1: \documentclass[usenatbib]{mn2e}

2: \usepackage{epsfig}

3: \usepackage{amsmath}

4: \usepackage{amssymb}

5: \bibliographystyle{apj}

6: 

7: 

8: \title[Disks and Bulges of Group Galaxies]{Evolution

9:   in the Disks and Bulges of Group Galaxies since $z=0.4$}

10: 

11: \author[McGee et al.]{Sean L. McGee$^{1}$, Michael L. Balogh$^{1}$, Robert D. E. Henderson$^{1}$, David J. Wilman$^{2}$,

12:   \newauthor Richard  G. Bower$^{3}$, John~S. Mulchaey$^{4}$, Augustus Oemler Jr.$^{4}$

13: \\

14: $^{1}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada\\

15: $^{2}$Max--Planck--Institut f{\" u}r extraterrestrische Physik, Giessenbachstrasse 85748 Garching Germany\\

16: $^{3}$Department of Physics, University of Durham, Durham, UK, DH1 3LE\\

17: $^{4}$Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington, 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, California, USA\\

18: }

19: 

20: 

21: \date{\today}

22: \def\ho{$h_{75}^{-1}$}

23: 

24: \begin{document}

25: \maketitle

26: 

27: \begin{abstract}

28: 

29: We present quantitative morphology measurements of a

30: sample of optically selected group galaxies at 0.3 $<$ z $<$

31: 0.55 using the {\it Hubble Space Telescope  (HST)} Advanced Camera for Surveys

32: (ACS) and the \textsc{gim2d} surface brightness--fitting software

33: package. The group sample is derived from the Canadian Network for

34: Observational Cosmology Field Redshift survey (CNOC2) and follow-up Magellan

35: spectroscopy. We compare these measurements to a similarly selected

36: group sample from the Millennium Galaxy Catalogue (MGC) at 0.05 $<$ z

37: $<$ 0.12. We find that, at both epochs,  the group and field fractional bulge luminosity (B/T)

38: distributions differ significantly, with the dominant difference being a

39: deficit of disk--dominated (B/T $<$ 0.2) galaxies in the group

40: samples. 

41: At fixed luminosity, z=0.4 groups have $\sim$ 5.5

42:   $\pm$ 2 $\%$ fewer disk--dominated galaxies than the field, while by

43:   z=0.1 this difference has increased to 

44:   $\sim$ 19 $\pm$ 6 $\%$. Despite the morphological evolution we see no evidence that the

45: group environment is actively perturbing or otherwise affecting the

46: entire existing disk population. At both redshifts, the disks of group

47: galaxies have similar scaling relations and show similar median

48: asymmetries as the disks of field galaxies.  We do find evidence that the fraction

49: of highly asymmetric, bulge--dominated

50: galaxies is 6 $\pm$ 3 $\%$ higher in groups than

51: in the field, suggesting there may be enhanced merging in group

52: environments. We replicate our group samples at $z=0.4$ and $z=0$ using the semi-analytic galaxy

53: catalogues of \citet{bowermodel}. This model accurately

54: reproduces the B/T distributions of the group and field at z=0.1.

55: However, the model does not reproduce our finding that the deficit of

56: disks in groups has increased significantly since z=0.4.

57: 

58: 

59: \end{abstract}

60: 

61: 

62: \begin{keywords}

63: galaxies: evolution, galaxies: formation, galaxies:structure

64: \end{keywords}

65: 

66: \section{Introduction}

67: Galaxies, at a simple level, are a mixture of two fundamental and

68: distinct components: a bulge and a disk. In the local universe, bulge

69: dominated galaxies are generally red and quiescent, while disk

70: dominated galaxies are generally blue and actively forming stars

71: \citep{Blanton03}. Thus, the morphology of galaxies may be important when trying to

72: explain the observations that show the cosmic star formation density has

73: rapidly declined from a peak at z$\sim$1-1.5 \citep{lilly96, madau96,

74: hopkins2004}, and that the fraction of red galaxies has rapidly

75: increased over the same time \citep{faber, bell}. Indeed, these observations suggest that the process

76: which transforms galaxies from disk-dominated to bulge-dominated is

77: also the process which transforms them from the blue cloud to the red sequence

78: \citep[eg.,][]{Bell07}. However, studies of red, disk-dominated

79: galaxies \citep{wolf} and blue, bulge-dominated galaxies

80: \citep{91abraham, menanteau} suggest this model may be

81: too general. In addition, the large fractions of passive

82: spirals at intermediate redshift suggests that the truncation of

83: star formation may happen before the morphological transformation

84: mechanism (\citealt{pog_smail}, but see \citealt{wilmanMIPS}).

85: 

86: The local environment of a galaxy is an important factor in its

87: evolution. Observations of galaxy clusters have shown that galaxies

88: within clusters have lower star formation rates than

89: the general field \citep[eg.][]{balogh}. The rapid structure growth

90: associated with $\Lambda$CDM cosmology,

91: which increases the local galaxy density of the average galaxy with

92: time, may be the key driver of the decline of galaxy

93: star formation rates. Indeed, analogous to the lower star formation

94: rates in clusters, there is a correlation

95: between the local galaxy surface density and the morphology of

96: galaxies \citep{Dressler80}. At low redshift, the percentage of

97: early type galaxies increases, and the percentage of late types

98: decreases, with increasing density. Interestingly, \citet{Dressler80} found that this

99: relation was equally strong in centrally-concentrated, relaxed

100: clusters and in irregular, less centrally-concentrated clusters. At higher

101: redshift, z $\sim$ 0.5, \citet{Dressler97} showed that this  {\it

102:   morphology-density relation} is stronger in highly concentrated

103: clusters than in less concentrated clusters. 

104: 

105: Although these studies point to the crucial role clusters play in the

106: morphological transformation of galaxies, they are rare environments,

107: and thus cannot have a large enough effect on the properties of

108: galaxies to explain the decline of the star formation

109: density of the universe as a whole. However, the less dense

110: environment of optically selected groups is the most common environment

111: for galaxies in the local universe

112: \citep{2PIGG-cat}. Indeed, \citet{Postman} found that the

113: morphology-density relation extends smoothly into the group scale

114: environments. Further supporting the integral role of groups,

115: suppressed galaxy star formation rates in group-scale environments of

116: the local universe is now well-established

117: \citep[eg.,][]{balogh_ecology}. \citet{Wilman2} have shown that the

118: fraction of galaxies with [OII]$\lambda 3727$\AA\ emission, a measure of star formation, is much higher in group galaxies at intermediate

119: redshift, z $\sim$ 0.4, than in the local universe; however, the group

120: galaxies still exhibit suppressed star formation relative to the field

121: at the same epoch.   

122: 

123: The physical cause of the suppression of star formation since z$\sim$1 isn't

124: clear, but there are many candidates, each with their own morphological signatures. 

125: Within the context of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology, galaxy

126: mergers are often thought to be a dominant mechanism \citep{Hopkins07}. Simulations

127: suggest that a major merger between two gas-rich and star-forming

128: spiral galaxies produces a gas-poor, passively evolving elliptical

129: galaxy \citep{ToomreToomre, MihosHern}. If dominant, this scenario suggests that quiescent spiral galaxies should

130: be rare, and that the transformation of morphological type should

131: precede or happen at the same time as the complete suppression of star-formation. Group environments

132: are thought to be the ideal place for galaxy mergers because of their

133: high density and small relative velocities. 

134: 

135: Recently, driven by dual observations of large bubbles seen

136: in the hot X-ray gas of the intracluster medium \citep{McnamaraHydraA,

137:  Fabian00} and the correlation

138: between the mass of the galactic bulge and the size of the central

139: supermassive black hole \citep{Magorrian97,Ferrarese00}, feedback from

140: active galactic nuclei has

141: become a popular explanation for the suppression of star formation

142: rates in massive galaxies. Semi-analytic galaxy formation models have successfully

143: introduced these mechanisms in a parametrised way \citep{bowermodel,

144:   croton}, but the details are

145: still uncertain. Such energy feedback mechanisms may not

146: directly alter the galaxy morphology, but reduced star formation may result

147: in significant fading of the disk component. 

148: 

149: Meaningful morphological measurements are necessary

150: to break the degeneracy of physical explanations of star formation truncation.

151: Visual classification of galaxies onto a Hubble (or similar) system

152: has proven to be very useful for the study of galaxy

153: evolution. However, the high resolution and uniform quality of

154: large galaxy surveys has given rise to automated morphology

155: systems which attempt to make more quantitative measurements than a

156: visual system will allow. Non-parametric morphology systems \citep[eg.][]{abraham03,lotz} are robust, but

157: are not easily linked to physical quantities such as bulge or disk

158: scale lengths.

159: For this reason, in this paper we use a popular code, \textsc{gim2d} \citep{Gim2d},  to fit parametric

160: models to the surface brightness profiles. Parametric systems suffer

161: because they fit an {\it a priori} model to the galaxy surface

162: brightness and, as such, are prone to giving non-physical

163: results in some cases. 

164: We therefore adopt the 

165: logical filtering system proposed by \citet{mgc-gim2d}, to help

166: mitigate some of these effects.  

167:  

168: In this paper, we examine the morphological properties of optically

169: selected samples of group galaxies at z=0.4 and z=0.1. In

170: \textsection \ref{data} we describe our data samples and our

171: morphological measurements.  In \textsection \ref{result} we present the

172: main data results and in \textsection \ref{discuss} we discuss what

173: the data tells us about galaxies in transformation and compare our

174: data results with the semi-analytic galaxy catalogue of

175: \citet{bowermodel}.   We summarize our main results in \textsection

176: \ref{summary}. Details of the group-finding algorithm are given in

177: Appendix A, while in Appendix B we consider possible systematic effects

178: on our results. Finally, in Appendix C we show a representative sample

179: of images from our CNOC2 z=0.4 sample of galaxies. Throughout this

180: paper we assume a cosmology with matter density $\Omega_m$ = 0.3,

181: energy density $\Omega_\Lambda$ = 0.7, and present-day Hubble constant

182: $H_0$= 100$h$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ with $h$ = 0.75 (or $h_{75}=1$).

183: 

184: 

185: \section{The Data} \label{data}

186: 

187: \subsection{The 0.3 $\leqq$ z $\leqq$ 0.55 Sample } \label{kcorrect}

188: 

189: 

190: Our moderate-redshift galaxy sample is derived from the Canadian Network

191: for Observational Cosmology Field Galaxy

192: Redshift Survey (CNOC2), a spectroscopic and photometric survey completed with

193: the  Multi-Object Spectrograph instrument at the 3.6-m

194: Canada France Hawaii telescope \citep{CNOC2}. The survey was

195: designed to study galaxy clustering and evolution. It targeted

196: galaxies in the redshift range 0.1 $<$ z $<$ 0.6 over four different

197: patches of sky totaling about 1.5 square degrees. The survey consists

198: of 5 colour (U,B,V,R$_C$, I$_C$) photometry of $\sim$40,000 galaxies to a

199: limiting magnitude of R$_C$=23.0 mag. Spectroscopic redshifts of

200: $\sim$6000

201: galaxies were obtained with an overall sampling rate of 48$\%$ to

202: R$_C$=21.5. This large survey allowed \citet{CNOC2-groups} to identify

203: a set of 200 groups using a friends-of-friends redshift-space group

204: finder. 

205: 

206: \citet{Wilman1} followed the CNOC2 survey with deeper spectroscopy of

207: a set of 26 groups (20 targeted, 6 serendipitous) drawn from the \citeauthor{CNOC2-groups} catalogue using the

208: Low Dispersion Survey Spectrograph (LDSS2)

209: at the 6.5m Baade telescope at Las Campanas Observatory  in

210: Chile. These groups were chosen to lie within 0.3$<$z$<$0.55, and

211: galaxies brighter than R$_C$=22.0 were targeted for spectroscopy. This additional spectroscopy was designed to

212: give near full completeness at bright magnitudes \citep[R$_C$$<$20; for details, see][]{Wilman1}. 

213: 

214: For each of the 20 targeted groups, we obtained single orbit {\it Hubble

215: Space Telescope (HST)} Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS)

216: pointings in the F775W filter during Cycle 12. These

217: data were processed with the ACS pipeline as described by

218: \citet{ACS-pipe}. The images were further processed with the

219: $\it{Multidrizzle}$ task in $\it{pyraf}$ to remove cosmic rays and hot

220: pixels. 

221: 

222: Sources were detected in the {\it HST} ACS images using the SExtractor software

223: v2.3.2 \citep{sextractor}. For a source to be accepted, the signal in

224: at least 10 of its ACS pixels (0.5 arcsec$^2$) had to be a minimum of

225: 1.3 $\sigma$ above the background. The faintest sources that are

226: reliably detected using these criteria have  R$_{775}$ $\approx$

227: 23.9.  In this paper we restrict the analysis to sources with

228: redshifts (R$_C$ $<$ 22) and are therefore insensitive to these

229: detection parameters. However, we are sensitive to the deblending

230: parameters as the automated surface brightness fits use the

231: segmentation image produced by SExtractor to identify which pixels

232: belong to the galaxy. We used 32 deblending subthresholds, with a minimum

233: contrast parameter of 9.0 $\times$ 10$^{-4}$. By trial and error, these

234: parameters gave the best deblending upon visual inspection of the

235: output segmentation images.

236: 

237: \begin{figure}

238: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{trans.ps}

239: \caption{We show k-corrections to rest frame V band magnitudes, derived from a suite of

240:   \citet{bc03} population synthesis models. The solid lines indicate a

241:   constant star formation rate; the dashed lines are models with an exponentially

242:   declining star formation rate; and the

243:   dotted lines represent single stellar population models created at $z=4$.  All models

244:   are shown with and without one magnitude of dust

245:   extinction.  The thick red line indicates the adopted k-correction of

246:    $k'=-0.75~z+0.65$.}

247: \label{kcor}

248: \end{figure}

249: We have used a suite of \citet{bc03} population synthesis models to

250: k-correct our {\it HST} magnitudes. We have chosen to avoid large

251: k-corrections by correcting all galaxies to the nearest restframe

252: waveband, $V$. 

253: Figure \ref{kcor} shows the models

254: used. The k-correction is mainly sensitive to the star

255: formation history and dust attenuation of the galaxy, and is

256: insensitive to the initial mass function and the metallicity. We add a

257: correction of $k'=-0.75~z+0.65$, shown by the red dashed line, to each

258: of our galaxies. This was chosen to minimize bias for any single

259: galaxy type, but dominates the uncertainty in the magnitudes to $\pm$

260: 0.1. In all cases, our statistical uncertainties dominate over this source of

261: systematic error. All {\it HST} magnitudes are quoted in the k-corrected rest frame $V$ band. 

262: 

263:  

264: \subsubsection{The Group and Field Samples} \label{cnoc_sample}

265: 

266: The group catalogue of \citet{CNOC2-groups} originally identified

267: virialized galaxy groups in redshift space using an iterative

268: friends-of-friends algorithm on the CNOC2 redshift catalog. They found

269: over 200 groups, with an average of 3.8 confirmed members per

270: group.  To take advantage of the deeper and more complete

271: LDSS2 spectroscopy available to us, we redefine the CNOC2 groups following

272: \citet{Wilman1}. We discuss the group finding algorithm in more detail in

273: Appendix \ref{lowfinder}. Briefly, an iterative procedure is used, which

274: initially selects galaxies within two times the velocity dispersion

275: of the mean group redshift, and with a transverse distance from the

276: group centre 

277: within 1/5 of the dispersion distance. In each iteration, the

278: velocity dispersion is recomputed using the Gapper estimator

279: \citep{Gapper} and the centre is recomputed as the luminosity-weighted

280: geometric centre of the group. The iterations are continued

281: until a stable group membership is reached.

282: 

283: Using these group centers and velocity dispersions, we restrict the

284: membership of our

285: group sample to galaxies within two velocity

286: dispersions of the group redshift and within 500\ho kpc of the group

287: center in the transverse direction. To obtain a true sample of group-sized halos we further restrict our group sample to have

288: velocity dispersions $<700$ km/s within 500\ho kpc of the group center. 

289: 

290: Field samples of galaxies are commonly defined in one of two ways: as an

291: ``isolated'' sample, in which galaxies within groups and clusters are

292: removed, or as a ``global'' sample, which includes all galaxies

293: regardless of their environment. In practice, the removal of all

294: group and cluster galaxies is not possible in our sample. Incomplete

295: redshift sampling and the observational uncertainties associated with

296: group membership would lead to an ``isolated'' field sample which

297: still contained some group galaxies. Therefore, we prefer to

298: define a

299: field sample that contains all galaxies, regardless of their group or

300: cluster membership. 

301: However, our follow-up spectroscopy focused on regions that have

302: groups identified in the CNOC2 survey, and our morphologies are

303: derived from small ACS images centered on our each of 20 targeted

304: groups. To avoid the bias toward groups that would otherwise be

305: present, we define our field sample to include only those

306: galaxies that are not in groups as identified by the Carlberg et al. algorithm. As discussed in \textsection \ref{mgc_group} and

307: Appendix \ref{lowfinder}, because of the incompleteness of the CNOC2

308: survey, and the strict group finding algorithm of Carlberg, this

309: leaves a field sample which is only slightly depleted in group

310: galaxies when compared to the universe as a whole at z=0.4. A similar

311: selection in the semi-analytic group

312: catalogues discussed later (\textsection \ref{modresult}) shows that the field sample

313: will have only $\sim$ 8$\%$ fewer group galaxies than a true global field

314: sample. We could correct for this bias by creating a true

315: field sample which is an admixture made of 92$\%$ observed field sample and

316: 8$\%$ group sample.  However, all of our conclusions are insensitive to this

317: correction, and for the sake of simplicity, we do not apply it to our results.  

318: 

319: Using these definitions yields a sample of 114 group

320: galaxies and 128 field galaxies with 0.3 $\leq$ z $\leq$ 0.55 and $M_V<-19$.

321: 

322: %Steve Allanson for President

323: 

324: \subsection{The z $\sim$ 0.1 Sample }

325: 

326: Our sample of low redshift galaxies is derived from the Millennium

327: Galaxy Catalog (MGC). The MGC is a 37.5 square degree B-band imaging

328: survey carried out using the Wide Field Camera on the Isaac Newton

329: Telescope \citep{MGC-phot}. The survey is a long, 35 arcmin wide strip,

330: fully

331: contained within both the Two Degree Field Galaxy Redshift Survey

332: (2dFGRS) and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS). The photometric

333: catalogs are complete to B$<$24 mag, and the imaging is of sufficient

334: quality to allow for the decomposition of galaxies into a bulge and

335: disk component. 

336: 

337: MGCz, the redshift survey component of the MGC, was designed to obtain

338: AAT/2dF spectra of B$<$20 galaxies which were not covered by either

339: 2dFGRS or SDSS \citep{MGC-spectra}. This gives a redshift completeness of 96$\%$ for B$<$20

340: galaxies. 

341: 

342: 

343: \subsubsection{The Group and Field Samples}\label{mgc_group}

344: 

345: There exist many low redshift group catalogues derived from either the

346: SDSS or 2dF surveys. However, we wish to create a catalogue that can be

347: compared directly and fairly with our higher-redshift group sample.  

348: The latter was derived from a

349: two-step process --- the initial survey and the targeted group

350: follow-up --- applied to an incomplete redshift survey.  

351: This method is not the most direct or efficient way to find groups in

352: our lower-redshift sample, but it does accurately 

353: reproduce our higher-redshift selection and the possible

354: biases within. We discuss the method in detail in Appendix

355: \ref{lowfinder}. Briefly, we reduce the completeness of the low

356: redshift sample to match the sampling rate of the CNOC2 survey, and then reproduce the \citet{CNOC2-groups}

357: algorithm. To mimic our follow-up of \citet{CNOC2-groups}

358: groups, we then increase the completeness and recompute the group membership. 

359: 

360:  Using this method we have found

361: 19 groups with velocity dispersions between 100 km/s and 700

362: km/s and which lie in the range 0.06 $<$ z $<$ 0.12. Using a volume-limited sample of $M_B<-18$, we have a sample containing 99 group

363: members and 3022 field galaxies. As discussed in \S~\ref{cnoc_sample}, a true field sample would contain all

364: group members and field galaxies.  However, to maintain consistency between

365: the CNOC2 and MGC samples we do not exclude the small number of group

366: galaxies from our field sample. In practice, due to the size of the

367: field sample ($\sim$ 3000), adding or removing the 99 group galaxies has

368: no effect on the bulk properties of the field.

369:  

370: The low percentage of galaxies in groups in our sample seems in

371: contradiction with other group catalogues based on local redshift

372: surveys. For example, the 2dF Percolation Inferred Galaxy Groups (2PIGG) catalogue

373: \citep{2PIGG-cat}, which is based on the 2dF survey, finds that $\sim$

374: 55$\%$ of galaxies are in groups in the local universe. However, the

375: fraction of 2PIGG groups with more than two members and within 

376: velocity dispersion limits of 100 km/s to 700 km/s (which are our

377: criteria) is only 24\%.

378: The reduction of the sampling rate to match the CNOC2

379: completeness results in the non-detection of about half of these groups.

380: A further 30$\%$ of galaxies are not found in groups because the

381: Carlberg algorithm is not a strict

382: friends-of-friends procedure: there is an additional step to check

383: that candidate group galaxies are overdense with respect to the

384: background.  Accounting for these selection effects, we would only expect to find 9 $\%$ of galaxies satisfying our definition

385: of a group.  Finally, we also remove

386: groups which are not fully contained within the very narrow MGC strip,

387: i.e. the group centers are within 500\ho kpc of a survey edge. This step reduces the

388: volume from which groups are selected from by $\sim$ 30 $\%$. Our group

389: catalogue is therefore

390: incomplete relative to 2PIGG, but our sample is robust (see

391: \textsection \ref{halos}) and accurately reproduces the CNOC2

392: group-finding algorithm at higher redshift. 

393: The small number of group

394: galaxies confirms, as suggested in \textsection \ref{cnoc_sample}, that

395: our field sample is only slightly depleted in group galaxies when

396: compared to the Universe as whole. Indeed, our results are unchanged if

397: we include these group galaxies in our field population at this

398: redshift, but for consistency with the CNOC2 groups, we do not. 

399: 

400: \subsection{Comparison of Surveys} \label{comparesur}

401: 

402: The measurement of a galaxy's morphology can depend on a number of

403: factors besides its intrinsic morphology, such as the imaging wavelength, angular

404: resolution and surface brightness limit. Because of these systematic

405: differences, direct measurement of morphological evolution is

406: difficult. In this paper, we largely concentrate on a direct

407: comparison between group and field galaxies at fixed redshift,

408: which eliminates the effects of these systematic differences. Nonetheless,

409: the MGC and CNOC2 are quite well matched in the key areas, which allows us

410: to compare the differential group and field behavior between redshifts.

411: 

412: Specifically, the two surveys probe approximately the same restframe wavelength.

413: The MGC survey is a rest frame B Band (observed frame $\sim$ 440 nm) survey, while our ACS

414: images are in the rest frame V Band (observed frame $\sim$ 775

415: nm). Since disks tend to be bluer than bulges one might expect a lower

416: B/T when measured in the B-band; however the intrinsic morphological differences are only

417: significant at much wider wavelength separation \citep{taylor}.

418: 

419: The apparent surface brightness limit of the MGC survey is 26

420: mag/arcsec$^2$ and that of the {\it HST} ACS images

421: is 30 mag/arcsec$^2$.  Figure \ref{surf-bright} shows the absolute

422: surface brightness limits of the two surveys as a function of

423: redshift, including (1+z)$^4$ cosmological dimming. For the redshift

424: ranges of interest, the absolute surface brightness limits are comparable. 

425: 

426: \begin{figure}

427: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{surface.ps}

428: \caption{A comparison of the absolute surface brightness limits of our

429: two samples of galaxies, as function of redshift. The solid line

430: represents the MGC surface brightness (26 mag/arcsec$^2$), while the

431: dashed line is the equivalent for the CNOC2 sample (30 mag/arcsec$^2$).}

432: \label{surf-bright}

433: \end{figure}

434: The excellent angular resolution of our {\it HST} ACS images (point spread

435: function (PSF) FWHM

436: $\sim$ 0.1 arcsec) allows for morphological measurements of the

437: CNOC2 sample. In fact, this gives a physical resolution which is

438: somewhat better than the MGC survey (PSF FWHM $\sim$

439: 1 arcsec) in the redshift range of interest, as shown in Figure

440: \ref{psf}. Of greater concern is that the physical PSF of the MGC

441: survey has a large variation within the sample itself, due to the

442: redshift range spanned by the galaxies. In

443: Appendix \ref{mgc_red_depend}, we investigate the effect of the

444: physical resolution on the morphological measurements. We find that

445: the resolution differences have no effect on the

446: bulge-to-total light measurements, but do affect the asymmetry

447: parameter, causing the measured asymmetry to be higher in galaxies with better

448: resolution. In this paper, we only analyze asymmetry measures on

449: matched samples of galaxies, which mitigates this effect.

450: 

451: 

452: \begin{figure}

453: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{psf.ps}

454: \caption{A comparison of the point spread function FWHM of our

455: two samples of galaxies as a function of redshift. The solid line

456: represents the ground-based MGC PSF (1 arcsec), while

457: the dashed line corresponds to the {\it HST} resolution of the higher

458: redshift CNOC2 sample (0.1 arcsec).}

459: \label{psf}

460: \end{figure}

461: 

462: The properties of galaxies vary with luminosity \citep[eg.,][]{baldry}, so

463: when comparing morphological properties between the two surveys we

464: must use a common luminosity limit.  \citet{fukugita} have shown that late type galaxies (Scd to

465: Sab) have B-V=0.5--0.78, while early type galaxies (S0 and E) have

466: B-V=0.85--0.96. Thus, our $z=0.4$ magnitude limit of M$_V$$<$-19 corresponds

467: approximately to an MGC limit between $M_B=-18.5$ and $-18.0$,

468: depending on type and neglecting any luminosity evolution.  

469: Therefore, when directly comparing

470: the group and field behavior between the two surveys we only consider

471: MGC galaxies brighter than $M_B\approx -18$ (except in Figure

472:  \ref{diskfrac} which includes galaxies as faint as $M_B=-16$).

473: 

474: \subsection{\textsc{Gim2d} Morphological Measurements}\label{morph}

475: 

476: \citet{mgc-gim2d} have presented morphological measurements of the

477: MGC and we follow their procedure to derive morphological parameters

478: for the CNOC2 sample. We use the parametric IRAF package \textsc{gim2d} \citep{Gim2d,

479: MS}, which fits the sky-subtracted surface

480: brightness distribution of each galaxy with up to 12 parameters

481: describing a bulge and a disk component.  \textsc{gim2d} searches

482: the large-parameter space of models using a \citet{metro} algorithm,

483: which is inefficient but does not easily get trapped in local

484: minima. \citet{haussler} have shown that \textsc{gim2d} produces

485:   reliable fits with small systematic errors when the effective galaxy

486:   surface brightness is above the sky level, as it is for the galaxies

487:   in our sample. \footnote{Haussler et al also show that another parametric

488:   galaxy fitting code, \textsc{GALFIT} \citep{galfit}, performs better than

489:   \textsc{gim2d} in crowded fields. However, \textsc{GALFIT} uses a downhill gradient algorithm

490: which, although very efficient, may not be as robust as the simulated

491: annealing technique of \textsc{gim2d} for problems with many local minima, like two-

492: component fitting.}

493: 

494: The \textsc{gim2d} algorithm can fit single component (Sersic profile) or two component

495: (Sersic + exponential disk) models to the galaxy profile.

496: The Sersic profile is given by

497: 

498: \begin{equation}

499: I_b(R)=I_e \mathrm{exp}\left[-b_n[(R/R_e)^{1/n}-1]\right],

500: \end{equation}

501: where $I_e$ is the

502: intensity at the radius, $R_e$, and $n$ is the Sersic index. The

503: parameter $b_n$ is set to $1.9992n-0.3271$  within \textsc{gim2d} to

504: ensure that $R_e$ is the projected radius which encloses half the

505: total luminosity. 

506: 

507: In a two

508: component fit, the Sersic profile corresponds to the bulge model, and the disk is fit by an exponential model, 

509: \begin{equation}

510: I_d(R)=I_0 \mathrm{exp}(-R/h), 

511: \end{equation}

512:  where $I_0$ is the central intensity, $I_d(R)$ is the disk light

513:  profile as a function of radius $R$,and $h$ is the scale length.  

514: 

515: Ideally, we would like to fit two components to all galaxies, but often

516: galaxies do not have two resolvable components. It is for this reason

517: that we follow the prescription of \citet{mgc-gim2d}, who have made a

518: careful study of \textsc{gim2d} output. They suggest a logical filtering

519: system which initially fits a two-component model to the

520: galaxy. For galaxies which have ``normal'' light profiles,

521: this fit is kept, but for those galaxies which have

522: perturbed profiles or are obviously better described by a single component, we fit

523: a pure Sersic

524: profile. In practice, this has little effect on our results. 

525: 

526: \begin{figure*}

527: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

528: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{cnoc2_bt.ps}

529: \end{minipage}

530: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

531: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{mgc_bt.ps}

532: \end{minipage}

533: \caption{The histogram of relative bulge luminosity for

534: the z $\sim$ 0.4 (left) and z $\sim$ 0.1 (right) samples. The thin red line

535: in each plot indicates the stacked group at that redshift, and the thick

536: black line is the field sample. Uncertainties are estimated with the

537: jackknife technique. }

538: \label{bt-cnoc}

539: \end{figure*}

540: \subsubsection{Residual Substructure} \label{Residual}

541: To quantify the substructure in the surface brightness profiles

542: we use the residual parameter, R, as defined by \citet{Schade1}. This parameter is also known as the

543: ``asymmetry parameter, R'' \citep{Grothx} and the ``residual substructure

544: parameter, S'' \citep{McIntosh04}. It is defined as

545: \begin{equation}

546: R= R_T + R_A

547: \end{equation}

548: with 

549: \begin{equation}

550: R_T = \frac{\Sigma(|R_{ij} +R^{180}_{ij}|/2)}{\Sigma I_{ij}} - \frac{\Sigma(|B_{ij} +B^{180}_{ij}|/2)}{\Sigma I_{ij}}

551: \end{equation}

552: \begin{equation}

553: R_A = \frac{\Sigma(|R_{ij} -R^{180}_{ij}|/2)}{\Sigma I_{ij}} - \frac{\Sigma(|B_{ij} -B^{180}_{ij}|/2)}{\Sigma I_{ij}}

554: \end{equation}

555: where R$_T$ is the total residual parameter and R$_A$ is

556: the asymmetric residual parameter. R$_{ij}$ is the flux at pixel

557: position (i,j) in the residual image, R$^{180}_{ij}$ is the flux at

558: (i,j) in the residual image rotated by 180$^o$. B$_{ij}$ and

559: B$^{180}_{ij}$ are the corresponding values in the background

560: noise. Finally, I$_{ij}$ is defined as the flux at (i,j) in the object

561: image. The sum is done over all pixels out to r= 2r$_{hl}$, where

562: r$_{hl}$ is the radius at which half the galaxy's light is

563: enclosed. 

564: 

565: 

566: \section{Results}\label{result}

567: Although our data sample is comprised of a relatively large number of group

568: galaxies (99 in the MGC sample and 114 in the CNOC2 sample), each

569: group has typically less than ten spectroscopically confirmed

570: members. Therefore, we stack the individual

571: groups to maximize the signal of the bulk group galaxy

572: proprieties. \citet{weinmann1} have shown that the velocity dispersion of a

573: group is a poor tracer of the mass of the group halo, especially for

574: groups containing few confirmed members. Although our group velocity

575: dispersions vary from 100 km/s to 700 km/s, \citet{Wilman1} has shown that the individual CNOC2 groups

576: show no significant differences based on group type or velocity dispersion

577: from a combined group. Thus we combine all the galaxies within 500\ho

578: kpc of a group center at each redshift to form a stacked z$\sim$0.1 group

579: and a stacked z$\sim$0.4 group. Because of the large uncertainties on the velocity

580: dispersions we do not attempt to estimate a ``virial radius'' for each

581: group, but instead simply require a group member to be within 500\ho kpc of

582: the group center, 

583: corresponding approximately to the expected virial radius of a typical

584: group in our sample, with a 360km/s velocity

585: dispersion.

586: 

587: \subsection{B/T Distribution}

588: In Figure \ref{bt-cnoc}, we present the quantitative morphology

589: distribution of the two samples. We compare field and group

590: distributions of the ratio of the bulge luminosity to total

591: luminosity (B/T) of each galaxy. Pure bulge galaxies have a B/T of 1,

592: while pure disk galaxies have a B/T of 0. The left hand panel of

593: Figure \ref{bt-cnoc} shows the B/T distribution for the z $\sim$ 0.4

594: sample of galaxies. The red line represents the

595: stacked group from the CNOC2 sample and the black line represents the field

596: galaxies.  A Kolmogorov-Smirnov (KS) test shows that the group and field

597: sample are not drawn from a common parent distribution, with 98.4$\%$ confidence.

598: The most significant difference within the CNOC2 sample is at B/T$<$0.2,

599: where the fraction of galaxies in the field ($\sim 57\pm 5$\%)

600: is higher than that in groups ($\sim 41 \pm 5$\%). In the right

601: hand panel of Figure \ref{bt-cnoc}, we present the B/T

602: distribution for the z $\sim$ 0.1 sample. Similar to the CNOC2 sample,

603: the fraction of B/T $<$ 0.2 galaxies is much higher in the field ($\sim

604: 54 \pm 1$\%) than  in the groups

605: ($\sim 32 \pm 6 $\%). A KS test rules out a common origin for the group

606: and field distributions of the MGC sample at greater than 99.9 $\%$ confidence. 

607: 

608: \begin{figure*}

609: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

610: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm 

611: \epsfbox{cnoc2_adapt_diskfraction.ps}

612: \end{minipage}

613: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

614: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{mgc_adapt_diskfraction.ps}

615: \end{minipage}

616: \caption{The fraction of galaxies with B/T$<$0.2 (disk-dominated) as a

617:   function of absolute magnitude. Left: The z $\sim$ 0.4

618:   sample. Magnitudes are measured using the flux calculated by

619:   \textsc{gim2d} and k-corrected to rest frame V band. Right: The z $\sim$ 0.1

620:   sample, where magnitudes are measured in the B band. The field galaxies are represented by the

621:   thick black line and the group galaxies by the thin red

622:   line. The dashed vertical line indicates the equivalent B-band limit

623:   corresponding to the CNOC2 $M_V=-19$ magnitude limit, assuming a B-V color of

624:   0.63. Uncertainties are measured using the jackknife technique. }

625: \label{diskfrac}

626: \end{figure*}

627: In both plots we have seen evidence for the well-known

628:   morphology-density relation.  In this case, it is manifested as a deficit of disk dominated

629:   galaxies in the group samples when compared to the

630: field. However, it is known that bright galaxies tend to be more

631: frequently bulge-dominated than faint galaxies. Therefore, it

632: is possible that this form of the morphology-density relation is

633: related to different field and group luminosity distributions rather

634: than any intrinsic difference between group and field

635: galaxies at fixed luminosity. To explore this we present Figure

636: \ref{diskfrac}, which shows the fraction of disk-dominated galaxies as

637: a function of total galaxy magnitude. Studies of the B/T distribution

638: of visually classified galaxies have shown that elliptical

639: and S0 galaxies predominately have B/T$>$0.3-0.4 (\citealt{tran} and \citealt{wilmanMORPH}), but we chose

640: to define ``disk dominated'' to indicate galaxies with B/T$<$0.2. This

641: choice is made to isolate those galaxies in the bin with the most

642: significant difference between the group and field samples, but our conclusions are

643: unchanged even if we use B/T$<$0.4 to define disk-dominated galaxies. 

644: 

645: The left hand panel of Figure \ref{diskfrac} shows the z

646: $\sim$ 0.4 sample, with the thick black line representing field

647: galaxies and the thin red line representing the groups.  In any one

648: luminosity bin there is no

649: significant difference (ie.$>$ 1 $\sigma$) between the fraction of disk

650: galaxies in the group and field; however, overall there is a systematic

651: difference of 5.5 $\pm$ 2 $\%$, in the sense that the fraction of

652: disk-dominated galaxies in groups is always lower than in field

653: galaxies of comparable luminosity.

654: 

655: The right hand panel of Figure \ref{diskfrac} shows the disk fraction as a

656: function of magnitude for  the $z \sim$ 0.1 sample. The magnitude is the

657: rest frame B band, the waveband in which the B/T decomposition was

658: done. In this figure, we show all galaxies in our redshift

659: range to $M_B$=-16, fainter than our volume-limited sample of

660: $M_B$$<$-18. The dashed vertical line indicates the

661: equivalent B-band limit of the CNOC2 $M_V=-19$ magnitude limit, assuming a

662: B-V color of 0.63, which is typical of a late-type galaxy

663: \citep{fukugita}. At this redshift there is clearly a significant

664: difference in the fraction of disk-dominated systems between group and

665: field galaxies of the same luminosity. This difference is 24 $\pm$ 6 $\%$ over the

666: full magnitude range of the sample, and 19 $\pm$ 6 $\%$ brighter than the equivalent

667: CNOC2 luminosity limit. 

668: 

669: 

670: Although the B/T distributions of the group and field galaxies are

671: different at both redshifts, this predominately reflects a difference in luminosity

672: distributions at high redshifts, but an intrinsic difference in the

673: fraction of disk galaxies of fixed luminosity at low redshift. It therefore appears that the morphological

674: segregation in groups has increased significantly from z $\sim$ 0.4 to

675: z $\sim$ 0.1.

676: We recall that the z=0.1

677: sample is measured in the rest frame B band while the z=0.4 sample is

678: measured in the 

679: rest frame V band.  It would be possible to mimic our results if the disks of group

680: galaxies were significantly redder than the disks of field

681: galaxies. However, to create a B-band disk fraction consistent with

682: the V band disk fraction, the disks of group galaxies must be B-V=2.07

683: redder than the disks of field galaxies. On average, in the MGC sample, pure

684: disk (B/T=0) group galaxies are only B-V=0.01 redder than the pure

685: disk field galaxies. Thus, it appears the evolution is real.  

686: We will further

687: explore the colours of these galaxies, including a comparison with the CNOC2 sample, in

688: a future paper. 

689: 

690: \subsection{Structural Parameters}\label{struct}

691: \begin{figure*}

692: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

693: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{cnoc2_diskfade_vs_rad.ps}

694: \end{minipage}

695: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

696: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{mgc_diskfade_vs_rad.ps}

697: \end{minipage}

698: \caption{The distribution of disk magnitudes as a function of disk

699:   scalelength for non-bulge dominated galaxies (B/T $<$0.7). Left: z $\sim$

700:   0.4 sample.  Right: z$\sim$ 0.1 sample. Large red points are group galaxies

701:   and small, black points are field galaxies. The thick solid black line is

702:   the best fit to the field, thin red line is the group best fit. The

703:   dotted (dashed) black line shows the effect of truncating star

704:   formation in field galaxies 1(3) Gyrs ago. }

705: \label{diskrad}

706: \end{figure*}

707: The evolution in morphological segregation suggests there is a change

708: occurring within the group galaxies between z $\sim$ 0.4 and z $\sim$

709: 0.1. Here we focus on the possible causes of this

710: evolution. We first look

711: for structural differences between the group and field galaxies. If

712: star formation in group galaxies is quenched, then the disk of the

713: galaxy may slowly fade away, and we might expect to see a departure

714: from the normal scaling relations between disk size and luminosity.  

715: 

716: In Figure \ref{diskrad} we plot the distribution of disk magnitudes as

717: a function of the disk scalelength, excluding only the most bulge-dominated galaxies

718: (B/T $>$ 0.7). \footnote{An occasional problem in modeling the surface

719: brightness profile of galaxies with automated programs is the

720: tendency to fit small disk (or bulge) components to galaxies which may

721: have (e.g.) twisted isophotes. Thus we restrict our analysis to

722: galaxies which have significant disk (or bulge) components when

723: looking at their scaling properties.} The left hand panel shows the z

724: $\sim$ 0.4 sample, while the right hand

725: panel shows the z $\sim$ 0.1 sample. In both

726: plots it is evident that there is a correlation

727: between the disk size and its brightness, such that brighter disks

728: have larger disk scale lengths. This is not surprising, but the fact

729: that the group and field lie on the same relation (although with large scatter)

730: is. The thick solid black line is the best fit to the scaling relation of

731: the field galaxies. Best fit lines are determined using a robust

732: biweight estimator which minimizes the effect of distant outliers. In

733: principle, uniform fading of a perfectly exponential disk would result

734: in a lower disk luminosity, but would leave the scalelength

735: unchanged.\footnote{\citet{haussler} have shown that the recovered

736: scale length is underestimated for low S/N galaxies which are fit with a Sersic

737: profile. However, our data are sufficiently deep to avoid this problem, typically reaching

738: the surface brightness limiting isophotal radius at 3-5 disk scale lengths.

739: } Therefore, an ideal

740: population of faded disk galaxies would exhibit the same scaling relation, but with

741: different normalization. Adopting this assumption, we fit only the

742: normalization to the group galaxy relation, while maintaining the slope

743: defined by the field galaxies, as shown by the thin red line. There is

744: no statistically significant

745: difference between the normalizations of the group and field

746: populations (a difference of 0.086 $\pm$ 0.134

747: for the z=0.4 sample, and 0.103 $\pm$ 0.151 for the z=0.1 sample). 

748: 

749: Since we do not see any significant difference in the disk scaling

750: relations for group galaxies, it

751: may be that the process of morphological transformation is instead dominated

752: by a growing bulge (for example, through mergers). Again, if this were true, we might expect to see a

753: deviation in the group and field bulge scaling relations. 

754: In Figure \ref{bulgerad}, we plot the distribution of bulge magnitudes

755: as a function of the bulge half light radius, excluding the most disk--dominated

756: galaxies (B/T $<$ 0.3). The left hand panel shows the z $\sim$ 0.4

757: sample and the right hand panel has the z$\sim$0.1 sample. The

758: field and group distributions are again similar, at both redshifts. In \textsection \ref{discuss}, we examine the constraints

759: these findings place on the amount of fading which is possible in the

760: group sample.

761: 

762: 

763: 

764: \begin{figure*}

765: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

766: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{cnoc2_bulgemag_vs_rad.ps}

767: \end{minipage}

768: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

769: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{mgc_bulgemag_vs_rad.ps}

770: \end{minipage}

771: \caption{The distribution of bulge magnitude as a function of bulge

772:   half light radius for non-disk dominated (B/T $>$ 0.3) galaxies. Left:

773:   The z$\sim$ 0.4 sample. Large, red points are group galaxies and small, black

774:   points are field galaxies.  Right: The z$\sim$ 0.1 sample. Red, filled points are group

775:   galaxies and black points are field galaxies.}

776: \label{bulgerad}

777: \end{figure*}

778: 

779: 

780: \subsection{Asymmetry} \label{asym}

781: In this section we examine the asymmetries of the galaxies, to

782: try to untangle a merger--driven transformation scenario from a gradual disk fading

783: model. 

784: Galaxy mergers and harassment often produce

785: noticeable asymmetric features, like tidal tails, 

786: which could manifest

787: themselves as deviations from the smooth

788: surface brightness profiles we have used for the morphological

789: measurements. If galaxy mergers were enhanced in groups, we

790: would expect to see an increase in the fraction of galaxies with large

791: asymmetries.  

792: On the other hand, the cessation of star formation in the disk would

793: likely result in the disappearance of bright clumps and spiral arms,

794: thereby removing residual substructure, making the disks appear

795: smoother. 

796: 

797: We have seen that the fraction of disk galaxies depends

798: on magnitude, and that the difference in the high redshift B/T

799: distribution is partly due to different luminosity distributions

800: in the field and group samples. For this reason, in the rest of this 

801: section, we match the field and group luminosity and redshift

802: distributions. In the MGC sample, we match each group galaxy to the

803: field galaxy with the closest magnitude and within 0.03 in

804: redshift. The magnitude differences for these matched galaxies are all less than 0.02

805: because of the large number of available field galaxies in the

806: sample. Similarly, for the CNOC2 sample, we match group galaxies to the

807: nearest field galaxy in magnitude (within 0.2 mags) and within 0.05

808: in redshift. We match all 99 group galaxies in the MGC and 105 of the

809: 114 CNOC2 group galaxies. The brightest CNOC2 group galaxies have no field

810: counterpart, and so are effectively excluded from the remainder of this

811: analysis. 

812: 

813: To probe the substructure of the galaxies, we have calculated the

814: asymmetry parameter according to the definitions given in \textsection

815: \ref{Residual}. In Figure \ref{asymetry} we show the distribution in

816: asymmetry for bulge dominated (B/T$>$0.5) and disk dominated

817: (B/T$<$0.5) galaxies for both the CNOC2 and

818: MGC surveys. The dashed vertical line indicates the lower limit for

819: ``highly asymmetric'' galaxies ($R_T~+~R_A >$ 0.16), as defined by \citet{pattonasym}.

820: Disk

821: dominated galaxies have much higher median asymmetries than bulge

822: dominated galaxies, as expected.  However, there is no appreciable

823: difference in the median asymmetry between the 

824: group and luminosity-matched field, in any of the samples. 

825: Although we can not resolve the disapperance of individual HII regions, visual

826:   inspection of disk dominated galaxies in Figures \ref{group_thumb}

827:   and \ref{field_thumb} clearly show that galaxies with low B/T and

828:   high asymmetries have strong asymmetric structures typical of star forming

829: galaxies, ie. large spiral arms and lumpy regions. The lack

830: of a systematic difference in the asymmetries of matched group and field

831: disk-dominated galaxies means that we find no evidence for a mechanism

832: that suppresses star formation in group disks. 

833: 

834: We note that, as shown in Figure \ref{psf}, the CNOC2 sample has a

835: lower physical PSF than the MGC sample. We show in Appendix \ref{mgc_red_depend} that

836: galaxies which are blurred to have a lower physical resolution have

837: lower asymmetry values. Therefore, we do not consider the change in

838: median asymmetry between z $\sim$ 0.4 and z $\sim$ 0.1 as evidence of real

839: evolution. 

840: 

841: 

842: \begin{figure}

843: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{asymplot.ps}

844: \caption{The distribution of asymmetries (R$_T$+R$_A$) for CNOC2 bulge

845:   dominated galaxies (top left), CNOC2 disk dominated galaxies (top

846:   right), MGC bulge dominated galaxies (bottom left), and MGC disk

847:   dominated galaxies (bottom right). In all plots group galaxies are

848:   represented by the thin red line and the luminosity matched field is the thick black

849:   line. The dashed vertical line indicates the lower limit for

850: ``highly asymmetric'' galaxies ($R_T~+~R_A >$ 0.16) as defined by \citet{pattonasym}.}

851: \label{asymetry}

852: \end{figure}

853: 

854: 

855: \section{Discussion}\label{discuss}

856: 

857: \subsection{Galaxies in Transformation?}

858: 

859: In this section we investigate how our results in \textsection

860: \ref{result} might constrain the number galaxies that are in the process

861: of transforming within the group environment. Specifically, we have shown

862: in \textsection \ref{struct} that the bulge- and disk-components appear

863: to obey scaling relations between

864: size and luminosity that are independent of environment.  This

865: suggests that any transformation mechanism must either leave these

866: scaling laws intact, or only affect a small number of galaxies at the

867: epoch of observation.  To

868: investigate this, we consider a simple

869: \citet{bc03} model with a constant star formation rate as

870: appropriate for the disk components.  If

871: this star formation is suddenly truncated, within 1 Gyr it will have

872: subsequently faded by 1.23 magnitudes in rest-$B$ (as measured for the MGC

873: sample), or 0.68 magnitudes in rest-$V$ (appropriate for the higher-z

874: CNOC2 sample).  After 3 Gyr, the amount of fading expected is 1.91 mags (B) or

875: 1.39 mags (V). However, such truncation should not affect the measured

876: scale length of the disk. Therefore, if star formation were truncated

877: in the entire population of group galaxies, we would expect the

878: normalization of the scaling relation to change by these amounts.

879: These relations are shown by the dotted

880: (1 Gyr) and dashed (3 Gyr) black lines in Figure

881: \ref{diskrad}. These lines are significantly offset from the measured group

882: relation (which is consistent with that of the field); therefore, we can

883: easily rule out that star formation has been recently truncated in the

884: entire disk population.

885: 

886: We would next like to establish what {\it fraction} of group galaxies could have

887: undergone 1 (3) Gyr fading and still have a scaling relation that is

888: consistent with the observed field scaling relation (ie. $<$ 2 $\sigma$

889: difference in the normalization, corresponding to a difference of 0.2 magnitudes

890: for the MGC sample, and 0.18 magnitudes for CNOC2). To assess this we

891: randomly choose a sample of group galaxies from Figure~\ref{diskrad} and fade their disks for

892: 1 (3) Gyrs according to the Bruzual $\&$ Charlot model described

893: above. We recompute the

894: B/T ratios of the sample, and impose our selection criteria on total magnitude

895: and B/T (recall we are excluding the most bulge--dominated galaxies

896: from this analysis). 

897:  The normalization of the scaling relation is then refit to the

898: new set of data, keeping the slope fixed. We can then determine an

899: upper limit on the fraction of galaxies which may have undergone such

900: fading for 1 (3) Gyrs; these limits are 41 $\pm$ 3 $\%$

901: (29 $\pm$ 4 $\%$) for the CNOC2 sample, and 9 $\pm$ 3 $\%$ (4

902: $\pm$ 2 $\%$) for the MGC sample. The upper limit for the z=0.4 sample is quite high, as expected given

903: the relatively small sample size.  Therefore, based on these data alone, we cannot rule out the

904: hypothesis that a substantial fraction of these galaxies are undergoing

905: a significant change in their star formation rate.  The upper limit for the $z=0.1$

906: sample is much more restrictive, partly because of the sample size and

907: partly because the rest-frame B-band is more sensitive to recent star

908: formation.  Our limits mean that any mechanism able to truncate star

909: formation in disks is not dominant in present day groups.

910: 

911: Mergers are likely to be rare, but transformative events, so an

912: increased merger history in groups would not be expected to increase the

913: median asymmetry of group galaxies, but rather increase the fraction of highly

914: asymmetric galaxies. By examining the fraction of galaxies with

915: $R_T~+~R_A >$ 0.16, we see that an extra $\sim$ 6 $\pm$ 3 $\%$ of group galaxies are

916: highly asymmetric in the bulge-dominated samples at both redshifts,

917: compared with the 

918: matched field sample (\ref{asymetry}). The fraction of highly asymmetric galaxies in

919: the disk-dominated samples is similar for both the group and the luminosity-matched field.  

920: This may indicate that there is an increase of merging or

921: interacting galaxies in groups. A visual inspection of the CNOC2

922: galaxies shows that 4 out of 9 of the ``high-asymmetry'' bulge dominated

923: galaxies are indeed merging or interacting, as shown in Appendix \ref{thumbs}.

924: 

925: \subsection{A comparison with X-ray selected groups}

926: In \textsection \ref{asym}, we have shown that the median asymmetry of

927: group and field galaxies are statistically indistinguishable. These results are

928: interesting because \citet{tran} have shown that, in a

929: sample of local X-ray selected groups, there is evidence for smoother

930: disks in group galaxies than in the field. Studies of

931: blue cluster galaxies have also shown that they have significantly lower

932: asymmetry values than their blue field counterparts

933: \citep{McIntosh04}. Perhaps most intriguingly, \citet{homeier} has

934: recently shown that X-ray luminous clusters have galaxies with

935: significantly lower average asymmetries than X-ray faint clusters. 

936: A related difference from our results comes from studies of X-ray group

937: galaxy morphology, which have

938: shown that the fraction of early types is $\sim$ 0.7 \citep{Mulchaey, Jeltema}

939: in the same magnitude and redshift range as our CNOC2 sample. 

940: To compare our data with this number we define early-type galaxies as

941: those with B/T$>0.4$, as \citet{tran} has shown that this provides a

942: good match with early type galaxies as classified on the

943: Hubble-sequence.  Using this definition, we find an early-type fraction

944: of only $\sim$ 46 $\%$ in the

945: CNOC2 group

946: sample, considerably lower than found in X-ray

947: groups at this redshift.  We will revisit this issue in a future paper

948: when we consider and compare the results of Hubble-sequence

949: morphological classification \citep{wilmanMORPH}.

950: These

951: results, combined with our result that the median asymmetry in

952: optically selected group galaxies is not different from the luminosity

953: matched field, point to the role that the hot intergalactic medium (IGM)

954: may play in the

955: smoothing of disk galaxies. Alternatively, the progenitors of

956: optically selected groups may be different from the progenitors of

957: X-ray selected ones.

958: 

959: 

960: 

961: \subsection{Comparison with semi-analytic galaxy models}\label{modresult}

962:  

963: Recently, large dark matter simulations of large

964: volumes have allowed theorists to produce usefully large catalogues of model

965: galaxies, employing detailed modeling of galaxy formation based

966: on relatively simple prescriptions for relevant physical processes. In this section

967: we use the catalogues of one such ``semi-analytic'' galaxy

968: formation model \citep{bowermodel} to compare with our data. The Bower

969: et al. model uses the dark matter Millennium simulation

970: \citep{mil_sim}, a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological box with $500/h$ Mpc

971: sides, as the basis for the merger trees.  The algorithm is based on the earlier GALFORM models of

972: \citet{benson_gal} and \citet{cole_gal}. The principal change from the

973: Benson et al. model is a prescription for the quenching of star

974: formation in massive halos by feedback powered by accretion onto a supermassive black hole. However, perhaps the most important

975: change for our purposes is the modification of the method for

976: computing disk instabilities. Disk instabilities are now the dominant

977: mode of bulge formation in these models, although the brightest galaxies are

978: still more often formed through mergers. Unlike older models,

979: morphology is now sensitive to the baryonic physics of disks, rather

980: than the (more robustly-predicted) merger history. 

981: \begin{figure*}

982: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

983: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{group_halo_cnoc2.ps}

984: \end{minipage}

985: \begin{minipage}{0.45 \linewidth}

986: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{group_halo_mgc.ps}

987: \end{minipage}

988: \caption{The distribution of halo masses for each galaxy in the

989:   \citet{bowermodel} model catalogue (thin, black line) and the distributions of

990:   galaxy halos in the simulated groups (thick, red line). The high

991:   redshift sample is on the left and the low redshift sample is on

992:   the right. }

993: \label{mil_halos}

994: \end{figure*} 

995: 

996: \subsubsection{Constructing a mock catalogue} \label{halos}

997: We construct mock catalogues using the \citet{bowermodel} model for the z=0.1 and z=0.4

998: redshift time steps. Because of the large size of the Millennium simulation and the small

999: spread in redshift of each of our samples, a single simulation box can

1000: be used for each epoch.  Using the same group-finding procedure as described in detail

1001: in Appendix \ref{lowfinder}, we construct a stacked group sample to

1002: compare directly with our observations. 

1003: 

1004: In Figure \ref{mil_halos}, we present the resulting distribution of

1005: galaxy halos in our group sample, compared with all halos in the

1006: Millennium simulation. We see that at both redshifts the group-finding

1007: algorithm selects predominately galaxies that are in halos with masses

1008: $5\times10^{12} < M_{\rm halo}/M_\odot <10^{15}$. Both samples peak

1009: at $M_{\rm halo}\sim$ 6 $\times$ 10$^{13}M_\odot$, but the CNOC2

1010: sample is somewhat biased toward lower masses than the MGC sample. Our

1011: algorithm finds a large percentage of groups that are made

1012: up principally of large dark matter halos: 76.4 $\%$ (85.1 $\%$) of z=0.4 (z=0.1)

1013: galaxies are in halos with  $M_{\rm halo}>10^{12}$

1014: M$_\odot$. In both plots there is a second peak -- a distribution of

1015: low mass halos -- which are contamination. However, we find that 79\%

1016:  (z=0.4) and 89\% (z=0) of the $M_{\rm halo}<$10$^{12}$ M$_\odot$ galaxies are within 500\ho kpc of a

1017: galaxy which resides in a halo with $M_{\rm halo}>$10$^{12}$ M$_\odot$. Thus, the 

1018: majority of our ``contamination'' is due to galaxies on the

1019: outskirts of a true group.  This confirms that the \citet{CNOC2-groups} algorithm selects

1020: groups which are real, and representative of massive dark matter halos, as

1021: also confirmed by previous weak lensing measurements

1022: \citep{parker} and our follow-up spectroscopy \citep{Wilman1}. Only

1023: 2.5 $\%$ (3.1 $\%$) of our z=0.4 (z=0.1) galaxies are not associated

1024: with a massive ($M_{\rm halo}>10^{12}M_\odot$) halo.

1025: 

1026: 

1027: \begin{figure}

1028: \leavevmode  \epsfysize=8cm  \epsfbox{bower_bt.ps}

1029: \caption{The B/T distributions of the \citet{bowermodel} model, compared

1030:   with the observed group and field samples at z=0.1 and z=0.4. The model is the thin, red line in

1031:   each panel and the data is the thick black line.}

1032: \label{bower_bt}

1033: \end{figure}

1034: \subsubsection{B/T distribution}

1035: 

1036: In Figure \ref{bower_bt}, we show the \citet{bowermodel} model predictions for the

1037: B/T distributions corresponding to our data samples.  In all four panels the data are

1038: shown with a thick black line and the model predictions are shown with a

1039: thin, dashed, red line. The models are limited at $M_B<-18$ in the MGC comparisons, and by $M_v<-19$ for the

1040: CNOC2 comparison.

1041: 

1042: 

1043: It is clear that there is remarkable agreement between the model and

1044: the data at z=0.1, especially considering that the model does not take into account any

1045: observational uncertainties associated with deriving B/T ratios from

1046: the surface brightness profile alone. However, the agreement

1047:   between the models and the data at z=0.4 is not as good. In

1048:   particular, the model underpredicts the fraction of B/T $<$ 0.2 galaxies

1049:   and overpredicts the fraction of B/T $>$ 0.8 galaxies in both the

1050:   groups and the field. Intriguingly, Figure \ref{bower_bt} shows the

1051:   models also predict that the fraction of disk dominated galaxies

1052:   increases in the field between z=0.4 and z=0.1, but remains constant

1053:   within the groups. 

1054: 

1055: \begin{figure}

1056: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{disk_deficiency.bower.ps}

1057: \caption{The relative disk deficiency in groups, parametrized as

1058:   1-group disk fraction/field disk fraction, where a disk has a B/T

1059:   $<$ 0.2. This is shown at z=0.4 (right panel) and z=0.1 (left panel)

1060:   for both the Bower et al model (thin red line) and the data (thick

1061:   black line).}

1062: \label{bower_deficiency}

1063: \end{figure}

1064: 

1065: Given these predictions, we are now encouraged to investigate the

1066:   time evolution of the disk fraction as a function of luminosity. From our data we

1067: have seen that the differences in the disk fraction as a function of

1068: magnitude are small at z=0.4 ($\sim$ 5.5 $\pm$ 2 $\%$), but quite

1069: large in the local universe ($\sim$ 19 $\pm$ 6 $\%$). 

1070: To address this, we present Figure \ref{bower_deficiency}, which shows the

1071: relative disk (B/T $<$ 0.2) deficiency between the field and the group samples, as a function of

1072: luminosity. The disk deficiency is the difference between the group

1073: and field disk fraction divided by the field disk fraction. This gives

1074: a measure of the fraction of field disks which are absent at a similar

1075: magnitude in the groups. In the left panel of Figure \ref{bower_deficiency} we show the low redshift

1076: sample. The data from the MGC sample agrees well on average with the

1077: model predictions. In the right panel of Figure \ref{bower_deficiency} we show the same

1078: comparison but for the high redshift sample. Although the average

1079: value of the group disk deficit is correctly predicted at z=0.1, the

1080: Bower et al. model predicts a group disk deficit which is much higher

1081: than the data at z=0.4. We note that, in the model, the

1082: predicted evolution is of a similar magnitude whether measured

1083: consistently in rest frame V or rest frame B, indirectly supporting

1084: our argument that the observed evolution is not driven by the

1085: difference in rest wavelength sampled by the two surveys.

1086: 

1087: We have seen in Figure \ref{bower_bt} that the models

1088: underpredict the fraction of B/T $<$ 0.2 at z=0.4 and that this leads

1089: to an overprediction of the disk deficiency in groups at the high

1090: redshift epoch.  Intriguingly, inspection of Figure \ref{bower_bt}

1091: shows that this is because the models predict that the fraction of disk dominated galaxies

1092:   increases in the field between z=0.4 and z=0.1, but remains constant

1093:   within the groups. While a direct comparison between the two epochs

1094:   could be complicated by the different observed wavebands, we note that

1095:   the same model predictions exist when considering only the

1096:   underlying stellar mass. This is at odds with the data, which show

1097:   that the B/T $<$ 0.2 fraction {\it decreases} in the groups, and

1098:   remains constant in the field.

1099: 

1100: 

1101: \section{Conclusions}\label{summary}

1102: We have presented a quantitative morphology study of

1103: optically-selected galaxy groups 

1104: from two redshift surveys: CNOC2 (z$\sim$0.4), supplemented 

1105: with significant additional Magellan spectroscopy, and MGC (z$\sim$0.1). We

1106: have compared these data with a similarly selected sample of groups

1107: drawn from the semi-analytic galaxy formation models of

1108: \citet{bowermodel}. Our findings are:

1109: 

1110: \begin{itemize}

1111:  

1112: \item There is a significant difference, as indicated by a KS test,

1113:   in the fractional bulge luminosity (B/T) distribution of group and field galaxies, in both the high and

1114:   low redshift samples. The dominant difference is the deficit of

1115:   disk--dominated (B/T $<$ 0.2) galaxies in the group samples. 

1116: 

1117: \item The difference in the disk fraction (B/T$<$0.2) of group

1118:   galaxies relative to the field

1119:   shows significant evolution between z=0.4 and z=0.1. At a given luminosity in the CNOC2 sample, the groups have $\sim$ 5.5

1120:   $\pm$ 2 $\%$ fewer B/T$<$0.2 galaxies than the field. By z=0.1 this

1121:   difference has increased significantly, so that groups have

1122:   $\sim$ 19 $\pm$ 6 $\%$ fewer B/T$<$0.2 galaxies than the field in

1123:   the same magnitude range. Although the z=0.1 sample traces rest

1124:   frame B while the z=0.4 sample traces rest frame V, this difference is

1125:   unlikely to be able to explain the differences. 

1126: 

1127: \item At neither redshift do we see any evidence that the bulk

1128:   properties of the existing disks are significantly different for

1129:   group galaxies than for field galaxies. They lie on similar scaling

1130:   relations and show similar asymmetry distributions. There is no evidence

1131:   that groups are actively perturbing or otherwise affecting a large

1132:   fraction of the group disk population. 

1133: 

1134: \item We find that

1135:   there is a small enhancement in the fraction of bulge-dominated

1136:   group galaxies that are highly asymmetric, relative to

1137:   bulge-dominated galaxies in the field. This may be consistent with

1138:   enhanced merging in the group environment. Visual inspection of

1139:   high asymmetry, bulge-dominated CNOC2 galaxies shows that 44$\%$

1140:   (4/9) exhibit clear evidence of interactions or merging.  

1141: 

1142: \item A sample of galaxies drawn from the semi-analytic galaxy

1143:   catalogues of \citet{bowermodel} was shown to agree remarkably well

1144:   with the B/T distribution of the field and group galaxies at

1145:   z=0.1. However, our data have shown that time evolution of the B/T

1146:   distributions predicted by the models is not seen in our data. In

1147:   particular, the Bower et al. model underpredicts the fraction of

1148:   disk dominated galaxies at z $\sim$ 0.4.

1149: 

1150: 

1151: 

1152: \end{itemize}

1153: 

1154: The morphological difference

1155: between group and field galaxies at z=0.4 is mostly due to the tendency for

1156: group galaxies to be more luminous and, therefore, more bulge-dominated than field galaxies. This is

1157: consistent with our previous findings about group galaxies; namely, that

1158: their M/L ratios are consistent with the passive evolution of a

1159: predominately old population \citep{Balogh_smass}, because the

1160: dominant difference in group galaxies is their pre-existing tendency to

1161: be bulge-dominated. This is also consistent with the fairly small difference 

1162: in the emission-line fraction of group and field galaxies, at fixed stellar mass 

1163: \citep{Balogh_smass} or magnitude \citep{Wilman2}.  

1164: 

1165: The failure of the \citet{bowermodel} to reproduce the time evolution

1166: of the group disk deficit is interesting. 

1167: These type of models predict a fairly rapid "strangulation" of galaxies once they enter

1168: larger halos, which causes the star formation rate to decrease on

1169: timescales of a few Gyr.  This starts to play a large role at $\sim$10$^{12}$

1170: solar masses, significantly less massive than most of our groups.  

1171: \citet{weinmann1} have shown that this mechanism is too effective, and

1172: produces a homogeneous, red satellite population at all magnitudes, in

1173: groups and clusters, which is not observed at z=0. \citet{Gilbank}

1174: have recently shown that this problem extends out to at least z=1. It

1175: is likely that the incorrect disk deficit evolution is another

1176: manifestation of the maximally efficient star formation quenching

1177: mechanism used by the models.

1178: 

1179: 

1180: We have found that, in contrast to

1181: X-ray selected groups, our optically-selected group galaxies have median

1182: asymmetries that are similar to field

1183: galaxies.  

1184: This may point to a possible role for galaxy

1185: interactions with the hot IGM. Alternatively, the progenitors of X-ray selected group

1186: galaxies may be 

1187: fundamentally different from the progenitors of optically selected

1188: group galaxies. X-ray selected groups are more likely to be relaxed, virialized

1189: structures, suggesting that they were assembled earlier than optically

1190: selected groups.  In the current models, the strangulation mechanism

1191: is assumed to operate efficiently in small haloes.  Thus, little

1192: difference is expected in the population of different types of groups

1193: many Gyr later (i.e. at the epochs of interest here), since star

1194: formation has long ceased in most group members.  However, recently it has been suggested that infalling

1195: galaxies may be able to retain a significant fraction of their gas

1196: \citep{mccarthy-ram, kawata},

1197: significantly increasing the timescale for star formation to decrease.  In this case, the

1198: headstart given to galaxies that fall into groups a little earlier may be better

1199: able to

1200: explain the difference between X-ray and optically selected groups. 

1201: 

1202: 

1203: 

1204: \section*{Acknowledgments}

1205: We thank the CNOC2 team for access to their unpublished data and Luc

1206: Simard for making \textsc{gim2d} publicly available. We also thank

1207: the GALFORM team for allowing access to the semi-analytic galaxy

1208: catalogues. Finally, we thank the MGC team for their data. 

1209: The Millennium Galaxy Catalogue consists of imaging data from the

1210: Isaac Newton Telescope and spectroscopic data from the Anglo

1211: Australian Telescope, the ANU 2.3m, the ESO New Technology Telescope,

1212: the Telescopio Nazionale Galileo and the Gemini North Telescope. The

1213: survey has been supported through grants from the Particle Physics and

1214: Astronomy Research Council (UK) and the Australian Research Council

1215: (AUS). The data and data products are publicly available from

1216: http://www.eso.org/$\sim$jliske/mgc/ or on request from J. Liske or

1217: S.P. Driver.  MLB acknowledges support from an NSERC Discovery Grant.

1218: 

1219: 

1220: \bibliography{ms}

1221: 

1222: \appendix

1223: \section{Low Redshift Group Finding Algorithm}\label{lowfinder}

1224: 

1225: The primary goal of our low redshift group

1226: finding algorithm is to reproduce the selection criteria applied to our high

1227: redshift groups. Thus, our algorithm is not the most

1228: efficient method possible, but it does accurately reproduce our selection and the possible

1229: biases within. Further, this method will not result in a complete

1230: sample of groups in the MGC strip.

1231: 

1232: We first find groups in the SDSS main galaxy sample using the original

1233: method of \citet{CNOC2-groups}. The MGC strip is a narrow region, $\sim$ 35

1234: arcmins across, which makes group finding within the strip itself

1235: difficult. For this reason, we first find groups in the SDSS, in a

1236: region 2 degrees across and centered on the MGC.  We define our

1237: SDSS galaxy sample to be directly

1238: analogous to the CNOC2 sample.  There are two areas of particular

1239: relevance to this work where these

1240: differ: completeness and depth.  Because the SDSS has a much higher

1241: completeness ($\sim$ 90$\%$) than the CNOC2 redshift survey ($\sim$ 48

1242: $\%$), we randomly remove half  the SDSS galaxies.  Further,

1243: we use the same absolute magnitude cut as Carlberg et al., $M_R=-18.5$, with an additional

1244: evolution correction of 1 magnitude per unit redshift. 

1245: 

1246: Carlberg et al.'s primary goal was to find virialized groups in

1247: overdense environments, so they estimate the overdensity of each

1248: galaxy and restrict their group finding algorithm to galaxies in dense

1249: environments. A cylinder of 0.33\ho\ Mpc radius and $\pm$6.67\ho\ Mpc line-of-sight depth is centered

1250: around each galaxy and the number of galaxies within the cylinder is

1251: counted. If there are fewer than 3 neighbors in this cylinder, the

1252: process is repeated with a cylinder 1.5 times larger. A background estimate is then obtained by randomly drawing

1253: points from a redshift distribution fit to the entire sample. Figure

1254: \ref{ng-sdss} shows the redshift distribution of galaxies in our sample and our analytic

1255: fit. If the number of neighbours in the cylinder is greater than the

1256: background estimate then the main galaxy is kept as a possible group

1257: member. 

1258: 

1259: \begin{figure}

1260: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{Ng_MGC.ps}

1261: \caption{The redshift distribution of the full sample of SDSS galaxies

1262:   which were used to find groups at low redshift. The red line is

1263:   the Maxwellian fit to the data which was used to estimate the background.}

1264: \label{ng-sdss}

1265: \end{figure}

1266: 

1267: 

1268: Starting with the galaxy with the greatest overdensity, we begin a

1269: trial group by adding any galaxies within the original cylinder, and

1270: any of their friends. When we run out of friends we have a trial

1271: group, for which the geometric position, redshift and velocity dispersion are

1272: computed. Galaxies are trimmed or added within $1.5R_{200}$ and three velocity

1273: dispersions, where $R_{200}$ is the radius at which the density is 200

1274: times the critical density. This process is iterated four times with the

1275: requirement that the last two

1276: iterations are identical. A group is moved to the next stage if it has

1277: more than two members. This concludes the Carlberg et al. algorithm. 

1278: 

1279: The next stage is to emulate the process in \citet{Wilman1}, to

1280: account for the targeted spectroscopic follow-up, which resulted in a

1281: more nearly complete redshift sampling around selected groups. We do this by including

1282: the complete SDSS catalogue. We use the Carlberg initial centres but

1283: set the velocity dispersion equal to 500 km/s, as was done by Wilman

1284: et al. This was done to remove any bias in the starting velocity

1285: dispersions, which were only based on very few galaxies. We again iterate on

1286: these positions using the entire SDSS catalogue and recompute the

1287: luminosity weighted centres. We compute the velocity dispersion at

1288: each step using the Gapper estimator and remove galaxies outside

1289: two velocity dispersions and 500\ho kpc. Finally, we keep only those groups

1290: which lie completely within the MGC strip. Using this method we have

1291: 19 groups with velocity dispersions between 100 km/s and 700

1292: km/s, and which lie within 0.04 $<$ z $<$ 0.12. 

1293:  

1294: There exist a large number of group and cluster catalogues based

1295: on the SDSS and 2DF surveys with which we can compare. This is especially important to calibrate

1296: the systematic effects which may be present in our high redshift

1297: sample, which doesn't have sufficient completeness to quantify within the survey itself. One of the more

1298: popular group finding algorithms, and the most direct analogue to our

1299: method, is that of \citet{Berlind}.  They use a traditional

1300: friends-of-friends algorithm in position-redshift space to find groups

1301: in three different 

1302: volume limited samples. We find that 12 out of 13 of our groups below

1303: z=0.1, the depth of the deepest Berlind sample, are also found in the

1304: Berlind catalogue, ie. the Berlind group centres are contained within

1305: our groups. Eighty-five of the 99 group members which make up the low

1306: redshift group sample in this paper

1307: would also be group members if we were to use the Berlind catalogue as

1308: our group catalogue. 

1309: 

1310: \section{Dependence of galaxy properties on PSF size} \label{mgc_red_depend}

1311: 

1312: As discussed in \textsection \ref{comparesur}, the CNOC2 and MGC

1313: surveys compare well in absolute surface brightness limits, physical

1314: size of the PSF and the rest waveband used in the morphological

1315: decomposition.  In fact, the biggest variation in these parameters is

1316: actually within the MGC sample itself. The PSF size is $\sim$ 3 kpc in size

1317: at z = 0.14 and just $\sim$ 1 kpc at z=0.05.

1318: 

1319: In this section, we investigate the redshift dependence of the key

1320: morphological indicators in three bins of redshift within the MGC

1321: sample. Some care must be taken because, as we have seen, the disk

1322: fraction changes rapidly with luminosity; therefore, without first matching on

1323: luminosity we would have a higher disk fraction in the lowest redshift

1324: bins. We have broken the sample into  low (0 $<$ z $<=$ 0.05), medium

1325: (0.05 $<$ z $<=$ 0.1) and high (0.1 $<$ z $<$ 0.15) redshift bins. Each

1326: galaxy in the 0.05 $<$ z $<=$ 0.1 bin was randomly matched to a galaxy in

1327: each of the other two redshift ranges with an absolute B

1328: magnitude within 0.03 magnitudes. The sample has 2169 galaxies in the $0.05<z<0.1$

1329: range. They were matched to a unique sample of 266 galaxies in the $0<z<0.05$ range and 1354 galaxies in the $0.1<z<0.15$

1330: range. Each galaxy was weighted by the number of times it was matched. 

1331: 

1332: Figure \ref{bt_redbin} shows the B/T distribution of the three different

1333: redshift samples. These distributions are very similar in all redshift

1334: bins and our conclusions are unchanged if the field sample is taken as

1335: any of these bins. 

1336: 

1337: \begin{figure}

1338: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{mgc_redbins_bt.ps}

1339: \caption{The B/T distribution of luminosity-matched samples of MGC

1340:   galaxies in bins of redshift. The sample is divided into  low (0 $<$

1341:   z $<$ 0.05; thin, dashed, black line), medium (0.05 $<$ z $<$ 0.1;

1342:   thick red line) and

1343:   high (0.1 $<$ z $<$ 0.15; thin, solid, blue line) redshift bins}

1344: \label{bt_redbin}

1345: \end{figure}

1346: 

1347: In \textsection \ref{asym}, we claim that the observed

1348:  difference in the mean asymmetries between the CNOC2 sample and the

1349:  MGC sample is due to the better physical resolution of the CNOC2 images. 

1350: To test this we reduce the resolution of the original image and the

1351:  residual image of a representative sample of 60 galaxies from our

1352:  CNOC2 sample by convolving with a Gaussian with different widths. Figure

1353: \ref{asym_blur} shows the asymmetry distribution of the original

1354:  sample (thin, solid black line), and the asymmetries after broadening

1355:  with a 1 kpc (black, dashed line) and 2 kpc PSF (thick, solid black

1356:  line). Clearly the asymmetry is reduced with poorer physical

1357:  resolution, which explains the higher asymmetries of the CNOC2

1358:  sample. For this reason, we do not compare the asymmetries between the

1359:  two surveys and always use samples matched in redshift within a given

1360:  survey.

1361: 

1362: \begin{figure}

1363: \leavevmode \epsfysize=8cm \epsfbox{asym_blur.ps}

1364: \caption{The distribution of asymmetries (R$_T$+R$_A$) measured within 2

1365:   halflight radii for different physical resolutions for a sample of

1366:   60 representative CNOC2 galaxies. The images were

1367:   blurred with a Gaussian with a PSF of 1 (black, dashed line) and 2

1368:   kpc (thick, solid black line). The original, unblurred asymmetry is

1369:   shown as the thin black line.}

1370: \label{asym_blur}

1371: \end{figure}

1372: 

1373: 

1374: \section{Images of a Sample of Group and Field galaxies at z=0.4} \label{thumbs}

1375: In this section, we show a representative sample of the group and

1376: field galaxies from our CNOC2 z=0.4 sample. As discussed in

1377: \textsection \ref{comparesur}, the thumbnail images are from {\it HST} ACS 

1378: observations. Each image is shown together with the \textsc{gim2d}

1379: model and the residual of the {\it HST} image after the model was

1380: removed. We show the group galaxies in Figure \ref{group_thumb}, and

1381: the field galaxies in

1382: Figure \ref{field_thumb}. In Figure \ref{hiasym_thumb}, we show images

1383: of the nine group galaxies in the CNOC2 sample which are bulge

1384: dominated (B/T$>$0.5) and have high asymmetries  ($R_T~+~R_A

1385: >$0.16). The first four of these galaxies show interaction features. 

1386: 

1387: 

1388: 

1389: 

1390: \begin{figure*}

1391: \leavevmode  \epsfbox{group_thumbs.ps}

1392: \caption{A representative sample of group galaxy images from the z=0.4

1393:   sample. For each of 24 galaxies is the {\it HST} ACS image (left panel),

1394:   the \textsc{gim2d} output model galaxy (middle panel), and the

1395:   residual of the {\it HST} ACS image after the model is subtracted (right

1396:   panel). Each galaxy is listed with the Bulge to total ratio (B/T) and Asymmetry

1397:   (Asym) computed by \textsc{gim2d}. }

1398: \label{group_thumb}

1399: \end{figure*}

1400: 

1401: \begin{figure*}

1402: \leavevmode  \epsfbox{field_thumbs.ps}

1403: \caption{As in Figure \ref{group_thumb}, but for a representative

1404:   sample of 24 field galaxies in the z=0.4 sample.}

1405: \label{field_thumb}

1406: \end{figure*}

1407: 

1408: \begin{figure*}

1409: \leavevmode  \epsfbox{hiasym_thumbs.ps}

1410: \caption{The nine group galaxies in the z=0.4 sample which are bulge

1411:   dominated (B/T$>$0.5) and highly asymmetric ($R_T~+~R_A >$

1412:   0.16). The galaxies are shown with two stretches to show the

1413:   interaction features. Prominent interaction features are seen in the

1414:   first four of these galaxies.}

1415: \label{hiasym_thumb}

1416: \end{figure*}

1417: \end{document}

1418: