\ref{sec:literature})
1422: in order to understand our result in the context of prediction (ii),
1423: that ETGs in high-density environments should be older than those in
1424: low-density environments. The SSP-equivalent ages of the Coma Cluster
1425: and field ETGs and the typical ages and intrinsic age scatter of the
1426: Coma Cluster ETGs are shown as a function of velocity dispersion in
1427: Figure~\ref{fig:sigmatrels}. This then is our first major result:
1428: Coma ETGs (in our small but extremely high-quality sample) are (i)
1429: (nearly) \emph{coeval} in their SSP-equivalent ages and (ii) are
1430: identical in age to the field ETGs. In terms of our predictions, Coma
1431: ETGs appear to violate predictions (i), that lower-mass ETGs have
1432: younger stellar populations that high-mass ETGs, and (ii), that ETGs
1433: in high-density environments are older than those in low-density
1434: environments.
1435:
1436: \begin{figure}
1437: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{agescatter_moore.eps}
1438: \caption{The estimated intrinsic logarithmic scatter as a function
1439: of velocity dispersion ($\sigma$) in the Coma Cluster ETG sample of
1440: \citet[solid squares]{M02} and our field galaxy sample (see text;
1441: open circles). Galaxies were binned in $\log\sigma$ such that each
1442: bin had an equal number of galaxies in the \citet{M02} sample (12
1443: galaxies per bin), except the bin with the highest $\sigma$, which
1444: had only two galaxies. Ignoring this bin, it is clear that the
1445: intrinsic age scatter in this sample increases with decreasing
1446: velocity dispersion. The field sample was binned into the same bins
1447: in $\sigma$ as the Coma sample, and the point size of each bin
1448: represents the number of field galaxies in that bin. It is
1449: important to remember that the field sample is \emph{not} complete
1450: and is particularly missing galaxies at $\sigma<100\,\kms$, and some
1451: bins are completely empty. Even so, it appears that the intrinsic
1452: age scatter in the field galaxies at high $\sigma$ is typically
1453: slightly higher than that of the Coma galaxies.}
1454: \label{fig:agescatter}
1455: \end{figure}
1456:
1457: Our LRIS sample is too small to determine the age scatter as a
1458: function of mass, so it is difficult to say whether prediction (iii),
1459: that high-mass ETGs have a smaller age spread than low-mass ETGs, is
1460: violated or not; all we can say is that the intrinsic in our
1461: \emph{entire} sample is small. However, the \citet{M02} sample is
1462: large enough to make this test, as it contains 121 galaxies with
1463: usable stellar population parameters. We have binned these galaxies
1464: in velocity dispersion and determined the intrinsic scatter as
1465: described above; the results are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:agescatter}.
1466: It is clear that the internal scatter tends to increase with
1467: decreasing velocity dispersion (except in the highest velocity
1468: dispersion bin, where only two galaxies contribute). Such an increase
1469: in the scatter in stellar population age with decreasing velocity
1470: dispersion has been reported previously by \citet{P01}, although their
1471: data were not as high quality as that of \citet[see
1472: Appendix~\ref{sec:others}]{M02}. We therefore suggest that the
1473: stellar populations of ETGs in the Coma Cluster are consistent with
1474: prediction (iii), in agreement with previous results. We find
1475: additionally that the field sample, at least for $\sigma>100\,\kms$,
1476: where this sample may be representative (if not complete) has
1477: typically a slightly larger intrinsic age scatter at a given velocity
1478: dispersion. This further supports prediction (iii), but the
1479: difference is not large.
1480:
1481: \subsubsection{Caveats on stellar population ages}
1482: \label{sec:agecaveats}
1483:
1484: We have considered the possibility that our line strengths may be
1485: systematically too high in \hbeta, \mgb, Fe5270, and Fe5335. We
1486: tested the effects on the inferred stellar population parameters of
1487: offsets of $\Delta\hbeta=-0.056$ \AA, $\Delta\mgb=-0.139$ \AA,
1488: $\Delta\mathrm{Fe5270}=-0.090$ \AA, and $\Delta\mathrm{Fe5335}=-0.091$
1489: \AA\ -- the root-mean-square deviations of calibrations onto the
1490: Lick/IDS system (Table~\ref{tbl:calib}). These are the maximum
1491: allowable systematic shifts we can reasonably apply to our data, and
1492: are larger than the average differences with respect to other
1493: measurements in the literature (Table~\ref{tbl:comparisons}), except
1494: for Fe5335. We find that our LRIS galaxies are older by
1495: $\Delta\logt=0.16\pm0.02$ dex and more metal-poor by
1496: $\Delta\z=-0.12\pm0.02$ dex (with negligible change in \enh). This
1497: age shift translates into a mean age for the entire LRIS sample of
1498: $\mu_{\logt}=0.88\pm0.02$ dex ($7.5\pm0.3$ Gyr). If we require an
1499: average age of 10 Gyr for this sample, an offset of
1500: $\Delta\hbeta=-0.2$ \AA\ (with no other index changes) is required for
1501: each galaxy, or nearly four times the Lick/IDS calibration
1502: uncertainties. We believe that this large shift is unlikely, and we
1503: can therefore accept a maximum average age of roughly 7--8 Gyr for
1504: this sample.
1505:
1506: As mentioned in \S\ref{sec:calibration} above, we have \emph{not}
1507: applied corrections for emission-line fill-in of \hbeta\ in our LRIS
1508: line strengths. We warn the reader that this means that our age
1509: estimates are \emph{upper limits}. Normal weak-lined red-sequence
1510: ellipticals are nearly always LINERS, in which case we expect
1511: $\mathrm{EW(\hbeta)}=0.62\times\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}$ on
1512: average, with little scatter \citep*[e.g.,][]{HFS97,T00a,Yan06}.
1513: Therefore our detection of [O\textsc{iii}] emission in most of our
1514: sample means that undetected \hbeta\ emission is filling in our
1515: \hbeta\ absorption lines in those galaxies, making them appear older
1516: than they truly are. We have made a simple attempt to make such a
1517: correction for fill-in using the correction quoted above and find that
1518: the mean age of our twelve galaxies is $\mu_{\logt}=0.618\pm0.018$ dex
1519: ($4.1\pm0.1$ Gyr). This is younger than that inferred above, as
1520: expected. This would actually make the Coma ETGs \emph{younger} than
1521: the field ETGs, seriously violating prediction (ii).
1522:
1523: Stellar population model differences can also affect the determination
1524: of stellar population parameters. The standard deviation of mean ages
1525: for the vanilla W94, Padova W94, and BC03 models modified as described
1526: in \S\ref{sec:method} is 28 per cent for the current sample, in the
1527: sense that the Padova W94 models give younger ages
1528: ($\langle\logt\rangle=0.59\pm0.01$) than the vanilla W94 models
1529: ($\langle\logt\rangle=0.71\pm0.02$), which in turn give younger ages
1530: than the BC03 models ($\langle\logt\rangle=0.81\pm0.01$). Comparison
1531: of Figures~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94} and \ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_tmb}
1532: shows that the ages from the vanilla W94 models and TMB03 should in
1533: principle be very similar. Further, as discussed in
1534: \S\ref{sec:models}, it possible that our models may be underestimating
1535: ages by as much as $\Delta\logt=0.25$ dex for $\logt\ga0.6$ dex due to
1536: incorrect treatment of abundance ratio effects \citep{PS02}, but the
1537: true magnitude of this correction awaits the next generation of
1538: stellar population models.
1539:
1540: Calibration, emission fill-in correction, and model differences may
1541: drive differences in the \emph{absolute} stellar population
1542: parameters, but as shown by many previous studies (e.g., Paper I),
1543: \emph{relative} stellar population parameters are nearly insensitive
1544: to changes in the overall calibration, emission corrections, or
1545: stellar population model. We therefore believe that the
1546: \emph{uniformity of ages} of our Coma ETG sample and their
1547: \emph{similarity in ages} when compared with field ETGs are robust
1548: results.
1549:
1550: \subsection{Correlations of stellar population parameters with
1551: each other and with velocity dispersion and mass}
1552: \label{sec:correlations}
1553:
1554: We now ask whether there are trends in the stellar population
1555: parameters as a function of other stellar population parameters or
1556: with other parameters such as velocity dispersion or mass. The latter
1557: correlations -- if they exist -- are relevant to prediction (i), the
1558: downsizing of the stellar populations of ETGs.
1559:
1560: \subsubsection{The $Z$-plane and the \enh--$\sigma$ relation}
1561: \label{sec:zplane}
1562:
1563: \begin{table*}
1564: \begin{minipage}{178mm}
1565: \caption{$Z$-plane and \enh--$\sigma$ relation parameters for ETGs
1566: through an aperture of 2\farcs7 projected to the distance of the
1567: Coma Cluster, using new W94 models}
1568: \label{tbl:hyperplane}
1569: \begin{tabular}{llrrrr}
1570: \hline
1571: &\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\alpha$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\beta$}&
1572: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\gamma$, Zero-point}&
1573: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\delta$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\epsilon$, Zero-point}\\
1574: Data set&
1575: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$d\z/d\log\sigma$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$d\z/d\logt$}&
1576: \multicolumn{1}{c}{($Z$-plane)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$d\enh/d\log\sigma$}&
1577: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(\enh--$\sigma$)}\\
1578: \hline
1579: \multicolumn{6}{l}{Low-density environment ETG samples:}\\
1580: \quad Paper II$^\mathrm{a}$&$0.76\pm0.13$&$-0.73\pm0.06$&$-0.87\pm0.30$&$0.33\pm0.01$&$-0.58\pm0.01$\\
1581: \quad Paper II$^\mathrm{b}$&$1.05\pm0.06$&$-0.71\pm0.05$&$-1.51\pm0.15$&$0.25\pm0.02$&$-0.41\pm0.01$\\
1582: \quad Field$^\mathrm{c}$&$1.19\pm0.07$&$-0.72\pm0.05$&$-1.85\pm0.17$&$0.24\pm0.01$&$-0.40\pm0.01$\\
1583: \multicolumn{6}{l}{Coma Cluster ETG and RSG samples:}\\
1584: \quad LRIS&$0.97\pm0.12$&$-0.78\pm0.12$&$-1.26\pm0.31$&$0.35\pm0.03$&$-0.64\pm0.01$\\
1585: \quad \citet{J99}&$1.38\pm0.21$&$-0.94\pm0.07$&$-2.09\pm0.46$&$0.30\pm0.04$&$-0.51\pm0.01$\\
1586: \quad \citet{Mehlert00}&$1.39\pm0.31$&$-0.79\pm0.08$&$-2.34\pm0.78$&$0.32\pm0.07$&$-0.57\pm0.01$\\
1587: \quad \citet{M02}&$1.12\pm0.09$&$-0.81\pm0.04$&$-1.58\pm0.19$&$0.33\pm0.02$&$-0.56\pm0.01$\\
1588: \quad \citet{SB06a}$^\mathrm{d}$&$0.94\pm0.12$&$-0.88\pm0.12$&$-1.14\pm0.34$&$0.21\pm0.04$&$-0.36\pm0.01$\\
1589: \quad \citet{Nelan05}$^\mathrm{d}$&$1.23\pm0.14$&$-0.96\pm0.08$&$-1.80\pm0.28$&$0.31\pm0.02$&$-0.56\pm0.01$\\
1590: \hline
1591: \end{tabular}
1592:
1593: $^\mathrm{a}$As published in Paper II. These parameters were not
1594: measured from indexes projected to Coma distance but those in
1595: \reo{8}-diameter aperture and were also inferred from original
1596: vanilla W94 models using the \citet{TB95} non-solar abundance
1597: index response functions.
1598:
1599: $^\mathrm{b}$Using vanilla W94 models with new non-solar abundance index
1600: response functions, as described in the text.
1601:
1602: $^\mathrm{c}$Galaxies from \citet{G93}, \citet{K00}, and
1603: \citet{FFI96}, excluding Virgo Cluster galaxies to simulate a
1604: `low-density environment' sample, as described in
1605: \S\ref{sec:literature}.
1606:
1607: $^\mathrm{d}$Coma Cluster galaxies only.
1608: \end{minipage}
1609: \end{table*}
1610:
1611: The stellar population parameters \logt, \z, and \enh\ together with
1612: the velocity dispersion $\log\sigma$ form a two-dimensional family in
1613: these four variables, as shown in Paper II for elliptical galaxies in
1614: environments of lower density than Coma (including the Virgo and
1615: Fornax clusters). The correlation between age and velocity dispersion
1616: in that sample was weak and therefore we associated the two primary
1617: variables in the four-dimensional space with age and velocity
1618: dispersion in Paper II. This association is tantamount to declaring
1619: that there exists a temporal relation between SSP-equivalent age and
1620: metallicity and also that velocity dispersion plays a role in the
1621: formation of ETGs. We also associate age and velocity dispersion with
1622: the primary variables in this set of galaxies, as we find no
1623: correlation between age and velocity dispersion in the present sample.
1624: As in Paper II, we find at best a weak anti-correlation between \logt\
1625: and \enh\ (correlation coefficient of $-0.51$ for the LRIS sample), so
1626: we claim again that the variation in stellar population parameters can
1627: be split into an \enh--$\sigma$ relation and a metallicity hyperplane,
1628: the $Z$-plane. The $Z$-plane has the form
1629: \begin{equation}
1630: \z=\alpha\log\sigma+\beta\logt+\gamma \label{eq:zplane}
1631: \end{equation}
1632: Coefficients of Eq.~\ref{eq:zplane} are given in the first three
1633: columns of Table~\ref{tbl:hyperplane} for the original sample of Paper
1634: II using the models described therein; the sample of Paper II using
1635: the current vanilla W94 models; a sample consisting of local field E
1636: and S0's from \citet{G93}, \citet{FFI96}, and \citet{K00}, removing
1637: the Virgo Cluster galaxies; the LRIS sample; and five other samples of
1638: Coma Cluster galaxies: \citet{J99}, \citet{Mehlert00}, \citet{M02},
1639: \citet[Coma Cluster galaxies only]{Nelan05}, and \citet[Coma Cluster
1640: galaxies only]{SB06a}. Coefficients were determined by minimising the
1641: minimum absolute deviations from a plane (after subtracting the mean
1642: values of each quantity), as described in \citet{JFK96} and used in
1643: Paper II. Uncertainties were determined by making 1000 Monte Carlo
1644: realisations in which the the line strength indexes of the galaxies
1645: were perturbed using their (Gaussian) errors, stellar population
1646: parameters were determined from the new indexes, and new planes were
1647: fit to these parameters. We find from these realisations that the
1648: slopes $\alpha$ ($=d\z/d\log\sigma$) and $\beta$ ($=d\z/d\logt$) are
1649: nearly uncorrelated with each other, but the zero-point $\gamma$ is
1650: strongly correlated with $\alpha$ and somewhat less with $\beta$.
1651:
1652: \begin{figure*}
1653: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{tzs_plane_coma_w94.eps}
1654: \caption{Two views of the $Z$-plane (Paper II) for the LRIS
1655: galaxies. Left: the \logt--\z\ projection (roughly face-on).
1656: Contours are 68 per cent confidence intervals of the stellar
1657: population parameters, marginalised over \enh. The solid lines
1658: are lines of constant velocity dispersion $\sigma$ (from bottom to
1659: top: 50, 150, 250, 350 \kms). Right: the (long-) edge-on
1660: projection, showing the thinness of the plane. \label{fig:zplane}}
1661: \end{figure*}
1662:
1663: Figure~\ref{fig:zplane} shows a roughly face-on view of the $Z$-plane
1664: -- the \logt--\z\ projection -- and the long edge-on view. The
1665: face-on view shows that there exists an \emph{age--metallicity
1666: relation} for each value of $\sigma$, as shown in Paper II. We have
1667: argued in Paper II that the age--metallicity relation at fixed
1668: $\sigma$ in field samples is not a result of correlated errors in the
1669: age--metallicity plane, as the variations in ages and metallicities
1670: are many times larger than the (correlated) errors (see, e.g., right
1671: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:allzplanes} below). It is possible that
1672: correlated errors may bias the \emph{slope} of the plane, but the
1673: existence of the plane is not driven by the correlated errors. In the
1674: current dataset, this age--metallicity relation is not strong, as the
1675: dispersion in age is very small for these galaxies, as shown above.
1676: The existence of an age--metallicity relation at fixed $\sigma$ with a
1677: slope $d\z/d\logt\sim-2/3$ means that (optical) colours and metal-line
1678: strengths should be nearly constant at a given velocity dispersion,
1679: following the `Worthey 3/2 rule' \citep{W94}. This results in thin
1680: Mg--$\sigma$ (as show in Paper II) and colour--magnitude relations.
1681: The thinness of the $Z$-plane (that is, the scatter perpendicular to
1682: the plane) suggests that age and velocity dispersion `conspire' to
1683: preserve the thinness of such relations, which are nearly -- but not
1684: quite \citep[Paper II;][]{TMBO05,Gallazzi06} -- edge-on projections of
1685: the $Z$-plane.
1686:
1687: \begin{figure*}
1688: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{sigma_rels_horiz_w94.eps}
1689: \caption{Correlations of stellar population parameters with velocity
1690: dispersion $\sigma$. From left to right: $\log\sigma$--\logt;
1691: $\log\sigma$--\z; $\log\sigma$--\enh. In all panels, green
1692: short-dashed lines are the inferred $\log\sigma$--stellar
1693: population parameter relations of \citet{Nelan05}, zero-pointed to
1694: the LRIS stellar population parameters, and red long-dashed lines
1695: are those inferred from the LRIS index strengths following the
1696: precepts of \citet{Nelan05}. In the left panel, the red dotted
1697: lines are the predictions of the $Z$-plane for populations with
1698: $\z=0$, $+0.3$ (close to the mean metallicity of this sample), and
1699: $+0.6$. In the middle panel, the three red dotted lines are the
1700: predictions of the $Z$-plane for populations of 5, 10, and 15 Gyr
1701: from top to bottom. \label{fig:sigmarels}}
1702: \end{figure*}
1703:
1704: In Figure~\ref{fig:sigmarels} we plot the stellar population
1705: parameters as a function of the velocity dispersion, which are just
1706: projections of the $Z$-plane and the $\enh$--$\sigma$ relation. We
1707: find both a strong $\log\sigma$--\z\ relation (with a correlation
1708: coefficient of $0.91$; middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmarels}) and a
1709: strong $\log\sigma$--\enh\ relation (with a correlation coefficient of
1710: $0.88$; right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmarels}), but we see \emph{no}
1711: $\log\sigma$--\logt\ correlation (correlation coefficient of $0.01$;
1712: left panel of \ref{fig:sigmarels}), as expected from our discussion in
1713: \S\ref{sec:parameters}. The latter result is again in contradiction
1714: of our prediction (i) for the stellar populations of ETGs, suggesting
1715: that there is apparently \emph{no} downsizing in Coma Cluster ETGs.
1716:
1717: The $\log\sigma$--\z\ correlation is just the mass--metallicity
1718: relation for ETGs \citep{Faber73,Faber77}. The distribution of
1719: galaxies in the face-on (\logt--\z) projection of the $Z$-plane (left
1720: panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:zplane}) makes it clear why a strong
1721: mass--metallicity relation exists for the LRIS sample of Coma Cluster
1722: galaxies: the galaxies have nearly a single age, so the dispersion in
1723: metallicity \z\ translates into a velocity dispersion--metallicity
1724: sequence (which is related to a mass--metallicity relation through the
1725: virial relation $M\propto\sigma^2r_e$). This can be seen from the
1726: $\log\sigma$--\z\ relations predicted from the $Z$-plane (dotted line
1727: in the middle panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:sigmarels}). This is not the
1728: case in samples that have large dispersions in age, like that of Paper
1729: II, because galaxies in these samples have anti-correlated age and
1730: metallicity at fixed velocity dispersion, which erases the observed
1731: mass--metallicity relation\footnote{We note in passing that if a
1732: sample had a very narrow range in metallicity, the $Z$-plane would
1733: require that the galaxies would have a strong age--$\sigma$ relation
1734: if and only if the sample had a strong Mg--$\sigma$ relation (and, of
1735: course, a colour--magnitude relation).}. That there is such a strong
1736: velocity dispersion--metallicity relation in the LRIS sample is
1737: further evidence that there is at best a weak velocity dispersion--age
1738: relation.
1739:
1740: The $\log\sigma$--\enh\ correlation was discovered by \citet{WFG92}
1741: and called the \enh--$\sigma$ relation by Paper II, who found a
1742: relation of the form
1743: \begin{equation}
1744: \enh=\delta\log\sigma+\epsilon. \label{eq:enhsigma}
1745: \end{equation}
1746: The last two columns of Table~\ref{tbl:hyperplane} give the
1747: coefficients of Eq.~\ref{eq:enhsigma} for the samples considered here.
1748: A slope of $\alpha=0.41$ is found for the LRIS galaxies. This value
1749: is roughly consistent with the relations given by Paper II and
1750: \citet{TMBO05}, which were based on models with different
1751: prescriptions for correcting line strengths for \enh. We note that
1752: the right panels of Figures~\ref{fig:histograms} and
1753: \ref{fig:sigmarels} suggest that the distribution of \enh\ in the LRIS
1754: sample may be bimodal, but this is likely to be an effect of the small
1755: sample size.
1756:
1757: We discuss the origin of both of the $Z$-plane and \enh--$\sigma$
1758: relation in \S\ref{sec:zplaneorigin}.
1759:
1760: \subsubsection{Velocity dispersion-- and mass--stellar population
1761: correlations}
1762: \label{sec:msigmaparams}
1763:
1764: In Figure~\ref{fig:sigmatrels} we show the distributions of $\logt$ as
1765: a function of $\log\sigma$ for all of the Coma Cluster samples at our
1766: disposal. We have fit linear relations to these parameters (not
1767: shown) using the routine FITEXY from \citet{NumRec}, which takes into
1768: account errors in both dimensions. In all samples except the
1769: \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample, we find \emph{negative} correlations
1770: between age and velocity dispersion, violating prediction (i) for the
1771: ages of ETGs in Coma.
1772:
1773: Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine the slopes of relations
1774: such as $\log\sigma$--\logt\ for samples with large scatter in the
1775: stellar population parameters from directly fitting the results of
1776: grid inversion, either due to intrinsic scatter or just very uncertain
1777: measurements. We have therefore also implemented two other methods
1778: for determining the slopes of $\log\sigma$--, $\log M_*$--, and $\log
1779: M_{\mathrm{dyn}}$--stellar population parameter relations. The first
1780: is the `differential' method described by \citet{Nelan05}. The second
1781: (`grid inversion') method is very similar to the `Monte Carlo' method
1782: of \citet{TMBO05}, although our implementation is somewhat different:
1783: (a) we use a full non-linear least-squares $\chi^2$-minimisation
1784: routine (Thomas et al.\ fit `by eye'); (b) we do not attempt to
1785: account for extra scatter in the relations; and (c) we do not attempt
1786: to fit two-component (old plus young) population models to outliers.
1787: Our inferred slopes for the \citet{TMBO05} high-density sample match
1788: their results closely, giving us confidence that our method is at
1789: least similar to theirs. We find no significant positive $\sigma$--
1790: or mass--age relation for any Coma Cluster ETG sample in either
1791: method. Only the \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample has a significantly
1792: ($>2\sigma$) positive slope in this relation.
1793:
1794: These relations imply three important results. (1) RSGs in nearby
1795: clusters -- here represented by the \citet{Nelan05} samples, including
1796: the Coma Cluster itself -- have a strong age--$\sigma$ relation, such
1797: that low-$\sigma$ or low-mass galaxies have younger ages than
1798: high-$\sigma$ or high-mass galaxies, as pointed out by
1799: \citet{Nelan05}. (2) Taken together, samples of ETGs in the Coma
1800: Cluster show no significant age--$\sigma$ or age--mass relation. (3)
1801: ETGs in the field show an age--$\sigma$ relation as strong as the Coma
1802: Cluster RSG sample of \citet{Nelan05}. Results (1) and (2) are
1803: apparently contradictory -- why should RSGs show a strong
1804: age--$\sigma$ relation while ETGs show no such relation? In advance
1805: of a full discussion in \S\ref{sec:downsizing}, a difference in
1806: emission-line corrections between the \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample and
1807: the ETGs sample is likely to be the cause, \emph{not} a real
1808: age--$\sigma$ relation in the RSGs. We are therefore again faced with
1809: the conclusion that prediction (i), the downsizing of the stellar
1810: population ages of ETGs, is apparently violated in the Coma Cluster.
1811:
1812: \section{Discussion}
1813: \label{sec:discussion}
1814:
1815: In \S\ref{sec:introduction} we made three predictions for the stellar
1816: populations of ETGs -- early-type galaxies, galaxies morphologically
1817: classified as elliptical or S0 -- in high-density environments: (i)
1818: low-mass ETGs in all environments are younger than high-mass ETGs (a
1819: prediction that we have called downsizing in this work); (ii) ETGs in
1820: high-density environments are older than those in low-density
1821: environments; and (iii) massive ETGs in high-density environments have
1822: a smaller spread in stellar population age than lower-mass ETGs and
1823: those in lower-density environments. We recall that our predictions
1824: are based on associating ETGs -- early-type galaxies, galaxies
1825: selected to have elliptical and S0 morphologies -- with RSGs --
1826: red-sequence galaxies, galaxies selected by colour to be on the red
1827: sequence -- and using the results of high-redshift observations and
1828: the predictions of semi-analytic models of galaxy formation.
1829:
1830: We found in \S\ref{sec:results} that ETGs in the Coma Cluster have a
1831: mean age of 5--7 Gyrs (including line-strength index calibration
1832: uncertainties but not model uncertainties) and appear to be drawn from
1833: a single-aged population. Further, the age scatter decreases with
1834: increasing mass. Finally, while we do find a $Z$-plane for Coma
1835: Cluster ETGs and RSGs, we find no evidence of an age--$\sigma$ or
1836: age--mass relation for the ETGs. Therefore ETGs in the Coma Cluster
1837: appear to follow prediction (iii) and (perhaps) prediction (ii) but
1838: violate prediction (i). In this section, we discuss first what we
1839: mean by `age' for old stellar populations, then discuss why we appear
1840: to disagree with previous studies that found downsizing in
1841: high-density environments, what the mean SSP-equivalent age of the
1842: Coma Cluster ETGs implies for their formation, and finally speculate
1843: about the origin of the $Z$-plane, and mass--metallicity and
1844: \enh--$\sigma$ relations.
1845:
1846: \subsection{What are we measuring?}
1847: \label{sec:ages}
1848:
1849: A worry with stellar population analysis of non-star-forming galaxies
1850: based on their Balmer-line strengths has long been that these lines
1851: reflect not younger (intermediate-aged) main-sequence turn-off stars
1852: but some other hot population, such as blue stragglers
1853: \citep[e.g.,][Paper I]{Rose85,Rose94} or blue horizontal branch stars
1854: \citep[e.g., \citealt{BFGK84}; Paper I;][and references
1855: therein]{MT00,TWFD05}. Such populations have Balmer-line strengths
1856: comparable or stronger than intermediate-aged main-sequence turn-off
1857: stars and should significantly alter the observed `ages' if present in
1858: large enough (in luminosity-weighted terms) numbers. \citet{TWFD05}
1859: showed in detail that blue horizontal-branch stars actually affect
1860: inferred \emph{metallicities} more than \emph{ages}, based on
1861: observations of blue absorption lines in the present sample.
1862: Intermediate-aged populations are therefore still required for the
1863: LRIS sample. Thus we believe that our age estimates are not affected
1864: by hot blue stars that are \emph{not} intermediate-aged main-sequence
1865: turn-off stars.
1866:
1867: \begin{figure}
1868: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{m2lb_virssp.eps}
1869: \caption{The virial mass-to-light ratios in the $B$-band of our LRIS
1870: sample ETGs as a function of the stellar mass-to-light ratios as
1871: determined from the best-fitting SSP models. The W94 models are
1872: computed using a \citet{Salpeter55} IMF, represented by the solid
1873: (one-to-one) line. Using the \citet{Kroupa01} IMF decreases the SSP
1874: model mass-to-light ratios by $\sim30$ per cent
1875: \citep[$\Delta\log(M/L)\sim-0.16$,][]{Cappellari06}, as shown by the
1876: dotted line. The arrows represent the effect of different star
1877: formation histories on the mass-to-light ratios: B1 and B2 are
1878: bursts occurring 1 and 2 Gyr ago on top of a 12.3 Gyr-old population,
1879: resulting in $t_SSP=5$ Gyr; Q$_c$ and Q$_m$ are quenching models
1880: with the same $t_SSP=5$ Gyr. All of the arrows have the same
1881: starting location and so have lengths
1882: $\mathrm{Q}_c>\mathrm{Q}_m>\mathrm{B}1>\mathrm{B}2$. We note that
1883: if all the galaxies have a Kroupa IMF and also contain 30 per cent
1884: of their mass in dark matter within the 2\farcs7 aperture used to
1885: measure the line-strengths, they should lie on the Salpeter IMF
1886: line.}
1887: \label{fig:m2l}
1888: \end{figure}
1889:
1890: However, it must always be remembered that the ages, metallicities,
1891: and enhancement ratios we measure with our methods are
1892: \emph{SSP-equivalent} parameters. We first ask if it is possible that
1893: the galaxies can in fact be the single stellar populations we have
1894: assumed in our modelling. A simple test of this model is to ask
1895: whether we can reproduce the virial mass-to-light ratios derived in
1896: \S\ref{sec:masses} using SSP models. We compare the inferred stellar
1897: $M/L$ ratios with the virial $M/L$ ratios in Figure~\ref{fig:m2l}.
1898: Three points can be gleaned from this figure: (a) the
1899: \citet{Salpeter55} IMF appears to be unphysical for these galaxies,
1900: given the presence of many galaxies to the \emph{right} of the
1901: Salpeter IMF line. Therefore, as in \citet{Cappellari06}, we take a
1902: \citet{Kroupa01} IMF to be a better representation of the (low-mass
1903: star) IMF than the Salpeter IMF; (b) even assuming a small amount (30
1904: per cent) of dark matter within the observed radius in each galaxy
1905: \citep{Cappellari06}\footnote{This might even be a little extreme, as
1906: the \citet{Cappellari06} results are based on $M/L$ ratios within one
1907: $r_e$, while our apertures are in general closer to \reo{2}.}, most of
1908: the galaxies have SSP-equivalent stellar $M/L$ ratios too low for
1909: their virial $M/L$, suggesting that a complex star-formation history
1910: is required in these galaxies; and (c) quenching (arrow Q$_c$ and
1911: Q$_m$) appears to be too extreme for most of the galaxies.
1912:
1913: We have further examined the GALEX \citep{GALEX} photometry of
1914: galaxies in the LRIS sample as a probe of young, hot stars. Only
1915: three of our galaxies -- GMP 3414, GMP 3565, and GMP3664 -- have GALEX
1916: photometry publicly available in GR3. (Unfortunately, the bright star
1917: HD 112887 prevents GALEX from observing the are directly around the cD
1918: galaxy GMP 3329=NGC 4874.) Of these three, only GMP 3565 is
1919: `UV-strong' in the notation of \citet{Yi05} -- $(FUV-r)<5$ and
1920: $(NUV-r)<4$ mag -- indicating very young ($t\sim0.1$ Gyr) stars. A
1921: total of five galaxies in all of the ETGs with line strengths
1922: considered in this study (from all sources) are in this `UV-strong'
1923: class, and their \hbeta-strengths and ages are uncorrelated with their
1924: UV--optical colours. Using the more generous `young' galaxy criterion
1925: of \citet{Kaviraj07a} -- $(NUV-r)<5.5$ mag -- 51 galaxies in the total
1926: sample are `young' (out of 109 with NUV photometry), although only 17
1927: have $(NUV-r)<5$ mag and only eight (including GMP 3565 in the LRIS
1928: sample) lie significantly off of the $NUV-r$ `red sequence'. This may
1929: suggest that very young populations are not significantly
1930: contaminating our age estimates.
1931:
1932: Clearly therefore the populations of ETGs are more complicated than
1933: single-burst populations \citep[e.g.][]{FY04,deLucia06}. \citet{ST06}
1934: have explored two-burst `frosting' models and Trager \& Somerville (in
1935: prep.) explore more complicated star-formation histories using
1936: semi-analytic galaxy formation models. Taken together these studies
1937: find that SSP-equivalent \z\ and \enh\ represent their
1938: luminosity-weighted quantities. SSP-equivalent age, however,
1939: represents a degenerate mixture of recent star-formation age and burst
1940: strength, as suggested in Paper II. Moreover young and
1941: intermediate-aged populations contribute \emph{much} more to the
1942: age-sensitive line strengths than is suggested by the phrase
1943: `light-weighted', because younger populations have much higher
1944: mass-to-light ratios \emph{in the Balmer lines} than old populations.
1945: This is why small `frostings' of recent star formation \citep[Paper
1946: II;][]{Gebhardt03} or recent truncation of `quenching' of
1947: previously-on-going star formation \citep[e.g.,][and many
1948: others]{CS87,Bell04,Harker06} lead to much younger SSP-equivalent
1949: ages.
1950:
1951: As a simple example, a two-burst model with 98 per cent of the mass in
1952: an 12 Gyr-old population (a formation redshift of $z_f=4$) and the
1953: remaining 2 per cent of the mass in 1 Gyr population (a burst redshift
1954: of $z_b=0.08$) results in an SSP-equivalent age of 5 Gyr. Note that
1955: as the young population becomes older, much more mass is required: for
1956: a 2 Gyr old burst (a burst redshift of $z_b=0.16$), 12 per cent of the
1957: stellar mass needs to be in the younger population for this population
1958: to also have an age of 5 Gyr. The effect of these two-burst models on
1959: the stellar $M/L$ ratios are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:m2l}, clearly
1960: reducing the stellar $M/L$ ratios by the addition of much brighter,
1961: slightly more massive stars.
1962:
1963: \begin{figure}
1964: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{quenchsfh.eps}
1965: \caption{The relation between present-day SSP-equivalent age
1966: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ and (left panel) quenching redshift $z_q$ and
1967: (right panel) quenching time $t_q$. In each panel, the solid line
1968: represents quenching models with constant star formation from $z=5$
1969: to $z_q$, while the (red) dashed line represents quenching models
1970: with star formation that follows the `Madau plot' \citep[as
1971: parametrised by][see text]{Hopkins06}. The dashed line in the right
1972: panel is equivalence between $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ and $t_q$.}
1973: \label{fig:quenching}
1974: \end{figure}
1975:
1976: \begin{table}
1977: \caption{SSP-equivalent, mass-weighted, and $B$-band light-weighted
1978: ages of quenched galaxies}
1979: \label{tbl:quenching}
1980: \begin{tabular}{rrrrrrrr}
1981: \hline
1982: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t_q$}&&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^c_\mathrm{SSP}$}&
1983: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^c_M$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^c_B$}&
1984: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^m_\mathrm{SSP}$}&
1985: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^m_M$}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$t^m_B$}\\
1986: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$z_q$}&
1987: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&
1988: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&
1989: \multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{(Gyr)}\\
1990: \hline
1991: 1.0&0.075& 1.84& 4.60& 3.33& 5.23& 8.41& 7.32\\
1992: 1.5&0.116& 2.60& 5.22& 3.90& 6.21& 8.48& 7.48\\
1993: 2.0&0.160& 3.50& 5.74& 4.57& 6.83& 8.56& 7.68\\
1994: 2.5&0.206& 4.45& 6.21& 5.19& 7.20& 8.65& 7.89\\
1995: 3.0&0.256& 5.04& 6.65& 5.77& 7.47& 8.75& 8.09\\
1996: 3.5&0.308& 5.81& 7.05& 6.32& 7.68& 8.85& 8.30\\
1997: 4.0&0.365& 6.45& 7.43& 6.82& 7.87& 8.97& 8.50\\
1998: 4.5&0.427& 6.97& 7.79& 7.28& 8.09& 9.09& 8.69\\
1999: 5.0&0.493& 7.37& 8.14& 7.71& 8.44& 9.22& 8.88\\
2000: 5.5&0.566& 7.69& 8.48& 8.11& 8.75& 9.36& 9.07\\
2001: 6.0&0.646& 7.98& 8.80& 8.50& 9.05& 9.51& 9.27\\
2002: 6.5&0.735& 8.56& 9.12& 8.86& 9.34& 9.66& 9.46\\
2003: 7.0&0.833& 9.09& 9.43& 9.21& 9.63& 9.83& 9.66\\
2004: 7.5&0.945& 9.55& 9.72& 9.55& 9.88&10.00& 9.86\\
2005: 8.0&1.072& 9.92&10.02& 9.88&10.11&10.18&10.07\\
2006: 8.5&1.218&10.23&10.30&10.20&10.32&10.37&10.29\\
2007: 9.0&1.390&10.53&10.58&10.51&10.53&10.57&10.51\\
2008: 9.5&1.596&10.81&10.86&10.80&10.75&10.78&10.74\\
2009: 10.0&1.848&11.09&11.13&11.09&10.99&11.01&10.98\\
2010: 10.5&2.166&11.36&11.39&11.37&11.24&11.26&11.24\\
2011: 11.0&2.587&11.63&11.65&11.64&11.52&11.53&11.52\\
2012: 11.5&3.174&11.88&11.91&11.91&11.81&11.83&11.83\\
2013: \hline
2014: \end{tabular}
2015:
2016: Model galaxies are assumed to begin star formation at $z=5$
2017: (lookback time of 12.3 Gyr). Columns.-- (1) Quenching time. (2)
2018: Quenching redshift. (3) Present-day SSP-equivalent age of composite
2019: stellar population for constant star formation model ($c$). (4)
2020: Present-day mass-weighted age of composite stellar population for
2021: constant star formation model. (5) Present-day $B$-band
2022: light-weighted age of composite stellar population for constant star
2023: formation model. (6)--(9) As in columns (4)--(6) for Madau-curve
2024: model ($m$). See text for details.
2025: \end{table}
2026:
2027: As slightly more complex examples, we construct two simple `quenching'
2028: models. In this sort of model, a galaxy forms stars -- perhaps with a
2029: constant star formation rate, or with a declining rate -- until star
2030: formation is suddenly truncated \citep[e.g.,][]{Bell04,Faber05}.
2031: %For example, a spiral galaxy falls into a cluster and is stripped of
2032: %its gas \citep[see][for a more detailed model]{CS87}; this would
2033: %likely turn the spiral into an S0-like galaxy, as suggested by the
2034: %evolution of the morphology--density relation in clusters
2035: %\citep{Dressler97}.
2036: We assume that a galaxy starts forming stars at $z=5$ (a lookback time
2037: of 12.3 Gyr in our assumed cosmology) and ceases forming stars at some
2038: `quenching redshift' $z_q$ corresponding to a `quenching age'
2039: (lookback time) of $t_q$. We then ask what its SSP-equivalent age
2040: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ is today. In the first model, we assume that the
2041: galaxy forms stars at a constant rate from $z=5$ to $z_q$; this is
2042: model $c$ (for constant star formation), typical of the star-formation
2043: histories of Sc disc galaxies \citep{Sandage86,Kennicutt98}. In the
2044: second model, we assume that the galaxy forms stars at rate that
2045: follows the star formation history of the Universe -- the `Madau
2046: plot', after \citet{Madau96} -- as parametrised by \citet{Hopkins06};
2047: this is model $m$ (for `Madau'), and is similar to the star-formation
2048: histories of early-type (Sa--Sb) spirals
2049: \citep{Sandage86,Kennicutt98}. In both models we assume star
2050: formation is stopped completely at $z_q$ with no associated burst. We
2051: further assume no chemical evolution; rather, we assume that
2052: $\z=\enh=0$ dex at all times (an unrealistic assumption!). The
2053: results are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:quenching} and tabulated in
2054: Table~\ref{tbl:quenching}. We see that the SSP-equivalent age
2055: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ is a good tracer of the quenching time $t_q$ or
2056: redshift $z_q$, although $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}\geq t_q$ at all ages in
2057: these models. This is due to the composite nature of
2058: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$, in which stars of all ages contribute to the age
2059: indicators (here \hbeta). However, in nearly all cases,
2060: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}<t_{M,B}$, where $t_M$ and $t_B$ are the
2061: mass-weighted and $B$-band-luminosity-weighted ages, because the
2062: youngest populations contribute most to $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ due to
2063: their low mass-to-light (high light-to-mass) ratios. We show the
2064: effect of these models on the stellar $M/L$ ratios in
2065: Figure~\ref{fig:m2l}; model $c$ appears to be too extreme if dark
2066: matter is present within the observed apertures of these galaxies, but
2067: model $m$ is possibly consistent with the observed trend for most
2068: galaxies.
2069:
2070: \begin{figure}
2071: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{deltaumb_quenching.eps}
2072: \caption{The deviation of rest-frame $U-B$ colour from a typical red
2073: sequence galaxy as a function of redshift $z$ for a 12.3 Gyr-old
2074: galaxy quenched at $z_q=0.25$, having formed stars at a constant
2075: rate before that. The red sequence galaxy is assumed to have formed
2076: 6.5 Gyr ago ($z_f=0.74$) and so has the same colour as the quenched
2077: galaxy at $z=0$. The dotted line at $\Delta(U-B)=-0.030$ is RMS
2078: dispersion of cluster red sequences from \citet{vDF01} and the
2079: dashed line at $\Delta(U-B)=-0.036$ corresponds to the \citet{BO84}
2080: division between red and blue galaxies at $\Delta(B-V)=-0.2$. Note
2081: that the colour difference becomes larger than both of these
2082: divisions at $z>0.09$.}
2083: \label{fig:quenchingcolor}
2084: \end{figure}
2085:
2086: These simple models point out that recent `quenching' can produce
2087: significantly younger populations, as measured by the line strengths,
2088: than might be expected from a simple mass- or light-weighted estimate
2089: \citep[cf.][]{Harker06}. An advantage of quenching models is that
2090: relations like the mass--metallicity and the \enh--$\sigma$ relation
2091: are generated naturally from the progenitors, which already possess
2092: these relations (\S\ref{sec:zplaneorigin} below). There is a problem
2093: with such simple quenching models, however. If the galaxies have
2094: continuous (if not constant) star formation before quenching, they are
2095: quite blue for a significant period \emph{after} quenching. We
2096: compare the rest-frame $U-B$ colour evolution of a model $c$ galaxy
2097: quenched $z_q=0.2$ ($t_q=3$ Gyr) with an SSP galaxy with the same
2098: colour at $z=0$, which has $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}=6.5$, in
2099: Figure~\ref{fig:quenchingcolor}. We show also the typical scatter in
2100: rest-frame $U-B$ in the red sequences clusters at $z\la0.8$,
2101: $\sigma_{U-B}\approx0.03$ \citep{vDF01}, and the Butcher-Oemler colour
2102: division between red and blue galaxies, $\Delta(B-V)=-0.2$
2103: \citep{BO84}, corresponding to $\Delta(U-B)=-0.036$ -- strikingly
2104: similar to the typical scatter in the red sequence \citep[as
2105: desired][]{BO78}. The simple quenching model remains a `blue'
2106: Butcher-Oemler galaxy until as late as $z=0.09$, significantly below
2107: $z_q=0.25$ (a total time of 1.8 Gyr). Therefore, as suggested by
2108: \citet{vDF01}, quenched galaxies must \emph{continually} join the red
2109: sequence at all redshifts to preserve the observed tight red sequences
2110: in clusters.
2111:
2112: \subsection{The mean age of Coma Cluster ETGs}
2113: \label{sec:agescatter}
2114:
2115: In \S\ref{sec:parameters} we found a mean age of $\logt=0.72\pm0.02$
2116: dex, or $5.2\pm0.2$ Gyr, for the high-precision and high-accuracy LRIS
2117: ETG sample, and that we could accept a mean age as old as 7.5 Gyr.
2118: Such a young mean age of the Coma Cluster ETGs -- 5--7 Gyr, including
2119: calibration uncertainties -- is surprising. We must ask whether we
2120: see other `young' ETGs in other clusters at the same masses? We
2121: certainly see signs of recent star formation and accretion activity in
2122: massive galaxies at the centres of clusters: the young globular
2123: clusters in NGC 1275 \citep[Pegasus A: see,
2124: e.g.,][]{Holtz92,Carlson98}; the multiple nuclei of NGC 6166
2125: \citep[the cD of Abell 2199: see,
2126: e.g.,][]{Minkowski61,Tonry84,Lauer86} and indeed of many other cD
2127: galaxies, more than half of which are likely gravitationally bound
2128: \citep{Tonry85}; and the depressed \mgtwo\ and $D_{4000}$ indexes
2129: found in the central galaxies of cool-core clusters, indicative of
2130: recent star formation \citep*{Cardiel95,Cardiel98}. These galaxies
2131: appear to have recently-formed stars accreted from smaller objects.
2132: On the other hand, the presence of young low-mass ETGs has been noted
2133: for some time \citep[e.g.,][just to name a few
2134: studies]{Rose85,Rose94,G93,TFGW93,T00b,CRC03,TMBO05,Nelan05,Bernardi06},
2135: and these galaxies may have formed their stars \emph{in situ}
2136: \citep[e.g.,][]{TMBO05}. But the striking result here is that the
2137: \emph{massive but not central} ETGs in the Coma Cluster have (on
2138: average) young SSP-equivalent ages.
2139:
2140: If we apply to the `quenching' models described in \S\ref{sec:ages}
2141: above, we find that model $c$, constant star formation followed by
2142: sudden quenching, predicts a quenching redshift of
2143: $z_q\approx0.25$--0.43 (Table~\ref{tbl:quenching}); model $m$ predicts
2144: a much more recent quenching epoch, $z_q\approx0.08$--0.2. It appears
2145: from these models that Coma Cluster ETGs have recently been quenched
2146: by some process. For either model, such a recent quenching epoch
2147: suggests that the galaxies either \emph{just} arrived on (model $c$)
2148: or should still be too blue for (model $m$) the red sequence, and that
2149: there will be no red sequence in the Coma Cluster at $z\ga0.2$
2150: \emph{if all} of the ETGs quenched at the same, very recent time. We
2151: certainly do not see a \emph{large} population of `young' or blue ETGs
2152: in intermediate-redshift clusters, at least at moderate-to-high ETG
2153: masses, as judged from studies of the evolution of galaxy colours
2154: \citep[e.g.,][]{BO78,BO84,Morphs97,SED98}, the Fundamental Plane
2155: \citep[e.g.,][]{vDF96,vD98,vD99,vdW04,Treu05}, mass-to-light ratios
2156: \citep{vdM06b}, and absorption-line strengths
2157: \citep{Jorgensen05,KIFvD06}. The majority of the massive galaxies in
2158: intermediate-redshift clusters are quite red
2159: \citep[e.g.,][]{BO78,BO84,Morphs97,Yee05}, with very few, if any, blue
2160: galaxies among the bright ($L>2L_{\ast}$) population. We therefore
2161: consider such extreme quenching models ruled out.
2162:
2163: If we adopt instead a two-burst model of star formation in Coma
2164: Cluster ETGs and assume an mean age of 5 Gyr, we require that 2 per
2165: cent of the mass (in our 2\farcs7 aperture) in each galaxy was formed
2166: at $z=0.08$ or 12 per cent of the mass at $z=0.16$, while the rest of
2167: the mass formed at $z_f=4$ (\S\ref{sec:ages}). This scenario allows
2168: for most of the mass to be formed at high redshifts while requiring
2169: only small bursts of recent star formation. Moreover, \citet{Yi05}
2170: have shown that the FUV- and NUV-optical colours of massive early-type
2171: galaxies suggest that 15\% of these objects have had recent star
2172: formation. \citet{Kaviraj07b} have shown further that truly passive
2173: evolution of ETGs is in conflict with the evolution of their
2174: rest-frame UV-optical colours, such that 5--13 per cent of the entire
2175: mass in ETGs at $0.5<z<1$ resulted from star formation events less
2176: than 1 Gyr previous to the epoch of observation, although this number
2177: decreases by a factor of two by $z=0$. They suggest that massive ETGs
2178: have formed 10--15 per cent of their total mass since $z=1$, while
2179: low-mass ETGs have formed as much as 60 per cent of their mass in that
2180: time. We note however that their sample considered is a field sample,
2181: unlikely to contain a significant number of cluster galaxies.
2182:
2183: Simplistically, in the two-burst case, we require that \emph{most}
2184: ETGs in the Coma Cluster suffered an event that either triggered star
2185: formation \emph{simultaneously} at redshifts in the range
2186: $z\sim0.1$--0.2. This agrees well with the observation by
2187: \citet{Gerhard07} that `perhaps 30 per cent' of galaxies in the core
2188: Coma Cluster are involved in an on-going subcluster merger, suggesting
2189: that `Coma is forming now!' (their emphasis). Our results support
2190: the view that the Coma Cluster is a very active region, with a large
2191: fraction of the ETGs within $r_{vir}/3$ having suffered star formation
2192: recently, at redshifts around $z\sim0.1$--0.2. However, this scenario
2193: also requires there to be a significant population of blue galaxies at
2194: \emph{all masses} in the Coma Cluster at those redshifts -- which we
2195: have said above is unlikely, given the relatively tight red sequences
2196: in intermediate-redshift clusters.
2197:
2198: There is also the possibility that we have been unlucky with our
2199: sample selection. The mean ages of the \citet{SB06a} Coma sample
2200: deviate from the other Coma ETG samples, as is clear from
2201: Table~\ref{tbl:ksprobs} (ignoring for present the red-sequence sample
2202: of \citealt{Nelan05}). However we have found that the ages of four of
2203: the five galaxies in common (GMP 3254, 3269, 3639, and 3664) are the
2204: same within $1\sigma$, and the fifth, GMP 3329 (=NGC 4874), has a
2205: younger age but a higher metallicity from our data as a result of a
2206: higher \mgb\ -- but nearly identical \hbeta\ -- strength in the LRIS
2207: data. It is notable that the four galaxies in common with the same
2208: ages in both samples are among the youngest in the \citet{SB06a}
2209: sample, and thus we may have been unlucky to select an
2210: unrepresentative sample of galaxies in the cluster. On the other
2211: hand, we note here that 20 per cent of the \citet{SB06a} sample (7/35
2212: galaxies) have ages that are more than $1\sigma$ older than 14 Gyr --
2213: and therefore older than current estimates of the age of the Universe
2214: \citep{WMAP3} -- using the vanilla W94 models. This suggests that the
2215: \citet{SB06a} galaxies may be on average too old, and that this is
2216: likely due to uncorrected emission. We therefore consider that their
2217: old mean age of 12.3 Gyr (after correcting for a reasonable amount of
2218: intrinsic scatter; the weighted mean without this correction is
2219: $>18\,\mathrm{Gyr}$, older than the oldest models and significantly
2220: older than the present age of the Universe) may be unreliable.
2221:
2222: We are left with a conundrum: we either were very unlucky in our
2223: sample selection or we require Coma Cluster galaxies to form stars
2224: over an extended time in such a way as to `conspire' to have the same
2225: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$ today but not produce too many blue galaxies at
2226: relatively recent lookback times. As we noted above, massive, central
2227: galaxies have young stars apparently acquired through accretion, while
2228: low-mass galaxies may have just shut down their internal star
2229: formation; perhaps these process have gone on independently and we
2230: have just chanced upon the right time to see them all have the same
2231: age. The increased scatter in the ages of low-mass Coma ETGs
2232: (Fig.~\ref{fig:agescatter}) suggests that the process of shutting down
2233: star formation in the low-mass galaxies is an extended process, and we
2234: may have just gotten lucky in finding the ages well-synchronised.
2235:
2236: Finally, we find a mean age of $\logt=0.70\pm0.01$ dex, or $5.0\pm0.1$
2237: Gyr, for the field sample of \citet{G93}, \citet{FFI96}, and
2238: \citet{K00}, completely consistent with the age of the LRIS ETG
2239: sample, and consistent with the typical ages of nearly all of the Coma
2240: Cluster ETG samples (except \citealt{SB06a}; see
2241: Table~\ref{tbl:ksprobs}). Thus, unlike \citet{TMBO05},
2242: \citet{Bernardi06} and \citet{SB06b}, we find no significant
2243: difference between field and cluster ETGs, although this is strictly
2244: true only for the Coma Cluster.
2245:
2246: \subsection{Downsizing in the Coma Cluster or not?}
2247: \label{sec:downsizing}
2248:
2249: One of our three robust predictions for the stellar populations of
2250: local RSGs -- and by assumption, local ETGs -- is that low-mass RSGs
2251: and ETGs are younger than high-mass RSGs and ETGs. In
2252: \S\ref{sec:introduction} we called this phenomenon downsizing by
2253: analogy with the decrease in specific star formation rate with
2254: decreasing redshift. In \S\ref{sec:results} we find \emph{no}
2255: evidence of an age--mass or age--$\sigma$ relation at the $>1.5\sigma$
2256: level (ignoring model variations) in any of the Coma Cluster ETG
2257: samples. However, we do find significant age--$\sigma$ and age--mass
2258: relations for the \citet{Nelan05} Coma Cluster RSG sample and a
2259: significant age--$\sigma$ relation for the entire \citet{Nelan05}
2260: cluster RSG sample and in the \citet{TMBO05} high-density ETG sample.
2261:
2262: \subsubsection{Why does the Coma Cluster not show downsizing?}
2263:
2264: One possibility is that the Coma Cluster is somehow special, being a
2265: \emph{very} rich cluster. In the \citet{Nelan05} sample, it has the
2266: twelfth-highest cluster velocity dispersion and is the fifth
2267: most-X-ray-luminous cluster in the full sample, and it is the X-ray
2268: brightest and most massive cluster at $cz_{hel}<10000\,\kms$. Because
2269: of its richness and velocity dispersion, it might be expected to
2270: contain old galaxies with little recent star formation. We have
2271: examined the age--$\sigma$ relations for both the \emph{full}
2272: \citet{Nelan05} sample, containing nearly 3500 RSGs (after removing
2273: galaxies contaminated by emission) in 93 clusters, and that sample
2274: restricted to just the Coma Cluster (97 RSGs). We find a significant
2275: age--$\sigma$ relation for both the full \citet{Nelan05} sample --
2276: using the `differential' method described by \citet{Nelan05} and using
2277: the W94 models, we find $t\propto\sigma^{0.58\pm0.15}$ -- and for the
2278: restricted Coma Cluster sample -- $t\propto\sigma^{0.39\pm0.12}$. The
2279: relation for the Coma Cluster is only marginally shallower than that
2280: found for the entire \citet{Nelan05} sample: a slope difference of
2281: $0.19\pm0.19$. We suggest below that the significant age--$\sigma$
2282: slope for the \citet{Nelan05} Coma Cluster sample may be due to a lack
2283: of emission-line correction in the Balmer line strengths of that
2284: sample, which is also true for the entire sample. If the Coma Cluster
2285: RSGs truly possess an age--$\sigma$ relation, the results of
2286: \citet{Nelan05} and our analysis suggest that its slope is cannot be
2287: much shallower than that of RSGs in typical high-density regions.
2288: This suggests that the lack of an age--$\sigma$ relation for the ETG
2289: samples is not due \emph{solely} to the overall richness of the Coma
2290: Cluster.
2291:
2292: Another possibility is that galaxies in the centre of the Coma Cluster
2293: are preferentially younger than the cluster as a whole. Studies of
2294: the diffuse light in the centre of the Coma Cluster
2295: \citep[e.g.,][]{TK77,GW98,Adami05a,Adami05a} and intracluster
2296: planetary nebulae \citep{Gerhard07} suggest that the centre of the
2297: Coma Cluster is a violent place, with a massive on-going merger of a
2298: subcluster \citep{Gerhard07}. The \citet{M02} sample however covers
2299: the inner $1^{\circ}$ of the cluster, which corresponds to a radius of
2300: $r_{vir}/3$ \citep{LM03}. We find no age--$\sigma$, age--$\log M_*$
2301: nor age--$\log M_{\mathrm{dyn}}$ relation in this sample, and so a
2302: seriously different age of the centre -- older or younger -- is
2303: unlikely.
2304:
2305: Finally, we note that we are not the first to find a flat
2306: age--$\sigma$ relation in cluster ETGs, nor even in Coma Cluster ETGs.
2307: \citet{SB06a,SB06b} have claimed that there is \emph{no} age--$\sigma$
2308: relation in cluster ETGs, although there is a significant dispersion
2309: (and many of their galaxies appear to be too old, as discussed in
2310: \S\ref{sec:agescatter} above). Their cluster ETG sample is dominated
2311: by Coma galaxies (with a non-negligible minority of Virgo galaxies as
2312: well) and therefore is a similar result, with a different mean age, to
2313: ours. As mentioned in \S\ref{sec:introduction}, \citet{KIFvD06} have
2314: also recently shown that the age--$\sigma$ relation for ETGs in the
2315: cluster CL1358+62 at $z=0.33$ is flat. Although they suggest that
2316: this is due in part to a different method for correcting the
2317: line-strength indexes for the effects of velocity dispersion (see
2318: Appendix~\ref{sec:indexcorrections}), their Figure 10 shows that this
2319: correction is a minor effect and that the ETGs in that cluster do not
2320: show a significant age--$\sigma$ relation. Some amount of caution
2321: must be taken here, though, as \citet{KIFvD06} came to this conclusion
2322: using only the blue indexes (H$\delta$--\ctwo) due to the redshift of
2323: the cluster. Further, \citet{vdM06b} have used resolved internal
2324: kinematics of ETGs in clusters at $z\approx0.5$ to probe the evolution
2325: of \emph{rotation-corrected} dynamical mass-to-light ratios. They
2326: find no evidence for change in mass-to-light ratio with velocity
2327: dispersion as a function of redshift. This suggests that age and
2328: velocity dispersion are not correlated in that sample, as
2329: mass-to-light ratios are more sensitive to age than to metallicity
2330: \citep{G93,W94}.
2331:
2332: \subsubsection{Why do we disagree with \citet{TMBO05}?}
2333:
2334: \begin{figure}
2335: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{sigmat_tmbo05.eps}
2336: \caption{The age--$\sigma$ relation for the high-density sample of
2337: \citet{TMBO05}. Diamonds are Coma Cluster ETGs from
2338: \citet{Mehlert03}, based on the sample of \citet{Mehlert00}, open
2339: squares are cluster ETGs from \citet{Beuing02}, and triangles are
2340: cluster galaxies from \citet[mostly Virgo cluster galaxies]{G93}.}
2341: \label{fig:sigmat_tmbo05}
2342: \end{figure}
2343:
2344: We now ask why \citet{TMBO05} find an apparently significant slope in
2345: the age--$\sigma$ relation for ETGs in high-density regions while we
2346: do not find one for ETGs in the Coma Cluster. We note that their
2347: high-density ETG sample contains Coma Cluster ETGs from \citet[a
2348: compilation of aperture-corrected data from
2349: \citealt{Mehlert00}]{Mehlert03}, Virgo\footnote{Note that the field
2350: galaxies NGC4261 and NGC 4697 are included in the high-density sample
2351: of \citet{TMBO05}, apparently mistaken as Virgo Cluster galaxies, and
2352: the galaxy NGC 636 appears twice in their low-density ETG sample,
2353: taken once each from \citet{G93} and \citet{Beuing02}.} and Pegasus
2354: Cluster ETGs from \citet{G93}, and a collection of mostly compact
2355: group galaxies from \citet{Beuing02}. We show the age--$\sigma$ data
2356: from \citet{TMBO05} in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmat_tmbo05}. If we consider
2357: only the Coma Cluster galaxies in their sample -- the ETG sample of
2358: \citet{Mehlert00} -- we do not find an age--$\sigma$ relation. As
2359: \citet{TMBO05} did not publish error bars or confidence levels on
2360: their age--$\sigma$ relation, it is difficult to infer the robustness
2361: of their result. We therefore cannot say with confidence whether our
2362: conclusion truly disagrees with their findings, but we suggest that
2363: the \citet{Mehlert00} data do not by themselves support downsizing in
2364: the Coma Cluster.
2365:
2366: \subsubsection{Why do we disagree with the Coma Cluster RSGs of
2367: \citet{Nelan05}?}
2368:
2369: \begin{figure*}
2370: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{moorenfps.eps}
2371: \caption{A comparison of ages and emission-line strengths of the
2372: \citet{M02} ETG and \citet{Nelan05} RSG samples for galaxies in
2373: common. Panels (a)--(f): A comparison of galaxy ages in the
2374: samples. In these panels, the strong outlier GMP 2921 (=NGC 4889)
2375: has been removed: its age inferred from the \citet{Nelan05} data is
2376: nearly ten times higher than that inferred from the \citet{M02}
2377: sample, with very small formal errors in each sample. The dashed
2378: lines represent equality in the ages. The solid lines in panels (b)
2379: and (e) are fits to the age differences as a function of
2380: $\log\sigma$, accounting for errors along both axes; the slope of
2381: the fit in panel (e) is significant, but that in panel (b) is not.
2382: In panels (a)--(c) (top row), the \hbeta\ strengths of the
2383: \citet{M02} galaxies have \emph{not} been corrected for emission,
2384: while such a correction has been made in panels (d)--(f) (middle
2385: row). Note that the SSP-equivalent ages of the \citet{Nelan05}
2386: sample are on average \emph{older} than those of the \citet{M02} for
2387: galaxies in common, even without the emission-line correction of
2388: \hbeta. Panels (c) and (f) show the age--$\sigma$ relations for the
2389: two samples for galaxies in common to both samples. A comparison of
2390: panels (b) and (e) show that neglecting the emission-line correction
2391: can impose an age--$\sigma$ relation on the \citet{Nelan05} RSG
2392: sample. Black diamonds: \citet{M02}; red triangles:
2393: \citet{Nelan05}. Panels (g)--(i): A comparison of emission-line
2394: strengths in the samples. (GMP 2921 is included in these panels.)
2395: Panels (g) and (h) compare the emission line strengths of the two
2396: samples. The predicted \hbeta\ emission-line strength of the
2397: \citet{M02} sample,
2398: $-\mathrm{EW(\hbeta)}=-0.6\times\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}$
2399: \citep{T00a}, is plotted as a function of the measured \hbeta\
2400: emission-line strength in panel (h). The correlation between the
2401: samples is stronger in panel (h) but only marginally significant
2402: there (4 per cent probability of being uncorrelated). Panel (i)
2403: shows that $\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}$ is strongly correlated
2404: with $\sigma$ in the \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample, suggesting again
2405: that neglecting emission corrections may result in a false detection
2406: of an age--$\sigma$ relation.}
2407: \label{fig:moorenfps}
2408: \end{figure*}
2409:
2410: We next ask why we find a significant age--$\sigma$ relation for the
2411: \citet{Nelan05} Coma Cluster RSG sample but not for the any of the
2412: Coma Cluster ETG samples. We compare the large ETG sample of
2413: \citet{M02} with the \citet{Nelan05} sample in
2414: Figure~\ref{fig:moorenfps} for the 71 galaxies in common. In the top
2415: and middle rows, we compare the inferred ages of the two samples. In
2416: the top row, we compare the ages of the \citet{M02} sample,
2417: \emph{uncorrected} for emission-line fill-in of \hbeta, with those of
2418: the (uncorrected) \citet{Nelan05} sample. Apart from a few outliers
2419: [and neglecting the strongly deviant galaxy GMP 2921=NGC 4889, which
2420: has been removed in panels (a)-(f)], the ages of the two samples are
2421: very comparable: the middle panel shows the difference in ages in the
2422: samples as a function of velocity dispersion. We do not find a
2423: significant \emph{slope} difference between the samples, merely a
2424: small offset, such that the \citet{Nelan05} ages are
2425: $\Delta\logt=0.18\pm0.13$ dex ($66\pm31$ per cent) older than the
2426: uncorrected \citet{M02} ages. It is important to note that
2427: \citet{Nelan05} rejected galaxies with $\mathrm{EW(\hbeta)}<-0.6$ \AA\
2428: (and $\mathrm{EW([O\,\textsc{iii}])}<-0.8$ \AA) from their sample. No
2429: galaxy in the Coma Cluster has such strong emission, but certainly
2430: small amounts of emission are detected in both the LRIS and
2431: \citet{M02} samples. In fact, ten galaxies (out of 97) in the
2432: \citet{Nelan05} data set have detectable emission with
2433: $\mathrm{EW(\hbeta)}\leq-0.2$ \AA, sufficient to make these galaxies
2434: have older SSP-equivalent ages than if their \hbeta\ strengths had
2435: been corrected for this emission. In the middle row of of
2436: Figure~\ref{fig:moorenfps}, we compare the ages of the \citet{M02}
2437: sample, corrected for emission-line fill-in of \hbeta\ using the
2438: precepts of \citet[see \S\ref{sec:literature}]{T00a}, with those of
2439: the (uncorrected) \citet{Nelan05} sample. In panel (e) we find a
2440: strong discrepancy in ages which grows stronger with increasing
2441: velocity dispersion. As we believe that an emission correction to
2442: \hbeta\ \emph{should} be applied, we suggest that the age--$\sigma$
2443: relation seen in the \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample results from their
2444: lack of emission-line correction and is not intrinsic to their sample.
2445:
2446: Finally, in the bottom row of Figure~\ref{fig:moorenfps}, we compare
2447: the emission-line strengths of [O\textsc{iii}] of the two samples
2448: (panel g), the predicted \hbeta\ emission-line strengths of the
2449: \citet{M02} sample with the measured \hbeta\ emission-line strengths
2450: of the \citet{Nelan05} sample (panel h), and the variation in
2451: [O\textsc{iii}] strength as a function of velocity dispersion (panel
2452: i). The [O\textsc{iii}] strength of the \citet{Nelan05} sample is
2453: correlated with velocity dispersion, reinforcing our suggestion that
2454: the age--$\sigma$ relation found in that sample is an artefact of
2455: ignoring the (necessary) emission correction. Clearly, larger samples
2456: of high-signal-to-noise spectra with careful emission-line correction
2457: in the Balmer lines \citep[using, say, the techniques of][]{Sarzi06}
2458: will be required to resolve this discrepancy completely -- but even
2459: those techniques are imperfect, as shown by the fact that we detect
2460: [O\textsc{iii}] but \emph{not} \hbeta\ emission in our galaxies (which
2461: we claim we should have, as it is nearly impossible to have
2462: [O\textsc{iii}] but not \hbeta\ emission: \citealt{Yan06}) using the
2463: \citet{Sarzi06} method (Appendix~\ref{sec:emission}).
2464:
2465: \begin{figure}
2466: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{cmd_morphs.eps}
2467: \caption{The colour--magnitude relation of Coma Cluster galaxies
2468: coded by morphological type. Colours and magnitudes are taken
2469: from Beijersbergen (2002) and morphologies from NED. Solid lines
2470: are a fit to the colour--magnitude relation; dashed lines are 0.2
2471: magnitudes bluer. Galaxies with types earlier than Sd and Irr
2472: galaxies are labelled with their morphological type (I=Irr); Sd
2473: and spiral galaxies without specific type are labelled as $\oint$.
2474: Galaxies without morphological type in NED are labelled as "u".
2475: Top panel: E--S0/a galaxies. Middle panel: Sa--Sbc galaxies.
2476: Bottom panel: Sc--Irr galaxies and galaxies with unknown
2477: morphological types.}
2478: \label{fig:cmdmorphs}
2479: \end{figure}
2480:
2481: \begin{table}
2482: \caption{Deviations from red sequence by morphological type}
2483: \label{tbl:rsdev}
2484: \begin{tabular}{lrrr}
2485: \hline
2486: \multicolumn{1}{c}{Morphological type}&
2487: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\langle\Delta(B-R)\rangle$}&
2488: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$\sigma_{\langle\Delta(B-R)\rangle}$}&
2489: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$N_{\mathrm{gal}}$}\\
2490: \hline
2491: cD&$-0.011$&0.024&3\\
2492: E&0.018&0.007&59\\
2493: E/S0&0.010&0.014&16\\
2494: S0&0.006&0.005&146\\
2495: S0/a&$-0.021$&0.015&27\\
2496: Sa&$-0.027$&0.014&9\\
2497: Sab&$-0.160$&0.014&3\\
2498: Sb--Irr&$-0.029$&0.029&18\\
2499: \hline
2500: \end{tabular}
2501:
2502: Only galaxies with $R<18$ and $\Delta(B-R)>-0.2$ included.
2503: \end{table}
2504:
2505: Although we suspect that emission corrections are the primary cause of
2506: the discrepancy between the age--$\sigma$ slopes -- and thus the
2507: detection of downsizing -- of \emph{all} of the Coma Cluster ETG
2508: samples and the age--$\sigma$ slope of the \citet{Nelan05} sample, it
2509: is possible that target selection could drive the difference. That
2510: is, are the stellar populations of RSGs intrinsically different than
2511: those of ETGs? Do colour and morphology drive the presence or lack of
2512: an age--$\sigma$ relation? The significant difference between the
2513: \citet{Nelan05} sample and the \citet{J99}, \citet{Mehlert00},
2514: \citet{M02}, \citet{SB06a}, and LRIS samples is the colour selection
2515: of the NFPS galaxies and the morphological selection of all of the
2516: other samples. We note that the red sequence contains not only
2517: elliptical and S0 galaxies but also disk-dominated early-type spiral
2518: galaxies (Fig.~\ref{fig:cmdmorphs}). We suggest here that a possible
2519: solution is that the presence of disc-dominated galaxies in the
2520: colour-selected samples could be the cause of the age--$\sigma$
2521: relation found by \citet[and by extension,
2522: \citealt{Smith06}]{Nelan05}. In Table~\ref{tbl:rsdev} we examine the
2523: deviation from the colour--magnitude relation of Coma Cluster galaxies
2524: as a function of morphological type for galaxies that qualify as
2525: `red-sequence galaxies' under the criteria of \citet{Smith04}: redder
2526: than $-0.2$ magnitudes bluer than the mean colour--magnitude relation
2527: in $B-R$. We find that mean deviations from the red sequence become
2528: bluer as morphological type becomes later, as might be expected,
2529: although the numbers are small. However, \citet{Smith06} have
2530: examined the influence of morphology for a subset of NFPS galaxies by
2531: taking only those galaxies with quantitative morphologies and with
2532: $B/T>0.5$ (about 35 per cent of the total NFPS sample) and recomputing
2533: the $\log\sigma$--parameter relations. They find that a shift of one
2534: unit in $B/T$ -- i.e., going from pure disc to pure bulge -- increases
2535: \logt\ by $0.176\pm0.026$, which is not enough to erase the
2536: age--$\sigma$ relation. Moreover, virtually all of the
2537: \citet{Nelan05} Coma Cluster RSGs are ETGs (only two are typed as Sa
2538: in NED). We therefore come to the conclusion that the lack of
2539: emission-line corrections to the Balmer lines in the \citet{Nelan05}
2540: sample is likely to be the largest contributor to the difference
2541: between that sample and all the others, and that sample selection --
2542: RSGs \emph{versus} ETGs -- is unlikely to play a significant r{\^o}le
2543: in that difference.
2544:
2545: To summarise this section, we find no evidence for an age--$\sigma$ or
2546: age--mass relation in ETGs in the Coma Cluster. We suggest further
2547: that such a relation may not even hold for RSGs in the Coma Cluster,
2548: but this requires further high-quality data. We have referred to a
2549: significant age--$\sigma$ relation with a positive slope as downsizing
2550: of the stellar populations of local ETGs. We do not see significant
2551: evidence for such downsizing in Coma Cluster ETGs, and this is not the
2552: only environment where this seems to be the case \citep{KIFvD06}. We
2553: therefore come to the conclusion that our prediction (i) for the
2554: stellar populations of local ETGs in \S\ref{sec:introduction} is
2555: violated in the Coma Cluster. But we are still left with the question
2556: of where the \emph{old} galaxies are. Have we just missed them, or
2557: are they not there, because \emph{all} early-type galaxies have formed
2558: stars recently enough that we see `young' galaxies, as predicted by
2559: \citet{Kaviraj07b}?
2560:
2561: \subsection{The $Z$-plane and the \enh-$\sigma$ relation in the Coma
2562: Cluster}
2563: \label{sec:zplaneorigin}
2564:
2565: \begin{figure*}
2566: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{tzall.eps}
2567: \caption{The $Z$-plane for the LRIS Coma Cluster ETG sample (left
2568: panel) and our field ETG sample (right panel). Lines of constant
2569: $\sigma$, inferred from the $Z$-planes given in
2570: Table~\ref{tbl:hyperplane}, are shown as dashed lines (bottom to
2571: top: 50, 150, 250, 350 \kms).}
2572: \label{fig:allzplanes}
2573: \end{figure*}
2574:
2575: Finally, we turn to the two relations explored in detail in Paper II:
2576: the $Z$-plane and the \enh--$\sigma$ relation. The $Z$-plane, as
2577: discussed above and in Paper II, says that there exists an
2578: age--metallicity anti-correlation at each value of $\sigma$, with
2579: metallicity increasing with increasing $\sigma$. Note that the
2580: $Z$-plane specifically decouples age and $\sigma$, as required from
2581: our discussion of the age--$\sigma$ relation above. We plot a nearly
2582: face-on projection of the $Z$-plane -- the age--metallicity plane --
2583: for our LRIS Coma Cluster and field ETG samples in
2584: Figure~\ref{fig:allzplanes}. The fact that the $Z$-plane and
2585: \enh--$\sigma$ relation are seen in \emph{both} field and cluster
2586: populations, as found in \S\ref{sec:zplane}, suggests that they are a
2587: general feature of the stellar populations of ETGs and should
2588: therefore be understood in the context of galaxy formation models.
2589:
2590: What are the origins of $Z$-plane and \enh--$\sigma$ relations? We
2591: first consider a two-burst model, in which the majority of the mass of
2592: ETGs form at high redshift, followed by small bursts of star formation
2593: at $z\sim0.1$--0.3, as discussed above. It is important to recall
2594: here that \citet{ST06} have shown that the SSP-equivalent \z\ and
2595: \enh\ values are very nearly equivalent to their mass-weighted
2596: quantities. This suggests that the $Z$-plane (and \enh--$\sigma$)
2597: relations in the Coma Cluster ETGs were put in place during the
2598: initial star formation phases at high redshift and were only mildly
2599: perturbed in the secondary star formation events, \emph{as long as
2600: these secondary events involve only small mass fractions}. That is,
2601: the secondary bursts must have occurred very recently in order to keep
2602: the mass--metallicity and \enh--$\sigma$ relationships of Coma Cluster
2603: ETGs as tight as is found in Figure~\ref{fig:sigmarels}. We discussed
2604: the origin of these relations extensively in Paper II. Here we remind
2605: the reader that apparently the only available scenarios are (a) early,
2606: metal-enriched winds that grow stronger with decreasing ETG velocity
2607: dispersion and (b) an IMF slope that becomes flatter with increasing
2608: ETG velocity dispersion.
2609:
2610: We have shown in \S\ref{sec:agescatter} above that all of the ETGs in
2611: the LRIS sample might be assumed to have quenched at $z\approx0.2$
2612: (although we have ruled this scenario out). Therefore they form a
2613: narrow strip in the age--metallicity plane, because they have nearly
2614: the same age. Then the question becomes why do they exhibit both a
2615: mass--metallicity ($\sigma$--\z) relation and a \enh--$\sigma$
2616: relation? In the context of the quenching model, this is because they
2617: came from \emph{blue, star-forming galaxies that already exhibited
2618: these relations} \citep{Faber05}. We therefore speculate that the
2619: trends found in Paper II for field ETGs and by \citet{TMBO05} and
2620: \citet{Bernardi06} for both low- and high-density ETGs --
2621: high-$\sigma$ galaxies are older, more metal-rich, and have higher
2622: \enh\ -- were also exhibited by their blue, star-forming progenitors.
2623: We already have evidence of that two of these relations are true for
2624: star-forming galaxies: the larger a disc galaxy is, the redder it is
2625: \citep{RM94} -- which means the stars formed earlier, as shown by
2626: \citep{MacArthur04} -- and the more metal-rich it is \citep[from SDSS
2627: emission-line spectra]{Tremonti}. We also know that the bulges of
2628: large spirals follow the \enh--$\sigma$ relation \citep{PS02}.
2629: Therefore there is already enough evidence to assert that the
2630: compositions of ETGs are essentially embedded in their spiral galaxy
2631: precursors. If this is the case, that what we are seeing in the LRIS
2632: sample is a set of objects of different masses that all got quenched
2633: at about the same time. Their chemical compositions follow naturally
2634: from their velocity dispersions. In order to fill out the $Z$-plane,
2635: then, one needs galaxies that quenched at different times, both
2636: earlier and later than our Coma Cluster ETGs -- such as the field
2637: sample or the sample of Paper II -- as seen in
2638: Figure~\ref{fig:allzplanes}. This appears to be a more
2639: straight-forward explanation of our results than the two-burst model,
2640: because the progenitors are clearly identified as blue, star-forming
2641: galaxies which we know have the correct scaling relations. Moreover,
2642: quenching models of this sort also explain the evolution of the
2643: morphology--density relation in clusters \citep{Dressler97}. But we
2644: point out again that massive cluster ETGs are generally old at
2645: intermediate redshifts, as discussed above. The quenching model we
2646: consider here predicts rather that for the Coma Cluster, most of the
2647: ETGs were blue, star-forming galaxies very recently, which we have
2648: already rejected in \S\ref{sec:agescatter} above.
2649:
2650: We are left in the position of having a reasonable explanation for the
2651: origin of the $Z$-plane -- that is, that disc galaxies that already
2652: possess mass--metallicity and \enh--$\sigma$ relations are quenched
2653: simultaneously -- that is ruled out by observations of
2654: intermediate-redshift clusters. We have begun to explore whether
2655: hierarchical galaxy formation models with detailed chemical evolution
2656: can predict these relations (Trager \& Somerville, in prep.; Arrigoni
2657: et al., in prep.).
2658:
2659: \section{Summary and conclusions}
2660: \label{sec:conclusions}
2661:
2662: In \S\ref{sec:introduction} we made three predictions for the stellar
2663: populations of local ETGs based on observations of RSGs at high
2664: redshifts and the results of models of hierarchical galaxy formation:
2665: \begin{enumerate}
2666: \item lower-mass ETGs in all environments have younger stellar
2667: population ages than high-mass ETGs;
2668: \item ETGs in high-density environments are older than those in
2669: low-density environments; and
2670: \item massive ETGs in high-density environments have a small
2671: stellar population age spread compared with lower-mass ETGs and
2672: those in lower-density environments.
2673: \end{enumerate}
2674: We have tested these predictions using very high signal-to-noise
2675: spectra of twelve ETGs spanning a wide range in mass in the Coma
2676: Cluster surrounding and including the cD galaxy NGC 4874. Because of
2677: the small size of this sample, we have augmented it with larger but
2678: less precise samples of ETGs and RSGs in the Coma Cluster.
2679:
2680: We find the following results.
2681: \begin{enumerate}
2682: \item Coma Cluster ETGs in the LRIS sample are consistent with a
2683: uniform SSP-equivalent age of $5.2\pm0.2$ Gyr (with a possible
2684: systematic upper limit of 7.5 Gyr using the \citealt{W94} models),
2685: which is identical within the formal errors to the average
2686: SSP-equivalent age of a sample of field ETGs drawn from the samples
2687: of \citet{G93}, \citet{FFI96}, and \citet{K00}. All Coma Cluster
2688: ETG samples are consistent with a single-age population of galaxies,
2689: with the exception of the \citet{M02} sample, in which the
2690: elliptical and S0 galaxies are each consistent with a single-age
2691: population. Differences in calibration onto the Lick/IDS index
2692: system and the treatment of possible emission-line corrections of
2693: the Balmer lines are primarily responsible for differences in the
2694: mean ages between samples. However, the \citet{Nelan05} RSG sample
2695: is \emph{inconsistent} with a single-age population of galaxies.
2696: \item All Coma Cluster ETG samples are consistent with having
2697: \emph{no} SSP-equivalent age--$\sigma$ or age--mass relation. That
2698: is, we see no sign of downsizing in Coma Cluster ETGs. This is not
2699: the case in the \citet{Nelan05} Coma Cluster RSG sample; however, we
2700: have shown that this due to neglect of emission-line corrections to
2701: the Balmer-line indexes in their sample.
2702: \item The large Coma Cluster ETG sample of \citet{M02} is consistent
2703: with the dispersion of SSP-equivalent ages decreasing with
2704: increasing velocity dispersion. These age dispersions are typically
2705: smaller than those of our field ETG sample at the same velocity
2706: dispersion.
2707: \item Field ETGs and all Coma Cluster ETG and RSG samples show both
2708: a $Z$-plane and an \enh--$\sigma$ relation.
2709: \end{enumerate}
2710: Taken together, findings (i)--(iii) mean that predictions (i) and (ii)
2711: above does not hold for the stellar populations of Coma Cluster ETGs;
2712: only prediction (iii) holds.
2713:
2714: We have explored two galaxy formation scenarios to explain these
2715: results: (1) one in which old ETGs have recent burst of star formation
2716: triggered by an as-yet unidentified process and (2) one in which the
2717: on-going star formation in blue galaxies is suddenly shutdown and
2718: followed by passive evolution of these galaxies to become the ETGs we
2719: see today. We have ruled out the second, `rapid quenching' model on
2720: the basis that intermediate-redshift clusters do not have large
2721: populations of the \emph{massive} blue galaxies implied by this model
2722: \citep[as previously remarked on by, e.g.,][]{Bell04}. We therefore
2723: consider recent star formation on top of old stellar populations as
2724: being the preferred (but not ideal) model. This star formation either
2725: happened at $z\sim0.2$ for most ETGs in the Coma Cluster \emph{or} the
2726: star formation histories of the ETGs were more complex but `conspire'
2727: to appear simultaneous using our line-strength dating technique at the
2728: present epoch. An open question is, where are the \emph{old} Coma
2729: Cluster ETGs that did \emph{not} suffer recent star formation? We do
2730: find a few galaxies in our sample (GMP 3269 and GMP 3484) whose 68 per
2731: cent upper limits on their SSP-equivalent ages approach or exceed 10
2732: Gyr with the W94 models, but the average age at all masses is, again,
2733: 5--7 Gyr.
2734:
2735: We however must pause and ask whether we have \emph{really} ruled out
2736: downsizing in the Coma Cluster ETG population if all we are detecting
2737: is a `frosting' \citep[to use the phrase of][]{T00b,Gebhardt03} of a
2738: few percent by mass of young stars on top of a massive population that
2739: formed at high redshift. Taking our very simple two-burst models -- a
2740: young population on top of a 12-Gyr-old population -- at face value,
2741: we could say yes, that most of the stars formed at an early epoch
2742: regardless of their mass. This is contrary to our definition of
2743: downsizing. However, we could certainly imagine more complicated
2744: `frosting' scenarios in which low-mass galaxies formed the bulk of
2745: their stars later than high-mass galaxies -- at, say, 8 Gyr rather
2746: than 12 Gyr -- and then all (or at least most) of the galaxies had a
2747: later, small star-formation episode. We admit that it is difficult to
2748: test these models with the observations we have presented here.
2749: However, others -- for example \citet{TMBO05} and \citet{Nelan05} --
2750: have claimed that they observe downsizing of ETGs directly from their
2751: present-day line strengths. It is this precise claim of downsizing
2752: that we believe we have falsified, at least in the Coma Cluster. Even
2753: if these studies did show `downsizing', the `frosting' scenario calls
2754: into question whether this is the same `downsizing' that is seen in
2755: lookback studies, as it may only involve a small fraction of the mass.
2756: We suggest that at present perhaps only lookback studies (like those
2757: mentioned in \S\ref{sec:introduction}) can detect downsizing in the
2758: stellar populations of ETGs.
2759:
2760: Are stellar population studies of ETGs therefore not useful? We
2761: believe that they are, even if they only address a small fraction of
2762: the mass of the population. Our results suggest that \emph{something
2763: interesting} has happened in the Coma Cluster ETGs that appears not to
2764: be reproduced by current galaxy formation models or expectations from
2765: observations of high redshift galaxies. However, galaxy formation
2766: models have not (yet) examined the ages of ETGs in the same way as we
2767: determine them locally -- i.e., they do not attempt to model
2768: $t_{\mathrm{SSP}}$. We (Trager \& Somerville, in prep.) are modelling
2769: line strengths and SSP-equivalent stellar population parameters to see
2770: if our predictions above are still valid when considering the
2771: observational quantities presented in this paper. By comparing the
2772: results of stellar population analysis of real galaxies to the stellar
2773: populations of model galaxies, we will be able to test the validity of
2774: our galaxy formation models, helping us to understand the formation
2775: processes in real ETGs.
2776:
2777: The formation processes of ETGs -- those in clusters or in the field
2778: -- are clearly more complicated than simple, rapid quenching of star
2779: formation leading to downsizing. Our results show that we can place
2780: new constraints on models of these processes. Of course, considering
2781: the ETGs in just one local cluster is a necessary but not sufficient
2782: step forward in understanding their formation and evolution. Further
2783: clusters must be tested with data of the same quality that (or better
2784: than) we have presented here.
2785:
2786: \section*{Acknowledgements}
2787:
2788: The authors wish to recognise and acknowledge the very significant
2789: cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always
2790: had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate
2791: to have had the opportunity to conduct observations from this
2792: mountain.
2793:
2794: It is a pleasure to thank E.~Bell, J.~Gorgas, J.~van Gorkom, A.~Helmi,
2795: D.~Kelson, S.~Khochfar, C.~Maraston, D.~Mehlert, B.~Poggianti,
2796: J.~Rose, P.~S\'anchez-Bl\'azquez, R.~Schiavon, P.~Serra, R.~Shipman,
2797: R.~Smith, R.~Somerville, D.~Thomas, and G.~Worthey for helpful
2798: discussions. We also thank D.~Kelson for much very useful software;
2799: A.~Phillips for slitmask design software; G.~Worthey for providing
2800: stellar population models in advance of publication; J.M.~van der
2801: Hulst for access to the images of \citet{Beijersbergen} used to
2802: compute surface brightness parameters of GMP 3565; C.~Peng for helpful
2803: advice on the use of GALFIT; P.~Serra for help with GANDALF, and
2804: M.~Sarzi, J.~Falcon-Barroso \& R.~Peletier for writing GANDALF and
2805: making it available; B.~Poggianti for an electronic copy of the
2806: \citet{P01} data for galaxies in common with our sample and a careful
2807: reading of an early draft of the manuscript; J.~B.~Oke and J.~Cohen
2808: for designing and building the LRIS spectrograph; J.~Nelson and the
2809: entire CARA staff past and present for designing, building, and
2810: maintaining the Keck Telescopes; the directors of Lick/UCO and Keck
2811: Observatories for the generous allocation of observing time; and
2812: finally Pele for bringing us clouds but not humidity on 7 April 1997.
2813: Support for this work was provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship
2814: grant HF-01125.01-99A to SCT awarded by the Space Telescope Science
2815: Institute, which is operated by the Association of Universities for
2816: Research in Astronomy, Inc., for NASA under contract NAS 5-26555; by a
2817: Carnegie Starr Fellowship to SCT; by NSF grant AST-9529098 to SMF; and
2818: by NASA contract NAS5-1661 to the WF/PC-I IDT. This research has made
2819: use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by
2820: the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology,
2821: under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
2822: This research has also made use of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey
2823: (SDSS). Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the
2824: Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the
2825: National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the
2826: National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese
2827: Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education
2828: Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is
2829: http://www.sdss.org/.
2830:
2831: \begin{thebibliography}{}
2832: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Adami et al.}{2005a}]{Adami05a} Adami
2833: C., et al., 2005a, A\&A, 429, 39
2834: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Adami et al.}{2005b}]{Adami05b} Adami
2835: C., Biviano A., Durret F., Mazure A., 2005b, A\&A, 443, 17
2836: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Adelman-McCarthy et al.}{2007}]{DR6}
2837: Adelman-McCarthy J.~K., et al., 2007, ApJS, submitted
2838: (arXiv:0707.3413)
2839: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baade \& Gaposchkin}{1963}]{Baade}
2840: Baade W., Gaposchkin C.~H.~P., 1963, Evolution of Stars and
2841: Galaxies. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
2842: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Baldry et al.}{2004}]{Baldry04}
2843: Baldry I.~K., Glazebrook K., Brinkmann J., Ivezi{\'c} {\v Z}.,
2844: Lupton R.~H., Nichol R.~C., Szalay A.~S., 2004, ApJ, 600, 681
2845: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ball et al.}{2006}]{Ball06} Ball
2846: N.~M., Loveday J., Brunner R.~J., Baldry I.~K., Brinkmann J., 2006,
2847: MNRAS, 373, 845
2848: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Beers, Flynn, \&
2849: Gebhardt}{1990}]{BFG90} Beers T.~C., Flynn K., Gebhardt K., 1990,
2850: AJ, 100, 32
2851: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2003}]{Bell03} Bell
2852: % E.~F., McIntosh D.~H., Katz N., Weinberg M.~D., 2003, ApJS, 149, 289
2853: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004a}]{BellGEMS04} Bell
2854: E.~F., et al., 2004a, ApJ, 600, L11
2855: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2004b}]{Bell04} Bell
2856: E.~F., et al., 2004b, ApJ, 608, 752
2857: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2005}]{Bell05} Bell
2858: % E.~F., et al., 2005, ApJ, 625, 23
2859: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bell et al.}{2006}]{Bell06} Bell
2860: % E.~F., et al., 2006, ApJ, 640, 241
2861: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Beijersbergen et
2862: al.}{2002}]{Beijersbergen} Beijersbergen M., Hoekstra H., van
2863: Dokkum P.~G., van der Hulst T., 2002, MNRAS, 329, 385
2864: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bernardi et al.}{2006}]{Bernardi06}
2865: Bernardi M., Nichol R.~C., Sheth R.~K., Miller C.~J., Brinkmann J.,
2866: 2006, AJ, 131, 1288
2867: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bertelli et al.}{1994}]{Padova}
2868: Bertelli G., Bressan A., Chiosi C., Fagotto F., Nasi E., 1994,
2869: A\&AS, 106, 275
2870: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Beuing et al.}{2002}]{Beuing02}
2871: Beuing J., Bender R., Mendes de Oliveira C., Thomas D., Maraston C.,
2872: 2002, A\&A, 395, 431
2873: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blanton et al.}{2005}]{Blanton05}
2874: Blanton M.~R., Eisenstein D., Hogg D.~W., Schlegel D.~J., Brinkmann
2875: J., 2005, ApJ, 629, 143
2876: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bower, Lucey, \& Ellis}{Bower et
2877: % al.}{1992}]{BLE92b} Bower R.~G., Lucey J.~R., Ellis
2878: % R.~S., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 601
2879: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Blumenthal et al.}{1984}]{BFPR84}
2880: Blumenthal G.~R., Faber S.~M., Primack J.~R., Rees M.~J., 1984, Nat,
2881: 311, 517
2882: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Brown et al.}{2007}]{Brown07} Brown
2883: M.~J.~I., Dey A., Jannuzi B.~T., Brand K., Benson A.~J., Brodwin M.,
2884: Croton D.~J., Eisenhardt P.~R., 2007, ApJ, 654, 858
2885: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bruzual \& Charlot}{2003}]{BC03}
2886: Bruzual G., Charlot S., 2003, MNRAS, 344, 1000
2887: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Bundy et al.}{2006}]{Bundy06} Bundy
2888: K., et al., 2006, ApJ, 651, 120
2889: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Burstein et al.}{1997}]{BBFN97}
2890: % Burstein D., Bender R., Faber S., Nolthenius R., 1997, AJ, 114, 1365
2891: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Burstein et al.}{1984}]{BFGK84}
2892: Burstein D., Faber S.~M., Gaskell C.~M., Krumm N., 1984,
2893: ApJ, 287, 586
2894: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Butcher \& Oemler}{1978}]{BO78}
2895: Butcher H., Oemler A., Jr., 1978, ApJ, 219, 18
2896: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Butcher \& Oemler}{1984}]{BO84}
2897: Butcher H., Oemler A., Jr., 1984, ApJ, 285, 426
2898: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Caldwell, Rose \& Concannon}{Caldwell
2899: et al.}{2003}]{CRC03} Caldwell N., Rose J.~A., Concannon
2900: K.~D., 2003, AJ, 125, 2891
2901: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cappellari et
2902: al.}{2006}]{Cappellari06} Cappellari M., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 366,
2903: 1126
2904: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cardiel, Gorgas, \&
2905: Aragon-Salamanca}{Cardiel et al.}{1995}]{Cardiel95} Cardiel N., Gorgas J.,
2906: Aragon-Salamanca A., 1995, MNRAS, 277, 502
2907: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cardiel, Gorgas, \&
2908: Aragon-Salamanca}{Cardiel et al.}{1998}]{Cardiel98} Cardiel N., Gorgas J.,
2909: Aragon-Salamanca A., 1998, MNRAS, 298, 977
2910: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cardiel et al.}{1998}]{CGCG98}
2911: Cardiel N., Gorgas J., Cenarro J., Gonzalez J.~J., 1998,
2912: A\&AS, 127, 597
2913: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Carlson et al.}{1998}]{Carlson98}
2914: Carlson M.~N., et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 1778
2915: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Carlson et al.}{1999}]{Carlson99}
2916: % Carlson M.~N., et al., 1999, AJ, 117, 1700
2917: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cattaneo et al.}{2006}]{Cattaneo06}
2918: Cattaneo A., Dekel A., Devriendt J., Guiderdoni B., Blaizot J.,
2919: 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1651
2920: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Charlot, Worthey, \&
2921: % Bressan}{1996}]{CWB96} Charlot S., Worthey G., Bressan A., 1996,
2922: % ApJ, 457, 625
2923: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cimatti, Daddi, \& Renzini}{Cimatti
2924: et al.}{2006}]{CDR06} Cimatti A., Daddi E., Renzini A., 2006, A\&A,
2925: 453, L29
2926: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Clemens et al.}{2006}]{Clemens06}
2927: Clemens M.~S., Bressan A., Nikolic B., Alexander P., Annibali F.,
2928: Rampazzo R., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 702
2929: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Colless et al.}{2001}]{2dF} Colless
2930: M., et al., 2001, MNRAS, 328, 1039
2931: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Collobert et al.}{2006}]{Collobert06}
2932: % Collobert M., Sarzi M., Davies R.~L., Kuntschner H., Colless M.,
2933: % 2006, MNRAS, 370, 1213
2934: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cooper et al.}{2006}]{Cooper06}
2935: Cooper M.~C., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 198
2936: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Couch \& Sharples}{1987}]{CS87} Couch
2937: W.~J., Sharples R.~M., 1987, MNRAS, 229, 423
2938: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Cowie et al.}{1996}]{Cowie96} Cowie
2939: L.~L., Songaila A., Hu E.~M., Cohen J.~G., 1996, AJ, 112, 839
2940: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Croton et al.}{2006}]{Croton06}
2941: Croton D.~J., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 365, 11
2942: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Crowl \& Kenney}{2006}]{CK06} Crowl
2943: % H.~H., Kenney J.~D.~P., 2006, ApJ, 649, L75
2944: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Davis et al.}{2003}]{DEEP2} Davis M.,
2945: et al., 2003, SPIE, 4834, 161
2946: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{De Lucia et al.}{2004}]{deLucia04} De
2947: % Lucia G., et al., 2004, ApJ, 610, L77
2948: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{De Lucia et al.}{2006}]{deLucia06} De
2949: Lucia G., Springel V., White S.~D.~M., Croton D., Kauffmann G.,
2950: 2006, MNRAS, 366, 499
2951: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dressler}{1980a}]{D80a} Dressler A.,
2952: 1980a, ApJ, 236, 351
2953: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dressler}{1980b}]{D80} Dressler A.,
2954: 1980b, ApJS, 42, 565
2955: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dressler}{1984}]{D84} Dressler
2956: A., 1984, ApJ, 281, 512
2957: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Dressler et al.}{1997}]{Dressler97}
2958: Dressler A., et al., 1997, ApJ, 490, 577
2959: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Drory et al.}{2004}]{Drory04} Drory
2960: N., Bender R., Feulner G., Hopp U., Maraston C., Snigula J., Hill
2961: G.~J., 2004, ApJ, 608, 742
2962: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Eisenhardt et
2963: al.}{2007}]{Eisenhardt07} Eisenhardt P.~R., De Propris R., Gonzalez
2964: A.~H., Stanford S.~A., Wang M. C., Dickinson M., 2007, ApJS, 169,
2965: 225
2966: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ellis et al.}{1997}]{Morphs97} Ellis
2967: R.~S., Smail I., Dressler A., Couch W.~J., Oemler A.~J., Butcher H.,
2968: Sharples R.~M., 1997, ApJ, 483, 582
2969: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber}{1973}]{Faber73} Faber
2970: S.~M., 1973, ApJ, 179, 731
2971: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber}{1977}]{Faber77} Faber S.~M.,
2972: 1977, in B.~M.~Tinsley, R.~B.~Larson, eds., The Evolution of
2973: Galaxies and Stellar Populations. Yale University Observatory, New
2974: Haven, p. 157
2975: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Faber et al.}{2007}]{Faber05} Faber
2976: S.~M., et al., 2007, ApJ, 665, 265
2977: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferreras \& Yi}{2004}]{FY04} Ferreras
2978: I., Yi S.~K., 2004, MNRAS, 350, 1322
2979: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ferreras et al.}{2005}]{Ferreras05}
2980: Ferreras I., Lisker T., Carollo C.~M., Lilly S.~J., Mobasher B.,
2981: 2005, ApJ, 635, 243
2982: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fisher, Franx, \& Illingworth}{Fisher
2983: et al.}{1995}]{FFI95} Fisher D., Franx M., Illingworth G., 1995,
2984: ApJ, 448, 119
2985: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Fisher, Franx, \& Illingworth}{Fisher
2986: et al.}{1996}]{FFI96} Fisher D., Franx M., Illingworth G., 1996,
2987: ApJ, 459, 110
2988: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Freedman et al.}{2001}]{F01}
2989: Freedman W.~L.~et al., 2001, ApJ, 553, 47
2990: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gallazzi et al.}{2006}]{Gallazzi06}
2991: Gallazzi A., Charlot S., Brinchmann J., White S.~D.~M., 2006, MNRAS,
2992: 370, 1106
2993: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gebhardt et al.}{2003}]{Gebhardt03}
2994: Gebhardt K., et al., 2003, ApJ, 597, 239
2995: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gerhard et al.}{2007}]{Gerhard07}
2996: Gerhard O., Arnaboldi M., Freeman K.~C., Okamura S., Kashikawa N.,
2997: Yasuda N., 2007, A\&A, 468, 815
2998: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Godwin, Metcalfe, \& Peach}{Godwin et
2999: al.}{1983}]{GMP83} Godwin J.~G., Metcalfe N., Peach
3000: J.~V., 1983, MNRAS, 202, 113
3001: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gonz{\'a}lez}{1993}]{G93}
3002: Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 1993, PhD Thesis, University of California,
3003: Santa Cruz
3004: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Goudfrooij \& Emsellem}{1996}]{GE96}
3005: Goudfrooij P., Emsellem E., 1996, A\&A, 306, L45
3006: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Gregg \& West}{1998}]{GW98} Gregg
3007: M.~D., West M.~J., 1998, Nature, 396, 549
3008: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Guzman et al.}{1992}]{GLCT92} Guzman
3009: R., Lucey J.~R., Carter D., Terlevich R.~J., 1992, MNRAS,
3010: 257, 187
3011: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Harker et al.}{2006}]{Harker06}
3012: Harker J.~J., Schiavon R.~P., Weiner B.~J., Faber S.~M., 2006, ApJ,
3013: 647, L103
3014: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hinkle et al.}{2000}]{HWVH00} Hinkle
3015: K., Wallace L., Valenti J., Harmer D., 2000, Visible and Near
3016: Infrared Atlas of the Arcturus Spectrum 3727--9300 \AA.
3017: Astron.\ Soc.\ Pac., San Francisco, CA
3018: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ho, Filippenko, \& Sargent}{Ho et
3019: al.}{1997}]{HFS97} Ho L.~C., Filippenko A.~V., Sargent
3020: W.~L.~W., 1997, ApJ, 487, 568
3021: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2003}]{Hogg03} Hogg
3022: % D.~W., et al., 2003, ApJ, 585, L5
3023: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hogg et al.}{2004}]{Hogg04} Hogg
3024: % D.~W., et al., 2004, ApJL, 601, L29
3025: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Holtzman et al.}{1992}]{Holtz92}
3026: Holtzman J.~A., et al., 1992, AJ, 103, 691
3027: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Holtzman et al.}{1996}]{Holtz96}
3028: % Holtzman J.~A., et al., 1996, AJ, 112, 416
3029: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hopkins \& Beacom}{2006}]{Hopkins06}
3030: Hopkins A.~M., Beacom J.~F., 2006, ApJ, 651, 142
3031: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Houdashelt et al.}{2002}]{HTWB02}
3032: % Houdashelt M.~L., Trager S.~C., Worthey G., Bell R.~A., 2002, BAAS,
3033: % 34, 1118
3034: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Hudson et al.}{2001}]{Hudson02}
3035: Hudson M.~J., Lucey J.~R., Smith R.~J., Schlegel D.~J., \&
3036: Davies R.~L., 2001, MNRAS, 327, 265
3037: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Ilbert et al.}{2006}]{Ilbert06}
3038: Ilbert O., et al., 2006, A\&A, 453, 809
3039: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{J{\o}rgensen}{1999}]{J99}
3040: J{\o}rgensen I., 1999, MNRAS, 306, 607
3041: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{J{\o}rgensen \& Franx}{1994}]{JF94}
3042: J{\o}rgensen I.~\& Franx M., 1994, ApJ, 433, 553
3043: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{J{\o}rgensen, Franx \&
3044: Kj{\ae}rgaard}{J{\o}rgensen et al.}{1992}]{JFK92} J{\o}rgensen I.,
3045: Franx M., Kj{\ae}rgaard P., 1992, A\&AS, 95, 489
3046: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{J{\o}rgensen, Franx \&
3047: Kj{\ae}rgaard}{Jorgensen et al.}{1996}]{JFK96} Jorgensen I., Franx
3048: M., Kjaergaard P., 1996, MNRAS, 280, 167
3049: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{J{\o}rgensen et
3050: al.}{2005}]{Jorgensen05} J{\o}rgensen I., Bergmann M., Davies R.,
3051: Barr J., Takamiya M., Crampton D., 2005, AJ, 129, 1249
3052: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Juneau et al.}{2005}]{Juneau05}
3053: Juneau S., et al., 2005, ApJL, 619, L135
3054: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kannappan \& Gawiser}{2007}]{KG07}
3055: % Kannappan S.~J., Gawiser E., 2007, ApJ, 657, L5
3056: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kauffmann et al.}{2006}]{Kauffmann06}
3057: % Kauffmann G., Heckman T.~M., De Lucia G., Brinchmann J., Charlot S.,
3058: % Tremonti C., White S.~D.~M., Brinkmann J., 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1394
3059: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaviraj et al.}{2006}]{Kaviraj06}
3060: Kaviraj S., Devriendt J.~E.~G., Ferreras I., Yi S.~K., Silk J.,
3061: 2006, preprint (astro-ph/0602347)
3062: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaviraj et al.}{2007a}]{Kaviraj07a}
3063: Kaviraj S., et al., 2007a, ApJS, 173, 619
3064: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kaviraj et al.}{2007b}]{Kaviraj07b}
3065: Kaviraj S., et al., 2007b, MNRAS, in press (arXiv:0709.0806)
3066: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kelson}{2003}]{Kelson03} Kelson
3067: D.~D., 2003, PASP, 115, 688
3068: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kelson}{2006}]{Kelson06} Kelson
3069: D.~D., 2006, preprint
3070: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kelson et al.}{2000}]{KIvDF00} Kelson
3071: D.~D., Illingworth G.~D., van Dokkum P.~G., Franx M., 2000, ApJ,
3072: 531, 159
3073: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kelson et al.}{2006}]{KIFvD06} Kelson
3074: D.~D., Illingworth G.~D., Franx M., van Dokkum P.~G., 2006, ApJ,
3075: 653, 159
3076: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kennicutt}{1998}]{Kennicutt98}
3077: Kennicutt R.~C., Jr., 1998, ARA\&A, 36, 189
3078: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Korn, Maraston \& Thomas}{Korn et
3079: al.}{2005}]{KMT05} Korn A., Maraston C., Thomas D., 2005, A\&A, 438,
3080: 685
3081: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kroupa}{2001}]{Kroupa01} Kroupa
3082: P., 2001, MNRAS, 322, 231
3083: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kuntschner}{2000}]{K00} Kuntschner
3084: H., 2000, MNRAS, 315, 184
3085: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kuntschner et al.}{2001}]{K01}
3086: Kuntschner H., Lucey J.~R., Smith R.~J., Hudson M.~J., Davies R.~L.,
3087: 2001, MNRAS, 323, 615
3088: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Kuntschner et al.}{2002}]{K02}
3089: % Kuntschner H., Smith R.~J., Colless M., Davies R. L., Kaldare R.,
3090: % Vazdekis A., 2002, MNRAS, 337, 172
3091: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Larson, Tinsley, \&
3092: Caldwell}{Larson et al.}{1980}]{LTC80} Larson R.~B., Tinsley B.~M., Caldwell C.~N.,
3093: 1980, ApJ, 237, 692
3094: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lauer}{1986}]{Lauer86} Lauer T.~R.,
3095: 1986, ApJ, 311, 34
3096: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Le F{\`e}vre et al.}{2005}]{VVDS} Le
3097: F{\`e}vre O., et al., 2005, A\&A, 439, 845
3098: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Lee \& Worthey}{2005}]{LW05} Lee
3099: H.-C., Worthey G. 2005, ApJS, 160, 176
3100: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{{\L}okas \& Mamon}{2003}]{LM03}
3101: {\L}okas E.~L., Mamon G.~A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, 401
3102: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{MacArthur et al.}{2004}]{MacArthur04}
3103: MacArthur L.~A., Courteau S., Bell E., Holtzman J.~A., 2004, ApJS,
3104: 152, 175
3105: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Madau et al.}{1996}]{Madau96} Madau
3106: P., Ferguson H.~C., Dickinson M.~E., Giavalisco M., Steidel C.~C.,
3107: Fruchter A., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 1388
3108: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Maraston \& Thomas}{2000}]{MT00}
3109: Maraston C., Thomas D., 2000, ApJ, 541, 126
3110: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Martin et al.}{2005}]{GALEX} Martin
3111: D.~C., et al., 2005, ApJ, 619, L1
3112: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Matkovi{\'c} \&
3113: Guzm{\'a}n}{2005}]{MG05} Matkovi{\'c} A., Guzm{\'a}n R., 2005,
3114: MNRAS, 362, 289
3115: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mehlert et al.}{2000}]{Mehlert00}
3116: Mehlert D., Saglia R.~P., Bender R., Wegner G., 2000, A\&AS,
3117: 141, 449
3118: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mehlert et al.}{2003}]{Mehlert03}
3119: Mehlert D., Thomas D., Saglia R.~P., Bender R., Wegner G., 2003,
3120: A\&A, 407, 423
3121: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mihos \& Hernquist}{1994a}]{MH94a}
3122: Mihos J.~C., Hernquist L., 1994a, ApJ, 425, L13
3123: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mihos \& Hernquist}{1994b}]{MH94b}
3124: Mihos J.~C., Hernquist L., 1994b, ApJ, 431, L9
3125: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Minkowski}{1961}]{Minkowski61}
3126: Minkowski R., 1961, AJ, 66, 558
3127: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Mitchell et al.}{2005}]{Mitchell05}
3128: Mitchell J.~L., Keeton C.~R., Frieman J.~A., Sheth R.~K., 2005, ApJ,
3129: 622, 81
3130: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moore}{2001}]{Moore01} Moore
3131: S.~A.~W., 2001, PhD Thesis, University of Durham
3132: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Moore et al.}{2002}]{M02} Moore
3133: S.~A.~W., Lucey J.~R., Kuntschner H., Colless M., 2002, MNRAS, 336,
3134: 382
3135: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Nelan et al.}{2005}]{Nelan05} Nelan
3136: J.~E., Smith R.~J., Hudson M.~J., Wegner G.~A., Lucey J.~R., Moore
3137: S.~A.~W., Quinney S.~J., Suntzeff N.~B., 2005, ApJ, 632, 137
3138: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Noeske et al.}{2007}]{Noeske07}
3139: Noeske K.~G., et al., 2007, ApJ, 660, L43
3140: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oke}{1990}]{Oke90} Oke J.~B., 1990,
3141: AJ, 99, 1621
3142: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Oke et al.}{1995}]{LRIS} Oke J. B.,
3143: et al. 1995, PASP, 107, 375
3144: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Peng et al.}{2002}]{GALFIT} Peng
3145: C.~Y., Ho L.~C., Impey C.~D., Rix H., 2002, AJ, 124, 266
3146: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Poggianti et al.}{2001}]{P01}
3147: Poggianti B.~M.~et al., 2001, ApJ, 562, 689
3148: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Press et al.}{1992}]{NumRec} Press
3149: W.~H., Teukolsky S.~A., Vetterling W.~T., Flannery B.~P., 1992,
3150: Numerical Recipes in C: The art of scientific computing. Cambridge
3151: University Press, Cambridge
3152: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Proctor \& Sansom}{2002}]{PS02}
3153: Proctor R.~N., Sansom A.~E., 2002, MNRAS, 333, 517
3154: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Proctor, Forbes, \&
3155: % Beasley}{2004}]{PFB04} Proctor R.~N., Forbes D.~A., Beasley M.~A.,
3156: % 2004, MNRAS, 355, 1327
3157: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Read \& Trentham}{2005}]{RT05} Read
3158: J.~I., Trentham N., 2005, RSPTA, 363, 2693
3159: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Renzini}{2006}]{Renzini06} Renzini
3160: A., 2006, ARA\&A, 441, 141
3161: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rix \& White}{1992}]{RW92} Rix H.,
3162: White S.~D.~M., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 389
3163: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Roberts \& Haynes}{1994}]{RM94}
3164: Roberts M.~S., Haynes M.~P., 1994, ARA\&A, 32, 115
3165: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rood \& Baum}{1967}]{RB67} Rood
3166: H.~J., Baum W.~A., 1967, AJ, 72, 398
3167: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rose}{1985}]{Rose85} Rose
3168: J.~A., 1985, AJ, 90, 1927
3169: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Rose}{1994}]{Rose94} Rose
3170: J~.A., 1994, AJ, 107, 206
3171: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Salasnich et al.}{2000}]{S00}
3172: Salasnich B., Girardi L., Weiss A., Chiosi C., 2000, A\&A, 361,
3173: 1023
3174: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Salpeter}{1955}]{Salpeter55} Salpeter
3175: E.~E., 1955, ApJ, 121, 161
3176: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez et
3177: al.}{2006a}]{SB06c} S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez P., et al., 2006a,
3178: MNRAS, 371, 703
3179: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez et
3180: al.}{2006b}]{SB06a} S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez P., Gorgas J., Cardiel
3181: N., Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 2006b, A\&A, 457, 787
3182: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez et
3183: al.}{2006c}]{SB06b} S{\'a}nchez-Bl{\'a}zquez P., Gorgas J., Cardiel
3184: N., Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 2006c, A\&A, 457, 809
3185: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sandage}{1986}]{Sandage86} Sandage
3186: A., 1986, A\&A, 161, 89
3187: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sarzi et al.}{2006}]{Sarzi06} Sarzi
3188: M., et al., 2006, MNRAS, 366, 1151
3189: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schawinski et
3190: % al.}{2007}]{Schawinski07} Schawinski K., Thomas D., Sarzi M.,
3191: % Maraston C., Kaviraj S., Joo S.-J., Yi S.~K., Silk J., 2007, MNRAS,
3192: % 382, 1415
3193: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schiavon}{2007}]{Schiavon05} Schiavon
3194: R.~P., 2007, ApJS, 171, 146
3195: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schiavon et al.}{2002}]{Schiavon02a}
3196: % Schiavon R.~P., Faber S.~M., Castilho B.~V., Rose J.~A., 2002, ApJ,
3197: % 580, 850
3198: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schiavon, Caldwell, \& Rose}{Schiavon
3199: et al.}{2004a}]{SchiavonM67} Schiavon R.~P., Caldwell N., Rose
3200: J.~A., 2004a, AJ, 127, 1513
3201: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schiavon et al.}{2004b}]{Schiavon04}
3202: Schiavon R.~P., Rose J.~A., Courteau S., MacArthur L.~A., 2004b, ApJ,
3203: 608, L33
3204: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Schlegel, Finkbeiner, \&
3205: Davis}{Schlegel et al.}{1998}]{SFD98} Schlegel D.~J., Finkbeiner
3206: D.~P., Davis M., 1998, ApJ, 500, 525
3207: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Scoville et al.}{2007}]{COSMOS}
3208: Scoville N., et al., 2007, ApJS, 172, 1
3209: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Serra \& Trager}{2007}]{ST06} Serra
3210: P., Trager S.~C., 2007, MNRAS, 374, 769
3211: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Serven, Worthey, \&
3212: Briley}{2005}]{SWB05} Serven J., Worthey G., Briley M.~M., 2005,
3213: ApJ, 627, 754
3214: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Sheth et al.}{2006}]{Sheth06} Sheth
3215: % R.~K., Jimenez R., Panter B., Heavens A.~F., 2006, ApJ, 650, L25
3216: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al.}{2004}]{Smith04} Smith
3217: R.~J., et al., 2004, AJ, 128, 1558
3218: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Smith et al.}{2006}]{Smith06} Smith
3219: R.~J., Hudson M.~J., Lucey J.~R., Nelan J.~E., Wegner G.~A., 2006,
3220: MNRAS, 369, 1419
3221: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Spergel et al.}{2007}]{WMAP3} Spergel
3222: D.~N., et al., 2007, ApJ, ApJS, 170, 377
3223: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Stanford, Eisenhardt, \&
3224: Dickinson}{1998}]{SED98} Stanford S.~A., Eisenhardt P.~R., Dickinson
3225: M., 1998, ApJ, 492, 461
3226: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strateva et al.}{2001}]{Strateva01}
3227: Strateva I., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 1861
3228: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Strauss et al.}{2002}]{SDSS} Strauss
3229: M.~A., et al., 2002, AJ, 124, 1810
3230: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tegmark et al.}{1997}]{Tegmark97}
3231: % Tegmark M., Silk J., Rees M.~J., Blanchard A., Abel T., Palla F.,
3232: 5 1997, ApJ, 474, 1
3233: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Terlevich et al.}{1999}]{TKBCS99}
3234: Terlevich A.~I., Kuntschner H., Bower R.~G., Caldwell N.,
3235: Sharples R.~M., 1999, MNRAS, 310, 445
3236: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Thomas \& Maraston}{2003}]{TM03}
3237: Thomas D., Maraston C., 2003, A\&A, 401, 429
3238: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Thomas, Maraston, \& Bender}{Thomas
3239: et al.}{2003}]{TMB03} Thomas D., Maraston C., Bender R., 2003,
3240: MNRAS, 339, 897 (TMB03)
3241: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Thomas et al.}{2005}]{TMBO05} Thomas
3242: D., Maraston C., Bender R., de Oliveira C.~M., 2005, ApJ, 621, 673
3243: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Thuan \& Kormendy}{1977}]{TK77} Thuan
3244: T.~X., Kormendy J., 1977, PASP, 89, 466
3245: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tonry}{1984}]{Tonry84} Tonry J.~L.,
3246: 1984, ApJ, 279, 13
3247: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tonry}{1985}]{Tonry85} Tonry J.~L.,
3248: 1985, AJ, 90, 2431
3249: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tonry et al.}{2001}]{Tonry01} Tonry
3250: J.~L., Dressler A., Blakeslee J.~P., Ajhar E.~A., Fletcher A.~B.,
3251: Luppino G.~A., Metzger M.~R., Moore C.~B., 2001, ApJ, 546, 681
3252: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tran et al.}{2005}]{Tran05} Tran
3253: % K.-V.~H., van Dokkum P., Franx M., Illingworth G.~D., Kelson D.~D.,
3254: % Schreiber N.~M.~F., 2005, ApJ, 627, L25
3255: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Trager et al.}{1993}]{TFGW93} Trager
3256: S.~C., Faber S.~M., Gonzalez J.~J., Worthey G., 1993, BAAS, 25, 1354
3257: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Trager et al.}{1998}]{TWFBG98}
3258: Trager S.~C., Worthey G., Faber S.~M., Burstein D.,
3259: Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 1998, ApJS, 116, 1
3260: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Trager et al.}{2000a}]{T00a} Trager
3261: S.~C., Faber S.~M., Worthey G., Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 2000a, AJ,
3262: 119, 1645 (Paper I)
3263: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Trager et al.}{2000b}]{T00b} Trager
3264: S.~C., Faber S.~M., Worthey G., Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 2000b, AJ,
3265: 120, 165 (Paper II)
3266: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Trager et al.}{2005}]{TWFD05} Trager
3267: S.~C., Worthey G., Faber S.~M., Dressler A., 2005, MNRAS, 362, 2
3268: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tremonti et al.}{2004}]{Tremonti}
3269: Tremonti C.~A., et al., 2004, ApJ, 613, 898
3270: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Treu et al.}{2005}]{Treu05} Treu T.,
3271: Ellis R.~S., Liao T.~X., van Dokkum P.~G., 2005, ApJ, 622, L5
3272: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Tripicco \& Bell}{1995}]{TB95}
3273: Tripicco M., Bell R.~A., 1995, AJ, 110, 3035
3274: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van der Marel \& van
3275: Dokkum}{2007}]{vdM06b} van der Marel R.~P., van Dokkum P.~G., 2007,
3276: ApJ, 668, 738
3277: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van der Wel et al.}{2004}]{vdW04} van
3278: der Wel A., Franx M., van Dokkum P.~G., Rix H.-W., 2004, ApJ, 601,
3279: L5
3280: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van der Wel et al.}{2007}]{vdW07}
3281: van der Wel A., et al., 2007, ApJ, 670, 206
3282: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Dokkum \& Franx}{1996}]{vDF96}
3283: van Dokkum P.~G., Franx M., 1996, MNRAS, 281, 985
3284: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Dokkum \& Franx}{2001}]{vDF01}
3285: van Dokkum P.~G., Franx M., 2001, ApJ, 553, 90
3286: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Dokkum et al.}{1998}]{vD98} van
3287: Dokkum P.~G., Franx M., Kelson D.~D., Illingworth G.~D., 1998, ApJ,
3288: 504, L17
3289: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Dokkum et al.}{1999}]{vD99} van
3290: Dokkum P.~G., Franx M., Fabricant D., Kelson D.~D., Illingworth
3291: G.~D., 1999, ApJ, 520, L95
3292: %\bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{van Gorkom}{2004}]{vG04} van Gorkom
3293: % J.~H., 2004, in Mulchaey J.~S., Dressler A., Oemler A., eds.,
3294: % Carnegie Observatories Centennial Symposium 3, Clusters of Galaxies:
3295: % Probes of Cosmological Structure and Galaxy Evolution. Cambridge
3296: % University Press, Cambridge, p. 305
3297: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Vazdekis}{1999}]{V99} Vazdekis A.,
3298: 1999, ApJ, 513, 224
3299: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weiner et al.}{2005}]{Weiner05}
3300: Weiner B.~J., et al., 2005, ApJ, 620, 595
3301: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weiss, Peletier, \& Matteucci}{Weiss
3302: et al.}{1995}]{WPM95} Weiss A., Peletier R.~F., Matteucci F.,
3303: 1995, A\&A, 296, 73
3304: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Weiss et al.}{2006}]{Weiss06} Weiss
3305: A., Salaris M., Ferguson J.~W., Alexander D.~R., 2006, preprint
3306: (astro-ph/0605666)
3307: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Willmer et al.}{2006}]{Willmer06}
3308: Willmer C.~N.~A., et al., 2006, ApJ, 647, 853
3309: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Wolf et al.}{2003}]{COMBO17} Wolf C.,
3310: Meisenheimer K., Rix H.-W., Borch A., Dye S., Kleinheinrich M.,
3311: 2003, A\&A, 401, 73
3312: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Worthey}{1994}]{W94} Worthey, G.,
3313: 1994, ApJS, 95, 107 (W94)
3314: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Worthey, Faber \&
3315: Gonz{\'a}lez}{Worthey et al.}{1992}]{WFG92} Worthey G., Faber S.~M.,
3316: Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., 1992, ApJ, 398, 69
3317: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Worthey et al.}{1994}]{WFGB94}
3318: Worthey G., Faber S.~M., Gonz{\'a}lez J.~J., Burstein D., 1994,
3319: ApJS, 94, 687
3320: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Worthey \& Ottaviani}{1997}]{WO97}
3321: Worthey G., Ottaviani D.~L., 1997, ApJS, 111, 377
3322: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yan et al.}{2006}]{Yan06} Yan R.,
3323: Newman J.~A., Faber S.~M., Konidaris N., Koo D., Davis M., 2006,
3324: ApJ, 648, 281
3325: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yee et al.}{2005}]{Yee05} Yee
3326: H.~K.~C., Hsieh B.~C., Lin H., Gladders M.~D., 2005, ApJ, 629, L77
3327: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Yi et al.}{2005}]{Yi05} Yi S.~K., et
3328: al., 2005, ApJ, 619, L111
3329: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zheng et al.}{2007}]{Zheng07} Zheng
3330: X.~Z., Bell E.~F., Papovich C., Wolf C., Meisenheimer K., Rix H.-W.,
3331: Rieke G.~H., Somerville R., 2007, ApJ, 661, L41
3332: \bibitem[\protect\citeauthoryear{Zucca et al.}{2006}]{Zucca06} Zucca
3333: E., et al., 2006, A\&A, 455, 879
3334: \end{thebibliography}
3335:
3336: \begin{appendix}
3337:
3338: \section{Calibrating onto the Lick/IDS system}
3339: \label{sec:appcal}
3340:
3341: \subsection{Initial calibration}
3342:
3343: As described below, the wavelengths of the Lick/IDS system bandpasses
3344: are defined relative to a few template stars. Moreover, the Lick/IDS
3345: system is defined at a resolution that varies from about 8 \AA\ at
3346: 5000 \AA\ to 10--12 \AA\ at the extreme blue (4000 \AA) and red (6400
3347: \AA) ends of the system \citep{WO97}. As a first step, we choose a
3348: template star on which to define the wavelength system. The K1 giant
3349: HR 6018 is the template for G and K stars and most galaxies on the
3350: Lick/IDS system; we observed this star as well
3351: (\S\ref{sec:selection}). Next we determine the intrinsic resolution
3352: of the template $\sigma_{int}$, which is done by fitting (using LOSVD)
3353: the spectrum of the template to a digital echellogram of Arcturus
3354: \citep{HWVH00}. The template spectrum is then smoothed to the
3355: Lick/IDS resolution using a variable-width Gaussian filter with an
3356: intrinsic dispersion of
3357: \begin{equation}
3358: \sigma_{\mathrm{Lick/IDS}}=3492.88-1.30364\,\lambda+0.000128619\,\lambda^2\;
3359: \ \kms\label{eq:idsres}
3360: \end{equation}
3361: (with $\lambda$ in \AA), determined from fitting our spectrum of HR
3362: 6018 to the Lick/IDS spectrum of this star. This quadratic fit to the
3363: resolution data is very nearly that given by \citet{WO97}. The net
3364: smoothing kernel has a width
3365: $\sigma_b=(\sigma_{\mathrm{Lick/IDS}}^2-\sigma_{int}^2)^{1/2}$
3366: \citep[cf.][]{PS02}.
3367:
3368: We next place the wavelengths of the usable Lick/IDS bandpasses on the
3369: smoothed template spectrum. Due to the observational material from
3370: which it was defined, the Lick/IDS system is not simple to reproduce
3371: \citep[see e.g.,][just to name a few descriptions of the steps
3372: required]{WO97,K00}. One particular issue is the wavelength scale of
3373: the Lick/IDS system. As described by \citet{WFGB94} and
3374: \citet{TWFBG98}, the zero-point and scale of the IDS spectra could
3375: change between observing runs and even between consecutive exposures
3376: as the local magnetic field changed and altered the channel the
3377: incoming electrons hit on the IDS detector. Each IDS stellar spectrum
3378: was therefore adjusted to have zero redshift and a fixed
3379: \emph{average} wavelength scale, set in AUTOINDEX
3380: \citep{WFGB94,TWFBG98} by fixing the wavelengths of the strongest two
3381: features at (roughly) either end of the spectrum. For cool giants and
3382: dwarfs, the (blended head of the) G band and the (blended) Na D
3383: doublet were used, defined to have wavelengths of 4306.000 \AA\ and
3384: 5894.875 \AA\ respectively; for hot dwarfs, H$\gamma$ was used in the
3385: blue; for very cool stars, \mbox{Ca\,\textsc{i}} was used in the blue.
3386:
3387: However, small-scale fluctuations in the wavelength scale still
3388: persisted. To overcome this difficulty, AUTOINDEX implemented an
3389: index centring scheme that used a high-quality template star to place
3390: the bandpasses on each index \citep{WFGB94,TWFBG98}. There were three
3391: templates: HR 6018 for G-K stars, HR 8430 for mid-F and earlier stars,
3392: and HR 6815 for early- to mid-M stars. The bandpasses on each
3393: template were carefully placed to best reproduce the `eye' system of
3394: \citet{BFGK84}. Therefore, the \emph{true} wavelength definitions of
3395: the Lick/IDS passbands can be traced to the wavelength scales of these
3396: three stars. The passband definitions of \citet{WFGB94} and
3397: \citet{TWFBG98} were based on a comparison of the bandpasses given by
3398: the Lick/IDS template stars to the wavelength scales of modern CCD
3399: spectra taken by G. Worthey and J. Gonz\'alez \citep[see][]{G93}.
3400:
3401: In the current study, we use a scheme (SPINDEX2; see below) very
3402: similar to AUTOINDEX, in which a template star is defined to have the
3403: `correct' passband definitions and then is used to centre the indexes
3404: on each spectrum of interest. This was necessary in part because it
3405: is difficult to calibrate the wavelength scale of LRIS-R spectra in
3406: the blue region that concerns us here. The template star \emph{must}
3407: be `on' the Lick/IDS system in order to calibrate the line strengths
3408: of the individual objects onto that system. Fortunately, one of our
3409: comparison stars is the Lick/IDS K giant standard HR 6018
3410: (\S\ref{sec:selection}), also the template for cool stars and almost
3411: all galaxies in the Lick/IDS system. Using SPINDEX2, we smoothed our
3412: spectrum of HR 6018 to the resolution of the Lick/IDS system, after
3413: correcting this spectrum to zero velocity as described above. We then
3414: shifted the bandpasses given in the original AUTOINDEX template file
3415: for HR 6018 by measuring the velocity shifts of each index in the IDS
3416: spectrum of HR 6018 (observation 550010, that used as a template for
3417: the Lick/IDS system) with respect to the smoothed LRIS spectrum of HR
3418: 6018. The wavelength shifts are generally no more than 1.25 \AA\ and
3419: typically $\pm0.125$ to $\pm0.375$ \AA\ for most indexes in the
3420: observed range of the current data (from \cnone\ to Fe5406).
3421:
3422: \subsection{Emission corrections}
3423: \label{sec:emission}
3424:
3425: As discussed in previous works \citep[e.g.,][]{G93,GE96,K00}, nebular
3426: emission lines due to, e.g., low-luminosity AGN \citep{HFS97} are
3427: common in ETGs. Emission lines of atomic hydrogen, oxygen, and
3428: nitrogen can pollute the absorption-line indexes and distort the age
3429: and metallicity estimates. The hydrogen Balmer line indexes
3430: (H$\delta_{A,F}$, H$\gamma_{A,F}$, \hbeta), Fe5015 (which contains
3431: both [\mbox{O\,\textsc{iii}}]$\lambda4959$ \AA\ and
3432: [\mbox{O\,\textsc{iii}}]$\lambda5007$ \AA) and \mgb\ (which contains
3433: [\mbox{N\,\textsc{i}}] in its red sideband, \citealt{GE96}) are all
3434: susceptible to emission-line contamination.
3435:
3436: \begin{figure}
3437: \includegraphics[width=89mm]{coma_residuals.eps}
3438: \caption{Observed and emission-cleaned spectra of Coma ETGs. Spectra
3439: from the 2\farcs7 apertures (thick lines) have been fit with
3440: Gaussian emission lines and model spectra from Vazdekis (in prep.)
3441: and then cleaned of emission (thin lines) using GANDALF
3442: \citep{Sarzi06}. The emission-line index definitions of \hbeta,
3443: [\mbox{O\,\textsc{iii}}]$\lambda4959$ \AA, and
3444: [\mbox{O\,\textsc{iii}}]$\lambda5007$ \AA\ from \citet{G93} have
3445: been over-plotted as grey boxes. A 20 \AA-wide `index' around the
3446: [\mbox{N\,\textsc{i}}]$\lambda\lambda5197.9,5200.4$ \AA\ doublet
3447: \citep{GE96} has also been over-plotted.\label{fig:residuals}}
3448: \end{figure}
3449:
3450: We have used GANDALF \citep{Sarzi06} to determine possible emission
3451: contamination of our spectra by simultaneously fitting Gaussian
3452: emission lines and stellar population model spectral templates
3453: (Vazdekis, in prep., based on the spectra of
3454: \citealt{SB06c})\footnote{Note that we use the kinematics measured
3455: using the method described in \S\ref{sec:sigmaindex}, not those
3456: determined with GANDALF, which are only used for fitting the model
3457: templates to determine emission corrections.}. We accept an emission
3458: line to be significantly detected if the ratio of the amplitude of the
3459: line to the expected noise $A/N>2$. We find that while nearly of our
3460: galaxies (except GMP 3565) have detectable
3461: [\mbox{O\,\textsc{iii}}]$\lambda5007$ \AA\ emission, we do not detect
3462: \emph{significant} \hbeta\ emission in \emph{any} of our galaxies in
3463: the 2\farcs7 or `physical' \reo{2}\ apertures. Nor do we detect any
3464: significant [\mbox{N\,\textsc{i}}]. Because we have not detected
3465: \hbeta\ emission in any galaxy, we have not bothered to correct for
3466: emission in the higher-order Balmer lines. We have measured line
3467: strengths from the \emph{emission-cleaned} spectra rather than making
3468: the corrections outlined in \citet{T00a} and \citet{K00}.
3469:
3470: \subsection{Measuring line strengths}
3471:
3472: For each object of interest (star or galaxy), we now measure the line
3473: strengths on the (emission-cleaned) spectrum. The spectrum is first
3474: smoothed to the Lick/IDS resolution (Eq.~\ref{eq:idsres}). Using the
3475: systemic velocity given by LOSVD, the bandpasses are placed on the
3476: spectrum. For each index, LOSVD is then used to determine the offset
3477: between the object and template spectra in a wavelength region that
3478: extends 20 \AA\ from the extremes of the index definition. This
3479: places the index bandpasses \emph{precisely} on the Lick/IDS index
3480: definition, as described above \citep[thereby following the AUTOINDEX
3481: algorithm:][]{WFGB94,TWFBG98}. Indexes and index errors are then
3482: computed from the object spectrum and its variance spectrum using the
3483: formalism described by \citet{G93}, namely that an index measured in
3484: \AA\ is computed as
3485: \begin{equation}
3486: \mathrm{EW}=\int_{\lambda_{c_1}}^{\lambda_{c_2}}\!
3487: \left(1-\frac{S(\lambda)}{C(\lambda)}\right)\;d\lambda
3488: \label{eq:ew}
3489: \end{equation}
3490: and an index measured in magnitudes is computed as
3491: \begin{equation}
3492: \mathrm{Mag}=-2.5\log\left[{\left(\frac{1}{\lambda_{c_1}-\lambda_{c_2}}\right)
3493: \int_{\lambda_{c_1}}^{\lambda_{c_2}}\!\frac{S(\lambda)}{C(\lambda)}\;
3494: d\lambda}\right].
3495: \end{equation}
3496: Here $\lambda_{c_1}$ and $\lambda_{c_2}$ are the wavelength limits of
3497: the central bandpass, $S(\lambda)$ is the observed flux per unit
3498: wavelength in the object spectrum, and $C(\lambda)$ is the
3499: linearly-interpolated pseudo-continuum:
3500: \begin{eqnarray}
3501: C(\lambda)&=&S_b\frac{\lambda_r-\lambda}{\lambda_r-\lambda_b}+
3502: S_r\frac{\lambda-\lambda_b}{\lambda_r-\lambda_b},\ \mathrm{where}\\
3503: S_b&=&\frac{\int_{\lambda_{b_1}}^{\lambda_{b_2}}S(\lambda)d\lambda}{\lambda_{b_2}-\lambda_{b_1}}\ \mathrm{and}\\
3504: S_r&=&\frac{\int_{\lambda_{r_1}}^{\lambda_{r_2}}S(\lambda)d\lambda}{\lambda_{r_2}-\lambda_{r_1}},
3505: \end{eqnarray}
3506: with $\lambda_b=(\lambda_{b_1}+\lambda_{b_2})/2$ and
3507: $\lambda_r=(\lambda_{r_1}+\lambda_{r_2})/2$. Errors are then computed
3508: using the variance spectrum $V(\lambda)$:
3509: \begin{eqnarray}
3510: \sigma(\mathrm{EW})&=&\frac{S_c}{C_c}\left[\frac{V_c}{S_c^2}+
3511: \frac{V_b}{C_c^2}\left(\frac{\lambda_r-\lambda_c}{\lambda_r-\lambda_b}\right)^2+
3512: \frac{V_r}{C_c^2}\left(\frac{\lambda_c-\lambda_b}{\lambda_r-\lambda_b}\right)^2\right]^{1/2} \label{eq:ewerr}\\
3513: \sigma(\mathrm{Mag})&=&\frac{2.5\times10^{0.4\mathrm{Mag}}}{\ln(10)(\lambda_{c_1}-\lambda_{c_2})}\sigma(\mathrm{EW}), \label{eq:magerr}
3514: \end{eqnarray}
3515: where $\lambda_c=(\lambda_{c_1}+\lambda_{c_2})/2$, $C_c=C(\lambda_c)$,
3516: $S_c=\int_{\lambda_{c_1}}^{\lambda_{c_2}}\! S(\lambda)d\lambda$, and
3517: \begin{eqnarray}
3518: V_c&=&S_c^2 / \int_{\lambda_{c_1}}^{\lambda_{c_2}}\!
3519: \frac{S^2(\lambda)}{V(\lambda)},\\
3520: V_b&=&S_b^2 / \int_{\lambda_{b_1}}^{\lambda_{b_2}}\!
3521: \frac{S^2(\lambda)}{V(\lambda)},\\
3522: V_r&=&S_r^2 / \int_{\lambda_{r_1}}^{\lambda_{r_2}}\!
3523: \frac{S^2(\lambda)}{V(\lambda)}
3524: \end{eqnarray}
3525: \citep[cf.\ the discussion in][]{CGCG98}. The implementation of this
3526: algorithm in Python is called SPINDEX2\footnote{We note here that
3527: fractional pixels are handled in the same manner as Gonz\'alez, so
3528: indexes measured by SPINDEX2 are identical to those measured at the
3529: same bandpass wavelengths by SPINDEX in the VISTA image processing
3530: package.}; when coupled with LOSVD to measure systemic velocities
3531: and velocity dispersions (\S\ref{sec:sigma}), the program is called
3532: SPINDLOSVD.
3533:
3534: \subsubsection{Reliability of estimated errors}
3535:
3536: \begin{table}
3537: \caption{Error ratios from 2\farcs7-synthesised aperture line
3538: strengths}
3539: \label{tbl:errors}
3540: \begin{tabular}{lcc}
3541: \hline
3542: Index&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\langle\sigma_c/\sigma_s\rangle$}&
3543: \multicolumn{1}{c}{std.\ dev.}\\
3544: \hline
3545: \cnone&1.13&0.68\\
3546: \cntwo&1.11&0.82\\
3547: Ca4227&2.21&1.27\\
3548: G4300&1.52&0.78\\
3549: Fe4383&1.27&0.87\\
3550: Ca4455&1.77&1.09\\
3551: Fe4531&1.54&0.66\\
3552: \ctwo&1.05&0.70\\
3553: \hbeta&1.24&0.74\\
3554: Fe5015&0.78&0.47\\
3555: \mgone&0.93&0.60\\
3556: \mgtwo&0.67&0.56\\
3557: \mgb&1.08&0.57\\
3558: Fe5270&1.55&0.93\\
3559: Fe5335&1.60&0.97\\
3560: \fe&1.12&0.95\\
3561: \hda&1.27&0.79\\
3562: \hga&1.50&0.81\\
3563: \hdf&1.40&0.40\\
3564: \hgf&1.64&1.17\\
3565: \hbetag&1.25&1.07\\
3566: \hline
3567: \end{tabular}
3568:
3569: Col.\ 1: Index name. Col.\ 2: Median error ratio, in the sense
3570: error inferred from combined spectra divided by standard deviation
3571: of index strengths derived from individual exposures. Col.\ 3:
3572: Standard deviation of error ratio.
3573: \end{table}
3574:
3575: To check the accuracy of the errors measured from the variance spectra
3576: of the averaged spectra as given by Equations~\ref{eq:ewerr} and
3577: \ref{eq:magerr} above, line strengths were measured from
3578: one-dimensional spectra extracted from each individual exposure. The
3579: standard deviation of each index was then determined.
3580: Table~\ref{tbl:errors} gives (1) the median and standard deviations of
3581: the ratios of the errors in each index computed from the combined
3582: spectra and (2) the standard deviations of the index strengths
3583: computed from the individual exposures. None of the differences is
3584: significant, although some of the means differ from one (e.g., Ca4227
3585: and \mgtwo). Much of this scatter likely arises from interpolation
3586: errors when extracting the one-dimensional spectra from the individual
3587: exposures, a problem greatly ameliorated when three images are
3588: combined during the extraction. We therefore believe that the error
3589: estimates for the LRIS absorption-line strengths are likely to be
3590: reliable.
3591:
3592: \subsection{Calibration onto the stellar Lick/IDS system: offsets and
3593: velocity-dispersion corrections}
3594: \label{sec:indexcorrections}
3595:
3596: \begin{table}
3597: \caption{Corrections required to bring LRIS stellar indexes onto
3598: Lick/IDS system}
3599: \label{tbl:calib}
3600: \begin{tabular}{lrl}
3601: \hline
3602: Index&$\langle\mathrm{(IDS-LRIS)}\rangle^\mathrm{a}$&
3603: \multicolumn{1}{c}{RMS}\\
3604: \hline
3605: \cnone&$0.0034\pm0.0008$&$0.0118$\\
3606: \cntwo&$0.0063\pm0.0005$&$0.0064$\\
3607: Ca4227&$0.034\phn\pm0.004\phn$&$0.057$\\
3608: G4300 &$-0.236\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.084$\\
3609: Fe4383&$-0.033\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.094$\\
3610: Ca4455&$-0.077\phn\pm0.004\phn$&$0.058$\\
3611: Fe4531&$-0.062\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.085$\\
3612: \ctwo &$-0.325\phn\pm0.012\phn$&$0.177$\\
3613: \hbeta&$0.043\phn\pm0.004\phn$&$0.056$\\
3614: Fe5015&$0.059\phn\pm0.010\phn$&$0.150$\\
3615: \mgone&$0.0139\pm0.0005$&$0.0082$\\
3616: \mgtwo&$0.0185\pm0.0004$&$0.0067$\\
3617: \mgb &$0.018\phn\pm0.009\phn$&$0.139$\\
3618: Fe5270&$0.031\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.090$\\
3619: Fe5335&$0.176\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.091$\\
3620: Fe5406&$0.094\phn\pm0.003\phn$&$0.050$\\
3621: \hda &$-0.143\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.083$\\
3622: \hga &$0.612\phn\pm0.015\phn$&$0.219$\\
3623: \hdf &$0.123\phn\pm0.004\phn$&$0.057$\\
3624: \hgf &$0.174\phn\pm0.006\phn$&$0.085$\\
3625: \hline
3626: \end{tabular}
3627:
3628: $^\mathrm{a}$Weighted mean
3629: \end{table}
3630:
3631: Because the flux calibration of the present spectra differs from that
3632: of the Lick/IDS spectra \citep[which were not fluxed but divided by a
3633: quartz lamp;][]{WFGB94}, small offsets may required to finally bring
3634: absorption-line strengths of objects taken with LRIS onto the Lick/IDS
3635: system. These offsets are determined by comparing line strengths of
3636: the LRIS stars measured with SPINDEX2 to the published values for
3637: those stars, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:compids}. The weighted mean
3638: offsets and root-mean-square deviations are given in
3639: Table~\ref{tbl:calib}. As seen by other authors
3640: \citep[e.g.,][]{G93,K00}, most indexes have negligible offsets
3641: \emph{within the typical errors of the Lick/IDS system}. The
3642: exceptions are \mgone\ and \mgtwo, for which the Lick/IDS zero-point
3643: was set by the quartz lamp used to `flux' the spectra, and \hga, for
3644: unknown reasons, although the inferred offset is consistent with that
3645: found by both \citet{WO97} and \citet{K00}. Fe5015 has a large
3646: scatter for unknown reasons, but it is well within the typical
3647: Lick/IDS error. Note that \mgone\ and \mgtwo\ may be better fit by a
3648: linear relation than a simple offset.
3649:
3650: \begin{figure*}
3651: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{compids_diff_all_new.eps}
3652: \caption{Calibration onto the Lick/IDS system. Line strengths of
3653: Lick/IDS stars taken with LRIS were measured with SPINDEX2 (after
3654: smoothing to the Lick/IDS resolution, \citealt{WO97}) and compared
3655: with the published Lick/IDS line strengths \citep{WFGB94,WO97}.
3656: Vertical error bars include uncertainties in the Lick/IDS standard
3657: star system \citep{WFGB94}, scaled using the `goodness'
3658: signal-to-noise parameter \citep{TWFBG98} and the number of
3659: observations of each star. Offsets from the Lick/IDS system are
3660: seen to be small for most indexes, except for the well known offset
3661: of \mgtwo\ due to the spectral shape of the quartz lamp used to
3662: `flux' the IDS spectra \citep{G93}. Dotted and dashed lines
3663: indicate the weighted mean offsets and RMS deviations
3664: (Table~\ref{tbl:calib}); solid lines are lines of equality. Note
3665: that some offsets might be better modelled as linear functions of
3666: line strength (e.g., \mgone\ and \mgtwo).\label{fig:compids}}
3667: \end{figure*}
3668:
3669: Before these offsets are applied to the line strengths of a galaxy, we
3670: must first correct them for its velocity dispersion. This is done for
3671: the original 21 Lick/IDS line strengths \citep{WFGB94} using the
3672: multiplicative corrections given by \citet{TWFBG98}. For the four
3673: higher-order Balmer line indexes defined by \citet{WO97}, we use the
3674: multiplicative corrections given by \citet{LW05}. For \hbetag\
3675: \citep{J99}, the \hbeta\ correction given by \citet{TWFBG98} was used.
3676: As a check on our method, we have compared our
3677: velocity-dispersion-corrected indexes (before Lick/IDS system
3678: correction) to indexes corrected using the formalism of
3679: \citet{KIFvD06}, based on broadening templates but not the program
3680: spectra, and have found offset and slope differences from our method
3681: of less than $1\sigma$ for all indexes except Ca4227, Fe4531, and
3682: \hdf\ (offset) and \mgb\ (offset and slope), where the deviation in
3683: the latter index is small ($-0.13$ \AA) and only in the strongest
3684: (highest-\mgb, highest-$\sigma$) objects. Due to the
3685: small-to-negligible differences, and more importantly, to be
3686: consistent with previous studies, we use the \citet{TWFBG98}
3687: corrections but note that Kelson et al.'s comments on the suitability
3688: of \emph{additive} rather than \emph{multiplicative}
3689: velocity-dispersion corrections should taken into consideration.
3690:
3691: \section{Comparison of LRIS data with literature data sources}
3692: \label{sec:others}
3693:
3694: We now compare our systemic velocities (redshifts), velocity
3695: dispersions, and line strengths with those found in the literature.
3696: In order to determine the differences most accurately, the LRIS
3697: indexes were measured on spectra with apertures matched as closely as
3698: possible to the literature data (Sec.~\ref{sec:reduction}). For the
3699: study of \citet{Mehlert03}, however, the published \reo{10}\ apertures
3700: were much too small for nearly all of the galaxies observed in the
3701: present sample, so the gradient measures of \citet{Mehlert00} were
3702: used to compute index strengths in 2\farcs7-diameter equivalent
3703: circular apertures; Fe5270 and Fe5335 indexes and gradients were
3704: kindly provided by Dr.~D.~Mehlert. We also note that the line
3705: strengths of \citet{TKBCS99} are not truly calibrated onto the
3706: Lick/IDS system, but rather used the \citet{K00} offsets as a rough
3707: correction. This is particularly problematic for the \hda\ index, as
3708: the \citet{K00} study did not include the bluest indexes. Finally, we
3709: used the 2\farcs7 velocity dispersion measurements to compare with the
3710: results of \citet{MG05}, as velocity dispersion gradients in these
3711: galaxies are likely to be nearly flat \citep[cf.][]{JFK96}.
3712:
3713: \begin{table}
3714: \caption{Comparison with other absorption-line strength studies of
3715: the Coma Cluster, in the sense Literature$-$LRIS}
3716: \label{tbl:comparisons}
3717: \begin{tabular}{llrrrr}
3718: \hline
3719: Quantity&Source&\multicolumn{1}{c}{N}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Offset}&
3720: \multicolumn{1}{c}{RMS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^2$}\\
3721: \hline
3722: $cz_{hel}$&H01&3&$133.32\pm3.44$&5.95&171.20\\*
3723: $cz_{hel}$&M02&8&$97.51\pm1.51$&4.28&70.65\\*
3724: $cz_{hel}$&NFPS&7&$123.65\pm0.78$&2.07&557.06\\*
3725: $cz_{hel}$&ALL&18&$120.00\pm0.42$&1.78&276.57\\[6pt]
3726: $\log\sigma$&D84&4&$-0.022\pm0.010$&0.020&0.803\\*
3727: $\log\sigma$&G92&1&$0.025\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3728: $\log\sigma$&H01&3&$-0.021\pm0.006$&0.010&1.847\\*
3729: $\log\sigma$&J99&8&$-0.004\pm0.003$&0.009&1.220\\*
3730: $\log\sigma$&K01&2&$-0.001\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3731: $\log\sigma$&MG05&6&$-0.014\pm0.003$&0.007&2.651\\*
3732: $\log\sigma$&M00&3&$0.019\pm0.009$&0.015&1.594\\*
3733: $\log\sigma$&M02&8&$-0.010\pm0.001$&0.004&11.490\\*
3734: $\log\sigma$&NFPS&7&$-0.009\pm0.002$&0.005&4.338\\*
3735: $\log\sigma$&SB06&5&$0.033\pm0.003$&0.006&10.820\\*
3736: $\log\sigma$&ALL&47&$-0.004\pm0.000$&0.002&4.743\\[6pt]
3737: \cnone&NFPS&7&$-0.011\pm0.002$&0.006&1.986\\*
3738: \cnone&P01&5&$-0.040\pm0.003$&0.006&22.562\\*
3739: \cnone&IDS&2&$0.010\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3740: \cnone&ALL&14&$-0.024\pm0.001$&0.004&9.076\\[6pt]
3741: \cntwo&NFPS&7&$-0.020\pm0.003$&0.008&2.079\\*
3742: \cntwo&P01&5&$-0.026\pm0.003$&0.007&10.909\\*
3743: \cntwo&SB06&5&$-0.008\pm0.004$&0.009&1.236\\*
3744: \cntwo&IDS&2&$0.012\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3745: \cntwo&ALL&19&$-0.018\pm0.001$&0.004&3.990\\[6pt]
3746: Ca4227&NFPS&7&$0.189\pm0.027$&0.071&1.346\\*
3747: Ca4227&P01&5&$-0.322\pm0.043$&0.097&2.947\\*
3748: Ca4227&SB06&5&$-0.179\pm0.023$&0.052&2.527\\*
3749: Ca4227&IDS&2&$-0.249\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3750: Ca4227&ALL&19&$-0.095\pm0.009$&0.038&1.970\\[6pt]
3751: G4300&NFPS&7&$0.067\pm0.040$&0.107&0.349\\*
3752: G4300&P01&5&$0.108\pm0.088$&0.198&4.334\\*
3753: G4300&SB06&5&$0.030\pm0.042$&0.095&1.447\\*
3754: G4300&IDS&2&$0.505\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3755: G4300&ALL&19&$0.057\pm0.015$&0.065&1.851\\[6pt]
3756: Fe4383&NFPS&7&$-0.469\pm0.053$&0.140&2.252\\*
3757: Fe4383&P01&5&$0.370\pm0.108$&0.242&2.694\\*
3758: Fe4383&SB06&5&$0.057\pm0.057$&0.127&0.774\\*
3759: Fe4383&T99&6&$0.547\pm0.027$&0.065&13.156\\*
3760: Fe4383&IDS&2&$-0.214\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3761: Fe4383&ALL&25&$0.309\pm0.010$&0.052&4.491\\[6pt]
3762: Ca4455&NFPS&7&$-0.384\pm0.020$&0.053&8.421\\*
3763: Ca4455&P01&5&$-0.091\pm0.058$&0.130&4.696\\*
3764: Ca4455&SB06&5&$-0.092\pm0.032$&0.071&0.731\\*
3765: Ca4455&IDS&2&$-0.257\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3766: Ca4455&ALL&19&$-0.258\pm0.009$&0.040&4.641\\[6pt]
3767: Fe4531&NFPS&7&$-0.275\pm0.032$&0.084&1.891\\*
3768: Fe4531&P01&5&$-0.423\pm0.093$&0.207&1.968\\*
3769: Fe4531&SB06&5&$-0.383\pm0.050$&0.113&2.648\\*
3770: Fe4531&IDS&2&$0.153\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3771: Fe4531&ALL&19&$-0.316\pm0.015$&0.063&1.959\\
3772: \hline
3773: \end{tabular}
3774: \end{table}
3775:
3776: \begin{table}
3777: \contcaption{}
3778: \begin{tabular}{llrrrr}
3779: \hline
3780: Quantity&Source&\multicolumn{1}{c}{N}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Offset}&
3781: \multicolumn{1}{c}{RMS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^2$}\\
3782: \hline
3783: \ctwo&FFI&1&$-0.286\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3784: \ctwo&M02&8&$0.012\pm0.062$&0.175&2.036\\*
3785: \ctwo&NFPS&7&$0.079\pm0.061$&0.162&0.253\\*
3786: \ctwo&P01&5&$0.565\pm0.106$&0.237&12.830\\*
3787: \ctwo&SB06&5&$-0.962\pm0.106$&0.237&4.382\\*
3788: \ctwo&T99&6&$-0.277\pm0.030$&0.074&8.030\\*
3789: \ctwo&IDS&2&$-1.053\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3790: \ctwo&ALL&34&$-0.198\pm0.010$&0.058&4.580\\[6pt]
3791: \hbeta&FFI&1&$-0.104\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3792: \hbeta&J99&4&$0.178\pm0.048$&0.096&1.206\\*
3793: \hbeta&K01&2&$0.217\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3794: \hbeta&M00&3&$0.434\pm0.055$&0.095&10.795\\*
3795: \hbeta&M02&8&$0.008\pm0.015$&0.042&6.926\\*
3796: \hbeta&NFPS&7&$-0.141\pm0.015$&0.038&2.804\\*
3797: \hbeta&P01&5&$0.026\pm0.048$&0.107&1.821\\*
3798: \hbeta&SB06&5&$-0.042\pm0.026$&0.058&0.481\\*
3799: \hbeta&IDS&2&$0.230\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3800: \hbeta&ALL&37&$-0.014\pm0.004$&0.022&3.537\\[6pt]
3801: Fe5015&FFI&1&$-0.582\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3802: Fe5015&M02&8&$-0.565\pm0.047$&0.133&2.919\\*
3803: Fe5015&NFPS&7&$-0.057\pm0.043$&0.115&0.802\\*
3804: Fe5015&P01&5&$-0.471\pm0.105$&0.236&2.015\\*
3805: Fe5015&SB06&5&$-0.499\pm0.069$&0.153&3.814\\*
3806: Fe5015&IDS&2&$-0.072\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3807: Fe5015&ALL&28&$-0.347\pm0.013$&0.070&2.181\\[6pt]
3808: \mgone&J99&4&$0.006\pm0.001$&0.002&4.607\\*
3809: \mgone&M02&8&$0.002\pm0.001$&0.003&0.574\\*
3810: \mgone&NFPS&7&$0.015\pm0.001$&0.003&5.605\\*
3811: \mgone&P01&5&$-0.000\pm0.001$&0.002&10.325\\*
3812: \mgone&IDS&2&$0.002\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3813: \mgone&ALL&26&$0.006\pm0.000$&0.001&4.972\\[6pt]
3814: \mgtwo&D84&4&$0.012\pm0.002$&0.004&3.719\\*
3815: \mgtwo&G92&1&$0.003\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3816: \mgtwo&J99&8&$0.006\pm0.001$&0.003&2.262\\*
3817: \mgtwo&K01&2&$-0.005\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3818: \mgtwo&M02&8&$0.008\pm0.001$&0.003&3.495\\*
3819: \mgtwo&NFPS&7&$-0.013\pm0.001$&0.003&2.605\\*
3820: \mgtwo&P01&5&$-0.036\pm0.001$&0.003&36.954\\*
3821: \mgtwo&IDS&2&$0.007\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3822: \mgtwo&ALL&37&$-0.004\pm0.000$&0.001&7.404\\[6pt]
3823: \mgb&FFI&1&$-0.028\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3824: \mgb&J99&4&$0.267\pm0.050$&0.101&1.773\\*
3825: \mgb&K01&2&$-0.247\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3826: \mgb&M00&3&$-0.152\pm0.059$&0.102&3.260\\*
3827: \mgb&M02&8&$-0.016\pm0.015$&0.041&2.834\\*
3828: \mgb&NFPS&7&$-0.190\pm0.016$&0.043&4.636\\*
3829: \mgb&P01&5&$-0.259\pm0.046$&0.103&5.239\\*
3830: \mgb&SB06&5&$-0.085\pm0.052$&0.116&1.620\\*
3831: \mgb&IDS&2&$0.367\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3832: \mgb&ALL&37&$-0.086\pm0.004$&0.025&3.036\\[6pt]
3833: Fe5270&M00&3&$-0.070\pm0.063$&0.109&0.164\\*
3834: Fe5270&M02&8&$-0.079\pm0.016$&0.045&2.010\\*
3835: Fe5270&NFPS&7&$-0.115\pm0.019$&0.049&1.163\\*
3836: Fe5270&P01&5&$-0.051\pm0.052$&0.117&1.119\\*
3837: Fe5270&SB06&5&$0.050\pm0.036$&0.082&0.780\\*
3838: Fe5270&IDS&2&$0.248\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3839: Fe5270&ALL&30&$-0.072\pm0.005$&0.028&1.295\\
3840: \hline
3841: \end{tabular}
3842: \end{table}
3843:
3844: \begin{table}
3845: \contcaption{}
3846: \begin{tabular}{llrrrr}
3847: \hline
3848: Quantity&Source&\multicolumn{1}{c}{N}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{Offset}&
3849: \multicolumn{1}{c}{RMS}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{$\chi^2$}\\
3850: \hline
3851: Fe5335&M00&3&$0.030\pm0.070$&0.121&1.395\\*
3852: Fe5335&M02&8&$-0.091\pm0.023$&0.064&1.775\\*
3853: Fe5335&NFPS&7&$-0.210\pm0.021$&0.054&4.050\\*
3854: Fe5335&P01&5&$-0.381\pm0.060$&0.135&1.942\\*
3855: Fe5335&SB06&5&$0.135\pm0.041$&0.092&1.805\\*
3856: Fe5335&IDS&1&$0.264\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3857: Fe5335&ALL&29&$-0.114\pm0.006$&0.035&2.273\\[6pt]
3858: \fe&J99&4&$0.048\pm0.046$&0.092&0.542\\*
3859: \fe&K01&2&$-0.213\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3860: \fe&M00&3&$-0.019\pm0.047$&0.081&0.978\\*
3861: \fe&M02&8&$-0.084\pm0.014$&0.039&2.793\\*
3862: \fe&NFPS&7&$-0.160\pm0.014$&0.037&3.689\\*
3863: \fe&P01&5&$-0.214\pm0.040$&0.089&2.014\\*
3864: \fe&SB06&5&$0.091\pm0.028$&0.062&2.321\\*
3865: \fe&IDS&1&$-0.004\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3866: \fe&ALL&35&$-0.087\pm0.004$&0.022&2.240\\[6pt]
3867: \hda&NFPS&7&$0.327\pm0.075$&0.200&1.183\\*
3868: \hda&P01&5&$1.140\pm0.101$&0.225&15.226\\*
3869: \hda&SB06&5&$0.239\pm0.065$&0.144&4.029\\*
3870: \hda&T99&6&$0.204\pm0.024$&0.058&7.200\\*
3871: \hda&IDS&2&$0.266\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3872: \hda&ALL&25&$0.263\pm0.010$&0.051&5.914\\[6pt]
3873: \hga&NFPS&7&$-0.478\pm0.059$&0.156&1.754\\*
3874: \hga&P01&5&$-0.028\pm0.095$&0.213&9.560\\*
3875: \hga&SB06&5&$-0.367\pm0.062$&0.138&2.049\\*
3876: \hga&T99&6&$-0.092\pm0.024$&0.058&2.771\\*
3877: \hga&IDS&2&$-0.706\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3878: \hga&ALL&25&$-0.161\pm0.010$&0.049&3.559\\[6pt]
3879: \hdf&NFPS&7&$-0.139\pm0.046$&0.121&0.477\\*
3880: \hdf&P01&5&$0.097\pm0.068$&0.151&2.277\\*
3881: \hdf&SB06&5&$0.117\pm0.037$&0.082&2.381\\*
3882: \hdf&IDS&2&$0.346\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3883: \hdf&ALL&19&$0.045\pm0.014$&0.061&1.491\\[6pt]
3884: \hgf&NFPS&7&$-0.308\pm0.026$&0.070&3.158\\*
3885: \hgf&P01&5&$0.218\pm0.059$&0.131&4.310\\*
3886: \hgf&SB06&5&$-0.040\pm0.036$&0.081&0.706\\*
3887: \hgf&IDS&2&$-0.498\pm\phm{0.000}$&&\\*
3888: \hgf&ALL&19&$-0.139\pm0.011$&0.049&2.559\\[6pt]
3889: \hbetag&J99&6&$0.144\pm0.024$&0.059&1.912\\*
3890: \hbetag&M02&8&$-0.046\pm0.011$&0.032&5.253\\*
3891: \hbetag&ALL&14&$-0.002\pm0.007$&0.028&3.821\\
3892: \hline
3893: \end{tabular}
3894:
3895: Col.\ 1: Quantity of interest. Col.\ 2: Source of literature data.
3896: These abbreviations are shown in Table~\ref{tbl:literature}, except
3897: ALL is the combination of all studies with data for that quantity.
3898: Col.\ 3: Number of galaxies in common. Col.\ 4: Weighted mean
3899: difference and (random) error of mean, in sense other$-$LRIS.
3900: Col.\ 5: Root-mean-square of difference. Col.\ 6: $\chi^2$ of
3901: differences.
3902: \end{table}
3903:
3904: \begin{figure*}
3905: \includegraphics[width=178mm]{compare_data.eps}
3906: \caption{Comparison with literature values. Differences are defined
3907: as literature$-$LRIS. Key in lower-right; abbreviations are shown in
3908: Table~\ref{tbl:literature}.\label{fig:comparisons}}
3909: \end{figure*}
3910:
3911: Figure~\ref{fig:comparisons} shows the differences in the sense
3912: literature$-$LRIS as a function of LRIS index strength for all of the
3913: indexes measured on the LRIS spectra as well as heliocentric velocity
3914: $cz_{hel}$ and the logarithm of the velocity dispersion $\log\sigma$.
3915: Table~\ref{tbl:comparisons} gives the mean offsets and the errors in
3916: the means ($\sigma_M$), in both cases weighted by the errors of the
3917: differences (the quadratic sum of the LRIS and literature index
3918: errors); the root-mean-squared (RMS) deviation; and the $\chi^2$ of
3919: the sample difference, computed as
3920: \begin{equation}
3921: \chi^2 = \frac{1}{N}\sum_{i=1}^{N}\frac{d_i^2}{\sigma_i^2}
3922: \end{equation}
3923: where $d_i$ is the difference of index strengths of galaxy $i$ between
3924: a given literature study and LRIS, and $\sigma_i$ is the error of the
3925: difference. Note that $N<12$ in all cases, as no single literature
3926: study contains all of the galaxies in the LRIS sample. The `ALL'
3927: entries are error-weighted mean differences for all differences --
3928: i.e., the average difference of all literature index values with
3929: respect to the LRIS index values.
3930:
3931: As we claim that we are precisely on the Lick/IDS system, we can view
3932: Table~\ref{tbl:comparisons} and Figure~\ref{fig:comparisons} as guides
3933: to the success of the authors of each study in achieving the same
3934: calibration. In general, we find that \citet{TKBCS99} and \citet{P01}
3935: are not well-calibrated onto the Lick/IDS system, while \citet{M02}
3936: and \citet{SB06a} do a much better job, with some exceptions discussed
3937: below. We make no attempt to adjust other studies to our calibration.
3938: We note here that our \hbeta\ strengths are in line with most other
3939: studies, excluding the \citet{Mehlert00} sample, which are clearly
3940: much too strong (see below).
3941:
3942: \begin{table}
3943: \caption{\hbeta\ absorption-line strengths of GMP 3329 (NGC 4874) from all
3944: sources}
3945: \label{tbl:ngc4874}
3946: \begin{tabular}{lrr}
3947: \hline
3948: Source&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\hbeta\ (Lit)}&\multicolumn{1}{c}{\hbeta\ (LRIS)}\\
3949: \hline
3950: FFI&$1.410\pm0.130$&$1.514\pm0.037$\\
3951: IDS&$1.307\pm0.196$&$1.503\pm0.040$\\
3952: J99&$1.780\pm0.120$&$1.512\pm0.036$\\
3953: K01&$1.800\pm0.210$&$1.513\pm0.033$\\
3954: M00&$2.140\pm0.123$&$1.503\pm0.040$\\
3955: M02&$1.674\pm0.132$&$1.503\pm0.040$\\
3956: NFPS&$1.519\pm0.151$&$1.578\pm0.035$\\
3957: SB06&$1.496\pm0.100$&$1.503\pm0.040$\\
3958: \hline
3959: \end{tabular}
3960:
3961: Col.\ 1: Source of literature data, as in Table~\ref{tbl:comparisons}.
3962: Col.\ 2: \hbeta\ strength of GMP 3329 from literature. Col.\ 3:
3963: \hbeta\ strength of GMP 3329 from LRIS spectra, through the equivalent
3964: aperture as described in text.
3965: \end{table}
3966:
3967: We are given further confidence in our calibration by examining the
3968: literature values of the \hbeta\ index strengths of the cD galaxy GMP
3969: 3329 (=NGC 4874), shown in Table~\ref{tbl:ngc4874}. The
3970: error-weighted \hbeta\ index strength in the literature, excluding the
3971: significant outlier from \citet{Mehlert00}, is $1.57\pm0.05$ \AA.
3972: This is within $1\sigma$ of our \hbeta\ index strength for this
3973: galaxy, suggesting that (at least for this bright galaxy) we are on
3974: the Lick/IDS system as well as is possible. However, the \hbeta\
3975: strength of GMP 3329 (=NGC 4874) in the \citet{Mehlert00,Mehlert03}
3976: studies appears to be much stronger (by $0.64\pm0.13$ \AA) than the
3977: mean of all other literature data, including the LRIS measurement; in
3978: fact, the \citet{Mehlert00,Mehlert03} \hbeta\ strength of this galaxy
3979: is higher by more than $0.3$ \AA\ than \citet{J99} and \citet{K01},
3980: the strongest other available measurements. It is likely that the
3981: explanation for this excess \hbeta\ strength is over-subtraction of
3982: light of this galaxy due to a slit that was too short (Mehlert,
3983: priv.~comm.). In other words, the signal taken from the end of the
3984: slits used to correct for the sky brightness was contaminated by light
3985: from the galaxy itself. Given the large size of this galaxy and its
3986: surface brightness profile, it is likely that this subtraction results
3987: in a too-strong \hbeta\ absorption-line strength (see
3988: Sec.~\ref{sec:reduction} for details on how we have dealt with this
3989: issue). Finally, we note that the SSP-equivalent age of GMP 3329
3990: inferred from the data of \citet{SB06a} is
3991: $\logt=1.02_{-0.14}^{+0.20}$, higher than the age inferred from the
3992: LRIS data, $\logt=0.90_{-0.04}^{+0.05}$ (Table~\ref{tbl:allcoma}),
3993: even though the \hbeta\ strengths from the two studies are identical
3994: within the errors. This is due to the difference in the measured
3995: \mgb\ strengths: \citet{SB06a} find $\mgb=4.58\pm0.26$, while we find
3996: $\mgb=4.95\pm0.04$ (Table~\ref{tbl:allcoma}). We do not know the
3997: cause of the difference in this index for this galaxy; all other
3998: galaxies in common have very similar \mgb\ strengths in the two
3999: samples, and even in GMP 3329 the strengths of the \hbeta, Fe5270, and
4000: Fe5335 indexes all match well between the samples.
4001:
4002: Detailed examination of Figure~\ref{fig:comparisons} shows that the
4003: \citet{M02} measurements of GMP 3291 and GMP 3534 are significantly
4004: discrepant in \hbeta\ (and \hbetag). The cause for this discrepancy
4005: is not understood, but could be due to slit (in the case of the LRIS
4006: spectra) or fibre (in the case of the \citealt{M02} spectra)
4007: misplacement. Examination of the LRIS slit-alignment images taken
4008: immediately before the spectroscopic exposures (Fig.~\ref{fig:coma})
4009: suggests LRIS slit misplacement is unlikely. It is also not due to
4010: errors in the velocity dispersion corrections, as both of the galaxies
4011: have $\sigma<75\;\kms$. Given that the \hbeta\ strengths of both of
4012: these galaxies in the \citet{M02} study are extremely low (GMP 3534
4013: has $\hbeta=1.02$ \AA\ in that study, well below the oldest stellar
4014: population models; e.g., Fig.~\ref{fig:hbmgbfe_lris_w94}), it is
4015: possible that emission fill-in could be the culprit, but no
4016: significant emission is detectable in either galaxy in either study.
4017: (Note that a handful of galaxies, typically of low mass, from
4018: \citealt{M02} have \hbeta\ strengths that cause them to fall below the
4019: oldest stellar population models.) We also note that GMP 3291 is also
4020: discrepant with respect to the \citet{P01} measurements, but usually
4021: in the opposite sense from the comparison with \citet{M02}. The LRIS
4022: measurements of GMP 3565 are strongly discrepant with respect to the
4023: \citet{P01} measurements for nearly all indexes. We have confirmed
4024: through our slit-alignment images that we have definitely targeted GMP
4025: 3565, so LRIS slit misplacement is unlikely to be the culprit for the
4026: discrepancies.
4027:
4028: \setcounter{table}{2}
4029: \begin{table*}
4030: \vbox to220mm{\vfil Landscape table to go here
4031: \vfil}
4032: \caption{}
4033: \label{tbl:allcoma}
4034: \end{table*}
4035:
4036: Finally, in Table~\ref{tbl:allcoma} we present absorption-line index
4037: strengths and stellar population parameters for all Coma galaxies for
4038: six samples: J99, M00, M02, LRIS, NFPS, and SB06 (see
4039: Table~\ref{tbl:literature} for definitions). For the M00, SB06, and
4040: LRIS samples, we synthesised $2\farcs7$-diameter equivalent circular
4041: apertures (\S\ref{sec:reduction}); for the other samples, the indexes
4042: are taken as published. For simplicity, we present only \hbeta, \mgb,
4043: Fe5270, and Fe5335 index strengths and errors, as these were the
4044: indexes used to compute the stellar population parameters. For
4045: completeness, we repeat the LRIS indexes, stellar population
4046: parameters, and errors here from previous tables. We have not
4047: attempted to provide `best' indexes or parameters for galaxies with
4048: multiple measurements given the systematic differences between the
4049: samples and differences in aperture size (Tables~\ref{tbl:comparisons}
4050: and \ref{tbl:literature}).
4051:
4052: \end{appendix}
4053:
4054: \clearpage
4055:
4056: \end{document}
4057: