1: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
2: \documentclass{emulateapj}
3: \slugcomment{{\sc Accepted to ApJ:} April 18, 2008}
4: %\usepackage{natbib}
5: %\usepackage{xspace}
6: \def\arcsec{$^{\prime\prime}$}
7: \bibliographystyle{apj}
8: \newcommand\degree{{^\circ}}
9: \newcommand\surfb{$\mathrm{mag}/\square$\arcsec}
10: \newcommand\Gyr{\rm{~Gyr}}
11: \newcommand\msun{\rm{M}_\odot}
12: \newcommand\kms{km s$^{-1}$}
13: \newcommand\al{$\alpha$}
14: \newcommand\ha{$\rm{H}\alpha$}
15: \newcommand\hb{$\rm{H}\beta$}
16:
17: \shorttitle{The Kinematics of Thick Disks}
18: \shortauthors{Yoachim \& Dalcanton}
19:
20: \begin{document}
21:
22: \title{The Kinematics of Thick Disks in Nine External Galaxies}
23:
24:
25: \author{Peter Yoachim\altaffilmark{1,2}
26: \& Julianne J. Dalcanton\altaffilmark{2,3}}
27: \altaffiltext{1}{Department of Astronomy and McDonald Observatory, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712; {yoachim@astro.as.utexas.edu}}
28: \altaffiltext{2}{Department of Astronomy, University of Washington, Box 351580,
29: Seattle WA, 98195}
30: \altaffiltext{3}{Tom and Margo Wyckoff Fellow}
31:
32:
33:
34:
35:
36: \begin{abstract}
37: We present kinematic measurements of thin and thick disk components in
38: a sample of nine edge-on galaxies. We extract stellar and ionized gas
39: rotation curves at and above the galaxies' midplanes using the Ca {\sc
40: ii} triplet absorption features and H$\alpha$ emission lines measured
41: with the GMOS spectrographs on Gemini North and South. For the higher
42: mass galaxies in the sample, we fail to detect differences between the
43: thin and thick disk kinematics. In the lower mass galaxies, there is
44: a wide range of thick disk behavior including thick disks with
45: substantial lag and one counter-rotating thick disk. We compare our
46: rotation curves with expectations from thick disk formation models and
47: conclude that the wide variety of thick disk kinematics favors a
48: formation scenario where thick disk stars are accreted or formed
49: during merger events as opposed to models that form thick disks
50: through gradual thin disk heating.
51:
52:
53: \end{abstract}
54: \keywords{galaxies: kinematics and dynamics --- galaxies: formation
55: --- galaxies: structure}
56:
57: \section{Introduction}
58:
59: The detailed distribution of stars in galaxies gives vital information
60: regarding their formation and subsequent evolution. Of particular
61: interest are the oldest stellar populations, which in the Milky Way
62: are the thick disk and halo. These old components provide the best
63: record of early galaxy assembly. Originally detected in edge-on S0
64: galaxies \citep{Burstein79, Tsikoudi79}, thick stellar disks have now
65: been found in a wide variety of galaxies--S0's \citep{deGrijs96,
66: deGrijs97b, Pohlen04}, Sb's \citep{Kruit84, Shaw89, vanDokkum94,
67: Morrison97, Wu02}, and later type galaxies \citep{Dalcanton02,Abe99,
68: Neeser02, Yoachim06}. Observations with HST have allowed thick disks
69: in other galaxies to be studied as resolved population
70: \citep{Seth05b,Seth07, Tikhonov05, Tikhonovo5b, Mould05}, while
71: observations at high redshift show potential thick disks in the
72: process of forming \citep{Elmegreen06}.
73:
74: The most detailed studies of thick disks come from observations within
75: the Milky Way. Since its discovery \citep{Gilmore83}, the MW thick
76: disk has been found to be structurally, chemically, and kinematically
77: distinct from the thin disk. Structurally, star counts with large
78: surveys such as SDSS and 2MASS reveal the galaxy is best fit with two
79: disk components \citep[e.g.,][]{Ojha01,Juric08}. Chemically, thick
80: disk stars are more metal-poor and older than stars in the thin disk
81: \citep[e.g.,][]{Reid93, Chiba00}. They are also significantly
82: enhanced in $\alpha$-elements, compared to thin disk stars of
83: comparable iron abundance \citep{Prochaska00, Taut01, Bensby03,
84: Feltzing03, Mishenina04, Brewer04,Bensby05,Brewer06,Ram07}.
85: Kinematically, thick disk stars have both a larger velocity dispersion
86: and slower net rotation than stars in the thin disk \citep{Nissen95,
87: Chiba00, Gilmore02, Soubiran03, Parker04, Girard06}. All of these
88: facts lead to the conclusion that the thick disk is a relic of the
89: young Galaxy. As such, it provides an excellent probe of models of
90: disk galaxy formation (see reviews by \citet{Nissen03, Freeman02}).
91:
92:
93: Given these systematic differences between their properties, thick and
94: thin disks are likely to have distinct formation mechanisms. The
95: structure, dynamics, and chemical abundance of the thin disk strongly
96: suggest that the majority of its stars formed gradually from a thin
97: rotating disk of high angular momentum gas \citep{Fall80,
98: Chiappini97,Cescutti07}. In contrast, the formation of the thick disk
99: is still poorly constrained and is likely to be more complex.
100:
101: Thick disk formation models can be grouped into three broad
102: categories. In the first, a previously thin disk is kinematic heated.
103: In this scenario, stars form in a thin disk and increase their
104: velocity dispersion with time. This vertical heating can be rapid,
105: due to interactions and mergers \citep{Quinn93, Walker96, Velazquez99,
106: Chen01,Robin96} or gradual, due to scattering off giant molecular
107: clouds, spiral arms, and/or dark matter substructure
108: \citep{Villumsen85, Carlberg87, Hann02, Benson04, Hayashi06, Kaz07}.
109: In the second formation scenario, stars ``form thick'' with star
110: formation occurring above the midplane of the galaxy \citep{Brook04}
111: or form with large initial velocity dispersions in large stellar
112: clusters \citep{Kroupa02}. In the final class of models, thick disk
113: stars are directly accreted from satellite galaxies. Numerical
114: simulations have shown that stars in disrupted satellite galaxies can
115: be deposited onto thick disk like orbits \citep{Abadi203, Martin04,
116: Bekki01, Gilmore02, Navarro04,Statler88}, producing extended stellar
117: debris such as seen around M31 \citep{Ibata05,Kalirai06,Ferguson02}.
118: While these models were originally developed to explain the origin of
119: the MW thick disk, they should work equally well for thick disks in
120: other galaxies.
121:
122:
123: Measuring the kinematics of thick disk stars is one of the best
124: discriminators between the formation models. If the thick disk forms
125: from a heated thin disk, we expect the kinematics of the two
126: components to be closely related. On the other hand, if the thick
127: disk stars form outside the galaxy and are later accreted, we could
128: find systems where the thick disk kinematics are completely decoupled
129: from the thin disk.
130:
131:
132: In this paper, we present observations of stellar and gas kinematics
133: in nine edge-on systems as part of our continuing analysis of thick
134: disks in a large sample of edge-on galaxies \citep{Dalcanton00}.
135: Compared to \citet{Yoachim05}, which presented the first two galaxies
136: in this study, we have improved the analysis techniques and
137: significantly expanded our sample size.
138:
139: \section{Observations}
140:
141: \subsection{Target Selection}
142: We have carried out long-slit spectroscopic observations using the
143: Gemini North and South telescopes of nine galaxies drawn from the
144: \citet{Dalcanton00} sample of edge-on late-type galaxies. The
145: original sample of 49 galaxies was selected from the Flat Galaxy
146: Catalog \citep{Karachentsev93} and imaged in $B$, $R$, and $K_s$
147: \citep{Dalcanton00}. This sample was selected to contain undisturbed
148: pure disk systems spanning a large range of mass. \citet{Dalcanton02}
149: used this imaging to demonstrate the ubiquity of thick disks around
150: late-type galaxies, while \citet{Yoachim06} used two-dimensional
151: photometric decompositions to measure the structural parameters for
152: the thick and thin disks. All the galaxies in the sample presented
153: here have prominent thin star forming disks.
154:
155:
156: Our spectroscopic program targeted galaxies spanning a wide range of
157: masses ($50<V_c <150$ \kms). The sample targets were limited to those
158: that had thick disks that we believed we could isolate
159: adequately--i.e., those that had significantly larger scale heights
160: from the thin disk and that were bright enough that we could acquire
161: spectra in reasonable observing times. This constraint caused several
162: of the higher mass galaxies to be rejected from the kinematic sample,
163: as the regions where the thick disk could be expected to dominate were
164: simply too faint. This bias is consistent with the conclusion of
165: \citet{Yoachim06} that the thick disk is more prevalent in lower mass
166: galaxies. Our selection criterion limited the sample to $\sim$20
167: galaxies of the original 49. We also selected galaxies to be at
168: redshifts such that the Ca features did not land on night sky emission
169: lines. In our initial observations, we submitted more galaxies than
170: we could observe and let the Gemini observing specialists select which
171: galaxies would best fit with the queue scheduling. For the final
172: observing runs we explicitly selected galaxies to ensure that a
173: reasonable mass range was observed in the final sample. The
174: properties of the final sample are listed in Table~\ref{gal_list}.
175:
176: \subsection{Observing Strategy}
177:
178: Based on the thin and thick disk decompositions in \citet{Yoachim06},
179: we targeted regions of the galaxies where the flux is dominated by
180: either the thin or thick disk stars. The two highest mass galaxies in
181: our sample have notable dustlanes \citep{Dalcanton04}, and for these
182: we offset the spectra slit to observe regions of the galaxy which
183: should be optically transparent. We discuss possible residual dust
184: effects in detail in \S~\ref{Sdust}. When selecting slit placement
185: for the offplane, the direction of offset was based primarily on
186: avoiding foreground objects and the ability to use a single guide star
187: for all dither positions.
188:
189: For our instrumental setup, we used GMOS on Gemini North in longslit
190: mode with a 0.5\arcsec\ slit and the R400\_G5305 grating set to a
191: central wavelength of $\sim8440$ \AA\ along with the OG515\_G0306
192: filter. Similarly for observations from Gemini South, we used a
193: 0.5\arcsec\ slit the R400+\_G5325 grating and OG515\_G0330 filter.
194: For both GMOS setups, we binned the CCDs by 2 in the spatial direction
195: during readout giving a pixel scale of 0.145\arcsec/pix in the spatial
196: direction and 0.69 \AA/pixel in the spectral direction. The resulting
197: spectra cover the wavelength range of $\sim 6330-10570$ \AA, although
198: there is heavy residual fringing redward of 9300 \AA. Exposure times
199: for individual frames were 900, 1200, or 1800 seconds. The midplanes
200: were observed 3-5 times while offplane positions were observed 18-51
201: times depending on the galaxy. Exposures were spatially dithered
202: $\sim$30\arcsec\ along the slit. These configurations allow us to
203: simultaneously observe the H$\alpha$ emission and Ca {\sc ii} triplet
204: absorption features out to large radii.
205:
206: All of the observations were executed in queue mode over five
207: semesters. The observation details for each galaxy are listed in
208: Table~\ref{obstable}, with details of the slit positions listed in
209: Table~\ref{slittable}.
210:
211:
212:
213: %\clearpage
214: \begin{deluxetable*}{ c c c c c c c}
215: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
216: \tablecaption{Properties of Targeted Galaxies \label{gal_list} }
217: \tablewidth{0pt}
218: \tablehead{
219: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Dist$^1$} & \colhead{V$_c$} & \colhead{$h_R$} &
220: \colhead{$z_{0,thin}$} & \colhead{$z_{0,thick}$} & \colhead{$L_{thick}/L_{thin}$}
221: \\
222: \colhead{FGC} & \colhead{Mpc} &\colhead{\kms} & \colhead{\arcsec}&
223: \colhead{\arcsec}& \colhead{\arcsec}
224: }
225: \startdata
226: 227 & 89.4 & 106.0 & 10.2 & 1.8 & 3.9 & 0.47 \\
227: 780 & 34.4 & 75.0 & 15.1 & 3.1 & 8.4 & 0.93 \\
228: 1415 & 38.3 & 86.5 & 18.3 & 2.8 & 6.6 & 0.95 \\
229: 1440 & 70.9 & 150.5 & 15.9 & 2.3 & 5.0 & 0.38 \\
230: 1642 & 36.6 & 55.0 & 12.5 & 3.1 & 10.0 & 0.19 \\
231: 1948 & 36.9 & 54.5 & 12.3 & 1.6 & 3.6 & 3.56 \\
232: 2558 & 73.8 & 89.0 & 9.2 & 2.6 & 3.6 & 0.47 \\
233: E1371 & 82.6 & 131.0 & 7.7 & 1.6 & 3.4 & 0.27 \\
234: E1498 & 135.5 & 133.0 & 7.6 & 1.2 & 3.8 & 0.19 \\
235: \enddata \\
236: %\begin{flushleft}
237: {$^1$\citet{Kara00} }
238: %\end{flushleft}
239:
240: \end{deluxetable*}
241:
242:
243: %--------------------------------------
244: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllcc}
245: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
246: \tablecaption{Observing Details \label{obstable} }
247: \tablewidth{0pt}
248: \tablehead{
249: \colhead{Galaxy} & \colhead{Gemini ID} & \colhead{Observation Dates} &
250: \colhead{Midplane Exposure} & \colhead{Offplane Exposure} \\
251: \colhead{FGC} & & & \colhead{\# x time (s)}& \colhead{\# x time (s)}}
252: \startdata
253: %
254: 1415 & GN-2003A-Q-6 & 3-28-2003 to 06-06-2003 & 3x900 & 41x1200 \\%& 0 & 5.4, 1.0 \\
255: 227 &GN-2003B-Q-51 & 9-21-2003 to 11-22-2003 & 3x1200 & 27x1200 \\%& 0 & 3.0, 1.3\\
256: 1642 &GN-2004A-Q-54 & 02-16-2004 to 06-24-2004 & 3x1200 & 51x1200 \\%& 0 & 4.2, 0.75 \\
257: 780 &GN-2004A-Q-54 & 02-20-2004 to 04-27-2004 & 5x1200 &31x1200 \\%& 0 & 6.5, 1.1\\
258: 2558 &GN-2004B-Q-29& 07-15-2004 to 11-20-2004 & 3x1200 & 36x1200 \\%& 0 & 3.9,1.4\\
259: E1498&GS-2004B-Q-44& 03-11-2005 to 06-10-2005 & 3x1200 & 50x1200 \\%& 0 &2.0, 1.3\\
260: 1948 &GN-2005A-Q-21& 08-12-2004 to 08-24-2004 & 5x1800 & 18x1800 \\%& 0 & 3.1, 0.55\\
261: E1371&GS-2005A-Q-17& 04-05-2005 to 04-14-2005 & 3x1200 & 21x1800 \\%& 0.5 &0.2& 2.8,1.1\\
262: 1440&GS-2005A-Q-17& 02-11-2005 to 04-05-2005 & 3x1200 & 30x1800 \\%& 0.5 & 0.2& 4.5,1.5\\
263: %
264: \enddata \\
265: %\begin{flushleft}
266: %{\scriptsize any other little note here}
267: %\end{flushleft}
268: \end{deluxetable*}
269:
270: %--------------------------------------
271: \begin{deluxetable*}{lllllllll}
272: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
273: \tablecaption{Slit Placement \label{slittable} }
274: %\tablewidth{0pt}
275: \tablehead{
276: \colhead{Galaxy} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Midplane Offset$^1$}
277: &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Offplane Offset} \\
278: \colhead{FGC} & \colhead{ arcsec}&\colhead{ kpc} & \colhead{ arcsec}
279: & \colhead{ kpc}
280: & \colhead{$z/z_{0,thin}$} & \colhead{$z/z_{0,thick}$} }
281: \startdata
282: %
283: 227 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 3.0 & 1.3 & 1.7 & 0.8 \\
284: 780 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 6.5 & 1.1 & 2.1 & 0.8 \\
285: 1415 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 5.4 & 1.0 & 1.9 & 0.8 \\
286: 1440 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 4.5 & 1.5 & 2.0 & 0.9 \\
287: 1642 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 4.2 & 0.7 & 1.4 & 0.4 \\
288: 1948 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 3.1 & 0.6 & 1.9 & 0.9 \\
289: 2558 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 3.9 & 1.4 & 1.5 & 1.1 \\
290: E1371 & 0.5 & 0.2 & 2.8 & 1.1 & 1.8 & 0.8 \\
291: E1498 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 2.0 & 1.3 & 1.7 & 0.5 \\
292: \enddata \\
293: %\begin{flushleft}
294: {$^{1}$Midplane offset to avoid obvious dust lanes.}
295: %\end{flushleft}
296: \end{deluxetable*}
297: %\clearpage
298:
299:
300: \subsection{Data Reduction}
301:
302: A combination of Gemini IRAF packages, standard IRAF packages, and
303: custom IDL code were used to reduce our data. These procedures have
304: been improved since initial results for FGC 227 and FGC 1415 were
305: published in \citet{Yoachim05} and have been applied to the entire
306: data set. We bias corrected the images using a fit determined from
307: the overscan region followed by subtracting residual structure
308: measured from a bias frame. Because both GMOS North and South are
309: extremely stable, we were able to create average bias images by
310: combining $\sim$60 bias frames per observing semester. We
311: interpolated the three GMOS chips into a single image using the Gemini
312: IRAF tasks, after which the standard IRAF reduction tools were used.
313: For Gemini-South observations, we also needed to subtract a dark
314: current correction of $\sim$6-12 counts from the science frames.
315: Gemini-North images showed no detectable dark current. Images were
316: flat-fielded using GCAL lamp flats that were taken every hour
317: interspersed with the science observations, minimizing the amount of
318: fringing present in the final frames. We applied a slit illumination
319: correction using twilight sky observations.
320:
321: For wavelength calibration, we used the night-sky atlases of
322: \citet{Oster96} and \citet{Oster97} to create a sky line list
323: containing only lines (or stable unresolved doublets) that could be
324: centroided with our instrumental set-up. For each science exposure,
325: we identified 100-110 sky lines to use for rectification. We then used
326: these lines for a 5th order Legendre polynomial fit for wavelength
327: calibration, and rebinned our spectra to a common dispersion. Typical
328: dispersions were 0.69 \AA\ pixel$^{-1}$ with calibration arc lamps showing a
329: FWHM of 3.8 \AA. The wavelength solutions were stable over each
330: observing night.
331:
332: Sky subtraction proved difficult because of the large number of strong
333: sky emission lines. If we use standard sky subtraction techniques, we
334: find that there are large systematic residuals left on our frames due
335: to variation in the width of the slit along its length.
336: The RMS deviation in the centroid position of a single sky line is
337: $\sim$0.07 \AA\ while the RMS of its Gaussian FWHM is 0.11 \AA. This
338: is a surprisingly high variation for the width of the slit. We have
339: tried the sky-subtraction techniques described in \citet{Kelson00} and
340: find that the systematic residuals remain, although the
341: \citet{Kelson00} sky-subtraction technique does eliminate problems
342: associated with wavelength rectification and interpolation. Having
343: eliminated our data-reduction procedure as the cause, we conclude the
344: high dispersion in sky line FWHM is indicative of a systematically
345: varying slit width. In many cases, such residuals can be removed
346: using the nod-and-shuffle technique \citep{Glazebrook01}.
347: Unfortunately, our galaxies are too large ($\sim$1 arc minute, or 1/3
348: of the total slit width) to make effective use of traditional
349: nod-and-shuffle.
350:
351: To remove the systematic residuals present in the bright sky lines, we
352: employ a nod-and-shuffle like template subtraction. Because we placed
353: different galaxies on different spatial sections of the chips, all of
354: the slit was illuminated by sky for at least some observations. We
355: therefore could construct high S/N sky frames by masking objects in
356: our 2-d spectra and combining the wavelength rectified frames. By
357: doing this, we create a deep sky frame for each observing quarter. We
358: then remove the sky background by selecting a sky-dominated region in
359: a science frame and scaling the sky image column-by-column to match
360: the science frame sky region, then subtract the rescaled sky frame
361: from the science image. In most cases, we were forced to apply sky
362: frames generated from different observing semesters to the science
363: frames. Luckily, our instrument setup quarter-to-quarter was
364: identical, and the GMOS instruments are stable enough that this
365: technique works well at removing systematics caused by the variable
366: slit width. This sky subtraction technique appears to give results
367: comparable to nod-and-shuffle technique for individual frames. Our
368: sky subtraction procedure incurs a small signal-to-noise penalty, but
369: is effective at removing the systematic residuals from moderate
370: sky lines (Figure~\ref{sky_sub}).
371:
372: This excessive agonizing over sky subtraction is demanded by the very
373: low surface brightness levels of our targets. For an individual
374: midplane image, the brightest part of the galaxy is $\sim20\%$
375: brighter than the sky level, and for individual offplane images the
376: signal is only $\sim11\%$ the sky background. Examples of the spectra
377: extracted over the central 14\arcsec\ spatial extent of the galaxy
378: before and after sky subtraction are shown in Figure~\ref{sky_level}.
379:
380: When we combine several hours of observations we are more sensitive to
381: low surface brightness features, and find some wavelengths are still
382: dominated by systematic noise. Even with our sky template correction,
383: some sky lines are so bright that some systematic residuals remain.
384: When we use conventional sky-subtraction techniques, residual errors
385: have maximum deviations of $\pm$55\% while the template subtraction
386: gives deviations of $\pm$38\%. While deviations of 38\% swamp out the
387: signal from any stellar absorption lines near bright sky lines, the
388: residual deviations for smaller sky lines are decreased to a level
389: where the stellar absorption lines can be accurately measured. In
390: Figure~\ref{sky_sub}, we compare the two sky subtraction routines.
391: The extracted spectra look similar, with both being dominated by the
392: sky line residuals redward of 8750 \AA. The template subtraction is
393: able to eliminate the residuals left from the sky line at 8555 \AA,
394: just to the right of the weakest Ca {\sc ii} triplet line, and reduces
395: the large residuals at the reddest wavelengths plotted.
396:
397:
398:
399: %\clearpage
400: \begin{figure*}
401: \epsscale{1}
402: \plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
403: \caption{Results from different sky subtraction techniques for the
404: midplane of FGC 1415. On the left, we show the results from standard
405: sky subtraction techniques and the right panels show our sky template
406: subtraction. Top panels show the raw galaxy spectrum before the sky
407: has been subtracted. Middle panels show a single subtracted frame and
408: the final combined image. The bottom panel shows the combined
409: spectrum summed along the spatial dimension. An arrow points out a
410: sky line residual present in the standard subtraction that is
411: eliminated in template subtraction. The brightest sky lines leave
412: large residuals in both cases, but the magnitude of residuals is
413: decreased significantly with the nod-and-shuffle-like technique (see
414: the lines near $\sim8770$ \AA, for example). \label{sky_sub} }
415: \end{figure*}
416:
417:
418: \begin{figure*}
419: \plotone{f2.eps}
420: \caption{Examples of spectra before and after sky subtraction. The
421: top panel shows the results of a single midplane exposure before and
422: after sky template subtraction (top and middle curves respectively).
423: The middle panel shows a single offplane exposure before and after
424: extraction. Dotted lines show the RMS noise level in the spectra.
425: The bottom panel shows the final midplane and offplane spectra after
426: all the frames have been averaged together. The largest systematic
427: residuals from the sky lines have been masked. The three vertical
428: marks show the location of the Ca triplet absorption lines. All of
429: the spectra were extracted over the central 14\arcsec\ of the galaxy.
430: \label{sky_level} }
431: \end{figure*}
432: %\clearpage
433:
434:
435: After the sky had been removed, the images were Doppler-corrected for
436: motion relative to the Local Standard of Rest and combined. Before
437: cross-correlation was performed, the spectra were rebinned into
438: logarithmic wavelength bins.
439:
440:
441:
442: \section{Rotation Curves}
443:
444: \subsection{H$\alpha$ Rotation Curves}
445:
446: Both our midplane and offplane observations show strong H$\alpha$
447: emission. For each galaxy, we extracted a series of 1-D spectra by
448: summing 28 pixels ($\sim 4$\arcsec) along the spatial dimension. The
449: ionized gas rotation curve was fit with a Gaussian peak to the
450: H$\alpha$ line. In principle, an envelope-tracing method would
451: produce a more robust measure of the rotation curve. However, we find
452: that the width of the H$\alpha$ lines (FWHM$\sim$3.8 \AA) are identical
453: to the instrumental dispersion as measured from the arc lamps
454: (FWHM$\sim$3.8 \AA), and we would thus not gain much accuracy from a
455: more detailed rotation curve extraction.
456:
457: The [N{\sc ii}] and [S{\sc ii}] lines are present as well, but the
458: H$\alpha$ line is so strong that we found no additional advantage in
459: fitting all the emission lines simultaneously. We find typical
460: uncertainties in the central wavelength of the H$\alpha$ Gaussian peak
461: of 1-2 \kms ~for midplane observations and 4-7 \kms ~for offplane
462: observations.
463:
464: To double check the accuracy of our extracted rotation curve, we fit
465: rotation curves to night sky lines before the background is subtracted
466: off. Perfect calibration would result in sky line rotation curves
467: with zero rotation. The central wavelengths of the sky lines vary
468: with an RMS error of 2.4-3.5 \kms, with the higher value resulting
469: from larger spatial extraction windows. Most of this scatter can be
470: attributed to uncertainties in the wavelength rectification solution.
471: With fewer sky lines around H$\alpha$ compared to the redder regions
472: of our spectra, the rectification is not as well constrained.
473: Overall, these tests suggest that we are able to extract the ionized
474: gas rotation curve with an error of a few \kms.
475:
476: The resulting H$\alpha$ rotation curves are plotted as solid lines in
477: Figure~\ref{all_rc}. Our data show a tight agreement between the
478: midplane and offplane H$\alpha$ curves, which is a good sign that dust
479: is not obscuring the midplane rotation curves. If we were observing
480: along major dustlanes, we could expect to see the offplane
481: observations rotating faster than the midplane, especially at small
482: galactic radii (see \S~\ref{Sdust}).
483:
484: We leave a detailed analysis of the gas kinematics for a later paper.
485: At this time, we simply note that the midplane and offplane H$\alpha$
486: rotation curves are surprisingly well matched. This is slightly
487: unexpected, as several recent studies have found extended gaseous
488: halos of edge-on galaxies to be lagging in rotational speed when
489: compared to the midplane gas \citep{Heald06b,Heald07,Fraternali06}.
490: These offplane lags have been detected in both the diffuse ionized gas
491: (DIG) and HI. There is some difficulty in comparing our measurements
492: of longslit rotation curves to other detailed measurements of offplane
493: gas which typically utilize 2-d information from radio
494: \citep{Barbieri05,Fraternali06}, Integral Field Units
495: \citep{Heald06b,Heald07}, and Fabry-Perot spectra \citep{Heald06} all
496: of which detect gas at larger scale-heights than those probed with our
497: offplane measurements. The other major difference between these
498: previous studies and our offplane rotation curves is that we have
499: targeted lower mass galaxies. The studies cited above target galaxies
500: with $220 > V_{max} > 110$ \kms\ while the sample studied here extends
501: to galaxies with rotation speeds of less than 60 \kms.
502:
503: The gaseous lags observed in other systems are usually modeled with
504: either a galactic fountain that ejects gas to large scale-heights or
505: with a gas infall model where galaxies slowly accrete rotating gas.
506: The lack of significant lags in our H$\alpha$ rotation curves could
507: simply be a sign that these galaxies are not as active in forming
508: galactic fountains or accreting gas as the more massive galaxies.
509:
510:
511:
512:
513: \subsection{Ca {\sc ii} Rotation Curves}\label{Srcs}
514:
515: To derive absorption line rotation curves, we require higher
516: signal-to-noise than for the \ha\ rotation curve. We therefore sum
517: the 2D spectra in the spatial direction until the 1D spectra reaches
518: an adequate S/N ($\sim15$ per spectral pixel). The resulting bins have
519: variable widths across the face of the galaxy, but roughly comparable
520: S/N per bin. For the central regions of the galaxies the bin size is
521: around 10\arcsec\ while the outer regions and offplane components have
522: bin sizes $\sim20$\arcsec. These bins correspond to $\sim$3-6 kpc at
523: the typical distances of the galaxies. For reference, the typical
524: exponential disk radial scale lengths are $h_R\sim 12$\arcsec.
525:
526: Extracting kinematic information from this data required developing a
527: new procedure. In \citet{Yoachim05}, we tried both direct
528: $\chi^2$-fitting of a template spectrum as well as cross-correlation
529: of the galaxy with a stellar template to measure the stellar rotation
530: and line-of-sight velocity dispersion (LOSVD). We have since
531: concluded that these traditional methods are not optimal for our data.
532: Direct fitting of a template star results in the template being
533: over-broadened (i.e., the fitted LOSVD diverges to large values).
534: This can be understood as the template star fitting the continuum
535: region of the galaxy spectrum at the expense of a small portion of the
536: absorption line. Because the normalized continuum is very low S/N, it
537: is best fit by a straight line, which is equivalent to a stellar
538: spectrum which has been smoothed by a very broad filter. In
539: \citet{Yoachim05} we were forced to hold the velocity dispersion fixed
540: during the $\chi^2$ minimization to prevent this problem.
541: Cross-correlation is also problematic, as the bright sky lines leave
542: regions of very low S/N and systematic residuals caused by variations
543: in the slit-width (Figure~\ref{sky_sub}). Without a constant S/N
544: throughout the spectra, the cross-correlation peak can become skewed
545: by noisy regions.
546:
547: To extract both velocity and velocity dispersion information from our
548: spectra we developed a modified cross-correlation technique that
549: allows regions of very low signal-to-noise to be masked. This
550: modification prevents us from using the usual mathematical
551: techniques involving Fourier transforms and instead utilizes a
552: brute-force methodology. What it lacks in mathematical elegance, our
553: procedure makes up for in functionality by being the only procedure we
554: know of that works on spectra that are both low S/N and contaminated
555: with systematic residuals. We describe our modified
556: cross-correlation in detail in Appendix~\ref{ap1} and compare its
557: results to more traditional analysis methods in
558: Figure~\ref{cc_example}. It may also be possible to use a penalized
559: pixel-fitting technique to measure the kinematics from our spectra,
560: but simulations show that the fitted parameters can become biased when
561: the S/N is low (60), or the LOSVD is poorly sampled
562: \citep{Cappellari04}.
563:
564: For the stellar template, we used a KIII spectrum of star HD4388
565: downloaded from the Gemini archive along with accompanying calibration
566: frames of program GN-2002B-Q-61. The stellar spectrum was reduced and
567: extracted using the Gemini IRAF routines. Once extracted, the 1D
568: stellar spectrum was broadened with a Gaussian kernel to match the
569: instrumental resolution of our observations. We found no significant
570: changes when trying different template stars and find our
571: uncertainties are never dominated by template mismatch.
572:
573: %\clearpage
574: \begin{figure*}
575: \epsscale{.75}
576: \plotone{f3.eps}
577: \caption{An example of our extracted galaxy spectra. The solid line
578: shows the normalized galaxy spectrum. Red regions mark where the
579: spectra was masked due to sky line contamination. The noise spectrum
580: (multiplied by 5) is plotted as a dotted line. The blue dashed line
581: shows the best fit shifted and broadened stellar
582: spectrum.\label{ex_spec}}
583: \end{figure*}
584: %\clearpage
585:
586: Because we have modified the traditional cross-correlation technique,
587: we have no formal means of calculating uncertainties in our fitted
588: velocity and LOSVD. We therefore run a series of Monte Carlo
589: realizations to quantify the errors in our fitting procedure. For
590: each galaxy, we create 100 artificial 2D spectra. A template stellar
591: spectrum is shifted to match a realistic rotation curve, and broadened
592: to simulate both stellar velocity dispersion and instrumental
593: resolution. We vary the detailed shape of the rotation curve and
594: velocity dispersion for each realization by $\sim20$\%. The fake
595: spectra have radial exponential flux profiles similar to the real
596: galaxies. We add Poisson noise to the artificial spectra, as well as
597: systematic residuals by adding regions of sky from our science frames
598: that do not have any detectable objects. Thus, our artificial spectra
599: have both the same Gaussian sky background and similar systematic
600: residuals as the real data.
601:
602: Once the artificial spectra are made, we extract and analyze 1D
603: spectra identically to the real data (i.e., we use the same extraction
604: windows and the cross-correlation with masking procedure). In many
605: instances, we found that our measured LOSVD poorly matched the input.
606: The loss of reasonable LOSVD measurements is dominated by how many of
607: the Ca{\sc ii} lines are masked due to sky line contamination. We
608: therefore clip points where the Monte Carlo error analysis suggests we
609: cannot reliably recover the input parameters (i.e. the RMS error
610: between input and output is $>50$ \kms\ or the output has a systematic
611: error of $>20$ \kms). These clipped regions typically correspond to
612: regions of the rotation curve where the Ca triplet line passes through
613: a large sky residual.
614:
615: Our final extracted rotation curves, LOSVDs, and Monte Carlo derived
616: uncertainties are plotted in Figure~\ref{all_rc} along with $R$-band
617: images of the galaxies showing the Gemini longslit placements.
618:
619: %\clearpage
620: \begin{figure*}
621: \epsscale{.5}
622: %\plottwo{f4a.eps}{f4b.eps}
623: %\plottwo{f4c.eps}{f4d.eps}
624: %\plottwo{f4e.eps}{f4f.eps}
625: %\plottwo{f4g.eps}{f4h.eps}
626: %\plotone{f4i.eps}
627:
628: \plotone{f4a.eps}
629: \plotone{f4b.eps}
630: \plotone{f4c.eps}
631: \plotone{f4d.eps}
632: \plotone{f4e.eps}
633: \plotone{f4f.eps}
634:
635: \caption{Rotation curve measurements for each galaxy. Top panels:
636: $R$-band images of each galaxy. The color scale goes from dark blue
637: ($\mu_R=21$) to green($\mu_R=23$), to red/white ($\mu_R=25.5$). Solid
638: black lines have been drawn where the Gemini long-slit jaws were
639: placed. Middle Panels: Rotation curves for midplane (blue) and
640: offplane (red). Points with error bars are from Ca {\sc ii}
641: measurements. Vertical error bars are uncertainties derived from
642: Monte Carlo simulations, horizontal error bars show the spectral
643: extraction regions. Small lines show velocities measured from the
644: H$\alpha$ emission lines. Bottom Panels: Stellar velocity dispersions
645: measured from the Ca {\sc ii} feature. All error bars are from a
646: Monte Carlo simulation. Points with overwhelmingly large error-bars
647: or large systematic uncertainties have been omitted. \label{all_rc}}
648: \end{figure*}
649:
650:
651:
652: %\begin{figure*}
653: %\figurenum{4}
654: %\epsscale{.5}
655: %\plotone{f4d.eps}
656: %\plotone{f4e.eps}
657: %\plotone{f4f.eps}
658: %\caption{ \emph{continued}.}
659: %\end{figure*}
660:
661:
662:
663: \begin{figure*}
664: \figurenum{4}
665: \epsscale{.5}
666: \plotone{f4g.eps}
667: \plotone{f4h.eps}
668: \plotone{f4i.eps}
669: \caption{\emph{continued}.}
670: \end{figure*}
671: %\clearpage
672:
673:
674:
675:
676:
677: \section{Stellar Kinematics}\label{Sstell_kin}
678:
679: Although we attempted to place our slits in regions of the galaxies
680: where the thin and thick disk light makes up the majority of the flux,
681: it is nearly impossible to target regions where one stellar
682: component completely dominates the flux. In the lower-mass galaxies,
683: we found that the thick disk is a major stellar component and we
684: should expect spectra taken along the midplane to include a large
685: amount of thick disk light. In the higher mass galaxies, the thin
686: disk is the dominant component, and we are forced to observe off-plane
687: regions that still contain a large fraction of thin disk light. Using
688: the photometric fits of \citet{Yoachim06}, we can estimate the
689: fractional flux levels of the thin and thick disk at each slit
690: position. Because each slit position should include both thin and
691: thick disk stars, we make an attempt to model the true underlying
692: rotation curves for each population. For simplicity, we assume that
693: the thin and thick disk stars are each rotating cylindrically and
694: therefore have the same rotation curve for both the on and off-plane
695: observations. We discuss this choice in more detail in \S\ref{ex_lags}.
696:
697: The details of the vertical profiles of the stellar disks (exponential
698: vs sech$^2$) can dramatically influence what fraction of the midplane
699: light belongs to thin disk stars versus thin disk stars. As in
700: \citet{Yoachim05}, we adopt a series of photometric decomposition
701: models that should cover the full range of possible thin and thick
702: disk fractions. At one extreme, we use a simple model where we assume
703: the midplane is composed of only thin disk light and the offplane
704: observations purely thick disk stars. As a more accurate model, we
705: use the thin/thick fractions from the best fitting models of
706: \citet{Yoachim05} as well as models where we vary the parameters by
707: their 1-$\sigma$ values to create a ``bright-thick and faint-thin''
708: model along with a ``faint-thick and bright-thin'' model. The
709: differences between the thin and thick disk scale lengths are small
710: enough that we do not expect much radial variation in the fraction of
711: thin and thick disk light.
712:
713:
714: In \citet{Yoachim05}, we fit analytic functions to the stellar
715: rotation curves to decompose the thin and thick disk components. This
716: worked well for the initial two galaxies we observed, but our expanded
717: sample now includes galaxies with slightly irregular kinematics that
718: are not well described by common parameterizations of rotation curves.
719: Instead of using an analytic function, we use the midplane H$\alpha$
720: rotation curve as a basis function for the overall shape of the
721: rotation curve. Because we are most interested in finding the
722: velocity of the thin and thick disk stars relative to each other, we
723: compare them both to the well resolved and high signal-to-noise
724: midplane H$\alpha$ rotation curve. Using the \ha\ rotation curve
725: reduces the number of parameters that need to be fit to characterize
726: the stellar rotation curves.
727:
728: We model the stellar rotation curves as $V_{stars}(R)=x
729: V_{\rm{H}\alpha}(R)+c$. We constrain $c$ to be in the range $\pm5$ (to
730: account for any small error in wavelength calibration between frames
731: or regions on the chip) and $x$ is limited to $-1 < x < 1.4$, allowing
732: for stars to be rotating faster than the gas by up to 40\% ($x$=1.4),
733: not rotating ($x$=0), or counter-rotating with the opposite velocity of
734: the H$\alpha$ ($x$=-1).
735:
736: The decomposed rotation curves are plotted in Figure~\ref{decomp_rc}.
737: The left hand panels show the best fit stellar rotation curve scaled
738: from the \ha\ at each slit position. If there were no
739: cross-contamination of thin and thick disk stars, then the offplane
740: and midplane rotation curves would show the true thick and thin disk
741: kinematics. The right hand panels show the more realistic case where
742: we have adopted likely amounts of thin and thick disk contamination at
743: each slit position before inferring the underlying kinematics of each
744: population.
745:
746:
747: For the higher mass galaxies, we find no substantial difference
748: between the thin and thick disk rotation curves, even when we correct
749: for the expected cross contamination. There is a slight tendency for
750: the thick component to be lagging, but never by more than 5 \kms.
751: In the higher mass galaxies, we have therefore either failed to
752: observe an offplane region with a high enough thick disk flux
753: fraction, or the thick disks are not lagging significantly compared to
754: the thin disk in these systems.
755:
756: For the low-mass galaxies, we find a wide range of behavior. The fits
757: for FGC 1948 diverge, as the stellar rotation curves do not show
758: coherent rotation at either slit position. For the rest of the
759: galaxies, the best fits find thick disks that are slightly lagging
760: compared to the thin (FGC 2558, FGC 1415), that are lagging to the
761: extent of near non-rotation (FGC 1642, FGC 780), and that are fully
762: counter-rotating (FGC 227). We note that there is strong qualitative
763: agreement with initial results in \citet{Yoachim05} for FGC 1415 and
764: FGC 227.
765:
766: %\clearpage
767: \begin{figure*}
768: \epsscale{.4}
769: %\plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}\\
770: %\plottwo{f5c.eps}{f5d.eps}\\
771: %\plottwo{f5e.eps}{f5f.eps}\\
772: %\plottwo{f5g.eps}{f5h.eps}
773: \plotone{f5a.eps}
774: \plotone{f5b.eps}
775: \plotone{f5c.eps}
776: \plotone{f5d.eps}
777: \plotone{f5e.eps}
778: \plotone{f5f.eps}
779: \plotone{f5g.eps}
780: \plotone{f5h.eps}
781:
782:
783: \caption{The results of fitting various rotation curve models to our
784: data. The top left panels show fits of the simple model where the
785: midplane and offplane observations are fit independently. Upper right
786: panels show shaded regions show the range of fits derived from varying
787: the fraction of thin and thick disk light at each slit position.
788: Solid lines show the fits for when we use the thin and thick disk
789: fractions of the photometric fits in \citet{Yoachim06}. Lower panels
790: show the observations as points and solid lines show the models from
791: the above panels once they have been flux weighted and binned in the
792: same manner as the observations. Throughout, red is used for thick
793: disk/offplane and blue is used for thin disk/midplane. Each panel has
794: a dashed line showing the W50/2 value from the literature. FGC 1440
795: is not shown because we failed to measure a stellar rotation curve in
796: the offplane position. \label{decomp_rc} }
797: \end{figure*}
798:
799:
800: %\begin{figure*}
801: %\epsscale{.5}
802: %\figurenum{5}
803: %\plotone{f5d.eps}
804: %\plotone{f5e.eps}
805: %\plotone{f5f.eps}
806: %\caption{\emph{continued}.}
807: %\end{figure*}
808:
809: %\begin{figure*}
810: %\epsscale{.5}
811: %\figurenum{5}
812: %\plotone{f5g.eps}
813: %\plotone{f5h.eps}
814: %\caption{\emph{continued}.}
815: %\end{figure*}
816: %\clearpage
817:
818:
819: \subsection{Velocity Dispersions}
820:
821: The low signal-to-noise of our spectra prevents us from reliably
822: measuring velocity dispersions for many of our galaxies. Most of the
823: galaxies with high quality spectra have very low velocity dispersions,
824: as we would expect from systems predominantly supported by rotation.
825: Given that our instrumental resolution is 60 \kms, we are unlikely to
826: resolve the line widths in galaxies where $\sigma/V_c<0.6$, for the
827: $V_c<100$ \kms\ galaxies that dominate our sample. The major
828: exceptions are FGC 1948, which has an irregular rotation curve, and
829: FGC 227, which has a counter-rotating thick disk.
830:
831: FGC 1948 has surprisingly large LOSVD, with many regions of the disk
832: having $\sigma>100$ \kms. For comparison, most of the other galaxies
833: in our sample have LOSVDs across the disk of $\sim 50$ \kms,
834: essentially the same as our instrumental resolution at the Ca {\sc ii}
835: triplet. The stellar rotation curve for FGC 1948 also shows large
836: deviation from the H$\alpha$ RC, suggesting that the stars in this
837: galaxy might not be fully rotationally supported and/or fully
838: dynamically relaxed.
839:
840: FGC 227's LOSVD also deviates from the simple interpretation of a
841: dynamically cold rotating disk. In the midplane observations, the
842: central regions of FGC 227 appear cold ($\sigma\sim40$ \kms), but the
843: outer disk reaches LOSVD values of 100-150 \kms. This makes little
844: sense for a galaxy with a well defined rotation curve as the intrinsic
845: stellar velocity dispersions should be decreasing with radius. In
846: contrast, the LOSVD can be well explained by a rotationally supported
847: galaxy if there are two stellar populations moving in opposite
848: rotational directions. As our rotation curve decomposition showed,
849: FGC 227 is best fit by a model where the thick disk is
850: counter-rotating relative to the thin disk. As we showed in
851: \citet{Yoachim05}, this would cause an increase in the observed
852: velocity dispersion of order 50 \kms. Similar projection effects are
853: found in elliptical galaxies with counter-rotating cores as they also
854: show radially increasing LOSVDs \citep{Geha05}.
855:
856:
857:
858:
859:
860: \section{How Much Counter Rotating Material Could There Be?} \label{Show_much}
861:
862: Inspired by the best-fit rotation curve for FGC 227, we investigate the
863: possibility that all thick disks contain some fraction of
864: counter-rotating stars. Our data is able to place tight constraints
865: on the amount of counter-rotating material since both the offplane
866: rotation curves and the midplane LOSVD will be strongly affected by
867: any counter-rotating stars.
868:
869:
870: In Section~\ref{Sstell_kin}, we imposed thin and thick disk flux
871: fractions based on previous photometric decompositions. We now leave
872: the flux fractions as free parameters and instead hold the rotation
873: curve shapes fixed. We fit two simple models, each with two
874: kinematically independent stellar components. In the first model, we
875: assume there are two stellar components, one rotating identically as
876: the gas and one with zero net rotation, as one might expect for a
877: stellar halo. The final observed rotation curve is a flux weighted
878: average of these two curves and we fit for the best fitting flux
879: ratio. We restricted the explored parameter space such that the
880: rotation curves had to be some positive linear combination of the
881: midplane H$\alpha$ and a non-rotating or counter-rotating rotation
882: curve. In the second model, we assume the second component is
883: counter-rotating with a velocity one-half the magnitude of the
884: H$\alpha$ rotation curve. For both models, we calculate uncertainties
885: from the covariance matrix and scale them upwards such that the
886: reduced-$\chi^2$ equals unity (i.e., we assume our model should be a
887: good fit). We do not calculate uncertainties when the fit converges
888: to a boundary condition. We also do not construct detailed models for
889: cases like FGC 1415 where the stars could be better fit with a faster
890: rotation curve than the gas; these galaxies naturally converge on the
891: boundary condition of having no second component. It should be
892: emphasized that these are simple toy models, and we have no direct
893: evidence of counter rotating thick disk stars beyond the strange
894: rotation curve of FGC 270. For example, if we observed a MW like
895: (V$_{\rm{c}}=220$ \kms) galaxy that had a 10\% (by flux) thick disk
896: lagging at 40 \kms, we would compute a maximum counter-rotating
897: fraction of 1\% and a non-rotating fraction of 2\%, despite all the
898: stars being co-rotators.
899:
900:
901: The resulting fractions of non-rotating of counter rotating stars are
902: plotted in Figure~\ref{counter_frac} and are listed in
903: Table~\ref{counter_table}. The midplane stellar rotation curves are
904: typically consistent with the H$\alpha$ rotation curve, with 6 of the
905: 9 midplanes being best fit without a non-rotating or counter-rotating
906: component. The remaining three galaxies do have midplane rotation
907: curves that are consistent with the presence of an additional lagging
908: component. FGC 1948 is low mass with a surprisingly large LOSVD. FGC
909: 227 is the counter rotator with a LOSVD that dramatically increases
910: with radius. FGC 2558 is the only galaxy to show a large discrepancy
911: between midplane and offplane H$\alpha$ rotation curves, has a stellar
912: lag that appears to be only on the receding side of the galaxy.
913:
914: The offplane spectra show larger evidence for non- or counter-rotating
915: motion, with only 3 of the 9 galaxies requiring no slow rotating
916: component. This effect can be seen in Figure~\ref{counter_frac},
917: where all of the offplane spectra show a preference for equal or
918: larger value of the counter-rotating fraction than seen in the
919: midplane.
920: %\clearpage
921: \begin{figure*}
922: \epsscale{.65}
923: \plotone{f6.eps}
924: \caption{Results from fitting the midplane and offplane rotation
925: curves as a combination of two fixed rotation curves. In the top
926: panel, the rotation curves are a combination of the midplane H$\alpha$
927: and a flat non-rotating RC. In the bottom panel, the base rotation
928: curves are the midplane H$\alpha$ combined with a rotation curve
929: counter-rotating with one-half the H$\alpha$ velocity. These fits are
930: listed in Table~\ref{counter_table}.
931: \label{counter_frac} }
932: \end{figure*}
933:
934: %\clearpage
935:
936: \begin{deluxetable}{ c c c c c}
937: \tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
938: %\rotate
939: \tablewidth{0pt}
940: %\tablenum{num}
941: %\tablecolumns{num}
942: %\tableheadfrac{num}
943: \tablecaption{Non-Rotating and Counter Rotating Fractions \label{counter_table}}
944: \tablehead{\colhead{FGC} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Non-Rotating Fraction} &\multicolumn{2}{c}{Counter-Rotating Fraction}\\
945: &\colhead{Thin Disk} & \colhead{Thick Disk} & \colhead{Thin Disk}&\colhead{Thick Disk} }
946: \startdata
947: 227 & 0.1$\pm$ 0.1 & 0.8$\pm$ 0.1 & 0.1$\pm$ 0.0 & 0.5$\pm$ 0.1 \\
948: 780 & 0.0 & 0.3$\pm$ 0.2 & 0.0 & 0.2$\pm$ 0.3 \\
949: 1415 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
950: 1440 & 0.0 & \nodata & 0.0 & \nodata \\
951: 1642 & 0.0 & 0.4$\pm$ 0.1 & 0.0 & 0.3$\pm$ 0.1 \\
952: 1948 & 0.3$\pm$ 0.2 & 0.1$\pm$ 0.2 & 0.2$\pm$ 0.1 & 0.0$\pm$ 0.5 \\
953: 2558 & 0.2$\pm$ 0.0 & 0.4$\pm$ 0.1 & 0.2$\pm$ 0.0 & 0.3$\pm$ 0.1 \\
954: E1371 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
955: E1498 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 & 0.0 \\
956: \enddata
957: \end{deluxetable}
958: %\clearpage
959:
960:
961: \section{Expected Lags}\label{ex_lags}
962:
963:
964:
965: Having found a wide range of thick disk behaviors, we now investigate the
966: expected stellar lags we should see in our sample of thick disks using a
967: dynamical model originally designed for the Milky Way. The
968: large scale height of thick disk stars implies they have larger
969: velocity dispersions than thin disk stars. If the larger vertical
970: velocity dispersion also reflects a larger radial velocity dispersion,
971: then the larger random motions of thick disk stars should lead to
972: their requiring less rotational support. The thick disk stars should
973: therefore lag in velocity compared to the kinematically colder thin
974: disk stars and ionized gas.
975:
976: \citet{Girard06} use the Jeans equation and a series of reasonable
977: assumptions to model the expected thick disk lag in the MW as a
978: function of height above the midplane. While this model was built to
979: explain the observed lag of thick disk stars in the Milky Way, the
980: formalism is easily generalizable to the galaxies in our sample.
981:
982: Using the Jean's equation, \citet{Girard06} find that the rotational
983: velocity of a thick disk rotating in a Plummer dark matter potential
984: with an embedded thin disk is given by:
985: \begin{eqnarray}\label{jeaneq}
986: {\overline {v_{\Theta}}}^2 (z,R) = \sigma_R^2 (z)
987: \Big[
988: -{ \Upsilon_{a,b} R } \\+
989: 0.5 \lambda \Big( 1 - {z \over h_{z_{thick}}} \Big) +
990: 1 - {\sigma_{\Theta}^2 \over \sigma_R^2 }
991: \Big] \nonumber \\
992: + { (v_c^2 - v^2_{disk}(R,0))(R^2 + a^2)^{3/2}
993: \over (R^2 + z^2 +a^2)^{3/2} } +
994: v^2_{disk}(R,z) \nonumber ,
995: \end{eqnarray}
996: where $R$, $z$, and $\Theta$ are galactocentric cylindrical
997: coordinates. The term ${\overline {v_{\Theta}}}$ is the average thick
998: disk velocity in the direction of galactic rotation, $\sigma_R$ and
999: $\sigma_\Theta$ are the radial and tangential components of velocity
1000: dispersion for the thick disk stars, $v_c$ is the local standard of
1001: rest velocity at the radius of interest, $v_{disk}$ is the portion of
1002: the thick disk rotational velocity due to the gravitational potential
1003: of the thin disk, $h_{z_{thick}}$ is the exponential thick disk scale
1004: height and $a$ is the halo core radius. The term $\Upsilon_{a,b}$
1005: lets one approximate the thick disk as entirely self gravitating, or
1006: gravitationally dominated by the embedded thin disk. Because the
1007: thick disk mass is small compared to the total gas and thin disk
1008: mass in all of our galaxies, we choose to use $\Upsilon_{b}\sim2/h_R$.
1009: The $\lambda$ term takes values of 1 or 0 in order to include or
1010: exclude the velocity dispersion cross-term.
1011:
1012: We calculate dynamical models for three fiducial galaxy masses and
1013: three thick disk velocity dispersions. We use realistic galactic
1014: parameters taken from \citet{Yoachim06} to generate $h_{z_{thick}}$
1015: and $v^2_{disk}(R,0)$. For terms for which we do not have explicit
1016: measurements, we use the approximation $a[\rm{kpc}]\approx
1017: 13(h_{r_{thin}}[\rm{kpc}]/5)^{1.05}$ given by \citet{Donato04}, assume
1018: $\sigma_{\Theta}\sim\sigma_R$, and set $\lambda=0$. We compute models
1019: for different values of $\sigma_R$, as this is the dominant term in
1020: producing stellar lags. For simplicity, we assume the thick disk
1021: velocity dispersion does not vary with height above the midplane.
1022: This last approximation is not particularly valid given that
1023: \citet{Girard06} find that the velocity dispersion in the MW increases
1024: with a slope of 9 \kms kpc$^{-1}$. However the difference between a
1025: variable and constant velocity dispersion will be most pronounced at
1026: large scale heights, beyond the range probed by our observations
1027: ($z\sim1.5-2$ kpc). The resulting models are plotted in
1028: Figure~\ref{gmod_fig} along with the lags we have measured in our
1029: galaxies. For reference, we also include a model using the same
1030: assumptions but with morphology and velocities similar to the Milky
1031: Way in Figure~\ref{gmod_fig}.
1032:
1033:
1034: For most of the galaxies where we measure a thick disk lag,
1035: Figure~\ref{gmod_fig} shows the thick disk kinematics could be well
1036: explained by a population with radial velocity dispersion of between
1037: 15 and 30 \kms and $v_c/\sigma<4$. As before, the major exception is
1038: FGC 227. The stellar lag for FGC 227 is so severe that it would imply
1039: the thick disk is completely supported by random motions. However, we
1040: only detect flattened stellar populations in FGC 227, again consistent
1041: with our interpretation that the thick disk is counter-rotating in
1042: this system.
1043:
1044: To verify that our model galaxies are reasonable, we use an identical
1045: procedure to build a MW-like model. Our MW-like model is a fair fit
1046: to actual observations of the MW. The measured thick disk velocity
1047: dispersion in the solar neighborhood is 50 \kms, for which our model
1048: correctly predicts the midplane thick disk lag of 30 \kms. On the
1049: other hand, the increase of the thick disk lag with scale height is
1050: poorly fit by our model; the observed lag increases with a slope of 30
1051: \kms kpc$^{-1}$, and our model has a slope around half that. This is
1052: purely due to our choice to hold the velocity dispersion fixed--a
1053: thick disk velocity dispersion that increased with height would
1054: generate a more accurate slope.
1055:
1056: %\clearpage
1057: \begin{figure*}
1058: \plotone{f7.eps}
1059: \caption{The expected thick disk lags as a function of height above
1060: the midplane and thick disk velocity dispersion. The first three
1061: panels show model galaxies similar to the ones in our sample. Points
1062: show the stellar lags measured from our rotation curve fits. Open
1063: points show lags from rotation curves where the offplane and midplane
1064: rotation curves are fit independently. Solid points show the average
1065: lag for the models which correct for cross-contamination of the thin
1066: and thick disk rotation curves, and are generally more reliable
1067: estimates of the thick disk lag. The final panel shows the results of
1068: our model when we use MW like parameters.\label{gmod_fig} Observed
1069: galaxies we compare to the models: In the upper left FGC 1642 and FGC
1070: 780; upper right FGC 1415, FGC 227, and FGC 2558; and lower left FGCE
1071: 1371. All the models and observations are taken at $R=2.5 h_R$. FGC
1072: 1948 is excluded from the plot because there is no coherent rotation.
1073: FGC 1440 is excluded because we have no offplane stellar velocity
1074: measurements.}
1075: \end{figure*}
1076: %\clearpage
1077:
1078: Modeling the disks as cylindrically rotating is only a crude
1079: approximation to account for the stellar cross-contamination. In
1080: reality, we expect the thin disk stars which reach large $z$ heights
1081: to be the thin disk stars with larger velocity dispersions. This
1082: would mean that the thin disk stars at high $z$ should also be lagging
1083: compared to the midplane thin disk stars. Ideally, we would construct
1084: a fully self-consistent dynamical model of each galaxy, but our large
1085: uncertainties and limited LOSVD information would result in model
1086: degeneracies. Constructing a robust self consistent dynamical model
1087: of a galaxy also benefits from larger numbers of data points
1088: \citep{Girard06}. With only a handful of stellar rotation curve
1089: points per galaxy, we do not have enough data to constrain a more
1090: complex model. We simply point out that when we correct for the
1091: cross-contamination of the rotation curves we may be over-correcting
1092: the data. We estimate the magnitude of the over-correction using
1093: dynamical models in \S~\ref{ex_lags}.
1094:
1095: \section{Dust and Projection Effects }\label{Sdust}
1096:
1097: As a final check that our observed kinematics indeed reflect the true
1098: stellar motions, we now explore the expected impact of projection
1099: effects and dust extinction, both of which can create differences
1100: between the observed and underlying rotation curves. In
1101: Figure~\ref{exrc}, we show how two input rotation curves are modified
1102: by being viewed edge-on, with and without dust. For these models, we
1103: assumed an exponential disk of stars and dust, and for simplicity only
1104: considered absorption (i.e., ignoring scattering). The amount of dust
1105: adopted in the model would generate an extinction of 2.2 magnitudes in
1106: the total apparent magnitude of the galaxy. This is a rather large
1107: extinction for the near-IR, given that the observed galaxies in our
1108: sample are only offset by 0.2 mag from the face-on NIR Tully-Fisher
1109: relation \citep{Yoachim06}. We adopted an underlying rotation curve
1110: shape from \citet{Courteau97}.
1111:
1112: As can be seen from Figure~\ref{exrc}, the inner regions of the
1113: rotation curve are generally unchanged due to projection, and the only
1114: significant changes happen in the outer regions, where the true rotation
1115: curve is flat. These projection effects create a lag of 7.2 \kms.
1116:
1117: We have not corrected our rotation curves for these projection
1118: effects, as we are primarily interested in the differences between the
1119: thin and thick disk rotation curves. This could lead us to make
1120: systematic errors in interpreting the rotation curves if the
1121: morphologies of the thin and thick disk are radically different, but
1122: we have no reason to assume this is the case.
1123:
1124: When dust is added to the model, it only creates an additional 2.6
1125: \kms\ lag, in spite of the very high extinction adopted here. This
1126: model is completely consistent with the results of \citet{Matthews01},
1127: who found that projection effects are dominant compared to extinction
1128: in edge-on systems. We do not expect our sample galaxies to have
1129: larger extinctions than what is modeled in Figure~\ref{exrc}.
1130:
1131: Full radiative transfer models \citep{Kregel05d, Bianchi07,
1132: Xilouris99}, as well as comparisons of gaseous and optical rotation
1133: curves \citep{Bosma92} have consistently found massive disk galaxies
1134: have a central face-on optical depth near unity in the $V$-band, with
1135: lower extinction levels in less massive systems like those that
1136: dominate our sample \citep{Calzetti01}. Dust levels this low should
1137: not be expected to alter the observed rotation curve significantly,
1138: even if a galaxy is viewed edge-on. Moreover, most of our offplane
1139: rotation curves exhibit a lag compared to the midplane. In contrast,
1140: If there were strong dustlanes affecting our midplane observations
1141: (and not the offplane), the midplane would be the lagging component.
1142:
1143:
1144:
1145: The combination of working at near-IR wavelengths, offsetting our slit
1146: from any prominent dustlanes, and observing intrinsically linearly
1147: rising rotation curves means our rotation curves should be fairly
1148: unaffected by extinction or projection. However, the same cannot be said
1149: for our measured line-of-sight velocity dispersion (LOSVD). Unlike
1150: the rotational velocity measurement, which is mostly unaffected by
1151: flux contributions from different radii, we expect the LOSVD to be
1152: significantly broadened by projection effects. We also find that in
1153: most of our galaxies the LOSVD is very close to the instrumental
1154: resolution, making any interpretation of the velocity dispersion
1155: suspect. Because of these challenges, we limit our analysis of the
1156: LOSVD to only those cases where we believe our measurements are of
1157: high quality and not dominated by the instrumental dispersion.
1158:
1159:
1160:
1161:
1162: %\clearpage
1163: \begin{figure}
1164: \plotone{f8.eps}
1165: \caption{Two examples of the effects dust and projection can have on
1166: our observed rotation curves. While projection creates considerable
1167: changes, the addition of dust extinction is negligible. \label{exrc}}
1168: \end{figure}
1169: %\clearpage
1170:
1171: \section{Discussion}
1172:
1173:
1174:
1175: The results of Sections~\ref{Srcs} and \ref{Sstell_kin} show that
1176: stellar kinematics above the midplane display a wide range of
1177: behaviors. In higher mass systems (FGCE 1371, FGCE 1498, FGC 1440),
1178: our midplane and offplane spectra show no clear signature of a hot
1179: thick disk component. The stellar rotation curves for these galaxies
1180: are well matched by the midplane ionized gas H$\alpha$ RCs at all
1181: measured scale heights. All three of these galaxies converged to
1182: models where the rotation curves contain no lagging component
1183: (Table~\ref{counter_table}). However, \citet{Yoachim06} found that the
1184: stellar flux in higher mass galaxies are dominated by the thin disk
1185: component. Therefore, the lack of a significant lag in these systems
1186: is likely a result of the kinematically cold thin disk dominating the
1187: stellar flux to scale heights of 1 kpc. This result is not completely
1188: unexpected, as the MW thin and thick disks should have similar
1189: luminosities 1 kpc off the midplane \citep{Juric08}. We note that
1190: there is still ample photometric evidence that these higher mass
1191: galaxies contain thick disks, but they are simply too faint relative
1192: to the thin disk for modest kinematic lags to be detected
1193: spectroscopically.
1194:
1195:
1196:
1197: The low mass galaxies in our sample do show measurable differences
1198: between the midplane and offplane observations. At large radii, we
1199: find several galaxies where the offplane component is lagging compared
1200: to the midplane (Figure~\ref{gmod_fig}). In three of the low mass
1201: systems (FGC 1415, FGC 1642, and FGC 780), the lags in the offplane
1202: observations become more pronounced when we correct for the expected
1203: thin disk contamination. These lags are consistent with those that
1204: are expected from dynamics alone (Equation~\ref{jeaneq}), provided
1205: that the thick disk has a radial velocity dispersion between 15 and 30
1206: \kms (i.e., 10-25\% of $v_c$). Thus, the lags in these systems do not
1207: necessarily require the presence of any counter-rotating material,
1208: although a small amount of such material could be present. FGC 2558
1209: may also fall into this category; however the offplane RC is very
1210: similar to the midplane, implying this could be another galaxy where
1211: we have not successfully isolated the thick disk. The observed lags
1212: were easier to detect in these lower mass systems, due to their more
1213: prominent thick disks.
1214:
1215: The final two low mass galaxies in our sample, FGC 227 and FGC 1948,
1216: have remarkably different rotation curves between the midplane and
1217: offplane. FGC 1948 does not display coherent stellar rotation in
1218: either the midplane or the offplane, and therefore our subsequent fits
1219: converge to extreme, and probably incorrect, models. FGC 227 does
1220: show rotation on the midplane, and a very low level of net rotation on
1221: the offplane. Our best fitting model for this galaxy has the thick
1222: disk counter-rotating relative to the thin disk, consistent with the
1223: radially increasing LOSVD which is a signature of unresolved counter
1224: rotating stellar components.
1225:
1226: Our measurements of the LOSVD are less than enlightening. With the
1227: exception of the radial increase in the LOSVD in FGC 227 and the high
1228: LOSVD in FGC 1948, the rest of our LOSVD measurements show no
1229: significant trends with radius and are close to the instrumental
1230: resolution limit, suggesting that the radial velocity dispersions of
1231: both the thin and thick disks are cold enough that we cannot reliably
1232: measure their velocity dispersions at our spectral resolution.
1233:
1234: Given the above results, our galaxies can be described as falling into
1235: three categories: The high mass systems which have little to no thick
1236: disk lag (or, more likely, thick disks which are so faint that we have
1237: failed to measure their kinematics); the moderately lagging systems; and the
1238: counter rotating system. We can now compare these
1239: results to the predictions of popular formation models for the
1240: thick disk.
1241:
1242: If thick disks are the result of gradual stochastic heating, we would
1243: expect to always find thick disks co-rotating with the embedded thin
1244: disks. Moreover, with stronger spiral arms, larger molecular clouds,
1245: and more massive dark matter substructure, the high mass systems
1246: should be able to efficiently heat their thin disk stars into a
1247: thicker disk. Instead, we have found the opposite, with more
1248: prominent thick disks and larger lags in the lower mass systems, as
1249: well as evidence for counter-rotating stars. This seems to rule out
1250: gradual heating as the dominant method of thick disk formation,
1251: particularly for low mass galaxies.
1252:
1253: Forming thick disks in major mergers also does a poor job explaining
1254: our observations. If thick disks were predominantly formed in major
1255: mergers that disrupt and heat previously thin disks, we should expect
1256: to find galaxies that never formed a thick disk, or that have failed
1257: to accrete and cool enough gas to rebuild their thin disk components.
1258: Major mergers also typically result in the formation of centrally
1259: concentrated spheroidal components, making them a poor mechanism for
1260: forming thick disks in the bulgeless galaxies observed here.
1261:
1262: Unlike the two heating models, the variety of thick disk kinematics is
1263: compatible with minor mergers and/or accretion. Presumably, the thick
1264: disk kinematics we observe are simply the kinematics left over from
1265: the accretion event which deposited the majority of thick disk stars
1266: or which triggered the formation of stars from gas accreted at large
1267: scale heights. The wide variety of possible accretion events
1268: (co-rotating vs counter rotating, early disruption vs late disruption,
1269: high eccentricity vs circular initial orbit) can evolve into
1270: virialized thick disks with kinematics that are sometimes decoupled
1271: from the thin disks and that show large variation from galaxy to
1272: galaxy. The ubiquity of thick disks is also well explained by the
1273: merger/accretion scenario, given that galaxy formation in a $\Lambda$CDM
1274: cosmology is dominated by hierarchical merging, and predicts that
1275: every galaxy has a rich merger history.
1276:
1277: Although the available data all points to a merger/accretion origin
1278: for the thick disk, it is difficult to disentangle models where thick
1279: disk stars are directly accreted from those where the stars form
1280: {\emph{in situ}} further off the midplane during gas rich mergers
1281: \citep{Brook04}.
1282:
1283: This ambiguity results from two sources. First, there is no clear
1284: dividing line between what one calls a star-forming region off the
1285: midplane and a merging star-forming satellite galaxy. Second, we know
1286: from \citet{Yoachim06} that at least 75-90\% of the baryonic accretion
1287: onto the galaxies was gaseous, and some fraction of this was certainly
1288: accreted in bound subhalos. Stars that formed initially in subhalos
1289: before being accreted are likely to have kinematics similar to those
1290: that formed from accreted gas during those same merging events.
1291: Presumably, one could use detailed stellar age and abundance
1292: information to help, but unfortunately this is only possible for the
1293: closest galaxies.
1294:
1295: There is evidence that much of the brighter inner halo and outer disk
1296: substructure of M31 was formed through accretion \citep{Ferguson02,Koch07}.
1297: These features would probably resemble a thick disk if M31 were more
1298: distant and the features were unresolved. Taking this lesson from
1299: nearby galaxies, it is clear we are using smooth functions to
1300: describe thick disk that may actually be highly structured systems.
1301: However, the smooth descriptions of thick disks still provide a
1302: reasonable statistical description of the ensemble of accreted stars.
1303:
1304:
1305: In this study, we have measured thick disk kinematics in only very
1306: late-type disk systems. However, thick disks have been
1307: photometrically detected in a wide variety of Hubble types
1308: \citep[e.g.,][]{Seth05b,Pohlen04,Morrison97,vanDokkum94}. The
1309: kinematics in our sample are most consistent with merger/accretion
1310: forming for the thick disks, but, except for the Milky Way, there have
1311: been no measurements of thick disk kinematics in earlier type
1312: galaxies.
1313:
1314: By focusing on disk systems, we may not be sensitive to how thick
1315: disks form across all Hubble types. Almost by definition, late-type
1316: galaxies have not suffered a major-merger since the formation of their
1317: stellar disks, otherwise they would likely possess large spheroidal
1318: components and be classified as an earlier type system. The only way
1319: pure disk galaxies could form thick disks is either through accretion
1320: or stochastic heating.
1321:
1322:
1323:
1324:
1325:
1326: \section{Conclusions}
1327:
1328: We have expanded the kinematic observations of \citet{Yoachim05} to
1329: include a total of nine galaxies with thick disks. Analyzing our low
1330: signal-to-noise spectra that contain systematic sky line
1331: residuals prompted us to develop a brute-force method of
1332: cross-correlation to extract stellar rotation curves. In
1333: galaxies with $V_c> 120$ km s$^{-1}$, we do not detect any measurable
1334: difference between the thin and thick disk stellar kinematics. This
1335: is most likely due to a combination of thin disks being brighter in
1336: more massive galaxies, and the expected change in rotation curve as a
1337: function of scale height being smaller.
1338:
1339: In lower mass galaxies ($V_c< 120$ km s$^{-1}$), we find a variety of
1340: thick disk behaviors. Thick disks are found with both small and
1341: large magnitude lags, including a counter-rotating thick disk.
1342:
1343: The observed kinematics are best explained by thick disk formation
1344: models where the thick disks in low mass systems are composed of stars
1345: that have been accreted from satellite galaxies or are formed at large
1346: scale heights from accreting gas. Models where the thick disks form
1347: during major mergers or through stochastic heating seems unable to
1348: explain the wide range of thick disk kinematics we observe. While we
1349: strongly favor a formation model of thick disks via accretion, we
1350: stress that this result can not necessarily be generalized to other
1351: Hubble types or higher mass systems ($V_c> 120$ km s$^{-1}$).
1352:
1353: %--------------------------------------
1354: \acknowledgments
1355:
1356: We thank the Gemini support staff for their help preparing and
1357: executing these observations. We thank Suzanne Hawley for reading an
1358: early version of this paper and making helpful comments. We also
1359: thank the anonymous referee for helpful comments. JJD and PY were
1360: partially supported through NSF grant CAREER AST-0238683 and the
1361: Alfred P.\ Sloan Foundation. Based on observations obtained at the
1362: Gemini Observatory, which is operated by the Association of
1363: Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., under a cooperative
1364: agreement with the NSF on behalf of the Gemini partnership: the
1365: National Science Foundation (United States), the Particle Physics and
1366: Astronomy Research Council (United Kingdom), the National Research
1367: Council (Canada), CONICYT (Chile), the Australian Research Council
1368: (Australia), CNPq (Brazil), and CONICET (Argentina). This research
1369: used the facilities of the Canadian Astronomy Data Centre operated by
1370: the National Research Council of Canada with the support of the
1371: Canadian Space Agency.
1372:
1373:
1374:
1375:
1376: \appendix
1377:
1378: \section{Stellar Rotation Curves in the Presence of Systematic
1379: Errors }\label{ap1}
1380:
1381: Working in the near-IR, we find our spectra have regions which are
1382: dominated by both Gaussian and systematic errors caused by bright
1383: atmospheric emission lines. To properly measure stellar kinematics
1384: based on spectral absorption features we must employ a method that is
1385: not affected by our sky line residuals.
1386:
1387: There are two common techniques of deriving the kinematic information
1388: from galaxy spectra--direct $\chi^2$-fitting and cross-correlation.
1389: In direct $\chi^2$-fitting \citep{Rix92,Kelson00,Barth02,
1390: Cappellari04}, a template star is redshifted and broadened to fit a
1391: galaxy spectrum, while in cross-correlation techniques
1392: \citep{Simkin74,Tonry79,Statler95} a template star is cross-correlated
1393: with the galaxy spectrum and the kinematic properties are deduced from
1394: the position and shape of the cross-correlation peak.
1395:
1396: Cross-correlation techniques have the advantage of being
1397: computationally efficient, often making use of fast Fourier transform
1398: algorithms. The cross-correlation technique benefits greatly from the
1399: fact that the Fourier transform of Gaussian noise is also Gaussian
1400: noise. In this way, noise in the galaxy spectrum transforms into
1401: random noise in the cross-correlation while the kinematic information
1402: becomes concentrated in a central peak. However, this is only true if the
1403: noise is uniform throughout the spectrum. Using a direct chi-squared
1404: fit is more computationally expensive, but has the added benefit of
1405: being able to weight individual wavelengths according to their
1406: specific signal-to-noise, or completely mask wavelengths that are
1407: affected by systematic errors.
1408:
1409: Although direct chi-squared fitting works well in some situations, at
1410: low S/N($<$20), any direct chi-squared fitting routine will
1411: over-smooth the data because the low S/N continuum is best fit by a
1412: strait line (i.e., an over-broadened template star). In previous
1413: studies that have used direct fitting, \citet{Kelson00} has a median
1414: S/N of 35/\AA, while \citet{Barth02} report a S/N/pixel of 100-200.
1415: In contrast, our data has SNR$<20$/\AA, due to the very low surface
1416: brightness of our targets.
1417:
1418: Because we have both low S/N and regions which require masking, we
1419: have created a fitting procedure which utilizes cross-correlation
1420: without making use of the computational time saving FFT techniques of
1421: previous authors.
1422:
1423:
1424: Traditional cross-correlation of discrete functions is defined as
1425: \begin{equation}
1426: (f\star g)_i \equiv \sum_j f_j g_{i+j}.
1427: \end{equation}
1428:
1429: We adopt a normalized version, where the means of the spectra have
1430: been subtracted before the cross-correlation is computed
1431: \begin{equation}
1432: (f\star g)_L=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N-L} f_{L} g_{k+L}}
1433: {\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N}(f_k)^2
1434: \sum_{k=1}^{N}(g_k)^2 } },
1435: \end{equation}
1436: where N is the number of points in the given spectra. For lags less
1437: than zero, the numerator becomes $\sum_{k=1}^{N-|L|} f_{k+|L|} g_{k}$.
1438: This ensures spectra with perfectly matching shapes will have a
1439: maximum cross-correlation amplitude of unity.
1440:
1441: %\clearpage
1442: \begin{figure*}
1443: \epsscale{.5}
1444: \plotone{f9.eps}
1445: \caption{Examples of cross-correlating in the presence of different
1446: types of noise. In the left hand column, we show a model galaxy
1447: spectrum (top) and stellar template (bottom). In the right hand
1448: column, we plot the galaxy-star cross-correlation (solid) and stellar
1449: auto-correlation (dotted) and note the velocity error resulting from
1450: comparing the two. (a) The ideal case of a high signal-to-noise
1451: galaxy spectrum. (b) Results from a galaxy spectrum with a
1452: S/N/\AA$\sim10$. (c) Spectra with a small region of very low
1453: S/N affecting a section of one of the Ca absorption features, similar
1454: to how bright sky lines leave residuals on our spectra. (d) A
1455: traditional cross-correlation where the noisy region has been set to
1456: the continuum. (e) Our new cross-correlation technique where we
1457: compute the cross-correlation excluding the masked
1458: region. \label{cc_example}}
1459: \end{figure*}
1460: %\clearpage
1461:
1462: Finally, we define masks $\delta$ for each spectrum which have values
1463: of 1 in regions of good data and 0 for masked wavelengths. Given a
1464: stellar spectrum $S$ and Galaxy spectrum $G$ that are binned in logarithmic
1465: wavelength intervals and have both been normalized by division of a
1466: low order polynomial and had their means subtracted, we compute our
1467: modified cross-correlation as
1468: \begin{equation}
1469: (S\star G)_L=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N-L} S_{L} G_{k+L} \delta^S_L \delta^G_{K+L}}
1470: {\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N}(S_k \delta^S_K \delta^G_K)^2
1471: \sum_{k=1}^{N}(G_k \delta^S_K \delta^G_K)^2 } }.
1472: \end{equation}
1473:
1474: We then generate a model galaxy spectrum $M$ by redshifting and
1475: broadening the stellar template, $M(x)=S(x+v)\otimes B(x)$ where $B(x)$
1476: is a Gaussian broadening function, $v$ is a velocity shift, and
1477: $\otimes$ represents convolution. We then calculate the model's
1478: modified cross-correlation using the masks from the actual galaxy
1479: spectrum
1480: \begin{equation}
1481: (S\star M)_L=\frac{\sum_{k=1}^{N-L} S_{L} M_{k+L} \delta^S_L \delta^G_{K+L}}
1482: {\sqrt{\sum_{k=1}^{N}(S_k \delta^S_K \delta^G_K)^2
1483: \sum_{k=1}^{N}(M_k \delta^S_K \delta^G_K)^2 } }.
1484: \end{equation}
1485:
1486: We vary the velocity shift and broadening to minimize the $\chi^2$
1487: between $(S\star G)$ and $(S\star M)$. We focus on the region of
1488: the primary peak, and clip regions beyond the bracketing local minima.
1489: Examples of traditional cross-correlation and our modified
1490: cross-correlation are shown in Figure~\ref{cc_example}. In general,
1491: our masked cross-correlation technique cannot reproduce the excellent
1492: fits that are possible with data that is unaffected by systematics,
1493: but we can reduce the errors to be of order 5 \kms\ in our typical
1494: spectra.
1495:
1496:
1497:
1498:
1499:
1500:
1501:
1502:
1503: %bibtex code:
1504: %\bibliography{/home/prawn/yoachim/Papers/Bib_files/big_jabref}
1505:
1506: \begin{thebibliography}{95}
1507: \expandafter\ifx\csname natexlab\endcsname\relax\def\natexlab#1{#1}\fi
1508:
1509: \bibitem[{Abadi {et~al.}(2003)Abadi, Navarro, Steinmetz, \& Eke}]{Abadi203}
1510: Abadi, M.~G., Navarro, J.~F., Steinmetz, M., \& Eke, V.~R. 2003, \apj, 597, 21
1511:
1512: \bibitem[{Abe {et~al.}(1999)Abe, Bond, Carter, Dodd, Fujimoto, Hearnshaw,
1513: Honda, Jugaku, Kabe, Kilmartin, Koribalski, Kobayashi, Masuda, Matsubara,
1514: Miyamoto, Muraki, Nakamura, Nankivell, Noda, Pennycook, Pipe, Rattenbury,
1515: Reid, Rumsey, Saito, Sato, Sato, Sekiguchi, Sullivan, Sumi, Watase,
1516: Yanagisawa, Yock, \& Yoshizawa}]{Abe99}
1517: Abe, F., Bond, I.~A., Carter, B.~S., Dodd, R.~J., Fujimoto, M., Hearnshaw,
1518: J.~B., Honda, M., Jugaku, J., Kabe, S., Kilmartin, P.~M., Koribalski, B.~S.,
1519: Kobayashi, M., Masuda, K., Matsubara, Y., Miyamoto, M., Muraki, Y., Nakamura,
1520: T., Nankivell, G.~R., Noda, S., Pennycook, G.~S., Pipe, L.~Z., Rattenbury,
1521: N.~J., Reid, M., Rumsey, N.~J., Saito, T., Sato, H., Sato, S., Sekiguchi, M.,
1522: Sullivan, D.~J., Sumi, T., Watase, Y., Yanagisawa, T., Yock, P.~C.~M., \&
1523: Yoshizawa, M. 1999, \aj, 118, 261
1524:
1525: \bibitem[{Barbieri {et~al.}(2005)Barbieri, Fraternali, Oosterloo, Bertin,
1526: Boomsma, \& Sancisi}]{Barbieri05}
1527: Barbieri, C.~V., Fraternali, F., Oosterloo, T., Bertin, G., Boomsma, R., \&
1528: Sancisi, R. 2005, \aap, 439, 947
1529:
1530: \bibitem[{Barth {et~al.}(2002)Barth, Ho, \& Sargent}]{Barth02}
1531: Barth, A.~J., Ho, L.~C., \& Sargent, W.~L.~W. 2002, \aj, 124, 2607
1532:
1533: \bibitem[{Bekki \& Chiba(2001)}]{Bekki01}
1534: Bekki, K., \& Chiba, M. 2001, \apj, 558, 666
1535:
1536: \bibitem[{Bensby {et~al.}(2003)Bensby, Feltzing, \& Lundstr\"om}]{Bensby03}
1537: Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., \& Lundstr\"om, I. 2003, \aap, 410, 527
1538:
1539: \bibitem[{Bensby {et~al.}(2005)Bensby, Feltzing, Lundstr\"om, \&
1540: Ilyin}]{Bensby05}
1541: Bensby, T., Feltzing, S., Lundstr\"om, I., \& Ilyin, I. 2005, \aap, 433, 185
1542:
1543: \bibitem[{Benson {et~al.}(2004)Benson, Lacey, Frenk, Baugh, \& Cole}]{Benson04}
1544: Benson, A.~J., Lacey, C.~G., Frenk, C.~S., Baugh, C.~M., \& Cole, S. 2004,
1545: \mnras, 351, 1215
1546:
1547: \bibitem[{{Bianchi}(2007)}]{Bianchi07}
1548: {Bianchi}, S. 2007, \aap, 471, 765
1549:
1550: \bibitem[{Bosma {et~al.}(1992)Bosma, Byun, Freeman, \& Athanassoula}]{Bosma92}
1551: Bosma, A., Byun, Y., Freeman, K.~C., \& Athanassoula, E. 1992, \apjl, 400, L21
1552:
1553: \bibitem[{Brewer \& Carney(2004)}]{Brewer04}
1554: Brewer, M., \& Carney, B.~W. 2004, Publications of the Astronomical Society of
1555: Australia, 21, 134
1556:
1557: \bibitem[{Brewer \& Carney(2006)}]{Brewer06}
1558: Brewer, M.-M., \& Carney, B.~W. 2006, \aj, 131, 431
1559:
1560: \bibitem[{Brook {et~al.}(2004)Brook, Kawata, Gibson, \& Freeman}]{Brook04}
1561: Brook, C.~B., Kawata, D., Gibson, B.~K., \& Freeman, K.~C. 2004, \apj, 612, 894
1562:
1563: \bibitem[{Burstein(1979)}]{Burstein79}
1564: Burstein, D. 1979, \apj, 234, 829
1565:
1566: \bibitem[{{Calzetti}(2001)}]{Calzetti01}
1567: {Calzetti}, D. 2001, \pasp, 113, 1449
1568:
1569: \bibitem[{Cappellari \& Emsellem(2004)}]{Cappellari04}
1570: Cappellari, M., \& Emsellem, E. 2004, \pasp, 116, 138
1571:
1572: \bibitem[{{Carlberg}(1987)}]{Carlberg87}
1573: {Carlberg}, R.~G. 1987, \apj, 322, 59
1574:
1575: \bibitem[{Cescutti {et~al.}(2007)Cescutti, Matteucci, Fran\c~cois, \&
1576: Chiappini}]{Cescutti07}
1577: Cescutti, G., Matteucci, F., Fran\c~cois, P., \& Chiappini, C. 2007, \aap, 462,
1578: 943
1579:
1580: \bibitem[{Chen {et~al.}(2001)Chen, Stoughton, Smith, Uomoto, Pier, Yanny,
1581: Ivezi\'c, York, Anderson, Annis, Brinkmann, Csabai, Fukugita, Hindsley,
1582: Lupton, Munn, \& the SDSS~Collaboration}]{Chen01}
1583: Chen, B., Stoughton, C., Smith, J.~A., Uomoto, A., Pier, J.~R., Yanny, B.,
1584: Ivezi\'c, v.~Z., York, D.~G., Anderson, J.~E., Annis, J., Brinkmann, J.,
1585: Csabai, I., Fukugita, M., Hindsley, R., Lupton, R., Munn, J.~A., \& the
1586: SDSS~Collaboration. 2001, \apj, 553, 184
1587:
1588: \bibitem[{Chiappini {et~al.}(1997)Chiappini, Matteucci, \&
1589: Gratton}]{Chiappini97}
1590: Chiappini, C., Matteucci, F., \& Gratton, R. 1997, \apj, 477, 765
1591:
1592: \bibitem[{Chiba \& Beers(2000)}]{Chiba00}
1593: Chiba, M., \& Beers, T.~C. 2000, \aj, 119, 2843
1594:
1595: \bibitem[{Courteau(1997)}]{Courteau97}
1596: Courteau, S. 1997, \aj, 114, 2402
1597:
1598: \bibitem[{Dalcanton \& Bernstein(2000)}]{Dalcanton00}
1599: Dalcanton, J.~J., \& Bernstein, R.~A. 2000, \aj, 120, 203
1600:
1601: \bibitem[{Dalcanton \& Bernstein(2002)}]{Dalcanton02}
1602: ---. 2002, \aj, 124, 1328
1603:
1604: \bibitem[{Dalcanton {et~al.}(2004)Dalcanton, Yoachim, \&
1605: Bernstein}]{Dalcanton04}
1606: Dalcanton, J.~J., Yoachim, P., \& Bernstein, R.~A. 2004, \apj, 608, 189
1607:
1608: \bibitem[{de~Grijs \& Peletier(1997)}]{deGrijs97b}
1609: de~Grijs, R., \& Peletier, R.~F. 1997, \aap, 320, L21
1610:
1611: \bibitem[{de~Grijs \& van~der Kruit(1996)}]{deGrijs96}
1612: de~Grijs, R., \& van~der Kruit, P.~C. 1996, \aaps, 117, 19
1613:
1614: \bibitem[{Donato {et~al.}(2004)Donato, Gentile, \& Salucci}]{Donato04}
1615: Donato, F., Gentile, G., \& Salucci, P. 2004, \mnras, 353, L17
1616:
1617: \bibitem[{Elmegreen \& Elmegreen(2006)}]{Elmegreen06}
1618: Elmegreen, B.~G., \& Elmegreen, D.~M. 2006, \apj, 650, 644
1619:
1620: \bibitem[{Fall \& Efstathiou(1980)}]{Fall80}
1621: Fall, S.~M., \& Efstathiou, G. 1980, \mnras, 193, 189
1622:
1623: \bibitem[{Feltzing {et~al.}(2003)Feltzing, Bensby, \& Lundstr\"om}]{Feltzing03}
1624: Feltzing, S., Bensby, T., \& Lundstr\"om, I. 2003, \aap, 397, L1
1625:
1626: \bibitem[{{Ferguson} {et~al.}(2002){Ferguson}, {Irwin}, {Ibata}, {Lewis}, \&
1627: {Tanvir}}]{Ferguson02}
1628: {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Irwin}, M.~J., {Ibata}, R.~A., {Lewis}, G.~F., \&
1629: {Tanvir}, N.~R. 2002, \aj, 124, 1452
1630:
1631: \bibitem[{Fraternali \& Binney(2006)}]{Fraternali06}
1632: Fraternali, F., \& Binney, J.~J. 2006, \mnras, 366, 449
1633:
1634: \bibitem[{Freeman \& Bland-Hawthorn(2002)}]{Freeman02}
1635: Freeman, K., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2002, \araa, 40, 487
1636:
1637: \bibitem[{Geha {et~al.}(2005)Geha, Guhathakurta, \& van~der Marel}]{Geha05}
1638: Geha, M., Guhathakurta, P., \& van~der Marel, R.~P. 2005, \aj, 129, 2617
1639:
1640: \bibitem[{Gilmore \& Reid(1983)}]{Gilmore83}
1641: Gilmore, G., \& Reid, N. 1983, \mnras, 202, 1025
1642:
1643: \bibitem[{Gilmore {et~al.}(2002)Gilmore, Wyse, \& Norris}]{Gilmore02}
1644: Gilmore, G., Wyse, R.~F.~G., \& Norris, J.~E. 2002, \apjl, 574, L39
1645:
1646: \bibitem[{Girard {et~al.}(2006)Girard, Korchagin, Casetti-Dinescu, van Altena,
1647: L\'opez, \& Monet}]{Girard06}
1648: Girard, T.~M., Korchagin, V.~I., Casetti-Dinescu, D.~I., van Altena, W.~F.,
1649: L\'opez, C.~E., \& Monet, D.~G. 2006, \aj, 132, 1768
1650:
1651: \bibitem[{Glazebrook \& Bland-Hawthorn(2001)}]{Glazebrook01}
1652: Glazebrook, K., \& Bland-Hawthorn, J. 2001, \pasp, 113, 197
1653:
1654: \bibitem[{H{\"a}nninen \& Flynn(2002)}]{Hann02}
1655: H{\"a}nninen, J., \& Flynn, C. 2002, \mnras, 337, 731
1656:
1657: \bibitem[{{Hayashi} \& {Chiba}(2006)}]{Hayashi06}
1658: {Hayashi}, H., \& {Chiba}, M. 2006, \pasj, 58, 835
1659:
1660: \bibitem[{Heald {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{a}})Heald, Rand, Benjamin, \&
1661: Bershady}]{Heald06b}
1662: Heald, G.~H., Rand, R.~J., Benjamin, R.~A., \& Bershady, M.~A.
1663: 2006{\natexlab{a}}, \apj, 647, 1018
1664:
1665: \bibitem[{{Heald} {et~al.}(2007){Heald}, {Rand}, {Benjamin}, \&
1666: {Bershady}}]{Heald07}
1667: {Heald}, G.~H., {Rand}, R.~J., {Benjamin}, R.~A., \& {Bershady}, M.~A. 2007,
1668: \apj, 663, 933
1669:
1670: \bibitem[{Heald {et~al.}(2006{\natexlab{b}})Heald, Rand, Benjamin, Collins, \&
1671: Bland-Hawthorn}]{Heald06}
1672: Heald, G.~H., Rand, R.~J., Benjamin, R.~A., Collins, J.~A., \& Bland-Hawthorn,
1673: J. 2006{\natexlab{b}}, \apj, 636, 181
1674:
1675: \bibitem[{{Ibata} {et~al.}(2005){Ibata}, {Chapman}, {Ferguson}, {Lewis},
1676: {Irwin}, \& {Tanvir}}]{Ibata05}
1677: {Ibata}, R., {Chapman}, S., {Ferguson}, A.~M.~N., {Lewis}, G., {Irwin}, M., \&
1678: {Tanvir}, N. 2005, \apj, 634, 287
1679:
1680: \bibitem[{{Juri{\'c}} {et~al.}(2008){Juri{\'c}}, {Ivezi{\'c}}, {Brooks},
1681: {Lupton}, {Schlegel}, {Finkbeiner}, {Padmanabhan}, {Bond}, {Sesar},
1682: {Rockosi}, {Knapp}, {Gunn}, {Sumi}, {Schneider}, {Barentine}, {Brewington},
1683: {Brinkmann}, {Fukugita}, {Harvanek}, {Kleinman}, {Krzesinski}, {Long},
1684: {Neilsen}, {Nitta}, {Snedden}, \& {York}}]{Juric08}
1685: {Juri{\'c}}, M., {Ivezi{\'c}}, {\v Z}., {Brooks}, A., {Lupton}, R.~H.,
1686: {Schlegel}, D., {Finkbeiner}, D., {Padmanabhan}, N., {Bond}, N., {Sesar}, B.,
1687: {Rockosi}, C.~M., {Knapp}, G.~R., {Gunn}, J.~E., {Sumi}, T., {Schneider},
1688: D.~P., {Barentine}, J.~C., {Brewington}, H.~J., {Brinkmann}, J., {Fukugita},
1689: M., {Harvanek}, M., {Kleinman}, S.~J., {Krzesinski}, J., {Long}, D.,
1690: {Neilsen}, Jr., E.~H., {Nitta}, A., {Snedden}, S.~A., \& {York}, D.~G. 2008,
1691: \apj, 673, 864
1692:
1693: \bibitem[{{Kalirai} {et~al.}(2006){Kalirai}, {Guhathakurta}, {Gilbert},
1694: {Reitzel}, {Majewski}, {Rich}, \& {Cooper}}]{Kalirai06}
1695: {Kalirai}, J.~S., {Guhathakurta}, P., {Gilbert}, K.~M., {Reitzel}, D.~B.,
1696: {Majewski}, S.~R., {Rich}, R.~M., \& {Cooper}, M.~C. 2006, \apj, 641, 268
1697:
1698: \bibitem[{Karachentsev {et~al.}(2000)Karachentsev, Karachentseva, Kudrya,
1699: Makarov, \& Parnovsky}]{Kara00}
1700: Karachentsev, I.~D., Karachentseva, V.~E., Kudrya, Y.~N., Makarov, D.~I., \&
1701: Parnovsky, S.~L. 2000, Bull.~Special Astrophys.~Obs., 50, 5
1702:
1703: \bibitem[{Karachentsev {et~al.}(1993)Karachentsev, Karachentseva, \&
1704: Parnovskij}]{Karachentsev93}
1705: Karachentsev, I.~D., Karachentseva, V.~E., \& Parnovskij, S.~L. 1993,
1706: Astronomische Nachrichten, 314, 97
1707:
1708: \bibitem[{{Kazantzidis} {et~al.}(2007){Kazantzidis}, {Bullock}, {Zentner},
1709: {Kravtsov}, \& {Moustakas}}]{Kaz07}
1710: {Kazantzidis}, S., {Bullock}, J.~S., {Zentner}, A.~R., {Kravtsov}, A.~V., \&
1711: {Moustakas}, L.~A. 2007, ArXiv e-prints, 708
1712:
1713: \bibitem[{Kelson {et~al.}(2000)Kelson, Illingworth, van Dokkum, \&
1714: Franx}]{Kelson00}
1715: Kelson, D.~D., Illingworth, G.~D., van Dokkum, P.~G., \& Franx, M. 2000, \apj,
1716: 531, 159
1717:
1718: \bibitem[{{Koch} {et~al.}(2007){Koch}, {Rich}, {Reitzel}, {Mori}, {Loh},
1719: {Ibata}, {Martin}, {Chapman}, {Ostheimer}, {Majewski}, \& {Grebel}}]{Koch07}
1720: {Koch}, A., {Rich}, R.~M., {Reitzel}, D.~B., {Mori}, M., {Loh}, Y.-S., {Ibata},
1721: R., {Martin}, N., {Chapman}, S.~C., {Ostheimer}, J., {Majewski}, S.~R., \&
1722: {Grebel}, E.~K. 2007, Astronomische Nachrichten, 328, 653
1723:
1724: \bibitem[{Kregel \& van~der Kruit(2005)}]{Kregel05d}
1725: Kregel, M., \& van~der Kruit, P.~C. 2005, \mnras, 358, 481
1726:
1727: \bibitem[{Kroupa(2002)}]{Kroupa02}
1728: Kroupa, P. 2002, \mnras, 330, 707
1729:
1730: \bibitem[{Martin {et~al.}(2004)Martin, Ibata, Bellazzini, Irwin, Lewis, \&
1731: Dehnen}]{Martin04}
1732: Martin, N.~F., Ibata, R.~A., Bellazzini, M., Irwin, M.~J., Lewis, G.~F., \&
1733: Dehnen, W. 2004, \mnras, 348, 12
1734:
1735: \bibitem[{Matthews \& Wood(2001)}]{Matthews01}
1736: Matthews, L.~D., \& Wood, K. 2001, \apj, 548, 150
1737:
1738: \bibitem[{Mishenina {et~al.}(2004)Mishenina, Soubiran, Kovtyukh, \&
1739: Korotin}]{Mishenina04}
1740: Mishenina, T.~V., Soubiran, C., Kovtyukh, V.~V., \& Korotin, S.~A. 2004, \aap,
1741: 418, 551
1742:
1743: \bibitem[{Morrison {et~al.}(1997)Morrison, Miller, Harding, Stinebring, \&
1744: Boroson}]{Morrison97}
1745: Morrison, H.~L., Miller, E.~D., Harding, P., Stinebring, D.~R., \& Boroson,
1746: T.~A. 1997, \aj, 113, 2061
1747:
1748: \bibitem[{Mould(2005)}]{Mould05}
1749: Mould, J. 2005, \aj, 129, 698
1750:
1751: \bibitem[{Navarro {et~al.}(2004)Navarro, Helmi, \& Freeman}]{Navarro04}
1752: Navarro, J.~F., Helmi, A., \& Freeman, K.~C. 2004, \apjl, 601, L43
1753:
1754: \bibitem[{Neeser {et~al.}(2002)Neeser, Sackett, De~Marchi, \&
1755: Paresce}]{Neeser02}
1756: Neeser, M.~J., Sackett, P.~D., De~Marchi, G., \& Paresce, F. 2002, \aap, 383,
1757: 472
1758:
1759: \bibitem[{Nissen(1995)}]{Nissen95}
1760: Nissen, P.~E. 1995, in IAU Symp. 164: Stellar Populations, 109--+
1761:
1762: \bibitem[{Nissen {et~al.}(2003)Nissen, Chen, Asplund, \& Max}]{Nissen03}
1763: Nissen, P.~E., Chen, Y., Asplund, M., \& Max, P. 2003, Elemental Abundances in
1764: Old Stars and Damped Lyman-$\alpha$ Systems, 25th meeting of the IAU, Joint
1765: Discussion 15, 22 July 2003, Sydney, Australia, 15
1766:
1767: \bibitem[{Ojha(2001)}]{Ojha01}
1768: Ojha, D.~K. 2001, \mnras, 322, 426
1769:
1770: \bibitem[{Osterbrock {et~al.}(1997)Osterbrock, Fulbright, \& Bida}]{Oster97}
1771: Osterbrock, D.~E., Fulbright, J.~P., \& Bida, T.~A. 1997, \pasp, 109, 614
1772:
1773: \bibitem[{Osterbrock {et~al.}(1996)Osterbrock, Fulbright, Martel, Keane,
1774: Trager, \& Basri}]{Oster96}
1775: Osterbrock, D.~E., Fulbright, J.~P., Martel, A.~R., Keane, M.~J., Trager,
1776: S.~C., \& Basri, G. 1996, \pasp, 108, 277
1777:
1778: \bibitem[{Parker {et~al.}(2004)Parker, Humphreys, \& Beers}]{Parker04}
1779: Parker, J.~E., Humphreys, R.~M., \& Beers, T.~C. 2004, \aj, 127, 1567
1780:
1781: \bibitem[{Pohlen {et~al.}(2004)Pohlen, Balcells, L\"utticke, \&
1782: Dettmar}]{Pohlen04}
1783: Pohlen, M., Balcells, M., L\"utticke, R., \& Dettmar, R.-J. 2004, \aap, 422,
1784: 465
1785:
1786: \bibitem[{Prochaska {et~al.}(2000)Prochaska, Naumov, Carney, McWilliam, \&
1787: Wolfe}]{Prochaska00}
1788: Prochaska, J.~X., Naumov, S.~O., Carney, B.~W., McWilliam, A., \& Wolfe, A.~M.
1789: 2000, \aj, 120, 2513
1790:
1791: \bibitem[{Quinn {et~al.}(1993)Quinn, Hernquist, \& Fullagar}]{Quinn93}
1792: Quinn, P.~J., Hernquist, L., \& Fullagar, D.~P. 1993, \apj, 403, 74
1793:
1794: \bibitem[{Ram\'{\i}rez {et~al.}(2007)Ram\'{\i}rez, Allende~Prieto, \&
1795: Lambert}]{Ram07}
1796: Ram\'{\i}rez, I., Allende~Prieto, C., \& Lambert, D.~L. 2007, \aap, 465, 271
1797:
1798: \bibitem[{Reid \& Majewski(1993)}]{Reid93}
1799: Reid, N., \& Majewski, S.~R. 1993, \apj, 409, 635
1800:
1801: \bibitem[{Rix \& White(1992)}]{Rix92}
1802: Rix, H., \& White, S.~D.~M. 1992, \mnras, 254, 389
1803:
1804: \bibitem[{Robin {et~al.}(1996)Robin, Haywood, Creze, Ojha, \&
1805: Bienayme}]{Robin96}
1806: Robin, A.~C., Haywood, M., Creze, M., Ojha, D.~K., \& Bienayme, O. 1996, \aap,
1807: 305, 125
1808:
1809: \bibitem[{Seth {et~al.}(2007)Seth, De~Jong, Dalcanton, \& the
1810: GHOSTS~team}]{Seth07}
1811: Seth, A., De~Jong, R., Dalcanton, J., \& the GHOSTS~team. 2007, ArXiv
1812: Astrophysics e-prints
1813:
1814: \bibitem[{Seth {et~al.}(2005)Seth, Dalcanton, \& de~Jong}]{Seth05b}
1815: Seth, A.~C., Dalcanton, J.~J., \& de~Jong, R.~S. 2005, \aj, 130, 1574
1816:
1817: \bibitem[{Shaw \& Gilmore(1989)}]{Shaw89}
1818: Shaw, M.~A., \& Gilmore, G. 1989, \mnras, 237, 903
1819:
1820: \bibitem[{Simkin(1974)}]{Simkin74}
1821: Simkin, S.~M. 1974, \aap, 31, 129
1822:
1823: \bibitem[{Soubiran {et~al.}(2003)Soubiran, Bienaym\'e, \& Siebert}]{Soubiran03}
1824: Soubiran, C., Bienaym\'e, O., \& Siebert, A. 2003, \aap, 398, 141
1825:
1826: \bibitem[{Statler(1995)}]{Statler95}
1827: Statler, T. 1995, \aj, 109, 1371
1828:
1829: \bibitem[{Statler(1988)}]{Statler88}
1830: Statler, T.~S. 1988, \apj, 331, 71
1831:
1832: \bibitem[{Tautvai{\v s}ien{\.e} {et~al.}(2001)Tautvai{\v s}ien{\.e},
1833: Edvardsson, Tuominen, \& Ilyin}]{Taut01}
1834: Tautvai{\v s}ien{\.e}, G., Edvardsson, B., Tuominen, I., \& Ilyin, I. 2001,
1835: \aap, 380, 578
1836:
1837: \bibitem[{Tikhonov \& Galazutdinova(2005)}]{Tikhonovo5b}
1838: Tikhonov, N.~A., \& Galazutdinova, O.~A. 2005, Astrophysics, 48, 221
1839:
1840: \bibitem[{Tikhonov {et~al.}(2005)Tikhonov, Galazutdinova, \&
1841: Drozdovsky}]{Tikhonov05}
1842: Tikhonov, N.~A., Galazutdinova, O.~A., \& Drozdovsky, I.~O. 2005, \aap, 431,
1843: 127
1844:
1845: \bibitem[{Tonry \& Davis(1979)}]{Tonry79}
1846: Tonry, J., \& Davis, M. 1979, \aj, 84, 1511
1847:
1848: \bibitem[{Tsikoudi(1979)}]{Tsikoudi79}
1849: Tsikoudi, V. 1979, \apj, 234, 842
1850:
1851: \bibitem[{van~der Kruit(1984)}]{Kruit84}
1852: van~der Kruit, P.~C. 1984, \aap, 140, 470
1853:
1854: \bibitem[{van Dokkum {et~al.}(1994)van Dokkum, Peletier, de~Grijs, \&
1855: Balcells}]{vanDokkum94}
1856: van Dokkum, P.~G., Peletier, R.~F., de~Grijs, R., \& Balcells, M. 1994, \aap,
1857: 286, 415
1858:
1859: \bibitem[{Velazquez \& White(1999)}]{Velazquez99}
1860: Velazquez, H., \& White, S.~D.~M. 1999, \mnras, 304, 254
1861:
1862: \bibitem[{Villumsen(1985)}]{Villumsen85}
1863: Villumsen, J.~V. 1985, \apj, 290, 75
1864:
1865: \bibitem[{Walker {et~al.}(1996)Walker, Mihos, \& Hernquist}]{Walker96}
1866: Walker, I.~R., Mihos, J.~C., \& Hernquist, L. 1996, \apj, 460, 121
1867:
1868: \bibitem[{Wu {et~al.}(2002)Wu, Burstein, Deng, Zhou, Shang, Zheng, Chen, Su,
1869: Windhorst, Chen, Zou, Xia, Jiang, Ma, Xue, Zhu, Cheng, Byun, Chen, Deng, Fan,
1870: Fang, Kong, Li, Lin, Lu, Sun, Tsay, Xu, Yan, Zhao, \& Zheng}]{Wu02}
1871: Wu, H., Burstein, D., Deng, Z., Zhou, X., Shang, Z., Zheng, Z., Chen, J., Su,
1872: H., Windhorst, R.~A., Chen, W., Zou, Z., Xia, X., Jiang, Z., Ma, J., Xue, S.,
1873: Zhu, J., Cheng, F., Byun, Y., Chen, R., Deng, L., Fan, X., Fang, L., Kong,
1874: X., Li, Y., Lin, W., Lu, P., Sun, W., Tsay, W., Xu, W., Yan, H., Zhao, B., \&
1875: Zheng, Z. 2002, \aj, 123, 1364
1876:
1877: \bibitem[{Xilouris {et~al.}(1999)Xilouris, Byun, Kylafis, Paleologou, \&
1878: Papamastorakis}]{Xilouris99}
1879: Xilouris, E.~M., Byun, Y.~I., Kylafis, N.~D., Paleologou, E.~V., \&
1880: Papamastorakis, J. 1999, \aap, 344, 868
1881:
1882: \bibitem[{Yoachim \& Dalcanton(2005)}]{Yoachim05}
1883: Yoachim, P., \& Dalcanton, J.~J. 2005, \apj, 624, 701
1884:
1885: \bibitem[{Yoachim \& Dalcanton(2006)}]{Yoachim06}
1886: ---. 2006, \aj, 131, 226
1887:
1888: \end{thebibliography}
1889:
1890:
1891:
1892:
1893:
1894: \end{document}
1895:
1896:
1897:
1898: % LocalWords: GCAL LOSVD Heald astro ph FHWM Pizzella aR Geha Donato Holmberg
1899: % LocalWords: Zaritsky Brainerd Zentner Kang Conselice Sd dustlanes Simkin FFT
1900: % LocalWords: CONICET Centre Herzberg arcsec dustlane Villumsen Hann OG CCDs
1901: % LocalWords: GN FGCE overscan sim centroidable Fraternali Barbieri Fabry CNPq
1902: % LocalWords: infall LOSVDs virialized Fukugita Elmegreen Juric Zjelko's KIII
1903: % LocalWords: Cescutti Hayashi Glazebrook Cappellari HD citet RCs Agustsson Im
1904: % LocalWords: AST CONICYT spectrographs Tikhonovo redward rebinned accrete LSR
1905: % LocalWords: redshifting lllllllll Dehnen lllcc Wyckoff Salucci Persic Sesar
1906: % LocalWords: offplanes galactocentric axe Bianchi Xilouris Dehan BT Bosma SLH
1907: % LocalWords: Calzetti exrc centroided Miceli Carollo Carlberg Ibata Kalirai
1908: % LocalWords: NIR subhalos Kaz Statler th RMS situ Hawley Plummer Fergeson et
1909: % LocalWords: parameterizations Dodd Fujimoto Hearnshaw Jugaku Kabe Kilmartin
1910: % LocalWords: Koribalski Kobayashi Masuda Matsubara Miyamoto Muraki Nakamura
1911: % LocalWords: natexlab ArXiv Astronomische Nachrichten Symp Juri
1912: