1: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}

2: 

3: \def\fp1{\mbox{${\rm Log}(R_e)= a\ {\rm Log}(\sigma) + b\ \langle \mu \rangle_e +c$}}

4: \def\muem{\mbox{$\langle \mu \rangle_{\rm e}$}}

5: \def\re{\mbox{$R_{\rm e}$}}

6: \def\muere{\mbox{$\langle\mu\rangle_{\rm e} - {\rm Log}(R_{\rm e})$}}  

7: \def\H0{\mbox{$H_0$}}

8: \def\q0{\mbox{$q_0$}}

9: \def\Ob{\mbox{$\Omega_b$}}

10: \def\Ol{\mbox{$\Omega_\lambda$}}

11: \def\rq{\mbox{$r^{1/4}$}}

12: \def\kms{\rm km~s$^{-1}$}

13: \def\etal{et al.\/}

14: \def\eg{{\it e.g.\/}}

15: 

16: \shorttitle{The FP of the WINGS clusters}

17: \shortauthors{D'Onofrio et al.}

18: 

19: \begin{document}

20: 

21: \title{THE FUNDAMENTAL PLANE OF EARLY--TYPE GALAXIES IN NEARBY CLUSTERS FROM THE WINGS DATABASE}

22: 

23: \author{M. D'Onofrio\altaffilmark{1}, G. Fasano\altaffilmark{2}, J. Varela\altaffilmark{3}, D. Bettoni\altaffilmark{2}, M. Moles\altaffilmark{3}, P. Kj{\ae}rgaard\altaffilmark{4}, E. Pignatelli\altaffilmark{5}, B. Poggianti\altaffilmark{2}, A. Dressler\altaffilmark{6}, A. Cava\altaffilmark{2}, J. Fritz\altaffilmark{2}, W.J. Couch\altaffilmark{7}, A. Omizzolo\altaffilmark{2,8}}

24: 

25: \affil{$^1$Astronomy Department, Vicolo Osservatorio 3, I-35122 Padova, Italy}

26: \affil{$^2$INAF/Astronomical Observatory of Padova, Vicolo Osservatorio 2, I-35122 Padova, Italy}

27: \affil{$^3$Instituto de Astrofisica de Andalusia (C.S.I.C.), Apartado 2004, 1 8080 Granada, Spain}

28: \affil{$^4$Copenhagen University Observatory. The Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy Physics and Geophysics, Juliane Maries Vej 30, 2100, Copenhagen, Denmark}

29: \affil{$^5$Liceo scientifico statale I. Nievo, via Barbarigo 38, Padova, Italy}

30: \affil{$^6$Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, Pasadena, CA 91101, USA}

31: \affil{$^7$School of Physics, University of New South Wales, Sydney 2052, Australia}

32: \affil{$^8$Vatican Observatory Research Group, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA }

33: 

34: \email{mauro.donofrio@unipd.it}

35: 

36: \begin{abstract}

37: 

38: By exploiting the data of three large surveys (WINGS, NFPS and SDSS),

39: we present here a comparative analysis of the Fundamental Plane \fp1

40: (FP hereafter) of the early-type galaxies (ETGs) belonging to 59

41: galaxy clusters in the redshift range $0.04<z<0.07$.

42: 

43: We show that the variances of the distributions of the FP coefficients

44: derived for the clusters in our sample are just marginally consistent

45: with the hypothesis of universality of the FP relation. By

46: investigating the origin of such remarkable variances we find that,

47: besides a couple of obvious factors, such as the adopted fitting

48: technique and the method used to measure the photometric and kinematic

49: variables, the coefficients of the FP are also influenced by the

50: distribution of photometric/kinematic properties of galaxies in the

51: particular sample under analysis. In particular, some indication is

52: found that the FP coefficients intrinsically depend on the particular

53: luminosity range of the sample, suggesting that bright and faint ETGs

54: could have systematically different FPs. We speculate that the FP is

55: actually a bent surface, which is approximated by different planes

56: when different selection criteria, either chosen or induced by

57: observations, are acting to define galaxies samples.

58: 

59: We also find strong correlations between the FP coefficients and the

60: local cluster environment (cluster-centric distance and local

61: density), while the correlations with the galaxy properties are less

62: marked (Sersic index), weak (color) or even absent

63: (flattening). Furthermore, the FP coefficients appear to be poorly

64: correlated with the global properties of clusters, such as richness,

65: virial radius, velocity dispersion, optical and X-ray luminosity.

66: 

67: The relation between luminosity and mass of our galaxies, computed by

68: tacking into account the deviations from the \rq\ light profiles

69: (Sersic profiles), indicates that, for a given mass, the greater the

70: light concentration (high Sersic index $n$) the higher the luminosity,

71: while, for a given luminosity, the lower the light concentration, the

72: greater the mass. Moreover, the relation between mass-to-light ratio

73: and mass for our galaxy sample (with Sersic profile fitting) turns out

74: to be steeper and broader than that obtained for the Coma cluster

75: sample with \rq\ profile fitting. This broadness, together with the

76: bending we suspect to be present in the FP, might partly

77: reconcile the phenomenology of the scaling relations of ETGs with the

78: expectations from the $\Lambda$CDM cosmology.

79: 

80: The present analysis indicates that the claimed universality of the FP

81: of ETGs in clusters is still far from being proven and that systematic

82: biases might affect the conclusions found in the literature about the

83: luminosity evolution of ETGs, since datasets at different redshifts

84: and with different distributions of the photometric/kinematic

85: properties of galaxies are compared with each other.

86: 

87: \end{abstract}

88: 

89: \keywords{galaxies: clusters: general --- galaxies: fundamental parameters

90:  --- galaxies: structure --- galaxies: ellipticals and lenticulars}

91: 

92: \section{INTRODUCTION}\label{intro}

93: 

94: The survey WINGS \citep{Fas06} is providing a huge amount of

95: spectroscopic and photometric (multi-band) data for several thousands

96: galaxies in a complete sample of X-Ray selected clusters in the local

97: Universe (0.04$<$z$<$0.07). Among the other things, line indices and

98: equivalent widths (including Mg2 line-strengths) of galaxies are going

99: to be available for $\sim$6,000 galaxies, while, for $\sim$40,000

100: galaxies, we already have at our disposal the structural parameters

101: (\re\ , \muem\ and Sersic index $n$) derived using the automatic

102: surface photometry tool GASPHOT (\citealp{Pignatelli}). This put us in

103: a privileged position to analyse the scaling relations of nearby

104: cluster galaxies with unprecedented statistical robustness. In this

105: paper we will focus on the Fundamental Plane of early-type galaxies.

106: 

107: Since its discovery, the FP relation: \fp1 \citep{7Sam,DjDa} 

108: has been widely used as a tool to investigate the

109: properties of ETGs, to derive cluster distances and galaxy peculiar

110: motions (see \eg\ the ENACS cluster survey of \citealp{Katgert}, the

111: SMAC survey of \citealp{SMAC}, and the EFAR project of \citealp{Wegner}), to

112: perform cosmological tests and compute cosmological parameters (see

113: \eg\ \citealp{Moles98}), and as a diagnostic tool of galaxy evolution

114: and $M/L$ variations with redshift (see \eg\ \citealp{KJM} and

115: \citealp{Ziegl99}). Most analyses in the literature are based on the

116: comparison between the FP of distant clusters and that of nearby

117: clusters, usually set on the Coma cluster (\citealp{Jorg96}), the only

118: one with extensive, homogeneous photometric and spectroscopic data

119: for a large sample of ETGs.

120: 

121: Even if the universality of the FP relation at low redshift has never

122: been actually proven, it has been recently claimed that the FP

123: coefficient $a$\footnote{This coefficient is related to the tilt of

124: the FP, represented by the difference $2-a$, that is the deviation

125: from the Virial expectation value $a=2$.} changes systematically at

126: increasing redshift, from $\sim 1.2$ at redshift zero to $\sim0.8$ at

127: $z\sim0.8\div1.3$ \citep{Sperello,Jorg06}. This change, already

128: predicted by \citet{Pahrea}, has been attributed to the evolution of

129: ETGs with redshift.

130: 

131: However, the situation is far from being clear, since the data

132: required to assess the universality of the FP are still lacking. The

133: SDSS survey \citep{sloan} first attempted to face this problem

134: adopting the correct strategy, which must necessarily rest on the

135: availability of large galaxy samples. The results of this analysis

136: indicate that the FP is a robust relation valid for all ETGs (above

137: the magnitude limit of the SDSS), but its coefficients could depend on

138: the number density of the galaxy environment: the luminosities, sizes,

139: and velocity dispersions of the ETGs seem to increase slightly as the

140: local density increases, while the average surface brightnesses

141: decrease. However, evidences supporting different conclusions have

142: been found by \citet{delaRosa}, \citet{Pahrea,Pahreb} and

143: \citet{Kochanek}.

144: 

145: In addition, it is still unclear whether ETGs in clusters at the

146: same redshift share the same FP, or instead the FP coefficients

147: systematically change as a function of the global properties of the 

148: host cluster (richness, optical and X-ray luminosity, velocity

149: dispersions, concentration, subclustering, etc.).

150: 

151: Today, thanks to the huge observational effort done by wide field

152: surveys, such as SDSS \citep{sloan}, NFPS \citep{noao} and WINGS

153: \citep{Fas06}, the study of the FP can be extended to a much larger

154: sample of nearby clusters. Besides the data from the SDSS survey, we

155: can now use those from two more surveys (WINGS and NFPS) suitably

156: designed to study the properties of nearby clusters. Here we exploit

157: these datasets to check whether, at least in the local Universe, the

158: hypothesis of universality of the FP turns out to be supported by the

159: observations or not.

160: 

161: The paper is structured as follows: in Sec.~\ref{sec1} we present our

162: data sample, discussing its properties, its statistical completeness

163: and the intrinsic uncertainties associated to the measured structural

164: (effective radius), photometric (effective surface brightness) and

165: dynamical (central velocity dispersion) quantities involved in the FP

166: relation. In Sec.~\ref{sec2} we present the FP for the whole dataset

167: and those of each individual cluster. In Sec.~\ref{sec3}, also by

168: means of extensive simulations, we investigate the origin of the large

169: spread observed in the FP coefficients, showing that the scatter is

170: hardly attributable just to the statistical uncertainty arising

171: from the limited number of ETGs in each cluster. In Sec.~\ref{sec4} we

172: explore the behaviour of the FP coefficients at varying some galaxy

173: properties (Sersic index, color, flattening), the local environment

174: (cluster-centric distance and local galaxy density) and the global

175: properties of the host clusters (density, central velocity dispersion,

176: optical and X-ray luminosity). Finally, in Sec.~\ref{sec5}, we discuss

177: the relations involving the mass and the mass-to-light ratio of ETGs

178: in nearby clusters, which are closely linked to the FP, also providing

179: a tool to investigate the galaxy formation and evolution. Conclusions

180: are drawn in Sec.~\ref{sec6}.

181: Hereafter in this paper we adopt the standard cosmological parameters

182: $\H0=70$, $\Ol=0.7$, $\Ob=0.3$.

183: 

184: 

185: \section{THE GALAXY SAMPLE}\label{sec1}

186: 

187: \placetable{tbl1}

188: 

189: The initial galaxy sample has been extracted from 59 clusters

190: belonging to the survey WINGS~(W). It includes galaxies having

191: velocity dispersion measurements and 'early-type' classifications from

192: the surveys SDSS~(S) and/or NFPS~(N). Effective radius and

193: surface brightness of galaxies have been measured by GASPHOT

194: (\citealp{Pignatelli}), the software purposely devised to perform the

195: surface photometry of galaxies with threshold isophotal area (at

196: 2$\times rms_{\rm bkg}$) larger than 200 pixels in the WINGS

197: survey (Pignatelli et al. in preparation). The central velocity

198: dispersions have been extracted from the catalogs published by the

199: surveys NFPS (52 clusters in common with WINGS) and SDSS (14 clusters

200: in common with WINGS). The clusters in common between NFPS, SDSS and

201: WINGS are: A0085, A119, A160, A602, A957x, A2124, and A2399.

202: 

203: A careful check of morphologies, performed both visually and using the

204: automatic tool MORPHOT (Fasano et al. in preparation; again purposely

205: devised for the WINGS survey), allowed us to identify in both datasets

206: several early-type spirals, erroneously classified as E or S0 galaxies

207: ($\sim 8$\% of the whole sample). Besides these, we also decided to

208: exclude from the present analysis the galaxies with central velocity

209: dispersion $\sigma<95$ \kms (see Sec.\ref{sec12}) or total

210: luminosity $M_V>-18$. The final sample sizes are: $N_{W+N}$=1368;

211: $N_{W+S}$=282; $N_{W+N+S}$=1550 (100 objects in common between W+S and

212: W+N). The median number of ETGs per cluster is $N_{med}=23$.

213: For each cluster, Table~\ref{tbl1} reports the number of galaxies in 

214: the two samples (W+N and W+S; columns 8 and 9, respectively) and that 

215: of galaxies in common (W+[N\&S]; column 10).

216: 

217: The table also reports some salient cluster properties: average

218: redshift (column 2; from NED), velocity dispersion ($\Sigma$) of

219: galaxies around the average redshift (column 3; again from NED), X-ray

220: (0.1-2.4~keV) luminosity in ergs~s$^{-1}$ (column 4; from

221: \citealp{ebel1,ebel2,ebel3}), total absolute magnitude in the V-band

222: (column 5; from the WINGS deep catalogs), radius $R_{200}$ in Mpc

223: (column 6; from $\Sigma$, following \citealp{pogg06}) and absolute

224: V-band magnitude of the brightest cluster member (column 7; again from

225: the WINGS catalogs).

226: 

227: It is worth stressing that, even though our sample of ETGs is the most

228: sizeable among those used till now to study the FP of nearby clusters,

229: it is still far from being complete from a statistical point of

230: view. In particular: (i) the surface photometry is available just for

231: the galaxies in the region of $\sim35\times35$ arcminutes around the

232: cluster center (the regions mapped by the CCD images of the WINGS

233: survey); (ii) the SDSS and NFPS surveys have provided velocity

234: dispersions just for subsamples of the WINGS ETGs, each survey

235: according to the proper selection criteria (see Sec.\ref{sec12});

236: (iii) a couple of clusters with SDSS velocity dispersions are just

237: partially mapped by the survey.

238: 

239: \subsection{The WINGS photometry}\label{sec11}

240: 

241: The WINGS survey has produced catalogs of deep photometry and surface

242: photometry for 77 nearby clusters. For several thousands galaxies per

243: cluster the deep catalogs contain many geometrical and aperture

244: photometry data (Varela et al. 2008, A\&A, in press.), derived by means

245: of SExtractor analysis (\citealp{Bertin}). The surface photometry

246: catalogs contain data for several hundreds galaxies per cluster (those

247: with isophotal area greater than 200 pixels) and have been produced by

248: using the previously mentioned tool GASPHOT. For each galaxy it

249: performs seeing convolved, simultaneous, Sersic law fitting of the

250: major and minor axis growth profiles, thus providing Sersic index $n$,

251: effective radius \re\ and average surface brightness \muem\ , total

252: luminosity, flattening and local sky background. The data and the

253: associated uncertainties are discussed in Pignatelli et al. (2008, in

254: preparation). The average quoted $rms$ uncertainties of \re\ and

255: \muem\ are $\sim 15\%$ and $\sim 10\%$, respectively. The surface

256: brightnesses have been corrected for galactic extinction

257: (\citealp{Schlegel}) and cosmological dimming (using the average

258: redshifts of the clusters), while the K-corrections have not been

259: considered. Effective radii have been transformed from arcseconds to

260: Kpcs using the cosmological parameters given in Section~\ref{intro}.

261: 

262: It is worth stressing that just a few dozens of galaxies per clusters,

263: out of the several hundreds for which WINGS provides surface photometry

264: parameters, can be included in the final sample, due to the

265: morphological constraint (early-type) and the cross matching with the

266: available velocity dispersion data.

267: 

268: \begin{figure}

269: \epsscale{1.0}

270: \plotone{f1.eps}

271: \caption{

272: (Upper panel): difference between the effective radii derived by the

273: SDSS surface photometry using the de~Vaucouleur's \rq\ law and those

274: derived by GASPHOT using the Sersic's law, as a function of the Sersic

275: index $n$ (by GASPHOT), for the $407$ ETGs for which both the SDSS and 

276: the WINGS surveys provide surface photometry parameters.

277: (Lower panel): as in the upper panel, but for the total V-band

278: magnitudes. In this case, the SDSS V-band magnitudes are obtained

279: from the $r'$-band ones using the conversion formula proposed by

280: \citealp{Fukugita}.

281: \label{fig1}}

282: \end{figure}

283: 

284: In Figure~\ref{fig1} we compare total magnitudes and effective radii

285: derived by GASPHOT (Sersic's law fitting) with the corresponding

286: quantities derived by the SDSS surface photometry using the

287: de~Vaucouleur's \rq\ law. The $407$ ETGs in common between the SDSS

288: and WINGS surveys (including galaxies with $\sigma<95$ or $M_V>-18$)

289: are shared among $14$ different clusters. The figure clearly

290: illustrates how the surface photometry parameters are strongly

291: influenced by the adopted fitting procedure. In particular, in our

292: case, the strong dependence of both $\Delta$Log(R$_e$) and $\Delta$V

293: on the Sersic index $n$ is largely expected due to the different

294: amount of light gathered in the outer luminosity profiles by the

295: R$^{1/4}$ and Sersic law extrapolations. However, it is worth noting

296: in Figure~\ref{fig1} that, even for $n$=4 (dotted lines in the figure)

297: the GASPHOT and SDSS surface photometries give different results, the

298: last one producing slightly fainter and smaller galaxies. 

299: To this concern, according to the SDSS-DR6 documentation, both the

300: effective radii and the total luminosities provided by SDSS for

301: galaxies in crowded fields (as the clusters are) turn out to be more

302: and more underestimated at increasing the galaxy luminosity. In the

303: magnitude range typical of our galaxy sample ($\sim$15$<$V$<\sim$18)

304: we expect these biases to be of the order of -0.05 and 0.05 for

305: $\Delta$Log(R$_e$) and $\Delta$V, respectively. While for

306: $\Delta$Log(R$_e$) the expected bias could be enough in order to

307: explain the discrepancy in the figure (upper panel), for $\Delta$V

308: (lower panel) it would be largely insufficient. The residual

309: discrepancy ($\Delta$V$\sim$0.15) is likely attributable to the

310: difference between the fitting algorithms used by SDSS (2D - pixel by pixel)

311: and GASPHOT (major and minor axis growth profiles; see Pignatelli et

312: al. 2006 for a discussion of the advantages of this fitting 

313: procedure).

314: 

315: \subsection{The kinematical data}\label{sec12}

316: 

317: The central velocity dispersions $\sigma$ of the ETGs have been taken

318: from the published data of the NFPS and SDSS--DR6 surveys. It follows

319: that the completeness is strongly affected by the selection criteria

320: adopted in these surveys. In particular, the SDSS survey defines ETGs

321: those objects having both a concentration index $R_{90}/R_{50} > 2.5$

322: (in the $i^*$ band) and a very good \rq\ de~Vaucouleurs light profile,

323: while the ETGs of the NFPS survey have been selected on the basis of

324: their colors, using a narrow strip around the color-magnitude

325: diagram. Both criteria might lead to exclude from the samples the

326: brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs), which are actually laking in the

327: SDSS sample. Moreover, in the SDSS survey the velocity dispersions are

328: measured only for spectra with signal-to-noise ratio $S/N>10$ (high

329: average surface brightness) and some clusters are not

330: fully mapped by the survey strips. We will see that such different

331: selection criteria produce systematic differences in the

332: FP coefficients derived for the two samples.

333: 

334: \begin{figure}

335: %\epsscale{.80}

336: \plotone{f2.eps}

337: \caption{ 

338: Comparison between Log($\sigma_{DR6}$) and Log($\sigma_{DR4}$)

339: for 523 SDSS galaxies originally selected in the fields of our

340: WINGS survey. Note the systematic offset between the DR4 and DR6

341: releases at low velocity dispersions.

342: \label{fig2}}

343: \end{figure}

344: 

345: It is worth pointing out that in the originally submitted version of

346: this paper ({\tt arXiv0804.1892D}) we used SDSS velocity dispersion

347: data from a previous release of the survey (SDSS--DR4) and that the

348: differences between the velocity dispersions given in DR4 and DR6 are

349: not negligible, especially for small values of $\sigma$ (see

350: Figure~\ref{fig2}). This is the reason why many figures and tables,

351: as well as some findings we report here (mainly concerning the

352: difference between the FP coefficients of the SDSS and NFPS samples)

353: are slightly different from the corresponding ones reported in the

354: previous version of the paper. Still, we decided to keep that version

355: unchanged on the babbage (just slightly modifying the title) in order

356: to show how much a correct determination of the physical quantities

357: involved in the FP (especially $\sigma$) is critical in drawing any

358: conclusion from the FP tool.

359: 

360: All the available velocity dispersions have been homogenized to the

361: uniform aperture $R_e/8$, following the recipe of \citet{Jorg95}. The

362: estimated uncertainty for both surveys is in the range $7\div10$\%.

363: 

364: In Figure~\ref{fig3} we plot the difference

365: Log($\sigma_N$)--Log($\sigma_S$) versus Log($\sigma_N$) for the $100$

366: galaxies of our sample in common between the NFPS and SDSS

367: samples. The $rms$ scatter of the Log($\sigma_N$) vs Log($\sigma_S$)

368: relation is $\sim 0.05$, equivalent to an uncertainty of $\sim 12$\%

369: in the common velocity dispersions. Again there is a systematic

370: deviation between the two datasets at low velocity dispersions

371: ($\sigma<95\ km\ s^{-1}$).

372: 

373: In the following, to avoid any possible bias in the comparison of the

374: FP of clusters, we have excluded from our analysis the objects with

375: $\sigma<95\ km\ s^{-1}$.  Moreover, when dealing with the global

376: (W+N+S) galaxy sample, the average velocity dispersion

377: $\sigma=(\sigma_N+\sigma_S)/2$ have been assigned to the galaxies in

378: common between NFPS and SDSS.

379: 

380: \begin{figure}

381: %\epsscale{.80}

382: \plotone{f3.eps}

383: \caption{ 

384: The difference Log($\sigma_S$)--Log($\sigma_N$) versus Log($\sigma_S$)

385: for the 100 ETGs of our sample in common between the NFPS and SDSS

386: surveys. Note the systematic offset at low velocity dispersions, which

387: led us to restrict our sample to galaxies with $\sigma>95\ km\ s^{-1}$.

388: \label{fig3}}

389: \end{figure}

390: 

391: \section{FITTING THE FP}\label{sec2}

392: 

393: It is well known that the values of the FP coefficients vary

394: systematically at varying the adopted fitting algorithm

395: \citep{Strauss,Blakeslee} and that the choice of the

396: algorithm actually depends on the particular issue under investigation

397: (relation among the physical quantities, linear regression for

398: distance determination, etc..). Here we tried two different algorithms

399: to get the best fit of the FP: 1) the program MIST, kindly provided by

400: \citet{LaBarb}, which is a bisector least square fit, coupled with a

401: bootstrap analysis providing a statistical estimate of the errors of

402: the FP coefficients; 2) a standard $\chi^2$ fit minimizing the

403: weighted sum of the orthogonal distances (ORTH hereafter). Both

404: algorithms account, in different ways, for the measurement errors on

405: the variables Log($R_e$), \muem, and Log($\sigma$). MIST considers an

406: average covariance matrix that includes the variances of the errors in

407: all parameters and their mutual correlations (such as $rms_{Log(R_e)}$

408: vs. $rms_{\muem}$).  On the other hand, ORTH takes into account the

409: errors of individual measures in a standard $\chi^2$ analysis.  In

410: Table~\ref{tbl2} we report the FP coefficients derived from the two

411: fitting algorithms for the global galaxy sample (first two lines) and

412: for the NFPS and SDSS samples separately (lines 3-4 and 5-6,

413: respectively). In the same table (lines 8-9) we report for comparison

414: the FP coefficients obtained with both MIST and ORTH fitting

415: algorithms for a sample of 80 ETGs in the Coma cluster (photometric

416: and kinematical data from \citealp{Jorg95}[JORG]). The column labeled

417: with $N_g$ in the table reports the number of galaxies used in each

418: fit.

419: 

420: Besides the best fitting algorithm, the FP coefficients might also be

421: systematically influenced by the technique adopted to measure the

422: effective radius and surface brightness of galaxies (1D/2D light

423: profile fitting with de~Vaucouleurs/Sersic laws). Lines 5 and 7 of

424: Table~\ref{tbl2} report the MIST FP coefficients obtained for the

425: galaxy sample in common between WINGS and SDSS, using alternatively

426: the two surface photometry data sets (see in Figure~\ref{fig1} the

427: comparison among them and in Section~\ref{sec11} the description of

428: the WINGS and SDSS surface photometry techniques). It is evident that,

429: at least in our case, the influence of the adopted surface photometry 

430: technique on the FP coefficients turns out to be negligible.

431: 

432: \placetable{tbl2}

433: 

434: Table~\ref{tbl2} shows that different fitting algorithms (and,

435: possibly, surface photometry techniques) lead to somewhat systematic

436: differences in the FP coefficients. In particular, the values of $a$

437: obtained using the MIST fit are in general slightly smaller than those

438: coming from the orthogonal fit. This means that, in order to perform a

439: correct comparison of the FP results, it is advisable to adopt

440: homogeneous FP fitting and (perhaps) surface photometry techniques.

441: 

442: However, in the present analysis, we do not focus on the 'true' values

443: of the FP coefficients. Instead, we will concentrate on their possible

444: variation as a function of both galaxy and cluster properties. In

445: other words, rather than in obtaining the best possible fit for a

446: given application of the FP, we are interested in investigating the FP

447: systematics, once both the fitting algorithm and the surface

448: photometry technique have been chosen. Hereafter we adopt the MIST

449: bisector fitting algorithm and the WINGS-GASPHOT surface photometry.

450: The last choice will allow us to account for the structural

451: non-homology of galaxies (Sersic index, see Section~\ref{sec5}), while

452: the former one will provide FP coefficients useful for distance

453: determination of farther clusters. However, using the ORTH fitting

454: algorithm, we will also provide in Section~\ref{sec43} a recipe for

455: the V-band FP, useful to define the physical relation among the

456: quantities involved in it.

457: 

458: Comparing each one another the FP coefficients given in

459: Table~\ref{tbl2}, we easily realize that, besides the obvious

460: dependence on the fitting algorithms, a further dependence exists on

461: the galaxy sample, even adopting the same fitting algorithm (MIST) and

462: surface photometry technique (WINGS-GASPHOT). In particular, the $a$

463: coefficient, which is related to the so called 'tilt' of the FP, is

464: noticeably different for the three data samples, even if the $rms$

465: scatter in Log($R_e$) is always $\sim 0.05$ (which implies an

466: uncertainty of $\sim12\%$), a value just a bit larger than that

467: reported in \citet{Jorg95} ($\sim11\%$).

468: 

469: In panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig4} we show the MIST bisector fit of the

470: FP obtained for the whole W+N+S dataset (see line 1 of

471: Table~\ref{tbl2}) using two different colors for the W+N and W+S data

472: samples (respectively black and grey; green in the electronic

473: form). Note the cut shown by SDSS data at large values of Log($R_e$),

474: which is obviously due to the bright end cut of the survey. 

475: 

476: \begin{figure}

477: \vspace{-2cm}

478: \hspace{-0.5cm}

479: \includegraphics[angle=0,scale=0.85]{f4.eps}

480: %\vspace{-1cm}

481: \caption{ 

482: (panel a): The FP of the W+N (black dots) and W+S (gray dots; green in

483: the electronic version) data samples; (panel b) The W+N+S FP for E

484: (black dots) and S0 (gray dots; green in the electronic version)

485: galaxies. In both panels we used for reference the FP coefficients

486: derived from the best fit of the global dataset (W+N+S). 

487: The two-sided arrow in panel (a) roughly defines,

488: through the Faber-Jackson (L$-\sigma$) relation, the direction of

489: constant luminosity (or $\sigma$; see Section~\ref{sec32}).

490: \label{fig4}}

491: \end{figure}

492: 

493: \placetable{tbl3}

494: 

495: In Figure~\ref{fig5} we plot the FP of the individual clusters, again

496: using for reference the coefficients derived from the fit of the whole

497: W+N+S data sample. Columns 3-8 of Table~\ref{tbl3} report the best fit

498: coefficients (and the associated uncertainties) of each cluster,

499: obtained with the MIST algorithm. Even from a quick look of both

500: Figure~\ref{fig5} and Table~\ref{tbl3}, it is clear that the global fit

501: does not seem to be a valid solution for all clusters.

502: 

503: \begin{figure}

504: %\epsscale{.80}

505: \plotone{f5a.eps}

506: \caption{The FPs of individual clusters in our sample are plotted 

507: using the MIST best fit solution found for the global W+N+S galaxy sample.

508: \label{fig5}}

509: \end{figure}

510: 

511: \addtocounter{figure}{-1}

512: \begin{figure}

513: %\epsscale{.80}

514: \plotone{f5b.eps}

515: \caption{The FPs of individual clusters (continued).}

516: \end{figure}

517: 

518: The average values (with their uncertainties), the standard deviations

519: and the median values of the (MIST) FP coefficients of the clusters in

520: the global sample and in the samples W+N and W+S are reported in

521: Table.~\ref{tbl4}. From this table we note that: (i) even if the

522: scatter is large, the average values of the FP coefficients appear

523: systematically different (well beyond the expected uncertainties) in

524: the W+N and W+S cluster samples, confirming the dichotomy already

525: noted in Table~\ref{tbl2}; (ii) when just clusters with

526: $N_g>N_{med}(=23)$ are considered, the standard deviations of the

527: distributions of the FP coefficients decrease only slightly, suggesting

528: that the large scatter cannot be ascribed to the statistical

529: uncertainties related to the (sometimes) small number of ETGs in our

530: clusters.

531: 

532: \placetable{tbl4}

533: 

534: \section{ORIGIN OF THE SCATTER OF THE FP COEFFICIENTS}\label{sec3}

535: 

536: We test two different hypotheses to explain the differences between

537: the W+N and W+S samples and, in general, the large observed scatters

538: of the FP coefficients: (i) they are simply due to the statistical

539: uncertainties of the fits; (ii) they are artificially produced by the

540: different criteria used to select ETGs in the NFPS and SDSS surveys.

541: 

542: \subsection{Consistency with statistical uncertainties}\label{sec31}

543: 

544: First we test the 'null hypothesis' that the observed scatter is

545: merely consistent with the statistical uncertainties of the fits. To

546: this aim, using all the galaxies in our sample, we produced two

547: different sets of simulated clusters. In the first set we generate

548: mock clusters with number of galaxies ($N_g$) progressively increasing

549: from Log($N_g$) = 1 to 2 (step 0.1) and fit each mock cluster with

550: MIST. Figure~\ref{fig6} shows the average values of the FP coefficients

551: and the corresponding standard deviations as a function of

552: Log($N_g$). Note that, since for each value of $N_g$ the whole sample 

553: of 1550 galaxies is used to randomly extract as many mock

554: clusters as possible avoiding galaxy repetitions, the number of mock

555: clusters increases at decreasing $N_g$, thus resulting in almost

556: constant error bars of the average FP coefficients and of their

557: variances.

558: 

559: \begin{figure}

560: %\epsscale{.80} 

561: \plotone{f6.eps}

562: \caption{

563: Average values (left panels) and standard deviations (right panels) of

564: the FP coefficients as a function of the number of galaxies ($N_g$)

565: for mock clusters randomly extracted from the whole galaxy sample (see

566: text for details).  The dashed lines in the left panels correspond to

567: the FP coefficients obtained fitting altogether with MIST the 1550

568: galaxies in our sample. The full lines in the right panels correspond

569: to the simple exponential functions we used to compute the standard

570: deviations as a function of Log($N_g$) (see the equations in each

571: panel).

572: \label{fig6}}

573: \end{figure}

574: 

575: In the second set of simulations we produced 100 toy surveys, each

576: containing 59 clusters obtained by sorting randomly the whole galaxy

577: sample and taking sequentially the same number of galaxies per cluster

578: as the real survey (thus avoiding galaxy repetitions)\footnote{Note

579: that, in this way, we implicitly assume that the probability distributions 

580: of photometric/kinematic properties of

581: galaxies are the same in all clusters and correspond to those of the

582: global galaxy sample.}. Then, using the MIST algorithm, we evaluate

583: the FP coefficients of each mock cluster and, for each mock survey, we

584: compute the average and median values of the coefficients, together

585: with their standard deviations. Finally, we compare the distributions

586: of the average coefficients and their variances in the mock surveys

587: with the corresponding values of the real survey.

588: 

589: Figures~\ref{fig7} and~\ref{fig8} illustrate the conclusions of the

590: two sets of simulations. The first set has been used to

591: compute (with the equations given in the right panels of

592: Figure~\ref{fig6}) the error bars in Figure~\ref{fig7}. The left

593: panels of this figure report the FP coefficients of our 'real'

594: clusters versus the number of galaxies in each cluster, while the

595: histograms on the right side of each panel show the corresponding

596: distributions (see figure caption for more details). The error bars

597: are used to compute the reduced Chi-square values (reported in the

598: figure; in our case $\nu$=58) of the differences between the

599: coefficients of the individual clusters and the corresponding

600: coefficient of the global galaxy sample (dashed lines in the

601: figure). Apart from the $a$ coefficient ($P_{\nu}\sim$0.965), they

602: correspond to very high values of the rejection probability

603: ($P_{\nu}>$0.995) that the coefficients of the individual clusters are

604: randomly extracted from the same parent population.

605: 

606: \begin{figure}

607: \vspace{-2cm}

608: \hspace{-0.5cm}

609: \includegraphics[scale=0.8]{f7.eps}

610: \vspace{-1.5cm}

611: \caption{

612: (Left panels): FP coefficients of our clusters versus the number of

613: galaxies in each cluster. The black and gray (green in the electronic

614: version) dots refer to clusters with only NFPS and SDSS galaxies, respectively.

615: The open dots represent the seven clusters in common between the NFPS

616: and SDSS surveys. The dashed lines correspond to the FP coefficients

617: obtained fitting altogether with MIST the 1550 galaxies in our

618: sample. The histograms on the right represent the

619: distributions of FP coefficients in our cluster samples. Black, gray

620: (green in the electronic version) and open histograms have the same

621: meanings as in the left plots and are cumulated inside each bin;

622: (Right panels): as in the left panels, but using only galaxies with

623: $M_V<-19.5$.  Note that in the left panels (global galaxy sample) the

624: NFPS and SDSS clusters have quite different distributions of the 

625: coefficients, while in the right panels (just galaxies with $M_V<-19.5$) 

626: the distributions of the two samples are consistent among each

627: other.

628: \label{fig7}}

629: \end{figure}

630: 

631: Figure~\ref{fig8} shows that the average values of the FP

632: coefficients for the clusters of the real survey are just marginally 

633: consistent with the corresponding distributions obtained with the 

634: simulations of mock surveys (upper panels), while the distributions of 

635: variances are more or less in agreement with the real ones (lower

636: panels).

637: 

638: \begin{figure}

639: %\epsscale{.80}

640: \plotone{f8.eps}

641: \caption{

642: Histograms of the average values of the FP coefficients (upper panels)

643: and standard deviations (lower panels) for the 100 toy surveys (see

644: text for details). The dashed lines in the histograms mark the

645: corresponding values obtained from the real survey (see

646: Table.~\ref{tbl4}). These values are also reported in the panels,

647: together with the probabilities that they are randomly extracted from

648: the underlying histograms.  Note in the upper panels that the average

649: values of the FP coefficients for the clusters of the real

650: survey are just marginally consistent with the corresponding distributions

651: obtained from the mock surveys.

652: \label{fig8}}

653: \end{figure}

654: 

655: The two sets of simulations indicate that the observed scatter is not

656: accounted for by the statistical uncertainties of the fits and that

657: the real clusters cannot be merely assembled by random extraction of

658: galaxies from the global population. The left panels of

659: Figure~\ref{fig7} also clearly illustrate the systematic differences

660: between the FP coefficients of the NFPS and SDSS samples already

661: quoted in Tables~\ref{tbl2} and \ref{tbl4}. To this concern, the

662: two--sample Kolmogorov--Smirnov test, applied to the black and

663: open+gray(green) samples in that Figure, provides rejection probabilities of

664: 0.998, 0.530 and 0.986 for the left panels coefficients $a$, $b$ and

665: $c$, respectively.

666: 

667: \subsection{Dependence on galaxy sampling}\label{sec32}

668: 

669: As an early test, we wanted to investigate the hypothesis that the

670: observed scatter of differences in the FP coefficients are the result

671: of blending E and S0 galaxies, with the knowledge that the E/S0 ratio

672: varies (for example) as a function of local density. We verified that

673: the FP computed separately for the elliptical and S0 galaxies are

674: practically indistinguishable (all FP coefficients differ by $<3\%$;

675: see also the right panels of Figure~\ref{fig4}). This allows us to rule

676: out the hypothesis that the observed scatter is induced by different

677: E/S0 fractions in the different samples.

678: 

679: On the other hand, we have seen in Tables~\ref{tbl2} and~\ref{tbl4}

680: that the FP coefficients of the clusters in the W+N and W+S data

681: samples are systematically different from each other (see also the

682: left panels of Figure~\ref{fig7} and the last sentence of the previous

683: sub--section). It is therefore natural asking which is the origin of

684: such systematic difference.

685: 

686: Since for all galaxies in the sample the surface photometry data come

687: from WINGS+GASPHOT, we could be tempted to conclude that the

688: differences we found are due to some systematic offset between

689: velocity dispersion measurements from the NFPS and SDSS

690: surveys. However, this possibility is definitely ruled out by

691: Figure~\ref{fig3} (Sec.~\ref{sec12}), which shows that the agreement

692: between the two velocity dispersion surveys is fairly good, at least 

693: for $\sigma >$95km~s$^{-1}$. Indeed, we

694: have also verified that the FP coefficients of the galaxy sample in

695: common between NFPS and SDSS, obtained using alternatively the two

696: velocity dispersion data sets do not differ significantly.

697: 

698: Thus, we are left with the last possibility: that the systematic FP

699: differences between the NFPS and SDSS clusters are due to the

700: different distributions of photometric/kinematic properties of

701: galaxies in the two samples. The danger of selection biases in this

702: game has already been emphasized by \citet{Lynden-Bell},

703: \citet{Scodeggio}, and \citet{sloan}, who showed that robust fits of

704: the FP can be obtained only for galaxy samples complete in luminosity,

705: volume, cluster area coverage and stellar kinematics. The panels (a)

706: and (b) of Figure~\ref{fig9} respectively show the projection of the

707: FP on the surface photometry plane (\muere\ ; Kormendy relation) and the

708: Color-Magnitude diagrams [$M_V - (B-V)$] for the NFPS and SDSS

709: surveys. Both figures show that the two galaxy samples have quite

710: different distributions of the photometric quantities involved in the

711: FP parameters. This is even more evident in the panel (c) of the same

712: figure, where the face-on view of the FP of the global sample is

713: shown, together with the loci corresponding to some constant values of

714: the quantities involved in the FP (dotted lines). Note that, both in

715: the Color-Magnitude and in the Kormendy diagrams, the W+S galaxy

716: sample turns out to be (on average) fainter than the W+N sample,

717: especially in the small size region. This is likely a direct

718: consequence of the rules the two surveys adopt to select early-type

719: galaxies (see Section~\ref{sec12}).

720: 

721: \begin{figure}

722: %\epsscale{.80}

723: \plotone{f9.eps}

724: \caption{

725: (Panel a): the \muere\ relation for the W+N (black dots) and W+S (gray

726: dots; green in the electronic version) samples. The big dark-gray

727: (magenta in the electronic version) and white dots represent the

728: average surface brightnesses of the two galaxy samples in different

729: bins of Log($R_e$); (Panel b): the Color-Magnitude diagrams for the

730: galaxies of the W+N and W+S samples. Symbols are as in panel (a);

731: (Panel c): face-on view of the FP obtained for the global galaxy

732: sample. The dotted straight lines mark the loci corresponding to some

733: constant values of luminosity, surface brightness, effective radius

734: and velocity dispersion. Symbols as in the previous panels.

735: \label{fig9}}

736: \end{figure}

737: 

738: The fact that such differences in the galaxy sampling produce the

739: observed differences in the FP coefficients is shown in

740: Figure~\ref{fig10}. In the upper panels of the figure the $a$ coefficient

741: of the FP seems to be anti-correlated with the average values of luminosity,

742: radius and velocity dispersions of galaxies in the clusters. The same,

743: but (obviously) with positive CCs, happens for the coefficient $c$ (not reported

744: in the figure). We see from the lower panels in the figure that, if we

745: cut the data samples at higher luminosity, $M_V=-19.5$, these

746: correlations disappear, since in this case the two data samples

747: are more homogenous.

748: 

749: \begin{figure}

750: \vspace{-4cm}

751: \hspace{-1cm}

752: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.65]{f10.eps}

753: \vspace{0.5cm}

754: \caption{(Upper panels) the FP coefficient $a$ vs. the average values of

755: effective radius ($<Log(\re)>$), luminosity ($<M_V>$) and central

756: velocity dispersion ($<Log(\sigma)>$) of the galaxies in each

757: cluster. Symbols are as in Figure~\ref{fig7}. (Lower panels) the

758: same plots, but using only galaxies with $M_V<-19.5$.

759: \label{fig10}}

760: \end{figure}

761: 

762: This is also confirmed by the right panels of Figure~\ref{fig7}, where

763: the plots in the left panels are repeated using only galaxies with

764: absolute magnitude $M_V<-19.5$. Indeed, the two--sample

765: Kolmogorov--Smirnov test, applied to the black and open+gray(green)

766: samples in that figure, provides rejection probabilities of 0.475,

767: 0.308 and 0.318 for the right panels coefficients $a$, $b$ and $c$,

768: respectively (compare these values with those given in the last

769: sentence of Section~\ref{sec31})

770: 

771: A final, quantitative estimate of the dependence of the FP

772: coefficients on the luminosity distribution of the galaxy

773: sample is provided by Figure~\ref{fig11}, where we report the FP

774: coefficients obtained for different values of the faint and

775: bright luminosity cut-off applied to the NFPS and SDSS

776: samples.

777: 

778: \begin{figure}

779: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.65]{f11.eps}

780: \vspace{0.5cm}

781: \caption{The FP coefficients $a$ and $b$ obtained with MIST for different values of the

782: faint and bright luminosity cut-off applied to the NFPS galaxy sample (black dots) and to

783: the SDSS sample (gray dots; green in the electronic version).

784: \label{fig11}}

785: \end{figure}

786: 

787: \begin{figure}

788: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.65]{f12.eps}

789: \vspace{0.5cm}

790: \caption{similar to Figure~\ref{fig11},

791: but comparing the W+N+S sample (black dots) with a mock sample of

792: 10,000 toy galaxies (grey dots; green in the electronic version of the

793: paper; see text for more datails)

794: \label{fig12}}

795: \end{figure}

796: 

797: The left panels of Figure~\ref{fig11} show that, for both the NFPS and

798: the SDSS sample, the coefficients $a$ and $b$ decrease at increasing

799: the faint luminosity cut. This effect can be at least partially

800: explained by the very geometry of the FP. In fact, in the edge-on

801: representation of the FP, any luminosity cut in the galaxy sample

802: translates, through the Faber-Jackson (L$-\sigma$) relation, in a sort

803: of 'zone of avoidance' delimited by a line of constant luminosity (or

804: $\sigma$), whose direction is roughly indicated by the two-sided arrow

805: in Figure~\ref{fig4} (panel a). This {\it Malmquist-like} bias reduces

806: the FP slopes along the directions of $\sigma$ and \muem\ for both

807: faint- and bright-end luminosity cuts. Figure~\ref{fig12} illustrates

808: this {\it 'geometrical'} effect. It is similar to Figure~\ref{fig11},

809: but compares the W+N+S sample (black dots) with a mock sample of

810: 10,000 toy galaxies (grey dots; green in the electronic version of the

811: paper) randomly generated around the same (W+N+S) FP, according to the

812: 'true' distributions (and mutual correlations) of \muem\, \re\ and

813: $\sigma$. The right panels of Figure~\ref{fig11} show that this bias

814: actually works for the bright-end luminosity cut just in the

815: case of the NFPS sample. Instead, the FP coefficients of the SDSS

816: sample display a rather peculiar behaviour. For the faint-end cuts

817: they show trends similar to those of the NFPS sample, but more

818: pronounced. Instead, they do not seem to depend at all on the bright-end

819: cuts (right panels), remaining significantly higher than in the case

820: of the NFPS samples over the range of cut-off luminosities. This

821: behaviour suggests that, besides the luminosity cut-off, other causes

822: may contribute to tell apart the two samples.

823: 

824: \begin{figure}

825: \plotone{f13.eps}

826: \caption{

827: Edge-on FP as it appears along the direction of luminosity. Symbols

828: are as in panel (a) of Figure~\ref{fig4}. The black curve (red in the

829: electronic version) just represents a naive fitting we made in order

830: to enhance the warp-like feature of this particular projection of the FP.

831: \label{fig13}}

832: \end{figure}

833: 

834: The Figure~\ref{fig13} helps to clarify this point. It shows the

835: edge-on FP as it appears along the direction of luminosity.  This

836: particular projection highlights a weak feature of the FP that

837: otherwise would be completely masked, suggesting the existence of a

838: sort of warping (black curve in the figure; red in the electronic

839: version). Although just hinted in the bright part of the luminosity

840: function, this feature looks a bit more evident in its faint-end, which in

841: our sample is dominated by SDSS galaxies. To this concern, it is worth

842: noticing that this faint luminosity warp can hardly be attributed to a

843: possible upward bias of the SDSS low velocity dispersion measurements,

844: since, according to \citet{noao} (see also Figure~\ref{fig3}), such a

845: bias should in case work in the opposite direction. The different

846: shape of the NFPS and SDSS samples in this particular projection of

847: the FP explain the reasons why: (i) for the SDSS sample the

848: coefficient $a$ turns out to be always greater than in the case of the

849: NFPS sample; (ii) the faint-end luminosity cut influences the

850: coefficient $a$ of the FP more for the SDSS than for the NFPS

851: sample; (iii) the bright-end luminosity cut does not influence the FP

852: coefficients of the SDSS sample.

853: 

854: Although these analyses would benefit from a more robust statistic,

855: they lead us to suggest that the FP is likely a curved surface. This

856: fact has been recently claimed by \citet{desroches} and, in the

857: low-luminosity region, may actually indicate a first hint of the

858: connection between the FP of giant and dwarf ellipticals

859: (\citealp{nieto}, \citealp{held}, \citealp{peterson}). In

860: Section~\ref{sec5} we will also present a further hint of the

861: existence of the high luminosity warp of the FP suggested by

862: Figure~\ref{fig13}.

863: 

864: It is important to stress that the possible curvature of the FP may

865: give rise to different values of its coefficients when different

866: selection criteria, either chosen or induced by observations, are

867: acting to define galaxy samples. This fact represents a potentially

868: serious problem when the goal is to compare the tilt of the FP at low-

869: and high-redshifts, since it implies that a reliable comparison can be

870: done only if galaxy samples at quite different distances share the

871: same distributions of the photometric/kinematic properties, which is

872: indeed not usually the case.

873: 

874: Finally, we note that, according to the Chi-square values reported in the

875: right panels of Figure~\ref{fig7}, the scatter of the FP coefficients

876: is poorly consistent with the expected statistical uncertainties, even

877: after having reduced the annoying dichotomy between the NFPS and SDSS data

878: samples. This fact suggests that at least part of the observed scatter

879: must be somehow 'intrinsic' and resulting from a 'true' dependence of

880: the FP coefficients on the galaxy properties and/or on the local

881: environment and/or on the global cluster properties. The huge amount

882: of data available from the WINGS photometric catalogs allows us to

883: perform for the first time this kind of analysis.

884: 

885: \section{SYSTEMATICS OF THE FP COEFFICIENTS}\label{sec4}

886: 

887: In order to reduce the luminosity-driven bias of the FP coefficients

888: illustrated in the previous Section~\ref{sec32}, we decided to use in

889: this section only galaxies with $M_V<-19.5$ ($N_g$=1477). Even if this

890: luminosity cut-off does not remove completely the systematic

891: FP differences arising from the different sampling rules of the NFPS

892: and SDSS surveys (see Figure~\ref{fig11}), we guess it is able at

893: least to reduce them down to an acceptable level.

894: 

895: \subsection{FP versus galaxy properties and local environment}\label{sec41}

896: 

897: In Section~\ref{sec32} we have already shown that the FP coefficients

898: do depend on the average luminosity of the galaxies in the sample and,

899: therefore, on the average values of size and velocity dispersion (see

900: Figure~\ref{fig10}). These dependences concern the very shape of the FP

901: relation, since they involve the physical quantities defining the

902: relation itself. Now, besides these 'first order' dependences, we want

903: to check whether the FP relation varies with other galaxy properties

904: or the local environment. In particular, as far as the galaxy

905: properties are concerned, we test the ($B-V$) color, the Sersic index

906: Log($n$) and the axial ratio $b/a$, while the cluster-centric distance

907: $D_{CC}$ (normalized to $R_{200}$

908: \footnote{It is the radius at which the mean interior

909: overdensity is 200 times the critical density of the Universe.}) and

910: the local density Log($\rho$)\footnote{The local density around each

911: galaxy has been computed in the circular area containing the 10

912: nearest neighbors with $M_V<-19.5$: $\rho = 10/\pi R_{10}^2$ ($R_{10}$

913: in Mpc). The computation is a bit more complex for the objects close

914: to the edge of the WINGS CCD frames. A statistical background correction

915: of the counts has been applied using the recipe by \citealp{berta}} 

916: are used as test quantities of the local environment.

917: 

918: \begin{figure}

919: \vspace{-2.5cm}

920: %\epsscale{.80}

921: \plotone{f14.eps}

922: \caption{

923: The residuals of the FP fit versus the local density (upper panel) and the

924: normalized cluster-centric distance (bottom panel). Note the lack of

925: correlation in this plots with respect to that found in Figure~\ref{fig15}.

926: \label{fig14}}

927: \end{figure}

928: 

929: A simple way to perform such kind of analysis is to correlate the test

930: quantities with the residuals of the FP relation obtained for the

931: global galaxy sample \citep{Jorg96}. For instance, in

932: Figure~\ref{fig14} the FP residuals are reported as a function of

933: both $D_{CC}$ and Log($\rho$). From this figure one would be led to

934: conclude that these two parameters do not influence at all the FP

935: coefficients. However, this method would be intrinsically unable to

936: detect any correlation if the barycentre of galaxies in the FP

937: parameter space does not change at varying the test quantity. In fact,

938: in this case, any change of the slope alone would produce a symmetric

939: distribution of the positive and negative residuals, keeping zero

940: their average value. For this reason, we preferred to perform the

941: analysis by evaluating the FP of galaxies in different bins of the

942: test quantities. Moreover, in order to get similar uncertainties of

943: the FP coefficients in the different bins, we decided to set free the

944: bin sizes, fixing the number of galaxies in each bin ($N_{bin}$).

945: 

946: In Figure~\ref{fig15} the average values of the the FP coefficients in

947: different bins of the test quantities are plotted as a function of the

948: median values of the quantities themselves inside the bins. The panels

949: also report the correlation coefficients ($CC$) of the different pairs

950: of bin-averaged quantities. In these plots we set $N_{bin}$=150 and

951: assumed the centers of the clusters to coincide with the position of

952: the BCGs. However, the trends and the correlation coefficients in the

953: figure remain almost unchanged if we set (for instance) $N_{bin}$=200

954: and assume that the cluster centers coincide with the maximum of the

955: X-Ray emission.

956: 

957: It is worth stressing that the FPs we obtain with the outlined

958: procedure for each bin of the test quantities do not refer to real

959: clusters. They are actually relative to ideal samples for which some

960: galaxy/environment property is almost constant (for instance: constant

961: local density).

962: 

963: \begin{figure}

964: \vspace{-2cm}

965: %\epsscale{.50}

966: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.6]{f15.eps}

967: \vspace{1cm}

968: \caption{

969: Average values of the the FP coefficients in different bins of color

970: [($B-V$)], Sersic index [Log($n$)], axial ratio [$b/a$], clustercentric

971: distance [Log($D_{CC}/R_{200}$)] and local density [Log($\rho$)] as

972: a function of the median values of the same quantities inside the

973: bins. The number of galaxies per bin is fixed to 150 and the BCGs are

974: assumed to coincide with the centers of the clusters. The correlation

975: coefficients of the different pairs of bin-averaged quantities are

976: also reported in the panels. Note the strong correlations 

977: between the FP coefficients and the environment parameters $D_{CC}$

978: and $\rho$.

979: \label{fig15}}

980: \end{figure}

981: 

982: At variance with the conclusions one could draw from Figure~\ref{fig14},

983: it is clearly show in Figure~\ref{fig15} that strong correlations exist

984: between the FP coefficients and the environment parameters ($D_{CC}$

985: and $\rho$), while the correlations are less marked (or absent) with

986: the galaxy properties. We have verified that the average (and median)

987: absolute magnitudes do not vary significantly in the different bins of

988: the test quantities Log($D_{CC}$) and Log($\rho$). Thus, the

989: correlations among these quantities and the FP coefficients cannot be

990: induced by the above mentioned dependence of the FP coefficients on

991: the absolute magnitude (see Sec.~\ref{sec32}). Moreover, the lack of

992: correlation in the three uppermost panels of Figure~\ref{fig16} 

993: rules out the possibility that the above trends just reflect similar

994: trends involving the very physical quantities that define the FP.

995: 

996: Figure~\ref{fig15} suggests that, in the FP, the dependences on both

997: velocity dispersion and average surface brightness of galaxies become

998: lower and lower as the distance from the cluster center increases.

999: Looking at the two leftmost panels of Figure~\ref{fig15}, one could

1000: wonder if the further dependences of the FP coefficients on both 

1001: the Sersic index (stronger) and the color (weaker) are merely reflecting

1002: the correlation with the clustercentric distance. The

1003: lack of correlation in the two lowest panels of Figure~\ref{fig16}

1004: help to clarify this point, suggesting that light concentration and

1005: color could actually be additional (independent) physical ingredients

1006: of the FP recipe. It is also interesting to note in Figure~\ref{fig15}

1007: that the $b$ coefficient correlates quite well with the Sersic index

1008: $n$, while $a$ does not. This is likely because $b$ is the coefficient

1009: associated with the photometric parameter \muem\ , which is in turn

1010: obviously related to the concentration index $n$. Finally, we note

1011: that, from the very (linear) expression of the FP, most of the

1012: dependences of the $c$ coefficient on the various test quantities in

1013: Figure~\ref{fig15} are likely induced by the corresponding dependences

1014: of the $a$ and $b$ coefficients, any increase of the last ones

1015: producing necessarily a decrease of the former one, and viceversa.

1016: 

1017: \begin{figure}

1018: \vspace{-1cm}

1019: \epsscale{.90}

1020: \plotone{f16.eps}

1021: \vspace{-1.0cm}

1022: \caption{ Normalized cluster-centric distance versus velocity

1023: dispersions, effective surface brightness, effective radii, local

1024: density, Sersic index and color for our sample of early-type galaxies

1025: with $M_V<-19.5$. Note the well known (obvious) dependence of the

1026: local density on the clustercentric distance, while the other panels 

1027: display the substantial lack of correlations with the other variables. 

1028: The obvious cut at large $Log(n)$ is due to the intrinsic limit of 

1029: GASPHOT to give Sersic index $n>8$.

1030: \label{fig16}}

1031: \end{figure}

1032: 

1033: The trends observed in Figure~\ref{fig15} further confirm that the

1034: FP coefficients depend on the particular criteria used in selecting

1035: the galaxy sample. They are also likely able to explain the large

1036: scatter of the FP coefficients which is found even after removal of

1037: the luminosity-driven bias discussed in Section~\ref{sec32} (high

1038: values of $\chi^2_{\nu}$ and $P_{\nu}$ in Figure~\ref{fig7}).

1039: 

1040: \subsection{FP versus global cluster properties}\label{sec42}

1041: 

1042: We have also explored the possible dependence of the FP coefficients

1043: (in particular of the coefficient $a$) on several measured quantities

1044: related to the global cluster properties. Tentative correlations have

1045: been performed with the velocity dispersion of the galaxies in the

1046: clusters, with the X-Ray luminosity, with redshift, with the

1047: integrated V-band luminosity (within $M_V=-19.5$) of the clusters,

1048: with different kinds of cluster radii, with the average Sersic index

1049: of the cluster galaxies, with the average Log($M/L$), etc. Some of

1050: these plots are shown in Figure~\ref{fig17}. No significant

1051: correlations have been found.

1052: 

1053: \begin{figure}

1054: %\epsscale{.80}

1055: \vspace{-1cm}

1056: \plotone{f17.eps}

1057: \vspace{-1cm}

1058: %\vspace{-1.5cm}

1059: \caption{

1060: From top to bottom: the FP coefficient $a$ versus the number of

1061: galaxies (with $M_V<-19.5$) in the cluster, the radius of the cluster $R_{200}$, the

1062: X-ray luminosity, the $rms$ of peculiar velocities of galaxies in the cluster, the

1063: integrated V-band luminosity (again with $M_V<-19.5$) and the

1064: redshift. No significant correlations are found.

1065: \label{fig17}}

1066: \end{figure}

1067: 

1068: \subsection{Can we provide a general recipe for deriving the FP ?}\label{sec43}

1069: 

1070: From the analysis performed in Section~\ref{sec3}, the differences in

1071: the FP coefficients appear to be related to sampling aspects (i.e. the

1072: luminosity cut-off). In Section~\ref{sec4} we have shown that, although

1073: not depending on the global cluster properties, the FP coefficients

1074: are also strongly related to the environmental properties of galaxies 

1075: ($D_{CC}$ and $\rho$) and to their internal structure (Sersic index). 

1076: These dependences likely concern the very formation history

1077: of galaxies and clusters. They are not strictly referable as sampling

1078: effects, but we can of course always speak of sampling, as far as they

1079: translate into the photometric properties of galaxies. This let us

1080: understand that the various dependences are actually linked

1081: each other and it is not easy to isolate each of them. Moreover, it

1082: is worth stressing that the previous analyses (never tried before)

1083: have been made possible just because we have at our disposal a huge

1084: sample of galaxies, obtained putting altogether data from many

1085: different clusters. When dealing with the determination of the FP for

1086: individual (possibly far) clusters, we usually must settle for what we

1087: actually have, that are a few galaxies (a few dozens, in the most

1088: favourable cases) with different luminosities and structures, located

1089: in a great variety of environments. In this cases, we can hardly renounce

1090: to each single galaxy and the above dependences turn out to be irreparably 

1091: entangled each one another.

1092: 

1093: From the previous remarks it stands to reason that, even with our

1094: large sample of galaxies, to provide a general recipe for determining

1095: unbiased coefficients of the FP in individual clusters is far from

1096: being a realistic objective. The best we can do is to remove from our

1097: global (W+N+S) sample the low-luminosity galaxies

1098: ($M_V>$-19.5; see Section~\ref{sec32}) and to provide, for

1099: this restricted sample, the FP coefficients obtained with both MIST and

1100: ORTH fitting algorithms. They are:

1101: 

1102: $a=1.097\pm 0.020; b=0.318\pm 0.004; c=-8.41\pm 0.097$ (MIST)

1103: 

1104: $a=1.208\pm 0.052; b=0.318\pm 0.010; c=-8.65\pm 0.19$, (ORTH)

1105: 

1106: \noindent

1107: which we assume to define the global (unbiased, as far as possible),

1108: V-band FP of early-type galaxies in nearby clusters. The MIST

1109: coefficients are more suitable for distance determination, while

1110: the ORTH ones more properly define the physical relation among the

1111: quantities involved in the FP.

1112: 

1113: Columns 10-15 of Table~\ref{tbl3} report the FP coefficients of the

1114: individual clusters obtained running MIST just for galaxies with

1115: $M_V<$-19.5.

1116: 

1117: \section{THE $M/L_V$ RATIO OF EARLY-TYPE GALAXIES IN NEARBY CLUSTERS}\label{sec5}

1118: 

1119: The variation of the mass-to-light ratio with luminosity is the most

1120: popular explanation for the tilt of the FP with respect to the virial

1121: expectation. Therefore, it is important to analyse the $M/L$ ratio of

1122: cluster galaxies with our extensive photometric data, which account

1123: for the non homologous structure of the ETGs by means of the Sersic

1124: parameter $n$.

1125: 

1126: According to \citet{Sperello} (see also \citealp{Michard80}), we

1127: calculate the dynamical mass of galaxies using the formula:

1128: $M/M_{\odot}=K_V(n)\sigma^2R_e/G$, where the virial coefficient

1129: $K_V(n)$ is a decreasing function of the Sersic index $n$

1130: (\citealp{Bertin02}) and $G$ is the gravitational constant.

1131: 

1132: Figure~\ref{fig18} shows the mass-to-light ratio as a function of mass

1133: for our global galaxy sample. The full straight line in the figure

1134: represents the linear fit obtained minimizing the weighted sum of

1135: perperdicular distances from the line itself [see the equation F(M) in

1136: the figure]. The open dots refer to the sample of galaxies in Coma

1137: given by \citet{Jorg96}, with the relative orthogonal fit represented

1138: by the dashed line. Note in particular that in our global sample

1139: the scatter of the residuals relative to the best-fit relation is greater 

1140: than in the Coma sample (0.19 vs. 0.11; for the NFPS and SDSS samples

1141: the scatters are 0.18 and 0.21, respectively). However,

1142: we recall that \citet{Jorg96} derived the photometric parameters (\re\

1143: and \muem\ ) and the mass by assuming \rq\ luminosity profiles, while

1144: we adopted the more general Sersic profiles. This might also explain 

1145: the fact that the slope of the relation for our global sample [0.511($\pm$0.019)]

1146: is much larger that in the Coma sample [0.28($\pm$0.028)]. By the way,

1147: the slopes we found for the NFPS and SDSS samples separately, are quite consistent

1148: each other, within the errors [0.522($\pm$0.022) and 0.600($\pm$0.052),

1149: respectively].

1150: 

1151: \begin{figure}

1152: \plotone{f18.eps}

1153: \caption{

1154: Mass-to-light ratio versus dynamical mass for our global galaxy

1155: sample. Black and gray (green in the electronic version) dots refer 

1156: to W+N and W+S galaxies, respectively, while open

1157: dots refer to a sample of galaxies in Coma (see text). The solid line

1158: gives the orthogonal fit of the W+N+S data, while the dashed line

1159: reports the fit for the Coma sample.

1160: \label{fig18}}

1161: \end{figure}

1162: 

1163: Figure~\ref{fig19} reports several plots showing the correlations

1164: among different measured and evaluated quantities involving the

1165: mass-to-light ratio estimate. In particular we test (at the ordinate)

1166: dynamical masses, mass-to-light ratios and residuals [Log(M/L)-F(M)]

1167: of the relation in Figure~\ref{fig18} versus (at the abscissa) Sersic

1168: indices, velocity dispersions, effective radii and luminosities.

1169: 

1170: \begin{figure}

1171: \vspace{-4cm}

1172: \hspace{-2cm}

1173: \includegraphics[angle=-90,scale=0.75]{f19.eps}

1174: \caption{

1175: Correlations among measured (abscissa) and evaluated (ordinate) 

1176: quantities involved in the mass-to-light ratio estimate. In each

1177: panel the proper correlation coefficient is also reported. Symbols

1178: are as in Figure~\ref{fig18}. The straight line reported in the plot

1179: Log(M) - Log$R_e$ represents the orthogonal best-fit of the data

1180: we discuss in the last paragraph of this Section.

1181: \label{fig19}}

1182: \end{figure}

1183: 

1184: Some of the correlations in Figure~\ref{fig19} are well known

1185: (i.e. mass vs. luminosity), obvious (i.e. $M/L$ residuals

1186: vs. luminosity), or expected by definition (i.e. mass vs. $\sigma$ and

1187: \re\ ). Less obvious seem to be some other correlations (i.e. $M/L$

1188: vs. $\sigma$ and $M/L$ residuals vs. $\sigma$ and \re\ ) or lack of

1189: correlations (i.e. $M$ vs. Sersic index, $M/L$ vs. \re\ and

1190: luminosity). For instance, according to the formula we used to derive

1191: the dynamical mass, it should be a strongly decreasing function of the

1192: Sersic index (see \citealp{Bertin02}), while the correlation

1193: coefficient of the plot $M$-$n$ in Figure~\ref{fig19} is slightly

1194: positive. Moreover, in the same figure the $M/L$ ratio does not seem

1195: to correlate at all with either radius or luminosity, while a

1196: correlation $M/L$-$L$ has been often claimed to explain the 'tilt' of

1197: the FP.

1198: 

1199: In Figure~\ref{fig19} we find of particular interest the correlation

1200: between $M/L$ and Sersic index and that between $M/L$ residuals and

1201: Sersic index. The first one, coupled with the lack of correlation

1202: between $M/L$ and luminosity (which is indeed expected for non

1203: homologous ETGs, as suggested by \citealp{Trujillo}), indicates that,

1204: for a given luminosity, the galaxies showing lower light concentration

1205: (lower Sersic index) are more massive (more dark matter?).

1206: 

1207: The second, even stronger correlation is quite interesting as well. In

1208: fact, from the very definition of the $M/L$ residuals of the relation

1209: in Figure~\ref{fig18}, for a given dynamical mass, the lower the

1210: residual, the brighter the galaxy. Therefore, the correlation in

1211: Figure~\ref{fig19} between $M/L$ residuals and Sersic indices implies

1212: that (again for a given mass) the higher the light concentration

1213: (Sersic index), the brighter the galaxy.

1214: 

1215: Thus, the picture emerging about the influence of the light

1216: concentration in determining dynamical mass and luminosity of ETGs is

1217: that: (i) for a given luminosity, the higher the light concentration,

1218: the lower the dynamical mass; (ii) for a given dynamical mass, the

1219: higher the light concentration, the higher the luminosity. This

1220: twofold dependence on the Sersic concentration index is expressed by

1221: the linear equation:

1222: 

1223: Log(n)=1.60$\times$Log(L)$-$1.16$\times$Log(M)$-$2.93,

1224: 

1225: we have derived minimizing the orthogonal distances from the fitting 

1226: plane of the points in the parameter space ($n$,$L$,$M$). Note

1227: that the correlation coefficient between the Sersic index computed

1228: from this equation and the measured one is $CC$=0.59.

1229: 

1230: Still concerning the influence of the light concentration on the

1231: mass-to-light ratio of early-type galaxies, it is well known that

1232: the Sersic index $n$ correlates with the velocity dispersion

1233: (\citealp{Graham}). Thus, it is not meaningless wondering if the

1234: correlations involving $n$ in Figure~\ref{fig19} just reflect the

1235: correlations with $\sigma$. The upper and middle panels of the figure 

1236: clearly rule out this hypothesis as far as the correlations with mass 

1237: and mass-to-light ratio are concerned (both are positive for $\sigma$, 

1238: while for $n$ they are close to zero and negative, respectively).

1239: Instead, the correlations of the $M/L$ residuals with $n$ and $\sigma$ 

1240: (lower panels) have the same sign. It is worth noting, however,

1241: that the correlation turns out to be tighter with $n$ than

1242: with $\sigma$ and that the same happens (even if with opposite trends)

1243: also for the $M/L$ ratio in the middle panels of the figure.

1244: This might suggest that the driving parameter for $M/L$ is actually the

1245: light concentration and that the trends with $\sigma$ are just

1246: consequence of that.

1247: 

1248: We have previously guessed that the different slopes we find in the

1249: relation ($M/L$--$M$) between our sample and the Coma sample could be

1250: at least partially due to the different models of luminosity profiles

1251: used to derive the photometric parameters of galaxies (Sersic law and

1252: $r^{1/4}$ law, respectively). Now, we could legitimately guess that

1253: the correlations shown in the leftmost panels of Figure~\ref{fig19}

1254: are artificially produced by the use of the Sersic law in deriving the

1255: parameters $R_e$ and $K_V$, involved in the computation of the galaxy

1256: mass. Actually, $K_V$ turns out to be a decreasing function of the

1257: Sersic index (see \citealp{Bertin02}), just like the $M/L$ ratio and

1258: the $M/L$ residuals in Figure~\ref{fig19} (but, in the same figure

1259: note the direct, although weak, correlation between the mass and the

1260: Sersic index!).

1261: 

1262: \begin{figure}

1263: \plotone{f20.eps}

1264: \caption{

1265: The $M/L$ ratio and the residuals of the $M/L$--$M$ relation versus

1266: the Sersic index for the W+S galaxy sample alone. Left and right

1267: panels illustrates the relations obtained using the Sersic and

1268: $R^{1/4}$ surface photometry parameters, respectively, in the

1269: computation of masses and luminosities. Again, the correlation

1270: coefficients are reported in each panel.

1271: \label{fig20}}

1272: \end{figure}

1273: 

1274: Trying to clarify these points, we have re-calculated the masses and

1275: the luminosities of the early-type galaxies in the original W+S sample 

1276: (397 objects, before selection on $\sigma$ and $M_V$) using

1277: the surface photometry parameters provided by the SDSS database

1278: ($r^{1/4}$ profiles). In Figure~\ref{fig20} we plot the $M/L$ ratio and

1279: the residuals of the $M/L$--$M$ relation versus the Sersic index for

1280: the W+S galaxy sample alone. Left and right panels illustrate the

1281: relations obtained when masses and luminosities are computed using the 

1282: Sersic and $r^{1/4}$ surface photometry

1283: parameters, respectively. In the former case, the correlation coefficients turn

1284: out to be undistinguishable from those obtained for the whole (W+N+S)

1285: galaxy sample (see Figure~\ref{fig19}). In the latter case the

1286: correlations are less pronounced, but still they are in place, as indicated by

1287: 10,000 random extractions of couples of uncorrelated vectors having the

1288: same dimension (397) and distributions of the real ones. In fact, the

1289: probability that the correlation coefficients of the real sample in the

1290: right panels of Figure~\ref{fig20} are

1291: drawn from a parent population of uncorrelated quantities turns out to

1292: be very small: $\sim$0.005 and $\sim$0 for the correlations in the

1293: upper-right and lower-right panels,

1294: respectively. This enforces our previous conclusions about the

1295: dependence of masses and luminosities of early-type galaxies on the

1296: Sersic index. The weaker correlations found with the $r^{1/4}$

1297: profiles if compared with the Sersic profiles, are likely the

1298: consequence of having forced the real luminosity structure of galaxies

1299: to obey the de~Vaucouleurs law. Finally, we mention that the slope of

1300: the relation ($M/L$--$M$) for the W+S sample turns out to be 0.47 and

1301: 0.38 with the Sersic-- and $r^{1/4}$--law approaches, respectively,

1302: thus confirming our previous guess that it is influenced by the

1303: assumption about the luminosity profile of galaxies (see the

1304: comparison between our sample and the Coma sample in

1305: Figure~\ref{fig18}).

1306: 

1307: In a recent paper \citet{Robertson} claim that the tilt of the FP is

1308: closely linked to dissipation effects during galaxy formation. They

1309: show the results of their simulations in a plot of $M/M_{\odot}$ vs.

1310: the radius ($R$) of the galaxies. Figure~\ref{fig19} also shows a

1311: similar plot for our galaxy sample. Although a correlation between $M$

1312: and $R_e$ is expected from the very definition of dynamical mass, we

1313: note in this plot that the more massive objects are preferably found

1314: below the orthogonal best-fit of the data distribution (by the way,

1315: these objects are those deviating in the high luminosity region

1316: from the FP projection in Figure~\ref{fig13}). High luminosity objects 

1317: also deviate with respect to the bulk of the early-type population in 

1318: the $R - L$ relation, that for our global sample has the same slope 

1319: found by \citet{Bern07} ($R\propto L^{0.68}$). The systematically 

1320: larger size of these galaxies in that relation may be consistent with 

1321: the results of the simulations by \citet{Robertson}, if one invokes 

1322: the dry dissipationless merger mechanism for their formation. 

1323: It again points towards the hypothesis that the FP relation might be non

1324: linear, this time in its high-mass region (see Section~\ref{sec32} for

1325: a similar finding in the low-mass region). Thus, in the parameter

1326: space of the FP the real surface defined by ETGs could be slightly

1327: bent, reflecting the different formation mechanisms producing the

1328: present day ETGs. In Section~\ref{sec32} we have seen that

1329: part of the scatter of the FP coefficients is just due to

1330: such an effect, coupled with the different statistical properties of

1331: the galaxy samples. As a consequence, to draw any conclusion about

1332: luminosity evolution and downsizing effect might be dangerous (the

1333: slopes of the relations depend on the sample selection rules/biases),

1334: unless the galaxy samples involved in these analyses, even spanning

1335: wide ranges of redshift, share the same distributions of

1336: photometric/kinematic properties of galaxies.

1337: 

1338: \section{CONCLUSIONS}\label{sec6}

1339: 

1340: We have derived the Fundamental Plane of early-type galaxies in 59

1341: nearby clusters ($0.04<z<0.07$) by exploiting the data coming from

1342: three big surveys: WINGS(W), to derive \re\ and \muem\ , and

1343: NFPS+SDSS(N+S), to derive $\sigma$. The fits of the FP, obtained for

1344: the global samples W+N and W+S, as well as for each cluster, have

1345: revealed that the FP coefficients span considerable intervals. 

1346: By means of extensive simulations, we have demonstrated

1347: that this spread is just marginally consistent with the statistical noise due to

1348: the limited number of galaxies in each cluster. It seems at least

1349: partly due to a luminosity-driven bias depending on the statistical

1350: properties of the galaxy samples. These can be induced both by

1351: observing limitations and by selection rules. In fact, even if the

1352: best-fitting solution obtained for the global W+N+S dataset does not

1353: differ significantly from previous determinations in the literature,

1354: systematic different FP coefficients are found when the galaxy samples

1355: are truncated in the faint-end part at different cut-off absolute magnitudes. We speculate

1356: that, rather than a plane, the so called FP is actually a curved surface,

1357: which is approximated by different planes depending on the different regions

1358: of the FP space occupied by the galaxy samples under analysis. To this

1359: concern, we could go farther on in the speculation, suggesting that a

1360: bent FP could be, at least partially, reconciled with the numerical 

1361: simulations in $\Lambda$CDM cosmology (see \citealp{Borriello}). 

1362: By the way, such a speculation could also be supported by the large 

1363: scatter we find in the $M/L$--$M$ relation, at variance with other 

1364: determinations, whose tightness has been sometime invoked to rule 

1365: out the hierarchical scenario.

1366: 

1367: Perhaps the most interesting result of the present analysis concerns the

1368: dependence of the FP coefficients on the local environment, which

1369: clearly emerges when we derive the FP in different bins of the

1370: cluster-centric distance and local density. Finally, we do not find

1371: any dependence of the FP coefficients on the global properties of 

1372: clusters.

1373: 

1374: Concerning the $M/L$ ratio, we also find that both $M/L$ and the

1375: residuals of the $M/L$--$M$ relation turn out to be anti-correlated with

1376: the Sersic indices. These trends could imply that, for a given

1377: luminosity, more massive galaxies display a lower light concentration,

1378: while for a given dynamical mass, the higher the light concentration,

1379: the brighter the galaxy.

1380: 

1381: The main results of this work can be summarized as follows:

1382: \begin{itemize}

1383: \item the FP coefficients depend on the adopted fitting technique and

1384: (marginally) on the methods used to derive the photometric parameters \re\ and \muem\ ;

1385: \item The observed scatter in the FP coefficients cannot be entirely

1386: ascribed to the uncertainties due to the small number statistics;

1387: \item the FP coefficients depend on the distributions of photometric/kinematic properties 

1388: of the galaxies in the samples (mainly on the faint-end luminosity cut-off);

1389: \item the FP coefficients are strongly correlated with the environment

1390: (cluster-centric distance and local density), while the correlations

1391: are less marked (or absent) with the galaxy properties (Sersic index,

1392: color and flattening);

1393: \item the FP coefficients do not correlate with the global properties

1394: of clusters (radius, velocity dispersion, X-ray emission, etc..);

1395: \item the distribution of galaxies in the FP parameter space suggest that the

1396: variables \re, \muem\ , and $\sigma$ define a slightly warped surface.

1397: Forcing this surface to be locally a plane causes a systematic variation the FP 

1398: coefficients, depending on the selection rules used to define the galaxy sample;

1399: \item using the FP as a tool to derive the luminosity/size evolution of ETGs 

1400: may be dangerous, unless the galaxy samples involved in the analysis are

1401: highly homogeneous in their average photometric properties;

1402: \item the $M/L$ ratio is not correlated with $L$ when the non homology

1403: of ETGs is taken into account. This is an indication that most of

1404: the tilt of the FP is indeed due to dynamical and structural

1405: non-homology of ETGs;

1406: \item the mutual correlations among mass, luminosity and light concentration

1407: of ETGs indicate that, for a given mass, the greater the light

1408: concentration the higher the luminosity, while, for a given

1409: luminosity, the lower the light concentration, the greater the mass;

1410: \item the bending of the FP and the large scatter found in the $M/L$--$M$ relation 

1411: could, at least partially, reconcile the FP phenomenology with the hierachical merging

1412: scenario of galaxy formation.

1413: \end{itemize} 

1414: 

1415: By exploiting the galaxy mass estimates coming from both the K-band

1416: WINGS data and the spectro-photometric analysis of the galaxies in the

1417: WINGS survey (\citealp{Fritz}), in a following paper we will go into

1418: more depth about the scaling relations involving mass, structure and

1419: morphology of galaxies in nearby clusters.

1420: 

1421: \acknowledgments

1422: {We wish to thank the anonymous referee, since her/his useful comments helped us 

1423: to improve the final version of the paper. We also wish to thank our colleagues

1424: from the Astronomical Observatory of Napoli (La Barbera et al. 2000) for having 

1425: kindly provided us with the fitting tool MIST, which we have intensively used

1426: in this paper to derive the FP coefficients.}

1427: 

1428: \begin{thebibliography}{}

1429: \bibitem[Barr et al. (2006)]{Barr}Barr, J., J{\o}rgensen, I., Chiboucas, K., Davies, R., Bergmann, M., 2006, \apjl, 649, L1

1430: %\bibitem[Bender, Bursten \& Faber (1992)]{Bender}Bender, R., Burstein, D., Faber, S., 1992, \apj, 399, 462

1431: %\bibitem[1993]{BBF1}Bender, R., Burstein, D., Faber, S., 1993, \apj,  411, 153

1432: \bibitem[Bernardi et al. (2003)]{sloan}Bernardi, M., Sheth, R.K., Annis, J., Burles, S., Eisenstein, D.J., et al. 2003, \apj, 125, 1866

1433: \bibitem[Bernardi et al. (2007)]{Bern07}Bernardi, M., Hyde, J.B., Sheth, R.K., Miller, C.J., Nichol, R.C., 2007, \aj, 133, 1741

1434: \bibitem[Berta et al. (2006)]{berta}Berta, S., Rubele, S., Franceschini, A. et al., 2006, \aaps, 451, 881

1435: \bibitem[Bertin and Arnouts (1996)]{Bertin}Bertin, E. and Arnouts, S., 1996, \aaps, 117, 393

1436: \bibitem[Bertin et al. (2002)]{Bertin02}Bertin, G., Ciotti, L., Del~Principe, M., 2002, \aap, 386, 149

1437: \bibitem[Blakeslee et al. (2002)]{Blakeslee}Blakeslee, J.P., Lucey, J.R., Tonry, J.L., et al. 2002, \mnras, 330, 443

1438: \bibitem[Bolton et al. (2007)]{Bolton}Bolton, A.S., Burles, S., Treu, T., Koopmans, L.V.E., Moustakas, L.A., astro-ph/0701706v1

1439: \bibitem[Borriello et al. (2003)]{Borriello}Borriello, A., Salucci, P., Danese, L., 2003, \mnras, 341, 1109

1440: \bibitem[Caon, Capaccioli \& D'Onofrio (1993)]{Caon93}Caon, N., Capaccioli, M., D'Onofrio, M., 1993, \mnras, 265, 1013

1441: \bibitem[Capaccioli et al. (1992)]{Capaccioli}Capaccioli, M., Caon, N., D'Onofrio, M., 1992 \mnras, 259, 323

1442: \bibitem[de la Rosa et al. (2001)]{delaRosa}de la Rosa, I.G., de Carvalho, R.R, Zepf, S.E., 2001, AJ, 122, 93

1443: \bibitem[Desroches et al. (2001)]{desroches}Desroches, L.B., Quataert, E., Ma, C.P., West, A.A., 2007, \mnras, 377, 402

1444: \bibitem[Djorgovski \& Davies (1987)]{DjDa}Djorgovski, S., Davies, M., 1987, \apj, 313, 59

1445: \bibitem[D'Onofrio et al. (2006)]{Don06} D'Onofrio, M., Valentinuzzi, T., Secco, L., Caimmi, R., Bindoni, D.  2006, \nar, 50, 447

1446: \bibitem[Dressler et al. (1987)]{7Sam}Dressler, A., Lynden-Bell, D., Burstein, D., Davies, R.L., Faber, S.M., Terlevich, R.J., Wegner, G., 1987, \apj, 313, 42

1447: %\bibitem[1980]{Dressler80}Dressler, A., 1980, \apjs, 42, 565

1448: \bibitem[Ebeling et al. (1996)]{ebel1}Ebeling, H., Voges, W., Bohringer, H., Edge, A.C., Huchra, J.P., Briel, U.G. 1996, \mnras, 281, 799

1449: \bibitem[Ebeling et al. (1998)]{ebel2}Ebeling, H., Edge, A.C., Bohringer, H., Allen, S.W., Crawford, C.S., Fabian, A.C., Voges, W., Huchra, J.P., 1998, \mnras, 301, 881

1450: \bibitem[Ebeling et al. (2000)]{ebel3}Ebeling, H., Edge, A.C., Allen, S.W., Crawford, C.S., Fabian, A.C., Huchra, J.P., 2000, \mnras, 318, 333

1451: \bibitem[Fasano et al. (2006)]{Fas06}Fasano, G., Poggianti, B.M., Bettoni, D., Pignatelli, E., Marmo, C. \etal\, 2006, \aap, 445, 805

1452: \bibitem[Fritz et al. (2007)]{Fritz}Fritz, J., Poggianti, B.M., Bettoni, D., Cava, A., Couch, W.J., D'Onofrio, M., \etal\, 2007, \aap, 470, 137

1453: \bibitem[Fukugita \& et al. (1996)]{Fukugita}Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J., et al. 1996, \aj, 111, 1748

1454: \bibitem[Graham (2002)]{Graham}Graham A.W., 2002, \mnras, 334, 859

1455: \bibitem[Held et al. (2001)]{held}Held E.V., Mould, J.R., Freeman, K.C., 1997, ESO workshop: {\it Galaxy Scaling Relations: Origins, Evolution and Applications}, Da~Costa \& Renzini Ed., p.113

1456: \bibitem[Hudson et al. (2001)]{SMAC}Hudson M.J., Lucey, J.R., Russell, J.S., Schegel, D.J., Davies, R.L., 2001, \mnras, 327, 265

1457: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al. (1995)]{Jorg95}J{\o}rgensen, I., Franx, M., Kj{\ae}rgaard, P., 1995, \mnras, 276, 1341 

1458: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al. (1996)]{Jorg96}J{\o}rgensen, I., Franx, M., Kj{\ae}rgaard, P., 1996, \mnras, 280, 197 (JFK)

1459: \bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al. (2006)]{Jorg06}J{\o}rgensen, I., Chiboucas, K., Flint, K., et al., 2006, \apjl, 639, L9

1460: %\bibitem[J{\o}rgensen et al. (1993)]{JMK}J{\o}rgensen, I., Moles, M., Kj{\ae}rgaard, P., 1993, 

1461: \bibitem[Katgert et al. (1996)]{Katgert}Katgert, P., Mazure, A., Perea, J., den Hartog, R., Moles, M., et al. 1996, \aap 310, 8

1462: \bibitem[Kj{\ae}aegaard et al. (1993)]{KJM}Kj{\ae}rgaard, P., J{\o}rgensen, I., Moles, M., 1993, \apj, 418, 617 

1463: \bibitem[Kochanek et al. (2000)]{Kochanek}Kochanek, C.S., Falco, E.E., Impey, C.D., Leh\'ar, J., McLeod, B.A., Rix, H.W., Keeton, C.R.,  Muñoz, J.A., Peng, C.Y., 2000. ApJ, 543, 131

1464: \bibitem[La Barbera et al. (2000)]{LaBarb}La Barbera, F., Busarello, G., Capaccioli, M., 2000, \aap, 362, 864

1465: \bibitem[Lynden-Bell et al. (1988)]{Lynden-Bell}Lynden-Bell, D., Faber, S.M., Burstein, D., et al. 1988, \apj 326, 19

1466: %\bibitem[2004]{Padmanabhan}{Padmanabhan, N. et al. 2004, \na, 9 329

1467: \bibitem[Michard (1980)]{Michard80} Michard, R., 1980, \aap, 91, 122

1468: \bibitem[Moles et al. (1998)]{Moles98} Moles, M., Campos, A., Kjaegaard, P., Fasano, G., Bettoni, D., 1998, \apjl, 495, 31

1469: \bibitem[Nieto et al. (1990)]{nieto}Nieto, J.L., Bender, R., Davoust, E., Prugniel, P., 1990, \aap, 230, L17

1470: \bibitem[Pahre et al. (1998a)]{Pahrea}Pahre, M.A., Djorgovski, S.G., de Carvalho, R.R., 1998a, AJ, 116, 1591

1471: \bibitem[Pahre et al. (1998b)]{Pahreb}Pahre, M.A., De Carvalho, R.R., Djorgovski, S.G., 1998b, AJ, 116, 1606

1472: \bibitem[Peterson and Caldwell (1993)]{peterson}Peterson, R.C., Caldwell, N., 1993, AJ, 105, 1411

1473: \bibitem[Pignatelli et al. (2006)]{Pignatelli}Pignatelli, E., Fasano, G., Cassata, P., 2006, \aap, 446, 373

1474: \bibitem[Poggianti et al. (2006)]{pogg06}Poggianti, B.M., von der Linden, A., De Lucia, G., Desai, V., Simard, L., Halliday, C., Aragón-Salamanca, A., Bower, R., Varela, J., \etal, 2006, \apj, 642, 188

1475: \bibitem[Robertson et al. (2006)]{Robertson}Robertson, B., Cox, T.J., Hernquist, L., Franx, M., Hopkins, P.F., Martini, P., Springel, V., 2006, \apj, 641, 21

1476: \bibitem[Schlegel et al. (1998)]{Schlegel}Schlegel, D.J., Finkbeiner, D.P., Davis, M., 1998, \apj, 500, 525

1477: \bibitem[Scodeggio et al. (1998)]{Scodeggio}Scodeggio, M., Gavazzi, G., Belsole, E., et al., 1998, \mnras, 301, 1001

1478: \bibitem[di~Serego et al. (2005)]{Sperello}di Serego Alighieri, S., Vernet, J., Cimatti, A., et al., 2005, \aap 442, 125 

1479: \bibitem[Shen et al. (2003)]{Shen}Shen, S., Mo, H.J., White, S.M.D., Blanton, M.R., Kauffmann, G., Voges, W., Brinkmann, J., Csabai, I., 2003, \mnras 343, 978

1480: \bibitem[Smith et al. (2004)]{noao}Smith, R.J., Hudson, M.J., et al., 2004, \aj, 128, 1558

1481: \bibitem[Strauss \& Willick (1995)]{Strauss}Strauss, M.A., Willick, J.A., 1995, Phys. Rep. 261, 271

1482: \bibitem[Trujillo et al. (2004)]{Trujillo}Trujillo, I., Burkert, A.,  Bell, E., 2004, \apjl 600, L39.

1483: \bibitem[Vazdekis et al. (2004)]{Vazdekis}Vazdekis, A., Trujillo, I., Yamada, Y. 2004, \apjl 601, L33

1484: \bibitem[Wegner et al. (1996)]{Wegner}Wegner, G., Colless, M., Baggley, G., et al. 1996, \apjs 106, 1

1485: \bibitem[Ziegler et al. (1999)]{Ziegl99}Ziegler, B. L., Saglia, R.P., Bender, R., Belloni, P., Greggio, L., Seitz, S., 1999, \aap 346, 13

1486: \end{thebibliography}

1487: 

1488: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1489: 

1490: \input{tab1.tex}

1491: 

1492: \input{tab2.tex}

1493: 

1494: \input{tab3.tex}

1495: 

1496: \input{tab4.tex}

1497: 

1498: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1499: 

1500: \end{document}

1501: 

1502: